[cut: only the first 33554432 bytes of this file were read]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posthistory>
  <row Id="1" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="7c9a9a1e-c7de-4d83-803f-026d4610cec0" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:36:52.733" UserId="19" Text="What is the genitive plural and nominative plural of `башка`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My search returned a lot of contradicting information. Is there any authoritative source with a single concrete answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="7c9a9a1e-c7de-4d83-803f-026d4610cec0" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:36:52.733" UserId="19" Text="Genitive plural of `башка`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="7c9a9a1e-c7de-4d83-803f-026d4610cec0" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:36:52.733" UserId="19" Text="|родительный-падеж|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="36ab9452-6d9e-43ce-9e70-8a9d9b2d2ac3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:41:20.367" UserId="11" Text="As far as I understand, both of these mean more or less the same thing. Rosetta Stone, that introduced me to the Russian language seems to prefer здравствуйте, but it seems привет is more commonly used in day to day speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is здравствуйте just more formal, or is there something more subtle going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="36ab9452-6d9e-43ce-9e70-8a9d9b2d2ac3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:41:20.367" UserId="11" Text="When is it more appropriate to use здравствуйте rather than привет?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="36ab9452-6d9e-43ce-9e70-8a9d9b2d2ac3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:41:20.367" UserId="11" Text="|этикет|formal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="6c526ee7-c58b-4c48-b67e-fce8b85b7ad4" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:43:41.300" UserId="33" Text="Nominative plural is *башки*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary][1] says the genitive plural is *башок*.  &#xD;&#xA;Yet I've never heard this word. Usually, one would find a synonym in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="d704c712-aa07-47e9-8f13-9b40c1d2672f" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:44:01.743" UserId="19" Text="`Здравствуйте` is a more formal version of `привет`, roughly equivalent to `hello` vs. `hi` in English, or `bonjour` vs. `salut` in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should definitely use `здравствуйте` with strangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when one is in a hurry, `здравствуйте` may be substituted with the shortened `здрасте`, but that may sound a bit colloquial and present some unwanted undertones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="073fd9fa-f181-42a6-8383-a10966efc31f" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:45:54.690" UserId="15" Text="I'm confused by long form adjectives (which seem to be more common) and short form adjectives. For example, from **свобода** (freedom) there is the long form adjective **свободный** and the short form adjective **свободен**. How are these forms used differently? Why do two different forms exist (in general)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="073fd9fa-f181-42a6-8383-a10966efc31f" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:45:54.690" UserId="15" Text="How are short and long form adjectives used differently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="073fd9fa-f181-42a6-8383-a10966efc31f" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:45:54.690" UserId="15" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|longformadjectives|shortformadjectives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="c8b707e8-a14d-4748-929a-68bf2df42b21" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:49:21.610" UserId="15" Text="Phillip is correct, though `здрасте` is said to sound a little too informal or &quot;cool&quot;. A safer shortened form of `Здравствуйте` is `Здравствуй` (with a &quot;vee&quot; sound at the end)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="4228dc3f-f69d-4756-ab34-f16b5cdff808" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:50:01.383" UserId="39" Text="Whenever you're talking with your peer, you would almost always say &quot;`привет`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a bunch of people, in a room, amongst which are those older then you (and your friends), you would say &quot;`здравствуйте`&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Привет` is definitely less formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, i would say a lot depends on age of the person you're talking to. `Привет` is more friendly, `здравствуйте` is more formal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="28417a78-b7d6-4198-9e69-98f3833582dc" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:51:15.047" UserId="5" Text="свободный - is more of a quality like 'a free spot'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;свободен - is more of a state,  how you feel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="18189995-603a-4c5c-bc56-b610d259942f" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:51:36.800" UserId="29" Text="башка is originally not Russian word. It comes from Turkish baš which means head. And it is really used in common language, rather than in literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural башка may have 2 valid forms: башки́ and another one that changes letter in the root to бо́шки (with accent on the о́). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In genitive those will respectively be башки́ (singular) and башо́к or бо́шек (plural). Both variants are considered valid, even though I prefer the last one :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="92970aa2-db10-472e-a50c-6ebd9d8b38be" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:52:33.510" UserId="1347" Text="&quot;Привет&quot; is the less formal version, kind of like &quot;hi,&quot; in English, used mainly between close friends. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здравствуйте&quot; is more formal, more like &quot;hello,&quot; and used for everyone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="a3a380ea-c15d-4022-9722-900d199b4e76" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:53:55.793" UserId="39" Text="-  Свобода - freedom&#xD;&#xA;- Свободен - free to do something. (Also used to indicate you are free to go&quot;) When a prisoner is released from jail he would say &quot;я свободен&quot; or &quot;я на свободе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Свободный - is, like you said an adjective describing the state of things. He is a free man, он свободный человек" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="95d6f464-a529-4988-8299-80df17bc4682" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:56:26.020" UserId="5" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="свободный - is more of a quality like 'a free spot'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;свободен - is more of a state,  how you feel, like 'i am free to do things'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference is subtle and depends on the exact meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="5439a04c-cdc8-468b-b394-bcd6608b8617" CreationDate="2012-06-13T20:56:47.357" UserId="23" Text="Short adjectives are often used as predicates. I can say `Он закончил работу, поэтому он свободен`. I can convey the same message by using the long adjective: `Он закончил работу, поэтому он свободный`, though the first version is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can't use short adjectives as attributes. For example, I can say `Свободный человек может заниматься всем, чем захочет`, but I can't replace the first word with `свободен`, because it is an attribute." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="7c99d701-c75c-4686-aebe-497ddd9ba941" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:04:25.680" UserId="9" Text="`Свободный` is a persistent attribute, `свободен` is a temporary attribute. But often the meaning is just the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read this to find out more, there are a number of different cases:&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="aaf76ae2-3106-4a61-987f-7e856da9f37d" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:08:22.213" UserId="46" Text="An example of two words which differ only by a soft sign are кон (round, as in &quot;the next round of a game&quot;) and конь (stallion, male horse). Often, English speakers do not know how to enunicate the soft consonant at the end. First, try saying the plural of both words: кон -&gt; коны (accent in &quot;ы&quot;), конь -&gt; кони (accent on &quot;o&quot;). Now try to separate the word кони into two phonemes (phonetic parts) - &quot;кон&quot; and &quot;и&quot;. You should feel the lack of the softness at the end of the first phoneme. Now combine again, and try to keep the soft &quot;н&quot;, but without the &quot;ee&quot; sound produced by the letter &quot;и&quot;. If you still have difficulty, try adding the letter &quot;и&quot; to words with the soft sign; gradually, shorten it as much as possible. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="aaf76ae2-3106-4a61-987f-7e856da9f37d" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:08:22.213" UserId="46" Text="How do I pronounce the soft sign at the end of a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="aaf76ae2-3106-4a61-987f-7e856da9f37d" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:08:22.213" UserId="46" Text="|soft|sign|pronounce|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="41ae1133-033a-49cf-9684-3cb2b7cd2b87" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:19:22.043" UserId="4" Text="The title pretty much says it all. It's a very common mistake which (unfortunately) even many native speakers make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a rule to unambiguously decide should I end this verb with `-тся` or `-ться`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="41ae1133-033a-49cf-9684-3cb2b7cd2b87" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:19:22.043" UserId="4" Text="How do I know when to use -тся or -ться in a verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="41ae1133-033a-49cf-9684-3cb2b7cd2b87" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:19:22.043" UserId="4" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="1bb7be44-a874-4f26-903d-03a6b0125226" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:23:59.713" UserId="4" Text="The key here is to ask a question that this verb answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is &quot;what is it doing?&quot;, then the ending should be `-тся` (делается, пишется, причесывается, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question is &quot;what to do?&quot;, then it's `-ться` (делаться, писаться, причесываться, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="376436b0-0314-435d-92d9-f2fcdd610a01" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:25:42.563" UserId="19" Text="The best way is to ask a question... If it ends in `т`, it's `тся`, if in `ть`, then it's `ться`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я собираюсь - что сдела*ть*? - прогуляться.&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас - что делае*т*? - строится новый район.&#xD;&#xA;- Все, что может - что дела*ть*? - портиться, обязательно - что сделае*т*? -&#xD;&#xA;испортится!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="1fefe022-10e9-43d9-ab32-b9d2388500e0" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:25:44.413" UserId="39" Text="Soft sign has no pronunciation. The letter if follows is softened, however" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="a0f97ebb-921c-464b-a0a8-ff4aadabc021" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:28:16.363" UserId="49" Text="I find it very hard to translate &quot;excited&quot; to Russian. Dictionary says &quot;взволнованный, возбуждённый&quot; which doesn't fit in most cases. For example how would you translate the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm very excited about my new job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My trip to Europe was so exciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are you excited about going to the party?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="a0f97ebb-921c-464b-a0a8-ff4aadabc021" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:28:16.363" UserId="49" Text="Translating &quot;excited about smth.&quot; to Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="a0f97ebb-921c-464b-a0a8-ff4aadabc021" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:28:16.363" UserId="49" Text="|english-to-russian|перевод|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="5eb2d14e-89ac-4a55-880f-9162866830fa" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:33:32.757" UserId="19" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="There are four cases when you put `ь` in verb suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Infinitive: умывать(ся), беречь(ся).&#xD;&#xA;- Second person singular present or future tense: умываешь(ся), бережёшь(ся).&#xD;&#xA;- After all vowels except `й` and `г` (ляг(те)) with imperative mood: исправь(те).&#xD;&#xA;- Suffixes following a vowel: вернусь, вернитесь, вернулись, вернувшись.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all other cases, there is no `ь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way is to ask a question... If it ends in `т`, it's `тся`, if in `ть`, then it's `ться`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я собираюсь - что сдела*ть*? - прогуляться.&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас - что делае*т*? - строится новый район.&#xD;&#xA;- Все, что может - что дела*ть*? - портиться, обязательно - что сделае*т*? -&#xD;&#xA;испортится!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="25" RevisionGUID="b3be7b36-2492-42e2-8284-671523d1138c" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:34:00.937" UserId="39" Text="That's a great question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying `I am excited` (now), in Russian, one tends to indicate excitement of what's to come. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words `I am excited about the party`, in Russian, may sound as `The party will be great` (thus showing excitement). `Классная будет вечеринка` (hinting that one is excited about it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A worthy equivalent would be &quot;to be happy about something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я рад моей новой работе` and `I am excited about my job` come dangerously close to mean the same&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="2f8ced9e-31e9-4492-bbdf-b8c440200b9a" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:34:59.720" UserId="5" Text="Google translator did a great job for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я очень рад моей новой работе.&#xD;&#xA;- Моя поездка в Европу былa настолько захватывающей.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="7b2ca14d-989d-4cf2-a4b7-4a13d0f676b3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:35:40.310" UserId="39" Text="How would one express that one is &quot;`confused about something`&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once was told that no direct translation exists, as in Russia no one is confused, but jokes aside, i wonder .. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="7b2ca14d-989d-4cf2-a4b7-4a13d0f676b3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:35:40.310" UserId="39" Text="To be confused about something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="7b2ca14d-989d-4cf2-a4b7-4a13d0f676b3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:35:40.310" UserId="39" Text="|english-to-russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="2b3cb86e-ab77-4156-9231-c2e574d7cb0c" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:36:26.027" UserId="23" Text="You can use the word `вдохновлять` in the first and the third sentences in your question. However, in my opinion, it is one of those words which do not translate into Russian directly, and the sentences are paraphrased instead. For example, the first message can be translated as `Меня очень радует моя новая работа`, and the third one as `Тебя радует, что ты пойдешь на вечеринку?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second message the word is simply translated as `захватывающий`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="a6c98455-8e3d-4665-b54a-25206e587366" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:37:13.647" UserId="9" Text="I would translate `I am excited` as `Я в восторге` or `Меня радует`. And the trip was `увлекательной` or `захватывающей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a huge number of synonyms for you :)&#xD;&#xA;http://multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=excited&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="3b93338a-1d2c-47c7-9c3c-3e0ce466eb2f" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:39:38.837" UserId="9" Text="The translation depends on the context,`to confuse` may mean `смущать` or `путать`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="26a0e326-c3d4-4d19-84b0-a4fa792fa310" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:40:52.487" UserId="57" Text="I would agree no direct translation exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you may get away with saying the subject is confusing/complex/hard/incomprehensible instead of saying you are confused by the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm confused about tax legislation  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налоговое законодательство такое сложное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="6e4fab54-8c9d-421e-9bb0-b969518ccb41" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:41:18.067" UserId="19" Text="It can also be `я в замешательстве`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я в замешательстве и не знаю, что происходит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="54" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="37deb2d4-6945-461f-898b-504a6ca26d06" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:43:58.450" UserId="58" Text="What about &quot;Я запутался в ..&quot; ? &#xD;&#xA;for me it fits :=)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="55" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="ce0b1cb4-c719-4bc6-af8e-2d4b3fd9372b" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:45:03.493" UserId="9" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="The translation depends on the context,`to confuse` may mean `смущать` or `путать`. So `to be confused` is `я смущен` or `я запутан`/`сбит с толку`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="57" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="591ac1c8-c9b5-4404-b6d1-0ab772e759fc" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:49:25.797" UserId="19" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="`I'm confused` can be translated as `я в замешательстве`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я в замешательстве и не знаю, что происходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`X confused me` can be expressed with `X привело меня в замешательство`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её слова привели меня в замешательство." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="59" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="97027359-1025-417d-9368-89c67fc0bdb6" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:50:09.707" UserId="58" Text="бОшки with stress on the second syllable. That is what I use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very infromal, btw. I guess you know :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="60" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="35a4a544-1107-4b46-ba45-401977aef453" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:54:12.730" UserId="32" Text="Where can I find licence-free dual language English-Russian novels?  I think this is one of the most effective way of learning language, because of no time needed to search words in dictionary, and the translation is always before eyes. However, finding such books is a bit challenge. I've found the multi-language Bible, but this kind of literature isn't appealing to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best would be science-fiction novels, but everything else except romances would be also fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="61" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="35a4a544-1107-4b46-ba45-401977aef453" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:54:12.730" UserId="32" Text="Where to find dual language English-Russian novels to learn russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="62" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="35a4a544-1107-4b46-ba45-401977aef453" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:54:12.730" UserId="32" Text="|обучение|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="63" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="08912c87-37fc-4b80-bc4d-c121b5c9bba9" CreationDate="2012-06-13T21:55:21.667" UserId="58" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Nominative: бОшки &#xD;&#xA;Genitive: бОшек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with stress on the second syllable. That is what I use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very infromal, btw. I guess you know :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="64" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="c7a76a89-9d57-44db-ad76-130946688d0c" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:04:11.513" UserId="5" Text="consider this resource http://www.moviesubtitles.ru/ (http://subtitry.ru/) together with this one http://www.dailyscript.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="65" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="ad3f5432-b5ba-4e7b-9215-3fafd64220ae" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:10:40.400" UserId="60" Text="I've seen the usage of English phrase ***&quot;for what it's worth&quot;*** many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I still don't know what is the most precise translation of this phrase in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the answers in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="66" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="ad3f5432-b5ba-4e7b-9215-3fafd64220ae" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:10:40.400" UserId="60" Text="What is the best equivalent for FWIW in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="67" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="ad3f5432-b5ba-4e7b-9215-3fafd64220ae" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:10:40.400" UserId="60" Text="|english-to-russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="68" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="876fe427-e1c7-43c4-8bd5-bc5efb6c7acf" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:16:37.723" UserId="58" Text="свободен I would use when &quot;is&quot; in english translation. &quot;He is free = Он свободен&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;свободный I would use with the following noun in the sentence. &quot;Free chair may be occupied - Свободный стул может быть занят&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="69" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="3fe0789d-7dab-4cee-b54e-c41c1da32d20" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:19:21.573" UserId="61" Text="&quot;I am confused about ...&quot; does not translate well.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;I do not understand ... well&quot; easily translates to &quot;Я не очень хорошо понимаю ...&quot; or &quot;Я не очень хорошо разбираюсь в ...&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;I do not understand tax legislation well&quot; --&gt; &quot;Я не очень хорошо разбираюсь в налоговом законодательстве&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="70" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="5f440f47-0ed7-4d15-87df-e45fecfbaec9" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:19:44.103" UserId="38" Text="It depends on your relationship and the context in which it is said. Здравствуйте is fairly formal and привет is informal. With strangers and superiors здравствуйте is vastly preferred, while привет is mostly reserved for friends, family and close acquaintances. If you address a friend who is surrounded by people who should be using здравствуйте with him, it can be good to use the slightly less formal здравствуй, if you want to be cordial but not to undermine their authority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="71" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="970785be-4673-498d-a422-cf51435a55ff" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:22:41.590" UserId="19" Text="`FWIW` is roughly synonymous with `just my two cents`, which can in turn be translated as `просто мои пять копеек`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="72" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="b3612a91-7a9c-43b3-bd86-2ac4eee2c60b" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:22:44.160" UserId="38" Text="No direct translation exists. 'For what it's worth' usually means that whatever is to follow is going to be a subjective opinion, which translates well to 'На мой взгляд' (In my opinion), 'Я считаю' (I think), 'Мне кажется' (I figure)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="73" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="b4d06448-ca4c-4804-89e0-fab539f35909" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:35:28.960" UserId="38" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="It depends on your relationship and the context in which it is said. Здравствуйте is fairly formal and привет is informal. With strangers and superiors здравствуйте is vastly preferred, while привет is mostly reserved for friends, family and close acquaintances. If you address a friend who is surrounded by people who should be using здравствуйте with him, it can be good to use the slightly less formal здравствуй, if you want to be cordial but not to undermine their authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren't the only 2 (or 3, if you count здравствуй) to greet somebody. Доброе утро, добрый день, добрый вечер are useful for greeting people you see on a regular basis but aren't particularly close to, such as colleagues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="74" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="4592a2c8-8d64-4fd2-b138-ce313d765dc3" CreationDate="2012-06-13T22:56:06.053" UserId="66" Text="The [Moshkow library](http://lib.ru) has explicit sections for [genres in English translation](http://www.lib.ru/TRANSLATION/) and also often includes English translations alongside Russian novels where the rights to such can be obtained. A lot of Soviet-era and older novels can be found there, for which the Russian texts are naturally also available alongside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="75" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="c540d22b-714a-4dd1-ab9f-aec9ebc8c5da" CreationDate="2012-06-13T23:03:30.787" UserId="23" Text="It depends on the context. If you just add some information which value you are not sure about, I would translate it as `на всякий случай`. If you express your opinion, you can add something like `я не настаиваю, но` or simply `я думаю`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="76" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="53a3c391-cb9e-41a8-825e-92259f1b5dbf" CreationDate="2012-06-13T23:09:23.107" UserId="19" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="`FWIW` is roughly synonymous with `my two cents`, which can in turn be translated as `мои пять копеек`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="77" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="66ae0d11-e2a1-4d85-a094-f69a3cd9aa53" CreationDate="2012-06-13T23:40:01.113" UserId="67" Text="As [JAM already said][1], Russians prefer to **hint at their feelings instead of describing them**.  &#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying they're excited about new job, they'll say the job is friggin' awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what I as native Russian would have said, if I needed to communicate your sentences.  &#xD;&#xA;This is rather informal, so Queen wouldn't approve but that's how people speak in their 20's and 30's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I'm very excited about my new job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кажется, я устроился в классное место.  &#xD;&#xA;(Seems like I landed an awesome job.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To an acuqaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я очень рад, что получил эту работу.  &#xD;&#xA;(I'm really glad I got this job.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###My trip to Europe was so exciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В Европе было круто.  &#xD;&#xA;(It was cool in Europe.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;**To an acquaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Поездка в Европу была потрясающей.  &#xD;&#xA;(The Europe trip was terrific.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Are you excited about going to the party?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты как, хочешь пойти?  &#xD;&#xA;(Hey, would you rather stay or go?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To an acquaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Думаешь, будет хорошая вечеринка?    &#xD;&#xA;(Do you reckon it'll be a great party?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/25/67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="78" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="7ab9412b-2ed5-4dc0-a067-6be13fdc7c08" CreationDate="2012-06-13T23:48:37.873" UserId="67" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="As [JAM already said][1], Russians prefer to **hint at their feelings instead of describing them**.  &#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying they're excited about new job, they'll say the job is friggin' awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use  words like `возбужден` (which usually refers to sexual arousal for most people and atom state for physics geeks) to express your excitement you're risking to sound either too formal and insincere or too cute and funny, in case people are aware you're just a learner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, this is what I as native Russian would say if I was to communicate your sentences.  &#xD;&#xA;This is rather informal so Queen wouldn't approve but that's how people speak in their 20's and 30's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I'm very excited about my new job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кажется, я устроился в классное место.  &#xD;&#xA;(Seems like I landed an awesome job.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To an acuqaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я очень рад, что получил эту работу.  &#xD;&#xA;(I'm really glad I got this job.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###My trip to Europe was so exciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В Европе было круто.  &#xD;&#xA;(It was cool in Europe.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;**To an acquaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Поездка в Европу была потрясающей.  &#xD;&#xA;(The Europe trip was terrific.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Are you excited about going to the party?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты как, хочешь пойти?  &#xD;&#xA;(Hey, would you rather stay or go?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To an acquaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Думаешь, будет хорошая вечеринка?    &#xD;&#xA;(Do you reckon it'll be a great party?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/25/67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="82" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="c42a45f2-6a61-4bb4-af8b-9f6df36c0011" CreationDate="2012-06-14T00:22:02.627" UserId="5" Text="Since we seem to accept questions of the Russian-to-English format, I'd like to ask you helping me with the translation of &quot;жить захочешь, не так раскорячишься&quot;. Which is a famous quote from a movie. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess would be: You wanna live, you'll try harder than that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which doesn't seem to be even close to the spirit of the original quotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="83" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="c42a45f2-6a61-4bb4-af8b-9f6df36c0011" CreationDate="2012-06-14T00:22:02.627" UserId="5" Text="What is the translation for &quot;жить захочешь, не так раскорячишься&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="84" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="c42a45f2-6a61-4bb4-af8b-9f6df36c0011" CreationDate="2012-06-14T00:22:02.627" UserId="5" Text="|russian-to-english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="85" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="4b509f5f-3491-4687-ada9-ec31148b409d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T00:51:54.307" UserId="38" Text="The phrase, as I understand it, means that you'll do whatever it takes to survive, no matter how degrading it may be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="86" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="fe994fb4-16e2-4ef6-87ef-d99b619284a7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T01:09:17.320" UserId="71" Text="The [Soft sign][1], called мягкий знак in russian, has no pronunciation itself. Rather, it affects the letter that precedes it, through a phenomenon called *[Palatalization][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="87" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="447c28e9-5359-4c35-91d2-1394a2448143" CreationDate="2012-06-14T01:57:49.567" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|цитата|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="88" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="d5855ea3-9d25-4992-9053-f1263a767561" CreationDate="2012-06-14T02:10:04.360" UserId="54" Text="What are the syntactic and semantic constraints on the order of adjectival premodifiers in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, linguists and nonspecialist users of language alike generally agree that the order of premodifiers in a nominal phrase cannot be varied freely (please refer to [this question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/what-is-the-rule-for-adjective-order) over at English Language &amp; Usage for more details). Similarly, as a native speaker of Russian, I certainly find the phrase **белый большой дом* to be infelicitous under most circumstances and would prefer *большой белый дом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have those rules been codified for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="89" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="d5855ea3-9d25-4992-9053-f1263a767561" CreationDate="2012-06-14T02:10:04.360" UserId="54" Text="What is the order of adjectival premodifiers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="90" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="d5855ea3-9d25-4992-9053-f1263a767561" CreationDate="2012-06-14T02:10:04.360" UserId="54" Text="|прилагательные|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="91" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="3f813629-1651-444a-99b1-adf69abe8949" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:14:32.177" UserId="76" Text="I'm a native Russian speaker myself, but living in a English speaking country am starting to teach my pre-school daughter Russian myself at home and she is struggling with correctly pronouncing the &quot;hard R&quot; sound in words like in `морковка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any suggestions on how to teach children (or adults for that matter) how to pronounce this tricky (for English speakers) sound?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="92" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="3f813629-1651-444a-99b1-adf69abe8949" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:14:32.177" UserId="76" Text="Learning to pronounce hard R" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="93" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="3f813629-1651-444a-99b1-adf69abe8949" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:14:32.177" UserId="76" Text="|pronounce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="94" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="908362ea-7022-4a6e-99a0-872b7f83aec6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:47:06.743" UserId="62" Text="One of the prepositions I never learned in Russian courses is про, which I only met later when communicating with native speakers or when reading. Is it possible to give a good rule of thumb about when it is better to use про instead of о for someone who can't hear that one way sounds better? For instance, below are some sentences with про that I received in emails from a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Ты правильно написал про русский язык. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Я решил купить книги, про которые думал на прошлой неделе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Почему ты спрашиваешь у меня про очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Да, про это место я тоже читал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were writing these, I would have used о + prep. case each time instead of про. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="95" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="908362ea-7022-4a6e-99a0-872b7f83aec6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:47:06.743" UserId="62" Text="usage of про instead of о" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="96" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="908362ea-7022-4a6e-99a0-872b7f83aec6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:47:06.743" UserId="62" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="97" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="d8018cd0-94ff-4f3f-b652-95c6a33dc460" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:21:34.597" UserId="38" Text="Generally, either о/об or про is fine. Про is considered to be marginally colloquial, whereas о/об is more formal. Some people may perceiving a slightly negative connotation if про is used. There would be nothing wrong with using о/об instead of про in either of your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may already know this, but об must be used instead of о if the following word starts with a vowel, much like a/an in English, so it would be &quot;о русском языке&quot;, &quot;об очках&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="99" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="b0076478-6626-4df0-820f-8fd574c31b20" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:29:24.630" UserId="62" Text="I have some questions about pronouncing mathematical expressions in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example x^2 = 1 would be икц в квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3x = 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Sometimes letters in mathematics are printed in special fonts (e.g., fraktur p for a prime ideal or script F for a sheaf... I am a little disappointed that this site doesn't recognize LaTeX so I could type math correctly here). If I had a script X and wanted to literally say &quot;script X&quot; and not just &quot;X&quot;, is it correct to say икс рукописное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="b0076478-6626-4df0-820f-8fd574c31b20" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:29:24.630" UserId="62" Text="mathematical pronounciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="b0076478-6626-4df0-820f-8fd574c31b20" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:29:24.630" UserId="62" Text="|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="ce2bc412-e43c-40a0-90bf-76c82ba80afa" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:32:55.917" UserId="5" Text="In your examples both &quot;про&quot; and &quot;o&quot; ways of saying sound quite right. I think it's more of a style than grammar. Personally I would go with &quot;o&quot; in these examples, because it sounds more naturally and nobly (which isn't necessarily more appropriate) to my ear. Sometime you choose &quot;про&quot; over &quot;о&quot;, because it is easier to articulate in a given context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="2d66101b-f804-40a8-be5f-7296bae9db8e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:44:33.140" UserId="5" Text="I don't think there's anything better than everyday practice. The more you talk to your kid the better for you both. Although when it comes to things that most children do at their age the adults aren't as good at keeping up with the conversation. And there's not much you can do about this, unless you get your kid to some Russian speaking daycare. The Russian embassy has to have one of the best ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="4efb72bf-dcf9-40b8-a5bb-d6e31ebdaafc" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:44:42.267" UserId="38" Comment="grammar fixes" Text="In your examples both &quot;про&quot; and &quot;o&quot; sound quite right. I think it's a question of style than grammar. Personally, I would go with &quot;o&quot; in these examples, because it sounds more natural and noble (which isn't necessarily more appropriate) to my ear. Sometime you choose &quot;про&quot; over &quot;о&quot;, because it is easier to articulate in a given context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="105" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="4efb72bf-dcf9-40b8-a5bb-d6e31ebdaafc" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:44:42.267" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by 8 edit id of 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="3a40bc19-feac-4b92-b73b-e66b5cbe692e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:46:54.293" UserId="29" Comment="then to than, i to I" Text="Whenever you're talking with your peer, you would almost always say &quot;`привет`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a bunch of people, in a room, amongst which are those older than you (and your friends), you would say &quot;`здравствуйте`&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Привет` is definitely less formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I would say that a lot depends on age of the person you're talking to. `Привет` is more friendly, `здравствуйте` is more formal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="107" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="3a40bc19-feac-4b92-b73b-e66b5cbe692e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:46:54.293" Comment="Proposed by 29 approved by 8 edit id of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="4e34c4b9-6b09-41c3-9d97-c07bd66811bd" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:47:02.577" UserId="2" Comment="formatting" Text="An example of two words which differ only by a soft sign are `кон` (round, as in &quot;the next round of a game&quot;) and `конь` (stallion, male horse). Often, English speakers do not know how to enunicate the soft consonant at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, try saying the plural of both words: `кон -&gt; коны` (accent in &quot;ы&quot;), `конь -&gt; кони` (accent on &quot;o&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now try to separate the word `кони` into two phonemes (phonetic parts) - `кон` and `и`. You should feel the lack of the softness at the end of the first phoneme. Now combine again, and try to keep the soft `н`, but without the `ee` sound produced by the letter `и`. If you still have difficulty, try adding the letter `и` to words with the soft sign; gradually, shorten it as much as possible. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="109" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="4e34c4b9-6b09-41c3-9d97-c07bd66811bd" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:47:02.577" Comment="Proposed by 2 approved by 8 edit id of 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="87e53cfb-bd10-49a6-ade8-882a3d4a8f58" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:47:40.640" UserId="67" Comment="removed the smiley, changed the puntuation" Text="What about “Я запутался в...”?  &#xD;&#xA;Seems right to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="111" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="87e53cfb-bd10-49a6-ade8-882a3d4a8f58" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:47:40.640" Comment="Proposed by 67 approved by 8 edit id of 7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="5446fed5-9407-44f8-80af-1bbb22855f0e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:47:48.830" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="It depends on your relationship and the context in which it is said. `Здравствуйте` is fairly formal and `привет` is informal. With strangers and superiors `здравствуйте` is vastly preferred, while `привет` is mostly reserved for friends, family and close acquaintances. If you address a friend who is surrounded by people who should be using `здравствуйте` with him, it can be good to use the slightly less formal `здравствуй`, if you want to be cordial but not to undermine their authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren’t the only two ways (or three, if you count `здравствуй`) to greet somebody. `Доброе утро`, `добрый день`, `добрый вечер` are useful for greeting people you see on a regular basis but aren’t particularly close to, such as colleagues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="113" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="5446fed5-9407-44f8-80af-1bbb22855f0e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:47:48.830" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 8 edit id of 8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="416c313a-ad4b-4832-b1ef-126a06d58a33" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:57:18.750" UserId="62" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="I have a question about pronouncing 1 in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example x^2 = 1 would be икц в квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3x = 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is going to press me to explain what work I already did before asking this question, I'll point out that math books hardly ever explain how symbols are supposed to be pronounced, so this question seems like a good one for a site like this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="115" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="416c313a-ad4b-4832-b1ef-126a06d58a33" CreationDate="2012-06-14T04:57:18.750" UserId="62" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="mathematical pronounciation of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="70e3d7ad-a34a-497c-bf5e-c2a518ff79a7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:01:51.380" UserId="62" Text="Sometimes letters in mathematics are printed in special fonts (e.g., fraktur p for a prime ideal or script F for a sheaf). If I had a script X and wanted to literally say &quot;script X&quot; and not just &quot;X&quot;, is it correct to say икс рукописное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned a while ago that &quot;bold x&quot; is икс жирное and &quot;gothic x&quot; is икс готическое, and I'd like to have a definitive answer for the analogous &quot;script x&quot; for my notes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="70e3d7ad-a34a-497c-bf5e-c2a518ff79a7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:01:51.380" UserId="62" Text="pronunciation of fonts in math" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="70e3d7ad-a34a-497c-bf5e-c2a518ff79a7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:01:51.380" UserId="62" Text="|mathematics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="c97ddcf6-8fcb-48ac-8b87-30aec6e8efd4" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:08:37.657" UserId="85" Text="If you mean X which was handwritten (or any handwritten text), it would rather be икс прописной." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="87c320f1-3877-4a77-a5fe-195e95305626" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:08:43.023" UserId="83" Text="I am a native Russian speaker, and I've struggled to understand the difference between these prepositions and scope of their usage as well. It seems that &quot;про&quot; is formally incorrect in Russian. It is the analogous Ukrainian preposition that seems to have made its way to some regions of Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="b1cdfda0-007e-4568-bb58-a31e094695cd" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:09:32.490" UserId="38" Comment="&lt;code&gt; is for code" Text="It depends on your relationship and the context in which it is said. &quot;Здравствуйте&quot; is fairly formal and &quot;привет&quot; is informal. With strangers and superiors &quot;здравствуйте&quot; is vastly preferred, while &quot;привет&quot; is mostly reserved for friends, family and close acquaintances. If you address a friend who is surrounded by people who should be using &quot;здравствуйте&quot; with him, it can be good to use the slightly less formal &quot;здравствуй&quot;, if you want to be cordial but not to undermine their authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren’t the only two ways (or three, if you count &quot;здравствуй&quot;) to greet somebody. &quot;Доброе утро&quot;, &quot;добрый день&quot;, &quot;добрый вечер&quot; are useful for greeting people you see on a regular basis but aren’t particularly close to, such as colleagues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="a6a94017-a3fe-41c8-8bc2-b678f3372496" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:16:02.480" UserId="5" Text="&quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier which needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;take a look at three, it has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="a1155f39-8f18-40f5-9784-094baf587c95" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:17:25.393" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="In kindergarten, we have to do tractor-like sound vrrrrrrr. I coulnd't do that at the begin, but I've finally learn this. Now I have no problem distinguishing between and producing double-r and triple-r (although they are not used in any language I know, only in literature)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="827c1431-3433-4311-8b28-eb332295bcf3" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:19:06.067" UserId="84" Text="It seems to me that this is all due to the case being used. If you are reading mathematical equations with a simple right part, you usually use the dative case. It means that the right part of the equation answers the question &quot;than what?&quot; or &quot;than whom?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -5 &lt; 1 &quot;Минус пять меньше единицы.&quot; The question here is: &quot;Меньше чего?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use the word &quot;один&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -5 &lt; 1 &quot;Минус пять меньше одного.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in my opinion it sounds like you are trying to answer a question &quot;Than whom?&quot; rather than &quot;Than what?&quot;, and the sentence looks unfinished because the question &quot;Than whom?&quot; implies that there is some noun missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if there is a complex right side of the equation, the sentence is usually built without using the dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5 &lt; 1 + 10 &quot;Пять меньше, чем один плюс десять&quot; The question here is &quot;Меньше, чем что?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can use both &quot;один&quot; and &quot;единица&quot;, but the first word is shorter, so it is used more frequently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="489fec55-1079-4e5c-93eb-f7d5bf267bed" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:48:02.537" UserId="38" Text="If you're having a lot of trouble, you may wish to consult a doctor, it could be rhotacism (картавость), a fairly common speech defect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][1] seems like it could be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ivona.bigmir.net/deti/to_seven/318681-Uchim-rebenka-vygovarivat--bukvu--r-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="fc20e6ff-7827-4423-93b4-3a92cbaf174a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:50:24.343" UserId="80" Text="Как выглядит слово &quot;дно&quot; в множественном числе?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Одно **дно**&#xD;&#xA;- Два **дна**&#xD;&#xA;- Три **дна**&#xD;&#xA;- Четыре **дна**&#xD;&#xA;- Пять **???**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю правильный ответ, но не знаю **почему так**. Хотелось бы услышать аргументированный ответ, подкрепленный цитатами и ссылками на весомые источники." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="fc20e6ff-7827-4423-93b4-3a92cbaf174a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:50:24.343" UserId="80" Text="Слово &quot;дно&quot; в множественном числе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="fc20e6ff-7827-4423-93b4-3a92cbaf174a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:50:24.343" UserId="80" Text="|грамматика|typing|words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="129" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="ddbe8a84-63e0-4ca5-9cc9-ded9b1b5f416" CreationDate="2012-06-14T05:55:10.090" UserId="38" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="6a16f108-2e74-4411-9aff-024b8b4c11d9" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:04:54.117" UserId="38" Text="Множественное число слова &quot;дно&quot; - донья. Дна - это родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источники:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://slovari.299.ru/word.php?find_word=%E4%ED%EE&amp;slovar=4&#xD;&#xA;- http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/05/ma140613.htm&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;http://slovari.yandex.ru/~книги/Толковый%20словарь%20Даля/ДНО/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="73514018-8715-4431-86c4-5f6f4e39c8e1" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:05:39.667" UserId="85" Comment="added example" Text="If you mean X which was handwritten (or any handwritten text), it would rather be икс прописной or икс прописью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="c50032dd-9a10-483a-954b-c6bec4c24ce0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:19:14.390" UserId="88" Text="I tried this way with adult: &quot;How tiger says? - Grrrr!&quot;. It was jocosity mood and we tried it in different various ways of &quot;tiger's dialect&quot; untill the person eventually find the correct sound. It took ~10 minutes in our case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="c0d682cb-bc02-4e9a-8fa5-b0fd842c0397" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:20:07.447" UserId="38" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="No direct translation exists. 'For what it's worth' usually means that whatever is to follow is going to be a subjective opinion, which translates well to 'На мой взгляд' (In my opinion), 'Я считаю' (I think), 'Мне кажется' (I figure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to communicate that a piece of information is unimportant for another reason, you could say something like 'Может, это неважно, но'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="cbfcc51b-7f64-4982-afda-7e925c452153" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:24:47.813" UserId="38" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="The phrase, as I understand it, means that you'll do whatever it takes to survive, no matter how degrading it may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more emotional translation could be something like &quot;You'd do worse if your life depended on it&quot;. &quot;You'll do worse if you want to live&quot; could also work, but it sounds like a threat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="67" RevisionGUID="d87fe6ad-0f90-4363-ac8a-7092230ee283" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:33:33.133" UserId="88" Text="In our practice there is no big difference in meaning between `один` and `единица`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read `x*2=1` you can say both more short and convenient `икс на два равно один`  either more draggy or pretending to be academical `икс умножить на двойку равняется единице`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, the same about `икс квадрат` instead of `икс в квадрате` or `икс в степени два` Please note you cannot say `икс в квадрат`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="41b5d384-3cdc-47fe-9cf7-f5b08f4ad6b4" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:33:37.410" UserId="81" Text="AFAIU it depends on what exactly do you need to highlight:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You want to specify the typographic visual representation of x. In this case you need to emphasize font details. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - икс курсивом (literally: x in italic font)&#xD;&#xA; 2. You want listeners to understand the difference between *x* and x. I have several suggestions here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - икс наклонный (literally: inclined x)&#xD;&#xA;    - икс рукописный (literally: handwritten x)&#xD;&#xA;    - икс косой (literally: oblique x)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="bfc03c5e-927e-4807-bde9-448fc1a449c8" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:39:18.243" UserId="87" Text="I, as a native speaker, would have never used word &quot;единица&quot; in the contexts you provided. &quot;Единица&quot;, while having an &quot;unofficial&quot; meaning of &quot;one&quot; as a *number*, comes from the same family as &quot;двойка&quot;, &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;четвёрка&quot; etc - words that define *digits*. Usage of &quot;единица&quot; is unofficial: there are no good rules when to use it rather than &quot;one&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="106efa85-0afd-412e-87df-ad9f3d2751b8" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:46:32.940" UserId="88" Text="I don't know such a rule in our grammar. You **can**  use both your examples and it will be correct. On the other hand we say `большой белый` instead of `белый большой` because it sounds more pleasanter to ear and has some kind of rhythm in it, whilst I will use `белый большой` when `белый` is more important  than `большой`, for example when you need distinguish white house among many others that might look equally big" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="fdfce85c-e06e-4799-aa1c-6e7dc3845e90" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:51:36.100" UserId="69" Text="Both words can be used interchangeably, though there may be slight semantic differences. Ultimately, it comes down to tradition, preference, and the way it sounds. Other answers here describe well where one would be preferred over another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Big Explanatory Dictionary lists [“один”][1] as digit (glyph), number, and quantity, amongst other things, and specifically gives this arithmetical example: “Три минус два равняется одному” (3 – 2 = 1). BED defines [“единицу”][2] same way, adding meanings of single-digit place (“разряд единц”), and “unit” (mathematical example: y = 2x + C, where graph moves up C units (“C единиц”)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ushakov’s [Explanatory Dictionary][3] (1935–1940) defines “один” as 1) *name* of the number one (название числа 1); 2) quantity of 1; 9) first in a row of similar things. In contrast to the first of the above, “единица”  is described as 1) “Цифра, изображающая число один” (*figure* representing number one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, Compendium of Figurative Words and Allegories (1904) gives this variant:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Единица (иноск.) существо, (отдѣльно отъ другихъ, одинаковыхъ съ нимъ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: being [creature] (separate from others, equal to him).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%EE%E4%E8%ED&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%E5%E4%E8%ED%E8%F6%E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_Dictionary_of_the_Russian_Language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="e1d0d197-1ed5-4a75-844c-d103c7c7b38b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T06:54:39.370" UserId="90" Text="Simple explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объект `свободен` в `свободном` месте.  &#xD;&#xA;An object is `free` at `inoccupied` place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="2e966a1c-c3a7-4b92-83b3-d8bd22598106" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:03:00.777" UserId="90" Text="Property of size is the first, what you see and understand, when something appears to you, than color and some other properties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="40dc5b07-25f3-4302-a8ab-f1fc3e31a8ce" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:08:13.717" UserId="90" Text="`Я сконфужен этим` isn't common, but totally possible translation. It's just out of young people lexicon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="0114e8a5-fd98-4ad1-bf09-967e7aa0ab13" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:11:44.583" UserId="87" Comment="Removed personal bias" Text="&quot;Единица&quot;, while having an &quot;unofficial&quot; meaning of &quot;one&quot; as a *number*, comes from the same family as &quot;двойка&quot;, &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;четвёрка&quot; etc - words that define *digits*. Usage of &quot;единица&quot; is unofficial: there are no good rules when to use it rather than &quot;one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="144" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="845f4323-855c-4723-adda-882632f7d8e3" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:14:42.053" UserId="38" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="24bda434-8e4e-4f26-bce1-56eb7d28f079" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:15:59.133" UserId="38" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|longformadjectives|shortformadjectives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="258dae23-a439-4173-839d-af11e08cf60f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:17:40.160" UserId="91" Text="I can take two books in the bookshop and say *обе* to indicate I want to buy both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any analogue for three and more items, to indicate, that I have all of them in mind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="258dae23-a439-4173-839d-af11e08cf60f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:17:40.160" UserId="91" Text="Are there analogues for words оба, обе for three and more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="258dae23-a439-4173-839d-af11e08cf60f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:17:40.160" UserId="91" Text="|грамматика|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="aba6f0ad-fd4f-47a1-a900-a225a37a2913" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:19:59.843" UserId="38" Text="No, there are not. You can use &quot;Все три/четыре/...&quot;, just like in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="80a158bb-62dd-49cc-ae9c-5fd89c5d5c1b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:23:18.373" UserId="38" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="Множественное число слова &quot;дно&quot; - донья. Дна - это родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Числительные два, три, четыре (а также составные числительные, оканчивающиеся на два, три, четыре, например двадцать два) в именительном падеже сочетаются с существительным в форме родительного падежа и единственного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источники:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://slovari.299.ru/word.php?find_word=%E4%ED%EE&amp;slovar=4&#xD;&#xA;- http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/05/ma140613.htm&#xD;&#xA;- &lt;http://slovari.yandex.ru/~книги/Толковый%20словарь%20Даля/ДНО/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_92" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="a30850f9-58e6-4a17-9595-35d1db90d1ec" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:31:42.790" UserId="27" Comment="Improved overall grammar, removed over-formatting. Removed thank-you. See http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts for more info." Text="I've seen the usage of English phrase *for what it's worth* many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I still don't know what the most precise translation of this phrase is in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="152" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="a30850f9-58e6-4a17-9595-35d1db90d1ec" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:31:42.790" Comment="Proposed by 27 approved by 60 edit id of 9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="23c1a0da-78a3-4521-985a-e32eb8950ede" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:35:27.427" UserId="90" Comment="formatting" Text="`Единица`, while having an &quot;unofficial&quot; meaning of `one` as a *number*, comes from the same family as `двойка`, `тройка`, `четвёрка` etc - words that define *digits*. Usage of `единица` is unofficial: there are no good rules when to use it rather than `one`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="154" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="69" RevisionGUID="23c1a0da-78a3-4521-985a-e32eb8950ede" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:35:27.427" Comment="Proposed by 90 approved by 87 edit id of 14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="3adade91-9d8b-4c56-a590-b22870d71d60" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:37:03.840" UserId="38" Comment="grammar fixes" Text="I don't know any such rules. You **can** use either example and be correct. On the other hand, we say `большой белый` instead of `белый большой` because it sounds more pleasant to ear and has some kind of rhythm to it, but I will use `белый большой` when `белый` is more important  than `большой`, for example when you need distinguish white house among many others that might look equally big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="156" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="3adade91-9d8b-4c56-a590-b22870d71d60" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:37:03.840" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by 88 edit id of 12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="b95cc242-1b7c-4747-9bb8-1d06f85f4968" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:49:11.943" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="666911da-c1c2-47d3-a785-ddbfdbf5f38b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:49:43.197" UserId="87" Text="Rosental (Розенталь) provides these rules for order of adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3)      определения, выраженные качественными прилагательными, стоят впереди определений, выраженных относительными прилагательными (последние» как выражающие более существенный или постоянный признак, стоят ближе к определяемому существительному), например: новый исторический роман, поздняя осенняя пора;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4)      если неоднородные определения выражены только качественными прилагательными, то ближе к определяемому существительному ставится то из них, которое обозначает более устойчивый признак, например: огромные черные глаза, приятный легкий ветерок;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5)      если неоднородные определения выражены только относительными прилагательными, то обычно они располагаются в порядке восходящей смысловой градации (от более узкого понятия к более широкому), например: ежедневные метеорологические сводки, антикварные бронзовые изделия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/63.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant discussion can be found here: http://newforum.gramota.ru/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=2947&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="159" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="bed3246d-f6b1-4210-9014-48144fc16b0c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T07:55:23.307" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|прилагательные|порядок-слов|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="d0f49055-bfa3-413f-97e5-5750eccf5f3b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:04:48.520" UserId="60" Text="My wife always corrects me when I say `&quot;ихний&quot;` or `&quot;ихних&quot;` instead of `&quot;их&quot;`. However, I've seen these pronouns in classical literature many times (Chekhov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which form is correct in speaking and writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="d0f49055-bfa3-413f-97e5-5750eccf5f3b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:04:48.520" UserId="60" Text="What is correct: &quot;их&quot; or &quot;ихний&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="d0f49055-bfa3-413f-97e5-5750eccf5f3b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:04:48.520" UserId="60" Text="|linguistics|местоимения|speaking|writing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="f8eb4cda-6622-4ef0-ba7e-eb23978dacb7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:08:01.587" UserId="38" Text="&quot;Их&quot;, there is no question about it. You've likely seen &quot;ихний&quot; being used in literature by less than educated characters, have you not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="d3ec1117-4e36-423f-8e93-92594a57951b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:08:41.247" UserId="95" Text="I've been living in Georgia for half a year and most of my friends are fluent in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've focussed on learning Georgian rather than Russian so far. But when I want to learn some Russian too, am I likely to pick up some bad habits by learning from Georgian speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a native English speaker I know the kinds of mistakes otherwise fluent German native speakers make in their English. What are some Russian equivalents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="d3ec1117-4e36-423f-8e93-92594a57951b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:08:41.247" UserId="95" Text="Are there some typical mistakes made my native Georgian speakers when speaking Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="d3ec1117-4e36-423f-8e93-92594a57951b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:08:41.247" UserId="95" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="1bddc768-f2e5-47d9-ae60-7e0911e49bed" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:15:51.253" UserId="95" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="1bddc768-f2e5-47d9-ae60-7e0911e49bed" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:15:51.253" UserId="95" Text="What are some of the most common words in which were borrowed from other neighbouring republics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="1bddc768-f2e5-47d9-ae60-7e0911e49bed" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:15:51.253" UserId="95" Text="|заимствования|этимология|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="e7d73704-1c09-4374-ba1c-b3cecab54090" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:17:38.600" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|согласные|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="6df68f21-932a-4b4d-9100-081ef85c6053" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:23:03.287" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|nouns|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="174" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="3bb8bdf6-8382-4e45-b219-f1cfd8836a1d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:25:17.840" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этикет|formality|приветствия|choosing-terms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="ad582c3f-438a-42fe-be62-dbcf5ed1173f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:29:21.017" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="d719c82c-86fb-4ab2-b1ca-9bea6064ac28" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:32:59.627" UserId="38" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I can take two books in the bookshop and say *обе* to indicate I want to buy both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any analogous words for three and more items, to indicate that I have all of them in mind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="178" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="d719c82c-86fb-4ab2-b1ca-9bea6064ac28" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:32:59.627" UserId="38" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Are there analogous words for words оба, обе for three and more?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="179" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="d719c82c-86fb-4ab2-b1ca-9bea6064ac28" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:32:59.627" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by 91 edit id of 15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="90694b36-7bfc-4510-b54a-9c8d171f91c4" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:35:03.053" UserId="90" Comment="formatting" Text="If you mean `X` which was handwritten or any handwritten text, it would rather be `икс прописной` or `икс прописью`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="181" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="90694b36-7bfc-4510-b54a-9c8d171f91c4" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:35:03.053" Comment="Proposed by 90 approved by 85 edit id of 13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="6159648f-0c70-4fd0-a9ce-896c80eaa27a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:39:48.477" UserId="91" Text="Where, outside former Soviet Union, Russian language is so widely used, that the knowledge of the other language in practically not required for traveller etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukraine, for example, Russian is so widely used, that most of the books are in Russian, and in talk-shown people answer the question asked in Ukrainian in Russian. I don't say it's good, but the Russian-speaking traveller would have no communication problems. But this is the former Soviet Union, where knowing Russian was practically a must.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any countries, that were not in Soviet Union, in which Russian language is so widely used, that one can expect that almost everyone will be able to answer questions in Russian, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="6159648f-0c70-4fd0-a9ce-896c80eaa27a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:39:48.477" UserId="91" Text="Where outside former Soviet Union Russian language is widely used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="6159648f-0c70-4fd0-a9ce-896c80eaa27a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:39:48.477" UserId="91" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="fe0b0e5e-79b8-449c-bc28-662467186011" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:48:33.130" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|обучение|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="facf717f-8ce4-4a93-9be1-a0508663d859" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:51:44.740" UserId="97" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between muscular/feminine/indefinite types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ая** кошка&quot; or &quot;больш**ой** кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ой** дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the different between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="583b6bc9-ab0e-4a21-85a8-285f64964b99" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:57:45.250" UserId="38" Text="This [collection of parallel text articles][1] may interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [website for Russians studying English][2] has some parallel text articles that look quite good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [browser extension Franker][3], available for Safari and Chrome, injects Google Translate translations after each sentence. Machine translation is notoriously wonky, but you should be able to get the gist of what's written. Using it on Russian, rather than English pages, should yield the best results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scribd.com/collections/2316116/english-russian-parallel-texts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://englishtexts.ru/tag/text&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://code.google.com/p/franker/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="86" RevisionGUID="b31145ff-da60-4840-9c88-db2e8705e4bc" CreationDate="2012-06-14T08:59:51.517" UserId="97" Text="First, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union (I was born in Ukraine).  Also, it's quite an unique place in that the Eastern part is very much Russian-oriented, while the Western-part is much more nationalistic.  While it's not uncommon at all to meet people in Kharkiv that don't even speak Ukrainian, it's not uncommon at all to meet people in Uzhgorod that don't speak Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the main question, you can easily get away with only Russian in certain parts of Turkey, especially the sea resorts, especially Black Sea resorts, but not everywhere.  Same with Egypt: Russian will be just fine in the resorts but not in rural area half-way between Aswan and Luxor (trust me, I've been there).  You may easily be able to get away with only Russian in Bulgaria, because Bulgarian language is very similar to Russian (both written and spoken).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, in almost any country you will find concentrated Russian-speaking communities where Russian will be more than enough, for example, the (in)famouse Brighton Beach in New York, or Coolidge Corner in Boston. However on a more global scale you'd be hard pressed if Russian where all you knew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="0919bd6c-27cf-49e6-83ed-dfaeccb25e70" CreationDate="2012-06-14T09:13:49.967" UserId="98" Text="In Russian math books Latin letters in formulae are set off in italics by default. It's a standard. So usually there is no need to emphasize this fact. However, if it's printed it's not `рукописный` (handwritten), it's `курсив` (italics)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="199c9aa5-10b8-426f-a705-ae809bbd5464" CreationDate="2012-06-14T09:24:54.270" UserId="95" Comment="copyedit english usage" Text="Where, outside the former Soviet Union, is the Russian language so widely used that the knowledge of the other language in practically not required for traveller etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukraine, for example, Russian is so widely used that most of the books are in Russian, and in talk-shows people answer the question asked in Ukrainian in Russian. I don't say it's good, but the Russian-speaking traveller would have no communication problems. But this *is* the former Soviet Union, where knowing Russian was practically a must.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any countries, that *were not* in Soviet Union, in which the Russian language is so widely used, that one can expect that almost everyone will be able to answer questions in Russian, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="191" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="199c9aa5-10b8-426f-a705-ae809bbd5464" CreationDate="2012-06-14T09:24:54.270" UserId="95" Comment="copyedit english usage" Text="Where outside the former Soviet Union is the Russian language widely used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="199c9aa5-10b8-426f-a705-ae809bbd5464" CreationDate="2012-06-14T09:24:54.270" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 91 edit id of 22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="86" RevisionGUID="ff1c4027-9ddf-4482-aea0-54b69f198c26" CreationDate="2012-06-14T09:26:27.367" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union (I was born in Ukraine).  Also, it's quite a unique place in that the Eastern part is very much Russian-oriented, while the Western-part is much more nationalistic.  While it's not uncommon at all to meet people in Kharkiv that don't even speak Ukrainian, it's not uncommon at all to meet people in Uzhgorod that don't speak Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the main question, you can easily get away with only Russian in certain parts of Turkey, especially the sea resorts, especially Black Sea resorts, but not everywhere.  Same with Egypt: Russian will be just fine in the resorts but not in rural area half-way between Aswan and Luxor (trust me, I've been there).  You may easily be able to get away with only Russian in Bulgaria, because Bulgarian language is very similar to Russian (both written and spoken).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, in almost any country you will find concentrated Russian-speaking communities where Russian will be more than enough, for example, the (in)famouse Brighton Beach in New York, or Coolidge Corner in Boston. However on a more global scale you'd be hard pressed if Russian where all you knew." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="194" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="5f29fed5-71b0-4526-af23-522f1c2ecde0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:06:58.713" UserId="97" Comment="Fixed misspeled &quot;by&quot; in title" Text="Are there some typical mistakes made by native Georgian speakers when speaking Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="195" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="5f29fed5-71b0-4526-af23-522f1c2ecde0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:06:58.713" Comment="Proposed by 97 approved by 95 edit id of 23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="a31eb2ae-88aa-49df-aa9a-46d8713d767c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:18:58.657" UserId="38" Comment="grammar fix" Text="Как выглядит слово &quot;дно&quot; во множественном числе?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Одно **дно**&#xD;&#xA;- Два **дна**&#xD;&#xA;- Три **дна**&#xD;&#xA;- Четыре **дна**&#xD;&#xA;- Пять **???**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю правильный ответ, но не знаю **почему так**. Хотелось бы услышать аргументированный ответ, подкрепленный цитатами и ссылками на весомые источники." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="a31eb2ae-88aa-49df-aa9a-46d8713d767c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:18:58.657" UserId="38" Comment="grammar fix" Text="Слово &quot;дно&quot; во множественном числе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="198" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="a31eb2ae-88aa-49df-aa9a-46d8713d767c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:18:58.657" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by 80 edit id of 19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="143156de-af19-451a-8d9f-0506d12efabc" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:50:10.817" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between muscular/feminine/indefinite types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ая** кошка&quot; or &quot;больш**ой** кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ой** дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the difference between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="35f91eb0-c9ad-40b8-9807-6e695773116d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:53:32.143" UserId="98" Text="Found an interesting [list of Georgian words in Russian][1] on Russian Wikipedia. I'd say the most common of them are `тамада` and `козинаки`. I didn't even know that they are Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="877dcae9-4e88-466a-a3fc-2d0434632294" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:55:51.887" UserId="95" Comment="avoid &quot;this&quot; and &quot;here&quot; links: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/12100/why-shouldnt-we-use-the-word-here-in-a-textlink" Text="`Свободный` is a persistent attribute, `свободен` is a temporary attribute. But often the meaning is just the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read [this article &quot;Краткая форма прилагательных&quot; on the Russian Wikipedia][1] to find out more, there are a number of different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="202" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="877dcae9-4e88-466a-a3fc-2d0434632294" CreationDate="2012-06-14T10:55:51.887" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 9 edit id of 17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="6bfde949-1828-449f-99e3-29d92c30b43b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:01:52.577" UserId="95" Comment="copyedit english" Text="I tried this way with an adult: &quot;How does a tiger say *Grrrr*!&quot;. It was a jokey mood and we tried it in various different ways of &quot;tiger's dialect&quot; until the person eventually found the correct sound. It took ~10 minutes in our case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="204" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="6bfde949-1828-449f-99e3-29d92c30b43b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:01:52.577" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 88 edit id of 16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="3425fc44-cbd6-4f84-85f8-8b31cda0b5fa" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:09:00.927" UserId="95" Comment="here's a list" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of words from all such languages I could dig out of the English Wiktionary. I'm sure I missed some. Which are super common in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Айвазовский - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- Ингушетия - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Осетия - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Петросян - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- Раздан - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- Севан - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- Сочи - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Тбилиси - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Цхинвал - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Цхинвали - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- аниец - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- бархан - Kazakh&#xD;&#xA;- бастурма - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- боржоми - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- дзельква - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- драм - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- дудук - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- ишак - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- ишхан - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- кинза - Armenian, Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- козинаки - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- кочерга - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- лари - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- лат - Latvian&#xD;&#xA;- лит - Lithuanian&#xD;&#xA;- манат - Azeri, Turkmen&#xD;&#xA;- мацони - Armenian, Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- мечеть - Turkmen&#xD;&#xA;- сакля - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- сацебели - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- сациви - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- сом - Kyrgyz, Uzbek&#xD;&#xA;- сомони - Tajik&#xD;&#xA;- тенге - Kazakh&#xD;&#xA;- харчо - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- хач - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- хачапури - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- хачик - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- хмели-сунели - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- чахохбили - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- чача - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- чихиртма - Georgian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="6e81371d-4256-4e40-8fd8-4fc8ec422106" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:18:03.293" UserId="71" Comment="added some detail" Text="The [Soft sign][1], called мягкий знак in russian, has no pronunciation itself. Rather, it affects the letter that precedes it, through a phenomenon called *[Palatalization][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While ь can follow Ш, it cannot follow the letter Ч.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="50a72c39-da19-4ada-a552-d74042be7a99" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:18:24.257" UserId="95" Comment="list++" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of words from all such languages I could dig out of the English Wiktionary. I'm sure I missed some. Which are super common in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- абрек - Ossetian&#xD;&#xA;- аджика - Abkhaz&#xD;&#xA;- Айвазовский - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- аниец - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- бархан - Kazakh&#xD;&#xA;- бастурма - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- боржоми - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- дзельква - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- драм - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- дудук - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- Ингушетия - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- ишак - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- ишхан - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- кинза - Armenian, Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- козинаки - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- кочерга - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- лари - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- лат - Latvian&#xD;&#xA;- лит - Lithuanian&#xD;&#xA;- манат - Azeri, Turkmen&#xD;&#xA;- мацони - Armenian, Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- мечеть - Turkmen&#xD;&#xA;- Осетия - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Петросян - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- Раздан - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- сакля - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- сацебели - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- сациви - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Севан - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- сом - Kyrgyz, Uzbek&#xD;&#xA;- сомони - Tajik&#xD;&#xA;- Сочи - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Тбилиси - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- тенге - Kazakh&#xD;&#xA;- харчо - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- хач - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- хачапури - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- хачик - Armenian&#xD;&#xA;- хмели-сунели - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Цхинвал - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- Цхинвали - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- чахохбили - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- чача - Georgian&#xD;&#xA;- чихиртма - Georgian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="fa124e96-b0e4-48b1-8601-ba48de589dc9" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:18:33.570" UserId="88" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="I don't know any such rules. You **can** use either example and be correct. On the other hand, we say `большой белый` instead of `белый большой` because it sounds more pleasant to ear and has some kind of rhythm to it, but I will use `белый большой` when `белый` is more important  than `большой`, for example when you need distinguish white house among many others that might look equally big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there is one more reason in this particular case: we have common noun &quot;Белый Дом&quot;  with meaning &quot;building for the government&quot; too, so these two words have a propensity to be closer. In similar way we say `круглая красная кнопка`  or `сломанный острый нож` but nothing really wrong in using contrary: all depends on emphasize." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="1f523ca7-1685-4b37-9927-a8dfedeb7c26" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:24:50.957" UserId="95" Comment="make list more compact" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of words from all such languages I could dig out of the English Wiktionary. I'm sure I missed some. Which are super common in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`абрек`** &lt;sup&gt;(Ossetian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`аджика`** &lt;sup&gt;(Abkhaz)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Айвазовский`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`аниец`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`бархан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kazakh)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`бастурма`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`боржоми`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`дзельква`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`драм`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`дудук`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Ингушетия`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`ишак`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`ишхан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`кинза`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian, Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`козинаки`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`кочерга`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лари`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лат`** &lt;sup&gt;(Latvian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лит`** &lt;sup&gt;(Lithuanian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`манат`** &lt;sup&gt;(Azeri, Turkmen)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`мацони`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian, Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`мечеть`** &lt;sup&gt;(Turkmen)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Осетия`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Петросян`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Раздан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сакля`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сацебели`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сациви`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Севан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сом`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kyrgyz, Uzbek)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сомони`** &lt;sup&gt;(Tajik)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Сочи`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Тбилиси`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`тенге`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kazakh)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`харчо`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хач`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хачапури`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хачик`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хмели-сунели`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Цхинвал`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Цхинвали`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чахохбили`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чача`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чихиртма`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="dd48062c-89e9-44d6-b64b-742c0f97dd6c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:32:16.310" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Is Russian so widely known in Georgia, that one can expect to be able to communicate with people in Georgia in shops, buses, hostels etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older people should know Russian well from the times of Soviet Union, but what with younger people? Is it safe to assume that the knowledge of Russian is enough to cope with traveling alone to Georgia and handling everyday's situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="dd48062c-89e9-44d6-b64b-742c0f97dd6c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:32:16.310" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Is Russian widely known in Georgia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="dd48062c-89e9-44d6-b64b-742c0f97dd6c" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:32:16.310" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="c6a60e23-6d38-4d60-a40a-1214b6af6f31" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:35:17.407" UserId="71" Comment="fixing formatting" Text="It seems to me that this is all due to the case being used. If you are reading mathematical equations with a simple right part, you usually use the dative case. It means that the right part of the equation answers the question &quot;than what?&quot; or &quot;than whom?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -5 &lt; 1 &quot;Минус пять меньше единицы.&quot; The question here is: &quot;Меньше чего?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use the word &quot;один&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -5 &lt; 1 &quot;Минус пять меньше одного.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in my opinion it sounds like you are trying to answer a question &quot;Than whom?&quot; rather than &quot;Than what?&quot;, and the sentence looks unfinished because the question &quot;Than whom?&quot; implies that there is some noun missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if there is a complex right side of the equation, the sentence is usually built without using the dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 &lt; 1 + 10 &quot;Пять меньше, чем один плюс десять&quot; The question here is &quot;Меньше, чем что?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can use both &quot;один&quot; and &quot;единица&quot;, but the first word is shorter, so it is used more frequently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="218" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="c6a60e23-6d38-4d60-a40a-1214b6af6f31" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:35:17.407" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 84 edit id of 25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="f49c5afe-9686-4e7a-80b7-38c57ae8ae09" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:35:45.870" UserId="95" Comment="oops the question title was a mess" Text="What are some of the most common words which were borrowed from other neighbouring Soviet republics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="d73eab97-eab8-49f0-a7ea-5a456169e84f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:53:38.033" UserId="88" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="You **can** use either example and be correct. On the other hand, we say `большой белый` instead of `белый большой` because it sounds more pleasant to ear and has some kind of rhythm to it, but I will use `белый большой` when `белый` is more important  than `большой`, for example when you need distinguish white house among many others that might look equally big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps there is one more reason in this particular case: we have common noun &quot;Белый Дом&quot;  with meaning &quot;building for the government&quot; too, so these two words have a propensity to be closer. In similar way we say `круглая красная кнопка`  or `сломанный острый нож` but nothing really wrong in using contrary: all depends on emphasize." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="3d346fc2-8533-4800-b6f9-0056d4bb5ee7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T11:58:15.413" UserId="81" Text="Let me try to split your question in two.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find out russian words borrowed from the native languages of people of former Soviet Union then wiktionary has a category for this: [Слова по происхождению][1] (Words by origin). For example subcategory of words of turkic origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Слова тюркского происхождения][2] (Words of turkic origin)&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br/&gt;Some of them are commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;   - `очаг` (hearth) &#xD;&#xA;   - `штаны` (pants)&#xD;&#xA;   - `деньги` (money)&#xD;&#xA;   - `алмаз` (diamond)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, thorn already gave a couple examples of Georgian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The second part is about republics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the examples above are the results of a long-term influence of neighbouring turkic folks in VII-XIII centuries, but it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how much are they related to the modern republics of former Soviet Union. Words are borrowed from languages, not officially loaned from foreign countries %)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually loanwords came with the corresponding concepts. Soviet Union was founded less than a century ago. When the Soviet Union was established most of the &quot;common&quot; words were already present in the native languages. AFAIK, most of the words borrowed from russian language during the soviet era were neologisms, at least from the point of view of the borrowing language. The same goes for loanwords borrowed during Soviet period. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are proper names for territory-specific types of food (`хачапури`, `манты`, `бигус`, `плов`, `шаурма`, `люля-кебаб`, `бешбармак`), musical terminology (`домбра`, `домра`, `кобыз`, `дутар`, `акын`), geographic and ethnic names (`абхаз`, `аул`, `аил`, `кишлак`), etc. I believe that there are plenty of russian native-speakers who understand what does these words mean. But I also believe that most of them understand what are the origins of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comments to your update:** **IMHO**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Common words:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кочерга` (poker)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `козинаки` ([gozinaki][3])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `ишак` (donkey)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `бархан` ([barchan][4])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `мечеть` (mosque)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кинза` ([coriander][5])&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I would separate well known proper names:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Айвазовский ([artist][6]) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Петросян ([comedian][7], sometimes used as a common name for not very funny comedian) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - аджика, боржоми, сацебели, сациви, харчо, чахохбили, чача - food and drinks &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - драм, лари, лат, лит, манат, сомони, тенге - currencies &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Ингушетия, Осетия, Севан, Сочи, Тбилиси, Цхинвал, Цхинвали - toponims &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - абрек, хач, хачик - eponyms (some of them are offensive) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozinaki&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Petrosyan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="60560e3c-16a8-43ad-a323-c72e51efb5b2" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:01:33.423" UserId="104" Text="Having been to Georgia for more than 15 times in the past several years, here's my experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Most* older people *understand* Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Many* younger people *understand* Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Many* people *speak* Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The knowledge of Russian in Georgia is weaker than in neighboring Armenia or Azerbaijan. Things are also complicated by the political relationships between Georgia and Russia, and some people simply *pretend* not to understand Russian, when in fact they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English is a much worse bet in any case, since only educated young people may speak it more or less. Anyway, since I don't speak Georgian, I spoke only Russian in Georgia and I was fine, so will you. So yes, knowledge of Russian is enough to cope with traveling to Georgia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="6d30e80a-9bb1-41bf-be4b-3b10cdee5aca" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:10:25.133" UserId="81" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Let me &lt;s&gt;speak from my heart&lt;/s&gt; try to split your question in two.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find out russian words borrowed from the native languages of people of former Soviet Union then wiktionary has a category for this: [Слова по происхождению][1] (Words by origin). For example subcategory of words of turkic origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Слова тюркского происхождения][2] (Words of turkic origin)&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br/&gt;Some of them are commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;   - `очаг` (hearth) &#xD;&#xA;   - `штаны` (pants)&#xD;&#xA;   - `деньги` (money)&#xD;&#xA;   - `алмаз` (diamond)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, thorn already gave a couple examples of Georgian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The second part is about republics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the examples above are the results of a long-term influence of neighbouring turkic folks in VII-XIII centuries, but it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how much are they related to the modern republics of former Soviet Union. Words are borrowed from languages, not officially loaned from foreign countries %)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually loanwords came with the corresponding concepts. Soviet Union was founded less than a century ago. When the Soviet Union was established most of the &quot;common&quot; words were already present in the native languages. AFAIK, most of the words borrowed from russian language during the soviet era were neologisms, at least from the point of view of the borrowing language. The same goes for russian words borrowed during Soviet period. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are proper names for territory-specific types of food (`хачапури`, `манты`, `бигус`, `плов`, `шаурма`, `люля-кебаб`, `бешбармак`), musical terminology (`домбра`, `домра`, `кобыз`, `дутар`, `акын`), geographic and ethnic names (`абхаз`, `аул`, `аил`, `кишлак`), etc. I believe that there are plenty of russian native-speakers who understand what does these words mean. But I also believe that most of them understand what are the origins of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comments to your update:** **IMHO**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Common words:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кочерга` (poker)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `козинаки` ([gozinaki][3])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `ишак` (donkey)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `бархан` ([barchan][4])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `мечеть` (mosque)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кинза` ([coriander][5])&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I would separate well known proper names:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Айвазовский ([artist][6]) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Петросян ([comedian][7], sometimes used as a common name for not very funny comedian) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `аджика`, `боржоми`, `сацебели`, `сациви`, `харчо`, `чахохбили`, `чача` - food and drinks &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `драм`, `лари`, `лат`, `лит`, `манат`, `сомони`, `тенге` - currencies &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Ингушетия, Осетия, Севан, Сочи, Тбилиси, Цхинвал, Цхинвали - toponims &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `абрек`, `хач` , `хачик` - ethnically specific terms (some of them are offensive) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozinaki&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Petrosyan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="0d62be2b-ed81-458c-b75c-a5e27670af86" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:10:32.957" UserId="104" Text="When you're hungry, you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я голоден.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you're thirsty you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Мне хочется пить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an *adjective* in Russian that means thirsty? Perhaps derived from жажда (thirst)?&#xD;&#xA;Has there ever been such an adjective in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="0d62be2b-ed81-458c-b75c-a5e27670af86" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:10:32.957" UserId="104" Text="Equivalent of 'thirsty' in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="0d62be2b-ed81-458c-b75c-a5e27670af86" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:10:32.957" UserId="104" Text="|прилагательные|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="e9a4b5e1-bd19-4623-94cd-3e2f6f079bf3" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:12:06.723" UserId="19" Text="You can say `жажден`, but it's rarely encountered outside of the Bible and older literature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="229" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="0a3064c0-ff35-4334-8153-da5f80128bf6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:12:53.007" UserId="19" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:19,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Philip Seyfi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="31a714b1-ef60-4b59-8db5-4388f8fb3d5f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:13:42.470" UserId="95" Text="This answer is from my experience having just lived seven and a half months in Georgia, mostly in Tbilisi but also for a month and a half in Batumi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes Russian is widely known and used every day by the majority of people in Georgia aged in their 20's and above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people are fluent (they can talk quickly without translating in their heads) but would make lots of grammatical errors that native Russian speakers would pick up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact many people love the Russian language and tell me how beautiful it is. (I'm Australian so they're not just being nice to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain words are exceptionally common even when otherwise speaking Georgian. Especially &quot;vaime&quot; (what does this mean, by the way?) and &quot;похмелье&quot; meaning &quot;hangover&quot;, even though there is a native word ნაბახუსევი (nabakhusevi) for &quot;hangover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some shops I go to regularly where the staff speak Georgian and know that I know more Georgian than Russian, yet they always talk to me in Russian and I always respond in Georgian! (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But children are no longer being taught Russian in school and there is a two-year-old program to import many native English speakers to work as English teachers in villages throughout the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that people still perceive Russian to be &quot;cool&quot; along with English. All of my friends listen to both English and Russian music, but none of them listen to Georgian music. So I assume younger people will continue to pick up Russian without being taught for some time yet, but I would expect the quality to continue to decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="231" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="13dae9bb-73f7-4987-9140-160b18f7cb94" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:14:50.820" UserId="19" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:19,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Philip Seyfi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="f8158cd4-a439-49b2-a279-c2d3d9c30062" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:24:00.280" UserId="19" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="You can say `жажден`, but it's rarely encountered outside of theological texts and older literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Архиеп. Платон. Поучительныя слова. Том II][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, который безсмертною истинны пищею насыщал человеческий род, был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гладен, и **жажден** чрез все течение лет своих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Описание земли Камчатки. Том второй][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Сыт, касину.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Голоден, исиаре.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Жажден**, ипекрейке.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Есть, ишама.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Пить, кпекреигиуа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Д.С. Лихачев - Смех как мировоззрение - &quot;Смеховой мир&quot; Древней Руси.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Пословицы и поговорки также часто представляют собой юмор, глум: [...] Алчен в кухарне, **жажден** в пивоварне, а наг, бос в мылне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, this word seems to be very archaic and almost never used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stsl.ru/lib/platon2/10.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/k/krasheninnikow_s_p/text_0080.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philologos.narod.ru/smeh/smeh-lihach.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="765ef7f4-844f-422f-94d1-8b314faf4527" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:27:19.550" UserId="104" Comment="edited title" Text="Equivalent adjective of 'thirsty' in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="bae21569-4286-4b0f-bef1-c1fa636b30d7" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:30:24.490" UserId="81" Comment="added 1100 characters in body" Text="Let me &lt;s&gt;speak from my heart&lt;/s&gt; try to split your question in two.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find out russian words borrowed from the native languages of people of former Soviet Union then wiktionary has a category for this: [Слова по происхождению][1] (Words by origin). For example subcategory of words of turkic origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Слова тюркского происхождения][2] (Words of turkic origin)&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br/&gt;Some of them are commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;   - `очаг` (hearth) &#xD;&#xA;   - `штаны` (pants)&#xD;&#xA;   - `деньги` (money)&#xD;&#xA;   - `алмаз` (diamond)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, thorn already gave a couple examples of Georgian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The second part is about republics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the examples above are the results of a long-term influence of neighbouring turkic folks in VII-XIII centuries, but it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how much are they related to the modern republics of former Soviet Union. Words are borrowed from languages, not officially loaned from foreign countries %)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually loanwords came with the corresponding concepts. Soviet Union was founded less than a century ago. When the Soviet Union was established most of the &quot;common&quot; words were already present in the native languages. AFAIK, most of the words borrowed from russian language during the soviet era were neologisms, at least from the point of view of the borrowing language. The same goes for russian words borrowed during Soviet period. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are proper names for territory-specific types of food (`хачапури`, `манты`, `бигус`, `плов`, `шаурма`, `люля-кебаб`, `бешбармак`), musical terminology (`домбра`, `домра`, `кобыз`, `дутар`, `акын`), geographic and ethnic names (`абхаз`, `аул`, `аил`, `кишлак`), etc. I believe that there are plenty of russian native-speakers who understand what does these words mean. But I also believe that most of them understand what are the origins of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comments to your update:** **IMHO**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Common words:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кочерга` (poker) - etimology is unclear. Wiktionary links to [Acharian's][3] deduction to Armenian. But [Vasmer's etymological dictionary][4] derives it from Ukrainian/Polish or Turkic (thanks to thorn for remark)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `козинаки` ([gozinaki][5])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `ишак` (donkey)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `бархан` ([barchan][6])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `мечеть` (mosque)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кинза` ([coriander][7])&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I would separate well known proper names:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Айвазовский ([artist][8]) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Петросян - Comedian [Yevgeniy Petrosyan][9], is sometimes used as a common name for not very funny comedian last years (mostly on the web). Generally [Петросян][10] is a quite popular Armenian last name. Consider, for example chess champion [Tigran Petrosyan][11].&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `аджика`, `боржоми`, `сацебели`, `сациви`, `харчо`, `чахохбили`, `чача` - food and drinks &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `драм`, `лари`, `лат`, `лит`, `манат`, `сомони`, `тенге` - currencies &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Ингушетия, Осетия, Севан, Сочи, Тбилиси, Цхинвал, Цхинвали - toponims &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `абрек`, `хач` , `хачик` - ethnically specific terms (some of them are offensive) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrachia_Acharian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cusr%5Clocal%5Cshare%5Cstarling%5Cmorpho%5Cvasmer%5Cvasmer&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_word=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0&amp;method_word=substring&amp;ic_word=on&amp;text_general=&amp;method_general=substring&amp;ic_general=on&amp;text_origin=&amp;method_origin=substring&amp;ic_origin=on&amp;text_trubachev=&amp;method_trubachev=substring&amp;ic_trubachev=on&amp;text_editorial=&amp;method_editorial=substring&amp;ic_editorial=on&amp;text_pages=&amp;method_pages=substring&amp;ic_pages=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=word&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozinaki&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Petrosyan&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8F%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="6d9d4482-29a0-470d-844a-90561b67ad06" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:37:39.717" UserId="81" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Let me &lt;s&gt;speak from my heart&lt;/s&gt; try to split your question in two.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find out russian words borrowed from the native languages of people of former Soviet Union then wiktionary has a category for this: [Слова по происхождению][1] (Words by origin). For example subcategory of words of turkic origin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Слова тюркского происхождения][2] (Words of turkic origin)&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;br/&gt;Some of them are commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;   - `очаг` (hearth) &#xD;&#xA;   - `штаны` (pants)&#xD;&#xA;   - `деньги` (money)&#xD;&#xA;   - `алмаз` (diamond)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, thorn already gave a couple examples of Georgian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The second part is about republics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the examples above are the results of a long-term influence of neighbouring turkic folks in VII-XIII centuries, but it's nearly impossible to tell exactly how much are they related to the modern republics of former Soviet Union. Words are borrowed from languages, not officially loaned from foreign countries %)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually loanwords came with the corresponding concepts. Soviet Union was founded less than a century ago. When the Soviet Union was established most of the &quot;common&quot; words were already present in the native languages. AFAIK, most of the words borrowed from russian language during the soviet era were neologisms, at least from the point of view of the borrowing language. The same goes for russian words borrowed during Soviet period. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are proper names for territory-specific types of food (`хачапури`, `манты`, `бигус`, `плов`, `шаурма`, `люля-кебаб`, `бешбармак`), musical terminology (`домбра`, `домра`, `кобыз`, `дутар`, `акын`), geographic and ethnic names (`абхаз`, `аул`, `аил`, `кишлак`), etc. I believe that there are plenty of russian native-speakers who understand what does these words mean. But I also believe that most of them understand what are the origins of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Comments to your update:** **IMHO**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Common words:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кочерга` (poker) - etimology is unclear. Wiktionary links to [Acharian's][3] deduction to Armenian. But [Vasmer's etymological dictionary][4] derives it from Ukrainian/Polish or Turkic (thanks to thorn for remark)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `козинаки` ([gozinaki][5])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `ишак` (donkey)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `бархан` ([barchan][6])&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `мечеть` (mosque) - both turkmen and russian words were originated from arabic مسجد (mæsdʒɪd)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `кинза` ([coriander][7])&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I would separate well known proper names:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Айвазовский ([artist][8]) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Петросян - Comedian [Yevgeniy Petrosyan][9], is sometimes used as a common name for not very funny comedian last years (mostly on the web). Generally [Петросян][10] is a quite popular Armenian last name. Consider, for example chess champion [Tigran Petrosyan][11].&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `аджика`, `боржоми`, `сацебели`, `сациви`, `харчо`, `чахохбили`, `чача` - food and drinks &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `драм`, `лари`, `лат`, `лит`, `манат`, `сомони`, `тенге` - currencies &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Ингушетия, Осетия, Севан, Сочи, Тбилиси, Цхинвал, Цхинвали - toponims &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - `абрек`, `хач` , `хачик` - ethnically specific terms (some of them are offensive) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrachia_Acharian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=0&amp;basename=%5Cusr%5Clocal%5Cshare%5Cstarling%5Cmorpho%5Cvasmer%5Cvasmer&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_word=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0&amp;method_word=substring&amp;ic_word=on&amp;text_general=&amp;method_general=substring&amp;ic_general=on&amp;text_origin=&amp;method_origin=substring&amp;ic_origin=on&amp;text_trubachev=&amp;method_trubachev=substring&amp;ic_trubachev=on&amp;text_editorial=&amp;method_editorial=substring&amp;ic_editorial=on&amp;text_pages=&amp;method_pages=substring&amp;ic_pages=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=word&amp;ic_any=on&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozinaki&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Petrosyan&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8F%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="0dbd303a-74db-47b3-b138-64f74ef49cae" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:41:42.003" UserId="97" Text="I totally agree with everything in the other two answers.  I also want to add that most educated people would teach their children Russian.  Regardless of what the political situation is, the economical reality is that Russian is the largest, most powerful, most influential and most economically developed neighbour Georgia has.  Therefore the need to communicate with it will always exist.  Even those with deep hatred of Russian and Russians but with decent enough brains to analyse the situation will consider it a very useful trait indeed, if not a necessity, to know Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is not nearly as visible in rural areas, in larger cities (naturally capital Tbilisi and resort Batumi) and even in smaller ones (Rustivi, Gori and many others), the tendency among the better-educated people is to know Russian themselves and teach their children as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My mother-in-law is a teacher living in Tbilisi, teaching Russian and Math.  She offer private lessons, including Russian language - and she never has shortage of pupils." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="d87c01cb-9853-4b87-b5c4-977abad3583e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:55:18.930" UserId="19" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="You can say `жажден`, but it's rarely encountered outside of theological texts and older literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Архиеп. Платон. Поучительныя слова. Том II][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, который безсмертною истинны пищею насыщал человеческий род, был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гладен, и **жажден** чрез все течение лет своих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Описание земли Камчатки. Том второй][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Сыт, касину.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Голоден, исиаре.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Жажден**, ипекрейке.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Есть, ишама.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Пить, кпекреигиуа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Д.С. Лихачев - Смех как мировоззрение - &quot;Смеховой мир&quot; Древней Руси.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Пословицы и поговорки также часто представляют собой юмор, глум: [...] Алчен в кухарне, **жажден** в пивоварне, а наг, бос в мылне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, this word is very archaic and almost never used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stsl.ru/lib/platon2/10.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/k/krasheninnikow_s_p/text_0080.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://philologos.narod.ru/smeh/smeh-lihach.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="e9303868-b2aa-467e-9a33-b25fa3c20d3f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:56:45.323" UserId="104" Comment="vowels =&gt; consonants. I'm sure the author meant that" Text="There are four cases when you put `ь` in verb suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Infinitive: умывать(ся), беречь(ся).&#xD;&#xA;- Second person singular present or future tense: умываешь(ся), бережёшь(ся).&#xD;&#xA;- After all consonants except `й` and `г` (ляг(те)) with imperative mood: исправь(те).&#xD;&#xA;- Suffixes following a vowel: вернусь, вернитесь, вернулись, вернувшись.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all other cases, there is no `ь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way is to ask a question... If it ends in `т`, it's `тся`, if in `ть`, then it's `ться`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я собираюсь - что сдела*ть*? - прогуляться.&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас - что делае*т*? - строится новый район.&#xD;&#xA;- Все, что может - что дела*ть*? - портиться, обязательно - что сделае*т*? -&#xD;&#xA;испортится!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="239" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="e9303868-b2aa-467e-9a33-b25fa3c20d3f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:56:45.323" Comment="Proposed by 104 approved by 19 edit id of 26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="b5cf6032-f329-45af-aadf-ba9b9a9bf704" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:57:18.960" UserId="19" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are four cases when you put `ь` in verb suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Infinitive: умывать(ся), беречь(ся).&#xD;&#xA;- Second person singular present or future tense: умываешь(ся), бережёшь(ся).&#xD;&#xA;- After all consonants except `й` and `г` (ляг(те)) with imperative mood: исправь(те).&#xD;&#xA;- Suffixes following a vowel: вернусь, вернитесь, вернулись, вернувшись.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all other cases, there is no `ь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way is to ask a question... If it ends in `т`, it's `тся`, if in `ть`, then it's `ться`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я собираюсь - что сдела**ть**? - прогуляться.&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас - что делае**т**? - строится новый район.&#xD;&#xA;- Все, что может - что дела**ть**? - портиться, обязательно - что сделае**т**? -&#xD;&#xA;испортится!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="fbd14e8c-aad0-4a10-ad22-6f150959302a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T12:58:32.797" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I totally agree with everything in the other two answers.  I also want to add that most educated people would teach their children Russian.  Regardless of what the political situation is, the economical reality is that Russia is the largest, most powerful, most influential and most economically developed neighbour Georgia has.  Therefore the need to communicate with it will always exist.  Even those with deep hatred of Russian and Russians but with decent enough brains to analyse the situation will consider it a very useful trait indeed, if not a necessity, to know Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this is not nearly as visible in rural areas, in larger cities (naturally capital Tbilisi and resort Batumi) and even in smaller ones (Rustavi, Gori and many others), the tendency among the better-educated people is to know Russian themselves and teach their children as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My mother-in-law is a teacher living in Tbilisi, teaching Russian and Math.  She offers private lessons, including Russian language - and she never has shortage of pupils." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="26c6b1a7-6983-4770-b0e7-dbddf3265e22" CreationDate="2012-06-14T13:05:41.237" UserId="88" Text="Жаждущий, however it is not quite adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Земля, жаждущая дождя.&#xD;&#xA;Цветок, жаждущий воды.&#xD;&#xA;Село, жаждущее хорошего председателя :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="5cfb29e9-e3a8-44b5-920e-a8b1a1c5a5b0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T13:52:12.730" UserId="104" Text="What is the first person singular of победить in future tense? The other person-numbers have obvious forms such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты победишь, мы победим, они победят, вы победите, он победит, я ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious &quot;победю&quot; hits the ear wrong. Of course one could use workarounds such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Победа будет за мной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я одержу победу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am interested in the grammatical aspect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  Is there a correct form for first person singular future of this verb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Was there ever one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there other verbs that lack one or person-number forms but have others?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="5cfb29e9-e3a8-44b5-920e-a8b1a1c5a5b0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T13:52:12.730" UserId="104" Text="What's the first person singular future of победить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="5cfb29e9-e3a8-44b5-920e-a8b1a1c5a5b0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T13:52:12.730" UserId="104" Text="|грамматика|single-word-requests|future|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="5dd96641-4057-46b6-b3f7-a2d0d2fd96eb" CreationDate="2012-06-14T13:55:47.583" UserId="19" Text="[Д. Э. Розенталь. Справочник по правописанию и стилистике][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 171. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Образование некоторых личных форм&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Глаголы &quot;победить, убедить, очутиться, ощутить, чудить&quot; и некоторые другие, принадлежащие к так называемым недостаточным&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголам (т. е. глаголам, ограниченным в образовании или употреблении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; личных форм), не образуют формы 1-го лица единственного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего-будущего времени. Если необходимо употребить эти глаголы в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; указанной форме, используется описательная конструкция, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сумею победить, хочу (стремлюсь) убедить, могу очутиться, попытаюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ощутить, не буду чудить. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не употребляются из-за фонетического совпадения с формами от других глаголов такие формы, как «бужу» (от бузить, ср. бужу от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будить), «держу» (от дерзить, ср. держу от держать), «тужу» (от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тузить, ср. тужу от тужить) и некоторые другие. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаголы умертвить, роптать образуют в l-м лице единственного числа формы умерщвлю, ропщу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rosental.virtbox.ru/styli_xl.html#sect171" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="4a2c2cfd-9e40-410f-abf0-353f8dc21cb1" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:09:13.450" UserId="38" Comment="removed irrelevant disclaimer" Text="I have a question about pronouncing 1 in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example x^2 = 1 would be икц в квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3x = 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="251" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="4a2c2cfd-9e40-410f-abf0-353f8dc21cb1" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:09:13.450" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by -1 edit id of 11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="8825c3f8-fb92-4037-a146-0e1b983aed8d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:09:13.670" UserId="62" Comment="removed irrelevant disclaimer" Text="I have a question about pronouncing 1 in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example x^2 = 1 would be икц квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3x = 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="3e40faf2-0e2f-440d-8354-45d05d8a7ca8" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:16:26.483" UserId="95" Comment="add the borrowings from romanian since moldova was an SSR" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of words from all such languages I could dig out of the English Wiktionary. Yes there's plenty of chaff in with the wheat and yes there's stuff missing... but it's a sample I had access to and knew how to process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are super common in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`абрек`** &lt;sup&gt;(Ossetian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`аджика`** &lt;sup&gt;(Abkhaz)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Айвазовский`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`аниец`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`бархан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kazakh)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`бастурма`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`боржоми`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`дзельква`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`драм`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`дудук`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Ингушетия`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`ишак`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`ишхан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`кинза`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian, Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`козинаки`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`кочерга`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лари`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лат`** &lt;sup&gt;(Latvian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лей`** &lt;sup&gt;(Romanian/Moldovan)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лит`** &lt;sup&gt;(Lithuanian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`манат`** &lt;sup&gt;(Azeri, Turkmen)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`мацони`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian, Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`мечеть`** &lt;sup&gt;(Turkmen)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Осетия`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Петросян`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Раздан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`румын`** &lt;sup&gt;(Romanian/Moldovan)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сакля`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сацебели`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сациви`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Севан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сом`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kyrgyz, Uzbek)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сомони`** &lt;sup&gt;(Tajik)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Сочи`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Тбилиси`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`тенге`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kazakh)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`халва`** &lt;sup&gt;(Romanian/Moldovan)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`харчо`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хач`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хачапури`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хачик`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хмели-сунели`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Цхинвал`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Цхинвали`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чахохбили`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чача`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чихиртма`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="8c0b4ec2-56d7-4ca1-ba85-df5b2a3adc6d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:16:28.977" UserId="104" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What is the first person singular of победить in future tense? The other person-numbers have obvious forms such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты победишь, мы победим, они победят, вы победите, он победит, я ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious &quot;победю&quot; hits the ear wrong. Of course one could use workarounds such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Победа будет за мной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я одержу победу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am interested in the grammatical aspect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  Is there a correct form for first person singular future of this verb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Was there ever one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are there other verbs that lack one or more person-number forms but have others?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="1a05e691-a6f5-46c2-a949-bda048934aef" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:42:05.127" UserId="95" Comment="so vaime isn't russian. crossed out" Text="This answer is from my experience having just lived seven and a half months in Georgia, mostly in Tbilisi but also for a month and a half in Batumi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes Russian is widely known and used every day by the majority of people in Georgia aged in their 20's and above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people are fluent (they can talk quickly without translating in their heads) but would make lots of grammatical errors that native Russian speakers would pick up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact many people love the Russian language and tell me how beautiful it is. (I'm Australian so they're not just being nice to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain words are exceptionally common even when otherwise speaking Georgian. Especially &lt;s&gt;&quot;vaime&quot; (what does this mean, by the way?) and&lt;/s&gt; &quot;похмелье&quot; meaning &quot;hangover&quot;, even though there is a native word ნაბახუსევი (nabakhusevi) for &quot;hangover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some shops I go to regularly where the staff speak Georgian and know that I know more Georgian than Russian, yet they always talk to me in Russian and I always respond in Georgian! (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But children are no longer being taught Russian in school and there is a two-year-old program to import many native English speakers to work as English teachers in villages throughout the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that people still perceive Russian to be &quot;cool&quot; along with English. All of my friends listen to both English and Russian music, but none of them listen to Georgian music. So I assume younger people will continue to pick up Russian without being taught for some time yet, but I would expect the quality to continue to decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="e0a6ea7d-0a9e-4d10-8b32-1dc152396d7f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T14:50:09.017" UserId="95" Comment="cross-checked my wiktionary list with a random sample of ru.wikipedia articles" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list of words from all such languages I could dig out of the English Wiktionary. Yes there's plenty of chaff in with the wheat and yes there's stuff missing... but it's a sample I had access to and knew how to process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are super common in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`абрек`** &lt;sup&gt;(Ossetian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`аджика`** &lt;sup&gt;(Abkhaz)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Айвазовский`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`аниец`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`бархан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kazakh)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`бастурма`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`боржоми`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`дзельква`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`драм`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`дудук`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Ингушетия`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`ишак`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`ишхан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`кинза`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian, Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`козинаки`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`кочерга`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лари`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лат`** &lt;sup&gt;(Latvian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лей`** &lt;sup&gt;(Romanian/Moldovan)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`лит`** &lt;sup&gt;(Lithuanian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`манат`** &lt;sup&gt;(Azeri, Turkmen)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`мацони`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian, Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`мечеть`** &lt;sup&gt;(Turkmen)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Осетия`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Петросян`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Раздан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`румын`** &lt;sup&gt;(Romanian/Moldovan)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сакля`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сацебели`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сациви`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Севан`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сом`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kyrgyz, Uzbek)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`сомони`** &lt;sup&gt;(Tajik)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Сочи`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Тбилиси`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`тенге`** &lt;sup&gt;(Kazakh)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`халва`** &lt;sup&gt;(Romanian/Moldovan)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`харчо`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хач`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хачапури`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хачик`** &lt;sup&gt;(Armenian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`хмели-сунели`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Цхинвал`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`Цхинвали`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чахохбили`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чача`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; **`чихиртма`** &lt;sup&gt;(Georgian)&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here's the words which I think are from the above list taken from a random sampling of about a thousand articles from the Russian Wikipedia. I've certainly made mistakes by both including and omitting wrong stuff in this list especially since I'm not that familiar with noun inflection and derivation in Russian. The numbers are how many occurrences of this form, disregarding upper and lower case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&amp;bull; 1 аджика&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 айвазовский&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 барханы&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 4 боржоми&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 2 драме&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 дудукин&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 ингушетия&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 ишхан&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 4 кочергин 1 кочергино 1 кочергина&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 2 лару 2 ларе&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 66 лат&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 лате&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 38 лит&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 44 мечеть 2 мечетью&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 14 осетия 12 осетии&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 12 раздан 2 раздане&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 40 румыния 10 румынии 3 румынией 3 румынского 3 румынский 3 румынская 2 румынском 2 румынской 1 румыны 1 румынские 1 румынским&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 сацебели&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 6 севан&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 сом 1 сомоне 1 сомонного&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 3 сочи&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 17 тбилиси 5 тбилисского 3 тбилисским 2 тбилисский 1 тбилисское 1 тбилисском 1 тбилисская&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 тенген&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 1 хачик&#xD;&#xA;&amp;bull; 2 цхинвали 1 цхинвал&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="3e36971d-d377-4a19-b32b-c443dacecbd6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:23:02.080" UserId="1347" Text="My understanding is that it means &quot;whether&quot; in some contexts, but can mean &quot;if&quot; in others. What is the difference in usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what might be the difference between ли and Если, assuming that they both can mean &quot;if?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="3e36971d-d377-4a19-b32b-c443dacecbd6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:23:02.080" UserId="1347" Text="What is the proper use of the word ли?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="3e36971d-d377-4a19-b32b-c443dacecbd6" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:23:02.080" UserId="1347" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="1b94d62b-007d-49c9-9fd9-131d8abcc72a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:29:45.690" UserId="104" Text="*if* has two meanings. One meaning is the most common one, the one that suggests a condition. This meaning is rendered into Russian as если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If it rains, we'll stay home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдет дождь, мы останемся дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of *if* is *whether*. This meaning is rendered into Russian as ли:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know if it will rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, пойдет ли дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ли is also used to emphasize a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он придет? Will he come? Simple question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Придет ли он? Will he come? More emphatic. Implies that this is a very important question or can also imply that there's certain doubt that he will come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When ли is used, the natural subject-verb order is usualy inverted, ли being placed between the two (see the examples above)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="c5de56ab-cac7-46f9-b1a9-4bcbcc425ab0" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:38:05.117" UserId="104" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="*if* has two meanings. One meaning is the most common one, the one that suggests a condition. This meaning is rendered into Russian as если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If it rains, we'll stay home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдет дождь, мы останемся дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of *if* is *whether*. This meaning is rendered into Russian as ли:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know if it will rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, пойдет ли дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ли is also used to emphasize a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он придет? Will he come? Simple question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Придет ли он? Will he come? More emphatic. Implies that this is a very important question or can also imply that there's certain doubt that he will come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ли is sometimes contracted to ль, but this usage is rare in Modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все так же ль осеняют своды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сей храм парнасских трех цариц? (Пушкин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When ли is used, the natural subject-verb order is usualy inverted (see the examples above).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="8422e417-b4d0-45b6-8627-ef17a442b79b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:46:06.320" UserId="104" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="*if* has two meanings. One meaning is the most common one, the one that suggests a condition. This meaning is rendered into Russian as если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If it rains, we'll stay home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдет дождь, мы останемся дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of *if* is *whether*. This meaning is rendered into Russian as ли:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know if it will rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, пойдет ли дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ли is also used to emphasize a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он придет? Will he come? Simple question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Придет ли он? Will he come? More emphatic. Implies that this is a very important question or can also imply that there's certain doubt that he will come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ли is sometimes contracted to ль, but this usage is rare in Modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все так же ль осеняют своды &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сей храм парнасских трех цариц? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все те же ль клики юных жриц? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все те же ль вьются хороводы?.. (Пушкин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When ли is used, the natural subject-verb order is usualy inverted (see the examples above)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="264" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="15039243-8070-4774-be18-5a475f9ef7ed" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:51:10.717" UserId="47" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|single-word-requests|future|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="48ff14e8-b913-449d-8d8b-8f996d42f207" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:53:59.817" UserId="38" Text="&quot;Ли&quot; can mean &quot;whether&quot; in some cases, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether rain or snow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь ли, снег ли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can be shortened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дожль ли, снег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that form is more poetic than what is usually called for. The following is much more natural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дождь или снег" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="802b8ab4-ec30-45ab-bdc6-324956b28c26" CreationDate="2012-06-14T15:56:37.327" UserId="97" Text="I would like to add that the first usage of ли (as in &quot;Придет ли он?&quot;) is also often found in compound sentences and not just questions.  This is pretty much the _whether_ version of its usage.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, пойдет ли дождь. (I don't know whether it will rain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it can be used with a _maybe_ meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То ли дождь, то ли снег. (Maybe rain, maybe snow.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="6faf6e96-b5c1-4f53-828a-dd5126d59697" CreationDate="2012-06-14T16:00:17.993" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="The [Soft sign][1], called мягкий знак in russian, has no pronunciation itself. Rather, it affects the letter that precedes it, through a phenomenon called *[Palatalization][2]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="03b52e05-3e75-453f-9140-afc39f14db5e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T16:30:13.960" UserId="47" Text="There is a couple of cases when the difference between the two words is significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ``Читать про себя`` vs. `читать о себе`. The first one can mean both &quot;to read silently&quot; and &quot;to read about oneself&quot;, while the second one can only mean &quot;to read about oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. ``Это не про меня`` (this is not for me / this is too much for me) vs. ``это не обо мне`` (this is not about me). Note also the use of ``обо`` instead of ``о`` in front of a one-syllable ``мне``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="de73b7b3-0bd0-4222-aaea-d3950d69912f" CreationDate="2012-06-14T16:48:16.043" UserId="47" Comment="Added a remark on colloquial use." Text="There is a couple of cases when the difference between the two words is significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ``Читать про себя`` vs. `читать о себе`. The first one can mean both &quot;to read silently&quot; and &quot;to read about oneself&quot;, while the second one can only mean &quot;to read about oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. ``Это не про меня`` (this is not for me / this is too much for me; very colloquial) vs. ``это не обо мне`` (this is not about me). Note also the use of ``обо`` instead of ``о`` in front of a one-syllable ``мне``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="28ead64f-31e0-402d-a6de-3e0e5767a189" CreationDate="2012-06-14T18:00:44.320" UserId="1347" Text="The normal, everyday, usage is &quot;их&quot;. The other usage &quot;ихний&quot; is seen only in special contexts, like literature. Leave it there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="cba0e57e-a1b8-4576-992c-d1048e96abdc" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:12:19.533" UserId="54" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="What are the syntactic and semantic constraints on the order of adjectival premodifiers in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, linguists and nonspecialist users of language alike generally agree that the order of premodifiers in a nominal phrase cannot be varied freely (please refer to [this question](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/what-is-the-rule-for-adjective-order) over at English Language &amp; Usage for more details). Similarly, as a native speaker of Russian, I certainly find the phrase **белый большой дом* ‘white big house’ to be infelicitous under most circumstances and would prefer *большой белый дом* ‘big white house’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have those rules been codified for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="5edf56ef-0d6c-43d6-9505-ce24ac8d8d1a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:17:17.120" UserId="113" Text="Technically, Russian is commonly understood in any country that used to be part of the USSR: Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This differs from place to place, and in more rural areas the use of their native language was much heavier than that of the official Russian, but generally people born as late as the 80's are bound to understand Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the former USSR, Russian is understood by older people from countries that used to belong to the Soviet Block - Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, perhaps parts of Eastern Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrelated to this, about a seventh of the population of Israel is made up of Russian-speaking immigrants and their children. You can get by perfectly well in everyday Israeli life with a working knowledge of Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="711f815e-8c50-45e2-94b9-a4e99210add2" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:35:12.100" UserId="113" Text="For most nouns which have no singular form, fractions are meaningless (e.g. `штаны, ножницы, весы`), but there are a few such nouns where this is not the case. For example, how do I say &quot;it went on for a day and a half&quot; using the word `сутки`? `Это длилось полторы сутки` sounds obviously wrong, and so does every other form of `полтора` that I could think of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="711f815e-8c50-45e2-94b9-a4e99210add2" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:35:12.100" UserId="113" Text="How do I specify a non-whole number of nouns which have no singular form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="711f815e-8c50-45e2-94b9-a4e99210add2" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:35:12.100" UserId="113" Text="|грамматика|множественное-число|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="9d14170f-1a81-4df3-9f8a-e97c2de96e39" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:39:20.500" UserId="115" Text="Полторы суток?  Or just 36 часов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="97b7a1a7-c29a-43a8-9899-59d2d0bae554" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:42:46.000" UserId="87" Text="In this case, `это длилось полтора суток`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to come up with corresponding grammar rule soon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="f6e5fbd5-df80-4764-bb03-5003ab35be73" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:56:20.677" UserId="4" Comment="quote russian" Text="Generally, either `о/об` or `про` is fine. `Про` is considered to be marginally colloquial, whereas `о/об` is more formal. Some people may perceiving a slightly negative connotation if `про` is used. There would be nothing wrong with using `о/об` instead of `про` in either of your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may already know this, but `об` must be used instead of `о` if the following word starts with a vowel, much like a/an in English, so it would be &quot;о русском языке&quot;, &quot;об очках&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="281" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="f6e5fbd5-df80-4764-bb03-5003ab35be73" CreationDate="2012-06-14T19:56:20.677" Comment="Proposed by 4 approved by 38 edit id of 29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="429aae39-6043-4884-b84b-6452b08a8284" CreationDate="2012-06-14T20:00:21.080" UserId="87" Comment="added 734 characters in body" Text="In this case, `это длилось полтора суток`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this particular numeral, general rule is to use genitive case of singular form (&quot;полтора `чего?` дня&quot; or &quot;полторы `чего?` бутылки&quot;). However, as with plural-only nouns have no singular form, grammatically correct would be to avoid using this at all. However, if one looks up &quot;полтора суток&quot; in any search engine, they would find a lot of published literature containing this combination of words. In this case, general rule would be to assume that singular form of &quot;сутки&quot; is still &quot;сутки&quot; and use genitive case of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_92&quot;&gt;Gramota.ru&lt;/a&gt; has a sub-article regarding this question with the very same conclusion: if you have to use this exact form of &quot;полтора суток&quot; in your text, treat it as exception of general rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="e1eb7138-6c16-49d8-86a8-2c8419b8bc74" CreationDate="2012-06-14T20:04:04.410" UserId="36" Text="Regarding building phrases combining `полтора` and `сутки`, one should bear in mind that these words cannot be put together when the word `сутки` is either in `именительный` (latin: nominative) or in `винительный` (latin: accusative) grammatical case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case it's better to say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это длилось в течение полутора суток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это длилось до полутора суток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the form of the word `полтора` in such cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="2941b745-2cff-48c9-bcff-660ebbb74b92" CreationDate="2012-06-14T20:10:45.810" UserId="87" Comment="added 734 characters in body" Text="In this case, `это длилось полтора суток`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this particular numeral, general rule is to use genitive case of singular form (&quot;полтора `чего?` дня&quot; or &quot;полторы `чего?` бутылки&quot;). However, as with plural-only nouns have no singular form, grammatically correct would be to avoid using this at all. However, if one looks up &quot;полтора суток&quot; in any search engine, they would find a lot of published literature containing this combination of words. In this case, general rule would be to assume that singular form of &quot;сутки&quot; is still &quot;сутки&quot; and use genitive case of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_92&quot;&gt;Gramota.ru&lt;/a&gt; has a sub-article regarding this question with the very same conclusion: if you have to use this exact form of &quot;полтора суток&quot; in your text, treat it as exception of general rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, try comparing this use of 1 1/2 with other, more &quot;popular&quot; fractions of both countable and uncountable nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1/3 - треть дня, треть буханки, *треть суток, треть денег*&#xD;&#xA;* 1/2 - половина дня, половина буханки, *половина суток, половина денег*&#xD;&#xA;* 1/4 - четверть дня, четверть буханки, *четверть суток, четверть денег*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see the same principle, &quot;masculine nominative numeral + genitive singular noun&quot; --&gt; &quot;masculine nominative numeral + genitive plural noun&quot; applies to other fractions as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="b24cccbd-9de2-41c8-bf7c-601c97075275" CreationDate="2012-06-14T20:11:11.593" UserId="36" Comment="added text to the body" Text="Regarding building phrases combining `полтора` and `сутки`, one should bear in mind that these words cannot be put together when the word `сутки` is either in `именительный` (latin: nominative) or in `винительный` (latin: accusative) grammatical case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case it's better to say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это длилось в течение полутора суток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это длилось до полутора суток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the form of the word `полтора` in such cases: `полутора`!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="a23d4851-f88a-45a0-8aa7-7b33f22c227a" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:05:32.930" UserId="47" Comment="Expanded / corrected by adding a forgotten meaning " Text="There is a couple of cases when the difference between the two words is significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ``Читать про себя`` vs. `читать о себе`. The first one can mean both &quot;to read silently&quot; and &quot;to read about oneself&quot;, while the second one can only mean &quot;to read about oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. ``Это не про меня`` (can mean either, very colloquially, &quot;this is not for me / this is too much for me&quot;; or &quot;this is not about me&quot;) vs. ``это не обо мне`` (&quot;this is not about me&quot; only). Note also the use of ``обо`` instead of ``о`` in front of a one-syllable ``мне``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="0450b377-e54c-413f-9f58-61a0d49fdd2e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:08:08.667" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="How about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я очень рад моей новой работе.&#xD;&#xA;- Моя поездка в Европу былa настолько захватывающей.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="60211544-a6e2-4f7c-ba4a-e412257c1240" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:11:30.380" UserId="109" Text="First, for the aim of this question I must say that I am not familiar with the Russian language, but I read a bit about it and am curious. I've never learned Russian before and just able to say a handful of sentences.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the intention of this question is to get a rough understanding of what the aspect actually is and how it does work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that the Russian language does have three tenses (past, present, future) and contains a concept called aspect. There are two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective aspect which determine if actions are successfully completed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I understand that concept correctly. Maybe it's the wrong way trying to compare them with the English tenses, but that's what I actually do. However, in my current understanding there are several things which the English language supports, but Russian not. First, are English and Russian tenses somehow comparable or is it the wrong way to start with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, I wonder why there is no perfective aspect in present. What about actions that have happened right now, but are already finished. I think of the English present perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This action is already finished but very close to now. Is such a thing only provided by the past perfective using catchwords like &quot;just now&quot; to declare that the action was just recently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does the past perfective also covering the English past perfect? If an action was finished before another, how does the Russian language provide that? And to go one step further. What about progressive tenses? E.g. how to differ between past perfect and past perfect progressive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had read a book ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been waiting ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess regarding those two tenses is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect -&gt; past perfective&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect progressive -&gt; past imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that were right then either the past perfective do in fact cover two (or even more) English tenses or my conjecture for the &quot;cooking-example&quot; above is totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's very confusing to me how a language can work with few tenses. So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="60211544-a6e2-4f7c-ba4a-e412257c1240" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:11:30.380" UserId="109" Text="Elementary understanding of the concept aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="60211544-a6e2-4f7c-ba4a-e412257c1240" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:11:30.380" UserId="109" Text="|грамматика|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="1a7bb605-3092-4d3f-9050-5ce294d6c9ba" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:16:35.347" UserId="38" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Ли&quot; can mean &quot;whether&quot; in some cases, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether rain or snow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь ли, снег ли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can be shortened to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дождь ли, снег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that form is more poetic than what is usually called for. The following is much more natural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дождь или снег" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="293" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="6bd63a0f-48dc-44c8-b56b-a81c30718d7b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:23:59.963" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="Genitive plural of &quot;башка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="294" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="6bd63a0f-48dc-44c8-b56b-a81c30718d7b" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:23:59.963" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 116 edit id of 18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="295" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="297fa0d0-3d94-42ad-9cbd-545fd3b2ef6d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:24:12.787" UserId="95" Comment="re-title and re-tag" Text="Font names in math" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="297fa0d0-3d94-42ad-9cbd-545fd3b2ef6d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:24:12.787" UserId="95" Comment="re-title and re-tag" Text="|mathematics|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="297" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="297fa0d0-3d94-42ad-9cbd-545fd3b2ef6d" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:24:12.787" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 116 edit id of 21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="235c233b-f7b8-46d7-9c6d-439744a1745e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:24:25.750" UserId="110" Comment="будущее время глагола роптать невозможно без изменения слова /future tense роптать only possible when word is modificated" Text="[Д. Э. Розенталь. Справочник по правописанию и стилистике][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 171. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Образование некоторых личных форм&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Глаголы &quot;победить, убедить, очутиться, ощутить, чудить&quot; и некоторые другие, принадлежащие к так называемым недостаточным&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголам (т. е. глаголам, ограниченным в образовании или употреблении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; личных форм), не образуют формы 1-го лица единственного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего-будущего времени. Если необходимо употребить эти глаголы в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; указанной форме, используется описательная конструкция, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сумею победить, хочу (стремлюсь) убедить, могу очутиться, попытаюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ощутить, не буду чудить. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не употребляются из-за фонетического совпадения с формами от других глаголов такие формы, как «бужу» (от бузить, ср. бужу от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будить), «держу» (от дерзить, ср. держу от держать), «тужу» (от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тузить, ср. тужу от тужить) и некоторые другие. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаголы умертвить, роптать образуют в l-м лице единственного числа формы умерщвлю, ропщу.&#xD;&#xA;в приведенном примере буд.время возможно для глагола умертвить.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rosental.virtbox.ru/styli_xl.html#sect171" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="299" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="100" RevisionGUID="235c233b-f7b8-46d7-9c6d-439744a1745e" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:24:25.750" Comment="Proposed by 110 approved by 116 edit id of 27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="2e77480b-8128-4842-b141-bf99af8b1d39" CreationDate="2012-06-14T21:29:57.907" UserId="2" Text="While these prepositions are effectively the same, there is a slight semantic difference between them. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Я думаю об очках&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Я думаю про очки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case there is some generalization, I'm thinking about glasses as a category. In the second case I'm thinking of the particular glasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is usually hardly seen, even by native speakers. It can be completely ignored in colloquial, but plays some role in stylistics of writtings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist, this is only my personal opinion based on my feeling of the language (and my wife's feeling too).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="47643283-e39f-46c7-a2ca-eb24fd7588c5" CreationDate="2012-06-14T23:13:28.977" UserId="9" Text="First person singular of `победить` in future tense **was** `побежду`. Below is the picture from &quot;Extensive Russian Grammar&quot; book (&quot;Пространная русская грамматика&quot;, 1830). But now this form is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Extensive Russian Grammar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yuCAJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="302" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="8d74f4b1-1834-4a77-9bb4-2f8bce89d94d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T00:30:24.043" UserId="38" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|single-word-requests|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="40429f6e-1d30-4c34-911f-ab1c8a4a0403" CreationDate="2012-06-15T00:57:03.140" UserId="62" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Sometimes letters in mathematics are printed in special fonts (e.g., fraktur p for a prime ideal or script F for a sheaf). If I had a script X and wanted to literally say &quot;script X&quot; and not just &quot;X&quot;, is it correct to say икс рукописное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned from several Russian mathematicians, who had been educated in Russia at least through their undergraduate degree, the following translations for other fonts: &quot;bold x&quot; is икс жирное, &quot;gothic x&quot; is икс готическое, &quot;calligraphic x&quot; is икс калиграфическое, and &quot;italic x&quot; is икс курсивное. I'd like to know the translation of &quot;script x&quot; for my notes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="e26a8637-5eef-4bbe-bf4c-177e405e445e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T00:59:44.993" UserId="57" Text="There are indeed less tenses in Russian. &lt;sub&gt;There used to be more, but that was long, long time ago.&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you convey exactly what you want to? You can either just forget about it (when the correct tense should be obvious from the context, provided the person you are speaking to is willing to employ common sense), or throw in additional, clarifying words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приготовил ужин.    (which is not actually different from 'I cooked dinner'.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking at the sentence alone, you can't really tell when the dinner was made. This is where you refer to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are you saying that?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you speaking to someone other the phone and making a hint you would love them drop in? Then obviously you don't need to clarify the dinner is freshly made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you telling a story to your friends next day, about the great dinner you made (and the person you shared it with)? Then again, the context is enough for your listeners to understand that you are referring to dinner you made yesterday, which has long been eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only when the context is ambiguous, you may want to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я только что приготовил ужин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for past perfect: you use clarifying words to establish order in which events happened in the past:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я прочитал книгу.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given the lack of context, can be &quot;I read the/a book&quot;; or &quot;I have read the/a book&quot;; or &quot;I had read the/a book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я [уже] прочитал книгу [на тот момент].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you make it clear the book had been read when the event you're describing occured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus chatter: It is not possible to translate &quot;I'm loving it&quot; to Russian. &lt;sub&gt;(The official translation back-translates as &quot;This is what I like&quot;.)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="347e1c9c-46ac-4c7c-bf58-9c098a86ae4a" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:02:35.690" UserId="62" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Sometimes letters in mathematics are printed in special fonts (e.g., fraktur p for a prime ideal or script F for a sheaf). If I had a script X and wanted to literally say &quot;script X&quot; and not just &quot;X&quot;, is it correct to say икс рукописное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned from several Russian mathematicians, who had been educated in Russia at least through their undergraduate degree, the following translations for other fonts: &quot;bold x&quot; is икс жирное, &quot;gothic x&quot; is икс готическое, &quot;calligraphic x&quot; is икс калиграфическое, and &quot;italic x&quot; is икс курсивное. I'd like to know the translation of &quot;script x&quot; for my notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The web page &lt;a href=&quot;http://luc.devroye.org/HermannZapf--AMSEulerScript.gif&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;  contains examples of a script font. If I wanted to write the X there on a blackboard and emphasize the font in my reference to the letter, at least once, it would sound more natural in English to refer to &quot;script X&quot; than &quot;calligraphic X&quot; or &quot;italic X&quot;. I'm asking about how this would be said in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="4e2d58db-69a7-408b-bb7d-78b639cb9a28" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:04:45.750" UserId="57" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="There are indeed less tenses in Russian. &lt;sub&gt;There used to be more, but that was long, long time ago.&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you convey exactly what you want to? You can either just forget about it (when the correct tense should be obvious from the context, provided the person you are speaking to is willing to employ common sense), or throw in additional, clarifying words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приготовил ужин.    (which is not actually different from 'I cooked dinner'.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking at the sentence alone, you can't really tell when the dinner was made. This is where you refer to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are you saying that?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you speaking to someone other the phone and making a hint you would love them drop in? Then obviously you don't need to clarify the dinner is freshly made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you telling a story to your friends next day, about the great dinner you made (and the person you shared it with)? Then again, the context is enough for your listeners to understand that you are referring to dinner you made yesterday, which has long been eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only when the context is ambiguous, you may want to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я только что приготовил ужин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for past perfect: you use clarifying words to establish order in which events happened in the past:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я прочитал книгу.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given the lack of context, can be &quot;I read the/a book&quot;; or &quot;I have read the/a book&quot;; or &quot;I had read the/a book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я [уже] прочитал книгу [на тот момент].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you make it clear the book had been read when the event you're describing occured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ждал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I waited. I was waiting. I have been waiting. I had been waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [К тому моменту] я [уже какое-то время] ждал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you make it clear you had been waiting for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus chatter: It is not possible to translate &quot;I'm loving it&quot; to Russian. &lt;sub&gt;(The official translation back-translates as &quot;This is what I like&quot;.)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="959a6017-e8dd-4571-90d1-d5834e7dfc7b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:14:06.980" UserId="62" Comment="added 333 characters in body" Text="Sometimes letters in mathematics are printed in special fonts (e.g., fraktur p for a prime ideal or script F for a sheaf). If I had a script X and wanted to literally say &quot;script X&quot; and not just &quot;X&quot;, is it correct to say икс рукописное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned from several Russian mathematicians, who had been educated in Russia at least through their undergraduate degree, the following translations for other fonts: &quot;bold x&quot; is икс жирное, &quot;gothic x&quot; is икс готическое, &quot;calligraphic x&quot; is икс калиграфическое, and &quot;italic x&quot; is икс курсивное. I'd like to know the translation of &quot;script x&quot; for my notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The web page &lt;a href=&quot;http://luc.devroye.org/HermannZapf--AMSEulerScript.gif&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;  contains examples of a script font. If I wanted to write the X there on a blackboard and emphasize the font in my reference to the letter, at least once, it would sound more natural in English to refer to &quot;script X&quot; than &quot;calligraphic X&quot; or &quot;italic X&quot;. I'm asking about how this would be said in Russian. Also, I am specifically interested in a translation where the term &quot;script&quot; is treated as an adjective (the same way I wrote the other font translations above), so translations where the instrumental case is used, which would correspond essentially to &quot;x written by means of script&quot;, are not the type of translation I'm looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="b5555809-1367-4f06-8715-866d4a90649d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:27:32.310" UserId="57" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="There are indeed less tenses in Russian. &lt;sub&gt;There used to be more, but that was long, long time ago.&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you convey exactly what you want to? You can either just forget about it (when the correct tense should be obvious from the context, provided the person you are speaking to is willing to employ common sense), or throw in additional, clarifying words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приготовил ужин.    (which is not actually different from 'I cooked dinner'.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When looking at the sentence alone, you can't really tell when the dinner was made. This is where you refer to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are you saying that?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you speaking to someone over the phone and making a hint you would love them drop in? Then obviously you don't need to clarify the dinner is freshly made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you telling a story to your friends next day, about the great dinner you made (and the person you shared it with)? Then again, the context is enough for your listeners to understand that you are referring to dinner you made yesterday, which has long been eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only when the context is ambiguous, you may want to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я только что приготовил ужин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for past perfect: you use clarifying words to establish order in which events happened in the past:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я прочитал книгу.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given the lack of context, can be &quot;I read the/a book&quot;; or &quot;I have read the/a book&quot;; or &quot;I had read the/a book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я [уже] прочитал книгу [на тот момент].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you make it clear the book had been read when the event you're describing occured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ждал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I waited. I was waiting. I have been waiting. I had been waiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [К тому моменту] я [уже какое-то время] ждал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now you make it clear you had been waiting for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus chatter: It is not possible to translate &quot;I'm loving it&quot; to Russian. &lt;sub&gt;(The official translation back-translates as &quot;This is what I like&quot;.)&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="e6a923c0-edb0-496c-9d2d-68eea5d794b5" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:41:48.263" UserId="119" Text="That's the question of norm and usage. Russian language is generally quite strict when it comes to enforcing the norm. Even when the usage rendered the norm completely obsolete, the norm is still perceived as such. A good example is the word _кофе_: if you use it in neuter gender, there's a chance someone corrects you, even though the neuter gender is marked as acceptable in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty much this with the word _ихний_. It is definitely used, and not only by _less-educated_ people. It's just that it's not in the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case where _ихний_ is logical from the language point of view is when there is an ellipsis. Consider these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Whose books are those?&quot; — &quot;Theirs.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чьи это книги? — Их.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in colloquial spech, _ихние_ can be used instead of _их_ with an additional advantage of having the number and case information embedded, just like _мои_, _твои_, _наши_, _ваши_ have. In such a case, even a norm-abiding speaker might say _ихний_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other cases, when the noun is present as normal (_их книги_), there is no need for any norm-bending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="945364bc-e059-499b-96c7-e816bde22072" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:50:12.910" UserId="38" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between muscular/feminine/indefinite types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ая&lt;/b&gt; кошка&quot; or &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the difference between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="311" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="945364bc-e059-499b-96c7-e816bde22072" CreationDate="2012-06-15T01:50:12.910" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by 116 edit id of 32" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="313" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="87ab0ec6-058a-4ba6-86cd-d57f37a43c8b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:02:05.597" UserId="116" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="a8c61339-8d9e-42bb-a840-aac111b1c12e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:07:44.223" UserId="62" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I have a question about pronouncing 1 in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example &lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 1 would be икц квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3&lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt; = 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="af263d16-52e0-4ff6-9228-bab96e15e891" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:25:03.367" UserId="5" Comment="added 2379 characters in body" Text="&quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier which needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;take a look at three, it has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. This rule however is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень единицы равен единице&quot;, &quot;единица меньше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;двойка в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.2. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.3. HOWEVER you CANNOT use a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing to agree with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN mix a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="39a63bcb-707f-4a50-ad40-56241805932e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:31:32.047" UserId="62" Comment="imported image of typefaces for X" Text="Sometimes letters in mathematics are printed in special fonts (e.g., fraktur p for a prime ideal or script F for a sheaf). If I had a script X and wanted to literally say &quot;script X&quot; and not just &quot;X&quot;, is it correct to say икс рукописное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I learned from several Russian mathematicians, who had been educated in Russia at least through the undergraduate degree, that the first four LaTeX typefaces in the list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are pronounced as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;bold X&quot; is икс жирное,&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;gothic X&quot; is икс готическое,&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; &quot;italic X&quot; is икс курсивное&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; &quot;calligraphic X&quot; is икс калиграфическое.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last example, &quot;script X&quot;, is one I did not get a consistent answer about and that is the one I am asking about now. I am specifically interested in a translation where the term &quot;script&quot; is treated as an adjective (the same way I wrote the other font translations above), so Russian translations where the instrumental case of the font name is used, which would correspond essentially to &quot;X written by means of script&quot;, are not the type of translation I'm looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oyatZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="d97506d3-3735-4472-92e9-fba4b93f94aa" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:31:45.980" UserId="5" Comment="added 2379 characters in body" Text="&quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier which needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;take a look at three, it has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. This rule however is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень единицы равен единице&quot;, &quot;единица меньше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;двойка в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.2. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.3. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED to use a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing to agree with. Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this is somewhat of Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN mix a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="57ed3fb4-e91a-400d-b680-5abbf4a7f1db" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:56:38.413" UserId="5" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier which needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;take a look at three, it has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. This rule however is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* меньше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.2. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.3. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED to use a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing to agree with. Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this is somewhat of Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN mix a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="688207c6-4bea-4652-acac-53d2e432d976" CreationDate="2012-06-15T03:09:27.727" UserId="5" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier which needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;take a look at three, it has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. HOWEVER This rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You MUST USE a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре иск&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; **in the context of the expression** (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You CAN use a declined number name on the right side to get it agreed with &quot;равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;. Bad example: &quot;эф от иск равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED to use a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing to agree with. Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this is somewhat of Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN mix a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="345a6fc3-6b53-40d0-b1f3-5d3435c66f23" CreationDate="2012-06-15T03:18:40.197" UserId="5" Comment="edited some English" Text="&quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier which needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. HOWEVER This rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You MUST USE a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; **in the context of the expression** (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You CAN use a declined number name on the right side to get it agreed with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="4d08aab0-5e3c-47af-8031-44f6b1f63d99" CreationDate="2012-06-15T05:17:39.547" UserId="95" Comment="improve" Text="This answer is from my experience having just lived seven and a half months in Georgia, mostly in Tbilisi but also for a month and a half in Batumi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes Russian is widely known and used every day by the majority of people in Georgia aged in their 20's and above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people are fluent (they can talk quickly without translating in their heads) but would make lots of grammatical errors that native Russian speakers would pick up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact many people love the Russian language and tell me how beautiful it is. (I'm Australian so they're not just being nice to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain words are exceptionally common even when otherwise speaking Georgian. One that comes to mind is &quot;похмелье&quot; meaning &quot;hangover&quot;, even though there is a native word ნაბახუსევი (nabakhusevi) for &quot;hangover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some shops I go to regularly where the staff speak Georgian and know that I know more Georgian than Russian, yet they always talk to me in Russian and I always respond in Georgian! (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But children are no longer being taught Russian in school and there is a two-year-old program which imports hundreds of native English speakers to work as English teachers in towns and villages throughout the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that people still perceive Russian to be &quot;cool&quot; along with English. All of my friends listen to both English and Russian music, but none of them listen to Georgian music. So I assume younger people will continue to pick up Russian without being taught for some time yet, but I would expect the quality to continue to decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="59276ee5-9818-4a90-b3df-54722b7e2667" CreationDate="2012-06-15T08:30:15.037" UserId="9" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First person singular of `победить` in future tense **was** `побежду`. Below is the picture from the &quot;Extensive Russian Grammar&quot; book (&quot;Пространная русская грамматика&quot;, 1830). But now this form is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Extensive Russian Grammar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yuCAJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="e60e8162-7cde-4f2d-95f0-e6cb135f26de" CreationDate="2012-06-15T09:01:23.800" UserId="47" Text="In general the OP is completely right: there are less tenses in Russian than in English. There is no progressive form either. This makes it possible to express in English something in fewer words, or to add subtle meaning to a phrase. However I wouldn't conclude with &quot;how a language can work with few tenses&quot;. A grammatical tense is just one instrument of a language. It would be the same as asking &quot;how can a language work without inclination of nouns, or with just four (six, nine, ...) cases&quot;. It does, and obviously one needs to get some feeling of a language to be able to use it without a phrase-book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, aspect is basically equivalent to the perfect vs. simple difference in English. In English it is the time of doing an action that is stressed. ``I had cooked, I have cooked, I will have cooked``. In Russian, it's the fact itself: was/is there a success in cooking or not? Thus you use just two aspects in Russian instead of three tenses in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no progressive form of verbs in Russian at all. How can Russian survive without it? It offers alternatives. In English the progressive form is built using a gerund, which can be replaced with a participle in Russian. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the man going along the street — человек, идущий по улице&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian also has adverbial participles, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while going along the street... — идя по улице...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, in this case you need an additional word to express in English what is expressed with just another form of the verb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="e6b57a9d-fee7-49e4-b9eb-049ce4c28571" CreationDate="2012-06-15T09:10:11.917" UserId="47" Comment="Added a Perfekt example in German" Text="In general the OP is completely right: there are less tenses in Russian than in English. There is no progressive form either. This makes it possible to express in English something in fewer words, or to add subtle meaning to a phrase. However I wouldn't conclude with &quot;how a language can work with few tenses&quot;. A grammatical tense is just one instrument of a language. It would be the same as asking &quot;how can a language work without inclination of nouns, or with just four (six, nine, ...) cases&quot;. It does, and obviously one needs to get some feeling of a language to be able to use it without a phrase-book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, aspect is basically equivalent to the perfect vs. simple difference in English. In English it is the time of doing an action that is stressed. ``I had cooked, I have cooked, I will have cooked``. In Russian, it's the fact itself: was/is there a success in cooking or not? Thus you use just two aspects in Russian instead of three tenses in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no progressive form of verbs in Russian at all. How can Russian survive without it? It offers alternatives. In English the progressive form is built using a gerund, which can be replaced with a participle in Russian. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the man going along the street — человек, идущий по улице&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian also has adverbial participles, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while going along the street... — идя по улице...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, it's again a replacement of an English tense with something else. In this case it actually helps Russian to be more concise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give one further example of such differences between different languages, in German the perfect tense has nothing to do with the result of an action at all: in oral speech it's almost exclusively used as the only past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ich habe gemacht — I have done/I did/I was doing — Я сделал/я делал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="a755d3b6-12ca-40d6-9f51-2d77bef24985" CreationDate="2012-06-15T09:16:44.810" UserId="109" Comment="amend my question to clarify my statement in the last paragraph to make it sounding less negative" Text="First, for the aim of this question I must say that I am not familiar with the Russian language, but I read a bit about it and am curious. I've never learned Russian before and just able to say a handful of sentences.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the intention of this question is to get a rough understanding of what the aspect actually is and how it does work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that the Russian language does have three tenses (past, present, future) and contains a concept called aspect. There are two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective aspect which determine if actions are successfully completed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I understand that concept correctly. Maybe it's the wrong way trying to compare them with the English tenses, but that's what I actually do. However, in my current understanding there are several things which the English language supports, but Russian not. First, are English and Russian tenses somehow comparable or is it the wrong way to start with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, I wonder why there is no perfective aspect in present. What about actions that have happened right now, but are already finished. I think of the English present perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This action is already finished but very close to now. Is such a thing only provided by the past perfective using catchwords like &quot;just now&quot; to declare that the action was just recently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does the past perfective also covering the English past perfect? If an action was finished before another, how does the Russian language provide that? And to go one step further. What about progressive tenses? E.g. how to differ between past perfect and past perfect progressive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had read a book ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been waiting ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess regarding those two tenses is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect -&gt; past perfective&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect progressive -&gt; past imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that were right then either the past perfective do in fact cover two (or even more) English tenses or my conjecture for the &quot;cooking-example&quot; above is totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's very confusing to me how a language can handle all requirements in specify time measurements with a little set of tenses. So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="d35f2589-2aaa-4807-8cf2-9e113a338755" CreationDate="2012-06-15T09:53:31.630" UserId="23" Text="Actually you come pretty close with your guesses. There are basically two questions you have to ask yourself when trying to select the tense and the aspect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is the action done in the past, the present or the future?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Has the action been completed or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is obvious, it selects the tense. The second question defines the aspect: if the action has been completed, then the aspect is perfective, otherwise it is imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfect** tenses correspond to the *perfective aspect* as this is the only type of tenses which tells us that the action is over. All other tenses in English (**Simple**, **Progressive**, and **Perfect Progressive**) correspond to the *imperfective aspect* because they all imply that the action still continues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By default a message with the imperfective aspect is understood as **Progressive**. For example, `я пеку пирог` without any additional context will be understood as you are cooking it right now, at the moment. If you want to signify that you do this on a daily basis, you can say `я обычно пеку пирог` which corresponds to Present **Simple**. The same thing is done if you want to tell that you have started this action some time ago in the past, but still continue doing it: `я уже пеку пирог`, and this is equivalent to Present **Perfect Progressive**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="253eac76-9a58-4e25-ae9a-7a1118c05d20" CreationDate="2012-06-15T10:17:29.073" UserId="47" Comment="Edited according to the edit of the OP" Text="In general the OP is completely right: there are less tenses in Russian than in English. There is no progressive form either. This makes it possible to express in English something in fewer words, or to add subtle meaning to a phrase. Of course, as any other language, Russian offers other means to express yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, aspect is basically equivalent to the perfect vs. simple difference in English. In English it is the time of doing an action that is stressed. ``I had cooked, I have cooked, I will have cooked``. In Russian, it's the fact itself: was/is there a success in cooking or not? Thus you use just two aspects in Russian instead of three tenses in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no progressive form of verbs in Russian at all. How can Russian survive without it? It offers alternatives. In English the progressive form is built using a gerund, which can be replaced with a participle in Russian. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the man going along the street — человек, идущий по улице&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian also has adverbial participles, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while going along the street... — идя по улице...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, it's again a replacement of an English tense with something else. In this case it actually helps Russian to be more concise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give one further example of such differences between different languages, in German the perfect tense has nothing to do with the result of an action at all: in oral speech it's almost exclusively used as the only past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ich habe gemacht — I have done/I did/I was doing — Я сделал/я делал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="989bd490-a552-442a-a557-b760cbb32e36" CreationDate="2012-06-15T10:36:50.857" UserId="109" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="First, for the aim of this question I must say that I am not familiar with the Russian language, but I read a bit about it and am curious. I've never learned Russian before and just able to say a handful of sentences.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the intention of this question is to get a rough understanding of what the aspect actually is and how it does work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that the Russian language does have three tenses (past, present, future) and contains a concept called aspect. There are two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective aspect which determine if actions are successfully completed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I understand that concept correctly. Maybe it's the wrong way trying to compare them with the English tenses, but that's what I actually do. However, in my current understanding there are several things which the English language supports, but Russian not. First, are English and Russian tenses somehow comparable or is it the wrong way to start with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, I wonder why there is no perfective aspect in present. What about actions that have happened right now, but are already finished. I think of the English present perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This action is already finished but very close to now. Is such a thing only provided by the past perfective using catchwords like &quot;just now&quot; to declare that the action was just recently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does the past perfective also cover the English past perfect? If an action had been finished before another started, how does the Russian language provide that? And to go one step further: What about progressive tenses? E.g. how to differ between past perfect and past perfect progressive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had read a book ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been waiting ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess regarding those two tenses is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect -&gt; past perfective&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect progressive -&gt; past imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that were right then either the past perfective do in fact cover two (or even more) English tenses or my conjecture for the &quot;cooking-example&quot; above is totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's very confusing to me how a language can handle all requirements in specifying time measurements with a little set of tenses. So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="c36c6b02-79cc-4ff4-8e34-7a9dfd8bcb17" CreationDate="2012-06-15T11:42:22.373" UserId="71" Text="In this document, [Il verbo russo: il problema dell'aspetto][1]&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt;, there is a nice analysis, but since it's in italian, I'll translate it for you. Note that the *emphasis* will be the translation from the document, the rest will be mine. I'll also include parts from other sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the lexical-grammatical point of view, the russian verbs are divided into three classes: aspectual, transitive/intransitive and personal/impersonal.* Let's take only the first one for this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The verbs that belong to the aspectual class, are divided into two additional categories: verbs that possess whatever limitation in terms of space/time/other and verbs that have no such limitations.* Some examples are (taken from the document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **писать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing without any limitations of time.&#xD;&#xA; - **написать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing bringing that act to completion.&#xD;&#xA; - **гулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, without limitations.&#xD;&#xA; - **погулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, do the same action but for a while (the limitation is present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two aspects are called *Perfective*, in russian **совершенный вид** (СВ), and *Imperfective*, **несовершенный вид** (НСВ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Russian language, unlike other languages, conveys the additional meanings and other information using the verbs' aspects.* For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я писал письмо**: НСВ, process, duration.&#xD;&#xA; - **Я написал письмо**: СВ, reaching the act completion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я читал книга.**: I read/was reading the book. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's get to the different features of these two aspects (the terms in the document are not easily translatable, so I'll try to express them with common expressions. If someone finds mistakes, feel free to comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action being performed by the subject.*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *actions that are repeated* (you usually add adverbs to indicate this like **иногда, часто, регулярно, каждый день,** etc.).&#xD;&#xA; 3. durative action.&#xD;&#xA; 4. *describing an action that doesn't reach completion.*&#xD;&#xA; 5. *it describes the try of reaching a result.*&#xD;&#xA; 6. *describing an action but including the opposite one*. The classic example for this is: **Кто-то открывал окно** — Somebody opened the window. But a possible implication would be &quot;The room changed air (thanks to someone opening the window), but the window is now closed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 7. *describing an action that hasn't being brought to completion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action, but highlighting its result and above all, the **wanted** result.* For example **Я прочитал книгу.** I read a book (and I finished it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. *describes many repeated actions but summarized*: **Каждому сказал своё.**&#xD;&#xA; 3. *inchoative action*: it describes an action at the moment of its start, such as in **он закричал.** (he started to shout). Or бежать, *&quot;to run&quot;* and побежать, *&quot;to start running&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification is much more complicated, because we'd need to include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the verbs describing motion (which deserve a completely separated book) like идти/ходить, etc...&#xD;&#xA; 2. The fact that not all verbs change aspect because of a prefix but also changing other parts: отвечать/ответить&#xD;&#xA; 3. Some verbs don't just change aspect but also meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**1**: The russian verb: the aspect problem&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/982/1/Lingua%20russa%202%20-%20Verc.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="daf984ea-b0cc-486e-a0f4-2b114e70081b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T11:47:41.740" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="In this document, [Il verbo russo: il problema dell'aspetto][1]&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt;, there is a nice analysis, but since it's in italian, I'll translate it for you. I'll also include parts from other sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the lexical-grammatical point of view, the russian verbs are divided into three classes: aspectual, transitive/intransitive and personal/impersonal.* Let's take only the first one for this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The verbs that belong to the aspectual class, are divided into two additional categories: verbs that possess whatever limitation in terms of space/time/other and verbs that have no such limitations.* Some examples are (taken from the document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **писать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing without any limitations of time.&#xD;&#xA; - **написать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing bringing that act to completion.&#xD;&#xA; - **гулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, without limitations.&#xD;&#xA; - **погулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, do the same action but for a while (the limitation is present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two aspects are called *Perfective*, in russian **совершенный вид** (СВ), and *Imperfective*, **несовершенный вид** (НСВ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Russian language, unlike other languages, conveys the additional meanings and other information using the verbs' aspects.* For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я писал письмо**: НСВ, process, duration.&#xD;&#xA; - **Я написал письмо**: СВ, reaching the act completion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's get to the different features of these two aspects (the terms in the document are not easily translatable, so I'll try to express them with common expressions. If someone finds mistakes, feel free to comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action being performed by the subject.*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *actions that are repeated* (you usually add adverbs to indicate this like **иногда, часто, регулярно, каждый день,** etc.).&#xD;&#xA; 3. durative action.&#xD;&#xA; 4. *describing an action that doesn't reach completion.*&#xD;&#xA; 5. *it describes the try of reaching a result.*&#xD;&#xA; 6. *describing an action but including the opposite one*. The classic example for this is: **Кто-то открывал окно** — Somebody opened the window. But a possible implication would be &quot;The room changed air (thanks to someone opening the window), but the window is now closed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 7. *describing an action that hasn't being brought to completion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Perfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action, but highlighting its result and above all, the **wanted** result.* For example **Я прочитал книгу.** I read a book (and I finished it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. *describes many repeated actions but summarized*: **Каждому сказал своё.**&#xD;&#xA; 3. *inchoative action*: it describes an action at the moment of its start, such as in **он закричал.** (he started to shout). Or бежать, *&quot;to run&quot;* and побежать, *&quot;to start running&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification is much more complicated, because we'd need to include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the verbs describing motion (which deserve a completely separated book) like идти/ходить, etc...&#xD;&#xA; 2. The fact that not all verbs change aspect because of a prefix but also changing other parts: отвечать/ответить&#xD;&#xA; 3. Some verbs don't just change aspect but also meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**1**: The russian verb: the aspect problem&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/982/1/Lingua%20russa%202%20-%20Verc.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="b1b7e409-0d46-49e5-99d6-d7ae010fd6b1" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:03:56.017" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="First person singular of `победить` in future tense *was* `побежду`. Below is the picture from the &quot;Extensive Russian Grammar&quot; book (&quot;Пространная русская грамматика&quot;, 1830). But now this form is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Extensive Russian Grammar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yuCAJ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="4185b4ac-fb91-4f47-a15f-f42445010bd3" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:05:15.067" UserId="113" Text="I've heard that Russian has no native words beginning with the letter `A`. The claim is that the words appearing under A in dictionaries were all imported at some stage or another. Browsing through the dictionary does reveal that the words under A either have openly western origins (`авто-, анти-, анархия, акварель, алебастр`...) or they represent objects of asian or oriental  descent (notably fruits like `абрикос, ананас, арбуз, арахис`...). It's also evident that these are all objects or concepts, i.e. nouns. There are next to no verbs or adjectives beginning with A except those derived from these foreign nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The few apparently Russian words on A are archaic, rare and sometimes of obscure etymology (`аз` - the old name of the letter A itself, `авось, абы`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the explanation for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="4185b4ac-fb91-4f47-a15f-f42445010bd3" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:05:15.067" UserId="113" Text="Why doesn't Russian have native words beginning with А?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="4185b4ac-fb91-4f47-a15f-f42445010bd3" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:05:15.067" UserId="113" Text="|этимология|история|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="28fd1655-c1f4-4cd2-b35c-0ae45cc9b63d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:10:37.537" UserId="120" Text="Believe it or not ,i have googled it many times ,couldn't find an answer.I'd like to know the names  of `+,-,x,/ =,&lt;,&gt;,% and also {},(),:,&amp;,.`etc(no i'm not typing the entire keyboard symbols here :-).also would like to see links pointing to such symbols if there are any.&#xD;&#xA; Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="28fd1655-c1f4-4cd2-b35c-0ae45cc9b63d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:10:37.537" UserId="120" Text="what are the different operators like =,&lt;,&gt;,% etc called(named) in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="28fd1655-c1f4-4cd2-b35c-0ae45cc9b63d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:10:37.537" UserId="120" Text="|operators|russianmathoperators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="5b9f579e-b9ba-427d-8378-9cd39146b224" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:20:22.860" UserId="81" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="fec43ce2-7f7e-4c10-8346-52d17a9776f6" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:42:03.430" UserId="62" Comment="english corrections" Text="The word &quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier that needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking about below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. HOWEVER This rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You MUST USE a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; **in the context of the expression** (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You CAN use a declined number name on the right side to get it to agree  with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="341" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="fec43ce2-7f7e-4c10-8346-52d17a9776f6" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:42:03.430" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 5 edit id of 35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="9b8b12e2-d1aa-47c5-8620-ccaac98eeeb4" CreationDate="2012-06-15T12:49:02.157" UserId="81" Comment="added 1355 characters in body" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звездочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `сравнение`(comparison), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only, look division for operation)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="40e8a376-ae85-4d83-af59-09fc0c1f2a16" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:48:44.133" UserId="71" Text="The point is: where do we draw the line for a &quot;native word&quot;? Words that now might seem totally russian might have been borrowed 100, 500, 1000 years ago. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've quickly checked the dictionary and for example, I found **абитуриент** (*abituriènt*) which means something like &quot;candidate&quot; as in &quot;candidate to the admission exams&quot; (if that makes sense in English). Even if I know a few languages, this one doesn't resemble any word that I could think of, so we could say it sounds native. But who knows? I mean, I could receive a comment from someone that knows a language I don't know and that will show the relation. I don't think it's that easy to say &quot;this is my language's word&quot; and &quot;this is borrowed&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borrowing is a continuous process. You're aware of the most recent borrowings like **компьютер** because you lived the period when it happened, but who knows how many words that you think to be Russian were borrowed some time ago. I don't have data right now, but this is something true for all languages (some more, some less)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="301f203e-adb0-4d6d-8210-86aa95bfa092" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:48:49.367" UserId="109" Comment="restructure for readibility" Text="I made a Google search, but couldn't find any answer. I'd like to know the names of the operators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; +, -, x, /, =, &lt;, &gt;, %, {, }, (, ), :, &amp;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I would appreciate links pointing to such symbols if there are any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="345" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="301f203e-adb0-4d6d-8210-86aa95bfa092" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:48:49.367" UserId="109" Comment="restructure for readibility" Text="What are the different operators like =,&lt;,&gt;,% etc. called (named) in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="301f203e-adb0-4d6d-8210-86aa95bfa092" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:48:49.367" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 120 edit id of 37" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="347" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="6cc73277-4cd6-4e5b-a237-f587ec7adca7" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:49:38.990" UserId="120" Comment="edited tags" Text="|математика|operators|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="079a58c8-0a60-4aa8-abc9-2a4401af3cf6" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:53:13.980" UserId="62" Comment="edited the translation of сравнение to fit its mathematical meaning" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `сравнение`(congruence, as in modular arithmetic), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only, look division for operation)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="349" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="079a58c8-0a60-4aa8-abc9-2a4401af3cf6" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:53:13.980" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 81 edit id of 38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="9bd6c51b-f614-4bbf-8148-13c037bc56e1" CreationDate="2012-06-15T13:53:14.657" UserId="47" Text="To answer the original question, this is what I've found [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In old Slavonic language, the sound А was very hard and, in oral speech, it was usually softened to Я. As an example, the word агнец (church Slavonic) was converted to ягнёнок (old Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds plausible to me, however I sent this question to gramota.ru. If they answer, will post the answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://otvet.mail.ru/answer/105874750/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="9a79cd2c-cd22-41c0-b84b-b2d0d6fc7624" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:02:47.883" UserId="81" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`≡` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence, as in modular arithmetics)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only, look division for operation)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="352" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="91b1ef17-7d39-4fe0-b1b7-d6e600515546" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:10:38.543" UserId="81" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|множественное-число|морфология|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="223c6b7c-1c4c-481e-8132-c5fd4adca7d2" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:11:28.793" UserId="81" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="4136fa7d-2f8f-49ba-929b-d087d5aba0dd" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:20:11.000" UserId="5" Comment="added 885 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier that needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking about below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. HOWEVER This rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You MUST USE a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; in the context of the expression (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You CAN use a declined number name on the right side to get it to agree  with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE2**:&#xD;&#xA;Hm.. I think we can generalize it even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You must ALWAYS decline numbers with a few exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- there is nothing to get these numbers agreed with&#xD;&#xA;- when the nominative case is required by the construction you use: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;равно&quot;, &quot;равна&quot;, &quot;равен&quot; **allows** (but not requires) being followed by a nominative regardless of anything: &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пять&quot; is OK as well as &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пяти&quot;. (On the other hand &quot;меньше&quot; or &quot;больше&quot; always require to be followed by a genitive for that matter)&#xD;&#xA;- quantifiers **are allowed** (but to required) to be used in nominative regardless of anything: &quot;косинус девять икс&quot; is OK as well as &quot;косинус девяти икс&quot;, but &quot;косинус девять&quot; is NOT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can use noun for a number that is not a quantifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="c55a1a51-e0ca-48db-bdcd-d1cf56e645fa" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:22:15.457" UserId="71" Comment="added tenses" Text="In this document, [Il verbo russo: il problema dell'aspetto][1]&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt;, there is a nice analysis, but since it's in italian, I'll translate it for you. I'll also include parts from other sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the lexical-grammatical point of view, the russian verbs are divided into three classes: aspectual, transitive/intransitive and personal/impersonal.* Let's take only the first one for this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The verbs that belong to the aspectual class, are divided into two additional categories: verbs that possess whatever limitation in terms of space/time/other and verbs that have no such limitations.* Some examples are (taken from the document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **писать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing without any limitations of time.&#xD;&#xA; - **написать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing bringing that act to completion.&#xD;&#xA; - **гулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, without limitations.&#xD;&#xA; - **погулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, do the same action but for a while (the limitation is present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two aspects are called *Perfective*, in russian **совершенный вид** (СВ), and *Imperfective*, **несовершенный вид** (НСВ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Russian language, unlike other languages, conveys the additional meanings and other information using the verbs' aspects.* For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я писал письмо**: НСВ, process, duration.&#xD;&#xA; - **Я написал письмо**: СВ, reaching the act completion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's get to the different features of these two aspects (the terms in the document are not easily translatable, so I'll try to express them with common expressions. If someone finds mistakes, feel free to comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Imperfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action being performed by the subject.*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *actions that are repeated* (you usually add adverbs to indicate this like **иногда, часто, регулярно, каждый день,** etc.).&#xD;&#xA; 3. durative action.&#xD;&#xA; 4. *describing an action that doesn't reach completion.*&#xD;&#xA; 5. *it describes the try of reaching a result.*&#xD;&#xA; 6. *describing an action but including the opposite one*. The classic example for this is: **Кто-то открывал окно** — Somebody opened the window. But a possible implication would be &quot;The room changed air (thanks to someone opening the window), but the window is now closed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 7. *describing an action that hasn't being brought to completion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Perfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action, but highlighting its result and above all, the **wanted** result.* For example **Я прочитал книгу.** I read a book (and I finished it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. *describes many repeated actions but summarized*: **Каждому сказал своё.**&#xD;&#xA; 3. *inchoative action*: it describes an action at the moment of its start, such as in **он закричал.** (he started to shout). Or бежать, *&quot;to run&quot;* and побежать, *&quot;to start running&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification is much more complicated, because we'd need to include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the verbs describing motion (which deserve a completely separated book) like идти/ходить, etc...&#xD;&#xA; 2. The fact that not all verbs change aspect because of a prefix but also changing other parts: отвечать/ответить&#xD;&#xA; 3. Some verbs don't just change aspect but also meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tenses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfective is present in *past, present and future*, *infinitive* and *imperative*. The perfective only for the *future. The present usually describes a current action or something that happens regularly, and so the perfective is not fit to describe this kind of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Future*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **composite future**: *буду + imperfective infinitive* (habit, repetitiveness)&#xD;&#xA; - **simple future**: *perfective verb, present conjugation* (unique action, not repeated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Infinitive*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **with phasic verbs**: usually the imperfective is adopted.&#xD;&#xA; - **to desire, to want, to promise**: with verbs like these, both perfective and imperfective can be used (also with negation). The imperfective shows the hope/will that the action has a regular or repeated follow-up. The perfective just for a single event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Imperative*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the perfective refers to:&#xD;&#xA;   - a single request, that should be done in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;   - a compulsory, peremptory request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the imperfective, instead refers to:&#xD;&#xA;   - negative requests (Don't do this!)&#xD;&#xA;   - a request to start a certain action.&#xD;&#xA;   - an invitation in order to make the subject keep doing the action after some hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;   - an invitation in order to make the subject perform an action in the desired way.&#xD;&#xA;   - a courtesy request (like favor, I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**1**: The russian verb: the aspect problem&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/982/1/Lingua%20russa%202%20-%20Verc.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="bd3d544e-f26a-4d29-b214-43f831f445b4" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:28:34.667" UserId="5" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier that needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking about below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. HOWEVER This rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You MUST USE a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; in the context of the expression (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You CAN use a declined number name on the right side to get it to agree  with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE2**:&#xD;&#xA;Hm.. I think we can generalize it even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You must ALWAYS decline numbers with a few exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- there is nothing to get these numbers agreed with&#xD;&#xA;- when the nominative case is required by the construction you use: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;равно&quot;, &quot;равна&quot;, &quot;равен&quot; **allows** (but not requires) being followed by a nominative regardless of anything: &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пять&quot; is OK as well as &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пяти&quot;. (On the other hand &quot;меньше&quot; or &quot;больше&quot; always require to be followed by a genitive for that matter)&#xD;&#xA;- quantifiers **are allowed** (but to required) to be used in nominative regardless of anything: &quot;косинус девять икс&quot; is OK as well as &quot;косинус девяти икс&quot;, but &quot;косинус девять&quot; is NOT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can use a noun for a number that is not a quantifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="1902e0f6-a06b-43be-9e01-feed6fc3102a" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:29:37.810" UserId="104" Text="Многие говорят, что согласно новым правилам &quot;кофе&quot; официально стал(о) считаться существительным среднего рода. Насколько это соответствует действительности? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если это действительно так, то когда было принято это правило, и считается ли ошибкой использование &quot;кофе&quot; как существительного мужского рода? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;P.S. The title is in English as it is impossible to submit the question otherwise. S[ee my question in meta][1]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/questions/72/why-cant-i-submit-a-question-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="1902e0f6-a06b-43be-9e01-feed6fc3102a" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:29:37.810" UserId="104" Text="Has кофе officially become neutral?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="1902e0f6-a06b-43be-9e01-feed6fc3102a" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:29:37.810" UserId="104" Text="|существительные|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="360" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="7e5eed5f-dccb-407f-b98e-a0e4b8558c26" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:43:38.283" UserId="5" Comment="added 342 characters in body" />
  <row Id="361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="7e5eed5f-dccb-407f-b98e-a0e4b8558c26" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:43:38.283" UserId="5" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier that needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking about below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas there are 3 players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You MUST USE plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. HOWEVER This rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You MUST USE a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; in the context of the expression (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You CAN use a declined number name on the right side to get it to agree  with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You SHOULD AVOID using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. You SHOULD EITHER CONSIDER using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. OR CONSIDER using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. HOWEVER you are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You MUST decline a stand alone number to get it agree with operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE2**:&#xD;&#xA;Hm.. I think we can generalize it even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You must ALWAYS decline numbers with a few exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- there is nothing to get these numbers agreed with&#xD;&#xA;- when the nominative case is required by the construction you use: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3:** There is a catch: although &quot;два&quot; in &quot;единица плюс два&quot; seems to be in nominative, it is actually in the accusative case&quot; that shares the same form with the nominative for inanimate nouns (and numbers). So what's above should be read: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_ACCUSIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_ACCUSIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;равно&quot;, &quot;равна&quot;, &quot;равен&quot; **allows** (but not requires) being followed by a nominative regardless of anything: &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пять&quot; is OK as well as &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пяти&quot;. (On the other hand &quot;меньше&quot; or &quot;больше&quot; always require to be followed by a genitive for that matter)&#xD;&#xA;- quantifiers **are allowed** (but to required) to be used in nominative regardless of anything: &quot;косинус девять икс&quot; is OK as well as &quot;косинус девяти икс&quot;, but &quot;косинус девять&quot; is NOT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can use a noun for a number that is not a quantifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="04236f67-6a75-4cbe-88b4-153a2820d60c" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:51:00.877" UserId="47" Text="No, it hasn't. It is a colloquial form. See here: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EA%EE%F4%E5&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="01938972-a2ce-4b11-a537-81f181f901d8" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:54:54.433" UserId="97" Text="С 1 сентября 2009 года вошел в силу приказ приказ министерства образования и науки России от 8 июня 2009, определяющий список словарей и справочников, содержащих нормы современного русского литературного языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этот список вошел &quot;Грамматический словарь русского языка&quot; под редакцией Андрея Зализняка.  Согласно этому изданию, &quot;кофе&quot; теперь может быть среднего рода.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="70e9c493-3196-4635-a22e-296e3bc75ac9" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:59:23.863" UserId="115" Text="A follow up to [this question][1].  I have read somewhere on the web that it is now acceptable to write `заец` instead of `заяц`.  Not that I am going to do that, just like I am going to continue to use `кофе` as masculine.  Just curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/128/has-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5-officially-become-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="70e9c493-3196-4635-a22e-296e3bc75ac9" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:59:23.863" UserId="115" Text="Has заец really become an acceptable spelling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="70e9c493-3196-4635-a22e-296e3bc75ac9" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:59:23.863" UserId="115" Text="|nouns|writing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="1cf82a63-539d-4c86-b07c-3467ddbd1a5f" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:02:35.477" UserId="5" Text="I remember from my school years that there is no such thing as a word that starts with 'ы'. Is this true? If so, is there something fundamental that prevents this from happening? If no, can anybody give an example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="1cf82a63-539d-4c86-b07c-3467ddbd1a5f" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:02:35.477" UserId="5" Text="is there a word that starts with &quot;ы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="1cf82a63-539d-4c86-b07c-3467ddbd1a5f" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:02:35.477" UserId="5" Text="|linguistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="d96b4539-dcba-46d6-9705-29c831295e57" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:02:39.563" UserId="47" Comment="Added references from dictionaries" Text="No, it hasn't. It is a colloquial form. See here: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EA%EE%F4%E5&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (as of 2012-06-15): &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Русский орфографический словарь Российской академии наук. Отв. ред. В. В. Лопатин. 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кофе, нескл., м. и (разг.) с.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Большой толковый словарь русского языка. Гл. ред. С. А. Кузнецов. 2009)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; КОФЕ, неизм.; м. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Русское словесное ударение.Словарь нарицательных имён. Автор М. В. Зарва. 2001)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кофе [не фэ], нескл., м. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="e4e4ca18-e06b-4b5f-bca1-1db45c9bcd9b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:06:25.383" UserId="115" Text="When I was a kid I used to like playing &quot;Cities&quot;, when you name a city and the next person has to name another city that starts with the last letter of the previous city.  Of course, there is a problem when you have to respond to `Афины` or `Апатиты`.  However, I have an atlas that lists a town named [Ытык Кюёль][1].  Not really a regular word, but it does start with `Ы`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AB%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BA-%D0%9A%D1%8E%D1%91%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="7a95fd06-4711-4200-8992-87880db43263" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:06:48.770" UserId="97" Text="I remember reading a while ago (so I tracked it down) an article from Известия on this subject: http://www.izvestia.ru/news/250227&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand/remember/know, this was one of the possible suggested spelling changes, however it did not even make it into any official drafts.  So, AFAIK, this is wrong.  And hare is still spelled as заяц." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="4138bb5a-dd7b-41da-938e-8f8ac6104430" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:08:02.050" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="a01b9e72-6cfe-49e3-8455-9de2d950595b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:08:02.050" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="5aae4d0f-2aed-4a3e-b435-291dcaabed02" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:08:51.363" UserId="104" Text="There is [not a single dictionary](http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%E7%E0%E5%F6) that lists &quot;заец&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You mentioned the case of кофе as an analogy. Well, I should argue that it's not, really. All the words in Russian that end in е are neutral, except for coffee. So, logically, it should be neutral as well, it's just that we have traditionally used it as masculine and its usage as neutral hits the ear wrong with no linguistic or logical reason whatsoever, only historical reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The spelling заец, on the other hand, is completely illogical. Consider the plural - зайцы. The я-&gt;й shift is common in Russian, however, е-&gt;й is not. So, there would be no compelling reason to accept this weird spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="7f89dd1d-4f1d-45c2-a6a6-7ae0ad378d5f" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:11:54.290" UserId="5" Text="It doesn't look as easy as it sounds. Is it possible to come up with a well defined set of rules that cover all possible cases?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="7f89dd1d-4f1d-45c2-a6a6-7ae0ad378d5f" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:11:54.290" UserId="5" Text="How do I split a word into syllables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="7f89dd1d-4f1d-45c2-a6a6-7ae0ad378d5f" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:11:54.290" UserId="5" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="26a70ada-5580-40c9-96b4-fd0d500ac752" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:13:16.717" UserId="115" Text="The only hard rule that I know of is that there must be one vowel per syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="0f2e85e8-9b16-4ad8-9180-abfe9c8355fa" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:15:08.920" UserId="47" Comment="Added reference to gramota-reference" Text="No, it hasn't. It is a colloquial form. See here: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EA%EE%F4%E5&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (as of 2012-06-15): &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Русский орфографический словарь Российской академии наук. Отв. ред. В. В. Лопатин. 2007)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кофе, нескл., м. и (разг.) с.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Большой толковый словарь русского языка. Гл. ред. С. А. Кузнецов. 2009)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; КОФЕ, неизм.; м. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Русское словесное ударение.Словарь нарицательных имён. Автор М. В. Зарва. 2001)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кофе [не фэ], нескл., м. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reference, to answer exactly the OP question: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/hot10/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is it true that кофе is now neuter?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: It is true that кофе can be used in spoken language as neuter noun. It is untrue that is is &quot;now&quot;. This norm was mentioned already in 1970-80s. According to the strict norm it is still masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="140" RevisionGUID="c62d7696-4b97-4678-90ff-f5d311affc0b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:19:42.577" UserId="113" Text="ОК, so I found [this discussion][1] that seems to answer this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently as Old Russian transformed into Modern Russian, it underwent a bunch of phonetic processes. One of those was that all words beginning with А got prefixed with a &quot;й&quot; sound, and e.g. Old Russian агода became the modern ягода (berry). The same apparently happened with some other Slavic languages (don't know whether to the same extent), but with different &quot;prosthetic&quot; consonants, e.g. in Slovak it was a &quot;v&quot;, so they got &quot;vajce&quot; instead of the Russian &quot;яйцо&quot; (egg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They go some more into phonetics there, in case someone is interested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=445.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="f1d920a7-5054-4592-823b-cfd82cc21d29" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:20:38.067" UserId="47" Text="Not usual words AFAIK. Here is a list of proper nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыгыатта, -ы (р., Якутия, РФ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыджыдпарма, -ы (Ыджидпарма) (возв., Респ. Коми, РФ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ылыч, см. Илыч&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЫЛЬЧИ МУНДОК, Ыльчи Мундока (кор. полководец)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыныкчанский, -ого (пгт, Якутия, РФ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыспарта, -ы (Испарта) (гор., Турция)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЫссыкАта, см. ИссыкАта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a verb stemming from the letter name: ыкать (cf. окать, акать)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="0a418d1f-cf84-4ca9-8c66-bed562c649b7" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:31:51.543" UserId="104" Text="As Dima mentioned, the necessary condition is for each syllable to have one and exactly one vowel. But it's by far not sufficient. From [here](http://www.pshelp.narod.ru/lib/applicant/0002-007.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Законы слогоделения в разных языках и даже диалектах одного языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неодинаковы. Например, представители севернорусского наречия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произнесут при скандировании слово “дружба” так: друж-ба. А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представители южнорусского наречия – иначе: дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   В русском литературном языке деление на слоги опирается на   п р и н ц и п   в о с х о д я щ е й   з в у ч н о с т и .  Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначает, что звуки в слоге (незаконченом) располагаются от наименее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучного к наиболее звучному. Если звучность условно обозначить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифрами, получится следующее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 – гласный звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 – сонорный согласный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 – остальные (шумные) согласные звуки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разделение на слоги&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет производится по принципу восходящей звучности: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Трудности при разделении слова на слоги могут возникнуть при стечении согласных. При этом в русском литературном языке, опирающемся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на московское произношение, разделение на слоги будет осуществляться с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учетом следующего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. Если на границе слогов рядом оказались два шумных или два сонорных звука (кроме [j]), они относятся к последующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2. Если в сочетании согласных первый [j], он всегда отходит к предшествующему гласному: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3. В сочетании согласных, первым из которых является сонорный, а вторым – шумный, сонорный может отходить к предшествующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in most cases it's a phonetic thing. You have to feel the pronunciation of the word, its phonetic division into syllables. Above are some good guidelines, but they require knowledge of phonetics and are not trivial to apply in practice. Also, note that the rules of hyphen (перенос, moving part of the word to the next line) are slightly different. If you're interested in them, [check][1] [out][2] [these][3] [links][4]. Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Spel_Hyph.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=perenos&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shkola.lv/index.php?mode=cht&amp;chtid=660&amp;subid=141&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="c0110616-2a12-4c81-a703-2759683dba08" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:02:15.773" UserId="38" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="No direct translation exists. 'For what it's worth' usually means that whatever is to follow is going to be a subjective opinion, which translates well to 'На мой взгляд' (In my opinion), 'Я считаю' (I think), 'Мне кажется' (I figure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to communicate that a piece of information is potentially unimportant for another reason, you could say something like 'Может, это неважно, но'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="522b8eea-eeaa-40a1-957a-a57f82e6122b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:10:00.017" UserId="104" Comment="added 1483 characters in body" Text="As Dima mentioned, the necessary condition is for each syllable to have one and exactly one vowel. But it's by far not sufficient. From [here](http://www.pshelp.narod.ru/lib/applicant/0002-007.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Законы слогоделения в разных языках и даже диалектах одного языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неодинаковы. Например, представители севернорусского наречия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произнесут при скандировании слово “дружба” так: друж-ба. А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представители южнорусского наречия – иначе: дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   В русском литературном языке деление на слоги опирается на   п р и н ц и п   в о с х о д я щ е й   з в у ч н о с т и .  Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначает, что звуки в слоге (незаконченом) располагаются от наименее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучного к наиболее звучному. Если звучность условно обозначить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифрами, получится следующее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 – гласный звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 – сонорный согласный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 – остальные (шумные) согласные звуки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разделение на слоги&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет производится по принципу восходящей звучности: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Трудности при разделении слова на слоги могут возникнуть при стечении согласных. При этом в русском литературном языке, опирающемся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на московское произношение, разделение на слоги будет осуществляться с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учетом следующего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. Если на границе слогов рядом оказались два шумных или два сонорных звука (кроме [j]), они относятся к последующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2. Если в сочетании согласных первый [j], он всегда отходит к предшествующему гласному: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3. В сочетании согласных, первым из которых является сонорный, а вторым – шумный, сонорный может отходить к предшествующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in most cases it's a phonetic thing. You have to feel the pronunciation of the word, its phonetic division into syllables. Above are some good guidelines, but they require knowledge of phonetics and are not trivial to apply in practice. Also, note that the rules of hyphen (перенос, moving part of the word to the next line) are slightly different. If you're interested in them, [check][1] [out][2] [these][3] [links][4]. Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Per Alenanno's request, here's an attempt of translating the above source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rules of splitting a word into syllables are differ not only between languages but also between different dialects of the same language. For example in North-Russian dialect, one would utter the word дружба as друж-ба, whereas in South-Russian it'd be дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the literary Russian language the splitting into syllables is based on the principle of increasing sonority. This means that the sounds in a syllable are arranged from least sonorous to most sonorous. If we denote sonority with numbers, we'll have the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 - vowel sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 - sonorant consonant sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 - other (obstruent) consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The splitting into syllables will be done according to the principle of increasing sonority: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Difficulties arise in case of consonant clusters. In literary Russian based on Moscow pronunciation, the splitting is done with consideration of the following rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If on the syllable border there are two sonorants sounds or two obstruents (except for й) they refer to the latter vowel. пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If the first in the consonant group is й, it refers to the previous vowel: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In a consonant group where the first is a sonorant, and the second is an obstruent, the sonorant may join the preceeding vowel. кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Spel_Hyph.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=perenos&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shkola.lv/index.php?mode=cht&amp;chtid=660&amp;subid=141&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="13c040af-056f-4ab4-a352-b4fb6a7c81be" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:17:30.553" UserId="38" Comment="removed repeated word" Text="С 1 сентября 2009 года вошел в силу приказ министерства образования и науки России от 8 июня 2009, определяющий список словарей и справочников, содержащих нормы современного русского литературного языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этот список вошел &quot;Грамматический словарь русского языка&quot; под редакцией Андрея Зализняка.  Согласно этому изданию, &quot;кофе&quot; теперь может быть среднего рода.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="13c040af-056f-4ab4-a352-b4fb6a7c81be" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:17:30.553" Comment="Proposed by 38 approved by 97 edit id of 43" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="ab3db7bd-83fb-46a4-8663-fefd9b198c5b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:26:32.907" UserId="71" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="In this document, [Il verbo russo: il problema dell'aspetto][1]&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt;, there is a nice analysis, but since it's in italian, I'll translate it for you. I'll also include parts from other sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the lexical-grammatical point of view, the russian verbs are divided into three classes: aspectual, transitive/intransitive and personal/impersonal.* Let's take only the first one for this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The verbs that belong to the aspectual class, are divided into two additional categories: verbs that possess whatever limitation in terms of space/time/other and verbs that have no such limitations.* Some examples are (taken from the document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **писать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing without any limitations of time.&#xD;&#xA; - **написать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing bringing that act to completion.&#xD;&#xA; - **гулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, without limitations.&#xD;&#xA; - **погулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, do the same action but for a while (the limitation is present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two aspects are called *Perfective*, in russian **совершенный вид** (СВ), and *Imperfective*, **несовершенный вид** (НСВ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Russian language, unlike other languages, conveys the additional meanings and other information using the verbs' aspects.* For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я писал письмо**: НСВ, process, duration.&#xD;&#xA; - **Я написал письмо**: СВ, reaching the act completion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's get to the different features of these two aspects (the terms in the document are not easily translatable, so I'll try to express them with common expressions. If someone finds mistakes, feel free to comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Imperfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action being performed by the subject.*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *actions that are repeated* (you usually add adverbs to indicate this like **иногда, часто, регулярно, каждый день,** etc.).&#xD;&#xA; 3. durative action.&#xD;&#xA; 4. *describing an action that doesn't reach completion.*&#xD;&#xA; 5. *it describes the try of reaching a result.*&#xD;&#xA; 6. *describing an action but including the opposite one*. The classic example for this is: **Кто-то открывал окно** — Somebody opened the window. But a possible implication would be &quot;The room changed air (thanks to someone opening the window), but the window is now closed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 7. *describing an action that hasn't being brought to completion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Perfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action, but highlighting its result and above all, the **wanted** result.* For example **Я прочитал книгу.** I read a book (and I finished it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. *describes many repeated actions but summarized*: **Каждому сказал своё.**&#xD;&#xA; 3. *inchoative action*: it describes an action at the moment of its start, such as in **он закричал.** (he started to shout). Or бежать, *&quot;to run&quot;* and побежать, *&quot;to start running&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification is much more complicated, because we'd need to include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the verbs describing motion (which deserve a completely separated book) like идти/ходить, etc...&#xD;&#xA; 2. The fact that not all verbs change aspect because of a prefix but also changing other parts: отвечать/ответить&#xD;&#xA; 3. Some verbs don't just change aspect but also meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tenses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfective is present in *past, present and future*, *infinitive* and *imperative*. The perfective only for the *future. The present usually describes a current action or something that happens regularly, and so the perfective is not fit to describe this kind of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Future*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **composite future**: *буду + imperfective infinitive* (habit, repetitiveness)&#xD;&#xA; - **simple future**: *perfective verb, present conjugation* (unique action, not repeated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Infinitive*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **with phasic verbs**&lt;sup&gt;**2**&lt;/sup&gt;: usually the imperfective is adopted.&#xD;&#xA; - **to desire, to want, to promise**: with verbs like these, both perfective and imperfective can be used (also with negation). The imperfective shows the hope/will that the action has a regular or repeated follow-up. The perfective just for a single event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Imperative*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the perfective refers to:&#xD;&#xA;   - a single request, that should be done in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;   - a compulsory, peremptory request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the imperfective, instead refers to:&#xD;&#xA;   - negative requests (Don't do this!)&#xD;&#xA;   - a request to start a certain action.&#xD;&#xA;   - an invitation in order to make the subject keep doing the action after some hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;   - an invitation in order to make the subject perform an action in the desired way.&#xD;&#xA;   - a courtesy request (like favor, I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**1**: The russian verb: the aspect problem&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**2**: See comments. &quot;phasic&quot; was hard to translate in this case. A better word might exist.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/982/1/Lingua%20russa%202%20-%20Verc.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="ed197f40-cbf0-4e7d-8d08-e045ecc6f84e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:37:35.897" UserId="104" Text="In many languages, the name of the country Georgia is derived from the name of St.George. In Georgian, Georgia is called  საქართველო(Sakartvelo), so obviously Грузия has nothing to do with it either. What is the origin of Грузия? Does it have anything to with the word груз maybe? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="ed197f40-cbf0-4e7d-8d08-e045ecc6f84e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:37:35.897" UserId="104" Text="Etymology/Origin of &quot;Грузия&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="ed197f40-cbf0-4e7d-8d08-e045ecc6f84e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:37:35.897" UserId="104" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="fe476409-73a4-428b-adb6-0e2938b1d18e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:02:32.207" UserId="5" Text="&gt; Самоназвание грузинского народа — картвелы, а страны, иначе известной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как Грузия, — Сакартвело этимологически объясняется следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В I тыс. до н. э. западная часть Грузии по имени народа колхи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называлась Колхида. Собирательное название древнегрузинских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картвельских племён восходит к наименованию восточно-грузинского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; племени картов и совпадает с самоназванием народа — картвелы. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Востоке этот же народ называли гурз, гурдж, из этого названия в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовался этноним «гурзин», что позднее в результате перестановки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуков превратилось в «грузин».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD#.D0.93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="145" RevisionGUID="93f78bc0-78ac-4175-92ec-382b1fab396c" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:03:17.057" UserId="113" Text="There's a lot about it [here][1], but I'll try to sum up to the best of my understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The toponym &quot;Груз-&quot; with regard to Georgia apparently entered Russian from Arabic a very long time ago. Arab travelers or cartographers apparently learned it from the way some local peoples referred to Georgia or to some specific place in that region. The local root is related to the totemic cult of the Wolf, which was widespread in the region and can be traced to modern day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add that the first part (Arabic origins) seems to be correct, since the original Hebrew word for Georgia (back in the 12th century) stemmed from the same root, before it was replaced with the modern Gruziya because of Russian (and very recently with Georgia for political reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artsakh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&amp;t=731" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="706f6426-1d6d-4477-ab8a-c374b7225eab" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:57:58.290" UserId="71" Comment="included more detail" Text="This is a follow up to the question [Has кофе become neutral?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read somewhere on the web that it is now acceptable to write `заец` instead of `заяц`.  Not that I am going to do that, just like I am going to continue to use `кофе` as masculine.  Just curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/128/has-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5-officially-become-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="395" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="706f6426-1d6d-4477-ab8a-c374b7225eab" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:57:58.290" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 40" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="913c3e0f-4687-486c-b5e5-07c496d2b172" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:58:05.577" UserId="104" Comment="removed ugly url and replaced it with hyperlink source" Text="&gt; Самоназвание грузинского народа — картвелы, а страны, иначе известной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как Грузия, — Сакартвело этимологически объясняется следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В I тыс. до н. э. западная часть Грузии по имени народа колхи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называлась Колхида. Собирательное название древнегрузинских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картвельских племён восходит к наименованию восточно-грузинского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; племени картов и совпадает с самоназванием народа — картвелы. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Востоке этот же народ называли гурз, гурдж, из этого названия в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовался этноним «гурзин», что позднее в результате перестановки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуков превратилось в «грузин».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD#.D0.93)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="397" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="913c3e0f-4687-486c-b5e5-07c496d2b172" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:58:05.577" Comment="Proposed by 104 approved by 116 edit id of 44" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="adfa9304-9edb-4957-8fd1-5fb05920966a" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:58:33.983" UserId="71" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Questions about the scientific study of languages. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="399" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="adfa9304-9edb-4957-8fd1-5fb05920966a" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:58:33.983" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="b7e61161-0216-4532-9a57-c10ef2ff304d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:58:38.960" UserId="71" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="If your question is mostly linguistic or if you want an answer that would be asnwered from a linguistics point of view, consider posting in the [Linguistics SE][1] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="401" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="b7e61161-0216-4532-9a57-c10ef2ff304d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:58:38.960" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 41" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="34ae06e1-7afb-490a-86c6-c83c611537a0" CreationDate="2012-06-15T18:49:31.547" UserId="5" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="&gt; Самоназвание грузинского народа — картвелы, а страны, иначе известной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как Грузия, — Сакартвело этимологически объясняется следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В I тыс. до н. э. западная часть Грузии по имени народа колхи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называлась Колхида. Собирательное название древнегрузинских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картвельских племён восходит к наименованию восточно-грузинского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; племени картов и совпадает с самоназванием народа — картвелы. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Востоке этот же народ называли гурз, гурдж, из этого названия в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовался этноним «гурзин», что позднее в результате перестановки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуков превратилось в «грузин».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD#.D0.93)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [resource][1] that mentions the original source of the information which in its turn says that the roots are yet unknown:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Краткий топонимический словарь&quot; Hиконова: ...на востоке этот народ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называли /гурз/, /гурдж/ (этимология неизвестна), из этого в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось /гурзин/, в рус. языке с перестановкой звуков (&quot;История&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грузии&quot;, т.I, Тбилиси, 1946, с.60).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting [resource][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как пояснил Ленте.Ру составитель грузинско-английского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словаря, профессор Лондонского университета Доналд Рэйфилд, &quot;Георгия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит от восточного (персидского и тюркского) названия грузин&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;гурдж&quot; (которое, в свою очередь, восходит к некоему армянскому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корню). Оно сохранилось, например, в турецком названии Грузии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Гюрджистан&quot;. Во времена Крестовых походов европейцы, услышав слово&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;гурдж&quot; от арабов, сблизили его по созвучию с именем Святого Георгия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (оно и впрямь происходит от греческого &quot;землепашца&quot;), который, как они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знали, особо почитается на Кавказе. Так и родилась (в XI-XII веках)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Георгия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://speakrus.ru/articles/gruziny.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lenta.ru/articles/2010/05/21/gruzia/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="1d56e448-84a6-47c2-98f1-0ab5e184b201" CreationDate="2012-06-15T18:50:25.867" UserId="62" Comment="replaced = with ≡ and edited spelling in title " Text="I have a question about pronouncing 1 in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example &lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 1 would be икц квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3&lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt; ≡ 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="404" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="1d56e448-84a6-47c2-98f1-0ab5e184b201" CreationDate="2012-06-15T18:50:25.867" UserId="62" Comment="replaced = with ≡ and edited spelling in title " Text="mathematical pronunciation of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="61dd7ce2-c5c1-4e1d-8606-ae6a2b6d63bd" CreationDate="2012-06-15T18:59:26.540" UserId="5" Comment="added 634 characters in body" Text="&gt; Самоназвание грузинского народа — картвелы, а страны, иначе известной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как Грузия, — Сакартвело этимологически объясняется следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В I тыс. до н. э. западная часть Грузии по имени народа колхи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называлась Колхида. Собирательное название древнегрузинских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картвельских племён восходит к наименованию восточно-грузинского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; племени картов и совпадает с самоназванием народа — картвелы. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Востоке этот же народ называли гурз, гурдж, из этого названия в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовался этноним «гурзин», что позднее в результате перестановки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуков превратилось в «грузин».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD#.D0.93)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [resource][1] that mentions the original source of the information which in its turn says that the roots are yet unknown:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Краткий топонимический словарь&quot; Hиконова: ...на востоке этот народ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называли /гурз/, /гурдж/ (этимология неизвестна), из этого в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось /гурзин/, в рус. языке с перестановкой звуков (&quot;История&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грузии&quot;, т.I, Тбилиси, 1946, с.60).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting [resource][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как пояснил Ленте.Ру составитель грузинско-английского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словаря, профессор Лондонского университета Доналд Рэйфилд, &quot;Георгия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит от восточного (персидского и тюркского) названия грузин&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;гурдж&quot; (которое, в свою очередь, восходит к некоему армянскому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корню). Оно сохранилось, например, в турецком названии Грузии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Гюрджистан&quot;. Во времена Крестовых походов европейцы, услышав слово&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;гурдж&quot; от арабов, сблизили его по созвучию с именем Святого Георгия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (оно и впрямь происходит от греческого &quot;землепашца&quot;), который, как они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знали, особо почитается на Кавказе. Так и родилась (в XI-XII веках)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Георгия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet [another one][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русские на Кавказ пришли не через горные перевалы, а вдоль Каспийского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моря. Долгая война России с Персией за Дербент и Каспий очень живо (я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бы даже сказал, смешно) описана Ю.Тыняновым в романе «Смерть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вазир-мухтара» в небольшой главе, начинающейся словами «В самом деле,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что же такое Кавказ?» Именно тогда, пожалуй, русские узнали о&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существовании христианского царства «Гурджистан», где живут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «гурджины». Довольно скоро в русском языке «гурджины» превратились в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «грузинов», а страна, которую они населяют, соответственно в «Грузию».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://speakrus.ru/articles/gruziny.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lenta.ru/articles/2010/05/21/gruzia/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shkolazhizni.ru/archive/0/n-28452/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="b1a59f25-854a-4d9a-bdc6-dc47eae0586b" CreationDate="2012-06-15T19:05:33.830" UserId="5" Comment="added 634 characters in body" Text="&gt; Самоназвание грузинского народа — картвелы, а страны, иначе известной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как Грузия, — Сакартвело этимологически объясняется следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В I тыс. до н. э. западная часть Грузии по имени народа колхи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называлась Колхида. Собирательное название древнегрузинских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картвельских племён восходит к наименованию восточно-грузинского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; племени картов и совпадает с самоназванием народа — картвелы. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Востоке этот же народ называли гурз, гурдж, из этого названия в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовался этноним «гурзин», что позднее в результате перестановки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуков превратилось в «грузин».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD#.D0.93)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another [resource][1] that mentions the original source of the information which in its turn says that the roots are yet unknown:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Краткий топонимический словарь&quot; Hиконова: ...на востоке этот народ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называли /гурз/, /гурдж/ (этимология неизвестна), из этого в России&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось /гурзин/, в рус. языке с перестановкой звуков (&quot;История&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грузии&quot;, т.I, Тбилиси, 1946, с.60).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting [resource][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как пояснил Ленте.Ру составитель грузинско-английского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словаря, профессор Лондонского университета Доналд Рэйфилд, &quot;Георгия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит от восточного (персидского и тюркского) названия грузин&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;гурдж&quot; (которое, в свою очередь, восходит к некоему армянскому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корню). Оно сохранилось, например, в турецком названии Грузии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Гюрджистан&quot;. Во времена Крестовых походов европейцы, услышав слово&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;гурдж&quot; от арабов, сблизили его по созвучию с именем Святого Георгия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (оно и впрямь происходит от греческого &quot;землепашца&quot;), который, как они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знали, особо почитается на Кавказе. Так и родилась (в XI-XII веках)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Георгия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet [another one][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русские на Кавказ пришли не через горные перевалы, а вдоль Каспийского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моря. Долгая война России с Персией за Дербент и Каспий очень живо (я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бы даже сказал, смешно) описана Ю.Тыняновым в романе «Смерть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вазир-мухтара» в небольшой главе, начинающейся словами «В самом деле,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что же такое Кавказ?» Именно тогда, пожалуй, русские узнали о&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существовании христианского царства «Гурджистан», где живут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «гурджины». Довольно скоро в русском языке «гурджины» превратились в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «грузинов», а страна, которую они населяют, соответственно в «Грузию».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more resource [claims][4] there is a city in Georgia named &quot;Гурджаани&quot;. Wiki [confirms][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГУРДЖААНИ , город (с 1934) в Грузии, в долине р. Алазани.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Железнодорожный узел. 12,9 тыс. жителей (1991). Винодельческие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; консервные заводы, мясокомбинат. Филиал тбилисского завода&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Микродвигатель&quot;. Театр. Краеведческий музей, Дом-музей Н. Вачнадзе.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Близ Гурджаани - грязевой курорт Ахтала. К юго-западу от Гурджаани -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3-нефная церковь 8-9 вв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://speakrus.ru/articles/gruziny.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lenta.ru/articles/2010/05/21/gruzia/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shkolazhizni.ru/archive/0/n-28452/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://poiskslov.com/word/%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="94b9ff73-f9d8-41b3-aa0c-a3f704be58de" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:32:13.660" UserId="19" Text="Two more... from Русский орфографический словарь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `ыр` -а (песня у нек-рых тюркских народов)&#xD;&#xA;- `ых` межд." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="58d75cbc-fd35-400d-92ef-f614d2efc602" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:53:46.620" UserId="19" Text="How would you translate `privacy` to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May I have some privacy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I care about my privacy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="58d75cbc-fd35-400d-92ef-f614d2efc602" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:53:46.620" UserId="19" Text="Privacy in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="58d75cbc-fd35-400d-92ef-f614d2efc602" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:53:46.620" UserId="19" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="1a77aeba-71a0-401b-9366-5888ccfa53fc" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:59:13.210" UserId="19" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="How would you translate `privacy` into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May I have some privacy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I care about my privacy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="32611465-de2c-44a5-bce6-1f69078bdc8d" CreationDate="2012-06-15T21:24:02.600" UserId="115" Text="AFIK, there is no good translation. Lately, I have been encountering the word `приватность`, but I don't think it is standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to translate it, you have reword it taking the context into account.  For example, you might translate `Can you give us some privacy?` as `Не могли бы вы оставить нас одних?`  Or you might translate `I value my privacy.` as `Я не люблю когда лезут в мои дела.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="e9acf1d0-ea3a-4691-a7a7-e98c18718dac" CreationDate="2012-06-15T21:29:28.810" UserId="119" Text="I think we have a case of a concept not really present in the Russian linguistic world image. One can speculate if the privacy has not really been valued until recently, but that's beyond the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * _Конфиденциальность_ can be used in more formal cases, like in the terms of use of a website, for example. It refers to the information collected about a person (think Facebook).&#xD;&#xA; * _Частная жизнь_ (as in _неприкосновенность частной жизни_) is again a law-term, usually referring to the actual physical privacy.&#xD;&#xA; * For colloquial usage, what @Dima suggests is probably the best solution. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="a29eb1a7-2116-49f1-9d19-4ce63b9c8eb8" CreationDate="2012-06-15T21:30:54.813" UserId="5" Text="I would guess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- конфиденциальность&#xD;&#xA;- частная жизнь&#xD;&#xA;- неприкосновенность частной жизни&#xD;&#xA;- секретность&#xD;&#xA;- уединенность, уединение&#xD;&#xA;- тайна&#xD;&#xA;- личное дело&#xD;&#xA;- интимная сторона личной жизни&#xD;&#xA;- интимная сфера&#xD;&#xA;- прайвеси" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="4f453fd5-cbcf-43b5-846c-3c9c934989ed" CreationDate="2012-06-15T21:47:15.597" UserId="119" Text="Rather than trying to compile a list of proper nouns and load-words with initial **Ы**, I'll try to present a more linguistical view on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels /ы/ and /и/ are in the complemental distribution in the Russian language. Moscow Phonological School even asserted that /ы/ and /и/ are actually one phoneme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку в русском языке, по мнению сторонников МФШ, отсутствуют фонетические положения, в которых встречались бы и звук [и], и [ы], то есть присутствие в некоторой позиции одного из этих звуков исключает возможность присутствия в ней другого, последователями школы делается вывод о том, что [и] и [ы] являются разновидностями одной фонемы: [ы] представляет собой вариацию фонемы &lt;и&gt;, обусловленную положением после твёрдого согласного. Таким образом, в парах, подобных _мыл_ — _мил_, единственное фонемное различие состоит в мягкости или твёрдости согласного, а не в гласных фонемах. — [Московская фонологическая школа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0#.D0.93.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if there are no minimal pairs on /ы/—/и/, the phonetic difference between these vowels is merely the assimilation of the preceding consonant: /ы/ follow hard consonants, /и/ follows soft (palatalized) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, with no preceding consonant, only one of the variants can appear. Naturally, it's /и/, and /ы/ should thus be considered an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in loanwords coming from languages where /ы/ _is_ a phoneme (take Kazakh, for example), the initial /ы/ is kept for the sake of transcription (same thing as **Ю** in _парашют_ ‘parachute’ to better render the French /y/ vowel, even though _-шю-_ is impossible in Russian words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="be2a15d6-5b06-4d48-b6c8-f3eeadcc1b47" CreationDate="2012-06-15T21:55:38.080" UserId="19" Text="Note that outside of the animal world, `Заец` is a perfectly valid and relatively common family name..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="25f1bbc7-0910-429f-966f-7965795bc8c6" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:30:31.243" UserId="19" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="One of the prepositions I never learned in Russian courses is `про`, which I only met later when communicating with native speakers or when reading. Is it possible to give a good rule of thumb about when it is better to use `про` instead of `о` for someone who can't hear that one way sounds better? For instance, below are some sentences with `про` that I received in emails from a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Ты правильно написал про русский язык. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Я решил купить книги, про которые думал на прошлой неделе.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) Почему ты спрашиваешь у меня про очки?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) Да, про это место я тоже читал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were writing these, I would have used `о` + prep. case each time instead of `про`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="076e5e1a-dcc4-4674-adf8-c1bec0c2072e" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:33:08.023" UserId="19" Comment="edited body" Text="I am a native Russian speaker, and I've struggled to understand the difference between these prepositions and scope of their usage as well. It seems that `про` is formally incorrect in Russian. It is the analogous Ukrainian preposition that seems to have made its way to some regions of Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="e5b08876-440e-4309-88b0-7faba0485625" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:35:12.350" UserId="19" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="`Жаждущий`, however it is not quite adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Земля, жаждущая дождя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цветок, жаждущий воды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Село, жаждущее хорошего председателя :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="107" RevisionGUID="1178b5f5-7878-4f76-97ac-93d82e4f5a06" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:37:21.297" UserId="19" Comment="edited body" Text="The normal, everyday, usage is `их`. The other usage `ихний` is seen only in special contexts, like literature. Leave it there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="af8f7b38-2912-425b-bcb6-4997f181e7db" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:44:03.003" UserId="19" Comment="edited tags" Text="|прилагательные|лексикон|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="426" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="8e7956ae-dbf9-4280-83c0-bb20da8f7f49" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:44:25.390" UserId="19" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="427" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="e99107f0-2a68-4e39-b628-307ccaf21481" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:45:52.503" UserId="19" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vocabulary|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="f068aa69-6b33-42a9-9757-cc984a371533" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:46:33.753" UserId="19" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|vocabulary|множественное-число|родительный-падеж|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="429" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="1efb92ee-fe0e-4e97-b5d8-01404334c2d7" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:47:43.687" UserId="19" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="8a6ef013-d8d6-4346-b85e-86b48a5ad9bb" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:59:00.690" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="f3e89e8b-e980-4f9c-83b0-527b114835ae" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:59:00.690" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="388fae40-7868-4c68-9dbb-5bce00307787" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:59:59.037" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="59d82c07-145d-4d76-9e18-85aa53b30a6c" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:59:59.037" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="f63f61b3-922b-46d5-8b0d-eab436dc2f7a" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:00:19.923" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="23c058c7-8387-400b-a5ff-86a5a0e05565" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:00:19.923" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="1184a015-f492-4c1a-b6ac-35ef3c52d391" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:00:37.663" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="7328b28b-5dc1-4887-b0a1-71b4a1283de3" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:00:37.663" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="9bba3872-a017-4300-9610-142cfb506883" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:01:02.200" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="a33ca93e-030d-4b81-a63a-443317ab9948" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:01:02.200" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="440" PostHistoryTypeId="9" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="b7af3f6f-c297-4528-b57e-a1dbe21a844d" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:21:04.797" UserId="104" Comment="Rollback to [1902e0f6-a06b-43be-9e01-feed6fc3102a]" Text="|существительные|род|" />
  <row Id="441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="9d312b1b-7a2e-4d4b-9d3f-d77f2a818ea5" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:44:55.577" UserId="1347" Text="The alternate form of /ы/ is /и/. For some reason, the latter was chosen as the vowel with which words start. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="820590ff-23bf-42b7-92bb-1ece222b2063" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:58:01.443" UserId="1347" Text="The Russian word for German is неметский which means something like, &quot;voiceless&quot; or &quot;mute.&quot; And yet the country is sometimes referred to as Германия. Why the difference between the two?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="820590ff-23bf-42b7-92bb-1ece222b2063" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:58:01.443" UserId="1347" Text="Different words for &quot;German&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="820590ff-23bf-42b7-92bb-1ece222b2063" CreationDate="2012-06-16T00:58:01.443" UserId="1347" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="34ede942-67b9-44aa-81d6-cdd1fd64ca52" CreationDate="2012-06-16T01:11:52.783" UserId="1347" Text="Apparently, the former form of кофе was кофий. The latter is clearly masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кофе ends in an &quot;e.&quot; Most Russian words that end in this letter are neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would lead some to treat the word кофе as neuter. Is it officially so at this time? No, it still retains its masculine gender--for now. But the language is evolving, with the underlying word having taken the -e form, so could this become true in say, 50-100 years? Quite possibly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="a3aa805e-316b-4cab-b085-1406be41bb10" CreationDate="2012-06-16T01:17:43.913" UserId="1347" Comment="amplification" Text="Apparently, the former form of кофе was кофий. The latter is clearly masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кофе ends in an &quot;e.&quot; Most Russian words that end in this letter are neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would lead some to treat the word кофе as neuter. Is this fully accepted at this time? No, it still retains its masculine gender in the eyes of many people--for now. But the language is evolving, with the underlying word having taken the -e form, so acceptance of the neuter gender has become more and more so over time, and will probably continue to grow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="34a364db-6684-4c36-aad5-0f6ed52ab70f" CreationDate="2012-06-16T04:12:51.367" UserId="123" Text="The difference is historical and basically stems from the Russian word mute (&quot;немой&quot;) as a person not speaking the Russian language.  According to the [Wikipedia Article on Немецкая Слобода][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Немцами тогда называли не только уроженцев Германии, но и вообще любых иностранцев, не знавших русского языка («немых»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic issue is that most of the permanent settlers were primarily from the German kingdoms that were hired for various purposes starting in [XV-XVI][2] centuries according to a Wiki article on Germans in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/165/different-words-for-german-in-russian&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%86%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="254ddb4a-ef4c-4d22-a1da-364bcf85f6f8" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:33:55.347" UserId="104" Text="If a number ends with 0,4,5,6,7,8, or 9, the following noun is used in genitive plural. Do measurement units make an exception or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. В стаде триста девяносто коров. (&lt;strike&gt;В стаде тристо девяносто корова.&lt;/strike&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Файл весит триста девяносто мегабайт/мегабайтов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which one is correct in the second sentence? Strangely, in case of length measurements, such as километров, метров, миль it is obvious that only genitive plural is acceptable, and not the nominative. However in case of байт, грамм, ватт, etc, I can't figure out which version is more correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of numbers ending with 1, 2, 3, and 4, there seems to be no discrepancy, because all the measurement units seem to follow the regular pattern (nominative singular for 1, genitive singular for 2,3,4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Файл весит двадцать четыре мегабайта. (obviously never &lt;s&gt;двадцать четыре мегабайт&lt;/s&gt;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="254ddb4a-ef4c-4d22-a1da-364bcf85f6f8" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:33:55.347" UserId="104" Text="Measurement units after numbers - genitive plural or nominative singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="254ddb4a-ef4c-4d22-a1da-364bcf85f6f8" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:33:55.347" UserId="104" Text="|числительные|существительные|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="3293eb59-d126-48b7-a89b-1fa9043b9c70" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:35:31.270" UserId="113" Text="You *could* say `Я пересох`, &quot;I'm all dried up&quot;, but that's rather colloquial. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="bb026028-055a-401a-a056-5e3bfa900bd0" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:40:51.390" UserId="95" Comment="other russian words i've noticed mixed in with georgian" Text="This answer is from my experience having just lived seven and a half months in Georgia, mostly in Tbilisi but also for a month and a half in Batumi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes Russian is widely known and used every day by the majority of people in Georgia aged in their 20's and above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people are fluent (they can talk quickly without translating in their heads) but would make lots of grammatical errors that native Russian speakers would pick up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact many people love the Russian language and tell me how beautiful it is. (I'm Australian so they're not just being nice to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain words are exceptionally common even when otherwise speaking Georgian. One that comes to mind is &quot;похмелье&quot; meaning &quot;hangover&quot;, even though there is a native word ნაბახუსევი (nabakhusevi) for &quot;hangover&quot;. I've also come across &quot;изжога&quot;, &quot;в общем&quot;, and &quot;именно&quot; mixed in with Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some shops I go to regularly where the staff speak Georgian and know that I know more Georgian than Russian, yet they always talk to me in Russian and I always respond in Georgian! (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But children are no longer being taught Russian in school and there is a two-year-old program which imports hundreds of native English speakers to work as English teachers in towns and villages throughout the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that people still perceive Russian to be &quot;cool&quot; along with English. All of my friends listen to both English and Russian music, but none of them listen to Georgian music. So I assume younger people will continue to pick up Russian without being taught for some time yet, but I would expect the quality to continue to decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="456" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="9644022e-0328-4aae-8f5e-9f2d30e568f0" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:43:18.150" UserId="95" Comment="the english word for the gender is &quot;neuter&quot; rather than &quot;neutral&quot;" Text="Has &quot;кофе&quot; officially become neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="457" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="9644022e-0328-4aae-8f5e-9f2d30e568f0" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:43:18.150" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 104 edit id of 53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="458" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="1909b20f-c7f7-4eb7-8a7b-183eb6711aef" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:44:03.487" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|орфография|правописание|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="52017a49-c546-4cf1-ba16-042e7b921a83" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:46:03.880" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|орфография|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="461" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="bc3cfdc0-c609-4f41-9142-559a5f456695" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:48:27.560" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="462" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="13ac0ddf-d998-48f4-89c5-f916bee3d934" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:49:39.867" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="463" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="1b9ae585-b09b-4ef1-b1ac-9d327d545677" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:52:06.543" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|этимология|история|фонология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="16cb19db-0ff8-4305-b47d-44a873fe0e61" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:17:08.393" UserId="126" Text="I know that there are several Russian verbs can be used to translate the Enlish verbs &quot;to teach&quot;, &quot;to study&quot;, and &quot;to learn&quot;, e.g. учить, выучить, научить, учиться, изучать, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am a bit confused about their exact meaning and usage.&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain the meaning of the above verbs? How are the following&#xD;&#xA;expression translated into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am learning Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - I am studying at University.&#xD;&#xA; - I teach Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - I teach Russian to the students.&#xD;&#xA; - I teach my son how to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA; - I am learning to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA; - Where did you learn Russian?&#xD;&#xA; - Who taught you Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to add any further examples that explain how to translate&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn&quot; into Russian, and how to correctly use the Russian verbs I have listed above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="16cb19db-0ff8-4305-b47d-44a873fe0e61" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:17:08.393" UserId="126" Text="To teach and to learn in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="16cb19db-0ff8-4305-b47d-44a873fe0e61" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:17:08.393" UserId="126" Text="|лексикон|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="dd4336f2-a58e-4f92-9986-db6759d6446e" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:30:24.773" UserId="126" Comment="Corrected spelling mistake." Text="I know that there are several Russian verbs can be used to translate the English verbs &quot;to teach&quot;, &quot;to study&quot;, and &quot;to learn&quot;, e.g. учить, выучить, научить, учиться, изучать, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am a bit confused about their exact meaning and usage.&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain the meaning of the above verbs? How are the following&#xD;&#xA;expression translated into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am learning Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - I am studying at University.&#xD;&#xA; - I teach Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - I teach Russian to the students.&#xD;&#xA; - I teach my son how to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA; - I am learning to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA; - Where did you learn Russian?&#xD;&#xA; - Who taught you Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to add any further examples that explain how to translate&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn&quot; into Russian, and how to correctly use the Russian verbs I have listed above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="dd4336f2-a58e-4f92-9986-db6759d6446e" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:30:24.773" UserId="126" Comment="Corrected spelling mistake." Text="How to translate &quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="470" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="ca38aed7-6532-4abc-b482-035bac36809b" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:38:36.180" UserId="126" Comment="Changed title." Text="How to translate &quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn&quot; to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="18884f59-4890-4b3c-9d03-1fc20dcf91e4" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:41:30.757" UserId="104" Text="I am learning Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу/изучаю русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am studying at University.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I teach Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I teach Russian to the students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык студентам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I teach my son how to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am learning to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить (машинu).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did you learn Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где ты научился русскому языку?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who taught you Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил тебя русскому языку?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for further examples and differences between all those words, I think quite a long essay could  be dedicated to that. Let me just present some points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - учить/преподавать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words mean to teach. However, when you're talking about a teacher's job/position, you use преподавать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу детей математике. I teach math to the kids. (might not be my job per se)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю математику в школе. I teach math at school. (That's my job)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - учить/научить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, both words mean to teach. But the latter is perfective, meaning that it denotes completion of the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил его считать. I taught him how to count (but I don't know if he learnt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научил его считать. I taught him how to count and he mastered it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - обучать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is usually used with trades/skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пилотов обучают с помощью тренировочных симуляторов. Pilots are trained by simulators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - изучать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Изучать means to study, in all senses. You can closely study a problem (изучать проблему), you can study a subject (изучать предмет). When you say Я изучаю математику, it means that math is most likely one of your main subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - выучить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means to learn (completely). For example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил это стихотворение наизусть. I learnt this poem by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил английский. I studies English (means the process, not the result/completion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил английский. I learnt English ( mastered it to some degree, denotes completion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, much more can be said about these verbs. If you pick any two and ask a separate question, it would be easier to present all the differences and nuances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="62ffebb2-fdbb-4be6-939e-2613ded76db6" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:41:47.707" UserId="57" Text="`Учить`: to be studying something OR to be teaching someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning) OR to get someone learn something (you have taught someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучать`: to be studying something. Never used for &quot;to be teaching&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `выучить` and `изучить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `выучить` may be used to say you learnt something by rote (although not necessarily), whereas `изучить` always means you actually understood it.&#xD;&#xA;- *(a consequence of the previous bullet):* `изучить` always impiles thought and analysis of some sort. Because of that, you never say `изучить стих`, you must say `выучить стих` (to memorise a verse)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="c996bc07-b0a8-499a-8d8a-fd0226ff503f" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:47:05.713" UserId="104" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am learning Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу/изучаю русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am studying at University.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I teach Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I teach Russian to the students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык студентам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I teach my son how to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am learning to drive a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить (машину).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did you learn Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где ты научился русскому языку?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who taught you Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил тебя русскому языку?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for further examples and differences between all those words, I think quite a long essay could  be dedicated to that. Let me just present some points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - учить/преподавать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words mean to teach. However, when you're talking about a teacher's job/position, you use преподавать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу детей математике. I teach math to the kids. (might not be my job per se)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю математику в школе. I teach math at school. (That's my job)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - учить/научить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, both words mean to teach. But the latter is perfective, meaning that it denotes completion of the teaching process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил его считать. I taught him how to count (but I don't know if he learnt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научил его считать. I taught him how to count and he mastered it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - обучать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is usually used with trades/skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пилотов обучают с помощью тренировочных симуляторов. Pilots are trained by simulators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - изучать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Изучать means to study, in all senses. You can closely study a problem (изучать проблему), you can study a subject (изучать предмет). When you say Я изучаю математику, it means that math is most likely one of your main subjects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - выучить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means to learn (completely). For example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил это стихотворение наизусть. I learnt this poem by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил английский. I studies English (means the process, not the result/completion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил английский. I learnt English ( mastered it to some degree, denotes completion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, much more can be said about these verbs. If you pick any two and ask a separate question, it would be easier to present all the differences and nuances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="2ee6238e-e2d9-4dba-9e1a-4744eed1798e" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:51:59.950" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="If a number ends with 0,5,6,7,8, or 9, the following noun is used in genitive plural. Do measurement units make an exception or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. В стаде триста девяносто коров. (&lt;strike&gt;В стаде тристо девяносто корова.&lt;/strike&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Файл весит триста девяносто мегабайт/мегабайтов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which one is correct in the second sentence? Strangely, in case of length measurements, such as километров, метров, миль it is obvious that only genitive plural is acceptable, and not the nominative. However in case of байт, грамм, ватт, etc, I can't figure out which version is more correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of numbers ending with 1, 2, 3, and 4, there seems to be no discrepancy, because all the measurement units seem to follow the regular pattern (nominative singular for 1, genitive singular for 2,3,4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Файл весит двадцать четыре мегабайта. (obviously never &lt;s&gt;двадцать четыре мегабайт&lt;/s&gt;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="623d847b-210c-4878-a7b9-84bbaead3a93" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:57:06.917" UserId="104" Text="I looked in a couple of dictionaries, and they claim that комплексный is stressed on о. However, when it comes to complex numbers in math, most of the professors at my university (many of whom are Russian in fact) stress е - комПЛЕКСное число. Is this pronunciation correct? Is it specific to math?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="623d847b-210c-4878-a7b9-84bbaead3a93" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:57:06.917" UserId="104" Text="Which syllable is stressed in комплексный?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="623d847b-210c-4878-a7b9-84bbaead3a93" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:57:06.917" UserId="104" Text="|математика|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="ab47094d-8a2d-4236-8228-cfc2c985e579" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:07:44.373" UserId="57" Comment="added 1618 characters in body" Text="`Учить`: to be studying something OR to be teaching someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning) OR to get someone learn something (you have taught someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучать`: to be studying something. Never used for &quot;to be teaching&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `выучить` and `изучить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `выучить` may be used to say you learnt something by rote (although not necessarily), whereas `изучить` always means you actually understood it.&#xD;&#xA;- *(a consequence of the previous bullet):* `изучить` always impiles thought and analysis of some sort. Because of that, you never say `изучить стих`, you must say `выучить стих` (to memorise a verse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examples therefore are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю русский язык. (neutral, but sounds somewhat more serious)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русский язык. (tiny little bit more colloquial; leaves a tiny possibility that you don't actually want to do it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am studying at University.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русскому языку.  (acceptable, but quite colloquial and may mean you do is not in a school)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.  (You are a proper teacher, that is your position).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian to the students.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу студентов русскому языку.  (colloquial)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю студентам русский язык.  (formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach my son how to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.  (that's it! No `преподавать` here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить машину.  (neutral, doesn't make you sound formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю вождение [машины].  (quite formal, you won't hear that in the streets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where did you learn Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы учили русский язык?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your Russian is poor)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы изучали русский язык? (neutral. No assumptions about your level in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who taught you Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто учил вас русскому языку?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your teacher did a poor job)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил вас русскому языку?  (this question may mean the person is surprised you know Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто преподавал вам русский язык?  (you are specifically asked for the name of the teacher)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="9d797a45-196e-4aca-8c5f-2e8463a4c3e2" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:17:22.983" UserId="57" Comment="added 1618 characters in body" Text="`Учить`: to be studying something OR to be teaching someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning) OR to get someone learn something (you have taught someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучать`: to be studying something. Never used for &quot;to be teaching&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучать`: to teach someone. Never used for &quot;to be studying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучить`: to get someone learn something  (you have completed your teaching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `выучить` and `изучить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `выучить` may be used to say you learnt something by rote (although not necessarily), whereas `изучить` always means you actually understood it.&#xD;&#xA;- *(a consequence of the previous bullet):* `изучить` always impiles thought and analysis of some sort. Because of that, you never say `изучить стих`, you must say `выучить стих` (to memorise a verse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examples therefore are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю русский язык. (neutral, but sounds somewhat more serious)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русский язык. (tiny little bit more colloquial; leaves a tiny possibility that you don't actually want to do it).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я изучаю русский.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am studying at University.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаю университет` (that means you are studying the university itself, as a bulding or an entity, its history etc).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаюсь в университете` (that means you are being studied in the university, as a subject. You can be though if you have an interesting decease.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь в университете.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русскому языку.  (acceptable, but quite colloquial and may mean you do is not in a school)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я обучаю русскому языку.  (more formal, but still leaves room for interpretations)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.  (You are a proper teacher, that is your position.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский OR Я учитель русского языка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian to the students.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу студентов русскому языку.  (colloquial)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю студентам русский язык.  (formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский язык. (omitting &quot;students&quot;, as it's already implied by the verb `преподаю`)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach my son how to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.  (that's it! No `преподавать` here)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить машину.  (neutral, doesn't make you sound formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю вождение [машины].  (quite formal, you won't hear that in the streets)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь водить  OR  Я хожу на вождение.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where did you learn Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы учили русский язык?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your Russian is poor)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы изучали русский язык? (neutral. No assumptions about your level in Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who taught you Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто учил вас русскому языку?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your teacher did a poor job)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил вас русскому языку?  (this question may mean the person is surprised you know Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто преподавал вам русский язык?  (you are specifically asked for the name of the teacher)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="1f1adf4c-fc25-4abb-8769-73fc99459ee5" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:24:25.480" UserId="47" Text="Some unit names form an exception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ряд существительных мужского первого склонения отступает от закономерности «нулевая флексия в им. п. ед. ч. — ненулевая флексия в род. п. мн. ч.» и образует форму род. п. мн. ч. с нулевой флексией. К ним относятся и названия мер и единиц измерения: ампер, ватт, вольт, герц, грамм, килограмм, гектар, рентген, эрг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://rusgram.narod.ru/1194-1215.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.traktat.com/language/book/sush/sks.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unitwise (gramota.ru):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВАТТ, -а; мн. род. ватт; м. [англ. watt]. Лампочка в сто ватт. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БАЙТ, -а; р. мн. байтов, **счётн.ф.** байт &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГЕКТАР, -а; мн. род. гектаров, (**при счёте**) гектар; м. [франц. hectare]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="ed80e0b2-03b7-4932-b0be-90de65a1509f" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:28:33.663" UserId="2" Text="As far as I know it depends on a university and a geographical region, somewhere it's pronounced `комплéксное` and somewhere `кóмплексное`. Both are correct in colloquial speech as it's a professional term.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="429e23ed-b4a0-4d07-8d65-5edde653db5c" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:28:52.887" UserId="57" Comment="added 1618 characters in body" Text="`Учить`: to be studying something OR to be teaching someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning) OR to get someone learn something (you have taught someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучать`: to be studying something. Never used for &quot;to be teaching&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучать`: to be teaching someone. Never used for &quot;to be studying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучить`: to get someone learn something  (you have completed your teaching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `выучить` and `изучить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `выучить` may be used to say you learnt something by rote (although not necessarily), whereas `изучить` always means you actually understood it.&#xD;&#xA;- *(a consequence of the previous bullet):* `изучить` always impiles thought and analysis of some sort. Because of that, you never say `изучить стих`, you must say `выучить стих` (to memorise a verse). Well, you can actually say `изучить стих`, but that would mean you performed a linguistic analysis of the verse, which does not imply you now know the verse by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `учить` and `обучать`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Учить` is less formal and can refer to more situations. If a person in the streets shows you how to use an ATM that has Russian interface, that's `учить`. Nethertheless, it may also refer to students in school.&#xD;&#xA;- `Обучать` is more formal and generally refers to a specifically arranged teaching. You expect to see this word in a report teacher submits to school principal. However, relation to an educational institution is not required, you can say `обучать` instead of `учить` to accentuate the act of teaching was not random and/or took some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your examples therefore are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю русский язык. (neutral, but sounds somewhat more serious)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русский язык. (tiny little bit more colloquial; leaves a tiny possibility that you don't actually want to do it).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я изучаю русский.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am studying at University.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаю университет` (that means you are studying the university itself, as a bulding or an entity, its history etc).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаюсь в университете` (that means you are being studied in the university, as a subject. You can be though if you have an interesting decease.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь в университете.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русскому языку.  (acceptable, but quite colloquial and may mean you do is not in a school)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я обучаю русскому языку.  (more formal, but still leaves room for interpretations)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.  (You are a proper teacher, that is your position.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский OR Я учитель русского языка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian to the students.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу студентов русскому языку.  (colloquial)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю студентам русский язык.  (formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский язык. (omitting &quot;students&quot;, as it's already implied by the verb `преподаю`)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach my son how to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.  (that's it! No `преподавать` here)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить машину.  (neutral, doesn't make you sound formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю вождение [машины].  (quite formal, you won't hear that in the streets)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь водить  OR  Я хожу на вождение.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where did you learn Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы учили русский язык?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your Russian is poor)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы изучали русский язык? (neutral. No assumptions about your level in Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who taught you Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто учил вас русскому языку?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your teacher did a poor job)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил вас русскому языку?  (this question may mean the person is surprised you know Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто преподавал вам русский язык?  (you are specifically asked for the name of the teacher)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="ce33416c-d15c-40ae-bec6-1accecf80243" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:36:44.153" UserId="109" Text="In my last holiday I met a lot of Russian people and they taught me a couple of Russian sentences, but only the pronunciation. Afterwards I tried to figure out how they are written, but I failed for two of those sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amongst others they taught me some compliments which means something like `You are very beautiful` and `You are a wonderful woman`. With help of a dictionary I could wrote down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты о́чень краси́вый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I guess that the inflexion is wrong. So, how is it spelled correctly? (It is, of course, directed towards a woman ;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other is a bit more complicated, I just can recreate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты __ де́вушка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I write down the missing word as I understood the pronunciation the word is something along &quot;obaldjennaja&quot;. What is the missing word and how is it spelled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="ce33416c-d15c-40ae-bec6-1accecf80243" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:36:44.153" UserId="109" Text="Request for the correct spelling of &quot;beautiful&quot; and &quot;wonderful&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="ce33416c-d15c-40ae-bec6-1accecf80243" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:36:44.153" UserId="109" Text="|лексикон|прилагательные|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="674d92a9-2b02-47b8-ba58-beb89f8f1eae" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:40:42.183" UserId="57" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="`Учить`: to be studying something OR to be teaching someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning) OR to get someone learn something (you have taught someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучать`: to be studying something. Never used for &quot;to be teaching&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучать`: to be teaching someone. Never used for &quot;to be studying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучить`: to get someone learn something  (you have completed your teaching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `выучить` and `изучить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `выучить` may be used to say you learnt something by rote (although not necessarily), whereas `изучить` always means you actually understood it.&#xD;&#xA;- *(a consequence of the previous bullet):* `изучить` always impiles thought and analysis of some sort. Because of that, you never say `изучить стих`, you must say `выучить стих` (to memorise a verse). Well, you can actually say `изучить стих`, but that would mean you performed a linguistic analysis of the verse, which does not imply you now know the verse by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `учить` and `обучать`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Учить` is less formal and can refer to more situations. If a person in the streets shows you how to use an ATM that has Russian interface, that's `учить`. Nethertheless, it may also refer to students in school.&#xD;&#xA;- `Обучать` is more formal and generally refers to a specifically arranged teaching. You expect to see this word in a report teacher submits to school principal. However, relation to an educational institution is not required, you can say `обучать` instead of `учить` to accentuate the act of teaching was not random and/or took some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to tell apart the two different meanings of `учить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When referring to learning, the question is 'what' (`учить что?`).  &#xD;&#xA;When referring to teaching, the question is 'whom' (`учить кого?`)&#xD;&#xA;- Therefore, if you want to say that you are studying a person, you must use the single-meaning form, `изучать`, to avoid confusion:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил его -&gt; I taught him (and never I learned him)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучал его -&gt; I learned him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Your examples therefore are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю русский язык. (neutral, but sounds somewhat more serious)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русский язык. (tiny little bit more colloquial; leaves a tiny possibility that you don't actually want to do it).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я изучаю русский.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am studying at University.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаю университет` (that means you are studying the university itself, as a bulding or an entity, its history etc).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаюсь в университете` (that means you are being studied in the university, as a subject. You can be though if you have an interesting decease.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь в университете.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русскому языку.  (acceptable, but quite colloquial and may mean you do is not in a school)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я обучаю русскому языку.  (more formal, but still leaves room for interpretations)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.  (You are a proper teacher, that is your position.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский OR Я учитель русского языка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian to the students.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу студентов русскому языку.  (colloquial)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю студентам русский язык.  (formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский язык. (omitting &quot;students&quot;, as it's already implied by the verb `преподаю`)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach my son how to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.  (that's it! No `преподавать` here)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить машину.  (neutral, doesn't make you sound formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю вождение [машины].  (quite formal, you won't hear that in the streets)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь водить  OR  Я хожу на вождение.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where did you learn Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы учили русский язык?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your Russian is poor)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы изучали русский язык? (neutral. No assumptions about your level in Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who taught you Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто учил вас русскому языку?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your teacher did a poor job)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил вас русскому языку?  (this question may mean the person is surprised you know Russian)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто преподавал вам русский язык?  (you are specifically asked for the name of the teacher)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="08c08419-3720-4026-bd55-41be35820ea1" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:53:47.170" UserId="57" Text="&gt; ты о́чень краси́вый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That targets a male person. Saying that may make you sound gay in certain circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To target a girl, you must say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты о́чень краси́вая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obaldjennaja -&gt; `Обалденная`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A girl that makes you [`обалдеть`][1] (go out of one's mind, lose one's wits; become dulled/crazed; be stunned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lingvo.yandex.ru/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="99433a2d-32f2-4930-b17d-f956d45434f3" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:55:46.297" UserId="47" Text="My knowledge, stemming from my math professor in univerisity and supported by Lopatin dictionary ( http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EA%EE%EC%EF%EB%E5%EA%F1%ED%FB%E9&amp;all=x), is that it's компл*e*ксный in math (complex numbers) and к**о**мплексный otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account that it's always c**o**mplex in English, I wonder where this distinction comes from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="a94466ca-f607-4a02-965b-9052070ec754" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:59:11.527" UserId="57" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="&gt; ты о́чень краси́вый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That targets a male person. Saying that may make you sound gay in certain circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To target a girl, you must say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты о́чень краси́вая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obaldjennaja -&gt; `Обалденная`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A girl that makes you [`обалдеть`][1] (go out of one's mind, lose one's wits; become dulled/crazed; be stunned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very colloquial and almost always means you want some sort of relationship with that girl (unless it's your sister or a female friend with wich you already have this level of informality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lingvo.yandex.ru/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="1e44999a-8258-459d-b2c4-0e373b06091c" CreationDate="2012-06-16T14:14:08.913" UserId="57" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; ты о́чень краси́вый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That targets a male person. Saying that may make you sound gay in certain circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To target a girl, you must say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты о́чень краси́вая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obaldjennaja -&gt; `Обалденная`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A girl that makes you [`обалдеть`][1] (go out of one's mind, lose one's wits; become dulled/crazed; be stunned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very colloquial and almost always means you want some sort of relationship with that girl (unless it's your sister or a female friend with which you already have this level of informality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lingvo.yandex.ru/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="064ec7c4-bed6-4928-94ec-c3b5e026d789" CreationDate="2012-06-16T15:16:39.630" UserId="47" Comment="Linked a referenced answer" Text="As [Dima mentioned][1], the necessary condition is for each syllable to have one and exactly one vowel. But it's by far not sufficient. From [here](http://www.pshelp.narod.ru/lib/applicant/0002-007.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Законы слогоделения в разных языках и даже диалектах одного языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неодинаковы. Например, представители севернорусского наречия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произнесут при скандировании слово “дружба” так: друж-ба. А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представители южнорусского наречия – иначе: дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   В русском литературном языке деление на слоги опирается на   п р и н ц и п   в о с х о д я щ е й   з в у ч н о с т и .  Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначает, что звуки в слоге (незаконченом) располагаются от наименее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучного к наиболее звучному. Если звучность условно обозначить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифрами, получится следующее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 – гласный звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 – сонорный согласный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 – остальные (шумные) согласные звуки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разделение на слоги&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет производится по принципу восходящей звучности: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Трудности при разделении слова на слоги могут возникнуть при стечении согласных. При этом в русском литературном языке, опирающемся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на московское произношение, разделение на слоги будет осуществляться с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учетом следующего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. Если на границе слогов рядом оказались два шумных или два сонорных звука (кроме [j]), они относятся к последующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2. Если в сочетании согласных первый [j], он всегда отходит к предшествующему гласному: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3. В сочетании согласных, первым из которых является сонорный, а вторым – шумный, сонорный может отходить к предшествующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in most cases it's a phonetic thing. You have to feel the pronunciation of the word, its phonetic division into syllables. Above are some good guidelines, but they require knowledge of phonetics and are not trivial to apply in practice. Also, note that the rules of hyphen (перенос, moving part of the word to the next line) are slightly different. If you're interested in them, [check][2] [out][3] [these][4] [links][5]. Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Per Alenanno's request, here's an attempt of translating the above source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rules of splitting a word into syllables are differ not only between languages but also between different dialects of the same language. For example in North-Russian dialect, one would utter the word дружба as друж-ба, whereas in South-Russian it'd be дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the literary Russian language the splitting into syllables is based on the principle of increasing sonority. This means that the sounds in a syllable are arranged from least sonorous to most sonorous. If we denote sonority with numbers, we'll have the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 - vowel sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 - sonorant consonant sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 - other (obstruent) consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The splitting into syllables will be done according to the principle of increasing sonority: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Difficulties arise in case of consonant clusters. In literary Russian based on Moscow pronunciation, the splitting is done with consideration of the following rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If on the syllable border there are two sonorants sounds or two obstruents (except for й) they refer to the latter vowel. пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If the first in the consonant group is й, it refers to the previous vowel: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In a consonant group where the first is a sonorant, and the second is an obstruent, the sonorant may join the preceeding vowel. кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/139/47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Spel_Hyph.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=perenos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://shkola.lv/index.php?mode=cht&amp;chtid=660&amp;subid=141&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="493" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="064ec7c4-bed6-4928-94ec-c3b5e026d789" CreationDate="2012-06-16T15:16:39.630" Comment="Proposed by 47 approved by 104 edit id of 55" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="4df3af8e-d769-4d3e-87fa-d1b2a0d36775" CreationDate="2012-06-16T15:37:52.957" UserId="104" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I looked in a couple of dictionaries, and they claim that комплексный is stressed on o - кóмплексный. However, when it comes to complex numbers in math, most of the professors at my university (many of whom are Russian in fact) stress е - комплéксный число. Is this pronunciation correct? Is it specific to math?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="495" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="620f83f8-573f-4ced-b5b0-622a3f74aa2e" CreationDate="2012-06-16T15:43:31.187" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|formality|приветствия|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="dff2e620-630f-440d-9b04-1a44ce3d3768" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:05:22.580" UserId="5" Text="&quot;твОрог&quot; or &quot;творОг&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I know which pronunciation is right without looking it up in the dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="dff2e620-630f-440d-9b04-1a44ce3d3768" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:05:22.580" UserId="5" Text="General rules for stressing words the right way" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="dff2e620-630f-440d-9b04-1a44ce3d3768" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:05:22.580" UserId="5" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="444877f4-3a6a-4ef6-a0ad-95e262da882a" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:18:21.050" UserId="119" Comment="formartting" Text="_Твóрог_ or _творóг_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I know which pronunciation is right without looking it up in the dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="505" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="444877f4-3a6a-4ef6-a0ad-95e262da882a" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:18:21.050" Comment="Proposed by 119 approved by 5 edit id of 58" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="2e0c399a-7c88-43ef-9a40-121a232e2332" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:22:06.417" UserId="119" Text="I'd say that _компле́ксный_ with the stress on e is a trait of certain professional slang, in this case, the math one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On every other occasion  this word its regular stress, _кóмплексный_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different stress as a feature of professional slang is not at all uncommon in Russian. A construction worker, for example, would refer to a number of cranes as _краны́_, the regular stress being _кра́ны_. An IT guy might say _драйвера́_, the more regular form being _дра́йверы_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="281bc48a-336c-46bb-a426-a5d667ce85b2" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:42:07.833" UserId="71" Comment="fixed link and formatting" Text="My knowledge, stemming from my math professor in university and supported by [Lopatin dictionary][1], is that it's компл&lt;b&gt;e&lt;/b&gt;ксный in math (complex numbers) and к&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt;мплексный otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account that it's always c&lt;b&gt;o&lt;/b&gt;mplex in English, I wonder where this distinction comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EA%EE%EC%EF%EB%E5%EA%F1%ED%FB%E9&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="508" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="281bc48a-336c-46bb-a426-a5d667ce85b2" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:42:07.833" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 47 edit id of 56" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="183" RevisionGUID="29d4fa0e-e20b-41bc-8603-31fd0be8126d" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:52:34.777" UserId="119" Text="In the Russian language world view, there is a significant difference between one's citizenship (гражданство, referring to the country) and ethnicity (национальность). For example, _Russian_ may mean either _российский_ or _русский_. A person may be referred to as _россиянин_ (a citizen of Russia) and as _русский_ (ethnic Russian), being, for example, ethnic Tatar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, some countries have a pair of adjectives, one referring to the country itself, and the other to the ethnicity. Returning to the question, _германский_ is the former and _немецкий_ is the latter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * _Германский_ refers to the country or the territory: _германский флаг_, _советско-германский пакт о ненападении_, _германские племена_ (tribes that lived on the territory of modern Germany).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * _Немецкий_ refers to the language, ethnicity, or culture: _немецкий язык_, _немец_ (ethnicity), _немецкая литература_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Германские языки_ is a slightly complex example: German (_немецкий язык_) is one of the Germanic languages (_германские языки_). _Германские языки_ here is a number of languages originally spoken on roughly the territory of modern Germany, as well as the languages descended from those. English, as a matter of the fact, _is_ considered a Germanic language (_Английский язык относится к германской языковой группе_). Here, _немецкий_ и _германский_ are obviously non-interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="2fc85e98-f199-4d44-b89a-06f937033684" CreationDate="2012-06-16T22:28:13.270" UserId="1347" Text="Languages evolved differently in different places. Taking Europe alone, the &quot;northern&quot; languages are more consonant based, and have fewer vowels, while it's the southern languages, notably along the Mediterranean, and Middle East, including Latin, Greek, and Arabic, that are comparatively generous in their use of vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to other parts of Europe, (most of) Russia was relatively remote from the Mediterranean, and even the Middle East (except for Southern Russia). Hence, the extensive use of vowels, especially words beginning with vowels, was introduced later, and to a lesser degree, to Russia than to even the Nordic countries or Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to &quot;nativity,&quot; the operating canon is, &quot;it's all relative.&quot; Are there many Russian words that are 2000 years old that begin with A or other vowels? Probably not. But the &quot;density&quot; of such words increases as their introduction to Russian gets closer to the present that is within the past 1,000 years, more within the past 500 years, and even more within the past 50-100 years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="511" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="90ec0cbd-bc72-4a1b-9f5d-27edd1425268" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:26:40.220" UserId="113" Comment="Corrected title" Text="Typographic weights names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="90ec0cbd-bc72-4a1b-9f5d-27edd1425268" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:26:40.220" UserId="113" Comment="Corrected title" Text="|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="513" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="90ec0cbd-bc72-4a1b-9f5d-27edd1425268" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:26:40.220" Comment="Proposed by 113 approved by 8 edit id of 36" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="847bd8e8-b5b9-4e40-af47-9024002f0e6e" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:26:53.073" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="**Здравствуйте** is a more formal version of **привет**, roughly equivalent to *hello* vs. *hi* in English, or *bonjour* vs. *salut* in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should definitely use **здравствуйте** with strangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially when one is in a hurry, **здравствуйте** may be substituted with the shortened **здрасте**, but that may sound a bit colloquial and present some unwanted undertones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="515" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="847bd8e8-b5b9-4e40-af47-9024002f0e6e" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:26:53.073" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 8 edit id of 39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="6be112ff-ac2f-48e1-8bee-403200be46ef" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:05.537" UserId="62" Comment="edit description of congruence" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`≡` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `знак сравнения по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only, look division for operation)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="517" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="6be112ff-ac2f-48e1-8bee-403200be46ef" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:05.537" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 8 edit id of 45" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="b41857a5-2065-4dcb-8bb0-5bd15edbf3bd" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:15.787" UserId="86" Comment="Fix link to 'Немецкая Слобода'" Text="The difference is historical and basically stems from the Russian word mute (&quot;немой&quot;) as a person not speaking the Russian language.  According to the [Wikipedia Article on Немецкая Слобода][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Немцами тогда называли не только уроженцев Германии, но и вообще любых иностранцев, не знавших русского языка («немых»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic issue is that most of the permanent settlers were primarily from the German kingdoms that were hired for various purposes starting in [XV-XVI][2] centuries according to a Wiki article on Germans in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%86%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="519" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="b41857a5-2065-4dcb-8bb0-5bd15edbf3bd" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:15.787" Comment="Proposed by 86 approved by 8 edit id of 51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="7e6c06f0-542f-42ae-9599-078d08547268" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:18.487" UserId="119" Comment="spelling fixed" Text="The Russian word for German is _немецкий_ which means something like, &quot;voiceless&quot; or &quot;mute.&quot; And yet the country is sometimes referred to as _Германия_. Why the difference between the two?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="521" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="7e6c06f0-542f-42ae-9599-078d08547268" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:18.487" Comment="Proposed by 119 approved by 8 edit id of 52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="e895c321-940f-4091-a45a-5b68f4939492" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:22.417" UserId="19" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="The history of the origin of words and phrases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="523" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="e895c321-940f-4091-a45a-5b68f4939492" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:22.417" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 8 edit id of 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="a4fd4ae6-e28b-4e62-b421-92301335f615" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:25.693" UserId="19" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="How the grammar works: different grammatical usages and how they can be used or what they mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="a4fd4ae6-e28b-4e62-b421-92301335f615" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:25.693" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 8 edit id of 50" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="6d144891-7d96-41de-a358-8ca8f09062e4" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:29.593" UserId="19" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="Topics related to finding a single word that fits a meaning. Describe the intended meaning, connotation, and/or context **in as much detail as you can**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="527" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="6d144891-7d96-41de-a358-8ca8f09062e4" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:29.593" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 8 edit id of 47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="d5d424aa-ad93-4214-8c4f-6bf6f059df23" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:31.717" UserId="19" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Sets of words or words with specialized meanings that have to be learned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="529" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="d5d424aa-ad93-4214-8c4f-6bf6f059df23" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:31.717" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 8 edit id of 49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="1ad83b6c-b9b3-490c-93c4-94e8bc9a9501" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:34.150" UserId="19" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Choosing the best word for a particular context or meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="531" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="1ad83b6c-b9b3-490c-93c4-94e8bc9a9501" CreationDate="2012-06-16T23:27:34.150" Comment="Proposed by 19 approved by 8 edit id of 48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="532" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="f6deab04-f410-48d1-a5c2-3cf9ccf0a254" CreationDate="2012-06-17T00:42:27.733" UserId="77" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:77,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="3034ceb7-ee0c-4f8c-86e8-9f7398ebde64" CreationDate="2012-06-17T01:05:40.307" UserId="115" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="AFIK, there is no good translation. Lately, I have been encountering the word `приватность`, but I don't think it is standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to translate it, you have to reword it taking the context into account.  For example, you might translate `Can you give us some privacy?` as `Не могли бы вы оставить нас одних?`  Or you might translate `I value my privacy.` as `Я не люблю когда лезут в мои дела.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="087588e7-9101-4dba-bea4-5becfa313f91" CreationDate="2012-06-17T01:16:13.143" UserId="115" Text="As far as I know there are no general rules.  In the case of `творог`, I think the stress varies by region.  In Ukraine I have quite often heard it with the stress on the first syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="a17064e8-a051-43b2-bfca-e6a057e28ab7" CreationDate="2012-06-17T04:41:43.113" UserId="95" Comment="removed the giant lists from the question, which would be better in an answer" Text="The Soviet Union endured for over seventy years and I know lots of Russian words were borrowed into the languages of the Soviet Republics around Russia during this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there some words borrowed into Russian from the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian Soviet Republics which are still very commonly used in Russia today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="536" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="c3b2d093-eef3-4ca1-8e61-5290402adaba" CreationDate="2012-06-17T04:52:09.867" UserId="62" Comment="corrected the title" Text="Typographic weight names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="12ad0ef7-7ef9-4f57-92a8-2edc89efbe7b" CreationDate="2012-06-17T08:56:51.860" UserId="104" Comment="edited body" Text="I looked in a couple of dictionaries, and they claim that комплексный is stressed on o - кóмплексный. However, when it comes to complex numbers in math, most of the professors at my university (many of whom are Russian in fact) stress е - комплéкснoe число. Is this pronunciation correct? Is it specific to math?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="211c4aaf-ec5c-4dfc-8e75-52e750d456f4" CreationDate="2012-06-17T09:34:34.670" UserId="104" Text="In case of *творог*, both pronunciations are common and [standard](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;all=x) (i.e. correct). In the general case though, I am afraid you will *have to* look up in a dictionary; there are no rules. In many languages the stress is bound to a certain syllable (e.g. in Slovak it's always the first syllable, in French and Armenian always the last). In Russian, the stress can fall on any syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first: *крас*ненький, second: кра*сав*чик, third: красо*та*, fourth: искусство*вед*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could make up *certain* rules, or patterns, regarding a very small set of words, mostly borrowed, but I don't know if it would be of any use. For example, words ending in *-ция* are usually stressed on the preceding syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; му*-та-*ция, ассоци*-а-*ция, про*-дук-*ция, ин*-фек-*ция &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of another rule one could say that words ending in *-логия*, *-графия*, *-метрия* are stressed on *-лог-*, *-граф-*,  and *-мет-*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of stress is further complicated by the fact that different grammatical forms of the same word may have different stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хо*жу*. Ты *хо*дишь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.ч. вод*а*; мн.ч. *во*ды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is considered one of the most difficult aspects of Russian. When learning a new word, it's best to memorize its pronunciation along with the pronunciation of its different grammatical forms. It's a lot, I know, but then no one said Russian was easy :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="0cea1151-8af4-4372-8ba7-cc2f7113b6ed" CreationDate="2012-06-17T10:30:28.670" UserId="133" Text="I came across the (obscene) verb *ахуеть* chatting (instant messaging, to be precise) with a native speaker (context: soccer game). A [bit of research on the Russian Wiktionary][1] seems to show that this could be a misspelling of *охуеть*  originating in the pronunciation of the unstressed o *(аканье)*. Is it, or are both versions acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my attempts translate the [Викисловарь page][1], I gather that it is used to express strong feelings (of surprise, admiration, envy, hatred, confusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that seems like a pretty loose definition that would apply to a whole range of colloquial Russian words. In fact, I haven't been able to find any translation at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some realistic examples of use? And exactly *how* obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable? Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech? Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="0cea1151-8af4-4372-8ba7-cc2f7113b6ed" CreationDate="2012-06-17T10:30:28.670" UserId="133" Text="ахуеть and охуеть - which is used, and what is the precise meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="0cea1151-8af4-4372-8ba7-cc2f7113b6ed" CreationDate="2012-06-17T10:30:28.670" UserId="133" Text="|правописание|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="1bff759b-2045-42b8-a099-c8c394282da6" CreationDate="2012-06-17T10:36:28.707" UserId="136" Text="Correct form is `охуеть`. It means `to be confused with something` for example `Я охуел от увиденного` it means `I am extrimly confused whith what I saw`. &#xD;&#xA;You should remember that this word is extirymly rude and not to be used in public places. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can say `Я хуею` in the samr meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="644fe70a-cbb4-4505-be6c-1636fcf256ef" CreationDate="2012-06-17T10:41:52.940" UserId="136" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Correct form is `охуеть`. It means `to be confused with something`, for example `Я охуел от увиденного` means `I am extrimly confused whith what I saw`. &#xD;&#xA;You should remember that this word is extirymly rude and not to be used in public places. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can say `Я хуею` in the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="2820cc8f-916b-41e4-b9e7-92b5836af413" CreationDate="2012-06-17T10:52:10.530" UserId="104" Text="&gt; Q: Is the spelling ахуеть acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is a resounding **NO**. Just because a word is colloquial doesn't mean that it gets to bend all the language norms, rules, and logic. The only correct spelling is *охуеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: What are some realistic examples of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Я не пог поверить своим глазам! Я просто охуел от увиденного! (surprise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ты что, oхуел? (Have you lost your fucking mind?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the infinitive as a complete sentence to express bewilderment, surprise, anger, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Охуеть! (cf. С ума сойти!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the word derives from хуй, which is a rude word for penis, referred to as слово из трех букв(the three letter word (cf: the f-word in English). The meaning of the word охуеть isn't obscene, but because of the derivation, the word itself should be used only with close people and only if you know that they are OK with this type of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q:  Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the word is rather common. Of course, some people just don't use this type of language, but those who do use this word quite commonly. As you may have noticed the meaning range of the word is pretty wide, so this is kind of a universal word :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so, mostly because of the multifuncionality of the word. In some cases it can be rendered as *Wow!*, but it doesn't exactly convey all the connotations and feelings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="7f754f39-42fb-47ce-b435-a1655921b1f5" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:08:02.490" UserId="97" Text="&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like with most obscene colloquial words in Russian, this one can means different things in different context.  However the closest translation would probably be &quot;be astounded&quot;, &quot;be astonished&quot;, etc.  See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/Feeling-surprised-or-shocked for some other alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: exactly how obscene is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obscene enough to be banned out by most of automatic obscenity filters on Russian internet forums.  You should certainly not use it in any written communication or in any cultural- or culture-related context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="1cee9d06-e498-4bbc-ae9b-616945a5f73f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:34:14.253" UserId="104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In case of *творог*, both pronunciations are common and [standard](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;all=x) (i.e. correct). In the general case though, I am afraid you will *have to* look up in a dictionary; there are no rules. In many languages the stress is bound to a certain syllable (e.g. in Slovak it's always the first syllable, in French and Armenian always the last). In Russian, the stress can fall on any syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first: *крас-*ненький, second: кра*-сав-*чик, third: красо*-та*, fourth: искусство*-вед*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could make up *certain* rules, or patterns, regarding a very small set of words, mostly borrowed, but I don't know if it would be of any use. For example, words ending in *-ция* are usually stressed on the preceding syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; му*-та-*ция, ассоци*-а-*ция, про*-дук-*ция, ин*-фек-*ция &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of another rule one could say that words ending in *-логия*, *-графия*, *-метрия* are stressed on *-лог-*, *-граф-*,  and *-мет-*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of stress is further complicated by the fact that different grammatical forms of the same word may have different stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хо*-жу*. Ты *хо-*дишь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.ч. во*-да*; мн.ч. *во-*ды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is considered one of the most difficult aspects of Russian. When learning a new word, it's best to memorize its pronunciation along with the pronunciation of its different grammatical forms. It's a lot, I know, but then no one said Russian was easy :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="548" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="b4ca4b01-ce6d-4fb4-9dc4-5e0c28dcc51e" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:34:57.827" UserId="104" Comment="Rollback to [211c4aaf-ec5c-4dfc-8e75-52e750d456f4]" Text="In case of *творог*, both pronunciations are common and [standard](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;all=x) (i.e. correct). In the general case though, I am afraid you will *have to* look up in a dictionary; there are no rules. In many languages the stress is bound to a certain syllable (e.g. in Slovak it's always the first syllable, in French and Armenian always the last). In Russian, the stress can fall on any syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first: *крас*ненький, second: кра*сав*чик, third: красо*та*, fourth: искусство*вед*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could make up *certain* rules, or patterns, regarding a very small set of words, mostly borrowed, but I don't know if it would be of any use. For example, words ending in *-ция* are usually stressed on the preceding syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; му*-та-*ция, ассоци*-а-*ция, про*-дук-*ция, ин*-фек-*ция &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of another rule one could say that words ending in *-логия*, *-графия*, *-метрия* are stressed on *-лог-*, *-граф-*,  and *-мет-*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of stress is further complicated by the fact that different grammatical forms of the same word may have different stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хо*жу*. Ты *хо*дишь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.ч. вод*а*; мн.ч. *во*ды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is considered one of the most difficult aspects of Russian. When learning a new word, it's best to memorize its pronunciation along with the pronunciation of its different grammatical forms. It's a lot, I know, but then no one said Russian was easy :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="186" RevisionGUID="c5658b1f-6547-4310-8858-59e85fc6ae40" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:37:54.420" UserId="104" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="In case of *творог*, both pronunciations are common and [standard](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;all=x) (i.e. correct). In the general case though, I am afraid you will *have to* look up in a dictionary; there are no rules. In many languages the stress is bound to a certain syllable (e.g. in Slovak it's always the first syllable, in French and Armenian always the last). In Russian, the stress can fall on any syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; first: *крас-* ненький, second: кра *-сав-* чик, third: красо *-та*, fourth: искусство *-вед*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could make up *certain* rules, or patterns, regarding a very small set of words, mostly borrowed, but I don't know if it would be of any use. For example, words ending in *-ция* are usually stressed on the preceding syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; му *-та-* ция, ассоци *-а-* ция, про *-дук-* ция, ин *-фек-* ция &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of another rule one could say that words ending in *-логия*, *-графия*, *-метрия* are stressed on *-лог-*, *-граф-*,  and *-мет-*, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of stress is further complicated by the fact that different grammatical forms of the same word may have different stress. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хо *-жу*. Ты *хо-* дишь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.ч. во *-да*; мн.ч. *во-* ды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is considered one of the most difficult aspects of Russian. When learning a new word, it's best to memorize its pronunciation along with the pronunciation of its different grammatical forms. It's a lot, I know, but then no one said Russian was easy :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="532606cb-4ca7-48dd-9ad3-04b2dede21e3" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:42:34.990" UserId="109" Text="Are there any pronunciation rules for the letter &quot;о&quot;? I wonder why that letter is slightly differently spoken in feminine and masculine version of the sentence &quot;I understand&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; m: я понял &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; f: я поняла &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [video tutorial (German, 2nd video)][1] they pronounce the male version as &quot;ja ponil&quot; and the female version &quot;ja panila&quot;. What is the reason for the subtle distinction in pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russlandjournal.de/russisch/sprachuebungen/wichtige-ausdruecke/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="532606cb-4ca7-48dd-9ad3-04b2dede21e3" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:42:34.990" UserId="109" Text="Pronunciation rules for &quot;о&quot; in &quot;поня́ть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="532606cb-4ca7-48dd-9ad3-04b2dede21e3" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:42:34.990" UserId="109" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="9b85ee50-2337-46b2-9a71-965957afee36" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:44:57.843" UserId="104" Text="May vowels in Russian, including o, are pronounced differently depending on whether they occur on the stressed position, before the stressed position, or after. In case of o it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stressed: o&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - before stressed: a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after stressed: ə (shwa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine понял is stressed on the first syllable, so o is pronounced as o. The feminine понала is stressed on the last syllable, so o is pronounced as a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift of stress between different forms of the same word is more than common in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="86537d1e-ce71-4530-839c-ddfebb06ff54" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:50:35.823" UserId="104" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="Many vowels in Russian, including o, are pronounced differently depending on whether they occur on the stressed position, before the stressed position, or after. In case of o it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stressed: o&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - before stressed: a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after stressed: ə (shwa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxample:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - хорошо (stressed on the last syllable, therefore pronounced as харашо)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - облако (stressed on the first syllable, therefore pronounced as облəкə&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - поточечно (stressed on the second syllable, therefore pronounced as паточəчнə. Note, the word has three o's and all are pronounced differently because the first o is before the stressed vowel, the second is stressed, and the third is after the stressed vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine понял is stressed on the first syllable, so o is pronounced as o. The feminine понала is stressed on the last syllable, so o is pronounced as a. In some dialects and by some uneducated people, понала is stressed on the first syllable, in which case it is pronounced as понял with a schwa in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift of stress between different forms of the same word is more than common in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="a7539222-b9e0-4474-a6ae-f5b88ab26c56" CreationDate="2012-06-17T11:57:22.837" UserId="104" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Many vowels in Russian, including o, are pronounced differently depending on whether they occur on the stressed position, before the stressed position, or after. In case of o it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stressed: o&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - before stressed: a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after stressed: ə (shwa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxample:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - хорошо (stressed on the last syllable, therefore pronounced as харашо)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - облако (stressed on the first syllable, therefore pronounced as облəкə&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - поточечно (stressed on the second syllable, therefore pronounced as паточəчнə. Note, the word has three o's and all are pronounced differently because the first o is before the stressed vowel, the second is stressed, and the third is after the stressed vowel. Note, this is a slightly contrived word meaning point-by-point, I just couldn't come up with a simpler example with three o's with the stress on the middle o).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine понял is stressed on the first syllable, so o is pronounced as o. The feminine понала is stressed on the last syllable, so o is pronounced as a. In some dialects and by some uneducated people, понала is stressed on the first syllable, in which case it is pronounced as понял with a schwa in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift of stress between different forms of the same word is more than common in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="dcf2d798-11f9-443e-902c-2969e15f9088" CreationDate="2012-06-17T12:04:22.767" UserId="104" Comment="edited body; added 1 characters in body" Text="Many vowels in Russian, including o, are pronounced differently depending on whether they occur on the stressed position, before the stressed position, or after. In case of o it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stressed: o&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - before stressed: a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after stressed: ə (shwa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxample:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - хорошо (stressed on the last syllable, therefore pronounced as харашо)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - облако (stressed on the first syllable, therefore pronounced as облəкə)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - поточечно (stressed on the second syllable, therefore pronounced as паточəчнə.Тhe word has three o's and all are pronounced differently because the first o is before the stressed vowel, the second is stressed, and the third is after the stressed vowel. Note that this is a slightly contrived word meaning point-by-point, I just couldn't come up with a simpler example with three o's with the stress on the middle o).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine понял is stressed on the first syllable, so o is pronounced as o. The feminine понала is stressed on the last syllable, so o is pronounced as a. In some dialects and by some uneducated people, поняла is stressed on the first syllable, in which case it is pronounced as понял with a schwa in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift of stress between different forms of the same word is more than common in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="7a2d68f9-c5eb-4ec3-b6b1-fac71a30d333" CreationDate="2012-06-17T12:16:31.160" UserId="104" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Q: Is the spelling ахуеть acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is a resounding **NO**. Just because a word is colloquial doesn't mean that it gets to bend all the language norms, rules, and logic. The only correct spelling is *охуеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: What are some realistic examples of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Я не мог поверить своим глазам! Я просто охуел от увиденного! (surprise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ты что, oхуел? (Have you lost your fucking mind?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the infinitive as a complete sentence to express bewilderment, surprise, anger, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Охуеть! (cf. С ума сойти!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the word derives from хуй, which is a rude word for penis, referred to as слово из трех букв(the three letter word (cf: the f-word in English). The meaning of the word охуеть isn't obscene, but because of the derivation, the word itself should be used only with close people and only if you know that they are OK with this type of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q:  Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the word is rather common. Of course, some people just don't use this type of language, but those who do use this word quite commonly. As you may have noticed the meaning range of the word is pretty wide, so this is kind of a universal word :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so, mostly because of the multifuncionality of the word. In some cases it can be rendered as *Wow!*, but it doesn't exactly convey all the connotations and feelings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="2beb86c0-b996-43df-ac89-346a175e1fe4" CreationDate="2012-06-17T12:36:38.780" UserId="104" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As [Dima mentioned][1], the necessary condition is for each syllable to have one and exactly one vowel. But it's by far not sufficient. From [here](http://www.pshelp.narod.ru/lib/applicant/0002-007.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Законы слогоделения в разных языках и даже диалектах одного языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неодинаковы. Например, представители севернорусского наречия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произнесут при скандировании слово “дружба” так: друж-ба. А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представители южнорусского наречия – иначе: дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   В русском литературном языке деление на слоги опирается на   п р и н ц и п   в о с х о д я щ е й   з в у ч н о с т и .  Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначает, что звуки в слоге (незаконченом) располагаются от наименее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучного к наиболее звучному. Если звучность условно обозначить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифрами, получится следующее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 – гласный звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 – сонорный согласный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 – остальные (шумные) согласные звуки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разделение на слоги&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет производится по принципу восходящей звучности: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Трудности при разделении слова на слоги могут возникнуть при стечении согласных. При этом в русском литературном языке, опирающемся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на московское произношение, разделение на слоги будет осуществляться с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учетом следующего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. Если на границе слогов рядом оказались два шумных или два сонорных звука (кроме [j]), они относятся к последующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2. Если в сочетании согласных первый [j], он всегда отходит к предшествующему гласному: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3. В сочетании согласных, первым из которых является сонорный, а вторым – шумный, сонорный может отходить к предшествующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in most cases it's a phonetic thing. You have to feel the pronunciation of the word, its phonetic division into syllables. Above are some good guidelines, but they require knowledge of phonetics and are not trivial to apply in practice. Also, note that the rules of hyphen (перенос, moving part of the word to the next line) are slightly different. If you're interested in them, [check][2] [out][3] [these][4] [links][5]. Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Per Alenanno's request, here's an attempt of translating the above source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rules of splitting a word into syllables are different not only between languages but also between different dialects of the same language. For example in North-Russian dialect, one would utter the word дружба as друж-ба, whereas in South-Russian it'd be дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the literary Russian language the splitting into syllables is based on the principle of increasing sonority. This means that the sounds in a syllable are arranged from least sonorous to most sonorous. If we denote sonority with numbers, we'll have the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 - vowel sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 - sonorant consonant sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 - other (obstruent) consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The splitting into syllables will be done according to the principle of increasing sonority: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Difficulties arise in case of consonant clusters. In literary Russian based on Moscow pronunciation, the splitting is done with consideration of the following rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If on the syllable border there are two sonorants sounds or two obstruents (except for й) they refer to the latter vowel. пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If the first in the consonant group is й, it refers to the previous vowel: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In a consonant group where the first is a sonorant, and the second is an obstruent, the sonorant may join the preceeding vowel. кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/139/47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Spel_Hyph.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=perenos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://shkola.lv/index.php?mode=cht&amp;chtid=660&amp;subid=141&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="f0a1d462-354b-4e47-8008-6efef894d6a2" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:01:04.787" UserId="143" Text="When I was 4 or 5, parents took me to a doctor, who helped me with correct tongue/lip positioning and gave me useful exercises. As I remember, most of them involved saying «RRRRRRRR» in plain and in the middle of other words: «RRRROCKET»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="525ea01e-3ed7-4304-9c1c-4908db0e56e2" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:05:35.140" UserId="104" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="&gt; Q: Is the spelling ахуеть acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is a resounding **NO**. Just because a word is colloquial doesn't mean that it gets to bend all the language norms, rules, and logic. The only correct spelling is *охуеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: What are some realistic examples of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Я не мог поверить своим глазам! Я просто охуел от увиденного! (surprise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ты что, oхуел? (Have you lost your fucking mind?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the infinitive as a complete sentence to express bewilderment, surprise, anger, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Охуеть! (cf. С ума сойти!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the word derives from хуй, which is a rude word for penis, referred to as слово из трех букв(the three letter word (cf: the f-word in English). The meaning of the word охуеть isn't obscene, but because of the derivation, the word itself should be used only with close people and only if you know that they are OK with this type of language. A milder version of the word would be офигеть or охренеть, although they should also be used with caution. Even milder versions are обалдеть and ошалеть, but they lack the strength of the word, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q:  Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the word is rather common. Of course, some people just don't use this type of language, but those who do use this word quite commonly. As you may have noticed the meaning range of the word is pretty wide, so this is kind of a universal word :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so, mostly because of the multifuncionality of the word. In some cases it can be rendered as *Wow!*, but it doesn't exactly convey all the connotations and feelings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="54304674-107d-4371-afea-7d4e7d22108c" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:14:30.867" UserId="4" Comment="correct typos" Text="Correct form is `охуеть`. It means `to be confused with something`, for example `Я охуел от увиденного` means `I am extremely confused whith what I saw`. &#xD;&#xA;You should remember that this word is extremely rude and not to be used in public places. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can say `Я хуею` in the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="562" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="54304674-107d-4371-afea-7d4e7d22108c" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:14:30.867" Comment="Proposed by 4 approved by 116 edit id of 60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="db9729f3-d0ef-40e3-bdb7-9c60ecd34749" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:37:32.680" UserId="47" Comment="Added references to resources on alternative / second-only syllable stress" Text="My knowledge, stemming from my math professor in university and supported by [Lopatin dictionary][1], is that it's компл&lt;b&gt;e&lt;/b&gt;ксный in math (complex numbers) and к&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt;мплексный otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account that it's always c&lt;b&gt;o&lt;/b&gt;mplex in English, I wonder where this distinction comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article about complex numbers suggests that both options are possible and provides the following note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Двойное ударение указано согласно следующим источникам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Большая советская энциклопедия, 3-е изд. (1973), том 12, стр. 588, статья Ко́мпле́ксные числа.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Советский энциклопедический словарь (1982), стр. 613, статья Ко́мпле́ксное число.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Последнее издание «Словаря трудностей русского языка» (Розенталь Д. Э., Теленкова М. А., Айрис-пресс, 2005, стр. 273) указывает оба варианта: «ко́мплексные (компле́ксные) числа».&#xD;&#xA; 4. В Большой российской энциклопедии (том 14, 2010 год) по необъяснённым причинам предлагаются одновременно ударения Компле́ксное число (стр. 691), но Ко́мплексный анализ (стр. 695).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В следующих источниках указан единственный вариант ударения (на второй слог) для чисел:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Орфографический словарь русского языка (6-е издание, 2010), &#xD;&#xA; 2. Грамматический словарь русского языка (6-е издание, 2009), &#xD;&#xA; 3. Русский орфографический словарь Российской академии наук под ред. В. В. Лопатина (2-е издание, 2004).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EA%EE%EC%EF%EB%E5%EA%F1%ED%FB%E9&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="9a74de0d-6769-4d56-9e69-6619df3bf77f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:50:46.377" UserId="47" Text="Is `чаю` or `чая` more correct in the sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы не отказался от чашки ча* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно мне ещё ча*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and what's the grammatical explanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="9a74de0d-6769-4d56-9e69-6619df3bf77f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:50:46.377" UserId="47" Text="Чаю vs. чая: what ending is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="9a74de0d-6769-4d56-9e69-6619df3bf77f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:50:46.377" UserId="47" Text="|падежи|окончания|inclination|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="db8a96c5-d2a8-4da9-bd64-1d9a3b8a1b20" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:54:29.353" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|перевод|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="ad3061f1-9093-4c3c-8b7b-4ae4e787dfd3" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:56:03.483" UserId="47" Text="When I am addressing someone and say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кать, приходи в гости в воскресенье &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is `Кать` just a spoken reduction of `Катя`, or is it a separate grammatical form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="ad3061f1-9093-4c3c-8b7b-4ae4e787dfd3" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:56:03.483" UserId="47" Text="Миш, Кать, Ань, пап, мам — what is it in an address?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="ad3061f1-9093-4c3c-8b7b-4ae4e787dfd3" CreationDate="2012-06-17T13:56:03.483" UserId="47" Text="|окончания|inclination|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="40546ccb-200f-4721-b5e4-784e6d42ea54" CreationDate="2012-06-17T14:11:03.763" UserId="104" Text="Это пример так называемого [частичного падежа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2) (партитива). В русском языке он используется редко и в основном с существительными, обозначающими еду или напитки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить воды (не всю воду, а немножко воды)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поесть хлеба&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить коньяку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частичный падеж по форме обычно совпадает с родительным, но есть исключения. Например, частичный падеж существительного чай имеет две формы - чая и чаю. Оба варианта правильные, но последний более разговорный. Другие исключения - коньяк (ч.п - коньяку), бензинчик (ч.п. бензинчику). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, в случае второго предложения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно мне ещё ча*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оба варианта правильные, так как здесь используется партитив. В случае же первого предложения мы имеем дело с обычным родительным падежом и, следовательно, правильно будет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не знаю, насколько я прав в своем анализе, но вот они, мои пять центов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="dcd862ef-4354-4a6d-ba4d-658e50abb3cf" CreationDate="2012-06-17T14:43:49.040" UserId="143" Text="&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation? What are some realistic examples of use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took my time to think about it, and came to three main situations, in which the word have more or less different meanings, just something a native speaker can feel in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Representing great astonishment and surprise, as in `&quot;Я охуел, увидев новый спортивный автомобиль соседа&quot;` — `&quot;I was astonished, when I saw my neigbour's new sportscar&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA; - Telling about someone's extremely inadequate (or just very unusual for the speaker) behaviour, like in `&quot;Совсем охуел, на такой скорости без шлема ездишь?&quot;` — `&quot;Are you crazy, riding at such speed without a helmet?&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA; - Very similar to the second, when it is used as an offensive reaction to someone's behaviour at the same time. An english speaker probably wouldn't say `&quot;Are you crazy to call my siter &quot;bitch&quot;?&quot;`, because he or she needs something much more strong to answer. The difference between this case and the previous one is that in the second we just express out attitude, and in the last we express hostility, challenge an opponent to a serious argument or even a fight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Exactly how obscene is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plainly speaking, you should not use it in situations, when you would not use &quot;f-word&quot; in english as inappropriate, and vice versa. Also, the reason why I draw your attention to the last example of use is that people can often take this as a sign of hostility, so be careful with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is the spelling `ахуеть` acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer is no, this just means the person speaking doesn't care mush about his/her spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="96653efb-9258-4b15-bfbf-be75bc32e52c" CreationDate="2012-06-17T15:40:48.297" UserId="97" Text="&quot;Кать&quot;, &quot;мам&quot;, &quot;пап&quot;, etc. are colloquial form of the corresponding words.  Grammatically, such form is does not exist.  Hence, &quot;Кать, приходи в гости&quot; is a spoken reduction of &quot;Катя&quot;.  Unlike in Ukrainian (endings &quot;-о&quot; or &quot;-у&quot;) or Georgian (ending &quot;-ო&quot;) languages, Russian does not have a special &quot;addressing&quot; grammatical form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly this is a way to shorten a phrase to express the though quicker, without loss or change of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кать&quot;, &quot;мам&quot;, &quot;пап&quot; и т.д - это оборот разговорной речи. Грамматически, такой оборот не является правильноый формой.  То есть, &quot;Кать, приходи в гости&quot; - это именно сокращенный вариант от &quot;Катя&quot;. В отличии от, например, украинского (окончание &quot;-о&quot; или &quot;-у&quot; ) или грузинского (оконончание &quot;-ო&quot;) языков, в русском языке т.н. звательного падежа нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, таким образом укорачивается фраза, чтобы быстрее выразить мысль без потери или изменения смысла." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="23216791-c84a-43c3-9822-4aceb1e908e6" CreationDate="2012-06-17T15:45:42.317" UserId="9" Text="It is an archaic vocative case. Vocative case is considered obsolete in the modern Russian language, but still can be used as a colloquial form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read [&quot;Звательный падеж&quot; article on Russian Wikipedia][1] to find out more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6#.D0.A0.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.B9_.D1.8F.D0.B7.D1.8B.D0.BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="2e897af3-c974-46dc-af79-68224fb14e1f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T15:52:11.480" UserId="9" Comment="added 1385 characters in body" Text="**Historical vocative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The historical Slavic vocative has been lost in Russian, and currently can only be found in certain cases of archaic expressions. Few of those expressions, mostly of religious origin, are very common in colloquial Russian: `Боже!` (Bozhe, vocative of `Бог`), often also used in expression `Боже мой!` (&quot;My God!&quot;), and `Господи!` (&quot;Lord&quot;), which can also be expressed as `Господи Иисусе!` (&quot;Jesus&quot;), vocative is also used in prayers, e.g. `Отче наш!` (&quot;Our Father!&quot;). These expressions are used to express strong emotions (much like English &quot;O my God!&quot;), and are often combined (`Господи, Боже мой`). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Neo-vocative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern colloquial Russian given names and a small family of terms often take a special &quot;shortened&quot; form that some linguists consider to be a reemerging vocative case. This form is applied only to given names and nouns that end in `-a` and `-я`, which are optionally dropped in the vocative form: `Лен, где ты?` (&quot;Lena, where are you?&quot;). This is basically equivalent to `Лена, где ты?`, the only difference being that the former version suggests a positive personal, emotional bond between the speaker and the person being addressed. Names ending in `-я` acquire a soft sign in this case: `Оль!` = `Оля!` (&quot;Olga!&quot;). In addition to given names, this form is often used with words like `мама` and `папа`, which would be respectively &quot;shortened&quot; to `мам` and `пап`. In plural this form is used with words such as `ребят`, `девчат` (nominative: `ребята` `девчата`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such usage differs from historical vocative (which would be `Лено` in the example above) and is not related to such historical usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="65956acb-d122-445c-b354-46ddf446b420" CreationDate="2012-06-17T15:59:41.530" UserId="9" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**Historical vocative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The historical Slavic vocative has been lost in Russian, and currently can only be found in certain cases of archaic expressions. Few of those expressions, mostly of religious origin, are very common in colloquial Russian: `Боже!` (vocative of `Бог`), often also used in expression `Боже мой!` (&quot;My God!&quot;), and `Господи!` (&quot;Lord&quot;), which can also be expressed as `Господи Иисусе!` (&quot;Jesus&quot;), vocative is also used in prayers, e.g. `Отче наш!` (&quot;Our Father!&quot;). These expressions are used to express strong emotions (much like English &quot;O my God!&quot;), and are often combined (`Господи, Боже мой`). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Neo-vocative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern colloquial Russian given names and a small family of terms often take a special &quot;shortened&quot; form that some linguists consider to be a reemerging vocative case. This form is applied only to given names and nouns that end in `-a` and `-я`, which are optionally dropped in the vocative form: `Лен, где ты?` (&quot;Lena, where are you?&quot;). This is basically equivalent to `Лена, где ты?`, the only difference being that the former version suggests a positive personal, emotional bond between the speaker and the person being addressed. Names ending in `-я` acquire a soft sign in this case: `Оль!` = `Оля!` (&quot;Olga!&quot;). In addition to given names, this form is often used with words like `мама` and `папа`, which would be respectively &quot;shortened&quot; to `мам` and `пап`. In plural this form is used with words such as `ребят`, `девчат` (nominative: `ребята`, `девчата`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such usage differs from historical vocative (which would be `Лено` in the example above) and is not related to such historical usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="e832e0b0-f4c4-43a9-aa87-e345a0f5508f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T16:23:43.237" UserId="133" Comment="fixed English spelling " Text="&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation? What are some realistic examples of use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took my time to think about it, and came to three main situations in which the word has  more or less different meanings, just something a native speaker can feel in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Representing great astonishment and surprise, as in `&quot;Я охуел, увидев новый спортивный автомобиль соседа&quot;` — `&quot;I was astonished when I saw my neighbour's new sports car&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA; - Telling about someone's extremely inadequate (or just very unusual for the speaker) behaviour, like in `&quot;Совсем охуел, на такой скорости без шлема ездишь?&quot;` — `&quot;Are you crazy, riding at such speed without a helmet?&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA; - Very similar to the second, when it is used as an offensive reaction to someone's behaviour at the same time. An english speaker probably wouldn't say `&quot;Are you crazy to call my sister a &quot;bitch&quot;?&quot;`, because he or she needs something much stronger to answer. The difference between this case and the previous one is that in the second we just express our attitude, and in the last we express hostility, challenge an opponent to a serious argument or even a fight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Exactly how obscene is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plainly speaking, you should not use it in situations when you would not use &quot;f-word&quot; in English, and vice versa. Also, the reason why I draw your attention to the last example of use is that people can often take this as a sign of hostility, so be careful with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is the spelling `ахуеть` acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer is no, this just means the person speaking doesn't care much about his/her spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="580" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="e832e0b0-f4c4-43a9-aa87-e345a0f5508f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T16:23:43.237" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 104 edit id of 61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="2c173f60-5d40-44f3-965a-6aa51e38457a" CreationDate="2012-06-17T16:36:55.760" UserId="1347" Text="I've been told that in Russian, there are at least two ways of saying &quot;but.&quot; One is a, and the other is но . They both translate into the same word but (a or но?) they appear to have two somewhat different meanings, which is to say that they are used in different contexts. What is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="2c173f60-5d40-44f3-965a-6aa51e38457a" CreationDate="2012-06-17T16:36:55.760" UserId="1347" Text="Different ways of saying &quot;but?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="2c173f60-5d40-44f3-965a-6aa51e38457a" CreationDate="2012-06-17T16:36:55.760" UserId="1347" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="584" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="2045459c-246c-4fdd-b944-06ec5f0c856a" CreationDate="2012-06-17T16:42:37.903" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="46d7d61a-9ed0-46f3-9261-a5f163428283" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:02:12.207" UserId="57" Text="`Но` generally means `however`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`А` *(when used as &quot;but,&quot; because `а` has lots of meanings in other contexts)* doesn't mean that, and can be used when you don't want to say &quot;however,&quot; but do want to say there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* use `но` in place of `а`, but that makes you sound archaic, or even biblical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="12524df5-0591-4403-b87f-bd858d6de6ce" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:07:13.820" UserId="57" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="`Но` generally means `however`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`А` *(when used as &quot;but,&quot; because `а` has lots of meanings in other contexts)* doesn't mean that, and can be used when you don't want to say &quot;however,&quot; but do want to say there is a difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="6cfa60a4-789f-4f39-b78a-34d2aa662cdf" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:19:47.890" UserId="57" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="`Но` generally means `however`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`А` *(when used as &quot;but,&quot; because `а` has lots of meanings in other contexts)* doesn't mean that, and can be used when you don't want to say &quot;however,&quot; but do want to say there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* use `а` when you want your &quot;but&quot; to mean &quot;however.&quot; This makes you sound either a bit archaic or a bit rural.  &#xD;&#xA;An exception: when you start a sentence with `А` (meaning &quot;but&quot;). This makes you sound approving or even proud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="8e326826-4d3b-4166-b0af-78631cc3fbf9" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:22:40.613" UserId="113" Text="Actually, &quot;a&quot; is quite close to &quot;and&quot; in this regard. &quot;Но&quot; has a much stronger sense of negation and confrontation with the preceding statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я спокойный человек, **но** если меня разозлят...&quot; (I'm a calm person, **but** if somebody pisses me off...) suggests that his reaction will not be calm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While &quot;Я спокойный человек, **а** если меня разозлят...&quot; (I'm a calm person, **and** if somebody pisses me off...) suggests something like &quot;I'll reason with them and explain why they're wrong&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Анна пошла в школу а Миша остался дома&quot; (Anna went to school and Misha stayed home) just tells you what they did. But &quot;Анна пошла в школу, но Миша остался дома&quot; (Anna went to school but Misha stayed home) really emphasizes the fact that he stayed home as opposed to her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="1f774dcd-ba3e-4d31-86f3-390f372b7479" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:27:01.013" UserId="57" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="`Но` generally means `however`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`А` *(when used as &quot;but,&quot; because `а` has lots of meanings in other contexts)* doesn't mean that, and can be used when you don't want to say &quot;however,&quot; but do want to say there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* use `а` when you want your &quot;but&quot; to mean &quot;however.&quot; This makes you sound either a bit archaic or a bit rural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="036e8751-fce9-4206-8e86-c6c1e84ba21f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:39:48.650" UserId="57" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="`Но` generally means `however`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`А` *(when used as &quot;but,&quot; because `а` has lots of meanings in other contexts)* doesn't mean that, and can be used when you don't want to say &quot;however,&quot; but do want to say there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* use `а` when you want your &quot;but&quot; to mean &quot;however.&quot; This makes you sound either a bit archaic or a bit rural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your thought doesn't have two parts separated with &quot;but,&quot; you want to use `но`. Using `а` as &quot;but&quot; requires a bit of context, and given the lack of context, it's going to be `но`. Note: the context may span several sentences. Note: the context may even be implied.   &#xD;&#xA;Examples of when `но` must be used, but doesn't mean &quot;however&quot; (because the is no context of comparing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When you don't know how to respond and can only repeat &quot;But... but...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;But mom!..&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="29811aa5-f5f4-4584-b510-8e1c0ad47d03" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:48:48.467" UserId="57" Comment="deleted 123 characters in body" Text="`Но` generally means `however`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`А` *(when used as &quot;but,&quot; because `а` has lots of meanings in other contexts)* doesn't mean that, and can be used when you don't want to say &quot;however,&quot; but do want to say there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if your thought doesn't have two parts separated with &quot;but,&quot; you want to use `но`. Using `а` as &quot;but&quot; requires a bit of context, and given the lack of context, it's going to be `но`. Note: the context may span several sentences. Note: the context may even be implied.   &#xD;&#xA;Examples of when `но` must be used, but doesn't mean &quot;however&quot; (because the is no context of comparing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When you don't know how to respond and can only repeat &quot;But... but...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;But mom!..&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="45fb5cac-3471-4b93-9afa-141a322903c2" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:52:28.830" UserId="104" Text="`But` can be translated into Russian as `а` or ՝`но`, depending on the context. `А` can be translated into English as `but` or `and`, depending on the context. Let's examine the most typical situations, without pretending that the following list is complete :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`1.` The conjunction `но` contrasts actions, objects and their characteristics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не живу в России, но хорошо говорю по-русски. I don't live in Russia, but I speak Russian well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стены были деревянные, но крепкие. The walls were wooden, but strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, I will agree with GSerg that in this case но has connotations of however, nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  `2.` The conjunction `а` is used to give a more accurate description of an object or action, rather than to contrast them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стол не стеклянный, а деревянный. The table is not made of glass, but of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему не десять лет, а одиннадцать. He's not ten years old, but eleven.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`3.` `a`, is used when one clause contradicts the other clause. `Но` is used when they simply contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попросил его купить сметану, а он купил молоко. I asked him to buy sour-cream, but he bought milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они жили вместе, но не разговаривали друг с другом. They lived together, but didn't speak to each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in the two examples above, one could replace `a` with `но` and vice versa. That wouldn't make the sentences incorrect, just a bit clumsy. It all boils down to whether you want to emphasize contrast or contradiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`4.` `a` is used as contrasting `and`, meaning whereas, while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У Маши было три сестры, а у Пети четыре. Masha had three sisters, and/whereas Petya had four.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я живу в Италии, а мой брат в Швеции. I live in Italy, and/whereas my brother lives in Switzerland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples you couldn't replace `а` with `и`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родители уехали на дачу, а дети остались дома. The parents went to dacha, and/whereas the kids stayed home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example you could replace `a` with `но`, but the meaning would change to `but`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Родители уехали на дачу, но дети остались дома. The parents went to dacha, but the kids stayed home. (implies that this is somehow a surprise, a contradiction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`5.` `A` is used in situations when you state something about something, and request a similar something about something else :) sort of... This meaning can be translated as `and` into English, or not translated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня зовут Василий. А тебя? My name is Vasiliy. What's yours? (And what's yours?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот мой дом. А где твой? Here's my house. Where's yours? (And where's yours?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`6`. `A` can be used to change the subject, meaning something like `by the way`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у нас в здании пожар был вчера. (By the way, we had a fire in our building yesterday).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most situations, the choice between `а`, and `но` is rather unambiguous. But, as with everything, there are certain corner cases where two conjunctions are possible, with slight, if any, differences in meaning. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня попросили подождать, а я не подождал. I was asked to wait, but I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня попросили подождать, но я не подождал. I was asked to wait, but I didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first version underlines the contradiction more than the second, but there is really very slight, if any difference in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="c225b5df-7794-4a54-a20d-82c3e9d9b31b" CreationDate="2012-06-17T17:56:59.870" UserId="128" Text="&gt; What are some realistic examples of use? And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable? Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech? Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General word of advice about Russian obscenities -- understand them, but don't use them yourself. The famous 4 roots sound much stronger then their English equivalents, and the social taboo is also much stronger. For example, in a movie that is set up in some sort of a criminal or military environment, no one will use the 4 roots, even though it's perfectly understood that in real life everybody would have used them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-native speaker, you will hardly ever find yourself in a situation that justifies cursing and the artificiality of your cussing will be spot immediately. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="7b4af913-c5db-4cd1-8b55-b1469eca3f20" CreationDate="2012-06-17T18:05:22.420" UserId="128" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="&gt; What are some realistic examples of use? And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable? Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech? Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General word of advice about Russian obscenities -- understand them, but don't use them yourself. The famous 4 roots sound much stronger then their English equivalents, and the social taboo is also much stronger. For example, in a movie that is set up in some sort of a criminal or military environment, no one will use the 4 roots, even though it's perfectly understood that in real life everybody would have used them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-native speaker, you will hardly ever find yourself in a situation that justifies cursing and the artificiality of your cussing will be spot immediately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate -- it's very obscene, unacceptable in all situations you are about to find yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="edb978c1-ea25-4f7b-b4d6-855629ce6f1e" CreationDate="2012-06-17T18:12:55.950" UserId="57" Comment="formatting" Text="I've been told that in Russian, there are at least two ways of saying &quot;but.&quot; One is `a`, and the other is `но`. They both translate into the same word but (`a` or `но`?) they appear to have two somewhat different meanings, which is to say that they are used in different contexts. What is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="596" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="edb978c1-ea25-4f7b-b4d6-855629ce6f1e" CreationDate="2012-06-17T18:12:55.950" Comment="Proposed by 57 approved by 104 edit id of 63" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="b8ed5d64-3184-4748-b9e5-ba100089e0ad" CreationDate="2012-06-17T18:17:49.113" UserId="87" Text="Correct spelling of verb, its forms and derivatives would contain &quot;о&quot; (&quot;охуеть&quot;, &quot;охуел&quot;, &quot;охуение&quot;, &quot;охуевший&quot; etc), however there is one exception: word &quot;ахуй&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ахуй` (with stress on first syllable) means extreme confusion or astonishment, and is almost always used with preposition &quot;в&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я был **в ахуе** от его тёщи: она не только не сказала ни слова против нежданным гостям, но и сама села пить с нами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I was astonished by his mother-in-law: not only she hasn't said a single bad words about unwanted guests, but she has even joined us in drinking.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; От последовавшей двухчасовой лекции по матану я впал **в ахуй**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I became extremely confused after the following lecture on mathematical analysis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually forms of &quot;ахуй&quot; can be safely substituted by word &quot;транс&quot; in its colloquial meaning of confusion or amazement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="48a5f95b-365c-4b01-8c1c-008d241896dc" CreationDate="2012-06-17T18:56:35.647" UserId="104" Comment="edited body" Text="Many vowels in Russian, including o, are pronounced differently depending on whether they occur on the stressed position, before the stressed position, or after. In case of o it's like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stressed: o&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - before stressed: a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - after stressed: ə (shwa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxample:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - хорошо (stressed on the last syllable, therefore pronounced as харашо)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - облако (stressed on the first syllable, therefore pronounced as облəкə)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - поточечно (stressed on the second syllable, therefore pronounced as паточəчнə.Тhe word has three o's and all are pronounced differently because the first o is before the stressed vowel, the second is stressed, and the third is after the stressed vowel. Note that this is a slightly contrived word meaning point-by-point, I just couldn't come up with a simpler example with three o's with the stress on the middle o).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine понял is stressed on the first syllable, so o is pronounced as o. The feminine поняла is stressed on the last syllable, so o is pronounced as a. In some dialects and by some uneducated people, поняла is stressed on the first syllable, in which case it is pronounced as понял with a schwa in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift of stress between different forms of the same word is more than common in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="6116f3d5-e5dc-4286-bedd-414937f5bed2" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:13:18.610" UserId="32" Text="What Russian poet could be recommender for reading for beginners and intermediate Russian Language learners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poetry has opinion to be difficult for learners because of extended vocabulary and many neologisms. But some of the poets have written in the way easier to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What poet would you recommend for person that is learning Russian and is not yet very advanced as appropriate for his/hers language level?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="6116f3d5-e5dc-4286-bedd-414937f5bed2" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:13:18.610" UserId="32" Text="What Russian poet to recommend for beginners and intermediate learners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="6116f3d5-e5dc-4286-bedd-414937f5bed2" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:13:18.610" UserId="32" Text="|обучение|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="12a44371-8391-40b4-bb46-690afe29ec8f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:58:03.557" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="The Ukrainian language is very similar to the Russian, but is it understandable for the average Russian native speaker, let's say, in Moscov?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ukrainians understand Russian, but this is mostly because the high exposure to the Russian language in media and everyday's life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="12a44371-8391-40b4-bb46-690afe29ec8f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:58:03.557" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="Is the Ukrainian language understandable for average Russian native speaker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="12a44371-8391-40b4-bb46-690afe29ec8f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:58:03.557" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="04375c3e-6bbc-44dd-a696-68a11eb8eab1" CreationDate="2012-06-17T21:11:40.113" UserId="36" Text="I would recommend the poetry of [Sergei Yesenin][1] (Сергей Есенин). Very beautiful, clean language. Truly Russian spirit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="7c9de92d-dcab-43a4-9f24-beeb2941f23f" CreationDate="2012-06-17T22:11:18.310" UserId="136" Text="In most cases no. But, I would say that if average Russian went to the Ukrain (eastern Ukrain to be exact, western language has more difference) and lived a couple of month he would understand it well. &#xD;&#xA;My grandma was from the Ukrain and I understood her well when she spoke ukrain though I don't know this language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="bc73e35f-00b3-42ff-85eb-41a722a92c30" CreationDate="2012-06-17T22:14:38.270" UserId="36" Text="Between an imaginary average Russian speaker and an imaginary average Ukrainian speaker there could be an understanding at a level of basic everyday ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, communication at some more advanced level in most cases is possible thanks to cultural closeness of Ukrainians and Russians.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="ead679a9-26e4-4474-96f3-533f1e554a03" CreationDate="2012-06-17T22:20:35.940" UserId="104" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In most cases no. But, I would say that if an average Russian went to Ukraine (eastern Ukraine to be exact, western language has more differences) and lived a couple of months he would understand it well. &#xD;&#xA;My grandma was from Ukraine and I understood her well when she spoke Ukrainian though I don't know this language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="610" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="5b055e94-5d0f-48d2-88fc-2c53d3777ba9" CreationDate="2012-06-17T22:35:48.607" UserId="-1" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:104,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Armen Tsirunyan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:54,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="f989a869-d58b-47b1-ab3e-122084f975f7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:29:49.817" UserId="55" Text="Is there a pronunciation rule for unstressed **я**?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember being told that it was closest to English *i*, for example, as in `десять` but this doesn't always hold.  It seems that at the end of a word it can be either *a* or *ya*: `бояться`, `сегодня`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning of a word: `являться` is it *yi*, *i* or *ya*? There is clearly a disagreement between [this][1] and [this][2] speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forvo.com/search/%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="f989a869-d58b-47b1-ab3e-122084f975f7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:29:49.817" UserId="55" Text="Pronunciation of unstressed 'я'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="f989a869-d58b-47b1-ab3e-122084f975f7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:29:49.817" UserId="55" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="f19fcd2c-70f5-4be3-851a-509535a05c4a" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:51:54.997" UserId="55" Text="Sometimes I find Russians will use the more familiar form of address, *ты*, even when I have addressed them with *вы*.  I felt that in the particular circumstances it was unlikely that they meant that we were now on friendly terms.  This might happen for example with a car-park attendant or elderly neighbour.  It was explained to me that as a relatively young chap I was expected to show deference to older people in this way and that I should not switch to using *ты* with these people.  Is this correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or otherwise, what are the social circumstances in which one person uses *ты* and the other *вы*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="f19fcd2c-70f5-4be3-851a-509535a05c4a" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:51:54.997" UserId="55" Text="Is it considered proper to use вы with older people, even when they address you with ты?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="f19fcd2c-70f5-4be3-851a-509535a05c4a" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:51:54.997" UserId="55" Text="|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="8abebc1a-a82b-4a36-b923-9c8bede15557" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:53:41.690" UserId="38" Text="The pronunciation of *я* depends on whether it is preceded a consonant or not. Generally, it is pronounced as [ja] [йа], however if it is preceeded by a consonant it softens the consonant and is pronounced as [a]. For example, in *бояться* the first я is pronounced as [йа], because it is preceded by a vowel, but the second я is pronounced as [a] (and the syllable is pronounced like сьа), because it is preceded by a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="42243744-90d3-41cb-aba5-db8bab94d1c3" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:56:57.160" UserId="38" Text="A superior speaking to an inferior may prefer to use ты when addressed as вы. Superiority is usually defined by age and position (e.g. employer-employee)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="1585eb1b-1b80-40fa-8fa2-d5efa224fa8f" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:57:40.327" UserId="119" Text="In standard pronunciation, unstressed **я** is reduced to /ɪ/. See, for example, [this Wikipedia article][red] for a good explanation of the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[red]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one thing that should be kept in mind is that letters **е**, **ё**, **ю**, **я** mean different things after different letters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * After consonants, they are not yotized and denote /э/, /о/, /у/, /а/ (not taking reduction into account, here); in addition, the preceding consonant is palatalized (becomes soft): _десять_ /'dʲesʲɪtʲ/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * In other cases (after vowels, soft and hard sign, and in the beginning of a word), the vowel is yotized: _ясный_ ‘clear’ /'jasnɨj/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it's yotized and reduced, so, based on my own (hopefully pretty standard) pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; являться /yɪ'vlʲat͡sa/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="d5811da7-fb34-43fe-81f7-34645d647c21" CreationDate="2012-06-18T01:05:14.577" UserId="76" Text="I think it comes down to the amount of familiarity in your relationship with the person. For instance I always ты with my parents and grandparents, though I would always use вы with my more distant relatives or say friends of my parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know the person well, I'd say erring on the side of caution and using вы is a good rule of thumb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="c80e0b21-d1b3-4d74-acbb-6060623814e8" CreationDate="2012-06-18T01:05:26.217" UserId="38" Comment="added 587 characters in body" Text="A superior speaking to an inferior may prefer to use ты when addressed as вы. Superiority is usually defined by age and position (e.g. employer-employee, teacher-student). Not all people endorse this behavior, though, many superiors will prefer to use the same form of address as you do; usually it is implicit when the chosen form is вы and explicit when the chosen form is ты (They will say something like 'давайте будем на &quot;ты&quot;').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use 'Давайте будем на &quot;ты&quot;' if you are the one being addressed as 'ты', though it may be considered somewhat presumptuous, so be sure you've built some rapport before using it. A more formal way of saying it would be 'Давайте вы будете обращаться ко мне на &quot;ты&quot;, а я, в свою очередь, к вам'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="494bc142-dbb0-4766-ab9d-d8d7dc19e0b7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T06:41:31.833" UserId="145" Text="Some words of greek descent use ф as corresponding to greek θ, while some use т. The former I think tend to be loaned earlier. In &quot;Brothers Karamazov&quot; however I have found Mitya using word эфика. The footnotes stated &quot;He probably meant этика&quot;, however the spelling эфика would be correct if transliterating θ for ф.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it an example of a word with alternative spellings? Are there many such words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="494bc142-dbb0-4766-ab9d-d8d7dc19e0b7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T06:41:31.833" UserId="145" Text="Are there words that can be spelled with both т and ф" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="494bc142-dbb0-4766-ab9d-d8d7dc19e0b7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T06:41:31.833" UserId="145" Text="|правописание|орфография|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="70d2ce80-1400-41d7-b2a0-5bdb457dbef9" CreationDate="2012-06-18T06:56:03.117" UserId="134" Text="If you're not acquainted with an adult person (for a male person of your age that would be males in their 30's or above and females in their 20's or above), it's socially inacceptable to address them with `ты`, though acceptable to respond them with `ты` once they started first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For persons of both genders in their 50's or above, it's non polite to call them `ты` ever (even if they do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially important for communication between two genders, as an attempt at shortening the social distance without a practical cause (like a work relationship) can be considered as an invitation to romance, so you should not do it unless you mean it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are few exceptions to this rule, which, nevertheless, should be used with care:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In team games of sport, like football or volleyball, you address a member of your or opposite team with `ты`, even if they are significantly older. It does not apply to calmer leisure activities like fishing or cards.&#xD;&#xA;* Male drivers tend to use `ты` more readily when addressing each other (asking for help or directions). A phrase like *Не подскажешь, как проехать в центр?* is considered acceptable between two drivers of your age but sounds quite rude between two pedestrians. Some consider this practice derogatory, so it's safest to address people when driving the same as you would did when walking, but mostly it's not a sign of disrespect.&#xD;&#xA;* An Orthodox priest addresses a member of his parish in a church with `ты` and they respond him with a `вы` (regardless of their age and gender). Do not be surprised when visiting churches.&#xD;&#xA;* Really old people could address you with `сынок` or `внучек`, especially when asking for help (***Сынок**, не поможешь донести сумку?*) . It would be acceptable to address them back with `бабушка` or `дедушка` and use singular verbs and adjectives (*Конечно, бабушка, **давай** свою сумку*). But it is not polite to address them like that first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all examples before, `вы` could be used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these examples refer to addressing complete strangers. If you're acquanted with a person, more complex rules apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="f7a22518-86e8-49e5-b9c6-b196092afe7d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T07:04:00.483" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="If you're not acquainted with an adult person (for a male person of your age that would be males in their 30's or above and females in their 20's or above), it's socially inacceptable to address them with `ты`, though acceptable to respond them with `ты` once they started first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For persons of both genders in their 50's or above, it's non polite to call them `ты` ever (even if they do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially important for communication between two genders, as an attempt at shortening the social distance without a practical cause (like a work relationship) can be considered as an invitation to romance, so you should not do it unless you mean it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are few exceptions to this rule, which, nevertheless, should be used with care:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In team games of sport, like football or volleyball, you address a member of your or opposite team with `ты`, even if they are significantly older. It does not apply to calmer leisure activities like fishing or cards.&#xD;&#xA;* Male drivers tend to use `ты` more readily when addressing each other (asking for help or directions). A phrase like *Не подскажешь, как проехать в центр?* is considered acceptable between two drivers of your age but sounds quite rude between two pedestrians. Some consider this practice derogatory, so it's safest to address people when driving the same as you would do when walking, but mostly it's not a sign of disrespect.&#xD;&#xA;* An Orthodox priest addresses a member of his parish in a church with `ты` and they respond him with a `вы` (regardless of their age and gender). Do not be surprised when visiting churches.&#xD;&#xA;* Really old people could address you with `сынок` or `внучек`, especially when asking for help (***Сынок**, не поможешь донести сумку?*) . It would be acceptable to address them back with `бабушка` or `дедушка` and use singular verbs and adjectives (*Конечно, бабушка, **давай** свою сумку*). But it is not polite to address them like that first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all examples before, `вы` could be used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these examples refer to addressing complete strangers. If you're acquainted with a person, more complex rules apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="4bf1a272-6807-4542-8ea2-ba992166276c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T07:16:39.807" UserId="134" Text="Words borrowed directly from Ancient Greek usually use `т` and `б` for `θ` and `β`: теология, термометр, библиотека.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works borrowed through Bysantine Greek (translated from Bysantine sources) use `ф` and `в`: Фёдор, Фермопилы, Афины, Фивы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="c39b3bf2-26c4-494a-bb57-2c791550eaf2" CreationDate="2012-06-18T07:34:27.720" UserId="134" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Words borrowed directly from Ancient Greek usually use `т`, `б` and `е/э` for `θ`, `β` and `η`: *&lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;еология, &lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;ермометр, &lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;и&lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;лио&lt;strong&gt;те&lt;/strong&gt;ка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works borrowed through Bysantine Greek (translated from Bysantine sources) use `ф`, `в` and `и`: *&lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ёдор, &lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ермопилы, А&lt;strong&gt;фи&lt;/strong&gt;ны, &lt;strong&gt;Фи&lt;/strong&gt;вы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words changed their spelling from Bysantine to Ancient Greek with time (*вивлиофика -&gt; библиотека*, *апофика -&gt; аптека* etc.). The reading of such words was not stable at the time, this is why Mitya spells it the Bysantine way while the modern spelling is the Ancient Greek way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, new words are borrowed using Ancient Greek reading and the reading of existing loanwords is stabilized, so I'm not aware of words in the modern language which are read both ways (one of the readings would be considered obsolete)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="673459ca-0d84-4ee5-a6fe-955ffa642a4a" CreationDate="2012-06-18T07:51:12.793" UserId="134" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Words borrowed directly from Ancient Greek usually use `т`, `б` and `е/э` for `θ`, `β` and `η`: *&lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;еология, &lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;ермометр, &lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;и&lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;лио&lt;strong&gt;те&lt;/strong&gt;ка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works borrowed through Bysantine Greek (translated from Bysantine sources) use `ф`, `в` and `и`: *&lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ёдор, &lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ермопилы, А&lt;strong&gt;фи&lt;/strong&gt;ны, &lt;strong&gt;Фи&lt;/strong&gt;вы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words changed their spelling from Bysantine to Ancient Greek with time (*вивлиофика -&gt; библиотека*, *апофика -&gt; аптека* etc.). The spelling of such words was not stable at the time, this is why Mitya spells it the Bysantine way while the modern spelling is the Ancient Greek way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, new words are borrowed using Ancient Greek reading and the reading of existing loanwords is stabilized, so I'm not aware of words in the modern language which are read both ways (one of the readings would be considered obsolete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some common names of the same origin, spelt the same in other languages, are spelt differently in Russian: for instance, `Bethlehem, Israel` is spelt `Вифлеем` (like in Bible translations), while `Bethelehem, PA` is spelt `Бетлехем`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="06e04c56-2504-421c-a74d-2bf11236e74c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T07:54:09.917" UserId="109" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="First, for the aim of this question I must say that I am not familiar with the Russian language, but I read a bit about it and am curious. I've never learned Russian before and just able to say a handful of sentences.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the intention of this question is to get a rough understanding of what the aspect actually is and how it does work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that the Russian language does have three tenses (past, present, future) and contains a concept called aspect. There are two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective aspect, which determine if actions are successfully completed or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I understand that concept correctly. Maybe it's the wrong way trying to compare them with the English tenses, but that's what I actually do. However, in my current understanding there are several things which the English language supports, but Russian not. First, are English and Russian tenses somehow comparable or is it the wrong way to start with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, I wonder why there is no perfective aspect in present. What about actions that have happened right now, but are already completed. I think of the English present perfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have cooked dinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This action is already completed, but very close to now. Is such a thing only provided by the past perfective using catchwords like &quot;just now&quot; to declare that the action has just recently happened?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does the past perfective also cover the English past perfect? If an action had been completed before another action started, how does the Russian language provide that? And to go one step further: What about progressive tenses? E.g. how to differ between past perfect and past perfect progressive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had read a book ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been waiting ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess regarding those two tenses is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect -&gt; past perfective&#xD;&#xA;* past perfect progressive -&gt; past imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if that were true then either the past perfective do in fact cover two (or even more) English tenses or my conjecture for the &quot;cooking-example&quot; above is totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's very confusing to me how a language can handle all requirements in specifying time measurements with a little set of tenses. So, what does the aspect cover? Is it (as the name suggests) the equivalent to the English perfect tenses or is it actually more?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="0d9c0137-2486-4eb7-9c32-8b06c999646a" CreationDate="2012-06-18T08:15:07.263" UserId="134" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="Words borrowed directly from Ancient Greek usually use `т`, `б` and `е/э` for `θ`, `β` and `η`: *&lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;еология, &lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;ермометр, &lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;и&lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;лио&lt;strong&gt;те&lt;/strong&gt;ка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works borrowed through Bysantine Greek (translated from Bysantine sources) use `ф`, `в` and `и`: *&lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ёдор, &lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ермопилы, А&lt;strong&gt;фи&lt;/strong&gt;ны, &lt;strong&gt;Фи&lt;/strong&gt;вы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the Hebrew loanwords and transliteration of Hebrew names: biblical names would read as *Варавва (Barabbas)*, *Вифлеем (Bethlehem)*, *Эсфирь (Esther)*, *Валаам (Balaam)*, while names transliterated at later times use modern reading: *Бар-Кохба (Bar-Kokhba)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words changed their spelling from Bysantine to Ancient Greek with time (*вивлиофика -&gt; библиотека*, *апофика -&gt; аптека* etc.). The spelling of such words was not stable at the time, this is why Mitya spells it the Bysantine way while the modern spelling is the Ancient Greek way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, new words are borrowed using Ancient Greek reading and the reading of existing loanwords is stabilized, so I'm not aware of words in the modern language which are read both ways (one of the readings would be considered obsolete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some common names of the same origin, spelt the same in other languages, are spelt differently in Russian: for instance, the name of the city of Beth Shemesh, Israel is spelt `Беф-Шемеш` in biblical context and `Бейт-Шемеш` in the modern context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="9d6e3488-39fa-41d6-ad67-ba20d5877cbd" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:26:17.397" UserId="95" Comment="copyedit english usage" Text="The Ukrainian language is very similar to the Russian, but is it understandable for the average Russian native speaker, let's say, in Moscow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ukrainians understand Russian, but this is mostly because of the high exposure to the Russian language in media and everyday life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="634" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="9d6e3488-39fa-41d6-ad67-ba20d5877cbd" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:26:17.397" UserId="95" Comment="copyedit english usage" Text="Is the Ukrainian language understandable for the average Russian native speaker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="635" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="9d6e3488-39fa-41d6-ad67-ba20d5877cbd" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:26:17.397" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 37 edit id of 66" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="ea20e12b-fd77-486a-bf8a-75916130f2a7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:33:03.063" UserId="95" Text="Russian doesn't have a direct equivalent to the sound of English `h`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to some English speakers it seems odd that words taken into Russian from English which have an `h` sound are transliterated using the letter `г`, which sounds like English `g` rather than `х`, which while also not perfect, sounds a lot more like `h`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Harry Potter** &amp;rarr; **Гарри Поттер** (*gari poter*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So my question is, are there also words where `х` is in fact used to transliterate `h`, or is `г` always used?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="ea20e12b-fd77-486a-bf8a-75916130f2a7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:33:03.063" UserId="95" Text="Are there loanwords from English where &quot;h&quot; is transliterated to &quot;х&quot; rather than &quot;г&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="ea20e12b-fd77-486a-bf8a-75916130f2a7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:33:03.063" UserId="95" Text="|произношение|правописание|заимствования|фонология|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="639" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="ef5da99d-42e4-4767-87dd-0e76df29e8f0" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:34:43.280" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|заимствования|этимология|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="937aea14-9960-41cc-ab29-c04a8b45085d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:51:25.187" UserId="134" Text="The transliteration rules changed with time in the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *Daniel Defoe* is *Даниэль Дэфо* (but *Daniel Craig* is *Дэниэл Крейг*); Thackeray, Disney and Halley are Теккерей, Дисней and Галлей (but P. J. Harvey is Полли Харви) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The well-established names like Harry and Henry are transliterated as Гарри and Генри; less common names like Harold and Harris can be transliterared both ways (Гарольд и Хэролд, Гаррис and Хэррис), modern last names (like Harvey above) are transliterated phonetically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="c0d8e879-ee67-4277-8ebe-36c0cb3abe8c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:53:02.980" UserId="47" Text="I was asked a similar question by Germans, who are surprised by our transliteration of Hans and Herz as Ганс and Герц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer it directly, yes. For example, `Helene` is often written as `Хелен` ([Хелен Келлер][1], [Хелен Хант][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, as far as I can tell, it depends on when a particular word came to the Russian language (as already mentioned by Quassnoi) and if there are any established rules. An interesting example is the German `Heil Hitler` which is spelled as `Хайль Гитлер` (so a mixture of the two styles). The reason is that the word `heil` was not known in Russian until WWII, and therefore it's just spelled as it's heard in the twentieth century. The name `Hitler` on the other hand follows the traditional German-Russian spelling, which dates back to the time of Lomonosov and probably stems from the dialects spoken by the first German immigrants in Russia and, at the same time, the old pronunciation of `г` in Russian (still often mixed with `х` by less educated people).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80,_%D0%A5%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/4/people/9146/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="fa15ed4c-237a-4c03-b27b-af270a9b8cb5" CreationDate="2012-06-18T09:57:45.147" UserId="134" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="The transliteration rules changed with time in the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *Daniel Defoe* is *Даниэль Дэфо* (but *Daniel Craig* is *Дэниэл Крейг*); *Thackeray*, *Disney* and *Halley* are *Теккерей*, *Дисней* and *Галлей* (but *P. J. Harvey* is *Полли Харви*) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names with well-established rules like *Harry* and *Henry* are almost always transliterated as *Гарри* and *Генри*; less common names like *Harold* and *Harris* can be transliterared both ways (*Гарольд* и *Хэролд*, *Гаррис* and *Хэррис*), modern last names (like *Harvey* above) are almost always transliterated phonetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *George Washington* is *Георг Вашингтон* in older texts and *Джордж Вашингтон* in the more recent texts (the last name kept the transliteration, though)&#xD;&#xA;* *Harris*, the deuteragonist in *Three Men in a Boat…* is called *Гаррис*, but *Joanne Harris* is *Джоан Харрис*&#xD;&#xA;* *Hudson River* is translated as *река Гудзон*, but *Mrs. Hudson*, the Sherlock Holmes' landlady, is *миссис Хадсон*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="ee9110c7-fe63-41b9-a677-df7e15190b74" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:06:56.957" UserId="71" Text="This question might arise from a misunderstanding from my part, but here I am to solve it once and for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my russian courses, I remember my classmates answering &quot;ничего&quot; to questions meaning &quot;Nothing&quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;**что ты делаешь?**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="ee9110c7-fe63-41b9-a677-df7e15190b74" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:06:56.957" UserId="71" Text="Proper use of ничто when answering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="ee9110c7-fe63-41b9-a677-df7e15190b74" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:06:56.957" UserId="71" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="6c626e64-1113-4f82-8e70-c033ee5cef4c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:08:41.277" UserId="47" Comment="Non-proper name examples" Text="I was asked a similar question by Germans, who are surprised by our transliteration of Hans and Herz as Ганс and Герц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer it directly, yes. For example, `Helene` is often written as `Хелен` ([Хелен Келлер][1], [Хелен Хант][2]). The Hampshire county name [is spelled][3] either with `х` or with `г`. The words `high tech`, `hi-end` and `HiFi` are never pronounced otherwise than `хай-тек`, `хай-энд`, and `хай-фай` (or `хифи`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, as far as I can tell, it depends on when a particular word came to the Russian language (as already mentioned by Quassnoi) and if there are any established rules. An interesting example is the German `Heil Hitler` which is spelled as `Хайль Гитлер` (so a mixture of the two styles). The reason is that the word `heil` was not known in Russian until WWII, and therefore it's just spelled as it's heard in the twentieth century. The name `Hitler` on the other hand follows the traditional German-Russian spelling, which dates back to the time of Lomonosov and probably stems from the dialects spoken by the first German immigrants in Russia and, at the same time, the old pronunciation of `г` in Russian (still often mixed with `х` by less educated people).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80,_%D0%A5%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/4/people/9146/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D1%8D%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="3ac31ff5-fff8-4b4d-b342-8b8be62d05e4" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:12:30.227" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="ee1f1798-cdfa-4dee-b9ad-0561a08e3619" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:12:30.227" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="26f4d027-c540-41f6-a2dd-4070cdf85c8f" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:13:04.733" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="bda43f45-22ec-4e6d-8809-db27a75c27c9" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:13:04.733" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="192a3b42-4112-435f-841a-13470539328e" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:13:52.487" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="072f6bdf-3e18-4b54-b2a7-f3975ac5f79c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:13:52.487" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="d9f39ea6-16bd-4f78-98cf-b77a29db64a6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:14:48.460" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="1048adca-8f97-436b-9db8-f0c325074825" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:14:48.460" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="afe06a38-5135-4cb8-9be5-cb30f745ca46" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:15:31.293" UserId="134" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="The transliteration rules changed with time in the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *Daniel Defoe* is *Даниэль Дэфо* (but *Daniel Craig* is *Дэниэл Крейг*); *Thackeray*, *Disney* and *Halley* are *Теккерей*, *Дисней* and *Галлей* (but *P. J. Harvey* is *Полли Харви*) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names with well-established rules like *Harry* and *Henry* are almost always transliterated as *Гарри* and *Генри*; less common names like *Harold* and *Harris* can be transliterared both ways (*Гарольд* и *Хэролд*, *Гаррис* and *Хэррис*), modern last names (like *Harvey* above) are almost always transliterated phonetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *George Washington* is *Георг Вашингтон* in older texts and *Джордж Вашингтон* in the more recent texts (the last name kept the transliteration, though *Washington Park, FL* would be *Уошингтон-Парк*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Harris*, the deuteragonist in *Three Men in a Boat…* is called *Гаррис*, but *Joanne Harris* is *Джоан Харрис*&#xD;&#xA;* *Hudson River* is translated as *река Гудзон*, but *Mrs. Hudson*, the Sherlock Holmes' landlady, is *миссис Хадсон*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question: modern transliteration rules (as defined by the classic work *Старостин, Гиляревский. Иностранные имена и названия в русском тексте*) prescribe to transliterate English fricative `h` as Cyrillic `х`, unless there is an established tradition to transliterate the name otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book does not provide a complete list of traditional names, but includes *Гамильтон (Hamilton)*, *Гайд-Парк (Hyde Park)*, *Герберт (Herbert)* and *Говард (Howard)*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="7a5cbc5a-f2ed-432a-91d7-6be6ca0cc577" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:16:05.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="bf4baa9f-753c-47c7-9dea-71e4b3e4ce5c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:16:05.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="60cfdeb6-4289-4704-95b8-053a307eac57" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:17:13.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="2d40da4a-86a5-4e39-a583-5aec58c24080" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:17:13.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="c0fbab13-ddea-4743-9841-61c2e2b3e735" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:18:56.240" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="91e01adf-522e-4d0b-a937-4dab3d110903" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:18:56.240" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="ff91474d-f614-445a-85db-3609f3430a19" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:19:43.010" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="e6059a46-f3fe-49c6-8a75-bf9d5cd49435" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:19:43.010" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="e1a411f9-1633-4f0e-8d54-e62b088c32a4" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:20:13.057" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="739d76ee-7f5e-462e-b144-bcc1c00e0bc2" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:20:13.057" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="d167f5f9-6a25-4676-a7f7-8d43cb0bb617" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:20:32.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="b9268c5e-39fa-446e-9446-734165c33c18" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:20:32.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="99570792-f7df-4f3d-8e75-6a895d25f2d4" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:21:06.527" UserId="134" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="The transliteration rules changed with time in the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *Daniel Defoe* is *Даниэль Дэфо* (but *Daniel Craig* is *Дэниэл Крейг*); *Thackeray*, *Disney* and *Halley* are *Теккерей*, *Дисней* and *Галлей* (but *P. J. Harvey* is *Полли Харви*) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names with well-established rules like *Harry* and *Henry* are almost always transliterated as *Гарри* and *Генри*; less common names like *Harold* and *Harris* can be transliterared both ways (*Гарольд* и *Хэролд*, *Гаррис* and *Хэррис*), modern last names (like *Harvey* above) are almost always transliterated phonetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *George Washington* is *Георг Вашингтон* in older texts and *Джордж Вашингтон* in the more recent texts (the last name kept the transliteration, though *Washington Park, FL* would be *Уошингтон-Парк*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Harris*, the deuteragonist in *Three Men in a Boat…* is called *Гаррис*, but *Joanne Harris* is *Джоан Харрис*&#xD;&#xA;* *Hudson River* is translated as *река Гудзон*, but *Mrs. Hudson*, the Sherlock Holmes' landlady, is *миссис Хадсон*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question: modern transliteration rules (as defined by the classic work *Старостин, Гиляревский. Иностранные имена и названия в русском тексте*) prescribe to transliterate English fricative `h` as Cyrillic `х`, unless there is an established tradition to transliterate the name otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This transliteration is a rule, not an exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book does not provide a complete list of traditional names, but includes *Гамильтон (Hamilton)*, *Гайд-Парк (Hyde Park)*, *Герберт (Herbert)* and *Говард (Howard)*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="271b7ec7-4516-4b9a-b196-86c58d87916b" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:21:09.123" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="72404ba2-75ed-4336-8d0e-6d6c93ea0aeb" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:21:09.123" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="54c95099-f900-4e22-b9ed-4a83c26e6aa6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:22:22.400" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="d2a00ddd-ccce-4927-9a2b-7924faaf412e" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:22:22.400" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="a63e9796-5c0c-4c1d-befc-4490f6376fe2" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:24:57.050" UserId="95" Comment="Bysantine -&gt; Byzantine" Text="Words borrowed directly from Ancient Greek usually use `т`, `б` and `е/э` for `θ`, `β` and `η`: *&lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;еология, &lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;ермометр, &lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;и&lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;лио&lt;strong&gt;те&lt;/strong&gt;ка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works borrowed through Byzantine Greek (translated from Byzantine sources) use `ф`, `в` and `и`: *&lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ёдор, &lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ермопилы, А&lt;strong&gt;фи&lt;/strong&gt;ны, &lt;strong&gt;Фи&lt;/strong&gt;вы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the Hebrew loanwords and transliteration of Hebrew names: biblical names would read as *Варавва (Barabbas)*, *Вифлеем (Bethlehem)*, *Эсфирь (Esther)*, *Валаам (Balaam)*, while names transliterated at later times use modern reading: *Бар-Кохба (Bar-Kokhba)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words changed their spelling from Byzantine to Ancient Greek with time (*вивлиофика -&gt; библиотека*, *апофика -&gt; аптека* etc.). The spelling of such words was not stable at the time, this is why Mitya spells it the Byzantine way while the modern spelling is the Ancient Greek way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, new words are borrowed using Ancient Greek reading and the reading of existing loanwords is stabilized, so I'm not aware of words in the modern language which are read both ways (one of the readings would be considered obsolete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some common names of the same origin, spelt the same in other languages, are spelt differently in Russian: for instance, the name of the city of Beth Shemesh, Israel is spelt `Беф-Шемеш` in biblical context and `Бейт-Шемеш` in the modern context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="674" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="a63e9796-5c0c-4c1d-befc-4490f6376fe2" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:24:57.050" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 134 edit id of 65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="6cbc1bf7-5018-408b-998d-a45b196304c9" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:55:23.350" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу**. What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, however, in the modern language shares properties of animate pronouns and its accusative form (ничего) is the same as genitive rather than nominative (which would be the case for inanimate nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Ни одной собаки**.*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Ни одного рубля**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosentahl calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** от тебя мне не надо. There's nothing I need from you.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite colloquial (though can be redarded an idiom)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="e3e982a6-9e39-40a4-a08a-b1e6aa5a36a3" CreationDate="2012-06-18T11:05:02.197" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу**. What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, however, in the modern language shares properties of animate pronouns and its accusative form (ничего) is the same as genitive rather than nominative (which would be the case for inanimate nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Ни одной собаки**.*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Ни одного рубля**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosenthal calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** от тебя мне не надо. There's nothing I need from you.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite colloquial (though can be redarded an idiom)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="894bf943-c028-4faa-a48e-2bb378613f33" CreationDate="2012-06-18T11:17:33.813" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу**. What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, however, in the modern language shares properties of animate pronouns and its accusative form (ничего) is the same as genitive rather than nominative (which would be the case for inanimate nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Ни одной собаки**.*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Ни одного рубля**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosenthal calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** от тебя мне не надо. There's nothing I need from you.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite colloquial (though can be regarded an idiom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничто* would be properly used in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To describe a philosophical category of nothing (where English word *nullness* or *voidness* would be used). Usually not declined: *Киркегор &quot;открыл в себе и в других безотчётный… страх… страх перед **Ничто**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* To oppose nominative and genitive in the same sentence: ***Ничто** не возникает из ничего* (*Ничего не возникает из ничего* is also grammatical though quite unclear).&#xD;&#xA;* In more formal speech, when using proper nominative instead of genitive acting as nominative: *Что такое армия без крепкого тыла? **Ничто**.* (*Ничего* would make the sentence more colloquial, though perfectly grammatical too)&#xD;&#xA;* In idioms: ***ничто** не вечно под луной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from the [Russian Corpus][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="580c0716-f523-4710-8abe-2b9a07f8e8d2" CreationDate="2012-06-18T11:21:57.287" UserId="134" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="The transliteration rules changed with time in the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *Daniel Defoe* is *Даниэль Дэфо* (but *Daniel Craig* is *Дэниэл Крейг*); *Thackeray*, *Disney* and *Halley* are *Теккерей*, *Дисней* and *Галлей* (but *P. J. Harvey* is *Полли Харви*) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names with well-established rules like *Harry* and *Henry* are almost always transliterated as *Гарри* and *Генри*; less common names like *Harold* and *Harris* can be transliterared both ways (*Гарольд* и *Хэролд*, *Гаррис* and *Хэррис*), modern last names (like *Harvey* above) are almost always transliterated phonetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *George Washington* is *Георг Вашингтон* in older texts and *Джордж Вашингтон* in the more recent texts (the last name kept the transliteration, though *Washington Park, FL* would be *Уошингтон-Парк*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Harris*, the deuteragonist in *Three Men in a Boat…* is called *Гаррис*, but *Joanne Harris* is *Джоан Харрис*&#xD;&#xA;* *Hudson River* is translated as *река Гудзон*, but *Mrs. Hudson*, the Sherlock Holmes' landlady, is *миссис Хадсон* (and *Sherlock Holmes* himself is *Шерлок Холмс*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question: modern transliteration rules (as defined by the classic work *Старостин, Гиляревский. Иностранные имена и названия в русском тексте*) prescribe to transliterate English fricative `h` as Cyrillic `х`, unless there is an established tradition to transliterate the name otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This transliteration is a rule, not an exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book does not provide a complete list of traditional names, but includes *Гамильтон (Hamilton)*, *Гайд-Парк (Hyde Park)*, *Герберт (Herbert)* and *Говард (Howard)*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="a1517e14-5a4b-428b-a2df-d533e50b0b53" CreationDate="2012-06-18T11:42:07.270" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу**. What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, however, in the modern language shares properties of animate pronouns and its accusative form (ничего) is the same as genitive rather than nominative (which would be the case for inanimate nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Ни одной собаки**.*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Ни одного рубля**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosenthal calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** мне не идёт. There's nothing that fits me.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite colloquial (though can be regarded an idiom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничто* would be properly used in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To describe a philosophical category of nothing (where English word *nullness* or *voidness* would be used). Usually not declined: *Киркегор &quot;открыл в себе и в других безотчётный… страх… страх перед **Ничто**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* To oppose nominative and genitive in the same sentence: ***Ничто** не возникает из ничего* (*Ничего не возникает из ничего* is also grammatical though quite unclear).&#xD;&#xA;* In more formal speech, when using proper nominative instead of genitive acting as nominative: *Что такое армия без крепкого тыла? **Ничто**.* (*Ничего* would make the sentence more colloquial, though perfectly grammatical too)&#xD;&#xA;* In idioms: ***ничто** не вечно под луной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from the [Russian Corpus][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="aca5abda-ea70-4af9-9e26-bca92e9094a7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:22:46.517" UserId="104" Text="The names of simple notes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; до, ре, ми, фа, соль, ля, си&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; are not declinable (несклоняемые). The names of the modifiers *диез* (sharp), *бемоль*,  (flat), *бекар* (natural), etc. are declinable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; знак диез&lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt;, три бемол&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about composite note names, such as *до-диез*, *си-бекар*, *ля-бемоль*? Which of the following sentences is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произведение заканчивается на до-диезе, оставляя ощущение некой недосказанности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произведение заканчивается на до-диез, оставляя ощущение некой недосказанности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, is there a general pattern for declinability of composite nouns where one part is not declinable, but the other is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="aca5abda-ea70-4af9-9e26-bca92e9094a7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:22:46.517" UserId="104" Text="Are composite note names(such as до-диез) declinable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="aca5abda-ea70-4af9-9e26-bca92e9094a7" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:22:46.517" UserId="104" Text="|грамматика|существительные|declination|склонение|music|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="d117bcd7-d542-4b6c-b9d6-ca45c8af6b5b" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:33:01.193" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|существительные|declination|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="47c6a184-6be4-4cc2-9136-ea6881c5cc1a" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:45:17.617" UserId="134" Text="Both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constituents, if any, may agree both with the name of the note (which is usually considered neuter) and with the name of the modifier (which is masculine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только си-бемоль сверкало черно-зеленой амальгамой, а чаще зияло отсутствием: отсутствием движения, воздуха, самой жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в дуэте с Маргаритой певец осторожно подбирался к верхнему ре-бемолю, то на его лице был написан такой ужас, что партер ни на шутку испугался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declinability is defined by the part in the composite word with which the other constituents agree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="70df21db-5413-4501-9842-b7ed9792f914" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:49:49.623" UserId="146" Text="The second sentence is right. &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't find the rule, but.. as I noticed, we can say just &quot;до-диез&quot; as an answer for question 'what'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, 'what is written there?' - 'до-диез'. 'what is in the end of the composition?' - 'до-диез'. But we decline it in sentences like 'there is no....' - &quot;Здесь нет до-диеза&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, 'диезЕ, бемолЕ' is like an informal speech which sometimes can be refered as a mistake. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="1e3320a4-7d97-4e25-bc12-cdbb17e1d412" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:52:40.163" UserId="134" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="Both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constituents, if any, may agree both with the name of the note (which is usually considered neuter) and with the name of the modifier (which is masculine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только си-бемоль **сверкало** */neuter/* черно-зеленой амальгамой, а чаще зияло отсутствием: отсутствием движения, воздуха, самой жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в дуэте с Маргаритой певец осторожно подбирался к **верхнему** */masculine/* ре-бемолю, то на его лице был написан такой ужас, что партер ни на шутку испугался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declinability is defined by the part in the composite word with which the other constituents agree. Both parts decline is use the same declination paradigm; the non-agreeing part does not decline if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на Ладе-Калине, Ладе-Спутник или Ладе-Жигули?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на Калине, Спутникe или Жигулях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лада is the agreeing word (declension `I`), so Калина (declension `I`) declines with it, Спутник и Жигули (declensions `II` and `III`) do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="e2052a4c-e2eb-4ae9-a6c5-065f479f6d9e" CreationDate="2012-06-18T12:58:21.307" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constituents, if any, may agree both with the name of the note (which is usually considered neuter) and with the name of the modifier (which is masculine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только си-бемоль **сверкало** */neuter/* черно-зеленой амальгамой, а чаще зияло отсутствием: отсутствием движения, воздуха, самой жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в дуэте с Маргаритой певец осторожно подбирался к **верхнему** */masculine/* ре-бемолю, то на его лице был написан такой ужас, что партер ни на шутку испугался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declinability is defined by the part in the composite word with which the other constituents agree. Both parts decline if use the same declination paradigm; the non-agreeing part does not decline if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на Ладе-Калине, Ладе-Спутник или Ладе-Жигули?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на Калине, Спутникe или Жигулях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лада is the agreeing word (declension `I`), so Калина (declension `I`) declines with it, Спутник и Жигули (declensions `II` and `III`) do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="75365911-9503-460b-b311-e9b5a9622789" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:07:15.693" UserId="134" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constituents, if any, may agree both with the name of the note (which is usually considered neuter) and with the name of the modifier (which is masculine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только си-бемоль **сверкало** */neuter/* черно-зеленой амальгамой, а чаще зияло отсутствием: отсутствием движения, воздуха, самой жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в дуэте с Маргаритой певец осторожно подбирался к **верхнему** */masculine/* ре-бемолю, то на его лице был написан такой ужас, что партер ни на шутку испугался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declinability is defined by the part in the composite word with which the other constituents agree. Both parts decline if share gender and number; the non-agreeing part does not decline if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на синей Ладе-Калине, красной Ладе-Спутник или белой Ладе-Жигули?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на синей Калине, красном Спутникe или белых Жигулях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лада is the agreeing word (singular female), so Калина (also singular female) declines with it, Спутник и Жигули (singular masculine and plural) do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="c10d5758-a8f9-4475-bdc7-a6ef700e5c94" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:15:49.793" UserId="133" Comment="corrected spelling/grammar" Text="&gt; What are some realistic examples of use? And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable? Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech? Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General word of advice about Russian obscenities -- understand them, but don't use them yourself. The famous 4 roots sound much stronger then their English equivalents, and the social taboo is also much stronger. For example, in a movie that is set up in some sort of a criminal or military environment, no one will use the 4 roots, even though it's perfectly understood that in real life everybody would have used them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-native speaker, you will hardly ever find yourself in a situation that justifies cursing and the artificiality of your cussing will be spotted immediately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate -- it's very obscene, unacceptable in all situations you might find yourself in as a foreigner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="690" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="c10d5758-a8f9-4475-bdc7-a6ef700e5c94" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:15:49.793" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 116 edit id of 64" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="32173609-e172-42cf-9a74-86a8f140728d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:16:27.000" UserId="71" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Words that have been borrowed from other languages and that have entered the everyday use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="692" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="32173609-e172-42cf-9a74-86a8f140728d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:16:27.000" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="f1bb1ae4-536b-4987-953c-71917fe02526" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:16:52.537" UserId="71" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="The study of the structure and formation of words and their component parts, &quot;morphemes&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="694" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="f1bb1ae4-536b-4987-953c-71917fe02526" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:16:52.537" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 75" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="b94b61db-6bd6-4f27-aa9c-df8fc265c103" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:16:57.997" UserId="71" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="If your question covers more than just Russian, you could ask the question on the [Linguistics SE][1] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="696" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="b94b61db-6bd6-4f27-aa9c-df8fc265c103" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:16:57.997" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 74" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="a671d980-98c7-476c-aaf4-5f582374962d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:07.717" UserId="71" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Word class (part of speech) of words that denote numbers like &quot;ten&quot; or &quot;eleven&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="698" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="a671d980-98c7-476c-aaf4-5f582374962d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:07.717" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 70" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="414a0c55-7a7d-4f3e-9bd9-d770ef142776" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:13.253" UserId="71" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="It derives from Greek **orthographia**, from **orthos** *‘correct’* + **-graphia** *‘writing’*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="700" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="234" RevisionGUID="414a0c55-7a7d-4f3e-9bd9-d770ef142776" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:13.253" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="7a9ff930-090c-4b5d-90a8-72a6f3d6c9f8" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:18.480" UserId="71" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="The correct way of spelling a word according to the standard in a given language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="702" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="7a9ff930-090c-4b5d-90a8-72a6f3d6c9f8" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:18.480" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 72" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="a4a346b0-fb7e-4607-82d4-cc474d18e040" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:28.743" UserId="71" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Questions about the spelling of words. The spelling is the process of writing or naming the letters of a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="704" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="a4a346b0-fb7e-4607-82d4-cc474d18e040" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:28.743" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="905fa6e1-a04d-41e8-8bd5-8ef60caf82cf" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:34.970" UserId="71" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="The way in which a word or a letter is uttered by a person (both native and non-native). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="706" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="905fa6e1-a04d-41e8-8bd5-8ef60caf82cf" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:34.970" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="723aaf03-9a3e-463d-82cd-f9255c8c68e0" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:50.773" UserId="71" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="The study of the abstract aspect of the sounds or *phonemes* in a given language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="708" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="723aaf03-9a3e-463d-82cd-f9255c8c68e0" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:50.773" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="3672204e-cb4c-4a6e-9a4f-f1c23423da37" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:53.410" UserId="71" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="If your question covers more than just Russian, you could ask the question on the [Linguistics SE][1] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="710" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="3672204e-cb4c-4a6e-9a4f-f1c23423da37" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:53.410" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="6177cbd2-bd02-464d-a13b-6eb7770c9435" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:56.980" UserId="71" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="The study of the production and perception of sounds or &quot;phones&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="712" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="6177cbd2-bd02-464d-a13b-6eb7770c9435" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:17:56.980" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="71a4bc89-4a1a-4c22-a0f1-7ab598d36234" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:00.147" UserId="71" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="If your question covers more than just Russian, you could ask the question on the [Linguistics SE][1] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="714" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="71a4bc89-4a1a-4c22-a0f1-7ab598d36234" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:00.147" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 76" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="fb334e59-e651-4e5d-8830-50d8c6e0c5ba" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:06.607" UserId="71" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="The second grammatical case in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="fb334e59-e651-4e5d-8830-50d8c6e0c5ba" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:06.607" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="2e8d31ff-58ff-4dee-b16d-3c7a8675d2c5" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:10.960" UserId="71" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Morphological changes that affect nouns or adjectives according to the role they have in a sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="718" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="2e8d31ff-58ff-4dee-b16d-3c7a8675d2c5" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:10.960" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 69" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="edd5e492-28e5-489e-8dec-bdc5872835d3" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:13.393" UserId="71" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Parts of speech that introduce some verb complements. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="edd5e492-28e5-489e-8dec-bdc5872835d3" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:18:13.393" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 116 edit id of 81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="eb38018e-db20-4263-ba18-cac41f6067e2" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:39:27.947" UserId="134" Text="In Proto-Slavic, third-person pronouns were used as grammatical articles to form pronominal adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* великъ домъ (a large house) / великъ-iй домъ (that house is large)&#xD;&#xA;* глубока рѣка (a deep river) / глубока-я рѣка (that river is deep)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`iй` and `я` here are extinct third-person pronouns meaning a remote person (as opposed to a close person participating in the conversation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their traces remain in the language in oblique cases (`его` but not `оного`, `ему` but not `оному` etc.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="44878796-68aa-42cc-a4d3-822ae9ab7bc6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:55:03.743" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constituents, if any, may agree both with the name of the note (which is usually considered neuter) and with the name of the modifier (which is masculine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только си-бемоль **сверкало** */neuter/* черно-зеленой амальгамой, а чаще зияло отсутствием: отсутствием движения, воздуха, самой жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в дуэте с Маргаритой певец осторожно подбирался к **верхнему** */masculine/* ре-бемолю, то на его лице был написан такой ужас, что партер ни на шутку испугался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declinability is defined by the part in the composite word with which the other constituents agree. Both parts decline if share gender and number; the non-agreeing part does not decline if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на синей Ладе-Калине, красной Ладе-Спутник или белой Ладе-Жигули?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на синей Калине, красном Спутникe или белых Жигулях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лада is the agreeing word (singular feminine), so Калина (also singular feminine) declines with it, Спутник и Жигули (singular masculine and plural) do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="3ab3e5e4-d743-498d-a9da-7a459424c0b6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T13:57:11.913" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу**. What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, however, in the modern language shares properties of animate pronouns and its accusative form (ничего) is the same as genitive rather than nominative (which would be the case for inanimate nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Ни одной собаки**.*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Ни одного рубля**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosenthal calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** мне не идёт. There's nothing that fits me.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite vernacular (though can be regarded an idiom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничто* would be properly used in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To describe a philosophical category of nothing (where English word *nullness* or *voidness* would be used). Usually not declined: *Киркегор &quot;открыл в себе и в других безотчётный… страх… страх перед **Ничто**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* To oppose nominative and genitive in the same sentence: ***Ничто** не возникает из ничего* (*Ничего не возникает из ничего* is also grammatical though quite unclear).&#xD;&#xA;* In more formal speech, when using proper nominative instead of genitive acting as nominative: *Что такое армия без крепкого тыла? **Ничто**.* (*Ничего* would make the sentence more colloquial, though perfectly grammatical too)&#xD;&#xA;* In idioms: ***ничто** не вечно под луной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from the [Russian Corpus][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="bf48a249-8fdc-4829-a3ff-c98b0f6db0bc" CreationDate="2012-06-18T14:11:43.357" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу** / What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, according to the Russian grammar rules, requires a double negative (*Я ничего **не** делаю / I'm doing nothing*). A negative verb accepts an object in genitive (as well as accusative) where a positive verb would only accept an object in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Не** дал **ни одной собаки**. (= не дал ни собаки, = не дал собаки, = не дал собаку)*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Не** дал **ни одного рубля** (= не дал ни рубля, = не дал рубля, = не дал рубль)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter forms (*не дал рубль / не дал рубля*) have a slight thematic/rhematic nuance: *it's rouble he haven't given me / he haven't given me a rouble*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosenthal calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** мне не идёт. There's nothing that fits me.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite vernacular (though can be regarded an idiom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничто* would be properly used in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To describe a philosophical category of nothing (where English word *nullness* or *voidness* would be used). Usually not declined: *Киркегор &quot;открыл в себе и в других безотчётный… страх… страх перед **Ничто**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* To oppose nominative and genitive in the same sentence: ***Ничто** не возникает из ничего* (*Ничего не возникает из ничего* is also grammatical though quite unclear).&#xD;&#xA;* In more formal speech, when using proper nominative instead of genitive acting as nominative: *Что такое армия без крепкого тыла? **Ничто**.* (*Ничего* would make the sentence more colloquial, though perfectly grammatical too)&#xD;&#xA;* In idioms: ***ничто** не вечно под луной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from the [Russian Corpus][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="8b513e1b-9120-410f-8206-27095624acf0" CreationDate="2012-06-18T14:28:59.193" UserId="134" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="&gt; Now, given that this is a genitive, where the nominative is ничто, what should I answer to a question like &quot;что ты делаешь?&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you would put an object into accusative rather than nominative in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты делаешь? **Свою работу** / What are you doing? My job.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничто is a negative inanimate pronoun, which, according to the Russian grammar rules, requires a double negative (*Я ничего **не** делаю / I'm doing nothing*). A negative verb accepts an object in genitive (as well as accusative) where a positive verb would only accept an object in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кого** он тебе дал? **Одну собаку**. А **кого** он дал тебе? **Не** дал **ни одной собаки**. (= не дал ни собаки, = не дал собаки, = не дал собаку)*&#xD;&#xA;* ***Что** он тебе дал? **Один рубль**. А **что** он дал тебе? **Не** дал **ни одного рубля** (= не дал ни рубля, = не дал рубля, = не дал рубль)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter forms (*не дал рубль / не дал рубля*) have a slight thematic/rhematic nuance: *it's rouble he haven't given me / he haven't given me a rouble*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, what about a question like &quot;what's wrong?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouns in genitive can also be what Rosenthal calls *грамматические эквиваленты именительного падежа подлежащего* (grammatical equivalents of subjects' nominative): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ничего** мне не идёт. There's nothing that fits me.*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пусть **его** идёт. Let him go.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former sentence is literary, the latter is quite vernacular (though can be regarded an idiom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter may sound quite peculiar, but it's heavily used both in the literature an in common speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ну, уж это **пусть его** радуется как ему нравится: нам его жалеть нечего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Н. С. Лесков. Томленье духа (1890)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Пусть его** купается в лучах славы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Татьяна Устинова. Большое зло и мелкие пакости (2003)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничто* would be properly used in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To describe a philosophical category of nothing (where English word *nullness* or *voidness* would be used). Usually not declined: *Киркегор &quot;открыл в себе и в других безотчётный… страх… страх перед **Ничто**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* To oppose nominative and genitive in the same sentence: ***Ничто** не возникает из ничего* (*Ничего не возникает из ничего* is also grammatical though quite unclear).&#xD;&#xA;* In more formal speech, when using proper nominative instead of genitive acting as nominative: *Что такое армия без крепкого тыла? **Ничто**.* (*Ничего* would make the sentence more colloquial, though perfectly grammatical too)&#xD;&#xA;* In idioms: ***ничто** не вечно под луной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from the [Russian Corpus][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="d2362ff6-3fdd-458c-8413-b64473bd3f45" CreationDate="2012-06-18T18:13:20.940" UserId="113" Text="The pairs кто-нибудь and кто-либо, когда-нибудь and когда-либо etc. have slight differences in meaning, and each particle is used in specific settings, but I can't quite pinpoint what the difference is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can it be explained or described?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="d2362ff6-3fdd-458c-8413-b64473bd3f45" CreationDate="2012-06-18T18:13:20.940" UserId="113" Text="What's the difference between -либо and -нибудь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="d2362ff6-3fdd-458c-8413-b64473bd3f45" CreationDate="2012-06-18T18:13:20.940" UserId="113" Text="|лексикон|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="bb66c7fa-cc05-4c58-946a-0babb4230e67" CreationDate="2012-06-18T18:13:38.273" UserId="126" Text="In my Russian course we have learnt that in negative sentences the object&#xD;&#xA;is often in the genitive. On the other hand there are situations in which&#xD;&#xA;it is correct to use an accusative, and there is also a difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples (the first is from my textbook):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не люблю я зтой химии = I do not like (this) Chemistry (said by a student).&#xD;&#xA;- Не хочу воды / хлеба = I do not want (any) water / bread.&#xD;&#xA;- Не хочу воду = I do not want the water (this concrete water in the bottle on the table).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as far as I understand, you often use the genitive to express the object&#xD;&#xA;of a negative sentence, and I have a vague intuition that the accusative has a more specific, concrete meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when speaking, I am always in doubt whether I should use the genitive&#xD;&#xA;or accusative and whether this will change the meaning of my sentence. Is there&#xD;&#xA;some general rule? What different meanings are expresses with the genitive&#xD;&#xA;resp. accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="bb66c7fa-cc05-4c58-946a-0babb4230e67" CreationDate="2012-06-18T18:13:38.273" UserId="126" Text="When to use the genitive or the accusative in negative sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="bb66c7fa-cc05-4c58-946a-0babb4230e67" CreationDate="2012-06-18T18:13:38.273" UserId="126" Text="|грамматика|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="259" RevisionGUID="80284550-1e88-40ce-b3c2-894062a0c7c1" CreationDate="2012-06-18T19:29:59.987" UserId="134" Text="If a verb accepts an object in genitive or second genitive (partitive) in its positive form, putting the object into accusative makes it a comment while putting it into genitive or partitive makes it a topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Хочу чай / не хочу чай*: it's tea I want (don't want)&#xD;&#xA;* *Хочу чаю (чая) / не хочу чаю (чая)*: I want (don't want) some tea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it does not (you can't say *люблю химии*), the difference in negative is pure stylistic: you can put the object into accusative or genitive as you like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Я не понимаю химии (химию)*&#xD;&#xA;* *Я не знаю химии (химию)*&#xD;&#xA;* *Я не выучил химии (химию)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="d543da82-a991-4d9c-b8b9-391c5414b649" CreationDate="2012-06-18T19:30:43.680" UserId="148" Text="I believe, this could be called &quot;рукописное&quot;, but I've not seen such typeface was used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW&#xD;&#xA;Correct name for typographic characteristic like &quot;X written by means of italic&quot; would be &quot;курсивное начертание&quot; or  &quot;Икс в курсивном начертании&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people are not professionals in typography, though and use simpler form like &quot;икс курсивом&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="1e4c7b35-2b25-4d8b-8956-06c6077d7c6c" CreationDate="2012-06-18T19:48:41.020" UserId="148" Text="It's a big problem ;-) and there's whole site dedicated to that question:&#xD;&#xA;http://tsya.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="5e7edd22-e949-475a-867f-dd161fa8e15b" CreationDate="2012-06-18T19:53:48.263" UserId="134" Text="Words with &quot;-нибудь&quot; might have a secondary connotation: &quot;of any quality, no matter how bad&quot;, which words with &quot;-либо&quot; would lack:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Артист без критика как-нибудь проживёт, а критик без артиста? [*Сати Спивакова. Не всё (2002)*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В старой отцовской, с двумя смежными, разместимся как-нибудь. [*Людмила Улицкая. Казус Кукоцкого (2000)*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Как-нибудь* (but not *как-либо*) could also mean *some time (in the future)*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Ты знаешь, это очень длинная история, я тебе её как-нибудь потом расскажу. [*С улыбкой // «Даша», 2004*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Где-нибудь* (but not *где-либо*) could also mean *approximately*, *about*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полагаю, что Россия победит с минимальным преимуществом, где-нибудь 2:1, в крайнем случае ― 3:2. [*Дмитрий Навоша. Горячая точка. Перед матчем с Грузией наша сборная поселилась в американском посольстве (2002) // «Известия», 2002.10.11*] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="58c18a83-95a4-4ada-b278-9d8f0a7a6f9b" CreationDate="2012-06-18T20:25:46.130" UserId="134" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constituents, if any, may agree both with the name of the note (which is usually considered neuter) and with the name of the modifier (which is masculine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только си-бемоль **сверкало** */neuter/* черно-зеленой амальгамой, а чаще зияло отсутствием: отсутствием движения, воздуха, самой жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в дуэте с Маргаритой певец осторожно подбирался к **верхнему** */masculine/* ре-бемолю, то на его лице был написан такой ужас, что партер ни (*sic!*) на шутку испугался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Declinability is defined by the part in the composite word with which the other constituents agree. Both parts decline if share gender and number; the non-agreeing part does not decline if not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на синей Ладе-Калине, красной Ладе-Спутник или белой Ладе-Жигули?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты поедешь на синей Калине, красном Спутникe или белых Жигулях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лада is the agreeing word (singular feminine), so Калина (also singular feminine) declines with it, Спутник и Жигули (singular masculine and plural) do not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="7821d9a2-5b34-427e-867b-db12beb3a4f6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T20:56:59.597" UserId="71" Text="As a Russian student, I've learnt that Russian verbs &quot;govern&quot; certain cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: **Читать —&gt; что?** (Accusative or Винительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a little search, I found the verb **управлять**, and the noun would be **управлиение**. Would this be the correct term to refer to this part of speech? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I go asking this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the *&quot;управлиение&quot;* for this verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="7821d9a2-5b34-427e-867b-db12beb3a4f6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T20:56:59.597" UserId="71" Text="How is this part of speech called in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="7821d9a2-5b34-427e-867b-db12beb3a4f6" CreationDate="2012-06-18T20:56:59.597" UserId="71" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="675f165e-1880-4280-849d-0570435ebe88" CreationDate="2012-06-18T21:01:32.407" UserId="134" Text="Каково управление этого глагола?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="db217628-3116-463e-8a56-95f4e0b7f950" CreationDate="2012-06-18T21:02:26.260" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="As a Russian student, I've learnt that Russian verbs &quot;govern&quot; certain cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: **Читать —&gt; что?** (Accusative or Винительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a little search, I found the verb **управлять**, and the noun would be **управление**. Would this be the correct term to refer to this part of speech? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I go asking this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the *&quot;управление&quot;* for this verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="0e519bbd-b0af-4adc-b95b-7456c0e7d11d" CreationDate="2012-06-18T21:19:54.513" UserId="134" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Yes, *управление* would be a correct term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question would translate as *Каково управление этого глагола?*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="aceae314-642e-49af-8559-b84e4ac26990" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:16:10.263" UserId="145" Text="When reading Dostoyevski's books I often find characters that use a manner of speech that adds &quot;-с&quot; and the end of the words. What does it mean? Is it used to convey some emotion or is it characteristic of some social class dialect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="aceae314-642e-49af-8559-b84e4ac26990" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:16:10.263" UserId="145" Text="What does &quot;-с&quot; suffix mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="aceae314-642e-49af-8559-b84e4ac26990" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:16:10.263" UserId="145" Text="|pronounciation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="10d1f0d0-5cb4-4613-ba53-87efc9f4203d" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:18:53.950" UserId="134" Text="It's a such called `словоерс`, from *слово* and *ер* (names of the constituting letters `с` and `ъ`) — a contraction of *сударь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used to express self-effacement, servility or respect (as when adding *sir* to each sentence in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently it may be used in jocular manner to imitate old speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="0fdaf249-a38a-44c0-8df1-e1f1ac4481f7" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:23:54.300" UserId="134" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="It's a such called [`словоерс`][1], from *слово* and *ер* (names of the constituting letters `с` and `ъ`) — a contraction of *сударь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used to express self-effacement, servility or respect (as when adding *sir* to each sentence in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently it may be used in jocular manner to imitate old speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неожиданный словоерс пронзил Наташину память с детства знакомой ― угодливой и втайне презирающей ― интонацией: галантерейного приказчика, официанта, гостиничного лакея… *[Сергей Бабаян. Господа офицеры (1994)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скорее бы надо сказать: штабс-капитан Словоерсов, а не Снегирев, ибо лишь со второй половины жизни стал говорить словоерсами. Словоерс приобретается в унижении. *[Ф. М. Достоевский. Братья Карамазовы (1880)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="dff27090-0208-4c86-b33d-87ab8fdab4eb" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:34:47.683" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question" Text="As a Russian student, I've learnt that Russian verbs, like in other languages, &quot;govern&quot; certain cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: **Читать —&gt; что?** (Accusative or Винительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a little search, I found the verb **управлять**, and the noun would be **управление**. Would this be the correct term to refer to this part of speech? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, how would I go asking this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the *&quot;управление&quot;* for this verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="756" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="dff27090-0208-4c86-b33d-87ab8fdab4eb" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:34:47.683" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question" Text="How is the &quot;verb government&quot; called in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="dff27090-0208-4c86-b33d-87ab8fdab4eb" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:34:47.683" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question" Text="|грамматика|перевод|глаголы|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="dd7a5f9c-8f53-4465-8311-e00e152cbbba" CreationDate="2012-06-19T08:09:15.410" UserId="71" Text="There are some rules and some &quot;less strict&quot; rules, where you have exceptions and they represent a tendency, rather than a rule. So we have patterns, but they have exceptions, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there aren't hard rules so that &quot;you're always sure&quot;. You'll slowly come to know what's the right stress after you start acquiring some Russian vocabulary but this will come from experience rather than learning rules... But I'll try to give you some advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **ё**: when you see this in a Russian word, the stress is *always* on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; реб&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;нок, е&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;, акт&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;р, Ф&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;дор, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this rule, you can be sure this is 99% true, the only exceptions are borrowed or compound words where it could change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **-ий/-ый**: These endings are never stressed (unlike -ой in большой for example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вел&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;кии, серд&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;тый, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **-ческии**: Usually the stress doesn't follow on this &quot;part&quot;, but on the syllable before it (again, there are exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; социалист&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческии, мелод&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **First person singular**, not in the first conjugation, such as Читать, but in the other conjugation, it tends to be on the last syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - смотреть - смотр&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - звонить - звон&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - хотеть - хоч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - любить - любл&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; but not...&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; - читать - чит&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - делать - д&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;лаю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - спрашивать - спр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шиваю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **-ие**: Words ending like this, generally have the stress not on this syllable but on the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; упражн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, приглаш&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, образов&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some exceptions could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бование -&gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бовать  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывание -&gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **-ия**: Words which end in -ия usually have their stress on the last vowel before it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; эн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ргия, фант&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;зия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. **-ство / -ость**: These endings are not usually stressed, but there are always exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;вство, гражд&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;нство, &lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;ркость, ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="6d346e84-6dda-48f9-b73b-22ee54a8421f" CreationDate="2012-06-19T08:13:07.447" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="f24229e8-d441-481d-86ea-fbefaa79b432" CreationDate="2012-06-19T08:13:07.447" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="761" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="d6139f2d-e620-426b-a071-1d89dce632ee" CreationDate="2012-06-19T08:15:44.590" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="1ee2eefe-6b19-4690-ba7d-853f67cafbc3" CreationDate="2012-06-19T09:12:38.673" UserId="134" Comment="Clarification" Text="There are some rules and some &quot;less strict&quot; rules, where you have exceptions and they represent a tendency, rather than a rule. So we have patterns, but they have exceptions, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there aren't hard rules so that &quot;you're always sure&quot;. You'll slowly come to know what's the right stress after you start acquiring some Russian vocabulary but this will come from experience rather than learning rules... But I'll try to give you some advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **ё**: when you see this in a Russian word, the stress is *always* on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; реб&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;нок, е&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;, акт&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;р, Ф&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;дор, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this rule, you can be sure this is 99% true, the only exceptions are borrowed or compound words where it could change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **-ий/-ый**: These endings are almost never stressed (unlike -ой in большой for example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вел&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;кии, серд&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;тый, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **-ческии**: Usually the stress doesn't follow on this &quot;part&quot;, but on the syllable before it (again, there are exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; социалист&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческии, мелод&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **First person singular**, not in the first conjugation, such as Читать, but in the other conjugation, it tends to be on the last syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - смотреть - смотр&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - звонить - звон&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - хотеть - хоч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - любить - любл&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; but not...&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; - читать - чит&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - делать - д&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;лаю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - спрашивать - спр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шиваю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **-ие**: Words ending like this, generally have the stress not on this syllable but on the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; упражн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, приглаш&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, образов&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some exceptions could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бование -&gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бовать  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывание -&gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **-ия**: Words which end in -ия usually have their stress on the last vowel before it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; эн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ргия, фант&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;зия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. **-ство / -ость**: These endings are not usually stressed, but there are always exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;вство, гражд&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;нство, &lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;ркость, ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="763" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="1ee2eefe-6b19-4690-ba7d-853f67cafbc3" CreationDate="2012-06-19T09:12:38.673" Comment="Proposed by 134 approved by 71 edit id of 84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="4cf6d4cb-a3b4-4446-b729-807bacfec38b" CreationDate="2012-06-19T09:54:38.990" UserId="47" Text="A little of history in addition to the [answer by Quassnoi][1]. Indeed the ending *-с* is the severely reduced *сударь* ('sir'), which is in turn sometimes [considered][2] to be a contraction from *государь* (somewhat similar to 'my lord' in English). Being a trailing consonant in words, it was spelled as *-съ* in old Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the church-Slavonic language, each letter had its own name. For example, the first two letters of the alphabet, *а* and *б* were called *аз* and *буки* and gave the name to Russian alphabet—*азбука*. Similarly, letters *cъ* were called *слово* and *ер*, therefore this ending got the popular name *словоерс* [slɑvəˈjers].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spelling reform of 1917 (which is often connected to the socialistic revolution but was actually prepared by [Shakhmatov][3] much earlier) has removed the trailing *ъ*, and therefore in the modern typography old texts are printed with just *-с* at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ending was supposed to emphasize respect to the addressee. The revolution of 1917 &quot;made everyone equal&quot;, and the use of this ending was therefore discouraged. However many older people, especially from the higher society level (professors, doctors), continued using it—as a sort of a quiet protest against the changes, which made them equal to common people. This can be seen in many Soviet films.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/267/47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://coollingua.blogspot.de/2010/05/blog-post_20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Shakhmatov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="766" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="f6fb92b5-3611-4cda-a503-8b7a8a224a4c" CreationDate="2012-06-19T09:55:23.153" UserId="47" Comment="Added &quot;old-spelling&quot; tag" Text="|суффиксы|дореформенная-орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="5f7de0ce-1bd8-4dce-ba63-15dd774d900d" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:01:50.043" UserId="47" Comment="Corrected й in ий in several places" Text="There are some rules and some &quot;less strict&quot; rules, where you have exceptions and they represent a tendency, rather than a rule. So we have patterns, but they have exceptions, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there aren't hard rules so that &quot;you're always sure&quot;. You'll slowly come to know what's the right stress after you start acquiring some Russian vocabulary but this will come from experience rather than learning rules... But I'll try to give you some advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **ё**: when you see this in a Russian word, the stress is *always* on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; реб&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;нок, е&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;, акт&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;р, Ф&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;дор, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this rule, you can be sure this is 99% true, the only exceptions are borrowed or compound words where it could change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **-ий/-ый**: These endings are almost never stressed (unlike -ой in большой for example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вел&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;кий, серд&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;тый, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **-ческий**: Usually the stress doesn't follow on this &quot;part&quot;, but on the syllable before it (again, there are exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; социалист&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, мелод&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **First person singular**, not in the first conjugation, such as Читать, but in the other conjugation, it tends to be on the last syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - смотреть - смотр&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - звонить - звон&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - хотеть - хоч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - любить - любл&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; but not...&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; - читать - чит&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - делать - д&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;лаю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - спрашивать - спр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шиваю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **-ие**: Words ending like this, generally have the stress not on this syllable but on the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; упражн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, приглаш&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, образов&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some exceptions could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бование -&gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бовать  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывание -&gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **-ия**: Words which end in -ия usually have their stress on the last vowel before it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; эн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ргия, фант&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;зия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. **-ство / -ость**: These endings are not usually stressed, but there are always exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;вство, гражд&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;нство, &lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;ркость, ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="c4068cde-c44d-46b2-92cd-d40baf00d780" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:16:07.870" UserId="47" Text="As far as I know, for English, German, French there are state organizations promoting these languages abroad. Does Russia have anything similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="c4068cde-c44d-46b2-92cd-d40baf00d780" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:16:07.870" UserId="47" Text="Is there a Russian analogue of British Council or Goethe-Institut?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="c4068cde-c44d-46b2-92cd-d40baf00d780" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:16:07.870" UserId="47" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="1cb6f30d-4dce-4f5d-8013-999f9a1aa8f0" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:22:12.870" UserId="47" Text="In the Soviet time, the speech of news-readers on radio and TV was considered a standard of the proper Russian language. The spelling in the newpapers was the standard of written language. To support editors and proof-readers, special dictionaries were published, which covered the meaning, use, and spelling of words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, in the end of the Soviet time many mass media got rid of the proof-reading staff, and modern radio and TV in Russia exhibit anything but the proper language. Is there still a recognised &quot;carrier&quot; of good language in Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="1cb6f30d-4dce-4f5d-8013-999f9a1aa8f0" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:22:12.870" UserId="47" Text="Does “official Russian” language exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="1cb6f30d-4dce-4f5d-8013-999f9a1aa8f0" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:22:12.870" UserId="47" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="2b4b7d3f-bbfc-43f6-b55a-4c7b0c19f9db" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:34:07.400" UserId="71" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="There are some rules and some &quot;less strict&quot; rules, where you have exceptions and they represent a tendency, rather than a rule. So we have patterns, but they have exceptions, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there aren't hard rules so that &quot;you're always sure&quot;. You'll slowly come to know what's the right stress after you start acquiring some Russian vocabulary but this will come from experience rather than learning rules... But I'll try to give you some advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **ё**: when you see this in a Russian word, the stress is *always* on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; реб&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;нок, е&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;, акт&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;р, Ф&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;дор, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this rule, you can be sure this is 99% true, the only exceptions are borrowed or compound words where it could change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **-ий/-ый**: These endings are almost never stressed (unlike -ой in большой for example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вел&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;кий, серд&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;тый, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **-ческий**: Usually the stress doesn't follow on this &quot;part&quot;, but on the syllable before it (again, there are exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; социалист&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, мелод&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **First person singular**, not in the first conjugation, such as Читать, but in the other conjugation, it tends to be on the last syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - смотреть - смотр&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - звонить - звон&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - хотеть - хоч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - любить - любл&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; but not...&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; - читать - чит&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - делать - д&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;лаю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - спрашивать - спр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шиваю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **-ие**: Words ending like this, generally have the stress not on this syllable but on the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; упражн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, приглаш&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, образов&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some exceptions could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бование -&gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бовать  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывание -&gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **-ия**: Words which end in -ия usually have their stress on the last vowel before it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; эн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ргия, фант&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;зия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. **-ство / -ость**: These endings are not usually stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;вство, гражд&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;нство, &lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;ркость, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There are always exceptions in this case, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="706a77c3-4a3f-48d3-a998-0021d5a263aa" CreationDate="2012-06-19T10:39:52.383" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="There are some rules and some &quot;less strict&quot; rules, where you have exceptions and they represent a tendency, rather than a rule. So we have patterns, but they have exceptions, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there aren't hard rules so that &quot;you're always sure&quot;. You'll slowly come to know what's the right stress after you start acquiring some Russian vocabulary but this will come from experience rather than learning rules... But I'll try to give you some advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **ё**: when you see this in a Russian word, the stress is *always* on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; реб&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;нок, е&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;, акт&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;р, Ф&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;дор, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this rule, you can be sure this is 99% true, the only exceptions are borrowed or compound words where it could change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **-ий/-ый**: These endings are almost never stressed (unlike -ой in большой for example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вел&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;кий, серд&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;тый, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **-ческий**: Usually the stress doesn't follow on this &quot;part&quot;, but on the syllable before it (again, there are exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; социалист&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, мелод&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **First person singular**, not in the first conjugation, such as Читать, but in the other conjugation, it tends to be on the last syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - смотреть - смотр&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - звонить - звон&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - хотеть - хоч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - любить - любл&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; but not...&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; - читать - чит&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - делать - д&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;лаю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - спрашивать - спр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шиваю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **-ие** and **-ия**: Words ending like this, generally have the stress not on this syllable but on the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; упражн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, приглаш&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, образов&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some exceptions could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бование -&gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бовать  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывание -&gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Words which end in -ия:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; эн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ргия, фант&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;зия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **-ство / -ость**: These endings are not usually stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;вство, гражд&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;нство, &lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;ркость, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There are always exceptions in this case, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="4d0beac9-9f10-479e-8ffa-ae563ccc7b7a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T11:43:44.603" UserId="134" Text="Russian language exhibits paradigmatic accentuation: there is a number of accent paradigms, or models, which are defined by some aspects of the word origin, and are closely linked to the word formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These paradigms are described in Zaliznyak's works, most notably in *От праславянской акцентуации к русской*. It's about 400 pages of dense text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most basically, there are three accentual paradigms in Russian: baritonized (accent always on root), oxytonized (accent never on root), and mobile (accent anywhere). I could expand these further but would end up pasting the whole work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning *тв**о**рог / твор**о**г*: there is a tendency in modern Russian to move the accent towards the beginning in mobile words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it has long since been a norm: *в**о**здух*, *ж**е**мчуг* (the old accent is kept only in the idiom *благорастворение возд**у**хов)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it's not a norm yet but few people are aware of correct pronunciacion: *посл**у**х*, *апостр**о**ф* (but almost everybody reads *п**о**слух* and *ап**о**строф*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it's not a norm but more and more people are using *д**о**говор*, *зв**о**нит*, *вкл**ю**чит* instead of correct forms: *догов**о**р*, *звон**и**т*, *включ**и**т*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *тв**о**рог / твор**о**г*, ***и**наче / ин**а**че*, ***о**бух / об**у**х* are in the middle of this process, and for them both forms are considered correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="4632a2b9-f069-423d-bfd0-143a95d368a1" CreationDate="2012-06-19T11:49:15.437" UserId="134" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Russian language exhibits paradigmatic accentuation: there is a number of accent paradigms, or models, which are defined by some aspects of the word origin, and are closely linked to the word formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These paradigms are described in Zaliznyak's works, most notably in *От праславянской акцентуации к русской*. It's about 400 pages of dense text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most basically, there are three accentual paradigms in Russian: baritonized (accent always on root), oxytonized (accent never on root), and mobile (accent anywhere). I could expand these further but would end up pasting the whole work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning *творо&amp;#x301;г / тво&amp;#x301;рог*: there is a tendency in modern Russian to move the accent towards the beginning in mobile words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it has long since been a norm: *во&amp;#x301;здух*, *же&amp;#x301;мчуг* (the old accent is kept only in the idiom *благорастворение возду&amp;#x301;хов)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it's not a norm yet but few people are aware of correct pronunciacion: *послу&amp;#x301;х*, *апостро&amp;#x301;ф* (but almost everybody reads *по&amp;#x301;слух* and *апо&amp;#x301;строф*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it's not a norm but more and more people are using *до&amp;#x301;говор*, *зво&amp;#x301;нит*, *вклю&amp;#x301;чит* instead of correct forms: *догово&amp;#x301;р*, *звони&amp;#x301;т*, *включи&amp;#x301;т*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *тво&amp;#x301;рог / творо&amp;#x301;г*, *и&amp;#x301;наче / ина&amp;#x301;че*, *о&amp;#x301;бух / обу&amp;#x301;х* are in the middle of this process, and for them both forms are considered correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="1c12d7a4-5326-4a0b-96ca-816ff2ace829" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:09:44.593" UserId="104" Text="I've heard about this word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; контрвзмзднуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which has 9 consonants in a row. Obviously this word doesn't exist. Which *real* word(s) has the longest consonant cluster?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="1c12d7a4-5326-4a0b-96ca-816ff2ace829" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:09:44.593" UserId="104" Text="Which word in Russian has the longest consonant cluster?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="1c12d7a4-5326-4a0b-96ca-816ff2ace829" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:09:44.593" UserId="104" Text="|лексикон|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="7a3c51ea-1e30-4d41-a978-637df1782610" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:12:09.093" UserId="19" Text="I don't believe there's anything akin to British Council, French Institute or Goethe-Institut for the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, Russian embassies across the world often organize events for Russian language learners, as do Russian school abroad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="1602449f-5a66-4256-b995-333e2ed0be88" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:14:25.350" UserId="95" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Questions about terminology specific to Russian grammar and linguistics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="784" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="1602449f-5a66-4256-b995-333e2ed0be88" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:14:25.350" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 104 edit id of 83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="e3dbc05e-1076-44dc-8ec9-d5e1ca5848e1" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:14:42.227" UserId="9" Text="May be you should take a look at [Russian Language Abroad][1] (`Русский язык за рубежом`) magazine. [Russkiy Mir Foundation][2] (`Фонд &quot;Русский мир&quot;`) web site is a good source too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianedu.ru/english.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="59a0f055-9330-433d-874e-92b053f2ef71" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:19:51.190" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="May be you should take a look at [Russian Language Abroad][1] (`Русский язык за рубежом`) magazine. [Russkiy Mir Foundation][2] (`Фонд &quot;Русский мир&quot;`) is a good source too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianedu.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="550fcc8c-c859-4548-a94d-28836d19403c" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:34:25.630" UserId="71" Text="With 5 consonants in a row, I'd say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **[контрпример][1]**, *kontrprimer* (counterexample).&#xD;&#xA; - **контрпредложение**, *kontrpredlozhenie* (counteroffer).&#xD;&#xA; - **контрпривод**, *kontrprivod* (countershaft).&#xD;&#xA; - **контрприказ**, *kontrprikaz* (countermand).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(taken from the dictionary)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="e5a12421-9af2-439a-b1ea-ae6967d675ed" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:45:04.363" UserId="134" Text="Let's face the truth: we're all from Stack Overflow here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ egrep '[бвгджзклмнпрстфхцчшщ]{6,}' lopatin.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    адъюнктство, —а&#xD;&#xA;    попразднство, —а&#xD;&#xA;    предпразднство, —а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="7ad15b04-bcb9-4c55-9c35-f93a637debe1" CreationDate="2012-06-19T13:04:36.520" UserId="1347" Text="If you say хочу X, &quot;I want X,&quot; that is accusative. I want a (designated) cup of water, piece of bread, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say Не хочу Y, it's often genitive if the meaning is, &quot;I don't want ANY (of) Y.&quot; The &quot;of&quot; makes it genitive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="ab19d620-0189-40d9-a5c7-740d0541cb39" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:15:11.097" UserId="11" Text="In my [previous question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2), several answers mentioned different ways **здравствуйте** can be shortened, namely **Здравствуй** and **здрасте**. Are these special cases, or is it common to shorten words like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different languages tend to deal differently with optimising for speed. In Danish, we tend to abbreviate the word, skipping certain parts, but that is not strictly correct. In Spanish, they tend to carefully pronounce the words, but then they do it at dizzying speeds. Is this something like it for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="ab19d620-0189-40d9-a5c7-740d0541cb39" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:15:11.097" UserId="11" Text="Are there rules for shortening words? Like здрасте instead of здравствуйте?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="ab19d620-0189-40d9-a5c7-740d0541cb39" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:15:11.097" UserId="11" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="92afb5eb-2ba2-417f-bf99-7818a2f9d280" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:18:15.957" UserId="134" Comment="Syntax fix" Text="I've heard about this word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; контрвзбзднуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which has 9 consonants in a row. Obviously this word doesn't exist. Which *real* word(s) has the longest consonant cluster?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="4ac437b7-39ac-48c6-9183-930c3e825366" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:19:15.537" UserId="11" Text="As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been any official body governing the Russian language since the demise of the Soviet Union. I can't find any references to it anywhere, at least :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="f4a0df94-b41e-4135-a578-cc5d47f37ea0" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:19:18.093" UserId="71" Text="While I am not sure about Здравсте, I can tell that Здравствуй is simply the &quot;singular&quot; version of &quot;Здравствуйте&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Здравствуй - You (singular) or informal&#xD;&#xA; - Здравствуйте - You (plural) or formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as you can see, the singular/plural distinction is not the only one: Like other languages, you use another person when the language is formal, in Russian it's Вы (you plural). In Spanish, for example, you'd use Usted/Ustedes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="06050244-fcd6-40ee-b200-c93b891b2bd8" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:21:45.933" UserId="19" Text="For what it's worth, Russian language has been established as one of the official languages in New York in 2009. All official documents must be translated into Russian and you can complete your driving license exam without knowing a single word in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="3e424d90-6a07-4c0d-8bd8-650f7ab97248" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:25:11.937" UserId="134" Text="*Здравствуй* is the 2-nd person singular form of the verb, *здравствуйте* is the 2-nd person plural (either proper plural or honorific plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Здрасьте* just reflects relaxed pronunciation of the word, like English &quot;sup&quot; instead of &quot;what's up&quot;. Like its English counterpart, it could be considered a sign of disrespect when used towards a stranger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="798" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="07564132-b662-4d97-b8ae-27cd3e11f4dd" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:26:55.803" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|russian-usage|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="06846fea-b9c3-4750-93c2-1014f05a14ab" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:43:59.770" UserId="11" Comment="Corrected everything." Text="&lt;del&gt;As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been any official body governing the Russian language since the demise of the Soviet Union. I can't find any references to it anywhere, at least :)&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stand corrected – there is [The Russian Language Institute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Language_Institute) in Moscow. There's also a [Russian version](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%82_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%92._%D0%92._%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%9D) as well as [their official website](http://www.ruslang.ru/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="274" RevisionGUID="b88b858f-65a8-4ad2-a97e-a4df3049ead0" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:48:58.093" UserId="134" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Russian language exhibits paradigmatic accentuation: there is a number of accent paradigms, or models, which are defined by some aspects of the word origin, and are closely linked to the word formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These paradigms are described in Zaliznyak's works, most notably in *От праславянской акцентуации к русской*. It's about 400 pages of dense text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most basically, there are three accentual paradigms in Russian: baritonized (accent always on root), oxytonized (accent never on root), and mobile (accent anywhere). I could expand these further but would end up pasting the whole work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning *творо&amp;#x301;г / тво&amp;#x301;рог*: there is a tendency in modern Russian to move the accent towards the beginning in mobile words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it has long since been a norm: *во&amp;#x301;здух*, *же&amp;#x301;мчуг* (the old accent is preserved only in the idiom *благорастворение возду&amp;#x301;хов)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it's not a norm yet but few people are aware of correct pronunciacion: *дабы&amp;#x301;*, *апостро&amp;#x301;ф* (almost everybody reads *да&amp;#x301;бы* and *апо&amp;#x301;строф*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some words it's not a norm but more and more people are using *до&amp;#x301;говор*, *зво&amp;#x301;нит*, *вклю&amp;#x301;чит* instead of correct forms: *догово&amp;#x301;р*, *звони&amp;#x301;т*, *включи&amp;#x301;т*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *тво&amp;#x301;рог / творо&amp;#x301;г*, *и&amp;#x301;наче / ина&amp;#x301;че*, *о&amp;#x301;бух / обу&amp;#x301;х* are in the middle of this process, and for them both forms are considered correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="0d0bb739-bb9b-47fb-8fbf-e705222ec73f" CreationDate="2012-06-19T15:03:15.883" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="While I am not sure about **Здрасте**, I can tell that **Здравствуй** is simply the &quot;singular&quot; version of **Здравствуйте**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Здравствуй - You (singular) or informal&#xD;&#xA; - Здравствуйте - You (plural) or formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as you can see, the singular/plural distinction is not the only one: Like other languages, you use another person when the language is formal, in Russian it's **Вы** (you plural). In Spanish, for example, you'd use *Usted/Ustedes*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="fb825645-a97f-4b8e-8eac-5426c7efb87e" CreationDate="2012-06-19T15:15:18.690" UserId="95" Comment="more examples i've been hearing since this question was asked" Text="This answer is from my experience having just lived seven and a half months in Georgia, mostly in Tbilisi but also for a month and a half in Batumi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes Russian is widely known and used every day by the majority of people in Georgia aged in their 20's and above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people are fluent (they can talk quickly without translating in their heads) but would make lots of grammatical errors that native Russian speakers would pick up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact many people love the Russian language and tell me how beautiful it is. (I'm Australian so they're not just being nice to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certain words are exceptionally common even when otherwise speaking Georgian. Some that come to mind are &quot;маршрутка&quot;, &quot;молодец&quot;, &quot;похмелье&quot; meaning &quot;hangover&quot;, even though there are often native words like ნაბახუსევი (nabakhusevi) for &quot;hangover&quot; and ყოჩაღ (qochagh) for &quot;bravo&quot;, etc. I've also come across &quot;изжога&quot;, &quot;в общем&quot;, and &quot;именно&quot; mixed in with Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some shops I go to regularly where the staff speak Georgian and know that I know more Georgian than Russian, yet they always talk to me in Russian and I always respond in Georgian! (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But children are no longer being taught Russian in school and there is a two-year-old program which imports hundreds of native English speakers to work as English teachers in towns and villages throughout the country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that people still perceive Russian to be &quot;cool&quot; along with English. All of my friends listen to both English and Russian music, but none of them listen to Georgian music. So I assume younger people will continue to pick up Russian without being taught for some time yet, but I would expect the quality to continue to decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="bdd8ba6d-7f00-45fa-baf8-6d3e99a5516d" CreationDate="2012-06-19T15:35:25.677" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Words borrowed directly from Ancient Greek usually use `т`, `б` and `е/э` for `θ`, `β` and `η`: *&lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;еология, &lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;ермометр, &lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;и&lt;strong&gt;б&lt;/strong&gt;лио&lt;strong&gt;те&lt;/strong&gt;ка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works borrowed through Byzantine Greek (translated from Byzantine sources) use `ф`, `в` and `и`: *&lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ёдор, &lt;strong&gt;Ф&lt;/strong&gt;ермопилы, А&lt;strong&gt;фи&lt;/strong&gt;ны, &lt;strong&gt;Фив&lt;/strong&gt;ы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the Hebrew loanwords and transliteration of Hebrew names: biblical names would read as *Варавва (Barabbas)*, *Вифлеем (Bethlehem)*, *Эсфирь (Esther)*, *Валаам (Balaam)*, while names transliterated at later times use modern reading: *Бар-Кохба (Bar-Kokhba)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words changed their spelling from Byzantine to Ancient Greek with time (*вивлиофика -&gt; библиотека*, *апофика -&gt; аптека* etc.). The spelling of such words was not stable at the time, this is why Mitya spells it the Byzantine way while the modern spelling is the Ancient Greek way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, new words are borrowed using Ancient Greek reading and the reading of existing loanwords is stabilized, so I'm not aware of words in the modern language which are read both ways (one of the readings would be considered obsolete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some common names of the same origin, spelt the same in other languages, are spelt differently in Russian: for instance, the name of the city of Beth Shemesh, Israel is spelt `Беф-Шемеш` in biblical context and `Бейт-Шемеш` in the modern context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="1ad53403-6620-43de-9f17-dd188a61188a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:20:02.703" UserId="19" Text="What is the etymology of the expression `С дуба рухнуть`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="1ad53403-6620-43de-9f17-dd188a61188a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:20:02.703" UserId="19" Text="Etymology of &quot;С дуба рухнуть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="1ad53403-6620-43de-9f17-dd188a61188a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:20:02.703" UserId="19" Text="|saying|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="8147126d-88ad-4d45-8661-43e3eae6a94e" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:32:22.967" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="What is the etymology of the expression **С дуба рухнуть**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="810" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="8147126d-88ad-4d45-8661-43e3eae6a94e" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:32:22.967" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 104 edit id of 85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="410e4ea4-6535-4d7b-8fe5-812014a62293" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:47:07.740" UserId="19" Text="What's the difference between `мир` and `свет` to mean `world`? When would one use one over the other, and are there any set expressions where these are not interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="410e4ea4-6535-4d7b-8fe5-812014a62293" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:47:07.740" UserId="19" Text="Difference between мир and свет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="410e4ea4-6535-4d7b-8fe5-812014a62293" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:47:07.740" UserId="19" Text="|лексикон|выражения|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="daa53cc5-beec-457b-a368-a072d2fb8fde" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:47:07.910" UserId="19" Text="When used to mean `world`, `мир` and `свет` are synonymous, though the latter can sound somewhat poetic and is more often used in literature and set expressions than in day-to-day life. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничего `на свете` лучше нету&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чем бродить друзьям `по белу свету`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or to quote the Russian national anthem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одна ты на свете&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other situations where the two cannot be substituted for each other. For instance, one can't use `свет` when talking about `the world of ______`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «В мире животных»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В мире политики.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, both words also have other meanings which are entirely unrelated (e.g., `peace` and `light`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that `мир` is used with the preposition `в`, whereas свет is used with `на`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни за что `на свете`!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что `в мире` неизменно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="82df70c3-673b-435a-b980-135dcd17a3bc" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:50:45.293" UserId="81" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выражения|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="816" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="b9fc551f-12e6-46a8-a962-6d65cfb94faf" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:50:46.637" UserId="81" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выражения|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="35fa2ffc-1a58-41e4-946b-e954371cf947" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:53:05.580" UserId="19" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="What is the etymology of the expression `С дуба рухнуть`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="0db0e5c1-171f-4d8b-bcd2-81bc60188517" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:57:01.137" UserId="15" Text="I'm learning Russian, and I see it mentioned in study material that Russian nouns have three declensions (склонения). In English-language learning material, the order of the declensions is like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First declension: Most masculine and neuter nouns&#xD;&#xA;1. Second declension: Mostly feminine nouns ending in -а or -я&#xD;&#xA;1. Third declension: Mostly for feminine nouns ending in consonant + ь or ending in -мя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've seen it mentioned a few times that the order of these declensions is different for Russian schools. Is there a standard order that native speakers are usually taught?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="0db0e5c1-171f-4d8b-bcd2-81bc60188517" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:57:01.137" UserId="15" Text="Order of declensions (склонения)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="0db0e5c1-171f-4d8b-bcd2-81bc60188517" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:57:01.137" UserId="15" Text="|грамматика|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="3db98302-c5e3-40d3-b4cf-f5103527a331" CreationDate="2012-06-19T17:18:30.860" UserId="104" Text="In Russian (and other postsoviet) schools the classification is given as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **I склонение** (1st declension): masculine and feminine nouns ending in -а -я. This is what you refer to as Second Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **II склонение** (2nd declension): is what you refer to as First Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **III склонение** (3rd declension): feminine nouns ending in ь (ь is always preceeded by a consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Разносклоняемые существительные** (11 or so irregular nouns ending in -мя)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Несклоняемые существительные** (undeclinable nouns): those that do not change, e.g. кенгуру." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="287681c4-2e4e-4b73-9ca4-ff5a42b48afd" CreationDate="2012-06-19T17:23:36.093" UserId="134" Text="*Ты с дуба рухнул* = Are you crazy? (literary, *Have you fallen down from an oak tree?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest mention in the corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Зуенко, ты, что ли? Ты что, с дуба рухнул? Дергать нужно через счет 502-503-504.* [Василий Гулин. Прыгом-марш! (1997) // «Столица», 1997.07.15]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="1c478eb8-441c-4fff-8607-ac4a158b7cf5" CreationDate="2012-06-19T17:25:35.643" UserId="104" Comment="added 638 characters in body" Text="In Russian (and other postsoviet) schools the classification is given as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **I склонение** (1st declension): masculine and feminine nouns ending in -а -я. This is what you refer to as Second Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **II склонение** (2nd declension): most masculine nouns not ending in -a and neuter nouns ending in -о and -е. Тhis is what you refer to as First Declension &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **III склонение** (3rd declension): feminine nouns ending in ь (ь is always preceeded by a consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Разносклоняемые существительные** (11 or so irregular nouns ending in -мя)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Несклоняемые существительные** (undeclinable nouns): those that do not change, e.g. кенгуру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is by far not an ideal classification, but it's good enough and simple enough. An example of a more sophisticated classification is [the classification by Zaliznyak][1], used in [Russian Wictionary][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="4b9a1c38-0538-417e-83c4-83adb0e2c6b9" CreationDate="2012-06-19T17:30:27.703" UserId="134" Text="Shvedova in *Русская Грамматика* calls the declension of *стол* the first declension, the declension of *мама* the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaliznyak in *Русское именное словоизменение* does the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, the Russian declensions corresponded to Latin ones, so the traditional way (and I believe that's what is taught in schools) would correspond to Zaliznyak's opinion: declension `I` is for femimine nouns ending in `-a`, `-я`, declension `II` is for masculine nouns ending in a consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="825" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="6828ba8a-1107-40ad-8bd3-dd3b2d8340f1" CreationDate="2012-06-19T17:35:30.427" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="880c2d11-af80-48e3-800e-8fa5c3a80be8" CreationDate="2012-06-19T17:45:12.027" UserId="123" Text="I'm going to leave this as an answer though no proof of this I could find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The character of a Black Cat from [Понедельник начинается в Субботу][1] could have served as a prototype for this.  Given how forgetful he was it might have been assumed that he has fallen off the (oak) tree and hit his head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not it's true may be lost to posterity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lib.ru/STRUGACKIE/ponedelx.txt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="10e841c7-896d-4ff7-b758-89532b7f605b" CreationDate="2012-06-19T18:05:49.727" UserId="104" Text="I found an interesting theory [in a blog post][1]. I don't know if it's true, but then, it's an interesting theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ДУБ, он же Мировое Дерево - характерный для мифопоэтического сознания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образ, воплощающий универсальную концепцию мира: противопоставление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хаоса организованному космосу. Людей издревле удивляли необъяснимые&#xD;&#xA;&gt; явления природы, в частности, такие как сезонное опадение листьев: &quot;С&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дуба падали листья ясеня...&quot; - гласит одна из народных песен-былин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Великий же русский поэт А.С.Пушкин воспел ДУБ в стихотворении,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известном каждому еще со школы: &quot;У Лукоморья Дуб зеленый&quot; - по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которому мы можем узнать, как выглядел Российский вариант arbor mundi&#xD;&#xA;&gt; до недавнего времени. Ибо после революции этот памятник был уничтожен&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как архаизм и буржуазное излишество (о чем поется в городском романсе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;У Лукоморья Дуб спилили&quot;). Правда, некоторые ученые полагают, что это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; граф Л.Н. Толстой, в чьих владениях находился тот самый Дуб, и спилил&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его (см. ЯСНЫЙ ПЕНЬ ) в личных целях. К сожалению, это было последнее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мировое дерево, так как с ростом населения во всем мире извели&#xD;&#xA;&gt; священные дубовые рощи: &quot;Порубили все дубы на гробы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **По преданиям, ДУБ имел три яруса. Быть сброшенным богами с самого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; верхнего из них, т.е. рухнуть с дуба - считалось высшей мерой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наказания.** Поэтому кроме названия «древо жизни», «древо восхождения»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «древо познания» за ДУБОМ закрепились и другие, более редкие варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «древо смерти», «древо зла», «древо нисхождения». ДУБ всегда считался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; символом красоты, мощи и плодородия, поэтому когда хотели кому-либо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; польстить, говорили: &quot;Ну ты и Дуб!&quot; или Дубак (дубовый чувак). А про&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женщин говорили: Дубина (уменьш.-ласк.Дубинушка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not translate this whole thing, just the relevant part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the legend, the Oak Tree has three layers. To be thrown down by gods from the top layer (i.e. рухнуть с дуба) was considers the most severe of punishments. That's why apart from the names &quot;the tree of life&quot;, &quot;the tree of ascent&quot;, &quot;the tree of knowledge&quot;, the oak tree has also some rarer names such as &quot;the tree of death&quot;, &quot;the tree of evil&quot;, &quot;the tree of descent&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru-ace.livejournal.com/11612.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="832" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="d4157ccb-72fa-4f8e-9f64-455ad9966ce1" CreationDate="2012-06-19T18:16:22.913" UserId="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:104,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Armen Tsirunyan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="833" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="a41c9593-84f0-4516-b58a-2703fc43769d" CreationDate="2012-06-19T18:57:40.627" UserId="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:104,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Armen Tsirunyan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="296fb2f6-679c-4d80-ab77-d6e3500b51a4" CreationDate="2012-06-19T19:17:51.280" UserId="134" Comment="added 831 characters in body" Text="*Ты с дуба рухнул* = Are you crazy? (literary, *Have you fallen down from an oak tree?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest mention in the corpus in this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Зуенко, ты, что ли? Ты что, с дуба рухнул? Дергать нужно через счет 502-503-504.* [Василий Гулин. Прыгом-марш! (1997) // «Столица», 1997.07.15]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is quite clear (falling from an oak tree does not make a person more sane), and the similar expressions exist in other languages: &quot;Did your mom drop you on your head?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the wording of this expression is originated from a popular topsy-turvy Russian folklore motive of a mosquito falling down from an oak tree and causing havoc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полетел комарище в лесище,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Садился комар на дубище,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дуб под ним зашатался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Комар весьма испугался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стукнуло, грянуло в лесе,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Комар **с дуба свалился**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал он на коренище,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сбил до костей плечище&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Чуковский К. От двух до пяти*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глас народа мне вещал:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С дуба-де комар упал.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Се по лесу звук раздался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Холм и дол восколебался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Океан встал из брегов.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Державин Г. Р. Похвала Комару*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="835" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="e956a666-5c03-4d5a-8d79-87933fd5333f" CreationDate="2012-06-19T19:17:55.773" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="0f396cd5-616f-4483-9570-d3b8aad82f7a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T20:43:10.673" UserId="122" Text="Is there a proper idiomatic translation of &quot;Debug&quot; into the Russian Language? I am not sure about &quot;наладка программы&quot;, which I found on http://en.bab.la" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="0f396cd5-616f-4483-9570-d3b8aad82f7a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T20:43:10.673" UserId="122" Text="Idiomatic translation of &quot;Debug&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="0f396cd5-616f-4483-9570-d3b8aad82f7a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T20:43:10.673" UserId="122" Text="|лексикон|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="fb7d779e-a171-4fb6-ad1c-234b7a1b1d8a" CreationDate="2012-06-19T20:46:21.930" UserId="47" Text="If you mean the software context, then it's *отладка* (*отладка программы*, *отлаживать программу*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="aaf9c6d6-608e-46c3-9c4a-8d1ced62e935" CreationDate="2012-06-20T06:39:56.517" UserId="47" Comment="Added debugger translation" Text="If you mean the software context, then it's *отладка*: *отладка программы*, *отлаживать программу*, 'debugger' — *отладчик*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="29571bc9-bc68-4dd1-b639-9b62a95cead0" CreationDate="2012-06-20T07:30:37.267" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Shvedova in *Русская Грамматика* calls the declension of *стол* the first declension, the declension of *мама* the second declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaliznyak in *Русское именное словоизменение* does the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, the Russian declensions corresponded to Latin ones, so the traditional way (and I believe that's what is taught in schools) would correspond to Zaliznyak's opinion: declension `I` is for nouns ending in `-a`, `-я`, declension `II` is for masculine and neuter nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="4c96e8ea-2b18-45d7-a0bb-bb51beba1ea1" CreationDate="2012-06-20T09:31:07.197" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="If you're not acquainted with an adult person (for a male person of your age that would be males in their 30's or above and females in their 20's or above), it's socially inacceptable to address them with `ты`, though acceptable to respond them with `ты` once they started first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For persons of both genders in their 50's or above, it's non polite to call them `ты` ever (even if they do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is especially important for communication between two genders, as an attempt at shortening the social distance without a practical cause (like a work relationship) can be considered as an invitation to romance, so you should not do it unless you mean it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are few exceptions to this rule, which, nevertheless, should be used with care:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In team games of sport, like football or volleyball, you address a member of your or opposite team with `ты`, even if they are significantly older. It does not apply to calmer leisure activities like fishing or cards.&#xD;&#xA;* Male drivers tend to use `ты` more readily when addressing each other (asking for help or directions). A phrase like *Не подскажешь, как проехать в центр?* is considered acceptable between two drivers of your age but sounds quite rude between two pedestrians. Some consider this practice derogatory, so it's safest to address people when driving the same as you would do when walking, but mostly it's not a sign of disrespect.&#xD;&#xA;* An Orthodox priest addresses a member of his parish in a church with `ты` and they respond him with a `вы` (regardless of their age and gender). Do not be surprised when visiting churches.&#xD;&#xA;* Really old people could address you with `сынок` or `внучек`, especially when asking for help (***Сынок**, не поможешь донести сумку?*) . It would be acceptable to address them back with `бабушка` or `дедушка` and use singular verbs and adjectives (*Конечно, бабушка, **давай** свою сумку*). But it is not polite to address them like that first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all examples before, `вы` could be used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these examples concern addressing complete strangers. If you're acquainted with a person, more complex rules apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="c475b41a-e22a-4d98-b8fa-2eb56e322b4b" CreationDate="2012-06-20T09:49:21.643" UserId="97" Text="Note that the actual word **ты** or **вы** may (and usually will) be omitted in the sentence in request/demand form, but its meaning would be conveyed by the verb in the same sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Принеси книгу (version of &quot;ты&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Принесите книгу (version of &quot;вы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the actual &quot;ты&quot; or &quot;вы&quot; may be present, but this would usually be in a more derogatory form, when the speaker is attempting to express his/her superiority or humiliate the addressee and most offten used with &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты! Иди сюда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes people may use &quot;ты&quot; to express a level of social or emotional closeness; this is especially so when requesting help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Браток, помоги! (as opposed to &quot;помогите&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Help me, brother!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="301" RevisionGUID="f3bba44f-c218-40ce-a93f-05bdc22f1bd6" CreationDate="2012-06-20T10:29:26.057" UserId="134" Text="In Moscow speech (which is the base for the standard pronunciation used on TV broadcasts and such), the initial unstressed `я` would be yotized and reduced to `ɪ` (near-close), something between `е` and `и`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some dialects (mostly Northern) reduce it further to `i` (close), like the sound denoted by `и`. This is OK in most words and would probably not be perceived at all by the majority of the audience, but could result in a hiatus in words like *яичница* which is considered undesirable in Russian speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some dialects to the south of Moscow exhibit *yakanye* (яканье). Those dialects would only slightly reduce the sound to a near-open `æ` or even won't reduce it at all (leave an `a`). This is considered dialectal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a rhyme to mock a person who uses *yakanye*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у нас в Рязани  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грибы с глазами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Их едят (*ядять*),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; А они глядят (*глядять*)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When telling this rhyme, vowels should not be reduced at all, and the word `едят` should start with a yotized `a` (as open as possible). Also, to mock the other aspects of the dialect, `Г` should be pronounced fricative (`ɣ` rather than `g`), and the final consonants `т` should be softened (palatalized)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="c94bb760-7b09-4e00-a5f4-cbc039f0118c" CreationDate="2012-06-20T10:49:03.323" UserId="104" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="If you mean the software context, then it's *отл&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;дка*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отл&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;дка прогр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ммы* (debugging of a program)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отл&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;живать прогр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;мму* (to debug a program)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отл&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;дчик* (debugger)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="850" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="a0174200-1d5a-47c3-85cd-57fe116f9d5f" CreationDate="2012-06-20T11:11:50.713" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="812dd201-59c0-46d5-ab76-9d421c25a854" CreationDate="2012-06-20T11:32:29.697" UserId="104" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Is there a proper idiomatic translation of &quot;Debug&quot; into the Russian Language? I am not sure about &quot;наладка программы&quot;, which I found on [en.bab.la](http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-russian/debug)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="196bd476-1d93-4711-b8be-5263a0409378" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:00:09.787" UserId="19" Text="What `съедобный` is to food, `__________` is to drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one can say `которую можно пить`, and there's the word `питьевой`, but both are not quite equivalent in meaning and usage to the aforementioned `съедобный`. Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="196bd476-1d93-4711-b8be-5263a0409378" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:00:09.787" UserId="19" Text="Is there a single word to mean съедобный for drinks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="196bd476-1d93-4711-b8be-5263a0409378" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:00:09.787" UserId="19" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="8c9d4af0-d1d0-4b1e-aff1-20f5118e7114" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:09:22.427" UserId="19" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="For what it's worth, Russian language has been established as one of the official languages in the state of New York in 2009. All election documents [must be translated into Russian][1] and you can complete your driving license exam without knowing a single word in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS%20&amp;QUERYDATA=$$ELN3-506$$@TXELN03-506%20&amp;LIST=SEA2%20&amp;BROWSER=EXPLORER%20&amp;TOKEN=54506818%20&amp;TARGET=VIEW" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="0bd8a98c-f04b-416c-b6f3-67cd0a66b83e" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:24:53.480" UserDisplayName="user101" Text="In my opinion, `cъедобный` - is the best choise in your case. But also you can try `пьющийся`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="5a1c0b90-fac4-4bf1-aac5-3d6eb5894efe" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:30:01.820" UserId="104" Text="All the other prefixes ending in **с** I can think of off the top of my head have a counterpart ending with **з**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; бес-/без-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ис-/из-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вос-/воз-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version with **с** is used before voiceless consonants, and the version with **з** is used before vowels and voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бесполезный, безымянный, бездушный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исходить, изыди, изгой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воспевать, возобновить, возможно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the **с-** prefix is used in all cases, although before voiced consonants it is often pronounced as **/z/**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сделать, сброд, сглаживание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a linguistic or historical reason why this prefix seems to stand as an exception? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="5a1c0b90-fac4-4bf1-aac5-3d6eb5894efe" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:30:01.820" UserId="104" Text="Why is there no з- prefix in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="5a1c0b90-fac4-4bf1-aac5-3d6eb5894efe" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:30:01.820" UserId="104" Text="|орфография|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="61902134-16e2-42a0-b236-a6053f0a4fbe" CreationDate="2012-06-20T12:34:19.837" UserId="47" Text="The word *съедобный* has two meanings. One is that an item is physically eatable. Another one is that it's tasty, and is used only in spoken language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With liquids, for the first meaning, the technical word is *пищевой*, meaning 'suitable for consuming as a food'. For example *цистерны, бутылки для пищевых жидкостей* (GOST terms). However this word is rarely used in daily life, since it's usually clear for all liquids except for water if they are drinkable or not (fuel and milk for example), so one doesn't need an additional adjective. For water, since one should clearly distinguish drinking and technical water, the word *питьевой* (meaning literally 'drinking') is usually used. Obviously, milk for example can be spoiled and not drinkable. I think there is no single word to convey this meaning in Russian (nor actually in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word for the second meaning for liquids, as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="6228782a-aa45-4afa-a651-30a34a8d18d6" CreationDate="2012-06-20T14:30:38.893" UserId="134" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept (and you can still see it in the roots starting with a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. Hence the consonant clusters impossible in Russian phonology: *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition `cѫ` ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` or `o` in nouns like `сударь`, `содружество` and into `ъ` in verbs (which later fell). So this preposition does not change in writing as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other prepositions ending in `с` and `з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, were did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1917, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="93d0d3bf-569d-4626-a67e-3ba7a2d54c26" CreationDate="2012-06-20T14:59:26.243" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept (and you can still see it in the roots starting with a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. Hence the consonant clusters impossible in Russian phonology: *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition `cѫ` ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` or `o` in nouns like `сударь`, `содружество` and into `ъ` in verbs (which later fell). So this preposition does not change in writing as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other prepositions ending in `с` and `з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, were did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="a5ea350d-84bd-4869-9773-eb26ee3c1d17" CreationDate="2012-06-20T15:12:18.250" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept (and you can still see it in the roots starting with a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. Hence the consonant clusters impossible in Russian phonology: *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition `cѫ` ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` or `o` in nouns like `сударь`, `содружество` and into `ъ` in verbs (which later fell). So this preposition does not change in writing as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other prepositions ending in `с` and `з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="f3e98848-b7c9-4c0a-ba36-403eda4df979" CreationDate="2012-06-20T15:14:41.710" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept (and you can still see it in the roots starting with a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. Hence the consonant clusters impossible in Russian phonology: *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition `cѫ` ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` in nouns like `сударь`, `сутки` and into `ъ` (which later fell) in verbs. So this preposition does not change in writing as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other prepositions ending in `с` and `з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="ab7d05bb-43ec-4dba-91ee-ef643738aff3" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:00:48.833" UserId="134" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept (and you can still see it in the roots starting with a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. The words *по&lt;strong&gt;дът&lt;/strong&gt;вердити*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тъд&lt;/strong&gt;авити* (`ъ` was read as a really short `ы`) became *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc, with impossible combinations of a voiced and voiceless consonant. The both consontants are now voiced or not according to the last one (*[поттвердить], [оддавить]*) but written the old way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition `cѫ` ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` in nouns like `сударь`, `сутки` and into `ъ` (which later fell) in verbs. So this preposition does not change in writing as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other prepositions ending in `с` and `з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="32282015-8aa8-498d-9b37-83bf64b42548" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:08:31.507" UserId="87" Text="While using buses and marshrutkas as a means to reach point B from point A, I often hear drivers being addressed as &quot;шеф&quot; or &quot;командир&quot;, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Командир, возьми за проезд!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шеф, до вокзала едешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does this tradition come from and is this way proper to use (i.e. would the driver be offended if I address him like that)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="32282015-8aa8-498d-9b37-83bf64b42548" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:08:31.507" UserId="87" Text="Addressing taxi/bus driver by &quot;шеф&quot;/&quot;командир&quot; - where does it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="32282015-8aa8-498d-9b37-83bf64b42548" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:08:31.507" UserId="87" Text="|word-choice|этимология|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="a643ce84-9183-4805-8a46-d6c378992598" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:13:05.413" UserId="134" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept (and you can still see it in the roots starting with a vowel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. The words *по&lt;strong&gt;дът&lt;/strong&gt;вердити*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тъд&lt;/strong&gt;авити* (`ъ` was read as a really short `ы`) became *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc, with impossible combinations of a voiced and voiceless consonant. The both consontants are now voiced or not according to the last one (*[поттвердить], [оддавить]*) but written the old way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions ending in `-с` and `-з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the prefix `с-` originated from the preposition `cѫ` which never ended in `-с`. It ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` in nouns like `сударь`, `сутки` and into `ъ` (which later fell) in verbs, and undergone the process described earlier. So this prefix does not change in writing, just as the prefixes not ending with `-c/з` don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="3f059ed4-b033-4707-a41f-5286e9f8b7ae" CreationDate="2012-06-20T17:20:28.847" UserId="134" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept, and you can still see it on its historical place before the roots starting with a yotized vowel: *объятие*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. The words *по&lt;strong&gt;дът&lt;/strong&gt;вердити*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тъд&lt;/strong&gt;авити* (`ъ` was read as a really short `ы`) became *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc, with impossible combinations of a voiced and voiceless consonant. The both consontants are now voiced or not according to the last one (*[поттвердить], [оддавить]*) but written the old way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions ending in `-с` and `-з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the prefix `с-` originated from the preposition `cѫ` which never ended in `-с`. It ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` in nouns like `сударь`, `сутки` and into `ъ` (which later fell) in verbs, and undergone the process described earlier. So this prefix does not change in writing, just as the prefixes not ending with `-c/з` don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="6277fd11-b5e1-477b-ba82-7d64f111a518" CreationDate="2012-06-20T18:28:05.920" UserId="9" Text="Just [a version][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечественная психология полагает вождение автомобиля занятием истинно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужским, суровым и связывает с ним легенду о дружбе, взаимной выручке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и прочих хемингуэевско-ремарковских ценностях. Соответственно этой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; легенде и обращались люди друг к другу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domestic psychology considers driving to be a truly masculine occupation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; harsh, and associates it with the legend of friendship, mutual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assistance etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://autopilot.kommersant.ru/Issues/Auto/1998/05/kabakov.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="3ca990d5-3423-44d7-b650-5952a27a1210" CreationDate="2012-06-20T19:14:49.600" UserId="1347" Text="A taxi, and particularly a bus driver, is the &quot;chief&quot; or &quot;commander&quot; of a small mobile unit with a lot of &quot;horsepower.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a driver is also responsible for the safety of several passengers. At least in New York City, this person is &quot;in charge&quot; not only of the vehicle, but everyone that is in/on it at any given time. A bus driver has the right to ask a passenger to move (to balance the vehicle) give a seat to a handicapped person, or do other things that make vehicle safer. Assaulting one carries extra penalties otherwise associated with assaulting a policemen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any Russian speaker in the city would understand why such terms are used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="43829223-c4d0-4f00-8444-b6b4955a0c32" CreationDate="2012-06-20T19:24:04.160" UserId="9" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Just [a version][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечественная психология полагает вождение автомобиля занятием истинно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужским, суровым и связывает с ним легенду о дружбе, взаимной выручке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и прочих хемингуэевско-ремарковских ценностях. Соответственно этой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; легенде и обращались люди друг к другу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Domestic psychology considers driving to be a truly masculine occupation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; harsh, and associates it with the legend of friendship, mutual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assistance etc... People addressed each other according to that legend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://autopilot.kommersant.ru/Issues/Auto/1998/05/kabakov.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="12cb1760-86bf-40ba-9c12-c543a4e22a19" CreationDate="2012-06-21T06:49:27.250" UserId="85" Text="I was always wondering where this expression has its starts and what its origins? I've searched through the net and found few discussions on this issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Link1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Link2][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=4111.0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=7d0f828b9d91a0e1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems like more of guessing and assumptions. Does anyone know what is the real origin of this expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="12cb1760-86bf-40ba-9c12-c543a4e22a19" CreationDate="2012-06-21T06:49:27.250" UserId="85" Text="What is the origin of &quot;на обиженных воду возят&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="12cb1760-86bf-40ba-9c12-c543a4e22a19" CreationDate="2012-06-21T06:49:27.250" UserId="85" Text="|saying|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="9b7bdf8f-7fe7-4a43-afc2-3291432e2b92" CreationDate="2012-06-21T06:57:22.550" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Prefixes in Slavic languages originated from the prepositions merged with the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old Slavic prepositions `надъ`, `подъ` etc. which ended with `ъ`, were merged before the fall of the reduced vowels so the vowel was kept, and you can still see it on its historical place before the roots starting with a yotized vowel: *объятие*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reduced vowels fell, prononciation changed to agree the articulation of now adjacent consonants, but orthography did not reflect it. The words *по&lt;strong&gt;дът&lt;/strong&gt;вердити*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тъд&lt;/strong&gt;авити* (`ъ` was read as a really short `ы`) became *по&lt;strong&gt;дт&lt;/strong&gt;вердить*, *о&lt;strong&gt;тд&lt;/strong&gt;авить* etc, with impossible combinations of a voiced and voiceless consonant. The both consontants are now voiced or not according to the last one (*[поттвердить], [оддавить]*) but written the old way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions ending in `-с` and `-з` (`раз`, `из` etc.), however, did not end with a vowel. The orthography reflected it from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the prefix `с-` originated from the preposition `cѫ` which never ended in `-с`. It ended with `ѫ`. This nasal sound after denasalization of the yuses had changed into `y` in nouns like `сумерки`, `сутки` and into `ъ` (which later fell) in verbs, and undergone the process described earlier. So this prefix does not change in writing, just as the prefixes not ending with `-c/з` don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositions `без` and `через` (and the Church Slavonic borrowing `чрез`) merged much later than the others, so until the orthography reform of 1918, they were always written `без-`, `чрез-` and `через-`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="b73bf9e4-3346-4522-b84b-84a9cb7eefb4" CreationDate="2012-06-21T08:18:53.573" UserId="134" Text="First of all, it's usually very hard to find a &quot;real origin&quot; for a common saying (unless it was coined by someone in writing). The common sayings constantly develop, change their meaining, get contaminated etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another portion of speculations (just in case, I'm reciting *Русская Речь* from memory, it's not my own speculation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Возить воду* is a common metaphor of a hard and ungrateful labor, and *на нём можно воду возить* is told of a physically strong but meek and servile person who won't protest against such a labor. This does not correspond to any of meanings of *сердитый*: angry, grumpy, irate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions this as *на сердитых воду возят на упрямой лошади*. This can be perceived two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An angry person would be forced to drive a stubborn horse to deliver water&#xD;&#xA;* The water for an angry person would be delivered on a stubborn horse. The word *сердитый* is in genetive, not prepositive (compare to *еду за водой, на тебя привезти?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning makes much more sense to me: if you are so angry, we'll use a stubborn horse to deliver your water, and waiting would cool you down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, later the second portion was lost, and the proverb changed its meaning. It became: if there is something too much in your character or behavior, you'll be forced to deliver water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Something too much&quot; may be *сердитый* (too angry), *обиженный* (too resentful), *добрый* (too kind) etc., and all these variants are mentioned in the corpus. Only the last meaning makes sense and it seems to be the latest reinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a legend in St. Petersburg that angry water carriers who treated their horses bad were forced to harness theirselves into the water carts and feel on their skin what do the poor animals feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the photo of the monument to such a carrier I made near the St. Petersburg Water Museum in 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gc5pQBChgqo/TNZz6jMrS2I/AAAAAAAACEI/DZWGOqmyQno/s640/_MG_9520.jpg&quot;/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="646c8c4b-9a5f-4536-a2ca-176e1e4002d7" CreationDate="2012-06-21T08:28:19.407" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="First of all, it's usually very hard to find a &quot;real origin&quot; for a common saying (unless it was coined by someone in writing). The common sayings constantly develop, change their meaining, get contaminated etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another portion of speculations (just in case, I'm reciting *Русская Речь* from memory, it's not my own speculation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Возить воду* is a common metaphor of a hard and ungrateful labor, and *на нём можно воду возить* is told of a physically strong but meek and servile person who won't protest against such a labor. This does not correspond to any of meanings of *сердитый*: angry, grumpy, irate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions this as *на сердитых воду возят на упрямой лошади*. This can be perceived two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An angry person would be forced to drive a stubborn horse to deliver water&#xD;&#xA;* The water for an angry person would be delivered on a stubborn horse. The word *сердитый* is in accusative, not prepositive (compare to *еду за водой, на тебя привезти?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second reading makes much more sense to me: if you are so angry, we'll use a stubborn horse to deliver your water, and waiting would cool you down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, later the second portion was lost, and the proverb changed its meaning. It became: if there is something too much in your character or behavior, you'll be forced to deliver water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Something too much&quot; may be *сердитый* (too angry), *обиженный* (too resentful), *добрый* (too kind) etc., and all these variants are mentioned in the corpus. Only the last meaning makes sense and it seems to be the latest reinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a legend in St. Petersburg that angry water carriers who treated their horses bad were forced to harness themselves into the water carts and feel on their skin what do the poor animals feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the photo of the monument to such a carrier I made near the St. Petersburg Water Museum in 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gc5pQBChgqo/TNZz6jMrS2I/AAAAAAAACEI/DZWGOqmyQno/s640/_MG_9520.jpg&quot;/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="13ba5e97-1f24-4150-b6b0-dfa21e9bee55" CreationDate="2012-06-21T09:00:03.100" UserId="134" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="First of all, it's usually very hard to find a &quot;real origin&quot; for a common saying (unless it was coined by someone in writing). The common sayings constantly develop, change their meaining, get contaminated etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another portion of speculations (just in case, I'm reciting *[Русская Речь][1]* from memory, it's not my own speculation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Возить воду* is a common metaphor of a hard and ungrateful labor, and *на нём можно воду возить* is told of a physically strong but meek and servile person who won't protest against such a labor. This does not correspond to any of meanings of *сердитый*: angry, grumpy, irate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions this as *на сердитых воду возят на упрямой лошади*. This can be perceived two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An angry person would be forced to drive a stubborn horse to deliver water&#xD;&#xA;* The water for an angry person would be delivered on a stubborn horse. The word *сердитый* is in accusative, not prepositive (compare to *еду за водой, на тебя привезти?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second reading makes much more sense to me: if you are so angry, we'll use a stubborn horse to deliver your water, and waiting would cool you down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, later the second portion was lost, and the proverb changed its meaning. It became: if there is something too much in your character or behavior, you'll be forced to deliver water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Something too much&quot; may be *сердитый* (too angry), *обиженный* (too resentful), *добрый* (too kind) etc., and all these variants are mentioned in the corpus. Only the last meaning makes sense and it seems to be the latest reinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a legend in St. Petersburg that angry water carriers who treated their horses bad were forced to harness themselves into the water carts and feel on their skin what do the poor animals feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the photo of the monument to such a carrier I made near the St. Petersburg Water Museum in 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gc5pQBChgqo/TNZz6jMrS2I/AAAAAAAACEI/DZWGOqmyQno/s640/_MG_9520.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="5b446548-2cd0-48de-820e-fea7c2ef44b3" CreationDate="2012-06-21T09:13:44.670" UserId="134" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="First of all, it's usually very hard to find a &quot;real origin&quot; for a common saying (unless it was coined by someone in writing). The common sayings constantly develop, change their meaining, get contaminated etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another portion of speculations (just in case, I'm reciting *[Русская Речь][1]* from memory, it's not my own speculation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Возить воду* is a common metaphor of a hard and ungrateful labor, and *на нём можно воду возить* is told of a physically strong but meek and servile person who won't protest against such a labor. This does not correspond to any of meanings of *сердитый*: angry, grumpy, irate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions this as *на сердитых воду возят на упрямой лошади*. This can be perceived two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An angry person would be forced to drive a stubborn horse to deliver water&#xD;&#xA;* The water for an angry person would be delivered on a stubborn horse. The word *сердитый* is in accusative, not prepositive (compare to *еду за водой, на тебя привезти?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second reading makes much more sense to me: if you are so angry, we'll use a stubborn horse to deliver your water, and waiting would cool you down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, later the second portion was lost, and the proverb changed its meaning. It became: if there is something too much in your character or behavior, you'll be forced to deliver water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Something too much&quot; may be *сердитый* (too angry), *обиженный* (too resentful), *добрый* (too kind) etc., and all these variants are mentioned in the corpus. Only the last meaning makes sense and it seems to be the latest reinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a legend in St. Petersburg that angry water carriers who treated their horses bad were forced to harness themselves into the water carts and feel on their skin what do the poor animals feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the photo of the monument to such a carrier I made near the St. Petersburg Water Museum in 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gc5pQBChgqo/TNZz6jMrS2I/AAAAAAAACEI/DZWGOqmyQno/s640/_MG_9520.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The actual entry in Dahl][2] reads as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На сердитыхъ воду возятъ*, на упрямой лошади.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This I believe invalidates the second reading and the second part seems not to be a part of the saying at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl further provides another meaning for *сердитый*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *сердито взялся за работу*, упорно, съ рвенiемъ (пск. твер. Опд.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dahl's reading, I believe, is that an industriuos, hard-working horse would be used to carry water, which might be a warning against being too much of an eager beaver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F/%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%94%D0%A6%D0%95/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="ce70acf8-5a54-407c-a9b5-22f80489c5e6" CreationDate="2012-06-21T15:49:51.873" UserId="71" Comment="replaced with plain links for transparency" Text="I was always wondering where this expression has its starts and what its origins? I've searched through the net and found few discussions on this issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link 1: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=4111.0  &#xD;&#xA;Link 2: http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=7d0f828b9d91a0e1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems like more of guessing and assumptions. Does anyone know what is the real origin of this expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="899" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="ce70acf8-5a54-407c-a9b5-22f80489c5e6" CreationDate="2012-06-21T15:49:51.873" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 85 edit id of 86" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="3358ea36-3c79-49ec-be56-eb122c010810" CreationDate="2012-06-21T15:54:13.693" UserId="71" Comment="reduced picture size" Text="First of all, it's usually very hard to find a &quot;real origin&quot; for a common saying (unless it was coined by someone in writing). The common sayings constantly develop, change their meaining, get contaminated etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another portion of speculations (just in case, I'm reciting *[Русская Речь][1]* from memory, it's not my own speculation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Возить воду* is a common metaphor of a hard and ungrateful labor, and *на нём можно воду возить* is told of a physically strong but meek and servile person who won't protest against such a labor. This does not correspond to any of meanings of *сердитый*: angry, grumpy, irate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions this as *на сердитых воду возят на упрямой лошади*. This can be perceived two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An angry person would be forced to drive a stubborn horse to deliver water&#xD;&#xA;* The water for an angry person would be delivered on a stubborn horse. The word *сердитый* is in accusative, not prepositive (compare to *еду за водой, на тебя привезти?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second reading makes much more sense to me: if you are so angry, we'll use a stubborn horse to deliver your water, and waiting would cool you down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, later the second portion was lost, and the proverb changed its meaning. It became: if there is something too much in your character or behavior, you'll be forced to deliver water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Something too much&quot; may be *сердитый* (too angry), *обиженный* (too resentful), *добрый* (too kind) etc., and all these variants are mentioned in the corpus. Only the last meaning makes sense and it seems to be the latest reinterpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a legend in St. Petersburg that angry water carriers who treated their horses bad were forced to harness themselves into the water carts and feel on their skin what do the poor animals feel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the photo of the monument to such a carrier I made near the St. Petersburg Water Museum in 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![picture water museum][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The actual entry in Dahl][3] reads as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На сердитыхъ воду возятъ*, на упрямой лошади.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This I believe invalidates the second reading and the second part seems not to be a part of the saying at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl further provides another meaning for *сердитый*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *сердито взялся за работу*, упорно, съ рвенiемъ (пск. твер. Опд.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dahl's reading, I believe, is that an industriuos, hard-working horse would be used to carry water, which might be a warning against being too much of an eager beaver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q14VY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F/%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%94%D0%A6%D0%95/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="901" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="3358ea36-3c79-49ec-be56-eb122c010810" CreationDate="2012-06-21T15:54:13.693" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="d834ad13-53ff-44ed-a60b-7d3d271832b0" CreationDate="2012-06-21T19:32:46.007" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="*Ты с дуба рухнул* = Are you crazy? (literary, *Have you fallen down from an oak tree?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earliest mention in the corpus in this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Зуенко, ты, что ли? Ты что, с дуба рухнул? Дергать нужно через счет 502-503-504.*[Василий Гулин. Прыгом-марш! (1997) // «Столица», 1997.07.15]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is quite clear (falling from an oak tree does not make a person more sane), and the similar expressions exist in other languages: &quot;Did your mom drop you on your head?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the wording of this expression is originated from a popular topsy-turvy Russian folklore motive of a mosquito falling down from an oak tree and causing havoc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полетел комарище в лесище,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Садился комар на дубище,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дуб под ним зашатался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Комар весьма испугался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стукнуло, грянуло в лесе,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Комар **с дуба свалился**,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал он на коренище,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сбил до костей плечище&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Чуковский К. От двух до пяти*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глас народа мне вещал:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С дуба-де комар упал.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Се по лесу звук раздался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Холм и дол восколебался,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Океан встал из брегов.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Державин Г. Р. Похвала Комару*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="85ae0998-9ab1-4afc-88eb-4b9a13bfe3b6" CreationDate="2012-06-21T20:42:44.887" UserId="19" Text="Is there any official speech contest for foreigners learning Russian, akin to the [Japanese Speech Awards][1] (JSA)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.iware.ne.jp/jsa/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="85ae0998-9ab1-4afc-88eb-4b9a13bfe3b6" CreationDate="2012-06-21T20:42:44.887" UserId="19" Text="Russian speech contest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="85ae0998-9ab1-4afc-88eb-4b9a13bfe3b6" CreationDate="2012-06-21T20:42:44.887" UserId="19" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="d788f257-5ebd-4650-8419-00d2fea428a7" CreationDate="2012-06-21T22:01:30.917" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="What is the etymology of the expression *с дуба рухнуть*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="910" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="d788f257-5ebd-4650-8419-00d2fea428a7" CreationDate="2012-06-21T22:01:30.917" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="Etymology of &quot;с дуба рухнуть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="911" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="d788f257-5ebd-4650-8419-00d2fea428a7" CreationDate="2012-06-21T22:01:30.917" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by -1 edit id of 88" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="030cbb8a-2796-4582-9b5d-fa9f1c072ca7" CreationDate="2012-06-21T22:01:31.277" UserId="19" Comment="formatting" Text="What is the etymology of the expression `С дуба рухнуть`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="913" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="030cbb8a-2796-4582-9b5d-fa9f1c072ca7" CreationDate="2012-06-21T22:01:31.277" UserId="19" Comment="formatting" Text="Etymology of &quot;С дуба рухнуть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="78ab2cab-8672-4d75-951d-32cf139479b2" CreationDate="2012-06-21T23:53:05.990" UserId="71" Comment="added meaning in question" Text="The expression `С дуба рухнуть` means: `crack up, go nuts`. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты что, с дуба рухнул?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Have you lost it?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the etymology of this expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="915" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="78ab2cab-8672-4d75-951d-32cf139479b2" CreationDate="2012-06-21T23:53:05.990" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 19 edit id of 89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="31c2eb8e-73fd-44ba-b9ee-85f164479405" CreationDate="2012-06-22T00:02:26.727" UserId="152" Text="it's short for `шофер` (`chauffeur`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="918629af-5cfe-41e5-9355-af994507caa6" CreationDate="2012-06-22T01:14:19.523" UserId="104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In Russian (and other postsoviet) schools the classification is given as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **I склонение** (1st declension): masculine and feminine nouns ending in -а -я. This is what you refer to as Second Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **II склонение** (2nd declension): most masculine nouns not ending in -a and neuter nouns ending in -о and -е. Тhis is what you refer to as First Declension &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **III склонение** (3rd declension): feminine nouns ending in ь (ь is always preceeded by a consonant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Разносклоняемые существительные** (11 or so irregular nouns ending in -мя and путь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Несклоняемые существительные** (undeclinable nouns): those that do not change, e.g. кенгуру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is by far not an ideal classification, but it's good enough and simple enough. An example of a more sophisticated classification is [the classification by Zaliznyak][1], used in [Russian Wictionary][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="829a4781-0c3f-4a89-9ef0-574d5df54d1f" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:29:49.413" UserId="53" Text="What is established translation for &quot;Application crash&quot;? I routinely use simple transliteration `Крэш` or 'падение программы' but that does not sound correct. What is the commonly used translation for that phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="829a4781-0c3f-4a89-9ef0-574d5df54d1f" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:29:49.413" UserId="53" Text="Establish translation for &quot;Application crash&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="829a4781-0c3f-4a89-9ef0-574d5df54d1f" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:29:49.413" UserId="53" Text="|перевод|информатика|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="625ba381-f910-4ce4-82bb-a0cc636a1368" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:33:25.350" UserId="53" Text="Is there an authoritative english-russian dictionary/reference for computer-science and programming terms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases I just use transliterations of english terms while speaking, is there good reference for established russian terminology in CS and programming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="625ba381-f910-4ce4-82bb-a0cc636a1368" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:33:25.350" UserId="53" Text="English to Russian Computer-science / Programming dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="625ba381-f910-4ce4-82bb-a0cc636a1368" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:33:25.350" UserId="53" Text="|english-to-russian|reference|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="b6622da0-5f60-43cb-9c1f-dd72b2387a97" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:45:15.213" UserId="9" Text="Maybe you should consider `сбой приложения`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="ff945dbb-32f7-4a8a-925b-5bf803773bfc" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:52:03.753" UserId="9" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Maybe you should consider `сбой приложения` or something like `аварийное завершение`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="823f3e59-a2ca-45be-9ecb-f96a0b52e804" CreationDate="2012-06-22T15:04:20.050" UserId="47" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="Is there an authoritative English-Russian dictionary/reference for computer-science and programming terms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases I just use transliterations of English terms while speaking. Is there a good reference for established Russian terminology in CS and programming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="b2bc48a2-22a7-4a40-b4df-fa63e13780e8" CreationDate="2012-06-22T16:34:39.963" UserId="119" Text="It highly depends on the register you're talking/writing at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * _Аварийное завершение программы_ is suitable for a formal register, like a technical manual. It's too wordy to be used in colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * _Падение программы_ should be OK in the internal docs targeted at programmers, testers etc. It should probably be OK in speech, even maybe with the users (this depends on their background).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * _Крэш_ is very slangy. Sure enough, when speaking to the fellow programmers, this can be more than suitable. However, I'd refrain from using _крэш_ in any written docs, manuals, ticket descriptions, or whatever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="d2047bdc-308f-4e98-821f-bf9e0f4c234b" CreationDate="2012-06-22T20:25:20.620" UserId="62" Text="In addition to the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders, there are words of &quot;common gender&quot; (слова общего рода) that nearly all decline like a feminine noun but are applied to both men and women. What I find striking about these words is that essentially all of them describe negative types of people, e.g., выпивоха (heavy drinker), задира (bully), скряга (stingy person), тупица (fool).  There are some words in this 4th gender that are not negative descriptions, such as коллега (colleague), but the vast majority of these words that I have seen are negative. Can any reason be given for this, or is this just some weird coincidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="d2047bdc-308f-4e98-821f-bf9e0f4c234b" CreationDate="2012-06-22T20:25:20.620" UserId="62" Text="Words in &quot;common gender&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="d2047bdc-308f-4e98-821f-bf9e0f4c234b" CreationDate="2012-06-22T20:25:20.620" UserId="62" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="35697436-5f26-46c0-93bf-e5cf309ba203" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:16:39.800" UserId="115" Text="There are non-negative examples as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `возница` (driver of a horse-drawn carriage)&#xD;&#xA; - `воевода` (military governor in ancient Rus)&#xD;&#xA; - `заводила` (someone who is in charge of a group/gang)&#xD;&#xA; - `водила` (colloquialism from `водитель`)&#xD;&#xA; - `умница`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="f7f50eaf-8b3a-41dd-89fd-53b078982a9f" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:25:17.590" UserId="115" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="There are non-negative examples as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `возница` (driver of a horse-drawn carriage)&#xD;&#xA; - `заводила` (someone who is in charge of a group/gang)&#xD;&#xA; - `водила` (colloquialism from `водитель`)&#xD;&#xA; - `умница`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By the way, the first declension consists of masculine of feminine nouns ending in -а or -я. So these nouns belong there too, and that is exactly how they decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="b0d5d10f-ec48-4721-92e5-35d39dce07a4" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:32:21.607" UserId="115" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There are non-negative examples as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `возница` (driver of a horse-drawn carriage)&#xD;&#xA; - `заводила` (someone who is in charge of a group/gang)&#xD;&#xA; - `водила` (colloquialism from `водитель`)&#xD;&#xA; - `умница`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By the way, the first declension consists of masculine *and* feminine nouns ending in -а or -я. So these nouns belong there too, and that is exactly how they decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="9e928db0-aeb6-4e59-a2ed-32075d5fbd48" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:47:23.187" UserId="62" Comment="added 470 characters in body" Text="In addition to the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders, there are words of &quot;common gender&quot; (слова общего рода) that nearly all decline like a feminine noun but are applied to both men and women. What I find striking about these words is that essentially all of them describe negative types of people, e.g., выпивоха (heavy drinker), задира (bully), скряга (stingy person), тупица (fool).  There are some words in this 4th gender that are not negative descriptions, such as коллега (colleague), but the vast majority of these words that I have seen are negative. Can any reason be given for this, or is this just some weird coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Dima has pointed out that many affectionate terms fall into this category, and of course those don't have a negative meaning. I want to say I'm not interested in words that are specifically meant to be affectionate (лапочка) or diminutive (белочка). But now I realize that perhaps many of the negative terms I have seen in the common gender might just be &quot;affectionate&quot; forms in a negative sense, e.g., тупица (fool) surely comes from the adjective тупой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="e13383e5-140b-4e4c-a44c-425b6c0b1753" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:49:20.513" UserId="134" Text="Zaliznyak in *Древненовгородский диалект* mentions this too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень интересны экспрессивные сложные слова на  *-хота* и  *-сова*. В современном&#xD;&#xA;русском языке в классе существительных общего или мужского рода на  `-а` с основой, состоящей из приставки и корня или или из двух корней, ничтожно мало слов с&#xD;&#xA;положительной или нейтральной коннотацией. Таковы в сущности лишь древнейшие слова *вельможа* и *воевода*, сохранившиеся в основном лишь как исторические&#xD;&#xA;термины.  Практически все остальные имеют более или менее ярко выраженную&#xD;&#xA;отрицательную коннотацию  (насмешливую, пренебрежительную, уничижительную&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.), носят экспрессивный характер и свойственны в основном разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;(ср. 5.8, конец). Из общеизвестных таковы, например: *выжига, недотрога, надоеда,&#xD;&#xA;привереда, непоседа, подлиза, растрёпа, растяпа, задира, обжора, повеса, пустомеля*,&#xD;&#xA;ср.  также *расстрига*.  Очень много таких слов имеется на периферии словарного&#xD;&#xA;состава языка и в говорах. Так, в словаре Даля находим, например, *заброда, завида,&#xD;&#xA;зацепа, заеда, провора, прожига, пролыга, пройда, ужима, пустовира, пустозёва, пус-&#xD;&#xA;торёва, пустогрыза, брюзга, пустожира, дармоедa, пустохлёба, водохлёбa* (и много&#xD;&#xA;других с *пусто-*), *гологрыза (&quot;нищий&quot;, &quot;голыш&quot;), кривоныра, пролазa, пройдоха, рукомоя&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;белоручка&quot;)* и др.; в СРНГ — например, *заблуда, заплёва (&quot;бесстыжий&quot;), колоброда, не-&#xD;&#xA;просыпа, ненажора* и т. п. Уникальное свидетельство грамоты Ст. Р. 35 показывает,&#xD;&#xA;что описанная коннотация данной морфологической модели существовала уже в&#xD;&#xA;XII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: almost all masculine words ending in `-a` have ironical or negative connotation at least since `XII` century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gramota [St. R. 15][1] he mentions is a letter of a citizen of Staraya Russa to his brother:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Якове брате еби лежя ебехото аесово*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jacob, my brother, fuck lying (i. e. *do things proper way*), you randy ball-inserter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the apparently invented words *ебехота* and *аесова* (literally, &quot;willing to fuck&quot; and &quot;ball-inserter&quot;) are both of first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?act=full&amp;id=1048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="42f789e3-8787-4aed-ba4f-aa121cb55c44" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:56:51.330" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; added 18 characters in body" Text="Zaliznyak in *Древненовгородский диалект* mentions this too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень интересны экспрессивные сложные слова на  *-хота* и  *-сова*. В современном&#xD;&#xA;русском языке в классе существительных общего или мужского рода на  `-а` с основой, состоящей из приставки и корня или или из двух корней, ничтожно мало слов с&#xD;&#xA;положительной или нейтральной коннотацией. Таковы в сущности лишь древнейшие слова *вельможа* и *воевода*, сохранившиеся в основном лишь как исторические&#xD;&#xA;термины.  Практически все остальные имеют более или менее ярко выраженную&#xD;&#xA;отрицательную коннотацию  (насмешливую, пренебрежительную, уничижительную&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.), носят экспрессивный характер и свойственны в основном разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;(ср. 5.8, конец). Из общеизвестных таковы, например: *выжига, недотрога, надоеда,&#xD;&#xA;привереда, непоседа, подлиза, растрёпа, растяпа, задира, обжора, повеса, пустомеля*,&#xD;&#xA;ср.  также *расстрига*.  Очень много таких слов имеется на периферии словарного&#xD;&#xA;состава языка и в говорах. Так, в словаре Даля находим, например, *заброда, завида,&#xD;&#xA;зацепа, заеда, провора, прожига, пролыга, пройда, ужима, пустовира, пустозёва, пусторёва, пустогрыза, брюзга, пустожира, дармоедa, пустохлёба, водохлёбa* (и много&#xD;&#xA;других с *пусто-*), *гологрыза (&quot;нищий&quot;, &quot;голыш&quot;), кривоныра, пролазa, пройдоха, рукомоя&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;белоручка&quot;)* и др.; в СРНГ — например, *заблуда, заплёва (&quot;бесстыжий&quot;), колоброда, не&#xD;&#xA;просыпа, ненажора* и т. п. Уникальное свидетельство грамоты Ст. Р. 35 показывает,&#xD;&#xA;что описанная коннотация данной морфологической модели существовала уже в&#xD;&#xA;XII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: almost all masculine and common-gender words ending in `-a` have ironical or negative connotation at least since `XII` century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gramota [St. R. 15][1] he mentions is a letter of a citizen of Staraya Russa to his brother:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Якове брате еби лежя ебехото аесово*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jacob, my brother, fuck lying (i. e. *do things proper way*), you randy ball-inserter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the apparently invented words *ебехота* and *аесова* (literally, &quot;willing to fuck&quot; and &quot;ball-inserter&quot;) are both of first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?act=full&amp;id=1048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="ef2d8157-8630-4282-be96-8c873232f71c" CreationDate="2012-06-22T22:07:05.370" UserId="134" Comment="added 50 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Zaliznyak in [*Древненовгородский диалект*][1] mentions this too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень интересны экспрессивные сложные слова на  *-хота* и  *-сова*. В современном&#xD;&#xA;русском языке в классе существительных общего или мужского рода на  `-а` с основой, состоящей из приставки и корня или или из двух корней, ничтожно мало слов с&#xD;&#xA;положительной или нейтральной коннотацией. Таковы в сущности лишь древнейшие слова *вельможа* и *воевода*, сохранившиеся в основном лишь как исторические&#xD;&#xA;термины.  Практически все остальные имеют более или менее ярко выраженную&#xD;&#xA;отрицательную коннотацию  (насмешливую, пренебрежительную, уничижительную&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.), носят экспрессивный характер и свойственны в основном разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;(ср. 5.8, конец). Из общеизвестных таковы, например: *выжига, недотрога, надоеда,&#xD;&#xA;привереда, непоседа, подлиза, растрёпа, растяпа, задира, обжора, повеса, пустомеля*,&#xD;&#xA;ср.  также *расстрига*.  Очень много таких слов имеется на периферии словарного&#xD;&#xA;состава языка и в говорах. Так, в словаре Даля находим, например, *заброда, завида,&#xD;&#xA;зацепа, заеда, провора, прожига, пролыга, пройда, ужима, пустовира, пустозёва, пусторёва, пустогрыза, брюзга, пустожира, дармоедa, пустохлёба, водохлёбa* (и много&#xD;&#xA;других с *пусто-*), *гологрыза (&quot;нищий&quot;, &quot;голыш&quot;), кривоныра, пролазa, пройдоха, рукомоя&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;белоручка&quot;)* и др.; в СРНГ — например, *заблуда, заплёва (&quot;бесстыжий&quot;), колоброда, непросыпа, ненажора* и т. п. Уникальное свидетельство грамоты Ст. Р. 35 показывает,&#xD;&#xA;что описанная коннотация данной морфологической модели существовала уже в&#xD;&#xA;XII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: almost all masculine and common-gender words ending in `-a` have ironical or negative connotation at least since `XII` century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gramota [St. R. 15][2] he mentions is a letter of a citizen of Staraya Russa to his brother:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Якове брате еби лежя ебехото аесово*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jacob, my brother, fuck lying (i. e. *do things proper way*), you randy ball-inserter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the apparently invented words *ебехота* and *аесова* (literally, &quot;willing to fuck&quot; and &quot;ball-inserter&quot;) are both of first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?id=dnd&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?act=full&amp;id=1048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="292be48e-4468-4c2f-8fd2-525bf622db8b" CreationDate="2012-06-22T23:20:10.837" UserId="134" Comment="added 1386 characters in body" Text="In Vinogradov's [Русский язык][1], there is a whole chapter (**§7**) about this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Яркая экспрессивная окраска, свойственная почти всем словам общего рода, подчеркивается несоответствием их строения и значения. Вся эта сложная гамма смысловых оттенков воздвигается на основе класса слов женского рода. Применение слов женского рода к мужчинам и порождает своеобразную экспрессивную окраску этих слов. В этом явлении пережиточно отражается социальное положение женщины, отношение к женскому полу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the social position of a woman (not unique to Russian culture of course) made gramatically feminine words to be only perceived germane to semantically feminine (or gender-neutral) concepts and objects. Calling males the &quot;feminine&quot; words could not help sounding peculiar, so almost all these words have expressive connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of but few emotionally neutral words, some of them already mentioned by you and Dima. All of them are loanwords or evolved from emotionally colored words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *возница* (from Polish)&#xD;&#xA;* *коллега* (from Latin possibly through Polish)&#xD;&#xA;* *предтеча* (from Church Slavonic)&#xD;&#xA;* *сирота* (a metonymy not perceived as such anymore. Similar modern words would be emotionally colored: *Я — могила*, *ты — глыба*)&#xD;&#xA;* *тёзка* (or *тезя*, a diminutive not perceived as such anymore)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaliznyak in [*Древненовгородский диалект*][2] mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень интересны экспрессивные сложные слова на  *-хота* и  *-сова*. В современном&#xD;&#xA;русском языке в классе существительных общего или мужского рода на  `-а` с основой, состоящей из приставки и корня или или из двух корней, ничтожно мало слов с&#xD;&#xA;положительной или нейтральной коннотацией. Таковы в сущности лишь древнейшие слова *вельможа* и *воевода*, сохранившиеся в основном лишь как исторические&#xD;&#xA;термины.  Практически все остальные имеют более или менее ярко выраженную&#xD;&#xA;отрицательную коннотацию  (насмешливую, пренебрежительную, уничижительную&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.), носят экспрессивный характер и свойственны в основном разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;(ср. 5.8, конец). Из общеизвестных таковы, например: *выжига, недотрога, надоеда,&#xD;&#xA;привереда, непоседа, подлиза, растрёпа, растяпа, задира, обжора, повеса, пустомеля*,&#xD;&#xA;ср.  также *расстрига*.  Очень много таких слов имеется на периферии словарного&#xD;&#xA;состава языка и в говорах. Так, в словаре Даля находим, например, *заброда, завида,&#xD;&#xA;зацепа, заеда, провора, прожига, пролыга, пройда, ужима, пустовира, пустозёва, пусторёва, пустогрыза, брюзга, пустожира, дармоедa, пустохлёба, водохлёбa* (и много&#xD;&#xA;других с *пусто-*), *гологрыза (&quot;нищий&quot;, &quot;голыш&quot;), кривоныра, пролазa, пройдоха, рукомоя&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;белоручка&quot;)* и др.; в СРНГ — например, *заблуда, заплёва (&quot;бесстыжий&quot;), колоброда, непросыпа, ненажора* и т. п. Уникальное свидетельство грамоты Ст. Р. 35 показывает,&#xD;&#xA;что описанная коннотация данной морфологической модели существовала уже в&#xD;&#xA;XII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: almost all masculine and common-gender words ending in `-a` have ironical or negative connotation at least since `XII` century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gramota [St. R. 15][3] he mentions is a letter of a citizen of Staraya Russa to his brother:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Якове брате еби лежя ебехото аесово*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jacob, my brother, fuck lying (i. e. *do things proper way*), you randy ball-inserter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the apparently invented words *ебехота* and *аесова* (literally, &quot;willing to fuck&quot; and &quot;ball-inserter&quot;) are both of first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=5310&amp;0a0=2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?id=dnd&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?act=full&amp;id=1048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="69269993-ac9b-40b3-9b4f-40eaf047d454" CreationDate="2012-06-23T00:12:42.377" UserId="119" Comment="stresses, formatting" Text="If you mean the software context, then it's *отла́дка*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *отла́дка програ́ммы* (debugging of a program)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отла́живать програ́мму* (to debug a program)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отла́дчик* (debugger)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="940" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="69269993-ac9b-40b3-9b4f-40eaf047d454" CreationDate="2012-06-23T00:12:42.377" Comment="Proposed by 119 approved by 116 edit id of 90" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="5dda625d-5297-4fe4-9c25-e090215d0dc0" CreationDate="2012-06-23T01:21:19.310" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 207 characters in body" Text="In addition to the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders, there are words of &quot;common gender&quot; (слова общего рода) that nearly all decline like a feminine noun but are applied to both men and women. What I find striking about these words is that essentially all of them describe negative types of people, e.g., выпивоха (heavy drinker), задира (bully), скряга (stingy person), тупица (fool).  There are some words in this 4th gender that are not negative descriptions, such as коллега (colleague), but the vast majority of these words that I have seen are negative. Can any reason be given for this, or is this just some weird coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Dima has pointed out that many affectionate terms fall into this category, and of course those don't have a negative meaning. I want to say I'm not interested in words that are specifically meant to be affectionate (лапочка) or diminutive (белочка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="9114f21d-3363-4da2-a412-6bc361e921bb" CreationDate="2012-06-23T09:04:46.107" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="In Vinogradov's [Русский язык][1], there is a whole chapter (**§7**) about this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Яркая экспрессивная окраска, свойственная почти всем словам общего рода, подчеркивается несоответствием их строения и значения. Вся эта сложная гамма смысловых оттенков воздвигается на основе класса слов женского рода. Применение слов женского рода к мужчинам и порождает своеобразную экспрессивную окраску этих слов. В этом явлении пережиточно отражается социальное положение женщины, отношение к женскому полу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the social position of a woman (not unique to Russian culture of course) made gramatically feminine words to be only perceived germane to semantically feminine (or gender-neutral) concepts and objects. Calling males the &quot;feminine&quot; words could not help sounding peculiar, so almost all these words have expressive connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of but few emotionally neutral words, some of them already mentioned by you and Dima. All of them are loanwords or evolved from emotionally colored words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *коллега* (from Latin possibly through Polish)&#xD;&#xA;* *предтеча* (from Church Slavonic)&#xD;&#xA;* *сирота* (a metonymy not perceived as such anymore. Similar modern words would be emotionally colored: *Я — могила*, *ты — глыба*)&#xD;&#xA;* *тёзка* (or *тезя*, a diminutive not perceived as such anymore)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaliznyak in [*Древненовгородский диалект*][2] mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень интересны экспрессивные сложные слова на  *-хота* и  *-сова*. В современном&#xD;&#xA;русском языке в классе существительных общего или мужского рода на  `-а` с основой, состоящей из приставки и корня или или из двух корней, ничтожно мало слов с&#xD;&#xA;положительной или нейтральной коннотацией. Таковы в сущности лишь древнейшие слова *вельможа* и *воевода*, сохранившиеся в основном лишь как исторические&#xD;&#xA;термины.  Практически все остальные имеют более или менее ярко выраженную&#xD;&#xA;отрицательную коннотацию  (насмешливую, пренебрежительную, уничижительную&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.), носят экспрессивный характер и свойственны в основном разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;(ср. 5.8, конец). Из общеизвестных таковы, например: *выжига, недотрога, надоеда,&#xD;&#xA;привереда, непоседа, подлиза, растрёпа, растяпа, задира, обжора, повеса, пустомеля*,&#xD;&#xA;ср.  также *расстрига*.  Очень много таких слов имеется на периферии словарного&#xD;&#xA;состава языка и в говорах. Так, в словаре Даля находим, например, *заброда, завида,&#xD;&#xA;зацепа, заеда, провора, прожига, пролыга, пройда, ужима, пустовира, пустозёва, пусторёва, пустогрыза, брюзга, пустожира, дармоедa, пустохлёба, водохлёбa* (и много&#xD;&#xA;других с *пусто-*), *гологрыза (&quot;нищий&quot;, &quot;голыш&quot;), кривоныра, пролазa, пройдоха, рукомоя&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;белоручка&quot;)* и др.; в СРНГ — например, *заблуда, заплёва (&quot;бесстыжий&quot;), колоброда, непросыпа, ненажора* и т. п. Уникальное свидетельство грамоты Ст. Р. 35 показывает,&#xD;&#xA;что описанная коннотация данной морфологической модели существовала уже в&#xD;&#xA;XII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: almost all masculine and common-gender words ending in `-a` have ironical or negative connotation at least since `XII` century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gramota [St. R. 15][3] he mentions is a letter of a citizen of Staraya Russa to his brother:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Якове брате еби лежя ебехото аесово*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jacob, my brother, fuck lying (i. e. *do things proper way*), you randy ball-inserter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the apparently invented words *ебехота* and *аесова* (literally, &quot;willing to fuck&quot; and &quot;ball-inserter&quot;) are both of first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=5310&amp;0a0=2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?id=dnd&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?act=full&amp;id=1048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="325" RevisionGUID="a54cd797-b96b-4ca7-a891-3a0a6c19e7e0" CreationDate="2012-06-23T09:58:59.050" UserId="19" Text="The [Англо-русский словарь по компьютерной безопасности][1] might fit your bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://computer_security_en_ru.academic.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="944" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="09558b77-aba5-4cbd-92a0-5f86e7c4644a" CreationDate="2012-06-23T11:51:19.010" UserId="104" Comment="edited title" Text="Established translation for &quot;Application crash&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="9cb39198-a6e2-45d2-9976-8fdff7171864" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:06:53.300" UserId="55" Text="When learning a new word I like to see typical usage examples.  The sort of thing you find in a good dictionary.  However, even my big old Oxford Russian dictionary had nothing for *вовлечь*, for example, and in any case I can't carry that around with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried searching ruscorpora.ru but it's hard to find examples that are simple enough for me to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="9cb39198-a6e2-45d2-9976-8fdff7171864" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:06:53.300" UserId="55" Text="Where can I find simple usage examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="9cb39198-a6e2-45d2-9976-8fdff7171864" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:06:53.300" UserId="55" Text="|russian-usage|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="70f547b4-d3e5-491f-903a-59c79e796a14" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:23:43.510" UserId="19" Text="Try searching at http://tatoeba.org/ - the examples are crowdsourced so you might come upon some inconsistencies every once in a while but it is still a formidable resource." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="1fdeb9a2-e166-4ca8-98b3-3c98b0550e2e" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:23:58.840" UserId="9" Text="Did you try ABBYY Lingvo.Pro? They can show [examples][1] and [phrases][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Examples/en-ru/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Phrases/ru-en/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="c701920c-9085-4707-98b1-86f517c34c37" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:29:45.683" UserId="9" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Did you try [ABBYY Lingvo.Pro][1]? They can show [examples][2] and [phrases][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Examples/en-ru/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Phrases/ru-en/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="5d9ffad9-2cd4-4cd7-a922-4ee7f645f563" CreationDate="2012-06-23T12:30:43.693" UserId="55" Comment="tags" Text="|russian-usage|обучение|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="1ba0f4fb-b16e-449e-89f5-db479f69ba16" CreationDate="2012-06-23T14:09:34.107" UserId="108" Text="First of all, try go Google or Yandex (yes, there should be the verb &quot;yandex&quot; just as there is for &quot;google&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the site [Master Russian][1] has realistic example sentences for common Russian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="805dbfb8-983c-4184-bd55-faa07933f39c" CreationDate="2012-06-23T14:26:49.587" UserId="55" Text="I'd like to be able to take any piece of Russian text and have the stress marks automatically added.  I think this would be a useful tool for learners but I can't find a site that does this.  Is there one out there?  If there isn't I'd even consider creating one and would welcome any ideas about how it could be implemented.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="805dbfb8-983c-4184-bd55-faa07933f39c" CreationDate="2012-06-23T14:26:49.587" UserId="55" Text="Automatic stress marking of Russian text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="805dbfb8-983c-4184-bd55-faa07933f39c" CreationDate="2012-06-23T14:26:49.587" UserId="55" Text="|ударение|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="79c4bb9e-9f55-4e09-8a58-bf19f4c7454c" CreationDate="2012-06-23T15:39:13.210" UserId="134" Text="Not an online application, still:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[RussAcc][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Программа RussAcc предназначена для озвучивания текстов, создания аудиокниг (в формате wav, mp3, amr, aac + плейлист m3u), расстановки ударений (Nicolai, Alyona, Loquendo) в русских текстах (отсюда и ее название - сокращенное Russian Accents), удобного чтения книг с экрана. Можно использовать RussAcc как редактор текста, конвертор FB2 в TXT. Заяц русак, как известно, способен быстро ударять по барабану, RussAcc же очень быстро расставляет ударения в текстах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case: I'm not affilicated with them, but used the tool some time ago, seems to be quite nice (except for the edge cases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bzsoft.spb.ru/russacc.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="1cae7d93-8045-451a-8158-f3c89aa17333" CreationDate="2012-06-23T16:36:16.810" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="In Vinogradov's [Русский язык][1], there is a whole chapter (**§7**) about this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Яркая экспрессивная окраска, свойственная почти всем словам общего рода, подчеркивается несоответствием их строения и значения. Вся эта сложная гамма смысловых оттенков воздвигается на основе класса слов женского рода. Применение слов женского рода к мужчинам и порождает своеобразную экспрессивную окраску этих слов. В этом явлении пережиточно отражается социальное положение женщины, отношение к женскому полу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the social position of a woman (not unique to Russian culture of course) made gramatically feminine words to be only perceived germane to semantically feminine (or gender-neutral) concepts and objects. Calling males the &quot;feminine&quot; words could not help sounding peculiar, so almost all these words have expressive connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of but few emotionally neutral words, some of them already mentioned by you and Dima. All of them are loanwords or evolved from emotionally colored words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *коллега* (from Latin possibly through Polish)&#xD;&#xA;* *предтеча* (from Church Slavonic)&#xD;&#xA;* *сирота* (a metonymy not perceived as such anymore. Similar modern words would be emotionally colored: *Я — могила*, *ты — глыба*)&#xD;&#xA;* *тёзка* (or *тезя*, a diminutive not perceived as such anymore)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaliznyak in [*Древненовгородский диалект*][2] mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень интересны экспрессивные сложные слова на  *-хота* и  *-сова*. В современном&#xD;&#xA;русском языке в классе существительных общего или мужского рода на  `-а` с основой, состоящей из приставки и корня или или из двух корней, ничтожно мало слов с&#xD;&#xA;положительной или нейтральной коннотацией. Таковы в сущности лишь древнейшие слова *вельможа* и *воевода*, сохранившиеся в основном лишь как исторические&#xD;&#xA;термины.  Практически все остальные имеют более или менее ярко выраженную&#xD;&#xA;отрицательную коннотацию  (насмешливую, пренебрежительную, уничижительную&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.), носят экспрессивный характер и свойственны в основном разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;(ср. 5.8, конец). Из общеизвестных таковы, например: *выжига, недотрога, надоеда,&#xD;&#xA;привереда, непоседа, подлиза, растрёпа, растяпа, задира, обжора, повеса, пустомеля*,&#xD;&#xA;ср.  также *расстрига*.  Очень много таких слов имеется на периферии словарного&#xD;&#xA;состава языка и в говорах. Так, в словаре Даля находим, например, *заброда, завида,&#xD;&#xA;зацепа, заеда, провора, прожига, пролыга, пройда, ужима, пустовира, пустозёва, пусторёва, пустогрыза, брюзга, пустожира, дармоедa, пустохлёба, водохлёбa* (и много&#xD;&#xA;других с *пусто-*), *гологрыза (&quot;нищий&quot;, &quot;голыш&quot;), кривоныра, пролазa, пройдоха, рукомоя&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;белоручка&quot;)* и др.; в СРНГ — например, *заблуда, заплёва (&quot;бесстыжий&quot;), колоброда, непросыпа, ненажора* и т. п. Уникальное свидетельство грамоты Ст. Р. 35 показывает,&#xD;&#xA;что описанная коннотация данной морфологической модели существовала уже в&#xD;&#xA;XII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: almost all masculine and common-gender words ending in `-a` have ironical or negative connotation at least since `XII` century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The gramota [St. R. 35][3] he mentions is a letter of a citizen of Staraya Russa to his brother:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Якове брате еби лежя ебехото аесово*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jacob, my brother, fuck lying (i. e. *do things proper way*), you randy ball-inserter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the apparently invented words *ебехота* and *аесова* (literally, &quot;willing to fuck&quot; and &quot;ball-inserter&quot;) are both of first declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=5310&amp;0a0=2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?id=dnd&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?act=full&amp;id=1048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="8893c903-ca97-4094-92ef-815661e81321" CreationDate="2012-06-23T17:53:09.013" UserId="19" Text="http://www.grammatica.eu/ is probably the best software of this sort, and the upcoming second vesion should make it even better. It's quite expensive, but I can highly recommend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="5c151147-edec-46fe-9093-4cbd2d6f5469" CreationDate="2012-06-23T17:54:00.527" UserId="104" Text="Why is Евклид spelled with `Е` in Russian? All the other words and names with Greek origin starting with `E` that I can think of are spelled with `Э` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эратосфен, эвтаназия, эвристика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is Евклид indeed an exception? Or maybe I've just missed a lot of similar words or names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is an exception, is there a historical reason behind it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do Russians always pronounce *Евклид*, *евклидовый*, etc. with the initial vowel iotated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="5c151147-edec-46fe-9093-4cbd2d6f5469" CreationDate="2012-06-23T17:54:00.527" UserId="104" Text="Почему Евклид, а не Эвклид?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="5c151147-edec-46fe-9093-4cbd2d6f5469" CreationDate="2012-06-23T17:54:00.527" UserId="104" Text="|произношение|этимология|правописание|заимствования|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="9e64e109-3922-4f65-95d4-86ef0eb4834d" CreationDate="2012-06-23T18:01:23.817" UserId="104" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Why is Евклид spelled with `Е` in Russian? All the other words and names with Greek origin starting with `E` that I can think of are spelled with `Э` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эратосфен, эвтаназия, эвристика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is Евклид indeed an exception? Or maybe I've just missed a lot of similar words or names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is an exception, is there a historical reason behind it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do Russians always pronounce *Евклид*, *евклидовый*, etc. with the initial vowel iotated? (Many Armenians with excellent conduct of Russian tend to pronounce these words with non-iotated initial vowel, perhaps because the Armenian version of the name is Էվկլիդես  /эвклидес/, which is closer to the Greek original)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="7ed54006-84bb-47f6-857f-3e675c114259" CreationDate="2012-06-23T18:45:43.207" UserId="62" Text="1. You missed other Greek mathematicians: Eudoxus = Евдокс and Eutocius = Евтокий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. See 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The name Евклид and its adjectival forms are pronounced exactly as they are written.  In my experience I have seen the adjectival form more often as a short form adjective: евклидова область (Euclidean domain), евклидово пространство (Euclidean space).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for comparison, in English the mathematician names Euclid and Euler don't have the same pronunciation, as the &quot;Eu&quot; in the original Greek and German aren't pronounced the same way. Thus in Russian, Euler = Эйлер. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="e56729ee-d7ac-4b66-86e5-d63ebd8058e0" CreationDate="2012-06-24T01:46:21.783" UserId="134" Text="Historical Cyrillic had no letter directly corresponding to the modern `э`. There were three letters instead: `ѥ`, `е` and `є`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian recension or Church Slavonic did not use `ѥ` and had not phonetical distinction between `е` and `є`, they were only used to resolve homonymous singular and plural of some words: *Iудєи изъ Iудеи* (Jews from Judea), *иду съ отцєм моимъ къ отцемъ егѡ* (I go with my father to his fathers) etc. `Є` was also written in the beginning of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does not contrast open and closed `э`. In words *сэр* and *секс* the same sound is written using different letters, in words *тело* and *отель* the dirrefent sounds are written using the same letter and there is no consensus on how to read the words like *шинель* and *термин*. There was no open `э` in the native Russian words at all, the sound was always yotized in the beginning of the words and after the vowels. There was a deictic particle *э* (similar to modern *вон* in *вон тот*) which survived in words *это*, *эка*, which in some dialects, including late Moscow, pronouned as a closed (not open) `э`, and that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there was no sound to contract, there was no letter to denote it, so Hebrew and Greek loanwords starting with `ε` were written using `є`: *елей*, *Елеон*, *Европа*, *Ева*, *Есфирь*, *Ездра* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with developement of Russian culture and science, more loanwords were introduced, and some of them, being borrowed from othen languages than Byzantine Greek, required a non-yotized initial `э` and an open `э` after hard consonants (which was impossible in native Russian words). Russian speech did not accept open `э` after hard consonants until very recently (and does not accept it at all in some dialects even now), however, the initial non-yotized closed `э` was accepted right away, and a need for a letter to distinguish it from the yotized version arose. A letter for this sound, `э` in its modern form, was first introduced in `XIV`, but only made it officially to the alphabet in `1708`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the borrowings made in older times, like almost all biblical names and Greek names that were of interest to medieval Russian authors (*Евклид*, *Еврипид*, *Евпатор*), an initial `е` was used (for the lack of a better letter), which infuenced rendition of the names by Russian readers and later became a tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the borrowings made later, when there was a letter to denote an initial non-yotized `э`, this letter was used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Russian language does not accept either closed or open versions for all non-yotized vowels in the beginning of the words, which results in incorrect renditions of the names borrowed from the languages which contrast open and closed vowels: *Эттингер* (Öttinger), *Ибервег* (Überweg), *Юлёярви* (Ylöjärvi) etc. The Russian transliterations either change the initial letter or make it yotized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="d820dff5-5ca2-4a53-a6cd-7e9bf574e752" CreationDate="2012-06-24T06:45:29.007" UserId="113" Text="Does the name of the hair color `русый` come from the name of the people/land?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="d820dff5-5ca2-4a53-a6cd-7e9bf574e752" CreationDate="2012-06-24T06:45:29.007" UserId="113" Text="Do &quot;русый&quot; and &quot;русский&quot; have a common root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="d820dff5-5ca2-4a53-a6cd-7e9bf574e752" CreationDate="2012-06-24T06:45:29.007" UserId="113" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="2ca84c2f-a2a0-4954-acee-10da61d4166c" CreationDate="2012-06-24T09:16:10.460" UserId="44" Text="Yes, they both derive from name of ancient 'rus`' people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'_people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="3ed95ef0-d18b-42f2-82d9-9ff076f24947" CreationDate="2012-06-24T10:41:02.193" UserId="113" Comment="fixed link" Text="Yes, they both derive from name of [ancient 'rus`' people][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="974" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="3ed95ef0-d18b-42f2-82d9-9ff076f24947" CreationDate="2012-06-24T10:41:02.193" Comment="Proposed by 113 approved by 104 edit id of 92" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="17bdcb9e-aa36-4136-ab92-35569a5629d3" CreationDate="2012-06-24T12:24:28.087" UserId="62" Comment="fixed some spelling" Text="Historical Cyrillic had no letter directly corresponding to the modern `э`. There were three letters instead: `ѥ`, `е` and `є`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian recension or Church Slavonic did not use `ѥ` and had no phonetic distinction between `е` and `є`, they were only used to resolve homonymous singular and plural of some words: *Iудєи изъ Iудеи* (Jews from Judea), *иду съ отцєм моимъ къ отцемъ егѡ* (I go with my father to his fathers) etc. `Є` was also written in the beginning of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does not contrast open and closed `э`. In words *сэр* and *секс* the same sound is written using different letters, in words *тело* and *отель* the different sounds are written using the same letter and there is no consensus on how to read the words like *шинель* and *термин*. There was no open `э` in the native Russian words at all, the sound was always yotized in the beginning of the words and after the vowels. There was a deictic particle *э* (similar to modern *вон* in *вон тот*) which survived in words *это*, *эка*, which in some dialects, including late Moscow, pronounced as a closed (not open) `э`, and that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there was no sound to contract, there was no letter to denote it, so Hebrew and Greek loanwords starting with `ε` were written using `є`: *елей*, *Елеон*, *Европа*, *Ева*, *Есфирь*, *Ездра* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with development of Russian culture and science, more loanwords were introduced, and some of them, being borrowed from other languages than Byzantine Greek, required a non-yotized initial `э` and an open `э` after hard consonants (which was impossible in native Russian words). Russian speech did not accept open `э` after hard consonants until very recently (and does not accept it at all in some dialects even now), however, the initial non-yotized closed `э` was accepted right away, and a need for a letter to distinguish it from the yotized version arose. A letter for this sound, `э` in its modern form, was first introduced in `XIV`, but only made it officially to the alphabet in `1708`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the borrowings made in older times, like almost all biblical names and Greek names that were of interest to medieval Russian authors (*Евклид*, *Еврипид*, *Евпатор*), an initial `е` was used (for the lack of a better letter), which influenced rendition of the names by Russian readers and later became a tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the borrowings made later, when there was a letter to denote an initial non-yotized `э`, this letter was used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Russian language does not accept either closed or open versions for all non-yotized vowels in the beginning of the words, which results in incorrect renditions of the names borrowed from the languages which contrast open and closed vowels: *Эттингер* (Öttinger), *Ибервег* (Überweg), *Юлёярви* (Ylöjärvi) etc. The Russian transliterations either change the initial letter or make it yotized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="976" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="17bdcb9e-aa36-4136-ab92-35569a5629d3" CreationDate="2012-06-24T12:24:28.087" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 104 edit id of 91" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="d0a2e021-8d6c-403b-817c-8ef01971af1f" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:31:35.613" UserId="134" Text="*Русый* originates from the Slavic word `*рудсъ` (red) and is directly related to words like *рыжий*, *рдеть*, *рожа* (disease) etc, and also to the words orginated from the same PIE root, including English *red* itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources agree that *русский* and *Русь* originated from *Rus*, the name of the Viking tribe which settled on the east cost of Baltic sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the tribe is thought by some (Vasmer and others) as originated from Germanic word meaning &quot;to row&quot; (as with a paddle). However, since the origin of the nation's name is a very politically sensitive subject, there are numerous theories which derive the word *Русь* from other words. Trubachyov derived it from an Iranian word meaning &quot;light&quot; (which originates from the same root as *русый* does), though agrees that it was the name of a Viking tribe too. If this point of view is true, then the two words are related but that would be a very remote relation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some derive the word *Русь* from the name of the river Ros (in what now is Ukraine). However, in Slavic it was read as `*ръсъ` which would yield a fleeting vowel in the root (compare *ръжь* - *рожь*, *ръжи* - *ржи*) so linguists deny this version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So answering your question: *русый* definitely does not come directly from *русский* or *Русь*, but the two may (or may not) have a common PIE ancestor meaning &quot;bright color&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="213ae6c3-8309-4989-baf4-9aad5a60f077" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:38:46.433" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="*Русый* originates from the Slavic word `*рудсъ` (red) and is directly related to words like *рыжий*, *рдеть*, *рожа* (disease) etc, and also to the words orginated from the same PIE root, including English *red* itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources agree that *русский* and *Русь* originated from *Rus*, the name of the Viking tribe which settled on the east cost of Baltic sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the tribe is thought by some (Vasmer and others) as originated from Germanic word meaning &quot;to row&quot; (as with a paddle). However, since the origin of the nation's name is a very politically sensitive subject, there are numerous theories which derive the word *Русь* from other words. Trubachyov derived it from an Iranian word meaning &quot;light&quot; (which originates from the same root as *русый* does), though agrees that it was the name of a Viking tribe too. If this point of view is true, then the two words are related but that would be a very remote relation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some derive the word *Русь* from the name of the river Ros (in what now is Ukraine). However, in Slavic it was read as `*ръсь` which would yield a fleeting vowel in the root (compare *ръжь* - *рожь*, *ръжи* - *ржи*) so linguists deny this version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So answering your question: *русый* definitely does not come directly from *русский* or *Русь*, but the two may (or may not) have a common PIE ancestor meaning &quot;bright color&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="617ba1fc-f76e-4c2f-be3b-4ca2168b7d1d" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:40:53.937" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Historical Cyrillic had no letter directly corresponding to the modern `э`. There were three letters instead: `ѥ`, `е` and `є`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian recension or Church Slavonic did not use `ѥ` and had no phonetic distinction between `е` and `є`, they were only used to resolve homonymous singular and plural of some words: *Iудєи изъ Iудеи* (Jews from Judea), *иду съ отцєм моимъ къ отцемъ егѡ* (I go with my father to his fathers) etc. `Є` was also written in the beginning of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does not contrast open and closed `э`. In words *сэр* and *секс* the same sound is written using different letters, in words *тело* and *отель* the different sounds are written using the same letter and there is no consensus on how to read the words like *шинель* and *термин*. There was no open `э` in the native Russian words at all, the sound was always yotized in the beginning of the words and after the vowels. There was a deictic particle *э* (similar to modern *вон* in *вон тот*) which survived in words *это*, *эка*, which in some dialects, including late Moscow, pronounced as a closed (not open) `э`, and that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there was no sound to contrast, there was no letter to denote it, so Hebrew and Greek loanwords starting with `ε` were written using `є`: *елей*, *Елеон*, *Европа*, *Ева*, *Есфирь*, *Ездра* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with development of Russian culture and science, more loanwords were introduced, and some of them, being borrowed from other languages than Byzantine Greek, required a non-yotized initial `э` and an open `э` after hard consonants (which was impossible in native Russian words). Russian speech did not accept open `э` after hard consonants until very recently (and does not accept it at all in some dialects even now), however, the initial non-yotized closed `э` was accepted right away, and a need for a letter to distinguish it from the yotized version arose. A letter for this sound, `э` in its modern form, was first introduced in `XIV`, but only made it officially to the alphabet in `1708`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the borrowings made in older times, like almost all biblical names and Greek names that were of interest to medieval Russian authors (*Евклид*, *Еврипид*, *Евпатор*), an initial `е` was used (for the lack of a better letter), which influenced rendition of the names by Russian readers and later became a tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the borrowings made later, when there was a letter to denote an initial non-yotized `э`, this letter was used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, Russian language does not accept either closed or open versions for all non-yotized vowels in the beginning of the words, which results in incorrect renditions of the names borrowed from the languages which contrast open and closed vowels: *Эттингер* (Öttinger), *Ибервег* (Überweg), *Юлёярви* (Ylöjärvi) etc. The Russian transliterations either change the initial letter or make it yotized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="061aae84-388d-4042-837e-ffa4190e792d" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:45:19.307" UserId="5" Text="Как правильно расставить знаки препинания во фразе: &quot;горшок он и в африке горшок&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Что должно стоять после горшок: запятая, тире или точка? И почему." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="061aae84-388d-4042-837e-ffa4190e792d" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:45:19.307" UserId="5" Text="Как правильно расставить знаки препинания в фразе: &quot;горшок он и в африке горшок&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="061aae84-388d-4042-837e-ffa4190e792d" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:45:19.307" UserId="5" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="38f23929-90fd-48a8-9273-ca1e4ee67d96" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:02:34.897" UserId="71" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Как правильно расставить знаки препинания в этой фразе?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *горшок он и в африке горшок*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что должно стоять после горшок: запятая, тире или точка? Почему?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="984" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="38f23929-90fd-48a8-9273-ca1e4ee67d96" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:02:34.897" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="1bad1e51-7ac4-4dae-ac93-f8ed58595577" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:08:46.077" UserId="134" Text="Аn em dash would be most appropriate, since we have a [thematic nominative, closely connected to the base sentence.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При именительном темы, более тесно связанном с базовым предложением, в котором имеется личное или указательное местоимение в качестве слова-отсылки, употребляется тире: *Смерть - она все успокаивает (М. Г.); Читатель - он знает, что важен не человек - важен дух человеческий (М. Г.); Марченко - тот был человек, золотой человек (Каз.); Дорога в дождь - она не сладость, Дорога в дождь - она беда (Евт.).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook142/01/part-021.htm#i13147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="54cada78-2587-463f-b052-d5d02aab5296" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:16:56.817" UserId="134" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="Аn em dash would be most appropriate, since we have a [thematic nominative, closely connected to the base sentence.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При именительном темы, более тесно связанном с базовым предложением, в котором имеется личное или указательное местоимение в качестве слова-отсылки, употребляется тире: *Смерть - она все успокаивает (М. Г.); Читатель - он знает, что важен не человек - важен дух человеческий (М. Г.); Марченко - тот был человек, золотой человек (Каз.); Дорога в дождь - она не сладость, Дорога в дождь - она беда (Евт.).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comma could be used too, since this expression is quite vernacular and a comma can be used instead of an em dash to imitate flow of speech. However, the expression *и в Африке* has already become an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook142/01/part-021.htm#i13147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="987" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="40f87f70-c26d-4d4c-823b-cd234a2fdbf9" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:21:33.970" UserId="5" Comment="edited title" Text="Как правильно расставить знаки препинания вo фразе: &quot;горшок он и в африке горшок&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="6e19c53c-8478-413b-b46c-81028edbe428" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:28:38.743" UserId="134" Comment="added 848 characters in body" Text="Аn em dash would be most appropriate, since we have a [thematic nominative, closely connected to the base sentence.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При именительном темы, более тесно связанном с базовым предложением, в котором имеется личное или указательное местоимение в качестве слова-отсылки, употребляется тире: *Смерть - она все успокаивает (М. Г.); Читатель - он знает, что важен не человек - важен дух человеческий (М. Г.); Марченко - тот был человек, золотой человек (Каз.); Дорога в дождь - она не сладость, Дорога в дождь - она беда (Евт.).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a thematic nominative is more closely connected to the base sentence which uses a personal or demonstrative pronoun as a reference word, an em dash is used to connect the sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [*thematic nominative*][2], or topical nominative, is a rhetorical construct in Russian (and in English too) which uses a independent clause of a single expression in nominative to define a topic (or theme) of a compound sentence, and another indepenent clause to define the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both English and Russian it's probably best illustrated by demotivators posted all over the Internet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_akLHpeO7qyA/TA0nvdWyR5I/AAAAAAAABYg/qVCXJqfrZu4/s1600/72712_gravity_123_912lo.jpg&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comma could be used too, since this expression is quite vernacular and a comma can be used instead of an em dash to imitate flow of speech. However, the expression *и в Африке* has already become an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook142/01/part-021.htm#i13147&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="ca2d36b0-942a-43b0-a4a4-3729ac73862a" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:32:18.067" UserId="71" Comment="fixed image link and size" Text="Аn em dash would be most appropriate, since we have a [thematic nominative, closely connected to the base sentence.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При именительном темы, более тесно связанном с базовым предложением, в котором имеется личное или указательное местоимение в качестве слова-отсылки, употребляется тире: *Смерть - она все успокаивает (М. Г.); Читатель - он знает, что важен не человек - важен дух человеческий (М. Г.); Марченко - тот был человек, золотой человек (Каз.); Дорога в дождь - она не сладость, Дорога в дождь - она беда (Евт.).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a thematic nominative is more closely connected to the base sentence which uses a personal or demonstrative pronoun as a reference word, an em dash is used to connect the sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [*thematic nominative*][2], or topical nominative, is a rhetorical construct in Russian (and in English too) which uses a independent clause of a single expression in nominative to define a topic (or theme) of a compound sentence, and another indepenent clause to define the comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both English and Russian it's probably best illustrated by demotivators posted all over the Internet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![demotivational image about cats][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comma could be used too, since this expression is quite vernacular and a comma can be used instead of an em dash to imitate flow of speech. However, the expression *и в Африке* has already become an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook142/01/part-021.htm#i13147&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3AZhR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="990" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="ca2d36b0-942a-43b0-a4a4-3729ac73862a" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:32:18.067" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="4ecd76ed-f126-4ed4-83dc-1e7239458303" CreationDate="2012-06-24T20:33:07.863" UserId="134" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Аn em dash would be most appropriate, since we have a [thematic nominative, closely connected to the base sentence.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При именительном темы, более тесно связанном с базовым предложением, в котором имеется личное или указательное местоимение в качестве слова-отсылки, употребляется тире: *Смерть - она все успокаивает (М. Г.); Читатель - он знает, что важен не человек - важен дух человеческий (М. Г.); Марченко - тот был человек, золотой человек (Каз.); Дорога в дождь - она не сладость, Дорога в дождь - она беда (Евт.).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a thematic nominative is more closely connected to the base sentence which uses a personal or demonstrative pronoun as a reference word, an em dash is used to connect the sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [*thematic nominative*][2], or topical nominative, is a rhetorical construct in Russian (and in English too) which uses a independent clause of a single expression in nominative to define a topic (or theme) of a compound sentence, and another indepenent clause to define the comment (or rheme).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both English and Russian it's probably best illustrated by demotivators posted all over the Internet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![demotivational image about cats][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comma could be used too, since this expression is quite vernacular and a comma can be used instead of an em dash to imitate flow of speech. However, the expression *и в Африке* has already become an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook142/01/part-021.htm#i13147&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3AZhR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="7f0b9465-2e2f-4bdd-b851-21740a87589b" CreationDate="2012-06-24T21:56:56.383" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="There are non-negative examples as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `заводила` (someone who is in charge of a group/gang)&#xD;&#xA; - `водила` (colloquialism from `водитель`)&#xD;&#xA; - `умница`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; By the way, the first declension consists of masculine *and* feminine nouns ending in -а or -я. So these nouns belong there too, and that is exactly how they decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="49b17f8c-df11-4e3a-bf90-40ef1546830b" CreationDate="2012-06-24T23:11:37.937" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="5e3c1c6a-dd29-42fb-8b7f-917eb5f17de1" CreationDate="2012-06-24T23:11:37.937" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="24e12e94-2301-42d2-8fb9-868054139006" CreationDate="2012-06-25T00:36:25.270" UserId="104" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Как правильно расставить знаки препинания в этой фразе?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *горшок он и в Африке горшок*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что должно стоять после горшок: запятая, тире или точка? Почему?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="996" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="24e12e94-2301-42d2-8fb9-868054139006" CreationDate="2012-06-25T00:36:25.270" UserId="104" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Как правильно расставить знаки препинания вo фразе: &quot;горшок он и в Африке горшок&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="aeaaecef-0f71-4162-9f7c-8d2c33d0501e" CreationDate="2012-06-25T08:08:42.930" UserId="145" Text="There are various words used for &quot;priest&quot; in russian language: поп, батюшка, священник, иерей, ксендз... What are emotional connotations of this words and when are they appropriate to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="aeaaecef-0f71-4162-9f7c-8d2c33d0501e" CreationDate="2012-06-25T08:08:42.930" UserId="145" Text="Various words for &quot;priest&quot;. What are their emotional connotations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="aeaaecef-0f71-4162-9f7c-8d2c33d0501e" CreationDate="2012-06-25T08:08:42.930" UserId="145" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="3281ccc2-103d-485a-b8ad-e49da198b191" CreationDate="2012-06-25T08:53:42.127" UserId="108" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="First of all, try to go to Google or Yandex (yandex.ru is the biggest search engine in Russia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the site [Master Russian][1] has realistic example sentences for common Russian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="6df5ff5b-f37b-41d1-a6c1-dfeac2322cfc" CreationDate="2012-06-25T10:14:50.283" UserId="134" Text="* *священник* is the current neutral word. It's a Church Slavonic loanword.&#xD;&#xA;* *поп* is colloquial, can be considered even slightly derogatory. Earlier it was the neutral word. It's most used in proverbs. It's a Germanic loanword.&#xD;&#xA;* *батюшка* is a diminutive of *батя*, father. It's used to address a priest but can be used in third person too. It has mostly positive connotations showing spiritual proximity.&#xD;&#xA;* *иерей* is a strict term for a certain degree in a Russian Orthodox church. It's rarely used outside the church context. It's a Greek loanword through Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;* *ксёндз* is a Polish Catholic priest. Used informally. It's not correct to call the other (non-Polish) Catholic priests that and should not be used in formal speech. It's a Polish loanword, from Old Slavic `*кънѧдзь` (*князь* in modern Russian) which is borrowed from Germanic `*kuningas` (akin to English *king*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="2ad174b9-b4c6-4597-9270-6baac74dfe0c" CreationDate="2012-06-25T10:28:54.717" UserId="5" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="Punctuation is referring to the way the symbols in a sentence indicate the structure and organization of written language, as well as intonation and pauses to be observed when reading aloud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1003" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="2ad174b9-b4c6-4597-9270-6baac74dfe0c" CreationDate="2012-06-25T10:28:54.717" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 134 edit id of 95" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="892510da-cb2c-47dc-b654-a5d64b15e3ba" CreationDate="2012-06-25T10:46:17.057" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="* *священник* is the current neutral word. It's a Church Slavonic loanword.&#xD;&#xA;* *поп* is colloquial, can be considered even slightly derogatory. Earlier it was the neutral word. It's most used in proverbs. It's a Germanic loanword.&#xD;&#xA;* *батюшка* is a diminutive of *батя*, father. It's used to address a priest but can be used in third person too. It has mostly positive connotations showing spiritual proximity.&#xD;&#xA;* *иерей* is a strict term for a certain rank in a Russian Orthodox church. It's rarely used outside the church context. It's a Greek loanword through Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;* *ксёндз* is a Polish Catholic priest. Used informally. It's not correct to call the other (non-Polish) Catholic priests that and should not be used in formal speech. It's a Polish loanword, from Old Slavic `*кънѧдзь` (*князь* in modern Russian) which is borrowed from Germanic `*kuningas` (akin to English *king*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="61648f84-60f0-48b0-9a4a-01330c885ee3" CreationDate="2012-06-25T12:48:12.060" UserId="104" Comment="edited body" Text="There are various words used for &quot;priest&quot; in Russian language: поп, батюшка, священник, иерей, ксендз... What are emotional connotations of this words and when are they appropriate to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="452d0d06-d25d-481b-a8c7-4677b2738713" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:39:09.557" UserId="104" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Why is Евклид spelled with `Е` in Russian? All the other words and names with Greek origin starting with `E` that I can think of are spelled with `Э` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эратосфен, эвтаназия, эвристика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is Евклид indeed an exception? Or maybe I've just missed a lot of similar words or names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If it is an exception, is there a historical reason behind it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do Russians always pronounce *Евклид*, *евклидов(-ый)*, etc. with the initial vowel iotated? (Many Armenians with excellent conduct of Russian tend to pronounce these words with non-iotated initial vowel, perhaps because the Armenian version of the name is Էվկլիդես  /эвклидес/, which is closer to the Greek original)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="46664c73-676c-42c8-911a-919b3fc5a953" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:51:38.177" UserId="62" Text="Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for roots of &lt;i&gt;ax&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + &lt;i&gt;bx&lt;/i&gt; + &lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt; = 0) not really get directly translated into Russian? It seems that this is described by phrases like формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения or теорема Виета, but not квадратная формула.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related issue, I have encountered both квадратный and квадратичный, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., квадратичное расширение or квадратичный вычет). Is квадратичный allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень, or квадратичная матрица would all sound weird?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="46664c73-676c-42c8-911a-919b3fc5a953" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:51:38.177" UserId="62" Text="quadratic things" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="46664c73-676c-42c8-911a-919b3fc5a953" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:51:38.177" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|математика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="9461f1d2-443b-4c1b-8a75-f2d5b95649f3" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:06:41.877" UserId="62" Text="If I want to write the word &quot;n-th&quot; (as in n-th solution, n-th derivative,...), is it more conventional to write n-ый/n-ая/n-ое or n-й/n-я/n-е, or are both styles equally common? In terms of *pronunciation*, is it always э́ный/э́ная/э́ное (e.g., someone who writes n-я wouldn't actually say that as э́ня)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="9461f1d2-443b-4c1b-8a75-f2d5b95649f3" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:06:41.877" UserId="62" Text="n-th: как написать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="9461f1d2-443b-4c1b-8a75-f2d5b95649f3" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:06:41.877" UserId="62" Text="|прилагательные|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="307eaa4c-4716-44ef-af38-4779700a7a15" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:12:53.963" UserId="123" Text="The translation in this particular case would be: квадратное уравнение.  In US colleges and schools this is being referred to not as &quot;quadratic formula&quot; but more commonly as &quot;quadratic equation&quot; (and not just by professors from the former USSR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general &quot;quadratic&quot; in algebraic expression would generally be translated as &quot;квадратн(ый)(ая)(ое)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term Квадраничный as far as I can tell is not being used to describe functions in [vector spaces(see Wikipedia)][1] or [general multidimensional equations(see БСЭ)][2] where terms related to independent variables have power of 2 or are a product of 2 independent variables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%91%D0%A1%D0%AD/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="350" RevisionGUID="4697899b-7a7d-45a5-8876-84c969eac965" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:15:49.180" UserId="97" Text="While both written styles are grammatically correct, the more common one is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; n-ый, -ая, -ое, -ые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you could see sometimes the `n-` part spelled out in Russian as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; энный, энная, энное, энные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation in all cases would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; э́нный / э́нная / э́нное / э́нные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note the double `н`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pronunciation _э́ня_ is wrong and it's more than likely that people will not understand what you're referring to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="1cb1c246-7e97-4bb2-9f8d-772e391734f8" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:25:17.440" UserId="123" Text="Given the meaning of the phrase ranging from benign &quot;Go away&quot; to the rude &quot;Пошел на ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious of the origins of this form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="1cb1c246-7e97-4bb2-9f8d-772e391734f8" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:25:17.440" UserId="123" Text="Etymology of &quot;Пошел в Баню!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="1cb1c246-7e97-4bb2-9f8d-772e391734f8" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:25:17.440" UserId="123" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="08c3b268-9ab2-4144-9e55-df7827dac954" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:35:09.447" UserId="62" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for the solutions of &lt;i&gt;ax&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + &lt;i&gt;bx&lt;/i&gt; + &lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt; = 0 [EDIT: I mean the famous formula with the square root of &lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;-4&lt;i&gt;ac&lt;/i&gt; as part of the numerator]) not really get directly translated into Russian? It seems that this is described by phrases like формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения or теорема Виета, but not квадратная формула.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related issue, I have encountered both квадратный and квадратичный, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., квадратичное расширение or квадратичный вычет). Is квадратичный allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень, or квадратичная матрица would all sound weird?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="01f0afd3-cf9d-4124-9b9b-fc8b578b0f34" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:42:24.323" UserId="123" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The translation in this particular case would be: квадратное уравнение.  In US colleges and schools this is being referred to not as &quot;quadratic formula&quot; but more commonly as &quot;quadratic equation&quot; (and not just by professors from the former USSR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general &quot;quadratic&quot; in algebraic expression would generally be translated as &quot;квадратн(ый)(ая)(ое)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term Квадраничный as far as I can tell is being used to describe functions in [vector spaces(see Wikipedia)][1] or [general multidimensional equations(see БСЭ)][2] where terms related to independent variables have power of 2 or are a product of 2 independent variables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%91%D0%A1%D0%AD/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="b9680711-382f-4e62-bd14-1b710224d98e" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:54:37.757" UserId="104" Text="&gt;Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for the solutions of ax2 + bx + c = 0 [EDIT: I mean the famous formula with the square root of b2-4ac as part of the numerator]) not really get directly translated into Russian? It seems that this is described by phrases like формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения or теорема Виета, but not квадратная формула&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right. Квадратная формула is not used in Russian. You seem to have listed the available translations yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On a related issue, I have encountered both квадратный and квадратичный, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., квадратичное расширение or квадратичный вычет). Is квадратичный allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень, or квадратичная матрица would all sound weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квадратный is usually translated as simply `square`, квадратичный - as `quadratic`. The former term sounds less scientific than the latter, so I suppose that it's part of the reason why in some more basic expressions we use квадратный rather than perhaps the more appropriate but not established квадратичный. An example would be квадратное уравнение (if I were to establish the term anew, I'd probably go with квадратичное уравнение, but the term is already established).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квадратичная матрица sounds weird because it is a square matrix (the form), not quadratic (i.e. it's not about exponent = 2). Квадратичный многочлен doesn't sound weird at all. Квадратичный корень does sound weird, because perhaps the established term квадратный корень is very widespread" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="2fbc31e8-039c-4f24-9ef8-593dcd7f2705" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:00:07.397" UserId="62" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="If I want to write the word &quot;n-th&quot; (as in n-th solution, n-th derivative,...), is it more conventional to write n-ый/n-ая/n-ое or n-й/n-я/n-е, or are both styles equally common? In terms of *pronunciation*, is it always э́ный/э́ная/э́ное (e.g., someone who writes n-я wouldn't actually say that as э́ня)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For letters that end with a vowel sound, does their &quot;-th&quot; form require an inserted н or т before the adjectival ending, or is there not a single standard? For example, should &quot;i-th point&quot; and &quot;j-th solution&quot; be translated as иная точка and жиное решение or as итая точка and житое решение? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="1f03cb57-af06-44c0-89b2-489d3852421a" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:11:42.483" UserId="123" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="The translation in this particular case would be: квадратное уравнение.  In US colleges and schools this is being referred to not as &quot;quadratic formula&quot; but more commonly as &quot;quadratic equation&quot; (and not just by professors from the former USSR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** The formula for the solution for this equation normally would be referred as translation you have listed there is no unifying term to describe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general &quot;quadratic&quot; in algebraic expression would generally be translated as &quot;квадратн(ый)(ая)(ое)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term Квадраничный as far as I can tell is being used to describe functions in [vector spaces(see Wikipedia)][1] or [general multidimensional equations(see БСЭ)][2] where terms related to independent variables have power of 2 or are a product of 2 independent variables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%91%D0%A1%D0%AD/%D0%9A%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="959f9617-d630-44bc-abf2-5ff0c5f8838c" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:23:48.170" UserId="62" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="If I want to write the word &quot;n-th&quot; (as in n-th solution, n-th derivative,...), is it more conventional to write n-ый/n-ая/n-ое or n-й/n-я/n-е, or are both styles equally common? In terms of *pronunciation*, is it always э́ный/э́ная/э́ное (e.g., someone who writes n-я wouldn't actually say that as э́ня)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: For any variables that end with a vowel sound, unlike n, does their &quot;-th&quot; form always get an inserted т before the adjectival ending, or is an inserted н (or other consonant) allowed? For example, are &quot;i-th parameter&quot;, &quot;j-th point&quot; and &quot;k-th solution&quot; required to be translated as итый параметер, житая точка, and катое решение? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1024" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="959f9617-d630-44bc-abf2-5ff0c5f8838c" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:23:48.170" UserId="62" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="n-th: как написать/произнести?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="47e407cc-313c-4137-92ee-96e03dc3cfcc" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:34:04.040" UserId="62" Comment="fixed the typesetting for some formulas, e.g., so exponents appear as exponents." Text="&gt;Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for the solutions of &lt;i&gt;ax&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + &lt;i&gt;bx&lt;/i&gt; + &lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt; = 0 [EDIT: I mean the famous formula with the square root of &lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;-4&lt;i&gt;ac&lt;/i&gt; as part of the numerator]) not really get directly translated into Russian? It seems that this is described by phrases like формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения or теорема Виета, but not квадратная формула&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right. Квадратная формула is not used in Russian. You seem to have listed the available translations yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On a related issue, I have encountered both квадратный and квадратичный, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., квадратичное расширение or квадратичный вычет). Is квадратичный allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень, or квадратичная матрица would all sound weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квадратный is usually translated as simply `square`, квадратичный - as `quadratic`. The former term sounds less scientific than the latter, so I suppose that it's part of the reason why in some more basic expressions we use квадратный rather than perhaps the more appropriate but not established квадратичный. An example would be квадратное уравнение (if I were to establish the term anew, I'd probably go with квадратичное уравнение, but the term is already established).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квадратичная матрица sounds weird because it is a square matrix (the form), not quadratic (i.e. it's not about exponent = 2). Квадратичный многочлен doesn't sound weird at all. Квадратичный корень does sound weird, because perhaps the established term квадратный корень is very widespread" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1026" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="47e407cc-313c-4137-92ee-96e03dc3cfcc" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:34:04.040" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 104 edit id of 96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="5f796b69-c796-4a8a-8797-7b1b9bae1974" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:34:06.970" UserId="5" Text="My amateurish 3 cents. I think it started with the saying &quot;Пошел к черту&quot; meaning to curse somebody. In this regard &quot;пошел&quot; makes perfect sense, how else would you get to the devil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="ebcb845f-1ccc-46b4-ae84-b0601d3e9184" CreationDate="2012-06-25T18:08:33.840" UserId="113" Text="We can theorize all we want, and mention that a баня is a place where you wash yourself, so it may be a hint that the person is dirty or that he stinks, and that баня is usually located outside the home, so it's a nice way of sending the person away, or that it's very hot so maybe it's a colloquial euphemism for hell - but at the end of the day it's just an expression taken from the everyday country life and involving everyday household objects. I wouldn't read much into the specific use of the term. It's like asking why they say &quot;as dumb as a bag of hammers&quot;. Why is a bag of hammers dumber than a bucket of gravel, for instance? :) It's just an expression, I don't think it's quaint enough to have any special meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="b2b498f2-7f7e-4872-8fc5-580836e3c8dd" CreationDate="2012-06-25T18:15:57.870" UserId="5" Comment="added 1560 characters in body" Text="My amateurish 3 cents. I think it started with the saying &quot;Пошел к черту&quot; meaning to curse somebody. In this regard &quot;пошел&quot; makes perfect sense, how else would you get to the devil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE: about the roots of &quot;баня&quot; as a place to go**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the explanation that I found [here][1] in Russian and confirmed later [here][2] and [here][3] in French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Средний возраст посетителей публичных домов составлял около двадцати&#xD;&#xA;&gt; семи лет. Женатым мужчинам теоретически запрещалось наведываться в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бордель, однако на деле это правило никогда не соблюдалось, невзирая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на периодически устраивавшиеся в заведениях облавы. Начать с того, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; правило это не распространялось на чужестранцев; кроме того, за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; некоторую дополнительную плату мужья вполне могли рассчитывать на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; благосклонность хозяев борделя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зато им совершенно не возбранялось посещать бани, которые, несмотря на многочисленные запреты, неизменно служили для тех же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целей, что и бордели. Таких бань в каждом большом городе существовало&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по нескольку (в Лионе и Дижоие в 1470 году было по семь таких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заведений). Владельцами бань были весьма высокопоставленные лица, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и духовного звания. Не случайно в Лионе выражение &quot;aller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'estuver&quot; (идти в баню) имело в XV веке вполне определенный смысл. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; банях было множество потаенных убежищ изапасных выходов на случай&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обыска. При этом около 20% клиентуры составляло духовенство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/p/Prostitution.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=aller%20s%27estuver&amp;pg=PA113&amp;ci=50,168,715,289&amp;source=bookclip&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.google.com/books?id=t_jDi3UDjYoC&amp;lpg=PT69&amp;dq=aller%20s%27estuver&amp;pg=PT69#v=onepage&amp;q=aller%20s%27estuver&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="7184466a-0e33-4418-96ca-f4b9beb9cd2b" CreationDate="2012-06-25T18:32:30.533" UserId="5" Comment="added 708 characters in body" Text="My amateurish 3 cents. I think it started with the saying &quot;Пошел к черту&quot; meaning to curse somebody. In this regard &quot;пошел&quot; makes perfect sense, how else would you get to the devil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE: about the roots of &quot;баня&quot; as a place to go**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like the explanation that I found [here][1] in Russian and confirmed later [here][2] and [here][3] in French:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Средний возраст посетителей публичных домов составлял около двадцати&#xD;&#xA;&gt; семи лет. Женатым мужчинам теоретически запрещалось наведываться в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бордель, однако на деле это правило никогда не соблюдалось, невзирая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на периодически устраивавшиеся в заведениях облавы. Начать с того, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; правило это не распространялось на чужестранцев; кроме того, за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; некоторую дополнительную плату мужья вполне могли рассчитывать на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; благосклонность хозяев борделя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зато им совершенно не возбранялось посещать бани, которые, несмотря на многочисленные запреты, неизменно служили для тех же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целей, что и бордели. Таких бань в каждом большом городе существовало&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по нескольку (в Лионе и Дижоие в 1470 году было по семь таких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заведений). Владельцами бань были весьма высокопоставленные лица, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и духовного звания. Не случайно в Лионе выражение &quot;aller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; s'estuver&quot; (идти в баню) имело в XV веке вполне определенный смысл. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; банях было множество потаенных убежищ и запасных выходов на случай&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обыска. При этом около 20% клиентуры составляло духовенство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the explanation above looks pretty reasonable, Mr. Google N-Gram [says][4] it's not the case with Russian. The mention of the phrase &quot;иди в баню&quot; surged in 40's of the last century which makes me [guess][5] about [other versions][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/p/Prostitution.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMOAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=aller%20s%27estuver&amp;pg=PA113&amp;ci=50,168,715,289&amp;source=bookclip&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.google.com/books?id=t_jDi3UDjYoC&amp;lpg=PT69&amp;dq=aller%20s%27estuver&amp;pg=PT69#v=onepage&amp;q=aller%20s%27estuver&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://books.google.com/books?id=ytsuMo6swsIC&amp;lpg=PA116&amp;dq=%22%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8E%22&amp;pg=PA116#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8E%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8E%22&amp;tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:1947,cd_max:1997&amp;lr=lang_ru&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uFSH1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="473d8446-60cf-42e1-b6d4-ca17793a7abd" CreationDate="2012-06-25T19:41:08.830" UserId="9" Text="In Russian mythology `Баня` is the place of evil spirits. No Christian images were allowed there, because they offend the occupants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third firing (or fourth, depending on tradition) was reserved for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Bannik, and, given his inclination to invite demons and forest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spirits to share his bath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read about [Bannik][1] or [Shishiga][2] on Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishiga" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="393738b7-71e2-4f6c-ac61-e171d0c78ad3" CreationDate="2012-06-25T19:46:14.190" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 106 characters in body" Text="In Russian mythology `Баня` is the place of evil spirits. No Christian images were allowed there, because they offend the occupants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third firing (or fourth, depending on tradition) was reserved for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the [Bannik][1], and, given his inclination to invite demons and forest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spirits to share his bath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannik&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="0772edee-0676-4127-b3d9-f7bdbd3b4b52" CreationDate="2012-06-25T19:51:41.470" UserId="9" Comment="edited body; added 71 characters in body" Text="In Russian mythology &quot;баня&quot; is the place of evil spirits. No Christian images were allowed there, because they offend the occupants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third firing (or fourth, depending on tradition) was reserved for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the [Bannik][1], and, given his inclination to invite demons and forest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spirits to share his bath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannik&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the meaning of `пошел в баню` is very close to `пошел к черту`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="98638839-2cad-4143-9bb5-1590d310038c" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:18:46.180" UserId="104" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt;Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for the solutions of &lt;i&gt;ax&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + &lt;i&gt;bx&lt;/i&gt; + &lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt; = 0 [EDIT: I mean the famous formula with the square root of &lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;-4&lt;i&gt;ac&lt;/i&gt; as part of the numerator]) not really get directly translated into Russian? It seems that this is described by phrases like формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения or теорема Виета, but not квадратная формула&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right. Квадратная формула is not used in Russian. You seem to have listed the available translations yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On a related issue, I have encountered both квадратный and квадратичный, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., квадратичное расширение or квадратичный вычет).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квадратный is usually translated as simply `square`, квадратичный - as `quadratic`. The former term sounds less scientific than the latter, so I suppose that it's part of the reason why in some more basic expressions we use квадратный rather than perhaps the more appropriate but not established квадратичный. An example would be квадратное уравнение (if I were to establish the term anew, I'd probably go with квадратичное уравнение, but the term is already established).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is квадратичный allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень, or квадратичная матрица would all sound weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квадратичная матрица sounds weird because it is a square matrix (the form), not quadratic (i.e. it's not about exponent = 2). Квадратичный многочлен doesn't sound weird at all. Квадратичный корень does sound weird, because perhaps the established term квадратный корень is very widespread" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="c904ee33-98cd-4498-bc0e-fc77999af24a" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:24:40.837" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body; added 40 characters in body" Text="Это пример так называемого [частичного падежа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2) (партитива). В русском языке он используется редко и в основном с существительными, обозначающими еду или напитки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить воды (не всю воду, а немножко воды)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поесть хлеба&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить коньяку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частичный падеж по форме обычно совпадает с родительным, но многие существительные мужского рода, такие, как, например, чай, коньяк, бензинчик, и т.п., имеют две формы частичного падежа:  чая/чаю, коньяка/коньяку, бензинчика/бензинчику. Оба варианта правильные, но последний(который совпадает по форме с дательным) более разговорный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, в случае второго предложения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно мне ещё ча*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оба варианта правильные, так как здесь используется партитив. В случае же первого предложения мы имеем дело с обычным родительным падежом и, следовательно, правильно будет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="84bd77f9-63bb-4983-aa3f-bce751ab6110" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:31:01.377" UserId="104" Text="Are **двусторонний** and **двухсторонний** just two valid versions of the same word or are there slight differences? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the former is the case, which version, if any, is considered more formal/more modern/more correct etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the latter is the case, what are the differences? Are there any phrases or situations that accept exclusively or preferably one version over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [this thread](http://www.gramota.ru/forum/kurilka/79684/) of gramota.ru one person argues that *двухсторонний* is more appropriate to use in the meaning of *having two sides*, whereas *двусторонний* has the meaning of *mutual*. Is there any truth to this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="84bd77f9-63bb-4983-aa3f-bce751ab6110" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:31:01.377" UserId="104" Text="Are двусторонний and двухсторонний completely interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="84bd77f9-63bb-4983-aa3f-bce751ab6110" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:31:01.377" UserId="104" Text="|правописание|differences|vocabularu|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1039" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="cb8bfc04-4a4c-4233-b09c-22f8ab86f25d" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:55:48.910" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|правописание|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="88816bec-0884-49d4-a785-75ba7cb0fbf1" CreationDate="2012-06-25T21:03:15.997" UserId="97" Text="Both of these are grammatically correct, although many Russian language teachers consider form _двусторонний_, &quot;more correct&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Большой толковый словарь:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ДВУСТОРОННИЙ; ДВУХСТОРОННИЙ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Имеющий две стороны; происходящий, производимый, расположенный и т. п. с двух сторон. Двустороннее воспаление лёгких. Двухстороннее уличное движение. //С одинаковыми сторонами, без изнанки и лица (о ткани). Д. драп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Обязательный для обеих сторон; обоюдный. Двухстороннее соглашение. Двусторонний договор. // Действующий в обе стороны. Двусторонняя радиосвязь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, considering these two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Having two sides.  In this meaning, both words are used equally and interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Mandatory for two sides, coming from both sides, or working both ways as in _двустороннее соглашение_ or _двусторонняя связь_.  While, again, both words are grammatically correct, normally _двусторонний_ is used in formal writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="b1bf9c03-43cf-4a14-a716-8b39340309c4" CreationDate="2012-06-25T21:08:40.717" UserId="97" Comment="added 521 characters in body" Text="Both of these are grammatically correct, although many Russian language teachers consider form _двусторонний_, &quot;more correct&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Большой толковый словарь:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ДВУСТОРОННИЙ; ДВУХСТОРОННИЙ.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Имеющий две стороны; происходящий, производимый, расположенный и т. п. с двух сторон. Двустороннее воспаление лёгких. Двухстороннее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уличное движение. //С одинаковыми сторонами, без изнанки и лица (о&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ткани). Д. драп.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Обязательный для обеих сторон; обоюдный. Двухстороннее соглашение. Двусторонний договор. // Действующий в обе стороны. Двусторонняя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; радиосвязь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that these two words are given in the dictionary on one line together means that the words are totally interchangeable.  Yet, considering these two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Having two sides.  In this meaning, both words are used equally and interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Mandatory for two sides, coming from both sides, or working both ways as in _двусторонний договор_ or _двусторонняя связь_.  While, again, both words are grammatically correct, more often than not, _двусторонний_ is used in formal writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's worth noting that there are set phrases that use one word or the other, for example, _двухстороннее соглашение_ and _двухстороннее движение_, but _двусторонняя связь_ and _двусторонние переговоры_.  The reason one or the other word is used has more to do with the way it historically been used rather than for any technical or grammatical reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="4aa064b6-8325-459a-8504-aa26d19bc15f" CreationDate="2012-06-25T21:59:00.950" UserId="134" Text="The numeral *два* in old Russian was declined in such called dual number, now lost:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    два&#xD;&#xA;    дву&#xD;&#xA;    двома&#xD;&#xA;    дву&#xD;&#xA;    двома&#xD;&#xA;    о два&#xD;&#xA;    два&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, with the loss of dual number, its declension paragidm changed to that of demonstrative pronouns in plural, with the base form taken from the old genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    два (те)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-х (тех)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-м (тем)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-х (тех)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-мя (теми)&#xD;&#xA;    о дву-х (о тех)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instrumentative got contaminated with the old declension paradigm (and has also contaminated the inst. of *три* and *четыре*: *тремя*, *четырьмя*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the old (*дву-*) and the new (*двух-*) genitives remained productive for complex words, however in the modern language there is a trend to use *двух-* for new words. In words which allow both forms, the old form *дву-* is usually perceived as a high style, formal version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию* advices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Равноправны варианты сложных слов, в состав которых входит элемент: *дву-* /*–двух-*, например: *двуголосный – двухголосный, двудонный – двухдонный, двуклассный – двухклассный, двулетний – двухлетний, двупольный – двухпольный, двускатный – двухскатный, двусложный – двухсложный, двустволка – двухстволка, двусторонность – двухсторонность.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сложные слова *двубортный, двуглавый, двугривенный, двуединый, двужильный, двузначный, двузубец, двуколка, двукратный, двуличный, двуперстие, двурогий, двусмысленный, двустопный, двууглекислый, двучлен, двуязычный* и некоторые др. не допускают вариантов написания с *двух-*.&#xD;&#xA;Но основной массив таких сложных слов пишется с элементом *двух-*: *двухатомный, двухгодичный, двухкамерный, двухлетие, двухместный, двухпалубный, двухпроцентный, двухслойный, двухсотлетний, двухсуточный, двухтактный, двухтомный, двухчасовой, двухцветный, двухэтажный* и др.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Разграничительную роль играет фонетико-орфоэпическое отличие: перед гласными (в том числе йотированными), как правило, употребляется *двух-* во избежание стечения двух гласных, например: *двухактный, двухосный, двухъярусный, двухэлементный*, но имеются отступления: *двуокись, двууглекислый, двуязычие* и некоторые др." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="670ed6d7-dc9f-4006-a810-1d2e0cc3a2ac" CreationDate="2012-06-25T22:47:44.323" UserId="9" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In Russian mythology &quot;баня&quot; is the place of evil spirits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The third firing (or fourth, depending on tradition) was reserved for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the [Bannik][1], and, given his inclination to invite demons and forest&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spirits to share his bath, no Christian images were allowed lest they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offend the occupants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannik&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the meaning of `пошел в баню` is very close to `пошел к черту`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="c1b3be92-be90-4cc7-b833-8a19770b9092" CreationDate="2012-06-25T22:49:04.897" UserId="62" Comment="changed instrumentative, which is not the usual term, to instrumental." Text="The numeral *два* in old Russian was declined in such called dual number, now lost:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    два&#xD;&#xA;    дву&#xD;&#xA;    двома&#xD;&#xA;    дву&#xD;&#xA;    двома&#xD;&#xA;    о два&#xD;&#xA;    два&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, with the loss of dual number, its declension paragidm changed to that of demonstrative pronouns in plural, with the base form taken from the old genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    два (те)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-х (тех)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-м (тем)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-х (тех)&#xD;&#xA;    дву-мя (теми)&#xD;&#xA;    о дву-х (о тех)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instrumental case got contaminated with the old declension paradigm (and has also contaminated the inst. of *три* and *четыре*: *тремя*, *четырьмя*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the old (*дву-*) and the new (*двух-*) genitives remained productive for complex words, however in the modern language there is a trend to use *двух-* for new words. In words which allow both forms, the old form *дву-* is usually perceived as a high style, formal version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию* advices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Равноправны варианты сложных слов, в состав которых входит элемент: *дву-* /*–двух-*, например: *двуголосный – двухголосный, двудонный – двухдонный, двуклассный – двухклассный, двулетний – двухлетний, двупольный – двухпольный, двускатный – двухскатный, двусложный – двухсложный, двустволка – двухстволка, двусторонность – двухсторонность.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сложные слова *двубортный, двуглавый, двугривенный, двуединый, двужильный, двузначный, двузубец, двуколка, двукратный, двуличный, двуперстие, двурогий, двусмысленный, двустопный, двууглекислый, двучлен, двуязычный* и некоторые др. не допускают вариантов написания с *двух-*.&#xD;&#xA;Но основной массив таких сложных слов пишется с элементом *двух-*: *двухатомный, двухгодичный, двухкамерный, двухлетие, двухместный, двухпалубный, двухпроцентный, двухслойный, двухсотлетний, двухсуточный, двухтактный, двухтомный, двухчасовой, двухцветный, двухэтажный* и др.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Разграничительную роль играет фонетико-орфоэпическое отличие: перед гласными (в том числе йотированными), как правило, употребляется *двух-* во избежание стечения двух гласных, например: *двухактный, двухосный, двухъярусный, двухэлементный*, но имеются отступления: *двуокись, двууглекислый, двуязычие* и некоторые др." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1045" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="c1b3be92-be90-4cc7-b833-8a19770b9092" CreationDate="2012-06-25T22:49:04.897" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 104 edit id of 97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="dddca495-4680-4a27-86e1-b7a9b8b27485" CreationDate="2012-06-26T07:58:25.530" UserId="69" Text="Judging by several etymological discussions erupting around this site, people have vastly different ideas about what constitutes “native” Russian word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, borrowing (whether it be recent (last three-four centuries) technological or scientific terminology or thousand-year old Greek influence via the Christianisation) is pretty clear. However, given the common origin of Indo-European languages, and ability to trace etymology of many European words to, say, Sanskrit, where do we draw a line between borrowing and natural evolution and transformation of language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the science of linguistics define autochthonous vocabulary in general, and specifically relating to the Russian (Ruthenian, Slavic) languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** Please, avoid speculation and opinion. The question warrants serious research (sources, quotes). I would take opinion of a linguistic authority on controversial or disputed subject, but I do not need an opinion of an average Internet &lt;del&gt;amateur&lt;/del&gt; enthusiast (I have got those aplenty). Unless one happens to be a linguistic authority with credentials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="dddca495-4680-4a27-86e1-b7a9b8b27485" CreationDate="2012-06-26T07:58:25.530" UserId="69" Text="Defining autochthonous etymology of Russian lexems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="dddca495-4680-4a27-86e1-b7a9b8b27485" CreationDate="2012-06-26T07:58:25.530" UserId="69" Text="|этимология|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="460c0b3e-51dc-4558-b55b-8fc11d145398" CreationDate="2012-06-26T07:59:26.743" UserId="47" Comment="corrected physically eatable to edible" Text="The word *съедобный* has two meanings. One is that an item is edible. Another one is that it's tasty, and is used only in spoken language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With liquids, for the first meaning, the technical word is *пищевой*, meaning 'suitable for consuming as a food'. For example *цистерны, бутылки для пищевых жидкостей* (GOST terms). However this word is rarely used in daily life, since it's usually clear for all liquids except for water if they are drinkable or not (fuel and milk for example), so one doesn't need an additional adjective. For water, since one should clearly distinguish drinking and technical water, the word *питьевой* (meaning literally 'drinking') is usually used. Obviously, milk for example can be spoiled and not drinkable. I think there is no single word to convey this meaning in Russian (nor actually in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word for the second meaning for liquids, as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="c9b1ce17-d9d2-413e-8bcf-5c0a29f03833" CreationDate="2012-06-26T08:05:51.137" UserId="47" Comment="Punctuation" Text="Это пример так называемого [частичного падежа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2) (партитива). В русском языке он используется редко и в основном с существительными, обозначающими еду или напитки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить воды (не всю воду, а немножко воды)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поесть хлеба&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить коньяку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частичный падеж по форме обычно совпадает с родительным, но многие существительные мужского рода, такие как, например, чай, коньяк, бензинчик, и т.п., имеют две формы частичного падежа:  чая/чаю, коньяка/коньяку, бензинчика/бензинчику. Оба варианта правильные, но последний (который совпадает по форме с дательным) более разговорный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, в случае второго предложения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно мне ещё ча*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оба варианта правильные, так как здесь используется партитив. В случае же первого предложения мы имеем дело с обычным родительным падежом и, следовательно, правильно будет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="4f3c7ac1-829b-46a4-9d74-40b6c2e640df" CreationDate="2012-06-26T08:36:07.680" UserId="113" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Technically, Russian is commonly understood in any country that used to be part of the USSR: Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This differs from place to place, and in more rural areas the use of their native language was much heavier than that of the official Russian, but generally people born as late as the 80's are bound to understand Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the former USSR, Russian is understood by older people from countries that used to belong to the Soviet Bloc - Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, perhaps parts of Eastern Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrelated to this, about a seventh of the population of Israel is made up of Russian-speaking immigrants and their children. You can get by perfectly well in everyday Israeli life with a working knowledge of Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="25dd5b0f-8232-4333-86cc-5ec9113bc962" CreationDate="2012-06-26T08:43:10.450" UserId="134" Text="I would recommend a lecture by Zaliznyak: [*О профессиональной и любительской лингвистике*][1]. Hope it would be authoritative enough for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A citation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Основной принцип изменений в языке был открыт лишь в XIX веке, и это самое великое достижение исторической лингвистики. Его значение для этой науки не меньшее, чем, скажем, значение открытия закона всемирного тяготения для физики.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Принцип состоит в том, что внешняя форма слов языка меняется не индивидуальным образом для каждого слова, а в силу процессов — так называемых фонетических изменений (иначе — фонетических переходов), охватывающих в данном языке в данную эпоху ВСЕ без исключения слова, где имеется определенная фонема (или сочетание фонем).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это основополагающий принцип исторической лингвистики.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другой источник кажущихся нарушений принципа всеобщности фонетического изменения — случаи заимствования некоторого слова из родственного языка или диалекта. Например, современное русское слово благо внешне нарушает определенное правило из истории русского языка, по которому должно было получиться не благо, а болого. Но дело здесь в том, что слово благо пришло в современный язык не из живого древнерусского языка (где действительно имелось слово болого — откуда, например, название города Бологое), а из церковнославянского (для которого фонетически закономерным было именно благо).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За рамками этих двух типовых ситуаций остается лишь совершенно незначительное число случаев видимого нарушения указанного принципа. Следует предполагать, что для них просто пока еще не выявлено то частное правило, в силу которого они возникли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: every language evolves according to the very strict laws, as strict as laws of physics. If we see a word in the language which does not obey these laws, it means that either there is a law we don't know yet, or this word is a borrowing, possibly from a related language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also means that if we can trace the origin of a European word to Sanskrit, then it was borrowed from Sanskrit once, because Sanskrit is not a direct ancestor of any of the living European languages. It's just one of the branches of [Proto-Indo-European language][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://elementy.ru/lib/430720&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="8ab67e24-3377-471c-a6bb-bc69098b65d0" CreationDate="2012-06-26T11:10:58.897" UserId="71" Comment="removed unnecessary wording that was out of place" Text="Judging by several etymological discussions erupting around this site, people have vastly different ideas about what constitutes “native” Russian word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, borrowing (whether it be recent (last three-four centuries) technological or scientific terminology or thousand-year old Greek influence via the Christianisation) is pretty clear. However, given the common origin of Indo-European languages, and ability to trace etymology of many European words to, say, Sanskrit, where do we draw a line between borrowing and natural evolution and transformation of language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the science of linguistics define autochthonous vocabulary in general, and specifically relating to the Russian (Ruthenian, Slavic) languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** Please, avoid speculation and opinion. The question warrants serious research (sources, quotes). I would take opinion of a linguistic authority on controversial or disputed subject, but not personal opinions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1054" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="8ab67e24-3377-471c-a6bb-bc69098b65d0" CreationDate="2012-06-26T11:10:58.897" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 98" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1055" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="6838cd52-455d-4f68-a06b-d2330b06b94c" CreationDate="2012-06-26T17:34:23.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/217672167574339585" />
  <row Id="1059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="015d651b-670d-4125-b561-ccc420e48099" CreationDate="2012-06-26T19:14:20.457" UserId="23" Text="The answer by Helgi explains everything very well, but I would also add to his list `аварийный отказ программы` or simply `отказ программы`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="6d8de799-71d2-4b4c-8dfa-767b071e2f96" CreationDate="2012-06-26T20:11:09.343" UserId="63" Text="I'd say the difference Russian vs. Ukrainian is very similar to Czech vs. Slovak. I, as a born Slovak, can understand virtually everything from Czech. Many books in Slovakia are not translated to Slovak, they are imported from the Czech Republic. Also Czech TV stations are widely spread here, TV dubbing is left in 99% Czech etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, as the Czech Republic is much bigger market, they usually translate everything, dub everything into Czech and they, after the split of Czechoslovakia, lost contact to the Slovak language. So an average Prague citizen has big troubles to understand Slovak (specially youth, born after 1989).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as mentioned, it all depends. If someone lives in his village whole life, does not read books, watch foreign movies, meet new people... even a dialect from his own country can be strange to him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="a0611348-8b80-4b3d-9a3d-41bc0e2bcee5" CreationDate="2012-06-26T20:34:42.707" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="If I want to write the word &quot;n-th&quot; (as in n-th solution, n-th derivative,...), is it more conventional to write n-ый/n-ая/n-ое or n-й/n-я/n-е, or are both styles equally common? In terms of *pronunciation*, is it always э́ный/э́ная/э́ное (e.g., someone who writes n-я wouldn't actually say that as э́ня)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I found out later that for every variable x it's acceptable to express &quot;x-th&quot; as &quot;xтый&quot; (e.g., m-ый = эмтый, n-ый = энтый, j-ый = житый, q-ый = кутый), and since this works in all cases while the ending -ный for n-ый doesn't apply to variables ending with a vowel sound, I'll use the -тый version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="c466d48f-55be-46b2-8355-01fa6d8f0646" CreationDate="2012-06-26T21:08:06.423" UserId="63" Text="To add a note to the excellent answers above: the concept aspect can be very confusing. For example, I haven't realized how difficult it is till the moment I started learning Russian and it exists in my mother language (Slovak) as well!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no hard rules, how these words are made. I.e. even if you perfectly understand when/how to use it, you still have to learn perfect-imperfect pairs. Few examples (imperfect/perfect):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; читать / прочитать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; писать / написать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; учить / выучить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; делать / сделать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One imperfect word can have many perfect forms (and these perfect forms may but may not have different meanings!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; писать / написать, прописать, выписать, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нести / принести, вынести, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixes used for perfect forms can be used also for imperfect ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; находить / найти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no rule that if there's a word in imperfect form that then there's a word in perfect form and vice versa. Unfortunately I can't think of any right now ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just random thoughts, feel free to correct me, I'm far from being a good Russian speaker ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1067" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="06914608-a712-4906-99b8-a60c091aa5e6" CreationDate="2012-06-26T22:24:28.223" UserId="173" Comment="added tag &quot;pronunciation&quot;" Text="|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1068" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="06914608-a712-4906-99b8-a60c091aa5e6" CreationDate="2012-06-26T22:24:28.223" Comment="Proposed by 173 approved by 5 edit id of 99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="eaef1d4d-2a55-464b-ad60-609dfc35eb7a" CreationDate="2012-06-27T00:38:43.800" UserId="5" Text="I am interested in knowing the etymology of names of the seasons in Russian: лето, весна, осень, зима." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="eaef1d4d-2a55-464b-ad60-609dfc35eb7a" CreationDate="2012-06-27T00:38:43.800" UserId="5" Text="Where do the following words come from: лето, весна, осень, зима?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="eaef1d4d-2a55-464b-ad60-609dfc35eb7a" CreationDate="2012-06-27T00:38:43.800" UserId="5" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="b7d9aaee-fc83-4d53-90b2-50736c6de431" CreationDate="2012-06-27T01:04:27.987" UserId="104" Text="From the [Russian Wiktionay](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **лето**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: ст.-слав. лѣто (др.-греч. χρόνος, ἔτος, ἐνιαυτός), русск. лето, укр. лíто, белор. сле́цiць «согреть», сле́тный «тепловатый», смол., болг. ля́то, сербохорв. ље̏то, словенск. lẹ́to, чешск. léto, словацк. lеtо, польск. lаtо, в.-луж., н.-луж. lěto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **весна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск., ст.-слав. весна (др.-греч. ἔαρ), русск., укр. весна́, сербохорв. вѐсна, словенск. vȇsna, чешск. vesna, польск. wiosna. Древняя и.-е. основа на r/n, ср. лит. vasarà «лето», латышск. vasara, греч. ἔαρ, лат. vēr, др.-исл. vár «весна», др.-инд. vasantás «весна», vasar «рано», авест. vaŋri- «весной», арм. գարուն/garun/ «весна»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **осень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск. осень, ср.: сербск.-церк.-слав. ıесень (др.-греч. φθινόπωρον, укр. о́сінь (род. п. о́сени), болг. есента́, сербохорв. jе̏се̑н, до̏ jесени, словенск. jesȇn, чешск. jeseň, словацк. jeseň, польск. jesień. Родственно др.-прусск. assanis «осень», готск. аsаns ж. «жатва», др.-в.-нем. аrаn, аrn «урожай». Далее сближают с греч. ὀπώρᾱ «конец лета, жатва» из *ор᾽ + оsаrā «после жатвы». Сюда же есене́сь «прошлой осенью», с.-в.-р., вост.-русск., осеня́сь со стар. вин. ед. от сь (см. сей), др.-русск. осеньсь, болг. есене́с, сербохорв. jесѐнас, словенск. jesȇnǝs — то же&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **зима**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы *zīmā, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск., ст.-слав. зима (др.-греч. χεῖμών), русск., укр. зима́, болг. зи́ма, сербохорв. зи́ма (вин. зи̑му), словенск. zíma, чешск., словацк., польск. zima, н.-луж., в.-луж. zуmа. Из праиндоевр. *g'heim-, родственно лит. žiemà (вин. žiẽmą) «зима», латышск. zìema — то же, др.-прусск. semo — то же, др.-инд. hḗman «зимой», himás «зима», hēmantás — то же, авест. zyå-(zim-), zimō «мороз, зима», греч. χεῖμα «зима», χειμών «зимняя буря», χειμερινός «зимний», алб.-гег. dimën, тоск. dimër «зима», лат. hiems «зима», bīmus (*bihimos) «двухлетний», hībernus «зимний», датск. диал. gimmerlam «годовалый ягненок», арм. ձմեռ/dzmer/ «зима». Соболевский хочет видеть в нар. зи́мусь «этой зимой», др.-русск. зимусь (грам. ок. 1300 г.), болг. зимъс, сербохорв. зи́му̑с древний вин. п. ед. ч. -сь основы на -i. Гадательно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="3b2bb50c-6495-4e45-b3dc-09ad7a7d3e57" CreationDate="2012-06-27T01:12:00.397" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="[Из викисловаря](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **лето**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: ст.-слав. лѣто (др.-греч. χρόνος, ἔτος, ἐνιαυτός), русск. лето, укр. лíто, белор. сле́цiць «согреть», сле́тный «тепловатый», смол., болг. ля́то, сербохорв. ље̏то, словенск. lẹ́to, чешск. léto, словацк. lеtо, польск. lаtо, в.-луж., н.-луж. lěto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **весна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск., ст.-слав. весна (др.-греч. ἔαρ), русск., укр. весна́, сербохорв. вѐсна, словенск. vȇsna, чешск. vesna, польск. wiosna. Древняя и.-е. основа на r/n, ср. лит. vasarà «лето», латышск. vasara, греч. ἔαρ, лат. vēr, др.-исл. vár «весна», др.-инд. vasantás «весна», vasar «рано», авест. vaŋri- «весной», арм. գարուն/garun/ «весна»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **осень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск. осень, ср.: сербск.-церк.-слав. ıесень (др.-греч. φθινόπωρον, укр. о́сінь (род. п. о́сени), болг. есента́, сербохорв. jе̏се̑н, до̏ jесени, словенск. jesȇn, чешск. jeseň, словацк. jeseň, польск. jesień. Родственно др.-прусск. assanis «осень», готск. аsаns ж. «жатва», др.-в.-нем. аrаn, аrn «урожай». Далее сближают с греч. ὀπώρᾱ «конец лета, жатва» из *ор᾽ + оsаrā «после жатвы». Сюда же есене́сь «прошлой осенью», с.-в.-р., вост.-русск., осеня́сь со стар. вин. ед. от сь (см. сей), др.-русск. осеньсь, болг. есене́с, сербохорв. jесѐнас, словенск. jesȇnǝs — то же&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **зима**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы *zīmā, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск., ст.-слав. зима (др.-греч. χεῖμών), русск., укр. зима́, болг. зи́ма, сербохорв. зи́ма (вин. зи̑му), словенск. zíma, чешск., словацк., польск. zima, н.-луж., в.-луж. zуmа. Из праиндоевр. *g'heim-, родственно лит. žiemà (вин. žiẽmą) «зима», латышск. zìema — то же, др.-прусск. semo — то же, др.-инд. hḗman «зимой», himás «зима», hēmantás — то же, авест. zyå-(zim-), zimō «мороз, зима», греч. χεῖμα «зима», χειμών «зимняя буря», χειμερινός «зимний», алб.-гег. dimën, тоск. dimër «зима», лат. hiems «зима», bīmus (*bihimos) «двухлетний», hībernus «зимний», датск. диал. gimmerlam «годовалый ягненок», арм. ձմեռ/dzmer/ «зима». Соболевский хочет видеть в нар. зи́мусь «этой зимой», др.-русск. зимусь (грам. ок. 1300 г.), болг. зимъс, сербохорв. зи́му̑с древний вин. п. ед. ч. -сь основы на -i. Гадательно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="19350e51-519c-4418-a8ac-dd09b0cd3c8f" CreationDate="2012-06-27T01:23:35.107" UserId="104" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="[Из викисловаря](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **лето**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: ст.-слав. лѣто (др.-греч. χρόνος, ἔτος, ἐνιαυτός), русск. лето, укр. лíто, белор. сле́цiць «согреть», сле́тный «тепловатый», смол., болг. ля́то, сербохорв. ље̏то, словенск. lẹ́to, чешск. léto, словацк. lеtо, польск. lаtо, в.-луж., н.-луж. lěto&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **весна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск., ст.-слав. весна (др.-греч. ἔαρ), русск., укр. весна́, сербохорв. вѐсна, словенск. vȇsna, чешск. vesna, польск. wiosna. Древняя и.-е. основа на r/n, ср. лит. vasarà «лето», латышск. vasara, греч. ἔαρ, лат. vēr, др.-исл. vár «весна», др.-инд. vasantás «весна», vasar «рано», авест. vaŋri- «весной», арм. գարուն/garun/ «весна»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **осень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск. осень, ср.: сербск.-церк.-слав. ıесень (др.-греч. φθινόπωρον, укр. о́сінь (род. п. о́сени), болг. есента́, сербохорв. jе̏се̑н, до̏ jесени, словенск. jesȇn, чешск. jeseň, словацк. jeseň, польск. jesień. Родственно др.-прусск. assanis «осень», готск. аsаns ж. «жатва», др.-в.-нем. аrаn, аrn «урожай». Далее сближают с греч. ὀπώρᾱ «конец лета, жатва» из *ор᾽ + оsаrā «после жатвы». Сюда же есене́сь «прошлой осенью», с.-в.-р., вост.-русск., осеня́сь со стар. вин. ед. от сь (см. сей), др.-русск. осеньсь, болг. есене́с, сербохорв. jесѐнас, словенск. jesȇnǝs — то же&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **зима**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от праслав. формы *zīmā, от которой в числе прочего произошли: др.-русск., ст.-слав. зима (др.-греч. χεῖμών), русск., укр. зима́, болг. зи́ма, сербохорв. зи́ма (вин. зи̑му), словенск. zíma, чешск., словацк., польск. zima, н.-луж., в.-луж. zуmа. Из праиндоевр. *g'heim-, родственно лит. žiemà (вин. žiẽmą) «зима», латышск. zìema — то же, др.-прусск. semo — то же, др.-инд. hḗman «зимой», himás «зима», hēmantás — то же, авест. zyå-(zim-), zimō «мороз, зима», греч. χεῖμα «зима», χειμών «зимняя буря», χειμερινός «зимний», алб.-гег. dimën, тоск. dimër «зима», лат. hiems «зима», bīmus (*bihimos) «двухлетний», hībernus «зимний», датск. диал. gimmerlam «годовалый ягненок», арм. ձմեռ/dzmer/ «зима». Соболевский хочет видеть в нар. зи́мусь «этой зимой», др.-русск. зимусь (грам. ок. 1300 г.), болг. зимъс, сербохорв. зи́му̑с древний вин. п. ед. ч. -сь основы на -i. Гадательно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing interesting, if you ask me...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="d62d92e4-8a76-47ae-85fa-b8eda9df7a93" CreationDate="2012-06-27T04:05:44.950" UserId="5" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="I am interested in knowing the etymology of names of the seasons in Russian: лето, весна, осень, зима.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And especially the original meaning of the proto-words that gave birth to these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="e817299b-18f7-4ff0-8912-72168c7a80d4" CreationDate="2012-06-27T06:45:47.990" UserId="134" Text="The proto-Slavic ancestors of these words (see Armen's answer) meant, surprisingly enough, summer, spring, fall and winter, accordingly :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tracing these meaning back to PIE would be a little bit harder, since it's relatively easy to reconstruct phonetics of the roots but not their exact semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accorgind to Vasmer and Chernykh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Весна* from PIE `*per-/*pen-`, &quot;early, before&quot; (akin to English *fore-*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Лето* from PIE `*lē-`, &quot;to allow, to let, to loosen&quot; (akin to English *let*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Осень* from PIE `*aznon-`, &quot;to harvest&quot; (akin to English *earn*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Зима* from PIE `*gheim-`, &quot;snow, winter&quot; (akin to English *hibernate*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="e7e7750f-30fd-43cc-b9c4-1851d81cc538" CreationDate="2012-06-27T06:52:12.960" UserId="134" Comment="edited body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The proto-Slavic ancestors of these words (see Armen's answer) meant, surprisingly enough, summer, spring, fall and winter, accordingly :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tracing the meanings back to PIE would be a little bit harder, since it's relatively easy to reconstruct phonetics of the roots but not their exact semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Весна* from PIE `*per-/*pen-`, &quot;early, before&quot; (akin to English *fore-*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Лето* from PIE `*lē-`, &quot;to allow, to let, to loosen&quot; (akin to English *let*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Осень* from PIE `*aznon-`, &quot;to harvest&quot; (akin to English *earn*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Зима* from PIE `*gheim-`, &quot;snow, winter&quot; (akin to English *hibernate*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="369" RevisionGUID="e89fd1e4-328b-4011-a92c-d168451c2e7e" CreationDate="2012-06-27T07:31:19.037" UserId="176" Text="I actually think its здрассте (без мягкого знака) and it's synonymous with the English term 'howdy.' the impression I've gotten is that the word здравствуйте is such a long word with such a horrible consonant cluster in the middle (on top of being such a common everyday word anyway) that it is useless to try to pronounce every letter of the word (you'll find the same to be true for words such as пожалуйста, again a common everyday word that is never fully pronounced, that is the -уй- are often spoken over) but one difference is that I don't believe there to be a meaning for the 'word' пожалста, it's just the way it is pronounced when spoken quickly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="f06e6d4d-c57d-4690-ba8d-381e9fefc04a" CreationDate="2012-06-27T08:47:50.410" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The proto-Slavic ancestors of these words (see Armen's answer) meant, surprisingly enough, summer, spring, fall and winter, accordingly :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tracing the meanings back to PIE would be a little bit harder, since it's relatively easy to reconstruct phonetics of the roots but not their exact semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Весна* from PIE `*per-/*pen-`, &quot;early, before&quot; (akin to English *fore-*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Лето* from PIE `*lē-`, &quot;to allow, to let, to loosen&quot; (akin to English *let*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Осень* from PIE `*esen-`, &quot;to harvest&quot; (akin to English *earn*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Зима* from PIE `*gheim-`, &quot;snow, winter&quot; (akin to English *hibernate*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="b03835e7-141a-46a3-a9ef-0532b043b6cb" CreationDate="2012-06-27T09:29:18.597" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The proto-Slavic ancestors of these words (see Armen's answer) meant, surprisingly enough, summer, spring, fall and winter, accordingly :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tracing the meanings back to PIE would be a little bit harder, since it's relatively easy to reconstruct phonetics of the roots but not their exact semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Весна* from PIE `*wesr-/*wesn-`, &quot;spring&quot; (akin to English *vernal*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Лето* from PIE `*lē-`, &quot;to allow, to let, to loosen&quot; (akin to English *let*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Осень* from PIE `*esen-`, &quot;to harvest&quot; (akin to English *earn*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Зима* from PIE `*gheim-`, &quot;snow, winter&quot; (akin to English *hibernate*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="fbc143ac-4c4b-4ba6-998c-b618bf659d65" CreationDate="2012-06-27T10:46:03.147" UserId="71" Comment="fixed wording" Text="There are some rules and some &quot;less strict&quot; rules, where you have exceptions and they represent a tendency, rather than a rule. So we have patterns, but they have exceptions, of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there aren't hard rules so that &quot;you're always sure&quot;. You'll slowly come to know what's the right stress after you start acquiring some Russian vocabulary but this will come from experience rather than learning rules... But I'll try to give you some advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **ё**: when you see this in a Russian word, the stress is *always* on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; реб&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;нок, е&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;, акт&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;р, Ф&lt;b&gt;ё&lt;/b&gt;дор, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For this rule, you can be sure this is 99% true, the only exceptions are borrowed or compound words where it could change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **-ий/-ый**: These endings are almost never stressed (unlike -ой in большой for example):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; вел&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;кий, серд&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;тый, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **-ческий**: Usually the stress doesn't fall on this &quot;part&quot;, but on the syllable before it (again, there are exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; социалист&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, мелод&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;ческий, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **First person singular**, not in the first conjugation, such as Читать, but in the other conjugation, it tends to be on the last syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - смотреть - смотр&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - звонить - звон&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - хотеть - хоч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - любить - любл&lt;b&gt;ю&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; but not...&#xD;&#xA; &gt; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; - читать - чит&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - делать - д&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;лаю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - спрашивать - спр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шиваю&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. **-ие** and **-ия**: Words ending like this, generally have the stress not on this syllable but on the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; упражн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, приглаш&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ние, образов&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Some exceptions could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бование -&gt; тр&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;бовать  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывание -&gt; разгл&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;дывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Words which end in -ия:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; эн&lt;b&gt;е&lt;/b&gt;ргия, фант&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;зия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. **-ство / -ость**: These endings are not usually stressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ч&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;вство, гражд&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;нство, &lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;ркость, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There are always exceptions in this case, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="75320085-ed1c-4601-a438-201d7a8ae05c" CreationDate="2012-06-27T11:21:25.740" UserId="38" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="No direct translation exists. 'For what it's worth' usually means that whatever is to follow is going to be a subjective opinion, which translates well to 'На мой взгляд' (In my opinion), 'Я думаю' (I think), 'Я считаю' (I figure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to communicate that a piece of information is potentially unimportant for another reason, you could say something like 'Может, это неважно, но'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="1d31842c-db26-41b6-93bf-dc5401faab13" CreationDate="2012-06-27T12:34:01.487" UserId="63" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="To add a note to the excellent answers above: the concept aspect can be very confusing. For example, I haven't realized how difficult it is till the moment I started learning Russian and it exists in my mother language (Slovak) as well!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no hard rules, how these words are made. I.e. even if you perfectly understand when/how to use it, you still have to learn perfect-imperfect pairs. Few examples (imperfect/perfect):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; читать / прочитать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; писать / написать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; учить / выучить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; делать / сделать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One imperfect word can have many perfect forms (and these perfect forms may but may not have different meanings!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; писать / написать, прописать, выписать, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нести / принести, вынести, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixes used for perfect forms can be used also for imperfect ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; находить / найти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no rule that if there's a word in imperfect form that then there's a word in perfect form and vice versa:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; организовать, рекомендовать (here literally perfect = imperfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny thing is these forms changes from one Slavic language to another. For example in Slovak, we've got perfect forms for the both of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just random thoughts, feel free to correct me, I'm far from being a good Russian speaker ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="87759779-5bef-4055-a4cc-6e981081a778" CreationDate="2012-06-27T14:21:22.000" UserId="170" Text="What's the semantic difference between verbs in column A and their counterparts in column B? Is there any term (in Russian) describing the verbs in A and the verbs in B? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А               B&#xD;&#xA;    плыть	    плавать&#xD;&#xA;    идти	    xодить&#xD;&#xA;    бежать	    бегать&#xD;&#xA;    лететь	    летать&#xD;&#xA;    еxать	    ездить&#xD;&#xA;    поплыл	    заплавал&#xD;&#xA;    пошёл	    заxодил&#xD;&#xA;    побежал	    забегал&#xD;&#xA;    полетел	    залетал&#xD;&#xA;    поеxал	    заездил&#xD;&#xA;    проплыть	поплавать&#xD;&#xA;    пройтись    поxодить&#xD;&#xA;    пробежаться побегать&#xD;&#xA;    пролететь	полетать&#xD;&#xA;    проеxать    поездить	" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="87759779-5bef-4055-a4cc-6e981081a778" CreationDate="2012-06-27T14:21:22.000" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between плыть and плавать, пройтись and поxодить, полетел and залетал, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="87759779-5bef-4055-a4cc-6e981081a778" CreationDate="2012-06-27T14:21:22.000" UserId="170" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="9f217fd4-0beb-4d6a-90f5-1da0f1615769" CreationDate="2012-06-27T14:22:33.527" UserId="170" Text="The verbs in column A describe different types of motion that is performed only in one direction, while the verbs in column B describe same motions with constant, perhaps, sporadic change of direction. The B verbs may even have a meaning of back-and-forth type of motion. For example, Russian “идти” means simply “to go”, while “xодить” can mean “to walk around”, “to stroll about”, “to walk back and forth” or even “to make rounds or trips by walking”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best term that I can come up with for the first group verbs is “глаголы направленного действия” (“directed motion verbs”), and “глаголы разнонаправленного действия” for the second group (“multidirectional motion verbs”).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="62a132af-d45f-4874-8c3d-10d370123a56" CreationDate="2012-06-27T14:34:24.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/217989259179724800" />
  <row Id="1089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="3238f96c-5a3b-424a-80e3-035248579453" CreationDate="2012-06-27T14:56:46.557" UserId="170" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="What's the semantic difference between verbs in column A and their counterparts in column B? Is there any term (in Russian) describing the verbs in A and the verbs in B? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А               B&#xD;&#xA;    плыть	    плавать&#xD;&#xA;    идти	    xодить&#xD;&#xA;    бежать	    бегать&#xD;&#xA;    лететь	    летать&#xD;&#xA;    еxать	    ездить&#xD;&#xA;    поплыл	    заплавал&#xD;&#xA;    пошёл	    заxодил&#xD;&#xA;    побежал	    забегал&#xD;&#xA;    полетел	    залетал&#xD;&#xA;    поеxал	    заездил&#xD;&#xA;    проплыть	поплавать&#xD;&#xA;    пройтись    поxодить&#xD;&#xA;    пробежаться побегать&#xD;&#xA;    пролететь	полетать&#xD;&#xA;    проеxаться  поездить&#xD;&#xA;    нестись     носиться&#xD;&#xA;    пронестись  поноситься&#xD;&#xA;    ползти      ползать&#xD;&#xA;    поползти    заползать 	" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="c4ca7ecc-f696-4662-9743-68171b53d16b" CreationDate="2012-06-27T15:07:09.203" UserId="134" Text="The verbs in column `A` are called *моторно-некратные* (progressive motion verbs), those in column `B` are called *моторно-кратные* (iterative motion verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, iterative verbs are constructed in Russian using the suffixes `-ива-` or `-ыва-`: *читать/читывать*, *лежать/лёживать* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verbs you mentioned retain traces of Indo-European ablaut, similar to those in irregular English verbs (*sing / sang / sung* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Идти / ходить* is formed from two distinct PIE roots, the first is akin to English *ion* (from Greek), the second is akin to English *sit* (according to Vasmer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other Slavic languages and in Russian dialects, the second root can form a progressive/iterative pair in a regular way: *ходить / хаживать* (*&quot;ходи сюда / хожай тихо&quot;*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="edc8df02-6ea3-4812-aeed-5414b6de6eee" CreationDate="2012-06-27T15:23:56.363" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="The verbs in column `A` are called *моторно-некратные* (progressive motion verbs), those in column `B` are called *моторно-кратные* (iterative motion verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, iterative verbs are constructed in Russian using the suffixes `-ива-` or `-ыва-`: *читать/читывать*, *лежать/лёживать* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verbs you mentioned retain traces of Indo-European ablaut, similar to those in irregular English verbs (*sing / sang / sung* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Идти / ходить* is formed from two distinct PIE roots, the first is akin to English *ion* (from Greek), the second is akin to English *sit* (according to Vasmer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other Slavic languages and in Russian dialects, the second root can form a progressive/iterative pair too: *ходить / хожать* (*&quot;ходи сюда / хожай тихо&quot;*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="009fea0a-cce0-4765-9ab1-a36da36f4f20" CreationDate="2012-06-27T15:41:56.193" UserId="62" Text="The word ветвление (branching, ramification) appears to be a purely technical synonym for разветвление. I can find разветвление in ordinary dictionaries, but ветвление is not there, although it is mentioned in references on biology, chemistry, computer programming, and mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is ветвление restricted to usage in the natural sciences and math, and can someone explain why the adjectival form разветвлённый is used but ветвлённый apparently doesn't exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="009fea0a-cce0-4765-9ab1-a36da36f4f20" CreationDate="2012-06-27T15:41:56.193" UserId="62" Text="ветвление, разветвление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="009fea0a-cce0-4765-9ab1-a36da36f4f20" CreationDate="2012-06-27T15:41:56.193" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="5cc1ce05-bc47-485e-a65d-91ac635cc671" CreationDate="2012-06-27T16:20:32.007" UserId="170" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="What's the semantic difference between verbs in column A and their counterparts in column B? Is there any term (in Russian) describing the verbs in A and the verbs in B? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А                B&#xD;&#xA;    пл'ыть	     пл'авать&#xD;&#xA;    идт'и	     xод'ить&#xD;&#xA;    беж'ать	     б'егать&#xD;&#xA;    лет'еть	     лет'ать&#xD;&#xA;    'еxать	     'ездить&#xD;&#xA;    попл'ыл	     запл'авал&#xD;&#xA;    пош'ёл	     заxод'ил&#xD;&#xA;    побеж'ал	 заб'егал&#xD;&#xA;    полет'ел	 залет'ал&#xD;&#xA;    по'еxал	     за'ездил&#xD;&#xA;    пропл'ыть	 попл'авать&#xD;&#xA;    пройт'ись    поxод'ить&#xD;&#xA;    пробеж'аться поб'егать&#xD;&#xA;    пролет'еть	 полет'ать&#xD;&#xA;    про'еxаться  по'ездить&#xD;&#xA;    нест'ись     нос'иться&#xD;&#xA;    пронест'ись  понос'иться&#xD;&#xA;    ползт'и      п'олзать&#xD;&#xA;    поползт'и    зап'олзать 	" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1096" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="ebc12249-e29e-4dcb-bcbf-c543164f978f" CreationDate="2012-06-27T17:34:24.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218034557172187136" />
  <row Id="1097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="8c90c8bf-cd9a-4028-b94c-6a5e955214b4" CreationDate="2012-06-27T18:09:14.223" UserId="38" Text="I have a habit of saying 'До свидания' (Au revoir; until we meet again) when terminating a conversation. Would this seem strange if I'm not likely to actually meet that person again, such as a clerk, a stranger asking for directions or just somebody who called the wrong number? Should I instead be using 'Всего доброго' (All the best) or a different farewell entirely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="8c90c8bf-cd9a-4028-b94c-6a5e955214b4" CreationDate="2012-06-27T18:09:14.223" UserId="38" Text="Is it odd to say &quot;До свидания&quot; to somebody if you are unlikely to ever meet them again?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="8c90c8bf-cd9a-4028-b94c-6a5e955214b4" CreationDate="2012-06-27T18:09:14.223" UserId="38" Text="|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="375" RevisionGUID="f70fe87f-c4f8-4704-ae6f-2420bf43e148" CreationDate="2012-06-27T18:11:57.267" UserId="160" Text="It's perfectly normal; `до свидания` is just a polite form of a farewell and is used regardless of the probability to meet again. &#xD;&#xA;Moreover, `до свидания` can be used in (formal) phone calls, when people have actually never met and probably never will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Всего доброго` is also fine and, I think, perfectly interchangeable with `до свидания`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="dc92d6a1-3439-42e4-ba7f-35532410c6a0" CreationDate="2012-06-27T18:33:57.580" UserId="113" Text="Ветвление is always a process, whereas разветвление can be either a process or the physical place where something is branching out, the actual &quot;fork&quot;. Ветвлённый doesn't exist because ветвиться is not a transitive verb - it doesn't have a оbject, just the subject. It's like краснеть (to blush), for example. You can't blush something, you can only blush yourself. So, the outcome of ветвление will be a object that is ветвистый or разветвлённый itself. A &quot;ветвлённый&quot; object would be something that ветвление was done *to it*, like варёный. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="dc48168b-3382-48ee-a641-79780d7ab2c8" CreationDate="2012-06-27T18:35:40.077" UserId="160" Text="Your question is about participles (&quot;ветвлённый&quot;, &quot;разветвлённый&quot;) and nouns (&quot;ветвление&quot;, &quot;разветвление&quot;). In this case both seem to originate from the corresponding verbs (&quot;ветвиться&quot;, &quot;разветвляться&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the two verbs is that one &quot;ветвиться&quot; is in __imperfective aspect__ and &quot;разветвляться&quot; is in __perfective aspect__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, the word &quot;разветвление&quot; can refer to some simple things like a branch of a railroad, and &quot;ветвление&quot; describes some sort of a phenomenon in general. That naturally restricts the usage of the word to scientific context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;ветвлённый&quot;, I Vitaly's answer, that's just popped up as I'm typing mine, covers it better than I could have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="f383a949-d3dc-4f18-aac9-d950a3b10f7a" CreationDate="2012-06-27T20:36:46.257" UserId="104" Text="A way of saying goodbye that implies that it is likely that you won't see each other again is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проща́й&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the more polite (or plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проща́йте" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="937270f6-5515-427a-b9a7-66a28cd2aa89" CreationDate="2012-06-27T21:03:36.643" UserId="104" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="A way of saying goodbye that implies that it is likely that you won't see each other again is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проща́й&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the more polite (or plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проща́йте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, and I agree with Lev that до свидания is perfectly normal regardless of the probablity of meeting again. It's just that if you want to *imply* that you probably won't meet for a long time or ever, прощай(те) is a better choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="b62fa94d-96df-4c81-b25f-181e1ccdcc44" CreationDate="2012-06-27T21:03:47.737" UserId="113" Comment="spelling" Text="Ветвление is always a process, whereas разветвление can be either a process or the physical place where something is branching out, the actual &quot;fork&quot;. Ветвлённый doesn't exist because ветвиться is not a transitive verb - it doesn't have a оbject, just the subject. It's like краснеть (to blush), for example. You can't blush something, you can only blush yourself. So, the outcome of ветвление will be an object that is ветвистый or разветвлённый itself. A &quot;ветвлённый&quot; object would be something that ветвление was done *to it*, like варёный. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="e2e05b3e-c547-4394-9cb4-4460098f944f" CreationDate="2012-06-27T21:41:09.113" UserId="39" Text="Practice shows that it is perfectly acceptable to say `До свидания` regardless whether you think you'll actually see them again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it .. first of all you can't possibly know if you'll see them again, you may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the person is terminally ill, I believe it's ok to say `До свидания` still, implying that you'll meet them again in afterlife at some point in the future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="79363c1d-e74e-45c1-b09e-465ba4d25e5a" CreationDate="2012-06-27T21:46:21.393" UserId="39" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Practice shows that it is perfectly acceptable to say `До свидания` regardless whether you think you'll actually see them again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it .. you can't possibly know if you'll see them again, you may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the person is terminally ill, I believe it's ok to say `До свидания` still, implying that you'll meet them again in afterlife at some point in the future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="9f331b82-92a1-4039-8779-e70b7fa1a7ea" CreationDate="2012-06-27T22:18:15.887" UserId="5" Text="I think it is inappropriate and offensive to address a driver like this for a well-mannered person. So, answering your question, I doubt you can use it as a proper way unless you want to look like последнее быдло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider universal way: &quot;Извините, вот деньги за проезд, возьмете?&quot; или &quot;Скажите, эта маршрутка доедет до воказла?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="8375ab4e-fcbf-47d8-9e7b-56ca33bf62a6" CreationDate="2012-06-27T22:41:58.767" UserId="38" Text="&quot;Крах приложения&quot; seems like the perfect translation to me - it conveys the meaning, isn't unnecessarily verbose and even sounds similar to the English term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="e2455fd1-96d5-4965-b064-e4feb1409f59" CreationDate="2012-06-27T23:34:23.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218125151282278400" />
  <row Id="1111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="63351697-82b3-42fe-a4d4-a6f619c897ad" CreationDate="2012-06-27T23:59:23.917" UserId="170" Text="What are the common inflection mistakes that Russian kids make as they progress in mastering their first language? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="63351697-82b3-42fe-a4d4-a6f619c897ad" CreationDate="2012-06-27T23:59:23.917" UserId="170" Text="What are the common inflection mistakes that Russian kids make?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="63351697-82b3-42fe-a4d4-a6f619c897ad" CreationDate="2012-06-27T23:59:23.917" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="90c72e3a-f77f-4b98-8f3a-54159324a729" CreationDate="2012-06-28T00:32:16.093" UserId="5" Text="My niece used to say &quot;вчера&quot; instead of &quot;завтра&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="ecba2b27-a2be-4643-9974-0cb4f5aa5157" CreationDate="2012-06-28T01:04:37.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="21ac4f63-540d-4d10-ab97-850843460560" CreationDate="2012-06-28T01:04:37.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1117" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="affc6297-0aef-461e-97dd-84e2f02f0b94" CreationDate="2012-06-28T02:34:23.690" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218170451149590528" />
  <row Id="1118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="8085ca1d-4acb-4352-ab02-4d479111c17b" CreationDate="2012-06-28T04:33:44.693" UserId="170" Text="What are the cases and possibly rules for using semicolon (;) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="8085ca1d-4acb-4352-ab02-4d479111c17b" CreationDate="2012-06-28T04:33:44.693" UserId="170" Text="When is semicolon used in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="8085ca1d-4acb-4352-ab02-4d479111c17b" CreationDate="2012-06-28T04:33:44.693" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="4dc9675e-132d-4751-9569-e98742cde396" CreationDate="2012-06-28T04:36:38.450" UserId="183" Text="I wonder what they are in English :)&#xD;&#xA;I would say that we use it for a pause which is larger that a comma but less then a full stop. Something like &quot;Я пошла в магазин и купила сигарет, молока и хлеба; а заодно на почту сбегала&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="bd636a25-0a1f-4112-baca-4ccf86393552" CreationDate="2012-06-28T04:43:07.290" UserId="183" Text="It's typical of children (of Russian children, at least) to experiment with morphology. Korney Chukovsky wrote a book 'from 2 to 5' about his experience of childern from 2 to 5 understanding the undercurrent rules of Russian. It states such tendencies as&#xD;&#xA;1. experimenting (- Дай другую логу! - логу instead of ложку. In fact, why not :) ? But we never say so, of course).&#xD;&#xA;2. creating one's own etymology: Паутина (cobweb) -&gt; паукина (as it has a spider, or паук there).&#xD;&#xA;3. Widening the semantics: - Облака-то сняли! Сняли с неба облака! (we Russians don't 'take off' clouds from the sky).&#xD;&#xA;I guess that's about it but the examples are fantastic! If you're interested in the book, you can find it on http://www.chukfamily.ru/Kornei/Prosa/Ot2do5/Ot2do5.htm. If you don't understand the Russian there, you can mail me to mari_belova@mail.ru. I've read the book and enjoyed it and I hope that you will enjoy it too!&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as a linguist, I had lectures on children's language. So feel free to torture me with your curiosity :)))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1123" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="8bfcd818-852d-412e-9980-8af0473a16da" CreationDate="2012-06-28T05:34:24.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218215751046283265" />
  <row Id="1124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="878aa3d2-9265-4ee8-ae55-e9c13a577b37" CreationDate="2012-06-28T05:37:02.740" UserId="185" Text="I can say that there are 3 major cases when a semicolon is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it separates two sentences which the author wants to put together for some reason. Usually the sentences themselves are complex and contain commas. The sentences may be independent or they may be conjuncted, where the second part starts with a conjunction such as но, тем не менее, однако:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex: Я давно собирался зайти в гости к этим людям, пригласившим меня еще месяц назад; но я все не мог решиться, и каждый раз, когда я проходил мимо их дома, я невольно ускорял шаги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. it separates complex conjuncts or subordinated clauses under the same subordination conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex: Он часто думал о ней, о том, что никогда не быть им вместе; что никогда не сможет он посмотреть ей в глаза и честно рассказать о своих чувствах; что никогда не примет она его предложения; что не стоит и пытаться из менить ее вежливо-снисходительное к нему отношение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. finally, it separates enumerated items in a list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex: В помещении суда запрещается:&#xD;&#xA;1. курить;&#xD;&#xA;2. распивать спиртные напитки и находится в нетрезвом виде;&#xD;&#xA;4. громко разговаривать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="a6309840-6d84-482d-98cf-8b0754c72d90" CreationDate="2012-06-28T05:56:53.373" UserId="185" Text="Свет usually means not simply &quot;world&quot;, but this world as we know it, as the world on Earth populated by people and animals, with all what is going on on it. For example, Asia, Europe, Africa and so on are &quot;части света&quot;, or you can refer to the Northern America as &quot;Новый свет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also has a somewhat mythological meaning, especially in usages as &quot;произвести на свет&quot; = &quot;give birth&quot;, &quot;сжить со свету&quot; = &quot;make someone disappear or even die by treating them badly&quot;, &quot;тот свет&quot; = &quot;the other world, the world beyond the grave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, свет has an older meaning &quot;the society&quot;. Compare: &quot;выйти в свет&quot; = go out on a public event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мир is a more generic notion, it can be used in cases where world means &quot;area&quot; or &quot;region&quot; or &quot;part&quot;. See the examples with &quot;of&quot;-preposition given in Philip Seyfi's answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="e07b6128-d34b-4ceb-97b9-f676eaf6e1a6" CreationDate="2012-06-28T07:45:27.337" UserId="187" Text="The best place to find typical usage examples is National Russian Corpora - www. ruscorpora.ru or - in english http://ruscorpora.ru/en/index.html&#xD;&#xA;Mind that you can customize subcorpora ( if you need modern usage for example), or search collocations or grammatical patterns. You can also download results or see them in Key-word-in-context view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="f6cb1bbe-23ce-4c88-890c-4b7b4f42a6ce" CreationDate="2012-06-28T07:57:46.563" UserId="145" Text="Let's say we have a native russian speaker, who never learned or heard church slavonic. If he listens to a text in this language (I mean contemporary CS as used by today Orthodox Church and with russian pronounciation), how much would he understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="f6cb1bbe-23ce-4c88-890c-4b7b4f42a6ce" CreationDate="2012-06-28T07:57:46.563" UserId="145" Text="What is the understanding of church slavonic among russian native speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="392" RevisionGUID="f6cb1bbe-23ce-4c88-890c-4b7b4f42a6ce" CreationDate="2012-06-28T07:57:46.563" UserId="145" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="6318826d-352e-44e7-b7e6-df112d703436" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:08:36.877" UserId="97" Text="&quot;Пить таблетки&quot; (literally &quot;drink pills&quot;) is a commonly used phrase.  But why is it &quot;пить&quot; (&quot;drink&quot;)?  Naturally, pills are solid and thus can't be &quot;drunk&quot; in a traditional sense.  There is phrase &quot;есть таблетки&quot; (&quot;eat pills&quot;), but it's more of a slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best guess is that the phrase came from the time when most if not all medicine was in liquid form: sirups, infusions, etc. - but I'd like somebody with a better knowledge to confirm/deny it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="6318826d-352e-44e7-b7e6-df112d703436" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:08:36.877" UserId="97" Text="Why &quot;пить таблетки&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="6318826d-352e-44e7-b7e6-df112d703436" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:08:36.877" UserId="97" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="d5d5dc6c-63b9-4b58-a835-b68969fa7e59" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:08:50.217" UserId="188" Text="In Russia &quot;до свиданья&quot; can be used in either case of communication termination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is voice or tet-a-tet conversation, then &quot;до свиданья&quot; will have different meanings depending on intonation. These meanings include (but are not limited to) friendly &quot;see you later&quot;, &quot;hope see you soon&quot; etc, or disappointed &quot;hope never saw you ever&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="8561448a-c450-42b7-a80c-f3312ff715d0" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:18:13.327" UserId="38" Text="Because you have to chase the pills down with water. Eating would also suggest chewing the pills rather than swallowing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="0c8132ee-8c9f-48e3-8f6a-2546f084d863" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:30:46.690" UserId="19" Comment="added 97 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="`FWIW` is roughly synonymous with `my two cents`, which can in turn be translated as `мои пять копеек`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** Note that `мои пять копеек` is highly colloquial and can only really be met online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="3b992378-6e35-4f5d-ba56-c4196c262e6c" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:32:06.637" UserId="38" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Because you have to chase the pills down with water. Eating would also suggest chewing the pills rather than swallowing them. You can also say 'Глотать таблетки' (Swallow pills), but it implies that there are quite a few pills being taken." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="9f35db75-f033-40ce-ab0c-e7bb2edcd3ee" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:46:47.250" UserId="47" Text="I believe there is no &quot;correct&quot; answer to this question: too much depends on other qualities of a person in question, such as having &quot;a good ear&quot; to languages and knowing other Slavic tongues. As already discussed, many Russians claim to understand Ukrainian and even Polish and Bulgarian, but practical experiments show that this is not a common place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having dealt a little with Church Slavonic, both written and spoken, I can say for myself that it is basically not understandable. In a church, people often understand it &quot;by context&quot; and would probably be unable to explain what a particular word means. But even more so, they are just used to express some feelings using particular words (prayers), and would be unable to express or understand anything else using the same vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical example is a traditional Easter greeting in Russia, *Христос воскресе!*. We do not say *Христос воскрес!* because it would immediately make it non-religious, which is an important aspect of this phrase. However in no other context would a normal person use the form *воскресе*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can compare this situation with the use of Latin in medicine. Although doctors traditionally study this language and even use it in daily practice, most of them would probably be unable to understand Horatius or Vergilius without translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="987bc497-098b-454c-ad78-14d675feee5f" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:53:02.797" UserId="47" Comment="Link to another question" Text="I believe there is no &quot;correct&quot; answer to this question: too much depends on other qualities of a person in question, such as having &quot;a good ear&quot; to languages and knowing other Slavic tongues. As [already discussed][1], many Russians claim to understand Ukrainian and even Polish and Bulgarian, but practical experiments show that this is not a common place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having dealt with Church Slavonic a little, both written and spoken, I can say for myself that it is basically not understandable. In a church, people often understand it &quot;by context&quot; and would probably be unable to explain what a particular word means. But even more so, they are just used to express some feelings using particular words (prayers), and would be unable to express or understand anything else using the same vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical example is a traditional Easter greeting in Russia, *Христос воскресе!*. We do not say *Христос воскрес!* because it would immediately make it non-religious, which is an important aspect of this phrase. However in no other context would a normal person use the form *воскресе*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can compare this situation with the use of Latin in medicine. Although doctors traditionally study this language and even use it in daily practice, most of them would probably be unable to understand Horatius or Vergilius without translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/208/47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="07feddf4-5832-4f36-a4ff-f3fe4697374d" CreationDate="2012-06-28T09:19:23.837" UserId="38" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Because you have to chase the pills down with water. Eating would also suggest chewing the pills rather than swallowing them. You can also say 'Глотать таблетки' (Swallow pills), but it implies that there are quite a few pills being taken. Another way to say is 'Принимать лекарства' (Take medicine), but it is not specific to pills; 'Принимать таблкетки' seems slightly weird colloquially, but is often used in instructions that come with pills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="79c4b4cd-8bfe-4d09-b203-fd0921ac4e58" CreationDate="2012-06-28T09:54:13.047" UserId="191" Text="The context of usage is the following. Someone causes inconvenience to others and wants to seem polite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example a development company will surround a piece of territory with a fence, start construction works there and want to declare &quot;We're building a house here. Sorry for the inconvenience&quot;. The second part can be spelled in either of the two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Приносим извинения за доставленные неудобства. *or*&#xD;&#xA; 2. Просим извинить за доставленные неудобства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 to me sounds like &quot;We've dumped our apologies in front of you, do whatever you want now.&quot; and option 2 sounds more like &quot;We've asked for forgiveness, you decide whether you forgive us.&quot; So to me option 1 is not apologizing at all although it is typically used like 98% of the times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is actually more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="79c4b4cd-8bfe-4d09-b203-fd0921ac4e58" CreationDate="2012-06-28T09:54:13.047" UserId="191" Text="Which is more appropriate - &quot;просим извинить&quot; или &quot;приносим извинения&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="79c4b4cd-8bfe-4d09-b203-fd0921ac4e58" CreationDate="2012-06-28T09:54:13.047" UserId="191" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="e84d037c-30a9-4fe5-8bae-aacf600e8023" CreationDate="2012-06-28T10:19:05.560" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting and wording" Text="The context of usage is the following. Someone causes inconvenience to others and wants to seem polite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example a development company will surround a piece of territory with a fence, start construction works there and want to declare *&quot;We're building a house here. Sorry for the inconvenience&quot;*. The second part can be spelled in either of the two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Приносим извинения за доставленные неудобства. *or*&#xD;&#xA; 2. Просим извинить за доставленные неудобства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 to me sounds like *&quot;We've dumped our apologies in front of you, do whatever you want now.&quot;* and option 2 sounds more like *&quot;We've asked for forgiveness, you decide whether you forgive us.&quot;* So to me option 1 is not apologizing at all although it is typically used like 98% of the times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is actually more appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1146" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="e84d037c-30a9-4fe5-8bae-aacf600e8023" CreationDate="2012-06-28T10:19:05.560" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting and wording" Text="Which is more appropriate - &quot;просим извинить&quot; or &quot;приносим извинения&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1147" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="e84d037c-30a9-4fe5-8bae-aacf600e8023" CreationDate="2012-06-28T10:19:05.560" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 191 edit id of 102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="c76a38d5-ab3b-40d3-afdc-e1b5ad3d184d" CreationDate="2012-06-28T10:44:41.860" UserId="134" Text="Not sure if it answers your question, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has borrowed *very* much from CS, and CS was influenced by Russian too (though to much lesser extent of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There two aspects in understanding: grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CS words can be split into the following categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian loanwords with Russian correspondense lost or rarely used, also words which have not diverged: *священник, время, плен, нужда, враг, одежда* etc. Those words are best comprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* CS words not diverged with Russian or with Russian parallels: *чаша, огнь, сребро, крава* etc. Those are understood quite easily (but of course better with some practice). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian loanwords which diverged in meaning: *колодезь/кладезь, горячий/горящий, текучий/текущий, сиять/зиять* etc. Those are comprehensible but can cause trouble in picking correct meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Words with Russian correspondense diverged in meaning but not form: *язык, глагол, муж, жена, честный, бремя* etc. Those words are comprehensible but can cause serious trouble due to conflicting Russian semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Words with no direct Russian correspondense: mostly functional parts of speech, but also pronouns, adverbs and some verbs and nouns too: *егда, иже, паки; брашно, вретище, мирница* etc. Those are the hardest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammatic of CS is very different in all aspects: verbs govern other cases, tenses have changed completely etc, postfixes do not correspond to Russian ones etc. This is also a very   hard part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just picked a random Bible quote (Judith 5:9, in modern orthography):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рече Бог их: да изыдут от пришествия своего и да идут в землю Ханааню, и вселишася тамо, и умножишася златом и сребром и скоты многими зело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in translation would give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Бог их сказал, чтобы они вышли из места переселения и шли в землю Ханаанскую; они поселились там и весьма обогатились золотом, серебром и множеством скота.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, in KJV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then their God commanded them to depart from the place where they sojourned, and to go into the land of Chanaan: where they dwelt, and were increased with gold and silver, and with very much cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changed tense in *сказал*&#xD;&#xA;* Changed prefix, tense and government in *вышли*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пришествие* was loaned and changed meaning&#xD;&#xA;* Changed tense in *идут*&#xD;&#xA;* *Ханаанскую* changed suffix and postfix&#xD;&#xA;* *поселились* changed tense and prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *Умножать* was loaned and changed meaning; also tense&#xD;&#xA;* *Зело* is incomprehensible in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an &quot;average&quot; Russian would probably understand the following: God did something and there was a trip (by someone) to somewhere called *земля Ханааня* and there was a settlement there which dealt somehow with gold, silver and lots of cattle (or probably rude people)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="124cf210-c6ac-40fa-9c4c-89073c8f7724" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:19:58.570" UserId="130" Text="I have a feeling that &quot;Приносим извинения&quot; is more formal way of talking (which I think is more suitable in case of development company) and &quot;Просим извинить&quot; is more personal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="68657f0a-b4f7-4851-b604-a020e1e2dc19" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:27:06.503" UserId="134" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Not sure if it answers your question, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has borrowed *very* much from CS, and CS was influenced by Russian too (though to much lesser extent of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There two aspects in understanding: grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CS words can be split into the following categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian loanwords (borrowed from CS into Russian) with Russian correspondense lost or rarely used, also words which have not diverged: *священник, время, плен, нужда, враг, одежда* etc. Those words are best comprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* CS words not diverged with Russian or with Russian parallels: *чаша, огнь, сребро, крава* etc. Those are understood quite easily (but of course better with some practice). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian loanwords which diverged in meaning: *колодезь/кладезь, горячий/горящий, текучий/текущий, сиять/зиять* etc. Those are comprehensible but can cause trouble in picking correct meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Words with Russian correspondense diverged in meaning but not form: *язык, глагол, муж, жена, честный, бремя* etc. Those words are comprehensible but can cause serious trouble due to conflicting Russian semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Words with no direct Russian correspondense: mostly functional parts of speech, but also pronouns, adverbs and some verbs and nouns too: *егда, иже, паки; брашно, вретище, мирница* etc. Those are the hardest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammatic of CS is very different in all aspects: verbs govern other cases, tenses have changed completely etc, postfixes do not correspond to Russian ones etc. This is also a very   hard part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just picked a random Bible quote (Judith 5:9, in modern orthography):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рече Бог их: да изыдут от пришествия своего и да идут в землю Ханааню, и вселишася тамо, и умножишася златом и сребром и скоты многими зело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in translation would give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Бог их сказал, чтобы они вышли из места переселения и шли в землю Ханаанскую; они поселились там и весьма обогатились золотом, серебром и множеством скота.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, in KJV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then their God commanded them to depart from the place where they sojourned, and to go into the land of Chanaan: where they dwelt, and were increased with gold and silver, and with very much cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changed tense in *сказал*&#xD;&#xA;* Changed prefix, tense and government in *вышли*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пришествие* was loaned and changed meaning&#xD;&#xA;* Changed tense in *идут*&#xD;&#xA;* *Ханаанскую* changed suffix and postfix&#xD;&#xA;* *поселились* changed tense and prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *Умножать* was loaned and changed meaning; also tense&#xD;&#xA;* *Зело* is incomprehensible in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an &quot;average&quot; Russian would probably understand the following: God did something and there was a trip (by someone) to somewhere called *земля Ханааня* and there was a settlement there which dealt somehow with gold, silver and lots of cattle (or probably rude people)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="5c5172f1-1036-4a3d-885c-ca058e3cd2d4" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:32:55.423" UserId="104" Comment="added 12 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="I can say that there are 3 major cases when a semicolon is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it separates two sentences which the author wants to put together for some reason. Usually the sentences themselves are complex and contain commas. The sentences may be independent or they may be conjuncted, where the second part starts with a conjunction such as но, тем не менее, однако:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Я давно собирался зайти в гости к этим людям, пригласившим меня еще месяц назад; но я все не мог решиться, и каждый раз, когда я проходил мимо их дома, я невольно ускорял шаги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. it separates complex conjuncts or subordinated clauses under the same subordination conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Он часто думал о ней, о том, что никогда не быть им вместе; что никогда не сможет он посмотреть ей в глаза и честно рассказать о своих чувствах; что никогда не примет она его предложения; что не стоит и пытаться из менить ее вежливо-снисходительное к нему отношение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. finally, it separates enumerated items in a list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; В помещении суда запрещается:&#xD;&#xA;   1. курить;&#xD;&#xA;   2. распивать спиртные напитки и находится в нетрезвом виде;&#xD;&#xA;   4. громко разговаривать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="619bb526-2947-41a7-821c-01530ab8de65" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:54:39.493" UserId="194" Text="Do you really want them to decide whether they forgive you and send you a response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, no. What you want is to just inform them that you acknowledge your guilt. In that case, just use &quot;приносим извинения&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="0f60055c-b246-4e5b-8cf2-2f677f08238e" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:56:40.210" UserId="185" Text="I have never heard or seen &quot;просим извинить&quot;. On the opposite, &quot;приносим извинения&quot; is almost a bureaucratic cliché by now. It is seen in all kinds of written signs in public institutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="496d425a-9610-48de-b4c4-972dd0f05e0c" CreationDate="2012-06-28T12:27:40.123" UserId="194" Text="I saw many instances of both uses. One example of &quot;Эвклид&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Edu/Math/eevklid.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="8831453d-da5c-4eec-bf48-6b6980ce9939" CreationDate="2012-06-28T12:48:51.317" UserId="104" Text="In schools, it is taught that Modern Russian has 6 cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Nominative (Именительный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Genitive (Родительный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dative (Дательный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Accusative (Винительный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Instrumental/Ablative (Творительный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Prepositional (Предложный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on RLU, there are mentions of other lesser-known cases that are perhaps not universally accepted as full-blown cases of Modern Russian, but sure have their peculiarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Vocative(Звательный) and Neo-Vocative. ([mentioned here](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/195/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%88-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BF-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BC-%E2%80%94-what-is-it-in-an-address))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Partitive(Частичный). [mentioned here](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#comment872_196) by Yours Sincerely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the so-called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Locative Case (Местный Падеж) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is usually united with the Prepositional Case, but for many words differs in form. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о лесе (Prep.) - в лесу(Loc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о саде (Prep.) - в саду(Loc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are other lesser-known cases? A comment to [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#196) goes as far as to claim there are 15 cases in Russian. It would be interesting and useful to list them in one place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="8831453d-da5c-4eec-bf48-6b6980ce9939" CreationDate="2012-06-28T12:48:51.317" UserId="104" Text="The Less-Known Russian Cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="8831453d-da5c-4eec-bf48-6b6980ce9939" CreationDate="2012-06-28T12:48:51.317" UserId="104" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="7de6cdee-c7c6-4eaa-af85-7977697ae27b" CreationDate="2012-06-28T12:52:28.953" UserId="194" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный)&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="25d145e2-2422-4a2d-98cd-3f975cf4981e" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:13:47.303" UserId="194" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: хочу выпить весь чай - хочу выпить немного чаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: жду письмо, отправленное вчера - жду письма от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     Example: пуля весит девять грамм - на этой шкале нет граммов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: это заняло три часа́ - не прошло и ча́са  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: избрать в президенты - стрелять в президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: в лесе много пользы - в лесу растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: прости, владыко - владыка света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Example: дядь, пойдем - хороший дядя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="d97a2995-d47b-45da-8596-a069c2c36d4e" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:20:12.477" UserId="194" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный (Nomenative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный  (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный (Patritive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** хочу выпить весь чай - хочу выпить немного чаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** жду письмо, отправленное вчера - жду письма от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I (Numerative I)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** пуля весит девять грамм - на этой шкале нет граммов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II (Numerative II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** это заняло три часа́ - не прошло и ча́са  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** избрать в президенты - стрелять в президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный (Lovative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** в лесе много пользы - в лесу растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** прости, владыко - владыка света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** дядь, пойдем - хороший дядя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="bc7d566f-8de5-45fb-a72c-7b2a3870359f" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:23:01.770" UserId="71" Comment="fixed title and links" Text="In schools, it is taught that Modern Russian has 6 cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Nominative (Именительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Genitive (Родительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dative (Дательный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Accusative (Винительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Instrumental/Ablative (Творительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Prepositional (Предложный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on RLU, there are mentions of other lesser-known cases that are perhaps not universally accepted as full-blown cases of Modern Russian, but sure have their peculiarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Vocative(Звательный) and Neo-Vocative. (Mentioned in the question [Миш, Кать, Ань, пап, мам — what is it in an address?][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Partitive(Частичный). mentioned [in this comment][2] by Anixx.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the so-called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Locative Case (Местный Падеж) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is usually united with the Prepositional Case, but for many words differs in form. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о лесе (Prep.) - в лесу(Loc.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; о саде (Prep.) - в саду(Loc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are other lesser-known cases? A comment to [this answer][3] goes as far as to claim there are 15 cases in Russian. It would be interesting and useful to list them in one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/195/71&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#comment872_196&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="bc7d566f-8de5-45fb-a72c-7b2a3870359f" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:23:01.770" UserId="71" Comment="fixed title and links" Text="What are the lesser known Russian cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1163" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="bc7d566f-8de5-45fb-a72c-7b2a3870359f" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:23:01.770" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 104 edit id of 104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="aa5a308e-20be-4377-b9c6-115d3dcc0b1f" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:24:46.917" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In schools, it is taught that Modern Russian has 6 cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Nominative (Именительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Genitive (Родительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dative (Дательный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Accusative (Винительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Instrumental/Ablative (Творительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Prepositional (Предложный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on RLU, there are mentions of other lesser-known cases that are perhaps not universally accepted as full-blown cases of Modern Russian, but sure have their peculiarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Vocative(Звательный) and Neo-Vocative. (Mentioned in the question [Миш, Кать, Ань, пап, мам — what is it in an address?][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Partitive(Частичный). mentioned [in this answer][3] by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the so-called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Locative Case (Местный Падеж) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is usually united with the Prepositional Case, but for many words differs in form. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о лесе (Prep.) - в лесу(Loc.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; о саде (Prep.) - в саду(Loc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are other lesser-known cases? [A comment by Anixx][2] goes as far as to claim there are 15 cases in Russian. It would be interesting and useful to list them in one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/195/71&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#comment872_196&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="a2e2e178-4e9c-4283-bb49-de8bbb8a9851" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:26:51.580" UserId="104" Comment="added 10 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный (Nomиnative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный  (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный(Частичный) (Patritive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** хочу выпить весь чай - хочу выпить немного чаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** жду письмо, отправленное вчера - жду письма от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I (Numerative I)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** пуля весит девять грамм - на этой шкале нет граммов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II (Numerative II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** это заняло три часа́ - не прошло и ча́са  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** избрать в президенты - стрелять в президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный (Lovative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** в лесе много пользы - в лесу растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** прости, владыко - владыка света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** дядь, пойдем - хороший дядя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="654bcded-6f18-40b8-8125-b472f7eb9627" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:28:51.797" UserId="122" Text="Is there any historical significance(or inherited complexity) that caused the complex plural forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="654bcded-6f18-40b8-8125-b472f7eb9627" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:28:51.797" UserId="122" Text="Plural form complexity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="654bcded-6f18-40b8-8125-b472f7eb9627" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:28:51.797" UserId="122" Text="|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="3c3abe98-4807-46ed-935e-a8d35096bd2a" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:29:08.907" UserId="194" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный  (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный (Patritive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** хочу выпить весь чай - хочу выпить немного чаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** жду письмо, отправленное вчера - жду письма от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный (Davive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I (Numerative I)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** пуля весит девять грамм - на этой шкале нет граммов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II (Numerative II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** это заняло три часа́ - не прошло и ча́са  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** избрать в президенты - стрелять в президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный (Lovative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** в лесе много пользы - в лесу растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** прости, владыко - владыка света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** дядь, пойдем - хороший дядя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1170" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="06d5a34e-01f2-45f3-860b-829653769454" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:33:50.357" UserId="104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|множественное-число|history|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="a20d5dbc-bb84-43cf-a9a4-a9733f246fc9" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:36:41.177" UserId="194" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 15):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный  (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный (Patritive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** хочу выпить весь чай - хочу выпить немного чаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** жду письмо, отправленное вчера - жду письма от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный (Davive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I (Numerative I)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** пуля весит девять грамм - на этой шкале нет граммов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II (Numerative II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** это заняло три часа́ - не прошло и ча́са  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** избрать в президенты - стрелять в президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный (Lovative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** в лесе много пользы - в лесу растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** не говорить правду - не говорить правды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** прости, владыко - владыка света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** дядь, пойдем - хороший дядя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="cefc3dd0-86a1-4115-98f8-3e250424c483" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:55:55.507" UserId="194" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Именительный (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Родительный  (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;   * Отделительный (Patritive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** хочу выпить весь чай - хочу выпить немного чаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Ждательный   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** жду письмо, отправленное вчера - жду письма от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Дательный (Dative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный I (Numerative I)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** пуля весит девять грамм - на этой шкале нет граммов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Счетный II (Numerative II)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** это заняло три часа́ - не прошло и ча́са  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;   * Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** избрать в президенты - стрелять в президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;   * Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;   * Местный (Lovative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** в лесе много пользы - в лесу растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Исходный (Ablative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example** вышел и́з лесу - гулял в лесý (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Лишительный (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** не говорить правду - не говорить правды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный старый (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** прости, владыко - владыка света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     **Example:** дядь, пойдем - хороший дядя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="2134e9a5-3c9f-4fb5-80d8-08bbffe3cf0c" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:57:54.330" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="In schools, it is taught that Modern Russian has 6 cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Nominative (Именительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Genitive (Родительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dative (Дательный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Accusative (Винительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Instrumental (Творительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Prepositional (Предложный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on RLU, there are mentions of other lesser-known cases that are perhaps not universally accepted as full-blown cases of Modern Russian, but sure have their peculiarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Vocative(Звательный) and Neo-Vocative. (Mentioned in the question [Миш, Кать, Ань, пап, мам — what is it in an address?][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Partitive(Частичный). mentioned [in this answer][3] by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the so-called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Locative Case (Местный Падеж) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is usually united with the Prepositional Case, but for many words differs in form. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о лесе (Prep.) - в лесу(Loc.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; о саде (Prep.) - в саду(Loc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are other lesser-known cases? [A comment by Anixx][2] goes as far as to claim there are 15 cases in Russian. It would be interesting and useful to list them in one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/195/71&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#comment872_196&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="bb0d4a57-d398-47ad-a39c-c01a046727b1" CreationDate="2012-06-28T14:31:29.823" UserId="104" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Patritive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не говорить правду (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не говорить правды (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; владыка (Nominative) света &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; прости, владыко ( Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдем (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="483c33f4-4dc9-4d1f-b872-ba1f6fdc0233" CreationDate="2012-06-28T14:35:45.083" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Patritive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не говорить правду (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не говорить правды (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; владыка (Nominative) света&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; прости, владыко (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдем (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="b2b27b54-e9e4-4a37-a4a0-f3ab8808a705" CreationDate="2012-06-28T15:10:39.157" UserId="134" Text="Historically, the numeral `два` required a special dual number (*два крыле*, *двѣ нозѣ*), and the other numerals were usual female nouns, which governed their objects just like any other female noun would: *пять монет / горсть монет*, same like *пятёрка монет*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, when the dual number fell, its forms corresponding to *два* were rethought as sg. gen., and the words *три* and *четыре* accepted this paradigm too (because they were not of third declension)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="c6c66058-6d5a-4fc9-a687-2c1a572f4378" CreationDate="2012-06-28T15:25:52.920" UserId="62" Comment="fixed some spelling, e.g., Channan ---&gt; Canaan" Text="Not sure if it answers your question, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has borrowed *very* much from CS, and CS was influenced by Russian too (though to much lesser extent of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There two aspects in understanding: grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CS words can be split into the following categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian loanwords (borrowed from CS into Russian) with Russian correspondense lost or rarely used, also words which have not diverged: *священник, время, плен, нужда, враг, одежда* etc. Those words are best comprehended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* CS words not diverged with Russian or with Russian parallels: *чаша, огнь, сребро, крава* etc. Those are understood quite easily (but of course better with some practice). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian loanwords which diverged in meaning: *колодезь/кладезь, горячий/горящий, текучий/текущий, сиять/зиять* etc. Those are comprehensible but can cause trouble in picking correct meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Words with Russian correspondense diverged in meaning but not form: *язык, глагол, муж, жена, честный, бремя* etc. Those words are comprehensible but can cause serious trouble due to conflicting Russian semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Words with no direct Russian correspondence: mostly functional parts of speech, but also pronouns, adverbs and some verbs and nouns too: *егда, иже, паки; брашно, вретище, мирница* etc. Those are the hardest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammar of CS is very different in all aspects: verbs govern other cases, tenses have changed completely etc, postfixes do not correspond to Russian ones etc. This is also a very   hard part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just picked a random Bible quote (Judith 5:9, in modern orthography):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рече Бог их: да изыдут от пришествия своего и да идут в землю Ханааню, и вселишася тамо, и умножишася златом и сребром и скоты многими зело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which in translation would give&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Бог их сказал, чтобы они вышли из места переселения и шли в землю Ханаанскую; они поселились там и весьма обогатились золотом, серебром и множеством скота.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, in KJV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then their God commanded them to depart from the place where they sojourned, and to go into the land of Canaan: where they dwelt, and were increased with gold and silver, and with very much cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changed tense in *сказал*&#xD;&#xA;* Changed prefix, tense and government in *вышли*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пришествие* was loaned and changed meaning&#xD;&#xA;* Changed tense in *идут*&#xD;&#xA;* *Ханаанскую* changed suffix and postfix&#xD;&#xA;* *поселились* changed tense and prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *Умножать* was loaned and changed meaning; also tense&#xD;&#xA;* *Зело* is incomprehensible in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an &quot;average&quot; Russian would probably understand the following: God did something and there was a trip (by someone) to somewhere called *земля Ханааня* and there was a settlement there which dealt somehow with gold, silver and lots of cattle (or probably rude people)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1179" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="c6c66058-6d5a-4fc9-a687-2c1a572f4378" CreationDate="2012-06-28T15:25:52.920" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 134 edit id of 106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="e447e750-2497-410d-9e85-8e370de0f516" CreationDate="2012-06-28T16:42:03.343" UserId="38" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Because you have to chase the pills down with water. Eating would also suggest chewing the pills rather than swallowing them. You can also say 'Глотать таблетки' (Swallow pills), but it implies that there are quite a few pills being taken. Another way to say it is 'Принимать лекарства' (Take medicine), but it is not specific to pills; 'Принимать таблкетки' seems slightly weird colloquially, but is often used in instructions that come with pills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="53614778-5f12-4752-894e-4c5b59cb6f8b" CreationDate="2012-06-28T17:33:13.123" UserId="115" Text="In addition to the reasons given by @kotekzot, `пить лекарства` (literally &quot;to drink medicine&quot;) is often used to mean &quot;to take medicine&quot;. This does seem to suggest that medicine was typically liquid and that the word `пить` was transferred to pills, since you have to wash them down with water anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="7c0e72b6-f59f-418c-9af0-c4e72e84f2c5" CreationDate="2012-06-28T18:35:42.543" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Partitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни дня без строчки (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни шагу назад (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господь (Nominative) бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господи, боже мой (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдем (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="70f5a4e0-0f4e-4805-a67b-c010f30b3c84" CreationDate="2012-06-28T19:17:38.090" UserId="104" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Частичный) (Partitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни дня без строчки (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни шагу назад (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господь (Nominative) бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господи, боже мой (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдем (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="952a48fb-e4f9-46e5-bc1e-222785d28b9b" CreationDate="2012-06-28T20:23:31.827" UserId="39" Text="    Приносим извинения за доставленные неудобства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be thought of as dropping the letter into the mailbox and forgetting about it. This is a passive form of saying &quot;yup. i screwed up. move on.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Просим извинить за доставленные неудобства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be thought of as delivering the letter to someone and waiting for their signature. In this case you are more active in seeking forgiveness. You are also actively asking them to take an action (forgive you)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="16c077d0-e713-4cea-a956-b61ee66115e3" CreationDate="2012-06-28T20:30:45.910" UserId="23" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="The answer by Helgi explains everything very well, but I would also add to his list `аварийный отказ программы` or simply `отказ программы`. It's not an absolutely equivalent term, but it can be used as a translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="6f35c09c-4c4b-4762-836b-a9d462d3f77d" CreationDate="2012-06-28T20:32:58.420" UserId="194" Text="There are not only those starting with а- but also those starting with е-. This is because the regular sound changes between Proto-Indo-European and modern Russian include the iotization of the first vowels a and e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="397941fc-c217-47af-a805-08260338a001" CreationDate="2012-06-28T20:34:23.690" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218442241843281922" />
  <row Id="1190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="403ab4cf-2e64-4228-9b0f-39d5e0ece6eb" CreationDate="2012-06-28T22:14:45.317" UserId="134" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Historically, the numeral `два` required a special dual number (*два крыле*, *двѣ нозѣ*), and the other numerals were usual female nouns, which governed their objects just like any other female noun would: *пять монет / горсть монет*, similar to *пятёрка монет*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, when the dual number fell, its forms corresponding to *два* were rethought as sg. gen., and the words *три* and *четыре* accepted this paradigm too (because they were not of third declension, and were influenced by paradigm of demonstrative pronoun *те* in plural)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="c1c0b2c7-ab95-4c79-a258-72e35aecf42d" CreationDate="2012-06-28T23:27:57.713" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="There are not only those starting with а- but also those starting with э-. This is because the regular sound changes between Proto-Indo-European and modern Russian include the iotization of the first vowels a and e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1193" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="50abcb9a-a765-44f3-8cdf-1599248b792f" CreationDate="2012-06-28T23:34:23.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218487541828038656" />
  <row Id="1194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="471a6647-d259-42ca-8596-74243a675d70" CreationDate="2012-06-29T00:03:18.713" UserId="194" Text="You can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я в экстазе от новой работы** :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But more colloquial form would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я в восторге от новой работы**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="82854aa4-37c1-4e52-8713-6d0503683dcf" CreationDate="2012-06-29T00:32:59.020" UserId="194" Text="I think &quot;про&quot; implies certain narrative or a certain concrete thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала про тебя, что ты алкоголик - I thought about you that you're a drunkard. (&quot;о&quot; is bad here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне рассказывали о тебе - I was told about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне рассказывали про тебя ужасные вещи - I was told bad things about you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also say that whеn referring to a person not introduced before, you better use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали про своих молодых людей - The girls were telling about their boyfriends (this kind of implies that you did not know about them before or at least they are not familiar to you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали о моем молодом человеке - The girls were telling about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but when there is narrative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали плохие вещи про моего молодого человека - The girls were telling bad things about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали про плохое поведение моего молодого человека - The girls were telling about bad behavior of my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if you learn something new and concrete, you usually use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you love a man and just want to say that you about him and being with him, you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you thought what to do with him (or with your relations) then you would use &quot;про&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала про тебя... Я думаю, нам лучше расстаться. - I thought what to do with you (with our relations). I think we better to depart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;о&quot; implyes intimete thoughts about a person while &quot;про&quot; implyes some distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думал про тебя. Я думаю, мы найдем применение твоим способностям даже не смотря на то, что других сотрудников уволят. - I thought about [what to do with] you. I think we can make use of your talents, even though other stuff is going to be fired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думал о тебе - тебе будет нелегко после смерти матери. - I thought about you. I think it will be difficult for you after the death of your mother. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="9ec5b28e-a023-4169-b99d-9d930b60b6db" CreationDate="2012-06-29T01:16:47.140" UserId="194" Text="Не знаю, на сколько это важно/полезно, но...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть, это и не важно, но...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1198" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="31b0c056-f6f7-46e5-be1a-b9f36ea1a9de" CreationDate="2012-06-29T05:34:23.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218578137515180032" />
  <row Id="1201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="14f94436-1041-4a02-80c4-6a3e8ecf9de1" CreationDate="2012-06-29T07:58:19.017" UserId="185" Text="The question comes from the discussion [here][1] and is a little bit geeky =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was suggested that there may be a new case in Russian: Счетный (Numerative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an instance of this case, [Anixx][2] gave the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems to me that the word &quot;грамм&quot; is two different lexemes with different paradigms. These words mean different things in the examples above: one is a unit of weight and the other one is a mark on a scale. It is two different words, but both are in Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First word: &quot;грамм&quot; - a unit of weight, Genitive: &quot;грамм&quot; (Alternative &quot;граммов&quot; is also possible, but in my opinion &quot;грамм&quot; sounds better).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second word: &quot;грамм&quot; - a mark on a scale, Genitive: &quot;граммов&quot; (&quot;грамм&quot; is not acceptable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: do you think that there is such case as Numerative? If yes, give more examples, if no, do you think that the separation of the word &quot;грамм&quot; on two lexemes is justified?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/409/185&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/194/anixx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="14f94436-1041-4a02-80c4-6a3e8ecf9de1" CreationDate="2012-06-29T07:58:19.017" UserId="185" Text="&quot;нет грамм&quot; vs. &quot;нет граммов&quot;: a new case or two different words with separate paradigms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="14f94436-1041-4a02-80c4-6a3e8ecf9de1" CreationDate="2012-06-29T07:58:19.017" UserId="185" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="fe84ac69-9eec-456b-864a-9697dc4fb978" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:04:26.233" UserId="113" Text="In many cases, you can find that words which initially appear to be absolute synonyms actually have slight differences in meaning, so that one can be used in a specific setting while the other cannot. Is there such a difference for `кидать` and `бросать`, or are they completely interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="fe84ac69-9eec-456b-864a-9697dc4fb978" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:04:26.233" UserId="113" Text="Is there a difference between кидать and бросать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="fe84ac69-9eec-456b-864a-9697dc4fb978" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:04:26.233" UserId="113" Text="|synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="d11b4631-fa22-4adb-95f0-5a4e99fa6e7f" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:21:05.627" UserId="185" Text="Is there a standard Russian pronunciation? &#xD;&#xA;Or is there only a bunch of accents, different for different parts of the country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there was once a standard way to pronounce words. All Soviet actors were supposed to learn to pronounce endings of some adjectives without palatalization. For example, they would say стро[гы]й, not стро[г'и]й. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something like this now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="d11b4631-fa22-4adb-95f0-5a4e99fa6e7f" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:21:05.627" UserId="185" Text="Pronunciation norm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="d11b4631-fa22-4adb-95f0-5a4e99fa6e7f" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:21:05.627" UserId="185" Text="|произношение|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1210" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="479aa593-67b1-43a2-a639-31db38b64dfd" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:34:23.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218623436774309888" />
  <row Id="1211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="85d4d4ab-cef0-4034-bc64-e18f6237ced0" CreationDate="2012-06-29T08:59:59.650" UserId="134" Text="*Бросить курить* (to give up smoking) but not *кинуть курить*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="a78a7da9-d7bf-4cc8-9003-ae93821615c3" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:14:29.747" UserId="185" Text="Бросить can be employed in metaphorical cases such as &quot;бросить взгляд&quot; (cast a gaze), &quot;кинуть взгляд&quot; is weird (for me). More examples (from Lingvo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;бросать обвинение — hurl an accusation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;бросать реплику — fling (out) a remark&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;бросить (обидные) слова кому-либо в лицо - fling (nasty) words at somebody \ into somebody's teeth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="88f3a007-57d6-48d5-a140-9d37cc7290f6" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:33:33.460" UserId="185" Text="Does anybody know good exercises to learn to pronounce /ы/, /ч/, /щ/ and palatalized consonants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="88f3a007-57d6-48d5-a140-9d37cc7290f6" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:33:33.460" UserId="185" Text="Pronunciation exercizes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="88f3a007-57d6-48d5-a140-9d37cc7290f6" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:33:33.460" UserId="185" Text="|произношение|обучение|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="d34bc12b-eb0d-43e6-9fb4-f6695130022c" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:39:12.543" UserId="47" Text="*Бросать* means &quot;to leave, get rid of, or stop doing something&quot; e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бросить работу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бросить курить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бросить семью&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (с)бросить бомбу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a fleur of a passiveness in this word. *Бросить реплику* or *бросить взгляд* means to say or to look at smth. briefly, without much attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *кинуть* on the contrary implies active action. That's why *кинуть кого-то* is a really bad thing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, there are exceptions. One can say *бросать гранату* and mean a really active and thoughtful deed, not &quot;to get rid of a grenade&quot; :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="94ddc57a-627e-4075-a752-ac30501785f3" CreationDate="2012-06-29T09:39:14.000" UserId="185" Text="I guess I have figured out what feels wrong with &quot;просим извинить&quot;. &quot;Извинения&quot; is not something that you ask for, it is something that you give. If you want to ask for something, it would rather be &quot;прощение&quot;, i.e. &quot;Прошу прощения&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is believed that you choose &quot;приносить извинения&quot; when you are about to break bad and you choose &quot;просить прощения&quot; when you have already misbehaved or caused trouble." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="3e776652-57d5-46c5-a4d5-8f4c72b65b55" CreationDate="2012-06-29T10:14:54.603" UserId="62" Comment="edited some of the English." Text="I think &quot;про&quot; implies certain narrative or a certain concrete thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала про тебя, что ты алкоголик - I thought about you that you're a drunkard. (&quot;о&quot; is bad here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне рассказывали о тебе - I was told about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне рассказывали про тебя ужасные вещи - I was told bad things about you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also say that whеn referring to a person not introduced before, you better use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали про своих молодых людей - The girls were talking about their boyfriends (this kind of implies that you did not know about them before or at least they are not familiar to you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали о моем молодом человеке - The girls were talking about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but when there is narrative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали плохие вещи про моего молодого человека - The girls were saying bad things about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девушки рассказывали про плохое поведение моего молодого человека - The girls were talking about the bad behavior of my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if you learn something new and concrete, you usually use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you love a man and just want to say that you are thinking about him and being with him, you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you thought what to do with him (or with your relations) then you would use &quot;про&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала про тебя... Я думаю, нам лучше расстаться. - I thought about what to do with you (with our relations). I think we better part ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;о&quot; implies intimate thoughts about a person while &quot;про&quot; implies some distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думал про тебя. Я думаю, мы найдем применение твоим способностям даже не смотря на то, что других сотрудников уволят. - I thought about [what to do with] you. I think we can make use of your talents, even though other coworkers are going to be fired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думал о тебе - тебе будет нелегко после смерти матери. - I thought about you. I think it will be difficult for you after the death of your mother. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1221" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="3e776652-57d5-46c5-a4d5-8f4c72b65b55" CreationDate="2012-06-29T10:14:54.603" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 194 edit id of 107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1222" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="215fecc4-1b84-445e-b407-58c499a54e30" CreationDate="2012-06-29T10:32:57.627" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation exercises" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="264a855d-2753-47a0-adcc-7fb972b33ed0" CreationDate="2012-06-29T10:41:02.130" UserId="173" Text="It is not suitable for everyone, but an analytical mind will find valuable information in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Russian&#xD;&#xA;- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA#Consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite theoretical, though.&#xD;&#xA;Allows to have a deep understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For auditive memory, you obviously need something else, this is more something for people working with visual memory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="45610a26-fc84-4fbd-96df-b46bd01365b3" CreationDate="2012-06-29T10:58:06.523" UserId="134" Text="Zaliznyak in *О понимании термина &quot;падеж&quot;* argues that semantics of the declined noun should never be taken into account when defining cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покажем эту связь на примере. Если при описании русского языка принята классическая 6-падежная схема (и, следовательно, например, у номинатемы *сад* в клетке предложного падежа находятся сегменты сад и саду), то невозможно дать никаких стандартных правил управления, в частности, для ситуации S1, (контекст «говорить о...»; семантическая роль «предмет разговора») или ситуации S2, (контекст «находиться в...»; семантическаи роль «место, где нечто находится»). В самом деле, нельзя сказать *говорить о саду* или *находиться в виде*. Это значит, что ситуации S1, и S1„ совместимые с номинатемой *сад*, не допускают для нее предложного падежа (поскольку каждая из них допускает лишь один сегмент из соответствующей клетки). S1 и S2 не допускают для номинатемы *сад* также никакого другого падежа. Следовательно, никакие стандартные правила управления для этих ситуаций невозможны. Если же признать существование двух предложных падежей, то для S1 и S2, становятся возможными простые правила управления: S1 всегда допускает обычный (1-й) предложный падеж; S2 всегда допускает 2-й предложный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also other measure units with a null postfix in what here is called numerative: *ампер, вольт, моль, ангстрем, ренгтен*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introducing a separate lexeme for each of them in a sense &quot;applied unit vs. abstract unit&quot; (and not doing the same for, say, *литр* or *метр*) would be too far on the wrong side of Occam's razor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="653a9c58-1daa-4853-9ff8-88c5a17cf5e7" CreationDate="2012-06-29T11:08:54.033" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Zaliznyak in *О понимании термина &quot;падеж&quot;* argues that semantics of the declined noun should never be taken into account when defining cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покажем эту связь на примере. Если при описании русского языка принята классическая 6-падежная схема (и, следовательно, например, у номинатемы *сад* в клетке предложного падежа находятся сегменты сад и саду), то невозможно дать никаких стандартных правил управления, в частности, для ситуации S1, (контекст «говорить о...»; семантическая роль «предмет разговора») или ситуации S2, (контекст «находиться в...»; семантическаи роль «место, где нечто находится»). В самом деле, нельзя сказать *говорить о саду* или *находиться в виде*. Это значит, что ситуации S1 и S2, совместимые с номинатемой *сад*, не допускают для нее предложного падежа (поскольку каждая из них допускает лишь один сегмент из соответствующей клетки). S1 и S2 не допускают для номинатемы *сад* также никакого другого падежа. Следовательно, никакие стандартные правила управления для этих ситуаций невозможны. Если же признать существование двух предложных падежей, то для S1 и S2, становятся возможными простые правила управления: S1 всегда допускает обычный (1-й) предложный падеж; S2 всегда допускает 2-й предложный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also other measure units with a null postfix in what here is called numerative: *ампер, вольт, моль, ангстрем, ренгтен*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introducing a separate lexeme for each of them in a sense &quot;applied unit vs. abstract unit&quot; (and not doing the same for, say, *литр* or *метр*) would be too far on the wrong side of Occam's razor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="7d32de42-9917-461e-b634-18d7fe518351" CreationDate="2012-06-29T11:34:23.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218668734397689856" />
  <row Id="1227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="8118c2e0-3757-4d4a-8ee1-08f46cf12dbc" CreationDate="2012-06-29T13:53:32.290" UserId="185" Text="When are bird legs called &quot;ноги&quot; and when are they called &quot;лапы&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see that it is different for different birds, ноги for a stork, лапы for a sparrow. Sometimes you can use both word for the legs of the same bird, for instance, куриные ножки and куриная лапа, but there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="8118c2e0-3757-4d4a-8ee1-08f46cf12dbc" CreationDate="2012-06-29T13:53:32.290" UserId="185" Text="How to refer to bird legs: нога or лапа?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="8118c2e0-3757-4d4a-8ee1-08f46cf12dbc" CreationDate="2012-06-29T13:53:32.290" UserId="185" Text="|vocabulary|выбор-слова|single-word-requests|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="ba726389-1e57-4b1d-a3ab-12edb6dd9263" CreationDate="2012-06-29T14:00:53.123" UserId="206" Text="Your question seems to be assuming that singular and plural are the only [grammatical numbers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number). This assumptions isn't true for most Slavic languages, in particularly it isn't true for Russian. When you are counting things then the rules are way more complicated, e.g. there is [Dual](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_%28grammatical_number%29): два грамма, двух грамм, двум граммам, два грамма, двумя граммами, о двух граммах. If you look closely, this declination doesn't match either the singular or the plural declination of the word грамм. As you noticed, some words also have a special [numeral form](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%87%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0) for numbers other than 2, 3, 4 and it also has its own declination rules: девять грамм, девяти граммов, девяти граммам, девять грамм, девятью граммами, о девяти граммах. This declination mostly matches plural with the exception of Nominative and Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up: there is only one word but grammatical numbers other than singular and plural make declination more complicated than what you learn in school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="a87247e7-9697-4f8d-80e2-a82bcb176048" CreationDate="2012-06-29T14:11:02.253" UserId="206" Text="If you look up &quot;ноги аиста&quot; and &quot;лапы аиста&quot; on Google you will find both forms. Looking closely, there is a difference in usage - a common attribute for &quot;ноги&quot; is &quot;длинные&quot; (long), a common attribute for &quot;лапы&quot; is &quot;когтистые&quot; (clawed). And this is a good hint for the difference between the two words: &quot;ноги&quot; actually means &quot;legs&quot; whereas &quot;лапы&quot; means &quot;feet&quot;. So these words are related but no synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="d2421076-7b5d-4a58-bc92-5f7bdce69363" CreationDate="2012-06-29T15:37:24.830" UserId="173" Text="First, try saying the plural of both words: `кон -&gt; коны` (accent in &quot;ы&quot;), `конь -&gt; кони` (accent on &quot;o&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now try to separate the word `кони` into two phonemes (phonetic parts) - `кон` and `и`. You should feel the lack of the softness at the end of the first phoneme. Now combine again, and try to keep the soft `н`, but without the `ee` sound produced by the letter `и`. If you still have difficulty, try adding the letter `и` to words with the soft sign; gradually, shorten it as much as possible. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="8d3515ec-644a-4ac4-b708-3474a33027dc" CreationDate="2012-06-29T16:27:46.780" UserId="173" Comment="typo correction" Text="Soft sign has no pronunciation. The letter it follows is softened." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1236" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="8d3515ec-644a-4ac4-b708-3474a33027dc" CreationDate="2012-06-29T16:27:46.780" Comment="Proposed by 173 approved by 104 edit id of 108" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="d021bf4a-9bd7-4c5c-bbbd-a8599fb174f8" CreationDate="2012-06-29T18:37:23.860" UserId="194" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive    Numerative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;годов       лет   &#xD;&#xA;людей       человек   &#xD;&#xA;вольтов     вольт   &#xD;&#xA;амперов     ампер   &#xD;&#xA;граммов     грамм   &#xD;&#xA;битов       бит   &#xD;&#xA;байтов      байт   &#xD;&#xA;каратов     карат   &#xD;&#xA;эргов       эрг   &#xD;&#xA;гауссов     гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;радианов    радиан   &#xD;&#xA;кельвинов   кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;стерадианов стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;мегагерцев  мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;ангстремов  ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;микронов    микрон   &#xD;&#xA;децибеллов  децибелл   &#xD;&#xA;гранов      гран   &#xD;&#xA;рентгенов   рентген   &#xD;&#xA;бэров       бэр   &#xD;&#xA;баклажанов  баклажан   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нет драгунов    рота драгун      &#xD;&#xA;нет гусаров     рота гусар       &#xD;&#xA;нет уланов      рота улан        &#xD;&#xA;нет кирасиров   рота кирасир     &#xD;&#xA;нет сарацинов   рота сарацин     &#xD;&#xA;нет гренадёров  рота гренадёр    &#xD;&#xA;нет кадетов     рота кадет       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нет сапогов    пара сапог       &#xD;&#xA;нет чулков     пара чулок       &#xD;&#xA;нет валенков   пара валенок     &#xD;&#xA;нет носков     пара носок       &#xD;&#xA;нет ботов      пара бот&#xD;&#xA;нет рельсов    пара рельс&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="ee7705fd-499c-404e-a225-00207c2a9e12" CreationDate="2012-06-29T18:52:48.380" UserId="194" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive    Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    годов       лет   &#xD;&#xA;    людей       человек   &#xD;&#xA;    вольтов     вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    амперов     ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    граммов     грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    битов       бит   &#xD;&#xA;    байтов      байт   &#xD;&#xA;    каратов     карат   &#xD;&#xA;    эргов       эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    гауссов     гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    радианов    радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    кельвинов   кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    стерадианов стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    мегагерцев  мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    ангстремов  ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    микронов    микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    децибеллов  децибелл   &#xD;&#xA;    гранов      гран   &#xD;&#xA;    рентгенов   рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    бэров       бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    баклажанов  баклажан   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгунов    рота драгун      &#xD;&#xA;    нет гусаров     рота гусар       &#xD;&#xA;    нет уланов      рота улан        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасиров   рота кирасир     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацинов   рота сарацин     &#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёров  рота гренадёр    &#xD;&#xA;    нет кадетов     рота кадет &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапогов    пара сапог       &#xD;&#xA;    нет чулков     пара чулок       &#xD;&#xA;    нет валенков   пара валенок     &#xD;&#xA;    нет носков     пара носок       &#xD;&#xA;    нет ботов      пара бот&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельсов    пара рельс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="372ee906-0ba3-4dd6-ad8f-15674368fcd2" CreationDate="2012-06-29T18:59:43.783" UserId="194" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive    Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    годов       лет   &#xD;&#xA;    людей       человек   &#xD;&#xA;    вольтов     вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    амперов     ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    граммов     грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    битов       бит   &#xD;&#xA;    байтов      байт   &#xD;&#xA;    каратов     карат   &#xD;&#xA;    эргов       эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    гауссов     гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    радианов    радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    кельвинов   кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    стерадианов стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    мегагерцев  мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    ангстремов  ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    микронов    микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    децибеллов  децибелл   &#xD;&#xA;    гранов      гран   &#xD;&#xA;    рентгенов   рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    бэров       бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    баклажанов  баклажан   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="50e98f50-d200-486b-8851-e162206817dc" CreationDate="2012-06-29T19:06:26.537" UserId="194" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибеллов  пять децибелл   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажанов  пять баклажан   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="1cd45421-4d3f-4f2d-8861-eed3af10285a" CreationDate="2012-06-29T19:15:38.180" UserId="194" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает разов       пять раз&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибеллов  пять децибелл   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажанов  пять баклажан   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="5167a307-03b6-40fd-96b3-035087991ade" CreationDate="2012-06-29T19:16:46.487" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает разов       пять раз&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибелов   пять децибел   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажанов  пять баклажан   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="92bc95d0-a819-44b0-935a-0ec3aba6ee97" CreationDate="2012-06-29T19:26:33.827" UserId="194" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибелов   пять децибел   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает разов       пять раз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vegetables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажан    пять баклажанов&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает помидор     пять помидоров &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="193e14c2-707b-469b-b0af-671d33813a3f" CreationDate="2012-06-29T19:42:55.687" UserId="194" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибелов   пять децибел   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает разов       пять раз&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает аршинов     пять аршин&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ваттов      пять ватт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vegetables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажан    пять баклажанов&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает помидор     пять помидоров &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1246" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="2d9aac4b-5733-46d7-bd2a-56de27de23d4" CreationDate="2012-06-29T20:34:24.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/218804632670056448" />
  <row Id="1247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="6b804bf1-b7df-4a43-8cfe-f6b0f2cf3365" CreationDate="2012-06-30T05:11:09.127" UserId="156" Text="The main difference is that &quot;ноги&quot; is legs in general and &quot;лапы&quot; are [either legs or feet of an animal](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EB%E0%EF%E0&amp;all=x). So, technically you can use always &quot;ноги&quot;, and it will be correct. It might **feel** incorrect in some cases for a native speaker, but only because it is much more common to refer to, for example, dog's legs as &quot;лапы&quot;, and not because it is wrong. As a general rule I'd advise to use &quot;лапы&quot; when talking about animals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="38aacb8c-708d-4a41-9282-a0dcb47163bd" CreationDate="2012-06-30T08:23:19.573" UserId="156" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="The main difference is that &quot;ноги&quot; is legs in general and &quot;лапы&quot; are [either legs or feet of an animal](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EB%E0%EF%E0&amp;all=x). So, technically you can use always &quot;ноги&quot;, and it will be correct. It might **feel** incorrect in some cases for a native speaker, but only because it is much more common to refer to, for example, dog's legs as &quot;лапы&quot;, and not because it is wrong. As a general rule I'd advise to use &quot;лапы&quot; when talking about animals, unless these are hoofed animals. For hoofed animals &quot;ноги&quot; and &quot;копыта&quot; are more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="595c50e0-713f-4f56-855d-11ccd4d7460b" CreationDate="2012-06-30T10:41:36.407" UserId="194" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибелов   пять децибел   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает разов       пять раз&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает аршинов     пять аршин&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ваттов      пять ватт&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гектаров    пять гектар&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vegetables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажан    пять баклажанов&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает помидор     пять помидоров &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1250" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="0e83a34e-cce9-4c6f-9055-1f56d18ff914" CreationDate="2012-06-30T11:34:24.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219031125258022913" />
  <row Id="1251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="06068e6d-742f-4cde-b0fd-07b5199b0f8a" CreationDate="2012-06-30T12:03:31.623" UserId="104" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I think &quot;про&quot; implies certain narrative or a certain concrete thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала про тебя, что ты алкоголик - I thought about you that you're a drunkard. (&quot;о&quot; is bad here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне рассказывали о тебе - I was told about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне рассказывали про тебя ужасные вещи - I was told bad things about you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also say that whеn referring to a person not introduced before, you better use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали про своих молодых людей - The girls were talking about their boyfriends (this kind of implies that you did not know about them before or at least they are not familiar to you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали о моем молодом человеке - The girls were talking about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but when there is narrative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали плохие вещи про моего молодого человека - The girls were saying bad things about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали про плохое поведение моего молодого человека - The girls were talking about the bad behavior of my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if you learn something new and concrete, you usually use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you love a man and just want to say that you are thinking about him and being with him, you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you thought what to do with him (or with your relations) then you would use &quot;про&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала про тебя... Я думаю, нам лучше расстаться. - I thought about what to do with you (with our relations). I think we better part ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;о&quot; implies intimate thoughts about a person while &quot;про&quot; implies some distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думал про тебя. Я думаю, мы найдем применение твоим способностям даже не смотря на то, что других сотрудников уволят. - I thought about [what to do with] you. I think we can make use of your talents, even though other coworkers are going to be fired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думал о тебе - тебе будет нелегко после смерти матери. - I thought about you. I think it will be difficult for you after the death of your mother. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="436" RevisionGUID="7fbdff50-2f21-4ec0-9984-c523c8a26854" CreationDate="2012-06-30T16:09:48.013" UserId="185" Text="It is only a partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have learned a useful trick which helps to learn, how to pronounce \ы\. The idea is to try to pronounce back consonants with [i:] sound, e.g. &quot;ки&quot;,  and then move one's tongue as if one wants to swallow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="3e606dab-2c25-4976-807f-0fd67c91f321" CreationDate="2012-06-30T18:41:03.927" UserId="208" Text="I've seen copies of *War and Peace* with the old orthography. Does the old form carry a different connotation or meaning than the new? Is there a nuance in pronounciation that indicates awareness of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="3e606dab-2c25-4976-807f-0fd67c91f321" CreationDate="2012-06-30T18:41:03.927" UserId="208" Text="Is it true that the spelling reform changed the meaning of 'War and Peace'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="3e606dab-2c25-4976-807f-0fd67c91f321" CreationDate="2012-06-30T18:41:03.927" UserId="208" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="0883bbcf-8da3-4932-879b-caf736983b2f" CreationDate="2012-06-30T19:14:39.367" UserId="134" Text="No, it's not true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has the same word (*мир*) for *world* and *peace*. Currently, they are homographes as well, but in the old orthography they were written *мiръ* and *миръ*, accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an urban legend that the original meaning of the title was *War and the World*, not *War and Peace* which was lost after the reform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All known publications have the title written *Война и миръ*. There was a typo in *Brockhaus &amp; Efron*, the largest Russian encyclopaedia of the time, which was possibly a source of the legend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jRzwC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the bottom line has the title written correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can read more about this (in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote a poem in 1915 which was called *Война и мiръ*, a pun on the title of Tolstoy's work. The pun was lost with the orthography reform.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.peace-and-world.narod.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="45c181de-53e1-4127-954c-2c11777b105f" CreationDate="2012-06-30T19:19:43.903" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="No, it's not true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has the same word (*мир*) for *world* and *peace*. Currently, they are homographes as well, but in the old orthography they were written *мiръ* and *миръ*, accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an urban legend that the original meaning of the title was *War and the World*, not *War and Peace* which was lost after the reform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All known publications have the title written *Война и миръ*. There was a typo in *Brockhaus &amp; Efron*, the largest Russian encyclopaedia of the time, which was possibly a source of the legend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jRzwC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the bottom line has the title written correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can read more about this (in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote a poem in 1915 which was called *Война и мiръ*, a pun on the title of Tolstoy's work. The pun was lost with the orthography reform.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.peace-and-world.narod.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="5bdc38c0-8226-4a3d-9225-21f0015c5e09" CreationDate="2012-06-30T19:44:08.280" UserId="134" Comment="edited body; added 2 characters in body" Text="No, it's not true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has the same word (*мир*) for *world* and *peace*. Currently, they are homographes as well, but in the old orthography they were written *мiръ* and *миръ*, accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an urban legend that the original meaning of the title was *War and the World*, not *War and Peace* which was lost after the reform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All known publications have the title written *Война и миръ*. There was a typo in *Brockhaus &amp; Efron*, the largest Russian encyclopaedia of the time, which is possibly the source for the legend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jRzwC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the bottom line has the title written correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can read more about this (in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote a poem in 1915 which was titled *Война и мiръ*, a pun on the title of Tolstoy's work. The pun was lost with the orthography reform.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.peace-and-world.narod.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="319ec151-d2db-439e-9bab-4e33d7cefb1c" CreationDate="2012-06-30T19:54:50.330" UserId="134" Comment="added 202 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="No, it's not true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has two homonymous words (both pronounced *мир*) for *world* and *peace*. Currently, they are homographes as well, but in the old orthography they were written *мiръ* and *миръ*, accordingly. The is one more word, *мѵро* (chrism), spelt using the third version of Russian `i`, and in sg. gen. (*мѵра*, *мира*, *мiра*) all three words were homophones but not homographes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an urban legend that the original meaning of the title was *War and the World*, not *War and Peace* which was lost after the reform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All known publications have the title spelt as *Война и миръ*. There was a typo in *Brockhaus &amp; Efron*, the largest Russian encyclopaedia of the time, which is possibly the source for the legend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jRzwC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the bottom line has the title written correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can read more about this (in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote a poem in 1915 which was titled *Война и мiръ*, a pun on the title of Tolstoy's work. The pun was lost with the orthography reform.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.peace-and-world.narod.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1260" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="ca69e6aa-b2f0-4015-a477-ccb0f8b98df9" CreationDate="2012-06-30T23:34:24.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219212321757736960" />
  <row Id="1261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d15b3ca7-7818-4176-8409-940e169d521f" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:19:39.487" UserId="131" Text="I figured out through its usage and some Google-Fu, that гладить против шерсти means rubbing the wrong way, but can someone explain to me why &quot;touch/press against the wool&quot;? Where did this phrase come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d15b3ca7-7818-4176-8409-940e169d521f" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:19:39.487" UserId="131" Text="What did the phrase гладить против шерсти come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d15b3ca7-7818-4176-8409-940e169d521f" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:19:39.487" UserId="131" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="fec68cd2-2066-44e0-b771-0d71dc008ccc" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:32:23.027" UserId="213" Text="They also say: &quot;Не гладь кошку против шерсти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Cats don't like it when you rub them in the direction opposite to the one the fur grows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1265" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="b076775b-56de-4fc2-908c-c126a6e7db28" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:42:45.177" UserId="131" Comment="edited title" Text="Where did the phrase гладить против шерсти come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="9b7b0727-b999-4623-bced-0948456d272d" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:54:48.023" UserId="131" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="d53e46f7-a7fe-49be-8d23-095439154ef9" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:58:35.647" UserId="131" Text="I've heard of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Курица - не птица, баба - не человек!&#xD;&#xA; - Курица - не птица, Украина|Монголия|и.т.д. - не заграница!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;any other interesting ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="d53e46f7-a7fe-49be-8d23-095439154ef9" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:58:35.647" UserId="131" Text="What are some expressions that starts with курица - не птица?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="d53e46f7-a7fe-49be-8d23-095439154ef9" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:58:35.647" UserId="131" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="df37aa10-86e9-4bb9-928b-665b223bed09" CreationDate="2012-07-01T05:34:23.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219302914177515520" />
  <row Id="1275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="d0153011-6ef1-4668-98f9-7bdfe8cadf09" CreationDate="2012-07-01T07:18:27.127" UserId="47" Text="I've heard only *Болгария — не заграница*, actually. It has a political background. In the Soviet time, &quot;reliable&quot; people were allowed to go abroad, *заграницу*. However, ordinary people had practically no chance to go anywhere outside the socialistic camp, including Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Cuba and some other. And only prominent (actors, musicians, sportsmen) and &quot;very reliable&quot; (usually---KGB- or politburo-related) people could go to such countries as Austria, England, France etc. GDR (DDR) was considered somewhat in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rating was based on the consumer experience. In the Soviet Union, there were almost no interesting consumer goods to buy. Going abroad was giving a chance to bring something nice. Obviously, from England or France, with their free market, one could bring nicer things than from planned economy-ruled Poland and Bulgaria. Hence, to the question 'Have you ever been abroad?' there might be a proud answer 'Yes, in Bulgaria' and the scornful *Болгария — не заграница*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, Mongolia could also be a subject of this phrase, however I never heard it. Not many people were going in that direction. Ukraine was not a foreign country at all, since it was inside the USSR. May be, now people apply this phrase to Ukraine as well, but then it's probably a joke. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1276" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="cdd2f34e-fb5d-4f9c-a4a7-1a20bf1edb55" CreationDate="2012-07-01T08:34:24.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219348217836474368" />
  <row Id="1277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="1f20c71b-2703-4476-9ff1-81af527c0a81" CreationDate="2012-07-01T09:56:39.600" UserId="134" Text="*Курица не птица* is an adage (*поговорка*) , a short metaphorical saying, which, unlike proverb (*пословица*), lacks a morale on its own and is used to emphasize another sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used in the form *курица не птица, А не Б* (meaning that `А` is a `Б` only formally, lacking the essential featured of `Б`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions it as *курица не птица, баба не человек* which is a proverb and is probably the origin for this adage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also common are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *… [студентка] (химичка, физичка*, any other technical major) *не девица*&#xD;&#xA;* *… [прапорщик][1] не офицер*&#xD;&#xA;* *… [some hated card brand here] не машина*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and lots of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for [&quot;курица не птица * не&quot; -заграница -человек][2] will yield lots of other usage examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praporshchik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20*%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%22%20-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="524d8018-48ca-4dc1-aa18-27ed42d8f6e6" CreationDate="2012-07-01T10:23:49.223" UserId="47" Text="I like this question. My first intention was to say that semicolon was not commonly used in classical Russian and is rather an attribute of either bureaucratic or technical speech. However, a quick look into Rosenthal provided some insight, with which I should agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semicolon is used in a compound sentence, which parts are complex sentences themselves, or just contain commas; usually before conjunctions *а*, *но*, *однако*, *зато*, *да*, *и*, *тоже*, *также*, *же*, less commonly before *и*, *да* (when it means *и*), and *или*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шесть лет комиссия возилась около здания; но климат что ли мешал, или материал уже был такой, только никак не шло казенное здание выше фундамента. (Гоголь, *Мёртвые души*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semicolon is also used when a conjunction-less connection is combined with a conjunctional connection, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ветер не мог тут свирепствовать; дорога была гладкая; лошадь ободрилась, и Владимир успокоился. (Пушкин, *Метель*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a semicolon is used instead of a period when the author wants to join generally separate sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бледно-серое небо светлело, холодело, синело; звезды то мигали слабым светом, то исчезали; отсырела земля, запотели листья, кое-где стали раздаваться живые звуки, голоса. (Тургенев, *Бежин луг*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="a9ab3f14-27d2-4ca5-9d90-026b0fed6b17" CreationDate="2012-07-01T15:22:30.160" UserId="62" Text="What is the difference in usage, if any, between дыра and дырка?  For comparison, my impression is that нуль and ноль are largely equivalent except that there are some standard phrases using one word but not the other, phone numbers with 0 use ноль, and technical settings with numbers use нуль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="a9ab3f14-27d2-4ca5-9d90-026b0fed6b17" CreationDate="2012-07-01T15:22:30.160" UserId="62" Text="дыра and дырка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="a9ab3f14-27d2-4ca5-9d90-026b0fed6b17" CreationDate="2012-07-01T15:22:30.160" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="23a82c7b-7de5-409b-ae71-6dbe92530c08" CreationDate="2012-07-01T16:13:40.733" UserId="47" Text="&gt; Lev Landau submitted a manuscript of a book on solid-state physics to a publishing house. A corrector girl calls him a month later and says: &quot;Prof. Landau, I am awfully sorry, but... you know... you are writing a serious book and are using such a childish language... I have replaced *дырка* with *отверстие* throughout your book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, *дырка* is a form of the word *дыра*, just like *Катя* — *Катька*, *рама* — *рамка*. In many cases, suffix -к- has a diminutive meaning, so one can say *большая дыра и маленькая дырка*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;normal&quot; use the word *дыра* has a fleur of a deffect (*дыра в кармане*, *дыра в заборе*), while *дырка* can be considered as a colloquial synonym of the word *отверстие*: *дырка в ремне* (see [Gramota][1] for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *дырка* and *дыра* have a couple of uses where these are two different words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'black hole' is translated as *чёрная дыра* only.&#xD;&#xA; - 'hole' (in solid-state physics) is translated as *дырка* only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E4%FB%F0%EA%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="ad5bb01e-7266-4bca-ac75-39dd611aa845" CreationDate="2012-07-01T18:45:34.410" UserId="47" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&gt; Lev Landau submitted a manuscript of a book on solid-state physics to a publishing house. A corrector girl calls him a month later and says: &quot;Prof. Landau, I am awfully sorry, but... you know... you are writing a serious book and are using such a childish language... I have replaced *дырка* with *отверстие* throughout your book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, *дырка* is a form of the word *дыра*, just like *Катя* — *Катька*, *рама* — *рамка*. In many cases, suffix -к- has a diminutive meaning, so one can say *большая дыра и маленькая дырка*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;normal&quot; use the word *дыра* often implies that there is a defect (*дыра в кармане*, *дыра в заборе*), while *дырка* can be considered as a colloquial synonym of the word *отверстие*: *дырка в ремне* (see [Gramota][1] for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *дырка* and *дыра* have a couple of uses where these are two different words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'black hole' is translated as *чёрная дыра* only.&#xD;&#xA; - 'hole' (in solid-state physics) is translated as *дырка* only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E4%FB%F0%EA%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="3ae0d07e-3921-408f-bb79-fcab7f7e17f4" CreationDate="2012-07-01T19:06:52.843" UserId="97" Text="Yesterday I visited a friend in Oxford.  At some point we stopped at his favourite pub, where, as he said was &quot;большой выбор пив&quot;. This didn't sound right and got me thinking - but I soon realised that I have now idea what the plural form of &quot;пиво&quot; is, let alone its declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can shade a light on this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="3ae0d07e-3921-408f-bb79-fcab7f7e17f4" CreationDate="2012-07-01T19:06:52.843" UserId="97" Text="What's the plural from &quot;пиво&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="3ae0d07e-3921-408f-bb79-fcab7f7e17f4" CreationDate="2012-07-01T19:06:52.843" UserId="97" Text="|vocabulary|множественное-число|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="8993cba8-c944-48ff-89d0-fea8d6bd7576" CreationDate="2012-07-01T19:23:52.900" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Yesterday I visited a friend in Oxford.  At some point we stopped at his favourite pub, where, as he said was &quot;большой выбор пив&quot;. This didn't sound right and got me thinking - but I soon realised that I have now idea what the plural form of &quot;пиво&quot; is, let alone its declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can shed a light on this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="9af35f5f-561a-4250-8a79-f57f49e5b3c0" CreationDate="2012-07-01T20:14:44.500" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="*Курица не птица* is an adage (*поговорка*) , a short metaphorical saying, which, unlike proverb (*пословица*), lacks a moral on its own and is used to emphasize another sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used in the form *курица не птица, А не Б* (meaning that `А` is a `Б` only formally, lacking the essential featured of `Б`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions it as *курица не птица, баба не человек* which is a proverb and is probably the origin for this adage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also common are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *… [студентка] (химичка, физичка*, any other technical major) *не девица*&#xD;&#xA;* *… [прапорщик][1] не офицер*&#xD;&#xA;* *… [some hated card brand here] не машина*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and lots of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for [&quot;курица не птица * не&quot; -заграница -человек][2] will yield lots of other usage examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praporshchik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20*%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%22%20-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1292" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="f9ff8b53-9364-471e-b08f-21eb48f5629b" CreationDate="2012-07-01T20:34:25.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219529411563749378" />
  <row Id="1295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="453" RevisionGUID="344247f1-1ca5-4d16-91ab-bee13852017b" CreationDate="2012-07-01T20:56:35.400" UserId="216" Text="`Пиво` is uncountable, so there is no plural form. In your case, you may have used: `большой выбор сортов пива` (there are many brands of beer here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="6a1755bf-0257-44f3-9c84-b59a81580f95" CreationDate="2012-07-01T21:17:24.150" UserId="134" Text="Some Russian uncountable nouns do not allow plural (*молоко, рис, икра*) while others do (*табак / табаки, водка / водки, вино / вина*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language *пиво* is not used in plural, though Shakhmatov did provide this form (*пив*) as grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *А как лучше сказать?* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отсюда, казалось бы, простой вывод: если есть грузинские вина, то почему не могут быть «чешские пива», тем более что в природе они действительно существуют? И все-таки вы были бы правы в своего возражении: одно дело – теоретическая возможность, а другое – практическое использование (**«чешские или другие пива» – так не говорят**). *(emphasis mine. Q.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оказывается, приведенное выше правило не является универсальным. Не образуют формы множественного числа такие вещественные существительные, как молоко, просо, рис и др., а также названия элементов (золото, серебро, азот, кислород, калий, натрий и т. д.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though almost all Russian nouns are paradigmatically able to form plurals, not all of these plural may be used in language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misusing the plurals may even lead to confusion, since some uncountable words which don't form plural have homophones in what would be their plural paradigmatically. Compare *молоки* (milt), *икры* (calves of the legs), *рисы* (builders' slang for ancillary marks on elements of construction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this very sentence, you may just use sg. gen. even with the words which do allow plural: *большой выбор пива / табака / водки*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="f6be5dce-d28b-4a97-882e-eeedc90fbe39" CreationDate="2012-07-01T21:19:35.900" UserId="219" Text="Actually you can say &quot;большой выбор пива&quot; or &quot;Вчера я выпил три (3) пива&quot;. It's informally implied that you drank up 3 bottles (or mugs) of beer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="e4ede62f-3c61-479b-b7c2-b2df56749a76" CreationDate="2012-07-01T22:29:48.423" UserId="185" Comment="added a word to make it more precise: *дырка в кармане* is also possible and means a smaller hole than *дыра*" Text="&gt; Lev Landau submitted a manuscript of a book on solid-state physics to a publishing house. A corrector girl calls him a month later and says: &quot;Prof. Landau, I am awfully sorry, but... you know... you are writing a serious book and are using such a childish language... I have replaced *дырка* with *отверстие* throughout your book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, *дырка* is a form of the word *дыра*, just like *Катя* — *Катька*, *рама* — *рамка*. In many cases, suffix -к- has a diminutive meaning, and this is just the case here. So one can say *большая дыра и маленькая дырка*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;normal&quot; use the word *дыра* often implies that there is a defect (*дыра в кармане*, *дыра в заборе*), while *дырка* can also be considered as a colloquial synonym of the word *отверстие*: *дырка в ремне* (see [Gramota][1] for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *дырка* and *дыра* have a couple of uses where these are two different words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'black hole' is translated as *чёрная дыра* only.&#xD;&#xA; - 'hole' (in solid-state physics) is translated as *дырка* only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E4%FB%F0%EA%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1301" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="e4ede62f-3c61-479b-b7c2-b2df56749a76" CreationDate="2012-07-01T22:29:48.423" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 111" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="631279ed-5851-4bda-b5d8-a3b9ba54f0be" CreationDate="2012-07-01T22:34:38.530" UserId="134" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Some Russian uncountable nouns do not allow plural (*молоко, рис, икра*) while others do (*табак / табаки&amp;#x301;, водка / во&amp;#x301;дки, вино / ви&amp;#x301;на*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language *пиво* is not used in plural, though Shakhmatov did provide this form (*пив*) as grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *А как лучше сказать?* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отсюда, казалось бы, простой вывод: если есть грузинские вина, то почему не могут быть «чешские пива», тем более что в природе они действительно существуют? И все-таки вы были бы правы в своего возражении: одно дело – теоретическая возможность, а другое – практическое использование (**«чешские или другие пива» – так не говорят**). *(emphasis mine. Q.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оказывается, приведенное выше правило не является универсальным. Не образуют формы множественного числа такие вещественные существительные, как молоко, просо, рис и др., а также названия элементов (золото, серебро, азот, кислород, калий, натрий и т. д.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though almost all Russian nouns are paradigmatically able to form plurals, not all of these plural may be used in language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misusing the plurals may even lead to confusion, since some uncountable words which don't form plural have homophones in what would be their plural paradigmatically. Compare *молоки* (milt), *икры* (calves of the legs), *рисы* (builders' slang for ancillary marks on elements of construction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this very sentence, you may just use sg. gen. even with the words which do allow plural: *большой выбор пива / табака / водки*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="cda722c8-1b31-4080-9b64-1a71ea6b300d" CreationDate="2012-07-01T23:04:18.170" UserId="71" Text="I've read somewhere that after a negation, the Genitive is more common for the object being negated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use the Genitive case and when the Accusative case? Or other cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one rule is the Animated/Inanimated distinction, but I'd like the answers to shed some light on this too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="cda722c8-1b31-4080-9b64-1a71ea6b300d" CreationDate="2012-07-01T23:04:18.170" UserId="71" Text="What cases are used after negation and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="cda722c8-1b31-4080-9b64-1a71ea6b300d" CreationDate="2012-07-01T23:04:18.170" UserId="71" Text="|падежи|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="d95a4415-04c1-490f-851b-c446595a9001" CreationDate="2012-07-01T23:20:14.250" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="What cases are used after negation? What are the rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1307" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="f35860be-483f-4fa8-adcc-9867aff81e88" CreationDate="2012-07-01T23:34:24.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219574709002567682" />
  <row Id="1308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="cb935d65-43b8-4ffe-b00b-9e08956d6aa0" CreationDate="2012-07-02T03:49:52.557" UserId="213" Text="&quot;Пошел в баню&quot; doesn't really have to do anything with баня itself, it's just a soft form of &quot;пошел к черту&quot; and some much stronger swear-like expressions starting with &quot;пошел в/пошел на&quot;. There are some other (soft) expressions that are being used with the same purpose, such as &quot;шел бы ты лесом&quot;. Again, &quot;лес&quot; here is irrelevant to the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="7f0a57e6-c7c0-4cc8-a7ac-3d272ad5176e" CreationDate="2012-07-02T07:59:23.667" UserId="47" Comment="1 more example added" Text="&gt; Lev Landau submitted a manuscript of a book on solid-state physics to a publishing house. A corrector girl calls him a month later and says: &quot;Prof. Landau, I am awfully sorry, but... you know... you are writing a serious book and are using such a childish language... I have replaced *дырка* with *отверстие* throughout your book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, *дырка* is a form of the word *дыра*, just like *Катя* — *Катька*, *рама* — *рамка*. In many cases, suffix -к- has a diminutive meaning, and this is just the case here. So one can say *большая дыра и маленькая дырка*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;normal&quot; use the word *дыра* often implies that there is a defect (*дыра в кармане*, *дыра в заборе*), while *дырка* can also be considered as a colloquial synonym of the word *отверстие*: *дырка в ремне* (see [Gramota][1] for example), *дырку в носу проковыряешь* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *дырка* and *дыра* have a couple of uses where these are two different words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'black hole' is translated as *чёрная дыра* only.&#xD;&#xA; - 'hole' (in solid-state physics) is translated as *дырка* only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E4%FB%F0%EA%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="86484751-a1d8-4335-9383-56380fcd6558" CreationDate="2012-07-02T09:25:20.983" UserId="224" Text="Нет никакой разницы. То есть, в идеале кидать всё же дальше, особенно если искать не надо, но вряд ли современные носители забивают этим голову.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я как-то для себя понимаю под словом бросать интенсивное движение от себя, безотносительно как далеко. У меня оно сближается со словом breast, но это неправильно. Фасмер говорит, что однокоренное brush, то есть имеется общее резкое движение - смахивать.&#xD;&#xA;А кидать - это просто избавиться (у него же).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть какие-то различия в дериватах. Применительно к законченному действию ровно наоборот тоже - скорее забросить мяч в кольцо, нежели закинуть. &quot;В третий раз закинул старик невод&quot; - далеко-далеко, но не бесцельно.&#xD;&#xA;Подбросить/подкинуть. *меня подкинуло. *подкинуть в воздух. Три раза подкинули, один раз поймали. Подкинуть тяжелее и более тяжёлый предмет, как-то так.&#xD;&#xA;Перекинуть через забор/перебросить через забор (то же самое по весу предмета)&#xD;&#xA;Докинуть - о большом расстоянии, добросить - о цели.&#xD;&#xA;Скинуть = сбросить.&#xD;&#xA;Откинуть - предмет упал и нам не интересен. Отбросить - более яростно и осознанно.&#xD;&#xA;Вбросить - *вкинуть (если только большой предмет, как человека, в сопоставимый, как окно).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;всё имхо, основано на наблюдении за и общении на южновеликорусском.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="d854ceca-e67f-4695-9c75-02dfa5c65b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T11:10:12.687" UserId="185" Text="I cannot find a good way to translate such expressions as *It made me feel good (bad)*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian verb *заставить* means to make somebody do something against their will, and doesn't really fit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs such as *опечалить* and *обрадовать* are very good translations for phrases such as *it makes me feel sad (happy)*. Are there appropriate verbs for *It made me feel good (bad)* examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="d854ceca-e67f-4695-9c75-02dfa5c65b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T11:10:12.687" UserId="185" Text="Russian translation for &quot;it made me feel good (bad)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="d854ceca-e67f-4695-9c75-02dfa5c65b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T11:10:12.687" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|word-choice|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="91390b85-8aa6-4340-8127-90c0e76a63ce" CreationDate="2012-07-02T12:31:24.533" UserId="226" Text="Russian people uses &quot;похорошело&quot; и &quot;поплохело&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;First glass of beer made me feel good.&#xD;&#xA;От первого бокала пива мне похорошело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But next bottle of whiskey mad me feel bad.&#xD;&#xA;Но от следующей бутылки виски мне поплохело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure that this variant is 100% correct and corresponds to Russian grammar but it's usable and everyone will understand you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="461" RevisionGUID="40c4bf50-1d97-4bf3-a0d0-3875cd6868db" CreationDate="2012-07-02T12:55:45.123" UserId="104" Text="I would use the verb *стать* here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне (от этого) стало хорошо/плохо/весело/грустно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="e302f0cb-1226-45ec-a9ed-61e148b58944" CreationDate="2012-07-02T13:06:52.367" UserId="104" Text="Usually, nothing changes when negating any part of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The predicate:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю шокалад. I like chocolate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не люблю шоколад. I don't like chocolate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The subject:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не я люблю шоколад (, а она). It's not me that likes chocolate(, it's her).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The object**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю не шоколад(, а какао). It's not chocolate that I like(, but cocoa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cases remain the same regardless if it's the direct object or indirect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference occurs when the verb is *есть*, explicitly or implicitly, which, when negated, becomes *нет*, which requires genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Explicit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть сестра. I have a sister.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нет сестры. I don't have a sister.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Implicit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне двадцать два года. I am twenty-two years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нет двадцати двух лет. I am younger than twenty-two years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне не двадцать два года. I am not twenty-two years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between the last two examples is that in the first sentence the implicit verb is negated and becomes *нет* and thus requires genitive, whereas in the second example, the implicit verb remains implicit, and 22 is negated, so nothing changes, you just add *не* to the part you negate, in this case, the numeral. Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="461" RevisionGUID="7b778bc6-fc41-4253-976f-5cc8128963ef" CreationDate="2012-07-02T13:16:32.950" UserId="104" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="I would use the verb *стать* here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне (от этого) стало хорошо/плохо/весело/грустно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's a pretty accurate translation of *It makes/made/will make me feel ...* in all the tenses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It makes me feel sad. От этого мне становится грустно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It made me feel sad. От этого мне стало грустно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It will make me feel sad. От этого мне станет грустно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would make me feel sad. От этого мне стало бы грустно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1318" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="913f918b-f274-4219-af75-def6e07cdd67" CreationDate="2012-07-02T14:34:25.217" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/219801202739777540" />
  <row Id="1319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="e9297e33-2005-454c-a496-74d590dc26bd" CreationDate="2012-07-02T15:06:05.703" UserId="185" Text="Has anyone ever though why in swearing people use not only the imperative &quot;иди&quot;, but also (and even more frequently) form &quot;пошёл&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="e9297e33-2005-454c-a496-74d590dc26bd" CreationDate="2012-07-02T15:06:05.703" UserId="185" Text="Swearing: &quot;пошёл на ...&quot; vs. &quot;иди на ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="e9297e33-2005-454c-a496-74d590dc26bd" CreationDate="2012-07-02T15:06:05.703" UserId="185" Text="|грамматика|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="58f3b2d7-62dd-4d7f-9886-d2ffba792ff7" CreationDate="2012-07-02T15:18:49.623" UserId="104" Text="The past tense is used not only in swearing but also in very rude commands. I think that the past tense is used because it implies that you're not asking, rather, it's as if so certain that the other person will obey that you can as well use the past tense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very angry teacher, for example, could tell her student:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну-ка встал и вышел из класса!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this phenomenon could be considered the using of first person singular past for insisting (but not rude) requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Побежали! (instead of побежим!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошли! (instead of пойдем)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="9586b5e3-d62a-4aab-96d7-0bd3e03c28c1" CreationDate="2012-07-02T15:25:11.957" UserId="104" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="The past tense is used not only in swearing but also in very rude commands. A very angry teacher, for example, could tell her student:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну-ка встал и вышел из класса!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an intuitive speculation, I think that the past tense is used because it implies that you're not asking, rather, it's as if so certain that the other person will obey that you can as well use the past tense! Something like that :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this phenomenon could be considered the using of first person singular past for insisting (but not rude) requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Побежали! (instead of побежим!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошли! (instead of пойдем)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="1a0852a2-7756-4bfe-bee4-52a69c15104e" CreationDate="2012-07-02T16:37:20.567" UserId="104" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Has anyone ever thought why in swearing people use not only the imperative &quot;иди&quot;, but also (and even more frequently) the past indicative form &quot;пошёл&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1330" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="1a0852a2-7756-4bfe-bee4-52a69c15104e" CreationDate="2012-07-02T16:37:20.567" UserId="104" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="b31887f8-e735-4aa1-b46b-18e0378a8bea" CreationDate="2012-07-02T17:31:45.367" UserId="104" Comment="added 451 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The past tense is used not only in swearing but also in very rude commands. A very angry teacher, for example, could tell her student:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну-ка встал и вышел из класса!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vivid example I remembered the infamous scandal about the Russian pop singer Philippe Kirkorov who was very rude to a journalist. [At this point in this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdhddAddds&amp;t=0m42s) he starts using constructs in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взяла и ушла отсюда! (with incorrect stress on взяла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встали и ушли! (uses polite plural form, feel the irony :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Встала и ушла отсюда! (to hell with the plural form :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;As an intuitive speculation, I think that the past tense is used because it implies that you're not asking, rather, it's as if so certain that the other person will obey that you can as well use the past tense! Something like that :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this phenomenon could be considered the using of first person singular past for insisting (but not rude) requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Побежали! (instead of побежим!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошли! (instead of пойдем)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="ce52492c-f43c-49d3-9304-6e83b31a7d19" CreationDate="2012-07-02T17:42:33.180" UserId="170" Text="I know there is a word in Russian that describes all the print media - &quot;пресса&quot;. Is there any word in Russian that would describe only radio and television?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="ce52492c-f43c-49d3-9304-6e83b31a7d19" CreationDate="2012-07-02T17:42:33.180" UserId="170" Text="A russian word describing radio and television" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="ce52492c-f43c-49d3-9304-6e83b31a7d19" CreationDate="2012-07-02T17:42:33.180" UserId="170" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="c2bcdb33-47c4-46e0-a50d-855117333ed1" CreationDate="2012-07-02T17:50:07.230" UserId="104" Text="I don't know any word or phrase that specifically describes radio and television. The more general term for all the media is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; средства массовой информации (or simply СМИ, pronounsed /smi/ rather than /es-em-i/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things that pertain to radio and TV are usually called using something like &quot;радио и телевидение&quot; . E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музей телевидения и радио&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Институт телевидения и радиовещания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing that I can think of is broadcast, which would be translated to Russian as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вещ&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;ние&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you want to be more specific about it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; теле- и радиовещание." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="5fcca808-d782-434f-a47e-9079ee8159c6" CreationDate="2012-07-02T18:08:26.680" UserId="185" Comment="it might not necessarily be past, it also looks like conditional" Text="Has anyone ever thought why in swearing people use not only the imperative &quot;иди&quot;, but also (and even more frequently) the form &quot;пошёл&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1337" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="a6b768e3-8f9b-48c7-b3ee-575f6730c124" CreationDate="2012-07-02T18:38:30.380" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|мат|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="c6c7e808-b60e-48f3-a38e-c0d13884c814" CreationDate="2012-07-02T18:51:42.327" UserId="185" Comment="added 117 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a standard Russian pronunciation? &#xD;&#xA;Or is there only a bunch of accents, different for different parts of the country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there was once a standard way to pronounce words. All Soviet actors were supposed to learn to pronounce endings of some adjectives without palatalization. For example, they would say стро[гы]й, not стро[г'и]й. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something like this now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Oops, this question has already been asked [here][1] !**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/273/185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1339" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="c6c7e808-b60e-48f3-a38e-c0d13884c814" CreationDate="2012-07-02T18:51:42.327" UserId="185" Comment="added 117 characters in body; edited title" Text="Pronunciation norm [should be closed?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="27446f0f-bcbe-4c23-9ba7-320f361b6a76" CreationDate="2012-07-02T20:56:36.147" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="ad32010c-dc4d-4e54-8391-5b52136b0c40" CreationDate="2012-07-02T20:56:36.147" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="41c11b48-f6a0-46e7-8f7f-9fdc513b5c78" CreationDate="2012-07-02T20:59:28.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="cc603c33-cfe5-43e4-80d3-db1965d7f301" CreationDate="2012-07-02T20:59:28.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="8579d6b5-d96e-4cf8-81df-965701673247" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:02:43.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="b7db6b98-69ff-48d9-882b-6d1df11d0d14" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:02:43.963" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="dafb5cd1-54aa-4e66-a2d9-80c6a894d9f0" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:03:38.127" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="16253d5c-9299-49ff-928e-7aa5533e03df" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:03:38.127" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="3b562fc8-d26a-410c-9a4f-72cbf02ea082" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:05:53.803" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="6adf2efa-9220-4c0d-9ac9-9eafa3d07e8a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:05:53.803" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="67ab6358-13e5-45f9-bdd4-f223ae86ddf2" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:08:18.247" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="3d0046d7-a58d-45e1-83a7-4a5516cdba20" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:08:18.247" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="d03f9fc8-d551-4d69-8b78-d5022f83e6c2" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:09:34.377" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="4f4bb6d0-c672-445b-a862-7e4af6d86ccb" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:09:34.377" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="217e9960-d801-4a2e-a1d5-0ea51ef73928" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:38:34.547" UserId="62" Text="&#xD;&#xA;During my Russian classes and later, I never felt comfortable with the expressions &quot;to take an exam&quot; and &quot;to pass an exam&quot; as сдавать экзамен and сдать экзамен. It doesn't seem to me like taking an exam and passing it are honest aspectual pairs, but two very different ideas.  The act of taking an exam has no definite implications that you will pass it, so why should taking the exam and passing be an aspectual pair? Do сдавать/сдать экзамен really refer to something that is not quite the same as taking or passing an exam, so the usual translations of these into English is missing some small point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some related questions on this theme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If my exam ended a minute ago and I want to tell someone &quot;I just took my exam&quot;, how is that expressed if I can't say я только что сдал экзамен, which apparently should mean &quot;I just passed the exam&quot;, and that is not what I intended to say.  Maybe the context is always supposed to make it clear whether сдавал экзамен refers to the past tense while the exam was happening or the past tense after the exam was over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) How can I say &quot;I failed the exam&quot; in a colloquial way other than with the phrase не сдать экзамен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a standard way to talk about taking an exam, in both aspects, without giving an indication one way or the other that you passed it or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone can indicate why taking and passing an exam really do seem like natural aspectual concepts, I'd be interested to hear about that too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="217e9960-d801-4a2e-a1d5-0ea51ef73928" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:38:34.547" UserId="62" Text="сдавать/сдать экзамен" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="217e9960-d801-4a2e-a1d5-0ea51ef73928" CreationDate="2012-07-02T21:38:34.547" UserId="62" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="e5cb66ff-983d-448b-ac95-8b18835ef04a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T22:19:17.517" UserId="185" Text="First of all, *сдавать\сдать экзамен* is an aspectual pair, because it passes the test when in the context of praesens historicum (&quot;настоящее историческое&quot;) *сдать* changes to *сдавать*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed action in past:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В том же году он сдал экзамен и поступил на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In praesens historicum: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;В этом же году он сдает экзамен и поступает на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you are completely right when you say that *сдавать экзамен* doesn't mean the same as *сдать экзамен*. It doesn't mean &quot;to be in the process of passing the exam&quot; (as well as *to take an exam* does not mean it), it means &quot;to try to pass it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can it be both an aspectual pair and two verb with different meaning? I guess the answer is that these are **two different usages of the imperfect aspect form**. The one in praesens historicum is used to signal that the story, although it happened in past, is presented by the speaker as if it was going on here and now. The usage about which you are asking means an attempt to achieve a result, an activity directed at the achievement of the result. Here is one more example of these two usages with the verb *отбиваться* - *to fight off*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От отчаянно отбивался от нападавших.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He was desperately trying to fight off the attackers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with paesens historicum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И в этот момент он наконец-то отбивается от нападавших и убегает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At this moment he has finally fought off the attackers and ran away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my exam ended a minute ago and I want to tell someone &quot;I just took my exam&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use *Я сдавал экзамен*, the imperfect form in a past tense, as if you were answering the question &quot;What have you been doing there?&quot; or you can also say *Я был на экзамене* or *У меня был экзамен*, as if you were answering the question &quot;What did you just do?&quot; or &quot;What happened with you there?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How can I say &quot;I failed the exam&quot; in a colloquial way other than with the phrase не сдать экзамен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People often say *провалить экзамен* (perfect aspect) - *to fail an exam* - or simple *провалиться* (but it usually requires context to be understood easily, for example, a question like &quot;Ну что, сдал экзамен?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="b7eaa133-7ff7-40d1-a706-1727944a5a9a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T23:40:04.323" UserId="194" Comment="correct number" Text="The past tense is used not only in swearing but also in very rude commands. A very angry teacher, for example, could tell her student:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну-ка встал и вышел из класса!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vivid example I remembered the infamous scandal about the Russian pop singer Philippe Kirkorov who was very rude to a journalist. [At this point in this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdhddAddds&amp;t=0m42s) he starts using constructs in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взяла и ушла отсюда! (with incorrect stress on взяла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встали и ушли! (uses polite plural form, feel the irony :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Встала и ушла отсюда! (to hell with the plural form :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;As an intuitive speculation, I think that the past tense is used because it implies that you're not asking, rather, it's as if so certain that the other person will obey that you can as well use the past tense! Something like that :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this phenomenon could be considered the using of first person plural past for insisting (but not rude) requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Побежали! (instead of побежим!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошли! (instead of пойдём)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1368" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="b7eaa133-7ff7-40d1-a706-1727944a5a9a" CreationDate="2012-07-02T23:40:04.323" Comment="Proposed by 194 approved by 104 edit id of 118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="c61bf4c2-5341-4a59-ba7e-51bb83c66714" CreationDate="2012-07-03T00:19:36.210" UserId="104" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The past tense is used not only in swearing but also in very rude commands. A very angry teacher, for example, could tell her student:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну-ка встал и вышел из класса!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vivid example I remembered the infamous scandal about the Russian pop singer Philippe Kirkorov who was very rude to a journalist. [At this point in this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdhddAddds&amp;t=0m42s) he starts using constructs in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взяла и ушла отсюда! (with incorrect stress on взяла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встали и ушли! (uses polite plural form, feel the irony :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Встала и ушла отсюда! (to hell with the plural form :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;As an intuitive speculation, I think that the past tense is used because it implies that you're not asking, rather, it's as if so certain that the other person will obey that you can as well use the past tense! Something like that :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this phenomenon could be considered the using of first person plural past for insisting (but not rude) requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Побежали! (instead of Побежим!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошли! (instead of Пойдём!)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="d21b4c55-8bcf-442f-9591-db995e024a7a" CreationDate="2012-07-03T00:39:37.587" UserId="71" Comment="Invalid edits" Text="Is there a standard Russian pronunciation? &#xD;&#xA;Or is there only a bunch of accents, different for different parts of the country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there was once a standard way to pronounce words. All Soviet actors were supposed to learn to pronounce endings of some adjectives without palatalization. For example, they would say стро[гы]й, not стро[г'и]й. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something like this now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1371" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="d21b4c55-8bcf-442f-9591-db995e024a7a" CreationDate="2012-07-03T00:39:37.587" UserId="71" Comment="Invalid edits" Text="Pronunciation norm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1372" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="d21b4c55-8bcf-442f-9591-db995e024a7a" CreationDate="2012-07-03T00:39:37.587" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 185 edit id of 126" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1373" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="4fcbacd2-b3ff-4633-a797-b584ddf5ba33" CreationDate="2012-07-03T05:34:27.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220027707373780992" />
  <row Id="1374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="29319245-7f3f-49c8-b6e2-fa11a3b09674" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:39:36.660" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="11fb6497-a0cc-4583-aece-b86e0ffb73ca" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:39:47.253" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="a20fe08b-095e-486d-9fe6-64a7f2f67d0b" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:40:14.320" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|обучение|resource-request|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="8ccfa9ae-a460-41e0-ade4-dc082ee5aedc" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:40:23.977" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|usage|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="d1175fdf-b0c5-4322-8dec-aefe3db554e4" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:40:35.023" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1379" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="11393cca-92a3-47e8-879b-03b8d1eb6848" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:40:47.317" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="4bc39ba2-77a8-4d51-82f3-fbfc230b1977" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:41:21.807" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="8b71b22a-30c6-4cd6-82aa-fe33e5d92b33" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:41:28.813" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1382" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="530be94d-a21c-4604-b819-2a8cee9843db" CreationDate="2012-07-03T07:41:37.017" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="aefe3d49-1d57-42e1-9582-c8926cdafaad" CreationDate="2012-07-03T08:34:25.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220072993227939840" />
  <row Id="1384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="bec6ca5e-4b25-4166-b066-6a887e622c94" CreationDate="2012-07-03T09:39:34.647" UserId="185" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="First of all, *сдавать\сдать экзамен* is an aspectual pair, because it passes the test when in the context of praesens historicum (&quot;настоящее историческое&quot;) *сдать* changes to *сдавать*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed action in past:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В том же году он сдал экзамен и поступил на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In praesens historicum: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;В этом же году он сдает экзамен и поступает на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you are completely right when you say that *сдавать экзамен* doesn't mean the same as *сдать экзамен*. It doesn't mean &quot;to be in the process of passing the exam&quot; (as well as *to take an exam* does not mean it), it means &quot;to try to pass it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can it be both an aspectual pair and two verb with different meaning? I guess the answer is that these are **two different usages of the imperfect aspect form**. The one in praesens historicum is used to signal that the story, although it happened in past, is presented by the speaker as if it was going on here and now. The usage about which you are asking means an attempt to achieve a result, an activity directed at the achievement of the result. Here is one more example of these two usages with the verb *отбиваться* - *to fight off*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От отчаянно отбивался от нападавших.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He was desperately trying to fight off the attackers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with paesens historicum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И в этот момент он наконец-то отбивается от нападавших и убегает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At this moment he has finally fought off the attackers and ran away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my exam ended a minute ago and I want to tell someone &quot;I just took my exam&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use *Я сдавал экзамен*, the imperfect form in a past tense, as if you were answering the question &quot;What have you been doing there?&quot; or you can also say *Я был на экзамене* or *У меня был экзамен*, as if you were answering the question &quot;What did you just do?&quot; or &quot;What happened with you there?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How can I say &quot;I failed the exam&quot; in a colloquial way other than with the phrase не сдать экзамен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People often say *провалить экзамен* (perfect aspect) - *to fail an exam* - or simple *провалиться (на экзамене)* (but it usually requires context to be understood easily, for example, a question like &quot;Ну что, сдал экзамен?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="04a0bd44-706f-435c-a643-7d33f22ce6d3" CreationDate="2012-07-03T09:40:13.163" UserId="104" Comment="edited body" Text="First of all, *сдавать\сдать экзамен* is an aspectual pair, because it passes the test when in the context of praesens historicum (&quot;настоящее историческое&quot;) *сдать* changes to *сдавать*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed action in past:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В том же году он сдал экзамен и поступил на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In praesens historicum: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;В этом же году он сдает экзамен и поступает на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you are completely right when you say that *сдавать экзамен* doesn't mean the same as *сдать экзамен*. It doesn't mean &quot;to be in the process of passing the exam&quot; (as well as *to take an exam* does not mean it), it means &quot;to try to pass it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can it be both an aspectual pair and two verb with different meaning? I guess the answer is that these are **two different usages of the imperfect aspect form**. The one in praesens historicum is used to signal that the story, although it happened in past, is presented by the speaker as if it was going on here and now. The usage about which you are asking means an attempt to achieve a result, an activity directed at the achievement of the result. Here is one more example of these two usages with the verb *отбиваться* - *to fight off*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он отчаянно отбивался от нападавших.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He was desperately trying to fight off the attackers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with paesens historicum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И в этот момент он наконец-то отбивается от нападавших и убегает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At this moment he has finally fought off the attackers and ran away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my exam ended a minute ago and I want to tell someone &quot;I just took my exam&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use *Я сдавал экзамен*, the imperfect form in a past tense, as if you were answering the question &quot;What have you been doing there?&quot; or you can also say *Я был на экзамене* or *У меня был экзамен*, as if you were answering the question &quot;What did you just do?&quot; or &quot;What happened with you there?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How can I say &quot;I failed the exam&quot; in a colloquial way other than with the phrase не сдать экзамен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People often say *провалить экзамен* (perfect aspect) - *to fail an exam* - or simple *провалиться (на экзамене)* (but it usually requires context to be understood easily, for example, a question like &quot;Ну что, сдал экзамен?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="d6343553-b37e-44aa-b016-45d5a9da7d76" CreationDate="2012-07-03T10:56:08.823" UserId="153" Comment="typo, punctuation" Text="First of all, *сдавать\сдать экзамен* is an aspectual pair, because it passes the test when in the context of praesens historicum (&quot;настоящее историческое&quot;) *сдать* changes to *сдавать*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Completed action in past:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В том же году он сдал экзамен и поступил на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In praesens historicum: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;В этом же году он сдает экзамен и поступает на первый курс филфака МГУ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, you are completely right when you say that *сдавать экзамен* doesn't mean the same as *сдать экзамен*. It doesn't mean &quot;to be in the process of passing the exam&quot; (as well as *to take an exam* does not mean it), it means &quot;to try to pass it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can it be both an aspectual pair and two verb with different meaning? I guess the answer is that these are **two different usages of the imperfect aspect form**. The one in praesens historicum is used to signal that the story, although it happened in past, is presented by the speaker as if it was going on here and now. The usage about which you are asking means an attempt to achieve a result, an activity directed at the achievement of the result. Here is one more example of these two usages with the verb *отбиваться*&amp;nbsp;— *to fight off*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он отчаянно отбивался от нападавших.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He was desperately trying to fight off the attackers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with praesens historicum:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И в этот момент он наконец-то отбивается от нападавших и убегает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At this moment he has finally fought off the attackers and ran away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If my exam ended a minute ago and I want to tell someone &quot;I just took my exam&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use *Я сдавал экзамен*, the imperfect form in a past tense, as if you were answering the question &quot;What have you been doing there?&quot; or you can also say *Я был на экзамене* or *У меня был экзамен*, as if you were answering the question &quot;What did you just do?&quot; or &quot;What happened with you there?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How can I say &quot;I failed the exam&quot; in a colloquial way other than with the phrase не сдать экзамен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People often say *провалить экзамен* (perfect aspect) — *to fail an exam*&amp;nbsp;— or simple *провалиться (на экзамене)*, but it usually requires context to be understood easily (for example, a question like &quot;Ну что, сдал экзамен?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="d6343553-b37e-44aa-b016-45d5a9da7d76" CreationDate="2012-07-03T10:56:08.823" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 185 edit id of 131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="924b709b-2334-4e8f-baca-278e506039bd" CreationDate="2012-07-03T10:56:50.180" UserId="153" Comment="formatting, tags" Text="When are bird legs called *ноги* and when are they called *лапы*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see that it is different for different birds, *ноги* for a stork, *лапы* for a sparrow. Sometimes you can use both word for the legs of the same bird, for instance, *куриные ножки* and *куриная лапа*, but there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1389" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="924b709b-2334-4e8f-baca-278e506039bd" CreationDate="2012-07-03T10:56:50.180" UserId="153" Comment="formatting, tags" Text="How to refer to bird legs: &quot;нога&quot; or &quot;лапа&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="924b709b-2334-4e8f-baca-278e506039bd" CreationDate="2012-07-03T10:56:50.180" UserId="153" Comment="formatting, tags" Text="|выбор-слова|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1391" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="924b709b-2334-4e8f-baca-278e506039bd" CreationDate="2012-07-03T10:56:50.180" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 185 edit id of 133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="59fc411c-1159-40c9-a7e3-41001f93d785" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:18:46.027" UserId="185" Text="Is there actually a rule for forming feminine names of professions? I can come up with several examples, but I figure out what the rule is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;врач - врачиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворник - дворничиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;повар - повариха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;портной - портниха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ветеринар - ветеринарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;директор - директорша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;секретарь - секретарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;учитель - учительница&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уборщик - уборщица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;волейболист - волейболистка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дояр - доярка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раб - рабыня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;князь - княгиня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;слуга - служанка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;судья&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;завхоз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not seem to change at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="59fc411c-1159-40c9-a7e3-41001f93d785" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:18:46.027" UserId="185" Text="Suffixes for feminine professions: &quot;докторша&quot; vs. &quot;врачиха&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="59fc411c-1159-40c9-a7e3-41001f93d785" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:18:46.027" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|gender|суффиксы|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="5ae5b566-fda4-4a48-8931-d8bc4ba1a24f" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:23:51.887" UserId="153" Comment="punctuation, formatting " Text="Yesterday I visited a friend in Oxford.  At some point we stopped at his favourite pub, where, as he said, was &quot;большой выбор пив&quot;. This didn't sound right and got me thinking&amp;nbsp;— but I soon realised that I have now idea what the plural form of *пиво* is, let alone its declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can shed a light on this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="5ae5b566-fda4-4a48-8931-d8bc4ba1a24f" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:23:51.887" UserId="153" Comment="punctuation, formatting " Text="|множественное-число|существительные|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1397" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="5ae5b566-fda4-4a48-8931-d8bc4ba1a24f" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:23:51.887" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by -1 edit id of 130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="86ebedb3-ed33-4d9f-9771-acd00f3c6753" CreationDate="2012-07-03T11:23:52.980" UserId="97" Comment="punctuation, formatting " Text="Yesterday I visited a friend in Oxford.  At some point we stopped at his favourite pub, where, as he said, was &quot;большой выбор пив&quot;. This didn't sound right and got me thinking, but I soon realised that I have now idea what the plural form of *пиво* is, let alone its declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can shed a light on this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="33a793f7-5920-4739-aa6a-40ae5addf7a4" CreationDate="2012-07-03T12:21:52.510" UserId="97" Comment="fixed typo plus formatting" Text="Is there actually a rule for forming feminine names of professions? I can come up with several examples, but I cannot figure out what the rule is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;врач - врачиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворник - дворничиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;повар - повариха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;портной - портниха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ветеринар - ветеринарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;директор - директорша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;секретарь - секретарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;учитель - учительница&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уборщик - уборщица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;волейболист - волейболистка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дояр - доярка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раб - рабыня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;князь - княгиня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;слуга - служанка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;судья&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;завхоз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not seem to change at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1400" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="33a793f7-5920-4739-aa6a-40ae5addf7a4" CreationDate="2012-07-03T12:21:52.510" Comment="Proposed by 97 approved by 104 edit id of 136" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="fb07593f-82c6-410b-aeaa-61df4cbad044" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:07:20.150" UserId="185" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Is there actually a rule for forming feminine names of professions? I can come up with several examples, but I cannot figure out what the rule is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;врач - врачиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворник - дворничиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;повар - повариха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;портной - портниха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ветеринар - ветеринарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;директор - директорша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;секретарь - секретарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;учитель - учительница&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уборщик - уборщица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;волейболист - волейболистка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дояр - доярка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;юннат - юннатка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раб - рабыня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;князь - княгиня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;слуга - служанка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;судья&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;завхоз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not seem to change at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="c7cda72d-3021-4c48-b336-8fed708fa468" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:16:07.957" UserId="232" Text="First of all these feminine form is not common and even rude...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;врачиха - is informal vulgar name of врач. Normally u use: Врач Ирина Ивановна. Using masculine form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar for others - Дворник К.С.Иванова. But (This is polite and friendly): Дворничиха Тетя Клава.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повариха. - But Заслуженный повар Светлана Алексеевна Огурцова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Директор - Директрисса. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formal - Личный Секретарь - Исаева. Informal- Его любимая секретарша. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заслуженный учитель года Ксения Петровна Пятеркина - но наша учительница Ксения Петровна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words quite old so I don't think there any rules for suffixes. Just read more books to remember them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЗавХоз = Заведующий Хозяйством - so it cannot be shorted. Судья so respected so u cannot modify it or else go to GULAG!!! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="c1aec627-1711-4238-a7e6-b69669792c1f" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:21:49.623" UserId="185" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Is there actually a rule for forming feminine names of professions? I can come up with several examples, but I cannot figure out what the rule is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;врач - врачиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворник - дворничиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;повар - повариха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;портной - портниха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ветеринар - ветеринарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;директор - директрисса (or директорша)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;секретарь - секретарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;учитель - учительница&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уборщик - уборщица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;волейболист - волейболистка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дояр - доярка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;юннат - юннатка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раб - рабыня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;князь - княгиня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;слуга - служанка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;судья&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;завхоз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not seem to change at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="7a60f1a2-0007-49b0-9c3e-f23934a05698" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:22:56.860" UserId="62" Comment="changed &quot;I learned him&quot; (incorrect English) to &quot;I studied him&quot; and fixed the spelling of disease" Text="`Учить`: to be studying something OR to be teaching someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning) OR to get someone learn something (you have taught someone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучать`: to be studying something. Never used for &quot;to be teaching&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Изучить`: to learn something in full (you have completed your learning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучать`: to be teaching someone. Never used for &quot;to be studying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обучить`: to get someone learn something  (you have completed your teaching).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `выучить` and `изучить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `выучить` may be used to say you learnt something by rote (although not necessarily), whereas `изучить` always means you actually understood it.&#xD;&#xA;- *(a consequence of the previous bullet):* `изучить` always impiles thought and analysis of some sort. Because of that, you never say `изучить стих`, you must say `выучить стих` (to memorise a verse). Well, you can actually say `изучить стих`, but that would mean you performed a linguistic analysis of the verse, which does not imply you now know the verse by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subtle differences between `учить` and `обучать`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Учить` is less formal and can refer to more situations. If a person in the streets shows you how to use an ATM that has Russian interface, that's `учить`. Nethertheless, it may also refer to students in school.&#xD;&#xA;- `Обучать` is more formal and generally refers to a specifically arranged teaching. You expect to see this word in a report teacher submits to school principal. However, relation to an educational institution is not required, you can say `обучать` instead of `учить` to accentuate the act of teaching was not random and/or took some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to tell apart the two different meanings of `учить`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When referring to learning, the question is 'what' (`учить что?`).  &#xD;&#xA;When referring to teaching, the question is 'whom' (`учить кого?`)&#xD;&#xA;- Therefore, if you want to say that you are studying a person, you must use the single-meaning form, `изучать`, to avoid confusion:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил его -&gt; I taught him (and never I learned him)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучал его -&gt; I studied him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Your examples therefore are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю русский язык. (neutral, but sounds somewhat more serious)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русский язык. (tiny little bit more colloquial; leaves a tiny possibility that you don't actually want to do it).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я изучаю русский.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am studying at University.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь в университете.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаю университет` (that means you are studying the university itself, as a bulding or an entity, its history etc).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't say `Я изучаюсь в университете` (that means you are being studied in the university, as a subject. You can be though if you have an interesting disease.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь в университете.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу русскому языку.  (acceptable, but quite colloquial and may mean you do is not in a school)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я обучаю русскому языку.  (more formal, but still leaves room for interpretations)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю русский язык.  (You are a proper teacher, that is your position.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский OR Я учитель русского языка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach Russian to the students.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу студентов русскому языку.  (colloquial)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю студентам русский язык.  (formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я преподаю русский язык. (omitting &quot;students&quot;, as it's already implied by the verb `преподаю`)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I teach my son how to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу сына водить машину.  (that's it! No `преподавать` here)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am learning to drive a car.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учусь водить машину.  (neutral, doesn't make you sound formal)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я изучаю вождение [машины].  (quite formal, you won't hear that in the streets)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *A native speaker would say: Я учусь водить  OR  Я хожу на вождение.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where did you learn Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы учили русский язык?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your Russian is poor)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы изучали русский язык? (neutral. No assumptions about your level in Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who taught you Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто учил вас русскому языку?  (when said by a native speaker, *may* imply that your teacher did a poor job)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто научил вас русскому языку?  (this question may mean the person is surprised you know Russian)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто преподавал вам русский язык?  (you are specifically asked for the name of the teacher)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="7a60f1a2-0007-49b0-9c3e-f23934a05698" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:22:56.860" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 57 edit id of 135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="e71e61f1-e303-4e06-b08d-e7ebc83d7942" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:29:50.957" UserId="153" Comment="minor edit" Text="I know there is a word in Russian that describes all the print media — *пресса*. Is there any word in Russian that would describe only radio and television?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1408" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="e71e61f1-e303-4e06-b08d-e7ebc83d7942" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:29:50.957" UserId="153" Comment="minor edit" Text="A Russian word describing radio and television" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1409" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="e71e61f1-e303-4e06-b08d-e7ebc83d7942" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:29:50.957" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 170 edit id of 128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="56932012-097d-4555-abb5-3abc59c0bc96" CreationDate="2012-07-03T13:53:51.030" UserId="233" Text="There's also the noun *эфир* (lit. ‘ether’), which can be used to refer to both radio and TV (including Internet video streams). [*В эфире*](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%E2+%FD%F4%E8%F0%E5%22) means ‘on air’, *в прямом эфире* is for ‘live on air’, and you can say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его жестоко ругали и в прессе, и в эфире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘He has been harshly criticized in the press as well as on air’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="af63cde0-84ce-46dc-aab9-7e418970765d" CreationDate="2012-07-03T14:57:33.790" UserId="185" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Is there actually a rule for forming feminine names of professions? I can come up with several examples (and some of the examples are colloquial, but nevertheless widespread), but I cannot figure out what the rule is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;врач - врачиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворник - дворничиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;повар - повариха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;портной - портниха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ветеринар - ветеринарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;директор - директрисса (or директорша)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;секретарь - секретарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;учитель - учительница&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уборщик - уборщица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;волейболист - волейболистка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дояр - доярка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;юннат - юннатка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раб - рабыня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;князь - княгиня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;слуга - служанка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;судья&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;завхоз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not seem to change at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="73df5439-eee2-44d0-9aed-72f5982166b8" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:29:44.170" UserId="126" Text="I know that the verb &quot;to use&quot; can be translated to Russian as использовать (with accusative) or пользоваться (with instrumental).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to ask if there is a difference in meaning / usage between these two verbs or if they are perfectly interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="73df5439-eee2-44d0-9aed-72f5982166b8" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:29:44.170" UserId="126" Text="Difference between использовать and пользоваться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="73df5439-eee2-44d0-9aed-72f5982166b8" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:29:44.170" UserId="126" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="2a765ac1-6096-4ba7-8a64-72ca5798c530" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:49:26.797" UserId="47" Text="They are not always interchangeable. The two words have the same root *польз*, therefore the prefix in the first one changes the meaning, as usual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one can be used as a perfect, e.g.: *использовать и выбросить* or *он использовал все гвозди*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one assumes a prolonged or regular action: *пользоваться молотком для забивания гвоздей*.&#xD;&#xA;The first one can also be used for this: *для забивания гвоздей обычно используют молоток*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in some cases only one verb sounds good, e.g.: *Эту чашку можно использовать для чая?* is fine, but it would sound strange if you say *Можно этой чашкой пользоваться для чая?*  *Пользоваться* really assumes a more mechanical kind of action, though one can say *пользоваться свободой действий*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="7896c4ae-aecf-4784-bf17-632f7c760ad8" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:52:45.057" UserId="97" Text="Word _использовать_ usually refers to a specific incident:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я использовал свой купон&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used my coupon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever you used something in a specific incident doesn't have to disappear after you used it, for example, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я использовал умение красиво врать&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used my skill of lying artfully&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After using such skill, it doesn't disappear and you can use it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may disappear (or at least turn into something not suitable for the original purpose), in which case it's often used with clarification _all_ (_весь/вся/всё/все_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я исользовал всю краску&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used all the paint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _пользоваться_ refers to an ability to use or a process of such usage (as in a prolonged action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пользуюсь общественным транспортом&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I use public transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пользуюсь своей отверткой&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I use my screwdriver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever you'd use continuous tense in English (_I am ..._, _I was ..._, etc.), you would use _пользоваться_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="054b9db7-1246-4ae6-810b-ac4bb9abd9fb" CreationDate="2012-07-03T16:58:52.323" UserId="185" Text="I'd say that in case when no special aspectual meanings are involved, &quot;пользоваться&quot; means to use something for the purpose it was intended to. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;пользоваться словарем = use a dictionary to look up words &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты пользуешься этой зубной щеткой? = Do you brush your teeth with this toothbrush?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;использовать&quot; does not really mean to use a thing for what it was intended to. It can be anything. For example, you cannot just say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я использую эту зубную щетку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should either use &quot;пользоваться&quot; or say, what are you using the toothbrush for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я использую эту зубную щетку, чтобы чистить украшения \ для украшений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And usually it would be strange to say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я использую эту зубную щетку, чтобы чистить зубы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can only be said if the other person was really asking, what are you using the toothbrush for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="12d48ed3-e085-44d4-ac8d-27cebface943" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:10:55.103" UserId="185" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="I'd say that in case when no special aspectual meanings are involved, &quot;пользоваться&quot; means to use something for the purpose it was intended to. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;пользоваться словарем = use a dictionary to look up words &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты пользуешься этой зубной щеткой? = Do you brush your teeth with this toothbrush? (Ex.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;использовать&quot; does not really mean to use a thing for what it was intended to. It can be anything. For example, you cannot just say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я использую эту зубную щетку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should either use &quot;пользоваться&quot; or say, what are you using the toothbrush for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я использую эту зубную щетку, чтобы чистить украшения \ для украшений. (Ex.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And usually it would be strange to say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я использую эту зубную щетку, чтобы чистить зубы. (Ex.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can only be said if the other person was really asking, what are you using the toothbrush for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, if you are asked what are you using your toothbrush for, (Ex.2) or (Ex.3) are the correct way to express your thought (depending on whether you're using your toothbrush for jewelry or for teeth). Saying something like (Ex.1) would be wrong, because then your answer would stress the fact that you are using the toothbrush, not explain the purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="5e4b9c19-8558-49e1-b188-1abfcf81131e" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:12:21.473" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="Word _использовать_ usually refers to a specific incident:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я использовал свой купон&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used my coupon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that whatever you used something in a specific incident doesn't have to disappear after you used it, for example, you could say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я использовал умение красиво врать&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used my skill of lying artfully&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After using such skill, it doesn't disappear and you can use it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may disappear (or at least turn into something not suitable for the original purpose), in which case it's often used with clarification _all_ (_весь/вся/всё/все_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я исользовал всю краску&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I used all the paint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _пользоваться_ refers to an ability to use or a process of such usage (as in a prolonged action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пользуюсь общественным транспортом&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I use public transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пользуюсь своей отверткой&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I use my screwdriver&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="deb854c1-22b7-4617-a268-d1e92e3b3598" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:21:33.823" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the format." Text="I know that the verb *to use* can be translated to Russian as *использовать* (with accusative) or *пользоваться* (with instrumental).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to ask if there is a difference in meaning / usage between these two verbs or if they are perfectly interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1422" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="deb854c1-22b7-4617-a268-d1e92e3b3598" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:21:33.823" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the format." Text="Difference between &quot;использовать&quot; and &quot;пользоваться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1423" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="deb854c1-22b7-4617-a268-d1e92e3b3598" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:21:33.823" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 126 edit id of 137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="65d957e3-449f-4f0d-af02-5b1c16ad5af1" CreationDate="2012-07-03T17:34:26.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220208893526159360" />
  <row Id="1425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="ccf61414-4186-47e6-8b04-0f99766521c0" CreationDate="2012-07-03T19:46:34.953" UserId="170" Text="What's the right way of saying &quot;Этот процесс занял целы**е** пять лет&quot; or &quot;Этот процесс занял целы**x** пять лет&quot;. I guess it's accusative inanimate, so it should be целы**е**, am I correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="ccf61414-4186-47e6-8b04-0f99766521c0" CreationDate="2012-07-03T19:46:34.953" UserId="170" Text="&quot;занял целые 5 лет&quot; or &quot;занял целыx 5 лет&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="ccf61414-4186-47e6-8b04-0f99766521c0" CreationDate="2012-07-03T19:46:34.953" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1428" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="4e56eeaf-3214-4fb4-952a-589724547b2e" CreationDate="2012-07-03T20:25:18.713" UserId="185" Comment="Renamed the question, previous name did not describe correctly what the quesgtion was about" Text="Suffixes for feminine professions: &quot;-ша&quot;, &quot;-ка&quot;, &quot;-иха&quot;, &quot;-ыня&quot;, &quot;-ица&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="73394311-0a16-4d6d-9afb-c628b5746eda" CreationDate="2012-07-03T20:34:00.497" UserId="134" Text="It's genitive, so animacy does not play any role here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однако прилагательные *целый, полный, добрый* и некоторые другие обычно употребляются в этом случае в форме родительного падежа: *целых два месяца, целых две недели, полных два ведра, добрых двое суток, лишних три часа.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: *...Принужден был иногда целых три часа стоять, прижавшись к стене (Пушкин)*; *Да и бил он меня каких-нибудь месяца два (Достоевский)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, and in *Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных мужского и среднего рода, зависящих от числительных *два, три, четыре* (а также от составных числительных, оканчивающихся на указанные цифры), определение, находящееся между числительным и существительным, в современном языке ставится, как правило, в форме родительного падежа множественного числа: *два высоких дома, три больших окна, двадцать четыре деревянных стола*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...Офицеры ели жадно, без разговоров, наверстывали за два потерянных в боях&#xD;&#xA;дня (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два других кадровика... воевали меньше (Бубеннов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два крайних окна в первом этаже закрыты изнутри газетными листами... (А. Н. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение чаще ставится в форме именительного падежа множественного числа: *две большие комнаты*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры (А. Н. Толстой);  &#xD;&#xA;На платформе прохаживались... две молоденькие чему-то смеявшиеся девушки (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев (Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога возможны варианты: *на две равные части / по две столовых ложки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the normal Russian order numeral-adjective-noun is swapped in idiomatic constructs with *целый, полный, добрый, лишний, жалкий* etc. which here define the numeral rather than the noun, but the rules for adjectives still apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *целый*, as any other adjective, should be put into pl. gen. for masculine and neuter nouns, and into pl. nom. for feminine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целых пять лет (= пять целых лет)*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целые три минуты (= три целые минуты)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="f21fe844-76f7-4307-b69e-6b6e982ada59" CreationDate="2012-07-03T20:39:21.023" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body; added 23 characters in body" Text="It's genitive, so animacy does not play any role here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однако прилагательные *целый, полный, добрый* и некоторые другие обычно употребляются в этом случае в форме родительного падежа: *целых два месяца, целых две недели, полных два ведра, добрых двое суток, лишних три часа.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: *...Принужден был иногда целых три часа стоять, прижавшись к стене (Пушкин)*; *Да и бил он меня каких-нибудь месяца два (Достоевский)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, and in *Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных мужского и среднего рода, зависящих от числительных *два, три, четыре* (а также от составных числительных, оканчивающихся на указанные цифры), определение, находящееся между числительным и существительным, в современном языке ставится, как правило, в форме родительного падежа множественного числа: *два высоких дома, три больших окна, двадцать четыре деревянных стола*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...Офицеры ели жадно, без разговоров, наверстывали за два потерянных в боях&#xD;&#xA;дня (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два других кадровика... воевали меньше (Бубеннов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два крайних окна в первом этаже закрыты изнутри газетными листами... (А. Н. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение чаще ставится в форме именительного падежа множественного числа: *две большие комнаты*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры (А. Н. Толстой);  &#xD;&#xA;На платформе прохаживались... две молоденькие чему-то смеявшиеся девушки (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев (Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога возможны варианты: *на две равные части / по две столовых ложки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually the normal Russian order numeral-adjective-noun is violated in idiomatic constructs with *целый, полный, добрый, лишний, жалкий* etc. which here define the numeral rather than the noun, but the rules for adjectives still apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *целый*, as any other adjective, should be put into pl. gen. for masculine and neuter nouns, and into pl. nom. for feminine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целых пять лет* (compare to  *пять целых лет*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целые три минуты* (compare to *три целые минуты*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="1d0dc09f-acc2-4174-9ed6-454aad0516fa" CreationDate="2012-07-03T20:41:06.903" UserId="134" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="What's the right way of saying &quot;Этот процесс занял целы&lt;strong&gt;е&lt;/strong&gt; пять лет&quot; or &quot;Этот процесс занял целы&lt;strong&gt;x&lt;/strong&gt; пять лет&quot;. I guess it's accusative inanimate, so it should be целы&lt;strong&gt;е&lt;/strong&gt;, am I correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="a9ea5649-5260-4c3d-a750-b4a17eb0ec66" CreationDate="2012-07-03T20:54:21.463" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body; added 108 characters in body; added 53 characters in body" Text="It's genitive, so animacy does not play any role here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных мужского и среднего рода, зависящих от числительных *два, три, четыре* (а также от составных числительных, оканчивающихся на указанные цифры), определение, находящееся между числительным и существительным, в современном языке ставится, как правило, в форме родительного падежа множественного числа: *два высоких дома, три больших окна, двадцать четыре деревянных стола*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...Офицеры ели жадно, без разговоров, наверстывали за два потерянных в боях&#xD;&#xA;дня (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два других кадровика... воевали меньше (Бубеннов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два крайних окна в первом этаже закрыты изнутри газетными листами... (А. Н. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение чаще ставится в форме именительного падежа множественного числа: *две большие комнаты*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры (А. Н. Толстой);  &#xD;&#xA;На платформе прохаживались... две молоденькие чему-то смеявшиеся девушки (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев (Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога возможны варианты: *на две равные части / по две столовых ложки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однако прилагательные *целый, полный, добрый* и некоторые другие обычно употребляются в этом случае в форме родительного падежа: *целых два месяца, целых две недели, полных два ведра, добрых двое суток, лишних три часа.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: *...Принужден был иногда целых три часа стоять, прижавшись к стене (Пушкин)*; *Да и бил он меня каких-нибудь месяца два (Достоевский)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *целый*, if applied to the noun, would be put into pl. gen. for masculine and neuter nouns, and into pl. nom. for feminine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял пять целых лет*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял три целы&lt;strong&gt;е&lt;/strong&gt; минуты* (fem. noun, adjective in pl. nom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the idiomatic constructs with *целый, полный, добрый, лишний, жалкий* etc. which  define the numeral rather than the noun (and hence are put before the numeral, not the noun), the exception from the second quote applies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целых пять лет*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целы&lt;strong&gt;х&lt;/strong&gt; три минуты* (fem. noun, but adjective in pl. gen.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="1bf780d9-1213-4124-8b00-f422667f753d" CreationDate="2012-07-03T21:05:05.400" UserId="134" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="It's genitive, so animacy does not play any role here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных мужского и среднего рода, зависящих от числительных *два, три, четыре* (а также от составных числительных, оканчивающихся на указанные цифры), определение, находящееся между числительным и существительным, в современном языке ставится, как правило, в форме родительного падежа множественного числа: *два высоких дома, три больших окна, двадцать четыре деревянных стола*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...Офицеры ели жадно, без разговоров, наверстывали за два потерянных в боях&#xD;&#xA;дня (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два других кадровика... воевали меньше (Бубеннов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два крайних окна в первом этаже закрыты изнутри газетными листами... (А. Н. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение чаще ставится в форме именительного падежа множественного числа: *две большие комнаты*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры (А. Н. Толстой);  &#xD;&#xA;На платформе прохаживались... две молоденькие чему-то смеявшиеся девушки (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев (Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога возможны варианты: *на две равные части / по две столовых ложки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однако прилагательные *целый, полный, добрый* и некоторые другие обычно употребляются в этом случае в форме родительного падежа: *целых два месяца, целых две недели, полных два ведра, добрых двое суток, лишних три часа.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: *...Принужден был иногда целых три часа стоять, прижавшись к стене (Пушкин)*; *Да и бил он меня каких-нибудь месяца два (Достоевский)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *целый*, if applied to the noun, would be put into pl. gen. for masculine and neuter nouns, and into pl. nom. for feminine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял пять целых лет*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял три целы&lt;strong&gt;е&lt;/strong&gt; минуты* (fem. noun, adjective in pl. nom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the idiomatic constructs with *целый, полный, добрый, лишний, жалкий* etc. which  define the numeral rather than the noun (and hence are put before the numeral, not the noun), the exception from the second quote applies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целых пять лет*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целы&lt;strong&gt;х&lt;/strong&gt; три минуты* (fem. noun, but adjective in pl. gen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is not strict and is widely violated widely. These queries &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целый nom,pl  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от два  NUM  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от S,f  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целый gen,pl  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от два  NUM  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от S,f  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yield 45 and 141 entries in the corpus, accordingly (more than a third usage cases are wrong according to Rosenthal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="d2f53f18-ec32-4b4c-921b-bf79aadd0eb9" CreationDate="2012-07-03T21:34:33.597" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="It's genitive, so animacy does not play any role here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal in *Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных мужского и среднего рода, зависящих от числительных *два, три, четыре* (а также от составных числительных, оканчивающихся на указанные цифры), определение, находящееся между числительным и существительным, в современном языке ставится, как правило, в форме родительного падежа множественного числа: *два высоких дома, три больших окна, двадцать четыре деревянных стола*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *...Офицеры ели жадно, без разговоров, наверстывали за два потерянных в боях&#xD;&#xA;дня (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два других кадровика... воевали меньше (Бубеннов);  &#xD;&#xA;Два крайних окна в первом этаже закрыты изнутри газетными листами... (А. Н. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение чаще ставится в форме именительного падежа множественного числа: *две большие комнаты*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры (А. Н. Толстой);  &#xD;&#xA;На платформе прохаживались... две молоденькие чему-то смеявшиеся девушки (Шолохов);  &#xD;&#xA;По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев (Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога возможны варианты: *на две равные части / по две столовых ложки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однако прилагательные *целый, полный, добрый* и некоторые другие обычно употребляются в этом случае в форме родительного падежа: *целых два месяца, целых две недели, полных два ведра, добрых двое суток, лишних три часа.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: *...Принужден был иногда целых три часа стоять, прижавшись к стене (Пушкин)*; *Да и бил он меня каких-нибудь месяца два (Достоевский)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *целый*, if applied to the noun, would be put into pl. gen. for masculine and neuter nouns, and into pl. nom. for feminine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял пять целых лет*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял три целы&lt;strong&gt;е&lt;/strong&gt; минуты* (fem. noun, adjective in pl. nom.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the idiomatic constructs with *целый, полный, добрый, лишний, жалкий* etc. which  define the numeral rather than the noun (and hence are put before the numeral, not the noun), the exception from the second quote applies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целых пять лет*&#xD;&#xA;* *Этот процесс занял целы&lt;strong&gt;х&lt;/strong&gt; три минуты* (fem. noun, but adjective in pl. gen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule is not strict and is often violated. These queries &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целый nom,pl  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от два  NUM  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от S,f  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целый gen,pl  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от два  NUM  &#xD;&#xA;на расстоянии 1 от S,f  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yield 45 and 141 entries in the corpus, accordingly (more than a third usage cases are wrong according to Rosenthal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="a893134a-ee07-47d3-a126-b91378f1abfe" CreationDate="2012-07-03T22:22:07.243" UserId="185" Text="It is hard to formulate the difference in words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are contexts when &quot;-либо&quot; is better than &quot;-нибудь&quot;, in other contexts &quot;-нибудь&quot; is better than &quot;-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Indirect negation: &quot;-либо&quot; is better than &quot;-нибудь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он не сказал, был ли он когда-либо в Америке. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;?Он не сказал, был ли он когда-нибудь в Америке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Question: &quot;-нибудь&quot; is better than &quot;-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты когда-нибудь был в Америке?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;???Ты когда-либо был в Америке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Indirect question: both are equally good&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, был ли ты когда-нибудь в Америке.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, был ли ты когда-либо в Америке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Conditional: &quot;-нибудь&quot; is better than &quot;-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если ты когда-нибудь будешь в Америке, приезжай в гости.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;???Если ты когда-либо будешь в Америке, приезжай в гости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Comparative: &quot;-либо&quot; is better than &quot;-нибудь&quot; (but the correct variant, imho, is &quot;бы то ни было&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;?Он поет лучше, чем когда-либо.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Он поет лучше, чем когда-нибудь.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он поет лучше, чем когда бы то ни было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. &quot;Irrealis non-specific&quot;, the context when the entity does not exist (yet) or is hypothetical:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Imperative&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне срочно надо сходить на работу, позови кого-нибудь посидеть с ребенком.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Мне срочно надо сходить на работу, позови кого-либо посидеть с ребенком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Wish&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хотел бы и я когда-нибудь съездить в Америку.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Хотел бы и я когда-либо съездить в Америку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on where these contexts come from, have a look at the introductory part of [this paper][1], for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=6&amp;ved=0CGEQFjAF&amp;url=http://webh01.ua.ac.be/gramis/publications/JvdA_Mapping%2520indefinites.pdf&amp;ei=yW7zT5T4OsyVsgbEjNDTBQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNGR3hhAqA7LxbV2L_CXtjUZ1tgm7A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1436" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="58342e4f-1cf0-4f47-8758-bf47cced13f5" CreationDate="2012-07-04T05:34:26.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220390086515236867" />
  <row Id="1437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="1915b248-2242-4428-afb7-3f8003db9418" CreationDate="2012-07-04T06:46:09.957" UserId="81" Text="Following [the question about common feminine suffices for profession titles][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word `няня` has several meanings. According to [gramota.ru][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** Работница, занимающаяся уходом, присмотром за детьми (в семье, в детском саду, в яслях). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Разг. Санитарка в лечебном учреждении. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you call male `няня` in both cases? In documents or in common speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I would appreciate comments about similar cases: `горничная`,`медицинская сестра`. Is  `медбрат` common and official word in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/487/suffixes-for-feminine-professions-%D1%88%D0%B0-%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0-%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%FF%ED%FF&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="1915b248-2242-4428-afb7-3f8003db9418" CreationDate="2012-07-04T06:46:09.957" UserId="81" Text="Усатый нянь or how to call male nanny (babysitter)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="1915b248-2242-4428-afb7-3f8003db9418" CreationDate="2012-07-04T06:46:09.957" UserId="81" Text="|лексикон|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="0a66a62c-1ad0-4ae1-9b21-2e9cd4fdf503" CreationDate="2012-07-04T07:10:28.673" UserId="81" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Following [the question about common feminine suffices for profession titles][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word `няня` has several meanings. According to [gramota.ru][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** Работница, занимающаяся уходом, присмотром за детьми (в семье, в детском саду, в яслях). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Разг. Санитарка в лечебном учреждении. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you call a male `няня` in both cases? In documents or in common speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I would appreciate comments about similar cases: `горничная`,`медицинская сестра`. Is  `медбрат` common and official word in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/487/suffixes-for-feminine-professions-%D1%88%D0%B0-%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0-%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%FF%ED%FF&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1444" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="0a66a62c-1ad0-4ae1-9b21-2e9cd4fdf503" CreationDate="2012-07-04T07:10:28.673" UserId="81" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Усатый нянь or what to call a male nanny (babysitter)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="16b51840-8702-44cb-9265-788a7a224686" CreationDate="2012-07-04T08:10:54.087" UserId="185" Comment="Incorporated Armen's comment into the examples." Text="It is hard to formulate the difference in words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are contexts when &quot;-либо&quot; is better than &quot;-нибудь&quot;, in other contexts &quot;-нибудь&quot; is better than &quot;-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Indirect negation: &quot;-либо&quot; is better than &quot;-нибудь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он не сказал, был ли он когда-либо в Америке. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;?Он не сказал, был ли он когда-нибудь в Америке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Question: both variants are possible, some speakers prefer &quot;-нибудь&quot;, others prefer &quot;-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты когда-нибудь был в Америке?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты когда-либо был в Америке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Indirect question: both are equally good&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, был ли ты когда-нибудь в Америке.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, был ли ты когда-либо в Америке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Conditional: &quot;-нибудь&quot; is better than &quot;-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если ты когда-нибудь будешь в Америке, приезжай в гости.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;???Если ты когда-либо будешь в Америке, приезжай в гости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Comparative: &quot;-либо&quot; is better than &quot;-нибудь&quot; (but the correct variant, imho, is &quot;бы то ни было&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;?Он поет лучше, чем когда-либо.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Он поет лучше, чем когда-нибудь.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он поет лучше, чем когда бы то ни было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. &quot;Irrealis non-specific&quot;, the context when the entity does not exist (yet) or is hypothetical:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Imperative&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне срочно надо сходить на работу, позови кого-нибудь посидеть с ребенком.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Мне срочно надо сходить на работу, позови кого-либо посидеть с ребенком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Wish&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хотел бы и я когда-нибудь съездить в Америку.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Хотел бы и я когда-либо съездить в Америку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on where these contexts come from, have a look at the introductory part of [this paper][1], for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=6&amp;ved=0CGEQFjAF&amp;url=http://webh01.ua.ac.be/gramis/publications/JvdA_Mapping%2520indefinites.pdf&amp;ei=yW7zT5T4OsyVsgbEjNDTBQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNGR3hhAqA7LxbV2L_CXtjUZ1tgm7A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="07d5adc3-f65c-4c32-a388-f7519c09f434" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:09:07.683" UserId="47" Comment="formatting, typos" Text="Because you have to chase the pills down with water. Eating would also suggest chewing the pills rather than swallowing them. You can also say *глотать таблетки* (swallow pills), but it implies that there are quite a few pills being taken. Another way to say it is *принимать лекарства* (take medicine), but it is not specific to pills; *принимать таблетки* seems slightly weird colloquially, but is often used in instructions that come with pills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1454" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="07d5adc3-f65c-4c32-a388-f7519c09f434" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:09:07.683" Comment="Proposed by 47 approved by 134 edit id of 110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="6829fe6b-04c5-404f-9d9b-b17d7b90a186" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:10:08.760" UserId="173" Comment="split into question/answer (answer was included in the question)" Text="An example of two words which differ only by a soft sign are `кон` (round, as in &quot;the next round of a game&quot;) and `конь` (stallion, male horse). Often, English speakers do not know how to enunicate the soft consonant at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we understand the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1456" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="6829fe6b-04c5-404f-9d9b-b17d7b90a186" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:10:08.760" Comment="Proposed by 173 approved by 134 edit id of 109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="ea9d1a72-ccc1-4199-a873-74ca30d9a17f" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:09.180" UserId="185" Comment="translated and made it clearer to understand." Text="There is no difference between &quot;кидать&quot; and &quot;бросать&quot;. Ideally, &quot;кидать&quot; means to throw further away than &quot;бросать&quot;, especially if there is no need to search for what was thrown away. But I don't think that today speakers bother about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;бросать&quot; means a more intense action directed away from oneself, and it doesn't matter how far away something is thrown. For me this word is close to the meaning of word &quot;breast&quot;, but this is not what the dictionaries say. Vasmer's dictionary also points out that word &quot;brush&quot; comes from the same root as &quot;бросать&quot;, that is, there is one common part of the meaning: abrupt movement. As for &quot;кидать&quot;, Vasmer tells that it means simply to throw smth in order to get rid of it.&#xD;&#xA;it&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, there is definitively a difference in the meaning of derivatives. For verbs &quot;закинуть&quot; and &quot;забросить&quot; (i.e. the action is completed), &quot;закинуть&quot; means a less intense action. For example, I would rather say &quot;забросить мяч в кольцо&quot; than &quot;закинуть мяч в кольцо&quot;. Also &quot;в третий раз закинул старик невод&quot; - the old man threw the net for the third time - he threw it far-far away, but not without a goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Подкинуть&quot; and &quot;перекинуть&quot; mean to throw something heavy, but there is no such thing for &quot;подбросить&quot; and &quot;перебросить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подбросить/подкинуть. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Incorrect: &quot;меня подкинуло&quot;, &quot;подкинуть в воздух&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Better: &quot;Три раза подкинули, один раз поймали.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Докинуть&quot; stresses that the distance was great, &quot;добросить&quot; stresses that the goal was reached.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скинуть&quot; and &quot;сбросить&quot; are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Откинуть&quot; means that the thing that was thrown away is not interesting. &quot;Отбросить&quot; means that the thing was thrown away violently and deliberately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вбросить&quot; exists while it is not really possible to say &quot;вкинуть&quot; (unless you say to throw something rather big (a man, for example) into a place which is approximately equally big (into a window)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it is all only my humble opinion and it all is based on my own knowledge of Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1458" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="ea9d1a72-ccc1-4199-a873-74ca30d9a17f" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:09.180" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="1ba22c7c-7b18-4206-a84e-999d7e815c8d" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:36.013" UserId="185" Comment="It is about tense, after all" Text="|грамматика|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1460" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="1ba22c7c-7b18-4206-a84e-999d7e815c8d" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:36.013" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 115" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1461" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="9cc88538-92a9-4537-9e72-d55411a382cf" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:41.927" UserId="185" Comment="if it is about future, it is about tense" Text="|грамматика|single-word-requests|глаголы|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1462" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="9cc88538-92a9-4537-9e72-d55411a382cf" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:41.927" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e88f02f1-a37f-4d79-990a-e999a0140671" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:55.327" UserId="185" Comment="Changed an example in order to delete an answer." Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Частичный) (Partitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни дня без строчки (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни единого разу (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господь (Nominative) бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господи, боже мой (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдем (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1464" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e88f02f1-a37f-4d79-990a-e999a0140671" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:11:55.327" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1465" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="0f8adfb1-42f2-45e6-acd8-bb46faf1fe52" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:03.297" UserId="71" Comment="fixed title and tags" Text="What is the difference between дыра and дырка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1466" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="0f8adfb1-42f2-45e6-acd8-bb46faf1fe52" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:03.297" UserId="71" Comment="fixed title and tags" Text="|выбор-слова|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1467" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="0f8adfb1-42f2-45e6-acd8-bb46faf1fe52" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:03.297" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="4d91e426-6389-4c22-803a-e1bf300901b0" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:09.523" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="In many cases, you can find that words which initially appear to be absolute synonyms actually have slight differences in meaning, so that one can be used in a specific setting while the other cannot. Is there such a difference for *кидать* and *бросать*, or are they completely interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="4d91e426-6389-4c22-803a-e1bf300901b0" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:09.523" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="Is there a difference between &quot;кидать&quot; and &quot;бросать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1470" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="4d91e426-6389-4c22-803a-e1bf300901b0" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:09.523" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="|глаголы|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1471" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="4d91e426-6389-4c22-803a-e1bf300901b0" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:09.523" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 134 edit id of 129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="2fe24d03-bf18-4e66-a834-d6b69c283c21" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:18.430" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the format." Text="In my [previous question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2), several answers mentioned different ways *здравствуйте* can be shortened, namely *здравствуй* and *здрасте*. Are these special cases, or is it common to shorten words like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different languages tend to deal differently with optimising for speed. In Danish, we tend to abbreviate the word, skipping certain parts, but that is not strictly correct. In Spanish, they tend to carefully pronounce the words, but then they do it at dizzying speeds. Is this something like it for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1473" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="2fe24d03-bf18-4e66-a834-d6b69c283c21" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:18.430" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the format." Text="Are there rules for shortening words? Like &quot;здрасте&quot; instead of &quot;здравствуйте&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1474" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="2fe24d03-bf18-4e66-a834-d6b69c283c21" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:18.430" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="f25eabf7-2ae3-4b17-8645-59d05f217ab2" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:33.750" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting and wording and spelling" Text="First of all, these feminine forms are not common and even rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **врачиха**: It is an informal and vulgar name of врач. Normally you would use: *Врач Ирина Ивановна.* So, using the masculine form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Similar for others - *Дворник К.С.Иванова*. But (this is polite and friendly): *Дворничиха Тетя Клава.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Повариха**: But *Заслуженный повар Светлана Алексеевна Огурцова.*&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Директор**: *Директрисса.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Formal**: *Личный Секретарь - Исаева*;  &#xD;&#xA; **Informal**: *Его любимая секретарша.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Заслуженный учитель года Ксения Петровна Пятеркина - но наша учительница Ксения Петровна.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are quite old, so I don't think there are any rules for adding suffixes. Just read more books to remember them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ЗавХоз = Заведующий Хозяйством* - so it cannot be shorted. Судья so respected so you cannot modify it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1476" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="f25eabf7-2ae3-4b17-8645-59d05f217ab2" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:33.750" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by -1 edit id of 140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="1e918bc9-0aa7-4953-8d88-085ac66351bc" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:33.907" UserId="134" Comment="fixed formatting and wording and spelling" Text="First of all, these feminine forms are not common and even rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **врачиха**: It is an informal and vulgar name of врач. Normally you would use: *Врач Ирина Ивановна.* So, using the masculine form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Similar for others - *Дворник К.С.Иванова*. But (this is polite and friendly): *Дворничиха Тетя Клава.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Повариха**: But *Заслуженный повар Светлана Алексеевна Огурцова.*&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Директор**: *Директриса.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Formal**: *Личный Секретарь - Исаева*;  &#xD;&#xA; **Informal**: *Его любимая секретарша.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Заслуженный учитель года Ксения Петровна Пятеркина - но наша учительница Ксения Петровна.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are quite old, so I don't think there are any rules for adding suffixes. Just read more books to remember them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ЗавХоз = Заведующий Хозяйством* - so it cannot be shorted. Судья so respected so you cannot modify it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="fb0bb704-7089-414d-9bb0-9951db1a1b48" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:43.750" UserId="185" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding the meaning, usage, formation and translation of aspectual forms of Russian verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1479" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="fb0bb704-7089-414d-9bb0-9951db1a1b48" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:43.750" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 125" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="ca4008bb-bfce-4beb-93cd-a888ac52c8a7" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:48.477" UserId="185" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Very similar to the translation tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1481" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="ca4008bb-bfce-4beb-93cd-a888ac52c8a7" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:48.477" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="402da6e5-8bc7-487e-a37e-ceadcd12c86b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:53.627" UserId="92" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="Nouns in Russian language are assigned a grammatical gender (male, female or neuter), often with no direct relation to the meaning of the word. An adjective in Russian must agree with the gender of the noun to which it is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, nouns do not have a grammatical gender, but many nouns can refer to masculine or feminine animate objects (mother/father, actor/actress)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1483" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="402da6e5-8bc7-487e-a37e-ceadcd12c86b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:53.627" Comment="Proposed by 92 approved by 134 edit id of 100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="cf4e44ac-fb4a-469a-9ebe-638eafc32505" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:56.760" UserId="92" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="For questions about grammatical gender of Russian nouns or general questions about gendered words in Russian or English. English nouns do not have grammatical gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1485" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="cf4e44ac-fb4a-469a-9ebe-638eafc32505" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:56.760" Comment="Proposed by 92 approved by 134 edit id of 101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="a19b1b38-aed5-4f3f-a060-a13ca3a15dc6" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:58.960" UserId="185" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Exercises, books, resources for learning Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1487" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="a19b1b38-aed5-4f3f-a060-a13ca3a15dc6" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:12:58.960" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 121" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="ae0ab400-a7d4-4f70-a44f-470f8fede84b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:01.190" UserId="185" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Includes questions about plural forms of particular words as well as more general questions about the usage and formation of plural forms of nouns. Maybe it should be renamed into &quot;number&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1489" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="ae0ab400-a7d4-4f70-a44f-470f8fede84b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:01.190" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="0eb2087e-751b-4dd5-beb8-dca3701c9e09" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:03.017" UserId="185" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Includes questions of two kinds. First: differences in usage between two or more Russian words or phrases. Two: the usage of the Russian language in other countries as well as the usage of Russian dialects. Intersects with &quot;word-choice&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1491" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="0eb2087e-751b-4dd5-beb8-dca3701c9e09" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:03.017" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="5acb5e8b-8eaa-477e-9ff0-4d88c960cfef" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:05.340" UserId="185" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding the usage and formation of verbal tense (future, present or past)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1493" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="5acb5e8b-8eaa-477e-9ff0-4d88c960cfef" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:05.340" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="274ed888-e883-43c7-b768-ecad5a90a5dd" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:07.650" UserId="185" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="All questions about translation of words, phrases, idioms or collocations from Russian-to-English or English-to-Russian translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1495" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="274ed888-e883-43c7-b768-ecad5a90a5dd" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:13:07.650" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="e123c757-61f2-426f-9fab-8d275e49df8f" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:39:00.577" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Is there actually a rule for forming feminine names of professions? I can come up with several examples (and some of the examples are colloquial, but nevertheless widespread), but I cannot figure out what the rule is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;врач - врачиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворник - дворничиха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;повар - повариха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;портной - портниха&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ветеринар - ветеринарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;директор - директриса (or директорша)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;секретарь - секретарша&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;учитель - учительница&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уборщик - уборщица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;волейболист - волейболистка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дояр - доярка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;юннат - юннатка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раб - рабыня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;князь - княгиня&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;слуга - служанка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;судья&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;завхоз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do not seem to change at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="49fe95d8-f48a-4f2e-b505-439674bf8f98" CreationDate="2012-07-04T10:39:11.793" UserId="134" Text="Though it's perfectly valid to call women grammatically masculine names, the opposite is quite peculiar (see [this answer][1] of mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sound neutral, the names of professions which lack gramatically masculine forms, are replaced by the synonyms, even if they are bulky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Помощник воспитателя* instead of *нянечка* (in a kindergarten)&#xD;&#xA;* *Санитар* instead of *нянечка* (in a hospital)&#xD;&#xA;* *Медицинский брат* instead of *медицинская сестра*&#xD;&#xA;* *Артист балета* instead of *балерина*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sidorenko in *Теоретические и практические материалы по морфологии современного русского языка* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для называния лиц мужского пола, выполняющих соответствующую работу, иногда используются описательные обороты типа *артист (солист) балета, переписчик на машинке*. Могут быть использованы также новые слова с изменением основы: *дояр* от *доярка*, *уборщик* от *уборщица*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a male babysitter in a kindergarten you can use *воспитатель*, *младший воспитатель* or *помощник воспитателя*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a visiting male babysitter, you can use a loanword *бебиситтер* (which unequivocally means a visiting babysitter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/324/134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="0e909206-24fa-48c7-b030-3efdcb75f889" CreationDate="2012-07-04T11:12:24.153" UserId="194" Text="    What would you call a male няня in both cases? In documents or in common speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Воспитатель, гувернёр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    горничная,&#xD;&#xA;Never seen a male in that office. Possibly &quot;уборщик&quot; (cleaner), &quot;слуга&quot; (servant). In military, &quot;денщик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    медицинская сестра. Is медбрат common and official word in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="c9f7c08e-a99d-4791-8882-d0f9cd794ca0" CreationDate="2012-07-04T11:31:34.457" UserId="194" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="    What would you call a male няня in both cases? In documents or in common speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Воспитатель, гувернёр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    горничная,&#xD;&#xA;Never seen a male in that office. Possibly &quot;уборщик&quot; (cleaner), &quot;слуга&quot; (servant). In military, &quot;денщик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    медицинская сестра. Is медбрат common and official word in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Also &quot;санитар&quot; is used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="670f6f9d-e7cf-4bb0-820e-aa6dec45a17d" CreationDate="2012-07-04T11:37:32.753" UserId="194" Text="*Дырка* is **deminutive** of *дыра*. So these are not separate words. Usually *дырка* means small *дыра*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="f9bc52a7-0895-4a12-99eb-5d63adef4e6b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T17:07:39.017" UserId="185" Text="Is there such thing as morpheme dictionary, where one could look up functions and meanings of prefixes, suffixes, particles, etc. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, I was interested in the range of meanings that prefix &quot;рас-\раз-&quot; have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="f9bc52a7-0895-4a12-99eb-5d63adef4e6b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T17:07:39.017" UserId="185" Text="Are there any morpheme dictionaries for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="f9bc52a7-0895-4a12-99eb-5d63adef4e6b" CreationDate="2012-07-04T17:07:39.017" UserId="185" Text="|resource-request|суффиксы|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="44087b94-e0df-4bd3-839d-a9f31520f232" CreationDate="2012-07-04T19:29:20.883" UserId="134" Text="* Кузнецова А. И., Ефремова Т. Ф. Словарь морфем русского языка. — М., 1986&#xD;&#xA;* Ефремова Т. Ф. Новый словарь русского языка. Толково-словообразовательный. — М.: Русский язык, 2000.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="5eaacba1-83ee-4854-b388-a2e991b83496" CreationDate="2012-07-04T19:57:02.390" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [When to use the genitive or the accusative in negative sentences](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/257/when-to-use-the-genitive-or-the-accusative-in-negative-sentences)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I've read somewhere that after a negation, the Genitive is more common for the object being negated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use the Genitive case and when the Accusative case? Or other cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one rule is the Animated/Inanimated distinction, but I'd like the answers to shed some light on this too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1509" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="2f20b1e7-3756-4ae3-9324-2a50655d268c" CreationDate="2012-07-04T19:56:59.847" UserId="8" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[257],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anna Lear&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1510" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="6b8cfc3e-cd0e-4167-9057-f7f94b6443ec" CreationDate="2012-07-04T19:57:42.233" UserId="8" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:104,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Armen Tsirunyan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anna Lear&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="dba73210-a684-48f0-9dd0-2b87e826fb33" CreationDate="2012-07-04T19:58:36.523" UserId="8" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It's typical of children (of Russian children, at least) to experiment with morphology. Korney Chukovsky wrote a book 'from 2 to 5' about his experience of childern from 2 to 5 understanding the undercurrent rules of Russian. It states such tendencies as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. experimenting (- Дай другую логу! - логу instead of ложку. In fact, why not :) ? But we never say so, of course).&#xD;&#xA;2. creating one's own etymology: Паутина (cobweb) -&gt; паукина (as it has a spider, or паук there).&#xD;&#xA;3. Widening the semantics: - Облака-то сняли! Сняли с неба облака! (we Russians don't 'take off' clouds from the sky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that's about it but the examples are fantastic! If you're interested in the book, you can find it on http://www.chukfamily.ru/Kornei/Prosa/Ot2do5/Ot2do5.htm. If you don't understand the Russian there, you can mail me to mari_belova@mail.ru. I've read the book and enjoyed it and I hope that you will enjoy it too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, as a linguist, I had lectures on children's language. So feel free to torture me with your curiosity :)))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1512" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="d04613fb-6778-40af-b070-5faa45137ffe" CreationDate="2012-07-04T20:01:55.863" UserId="8" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="1514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="5667d03b-c1d0-49f6-b182-208dd4ff0fd0" CreationDate="2012-07-04T22:08:58.573" UserId="185" Text="Some of the short forms have a different meaning than the full forms. Here are some examples (I don't know the general rule):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*хороший* - *хорош* - *хорош собой*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*good*, *kind* - *tasty* (in some contexts) - *beautiful*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он хороший друг - He is a good friend.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он хорош собой - He is handsome. It is incorrect to say &quot;Он хороший собой.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Суп хорош! - The soup tastes good! It is weird (at least for me) to say &quot;Суп хороший&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*сильный* - *силён* (в чем-либо) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*strong* - *knowledgeable*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сильный мужчина - A strong man&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он силен в математике - He knows his maths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*добрый* - *будь добр*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*kind* - *please*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Добрый доктор Айболит - A good kind Dr. Айболит.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Будь добр, закрой окно. - Be a dear, close the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*великий* - *велик*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*great* - *too large*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пётр Великий - Peter The Great&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Этот костюм мне велик - This suit is too large for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*смешной* - *смешон*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*funny* - *laughable, ridiculous*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Смешная история - A funny story&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты смешон - You are ridiculous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1515" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="0ec0b50c-a25b-4750-b15e-1f9a12f2876f" CreationDate="2012-07-04T22:25:40.410" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the format, otherwise the title sounds ambiguous" Text="A Russian translation for &quot;privacy&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1516" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="0ec0b50c-a25b-4750-b15e-1f9a12f2876f" CreationDate="2012-07-04T22:25:40.410" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 8 edit id of 141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="f2ba8d96-9c1e-4658-95b2-7a6ee1e72dd9" CreationDate="2012-07-04T23:03:56.867" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|морфология|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1518" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="fd68143c-1ea1-4b69-b47f-fe9905d15d5c" CreationDate="2012-07-04T23:34:33.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220661910352306176" />
  <row Id="1519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="ae53ea28-6350-46ef-b557-437000e32aab" CreationDate="2012-07-05T00:23:14.607" UserId="62" Text="In the nominative case, if we are counting something of size 2, 3, or 4 then the object being counted is in the genitive singular case, e.g., три треугольника. If we have an adjective involved, then it is genitive plural if the noun is masculine or neuter (e.g., три различных треугольника, три различных чисел), but is the situation with adjectives modifying feminine nouns that are being counted is more involved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference I found said that in the nominative case after 2, 3, and 4 an adjective modifying a feminine noun is in the nominative plural (e.g., три раличные шары). Another reference said that this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural -- which I guess is what most feminine nouns are like -- and if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три разлиных стороны).  I'd like to know some  counterexamples to these two stress tests for determining the case ending on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, or 4. (If there weren't counterexamples then I'd think that reference wouldn't have said the rules were &quot;normally&quot; true.) And is there a *comprehensive* rule for the case endings on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, and 4?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that anything applying to 2, 3, and 4 can be extended to other numbers ending in 2, 3, and 4 (except 12, 13, 14), but I keep the question restricted to 2, 3, and 4 for simplicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="ae53ea28-6350-46ef-b557-437000e32aab" CreationDate="2012-07-05T00:23:14.607" UserId="62" Text="declining adjectives modifying feminine nouns after 2, 3, 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="ae53ea28-6350-46ef-b557-437000e32aab" CreationDate="2012-07-05T00:23:14.607" UserId="62" Text="|прилагательные|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="4ae20fbc-05a6-4f96-ae29-de9e275b161c" CreationDate="2012-07-05T00:31:33.447" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In the nominative case, if we are counting something of size 2, 3, or 4 then the object being counted is in the genitive singular case, e.g., три треугольника. If we have an adjective involved, then it is genitive plural if the noun is masculine or neuter (e.g., три различных треугольника, три различных чисел), but the situation with adjectives modifying feminine nouns that are being counted is more involved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference I found said that in the nominative case after 2, 3, and 4 an adjective modifying a feminine noun is in the nominative plural (e.g., три раличные шары). Another reference said that this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural -- which I guess is what most feminine nouns are like -- and if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три разлиных стороны).  I'd like to know some  counterexamples to these two stress tests for determining the case ending on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, or 4. (If there weren't counterexamples then I'd think that reference wouldn't have said the rules were &quot;normally&quot; true.) And is there a *comprehensive* rule for the case endings on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, and 4?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that anything applying to 2, 3, and 4 can be extended to other numbers ending in 2, 3, and 4 (except 12, 13, 14), but I keep the question restricted to 2, 3, and 4 for simplicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="3db67f85-c969-427c-bccd-3ff9f2011dee" CreationDate="2012-07-05T01:12:24.940" UserId="62" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In the nominative case, if we are counting something of size 2, 3, or 4 then the object being counted is in the genitive singular case, e.g., три треугольника. If we have an adjective involved, then it is genitive plural if the noun is masculine or neuter (e.g., три различных треугольника, три различных чисел), but the situation with adjectives modifying feminine nouns that are being counted is more involved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference I found said that in the nominative case after 2, 3, and 4 an adjective modifying a feminine noun is in the nominative plural (e.g., три раличные шары). Another reference said that this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural -- which I guess is what most feminine nouns are like -- and if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три разлиных стороны).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) I'd like to know some  counterexamples to these two stress tests for determining the case ending on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, or 4. (If there weren't counterexamples then I'd think that reference wouldn't have said the rules were &quot;normally&quot; true.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) Is there a *comprehensive* rule for the case endings on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, and 4?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that anything applying to 2, 3, and 4 can be extended to other numbers ending in 2, 3, and 4 (except 12, 13, 14), but I keep the question restricted to 2, 3, and 4 for simplicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="0c59843f-34dc-4e0d-a4cf-74b6a070e4a2" CreationDate="2012-07-05T02:31:13.920" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="ad82c72a-4df0-4818-b5e4-ded4b071ad33" CreationDate="2012-07-05T02:31:13.920" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="0f4194d7-d62f-4d0c-8b88-fa58025a5fed" CreationDate="2012-07-05T03:24:03.823" UserId="62" Comment="added 384 characters in body" Text="This tag is for questions about mathematical terminology and notation in Russian that are not easy to answer with a dictionary.  Examples could be (1) how a particular symbol or formula is pronounced and (2) the distinction between a pair of words like отношение and соотношение that have different meanings in Russian but are both translated into English by the same word &quot;relation&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1527" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="0f4194d7-d62f-4d0c-8b88-fa58025a5fed" CreationDate="2012-07-05T03:24:03.823" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 8 edit id of 142" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="f6f52233-4819-4c3c-baa8-f7488aba526a" CreationDate="2012-07-05T04:30:11.500" UserId="170" Text="What would be the right punctuation in &quot;Он или притворяется, или вообще ничего не понимает&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="f6f52233-4819-4c3c-baa8-f7488aba526a" CreationDate="2012-07-05T04:30:11.500" UserId="170" Text="Punctuation for &quot;или ... или&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="f6f52233-4819-4c3c-baa8-f7488aba526a" CreationDate="2012-07-05T04:30:11.500" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="3c5e9c76-5d04-4a8f-b911-1dec7c9cf870" CreationDate="2012-07-05T05:07:44.670" UserId="62" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In the nominative case, if we are counting something of size 2, 3, or 4 then the object being counted is in the genitive singular case, e.g., три треугольника. If we have an adjective involved, then it is genitive plural if the noun is masculine or neuter (e.g., три различных треугольника, три различных числа), but the situation with adjectives modifying feminine nouns that are being counted is more involved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference I found said that in the nominative case after 2, 3, and 4 an adjective modifying a feminine noun is in the nominative plural (e.g., три различные функции). Another reference said that this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural -- which I guess is what most feminine nouns are like -- and if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три различных стороны).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) I'd like to know some  counterexamples to these two stress tests for determining the case ending on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, or 4. (If there weren't counterexamples then I'd think that reference wouldn't have said the rules were &quot;normally&quot; true.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) Is there a *comprehensive* rule for the case endings on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, and 4?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that anything applying to 2, 3, and 4 can be extended to other numbers ending in 2, 3, and 4 (except 12, 13, 14), but I keep the question restricted to 2, 3, and 4 for simplicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="f2507519-acc8-4c45-b554-69be64380c3e" CreationDate="2012-07-05T05:44:21.643" UserId="62" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="In the nominative case, if we are counting something of size 2, 3, or 4 then the object being counted is in the genitive singular case, e.g., три треугольника. If we have an adjective involved, then it is genitive plural if the noun is masculine or neuter (e.g., три различных треугольника, три различных числа), but the situation with adjectives modifying feminine nouns that are being counted is more involved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference I found said that in the nominative case after 2, 3, and 4 an adjective modifying a feminine noun is in the nominative plural (e.g., три различные функции). Another reference said that this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural -- which I guess is what most feminine nouns are like -- and if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три различных стороны).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A) I'd like to know some  counterexamples to these two stress tests for determining the case ending on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, or 4. (If there weren't counterexamples then I'd think that reference would have explained the rules without the qualifying label of them being &quot;normally&quot; true.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B) Is there a *comprehensive* rule for the case endings on adjectives modifying feminine nouns being counted by 2, 3, and 4 (with the numbers themselves being in the nominative case)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that anything applying to 2, 3, and 4 can be extended to other numbers ending in 2, 3, and 4 (except 12, 13, 14), but I keep the question restricted to 2, 3, and 4 for simplicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="586cda5a-2d11-4b62-a7b5-bde6510de474" CreationDate="2012-07-05T08:03:24.533" UserId="191" Text="That's already the right punctuation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он или притворяется, или вообще ничего не понимает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have *или ... или*, you need a comma in front of the latter *или*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="f642668b-af2d-4eba-82ff-d4295dc2be06" CreationDate="2012-07-05T08:39:36.483" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal, *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию*, §87:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однородные члены, соединенные повторяющимися союзами&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запятая ставится между однородными членами предложения, соединенными посредством повторяющихся союзов *и... и, да... да, ни... ни, или... или, ли... ли, либо... либо, то... то* и др., например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;* *Темнота раннего зимнего утра скрывала и площадку на берегу, и полотняный поселок из палаток, и самих людей (Ажаев);*&#xD;&#xA;* *Ни справа, ни слева, ни на воде, ни на берегу никого не было (Гайдар);*  &#xD;&#xA;* *С чужими я либо робел, либо важничал (Горький);*  &#xD;&#xA;* *Лицо радиста то хмурилось, то улыбалось (Горбатов):*  &#xD;&#xA;* *Наверху за потолком кто-то не то стонет, не то смеется (Чехов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your punctuation is right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="69b45e04-21d2-4140-91ae-13c551f15cff" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:00:10.930" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal, *Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение **чаще** (*emphasis mine. Q.*) ставится в форме именительного падежа множественного числа: *две большие комнаты*. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;* *На изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры (А. Н. Толстой);*&#xD;&#xA;* *На платформе прохаживались... две молоденькие чему-то смеявшиеся девушки (Шолохов);*&#xD;&#xA;* *По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев (Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога возможны варианты: *на две равные части / по две столовых ложки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can tell, there is no strict rule. The literary norm is pl. nom., however it may be violated (I personally use pl. nom. but won't perceive pl. gen. as ungrammatical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two queries to the corpus: [pl. gen.][1] and [pl. nom.][2] yield 1691 and 9598 entires, accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that pl. nom. is the prevalent form, but pl. gen. is widely used nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goo.gl/0wJlI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goo.gl/OQCFL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="8c90ba9d-cbba-4127-8647-7251faa72a58" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:01:48.023" UserId="109" Text="When saying that I don't know the language a friend taught me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не понимаю по-ру́сски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a (German) language learner site they write to use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извините, Я не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when not understanding what recently said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see why I should use imperfective when I don't know the language but perfective when I don't understand what recently said. Thus I continue searching and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не понимаю, что вы говорите.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both is possible using perfective and imperfective. How can I determine in that context when to use the imperfective (понимать) or the perfective (понять)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="8c90ba9d-cbba-4127-8647-7251faa72a58" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:01:48.023" UserId="109" Text="&quot;понима́ть&quot; or &quot;понять&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="8c90ba9d-cbba-4127-8647-7251faa72a58" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:01:48.023" UserId="109" Text="|выбор-слова|usage|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="241bbdc7-0044-4d74-b604-d3c00deaa6a3" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:09:38.873" UserId="109" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="When saying that I don't know the language a friend taught me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не понимаю по-ру́сски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a (German) language learner site they write to use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извините, Я не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when not understanding what recently said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't comprehend why I should use imperfective when I don't know the language but perfective when I don't understand what recently said. Thus I continued searching and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не понимаю, что вы говорите.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both is possible using perfective and imperfective. How can I determine in that context when to use the imperfective (понимать) or the perfective (понять)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="7d49afbd-cff6-4a65-894b-4c1d188ddc22" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:18:16.967" UserId="185" Text="Imperfective form denotes &quot;state&quot;, perfective form denotes &quot;entering into state&quot;. In other words, if you use &quot;понимать&quot;, you refer to knowing how something is organized, what something means, and stuff like this. If you use &quot;понять&quot;, you refer to a fact that you have realized something or understood something, probably after trying to figure it out for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Извините, я не понял, что вы только что сказали.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Excuse me, I didn't understand what you've just said.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Извините, я не понимаю, о чем вы говорите.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Excuse me, I don't understand what are you talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прекрасно тебя понимаю. Я понимаю твои чувства.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I understand you perfectly. I understand your feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я так и не понял, почему ты не пошла на вечеринку.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I didn't understand why you didn't go to the party (and it all happened some time ago, I gave up trying to understand you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не понимал, почему ты не пошла на вечеринку, пока ты мне не объяснила.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I did not understand why you didn't go to the party, before you explained it to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="179c7f30-edc1-4a60-bc08-0db48bcc7b9e" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:20:37.713" UserId="134" Text="Verbs in perfective form lack the present: only past and future simple. If you want present, you'll have to use imperfective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In past, the difference is pretty much the same as between English past continuous (or past perfect continuous) and past perfect (or past simple):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Я не понимал, что он говорит* / I haven't been understanding what he was saying (while doing something else)&#xD;&#xA;* *Я не понял, что он сказал* / I haven't understood what he said (once)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="9003c54f-b72b-4fb5-a597-9af81d59ff0a" CreationDate="2012-07-05T09:23:28.803" UserId="185" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Imperfective form denotes &quot;state&quot;, perfective form denotes &quot;entering into state&quot;. In other words, if you use &quot;понимать&quot;, you refer to knowing how something is organized, what something means, and stuff like this. If you use &quot;понять&quot;, you refer to a fact that you have realized something or understood something, probably after trying to figure it out for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Извините, я не понял, что вы только что сказали.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Excuse me, I didn't understand what you've just said.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Извините, я не понимаю, о чем вы говорите.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Excuse me, I don't understand what are you talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прекрасно тебя понимаю. Я понимаю твои чувства.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I understand you perfectly. I understand your feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я так и не понял, почему ты не пошла на вечеринку.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I didn't understand why you didn't go to the party (and it all happened some time ago, I gave up trying to understand you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не понимал, почему ты не пошла на вечеринку, пока ты мне не объяснила.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I did not understand why you didn't go to the party, before you explained it to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="f50c405d-1fca-406a-aeb8-77ad671f10b5" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:16:18.573" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="6583a49a-08a5-4d28-a360-5ec9d62ebf14" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:16:18.573" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="1fe039a1-c5f4-434d-b1fb-2c813606232b" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:18:23.767" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="32320f37-cde3-43b6-b3b6-b7c00a3f828a" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:18:23.767" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="7465840d-33f0-4aba-ac49-ae4d051df0b7" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:28:13.537" UserId="170" Text="How do Russians translate &quot;breaking news&quot; caption on TV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="7465840d-33f0-4aba-ac49-ae4d051df0b7" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:28:13.537" UserId="170" Text="How do Russians translate &quot;breaking news&quot; caption on TV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="7465840d-33f0-4aba-ac49-ae4d051df0b7" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:28:13.537" UserId="170" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1550" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="de63336a-fa2d-4cc6-be71-4f2d0f4b1cf1" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:29:04.680" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="0acb1bcf-18a3-4c05-8c9e-71b7e2e89db2" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:39:12.567" UserId="134" Text="There is no expression with direct translation of &quot;break&quot; in sense of &quot;make known suddenly&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's translated as *экстренные новости* or *срочное сообщение*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="4f1f0f2a-b4d9-43c3-a742-80c849466f00" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:45:34.353" UserId="134" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="There is no expression with direct translation of &quot;break&quot; in sense of &quot;make known suddenly&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's translated as *экстренные новости*, *срочное сообщение* or *срочные новости*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of the Hong Kong movie was translated as *Горячие новости* (literally &quot;hot news&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="10486168-e32a-40a6-9e75-9d05928eb2b1" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:00:13.120" UserId="191" Comment="no need for capital there" Text="When saying that I don't know the language a friend taught me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не понимаю по-ру́сски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a (German) language learner site they write to use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извините, я не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when not understanding what was recently said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't comprehend why I should use imperfective when I don't know the language but perfective when I don't understand what was recently said. Thus I continued searching and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не понимаю, что вы говорите.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, both is possible using perfective and imperfective. How can I determine in that context when to use the imperfective (понимать) or the perfective (понять)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1554" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="10486168-e32a-40a6-9e75-9d05928eb2b1" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:00:13.120" Comment="Proposed by 191 approved by 109 edit id of 146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="6b291680-c64f-43fd-8f13-f0a7185634ba" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:19:19.550" UserId="185" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Questions about adjectives, their short and full forms, derivation, spelling, meaning and usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1556" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="6b291680-c64f-43fd-8f13-f0a7185634ba" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:19:19.550" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="8310305e-d72b-470b-b331-0986a51f77f6" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:19:21.750" UserId="185" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Questions about verbs, both finite and non-finite forms such as infinitives, gerunds, participles. The tag covers formation, derivation, functions, usage and meaning of verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1558" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="8310305e-d72b-470b-b331-0986a51f77f6" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:19:21.750" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 145" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="df5294d4-beb7-49a3-9b5c-d4c71751b17e" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:19:26.570" UserId="185" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Questions concerning nouns, their form, spelling, functions, derivation, meaning and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1560" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="df5294d4-beb7-49a3-9b5c-d4c71751b17e" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:19:26.570" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 144" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1564" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="27873e58-2266-4e19-908f-8e47c0353755" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:46:01.830" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|usage|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="5f5f16fc-4f63-4c9d-9bd2-ce662b674bf4" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:55:45.510" UserId="173" Text="All others vowels come in pairs, but this pair seems a bit special.&#xD;&#xA;So, how does one pronunce Ы and И?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="5f5f16fc-4f63-4c9d-9bd2-ce662b674bf4" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:55:45.510" UserId="173" Text="What is the difference between Ы and И?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="5f5f16fc-4f63-4c9d-9bd2-ce662b674bf4" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:55:45.510" UserId="173" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="4ce4a270-b80f-430c-a2e1-b67d60e548de" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:55:45.697" UserId="173" Text="From what I have collected on wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /ɨ/ (&quot;roses&quot;, or polish &quot;y&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- is used if and only if it follows a hard consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##И&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /i/ (&quot;machine&quot;) or /ɪ/ (&quot;bin&quot;). But are there any rules to tell which one?&#xD;&#xA;- palatalize the preceding consonant&#xD;&#xA;- is not preceded by /j/ in isolation&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /ɨ/ when following ж, ш, ц (because /i/ would be hard to pronunce)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="0f6f9c6b-a598-4d4f-a732-b66fa8dac950" CreationDate="2012-07-05T16:32:22.117" UserId="224" Text="I think past imperative emphasizes the same degree as in German dass-clauses: *Geh weg!* vs. *Mach, dass du weggehst!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, past not only refer to a command like one to a dog but expresses a real intention. It's also that &quot;иди на...&quot; because of the existence of &quot;пошёл на...&quot; expresses a moderate degree of a curse. As if I'm not seriously ask someone to go away. Though in some cases even &quot;иди на...&quot; might be enough to be killed at once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="f6840ac9-c006-45de-8323-c790dadf2db4" CreationDate="2012-07-05T16:42:40.423" UserId="134" Text="All vowels in Slavic languages come in three varieties: open, closed and iotized (closed following the palatal approximant `j`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian phonetics requires that all open vowels follow non-palatalized (hard) consonants, and all closed vowels follow palatalized consonants. Openness is not a distinguishing attribute of a Russian vowel (unlike, say, English *and / end*). So normally all vowels in the alphabet come in pairs: open and iotized, but an iotized vowel following a hard consonant actually makes it soft and is pronounced closed instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`и / ы` is a notable exception: this is a closed/open pair. In Russian alphabet (unlike, say, Ukrainian), there is no separate letter for iotized `и` (because there is no such sound in the language), so it was required to mark the palatalization of the previous consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ц` does not have a soft counterpart in Russian, so `цы` is only written historically in some Russian words (*цыпленок, цыган, цыкать*) and still pronouned `ци`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ч` does not have a hard counterpart, and there are no words with `чы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ш` and `Щ` (in common pronunciation) are hard and soft versions of the same consonant, so they are always written `ши`, `щи`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="e0eab473-b8f1-4c33-b523-80a3672731ba" CreationDate="2012-07-05T16:47:50.247" UserId="134" Comment="added 72 characters in body; added 48 characters in body" Text="All vowels in Slavic languages come in three varieties: open, closed and iotized (closed following the palatal approximant `j`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian phonetics requires that all open vowels follow non-palatalized (hard) consonants, and all closed vowels follow palatalized consonants. Openness is not a distinguishing attribute of a Russian vowel (unlike, say, English *and / end*). So normally all vowels in the alphabet come in pairs: open and iotized, but an iotized vowel following a hard consonant actually makes it soft and is pronounced closed instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a / я&#xD;&#xA;    о / ё&#xD;&#xA;    у / ю&#xD;&#xA;    э / е&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`и / ы` is a notable exception: this is a closed/open pair. In Russian alphabet (unlike, say, Ukrainian), there is no separate letter for iotized `и` (because there is no such sound in the language), so it was required to mark the palatalization of the previous consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ц` does not have a soft counterpart in Russian, so `цы` is only written historically in some Russian words (*цыпленок, цыган, цыкать*) and in endings (*щипцы*) but pronounced `цы` even for words written with `ци` (*вакцина, акция*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ч` does not have a hard counterpart, and there are no words with `чы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ш` and `Щ` (in common pronunciation) are hard and soft versions of the same consonant, so they are always written `ши`, `щи`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="ee0be722-62a8-4969-a78f-8f7d6612198f" CreationDate="2012-07-05T16:56:18.540" UserId="134" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="All vowels in Slavic languages come in three varieties: open, closed and iotized (closed following the palatal approximant `j`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian phonetics requires that all open vowels follow non-palatalized (hard) consonants, and all closed vowels follow palatalized consonants. Openness is not a distinguishing attribute of a Russian vowel (unlike, say, English *and / end*). So normally all vowels in the alphabet come in pairs: open and iotized, but an iotized vowel following a hard consonant actually makes it soft and is pronounced closed instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a / я&#xD;&#xA;    о / ё&#xD;&#xA;    у / ю&#xD;&#xA;    э / е&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`и / ы` is a notable exception: this is a closed/open pair. In Russian alphabet (unlike, say, Ukrainian), there is no separate letter for iotized `и` (because there is no such sound in the language), so it was required to mark the palatalization of the previous consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ж` and `Ц` do not have soft counterparts in Russian, so `цы` is only written historically in some Russian words (*цыпленок, цыган, цыкать*) and in endings (*щипцы*) but pronounced `цы` even for words written with `ци` (*вакцина, акция*). `жы` is never written this way (though always pronounced exactly like this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ч` does not have a hard counterpart, and there are no words with `чы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ш` and `Щ` (in common pronunciation) are hard and soft versions of the same consonant, so they are always written `ши`, `щи`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1573" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="c96878bf-f23b-4864-b1c5-ec14f6bc5b52" CreationDate="2012-07-05T17:34:32.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220933697392750592" />
  <row Id="1574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="a62d124e-1e56-49d0-87e7-9d385d93a8f1" CreationDate="2012-07-05T19:50:36.673" UserId="165" Text="There is a sound file on this Wikipedia page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_central_unrounded_vowel][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_central_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="1a065b0d-db37-472c-9d0b-76cf82d12217" CreationDate="2012-07-05T19:57:20.197" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected some grammar." Text="I think the past imperative emphasizes the same degree as in German dass-clauses: *Geh weg!* vs. *Mach, dass du weggehst!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the past not only refers to a command like one to a dog, but expresses a real intention. It's also that because of the existence of &quot;пошёл на...&quot; &quot;иди на...&quot; expresses a moderate degree of a curse. As if I'm not seriously asking someone to go away. Though in some cases even &quot;иди на...&quot; might be enough to get killed at once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1576" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="1a065b0d-db37-472c-9d0b-76cf82d12217" CreationDate="2012-07-05T19:57:20.197" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="c1ea9b8e-e1fa-4410-99db-4143424c4597" CreationDate="2012-07-05T19:57:21.060" UserId="165" Comment="extended answer" Text="There is a sound file on [this][1] Wikipedia page for 'Ы'.  &#xD;&#xA;And [here][2] you can listen how to pronounce 'И'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_central_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8#Pronunciation_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1578" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="99116138-26b8-452f-a2a3-855b7be3234b" CreationDate="2012-07-05T20:34:33.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/220978997851463680" />
  <row Id="1579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="76e9931f-9b26-4ce3-8046-24fa8446597d" CreationDate="2012-07-05T20:37:57.370" UserId="194" Text="Ы and И are allophones, that is they specify the same phoneme. The only difference between them is in that И softens the preceding consonant while Ы does not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any detectable difference in pronunciation is due the influence of the preceding consonant which is either soft or hard.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="b6f6bd8e-02a0-4398-9277-f66244f53889" CreationDate="2012-07-05T20:39:58.200" UserId="170" Text="Which one is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;на материковом Китае&quot; or &quot;в материковом Китае&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;на континентальном Китае&quot; or &quot;в континентальном Китае&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="b6f6bd8e-02a0-4398-9277-f66244f53889" CreationDate="2012-07-05T20:39:58.200" UserId="170" Text="&quot;в/на материковом/континентальном Китае&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="b6f6bd8e-02a0-4398-9277-f66244f53889" CreationDate="2012-07-05T20:39:58.200" UserId="170" Text="|single-word-requests|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="535" RevisionGUID="70d38ae6-24e8-4fb2-9585-c1fa59ab05df" CreationDate="2012-07-05T21:00:51.430" UserId="194" Text="&gt; If my exam ended a minute ago and I want to tell someone &quot;I just took&#xD;&#xA;&gt; my exam&quot;, how is that expressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я только что закончил сдавать экзамен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can I say &quot;I failed the exam&quot; in a colloquial way other than with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the phrase не сдать экзамен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я провалил экзамен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="c989dd0f-a931-471b-8fee-80c0bdc09329" CreationDate="2012-07-05T21:42:33.290" UserId="185" Text="**Choice of adjective**. Both &quot;материковый Китай&quot; and &quot;континентальный Китай&quot; are widely used, sometimes in the same document. However, the Lingvo dictionary gives only one translation for &quot;mainland China&quot;, and it is &quot;континентальный Китай&quot;. May be that the dictionary needs expansion, may be that &quot;континентальный Китай&quot; is the official term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Choice of preposition**. It is a part of China, and according to the rules of preposition selection, it should be &quot;в&quot;, just as &quot;в Китае&quot;. Another example which may be less confusing is &quot;континентальная Европа&quot; and &quot;в континентальной Европе&quot;. However, strictly speaking, it is a different part of the rule, because Europe is not a country.&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I can't help mentioning that examples with preposition &quot;на&quot; are also widespread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="0b4715a0-f1b0-4ba2-bddf-fab80f1d00eb" CreationDate="2012-07-05T21:48:30.397" UserId="185" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="**Choice of adjective**. Both &quot;материковый Китай&quot; and &quot;континентальный Китай&quot; are widely used, sometimes in the same document. However, the Lingvo dictionary gives only one translation for &quot;mainland China&quot;, and it is &quot;континентальный Китай&quot;. May be that the dictionary needs expansion, may be that &quot;континентальный Китай&quot; is the official term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Choice of preposition**. It is a part of China, and according to the rules of preposition selection, it should be &quot;в&quot;, just as &quot;в Китае&quot;, which is a country and not an island. Another example which may be less confusing is &quot;континентальная Европа&quot; and &quot;в континентальной Европе&quot;. However, strictly speaking, it is a different part of the rule, because Europe is not a country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I can't help mentioning that examples with preposition &quot;на&quot; are also widespread. That being said, standard is &quot;в&quot;, but both forms are possible in colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1586" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="7dff1927-8e88-4381-b1bb-d28939cc919d" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:13:14.843" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1587" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="e67d4858-18da-4659-9bc3-45e0bd3e9afe" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:13:44.250" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1588" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="56c2ca5a-1bb5-4c5b-8b4a-a55d08abb1e3" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:14:26.480" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="59644017-fabf-4d89-a71e-752a614550d0" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:16:56.573" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|прилагательные|single-word-requests|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1590" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="0cc4122a-abe6-48bb-af71-64a2d5971094" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:18:01.237" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|перевод|прилагательные|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="1acb248e-0bd8-49b2-aaca-4da2865e8858" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:18:34.447" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1592" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="2222a5cf-4c87-44a0-ac6f-7a4775c1f198" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:06.320" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|этимология|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="0074c546-de4d-4797-807d-37b7e79ed82d" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:26.810" UserId="134" Text="The choice of the preposition `на/в` is paradigmatic, but with multiple exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`на` is used for the following regions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Named after the islands: *на Кубе, на Ямайке, на Гаити, на Фиджи* (but *в Гренландии, в Исландии, в Британии*). Сompare to *на остров*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lake and river basins: *на Валдае, на Байкале, на Волге*. Сompare *на реку, на озеро*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Mountain ranges in singular: *на Урале, на Кавказе, на Памире* (but *в Альпах, в Гималаях*, since they are in plural, *в Тянь-Шане*). Compare to *на гору*, but *в горах*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ending in *-чина, -щина*: *на Брянщине, на Новгородчине*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is by far not a complete list and it's always best to consult the dictionary in each case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="691b9692-3308-4c24-af16-9e12e4b9c9ec" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:35.393" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="The word *ветвление (branching, ramification)* appears to be a purely technical synonym for *разветвление*. I can find *разветвление* in ordinary dictionaries, but *ветвление* is not there, although it is mentioned in references on biology, chemistry, computer programming, and mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *ветвление* restricted to usage in the natural sciences and math, and can someone explain why the adjectival form *разветвлённый* is used but *ветвлённый* apparently doesn't exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1595" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="691b9692-3308-4c24-af16-9e12e4b9c9ec" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:35.393" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="What si the difference in usage between &quot;ветвление&quot; and &quot;разветвление&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1596" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="691b9692-3308-4c24-af16-9e12e4b9c9ec" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:35.393" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1597" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="691b9692-3308-4c24-af16-9e12e4b9c9ec" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:35.393" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 149" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="edcfb78f-7dff-41e1-beb9-8ba9df839bbe" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:38.340" UserId="185" Comment="The previous descirption was very similar to the wiki of single-word-request" Text="Questions about the difference in meaning or usage between two or more words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1599" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="edcfb78f-7dff-41e1-beb9-8ba9df839bbe" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:19:38.340" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="4fc2ae8e-4250-4d0f-9db5-b54f9ebc9aae" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:21:58.577" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="a8263d8a-8e5a-4ad2-97bd-218a72eb26c6" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:23:00.247" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="3d16eac9-6f46-4fbb-b497-08211592620f" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:23:42.227" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|одним-словом|english-to-russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1605" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="a8efe7a4-12d6-45ef-87de-b5e863dc8ae7" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:24:42.303" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="715c7aa5-6044-4794-8086-b52f7f05e9c6" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:25:08.857" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="da227e5a-e9a2-4ea2-8959-cd732a5695be" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:25:37.950" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="e83001a7-df7e-4e8b-9a1c-d17a8c1de2d9" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:27:03.017" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="e4171545-bff5-45ac-87e9-3673403a32c4" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:27:28.837" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|правописание|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="4b30eb30-7e38-4e86-8e58-3171a1744384" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:28:01.317" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1611" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="23655255-c678-4017-bb57-f564888bfb82" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:29:43.513" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|выражения|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1612" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="1b3f98fe-ea7c-476f-a759-c1aac9520e3c" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:29:49.407" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected my own spelling mistake I made during the last edit. Argh" Text="What is the difference in usage between &quot;ветвление&quot; and &quot;разветвление&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1613" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="1b3f98fe-ea7c-476f-a759-c1aac9520e3c" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:29:49.407" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1614" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="7ee9b308-60d2-4ef6-8480-c00eebb29732" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:30:29.293" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="Difference between &quot;мир&quot; and &quot;свет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1615" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="7ee9b308-60d2-4ef6-8480-c00eebb29732" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:30:29.293" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1616" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="f3c7d55c-a51f-4df9-a119-03e350276780" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:30:52.327" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|местоимения|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1617" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="b91c73d1-5eb1-424d-b8d9-7179521eb36c" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:33:02.797" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="3b5abb52-3c71-4ef2-8a79-f25206f8270c" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:33:34.670" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1619" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="c10509d8-3d09-47ec-8032-b6fa1c37c1eb" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:34:37.070" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|множественное-число|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="64cd7b9a-6fad-4fa6-a0b9-49b25b92fd0d" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:37:07.097" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="9ee2eb4e-cb26-44fe-a101-9082c298deae" CreationDate="2012-07-05T22:37:07.097" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="2a0ec7e5-a1ad-444c-b4d6-6cb3d46fe5c0" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:07:04.847" UserId="39" Text="I understand how expression is used pretty well, but wonder where did it come from? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does `фиг` mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="2a0ec7e5-a1ad-444c-b4d6-6cb3d46fe5c0" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:07:04.847" UserId="39" Text="Не фига себе, history and meaning of" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="2a0ec7e5-a1ad-444c-b4d6-6cb3d46fe5c0" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:07:04.847" UserId="39" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="28c99c0d-25c6-49e5-a138-6280eb7e90cd" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:33:02.780" UserId="134" Text="*Ни фига себе* (or a more vulgar *ни хуя себе*) is a dysphemism of *ничего себе*, an iterjection expressing amazement or astonishment. Such dysphemistic expressions are quite common (compare English *my ass!* from *my eye!*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фиг*, or *фига* is an obscene gesture in Eastern (and Slavic, in particular) cultures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the obvious meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh, it's originated from Italian *fare la fica*. *Fica* literally means &quot;fig&quot;, an euphemism for vulva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vbU0J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1626" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="d1ef3d82-2931-48ae-9874-c5011388a333" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:34:32.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/221024295499993088" />
  <row Id="1627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="2626b670-a2bd-4d6d-9efd-e460ea51aacc" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:41:46.813" UserId="134" Comment="added 1208 characters in body; added 1 characters in body; added 11 characters in body; added 34 characters in body" Text="*Ни фига&amp;#x301; себе* (or a more vulgar *ни хуя&amp;#x301; себе*) is a dysphemism of *ничего себе*, an interjection expressing amazement or astonishment. Such dysphemistic expressions are quite common (compare English *my ass!* from *my eye!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего* itself is a meiosis, quite specific to traditional Russian culture with its cult of  humility and reticence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quiting [an article][1] from *Русская речь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В статье речь пойдёт, главным образом, о предикативном наречии *ничего*, которое давно привлекает к себе внимание как самих русских, так и иностранцев (См., например: *М. П. Алексеев. Русское слово ничего и его зарубежные интерпретации // Словари и лингвострановедение. М., 1982*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многозначность и идиоматичность этого слова, разнообразие его смысловых оттенков делают его одним из символов загадочной русской души. &quot;Есть на языке нашем оборот речи, — писал П. А. Вяземский, — совершенно нигилистический, хотя находившийся до изобретения нигилизма и употребляемый доныне вовсе не нигилистами. &quot;Какова погода сегодня?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, &quot;Как нравится вам эта книга?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. — &quot;Красива ли женщина, о которой вы говорите?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, — &quot;Довольны ли вы своим губернатором?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. И так далее. В этом обороте есть какая-то русская лукавая сдержанность, боязнь проговориться, какое-то совершенно русское себе на уме&quot; *(Полн. собр. соч. СПб., 1883. Т. VIII. С. 429)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фиг*, or *фига* is an obscene gesture in Eastern (and Slavic, in particular) cultures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the obvious meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh, it's originated from Italian *fare la fica* (through French *faire la figue*). *Fica* literally means &quot;fig&quot;, an euphemism for vulva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/28_359&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vbU0J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="635e2b8c-dc04-457f-954f-dfdd077a5b68" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:53:15.807" UserId="134" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="*Ни фига&amp;#x301; себе* (or a more vulgar *ни хуя&amp;#x301; себе*) is a dysphemism of *ничего себе*, an interjection expressing amazement or astonishment. Such dysphemistic expressions are quite common (compare English *my ass!* from *my eye!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего* itself is a meiosis, quite specific to traditional Russian culture with its cult of  humility and reticence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quiting [an article][1] from *Русская речь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В статье речь пойдёт, главным образом, о предикативном наречии *ничего*, которое давно привлекает к себе внимание как самих русских, так и иностранцев (См., например: *М. П. Алексеев. Русское слово ничего и его зарубежные интерпретации // Словари и лингвострановедение. М., 1982*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многозначность и идиоматичность этого слова, разнообразие его смысловых оттенков делают его одним из символов загадочной русской души. &quot;Есть на языке нашем оборот речи, — писал П. А. Вяземский, — совершенно нигилистический, хотя находившийся до изобретения нигилизма и употребляемый доныне вовсе не нигилистами. &quot;Какова погода сегодня?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, &quot;Как нравится вам эта книга?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. — &quot;Красива ли женщина, о которой вы говорите?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, — &quot;Довольны ли вы своим губернатором?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. И так далее. В этом обороте есть какая-то русская лукавая сдержанность, боязнь проговориться, какое-то совершенно русское себе на уме&quot; *(Полн. собр. соч. СПб., 1883. Т. VIII. С. 429)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фиг*, or *фи&amp;#x301;га* is an obscene gesture in Eastern (and Slavic, in particular) cultures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the obvious meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh, it's originated from Italian *fare la fica* (through French *faire la figue*). *Fica* literally means &quot;fig&quot;, an euphemism for vulva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/28_359&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vbU0J.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="6132af41-b044-4325-9c51-72c1fd74c4ec" CreationDate="2012-07-06T05:34:32.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/221114890595733504" />
  <row Id="1631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="1d179a6b-c169-4672-bc2c-891553021379" CreationDate="2012-07-06T08:07:17.070" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|прилагательные|морфология|окончания|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="aeb84291-b0d2-4c19-b750-875a1f5b21bd" CreationDate="2012-07-06T08:10:26.507" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="I understand how the expression is used pretty well, but wonder where did it come from? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does *фиг* mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1633" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="aeb84291-b0d2-4c19-b750-875a1f5b21bd" CreationDate="2012-07-06T08:10:26.507" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="The history and meaning of &quot;не фига себе&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1634" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="aeb84291-b0d2-4c19-b750-875a1f5b21bd" CreationDate="2012-07-06T08:10:26.507" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="|лексикон|этимология|выражения|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1635" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="aeb84291-b0d2-4c19-b750-875a1f5b21bd" CreationDate="2012-07-06T08:10:26.507" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1636" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="a7836ec7-3f7c-4887-9747-5b99c510b81b" CreationDate="2012-07-06T09:03:58.643" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="The history and meaning of &quot;ни фига себе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="ce4a0c16-6573-41e5-bf36-feeb3be1371c" CreationDate="2012-07-06T09:45:34.130" UserId="185" Text="When someone is about to tell you some long-awaited news:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Угадай, что мне сказал шеф сегодня.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Guess what my chief told me today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you may ask him y saying one of these phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Давай, порадуй меня.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Давай, обрадуй меня.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Come on, give me some good news.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard both alternatives, but I don't know if they both are acceptable (I feel that &quot;порадовать&quot; is colloquial) and if they actually mean exactly the same. Can you think of an example where one is possible and the other is not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="ce4a0c16-6573-41e5-bf36-feeb3be1371c" CreationDate="2012-07-06T09:45:34.130" UserId="185" Text="Is there a difference between &quot;порадовать&quot; and &quot;обрадовать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="ce4a0c16-6573-41e5-bf36-feeb3be1371c" CreationDate="2012-07-06T09:45:34.130" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="aebc925f-cf8e-4488-9602-3f4e668a4490" CreationDate="2012-07-06T10:14:14.620" UserId="134" Text="*Порадовать* = to give pleasure, *обрадовать* = to give joy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is continuous sense of pleasure, the second one a burst of good feelings, as when surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * А вот не только порадовать, но и удивить публику своими новыми произведениями ― это редкость для часового салона. *[Екатерина Блинова. Время не имеет значения (2002) // «Домовой», 2002.08.04]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Любителям картин и офортов стоит порадовать себя горным пейзажем ― выбирайте скалы, а не лесистые склоны. *[Наталия Наумова. Во власти стихий (2002) // «Домовой», 2002.12.04]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Николай Петрович Шереметев, имел, кроме прочего, в мыслях: музыканта Фомина нежданно обрадовать, Эвридику для него ― оживить! *[Борис Евсеев. Евстигней // «Октябрь», 2010]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вскоре он завис над полем в десятке метров от Зализиной и Кэрилин Курло. ― Спешу всех обрадовать: они живы! К ним бегут санитарные джинны. *[Дмитрий Емец. Таня Гроттер и колодец Посейдона (2004)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="059db907-3bb8-41ee-b655-24d7f0508a10" CreationDate="2012-07-06T10:22:36.327" UserId="134" Comment="added 157 characters in body; added 93 characters in body" Text="*Порадовать* = to give pleasure, *обрадовать* = to give joy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is continuous sense of pleasure, the second one a burst of good feelings, as when surprised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * А вот не только порадовать, но и удивить публику своими новыми произведениями ― это редкость для часового салона. *[Екатерина Блинова. Время не имеет значения (2002) // «Домовой», 2002.08.04]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Любителям картин и офортов стоит порадовать себя горным пейзажем ― выбирайте скалы, а не лесистые склоны. *[Наталия Наумова. Во власти стихий (2002) // «Домовой», 2002.12.04]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Николай Петрович Шереметев, имел, кроме прочего, в мыслях: музыканта Фомина нежданно обрадовать, Эвридику для него ― оживить! *[Борис Евсеев. Евстигней // «Октябрь», 2010]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вскоре он завис над полем в десятке метров от Зализиной и Кэрилин Курло. ― Спешу всех обрадовать: они живы! К ним бегут санитарные джинны. *[Дмитрий Емец. Таня Гроттер и колодец Посейдона (2004)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparative adverbs usually cannot be used with *порадовать*: you cannot replace the word in phrases like *он так обрадовался*, *она очень обрадовалась*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, *порадуй меня* would be kind of ironical, as in &quot;go ahead, make my day&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="dc5228d5-bf52-4de9-b49e-ee10e8feec86" CreationDate="2012-07-06T11:08:16.523" UserId="245" Text="Мир in meaning world was used in the meaining closer to &quot;social world&quot; (&quot;На миру и смерть красна&quot;); there was narrow meaning &quot;peasant community&quot; (&quot;землю у них насильно и несправедливо отобрал мир&quot; Куприн, &quot;Поединок&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Свет is closer to meaning &quot;physical world&quot; (enlighted surface). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="72c29417-ad5f-4962-ac82-95b231ea03f2" CreationDate="2012-07-06T11:14:14.130" UserId="173" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="## Ы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /ɨ/ (&quot;roses&quot;, or polish &quot;y&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- is used if and only if it follows a hard consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##И&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /i/ (&quot;machine&quot;) or /ɪ/ (&quot;bin&quot;). But are there any rules to tell which one?&#xD;&#xA;- palatalize the preceding consonant&#xD;&#xA;- is not preceded by /j/ in isolation&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /ɨ/ when following ж, ш, ц (because /i/ would be hard to pronunce)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="f829b337-b3a8-4bb1-8918-8a0512c74490" CreationDate="2012-07-06T12:45:15.967" UserId="173" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="## Ы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /ɨ/ (&quot;roses&quot;, or polish &quot;y&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- is used if and only if it follows a hard consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##И&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /i/ (&quot;machine&quot;) or /ɪ/ (&quot;bin&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- palatalize the preceding consonant&#xD;&#xA;- is not preceded by /j/ in isolation&#xD;&#xA;- is pronunced /ɨ/ when following ж, ш, ц (because /i/ would be hard to pronunce)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="4fde07ea-16fe-4236-adbb-7cacdc8568ac" CreationDate="2012-07-06T13:21:13.627" UserId="47" Text="I would say, it's really in the specific meaning a speaker wants to express. The words have an extremely close meaning, and in most cases can probably be exchanged. *Обрадовать* is a perfective aspect, and therefore, intuitively, it is applied when something has already happened or is expected to happen, and the fact of learning it brings joy. On the other hand, *порадовать* is an imperfective aspect, and carries exactly this meaning—of some process or action in progress. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ребёнок обрадовался мороженому* (the child has enjoyed an ice-cream) vs. *порадуй ребёнка, почитай ему* (give a child some pleasure, read him a book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [examples by Quassnoi][1] give a perfect illustration of this distinction: each sentence has some hint of the time scale. *Порадовать* would relate to a landscape or a new watch collection which will last for some time. *Неожиданно* and *спешу*, to the contrary, emphasize the suddenness of the news. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer the OP, in that particular example the two words would be interchangeable, though the meaning would be exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай, порадуй меня &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assumes some process of telling me a good news; I will feel the pleasure for some time during and after being told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай, обрадуй меня&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assumes that right after having been told the good news, I'll be glad though this feeling may also be not really prolonged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/544/47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="196911ee-602b-462f-a37f-100f73e2ce3a" CreationDate="2012-07-06T15:19:14.790" UserId="8" Comment="resized the image" Text="*Ни фига&amp;#x301; себе* (or a more vulgar *ни хуя&amp;#x301; себе*) is a dysphemism of *ничего себе*, an interjection expressing amazement or astonishment. Such dysphemistic expressions are quite common (compare English *my ass!* from *my eye!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего* itself is a meiosis, quite specific to traditional Russian culture with its cult of  humility and reticence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quiting [an article][1] from *Русская речь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В статье речь пойдёт, главным образом, о предикативном наречии *ничего*, которое давно привлекает к себе внимание как самих русских, так и иностранцев (См., например: *М. П. Алексеев. Русское слово ничего и его зарубежные интерпретации // Словари и лингвострановедение. М., 1982*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многозначность и идиоматичность этого слова, разнообразие его смысловых оттенков делают его одним из символов загадочной русской души. &quot;Есть на языке нашем оборот речи, — писал П. А. Вяземский, — совершенно нигилистический, хотя находившийся до изобретения нигилизма и употребляемый доныне вовсе не нигилистами. &quot;Какова погода сегодня?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, &quot;Как нравится вам эта книга?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. — &quot;Красива ли женщина, о которой вы говорите?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, — &quot;Довольны ли вы своим губернатором?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. И так далее. В этом обороте есть какая-то русская лукавая сдержанность, боязнь проговориться, какое-то совершенно русское себе на уме&quot; *(Полн. собр. соч. СПб., 1883. Т. VIII. С. 429)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фиг*, or *фи&amp;#x301;га* is an obscene gesture in Eastern (and Slavic, in particular) cultures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the obvious meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh, it's originated from Italian *fare la fica* (through French *faire la figue*). *Fica* literally means &quot;fig&quot;, an euphemism for vulva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/28_359&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vbU0Jm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="c2dfde58-ffb6-450f-b85a-192d6d124e56" CreationDate="2012-07-06T15:19:33.310" UserId="185" Comment="formatted, corrected some mistakes" Text="*Мир* in meaning *world* was closer to &quot;social world&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*На миру и смерть красна*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was also a narrow meaning &quot;peasant community&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Землю у них насильно и несправедливо отобрал мир*. Куприн, &quot;Поединок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Свет* is closer to &quot;physical world&quot; (enlightened surface). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1649" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="c2dfde58-ffb6-450f-b85a-192d6d124e56" CreationDate="2012-07-06T15:19:33.310" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 8 edit id of 154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="251591ef-e367-4bf1-8a17-252bfee49d5a" CreationDate="2012-07-06T15:19:40.627" UserId="134" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Church Slavonic is a liturgical language of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. In the middle ages it served as a litearary language in Russia and heavily influenced modern Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1651" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="251591ef-e367-4bf1-8a17-252bfee49d5a" CreationDate="2012-07-06T15:19:40.627" Comment="Proposed by 134 approved by 8 edit id of 152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="232253b0-ba93-42cb-86b2-2764c8c4d026" CreationDate="2012-07-06T18:05:34.493" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="When someone is about to tell you some long-awaited news:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Угадай, что мне сказал шеф сегодня.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Guess what my boss told me today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you may ask him y saying one of these phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Давай, порадуй меня.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Давай, обрадуй меня.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Come on, give me some good news.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard both alternatives, but I don't know if they both are acceptable (I feel that &quot;порадовать&quot; is colloquial) and if they actually mean exactly the same. Can you think of an example where one is possible and the other is not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1653" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="543" RevisionGUID="9e98cd75-30a8-46b5-b255-afa05ff29eae" CreationDate="2012-07-06T20:34:32.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/221341383863185408" />
  <row Id="1654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="a5881264-49a1-4bdb-9d1c-6715f7e3a293" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:05:27.870" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="d145b1e4-21c2-4f69-8fc0-0388f5618f49" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:05:27.870" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1656" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="f413f79b-4ca4-4da6-8fd5-3f93aa35fc69" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:06:15.433" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1657" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="21c2eec8-218c-4fd4-8ba6-a650fb48b8d9" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:07:13.123" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="5ba9b73b-7167-421c-86fa-07c7c083a8e0" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:08:07.833" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1659" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="45d624a7-8f42-4bd9-b3e6-8b51ca7d7994" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:08:29.393" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|существительные|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="8817d88a-0d57-4282-ab7e-1f8673dac226" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:09:38.910" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="1aa9093c-19c0-4f91-b1c2-6bac2fc2836d" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:12:28.703" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1662" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="864b9cc8-526c-4607-a3e8-d60ebee7d6fa" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:18:25.047" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1663" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="57d61122-b060-44bf-a8de-5bed44e049ee" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:18:51.020" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="03b3f716-74a1-4985-899d-d41c8940b8d8" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:23:52.200" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="d3bf1299-1dd6-4d9f-96d5-a3191703eec8" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:23:52.200" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="24ea8b87-fec6-4431-b10b-db097422df7f" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:27:47.593" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|падежи|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="8ad4fc05-f1f2-4828-8b32-c7305e2272b7" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:29:58.963" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|english-to-russian|информатика|reference|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1668" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="6176aef4-ca53-4cc7-98e5-3c8fb2e7b798" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:30:31.503" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выражения|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="afd662f9-a69b-4e6d-8ff8-3fbf5f98b09b" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:31:09.087" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="17675e66-2d2e-4585-9c86-d9da37de422c" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:32:33.093" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|существительные|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="262d13f2-c8f1-4dd6-acc1-d8355121ca14" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:33:01.580" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1672" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="617b5be8-c3af-404c-84d4-20777fc103d3" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:35:28.830" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="91260cfd-2b1a-4306-a4ea-11301875df77" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:36:19.173" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|склонение|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1674" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="c3c81adb-01e6-4f7f-a485-ca217a37e3bf" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:36:58.190" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|склонение|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="44c2fd45-abf0-4e85-b44d-c3e7cb005c0d" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:38:38.843" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="a634609c-1c66-4971-a90a-6ab1f5c84a97" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:39:13.117" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1677" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="0565624d-f48d-4eb1-9aad-c1dff576f5a7" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:40:37.123" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1678" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="1bc80592-4a9c-4e09-8400-cbddb66b6d6c" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:41:00.260" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выражения|saying|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="147d1836-4c90-439d-8669-32d0471f7821" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:41:35.267" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|выражения|english-to-russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1680" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="b7f5a235-baea-440a-b2e9-4e2512f0e643" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:42:05.717" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|обучение|resource-request|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="11a4c9e1-5fbd-42ba-99d4-59c7ef462ade" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:43:17.557" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|english-to-russian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="3757df43-a6dd-483a-a07f-3e9d091916ae" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:58:14.620" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|информатика|reference|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1683" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="d7ebebc5-bd3a-41b6-b6ee-e9ceb8d56b2a" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:58:38.707" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|resource-request|информатика|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="18785c52-5da9-49a8-8c17-9a15d1919a92" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:59:01.390" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1685" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="f8879ba9-9abf-4ea0-84d3-f35ce9d358bd" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:59:26.070" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1686" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="eda37bb8-5e47-4b49-b519-cce2be806c22" CreationDate="2012-07-06T21:59:48.317" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="3b2aec18-78f3-414b-98df-c6e11267cd02" CreationDate="2012-07-06T22:12:52.543" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="20a34ce2-180a-4ab4-8a0b-5c75309c9244" CreationDate="2012-07-06T22:12:52.543" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="553" RevisionGUID="2968c95d-1b27-4a6b-9555-b198bef62a80" CreationDate="2012-07-06T22:15:23.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="5cc5df67-5f1b-4bc6-8f22-0fc44308f981" CreationDate="2012-07-06T22:15:23.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="eea1ebba-0252-4a30-b1c8-a880a3b82aac" CreationDate="2012-07-06T22:17:28.030" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="cc206920-0d44-43b2-a7c8-fca9083bcd7b" CreationDate="2012-07-06T22:17:28.030" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="940740c4-91bc-4a2e-9f00-5f218335f939" CreationDate="2012-07-06T23:03:10.963" UserId="5" Text="Сообщение ИТАР ТАСС с пометкой &quot;Молния!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="b8e0049f-09bf-49f1-89de-16c085b79599" CreationDate="2012-07-07T08:56:26.940" UserId="170" Text="How do Russians say &quot;I was honking to him&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here I have several options, but none of them sounds okay to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Я бибикал ему. (sounds too childish and silly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Я сигналил ему. (can mean signaling only by means of lights)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Я подавал ему сигнал. (same as above, plus too scientific)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Я гудел ему. (don't really know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Your option?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="b8e0049f-09bf-49f1-89de-16c085b79599" CreationDate="2012-07-07T08:56:26.940" UserId="170" Text="Correct rendering of &quot;I was honking to him&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="b8e0049f-09bf-49f1-89de-16c085b79599" CreationDate="2012-07-07T08:56:26.940" UserId="170" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="6d915aa0-d6e8-4449-a455-29e8e5a90ba0" CreationDate="2012-07-07T09:38:36.607" UserId="185" Text="I personally like 1), 2) , and 4). I'd say that 2) is the best option of all. It doesn't mean only switching on and off your lights, it can (and often does) refer to honking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) is not necessarily childish, it is used as widely as 2), but it is somewhat colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) is rare, in my opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3), though grammatically correct, is too formal. It is probably what is written in the driving regulations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="c0a1f7bb-3070-4e90-bae1-156ce3dc4d66" CreationDate="2012-07-07T10:06:46.387" UserId="47" Text="No. 2 is the most appropriate translation, both in use and more formally. The official expression for 'horn' is *звуковой сигнал*. The very formal expression is *подать звуковой сигнал* however without *ему*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. 4 is more related to a ship or a locomotive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="d1c1aa1c-8029-4c83-a354-f58660f4db55" CreationDate="2012-07-07T10:59:22.457" UserId="23" Text=" - `Погудеть` is the best option in my opinion because it strikes a good balance between formal and informal speech.&#xD;&#xA; - `Бибикать` is a common word in everyday speech, but you usually don't see it in writing. I wouldn't say it's childish, it's simply very informal.&#xD;&#xA; - `Сигналить` or `подавать сигнал` can refer to any signal, and this can be misinterpreted as flashing the lights on and off, for example. Therefore, it is unsuitable if you only want to say about honking unless it is clear from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="5a6fe8b3-df4e-4ad3-8afb-934b3ad1511a" CreationDate="2012-07-07T10:59:57.730" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="How do Russians say &quot;I was honking to him&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here I have several options, but none of them sounds okay to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Я бибикал ему**. (sounds too childish and silly)&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Я сигналил ему**. (can mean signaling only by means of lights)&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Я подавал ему сигнал**. (same as above, plus too scientific)&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Я гудел ему**. (don't really know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be an appropriate translation in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="5a6fe8b3-df4e-4ad3-8afb-934b3ad1511a" CreationDate="2012-07-07T10:59:57.730" UserId="71" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1703" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="5a6fe8b3-df4e-4ad3-8afb-934b3ad1511a" CreationDate="2012-07-07T10:59:57.730" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 104 edit id of 165" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1704" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="11d5dc9f-649b-40e0-9b39-9b6f000310cb" CreationDate="2012-07-07T14:34:35.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/221613183494914050" />
  <row Id="1705" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="1821b9dc-87bb-4822-b54f-2cd27e30d69d" CreationDate="2012-07-07T15:48:44.003" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="Where to find parallel English-Russian novels to learn Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1706" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="1821b9dc-87bb-4822-b54f-2cd27e30d69d" CreationDate="2012-07-07T15:48:44.003" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 32 edit id of 159" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="33dcf212-5d8a-46bb-843e-3ba46628a154" CreationDate="2012-07-07T16:19:17.423" UserId="62" Comment="changed &quot;honking to&quot; to &quot;honking at&quot;, which is better English." Text="How do Russians say &quot;I was honking at him&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Here I have several options, but none of them sounds okay to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Я бибикал ему**. (sounds too childish and silly)&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Я сигналил ему**. (can mean signaling only by means of lights)&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Я подавал ему сигнал**. (same as above, plus too scientific)&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Я гудел ему**. (don't really know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be an appropriate translation in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1708" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="33dcf212-5d8a-46bb-843e-3ba46628a154" CreationDate="2012-07-07T16:19:17.423" UserId="62" Comment="changed &quot;honking to&quot; to &quot;honking at&quot;, which is better English." Text="Correct rendering of &quot;I was honking at him&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1709" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="33dcf212-5d8a-46bb-843e-3ba46628a154" CreationDate="2012-07-07T16:19:17.423" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 104 edit id of 166" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="c098f250-0802-46d9-9599-40d632d4847b" CreationDate="2012-07-07T19:34:58.660" UserId="110" Text="Хотел бы сверить с обществом   собственные социокультурные соображения по поводу выражения &quot;погнали&quot; откуда оно есть пошло?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="c098f250-0802-46d9-9599-40d632d4847b" CreationDate="2012-07-07T19:34:58.660" UserId="110" Text="происхождение и значение современного употребления &quot;погнали&quot;? meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="c098f250-0802-46d9-9599-40d632d4847b" CreationDate="2012-07-07T19:34:58.660" UserId="110" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="565" RevisionGUID="46096212-0093-4972-b69a-3a456365c717" CreationDate="2012-07-07T19:58:12.760" UserId="47" Text="По-видимому, речь идёт об употреблении этого глагола в значении «поехали», «начали». Полагаю, что оно происходит от «гнать лошадей», т.е. быстро ехать.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="5d59fc1d-0bfe-41a0-8590-98484e904678" CreationDate="2012-07-07T22:17:42.603" UserId="131" Text="As a side note, you can't say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не понимаю по-русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не понимаю русский [язык]. (I don't undestand the Russian langauge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не говорю по-руский. (I don't speak Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="b43e969f-4314-46f9-b168-1c0c22247175" CreationDate="2012-07-07T22:24:22.913" UserId="185" Comment="Added explanation to the translation." Text="Сообщение ИТАР ТАСС с пометкой &quot;Молния!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give some context to bonomo's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, *ИТАР ТАСС* is one of Russian news agencies and *сообщение с пометкой &quot;Молния!&quot;* is a special kind of message that has to be delivered immediately. Its name comes from marks on urgent telegrams which were the closest approximation of old technologies to real-time communication. Since then, when &quot;hot&quot; news about an event is delivered to the TV studio during live broadcasting, the reporter may precede this message with words like *К нам поступило сообщение с пометкой &quot;молния&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's not strictly speaking a translation of &quot;Breaking news&quot;, but it is still quite common on the TV." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1722" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="b43e969f-4314-46f9-b168-1c0c22247175" CreationDate="2012-07-07T22:24:22.913" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 5 edit id of 167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="e5cee56a-7d75-4fee-93b9-76408fbce4b9" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:21.683" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="I figured out through its usage and some Google-Fu, that *гладить против шерсти* means rubbing the wrong way, but can someone explain to me why &quot;touch/press against the wool&quot;? Where did this phrase come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="e5cee56a-7d75-4fee-93b9-76408fbce4b9" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:21.683" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="Where did the phrase &quot;гладить против шерсти&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1725" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="e5cee56a-7d75-4fee-93b9-76408fbce4b9" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:21.683" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="|лексикон|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1726" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="e5cee56a-7d75-4fee-93b9-76408fbce4b9" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:21.683" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 131 edit id of 171" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="1c0d592b-f316-4dd7-877e-1df600ea6f7c" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:42.683" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="I've heard of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Курица - не птица, баба - не человек!&#xD;&#xA; - Курица - не птица, Украина (Монголия, и т.д.) - не заграница!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;any other interesting ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1728" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="1c0d592b-f316-4dd7-877e-1df600ea6f7c" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:42.683" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="What are some expressions that starts with &quot;курица - не птица&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1729" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="1c0d592b-f316-4dd7-877e-1df600ea6f7c" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:42.683" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="|лексикон|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1730" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="1c0d592b-f316-4dd7-877e-1df600ea6f7c" CreationDate="2012-07-08T00:22:42.683" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 131 edit id of 170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="f915af55-9d1c-47c5-b906-51fd44b34cc1" CreationDate="2012-07-08T06:59:35.110" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling, formatted" Text="All other Russian vowels come in pairs, but this pair seems a bit special.&#xD;&#xA;So, how does one pronounce /ы/ and /и/?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1732" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="f915af55-9d1c-47c5-b906-51fd44b34cc1" CreationDate="2012-07-08T06:59:35.110" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling, formatted" Text="What is the difference between /ы/ and /и/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1733" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="f915af55-9d1c-47c5-b906-51fd44b34cc1" CreationDate="2012-07-08T06:59:35.110" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 173 edit id of 169" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="c04e4986-2692-4785-9553-e63cae25c246" CreationDate="2012-07-08T07:01:42.500" UserId="173" Comment="&quot;/&quot; is used for IPA, which is not the case here." Text="All other Russian vowels come in pairs, but this pair seems a bit special.&#xD;&#xA;So, how does one pronounce ы and и?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1735" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="c04e4986-2692-4785-9553-e63cae25c246" CreationDate="2012-07-08T07:01:42.500" UserId="173" Comment="&quot;/&quot; is used for IPA, which is not the case here." Text="What is the difference between ы and и?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1736" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="a81f34cf-506a-4aff-b176-a397099f5772" CreationDate="2012-07-08T08:34:36.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/221884979339210752" />
  <row Id="1737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="517bce26-31fe-4c4d-a3a0-fca991be8ac4" CreationDate="2012-07-08T10:05:28.013" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted, added an example" Text="Хотел бы сверить с обществом собственные социокультурные соображения по поводу выражения *погнали* в значении *начали*. Откуда оно есть пошло?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1738" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="517bce26-31fe-4c4d-a3a0-fca991be8ac4" CreationDate="2012-07-08T10:05:28.013" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted, added an example" Text="Происхождение и значение современного употребления &quot;погнали&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1739" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="517bce26-31fe-4c4d-a3a0-fca991be8ac4" CreationDate="2012-07-08T10:05:28.013" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted, added an example" Text="|лексикон|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1740" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="517bce26-31fe-4c4d-a3a0-fca991be8ac4" CreationDate="2012-07-08T10:05:28.013" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 104 edit id of 168" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1743" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="67351de9-88f1-41d2-92b4-ae5e2f97c71f" CreationDate="2012-07-08T14:34:34.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/221975570563612672" />
  <row Id="1747" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="470517f7-7fc2-40b7-b89f-f8b5e4be52ee" CreationDate="2012-07-08T16:17:36.493" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the name of the post." Text="How to decline adjectives modifying feminine nouns after 2, 3, 4?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1748" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="470517f7-7fc2-40b7-b89f-f8b5e4be52ee" CreationDate="2012-07-08T16:17:36.493" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 8 edit id of 158" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="72656dd3-4228-4034-bc99-fabf558d9cf8" CreationDate="2012-07-08T17:34:35.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222020872440004608" />
  <row Id="1750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="506a49ec-a632-43c3-83be-45e24d1fc22f" CreationDate="2012-07-08T18:14:56.427" UserId="131" Text="I assume that in casual usage, it doesn't really mean to serve in an intelligence agency, or to reconnoiter an enemy position, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="506a49ec-a632-43c3-83be-45e24d1fc22f" CreationDate="2012-07-08T18:14:56.427" UserId="131" Text="What does the phrase пойти в разведку mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="506a49ec-a632-43c3-83be-45e24d1fc22f" CreationDate="2012-07-08T18:14:56.427" UserId="131" Text="|выражения|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="0704d5c4-92d2-4832-a76e-a3ace8521df3" CreationDate="2012-07-08T19:19:16.307" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="Я пошел бы с ним в разведку = I would trust him with my life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original, literal meaning is indeed to reconnoiter an enemy position (not to serve in an intelligence agency)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="3105845b-6711-4f42-ab02-7b9c92b71d1f" CreationDate="2012-07-08T20:14:45.323" UserId="47" Text="This expression historically stems from the time of WWII (one should take into account the severe militarisation of the Soviet society and that both the TV and cinema were full of heroic films about WWII). In casual usage it just means that you trust a person. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="4304cc6d-6f6d-4943-8092-a4adab79ea71" CreationDate="2012-07-08T20:34:38.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222066182910513152" />
  <row Id="1758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="f05b9d86-b224-4807-a5d0-be7261c512b3" CreationDate="2012-07-09T05:32:41.000" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выражения|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1759" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="c8b04f38-c9a8-415a-8bc7-1819e84ab1e4" CreationDate="2012-07-09T05:34:37.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222202073620557824" />
  <row Id="1760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="6ced7730-cf13-4916-b3e1-8fc12d44a505" CreationDate="2012-07-09T05:46:39.007" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="f4e42f14-18c5-4163-be03-b73949df1425" CreationDate="2012-07-09T05:46:39.007" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="d1709264-ff81-4b31-bce1-89bdd18eebed" CreationDate="2012-07-09T05:50:15.290" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="cbef4dbe-fa3e-43ea-b5c9-3a615e70b0ff" CreationDate="2012-07-09T05:50:15.290" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="5ed24ced-a758-4bcf-9e42-d6063f19557d" CreationDate="2012-07-09T08:34:35.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222247366886031360" />
  <row Id="1765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="d720e279-0814-464f-8773-b8e0d04ea893" CreationDate="2012-07-09T09:09:46.957" UserId="185" Text="There are examples like *наддать пару* and *поддать пару* (not my favorite Russian words, but still they both exist). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have the same meaning, at least that is what gramota.ru suggests: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%ED%E0%E4%E4%E0%F2%FC&quot;&gt;наддать&lt;/a&gt;, meaning 1 and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EF%EE%E4%E4%E0%F2%FC&quot;&gt;поддать&lt;/a&gt;, meaning 3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, prefixes *над-* and *под-* have exactly opposite meanings, at least as long as they refer to the position in space (*над-* stands for *above*, *под-* stands for *under*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come that adding prefixes with opposite meaning to the same stem results in the words with the same meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="d720e279-0814-464f-8773-b8e0d04ea893" CreationDate="2012-07-09T09:09:46.957" UserId="185" Text="Why &quot;наддать&quot; and &quot;поддать&quot; have the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="d720e279-0814-464f-8773-b8e0d04ea893" CreationDate="2012-07-09T09:09:46.957" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|semantics|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1768" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="ec3e99b3-8a81-4cdd-9bf1-ba09c5923707" CreationDate="2012-07-09T11:34:36.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222292665386008576" />
  <row Id="1769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="26bfdb0b-6ad4-4cda-9701-1874d3631730" CreationDate="2012-07-09T12:02:21.597" UserId="134" Text="These prefixes were originally used in meaning &quot;add to the top&quot; and &quot;add to the bottom&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter prefix later obtained metaphoric meaning &quot;do a little&quot; (literally, &quot;do something in quality/quantity under the normal&quot;: *подкрась, подштопай, подлатай*). However, it's still used   in its original meaning in some words with distinct localization: *наложи (сверху) / подложи (снизу), надставка / подставка* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the words in your example do not assume distinct localization, they are almost synonymous (&quot;increase the effort&quot;), but the latter word hints a little increase while the first one hints a significant increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: *надбавь / подбавь*, *наддуй / поддуй*, *наложи / подложи (ещё картошки)*, *налей / подлей (ещё супу)*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="ffdcd538-3ef0-4988-9290-58dc1fd779f1" CreationDate="2012-07-09T12:24:31.157" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="These prefixes were originally used in meaning &quot;add to the top&quot; and &quot;add to the bottom&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter prefix later obtained metaphoric meaning &quot;do a little&quot; (literally, &quot;do something in quality/quantity under the normal&quot;: *подкрась, подштопай, подлатай*). However, it's still used   in its original meaning in some words with distinct localization: *надложи (сверху) / подложи (снизу), надставка / подставка* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the words in your example do not assume distinct localization, they are almost synonymous (&quot;increase the effort&quot;), but the latter word hints a little increase while the first one hints a significant increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: *надбавь / подбавь*, *наддуй / поддуй*, *надложи / подложи (ещё картошки)*, *надлей / подлей (ещё супу)*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="709af7dd-dcd6-48f1-b6ca-3686e8a669cd" CreationDate="2012-07-09T12:32:42.833" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text="These prefixes were originally used in meaning &quot;add to the top&quot; and &quot;add to the bottom&quot;, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter prefix later obtained metaphoric meaning &quot;do a little&quot; (literally, &quot;do something in quality/quantity under the normal&quot;: *подкрась, подштопай, подлатай*). However, it's still used   in its original meaning in some words with distinct localization: *надставка / подставка* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the words in your example do not assume distinct localization, they are almost synonymous (&quot;increase the effort&quot;), but the latter word hints a little increase while the first one hints a significant increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: *надбавь / подбавь*, *наддуй / поддуй*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1775" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="3b5572ee-8622-4431-b611-d7abe8e09896" CreationDate="2012-07-09T14:34:36.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222337964045373441" />
  <row Id="1776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="e08efbbd-2a37-4cfc-a3f9-27afcc4acd1f" CreationDate="2012-07-09T17:34:36.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222383264046915584" />
  <row Id="1777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="06f98f89-c263-473f-bd69-5997420fb986" CreationDate="2012-07-09T17:54:01.100" UserId="224" Text="Of course, the correct original spelling of this word borrowed from a Turkic (?Tatar) language is *&quot;башка&quot;*. The spelling *&quot;бошка&quot;* may refer to northern-eastern dialects of Russian, which are located closer to the modern area of the Tatar language. The northern dialects tend to pronounce unstressed &quot;a&quot; as &quot;o&quot; (sorry for the absence of phonetic signs). &#xD;&#xA;That's why we can consider Genitive Plural *&quot;бОшек&quot;* as the form of *&quot;бошка&quot;* (where shift of accent is another question), and G. Pl. *&quot;башОк&quot;* as the one of *&quot;башка&quot;* (the same model кишок - кишка). Though the word *&quot;башок&quot;* is surely extinct in the modern language.&#xD;&#xA;So, I think, we can't talk about the form G. Pl. of *&quot;башка&quot;* at all, and such pair as *&quot;башкА&quot; - &quot;бОшек&quot;* is only reconsideration of paradigm because of the absence of *&quot;башок&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;offtopic: It is interesting, that, according to the research of Vladimir Belikov, Acc.Sg. *&quot;башкУ&quot;* is more frequently used by male respondents, while *&quot;бОшку&quot;* is more popular with the female:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="e2be06d6-79b4-46f0-bc63-07fa9672909b" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:02:17.617" UserId="185" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Covers questions on computer-science terminology such as &quot;What is the canonical translation for debug?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1779" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="e2be06d6-79b4-46f0-bc63-07fa9672909b" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:02:17.617" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 8 edit id of 172" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="3d836387-39b6-4b9d-9941-c6fc358fc698" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:44.403" UserId="185" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="Questions about the declension of nouns ans well as adjectives, numerals and participles, for example, &quot;What ending should I use for this noun?&quot; or &quot;What form of adjective should be used in the context of ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1782" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="3d836387-39b6-4b9d-9941-c6fc358fc698" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:44.403" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 162" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="c6afb2e6-2afc-47d7-9206-72542bfbad0a" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:47.210" UserId="185" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Questions about the meaning, the origin, and the usage of multi-word expressions with more or less idiomatic or metaphorical meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1784" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="c6afb2e6-2afc-47d7-9206-72542bfbad0a" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:47.210" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="6177d7c1-0b88-435c-b70f-ca17c5a82f5e" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:49.550" UserId="185" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Questions about pronouns of all kinds: personal pronouns (me), indefinite pronouns (some), relative pronouns (which) and so on.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1786" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="6177d7c1-0b88-435c-b70f-ca17c5a82f5e" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:49.550" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="aa44b074-0f16-45f3-b5b3-265af4934977" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:57.583" UserId="185" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Questions about the pronunciation of words, as they are uttered by both native and non-native speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1788" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="aa44b074-0f16-45f3-b5b3-265af4934977" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:55:57.583" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="4eed2152-5cff-4d29-a355-f0477b38752d" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:00.097" UserId="185" Comment="The questions about the usage of a particular word or phrase are now covered by &quot;usage&quot; tag." Text="Now covers questions about the usage of the Russian language in other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1790" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="4eed2152-5cff-4d29-a355-f0477b38752d" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:00.097" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 156" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="b6baf55d-ae65-493e-a114-545fcbc6d405" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:02.513" UserId="185" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Topics related to finding a word or a phrase that fits a meaning. Describe the intended meaning, connotation, and/or context in as much detail as you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1792" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="157" RevisionGUID="b6baf55d-ae65-493e-a114-545fcbc6d405" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:02.513" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="3df6fb72-f58a-4135-a924-f0cac09136c0" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:14.730" UserId="185" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Questions about stress in Russian words and phrases, such as &quot;Where is the stress put in word звонит?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1794" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="3df6fb72-f58a-4135-a924-f0cac09136c0" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:14.730" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="afc379cb-dea9-4797-a4ef-aac75b0e703f" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:17.957" UserId="185" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="For questions about suffixes (morphemes that follow the stem and precede the ending)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1796" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="afc379cb-dea9-4797-a4ef-aac75b0e703f" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:17.957" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="40468fc1-dfbb-41ce-b082-6204cf3d1168" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:20.470" UserId="185" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Covers questions about the usage of a particular word or phrase in different situations and contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1798" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="40468fc1-dfbb-41ce-b082-6204cf3d1168" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:56:20.470" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 155" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="f9be022f-093f-44f0-a3c2-da4e3e982f25" CreationDate="2012-07-09T23:41:07.153" UserId="71" Comment="fixed title" Text="What are the different ways of saying &quot;but&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1800" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="f9be022f-093f-44f0-a3c2-da4e3e982f25" CreationDate="2012-07-09T23:41:07.153" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 174" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1801" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="1e21b6a8-e3fc-4064-aa9f-5051264e3f6c" CreationDate="2012-07-10T02:34:36.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222519158917701633" />
  <row Id="1802" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="1bcf5b6f-1b91-4821-b989-8513b5bc66cb" CreationDate="2012-07-10T05:34:36.407" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222564457094709249" />
  <row Id="1803" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="a776d067-f4cd-434a-971b-af58fd5c5983" CreationDate="2012-07-10T08:11:36.883" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Why do &quot;наддать&quot; and &quot;поддать&quot; have the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="f35f727d-ca41-47d4-832d-ac7359c854e8" CreationDate="2012-07-10T16:58:13.437" UserId="256" Text="ыых - a two-string instrument used, e.g., in Khakassia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="ed0b9f39-d3c6-4bb3-bd4d-89388324980b" CreationDate="2012-07-10T23:52:25.123" UserId="62" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the steps, you can say in English that the person is giving a &quot;handwaving argument&quot; or &quot;this step is handwaving&quot;.  How is that idea expressed in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="ed0b9f39-d3c6-4bb3-bd4d-89388324980b" CreationDate="2012-07-10T23:52:25.123" UserId="62" Text="how to say &quot;handwaving&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="ed0b9f39-d3c6-4bb3-bd4d-89388324980b" CreationDate="2012-07-10T23:52:25.123" UserId="62" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="a06e1416-4103-4513-a5cd-ffecfd9b8ec3" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:39:26.637" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question (title, formatting, tags)" Text="If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the steps, you can say in English that the person is giving a *&quot;handwaving argument&quot;* or *&quot;this step is handwaving&quot;*.  How is that idea expressed in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1812" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="a06e1416-4103-4513-a5cd-ffecfd9b8ec3" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:39:26.637" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question (title, formatting, tags)" Text="How to say &quot;handwaving&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="a06e1416-4103-4513-a5cd-ffecfd9b8ec3" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:39:26.637" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question (title, formatting, tags)" Text="|одним-словом|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1814" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="a06e1416-4103-4513-a5cd-ffecfd9b8ec3" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:39:26.637" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 62 edit id of 175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="68b09ff1-2e6b-4680-834a-0ca3a5f00a63" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:40:28.693" UserId="62" Comment="added background information" Text="If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the steps, you can say in English that the person is giving a *&quot;handwaving argument&quot;* or *&quot;this step is handwaving&quot;*.  How is that idea expressed in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: Some time ago I asked a native speaker about this but I no longer remember the answer and don't know where to find it. The English Wikipedia page on &quot;handwaving&quot; has no Russian analogue. Google Translate doesn't understand the term except literally, which I am sure is not the right translation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="8d64b104-678c-4785-8d8c-8a68064717af" CreationDate="2012-07-11T01:55:27.993" UserId="62" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;handwaving&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1817" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="a162b212-23fd-4b57-958c-257663f55bad" CreationDate="2012-07-11T02:34:36.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/222881544900050944" />
  <row Id="1818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="583" RevisionGUID="0c173d71-9bd8-425f-b2bf-d147a7162e01" CreationDate="2012-07-11T06:04:42.757" UserId="256" Text="One can try *объяснить на пальцах* but it suggests simplicity of explanation (and implies lack of rigour) and is not necessarily as negative as &quot;hand-waving&quot;. Internet also suggests &quot;пассы&quot; referring to magician's tricks but I have never actually heard it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="e8467949-e56a-4d4a-92d6-ca45ede526f6" CreationDate="2012-07-11T07:58:40.757" UserId="185" Text="I doubt that Russian have exactly the same metaphorical meaning for waving hands. I would suggest to translate the adjective as *беспочвенный, необоснованный* and the noun as *беспочвенные, необоснованные слова*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="870867b2-2fdb-4349-8dcb-fe5e66d0b539" CreationDate="2012-07-11T08:06:20.530" UserId="185" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="I doubt that Russian have exactly the same metaphorical meaning for waving hands. I have two different suggestions based on two different understandings of this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is &quot;applied to debate techniques that involve logical fallacies&quot;, it can be described as &quot;необоснованный, бездоказательный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia says that &quot;It is also used in working situations where productive work is expected, but no work is actually accomplished.&quot; The best translation here is *показуха, показная работа*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="7940cf44-a448-4f8a-b058-ba5a9d7bd6f8" CreationDate="2012-07-11T11:01:35.277" UserId="185" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I doubt that Russian have exactly the same metaphorical meaning for waving hands. I have two different suggestions based on two different understandings of this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is &quot;applied to debate techniques that involve logical fallacies&quot;, it can be described as &quot;необоснованный, бездоказательный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia says that &quot;It is also used in working situations where productive work is expected, but no work is actually accomplished.&quot; The best translation here is *показная работа*, or *показуха*, its colloquial variant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="bd03a9ea-6277-4c7b-9228-50757f2e6a5a" CreationDate="2012-07-11T12:57:27.643" UserId="191" Text="I guess you can use *непрозрачный* (non-transparent) - that exactly means that there seems to be a derivation, but since some of that derivation details are not laid out clearly you can't put all the pieces together without any doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1823" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="0233ed49-9d5b-4910-9f48-8d5959ba83a8" CreationDate="2012-07-11T13:31:56.443" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|одним-словом|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="520f6c30-25ac-4caa-90b4-7b979271d8a6" CreationDate="2012-07-11T14:34:36.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223062740036632576" />
  <row Id="1832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="c502a4c4-36ae-4522-aa7b-c03a225d86a8" CreationDate="2012-07-11T17:32:42.983" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="I've seen *пассы руками* in this context. I'm pretty sure the usage was modeled after English. Russian mathematicians seem to just use the English word, as it's more concise and expressive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="16dc7d26-344f-4e3c-8bab-afadcf11555b" CreationDate="2012-07-11T17:49:10.947" UserId="62" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the steps, you can say in English that the person is giving a *&quot;handwaving argument&quot;* or *&quot;this step is handwaving&quot;*.  How is that idea expressed in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: Some time ago I asked a native speaker about this but I no longer remember the answer and don't know where to find it. The English Wikipedia page on &quot;handwaving&quot; has no Russian analogue. If I type &quot;This argument is handwaving&quot; into Google Translate then the translation is &quot;Этот аргумент handwaving&quot;, which seems wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1838" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="207ac0da-cda6-41be-938d-8e5dd2cd692d" CreationDate="2012-07-11T20:34:36.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223153338890461184" />
  <row Id="1839" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="9fea1906-4633-44de-a415-14589e30d44d" CreationDate="2012-07-11T23:34:37.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223198639785390080" />
  <row Id="1840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="1342eebb-988c-4797-af7d-f66914b03f02" CreationDate="2012-07-12T06:53:00.523" UserDisplayName="user254" Text="First of all, there is no direct translation. In each case you will need to translate it differently, depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiki says :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Handwaving is a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, assuming you want such a meaning, you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Создавать иллюзию деятельности&quot; or &quot;Создавать видимость деятельности&quot; which literaly translates to &quot;Create an appearance (or visibility) of action(or work)&quot;. A common phrase would also be &quot;создавать видимость _бурной_ деятельности&quot;. You can use this when you, for example, want to describe someone who is doing nothing at work, but tries to pretend he is working hard when his boss comes by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Он целый день сидел и создавал иллюзию бурной деятельности&quot; &gt;(literally)&gt; He was just sitting there and creating an appearance of hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the debate. Wiki says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Handwaving is also occasionally used in informal debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the opponent in a debate uses the term, it is meant as a shorthand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; way to accuse the proponent in the debate of having committed a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; logical fallacy. In this sense, it is also as if a participant is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; waving their hands to obscure clear debate, as a verbal or logical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smoke screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part about &quot;smoke screen&quot; is easy, you can say that the opponent is trying to &quot;запутать&quot;, &quot;создать дымовую завесу&quot; (which would be a literal translation), or, if you want a colloquial form, &quot;запудрить мозги&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other parts of the wiki article, I can't really come with a short (or, possibly, one-word) translation for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the &gt; steps, you can say in English that the person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is giving a &quot;handwaving argument&quot; or &quot;this step is handwaving&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the meaning here is close to &quot;unclear&quot;, &quot;unobvious&quot; or &quot;ambiguous&quot;. In this case you can say &quot;неочевидный&quot;, or &quot;неясный&quot; which is not a literal translation, but suits well f you are talking about, say, a math formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This step of the deduction is handwaving &gt;&gt; &quot;Этот шаг доказательства&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неочевиден.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="b9250f23-ed96-41d1-ba53-f01f05395b92" CreationDate="2012-07-12T08:35:54.887" UserId="191" Comment="added 575 characters in body" Text="I guess you can use *непрозрачный* (non-transparent) - that exactly means that there seems to be a derivation, but since some of that derivation details are not laid out clearly you can't put all the pieces together without any doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative to that would be *мутный* (&quot;muddy&quot;), that can mean that the derivation is suspicious and unclear, but this adjective is not for formal use (although it is not rude either) and has strong negative connotation. For example, if you're an expert and a court asks you to inspect a derivation and present an expert report then you can write in the report that *отдельные этапы доказательства непрозрачны* (certain steps of derivation are non-transparent), but you can't write *отдельные этапы доказательства мутны* (literally *certain steps of derivation are &quot;muddy&quot;*) although if a fellow experts asks your opinion you can use the latter wording when speaking to him - something like *вот этот этап какой-то мутный* (literally *this step is rather &quot;muddy&quot;*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="30a03691-fdf4-4c1f-8d85-605b0442b742" CreationDate="2012-07-12T11:34:36.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223379828592754688" />
  <row Id="1843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="18986688-cefe-4776-b471-46537cebc108" CreationDate="2012-07-12T11:35:14.250" UserDisplayName="user254" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="First of all, there is no direct translation. In each case you will need to translate it differently, depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiki says :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Handwaving is a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, assuming you want such a meaning, you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Создавать иллюзию деятельности&quot; or &quot;Создавать видимость деятельности&quot; which literaly translates to &quot;Create an appearance (or visibility) of action(or work)&quot;. A common phrase would also be &quot;создавать видимость _бурной_ деятельности&quot;. You can use this when you, for example, want to describe someone who is doing nothing at work, but tries to pretend he is working hard when his boss comes by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Он целый день сидел и создавал иллюзию бурной деятельности&quot; &gt;(literally)&gt; For the whole day he was just sitting there and creating an appearance of hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the debate. Wiki says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Handwaving is also occasionally used in informal debate or discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the opponent in a debate uses the term, it is meant as a shorthand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; way to accuse the proponent in the debate of having committed a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; logical fallacy. In this sense, it is also as if a participant is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; waving their hands to obscure clear debate, as a verbal or logical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; smoke screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part about &quot;smoke screen&quot; is easy, you can say that the opponent is trying to &quot;запутать&quot;, &quot;создать дымовую завесу&quot; (which would be a literal translation), or, if you want a colloquial form, &quot;запудрить мозги&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other parts of the wiki article, I can't really come with a short (or, possibly, one-word) translation for them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the &gt; steps, you can say in English that the person&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is giving a &quot;handwaving argument&quot; or &quot;this step is handwaving&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the meaning here is close to &quot;unclear&quot;, &quot;unobvious&quot; or &quot;ambiguous&quot;. In this case you can say &quot;неочевидный&quot;, or &quot;неясный&quot; which is not a literal translation, but suits well f you are talking about, say, a math formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This step of the deduction is handwaving &gt;&gt; &quot;Этот шаг доказательства&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неочевиден.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1844" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="2762f006-1cae-4ba3-a35c-cde10f1bd7ff" CreationDate="2012-07-12T14:34:36.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223425129093414912" />
  <row Id="1845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="44b16a61-4aba-409b-aae2-b642b3d51819" CreationDate="2012-07-12T20:18:39.527" UserId="264" Comment="Clarified the answer: the mentioned nouns are from native population languages and from foreign languages (e.g. Turkish afais)." Text="You will not find common Russian words beginning with 'ы'. However you can encounter proper names, geographical location names that in Russian will start with 'ы' (or 'и' optionally). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words come from other languages (foreign languages, languages of native population etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыгыатта, -ы (р., Якутия, РФ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыджыдпарма, -ы (Ыджидпарма) (возв., Респ. Коми, РФ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ылыч, см. Илыч&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЫЛЬЧИ МУНДОК, Ыльчи Мундока (кор. полководец)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыныкчанский, -ого (пгт, Якутия, РФ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ыспарта, -ы (Испарта) (гор., Турция)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЫссыкАта, см. ИссыкАта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a verb stemming from the letter name: ыкать (cf. окать, акать)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1846" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="44b16a61-4aba-409b-aae2-b642b3d51819" CreationDate="2012-07-12T20:18:39.527" Comment="Proposed by 264 approved by 134 edit id of 177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1847" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="52a0f2b9-4baa-443e-980a-4e7922539e7e" CreationDate="2012-07-12T20:34:36.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223515724226891776" />
  <row Id="1848" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="25696ed3-b6e8-4640-bdac-a55ec38a2ce5" CreationDate="2012-07-13T02:34:36.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223606324204814337" />
  <row Id="1849" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="0a3b0d75-6fa7-4073-9043-d42c0f2a27be" CreationDate="2012-07-13T08:34:37.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223696923033485312" />
  <row Id="1850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="c05af026-afa8-427f-bee5-2cd0f70c5bf6" CreationDate="2012-07-13T13:08:03.653" UserId="185" Text="Can the following words be used in any context? I even doubt that some of them exist, but I cannot think of any reason why they shouldn't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;разработаться&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;расчитаться (from читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раздуматься&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, words like the following are completely normal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раскричаться&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;расписаться (meaning &quot;get into a good mood for writing, gather speed when writing something&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;размечтаться&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering what is the meaning that &quot;рас-ся&quot; adds to the meaning of the verb, is this derivation regular and if yes, why the words from the first group sound strange (do they?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="c05af026-afa8-427f-bee5-2cd0f70c5bf6" CreationDate="2012-07-13T13:08:03.653" UserId="185" Text="The meaning of verbs with prefix &quot;раз-\рас-&quot; and postfix &quot;-ся&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="c05af026-afa8-427f-bee5-2cd0f70c5bf6" CreationDate="2012-07-13T13:08:03.653" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|морфология|semantics|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="dcc13531-299c-485b-91a4-946497f28070" CreationDate="2012-07-13T13:46:19.500" UserId="266" Text="Давно смолкли залпы орудий&#xD;&#xA;авт.В.Высоцкий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Давно смолкли залпы орудий,&#xD;&#xA;Над нами лишь солнечный свет, -&#xD;&#xA;На чем проверяются люди,&#xD;&#xA;Если войны уже нет? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приходится слышать нередко&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас, как тогда:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ты бы пошел с ним в разведку?&#xD;&#xA;Нет или да?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="5dd37606-fdc8-4753-b97c-363ef5b5f302" CreationDate="2012-07-13T14:06:58.387" UserId="97" Text="The meaning you're referring to is the one of _start doing something and become good at it_.  For example, _распеться_ means _to start singing and get to the point where you &quot;warm up&quot; enough to be able to do it well.  There are some deviations but all around the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your example of _раскричаться_ is commonly used when somebody is screaming for some time, meaning that they've &quot;warmed up&quot; enough to be good at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Размечтаться_ is normally used when a person comes up with absolutely unrealistic and unachievable desires, the state where in English one could respond by &quot;dream on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Разработаться_ and _расчитаться_ in the sense that you mentioned in your post are not commonly used but I've encountered them in literature and regular speech and even use them myself once in a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some exceptions to the structural meaning of such words, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Расписаться_ usually means _to put one's signature to/in/on something_ and **not** _to start writing and become good at it_, although this second meaning is sometimes used as well, especially when referring to writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Рассчитаться_ means _to pay off_ or _to settle the debt_ and **not** _to start and get good at counting_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Разобраться_ is closest in meaning _to figure out_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that such words cannot be created from all verbs.  However most imperfect verbs (несовершенные глаголы) сould work while pretty much none of the perfect verbs (совершенные глаголы) would not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="18fb0962-cab6-4298-8c17-19fc7d73b97f" CreationDate="2012-07-13T14:33:15.247" UserId="134" Text="These words have slightly negative (or ironical) connotation in the modern language (*что-то ты, брат, рас…ся*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;dreaming&quot; or &quot;shouting&quot; too much can have undesired consequences and hence fit for this connotation, the words from your second list still live, but those from the first list are almost extinct (though the paradigm is productive and the constructed words can be used rhetorically, as intended barbarisms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Товарищ первый нам сказал, что вы уймитесь,  &#xD;&#xA;Что — не буяньте, говорит, что — разойдитесь.  &#xD;&#xA;Ну, на &quot;разойтись&quot; я, кстати, тут же согласился —  &#xD;&#xA;И разошёлся, то есть расходился!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   *Высоцкий В., &quot;Милицейский протокол&quot;, 1971*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  Потом и я разработался и, соответственно, произведения стали получаться все лучше и лучше. *[proza.ru][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Первый раз я серьёзно раздумался о своей будущности. *[И. И. Панаев. Раздел имения (1850-1860)]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Когда лежал в госпитале, «расчитался» от нечего делать и теперь, как без наркотика, не мог без этого, без Лерочкиной «Бовари». *[Андрей Житков. Супермаркет (2000)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last example the word is clearly marked as constructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the word *раздумался* had been used neutrally instead of the modern *задумался* at least till the beginning of the XX century. [This graph][2] shows it quite cleary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.proza.ru/rec_author.html?bahmat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goo.gl/0wJlI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="485f62b1-95f3-4348-8a84-8688c1019a2a" CreationDate="2012-07-13T14:38:55.523" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="These words have slightly negative (or ironical) connotation in the modern language (*что-то ты, брат, рас…ся*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;dreaming&quot; or &quot;shouting&quot; too much can have undesired consequences and hence fit for this connotation, the words from your second list still live, but those from the first list are almost extinct (though the paradigm is productive and the constructed words can be used rhetorically, as intended barbarisms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Товарищ первый нам сказал, что вы уймитесь,  &#xD;&#xA;Что — не буяньте, говорит, что — разойдитесь.  &#xD;&#xA;Ну, на &quot;разойтись&quot; я, кстати, тут же согласился —  &#xD;&#xA;И разошёлся, то есть расходился!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   *Высоцкий В., &quot;Милицейский протокол&quot;, 1971*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  Потом и я разработался и, соответственно, произведения стали получаться все лучше и лучше. *[proza.ru][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Первый раз я серьёзно раздумался о своей будущности. *[И. И. Панаев. Раздел имения (1850-1860)]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Когда лежал в госпитале, «расчитался» от нечего делать и теперь, как без наркотика, не мог без этого, без Лерочкиной «Бовари». *[Андрей Житков. Супермаркет (2000)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last example the word is clearly marked as constructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the word *раздумался* had been used neutrally instead of the modern *задумался* at least till the beginning of the XX century. [This graph][2] shows it quite cleary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.proza.ru/rec_author.html?bahmat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goo.gl/Q608N" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="82406ab1-63f4-43fe-8e90-03db3233aa49" CreationDate="2012-07-13T15:02:01.493" UserId="97" Comment="Formatted new lines" Text="Давно смолкли залпы орудий&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;авт.В.Высоцкий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Давно смолкли залпы орудий,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Над нами лишь солнечный свет, -&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;На чем проверяются люди,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Если войны уже нет? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приходится слышать нередко&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас, как тогда:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ты бы пошел с ним в разведку?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Нет или да?&quot; &lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1858" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="82406ab1-63f4-43fe-8e90-03db3233aa49" CreationDate="2012-07-13T15:02:01.493" Comment="Proposed by 97 approved by 134 edit id of 178" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="e99b775b-7dfc-443a-a0fa-e58bb0599268" CreationDate="2012-07-13T15:28:55.277" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="These words have slightly negative (or ironical) connotation in the modern language (*что-то ты, брат, рас…ся*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;dreaming&quot; or &quot;shouting&quot; too much can have undesired consequences and hence fit for this connotation, the words from your second list still live, but those from the first list are almost extinct (though the paradigm is productive and the constructed words can be used rhetorically, as intended barbarisms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Товарищ первый нам сказал, что вы уймитесь,  &#xD;&#xA;Что — не буяньте, говорит, что — разойдитесь.  &#xD;&#xA;Ну, на &quot;разойтись&quot; я, кстати, тут же согласился —  &#xD;&#xA;И разошёлся, то есть расходился!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   *Высоцкий В., &quot;Милицейский протокол&quot;, 1971*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  Потом и я разработался и, соответственно, произведения стали получаться все лучше и лучше. *[proza.ru][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Первый раз я серьёзно раздумался о своей будущности. *[И. И. Панаев. Раздел имения (1850-1860)]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Когда лежал в госпитале, «расчитался» от нечего делать и теперь, как без наркотика, не мог без этого, без Лерочкиной «Бовари». *[Андрей Житков. Супермаркет (2000)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last example the word is clearly marked as constructed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the word *раздумался* had been used neutrally along with the modern *задумался* at least till the beginning of the XX century. [This graph][2] shows it quite cleary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.proza.ru/rec_author.html?bahmat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goo.gl/Q608N" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="ad3b4726-8bb5-48fd-b155-b8e2cdd6559f" CreationDate="2012-07-13T17:57:29.330" UserId="266" Text="Ыллымах — посёлок (до 2005 года посёлок городского типа) в Алданском улусе республики Якутии. Почтовый индекс — 678920." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="96f92acb-d8c2-4790-9755-4ac59f5ffbfe" CreationDate="2012-07-13T21:36:57.687" UserId="119" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Rather than trying to compile a list of proper nouns and load-words with initial **Ы**, I'll try to present a more linguistical view on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels /ы/ and /и/ are in the complementary distribution in the Russian language. Moscow Phonological School even asserted that /ы/ and /и/ are actually one phoneme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку в русском языке, по мнению сторонников МФШ, отсутствуют фонетические положения, в которых встречались бы и звук [и], и [ы], то есть присутствие в некоторой позиции одного из этих звуков исключает возможность присутствия в ней другого, последователями школы делается вывод о том, что [и] и [ы] являются разновидностями одной фонемы: [ы] представляет собой вариацию фонемы &lt;и&gt;, обусловленную положением после твёрдого согласного. Таким образом, в парах, подобных _мыл_ — _мил_, единственное фонемное различие состоит в мягкости или твёрдости согласного, а не в гласных фонемах. — [Московская фонологическая школа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0#.D0.93.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if there are no minimal pairs on /ы/—/и/, the phonetic difference between these vowels is merely the assimilation of the preceding consonant: /ы/ follow hard consonants, /и/ follows soft (palatalized) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, with no preceding consonant, only one of the variants can appear. Naturally, it's /и/, and /ы/ should thus be considered an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in loanwords coming from languages where /ы/ _is_ a phoneme (take Kazakh, for example), the initial /ы/ is kept for the sake of transcription (same thing as **Ю** in _парашют_ ‘parachute’ to better render the French /y/ vowel, even though _-шю-_ is impossible in Russian words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1862" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="9d71624c-ddcc-40d0-a783-4cbc31c8e4ca" CreationDate="2012-07-14T02:34:36.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/223968711424479232" />
  <row Id="1863" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="f51f8ead-78fc-4878-85b5-37ef263c13d5" CreationDate="2012-07-14T05:34:36.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224014011195342850" />
  <row Id="1864" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="b6976e18-1c2c-4de5-b50b-db37ac282284" CreationDate="2012-07-14T08:34:36.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224059308999053313" />
  <row Id="1865" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="1aae22ec-c628-49b0-bfca-5534dbbaa069" CreationDate="2012-07-14T11:34:37.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224104609046740992" />
  <row Id="1866" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="07ff3460-02fe-4636-9f79-3c9f6f0d7439" CreationDate="2012-07-14T14:34:36.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224149905978044416" />
  <row Id="1867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="b511042e-0ed0-4b5f-90c9-39b5e4c916a4" CreationDate="2012-07-14T15:28:59.640" UserId="109" Text="[On a German page about the Russian language][1], I learned the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прямо [prjáma] – gerade aus &lt;sub&gt;(straight on)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; направо [napráwa] - rechts &lt;sub&gt;(right)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; налево [naléwa] - links &lt;sub&gt;(left)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for directions (location plan[*]), for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идите прямо и потом поверните налево. &lt;sub&gt;(Go ahead and then turn left.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coincidentally, I came across an [academic work][2] (written in German) about left and right in the Russian language. While reading I learned that there are two more words for both left and right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;left&lt;/b&gt;   &lt;b&gt;right&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;сле́ва	спра́ва&#xD;&#xA;вле́во	впра́во&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the academic work the three words are compared to each other. The writer of that academic work examined two corpora with more than one million words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the word pair which I learned (налево/направо) is just the second most common designator for left and right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like to briefly summarize what I came to know from the academic work. (I hope that I don't have any misconceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The writer distinguished between three cases. The (1) &quot;direct personal direction&quot; (e.g. The sea is to my left), the (2) &quot;indirect personal direction&quot; (e.g. The police station is on the left side from the church) and the (3) &quot;non-personal direction&quot; (e.g. The seats on the left side of the cinema).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples she used are solely taken from literary texts (Sorry I'm wrong. Not solely, a few one are taken from a dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. I start with (1). When talking about direct personal directions the most common word pair is сле́ва/спра́ва. Only налево/направо can be used without changing the meaning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. I continue with (2). When talking about indirect personal directions again сле́ва/спра́ва is most frequently used. Both other word pairs can be used synonymously, though examples for налево/направо were only found in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. Last but not least (3). When talking about non-personal directions only the word pair сле́ва/спра́ва is used. No written examples exist using the other word pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the writer isn't native Russian herself she consulted Russian friends asking them about their personal opinions for interchangeability.&#xD;&#xA;* There are no information given from which time the literary texts are. At least I haven't found that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, finally here are my questions. I'm sorry for combining a couple of questions into one, but they belong together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Are the summarized results valid for nowadays colloquial speech and everyday conversations? Would you also agree that сле́ва/спра́ва is the most frequent word pair, while вле́во/впра́во only rarely used? (The gap is very great, imho)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. On the one hand I learned налево/направо for directions (location plan). According to b. there are no written examples using them in indirect personal directions. I personally would integrate directions into category (2), i.e. indirect personal directions. However, налево/направо are accepted as synonyms for the category (2) but no only dictionary examples are existing. That's somewhat ambivalent and inconsistent. Are налево and направо the preferred words for describing directions (location plan)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III. Which main distinctions do you personally see between those three word pairs. As a non-native, do I need to carefully think about which word I'll use for not being mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV. I tried to figure out if German or English do also have different words for left and right, but I can't think of any. Maybe my understanding of the three word pairs is just wrong and therefore I can't conclude the correct German or English counterparts, if any existing. Do you know comparing words in the English language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess after writing that long text and now being tired and weary, I might've forgotten something. Please feel free to add any thoughts to your answer if you consider them to be important, interesting or helpful in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[*] Since I often use the word &quot;directions&quot; I (hopefully always) designated that word with &quot;location plan&quot; when talking about ... yeah, directions ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russlandjournal.de/podcasts/lektionen/urok-18-wegbeschreibung/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uppsala.academia.edu/IngridMaier/Papers/1351781/Die_Semantik_vonrechts_undlinks_auf_Russisch_und_die_Dimension_des_Personenbezugs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iTkQ4.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="b511042e-0ed0-4b5f-90c9-39b5e4c916a4" CreationDate="2012-07-14T15:28:59.640" UserId="109" Text="&quot;Left&quot; and &quot;right&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="b511042e-0ed0-4b5f-90c9-39b5e4c916a4" CreationDate="2012-07-14T15:28:59.640" UserId="109" Text="|лексикон|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="75d7c2b2-c682-447b-bd5f-488f4838f16d" CreationDate="2012-07-14T17:38:40.187" UserId="268" Text="I. Are the summarized results valid for nowadays colloquial speech and everyday conversations? &#xD;&#xA;YES&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III. Which main distinctions do you personally see between those three word pairs. As a non-native, do I need to carefully think about which word I'll use for not being mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;It will be better for you if you divide this words by derivation and then try to describe word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;слева - Приставка &quot;с&quot; + корень &quot;лев&quot; + суффикс &quot;а&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;направо - Приставка &quot;на&quot; + корень &quot;прав&quot; + суффикс &quot;о&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every &quot;Приставка&quot; has it own very big meaning. And I think it better to understand russian words this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are налево and направо the preferred words for describing directions (location plan)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NO. They are used, depending on situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слева от чего-то. Relative location to something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Направо - прямое указание. Absolute location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поверни вправо. Location in some action" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="b8c1c115-9380-47f1-b245-9664c531e744" CreationDate="2012-07-14T17:48:17.770" UserId="268" Text="If it like useless, то бесполезный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it like without logic in answer, only empty words, то пустословный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it like answer only with gesticulation - no short word for it. Типа &quot;разводя руками&quot;, &quot;постоянно жестикулируя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="8016ccfc-7978-40da-b4df-caa26d2f0ff6" CreationDate="2012-07-14T18:05:31.250" UserId="266" Text="Эти слова иногда употребляются в разных контекстах: мы (намеренно) сворачиваем направо/налево, но (непроизвольно) отклоняемся вправо/влево." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="d6c036ba-4524-4184-9d70-7b71bb24c892" CreationDate="2012-07-14T19:50:46.903" UserId="134" Text="There are two interrogatives in Russian corresponding to English &quot;where&quot;: locational (*где?*) and directional (*куда?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Where are you? *Где ты?*&#xD;&#xA;* Where are you going (to)? *Куда ты идёшь?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*справа* and *слева* are locational adverbs, they describe locations of the objects: *этот дом справа от меня*. They correspond to English &quot;to the right of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*вправо/направо* and *влево/налево* are directional, they describe directions: *поверни направо, посмотри влево*.  They correspond to English &quot;to the right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixing *справа* and *направо/вправо* is ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *направо* and *вправо* are both directional adverbs, and in modern language they are quite interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, *направо/налево* assume changing movement direction or the line of sight in the corresponding direction and *вправо/влево* assume keeping it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, when you turn, you change direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [повернул на…][1], 334 entries&#xD;&#xA;* [повернул в…][2], 198 entries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and when you sidestep, you keep it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [шагнул на…][3], 17 entries&#xD;&#xA;* [шагнул в…][4], 162 entries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this rule is not strict and the words can be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goo.gl/WZyGB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goo.gl/Zl8LG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://goo.gl/tW416&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://goo.gl/5ckhO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="2adbeb21-df73-4a33-b5e7-32219154538f" CreationDate="2012-07-15T02:31:02.093" UserId="5" Text="I need to translate the word &quot;срач&quot; to a different language. I am having hard time trying to say it in different words in order to accurately explain the exact shade of the meaning. So would you give some synonymous to that. Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="2adbeb21-df73-4a33-b5e7-32219154538f" CreationDate="2012-07-15T02:31:02.093" UserId="5" Text="What are synonymous for &quot;срач&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="2adbeb21-df73-4a33-b5e7-32219154538f" CreationDate="2012-07-15T02:31:02.093" UserId="5" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="7e925303-70fe-466a-a204-0f4e0c9777a3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T03:12:44.537" UserId="5" Text="I've been asked to explain why people say this for uncovering lies and expressing a distrust. Where does it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="7e925303-70fe-466a-a204-0f4e0c9777a3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T03:12:44.537" UserId="5" Text="Put noodles onto somebody's ears?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="7e925303-70fe-466a-a204-0f4e0c9777a3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T03:12:44.537" UserId="5" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="0cf2d171-cd3e-4ba3-9cbd-af9ef21f596a" CreationDate="2012-07-15T03:20:40.387" UserId="266" Text="The word has a strong negative, condescending connotaion. &quot;Ну и срач у тебя дома&quot; sounds similar to &quot;Your home is a pigsty&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="d0ed57a9-7f93-424f-9f6f-ab2ac1cc68f4" CreationDate="2012-07-15T05:18:56.267" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've been asked to explain why people say this for uncovering lies and expressing distrust. Where does it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="855c7180-5a31-4f3c-877c-2e80fbf11947" CreationDate="2012-07-15T05:31:35.033" UserId="177" Text="what are the common responses to  как дела?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="855c7180-5a31-4f3c-877c-2e80fbf11947" CreationDate="2012-07-15T05:31:35.033" UserId="177" Text="what are the common responses to как дела?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="855c7180-5a31-4f3c-877c-2e80fbf11947" CreationDate="2012-07-15T05:31:35.033" UserId="177" Text="|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1885" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="582c6dc8-8a2f-48df-ba69-af998cc5e130" CreationDate="2012-07-15T05:34:37.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224376400348585984" />
  <row Id="1886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="3353b880-7735-4560-a9e4-029ba80d54be" CreationDate="2012-07-15T06:38:29.747" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="There are two interrogatives in Russian corresponding to English &quot;where&quot;: locational (*где?*) and directional (*куда?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Where are you? *Где ты?*&#xD;&#xA;* Where are you going (to)? *Куда ты идёшь?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*справа* and *слева* are locational adverbs, they describe locations of the objects: *этот дом справа от меня*. They correspond to English &quot;to the right of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*вправо/направо* and *влево/налево* are directional, they describe directions: *поверни направо, посмотри влево*.  They correspond to English &quot;to the right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixing *справа* and *направо/вправо* is ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *направо* and *вправо* are both directional adverbs, and in modern language they are quite interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, *направо/налево* assume changing movement direction or the line of sight in the corresponding direction and *вправо/влево* assume keeping it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, when you turn, you change direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [повернул на…][1], 334 entries&#xD;&#xA;* [повернул в…][2], 198 entries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and when you sidestep, you keep it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [шагнул на…][3], 17 entries&#xD;&#xA;* [шагнул в…][4], 162 entries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this rule is not strict and the words can be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goo.gl/Zl8LG&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goo.gl/WZyGB&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://goo.gl/tW416&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://goo.gl/5ckhO" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="9443cf86-8e97-4216-b4a6-15811389fd24" CreationDate="2012-07-15T08:22:49.297" UserId="109" Text="* oтлично &lt;sub&gt;(excellent)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Очень) хорошó &lt;sub&gt;((very) good)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* нормáльно &lt;sub&gt;(all right)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ничего &lt;sub&gt;(OK)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* неплóхо &lt;sub&gt;(not bad; negation of the following word)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* плóхо &lt;sub&gt;(bad)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень хорошо, спасибо. А у тебя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тóже хорошó &lt;sub&gt;(good, too)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="caf90245-c4f7-4b1f-8d31-40be4a0d23ef" CreationDate="2012-07-15T08:28:50.663" UserId="109" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="* oтлично &lt;sub&gt;(excellent)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Очень) хорошó &lt;sub&gt;((very) good)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* нормáльно &lt;sub&gt;(all right)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ничего &lt;sub&gt;(OK / so-so)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* неплóхо &lt;sub&gt;(not bad; negation of the following word)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* плóхо &lt;sub&gt;(bad)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень хорошо, спасибо. А у тебя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тóже хорошó &lt;sub&gt;(good, too)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="3c9e1600-81a7-48c8-a4f2-f0296cef2dd8" CreationDate="2012-07-15T08:53:19.377" UserId="47" Comment="sub's removed, Russian italized" Text="* *oтлично* (excellent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (*Очень*) *хорошó* ((very) good)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *нормáльно* (all right)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ничего* (OK / so-so)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *неплóхо* (not bad; negation of the following word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *плóхо* (bad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Очень хорошо, спасибо. А у тебя?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Тóже хорошó* (good, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="49c0c707-5472-447c-a80d-f5ef299fb06c" CreationDate="2012-07-15T10:59:35.417" UserId="185" Comment="Added two more common translations, formatted the dialog" Text="* *oтлично* (excellent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (*Очень*) *хорошó* ((very) good)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *нормáльно* (all right)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ничего* (OK / so-so)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *неплóхо* (not bad; negation of the following word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *так себе* (not very good)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *плóхо* (bad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *хуже некуда* \ *хуже не бывает* (can't be worse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example dialog where such variants can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -*Привет! Как дела?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -*Очень хорошо, спасибо. А у тебя?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -*Тóже хорошó* (good, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1891" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="49c0c707-5472-447c-a80d-f5ef299fb06c" CreationDate="2012-07-15T10:59:35.417" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 109 edit id of 179" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="601a19c2-f8e2-4216-81a5-642d65b220f4" CreationDate="2012-07-15T11:06:21.507" UserId="109" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="[On a German page about the Russian language][1], I learned the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прямо [prjáma] – gerade aus &lt;sub&gt;(straight on)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; направо [napráwa] - rechts &lt;sub&gt;(right)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; налево [naléwa] - links &lt;sub&gt;(left)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for directions (location plan[*]), for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идите прямо и потом поверните налево. &lt;sub&gt;(Go ahead and then turn left.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coincidentally, I came across an [academic work][2] (written in German) about *left* and *right* in the Russian language. While reading I learned that there are two more words for both *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;left&lt;/b&gt;   &lt;b&gt;right&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;сле́ва	спра́ва&#xD;&#xA;вле́во	впра́во&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the academic work the three words are compared to each other. The writer of that academic work examined two corpora with more than one million words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the word pair which I learned (*налево*/*направо*) is just the second most common designator for *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like to briefly summarize what I came to know from the academic work. (I hope that I don't have any misconceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The writer distinguished between three cases. The (1) &quot;direct personal direction&quot; (e.g. The sea is to my left), the (2) &quot;indirect personal direction&quot; (e.g. The police station is on the left side from the church) and the (3) &quot;non-personal direction&quot; (e.g. The seats on the left side of the cinema).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples she used are solely taken from literary texts (Sorry I'm wrong. Not solely, a few one are taken from a dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. I start with (1). When talking about direct personal directions the most common word pair is *сле́ва*/*спра́ва*. Only *налево*/*направо* can be used without changing the meaning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. I continue with (2). When talking about indirect personal directions again *сле́ва*/*спра́ва* is most frequently used. Both other word pairs can be used synonymously, though examples for *налево*/*направо* were only found in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. Last but not least (3). When talking about non-personal directions only the word pair *сле́ва*/*спра́ва* is used. No written examples exist using the other word pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the writer isn't native Russian herself she consulted Russian friends asking them about their personal opinions for interchangeability.&#xD;&#xA;* There are no information given from which time the literary texts are. At least I haven't found that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, finally here are my questions. I'm sorry for combining a couple of questions into one, but they belong together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. Are the summarized results valid for nowadays colloquial speech and everyday conversations? Would you also agree that *сле́ва*/*спра́ва* is the most frequent word pair, while *вле́во*/*впра́во* only rarely used? (The gap is very great, imho)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. On the one hand I learned *налево*/*направо* for directions (location plan). According to b. there are no written examples using them in indirect personal directions. I personally would integrate directions into category (2), i.e. indirect personal directions. However, *налево*/*направо* are accepted as synonyms for the category (2) but only dictionary examples are existing. That's somewhat ambivalent and inconsistent. Are *налево* and *направо* the preferred words for describing directions (location plan)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III. Which main distinctions do you personally see between those three word pairs. As a non-native, do I need to carefully think about which word I'll use for not being mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IV. I tried to figure out if German or English do also have different words for *left* and *right*, but I can't think of any. Maybe my understanding of the three word pairs is just wrong and therefore I can't conclude the correct German or English counterparts, if any existing. Do you know comparing words in the English language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess after writing that long text and now being tired and weary, I might've forgotten something. Please feel free to add any thoughts to your answer if you consider them to be important, interesting or helpful in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[*] Since I often use the word &quot;directions&quot; I (hopefully always) designated that word with &quot;location plan&quot; when talking about ... yeah, directions ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russlandjournal.de/podcasts/lektionen/urok-18-wegbeschreibung/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uppsala.academia.edu/IngridMaier/Papers/1351781/Die_Semantik_vonrechts_undlinks_auf_Russisch_und_die_Dimension_des_Personenbezugs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iTkQ4.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="f85f3069-e243-427e-91df-46362aae3c9f" CreationDate="2012-07-15T11:25:13.763" UserId="185" Text="If I understand you correctly, you mean the Russian expression *вешать лапшу на уши* - &quot;to tell lies, to give baloney to somebody&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see, there are two things to be explained. First is why the verb is *вешать* - to hang. Second is why the word is *лапша* - noodles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Internet search][1] shows that the etymology of this phrase is unclear, and there are several versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Лапша* stands not for &quot;noodles&quot;, but for &quot;long and narrow rags of cloth&quot;, *вешать лапшу* means &quot;to hang rags on somebody's ears&quot;, that is, to cover or to knot the ears so that the person cannot hear clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Лапша* comes from criminal argot and means case, &quot;to hang a case to somebody's ears&quot; means &quot;to set up someone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, *лапша* simply means &quot;noodles&quot;, but the expression got naturalized because there is a verb *облапошить* that sounds similar and means &quot;to cheat, to trick someone&quot; (usually by a very easy trick or because this someone is a duffer). *Вешать* is probably used because of another expression *развесить уши* - &quot;to listen without thinking critically&quot;, literally &quot;to hang out ears&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the versions is reliable. I personally prefer the third one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://otvet.mail.ru/question/53048655/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="57287c9e-ef1b-4b59-92f1-fbbffcd02aba" CreationDate="2012-07-15T11:25:28.770" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1895" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="0e255a52-888d-431b-8f6d-6b86733fe9d8" CreationDate="2012-07-15T11:34:38.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224467002817921025" />
  <row Id="1896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="145358b2-38c4-4ba5-b315-ccea87f4761f" CreationDate="2012-07-15T15:04:50.027" UserId="19" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I've been asked to explain why people say *вешать лапшу на уши* for uncovering lies and expressing distrust. Where does it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="312f92e2-6304-4287-a4e4-7128c192bb15" CreationDate="2012-07-15T15:57:48.443" UserId="266" Text="As compared to Americans, Russians are substantially less into small talk. For example, typical greetings rarely are longer than just &quot;Привет&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question &quot;Как дела?&quot; goes beyond standard small talk, and as such it may mean that the person actually expects some in-depth answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example dialog form Em1's answer (&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Привет! Как дела?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Очень хорошо, спасибо. А у тебя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Тóже хорошó (good, too)&#xD;&#xA;) does not sound like a typical Russian dialog; it is probably a translation of a typical American one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="aa3e7ab1-e893-40ce-bd0a-44a655e37dfd" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:41:00.640" UserId="133" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="I need to translate the word &quot;срач&quot; to a different language. I am having a hard time trying to say it in different words in order to accurately explain the exact shade of the meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the synonyms for &quot;срач&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1900" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="aa3e7ab1-e893-40ce-bd0a-44a655e37dfd" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:41:00.640" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 5 edit id of 182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="8239a6a9-30e2-4497-851e-4895615b4eda" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:47:56.153" UserId="133" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The word &quot;срач&quot; has a strong negative, condescending connotation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну и срач у тебя дома&quot; sounds similar to &quot;Your home is a pigsty&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1902" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="8239a6a9-30e2-4497-851e-4895615b4eda" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:47:56.153" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 266 edit id of 183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="e451f4d8-fd13-40d5-879b-3aa84dc624a6" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:51:32.157" UserId="266" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;срач&quot; has a strong negative, condescending connotation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну и срач у тебя дома&quot; sounds similar to &quot;Your home is a pigsty&quot; and &quot;У тебя дом весь загажен&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar, although milder, expressions are as follows: &quot;У тебя дома бардак&quot; (milder, but still condescending), &quot;У тебя дома грязь, беспорядок&quot; (neutral, non-judgmental)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="9db16deb-e997-456d-b896-b789d7c26878" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:51:57.740" UserId="133" Comment="improved readability by properly indenting the numbered list, fixed a typo or restructured sentences here and there" Text="On a [German page about the Russian language][1], I learned the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прямо [prjáma] – gerade aus &lt;sub&gt;(straight on)&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; направо [napráwa] – rechts &lt;sub&gt;(right)&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; налево [naléwa] – links &lt;sub&gt;(left)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for directions (location plan[*]), for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идите прямо и потом поверните налево. &lt;sub&gt;(Go ahead and then turn left.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coincidentally, I came across an [academic work][2] (written in German) about *left* and *right* in the Russian language. While reading I learned that there are two more words for both *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;left&lt;/b&gt;   &lt;b&gt;right&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;сле́ва	спра́ва&#xD;&#xA;вле́во	впра́во&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the academic work the three words are compared to each other. The author examined two corpora with more than one million words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![frequency of usage table][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the word pair which I learned (*налево*/*направо*) is just the second most common designator for *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to briefly summarize what I came to know from the academic work. (I hope that I don't have any misconceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The writer distinguished between three cases. The (1) &quot;direct personal direction&quot; (e.g. The sea is to my left), the (2) &quot;indirect personal direction&quot; (e.g. The police station is on the left side from the church) and the (3) &quot;non-personal direction&quot; (e.g. The seats on the left side of the cinema).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples she used are solely taken from literary texts (sorry, I was wrong. Not solely, a few one are taken from a dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. I start with (1). When talking about direct personal directions the most common word pair is *сле́ва*/*спра́ва*. Only *налево*/*направо* can be used without changing the meaning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. I continue with (2). When talking about indirect personal directions again *сле́ва*/*спра́ва* is most frequently used. Both other word pairs can be used synonymously, though examples for *налево*/*направо* were only found in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. Last but not least (3). When talking about non-personal directions only the word pair *сле́ва*/*спра́ва* is used. No written examples exist using the other word pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the writer isn't native Russian herself she consulted Russian friends asking them about their personal opinions for interchangeability.&#xD;&#xA;* The time of the origin of the literary texts is not clear. At least I haven't been able to find that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, finally here are my questions. I'm sorry for combining a couple of questions into one, but they belong together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are the summarized results valid for nowadays colloquial speech and everyday conversations? Would you also agree that *сле́ва*/*спра́ва* is the most frequent word pair, while *вле́во*/*впра́во* only rarely used? (The gap seems very large.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On one hand, I learned *налево*/*направо* for directions (location plan). According to b. there are no written examples using them in indirect personal directions. I personally would integrate directions into category (2), i.e. indirect personal directions. However, *налево*/*направо* are accepted as synonyms for the category (2) but only dictionary examples are existing. That's somewhat ambivalent and inconsistent. Are *налево* and *направо* the preferred words for describing directions (location plan)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Which main distinctions do you personally see between those three word pairs. As a non-native, do I need to carefully think about which word I'll use for not being mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. I tried to figure out if German or English do also have different words for *left* and *right*, but I can't think of any. Maybe my understanding of the three word pairs is just wrong and therefore I can't conclude the correct German or English counterparts, if any existing. Do you know comparing words in the English language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess after writing that long text and now being tired and weary, I might've forgotten something. Please feel free to add any thoughts to your answer if you consider them to be important, interesting or helpful in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[*] Since I often use the word &quot;directions&quot; I (hopefully always) designated that word with &quot;location plan&quot; when talking about ... yeah, directions ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russlandjournal.de/podcasts/lektionen/urok-18-wegbeschreibung/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uppsala.academia.edu/IngridMaier/Papers/1351781/Die_Semantik_vonrechts_undlinks_auf_Russisch_und_die_Dimension_des_Personenbezugs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iTkQ4.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1905" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="9db16deb-e997-456d-b896-b789d7c26878" CreationDate="2012-07-15T16:51:57.740" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 109 edit id of 184" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="32897366-ed4d-490b-93ff-2bd1f1b758e3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T17:08:58.263" UserId="185" Comment="Changed a confusing explanation" Text="If I understand you correctly, you mean the Russian expression *вешать лапшу на уши* - &quot;to tell lies, to give baloney to somebody&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see, there are two things to be explained. First is why the verb is *вешать* - to hang. Second is why the word is *лапша* - noodles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Internet search][1] shows that the etymology of this phrase is unclear, and there are several versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Лапша* stands not for &quot;noodles&quot;, but for &quot;long and narrow rags of cloth&quot;, *вешать лапшу* means &quot;to hang rags on somebody's ears&quot;, that is, to cover or to knot the ears so that the person cannot hear clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Лапша* comes from criminal argot and means case, &quot;to hang a case to somebody's ears&quot; originally meant &quot;to set up someone&quot;. However, it doesn't actually fit the meaning of the expression as we know it now (see above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, *лапша* simply means &quot;noodles&quot;, but the expression got naturalized because there is a verb *облапошить* that sounds similar and means &quot;to cheat, to trick someone&quot; (usually by a very easy trick or because this someone is a duffer). *Вешать* is probably used because of another expression *развесить уши* - &quot;to listen without thinking critically&quot;, literally &quot;to hang out ears&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the versions is reliable. I personally prefer the third one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://otvet.mail.ru/question/53048655/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="a5cbfaa0-8b79-465c-9e15-1ce3df8291c8" CreationDate="2012-07-15T18:02:09.800" UserId="256" Text="Rhymed answer may be как сажа бела" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="fb7a6079-4d02-48b3-8d9d-c7e971b35662" CreationDate="2012-07-15T18:05:04.760" UserId="5" Text="How do I say about somebody being a smart ass in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="fb7a6079-4d02-48b3-8d9d-c7e971b35662" CreationDate="2012-07-15T18:05:04.760" UserId="5" Text="How do I say about somebody being a smart ass in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="fb7a6079-4d02-48b3-8d9d-c7e971b35662" CreationDate="2012-07-15T18:05:04.760" UserId="5" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="cd318cf8-d642-45bc-9445-dfd8badf7ae3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T18:13:28.900" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do I call somebody being a smart ass in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1912" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="cd318cf8-d642-45bc-9445-dfd8badf7ae3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T18:13:28.900" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do I call somebody being a smart ass in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="e6199a9f-6e3c-4c4f-8d97-baa1f8ed9170" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:30:59.503" UserId="134" Text="Usually, *как дела?* is quite a formal greeting requiring a formal response. A common response would be *ничего*, *нормально*, adding a formal *спасибо*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of greeting is, however, not appropriate to complete strangers and might be considered an inappropriate familiarity. It's more suitable between coworkers, partners etc., who are not close friends, before discussing business matters. It would be impolite to ask this a person you have not been introduced to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the person asking is to show deeper interest (still keeping the question polite and non-obligating), they would add an interlocutor: *как у вас дела?*, *как ваши дела?*. This would be an invitation to talk, which one might refuse by giving the formal response, or accept, really describing how are they doing. A *спасибо* would be appropriate too. This is appropriate between friends, colleagues, neighbors etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My favorite response (which I personally use quite often) is *вашими молитвами!*. It's a short form of *вашими святыми молитвами, как шестами подпираемся* (your holy prayers support us like poles). This literally means &quot;I feel just as good as much you pray for me&quot;, is at the same time well-known and rarely used, and sounds quite ironic and funny to give the warm tone to the whole conversation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="864a7b2b-cf0e-47fa-a637-2bb2b2c4302b" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:17.037" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question" Text="When somebody asks как дела?, what are the common things that I can use to answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1915" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="864a7b2b-cf0e-47fa-a637-2bb2b2c4302b" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:17.037" UserId="71" Comment="fixed question" Text="What are the common responses to как дела?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1916" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="864a7b2b-cf0e-47fa-a637-2bb2b2c4302b" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:17.037" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="ac37c5ea-69e1-44f7-89d5-ed88b4f952a0" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:24.977" UserId="133" Comment="replaced code block with quote" Text="As compared to Americans, Russians are substantially less into small talk. For example, typical greetings rarely are longer than just &quot;Привет&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question &quot;Как дела?&quot; goes beyond standard small talk, and as such it may mean that the person actually expects some in-depth answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example dialog form Em1's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Привет! Как дела?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Очень хорошо, спасибо. А у тебя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Тóже хорошó (good, too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does not sound like a typical Russian dialog; it is probably a translation of a typical American one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1918" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="ac37c5ea-69e1-44f7-89d5-ed88b4f952a0" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:24.977" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 134 edit id of 181" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="89ea841a-6ba5-4535-8845-1d4a90703570" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:32.137" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling in the title, edited tags" Text="I need to translate the word &quot;срач&quot; to a different language. I am having a hard time trying to say it in different words in order to accurately explain the exact shade of the meaning. Could you please propose some synonyms for &quot;срач&quot; to help me understand its meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1920" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="89ea841a-6ba5-4535-8845-1d4a90703570" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:32.137" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling in the title, edited tags" Text="What are synonyms for &quot;срач&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="89ea841a-6ba5-4535-8845-1d4a90703570" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:32.137" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling in the title, edited tags" Text="|лексикон|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1922" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="89ea841a-6ba5-4535-8845-1d4a90703570" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:32.137" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="15d22b5d-0668-438f-8fa5-8423f878af3a" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:38.473" UserId="185" Comment="Added explanation to the translation." Text="Rhymed answer may be *как сажа бела*. The answer is ironical, literally translates as &quot;as white as soot&quot; and means that things go from bad to worse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1924" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="15d22b5d-0668-438f-8fa5-8423f878af3a" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:32:38.473" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 186" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1927" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="473cffea-a1c3-4475-8332-2b36838d1dc3" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:34:39.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224602901560049664" />
  <row Id="1928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="39bf6754-51e6-4f34-b85f-ac301fd97c87" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:36:53.510" UserId="97" Text="For the sake of completeness, I'll add the answer here.  The best translation is _умник_. However it's not as rude as _smart ass_ in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1929" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="c4cdd9bf-211f-4590-9b22-71150459a11c" CreationDate="2012-07-15T20:36:53.510" UserId="97" />
  <row Id="1930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="f133a24c-354e-4efd-aecb-6f24e3c9644c" CreationDate="2012-07-15T23:34:37.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224648193693057024" />
  <row Id="1931" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="beee074d-7f21-42bf-985b-2bfdfbcd4fed" CreationDate="2012-07-16T05:34:37.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224738791523487745" />
  <row Id="1932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="d2349c3e-adf1-42d8-adc5-149ddcf018b8" CreationDate="2012-07-16T06:28:06.100" UserId="272" Text="Another possible words:&#xD;&#xA;+ &quot;Неважно&quot; &#xD;&#xA;+ &quot;Более-менее&quot;&#xD;&#xA;+ &quot;Ужасно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="f61e1512-b965-4eb3-80d6-8007a5a3715b" CreationDate="2012-07-16T08:14:38.957" UserId="232" Text="In context someone young who found unusual solution in difficult situation. For example brought bottle of Vodka without having any money.&#xD;&#xA; - Ай да Васька, ай да сукин сын!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1934" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="6666335f-1653-4967-91d5-57a7bab718f1" CreationDate="2012-07-16T08:34:37.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224784088786157568" />
  <row Id="1935" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="faa946fb-cb99-49c2-a3aa-80f882042a59" CreationDate="2012-07-16T11:34:38.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224829389676879872" />
  <row Id="1940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="06c5c007-7422-4216-a34b-152c5adc9c13" CreationDate="2012-07-16T14:01:12.873" UserId="5" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="What do I call somebody being a smart ass in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I would say smart asses are: arrogant, annoying, think they are witty and funny, but they are not, think everybody cares of what they say, but nobody does, but still have something to say on any topic, think they are messengers of goodness while being just stupid jerks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1941" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="b963b697-ba4c-4dcb-861c-b308ed229a2a" CreationDate="2012-07-16T14:34:37.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224874687564488704" />
  <row Id="1942" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="e345f2a0-538a-45ab-a635-7c3cbb87ac49" CreationDate="2012-07-16T15:04:29.673" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="abcc783c-ac85-459d-81b9-4bd7a01bb282" CreationDate="2012-07-16T15:21:26.697" UserId="115" Text="In Russian it might be easier to say that someone is *being* a smart ass, or *acting* like a smart ass. A very polite or high brow way to translate &quot;He is being a smart ass&quot; would be `Он много о себе мнит.`  Colloquially you could say `Он выпендривается`, or if you wish to be really rude, you could say `Он выёбывается`.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the same token you could translate &quot;Don't be a smart ass!&quot; as `Не выпендривайся!`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="a9ee9db8-7cf4-4669-8b65-69d03947e66c" CreationDate="2012-07-16T15:28:58.887" UserId="115" Text="Synonyms for `срач` meaning &quot;a mess&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - беспорядок&#xD;&#xA; - грязь (в доме)&#xD;&#xA; - бардак&#xD;&#xA; - раскардаш&#xD;&#xA; - свинюшник&#xD;&#xA; - бедлам&#xD;&#xA; - разгром&#xD;&#xA; - запустение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="e210310d-98ca-4ce0-a1c1-803433072a3f" CreationDate="2012-07-16T17:34:38.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/224919988874657794" />
  <row Id="1946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="dd3adc80-fb97-4b2a-be78-5bf5806faf90" CreationDate="2012-07-16T18:53:44.730" UserId="185" Text="Suppose you want to ask someone for directions or to attract someone's attention. What is the appropriate way to address this person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., подскажите, как выйти на улицу Чехова?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., вы платок уронили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English it would be &quot;mister&quot; or &quot;miss(is)&quot;, in French people say &quot;monsieur&quot; or &quot;madame&quot;. Is there something like this in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="dd3adc80-fb97-4b2a-be78-5bf5806faf90" CreationDate="2012-07-16T18:53:44.730" UserId="185" Text="How to address people in the street?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="dd3adc80-fb97-4b2a-be78-5bf5806faf90" CreationDate="2012-07-16T18:53:44.730" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|одним-словом|этикет|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="a0564b7f-9245-4754-9d10-5deb6e5654bb" CreationDate="2012-07-16T19:07:24.653" UserId="115" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="In Russian it might be easier to say that someone is *being* a smart ass, or *acting* like a smart ass. A very polite or high brow way to translate &quot;He is being a smart ass&quot; would be `Он много о себе мнит`, i. e. &quot;He thinks too highly of himself.&quot; Colloquially you could say `Он выпендривается`, or if you wish to be really rude, you could say `Он выёбывается`.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the same token you could translate &quot;Don't be a smart ass!&quot; as `Не выпендривайся!`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="5c7bb601-4784-4320-a445-a18e321fb718" CreationDate="2012-07-16T19:34:28.563" UserId="266" Text="It is perfectly normal not to address a person at all. Both подскажите, как пройти на улицу Чехова? and вы уронили платок are normal. You can also use гражданин/гражданка, мужчина/женщинамальчик/девочка, бабушка/дедушка. I child may address an adult as тётя/дядя. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="76dc9ebb-8200-4e1c-947c-6df75d3d33ff" CreationDate="2012-07-16T19:52:52.323" UserId="266" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It is perfectly normal not to address a person at all. Both подскажите, как пройти на улицу Чехова? and вы уронили платок are normal. You can also use гражданин/гражданка, мужчина/женщина, мальчик/девочка, бабушка/дедушка. I child may address an adult as тётя/дядя. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="ffd87699-d0fb-4dcd-aec2-fdaaf06dda7a" CreationDate="2012-07-16T20:27:40.437" UserId="109" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="On a [German page about the Russian language][1], I learned the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прямо [prjáma] – gerade aus &lt;sub&gt;(straight on)&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; направо [napráwa] – rechts &lt;sub&gt;(right)&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; налево [naléwa] – links &lt;sub&gt;(left)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for directions (location plan[*]), for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идите прямо и потом поверните налево. &lt;sub&gt;(Go ahead and then turn left.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coincidentally, I came across an [academic work][2] (written in German) about *left* and *right* in the Russian language. While reading I learned that there are two more words for both *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;left&lt;/b&gt;   &lt;b&gt;right&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;сле́ва	спра́ва&#xD;&#xA;вле́во	впра́во&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the academic work the three words are compared to each other. The author examined two corpora with more than one million words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![frequency of usage table][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the word pair which I learned (*налево* / *направо*) is just the second most common designator for *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to briefly summarize what I came to know from the academic work. (I hope that I don't have any misconceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The writer distinguished between three cases. The (1) &quot;direct personal direction&quot; (e.g. The sea is to my left), the (2) &quot;indirect personal direction&quot; (e.g. The police station is on the left side from the church) and the (3) &quot;non-personal direction&quot; (e.g. The seats on the left side of the cinema).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples she used are solely taken from literary texts (sorry, I was wrong. Not solely, a few one are taken from a dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. I start with (1). When talking about direct personal directions the most common word pair is *сле́ва* / *спра́ва*. Only *налево* / *направо* can be used without changing the meaning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. I continue with (2). When talking about indirect personal directions again *сле́ва* / *спра́ва* is most frequently used. Both other word pairs can be used synonymously, though examples for *налево* / *направо* were only found in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. Last but not least (3). When talking about non-personal directions only the word pair *сле́ва* / *спра́ва* is used. No written examples exist using the other word pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the writer isn't native Russian herself she consulted Russian friends asking them about their personal opinions for interchangeability.&#xD;&#xA;* The time of the origin of the literary texts is not clear. At least I haven't been able to find that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, finally here are my questions. I'm sorry for combining a couple of questions into one, but they belong together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are the summarized results valid for nowadays colloquial speech and everyday conversations? Would you also agree that *сле́ва* / *спра́ва* is the most frequent word pair, while *вле́во* / *впра́во* only rarely used? (The gap seems very large.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. On one hand, I learned *налево* / *направо* for directions (location plan). According to b. there are no written examples using them in indirect personal directions. I personally would integrate directions into category (2), i.e. indirect personal directions. However, *налево* / *направо* are accepted as synonyms for the category (2) but only dictionary examples are existing. That's somewhat ambivalent and inconsistent. Are *налево* and *направо* the preferred words for describing directions (location plan)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Which main distinctions do you personally see between those three word pairs. As a non-native, do I need to carefully think about which word I'll use for not being mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. I tried to figure out if German or English do also have different words for *left* and *right*, but I can't think of any. Maybe my understanding of the three word pairs is just wrong and therefore I can't conclude the correct German or English counterparts, if any existing. Do you know comparing words in the English language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess after writing that long text and now being tired and weary, I might have forgotten something. Please feel free to add any thoughts to your answer if you consider them to be important, interesting or helpful in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[*] Since I often use the word &quot;directions&quot; I (hopefully always) designated that word with &quot;location plan&quot; when talking about ... yeah, directions ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russlandjournal.de/podcasts/lektionen/urok-18-wegbeschreibung/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uppsala.academia.edu/IngridMaier/Papers/1351781/Die_Semantik_vonrechts_undlinks_auf_Russisch_und_die_Dimension_des_Personenbezugs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iTkQ4.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="b293605e-7d82-4a37-a325-051b3b744d15" CreationDate="2012-07-16T21:01:30.370" UserId="134" Text="A boy or girl can be addressed *мальчик* and *девочка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person looking between about 14 and 35 could be addressed *молодой человек* (male) or *девушка* (female).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more senior person lacks the proper addressing in the modern language. There are several addressings of limited use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *гражданин / гражданка* (used by law enforcers, also may by used by strangers but this sounds too official)&#xD;&#xA;* *товарищ* (widely used in Soviet time but almost extinct now, though still acceptable. Without adding a surname, only appropriate for males)&#xD;&#xA;* *мужчина / женщина* (are only appropriate to draw attention of a complete stranger you're unlikely to ever talk to again, in an urgent case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Мужчина, вы кошелёк уронили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Женщина, вы не выходите на следующей остановке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *уважаемый / уважаемая* can be used (somewhat ironically) to make a polite remark to a person violating the norms of behavior:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Уважаемый, разрешите пройти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Уважаемая, уберите тележку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt, it would be best to use an impersonal addressing: *прошу прощения*, *извините* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A child before about 8 can call an adult *дядя / тётя* or *бабушка / дедушка*. The latter are also appropriate for younger people to address senior people, but only if they called them *сынок*, *дочка*, *внучек* or *внучка* first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An Orthodox priest, monk or a nun can be addressed *батюшка / матушка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A police officer can be addressed *товарищ полицейский*, or, if you can read insignia, *товарищ* with addition of their rank: *товарищ сержант*, *товарищ капитан*. Usually, servicemen are very sensitive to rank formalities so use the first if in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When starting a letter, the recipient can be addressed *уважаемый* with compulsory addition of their first name (and probably patronymic) if you know it: *уважаемый Василий Львович*, *уважаемая Светлана*. Without the name, this addressing would sound derogatory (as in the previous examples)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="f5cf224f-1e8c-4c43-9d3a-68bacc7f45ad" CreationDate="2012-07-16T22:31:31.737" UserId="276" Text="I would say хитрожопый would be the closest translation, I believe it's a modern word and might have been borrowed by translating from English. It is pretty popular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="2b04ec96-67d2-4d2e-93fe-92b65292401d" CreationDate="2012-07-16T23:37:01.417" UserId="277" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - means treason wife (I'm not sure if I wrote it correctly in English) - usually means to have sex with someone while being married..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="f02153a2-e1e8-440d-afdb-de96d4a93644" CreationDate="2012-07-16T23:45:31.660" UserId="277" Text="Also is possible to use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - кавардак&#xD;&#xA; - гадюшник&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="28fe2e8c-261d-4053-9263-8bb2955bd7fc" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:02:06.463" UserId="5" Text="It is not quite clear what people mean by saying сложно переоценить. Can anyone explain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal translation would be hard to overestimate, which doesn't make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="28fe2e8c-261d-4053-9263-8bb2955bd7fc" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:02:06.463" UserId="5" Text="what do people mean by saying сложно переоценить это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="28fe2e8c-261d-4053-9263-8bb2955bd7fc" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:02:06.463" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="624" RevisionGUID="2c64cdd1-a136-4f14-bf51-5e9a53f6e6e1" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:13:35.647" UserId="277" Text="Usually, you should use `лапы` (or `лапки`) when talking about (especially small) birds (i.e. `куриные (утиные, гусиные) лапки`) (may be there are some exclusions, when the speech is about some big birds, like `аист`), but birds are not the only case...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мишка косолапый` - this is about bears legs...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a beautiful Russian cartoon - [&quot;Крылья, ноги и хвосты&quot;](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLy8gPLyqVQ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `лапы` are used in plural more often then `лапа`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="67552155-2712-4a93-bff9-c789dc83f0af" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:27:00.517" UserId="277" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - means treason wife (I'm not sure if I wrote it correctly in English) - usually means to have sex with someone else while being married..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="60b2f97c-b90a-4d75-aae4-0f55cd049716" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:42:19.030" UserId="5" Text="What are the most notorious things for which Russian is known as one of the hardest to learn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="60b2f97c-b90a-4d75-aae4-0f55cd049716" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:42:19.030" UserId="5" Text="Hard things about Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="60b2f97c-b90a-4d75-aae4-0f55cd049716" CreationDate="2012-07-17T00:42:19.030" UserId="5" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="a95b952e-1fb5-4e09-a8b4-2719bb0fb467" CreationDate="2012-07-17T02:31:55.160" UserId="266" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сложно переоценить эффективность&quot; - &quot;it is very efficient&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&quot;Ребята, вашу работу и значимость вашей роли сложно переоценить&quot; - Guys, you did an awesome job/your contribution was fantastic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="82e9dbd7-dc93-42d9-80ce-97a286f0ae01" CreationDate="2012-07-17T04:29:23.313" UserId="278" Text="To understand *сложно переоценить*, one must first understand the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*переоценить* is not exactly *estimate* in the sense used in this word.&#xD;&#xA;it means literally &quot;to give too much value&quot;; as in if I build something, you come in and tell me how wonderful it is, I can act all modest saying &quot;your giving too much value to it, it's not **that** great&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*сложно переоценить* plays an on-contrer on this word, saying it is so great,&#xD;&#xA;you can't really give too much value to it.&#xD;&#xA;To further explain, this expression is used mainly in literature,&#xD;&#xA;emphasizing the contribution, the value *something* gave to *something*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="bf0daed6-29e6-480a-8c11-2b2b30c87ffc" CreationDate="2012-07-17T04:33:50.673" UserId="278" Text="it depends on the context, but лапы are simply an animal's feet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="87d288ef-954c-4ab8-972a-b777df38b7d4" CreationDate="2012-07-17T07:12:01.110" UserId="277" Comment="added 741 characters in body" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - &lt;strike&gt;means treason wife (I'm not sure if I wrote it correctly in English) &lt;/strike&gt; - usually means to have sex with someone else while being married...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible meaning can be: `левая (или правая) партия (в парламенте)`. From [Russian Wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29): `Термины «правые» и «левые» впервые появились во французском Национальном Собрании времён Великой Французской революции. В нём возникли три направления: справа сидели фельяны — сторонники конституционной монархии; в центре сидели жирондисты — умеренные сторонники республики; слева сидели якобинцы, выступавшие за радикальные преобразования. Таким образом, изначально правыми называли тех, кто желает сохранить существующее положение (консерваторов), а левыми — тех, кто выступал за перемены (радикалов).`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="b39f495c-135e-4910-8a07-2019e5952c6a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T07:17:29.530" UserId="277" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - &lt;strike&gt;means treason wife (I'm not sure if I wrote it correctly in English) &lt;/strike&gt; - usually means to have sex with someone else while being married...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible meaning can be: `левая (или правая) партия (в парламенте)`. From [Russian Wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Термины «правые» и «левые» впервые появились во французском Национальном Собрании времён Великой Французской революции. В нём возникли три направления: справа сидели фельяны — сторонники конституционной монархии; в центре сидели жирондисты — умеренные сторонники республики; слева сидели якобинцы, выступавшие за радикальные преобразования. Таким образом, изначально правыми называли тех, кто желает сохранить существующее положение (консерваторов), а левыми — тех, кто выступал за перемены (радикалов).`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="23dd7fda-07ca-4b0f-a31c-d50e8dd9fbef" CreationDate="2012-07-17T07:22:57.427" UserId="47" Text="*Переоценивать* has two meanings in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. to revalue, i.e. to determine the value once again. For example, the things that were considered important in the Soviet time were not any more after Perestroyka. They were revalued, *переоценены*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. to over-estimate, i.e. to give a too high value to something. For example, one can overestimate ones ability to ride 100 km per day by bike. This would be called *переоценивать свои возможности* in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the phrase *сложно* (also *трудно*) *переоценить* relates to the second meaning above. It means that the subject has such a high value that it is difficult / hard to give a too high value for it. For example: It is hard to overestimate the contribution of this guy to the project. — *Трудно переоценить вклад это парня в проект*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a phrase *невозможно переоценить*, which basically means that the value is so high that it is really impossible to overestimate it. For example, if the project could be completed only due to participation of someone and would have failed without this person, one can say: *Невозможно переоценить его участие в проекте*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="322a618f-11ba-4c6c-a992-2dea0e5b4595" CreationDate="2012-07-17T07:29:19.037" UserId="109" Comment="quote into quote bock" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - &lt;strike&gt;means treason wife (I'm not sure if I wrote it correctly in English) &lt;/strike&gt; - usually means to have sex with someone else while being married...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible meaning can be: `левая (или правая) партия (в парламенте)`. From [Russian Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Термины «правые» и «левые» впервые появились во французском Национальном Собрании времён Великой Французской революции. В нём возникли три направления: справа сидели фельяны — сторонники конституционной монархии; в центре сидели жирондисты — умеренные сторонники республики; слева сидели якобинцы, выступавшие за радикальные преобразования. Таким образом, изначально правыми называли тех, кто желает сохранить существующее положение (консерваторов), а левыми — тех, кто выступал за перемены (радикалов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1972" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="322a618f-11ba-4c6c-a992-2dea0e5b4595" CreationDate="2012-07-17T07:29:19.037" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 277 edit id of 189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="33e1cfb0-861a-4b0c-9ca7-b7948f240634" CreationDate="2012-07-17T07:55:11.387" UserId="277" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - &lt;strike&gt;means treason wife (I'm not sure if I wrote it correctly in English) &lt;/strike&gt; - usually means to have sex with someone else while being married...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible meaning can be: `левая (или правая) партия (в парламенте)`. From [Russian Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Термины «правые» и «левые» впервые появились во французском Национальном Собрании времён Великой Французской революции. В нём возникли три направления: справа сидели фельяны — сторонники конституционной монархии; в центре сидели жирондисты — умеренные сторонники республики; слева сидели якобинцы, выступавшие за радикальные преобразования. Таким образом, изначально правыми называли тех, кто желает сохранить существующее положение (консерваторов), а левыми — тех, кто выступал за перемены (радикалов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: [`Левые (политика)`][2] - The general name for the political forces the goal of which is social equality and making better living conditions for the least privileged parts of society, and [`Правые`][3] - is the name for political forces which goal is opposed to the `Левые`: natural (except for the `радикальные правые`) inequality, and they adhere to the principles of capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="89d659dd-43e1-444d-ab37-178b928fa3a3" CreationDate="2012-07-17T08:18:31.070" UserId="47" Text="Technically speaking, *лапа* is just [an animal leg][1]. So birds have *лапы*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the comments, the OP is about the language feeling, so I'll elaborate in that direction. Let's compare different uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *нога человека*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *лапа* as a gentle address to a beloved one &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *лапа* as a reference to a very thick, unattractive leg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *нога аиста*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гусиная лапа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tigers, cats have *лапы*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; giraffes, horses have *ноги*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *еловая лапа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I risk to suggest that *лапа* is used whenever one wants to emphasize the soft nature of a leg. Fur-covered legs give the feeling of softness and are thus called *лапы*. A leg is likely to be called *лапа* if it is thick and short, thereby imitating softness. That's why storks have no chance of having *лапы*, unlike, say, sparrows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EB%E0%EF%E0&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1975" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="e61d97be-acb6-485e-94c9-17a9a472bac4" CreationDate="2012-07-17T08:34:38.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225146479893954560" />
  <row Id="1977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="577ef952-188d-488b-9dae-086e9b44aa12" CreationDate="2012-07-17T09:55:02.043" UserId="108" Text="1. Inflections, especially the **cases** and **verb conjugations**. Also the **number** and **gender**.&#xD;&#xA;2. Pronunciation of certain sounds non-existent in languages like English. That includes the vowel sound of **Ы** [ɨ], all palatalized consonants, and rolling the **Р** [r]. Also, the chains of consonants as in &quot;**вздр**огнуть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;3. Stress in words. It's mostly unpredictable in Russian and you'll have to refer to your dictionary a lot.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="06818e35-fc0c-4914-99a7-a46736d7ca88" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:03:21.320" UserId="185" Text="1. Alphabet. It's not Latin, people spend a week or so to only remember that P is not [p], but [r].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Aspect. It is formed irregularly, it has tons of minor meanings, and the exact interpretation depends on certain properties of the verb meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Inflection is everywhere. You have to learn large paradigms only to be able to say a short sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Word order. It is not free, as some people say, but it encodes the information structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Phonology. Quality of vowels changes depending on the stress in the word (which is also not always fixed), voiced consonants become voiceless depending on the following consonant or on the position in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Spoken Russian has nothing to do with written Russian. Many forms are reduced, many grammatical constructions are missing, word order can change and the whole sentence will still make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="23484690-4999-42c6-99fc-12f5cf13f0ee" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:14:00.547" UserId="185" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="1. Alphabet. It's not Latin, people spend a week or so to only remember that P is not [p], but [r].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Aspect. It is formed irregularly, it has tons of minor meanings, and the exact interpretation depends on certain properties of the verb meaning. And it also depends on prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Inflection is everywhere. You have to learn large paradigms only to be able to say a short sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rich derivation. You can form many words just by adding suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Word order. It is not free, as some people say, but it encodes the information structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Phonology. Quality of vowels changes depending on the stress in the word (which is also not always fixed), voiced consonants become voiceless depending on the following consonant or on the position in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Spoken Russian has nothing to do with written Russian. Many forms are reduced, many grammatical constructions are missing, word order can change and the whole sentence will still make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, Russian is not as hard to learn as Welsh or Hungarian. But not many people want to learn these languages (for some reason), and that may be another reason why they focus on Russian and say it's hard. It probably wouldn't be so hard in comparison =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="58fde966-c492-4ba0-b471-4da51a582e74" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:15:20.703" UserId="279" Text="Besides the common meaning of &quot;mess&quot;, it can also mean &quot;a quarrel&quot;, &quot;a pointless argument&quot;, usually applied to discussions on the Internet. So, the synonyms for this meaning will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ссора&#xD;&#xA; - спор&#xD;&#xA; - ругань&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;хохлосрач&quot; — &quot;a quarrel about Ukraine or Ukrainians&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;срач на тему _чего-либо_&quot; — &quot;a quarrel about _something_&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;развели тут срач!&quot; — &quot;you started a pointless argument&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you may want to know about a verb &quot;сраться&quot; which means &quot;to quarrel&quot; and has synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ссориться&#xD;&#xA; - ругаться&#xD;&#xA; - спорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Хватит сраться!&quot;, &quot;Не сритесь!&quot; — &quot;Stop fighting!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="ca80e5e5-9c41-4664-b78c-943ac9d59afa" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:21:42.663" UserId="185" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="1. Alphabet. It's not Latin, people spend a week or so to only remember that P is not [p], but [r].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Aspect. It is formed irregularly, it has tons of minor meanings, and the exact interpretation depends on certain properties of the verb meaning. And it also depends on prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Inflection is everywhere. You have to learn large paradigms only to be able to say a short sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rich derivation. You can form many words just by adding suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Word order. It is not free, as some people say, but it encodes the information structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Phonology. Quality of vowels changes depending on the stress in the word (which is also not always fixed), voiced consonants become voiceless depending on the following consonant or on the position in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Spoken Russian has nothing to do with written Russian. Many forms are reduced, many grammatical constructions are missing, word order can change and the whole sentence will still make sense. For example, you can say &quot;Ну чё, те недорогую купить арабику? Тут вкусный вчера был, а у тя кончился.&quot; Word order, pronouns, omitted nouns, intonation question. Probably, the correct way to say it would be &quot;Ну что, купить тебе недорогую арабику? Тут вчера был вкусный кофе, а у тебя как раз он закончился.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, Russian is not as hard to learn as Welsh or Hungarian. But not many people want to learn these languages (for some reason), and that may be another reason why they focus on Russian and say it's hard. It probably wouldn't be so hard in comparison =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="a1229044-3f76-4172-bc4f-61daae9d2580" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:34:39.970" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="1. Alphabet. It's not Latin, people spend a week or so to only remember that P is not [p], but [r].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Aspect. It is formed irregularly, it has tons of minor meanings, and the exact interpretation depends on certain properties of the verb meaning. And it also depends on prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Inflection. You have to learn large paradigms only to be able to say a short sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rich derivation. You can form many words just by adding suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Word order. It is not free, as some people say, but it encodes the information structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Phonology. Quality of vowels changes depending on the stress in the word (which is also not always fixed), voiced consonants become voiceless depending on the following consonant or on the position in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Spoken Russian has nothing to do with written Russian. Many forms are reduced, many grammatical constructions are missing, word order can change and the whole sentence will still make sense. For example, you can say &quot;Ну чё, те недорогую купить арабику? Тут вкусный вчера был, а у тя кончился.&quot; Word order, pronouns, omitted nouns, intonation question. Probably, the correct way to say it would be &quot;Ну что, купить тебе недорогую арабику? Тут вчера был вкусный кофе, а у тебя как раз он закончился.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, Russian is not as hard to learn as Welsh or Hungarian. But not many people want to learn these languages (for some reason), and that may be another reason why they focus on Russian and say it's hard. It probably wouldn't be so hard in comparison =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="ac8632b6-1731-4aaf-b9db-e5c75838a68a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:38:06.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="83236734-c2cf-46f9-b547-fd325e839f05" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:38:06.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="20c73556-e53b-4ede-a228-19af808c93f4" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:47:00.783" UserId="173" Comment="Proper English" Text="There is another possible using of `налево` in Russian: `сходить налево` - means cheating on one's wife...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible meaning can be: `левая (или правая) партия (в парламенте)`. From [Russian Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Термины «правые» и «левые» впервые появились во французском Национальном Собрании времён Великой Французской революции. В нём возникли три направления: справа сидели фельяны — сторонники конституционной монархии; в центре сидели жирондисты — умеренные сторонники республики; слева сидели якобинцы, выступавшие за радикальные преобразования. Таким образом, изначально правыми называли тех, кто желает сохранить существующее положение (консерваторов), а левыми — тех, кто выступал за перемены (радикалов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: [`Левые (политика)`][2] - The general name for the political forces the goal of which is social equality and making better living conditions for the least privileged parts of society, and [`Правые`][3] - is the name for political forces which goal is opposed to the `Левые`: natural (except for the `радикальные правые`) inequality, and they adhere to the principles of capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%28%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1986" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="20c73556-e53b-4ede-a228-19af808c93f4" CreationDate="2012-07-17T10:47:00.783" Comment="Proposed by 173 approved by 277 edit id of 190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="1190f412-9cfb-4a92-a896-6f5f787edee3" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:48.550" UserId="109" Comment="formatting so that it is easier to read" Text="*Сложно переоценить эффективность* (it is very efficient)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ребята, вашу работу и значимость вашей роли сложно переоценить* (Guys, you did an awesome job/your contribution was fantastic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1988" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="1190f412-9cfb-4a92-a896-6f5f787edee3" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:48.550" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 134 edit id of 188" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="658bac79-9434-413f-9daf-f921f52cf351" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:55.647" UserId="185" Comment="Translated" Text="These words are sometimes used in different situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы (намеренно) сворачиваем направо/налево&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are turning to the right / to the left&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы (непроизвольно) отклоняемся направо/налево&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are deviating from our course to the right / to the left&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1990" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="658bac79-9434-413f-9daf-f921f52cf351" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:55.647" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="bbae0e57-5af7-49e0-bfb4-b4e42423722a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:59.017" UserId="185" Comment="formatted, edited tags" Text="When somebody asks *как дела?*, what are the common things that I can use to answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1992" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="bbae0e57-5af7-49e0-bfb4-b4e42423722a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:59.017" UserId="185" Comment="formatted, edited tags" Text="What are the common responses to &quot;как дела?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="bbae0e57-5af7-49e0-bfb4-b4e42423722a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:59.017" UserId="185" Comment="formatted, edited tags" Text="|лексикон|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1994" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="bbae0e57-5af7-49e0-bfb4-b4e42423722a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:09:59.017" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="4cc7be2b-b281-4ecc-bab7-d08a1a128774" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:10:01.593" UserId="185" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Questions about the meaning of words or phrases that you couldn't find in a dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1996" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="4cc7be2b-b281-4ecc-bab7-d08a1a128774" CreationDate="2012-07-17T11:10:01.593" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="4f9f4c6f-1270-4aa4-9096-7b49e5450950" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:06:37.333" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="731b1696-4b8b-4760-b541-074dd3891bbc" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:06:37.333" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="3906f7b8-543c-4483-94ea-11d2290a212a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:12:02.790" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="41014f44-58cc-4e51-94fe-af2a0bf402da" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:12:02.790" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="b6c2a826-59fa-413a-af17-9f55e640328e" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:44:29.263" UserId="185" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding established socio-cultural norms of using different words and expressions in speech and writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2002" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="b6c2a826-59fa-413a-af17-9f55e640328e" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:44:29.263" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 195" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="bd0cac69-b782-40e0-aa11-bbafe038e5ea" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:44:31.587" UserId="185" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Questions about dictionaries, corpora, textbooks, references and any other materials that can be used for learning or studying Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2004" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="bd0cac69-b782-40e0-aa11-bbafe038e5ea" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:44:31.587" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="18ac82fd-6d77-495d-89bd-1b6fa5766343" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:45:34.427" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="88a4f610-b296-437b-bcb7-57ed1377e099" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:45:34.427" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="642" RevisionGUID="414650a2-e938-43b7-92f7-b4f09a076a7e" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:48:32.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="8e730f48-29d5-4862-ad63-90411feb677a" CreationDate="2012-07-17T14:48:32.503" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="a41476b5-5b73-4529-99b9-2688146f1d40" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:15:46.667" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="541a6928-9e41-41b6-8ccf-44e73993ec25" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:15:46.667" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="ee0df189-5015-4aa6-a72e-68e6fd161fe6" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:19:31.437" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="b1577480-3b51-435d-9c79-be9a10444a26" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:19:31.437" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="307ec471-2033-49c2-9e6f-4ac2edf220da" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:33:31.973" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="dad10a77-5c94-41a4-9633-c66c4a1891fb" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:34:22.707" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выражения|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2015" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="c94b7b64-cc4e-41e0-8776-290d43feaf18" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:35:20.843" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|этимология|выражения|мат|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="1a0979ce-4cd1-4948-994b-ed54c2defb15" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:30.420" UserId="185" Comment="added 306 characters in body" Text="Questions about endings. Endings are morphemes that are added after suffixes and that mark grammatical categories of the word, such as number and case for nouns (&quot;машин-а&quot; -- &quot;машин-ы&quot; -- &quot;машин-ой&quot;) or tense, number, person or gender for verbs (&quot;хож-у&quot; -- &quot;ход-ишь&quot; -- &quot;ход-им&quot; -- &quot;ходил-а&quot; -- &quot;ходил-и&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2017" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="1a0979ce-4cd1-4948-994b-ed54c2defb15" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:30.420" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 198" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="3cb86ded-f60d-4fd8-b664-05712b3e6854" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:32.903" UserId="185" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Questions about different forms of greetings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2019" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="3cb86ded-f60d-4fd8-b664-05712b3e6854" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:32.903" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="159c0fac-38a2-4c2c-81f7-fe90a3a4b568" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:34.977" UserId="185" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Questions about prefixes. Prefixes are morphemes that are added before the stem of the word and are used to derive new words, for example, &quot;ходить&quot; -- &quot;за-ходить&quot; -- &quot;пере-ходить&quot;, or &quot;секретный&quot; -- &quot;сверх-секретный&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2021" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="159c0fac-38a2-4c2c-81f7-fe90a3a4b568" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:34.977" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="77222763-07a4-4d1e-bcc0-59a057dfc4f0" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:38.127" UserId="185" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Questions about parts of speech that may introduce verb complements and adverbial modifiers, for example, &quot;на&quot; in &quot;я полагаюсь на тебя&quot;, or &quot;в&quot; in &quot;я гуляю в лесу&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="77222763-07a4-4d1e-bcc0-59a057dfc4f0" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:38.127" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 201" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="b82619ac-3257-49c7-acdb-971935c99026" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:40.233" UserId="185" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="Questions about the formal, theoretical description of meaning of morphemes (e.g. suffixes), words, or constructions. For questions about the meaning of concrete words or expressions see tags &quot;meaning&quot;, &quot;single-word-request&quot;, &quot;word-choice&quot;, &quot;usage&quot; and &quot;expressions&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2025" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="b82619ac-3257-49c7-acdb-971935c99026" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:40.233" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="0ebf6d1b-49a4-4cce-a239-e3cbe9280570" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:42.870" UserId="185" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="Questions about suffixes. Suffixes are morphemes that follow the stem and precede the ending and are used to derive words, for example, &quot;дом&quot; -- &quot;дом-ик&quot; -- &quot;дом-ишк-о&quot; -- &quot;дом-ищ-е&quot;, or &quot;толк-а-ть&quot; -- &quot;толк-ну-ть&quot; -- &quot;подтакл-ива-ть&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2027" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="0ebf6d1b-49a4-4cce-a239-e3cbe9280570" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:42.870" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2028" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="9149f1c4-eef2-4ede-8f48-1fadf0d6d198" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:36:44.913" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="cdcdc298-bacb-43b5-a6f3-bf781c6dd725" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:41:41.587" UserId="282" Text="In this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;он сёл наземь между мною и Верой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="cdcdc298-bacb-43b5-a6f3-bf781c6dd725" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:41:41.587" UserId="282" Text="Why is мною used here instead of мной?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="cdcdc298-bacb-43b5-a6f3-bf781c6dd725" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:41:41.587" UserId="282" Text="|грамматика|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="b00e008f-456d-4587-bde5-0bfa2e7a45a2" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:50:11.703" UserId="185" Text="The form *мною* is an older variant of *мной*, it fades away now as the second opion becomes more popular. You can see their distribution over years [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They both stand for Instrumental case of the 1st person singular pronoun *я*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used in older texts or in poetic texts for the reasons keeping the correct metre. I don't know what is the exact reason why it is used in your phrase. Maybe it is an text from 18th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;t2=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="5c3f5679-8814-4adc-b09a-4055c6b712e3" CreationDate="2012-07-17T15:55:50.763" UserId="266" Text="You can easily yandex it up yourslef, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. go to yandex.ru, which is better than google for Russian searches&#xD;&#xA;2. Search &quot;типичные ошибки в русском языке у американцев&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="e0b0334c-af12-45b4-a794-c2b0a093ad15" CreationDate="2012-07-17T16:05:27.090" UserId="185" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="Both forms stand for Instrumental case of the 1st person singular pronoun *я*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form *мною* is an older variant of *мной*, it fades away now as the second option becomes more popular. You can see the distribution of the two forms over years [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Reference service of gramota.ru][2] sometimes calls both variants equivalent and sometimes recommends to use &quot;мной&quot;, because &quot;мною&quot; is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason why &quot;мною&quot; may be used is that in poetic texts the author wants to keep the correct metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the form &quot;мною&quot; can be used in modern texts that for stylistic reasons have to look like old texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what is the exact reason why it is usedhttp://pda.gramota.ru/?page=2&amp;action=buro&amp;s=%EC%ED%EE%FE in your phrase. Maybe it is an text from 18th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;t2=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pda.gramota.ru/?page=2&amp;action=buro&amp;s=%EC%ED%EE%FE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="d5796340-e488-4362-85f6-1c2be9978b8b" CreationDate="2012-07-17T16:13:26.117" UserId="185" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="Both forms stand for Instrumental case of the 1st person singular pronoun *я*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form *мною* is an older variant of *мной*, it fades away now as the second option becomes more popular. You can see the distribution of the two forms over years [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Reference service of gramota.ru][2] sometimes calls both variants equivalent and sometimes recommends to use *мной*, because *мною* is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason why *мною* may be used is that in poetic texts the author wants to keep the correct metre or rhyme (but also for some other, maybe personal reasons). For example, Pushkin usually uses *мной*, but in the following poem he writes *мною*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Алина! сжальтесь надо мною.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не смею требовать любви.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Быть может, за грехи мои,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мой ангел, я любви не стою! &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the form *мною* can be used in modern texts that for stylistic reasons have to look like old texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what is the exact reason why it is used in your phrase. Maybe it is an text from 18th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;t2=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pda.gramota.ru/?page=2&amp;action=buro&amp;s=%EC%ED%EE%FE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="d0e9b6b0-5897-488d-8788-873a17c4f6bd" CreationDate="2012-07-17T16:37:11.430" UserId="134" Text="The modern form *мной* (or any other sg. inst. ending on `-ой`, `-ей`) is quite a recent apocope of *мною* which had been a norm till the late XVIII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may observe it on [this graph][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian tends to reduce ending vowels in weak position which can also be observed in particles like *-бы/-б*, *-же/-ж*, *-ли/-ль* etc. (reflected by the orthography) and also *-то/-т*, *-ка/-к* etc. (which are not yet reflected). The difference between the sg. inst. in I and III declensions is a part of the same process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the latter form is considered archaic, but may be still used in poetic, high style speech or just for euphonic purposes. The two forms are rhythmically different so interchanging them can help in composing a verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it is most probably used to avoid *й-и* cluster which is somewhat hard to pronounce without omitting the *й*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;t2=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;start=1700&amp;end=2012&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="c923f92f-f688-4a64-8cd0-1e96f94013c4" CreationDate="2012-07-17T16:38:07.530" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="In this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;он сел наземь между мною и Верой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="fd232ded-164b-4955-bfaa-555e3ce574d6" CreationDate="2012-07-17T16:42:45.280" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="The modern form *мной* (or any other sg. inst. ending on `-ой`, `-ей`) is quite a recent apocope of *мною* which had been a norm till the late XVIII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may observe it on [this graph][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian tends to reduce ending vowels in weak position which can also be observed in particles like *-бы/-б*, *-же/-ж*, *-ли/-ль* etc. (reflected by the orthography) and also *-то/-т*, *-ка/-к* etc. (which are not yet reflected). The difference between the sg. inst. in declension I is a part of the same process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the latter form is considered archaic, but may be still used in poetic, high style speech or just for euphonic purposes. The two forms are rhythmically different so interchanging them can help in composing a verse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, it is most probably used to avoid *й-и* cluster which is somewhat hard to pronounce without omitting the *й*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;t2=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;start=1700&amp;end=2012&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="01c89815-3a4f-4da7-8676-bc156705e169" CreationDate="2012-07-17T17:47:56.263" UserId="282" Text="Both seem to mean &quot;to read&quot;, so what's the diff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="01c89815-3a4f-4da7-8676-bc156705e169" CreationDate="2012-07-17T17:47:56.263" UserId="282" Text="What's the difference between читать and прочесть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="01c89815-3a4f-4da7-8676-bc156705e169" CreationDate="2012-07-17T17:47:56.263" UserId="282" Text="|выбор-слова|synonyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="d8a629e6-c2b6-4177-938b-9de21025ffc7" CreationDate="2012-07-17T18:14:55.773" UserId="185" Text="Verbs have different aspect (see other questions on this forum about aspect, [this one][1] in particular).&#xD;&#xA;*читать* is an imperfect verb, it denotes a process in its development, an unfinished activity.&#xD;&#xA;*прочесть* is a perfect verb, it denotes a completed activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я читаю книгу. (читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am reading a book.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прочел книгу. (прочесть)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've red the book (till the end).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда ты будешь читать книгу, которую я тебе подарил на день рождения? (читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When will you read the book I gave you for your birthday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда ты прочтешь книгу, которую я тебе подарил на день рождения? (прочесть) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When will you finish reading the book I gave you for your birthday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="0d58087a-da7a-4be1-ad25-b1487b728ea9" CreationDate="2012-07-17T18:15:27.510" UserId="47" Text="*Прочесть* is the same (but older) as *прочитать*, which is just a perfective aspect of *читать*. So, *читать* means 'to read', *прочитать* means 'to have read'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="ab85fe6c-896f-460b-a2ec-b571bf66c2bb" CreationDate="2012-07-17T18:44:29.150" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="e56a12dc-2452-4c73-9779-cc8f61f9169d" CreationDate="2012-07-17T18:52:14.080" UserId="266" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="You can easily yandex it up yourslef, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. go to yandex.ru, which is better than google for Russian searches&#xD;&#xA;2. Search &quot;типичные ошибки в русском языке у американцев&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia says&quot; According to Yandex marketing, one of its biggest advantages for Russian-language users is ability to recognize the Russian inflection in search queries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2047" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="4bd3545a-7526-4cb6-8a0c-4f305b35e51d" CreationDate="2012-07-17T19:57:29.527" UserId="8" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="2048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="2f9057f6-6112-4b5a-8166-d16086d659b8" CreationDate="2012-07-17T21:30:44.227" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 504 characters in body" Text="1. Alphabet. It's not Latin, people spend a week or so to only remember that P is not [p], but [r].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Aspect. It is formed irregularly, it has tons of minor meanings, and the exact interpretation depends on certain properties of the verb meaning. And it also depends on prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Inflection. You have to learn large paradigms only to be able to say a short sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Rich derivation. You can form many words just by adding suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Word order. It is not free, as some people say, but it encodes the information structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Phonology. Quality of vowels changes depending on the stress in the word (which is also not always fixed), voiced consonants become voiceless depending on the following consonant or on the position in the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, Russian is not as hard to learn as Welsh or Hungarian. But not many people want to learn these languages (for some reason), and that may be another reason why they focus on Russian and say it's hard. It probably wouldn't be so hard in comparison =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="d5a3f103-fba8-4dde-86de-6268c88d7217" CreationDate="2012-07-17T21:42:10.447" UserId="185" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Verbs have different aspect (see other questions on this forum about aspect, [this one][1] in particular).&#xD;&#xA;*читать* is an imperfect verb, it denotes a process in its development, an unfinished activity.&#xD;&#xA;*прочесть* is a perfect verb, it denotes a completed activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я читаю книгу. (читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am reading a book.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прочел книгу. (прочесть)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've read the book (till the end).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда ты будешь читать книгу, которую я тебе подарил на день рождения? (читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When will you read the book I gave you for your birthday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда ты прочтешь книгу, которую я тебе подарил на день рождения? (прочесть) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When will you finish reading the book I gave you for your birthday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="7a6288fc-997f-494e-9f4f-eaf3729e74fa" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:01:46.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="11a3d9ee-506e-4523-901d-888b0c8b7b30" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:01:46.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="52b727c4-3738-4684-b028-053bde239568" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:06:26.837" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="fadf355e-f779-48ae-b2eb-4c1aa97b6c03" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:06:26.837" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="42dc6a9d-6e7b-4d98-b291-40fb923d0b58" CreationDate="2012-07-18T08:48:45.933" UserId="185" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Questions about adverbs. An adverb is a part of speech that modifies verbs, adjectives and other adverbs. It can usually be used to answer a &quot;How?..&quot; question. Examples of adverbs are &quot;очень&quot; (very), &quot;быстро&quot; (fast), &quot;нарочно&quot; (on purpose), &quot;бегом&quot; (running)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2055" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="42dc6a9d-6e7b-4d98-b291-40fb923d0b58" CreationDate="2012-07-18T08:48:45.933" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="6640ca8b-6db2-4817-9aab-e93ed4ccdbc5" CreationDate="2012-07-18T08:48:48.710" UserId="185" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="Questions about conjunctions. A conjunction is a part of speech that is used to join two words of the same part of speech or two sentences together. Some examples of conjunctions are: &quot;и&quot; (and), &quot;потому что&quot; (because), &quot;то ли ... то ли ...&quot; (either... or ...)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2057" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="6640ca8b-6db2-4817-9aab-e93ed4ccdbc5" CreationDate="2012-07-18T08:48:48.710" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="f97a89ee-7aa4-47e8-b34a-59034cd96686" CreationDate="2012-07-18T13:03:42.793" UserId="268" Text="7 падежей. В других языках нет такого количества падежей и даже представления о том, что они могут существовать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as we can see many foreigners don't even use them. They only use one case for speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2059" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="b643491a-86a0-470d-9967-c99eb1801cc7" CreationDate="2012-07-18T14:34:38.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225599462993707010" />
  <row Id="2060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="749a722d-30ce-482e-b139-ffe99da636ba" CreationDate="2012-07-18T17:34:39.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225644766187102208" />
  <row Id="2061" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="8592710c-87a5-405f-bdf8-bec4fdbb3a9c" CreationDate="2012-07-18T23:34:38.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225735360733409280" />
  <row Id="2062" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="fa4db1cc-cac6-4565-8cf8-116da120b5b8" CreationDate="2012-07-19T05:34:38.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225825957104218113" />
  <row Id="2063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="9ee90f5a-c89b-4664-af81-d165ff25fd6e" CreationDate="2012-07-19T08:34:38.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225871255469948928" />
  <row Id="2064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="752bce16-09c6-4808-b289-6065c199a0c9" CreationDate="2012-07-19T11:34:38.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/225916554120925184" />
  <row Id="2065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="660" RevisionGUID="9704b30b-0322-4e19-8121-c0689f51d0fc" CreationDate="2012-07-19T12:59:56.627" UserId="194" Text="If you mean the difficulties for a native Russian speaker, they are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Comma placement rules&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Whether participle не- is written together with the following word or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Whether н is double in suffixes (choice between нн and н).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some people experience troubles in choice between -тся and -ться although this is not a problem for myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="7cb4da84-a086-48b9-a3b5-338992f8043a" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:49:23.860" UserId="287" Text="What's the difference between умереть and умирать? I find it very confusing as both mean 'die', just that умирать is a verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="7cb4da84-a086-48b9-a3b5-338992f8043a" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:49:23.860" UserId="287" Text="What's the difference between умереть and умирать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="7cb4da84-a086-48b9-a3b5-338992f8043a" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:49:23.860" UserId="287" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2069" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="09f6abc5-9693-4b66-9545-2aa9338d042b" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:51:48.617" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="a212e540-b14f-46de-82e1-0514be49d773" CreationDate="2012-07-19T14:01:25.437" UserId="185" Text="Both *умереть* and *умирать* are verbs that mean &quot;to die&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*умереть* is a perfect verb, *умирать* is an imperfect verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfect form is used in cases when someone is talking about a process that finished already, the imperfect is used to denote a developing process or a repeating action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он умер.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он умирает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He is dying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Люди умирают каждый день.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;People die every day.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="663" RevisionGUID="911353d5-046d-43cd-a45d-d5f487a0f55b" CreationDate="2012-07-19T15:50:26.080" UserId="39" Text="Assuming small talk situation, 99% of the time the response will be &quot;`Нормально все`&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0def1c64-ecb0-424f-9e40-f69d07cfd799" CreationDate="2012-07-19T16:34:11.703" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="What's the difference between *умереть* and *умирать*? I find it very confusing as both mean 'die', just that *умирать* is a verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2073" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0def1c64-ecb0-424f-9e40-f69d07cfd799" CreationDate="2012-07-19T16:34:11.703" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, formatted" Text="What's the difference between &quot;умереть&quot; and &quot;умирать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2074" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0def1c64-ecb0-424f-9e40-f69d07cfd799" CreationDate="2012-07-19T16:34:11.703" Comment="Proposed by 185 approved by 134 edit id of 204" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="5daceac2-03fa-48ea-852c-b75032876067" CreationDate="2012-07-19T21:58:16.790" UserId="291" Text="переоценить is better translated as &quot;overrate&quot; rather than &quot;overestimate&quot;. so: &quot;it'd be hard to overrate this, it's so good!&quot; of course we don't say this in English, but i think it makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they also say &quot;это сильно переоценено / that's overrated&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="bea5f42e-82f6-4110-9839-2134e7789b9f" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:12:49.767" UserId="170" Text="Do I need the second comma in the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он явил, т.е. доказал, тот факт, что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="bea5f42e-82f6-4110-9839-2134e7789b9f" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:12:49.767" UserId="170" Text="Second comma in &quot;Он явил, т.е. доказал, тот факт&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="bea5f42e-82f6-4110-9839-2134e7789b9f" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:12:49.767" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="04478912-9c30-4655-8db5-db63f452f0a5" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:21:24.963" UserId="291" Text="i've been trying to master your verbs, especially verbs of motion and with prefixes (приставки). it's interesting to me how verbs with the same root but different приставки can have dramatically different meanings. let's take -секать/сечь, which afaik is an old Slavic word for &quot;to cut&quot;, but in Russian also means &quot;to whip/flog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пересекать/пересечь: afaik this is the same as переехать, but without an intended destination, i.e., describes an incidental event. my prof explained this to me when i described a car accident where my sedan cut across two lanes on the highway: &quot;машина пересекла две полосы [or do you say сплошные here? i forget =x]&quot;. the meaning is barely related to the original root IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;отсекать/отсечь: this retains the root meaning, to me it's the exact same as отрубить, &quot;to chop off from, sever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засекать/засечь： also still related, &quot;whip to death&quot; (i find that &quot;cut&quot; verbs with приставка за- tend to mean &quot;to death,&quot; i.e., зарезать). a quick search in Yandex reveals another (mostly likely new) meaning, to &quot;locate/pinpoint&quot;. can anyone give an example? i'm so afraid to use unfamiliar verbs now ever since i tried to ask my friend Elina if she &quot;ran into&quot; this guy by saying, &quot;ты залетела в _____?&quot;... lol. they just have so many slang meanings now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i know that in meaning these verbs are hardly related anymore, but it helps me organize and remember them if i group by verb root. i sometimes just plug a single verb root with different приставки into Yandex just to see what comes up. does anyone have more verbs with this root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="04478912-9c30-4655-8db5-db63f452f0a5" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:21:24.963" UserId="291" Text="Verb roots: -секать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="04478912-9c30-4655-8db5-db63f452f0a5" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:21:24.963" UserId="291" Text="|глаголы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2083" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="9fc0deb8-c935-4148-8e02-368052a8b31a" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:28:08.197" UserId="291" Comment="edited title" Text="Verb roots: -секать/сечь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="9ab8676a-2f3b-4fab-8421-a8fe292753e2" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:44:46.897" UserId="291" Text="вдыхать/вдохнуть: inhale, breathe in (one direction, inwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вздыхать/вздохнуть: one entire breath (in and out), to sigh, pine for smb (metaphorical use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;выдыхать/выдохнуть: exhale, breathe out (one direction, outwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сдыхать/сдохнуть: a really vulgar way of saying &quot;to die&quot;, used only for animals. my prof said it's not even used for dogs anymore since they began to be considered &quot;man's best friend&quot;. or if a guy was a big villain during his lifetime, you can say &quot;слава Богу, он сдох.&quot; my friends would use it when their cell phones broke, i.e., &quot;айфон сдох&quot;. question: **can i say it when my phone has simply run out of battery??** or does it mean broken, unusable. sometimes when my friend is visibly exhausted, i will say to him &quot;не сдыхай&quot; (hope it's not offensive). can also use to say, &quot;die of laughter&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;издыхать/издохнуть: means the exact same as сдыхать/сдохнуть? minus the &quot;die of laughter&quot; variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;отдыхать/отдохнуть: well we know this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i tried some other приставки in Yandex and found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;продохнуть: to have [breathing space][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C/en/#lingvo/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can anyone think of other verbs with this root? or maybe with -дышать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="9ab8676a-2f3b-4fab-8421-a8fe292753e2" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:44:46.897" UserId="291" Text="Verb roots: -дыхать/дохнуть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="9ab8676a-2f3b-4fab-8421-a8fe292753e2" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:44:46.897" UserId="291" Text="|глаголы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="8ea8432a-56a9-462b-869f-a1f20c18b2be" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:59:17.363" UserId="291" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="i've been trying to master your verbs, especially verbs of motion and with prefixes (приставки). it's interesting to me how verbs with the same root but different приставки can have dramatically different meanings. let's take -секать/сечь, which afaik is an old Slavic word for &quot;to cut&quot;, but in Russian also means &quot;to whip/flog&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пересекать/пересечь: afaik this is the same as переехать, but without an intended destination, i.e., describes an incidental event. my prof explained this to me when i described a car accident where my sedan cut across two lanes on the highway: &quot;машина пересекла две полосы [or do you say сплошные here? i forget =x]&quot;. the meaning is barely related to the original root IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;отсекать/отсечь: this retains the root meaning, to me it's the exact same as отрубить, &quot;to chop off from, sever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засекать/засечь: also still related, &quot;whip to death&quot; (i find that &quot;cut&quot; verbs with приставка за- tend to mean &quot;to death,&quot; i.e., зарезать). a quick search in Yandex reveals another (mostly likely new) meaning, to &quot;locate/pinpoint&quot;. **can anyone give an example?** i'm so afraid to use unfamiliar verbs now ever since i tried to ask my friend Elina if she &quot;ran into&quot; this guy by saying, &quot;ты залетела в _____?&quot;... lol. they just have so many slang meanings now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i know that in meaning these verbs are hardly related anymore, but it helps me organize and remember them if i group by verb root. i sometimes just plug a single verb root with different приставки into Yandex just to see what comes up. **does anyone have more verbs with this root?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="cbff5ca9-d470-4ae0-adbd-efa690ce9622" CreationDate="2012-07-19T23:34:37.367" UserId="57" Text="Both is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would omit the comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он явил [нам] (т.е. доказал [нам] тот факт), что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes it sort of poetic (with an explanation for non-poetic people in parentheses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a comma, it is also acceptable, but then you're saying `явил` and `доказал` are sort of synonims per se, which they not necessarily are; plus, it would imply `явить факт` is a common phrase, which I wouldn't say it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="2861c8c8-9ad4-4733-890d-1039bcef0319" CreationDate="2012-07-19T23:40:06.113" UserId="57" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Both is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would omit the comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он явил [нам] (т.е. доказал [нам] тот факт), что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes it sort of poetic (with an explanation for non-poetic people in parentheses). (I only added parentheses to visually separate the resulting logical pieces; you don't have to actually use them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a comma, it is also acceptable, but then you're saying `явил` and `доказал` are sort of synonims per se, which they not necessarily are; plus, it would imply `явить факт` is a common phrase, which I wouldn't say it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="668" RevisionGUID="5c9e320a-bb23-4057-899b-264f8cc531fd" CreationDate="2012-07-20T00:06:28.030" UserId="57" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Both are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would omit the comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он явил [нам] (т.е. доказал [нам] тот факт), что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes it sort of poetic (with an explanation for non-poetic people in parentheses). (I only added parentheses to visually separate the resulting logical pieces; you don't have to actually use them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a comma, it is also acceptable, but then you're saying `явил` and `доказал` are sort of synonims per se, which they not necessarily are; plus, it would imply `явить факт` is a common phrase, which I wouldn't say it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="ba6f93fe-38d8-4504-88b0-952a0cc30dd0" CreationDate="2012-07-20T00:31:25.660" UserId="293" Text="высечь - of course, closest to original meaning: either beat up with a stick, whip, etc. or cut from stone, marble, etc. Yes, the same word is being used in two completely different meanings, imagine all the jokes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пресекать/пресечь - put a stop to something (usually by means of applying one's authority and possibly coercion). The perfect form is more frequently used than the imperfect one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;усекать/усечь - make shorter, cut a part off, also has a slang meaning of &quot;understand, get it&quot; (Усёк? - Усёк. = Did you get it? - I got it.) In the latter case you can sometimes have more rare просечь - which is also &quot;understand&quot;, but has a meaning of deeper understanding. Though this is a bit of dated slang, not used that much anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;рассечь - cut in two, also wound by cutting (я рассёк губу - I've cut my lip). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подсечь - take somebody down by foot sweep (подсечка) or when fishing, jerk the line when the fish takes the bait in order to hook the fish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all I can remember now, will add if I have any more :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="b0c1a903-d923-452f-8440-2884d568e6ed" CreationDate="2012-07-20T00:41:27.893" UserId="293" Text="&gt; &quot;айфон сдох&quot;. question: can i say it when my phone has simply run out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of battery??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes you can, but it would create an ambiguity - did it сдох permanently or temporarily? But in general, it can be used in both meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sometimes when my friend is visibly exhausted, i will say to him &quot;не сдыхай&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably. If would be more appropriate if said, e.g., at the final part of a long race - &quot;не сдыхай, осталось всего полкилометра!&quot; - &quot;don't give up, only 500m left to go!&quot;. Without such context, IMO it'd sound a bit weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  can also use to say, &quot;die of laughter&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It'd sound pretty rude if applied to another person. So if it is somebody everybody hated and wished he was dead, then maybe, otherwise better not. Generally, сдох has a derisive meaning and usually is applied to wild animals, etc. so applying it to a person usually means the speaker hates that person. However, when you apply it to yourself - saying &quot;я чуть не сдох от смеха&quot; (I almost died of laughter) - it is fine, a bit rough but completely acceptable in friendly chat.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="e5fea31f-225e-43a3-afd8-ecc97b74871e" CreationDate="2012-07-20T01:39:09.707" UserId="170" Text="Зачем ему нужно было здесь **умирать**? - Why did he need to be dying here? (May mean that he eventually died, but may also mean that he is still alive. Can imply that he was pretending to be dying or thought that he was already about to die, but it turned out that he was merely sick and later even got recovered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зачем ему нужно было здесь **умереть**? - Why did he need to die here? (almost in all casese would mean that he did die and now is dead)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="b77783ec-55d0-4419-afed-74e13cad4414" CreationDate="2012-07-20T01:52:55.510" UserId="170" Comment="added 714 characters in body" Text="Зачем ему нужно было здесь **умирать**? - Why did he need to be dying here? (May mean that he eventually died, but may also mean that he is still alive. Can imply that he was pretending to be dying or thought that he was already about to die, but it turned out that he was merely sick and later even got recovered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зачем ему нужно было здесь **умереть**? - Why did he need to die here? (almost in all casese would mean that he did die and now is dead)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**умирать** also has a more general meaning, while **умереть** would stick to the specific situation happening at the time of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, я знаю, ты мне сейчас станешь говорить, что все люди смертны, и что нет ничего противоестественного в человеческой смерти. Но я всё равно не xочу **умирать**. Я xочу жить вечно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, I know, you will say that all people are mortal and that human death is a natural phenomenon. But I still don't want to die. I want to live forever)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо что-то делать. Дай мне лопату. Будем пробиваться. Я не xочу **умереть** здесь под этой толщей снега.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We need to do something. Give me the shovel. We'll be digging. I don't want to be berried here under snow)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2095" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="367c759d-8c2d-4f8d-8bb5-3e2d986b27b3" CreationDate="2012-07-20T02:34:39.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/226143048847982592" />
  <row Id="2096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="fa272a69-5125-437b-a6e3-ee51ee513cf5" CreationDate="2012-07-20T03:59:29.877" UserId="170" Comment="edited body" Text="Зачем ему нужно было здесь **умирать**? - Why did he need to be dying here? (Can mean that he eventually died, but can also mean that he is still alive. Can imply that he was pretending to be dying or thought that he was already about to die, but it turned out that he was merely sick and later even got recovered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зачем ему нужно было здесь **умереть**? - Why did he need to die here? (almost in all casese would mean that he did die and now is dead)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**умирать** also has a more general meaning, while **умереть** would stick to the specific situation happening at the time of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, я знаю, ты мне сейчас станешь говорить, что все люди смертны, и что нет ничего противоестественного в человеческой смерти. Но я всё равно не xочу **умирать**. Я xочу жить вечно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, I know, you will say that all people are mortal and that human death is a natural phenomenon. But I still don't want to die. I want to live forever)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо что-то делать. Дай мне лопату. Будем пробиваться. Я не xочу **умереть** здесь под этой толщей снега.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(We need to do something. Give me the shovel. We'll be digging. I don't want to end up buried here under the snow)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="a11971f5-2333-430e-a637-85d83a94f9af" CreationDate="2012-07-20T05:12:44.467" UserId="170" Text="I don't have any well-founded answer, but [Zalizniak's dictionary][1] says that both **пять доньев** and **пять дён** are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morph.cgi?word=%5Bdno%5D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2098" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="ff7a7544-2204-4d41-9216-2b7b2fe11bc2" CreationDate="2012-07-20T05:34:40.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/226188352263692288" />
  <row Id="2099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="c503bd9a-157f-4f8b-9bbe-8f171429ce1e" CreationDate="2012-07-20T06:47:38.010" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|глаголы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="2c1c020e-5b7c-41d7-94f3-a088d3c78791" CreationDate="2012-07-20T08:56:46.873" UserId="194" Text="засекать/засечь is rarely to whip to death. Usually it's to clock, or to catch somebody in an act. Also to notch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засекать время - to clock the time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я засёк время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я засёк пять минут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засечь подчиненных за игрой в карты на работе - to catch the subordinates at playing cards at their workplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;усекать/усечь - trim, truncate. For example, to cut the budget. To reduce the functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;бесплатная версия этой программы имеет усеченные функции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;руководство усекает бюджет нашего отдела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;иссекать/иссечь - to cut or flog in multiple places, to cover with scars or flogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;у него лицо, иссеченное шрамами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;обсекать - to rough-hew, to round something by cutting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="edaf083c-f4dc-4fcf-b910-985c02159d61" CreationDate="2012-07-20T09:05:12.653" UserId="194" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="засекать/засечь is rarely to whip to death. Usually it's to clock, or to catch somebody in an act. Also to notch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засекать время - to clock the time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я засёк время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я засёк пять минут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засечь подчиненных за игрой в карты на работе - to catch the subordinates at playing cards at their workplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;усекать/усечь - trim, truncate. For example, to cut the budget. To reduce the functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;бесплатная версия этой программы имеет усеченные функции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;руководство усекает бюджет нашего отдела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;иссекать/иссечь - to cut or flog in multiple places, to cover with scars or flogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;у него лицо, иссеченное шрамами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;обсекать - to rough-hew, to round something by cutting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пересекать/пересечь means to cross, intersect in general, not just переехать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;эти две линии пересекаются&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also may mean to meet in slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;давай пересечёмся в центре города&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;может быть, пересечёмся на неделе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;насекать/насечь - to make насечки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="9e4da4f8-98d9-4ab8-9d75-485721995beb" CreationDate="2012-07-20T09:10:21.993" UserId="194" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="засекать/засечь is rarely to whip to death. Usually it's to clock, or to catch somebody in an act. Also to notch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засекать время - to clock the time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я засёк время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я засёк пять минут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засечь подчиненных за игрой в карты на работе - to catch the subordinates at playing cards at their workplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;усекать/усечь - trim, truncate. For example, to cut the budget. To reduce the functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;бесплатная версия этой программы имеет усеченные функции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;руководство усекает бюджет нашего отдела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;иссекать/иссечь - to cut or flog in multiple places, to cover with scars or flogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;у него лицо, иссеченное шрамами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;обсекать - to rough-hew, to round something by cutting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пересекать/пересечь means to cross, intersect in general, not just переехать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;эти две линии пересекаются&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also may mean to meet in slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;давай пересечёмся в центре города&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;может быть, пересечёмся на неделе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;насекать/насечь - to make насечки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;рассекать may also mean to demonstratively move at high speed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он рассекает по городу на новеньком мотоцикле&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="611e815b-b43a-4a38-a4c0-72be8e25916e" CreationDate="2012-07-20T09:19:57.837" UserId="134" Text="This verb derives from proto-Slavic *сѣкѫ / сѣкти* and is akin to Latin-derived English words like *section*, *insect* etc. Russian word *насекомое* is a calque of the Latin word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root has three basic meanings: to cross, to cut and to flog, and a number of metaphorical meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some less used forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *надсечь* — to make a &quot;starter&quot; cut. Compare *надрезать*, *надпилить*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * И я тут же представил себе, как я надсеку веко, разведу их в стороны и… «И что… Дальше-то что? Может, это действительно из мозга? *[М. А. Булгаков. Пропавший глаз (1926)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *иссечь* — to cross, to cut, or to flog all over. Compare *изрезать*, *изпещрить*, *искромсать*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * С иссечёнными боками, весь облитый мыльной пеной прискакал домой Малек-Адель, и Чертопханов тотчас заперся у себя в комнате. *[И. C. Тургенев. Конец Чертопханова (1872)]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он стар, лицо иссечено глубокими морщинами, тонкими, как нити, глаза усталые, да и сам он устал от этой карусели. *[И. П. Максимов. «А утром всё загремело!..» (Из фронтового дневника) // «Бельские Просторы», 2010]*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Дверная коробка была по бокам вся иссечена многочисленными зарубками ― дети метили рост. *[Людмила Улицкая. Медея и ее дети (1996)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In medical context it also means &quot;to amputate&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Иссек массу разрушенной мышечной ткани, удалил свободные отломки кости. *[Николай Амосов. Голоса времен (1999)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *осечь / осечься* — to cut one's (or someone else's) action or speech roughly. Compare *одёрнуть*, *окрикнуть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Докладывать будет Янко, ― осек его Дашевский. ― И черт его знает, как это все так нескладно вышло, ― повинился Андрей. *[Семен Данилюк. Бизнес-класс (2003)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Синичкин осек свой не начатый полет и правильно решил, что будет день, будет и пища! *[Дмитрий Липскеров. Последний сон разума (1999)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *Осечься* also means to misfire (both directly and figuratively)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Но «тэтэшка» (*means [TT-30][1], a Soviet-developed pistol*) осеклась. И опять осеклась. И опять. *[Андрей Измайлов. Трюкач (2001)]*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TT_pistol" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="675" RevisionGUID="054ae65d-f006-49fb-a3a6-6044dfa4e361" CreationDate="2012-07-20T09:43:31.250" UserId="194" Text="The meaning is so because one cannot see the noodles on one's ears. One with noodles on the ears would seem funny to the surrounding people but he himself would not notice anything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="6aee5dd0-733b-42d3-8b10-06d597a10909" CreationDate="2012-07-20T10:25:26.953" UserId="134" Text="You need both commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., [*Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию: §97. Пояснительные члены предложения*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Обособляются слова, поясняющие смысл предшествующего члена предложения. Перед пояснительным членом предложения стоят слова *именно*, *а именно*, *то есть* (при их отсутствии в предложении эти слова могут быть вставлены).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В то время, именно год назад, я еще сотрудничал по журналам *(Достоевский)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я... добрался наконец до большого села с каменной церковью в новом вкусе, т.е. с колоннами, и обширным господским домом *(Тургенев)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ну что же, поедешь нынче вечером к нашим, к Щербацким то есть? *(Л. Толстой)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/46.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="4ae4cc52-de8b-40c1-b9de-ff7c58b2f5e5" CreationDate="2012-07-20T10:43:09.077" UserId="134" Comment="added 457 characters in body; edited body" Text="You need both commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., [*Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию: §97. Пояснительные члены предложения*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Обособляются слова, поясняющие смысл предшествующего члена предложения. Перед пояснительным членом предложения стоят слова *именно*, *а именно*, *то есть* (при их отсутствии в предложении эти слова могут быть вставлены).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В то время, именно год назад, я еще сотрудничал по журналам *(Достоевский)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я... добрался наконец до большого села с каменной церковью в новом вкусе, т.е. с колоннами, и обширным господским домом *(Тургенев)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ну что же, поедешь нынче вечером к нашим, к Щербацким то есть? *(Л. Толстой)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the word *доказал* clarifies the meaning of quite archaic word *явил*. *Тот факт* is an object to both verbs and hence is not a part of the clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had a sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он явил, то есть доказал со всей ясностью, что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you would need one comma less, since *со всей ясностью* would be a part of the clarification, and the commas separating the clafication and the dependent clause would merge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/46.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="604e963d-a32c-4cca-bfd1-a8e809bb1062" CreationDate="2012-07-20T14:04:34.423" UserId="256" Text="передыхать/передохнуть similar to отдыхать/отдохнуть but implies a short period of rest. роздых (noun) - close to передыхать/передохнуть but even less formal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="ad94ff32-43ee-4803-8f74-f115dc14071a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T14:05:21.263" UserId="97" Text="This phrase (&quot;по первое число&quot;), meaning &quot;large amount&quot;, is usually used when describing a punishment or generally an unpleasant experience (e.g. _Завалило снегом по первое число_ or _Получил от начальства по первое число_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin/etymology of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="ad94ff32-43ee-4803-8f74-f115dc14071a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T14:05:21.263" UserId="97" Text="What's the origin of &quot;по первое число&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="ad94ff32-43ee-4803-8f74-f115dc14071a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T14:05:21.263" UserId="97" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="ac62ad62-1893-4af2-9504-5bd5a735a901" CreationDate="2012-07-20T17:03:17.513" UserId="134" Text="An excerpt by [gramota.ru][1] from *Бирих А. К., Мокиенко В. М., Степанова Л. И. Русская фразеология. Историко-этимологический словарь / Под ред. В. М. Мокиенко.*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *По первое число всыпать (прописать)* — сильно наказать кого-нибудь. Выражение восходит к старинной практике пороть ученика. Каждую неделю пороли ученика, вне зависимости от того, виноват он или нет. Если пороли сильно, то порки хватало на последующие недели вплоть до первого числа следующего месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other sources suggest that it was a precausion measure: if a student had been beaten too hard he was excepted from corporal punishment till the first of the next month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First mention (in this sense) in the corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Кабы не ты, ну наклали бы они мне по первое число! *[Ф. Д. Крюков. Казачка // «Русское Богатство», 1896]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, in Google Books:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А на другой день уже по всей окрестности разносилась молва, что Сангуровские садовники поймали Андрюшку Егозу, &quot;нашвыряли ему в загорбок по первое число&quot; и ещё на всю ночь привязали его к яблоньке. *[«Русский Вестник», т. 258, вып. 1, стр. 147, 1898]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goo.gl/NZoDm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="9555cb84-e52f-479c-b7c3-5ed2c226939a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:07:36.223" UserId="177" Text="It was cool but now doesn't seem to work. .. 500 server error&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://cooljugator.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="9555cb84-e52f-479c-b7c3-5ed2c226939a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:07:36.223" UserId="177" Text="what is the best alternative to cooljugator? (online conjugator )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="9555cb84-e52f-479c-b7c3-5ed2c226939a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:07:36.223" UserId="177" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="6c8b3d1d-56cc-4faa-95d9-67bfc40dfad4" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:56:50.660" UserId="298" Text="#Подвижник&#xD;&#xA;В словаре Ефремовой определяется как&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Самоотверженный труженик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а в словаре Ожегова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек, героически принявший на себя тяжёлый труд или лишения ради&#xD;&#xA;&gt; достижения высокой цели&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример использования: *Подвижник науки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Поборник&#xD;&#xA;В словаре Ефремовой определяется так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ревностный защитник, сторонник кого-либо, чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в словаре Ожегова так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Защитник, сторонник чего-н.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример использования: *Поборник мира*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Вопрос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для меня эти слова очень близкие по смыслу. В чем разница между ними? Если возможно, мне был хотелось увидеть примеры, в которых можно использовать только одно из слов, но не оба, либо в которых одно из слов явно предпочтительнее другого." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="6c8b3d1d-56cc-4faa-95d9-67bfc40dfad4" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:56:50.660" UserId="298" Text="В чем разница между словами &quot;подвижник&quot; и &quot;поборник&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="6c8b3d1d-56cc-4faa-95d9-67bfc40dfad4" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:56:50.660" UserId="298" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="8c63bec2-2798-4125-a4cb-e56b7ae89109" CreationDate="2012-07-20T19:09:28.230" UserId="134" Text="*Подвижник* means an ascetic person, willing to abandon the joys of life for a greater purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Поборник* means &quot;a champion&quot;, like in &quot;a champion of justice&quot;, a person who fights for his beliefs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Подвижник* does not require an object, *поборник* does (*поборник справедливости, поборник правды*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вопрос же вовсе не в том; вопрос в том, может ли средний врач, ― не **подвижник**, а обыкновенный работник, ― прожить в деревне врачебным трудом. *[В. В. Вересаев. Записки врача (1895-1900)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он был вдохновенный оратор и рьяный **поборник** эмансипации в тяжелые времена сурового режима. *[Ф. И. Буслаев. Мои воспоминания (1897)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot switch the words in these examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2119" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="f9f2b34a-cf08-448e-b9c3-eb3e912e939a" CreationDate="2012-07-20T19:21:35.980" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="8120606d-3491-4817-ba09-cad47b69c96f" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:18:25.603" UserId="298" Text="Слово **эпатаж**, которое словари определяют как &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поведение, намеренно нарушающее общепринятые нормы и правила;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скандальная выходка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; встречается отностельно часто в речи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **эскапада** встречается значительно реже. Обозначает оно, судя по словарю, примерно то же самое, что и эпатаж:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экстравагантная выходка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чем разница между этими словами? И как определяться, выбирая между ними?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="8120606d-3491-4817-ba09-cad47b69c96f" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:18:25.603" UserId="298" Text="Разница между словами &quot;эскапада&quot; и &quot;эпатаж&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="8120606d-3491-4817-ba09-cad47b69c96f" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:18:25.603" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="0d0c5c4a-de20-4dc6-9a49-655f465164c7" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:23:37.940" UserId="298" Text="Не так давно я встретил новое для себя слово **амикошонство**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Словарь его определяет так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чрезмерная фамильярность, бесцеремонность в обращении под видом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дружеского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне это определение очень напомнило другое более распространенное слово: **панибратство**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его словари определяют так: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непочтительное, фамильярное обращение с тем, кто требует уважительного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отношения, со старшим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чем между ними оттеночная разница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="0d0c5c4a-de20-4dc6-9a49-655f465164c7" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:23:37.940" UserId="298" Text="Панибратство и амикошонство" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="0d0c5c4a-de20-4dc6-9a49-655f465164c7" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:23:37.940" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="572b70cf-0966-4783-8816-6a65742068f8" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:32:24.977" UserId="115" Text=" - `пересекать/пересечь` simply means &quot;to cross&quot; (a road, a square, a line, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - `засекать/засечь` is often used in `засекать/засечь время`, meaning &quot;to note the time&quot;, usually the beginning of some process to see how long it takes. `засекать/засечь` can also mean to detect something or to pinpoint the location of something (e. g. by triangulating on a radio source, or by using a radar).  Example: `Мы засекли неопознанный летающий объект` (We have detected a UFO)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="1a500a82-8dec-4763-b636-73254c2c0480" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:39:10.520" UserId="115" Text="It appears that `подвижник` works on something, whereas `поборник` fights for something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="e51226a8-898c-4ee8-be29-e55f20bba00c" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:39:30.643" UserId="298" Text="Is there a good synonym dictionary of Russian words like [The Penguin guide to synonyms and related word by S. I. Hayakawa](http://books.google.ru/books?id=wzEjAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=Modern+guide+to+synonyms+and+related+words&amp;dq=Modern+guide+to+synonyms+and+related+words&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l6UKVwNqeu&amp;sig=ZloDbvSo_jrLEUT13np2xhik5LQ&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=r8AJUOOYJqHZmAWE_LifCg&amp;ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA) (which is for English words)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because though ordinary defining dictionaries give explanations of the meaning of the words, the difference is not always clear from those definitions. A synonym dictionary would be a great tool to show the differences between words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="e51226a8-898c-4ee8-be29-e55f20bba00c" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:39:30.643" UserId="298" Text="Synonym dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="e51226a8-898c-4ee8-be29-e55f20bba00c" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:39:30.643" UserId="298" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="2677aa77-18ed-40ba-a022-8791cbff705b" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:41:14.180" UserId="57" Text="Basing on the quoted definitions alone, one could say `амикошонство` is when you're supposed to act like a friend to a person, but are abusing this right of yours, whereas `панибратство` is when you're not even supposed to appear like an equal to a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is a pure speculation of mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For you non-native speakers: you will *never* hear `амикошонство` from anyone in Russia, unless you're being told [a joke](http://www.anafor.ru/other/quoting.htm).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="1010e73b-1b0a-4ff6-a88c-a783ec8cea93" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:45:00.130" UserId="134" Text="The main meaning of *эпатаж* is intentionally scandalous behaviour. Its meaning of &quot;individual intentionally scandalous action&quot; is metonymic and quire rarely (if ever) used. It's almost never used in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Эскапада* can only mean an invividual shocking action, whose scandalousness is not necessarily intentional. It's synonymous with *выходка* (which is actually its Russian calque).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Пожалуйста, не принимайте за эпатаж то, что я беседую с вами в одном белье. *[Виктор Пелевин. Чапаев и пустота (1996)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Отсчет ведется поступков идиотских, безумных выходок и эскапад невероятных, короче, сплетен, домыслов, досужих разговоров, легенд и мифов. *[Сергей Солоух. Клуб одиноких сердец унтера Пришибеева (1991-1995)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="9832ef00-1e60-4483-9d62-b35d148c1dee" CreationDate="2012-07-20T20:48:15.747" UserId="57" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Basing on the quoted definitions alone, one could say `амикошонство` is when you're supposed to act like a friend to a person, but are abusing this right of yours (e.g. abusing your classmates while passing this off as friendly jokes), whereas `панибратство` is when you're not even supposed to appear like an equal to a person (e.g. you're greeting your teacher in a way you would greet your peer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is a pure speculation of mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For you non-native speakers: you will *never* hear `амикошонство` from anyone in Russia, unless you're being told [a joke](http://www.anafor.ru/other/quoting.htm).)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="d24b7870-0984-4f00-95f4-da36a62144af" CreationDate="2012-07-20T21:04:50.327" UserId="134" Text="*Панибратство* is a borrowing from Polish *panie bracie*, meaning &quot;Mr. brother&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Амикошонство* is a borrowing from French *ami cochon* which is a contraction of *amis comme cochons* (&quot;friends like pigs&quot;). This means &quot;friends so close that they can deny social norms in communication between them (and behave like pigs)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically, the two mean the same: undesired familiarity. However, the former is widely used, while the latter is perceived as a high-style, inkhorn word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="55d9e266-0954-4ee9-9d1e-095c65649661" CreationDate="2012-07-20T21:10:34.313" UserId="185" Text="The verb also has two meanings, which play around the idea that &quot;to cut&quot; is a certain mental action, like understanding, figuring out, noticing. The verbs are used in these meaning **only** in colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засечь** - to notice something (usually bad), to see someone doing something forbidden&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я засёк его рядом с твоим домом.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've seen him next to your place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я засёк его, когда он собирался отравить вино.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I saw him when he was going to poison the wine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**просечь** - to realize or to understand something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он быстро просёк, в чем дело.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He realized quickly, what it was about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;он не просекает юмор твоих шуток&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;he doesn't latch on to your jokes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="5efc7b57-b0aa-4c15-b140-44e54197410f" CreationDate="2012-07-20T21:11:12.177" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="*Подвижник* means an ascetic person, willing to abandon the joys of life for a greater purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Поборник* means &quot;a champion&quot;, like in &quot;a champion of justice&quot;, a person who fights for his beliefs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Подвижник* does not require an object, *поборник* does (*поборник справедливости, поборник правды*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вопрос же вовсе не в том; вопрос в том, может ли средний врач, ― не **подвижник**, а обыкновенный работник, ― прожить в деревне врачебным трудом. *[В. В. Вересаев. Записки врача (1895-1900)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он был вдохновенный оратор и рьяный **поборник** эмансипации в тяжелые времена сурового режима. *[Ф. И. Буслаев. Мои воспоминания (1897)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot swap the words in these examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="be2c5115-cd5e-49f1-b095-8d24293327ae" CreationDate="2012-07-20T21:24:42.540" UserId="185" Comment="added 561 characters in body" Text="The verb also has two meanings, which play around the idea that &quot;to cut&quot; is a certain mental action, like understanding, figuring out, noticing. The verbs are used in these meaning **only** in colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засечь** - to notice something (usually bad), to see someone doing something forbidden&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я засёк его рядом с твоим домом.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've seen him next to your place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я засёк его, когда он собирался отравить вино.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I saw him when he was going to poison the wine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**просечь** - to realize or to understand something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он быстро просёк, в чем дело.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He realized quickly, what it was about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;он не просекает юмор твоих шуток&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;he doesn't latch on to your jokes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**усечь** - to understand and to take a mental notice of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look the answer of StasM for the example of its most common use. It is a very rude expression. The verb is also marked as &quot;slang&quot; in &quot;Большой толковый словарь&quot; by Kuznetsov. Another example from this dictionary: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наконец кто-то усёк, что от него требуется.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Someone has finally got what they are required to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary suggests that *усечь* is used also in the same cases as *просечь* (to realize, to figure out, to latch on), but I cannot really say if it is so or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="896bf54c-4301-442c-9243-54b06d3f2b84" CreationDate="2012-07-20T22:08:10.847" UserId="298" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="Is there a good synonym dictionary of Russian words like [The Penguin guide to synonyms and related word by S. I. Hayakawa](http://books.google.ru/books?id=wzEjAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=Modern+guide+to+synonyms+and+related+words&amp;dq=Modern+guide+to+synonyms+and+related+words&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=l6UKVwNqeu&amp;sig=ZloDbvSo_jrLEUT13np2xhik5LQ&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=r8AJUOOYJqHZmAWE_LifCg&amp;ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA) (which is for English words)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because though ordinary defining dictionaries give explanations of the meaning of the words, the difference is not always clear from those definitions. A synonym dictionary would be a great tool to show the differences between words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;One example from &quot;The Penguin guide to synonyms and related word&quot;  to illustrate what kind of dictionary I mean:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mPkkM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="e132d004-73ef-4ef5-a565-2cc6fdf86cfb" CreationDate="2012-07-20T22:47:23.150" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma in such phrases as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да он самый, что ни на есть преступник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Математика - самая, что ни на есть точная наука." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="e132d004-73ef-4ef5-a565-2cc6fdf86cfb" CreationDate="2012-07-20T22:47:23.150" UserId="170" Text="Comma in &quot;самый что ни на есть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="e132d004-73ef-4ef5-a565-2cc6fdf86cfb" CreationDate="2012-07-20T22:47:23.150" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="4a1e45cf-448a-4979-b6c2-83772161aa95" CreationDate="2012-07-20T22:57:17.953" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="Try The *Russian Morphological Dictionary* by Zalizniak, e.g. [here](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?flags=eygtmnl). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two more cool and useful dictionaries there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="695" RevisionGUID="fb483453-f899-4cf1-aa4b-722ebc107827" CreationDate="2012-07-20T23:24:20.443" UserId="134" Text="No, you don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, Справочник по пунктуации, § 41. Цельные по смыслу выражения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запятыми не выделяются сочетания *кто ни на есть, что ни на&#xD;&#xA;есть, какой ни на есть* и т. п.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вы охотно допустите, чтоб кто ни на есть… собственноручно в вашей физиономии симметрию исправил. *(С.-Щ.)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Это была самая что ни на есть обыкновенная женщина. *(Эр.)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ...Я лучше погляжу, как вы работаете, — всё какой ни на есть опыт перейму. *(Е.М.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in your first sentence, the first comma may (or may not) be redundant as well, depending on the meaning of *да*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Да, он самый что ни на есть преступник // Yes, he's as criminal as they come.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Да он самый что ни на есть преступник. // But he's as criminal as they come." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="e0624fea-ee5d-4f7a-adbe-fe60186c2ada" CreationDate="2012-07-20T23:30:27.960" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="The main meaning of *эпатаж* is intentionally scandalous behaviour. Its meaning of &quot;individual intentionally scandalous action&quot; is metonymic and quire rarely (if ever) used. It's almost never used in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Эскапада* can only mean an individual shocking action, with its scandalousness not necessarily intentional. It's synonymous with *выходка* (which is actually its Russian calque).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Пожалуйста, не принимайте за эпатаж то, что я беседую с вами в одном белье. *[Виктор Пелевин. Чапаев и пустота (1996)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Отсчет ведется поступков идиотских, безумных выходок и эскапад невероятных, короче, сплетен, домыслов, досужих разговоров, легенд и мифов. *[Сергей Солоух. Клуб одиноких сердец унтера Пришибеева (1991-1995)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2146" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="da7ffafc-6585-472a-b309-1764bbabbef7" CreationDate="2012-07-21T02:34:38.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/226505433941176320" />
  <row Id="2148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="390331c6-2ce3-4760-a540-236e5947548e" CreationDate="2012-07-21T04:57:42.427" UserId="282" Text="I really appreciate your help people, it is hard to find help for these questions, even though they are easy to answer - still need the right forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for много людей, why is there a -ей at the end?  I assume it should be the plural of the masculine человек in genetive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry if my questions seem stupid, I'm just starting out - and these oddities I need rules for to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="390331c6-2ce3-4760-a540-236e5947548e" CreationDate="2012-07-21T04:57:42.427" UserId="282" Text="What is the rule for the ending to people in the phrase: много людей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="390331c6-2ce3-4760-a540-236e5947548e" CreationDate="2012-07-21T04:57:42.427" UserId="282" Text="|грамматика|падежи|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="95df3d27-0890-493f-b3ab-c2f5d48c2350" CreationDate="2012-07-21T08:11:20.413" UserId="134" Text="*Человек* is a suppletive word: its different forms are formed from different roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several pairs like that in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * человек / люди&#xD;&#xA;* ребёнок / дети&#xD;&#xA;* идти / шёл&#xD;&#xA;* лежать / класть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * go / went&#xD;&#xA;* bad / worse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language the proper singular for *люди* (*люд*) is only used synecdochally (meaning a group of people):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Пока в Риме правила династия Антонинов, простой люд не жаждал большего порядка в общественных делах. *[Сергей Смирнов. Конец серебряного века. Anno Domini 180 // «Знание -- сила», 2003]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proper plural for *человек* (*человеки*) may be only used ironically, exergastically (*все мы люди, все мы человеки*) or to imitate old speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Евангелисты придумали, евангелисты, смертные, как все человеки. *[Юрий Давыдов. Синие тюльпаны (1988-1989)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="dbaa81e2-93fb-456f-9262-23882a1351b8" CreationDate="2012-07-21T10:17:52.050" UserId="256" Text="While Russian is my first language, I've left Russia more than twenty years ago, and, at moments, I feel that I do not understand the modern usage of some words. For instance, I've only recently discovered the modern meaning of откат. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word that puzzled my today is пилигримка: I used to think that пилигримка is female of пилигрим (pilgrim). However, the following usage is rather puzzling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она называется даже oфициальнo &quot;всеoбщая пилигримка мoлoдежи всех дoрoг&quot;, как-тo так, хoтя пo кoнтингенту oна напoминает русскую радугу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моя любимая пилигримковая еда&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is пилигримка more of an activity (pilgrimage?) or location? How common is this usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="dbaa81e2-93fb-456f-9262-23882a1351b8" CreationDate="2012-07-21T10:17:52.050" UserId="256" Text="пилигримка - meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="dbaa81e2-93fb-456f-9262-23882a1351b8" CreationDate="2012-07-21T10:17:52.050" UserId="256" Text="|single-word-requests|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2155" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="d0f1fa40-3e95-4fc7-b5f6-7215ebdd5245" CreationDate="2012-07-21T11:34:38.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/226641329319469056" />
  <row Id="2156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="699" RevisionGUID="083d8ad6-a05c-4a6e-890e-5ae944ad8975" CreationDate="2012-07-21T11:59:20.953" UserId="134" Text="I think [the blog][1] your copied the first excerpt from explains it pretty well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пo-пoльски oнo - &quot;pielgrzymka&quot;. Этo палoмничествo. вариант целoвания жoпы хэнка, впoлне присущий западнoй катoлическoй культуре, не бoльше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a calque from the Polish word for pilgrimage (in its Roman Catholic meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, polonisms are quite common for terms specific to Roman Catholisicm in Russian: *костёл, ксёндз, отпуст, пробощ* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://paciferman.livejournal.com/820.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="b232d1d8-9216-4130-b482-4e3a685660c6" CreationDate="2012-07-21T19:58:10.250" UserId="71" Comment="removed unnecessary bullet point" Text="*Человек* is a suppletive word: its different forms are formed from different roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several pairs like that in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * человек / люди&#xD;&#xA;* ребёнок / дети&#xD;&#xA;* идти / шёл&#xD;&#xA;* лежать / класть  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * go / went&#xD;&#xA;* bad / worse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language the proper singular for *люди* (*люд*) is only used synecdochally (meaning a group of people):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока в Риме правила династия Антонинов, простой люд не жаждал большего порядка в общественных делах. *[Сергей Смирнов. Конец серебряного века. Anno Domini 180 // «Знание -- сила», 2003]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proper plural for *человек* (*человеки*) may be only used ironically, exergastically (*все мы люди, все мы человеки*) or to imitate old speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евангелисты придумали, евангелисты, смертные, как все человеки. *[Юрий Давыдов. Синие тюльпаны (1988-1989)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="b232d1d8-9216-4130-b482-4e3a685660c6" CreationDate="2012-07-21T19:58:10.250" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 134 edit id of 207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="6c3d2d4d-17de-49e2-8bc1-0a2e82911f1c" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:15:33.527" UserId="8" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I used to use http://cooljugator.com/ to quickly look up proper ways to conjugate Russian verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The site's been having some problems lately and wasn't accessible. What other resources can I use instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="6c3d2d4d-17de-49e2-8bc1-0a2e82911f1c" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:15:33.527" UserId="8" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What can I use to help me conjugate verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2163" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="6c3d2d4d-17de-49e2-8bc1-0a2e82911f1c" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:15:33.527" UserId="8" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|глаголы|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="2fba8a7a-2694-4157-8317-a138dc4f9590" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:16:09.580" UserId="71" Comment="removed unnecessary wording." Text="My question is about **много людей**, why is there a -ей at the end?  I assume it should be the plural of the masculine человек in genetive case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2165" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="2fba8a7a-2694-4157-8317-a138dc4f9590" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:16:09.580" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by -1 edit id of 206" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="d4135479-4e4f-4686-a288-7a0cc6c0dff4" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:16:09.580" UserId="8" Comment="removed unnecessary wording." Text="My question is about **много людей**. Why is there a -ей at the end? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it should be the plural of the masculine человек in genetive case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="a1b54bad-17f7-4aa0-9f46-59e479823904" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:51:39.600" UserId="170" Text="Do I need to place a singular or a plural verb after &quot;и..., и ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Россия, и Франция вxод(**и/я**)т во Всемирную Торговую Организацию." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="a1b54bad-17f7-4aa0-9f46-59e479823904" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:51:39.600" UserId="170" Text="singular or a plural verb after &quot;и..., и ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="a1b54bad-17f7-4aa0-9f46-59e479823904" CreationDate="2012-07-21T20:51:39.600" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="41f89a00-8c38-44d8-953b-de2f65707af0" CreationDate="2012-07-21T21:03:32.100" UserId="298" Text="You should use plural form of the verb here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Россия, и Франция вxод**ят** во Всемирную Торговую Организацию." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="702" RevisionGUID="b3cca9db-39fa-4efd-b964-49404f858308" CreationDate="2012-07-21T21:25:48.647" UserId="134" Text="You need a plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию, [§190. Согласование сказуемого с однородными подлежащими][1]*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При повторяющемся союзе сказуемое обычно ставится в форме множественного числа, например: *И тот и другой способны на это.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/64.htm#%D0%B7_08" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="5ce703e2-b2e9-416c-b926-b6776fda6279" CreationDate="2012-07-21T23:00:25.647" UserId="194" Text="Ruslan and Ludmila in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;http://public-library.narod.ru/Pushkin.Alexander/ruslan.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20060104082442re_/www.sunbirds.com/lacquer/readings/1015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other translations but this one seems the most readable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="9d5c18f1-94a8-442b-8df9-8858f44a3427" CreationDate="2012-07-22T10:32:56.123" UserId="97" Text="I am aware of one dictionary with the structure similar to the one requested.  It's _Новый объяснительный словарь синонимов русского языка_.  It doesn't contain a large number of synonyms, however it does a pretty good job explaining the differences within a set of synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have found it on the internet myself, I am sharing it via my web site.  However please note that I will remove it if requested so by copyright owners. [Here is the link](http://shchuka.com/hosting/russian_synonyms.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="700" RevisionGUID="6a06d3d0-aadd-4e2b-b961-0702500d2293" CreationDate="2012-07-22T11:34:39.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/227003723413614592" />
  <row Id="2175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="4e5a8a43-d8be-4eb7-821f-9387f7f136cc" CreationDate="2012-07-22T14:34:39.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/227049019795443712" />
  <row Id="2176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="af361c5c-d1ff-4859-8e73-8f0fd33c6aa6" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:01:55.277" UserId="298" Text="В чем отличние между данными словами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пуризм**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чрезмерное стремление к чистоте и строгости нравов (иногда показное). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Излишняя строгость в соблюдении каких-либо правил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чопорность**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от чопорный = Чрезмерно, неестественно строгий в поведении и в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обращении; крайне щепетильный в отношении соблюдения приличий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="af361c5c-d1ff-4859-8e73-8f0fd33c6aa6" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:01:55.277" UserId="298" Text="Чопорность и пуризм" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="af361c5c-d1ff-4859-8e73-8f0fd33c6aa6" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:01:55.277" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="6ea4aa41-5efb-4822-a763-097b6a8b81ec" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:10:49.340" UserId="298" Text="Не могу уловить тонкие отличия между следующими словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**люмпен**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Деклассированный слой людей (преступники, бродяги, нищие), а также&#xD;&#xA;&gt; человек, принадлежащий к такому слою.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**маргинал**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Тот, кто утратил прежние социальные связи, находится на периферии своей социальной среды, не приспособился к новым условиям жизни и не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеет устойчивого социального статуса; изгой. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Тот, кто находится на грани общества (бомжи, бездомные, безработные и т.п.) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**филистер**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек с узким, ограниченным умственным кругозором и ханжеским&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поведением; обыватель, мещанин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мещанин**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек с мелкими, сугубо личными интересами, с узким кругозором и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неразвитыми вкусами, безразличный к интересам общества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если разница между (люмпеном,маргиналом) и (филистером,мещанином) прослеживается из определений, то разница между люмпеном и маргиналом и между филистером и мещанином - не совсем очевидна.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="6ea4aa41-5efb-4822-a763-097b6a8b81ec" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:10:49.340" UserId="298" Text="Люмпен,маргинал, филистер и мещанин" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="6ea4aa41-5efb-4822-a763-097b6a8b81ec" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:10:49.340" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="3c16da32-b737-4811-8b3e-b40c8b8dacd7" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:19:27.350" UserId="298" Text="В чем разница в оттенках между словами? Когда какое нужно использовать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**фарисей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лицемер, ханжа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ханжа**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неискренний человек, прикрывающийся показной добродетельностью или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; набожностью; лицемер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**лицемер**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, кто прикрывает своё двуличие, неискренность и злонамеренность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; притворной добродетелью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**лицедей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, кто, притворяясь, рисуясь, старается казаться не тем и не таким,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кто и каков есть в действительности; притворщик, актёр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ипокрит**, *устаревшее*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ханжа, лицемер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="3c16da32-b737-4811-8b3e-b40c8b8dacd7" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:19:27.350" UserId="298" Text="Фарисей, ханжа, лицемер, лицедей, ипокрит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="3c16da32-b737-4811-8b3e-b40c8b8dacd7" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:19:27.350" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="ba7ee798-84b9-4dc5-b85b-d73078e42ed7" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:22:21.623" UserId="298" Text="Есть два русских слова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**невестка**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Замужняя женщина по отношению к родным её мужа: отцу, матери, братьям,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сестрам, женам братьев и мужьям сестер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и **сноха**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Женщина по отношению к отцу и матери её мужа, невестка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обычно всегда используют слово **невестка**. Как используется слово **сноха** и в чем его отличие от **невестки**?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="ba7ee798-84b9-4dc5-b85b-d73078e42ed7" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:22:21.623" UserId="298" Text="Невестка и сноха" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="ba7ee798-84b9-4dc5-b85b-d73078e42ed7" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:22:21.623" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="fb92eac5-a257-4038-99e3-cc07b447b23f" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:34:40.833" UserId="298" Text="Я стал встречать по-видимому новое слово **политота**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда я попросил объяснить мне его значение, мне его объяснили так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это школота, только в политике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это пролило некоторый свет на то, что оно значит, но полного понимания не дало.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что обозначает это слово? Можете привести какие-то примеры его использования, которые хорошо иллюстрируют его смысл?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="fb92eac5-a257-4038-99e3-cc07b447b23f" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:34:40.833" UserId="298" Text="Значение слова Политота" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="fb92eac5-a257-4038-99e3-cc07b447b23f" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:34:40.833" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="e1967975-c74e-4a73-bf99-4165271b5f2b" CreationDate="2012-07-22T15:39:13.357" UserId="298" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Есть два русских слова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**невестка**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Замужняя женщина по отношению к родным её мужа: отцу, матери, братьям,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сестрам, женам братьев и мужьям сестер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и **сноха**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Женщина по отношению к отцу и матери её мужа, невестка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По моим наблюдениям, обычно всегда используют слово **невестка**. Как используется слово **сноха** и в чем его отличие от **невестки**?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="36a58afc-3627-4137-ab76-538f0b22c9e8" CreationDate="2012-07-22T19:13:53.017" UserId="194" Text="Произошло от слова &quot;хуита&quot;, которое использовал один известный обозреватель компьютерных игр к играм, которые ему не нравились (почти все) и так часто, что слово стало узнаваемым. [Подробности.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Политота&quot; означает некий материал, который содержит политическое содержание или мнение, причем слово передает негативный смысл (как бы говоря, что тому, что использует это слово политика вообще не интересна).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="7eb3741b-c4b0-4d9d-981b-7b3034e59fae" CreationDate="2012-07-22T19:19:46.670" UserId="97" Text="In general, adding _-та_ to the end of a word root creates a word to describe, in a slightly (or not slightly) colloquial or even derogatory way a person or his state/actions represented by that root word.  From [a post here](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9C%D0%A2%D0%90#.D0.A7.D0.A2.D0.9E-.D0.A2.D0.9E.2B.D0.A2.D0.90):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, добрый, улыбающийся Номад — ДОБРОТА. Обдолбанный Номад —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; НАРКОТА. Номад в кепке и с фингалом под глазом — ГОПОТА. Умный, за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; размышлением — МУДРОТА, с лопатой — ЛОПАТА, насытившийся после пищи —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВКУСНОТА, после встречи с Петросяном — СМЕХОТА. И так далее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the specific word _политота_, in the same way, refers in a somewhat derogatory way to politicians and their meanderings that most regular people consider not much more than blabber or even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, @Anixx refers to the same post as I did in my answer, although I started writing my answer before he posted his." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="5c31bc51-38bf-4e61-8cec-b84058e178bf" CreationDate="2012-07-22T19:25:10.580" UserId="97" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="In general, adding _-та_ to the end of a word root creates a word to describe, in a slightly (or not slightly) colloquial or even derogatory way a person or his state/actions represented by that root word.  From [a post here](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9C%D0%A2%D0%90#.D0.A7.D0.A2.D0.9E-.D0.A2.D0.9E.2B.D0.A2.D0.90):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, добрый, улыбающийся Номад — ДОБРОТА. Обдолбанный Номад —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; НАРКОТА. Номад в кепке и с фингалом под глазом — ГОПОТА. Умный, за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; размышлением — МУДРОТА, с лопатой — ЛОПАТА, насытившийся после пищи —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВКУСНОТА, после встречи с Петросяном — СМЕХОТА. И так далее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the specific word _политота_, in the same way, refers in a somewhat derogatory way to politicians and their meanderings that most regular people consider not much more than blabber or even worse.  Additionally, the word may refer to a collection of other things containing references to such political &quot;stuff&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, @Anixx refers to the same post as I did in my answer, although I started writing my answer before he posted his." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="ba59342c-52a4-44e4-94e0-11381d9c62d4" CreationDate="2012-07-22T19:56:28.860" UserId="113" Text="Чопорность проявляется в поведении, а пуризм - в отношении, во взглядах. Есть пуристы в лингвистике, в программировании, хоть в боевых искусствах, это понятие можно применить почти к любой сфере деятельности, включая данный сайт. А чопорность касается именно поведения в обществе, это сродни заносчивости, излишней щепетильности. Пурист может вести себя чопорно, но это **совершенно** необязательно. Можно сказать, что чопорность это пуризм нравов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="269abc26-04cf-452e-b57d-4e23d74f96f1" CreationDate="2012-07-22T20:05:53.393" UserId="134" Text="As you yourself mentioned in your answer, *сноха* is a narrower term: it means daughter-in-law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To husband's father and mother a wife is both *невестка* and *сноха* (and some dictionaries even claim that she is a *сноха* only in respect to father-in-law, but not mother-in-law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To other inlaws (husband's siblings, their spouses; husband's grandparents etc) she is *невестка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two other kinship terms: *ятровь* and *сношенница*, whose usage varies from dialect to dialect. In some dialects, *ятровь* is a synonym for *невестка*; in others it's a stricter term, meaning &quot;brother-in-law's wife&quot;. Same for *сношенница*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="6de7c142-9ee0-4761-acbe-107f3ab6b986" CreationDate="2012-07-22T20:10:44.760" UserId="298" Comment="edited title" Text="Люмпен, маргинал, филистер и мещанин" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="bd364c7b-2d67-4016-b3dd-228470fe8783" CreationDate="2012-07-22T20:48:27.200" UserId="256" Text="Фарисей comes from the Bible (&quot;Фарисеи, увидев это, сказали Ему: вот, ученики Твои делают, чего не должно делать в субботу.&quot; - Матф 12:2) and as such sounds extremely bookish. Similarly, ипокрит is Greek and seems to be very infrequent. Национальный корпус русского языка gives only two examples for this word: Единственные честные ипокриты ― актеры. Хазлит [М. А. Чехов. О технике актера (1945)] and Тут описываются следующие изображения: 1) Жизнь истинного монаха; 2) Небесный путь спасения души; 3) Смерть лицемера (ипокрита); 4) Смерть праведника; 5) Смерть грешника; 6) Обманчивость времени земной жизни. [А. С. Уваров. Русская символика (1864-1874)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ханжа and лицемер are more common. Ханжество is always related to piousness, righteousness and (often sexual) mores ([&quot;сознат маскировке собств. неблаговидных желаний и поступков под заботу о нравств. чистоте и порядочности&quot;][1]), while лицемерие is a more general term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the first and foremost meaning of лицедей is actor, and while лицедей can be used as a synonym to лицемер, it seems to be not very common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://didacts.ru/dictionary/1041/word/hanzhestvo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="e97aa5fe-03ed-47b8-8ee6-57735142b76b" CreationDate="2012-07-22T22:16:58.723" UserId="242" Text="Люмпен is somewhat close to пролетарий with negative connotation. &#xD;&#xA;It is sorta of &quot;bad&quot; пролетарий or even &quot;деклассированный элемент&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Маргинал is wider. For example, панк can be considered маргинал, but not always he is a lumpen, any member of left/right extremist organization is a маргинал. Occupy movement can be called маргинальный, but is hardly люмпенский, since many of activists belong no intellectual elite (students, professors, artists etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Филистер/мещанин pair is quite alike in sense of this &quot;marxist/non-marxist&quot; differentiation. Мещанин in its first, historical sense is a representative of specific social class actually. Somewhat close to буржуа, but having much lower social status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it second sense, which is the main one nowadays, мещанин indeed means someone who just don't care about any kind of spiritual and social values, deeply selfish and narrow minded person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same about filister (which comes from филистимлянин in german). It believed that this word had been used by new time german students do describe...an average burger (a close relative of russian мещанин) who despises any kind of &quot;abstract&quot; intellectual activity, whether it would be, say, a literature, or archeology or whatever else you should study in the university. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very close to мещанин indeed. It's just that in russian it tend's to be slightly less social marked. Besides, it's is definitely more &quot;bookish&quot; term compared to мещанин :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="716" RevisionGUID="ed5bbdab-668f-4a17-84df-2c633f756d28" CreationDate="2012-07-23T05:45:05.420" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Погнали&quot; в значении перешли к какому-то совместному действию, скорее всего, но не обязательно, сопряжённому с физическим перемещением участников этого действия употребляется относительно редко и с относительно недавнего времени. В прозе 30-х гг. прошлого века, к примеру, таких примеров мало (и я буду благодарен за такую цитату в принципе).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, возможно, что слово встречается редко по причине схожей с той, по которой, например, слово &quot;охренеть&quot; не встречается на страницах классиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;погнали&quot; в смежном, переходном значении - пошли вместе куда-то (причём без внешнего принуждения), например, есть у Ивана Сергеевича Шмелёва в рассказе &quot;Небывалый обед&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затребовал льду корзину, дрова, чтобы без сучка, березовых... такой леестр прописал -- половины в Охотном не достали, к Андрееву погнали, на Тверскую. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё один намёк/подсказка на то, откуда слово погнали приобрело то значение, о котором вы спрашиваете, есть у Николая Алексеевича Некрасова. В поэме &quot;Кому на Руси жить хорошо&quot;. Вот описание охоты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоял помещик сам \ А там, в лесу, выжлятники \ Ревели, сорвиголовы, \&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Варили варом гончие. \ Чу! подзывает рог!.. \ Чу! стая воет!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сгрудилась \ Никак, по зверю красному \ Погнали?.. улю-лю!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть зверя гнали. И можно представить как один охотник говорит другому: &quot;Ну что, погнали?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="c329f34b-239d-4a41-942b-ea9c743249f6" CreationDate="2012-07-23T06:04:13.757" UserId="242" Text="There is a rare word &quot;ыкать&quot;, which actually means &quot;to pronounce words with Ы instead of И&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [quote][1] on a subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A long-standing dispute among linguists is whether Russian possesses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; five vowel phonemes or six; that is, scholars disagree as to whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ɨ] constitutes an allophone of /i/ or if there is an independent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phoneme /ɨ/. The five-vowel analysis, taken up by the Moscow school,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rests on the complementary distribution of [ɨ] and [i], with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; former occurring after hard (non-palatalized) consonants and [i]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The six-vowel view, held by the Saint-Petersburg (Leningrad) phonology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; school, points to several phenomena to make its case:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Native Russian speakers' ability to articulate [ɨ] in isolation (for example, in the names of respective letters, ⟨и⟩ and ⟨ы⟩)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rare instances of word-initial [ɨ] (including the minimal pair икать 'to produce the sound и' and ыкать 'to produce the sound ы'),[2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as well as names and toponyms, like Ыб [ɨp], the name of a river and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several villages in the Komi Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="3fe0ac56-db57-40d3-a03b-23a2523c2c62" CreationDate="2012-07-23T06:46:24.437" UserId="185" Comment="added 289 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="Хотел бы сверить с обществом собственные социокультурные соображения по поводу выражения *погнали* в значении *начали*. Откуда оно есть пошло?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример употребления глагола &quot;погнать&quot; в значении &quot;начать что-либо делать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда все актеры были готовы, а играющие в первой сцене заняли свои места, кто-то крикнул &quot;Ну, погнали!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глагол в таком значении употребляется только в разговорной речи и только в повелительном наклонении." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="fbc4a216-4463-4f51-9846-7115464c9df0" CreationDate="2012-07-23T11:14:53.567" UserId="134" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="As you yourself mentioned in your answer, *сноха* is a narrower term: it means daughter-in-law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To husband's father and mother a wife is both *невестка* and *сноха* (and some dictionaries even claim that she is a *сноха* only in respect to father-in-law, but not mother-in-law).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To other inlaws (husband's siblings, their spouses; husband's grandparents etc) she is *невестка* (but not *сноха*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two other kinship terms: *ятровь* and *сношенница*, whose usage varies from dialect to dialect. In some dialects, *ятровь* is a synonym for *невестка*; in others it's a stricter term, meaning &quot;brother-in-law's wife&quot;. Same for *сношенница*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="7d402c79-2494-4d9c-83bb-45d1ac34e7d2" CreationDate="2012-07-23T15:41:15.533" UserId="242" Text="The most informal way to say goodbye is &quot;Пока&quot;, cognate to italian &quot;ciao&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;До свидания&quot; is totally OK, and this is just like you use &quot;How are you&quot; greeting in english  - just a formal way to mark a specific situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More close to &quot;see you&quot; is &quot;увидимся&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This actually means that persons involved in conversation are saying goodbye to each other (попрощались друг с другом) and that they most probably will meet in nearest future. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="8e32b764-a471-4494-ae13-a06fb573b997" CreationDate="2012-07-23T15:52:40.480" UserId="242" Text="There exists so-called [МАПРЯЛ][1] - Международная Ассоциация Преподавателей Русского Языка и Литературы - this is the closest  institution of such kind I can recall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, Russian government is not doing it's best in promoting national culture as well as national language. Taking last 20 years, there is a stable decline of knowing russian as foreign language even in ex-USSR countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is nothing such influential and global like British Council or Goethe-Institut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mapryal.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2206" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="cddb106c-a641-4ee5-8edd-7fbfb33dfe47" CreationDate="2012-07-23T20:34:39.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/227502006175154177" />
  <row Id="2207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="d41c7b08-76c8-4189-83cb-6aefcfcb9104" CreationDate="2012-07-23T21:15:44.717" UserId="133" Comment="improved spelling a bit" Text="There exists the so-called [МАПРЯЛ][1] — Международная Ассоциация Преподавателей Русского Языка и Литературы — this is the closest institution of such kind I can recall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, the Russian government is not doing its best in promoting national culture as well as national language. Taking a look at the last 20 years, there is a stable decline of knowing Russian as a foreign language even in ex-USSR countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is no Russian equivalent that is as influential and global as the British Council or Goethe-Institut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mapryal.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2208" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="d41c7b08-76c8-4189-83cb-6aefcfcb9104" CreationDate="2012-07-23T21:15:44.717" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 71 edit id of 208" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="51a71010-a579-4825-9e20-edeb2c532356" CreationDate="2012-07-24T00:15:03.693" UserId="62" Text="When I was giving a lecture, I was saying бывает, что whenever I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that...&quot; (thinking of it as &quot;It happens that...&quot;), and afterwards someone told me that I should have said oказывется instead of бывает. So starting in the next lecture I used окзаывется, что.  Recently I noticed that people often seem to write or say оказывается, not just окзаывается, что.  Is it standard to omit что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a concrete example, if I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that this calculation works in general&quot;, would it be Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще or Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="51a71010-a579-4825-9e20-edeb2c532356" CreationDate="2012-07-24T00:15:03.693" UserId="62" Text="оказывается, что" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="51a71010-a579-4825-9e20-edeb2c532356" CreationDate="2012-07-24T00:15:03.693" UserId="62" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b4ee3f14-df6a-4807-b2bc-08af97eeb979" CreationDate="2012-07-24T01:09:57.163" UserId="282" Text="Just to get a sense of the subtle difference in meaning, can you give a couple examples of each in Russian, &#xD;&#xA;thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b4ee3f14-df6a-4807-b2bc-08af97eeb979" CreationDate="2012-07-24T01:09:57.163" UserId="282" Text="Examples using народ versus люди" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b4ee3f14-df6a-4807-b2bc-08af97eeb979" CreationDate="2012-07-24T01:09:57.163" UserId="282" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="0be20b32-3baf-4815-b19d-620bd14b5daa" CreationDate="2012-07-24T01:57:22.027" UserId="123" Text="In this concrete case, which I assume has to do with mathematics,  the most likely translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отсюда следует, что данный расчет применим в общем случае.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing to consider is that the whole phrase may be interpreted differently then a piece of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="19b4c3c2-c479-4c18-8cee-94167096bde7" CreationDate="2012-07-24T04:22:35.470" UserId="62" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="When I was giving a lecture, I was saying бывает, что whenever I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that...&quot; (thinking of it as &quot;It happens that...&quot;), and afterwards someone told me that I should have said oказывется instead of бывает. So starting in the next lecture I used окзаывется, что.  Recently I noticed that people often seem to write or say оказывается, not just окзаывается, что.  Is it standard to omit что? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two concrete examples. If I want to say &quot;It turns out that this calculation works in general&quot;, would it be Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще or Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще?  And if I want to say &quot;It turns out that this is the unique solution&quot;, would it be Оказывается, что это единственное решение or Оказывается, это единственное решение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="723" RevisionGUID="019ba446-131a-40d2-bbe7-ebcadd6f7e98" CreationDate="2012-07-24T06:24:30.327" UserId="47" Text="&gt; Россия — многонациональная страна, в ней живёт много разных *народов*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В эту комнату помещается много *людей*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В театре было мало *народа*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На собрание пришло не так много *людей*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more tough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вышел из *народа*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У ворот стал собираться трудовой *люд*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *народ* and *люди* can be used as synonyms in the slangish address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ (люди), может мне кто-нибудь помочь? Guys, can someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="27f43eda-f6b8-40cd-a632-68bf9a1560b3" CreationDate="2012-07-24T07:24:00.907" UserId="33" Text="«Оказывается» is used to convey “it turns out (that)”, it can also mean “it appears (that)”.&#xD;&#xA;«Бывает», or «случается» means “it happens”, or even “it may happen”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate “It turns out that this calculation works in general” as «Оказывается, что данный расчет применим в общем случае».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're right the second example “It turns out that this is the unique solution” translates «Оказывается, что это — единственное решение».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases you can omit the conjunction «что». In English “that” is omitted more often than in Russian. With the omitted «что», the importance of «оказывается» decreases, it could be considered *parenthetical word* with the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2219" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="a2c1e866-0ec8-4e62-bdd3-ddafb8786074" CreationDate="2012-07-24T08:34:39.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/227683197650092034" />
  <row Id="2220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="d776ee1e-8066-46e4-a5f7-e71404f00b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-24T09:01:36.523" UserId="119" Comment="linked to the answer covering the alternate view" Text="Rather than trying to compile a list of proper nouns and load-words with initial **Ы**, I'll try to present a more linguistical view on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels /ы/ and /и/ are in the complementary distribution in the Russian language. Moscow Phonological School even asserted that /ы/ and /и/ are actually one phoneme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку в русском языке, по мнению сторонников МФШ, отсутствуют фонетические положения, в которых встречались бы и звук [и], и [ы], то есть присутствие в некоторой позиции одного из этих звуков исключает возможность присутствия в ней другого, последователями школы делается вывод о том, что [и] и [ы] являются разновидностями одной фонемы: [ы] представляет собой вариацию фонемы &lt;и&gt;, обусловленную положением после твёрдого согласного. Таким образом, в парах, подобных _мыл_ — _мил_, единственное фонемное различие состоит в мягкости или твёрдости согласного, а не в гласных фонемах. — [Московская фонологическая школа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0#.D0.93.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if there are no minimal pairs on /ы/—/и/, the phonetic difference between these vowels is merely the assimilation of the preceding consonant: /ы/ follow hard consonants, /и/ follows soft (palatalized) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, with no preceding consonant, only one of the variants can appear. Naturally, it's /и/, and /ы/ should thus be considered an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an alternate view (of Leningrad Phonological School), see [shabunc's answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/717/119).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in loanwords coming from languages where /ы/ _is_ a phoneme (take Kazakh, for example), the initial /ы/ is kept for the sake of transcription (same thing as **Ю** in _парашют_ ‘parachute’ to better render the French /y/ vowel, even though _-шю-_ is impossible in Russian words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="2c573208-1bf3-4508-9ef4-7186763ec94b" CreationDate="2012-07-24T09:08:15.037" UserId="119" Comment="formatting, stresses" Text="There is a rare word _ы́кать_, which actually means ‘to pronounce words with Ы instead of И’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [quote][1] on a subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A long-standing dispute among linguists is whether Russian possesses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; five vowel phonemes or six; that is, scholars disagree as to whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ɨ] constitutes an allophone of /i/ or if there is an independent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phoneme /ɨ/. The five-vowel analysis, taken up by the Moscow school,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rests on the complementary distribution of [ɨ] and [i], with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; former occurring after hard (non-palatalized) consonants and [i]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The six-vowel view, held by the Saint-Petersburg (Leningrad) phonology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; school, points to several phenomena to make its case:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Native Russian speakers' ability to articulate [ɨ] in isolation (for example, in the names of respective letters, ⟨и⟩ and ⟨ы⟩)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rare instances of word-initial [ɨ] (including the minimal pair _и́кать_ ‘to produce the sound и’ and _ы́кать_ ‘to produce the sound ы’),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as well as names and toponyms, like _Ыб_ [ɨp], the name of a river and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several villages in the Komi Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2222" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="2c573208-1bf3-4508-9ef4-7186763ec94b" CreationDate="2012-07-24T09:08:15.037" Comment="Proposed by 119 approved by 185 edit id of 209" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="c84585ad-d001-44ee-a2a3-4be833843fc2" CreationDate="2012-07-24T09:12:45.623" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="What are the differences in usage between народ and люди? I'd like to see some examples to explain such differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="2844acb5-65a8-479f-87b1-a43c43cd15af" CreationDate="2012-07-24T11:33:26.210" UserId="185" Comment="improved formatting, added one tag" Text="What are the differences in usage between *народ* and *люди*? I'd like to see some examples to explain such differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2225" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="2844acb5-65a8-479f-87b1-a43c43cd15af" CreationDate="2012-07-24T11:33:26.210" UserId="185" Comment="improved formatting, added one tag" Text="Examples using &quot;народ&quot; versus &quot;люди&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2226" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="2844acb5-65a8-479f-87b1-a43c43cd15af" CreationDate="2012-07-24T11:33:26.210" UserId="185" Comment="improved formatting, added one tag" Text="|лексикон|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="c78150e1-9a2f-400c-a181-cdd767732633" CreationDate="2012-07-24T12:08:26.380" UserId="185" Comment="Added an example that shows what role cases may have." Text="Covers questions about different cases. Case is a morphological category of nouns and adjectives that signals their relation to other words in a sentence. For example, words &quot;одна машина&quot; in &quot;Одна машина остановилась перед другой машиной&quot; are in nominative case and signal that &quot;одна машина&quot; is the subject of &quot;остановилась&quot;; &quot;другой машиной&quot; is in instrumental case and signals that this word is in certain relation to preposition &quot;перед&quot;. Both &quot;машина&quot; and &quot;машиной&quot; are forms of the same word (same entry in a dictionary)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="6ff9d16a-5370-4d0c-850b-7ff4e3127d0c" CreationDate="2012-07-24T12:35:10.550" UserId="115" Text="*Люди* is simply the plural of *человек*, and it means *people* in the sense of &quot;more than one person&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Народ* has several meanings. It can mean exactly the same as люди.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В комнате было много людей.&#xD;&#xA;    В комнате было много народа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Народ* can mean a nation or an ethnic group (i. e. *a people*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Русский народ. &#xD;&#xA;    Украинский народ.&#xD;&#xA;    Международная конференция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean the regular citizens, the working people, the lower classes, as opposed to the ruling elite or the aristocracy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он вышел из народа.&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Узок круг этих революционеров. Страшно далеки они от народа.&quot; (В. И. Ленин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="7e474fa2-4cc0-45ac-9365-8480b41e5273" CreationDate="2012-07-24T12:50:10.733" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="*Люди* is simply the plural of *человек*, and it means *people* in the sense of &quot;more than one person&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Народ* has several meanings. It can mean exactly the same as люди.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнате было много людей.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнате было много народа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Народ* can mean a nation or an ethnic group (i. e. *a people*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский народ.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Украинский народ.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Международная конференция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean the regular citizens, the working people, the lower classes, as opposed to the ruling elite or the aristocracy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вышел из народа.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Узок круг этих революционеров. Страшно далеки они от народа.&quot; (В. И. Ленин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="701b8af9-5fb2-47fe-9a39-25f169f9e121" CreationDate="2012-07-24T12:58:46.073" UserId="185" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="89ead9ad-586f-4797-9168-e78c3f330bb3" CreationDate="2012-07-24T12:58:46.073" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Covers questions about synonyms, or words that mean approximately the same. For example, it might include questions like &quot;Is X a high registry synonym for Y?&quot;, or &quot;Do X and Y mean the same thing?&quot;, or &quot;Can I use Y instead of X in this context?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="1b4f8d03-eebc-4d79-bc7b-2fd10d2a97ea" CreationDate="2012-07-24T13:48:32.410" UserId="185" Comment="Added more examples and an explanation about words that are similar to numerals, but actually are adjectives or nouns." Text="Covers questions about numerals. Numerals are a class of words (a part of speech) that denote quantity or number like &quot;три&quot; or &quot;трое&quot;. Words that denote order (&quot;первый&quot;, &quot;второй&quot;, &quot;третий&quot; и т.д.) behave like adjectives, and words like &quot;миллион&quot; behave like nouns; questions about them should be tagged accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="2f6cd8e8-1368-4ed1-8f5c-abd63eedea1c" CreationDate="2012-07-24T14:01:35.370" UserId="185" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="For questions about grammatical gender of Russian nouns or general questions about gendered words in Russian, including appropriate translation equivalents of foreign words from languages that don't have the category of gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="885e9151-e1ce-42cd-9c56-3591c3ecf70c" CreationDate="2012-07-24T17:32:34.127" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, improved formatting, corrected spelling." Text="When I was giving a lecture, I was saying *бывает, что* whenever I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that...&quot; (thinking of it as &quot;It happens that...&quot;), and afterwards someone told me that I should have said *oказывается* instead of *бывает*. So starting in the next lecture I used *оказывается, что*.  Recently I noticed that people often seem to write or say *оказывается*, not just *оказывается, что*.  Is it standard to omit *что*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two concrete examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. If I want to say &quot;It turns out that this calculation works in general&quot;, which of the following two variants would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2. And if I want to say &quot;It turns out that this is the unique solution&quot;, which of the following two would it be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это единственное решение.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это единственное решение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2235" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="885e9151-e1ce-42cd-9c56-3591c3ecf70c" CreationDate="2012-07-24T17:32:34.127" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, improved formatting, corrected spelling." Text="Is it standard to omit &quot;что&quot; in &quot;оказывается, что&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2236" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="885e9151-e1ce-42cd-9c56-3591c3ecf70c" CreationDate="2012-07-24T17:32:34.127" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, improved formatting, corrected spelling." Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="4a8aca30-cba9-4936-b558-ac2320462c6f" CreationDate="2012-07-24T19:05:24.007" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="Maybe you should take a look at [Russian Language Abroad][1] (`Русский язык за рубежом`) magazine. [Russkiy Mir Foundation][2] (`Фонд &quot;Русский мир&quot;`) is a good source, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianedu.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="33c13d64-5845-47d8-ba57-3b667947ebab" CreationDate="2012-07-24T19:13:16.573" UserId="134" Text="In Russian, *народ* means both &quot;people&quot; and &quot;nation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word itself looks like a calque from Latin *natio* (&quot;that which has been born&quot;), and Vasmer mentions a dialectal usage &quot;a mob, a herd of cattle&quot;. Probably the two have been formed independently (to mean &quot;nation&quot; and &quot;people&quot; accordingly), and later merged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duke Vyazemsky, a contemporary to Pushkin, mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всякий грамотный человек знает, что слово *национальный* не существует в нашем языке; что у нас слово *народный* отвечает одно двум французским словам: *populaire* и *national*, что мы говорим: *песни народные* и *дух народный* там, где французы сказали бы: *chanson populaire* и *esprit national*. *[Дамский журн., 1824, 6, № 8]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the meaning of &quot;people&quot;, *народ* is pretty synonymous to *люди*, &quot;men and women&quot; (or its synecdoche *люд*), when the context assumes &quot;group of people&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе на эстраде выступать надо, народ веселить. *[Я желанна. Разве это стыдно? // «Даша», 2004]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри, держись хорошо, ― сказал он вдруг серьёзно, ― мужчины ― народ хитрый и не говорят того, что думают. *[Э. Г. Казакевич. Звезда (1946)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples above, you can replace *народ* with *люди*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the context assumes individuals (as opposed to &quot;group of people&quot;) then you can only use *люди*:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; А я хочу сказать, что люди в наше время разучились любить. *[А. И. Куприн. Гранатовый браслет (1911)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Я всегда говорила, что у всех людей есть родители, кроме меня. *[Н. А. Тэффи. Семейный аккорд (1910)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безобразные сцены происходили между этими людьми, которые в течение десяти лет избегали резкого выражения, резкого движения. *[В. Я. Брюсов. Через пятнадцать лет (1909)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples above, you cannot use *народ*: the subject assumes individuals, not the groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *народ* may also mean &quot;nation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют индоевропейские языки и существуют народы, говорящие на этих языках. [Н. С. Трубецкой. *Мысли об индоевропейской проблеме (1938)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы, русские, в первый раз празднуем нынешнюю годовщину; но и другие народы Европы не могут похвастаться перед нами в этом отношении. *[И. С. Тургенев. Речь о Шекспире (1864)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пытался разгадать душу России и русского народа и написал ряд этюдов в этом направлении. *[Н. А. Бердяев. Автобиография (1917)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this meaning (unlike the previous) *народ* may be used in plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2239" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="b7c08c5c-a2a7-438f-bbf5-32557d258578" CreationDate="2012-07-24T19:29:55.930" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a word that starts with &quot;ы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="0750f51d-45c7-4633-8ae9-84ffb1ebd2f3" CreationDate="2012-07-25T03:40:12.137" UserId="222" Text="Both sentences &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще” and&#xD;&#xA;     “Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have exactly the same meaning. However, I think they are grammatically different. In the first sentence, “оказывается” is the main clause and “что это вычисление работает вообще” is a subordinate clause (_придаточное предложение_); whereas, in the second sentence, “оказывается” is a stance marker/“вводное слово”. Because of that you can say, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Это вычисление, оказывается, работает вообще.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Это вычисление, оказывается что, работает вообще.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several similar examples in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Я думаю, что этот ряд расходится” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Я думаю, этот ряд расходится” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Этот ряд, я думаю, расходится” &#xD;&#xA;     (but not “Этот ряд, я думаю что, расходится”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Я полагаю, что нам следует перейти к следующему вопросу” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Я полагаю, нам следует перейти к следующему вопросу” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Нам следует, я полагаю, перейти к следующему вопросу”&#xD;&#xA;     (but not “Нам следует, я полагаю что, перейти к следующему вопросу”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW, the word “вообще” doesn't sound right in your sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="922da808-a82f-4b29-9f7f-6f9816c9cb22" CreationDate="2012-07-25T04:01:35.990" UserId="222" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="Both sentences &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще” and&#xD;&#xA;     “Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have exactly the same meaning. However, I think they are grammatically different. In the first sentence, “оказывается” is the main clause and “что это вычисление работает вообще” is a subordinate clause (_придаточное предложение_); whereas, in the second sentence, “оказывается” is a stance marker/“вводное слово”. Because of that you can say, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Это вычисление, оказывается, работает вообще.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Это вычисление, оказывается что, работает вообще.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several similar examples in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Я думаю, что этот ряд расходится” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Я думаю, этот ряд расходится” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Этот ряд, я думаю, расходится” &#xD;&#xA;     (but not “Этот ряд, я думаю что, расходится”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Я полагаю, что нам следует перейти к следующему вопросу” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Я полагаю, нам следует перейти к следующему вопросу” or&#xD;&#xA;     “Нам следует, я полагаю, перейти к следующему вопросу”&#xD;&#xA;     (but not “Нам следует, я полагаю что, перейти к следующему вопросу”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, words “вообще” and “работает” don't sound right in your sentence. In my opinion, it's better to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Это вычисление, оказывается, проходит в общем случае.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you present a computation for a special case and then want to say that it works in general, it's better to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     “Это вычисление, оказывается, проходит и в общем случае.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="9aadb08c-803a-4a40-9497-21affb101da1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T05:32:49.613" UserId="170" Text="Do I always need to put a hyphen in &quot;по-английски&quot; or there are some rules telling us when I should and when I should not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="9aadb08c-803a-4a40-9497-21affb101da1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T05:32:49.613" UserId="170" Text="A hyphen in &quot;по-английски&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="9aadb08c-803a-4a40-9497-21affb101da1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T05:32:49.613" UserId="170" Text="|punctuation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2245" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="a4e8aca0-5e18-4a79-a451-34919046e055" CreationDate="2012-07-25T05:34:40.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228000291788828672" />
  <row Id="2246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="731" RevisionGUID="51808aa2-3c6a-4fe0-908d-aa32ff8fcada" CreationDate="2012-07-25T05:50:07.653" UserId="307" Text="In the way you spelled the word, meaning &quot;in English language&quot; – always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will not put a hyphen in a somewhat similar wording when the meaning would be different. E.g. &quot;по английскому обычаю&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="c3e30ca6-1590-4283-9501-27b4f978b613" CreationDate="2012-07-25T08:26:10.557" UserId="185" Text="&quot;по-английски&quot; is an adverb that is formed from a full-formed adjective &quot;английский&quot; and that ends with &quot;ки&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules of Russian spelling ([Rosental, D.E.][1]), such adverbs are written with a hyphen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Paragraph 57, part 1**: Пишутся через дефис наречия с приставкой **по-**, образованные от полных прилагательных и местоимений и оканчивающиеся на **-ому**, **-ему**, **-ки**, **-ьи**, например: работать по-новому, пусть будет по-вашему, советовать по-дружески, говорить по-французски, хитрить по-лисьи, по-видимому, по-пустому, по-прежнему. Также: сделаем по-серёжиному (от притяжательного прилагательного серёжин, образованного от собственного имени Серёжа). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;по-английски&quot; is always an adverb, because no adjective can have ending *и* in dative case with which preposition *по* is used. That means that **&quot;по-английски&quot; is always written with a hyphen**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rosental.virtbox.ru/ortho_xiv.html#sect57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="79736b18-094c-4ed9-ab69-42b62be66f0c" CreationDate="2012-07-25T08:32:43.127" UserId="185" Comment="added 501 characters in body; added 70 characters in body; edited body" Text="&quot;По-английски&quot; is an adverb that is formed from a full-formed adjective &quot;английский&quot; and that ends with &quot;ки&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules of Russian spelling ([Rosental, D.E.][1]), such adverbs are written with a hyphen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Paragraph 57, part 1**: Пишутся через дефис наречия с приставкой **по-**, образованные от полных прилагательных и местоимений и оканчивающиеся на **-ому**, **-ему**, **-ки**, **-ьи**, например: *работать по-новому*, *пусть будет по-вашему*, *советовать по-дружески*, *говорить по-французски*, *хитрить по-лисьи*, *по-видимому*, *по-пустому*, *по-прежнему*. Также: *сделаем по-серёжиному* (от притяжательного прилагательного *серёжин*, образованного от собственного имени *Серёжа*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Adverbs with prefix **по-** and endings **-ому**, **-ему**, **-ки**, **-ьи** that are derived from a full-formed adjectives and pronouns are written with a hyphen. For example: *работать по-новому*, *пусть будет по-вашему*, *советовать по-дружески*, *говорить по-французски*, *хитрить по-лисьи*, *по-видимому*, *по-пустому*, *по-прежнему*. Also: *сделаем по-серёжиному* (derived from a possessive adjective *серёжин*, which stems from proper name *Серёжа*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;по-английски&quot; is always an adverb. It cannot be seen as a combination of a preposition and an adjective, because no adjective can have ending *и* in dative case with which preposition *по* is used. That means that **&quot;по-английски&quot; is always written with a hyphen**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rosental.virtbox.ru/ortho_xiv.html#sect57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="b6597c27-1081-48d1-a7e9-724332cf6d93" CreationDate="2012-07-25T08:38:07.367" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags (a hyphen is a part of the word, thus it belongs to the realm of orthography, not punctuation)" Text="Do I always need to put a hyphen in &quot;по-английски&quot; or are there some rules telling us when I should and when I should not do so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="b6597c27-1081-48d1-a7e9-724332cf6d93" CreationDate="2012-07-25T08:38:07.367" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags (a hyphen is a part of the word, thus it belongs to the realm of orthography, not punctuation)" Text="|правописание|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="b43da96f-88fa-492e-8fd5-0c78e8c33af6" CreationDate="2012-07-25T08:38:33.887" UserId="185" Comment="added 1 characters in body; deleted 417 characters in body" Text="&quot;По-английски&quot; is an adverb that is derived from a full-formed adjective &quot;английский&quot; and that ends with &quot;ки&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules of Russian spelling ([Rosental, D.E.][1]), such adverbs are written with a hyphen. You can find the original rule down the link, and here is its translation into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Adverbs with prefix **по-** and endings **-ому**, **-ему**, **-ки**, **-ьи** that are derived from a full-formed adjectives and pronouns are written with a hyphen. For example: *работать по-новому*, *пусть будет по-вашему*, *советовать по-дружески*, *говорить по-французски*, *хитрить по-лисьи*, *по-видимому*, *по-пустому*, *по-прежнему*. Also: *сделаем по-серёжиному* (derived from a possessive adjective *серёжин*, which stems from proper name *Серёжа*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;по-английски&quot; is always an adverb. It cannot be seen as a combination of a preposition and an adjective, because no adjective can have ending *и* in dative case with which preposition *по* is used. That means that **&quot;по-английски&quot; is always written with a hyphen**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rosental.virtbox.ru/ortho_xiv.html#sect57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="8b36b975-16ed-4892-ac4d-2edd7cf3f776" CreationDate="2012-07-25T08:49:12.083" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&quot;По-английски&quot; is an adverb that is derived from a full-formed adjective &quot;английский&quot; and that ends with &quot;ки&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules of Russian spelling ([Rosental, D.E.][1]), such adverbs are written with a hyphen. You can find the original rule down the link, and here is its translation into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Adverbs with prefix **по-** and endings **-ому**, **-ему**, **-ки**, **-ьи** that are derived from a full-formed adjectives or pronouns are written with a hyphen. For example: *работать по-новому*, *пусть будет по-вашему*, *советовать по-дружески*, *говорить по-французски*, *хитрить по-лисьи*, *по-видимому*, *по-пустому*, *по-прежнему*. Also: *сделаем по-серёжиному* (derived from a possessive adjective *серёжин*, which stems from proper name *Серёжа*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;по-английски&quot; is always an adverb. It cannot be seen as a combination of a preposition and an adjective, because no adjective can have ending *и* in dative case with which preposition *по* is used. That means that **&quot;по-английски&quot; is always written with a hyphen**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rosental.virtbox.ru/ortho_xiv.html#sect57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2253" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="2667e9d8-c0f8-49ed-927d-22792bfbfc41" CreationDate="2012-07-25T09:21:53.883" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2254" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="87e1c409-af41-4ce5-9b93-8b0438265b2b" CreationDate="2012-07-25T09:22:09.093" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2255" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="fad3ae83-d65a-4abd-8dff-8392b034fb8a" CreationDate="2012-07-25T09:22:41.387" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2256" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="656183a3-f5ea-4ae6-a2be-1f6620941ead" CreationDate="2012-07-25T09:35:53.463" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2257" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="9322a6e7-362e-4a1c-bc5b-ca853d89cd85" CreationDate="2012-07-25T09:36:02.760" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="3fdaa941-bc86-4035-b0c5-aed509bbfff7" CreationDate="2012-07-25T09:45:13.697" UserId="170" Comment="wikipedia defines hyphen as a punctuation mark, so I re-added the punctuation tag" Text="|правописание|punctuation|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="70e9116f-b411-4c40-9fff-4681067150cb" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:20:25.947" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma here before the second &quot;да&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да и среди нас нет-нет да найдутся неверующие в акцидентное&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пресуществление." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="70e9116f-b411-4c40-9fff-4681067150cb" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:20:25.947" UserId="170" Text="Comma in &quot;нет-нет да найдутся&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="70e9116f-b411-4c40-9fff-4681067150cb" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:20:25.947" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="301d4a75-2161-46e2-9f57-00aea6810282" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:21:56.460" UserId="33" Comment="The second example is part of the 2 item." Text="When I was giving a lecture, I was saying *бывает, что* whenever I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that...&quot; (thinking of it as &quot;It happens that...&quot;), and afterwards someone told me that I should have said *oказывается* instead of *бывает*. So starting in the next lecture I used *оказывается, что*.  Recently I noticed that people often seem to write or say *оказывается*, not just *оказывается, что*.  Is it standard to omit *что*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two concrete examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. If I want to say &quot;It turns out that this calculation works in general&quot;, which of the following two variants would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2. And if I want to say &quot;It turns out that this is the unique solution&quot;, which of the following two would it be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это единственное решение.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это единственное решение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2263" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="301d4a75-2161-46e2-9f57-00aea6810282" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:21:56.460" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 134 edit id of 210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2264" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="938b791d-fa8d-4f16-b97b-8afd9286197d" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:34:39.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228090887429820416" />
  <row Id="2265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="21681c69-6712-499b-8c05-bf6489361dbd" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:39:29.267" UserId="307" Text="I think you do not need it.&#xD;&#xA;The only source I can give right now is from [gramota.ru][1].&#xD;&#xA;Source says that it is an unbroken expression and provides a couple examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'll find some rule in a more proper source, I'll edit the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/58_487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="300095d2-feb6-48cf-b205-2ae1d33f9f9a" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:46:18.130" UserId="242" Text="запятая не ставится: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - перед сочетанием `да и`, имеющим соединительное значение (думал да и надумал)  &#xD;&#xA; - в выражении `нет-нет да и`&#xD;&#xA; - в сочетании глаголов типа `взял да и приехал`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[here is the link][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so you actually don't need comma here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=238#pg238" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="bc72c424-bbbc-4d8c-beff-71ef8e044df1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T11:48:04.637" UserId="307" Comment="Expanded with additional source" Text="I think you do not need it.&#xD;&#xA;First source I found is from [gramota.ru][1].&#xD;&#xA;It says that it is an unbroken expression and provides a couple examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rozental's reference §96][2] (point 1, note в) states the same. However, both of the sources require you to have a *да и*, not just *да* in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think I ever heard this expression without the *и*, but I also can't say it's mandatory. Maybe someone else can comment or edit me about the requirement of the *и*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/58_487&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/46.htm#%D0%B7_03" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="6da6525e-a130-4676-993f-fe76c27cc7a3" CreationDate="2012-07-25T16:35:52.957" UserId="185" Comment="Added more details to the question, made it more concrete (before starting a bounty)" Text="Is there a standard Russian pronunciation, and if yes, what are its most important features, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- quality of vowel reduction ([о], [е], and maybe other vowels in unstressed positions);&#xD;&#xA;- pronunciation of &quot;e&quot; that stems from &quot;ять&quot; (as in хлеб);&#xD;&#xA;- consonant palatalization and assimilation (дождь: [дош':] vs. [дош'т'] vs. [дошт'], клизма: [кл'из'мъ] vs. [кл'измъ]);&#xD;&#xA;- pronunciation of [г], [р], [в];&#xD;&#xA;- stress in present verbs 3rd sg (звонит) and in plural nouns (торты).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there only a bunch of accents, different for different parts of the country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that there was once a standard way to pronounce words. All Soviet actors were supposed to learn to pronounce endings of some adjectives without palatalization. For example, they would say стро[гы]й, not стро[г'и]й. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there a pronunciation norm now? Or is there only a bunch of accents, different for different parts of the country?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2269" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="4fabc5aa-10ce-41f8-8acc-fdc714fcce65" CreationDate="2012-07-25T16:37:58.867" UserId="185" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="dec38053-dfe9-4c74-8ac4-51de71962a28" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:02:29.953" UserId="185" Text="**Are the following phrases equally acceptable?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;a. Он взял автобус в заложники.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. Он взял весь автобус в заложники.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;a. Он съел тарелку.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. Он съел всю тарелку.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;a. Он договорился с домом.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;b. Он договорился со всем домом.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have a follow-up question. **If examples are not equally acceptable, why is it?** Is it the quantifier *весь* that somehow changes the meaning of the noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The follow-up question probably cannot be answered by merely referring to a credible source of information and requires some subjective explanation. I think that it is a normal situation when one talks about the theory of meaning. It would be nice, though, if a subjective explanation would work for all examples.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="dec38053-dfe9-4c74-8ac4-51de71962a28" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:02:29.953" UserId="185" Text="Do quatification adjectives have any effect on metonymy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="dec38053-dfe9-4c74-8ac4-51de71962a28" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:02:29.953" UserId="185" Text="|прилагательные|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2273" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="01d587ee-141c-492b-b167-c7d7dcd93700" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:06:46.627" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="c940572f-f0c4-4377-b67d-b20a5c867382" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:34:40.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228181485084094464" />
  <row Id="2275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="99ec2405-9792-4b85-add8-14c1481f7ca7" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:48:44.763" UserId="134" Text="If the context allows to tell apart metonymy and direct meaning unequivocally, then the quantification adjectives are not necessary. This is the case for all your examples: you can't really take a vehicle hostage, eat a utensil or negotiate with a building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the context does not allow such distinction, then an adjective would be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он воровал у фирмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он воровал у всей фирмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence suggest that the subject stole from the company, while the second suggests he stole from its employees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="5305bf37-da4f-400e-a9ce-732091e427cf" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:57:54.180" UserId="134" Comment="added 325 characters in body; added 1 characters in body" Text="If the context allows to tell apart metonymy and direct meaning unequivocally, then the quantification adjectives are not necessary. This is the case for all your examples: you can't really take a vehicle hostage, eat a utensil or negotiate with a building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the context does not allow such distinction, then an adjective would be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он воровал у фирмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он воровал у всей фирмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence suggests that the subject stole from the company, while the second suggests he stole from its employees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your third example (*договорился с домом*), however, might be confusing in some contexts, as  it's not clear whether the subject settled his matters with the house management or its inhabitants. A quantification adjective here would help to clarify the metonymy (container instead of contents or whole instead of a part)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="ef93a0e8-a228-4906-83ca-e8f0cc5d5b93" CreationDate="2012-07-25T18:08:29.223" UserId="309" Text="@Quassnoi gave an excellent answer, there in nothing to add there in general. As for you examples, to make it completely clear to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a. Он взял автобус в заложники.&#xD;&#xA;The fact was that people in the bus became hostages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    b. Он взял весь автобус в заложники.&#xD;&#xA;People in the bus became hostages. We emphasize on the fact that nobody has escaped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a. Он съел тарелку.&#xD;&#xA;He has eaten a dish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    b. Он съел всю тарелку.&#xD;&#xA;Nothing left on the plate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    a. Он договорился с домом.&#xD;&#xA;He has resolved the problem he probably had with tenants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    b. Он договорился со всем домом.&#xD;&#xA;He hasn't missed anybody when he was resolving this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2278" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="3fc7b422-ce3f-4b67-8840-dbb9e919400b" CreationDate="2012-07-25T18:41:05.420" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Do quantification adjectives have any effect on metonymy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="22e94c4f-64f1-4d67-8757-3e86ed30bd64" CreationDate="2012-07-25T18:54:24.520" UserId="131" Text="As someone who reads a lot of blogs about iDevices in Russian I'll add my 2 kopeks...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can i say it [айфон сдох] when my phone has simply run out of battery??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the proper way to say that the battery died is &quot;батарея села&quot; - those who say батарея умерла are typically Americans of Russian descent who are using a calque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one can say &quot;айфон сдох&quot; but that implies that someone bricked your iPhone (by screwing up the baseband update for example) although I've never heard this used -- most of my friends say айфон сломался (the iPhone broke [itself])." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="3eb61d1c-56db-430e-a1c0-a2260460cd76" CreationDate="2012-07-25T19:00:38.943" UserId="131" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="As someone who reads a lot of blogs about iDevices in Russian I'll add my 2 kopeks...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can i say it [айфон сдох] when my phone has simply run out of battery??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the proper way to say that the battery died is *батарея села* - those who say батарея умерла are typically Americans of Russian descent who are using a calque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one can say *айфон сдох* but that implies that someone bricked your iPhone (by screwing up the baseband update for example) although I've never heard this used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my friends say *айфон сломался* (the iPhone broke [itself]) when the damage is physical, e.g., the screen is cracked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the iPhone doesn't work for some other reason -- e.g., software rather than hardware, one can simply say *айфон не работает* )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="27bb9aed-5918-4eee-ae94-f74bbafd09d1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T19:05:42.087" UserId="131" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="As someone who reads a lot of blogs about iDevices in Russian I'll add my 2 kopeks...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can i say it [айфон сдох] when my phone has simply run out of battery??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the proper way to say that the battery died is *батарея села* - those who say батарея умерла are typically Americans of Russian descent who are using a calque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one can say *айфон сдох* but that implies that someone bricked your iPhone (by screwing up the baseband update for example) although I've never seen this used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my friends say *айфон сломался* (the iPhone broke [itself]) when the damage is physical, e.g., the screen is cracked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the iPhone doesn't work for some other reason -- e.g., software rather than hardware, one can simply say *айфон не работает* )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="614001dd-b3fd-44fb-8751-a902594cf11f" CreationDate="2012-07-25T19:11:05.420" UserId="131" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="As someone who reads a lot of blogs about iDevices in Russian I'll add my 2 kopeks...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can i say it [айфон сдох] when my phone has simply run out of battery??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the proper way to say that the battery died is *батарея села* - those who say батарея умерла are typically Americans of Russian descent who are using a calque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say *айфон сдох*, like *айфон сдох и выключился* but that implies that someone bricked your iPhone (by screwing up the firmware/baseband update for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of my friends say *айфон сломался* (the iPhone broke [itself]) when the damage is physical, e.g., the screen is cracked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the iPhone doesn't work for some other reason -- e.g., software rather than hardware, one can simply say *айфон не работает* )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="14f5e1f5-c5c4-4276-a643-2130936086af" CreationDate="2012-07-25T21:12:07.893" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body" Text="Is there a standard Russian pronunciation? If yes, what are its most important features, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- quality of vowel reduction ([о], [е], and maybe other vowels in unstressed positions);&#xD;&#xA;- pronunciation of &quot;e&quot; that stems from &quot;ять&quot; (as in хлеб);&#xD;&#xA;- consonant palatalization and assimilation (дождь: [дош':] vs. [дош'т'] vs. [дошт'], клизма: [кл'из'мъ] vs. [кл'измъ]);&#xD;&#xA;- pronunciation of [г], [р], [в];&#xD;&#xA;- stress in present verbs 3rd sg (звонит) and in plural nouns (торты).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that there was once a standard way to pronounce words. All Soviet actors were supposed to learn to pronounce endings of some adjectives without palatalization. For example, they would say стро[гы]й, not стро[г'и]й. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there a pronunciation norm now? Or is there only a bunch of accents, different for different parts of the country?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="a781ed24-26ab-469c-9800-95a2fab7272c" CreationDate="2012-07-25T22:31:56.247" UserId="185" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="92745421-0f77-4ef4-b3dc-4355c003104e" CreationDate="2012-07-25T22:31:56.247" UserId="185" Text="Question about quantifiers. Quantifiers are determiners that characterize the quantity of the objects, but don't name it precisely. Examples are: &quot;несколько&quot; (some), &quot;весь&quot; (whole), &quot;каждый&quot; (every)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="01235009-9a9b-4f49-8d33-e0f46ba3912e" CreationDate="2012-07-25T22:52:48.193" UserId="185" Text="Metonymy is when one word substitutes another word that denotes a contiguous object. Some of the possible relations between the words are part and whole (*флаги* instead of *корабли*), container and contained substance (*чашка* instead of *чашка кофе*), material and an artifact that is made of it (*серебро* instead of *серебряная медаль*), place and time (*Москва* instead of *время, проведенное в Москве*), etc. Here are examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Все флаги будут в гости к нам.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пожалуй, я выпью еще одну чашку.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он завоевал серебро на прошлых Олимпийских играх.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не виделись с Москвы.&lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="4cf57ab9-6fd9-49d4-8ed1-391844914ba2" CreationDate="2012-07-25T22:52:48.193" UserId="185" Text="Questions about metonymy and metonyms. A metonym is a word that is used instead of another word which denote a contiguous entity. For example, &quot;чашка&quot; is a metonym here: &quot;Я бы выпил еще одну чашку&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2288" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="3bcb8b45-06ed-4e75-83fe-96a6e848f9f0" CreationDate="2012-07-26T05:34:40.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228362679453089792" />
  <row Id="2289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="78c7d691-2130-472c-8027-80fdc526e941" CreationDate="2012-07-26T07:05:21.540" UserId="242" Text="Well, first of all, I find that this question is not the best example of questions we should ask, since &quot;most important features&quot; of pronunciation is something one can hardly describe in one answer. I can try to provide some links, for example, here's one on most [common stress patterns][1] in russian, but, once again, I repeat it is very difficult to cover all aspects in one answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like you are seeking something like Received Pronunciation, the standard accent of Standard English in Great Britain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia usage of language norms is recommended by the Ministry of Education. &#xD;&#xA;Last regulatory document on language issues (or one of the last one, if I've missed something) is приказ Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации (Минобрнауки России) от 8 июня 2009 г. N 195 &quot;[Об утверждении списка][2] грамматик, словарей и справочников, содержащих нормы современного русского литературного языка при его использовании в качестве государственного языка Российской Федерации&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This act is basically a list of dictionaries considered to be an etalon reference. This list includes, among other dictionaries, &quot;Словарь ударений русского языка&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this act means from the practical point of view is that all official tests and exams are &quot;synced&quot; with this list of dictionaries. If it is said in this dictionaries that this very word is written this very way, than there is no room for dispute left. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation is something different. In USSSR times there exists so-called &quot;Словарь ударений для работников радио и телевидения&quot;, and in country where any type of broadcasting  was under government control, this dictionary, as well as any other regulative norms about pronunciation, was de-facto indisputable regulatory document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, though this dictionary continues to exist and to evolve, there is no such thing like regulating pronunciation in global context, even speaking about governmental TV and radio. I mean, there is no governmental body which, say, penalties mispronunciation. In each separate case, it's all up to local regulatory norm of this very editorial board.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It worth to mention that all this pronunciation norms are mainly about correct forms of words, not about neglecting any kind of dialectal differences. Russian stress patterns in words are often complicated even for native speakers. If you kill somebody who is mispronouncing a word, Russia quickly turns into an unmanned desert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth do mention that dialectal differences in modern Russian, though still existing, but in no way they are such crucial like Norwegian, German, British English or even French. This also applies for pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Russian_stress_patterns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rg.ru/2009/08/21/russkiy-slovari-dok.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="f833c0bd-9e18-4afb-ae09-5c67c902cc5c" CreationDate="2012-07-26T07:47:32.613" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="Well, first of all, I find that this question is not the best example of questions we should ask, since &quot;most important features&quot; of pronunciation is something one can hardly describe in one answer. I can try to provide some links, for example, here's one on the most [common stress patterns][1] in Russian, but, once again, I repeat it is very difficult to cover all aspects in one answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like you are seeking something like Received Pronunciation, the standard accent of Standard English in Great Britain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia the usage of language norms is recommended by the Ministry of Education. &#xD;&#xA;Last regulatory document on language issues (or one of the last one, if I've missed something) is приказ Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации (Минобрнауки России) от 8 июня 2009 г. N 195 &quot;[Об утверждении списка][2] грамматик, словарей и справочников, содержащих нормы современного русского литературного языка при его использовании в качестве государственного языка Российской Федерации&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This act is basically a list of dictionaries considered to be an etalon reference. This list includes, among other dictionaries, &quot;Словарь ударений русского языка&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this act means from the practical point of view is that all official tests and exams are &quot;synced&quot; with this list of dictionaries. If it is said in this dictionaries that this very word is written this very way, than there is no room for dispute left. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation is something different. In USSR times there existed so-called &quot;Словарь ударений для работников радио и телевидения&quot;, and in the country where any type of broadcasting  was under government control this dictionary, as well as any other regulative norms about pronunciation was de-facto an indisputable regulatory document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this dictionary continues to exist and to evolve nowadays, there is no such thing as regulating pronunciation in global context, even speaking about governmental TV and radio. I mean there is no governmental body which, say, penalties mispronunciation. In each separate case, it's all up to the local regulatory norm of this very editorial board.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth mentioning that all this pronunciation norms are mainly about correct forms of words, not about neglecting any kind of dialectal differences. Russian stress patterns in words are often complicated even for native speakers. If you kill somebody who is mispronouncing a word, Russia quickly turns into an unmanned desert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth mentioning that dialectal differences in modern Russian, though still existing, are in no way as crucial as Norwegian, German, British English, or even French. This also applies to pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Russian_stress_patterns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rg.ru/2009/08/21/russkiy-slovari-dok.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="833f6071-cf75-4cfe-bf1b-a866c4fa0175" CreationDate="2012-07-26T11:13:23.170" UserId="310" Text="&quot;Сдыхать&quot; is not a proper verb IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дохнуть&quot; is fine, &quot;быть на грани издыхания&quot;, but &quot;я сдыхаю&quot; or &quot;он сдыхает&quot; (imperfect form) just does not feel right. You can't say that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can say it about a repeatable experience &quot;каждый день сдыхаю от скуки&quot;&#xD;&#xA;but &quot;дохну&quot; is so much better, so it's better to not stretch this verb further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can still say сдох, сдохни, дохлый (perfect form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;сдохнуть, подохнуть, издохнуть are virtually the same. They have a bit different colouring but this should not bother you unless you write books in Russian, which you should not just yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;сд'охнуть, под'охнуть, изд'охнуть&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;продохн'уть, отдохн'уть, вздохн'уть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never mess up this accent. If you ever say &quot;отд'охнуть&quot;, you seriously risk killing the person you're having the conversation with, by laughter agony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="cabc693f-a19a-47e8-9c6b-88c33837f46b" CreationDate="2012-07-26T11:29:18.537" UserId="185" Comment="Formatting, added a little bit more context to make answer clearer." Text="*Сдыхать* is not a proper verb to address someone who's exhausted IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfective form *дохнуть* is fine, *быть на грани издыхания* too, but *я сдыхаю* or *он сдыхает* (imperfect form) just does not feel right. You can't say that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you can say it about a repeatable experience *каждый день сдыхаю от скуки*&#xD;&#xA;but *дохну* is so much better, so it's better to not stretch this verb further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can still say *сдох*, *сдохни*, *дохлый* (perfect form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;*сдохнуть*, *подохнуть*, *издохнуть* are virtually the same. They have a bit different colouring, but this should not bother you unless you write books in Russian, which you should not just yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*сдóхнуть*, *подóхнуть*, *издóхнуть*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*продохнýть*, *отдохнýть*, *вздохнýть*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should never mess up the stress. If you ever say *отдóхнуть*, you seriously risk killing the person you're having the conversation with, by laughter agony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2294" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="b42eefe0-1e9f-4e62-97f7-05eab275dbd1" CreationDate="2012-07-26T11:34:39.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228453274016153600" />
  <row Id="2295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="746" RevisionGUID="343cede9-6145-4fb0-962c-27732f4dadc3" CreationDate="2012-07-26T12:13:28.327" UserId="307" Text="While this may be a bit of a sad answer for the community, it **seems that Russian doesn't have any official pronunciation norms**.&#xD;&#xA;I have been looking for some a few years ago, and tried just now. I've never found one, nor heard from anyone about such a guide. There may be recommendations for actors, TV journalists and such, but there doesn't seem to be a common official one to be distributed to usual people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules about reducing unstressed vowels, there are rules about consonants, but they describe which phoneme to use. Actual pronunciation of those phonemes remains uncertain, and like you said, it is subject to a bunch of different accents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You question has several subquestions, so a few comments on those:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Vowel reduction is described in books on phonetics, such as «Фонетика современного русского литературного языка» by Аванесов Р. И. (§43–49).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I couldn't find it online for free to link here, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA; * To answer your question about the sound for the letter `ѣ` (ять), it lost any difference with `е` long ago, [this page is an example][1].&#xD;&#xA; * Pronunciation of the consonants is described on the level of phonemes, e.g. there are rules when `г` is to be pronounced as /г/ (горько), /к/ (стог), /х/ (бог) and /h/ (ага). This is described in the book by Аванесов as well. &#xD;&#xA; * Stressing has been answered by @shabunc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Grot-jat.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="3c3081c7-7051-44a9-9370-73d5365bb2da" CreationDate="2012-07-26T13:27:32.493" UserId="307" Text="Определение ханжи таково:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, кто притворно набожен, добродетелен; лицемер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как назвать человека, который непритворно, а искренне набожен, добродетелен? Он лезет ко всем с нравоучениями, упрекает в безнравственности. Он так же напрягает в общении, как ханжа, но он верит в то, что говорит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли для этого какое-то емкое слово?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="3c3081c7-7051-44a9-9370-73d5365bb2da" CreationDate="2012-07-26T13:27:32.493" UserId="307" Text="Как назвать искренного ханжу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="3c3081c7-7051-44a9-9370-73d5365bb2da" CreationDate="2012-07-26T13:27:32.493" UserId="307" Text="|лексикон|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="d2ab5ffc-c1ad-4df5-bbb1-323ad82d4934" CreationDate="2012-07-26T13:51:41.997" UserId="242" Text="Есть слово `прозелит`, оно очень близко к тому, что вы описываете, но есть один нюанс: Прозелит новообращён, он только что познал всю красоту правильного образа жизни (тяжёлого металла, христианства, ислама, буддизма - нужное подчеркнуть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Прозелити́зм][1] (от прозелит, из лат. proselytus «обращённый», от греч. προσήλυτος «обращённый, нашедший своё место»):&#xD;&#xA;1) стремление распространить свою веру, обратить других в свою веру, стремление к повсеместному установлению поддерживаемой религии,&#xD;&#xA;2) перен. горячая преданность вновь принятому учению, новым убеждениям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово `миссионер`, оно тоже носит ярко выраженный религиозный характер, но, опять-таки, в каких-то случаях похоже на ваш словесный фоторобот. &#xD;&#xA;Отсюда же синонимы - проповедник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так же смотрите `адвокат` (адвокат семейных ценностей), `ръяный сторонник`, `активный пропагандист`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="73921dcf-5c71-45f3-9766-68843791e076" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:02:30.640" UserId="242" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Есть слово `прозелит`, оно очень близко к тому, что вы описываете, но есть один нюанс: Прозелит новообращён, он только что познал всю красоту правильного образа жизни (тяжёлого металла, христианства, ислама, буддизма - нужное подчеркнуть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Прозелити́зм][1] (от прозелит, из лат. proselytus «обращённый», от греч. προσήλυτος «обращённый, нашедший своё место»):&#xD;&#xA;1) стремление распространить свою веру, обратить других в свою веру, стремление к повсеместному установлению поддерживаемой религии,&#xD;&#xA;2) перен. горячая преданность вновь принятому учению, новым убеждениям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово `миссионер`, оно тоже носит ярко выраженный религиозный характер, но, опять-таки, в каких-то случаях похоже на ваш словесный фоторобот. &#xD;&#xA;Отсюда же синонимы - проповедник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так же смотрите `адвокат` (адвокат семейных ценностей), `ръяный сторонник`, `активный пропагандист`. C прилагательным `искренний` ещё точней, например - искренний пропагандист вегетарианства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="e9a52918-ce69-4ae8-b172-37dc2ce09a5f" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:08:38.777" UserId="242" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Есть слово `прозелит`, оно очень близко к тому, что вы описываете, но есть один нюанс: Прозелит новообращён, он только что познал всю красоту правильного образа жизни (тяжёлого металла, христианства, ислама, буддизма - нужное подчеркнуть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Прозелити́зм][1] (от прозелит, из лат. proselytus «обращённый», от греч. προσήλυτος «обращённый, нашедший своё место»):&#xD;&#xA;1) стремление распространить свою веру, обратить других в свою веру, стремление к повсеместному установлению поддерживаемой религии,&#xD;&#xA;2) перен. горячая преданность вновь принятому учению, новым убеждениям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово `миссионер`, оно тоже носит ярко выраженный религиозный характер, но, опять-таки, в каких-то случаях похоже на ваш словесный фоторобот. &#xD;&#xA;Отсюда же синонимы - проповедник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так же смотрите `адвокат` (адвокат семейных ценностей), `ръяный сторонник`, `активный пропагандист`. C прилагательным `искренний`, которое ва сами же упомянули, ещё точней, например - искренний пропагандист вегетарианства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В каких-то контекстах `непритворный` может быть подходящей и даже удачной заменой прилагательному `искренний`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="08b6f1ba-ccc8-4239-b836-1b032a320ba9" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:17:44.583" UserId="310" Text="Есть такое слово -- `моралист`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это именно человек, который напрягает, хотя при этом он может быть искренним." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="766b1a0d-7848-4d44-b53d-19a06399e215" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:33:36.157" UserId="242" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="Есть слово `прозелит`, оно очень близко к тому, что вы описываете, но есть один нюанс: Прозелит новообращён, он только что познал всю красоту правильного образа жизни (тяжёлого металла, христианства, ислама, буддизма - нужное подчеркнуть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Прозелити́зм][1] (от прозелит, из лат. proselytus «обращённый», от греч. προσήλυτος «обращённый, нашедший своё место»):&#xD;&#xA;1) стремление распространить свою веру, обратить других в свою веру, стремление к повсеместному установлению поддерживаемой религии,&#xD;&#xA;2) перен. горячая преданность вновь принятому учению, новым убеждениям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово `миссионер`, оно тоже носит ярко выраженный религиозный характер, но, опять-таки, в каких-то случаях похоже на ваш словесный фоторобот. &#xD;&#xA;Отсюда же синонимы - проповедник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так же смотрите `адвокат` (адвокат семейных ценностей), `ръяный сторонник`, `активный пропагандист`. C прилагательным `искренний`, которое ва сами же упомянули, ещё точней, например - искренний пропагандист вегетарианства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В каких-то контекстах `непритворный` может быть подходящей и даже удачной заменой прилагательному `искренний`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так, ну а напоследок я должен напомнить, что мы должны быть подобны натуралистам, беспристрастно рассматривающим разных тварюшек под микроскопом, так что обсценная лексика тоже должна быть упомянута.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр, ты `заёбщик` просто!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иннокентий, какой же ты `мозгоёб` c этой своею моралью...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2304" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="5ad42050-eee9-4827-9837-5a22a644a714" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:34:40.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228498574672019456" />
  <row Id="2306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="07248142-3caf-4d53-8bcc-b491eb2f946e" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:55:32.743" UserId="310" Comment="added 516 characters in body" Text="Есть такое слово -- `моралист`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это именно человек, который напрягает, хотя при этом он может быть искренним.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь у человека есть два признака: Первый, он добродетелен, а второй, он лезет другим людям в душу без мыла.&#xD;&#xA;Мне в русском языке неизвестно слово, охватывающее сразу оба признака (язык не считает, что они связаны).&#xD;&#xA;Но - второй признак можно назвать &quot;моралист&quot; и это не вызовет явного конфликта с первым признаком, как в слове &quot;ханжа&quot;. Моралист может не быть добродетелен, но может и быть. И тогда это добродетельный моралист. Наверное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы такого человека не встречали, приводите - назовём его как-нибудь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="46b3103f-8dba-451d-91f6-bf4d0edbde34" CreationDate="2012-07-26T15:07:37.533" UserId="310" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Some forms of the verb *сдыхать* do not feel right with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfective form *дохнуть* is fine, *быть на грани издыхания* too, but *я сдыхаю* or *он сдыхает* (imperfect form) just does not feel right. You can say &quot;я сдыхаю от скуки&quot;, but *Я сдыхаю.* does not feel right. You're not dying (there are other words for that), are you hungry? Tired? Moody? Not enough context. *Ты стдыхаешь* is even worse - how would you know that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can still say *сдох*, *сдохни*, *дохлый* (perfect form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;*сдохнуть*, *подохнуть*, *издохнуть* are virtually the same. They have a bit different colouring, but this should not bother you unless you write books in Russian, which you should not just yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*сдóхнуть*, *подóхнуть*, *издóхнуть*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*продохнýть*, *отдохнýть*, *вздохнýть*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should never mess up the stress. If you ever say *отдóхнуть*, you seriously risk killing the person you're having the conversation with, by laughter agony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2308" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="0891ba96-1888-42df-b17c-363bf368c183" CreationDate="2012-07-26T16:42:39.280" UserId="185" Comment="Spelling in the title" Text="Как назвать искреннего ханжу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="9933c28d-ca13-405b-bcb8-75e37bc5e1ef" CreationDate="2012-07-26T16:57:04.977" UserId="311" Text="Судя по употреблению, это понятие может подразумевать как группу людей, так и некоторые материалы. &quot;Ай, да ну всю эту политоту&quot;, — подразумевает, что человеку надоело читать/обсуждать некие некомпетентные рассуждения о политике, либо притягивание политики в обсуждение вопросов, близкого к ней отношения не имеющих. &#xD;&#xA;Для группы людей по имени &quot;политота&quot; я бы привел синоним &quot;политически озабоченные&quot; :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="f98fa7e7-5af4-4370-bc88-fd62ccc988c6" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:34:39.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228543870953193472" />
  <row Id="2311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="9d52cdf9-cf6d-4607-a4fa-5fffebf9f881" CreationDate="2012-07-26T17:48:56.630" UserId="256" Text="Я бы сказал *резонёр*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из живого, здорового полнотою чувства ребёнка делается рефлектер,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; резонёр, умник, и, чем лучше он говорит о чувствах, тем беднее он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чувствами, ― чем умнее он на словах, тем пустее он внутренно. [В. Г.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белинский. Общая риторика Н.Ф.Кошанского (1844)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прежде всего, он был невероятно злобный зануда и резонер. [И. С.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шкловский. Эшелон (1984) // «Химия и Жизнь», 1988-1992]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="32653cc7-ac99-4747-a071-3dc03f2c5ae5" CreationDate="2012-07-26T18:41:49.777" UserId="310" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Some forms of the verb *сдыхать* do not feel right with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfective form *дохнуть* is fine, *быть на грани издыхания* too, but *я сдыхаю* or *он сдыхает* (imperfect form) just does not feel right. You can say &quot;я сдыхаю от скуки&quot;, but not just *Я сдыхаю.*. You're not dying (there are other words for that), are you hungry? Tired? Moody? Not enough context. *Ты сдыхаешь* is even worse - how would you know that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can still say *сдох*, *сдохни*, *дохлый* (perfect form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;*сдохнуть*, *подохнуть*, *издохнуть* are virtually the same. They have a bit different colouring, but this should not bother you unless you write books in Russian, which you should not just yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*сдóхнуть*, *подóхнуть*, *издóхнуть*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*продохнýть*, *отдохнýть*, *вздохнýть*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should never mess up the stress. If you ever say *отдóхнуть*, you seriously risk killing the person you're having the conversation with, by laughter agony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="f68c424c-4fcf-4705-81aa-347981548d6a" CreationDate="2012-07-26T21:59:41.433" UserId="5" Text="What do I call a hit and run situation in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="f68c424c-4fcf-4705-81aa-347981548d6a" CreationDate="2012-07-26T21:59:41.433" UserId="5" Text="what do I call a hit and run situation in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="f68c424c-4fcf-4705-81aa-347981548d6a" CreationDate="2012-07-26T21:59:41.433" UserId="5" Text="|unclassified|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="03d2db92-80e4-40f4-a8db-7ded0aadc320" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:06:02.877" UserId="256" Text="Usually one talks about бегство с места ДТП (= дорожно-транспортного происшествия). In a more formal style оставление места ДТП is also used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="5e7cba0a-0fba-469c-a286-431cee1aeecf" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:07:28.193" UserId="134" Text="The legalese for this would be *оставление места ДТП*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КоАП РФ, 12.27, п. 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оставление водителем в нарушение Правил дорожного движения места дорожно-транспортного происшествия, участником которого он являлся, -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  влечет лишение права управления транспортными средствами на срок от одного года до полутора лет или административный арест на срок до пятнадцати суток.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="1955d999-9b71-4983-b180-98dc89dc532d" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:10:16.833" UserId="307" Comment="Added definition from gramota.ru" Text="Я бы сказал [*резонёр*][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек, любящий вести пространные рассуждения нравоучительного характера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из живого, здорового полнотою чувства ребёнка делается рефлектер,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; резонёр, умник, и, чем лучше он говорит о чувствах, тем беднее он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чувствами, ― чем умнее он на словах, тем пустее он внутренно. [В. Г.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белинский. Общая риторика Н.Ф.Кошанского (1844)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прежде всего, он был невероятно злобный зануда и резонер. [И. С.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шкловский. Эшелон (1984) // «Химия и Жизнь», 1988-1992]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F0%E5%E7%EE%ED%B8%F0&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2320" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="1955d999-9b71-4983-b180-98dc89dc532d" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:10:16.833" Comment="Proposed by 307 approved by 134 edit id of 211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="30aa7968-eb8f-4ba2-ade3-71ad42691f0a" CreationDate="2012-07-26T23:09:54.093" UserId="5" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="What do I call a hit and run situation in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;An example of use from  Quassnoi, so that the context is clear for those who don't know the primary meaning of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With personal injury or death, hit-and-run drivers of motor vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are also subject to imprisonment of 6 months to 5 years" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2323" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="10bdd6f0-aa71-4478-9bfa-2624c39fea0e" CreationDate="2012-07-26T23:22:28.483" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2228/comma-in-%d0%bde-%d1%82%d0%be-%d1%87%d1%82%d0%be%d0%b1%d1%8b" Text="" />
  <row Id="2324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="b89c346a-9b76-4ccd-80e0-e1657e4b4a07" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:53:28.753" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma here between &quot;то&quot; and &quot;чтобы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... потому как они мясо птиц вообще никогда не едят – нe **то чтобы**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по каким-то дням." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="b89c346a-9b76-4ccd-80e0-e1657e4b4a07" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:53:28.753" UserId="170" Text="Comma in &quot;нe то чтобы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="b89c346a-9b76-4ccd-80e0-e1657e4b4a07" CreationDate="2012-07-26T22:53:28.753" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="2d868408-981a-4fd5-a4e5-f68743dc9aee" CreationDate="2012-07-26T23:29:08.780" UserId="8" Text="No, you don't need a comma there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/58_492):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; НЕ ТО ЧТОБ / ЧТОБЫ, частица&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Между частями выражения «не то чтобы» знаки препинания не ставятся. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Надо вам заметить, жена моя содержит музыкальную школу и частный пансион, то есть не то чтобы пансион, а так, нечто вроде.* А. Чехов, О вреде табака. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="4266a833-9fe8-4704-9d94-93a4682e914d" CreationDate="2012-07-26T23:31:34.663" UserId="134" Comment="added 140 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What do I call a [hit and run][1] situation in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hit-and-run is the act of causing (or contributing to) a traffic accident (such as colliding with a person or a fixture), and failing to stop and identify oneself afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With personal injury or death, hit-and-run drivers of motor vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are also subject to imprisonment of 6 months to 5 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_and_run_%28vehicular%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="1814583f-a44f-4693-8fc1-ba5d26f22cc1" CreationDate="2012-07-26T23:31:55.017" UserId="8" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Usually one talks about *бегство с места ДТП* (= дорожно-транспортного происшествия). In a more formal style *оставление места ДТП* is also used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2331" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="4266a833-9fe8-4704-9d94-93a4682e914d" CreationDate="2012-07-26T23:31:34.663" UserId="134" Comment="added 140 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="ff343ed5-03f9-4e56-933d-5bec27c64ede" CreationDate="2012-07-27T00:05:29.313" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is simply ungrammatical unless you want to say that **sometimes** (repeatedly) it happens that the calculation works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Иногда** оказывается, что это вычисление работает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you do not add &quot;вообще&quot; in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оказывается, что это единственное решение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оказывается, это единственное решение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly the first is wrong. You can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Иногда** оказывается, что это единственное решение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it has different meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2335" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="1fa64fad-0cca-4b98-838d-902af58b8219" CreationDate="2012-07-27T02:34:40.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228679770139938817" />
  <row Id="2337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="f771b922-d492-474a-b28d-ef97bf4327fc" CreationDate="2012-07-27T08:43:13.857" UserId="185" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Я стал встречать по-видимому новое слово *политота*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда я попросил объяснить мне его значение, мне его объяснили так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это школота, только в политике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это пролило некоторый свет на то, что оно значит, но полного понимания не дало.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что обозначает это слово? Можете привести какие-то примеры его использования, которые хорошо иллюстрируют его смысл?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2338" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="f771b922-d492-474a-b28d-ef97bf4327fc" CreationDate="2012-07-27T08:43:13.857" UserId="185" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Значение слова &quot;политота&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="b73ee372-ae54-4bef-aa81-43e4b3ec17f2" CreationDate="2012-07-27T10:00:11.140" UserId="185" Text="Is there any difference in meaning between these two conjunctions? And can someone come up with a sentence where only one of the two conjunctions can be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I think that *потому как* is a more colloquial alternative for *потому что*, but I cannot find their explanations in any dictionary on Грамота.ру. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking that *потому как* may be a recent development, but their distributions over years in ruscorpora.ru have the same shape, with the only exception of quantity: *потому что* is far more often than *потому как*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question popped into my mind because of the example in brilliant's question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... потому как они мясо птиц вообще никогда не едят – нe то чтобы по каким-то дням." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="b73ee372-ae54-4bef-aa81-43e4b3ec17f2" CreationDate="2012-07-27T10:00:11.140" UserId="185" Text="Is there any difference between &quot;потому что&quot; and &quot;потому как&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="b73ee372-ae54-4bef-aa81-43e4b3ec17f2" CreationDate="2012-07-27T10:00:11.140" UserId="185" Text="|выбор-слова|semantics|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="4596cba7-df8b-4232-8305-28a3591c5931" CreationDate="2012-07-27T10:12:13.720" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Is there any difference in meaning between these two conjunctions? And can someone come up with a sentence where only one of the two can be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I think that *потому как* is a more colloquial alternative for *потому что*, but I cannot find their explanations in any dictionary on Грамота.ру. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking that *потому как* may be a recent development, but their distributions over years in ruscorpora.ru have the same shape, with the only exception of quantity: *потому что* is far more often than *потому как*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question popped into my mind because of the example in brilliant's question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... потому как они мясо птиц вообще никогда не едят – нe то чтобы по каким-то дням." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="45b1d94a-7456-4a9d-b371-712f0722ed95" CreationDate="2012-07-27T10:53:50.340" UserId="242" Text="`Потому как` and `потому что` are quite interchangable indeed, yet `потому как` is much rarer, not to say slightly more high-flown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my head I can think of following situation when usage of these word combinations makes difference - if next word after `потому что` is что (что-то, что-нибудь an so on) it sounds not that pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Потому как что-то][1] вдруг подхватило меня, как невидимой рукой, да спиной об стропилу и приложило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Потому как, что][2] находится у них перед глазами, что как будто открыто им - не замечается ими. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this is not the only sublety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern russian is valid to use &quot;потому что&quot;  as an independent logical unit.&#xD;&#xA;It translated something like &quot;I know why, but won't tell you, because this is none of our business (or, may be, it is simply so obvious, that no further explanation needed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  - Слушай, ну почему вот ты так взъелась? Да потому что!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `потому как` instead of `потому что` is inappropriate here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;потому как&quot; is more appropriate in following kind of sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Потому как норвежцы и шведы родственные народы, они часто могут понять друг друга без переводчика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, `потому как` fits better if explanation preceded the subject which is explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/b/belousow_w_i/pvo.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/z/zelinskij_s_a/rechimostigittttttt.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="221d075a-d11d-41a4-ae15-45bd6a6cb77e" CreationDate="2012-07-27T10:59:45.043" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="`Потому как` and `потому что` are quite interchangable indeed, yet `потому как` is much rarer, not to say slightly more high-flown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my head I can think of following situation when usage of these word combinations makes difference - if next word after `потому что` is что (что-то, что-нибудь an so on) it sounds not that pleasant. Though it worth to mention that this is still acceptable (&quot;потому что что бы ты ни делал, ты мой сын, и я люблю тебя&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Потому как что-то][1] вдруг подхватило меня, как невидимой рукой, да спиной об стропилу и приложило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Потому как, что][2] находится у них перед глазами, что как будто открыто им - не замечается ими. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this is not the only sublety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern russian is valid to use &quot;потому что&quot;  as an independent logical unit.&#xD;&#xA;It translated something like &quot;I know why, but won't tell you, because this is none of our business - or, may be, it is simply so obvious, that no further explanation needed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  - Слушай, ну почему вот ты так взъелась? Да потому что!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `потому как` instead of `потому что` is inappropriate here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;потому как&quot; is more appropriate in following kind of sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Потому как норвежцы и шведы родственные народы, они часто могут понять друг друга без переводчика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, `потому как` fits better if explanation preceded the subject which is explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/b/belousow_w_i/pvo.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/z/zelinskij_s_a/rechimostigittttttt.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2346" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="c9afdc9b-594c-4c88-a7ea-a21b2fd9a60b" CreationDate="2012-07-27T11:34:39.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228815663534313472" />
  <row Id="2347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="82d49dad-ae80-45e6-a2e6-58530807022d" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:26:53.193" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="`Потому как` and `потому что` are quite interchangable indeed, yet `потому как` is much rarer, not to say slightly more high-flown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my head I can think of following situation when usage of these word combinations makes difference - if next word after `потому что` is что (что-то, что-нибудь an so on) it sounds not that pleasant. Though it worth to mention that this is still acceptable (&quot;потому что что бы ты ни делал, ты мой сын, и я люблю тебя&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Потому как что-то][1] вдруг подхватило меня, как невидимой рукой, да спиной об стропилу и приложило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Потому как, что][2] находится у них перед глазами, что как будто открыто им - не замечается ими. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this is not the only sublety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern russian is valid to use &quot;потому что&quot;  as an independent logical unit.&#xD;&#xA;It translated something like &quot;I know why, but won't tell you, because this is none of our business - or, may be, it is simply so obvious, that no further explanation needed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  — Слушай, ну почему вот ты так взъелась? — Да потому что!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `потому как` instead of `потому что` is inappropriate here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;потому как&quot; is more appropriate in following kind of sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Потому как норвежцы и шведы — родственные народы, они часто могут понять друг друга без переводчика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, `потому как` fits better if explanation preceded the subject which is explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/b/belousow_w_i/pvo.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/z/zelinskij_s_a/rechimostigittttttt.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="2e4fbf5a-db6c-4350-9ed2-f901ce9e1b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:50:41.577" UserId="309" Text="I have been thinking about for a while, but didn't come to any conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct version for &quot;свечи&quot; (plural for &quot;свеча&quot;) in the genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Как расстанешься, если каждый вечер, лишь только нальются нити лампы в 50 свечей, и в зелёной тени абажура я могу писать и читать, в тепле, не помышляя о том, что на дворе ветерок при 18 градусах мороза&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Игра не стоит свеч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; Игра стоит свеч, то есть, идет хорошо настолько, что свечей не жаль.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Каталог свечей зажигания и накаливания&quot;, &quot;Магия свеч и ангелы&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="2e4fbf5a-db6c-4350-9ed2-f901ce9e1b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:50:41.577" UserId="309" Text="&quot;свеч&quot; and &quot;свечей&quot; - what is the correct version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="2e4fbf5a-db6c-4350-9ed2-f901ce9e1b5a" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:50:41.577" UserId="309" Text="|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="ef472db0-5b10-4d62-9f59-2e42433918a2" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:56:36.357" UserId="242" Text="Можно и так и так, [вот][1] цитата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, неодушевлённое, женский род, 1-е склонение (тип склонения 4f по классификации А. Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;Встречается также вариант склонения по схеме 4d (мн. ч. све́чи, све́ч, све́чам, све́чи, све́чами, све́чах).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4f - [это как][2] раз `-ей`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="58fc2974-ea8f-49d4-adbc-e54a4635ea67" CreationDate="2012-07-27T14:03:32.620" UserId="242" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="Both forms are appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Можно и так и так, [вот][1] цитата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, неодушевлённое, женский род, 1-е склонение (тип склонения 4f по классификации А. Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;Встречается также вариант склонения по схеме 4d (мн. ч. све́чи, све́ч, све́чам, све́чи, све́чами, све́чах).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4f - [это как][2] раз `-е́й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соотношение `[свеч][3]`/`[свечей][4]` в Яндексе, впрочем, меньше, чем 1 к 5, то есть `свечей` говорят чаще.  Это не какая-то новая тенденция, употребление обоих форм и перевес в сторону второй формы прослеживается по меньшей мере с 19-го века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%22&amp;lr=213&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87e%D0%B9%22&amp;lr=213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="431c144c-f3c7-4b5f-a174-2ed2964ec02c" CreationDate="2012-07-27T14:25:27.977" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Both forms are appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Можно и так и так, [вот][1] цитата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, неодушевлённое, женский род, 1-е склонение (тип склонения 4f по классификации А. Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;Встречается также вариант склонения по схеме 4d (мн. ч. све́чи, све́ч, све́чам, све́чи, све́чами, све́чах).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4f - [это как][2] раз `-е́й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соотношение [свеч][3] / [свечей][4] в Яндексе, впрочем, меньше, чем 1 к 5, то есть `свечей` говорят чаще.  Это не какая-то новая тенденция, употребление обоих форм и перевес в сторону второй формы прослеживается по меньшей мере с 19-го века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%22&amp;lr=213&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87e%D0%B9%22&amp;lr=213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2354" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="fe5e54af-3125-4325-a9b8-274a20727fb1" CreationDate="2012-07-27T14:26:44.140" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags. The question is not about a difference in meaning between two words, but about two forms of the same word" Text="|грамматика|существительные|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2355" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="6c2eb03e-fc5e-493e-8d9c-78cb15147c39" CreationDate="2012-07-27T14:27:26.807" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2356" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="ae099554-027f-4b61-9ec5-b25d42704054" CreationDate="2012-07-27T14:34:40.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/228860963829477376" />
  <row Id="2357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="f708c9dc-71fa-4557-ba36-91d4a948fd66" CreationDate="2012-07-27T15:08:31.840" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Both forms are appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;Можно и так и так, [вот][1] цитата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, неодушевлённое, женский род, 1-е склонение (тип склонения 4f по классификации А. Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;Встречается также вариант склонения по схеме 4d (мн. ч. све́чи, све́ч, све́чам, све́чи, све́чами, све́чах).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4f - [это как][2] раз `-е́й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соотношение [свеч][3] / [свечей][4] в Яндексе, впрочем, меньше, чем 1 к 5, то есть `свечей` говорят чаще.  Это не какая-то новая тенденция, употребление обеих форм и перевес в сторону второй формы прослеживается по меньшей мере с 19-го века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%22&amp;lr=213&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87e%D0%B9%22&amp;lr=213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="c467efab-0279-4d2a-b1e2-82a513a2ad21" CreationDate="2012-07-27T16:29:48.513" UserId="97" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In general, adding _-та_ to the end of a word root creates a word to describe, in a slightly (or not slightly) colloquial or even derogatory way a person or his state/actions represented by that root word.  From [a post here](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9C%D0%A2%D0%90#.D0.A7.D0.A2.D0.9E-.D0.A2.D0.9E.2B.D0.A2.D0.90):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, добрый, улыбающийся Номад — ДОБРОТА. Обдолбанный Номад —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; НАРКОТА. Номад в кепке и с фингалом под глазом — ГОПОТА. Умный, за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; размышлением — МУДРОТА, с лопатой — ЛОПАТА, насытившийся после пищи —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВКУСНОТА, после встречи с Петросяном — СМЕХОТА. И так далее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the specific word _политота_, in the same way, it refers in a somewhat derogatory way to politicians and their meanderings that most regular people consider not much more than blabber or even worse.  Additionally, the word may refer to a collection of other things containing references to such political &quot;stuff&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, @Anixx refers to the same post as I did in my answer, although I started writing my answer before he posted his." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="56b7544c-3642-478d-94a1-e0ec06dd0418" CreationDate="2012-07-27T22:06:48.750" UserId="5" Text="Need a link good English to Russian dictionary that doesn't shun bad words please. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="56b7544c-3642-478d-94a1-e0ec06dd0418" CreationDate="2012-07-27T22:06:48.750" UserId="5" Text="A good English to Russian dictionary that doesn't shun bad words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="56b7544c-3642-478d-94a1-e0ec06dd0418" CreationDate="2012-07-27T22:06:48.750" UserId="5" Text="|resource-request|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="fd74fe53-b627-4880-9b29-d843eae14198" CreationDate="2012-07-27T22:18:31.287" UserId="242" Comment="english summary added" Text="Можно и так и так, [вот][1] цитата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, неодушевлённое, женский род, 1-е склонение (тип склонения 4f по классификации А. Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;Встречается также вариант склонения по схеме 4d (мн. ч. све́чи, све́ч, све́чам, све́чи, све́чами, све́чах).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4f - [это как][2] раз `-е́й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соотношение [свеч][3] / [свечей][4] в Яндексе, впрочем, меньше, чем 1 к 5, то есть `свечей` говорят чаще.  Это не какая-то новая тенденция, употребление обеих форм и перевес в сторону второй формы прослеживается по меньшей мере с 19-го века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English summary:**&#xD;&#xA;Both `свеч` и `свечей` are appropriate, though first form is used up to 5-6 times rarer. This is not a new tendency, both forms are valid and completely interchangeable since at least 19-th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%22&amp;lr=213&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87e%D0%B9%22&amp;lr=213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2363" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="1601ad49-fa7e-42e0-946c-d64a9b3229ce" CreationDate="2012-07-28T02:34:40.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229042158966030337" />
  <row Id="2364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="f3520e9c-2242-44cd-a320-aee265c23e08" CreationDate="2012-07-28T04:03:54.590" UserId="170" Text="Which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь мно**гиx** кого не одобряет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь мно**го** кого не одобряет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="f3520e9c-2242-44cd-a320-aee265c23e08" CreationDate="2012-07-28T04:03:54.590" UserId="170" Text="&quot;она мног(иx/о) кого не одобряет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="f3520e9c-2242-44cd-a320-aee265c23e08" CreationDate="2012-07-28T04:03:54.590" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2367" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="5d8f7d57-9559-47fd-8f77-574c086300f9" CreationDate="2012-07-28T05:34:42.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229087463505788928" />
  <row Id="2368" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="8be0ac8d-a713-46af-9976-cb3f63b4dec1" CreationDate="2012-07-28T08:34:41.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229132758100881408" />
  <row Id="2369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="daabb6dc-ffc0-4c77-88a1-c2f088e35660" CreationDate="2012-07-28T10:45:47.017" UserId="185" Text="**I think that only the second variant (&quot;много кого&quot;) is correct.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different parts of speech in the examples you gave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, *многих* is a form of *многие*, which is an adjective and modifies *кого*. It has the same structure as *многие люди*, or if you put it in the same context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Церковь не одобряет многих людей. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can feel for yourself (if you are a native speaker), *многие кто* sounds incorrect. I didn't manage to find any literature that describes syntactic properties of *кто*, but I think that it can hardly be modified by any adjectives at all. The only examples of this kind I can come up with are colloquial back-check questions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие монофизиты пострадали в то время.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие кто?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, *много* is an adverb and it modifies *кого*. I didn't find anything about this function of *много* in a dictionary, but it seems to be very similar in function to *мало* in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало с кем разговаривает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало кто об этом помнит. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало где бывает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is a special entry for this kind of usages of *мало* in the dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (с местоим. и нареч.).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Указывает на недостаточность, незначительное количество, редкость того, что обозначает местоименное слово. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. что хорошего я услышал (немного).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. где он бывает (в немногих местах).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. какой прохожий остановится у калитки (немногие)*.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. когда солнце светит с утра (изредка).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (with pronouns and adverbs).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Denotes insufficient, insignificant amount or rarity of the thing that is denoted by the pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2370" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="def7d69a-41ad-40cf-abea-2322783c6082" CreationDate="2012-07-28T10:52:16.153" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="1881f1d5-9882-46e2-b964-3697b62e5ed2" CreationDate="2012-07-28T10:56:16.197" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 30 characters in body" Text="Welcome to Russian Language and usage! Please read carefully the FAQ before posting.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;No. We're going to elaborate a single topic where we could group resources. Even if we didn't do so, resources questions would be in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot; questions, because they tend to be so.&#xA;&#xA;## Asking the meaning of a single word&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="1c2356c3-7ddf-4a5f-a2bc-af4f47eacd22" CreationDate="2012-07-28T11:55:57.830" UserId="185" Comment="edited body" Text="**I think that only the second variant (&quot;много кого&quot;) is correct.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different parts of speech in the examples you gave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, *многих* is a form of *многие*, which is an adjective and modifies *кого*. It has the same structure as *многие люди*, or if you put it in the same context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Церковь не одобряет многих людей. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a native speaker, you can feel for yourself that *многие кто* sounds incorrect. I didn't manage to find any literature that describes syntactic properties of *кто*, but I think that it can hardly be modified by any adjectives at all. The only examples of this kind I can come up with are colloquial back-check questions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие монофизиты пострадали в то время.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие кто?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, *много* is an adverb and it modifies *кого*. I didn't find anything about this function of *много* in a dictionary, but it seems to be very similar in function to *мало* in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало с кем разговаривает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало кто об этом помнит. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало где бывает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is a special entry for this kind of usages of *мало* in the dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (с местоим. и нареч.).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Указывает на недостаточность, незначительное количество, редкость того, что обозначает местоименное слово. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. что хорошего я услышал (немного).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. где он бывает (в немногих местах).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. какой прохожий остановится у калитки (немногие)*.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. когда солнце светит с утра (изредка).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (with pronouns and adverbs).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Denotes insufficient, insignificant amount or rarity of the thing that is denoted by the pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="312ff26b-b128-4b8c-9abc-9b16c6c4f394" CreationDate="2012-07-28T13:00:06.620" UserId="185" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Welcome to Russian Language and usage! Please read carefully the FAQ before posting.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&#xA;&#xA;Instead, we are elaborating [a single topic](http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/73) where we group links to dictionaries, grammars, textbooks, information services and other resources. &#xA;&#xA;## Asking the meaning of a single word&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="31199592-cf11-4023-8544-6c1d93d70f80" CreationDate="2012-07-28T13:06:40.547" UserId="185" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**I think that only the second variant (&quot;много кого&quot;) is correct.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different parts of speech in the examples you gave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, *многих* is a form of *многие*, which is an adjective and modifies *кого*. It has the same structure as *многие люди*, or if you put it in the same context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Церковь не одобряет многих людей. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a native speaker, you can feel for yourself that *многие кто* sounds incorrect. I didn't manage to find any literature that describes syntactic properties of *кто*, but I think that it can hardly be modified by any adjectives at all. The only examples of this kind I can come up with are colloquial back-check questions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие монофизиты пострадали в то время.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие кто?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, *много* is an adverb and it modifies *кого*. I didn't find anything about this function of *много* in a dictionary, but it seems to be very similar in function to *мало* in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало с кем разговаривает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало кто об этом помнит. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало где бывает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is a special entry for this kind of usages of *мало* in the dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (с местоим. и нареч.).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Указывает на недостаточность, незначительное количество, редкость того, что обозначает местоименное слово. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. что хорошего я услышал (немного).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. где он бывает (в немногих местах).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. какой прохожий остановится у калитки (немногие)*.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. когда солнце светит с утра (изредка).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (with pronouns and adverbs).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Denotes insufficient, insignificant amount or rarity of the thing that is referred to by the pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2375" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="be643c62-c3ac-4586-b04e-68e7dda64c9b" CreationDate="2012-07-28T17:34:40.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229268650111152130" />
  <row Id="2376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="e6ac0cf7-49f8-49d6-9400-7df7b44dee52" CreationDate="2012-07-28T20:09:45.943" UserId="185" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="**I think that only the second variant (&quot;много кого&quot;) is correct.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different parts of speech in the examples you gave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, *многих* is a form of *многие*, which is an adjective and modifies *кого*. It has the same structure as *многие люди*, or if you put it in the same context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Церковь не одобряет многих людей. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a native speaker, you can feel for yourself that *многие кто* sounds incorrect. I didn't manage to find any literature that describes syntactic properties of *кто*, but I think that it can hardly be modified by any adjectives at all. The only examples of this kind I can come up with are colloquial back-check questions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие монофизиты пострадали в то время.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие кто?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, *много* is an adverb and it modifies *кого*. I didn't find anything about this function of *много* in a dictionary, but it seems to be very similar in function to *мало* in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало с кем разговаривает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало кто об этом помнит. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало где бывает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is a special entry for this kind of usages of *мало* in the dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (с местоим. и нареч.).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Указывает на недостаточность, незначительное количество, редкость того, что обозначает местоименное слово. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. что хорошего я услышал (немного).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. где он бывает (в немногих местах).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. какой прохожий остановится у калитки (немногие)*.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. когда солнце светит с утра (изредка).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (with pronouns and adverbs).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Denotes insufficient, insignificant amount or rarity of the thing that is referred to by the pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can assume that *много кто* is a correct form, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2377" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="1af7ff5b-0183-4ce8-a10e-5cb48976cbc0" CreationDate="2012-07-28T20:34:40.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229313949055721472" />
  <row Id="2378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="88a4b58b-f095-4d53-a99e-d4d783efbddf" CreationDate="2012-07-29T08:34:44.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229495158784282624" />
  <row Id="2379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="36d3edb8-af05-47ae-9e69-33218665d01c" CreationDate="2012-07-29T08:38:52.197" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited title" Text="[Hit-and-run][1] is the act of causing (or contributing to) a traffic accident (such as colliding with a person or a fixture), and failing to stop and identify oneself afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With personal injury or death, hit-and-run drivers of motor vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are also subject to imprisonment of 6 months to 5 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_and_run_%28vehicular%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2380" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="36d3edb8-af05-47ae-9e69-33218665d01c" CreationDate="2012-07-29T08:38:52.197" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do I call a hit-and-run situation in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="dbc2c4bc-4f89-4e53-a779-e25aaec8032e" CreationDate="2012-07-29T14:12:14.117" UserId="170" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot; can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again the future. It can also imply that the good news is going to be reported in the way of a string of successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being somewhat a point of joy on its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;Мама, облей меня!&quot; and &quot;Мама, помой меня!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="eb068277-c03d-4384-9913-ec471aaaec0f" CreationDate="2012-07-29T14:18:52.113" UserId="170" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. Обрадуй implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is going to be reported in the way of a string of successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being somewhat a point of joy on its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;Мама, облей меня!&quot; and &quot;Мама, помой меня!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="13b7ad41-d1e3-490b-925e-9f119192fe4c" CreationDate="2012-07-29T14:24:39.280" UserId="170" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. Обрадуй implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is going to be reported in the way of a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being somewhat a point of joy on its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;Мама, облей меня!&quot; and &quot;Мама, помой меня!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="3faf1c40-6e1e-44b3-b367-67f412607169" CreationDate="2012-07-29T14:34:45.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229585759676551169" />
  <row Id="2385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="1e087df8-aed0-4a66-904d-f7033f07039d" CreationDate="2012-07-29T14:53:01.993" UserId="170" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. Обрадуй implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is going to be reported in the way of a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being somewhat a point of joy on its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;Мама, облей меня!&quot; and &quot;Мама, помой меня!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что? У тебя радостная ново*сть*?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие ново*сти*! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="e0ffdcb2-339e-4c0f-8c9e-00c3c65e6e18" CreationDate="2012-07-29T14:58:13.653" UserId="170" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. Обрадуй implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is somewhat structured and is going to be reported in the way of a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being somewhat a point of joy on its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;Мама, облей меня!&quot; and &quot;Мама, помой меня!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="a66492af-81eb-4391-9c03-eddb502ca46f" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:03:23.523" UserId="170" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. Обрадуй implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is kind of structured and is going to be reported in the way of a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being sort of a point of joy on its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;*Мама, облей меня!*&quot; and &quot;*Мама, помой меня!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="309ee055-1d7d-4c9c-8773-e5db592b53db" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:10:00.020" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. *Обрадуй* implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is kind of structured and is going to be reported in the way of a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being a point of joy of its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;*Мама, облей меня!*&quot; and &quot;*Мама, помой меня!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="bdc51ce9-ae07-4cb4-a6c4-a36fee833efa" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:26:01.030" UserId="170" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. *Обрадуй* implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is kind of structured and is going to be reported in the way of a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being a point of joy of its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;*Мама, облей меня!*&quot; and &quot;*Мама, полей на меня!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2390" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="d05ab984-7c6b-4506-bac1-a61b8db5d470" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:31:25.673" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2391" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="bd6d99ca-69ac-4739-83ca-46f06534064b" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:31:25.673" UserId="71" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="2392" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="4af9c575-48e6-48c5-b1c1-39e73fb4bb88" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:36:58.443" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2393" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="07d801f5-4a7c-4605-a475-67e322a9e18a" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:41:02.700" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2395" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="4f810cf8-240d-407a-b74f-eadb9e8d567f" CreationDate="2012-07-29T15:45:36.893" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="7066cbde-9282-471f-aa60-feb08f9a282e" CreationDate="2012-07-29T17:25:55.917" UserId="133" Comment="minor corrections in English summary" Text="Можно и так и так, [вот][1] цитата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, неодушевлённое, женский род, 1-е склонение (тип склонения 4f по классификации А. Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;Встречается также вариант склонения по схеме 4d (мн. ч. све́чи, све́ч, све́чам, све́чи, све́чами, све́чах).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4f - [это как][2] раз `-е́й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соотношение [свеч][3] / [свечей][4] в Яндексе, впрочем, меньше, чем 1 к 5, то есть `свечей` говорят чаще.  Это не какая-то новая тенденция, употребление обеих форм и перевес в сторону второй формы прослеживается по меньшей мере с 19-го века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English summary:**&#xD;&#xA;Both `свеч` and `свечей` are appropriate, though first form is 5-6 times as rare. This is not a new tendency, both forms are valid and completely interchangeable since at least the 19&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%22&amp;lr=213&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87e%D0%B9%22&amp;lr=213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2398" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="7066cbde-9282-471f-aa60-feb08f9a282e" CreationDate="2012-07-29T17:25:55.917" Comment="Proposed by 133 approved by 71 edit id of 212" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2399" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="2f69217b-c9b6-4603-8022-379b11151471" CreationDate="2012-07-29T17:34:44.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229631053961240577" />
  <row Id="2400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="dcae279a-a6b0-4c02-aa5a-97f116defc88" CreationDate="2012-07-29T18:16:24.907" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. *Обрадуй* implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is kind of structured and is going to be reported as a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being a point of joy of its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;*Мама, облей меня!*&quot; and &quot;*Мама, полей на меня!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="c5537ecd-72a8-43e6-a09d-6e105fa37026" CreationDate="2012-07-29T18:25:56.113" UserId="71" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="Welcome to Russian Language and usage! Please read carefully the FAQ before posting.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&#xA;&#xA;Instead, we are elaborating [a single topic][1] (see also the proposal [Resources for learning Russian: should we have it at all?][2]) where we group links to dictionaries, grammars, textbooks, information services and other resources. &#xA;&#xA;## Asking the meaning of a single word&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/73&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/190/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="bc822bf5-968b-4892-9f08-94d51343eda4" CreationDate="2012-07-29T23:34:45.697" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229721656334106624" />
  <row Id="2407" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="13c9fc33-4894-40e6-bc1c-09f984f4767c" CreationDate="2012-07-30T02:34:45.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/229766952506249216" />
  <row Id="2408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="b82b4c3b-750f-40e6-81f7-6ac501ec28dd" CreationDate="2012-07-30T08:16:01.550" UserId="185" Comment="Added references to other, more specific tags the user might find suitable, extended the explanation of what grammar is." Text="How the grammar works: how different forms of the same word can be used, what they mean, how they are composed into phases or sentences. Use this tag with or without a more precise one (check out &quot;morphology&quot;, &quot;syntax&quot;, &quot;word-order&quot;, and tags for different parts of speech (&quot;nouns&quot;) and grammatical categories (&quot;cases&quot;))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="ace0bb91-4526-4cc7-b12b-ffb8b75b5a96" CreationDate="2012-07-30T10:17:32.910" UserId="71" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь мно&lt;b&gt;гиx&lt;/b&gt; кого не одобряет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь мно&lt;b&gt;го&lt;/b&gt; кого не одобряет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="14b85c66-aacf-4cf8-8868-c80d15e33df8" CreationDate="2012-07-30T14:21:32.657" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Люмпен is somewhat close to пролетарий with negative connotation. &#xD;&#xA;It is sorta of &quot;bad&quot; пролетарий or even &quot;деклассированный элемент&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Маргинал is wider. For example, панк can be considered маргинал, but not always he is a lumpen, any member of left/right extremist organization is a маргинал. Occupy movement can be called маргинальный, but is hardly люмпенский, since many of activists belong no intellectual elite (students, professors, artists etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Филистер/мещанин pair is quite alike in sense of this &quot;marxist/non-marxist&quot; differentiation. Мещанин in its first, historical sense is a representative of specific social class actually. Somewhat close to буржуа, but having much lower social status. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it second sense, which is the main one nowadays, мещанин indeed means someone who just don't care about any kind of spiritual and social values, deeply selfish and narrow minded person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same about filister (which comes from филистимлянин in german). It believed that this word had been used by new time german students do describe...an average burger (a close relative of russian мещанин) who despises any kind of &quot;abstract&quot; intellectual activity, whether it would be, say, a literature, or archeology or whatever else you should study in the university. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very close to мещанин indeed. It's just that in russian it tends to be slightly less social marked. Besides, it's is definitely more &quot;bookish&quot; term compared to мещанин :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2411" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="12a16129-d80b-4815-99b8-95523a00fd1e" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:53:34.373" UserId="-1" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="2412" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="8c554cbf-9bb3-4acd-adc0-de930867eb9f" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:53:34.373" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="78c2957d-8efe-4ee4-a3ea-2303eaccce5d" CreationDate="2012-07-30T22:29:55.310" UserId="242" Text="This question is somewhat related to the [question][1] &quot;Is there a Russian analogue of British Council or Goethe-Institut&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All boils down to the fact that there does not exists such strong institution which can provide such contest on appropriate level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, in the year 2011 such contest has been conducted. So called &quot;[1-й][2] всемирный фестиваль русского языка&quot; (under МАПРЯЛ guidance), as far as I know, included, among other things, speech contest as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard about the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for link, provided by Roman Yankovsky, it's a little bit different story, since (correct me someone who knows this staff better, I might be wrong) major part of contestant were foreign pupils that had studied in russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/272/is-there-a-russian-analogue-of-british-council-or-goethe-institut/719#719&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/ru/news/common/news24075.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="abb48c68-51d6-44a8-8129-9bb600c82514" CreationDate="2012-07-30T22:58:35.227" UserId="242" Text="I have no idea how to teach to pronounce Ы, but I have some experience with successful introducing to correct Щ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One man I've taught was French, and for him pronouncing Щ was a literally a nightmare. After several attempts that finally failed, we've tried following trick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronounce Sh for a while, try to make it as lengthy as possible. &#xD;&#xA;Now try to whisper and hiss like a snake.&#xD;&#xA;Now, while doing all these, slightly move forward (towards upper teeth) the tip of your tongue. &#xD;&#xA;Automatically, the middle of the tongue will raise up towards the palate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that this is Щ :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second my &quot;student&quot; has been an Australian. We've did the same trick with him. It was far easier, since, as we've both noticed, he pronounced `she` very close to `щи`, not `ши` )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Ч, I've never met someone who had not been able to pronounce this clearly enough )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2415" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="242c027a-7a11-49ad-88c4-415807fe7a65" CreationDate="2012-07-31T08:34:44.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/230219937363423233" />
  <row Id="2416" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="0048f7ab-654a-43bb-a05a-3a25642be875" CreationDate="2012-07-31T11:24:15.640" UserId="185" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="1635c9f1-db52-4219-9c8e-79f0d7b239f3" CreationDate="2012-07-31T11:54:19.543" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="I have no idea how to teach to pronounce Ы, but I have a success story on teaching correct Щ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One man I've taught was French, and for him pronouncing Щ was a literally a nightmare. After several attempts that finally failed, we've tried following trick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronounce Sh for a while, try to make it as lengthy as possible. &#xD;&#xA;Now try to whisper and hiss like a snake.&#xD;&#xA;Now, while doing all these, slightly move forward (towards upper teeth) the tip of your tongue. &#xD;&#xA;Automatically, the middle of the tongue will raise up towards the palate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It turns out that this is Щ :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second my &quot;student&quot; has been an Australian. We've did the same trick with him. It was far easier, since, as we've both noticed, he pronounced `she` very close to `щи`, not `ши` )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Ч, I've never met someone who had not been able to pronounce this clearly enough )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="20863022-798a-4ff7-9da4-9f5e88bfd695" CreationDate="2012-07-31T15:27:57.177" UserId="71" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Questions about dictionaries, corpora, textbooks, references and any other materials that can be used for learning or studying Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="a9f0ba50-8f8f-467a-8267-8dbfce29b664" CreationDate="2012-07-31T15:27:57.177" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Note: Make sure your question is very specific when asking for resources. This kind of questions are soon to be put off topic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="d4276821-d428-43bd-98ea-edabac6dbc19" CreationDate="2012-07-31T18:27:21.160" UserId="309" Text="@Olga @shabunc Have you ever tried Forvo services? This is a big database of pronounced words and expressions in various languages including Russian, so listening to the samples there could be very useful for your students. It could give them an idea how to pronounce some typical syllables and palatalized consonants. Also, there you may place a request on pronunciation of particular words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian pronunciation guide - Forvo: http://www.forvo.com/languages/ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="c1bfb97f-1019-4afc-9140-7ec0bf589357" CreationDate="2012-07-31T19:00:13.803" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Have you ever tried Forvo services? This is a big database of pronounced words and expressions in various languages including Russian, so listening to the samples there could be very useful for your students. It could give them an idea how to pronounce some typical syllables and palatalized consonants. Also, there you may place a request on pronunciation of particular words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian pronunciation guide - Forvo: http://www.forvo.com/languages/ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="52ad2352-f4fc-4da8-8b67-9f1ef6072aa8" CreationDate="2012-07-31T20:50:59.067" UserId="185" Comment="Added a reference to FAQ saying that Russian to English translations are not accepted." Text="Please note that as it stands in our FAQ, questions asking to translate a word or a phrase from English to Russian are not accepted on this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="bbbd2419-9cd0-400c-8754-0b32fc8de152" CreationDate="2012-07-31T20:50:59.067" UserId="185" Comment="Added a reference to FAQ saying that Russian to English translations are not accepted." Text="All questions about translation of words, phrases, idioms or collocations English-to-Russian translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="e12c64a5-2b81-463f-b450-5ea52aa40263" CreationDate="2012-07-31T21:03:41.490" UserId="185" Comment="Added examples and introduced the difference between etymology and folk etymology." Text="Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. For example, this area of research answers questions like &quot;How did word X get its current meaning?&quot;, or &quot;Is this word a borrowing from another language?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that along with the actual etymology a word or a phrase may have a so-called &quot;folk etymology&quot;, which occurs when native speakers don't see the origin of the word and instead re-analyze it. A famous example of such folk etymology is saying that &quot;hamburger&quot; comes from word &quot;ham&quot; and &quot;burger&quot;, when it originally stems from &quot;Hamburg&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in folk etymology instead of the real one, please state so in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="fa07ce20-e657-4405-b6ab-0fc3fd4f4314" CreationDate="2012-07-31T21:03:41.490" UserId="185" Comment="Added examples and introduced the difference between etymology and folk etymology." Text="The history and the origin of words and phrases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="670d0ced-4971-4f90-981a-a8caf555f424" CreationDate="2012-07-31T23:34:44.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/230446429364174848" />
  <row Id="2427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="75a7cfd7-2314-4bcc-a27e-9c21606a570c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T02:49:23.180" UserId="170" Text="In case if I place more than one sentence inside parentheses, where do I need to place the last period? Before the closing parenthesis or right after it? Or do I need a period there at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one of the three options here is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Джек никогда не обращал на такие вещи никакого внимания. (Многие в нашем городке имели точно такое же отношение ко всему происxодящему, как и Джек. Это было своего рода признаком смелости и даже силы, когда кто-нибудь не проявлял никакого интереса и не придавал никакого значения мистическим силам, присутствовавшим в этиx местаx и время от время дающим о себе знать**.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Джек никогда не обращал на такие вещи никакого внимания. (Многие в нашем городке имели точно такое же отношение ко всему происxодящему, как и Джек. Это было своего рода признаком смелости и даже силы, когда кто-нибудь не проявлял никакого интереса и не придавал никакого значения мистическим силам, присутствовавшим в этиx местаx и время от время дающим о себе знать**).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Джек никогда не обращал на такие вещи никакого внимания. (Многие в нашем городке имели точно такое же отношение ко всему происxодящему, как и Джек. Это было своего рода признаком смелости и даже силы, когда кто-нибудь не проявлял никакого интереса и не придавал никакого значения мистическим силам, присутствовавшим в этиx местаx и время от время дающим о себе знать**)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="75a7cfd7-2314-4bcc-a27e-9c21606a570c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T02:49:23.180" UserId="170" Text="placing more than one sentence inside parentheses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="75a7cfd7-2314-4bcc-a27e-9c21606a570c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T02:49:23.180" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="e45a2982-48ba-4b4d-99b5-2ede57a259c0" CreationDate="2012-08-01T05:37:14.343" UserId="81" Text="Only **A** is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [gramota.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 202.** Точка, знаки вопросительный и восклицательный и многоточие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ставятся **перед закрывающей скобкой, если относятся только к словам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключенным в скобки**, но после закрывающей скобки, если относятся ко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всему предложению вместе со словами, заключенными в скобки, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ...Вы не изволите знать здешнего судью – Мылова Павла Лукича?.. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знаете... Ну, все равно. (Он откашлялся и протер глаза.) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Он знал латинский язык, и виргилиевское «quos ego!» (я вас!) не было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ему чуждым. *Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Но:** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Обед был действительно недурен и в качестве&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воскресного не обошелся без трепещущего желе и испанских ветров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (пирожного). *Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; И разве я не вижу, что этот дурень смотрит только на Бурьенку (надо ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прогнать)! *Л. Толстой* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Примечание.** После цитаты, за которой в скобках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следует ссылка на автора и на источник, точка опускается и ставится&#xD;&#xA;&gt; после ссылки вне скобки, например: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Вспомнились слова Базарова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Природа не храм, а мастерская, а человек в ней работник» (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 203.** После закрывающей скобки, которой заканчивается предложение,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ставится знак препинания, требуемый предложением в целом, независимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от того, какой знак может стоять перед закрывающей скобкой, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Единственный сын его, дед мой Лев Александрович, во время мятежа 1762&#xD;&#xA;&gt; года остался верен Петру III, не хотел присягнуть Екатерине – и был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посажен в крепость вместе с Измайловым (странна судьба и союз сих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен!). *Пушкин*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your sample is really close to the first quote by Turgenev. Period here applies to the sentence inside parentheses.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both **B** and **C** are incorrect because sentence inside the brackets is not finished.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=oszp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="cdf8993c-035e-408a-a4fc-f87a3cb5f88c" CreationDate="2012-08-01T05:45:33.073" UserId="81" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Only **A** is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [gramota.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 202.** Точка, знаки вопросительный и восклицательный и многоточие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ставятся **перед закрывающей скобкой, если относятся только к словам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключенным в скобки**, но после закрывающей скобки, если относятся ко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всему предложению вместе со словами, заключенными в скобки, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ...Вы не изволите знать здешнего судью – Мылова Павла Лукича?.. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знаете... Ну, все равно. (Он откашлялся и протер глаза.) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Он знал латинский язык, и виргилиевское «quos ego!» (я вас!) не было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ему чуждым. *Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Но:** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Обед был действительно недурен и в качестве&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воскресного не обошелся без трепещущего желе и испанских ветров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (пирожного). *Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; И разве я не вижу, что этот дурень смотрит только на Бурьенку (надо ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прогнать)! *Л. Толстой* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Примечание.** После цитаты, за которой в скобках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следует ссылка на автора и на источник, точка опускается и ставится&#xD;&#xA;&gt; после ссылки вне скобки, например: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Вспомнились слова Базарова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Природа не храм, а мастерская, а человек в ней работник» (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 203.** После закрывающей скобки, которой заканчивается предложение,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ставится знак препинания, требуемый предложением в целом, независимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от того, какой знак может стоять перед закрывающей скобкой, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Единственный сын его, дед мой Лев Александрович, во время мятежа 1762&#xD;&#xA;&gt; года остался верен Петру III, не хотел присягнуть Екатерине – и был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посажен в крепость вместе с Измайловым (странна судьба и союз сих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен!). *Пушкин*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your sample is really close to the first quote by Turgenev. Period here applies to the sentence inside parentheses.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both **B** and **C** are incorrect because sentence inside the brackets is not finished.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is only one case when you need to put a period after parenthesis: when parenthesized text is a last part of a sentence (Check out the last example by Pushkin in the quote above.).&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=oszp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="348e36b5-209f-45bd-ba4a-da7d785b37ab" CreationDate="2012-08-01T06:24:14.510" UserId="81" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Only **A** is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [gramota.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 202.** Точка, знаки вопросительный и восклицательный и многоточие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ставятся **перед закрывающей скобкой, если относятся только к словам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключенным в скобки**, но после закрывающей скобки, если относятся ко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всему предложению вместе со словами, заключенными в скобки, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; ...Вы не изволите знать здешнего судью – Мылова Павла Лукича?.. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знаете... Ну, все равно. (Он откашлялся и протер глаза.) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Он знал латинский язык, и виргилиевское «quos ego!» (я вас!) не было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ему чуждым. *Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Но:** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Обед был действительно недурен и в качестве&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воскресного не обошелся без трепещущего желе и испанских ветров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (пирожного). *Тургенев*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; И разве я не вижу, что этот дурень смотрит только на Бурьенку (надо ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прогнать)! *Л. Толстой* &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Примечание.** После цитаты, за которой в скобках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следует ссылка на автора и на источник, точка опускается и ставится&#xD;&#xA;&gt; после ссылки вне скобки, например: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; Вспомнились слова Базарова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Природа не храм, а мастерская, а человек в ней работник» (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 203.** После закрывающей скобки, которой заканчивается предложение,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ставится знак препинания, требуемый предложением в целом, независимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от того, какой знак может стоять перед закрывающей скобкой, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Единственный сын его, дед мой Лев Александрович, во время мятежа 1762&#xD;&#xA;&gt; года остался верен Петру III, не хотел присягнуть Екатерине – и был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посажен в крепость вместе с Измайловым (странна судьба и союз сих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен!). *Пушкин*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your sample is really close to the first quote by Turgenev. Period here applies to the sentence inside parentheses.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both **B** and **C** are incorrect because sentence inside the brackets is not finished with appropriate punctuation mark.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is only one case when you need to put a period after parenthesis: when parenthesized text is a last part of a sentence (Check out the last example by Pushkin in the quote above.).&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=oszp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2433" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="8e081de1-20ab-4e03-83d0-f4c4a3ef8247" CreationDate="2012-08-01T09:54:50.310" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="Placing more than one sentence inside parentheses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="cbe04290-c069-4b74-92ae-bbcf96b1c14e" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:34:46.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/230627629554876416" />
  <row Id="2435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="cbbbae1b-5c6f-4447-96da-3fc9d24b1657" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:43:23.120" UserId="185" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Adverbs include such words that modify verbs and adjectives. An adverb can usually be used to answer questions &quot;How?..&quot;, &quot;Where?..&quot;, &quot;When?..&quot; or &quot;How much?..&quot;. It describes manner, time, place, cause, degree or other parameters of an action or a property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="0138dd0b-5748-4d8c-b8aa-35babb348486" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:43:23.120" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="Questions about adverbs. An adverb is a part of speech that modifies verbs, adjectives and other adverbs. Examples: &quot;очень&quot; (very), &quot;быстро&quot; (fast), &quot;нарочно&quot; (on purpose), &quot;бегом&quot; (running)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="553" RevisionGUID="ad9eabd0-b496-4516-83e4-bba77a7822d5" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:45:40.777" UserId="185" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="Suffixes are morphemes that follow the stem and precede the ending and are used to derive words, for example, &quot;дом&quot; -- &quot;дом-ик&quot; -- &quot;дом-ишк-о&quot; -- &quot;дом-ищ-е&quot;, or &quot;толк-а-ть&quot; -- &quot;толк-ну-ть&quot; -- &quot;подтакл-ива-ть&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="055e8c85-b2fa-4a0d-86d0-9343147530cd" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:45:40.777" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="Questions about suffixes, a part of word between the stem and the ending. Some examples: &quot;дом&quot; -- &quot;дом-ик&quot; -- &quot;дом-ишк-о&quot; -- &quot;дом-ищ-е&quot;, or &quot;быстро&quot;--&quot;быстр-еньк-о&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="775" RevisionGUID="7122c590-a426-42b1-bc2f-8b998bc96c32" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:48:01.837" UserId="185" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="2ff321ec-5037-4fb7-add6-c11b2da1120a" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:48:01.837" UserId="185" Text="Questions about transliteration, or converting a text from one writing system to another without translation. Example: &quot;Надя&quot; - &quot;Nadya&quot;, &quot;провокация&quot; - &quot;provokatsiya&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="45695e7c-e507-44ef-a516-93d0548efbcb" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:48:36.187" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="All questions about translation of words, phrases, idioms or collocations  from English to Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="9b98bb95-3917-4593-8093-788e204b0d85" CreationDate="2012-08-01T17:31:38.493" UserId="126" Text="I am not sure I understand the difference between these two verb forms. For example, what is the difference in meaning between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто-то открыл дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто-то открывал дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand the first denotes a concrete action and the second a habit, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="9b98bb95-3917-4593-8093-788e204b0d85" CreationDate="2012-08-01T17:31:38.493" UserId="126" Text="Difference between открыл and открывал" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="9b98bb95-3917-4593-8093-788e204b0d85" CreationDate="2012-08-01T17:31:38.493" UserId="126" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="0aa622ef-5736-4581-b0ee-3a881dcf2ed0" CreationDate="2012-08-01T17:34:45.697" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/230718223786590211" />
  <row Id="2446" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="59eefed5-6120-4441-be50-09824cf82ed1" CreationDate="2012-08-01T17:56:31.817" UserId="185" Comment="Added tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="78a1ef2c-729d-437c-a67d-33f8d4a5c34b" CreationDate="2012-08-01T18:08:00.327" UserId="185" Text="Not exactly. These are two verbs of the different aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*открыть* is a perfect form, it denotes a finished action, an action that has reached its result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*открывать* is an imperfect form, it denotes an action that is taking place at the moment of speech (a) or at some other moment denoted in the text (b). It may also have other meanings such as a habit (c), a regularly repeating action (d), an ability or a possible action (c), or a &quot;general fact&quot; (Russian linguists use term &quot;общефактическое значение&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="552a6ce6-41a5-422a-aa7c-3a488d7631df" CreationDate="2012-08-01T18:08:40.607" UserId="298" Text="Открыл denotes a complete action.&#xD;&#xA;E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он открыл дверь и уведел труп в комнате. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He opened the door and saw a corpse in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Открывал denotes the prolonged action. In English it's conveyed by using progressive tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он наделал много шума, когда открывал дверь. (if we use открыл here,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it would mean that he opened the door and made a lot of noise **after**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He made a lot of noise when he was opening the door." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="87c0ecf6-0ea8-4ce7-9aaa-988244e9ff74" CreationDate="2012-08-01T18:21:43.547" UserId="185" Comment="Added examples; added 108 characters in body" Text="Not exactly. These are two verbs of the different aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*открыть* is a **perfect** form, it denotes a finished action, an action that has reached its result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Хорошо бы проветрить.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я только что открыл окно.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — It would be nice to have some fresh air.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — I have just opened the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*открывать* is an **imperfect** form, it denotes an action that is taking place at the moment of speech (a) or at some other moment denoted in the text (b). It may also have other meanings such as a habit (c), a regularly repeating action (d), an ability or a possible action (e), or a &quot;general fact&quot; (f) (Russian linguists use term &quot;общефактическое значение&quot;). The meaning of a &quot;general fact&quot; is different from the meaning of the normal completed action in that it stresses the action. If you want to stress the result, use a perfective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Хорошо бы проветрить.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я как раз открываю окно.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — It would be nice to have some fresh air.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — I am opening the window right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда она вошла в комнату, я открывал окно.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when she entered the room, I was opening the window.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(c) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;По утрам он первым делом открывал окно в спальне.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every morning the first thing he did was to open the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я несколько раз открывал окно и выглядывал на улицу, но ничего необычного не заметил.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I opened the window and peeked outside several times, but I didn't notice anything unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(e)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Наш кот слишком умный, он сам открывает холодильник.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our cat is way too smart, it can open a fridge on his own.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кто-нибудь открывал окно в этой комнате? — спросил детектив.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Has anyone opened a window in this room? — asked the detective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="7aa6978f-ad0a-4474-b3e1-98fb5c840d4d" CreationDate="2012-08-01T18:24:03.300" UserId="115" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text=" - `пересекать/пересечь` simply means &quot;to cross&quot; (a road, a square, a line, etc.) or to intersect.&#xD;&#xA; - `засекать/засечь` is often used in `засекать/засечь время`, meaning &quot;to note the time&quot;, usually the beginning of some process to see how long it takes. `засекать/засечь` can also mean to detect something or to pinpoint the location of something (e. g. by triangulating on a radio source, or by using a radar).  Example: `Мы засекли неопознанный летающий объект` (We have detected a UFO)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="221ad49d-6d55-4094-ac5f-7348ae0705fd" CreationDate="2012-08-01T18:26:31.173" UserId="185" Comment="Formatting in the title" Text="Difference between &quot;открыл&quot; and &quot;открывал&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="3af8c379-fbbe-4b75-9775-84b43579bce2" CreationDate="2012-08-01T22:22:41.697" UserId="242" Text="Fresh (non-salt) water is also called sweet in english. &#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, the word sweet is also used in some&#xD;&#xA;slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be precise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in [Polish][1], `woda słodka`&#xD;&#xA; - in [Czech][2], `sladká voda`&#xD;&#xA; - in Croatian (as well as in Serbian and Bosnian, may be with different spelling), `slatka voda`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some slavic languages where literally `питьевая` means &quot;пресная&quot; (it worth to mention that the same we can tell about above-mentioned languages, it's just that this expression are not 100% interchangeable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Macedonian][3], `питка вода`.&#xD;&#xA;Though in Bulgarian, which is close relative of Macedonian, it is said `прясна вода`. In Ukrainian one should say `прісна вода`, in Belorussian, `прэсная вада`. But two last examples are not that surprising, since both Ukrainian and Belorussian belong to the same subbranch of slavic languages that Russian belongs as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: Did it ever existed  expression &quot;cладкая вода&quot; in Russian, in that very meaning. If yes, when and how it loose battle to &quot;пресная вода&quot;?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woda_s%C5%82odka&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sladk%C3%A1_voda&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="3af8c379-fbbe-4b75-9775-84b43579bce2" CreationDate="2012-08-01T22:22:41.697" UserId="242" Text="Was ever &quot;сладкий&quot; been synonymous to &quot;пресный&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="3af8c379-fbbe-4b75-9775-84b43579bce2" CreationDate="2012-08-01T22:22:41.697" UserId="242" Text="|other-languages|slavic|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="27938374-9862-4145-bbd4-055fe3bdcdd3" CreationDate="2012-08-02T00:13:47.157" UserId="309" Text="I didn't encounter `сладкая` in meaning of `пресная` in Russian. Moreover, I cannot realize its using this way. Being applied to food or drinks, `сладкая` may be used to express `вкусная` (tasty, delicious), although its using in this meaning considered old-fashioned and outdated nowadays. `Сладкая вода` literally assotiates with lemonade." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2456" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="be65cbaa-e62f-447e-8794-def800381c14" CreationDate="2012-08-02T05:34:44.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/230899414959521793" />
  <row Id="2457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="6376da0c-4b10-4add-8d76-a994c985643a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:53:21.187" UserId="109" Comment="tense in title and some minor changes in body" Text="Fresh (non-salt) water is also called sweet in English. &#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, the word sweet is also used in some Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be precise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in [Polish][1], `woda słodka`&#xD;&#xA; - in [Czech][2], `sladká voda`&#xD;&#xA; - in Croatian (as well as in Serbian and Bosnian, may be with different spelling), `slatka voda`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some Slavic languages where literally `питьевая` means &quot;пресная&quot; (it worth to mention that the same we can tell about above-mentioned languages, it's just that this expression are not 100% interchangeable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Macedonian][3], `питка вода`.&#xD;&#xA;Though in Bulgarian, which is close relative of Macedonian, it is said `прясна вода`. In Ukrainian one should say `прісна вода`, in Belorussian, `прэсная вада`. But the two last examples are not that surprising, since both Ukrainian and Belorussian belong to the same subbranch of Slavic languages that Russian belongs to as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: Did it ever existed  expression &quot;cладкая вода&quot; in Russian, in that very meaning. If yes, when and how it loose battle to &quot;пресная вода&quot;?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woda_s%C5%82odka&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sladk%C3%A1_voda&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2458" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="6376da0c-4b10-4add-8d76-a994c985643a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:53:21.187" UserId="109" Comment="tense in title and some minor changes in body" Text="Was ever &quot;сладкий&quot; synonymous to &quot;пресный&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="6376da0c-4b10-4add-8d76-a994c985643a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:53:21.187" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 242 edit id of 213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="57993bfc-6015-406a-bfb0-21a7bc208ae8" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:56:07.880" UserId="185" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Not exactly. These are two verbs of the different aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*открыть* is a **perfective** form, it denotes a finished action, an action that has reached its result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Хорошо бы проветрить.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я только что открыл окно.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — It would be nice to have some fresh air.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — I have just opened the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*открывать* is an **imperfective** form, it denotes an action that is taking place at the moment of speech (a) or at some other moment denoted in the text (b). It may also have other meanings such as a habit (c), a regularly repeating action (d), an ability or a possible action (e), or a &quot;general fact&quot; (f) (Russian linguists use term &quot;общефактическое значение&quot;). The meaning of a &quot;general fact&quot; is different from the meaning of the normal completed action in that it stresses the action. If you want to stress the result, use a perfective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(a) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Хорошо бы проветрить.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я как раз открываю окно.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — It would be nice to have some fresh air.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — I am opening the window right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(b) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда она вошла в комнату, я открывал окно.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when she entered the room, I was opening the window.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(c) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;По утрам он первым делом открывал окно в спальне.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every morning the first thing he did was to open the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(d) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я несколько раз открывал окно и выглядывал на улицу, но ничего необычного не заметил.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I opened the window and peeked outside several times, but I didn't notice anything unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(e)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Наш кот слишком умный, он сам открывает холодильник.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our cat is way too smart, it can open a fridge on his own.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (f)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кто-нибудь открывал окно в этой комнате? — спросил детектив.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Has anyone opened a window in this room? — asked the detective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="782" RevisionGUID="1158d293-9e61-4a90-a641-c64f238d5835" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:13:15.430" UserId="185" Text="Particles are a very heterogeneous class. This class includes all items with vague lexical meaning that give different emotional shades to the sentence (&quot;разве&quot; in &quot;А разве он не приедет?&quot;), function as means of expression of different predicative categories (&quot;бы&quot; in &quot;Он бы приехал, но некогда&quot;, question particle &quot;ли&quot;, negation particles) or discourse markers (&quot;ну&quot; in &quot;Ну, а теперь он не может приехать, мало ли что он раньше говорил.&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="783" RevisionGUID="4caa1b81-8f7d-4fbb-8410-17c6cf30ad7a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:13:15.430" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Questions about particles. Particles are function words that lack precise lexical meaning. Examples: &quot;ну&quot; - &quot;well&quot;, &quot;даже&quot; - &quot;even&quot;, negation particles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="2befd8ce-5651-4048-8aeb-e61f5a704182" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:31:11.297" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="7b81ba1a-3c2e-48cd-b66e-086d1c740edf" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:31:11.297" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="6e845f6e-5814-4a85-844e-d0d3dd97f2bd" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:34:45.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/230944715430842368" />
  <row Id="2466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="c16953ba-bf9f-4586-bd1e-8248f6a8249b" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:35:10.840" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="49f0f3a6-be94-4e27-b5f4-d87eb0420519" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:35:10.840" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="a953b3ec-5d23-4190-bf11-e502bd594a49" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:38:51.763" UserId="242" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="Questions on the history of Russian language, it's origin and changes it gone through the centuries. This includes history changes in vocabulary, in grammar, in phonetics and semantics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2469" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="a953b3ec-5d23-4190-bf11-e502bd594a49" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:38:51.763" Comment="Proposed by 242 approved by -1 edit id of 216" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="bf2a8eba-b88d-4e27-bbfb-cfa366378e72" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:38:51.763" UserId="185" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions on the history of the Russian language, it's origin and changes it gone through the centuries. This includes history changes in vocabulary, in grammar, in phonetics and semantics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="59a6ea54-b021-4f6d-bd47-dced400b6f7f" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:39:37.300" UserId="242" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Questions on the history of Russian language, it's origin and changes it gone through the centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2472" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="59a6ea54-b021-4f6d-bd47-dced400b6f7f" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:39:37.300" Comment="Proposed by 242 approved by -1 edit id of 217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="04e87838-777a-4932-b91e-ba388d0b452a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:39:37.300" UserId="185" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions on the history of the Russian language, it's origin and changes it gone through the centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="50edf12a-6a78-4c2e-929e-726c0dfc08e0" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:40:47.813" UserId="242" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="everything related to Russian language in context of its relations with other Slavic languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2475" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="50edf12a-6a78-4c2e-929e-726c0dfc08e0" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:40:47.813" Comment="Proposed by 242 approved by -1 edit id of 215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="6f97d6a7-1bd6-40dd-8c38-274f61e670e5" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:40:47.813" UserId="185" Comment="determiners" Text="Everything related to the Russian language in the context of its relations with other Slavic languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="37d30547-9ced-4ca8-b478-e0cc96a95c24" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:41:21.277" UserId="242" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="everything related to Russian language in context of its relations with other Slavic languages, whether extinct or alive.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2478" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="37d30547-9ced-4ca8-b478-e0cc96a95c24" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:41:21.277" Comment="Proposed by 242 approved by -1 edit id of 214" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="703f8ee2-0163-4af1-93bb-58ca736bcaaf" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:41:21.277" UserId="185" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Everything related to the Russian language in the context of its relations with other Slavic languages, either extinct or alive.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="67f2ee05-6ee8-471e-a991-a664545846e0" CreationDate="2012-08-02T10:09:07.620" UserId="242" Text="Well, I'd say that we should speak here separately of oral speech and  written norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for texts in newspapers, the percent of words that can be understood by russian-only speaker is big enough to understand almost everything. The meaning of words that are uncommon can be understood by context in which they have been encountered. For example, `відсотків` means percents in Ukrainian, and this word by itself is not familiar to  russian monolingual speaker. But if such speaker would read this in phrase &quot;Стягнення відсотків за товарний кредит, якщо відсотки не передбачені договором?&quot; he most probably will guess what this is about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for oral speech, it is always harder to get both context and correct spelling to make any kind of conclusions. So it is harder in average. Nevertheless, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ukrainian is pretty much understandable in any case)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="c5976bfa-c9d6-4274-a30b-939cf1718dba" CreationDate="2012-08-02T10:37:31.890" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Well, I'd say that we should speak here separately of oral speech and  written norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for texts in newspapers, the percent of words that can be understood by russian-only speaker is big enough to understand almost everything. The meaning of words that are uncommon can be understood by context in which they have been encountered. For example, `відсотків` means percents in Ukrainian, and this word by itself is not familiar to  russian monolingual speaker. But if such speaker would read this in phrase &quot;Стягнення відсотків за товарний кредит, якщо відсотки не передбачені договором&quot; he most probably will guess what this is about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for oral speech, it is always harder to get both context and correct spelling to make any kind of conclusions. So it is harder in average. Nevertheless, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ukrainian is pretty much understandable in any case)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="31297e98-579d-4cad-a0e2-0c574f10f70a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T10:40:40.090" UserId="71" Comment="added 384 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm looking for a dictionary, English to Russian, that lists swear words and goes into depth about them. By &quot;good&quot; in the title, I meant that it should translate also less known/common swear words appropriately into Russian, also, slang words should be included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be both a dictionary with these swear words included, or a dictionary about it only. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than the link, please *include* why you're proposing that solution and why you think it's better than others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2483" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="31297e98-579d-4cad-a0e2-0c574f10f70a" CreationDate="2012-08-02T10:40:40.090" UserId="71" Comment="added 384 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a good English to Russian dictionary about swear words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2484" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="2dfdf3a2-a045-4bf0-914f-6d016b081bcd" CreationDate="2012-08-02T10:40:55.910" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="1986fcd2-93a0-44c6-bf24-b8736c5fb33c" CreationDate="2012-08-02T10:43:06.673" UserId="242" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="Fresh (non-salt) water is also called sweet in English. &#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, the word sweet is also used in some Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be precise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in [Polish][1], `woda słodka`&#xD;&#xA; - in [Czech][2], `sladká voda`&#xD;&#xA; - in Croatian (as well as in Serbian and Bosnian, may be with different spelling), `slatka voda`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some Slavic languages where literally `питьевая` means &quot;пресная&quot; (it worth to mention that the same we can tell about above-mentioned languages, it's just that this expression are not 100% interchangeable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Macedonian][3], `питка вода`.&#xD;&#xA;Though in Bulgarian, which is close relative of Macedonian, it is said `прясна вода`. In Ukrainian one should say `прісна вода`, in Belorussian, `прэсная вада`. But the two last examples are not that surprising, since both Ukrainian and Belorussian belong to the same subbranch of Slavic languages that Russian belongs to as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: Did it ever existed  expression &quot;cладкая вода&quot; in Russian, in that very meaning. If yes, when and how it loose battle to &quot;пресная вода&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** here is [an excerpt][4] from Church Slavonic dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сладкїй - cладкий; весьма приятный; кроткий, кроткий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not give any hint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woda_s%C5%82odka&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sladk%C3%A1_voda&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0614.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="c46526d5-a611-4da4-942d-3a0d12ea1259" CreationDate="2012-08-02T11:01:46.553" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Fresh (non-salt) water is also called sweet in English. &#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, the word sweet is also used in some Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be precise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in [Polish][1], `woda słodka`&#xD;&#xA; - in [Czech][2], `sladká voda`&#xD;&#xA; - in Croatian (as well as in Serbian and Bosnian, may be with different spelling), `slatka voda`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some Slavic languages where literally `питьевая` means &quot;пресная&quot; (it worth to mention that the same we can tell about above-mentioned languages, it's just that this expression are not 100% interchangeable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Macedonian][3], `питка вода`.&#xD;&#xA;Though in Bulgarian, which is close relative of Macedonian, it is said `прясна вода`. In Ukrainian one should say `прісна вода`, in Belorussian, `прэсная вада`. But the two last examples are not that surprising, since both Ukrainian and Belorussian belong to the same subbranch of Slavic languages that Russian belongs to as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: Did it ever existed  expression &quot;cладкая вода&quot; in Russian, in that very meaning. If yes, when and how it loose battle to &quot;пресная вода&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** here is [an excerpt][4] from Church Slavonic dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сладкїй - cладкий; весьма приятный; добрый, кроткий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not give any hint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woda_s%C5%82odka&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sladk%C3%A1_voda&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0614.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2487" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="732b0f8c-5fb9-4c82-873c-a4781d27ccf1" CreationDate="2012-08-02T11:18:17.420" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2488" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="0498dfc2-87ec-42a6-9ec0-89a65eaf5810" CreationDate="2012-08-02T17:29:37.873" UserDisplayName="user259" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="2489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="2fa6eb58-41a1-43f9-9084-67a58a6d6711" CreationDate="2012-08-02T17:34:45.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231080608242212864" />
  <row Id="2490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="34176948-d257-497a-bdae-431e0c760f8c" CreationDate="2012-08-02T18:45:36.210" UserId="328" Text="I can give you one method. You translate english swear word [here][1] and next found result in the [defining dictionary][2]. Because i never saw all in one solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://matno.ru/index/perevodchik_maternyh_slov_onlajn/0-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mat.al.ru/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2491" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="52bd3c24-c08b-452d-8b02-93a5429d36b2" CreationDate="2012-08-02T22:09:32.107" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2492" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="d2b7e66f-ce7e-42f3-a8af-bbb18f253eb7" CreationDate="2012-08-03T02:34:46.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231216507798056960" />
  <row Id="2493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="6f2d4acd-cee4-4b57-8fd5-88833bcb62ca" CreationDate="2012-08-03T05:28:02.777" UserId="109" Text="I found a dictionary called [Пиздец!][1], a Russian-English slang dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the introducing it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The following 1,700 words and expressions are rude, naughty and generally not something you would say in front of your mother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russki-mat.net/e/Russian.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="b10e9d4f-d4f9-42ee-8813-875fe8228d80" CreationDate="2012-08-03T09:38:39.170" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="I can give you a method. You translate an English swear word [here][1] and next search for it in the [defining dictionary][2]. I use it, because I have never seen all-in-one solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://matno.ru/index/perevodchik_maternyh_slov_onlajn/0-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mat.al.ru/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="70d1ddfe-d4dc-435a-abab-7a6a5531be02" CreationDate="2012-08-03T12:46:54.890" UserId="333" Text="In some Russian dictionaries &quot;пресный&quot; and &quot;сладкий&quot; are listed as synonyms, but now I'd rather hear &quot;пресный&quot; in meaning &quot;не сладкий&quot;, i.e. as antonym of &quot;сладкий&quot;. I think these words were used as antonyms long time ago and only within some specific context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The most common meanings for &quot;пресный&quot; are: without salt (water), tasteless (food &amp; drinks); While &quot;сладкий&quot; means: with sugar (food or drinks) or pleasant (about something else)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="793" RevisionGUID="fce19b84-c808-447d-a5cb-12a8205a7e49" CreationDate="2012-08-03T13:14:04.937" UserId="334" Text="The second one is not in active use, but sometimes occurs as part of (possibly incorrect) archaic stylization or text beautifier.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="2e4a4727-691e-43b1-b105-46d3a4bd628a" CreationDate="2012-08-03T13:30:30.033" UserId="185" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Fresh (non-salt) water is also called sweet in English. &#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, the word sweet is also used in some Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be precise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in [Polish][1], `woda słodka`&#xD;&#xA; - in [Czech][2], `sladká voda`&#xD;&#xA; - in Croatian (as well as in Serbian and Bosnian, may be with different spelling), `slatka voda`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some Slavic languages where literally `питьевая` means &quot;пресная&quot; (it worth to mention that the same we can tell about above-mentioned languages, it's just that this expression are not 100% interchangeable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Macedonian][3], `питка вода`.&#xD;&#xA;Though in Bulgarian, which is close relative of Macedonian, it is said `прясна вода`. In Ukrainian one should say `прісна вода`, in Belorussian, `прэсная вада`. But the two last examples are not that surprising, since both Ukrainian and Belorussian belong to the same subbranch of Slavic languages that Russian belongs to as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: **Did it ever existed  expression &quot;cладкая вода&quot; in Russian, in that very meaning. If yes, when and how it loose battle to &quot;пресная вода&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** here is [an excerpt][4] from Church Slavonic dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сладкїй - cладкий; весьма приятный; добрый, кроткий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not give any hint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woda_s%C5%82odka&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sladk%C3%A1_voda&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0614.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="3b9a1954-8ea1-4a6a-9966-a0ca3d48d81d" CreationDate="2012-08-03T13:37:23.987" UserId="185" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Fresh (non-salt) water is also called sweet in English. &#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, the word sweet is also used in some Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be precise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in [Polish][1], `woda słodka`&#xD;&#xA; - in [Czech][2], `sladká voda`&#xD;&#xA; - in Croatian (as well as in Serbian and Bosnian, may be with different spelling), `slatka voda`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some Slavic languages where literally `питьевая` means &quot;пресная&quot; (it worth to mention that the same we can tell about above-mentioned languages, it's just that this expression are not 100% interchangeable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in [Macedonian][3], `питка вода`.&#xD;&#xA;Though in Bulgarian, which is close relative of Macedonian, it is said `прясна вода`. In Ukrainian one should say `прісна вода`, in Belorussian, `прэсная вада`. But the two last examples are not that surprising, since both Ukrainian and Belorussian belong to the same subbranch of Slavic languages that Russian belongs to as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: **Has it ever existed  expression &quot;cладкая вода&quot; in Russian, with that very meaning. If yes, when and how it loose battle to &quot;пресная вода&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** here is [an excerpt][4] from Church Slavonic dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сладкїй - cладкий; весьма приятный; добрый, кроткий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not give any hint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woda_s%C5%82odka&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sladk%C3%A1_voda&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0614.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2503" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="3444ee97-92be-45d3-a439-e542c4321b93" CreationDate="2012-08-03T14:34:45.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231397699931492352" />
  <row Id="2504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="794" RevisionGUID="af3cd2a7-e3a5-4b83-932c-ddbca3d0d14e" CreationDate="2012-08-03T14:43:27.540" UserId="334" Text="1+2. In given context both variants have the same meaning. The second one is a bit more official, though, and is (don't know why) a bit more popular in science texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the use case is math(or other mathematizide science, such as theoretical physics) lecture, then `Оказывается` is not the good word at all, as it weakly suggests, that result is unexpected. It is standard to use `Следовательно`, `Можно доказать, что...`, `Из этого следует, что` expressions in such setting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `in general (case)` hear translates as `в общем случае`, `всегда`ю" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="795" RevisionGUID="b0d1f72e-f947-469a-b3e3-40b8c7167e9f" CreationDate="2012-08-03T18:47:08.630" UserId="335" Text="Yes, you can omit the word «что» (that), exactly as you can do it in English in the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— I think, (that) you have to talk to her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="4aad9384-dd35-476a-8abd-ce86ac0de541" CreationDate="2012-08-03T19:44:04.787" UserDisplayName="user259" Comment="gramma, babe!!" Text="In this particular case, which I assume has to do with mathematics,  the most likely translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отсюда следует, что данный расчет применим в общем случае.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing to consider is that the whole phrase may be interpreted differently then a piece of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2507" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="4aad9384-dd35-476a-8abd-ce86ac0de541" CreationDate="2012-08-03T19:44:04.787" Comment="Proposed by 259 approved by 123 edit id of 218" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2508" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="cb88fa95-9cca-438b-8adf-ccacb451f1ea" CreationDate="2012-08-03T19:52:16.713" UserDisplayName="user259" Comment="добавил таг, заманиваю ответчиков, так сказать, красными труселями :)" Text="|resource-request|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2509" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="cb88fa95-9cca-438b-8adf-ccacb451f1ea" CreationDate="2012-08-03T19:52:16.713" Comment="Proposed by 259 approved by 185 edit id of 219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2510" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="2f492991-f820-43d1-a9f1-1ec8f89c7860" CreationDate="2012-08-04T02:34:45.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231578892580831233" />
  <row Id="2511" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="9862fbfe-2400-4798-9d5b-6df6cb363daf" CreationDate="2012-08-04T05:34:53.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231624224417144832" />
  <row Id="2512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="eb267b61-f0ad-434a-9521-83ccd8961e95" CreationDate="2012-08-04T17:15:56.647" UserId="336" Text="`Оказывается, это вычисление работает` would be a better translation, omitting the `в общем` altogether. The reason is - I'm actually not sure what &quot;general&quot; stands for in your case. Is it a &quot;works for a general case&quot;? or a &quot;generally works&quot; (as an expression of a surprise that this even works at all)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two would produce different variations, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`... работает в общем слуаче` (as opposite to `... в частном случае, когда` followed by specific constraints of that case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the seconds one would produce the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`... работает вообще`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see your translation with the use of `вообще` means a surprise, not a generalization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the use of `что` after `оказывается, ` - these two forms are almost identical with an extremely subtle difference in your attitude towards such a discovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Оказывается, что` - this one would denote a *continuation* of a previous line of thought. It's somewhat similar to the use of English *the* after the subject has been named or mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Оказывается, ` - this one is more generic and would often indicate an out-of-conversation &quot;open line&quot; to change a current subject, though not necessarily as one could use this form while telling a story and coming to a &quot;discovery&quot; part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second form is a bit less formal (and is thus prevailing in a spoken language) while the more extended form is more formal and has a hint of authoritativeness to it as if the speaker is re-affirming the discovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not a philologist but I'm a native speaker :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="c427bd3c-66f8-4c3d-b034-4efb4eaa6bf4" CreationDate="2012-08-04T17:27:09.087" UserId="336" Comment="edited body" Text="`Оказывается, это вычисление работает` would be a better translation, omitting the `в общем` altogether. The reason is - I'm actually not sure what &quot;general&quot; stands for in your case. Is it a &quot;works for a general case&quot;? or a &quot;generally works&quot; (as an expression of a surprise that this even works at all)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two would produce different variations, namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`... работает в общем случае` (as opposite to `... в частном случае, когда` followed by specific constraints of that case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the seconds one would produce the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`... работает вообще`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, your translation with the use of `вообще` means a surprise, not a generalization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for the use of `что` after `оказывается, ` - these two forms are almost identical with an extremely subtle difference in your attitude towards such a discovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Оказывается, что` - this one would denote a *continuation* of a previous line of thought. It's somewhat similar to the use of English *the* after the subject has been named or mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Оказывается, ` - this one is more generic and would often indicate an out-of-conversation &quot;open line&quot; to change a current subject, though not necessarily as one could use this form while telling a story and coming to a &quot;discovery&quot; part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second form is a bit less formal (and is thus prevailing in a spoken language) while the more extended form is more formal and has a hint of authoritativeness to it as if the speaker is re-affirming the discovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not a philologist, just a native speaker :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="1c1974ff-86b4-43cd-b30b-437d27ca2f1f" CreationDate="2012-08-04T18:27:03.080" UserId="337" Text="In the Neil Cornwell translation of Daniil Kharms' story &quot;Clunk&quot; I see the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The picture is a drawing of a horse, the horse has gypsy in its teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds line a very strange picture: the picture of a horse with a man between his teeth... Well, that's possible with Kharms, but I still wanted to double check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian text should be as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лето, письменный стол. Направо дверь. На столе картина. На картине&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нарисована лошадь, а в зубах у лошади цыган. Ольга Петровна ко- лет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрова. При каждом ударе с носа Ольги Пе- тровны соскакивает  пенсне.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евдоким Осипович сидит в креслах и курит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please help me figure out if there is really a man between the horse's teeth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="1c1974ff-86b4-43cd-b30b-437d27ca2f1f" CreationDate="2012-08-04T18:27:03.080" UserId="337" Text="Is this English translation correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="1c1974ff-86b4-43cd-b30b-437d27ca2f1f" CreationDate="2012-08-04T18:27:03.080" UserId="337" Text="|перевод|значения|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="ac37d526-6af7-410d-868d-ab639bac1e24" CreationDate="2012-08-04T18:44:50.230" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="In the Neil Cornwell translation of Daniil Kharms' story &quot;Clunk&quot; I see the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The picture is a drawing of a horse, the horse has gypsy in its teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds line a very strange picture: the picture of a horse with a man between his teeth... Well, that's possible with Kharms, but I still wanted to double check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian text should be as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лето, письменный стол. Направо дверь. На столе картина. На картине&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нарисована лошадь, а в зубах у лошади цыган. Ольга Петровна ко- лет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрова. При каждом ударе с носа Ольги Пе- тровны соскакивает  пенсне.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евдоким Осипович сидит в креслах и курит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please help me figure out if there is really a man between the horse's teeth?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="a4eeb6db-65c3-4b7f-b94b-a89f5ef2d8bd" CreationDate="2012-08-04T19:29:52.940" UserId="334" Text="&gt;Could you please help me figure out if there is really a man between the horse's teeth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I read it, yes. There is non-zero probability, that this is lost idiom, but I doubt it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="d85d338d-4209-48e9-8ed2-4a752c5f3aa9" CreationDate="2012-08-04T19:51:50.540" UserId="338" Text="Sure, it is written that gypsy is in horse's teeth. This is exactly what &quot;в зубах у лошади цыган&quot; means, no chance it could be an idiom. Well, Kharms books are full of humorous absurd things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2520" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="406e33e8-2493-44c9-841b-1adfea109a86" CreationDate="2012-08-04T23:34:53.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231896017056968704" />
  <row Id="2521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="e266827d-8a54-49aa-8e5f-c35b1a4c9dc9" CreationDate="2012-08-05T02:34:53.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/231941314789400577" />
  <row Id="2522" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="ad234ba6-1b70-4b3b-8097-04f446b42f71" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:52:30.053" UserId="333" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:333,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sergiy&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="862c1429-55e0-4cd7-abb8-d3629cdad2d8" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:53:52.767" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="In the Neil Cornwell translation of Daniil Kharms' story &quot;Clunk&quot; I see the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The picture is a drawing of a horse, the horse has gypsy in its teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds line a very strange picture: the picture of a horse with a man between his teeth... Well, that's possible with Kharms, but I still wanted to double check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian text should be as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лето, письменный стол. Направо дверь. На столе картина. На картине&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нарисована лошадь, а в зубах у лошади цыган. Ольга Петровна колет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрова. При каждом ударе с носа Ольги Петровны соскакивает пенсне.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евдоким Осипович сидит в креслах и курит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please help me figure out if there is really a man between the horse's teeth?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2524" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="11743059-7f29-4693-9811-17baf6364b54" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:54:12.407" UserId="333" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:333,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sergiy&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2525" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="e40f0c44-83c4-46b3-9b4a-83ac24eaa6a2" CreationDate="2012-08-05T14:54:31.063" UserId="333" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:333,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sergiy&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2526" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="709815e4-31de-422a-a431-2ce88ce5bb15" CreationDate="2012-08-05T15:14:46.727" UserId="333" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:333,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sergiy&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="a0db75b7-5030-4c80-a9c0-2f20b3e63056" CreationDate="2012-08-05T16:13:14.540" UserId="333" Comment="added 1361 characters in body" Text="In some Russian dictionaries &quot;пресный&quot; and &quot;сладкий&quot; are listed as synonyms, but now I'd rather hear &quot;пресный&quot; in meaning &quot;не сладкий&quot;, i.e. as antonym of &quot;сладкий&quot;. I think these words were used as antonyms long time ago and only within some specific context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The most common meanings for &quot;пресный&quot; are: without salt (water), tasteless (food &amp; drinks); While &quot;сладкий&quot; means: with sugar (food or drinks) or pleasant (about something else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Olga, sorry for not being useful with my previous answer, but I've dug a bit more and found that there are mentions of &quot;сладкая вода&quot; in religious texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«25. [Моисей] возопил к Господу, и Господь показал ему дерево, и он бросил его в воду, и вода сделалась сладкою.» — Ветхий Завет, Книга Исход, Глава 15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«17. воды краденые сладки, и утаенный хлеб приятен» — Ветхий Завет, Книга Притчи, Глава 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«12. Не может, братия мои, смоковница приносить маслины или виноградная лоза смоквы. Также и один источник не [может] изливать соленую и сладкую воду.» — Новый Завет, Книга Иакова, Глава 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«11. Течет ли из одного отверстия источника сладкая и горькая [вода]?» — Новый Завет, Книга Иакова, Глава 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«9. Сладкие воды сделаются солеными, и все друзья ополчатся друг против друга; тогда сокроется ум, и разум удалится в свое хранилище.» — Ветхий Завет, Третья книга Ездры, Глава 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;сладкая вода&quot; was used in the meaning: не горькая, не солёная, приятная на вкус вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;пресный хлеб&quot; is antonym to &quot;квасной хлеб&quot;, but I've not found any other use of word &quot;пресный&quot; in the Bible, so I can conclude that &quot;пресная вода&quot; is younger phrase than &quot;сладкая вода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd rather suggest that &quot;пресная вода&quot; meant &quot;не вкусная вода&quot; or &quot;вода без вкуса&quot;, so I think &quot;пресная&quot; and &quot;сладкая&quot; weren't 100% interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="3ce40bc0-de4d-4344-93dc-e22cf11f1285" CreationDate="2012-08-05T16:15:57.187" UserId="185" Comment="spelling" Text="In the Neil Cornwell translation of Daniil Kharms' story &quot;Clunk&quot; I see the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The picture is a drawing of a horse, the horse has gypsy in its teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That sounds like a very strange picture: the picture of a horse with a man between his teeth... Well, that's possible with Kharms, but I still wanted to double check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian text should be as below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лето, письменный стол. Направо дверь. На столе картина. На картине&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нарисована лошадь, а в зубах у лошади цыган. Ольга Петровна колет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрова. При каждом ударе с носа Ольги Петровны соскакивает пенсне.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евдоким Осипович сидит в креслах и курит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please help me figure out if there is really a man between the horse's teeth?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="4d4f5ec3-6442-44ab-abf7-4efda1128506" CreationDate="2012-08-05T16:45:25.557" UserId="333" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="In some Russian dictionaries &quot;пресный&quot; and &quot;сладкий&quot; are listed as synonyms, but now I'd rather hear &quot;пресный&quot; in meaning &quot;не сладкий&quot;, i.e. as antonym of &quot;сладкий&quot;. I think these words were used as antonyms long time ago and only within some specific context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The most common meanings for &quot;пресный&quot; are: without salt (water), tasteless (food &amp; drinks); While &quot;сладкий&quot; means: with sugar (food or drinks) or pleasant (about something else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Olga, sorry for not being useful with my previous answer, but I've dug a bit more and found that there are mentions of &quot;сладкая вода&quot; in religious texts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«25. [Моисей] возопил к Господу, и Господь показал ему дерево, и он бросил его в воду, и вода сделалась сладкою.» — Ветхий Завет, Книга Исход, Глава 15.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«17. воды краденые сладки, и утаенный хлеб приятен» — Ветхий Завет, Книга Притчи, Глава 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«12. Не может, братия мои, смоковница приносить маслины или виноградная лоза смоквы. Также и один источник не [может] изливать соленую и сладкую воду.» — Новый Завет, Книга Иакова, Глава 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«11. Течет ли из одного отверстия источника сладкая и горькая [вода]?» — Новый Завет, Книга Иакова, Глава 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«9. Сладкие воды сделаются солеными, и все друзья ополчатся друг против друга; тогда сокроется ум, и разум удалится в свое хранилище.» — Ветхий Завет, Третья книга Ездры, Глава 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;сладкая вода&quot; was used in the meaning: не горькая, не солёная, приятная на вкус вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase &quot;пресный хлеб&quot; is antonym to &quot;квасной хлеб&quot;, but I've not found any other use of word &quot;пресный&quot; in the Bible, so I can conclude that &quot;пресная вода&quot; is younger phrase than &quot;сладкая вода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common meaning of &quot;пресный хлеб&quot; is — unleavened or with leavening agents; but you can find another meaning — containing not salted water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still cannot answer your question about how and when &quot;пресная вода&quot; won over &quot;сладкая вода&quot;, but I can suggest that &quot;пресная вода&quot; has it's origins from cooking unleavened bread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only suggest you to search through old sources for occurrences of &quot;пресная вода&quot; to find out how and when." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="b3959f5d-6819-44d8-861d-b7e7ca537d74" CreationDate="2012-08-06T05:34:54.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/232349004627853313" />
  <row Id="2531" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="2c7f6cee-6246-4ecf-b1d0-b3fe7002d4ff" CreationDate="2012-08-06T11:34:53.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/232439599601967104" />
  <row Id="2532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="0b85c23a-1676-4d4b-8da5-fd88bbdab02d" CreationDate="2012-08-06T13:32:52.510" UserId="282" Text="For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Париж с Константином Коровиным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the -ом on the first name and -ым on the last name?  Are there any other words besides &quot;with&quot; that would see this pattern?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="0b85c23a-1676-4d4b-8da5-fd88bbdab02d" CreationDate="2012-08-06T13:32:52.510" UserId="282" Text="in city with [person's name] - what's the rule for writing a name after 'with'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="0b85c23a-1676-4d4b-8da5-fd88bbdab02d" CreationDate="2012-08-06T13:32:52.510" UserId="282" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="e479065c-7e65-45bc-80a4-4177a8375532" CreationDate="2012-08-06T13:50:47.097" UserId="282" Comment="edited title" Text="&lt;&lt;in city with [person's name]&gt;&gt; - what's the rule for writing a name after 'with'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="59647102-4ca7-4c16-83cd-f534c0b95960" CreationDate="2012-08-06T14:07:54.387" UserId="47" Text="Nice question! The difference is that *Константин* is a first name, while *Коровин* is a surname. According to [the rules][1], surnames ending with the suffixes *-ин* / *-ын* get the ending *-ым* in the instrumental case. Константин, on the contrary, has the usual ablative index *-ом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, if a surname becomes a city name, the above rule is not applicable any more: *Голицын — За Голицином*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/28.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="64b7a1b7-42e7-4eed-a133-01574a12c3b4" CreationDate="2012-08-06T15:01:10.577" UserId="71" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="See for example the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Париж с Константином Коровиным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the -ом on the first name and -ым on the last name?  Are there any other words besides &quot;with&quot; that would see this pattern?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2538" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="64b7a1b7-42e7-4eed-a133-01574a12c3b4" CreationDate="2012-08-06T15:01:10.577" UserId="71" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What case should a noun use after the preposition 'with'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2539" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="64b7a1b7-42e7-4eed-a133-01574a12c3b4" CreationDate="2012-08-06T15:01:10.577" UserId="71" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|существительные|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="b84677d4-d3d2-46cc-8980-7adbb360280c" CreationDate="2012-08-06T15:04:31.213" UserId="194" Text="The short answer is that -ин surnames have the same declension as adjectives. That's why it is &quot;Сталиным&quot;, &quot;Путиным&quot; rather than &quot;Сталином&quot;, &quot;Путином&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="b445241e-0c30-4e23-84de-12dbfa17d16d" CreationDate="2012-08-06T17:34:24.427" UserId="334" Text="Technically, the first name here is of noun-type, that conjugate as noun, and surname is possessive adjective (roughly translated like cow's), that became surname, and conjugates as possesive adjective. So, they have different conjugated forms. Moreover, this surname conjugates with male and female first names differently. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="c99909b1-30b2-4ebe-bb2c-0754378ac77d" CreationDate="2012-08-06T19:57:13.173" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Why the `-ом` on the first name and `-ым` on the last name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last names with this paradigm (ending in `-ов`, `-ев`, `-ёв`, `-ин`, `-ын` and their female counterparts) developed from posessive adjectives and decline like those, though keeping the old short form paragigm: *Коровина*, *Коровину* rather than *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;Коровиного*, *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;Коровиному*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, *Коровин* is a contraction of *Коровин сын*: a son of a person named, dubbed, nicknamed, or otherwise yclept *корова* (cow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until quite recently, it was the way to write the patronymics (*Иван Петров сын Сидоров*), and it's still used in Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this paradigm is only valid for last names of this origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names originated from other languages (*Асприн*, *Толкин* etc.) are declined as nouns (*Асприном*, *Толкином*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian names which have not originated from posessive adjectives (*Литвин*, *Мордвин*) also decline as nouns (*Литвином*, *Мордвином*). However, the names' origins in this case are not obvious from sg. nom., so these last names can decline as posessive adjectives as well, and only the name bearer may know the right form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of Ivan Ivanovich Sakharine, the antagonist in &quot;Tintin's adventures&quot;, is declined *Сахариным*, not *Сахарином* in Russian translation, though both versions are possible, because it's believed it should be an old aristocratic family name originated from the word *сахар* (sugar), not quite a recent nick originated from *сахарин* (saccharin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="628fa973-8ced-4953-8dd3-c0fc57c22be5" CreationDate="2012-08-06T20:07:25.663" UserId="134" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; Why the `-ом` on the first name and `-ым` on the last name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last names with this paradigm (ending in `-ов`, `-ев`, `-ёв`, `-ин`, `-ын` and their female counterparts) developed from posessive adjectives and decline like those, though keeping the old short form paragigm: *Коровина*, *Коровину* rather than *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;Коровиного*, *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;Коровиному*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, *Коровин* is a contraction of *Коровин сын*: a son of a person named, dubbed, nicknamed, or otherwise yclept *корова* (cow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until quite recently, it was the way to write the patronymics (*Иван Петров сын Сидоров*), and it's still used in Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this paradigm is only valid for last names of this origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names originated from other languages (*Асприн*, *Толкин* etc.) are declined as nouns (*Асприном*, *Толкином*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian names which have not originated from posessive adjectives (*Литвин*, *Мордвин*) also decline as nouns (*Литвином*, *Мордвином*). However, the names' origins in this case are not obvious from sg. nom., so these last names can decline as posessive adjectives as well, and only the name bearer may know the right form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of Ivan Ivanovich Sakharine, the antagonist in &quot;Tintin's adventures&quot;, is declined *Сахариным*, not *Сахарином* in Russian translation (though both versions are grammatically possible). It's believed it should be an old aristocratic family name originated from the word *сахар* (sugar), not quite a recent nick originated from *сахарин* (saccharin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="23c679ed-1457-4d20-895c-1e34cf365689" CreationDate="2012-08-07T04:51:47.553" UserId="334" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="Technically, the first name here is of noun-type, that conjugate as noun, and surname is possessive adjective (roughly translated like cow's), that became surname, and conjugates as possesive adjective. So, they have different conjugated forms. Moreover, this surname conjugates with male and female first names differently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not, however, a special case of adjectives, ended with &quot;-ин&quot;, that have two variants of conjugation in some cases, ending with &quot;-а&quot; or &quot;-ого&quot;, that may be confusing. The first variant is standard for surnames, but the second is dominating in other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="33b11d96-741c-4020-985d-68cd130a4ab5" CreationDate="2012-08-07T13:13:53.653" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Why the `-ом` on the first name and `-ым` on the last name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last names with this paradigm (ending in `-ов`, `-ев`, `-ёв`, `-ин`, `-ын` and their female counterparts) developed from posessive adjectives and decline like those, though keeping the old short form paradigm: *Коровина*, *Коровину* rather than *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;Коровиного*, *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;Коровиному*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, *Коровин* is a contraction of *Коровин сын*: a son of a person named, dubbed, nicknamed, or otherwise yclept *корова* (cow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until quite recently, it was the way to write the patronymics (*Иван Петров сын Сидоров*), and it's still used in Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this paradigm is only valid for last names of this origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names originated from other languages (*Асприн*, *Толкин* etc.) are declined as nouns (*Асприном*, *Толкином*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian names which have not originated from posessive adjectives (*Литвин*, *Мордвин*) also decline as nouns (*Литвином*, *Мордвином*). However, the names' origins in this case are not obvious from sg. nom., so these last names can decline as posessive adjectives as well, and only the name bearer may know the right form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of Ivan Ivanovich Sakharine, the antagonist in &quot;Tintin's adventures&quot;, is declined *Сахариным*, not *Сахарином* in Russian translation (though both versions are grammatically possible). It's believed it should be an old aristocratic family name originated from the word *сахар* (sugar), not quite a recent nick originated from *сахарин* (saccharin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="adfb25a0-d491-404e-bd57-bd05bc866766" CreationDate="2012-08-07T13:14:24.367" UserId="19" Text="&gt; не хватает три рубля/трёх рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не хватает два рубля/двух рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не хватает один рубль/одного рубля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both seem to be commonly used in day-to-day speech. Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="adfb25a0-d491-404e-bd57-bd05bc866766" CreationDate="2012-08-07T13:14:24.367" UserId="19" Text="не хватает ... рубля/рублей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="adfb25a0-d491-404e-bd57-bd05bc866766" CreationDate="2012-08-07T13:14:24.367" UserId="19" Text="|родительный-падеж|numbers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="9386127f-2ad7-4b71-bac5-cca0b72b7995" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:13:38.607" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|числительные|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2553" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="3f710dcf-0ad5-419d-9077-48d1a02c38eb" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:34:54.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/232847291818577923" />
  <row Id="2554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="807" RevisionGUID="df9e58dc-0978-4c50-8b32-a87e31248ffb" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:46:22.767" UserId="346" Text="не хватает трёх рублей, двух рублей, одного рубля" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="599c2d3d-1370-41b5-81a4-8f39c74181ec" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:55:20.563" UserId="345" Text="It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;There is 6 (падеж) in russian languge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Именительный (from name - имя): У тебя есть (Что?) три рубля.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Родительный. You may think of it just like you missing something/someone: В коробке нет (чего?) трёх рублей.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Дательный (From Give - Дать). Think of it just like you whant to give something to someone: Я хочу дать тебе (Что?) три рубля.&#xD;&#xA; 4.  Винительный (from Blame - Винить). Think of it just like you whant to blame someone/something. It will be difficult to explane on example with &quot;три рубля&quot;. So, there is two examples: with enlivened and unenlivened object: Я виню (кого?) себя. Я виню (что?) три рубля. As you can see, in case of unenlivened object, question is same as for (именительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Творительный (From Make - Творить). Think of it just like you controll something: Я владею (Чем?) тремя рублями.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Предложный (From sentence - предложение). Think of it just like you speaking about something: Давайте поговорим о (о чём?) трёх рублях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case: Не хватает одного/двух/трёх/четырёх (etc) рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="f6d4b96c-a438-4f19-b111-01a25c2cbc82" CreationDate="2012-08-07T15:01:37.133" UserId="345" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;There is 6 (падеж) in russian languge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Именительный (from name - имя): У тебя есть (Что?) три рубля.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Родительный. You may think of it just like you missing something/someone: В коробке нет (чего?) трёх рублей.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Дательный (From Give - Дать). Think of it just like you whant to give something to someone. It will be difficult to explane on example with &quot;три рубля&quot;. So, there is two examples: with enlivened and unenlivened object: Рассказать (кому?) соседу. Положить деньги к остальным (чему?) трём рублям. &#xD;&#xA; 4.  Винительный (from Blame - Винить). Think of it just like you whant to blame someone/something.  Я виню (кого?) себя. Я виню (что?) три рубля. As you can see, in case of unenlivened object, question is same as for (именительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Творительный (From Make - Творить). Think of it just like you controll something: Я владею (Чем?) тремя рублями.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Предложный (From sentence - предложение). Think of it just like you speaking about something: Давайте поговорим о (о чём?) трёх рублях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case: Не хватает одного/двух/трёх/четырёх (etc) рублей.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="ee7bd20a-f119-4cce-8e50-198aa4930303" CreationDate="2012-08-07T15:06:43.637" UserId="345" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="It depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;There is 6 (падеж) in russian languge:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Именительный (from name - имя): У тебя есть (Что?) три рубля.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Родительный. You may think of it just like you missing something/someone: В коробке нет (чего?) трёх рублей.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Дательный (From Give - Дать). Think of it just like you whant to give something to someone. It will be difficult to explane on example with &quot;три рубля&quot;. So, there is two examples: with enlivened and unenlivened object: Рассказать (кому?) соседу. Положить деньги к остальным (чему?) трём рублям. &#xD;&#xA; 4.  Винительный (from Blame - Винить). Think of it just like you whant to blame someone/something.  Я виню (кого?) себя. Я виню (что?) три рубля. As you can see, in case of unenlivened object, question is same as for (именительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Творительный (From Make - Творить). Think of it just like you controll something: Я владею (Чем?) тремя рублями.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Предложный (From sentence - предложение). Think of it just like you speaking about something: Давайте поговорим (о чём?) о трёх рублях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case: Не хватает одного/двух/трёх/четырёх (etc) рублей.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="f81efbcf-e7de-4754-a9cd-80888d7e62d4" CreationDate="2012-08-07T16:02:33.877" UserId="19" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="&gt; не хватает три рубля/трёх рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не хватает два рубля/двух рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не хватает один рубль/одного рубля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both seem to be commonly used in day-to-day speech. Any thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** To reiterate, I'm not asking which of the two options is *correct*. Вопрос не про норму, а про узус. Не про то что правильно, а про то, почему повседневно встречается и первый вариант." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="b94f1edd-4926-46e5-a4bb-846392e756dc" CreationDate="2012-08-07T16:11:09.887" UserId="19" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="&gt; не хватает три рубля/трёх рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не хватает два рубля/двух рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не хватает один рубль/одного рубля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both seem to be commonly used in day-to-day speech. Any thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** To reiterate, I'm not asking which of the two options is *correct*. I'm asking why  both versions can be commonly encountered. Вопрос не про норму, а про узус. Не про то что правильно, а про то, почему повседневно встречается и первый вариант." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="52c806de-4022-4ed6-ac9c-1fdd88c8a22c" CreationDate="2012-08-07T16:40:23.113" UserId="242" Text="Personally I've never heard &quot;не хватает один рубль&quot; but definitely many times heard &quot;рубля&quot; instead of &quot;рублей&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, each time I'm trying to response such kind of questions, I think of &quot;Из заметок о любительской лингвистике&quot; [book][1]. I'm not a professional linguist, neither I'm too bold to call me even an amateur linguist. So be warned, what I'm going to say is just a hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do believe that the reason behind this &quot;usual&quot; (sorry if I'm translating &quot;узуальный&quot; incorrectly) type of declension is that in phrases like this &quot;не хватает&quot; can be interpreted as [transitive verb][2], and about transitive verbs [in Russian][3] one can quote following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместо винительного падежа дополнение при переходном глаголе может&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоять и в родительном падеже без предлога: 1) если есть отрицательная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частица `не` перед переходным глаголом: понял задачу — не понял&#xD;&#xA;&gt; задачи; читал роман — не читал романа; терять время — не терять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; времени;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is told that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При определении переходности/непереходности глаголов необходимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учитывать и значение существительного в форме винительного падежа —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оно должно называть объ­ект действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, in phrases [like][4] &quot;Украине не хватает три миллиарда для расчета за газ&quot; (so it is not only about roubles) numeral is treated - and I'm using treated in strictly &quot;узуальный&quot; way))) - like noun. Moreover, &quot;три [чего?] рубля&quot; is treated like a noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, we can easily say - &quot;Недостающие Украине три миллиарда придётся где-то поискать&quot;, &quot;недостающие два рубля, он, к своей великой радости, нашёл под столом&quot;. And participle is a noun modifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/6210376/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ricardo.com.ua/news/economics/114082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="519933c5-74ef-404c-aff9-c8e1b73c80bc" CreationDate="2012-08-07T16:45:32.673" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Personally I've never heard &quot;не хватает один рубль&quot; but definitely many times heard &quot;рубля&quot; instead of &quot;рублей&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, each time I'm trying to response such kind of questions, I think of &quot;Из заметок о любительской лингвистике&quot; [book][1]. I'm not a professional linguist, neither I'm too bold to call me even an amateur linguist. So be warned, what I'm going to say is just a hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do believe that the reason behind this &quot;usual&quot; (sorry if I'm translating &quot;узуальный&quot; incorrectly) type of declension is that in phrases like this &quot;не хватает&quot; can be interpreted as [transitive verb][2], and, talking about transitive verbs [in Russian][3], one should remember following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместо винительного падежа дополнение при переходном глаголе может&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоять и в родительном падеже без предлога: 1) если есть отрицательная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частица `не` перед переходным глаголом: понял задачу — не понял&#xD;&#xA;&gt; задачи; читал роман — не читал романа; терять время — не терять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; времени;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is told that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При определении переходности/непереходности глаголов необходимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учитывать и значение существительного в форме винительного падежа —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оно должно называть объ­ект действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, in phrases [like][4] &quot;Украине не хватает три миллиарда для расчета за газ&quot; (so it is not only about roubles) numeral is treated - and I'm using treated in strictly &quot;узуальный&quot; way))) - like noun. Moreover, &quot;три [чего?] рубля&quot; is treated like a noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, we can easily say - &quot;Недостающие Украине три миллиарда придётся где-то поискать&quot;, &quot;недостающие два рубля, он, к своей великой радости, нашёл под столом&quot;. And participle is a noun modifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/6210376/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ricardo.com.ua/news/economics/114082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="72da06f1-3c49-4d86-8773-429d08175ef1" CreationDate="2012-08-07T17:08:44.140" UserId="347" Text="`пресная` - water with no taste (synonim for water - river water - not sea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сладкая` - water with sugar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="a5e2a7ff-1696-42ed-a9ee-49aa514c9ad1" CreationDate="2012-08-07T18:00:28.943" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Personally I've never heard &quot;не хватает один рубль&quot; but definitely many times heard &quot;рубля&quot; instead of &quot;рублей&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, each time I'm trying to response such kind of questions, I think of &quot;Из заметок о любительской лингвистике&quot; [book][1]. I'm not a professional linguist, neither I'm bold enough to call me even an amateur linguist. So be warned, what I'm going to say is just a hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do believe that the reason behind this &quot;usual&quot; (sorry if I'm translating &quot;узуальный&quot; incorrectly) type of declension is that in phrases like this &quot;не хватает&quot; can be interpreted as [transitive verb][2], and, talking about transitive verbs [in Russian][3], one should remember following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместо винительного падежа дополнение при переходном глаголе может&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоять и в родительном падеже без предлога: 1) если есть отрицательная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частица `не` перед переходным глаголом: понял задачу — не понял&#xD;&#xA;&gt; задачи; читал роман — не читал романа; терять время — не терять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; времени;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is told that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При определении переходности/непереходности глаголов необходимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учитывать и значение существительного в форме винительного падежа —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оно должно называть объ­ект действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, in phrases [like][4] &quot;Украине не хватает три миллиарда для расчета за газ&quot; (so it is not only about roubles) numeral is treated - and I'm using treated in strictly &quot;узуальный&quot; way))) - like noun. Moreover, &quot;три [чего?] рубля&quot; is treated like a noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, we can easily say - &quot;Недостающие Украине три миллиарда придётся где-то поискать&quot;, &quot;недостающие два рубля, он, к своей великой радости, нашёл под столом&quot;. And participle is a noun modifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/6210376/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ricardo.com.ua/news/economics/114082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="7fd360f0-22c3-48b6-b6c6-20e92ed65490" CreationDate="2012-08-07T19:17:48.190" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="Personally I've never heard &quot;не хватает один рубль&quot; but definitely many times heard &quot;рубля&quot; instead of &quot;рублей&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, each time I'm trying to response such kind of questions, I think of &quot;Из заметок о любительской лингвистике&quot; [book][1]. I'm not a professional linguist, neither I'm bold enough to call me even an amateur linguist. So be warned, what I'm going to say is just a hypothesis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do believe that the reason behind this customary declension is that in phrases like this &quot;не хватает&quot; can be interpreted as [transitive verb][2], and, talking about transitive verbs [in Russian][3], one should remember following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместо винительного падежа дополнение при переходном глаголе может&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоять и в родительном падеже без предлога: 1) если есть отрицательная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частица `не` перед переходным глаголом: понял задачу — не понял&#xD;&#xA;&gt; задачи; читал роман — не читал романа; терять время — не терять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; времени;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is told that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При определении переходности/непереходности глаголов необходимо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учитывать и значение существительного в форме винительного падежа —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оно должно называть объ­ект действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, in phrases [like][4] &quot;Украине не хватает три миллиарда для расчета за газ&quot; (so it is not only about roubles) numeral is treated - and I'm using treated in strictly customary way))) - like noun. Moreover, &quot;три [чего?] рубля&quot; is treated like a noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, we can easily say - &quot;Недостающие Украине три миллиарда придётся где-то поискать&quot;, &quot;недостающие два рубля, он, к своей великой радости, нашёл под столом&quot;. And participle is a noun modifier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/6210376/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ricardo.com.ua/news/economics/114082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2565" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="3a1f8f16-c05f-4d11-b79f-c5a162315d66" CreationDate="2012-08-07T19:31:14.310" UserId="282" Comment="edited title" Text="What case should a name use after the preposition 'with'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="7efcd8e7-9b2a-4a10-b70f-b282d8e2418f" CreationDate="2012-08-07T20:25:57.020" UserId="134" Text="The verbs *хватать*, *доставать*, *довлеть* (in its original meaning) govern nouns both in singular and in plural without changing their form (though with different meaning):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Мне хватило лошади // мне хватило лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ему недостаёт года // ему недостаёт лет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ей довольно друга // ей довольно друзей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using these words with numerals leads to a contamination, because it's not clear whether the verb should govern the noun directly or through the numeral, the end result (for the noun) being the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="4c515dca-6633-43de-8f60-308f8990c90b" CreationDate="2012-08-08T05:00:24.453" UserId="345" Text="for 24 ears speaking russian I never heard “сладкий” as synonymous to “пресный” used in day-to-day speech. More, there is clear meaning of thise words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA; - http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;About examples, written by Sergiy: I suggest it coud be used in old russian languge, but never today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="a7c880a1-2d3d-46a9-95ca-ca8f6181aff2" CreationDate="2012-08-08T13:43:01.120" UserId="71" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="All questions about translation of words, phrases, idioms or collocations  from English to Russian. Read the FAQ section about translations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="0d159fe2-640b-4d39-b2f2-a664380975e4" CreationDate="2012-08-08T13:48:55.460" UserId="134" Text="As mentioned by Sergiy, this meaning was used in Church Slavonic and I believe in Proto-Slavic too (as well as in most PIE languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest mention in Old Russian is I believe this PC excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И бѣ ту вода горка, и възропташа людье на Бога, и показа имъ древо, и вложи е Моисѣй въ воду, и осладишася воды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a loose Bible citation translated into Old Russian from Old Church Slavonic (or maybe from Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to say whether it's a proper translation or a calque, however, the author deemed it clear enough to leave as is (as well as did the authors of the Synodal translation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="49284bcc-29ac-434d-8181-3c239aca5254" CreationDate="2012-08-08T15:19:38.240" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="As mentioned by Sergiy, this meaning was used in Church Slavonic and I believe in Proto-Slavic too (as well as in most IE languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest mention in Old Russian is I believe this PC excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И бѣ ту вода горка, и възропташа людье на Бога, и показа имъ древо, и вложи е Моисѣй въ воду, и осладишася воды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a loose Bible citation translated into Old Russian from Old Church Slavonic (or maybe from Greek).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to say whether it's a proper translation or a calque, however, the author deemed it clear enough to leave as is (as well as did the authors of the Synodal translation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="5442a00c-0a11-4ab1-8a95-147d1ad6edb5" CreationDate="2012-08-08T16:10:31.740" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="For my 24 years of speaking Russian I have never heard “сладкий” used as a synonym to “пресный” in day-to-day speech. Moreover, here is a clear meaning of these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA; - http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About examples, written by Sergiy: I suggest it could be used in Old-Russian language, but it is never used today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2578" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="f5a1a571-5630-4c06-8ee1-02770b983551" CreationDate="2012-08-08T16:11:14.250" UserId="185" Comment="6" />
  <row Id="2579" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="dc99bfda-edeb-4124-a9f0-4cb91189a361" CreationDate="2012-08-08T16:13:11.737" UserId="185" Comment="7" />
  <row Id="2581" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="cfa37b80-9e3c-4a12-86eb-f6557f66df79" CreationDate="2012-08-08T18:01:27.817" UserDisplayName="user259" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="2582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="92d4a299-cb35-4de9-816f-69b43bfbf107" CreationDate="2012-08-08T18:34:17.213" UserId="286" Text="The translation is correct. However this may be not idiom nor a joke. It may mean that gypsy not in the mouth exactly and that he is doing something (adjusts a bridle for example) by hands between the horse's teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![the horse has gypsy in its teeth][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jdLz9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="2a1252d5-af65-4ab1-9e85-3be608152056" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:37:57.780" UserId="197" Text="Somebody sent me a letter that included this sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извини, это я сделала не случайно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up *случайно* and it had the definition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;accidentally, by accident, casually, by chance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I assumed ***не** случайно* meant *not accidentally*, i.e. *on purpose*. But the person who wrote me said *не случайно* means *on accident*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the negation of the word really mean the same thing, or am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="2a1252d5-af65-4ab1-9e85-3be608152056" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:37:57.780" UserId="197" Text="What do &quot;случайно&quot; nad &quot;не случайно&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="2a1252d5-af65-4ab1-9e85-3be608152056" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:37:57.780" UserId="197" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="6efb8efe-ad5d-4819-b8df-c0047cfd7c26" CreationDate="2012-08-09T13:07:38.997" UserId="280" Text="No. It's probably just a typo. Your assumptions about the meaning of ***не*** *случайно* are correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2587" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="ac64e9ce-87bf-4ebe-8184-7043c2cfab11" CreationDate="2012-08-09T13:46:49.747" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What do &quot;случайно&quot; and &quot;не случайно&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="b782572a-9611-459c-8c1c-2dbc6afd8663" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:03:13.907" UserId="337" Text="I'm reading Kharms (again). And a friend of mine warned me that some of the names Kharms uses may actually have some meaning that are lost in translation (like in the example of Mr. Joker, Ms. Cow, Mr. Mouse, Mr. Cat, Mr. Flatulent, etc.) which adds another dimension to the meanings of the stories. I extracted some of the names in the stories. I need any help figuring out if these names imply something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Petrov&#xD;&#xA; - Kamarov&#xD;&#xA; - Makarov&#xD;&#xA; - Petersen&#xD;&#xA; - Petrakov-Gorbunov&#xD;&#xA; - Pritikin&#xD;&#xA; - Serpuhov&#xD;&#xA; - Kurova&#xD;&#xA; - Koratigin&#xD;&#xA; - Tikakeev&#xD;&#xA; - Mashkin&#xD;&#xA; - Koshkin&#xD;&#xA; - Oknov&#xD;&#xA; - Kozlov&#xD;&#xA; - Stryuchkov&#xD;&#xA; - Motylkov&#xD;&#xA; - Susanin&#xD;&#xA; - Pakin&#xD;&#xA; - Rakukin&#xD;&#xA; - Olga Petrovna&#xD;&#xA; - Evdokim Osipovich" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="b782572a-9611-459c-8c1c-2dbc6afd8663" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:03:13.907" UserId="337" Text="Do these surnames imply anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="b782572a-9611-459c-8c1c-2dbc6afd8663" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:03:13.907" UserId="337" Text="|перевод|значения|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="820" RevisionGUID="f902fd2c-5b6c-4798-943f-9674febe962f" CreationDate="2012-08-09T16:39:46.097" UserId="334" Text=" 1. Petrov - native surname, derivide from name Petr &#xD;&#xA; 2. Kamarov - native surname, derived from word, that translates like Mosqito&#xD;&#xA; 3. Makarov - native surname, derived from long-forgotten first name Makar&#xD;&#xA; 4. Petersen - most probably imported surname.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Petrakov-Gorbunov - double surname, first is derivide from Petr name using, but in indirect manner. Gorbunov is derived from Gorbun (Hunchback)&#xD;&#xA; 6. Pritikin - is derived from Pritik. `Затык` may be roughly translated as point of problem, and `приткнутся` may be roughly translated as 'to make a stop'&#xD;&#xA; 7. Serpuhov - is derived from `серп` - sickle or, may be `серпуха` - a kind of plant. Also, a city name.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Kurova - is derived from `Курица`, female mature chicken. This word may mark stupid woman.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Koratigin - has root from `короткий` - short.&#xD;&#xA; 10. Tikakeev - cannot find origin&#xD;&#xA; 11. Mashkin - derived from inpolite form of Maria. &#xD;&#xA; 12. Koshkin - derived from `кошка` - female cat. BTW, `Машкин-Кошкин` used in place of surename may be used to mark some lowlife, insignificant person.&#xD;&#xA; 13. Oknov - derived from `окно` - window&#xD;&#xA; 14. Kozlov - derived from `козел`, make goat. This word is often used to mark bastard and making insults.&#xD;&#xA; 15. Stryuchkov - derivied from `стручок`, silique. This word may mark small, but, errgh, agressive person.&#xD;&#xA; 16. Motylkov - derivide from `Мотылек`, kind of butterfly&#xD;&#xA; 17. Susanin - is strongly connected with name of `Сусанин, Иван Осипович` and spawned some verbs, like `засусанить` - to mislead into wilderness.&#xD;&#xA; 18. Pakin - no guess&#xD;&#xA; 19. Rakukin - no guess&#xD;&#xA; 20. Olga Petrovna - plane regular name with patronimic&#xD;&#xA; 21. Evdokim Osipovich - plane regular name with patronimic, but poth name and father's name are not very popular today.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="820" RevisionGUID="2b466fcb-350d-42c6-a96d-360036d0557f" CreationDate="2012-08-09T16:45:18.460" UserId="334" Comment="edited body" Text=" 1. Petrov - native surname, derivide from name Petr &#xD;&#xA; 2. Kamarov - native surname, derived from word, that translates like Mosqito&#xD;&#xA; 3. Makarov - native surname, derived from long-forgotten first name Makar&#xD;&#xA; 4. Petersen - most probably imported surname.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Petrakov-Gorbunov - double surname, first is derivide from Petr name using, but in indirect manner. Gorbunov is derived from Gorbun (Hunchback)&#xD;&#xA; 6. Pritikin - is derived from Pritik. `Затык` may be roughly translated as point of problem, and `приткнутся` may be roughly translated as 'to make a stop'&#xD;&#xA; 7. Serpuhov - is derived from `серп` - sickle or, may be `серпуха` - a kind of plant. Also, a city name.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Kurova - is derived from `Курица`, female mature chicken. This word may mark stupid woman.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Koratigin - has root from `короткий` - short.&#xD;&#xA; 10. Tikakeev - cannot find origin&#xD;&#xA; 11. Mashkin - derived from inpolite form of Maria. &#xD;&#xA; 12. Koshkin - derived from `кошка` - female cat. BTW, `Машкин-Кошкин` used in place of surename may be used to mark some lowlife, insignificant person.&#xD;&#xA; 13. Oknov - derived from `окно` - window&#xD;&#xA; 14. Kozlov - derived from `козел`, male goat. This word is often used to mark (stupid) bastard and to make insults.&#xD;&#xA; 15. Stryuchkov - derivied from `стручок`, silique. This word may mark small, but, errgh, agressive person.&#xD;&#xA; 16. Motylkov - derivide from `Мотылек`, kind of butterfly&#xD;&#xA; 17. Susanin - is strongly connected with name of `Сусанин, Иван Осипович` and spawned some verbs, like `засусанить` - to mislead into wilderness.&#xD;&#xA; 18. Pakin - no guess&#xD;&#xA; 19. Rakukin - no guess&#xD;&#xA; 20. Olga Petrovna - plane regular name with patronimic&#xD;&#xA; 21. Evdokim Osipovich - plane regular name with patronimic, but both name and father's name are not very popular today.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="c04f19be-ca37-4129-9113-d1bd4335b44b" CreationDate="2012-08-09T17:51:29.853" UserId="337" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="I'm reading Kharms (again). And a friend of mine warned me that some of the names Kharms uses may actually have some meaning that are lost in translation (like in the example of Mr. Joker, Ms. Cow, Mr. Mouse, Mr. Cat, Mr. Flatulent, etc.) which adds another dimension to the meanings of the stories. I extracted some of the names in the stories. I need any help figuring out if these names imply something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Petrov&#xD;&#xA; - Kamarov&#xD;&#xA; - Makarov&#xD;&#xA; - Petersen&#xD;&#xA; - Petrakov-Gorbunov&#xD;&#xA; - Pritikin&#xD;&#xA; - Serpuhov&#xD;&#xA; - Kurova&#xD;&#xA; - Koratigin&#xD;&#xA; - Tikakeev&#xD;&#xA; - Mashkin&#xD;&#xA; - Koshkin&#xD;&#xA; - Oknov&#xD;&#xA; - Kozlov&#xD;&#xA; - Stryuchkov&#xD;&#xA; - Motylkov&#xD;&#xA; - Susanin&#xD;&#xA; - Pakin&#xD;&#xA; - Rakukin&#xD;&#xA; - Olga Petrovna&#xD;&#xA; - Evdokim Osipovich&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I have compared two different translations, and noticed that some of the names were translated as Catov, Mosqutov, etc. But since I didn't see the same in the other translation, I wanted to make sure that the translation is accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="ff8d3443-0f67-4669-a6c6-1d2de01067dc" CreationDate="2012-08-09T17:59:16.817" UserId="337" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I'm reading Kharms (again). And a friend of mine warned me that some of the names Kharms uses may actually have some meaning that are lost in translation (like in the example of Mr. Joker, Ms. Cow, Mr. Mouse, Mr. Cat, Mr. Flatulent, etc.) which adds another dimension to the meanings of the stories. I extracted some of the names in the stories. I need any help figuring out if these names imply something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Petrov&#xD;&#xA; - Kamarov&#xD;&#xA; - Makarov&#xD;&#xA; - Petersen&#xD;&#xA; - Petrakov-Gorbunov&#xD;&#xA; - Pritikin&#xD;&#xA; - Serpuhov&#xD;&#xA; - Kurova&#xD;&#xA; - Koratigin&#xD;&#xA; - Tikakeev&#xD;&#xA; - Mashkin&#xD;&#xA; - Koshkin&#xD;&#xA; - Oknov&#xD;&#xA; - Kozlov&#xD;&#xA; - Stryuchkov&#xD;&#xA; - Motylkov&#xD;&#xA; - Susanin&#xD;&#xA; - Pakin&#xD;&#xA; - Rakukin&#xD;&#xA; - Olga Petrovna&#xD;&#xA; - Evdokim Osipovich&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I have compared two different translations, and noticed that in one of the translations (Matvei Yankelevich) some of the names were translated as Catov, Mosqutov, etc. But since I didn't see the same in the other translation (Neil Cornwell), I wanted to make sure that the translation is accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="c0fa1d55-3c6d-4679-b0e3-5950c07ff73c" CreationDate="2012-08-09T18:16:29.430" UserId="242" Text="In addition to the excellent permeakra's answer, I just want to add info about &quot;no guess&quot; surname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] is about `Pakin`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фамилия Пакин восходит к диалектному глаголу «пакинать», который в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новгородских, псковских и тверских говорах означает «учащать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посещеньями; угождать». &#xD;&#xA;so, it had been derived from dialectal verb `пакинать`, which can be translated as  `to oblige`. But - but! - I'm pretty sure that Harms actually didn't have any intention to play with this meaning. I guess he used it just for fun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `Rakukin` this is indeed a conundrum. You see, Pakin is relatively rare russian surname, but Rakukin is way rarer. I, once again, can make a bold conjecture - Harms used it as accidentally as he used Pakin ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ufolog.ru/names/order/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="7c035ad3-9d2b-46ec-9289-ea8445af5dcb" CreationDate="2012-08-09T18:23:43.650" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In addition to the excellent permeakra's answer, I just want to add info about &quot;no guess&quot; surname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][1] is about `Pakin`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фамилия Пакин восходит к диалектному глаголу «пакинать», который в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новгородских, псковских и тверских говорах означает «учащать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посещеньями; угождать». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so, it had been derived from dialectal verb `пакинать`, which can be translated as  `to oblige`. But - but! - I'm pretty sure that Harms actually didn't have any intention to play with this meaning. I guess he used it just for fun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `Rakukin` this is indeed a conundrum. You see, Pakin is relatively rare russian surname, but Rakukin is way rarer. I, once again, can make a bold conjecture - Harms used it as accidentally as he used Pakin ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ufolog.ru/names/order/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2598" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="34ab9c99-37ec-4ba2-92f2-812ebd77f6d2" CreationDate="2012-08-10T02:34:54.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/233753260769546241" />
  <row Id="2599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="2feed208-dc27-41b5-9faa-36e011e007d7" CreationDate="2012-08-10T03:52:15.910" UserId="282" Text="Here is the example where I found this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Адвокаты назвали стрелка из Колорадо душевнобольным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it say стрелок? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="2feed208-dc27-41b5-9faa-36e011e007d7" CreationDate="2012-08-10T03:52:15.910" UserId="282" Text="Suffix mutation on стрелок to стрелка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="2feed208-dc27-41b5-9faa-36e011e007d7" CreationDate="2012-08-10T03:52:15.910" UserId="282" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="139fa17c-91a3-4263-8742-d0003fbadf3d" CreationDate="2012-08-10T04:56:18.180" UserId="280" Text="No, in this sentence *стрелка* is an accusative case of the word *стрелок*, as well as *душевнобольным* is an accusative case of the *душевнобольной*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="48e8e8ca-675b-4a50-98f9-c54da55d174e" CreationDate="2012-08-10T05:20:25.730" UserId="242" Text="Since you've mentions suffix mutation in the title, I guess you question is about&#xD;&#xA;vowel missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is in Russian the vowel suffix `-ек` and `-ок` is reduced in during declension.&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мячик - мячика&#xD;&#xA; - кролик - кролика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стрелок - стрелка&#xD;&#xA; - замок - замка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! There are indeed cased when word with `-ок` endings is different.&#xD;&#xA;Words like `игрок` do not lose `о` in the suffix, since this will cause a&#xD;&#xA;quite untypical combination of consonants - `игрка` is inappropriate from the point of view of Russian phonology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one should not confuse `ок` as suffix and `ок` as part of the root ot the word. Examples: `порок`, `пророк`, `курок`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="db136030-fb80-459a-9c1b-d8daa39830ab" CreationDate="2012-08-10T05:44:54.587" UserId="242" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Since you've mentions suffix mutation in the title, I guess you question is about&#xD;&#xA;vowel missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is in Russian the vowel suffix `-ек` and `-ок` is reduced in during declension. In words with `-ик` suffix the vowel remains.&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мячик - мячика&#xD;&#xA; - кролик - кролика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стрелок - стрелка&#xD;&#xA; - замок - замка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! There are indeed cased when word with `-ок` endings is different.&#xD;&#xA;Words like `игрок` do not lose `о` in the suffix, since this will cause a&#xD;&#xA;quite untypical combination of consonants - `игрка` is inappropriate from the point of view of Russian phonology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one should not confuse `ок` as suffix and `ок` as part of the root ot the word. Examples: `порок`, `пророк`, `курок`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="a24b21a3-febb-4e37-b1d7-d43bc189a04c" CreationDate="2012-08-10T07:05:25.823" UserId="280" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="No, in this sentence *стрелка* is an accusative case of the word *стрелок*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="e82fd57c-1ddf-416f-907a-8a7c6d672178" CreationDate="2012-08-10T07:17:59.407" UserId="185" Comment="edited body" Text="Since you've mentions suffix mutation in the title, I guess you question is about&#xD;&#xA;vowel missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is in Russian the vowel suffix `-ек` and `-ок` is reduced in during declension. In words with `-ик` suffix the vowel remains.&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мячик - мячика&#xD;&#xA; - кролик - кролика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стрелок - стрелка&#xD;&#xA; - замок - замка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! There are indeed cases when word with `-ок` endings is different.&#xD;&#xA;Words like `игрок` do not lose `о` in the suffix, since this will cause a&#xD;&#xA;quite untypical combination of consonants - `игрка` is inappropriate from the point of view of Russian phonology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one should not confuse `ок` as suffix and `ок` as part of the root ot the word. Examples: `порок`, `пророк`, `курок`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="2df17b68-652d-40f2-9cbc-c10884d8b089" CreationDate="2012-08-10T07:20:03.973" UserId="95" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|существительные|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="789bcd8b-6bc3-46eb-8598-7d88502fdd5a" CreationDate="2012-08-10T07:36:46.033" UserId="185" Text="&quot;Стрелкà&quot; is &quot;стрелòк&quot; (&quot;shooter&quot;) in accusative. In this sentence, &quot;стрелка&quot; is correct, because it is the object of &quot;называть&quot;, which should have the accusative case. Here is the whole paradigm for singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom**: стрелок&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Gen**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Acc**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Dat**: стрелку&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ins**: стрелком&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Prp**: стрелке&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel &quot;о&quot; disappears for historical reasons. This vowel stems from a reduced vowel &quot;ъ&quot; of the Old-Russian language. There were two reduced vowels in Old-Russian, &quot;ъ&quot; and &quot;ь&quot;, and they disappeared in &quot;weak&quot; positions and changed into &quot;о&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in &quot;strong&quot; positions. One of the weak positions was the position before the stressed syllable, one of the strong positions was the position in the stressed syllable. This is exactly what we see here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стрѣлъкъ -&gt; стрелòк&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стрѣлъкa -&gt; стрелкà&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why there are disappearing vowels in Russian words (and not only in suffixes, but also in stems, as &quot;сон&quot;-&quot;сна&quot; (&quot;dream&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is not way you can know whether some &quot;o&quot; in some word stems from a full Old-Russian vowel &quot;o&quot; of from a reduced Old-Russian vowel &quot;ъ&quot;, that's why you have to learn two word stems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="e5777460-d368-4e8d-8acc-762672fb8d4d" CreationDate="2012-08-10T07:46:14.123" UserId="185" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="&quot;Стрелкà&quot; is &quot;стрелòк&quot; (&quot;shooter&quot;) in accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, &quot;стрелка&quot; is correct, because it is the object of &quot;называть&quot;, which should have the accusative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Адвокаты назвали стрелка из Колорадо душевнобольным.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attorneys called the shooter from Colorado a madman.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how word &quot;стрелок&quot; changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom**: стрелок&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Gen**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Acc**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Dat**: стрелку&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ins**: стрелком&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Prp**: стрелке&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel &quot;о&quot; disappears for historical reasons. This vowel stems from a reduced vowel &quot;ъ&quot; of the Old-Russian language. There were two reduced vowels in Old-Russian, &quot;ъ&quot; and &quot;ь&quot;, and they disappeared in &quot;weak&quot; positions and changed into &quot;о&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in &quot;strong&quot; positions. One of the weak positions was the position before the stressed syllable, one of the strong positions was the position in the stressed syllable. This is exactly what we see here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стрѣлъкъ -&gt; стрелòк (&quot;ъ&quot; under stress becomes &quot;o&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стрѣлъкa -&gt; стрелкà (&quot;ъ&quot; before the stressed syllable disappears)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why there are disappearing vowels in Russian words (and not only in suffixes, but also in stems, as &quot;сон&quot;-&quot;сна&quot; (&quot;dream&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is no way you may know whether some &quot;o&quot; in some word stems from a full Old-Russian vowel &quot;o&quot; of from a reduced Old-Russian vowel &quot;ъ&quot;, that's why you have to learn two word stems for nouns where the stress can be both on the stem and not on the stem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="2374e38c-daa0-482c-b139-aaf264041b2f" CreationDate="2012-08-10T08:51:04.140" UserId="242" Text="In Russian &quot;разбор полётов&quot; means an ex post facto analysis of some event, which most likely had dramatic consequences or lead to failure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Дмитрий Медведев обещал провести разбор полетов в космической отрасли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, in this context, разбор полётов have an additional connotation, due to mentioning aerospace industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I know about this idiom, that is has been indeed used by aviators, but can one provide an information on why and when exactly this very phrase become a common and well known idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="2374e38c-daa0-482c-b139-aaf264041b2f" CreationDate="2012-08-10T08:51:04.140" UserId="242" Text="When and how &quot;разбор полётов&quot; became a idiom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="2374e38c-daa0-482c-b139-aaf264041b2f" CreationDate="2012-08-10T08:51:04.140" UserId="242" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="a86341a8-7fea-42a6-b62f-77693177d3a1" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:14:52.493" UserId="286" Text="This is came from USSR Air Forces. After each flight there was performed detailed flight analysis. I'm not sure when this phrase became an idiom. This phrase as many others army slangs was migrated to Russian language because USSR had compulsory military service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="9f1e65f4-ae22-47ac-a7c7-ff59ee832194" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:15:42.237" UserId="242" Text="The word `трудный` is translated like difficult.&#xD;&#xA;The word `трудоёмкий` is translated like time-consuming, but actually, speaking of time resources, there is another word in Russian, `времяёмкий`. Though this word is relatively rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - are `трудоёмкий` and `времяёмкий` are completely synonymous?&#xD;&#xA;I mean, the kind of activity which implies large consume of work is not exactly the kind of time-consuming activity. Those conceptions looks interrelated but not fully interchangeable to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="9f1e65f4-ae22-47ac-a7c7-ff59ee832194" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:15:42.237" UserId="242" Text="Трудоёмкий and времяёмкий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="9f1e65f4-ae22-47ac-a7c7-ff59ee832194" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:15:42.237" UserId="242" Text="|выбор-слова|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="e494a6f1-286a-4326-b6e4-fdba35db3cbc" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:30:20.283" UserId="242" Comment="added 698 characters in body" Text="In Russian &quot;разбор полётов&quot; means an ex post facto analysis of some event, which most likely had dramatic consequences or lead to failure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Дмитрий Медведев обещал провести разбор полетов в космической отрасли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, in this context, разбор полётов have an additional connotation, due to mentioning aerospace industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I know about this idiom, that is has been indeed used by aviators, but can one provide an information on why and when exactly this very phrase become a common and well known idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** I guess it was obvious without an explanation, but let me make it even more clearer: me also can search in Google and/or Yandex, visit first search result and translate it to English. The thing is that phrase &quot;it is a military  slang&quot; hardly can be named a valid answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some hints that can help you provide an appropriate answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When exactly this flight analysis had existed (since I can hardly believe that each flight is analyzed nowadays), in 20-s, in 30-s in 40-s?&#xD;&#xA; - When and how it became a well-known idiom. Has it  been used first, say in newspapers or, may be, in some popular TV series?&#xD;&#xA; - Why does this idiom has a strong negative connotation in present days?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="755a2aa9-96ab-4f7d-b9c8-4e683db49bd2" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:36:40.533" UserId="233" Text="I know this doesn't exactly answer your question, but here are some details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [ruscorpora.ru](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%C2%A0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;start=1900&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3), this expression first occurred in 1947 in its literal meaning in an aviation-related [context](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E0%E7%E1%EE%F0%20%EF%EE%EB%B8%F2%EE%E2&amp;p=4&amp;docid=50383&amp;sid=2310).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its use peaked [around 2003](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E0%E7%E1%EE%F0%20%EF%EE%EB%B8%F2%EE%E2&amp;p=1), and here it most often occurs as an idiom, sometimes with «quotes». But even the earliest modern [occurrence](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E0%E7%E1%EE%F0%20%EF%EE%EB%B8%F2%EE%E2&amp;p=3&amp;docid=42295&amp;sid=11164) in the ruscorpora uses it «with quotes», so the author assumes that the reader can infer the metaphorical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, sadly, no clue as to who exactly made it popular in the 90s..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="c511c1d4-8141-45cc-9e7b-2035dac93554" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:53:10.583" UserId="233" Text="I've never seen &quot;времяёмкий&quot; in the wild, so I suspect this could be a recent calque from English *time-consuming*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Трудоёмкий* is obviously not an exact counterpart of *time-consuming*, because it stresses that something requires *effort*, not time (although effort tends to take some time :)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To capture the connotations of *time-consuming* you could use something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *длительный* ‘prolonged’&#xD;&#xA;* *затяжной* ‘protracted’, or the paraphrase &#xD;&#xA;* [*отнимающий много времени*](http://slovari.yandex.ru/time-consuming/en-ru/#lingvo/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="4deb13cb-49ef-426b-9182-eca9eb010bbc" CreationDate="2012-08-10T10:51:35.650" UserId="286" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="This is came from USSR Air Forces. After each flight there was performed detailed flight analysis. I'm not sure when this phrase became an idiom. This phrase as many others army slangs was migrated to Russian language because USSR had compulsory military service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В ВВС СССР и теперь России, кроме боевых вылетов проводили учебные полёты. Ошибки и недочеты каждого полёта разбираются детально, чтоб в будущем их не повторять. Особенно тщательно разбираются происшествия: аварии и катастрофы. Любая авария или катастрофа тут же разбирается не только в той части, где это произошло, но и по всем полкам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из переписки с одним знакомым летчиком&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аварии и катастрофы разбирались тщательно. Не только в классах, но и в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курилке. Потому что если причины не выяснены до конца и не усвоена&#xD;&#xA;&gt; методика, как избежать таких случаев,значит, люди погибли зря. Поэтому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разбирались. Честно и дотошно, по гамбургскому счёту." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="14263429-4d6b-4944-ae70-fc88e16d7afb" CreationDate="2012-08-10T10:58:34.893" UserId="286" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="This is came from USSR Air Forces. After each flight there was performed detailed flight analysis. I'm not sure when this phrase became an idiom. This phrase as many others army slangs was migrated to Russian language because USSR had compulsory military service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В ВВС СССР и теперь России, кроме боевых вылетов проводили учебные полёты. Ошибки и недочеты каждого полёта разбираются детально, чтоб в будущем их не повторять. Особенно тщательно разбираются происшествия: аварии и катастрофы. Любая авария или катастрофа тут же разбирается не только в той части, где это произошло, но и по всем полкам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из переписки с одним знакомым летчиком&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аварии и катастрофы разбирались тщательно. Не только в классах, но и в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курилке. Потому что если причины не выяснены до конца и не усвоена&#xD;&#xA;&gt; методика, как избежать таких случаев,значит, люди погибли зря. Поэтому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разбирались. Честно и дотошно, по гамбургскому счёту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот, видимо нашел ответ на ваш вопрос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разбор полетов начал считаться основой успешного выполнения полетного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; задания. Для разбора полетов применялись методы и приемы, от тех,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которые рекомендует Kamasutra, до тех, которые обязывает НПП и РОПЛОК.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На TV, даже журналисты стали выказывать восхищение, как в авиации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проводятся разборы полетов, тем самым, рекламируя оные. В обществе, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; особенно в Армии, после этого, разборы полетов трансформировались в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разборы залетов, где в основном применялась Kamasutra с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; садомазохистским уклоном, т.к. НПП здесь не действовало. При таких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разборах, если не предохраняться, даже мужик мог разродиться. Простой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же обыватель или журналист, детально вникший в сущность разбора&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полетов, приходил к выводу что, мы плохо летаем или не умеем летать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; т.к. после каждых полетов есть замечания, или разбираем одно и тоже. И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тогда здравомыслящее существо стало задумываться над тем, что такими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разборками, просто переливали из пустого в порожнее, начиная с общего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разбора, переходя на разборки в АЭ, звене, экипаже, и заканчивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; личными, на уровне совести. Но приходилось выполнять требования&#xD;&#xA;&gt; документов, тем самым толкли воду в ступе и толчем до сих пор.&#xD;&#xA;[источник][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.osobgour.narod.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2623" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="b7b2cc01-37de-4a1f-8977-6c8662d46d4a" CreationDate="2012-08-10T11:05:51.250" UserId="286" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:286,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;hazzik&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="c85b8aa1-f230-4905-bdb7-e03e36ae3c2a" CreationDate="2012-08-10T11:06:58.600" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2625" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="f30b796d-8947-4451-ae0e-7a8a6e33183f" CreationDate="2012-08-10T11:07:51.700" UserId="286" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:286,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;hazzik&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2626" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="9579c670-ac08-4953-945f-93909d4c5fbb" CreationDate="2012-08-10T11:34:59.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/233889176121122818" />
  <row Id="2627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="af804ca1-61aa-417b-bef6-107d8745ef19" CreationDate="2012-08-10T12:56:25.107" UserId="242" Comment="trying to sound more polite )" Text="In Russian &quot;разбор полётов&quot; means an ex post facto analysis of some event, which most likely had dramatic consequences or lead to failure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Дмитрий Медведев обещал провести разбор полетов в космической отрасли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, in this context, разбор полётов have an additional connotation, due to mentioning aerospace industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I know about this idiom, that is has been indeed used by aviators, but can one provide an information on why and when exactly this very phrase become a common and well known idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Here are some hints that can help you provide a valuable answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When exactly this flight analysis had existed (since I can hardly believe that each flight is analyzed nowadays), in 20-s, in 30-s in 40-s?&#xD;&#xA; - When and how it became a well-known idiom. Has it  been used first, say in newspapers or, may be, in some popular TV series?&#xD;&#xA; - Why does this idiom has a strong negative connotation in present days?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="5a6d0a31-c1ec-42d8-80bc-5918c799bee9" CreationDate="2012-08-10T15:23:55.907" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Since you've mentions suffix mutation in the title, I guess you question is about&#xD;&#xA;vowel missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is in Russian the vowel suffix `-ек` and `-ок` is reduced in during declension. In words with `-ик` suffix the vowel remains.&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мячик - мячика&#xD;&#xA; - кролик - кролика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стрелок - стрелка&#xD;&#xA; - замок - замка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! There are indeed cases when word with `-ок` endings is different.&#xD;&#xA;Words like `игрок` do not lose `о` in the suffix, since this will cause a&#xD;&#xA;quite untypical combination of consonants - `игрка` is inappropriate from the point of view of Russian phonology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one should not confuse `ок` as suffix and `ок` as part of the root ot the word. Examples: `порок`, `пророк`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2629" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="7e3fdd11-3903-41bc-931b-a448d3ee85c2" CreationDate="2012-08-10T17:34:58.643" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/233979768385720321" />
  <row Id="2630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="9e2977ae-6153-433d-9021-dbd7e2274183" CreationDate="2012-08-10T17:44:09.937" UserId="356" Text="Политота means politicians in negative form, or people who like to discuss politics.&#xD;&#xA;Note that this word is rarely used, if ever, it is neologism and maybe ruled out as rude by many." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="a7c66bc4-ef41-441f-8989-4005fe2b3ab1" CreationDate="2012-08-10T18:25:04.427" UserId="185" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="&quot;Стрелкà&quot; is &quot;стрелòк&quot; (&quot;shooter&quot;) in accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, &quot;стрелка&quot; is correct, because it is the object of &quot;называть&quot;, which should have the accusative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Адвокаты назвали стрелка из Колорадо душевнобольным.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attorneys called the shooter from Colorado a madman.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how word &quot;стрелок&quot; changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom**: стрелок&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Gen**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Acc**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Dat**: стрелку&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ins**: стрелком&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Prp**: стрелке&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel &quot;о&quot; disappears in the suffix for historical reasons. This vowel stems from a reduced vowel &quot;ъ&quot; of the Old-Russian language. There were two reduced vowels in Old-Russian, &quot;ъ&quot; and &quot;ь&quot;, and they disappeared in &quot;weak&quot; positions and changed into &quot;о&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in &quot;strong&quot; positions. One of the weak positions was the position before the stressed syllable, one of the strong positions was the position in the stressed syllable. This is exactly what we see in examples like &quot;сынок&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom**: сънъкъ -&gt; сынòк (&quot;ъ&quot; under stress becomes &quot;o&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Gen**: сънъкa -&gt; сынкà (&quot;ъ&quot; before the stressed syllable disappears)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as @Quassnoi says, this suffix appeared in the sense of profession much later, when the reduced vowels has already disappeared. But by that time it already existed in a two forms: &quot;ок&quot; in Nom Sg and &quot;к&quot; in other positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why there are disappearing vowels (called &quot;fleeting vowels&quot;, thanks to @Quassnoi for terminology) in Russian words (and not only in suffixes, but also in stems, as &quot;сон&quot;-&quot;сна&quot; (&quot;dream&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is no way you may know whether some &quot;o&quot; in some word stems from a full Old-Russian vowel &quot;o&quot; of from a reduced Old-Russian vowel &quot;ъ&quot;, that's why you have to learn two word stems for nouns where the stress can be both on the stem and not on the stem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="820b684f-e282-4ca3-a13b-1ae344a23f49" CreationDate="2012-08-10T20:18:22.590" UserId="337" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I'm reading Kharms (again). And a friend of mine warned me that some of the names Kharms uses may actually have some meaning that are lost in translation (like in the example of Mr. Joker, Ms. Cow, Mr. Mouse, Mr. Cat, Mr. Flatulent, etc.) which adds another dimension to the meanings of the stories. I extracted some of the names in the stories. I need any help figuring out if these names imply something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Petrov&#xD;&#xA; - Kamarov&#xD;&#xA; - Makarov&#xD;&#xA; - Petersen&#xD;&#xA; - Petrakov-Gorbunov&#xD;&#xA; - Pritikin&#xD;&#xA; - Serpuhov&#xD;&#xA; - Kurova&#xD;&#xA; - Koratigin&#xD;&#xA; - Tikakeev&#xD;&#xA; - Mashkin&#xD;&#xA; - Koshkin&#xD;&#xA; - Oknov&#xD;&#xA; - Kozlov&#xD;&#xA; - Stryuchkov&#xD;&#xA; - Motylkov&#xD;&#xA; - Susanin&#xD;&#xA; - Pakin&#xD;&#xA; - Rakukin&#xD;&#xA; - Olga Petrovna&#xD;&#xA; - Evdokim Osipovich&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I have compared two different translations, and noticed that in one of the translations (Matvei Yankelevich) some of the names were translated as Catov, Mosquitov, etc. But since I didn't see the same in the other translation (Neil Cornwell), I wanted to make sure that the translation is accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="b10e8543-f3cb-4821-8184-33d891d6cb72" CreationDate="2012-08-11T01:00:17.400" UserId="194" Comment="ё" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Частичный) (Partitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни дня без строчки (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни единого разу (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господь (Nominative) бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господи, боже мой (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдём (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="0afe0350-cf5a-44e6-8ce7-bdfa713d07a1" CreationDate="2012-08-11T17:52:28.150" UserId="358" Text="Понятия `времяемкий` и `трудоемкий` - не синонимы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, определенные компьютерные операции могут быть времяемкими, но при этом не требовать затрат человеческого труда." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="d6dca37f-96a5-4aff-a28c-df236aa703d1" CreationDate="2012-08-11T19:28:08.037" UserId="185" Comment="Added source; added 28 characters in body; added 5 characters in body" Text="Понятия `времяемкий` и `трудоемкий` - не синонимы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, определенные компьютерные операции могут быть времяемкими, но при этом не требовать затрат человеческого труда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20030120_dar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2636" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="83ab77d6-e392-4e23-9321-6bde009cbe9a" CreationDate="2012-08-12T05:54:08.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/234528171570118656" />
  <row Id="2637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="50defe06-f2b2-47fc-8e67-04db5131d089" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:02:58.320" UserId="71" Text="This is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, post a meta question, so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][2], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][3]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][4]&#xD;&#xA; - Audiobooks&#xD;&#xA; - Books&#xD;&#xA; - Dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - Newspapers&#xD;&#xA; - Online courses&#xD;&#xA; - Podcasts&#xD;&#xA; - Television&#xD;&#xA; - Textbooks&#xD;&#xA; - Websites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="50defe06-f2b2-47fc-8e67-04db5131d089" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:02:58.320" UserId="71" Text="Resources for learning Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="50defe06-f2b2-47fc-8e67-04db5131d089" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:02:58.320" UserId="71" Text="|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2640" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="1e8da165-4f17-405d-a20d-c0ddd5d296a1" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:03:11.270" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="de1d7399-6ad5-4247-bf94-d1092dae6fce" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:04:11.657" UserId="71" Text="## Add-ons &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2642" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="aac03afd-4eaa-4217-8861-c802c888cfa5" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:04:11.657" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="cf43a3d4-8b18-4c0e-a7c0-0c94c1a4b9ad" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:05:09.100" UserId="71" Text="## Audiobooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2644" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="a6433f65-458e-4022-8736-967d33b5b4db" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:05:09.100" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="666a85d2-0da5-4ca7-b0fa-5bac9a4533f3" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:06:15.900" UserId="71" Text="## Books &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2646" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="5589e588-35fb-4b52-b698-88bfbed66062" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:06:15.900" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="e9ed2a81-6178-4b76-9475-684d8d2bb779" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:07:14.433" UserId="71" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2648" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="af1c116c-430c-4ee4-adac-489f3bee1c66" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:07:14.433" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="fc308b31-435e-4a3a-8351-a42753b94636" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:08:26.617" UserId="71" Text="## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][1], Pravda is a famous russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pravda.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2650" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="cc7c1c15-84a6-4c5f-9fd0-882fadbaead4" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:08:26.617" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="5ad58e68-65ab-4d5c-95e0-2468708c80c4" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:08:58.097" UserId="71" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2652" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="40aeed26-180c-4160-a0b6-4da30cbf468f" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:08:58.097" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="7a93aa9d-7b88-48b1-a5a9-b3be9164fb1c" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:09:20.607" UserId="71" Text="## Podcasts &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2654" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="e1aec32a-1d2c-4e4c-8197-052dff5e9252" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:09:20.607" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="fdb9aeff-d02f-4c29-8f87-0d315d5dbbb0" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:10:08.190" UserId="71" Text="## Television &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2656" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="632bbc48-6af3-4387-9860-f36b7d017513" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:10:08.190" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="027fa356-09fb-428b-9aac-0d6b8cea1de9" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:10:51.043" UserId="71" Comment="added 116 characters in body; added 505 characters in body" Text="Using the same structure in the [Chinese Resources question][1], this is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, post a meta question, so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][3], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][4]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [Audiobooks][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Books][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Dictionaries][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Newspapers][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Online courses][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Podcasts][11]&#xD;&#xA; - [Television][12]&#xD;&#xA; - [Textbooks][13]&#xD;&#xA; - [Websites][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/1120/43&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/835/71&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/836/71&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/837/71&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/838/71&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/839/71&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/71&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/841/71&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/842/71&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/843/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="4164f0ac-fadd-48d1-bdbb-e39c3b56b165" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:11:13.213" UserId="71" Text="## Textbooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2659" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="58efd645-2238-4a95-8b39-5440fbae7c93" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:11:13.213" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="f162812b-960d-4c81-a7b4-3d3ff5e15aac" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:12:06.503" UserId="71" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2661" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="189c9ba0-44fc-49fd-b9ab-5248f77dc284" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:12:06.503" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="2662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="974c483b-ee6d-4467-ab8d-67a9b2014f24" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:14:43.660" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="Welcome to Russian Language and usage! Please read carefully the FAQ before posting.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&#xA;&#xA;We have created a [single resource question][1], where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is **very specific**, we will close it as a duplicate.&#xA;&#xA;## Asking the meaning of a single word&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2663" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="13ae6ce7-18ae-4395-849a-8f0dbfaba427" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:16:35.407" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словарь|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="e455218d-7ec9-4eac-8f36-bf7e97d477db" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:16:46.467" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="ad9ac9ba-bd89-49fc-bf6e-48e8d25dd400" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:16:54.313" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2666" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="5ed3bef9-7471-465f-af50-cc2983285ded" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:17:02.410" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|морфология|суффиксы|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="7e59ff8d-168d-40a0-ba4c-6d565c9613fc" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:17:13.550" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2668" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="41bcab83-68be-4a96-8501-67719761e317" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:17:22.007" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|обучение|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="50f6fb71-58a8-4802-a3b4-e4691965e9fc" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:17:30.757" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|resources|информатика|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="ad78d166-30d4-42aa-9f01-06f5bbe9256d" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:17:40.680" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|обучение|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="e182fe7d-4ea0-45f7-b0ee-3532b88b0b8e" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:21:53.577" UserId="298" Text="В чем разница между словами *высокомерный* и *надменный*? В каких случаях каждое из них нужно использовать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="e182fe7d-4ea0-45f7-b0ee-3532b88b0b8e" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:21:53.577" UserId="298" Text="Надменный и высокомерный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="e182fe7d-4ea0-45f7-b0ee-3532b88b0b8e" CreationDate="2012-08-12T12:21:53.577" UserId="298" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="8ea85560-38e6-4614-a864-3669c332d830" CreationDate="2012-08-12T14:20:10.557" UserId="62" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="If someone gives a derivation of a formula in math, physics, etc. without justifying the steps, you can say in English that the person is giving a *&quot;handwaving argument&quot;* or *&quot;this step is handwaving&quot;*.  How is that idea expressed in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: Some time ago I asked a native speaker about this but I no longer remember the answer and don't know where to find it. The English Wikipedia page on &quot;handwaving&quot; has no Russian analogue. If I type &quot;This argument is handwaving&quot; into Google Translate then the translation is &quot;Этот аргумент handwaving&quot;, which seems wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: On a recent visit to Russia I asked this question and was told by several people that the term is рукомашество, and that this particular usage of the word is recent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="40e8aca8-523e-4366-a244-6c412c4cca19" CreationDate="2012-08-12T14:46:41.067" UserId="194" Text="I think that *высокомерный* is slightly stronger. Also *надменный* is more suitable when referring to manners and style of speach such as &quot;надменное поведение&quot; while *высокомерный* is more suitable for more formal and serious cases such as &quot;высокомерный ответ&quot; which can refer to a written answer to a petition or something where *высокомерный* refers to the essence of the answer (i.e. treating the petitioner as inferior or the petition subject not important enough for the person to whom the petition is addressed) even if its style is not that special.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="9c2a74b2-cb72-4e42-b597-6906e8c6631b" CreationDate="2012-08-12T14:58:49.540" UserId="71" Comment="added 19 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingvo.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="aa934d06-ec88-4b9f-90f4-c401dfcc44be" CreationDate="2012-08-12T16:24:41.507" UserId="334" Text="As noted above, there is no direct translation in general. In most cases, however, some common expressions do exists. Here are some&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When someone makes bold statement without actual meaning behind it, one can say `Это абракадабра`. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - when someone imitates work without doing it, one can say `Это&#xD;&#xA;   имитация бурной деятельности`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - when someone needs his in-game/literature character to stat something, looking like scientific explanation of in-game fact, he tries to make `наукообразное объяснение`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;note: `рукомашество` does not have idiomatic meaning in general (may be locally it does have this meaning), it is simply `размахивание руками`. Sometimes idiom `рукомашество и дрыгоножество` may mark martial art or dances in dismissive context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="16d59d20-61e4-46a7-ad85-f2bf14e95167" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:15:41.167" UserId="361" Text="Do you know any Russian [pangrams][1], with translations + US-transliterated versions&#xD;&#xA;of them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I found this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В чащах юга жил-был цитрус...—да, но фальшивый экземпляръ!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two transliterations of it, but I don't know which one is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - V chashchakh yuga zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no falshiviy ekzemplyar!&#xD;&#xA;    - V chashchakh iugha zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no fal'shivyi ekziempliar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="16d59d20-61e4-46a7-ad85-f2bf14e95167" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:15:41.167" UserId="361" Text="Russian pangrams + transliteration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="16d59d20-61e4-46a7-ad85-f2bf14e95167" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:15:41.167" UserId="361" Text="|translation|russian-usage|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="33d6ee1a-c722-4492-9255-6617a8a9fd2c" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:25:27.800" UserId="361" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body; edited title" Text="Russian pangram:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В чащах юга жил-был цитрус...—да, но фальшивый экземпляръ!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two transliterations of it, but I don't know which one is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - V chashchakh yuga zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no falshiviy ekzemplyar!&#xD;&#xA;    - V chashchakh iugha zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no fal'shivyi ekziempliar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2682" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="33d6ee1a-c722-4492-9255-6617a8a9fd2c" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:25:27.800" UserId="361" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body; edited title" Text="Russian pangram + transliteration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="f7078109-571e-4f20-9b8a-26bd1bf95ac4" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:33:15.727" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title; edited tags" Text="I found a Russian pangram:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В чащах юга жил-был цитрус...—да, но фальшивый экземпляръ!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two transliterations of it, but I don't know which one is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - V chashchakh yuga zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no falshiviy ekzemplyar!&#xD;&#xA;    - V chashchakh iugha zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no fal'shivyi ekziempliar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2684" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="f7078109-571e-4f20-9b8a-26bd1bf95ac4" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:33:15.727" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title; edited tags" Text="Which one of these two pangram transliterations is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2685" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="f7078109-571e-4f20-9b8a-26bd1bf95ac4" CreationDate="2012-08-12T17:33:15.727" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title; edited tags" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="ee944a5c-a033-4182-8698-d4dba37ec191" CreationDate="2012-08-12T18:59:20.003" UserId="334" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="As noted above, there is no direct translation in general. In most cases, however, some common expressions do exists. Here are some&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When someone makes bold statement without actual meaning behind it, one can say `Это абракадабра`. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - when someone imitates work without doing it, one can say `Это&#xD;&#xA;   имитация бурной деятельности`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - when someone needs his in-game/literature character to stat something, looking like scientific explanation of in-game fact, he tries to make `наукообразное объяснение`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When some steps are omitted, they say `Опустим для ясности`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When some steps are described without formal definition, they say `Опишем необходимые для доказательства шаги`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - As said earlier, `этот шаг мутный (необоснованный)` in case if step is not fully formalized is also valid expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;note: `рукомашество` does not have idiomatic meaning in general (may be locally it does have this meaning), it is simply `размахивание руками`. Sometimes idiom `рукомашество и дрыгоножество` may mark martial art or dances in dismissive context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="ee31d327-cb45-43f6-a72e-9dac0da6dcb2" CreationDate="2012-08-13T01:32:19.377" UserId="362" Text="In the sentence ‘Он явил, т.е. доказал, тот факт, что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца’ you don’t need second comma, because *тот факт* is a complement to *доказал*, i.e. *доказал (что именно?) тот факт, что…*. The phrase ‘*т. е. доказал тот факт*’ is a clarification to first verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW the sentence is semantically poor. Here you use verb ‘являть’, but the construction is too complicated to use it, compare to *явить миру чудо*, *явление Христа народу*, *Наконец появился свежий номер [журнала]* — the thing you *являешь* is always closely bound to verb. Moreover, ‘*являть*’ should be used when they talk about some fairy tales or developments hardly appearing in real life. But your sentence is related to science, and has narrative tone, so there is more applicable another verb — just *открывать*. *Он открыл миру, что…* will make an impression you want. In that case *открывать* will mean ‘invent something’, ‘giving the people a knowledge of something they did not knew’. However, if you want to increase the impression, you would use something like ‘Он первым доказал, и тем самым открыл миру, что Земля вращается вокруг Солнца.’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="6cb90522-8ff9-4855-be98-70ad3f30acab" CreationDate="2012-08-13T06:15:21.163" UserId="194" Text="You cannot exactly transliterate Russian with pure Latin alphabet. For example, you cannot convey whether a consonant is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, the both transliterations even not consistent with themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in both words &quot;*falshiviy*&quot; and &quot;*ekzemplyar*&quot; the &quot;l&quot; sound is soft, and in the second word there is no &quot;*y*&quot; sound after &quot;*l*&quot;. To indicate softness sometimes used apostrophe, so to be consistent the transliteration should be &quot;*fal'shiviy ekzempl'ar*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difficulty is that you cannot in English indicate that &quot;*g*&quot; to be pronounced as in &quot;*give*&quot; rather than as &quot;*zh*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third difficulty is that in your transliterations &quot;y&quot; is used to transliterate &quot;*й*&quot; (a consonant as in yes), &quot;*ы*&quot; (a vovel that makes the preceding consonant hard) and to indicate softness of a consonant (in the case of &quot;*ly*&quot; in the last word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is in &quot;*byl*&quot; the *b* should be hard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in &quot;*ekzemplyar*&quot; *l* should be soft and there is no &quot;*y*&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in &quot;*fal'shivyi*&quot; the v is hard, the &quot;*y*&quot; is a vowel (not consonant as in &quot;*yes*&quot;) and the final &quot;*i*&quot; is a consonant as in &quot;*yes*&quot;. With only two letters &quot;*i*&quot; and &quot;*y*&quot; you cannot distinguish three letters &quot;*й*&quot;, &quot;*ы*&quot; and &quot;*и*&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="e2cddb78-d78d-4d5c-a920-6af76e18a7f8" CreationDate="2012-08-13T06:21:37.960" UserId="194" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="You cannot exactly transliterate Russian with pure Latin alphabet. For example, you cannot convey whether a consonant is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, the both transliterations even not consistent with themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in both words &quot;*falshiviy*&quot; and &quot;*ekzemplyar*&quot; the &quot;l&quot; sound is soft, and in the second word there is no &quot;*y*&quot; sound after &quot;*l*&quot;. To indicate softness sometimes used apostrophe, so to be consistent the transliteration should be &quot;*fal'shiviy ekzempl'ar*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difficulty is that you cannot in English indicate that &quot;*g*&quot; to be pronounced as in &quot;*give*&quot; rather than as &quot;*zh*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third difficulty is that in your transliterations &quot;y&quot; is used to transliterate &quot;*й*&quot; (a consonant as in yes), &quot;*ы*&quot; (a vovel that makes the preceding consonant hard) and to indicate softness of a consonant (in the case of &quot;*ly*&quot; in the last word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is in &quot;*byl*&quot; the *b* should be hard (in &quot;*zhil*&quot; *zh* is also hard so to be consistent it should be either both *byl* and *zhyl* or *zhil* and *bil*, but &quot;*bil*&quot; can be confuzed with word &quot;*бил*&quot; with soft &quot;*b*&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in &quot;*ekzemplyar*&quot; *l* should be soft and there is no &quot;*y*&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in &quot;*fal'shivyi*&quot; the v is hard, the &quot;*y*&quot; is a vowel (not consonant as in &quot;*yes*&quot;) and the final &quot;*i*&quot; is a consonant as in &quot;*yes*&quot;. With only two letters &quot;*i*&quot; and &quot;*y*&quot; you cannot distinguish three letters &quot;*й*&quot;, &quot;*ы*&quot; and &quot;*и*&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="a3cf10aa-4d2e-4994-85e4-7e2b9fc4b972" CreationDate="2012-08-13T06:29:21.543" UserId="194" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="You cannot exactly transliterate Russian with pure Latin alphabet. For example, you cannot convey whether a consonant is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, the both transliterations even not consistent with themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in both words &quot;*falshiviy*&quot; and &quot;*ekzemplyar*&quot; the &quot;l&quot; sound is soft, and in the second word there is no &quot;*y*&quot; sound after &quot;*l*&quot;. To indicate softness sometimes used apostrophe, so to be consistent the transliteration should be &quot;*fal'shiviy ekzempl'ar*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difficulty is that you cannot in English indicate that &quot;*g*&quot; to be pronounced as in &quot;*give*&quot; rather than as &quot;*zh*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third difficulty is that in your transliterations &quot;y&quot; is used to transliterate &quot;*й*&quot; (a consonant as in yes), &quot;*ы*&quot; (a vovel that makes the preceding consonant hard) and to indicate softness of a consonant (in the case of &quot;*ly*&quot; in the last word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is in &quot;*byl*&quot; the *b* should be hard (in &quot;*zhil*&quot; *zh* is also hard so to be consistent it should be either both *byl* and *zhyl* or *bil* and *zhil*, but &quot;*bil*&quot; can be confuzed with word &quot;*бил*&quot; with soft &quot;*b*&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in &quot;*ekzemplyar*&quot; &quot;*l*&quot; should be soft and there is no &quot;*y*&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in &quot;*fal'shivyi*&quot; the v is hard, the &quot;*y*&quot; is a vowel (not consonant as in &quot;*yes*&quot;) and the final &quot;*i*&quot; is a consonant as in &quot;*yes*&quot;. With only two letters &quot;*i*&quot; and &quot;*y*&quot; you cannot distinguish three letters &quot;*й*&quot;, &quot;*ы*&quot; and &quot;*и*&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if to consider &quot;y&quot; to be always consonant as in &quot;yes&quot;, g as in &quot;give&quot; and all consonants hard by default unless apostrophed, two character representing one phoneme grouped with brackets, the transliteration should be&#xD;&#xA;as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; V (ch)'a(sh)'a(kh) y'uga (zh)il-bil (ts)itrus...--da, no fal'(sh)iviy' ekzempl'ar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is far from usual transliteration because English speakers would tend to pronounce consonants before &quot;*i*&quot; softly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="ed51a5b5-b89f-4db6-8de1-2003005f01b2" CreationDate="2012-08-13T13:50:56.560" UserId="242" Text="Annie, actually what you are asking about is a specific subissue or romanization of Russian, for by transliteration it is usually understood a romanization with a narrower set of accepted latin symbols (most often, this subset consists of 26 digits for English alphabet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it said in the relevant Wikipedia [article][1] there exists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GOST 7.79-2000 System of Standards on Information, Librarianship, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Publishing-–Rules for Transliteration of the Cyrillic Characters Using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Latin Alphabet is the newest document on transliteration in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; series of GOST standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GOST is sort of russian analogue of government-ruled RFC or EMCA docs. &#xD;&#xA;This very GOST, 7.79 actually is a romanization, it, for example suggests the use of `š` for `ш`, `č` for ч and even far more exotic `ŝ` for `щ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a bunch of different standards for romanization, used in different times and in different contexts. It is important to understand that de-facto none of this standards is universally recognized or used. For example, above-mentioned GOST is not used for transliterations in passports. But nevertheless we can do some analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;talking of differences between two string provided in the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `yu` or `iu` for `ю`. From 10 variants provided in Wikipedia: ju, ju,	yu, ju,	û, i͡u, yu, yu, yu, iu - `yu` looks like a clear winner, `ju` goes with a silver medal and `iu` is also quite acceptable. &#xD;&#xA; -  `ya` or 'ia' for `я`. Once again, let's refer to the list: ja, ja, ya	ja, â, i͡a, ya, ya, ya, ia. As we can see, `ja` is the leader.&#xD;&#xA; - soft sign transliteration (`-` here stands for not indicating it at all) - &#xD;&#xA;ʹ, ʹ, ʹ, ʹ, ʹ, ʹ, ʹ, ʼ, –, –.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="a3f729f9-9bc0-436a-b362-4b3591a8d377" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:08:28.520" UserId="19" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; added 87 characters in body; edited body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="35a0fcc0-918a-4771-b8f0-709d78c0fe18" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:09:01.157" UserId="19" Comment="added 44 characters in body; added 19 characters in body; added 108 characters in body; edited body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBY Lingvo.ru][2], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][1], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lingvo.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="a8f0479c-c02e-4f59-9c54-d72b9aacc15f" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:12:01.387" UserId="19" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Газета.ру][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][2], Pravda is a famous russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazeta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pravda.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="8f4589c5-8321-47d5-a638-0a71e84a3a26" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:14:53.083" UserId="19" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="f0d9d4fc-2799-44a2-9757-a24f4a9a0eb3" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:16:20.867" UserId="19" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="## Television &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LiveTV][1], online streaming of sporting events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://livetv.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="aea5a421-9996-44ee-9112-2dee00410a18" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:24:22.790" UserId="19" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Газета.ру][2], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Известия.ру][1], famous Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][3], famous russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://izvestia.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gazeta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.pravda.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="db609dcd-fe65-41d5-a5e4-232952d00650" CreationDate="2012-08-13T20:22:55.423" UserId="242" Text="Historically, `надменный` came from &quot;надъмєнъ&quot;, which actually means &quot;надутый&quot; (both in literal and figurative senses) - compare to `[bloated aristocrat][1]` in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays `высокомерный` and `надменный` are so stylistically close each to each other, are interchangeable at such degree that I believe any kind of attempt to say what is the actual difference will contain to some extent, a piece of speculation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.ru/search?q=bloated%20aristocrat&amp;hl=en&amp;newwindow=1&amp;safe=off&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;prmd=imvns&amp;source=lnms&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=XmEpUPndOMmN4gSpmICgBQ&amp;ved=0CA8Q_AUoAA&amp;biw=1299&amp;bih=1216%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="6e360a0b-d560-41a1-8b39-efee694a00e3" CreationDate="2012-08-13T20:30:25.320" UserId="242" Comment="keeping it simple )" Text="Historically, `надменный` came from &quot;надъмєнъ&quot;, which actually means &quot;надутый&quot; (both in literal and figurative senses) - compare to `[bloated aristocrat][1]` in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays `высокомерный` and `надменный` are so stylistically close each to each other, are interchangeable at such degree that I believe any kind of attempt to say what is the actual difference will be, to some extent, quite speculative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.ru/search?q=bloated%20aristocrat&amp;hl=en&amp;newwindow=1&amp;safe=off&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;prmd=imvns&amp;source=lnms&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=XmEpUPndOMmN4gSpmICgBQ&amp;ved=0CA8Q_AUoAA&amp;biw=1299&amp;bih=1216%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="66fac514-9c2b-4bfa-9daa-6d988b9f25b2" CreationDate="2012-08-14T06:29:16.477" UserId="51" Text="I have several medical terms I need to translate from English into Russian: Prolotherapy, Active Release Technique. Google translate doesn't help. Any good contemporary medical translator online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="66fac514-9c2b-4bfa-9daa-6d988b9f25b2" CreationDate="2012-08-14T06:29:16.477" UserId="51" Text="How to translate rare medical terms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="66fac514-9c2b-4bfa-9daa-6d988b9f25b2" CreationDate="2012-08-14T06:29:16.477" UserId="51" Text="|лексикон|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="4af9901b-0a56-41f4-b912-6a380c69beb3" CreationDate="2012-08-14T06:38:51.567" UserId="51" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I have several medical terms I need to translate from English into Russian: Prolotherapy, Active Release Technique, Iontophoresis. Google translate doesn't help. Any good contemporary medical translator online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2717" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="089f7428-f8ba-40e4-93ae-23d7f37a758f" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:49:17.493" UserId="97" Comment="Added &quot;resources&quot; tag" Text="How to translate rare medical terms - online medical dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="089f7428-f8ba-40e4-93ae-23d7f37a758f" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:49:17.493" UserId="97" Comment="Added &quot;resources&quot; tag" Text="|лексикон|перевод|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2719" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="089f7428-f8ba-40e4-93ae-23d7f37a758f" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:49:17.493" Comment="Proposed by 97 approved by 71 edit id of 220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="dcf7259e-de35-4a63-aea9-bcf619aaab7f" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:50:04.990" UserId="71" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have several rare medical terms I need to translate from English into Russian: Prolotherapy, Active Release Technique, Iontophoresis. Google translate doesn't help. Any good contemporary medical translator online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2721" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="dcf7259e-de35-4a63-aea9-bcf619aaab7f" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:50:04.990" UserId="71" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a specialized online medical dictionary for rare medical terms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="67196400-34d3-4b94-a90b-950305e78e08" CreationDate="2012-08-14T08:33:46.423" UserId="71" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Using the same structure in the [Chinese Resources question][1], this is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, [ask a question in our Meta][3], so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][4], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][5]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Audiobooks][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Books][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Dictionaries][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Newspapers][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Online courses][11]&#xD;&#xA; - [Podcasts][12]&#xD;&#xA; - [Television][13]&#xD;&#xA; - [Textbooks][14]&#xD;&#xA; - [Websites][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/1120/43&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/835/71&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/836/71&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/837/71&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/838/71&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/839/71&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/71&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/841/71&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/842/71&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/843/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="00016b3a-94de-46df-82bf-9fbfee8ca816" CreationDate="2012-08-14T09:03:20.867" UserId="242" Text="Helas, there is a lack of such dictionaries covering all modern medical terms.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes following approach is helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Searching for specific term in English Wikipedia (or any other wikipedia where the term can be find).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Clicking Russian in &quot;Languages&quot; section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example, [Iontophoresis][1] is [Ионоферез][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word translation can be found here - [lingvo.yandex.ru][3], but in you specific case this won't help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iontophoresis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lingvo.yandex.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="b6e12768-01ea-477e-9eac-604abafeaa5d" CreationDate="2012-08-14T12:01:56.547" UserId="334" Text="Proloterapy seems to be translated as `Пролотерапия`. You can try to ask in active medical commuties, like http://doktor-killer.livejournal.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="58d0ac19-90b8-4baf-bc64-12f196931a3a" CreationDate="2012-08-14T12:25:15.473" UserId="19" Text="Why is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об**о** мне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об**о** всём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перед**о** мной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перед всем" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="58d0ac19-90b8-4baf-bc64-12f196931a3a" CreationDate="2012-08-14T12:25:15.473" UserId="19" Text="Why обо всём but перед всем" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="58d0ac19-90b8-4baf-bc64-12f196931a3a" CreationDate="2012-08-14T12:25:15.473" UserId="19" Text="|грамматика|spelling|old-spelling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="6be88bc9-3ad4-462b-a3d2-7bfe61295c8e" CreationDate="2012-08-14T15:27:30.280" UserId="185" Comment="Formatting" Text="Why is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; мне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; всём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перед&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; мной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перед всем" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2734" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="cd7fe729-3742-4adc-b236-873c1f18acfd" CreationDate="2012-08-14T15:43:54.773" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, I removed spelling, because it is not only the matter of spelling, the vowel at the end of the prepositions is actually pronounced." Text="|грамматика|предлоги|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2735" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="5fa7c3d0-58b6-4c96-a7d7-5141c79d024c" CreationDate="2012-08-14T15:52:39.417" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;обо всём&quot; but &quot;перед всем&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="59f85d8d-3bb6-4718-93a8-9871574f6b9a" CreationDate="2012-08-14T23:55:25.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/235525062076268544" />
  <row Id="2741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="4dc1c6b6-8c20-41c4-bc4b-86c55dd69f59" CreationDate="2012-08-15T20:10:39.627" UserId="282" Text="Are these used interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;Both are given as two hundred by translators, so which one is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="4dc1c6b6-8c20-41c4-bc4b-86c55dd69f59" CreationDate="2012-08-15T20:10:39.627" UserId="282" Text="Numerals: двух сто or двести" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="4dc1c6b6-8c20-41c4-bc4b-86c55dd69f59" CreationDate="2012-08-15T20:10:39.627" UserId="282" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="b5312e82-953a-46ab-b066-07fb8564b317" CreationDate="2012-08-15T20:25:32.267" UserId="47" Text="The first one is simply incorrect, whatever you want to say. However, *двухсот* would be a genitive of *двести*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне не хватает двухсот рублей.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="793a0e2c-1987-4876-bf19-fc2451bb7167" CreationDate="2012-08-15T20:55:29.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/235842168797941760" />
  <row Id="2746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="3a974e56-1de2-417f-8e95-cbd782cdad06" CreationDate="2012-08-15T22:12:53.970" UserId="62" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBY Lingvo.ru][2], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][1], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][4], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lingvo.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="7714798f-6e43-40c0-88e8-e5489776593d" CreationDate="2012-08-15T23:55:29.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/235887467029479425" />
  <row Id="2748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="3477b7d3-ea2d-4c0c-9bd8-b0c7ae5fe8b1" CreationDate="2012-08-16T10:17:51.540" UserId="185" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][2], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][1], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][4], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lingvo.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="c302e534-50b7-4b45-bd55-28a857f260d0" CreationDate="2012-08-16T12:31:17.223" UserId="95" Comment="more accurate transliteration of Гарри Поттер" Text="Russian doesn't have a direct equivalent to the sound of English `h`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to some English speakers it seems odd that words taken into Russian from English which have an `h` sound are transliterated using the letter `г`, which sounds like English `g` rather than `х`, which while also not perfect, sounds a lot more like `h`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Harry Potter** &amp;rarr; **Гарри Поттер** (*garri potter*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So my question is, are there also words where `х` is in fact used to transliterate `h`, or is `г` always used?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2750" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="08cc68a6-3d94-4aa1-8253-339fe41901b2" CreationDate="2012-08-16T17:27:48.600" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="577413b5-98c4-4999-813b-2b649e70b5d5" CreationDate="2012-08-17T04:35:52.167" UserId="374" Text="I'm not sure if some particular rule applies here, but I think that vowel `о` is inserted before two consecutive sonorants (`лнмр`) in next word so it's easier to pronounce, `мн` is the most frequent one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="909c934f-bf8b-41fa-8ce6-d0521362bc96" CreationDate="2012-08-17T08:28:44.353" UserId="374" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if some particular rule applies here, but I think that vowel `о` is inserted before two consecutive sonorants (`лнмр`) in next word so it's easier to pronounce, `мн` is the most frequent one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That I'm talking about is that: `перед мной` is pretty legitimate form (esp. in form `пред мной` for example), however `о` is usually added for ease of prononciation. While there is no need to insert `о` in `обо` since it's already there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="3f729412-ae52-455d-af14-136a9a4fd342" CreationDate="2012-08-17T08:38:52.780" UserId="374" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if some particular rule applies here, but I think that vowel `о` is inserted before two consecutive sonorants (`лнмр`) in next word so it's easier to pronounce, `мн` is the most frequent one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That I'm talking about is that `перед мной` is pretty legitimate form (esp. in form `пред мной` for example), however `о` is usually added for ease of prononciation. While there is no need to insert `о` in `обо` since it's already there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="7bc6cc8d-2abf-4d3b-9eb1-1f6f66ef8af9" CreationDate="2012-08-17T10:22:32.227" UserId="33" Text="From [the answer on Грамота.ру][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Передо* — предлог, употребляется перед формами *мной*, *мною*, а также перед формами творительного падежа существительных, в которых представлены начальные сочетания «ль, л, м, р + согласная».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **передо** is used instead of *перед* before nouns in instrumental case which start with “**ль, л, м, р + consonant**”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for *о/об/обо* are different.  &#xD;&#xA;I think it is incorrect to compare two different prepositions which require different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *-о* is added when it's hard to pronounce the consonant cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_316395" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="ccba476e-ed9f-4436-b4ff-a9a1b58c7321" CreationDate="2012-08-17T15:39:44.997" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The first one is simply incorrect, whatever you want to say. However, *двухсот* would be a genitive of *двести*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мне не хватает двухсот рублей.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="ff3e3b30-0db3-48fd-8d44-c036c5001047" CreationDate="2012-08-17T20:57:08.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/236567360247570433" />
  <row Id="2759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="bd48a860-e311-4c25-b9a5-7d5f0169b074" CreationDate="2012-08-19T05:19:22.060" UserId="349" Text="With correction of some mistake it would be like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В чащах юга жил-был цитрус...—да, но фальшивый экземпляр!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And i would transliterate this frase like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - V chaschakh yuga zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no falshiviy ekzemplyar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway i think [Anixx][1] give very good answer for this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/850/349" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="f46440ef-42cf-4124-b0d3-05f39f432f72" CreationDate="2012-08-19T11:13:03.047" UserId="338" Text="Second one is more like what they use now to transliterate names in modern Russian passport for international usage. The first one is more like what Russian people used when there was no proper way to send cyrillic e-mails and short messages since it is more English-pronounced like, i.e. English people would read more like Russian, while the second one is quite synthetic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can't say what transliteration is correct. There are a lot of ways to transliterate created by scientists, lawyers and ordinary people. No transliteration is adopted as &quot;official&quot; one. Some years ago French-pronounced transliteration was used in passports. I think you may choice more suitable depending on situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, why &quot;экземпляръ&quot;? In modern Russian language (since 1917) it is written as &quot;экземпляр&quot;. Seems to me, if it is prerevolutionary pangram it should contain the letter &quot;Ѣ&quot; also.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="0e20f10d-da84-4844-98e4-6ad108bf69bc" CreationDate="2012-08-19T17:11:51.367" UserId="358" Text=" - Именительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двести&#xD;&#xA; - Родительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двухсот&#xD;&#xA; - Дательный падеж &amp;mdash; Двумстам&#xD;&#xA; - Винительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двести&#xD;&#xA; - Творительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двумястами&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный падеж &amp;mdash; О двухстах" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="adb5a6a3-8090-44af-a6df-f91740ef4dea" CreationDate="2012-08-19T17:22:09.853" UserId="358" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text=" - Именительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двести&#xD;&#xA; - Родительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двухсот&#xD;&#xA; - Дательный падеж &amp;mdash; Двумстам&#xD;&#xA; - Винительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двести&#xD;&#xA; - Творительный падеж &amp;mdash; Двумястами&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный падеж &amp;mdash; О двухстах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Примеры ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Не имей `двести` рублей, а имей `двести` друзей.&#xD;&#xA; - Автомобиль развивает скорость до `двухсот` километров в час.&#xD;&#xA; - `Двумстам` работникам цеха вручили премию.&#xD;&#xA; - Проект был выполнен `двумястами` студентами МГУ.&#xD;&#xA; - В `двухстах` метрах от дома лежал изуродованный труп." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="5f8c0c98-92ad-45d0-85cc-2caf342d88c0" CreationDate="2012-08-20T07:35:55.713" UserId="185" Text="Is it possible to use &quot;влекомый&quot; as a passive participle of the verb &quot;влечь&quot; in meaning &quot;to cause&quot;? I can only think of examples where it is used in meaning &quot;to carry&quot; or &quot;to attract&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;карета, влекомая лошадьми - a coach carried by horses&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;человек, влекомый интересом к искусству ~ a man attracted to art&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, phrases like &quot;наказание, влекомое преступлением&quot; sound wrong to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: do such phrases seem incorrect to other native speakers? If yes, is there a reason or a rule why the verb &quot;влечь&quot;-&quot;to cause&quot; cannot be used in the form of a passive participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="5f8c0c98-92ad-45d0-85cc-2caf342d88c0" CreationDate="2012-08-20T07:35:55.713" UserId="185" Text="The meaning of &quot;влекомый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="5f8c0c98-92ad-45d0-85cc-2caf342d88c0" CreationDate="2012-08-20T07:35:55.713" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2766" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="219d891f-9c26-4bbc-a994-deb7ef806d00" CreationDate="2012-08-20T08:58:33.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/237473685856989184" />
  <row Id="2767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="b1e4a790-9c46-42a3-af7a-d4772347764e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T09:36:00.207" UserId="185" Text="What is the difference between the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мой папа в командировке.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I explain to foreign students when to use &quot;мой&quot; or &quot;у меня&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="b1e4a790-9c46-42a3-af7a-d4772347764e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T09:36:00.207" UserId="185" Text="Possessive constructions: &quot;мой&quot; vs. &quot;у меня&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="b1e4a790-9c46-42a3-af7a-d4772347764e" CreationDate="2012-08-20T09:36:00.207" UserId="185" Text="|выбор-слова|местоимения|possessive-constructions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="7e8e509b-2847-4954-871b-174fcdfd8a87" CreationDate="2012-08-20T13:56:19.390" UserId="358" Text="Your examples are correct, but it would be better to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; человек, увлечённый искусством&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наказание, влекомое преступлением&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to me, this phrase sounds correct, but unnatural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd rather use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; преступление, `влекущее` наказание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; преступление, `повлекшее` наказание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наказание, `явившееся следствием` преступления&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наказание, `обусловленное` преступлением" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="b1b59db5-facb-49bf-83d6-8c67618eb74a" CreationDate="2012-08-20T14:21:28.897" UserId="358" Text="In this particular case, there is actually no difference how to say it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его мама на работе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У неё мама на работе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае речь идёт о **конкретной** (единственной) маме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама чья? Его (и только его).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть мама? У неё (и только у неё).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more example:&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Их собака сдохла&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них собаха сдохла&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опять же, речь о **конкретной** собаке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Собака чья? Их (и только их).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть собака? У них (и только у них).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more:&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брат Ильи - сантехник&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У Ильи брат - сантехник&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И снова - **конкретный** брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Брат чей? Ильи (и только Ильи).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть брат? У Ильи (и только у Ильи).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, where you can use &quot;мой&quot;, you can use &quot;у меня&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other example:&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня `нет` денег - I don't have any money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого нет денег? У меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of negation, sometimes you can't change phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="f08ec950-863d-4bd3-99d3-1de5f45c13cf" CreationDate="2012-08-20T14:33:20.977" UserId="97" Text="There is no difference in the meaning of the two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой папа в командировке.&lt;br/&gt; У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, the meaning is that my dad is away on business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, a slight difference in focus between the two. In the first case, the main focus of the sentence is _папа_ - he is away on business; oh, and he happened to be my dad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой папа - в коммандировке[, _а моя мама - дома_]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence, words _у меня_ shift the focus onto myself: I have this dad, who happened to be away on business:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня папа в коммандировке[, _а у него - вообще безработный_]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best English analogues of the two sentences I can think of are (respectively):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My dad is away on business&lt;br/&gt; As for me, my dad is away on business&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="d6180f93-8ac9-4a43-ab1b-aaa89aea3e78" CreationDate="2012-08-20T14:50:01.230" UserId="97" Text="Word _влекомый_, while produced from _влечь_, is normally used to describe a (usually) slow pulling of something or someone by something or someone else, usually with the will or agreement of the person or object being pulled, and often in a poetic speech, with some element of mystery in it, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он шел по тропинке, влекомый памятью о прошлом&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кибитка катилась вперед, влекомая тихим шагом лошади&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using word _влекомый_ as a derivative of _влечь_ in meaning _to carry_ is grammatically and technically correct; however it is not used often.  It is interesting to note that using its active counterparts _влекущий_ и _повлекший_ is perfectly fine in such cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; преступление, влекущее наказание&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; халатность, повлекшая крупный ущерб&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="5c74c816-6516-45f7-9b4a-faea66258e0a" CreationDate="2012-08-20T14:58:35.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/237564290448633856" />
  <row Id="2775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="b4316bdd-4501-4378-a1b8-ee1abfbd1761" CreationDate="2012-08-20T18:48:44.150" UserId="242" Text="As for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  phrases like &quot;наказание, влекомое преступлением&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is indeed a construction which, though most probably will be understandable by any native speaker, is not used in Russian, whether colloquial or bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Влекомый&quot; has a slightest hint on causation in sentences like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скрудж подошел к окну и, влекомый любопытством, выглянул наружу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can rephrase: &quot;Скрудж выглянул наружу, потому что ему было любопытно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И вот наш принц, пройдя огонь и воду, Находит апельсины через годы, Влекомый жаждой разрезает плод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can claim that prince cuts the oranges, because he is thirsty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, rule of thumb is following here: when you can answer on &quot;why&quot; question, you can use &quot;влекомый&quot;, any other use for causation in this very form (as for related forms, see @Aleks G's answer) is highly disputable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="aa6ab578-e7b4-484e-82c5-ee84daebffe2" CreationDate="2012-08-20T19:49:53.917" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, added example in the body of the question, remove comments; added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="What caused complex plural forms in Russian? Were they borrowed from another language, inherited from Old Russian, or is there another reason why they appeared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;complex plural forms&quot; I mean the special plural form of nouns when they follow numerals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;одно яблоко, одна ошибка (singular)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;зеленые яблоки (plural) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;два яблока, две ошибки (complex plural)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пятнадцать яблок, пятнадцать ошибок (complex plural)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="aa6ab578-e7b4-484e-82c5-ee84daebffe2" CreationDate="2012-08-20T19:49:53.917" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, added example in the body of the question, remove comments; added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="|множественное-число|числительные|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2778" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="aa6ab578-e7b4-484e-82c5-ee84daebffe2" CreationDate="2012-08-20T19:49:53.917" UserId="185" Comment="Edited tags, added example in the body of the question, remove comments; added 60 characters in body; edited title" Text="The origin of complex plural forms " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2779" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="0006d348-05fd-428a-92c5-a1c6a879ae94" CreationDate="2012-08-20T21:00:03.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/237655259533697024" />
  <row Id="2782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="1c1d66b3-857d-48a7-a726-19681362af11" CreationDate="2012-08-20T21:37:51.517" UserId="170" Text="One difference that comes to my mind is that 'мой' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while 'у меня' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мой он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мамин я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that 'у меня' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean 'мой'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже мой', which could men a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, 'у меня', 'у тебя', 'у ниx' and so on can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something or somebody. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. Все **твои** консультанты - сплошные невежды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. Все **у тебя** консультанты - сплошные невежды по оопределению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Твои' fits better in the first case, while 'у тебя' fits better in the second. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="8bee54df-9421-43af-bca9-4f05ecd856ed" CreationDate="2012-08-20T21:46:58.600" UserId="170" Comment="added 371 characters in body" Text="One difference that comes to my mind is that 'мой' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while 'у меня' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мой он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мамин я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that 'у меня' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean 'мой'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже мой', which could men a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, 'у меня', 'у тебя', 'у ниx' and so on can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something or somebody. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be defending consultants. Also, in the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking may not have (possess) any consultants at all. '**Твои**' fits better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits better in the second. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="66223ee4-2144-4de5-a0b6-af8b46a5292c" CreationDate="2012-08-20T21:53:25.237" UserId="170" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="One difference that comes to my mind is that 'мой' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while 'у меня' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мой он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мамин я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that 'у меня' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean 'мой'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже мой', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, 'у меня', 'у тебя', 'у ниx' and so on can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be defending consultants. Also, in the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking may not have (possess) any consultants at all. In the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence the speaker is talking about all consultants. Therefore, '**твои**' fits better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits better in the second. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="59979a3f-b740-4ba1-b645-4b4c4690293d" CreationDate="2012-08-20T22:09:38.470" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="One difference that comes to my mind is that 'мой' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while 'у меня' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мой он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мамин я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that 'у меня' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean 'мой'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже мой', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, 'у меня', 'у тебя', 'у ниx' and so on can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be defending consultants. Also, in the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking may not have (possess) any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits better in the second. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="e6dbe6f1-a948-4848-b5d2-03b26d3f4ff0" CreationDate="2012-08-20T23:18:11.117" UserId="170" Comment="added 985 characters in body" Text="One difference that comes to my mind is that 'мой' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while 'у меня' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мой он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мамин я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that 'у меня' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean 'мой'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже мой', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, 'у меня', 'у тебя', 'у ниx' and so on can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be defending consultants. Also, in the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking may not have (possess) any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits better in the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, 'у меня', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the momet, while using 'мой' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="31b52189-e21f-4adc-acdf-ab4e14111590" CreationDate="2012-08-21T01:04:01.957" UserId="62" Text="Possession is generally expressed in Russian using у + genitive case. However, in technical contexts the verb иметь is used, e.g., это уравнение имеет решение or этот многочлен имеет один корень. I have two questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Aside from the useful phrase иметь в виду, and the less useful phrase иметь место (I have used the first one a lot, but I've rarely used the second), should иметь be avoided in everyday conversations, or are there some everyday circumstances where иметь does not sound strange?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Is there a simple rule of thumb in technical settings where the usage of иметь is acceptable, or does it just come down to personal taste? For example, a native speaker who knows Russian very well (at least the way it was 20 years ago, when he left) told me that the sentences Прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны&#xD;&#xA;and Этот прямоугольник имеет высоту 3 метра sound awkward to him (he'd prefer У прямоугольника четыре стороны and Высота этого прямоугольника — 3 метра)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="31b52189-e21f-4adc-acdf-ab4e14111590" CreationDate="2012-08-21T01:04:01.957" UserId="62" Text="the usage of иметь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="31b52189-e21f-4adc-acdf-ab4e14111590" CreationDate="2012-08-21T01:04:01.957" UserId="62" Text="|глаголы|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2790" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="0487a24e-8577-4e04-8f32-3c65cd76e8ce" CreationDate="2012-08-21T03:00:53.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/237746062704656384" />
  <row Id="2791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="66c4e9b1-4c02-4745-b655-96eceba7f71e" CreationDate="2012-08-21T04:53:46.537" UserId="170" Comment="added 767 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that 'у меня' can mean 'I have', while 'мой' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete and it reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomena - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that 'мой' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while 'у меня' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мой он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Мамин я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that 'у меня' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean 'мой'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже мой', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, 'у меня', 'у тебя', 'у ниx' and so on can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be defending consultants. Also, in the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking may not have (possess) any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits better in the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, 'у меня', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using 'мой' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="17d0bd75-5761-4c32-8a43-c638659348be" CreationDate="2012-08-21T05:06:22.693" UserId="170" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that '**у меня**' can mean 'I have', while '**мой**' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete. It reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomenon - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be).In fact we don't even know whether it is phenomenon, that is something having its place in the objective reality, or simply a concept in the speaker's mind (like in &quot;*Иногда пытаюсь представить себе, каким бы мог быть **мой** конфликт с моим начальником, если бы он мог бы быть*&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that '**мой**' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while '**у меня**' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not '**Мой** он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not '**Мамин** я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that '**у меня**' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean '**мой**'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже **мой**', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, '**у меня**', '**у тебя**', '**у ниx**' and so on, can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** все консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be even defending consultants. In the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking (interlocutor) may not have (possess) any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits in better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits in better in the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, '**у меня**', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using '**мой**' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="c9ef59bc-38ba-42f0-b7d3-9d5930cc26fd" CreationDate="2012-08-21T05:13:29.873" UserId="170" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that '**у меня**' can mean 'I have', while '**мой**' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete. It reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomenon - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be). In fact we don't even know whether it is really a phenomenon (something having its place in the objective reality) or simply a concept in the speaker's mind (like in &quot;*Иногда пытаюсь представить себе, каким бы мог быть **мой** конфликт с моим начальником, если бы он мог бы быть*&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that '**мой**' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while '**у меня**' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not '**Мой** он ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not '**Мамин** я - вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that '**у меня**' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean '**мой**'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже **мой**', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, '**у меня**', '**у тебя**', '**у ниx**' and so on, can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be even defending consultants. In the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking (interlocutor) may not have (possess) any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits in better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits in better in the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, '**у меня**', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using '**мой**' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2794" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="302ebb41-3b0e-48c4-87d2-3e53973b7a20" CreationDate="2012-08-21T09:00:50.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/237836647444668416" />
  <row Id="2795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="67af77f9-c67f-41cf-94fe-c628e9e85273" CreationDate="2012-08-21T10:57:10.683" UserId="391" Text="2) You may say: Прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны, when U study kids in the lessons. When you say to your friends, you say: У прямоугольника четыре стороны. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of this statement, and the second just a statement of fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Буду `иметь в виду` - I'll keep that in mind. Used on daily conversation.&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Меня не будет в городе до выходных. (I will not be in town until the weekend.)&#xD;&#xA;- Хорошо, я буду иметь это в виду. (Well, I'll keep that in mind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иметь место - its idoim used when you give an explanation of what or things. Used on the educations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Совокупность преступлений имеет место, когда лицо последовательно совершает несколько преступлений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="946f8801-d22a-474c-ae1b-3226a59f0515" CreationDate="2012-08-21T13:44:10.867" UserId="334" Text="1) add at least expressions `иметь значение` and `иметь влияние` to the list. &#xD;&#xA;2) There is none. However, the more formal context is, the better verb suits. Thus, `Каждый круг имеет центр` is perfectly OK for math science article or administrative codex, but ill suited for everyday use. Also keep in mind, that subject of action is different in this forms and focus slightly shifts to the subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="835f72ee-1064-4b90-9d38-8eeb77042b0c" CreationDate="2012-08-21T13:50:57.717" UserId="334" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="1) add at least expressions `иметь значение` and `иметь влияние` to the list. &#xD;&#xA;2) There is none. However, the more formal context is, the better verb suits. Thus, `Каждый круг имеет центр` is perfectly OK for math science article or administrative codex, but ill suited for everyday use. Also keep in mind, that subject of action is different in this forms and focus slightly shifts to the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, keep in mind, that the verb is sometimes used as substitute for taboo verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="4fa99613-6bc0-451f-a2a4-aed8367cf46e" CreationDate="2012-08-21T15:22:48.247" UserId="170" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that '**у меня**' can mean 'I have', while '**мой**' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete. It reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomenon - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be). We don't even know whether it is really a phenomenon (something having its place in the objective reality) or simply a concept in the speaker's mind (like in &quot;*Иногда пытаюсь представить себе, каким бы мог быть **мой** конфликт с моим начальником, если бы он мог произойти*&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that '**мой**' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while '**у меня**' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Он **мой** ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Я **мамин** – вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing is that '**у меня**' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean '**мой**'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже **мой**', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, '**у меня**', '**у тебя**', '**у ниx**' and so on, can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be even defending consultants. In the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking (interlocutor) may not have, i.e. possess, any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits in better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits in better in the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, '**у меня**', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using '**мой**' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="9bb83ad6-c124-45b8-aa8a-8b256537d4ef" CreationDate="2012-08-21T15:35:59.800" UserId="62" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Possession is generally expressed in Russian using у + genitive case. However, in technical contexts the verb иметь is used, e.g., это уравнение имеет решение or этот многочлен имеет один корень. I have two questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Aside from the useful phrase иметь в виду, and the less useful phrase иметь место (I have used the first one a lot, but I've rarely used the second), should иметь be avoided in everyday conversations, or are there some everyday circumstances where иметь does not sound strange *besides* the two idioms above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Is there a simple rule of thumb in technical settings where the usage of иметь is acceptable, or does it just come down to personal taste? For example, a native speaker who knows Russian very well (at least the way it was 20 years ago, when he left) told me that the sentences Прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны&#xD;&#xA;and Этот прямоугольник имеет высоту 3 метра sound awkward to him (he'd prefer У прямоугольника четыре стороны and Высота этого прямоугольника — 3 метра)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="1b35f936-af1e-4d25-89cd-ea369c7c8bb1" CreationDate="2012-08-22T04:47:06.873" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that '**у меня**' can mean 'I have', while '**мой**' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete. It reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomenon - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be). We don't even know whether it is really a phenomenon (something having its place in the objective reality) or simply a concept in the speaker's mind (like in &quot;*Иногда пытаюсь представить себе, каким бы мог быть **мой** конфликт с моим начальником, если бы он мог произойти*&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that '**мой**' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while '**у меня**' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Он **мой** ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Я **мамин** – вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, '**у меня**' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean '**мой**'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже **мой**', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, '**у меня**', '**у тебя**', '**у ниx**' and so on, can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be even defending consultants. In the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking (interlocutor) may not have, i.e. possess, any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants). Therefore, '**твои**' fits in better in the first case, while '**у тебя**' fits in better in the second. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, '**у меня**', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using '**мой**' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2801" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="8faeddf7-9dc1-48e2-ab48-17a1901ead69" CreationDate="2012-08-22T09:01:00.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/238199080239640576" />
  <row Id="2802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="126bd3cb-38c6-4a65-81c9-fa94b5725401" CreationDate="2012-08-22T09:22:58.893" UserId="33" Comment="Fixed grammar for clearness" Text="1) add at least expressions `иметь значение` and `иметь влияние` to the list.  &#xD;&#xA;2) There is none. However, the more formal context is, the better the verb suits. Thus, `Каждый круг имеет центр` is perfectly OK for math science article or administrative codex, but ill-suited for everyday use. Also keep in mind, that the subject of action is different in these forms and focus slightly shifts to the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, keep in mind, that the verb is sometimes used as substitute for taboo verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2803" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="126bd3cb-38c6-4a65-81c9-fa94b5725401" CreationDate="2012-08-22T09:22:58.893" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 71 edit id of 222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="b1481468-7a8b-4808-a7e1-088b780f5317" CreationDate="2012-08-22T09:23:07.427" UserId="33" Comment="Surely author meant &quot;teach&quot; rather than &quot;study&quot;." Text="2) You may say: Прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны, when you teach kids in the lessons. When you say to your friends, you say: У прямоугольника четыре стороны. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of this statement, and the second just a statement of fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Буду `иметь в виду` - I'll keep that in mind. Used on daily conversation.&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Меня не будет в городе до выходных. (I will not be in town until the weekend.)&#xD;&#xA;- Хорошо, я буду иметь это в виду. (Well, I'll keep that in mind.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иметь место - its idoim used when you give an explanation of what or things. Used on the educations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Совокупность преступлений имеет место, когда лицо последовательно совершает несколько преступлений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2805" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="b1481468-7a8b-4808-a7e1-088b780f5317" CreationDate="2012-08-22T09:23:07.427" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 71 edit id of 221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="101b82bc-ea6a-4247-9add-d0c44716f3b0" CreationDate="2012-08-22T11:13:37.980" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Possession is generally expressed in Russian using у + genitive case. However, in technical contexts the verb иметь is used, e.g., это уравнение имеет решение or этот многочлен имеет один корень. I have two questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Aside from the useful phrase иметь в виду, and the less useful phrase иметь место (I have used the first one a lot, but I've rarely used the second), should иметь be avoided in everyday conversations, or are there some everyday circumstances where иметь does not sound strange *besides* the two idioms above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is there a simple rule of thumb in technical settings where the usage of иметь is acceptable, or does it just come down to personal taste? For example, a native speaker who knows Russian very well (at least the way it was 20 years ago, when he left) told me that the sentences Прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны&#xD;&#xA;and Этот прямоугольник имеет высоту 3 метра sound awkward to him (he'd prefer У прямоугольника четыре стороны and Высота этого прямоугольника — 3 метра)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2808" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="101b82bc-ea6a-4247-9add-d0c44716f3b0" CreationDate="2012-08-22T11:13:37.980" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="The usage of иметь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="a5ec37c6-bb1e-44e7-a5af-eb34d5286fcf" CreationDate="2012-08-22T11:14:11.643" UserId="71" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="1. add at least expressions **иметь значение** and **иметь влияние** to the list.  &#xD;&#xA;2. There is none. However, the more formal context is, the better the verb suits. Thus, **Каждый круг имеет центр** is perfectly OK for math science article or administrative codex, but ill-suited for everyday use. Also keep in mind, that the subject of action is different in these forms and focus slightly shifts to the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, keep in mind, that the verb is sometimes used as substitute for taboo verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="a01e633b-b5c6-4d4a-9358-90d8a3768f4f" CreationDate="2012-08-22T11:15:40.143" UserId="71" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="2) You may say: *Прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны*, when you teach kids in the lessons. When you say to your friends, you say: *У прямоугольника четыре стороны.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence of this statement, and the second just a statement of fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Буду **иметь в виду** - I'll keep that in mind. Used on daily conversation.&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Меня не будет в городе до выходных. (*I will not be in town until the weekend.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Хорошо, я буду иметь это в виду. (*Well, I'll keep that in mind.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Иметь место** is an idiom used when you give an explanation of what or things. Used on the educations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Совокупность преступлений имеет место, когда лицо последовательно совершает несколько преступлений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2811" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="97b10653-36ea-48e4-a239-91e01745747c" CreationDate="2012-08-22T12:01:01.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/238244379414892544" />
  <row Id="2812" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="0d63b1e0-d72f-4455-9b3a-d739bf0ebd39" CreationDate="2012-08-22T18:01:00.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/238334975844425728" />
  <row Id="2814" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="50110804-ae16-4a81-84f2-382e26405523" CreationDate="2012-08-22T22:32:03.330" UserId="71" Comment="9" />
  <row Id="2815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="19b1f4a2-7ff2-4a41-a300-2f66e972ce54" CreationDate="2012-08-23T09:24:10.517" UserId="98" Text="There is an interesting issue with the word `алгоритм`. Sometimes, in certain contexts, it's traditionally spelled as `алгорифм`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="e05e4eda-84ef-4999-b813-c92b7f683aa9" CreationDate="2012-08-23T12:01:27.183" UserDisplayName="user254" Text="Sentences with иметь/имеет sound a little more formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you are reading a math book, or listening to a math lection, you may expect to rather hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прямоугольник имеет четыре стороны&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but if you are talking to someone, you should rather expect to hear &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    у прямоугольника четыре стороны&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that the first one is broken or something, but it's pretty much the same in English: you would expect to find &quot;a rectangle contains...&quot; in a book, but to hear &quot;a rectangle has...&quot; in a conversation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="628a601b-09a8-422f-b1c2-7fcdfd981f45" CreationDate="2012-08-23T19:18:37.270" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="There is an interesting issue with the word *алгоритм*. Sometimes, in certain contexts, it's traditionally spelled as *алгорифм*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2818" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="628a601b-09a8-422f-b1c2-7fcdfd981f45" CreationDate="2012-08-23T19:18:37.270" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 185 edit id of 224" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="54b38e4b-97f0-435a-8f3b-5642cbd87035" CreationDate="2012-08-23T21:05:21.543" UserId="185" Comment="Added translation for the examples" Text="In addition to the previous post, I want to list more variants:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неважно - Things are not too good.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более-менее - More or less OK. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ужасно - Terrible. &lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2820" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="b3516283-549d-4922-b29d-44d3108982d1" CreationDate="2012-08-23T21:06:34.613" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="6140a059-6bfb-4d63-b437-e5ad4491b613" CreationDate="2012-08-24T14:37:31.290" UserId="282" Text="Online translators seem to only take the gender of the first noun but what if you wanted to mean in the example 'one' apple and 'one' banana, but both are green - could you then pluralize 'green'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;green apple and banana: &quot;Зеленое яблоко и банан&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;green banana and apple: &quot;зеленый банан и яблоко&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="6140a059-6bfb-4d63-b437-e5ad4491b613" CreationDate="2012-08-24T14:37:31.290" UserId="282" Text="Pluralizing of adjective to avoid gender association with two nouns of different gender separated by &quot;and&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="6140a059-6bfb-4d63-b437-e5ad4491b613" CreationDate="2012-08-24T14:37:31.290" UserId="282" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="70feed15-982b-4c2c-a23e-b9e7f8a2a8ca" CreationDate="2012-08-24T14:43:18.650" UserId="97" Text="Yes, you can pluralize _green_ in this case and say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зеленые яблоко и банан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is perfectly fine from both grammatical and phonetic points of view.  This is also true when using possessive pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мои кошка и собака&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My cat and dog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="792e54b7-a7ed-4876-8704-b5ab58bf33db" CreationDate="2012-08-24T18:01:49.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/239059955649499136" />
  <row Id="2829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="33655dc2-026c-4eea-b5cd-09a0d85b6a24" CreationDate="2012-08-24T18:11:32.490" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the title, added more tags; edited title" Text="Should adjectives that modify coordinated nouns be plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="33655dc2-026c-4eea-b5cd-09a0d85b6a24" CreationDate="2012-08-24T18:11:32.490" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the title, added more tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="012f396a-e1ad-4cba-847c-869c8c82c291" CreationDate="2012-08-24T19:40:32.800" UserId="334" Text="0) Computer parsing of texts in natural languages is really hard and tricky, do NOT rely on any computer translator ever: even if dictionary used is good, idioms are pretty like to be unrecognised and master-slave relations between words in sentence (what correct grammar term for it?) will be often parsed wrong. There is no way about it currently from technical point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Theoretically, &quot;Зеленое яблоко и банан&quot; should be translated as &quot;green apple and (possibly non-green) banana&quot;. If you wish to mark both as green, you should say &quot;зеленые яблоко и банан&quot;. However, it is impossible disambiguate 'зеленые яблоки и бананы'. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2833" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="b3c8ab34-e4dd-4758-b472-c4872b02fcfb" CreationDate="2012-08-25T09:01:49.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/239286449416052736" />
  <row Id="2834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="e979b784-7c09-465a-bff8-42df5ab6814f" CreationDate="2012-08-26T03:30:44.090" UserId="222" Text="1) In simple sentences, it's usually better to use “*у* subject *есть*” instead of “subject *имеет*”. One notable exception is the sentence “*Я имею право ...*” (“I have a right”), which is used more often than “*У меня есть право ...*”. However, both variants are common. E.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Я имею право не отвечать на ваши вопросы. &#xD;&#xA;      У меня есть право не отвечать на ваши вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps, the first form is more common because it puts more emphasis on the word *я*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also “*иметь*” is used when the construction “у ... есть” cannot be used (e.g. in sentences without a subject). For example,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;      Хорошо иметь друзей.&#xD;&#xA;      Вам необходимо будет иметь с собой пропуск.&#xD;&#xA;      Что мне нужно иметь с собой?&#xD;&#xA;      Чтобы не иметь проблем с оформлением разрешения, лучше подать документы за 3 месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) “У прямоугольника четыре стороны” sounds OK. However, “Этот прямоугольник имеет высоту 3 метра” doesn't sound right. Part of the problem is that we usually refer to the dimensions of a rectangle as length (*длина*) and width (*ширина*) in Russian. So for example the sentence “прямоугольный параллелепипед имеет высоту 3 метра” sounds much better. (Even in this case, “высота прямоугольного параллелепипеда 3 метра” is better)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="e26dc21f-f14b-4724-87bf-a5c3bc3fc895" CreationDate="2012-08-26T03:52:46.363" UserId="222" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="1) In simple sentences, it's usually better to use “*у* subject *есть*” instead of “subject *имеет*”. One notable exception is the sentence “*Я имею право ...*” (“I have a right”), which is used more often than “*У меня есть право ...*”. However, both variants are common. E.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Я имею право не отвечать на ваши вопросы. &#xD;&#xA;      У меня есть право не отвечать на ваши вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps, the first form is more common because it puts more emphasis on the word *я*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also “*иметь*” is used when the construction “у ... есть” cannot be used (e.g. in sentences without a subject). For example,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;      Хорошо иметь друзей.&#xD;&#xA;      Вам необходимо будет иметь с собой пропуск.&#xD;&#xA;      Что мне нужно иметь с собой?&#xD;&#xA;      Чтобы не иметь проблем с оформлением разрешения, лучше подать документы за 3 месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) “У прямоугольника четыре стороны” sounds OK. However, “Этот прямоугольник имеет высоту 3 метра” doesn't sound right. Part of the problem is that we usually refer to the dimensions of a rectangle as length (*длина*) and width (*ширина*) in Russian. So for example the sentence “прямоугольный параллелепипед имеет высоту 3 метра” sounds much better. (Even in this case, “высота прямоугольного параллелепипеда 3 метра” is better).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, we very rarely say that an object has (“имеет”) a property. A native speaker cannot say “*моя машина имеет красный цвет*” or “*мой телевизор имеет чёрный цвет*”. However, one can say “Иодид цинка — химическое соединение с формулой ZnI2, в безводной форме имеет белый цвет и активно поглощает влагу из воздуха” (this sentence is from Russian Wikipedia) because the context is very technical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="40335a03-a490-4f60-a167-757e27d21e11" CreationDate="2012-08-26T04:00:21.793" UserId="222" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="1) In simple sentences, it's usually better to use “*у* subject *есть*” instead of “subject *имеет*”. One notable exception is the sentence “*Я имею право ...*” (“I have a right”), which is used more often than “*У меня есть право ...*”. However, both variants are common. E.g.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Я имею право не отвечать на ваши вопросы. &#xD;&#xA;      У меня есть право не отвечать на ваши вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Perhaps, the first form is more common because it puts more emphasis on the word *я*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also “*иметь*” is used when the construction “у ... есть” cannot be used (e.g. in sentences without a subject). For example,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;      Хорошо иметь друзей.&#xD;&#xA;      Вам необходимо будет иметь с собой пропуск.&#xD;&#xA;      Что мне нужно иметь с собой?&#xD;&#xA;      Чтобы не иметь проблем с оформлением разрешения, лучше подать документы за 3 месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) “У прямоугольника четыре стороны” sounds OK. However, “Этот прямоугольник имеет высоту 3 метра” doesn't sound right. Part of the problem is that we usually refer to the dimensions of a rectangle as length (*длина*) and width (*ширина*) in Russian. So for example the sentence “*прямоугольный параллелепипед имеет высоту 3 метра*” sounds much better. (Even in this case, “*высота прямоугольного параллелепипеда 3 метра*” is better).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, in Russian, we very rarely say that an object has (“имеет” or even “у ... есть”) a property. A native speaker cannot say “*моя машина имеет красный цвет*” (sounds really bad) or “*у моего телевизора чёрный цвет*” (sounds very awkward). However, one can say “Иодид цинка — химическое соединение с формулой ZnI2, в безводной форме имеет белый цвет и активно поглощает влагу из воздуха” (this sentence is from Russian Wikipedia) because the context is very technical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="be45ea18-c563-4439-9305-31855311bd01" CreationDate="2012-08-26T04:38:35.380" UserId="222" Text="Here is another example. The word “catholic” (καθολικὴ) is spelled either as “ка**т**олический” or as “ка**ф**олический” in Russian. These two spellings, however, are used in different contexts.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Католическая церковь” means the Catholic Church.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Кафолическая церковь” means а universal church." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2838" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="1117e42d-d108-4f86-a10d-c5b0cd0bb72e" CreationDate="2012-08-27T09:01:50.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/240011227097624576" />
  <row Id="2839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="26b5e87d-1c62-471c-94cf-7708eda35681" CreationDate="2012-08-27T15:02:53.900" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 106 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that '**у меня**' can mean 'I have', while '**мой**' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete. It reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomenon - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be). We don't even know whether it is really a phenomenon (something having its place in the objective reality) or simply a concept in the speaker's mind (like in &quot;*Иногда пытаюсь представить себе, каким бы мог быть **мой** конфликт с моим начальником, если бы он мог произойти*&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that '**мой**' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while '**у меня**' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Он **мой** ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Я **мамин** – вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, '**у меня**' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean '**мой**'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже **мой**', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, '**у меня**', '**у тебя**', '**у ниx**' and so on, can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be even defending consultants. In the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking (interlocutor) may not have, i.e. possess, any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, '**у меня**', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using '**мой**' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="9c2ce824-f997-4aaf-b4a0-640f2cef764c" CreationDate="2012-08-27T22:52:42.280" UserId="329" Text="There is [an article about this word in Urban Dictionary][1]. But what is the Russian for this word? &quot;говнокодер&quot; and &quot;быдлокодер&quot; are not suitable here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brogrammer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="9c2ce824-f997-4aaf-b4a0-640f2cef764c" CreationDate="2012-08-27T22:52:42.280" UserId="329" Text="What is the Russian translation for &quot;brogrammer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="9c2ce824-f997-4aaf-b4a0-640f2cef764c" CreationDate="2012-08-27T22:52:42.280" UserId="329" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="07720304-394f-4902-b01a-f710ac0fb822" CreationDate="2012-08-28T08:43:54.493" UserId="185" Text="Can please someone explain the origin of &quot;-м&quot; in &quot;(я) ем&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do other verbs have &quot;-у (-ю)&quot; ending in the 1st person singular of present (&quot;я работаю, я учу&quot;), but this verb has &quot;-м&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="07720304-394f-4902-b01a-f710ac0fb822" CreationDate="2012-08-28T08:43:54.493" UserId="185" Text="Origin of 1 person sg present form of verb &quot;есть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="07720304-394f-4902-b01a-f710ac0fb822" CreationDate="2012-08-28T08:43:54.493" UserId="185" Text="|глаголы|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="aec98815-5e23-4841-b3e1-93603010442a" CreationDate="2012-08-28T10:08:35.827" UserId="242" Text="First of all, there are some other irregular verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [claims][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нехарактерную для глаголов I и II спряжений систему окончаний&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (архаическую) имеют глаголы есть, надоесть, дать, создать (и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приставочные производные: переесть, заесть, сдать, отдать, предать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воссоздать и др.), а также обсценный глагол ссать (сцать) (спряжение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на -ы-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why is this so, well, irregular verbs in any language are traces of old grammar constructions, and not all of them can be logically explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="6adb2a20-f1e3-4045-b6f1-ebe93bc242c2" CreationDate="2012-08-28T10:22:01.843" UserId="242" Comment="added 485 characters in body" Text="First of all, there are some other irregular verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [claims][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нехарактерную для глаголов I и II спряжений систему окончаний&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (архаическую) имеют глаголы есть, надоесть, дать, создать (и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приставочные производные: переесть, заесть, сдать, отдать, предать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воссоздать и др.), а также обсценный глагол ссать (сцать) (спряжение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на -ы-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why is this so, well, irregular verbs in any language are traces of old grammar constructions, and not all of them can be logically explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [Old Russian][2] such verbs had been pretty rare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К нетематическим (V класс) относилось всего пять глаголов: быти, дати,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ъсти ‘кушать’, въдъти ‘знать’ и имати. В 1-ом лице ед. ч. у этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголов было окончание –мь (есмь, дамь, ъмь, въмь, имамь), во 2-ом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лице ед. ч. – окончание –си (еси, даси, ъси, въси, но имаши); в ос-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тальных лицах окончания были те же, что и у тематических глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to conclude, this is remnant of `-мь` edging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://window.edu.ru/library/pdf2txt/112/22112/5339/page7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2848" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="e6e8855e-9d0d-44f3-bf30-1107b8e7dad9" CreationDate="2012-08-28T11:08:15.640" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Origin of the verb form &quot;(я) ем&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="1095efa0-8666-4d88-a2de-4ae13bf26bac" CreationDate="2012-08-28T16:57:20.460" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="First of all, there are some other irregular verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [claims][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нехарактерную для глаголов I и II спряжений систему окончаний&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (архаическую) имеют глаголы есть, надоесть, дать, создать (и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приставочные производные: переесть, заесть, сдать, отдать, предать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воссоздать и др.), а также обсценный глагол ссать (сцать) (спряжение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на -ы-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why is this so, well, irregular verbs in any language are traces of old grammar constructions, and not all of them can be logically explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [Old Russian][2] such verbs had been pretty rare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К нетематическим (V класс) относилось всего пять глаголов: быти, дати,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ъсти ‘кушать’, въдъти ‘знать’ и имати. В 1-ом лице ед. ч. у этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголов было окончание –мь (есмь, дамь, ъмь, въмь, имамь), во 2-ом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лице ед. ч. – окончание –си (еси, даси, ъси, въси, но имаши); в ос-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тальных лицах окончания были те же, что и у тематических глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to conclude, this is remnant of `-мь` ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://window.edu.ru/library/pdf2txt/112/22112/5339/page7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="a7b9860d-9daf-404e-b729-db63aa91a7fd" CreationDate="2012-08-28T19:32:24.420" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="First of all, there are some other irregular verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [claims][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нехарактерную для глаголов I и II спряжений систему окончаний&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (архаическую) имеют глаголы есть, надоесть, дать, создать (и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приставочные производные: переесть, заесть, сдать, отдать, предать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воссоздать и др.), а также обсценный глагол ссать (сцать) (спряжение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на -ы-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why is this so, well, irregular verbs in any language are traces of old grammar constructions, and not all of them can be logically explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [Old Russian][2] such verbs had been pretty rare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К нетематическим (V класс) относилось всего пять глаголов: быти, дати,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ъсти ‘кушать’, въдъти ‘знать’ и имати. В 1-ом лице ед. ч. у этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголов было окончание –мь (есмь, дамь, ъмь, въмь, имамь), во 2-ом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лице ед. ч. – окончание –си (еси, даси, ъси, въси, но имаши); в оc&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тальных лицах окончания были те же, что и у тематических глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to conclude, this is remnant of `-мь` ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://window.edu.ru/library/pdf2txt/112/22112/5339/page7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="db5a04de-44ca-4a98-81e2-02000238fed2" CreationDate="2012-08-28T21:21:46.207" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="First of all, there are some other irregular verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [claims][1] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нехарактерную для глаголов I и II спряжений систему окончаний&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (архаическую) имеют глаголы *есть, надоесть, дать, создать* (и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приставочные производные: *переесть, заесть, сдать, отдать, предать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воссоздать* и др.), а также обсценный глагол *ссать (сцать)* (спряжение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на -ы-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why is this so, well, irregular verbs in any language are traces of old grammar constructions, and not all of them can be logically explained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in [Old Russian][2] such verbs had been pretty rare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К нетематическим (V класс) относилось всего пять глаголов: *быти, дати,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ѣсти ‘кушать’, вѣдѣти ‘знать’ и имати*. В 1-ом лице ед. ч. у этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголов было окончание –мь (*есмь, дамь, ѣмь, вѣмь, имамь*), во 2-ом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лице ед. ч. – окончание –си (*еси, даси, ѣси, вѣси*, но *имаши*); в оcтальных лицах окончания были те же, что и у тематических глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to conclude, this is remnant of `-мь` ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://window.edu.ru/library/pdf2txt/112/22112/5339/page7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="235bddd6-8f6b-45a6-a89d-3dad87e1d651" CreationDate="2012-08-28T22:10:56.700" UserId="329" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="There is [an article about this word in Urban Dictionary][1]. But what is the Russian for this word? &quot;говнокодер&quot; and &quot;быдлокодер&quot; are not suitable here (it means good developer, not bad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I don't write unit tests, interfaces, use IOC or heavy ORMs. Yet I'm not a brogrammer.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brogrammer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="ab469d36-2a6d-4240-8063-7d8a50f99c2a" CreationDate="2012-08-29T09:52:25.307" UserId="411" Text="**Ever notice how it's a penny for your thoughts, yet you put in your two-cents? Someone is making a penny on the deal.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  мой перевод&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда-либо замечали что значит для вас один цент,  а когда вы еще добавили два? Кто-то делает цент на сделке." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="ab469d36-2a6d-4240-8063-7d8a50f99c2a" CreationDate="2012-08-29T09:52:25.307" UserId="411" Text="Помогите перевести на русский цитату про penny" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="ab469d36-2a6d-4240-8063-7d8a50f99c2a" CreationDate="2012-08-29T09:52:25.307" UserId="411" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2856" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="894" RevisionGUID="445c7a85-bd29-4a77-9560-b875a08b80b6" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:56:54.890" UserId="185" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="6aeb875a-492c-404a-b8db-0b8bf20aa368" CreationDate="2012-08-29T15:57:32.373" UserId="190" Text="What is the best way to convey the meaning of the English word &quot;Kafkaesque&quot; in Russian as succinctly and correctly as possible? I'm interested in both noun and adjective versions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand &quot;Kafkaesque&quot; as something that is absurd, distorted and causes the feel of existential angst." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="6aeb875a-492c-404a-b8db-0b8bf20aa368" CreationDate="2012-08-29T15:57:32.373" UserId="190" Text="How to say &quot;Kafkaesque&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="6aeb875a-492c-404a-b8db-0b8bf20aa368" CreationDate="2012-08-29T15:57:32.373" UserId="190" Text="|лексикон|word-choice|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="a8b2a5ea-c5d8-499f-bf9a-9547f6498516" CreationDate="2012-08-29T16:14:09.010" UserId="134" Text="The corpus knows the noun *кафкианство*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Экая гоголиана, устало думал Миша Белосельско-Белозерский, экое утомительное кафкианство, экая мамлеевщина, экий сорокинизм! *[Василий Аксенов. Негатив положительного героя (1996)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the adjective *кафкианский*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Газет я не читала, но стопка на тумбочке источала ужас. Сегодня я бы сказала ― кафкианский ужас. Одно воспоминание тех лет было настолько пронзительным, что осталось частью моей биографии. *[Р. М. Фрумкина. О нас – наискосок (1995)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="7b5d89ac-d650-4f41-87f7-b4436d3d51b1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T17:31:33.357" UserId="242" Text="Which form is more appropriate in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта страница генерируется автоматически. Пожалуйста, не редактируйте её.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта страница генерится автоматически. Пожалуйста, не редактируйте её.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this term in this sense is relatively new, please, explain your point of you reasonably full." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="7b5d89ac-d650-4f41-87f7-b4436d3d51b1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T17:31:33.357" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Генерится&quot; or &quot;генерируется&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="7b5d89ac-d650-4f41-87f7-b4436d3d51b1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T17:31:33.357" UserId="242" Text="|word-choice|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="898" RevisionGUID="d3561276-a7c4-473e-8d4f-4aad137d0777" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:39:03.470" UserId="47" Text="*Генерируется*, от глагола *генерировать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Генерится* — это от глагола *генерить*, сугубо разговорного. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="792557e0-0335-443a-8f09-6dea285a327c" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:46:36.940" UserId="97" Text="The right word is _генерируется_, being a form of _генерировать_ (_создавать_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _генерится_ does not exist in Russian language.  It sometimes used in programmers' jargon, however it doesn't make it a proper word in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure about the context you are dealing with, but why not just say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта страница создается автоматически." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="898" RevisionGUID="6373deb9-eda9-4391-9b23-056fca88e82c" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:47:23.737" UserId="185" Comment="Added examples from dictionaries." Text="*Генерируется*, от глагола *генерировать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сравни статью из &quot;Большого толкового словаря&quot; Кузнецова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ГЕНЕРИРОВАТЬ, -рую, -руешь; нсв. что. *Книжн.*&#xD;&#xA;Производить, создавать, возбуждать. Г. электрические колебания. &lt; Генерироваться, -руется; страд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Генерится* — это от глагола *генерить*, сугубо разговорного. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В том же Большом толковом словаре Кузнецова (ред. 2009 года) статьи для &quot;генерить&quot; нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="6d039f65-5336-4c8c-91be-c18b797a4f9a" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:49:13.203" UserId="47" Text="При указании отрезков времени, во фразах вроде *в продолжении (на протяжении, в течение) трёх лет*, *в течение* заканчивается на *-е* (винительный падеж), а *на протяжении*, *в продолжении* на *-и* (предложный). Есть тут какая-нибудь логика? Есть ли другие, помимо *течения* слова, используемые в данном контексте в винительном падеже?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Ответ принимается на любом языке :))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="6d039f65-5336-4c8c-91be-c18b797a4f9a" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:49:13.203" UserId="47" Text="В течение vs. на протяжении, в продолжении" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="6d039f65-5336-4c8c-91be-c18b797a4f9a" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:49:13.203" UserId="47" Text="|склонение|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="901" RevisionGUID="c4a6816e-bec4-4676-94f0-273b17be7aa8" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:56:15.580" UserId="134" Text="The form *генерится* is a haplology, similar to *близорукий / &amp;#42;&amp;#42;близозоркий, знаменосец / &amp;#42;&amp;#42;знаменоносец* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently it's slang and not recorded by the dictionaries yet, but, being a haplology, has all chances to make it into the neutral speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, the dictionary form *генерируется* is more appropriate if you have to choose between the two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2871" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="7cc09326-c082-424e-9691-3d50d255878b" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:07:06.480" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2872" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="3d9c99c3-2757-48ca-a135-47dfb7f90548" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:07:06.480" UserId="185" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="2873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="902" RevisionGUID="04ac3526-27db-4efd-8b52-d485a47bfaf5" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:16:25.110" UserId="134" Text="*В продолжение*, *в течение*, *в заключение*, *в завершение* are prepositions per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, they developed from nouns in accusative using the same paradigm as phrases *в год его рождения*, *в минуту славы* etc., i. e. they answer the question *в какое время?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*На протяжении* is a phrase (a preposition and a noun) which can be split: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Роль прямого советника при государе сохранялась, однако, на всем протяжении периода просвещенного абсолютизма (достаточно вспомнить роль Дидро и Вольтера). *[Виталий Куренной. Медиа: средства в поисках целей // «Отечественные записки», 2003]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="4ff44885-6862-4d33-9478-3b4ed14c7246" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:23:41.790" UserId="334" Text="1) `В продолжение в трех лет` - 'в продолжение' - это предлог. &#xD;&#xA;2) `В продолжении банкета` - предлог + существительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понять это нельзя. Это надо запомнить.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="5721e773-b3cb-44ab-a581-382e41373ee5" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:28:17.447" UserId="185" Text="Словарь указывает оба варианта как допустимые. Но хотя *достичь* и считается основным, в его спряжении все равно присутствуют формы с суффиксом *-ну*: *достигну*, *достигнешь*, и т.п. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как получилось, что в глаголе появился (или исчез?) суффикс *-ну*? Существовали ли когда-нибудь формы, аналогичные формам *достигну*, *достигнешь* по значению, но не имевшие суффикса *-ну*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="5721e773-b3cb-44ab-a581-382e41373ee5" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:28:17.447" UserId="185" Text="&quot;достичь&quot; vs. &quot;достигнуть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="5721e773-b3cb-44ab-a581-382e41373ee5" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:28:17.447" UserId="185" Text="|глаголы|суффиксы|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="3963702d-56ce-43cc-b793-922012be3c95" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:29:04.620" UserId="242" Text="Ну, во-первых, вы чуть-чуть заблуждаетесь. Правильная форма сложного предлога всегда  &quot;в продолжение&quot;, и его не стоит путать с существительным. &#xD;&#xA;[Цитата][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сложный предлог в продолжение, разумеется, также произошел от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложно-падежной формы существительного продолжение. Но в роли&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложного предлога употребляется застывшая форма винительного падежа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этого существительного (кого? что?) — именно поэтому на конце его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пишется -е. Пример: в продолжение недели мне нездоровилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть -  всё то же самое, что и, например, с использованием словосочетание &quot;в течение&quot; в качестве предлога. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается логики. Я (повторюсь в рамках данного стека) не так оптимистичен, как лингвист Зализняк с его верой в непоколебимые и чёткие законы развития языков. Но более чем вероятно, что это потому, что я знаю гораздо меньше уважаемого академика. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но смею предполагать, что частично такому кавардаку причина лежит в орфографической реформе, упразднившей, в том числе, букву &quot;ять&quot; ). В дореволюционной орфографии - в дательном и предложном падежах единственного числа существительных писалось &quot;ѣ&quot;: `о столѣ, въ/къ школѣ, о морѣ, о счастьѣ (а также о счастіи)`. При этом в именительном и винительном падежах писалось &quot;е&quot; `(гдѣ? — въ морѣ, но куда? — въ море)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Александр Исаевич Солженицын, будучи человеком с очень своеобразными взглядами на развитие русское языка (буквально никем не разделёнными), очень часто ошибался как в постановке своих лингвистических диагнозов, так и в предлагаемых методах лечения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это не отменяет дельности данной цитаты: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При нивелировке языка значительное разрушение потерпел предложный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж.  Уже упомянуто, как он пострадал от отмены &quot;ятя&quot;. В том же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неосмысленном порыве всеобщего &quot;упрощения&quot; был срезан предложный падеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ещё одного обширного класса существительных - среднего рода с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончанием &quot;ье&quot;, стали писать предложные в точности как именительный и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; винительный: в Поволжье, в платье (без всякой логики сохранив&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложное &quot;и&quot; для случая полного окончания &quot;ие&quot;: в платии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут впору вспомнить об [ответе уважаемого permeakra](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/903/242) )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.etoze.ru/pravopisanie/v-prodoljenii-ili-v-prodoljenie-pravopisanie/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="d7b2c4d6-e740-4dc4-8eeb-ee41761310e1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:29:52.013" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|предлоги|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="5188becb-d5eb-4e7f-9de4-fffa6a1d2ad5" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:30:55.677" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="ff10c1a9-de38-4cc3-b397-0260465114b8" CreationDate="2012-08-29T19:32:04.600" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2882" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="b4084837-c6c5-416e-b4a1-266ffb9b8423" CreationDate="2012-08-29T21:02:10.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/240917282459635712" />
  <row Id="2883" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="60bea30e-ec43-4c5b-873e-2cc30a1a3a53" CreationDate="2012-08-29T21:03:32.900" UserId="-1" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="2884" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="de0b0a0d-eaf7-49e4-bbe0-b0612755534c" CreationDate="2012-08-29T21:03:32.900" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="68e59127-c9cf-4790-8f79-b40c0fcc1933" CreationDate="2012-08-30T04:13:30.127" UserId="346" Text="How to translate &quot;tile-based game&quot; into Russian correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="68e59127-c9cf-4790-8f79-b40c0fcc1933" CreationDate="2012-08-30T04:13:30.127" UserId="346" Text="Tile-based game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="68e59127-c9cf-4790-8f79-b40c0fcc1933" CreationDate="2012-08-30T04:13:30.127" UserId="346" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="0ba0142d-eaa7-4409-aed1-c6d2fb176841" CreationDate="2012-08-30T05:26:13.647" UserId="242" Text=" - Настольные игры с использованием игральных костей.&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с игральными костями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to reduce tautology these often reduced to `игры с костями` (sounds pretty ominous out of context, doesn't it) or even `игры в кости`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Игра &quot;1000 на кубиках&quot; относится к одной из самых азартных и увлекательных *игр в кости*. Везение помноженное на мастерство и точный расчет - вот главное условие выигрыша, как, кстати, и в большинстве игр подобного рода." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="d8c67fc7-3c06-4b77-9b03-9f32853c9509" CreationDate="2012-08-30T05:34:39.217" UserId="242" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="If you mean [tile-based video games][1], the word tile here has no russian counterpart, so it is usually translated as `игры с тайловой графикой` or `тайловые игры`. If you mean just [tile-based games][2], then it can be translated like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с использованием игральных костей.&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с игральными костями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to reduce tautology these often reduced to `игры с костями` (sounds pretty ominous out of context, doesn't it) or even `игры в кости`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Игра &quot;1000 на кубиках&quot; относится к одной из самых азартных и увлекательных *игр в кости*. Везение помноженное на мастерство и точный расчет - вот главное условие выигрыша, как, кстати, и в большинстве игр подобного рода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile-based_video_game&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile-based_game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="36950373-167b-436f-9e7a-4da80bf5430b" CreationDate="2012-08-30T05:46:02.273" UserId="242" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="If you mean [tile-based video games][1], the word tile here has no russian counterpart, so it is usually translated as `игры с тайловой графикой` or `тайловые игры`. If you mean just [tile-based games][2], then it can be translated like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с использованием игральных костей.&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с игральными костями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to reduce tautology these often reduced to `игры с костями` (sounds pretty ominous out of context, doesn't it) or even `игры в кости`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Игра &quot;1000 на кубиках&quot; относится к одной из самых азартных и увлекательных *игр в кости*. Везение помноженное на мастерство и точный расчет - вот главное условие выигрыша, как, кстати, и в большинстве игр подобного рода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that in some games there is a tendency to call tiles just `тайлы`. For example, in [official rules][3] of Mahjong in Russian, you will find only &quot;кости&quot;. But de-facto it is common to  many russian players [to use][4] &quot;тайлы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For mor popular tile-based games it is not the case. You'll probably never hear &quot;домино с тайлами из слоновой кости&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile-based_video_game&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile-based_game&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mahjong.ru/files/mjru0909.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://bit.ly/Ot4M2J" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="540c0974-9520-4850-b2a4-202d33a4b0b4" CreationDate="2012-08-30T07:47:44.837" UserId="242" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="If you mean [tile-based video games][1], the word tile here has no russian counterpart, so it is usually translated as `игры с тайловой графикой` or `тайловые игры`. If you mean just [tile-based games][2], then it can be translated like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с использованием игральных костей.&#xD;&#xA; - Настольные игры с игральными костями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to reduce tautology these often reduced to `игры с костями` (sounds pretty ominous out of context, doesn't it) or even `игры в кости`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as Quassnoi had mentioned, кости in russian stands for both dice and tile games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Игра &quot;1000 на кубиках&quot; относится к одной из самых азартных и увлекательных *игр в кости*. Везение помноженное на мастерство и точный расчет - вот главное условие выигрыша, как, кстати, и в большинстве игр подобного рода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is about [dice game][3].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth to mention that in some games there is a tendency to call tiles just `тайлы`. For example, in [official rules][4] of Mahjong in Russian, you will find only &quot;кости&quot;. But de-facto it is common to  many russian players [to use][5] &quot;тайлы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For mor popular tile-based games it is not the case. You'll probably never hear &quot;домино с тайлами из слоновой кости&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, there is derivative form of кости, `костяшки`, which are more likely to be associated with tiles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile-based_video_game&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile-based_game&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_10000&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.mahjong.ru/files/mjru0909.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://bit.ly/Ot4M2J" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="73c14e3f-afb7-415e-9596-e36df3219fd1" CreationDate="2012-08-30T08:24:40.097" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="5f457cda-203a-4c00-93f3-dd2327ab8252" CreationDate="2012-08-30T08:25:39.050" UserId="185" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="a623dbce-92be-4c74-aa75-d0409fe6ea80" CreationDate="2012-08-30T08:25:39.050" UserId="185" Text="Questions about game terminology (cards, video games, board games, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="efa423c0-8d29-41fa-b3ed-d0ff56944712" CreationDate="2012-08-30T09:05:53.213" UserId="235" Text="There's pretty direct translation for &quot;to handwave something&quot;, with meaning &quot;give a quick response without much thought&quot;. It  would be &quot;отмахнуться&quot; in Russian, though, of course, you'd have to adapt usage to different contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="6e5c679d-cfdc-4215-8290-c4cd63eaae09" CreationDate="2012-08-30T10:24:01.667" UserId="185" Comment="added 279 characters in body; added 170 characters in body" Text="Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &#xA;&#xA;Please [look around][2] to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&#xA;&#xA;We have created a [single resource question][1], where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is **very specific**, we will close it as a duplicate.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2897" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="817ba9b2-738d-4433-b332-da043deef31b" CreationDate="2012-08-30T12:02:34.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/241143875085938688" />
  <row Id="2898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="1769d356-6268-423e-937c-d22f473e4513" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:16:02.100" UserId="194" Text="This ending came from Proto-Indo-European athematic indicative singular first person verb ending -mi. The PIE word for &quot;(I) eat&quot; was *h₁ed-mi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see an example of full PIE verb declension here:  &#xD;&#xA;http://pie.allderek.com/doku.php?id=steh%E2%82%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="1f185142-b1fb-4866-b436-239efd47fd2a" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:29:18.763" UserId="190" Text="I'm translating a sentence, that starts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And to mention just one more of the catastrophic implications of “advanced” capital’s systemic development...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do i translate the phrase &quot;to mention&quot; at the start of the sentence? I know that &quot;not to mention&quot; is easily translated as &quot;не говоря о&quot;, but i'm not sure about this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="1f185142-b1fb-4866-b436-239efd47fd2a" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:29:18.763" UserId="190" Text="How to translate the phrase &quot;To mention&quot; at the start of the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="1f185142-b1fb-4866-b436-239efd47fd2a" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:29:18.763" UserId="190" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="a89dc61c-d505-41e4-ac35-75f321889c4a" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:45:02.513" UserId="97" Text="In this case, _to mention_ is not a stand-alone phrase/word.  Instead, you have one whole of _to mentioned just one more of the catastrophic implication_.  Therefore you need to look at this as a whole.  I would translate this particular sentence without translating it word-for-word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are intent on using something in place of _to mention_, I think _к тому же_ or _в добавок_ (more colloquial) would be reasonable options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К тому же, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В добавок, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, please note that I don't have the whole context: your specific context may require some other interpretation/translation of this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="f1fce966-cbb4-4b3a-85e3-1d3dbb733930" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:49:05.640" UserId="190" Text="I've found that there is a relatively known English proverb that goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is easy to be wise after the event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested, is there an equivalent in Russian for the whole proverb or the phrase &quot;being wise after the event&quot;? If not, what is the proper literary translation would be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="f1fce966-cbb4-4b3a-85e3-1d3dbb733930" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:49:05.640" UserId="190" Text="&quot;Being wise after the event&quot; - analog in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="f1fce966-cbb4-4b3a-85e3-1d3dbb733930" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:49:05.640" UserId="190" Text="|перевод|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="799cf819-d737-457c-b2c0-7d71cde0ed72" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:54:55.727" UserId="190" Comment="added 817 characters in body" Text="I'm translating a sentence, that starts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And to mention just one more of the catastrophic implications of “advanced” capital’s systemic development...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do i translate the phrase &quot;to mention&quot; at the start of the sentence? I know that &quot;not to mention&quot; is easily translated as &quot;не говоря о&quot;, but i'm not sure about this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit.** To provide the context for the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And to mention just one more of the catastrophic implications of “advanced” capital’s systemic development, we must bear in mind the prohibitively wasteful global ecological encroachment of our no longer tenable mode of social metabolic reproduction on the finite planetary world, with its rapacious exploitation of the non-renewable material resources and the increasingly more dangerous destruction of nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Istvan Meszaros, [Structural Crisis Needs Structural Change](http://monthlyreview.org/2012/03/01/structural-crisis-needs-structural-change).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tangential question:** is the phrase &quot;to mention&quot; used in the beginning of the sentences as special stand-alone expression the same way &quot;not to mention&quot; is, and if so, what is its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4af3596b-fcb6-406e-9c80-f1c09beee25d" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:56:55.037" UserId="97" Text="There is a Russian proverb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знал бы прикуп - жил бы в Сочи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means &quot;[I] would have done things differently had [I] known of something particular in the past&quot;.  It originated from the преферанс card game, but has grown beyond just the jargon of the players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not exactly the same as _it is easy to be wise after the event_, but it does carry similar meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="b3a4416b-e9ba-4861-b9fb-60b03e8bf38e" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:28:09.690" UserId="190" Comment="incorporate the comment" Text="There is no expression with direct translation of &quot;break&quot; in sense of &quot;make known suddenly&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's translated as *экстренные новости*, *экстренное сообщение*, *срочное сообщение* or *срочные новости*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of the Hong Kong movie was translated as *Горячие новости* (literally &quot;hot news&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2909" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="b3a4416b-e9ba-4861-b9fb-60b03e8bf38e" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:28:09.690" Comment="Proposed by 190 approved by 185 edit id of 225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="ae41cd62-f4f2-4870-aac5-aa826a4824b5" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:50:19.327" UserId="334" Text="It is common to say `Все мы задним умом крепки` in the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="6392461f-4e72-46f9-98e8-32355b0b647c" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:08:25.693" UserId="185" Text="permeakra's answer is the most precise translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is though one more possible alternative for some special situations. The alternative is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После драки кулаками не машут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which literally translates as &quot;you don't swing your fists after the fight&quot;. It is applicable in situations when somebody boasts his (usually inexistent) power or threatens to the enemy after the end of the confrontation when these threats do not endanger them anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="b825a0c6-0bd0-4423-8600-d4d54dc4ac97" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:36:38.700" UserId="185" Text="&quot;Not to mention&quot; can be translated as &quot;не говоря уже о...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The guests were bored, not to mention the host.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гости скучали, не говоря уже о хозяине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, for example, [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Translate/en-ru/not%20to%20mention" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2913" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="88f56bfa-2538-4431-a3d1-129d7764e897" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:37:29.493" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="9507fd45-9c5c-45a0-99c4-2cd31530aceb" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:37:56.967" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="In this case, _to mention_ is not a stand-alone phrase/word.  Instead, you have one whole of _to mentioned just one more of the catastrophic implication_.  Therefore you need to look at this as a whole.  I would translate this particular sentence without translating it word-for-word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are intent on using something in place of _to mention_, I think _к тому же_ or _в добавок_ (more colloquial) would be reasonable options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К тому же, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдобавок, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, please note that I don't have the whole context: your specific context may require some other interpretation/translation of this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2915" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="6d39a5f7-4728-43dd-adc8-ac111098476b" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:38:40.490" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="006ca136-2073-4ace-b282-05649c8dc3fa" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:40:29.007" UserId="194" Text="The first one conveys the meaning that there is only one father (**the** father) while the second does not convey such meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since people typically have only one father, the sentences are interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you said about a dog or about a sister, the sentences would have different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Моя сестра заболела = My sister is ill (that is the only sister)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня сестра заболела = A sister of mine is ill (there can be one or several sisters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot say &quot;Моя сестра заболела&quot; if you have several sisters and it is not clear about which one you are speaking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="e94bdf54-0b8b-4579-baaf-c368959d53bc" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:45:41.290" UserId="185" Comment="changed the answer completely, because I've overlooked one part of the question and didn't answer it correctly" Text="&gt;To mention just one more of the catastrophic implication...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Касаясь еще одного катастрофического последствия ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's the most precise translation here, given that Russian infinitive clauses do not always function in the same way as English ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="663c4f6f-4671-4ef1-bd52-2552b6a11567" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:51:40.003" UserId="185" Comment="changed the answer completely, because I've overlooked one part of the question and didn't answer it correctly" Text="&gt;To mention just one more of the catastrophic implication...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Касаясь еще одного катастрофического последствия ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's the most precise translation here, given that Russian infinitive clauses do not always function in the same way as English ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the object of &quot;mention&quot; is a relatively short phrase, you can also translate it as &quot;что касается&quot;. If &quot;to mention X&quot; is a stand-alone phrase, you can use &quot;кстати&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To mention the cats. My sister once had a cat who could open the fridge...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кстати о кошках. У моей сестры однажды был кот, который умел открывать холодильник..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="2d31246c-7a7c-4fcf-a4b1-75567dcaab20" CreationDate="2012-08-30T20:00:25.683" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="In this case, _to mention_ is not a stand-alone phrase/word.  Instead, you have one whole of _to mentioned just one more of the catastrophic implication_.  Therefore you need to look at this as a whole.  I would translate this particular sentence without translating it word-for-word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are intent on using something in place of _to mention_, I think _к тому же_ or _вдобавок_ (more colloquial) would be reasonable options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К тому же, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдобавок, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, please note that I don't have the whole context: your specific context may require some other interpretation/translation of this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="920" RevisionGUID="a2e3f1c2-d55a-495a-a443-f832c1c2e470" CreationDate="2012-08-30T21:09:51.387" UserId="413" Text="I think English `tile-based game` means board games with tiles, like Carcassonne or Forgotten Island. This case `tile` is a piece of land or map, so nearest Russian equivalent should be `Настрольная игра`, there are no specific word for tile. usually it's called same `тайл` or `участок`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="2d56bea9-4c8a-49ee-ade3-e1e708bb8199" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:07:42.690" UserId="190" Comment="correct emphasize" Text="Here is another example. The word “catholic” (καθολικὴ) is spelled either as “ка&lt;strong&gt;т&lt;/strong&gt;олический” or as “ка&lt;strong&gt;ф&lt;/strong&gt;олический” in Russian. These two spellings, however, are used in different contexts.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Католическая церковь” means the Catholic Church.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Кафолическая церковь” means а universal church." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2922" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="2d56bea9-4c8a-49ee-ade3-e1e708bb8199" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:07:42.690" Comment="Proposed by 190 approved by 185 edit id of 226" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="de834190-f2b0-4a0b-b07e-fe891d2faf2a" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:29:44.047" UserId="242" Text="This very question is inspired by the question &quot;[Are there words that can be spelled with both т and ф][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the answer states that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an interesting issue with the word `алгоритм`. Sometimes, in certain contexts, it's traditionally spelled as `алгорифм`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised, since I've never heard this word to be used in any context we can call common, even in sense of common for some very small community of people, say, for some very high specialized theoretics from St. Petersburg (as claims the author of the answer), or whoever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Is word `алгорифм` really used nowadays? Can we name this spelling traditional. Or has it been actually just some sporadic attempts of certain people, who tried to coin new term, but this has never been widely accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/219/are-there-words-that-can-be-spelled-with-both-%D1%82-and-%D1%84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="de834190-f2b0-4a0b-b07e-fe891d2faf2a" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:29:44.047" UserId="242" Text="Can I encounter &quot;aлогрифм&quot; nowadays in any context. And in past?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="de834190-f2b0-4a0b-b07e-fe891d2faf2a" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:29:44.047" UserId="242" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="2c767f91-617a-4d4e-b9aa-430b900a0ab9" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:35:54.070" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="be12cf23-bdf4-43a4-bd1e-50e30450e681" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:43:08.737" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Сообщение ИТАР ТАСС с пометкой &quot;Молния!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me give some context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, *ИТАР ТАСС* is one of Russian news agencies and *сообщение с пометкой &quot;Молния!&quot;* is a special kind of message that has to be delivered immediately. Its name comes from marks on urgent telegrams which were the closest approximation of old technologies to real-time communication. Since then, when &quot;hot&quot; news about an event is delivered to the TV studio during live broadcasting, the reporter may precede this message with words like *К нам поступило сообщение с пометкой &quot;молния&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's not strictly speaking a translation of &quot;Breaking news&quot;, but it is still quite common on the TV." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2928" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="daacabea-03ac-4593-b519-52915da0c1c5" CreationDate="2012-08-31T09:04:18.127" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I encounter &quot;aлгорифм&quot; nowadays in any context. And in past?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="7fbdfbcb-0b59-46cd-9531-0fa9ad83392e" CreationDate="2012-08-31T09:42:11.320" UserId="134" Text="This is a historical spelling of this word, most notably used by Markov Jr. in his works on computability. The most known example of its usage is *нормальный алгорифм*, the core concept of the theory of computability, and the title of Markov's main work, *Теория алгорифмов*, first published in early 50's, when the word was scarcely used outside the academia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second edition of the work, published in 80's, used the word *алгорифм* in the title, but the current spelling *алгоритм* in the body of the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, peer reviewed journals refuse the spelling *алгорифм*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, this is just an outdated spelling, like *чорт*, *итти* etc. and should not be used in the modern writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="4d5a9874-4fa3-448d-82ae-3677ac08d81d" CreationDate="2012-08-31T15:02:36.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/241551570179862528" />
  <row Id="2931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="62c5db20-45b9-4c28-9091-9c2881fbf06b" CreationDate="2012-08-31T16:26:45.583" UserId="419" Text="What does &quot;терпячка&quot; mean? I'm know that this is connected to suffering and bearing. But I need exact meeaning, the possibility to say what can be called this word and what can not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="62c5db20-45b9-4c28-9091-9c2881fbf06b" CreationDate="2012-08-31T16:26:45.583" UserId="419" Text="What does &quot;терпячка&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="62c5db20-45b9-4c28-9091-9c2881fbf06b" CreationDate="2012-08-31T16:26:45.583" UserId="419" Text="|translation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="368134d3-f582-46bc-ad38-83e2e847c3ba" CreationDate="2012-08-31T16:34:09.537" UserId="419" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="What does &quot;терпячка&quot; mean? I know that this is connected to suffering and bearing. But I need exact meeaning, the possibility to say what can be called this word and what can not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="8bee0f32-2497-438d-b488-338ff7e39072" CreationDate="2012-08-31T17:18:04.317" UserId="97" Text="This word is created from word _терпеть_, which in English approximately means _tolerate_ or _put up with_ or _hold on_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian language, which has the same roots as Russian, word _терпячка_ means _patience_ or _tolerance_, depending on context, albeit in a colloquial manner.  In Russian language, the meaning is somewhat different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, word _терпячка_ refers to a scenario where a person is holding on and pretends that everything is fine despite it really not being fine, usually this is done to save face or to look cool, or to show off, or ...  You get the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you may be holding on and pretending that you are perfectly fine despite being in severe pain after being hit by bus.  I don't know why one would do so, but if one did, this would be referred as _терпячка_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not have refer to physical pain; it may also refer to emotional state.  For example, a person may pretend at work that everything is fine at home despite the fact that a close relative has died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, if two kids went on their own to the forest and one of them admits to being scared, the other one would almost certainly pretend that he's not scared, just to show off, although, most likely, he'll be just as scared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some examples, but they should be enough to convey the meaning of the word. If you can read Russian reasonably well, I recommend that you read these posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380576.html&#xD;&#xA;2. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380849.html&#xD;&#xA;3. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/381159.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="7b68a4da-8380-475a-bba6-5dce97bd054b" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:01:56.260" UserId="97" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="This word is created from word _терпеть_, which in English approximately means _tolerate_ or _put up with_ or _hold on_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian language, which has the same roots as Russian, word _терпячка_ means _patience_ or _tolerance_, depending on context, albeit in a colloquial manner.  In Russian language, the meaning is somewhat different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, word _терпячка_ refers to a scenario where a person is holding on and pretends that everything is fine despite it really not being fine, usually this is done to save face or to look cool, or to show off, or ...  You get the idea. And this person believes that this is the right way to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you may be holding on and pretending that you are perfectly fine despite being in severe pain after being hit by bus.  I don't know why one would do so, but if one did, this would be referred as _терпячка_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not have refer to physical pain; it may also refer to emotional state.  For example, a person may pretend at work that everything is fine at home despite the fact that a close relative has died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, if two kids went on their own to the forest and one of them admits to being scared, the other one would almost certainly pretend that he's not scared, just to show off, although, most likely, he'll be just as scared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some examples, but they should be enough to convey the meaning of the word. If you can read Russian reasonably well, I recommend that you read these posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380576.html&#xD;&#xA;2. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380849.html&#xD;&#xA;3. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/381159.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2937" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="641251a1-90cc-4b39-be44-302aa7149fcc" CreationDate="2012-08-31T18:02:37.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/241596869426417664" />
  <row Id="2938" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="2efcbb9d-65f5-490a-93ae-18c85c67d11f" CreationDate="2012-09-02T06:02:43.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/242140479100170240" />
  <row Id="2939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="d925027d-1849-4e90-ab90-8aaa98070fd4" CreationDate="2012-09-02T16:45:30.093" UserId="185" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Словарь указывает оба варианта как допустимые. Но хотя *достичь* и считается основным, в его спряжении все равно присутствуют формы с суффиксом *-ну \ -н*: *достигну*, *достигнешь*, и т.п. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как получилось, что в глаголе появился (или исчез?) суффикс *-ну \ -н*? Существовали ли когда-нибудь формы, аналогичные формам *достигну*, *достигнешь* по значению, но не имевшие суффикса?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="901be0c6-f65c-46f9-82c2-320e5b471ed8" CreationDate="2012-09-03T02:18:43.617" UserId="194" Text="I often encounter claims that these letters formerly were pronounced differently. Can anybody please point me to a sound record that shows the difference?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="901be0c6-f65c-46f9-82c2-320e5b471ed8" CreationDate="2012-09-03T02:18:43.617" UserId="194" Text="Difference in pronounciation of е and ѣ in old Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="901be0c6-f65c-46f9-82c2-320e5b471ed8" CreationDate="2012-09-03T02:18:43.617" UserId="194" Text="|произношение|фонология|дореформенная-орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="becc4904-e96f-4aa5-9558-19a5b24662a0" CreationDate="2012-09-03T08:35:16.063" UserId="134" Text="In Russian, `е` and `ѣ` completely lost their difference about the end of `XVIII`, long before sound recording was invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PIE contrasted long and short vowels. `ѣ` originated from the PIE's long vowel `ē` which in some other languages turned into diphtongs. It is commonly accepted that it was a long vowel in Russian as well, though it is disputed whether it was just a long vowel or a diphtong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Novgorod gramotas started to mix `ѣ` with `е`, `и` and `ь` in early `XII`, and Zaliznyak in *Древненовгородский диалект* mentions that `*ѣ &lt;-&gt; и` mix had phonetic nature, while `*ѣ &lt;-&gt; е/ь` does not allow to distinguish between phonetic and graphic reasons reliably. So in Old Novgorod dialect, it was most probably closer to `и` than to `е`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even now, different flavors or Serbo-Croatian pronounce words with historical `ѣ` differently: *Rika / Reka / Rijeka*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus said, it is not clear how exactly `ѣ` was pronounced in Old Russian or Proto-Slavic, most probably its pronunciation heavily varied with dialect and time, and no reliable descriptions of its sounding persisted (to say nothing of sound records, of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was surely a long vowel, close to `и`, `е` or the diphtong `ие`, and the three most probably coexisted in various dialects of Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="912860d2-fbbe-45c8-a589-ffb2663986cb" CreationDate="2012-09-03T08:36:23.683" UserId="242" Text="Well, in short here are main fact about &quot;ять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Slavic it had evolved from PIE long e, but Indo-European diphthongs `ai` and `oi` also became `ѣ`.&#xD;&#xA; - Actually, nowadays nobody know for what exactly sound it stands in Slavic. But most probably, according to language reconstruction, it represented long æː. &#xD;&#xA; - There is also another hypothesis that this &quot;ять&quot; represented  diphthong 'ie'. &#xD;&#xA; - We can hardly speak about separate phoneme in Old Russian, since it had been lost on early stages of language evolution. Yet, very subtle difference  between e and ѣ had held pretty long (especially in dialects). For example, Lomonosov in wrote in XVIII century that &quot;слух требует  ...  в е дебелости, в ѣ тонкости&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;and I do believe that it hardly can be described somewhat more precisely )&#xD;&#xA; - In different Slavic languages &quot;ять&quot; became different vowels. For example, in Russian, in majority of dialect, it became &quot;е&quot; - as in хлеб, in Ukrainian - i (хлiб). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="f9c58f38-6ac7-4b8e-87f8-394253f4ade2" CreationDate="2012-09-03T12:02:43.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/242593464687161344" />
  <row Id="2946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="034c69be-80ca-4f39-bef3-19f11dbbc85f" CreationDate="2012-09-03T15:29:13.533" UserId="282" Text="&#xD;&#xA;меня поставили перед совершившимся фактом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I take it the root verb is совершить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="034c69be-80ca-4f39-bef3-19f11dbbc85f" CreationDate="2012-09-03T15:29:13.533" UserId="282" Text="How is this word is derived -совершившимся in the following sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="034c69be-80ca-4f39-bef3-19f11dbbc85f" CreationDate="2012-09-03T15:29:13.533" UserId="282" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="6d5e2933-bdb1-42fc-aca8-dc6a635a7802" CreationDate="2012-09-03T15:51:24.893" UserId="242" Text="Actually the phrase is slightly incorrect, the correct form is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меня поставили перед **свершившимся** фактом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from `свершиться` - to happen (about something that have been expected to happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though совершившимся is technically possible, it less known form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="4ba87322-ef39-4ca3-939e-755ce65d8a5c" CreationDate="2012-09-03T15:51:38.053" UserId="134" Text="Let's make the morphological analysis of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*со-верш-и-вш-им-ся:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *со-* is a prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *-верш-* is the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two above define the semantics of the word, meaning &quot;to complete&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-и-* is a suffix defining perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;* *-вш-* is a suffix defining participle&#xD;&#xA;* *-им-* is a flective postfix (*окончание*) defining single number and instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* *-ся* is a particle (merged with the word) defining reflection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we have a past perfective reflexive participle in sg. inst.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="929" RevisionGUID="2e774c0c-9167-4066-87db-d8bc7a11b8ea" CreationDate="2012-09-03T15:56:36.167" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Actually the phrase is slightly outdated, the correct modern form is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меня поставили перед **свершившимся** фактом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from `свершиться` - to happen (about something that have been expected to happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though совершившимся is technically possible, it is used nowadays very rarely. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="03a036f5-927e-4b0b-b063-516424d2ca2f" CreationDate="2012-09-03T16:00:55.120" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Let's make the morphological analysis of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*со-верш-и-вш-им-ся:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *со-* is a prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *-верш-* is the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two above define the semantics of the word, meaning &quot;to complete&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-и-* is a suffix defining perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;* *-вш-* is a suffix defining active participle&#xD;&#xA;* *-им-* is a flective postfix (*окончание*) defining single number and instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* *-ся* is a particle (merged with the word) defining reflection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we have a past perfective reflexive active participle in sg. inst.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="41a79372-0855-4848-8187-c83d2cb5a0e1" CreationDate="2012-09-03T16:06:30.290" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Let's make the morphological analysis of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*со-верш-и-вш-им-ся:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *со-* is a prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *-верш-* is the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two above define the semantics of the word, meaning &quot;to complete&quot;. This is Russian form of the prefix, though, as @shabunc noted, CS form *с-* (*свершившимся*) is more widely used in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-и-* is a suffix defining perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;* *-вш-* is a suffix defining active participle&#xD;&#xA;* *-им-* is a flective postfix (*окончание*) defining single number and instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* *-ся* is a particle (merged with the word) defining reflection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we have a past perfective reflexive active participle in sg. inst. (*действительное возвратное причастие совершенного вида прошедшего времени в творительном падеже единственного числа*)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="28912510-8d04-40f1-8e12-da7e46dbb32c" CreationDate="2012-09-03T16:06:45.477" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How is the word &quot;совершившимся&quot; derived? The sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меня поставили перед совершившимся фактом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I take it the root verb is совершить." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2955" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="28912510-8d04-40f1-8e12-da7e46dbb32c" CreationDate="2012-09-03T16:06:45.477" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How is this word &quot;совершившимся&quot; in the following sentence derived?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2956" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="28912510-8d04-40f1-8e12-da7e46dbb32c" CreationDate="2012-09-03T16:06:45.477" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="|глаголы|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="a02aadd1-12af-4b58-afed-494ae81440be" CreationDate="2012-09-03T16:12:38.877" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Let's make the morphological analysis of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*со-верш-и-вш-им-ся:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *со-* is a prefix&#xD;&#xA;* *-верш-* is the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two above define the semantics of the word, meaning &quot;to complete&quot;. This is Russian form of the prefix, though, as @shabunc noted, CS form *с-* (*свершившимся*) is more widely used in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-и-* is a suffix defining perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;* *-вш-* is a suffix defining active participle&#xD;&#xA;* *-им-* is a flective postfix (*окончание*) defining single number and instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* *-ся* is a particle (merged with the word) defining reflexivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we have a past perfective reflexive active participle in sg. inst. (*действительное возвратное причастие совершенного вида прошедшего времени в творительном падеже единственного числа*)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="546f5400-ed12-4a4b-94c3-0a99d28c01d4" CreationDate="2012-09-03T22:01:13.923" UserId="47" Comment="Corrected grammatical mistakes in the question" Text="При указании отрезков времени, во фразах вроде *в продолжени&lt;s&gt;и&lt;/s&gt;е (на протяжении, в течение) трёх лет*, *в течение* заканчивается на *-е* (винительный падеж), а *на протяжении*, *в продолжени&lt;s&gt;и&lt;/s&gt;е* на *-и* (предложный). Есть тут какая-нибудь логика? Есть ли другие, помимо *течения* слова, используемые в данном контексте в винительном падеже?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Меня правильно поправили: в моём вопросе *в течение*, *в продолжение* пишется с *-е* в конце. См. ответы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="5b7d734a-8cc3-4f9b-a79c-508d9c936f3e" CreationDate="2012-09-04T11:00:13.867" UserId="153" Comment="minor edit" Text="This word is created from word _терпеть_, which in English approximately means _tolerate_ or _put up with_ or _hold on_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Ukrainian language, which has the same roots as Russian, word _терпячка_ means _patience_ or _tolerance_, depending on context, albeit in a colloquial manner.  In the Russian language, the meaning is somewhat different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, word _терпячка_ refers to a scenario where a person is holding on and pretends that everything is fine despite it really not being fine, usually this is done to save face or to look cool, or to show off,..  you get the idea. And this person believes that this is the right way to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you may be holding on and pretending that you are perfectly fine despite being in severe pain after being hit by bus.  I don't know why one would do so, but if one did, this would be referred to as _терпячка_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not have refer to physical pain; it may also refer to emotional state.  For example, a person may pretend at work that everything is fine at home despite the fact that a close relative has died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, if two kids went on their own to the forest and one of them admits to being scared, the other one would almost certainly pretend that he's not scared, just to show off, although, most likely, he'll be just as scared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some examples, but they should be enough to convey the meaning of the word. If you can read Russian reasonably well, I recommend that you read these posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380576.html&#xD;&#xA;2. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380849.html&#xD;&#xA;3. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/381159.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2960" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="5b7d734a-8cc3-4f9b-a79c-508d9c936f3e" CreationDate="2012-09-04T11:00:13.867" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 185 edit id of 227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="a164765d-094b-4492-8569-91e06981fe0d" CreationDate="2012-09-04T11:02:33.443" UserId="97" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This word is created from word _терпеть_, which in English approximately means _tolerate_ or _put up with_ or _hold on_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Ukrainian language, which has the same roots as Russian, word _терпячка_ means _patience_ or _tolerance_, depending on context, albeit in a colloquial manner.  In the Russian language, the meaning is somewhat different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, word _терпячка_ refers to a scenario where a person is holding on and pretends that everything is fine despite it really not being fine, usually this is done to save face or to look cool, or to show off, ...  you get the idea. And this person believes that this is the right thing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you may be holding on and pretending that you are perfectly fine despite being in severe pain after being hit by bus.  I don't know why one would do so, but if one did, this would be referred to as _терпячка_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not have refer to physical pain; it may also refer to emotional state.  For example, a person may pretend at work that everything is fine at home despite the fact that a close relative has died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, if two kids went on their own to the forest and one of them admits to being scared, the other one would almost certainly pretend that he's not scared, just to show off, although, most likely, he'll be just as scared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just some examples, but they should be enough to convey the meaning of the word. If you can read Russian reasonably well, I recommend that you read these posts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380576.html&#xD;&#xA;2. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/380849.html&#xD;&#xA;3. http://knjazna.livejournal.com/381159.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="bf7eda45-e7a6-4ecc-b73c-6ce69a12fd03" CreationDate="2012-09-04T13:59:27.137" UserId="5" Text="When should твоих be used and when should своих be used? What are the reason of picking one over another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="bf7eda45-e7a6-4ecc-b73c-6ce69a12fd03" CreationDate="2012-09-04T13:59:27.137" UserId="5" Text="Сhoosing between твоих and своих" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="bf7eda45-e7a6-4ecc-b73c-6ce69a12fd03" CreationDate="2012-09-04T13:59:27.137" UserId="5" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="fbeff216-7f35-491e-8383-0dcc9a997034" CreationDate="2012-09-04T14:39:22.580" UserId="5" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="When should твоих be used and when should своих be used? What are the reasons of picking one over another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="d3277fc6-85f3-413f-9808-e844334d9adc" CreationDate="2012-09-04T14:51:40.583" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, corrected a mistake" Text="When should твоих be used and when should своих be used? What are the reasons for picking one over another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2967" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="d3277fc6-85f3-413f-9808-e844334d9adc" CreationDate="2012-09-04T14:51:40.583" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, corrected a mistake" Text="|грамматика|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="5d06494f-77ac-4795-8456-9dd7eec859d0" CreationDate="2012-09-04T15:06:18.050" UserId="185" Text="I think that the difference is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мой, твой, его (её, их)&quot; denote &quot;belonging to the speaker, the addressee, a third person&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;свой&quot; is used when you want to denote &quot;belonging to the subject of the sentence&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject of the sentence is 1st or 2nd person pronoun, &quot;свой&quot; is preferred. In other cases, &quot;мой&quot;, &quot;твой&quot;, &quot;его (её, их)&quot; is used. It is not a strict rule, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю свои штаны - I am washing my pants. (&quot;мои штаны&quot; also possible)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю твои штаны - I am washing your pants. (&quot;свои штаны&quot; is not possible, it means &quot;my pants&quot;).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a quantification pronoun, than &quot;свой&quot; is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждому - своё (&quot;его&quot; is not possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the subject is not always a noun in nominative case, it is a more complex notion. It also includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - null subjects of imperative clauses, as in &quot;постирай свои штаны&quot; - &quot;wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - dative subjects, as in &quot;тебе пора постирать свои штаны&quot; - &quot;it's time for you to wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="d6dbfb3d-5886-4eab-bdbb-4503a6864233" CreationDate="2012-09-04T15:12:00.363" UserId="185" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I think that the difference is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мой, твой, его (её, их)&quot; denote &quot;belonging to the speaker, the addressee, a third person&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;свой&quot; is used when you want to denote &quot;belonging to the subject of the sentence&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject of the sentence is 1st or 2nd person pronoun, &quot;свой&quot; is preferred. In other cases, &quot;мой&quot;, &quot;твой&quot;, &quot;его (её, их)&quot; is used. It is not a strict rule, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю свои штаны - I am washing my pants. (&quot;мои штаны&quot; also possible)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю твои штаны - I am washing your pants. (&quot;свои штаны&quot; is not possible, it means &quot;my pants&quot;).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a quantification pronoun, than &quot;свой&quot; is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждый стирает свои штаны - Everyone washing their (own) pants. (&quot;его&quot; is not possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the subject is not always a noun in nominative case, it is a more complex notion. It also includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - null subjects of imperative clauses, as in &quot;постирай свои штаны&quot; - &quot;wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - dative subjects, as in &quot;тебе пора постирать свои штаны&quot; - &quot;it's time for you to wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="ec9df722-bc11-49d8-b79a-85617bd2b256" CreationDate="2012-09-04T15:23:24.637" UserId="185" Comment="added 20 characters in body; added 129 characters in body" Text="I think that the difference is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мой, твой, его (её, их)&quot; denote &quot;belonging to the speaker, the addressee, a third person&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;свой&quot; is used when you want to denote &quot;belonging to the subject of the sentence&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject of the sentence is 1st or 2nd person pronoun, &quot;свой&quot; is preferred. In other cases, &quot;мой&quot;, &quot;твой&quot;, &quot;его (её, их)&quot; is used. It is not a strict rule, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю свои штаны - I am washing my pants. (&quot;мои штаны&quot; is also possible)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю твои штаны - I am washing your pants. (&quot;свои штаны&quot; is not possible, it means &quot;my pants&quot; in this sentence).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a quantification pronoun, than &quot;свой&quot; is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждый стирает свои штаны - Everyone is washing their (own) pants. (&quot;его&quot; is not possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the subject is not always a noun in nominative case, it is a more complex notion. It also includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - null subjects of imperative clauses, as in &quot;постирай свои штаны&quot; - &quot;wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - dative subjects, as in &quot;тебе пора постирать свои штаны&quot; - &quot;it's time for you to wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the sentence is imperative, &quot;свой&quot; is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Постирай свои штаны - Wash your pants. (&quot;твои&quot; is not possible)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2971" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="0f13991e-d24e-4980-8a4e-d48bb52b5c48" CreationDate="2012-09-04T18:02:43.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/243046448432816128" />
  <row Id="2972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="66c37147-5ac1-4cce-8b09-79e0d9fb0bed" CreationDate="2012-09-04T20:43:35.127" UserId="242" Text="I do believe that Olga has given succinct and accurate explanation. Just want to add that actually there are cases when `свой` is completely interchangeable with `мой`, `твой`  etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's, once again, refer our Bible )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможно синонимическое употребление притяжательных местоимений мой –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свой, твой – свой и т.п. Ср.: ... Я предаюсь моим мечтам (Пушкин). – Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не потерплю в своем доме воров (Чехов). Употребление притяжательных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимений мой, твой, наш, ваш вместо возможного по условиям&#xD;&#xA;&gt; контекста свой больше подчеркивает связь с соответствующим лицом, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частности при противопоставлении, например: Моей главы коснись твоей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рукой (Жуковский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Д. Э. Розенталь, &quot;Литературное редактирование текста&quot;,  &quot;[Возвратные и притяжательные местоимения][1]&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate, this pronouns can be synonymous, especially when we can suspect a logical opposition - Touch **my** head with **your** hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/60.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="ec9eab00-fbc3-4328-89d1-ce8b4fa0886c" CreationDate="2012-09-04T20:48:44.603" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I do believe that Olga gave a succinct and accurate explanation. Just want to add that actually there are cases when `свой` is completely interchangeable with `мой`, `твой`  etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's, once again, refer our Bible )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможно синонимическое употребление притяжательных местоимений мой –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свой, твой – свой и т.п. Ср.: ... Я предаюсь моим мечтам (Пушкин). – Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не потерплю в своем доме воров (Чехов). Употребление притяжательных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимений мой, твой, наш, ваш вместо возможного по условиям&#xD;&#xA;&gt; контекста свой больше подчеркивает связь с соответствующим лицом, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частности при противопоставлении, например: Моей главы коснись твоей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рукой (Жуковский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Д. Э. Розенталь, &quot;Литературное редактирование текста&quot;,  &quot;[Возвратные и притяжательные местоимения][1]&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate, this pronouns can be synonymous, especially when we can suspect a logical opposition - Touch **my** head with **your** hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/60.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2974" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="e1af3b35-c692-4304-9533-dfceceb5614e" CreationDate="2012-09-04T21:02:43.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/243091746739863552" />
  <row Id="2975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="dfd54381-9130-4f84-9e51-ee1a2ad206db" CreationDate="2012-09-04T22:36:55.650" UserId="185" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I think that the difference is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мой, твой, его (её, их)&quot; denote &quot;belonging to the speaker, the addressee, a third person&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;свой&quot; is used when you want to denote &quot;belonging to the subject of the sentence&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject of the sentence is 1st or 2nd person pronoun, &quot;свой&quot; is preferred. In other cases, &quot;мой&quot;, &quot;твой&quot;, &quot;его (её, их)&quot; is used. It is not a strict rule, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю свои штаны - I am washing my pants. (&quot;мои штаны&quot; is also possible)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я стираю твои штаны - I am washing your pants. (&quot;свои штаны&quot; is not possible, it means &quot;my pants&quot; in this sentence).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the subject is a quantification pronoun, than &quot;свой&quot; is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждый стирает свои штаны - Everyone is washing their (own) pants. (&quot;его&quot; is not possible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the subject is not always a noun in nominative case, it is a more complex notion. It also includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - null subjects of imperative clauses, as in &quot;постирай свои штаны&quot; - &quot;wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - dative subjects, as in &quot;тебе пора постирать свои штаны&quot; - &quot;it's time for you to wash your pants&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the sentence is imperative, &quot;свой&quot; is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Постирай свои штаны - Wash your pants. (&quot;твои&quot; is not possible, at least for me)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2976" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="639ff6be-6f93-4d42-8762-2ceed1de7f90" CreationDate="2012-09-05T08:29:16.540" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2977" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="1b87a678-315c-49c8-add7-1dc6bfaff9e2" CreationDate="2012-09-05T11:58:40.750" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="В течение vs. на протяжении" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="1b87a678-315c-49c8-add7-1dc6bfaff9e2" CreationDate="2012-09-05T11:58:40.750" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="При указании отрезков времени, во фразах вроде *в продолжени&lt;s&gt;и&lt;/s&gt;е (на протяжении, в течение) трёх лет*, *в течение* заканчивается на *-е* (винительный падеж), а *на протяжении* на *-и* (предложный). Есть тут какая-нибудь логика? Есть ли другие, помимо *течения* слова, используемые в данном контексте в винительном падеже?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Меня правильно поправили: в моём вопросе *в течение*, *в продолжение* пишется с *-е* в конце. См. ответы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="d4c7fa27-beb3-4c19-afbd-04cffa83246c" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:48:34.360" UserId="242" Text="There is a russian joke the optimist is that who says &quot;Ждать, пока чайник закипит&quot; and pessimist is, in turn, a person who'd prefer to say &quot;Ждать, пока чайник **не** закипит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two form are opposite grammatically and are identical in this context.&#xD;&#xA;For example, we can also say &quot;пока стану миллионером&quot; and &quot;пока не стану миллионером&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - are both variants indeed equally accepted, how this phenomenon of loss of negation is called? Is it typical for Russian, or for other Slavic languages as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="d4c7fa27-beb3-4c19-afbd-04cffa83246c" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:48:34.360" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Пока чайник закипит&quot; or &quot;пока чайник не закипит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="d4c7fa27-beb3-4c19-afbd-04cffa83246c" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:48:34.360" UserId="242" Text="|грамматика|терминология|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="88d66840-dc43-4a47-b4ec-04463b8ffcdf" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:51:37.850" UserId="425" Text="Question is about using **Вы** instead of **Ты**. I already know serbian, so I know when you use one and when the other (Vi i Ti), what I'm interested in is, *how is this form of address called in Russian?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Serbian it's called &quot;Persiranje&quot; or as a verb &quot;Persirati&quot;, but despite all Serbian/Russian similarities, the only word sounding like that I found was &quot;пересирать&quot; which is one step away from meaning the complete opposite :P" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="88d66840-dc43-4a47-b4ec-04463b8ffcdf" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:51:37.850" UserId="425" Text="word for &quot;Formal Address&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="88d66840-dc43-4a47-b4ec-04463b8ffcdf" CreationDate="2012-09-05T14:51:37.850" UserId="425" Text="|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="97cd1bd1-5a64-46e0-a080-346a76a837c7" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:02:54.827" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/243363585915486208" />
  <row Id="2986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="c994aacf-3d4a-4858-8654-cba870cf559c" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:05:54.770" UserId="242" Text="Well (if I get the question right), there are verbs `тыкать` and `выкать` (and, accordingly, nouns `тыканье` and `выканье`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что вы мне тыкаете! Я с вами на брудершафт не пила&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words are pretty informal and can be used only in casual speech. &#xD;&#xA;More formal it is called &quot;Обращение на ты/вы&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="457284fe-a4dc-458d-86f1-5576177c79e6" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:12:28.643" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Well (if I get the question right), there are verbs `тыкать` and `выкать` (and, accordingly, nouns `тыканье` and `выканье`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что вы мне тыкаете! Я с вами на брудершафт не пила&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words are pretty informal and can be used only in casual speech. &#xD;&#xA;More formal it is called `обращение на ты/вы`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="937" RevisionGUID="1acccca5-2006-46ec-b02b-21a525956682" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:16:49.960" UserId="425" Text="In serbian there's similar phenomena, though I think negative one is more popular / natural sounding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="b8ecdb0d-b3ad-4e1a-9cd7-10755e52787a" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:35:43.550" UserId="134" Text="These are different conjunctions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., *Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию*, §209.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Различается употребление в придаточных предложениях времени союза *пока* и сложного союза *пока не*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Употребление в этих значениях союза *пока* вместо *пока не* придает высказыванию разговорный характер, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &gt; *Они говорили до поры, пока келейник принес самовар... (Горький)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &gt; *Пей, Григорий Пантелеевич, пока почернеешь... (Шолохов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literary norm prescribes to use *пока не* in your sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="939" RevisionGUID="d6aa7a16-e949-43f9-b793-a940700b4ea1" CreationDate="2012-09-05T15:53:51.757" UserId="134" Text="*Persirati* apparently originates from German *per Sie*, *Sie* being the formal addressing in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there is a colloquial (single) verb *выкать*, or more formal phrase *быть на вы (с кем-либо)*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мои подчиненные привыкли к тому, что они со мной на &quot;ты&quot;, а я с ними на &quot;вы&quot;. *[И. Э. Кио. Иллюзии без иллюзий (1995-1999)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Пап, ты вождь и он вождь. Почему вы с ним на «вы»? ― Потому, что не ношу смазных сапог и не хожу на охоту. *[Александр Терехов. Каменный мост (1997-2008)]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="dc3a81b5-9d39-4e0b-bdd5-d82c9dce00ce" CreationDate="2012-09-05T16:27:42.637" UserId="266" Comment="the translation gave my post the opposite meaning" Text="These words are sometimes used in different situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы (намеренно) сворачиваем направо/налево&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are turning to the right / to the left&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы (непроизвольно) отклоняемся вправо/влево&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are deviating from our course to the right / to the left" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="e18af1da-85b0-4c29-a0d9-7346d19020fb" CreationDate="2012-09-05T16:45:08.813" UserId="426" Text="In a very formal way, formal address is called &quot;формальная форма обращения&quot;, as opposed to &quot;фамильярная форма обращения&quot;. Colloquially these forms are known as &quot;на вы&quot; and &quot;на ты&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="fb4f1068-0bc6-4392-9333-91fb08542b08" CreationDate="2012-09-05T19:36:56.050" UserId="134" Text="In pre-1918 Russian orhography, female and neuter adjectives in pl. nom. had endings *-iя*, *-ыя*: *новыя вѣщи, голубыя озёра*, but *новые наряды, голубые киты*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pluralia tantum require some etymologic background to put the adjective in right gender: *острыя ножницы, новыя сѣни* but *французскiе духи*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs originated from adjectives follow this rule too, however the noun the were governed by is usually lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in adverb *впервые*. It is clearly originated from the phrase *в первые …* with some noun, but I failed to find its etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Books search suggests 55 entries with *впервыя* and 123 entries with *впервые* between 1870 and 1916.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder: what was the right form of the adverb *впервые* (or its etymology)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="fb4f1068-0bc6-4392-9333-91fb08542b08" CreationDate="2012-09-05T19:36:56.050" UserId="134" Text="Впервые or впервыя (in old orthography)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="fb4f1068-0bc6-4392-9333-91fb08542b08" CreationDate="2012-09-05T19:36:56.050" UserId="134" Text="|этимология|дореформенная-орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="942" RevisionGUID="9edac189-a090-40bc-8c1c-85b3d8def383" CreationDate="2012-09-05T22:46:02.947" UserId="428" Text="Yet another Russian scientific jargonism that would convey the meaning of `handwaving` is the noun `прикидка` and the verb `прикинуть`, although arguably they would better correspond to the American `back of the envelope calculation` idiom. This best works in a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[English referee] The steps from (2.12) to (2.13) are handwaving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Russian author] Ну, я примерно прикинул, что так должно получиться.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="a5814769-fae0-416f-98c6-17695ca7e6d1" CreationDate="2012-09-05T23:08:33.727" UserId="185" Text="I don't know the answer to your question, but I have a hypothesis you may want to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there was no noun in &quot;впервые&quot;, maybe it was a combination of the preposition &quot;въ&quot; and the word &quot;пьрво&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked for examples in Sreznevsky's dictionary (compiled in the end of XIX, made on the base of writings dating XVI century or earlier). And here is what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary tells that the preposition въ could be used to designate that something happened in some time, and here comes one of the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*А татя в первые продати противу поличного, а въ другiе уличатъ, продадутъ его не жалуя, а уличатъ въ третьие ино повѣсити*. Уставная грамота великого князя Василия Дмитриевича двинянам, 1397г. (italics is mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is an example from a preposition's entry, I think that &quot;впервые&quot; might have developed from a combination of the preposition &quot;въ&quot; and the noun &quot;пьрво&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any noun &quot;пьрво&quot; in the dictionary, there was only an adverb &quot;пьрво = перво&quot; that meant &quot;раньше, прежде&quot;. However, I've found another example in the entry about &quot;въ&quot;. I believe, &quot;пьрво&quot; acts as a noun there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Въ том градѣ иже в то перво столникъ и игуменъ Iеванъ въсхотѣ сътворити гистерноу.* Житие преподобного Федора, игумена Сикейского монастыря, XVI век.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not clear what is the meaning of &quot;перво&quot; here. Something like &quot;(earlier) time&quot;, maybe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude: it seems possible that there has once been the noun &quot;перво&quot;, and впервые may be a direct derivative from it, but I couldn't find this noun in dictionaries (I used Dahl's and Sreznevsky's dictionaries only). However, I've found texts with what appears to be the combination of &quot;въ&quot; and a singular form of noun &quot;пьрво&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="a9874ba3-d075-4711-9d4c-481a06f442dc" CreationDate="2012-09-05T23:54:57.430" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 176 characters in body" Text="I don't know the answer to your question, but I have a hypothesis you may want to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there was no noun in &quot;впервые&quot;, maybe it was a combination of the preposition &quot;въ&quot; and the word &quot;пьрво&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked for examples in Sreznevsky's dictionary (compiled in the end of XIX, made on the base of writings dating XVI century or earlier). And here is what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary tells that the preposition въ could be used to designate that something happened in some time, and here comes one of the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*А татя в первые продати противу поличного, а въ другiе уличатъ, продадутъ его не жалуя, а уличатъ въ третьие ино повѣсити*. Уставная грамота великого князя Василия Дмитриевича двинянам, 1397г. (italics is mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is an example from a preposition's entry, I think that &quot;впервые&quot; might have developed from a combination of the preposition &quot;въ&quot; and the noun &quot;пьрво&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any noun &quot;пьрво&quot; in the dictionary, there was only an adverb &quot;пьрво = перво&quot; that meant &quot;раньше, прежде&quot;. However, I've found another example in the entry about &quot;въ&quot;. I believe, &quot;пьрво&quot; acts as a noun there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Въ том градѣ иже в то перво столникъ и игуменъ Iеванъ въсхотѣ сътворити гистерноу.* Житие преподобного Федора, игумена Сикейского монастыря, XVI век.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not clear what is the meaning of &quot;перво&quot; here. Something like &quot;(earlier) time&quot;, maybe. Or it might be just the first part of the word &quot;первостолникъ&quot;, written separately. But in this case I don't know how to translate &quot;въ то&quot;. Can it be &quot;тогда&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="943" RevisionGUID="619555d4-84a0-41e7-94b3-27c79d020ee7" CreationDate="2012-09-06T08:36:07.690" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="I don't know the answer to your question, but I have a hypothesis you may want to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there was no noun in &quot;впервые&quot;, maybe it was a combination of the preposition &quot;въ&quot; and the word &quot;пьрво&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked for examples in Sreznevsky's dictionary (compiled in the end of XIX, made on the base of writings dating XVI century or earlier). And here is what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary tells that the preposition въ could be used to designate that something happened in some time, and here comes one of the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*А татя в первые продати противу поличного, а въ другiе уличатъ, продадутъ его не жалуя, а уличатъ въ третьие ино повѣсити*. Уставная грамота великого князя Василия Дмитриевича двинянам, 1397г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it is an example from a preposition's entry, I think that &quot;впервые&quot; might have developed from a combination of the preposition &quot;въ&quot; and the noun &quot;пьрво&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any noun &quot;пьрво&quot; in the dictionary, there was only an adverb &quot;пьрво = перво&quot; that meant &quot;раньше, прежде&quot;. However, I've found another example in the entry about &quot;въ&quot;. I believe, &quot;пьрво&quot; acts as a noun there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Въ том градѣ иже в то перво столникъ и игуменъ Iеванъ въсхотѣ сътворити гистерноу.* Житие преподобного Федора, игумена Сикейского монастыря, XVI век.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not clear what is the meaning of &quot;перво&quot; here. Something like &quot;(earlier) time&quot;, maybe. Or it might be just the first part of the word &quot;первостолникъ&quot;, written separately. But in this case I don't know how to translate &quot;въ то&quot;. Can it be &quot;тогда&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="a9f73014-f730-4d14-a7e8-ae949ab736e6" CreationDate="2012-09-06T12:02:57.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/243680686123401216" />
  <row Id="3001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="18bc3cee-124e-4386-b6ba-436e2753b9b3" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:15:15.573" UserId="190" Comment="deleted 183 characters in body" Text="I'm translating a sentence, that starts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And **to mention** just one more of the catastrophic implications of “advanced” capital’s systemic development, we must bear in mind the prohibitively wasteful global ecological encroachment of our no longer tenable mode of social metabolic reproduction on the finite planetary world, with its rapacious exploitation of the non-renewable material resources and the increasingly more dangerous destruction of nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Source*: Istvan Meszaros, [Structural Crisis Needs Structural Change](http://monthlyreview.org/2012/03/01/structural-crisis-needs-structural-change).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do i translate the phrase “*to mention*” at the start of the sentence? Is the phrase “*to mention*” used in the beginning of the sentences as special stand-alone expression the same way “*not to mention*” is, and if so, what is its meaning? I know that “not to mention” is easily translated as “*не говоря о*”, but i'm not sure about this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="3ded6fb0-ac9c-46c6-98a8-0704b8d4a515" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:16:18.893" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="In this case, _to mention_ is not a stand-alone phrase/word.  Instead, you have one whole of _to mention just one more of the catastrophic implication_.  Therefore you need to look at this as a whole.  I would translate this particular sentence without translating it word-for-word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are intent on using something in place of _to mention_, I think _к тому же_ or _вдобавок_ (more colloquial) would be reasonable options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К тому же, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдобавок, еще одним катастрофическим следствием...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, please note that I don't have the whole context: your specific context may require some other interpretation/translation of this phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="944" RevisionGUID="3f269673-3863-4451-859a-2785561a4459" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:19:55.927" UserId="426" Text="&quot;Голословный&quot; (literally, empty-worded) has a reasonably close meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Доказательство пестрит *голословными* утверждениями. (The proof is full of *handwaving*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an expression &quot;лить воду&quot;, which means &quot;to talk without substance&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместо содержательной речи он сорок минут *лил воду*. (Instead of a meaningful speech he delivered forty minutes of *handwaving*.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="f8e484b4-b3a9-4096-a8e1-3e53e7a13329" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:10:58.483" UserId="426" Text="I would translate it as &quot;в контексте&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В контексте ещё одного катастрофического последствия системного совершенствования &quot;развитого&quot; капитала, мы не должны забывать...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3005" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="93800a1a-55d5-4dc3-9206-e82ba5099d59" CreationDate="2012-09-06T17:31:21.707" UserId="185" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="946" RevisionGUID="5731f387-462c-431f-9164-2b3dead7ef0f" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:20:21.337" UserId="432" Text="&quot;Ждать, пока чайник не закипит&quot; is more common form of usage. &quot;Ждать, пока чайник закипит&quot; sounds strange. &quot;Ждать, пока&quot; without &quot;не&quot; means continuous action. It means &quot;wait during some event&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="947" RevisionGUID="84778d8e-54cd-4ec5-8076-bf6b502f84d4" CreationDate="2012-09-06T18:30:21.340" UserId="432" Text="There is no Russian translation. May be &quot;мачо-программист&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3008" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="289194ff-ec9a-4f01-a2d4-d1f2908a89a6" CreationDate="2012-09-07T03:02:57.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/243907177880903680" />
  <row Id="3009" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="539d6d24-37b0-41d7-af9a-030e70fef0bf" CreationDate="2012-09-07T06:02:57.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/243952477152616448" />
  <row Id="3010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="e3b4b087-f28e-4afa-9b57-71e24266edb8" CreationDate="2012-09-07T08:31:15.823" UserId="170" Text="Тут сам чёрт ногу сломит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I perceive it, this idiom describes something very complex that one can hardly get through. It can be either something physical like a maze or jungles or something conceptual like a piece of music to be played, a math problem, crossword puzzle, circuit diagram of some electronic device, some complicated statistical database, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is some other idiom in Russian describing pretty much the same thing, yet without the word &quot;чёрт&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="e3b4b087-f28e-4afa-9b57-71e24266edb8" CreationDate="2012-09-07T08:31:15.823" UserId="170" Text="An idiom similar to 'сам чёрт ногу сломит'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="e3b4b087-f28e-4afa-9b57-71e24266edb8" CreationDate="2012-09-07T08:31:15.823" UserId="170" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="dca11b62-5fd7-477c-886e-5c2912d42135" CreationDate="2012-09-07T11:33:40.520" UserId="242" Text="Actually, this very idiom has an idiomatic shortening - &quot;ногу сломишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ногу сломишь* с этими налогами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А выкатывать самостоятельно даже не пробуй - *ногу сломишь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this counts for non-mentioning the devil ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="6b6ac88b-c6d3-4103-a80a-bb1265622027" CreationDate="2012-09-07T11:45:35.400" UserId="242" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Actually, this very idiom has an idiomatic shortening - &quot;ногу сломишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ногу сломишь* с этими налогами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А выкатывать самостоятельно даже не пробуй - *ногу сломишь*.&#xD;&#xA;I guess this counts for non-mentioning the devil ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, by analogy, &quot;сам чёрт не разберёт&quot; is related to &quot;поди разберись&quot;, which is said about something very complicated and confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да уж, *поди разберись* теперь в этих хитросплетениях. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that it is spelled `поди`, not  `пойди` (though the latter form is also used)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="4968e47e-c412-4509-b26e-836a1aa5d10f" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:02:57.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/244043073317920768" />
  <row Id="3016" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="842ce4eb-2e07-4df3-bb0a-73457dd97388" CreationDate="2012-09-07T12:51:48.270" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="f50c8834-8499-42e8-860a-79f26a3cad76" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:08:32.253" UserId="334" Text="In addition to what shabunc said, you can try something like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта задача не для средних умов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this expression marks task or text requiring good education and sharp wits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Над этой задачей придется хорошенько поломать голову&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pretty self-explanatory, about very complicated tasks requiring much intellectual work to complete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта задача не для слабых духом (вариант: сердцем)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this expression marks task or text, requiring great effort of some sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in colloquial speech some other idioms are used, as noted earlier `без пол-литра не разберешься` or `это просто вынос мозга` (adult slang).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="10db67db-d11d-4ddc-a442-33f93df22d62" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:14:51.693" UserId="334" Comment="edited body" Text="In addition to what shabunc said, you can try something like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта задача не для средних умов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this expression marks task or text requiring good education and sharp wits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Над этой задачей придется хорошенько поломать голову&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pretty self-explanatory, about very complicated tasks requiring much intellectual work to complete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта задача не для слабых духом (вариант: сердцем)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this expression marks task or text, requiring great effort of some sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in colloquial speech some other idioms are used, as noted earlier `без пол-литра не разберешься` or `это просто вынос мозга` (youth slang).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="951" RevisionGUID="64883e9c-0a04-4b9a-a719-6ad1ac2f106e" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:17:30.490" UserId="426" Text="There is, obviously, a rather colloquial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; без пол-литра не разберешься (loosely translated as &quot;it's too hard for a sober mind&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but something tells me that you are not going to like the &quot;пол-литра&quot; either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="d608eccb-2e62-4b4b-b3af-5e5f2be1e6c4" CreationDate="2012-09-07T17:40:24.937" UserId="71" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Consider the following idiom:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут сам чёрт ногу сломит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I perceive it, it describes something very complex that one can hardly get through. It can be either something physical like a maze or jungles or something conceptual like a piece of music to be played, a math problem, crossword puzzle, circuit diagram of some electronic device, some complicated statistical database, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is some other idiom in Russian describing pretty much the same thing, yet without the word &quot;чёрт&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3021" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="c1d77a03-e6b1-4920-9f48-27df6d45daa8" CreationDate="2012-09-07T18:02:57.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/244133671735529472" />
  <row Id="3022" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="d70d2677-7b8b-4089-b7ee-5542d1ee1239" CreationDate="2012-09-07T21:02:57.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/244178968209674241" />
  <row Id="3023" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="9f2dd63e-3be2-4be6-afcb-0b2c3a2541dc" CreationDate="2012-09-08T00:02:57.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/244224269243015168" />
  <row Id="3024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="b042ac7d-5532-4165-9cef-900d4ae48c6a" CreationDate="2012-09-08T23:41:28.290" UserId="194" Text="I want to add that it is established as usual to address each other in the Internet forums and blogs by `ты`. Using `вы` in such circumstances may be considered somewhat derogatory, an attempt to draw a line, establish distance between you and your opponent, to show that you have nothing in common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in real life you could be beaten, in the Internet you just get called by `вы`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3025" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="582" RevisionGUID="5e2c6af9-6874-4f6c-9ac3-505367335ace" CreationDate="2012-09-09T13:14:26.317" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3026" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="b6ce3009-c211-4b79-8c46-73c6f9dc8b76" CreationDate="2012-09-10T00:02:57.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/244949043086761984" />
  <row Id="3027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="fe559389-3f13-4809-9341-5f191063215a" CreationDate="2012-09-10T11:41:53.643" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Well, in short here are main fact about &quot;ять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Slavic it had evolved from PIE long e, but Indo-European diphthongs `ai` and `oi` also became `ѣ`.&#xD;&#xA; - Actually, nowadays nobody know for what exactly sound it stands in Slavic. But most probably, according to language reconstruction, it represented long æː. &#xD;&#xA; - There is also another hypothesis that this &quot;ять&quot; represented  diphthong 'ie'. &#xD;&#xA; - We can hardly speak about separate phoneme in Old Russian, since it had been lost on early stages of language evolution. Yet, very subtle difference  between e and ѣ had held pretty long (especially in dialects). For example, Lomonosov wrote in XVIII century that &quot;слух требует  ...  в е дебелости, в ѣ тонкости&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;and I do believe that it hardly can be described somewhat more precisely )&#xD;&#xA; - In different Slavic languages &quot;ять&quot; became different vowels. For example, in Russian, in majority of dialect, it became &quot;е&quot; - as in хлеб, in Ukrainian - i (хлiб). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="d86cefa8-e243-4ee9-b242-c3a248bebb51" CreationDate="2012-09-10T13:46:52.270" UserId="194" Text="You can say &quot;ждать пока чайник кипит&quot; but not &quot;ждать пока чайник закипит&quot;. &quot;Пока&quot; means &quot;while&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="e0780f6f-d207-454d-9a3a-b1bf870ca34d" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:47:10.740" UserId="194" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="This ending came from Proto-Indo-European athematic indicative singular first person verb ending -mi. The PIE word for &quot;(I) eat&quot; was *h₁ed-mi*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see an example of full PIE verb declension here:  &#xD;&#xA;http://pie.allderek.com/doku.php?id=steh%E2%82%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same ending gave the English form *&quot;(I) am&quot;* from the PIE form of the verb *h₁es-mi*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="f58284d9-e951-4256-b649-fd70ec8ad334" CreationDate="2012-09-12T03:09:15.063" UserId="443" Text="I don't think those are interchangeable like you suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would always say 1) &quot;Пока стану миллионером, скорее состарюсь&quot; and 2) &quot;Буду работать по выходным пока не стану миллионером&quot;, but never say &quot;Пока не стану миллионером, скорее состарюсь&quot; or &quot;Буду работать по выходным пока стану миллионером&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I would put only future event that I believe will happen before I become millionaire in a statement after &quot;Пока стану миллионером&quot;, but only something continuous that will keep happening until I become millionaire in a statement before or after &quot;пока не стану миллионером&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="317dd787-ae83-49e1-94ef-7db27461dd3f" CreationDate="2012-09-12T09:31:43.443" UserDisplayName="user254" Text="На [Gramota.ru][1] есть следующая информация об этом глаголе:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке встречаются двоякие формы инфинитивов нескольких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголов: с формантами -бегнуть (напр., избегнуть - избечь), -стигнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (напр., достигнуть - достичь) и глагола стынуть - стыть. В современном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литературном языке вариативны тоько последние два форманта. Причем&#xD;&#xA;&gt; среди приставочных глаголов с корневой морфемой стыть сегодня уже не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеет вариантов наиболее употребительный глагол застыть; менее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребительные настынуть, простынуть отмечены в орфографическом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словаре как вариантные (настынуть - настыть, простынуть - простыть).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По-видимому употребительность влияет на закрепление в языке более&#xD;&#xA;&gt; экономной формы (без суффикса -ну). Среди глаголов с формантом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -стигнуть встречаются обе формы, употребительные уже во времена А. С. Пушкина. Например: Чего он обязан достигнуть? (В. Тендряков. Свидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с Нефертити); ...тогда они могут постичь необъятность вселенной только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по звездам (А. Зегерс. Через океан). Более употребительный в языке СМИ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глагол достичь преобладает в бессуфиксном варианте. В разговорном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языке для обоих глаголов явно предпочитается более короткий вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; достичь, постичь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Важным, по-видимому, является упоминание формант. Форманта - термин, обозначающий акустическую характеристику звуков речи (прежде всего гласных), связанную с уровнем частоты голосового тона и образующую тембр звука. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это позволяет нам предположить, что причины для изменения слова были чисто фонетическими - вместо достаточно длинного варианта &quot;стигнуть&quot; стал использоваться гораздо более короткий вариант &quot;стичь&quot;. Причем если на письме разница не так заметна, то в разговорной речи она становится очевидной. В то же время формы &quot;достигну&quot;, &quot;достигнешь&quot; и т.д. не претерпели этих изменений, и остались в своем первоначальном виде. Справедливости ради стоит отметить, что сложно представить себе как можно сократить эти слова аналогичным образом. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti/36_183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="bf3e3382-c138-4e95-8540-0e835169752a" CreationDate="2012-09-12T16:10:34.117" UserId="441" Text="Когда между главным и подчинённым предложениями следует ставить тире, а когда запятую? Сама по себе конструкция &quot;Если... то...&quot; отражает причинно-следственную связь, что побуждает использовать тире. Однако также очень часто встречаются такие сложные предложения, написанные через запятую, что тоже вполне логично: одно - главное, другое - подчинённое, соединённое союзом если.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где правда? Возможно ли, что различные знаки препинания здесь указывают на особенность интонации, с которой следует произносить эти предложения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="bf3e3382-c138-4e95-8540-0e835169752a" CreationDate="2012-09-12T16:10:34.117" UserId="441" Text="&quot;Если обещал - ждите.&quot; или &quot;Если обещал, ждите.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="bf3e3382-c138-4e95-8540-0e835169752a" CreationDate="2012-09-12T16:10:34.117" UserId="441" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="6f240a85-c35e-4ec4-9753-5a246c818b9a" CreationDate="2012-09-12T19:05:42.557" UserId="242" Text="Правильно писать с запятой (с известными оговорками, перечисленными в источнике, который я как раз собираюсь процитировать).&#xD;&#xA;Да, вы правы, это так называемые, столь ненавидимые многими в школе, интонационные знаки пунктуации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Цитируя][1] Розенталя:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тире в сложноподчиненном предложении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При интонационном подчеркивании придаточные изъяснительные, реже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; условные и уступительные, стоящие впереди главного предложения, могут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отделяться от него не запятой, а тире, например: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * Буде спросит кто о чем – молчи... (Пушкин);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * Как он добрался сюда – уж этого никак не мог он понять (Гоголь); &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * Что она натура честная – это мне ясно... (Тургенев);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда ко мне пристают пунктуационные наци - я говорю им: &quot;Отстаньте, это интонационное!&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/49.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="b5cea384-2e22-403c-b0f6-029ea5f30eca" CreationDate="2012-09-13T11:56:38.187" UserId="299" Text="раньше была разница между лексическими значениями суффикс _ну_ обозначает одноразовое действие (например, это очень ясно в паре прыгать/прыгнуть), но в некоторых формах сейчас суффикс теряет свое значение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="ae3dc1bd-274f-4f21-b826-27d613130194" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:11:21.817" UserId="191" Text="I encounter this very often - *брать* or *взять* (take, grab) is used to actually mean *купить* or *покупать* (buy), for example *А твой ноутбук за сколько брали?* when the intended meaning is *А твой ноутбук за сколько покупали?*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously *taking* something from a shop without paying for it would mean stealing it and that's a crime in most jurisdictions, Russia included. Everyone knows that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is *взять* or *брать* used instead of *купить* or *покупать*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="ae3dc1bd-274f-4f21-b826-27d613130194" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:11:21.817" UserId="191" Text="Why is &quot;взять&quot;/&quot;брать&quot; used to mean &quot;купить&quot;/&quot;покупать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="ae3dc1bd-274f-4f21-b826-27d613130194" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:11:21.817" UserId="191" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="44148397-64f9-4512-921a-12df48a81780" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:33:09.670" UserId="242" Text="Are you a native English speaker? I'm asking just to find out whether take is used in similar sense in English. For example, as far as I understand, take in phrase &quot;take it for only&quot; mean &quot;to buy as well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you question is quite incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;There is a logical flaw in your conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;See, you are saying:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брать or взять (take, grab) is used to actually mean купить or покупать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the verb убить (придушить, изничтожить) means to kill in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the thing is that брать has also meaning &quot;to buy&quot;. And that the  way it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="3b1a590f-de38-4201-8c83-7b742bb15102" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:35:04.177" UserId="47" Text="I am not 100% sure, but believe it stems from the Soviet reality. In the USSR, the amount of goods in the shops was desperately low, especially of those which were needed. Such luxury as good Italian shoes or an Italian-made guitar _could_ appear, but it was always a heaven's gift. Therefore, even though the salaries were not high (on the order of 200–300 USD per month after tax), people often had enough saved to buy such things if they did suddenly appear in the nearby shop. Hence, when it finally did appear, the only question was _where_, not _how much_. You can see examples of such situations in many better Soviet films, such as _По семейным обстоятельствам_, _Cлужебный роман_ и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take also into account the prices were strictly regulated and therefore ridiculously low or unbalanced (30–50 rubles for a pair of good shoes, 3000 rubles for a 1.5 room appartment, 5–10k rubles for a Soviet car). Such prices could be kept exactly because nothing of this was readily available in the market. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="e03f89ef-e89f-4a43-b0ab-62ccd35f060d" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:38:47.850" UserId="242" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Are you a native English speaker? I'm asking just to find out whether take is used in similar sense in English. For example, as I understand - correct me, if I'm wrong, take in phrase &quot;take it for only&quot; means &quot;to buy&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I remember, in French, for example, `prendre` also means both &quot;to take&quot; and &quot;to buy&quot;. I doubt this is typical for russian (so, de-facto, I'm disagree with @texnic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you question is quite incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;There is a logical flaw in your conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;See, you are saying:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брать or взять (take, grab) is used to actually mean купить or покупать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the verb убить (придушить, изничтожить) means to kill in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the thing is that брать has also meaning &quot;to buy&quot;. And that the  way it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, I'm not sure that `взять` actually had such meaning which can be understood in relatively wide context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="26f19971-c4b0-4b39-bf8d-a980356a28ec" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:50:00.720" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Are you a native English speaker? I'm asking just to find out whether take is used in similar sense in English. For example, as I understand - correct me, if I'm wrong, `take` in phrase &quot;take it for only&quot; means &quot;buy it for only&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I remember, in French, for example, `prendre` also means both &quot;to take&quot; and &quot;to buy&quot;. I doubt this is typical for russian (so, de-facto, I'm disagree with @texnic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you question is quite incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;There is a logical flaw in your conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;See, you are saying:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брать or взять (take, grab) is used to actually mean купить or покупать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the verb убить (придушить, изничтожить) means to kill in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the thing is that брать has also meaning &quot;to buy&quot;. And that the  way it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, I'm not sure that `взять` actually had such meaning which can be understood in relatively wide context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="656746c3-830e-454e-95c5-f6e02ecb5add" CreationDate="2012-09-13T12:59:44.557" UserId="242" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Are you a native English speaker? I'm asking just to find out whether take is used in similar sense in English. For example, as I understand - correct me, if I'm wrong, `take` in phrase &quot;take it for only&quot; means &quot;buy it for only&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I remember, in French, for example, `prendre` also means both &quot;to take&quot; and &quot;to buy&quot;. I doubt this is typical for russian (so I disagree with conclusions which @texnic made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you question is quite incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;There is a logical flaw in your conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;See, you are saying:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брать or взять (take, grab) is used to actually mean купить or покупать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why does the verb убить (придушить, изничтожить) means to kill in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the thing is that брать has also meaning &quot;to buy&quot;. And that the  way it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, I'm not sure that `взять` actually had such meaning which can be understood in relatively wide context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="963" RevisionGUID="c19b9527-b7c2-4f2b-aedd-72b3f71a9728" CreationDate="2012-09-14T10:06:28.023" UserId="134" Text="This is a synecdoche: part of an action (taking) instead of the whole action (paying and taking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others noted, such a synecdoche is quite common for the other languages too. As well as other sensitive subjects, money-related concepts are often described by synecdoches, metonymies, metaphors, euphemisms and other figures of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the neutral Russian *покупать* is itself a Proto-German loanword (akin to German *kaufen*). Since core vocabulary words are rarely borrowed, it, most probably, had been used as an euphemism which later replaced the previous neutral word on the euphemism treadmill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="334403eb-8478-445a-b803-8bbe49432df7" CreationDate="2012-09-14T13:26:50.457" UserId="47" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I am not 100% sure, but believe it stems from the Soviet reality. In the USSR, the amount of goods in the shops was desperately low, especially of those which were needed. Such luxury as good Italian shoes or an Italian-made guitar _could_ appear, but it was always a heaven's gift. Therefore, even though the salaries were not high (on the order of 200–300 USD per month after tax), people often had enough saved to buy such things if they did suddenly appear in the nearby shop. Hence, when it finally did appear, the only question was _where_, not _how much_. You can see examples of such situations in many better Soviet films, such as _По семейным обстоятельствам_, _Cлужебный роман_ и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take also into account the prices were strictly regulated and therefore ridiculously low or unbalanced (30–50 rubles for a pair of good shoes, 3000 rubles for a 1.5 room appartment, 5–10k rubles for a Soviet car). Such prices could be kept exactly because nothing of this was readily available in the market. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** I now admit that my theory, though well-developed, is probably wrong :) See comment by Quassnoi below." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3059" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="86755e5b-91cf-4a06-93b5-da5db00b2cdc" CreationDate="2012-09-14T18:03:24.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/246670500191928320" />
  <row Id="3062" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="bf017992-d4d3-473f-8b13-cdf8402b58cf" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:31:50.393" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3063" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="3e8872c3-4239-4744-a4e1-538a71a5479b" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:31:50.393" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3065" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="4e003caf-d9bd-49a5-a3a6-07333ec7e120" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:18.487" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3066" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="d2291b0c-61c1-43fe-bb85-0e022af2bcd8" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:18.487" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3067" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="ed67bcd5-0fe0-4afe-afe6-a24d15c7bdc8" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:18.487" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3068" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="1fb08d02-5553-4eb0-b8a3-eb999c960158" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:56.443" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3069" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="01321107-870f-4396-b51e-a1f9c8afd4fe" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:56.443" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3070" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="c8d0cd64-6768-4c08-8bd0-fa2e560b9783" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:56.443" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3071" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="313250c2-ddb4-4074-b9fa-aa0192c3bda7" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:56.443" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3072" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="d608e247-23c3-4a98-83ec-56e24f6b456f" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:33:56.443" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3073" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="6fffe7c2-9683-4817-b5d9-4cb33be7a880" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:34:31.857" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3074" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="d0203c08-cc98-4d0d-bf84-6bf4f7496f68" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:34:31.857" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3075" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="89a24316-10c1-459d-b632-d72893c54246" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:34:31.857" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3078" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="43f857f6-e96c-4963-9e63-aa9100624daa" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:34:31.857" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3079" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="bb4e0356-649d-40ba-b89e-6dc6178f3be6" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:34:31.857" UserId="71" />
  <row Id="3080" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="4585f722-cbb6-43f8-83a3-1bfa3216c03b" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:35:05.537" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3081" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="84706f7c-36a7-4190-8592-b83bfd0a40fb" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:35:15.413" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="075f683c-34bb-44d5-a654-820657f6419b" CreationDate="2012-09-17T20:22:58.810" UserId="58" Comment="a webpage for learning russian is added" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;learnrussianweb.com     &lt;br&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3093" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="075f683c-34bb-44d5-a654-820657f6419b" CreationDate="2012-09-17T20:22:58.810" Comment="Proposed by 58 approved by -1 edit id of 228" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="c752cbc9-cf6b-47ea-959b-966f8ee5e34f" CreationDate="2012-09-17T20:22:58.810" UserId="71" Comment="a webpage for learning russian is added" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3095" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="253033da-7290-4487-82fe-dc8ef231a4b5" CreationDate="2012-09-18T00:03:28.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/247848275061911552" />
  <row Id="3096" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="610d53e3-1ba3-4f8d-95ec-dd7983900434" CreationDate="2012-09-18T09:03:28.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/247984170020765696" />
  <row Id="3097" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="86aef5b0-547e-4571-bede-dbb54ea1ff45" CreationDate="2012-09-18T12:03:27.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/248029466671067136" />
  <row Id="3098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="7a730fbd-60c3-4ee6-a9af-278b23861522" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:08:14.727" UserId="334" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][2], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][1], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][5], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][4], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lingvo.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://lurkmore.to" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="2091a19e-c9c8-479e-aac7-b972d6e310a9" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:14:30.113" UserId="97" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="13c8af59-0553-43ed-9d83-04bfd3de2ef7" CreationDate="2012-09-19T03:03:28.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/248255961448452098" />
  <row Id="3101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="966" RevisionGUID="26bacc21-c94d-4f53-b2f0-1c1d625081bc" CreationDate="2012-09-19T08:55:15.830" UserId="310" Text="It is worth noting that in modern Russian pronounciation there are three different e-ish sounds:&#xD;&#xA;one is soft е as in &quot;сеть&quot;, second is hard э as in &quot;эхо&quot;, and third appears in (very widely used) loanwords from English, like both е-s in &quot;менеджер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It's harder than the first and softer than the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, some people pronounce this sound as hard э or soft е, but it is kind of awkward and doesn't sound right; so this third sound is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no idea whether ѣ ever mapped to this sound, tho." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="599a73fc-fc80-4835-8b64-d74c956a3367" CreationDate="2012-09-19T09:03:37.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/248346595874201600" />
  <row Id="3103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="28af00fa-5dde-46fb-b94b-0cc4f8e9be44" CreationDate="2012-09-19T15:03:36.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/248437192135954432" />
  <row Id="3104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="ae962016-17fd-4e49-8f79-63f7cba21704" CreationDate="2012-09-19T20:56:29.460" UserId="441" Text="Как правило, если в литературе встречается цитата, то при упоминании автора употребляется его имя. А что означают подписи, оформленные по образцу &quot;По гражданину N.&quot;? Может ли быть, например, что высказывание это было произнесено не от лица самого автора, а от героя одного из его произведений?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="ae962016-17fd-4e49-8f79-63f7cba21704" CreationDate="2012-09-19T20:56:29.460" UserId="441" Text="&quot;По Достоевскому&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="ae962016-17fd-4e49-8f79-63f7cba21704" CreationDate="2012-09-19T20:56:29.460" UserId="441" Text="|quote|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3107" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="339e809d-3b48-4b0d-bcf9-8fb2adabf678" CreationDate="2012-09-20T00:03:37.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/248573088525070337" />
  <row Id="3111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="dd4e3cdb-5005-49e7-a933-2433ccf670b5" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:03:12.367" UserId="441" Comment="example was added" Text="Как правило, если в литературе встречается цитата, то при упоминании автора употребляется его имя. А что означают подписи, оформленные по образцу &quot;По гражданину N.&quot;? Может ли быть, например, что высказывание это было произнесено не от лица самого автора, а от героя одного из его произведений?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, кто не имеет представления о совершенстве, довольствуется тем, что есть, не спорит с действительностю, которая становится для него тождественной со справедливостью, с благом, скрасотою. Для такого человека нет движения, нет жизни. (По Амиелю)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3112" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="0eaf55d3-58a8-4307-8880-084200be3fbd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:27:31.303" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, corrected spelling" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="0eaf55d3-58a8-4307-8880-084200be3fbd" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:27:31.303" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags, corrected spelling" Text="Как правило, если в литературе встречается цитата, то при упоминании автора употребляется его имя. А что означают подписи, оформленные по образцу &quot;По гражданину N.&quot;? Может ли быть, например, что высказывание это было произнесено не от лица самого автора, а от героя одного из его произведений?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тот, кто не имеет представления о совершенстве, довольствуется тем, что есть, не спорит с действительностью, которая становится для него тождественной со справедливостью, с благом, с красотою. Для такого человека нет движения, нет жизни. (По Амиелю)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="0de2eead-3ebd-4d35-808d-0dfb80c6054a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:30:07.743" UserId="441" Text="Вот, например, цитата из книги Дао Дэ Цзин:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дао - глубокая [основа] всех вещей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я встречал подобное обозначение и в Библии, и, кажется, в художественной литературе, но, к сожалению, не могу сейчас найти дополнительные примеры." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="0de2eead-3ebd-4d35-808d-0dfb80c6054a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:30:07.743" UserId="441" Text="Для чего некоторые слова в тексте заключают в квадратные скобки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="0de2eead-3ebd-4d35-808d-0dfb80c6054a" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:30:07.743" UserId="441" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="6d37e9c4-ff24-4397-a126-2a70fa31efe8" CreationDate="2012-09-20T07:33:20.080" UserId="185" Text="Это означает, что слово восстановлено по контексту, но в оригинале не присутствует. Такое часто можно встретить в переводах, где язык оригинала позволяет опускать слово, без которого перевод невозможен, в восстановленных документах, где некоторые слова утеряны, при цитировании фраз, вырванных из контекста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="66b9102f-d612-4f77-a862-9873048cfdd3" CreationDate="2012-09-20T09:04:40.877" UserId="242" Text="Упомянутая вами конструкция часто встречается в значении &quot;в представлении N, в системе выстроенных им ценностей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Монтальво также намекает на то, что «ад — это другие», в точности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по Сартру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экзистенция, по Кьеркегору, является главным предметом мысли, потому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что этот вопрос наиболее важен для человека — того, кто существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возвращаясь к вашему вопросу, чаще всего речь идёт о некоей трактовке представлений автора, выводы о которых сделаны на основе их публицистических (и шире - историософских) работ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с тем, если у данного конкретного художника авторская линия чётко представлена - ну или считается, что чётко представлена))) в художественном произведении, то это тоже &quot;считается&quot;))) Например, часто говорят &quot;по Достовескому&quot; или &quot;по Толстому&quot; имея ввиду цитаты именно из художественных произведений. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3120" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="e6f422b9-8d61-4b94-811f-03cb3a7fb86b" CreationDate="2012-09-20T09:10:26.560" UserId="242" Comment="мне кажется, заголовок нужно попытаться сделать чуть информативней" Text="Конструкция типа &quot;по имяреку&quot;, подразумевающая косвенную цитату" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="75034440-7536-4cfe-9f89-6fc226a1ca37" CreationDate="2012-09-20T09:10:52.660" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Упомянутая вами конструкция часто встречается в значении &quot;в представлении N, в системе выстроенных им ценностей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Монтальво также намекает на то, что «ад — это другие», в точности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по Сартру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экзистенция, по Кьеркегору, является главным предметом мысли, потому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что этот вопрос наиболее важен для человека — того, кто существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возвращаясь к вашему вопросу, чаще всего речь идёт о некоей трактовке представлений автора, выводы о которых сделаны на основе их публицистических (и шире - историософских) работ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с тем, если у данного конкретного художника авторская линия чётко представлена - ну или считается, что чётко представлена))) в художественном произведении, то это тоже &quot;считается&quot;. Например, часто говорят &quot;по Достовескому&quot; или &quot;по Толстому&quot; имея ввиду цитаты именно из художественных произведений. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="4e5d706e-0eb8-4f3b-ba58-d54f5a2e8f36" CreationDate="2012-09-20T10:05:11.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Упомянутая вами конструкция часто встречается в значении &quot;в представлении N, в системе выстроенных им ценностей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Монтальво также намекает на то, что «ад — это другие», в точности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по Сартру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экзистенция, по Кьеркегору, является главным предметом мысли, потому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что этот вопрос наиболее важен для человека — того, кто существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возвращаясь к вашему вопросу, чаще всего речь идёт о некоей трактовке представлений автора, выводы о которых сделаны на основе их публицистических (и шире - историософских) работ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с тем, если у данного конкретного художника авторская линия чётко представлена - ну или  подразумевается, что чётко представлена))) в художественном произведении, то это тоже &quot;считается&quot;. Например, часто говорят &quot;по Достовескому&quot; или &quot;по Толстому&quot; имея ввиду цитаты именно из художественных произведений. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="a65b4a7a-d408-4280-b1f7-8d91c4160438" CreationDate="2012-09-20T10:34:04.413" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="Упомянутая вами конструкция часто встречается в значении &quot;в представлении N, в системе выстроенных им ценностей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но Монтальво также намекает на то, что «ад — это другие», в точности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по Сартру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экзистенция, по Кьеркегору, является главным предметом мысли, потому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что этот вопрос наиболее важен для человека — того, кто существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возвращаясь к вашему вопросу, чаще всего речь идёт о некоей трактовке представлений автора, выводы о которых сделаны на основе их публицистических (и шире - историософских) работ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с тем, если у данного конкретного художника авторская линия чётко представлена - ну или  подразумевается, что чётко представлена))) в художественном произведении, то это тоже &quot;считается&quot;. Например, часто говорят &quot;по Достоевскому&quot; или &quot;по Толстому&quot; имея ввиду цитаты именно из художественных произведений. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3125" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="d8364be1-b948-47fa-ab1e-216626831274" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:03:38.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/248980780313878528" />
  <row Id="3126" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="a97dfe06-73d7-4fb8-8f8c-143b7d056f3c" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:03:38.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/249026078323130368" />
  <row Id="3127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="6c40c7a8-b1a6-40b9-8e8d-96faa15df2f5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:37:18.970" UserId="-1" Comment="added resources" Text="## Podcasts &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*&#xD;&#xA; - [PodFM][2], Podcast directory for Russian language podcasts&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Podcast][1], Simple audio for those who know basic grammar and want to improve their Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://podfm.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russianpodcast.eu/podcasts.html &quot;Russian Podast&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3128" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="6c40c7a8-b1a6-40b9-8e8d-96faa15df2f5" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:37:18.970" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 229" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="c89a1367-d21e-4763-940c-1e2d511951d7" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:37:18.970" UserId="71" Comment="added resources" Text="## Podcasts &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [PodFM][2], Podcast directory for Russian language podcasts&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Podcast][1], Simple audio for those who know basic grammar and want to improve their Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://podfm.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russianpodcast.eu/podcasts.html &quot;Russian Podast&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="0e7dead4-9166-47e7-afbf-ee1cfbffb736" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:45:14.430" UserId="-1" Comment="added resource" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][2], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][4], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][5], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][6], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingvo.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lurkmore.to&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3131" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="0e7dead4-9166-47e7-afbf-ee1cfbffb736" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:45:14.430" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 97 edit id of 230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="286b4565-46dd-4b68-a0c2-47a9dca4ad3b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:39:40.093" UserId="282" Text="e.g. Российского студента жестоко избили в КПЗ в Канаде" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="286b4565-46dd-4b68-a0c2-47a9dca4ad3b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:39:40.093" UserId="282" Text="What does the acronym &quot;КПЗ&quot; stand for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="286b4565-46dd-4b68-a0c2-47a9dca4ad3b" CreationDate="2012-09-23T15:39:40.093" UserId="282" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="973" RevisionGUID="38aff617-2f25-4b3d-8f36-58161fe99aa2" CreationDate="2012-09-23T16:17:41.390" UserId="222" Text="КПЗ stands for “камера предварительного заключения” (holding cell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see also [Изолятор временного содержания][1] in Wikipedia (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="1b77286f-f31a-49d0-899f-978d21407e5d" CreationDate="2012-09-24T02:53:33.310" UserId="62" Text="Can someone clarify for me the proper usage of каков compared to какой, particularly situations where you consider каков to be the only option that is allowed? I have seen какой a lot, but about the only place I can recall seeing каков is in some problem books where questions start off with &quot;Какова вероятность, что ...&quot;. I don't have much of a feel for when каков is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="1b77286f-f31a-49d0-899f-978d21407e5d" CreationDate="2012-09-24T02:53:33.310" UserId="62" Text="Каков and Какой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="1b77286f-f31a-49d0-899f-978d21407e5d" CreationDate="2012-09-24T02:53:33.310" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="064c8cea-d126-452d-aaaf-fd0ee5ed130f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T08:10:17.620" UserId="242" Text="There are verbs with &quot;-гнуть&quot; ending, for example, `ввергнуть`, `расторгнуть`, `моргнуть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First two examples have following form in past time: `вверг`, `расторг`, but for &quot;моргнуть&quot; we have `моргнул`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one give a reasonable explanation of the fact that this verbs are conjugated differently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3140" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="064c8cea-d126-452d-aaaf-fd0ee5ed130f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T08:10:17.620" UserId="242" Text="Why we say &quot;расторг&quot; but &quot;моргнул&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3141" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="064c8cea-d126-452d-aaaf-fd0ee5ed130f" CreationDate="2012-09-24T08:10:17.620" UserId="242" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="94bdb8fd-038f-445a-ba81-25f16093e297" CreationDate="2012-09-24T08:25:31.403" UserId="242" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="There are verbs with &quot;-гнуть&quot; ending, for example, `ввергнуть`, `расторгнуть`, `моргнуть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First two examples have following form in past time: `вверг`, `расторг`, but for &quot;моргнуть&quot; we have `моргнул`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one give a reasonable explanation of the fact that this verbs are conjugated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** It worth to mention in this question that each of these verbs make up so called aspectual pair with imperfect form: ввергать, расторгать, моргать. And, actually, forms, ввергнул, рассторгнул are completely valid. But this do not give me a hint )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="2f5e6355-c5fd-4c77-b986-13e850e77088" CreationDate="2012-09-24T08:49:48.553" UserId="242" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="There are verbs with &quot;-гнуть&quot; ending, for example, `ввергнуть`, `расторгнуть`, `моргнуть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First two examples have following form in past time: `вверг`, `расторг`, but for &quot;моргнуть&quot; we have `моргнул`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one give a reasonable explanation of the fact that this verbs are conjugated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** It worth to mention in this question that each of these verbs make up so called aspectual pair with imperfect form: ввергать, расторгать, моргать. And, actually, forms `ввергнул`, `рассторгнул` are completely valid, as well as shortened forms. But this do not give me a hint )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="7938f2e7-f804-4ddc-9569-4ed572c30191" CreationDate="2012-09-24T09:32:08.787" UserId="134" Text="Russian adjectives come in two forms: full and short. Compare *красный / красен, страшный / страшен, подлый / подл*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full form is actually the short form with addition of the old Slavic 3-rd person pronouns *&amp;#42;jь, &amp;#42;ja* which most probably served as a definite article, like *-ът, -та* in modern Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually, we speak about two pairs of pronominal adjectives here: *как / какой* and *каков / каковой*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two pairs were pretty synonymous in CS but in modern Russian, the first word (*как*) has lost its adjectival meaning, and the fourth (*каковой*) has lost interrogative aspect. So the modern language only pairs the words *какой / каков* as interrogative pronominal adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we need to know from all this is that it's the full and the short form of the same interrogative pronominal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to the usage differences. Russian does not use the short form as heavily as other Slavic languages do, and in neutral speech its usage is limited to stressing rhematic role of the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: *это белый дом (this is a white house) // этот дом бел (as for this house, it is white)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence (*это белый дом*) does not necessarily imply that we know the topic of the sentence beforehand, and can be a first sentence in a conversation. *Белый* may define the topic here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence (*этот дом бел*) implies that the house is already the topic, and *бел* here is strongly rhematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short form may imply firmness of the statement (*дом не чёрен, он бел // the house is not black, it is white*), suprise (*почему тарелка пуста*) and the similar aspects (when the rhematic role of the adjective is important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in neutral language, the short form is rarely used with an explicit subject: *горит белый дом* but not *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;горит бел дом*. The latter form may still be used in poetic language but it would be considered a slavonicism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So answering you question: *какой* and *каков* are interrogative pronominal adjectives in full and short forms, appropriately, which require an adjectival answer in respective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какова вероятность, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a grammatically acceptable answer would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вероятность мала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вероятность велика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which implies that we know the topic of the question (probability) and the answer we need to give would just add the comment (how high is the probability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly when the short form is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3145" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="5f83247f-a6a7-4de6-89b3-8ebf3f1132da" CreationDate="2012-09-24T09:57:54.453" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="1e978873-ee27-4bdd-b591-deba13beb2c2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:13:34.530" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can someone clarify for me the proper usage of *каков* compared to *какой*, particularly situations where you consider *каков* to be the only option that is allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen какой a lot, but about the only place I can recall seeing *каков* is in some problem books where questions start off with *Какова вероятность, что ...*. I don't have much of a feel for when *каков* is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3147" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="1e978873-ee27-4bdd-b591-deba13beb2c2" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:13:34.530" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Каков&quot; and &quot;какой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="1a6e3578-4f93-4d6f-9e25-993a8a445c81" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:14:28.397" UserId="134" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Russian adjectives come in two forms: full and short. Compare *красный / красен, страшный / страшен, подлый / подл*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full form is actually the short form with addition of the old Slavic 3-rd person pronouns *&amp;#42;jь, &amp;#42;ja* which most probably served as a definite article, like *-ът, -та* in modern Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually, we speak about two pairs of pronominal adjectives here: *как / какой* and *каков / каковой*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two pairs were pretty synonymous in CS but in modern Russian, the first word (*как*) has lost its adjectival meaning, and the fourth (*каковой*) has lost interrogative aspect. So the modern language only pairs the words *какой / каков* as interrogative pronominal adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we need to know from all this is that it's the full and the short form of the same interrogative pronominal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to the usage differences. Russian does not use the short form as heavily as other Slavic languages do, and in neutral speech its usage is limited to stressing rhematic role of the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: *это белый дом (this is a white house) // этот дом бел (as for this house, it is white)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence (*это белый дом*) does not necessarily imply that we know the topic of the sentence beforehand, and can be a first sentence in a conversation. *Белый* may define the topic here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence (*этот дом бел*) implies that the house is already the topic, and *бел* here is strongly rhematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short form may imply firmness of the statement (*дом не чёрен, он бел // the house is not black, it is white*), suprise (*почему тарелка пуста*) and the similar aspects (when the rhematic role of the adjective is important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in neutral language, the short form is rarely used in sentences with an explicit verb: *горит белый дом* but not *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;горит бел дом*. The latter form may still be used in poetic language but it would be considered a slavonicism. What constitutes the rheme here is that the house is burning, not it's being white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So answering you question: *какой* and *каков* are interrogative pronominal adjectives in full and short forms, appropriately, which require an adjectival answer in respective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какова вероятность, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a grammatically acceptable answer would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вероятность мала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вероятность велика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which implies that we know the topic of the question (probability) and the answer we need to give would just add the comment (how high is the probability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly when the short form is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="a496f291-382a-4048-9193-8437fd560f94" CreationDate="2012-09-24T12:24:42.413" UserId="134" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Russian adjectives come in two forms: full and short. Compare *красный / красен, страшный / страшен, подлый / подл*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full form is actually the short form with addition of the old Slavic 3-rd person pronouns *&amp;#42;jь, &amp;#42;ja* which most probably served as a definite article, like *-ът, -та* in modern Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually, we speak about two pairs of pronominal adjectives here: *как / какой* and *каков / каковой*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two pairs were pretty synonymous in CS but in modern Russian, the first word (*как*) has lost its adjectival meaning, and the fourth (*каковой*) has lost interrogative aspect. So the modern language only pairs the words *какой / каков* as interrogative pronominal adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we need to know from all this is that it's the full and the short form of the same interrogative pronominal adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to the usage differences. Russian does not use the short form as heavily as other Slavic languages do, and in neutral speech its usage is limited to stressing rhematic role of the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: *это белый дом (this is a white house) // этот дом бел (as for this house, it is white)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence (*это белый дом*) does not necessarily imply that we know the topic of the sentence beforehand, and can be a first sentence in a conversation. *Белый* may define the topic here as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence (*этот дом бел*) implies that the house is already the topic, and *бел* here is strongly rhematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short form may imply firmness of the statement (*дом не чёрен, он бел // the house is not black, it is white*), suprise (*почему тарелка пуста*) and the similar aspects (when the rhematic role of the adjective is important).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more example is F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel &quot;Tender Is the Night&quot;, whose title is translated into Russian as *Ночь нежна* (not *Нежная ночь*). As you can see from the English original, &quot;tender&quot; is clearly the comment in this sentence and the short form is the right form to convey this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in neutral language, the short form is rarely used in sentences with an explicit verb: *горит белый дом* but not *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;горит бел дом*. The latter form may still be used in poetic language but it would be considered a slavonicism. What constitutes the rheme here is that the house is burning, not it's being white.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So answering you question: *какой* and *каков* are interrogative pronominal adjectives in full and short forms, appropriately, which require an adjectival answer in respective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какова вероятность, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a grammatically acceptable answer would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вероятность мала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вероятность велика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which implies that we know the topic of the question (probability) and the answer we need to give would just add the comment (how high is the probability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly when the short form is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="9b17cdc7-a3d0-42a1-a856-f4dbeda08808" CreationDate="2012-09-24T15:34:48.840" UserId="134" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Can someone clarify for me the proper usage of *каков* compared to *какой*, particularly situations where you consider *каков* to be the only option that is allowed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen *какой* a lot, but about the only place I can recall seeing *каков* is in some problem books where questions start off with *Какова вероятность, что ...*. I don't have much of a feel for when *каков* is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="adf1e669-097a-417a-89b3-daa5bc54c5fb" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:21:10.967" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are verbs with &quot;-гнуть&quot; ending, for example, `ввергнуть`, `расторгнуть`, `моргнуть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First two examples have following form in past time: `вверг`, `расторг`, but for &quot;моргнуть&quot; we have `моргнул`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one give a reasonable explanation of the fact that this verbs are conjugated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** It worth to mention in this question that each of these verbs make up so called aspectual pair with imperfect form: ввергать, расторгать, моргать. And, actually, forms `ввергнул`, `рассторгнул` are completely valid, as well as shortened forms. But this does not give me a hint )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="9b1f1131-c694-469d-af6b-7404a94d5e27" CreationDate="2012-09-25T06:47:21.517" UserId="134" Text="There is a [study][1] which states that Proto-Slavic has two different suffixes `-нѫти`: one used for semelfactives (quanta of repetitive actions, expressed by such called multiplicatives), another one used for inchoatives and terminatives (verbs meaning &quot;entering or leaving a continuous state&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, in Russian they are denoted simply as perfective / imperfective aspects, but Plungian's theory states that these categories should be further extended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of multiplicatives (repetitive actions) and corresponding semelfactives (quanta of these actions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * стучать / стукнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * кричать / крикнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * чихать / чихнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * моргать / моргнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples on continuatives (&quot;being in a state&quot;) and corresponding inchoatives / terminatives (&quot;entering / leaving a state&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * замолкать / замолкнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * замерзать / замёрзнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * погибать / погибнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study states that (though with numerous exceptions) semelfactives retain the suffix and inchoatives / terminatives lose it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philol.msu.ru/~ccs/files/nesset.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="a7ef14f3-ad09-4c9f-977b-5b48fe8fbedc" CreationDate="2012-09-25T09:58:22.303" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="There are verbs with &quot;-гнуть&quot; ending, for example, `ввергнуть`, `расторгнуть`, `моргнуть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First two examples have following form in past time: `вверг`, `расторг`, but for &quot;моргнуть&quot; we have `моргнул`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can one give a reasonable explanation of the fact that this verbs are conjugated differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** It worth to mention in this question that each of these verbs make up so called aspectual pair with imperfect form: ввергать, расторгать, моргать. And, actually, forms `ввергнул`, `расторгнул` are completely valid, as well as shortened forms. But this does not give me a hint )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="2fa3e6c0-3dcb-4c3e-89e5-17c0f9ddecda" CreationDate="2012-09-25T10:09:37.100" UserId="134" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="There is a [study][1] which states that Proto-Slavic has two different suffixes `-нѫти`: one used for semelfactives (quanta of repetitive actions, expressed by such called multiplicatives), another one used for inchoatives and terminatives (verbs meaning &quot;entering or leaving a continuous state&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, in Russian they are denoted simply as perfective / imperfective aspects, but Plungian's theory states that these categories should be further extended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of multiplicatives (repetitive actions) and corresponding semelfactives (quanta of these actions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * стучать / стукнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * кричать / крикнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * чихать / чихнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * моргать / моргнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples on continuatives (&quot;being in a state&quot;) and corresponding inchoatives / terminatives (&quot;entering / leaving a state&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * замолкать / замолкнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * замерзать / замёрзнуть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * погибать / погибнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study states that (though with numerous exceptions) semelfactives retain the suffix and inchoatives / terminatives lose it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting example would be the verb *дрогнуть* which has both meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a semelfactive, it retains the suffix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Звездолет дрогнул несколько раз, точно успокаивающийся зверь, и замер. *[И. А. Ефремов. Час быка (1968-1969)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a continuative, it loses it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Видно, кто в этой шкуре не бывал, на морозе не дрог, тот нашего брата постигнуть и понять не может… потому ― душа зачерствела… *[С. П. Подъячев. Мытарства (1903)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philol.msu.ru/~ccs/files/nesset.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="c724682a-3bc1-47f6-87b9-9c1604cb8e19" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:00:52.367" UserId="225" Text="Добрый день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть предложение: &quot;**Человек, который ..., - не человек.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уместно ли здесь использовать одновременно и запятую и тире?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны (школьные знания), запятыми тут выделен причастный оборот, а тире разделяет &#xD;&#xA;подлежащее и сказуемое, выраженные существительными в именительном падеже. С другой стороны (опыт), это довольно-таки распространённый тип предложения, но одновременное использование запятой и тире встречается крайне редко, что странно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="c724682a-3bc1-47f6-87b9-9c1604cb8e19" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:00:52.367" UserId="225" Text="Запятая плюс тире" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="c724682a-3bc1-47f6-87b9-9c1604cb8e19" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:00:52.367" UserId="225" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="0ab7fd41-c758-4ff6-b82b-eb60b12a7bdb" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:15:27.927" UserId="242" Text="Запятая и тире уместны, если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед главным предложением, которому предшествует ряд однородных    придаточных, если подчеркивается распадение целого на две части:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Делал ли что-нибудь для этого Штольц, что делал и как делал, — мы этого не знаем (Добролюбов);*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед словом, которое повторяется для того, чтобы связать с ним новое предложение (чаще придаточное) или дальнейшую часть того же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложения:&#xD;&#xA;*Теперь же, судебным следователем, Иван Ильич чувствовал, что все без исключения, самые важные, самодовольные люди, — все у него в руках (Л. Толстой)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - в художественной речи в периоде (значительном по объему предложении, чаще всего сложноподчиненном, которое делится паузой на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; две части – повышение и понижение) между его частями:&#xD;&#xA;*Человек принимается за сочинение стихотворения по разным соображениям: чтоб завоевать сердце возлюбленной, чтоб выразить свое отношение к окружающей его реальности, будь то пейзаж или государство, чтобы запечатлеть душевное состояние, в котором он в данный момент находится, чтобы оставить след на земле, — ради этого берется за перо (Иосиф Бродский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Источник - Д. Э. Розенталь &quot;Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию&quot;, § 113, Запятая и тире в сложноподчиненном предложении и в периоде.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут уж как относиться к авторитету Дитмара Эльяшевича в частности и к явлению нормативного описания языковых норм вообще. Как мы видим, если по всей строгости, конкретно ваш случай формально не удовлетворяет ни под одно из перечисленных условий. Но есть буква закона и есть дух, - структура предложенного вами предложения вполне допускает использование запятой с тире. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но учителя могут и придраться ;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="b721d2ff-9239-435c-b3e1-985b857bd63c" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:21:07.903" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Запятая и тире уместны, если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед главным предложением, которому предшествует ряд однородных    придаточных, если подчеркивается распадение целого на две части:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Делал ли что-нибудь для этого Штольц, что делал и как делал, — мы этого не знаем (Добролюбов);*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед словом, которое повторяется для того, чтобы связать с ним новое предложение (чаще придаточное) или дальнейшую часть того же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложения:&#xD;&#xA;*Теперь же, судебным следователем, Иван Ильич чувствовал, что все без исключения, самые важные, самодовольные люди, — все у него в руках (Л. Толстой)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - в художественной речи в периоде (значительном по объему предложении, чаще всего сложноподчиненном, которое делится паузой на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; две части – повышение и понижение) между его частями:&#xD;&#xA;*Человек принимается за сочинение стихотворения по разным соображениям: чтоб завоевать сердце возлюбленной, чтоб выразить свое отношение к окружающей его реальности, будь то пейзаж или государство, чтобы запечатлеть душевное состояние, в котором он в данный момент находится, чтобы оставить след на земле, — ради этого берется за перо (Иосиф Бродский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Источник - Д. Э. Розенталь &quot;Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию&quot;, § 113, Запятая и тире в сложноподчиненном предложении и в периоде.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут уж как относиться к авторитету Дитмара Эльяшевича в частности и к практике нормативного описания языковых норм вообще. Как мы видим, если по всей строгости, конкретно ваш случай формально не удовлетворяет ни под одно из перечисленных условий. Но есть буква закона и есть дух, - структура предложенного вами предложения вполне допускает использование запятой с тире. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но учителя могут и придраться ;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="d574747b-9014-4cfa-889d-62a997c16dd1" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:27:41.183" UserId="242" Comment="убрал оценочные суждения, оставил суть." Text="Допустимо ли в принципе в разделяемом на две части посредством тире сложносоставном предложении ставить перед тире запятую, если того требует логика первой части?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек, который ..., - не человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="d574747b-9014-4cfa-889d-62a997c16dd1" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:27:41.183" UserId="242" Comment="убрал оценочные суждения, оставил суть." Text="Запятая плюс тире  как отдельный знак пунктуации" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="fcd263cb-2d78-4d88-8ae4-85781f6056d8" CreationDate="2012-09-25T12:41:20.563" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Запятая и тире уместны, если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед главным предложением, которому предшествует ряд однородных    придаточных, если подчеркивается распадение целого на две части:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Делал ли что-нибудь для этого Штольц, что делал и как делал, — мы этого не знаем (Добролюбов);*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед словом, которое повторяется для того, чтобы связать с ним новое предложение (чаще придаточное) или дальнейшую часть того же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложения:&#xD;&#xA;*Теперь же, судебным следователем, Иван Ильич чувствовал, что все без исключения, самые важные, самодовольные люди, — все у него в руках (Л. Толстой)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - в художественной речи в периоде (значительном по объему предложении, чаще всего сложноподчиненном, которое делится паузой на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; две части – повышение и понижение) между его частями:&#xD;&#xA;*Человек принимается за сочинение стихотворения по разным соображениям: чтоб завоевать сердце возлюбленной, чтоб выразить свое отношение к окружающей его реальности, будь то пейзаж или государство, чтобы запечатлеть душевное состояние, в котором он в данный момент находится, чтобы оставить след на земле, — ради этого берется за перо (Иосиф Бродский).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Источник - Д. Э. Розенталь &quot;Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию&quot;, § 113, Запятая и тире в сложноподчиненном предложении и в периоде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут уж как относиться к авторитету Дитмара Эльяшевича в частности и к практике нормативного описания языковых норм вообще. Как мы видим, если по всей строгости, конкретно ваш случай формально не удовлетворяет ни под одно из перечисленных условий. Но есть буква закона и есть дух, - структура предложенного вами предложения вполне допускает использование запятой с тире. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но учителя могут и придраться ;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="431fb5a5-9e03-4f1b-86e1-395915461170" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:26:41.630" UserId="242" Text="I wonder are there any other cases when prefix `по-` indicates feminine gender?&#xD;&#xA;I can recall some nouns with `по-` prefix, like `постель` or `повесть`, but this words have roots that are also feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are plenty of words with `по-` prefix which are masculine, for example, `поручик`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how come `друг`'s feminine form is `подруга`, can someone shed light on the etymology of this form?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="431fb5a5-9e03-4f1b-86e1-395915461170" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:26:41.630" UserId="242" Text="Why &quot;подруга&quot;, not &quot;друга&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="431fb5a5-9e03-4f1b-86e1-395915461170" CreationDate="2012-09-25T13:26:41.630" UserId="242" Text="|этимология|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="3577abe6-aa99-483f-8445-f441a3c9c4e2" CreationDate="2012-09-25T14:40:25.947" UserId="134" Text="*Подруга* is a derivative of *подружиться*, compare *полюбовница, побратим* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prefix is not productive for forming feminine in Russian so this is just an ad hoc form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CS for this word would be *другиня* and I believe Old Russian had a similar form. In current Ukrainian it means &quot;wife&quot;, so most probably *подруга* replaced the old form to separate the meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="795b1175-90e1-443f-8e73-24352872a085" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:23:05.840" UserId="468" Text="It means &quot;one who is being led/pulled/attracted (et c.)&quot; And its use in the above examples seems perfectly correct. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="2bf8b37c-e91d-4f5f-bd2a-82ffcf36a91c" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:59:32.573" UserId="194" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="2bf8b37c-e91d-4f5f-bd2a-82ffcf36a91c" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:59:32.573" UserId="194" Text="Are there inflectives in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="2bf8b37c-e91d-4f5f-bd2a-82ffcf36a91c" CreationDate="2012-09-25T17:59:32.573" UserId="194" Text="|грамматика|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="51c9783f-fee1-4574-9945-a3cf48c0d0eb" CreationDate="2012-09-25T21:53:10.860" UserId="242" Text="I think you actually mean inflected verbs (склоняемые глаголы). And your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category (such as person, number, gender, case, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="a3a5551d-4159-4256-a6ae-dd02b4d94692" CreationDate="2012-09-25T21:55:58.157" UserId="194" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="dbf235e7-cf4f-4794-91d9-1431ed8aa899" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:02:59.837" UserId="194" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="42b431c9-7c3e-4531-9783-79f6b335dcac" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:03:24.203" UserId="242" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="I think you actually mean inflected verbs (склоняемые глаголы). And your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Tense, which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты шмяк его по роже&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * Mood, which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="523ed0fb-97b7-4a44-9f5d-3054f50ec7e9" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:11:01.047" UserId="242" Comment="a better example of usage" Text="I think you actually mean inflected verbs (склоняемые глаголы). And your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Tense][1], which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты тогда щёлк затвором пистолета, припугнёшь его&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * [Mood][2], which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;  * Aspect, which is always [perfective][3] (глаголы совершенного вида).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="e278a057-45a9-4a3c-8d20-6500d890c5da" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:12:29.157" UserId="194" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;    кувырк - кувырок - кувыркать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="cda70322-5fdb-418e-bdb0-2c755b3fdf4a" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:16:12.307" UserId="242" Comment="a better example of usage" Text="I think you actually mean inflected verbs (склоняемые глаголы). And your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;междометные глаголы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Tense][1], which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты тогда щёлк затвором пистолета, припугнёшь его&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * [Mood][2], which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;  * Aspect, which is always [perfective][3] (глаголы совершенного вида).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="5b744e52-c19b-4915-95c8-13624fcaee9a" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:22:22.097" UserId="242" Comment="a better example of usage" Text="I think you actually mean inflected verbs (склоняемые глаголы). And your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;междометные глаголы&quot;, or even &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of such interjections are onomatopoeic (звукоподражательные), like &quot;бах&quot;, &quot;кряк&quot; and so on, though there exists some other forms of verbal interjections, among them I can recall pretty popular &quot;глядь&quot; и &quot;хвать&quot; (in addition to кувырк, mentioned in the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Tense][1], which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты тогда щёлк затвором пистолета, припугнёшь его&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * [Mood][2], which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;  * Aspect, which is always [perfective][3] (глаголы совершенного вида).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="05120f17-ec80-4fb7-9acf-7f2e7f7311ce" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:26:26.680" UserId="194" Comment="added 336 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;    кувырк - кувырок - кувыркать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I looked up &quot;кувырк&quot; in a [dictionary][1] and it describes this word as either predicative (another part of speech) or interjection. There are no examples, so I wonder how to determine whether we are facing the first or the letter. Intuitively predicative (or predicative adverb) would be in phrase like &quot;мне кувырк&quot;, although this sounds unnatural, and inflective (or inflective interjection) would be in phrase like &quot;он кувырк, и убежал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/179410/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="9b201411-40a3-44fe-99cc-6f6c22419db8" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:28:57.600" UserId="242" Comment="a better example of usage" Text="I think you actually mean inflected verbs (склоняемые глаголы). And your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;междометные глаголы&quot;, or even &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of such interjections are onomatopoeic (звукоподражательные), like &quot;бах&quot;, &quot;кряк&quot; and so on. Members of this group in scientific articles is also called &quot;вербализованные звукоподражания&quot;. Though there exists second form of verbal interjections, derived from &quot;real&quot;, &quot;full-fledged&quot;, verbs, among them I can recall pretty popular &quot;глядь&quot; и &quot;хвать&quot; (in addition to кувырк, mentioned in the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Tense][1], which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты тогда щёлк затвором пистолета, припугнёшь его&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * [Mood][2], which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;  * Aspect, which is always [perfective][3] (глаголы совершенного вида).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="8d4b962d-d3a3-4220-b382-708d7cd0c20f" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:35:58.717" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="Your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;междометные глаголы&quot;, or even &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of such interjections are onomatopoeic (звукоподражательные), like &quot;бах&quot;, &quot;кряк&quot; and so on. Members of this group in scientific articles is also called &quot;вербализованные звукоподражания&quot;. Though there exists second form of verbal interjections, derived from &quot;real&quot;, &quot;full-fledged&quot;, verbs, among them I can recall pretty popular &quot;глядь&quot; и &quot;хвать&quot; (in addition to кувырк, mentioned in the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Tense][1], which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты тогда щёлк затвором пистолета, припугнёшь его&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * [Mood][2], which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;  * Aspect, which is always [perfective][3] (глаголы совершенного вида).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="5957c5c2-8771-4c97-876f-f39437add264" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:36:33.460" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grouped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;    кувырк - кувырок - кувыркать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I looked up &quot;кувырк&quot; in a [dictionary][1] and it describes this word as either predicative (another part of speech) or interjection. There are no examples, so I wonder how to determine whether we are facing the first or the letter. Intuitively predicative (or predicative adverb) would be in phrase like &quot;мне кувырк&quot;, although this sounds unnatural, and inflective (or inflective interjection) would be in phrase like &quot;он кувырк, и убежал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/179410/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="ab4cd196-e697-451b-93dd-527e52dad296" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:37:07.373" UserId="194" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;    кувырк - кувырок - кувыркать&#xD;&#xA;    цап - (no form) - цапать&#xD;&#xA;    царап - (no form) - царапать&#xD;&#xA;    тук - (no form) - тукать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I looked up &quot;кувырк&quot; in a [dictionary][1] and it describes this word as either predicative (another part of speech) or interjection. There are no examples, so I wonder how to determine whether we are facing the first or the letter. Intuitively predicative (or predicative adverb) would be in phrase like &quot;мне кувырк&quot;, although this sounds unnatural, and inflective (or inflective interjection) would be in phrase like &quot;он кувырк, и убежал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/179410/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="8c3e13db-66cd-4d1e-9282-ade51ede9130" CreationDate="2012-09-26T08:08:40.830" UserId="134" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="*Подруга* is a derivative of *подружиться*, compare *полюбовница, побратим* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prefix is not productive for forming feminine in Russian so this is just an ad hoc form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CS for this word would be *другиня* and I believe Old Russian had a similar form. In modern Ukrainian it means &quot;wife&quot; (spelt as *дружина*), so most probably *подруга* replaced the old form to separate the meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="bcee2760-a9f8-4bb1-b7d4-46bb5a01275d" CreationDate="2012-09-26T08:13:50.187" UserId="134" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="*Подруга* is a derivative of *подружиться*, compare *полюбовница, побратим* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prefix is not productive for forming feminine in Russian so this is just an ad hoc form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CS for this word would be *другиня* and I believe Old Russian had a similar form. In modern Ukrainian it means &quot;wife&quot; (*дружина* in modern form), so most probably *подруга* replaced the old form to separate the meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="580f4a1f-38d3-416c-8f77-b569ac8b2454" CreationDate="2012-09-26T08:29:22.477" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Your assumption is absolutely valid. Since yes, in Russian some interjection can be treated and used as specific verbal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are so called &quot;глагольные междометия&quot;, or &quot;междометные глаголы&quot;, or even &quot;глагольно-междометные формы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxamples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я его как **шмяк** в лицо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - А она вдруг **бултых** в воду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - И ни с того ни с сего, учитель **хлоп** его по шее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of such interjections are onomatopoeic (звукоподражательные), like &quot;бах&quot;, &quot;кряк&quot; and so on. Members of this group in scientific articles are also called &quot;вербализованные звукоподражания&quot;. Though there exists second form of verbal interjections, derived from &quot;real&quot;, &quot;full-fledged&quot;, verbs, among them I can recall pretty popular &quot;глядь&quot; и &quot;хвать&quot; (in addition to кувырк, mentioned in the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These interjections are very special, they does not express any kind of grammatical category, (such as person, number, gender, case etc.), with some important clauses, which are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Tense][1], which is most likely past tense. You can say &quot;хлопнул&quot; instead of &quot;хлоп&quot;, but you can not say &quot;хлопаю&quot;. Also, one can imagine usage as a future tense verb. (&quot;Он тогда скажет, что это его не касается, а ты тогда щёлк затвором пистолета, припугнёшь его&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * [Mood][2], which is always indicative (изъявительное наклонение), that means such verbs (and relative interjections) always express some specific fact or action.&#xD;&#xA;  * Aspect, which is always [perfective][3] (глаголы совершенного вида).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="d3fc9ae1-7ea3-49c0-91fd-71a159bd744b" CreationDate="2012-09-26T08:30:18.137" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Запятая и тире уместны, если:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед главным предложением, которому предшествует ряд однородных    придаточных, если подчеркивается распадение целого на две части:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Делал ли что-нибудь для этого Штольц, что делал и как делал, — мы этого не знаем (Добролюбов);*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - перед словом, которое повторяется для того, чтобы связать с ним новое предложение (чаще придаточное) или дальнейшую часть того же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложения:&#xD;&#xA;*Теперь же, судебным следователем, Иван Ильич чувствовал, что все без исключения, самые важные, самодовольные люди, — все у него в руках (Л. Толстой)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - в художественной речи в периоде (значительном по объему предложении, чаще всего сложноподчиненном, которое делится паузой на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; две части – повышение и понижение) между его частями:&#xD;&#xA;*Человек принимается за сочинение стихотворения по разным соображениям: чтоб завоевать сердце возлюбленной, чтоб выразить свое отношение к окружающей его реальности, будь то пейзаж или государство, чтобы запечатлеть душевное состояние, в котором он в данный момент находится, чтобы оставить след на земле, — ради этого берется за перо (Иосиф Бродский).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Источник - Д. Э. Розенталь &quot;Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию&quot;, § 113, Запятая и тире в сложноподчиненном предложении и в периоде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут уж как относиться к авторитету Дитмара Эльяшевича в частности и к практике нормативного описания языковых норм вообще. Как мы видим, если по всей строгости, конкретно ваш случай формально не удовлетворяет ни одному из перечисленных условий. Но есть буква закона и есть дух, - структура предложенного вами предложения вполне допускает использование запятой с тире. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но учителя могут и придраться ;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="88cdd056-54d9-41cd-9679-5bcd202f8dca" CreationDate="2012-09-26T13:35:15.410" UserId="194" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;    кувырк - кувырок - кувыркать&#xD;&#xA;    цап - (no form) - цапать&#xD;&#xA;    царап - (no form) - царапать&#xD;&#xA;    тук - (no form) - тукать&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added as a result of the dicussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    хвать - хваток - хватать&#xD;&#xA;    глядь - взгляд - глядеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I looked up &quot;кувырк&quot; in a [dictionary][1] and it describes this word as either predicative (another part of speech) or interjection. There are no examples, so I wonder how to determine whether we are facing the first or the letter. Intuitively predicative (or predicative adverb) would be in phrase like &quot;мне кувырк&quot;, although this sounds unnatural, and inflective (or inflective interjection) would be in phrase like &quot;он кувырк, и убежал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/179410/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="71a2a69c-4830-4db3-9424-eb51470b3d29" CreationDate="2012-09-26T21:25:21.177" UserId="471" Text="The meaning &quot;to cause&quot; used to belong to the phrase «влечь за собой»: «Преступление влечет за собой наказание». [In the Russian corpus, the first use without &quot;за собой&quot; is in 1975][1]. Apparently we're not used to using «влекомый» with this freshly discovered meaning yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=26251&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%EA%E0%E7%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Наказание, влекомое за собой преступлением» sounds unwieldy but could - says my linguistic intuition - appear in some legal or philosophical text, where the unwieldier the language the higher the score." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="6457b7aa-f35e-4380-81e2-c8fbf78fc9d2" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:07:44.280" UserId="471" Comment="added 976 characters in body" Text="The meaning &quot;to cause&quot; used to belong to the phrase «влечь за собой»: «Преступление влечет за собой наказание». [In the Russian corpus, the first use without &quot;за собой&quot; is in 1975][1]. Apparently we're not used to using «влекомый» with this freshly discovered meaning yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=26251&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%EA%E0%E7%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Наказание, влекомое за собой преступлением» sounds unwieldy but could - says my linguistic intuition - appear in some legal or philosophical text, where the unwieldier the language the higher the score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, extra analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first, main, meaning of «влечь» - *to drag* - is spatial: X drags Y, making Y to follow itself (i.e. move behind it in space). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second, originally figurative, meaning - *to cause* - is temporal, based on a metaphorical reinterpretation of time as space: X cases Y, making it to *follow* itself (i.e. happen after it in time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, **«тележка, влекомая лошадкой»** uses present tense, placing both a horsy and a car in the same moment: right now the car is being dragged by the horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Наказание, влекомое преступлением»** attempts to do the same - to place crime and punishment in the same, present, moment. But that's not how causality works, at least on macro level, so our brain/intuition resists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prove this, I would need to construct a phrase in such a way that there is a sense of temporal sequence in it, using passive participle in future or past tense. But when I try to conjugate «влекомый» to either it declines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="03bee102-5051-4a3c-91de-079627e1e258" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:33:22.503" UserId="471" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The meaning &quot;to cause&quot; used to belong to the phrase «влечь за собой»: «Преступление влечет за собой наказание». [In the Russian corpus, the first use without &quot;за собой&quot; is in 1975][1]. Apparently we're not used to using «влекомый» with this freshly discovered meaning yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=26251&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%EA%E0%E7%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Наказание, влекомое за собой преступлением» sounds unwieldy but could - says my linguistic intuition - appear in some legal or philosophical text, where the unwieldier the language the higher the score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, extra analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first, main, meaning of «влечь» - *to drag* - is spatial: X drags Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. move behind it in space). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second, originally figurative, meaning - *to cause* - is temporal, based on a metaphorical reinterpretation of time as space: X cases Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. happen after it in time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, **«тележка, влекомая лошадкой»** uses present tense, placing both a horsy and a car in the same moment: right now the car is being dragged by the horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Наказание, влекомое преступлением»** attempts to do the same - to place crime and punishment in the same, present, moment. But that's not how causality works, at least on macro level, so our brain/intuition resists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prove this, I would need to construct a phrase in such a way that there is a sense of temporal sequence in it, using passive participle in future or past tense. But when I try to conjugate «влекомый» to either it declines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="eef36712-cf1d-4b72-bcbe-bc39c5b37edb" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:52:51.233" UserId="475" Comment="Added lenta.ru" Text="## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Газета.ру][2], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Известия.ру][1], famous Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Лента.ру][4], famous online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][3], famous russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://izvestia.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gazeta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.pravda.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lenta.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3194" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="eef36712-cf1d-4b72-bcbe-bc39c5b37edb" CreationDate="2012-09-27T13:52:51.233" Comment="Proposed by 475 approved by 185 edit id of 231" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="c0065b56-f485-45a4-923a-ce8c39b4c3d8" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:53:12.147" UserId="185" Text="What is the rule for changing the preposition &quot;в&quot; into &quot;во&quot;? I cannot think about any way to explain it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, semantically they seem to be perfectly identical:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(дежурить) во вторник, в среду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms can be used with the same word:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(увидеть) во сне, (провалиться) в сон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even phonetic conditions may be the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(пройти) во двор, (стучаться) в дверь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="c0065b56-f485-45a4-923a-ce8c39b4c3d8" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:53:12.147" UserId="185" Text="Prepositions &quot;во \ в&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="c0065b56-f485-45a4-923a-ce8c39b4c3d8" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:53:12.147" UserId="185" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="06003f7e-3701-4baf-9c52-814b57777234" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:54:04.260" UserId="471" Comment="added 1192 characters in body" Text="The meaning &quot;to cause&quot; used to belong to the phrase «влечь за собой»: «Преступление влечет за собой наказание». [In the Russian corpus, the first use without &quot;за собой&quot; is in 1975][1]. Apparently we're not used to using «влекомый» with this freshly discovered meaning yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=26251&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%EA%E0%E7%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Наказание, влекомое за собой преступлением» sounds unwieldy but could - says my linguistic intuition - appear in some legal or philosophical text, where the unwieldier the language the higher the score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, extra analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first, main, meaning of «влечь» - *to drag* - is spatial: X drags Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. move behind it in space). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second, originally figurative, meaning - *to cause* - is temporal, based on a metaphorical reinterpretation of time as space: X cases Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. happen after it in time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, **«тележка, влекомая лошадкой»** uses present tense, placing both a horsy and a car in the same moment: right now the car is being dragged by the horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Наказание, влекомое преступлением»** attempts to do the same - to place crime and punishment in the same, present, moment. But that's not how causality works, at least on macro level, so our brain/intuition resists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prove this, I would need to construct a phrase in such a way that there is a sense of temporal sequence in it, using passive participle in future or past tense. But when I try to conjugate «влекомый» to either it declines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, your second example displays yet another shade of meaning - *to attract*: «магнит влечёт железяки / железяки, влекомые магнитом» (unusual for modern language but cf. [«Известно любопытным естеств взыскателем есть, что магнит камень силу свою, которою влеком есть к железу, окормляет, силою железа себе обложеннаго»][2]), «запах влечёт мух / мухи, влекомые запахом» (sounds more natural) and «интерес к искусству влечёт человека / человек, влекомый интересом к искусству». This meaning is again figurative, based on reinterpretation of the described phenomena as if there was some sort of virtual rope with which magnets, smells and interest in arts drag iron particles, flies and men correspondingly. Since attraction happens with agent and patient both being present, the phenomena are again compatible with present tense participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_created&amp;lang=ru&amp;parent=0&amp;level=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent=0&amp;level=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;docid=49070&amp;sid=48&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="2345fb2d-0717-4c75-8b66-7c8db733687e" CreationDate="2012-09-27T14:59:00.560" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Prepositions &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="86b83b91-17db-496b-a9a4-86b3cb7848e5" CreationDate="2012-09-27T15:13:58.067" UserId="471" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The meaning &quot;to cause&quot; used to belong to the phrase «влечь за собой»: «Преступление влечет за собой наказание». [In the Russian corpus, the first use without &quot;за собой&quot; is in 1975][1]. Apparently we're not used to using «влекомый» with this freshly discovered meaning yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=26251&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%EA%E0%E7%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Наказание, влекомое за собой преступлением» sounds unwieldy but could - says my linguistic intuition - appear in some legal or philosophical text, where the unwieldier the language the higher the score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, extra analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first, main, meaning of «влечь» - *to drag* - is spatial: X drags Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. move behind it in space). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second, originally figurative, meaning - *to cause* - is temporal, based on a metaphorical reinterpretation of time as space: X cases Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. happen after it in time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, **«тележка, влекомая лошадкой»** uses present tense, placing both a horsy and a cart in the same moment: right now the car is being dragged by the horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Наказание, влекомое преступлением»** attempts to do the same - to place crime and punishment in the same, present, moment. But that's not how causality works, at least on macro level, so our brain/intuition resists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prove this, I would need to construct a phrase in such a way that there is a sense of temporal sequence in it, using passive participle in future or past tense. But when I try to conjugate «влекомый» to either it declines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, your second example displays yet another shade of meaning - *to attract*: «магнит влечёт железяки / железяки, влекомые магнитом» (unusual for modern language but cf. [«Известно любопытным естеств взыскателем есть, что магнит камень силу свою, которою влеком есть к железу, окормляет, силою железа себе обложеннаго»][2]), «запах влечёт мух / мухи, влекомые запахом» (sounds more natural) and «интерес к искусству влечёт человека / человек, влекомый интересом к искусству». This meaning is again figurative, based on reinterpretation of the described phenomena as if there was some sort of virtual rope with which magnets, smells and interest in arts drag iron particles, flies and men correspondingly. Since attraction happens with agent and patient both being present, the phenomena are again compatible with present tense participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_created&amp;lang=ru&amp;parent=0&amp;level=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent=0&amp;level=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;docid=49070&amp;sid=48&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="b9fc360f-3294-40bf-acfd-3bc3c47d30e2" CreationDate="2012-09-27T16:47:00.517" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal et. al, *Справочник по правописанию, &#xD;&#xA;произношению, литературному редактированию, §199.9*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В условиях контекста возможны дублеты типа *в введении – во введении*. Добавление гласного `-о` к предлогу, состоящему из одного согласного звука или оканчивающемуся на согласный, наблюдается в ряде случаев:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. перед односложным словом, начинающимся со стечения согласных, с беглым гласным в корне, например: *во сне (ср.: в сновидениях), во рту (ср.: в ртутных испарениях), во льну (ср.: в льнотеребилках), ко мне (ср.: к мнимой величине)*;&#xD;&#xA;2. часто после предлогов *в* и *с*, если с этих же согласных начинается последующее стечение согласных, например: *во власти, во внушении, со слезами, со словами, со страху*;&#xD;&#xA;3. в отдельных фразеологических выражениях, например: *во сто крат, изо всех сил, во главе войск, как кур во щи*;&#xD;&#xA;4. в текстах, имеющих оттенок торжественности, например: *Во дни сомнений, во дни тягостных раздумий о судьбах моей родины... (Тургенев)*;&#xD;&#xA;5. в сочетаниях официального стиля, например: *во избежание, во исполнение, во имя (перед начальным гласным слова).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this preposition is clitical (phonetically dependent on the word it governs), `о` appears in places where historical `ъ` would be in a strong position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="2da21da0-e28c-40a5-981c-a99856e8d3c8" CreationDate="2012-09-27T17:07:57.660" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *Справочник по правописанию, &#xD;&#xA;произношению, литературному редактированию, §199.9*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В условиях контекста возможны дублеты типа *в введении – во введении*. Добавление гласного `-о` к предлогу, состоящему из одного согласного звука или оканчивающемуся на согласный, наблюдается в ряде случаев:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. перед односложным словом, начинающимся со стечения согласных, с беглым гласным в корне, например: *во сне (ср.: в сновидениях), во рту (ср.: в ртутных испарениях), во льну (ср.: в льнотеребилках), ко мне (ср.: к мнимой величине)*;&#xD;&#xA;2. часто после предлогов *в* и *с*, если с этих же согласных начинается последующее стечение согласных, например: *во власти, во внушении, со слезами, со словами, со страху*;&#xD;&#xA;3. в отдельных фразеологических выражениях, например: *во сто крат, изо всех сил, во главе войск, как кур во щи*;&#xD;&#xA;4. в текстах, имеющих оттенок торжественности, например: *Во дни сомнений, во дни тягостных раздумий о судьбах моей родины... (Тургенев)*;&#xD;&#xA;5. в сочетаниях официального стиля, например: *во избежание, во исполнение, во имя (перед начальным гласным слова).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this preposition is clitical (phonetically dependent on the word it governs), `о` appears in places where historical `ъ` would be in a strong position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="32adb768-9561-4274-9cb0-7e4629c7e833" CreationDate="2012-09-27T18:26:52.227" UserId="471" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The meaning &quot;to cause&quot; used to belong to the phrase «влечь за собой»: «Преступление влечет за собой наказание». [In the Russian corpus, the first use without &quot;за собой&quot; is in 1975][1]. Apparently we're not used to using «влекомый» with this freshly discovered meaning yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=26251&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%EA%E0%E7%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Наказание, влекомое за собой преступлением» sounds unwieldy but could - says my linguistic intuition - appear in some legal or philosophical text, where the unwieldier the language the higher the score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, extra analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first, main, meaning of «влечь» - *to drag* - is spatial: X drags Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. move behind it in space). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second, originally figurative, meaning - *to cause* - is temporal, based on a metaphorical reinterpretation of time as space: X cases Y, *making Y to follow itself* (i.e. happen after it in time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, **«тележка, влекомая лошадкой»** uses present tense, placing both a horsy and a cart in the same moment: right now the car is being dragged by the horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Наказание, влекомое преступлением»** attempts to do the same - to place crime and punishment in the same, present, moment. But that's not how causality works, at least on macro level, so our brain/intuition resists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To prove this, I would need to construct a phrase in such a way that there is a sense of temporal sequence in it, using passive participle in future or past tense. But when I try to conjugate «влекомый» to either it declines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, your second example displays yet another shade of meaning - *to attract*: **«магнит влечёт железяки / железяки, влекомые магнитом»** (unusual for modern language but cf. [«Известно любопытным естеств взыскателем есть, что магнит камень силу свою, которою влеком есть к железу, окормляет, силою железа себе обложеннаго»][2]), **«запах влечёт мух / мухи, влекомые запахом»** (sounds more natural) and **«интерес к искусству влечёт человека / человек, влекомый интересом к искусству»**. This meaning is again figurative, based on reinterpretation of the described phenomena as if there was some sort of virtual rope with which magnets, smells and interest in arts drag correspondingly iron particles, flies and men. Since attraction happens with agent and patient both being present, the phenomena are again compatible with present tense participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_created&amp;lang=ru&amp;parent=0&amp;level=0&amp;lex1=%E2%EB%E5%F7%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent=0&amp;level=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;docid=49070&amp;sid=48&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="8ec26cbd-3a51-4ca2-bed6-eab444b79859" CreationDate="2012-09-28T08:54:09.600" UserId="134" Comment="added 961 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *Справочник по правописанию, &#xD;&#xA;произношению, литературному редактированию, §199.9*: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В условиях контекста возможны дублеты типа *в введении – во введении*. Добавление гласного `-о` к предлогу, состоящему из одного согласного звука или оканчивающемуся на согласный, наблюдается в ряде случаев:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. перед односложным словом, начинающимся со стечения согласных, с беглым гласным в корне, например: *во сне (ср.: в сновидениях), во рту (ср.: в ртутных испарениях), во льну (ср.: в льнотеребилках), ко мне (ср.: к мнимой величине)*;&#xD;&#xA;2. часто после предлогов *в* и *с*, если с этих же согласных начинается последующее стечение согласных, например: *во власти, во внушении, со слезами, со словами, со страху*;&#xD;&#xA;3. в отдельных фразеологических выражениях, например: *во сто крат, изо всех сил, во главе войск, как кур во щи*;&#xD;&#xA;4. в текстах, имеющих оттенок торжественности, например: *Во дни сомнений, во дни тягостных раздумий о судьбах моей родины... (Тургенев)*;&#xD;&#xA;5. в сочетаниях официального стиля, например: *во избежание, во исполнение, во имя (перед начальным гласным слова).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Context may allow doublets like *в введении – во введении*. The letter `-о` is appended to a preposition consisting of (or ending with) a consonant in following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. before a monosyllabic word with a fleeting vowel in the root, which starts with a consonant cluster, e. g. *во сне (cmp.: в сновидениях), во рту (cmp.: в ртутных испарениях), во льну (cmp.: в льнотеребилках), ко мне (cmp.: к мнимой величине)*;&#xD;&#xA;2. often, after prepositions *в* and *с*, if the following word starts with a consonant cluster with the same initial letter, e. g. *во власти, во внушении, со слезами, со словами, со страху*;&#xD;&#xA;3. in established phraseologisms, e. g. *во сто крат, изо всех сил, во главе войск, как кур во щи*;&#xD;&#xA;4. in sonorous discourse, e. g. *Во дни сомнений, во дни тягостных раздумий о судьбах моей родины... (Turgenev)*;&#xD;&#xA;5. in official language phraseologisms, before an initial vowel, e. g. *во избежание, во исполнение, во имя*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this preposition is clitical (phonetically dependent on the word it governs), `о` appears in places where historical `ъ` would be in a strong position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="97c15029-d6cd-4b82-9811-f9d6277fb2ef" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:03:09.620" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;дети бегают по магазину&quot; and &quot;дети бегают в магазине&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="97c15029-d6cd-4b82-9811-f9d6277fb2ef" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:03:09.620" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;дети бегают по магазину&quot; and &quot;дети бегают в магазине&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="97c15029-d6cd-4b82-9811-f9d6277fb2ef" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:03:09.620" UserId="170" Text="|meaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="3ee4067d-8316-43e4-9de4-f56d4b37fc10" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:46:51.577" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="17bab638-7abd-4b86-8185-3d8408f1c065" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:54:25.120" UserId="338" Text="I'm not sure but I think there is no much difference. Although probably &quot;дети бегают в магазине&quot; is to say where the children are (in the shop), while &quot;дети бегают по магазину&quot; is more like to say what the children are doing (running) and, especially, doing something wrong or unpleasant. Like &quot;Я бегаю по магазину в поисках чего-либо&quot; means that I going round between shop desks to find something. Also &quot;не бегай по коридору&quot; would be used to stop a child from running at all, while &quot;не бегай в коридоре&quot; is better to ask a child to find another place than corridor for running in (like street or so on)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="bbcbe2af-5cfe-4b20-a44e-1487f8eb0778" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:55:02.727" UserId="134" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is more clear if we consider a spatially anisotropic object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * идти на улице / идти по улице&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * плыть на реке / плыть по реке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may (or may not) suggest that you cross the street or the river, the second sentence strictly assumes that you move along the street or the river." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="670f91fc-0334-4b62-8458-08f73eeb7020" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:02:13.607" UserId="134" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is more clear if we consider a spatially anisotropic object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * идти на улице / идти по улице&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * плыть на реке / плыть по реке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may (or may not) suggest that you cross the street or the river, the second sentence strictly assumes that you move along the street or the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this may stress rhematic role of the object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил в Испании* // While being in Spain, I walked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил по Испании* // I walked all over Spain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="991" RevisionGUID="ca897d2c-5f4f-4df2-ad44-ada8d2e66ae4" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:05:04.257" UserId="47" Text="Use of *по* assumes the importance, in the context, of the spatial extent of the place. *Быть в магазине* simply means that a person is within a shop and nowhere else. The shop is considered a point in space. *Ходить по магазину* assumes that the shop has some extent and one needs some time to traverse it. Compare also: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пожалуйста, сходи в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Давай пройдёмся по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence emphasizes the way to the shop while the second one the process of shopping, being in the shops or going from one to another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="4bd43ffe-1bde-4f85-a075-aff4e17e569b" CreationDate="2012-09-28T15:35:42.343" UserId="134" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each of the following pairs exposes semantic differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: the first phrase defines action confined in space (one can walk in a smaller part of the forest), the second one defining a scattered action (within the limits of the named enclosure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is more clear if we consider a spatially anisotropic object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * идти на улице / идти по улице&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * плыть на реке / плыть по реке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may (or may not) suggest that you cross the street or the river, the second sentence strictly assumes that you move along the street or the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this may stress rhematic role of the object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил в Испании* // While being in Spain, I walked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил по Испании* // I walked all over Spain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="71fb97ca-421e-4685-8a95-00cd3b2331ed" CreationDate="2012-09-28T16:52:05.113" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each of the following pairs exposes semantic differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: the first phrase defines action confined in space (one can walk in a smaller part of the forest), the second one defining a scattered action (within the limits of the named enclosure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is more clear if we consider a spatially anisotropic object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * идти на улице / идти по улице&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * плыть на реке / плыть по реке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may (or may not) suggest that you cross the street or the river, the second sentence strictly assumes that you move along the street or the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this may stress rhematic role of the object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил в Испании* // While being in Spain, I walked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил по Испании* // I walked over Spain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="cea993ec-3ce2-44da-b0ae-dc90452a5f81" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:03:31.687" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each of the following pairs exposes semantic differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: the first phrase defines action confined in space (one can walk in a smaller part of the forest), the second one defining a scattered action (within the limits of the named enclosure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is more clear if we consider a spatially anisotropic object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * идти на улице / идти по улице&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * плыть на реке / плыть по реке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may (or may not) suggest that you cross the street or the river, the second sentence strictly assumes that you move along the street or the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, which is more important, is that *по* unequivocally makes the noun the direct object of the verb, while *в / на* may imply an adverbial clause *будучи*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил (будучи) в Испании* // While being in Spain, I walked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Я ходил по Испании* // I walked over Spain&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="fd2eb307-cdb5-43ad-bc0d-664c487242da" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:41:37.120" UserId="426" Text="The two meanings are very close, with the &quot;по&quot; hinting at the randomness of the running, while the &quot;в&quot; stressing the location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translations of the two phrases to English would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kids are running inside the store. (&quot;в магазине&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kids are running around the store. (&quot;по магазину&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="7973a553-cae0-4c8c-b232-402a73cc80d4" CreationDate="2012-09-28T19:19:44.680" UserId="134" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 199.3*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смысловые различия находим внутри каждой из приводимых ниже пар:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: первое сочетание обозначает действие ограниченное (гулять можно на небольшом участке леса), а второе – действие разбросанное (в пределах названного пространства);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each of the following pairs exposes semantic differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *гулять в лесу – гулять по лесу*: the first phrase defines action confined in space (one can walk in a smaller part of the forest), the second one defining a scattered action (within the limits of the named enclosure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is more clear if we consider a spatially anisotropic object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * идти на улице / идти по улице&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * плыть на реке / плыть по реке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may (or may not) suggest that you cross the street or the river, the second sentence strictly assumes that you move along the street or the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, which is more important, is that *по* unequivocally makes the noun the direct object of the verb, while *в / на* may imply an adverbial clause *будучи*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Спортсмены бегают в зале* // The sportsmen are running in the gym&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Спортсмены бегают по залу* // The sportsmen are running over the gym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence may imply that they are, say, running on the treadmills, *while being* in the gym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence cannot have this meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="49d75be9-207a-4f1e-8ae5-2128093948d9" CreationDate="2012-09-29T00:03:44.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/251834608834994176" />
  <row Id="3219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="d35c2d7a-f5b5-44cb-8452-907f560a4e0e" CreationDate="2012-09-30T03:27:53.087" UserId="194" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="Recently I learned that there is a special form of verbs in German, called &quot;inflective&quot;, which emerged in German language just recently (less than 60 years ago), and that they sometimes grupped with interjections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was told that a similar form exists in Russian as well. Is it true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inflective - Noun - Verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прыг - прыжок - прыгать&#xD;&#xA;    скок - скачок - скакать&#xD;&#xA;    хлоп - хлопок - хлопать&#xD;&#xA;    шлёп - шлепок - шлёпать&#xD;&#xA;    кувырк - кувырок - кувыркать&#xD;&#xA;    цап - (no form) - цапать&#xD;&#xA;    царап - (no form) - царапать&#xD;&#xA;    тук - (no form) - тукать&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;I wonder what other words can be added to expand this list?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added as a result of the dicussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    хвать - хваток - хватать&#xD;&#xA;    глядь - взгляд - глядеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I looked up &quot;кувырк&quot; in a [dictionary][1] and it describes this word as either predicative (another part of speech) or interjection. There are no examples, so I wonder how to determine whether we are facing the first or the letter. Intuitively predicative (or predicative adverb) would be in phrase like &quot;мне кувырк&quot;, although this sounds unnatural, and inflective (or inflective interjection) would be in phrase like &quot;он кувырк, и убежал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** It has been pointed to me that some of these forms &quot;хвать&quot;, &quot;глядь&quot; are actually contractions of second person verbs. This process can be seen in phrases like &quot;а он возьми да и прыгни&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/179410/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="7fc8e677-a3ba-4d2a-bd46-fb219292af76" CreationDate="2012-09-30T03:42:02.933" UserId="194" Text="I wonder how this usage of 2nd person verbs for3rd person is called? Are these words still remain verbs or become [inflective interjections][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А он возьми да и прыгни.&#xD;&#xA;    Отвязав мешок, уронил его на землю, а он как завопи.&#xD;&#xA;    Я и чуть расслабился - а зря, на светофоре это чудо вдруг как прыгни назад!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this is a special grammatical voice, similar to &quot;сообрази он вовремя...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/983/are-there-inflectives-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="7fc8e677-a3ba-4d2a-bd46-fb219292af76" CreationDate="2012-09-30T03:42:02.933" UserId="194" Text="Why 2nd person verb form is used for 3rd person here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="7fc8e677-a3ba-4d2a-bd46-fb219292af76" CreationDate="2012-09-30T03:42:02.933" UserId="194" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="ce3619bd-fcc4-443d-84ec-d1c2f9a2dab0" CreationDate="2012-09-30T03:47:20.717" UserId="194" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="I wonder how this usage of 2nd person verbs for3rd person is called? Are these words still remain verbs or become [inflective interjections][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А он возьми да и прыгни.&#xD;&#xA;    Отвязав мешок, уронил его на землю, а он как завопи.&#xD;&#xA;    Григорян, вот он, засуетился, затрясся, потом как завопи, угрожая мне выдворением...&#xD;&#xA;    Я и чуть расслабился - а зря, на светофоре это чудо вдруг как прыгни назад!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this is a special grammatical voice, similar to &quot;сообрази он вовремя...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/983/are-there-inflectives-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="087a5ee3-44a5-4a58-8e21-6341d44c79a6" CreationDate="2012-09-30T04:26:12.973" UserId="194" Text="I think that you can use both preposition &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; with prepositional case while locative may mandate using &quot;во&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мыши **во** льну гнездо совьют (Locative, you cannot use &quot;в&quot; here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** льне много целлюлозы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** сне я видел родной дом (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** сне много пользы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я находился **во** внушении (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* дело не **в/во** внушении (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гулять **во** дворе (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* жить **в/во** дворе без газона (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that preposition &quot;в&quot; can be used instead of &quot;во&quot; in ambiguous situations to empathize that the prepositional case is used rather than locative. Note that with some words you can only use &quot;в&quot; in any case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="72ac0e00-a7bf-47d0-afbc-f25fc0824dcb" CreationDate="2012-09-30T04:39:39.207" UserId="194" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="I think that you can use both preposition &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; with prepositional case while locative may mandate using &quot;во&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мыши **во** льну гнездо совьют (Locative, you cannot use &quot;в&quot; here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** льне много целлюлозы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** сне я видел родной дом (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** сне много пользы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я находился **во** внушении (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* дело не **в/во** внушении (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* этот участок - **во** владении государства (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** владении радоактивными материалами нет никакой опасности (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гулять **во** дворе (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* жить **в/во** дворе без газона (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** рту много зубов (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** (этом) рте она видела черты отца (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that preposition &quot;в&quot; can be used instead of &quot;во&quot; in ambiguous situations to empathize that the prepositional case is used rather than locative. Note that with some words you can only use &quot;в&quot; in any case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="19af710b-61db-4710-a823-de056e1ea454" CreationDate="2012-09-30T04:47:23.697" UserId="194" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="I think that you can use both preposition &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; with prepositional case while locative may mandate using &quot;во&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мыши **во** льну гнездо совьют (Locative, you cannot use &quot;в&quot; here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** льне много целлюлозы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** сне я видел родной дом (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** сне много пользы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я находился **во** внушении (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* дело не **в/во** внушении (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* этот участок - **во** владении государства (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** владении радоактивными материалами нет никакой опасности (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гулять **во** дворе (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* жить **в/во** дворе без газона (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** рту много зубов (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в** (этом) рте она видела черты отца (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** главе страны стоит надежный человек (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в** главе государства пробудилась жалось (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that preposition &quot;в&quot; can be used instead of &quot;во&quot; in ambiguous situations to empathize that the prepositional case is used rather than locative. Note that with some words you can only use &quot;в&quot; in any case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="1d9db599-91d9-47b0-b335-6b8d22070d34" CreationDate="2012-09-30T07:14:43.493" UserId="134" Text="It's a such called *прошедшее время мгновенно-произвольного действия*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vinogradov, *Русский язык*, § 50:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другая форма прошедшего времени, еще живая в стилях разговорной речи, но обычно не выделяемая грамматиками русского языка (за исключением синтаксиса А. А. Шахматова), относится к категории совершенного вида. Она не имеет ни родовых, ни числовых различий. Лица обозначаются аналитически — местоименными префиксами или в 3-м лице — также существительными. Эта форма прошедшего времени очень экспрессивна и по внешнему облику совпадает с формой повелительного наклонения единственного числа глаголов совершенного вида, но отличается от императивной формы особой интонацией неожиданности, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тот-то на старости лет да польстись на его богатства *(Островский, &quot;Бедность не порок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я шутить ведь не умею и вскочи ему на шею *(Ершов, &quot;Конек-Горбунок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another perfective past tense form still lives in colloquial speech but is not usually separated by Russian language grammatists (except Shakhmatov's studies). It varies neither in gender not number. Person is expressed analytically (through pronominal prefixes) or, for the third persons, also through nouns. This very expressive form is identical in appearance to present perfective imperative but unlike the latter conveys the meaning of suddenness. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тот-то на старости лет да польстись на его богатства *(Островский, &quot;Бедность не порок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я шутить ведь не умею и вскочи ему на шею *(Ершов, &quot;Конек-Горбунок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shakhmatov argued that both this form and verbial interjectives you mentioned in the other question have taken the function of old Slavic aorist (now extinct in Russian), being close to it phonetically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="2cb72ab6-b2f0-4ab3-9d61-76797b19f681" CreationDate="2012-09-30T09:02:17.503" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="It's a such called *прошедшее время мгновенно-произвольного действия*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vinogradov, *Русский язык*, § 50:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другая форма прошедшего времени, еще живая в стилях разговорной речи, но обычно не выделяемая грамматиками русского языка (за исключением синтаксиса А. А. Шахматова), относится к категории совершенного вида. Она не имеет ни родовых, ни числовых различий. Лица обозначаются аналитически — местоименными префиксами или в 3-м лице — также существительными. Эта форма прошедшего времени очень экспрессивна и по внешнему облику совпадает с формой повелительного наклонения единственного числа глаголов совершенного вида, но отличается от императивной формы особой интонацией неожиданности, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тот-то на старости лет да польстись на его богатства *(Островский, &quot;Бедность не порок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я шутить ведь не умею и вскочи ему на шею *(Ершов, &quot;Конек-Горбунок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another perfective past tense form still lives in colloquial speech but is not usually separated by Russian language grammatists (except Shakhmatov's studies). It varies neither in gender nor number. Person is expressed analytically (through pronominal prefixes) or, for the third persons, also through nouns. This very expressive form is identical in appearance to singular perfective imperative but unlike the latter conveys the meaning of suddenness. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тот-то на старости лет да польстись на его богатства *(Островский, &quot;Бедность не порок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я шутить ведь не умею и вскочи ему на шею *(Ершов, &quot;Конек-Горбунок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shakhmatov argued that both this form and verbial interjectives you mentioned in the other question have taken the function of old Slavic aorist (now extinct in Russian), being close to it phonetically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="a788a588-a501-4777-8955-a8eede8102fa" CreationDate="2012-09-30T09:51:16.783" UserId="170" Comment="added 610 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;дети бегают по магазину&quot; and &quot;дети бегают в магазине&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;If you are about to provide some examples in your answers, please, observe the following requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  consider only those examples that contain a motion verb (like прыгают, танцуют, летают, etc. - not the verbs like думают, мечтают, находятся, etc.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  avoid using unidirectional verbs (like бегут, плывут, летят, едут, несутся, etc.), use their multidirectional counterparts instead (бегают, плавают, летают, ездят, носятся, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. the noun following the proposition &quot;в&quot; should be in the propositional case (&quot;ходим в *магазине*&quot;, not in the accusative case (&quot;сходим в *магазин*&quot;)     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="add6f041-5fc3-44e0-8fd4-2c4fce911adb" CreationDate="2012-09-30T09:55:52.410" UserId="170" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="What's the semantic difference between verbs in column A and their counterparts in column B? Is there any term (in Russian) describing the verbs in A and the verbs in B? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А                B&#xD;&#xA;    пл'ыть	     пл'авать&#xD;&#xA;    идт'и	     xод'ить&#xD;&#xA;    беж'ать	     б'егать&#xD;&#xA;    лет'еть	     лет'ать&#xD;&#xA;    'еxать	     'ездить&#xD;&#xA;    попл'ыл	     запл'авал&#xD;&#xA;    пош'ёл	     заxод'ил&#xD;&#xA;    побеж'ал	 заб'егал&#xD;&#xA;    полет'ел	 залет'ал&#xD;&#xA;    по'еxал	     за'ездил&#xD;&#xA;    пропл'ыть	 попл'авать&#xD;&#xA;    пройт'ись    поxод'ить&#xD;&#xA;    пробеж'аться поб'егать&#xD;&#xA;    пролет'еть	 полет'ать&#xD;&#xA;    про'еxаться  по'ездить&#xD;&#xA;    нест'ись     нос'иться&#xD;&#xA;    пронест'ись  понос'иться&#xD;&#xA;    ползт'и      п'олзать&#xD;&#xA;    прополз'ти   поп'олзать&#xD;&#xA;    поползт'и    зап'олзать 	" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="50158be3-19ce-436a-8e7d-cc64eabce631" CreationDate="2012-09-30T13:05:07.310" UserId="47" Comment="Minor English correction." Text="It's the so called *прошедшее время мгновенно-произвольного действия*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vinogradov, *Русский язык*, § 50:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другая форма прошедшего времени, еще живая в стилях разговорной речи, но обычно не выделяемая грамматиками русского языка (за исключением синтаксиса А. А. Шахматова), относится к категории совершенного вида. Она не имеет ни родовых, ни числовых различий. Лица обозначаются аналитически — местоименными префиксами или в 3-м лице — также существительными. Эта форма прошедшего времени очень экспрессивна и по внешнему облику совпадает с формой повелительного наклонения единственного числа глаголов совершенного вида, но отличается от императивной формы особой интонацией неожиданности, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тот-то на старости лет да польстись на его богатства *(Островский, &quot;Бедность не порок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я шутить ведь не умею и вскочи ему на шею *(Ершов, &quot;Конек-Горбунок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another perfective past tense form still lives in colloquial speech but is not usually separated by Russian language grammatists (except Shakhmatov's studies). It varies neither in gender nor number. Person is expressed analytically (through pronominal prefixes) or, for the third persons, also through nouns. This very expressive form is identical in appearance to singular perfective imperative but unlike the latter conveys the meaning of suddenness. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тот-то на старости лет да польстись на его богатства *(Островский, &quot;Бедность не порок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я шутить ведь не умею и вскочи ему на шею *(Ершов, &quot;Конек-Горбунок&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shakhmatov argued that both this form and verbial interjectives you mentioned in the other question have taken the function of old Slavic aorist (now extinct in Russian), being close to it phonetically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="ab0e508d-85a0-4669-a7c3-ffa88fbee768" CreationDate="2012-09-30T13:18:49.310" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I wonder how this usage of 2nd person verbs for 3rd person is called? Are these words still remain verbs or become [inflective interjections][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А он возьми да и прыгни.&#xD;&#xA;    Отвязав мешок, уронил его на землю, а он как завопи.&#xD;&#xA;    Григорян, вот он, засуетился, затрясся, потом как завопи, угрожая мне выдворением...&#xD;&#xA;    Я и чуть расслабился - а зря, на светофоре это чудо вдруг как прыгни назад!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this is a special grammatical voice, similar to &quot;сообрази он вовремя...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/983/are-there-inflectives-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3234" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="38984644-fa89-4ca9-bea2-20d9834feb6a" CreationDate="2012-09-30T13:49:53.650" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="1a6eddd9-6801-4e4b-b2e5-ab2f4ec20ddc" CreationDate="2012-09-30T14:28:29.880" UserId="170" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;дети бегают по магазину&quot; and &quot;дети бегают в магазине&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;If you are about to provide some examples in your answers, please, observe the following requests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  consider only those examples that contain a motion verb (like прыгают, танцуют, летают, etc. - not the verbs like думают, мечтают, находятся, etc.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  avoid using unidirectional verbs (like бегут, плывут, летят, едут, несутся, etc.), use their multidirectional counterparts instead (бегают, плавают, летают, ездят, носятся, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. the noun following the proposition &quot;в&quot; should be in the propositional case (&quot;ходим в *магазине*&quot;), not in the accusative case (&quot;сходим в *магазин*&quot;)     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="673220d2-7695-4fe4-9895-39a32a328cb3" CreationDate="2012-09-30T15:00:53.460" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I wonder how this usage of 2nd person verbs for 3rd person is called? Are these words still remain verbs or become [inflective interjections][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* А он возьми да и прыгни.&#xD;&#xA;* Отвязав мешок, уронил его на землю, а он как завопи.&#xD;&#xA;* Григорян, вот он, засуетился, затрясся, потом как завопи, угрожая мне выдворением...&#xD;&#xA;* Я и чуть расслабился - а зря, на светофоре это чудо вдруг как прыгни назад!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this is a special grammatical voice, similar to &quot;сообрази он вовремя...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/983/are-there-inflectives-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="872935e2-a75b-4785-adf5-4b1f0ddd360e" CreationDate="2012-09-30T15:24:31.723" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I think that you can use both preposition &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; with prepositional case while locative may mandate using &quot;во&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мыши **во** льну гнездо совьют (Locative, you cannot use &quot;в&quot; here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** льне много целлюлозы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** сне я видел родной дом (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** сне много пользы (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я находился **во** внушении (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* дело не **в/во** внушении (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* этот участок - **во** владении государства (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в/во** владении радоактивными материалами нет никакой опасности (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гулять **во** дворе (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* жить **в** дворе без газона (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** рту много зубов (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в** (этом) рте она видела черты отца (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **во** главе страны стоит надежный человек (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **в** главе государства пробудилась жалось (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that preposition &quot;в&quot; can be used instead of &quot;во&quot; in ambiguous situations to empathize that the prepositional case is used rather than locative. Note that with some words you can only use &quot;в&quot; in any case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="082e5525-6416-49ee-9100-e4364aae9a63" CreationDate="2012-10-01T18:03:44.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/252831174802677760" />
  <row Id="3239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="11c8ad29-4a8a-4ffd-8e70-089ffb6f7cae" CreationDate="2012-10-02T20:21:15.827" UserId="19" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Газета.ру][2], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Известия.ру][1], Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Лента.ру][4], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][3], Russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://izvestia.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gazeta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.pravda.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lenta.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="b552f13e-31b8-404d-bcb3-b6731274c599" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:42:35.477" UserId="62" Text="Although запятая is a noun, its endings make it look like an adjective, so I presume that there is some implicit noun that запятая is modifying without ever being explicitly used (similar to столовая = столовая комната and кривая = кривая линия). What is that noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="b552f13e-31b8-404d-bcb3-b6731274c599" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:42:35.477" UserId="62" Text="what implicit noun does запятая modify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="b552f13e-31b8-404d-bcb3-b6731274c599" CreationDate="2012-10-03T04:42:35.477" UserId="62" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="630f9a9a-97ff-47fc-a319-2f7d418eb6f2" CreationDate="2012-10-03T08:08:08.747" UserId="97" Text="Word _запятая_ is derived from verb _запинаться_ as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запинаться-(запинать)-(запять)-(запятОй*)-запятая&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Note that the words in parentheses do not exist in the modern Russian language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is closer to an adverb rather than an adjective.  There is no implicit noun in this case, at least in the modern Russian language.  I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="82d98c34-4a62-43e1-acbb-f45a31e01a4b" CreationDate="2012-10-03T08:13:21.907" UserId="97" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Word _запятая_ is derived from verb _запинаться_ as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запинаться-(запинать)-(запять)-(запятОй*)-запятая&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Note that the words in parentheses do not exist in the modern Russian language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is closer to an adverb rather than an adjective.  There is no implicit noun in this case, at least in the modern Russian language.  I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a discussion about the origin of word _запятая_ at [gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/forum/veche/53671/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="59c85f55-ae79-43a5-aca4-a6a33f46bf15" CreationDate="2012-10-03T08:19:21.430" UserId="97" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Word _запятая_ is derived from verb _запинаться_ as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запинаться-(запинать)-(запять)-(запятОй*)-запятая&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Note that the words in parentheses do not exist in the modern Russian language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is closer to an adverb rather than an adjective.  There is no implicit noun in this case, at least in the modern Russian language.  I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a discussion about the etymology of word _запятая_ at [gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/forum/veche/53671/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="34ad3125-b185-4959-a356-e16c0e81fc69" CreationDate="2012-10-03T08:46:31.193" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="Word _запятая_ is derived from verb _запинаться_ as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запинаться-(запинать)-(запять)-(запятóй*)-запятая&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Note that the words in parentheses do not exist in the modern Russian language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, it is closer to an adverb rather than an adjective.  There is no implicit noun in this case, at least in the modern Russian language.  I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a discussion about the etymology of word _запятая_ at [gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/forum/veche/53671/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="af00c3a1-4e2f-41ef-845a-4de02c6b0acb" CreationDate="2012-10-03T08:48:22.137" UserId="134" Text="It's a nominalized adjective (similar to forms *мороженое, жаркое* etc.) derived from the CS word *запѧти* (to stop). So *запятая* means &quot;stopped&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian word *препинание* (as in *знаки препинания*, &quot;punctuation&quot;) derives from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike most CS and Russian linguistic terms, it's not a calque from a Latin or Greek term, which means it appeared very early. Zizany and Smotritsky both mention it in their grammars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="eb68ce1e-d09f-40fe-aa3b-2e45fbbe2252" CreationDate="2012-10-03T08:57:00.447" UserId="134" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="It's a nominalized adjective (similar to forms *мороженое, жаркое* etc.) derived from the CS word *запѧти* (to stop). So *запятая* means &quot;stopped&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most probably, it modified the word *боукы* (*буква* in modern Russian, meaning &quot;letter&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian word *препинание* (as in *знаки препинания*, &quot;punctuation&quot;) derives from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike most CS and Russian linguistic terms, it's not a calque from a Latin or Greek term, which means it appeared very early. Zizany and Smotritsky both mention it in their grammars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="e009e477-9e62-4a3c-9fdf-ab37e1c8c978" CreationDate="2012-10-03T09:22:09.957" UserId="134" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="It's a nominalized adjective (similar to forms *мороженое, жаркое* etc.) derived from the CS word *запѧти* (to stop). So *запятая* means &quot;stopped&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most probably, it modified the word *боукы* (*буква* in modern Russian, meaning &quot;letter&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian word *препинание* (as in *знаки препинания*, &quot;punctuation&quot;) derives from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike most CS and Russian linguistic terms, it's not a calque from a Latin or Greek term, which means the term appeared very early (late XV or early XVI). Zizany and Smotritsky both mention it in their grammars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3250" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="52bd75c9-e677-4b5d-8c7b-3e7dda607170" CreationDate="2012-10-03T11:20:30.340" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="What implicit noun does запятая modify?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3251" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="14349e5f-73d4-4071-926a-b2a70c9c86f9" CreationDate="2012-10-04T09:03:44.640" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/253782445571338241" />
  <row Id="3252" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="07d8d702-77df-4192-9171-8f6bd98ca302" CreationDate="2012-10-04T10:18:36.313" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="e8521239-9f47-4dbe-bee1-49e455587bf2" CreationDate="2012-10-05T17:22:38.840" UserId="487" Text="Suppose one wishes to quote a Russian text, say, the following well-known one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Наука же говорит: возлюби, прежде всех, одного себя, ибо все на свете на личном интересе основано&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Which way of the following (if any) would be correct to quote the author and work?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    От романа &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    или&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Из романа &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Now, the title of the novel is in genitive, as far as I know. Should&#xD;&#xA;    I change the endings even though, perhaps, the title should be&#xD;&#xA;    conserved original?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. What about the correctness of the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Из/От &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Из/От &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского, мой любимый роман&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="e8521239-9f47-4dbe-bee1-49e455587bf2" CreationDate="2012-10-05T17:22:38.840" UserId="487" Text="Preposition to quote: из or от (or none of them)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="e8521239-9f47-4dbe-bee1-49e455587bf2" CreationDate="2012-10-05T17:22:38.840" UserId="487" Text="|падежи|родительный-падеж|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="a317b0f7-b8ad-4a6a-994b-465dd8b0c191" CreationDate="2012-10-05T17:29:10.580" UserId="487" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Suppose one wishes to quote a Russian text, say, the following well-known one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Наука же говорит: возлюби, прежде всех, одного себя, ибо все на свете на личном интересе основано&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Which way of the following (if any) would be correct to quote the author and work?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    От романа &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    или&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Из романа &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Now, the title of the novel is in genitive, as far as I know. Should&#xD;&#xA;    I change the endings even though, perhaps, the title should be&#xD;&#xA;    conserved original?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. What about the correctness of the following sentences: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Из/От &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Из/От &lt;&lt;Преступление и наказаниe&gt;&gt; Ф.Достоевского, мой любимый роман&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions are appreciated. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="6a9582b7-b021-441b-817a-94ed75ee12d8" CreationDate="2012-10-05T17:30:40.423" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="Suppose one wishes to quote a Russian text, say, the following well-known one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Наука же говорит: возлюби, прежде всех, одного себя, ибо все на свете на личном интересе основано»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which way of the following (if any) would be correct to quote the author and work?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A**. От романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В**. Из романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the title of the novel is in genitive, as far as I know. Should I change the endings even though, perhaps, the title should be conserved original? What about the correctness of the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **C**. Из/От «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **D**. Из/От «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского, мой любимый роман.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="53b8bd7e-17ee-4354-8d96-772d338b7318" CreationDate="2012-10-05T17:50:42.820" UserId="242" Comment="removing redundant question" Text="In Russian &quot;разбор полётов&quot; means an ex post facto analysis of some event, which most likely had dramatic consequences or lead to failure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Дмитрий Медведев обещал провести разбор полетов в космической отрасли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, in this context, разбор полётов have an additional connotation, due to mentioning aerospace industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I know about this idiom, that is has been indeed used by aviators, but can one provide an information on why and when exactly this very phrase become a common and well known idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Here are some hints that can help you provide a valuable answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When exactly this flight analysis had existed (since I can hardly believe that each flight is analyzed nowadays), in 20-s, in 30-s in 40-s?&#xD;&#xA; - When and how it became a well-known idiom. Has it  been used first, say in newspapers or, may be, in some popular TV series?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="d71948b3-a1bc-406f-94f6-9b94c0d6936c" CreationDate="2012-10-05T18:04:32.530" UserId="97" Text="В данном случае (в приведенных цитатах), правильно использовать _из_. In general, you should use preposition _из_ when referring to a particular piece of literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Из_ романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского.&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Из_ «Преступления и наказания» Ф.Достоевского, мой любимый роман&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the second quote the title of the novel should also be in genitive, and the endings should change accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use preposition _по_ when referring to an author without mentioning specific literary piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _По_ Ф. Достоевскому, что-то всегда происходит...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Similarly) _По_ народным приметам, птицы летают низко перед дождем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preposition _от_ in such context is used very rarely.  It is sometimes used when there are multiple source of the same/similar piece and you need to refer to a specific author, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евангелие _от_ Матфея&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="5e9d5c09-d429-4a57-ad23-0e5f8732892d" CreationDate="2012-10-05T19:57:57.313" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Suppose one wishes to quote a Russian text, say, the following well-known one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Наука же говорит: возлюби, прежде всех, одного себя, ибо все на свете на личном интересе основано»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which way of the following (if any) would be correct to quote the author and work?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A**. От романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф. Достоевского.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В**. Из романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф. Достоевского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the title of the novel is in genitive, as far as I know. Should I change the endings even though, perhaps, the title should be conserved original? What about the correctness of the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **C**. Из/От «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **D**. Из/От «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф. Достоевского, мой любимый роман.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="4a599a1d-b766-4b7f-ba65-c57d8866d88f" CreationDate="2012-10-05T21:29:21.233" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="In the above quotes, the correct preposition to use is _из_. In general, you should use preposition _из_ when referring to a particular piece of literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Из_ романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского.&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Из_ «Преступления и наказания» Ф.Достоевского, мой любимый роман&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the second quote the title of the novel should also be in genitive, and the endings should change accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use preposition _по_ when referring to an author without mentioning specific literary piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _По_ Ф. Достоевскому, что-то всегда происходит...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Similarly) _По_ народным приметам, птицы летают низко перед дождем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preposition _от_ in such context is used very rarely.  It is sometimes used when there are multiple source of the same/similar piece and you need to refer to a specific author, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евангелие _от_ Матфея&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="1ef0bc4d-807d-4302-9be2-29f11a803e37" CreationDate="2012-10-06T09:55:37.490" UserId="488" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2], online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="d6d21d1a-f480-4444-81e1-e3c9844dd5fe" CreationDate="2012-10-07T12:55:25.733" UserId="337" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="I'm reading Kharms (again). And a friend of mine warned me that some of the names Kharms uses may actually have some meaning that are lost in translation (like in the example of Mr. Joker, Ms. Cow, Mr. Mouse, Mr. Cat, Mr. Flatulent, etc.) which adds another dimension to the stories. I extracted some of the names in the stories. I need help figuring out if these names imply something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Petrov&#xD;&#xA; - Kamarov&#xD;&#xA; - Makarov&#xD;&#xA; - Petersen&#xD;&#xA; - Petrakov-Gorbunov&#xD;&#xA; - Pritikin&#xD;&#xA; - Serpuhov&#xD;&#xA; - Kurova&#xD;&#xA; - Koratigin&#xD;&#xA; - Tikakeev&#xD;&#xA; - Mashkin&#xD;&#xA; - Koshkin&#xD;&#xA; - Oknov&#xD;&#xA; - Kozlov&#xD;&#xA; - Stryuchkov&#xD;&#xA; - Motylkov&#xD;&#xA; - Susanin&#xD;&#xA; - Pakin&#xD;&#xA; - Rakukin&#xD;&#xA; - Olga Petrovna&#xD;&#xA; - Evdokim Osipovich&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I have compared two different translations, and noticed that in one of the translations (Matvei Yankelevich) some of the names were translated as Catov, Mosquitov, etc. But since I didn't see the same in the other translation (Neil Cornwell), I wanted to make sure that the translation is accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="d7727fb3-6ddd-49ed-b658-78aaafde4e42" CreationDate="2012-10-07T13:52:46.163" UserId="337" Text="This is a follow up to [this question][0].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Daniil Kharms short story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПЕТРОВ И КАМАРОВ&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ПЕТРОВ:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Эй, Камаров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Давай ловить комаров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**КАМАРОВ:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Нет, я к этому еще не готов.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Давай лучше ловить котов!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here since Petrov is teasing Kamarov, I expect, the `котов` (cats, tomcats?) Kamarov's answer to be somehow related to `Петров`. But I'm not able to find any relation in between (I cannot read Russian at all, I'm simply using some translation tools and dictionaries to dig the meanings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain if there is an implied relation between the two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/819/do-these-surnames-imply-anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="d7727fb3-6ddd-49ed-b658-78aaafde4e42" CreationDate="2012-10-07T13:52:46.163" UserId="337" Text="котов and Петров" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="d7727fb3-6ddd-49ed-b658-78aaafde4e42" CreationDate="2012-10-07T13:52:46.163" UserId="337" Text="|этимология|значения|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="57cb3cea-ff5e-46c1-8a80-20833f97444b" CreationDate="2012-10-07T14:11:13.113" UserId="426" Text="The `котов` is related to `готов`, not to `Петров`. The sounds produced by `г` and `к` are close to each other (that's a pair of voiced and unvoiced consonants), so the words sound similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="d35f3abd-c075-47b5-bfa9-2573f0af89fd" CreationDate="2012-10-07T14:27:27.600" UserId="337" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is a follow up to [this question][0].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Daniil Kharms short story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _ПЕТРОВ И КАМАРОВ_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ПЕТРОВ:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Эй, Камаров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Давай ловить комаров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**КАМАРОВ:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Нет, я к этому еще не готов.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Давай лучше ловить котов!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here since Petrov is teasing Kamarov, I expect, the `котов` (cats, tomcats?) Kamarov's answer to be somehow related to `Петров`. But I'm not able to find any relation in between (I cannot read Russian at all, I'm simply using some translation tools and dictionaries to dig the meanings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain if there is an implied relation between the two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/819/do-these-surnames-imply-anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="67b870ad-bfff-452d-a674-85a5de917c4e" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:44:13.410" UserId="487" Text="This question arises from atangential discussion in this one: &lt;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/999/preposition-to-quote-%D0%B8%D0%B7-or-%D0%BE%D1%82-or-none-of-them&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the punctuation (comma, dash, brackets...), when does a subordinate clause acquires the same case of the noun it is refeering to? To get a more concrete idea, take as example some comments by @Yuri and @Quassnoi in the question above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand if one uses brackets in the following sentece, the subordinate *мой любимый роман* stays in nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, instead, one uses a comma, the genitive is acquired by the subordinate sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: I was told, sometimes in Russian writing a dash, has the effect of an equal sign. How does these sentences look like if I use `-`? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="67b870ad-bfff-452d-a674-85a5de917c4e" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:44:13.410" UserId="487" Text="Inheriting cases/declension on subordinate clauses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="67b870ad-bfff-452d-a674-85a5de917c4e" CreationDate="2012-10-07T20:44:13.410" UserId="487" Text="|грамматика|падежи|пунктуация|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="ba3e355e-a33a-4c26-9837-d5fbc94dd482" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:24:38.977" UserId="487" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="This question arises from a tangential discussion in this one: &lt;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/999/preposition-to-quote-%D0%B8%D0%B7-or-%D0%BE%D1%82-or-none-of-them&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the punctuation (comma, dash, brackets...), when does a subordinate clause acquires the same case of the noun it is refeering to? To get a more concrete idea, take as example some comments by @Yuri and @Quassnoi in the question above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand if one uses brackets in the following sentece, the subordinate *мой любимый роман* stays in nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, instead, one uses a comma, the genitive is acquired by the subordinate sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: I was told, sometimes in Russian writing a dash, has the effect of an equal sign. How does these sentences look like if I use `-`? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="95ffbc9d-48ca-4129-8697-cb69c4f65bd3" CreationDate="2012-10-07T21:51:20.060" UserId="134" Text="These sentences use different rhetorical figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is [parenthesis][1] (*парентеза*), or, being more exact, a kataploke (parenthesized exclamation). It's not connected grammatically to the main sentence and may be expressed as two independent sentences: *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского. Это мой любимый роман.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is an [apposition][2] (*приложение*). It's grammatically connected to the main sentence, and, hence, inherits the case of the noun it defines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthesis_%28rhetoric%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="4ca495fa-6344-41f6-ae19-6973700ca534" CreationDate="2012-10-08T07:56:47.457" UserId="134" Comment="added 675 characters in body" Text="These sentences use different rhetorical figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is [parenthesis][1] (*парентеза*), or, being more exact, a kataploke (parenthesized exclamation). It's not connected grammatically to the main sentence and may be expressed as two independent sentences: *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского. Это мой любимый роман.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one unequivocally requires parenteses, written with a dash, it would be ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is an [apposition][2] (*приложение*). It's grammatically connected to the main sentence, and, hence, inherits the case of the noun it defines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one may be isolated with parenteses, comma or an em-dash (*тире*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comma is the most preferable way to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parentesis could be used to if you intend to make the clause to sound like a remark to a third person which, unlike the fist case, does not interrupt the flow of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An em-dash could be used if you intend to make a long pause. Also, it would be the correct punctuation mark if something else follows the clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского — моего любимого романа — мы сможем узнать у судьбах Раскольникова и Свидригайлова*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthesis_%28rhetoric%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="b06327c8-c592-4456-ab61-205842f5009b" CreationDate="2012-10-08T08:02:40.573" UserId="134" Comment="added 675 characters in body" Text="These sentences use different rhetorical figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is [parenthesis][1] (*парентеза*), or, being more exact, a kataploke (parenthesized exclamation). It's not connected grammatically to the main sentence and may be expressed as two independent sentences: *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского. Это мой любимый роман.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one unequivocally requires parenteses, written with a dash, it would be ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is an [apposition][2] (*приложение*). It's grammatically connected to the main sentence, and, hence, inherits the case of the noun it defines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one may be isolated (in order from least to most parenthetical) with a comma, em-dash (*тире*) or parentheses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comma is the most preferable way to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An em-dash could be used if you intend to make a long pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parentesis could be used to if you intend to make the clause to sound like a remark to a third person which, unlike the fist case, does not interrupt the flow of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthesis_%28rhetoric%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="07bd6187-6f7e-4b28-b114-404b546b31ed" CreationDate="2012-10-08T08:49:18.393" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="These sentences use different rhetorical figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is [parenthesis][1] (*парентеза*), or, being more exact, a kataploke (parenthesized exclamation). It's not connected grammatically to the main sentence and may be expressed as two independent sentences: *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского. Это мой любимый роман.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one unequivocally requires parentheses, written with a dash, it would be ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is an [apposition][2] (*приложение*). It's grammatically connected to the main sentence, and, hence, inherits the case of the noun it defines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one may be isolated (in order from least to most parenthetical) with a comma, em-dash (*тире*) or parentheses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comma is the most preferable way to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An em-dash could be used if you intend to make a long pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parentheses could be used to if you intend to make the clause to sound like a remark to a third person which, unlike the fist case, does not interrupt the flow of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthesis_%28rhetoric%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="d827fbb3-d85b-4680-9cd1-5c8b56c4ff59" CreationDate="2012-10-08T16:51:01.570" UserId="185" Text="I wonder what do constructions like &quot;иди работай&quot; mean? What is the kind of situation that one has in mind when one says it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, **is there any difference in meaning or usage between these three cases?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Иди работай!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Иди работать!&#xD;&#xA; 3. Иди и работай!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to understand, whether 2. or 3. is closer to 1. In other words, is 1. the result of omitting the conjunction or is it some kind of unusual construction in the Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="d827fbb3-d85b-4680-9cd1-5c8b56c4ff59" CreationDate="2012-10-08T16:51:01.570" UserId="185" Text="&quot;иди работай&quot; vs. &quot;иди работать&quot; vs. &quot;иди и работай&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="d827fbb3-d85b-4680-9cd1-5c8b56c4ff59" CreationDate="2012-10-08T16:51:01.570" UserId="185" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3280" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="43de5557-ab21-415b-bcf4-3c7c173f0467" CreationDate="2012-10-08T19:17:58.313" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Inheriting cases/declension on appositions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="92a4655e-9877-469f-9074-4154e5493e7e" CreationDate="2012-10-08T21:46:13.473" UserId="492" Text="I am anxious to learn Russian. I am curious if is there is a popular textbook for student who are learning introduction to Russian ? What is the most popular method to learn it ? I am starting to learn a little bit about their Alphabet and their meaning. I took geography of the former Soviet Union when I was in college and learn about their geography relationship to the former country that was break up from the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advice me on which textbook is good to have and to learn ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="92a4655e-9877-469f-9074-4154e5493e7e" CreationDate="2012-10-08T21:46:13.473" UserId="492" Text="Popular textbook for learning Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="92a4655e-9877-469f-9074-4154e5493e7e" CreationDate="2012-10-08T21:46:13.473" UserId="492" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="e051a788-670f-4be4-b0f1-7401853797a9" CreationDate="2012-10-08T23:23:18.113" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Resources for learning Russian](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I am anxious to learn Russian. I am curious if is there is a popular textbook for student who are learning introduction to Russian ? What is the most popular method to learn it ? I am starting to learn a little bit about their Alphabet and their meaning. I took geography of the former Soviet Union when I was in college and learn about their geography relationship to the former country that was break up from the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advice me on which textbook is good to have and to learn ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3285" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="ad9ace11-536d-4987-9254-97605a4571ea" CreationDate="2012-10-08T23:23:18.113" UserId="71" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[833],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="c255e334-b180-4b47-afe3-898c6e659f68" CreationDate="2012-10-09T00:12:42.753" UserId="242" Text="First, let's analyze all three constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Two consecutive verbs, both in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A verb in imperative mood plus infinitive.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Two verbs in imperative mood separated by `and`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second form is actually a special case of composite predicate (составное сказуемое), which can consist in Russian of verb plus another verb in infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;идти работать&quot;/&quot;успеть долелать&quot; with &quot;иди работать!&quot; and &quot;успей доделать!&quot;. Or &quot;люби вкалывать&quot;. Or &quot;заканчивай ныть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such composite predicates the logical center is the first verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you can say `доделай`, `вкалывай`, but you'll loose the meaning of composite predicate. `Ной` is even more striking example, since it turns out to be an exact opposite of &quot;заканчивай ныть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb `идти` is different. It can be used very similar to that how the verbs `go` and `come` are used in english imperatives. This is verb is kind of amplifier of whole imperative construction. Just like in English we can say &quot;Go and buy us some food&quot;, we actually mean that on should just buy food. Or &quot;Come find me&quot; which can be translated either like &quot;иди найди меня&quot; or just like &quot;найди меня&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why first and third form are also valid.&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;and&quot; in third case, it, contrary to English, where its' usage [is preferable][1], give to whole phrase slightly more pathetic tone. Though the difference is very, very subtle. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/85155/should-i-always-insert-and-between-two-verb-in-imperative-mode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="5fe18f9f-3f00-45cf-887a-7bbac29be9ef" CreationDate="2012-10-09T06:17:44.880" UserId="47" Comment="Link to journal more specific" Text="Maybe you should take a look at [Russian Language Abroad][1] (`Русский язык за рубежом`) magazine. [Russkiy Mir Foundation][2] (`Фонд &quot;Русский мир&quot;`) is a good source, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianedu.ru/magazine/archive.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="6124ef87-a327-4b3f-bf5a-0a1740258fc5" CreationDate="2012-10-09T06:28:42.947" UserId="47" Comment="МОСТ added." Text="## Textbooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - German: MOCT - Modernes Russisch - Aktualisierte Ausgabe: Modernes Russisch. Moct 1. Arbeitsbuch mit 2 Audio-CDs: Niveau A1-A2. ISBN: 978-3125275669" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="eaaed655-d640-4a5c-88cf-cf60b696924d" CreationDate="2012-10-09T09:07:27.703" UserId="185" Comment="added a link to an online library" Text="## Textbooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - German: MOCT - Modernes Russisch - Aktualisierte Ausgabe: Modernes Russisch. Moct 1. Arbeitsbuch mit 2 Audio-CDs: Niveau A1-A2. ISBN: 978-3125275669&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The online library of the Russian as Foreign Language Faculty site of the Lomonosov Moscow State University](http://www.mgu-russian.com/elibrary/ru/online:4). You can find references to many good textbooks there. However, the access is only open to those who visit their courses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="eba27b0c-6a71-43fd-aa0b-a3975d6e77ae" CreationDate="2012-10-09T09:22:44.190" UserId="242" Comment="added 823 characters in body" Text="First, let's analyze all three constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Two consecutive verbs, both in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A verb in imperative mood plus infinitive.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Two verbs in imperative mood separated by `and`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second form is actually a special case of composite predicate (составное сказуемое), which can consist in Russian of verb plus another verb in infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;идти работать&quot;/&quot;успеть долелать&quot; with &quot;иди работать!&quot; and &quot;успей доделать!&quot;. Or &quot;люби вкалывать&quot;. Or &quot;заканчивай ныть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such composite predicates the logical center is the first verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you can say `доделай`, `вкалывай`, but you'll loose the meaning of composite predicate. `Ной` is even more striking example, since it turns out to be an exact opposite of &quot;заканчивай ныть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb `идти` is different. It can be used very similar to that how the verbs `go` and `come` are used in english imperatives. This is verb is kind of amplifier of whole imperative construction. Just like in English we can say &quot;Go and buy us some food&quot;, we actually mean that on should just buy food. Or &quot;Come find me&quot; which can be translated either like &quot;иди найди меня&quot; or just like &quot;найди меня&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude: Second form  mean the same thing as first form and third one. Third form has a subtle  pathetic connotation in Russian (Compare &quot;иди и смотри&quot; and &quot;иди смотри&quot;). Coexistence of &quot;imperative + infinitive&quot; and &quot;impertative + imperative&quot; forms is due to ambivalence of &quot;идти&quot; which can be used both as part of composite predicate and as imperative amplifier (the last term is not strictly linguistic).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in some languages there exists so called deferred action imperative (императив отложенного действия), which is expressed, among other forms, as two consecutive imperatives: one for first action and one for action which follows.  &#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb: if you can insert `then`, you can use first and third forms. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;иди смотри&quot;/&quot;Сначала иди, и потом смотри&quot;, &quot;возьми и сделай&quot;/&quot;сначала возьми [соберись, приведи себя в порядок], а потом сделай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard term &quot;императив отложенного действий&quot; in context of Russian language, but, as for me, examples you've provided can be considered as some special form imperative &quot;specie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/85155/should-i-always-insert-and-between-two-verb-in-imperative-mode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3291" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="7e661f2a-761c-4c9a-beb7-b9730fd68c82" CreationDate="2012-10-09T10:13:16.047" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="933dbe4c-c1e5-49ff-a19a-c434c361fbce" CreationDate="2012-10-09T10:30:05.370" UserId="185" Text="What is the gender of the word &quot;рыба-кит&quot;? Should I say &quot;огромная рыба-кит&quot; or &quot;огромный рыба-кит&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how should I change it if it is not in nominative case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gramota.ru suggests that рыба-кит is not used in any other forms, but as a native speaker I could easily imagine a context like &quot;Богатырь победил рыб...-кит...&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="933dbe4c-c1e5-49ff-a19a-c434c361fbce" CreationDate="2012-10-09T10:30:05.370" UserId="185" Text="Gender and forms of &quot;рыба-кит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="933dbe4c-c1e5-49ff-a19a-c434c361fbce" CreationDate="2012-10-09T10:30:05.370" UserId="185" Text="|лексикон|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="01f7a973-ab06-492c-83bc-2dcef6a4a4fc" CreationDate="2012-10-09T11:38:53.567" UserId="47" Text="Feeling-based answer is: _рыба-кит_ is feminine and only the first part of the word is declined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    рыба-кит&#xD;&#xA;    рыбы-кит&#xD;&#xA;    рыбе-кит&#xD;&#xA;    etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in analogy with _меч-рыба_. I will need some time to prove it with references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3296" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="cb8b3574-3ca9-4a81-a38e-8f575a43663e" CreationDate="2012-10-09T11:39:11.540" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|род|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="c9b43c91-14d6-4929-b20b-9ac41aa38a69" CreationDate="2012-10-09T13:46:44.347" UserId="47" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="Feeling-based answer is: _рыба-кит_ is feminine and only the first part of the word is declined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    рыба-кит&#xD;&#xA;    рыбы-кит&#xD;&#xA;    рыбе-кит&#xD;&#xA;    etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in analogy with _меч-рыба_. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="649458c6-8aec-4486-9d55-286c33676bc3" CreationDate="2012-10-09T16:18:55.030" UserId="185" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="I wonder what do constructions like &quot;иди работай&quot; mean? What is the kind of situation that one has in mind when one uses two verbs in imperative next to each other?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, **is there any difference in meaning or usage between these three cases:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **two verbs in imperative**: Иди работай!&#xD;&#xA; 2. **an imperative with an infinitive**: Иди работать!&#xD;&#xA; 3. **two coordinated imperative verbs**: Иди и работай!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to understand, whether 2. or 3. is closer to 1. In other words, is 1. the result of omitting the conjunction or is it some kind of unusual construction in the Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="27dd2370-0267-4121-abb3-8b753cfcb578" CreationDate="2012-10-09T19:50:20.113" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="First, let's analyze all three constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Two consecutive verbs, both in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA; 2. A verb in imperative mood plus infinitive.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Two verbs in imperative mood separated by `and`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second form is actually a special case of composite predicate (составное сказуемое), which can consist in Russian of verb plus another verb in infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;идти работать&quot;/&quot;успеть долелать&quot; with &quot;иди работать!&quot; and &quot;успей доделать!&quot;. Or &quot;люби вкалывать&quot;. Or &quot;заканчивай ныть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such composite predicates the logical center is the first verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you can say `доделай`, `вкалывай`, but you'll loose the meaning of composite predicate. `Ной` is even more striking example, since it turns out to be an exact opposite of &quot;заканчивай ныть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb `идти` is different. It can be used very similar to that how the verbs `go` and `come` are used in english imperatives. This is verb is kind of amplifier of whole imperative construction. Just like in English we can say &quot;Go and buy us some food&quot;, we actually mean that on should just buy food. Or &quot;Come find me&quot; which can be translated either like &quot;иди найди меня&quot; or just like &quot;найди меня&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude: Second form  mean the same thing as first form and third one. Third form has a subtle  pathetic connotation in Russian (Compare &quot;иди и смотри&quot; and &quot;иди смотри&quot;). Coexistence of &quot;imperative + infinitive&quot; and &quot;impertative + imperative&quot; forms is due to ambivalence of &quot;идти&quot; which can be used both as part of composite predicate and as imperative amplifier (the last term is not strictly linguistic).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in some languages there exists so called deferred action imperative (императив отложенного действия), which is expressed, among other forms, as two consecutive imperatives: one for first action and one for action which follows.  &#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb: if you can insert `then`, you can use first and third forms. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;иди смотри&quot;/&quot;Сначала иди, и потом смотри&quot;, &quot;возьми и сделай&quot;/&quot;сначала возьми [соберись, приведи себя в порядок], а потом сделай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard term &quot;императив отложенного действия&quot; in context of Russian language, but, as for me, examples you've provided can be considered as some special form imperative &quot;specie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/85155/should-i-always-insert-and-between-two-verb-in-imperative-mode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="e8c8d965-3a20-4e05-a254-4d6e597dd810" CreationDate="2012-10-09T22:05:19.677" UserId="496" Text="There is subtle difference between these phrases and the contexts where they can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Иди работай! - means that one person wants another to work *right now*. The work place still should be somewhere not in the same location where the phrase is said. It needs to involve at least two steps :-). You cannot say it to the person sitting at a next to you table if the work needs to be done at the same table. So it needs to involve some walking but emphasis here is on *do work now*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2) Иди работать! - here there is no stress on immediateness. It can be used in the same situation as the first phrase but most likely it can be said to a young adult by his parent. It will be in general meaning &quot;get the job&quot; to provide to yourself - not immediately (maybe next week). It also can be said in context where you expect immediate reaction but the first phrase will sound better in this situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Иди и работай! - it can be said in the same context as the the first phrase but with even more emphasis on immediateness. It brings picture in my mind that the first phrase was said to a person, and he still does not understand, then the phrase 3) will be shouted to him. It kind of simplifies grammar construction, so that if a person does not understand 1) he must understand 3). 3) can also be used in completely different context (without shouting) when you give instructions to somebody to simultaneously be walking and be working. First two phrases cannot mean this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="d11c392b-207f-402c-94ca-2ecb6b5d7b5d" CreationDate="2012-10-09T23:47:14.583" UserId="496" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="There is subtle difference between these phrases and the contexts where they can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Иди работай! - means that one person wants another to work *right now*. The work place still should be somewhere not in the same location where the phrase is said. It needs to involve at least two steps :-). You cannot say it to the person sitting at a next to you table if the work needs to be done at the same table. So it needs to involve some walking but emphasis here is on *do work now*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2) Иди работать! - here there is no stress on immediateness. It can be used in the same situation as the first phrase but most likely it can be said to a young adult by his parent. It will be in general meaning &quot;get the job&quot; to provide for yourself - not immediately (maybe next week). It also can be said in context where you expect immediate reaction but the first phrase will sound better in this situation. Иди работать more likely can be said by people who are already working and call to another person to join them while the first phrase is more likely to be said when you send somebody from your to a working place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Иди и работай! - it can be said in the same context as the the first phrase but with even more emphasis on immediateness. It brings picture in my mind that the first phrase was said to a person, and he still does not understand, then the phrase 3) will be shouted to him. It kind of simplifies the grammatical construction, so that if a person does not understand 1) he must understand 3). 3) can also be used in completely different context (without shouting) when you give instructions to somebody to simultaneously be walking and be working. First two phrases cannot mean this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3303" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="ea574620-46b5-4cb7-85ee-96b799b5bf1f" CreationDate="2012-10-10T09:33:12.850" UserId="185" Comment="11" />
  <row Id="3305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="0c6fb720-06d6-4e16-b672-fe9d7842f0f5" CreationDate="2012-10-10T13:58:17.253" UserId="242" Text="[Here is][1] a quote from today news:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;На прошлой неделе выпал первый снег, и серые журавли, обитающие на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белом озере, сразу *поднялись на крыло и улетели*&quot;, - рассказал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представитель регионального управления Росприроднадзора, добавив, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; птенцы стерхов не смогли полететь вместе с ними, так как, скорее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всего, не успели полностью адаптироваться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - what does exactly mean &quot;подняться на крыло&quot; and how it differs from &quot;улетели&quot;? Is it an exact synonym for &quot;взлететь&quot; or there are some shift in connotation/denotaion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2012/10/10/n_2565605.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="0c6fb720-06d6-4e16-b672-fe9d7842f0f5" CreationDate="2012-10-10T13:58:17.253" UserId="242" Text="What does it mean - &quot;поднять на крыло&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="0c6fb720-06d6-4e16-b672-fe9d7842f0f5" CreationDate="2012-10-10T13:58:17.253" UserId="242" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="b3868197-0094-4691-840e-792e47a417f7" CreationDate="2012-10-10T15:07:55.713" UserId="426" Text="The meaning of `подняться на крыло` is closer to `взлететь` (to take off) than to `улететь` (to fly away). It makes sense to replace `взлететь` with `подняться на крыло` in the phrase that you quoted to avoid perception of repetition: `сразу взлетели и улетели` sounds repetitive, while `сразу поднялись на крыло и улетели` does not.&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="6fa2ceb7-4a2b-4eac-9ee3-ae2d82ce2eb5" CreationDate="2012-10-10T15:11:04.117" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="What does it mean - &quot;подняться на крыло&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="37250576-facd-4c44-89cf-52503705a03b" CreationDate="2012-10-10T16:10:03.980" UserId="185" Text="подняться на крыло has two meanings, according to Большой словарь русский поговорок from [Academic](http://dic.academic.ru). The first one is &quot;взлететь&quot; (and here it is equivalent to &quot;встать на крыло&quot;), the second one is &quot;начать летать&quot; (about nestlings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples from Russian National Corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Думал, что после длительного заточения птица, ослабев, не сможет взлететь, однако голубь на удивление бодро поднялся на крыло и упорхнул в синюю даль неба… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Дома я внимательно осмотрел птенца, никаких видимых повреждений не обнаружил, и это вселило в меня надежду, что скоро он сможет подняться на крыло. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example it means &quot;взлететь&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="988ab639-a2f7-43c5-ae7f-66a5a1bb20ec" CreationDate="2012-10-10T17:08:49.867" UserId="334" Text="From here, stripped:  http://glossword.info/index.php/term/,6ea3ac6f59585f926e6b6a9a5aa4a459955c6bac6bb0a653535d54aa5db09a585957536862a9a66d6170986f69585aafaaac989f62a1ac6d616a98a75468a271695256.xhtml#&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВСТАВАТЬ НА КРЫЛО. ВСТАТЬ НА КРЫЛО. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Начинать летать. О птенцах. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. 'to learn how to fly'. I will not be surprised, if it will be applied to birds temporary unable to fly, for example, because of feathers changing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взлетать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. 'to fly up'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Экспрес. Приобретать самостоятельность, независимость от других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. 'to become self-sufficient' (loose translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="c2f5866d-bcb9-43b7-9537-d3ef1010dc67" CreationDate="2012-10-11T06:41:55.710" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выражения|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="74e12efe-ffec-44e0-84ea-b1eb493069cb" CreationDate="2012-10-11T09:19:11.427" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Inheriting cases / declension on appositions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="19d0ead0-563b-482e-87b8-05e5cffa8ea9" CreationDate="2012-10-11T15:39:16.700" UserId="242" Text="Words &quot;героизм&quot; and &quot;геройство&quot; look very alike, but I feel there is a difference between them. Moreover, this difference is not that subtle, it's just that I'm not able to define this difference strictly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain me how exactly those two words differ, when I should use first one and when - the second one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="19d0ead0-563b-482e-87b8-05e5cffa8ea9" CreationDate="2012-10-11T15:39:16.700" UserId="242" Text="What is the difference between &quot;героизм&quot; and &quot;геройство&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="19d0ead0-563b-482e-87b8-05e5cffa8ea9" CreationDate="2012-10-11T15:39:16.700" UserId="242" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="04129083-20fb-4877-b693-9d31f43edd08" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:03:10.693" UserId="487" Text="I'm very fond of A. Blok's poem bellow.&#xD;&#xA;My Russian is very limited, and this is&#xD;&#xA;one of the little pieces I can *almost* understand;&#xD;&#xA;this &quot;almost&quot; here precisely stands for the current question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kind of know the meaning of the separate words in &quot;ледяная рябь канала&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;but I suspect I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бессмысленный и тусклый свет.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Живи ещё хоть четверть века —  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё будет так. Исхода нет.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умрёшь — начнёшь опять сначала  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;И повторится всё, как встарь:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ночь, ледяная рябь канала,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Аптека, улица, фонарь.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody shed some light on this? Isn't there any hidden meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="04129083-20fb-4877-b693-9d31f43edd08" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:03:10.693" UserId="487" Text="What does &quot;ледяная рябь канала&quot; mean, in Blok's famous poem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="04129083-20fb-4877-b693-9d31f43edd08" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:03:10.693" UserId="487" Text="|translation|literature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="bdc94264-9d9b-4948-8c23-bbb00e0334d5" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:13:31.387" UserId="134" Text="Until recently, the two were synonyms, however, now their meanings diverged a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Героизм* is real heroic behavior or act, *геройство* is showing off. The latter may also be used ironically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я уверен, что капитан Николай Гастелло проявил героизм, направив свой самолет (когда был подбит) в колонну немецких танков. [Мозаика войны (2004) // «Наш современник», 2004.02.15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Советский солдат умел смотреть в глаза смертельной опасности, проявляя боевую доблесть и героизм. [Подвиг солдата и лесовода (2004) // «Лесное хозяйство», 2004.02.17]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так что они далеко не всегда погибали. Геройство лишнее у нас не поощрялось. Так и произошло с моим двоюродным дедом, братом моего деда. [Даниил Гранин. Зубр (1987)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сбивая ногтем пепел с цигарки, Кошевой сказал: ― Знаю я об твоих геройствах, слыхал. Много ты наших бойцов загубил, через это и не могу легко на тебя глядеть… [М. А. Шолохов. Тихий Дон. Книга четвёртая (1928-1940)]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="145866a2-fd5e-45c2-a07a-c0116818ec67" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:16:43.633" UserId="242" Text="There is no hidden meaning in this phrase. `Ледяная` means that water is cold, `рябь` is used here for indicating that water is almost still, but nevertheless, water slightly flows, most probably, mainly because of wind. Most probably, this wind is cold as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's it)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="22b019f5-bef0-4164-a5f7-4cd54e378c48" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:26:22.623" UserId="134" Text="It's a metaphor, literally translated as &quot;icy ripple of the channel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blok was raised in Saint-Petersburg (then capital of Russia) with its numerous channels, so this metaphor conveys feel of a cold windy night in a large city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="6117ae50-2707-4759-8359-d5ba0359e749" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:32:36.223" UserId="487" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I'm very fond of A. Blok's poem bellow -- which, by the way, yesterday became 100 years old. My Russian is very limited, and this is&#xD;&#xA;one of the little pieces I can *almost* understand;&#xD;&#xA;this &quot;almost&quot; here precisely stands for the current question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kind of know the meaning of the separate words in &quot;ледяная рябь канала&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;but I suspect I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бессмысленный и тусклый свет.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Живи ещё хоть четверть века —  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё будет так. Исхода нет.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умрёшь — начнёшь опять сначала  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;И повторится всё, как встарь:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ночь, ледяная рябь канала,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Аптека, улица, фонарь.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody shed some light on this? Isn't there any hidden meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="b0bdabc8-9ed2-4b7e-bbc4-489b3d548861" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:33:21.417" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Until recently, the two were synonyms, however, now their meanings diverged a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Героизм* is real heroic behavior or act, *геройство* is showing off. The latter may also be used ironically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я уверен, что капитан Николай Гастелло проявил героизм, направив свой самолет (когда был подбит) в колонну немецких танков. *[Мозаика войны (2004) // «Наш современник», 2004.02.15]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Советский солдат умел смотреть в глаза смертельной опасности, проявляя боевую доблесть и героизм. *[Подвиг солдата и лесовода (2004) // «Лесное хозяйство», 2004.02.17]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так что они далеко не всегда погибали. Геройство лишнее у нас не поощрялось. Так и произошло с моим двоюродным дедом, братом моего деда. *[Даниил Гранин. Зубр (1987)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сбивая ногтем пепел с цигарки, Кошевой сказал: ― Знаю я об твоих геройствах, слыхал. Много ты наших бойцов загубил, через это и не могу легко на тебя глядеть… *[М. А. Шолохов. Тихий Дон. Книга четвёртая (1928-1940)]*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1021" RevisionGUID="ae02cc3a-0ccd-489e-8c11-9530a7e417ff" CreationDate="2012-10-12T23:43:06.747" UserId="496" Text="Геройство still can be used in a positive meaning. For example in a phrase like &quot;Все-таки это было геройство с его стороны.&quot; it doesn't have negative connotation (to my ear). If it is qualified with additional words like &quot;никому ненужное&quot; or put in plural, it means &quot;showing off&quot;. I agree it is more likely to be used with negative attributive words than by its own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand героизм has a stamp of official language (smell of propaganda). In everyday speech you would say &quot;он поступил по-геройски&quot; or maybe &quot;он поступил как герой&quot; but not &quot;он проявил героизм&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also героизм describes the class of events (generalizing many individual acts as one phenomenon) while геройство denotes usually an individual act." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="ff423ea5-2b23-4138-9df8-1786ccdce12e" CreationDate="2012-10-13T10:19:49.917" UserDisplayName="user507" Text="I understand the phrase as metaphoric gates you want to enter but cannot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б. Гребенщиков, &quot;Дуй&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько ни стучись у этих пряничных ворот...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find an origin of the phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="ff423ea5-2b23-4138-9df8-1786ccdce12e" CreationDate="2012-10-13T10:19:49.917" UserDisplayName="user507" Text="Etymology of the phrase &quot;Пряничные ворота&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="ff423ea5-2b23-4138-9df8-1786ccdce12e" CreationDate="2012-10-13T10:19:49.917" UserDisplayName="user507" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="42795324-7a18-4515-aca1-19bb293213e3" CreationDate="2012-10-13T11:41:44.070" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="291be013-7673-4698-9e80-bbc6baa3edb4" CreationDate="2012-10-13T19:44:49.563" UserId="71" Comment="added explanations" Text="Using the same structure in the [Chinese Resources question][1], this is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, [ask a question in our Meta][3], so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][4], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][5]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][6]: These are plugins that you install on your browser and that help you in different ways, such as providing word meanings, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - [Audiobooks][7]: Audio files where you hear a voice reading the book you've chosen.&#xD;&#xA; - [Books][8]: Books from Russian authors or translations.&#xD;&#xA; - [Dictionaries][9]: Stand-alone or dictionary files for you to use on your computer.&#xD;&#xA; - [Newspapers][10]: Famous or not services that provide news for Russia and the rest of the world... in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Online courses][11]: Free or paid services online that teach you the language through lessons.&#xD;&#xA; - [Podcasts][12]: Audio files that feature people speaking about the language or giving tips/lessons to learners.&#xD;&#xA; - [Television][13]: TV channels, shows in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Textbooks][14]: Grammar books that teach you the grammar of the language with theory and exercises.&#xD;&#xA; - [Websites][15]: Sites that give help for learning Russian. They give material, tips, hints, and various help for self-learners or regular students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/1120/43&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/835/71&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/836/71&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/837/71&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/838/71&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/839/71&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/71&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/841/71&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/842/71&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/843/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="b50e07a3-2601-4f5c-be31-6dfd85277392" CreationDate="2012-10-14T00:11:29.880" UserId="242" Text="You are [not the first][1] person who've been puzzled with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Going by the link provided you can find following quote (and quote in quote actually).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непосредственное же упоминание пряничных ворот встречается у Степана&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Григорьевича Писахова, русского писателя и художника, (1879–1960). «К&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нам коли хороший человек поколотиться, мы пряничные ворота отворим, с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поклоном принимаем, с упросом угощаем. Накормим, напоим, с собой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас дадим» говориться в его книге «Сказки». Последнее наиболее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полное издание Писахова вышло в 1959 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not big proponent of above mentioned hypothesis. Moreover, I'm not sure we&#xD;&#xA;should try to generate any kind of hypothesis here, and here's why. &#xD;&#xA;The indisputable facts are following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Пряничные ворота` is very rare phrase, which actual meaning is not clear to the overwhelming majority of modern native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - A less known russian writer once mentioned this term in a novel which has been reprinted last time years and years ago. (The last claim in the quote is wrong, but actually yes, Pisakhov gets republished [not that often][2]) &#xD;&#xA; - There lives a prominent Russian singer, Boris Grebenshchikov (born in 1953), who is well known for his love to complex metaphors, complicated allusions and contrived, sometimes almost paradoxical language constructions. &#xD;&#xA; - Phrase `пряничный домик` is relatively well known.&#xD;&#xA; - One of common poetic methods it to take two (or more) different concepts and to combine them in order to produce, to generate new perception experience. For example: `беременной косточкой света`. Or - `шёлковый шорох`. Or - `пряничные ворота`))) And so on, and so on, and so on :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So, to conclude, it is very unlikely that this phrase is Grebenshchikov homage to Russian writer Pisakov, and it is very, very likely that he reinvented this phrase by himself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://maximsavchenko.com/http/Muzyka/Zapisi/2010/1/18_Grebensikov_B.B..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ozon.ru/?context=search&amp;text=%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="1bbfc26a-0a18-413c-8db8-604339eaf3d8" CreationDate="2012-10-14T00:22:03.800" UserId="242" Comment="added 378 characters in body" Text="You are [not the first][1] person who've been puzzled with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Going by the link provided you can find following quote (and quote in quote actually).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непосредственное же упоминание пряничных ворот встречается у Степана&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Григорьевича Писахова, русского писателя и художника, (1879–1960). «К&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нам коли хороший человек поколотиться, мы пряничные ворота отворим, с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поклоном принимаем, с упросом угощаем. Накормим, напоим, с собой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас дадим» говориться в его книге «Сказки». Последнее наиболее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полное издание Писахова вышло в 1959 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not big proponent of above mentioned hypothesis. Moreover, I'm not sure we&#xD;&#xA;should try to generate any kind of hypothesis here, and here's why. &#xD;&#xA;The indisputable facts are following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Пряничные ворота` is a very rare phrase, which actual meaning is not clear to the overwhelming majority of modern native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - A less known russian writer once mentioned this term in a novel which has been reprinted last time years and years ago. (The last claim in the quote is wrong, but actually yes, Pisakhov gets republished [not that often][2]) &#xD;&#xA; - There lives a prominent Russian singer, Boris Grebenshchikov (born in 1953), who is well known for his love to complex metaphors, complicated allusions and contrived, sometimes almost paradoxical language constructions. &#xD;&#xA; - Phrase `пряничный домик` is relatively well known.&#xD;&#xA; - One of common poetic methods it to take two (or more) different concepts and to combine them in order to produce new layers of meanings, to generate new perception experience. For example: `беременной косточкой света`. Or - `шёлковый шорох`. Or - `пряничные ворота`))) And so on, and so on, and so on :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So, to conclude, it is very unlikely that this phrase is Grebenshchikov homage to Russian writer Pisakov, and it is very, very likely that he reinvented this phrase by himself. In Russian there is a term for to difficult and, especially, waste less work - `неблагодарное дело`. Believe me or not, in almost all cases trying to guess what something actually means in song lyrics is &quot;неблагодарное дело&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **PS** I guess the best think you can do here - is to ask the author himself. Though there is no guarantee he won't answer even more confusing ))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://maximsavchenko.com/http/Muzyka/Zapisi/2010/1/18_Grebensikov_B.B..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ozon.ru/?context=search&amp;text=%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="fec88da5-52d1-4088-a7e9-d78c75b3af88" CreationDate="2012-10-14T00:30:32.993" UserId="242" Comment="more illustrative examples" Text="You are [not the first][1] person who've been puzzled with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Going by the link provided you can find following quote (and quote in quote actually).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непосредственное же упоминание пряничных ворот встречается у Степана&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Григорьевича Писахова, русского писателя и художника, (1879–1960). «К&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нам коли хороший человек поколотиться, мы пряничные ворота отворим, с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поклоном принимаем, с упросом угощаем. Накормим, напоим, с собой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас дадим» говориться в его книге «Сказки». Последнее наиболее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полное издание Писахова вышло в 1959 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not big proponent of above mentioned hypothesis. Moreover, I'm not sure we&#xD;&#xA;should try to generate any kind of hypothesis here, and here's why. &#xD;&#xA;The indisputable facts are following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Пряничные ворота` is a very rare phrase, which actual meaning is not clear (out of context) to the overwhelming majority of modern native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - A less known russian writer once mentioned this term in a novel which has been reprinted last time years and years ago. (The last claim in the quote is wrong, but actually yes, Pisakhov gets republished [not that often][2]) &#xD;&#xA; - There lives a prominent Russian singer, Boris Grebenshchikov (born in 1953), who is well known for his love to complex metaphors, complicated allusions and contrived, sometimes almost paradoxical language constructions. &#xD;&#xA; - Phrase `пряничный домик` is relatively well known.&#xD;&#xA; - One of common poetic methods it to take two (or more) different concepts and to combine them in order to produce new layers of meanings, to generate new perception experience. For example: `сладкие губы`. Or - `дом жёлтого сна`. Or - `пряничные ворота`))) And so on, and so on, and so on :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So, to conclude, it is very unlikely that this phrase is Grebenshchikov homage to Russian writer Pisakov, and it is very, very likely that he reinvented this phrase by himself. In Russian there is a term for to difficult and, especially, waste less work - `неблагодарное дело`. Believe me or not, in almost all cases trying to guess what something actually means in song lyrics is &quot;неблагодарное дело&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of the phrase, I, as well as you, believe that it is about gates to some place &quot;full of candies&quot;, a good, a nice place to be. You can find some other examples of usage of this very phrase, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже вопреки исторической логике. В одном амерском фильме 50-х даже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жанне Д'Арк удалось проскользнуть в пряничные ворота хэппи-энда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, once again, it is very rare, so, I guess, each time it had been reinvented independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **PS** I guess the best think you can do here - is to ask the author himself. Though there is no guarantee his answer won't be even more confusing ))) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://maximsavchenko.com/http/Muzyka/Zapisi/2010/1/18_Grebensikov_B.B..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ozon.ru/?context=search&amp;text=%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="055ab280-1f22-49af-81b5-111ecd773d3a" CreationDate="2012-10-14T00:41:49.313" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You are [not the first][1] person who've been puzzled with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Going by the link provided you can find following quote (and quote in quote actually).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непосредственное же упоминание пряничных ворот встречается у Степана&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Григорьевича Писахова, русского писателя и художника, (1879–1960). «К&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нам коли хороший человек поколотиться, мы пряничные ворота отворим, с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поклоном принимаем, с упросом угощаем. Накормим, напоим, с собой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас дадим» говориться в его книге «Сказки». Последнее наиболее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полное издание Писахова вышло в 1959 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not big proponent of above mentioned hypothesis. Moreover, I'm not sure we&#xD;&#xA;should try to generate any kind of hypothesis here, and here's why. &#xD;&#xA;The indisputable facts are following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Пряничные ворота` is a very rare phrase, which actual meaning is not clear (out of context) to the overwhelming majority of modern native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - A less known russian writer once mentioned this term in a novel which has been reprinted last time years and years ago. (The last claim in the quote is wrong, but actually yes, Pisakhov gets republished [not that often][2]) &#xD;&#xA; - There lives a prominent Russian singer, Boris Grebenshchikov (born in 1953), who is well known for his love to complex metaphors, complicated allusions and contrived, sometimes almost paradoxical language constructions. &#xD;&#xA; - Phrase `пряничный домик` is relatively well known.&#xD;&#xA; - One of common poetic methods it to take two (or more) different concepts and to combine them in order to produce new layers of meanings, to generate new perception experience. For example: `мусорный ветер`. Or - `дом жёлтого сна`. Or - `пряничные ворота`))) And so on, and so on, and so on :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So, to conclude, it is very unlikely that this phrase is Grebenshchikov homage to Russian writer Pisakov, and it is very, very likely that he reinvented this phrase by himself. In Russian there is a term for to difficult and, especially, waste less work - `неблагодарное дело`. Believe me or not, in almost all cases trying to guess what something actually means in song lyrics is &quot;неблагодарное дело&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of the phrase, I, as well as you, believe that it is about gates to some place &quot;full of candies&quot;, a good, a nice place to be. You can find some other examples of usage of this very phrase, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже вопреки исторической логике. В одном амерском фильме 50-х даже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жанне Д'Арк удалось проскользнуть в пряничные ворота хэппи-энда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, once again, it is very rare, so, I guess, each time it had been reinvented independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **PS** I guess the best think you can do here - is to ask the author himself. Though there is no guarantee his answer won't be even more confusing ))) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://maximsavchenko.com/http/Muzyka/Zapisi/2010/1/18_Grebensikov_B.B..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ozon.ru/?context=search&amp;text=%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="4158c0f9-3fad-427f-91c2-ea40a0a9a1ff" CreationDate="2012-10-14T08:28:29.423" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="You are [not the first][1] person who've been puzzled with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Going by the link provided you can find following quote (and quote in quote actually).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непосредственное же упоминание пряничных ворот встречается у Степана&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Григорьевича Писахова, русского писателя и художника, (1879–1960). «К&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нам коли хороший человек поколотиться, мы пряничные ворота отворим, с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поклоном принимаем, с упросом угощаем. Накормим, напоим, с собой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас дадим» говориться в его книге «Сказки». Последнее наиболее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полное издание Писахова вышло в 1959 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not big proponent of above mentioned hypothesis. Moreover, I'm not sure we&#xD;&#xA;should try to generate any kind of hypothesis here, and here's why. &#xD;&#xA;The indisputable facts are following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Пряничные ворота` is a very rare phrase, which actual meaning is not clear (out of context) to the overwhelming majority of modern native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - A less known russian writer once mentioned this term in a novel which has been reprinted last time years and years ago. (The last claim in the quote is wrong, but actually yes, Pisakhov gets republished [not that often][2]) &#xD;&#xA; - There lives a prominent Russian singer, Boris Grebenshchikov (born in 1953), who is well known for his love to complex metaphors, complicated allusions and contrived, sometimes almost paradoxical language constructions. &#xD;&#xA; - Phrase `пряничный домик` is relatively well known.&#xD;&#xA; - One of common poetic methods is to take two (or more) different concepts and to combine them in order to produce new layers of meanings, to generate new perception experience. For example: `мусорный ветер`. Or - `дом жёлтого сна`. Or - `пряничные ворота`))) And so on, and so on, and so on :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  So, to conclude, it is very unlikely that this phrase is Grebenshchikov homage to Russian writer Pisakov, and it is very, very likely that he reinvented this phrase by himself. In Russian there is a term for to difficult and, especially, wasteless work - `неблагодарное дело`. Believe me or not, in almost all cases trying to guess what something actually means in song lyrics is &quot;неблагодарное дело&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of the phrase, I, as well as you, believe that it is about gates to some place &quot;full of candies&quot;, a good, a nice place to be. You can find some other examples of usage of this very phrase, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже вопреки исторической логике. В одном амерском фильме 50-х даже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жанне Д'Арк удалось проскользнуть в пряничные ворота хэппи-энда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, once again, it is very rare, so, I guess, each time it had been reinvented independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **PS** I guess the best think you can do here - is to ask the author himself. Though there is no guarantee his answer won't be even more confusing ))) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://maximsavchenko.com/http/Muzyka/Zapisi/2010/1/18_Grebensikov_B.B..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ozon.ru/?context=search&amp;text=%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="b5909a6c-4f38-491c-afaf-f673254b74ee" CreationDate="2012-10-14T15:30:07.307" UserId="496" Text="This is a very interesting question. Thanks Olga!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the construction &quot;*Мой* папа ...&quot; has a direct corresponding translation into English to &quot;*My* father...&quot;, the second one is more specific to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question slightly &quot;blurred&quot; by the fact that in both Russian phrases the verb is missing and understood. It would be the English verb *is*. The meaning of the two phrases is also very similar. Apart from that grammatically phrases are very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is a simple (usual) sentence with a subject (my father), a verb (is), and the rest. The second phrase is an impersonal construction. The most direct correspondence to this in English will be &quot;*It is ...*&quot; or &quot;*There is ...*&quot; constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A у нас в квартире газ. - And there is natural gas in our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;    У меня нет денег. - There is no money in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (similar Russian construction in dative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Им этого не понять. - It is not possible to understand for them.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему этого не дано. - It is not given to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, one more (and probably the biggest) complication is that &quot;у меня&quot;, &quot;у нас&quot;, &quot;у них&quot; does not have a direct correspondence in English. The direct meaning correspondence would be &quot;in my(our,their) world&quot; (including both internal and external worlds). Of course you will not translate it like this literally. Every time you will need to invent something more suitable for English like &quot;there is no money *in my possession*&quot;. Or just flip the phrase into ordinary sentence with personal subject, if other translations are completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;    There is no my dad in my world right now (absent on business trip). [Too ugly]&#xD;&#xA;    Or simply: My dad is absent on business trip. [Flipped to personal subject]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="3d47b5ef-ca4a-4181-ae00-33c8409ddcfd" CreationDate="2012-10-14T15:47:43.853" UserId="496" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="This is a very interesting question. Thanks Olga!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the construction &quot;*Мой* папа ...&quot; has a direct corresponding translation into English to &quot;*My* father...&quot;, the second one is more specific to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question slightly &quot;blurred&quot; by the fact that in both Russian phrases the verb is missing and understood. It would be the English verb *is*. The meaning of the two phrases is also very similar. Apart from that grammatically phrases are very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is a simple (usual) sentence with a subject (my father), a verb (is), and the rest. The second phrase is an impersonal construction. The most direct correspondence to this in English will be &quot;*It is ...*&quot; or &quot;*There is ...*&quot; constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A у нас в квартире газ. - And there is natural gas in our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;    У меня нет денег. - There is no money in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (similar Russian construction in dative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Им этого не понять. - It is not possible to understand for them.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему этого не дано. - It is not given to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, one more (and probably the biggest) complication is that &quot;у меня&quot;, &quot;у нас&quot;, &quot;у них&quot; does not have a direct correspondence in English. The direct meaning correspondence would be &quot;in my(our,their) world&quot; (including both internal and external worlds). Or in other words: &quot;In my current circumstances.&quot; Of course you will not translate it like this literally. Every time you will need to invent something more suitable for English like &quot;there is no money *in my possession*&quot;. Or just flip the phrase into ordinary sentence with personal subject, if other translations are completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;    There is no my dad in my world right now (absent on business trip). [Too ugly]&#xD;&#xA;    Or simply: My dad is absent on business trip. [Flipped to personal subject]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="8b1b6f68-e895-4963-bd43-d6ff3bf918d3" CreationDate="2012-10-14T18:11:27.410" UserId="496" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="This is a very interesting question. Thanks Olga!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the construction &quot;*Мой* папа ...&quot; has a direct corresponding translation into English to &quot;*My* father...&quot;, the second one is more specific to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question slightly &quot;blurred&quot; by the fact that in both Russian phrases the verb is missing and understood. It would be the English verb *is*. The meaning of the two phrases is also very similar. Apart from that grammatically phrases are very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is a simple (usual) sentence with a subject (my father), a verb (is), and the rest. The second phrase is an impersonal construction. The most direct correspondence to this in English will be &quot;*It is ...*&quot; or &quot;*There is ...*&quot; constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A у нас в квартире газ. - And there is natural gas in our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;    У меня нет денег. - There is no money in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (similar Russian construction in dative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Им этого не понять. - It is not possible to understand for them.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему этого не дано. - It is not given to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, one more (and probably the biggest) complication is that &quot;у меня&quot;, &quot;у нас&quot;, &quot;у них&quot; does not have a direct correspondence in English. The direct meaning correspondence would be &quot;in my(our,their) world&quot; (including both internal and external worlds). Or in other words: &quot;In my current circumstances.&quot; Of course you will not translate it like this literally. Every time you will need to invent something more suitable for English like &quot;there is no money *in my possession*&quot;. Or just flip the phrase into ordinary sentence with personal subject, if other translations are completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;    There is no my dad in my world right now (absent on business trip). [Too ugly]&#xD;&#xA;    Or simply: My dad is absent on business trip. [Flipped to personal subject]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion: It is a coincidence that Мой папа в командировке and У меня папа в командировке - are translated into the same phrase in English. For example У меня нет денег is not switchable to personal so easily. Meaning difference, as other authors answered already, is the focus of the attention to inner or to outer (to yourself or to your surroundings)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="4aa69247-df81-4703-b46f-667ea3ed9435" CreationDate="2012-10-14T19:09:37.447" UserId="496" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="This is a very interesting question. Thanks Olga!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the construction &quot;*Мой* папа ...&quot; has a direct corresponding translation into English to &quot;*My* father...&quot;, the second one is more specific to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question slightly &quot;blurred&quot; by the fact that in both Russian phrases the verb is missing and understood. It would be the English verb *is*. The meaning of the two phrases is also very similar. Apart from that grammatically phrases are very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is a simple (usual) sentence with a subject (my father), a verb (is), and the rest. The second phrase is an impersonal construction. The most direct correspondence to this in English will be &quot;*It is ...*&quot; or &quot;*There is ...*&quot; constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A у нас в квартире газ. - And there is natural gas in our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;    У меня нет денег. - There is no money in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (similar Russian construction in dative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Им этого не понять. - It is not possible to understand for them.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему этого не дано. - It is not given to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, one more (and probably the biggest) complication is that &quot;у меня&quot;, &quot;у нас&quot;, &quot;у них&quot; does not have a direct correspondence in English. The direct meaning correspondence would be &quot;in my(our,their) world&quot; (including both internal and external worlds). Or in other words: &quot;In my current circumstances.&quot; Of course you will not translate it like this literally. Every time you will need to invent something more suitable for English like &quot;there is no money *in my possession*&quot;. Or just flip the phrase into ordinary sentence with personal subject, if other translations are completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;    There is no my dad in my world right now (absent on business trip). [Too ugly]&#xD;&#xA;    Or simply: My dad is absent on business trip. [Flipped to personal subject]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion: It is a coincidence that Мой папа в командировке and У меня папа в командировке - are translated into the same phrase in English. For example У меня нет денег is not switchable to personal so easily (maybe: My money are absent :-)). Meaning difference, as other authors answered already, is the focus of the attention to inner or to outer (to yourself or to your surroundings)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="30c8dc7a-0b4e-469a-96cf-a0049739bc77" CreationDate="2012-10-14T19:44:38.480" UserId="496" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This is a very interesting question. Thanks Olga!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the construction &quot;*Мой* папа ...&quot; has a direct corresponding translation into English to &quot;*My* father...&quot;, the second one is more specific to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question slightly &quot;blurred&quot; by the fact that in both Russian phrases the verb is missing and understood. It would be the English verb *is*. The meaning of the two phrases is also very similar. Apart from that grammatically phrases are very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is a simple (usual) sentence with a subject (my father), a verb (is), and the rest. The second phrase is an impersonal construction. The most direct correspondence to this in English will be &quot;*It is ...*&quot; or &quot;*There is ...*&quot; constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A у нас в квартире газ. - And there is natural gas in our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;    У меня нет денег. - There is no money in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (similar Russian construction in dative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Им этого не понять. - It is not possible to understand for them.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему этого не дано. - It is not given to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, one more (and probably the biggest) complication is that &quot;у меня&quot;, &quot;у нас&quot;, &quot;у них&quot; does not have a direct correspondence in English. The direct meaning correspondence would be &quot;in my(our,their) world&quot; (including both internal and external worlds). Or in other words: &quot;In my current circumstances.&quot; Of course you will not translate it like this literally. Every time you will need to invent something more suitable for English like &quot;there is no money *in my possession*&quot;. Or just flip the phrase into ordinary sentence with personal subject, if other translations are completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;    There is no my dad in my world right now (absent on business trip). [Too ugly]&#xD;&#xA;    Or simply: My dad is absent on business trip. [Flipped to personal subject]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion: It is just a coincidence that `Мой папа в командировке` and `У меня папа в командировке` - are translated into the same phrase in English. For example: `У меня нет денег` is not switchable to personal so easily (maybe: My money is absent :-)). The difference in the meaning is, as other authors answered already, the focus of the attention to the inner - or to the outer (to yourself - or to an object in your surroundings)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="508a5fb9-0fa2-4344-8ea4-0d167433a09b" CreationDate="2012-10-14T22:45:25.760" UserId="496" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="This is a very interesting question. Thanks Olga!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the construction &quot;*Мой* папа ...&quot; has a direct corresponding translation into English to &quot;*My* father...&quot;, the second one is more specific to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question slightly &quot;blurred&quot; by the fact that in both Russian phrases the verb is missing and understood. It would be the English verb *is*. The meaning of the two phrases is also very similar. Apart from that grammatically phrases are very different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is a simple (usual) sentence with a subject (my father), a verb (is), and the rest. The second phrase is an impersonal construction. The most direct correspondence to this in English will be &quot;*It is ...*&quot; or &quot;*There is ...*&quot; constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A у нас в квартире газ. - And there is natural gas in our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;    У меня нет денег. - There is no money in my possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover (similar Russian construction in dative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Им этого не понять. - It is not possible to understand for them.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему этого не дано. - It is not given to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, one more (and probably the biggest) complication is that &quot;у меня&quot;, &quot;у нас&quot;, &quot;у них&quot; does not have a direct correspondence in English. The direct meaning correspondence would be &quot;in my(our,their) world&quot; (including both internal and external worlds). Or in other words: &quot;In my current circumstances.&quot; Of course you will not translate it like this literally. Every time you will need to invent something more suitable for English like &quot;there is no money *in my possession*&quot;. Or just flip the phrase into ordinary sentence with personal subject, if other translations are completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня папа в командировке.&#xD;&#xA;    There is no my dad in my world right now (absent on business trip). [Too ugly]&#xD;&#xA;    Or simply: My dad is absent on business trip. [Flipped to personal subject]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion: It is just a coincidence that `Мой папа в командировке` and `У меня папа в командировке` - are translated into the same phrase in English. For example: `У меня нет денег` is not switchable to personal so easily (maybe: My money is absent :-)). The difference in the meaning is like in English phrases: &quot;It is sunny&quot; vs &quot;The sun is shining&quot;. In the first, you describe the situation as a whole in general (does not matter who acts, but it matters what mood it creates). In the second you describe the object and its action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="8ce7ab95-5326-48f4-8425-d5cc419beba8" CreationDate="2012-10-15T15:22:48.363" UserId="510" Text="I started studying russian this year, I am able to read russian already but still have next to no vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, the other day I was playing Borderlands 2, and when I zoomed in with a sniper, I noticed there was a russian word on the scope, which was something like: убийства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure about the &quot;убий&quot; part, while the rest not entirely, but somthing like that, which is &quot;ства&quot;... there is a chance that there was a &quot;ц&quot; on the middle though...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if it is a vague question, but I tried searching for it but haven't found anything that I could use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="8ce7ab95-5326-48f4-8425-d5cc419beba8" CreationDate="2012-10-15T15:22:48.363" UserId="510" Text="Need help with the meaning of a word: &quot;убийства&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="8ce7ab95-5326-48f4-8425-d5cc419beba8" CreationDate="2012-10-15T15:22:48.363" UserId="510" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="d32716e7-50ec-4969-8ec0-e1ed559e0149" CreationDate="2012-10-15T15:38:12.013" UserId="511" Text="It's a plural form of the noun ¨убийство¨ which means &quot;a murder&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="f5b53a13-d722-44dc-b0f2-b7f06a01368f" CreationDate="2012-10-15T15:39:00.313" UserId="47" Text="It is the plural of [_убийство_][1] meaning _murder_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://enru.dict.cc/?s=%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3347" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="f4350df6-6cdb-490a-b54b-8b01fae216f5" CreationDate="2012-10-15T18:03:48.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/257904624789495808" />
  <row Id="3348" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="d2e21098-5645-4772-b09d-c847b9ffcaa0" CreationDate="2012-10-15T20:14:40.070" UserId="185" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="9cb2dc12-1d0a-4099-b0dc-353c9e2c92be" CreationDate="2012-10-15T21:03:42.883" UserId="185" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][2], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][4], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][5], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][6], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lurkmore.to&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="e249ebae-5e00-458e-be4c-560893c72d34" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:40:25.710" UserId="286" Text="Откуда пошло выражение (поговорка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война - войной, а обед по рассписанию " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="e249ebae-5e00-458e-be4c-560893c72d34" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:40:25.710" UserId="286" Text="&quot;Война - войной, а обед по рассписанию&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="e249ebae-5e00-458e-be4c-560893c72d34" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:40:25.710" UserId="286" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="eb2e2224-6fca-45ee-bff3-0805bb750c0f" CreationDate="2012-10-16T12:46:15.720" UserId="286" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Откуда пошло выражение (поговорка)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война - войной, а обед по рассписанию " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="34ebcc8b-00d9-40e6-b320-3c9fc507fd23" CreationDate="2012-10-16T13:14:11.877" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="Откуда пошло выражение (поговорка)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война войной, а обед по расписанию " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3355" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="34ebcc8b-00d9-40e6-b320-3c9fc507fd23" CreationDate="2012-10-16T13:14:11.877" UserId="185" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="&quot;Война войной, а обед по расписанию&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="a4fa1d8d-b4e2-4403-8f1b-40e150ecfd29" CreationDate="2012-10-17T10:26:09.423" UserId="185" Text="Suppose I want to write a book, where one of the characters is a simpleton without a proper education. This character needs to say &quot;чё?&quot; (&quot;чо?&quot;) instead of &quot;что?&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Твоя сестра умеет готовить минестроне?&#xD;&#xA;- Чё \ Чо за минестроне такое?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I spell it: &quot;чё&quot; or &quot;чо&quot;? And what are the rules that regulate the spelling in this case?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="a4fa1d8d-b4e2-4403-8f1b-40e150ecfd29" CreationDate="2012-10-17T10:26:09.423" UserId="185" Text="&quot;чё?&quot; or &quot;чо?&quot; - which is the correct spelling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="a4fa1d8d-b4e2-4403-8f1b-40e150ecfd29" CreationDate="2012-10-17T10:26:09.423" UserId="185" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="4234eb75-6b4f-48d5-a7ef-8c3660007bd2" CreationDate="2012-10-17T11:10:51.303" UserId="471" Text="[According to gramota.ru][1] (quoting «Русский орфографический словарь Российской академии наук». Отв. ред. В. В. Лопатин. © Электронная версия, «ГРАМОТА.РУ», 2001–2007.) - «чё» when used «вместо чего, при передаче прост. произношения».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E0%ED%E0%EB%EE%E9&amp;all=x&amp;&amp;lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%F7%E5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand &quot;simpleton&quot; would be «проста-**чо**-к». Why is that now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm at it, «чё» is not restricted to the speech of uneducated simpletons. In fact anyone pronouncing «Ты ***что***, сдурел?» as it is written is committing a stylistic blasphemy and contaminating proper spoken language with unwarranted literaturisms. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1032" RevisionGUID="ce11628d-1fd7-4430-9d07-b961383c3cda" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:03:47.173" UserId="134" Text="This word is an attempt to write down a relaxed pronunciation of the neutral form *что*, and, as such, no strict rules can be applied, there is no &quot;correct&quot; spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpus seems to mention *чё* more often than *чо* and *шо* (531 / 135 / 153 entries in lowercase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use this spelling as a part of eye dialect, just make sure you reflect the character's assumed pronunciation correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Russians pronounce soft *ч*, that's why *чё* is prevalent, however, *чо* is used in some Eastern dialects (and is coherently used by, say, Shukshin) and *шо* is used in Southern dialects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="51d7a22e-d30a-4f51-aa24-9b5dd237d010" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:09:40.930" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Suppose I want to write a book, where one of the characters is a simpleton without a proper education. This character needs to say &quot;чё?&quot; (&quot;чо?&quot;) instead of &quot;что?&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Твоя сестра умеет готовить минестроне?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Чё \ Чо за минестроне такое?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I spell it: &quot;чё&quot; or &quot;чо&quot;? And what are the rules that regulate the spelling in this case?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1033" RevisionGUID="e7fe39fb-0803-49f3-84bf-c75c5e6d24b3" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:32:53.897" UserId="185" Text="It happened so that I have found the answer to my own question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct variant is &quot;чё&quot;, as others have already said, and here comes the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1956 new spelling and punctuation rules were accepted by the USSR Office of Higher Education, Academy of Sciences, etc. The rules dictate that one of the cases when we write &quot;ё&quot;, although we pronounce &quot;о&quot; after &quot;ж&quot;, &quot;ч&quot;, &quot;ш&quot;, &quot;щ&quot; under stress is when the vowel in the stem alternates with &quot;е&quot;, as in &quot;чёрт (чертей)&quot;, &quot;чёрный (чернота)&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that &quot;чё (чего)&quot; is regulated by the same rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.rusyaz.ru/pr/og01.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="a6086d32-ec49-4888-8706-3df6ac31fcd6" CreationDate="2012-10-17T20:19:20.953" UserId="517" Comment="added Language Immersion for Chrome" Text="## Add-ons &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Language Immersion for Chrome][1]: Switches certain words and phrases on the web pages from English into Russian (or another selected language)&#xD;&#xA; - *add another resource here, following an alphabetical order*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/language-immersion-for-ch/bedbecnakfcpmkpddjfnfihogkaggkhl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3373" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="a6086d32-ec49-4888-8706-3df6ac31fcd6" CreationDate="2012-10-17T20:19:20.953" Comment="Proposed by 517 approved by 185 edit id of 234" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="7aa88497-898f-4122-807d-fee265282266" CreationDate="2012-10-17T20:35:21.043" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="## Add-ons &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Language Immersion for Chrome][1]: Switches certain words and phrases on the web pages from English into Russian (or another selected language)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/language-immersion-for-ch/bedbecnakfcpmkpddjfnfihogkaggkhl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3375" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="dbe643ba-dcc4-417d-a552-ce301cf48cac" CreationDate="2012-10-18T03:03:51.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/258765306644795392" />
  <row Id="3376" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="1ed52520-7b1f-40d3-8533-74ad9384d82d" CreationDate="2012-10-18T06:03:51.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/258810606327562240" />
  <row Id="3377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="2f6b50ba-73cc-484e-9571-dcff8d5c9bc3" CreationDate="2012-10-18T06:09:10.680" UserId="441" Text="Кажется, что это совершенно взаимозаменяемые слова. Однако, очевидно, они имеют разные корни и, видимо, разные оттенки значений. Может быть, они передают разную степень влажности предмета? Или о вещи говорят &quot;мокрая&quot;, если её поверхность влажная, тогда как если сказать о ней &quot;сырая&quot;, это значило бы, что она пропитана влагой насквозь? Если да, то в какую категорию вписать слово &quot;влажный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="2f6b50ba-73cc-484e-9571-dcff8d5c9bc3" CreationDate="2012-10-18T06:09:10.680" UserId="441" Text="Чем отличается &quot;сырой&quot; от &quot;мокрый&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="2f6b50ba-73cc-484e-9571-dcff8d5c9bc3" CreationDate="2012-10-18T06:09:10.680" UserId="441" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="2d878ba1-1dca-4e40-a1e6-7b5b60a55a28" CreationDate="2012-10-18T07:30:09.657" UserId="500" Text="Ты носитель языка и не знаешь? Я считаю, что эти слова передают степень влажности - со словом мокрый можно сопоставить степень &quot;полностью&quot;, а со словом сырой - &quot;слегка&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="c52cea36-8c07-45b0-9abf-fec1a2480aaa" CreationDate="2012-10-18T08:20:45.587" UserId="242" Comment="redundant question removed" Text="Эти слова передают степень влажности - со словом мокрый можно сопоставить степень &quot;полностью&quot;, а со словом сырой - &quot;слегка&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="6cb49c0c-ddca-43c2-a73f-d4af1217bd3e" CreationDate="2012-10-18T08:40:09.443" UserId="134" Text="When meaning &quot;damp&quot;, &quot;wet&quot;, these words differ slightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To describe an object wet due to being covered with water, you can only use *мокрый*: *мокрая кошка*, *мокрый пол*. *Сырой* cannot be used here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To describe an object moist because of containing water, you can use both words: *сырой песок* (or *мокрый песок*), *сырой луг* (or *мокрый луг*), *сырое утро* (or *мокрое утро*). *Сырой пол* does not mean a floor which had just been washed, but rather a floor permanently wet (because of a leak or something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When meaning &quot;raw&quot;, &quot;uncooked&quot;, &quot;not ready&quot;, only *сырой* can be used: *сырое мясо*, *сырая картошка*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1037" RevisionGUID="58d02357-8567-4abd-8d13-cf6112b82539" CreationDate="2012-10-18T09:05:58.747" UserId="97" Text="The main difference between these words, as has been mentioned in other questions is the level/amount of moisture in the object as well as whether the moisture is _outside on the object_ or _inside as part of the object_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Сырой_ means that the object contains moisture as part of it (either originally or by modifications) and is also used to reflect a small amount of moisture. For example, _сырой пол_, _сырой воздух_, and even _сырой пирог_ - in the latter example, although used as _undercooked_, the origin of the meaning is the same: contains too much moisture to be ready, cooking more will get rid of it. The best English translation of it would be _damp_ (except for the _undercooked_ meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Мокрый_ means that the object is covered with moisture from the outside, but not necessarily wet through-and-through inside (although it can be) .For example, _мокрая курица_, _мокрый пол_.  The obvious translation into English is _wet_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Влажный_ is a smaller-scale version of _мокрый_.  For example, _влажное полотенце_, _влажные руки_. I'd say that the English equivalent is _moist_.  Here the idea is that the moisture coming from the outside, not necessarily (but possibly) getting inside as well, yet there isn't enough moisture to make the object _wet_ (_мокрым_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, while there may be rare cases where these words can be interchangeable, usually they are not, as their meanings differ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3385" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="6a27efd1-cdfc-429f-9e96-c373e85cf00f" CreationDate="2012-10-18T14:26:02.993" UserId="185" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1037" RevisionGUID="c8dd3a8a-d443-4820-89cd-a92dc1303bf5" CreationDate="2012-10-18T16:37:57.663" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The main difference between these words, as has been mentioned in other answers is the level/amount of moisture in the object as well as whether the moisture is _outside on the object_ or _inside as part of the object_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Сырой_ means that the object contains moisture as part of it (either originally or by modifications) and is also used to reflect a small amount of moisture. For example, _сырой пол_, _сырой воздух_, and even _сырой пирог_ - in the latter example, although used as _undercooked_, the origin of the meaning is the same: contains too much moisture to be ready, cooking more will get rid of it. The best English translation of it would be _damp_ (except for the _undercooked_ meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Мокрый_ means that the object is covered with moisture from the outside, but not necessarily wet through-and-through inside (although it can be). For example, _мокрая курица_, _мокрый пол_.  The obvious translation into English is _wet_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Влажный_ is a smaller-scale version of _мокрый_.  For example, _влажное полотенце_, _влажные руки_. I'd say that the English equivalent is _moist_.  Here the idea is that the moisture coming from the outside, not necessarily (but possibly) getting inside as well, yet there isn't enough moisture to make the object _wet_ (_мокрым_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, while there may be rare cases where these words can be interchangeable, usually they are not, as their meanings differ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="c10356c6-efb9-471c-b62e-253d4a8c9d9a" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:42:20.697" UserId="487" Text="By integer numbers the rule is more or less clear: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1,21,.. год,   &#xD;&#xA;- 2,3,4,22,...года,  &#xD;&#xA;- 5,6,...,19...лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about decimal numbers? does one easily take the integer part of the number before the noun and decline accordingly? or do the decimal numbers have some influence in the case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="c10356c6-efb9-471c-b62e-253d4a8c9d9a" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:42:20.697" UserId="487" Text="Declension after decimal numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="c10356c6-efb9-471c-b62e-253d4a8c9d9a" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:42:20.697" UserId="487" Text="|падежи|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="a5dcab23-79c6-4700-8f4e-b088374a5ec9" CreationDate="2012-10-19T18:24:52.550" UserId="134" Text="When reading decimal fractions you should pronounce pronominal adjectives *целая* and *десятая* (or *сотая*, *тысячная* etc.) which define an implied noun *часть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implied noun governs the object which hence should be in sg. gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, &quot;2.7 meters&quot; would translate into Russian as *две целых 7 десятых (частей) метра*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written with numerals, it would be *2.7 метра*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course a Rosenthal quote (*СППЛР, § 164.8*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильными являются конструкции *35,5 процента* (не: *… процентов*), *12,6 километра* (не: *… километров*), т. е. при смешанном числе существительным управляет дробь, а не целое число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также: *45,0 (сорок пять и ноль десятых) секунды, 6 7/8 (шесть и семь восьмых) метра* и т. п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="2dcd292e-1916-430d-9e8b-9cc28119812f" CreationDate="2012-10-19T18:37:20.213" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="When reading decimal fractions you should pronounce nominal adjectives *целая* and *десятая* (or *сотая*, *тысячная* etc.) which define an implied noun *часть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implied noun governs the object which hence should be in sg. gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, &quot;2.7 meters&quot; would translate into Russian as *две целых 7 десятых (частей) метра*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written with numerals, it would be *2.7 метра*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course a Rosenthal quote (*СППЛР, § 164.8*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильными являются конструкции *35,5 процента* (не: *… процентов*), *12,6 километра* (не: *… километров*), т. е. при смешанном числе существительным управляет дробь, а не целое число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также: *45,0 (сорок пять и ноль десятых) секунды, 6 7/8 (шесть и семь восьмых) метра* и т. п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="8e3e28ee-e301-468a-9f76-d8769ee4bb52" CreationDate="2012-10-19T19:08:35.827" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="When reading decimal fractions you should pronounce nominal adjectives *целая* and *десятая* (or *сотая*, *тысячная* etc.) which define an implied noun *часть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implied noun governs the object which hence should be in sg. gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, &quot;2.7 meters&quot; would translate into Russian as *две целых семь десятых (частей) метра*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written with numerals, it would be *2.7 метра*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course a Rosenthal quote (*СППЛР, § 164.8*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильными являются конструкции *35,5 процента* (не: *… процентов*), *12,6 километра* (не: *… километров*), т. е. при смешанном числе существительным управляет дробь, а не целое число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также: *45,0 (сорок пять и ноль десятых) секунды, 6 7/8 (шесть и семь восьмых) метра* и т. п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="ca8079ca-652f-4641-b854-b118ec5861f8" CreationDate="2012-10-21T00:00:42.300" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|склонение|числительные|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="b448d23e-bf65-445b-a1ae-12a6faefd244" CreationDate="2012-10-21T18:08:19.913" UserId="62" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="When I was giving a lecture, I was saying *бывает, что* whenever I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that...&quot; (thinking of it as &quot;It happens that...&quot;), and afterwards someone told me that I should have said *oказывается* instead of *бывает*. So starting in the next lecture I used *оказывается, что*.  Recently I noticed that people often seem to write or say *оказывается*, not just *оказывается, что*.  Is it standard to omit *что*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two concrete examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. If I want to say &quot;It turns out that this calculation works in general&quot;, which of the following two variants would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit: From answers below I see that I should write at the end of the sentence в общем случае instead of вообще, as I meant &quot;works all the time&quot;, not &quot;unexpectedly, it always works&quot;.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2. And if I want to say &quot;It turns out that this is the unique solution&quot;, which of the following two would it be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это единственное решение.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это единственное решение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="77ba79a4-a330-4f83-be6e-995e9c30eb28" CreationDate="2012-10-21T22:16:31.123" UserId="521" Text="eg in other languages it is quite easy&#xD;&#xA;conditional&#xD;&#xA;I will not come with  you UNLESS you behave yourself.&#xD;&#xA;If you are creating a scene I am  not coming with you&#xD;&#xA;sujunctive&#xD;&#xA;I wish you were here&#xD;&#xA;I hoped he would have come&#xD;&#xA;please say it with examples as you always do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="77ba79a4-a330-4f83-be6e-995e9c30eb28" CreationDate="2012-10-21T22:16:31.123" UserId="521" Text="please explain difference between subjunctive and conditional with examples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="77ba79a4-a330-4f83-be6e-995e9c30eb28" CreationDate="2012-10-21T22:16:31.123" UserId="521" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="13834017-b52c-4075-be5b-97efdefeaaa1" CreationDate="2012-10-22T07:22:57.030" UserId="487" Comment="rephrased the title, removied capitals in a word, fixed appearence, corrected some spelling" Text="Please explain the difference between subjunctive and conditional. E.g., in other languages it is quite easy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditional:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will not come with  you *unless* you behave yourself.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are creating a scene I am  not coming with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I wish you were here&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I hoped he would have come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please say it with examples as you always do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3402" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="13834017-b52c-4075-be5b-97efdefeaaa1" CreationDate="2012-10-22T07:22:57.030" UserId="487" Comment="rephrased the title, removied capitals in a word, fixed appearence, corrected some spelling" Text="Difference between subjunctive and conditional with examples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3403" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="13834017-b52c-4075-be5b-97efdefeaaa1" CreationDate="2012-10-22T07:22:57.030" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by 185 edit id of 235" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="07329046-7ed2-4e81-9868-33eaaf041c04" CreationDate="2012-10-22T08:46:42.293" UserId="134" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Please explain the difference between subjunctive and conditional. E.g., in other languages it is quite easy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditional:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will not come with  you *unless* you behave yourself.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you are creating a scene I am  not coming with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I wish you were here  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I hoped he would have come&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please say it with examples as you always do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="fb0c723e-db06-4ac0-aaf7-0af4065cdcc4" CreationDate="2012-10-22T09:51:31.003" UserId="134" Text="Predictive mood is expressed through future tense with optional addition of conjunction *если* (or colloquial *ежели, коли* etc.), for factual conditions (those in your examples, expressed in English through &quot;if&quot; or &quot;unless&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не будешь хорошо себя вести — не пойду с тобой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если соберёшься устроить скандал, я с тобой не пойду. // causal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, or conjuction *пока* for temporal conditions (expressed in English through &quot;while&quot; or &quot;until&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока не станешь себя хорошо вести, не пойду с тобой. // I won't go with you until you behave yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока ты столько пьёшь, я с тобой не встречаюсь. // I'm not going with you while you are drinking so hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speculative mood is conveyed through past tense particle *бы*, possibly prepended with conjunction *если* (if in the beginning of the clause):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы ты хорошо себя вёл, я бы с тобой пошла // If you were behaving yourself, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не собирался бы ты устроить скандал, я бы с тобой пошла. // If you were not going to create a scene, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, or through conditional verb in imperative (and without *бы*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошла бы с тобой, веди ты себя хорошо // Were you behaving yourself, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не соберись ты устроить скандал, я бы с тобой пошла // Were you not going to create a scene, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Optative mood is conveyed through optative clause starting with *чтобы* and the verb in past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу, чтобы ты была здесь // Wish you were here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volitive mood is conveyed through volitive clause staring with *что* and the verb in future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я надеялся, что он придёт // I hoped he would have come" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="8c9fda6d-801b-4ad6-9c5c-aa242253c1e6" CreationDate="2012-10-22T10:48:14.747" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Predictive mood is expressed through future tense with optional addition of conjunction *если* (or colloquial *ежели, коли* etc.), for factual conditions (those in your examples, expressed in English through &quot;if&quot; or &quot;unless&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не будешь хорошо себя вести — не пойду с тобой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если соберёшься устроить скандал, я с тобой не пойду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, or conjuction *пока* for temporal conditions (expressed in English through &quot;while&quot; or &quot;until&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока не станешь себя хорошо вести, не пойду с тобой. // I won't go with you until you behave yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока ты столько пьёшь, я с тобой не встречаюсь. // I'm not going with you while you are drinking so hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speculative mood is conveyed through past tense and particle *бы*, possibly prepended with conjunction *если* (if in the beginning of the clause):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы ты хорошо себя вёл, я бы с тобой пошла // If you were behaving yourself, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не собирался бы ты устроить скандал, я бы с тобой пошла. // If you were not going to create a scene, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, or through conditional verb in imperative (and without *бы*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошла бы с тобой, веди ты себя хорошо // Were you behaving yourself, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не соберись ты устроить скандал, я бы с тобой пошла // Were you not going to create a scene, I would come with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Optative mood is conveyed through optative clause starting with *чтобы* and the verb in past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу, чтобы ты была здесь // Wish you were here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volitive mood is conveyed through volitive clause staring with *что* and the verb in future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я надеялся, что он придёт // I hoped he would have come" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="59dd0852-0cc5-42f1-9cf6-fd18ee8077bc" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:37:18.693" UserId="109" Comment="slightly reformatting" Text="It means *one who is being led, pulled, attracted etc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its use in the above examples seems perfectly correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="59dd0852-0cc5-42f1-9cf6-fd18ee8077bc" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:37:18.693" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by -1 edit id of 236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="ead8deb2-8afb-4520-b8aa-fb66934239c1" CreationDate="2012-10-22T14:37:18.693" UserId="185" Comment="slightly reformatting" Text="It means *one who is being led, pulled, attracted, etc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And its use in the above examples seems perfectly correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="3493123f-80f3-47a0-a113-5b46e3345fc0" CreationDate="2012-10-22T15:04:12.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/260396139201843200" />
  <row Id="3411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="df0b3ba4-83fc-44cb-b37d-41b7856acc7f" CreationDate="2012-10-23T21:04:12.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/260849126407806977" />
  <row Id="3412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="7a25a9a8-08b5-4ce7-b025-16a13f3c50eb" CreationDate="2012-10-25T18:04:12.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/261528603718717442" />
  <row Id="3415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="1eecb7fe-893e-455b-b1c0-9c1ccd731a24" CreationDate="2012-10-26T07:16:43.050" UserId="194" Text="I thought it was &quot;борыня&quot; but was corrected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="1eecb7fe-893e-455b-b1c0-9c1ccd731a24" CreationDate="2012-10-26T07:16:43.050" UserId="194" Text="What is feminine form of &quot;борец&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="1eecb7fe-893e-455b-b1c0-9c1ccd731a24" CreationDate="2012-10-26T07:16:43.050" UserId="194" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="0a4bdba7-c86e-459c-82c0-51eaeb5dbe5d" CreationDate="2012-10-26T08:24:55.940" UserId="242" Text="`Борец`, `полководец` as well аs `товарищ`, `лидер` (though colloqial `лидерша` exists), `вождь`, `лауреат`, `член` and some other words do not have feminine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that easy, all you can do is just to remember such words, since other words wiсh belong to related context exists in feminine, e. g.: руководительница, приятельница, воительница, номинантка (de-facto way more acceptable than лауреатка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, in modern Russian, even if it existed such feminine form, it most probably would be `борчиха` (compare to `пловец/пловчиха`), but very unlikely it would be `борыня`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="55f2a076-4ba4-4d43-b52b-46fdb06a5513" CreationDate="2012-10-26T08:32:30.073" UserId="242" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="`Борец`, `полководец` as well аs `товарищ`, `инженер`, `министр`,`лидер` (though colloqial `лидерша` exists), `вождь`, `лауреат`, `член` and some other words do not have feminine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that easy, all you can do is just to remember such words, since other words wiсh belong to related context exists in feminine, e. g.: руководительница, приятельница, воительница, номинантка (de-facto way more acceptable than лауреатка), атаманша.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, in modern Russian, even if it existed such feminine form, it most probably would be `борчиха` (compare to `пловец/пловчиха`), but very unlikely it would be `борыня`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that some words in feminine form have slightly different meaning. `Офицерша`, as well as `генеральша` or `капитанша` are common terms for referencing women married to a member of armed force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="fced2797-21e9-4cbe-aecb-c975105383a5" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:10:40.303" UserId="242" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress if moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is move on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** хуй.&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** фиг.&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** хрен.&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** кол. (but &quot;на к**о**л&quot; is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** пол. (but &quot;на п**о**л&quot; is alsoe acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say - &quot;н**а** вас&quot;, &quot;н**а** нас&quot;. At the same time, the is only one valid stress in phrases `на хуя`, `на хрена` is utlimate stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more compilcated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase ,once again, sorry for cursing, &quot;Н**а** хуй ты уронил ящик на х**у**й&quot; is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When I should and when I shouldn't move stress to the preposition?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="fced2797-21e9-4cbe-aecb-c975105383a5" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:10:40.303" UserId="242" Text="Cases when stress has to me moved to preposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="fced2797-21e9-4cbe-aecb-c975105383a5" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:10:40.303" UserId="242" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="f1541cf6-1fe1-4aac-ab72-a2eea73a2a28" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:19:05.490" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress if moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is move on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** хуй.&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** фиг.&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** хрен.&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** кол. (but &quot;на к**о**л&quot; is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - н**а** пол. (but &quot;на п**о**л&quot; is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say - &quot;н**а** вас&quot;, &quot;н**а** нас&quot;. At the same time, the is only one valid stress in phrases `на хуя`, `на хрена` is utlimate stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more compilcated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase ,once again, sorry for cursing, &quot;Н**а** хуй ты уронил ящик на х**у**й&quot; is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When I should and when I shouldn't move stress to the preposition?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="b9fb06a7-4c45-436a-9c4a-dd35381d9cee" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:30:16.853" UserId="134" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress if moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is move on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *на&amp;#x301; хуй*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; фиг*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; хрен*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; кол* (but *на ко&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; пол* (but *на по&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say *н&amp;#x301;а вас, н&amp;#x301;а нас*. At the same time, the is only one valid stress in phrases *на хуя, на хрена* is utlimate stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more compilcated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase, once again, sorry for cursing, *На&amp;#x301; хуй ты уронил ящик на ху&amp;#x301;й?* is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When I should and when I shouldn't move stress to the preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="cd91c662-4110-4bbf-95dd-5715d897ded5" CreationDate="2012-10-26T10:47:15.670" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress if moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is move on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *на&amp;#x301; хуй*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; фиг*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; хрен*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; кол* (but *на ко&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; пол* (but *на по&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say *н&amp;#x301;а вас, н&amp;#x301;а нас*. At the same time, the is only option in phrases *на хуя, на хрена* is utlimate stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more compilcated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase, once again, sorry for cursing, *На&amp;#x301; хуй ты уронил ящик на ху&amp;#x301;й?* is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When I should and when I shouldn't move stress to the preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="3efa53f3-20a2-4558-b5df-926f9352ba05" CreationDate="2012-10-26T11:15:16.260" UserId="109" Comment="typo and such" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress is moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is moved on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *на&amp;#x301; хуй*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; фиг*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; хрен*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; кол* (but *на ко&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; пол* (but *на по&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say *н&amp;#x301;а вас, н&amp;#x301;а нас*. At the same time, the is only option in phrases *на хуя, на хрена* is ultimate stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more complicated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase, once again, sorry for cursing, *На&amp;#x301; хуй ты уронил ящик на ху&amp;#x301;й?* is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When should I and when shouldn't I move stress to the preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3427" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="3efa53f3-20a2-4558-b5df-926f9352ba05" CreationDate="2012-10-26T11:15:16.260" UserId="109" Comment="typo and such" Text="Cases when stress has to be moved to preposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3428" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="3efa53f3-20a2-4558-b5df-926f9352ba05" CreationDate="2012-10-26T11:15:16.260" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 242 edit id of 237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="d302ee0b-ecd6-45dd-a14b-b81a58effc91" CreationDate="2012-10-26T11:22:06.030" UserId="134" Text="Before XVI, it was a norm for nouns with accentual paradigm `c` to shift the stress onto prepositions: *бе&amp;#x301;з мужа, о&amp;#x301; мирѣ, на&amp;#x301; гробъ* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, only some of those nouns still shift the stress (including those you mentioned, also *нос, голова, стена* and several others); however, the rules are quite complex and not stable: for instance, both *за го&amp;#x301;лову* and *за&amp;#x301; голову* are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a whole chapter 3.48 in Zaliznyak's *От праславянской акцентуации к русской* about this phenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="4afd67f1-77b1-40b2-b303-9554536871c9" CreationDate="2012-10-26T11:30:10.040" UserId="242" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress is moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is moved on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *на&amp;#x301; хуй*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; фиг*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; хрен*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; кол* (but *на ко&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; пол* (but *на по&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say *н&amp;#x301;а вас, н&amp;#x301;а нас*. At the same time, the is only one option in phrases *на хуя, на хрена*, i.e. stressing the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more complicated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase, once again, sorry for cursing, *На&amp;#x301; хуй ты уронил ящик на ху&amp;#x301;й?* is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When should I and when shouldn't I move stress to the preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="4a185f37-9998-4bfb-be0d-a4f8a263ed51" CreationDate="2012-10-26T11:39:29.513" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In Polish language in some combination containing prepositions, stress is moved from following word on the preposition - for example, **na** nas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of days ago I've been thinking about this fact and suddenly realize that actually in Russian out of my head I can name following cases when stress is moved on the preposition (excuse me for obscene lexicon, think of following phrases from the heights of pure linguistics interest):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *на&amp;#x301; хуй*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; фиг*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; хрен*&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; кол* (but *на ко&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA; - *на&amp;#x301; пол* (but *на по&amp;#x301;л* is also acceptable)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;At the same time, you can not say *н&amp;#x301;а вас, н&amp;#x301;а нас*. At the same time, there is only one option in phrases *на хуя, на хрена*, i.e. stressing the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It got even more complicated when I realize that, for native speaker phrase, once again, sorry for cursing, *На&amp;#x301; хуй ты уронил ящик на ху&amp;#x301;й?* is totally valid, though situation described in phrase is quite unrealistic :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: When should I and when shouldn't I move stress to the preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="ff811acd-31cc-4149-aed2-c355650d3c6d" CreationDate="2012-10-27T12:55:18.790" UserId="282" Text="I know четверть means 15 minutes, I suppose it figures into the answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="ff811acd-31cc-4149-aed2-c355650d3c6d" CreationDate="2012-10-27T12:55:18.790" UserId="282" Text="How do you say 15 minutes before 6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="ff811acd-31cc-4149-aed2-c355650d3c6d" CreationDate="2012-10-27T12:55:18.790" UserId="282" Text="|time|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="748c7936-af9d-4fc4-b844-2503fc306f23" CreationDate="2012-10-27T13:14:47.503" UserId="242" Text="Here are the options (in order of frequency of use):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Без четверти шесть &#xD;&#xA;  * Без пятнадцати шесть&#xD;&#xA;  * Сорок пять минут шестого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="9355d27a-f020-4aa4-ae33-babec7a019d2" CreationDate="2012-10-28T07:30:23.993" UserId="185" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Here are the options (in order of frequency of use):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Без четверти шесть &#xD;&#xA;  * Без пятнадцати (минут) шесть&#xD;&#xA;  * Сорок пять минут шестого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="ed05e561-5e9b-4b5e-a19f-606fe1d61008" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:26:09.910" UserId="98" Text="Попалось на глаза вот такое предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Должно пройти достаточно много времени, чтобы стать мастером.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я воспринял его как грамматически неправильное. Погуглив, нашел такое [описание][1] соответствующего грамматического явления: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во многих типах придаточных предложений при союзе *чтобы* инфинитив&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оформляет равносубъектные конструкции, в то время как прошедшее время&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чаще используется в разносубъектных. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придаточных предложениях при союзе *чтобы*, таким образом, употребление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сослагательного инфинитива диктуется не семантическими, а&#xD;&#xA;&gt; синтаксическими условиями:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (98) Старуха побежала к будке регулировщика, **чтобы остановить** поезд.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ср. употребление формы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени в разносубъектной конструкции:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; (99) Старуха побежала к будке регулировщика, **чтобы** он **остановил** поезд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако я не понимаю, почему предложение начинает восприниматься как правильное, если перефразировать его следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно достаточно много времени, чтобы стать мастером.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ведь конструкция по-прежнему разносубъектная. В чем же, с точки зрения грамматики, состоит разница между изначальным вариантом и переиначенным, делающая второй правильным?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#41" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="ed05e561-5e9b-4b5e-a19f-606fe1d61008" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:26:09.910" UserId="98" Text="Сослагательный инфинитив при союзе &quot;чтобы&quot; и разносубъектные конструкции" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="ed05e561-5e9b-4b5e-a19f-606fe1d61008" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:26:09.910" UserId="98" Text="|грамматика|agreement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="89d1f62f-ba54-478c-8ee8-b361ea6a55e9" CreationDate="2012-10-29T01:07:05.800" UserId="222" Text="Это согласуется с правилом, которое Вы процитировали. В обоих придаточных предложениях в предложении «Нужно достаточно много времени, чтобы стать мастером» подразумевается один и тот же субъект: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мне* нужно достаточно много времени, чтобы [*мне*] стать мастером.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А в предложении «Должно пройти достаточно много времени, чтобы стать мастером» субъекты разные; нельзя сказать «Мне должно пройти достаточно много времени, чтобы [мне] стать мастером»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3442" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="961fd182-77f3-497d-a426-345d08e8f0e5" CreationDate="2012-10-29T03:04:23.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/262751706595598338" />
  <row Id="3443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="6a67e96c-3e42-46e5-a839-7979b919e648" CreationDate="2012-10-29T05:38:35.480" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It's a metaphor, literally translated as &quot;icy ripple of the canal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blok was raised in Saint-Petersburg (then capital of Russia) with its numerous canals, so this metaphor conveys feel of a cold windy night in a large city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="ddc4dc90-dfdc-46ea-83c3-9e4f46b2a001" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:41:49.623" UserId="5" Text="So my question is whether I should use a soft sign at the end of врач when I am referring to a woman doctor? It seems like in this case врач becomes feminine and the same rule as for ночь has to be used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="ddc4dc90-dfdc-46ea-83c3-9e4f46b2a001" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:41:49.623" UserId="5" Text="она врач or она врачь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="ddc4dc90-dfdc-46ea-83c3-9e4f46b2a001" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:41:49.623" UserId="5" Text="|грамматика|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="c7abcb3c-b72f-41b0-9756-cdc0c52b5c9a" CreationDate="2012-10-29T20:19:37.140" UserId="242" Text="No, you shouldn't. Moreover, it by all means incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;There exist only colloquial `врачиха` and `докторша`, but &quot;врачь&quot; is wrong and, as far as I know, never've been valid in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like you've asked whether the feminine form of `мяч` is `мячь` - the thing is [not all nouns exist][1] in feminine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/what-is-feminine-form-of-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%86/1044" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="4c0aa95b-40da-4649-a840-8a8bca727a7c" CreationDate="2012-10-29T20:26:44.920" UserId="535" Text="In this case врач is an occupation, so it doesn't change it's gender and still remain &quot;masculine&quot;(see &quot;водитель&quot; (driver), &quot;повар&quot; (cook)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some (rare) cases of special &quot;feminine &quot; form of occupation (like &quot;поэтесса&quot; (female) vs. &quot;поэт&quot; ), but that's not it. &#xD;&#xA;So, there's no need in soft sign. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="4881f385-db1d-472f-a7af-bc64ca87fd93" CreationDate="2012-10-29T20:40:00.587" UserId="496" Text="It's true that the words that end with ь are usually feminine grammatical gender in Russian but it does not mean that adding ь at the end is a good way of creating woman profession name from the masculine gender profession name. For this there are other standard endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only remember one such usage with ь in a children's story tale. In this story the author used мыш instead of мышь for the name of a male mouse personage. It was mimicking children's language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For feminine of врач - врачиха can be used but only in an informal conversation. In more formal speech (more respectful) you do not have any other choice except using врач and show that it is she by using feminine ending of a verb (if it is the past tense), adjective, or use она nearby. For example: Врач Иваненко пришл**а** сегодня очень рано. Врач Иваненко очень компетентн**а** в этом вопросе. Врач сегодня не принимает, **она** будет принимать завтра." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="50f524d9-1481-4ea1-b52f-9add6d4b98c0" CreationDate="2012-10-30T00:26:34.470" UserId="426" Text="The word &quot;врач&quot; [belongs to the second declension][1]. Nouns of the first and second declension ending in sibilant are written without a soft sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="c8c79f30-2725-4144-b4da-4229ebcbad73" CreationDate="2012-10-30T00:36:29.900" UserId="496" Comment="added 417 characters in body" Text="It's true that the words that end with ь are usually feminine grammatical gender in Russian but it does not mean that adding ь at the end is a good way of creating woman profession name from the masculine gender profession name. For this there are other standard endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only remember one such usage with ь in a children's story tale. In this story the author used мыш instead of мышь for the name of a male mouse personage. It was mimicking children's language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For feminine of врач - врачиха can be used but only in an informal conversation. In more formal speech (more respectful) you do not have any other choice except using врач and show that it is she by using feminine ending of a verb (if it is the past tense), adjective, or use она nearby. For example: Врач Иваненко пришл**а** сегодня очень рано. Врач Иваненко очень компетентн**а** в этом вопросе. Врач сегодня не принимает, **она** будет принимать завтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: OP is definitely not the first who thinks about such experimentations with Russian. Example: Ночи без мягких знаков, глухие мужские ночи (Зимовье зверей). But it is more natural to remove ь (for fun) to make masculine from feminine than vice versa. When we make (for fun) feminine from masculine we usually add -а or -я ending (or some other ending that ends with a). Like мыша (stress on second syllable). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="f224b660-d328-478a-8263-ab6988f7ecd4" CreationDate="2012-10-30T00:53:23.903" UserId="496" Comment="added 417 characters in body" Text="It's true that the words that end with ь are usually feminine grammatical gender in Russian but it does not mean that adding ь at the end is a good way of creating woman profession name from the masculine gender profession name. For this there are other standard endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only remember one such usage with ь in a children's story tale. In this story the author used мыш instead of мышь for the name of a male mouse personage. It was mimicking children's language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For feminine of врач - врачиха can be used but only in an informal conversation. In more formal speech (more respectful) you do not have any other choice except using врач and show that it is she by using feminine ending of a verb (if it is the past tense), adjective, or use она nearby. For example: Врач Иваненко пришл**а** сегодня очень рано. Врач Иваненко очень компетентн**а** в этом вопросе. Врач сегодня не принимает, **она** будет принимать завтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: OP is definitely not the first who thinks about such experimentation with Russian. Example: Ночи без мягких знаков, глухие мужские ночи (Зимовье зверей). But it is more natural to remove ь (for fun) to make masculine from feminine than vice versa. When we make (for fun) feminine from masculine we usually add -а or -я ending (or some other ending that ends with a). Like мыша (stress on second syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example I could remember of going from masculine to feminine via -ь is лёд -&gt; наледь. But it is quite rare case not mentioning that it involves also adding prefix на- and changing ё to е. More often when you add -ь you get completely different word: вон - вонь, мол - моль. I guess the difference in sound is too small to be distinguishable enough, so the language did not accept such way of word creation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="008e3f1e-1b56-4d64-a85f-5d4543698280" CreationDate="2012-10-30T08:19:06.903" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|орфография|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="cef514c4-1560-459f-b4f6-3d26a13bd684" CreationDate="2012-10-30T08:20:21.707" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="bb58c7b1-d170-4fd3-809d-24a5522da6d6" CreationDate="2012-10-30T08:20:57.197" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|предлоги|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3456" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="e36a35dc-202e-4388-a7b8-acd3c6b1a60b" CreationDate="2012-10-30T08:21:24.593" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3457" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="5f0fca28-267c-46a6-b830-86368f6f467b" CreationDate="2012-10-30T08:21:53.343" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3460" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="65adc275-8585-4f12-8c1f-8012b2ace71e" CreationDate="2012-10-31T00:59:03.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/263444939327811585" />
  <row Id="3461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="f1ae3b3d-2c6d-4c0a-b704-f5f43a0a6ce0" CreationDate="2012-10-31T03:59:03.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/263490238708588544" />
  <row Id="3468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="d62bded0-1df5-41db-8b44-59f028c8026c" CreationDate="2012-10-31T11:14:28.717" UserId="97" Text="The Russian word for _to make someone laugh_ is _рассмешить_.  Is there a valid (related) word for _to make someone smile_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sometimes see word _улыбнуть_, however I believe it's a colloquial expression. Also, while _рассмешить_ (in past tense) can be used with masculine, feminine and neuter case (e.g. _он рассмешил весь отдел_), every (rare) time I saw _улыбнуть_, it was in neuter.  Just saying it out loud, _меня улыбнуло что-то в этой статье_ sounds better than _меня улыбнула эта статья_.  Yet, both sound somewhat weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does a word like that exist?  If yes, what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="d62bded0-1df5-41db-8b44-59f028c8026c" CreationDate="2012-10-31T11:14:28.717" UserId="97" Text="Смеяться - рассмешить, улыбаться -?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="d62bded0-1df5-41db-8b44-59f028c8026c" CreationDate="2012-10-31T11:14:28.717" UserId="97" Text="|лексикон|глаголы|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="1422527d-506e-4a3c-8659-6cb5ccf220af" CreationDate="2012-10-31T11:30:04.313" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="Рассмешить to смеяться; what's the similarly related word to улыбаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3472" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="e06a12c7-62be-4f42-8ed2-a128b3313e56" CreationDate="2012-10-31T12:16:10.847" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="Рассмешить to смеяться is like (what?) to улыбаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="8b9418ad-12c6-426a-bba6-0b61384dadb0" CreationDate="2012-10-31T12:37:57.353" UserId="185" Text="There is no transitive verb with the same stem as *улыбаться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *улыбнуть* is a colloquial expression, which means that something was funny, but didn't quite make you laugh. It's currently a part of Internet argot. However, as one can conclude from Wikitionary, it has already existed for a century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To portray the meaning &quot;make someone smile&quot; you could use *развеселить* &quot;bring one into a good mood, make one want to laugh&quot;, *порадовать* &quot;make one feel glad&quot;, or *позабавить* &quot;amuse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say *заставить улыбнуться* or *вызвать (у кого-либо) улыбку*. In particular, *Эта статья вызвала у меня улыбку* is a perfectly correct and natural Russian sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="7098ae22-25f2-4f49-9850-3489c04c5d27" CreationDate="2012-10-31T12:53:55.397" UserId="185" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There is no transitive verb with the same stem as *улыбаться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb *улыбнуть* is a colloquial expression, which means that something was funny, but didn't quite make you laugh. It's currently a part of Internet argot. However, as one can conclude from Wikitionary, it has been around for a century at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To portray the meaning &quot;make someone smile&quot; you could use *развеселить* &quot;bring one into a good mood, make one want to laugh&quot;, *порадовать* &quot;make one feel glad&quot;, or *позабавить* &quot;amuse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say *заставить улыбнуться* or *вызвать (у кого-либо) улыбку*. In particular, *Эта статья вызвала у меня улыбку* is a perfectly correct and natural Russian sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="11d5c45d-b405-4109-9b6d-21a97f867e90" CreationDate="2012-10-31T13:16:08.063" UserId="185" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="The verb *улыбнуть* is a colloquial expression, which means that something was funny, but didn't quite make you laugh. It's currently a part of Internet argot. However, as one can conclude from Wikitionary, it has been around for a century at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To portray the meaning &quot;make someone smile&quot; you could use *развеселить* &quot;bring one into a good mood, make one want to laugh&quot;, *порадовать* &quot;make one feel glad&quot;, or *позабавить* &quot;amuse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say *заставить улыбнуться* or *вызвать (у кого-либо) улыбку*. In particular, *Эта статья вызвала у меня улыбку* is a perfectly correct and natural Russian sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="b35879a9-fd1a-47b0-a64d-b011d2237ada" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:19:05.530" UserId="487" Text="It is sometimes the case that one attributes a second meaning to the colors, in poetry or just slang. It might be that this association is language-dependent (perhaps the exception being the &quot;green&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most common meanings attributed to colors in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="b35879a9-fd1a-47b0-a64d-b011d2237ada" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:19:05.530" UserId="487" Text="On the meanings of the colors in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="b35879a9-fd1a-47b0-a64d-b011d2237ada" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:19:05.530" UserId="487" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="4ff09180-43ac-488d-ba2d-707de91105d7" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:22:28.167" UserId="242" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - homosexual.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="6f56f03b-5a08-4470-8f70-ff9e55354069" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:29:59.053" UserId="242" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - homosexual.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="e43237e0-c27f-4f16-a4c5-be310e70be94" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:36:14.183" UserId="242" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - homosexual.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][1]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="eaf21499-5f0a-447d-a18f-17e254be607d" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:36:47.593" UserId="487" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="It is sometimes the case that one attributes a second meaning to the colors, in poetry or just slang. It might be that this association is language-dependent (perhaps the exception being the &quot;green&quot;). Please provide an example, and if possible, the reason for this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most common meanings attributed to colors in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="312967f7-7bc3-4129-bb1a-609a6cec26df" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:45:12.667" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][1]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="4d9c3f5a-1dab-4b7c-8972-3eba33dcbe35" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:50:53.473" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing `червонный`/`червлённый`. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][1]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="7a6c130a-7654-45bc-9e55-4206d8b41983" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:57:50.943" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing `червонный`/`червлённый`. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); (historical) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][1] `гороховое пальто`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][2]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="7515c181-c556-40b0-8ca0-feb3775ffec0" CreationDate="2012-10-31T19:03:32.953" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing `червонный`/`червлённый`. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]);  (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] `гороховое пальто`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Побагроветь` - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="e1d959d0-abf4-434e-96df-41e47b7e1817" CreationDate="2012-10-31T19:14:58.313" UserId="242" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing `червонный`/`червлённый`. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] `гороховое пальто`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Побагроветь` - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  &quot;сделаться белым&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="f8b55678-2002-4cf3-8330-ba632e9a7053" CreationDate="2012-10-31T19:26:22.800" UserId="242" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing `червонный`/`червлённый`; curse word in phrase `красное словцо`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] `гороховое пальто`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Побагроветь` - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  `сделаться белым`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="bbd805b8-313a-4d8e-90e2-0065cea6a8d2" CreationDate="2012-11-01T12:46:06.640" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * `Серый` - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Коричневый` - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Красный` - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing `червонный`/`червлённый`; curse word in phrase `красное словцо`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Голубой` - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] `гороховое пальто`.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Розовый` - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. `Розовая` sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to `голубой` is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * `Зелёный` - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Белый` - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Чёрный` - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Жёлтый` - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * `Фиолетово` - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * `Побагроветь` - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  `сделаться белым`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="e572af24-7d2e-4584-be72-7b60fc3fc198" CreationDate="2012-11-01T22:49:50.370" UserId="185" Text="It seems to me that these two words have the same meaning. The dictionary doesn't help much, it gives them as synonyms. Although the meaning of &quot;сейчас&quot; is more general and can refer to past events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Мы сейчас смотрели фильм&quot; - We have just seen a movie,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; in cases when they both refer to present events, they seem to mean the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я теперь работаю в Microsoft.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я сейчас работаю в Microsoft.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between сейчас and теперь in case when they refer to the present?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="e572af24-7d2e-4584-be72-7b60fc3fc198" CreationDate="2012-11-01T22:49:50.370" UserId="185" Text="What is the difference between теперь and сейчас" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="e572af24-7d2e-4584-be72-7b60fc3fc198" CreationDate="2012-11-01T22:49:50.370" UserId="185" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="c2dd2cdf-c251-4b0e-8a60-795b521ce016" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:35:18.400" UserId="426" Text="I would translate both words as `now`, and convey the distinction in their meaning by using a different tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I work for Microsoft now. (теперь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I am working for Microsoft now. (сейчас)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative `these days` could be used in the first translation, but not in the second. The word `теперь` implies a subtle link to past, while `сейчас` does not. Compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я теперь работаю. -- I work these days / now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я сейчас работаю. -- I am working (now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase implies that there has been a time in the past when I did not work, while the second phrase does not bear the same implication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="69af8a01-f91b-4bbf-bf98-8bc18fe0ea4a" CreationDate="2012-11-02T10:55:13.897" UserId="134" Text="*теперь* is used to connect two sentences (one of which may be implied) and is close to conjunction, *сейчас* is a stand-alone adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *теперь* itself originated from Slavic *&amp;#42;то прьво* which means &quot;now that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Сейчас я пойду в магазин // I'll go to the shop now&#xD;&#xA;* Теперь (когда я сделал другие дела) я пойду в магазин // Now (that I've done with the other tasks) I'll go to the shop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="b0e8244e-1ebc-4b3f-9a81-b93eba6d15b8" CreationDate="2012-11-02T11:06:29.147" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="*теперь* is used to connect two sentences (one of which may be implied) and is close to conjunction, *сейчас* is a stand-alone adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *теперь* itself originated from Slavic *&amp;#42;то прьво* which means &quot;now that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Сейчас я пойду в магазин* // I'll go to the shop now&#xD;&#xA;* *Теперь (когда я сделал другие дела) я пойду в магазин* // Now (that I'm done with the other tasks) I'll go to the shop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="71247204-37d5-457a-b073-96ad0b7a41aa" CreationDate="2012-11-02T12:34:24.683" UserId="97" Text="While both words mean _now_, there is a more-than-slight difference in meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Теперь_ is used when you want to describe something that takes place from a particular point onwards, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; теперь это уже не важно&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(now it's not important [any more])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Сейчас_ is used to describe a particular one point in time, without references of inferences to duration, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сейчас я занят&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; right now I'm very busy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, you can use _теперь_ whenever in English you could say _from point (x)_ or _any more_.  You can use _сейчас_ when in English you can say _right now_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="15af063e-a269-46c8-bbf7-64684a3edea1" CreationDate="2012-11-02T18:13:43.713" UserId="487" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="It is sometimes the case that one attributes a second meaning to the colors, in poetry or just slang. It might be that this association is language-dependent (perhaps an exception is *a* connotation of &quot;green&quot; as environmentally friendly). Please provide an example, and if possible, the reason for this association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most common meanings attributed to colors in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="f0d60c3b-ab78-4120-b124-ca6f2b312987" CreationDate="2012-11-03T05:01:06.343" UserId="487" Text="I am somehow bemused by the [sixteen cases](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases) of the Russian. On the other hand, I thought that there were only six kinds of declension. Perhaps these two facts are not contradictory, but the problem is that I am not aware of the difference between *case* and *declension*. During my only Russian course, I was given some declension tables with 6+6 endings: six endings for nominative, genitive, dative, acusative, instrumental and prepositional, plus six from their plurals.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do some (hopefully all) of the 16 cases in the aforementioned question obey the same declension? If so, which cases obey which declension rules? If not, I'm afraid that one has to learn a 16+16 table." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="f0d60c3b-ab78-4120-b124-ca6f2b312987" CreationDate="2012-11-03T05:01:06.343" UserId="487" Text="Does &quot;case&quot; equal &quot;declension&quot;? 6 declensions for 16 cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="f0d60c3b-ab78-4120-b124-ca6f2b312987" CreationDate="2012-11-03T05:01:06.343" UserId="487" Text="|грамматика|падежи|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="8921af0b-d1af-484e-9520-a0b950f0d9c1" CreationDate="2012-11-03T07:09:00.187" UserId="487" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="I am somehow bemused by the [sixteen cases](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases) of the Russian. On the other hand, I thought that there were only six kinds of declension. Perhaps these two facts are not contradictory, but the problem is that I am not aware of the difference between *case* and *declension*. During my only Russian course, I was given some declension tables with 6+6 endings: six endings for nominative, genitive, dative, acusative, instrumental and prepositional, plus six from their plurals.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can some (hopefully all) of the 16 cases in the aforementioned question be grouped, as to obey one of the six common declensions? If so, which cases obey which declension rules? If not, I'm afraid that one has to learn a 16+16 table." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="bfb6a79c-2813-4a62-90b9-15a54a2669f1" CreationDate="2012-11-03T10:12:14.987" UserId="134" Text="**Case** is a certain form of the word which is required by its grammatical role in a certain sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance if you wanted to say &quot;I gave money to …&quot; (*я дал денег …*) you would have to put the subject into dative, because it is required by the grammatical construction of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are six traditionally recognized cases in Russian (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, prepositional) but some linguists describe up to 16 (as in the link you gave in your question). Not all words in Russian can form all of those, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declension** (in narrow meaning) is a certain paradigm which defines how exactly a word is put into a certain case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three commonly recognized declensions in Russian, plus several special cases (indeclinable nouns; ten words enging in *-мя*; words *мать, дочь*; words *небо, чудо*; pronominal paradigms in words like *швартов, кабельтов, ничья* etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually declensions and cases are rows and columns in a table which stores endings in its cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you want to say &quot;I gave money to dad&quot; in Russian, you look up the word &quot;dad&quot; in the dictionary and find it to be *папа* (1st declension). As we said above this phrase requires the subject to be in dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you look up what's the sg. dative ending for 1st declension, find it to be *-e* and say: *я дал денег пап&lt;strong&gt;е&lt;/strong&gt;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="839eac5e-9c9a-451b-8707-5f9b94350052" CreationDate="2012-11-03T11:04:35.720" UserId="71" Text="Every element in a sentence occupies a role. Some languages signal that role with prepositions (Italian, Spanish), others with particles (Japanese) and others with cases (Russian for example). There might be other ways but let's stop here for the purpose of the question. In the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I write a letter with my pen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 elements, other than the verb. The subject (I), the object (a letter) and another element (with my pen). This last one changes according to the language, even its name. In Russian it would be the instrumental (you use a tool to perform the action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these 3 elements are covered by **cases**. The subject is usually the nominative case, the object is the accusative, and the last one, I said above, it's the instrumental. It says it itself: cases denote... *cases*. How does a certain noun change in a certain *case*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declension** is a somewhat ambiguous term. It can indicate any variation of nouns in terms of gender, number, case. But in your case a declension is the noun going through the cases, as in &quot;how would noun X change in all the cases?&quot;. For example, the declension for the pronoun Я (I) would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nominative: я&#xD;&#xA; - Genitive: меня&#xD;&#xA; - Dative: мне&#xD;&#xA; - Accusative: меня&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental: мной, мною&#xD;&#xA; - Prepositive: обо мне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="7710611f-ae60-4c75-8e24-c618ad2c195e" CreationDate="2012-11-03T12:36:36.877" UserId="71" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Every element in a sentence occupies a role. Some languages signal that role with prepositions (Italian, Spanish), others with particles (Japanese) and others with cases (Russian for example). There might be other ways but let's stop here for the purpose of the question. In the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I write a letter with my pen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 elements, other than the verb. The subject (I), the object (a letter) and another element (with my pen). This last one changes according to the language, even its name. In Russian it would be the instrumental (you use a tool to perform the action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these 3 elements are covered by **cases**. The subject is usually the nominative case, the object is the accusative, and the last one, as I said above, is the instrumental. It says it itself: cases denote... *cases*. How does a certain noun change in a certain *case*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declension** is a somewhat ambiguous term. It can indicate any variation of nouns in terms of gender, number, case. But in your case (no pun intended) a declension is the noun going through the cases, as in &quot;how would noun X change in all the cases?&quot;. For example, the declension for the pronoun Я (I) would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nominative: я&#xD;&#xA; - Genitive: меня&#xD;&#xA; - Dative: мне&#xD;&#xA; - Accusative: меня&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental: мной, мною&#xD;&#xA; - Prepositive: обо мне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what is intended for declension. It's the same that happens to verbs (1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; person, 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; person and so on), but in that case, we talk about **conjugation**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="368d82bf-871e-4007-adc2-76b81ddfd6cd" CreationDate="2012-11-03T13:40:25.303" UserId="545" Text="**Красный цвет**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. имеющий окраску красного цвета - *красная кровь, красная роза.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. связанный с советским прошлым  - *красный воин, красная гвардия*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. обозначает красивый, яркий, нарядный, чаще употребляется в поэзии и в разговорной речи - *красна девица, «Попрыгунья Стрекоза лето красное пропела» (Крылов).*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="539db54c-1d16-4d2e-9f83-4fb1b89ce142" CreationDate="2012-11-03T22:38:26.363" UserId="194" Text="Declension is a variant of how a word changes in different cases. Word of each declension has endings corresponding to all cases. Declension is a property of the word while the case depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to learn a table of size (number_of_declensions)x(number_of_cases)x(number_of_grammatical_numbers)=3x16x2=96 endings (although many of them may coincide)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="bd161cb7-4b17-445e-97a2-376ed613ec48" CreationDate="2012-11-03T22:53:18.480" UserId="194" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="Declension is a variant of how a word changes in different cases. Word of each declension has endings corresponding to all cases. Declension is a property of the word while the case depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to learn a table of size (number_of_declensions)x(number_of_cases)x(number_of_grammatical_numbers)=3x16x2=96 endings (although many of them may coincide)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of main declensions is 3 but there are words that do not belong to any of them and form their onw declensions of a few words. You have to learn them all. But this is much easier than to learn irregular verbs in English whose list include hundreds of words.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="ce980b27-b8bf-44d5-9497-39c02aec836f" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:00:32.100" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Declension is a variant of how a word changes in different cases. Word of each declension has endings corresponding to all cases. Declension is a property of the word while the case depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to learn a table of size (number_of_declensions)x(number_of_cases)x(number_of_grammatical_numbers)=3x16x2=96 endings (although many of them may match)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of main declensions is 3 but there are words that do not belong to any of them and form their onw declensions of a few words. You have to learn them all. But this is much easier than to learn irregular verbs in English whose list include hundreds of words.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="9b039ea0-2df0-44c5-9c6e-d24c2526cf1f" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:11:35.453" UserId="5" Text=" I am having a hard time with understanding why the word &quot;врач&quot; belongs to the second declension. The reason for that is that it's not obvious to me that the gender of врач is always masculine which is that subtle difference that keeps it from being a word of the third declension which implies different grammar rules. So my question is how you people exactly know what the gender of a particular word is without looking it up in a dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="9b039ea0-2df0-44c5-9c6e-d24c2526cf1f" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:11:35.453" UserId="5" Text="Is there a rule for figuring the gender of a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="9b039ea0-2df0-44c5-9c6e-d24c2526cf1f" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:11:35.453" UserId="5" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="9c77f931-ab67-4969-8e05-3829b7f3f201" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:18:03.937" UserId="5" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text=" I am having a hard time with understanding why the word &quot;врач&quot; belongs to the second declension. The reason for that is that it's not obvious to me that the gender of врач is always masculine which is that subtle difference that keeps it from being a word of the third declension which implies different grammar rules. So my question is how do you people exactly know what the gender of a particular word is without looking it up in a dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="571fbb8a-4747-49bf-bf16-9840dc87786c" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:38:57.387" UserId="194" Comment="typo fix...." Text="Every element in a sentence occupies a role. Some languages signal that role with prepositions (Italian, Spanish), others with particles (Japanese) and others with cases (Russian for example). There might be other ways but let's stop here for the purpose of the question. In the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I write a letter with my pen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 elements, other than the verb. The subject (I), the object (a letter) and another element (with my pen). This last one changes according to the language, even its name. In Russian it would be the instrumental (you use a tool to perform the action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these 3 elements are covered by **cases**. The subject is usually the nominative case, the object is the accusative, and the last one, as I said above, is the instrumental. It says it itself: cases denote... *cases*. How does a certain noun change in a certain *case*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Declension** is a somewhat ambiguous term. It can indicate any variation of nouns in terms of gender, number, case. But in your case (no pun intended) a declension is the noun going through the cases, as in &quot;how would noun X change in all the cases?&quot;. For example, the declension for the pronoun Я (I) would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nominative: я&#xD;&#xA; - Genitive: меня&#xD;&#xA; - Dative: мне&#xD;&#xA; - Accusative: меня&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental: мной, мною&#xD;&#xA; - Prepositional: обо мне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what is intended for declension. It's the same that happens to verbs (1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; person, 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; person and so on), but in that case, we talk about **conjugation**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3515" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="571fbb8a-4747-49bf-bf16-9840dc87786c" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:38:57.387" Comment="Proposed by 194 approved by 71 edit id of 238" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="4b77278e-0867-4652-b3f7-dc683a6ea796" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:39:49.557" UserId="5" Comment="I am not the only pedant here " Text="Here are the options (in order of frequency of use):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Без четверти (часа) шесть &#xD;&#xA;  * Без пятнадцати (минут) шесть&#xD;&#xA;  * Сорок пять минут шестого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3517" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="4b77278e-0867-4652-b3f7-dc683a6ea796" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:39:49.557" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 71 edit id of 239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="9c6ff389-3d91-49c2-a82d-eff64b447f8a" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:43:43.130" UserId="5" Text="I often see people here reasoning about what sounds colloquial to them and what doesn't which has its implications on the decision of someone who's asking for help. But wait, who on Earth has defined what colloquial is and what isn't? Is there an authority that maintains the true language standard? Is there a universal truth about what the authentic form of a word is and what is not? As to me the language is a dynamic essence. It is what and how people speak today regardless of what the academic books written decades ago say they should be speaking. As time goes these books become outdated and new ones take place, but these new ones cannot keep up with the progress either. Ultimately there can be no absolute authority and thus no absolute truth about what is right. Therefore there's no proven way to reason about what colloquial is and what isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="9c6ff389-3d91-49c2-a82d-eff64b447f8a" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:43:43.130" UserId="5" Text="Who decides which form of a word is colloquial and which one is not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="9c6ff389-3d91-49c2-a82d-eff64b447f8a" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:43:43.130" UserId="5" Text="|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="190ed4bd-f444-4a69-9258-314fe910f51d" CreationDate="2012-11-03T23:50:18.820" UserId="5" Comment="edited body" Text="I often see people here reasoning about what sounds colloquial to them and what doesn't which has its implications on the decision of someone who's asking for help. But wait, who on Earth has defined what is colloquial and what isn't? Is there an authority that maintains the true language standard? Is there a universal truth about what the authentic form of a word is and what is not? As to me the language is a dynamic essence. It is what and how people speak today regardless of what the academic books written decades ago say they should be speaking. As time goes these books become outdated and new ones take place, but these new ones cannot keep up with the progress either. Ultimately there can be no absolute authority and thus no absolute truth about what is right. Therefore there's no proven way to reason about what is colloquial and what isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="176d2d12-8941-415f-94ac-af4aa70db1db" CreationDate="2012-11-04T00:00:31.623" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I often see people here reasoning about what sounds colloquial to them and what doesn't which has its implications on the decision of someone who's asking for help. But wait, who on earth has defined what is colloquial and what isn't? Is there an authority that maintains the true language standard? Is there a universal truth about what the authentic form of a word is and what is not? As to me the language is a dynamic entity. It is what and how people speak today regardless of what the academic books written decades ago say they should be speaking. As time goes these books become outdated and new ones take place, but these new ones cannot keep up with the progress either. Ultimately there can be no absolute authority and thus no absolute truth about what is right. Therefore there's no proven way to reason about what is colloquial and what isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="d4f76f58-96a5-4c3c-8be7-baa8321367da" CreationDate="2012-11-04T03:24:28.807" UserId="115" Text="Native speakers simply know from years of practice :). If you are learning the language you have to memorize the gender together with the word. This is just like memorizing German nouns together with the corresponding article that indicates its gender (der, die, or das).  Or like memorizing the forms of irregular English words (take, took, taken; stand, stood, stood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are certainly patterns.  Nouns ending with a consonant are most often masculine.  Endings -о or -е usually mean &quot;neuter&quot;.  Endings -а, -я usually mean feminine.  But there are lots of exceptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="fcbe0de1-6c15-4936-bf5a-0915bef6f0c0" CreationDate="2012-11-04T08:17:20.460" UserId="242" Comment="sorry, but &quot;без четверти часа&quot; is very uncommon" Text="Here are the options (in order of frequency of use):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Без четверти шесть &#xD;&#xA;  * Без пятнадцати (минут) шесть&#xD;&#xA;  * Сорок пять минут шестого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3525" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="50e13c0e-7ad0-4395-8695-c00b09fcbba7" CreationDate="2012-11-04T09:08:36.273" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3526" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="64fa0783-e3be-4eea-aaad-52fdaa680780" CreationDate="2012-11-04T11:57:28.237" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a rule for figuring out the gender of a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="4cada4ab-59fc-43a0-87c9-f47b89c9c18d" CreationDate="2012-11-04T13:18:53.653" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Declension is a variant of how a word changes in different cases. Word of each declension has endings corresponding to all cases. Declension is a property of the word while the case depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to learn a table of size (number_of_declensions)x(number_of_cases)x(number_of_grammatical_numbers)=3x16x2=96 endings (although many of them may match)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of main declensions is 3 but there are words that do not belong to any of them and form their own declensions of a few words. You have to learn them all. But this is much easier than to learn irregular verbs in English whose list includes hundreds of words.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="12eebf91-4439-425e-a39e-1e0f4c469296" CreationDate="2012-11-04T14:23:15.790" UserId="177" Text="Can someone explain to me in the simplest way when to use -ась, -ся, -ось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I'm confused in such context as **мне** _____-ending object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this -ending agree with my gender or gender of the object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="12eebf91-4439-425e-a39e-1e0f4c469296" CreationDate="2012-11-04T14:23:15.790" UserId="177" Text="can someone explain to me in the simplest way when to use -ась, -ся, -ось?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="12eebf91-4439-425e-a39e-1e0f4c469296" CreationDate="2012-11-04T14:23:15.790" UserId="177" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="7e1d227a-9d44-4e27-94b2-cbbf8fc70758" CreationDate="2012-11-04T14:48:30.210" UserId="177" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Can someone explain to me in the simplest way when to use -ась, -ся, -ось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I'm confused in such context as **мне** (some verb)-ending object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this -ending agree with my gender or gender of the object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="7d77af66-ec64-4536-80ca-39a67ef04713" CreationDate="2012-11-04T16:04:42.317" UserId="134" Text="If I understood correctly what you mean, you are speaking about ergative-like constructions in Russian with logical subject in dative and logical object in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is an explicit object in the sentence, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Мне осталась одна забава&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ей шло это платье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, then the verb agrees with the logical object (which is in nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gramatically, *забава* and *платье* are still subjects in these sentences, that's why the verb agrees with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no explicit logical object (and gramatical subject) then the verb agrees with the assumed logical object in sg. neuter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Мне показалось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ей было скучно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3533" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="4dc8b9a1-7022-4fe8-9793-218e5591a9dd" CreationDate="2012-11-04T19:49:13.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/265178971652632576" />
  <row Id="3535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="ef7dcd68-1ab1-40d8-adb9-04e7c166f198" CreationDate="2012-11-04T21:55:40.170" UserId="242" Text="Well, I'd rather disagree with Dima. In most cases it is quite obvious to which gender the noun belongs. Here are some empiric rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned `-a` and '-я' ending indicates that noun is most probably feminine. Exceptions are given names like Коля, Петя and so on. Also, there is a group of nouns (бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, племя, пламя/полымя, семя, стремя, темя) which are neuter. Also, there are some words which easily can be guessed to be masculine, because of their usage, like `дядя`, `батя`, `папа`, `дедушка`, `мальчишка`.&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-й` ending are most probably masculine. To be honest, I can not recall any exception.&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned nouns with `-о/е/ё` endings are likely to be neuter. Exceptions are some foreign words, which are usually masculine. The rule of thumb is following - if word is borrowing and it is indeclinable (`торнадо`, `фламинго`, `шимпанзе`, `кафе`), it is probably masculine. By the way, the same rule holds for borrowing with `-и` ending: `рефери`, `пони` etc. Though, for some of such words there is a clear tendency to become neuter, the most known case is `кофе`. Some of such words, like `радио`, `шоссе`, `безе`, `пальто` are already neuter. It won't be too bold oversimplification if we claim that the words which are more common and widely used tend to be neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-ль` endings. Words `аэрозоль`,`бемоль`, `водевиль`, `квантиль`, `квартиль`, `пасквиль`, `полироль`, `толь`, `тюль`, `эндшпиль` are masculine. Words `антресоль`, `вакуоль`, `канифоль`, `мозоль`, `триоль` are feminine. But no one will judge you hard if you confuse gender in these words, because these cases are not that obvious even for some native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If noun is in some way derivative (in a very wide sense) for some other word, sometimes this give you a hint. For example, `домишко` is related to `дом`, so it is masculine. `Сулугуни` is masculine since it a sort of cheese, and `cыр` is  masculine, but `кольраби` is feminine,  since it `капуста`, as well as `салями` is feminine since it is actually `колбаса`. `Авеню` is associated with `улица` and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="db75ea77-7804-4a88-ba26-056ae79e00fa" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:01:30.527" UserId="242" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Well, I'd rather disagree with Dima. In most cases it is quite obvious to which gender the noun belongs. Here are some empiric rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned `-a` and '-я' ending indicates that noun is most probably feminine. Exceptions are given names like Коля, Петя and so on. Also, there is a group of nouns (бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, племя, пламя/полымя, семя, стремя, темя) which are neuter. Also, there are some words which easily can be guessed to be masculine, because of their usage, like `дядя`, `батя`, `папа`, `дедушка`, `мальчишка`.&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-й` ending are most probably masculine. To be honest, I can not recall any exception.&#xD;&#xA; - Most nouns with consonant endings are masculine.&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned nouns with `-о/е/ё` endings are likely to be neuter. Exceptions are some foreign words, which are usually masculine. The rule of thumb is following - if word is borrowing and it is indeclinable (`торнадо`, `фламинго`, `шимпанзе`, `кафе`), it is probably masculine. By the way, the same rule holds for borrowing with `-и` ending: `рефери`, `пони` etc. Though, for some of such words there is a clear tendency to become neuter, the most known case is `кофе`. Some of such words, like `радио`, `шоссе`, `безе`, `пальто` are already neuter. It won't be too bold oversimplification if we claim that the words which are more common and widely used tend to be neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-ль` endings. Words `аэрозоль`,`бемоль`, `водевиль`, `квантиль`, `квартиль`, `пасквиль`, `полироль`, `толь`, `тюль`, `эндшпиль` are masculine. Words `антресоль`, `вакуоль`, `канифоль`, `мозоль`, `триоль` are feminine. But no one will judge you hard if you confuse gender in these words, because these cases are not that obvious even for some native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If noun is in some way derivative (in a very wide sense) for some other word, sometimes this give you a hint. For example, `домишко` is related to `дом`, so it is masculine. `Сулугуни` is masculine since it a sort of cheese, and `cыр` is  masculine, but `кольраби` is feminine,  since it `капуста`, as well as `салями` is feminine since it is actually `колбаса`. `Авеню` is associated with `улица` and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="3a211f22-4744-4425-a29f-0ba119615645" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:06:02.353" UserId="134" Text="In Russian, nouns do not decline for gender and hence do not agree with other nouns. The phrases like &quot;она врач&quot;, &quot;он тряпка&quot;, &quot;он чудовище&quot; etc. are perfectly grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatical gender is an immanent property of a Russian noun (unlike, say, adjective which in Russian does decline for gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, an exception of so called common-gender nouns (*умница, душка*) etc. which, though still not changing their form being objects, make the adjectives defining them agree with the subject. Compare: *он дикое животное / она дикое животное* (the adjective agrees with the object), but *он большой умница / она большая умница* (the adjective agrees with the subject). However, the subjects themselves do not change their form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite easy to tell the declension of a noun knowing its spelling and gender, however, the words ending in `-ь` may belong both to declensions II and III and you need to know their gender to tell them apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even native speakers of Russian may have problems finding gender of the words *лосось, тюль, шампунь, рояль* etc. so you can find phrases like *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;вкусная лосось, &amp;#42;&amp;#42;красивая тюль, &amp;#42;&amp;#42;дорогая шампунь*. This is a problem for nouns ending in `-ь` preceded buy a non-sibilant consonant, though may still be a problem for words ending in a sibilant consonant too if you don't know correct spelling (*нож* and *дож* are masculine while *рожь* and *ложь* are feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *путь*, being masculine, currently declines according to declension III in all cases except instrumental. Until recently, the word *день* behaved the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also may be a problem with declension I, however, masculine dec. I nouns are always animate and hence much easier to distinguish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are some masculine and neuter words ending in `-о`, `-е`, `-а` constructed by adding the suffixes *-ко, -ище, -ина* and similar to masculine and neuter roots: *умишко, человечище, доми&amp;#x301;на*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="6148deb1-4a0f-45bc-84c1-26694abb1578" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:07:58.650" UserId="242" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Well, I'd rather disagree with Dima. In most cases it is quite obvious to which gender the noun belongs. Here are some empiric rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned `-a` and '-я' ending indicates that noun is most probably feminine. Exceptions are given names like Коля, Петя and so on. Also, there is a group of nouns (бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, племя, пламя/полымя, семя, стремя, темя) which are neuter. Also, there are some words which easily can be guessed to be masculine, because of their usage, like `дядя`, `батя`, `папа`, `дедушка`, `мальчишка`.&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-й` ending are most probably masculine. To be honest, I can not recall any exception.&#xD;&#xA; - Most nouns with consonant (й is a consonant as well, its just that I can not recall any exclusion) endings are masculine.&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned nouns with `-о/е/ё` endings are likely to be neuter. Exceptions are some foreign words, which are usually masculine. The rule of thumb is following - if word is borrowing and it is indeclinable (`торнадо`, `фламинго`, `шимпанзе`, `кафе`), it is probably masculine. By the way, the same rule holds for borrowing with `-и` ending: `рефери`, `пони` etc. Though, for some of such words there is a clear tendency to become neuter, the most known case is `кофе`. Some of such words, like `радио`, `шоссе`, `безе`, `пальто` are already neuter. It won't be too bold oversimplification if we claim that the words which are more common and widely used tend to be neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-ль` endings. Words `аэрозоль`,`бемоль`, `водевиль`, `квантиль`, `квартиль`, `пасквиль`, `полироль`, `толь`, `тюль`, `эндшпиль` are masculine. Words `антресоль`, `вакуоль`, `канифоль`, `мозоль`, `триоль` are feminine. But no one will judge you hard if you confuse gender in these words, because these cases are not that obvious even for some native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If noun is in some way derivative (in a very wide sense) for some other word, sometimes this give you a hint. For example, `домишко` is related to `дом`, so it is masculine. `Сулугуни` is masculine since it a sort of cheese, and `cыр` is  masculine, but `кольраби` is feminine,  since it `капуста`, as well as `салями` is feminine since it is actually `колбаса`. `Авеню` is associated with `улица` and so on.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Words like `сирота`, `бедолага`, `коллега`, `жадина` can be treated in different contexts as feminine or masculine. That means that there is no such word like `сирот` or `коллег` or `жадин`. To be more precise such words are some times called common gender nouns (слова общего рода). Such words, helas, should be memorized. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="bc2dce39-316f-47ac-b0e4-f99f2376aebd" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:15:39.553" UserId="242" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Well, I'd rather disagree with Dima. In most cases it is quite obvious to which gender the noun belongs. Here are some empiric rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned `-a` and '-я' ending indicates that noun is most probably feminine. Exceptions are given names like Коля, Петя and so on. Also, there is a group of nouns (бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, племя, пламя/полымя, семя, стремя, темя) which are neuter. Also, there are some words which easily can be guessed to be masculine, because of their usage, like `дядя`, `батя`, `папа`, `дедушка`, `мальчишка`. Also, `дитя` is neuter.&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns with `-й` ending are most probably masculine. To be honest, I can not recall any exception.&#xD;&#xA; - Most nouns with consonant (й is a consonant as well, its just that I can not recall any exclusion) endings are masculine.&#xD;&#xA; - Above-mentioned nouns with `-о/е/ё` endings are likely to be neuter. Exceptions are some foreign words, which are usually masculine. The rule of thumb is following - if word is borrowing and it is indeclinable (`торнадо`, `фламинго`, `шимпанзе`, `кафе`), it is probably masculine. By the way, the same rule holds for borrowing with `-и` ending: `рефери`, `пони` etc. Though, for some of such words there is a clear tendency to become neuter, the most known case is `кофе`. Some of such words, like `радио`, `шоссе`, `безе`, `пальто` are already neuter. It won't be too bold oversimplification if we claim that the words which are more common and widely used tend to be neuter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As for nouns with `-ль` endings. Words `аэрозоль`,`бемоль`, `водевиль`, `квантиль`, `квартиль`, `пасквиль`, `полироль`, `рояль`, `толь`, `тюль`, `эндшпиль` are masculine. Words `антресоль`, `вакуоль`, `канифоль`, `мозоль`, `триоль` are feminine. But no one will judge you hard if you confuse gender in these words, because these cases are not that obvious even for some native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any noun with `-жь/шь/чь`  ending is feminine if in Genitive it ends with `-и` (мышь/мыши, степь/степи).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If noun is in some way derivative (in a very wide sense) for some other word, sometimes this give you a hint. For example, `домишко` is related to `дом`, so it is masculine. `Сулугуни` is masculine since it a sort of cheese, and `cыр` is  masculine, but `кольраби` is feminine,  since it `капуста`, as well as `салями` is feminine since it is actually `колбаса`. `Авеню` is associated with `улица` and so on.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Words like `сирота`, `бедолага`, `коллега`, `жадина` can be treated in different contexts as feminine or masculine. That means that there is no such word like `сирот` or `коллег` or `жадин`. To be more precise such words are some times called common gender nouns (слова общего рода). Such words, helas, should be memorized. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="508034ef-0d52-4548-9b26-99ea021182cf" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:18:52.817" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="In Russian, nouns do not decline for gender and hence do not agree with other nouns. The phrases like &quot;она врач&quot;, &quot;он тряпка&quot;, &quot;он чудовище&quot; etc. are perfectly grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatical gender is an immanent property of a Russian noun (unlike, say, adjective which in Russian does decline for gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, an exception of so called common-gender nouns (*умница, душка*) etc. which, though still not changing their form being objects, make the adjectives defining them agree with the subject. Compare: *он дикое животное / она дикое животное* (the adjective agrees with the object), but *он большой умница / она большая умница* (the adjective agrees with the subject). However, the subjects themselves do not change their form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite easy to tell the declension of a noun knowing its spelling and gender, however, the words ending in `-ь` may belong both to declensions II and III and you need to know their gender to tell them apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even native speakers of Russian may have problems finding gender of the words *лосось, тюль, шампунь, рояль* etc. so you can find phrases like *&amp;#42;&amp;#42;вкусная лосось, &amp;#42;&amp;#42;красивая тюль, &amp;#42;&amp;#42;дорогая шампунь*. This is a problem for nouns ending in `-ь` preceded by a non-sibilant consonant, though may still be a problem for words ending in a sibilant consonant too if you don't know correct spelling (*нож* and *дож* are masculine while *рожь* and *ложь* are feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *путь*, being masculine, currently declines according to declension III in all cases except instrumental. Until recently, the word *день* behaved the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also may be a problem with declension I, however, masculine dec. I nouns are always animate and hence much easier to distinguish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are some masculine and neuter words ending in `-о`, `-е`, `-а` constructed by adding the suffixes *-ко, -ище, -ина* and similar to masculine and neuter roots: *умишко, человечище, доми&amp;#x301;на*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="a0326562-a86d-4883-a3c6-2f2362936ab3" CreationDate="2012-11-04T22:21:31.067" UserId="71" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; curse word in phrase *красное словцо*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="b7e30c2e-6b83-44d5-bcef-f0c1e6f62fbf" CreationDate="2012-11-05T08:19:50.520" UserId="185" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="7ea72b14-f99b-4cc8-b276-9456163fec19" CreationDate="2012-11-05T16:30:12.367" UserId="551" Text="Actually even native speakers have difficulties with profession names like врач, инженер, академик etc. So they invent feminine gender for these words, which is not very simple in some cases: врачиха, инженерша. This is not correct, because in some cases these words already have different meaning (инженерша = жена инженера), but still they are used very often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="de9bcf19-143e-4cbd-b698-f2d56a9a1056" CreationDate="2012-11-05T20:34:16.097" UserId="553" Text="I have the following impression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;их&quot; is correct form (norm).&#xD;&#xA;But in everyday speech one may want to insert jokes, special features. Then he will use &quot;ихние&quot; form. One can understand that this is incorrect wording, but use it anyway. Such behavior is called &quot;выпендриваться&quot; and usually is not accepted well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same pair are  &quot;звонИт&quot; и &quot;звОнит&quot;. The first form (with the stress on the second syllable) is literature norm, but second form sometime is used (and the second is formally incorrect)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3547" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="a9ed5798-dab0-454f-9760-3463d6d3d051" CreationDate="2012-11-06T01:49:16.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/265631985878327297" />
  <row Id="3549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="f3ccc1b7-529c-4e36-a299-d154eb9bc9b0" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:06:59.347" UserId="558" Text="использование &quot;Привет&quot; абсолютно неадекватно при обращении к незнакомому человеку. Или к человеку с сильно отличающемся статусом. Но иностранцу это простят." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="4888e91f-9090-4a29-84e2-d2d5b65ec9d5" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:13:12.573" UserId="558" Comment="added 308 characters in body" Text="использование &quot;Привет&quot; абсолютно неадекватно при обращении к незнакомому человеку. Или к человеку с сильно отличающемся статусом. Но иностранцу это простят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здрасте&quot; - это вообще просто неграмотная форма от здраствуйте, её используют подростки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;насчёт использования &quot;ты&quot; - его стоит использовать только в общении с членами семьи и очень близкими друзьями. Есть многие кто не придерживается этого правила, но они могут восприниматься как хаммы и высокомерно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="91136c24-7222-460d-b329-bf2aaecca5f2" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:20:57.470" UserId="185" Comment="formatting, spelling" Text="Использование &quot;привет&quot; абсолютно неадекватно при обращении к незнакомому человеку или к человеку с сильно отличающемся статусом. Но иностранцу это простят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма &quot;здрасте&quot; - это сокращение от &quot;здравствуй(те)&quot;, её используют подростки или малограмотные люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт использования &quot;ты&quot;. Эту форму стоит использовать только в общении с членами семьи и очень близкими друзьями. Есть многие, кто не придерживается этого правила, но они могут восприниматься как хамы или высокомерные люди." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="aa5d543f-ae77-4686-b930-ef0a64d8e14d" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:23:38.797" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="That's the question of norm and usage. Russian language is generally quite strict when it comes to enforcing the norm. Even when the usage rendered the norm completely obsolete, the norm is still perceived as such. A good example is the word _кофе_: if you use it in neuter gender, there's a chance someone corrects you, even though the neuter gender is marked as acceptable in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty much this with the word _ихний_. It is definitely used, and not only by _less-educated_ people. It's just that it's not in the norm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case where _ихний_ is logical from the language point of view is when there is an ellipsis. Consider these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Whose books are those?&quot; — &quot;Theirs.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чьи это книги? — Их.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in colloquial speech, _ихние_ can be used instead of _их_ with an additional advantage of having the number and case information embedded, just like _мои_, _твои_, _наши_, _ваши_ have. In such case, even a norm-abiding speaker might say _ихний_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other cases, when the noun is present as normal (_их книги_), there is no need for any norm-bending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="a47a8408-601c-4098-b4f8-7d2045c91f46" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:28:06.743" UserId="558" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="Использование &quot;привет&quot; абсолютно неадекватно при обращении к незнакомому человеку или к человеку с сильно отличающемся статусом. Но иностранцу это простят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма &quot;здрасте&quot; - это сокращение от &quot;здравствуйте&quot;, её используют подростки, малограмотные люди, или просто в неформальной среде, я давно не слышал этого приветствия, сейчас все говорят &quot;привет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт использования &quot;ты&quot;. Эту форму стоит использовать только в общении с членами семьи и очень близкими друзьями. Есть многие, кто не придерживается этого правила, но они могут восприниматься как хамы или высокомерные люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;разница между &quot;здраствуйте&quot; и &quot;здраствуй&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здраствуй&quot; подразумевает &quot;ты&quot; - ты - здраствуй, соответсвенно это редкая форма приветсвия, так как это комбинация формального приветствия с неформальным обращением на &quot;ты&quot;, а в случае с обращение к незнакомому ещё и хамским.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здраствуйте&quot; подразумевает обращение на &quot;вы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="58486c25-21bd-4389-a513-92310caa4ed3" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:36:53.653" UserId="558" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="Использование &quot;привет&quot; абсолютно неадекватно при обращении к незнакомому человеку или к человеку с сильно отличающемся статусом. Но иностранцу это простят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма &quot;здрасте&quot; - это сокращение от &quot;здравствуйте&quot;, её используют подростки, малограмотные люди, или просто в неформальной среде, я давно не слышал этого приветствия, сейчас все говорят &quot;привет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт использования &quot;ты&quot;. Эту форму стоит использовать только в общении с членами семьи и очень близкими друзьями. Есть многие, кто не придерживается этого правила, но они могут восприниматься как хамы или высокомерные люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;разница между &quot;здраствуйте&quot; и &quot;здраствуй&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здраствуй&quot; подразумевает &quot;ты&quot; - ты - здраствуй, соответсвенно это редкая форма приветсвия, так как это комбинация формального приветствия с неформальным обращением на &quot;ты&quot;, а в случае обращение к незнакомому ещё и хамским.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здраствуйте&quot; подразумевает обращение на &quot;вы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще, интересно отметить что использование повсеместно &quot;ты&quot; в русском языке, особенно в интернете, пошло от ошибочного мнения что в англиском языке нету &quot;вы&quot; и там все общаются друг с другом на &quot;ты&quot; - &quot;you&quot;. Что конечно же ошибочно. Так как как раз имеет место прямо противоположная ситуация. Но в обществе где учителя обращаются к детям на &quot;ты&quot;, им сложно объяснять что в английском &quot;you&quot; это на самом деле аналог &quot;вы&quot;, а не &quot;ты&quot; - множественное число (&quot;You majesty&quot;, &quot;How are you?&quot;). Поэтому обычно учитиля англиского языка в обычных школах переводят &quot;you&quot; как &quot;ты&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="a1543349-c059-45a1-97a4-2c2498670605" CreationDate="2012-11-06T07:44:07.520" UserId="558" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Использование &quot;привет&quot; абсолютно неадекватно при обращении к незнакомому человеку или к человеку с сильно отличающемся статусом. Но иностранцу это простят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма &quot;здрасте&quot; - это сокращение от &quot;здравствуйте&quot;, её используют подростки, малограмотные люди, или просто в неформальной среде, я давно не слышал этого приветствия, сейчас все говорят &quot;привет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт использования &quot;ты&quot;. Эту форму стоит использовать только в общении с членами семьи и очень близкими друзьями. Есть многие, кто не придерживается этого правила, но они могут восприниматься как хамы или высокомерные люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;разница между &quot;здраствуйте&quot; и &quot;здраствуй&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здраствуй&quot; подразумевает &quot;ты&quot; - ты - здраствуй, соответсвенно это редкая форма приветсвия, так как это комбинация формального приветствия с неформальным обращением на &quot;ты&quot;, а в случае обращение к незнакомому ещё и хамским.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;здраствуйте&quot; подразумевает обращение на &quot;вы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще, интересно отметить что использование повсеместно &quot;ты&quot; в русском языке, особенно в интернете, пошло от ошибочного мнения что в англиском языке нету &quot;вы&quot; и там все общаются друг с другом на &quot;ты&quot; - &quot;you&quot;. Что конечно же ошибочно. Так как как раз имеет место прямо противоположная ситуация. Но в обществе где учителя обращаются к детям на &quot;ты&quot;, им сложно объяснять что в английском &quot;you&quot; это на самом деле аналог &quot;вы&quot;, а не &quot;ты&quot; - множественное число (&quot;You majesty&quot;, &quot;How are you?&quot;). Поэтому обычно учитиля англиского языка в обычных школах переводят &quot;you&quot; как &quot;ты&quot;. После чего те приходят в интернет и им кажется что в англиском все друг к другу неформальны, это в результате проникает и в обычный язык. Все айтишники поголовно используют ты в общении, в результате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="7c23a6ab-4c9d-451e-ac43-d59070820005" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:04:36.113" UserId="561" Text="Окончания -ось, -ась и -ся служат сокращением от подразумевающегося местоимения &quot;себя&quot; (в полной форме такая конструкция уже не используется и режет слух) и означают, что действие относится не к внешнему объекту, а к автору действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаголы, употребляющиеся с этими окончаниями, но употребленные без них, требуют подчиненный объект для взаимодействия:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рука изогнул**ась** — рука приобрела некую кривую, изогнутую форму.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рука изогнула что-то — что-то было деформировано с помощью руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выбор окончания зависит от рода и числа: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дверь открыл**ась** (женский род), компьютер выключил**ся** (мужской&#xD;&#xA;&gt; род), время кончил**ось** (средний род), мы/они раскаял**ись**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (множественное число)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В случае описания состояния действующий объект часто пропускается, однако подразумевается, что он среднего рода:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне показал**ось**; Мне привидел**ось** (нечто).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Простите за ответ на русском, но им я владею куда лучше, чем любым другим. Надеюсь, чтение этого ответа не затруднит вас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="62f49826-33b3-44cc-be82-c8f1d868222b" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:21:02.263" UserId="561" Text="В целом Aleks G правильно ответил, но &quot;сейчас&quot; не всегда означает &quot;в данный момент&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, в вопросе автора:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я теперь работаю в Майкрософт (Акцентируется, что произошла смена работы, (раньше я работал в другой фирме, а) теперь я работаю в Майкрософт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сейчас работаю в Майкрософт — нейтральное сообщение факта. Почти равносильно &quot;я работаю в Майкрософт&quot;, но уточняет, что когда-то были и другие работы, что этот процесс не длится всю жизнь, а относится именно к настоящему периоду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На практике &quot;теперь&quot; подразумевает некую новость, так можно сказать человеку, не знавшему о факте смены работы. А &quot;сейчас&quot; можно сказать всегда по отношению к текущей работе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="20512373-cc8d-4ba6-9c44-f63edf7977ad" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:33:07.590" UserId="561" Text="Обе формы являются сленговыми, разговорными. И обе они абсолютно равноправны.&#xD;&#xA;Грамматически чуть более правильной выглядит &quot;чё&quot;, однако в силу вышеописанного, это несущественно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="3cfc7d4d-b9d6-408e-8241-50a34348779b" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:38:04.787" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="В целом Aleks G правильно ответил, но &quot;сейчас&quot; не всегда означает &quot;в данный момент&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, в вопросе автора:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я теперь работаю в Майкрософт&quot; - акцентируется, что произошла смена работы, (раньше я работал в другой фирме, а теперь я работаю в Майкрософт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я сейчас работаю в Майкрософт&quot; — нейтральное сообщение факта. Почти равносильно &quot;я работаю в Майкрософт&quot;, но уточняет, что когда-то были и другие работы, что этот процесс не длится всю жизнь, а относится именно к настоящему периоду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На практике &quot;теперь&quot; подразумевает некую новость, так можно сказать человеку, не знавшему о факте смены работы. А &quot;сейчас&quot; можно сказать всегда по отношению к текущей работе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3566" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="7df197f6-4468-4b9f-9011-ffa4e95a34ab" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:42:09.713" UserId="185" Comment="12" />
  <row Id="3567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="37358e7a-0751-47c7-ab0b-4d790c2cfe43" CreationDate="2012-11-06T10:43:04.760" UserId="561" Comment="edited body" Text="В целом Aleks G правильно ответил, но &quot;сейчас&quot; не всегда означает &quot;в данный момент&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, в вопросе автора:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я теперь работаю в Майкрософт&quot; — акцентируется, что произошла смена работы, (раньше я работал в другой фирме, а теперь я работаю в Майкрософт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я сейчас работаю в Майкрософт&quot; — нейтральное сообщение факта. Почти равносильно &quot;я работаю в Майкрософт&quot;, но уточняет, что когда-то были и другие работы, что этот процесс не длится всю жизнь, а относится именно к настоящему периоду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На практике &quot;теперь&quot; подразумевает некую новость, так можно сказать человеку, не знавшему о факте смены работы. А &quot;сейчас&quot; можно сказать всегда по отношению к текущей работе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="5460d02b-5b9c-4203-aba1-7dc0d65f396f" CreationDate="2012-11-06T22:34:40.187" UserId="564" Text="&lt;code&gt;Про&lt;/code&gt; is more related to some facts while &lt;code&gt;о&lt;/code&gt; is more descriptive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты правильно сказал про русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to a particular fact about Russian language probably referred in previous discussion. I would expect context of comparison with some other language here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты правильно сказал о русском языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to a general fact about Russian language. I would expect a pretty general sentence here, something like &quot;Russian language is very complex&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Я решил купить книги, про которые думал на прошлой неделе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you were thinking about possibility to purchase these books. If you said &lt;code&gt;о&lt;/code&gt; this would mean that you were thinking about the books in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) Почему ты спрашиваешь у меня про очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again this sounds like you already discussed the glasses and this is continue of this topic. The topic is about a specific fact about the glasses. If you used &lt;code&gt;о&lt;/code&gt; it would be a general fact about the glasses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты носишь очки?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Почему ты спрашиваешь меня про очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Дикари никогда не слышали об очках.  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) Да, про это место я тоже читал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same: I read some specific facts about this place. If you read something general, then &lt;code&gt;Я читал об этом месте&lt;/code&gt; would be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to other examples above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне говорили про тебя ужасные вещи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accent is on the facts the speaker listened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне говорили ужасные вещи о тебе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The facts are not too important, the accent is on the person. This is more general sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="a5eb5595-3c41-46df-a171-93ffeb3bc86a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T00:06:25.297" UserId="62" Comment="listened --&gt; heard" Text="&lt;code&gt;Про&lt;/code&gt; is more related to some facts while &lt;code&gt;о&lt;/code&gt; is more descriptive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты правильно сказал про русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to a particular fact about Russian language probably referred in previous discussion. I would expect context of comparison with some other language here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты правильно сказал о русском языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to a general fact about Russian language. I would expect a pretty general sentence here, something like &quot;Russian language is very complex&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Я решил купить книги, про которые думал на прошлой неделе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you were thinking about possibility to purchase these books. If you said &lt;code&gt;о&lt;/code&gt; this would mean that you were thinking about the books in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) Почему ты спрашиваешь у меня про очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again this sounds like you already discussed the glasses and this is continue of this topic. The topic is about a specific fact about the glasses. If you used &lt;code&gt;о&lt;/code&gt; it would be a general fact about the glasses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты носишь очки?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Почему ты спрашиваешь меня про очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Дикари никогда не слышали об очках.  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) Да, про это место я тоже читал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same: I read some specific facts about this place. If you read something general, then &lt;code&gt;Я читал об этом месте&lt;/code&gt; would be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to other examples above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне говорили про тебя ужасные вещи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accent is on the facts the speaker heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне говорили ужасные вещи о тебе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The facts are not too important, the accent is on the person. This is more general sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3570" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1089" RevisionGUID="a5eb5595-3c41-46df-a171-93ffeb3bc86a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T00:06:25.297" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 564 edit id of 240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1090" RevisionGUID="6968562f-11c7-4673-9917-df07cff54dcd" CreationDate="2012-11-07T00:35:15.807" UserId="564" Text="&lt;code&gt;Иметь смысл&lt;/code&gt; - make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, это **имеет смысл**.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Имеет смысл** подумать об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3572" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="2a661779-ef81-422a-bead-d114040a97f5" CreationDate="2012-11-07T10:49:18.303" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/266130221021941760" />
  <row Id="3577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="38fd5dae-0ba5-474c-a093-24bf50795d2a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T11:21:59.293" UserId="568" Text="As far as i see brogrammer is brother+programmer you can not say it in one word in russian. But you are welcome to create a neologism. Like a браграммист (брат+программист) or, wich is better братанграммист (братан + программист). &quot;Bro&quot; is more like &quot;братан&quot; than &quot;брат&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="6dc4d8ef-b954-479b-a18e-79ec10150c00" CreationDate="2012-11-07T11:39:40.127" UserId="572" Text="браграммист и братанграммист будут не понятны русскому человеку. В нашем языке нет аналога слова brogrammer, однако в рунете широко распространено слово бро ( имеет тот же смысл, что и bro), так что если вы скажете &quot;брограммер&quot;, то скорее всего человек вас сможет понять. Но лучше всего сказать &quot;хороший программист&quot;, &quot;отличный программист&quot;, &quot;хороший программист&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мачо-программист&quot; поймут как сексуально-активный программист, не используйте такое выражение.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="2e656a63-7916-4fce-a0c5-7d28a7b311fd" CreationDate="2012-11-07T11:43:12.777" UserId="574" Text="Есть выражение &quot;погромист&quot;, но оно тоже скорее насмешливое, чем серьёзное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Русского аналога &quot;brogrammist&quot; боюсь что нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="deb4c2d3-12d3-4b44-9fb2-fb95d87086ac" CreationDate="2012-11-07T11:55:09.170" UserId="242" Text="This very question existence is due to phonetical differences. In Russian there is no such phoneme like `œ` in French. The lack of phoneme in language, among other things, means that you can not provide a pair words in that language that will differ by that very phoneme. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless in some positions some of native speakers pronounce `чё` (t͡ɕœ) and some of speakers pronounce it clearly like `чо` (t͡ɕo). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="53b8ea15-1910-4db8-84fd-61edcd26e971" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:01:33.767" UserId="569" Text="There is no Russian equivalent for the word 'brogrammer' since there is no exact equivalent for the word 'bro' (for definitions given at [Urban Dictionary][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="2208753b-d7a1-4ead-afd6-2457aabfa464" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:16:01.610" UserId="572" Text="Всё просто! Дырка это незначительная дыра, на которую можно не обращать внимание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В носке с дыркой можно ходить (если не видно), а вот в носке с дырой ходить уже нельзя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="4467fde3-51a5-44e0-a068-ac5e197234b5" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:46:34.660" UserId="153" Comment="formatting" Text="My wife always corrects me when I say *ихний* or *ихних* instead of *их*. However, I've seen these pronouns in classical literature many times (Chekhov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which form is correct in speaking and writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3589" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="4467fde3-51a5-44e0-a068-ac5e197234b5" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:46:34.660" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 71 edit id of 241" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3590" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="2e59a793-0930-4e3f-b6d3-af5bc74d8a2c" CreationDate="2012-11-07T12:46:53.117" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="372f33fe-0182-4eb1-bb26-ba11ed084e42" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:03:37.717" UserId="582" Text="&quot;Леденая рябь канала&quot; means that the water has already frozen with small waves. And it's blinking because of that on the light." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="50a9801f-df21-4fed-bfb7-334f6754ac7a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:35:51.610" UserId="153" Text="What are the mechanics behind using *надо* over *нужно* or vice versa? What governs when they are interchangeable and when not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be perfectly clear: I have no problems simply using whichever sounds most natural in a given situation. So providing just a handful of examples won't do it for me; I can come up with a handful of examples myself. What I'm missing is the big picture; I'm not quite seeing a meaningful pattern. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that entire PhD theses have been written on the subject. So while I'm not asking for *that* level of detail, a comprehensive overview would be nice. And of course if you can actually cite or link to said theses or other papers to back up your points, that would be a major plus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="50a9801f-df21-4fed-bfb7-334f6754ac7a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:35:51.610" UserId="153" Text="Usage patterns of &quot;надо&quot; vs. &quot;нужно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="50a9801f-df21-4fed-bfb7-334f6754ac7a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:35:51.610" UserId="153" Text="|выбор-слова|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1107" RevisionGUID="633c9c76-bdf0-4b8f-8b7a-329290179c16" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:45:02.383" UserId="185" Text="I think that the main distinction here is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;надо&quot; is used to state external obligation, that is, when someone has to do something because there is a force outside that makes one do so: police and judges that enforce the law, social norms, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;нужно&quot; is used to express internal necessity, that is, when someone has to do something because one has an urge to do so, because one wants to ease the pain, or has something on one's conscience, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе надо успеть убраться раньше, чем придут гости.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вам надо заплатить долг в течение месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно в туалет.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно поговорить с ним, пока еще не слишком поздно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the general guideline when you decide which one to use. However, many native speakers may say &quot;нужно&quot; in a) and &quot;надо&quot; in b)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3605" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="f0099f44-71bb-4e1c-80dc-90f604a16cc0" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:46:48.870" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="84b5bc64-e3ec-4d22-a946-2749525d1c07" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:50:05.313" UserId="185" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Suppose I want to write a book, where one of the characters is a simpleton without a proper education. This character needs to say &quot;чё?&quot; (&quot;чо?&quot;) instead of &quot;что?&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Твоя сестра умеет готовить минестроне?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Чё \ Чо за минестроне такое?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I spell it: &quot;чё&quot; or &quot;чо&quot;? And what are the rules that regulate the spelling in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I do not want to portray any specific accent, I am simply asking, what vowel should I use if I want to follow the rules of the Russian orthography." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="39ebc764-0b8d-4ae6-a3e3-31ca291ab9e5" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:52:11.903" UserId="572" Text=" - Мне остался последний пирог (мужской род, Пирог - он)&#xD;&#xA; - Мне осталась последняя булочка (женский род, Булочка - она)&#xD;&#xA; - Мне осталось последнее пирожное (средний род, Пирожное - оно)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="d2c6056e-522a-42f0-8700-0c5eb152b201" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:53:05.293" UserId="242" Text="Those are almost 100% interchangeable synonyms, though there is a very-very subtle difference. Native speaker unconsciously will use one word instead of other and vice versa, but there are still cases when native speaker will clearly distinguish between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hint is hidden in the fact that phrase `надо бы` is more appropriate and far more widely used than `нужно бы`. Thus, `надо` is less inevitable than `нужно`. &#xD;&#xA;When one says, for example, something like &quot;Ой, надо [бы], наверное в магазин сходить, ни молока ни масла&quot;, he or she actually is allowing the possibility that he won't go to shop )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, phrase &quot;Нужно купить туалетной бумаги&quot; is less liberal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3612" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="8fad1108-6fd2-400d-898d-232713bc8606" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:58:51.777" UserId="185" Comment="14" />
  <row Id="3613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="5bd52cff-d1fd-4967-8614-bbb728a423ac" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:00:05.010" UserId="242" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="Those are almost 100% interchangeable synonyms, though there is a very-very subtle difference. Native speaker unconsciously will use one word instead of other and vice versa, but there are still cases when native speaker will clearly distinguish between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hint is hidden in the fact that phrase `надо бы` is more appropriate and far more widely used than `нужно бы`. Thus, `надо` is less inevitable than `нужно`. &#xD;&#xA;When one says, for example, something like &quot;Ой, надо [бы], наверное в магазин сходить, ни молока ни масла&quot;, he or she actually is allowing the possibility that he won't go to shop )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, phrase &quot;Нужно купить туалетной бумаги&quot; leaves us with less opportunities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `надо` is slightly more colloquial and, respectively,  `нужно` is more formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a famous quotation: &quot;Надо Федя, надо&quot;. It is very hard to imagine it existence in form: &quot;Нужно, Федя, нужно&quot;. It will sound too pathetic. In that sense &quot;нужно&quot; is closer to third synonym - &quot;необходимо&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3614" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="dc986c13-d1e1-483f-8436-314b7a1d8b2d" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:01:17.217" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="1ff89e96-3c11-4e51-8362-520064ee519d" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:03:22.323" UserId="586" Text="The best variant would be женщина-борец." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="e973e4b1-cb6b-4ab8-8575-1ac846f8df89" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:09:13.363" UserId="242" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="Those are almost 100% interchangeable synonyms, though there is a very-very subtle difference. Native speaker unconsciously will use one word instead of other and vice versa, but there are still cases when native speaker will clearly distinguish between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hint is hidden in the fact that phrase `надо бы` is more appropriate and far more widely used than `нужно бы`. Thus, `надо` is less inevitable than `нужно`. &#xD;&#xA;When one says, for example, something like &quot;Ой, надо [бы], наверное в магазин сходить, ни молока ни масла&quot;, he or she actually is allowing the possibility that he won't go to shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, phrase &quot;Нужно купить туалетной бумаги&quot; leaves us with less opportunities )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue to illustrate this issue: &quot;Надо подождать&quot; is less obligatory compare to &quot;нужно подождать&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `надо` is slightly more colloquial and, respectively,  `нужно` is more formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a famous quotation: &quot;Надо Федя, надо&quot;. It is very hard to imagine it existence in form: &quot;Нужно, Федя, нужно&quot;. It will sound too pathetic. In that sense &quot;нужно&quot; is closer to third synonym - &quot;необходимо&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="188910ae-315a-4f39-8714-10cd7e9facab" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:14:47.120" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Those are almost 100% interchangeable synonyms, though there is a very-very subtle difference. Native speaker unconsciously will use one word instead of other and vice versa, but there are still cases when native speaker will clearly distinguish between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hint is hidden in the fact that phrase `надо бы` is more appropriate and far more widely used than `нужно бы`. Thus, `надо` is less inevitable than `нужно`. &#xD;&#xA;When one says, for example, something like &quot;Ой, надо [бы], наверное в магазин сходить, ни молока ни масла&quot;, he or she actually is allowing the possibility that he won't go to shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, phrase &quot;Нужно купить туалетной бумаги&quot; leaves us with less opportunities )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To continue to illustrate this issue: &quot;Надо подождать&quot; is less obligatory compare to &quot;нужно подождать&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `надо` is slightly more colloquial and, respectively,  `нужно` is more formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a famous quotation: &quot;Надо Федя, надо&quot;. It is very hard to imagine it existence in form: &quot;Нужно, Федя, нужно&quot;. It will sound too pathetic. In that sense &quot;нужно&quot; is closer to third synonym - `необходимо`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1111" RevisionGUID="640eb852-3781-4823-ab03-4020eec56bdf" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:34:17.957" UserId="185" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="53568760-3d7c-4bc4-aab5-cf9464cb8446" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:34:17.957" UserId="185" Text="Questions about the expression of modality in Russian. A modal word or morpheme is a word \ morpheme that expresses permission, necessity, possibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="a107791c-3bb6-4478-9789-60751866a149" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:37:43.453" UserId="572" Text="Правильно говорить &quot;борец&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - борец Власова получила бронзовую медаль на олимпийских играх 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно употреблять &quot;женщина-борец&quot;, если из контекста не понятно что речь идёт о женщине. Но лучше всего избегать вообще таких случаев. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Власова получила бронзовую медаль по борьбе среди женщин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Многие профессии не имеют женского рода: инженер, анестезиолог, стоматолог, копирайтер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="33ae6dba-5880-4b28-b39b-fe4eee727557" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:07:20.853" UserId="596" Text="**Синий** - drunk. *Синяк* - drunkard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="08296f96-5704-4998-9aae-cf73072ff11b" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:21:09.853" UserId="597" Text=" - **Серый** is also a policeman because of the uniform colour.&#xD;&#xA; - **Зеленые** - US$ (e.g. штука зеленых/зелени == 1000$)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="6edf7e61-b5c2-43b4-8f85-6a47781e8677" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:23:06.787" UserId="598" Text="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb &#xD;&#xA; -ась for she &#xD;&#xA; -ся  for he &#xD;&#xA; -ось for it &#xD;&#xA;In Russian there are no my_self, him_self it_self or her_self. This part is being appended to the end of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;Man wounded him_self\ Мужчина порезал_ся&#xD;&#xA;Woman wounded her_self\ Женщина порезал_ась&#xD;&#xA;Animal wounded it_self\ Животное порезал_ось" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="3310aab5-b4e1-4582-b37d-b95ba438b3f6" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:30:35.113" UserId="600" Text="&quot;*Без четверти шесть*&quot; mentioned above is practically never used in Russian. Most people say &quot;*Без пятнадцати (минут) шесть*&quot; or &quot;*пять сорок пять*&quot; is they prefer to use digital watch-style notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3629" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="b24ff130-edc6-4c1b-9dea-88fc0717617c" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:35:44.507" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3632" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="c9390ac9-d258-4e04-93e4-3a91213af179" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:40:20.647" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1122" RevisionGUID="c514c89c-d0f5-48f6-9ee6-3fb83d9d8191" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:44:26.933" UserId="602" Text="I would put it in another order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Без пятнадцати (минут) шесть&#xD;&#xA; - Без четверти шесть &#xD;&#xA; - Сорок пять (минут) шестого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since digital clocks are everywhere right now, the following is being used quite often recently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - пять сорок пять&#xD;&#xA; - семнадцать сорок пять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these froms do not exactly match the original question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="eed44047-df63-4d3a-800e-e9a3a210ac7d" CreationDate="2012-11-07T16:58:24.373" UserId="603" Text="I think, that there is still small difference between usage of `о` and `про`&#xD;&#xA;To generalize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I use `о`, when describe some general properties of the object, or class of objects&#xD;&#xA; - I use `про` when speak about some action, incident, particular quality of the object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be demonstrated on the examples, provided by the author:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You wrote: &quot;Russian language is one, which is very difficult to study.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    I answer: &quot;Ты правильно написал про русский язык.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    You wrote: &quot;15% of people on earth speak russian language, which is also very beatiful&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    I answer: &quot;Ты правильно написал о русском языке.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You ask: &quot;Have you ever worn glasses?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    I answer: &quot;Почему ты спрашиваешь у меня про очки?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    You ask: &quot;Do you know, where can I buy glasses?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    I answer: &quot;Почему ты спрашиваешь меня об очках?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1092" RevisionGUID="de6ee6c8-2c35-41c6-9d38-fb9b7278dcd4" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:47:47.900" UserId="185" Comment="corrected grammar and formatting" Text="As far as i see brogrammer is brother+programmer. You cannot say it in one word in Russian. But you are welcome to create a neologism. Like a &quot;браграммист&quot; (брат+программист) or &quot;братанграммист&quot; (братан + программист), which is even better. &quot;Bro&quot; is more like &quot;братан&quot;, than &quot;брат&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="cdc021f3-756b-479d-a639-6b275e637387" CreationDate="2012-11-07T18:54:35.837" UserId="614" Text="**Нужно** is more formal, **надо** - is a colloquial word. They have the same meaning when we use them with verbs. But if we talk about the nouns, we shoud use *нужно/ нужна/ нужен.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples:**  Тебе **нужна** моя помощь. (помощь - noun, feminine - ending *-а*). We can't say Тебе *надо* моя помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне **нужен** этот учебник. (учебник - noun, masculine - zero ending) We can't say Мне *надо* этот учебник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне **нужно** солнце. (солнце - noun, neuter - ending *-о*) We can't say Мне *надо* солнце." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="f055edea-0883-4ce4-8660-95623411a48f" CreationDate="2012-11-07T19:44:25.467" UserId="619" Text="What Olga said, plus, it depends on the form your parents used to used as an incentive for you to do something they would want you to - the perception of the field of usage of those two forms can vary then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I agree that надо sounds not only less formal, but also &#xD;&#xA;as if it was connected with outer causes, rather then with your inner perception of need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="04bfd896-08fe-4ecb-b748-b31055dab1c5" CreationDate="2012-11-07T19:58:06.387" UserId="624" Text="Correct form: Я хочу чашку чаЮ, but if you want some tea you should to say: Я хочу чаЯ. If you mention about quantity tea or cognac you should use form чаЮ or коньякУ, if you don't tell about how many tea or cognac you want, you should use form чаЯ/коньякА&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="707bc178-8a47-41c8-b12d-99cc9eb1881a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T20:25:32.630" UserId="71" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="**Нужно** is more formal, **надо** - is a colloquial word. They have the same meaning when we use them with verbs. But if we talk about the nouns, we shoud use *нужно/ нужна/ нужен.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе **нужна** моя помощь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(помощь - noun, feminine - ending *-а*). We can't say Тебе *надо* моя помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **нужен** этот учебник. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(учебник - noun, masculine - zero ending). We can't say Мне *надо* этот учебник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **нужно** солнце. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(солнце - noun, neuter - ending *-о*). We can't say Мне *надо* солнце." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1133" RevisionGUID="7db89f91-d1b8-4934-b614-c9b45fb0c6f9" CreationDate="2012-11-07T21:38:57.777" UserId="627" Text="пряничные ворота, это метафора. Означает открыть ворота в сладкую жизнь, где хочется жить и удовлетворен этой жизнью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="bccf23c0-a6fe-43bb-b14d-e622e88013f8" CreationDate="2012-11-07T21:43:58.580" UserId="627" Text="дождь мокрый - степень влажности. хотя так говорить нельзя, но можно объяснить понятие влажности предмета.&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично - туман сырой.&#xD;&#xA;Но у слова &quot;сырой&quot; двойственное значение, его можно применять не только к пониманию определения степени влажности, но также к степени термической обработки какого либо продукта.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="2a316042-0ebf-437c-a48c-99718fdb397c" CreationDate="2012-11-07T22:07:03.953" UserId="632" Text="Врачиха, только стилистически изображая способ выражения низшего класса или ругательски.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="dc214135-9ec9-4f7f-996c-5bbfa8f10e94" CreationDate="2012-11-07T22:18:24.313" UserId="632" Text="здесь нужно ещё учитывать аспект времени, мокрым что то может быть сейчас, а сырым продолжительное время, например: сырая комната или сырой (скорее прохладный) или влажный (скорее тёплый)климат" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="7345a71a-a75b-4030-8d0e-21229eabd49a" CreationDate="2012-11-07T23:12:12.937" UserId="635" Text="&quot;Пряничные ворота&quot; - may be considered as gates to the &quot;Пряничный домик&quot; - in common fairy tales might be a good place, where the life is sweet. But... The Grimm's brothers' story about Hansel and Gretel interprets the &quot;Gingerbread house&quot; as a temptating, but deathly dangerous place. This meaning should be counted too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="49b06a08-0e44-41da-9f3b-bac34780e171" CreationDate="2012-11-07T23:53:45.340" UserId="637" Text="'Сырая вода' means 'not boiled', got from open water, and its drinking can cause illness.&#xD;&#xA;'Сырое мясо' also means 'not prepared'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="52903cad-b23c-4e35-bfcd-67fd8311d10c" CreationDate="2012-11-08T00:04:37.980" UserId="637" Text="much more colloquial form is&#xD;&#xA;'Меня прёт от моей новой работы'&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;'Я тащусь от своей новой работы', probably this is most closed form to 'I'm excited about my new job' but the later one rather could be heard from 30-40 years old persons, referring to their subcultural teenage slang, partially related to Soviet hippies. The use of this form is rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1146" RevisionGUID="021da431-1547-4e68-b7e9-da62c0eaedc7" CreationDate="2012-11-08T00:19:32.140" UserId="637" Text="This word is very interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ozhegov's dictionary marks it as obsolete in Russian language (This means its out of use BEFORE XX century) and it was mean pilgrim female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside this context it has meaning of party or event, related to voyage or quest at 'saint places(locations)'. This word seen in Belorussian language as 'Пілігрымка' and derived from Polish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="8702dc5e-fc22-41a9-b4c5-38b058db79ae" CreationDate="2012-11-08T04:04:03.140" UserId="646" Text="Слово &quot;мокрый&quot; обычно употребляют, чтобы показать, что поверхность объекта покрыта водой, например: &quot;мокрый пол&quot; = &quot;wet floor&quot;. Иногда мокрым называют то, что пропитано водой, например, &quot;мокрое полотенце&quot; = &quot;wet towel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;сырой&quot; могут употреблять в сходном значении. Например, &quot;сырой пол&quot; = &quot;мокрый пол&quot; = &quot;wet floor&quot;. Еще &quot;сырой&quot; говорят, когда хотят обозначить повышенную влажность в течение длительного времени. Например, &quot;сырой климат&quot; или &quot;сырой подвал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сырая стена&quot; скорее скажут, если это стена, пропитанная водой. Например, в затопленном подвале. &quot;Мокрая стена&quot; скажут про стену, которую только что забрызгали водой. Например, в ванной комнате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще слово &quot;сырой&quot; говорят, чтобы обозначить недостаточную готовность продукта. &quot;Сырое мясо&quot; = &quot;raw meat&quot;. &quot;Сырой пирог&quot; = &quot;undercooked pie&quot;. &quot;Сырая вода&quot; = &quot;water which has not been boiled&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="454a4261-96de-4347-890f-ef3597864c81" CreationDate="2012-11-08T07:34:32.583" UserId="185" Comment="changed formatting, corrected spelling" Text="Правильно говорить &quot;борец&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Борец Власова получила бронзовую медаль на олимпийских играх 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно употреблять &quot;женщина-борец&quot;, если из контекста не понятно, что речь идёт о женщине. Но лучше всего избегать вообще таких случаев. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Власова получила бронзовую медаль по борьбе среди женщин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Многие профессии не имеют женского рода: &quot;инженер&quot;, &quot;анестезиолог&quot;, &quot;стоматолог&quot;, &quot;копирайтер&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="6ad91718-52b4-4dcc-aebf-66fddf0ab9c4" CreationDate="2012-11-08T07:37:52.270" UserId="655" Text="&quot;Ледяная&quot; means that the **colour** of water is &quot;cold&quot; - it's dark. Not frozen, not lighting.&#xD;&#xA;[рябь][1]&#xD;&#xA;so you can imagine dark, cold and deep river, to understand the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%8C%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5&amp;hl=ru&amp;newwindow=1&amp;safe=off&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;hs=8E3&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;prmd=imvns&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=HWCbUO6pKsPi4QSSzIHoCA&amp;ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3704" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="d452032f-a0b5-4c02-99db-bfac33eb32b5" CreationDate="2012-11-08T07:38:21.250" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3706" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="cd3232d6-98db-4e48-b1ad-4bc4e234b011" CreationDate="2012-11-08T07:47:17.357" UserId="185" Comment="17" />
  <row Id="3710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="a5bd1784-72c9-4cdb-b1af-49aad1eb3fae" CreationDate="2012-11-08T08:31:53.653" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="I am taking the information from [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ась for she &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ся  for he &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ось for it &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there are no my_self, him_self it_self or her_self. This part is being appended to the end of a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Man wounded himself - Мужчина порезался&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Woman wounded herself - Женщина порезалась&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Animal wounded itself - Животное порезалось&lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="bea6ced6-2268-4b59-92d7-e51593552938" CreationDate="2012-11-08T08:34:29.493" UserId="185" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="The verb *улыбнуть* is a colloquial expression, which means that something was funny, but didn't quite make you laugh. It's currently a part of Internet argot. However, as one can conclude from Wikitionary, it has been around for a century at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To portray the meaning &quot;make someone smile&quot; you could use *развеселить* &quot;bring one into a good mood, make one want to laugh&quot;, *порадовать* &quot;make one feel glad&quot;, or *позабавить* &quot;amuse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say *заставить улыбнуться* or *вызвать (у кого-либо) улыбку*. In particular, *Эта статья вызвала у меня улыбку* is a perfectly correct and natural Russian sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples from Rapr Oid:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Забавные прыжки мопса вокруг дерева вызвали у него улыбку. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Несмотря на его подавленное настроение, ее смех вызвал и в нем подобие улыбки.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Комичность манеры, в которой Франк процитировал Элли, заставила Дэна улыбнуться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="1339e017-1ad3-473a-a882-32d654a0aadb" CreationDate="2012-11-08T08:35:16.293" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="What Olga said, plus, it depends on the form your parents used to used as an incentive for you to do something they would want you to - the perception of the field of usage of those two forms can vary then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I agree that &quot;надо&quot; sounds not only less formal, but also &#xD;&#xA;as if it was connected with outer causes, rather then with your inner perception of need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="dd3791a3-87bc-464e-942c-a3b942a152df" CreationDate="2012-11-08T08:38:58.080" UserId="134" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The best variant would be *женщина-борец*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="0da07dfb-e39b-41ad-9a32-4acebf525a7e" CreationDate="2012-11-08T08:40:15.017" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="In this case врач is an occupation, so it doesn't change it's gender and still remains  masculine (see *водитель* (driver), *повар* (cook)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some (rare) cases of special feminine form of occupation (like *поэтесса* (female) vs. *поэт* ), but that's not it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there's no need in soft sign. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="f2586d02-0ab0-4026-8755-6aa5847974a9" CreationDate="2012-11-08T09:14:53.280" UserId="655" Text="You can use both worlds - it absolutely synonym. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **нужно** в туалет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **надо** в туалет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе **надо** успеть убраться раньше, чем придут гости.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе **нужно** успеть убраться раньше, чем придут гости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no any difference between these phrases. Russian is not so exact as English - we use a lot of synonyms. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's mistake to think, that one world is more formal. But I can advise you to use &quot;необходимо&quot; in business correspondence. Especially if you address your request to partner. Because of implication: when you say smb &quot;тебе надо/нужно&quot;, you mean that he **must** do, and &quot;тебе необходимо&quot; = you **should** do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not** Вам надо отправить мне счет.&#xD;&#xA;**Yes** Вам необходимо отправить мне счет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's only our decencies, not the language terms. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="76d70694-21e7-4928-bb6e-3d34493260c4" CreationDate="2012-11-08T09:23:14.307" UserId="134" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="You can use both words, they are absolutely synonymous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **нужно** в туалет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **надо** в туалет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе **надо** успеть убраться раньше, чем придут гости.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе **нужно** успеть убраться раньше, чем придут гости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no difference between these phrases. Russian is not as exact as English, we use a lot of synonyms. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's a mistake to think that either word is more formal. But I would advice you to use *необходимо* in business correspondence, especially if you address your request to a partner. Because of implication: when you say smb. *тебе надо/нужно*, you mean &quot;you **must** do&quot;, and *тебе необходимо* means &quot;you **should** do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wrong: *Вам надо отправить мне счет.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Correct: *Вам необходимо отправить мне счет.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's just common courtesy, not the language terms. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="a0f375cb-e160-45f8-ad2d-88bb087bae01" CreationDate="2012-11-08T10:20:44.580" UserId="666" Text="I guess it looks like this: http://www.orelvkartinkax.ru/images/blok/blok8.JPG&#xD;&#xA;And the poem is about something like this: http://i39.mindmix.ru/37/84/178437/61/2562961/19392658_noch_ulica.jpeg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="a039916f-1e84-4dbf-a28d-25797eee39b8" CreationDate="2012-11-08T10:46:21.630" UserId="668" Text="`Она врач. Она генерал. Она сапёр.` Some words in Russian do not have female\male form. &#xD;&#xA;Actually, you can say `Врачиха, Генеральша, Саперша,` but it _literally_ means `жена врача, жена генерала, жена сапера (wife of ....)`. But you will be understood correctly in most situations because many people use theese words as female forms, not as a `wife of ...`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="4cf45991-155b-47c3-9eda-3cb4e269de4e" CreationDate="2012-11-08T10:53:43.710" UserId="668" Text="Correct form of `Улыбаться` (to smile) not used in this form literally. &#xD;&#xA;`Улыбнуло` - It made me smile&#xD;&#xA;`Улыбнул` - He made me smile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correctly is&#xD;&#xA;`Вызвал у меня улыбку, заставил меня улыбаться, подарил мне улыбку`, or using simillar words like `рассмешил` (more exciting version),`развеселил` (less exciting version) which have this form literally.&#xD;&#xA;`Это меня развеселило`&#xD;&#xA;`Он меня рассмешил`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Улыбнуть` is only for non-official usage, mostly internet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3723" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="7fae01bf-fb29-4f95-886d-9cdd7ed5d606" CreationDate="2012-11-08T10:59:13.483" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="9a506031-ff53-485e-8ff7-c0b0fcc5e61e" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:02:02.183" UserId="134" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="*Она врач. Она генерал. Она сапёр.* Some words in Russian do not have masculine / feminine form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you can say *врачиха, генеральша, саперша*. Though it _literally_ means *жена врача, жена генерала, жена сапера* (wife of ....), you will be understood correctly in most situations because many people use these words as female forms, not as a &quot;wife of ...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="df7d7d84-41f5-4c70-aa29-0988b210383b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:21:35.063" UserId="675" Text="Фридрих Вильгельм I&#xD;&#xA;source::&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aforizm.info/author/fridrikh-vilgelm-I/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aforizm.info/author/fridrikh-vilgelm-I/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1159" RevisionGUID="6a78cd3f-9a0b-4a44-a366-b8f584bb8a13" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:26:45.527" UserId="97" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="I guess it looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the poem is about something like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IH0Yg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E7oq0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="b6360166-146c-43a5-a179-a0bfb9775943" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:39:37.540" UserId="669" Text="I disagree with some answers that _нужно_ is more formal than _надо_. «_Надо_» is widely used even in official public speech, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Владимир Путин: «Надо обратить внимание на требования тех, кто не смог победить» [[1]](http://www.kp.ru/daily/25967/2905062/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either word may sound formally or colloqially, and it depends on the context and the entire phrase. An example of an informal _нужно_: _нужно поспеть_. An example of a formal _надо_: _надо успеть_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My choice of the word is mostly phonetical. Sometimes I prefer how _надо_ sounds, and dislike how _нужно_ sounds, and that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also say that _нужно_ is more emotionally charged, it speaks about personal need, and _надо_ is more neutral. For me the reason is that _нужно_ associates with a noun «_нужда_» (poverty, not a good thing; coincidentally, it is the word used colloquially to express the need to urinate/defecate; and only then it is need in general). _Надо_ associates with «_надобность_» (which is just a necessity; the word is slightly bookish). So I feel that, while generally _надо_ and _нужно_ are interchangeable, _надо_ is more neutral emotionally. If I wanted to be really formal, I'd use _необходимо_ instead of _надо_ or _нужно_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am not a linguist, it is just my layman's opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="247d671f-35bb-4515-bab8-0049cd74adfd" CreationDate="2012-11-08T11:41:24.183" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 48 characters in body" Text="Фридрих Вильгельм I&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: http://www.aforizm.info/author/fridrikh-vilgelm-I/)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="05afad03-9ebc-4ae4-bca3-f19049580d91" CreationDate="2012-11-08T12:26:59.423" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 572 characters in body" Text="I often see people here reasoning about what sounds colloquial to them and what doesn't which has its implications on the decision of someone who's asking for help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who defines what is colloquial and what isn't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an authority that maintains the Russian language standard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3732" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="0ad0f90a-669f-43ce-b975-a744a6027be8" CreationDate="2012-11-08T12:27:11.933" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1165" RevisionGUID="24594b59-0e42-4d97-8ccc-4a59bfc1722a" CreationDate="2012-11-08T13:15:01.540" UserId="669" Text="As far as I know, there is no authority over the language. [The Institute of Russian Language](http://www.ruslang.ru/agens.php?id=aims) is just a research institution. So there is no single language standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no single standard, there are many academically recognized publications, which we deem authoritative. Their authors are usually groups of well-known linguists. Newer publications are to be preferred, particularly if you want to learn about modern use of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn if a word is colloqial or not, you may just check the dictionary. Many of them are available online. Consider using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Яндекс-словари](http://slovari.yandex.ru)&#xD;&#xA;  * [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;  * [www.gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquial words tend to be labeled as _разг._ (разговорное, spoken), _жарг._ (жаргон, slang), or _прост._ (просторечное, uneducated). Sometimes colloquial words become mainstream, so prefer newer dictionaries to judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also free state-supported services which can answer questions about the language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * online at [www.gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;  * by phone, see [Справочная служба русского языка](http://www.ruslang.ru/agens.php?id=sprav)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3734" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="50c2542f-4701-4581-b1a2-6d6ca669079b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T13:49:19.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/266537930657497088" />
  <row Id="3736" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="e48c1b87-5e7b-47e5-b86a-9a58f9f66e26" CreationDate="2012-11-08T15:20:49.567" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="324ccb05-623f-4cc9-99c0-9f1fa3130a29" CreationDate="2012-11-08T16:53:45.323" UserId="696" Text="As from my experience and knowledge, there is institution, which regulates standarts of the Russian language. The rules of the Russian literary language are established by the Russian government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is quotation from the federal state #53:&quot;Порядок утверждения норм современного русского литературного языка при его использовании в качестве государственного языка Российской Федерации, правил русской орфографии и пунктуации определяется Правительством Российской Федерации.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely the government asks for assistance groups of linguists, historians of the Russian language, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the new rule appear, it'll appear first of all in Mass Media, then the corrections will be applied in new dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="6734c514-bbeb-4f5e-a06a-34074903a3cc" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:03:02.120" UserId="702" Text="Эту фразу произнес великий русский актер Леонид Броневой в фильме &quot;Тот самый Мюнхгаузен&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Броневой играл в этом прекрасном фильме роль герцога — курфюрста Ганновера." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="6beca6eb-40ad-4b85-bef5-aee783f498dc" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:41:13.503" UserId="719" Text="Борчиха (борчихи - мн.ч.) - common, not literatural form. Classical Russian don't contains female form for борец. This profession assosiates with a male only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="fc78bea5-9365-4505-b14b-b4f24fb6a8f7" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:42:37.813" UserId="720" Text="It is absolutely informal matter. It's only about culture, education, good breeding, informal norms and rules shared by society. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1175" RevisionGUID="f46e24bd-a409-4594-ac48-3681d16b6754" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:09:43.780" UserId="727" Text="Ooohhh! &#xD;&#xA;Thats easy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- про мяч ( **мяч** is form of **мяч** of Accusative grammatical case) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case&#xD;&#xA;- о мяче ( **мяче** is form of **мяч** of Prepositional grammatical case) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepositional_case&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;and few more examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - про стул**_** &#xD;&#xA; - о стул**Е**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="49f5189b-68f4-4ef2-a472-9db3753212d5" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:30:02.033" UserId="729" Text="Используйте окончание -я в любой ситуации, ошибки не будет.&#xD;&#xA;Окончание -ю можно считать устаревшим, встречается в литературе до 70-ходов XX века или как ироничное в разговорной речи, при имитации речи жителя дореволюционной России, например, *&quot;А не испить ли нам чаю?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же самое касается *коньяк-а* и *коньяк-у*, используйте родительный падеж и не ошибётесь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3756" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="5bed1d43-e973-4dd6-949c-d7b9c72b46e9" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:32:57.960" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="39937026-9e96-4c23-b395-043344a5740a" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:37:33.993" UserId="153" Comment="added 826 characters in body" Text="What are the mechanics behind using *надо* over *нужно* or vice versa? What governs when they are interchangeable and when not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be perfectly clear: I have no problems simply using whichever sounds most natural in a given situation. So providing just a handful of examples won't do it for me; I can come up with a handful of examples myself. What I'm missing is the big picture; I'm not quite seeing a meaningful pattern. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that entire PhD theses have been written on the subject. So while I'm not asking for *that* level of detail, a comprehensive overview would be nice. And of course if you can actually cite or link to said theses or other papers to back up your points, that would be a major plus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** so far surprisingly many people have stated things such as &quot;they are absolutely synonymous&quot;, &quot;drawing the line between them is unnesessary&quot;, and the like. This is simply not true; if it were, this question simply would not exist, and neither would the white papers I hinted at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are situations in which *надо* simply cannot be replaced with *нужно*. If you can't think of them right now, that's fine; but please do not go ahead and claim they don't exist. As a simple experiment, I dare you to replace every single occurrence of &quot;не надо&quot; in your speech with a &quot;не нужно&quot;. See for yourself how much mental effort it will cost you, how long you can keep it up, and how strange it will make you sound. You might pass for an American spy with flying colors, but nobody will mistake you for a native speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="4c7ba964-54a7-4ef6-a847-8ada7c7f03c4" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:38:53.540" UserId="730" Text="RegDwight,&#xD;&#xA;Use &quot;нужно&quot; in those situations when you want to seem &#xD;&#xA;1)more polite, &#xD;&#xA;2)more educated, &#xD;&#xA;3)more accurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use &quot;надо&quot; if you want to seem&#xD;&#xA;1)more relaxed&#xD;&#xA;2)more down to earth&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;3) when it sounds better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="c113c861-ac47-4a4d-8a75-850c726235fb" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:48:33.557" UserId="730" Text="борчиха (yes, it sounds awful) and&#xD;&#xA;пловчиха (female swimmer)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3761" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="1eb0f0bc-ead2-458a-a6dc-de932df0f43f" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:49:21.793" UserId="185" Comment="19" />
  <row Id="3762" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="cbb71f50-c0a1-48f6-bab1-e02fe5b706f7" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:49:36.567" UserId="185" Comment="20" />
  <row Id="3766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="f7423daf-66ef-4cda-b308-02809881f62e" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:55:05.130" UserId="71" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ruslang.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="ca7df05a-b4b7-4f59-abc7-5d8bd51f7c52" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:01:53.107" UserId="134" Text="Though *надо* seems to prevail, I don't really seem a difference between them used alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, I've just run a search against the corpus for *не надо* and, going as far as page 12, haven't found a single example where *не нужно* would not be able to replace it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only subtle stylistical difference is that *надо бы* is used more commonly than *нужно бы*, though the latter is also widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*надо* vs. *нужно*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*надо бы* vs. *нужно бы*][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/frINu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B,%C2%A0%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sipsp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="accdd029-e2b6-4105-8646-b64ca48bb018" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:09:48.177" UserId="740" Text="sorry for my very bad english but i try to expalin you humor of this. I'ts easy. Here We have simple game of words - 1) КАМАРОВ(last name Kamarov, based on word КОМАР - Mosquit) - кОмаров (mosquitos) &#xD;&#xA;and 2) готов (i'm ready) - котов(cats). Just game of words, no hidden meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="39a7680c-6caa-4abb-b664-0ce5c7c01ae6" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:20:49.567" UserId="743" Text="На самом деле разница интуитивна в каждой конкретной ситуации. Сочетания слов нужно запоминать. В дополнение к ответам выше можно сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мокрый - применяется там, где был процесс намокания, т. е. мокрое - не нормальное, а приобретенное состояние объекта. Например мокрая обувь, мокрое белье, еще говорят мокнуть под дождем, мокрый пол.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сырой - состояние объекта (не приобретенное, а естественное) или процесс, но очень медленный: сырая древесина, сырая говядина, на улице сыро. Или второй вариант - отсыреть (долго находиться под воздействием влаги и потерять полезные свойства)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="08e97f5a-98d9-410e-8543-2824e8d1f02b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:32:42.377" UserId="745" Text="Vasily Petrov-Komarov - the first authentic Soviet serial maniac, handled in Moscow in the period 1921-1923. His victims included 33 men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All  his crimes committed on one scenario: meet with a client who wanted to buy a particular product, invited to his house, then killed with a hammer, and then packaged in a sack and carefully concealed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cat in the sack :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1191" RevisionGUID="b8255b10-c696-4faf-bcc5-2647f41ccb52" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:51:47.613" UserId="750" Text="Подняться на крыло - приобрести способность летать. Если птица поднялась на крыло - птенец уже научился летать. Самолет поднялся на крыло - новая конструкция самолета разработана до той стадии, что пробный образец самолета уже летает." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="d5785659-0429-448a-a24c-0a6cdeca664e" CreationDate="2012-11-08T20:03:24.110" UserId="185" Comment="edited body" Text="подняться на крыло has two meanings, according to Большой словарь русских поговорок from [Academic](http://dic.academic.ru). The first one is &quot;взлететь&quot; (and here it is equivalent to &quot;встать на крыло&quot;), the second one is &quot;начать летать&quot; (about nestlings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples from Russian National Corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Думал, что после длительного заточения птица, ослабев, не сможет взлететь, однако голубь на удивление бодро поднялся на крыло и упорхнул в синюю даль неба… &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Дома я внимательно осмотрел птенца, никаких видимых повреждений не обнаружил, и это вселило в меня надежду, что скоро он сможет подняться на крыло. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example it means &quot;взлететь&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="c98809ff-79f7-48fb-b621-c0fe38ecf74c" CreationDate="2012-11-08T20:36:16.833" UserId="763" Text="It's an idiom that corresponds to &quot;take wing&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="07e798f8-6bb1-4c11-98c0-b99869927c4a" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:40:08.177" UserId="776" Comment="Добавила про малиновый звон, зеленые доллары, черную и белую зависть." Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Малиновый** - (adjective, literally &quot;the raspberry color&quot;, scarlet-red) - there is a set phrase &quot;малиновый звон&quot;, referring to the chime of church bells in the morning. The big temples in old Russia featured large installations of various bells, that could produce polyphonic music. When a master played them, the result could be quite beautiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3800" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="07e798f8-6bb1-4c11-98c0-b99869927c4a" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:40:08.177" Comment="Proposed by 776 approved by 242 edit id of 244" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="d33f6ba0-ae4b-4b19-8916-8ef58d23bcaf" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:42:59.103" UserId="779" Text="В таких выражениях ударение на предлог ставится из-за того, что они образуют устойчивые выражения и постепенно превращаются в наречия. Например, в приведённой выше фразе про ящик я бы, как носитель языка, написал скорее так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нахуй ты уронил ящик на хуй?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя ваш вариант тоже правильный, просто тут нет устоявшихся норм языка из-за того, что данное выражение табуировано.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть все эти случаи - это исключения, в которых ударение закрепилось на предлоге из-за того, что предлог со словом образуют устойчивую конструкцию с особым значением и, в большей или меньшей степени, готовы образовать наречие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из примеров могу ещё припомнить такие выражения, в которых допустимо ударение на предлог &quot;на&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нА день&#xD;&#xA;нА год&#xD;&#xA;нА борт&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="817443f8-c51f-4bc8-a404-6b924391e005" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:44:00.303" UserId="242" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - an edit has been suggested to incorporate into this list phrase `малиновый звон`, but be warned, this [has nothing to do][4] with color (малиновый), this is actually phonetical coincidence, just like `Китай-город` by no means is related to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3803" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="817443f8-c51f-4bc8-a404-6b924391e005" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:44:00.303" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="3804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1200" RevisionGUID="3d08f8ce-3a29-4ce9-8a9f-67d1c9f197d8" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:50:39.067" UserId="776" Text="&gt; Знал(а) бы, где упаду - подстелил(а) бы соломку (*or* соломки).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Literally: If I knew where I would fall, I'd spread some straw there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form without (a) is male, the form with (a) is female." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="aeffaae2-9a3c-4313-85f1-1e3072a55890" CreationDate="2012-11-08T21:55:43.390" UserId="776" Text="I think both variants are colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь многих не одобряет.&#xD;&#xA;(if spoken about people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь много чего не одобряет.&#xD;&#xA;(if spoken about things in general)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="01e1288d-9f98-4293-aae0-a04a6931b6b7" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:02:32.750" UserId="776" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="I think both variants are colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь многих не одобряет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translation: The Church disapproves of many [people].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь много чего не одобряет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Translation: The Church disapproves of many [things].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though in the second case, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Церковь многое не одобряет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would also be a better grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3810" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="6446c82b-be50-4c4e-a0da-7e5a50920298" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:07:18.813" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3817" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="94a4933d-628d-4995-a565-395964ae0f83" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:12:22.163" UserId="185" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="3819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="efec2856-c56e-42e2-87de-7bdb65b52d8c" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:20:05.900" UserId="775" Text="&quot;Привет&quot; is short form for &quot;Приветствую&quot; means greeting. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуй - это не только форма приветствия но и прощания&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуйте&quot; is formally wishing for healh in Imperative mood, so it could be not the best way for greeting terminally ill or disabled person. It can be also used for leave-taking, but not so common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуй&quot; for personal greetings can be used for person of the same level and age (&quot;ты&quot;), expecting good relations.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуйте&quot; for group greetings (&quot;вы&quot;) or for person you reverence (&quot;Вы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;There are short forms for &quot;здравствуй&quot; - &quot;здорово&quot;, &quot;здоров&quot;, &quot;здрав будешь&quot;, &quot;здоровеньки&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a joke answer:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Здравствуйте!&#xD;&#xA;- Не дождётесь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="8920342e-97d0-4223-bead-74e8dd6e76ef" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:26:04.857" UserId="786" Text="Сырой can be used in 3 different cases:&#xD;&#xA;1. related to wetness of thing - на улице сыро, сырое белье после стирки - in this case it less wet that мокрый.&#xD;&#xA;2. as derivative from сырье - сырое мясо, сырая нефть.&#xD;&#xA;3. relatively to cooking as measure of readiness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And сырое мясо и сырой пирог very different usage of word сырой. Your can use ЕЩЕ сырое мясо with meaning of сырой пирог but only for meat in process of cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="d9d71253-16ee-4779-9017-d6bb02a0149a" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:44:36.353" UserId="794" Text="Немного безграмотный, зато рифмованный вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хорошая мысля приходит опосля." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="124f070c-082c-436a-bdac-d8e522898b1a" CreationDate="2012-11-08T22:54:43.147" UserId="798" Text="Еще с выражением крепок задним умом связана (чисто русская?) привычка чесать затылок, когда что-то не получилось. Озадаченное почесывание затылка (как задней части головы) и ассоциируется с задним умом.&#xD;&#xA;Even with the strong expression of hindsight is linked to (a purely Russian?) Habit of scratching your head when things do not work out. Puzzled scratching neck (as the back of the head) and is associated with hindsight. I do not know much Russian and English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="2a2bc016-f019-47fb-97ca-bac806940c4b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:14:01.077" UserId="799" Text="Can anyone explain difference between the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Чашка лежит на столе&quot; vs &quot;Чашка стоит на столе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Мяч лежит на столе&quot; vs &quot;Мяч стоит на столе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Лэптоп лежит на столе&quot; vs &quot;Лэптоп стоит на столе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I should use first one and when - the second one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="2a2bc016-f019-47fb-97ca-bac806940c4b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:14:01.077" UserId="799" Text="What's the difference between &quot;лежит на столе&quot; and &quot;стоит на столе&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="2a2bc016-f019-47fb-97ca-bac806940c4b" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:14:01.077" UserId="799" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="4bc9be2e-1e62-4eed-84fa-bb1ca4251f11" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:23:21.677" UserId="772" Text="1. Both are correct, but the first if the cup is in horizontal position.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Мяч лежит на столе&quot; only.&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Лэптоп лежит на столе&quot; if it's closed. &quot;Лэптоп стоит на столе&quot; if it's open." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="8ddd64bf-21aa-44fd-a747-2d3c312994f1" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:25:07.500" UserId="804" Text="I suppose that everything high — *стоит*; everything horizontally-oriented (like laptop) — *лежит*. In some situations you need to remember word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Можно сказать, что чашка *лежит* на столе, когда она на боку: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RqyImLpZwHA/S-peUizdQnI/AAAAAAAAAgw/uGVo3XV5aRo/s400/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F.JPG В остальных случаях чашка всегда *стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мяч всегда *лежит* на столе. С мячом нельзя употребить *стоит*, так как это бы означало, что мяч, что это что-то устойчивое, когда это не так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Лэптоп всегда *лежит* на столе, если только каким-то чудом его не поставят стоя — на бок. В открытом состоянии — стоит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="5874356d-f29e-481f-b644-5b0802315847" CreationDate="2012-11-08T23:59:20.827" UserId="808" Text=" 1. NEVER FIRST. Never &quot;Чашка лежит на столе&quot; exept where a cup is upset on side&#xD;&#xA; 2. NEVER TWAIN. Never &quot;Мяч стоит на столе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Both fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objects WITH THE BASE: cup, bottle, flask, bowl, jar, dish, pan, pot — ALWAYS &quot;стоит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objects WITHOUT THE BASE: pen, book, sheet of paper, spoon, fork, knife — ALWAYS &quot;лежит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flower in a vase — &quot;стоит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Flower laid on the table (on its side) — &quot;лежит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1219" RevisionGUID="384a7d53-9e7f-45c8-9823-092aba7730e6" CreationDate="2012-11-09T03:40:50.527" UserId="816" Text="Well, at the time Blok literally lived by the canal; the neighborhood was poor and desperate; St. Petersburg can be very inhospitable on a November night. The meaning of the phrase is most definitely literal but used to underline the mental state of the poet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="ebf57692-90e6-4143-8cde-8cf2f845f7d4" CreationDate="2012-11-09T04:27:23.107" UserId="97" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="There is a Russian proverb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знал бы прикуп - жил бы в Сочи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means &quot;[I] would have done things differently had [I] known of something particular in the past&quot;.  It originated from the преферанс card game, but has grown beyond just the jargon of the players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not exactly the same as _it is easy to be wise after the event_, but it does carry similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** last night another thought came to me, when I was thinking about something I did the previous day:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Умная мысля приходит опосля" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="1f80f53f-23c6-44ad-864c-919988fed7cc" CreationDate="2012-11-09T04:39:18.697" UserId="821" Text="&quot;влекомый&quot; чем то материальным, всё же, стилистическая ошибка, хотя и относительно лёгкая.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;влекомым&quot; можно быть чувством, стремлением. &#xD;&#xA;Духовной категорией." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="68e8ea81-1c31-45c8-857e-ac04ff837666" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:06:41.787" UserId="823" Text="Помимо таблеток есть еще порошки, и их тоже &quot;пьют&quot;. Это обусловлено тем, что тврдые лекарства традиционно запивают (washing down?) водой, а воду &quot;пьют&quot;. Drink your medicine, and be happy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1225" RevisionGUID="6c144400-9d88-421f-995c-a5c19c091145" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:24:57.470" UserId="831" Text="The separation between &quot;есть&quot; (&quot;eat&quot;) и &quot;пить&quot; (&quot;drink&quot;) is not expected to follow the rules of simplistic formal logic as in &quot;solids are eaten, liquids are drunk&quot;. Russian is not the only language to which it applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Russian language most people will prefer to use the verb &quot;to drink&quot; when referring to consumption of milk and liquid milk-derived products. However, in many regional dialects of Russian language the preferred (or even exclusively used) verb is actually &quot;to eat&quot;, as in &quot;есть молоко&quot; или &quot;есть кефир&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same could be true for medical drugs. There's no formal logic in the verb &quot;to drink&quot; being commonly used in this case. It is quite possible that this usage was inherited from the times when drugs were mostly prepared in liquid form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="68e89c69-0a04-4c9c-b1dd-bca7044053fd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:27:35.840" UserId="242" Comment="don't cry so loud)))" Text=" 1. Never &quot;Чашка лежит на столе&quot; exept where a cup is upset on side&#xD;&#xA; 2. Never &quot;Мяч стоит на столе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Both are fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objects with base: cup, bottle, flask, bowl, jar, dish, pan, pot — always &quot;стоит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Objects without base: pen, book, sheet of paper, spoon, fork, knife — always &quot;лежит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flower in a vase — &quot;стоит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Flower laid on the table (on its side) — &quot;лежит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="8a545917-94cf-4991-abfc-984dc7e30c5e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:29:46.610" UserId="134" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="В таких выражениях ударение на предлог ставится из-за того, что они образуют устойчивые выражения и постепенно превращаются в наречия. Например, в приведённой выше фразе про ящик я бы, как носитель языка, написал скорее так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуй ты уронил ящик на хуй?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя ваш вариант тоже правильный, просто тут нет устоявшихся норм языка из-за того, что данное выражение табуировано.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть все эти случаи - это исключения, в которых ударение закрепилось на предлоге из-за того, что предлог со словом образуют устойчивую конструкцию с особым значением и, в большей или меньшей степени, готовы образовать наречие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из примеров могу ещё припомнить такие выражения, в которых допустимо ударение на предлог *на*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на&amp;#x301; день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на&amp;#x301; год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на&amp;#x301; борт&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="c0ee2183-6ab8-4844-9c8d-e6172dd3226d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:30:07.690" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="I suppose that everything long — *стоит*; everything horizontally-oriented (like laptop) — *лежит*. In some situations you need to remember word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Можно сказать, что чашка *лежит* на столе, когда она на боку: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RqyImLpZwHA/S-peUizdQnI/AAAAAAAAAgw/uGVo3XV5aRo/s400/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F.JPG В остальных случаях чашка всегда *стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мяч всегда *лежит* на столе. С мячом нельзя употребить *стоит*, так как это бы означало, что мяч, что это что-то устойчивое, когда это не так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Лэптоп всегда *лежит* на столе, если только каким-то чудом его не поставят стоя — на бок. В открытом состоянии — стоит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3856" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="52cba64b-fa4e-4797-931a-c337e627b51a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:35:48.610" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1226" RevisionGUID="a72a4757-c075-48d1-9f3e-9037063e2965" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:41:10.280" UserId="833" Text="&quot;Принимать таблетки (или другие лекарства)&quot; is completely standard and acceptable in all varieties of speech and writing.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пить таблетки&quot; is colloquial, it is not normally used in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Глотать&quot; usually refers to the process of swallowing. Sometimes, in colloquial speech, it means &quot;to eat or drink something in too large amounts&quot;, e.g. pills.&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard anybody saying &quot;есть таблетки&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="eb8f155f-b066-4789-a4e1-bf74539e64c5" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:54:27.367" UserId="827" Text="Another instance of extended cases list I've saved from FidoNet echoareas (which aren't stably archived at WWW resources so are continually lost). It differs from the list posted by Anixx in presence of 3 vocatives but miss of Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;===============================,,,^..^,,,===============================&#xD;&#xA;News: fido7.ru.linguist&#xD;&#xA;From: Sergey Zubkov &lt;Sergey.Zubkov@f250.n267.z1.fidonet.org&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To: Dima Bystrov&#xD;&#xA;Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:05:58 +0400&#xD;&#xA;Subj: падежи в русском языке&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Hello, Dima!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Sun, 30 Jul 06 23:25:28 -0400, Dima Bystrov wrote to Sergey Zubkov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SZ&gt;&gt; Тут было обсуждение где-то с год назад. От 10 до 15, мнения лингвистов&#xD;&#xA;SZ&gt;&gt; различаются.&#xD;&#xA;DB&gt; 15??? Это какие?&#xD;&#xA;1. Именительный&#xD;&#xA;2. Родительный&#xD;&#xA;3. Дательный&#xD;&#xA;4. Винительный&#xD;&#xA;5. Творительный&#xD;&#xA;6. Предложный&#xD;&#xA;7. Местный aka Предложный-II&#xD;&#xA;(в лесу, в кровИ, в слезАх vs. о лесе, о крОви, о слёзах)&#xD;&#xA;8. Количественно-отделительный aka Родительный-II&#xD;&#xA;(ложка сахару, налейте мне чаю vs. нет сахара, пять пачек чая)&#xD;&#xA;9. Счётный-I&#xD;&#xA;(два шагА, часА, рядА, шарА vs. (Род. ед.): шАга, чАса, рЯда, шАра)&#xD;&#xA;10. Счётный-II&#xD;&#xA;(чулок — чулков, сапог — сапогов, гусар — гусаров, вольт — вольтов, грамм —&#xD;&#xA;граммов, байт — байтов)&#xD;&#xA;11. Включительный&#xD;&#xA;(взять в солдаты, в зятья, в люди)&#xD;&#xA;12. Ждательный&#xD;&#xA;(жду письма, мать, результата — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Вин.)&#xD;&#xA;13. Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;(нет читал газеты vs. газету — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Дат.)&#xD;&#xA;14. Звательный-I (церковнославянский)&#xD;&#xA;Боже, господи, владыко, отче&#xD;&#xA;15. Звательный-II (старый)&#xD;&#xA;деда, доча, сынка&#xD;&#xA;16. Звательный-III (новый)&#xD;&#xA;дядь, мам, Лен, тёть, Солнц, ребят, девчат, батянь.&#xD;&#xA;этот список я собрал, начитавшись обсуждения здесь и полазив по интернету за&#xD;&#xA;опубликованными лингвистами, так что вот еще и ссылочки для полноты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: Зализняк А.А. &quot;Русское именное словоизменение.&quot; Москва.: Hаука, 1967.&#xD;&#xA;2: Успенский В.А. &quot;К определению падежа по А. H .Колмогорову //&#xD;&#xA;Бюллетень объединения по проблемам машинного перевода.&quot; . том 5.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kolmogorov.pms.ru/uspensky-k_opredeleniyu_padezha_po_kolmogorovu&#xD;&#xA;3. Клобуков Е.В. &quot;Семантика падежных форм в современном русском&#xD;&#xA;литературном языке. (Введение в методику позиционного анализа)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Москва, изд МГУ, 1986.&#xD;&#xA;4: Милославский И.Г., &quot;Морфология // Современный русский язык / Под ред.&#xD;&#xA;В. А. Белошапковой&quot;. 2е изд.. М.: Высшая школа, 1989.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I'm citing groundings for some cases, from the same discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Ждательный падеж* представлен однопадежным рядом именных словоформ,&#xD;&#xA;встречающихся в оборотах _жду мать, жду результата, жду поезд, жду&#xD;&#xA;поезда, жду письмо, жду письма_ и им подобных. Здесь существенно, что в&#xD;&#xA;этом ряду отсутствуют такие обороты, как _жду матери_ и _жду результат,_&#xD;&#xA;которые объявляются недопустимыми; если же допустить такие обороты, то&#xD;&#xA;ждательного падежа не возникнет, а окажется просто-напросто, что после&#xD;&#xA;глагола _ждать_ всегда возможен как винительный, так и родительный падеж&#xD;&#xA;(по аналогичной причине в схеме Зализняка отсутствует лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;о чём будет сказано ниже). Ждательный падеж не возникнет и в том случае,&#xD;&#xA;если признать актуальным почти стёртое ныне архаичное смысловое различие&#xD;&#xA;между оборотами вида _ждать письмо_ и _ждать письма;_ в этом случае&#xD;&#xA;также окажется, что после глагола _ждать_ возможен как винительный, так&#xD;&#xA;и родительный падеж -- но не по произволу, как в предыдущем случае,&#xD;&#xA;а в зависимости от степени определённости предмета; именно, для&#xD;&#xA;определённого предмета будет употребляться винительный падеж, а для&#xD;&#xA;неопределённого -- родительный (возможно, что &quot;письмо&quot; со значением&#xD;&#xA;определённости и &quot;письмо&quot; со значением неопределённости целесообразно&#xD;&#xA;считать разными лексемами).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь о *включительном падеже.* В этом падеже предположительно&#xD;&#xA;пребывают словоформы _солдаты_ и _зятья_ в контекстах _идти в солдаты_&#xD;&#xA;и _взять в зятья._ Слово &quot;предположительно&quot; означает, что включительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж возникает при выполнении следующих двух предположений.&#xD;&#xA;Предполагается, во-первых, что в указанных контекстах словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдаты_ и _зятья_ принадлежат тем же лексемам, что и словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдат_ и _зять,_ -- а не особым лексемам, означающим нерасчленённые&#xD;&#xA;совокупности солдат или зятьёв; при этой противоположной точке зрения&#xD;&#xA;падеж имён в рассматриваемых контекстах окажется винительным или&#xD;&#xA;именительным. Предполагается, во-вторых, что присутствующие в указанных&#xD;&#xA;контекстах смысловые отношения тождественны тем, которые присутствуют&#xD;&#xA;в словосочетаниях _идти в армию_ и _взять в семью;_ при отрицании этого&#xD;&#xA;второго предположения (но принятии первого) падеж имён оказывается&#xD;&#xA;именительным (причём именительным с предлогом!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моей статье в качестве возможного был назван также &quot;лишительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж&quot;. В схеме А. А. Зализняка он отсутствует. Дело в том, что&#xD;&#xA;определение А. А. Зализняка, помимо многочисленных технических&#xD;&#xA;улучшений, отличается от определения, изложенного в моей статье, в&#xD;&#xA;одном принципиальном пункте. А именно, определение Зализняка запрещает&#xD;&#xA;считаться самостоятельным падежом такому претенденту на это звание,&#xD;&#xA;у которого множество соответствующих этому претенденту сегментов&#xD;&#xA;является объединением других множеств, каждое из которых образует свой&#xD;&#xA;собственный падеж. А множество сегментов &quot;лишительного падежа&quot; как&#xD;&#xA;раз и является объединением двух множеств, одно из которых отвечает&#xD;&#xA;винительному падежу, а другое родительному: в приведённом в [РИС] в&#xD;&#xA;качестве примера контексте _&quot;я не узнал...&quot;_ вместо многоточия можно&#xD;&#xA;по произволу поставить слово как в винительном, так и в родительном&#xD;&#xA;падеже. Таким образом, определение Зализняка содержит дополнительную&#xD;&#xA;запретительную клаузулу, но зато даёт более экономную картину: вместо&#xD;&#xA;того, чтобы вводить в рассмотрение двенадцатый, лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;достаточно сказать, что в определённых контекстах можно употреблять как&#xD;&#xA;винительный, так и родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="08a9417e-61df-4fec-9b03-9753e4c831db" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:56:54.900" UserId="835" Text="вещи имеющие основание и стоящие на нём - &quot;стоят&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;иначе - &quot;лежат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;пример: &quot;шкаф стоит на полу&quot;, но положенный на бок (не находится на основании) или перевернутый - &quot;шкаф лежит на полу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;вещи не имеющие основания - &quot;лежат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но размещенные в вертикальной плоскости они - &quot;стоят&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;пример: &quot;карандаш лежит на столе&quot;, но если поставить его на кончик, то &quot;карандаш стоит на столе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Плоские вещи не имеют основания и к ним применяется правило вещей без основания:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;книга лежит на столе&quot;, но если её поставить на бок, то &quot;стоит на столе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Ноутбук в закрытом состоянии вещь плоская, поэтому он &quot;лежит&quot;. Но в открытом состоянии у него появляется основание, поэтому он &quot;стоит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Круглые вещи всегда &quot;лежат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="8282085b-f73c-4ef0-9b2c-d0cb2b784f51" CreationDate="2012-11-09T06:06:06.230" UserId="835" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="вещи имеющие основание и стоящие на нём - &quot;стоят&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;иначе - &quot;лежат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;пример: &quot;шкаф стоит на полу&quot;, но положенный на бок (не находится на основании) - &quot;шкаф лежит на полу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вещи не имеющие основания - &quot;лежат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но размещенные в вертикальной плоскости они - &quot;стоят&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;пример: &quot;карандаш лежит на столе&quot;, но если поставить его на кончик, то &quot;карандаш стоит на столе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Плоские вещи не имеют основания и к ним применяется правило вещей без основания:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;книга лежит на столе&quot;, но если её поставить на бок, то &quot;стоит на столе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ноутбук в закрытом состоянии вещь плоская, поэтому он &quot;лежит&quot;. Но в открытом состоянии у него появляется основание, поэтому он &quot;стоит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Круглые вещи всегда &quot;лежат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="d4b3a82d-cb2a-4ddc-bfb5-006a16632041" CreationDate="2012-11-09T06:06:34.213" UserId="827" Text="The most useful approach (IMHO) is to learn cases as 6 basic which then can be modified for some specific circumstances - this is exactly how it's studied in middle school. They are 6 cases usually known (Nom., Gen., Dat., Acc., Instr., Loc./Prep.). The extended list up to ~16 cases is used only for some specific roles and not for all words. For example, Numerative-singular (Numerative-II in Anixx's scheme, Numerative-I in cited by me) has specific forms only for 4 words (шаг, ряд, час according to official regulations, and раз for usual oral tradition). Also, differences between Prepositional and Locative (в ле́се vs. в лесу́) are also known for a few words. Yep, if you instrument a machine learning/translation system, you shall differ all 16 (or more) cases but they still will mostly refer more common variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that variant, you will have rather simple basic structure of 3-4-6 declensions (based on adopted grammar style) and 6 cases which aren't hard to learn, and then add exceptions to the scheme.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="f2a5f5c5-2192-41ee-b846-eff572bb42c0" CreationDate="2012-11-09T06:43:53.893" UserId="839" Text="The general and simple idea of how to use нужно and надо in proper way might look as follows:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You **can not** use надо in cases, when your sentence aim particular material thing, for example:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужна* эта отвертка&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужен* этот молоток&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In cases when your sentence states that you need to do something, надо and нужно are interchangeable.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужно* это сделать до завтрашнего утра&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *надо* это сделать до завтрашнего утра&lt;br &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужно* сходить в туалет&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *надо* сходить в туалет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The are also set phrases like *надо бы*, when the use of надо sounds more natural, but *нужно бы* is also correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I prefer to use нужно over надо because it sounds more accurate. But except for the first case I mentioned, the difference is a subject for PhD, indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="d53da3b2-5236-45e5-80dd-003f22de2f96" CreationDate="2012-11-09T06:57:27.260" UserId="839" Comment="edited body" Text="The general and simple idea of how to use нужно and надо in proper way might look as follows:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You **can not** use надо in cases, when your sentence aim a noun:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужна* эта отвертка&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужен* этот молоток&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужна* твоя помощь&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In cases when your sentence states that you need to do something, надо and нужно are interchangeable.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужно* это сделать до завтрашнего утра&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *надо* это сделать до завтрашнего утра&lt;br &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *нужно* сходить в туалет&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне *надо* сходить в туалет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The are also set phrases like *надо бы*, when the use of надо sounds more natural, but *нужно бы* is also correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I prefer to use нужно over надо because it sounds more accurate. But except for the first case I mentioned, the difference is a subject for PhD, indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="c5ab9277-e239-40fe-8a09-40387877c936" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:16:35.437" UserId="827" Comment="style/formatting editing, step 1" Text="Another instance of extended cases list I've saved from FidoNet echoareas (which aren't stably archived at WWW resources so are continually lost). It differs from the list posted by Anixx in presence of 3 vocatives but miss of Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm currently editing it, not for contents, but for form, so one can see intermediate partially edited variants.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;News: fido7.ru.linguist&#xD;&#xA;From: Sergey Zubkov &lt;Sergey.Zubkov@f250.n267.z1.fidonet.org&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To: Dima Bystrov&#xD;&#xA;Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:05:58 +0400&#xD;&#xA;Subj: падежи в русском языке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Именительный (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Родительный (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a. Количественно-отделительный aka Родительный-II&#xD;&#xA;(ложка сахару, налейте мне чаю vs. нет сахара, пять пачек чая)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b. Счётный-I&#xD;&#xA;(два шага́, часа́, ряда́ vs. (Род. ед.): ша́га, ча́са, ря́да; в разговорном также - два раза́)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2c. Счётный-II&#xD;&#xA;(чулок — чулков, сапог — сапогов, гусар — гусаров, вольт — вольтов, грамм —&#xD;&#xA;граммов, байт — байтов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Дательный (Dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4a. Включительный&#xD;&#xA;(взять в солдаты, в зятья; выйти в люди; пройти в кандидаты)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6a. Местный aka Предложный-II (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;(в лесу́, в крови́, в слеза́х vs. о ле́се, о кро́ви, о слёзах)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. Ждательный&#xD;&#xA;(жду письма, мать, результата — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Вин.)&#xD;&#xA;13. Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;(нет читал газеты vs. газету — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Дат.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7a. Звательный-I (церковнославянский)&#xD;&#xA;Боже, господи, владыко, отче&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7b. Звательный-II (старый)&#xD;&#xA;деда, доча, сынка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7b. Звательный-III (новый)&#xD;&#xA;дядь, мам, Лен, тёть, Солнц, ребят, девчат, батянь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;этот список я собрал, начитавшись обсуждения здесь и полазив по интернету за&#xD;&#xA;опубликованными лингвистами, так что вот еще и ссылочки для полноты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: Зализняк А.А. &quot;Русское именное словоизменение.&quot; Москва.: Hаука, 1967.&#xD;&#xA;2: Успенский В.А. &quot;К определению падежа по А. H .Колмогорову //&#xD;&#xA;Бюллетень объединения по проблемам машинного перевода.&quot; . том 5.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kolmogorov.pms.ru/uspensky-k_opredeleniyu_padezha_po_kolmogorovu&#xD;&#xA;3. Клобуков Е.В. &quot;Семантика падежных форм в современном русском&#xD;&#xA;литературном языке. (Введение в методику позиционного анализа)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Москва, изд МГУ, 1986.&#xD;&#xA;4: Милославский И.Г., &quot;Морфология // Современный русский язык / Под ред.&#xD;&#xA;В. А. Белошапковой&quot;. 2е изд.. М.: Высшая школа, 1989.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I'm citing groundings for some cases, from the same discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Ждательный падеж* представлен однопадежным рядом именных словоформ,&#xD;&#xA;встречающихся в оборотах _жду мать, жду результата, жду поезд, жду&#xD;&#xA;поезда, жду письмо, жду письма_ и им подобных. Здесь существенно, что в&#xD;&#xA;этом ряду отсутствуют такие обороты, как _жду матери_ и _жду результат,_&#xD;&#xA;которые объявляются недопустимыми; если же допустить такие обороты, то&#xD;&#xA;ждательного падежа не возникнет, а окажется просто-напросто, что после&#xD;&#xA;глагола _ждать_ всегда возможен как винительный, так и родительный падеж&#xD;&#xA;(по аналогичной причине в схеме Зализняка отсутствует лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;о чём будет сказано ниже). Ждательный падеж не возникнет и в том случае,&#xD;&#xA;если признать актуальным почти стёртое ныне архаичное смысловое различие&#xD;&#xA;между оборотами вида _ждать письмо_ и _ждать письма;_ в этом случае&#xD;&#xA;также окажется, что после глагола _ждать_ возможен как винительный, так&#xD;&#xA;и родительный падеж -- но не по произволу, как в предыдущем случае,&#xD;&#xA;а в зависимости от степени определённости предмета; именно, для&#xD;&#xA;определённого предмета будет употребляться винительный падеж, а для&#xD;&#xA;неопределённого -- родительный (возможно, что &quot;письмо&quot; со значением&#xD;&#xA;определённости и &quot;письмо&quot; со значением неопределённости целесообразно&#xD;&#xA;считать разными лексемами).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь о *включительном падеже.* В этом падеже предположительно&#xD;&#xA;пребывают словоформы _солдаты_ и _зятья_ в контекстах _идти в солдаты_&#xD;&#xA;и _взять в зятья._ Слово &quot;предположительно&quot; означает, что включительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж возникает при выполнении следующих двух предположений.&#xD;&#xA;Предполагается, во-первых, что в указанных контекстах словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдаты_ и _зятья_ принадлежат тем же лексемам, что и словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдат_ и _зять,_ -- а не особым лексемам, означающим нерасчленённые&#xD;&#xA;совокупности солдат или зятьёв; при этой противоположной точке зрения&#xD;&#xA;падеж имён в рассматриваемых контекстах окажется винительным или&#xD;&#xA;именительным. Предполагается, во-вторых, что присутствующие в указанных&#xD;&#xA;контекстах смысловые отношения тождественны тем, которые присутствуют&#xD;&#xA;в словосочетаниях _идти в армию_ и _взять в семью;_ при отрицании этого&#xD;&#xA;второго предположения (но принятии первого) падеж имён оказывается&#xD;&#xA;именительным (причём именительным с предлогом!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моей статье в качестве возможного был назван также &quot;лишительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж&quot;. В схеме А. А. Зализняка он отсутствует. Дело в том, что&#xD;&#xA;определение А. А. Зализняка, помимо многочисленных технических&#xD;&#xA;улучшений, отличается от определения, изложенного в моей статье, в&#xD;&#xA;одном принципиальном пункте. А именно, определение Зализняка запрещает&#xD;&#xA;считаться самостоятельным падежом такому претенденту на это звание,&#xD;&#xA;у которого множество соответствующих этому претенденту сегментов&#xD;&#xA;является объединением других множеств, каждое из которых образует свой&#xD;&#xA;собственный падеж. А множество сегментов &quot;лишительного падежа&quot; как&#xD;&#xA;раз и является объединением двух множеств, одно из которых отвечает&#xD;&#xA;винительному падежу, а другое родительному: в приведённом в [РИС] в&#xD;&#xA;качестве примера контексте _&quot;я не узнал...&quot;_ вместо многоточия можно&#xD;&#xA;по произволу поставить слово как в винительном, так и в родительном&#xD;&#xA;падеже. Таким образом, определение Зализняка содержит дополнительную&#xD;&#xA;запретительную клаузулу, но зато даёт более экономную картину: вместо&#xD;&#xA;того, чтобы вводить в рассмотрение двенадцатый, лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;достаточно сказать, что в определённых контекстах можно употреблять как&#xD;&#xA;винительный, так и родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="e2397e0f-396d-4cfa-bd46-75e627fc13c2" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:18:49.537" UserId="827" Comment="answer grammar" Text="The most useful approach (IMHO) is to learn cases as 6 basic ones which then can be modified for some specific circumstances - this is exactly how it's studied in middle school. They are 6 cases usually known (Nom., Gen., Dat., Acc., Instr., Loc./Prep.). The extended list up to ~16 cases is used only for some specific roles and not for all words. For example, Numerative-singular (Numerative-II in Anixx's scheme, Numerative-I in cited by me) has specific forms only for 4 words (шаг, ряд, час according to official regulations, and раз for usual oral tradition). Also, differences between Prepositional and Locative (в ле́се vs. в лесу́) are also known for a few words. Yep, if you instrument a machine learning/translation system, you shall differ all 16 (or more) cases but they still will mostly refer more common variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that variant, you will have rather simple basic structure of 3-4-6 declensions (based on adopted grammar style) and 6 cases which aren't hard to learn, and then add exceptions to the scheme.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="4eacd889-95c4-498e-a4a0-cafb9e9e50a2" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:25:29.750" UserId="776" Text="Quote from Энциклопедия русского быта (Encyclopedia of Russian life):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         СВЕКОР – отец мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        СВЕКРОВЬ – мать мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        ТЕСТЬ – отец жены. &#xD;&#xA;        ТЕЩА – мать жены. &#xD;&#xA;        ЗЯТЬ: 1) муж дочери; 2) муж сестры. &#xD;&#xA;        СНОХА – жена сына по отношению к его отцу, реже – по отношению к его матери. &#xD;&#xA;        НЕВЕСТКА: 1) жена брата; 2) жена сына по отношению к его матери, реже – по отношению к его отцу; 3) жена одного брата по отношению к жене другого брата. &#xD;&#xA;        ШУРИН – брат жены. &#xD;&#xA;        ДЕВЕРЬ – брат мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        ЗОЛОВКА – сестра мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        СВОЯЧЕНИЦА – сестра жены. &#xD;&#xA;        СВОЯК – муж сестры жены. &#xD;&#xA;        СВАТ – отец жены сына или мужа дочери. &#xD;&#xA;        СВАТЬЯ – мать жены сына или мужа дочери. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_rus_mod_of_life_xix/5/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="6beefcc1-42f6-4758-a9ba-f77c554d8b0a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:37:47.663" UserId="849" Text="Наиболее употребительны в разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;1.&quot;Знал(а) бы прикуп(карточный термин) -жил(а) бы в Сочи.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;или более сокращённая версия &quot;Знал(а) бы прикуп&quot;, &quot;Эх знал(а) бы прикуп&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2.Знал(а) бы где упасть- соломку(подушку) бы подстелил . Можно сокращать &quot;Знал бы -подстелил соломку&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3.После драки кулаками не машут &#xD;&#xA;5.Умная мысля приходит опосля&#xD;&#xA;4.Варианты про задний ум имеют в современно языке двоякое толкование и могут быть поняты  в  как намёк на гомосексуализм. Плохо говорящим по русски я бы не советовал использовать в повседневной речи -&quot;можно и по рылу отгрести&quot;-просто побьют&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="ba929a6e-1237-45b7-a257-338462681c7e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:45:12.300" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 174 characters in body" Text="Another instance of extended cases list I've saved from FidoNet echoareas (which aren't stably archived at WWW resources so are continually lost). It differs from the list posted by Anixx in presence of 3 vocatives but miss of Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm currently editing it, not for contents, but for form, so one can see intermediate partially edited variants.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Именительный (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Родительный (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a. Количественно-отделительный aka Родительный-II&#xD;&#xA;(ложка сахару, налейте мне чаю vs. нет сахара, пять пачек чая)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b. Счётный-I&#xD;&#xA;(два шага́, часа́, ряда́ vs. (Род. ед.): ша́га, ча́са, ря́да; в разговорном также - два раза́)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2c. Счётный-II&#xD;&#xA;(чулок — чулков, сапог — сапогов, гусар — гусаров, вольт — вольтов, грамм —&#xD;&#xA;граммов, байт — байтов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Дательный (Dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Винительный (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4a. Включительный&#xD;&#xA;(взять в солдаты, в зятья; выйти в люди; пройти в кандидаты)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Творительный (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Предложный (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6a. Местный aka Предложный-II (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;(в лесу́, в крови́, в слеза́х vs. о ле́се, о кро́ви, о слёзах)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. Ждательный&#xD;&#xA;(жду письма, мать, результата — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Вин.)&#xD;&#xA;13. Лишительный&#xD;&#xA;(нет читал газеты vs. газету — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Дат.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7a. Звательный-I (церковнославянский)&#xD;&#xA;Боже, господи, владыко, отче&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7b. Звательный-II (старый)&#xD;&#xA;деда, доча, сынка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7b. Звательный-III (новый)&#xD;&#xA;дядь, мам, Лен, тёть, Солнц, ребят, девчат, батянь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;этот список я собрал, начитавшись обсуждения здесь и полазив по интернету за&#xD;&#xA;опубликованными лингвистами, так что вот еще и ссылочки для полноты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: Зализняк А.А. &quot;Русское именное словоизменение.&quot; Москва.: Hаука, 1967.&#xD;&#xA;2: Успенский В.А. &quot;К определению падежа по А. H .Колмогорову //&#xD;&#xA;Бюллетень объединения по проблемам машинного перевода.&quot; . том 5.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kolmogorov.pms.ru/uspensky-k_opredeleniyu_padezha_po_kolmogorovu&#xD;&#xA;3. Клобуков Е.В. &quot;Семантика падежных форм в современном русском&#xD;&#xA;литературном языке. (Введение в методику позиционного анализа)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Москва, изд МГУ, 1986.&#xD;&#xA;4: Милославский И.Г., &quot;Морфология // Современный русский язык / Под ред.&#xD;&#xA;В. А. Белошапковой&quot;. 2е изд.. М.: Высшая школа, 1989.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I'm citing groundings for some cases, from the same discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Ждательный падеж* представлен однопадежным рядом именных словоформ,&#xD;&#xA;встречающихся в оборотах _жду мать, жду результата, жду поезд, жду&#xD;&#xA;поезда, жду письмо, жду письма_ и им подобных. Здесь существенно, что в&#xD;&#xA;этом ряду отсутствуют такие обороты, как _жду матери_ и _жду результат,_&#xD;&#xA;которые объявляются недопустимыми; если же допустить такие обороты, то&#xD;&#xA;ждательного падежа не возникнет, а окажется просто-напросто, что после&#xD;&#xA;глагола _ждать_ всегда возможен как винительный, так и родительный падеж&#xD;&#xA;(по аналогичной причине в схеме Зализняка отсутствует лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;о чём будет сказано ниже). Ждательный падеж не возникнет и в том случае,&#xD;&#xA;если признать актуальным почти стёртое ныне архаичное смысловое различие&#xD;&#xA;между оборотами вида _ждать письмо_ и _ждать письма;_ в этом случае&#xD;&#xA;также окажется, что после глагола _ждать_ возможен как винительный, так&#xD;&#xA;и родительный падеж -- но не по произволу, как в предыдущем случае,&#xD;&#xA;а в зависимости от степени определённости предмета; именно, для&#xD;&#xA;определённого предмета будет употребляться винительный падеж, а для&#xD;&#xA;неопределённого -- родительный (возможно, что &quot;письмо&quot; со значением&#xD;&#xA;определённости и &quot;письмо&quot; со значением неопределённости целесообразно&#xD;&#xA;считать разными лексемами).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь о *включительном падеже.* В этом падеже предположительно&#xD;&#xA;пребывают словоформы _солдаты_ и _зятья_ в контекстах _идти в солдаты_&#xD;&#xA;и _взять в зятья._ Слово &quot;предположительно&quot; означает, что включительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж возникает при выполнении следующих двух предположений.&#xD;&#xA;Предполагается, во-первых, что в указанных контекстах словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдаты_ и _зятья_ принадлежат тем же лексемам, что и словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдат_ и _зять,_ -- а не особым лексемам, означающим нерасчленённые&#xD;&#xA;совокупности солдат или зятьёв; при этой противоположной точке зрения&#xD;&#xA;падеж имён в рассматриваемых контекстах окажется винительным или&#xD;&#xA;именительным. Предполагается, во-вторых, что присутствующие в указанных&#xD;&#xA;контекстах смысловые отношения тождественны тем, которые присутствуют&#xD;&#xA;в словосочетаниях _идти в армию_ и _взять в семью;_ при отрицании этого&#xD;&#xA;второго предположения (но принятии первого) падеж имён оказывается&#xD;&#xA;именительным (причём именительным с предлогом!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моей статье в качестве возможного был назван также &quot;лишительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж&quot;. В схеме А. А. Зализняка он отсутствует. Дело в том, что&#xD;&#xA;определение А. А. Зализняка, помимо многочисленных технических&#xD;&#xA;улучшений, отличается от определения, изложенного в моей статье, в&#xD;&#xA;одном принципиальном пункте. А именно, определение Зализняка запрещает&#xD;&#xA;считаться самостоятельным падежом такому претенденту на это звание,&#xD;&#xA;у которого множество соответствующих этому претенденту сегментов&#xD;&#xA;является объединением других множеств, каждое из которых образует свой&#xD;&#xA;собственный падеж. А множество сегментов &quot;лишительного падежа&quot; как&#xD;&#xA;раз и является объединением двух множеств, одно из которых отвечает&#xD;&#xA;винительному падежу, а другое родительному: в приведённом в [РИС] в&#xD;&#xA;качестве примера контексте _&quot;я не узнал...&quot;_ вместо многоточия можно&#xD;&#xA;по произволу поставить слово как в винительном, так и в родительном&#xD;&#xA;падеже. Таким образом, определение Зализняка содержит дополнительную&#xD;&#xA;запретительную клаузулу, но зато даёт более экономную картину: вместо&#xD;&#xA;того, чтобы вводить в рассмотрение двенадцатый, лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;достаточно сказать, что в определённых контекстах можно употреблять как&#xD;&#xA;винительный, так и родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="8c20eb62-1223-4901-a769-d743924c8f53" CreationDate="2012-11-09T07:57:04.633" UserId="858" Text="Easy going explanation for you: http://screencast.com/t/71y47U42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="8ae5f450-2b9c-4fb5-a04d-db73830f4fde" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:09:06.420" UserId="728" Text="It's not as easy as it seems. In fact, it's very complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;1. Objects that looks like rectangular cuboid (e.g. book)  &#xD;&#xA;They «stand» when their long part is placed vertically and «lie» when thier long part is placed horizontally.  &#xD;&#xA;Книга стоит на полке.  &#xD;&#xA;Книга лежит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Objects that can be in the proper position  &#xD;&#xA;If they are in the proper position, they «stand» (e.g. an opened notebook, a flower in a vase). If they are folded or placed wrong, they «lie».  &#xD;&#xA;Цветы стоят в вазе.  &#xD;&#xA;Цветок лежит на диване.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Objects that have only 1 possible position.  &#xD;&#xA;Mostly they always «lie». But sometimes «stand» (idk when) but there are few examples:  &#xD;&#xA;Коробка лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA;Нож лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA;Нож лежит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA;But  &#xD;&#xA;Коробка стоит на столе.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="c681d993-0145-415a-a449-b279a379c783" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:22:01.937" UserId="867" Text="Words ‘в зубах у лошади’ do not necessarily mean that the horse is literally holding or biting something nor something is stuck in its teeth. It may also mean the place in the front to the horse, so the gypsy may simply stand near horse head. Compare ‘в хвосте у лошади’—this means someone or something is right behind the horse, near its tail, literally. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="2e265b3e-83e2-490f-bb41-7422862bcccb" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:22:07.067" UserId="868" Text="One might also add that *сейчас* has another connotation, which *теперь* does not - acknowledgement that a request was received and assurance that the speaker will perform the requested action immediately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense, сейчас can be translated into English as *right away*, *presently*,  *I'm on my way/I'm coming* or even simply *yes/okay*; it's not dissimilar to the French *j'arrive*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коля, иди обедать! -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас, мама.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kolya, come eat! -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Be right there, mom.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="06b3fda9-7524-49f6-899d-e91590e261cc" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:24:52.933" UserId="861" Text="&quot;Сейчас!&quot; is commonly used as &quot;wait a moment&quot; or mockery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pete, come here quickly!&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас! (actually Pete is busy and doesn't come right now, but in 2-5 minutes after next call)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, **сейчас** means &quot;this hour&quot;, but used as &quot;now&quot;, except the example above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can be used as a mockery or jesting:&#xD;&#xA;- Hey, you, give me your money!&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас!  (the person refuses to give the money.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="7442e902-b7f1-4976-90da-6bd44f3694b9" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:38:36.900" UserId="-1" Comment="*Серо-буро-малиновый* - colloquial description of the color that is hard to determine or due to a strange medley of hues" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозб розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха). In phrase &quot;желторотый птенец&quot;, means very unexperienced person.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *Серо-буро-малиновый* - colloquial description of the color that is hard to determine or due to a strange medley of hues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - an edit has been suggested to incorporate into this list phrase `малиновый звон`, but be warned, this [has nothing to do][4] with color (малиновый), this is actually phonetical coincidence, just like `Китай-город` by no means is related to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3893" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="7442e902-b7f1-4976-90da-6bd44f3694b9" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:38:36.900" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 242 edit id of 246" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3895" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="9a9660e9-c820-4d63-9e41-a3b462b667b6" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:40:39.340" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="d962692d-15c1-462d-aee9-49ba1253b3c1" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:44:02.503" UserId="849" Text="Разбор полётов.Шумиха неразбериха наказание невиновных и награждение непричастных&#xD;&#xA;Армейский способ  — особая разновидность раздолбайства. Характеризуется прежде всего отсутствием конкретного виноватого, хотя практически всегда при разборе полетов таковой ответственный мгновенно назначается приказом командования. Типичное проявление — все делали то, что им приказали, исполняли и контролировали, не ошибались и не зевали, но всё вместе привело к аварии(взрыву ,потопу , проёбу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Типический армейский способ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сейчас соберу узкий круг ограниченных лиц, опираясь на которых разберусь кого следует и накажу как попало! И не посмотрю, офицер это или майор какой-нибудь! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="b81ca761-3972-4ce3-b8cf-8aa32afc5c78" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:45:18.670" UserId="514" Comment="put image as image" Text="Easy going explanation for you: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dmgSP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3900" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="b81ca761-3972-4ce3-b8cf-8aa32afc5c78" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:45:18.670" Comment="Proposed by 514 approved by 185 edit id of 247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3902" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="826f5a11-947e-42ad-b9a3-899498e316d0" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:46:01.710" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3907" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="3cd9f56f-fa39-40b7-a926-ebbbc5512513" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:51:19.240" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="96b63bdc-b7c9-4bae-b313-eb1c47e854ea" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:56:10.583" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Horse has gypsy in its teeth&quot; - what does it exactly mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="cbea61cd-1ce3-4b49-b01a-e84316c508fd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T08:59:22.677" UserId="185" Comment="corrected orthography. Formatted." Text="&quot;влекомый&quot; чем-то материальным всё же стилистическая ошибка, хотя и относительно лёгкая.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Влекомым&quot; можно быть чувством, стремлением. Духовной категорией." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="1d782857-8f89-41ba-a96a-ff1df71ac092" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:18:43.650" UserId="885" Text=" You can use both. But russians prefer speak &quot;пить таблетки&quot; because pills are hard to swallow without liquid. And you always drink it.&#xD;&#xA;if you say you &quot;съели таблетку&quot; (ate a pill)  you can be misunderstood and your companion may think that you are an addict. eat a pill that is also &quot;used ecstasy&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="be75613d-1e74-402a-93b9-59e85bc4068b" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:20:03.833" UserId="134" Comment="added 446 characters in body" Text="Though *надо* seems to prevail, I don't really seem a difference between them used alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, I've just run a search against the corpus for *не надо* and, going as far as page 12, haven't found a single example where *не нужно* would not be able to replace it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences in idioms and compound expressions though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*надо бы* is used more commonly than *нужно бы*, though the latter is also widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*надо* vs. *нужно*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*надо бы* vs. *нужно бы*][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interjection *надо же!* does not have an analog with *нужно*, though it's possible as an adverbial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И надо же было, чтобы в эту минуту на улице из-за угла показался на велосипеде Мишка Яковлев. *[Валерий Медведев. Баранкин, будь человеком! (1957)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … И нужно же было, чтобы именно в этот день с Крайнего Севера прилетел Северный Ветер! *[В. А. Каверин. Много хороших людей и один завистник (1962)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/frINu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B,%C2%A0%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sipsp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="5db472bd-2692-497c-bdc5-633bd379d3dd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:21:05.110" UserId="879" Text="&quot;Пить таблетки&quot; - имеет общий смысл &quot;Пить лекарства&quot; и по этому русские при использовании всего, что относится к понятию лекарства, которые принимают во внутрь через рот&#xD;&#xA;Пить порошки, пить микстуру, пить таблетки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Drink pill&quot; - a general sense of &quot;take medicine&quot; and on the Russian with only that for the notion of drugs that take in through the mouth&#xD;&#xA;Drink powder, drink a potion , drink tablets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="a8e2260b-86c6-4508-a621-35b548133e7e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:30:46.583" UserId="185" Comment="corrected the spelling, grammar, translation" Text="&quot;Пить таблетки&quot; имеет общий смысл &quot;пить лекарства&quot;, и поэтому русскоговорящие употребляют глагол &quot;пить&quot; со всем, что относится к понятию лекарства, которые принимают во внутрь через рот:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пить порошки, пить микстуру, пить таблетки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Drink pill&quot; has a general sense of &quot;take medicine&quot; and is used in Russian with any drugs taken orally. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3929" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="95f9bd07-d854-430c-9b93-d0ba58c84213" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:33:35.397" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="f1801dfe-8e10-49d6-813b-2c2255c40b1b" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:49:48.147" UserId="896" Text="Selling old horses, gypsies rasped their teeth to make horses look younger.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the picture depicts the gypsy rasping the horse teeth or maybe it's jolly and twisted Kharms' imagination - kind of horse revenge against crude gypsy dentist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="f3e73d7f-55ce-4399-b60e-e3e48f3550c2" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:52:57.640" UserId="877" Text="Назывные предложения регистрируют материальность каждого отдельного предмета и его состояния как включенного в отдельный хронотоп и создающего последний. В соответствии с воззрениями Хармса, хронотоп – реальный и «художественный» – не существует без взаимодействия с материальным объектом. Каждый «предмет» обстановки словно висит в воздухе и создает свою сферу существования, независимую от других объектов или воли персонажей. Такая обстановка говорит либо о хаотическом состоянии данного вымышленного мира (до сотворения Космоса), либо о его состоянии после мифического «конца света». Даже на картине изображена инверсированная реальность – цыган в зубах у лошади. &#xD;&#xA;(с) Дроздов К. «Тюк» Даниила Хармса: ритуал и коммуникация (мифология абсурда)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="e2c0c1d0-5bb4-454d-a5fb-8b63651a397a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:59:04.427" UserId="891" Text="I bet the phrase with us since 1939.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please skim through http://samlib.ru/c/chunihin_w_m/resh_01.shtml You can skip right to the &quot;Чкалов&quot; in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приказ НКО N 070 от 4 июня 1939 года&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;quote&gt;&quot;...Число летных происшествий в 1939 году, особенно в апреле и мае месяцах, достигло чрезвычайных размеров. За период с 1 января до 15 мая произошло 34 катастрофы, в них погибло 70 человек личного состава. За этот же период произошло 126 аварий, в которых разбит 91 самолет. Только за конец 1938 и впервые месяцы 1939 гг. мы потеряли 5 выдающихся летчиков - Героев Советского Союза, 5 лучших людей нашей страны - тт. Бряндинского, Чкалова, Губенко, Серова и Полину Осипенко.&#xD;&#xA;  Эти тяжелые потери, как и подавляющее большинство других катастроф и аварий, являются прямым результатом:&#xD;&#xA;  а) преступного нарушения специальных приказов, положений, летных наставлений и инструкций;&#xD;&#xA;...&lt;/quote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="2a843efc-e100-4284-acd0-999fa931a826" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:00:34.853" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I bet the phrase with us since 1939.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please skim through http://samlib.ru/c/chunihin_w_m/resh_01.shtml You can skip right to the &quot;Чкалов&quot; in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приказ НКО N 070 от 4 июня 1939 года&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Число летных происшествий в 1939 году, особенно в апреле и мае месяцах, достигло чрезвычайных размеров. За период с 1 января до 15 мая произошло 34 катастрофы, в них погибло 70 человек личного состава. За этот же период произошло 126 аварий, в которых разбит 91 самолет. Только за конец 1938 и впервые месяцы 1939 гг. мы потеряли 5 выдающихся летчиков - Героев Советского Союза, 5 лучших людей нашей страны - тт. Бряндинского, Чкалова, Губенко, Серова и Полину Осипенко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Эти тяжелые потери, как и подавляющее большинство других катастроф и аварий, являются прямым результатом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   а) преступного нарушения специальных приказов, положений, летных наставлений и инструкций;&#xD;&#xA;..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1165" RevisionGUID="7f856258-a1eb-47f6-932f-2398dc5800d5" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:14:14.090" UserId="669" Comment="why there is still no language standard" Text="As far as I know, there is no _de facto_ authority over the language. [The Institute of Russian Language](http://www.ruslang.ru/agens.php?id=aims) is just a research institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Update_: As pointed out by @Kira, in [the federal law #53-ФЗ has been passed in 2005][fz53-2005]. It states that the Russian Goverment may decide on the precedure to define norms and rules of the modern language for use _as a state language_ (_1.3. Порядок утверждения норм современного русского литературного языка при его использовании в качестве государственного языка Российской Федерации, правил русской орфографии и пунктуации определяется Правительством Российской Федерации_). In 2006, the Goverment has issued [a decree #714][n714-2006], and made the Ministry of Education and Science responsible for creating a list of officially approved dictionaries, grammar compendia, and rules of orthography and punctuation. As of today I cannot find any trace of existence of such a list. Probably it is not ready yet. Even if this list exists, it doesn't cover all the other uses of the language (like personal and business communication, literature, spoken language etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[fz53-2005]: http://docs.pravo.ru/document/view/1470/?search_query=%E2%84%9653-%D0%A4%D0%97+2005&#xD;&#xA;[n714-2006]: http://www.rg.ru/2006/11/29/russkij-dok.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is (still) no single language standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there is no single standard, there are many academically recognized publications, which we deem authoritative. Their authors are usually groups of well-known linguists. Newer publications are to be preferred, particularly if you want to learn about modern use of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn if a word is colloqial or not, you may just check the dictionary. Many of them are available online. Consider using&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * [Яндекс-словари](http://slovari.yandex.ru)&#xD;&#xA;  * [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;  * [www.gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquial words tend to be labeled as _разг._ (разговорное, spoken), _жарг._ (жаргон, slang), or _прост._ (просторечное, uneducated). Sometimes colloquial words become mainstream, so prefer newer dictionaries to judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also free state-supported services which can answer questions about the language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * online at [www.gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;  * by phone, see [Справочная служба русского языка](http://www.ruslang.ru/agens.php?id=sprav)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3941" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="dfee5a61-2a41-4266-9038-a85dd0a1e75a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:14:47.413" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="a5435cf2-52e7-420f-9eb6-b299ab854d7a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:44:22.760" UserId="849" Text="При царе в гимназиях , школах и семинариях были распространены и узаконены розги (физические наказания детей за проступки). Иногда били просто так для профилактики и укрепления дисциплины. Если педагог входил в раж (перебарщивал , перебирал) и ребёнок получал слишком большую дозу розог то до 1-го числа следующего месяца освобождался от физических наказаний. Эта экзекуция с излишним количеством розог и называлась &quot;всыпать по первое число&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="bae05fb5-cbb6-402d-945b-82aad9b119c4" CreationDate="2012-11-09T10:57:10.090" UserId="553" Text="У слова &quot;сейчас&quot; может быть еще негативно-ироничный вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ага, сейчас. Ща вот прямо всё брошу и побегу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="07619e59-7baf-49f7-b9fb-2df98bb07380" CreationDate="2012-11-09T11:23:40.917" UserId="908" Text="Everyone here tells you, that «ледяная рябь канала» is the icy ripple on the cold water of canal. It might be true. But, if Blok's poem takes place in winter, the canal is sure frozen. In this case, «ледяная рябь канала» means, that the canal is covered in ice, and on that ice lies the snow, which is rippled like water, and shining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="b68dc930-5ed2-4b45-8ef9-dd2838a0d379" CreationDate="2012-11-09T11:50:36.380" UserId="625" Text="Actually, you can use preposition &quot;по&quot; even when referring to some literary pieces. I.e. when you describe a movie based on a novell or a tale. Like &quot;фильм снят по роману Достоевского &quot;Преступление и наказание&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3949" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="fc82f974-3dba-4aae-9ba3-72e7ff3ea116" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:04:27.220" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="764c3b26-3dbb-4dcf-9a5c-3c5a1531afb5" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:08:51.740" UserId="625" Text="Usually, the gender of the whole word is defined by the part describing animated, live object, which is not necessarily the first part. The example mentioned above describes this idea quite well: both *рыба-кит* and *меч-рыба* are feminine. As well as *девушка-виденье*, *бой-баба* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="c8abf2c3-60cf-465c-bdcb-e29cc9b13ea6" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:19:24.247" UserId="917" Text="На самом деле, хотя это и не правильно, русские скорее будут говорить так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Кто? Рыба-кит&#xD;&#xA; - Кого? Рыбу-кита&#xD;&#xA; - Кому? Рыбе-киту&#xD;&#xA; - Кем? Рыбой-китом&#xD;&#xA; - О ком? О Рыбе-ките&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. слова спрягать можно раздельно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По поводу рода - я затрудняюсь ответить, скорее женский, так как первично определение &quot;рыба&quot;, а &quot;кит&quot; - вторично." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="83f831ce-9170-49bb-a9e1-43b861392245" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:23:17.737" UserId="919" Text="Разбор полетов-стандартная процедура в ВВС России, проводится обычно по факту возникновения нештатных ситуаций в полете. Собирается коллектив опытных пилотов, начальство и детально обсуждают каждое действие виновника, в итоге выносится решение о его виновности или не виновности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1240" RevisionGUID="6abee067-7380-4014-b42b-1444990b0148" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:28:38.087" UserId="71" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Наиболее употребительны в разговорной речи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Знал(а) бы прикуп(карточный термин) -жил(а) бы в Сочи.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;или более сокращённая версия &quot;Знал(а) бы прикуп&quot;, &quot;Эх знал(а) бы прикуп&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. Знал(а) бы где упасть- соломку(подушку) бы подстелил . Можно сокращать &quot;Знал бы -подстелил соломку&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. После драки кулаками не машут &#xD;&#xA;5. Умная мысля приходит опосля&#xD;&#xA;4. Варианты про задний ум имеют в современно языке двоякое толкование и могут быть поняты  в  как намёк на гомосексуализм. Плохо говорящим по русски я бы не советовал использовать в повседневной речи -&quot;можно и по рылу отгрести&quot;-просто побьют&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="e8eeedc5-c2db-4d0e-85cd-82ab806b6059" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:30:14.463" UserId="920" Text="Из &quot;Преступления и наказания&quot; Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа - ok for most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For formal speaking try to use the generic word before the title:&#xD;&#xA;Из романа &quot;Преступление и наказание&quot; Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not correct:&#xD;&#xA;Из &quot;Преступление и наказание&quot;... &#xD;&#xA;Из &quot;...&quot;, мой любимый роман.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is more traditional to use parental name for writers and poets like Dostoevsky, Puskin etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф. М. Достоевский&#xD;&#xA;А. С. Пушкин&#xD;&#xA;А. П. Чехов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Form 'Ф. Достоевский' name sounds a little less respectful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's ok to use 'international' form of name for modern writers: &#xD;&#xA;Сергей Есенин&#xD;&#xA;Владимир Маяковский&#xD;&#xA;Борис Пастернак" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="b0650c59-2709-4511-8802-95ffe7bc0fa6" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:32:59.083" UserId="919" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Разбор полетов-стандартная процедура в ВВС России. Проводится обычно по факту возникновения нештатных ситуаций в полете или серии полетов. &#xD;&#xA;Собирается коллектив опытных пилотов, начальство и детально обсуждают каждое действие виновника. &#xD;&#xA;В итоге выносится решение о его виновности или не виновности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="c6631ca7-df52-49a5-b6fb-5c7225b756ff" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:38:00.580" UserId="185" Comment="edited body" Text="На самом деле, хотя это и не правильно, русские скорее будут говорить так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Кто? Рыба-кит&#xD;&#xA; - Кого? Рыбу-кита&#xD;&#xA; - Кому? Рыбе-киту&#xD;&#xA; - Кем? Рыбой-китом&#xD;&#xA; - О ком? О Рыбе-ките&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. слова склонять можно раздельно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По поводу рода - я затрудняюсь ответить, скорее женский, так как первично определение &quot;рыба&quot;, а &quot;кит&quot; - вторично." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="9a8fa126-d9de-4b21-ad3f-b59a1a327fe1" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:47:18.587" UserId="185" Comment="corrected formatting" Text="The correct way in the most cases would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из &quot;Преступления и наказания&quot; Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого романа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For formal speaking try to use the generic word before the title:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из романа &quot;Преступление и наказание&quot; Ф. Достоевского, моего любимого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following examples are not correct:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из &quot;Преступление и наказание&quot;... &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из &quot;...&quot;, мой любимый роман.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is more traditional to use parental name for writers and poets like Dostoevsky, Puskin etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф. М. Достоевский&#xD;&#xA;А. С. Пушкин&#xD;&#xA;А. П. Чехов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Form 'Ф. Достоевский' name sounds a little less respectful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's ok to use 'international' form of name for modern writers: &#xD;&#xA;Сергей Есенин&#xD;&#xA;Владимир Маяковский&#xD;&#xA;Борис Пастернак" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="4d8fc2d1-affe-4e81-9ca1-f1ee9b3751e2" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:48:12.063" UserId="185" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In the above quotes, the correct preposition to use is _из_. In general, you should use preposition _из_ when referring to a particular piece of literature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Из_ романа «Преступление и наказаниe» Ф.Достоевского.&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Из_ «Преступления и наказания» Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the second quote the title of the novel should also be in genitive, and the endings should change accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use preposition _по_ when referring to an author without mentioning specific literary piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _По_ Ф. Достоевскому, что-то всегда происходит...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Similarly) _По_ народным приметам, птицы летают низко перед дождем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preposition _от_ in such context is used very rarely.  It is sometimes used when there are multiple source of the same/similar piece and you need to refer to a specific author, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евангелие _от_ Матфея&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3963" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="114cb3ed-bbb2-47cd-886f-c515c35bbb56" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:49:46.180" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="When to use verbs that end with -ась, -ся, -ось and have an argument in dative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="55ea860e-2983-42a5-9bd1-3e90cea19704" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:36:34.120" UserId="924" Text="Well, &quot;теперь&quot; and &quot;сейчас&quot; are usually shades of meaning the word &quot;now&quot;. But actually, they're used in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Мы сейчас смотрели фильм&quot; means it was few minutes ago. And if we say &quot;Теперь мы  сможем (наконец-то) посмотреть фильм&quot;, it means that was something that distracted us from watching this film.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я сейчас работаю в Microsoft&quot; means i'm working there now, not exactly this moment, maybe for a while. For example, people meet each other after 5 years and one can ask: &quot;Где ты сейчас работаешь?&quot; and his friend can answer: &quot;Сейчас я работаю в Microsoft&quot;. Plus, here is  another shade of meaning: he's not sure, that will continue work in Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot; also have few meanings (in different contexts and with diffirent positions). First meaning is that this person has worked somewhere else before (in situations like: &quot;- Я помню, ты работал в банке? - Да. Теперь я работаю в Microsoft&quot;). In another situations &quot;теперь&quot; gives to words something like a pride. For example in such situations like: &quot;- А ты? Ты все еще чистишь туалеты? - Нет, я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot;, you see, that before we write the pronoun after an adverb, and now we do it conversely.&#xD;&#xA;And the third meaning i remember is for expressive sentenses like: &quot;Теперь мне осталось только пойти и напиться!&quot; - can say the person who has just passed his exams - succesfully or not, but here &quot;теперь&quot; is used for increasing the feelings of this person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uff. =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="df7f1745-e95e-46bd-9a67-149aaa48bae8" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:28:59.777" UserId="937" Text="The word *Теперь* is a kind of logical connective and usually requires а context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;Now Russia finally ripe for the new revolution.&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас Россия окончательно созрела для новой революции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putin again resigned. And now Russia finally ripe for the new revolution.&#xD;&#xA;Путин вновь переизбран и теперь Россия окончательно созрела для новой революции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;Now I get to the point.&#xD;&#xA;А теперь о главном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the previous half-hour conversation was about nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;I am working for Microsoft now. And I'm happy.&#xD;&#xA;Я сейчас работаю в Майкрасофт. И я счастлив.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was fired from Google. And now I have to work for Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;Меня уволили из гугла. И теперь я вынужден работать в Майкрософт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="2cbd234b-a75e-406c-b678-02662a51dea1" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:42:09.993" UserId="-1" Comment="замена &quot;ща&quot; на &quot;сейчас&quot;" Text="У слова &quot;сейчас&quot; может быть еще негативно-ироничный вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ага, сейчас. Сейчас вот прямо всё брошу и побегу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3979" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="2cbd234b-a75e-406c-b678-02662a51dea1" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:42:09.993" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 185 edit id of 249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="2c8cfafb-d1b9-4214-ba54-13c407acfc1e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:50:06.093" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="The word *Теперь* is a kind of logical connective and usually requires а context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Now Russia finally ripe for the new revolution.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сейчас Россия окончательно созрела для новой революции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin again resigned. And now Russia finally ripe for the new revolution.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Путин вновь переизбран и теперь Россия окончательно созрела для новой революции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Now I get to the point.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А теперь о главном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the previous half-hour conversation was about nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am working for Microsoft now. And I'm happy.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я сейчас работаю в Майкрасофт. И я счастлив.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was fired from Google. And now I have to work for Microsoft.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меня уволили из Гугла. И теперь я вынужден работать в Майкрософт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="a5c6d558-0273-419d-87fe-a156508c1b79" CreationDate="2012-11-09T15:29:40.147" UserId="944" Text="слово &quot;*сейчас*&quot; образовано из двух древнерусских слов &quot;*сей*&quot; и &quot;*час*&quot; - значит &quot;*в это время*&quot; или &quot;*в этот час (ближайший)*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, &quot;*сейчас*&quot; = &quot;*в ближашее время*&quot; , и это ещё не свершилось.&#xD;&#xA;А &quot;*теперь*&quot; - это когда уже свершилось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3988" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="a928b54c-8aa0-40e3-962d-afff7e8a7fd7" CreationDate="2012-11-09T15:41:58.093" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="6c391cd7-c3eb-4402-a61e-2eec662aa934" CreationDate="2012-11-09T16:19:19.443" UserId="71" Text="In Russian the position of an object must be made explicit. You can't simply say *&quot;The book is on the table.&quot;*, instead you need to specify whether the book is in an horizontal or vertical position. This applies not only to the &quot;state&quot; verb, but also the &quot;movement&quot; one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simple table that exemplifies it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  State      | Movement (to put something in that position)&#xD;&#xA;                 -----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;                  НСВ        | НСВ         СВ&#xD;&#xA;    Vertical	  Стоять     | Ставить     Поставить&#xD;&#xA;    Horizontal	  Лежать     | Класть      Положить&#xD;&#xA;    Hanging       Висеть     | Вешать      Повесить&#xD;&#xA;     	 	 &#xD;&#xA;    Sitting       Сидеть	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Книга лежит на столе.**  &#xD;&#xA;*The book is on the table (horizontal).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я положил книгу на стол.**  &#xD;&#xA;*I put the book on the table (horizontal).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я повесил куртку.**  &#xD;&#xA;*I hung the jacket (hanging).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="4e362932-5952-43c0-96af-f07f9d65afc9" CreationDate="2012-11-09T16:21:55.427" UserId="71" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="It's not as easy as it seems. In fact, it's very complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Objects that looks like rectangular cuboid** (e.g. book)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They «stand» when their long part is placed vertically and «lie» when thier long part is placed horizontally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книга стоит на полке.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книга лежит на столе. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. **Objects that can be in the proper position**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If they are in the proper position, they «stand» (e.g. an opened notebook, a flower in a vase). If they are folded or placed wrong, they «lie».  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Цветы стоят в вазе.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Цветок лежит на диване.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Objects that have only one possible position**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Mostly they always «lie». But sometimes «stand» (idk when) but there are few examples:  &#xD;&#xA;Коробка лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нож лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нож лежит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But attention:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Коробка стоит на столе.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="23af5ef8-673e-46a2-8e04-6b0e0e79930a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T16:36:58.793" UserId="71" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="In Russian the position of an object must be made explicit. You can't simply say *&quot;The book is on the table.&quot;*, instead, you need to specify whether the book is in horizontal or vertical position. This applies not only to the &quot;state&quot; verb, but also the &quot;movement&quot; one. When you talk about &quot;putting something&quot;, you must specify how there too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simple table that exemplifies it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  State      | Movement (to put something in that position)&#xD;&#xA;                 -----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;                  НСВ        | НСВ         СВ&#xD;&#xA;    Vertical	  Стоять     | Ставить     Поставить&#xD;&#xA;    Horizontal	  Лежать     | Класть      Положить&#xD;&#xA;    Hanging       Висеть     | Вешать      Повесить&#xD;&#xA;     	 	 &#xD;&#xA;    Sitting       Сидеть	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Книга лежит на столе.**  &#xD;&#xA;*The book is on the table (horizontal).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я положил книгу на стол.**  &#xD;&#xA;*I put the book on the table (horizontal).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я повесил куртку.**  &#xD;&#xA;*I hung the jacket (hanging).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4003" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="39e54cb1-cd26-4bcb-bb45-524111a16585" CreationDate="2012-11-09T16:49:26.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/266945667375722496" />
  <row Id="4004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="b405c7d4-d137-4034-a2f1-55f5394d3148" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:07:26.253" UserId="30" Text="Are there cases when they directly contradict each other, or can I just apply my Russian knowledge when writing texts in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="b405c7d4-d137-4034-a2f1-55f5394d3148" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:07:26.253" UserId="30" Text="What are the differences between Russian and English in punctuation rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="b405c7d4-d137-4034-a2f1-55f5394d3148" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:07:26.253" UserId="30" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="8c244256-0172-4e8d-a5a6-cc6fc50c411c" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:24:21.423" UserId="242" Text="The very structure of the sentence is a bit differ in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="0cfefdac-e791-4878-8589-fb286e357f80" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:29:12.323" UserId="185" Text="Let me start by telling the differences in comma placement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Strunk's &quot;The Elements of Style&quot;, 1918](http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html), suggests the following differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;red, blue, and white&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, we do not place a comma before the conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;красный, синий и белый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Restrictive relative clauses are not set off by commas. Only non-restrictive relative clauses should be surrounded by commas.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The candidate who best meets these requirements will obtain the place.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The audience, which had at first been indifferent, became more and more interested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, all relative clauses are set off by commas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кандидат, который лучше всего соответствует требованиям, получит работу.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Аудитория, которая сперва была безразлична, становилась все более и более заинтересованной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do not join independent clauses by a comma. Use a semicolon.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Stevenson's romances are entertaining; they are full of exciting adventures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, we can have independent sentences that are joined by a comma only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Романы Стивенсона увлекательны, они полны волнующих приключений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is all I have found so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="de7f5ab7-9d67-42ec-9bbe-76fac9566617" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:30:52.787" UserId="242" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, where Russian punctuation is stricter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert -- as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="787a289d-de04-4d20-8403-a0e7f69ddc8e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:31:13.940" UserId="487" Text="Since the OP states he *knows Russian*, I guess it's enough to answer what is the punctuation in English. I'll stick to `. , : ; parenthesis` and `-`. A useful criterion to use them is to be aware of their power to separate ideas while writing. With this in mind, they can be listed in decreasing order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Period (`.`) Completely tears apart ideas&#xD;&#xA; - Semicolon (`;`)  E.g. *they were divided in three groups: my sister, her boyfriend and my mother; my grandparents ; my cousin and his girlfriend*.&#xD;&#xA; - Parenthesis (`()`) The content inside them can be ignored by the reader without danger.&#xD;&#xA; - Dash (`-`) They emphasize what follows. Used as well to define. &#xD;&#xA; - Colon (`:`) They can be used to build lists or to define. &#xD;&#xA; - Comma (`,`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="d804e9bf-72f5-463d-92a4-b9613553cbb7" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:35:44.950" UserId="71" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="Are there cases when they directly contradict each other, or can I just apply my Russian knowledge when writing texts in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for the question to be reasonably scoped, let's stick to the symbols listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `, . : ; ( ) ? ! - &quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="f6fcea11-fde3-48df-9c0c-b60f99221790" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:36:02.703" UserId="242" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="c2f3fdd9-6e40-4dd3-89dc-a70814b51f33" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:37:28.723" UserId="924" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Well, &quot;теперь&quot; and &quot;сейчас&quot; are usually shades of meaning the word &quot;now&quot;. But actually, they're used in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) For example, &quot;Мы сейчас смотрели фильм&quot; means it was few minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;And if we say &quot;Теперь мы  сможем (наконец-то) посмотреть фильм&quot;, it means that was something that distracted us from watching this film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Я сейчас работаю в Microsoft&quot; means i'm working there now, not exactly this moment, maybe for a while. For example, people meet each other after 5 years and one can ask: &quot;Где ты сейчас работаешь?&quot; and his friend can answer: &quot;Сейчас я работаю в Microsoft&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;*Plus, here is  another shade of meaning: he's not sure, that he will continue work in Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot; also have few meanings (in different contexts and with diffirent positions).&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;&gt; First meaning is that this person has worked somewhere else before (in situations like: &quot;- Я помню, ты работал в банке? - Да. Теперь я работаю в Microsoft&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;&gt; In another situations &quot;теперь&quot; gives to words something like a pride. For example in such situations like: &quot;- А ты? Ты все еще чистишь туалеты? - Нет, я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot;, you see, that before we write the pronoun after an adverb, and now we do it conversely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;&gt; And the third meaning i remember is for expressive sentenses like: &quot;Теперь мне осталось только пойти и напиться!&quot; - can say the person who has just passed his exams - succesfully or not, but here &quot;теперь&quot; is used for increasing the feelings of this person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="2f0f6d53-2cad-4067-b398-c23a2d20fd78" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:43:47.417" UserId="242" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As well as with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called copula verbs, so sometimes dash is used just instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="6c152a46-387d-4004-aee0-3c922497d25b" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:44:42.873" UserId="487" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="Since the OP states he *knows Russian*, I guess it's enough to answer what is the punctuation in English. I'll stick to a single aspect of punctuation and I'll consider `. , : ; parenthesis` and `-` (even supposing I knew it, their full description would be too board). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A useful criterion to use them is to be aware of their *power to separate ideas* while writing. With this in mind, they can be listed in decreasing order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Period (`.`) Completely tears apart ideas. The same separation power belong to the question mark `?` and `!`&#xD;&#xA; - Semicolon (`;`) It's a `,` with more strength. E.g. *they were divided in three groups: my sister, her boyfriend and my mother; my grandparents; my cousin and his girlfriend*.&#xD;&#xA; - Parenthesis (`()`) The content inside them can be ignored by the reader without danger.&#xD;&#xA; - Dash (`-`) They emphasize what follows, or what is nested inside dashes. Used as well to define. &#xD;&#xA; - Colon (`:`) They can be used to build lists or to define. &#xD;&#xA; - Comma (`,`) The less *separation unit* so to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="e30dcfcf-e82b-4f13-8776-3704a81027f3" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:44:46.453" UserId="115" Text="Dialogues are punctuated differently in Russian and English.  In Russian the dash is often used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-- Привет, сказал Вася.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-- Здорово, сказал Петя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English only the quotes are used for dialogues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hi,&quot; said John.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hello,&quot; said Mike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="08172aac-5b01-4f96-ae6e-46f10e336618" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:49:00.727" UserId="242" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; - сказал он, - &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As well as with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used just instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called french quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="9a04db3d-10ca-4ae1-830e-47797309e967" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:51:51.330" UserId="185" Comment="spelling, some formatting in addition to what the author already did (thanks!)" Text="Well, &quot;теперь&quot; and &quot;сейчас&quot; are usually shades of meaning the word &quot;now&quot;. But actually, they're used in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) For example, &quot;Мы сейчас смотрели фильм&quot; means it was few minutes ago.&#xD;&#xA;And if we say &quot;Теперь мы  сможем (наконец-то) посмотреть фильм&quot;, it means that was something that distracted us from watching this film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Я сейчас работаю в Microsoft&quot; means I'm working there now, not exactly this moment, maybe for a while. For example, people meet each other after 5 years and one can ask: &quot;Где ты сейчас работаешь?&quot; and his friend can answer: &quot;Сейчас я работаю в Microsoft&quot;. Plus, here is  another shade of meaning: he's not sure, that he will continue working in Microsoft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot; also have few meanings (in different contexts and with different positions).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. First meaning is that this person has worked somewhere else before (in situations like: &quot;- Я помню, ты работал в банке? - Да. Теперь я работаю в Microsoft&quot;).&#xD;&#xA; 2. In another situations &quot;теперь&quot; gives to words something like a pride. For example in such situations like: &quot;- А ты? Ты все еще чистишь туалеты? - Нет, я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot;, you see, that before we write the pronoun after an adverb, and now we do it conversely.&#xD;&#xA; 3. And the third meaning I remember is for expressive sentences like: &quot;Теперь мне осталось только пойти и напиться!&quot; - can say the person who has just passed his exams - successfully or not, but here &quot;теперь&quot; is used for increasing the feelings of this person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="9d486170-40b0-479a-8fd0-e23ebcd6cd7d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:52:38.613" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;теперь&quot; and &quot;сейчас&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="f40ada1b-b282-44ac-914e-61281805c3fb" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:54:03.257" UserId="924" Text="It's exactly not the same with english &quot;f&quot;-word, you can't say &quot;фиг you!&quot;. At least now. Before it was probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People usually say this phrase when they're shocked (in goood or bad meaning of this word).&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;Hey, I won 3.000.000 $!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;Правда? Ну нифига себе!&quot; - here we can see something like admiring and a bit jealosy probebly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;You know what happened? he said we must pass 5 exams more!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;Нифига себе! In other universities students pass only 3 exams each month!&quot; - it's negative judgement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The history of the word and meaning &quot;фига&quot; is in Old Russia. &quot;Фига&quot; is a synonym of such russian words as: &quot;кукиш&quot; and &quot;шиш&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;These two words meant gesture above, and people believed that it can help to protect themselves frome the evil eye and etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="dff7d2a1-04b4-43ec-9fd8-57a65bf62f36" CreationDate="2012-11-09T17:55:32.240" UserId="242" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; - сказал он, - &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As well as with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used just instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called french quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of usage of quotation marks nested in other quotation marks differ as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="0cdc7568-c68f-44a2-af6d-5c49bf1512b6" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:01:19.863" UserId="487" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Since the OP states he *knows Russian*, I guess it's enough to answer what is the punctuation in English. I'll stick to a single aspect of punctuation and I'll consider `. , : ; parenthesis` and `-` (even supposing I knew it, their full description would be too boad). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*In English*, a useful criterion to use them is to be aware of their *power to separate ideas* while writing. With this in mind, they can be listed in decreasing order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Period (`.`) Completely tears apart ideas. The same separation power belong to the question mark `?` and `!`&#xD;&#xA; - Semicolon (`;`) It's a `,` with more strength. E.g. *they were divided in three groups: my sister, her boyfriend and my mother; my grandparents; my cousin and his girlfriend*.&#xD;&#xA; - Parenthesis (`()`) The content inside them can be ignored by the reader without danger.&#xD;&#xA; - Dash (`-`) They emphasize what follows, or what is nested inside dashes. Used as well to define. &#xD;&#xA; - Colon (`:`) They can be used to build lists or to define. &#xD;&#xA; - Comma (`,`) The less *separation unit* so to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="6739eabf-b6ec-4b07-aa22-d84099ec8bce" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:02:00.400" UserId="242" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; - сказал он, - &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As well as with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used just instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called french quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of comma in complex sentences** is way more liberal in English. &#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зная, что Ольга, очень строгий модератор, я постараюсь быть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; максимально убедителен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Knowing that Olga is a strict moderator, I'll try to be convincing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of usage of quotation marks nested in other quotation marks differ as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="2adfbee0-32d5-472b-a5aa-ef4aaa693e38" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:09:24.167" UserId="242" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; - сказал он, - &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As well as with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used just instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called french quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;, a.k.a [guillemet][3]) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of usage of quotation marks nested in other quotation marks differ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of comma in complex sentences** is way more liberal in English. &#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зная, что Ольга, очень строгий модератор, я постараюсь быть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; максимально убедителен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Knowing that Olga is a strict moderator, I'll try to be convincing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ellipsis.** If you are a purist, in English you should type ellipsis with spaces. In Russian omitting spaced in ellipsis is standard. There is a difference in usage as well. In Russian it's quite often used to add ... a pause (intonational and logical) between words. In English it is, to my knowledge, less typical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillemet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4025" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="bc622e6a-3ca5-461d-b1e0-e9499bc542bd" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:44:52.263" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="6cdfd2fe-3449-4b9e-ae83-a9739e2467e1" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:48:36.203" UserId="242" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is to broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you can not just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (--) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; - сказал он, - &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are more common typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As well as with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used just instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called french quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;, a.k.a [guillemet][3]) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of usage of quotation marks nested in other quotation marks differ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of comma in complex sentences** is way more liberal in English. &#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, что Ольга, очень строгий модератор,  поэтому я постараюсь быть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; максимально убедителен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know that Olga is a strict moderator, so I'll try to be convincing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ellipsis.** If you are a purist, in English you should type ellipsis with spaces. In Russian omitting spaced in ellipsis is standard. There is a difference in usage as well. In Russian it's quite often used to add ... a pause (intonational and logical) between words. In English it is, to my knowledge, less typical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillemet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="6d3a7b1c-ee3b-495a-bd3e-6c306c5df12f" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:02:39.217" UserId="47" Text="To all the nice answers here I'd like to add that punctuation in English is much more &quot;flexible&quot; than in Russian (as well as e.g. German). Not only are the rules (or recommendations) different between the British and American versions; they may also vary between e.g. Oxford and Cambridge versions. This leads to the fact that almost any use of punctuation can be confirmed by some dictionary and therefore people tend to write &quot;as they feel&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, a case from my experience. I was asked to write an article for an American magazine, and was helped by a very good and patient section editor. We spent about a month on the article. Finally it was submitted, and the magazine editor corrected something from the version of &quot;my&quot; editor to how I had written it in the beginning. Despite the fact that by then I was already convinced that there was an actual rule I violated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another story was told to me by an English scientific writing consultant. He normally advises on the scientific writing style. But once was submitting a paper himself, to an American journal. The editor suggested the authors to &quot;find a native speaker&quot; to proof-read and correct their language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: (1) Do not try to use Russian punctuation rules in English. (2) Read as much original texts as possible; you'll quickly get the idea of where punctuation is necessary; in many other cases commas can be omitted without committing a crime as serious as it would have been in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. And do not forget the difference between Russian and English punctuation symbols. [Quotation marks][1] and [decimal separators][2] are the most prominent ones. Spacing rules are also slightly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artefact.lib.ru/design/text_macros_05_quotes_typo.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="2e9bac7d-ca21-40a0-8cc3-33d131cc9c53" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:12:38.983" UserId="33" Comment="Using mdash instead of hyphen; small grammar corrections" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is too broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you cannot just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (—) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; — сказал он, — &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there's  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я — царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called French quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;, a.k.a [guillemet][3]) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of usage of quotation marks nested in other quotation marks differ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of comma in complex sentences** is way more liberal in English. &#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, что Ольга очень строгий модератор,  поэтому я постараюсь быть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; максимально убедителен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know that Olga is a strict moderator, so I'll try to be convincing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ellipsis.** If you are a purist, in English you should type ellipsis with spaces. In Russian omitting spaces in ellipsis is standard. There is a difference in usage as well. In Russian it's quite often used to add ... a pause (intonational and logical) between words. In English it is, to my knowledge, less typical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillemet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4029" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="2e9bac7d-ca21-40a0-8cc3-33d131cc9c53" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:12:38.983" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 242 edit id of 250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="e07e802b-0f47-44eb-8aab-b42f67d85aca" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:17:16.110" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Though *надо* seems to prevail, I don't really see a difference between them used alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of curiosity, I've just run a search against the corpus for *не надо* and, going as far as page 12, haven't found a single example where *не нужно* would not be able to replace it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences in idioms and compound expressions though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*надо бы* is used more commonly than *нужно бы*, though the latter is also widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Graphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*надо* vs. *нужно*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [*надо бы* vs. *нужно бы*][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interjection *надо же!* does not have an analog with *нужно*, though it's possible as an adverbial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И надо же было, чтобы в эту минуту на улице из-за угла показался на велосипеде Мишка Яковлев. *[Валерий Медведев. Баранкин, будь человеком! (1957)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … И нужно же было, чтобы именно в этот день с Крайнего Севера прилетел Северный Ветер! *[В. А. Каверин. Много хороших людей и один завистник (1962)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/frINu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B,%C2%A0%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%C2%A0%D0%B1%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sipsp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="58668b20-2480-49c7-a9c7-534e3d94de8a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:25:16.107" UserId="33" Comment="In Russian, dash starts dialog and it separates words spoken and author words; used mdash instead of two hyphens" Text="Dialogues are punctuated differently in Russian and English.  In Russian the dash is often used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Привет, — сказал Вася.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Здорово, — сказал Петя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English only the quotes are used for dialogues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘Hi,’ said John.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘Hello,’ said Mike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4032" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="58668b20-2480-49c7-a9c7-534e3d94de8a" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:25:16.107" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 71 edit id of 251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="f4e2e576-73cf-4a27-9f6f-e21b7cb587c0" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:25:23.033" UserId="33" Comment="Emphasize the summary by using list." Text="To all the nice answers here I'd like to add that punctuation in English is much more &quot;flexible&quot; than in Russian (as well as e.g. German). Not only are the rules (or recommendations) different between the British and American versions; they may also vary between e.g. Oxford and Cambridge versions. This leads to the fact that almost any use of punctuation can be confirmed by some dictionary and therefore people tend to write &quot;as they feel&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate this, a case from my experience. I was asked to write an article for an American magazine, and was helped by a very good and patient section editor. We spent about a month on the article. Finally it was submitted, and the magazine editor corrected something from the version of &quot;my&quot; editor to how I had written it in the beginning. Despite the fact that by then I was already convinced that there was an actual rule I violated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another story was told to me by an English scientific writing consultant. He normally advises on the scientific writing style. But once was submitting a paper himself, to an American journal. The editor suggested the authors to &quot;find a native speaker&quot; to proof-read and correct their language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Do not try to use Russian punctuation rules in English.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Read as much original texts as possible; you'll quickly get the idea of where punctuation is necessary; in many other cases commas can be omitted without committing a crime as serious as it would have been in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. And do not forget the difference between Russian and English punctuation symbols. [Quotation marks][1] and [decimal separators][2] are the most prominent ones. Spacing rules are also slightly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artefact.lib.ru/design/text_macros_05_quotes_typo.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4034" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="f4e2e576-73cf-4a27-9f6f-e21b7cb587c0" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:25:23.033" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 71 edit id of 253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="12e78ebd-5cb8-43a2-bb38-77958fd70133" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:25:35.200" UserId="33" Comment="Corrected grammar, made it clearer" Text="In Russian the position of an object must be made explicit. You can't simply say *&quot;The book is on the table.&quot;*, instead, you need to specify whether the book is in horizontal or vertical position. This applies not only to the &quot;state&quot; verb, but also the &quot;movement&quot; one. When you talk about &quot;putting something&quot;, you must specify how in those cases too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simple table that exemplifies it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  State      | Movement (to put something in that position)&#xD;&#xA;                 -----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;                  НСВ        | НСВ         СВ&#xD;&#xA;    Vertical	  Стоять     | Ставить     Поставить&#xD;&#xA;    Horizontal	  Лежать     | Класть      Положить&#xD;&#xA;    Hanging       Висеть     | Вешать      Повесить&#xD;&#xA;     	 	 &#xD;&#xA;    Sitting       Сидеть	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Книга лежит на столе.**  &#xD;&#xA;*The book is on the table (horizontal).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я положил книгу на стол.**  &#xD;&#xA;*I put the book on the table (horizontal).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я повесил куртку.**  &#xD;&#xA;*I hung the jacket (hanging).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4036" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="12e78ebd-5cb8-43a2-bb38-77958fd70133" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:25:35.200" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 71 edit id of 252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4039" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="8a71d1cc-dbe4-4bd9-a14d-6b0995066905" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:44:36.360" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|английский|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="803691ec-3438-4788-a69d-185ee076cdd5" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:26:00.257" UserId="115" Comment="edited body" Text="Dialogues are punctuated differently in Russian and English.  In Russian the dash is often used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Привет, — сказал Вася.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Здорово, — сказал Петя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English only the quotes are used for dialogues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hi,&quot; said John.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Hello,&quot; said Mike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4041" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="0ad35cf4-636f-4163-ace0-d7723efd202f" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:49:15.513" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="51539d5b-61c5-43c7-80fc-bf283bd5294d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:54:27.470" UserId="185" Text="The following words have the same stem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;рост&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;росток&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;рослый&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;растение&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;расти&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;возрасти&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;возросший&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;возраст&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that they have the same stem because their meaning is related and they sound similar or are even formed one from another in the same way other similar words are formed (*возрасти* - *возросший*, *восходить* - *восшедший*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is**: how did it happen that they have different vowels in their stems, sometimes *о* and sometimes *а*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was explained in school, &quot;if there is a *т* after *с*, write *a*, otherwise write *о*&quot; + a bunch of exceptions, as usual the Russian grammar. Though being nice as a heuristic to learn the spelling, this rule has no explanatory power. I would like to know how did it happen that the vowels are different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="51539d5b-61c5-43c7-80fc-bf283bd5294d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:54:27.470" UserId="185" Text="Vowel in &quot;раст\рос&quot; stem: how did it happen that they are different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="51539d5b-61c5-43c7-80fc-bf283bd5294d" CreationDate="2012-11-09T20:54:27.470" UserId="185" Text="|этимология|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="5c4c2b74-0c57-4363-8b7a-3d1517d24051" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:05:27.380" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1298" RevisionGUID="506d42a7-f04f-4ac6-a45b-a1b29cc05d1f" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:08:16.447" UserId="959" Text="Поскольку чудо-юдо рыба-кит рождена в стихах и в фольклоре и применяется только в сказочном контексте, то мне кажется, что важнее сохранить стихотворный размер, распевность, народный стиль (которому в литературе позволительно появляться в нарочито безграмотном виде), чем пытаться соблюдать какие-либо правила языка, поэтому &quot;чудо&quot;, &quot;юдо&quot; и &quot;рыбу&quot; - склонять, &quot;кит&quot; - оставлять без изменений." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="8357e05c-dc0a-4324-8d2a-e49b6d866b97" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:18:54.630" UserId="496" Text="I think this should be explained to a foreigner in a different way than explaining horizontal and vertical positions. A non-Russian speaker should imagine that the object that is positioned on the table is in fact a creature (animate object). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has the verbs *to stand* and *to lie* but they only used with people or mammals. The person should think that if the book would be a creature and it was in its current position, what would he/she say about this creature: *stands* or *lies*. If *stands* would be more appropriate for creature - say *stands* for the book, say *lies* otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always there will be exceptions from the rule which need to be memorized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at the тарелка стоит на столе. The plate is ready to serve you - to accept food. Of course, it is standing. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="28f63644-ce34-4970-a6ae-5ae30b5d2a58" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:31:39.463" UserId="961" Text="When a vowel is stressed, it will be obviously O or A, as рОст.&#xD;&#xA;in other cases (when a vowel is unstressed) the rule is enough simple&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;before CТ and Щ is А, the rest is О (exceptions: росток, ростовщик, Ростов, отрасль, Ростислав  and their derivatives)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="1785f7ff-436d-42f3-ad09-fb1cc030e90e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:33:19.170" UserId="496" Text="There is no such word времяёмкий. The article that Olga found is about [experimenting with language][1]. People suggest the words. These words are not in dictionaries yet and maybe will never be. Instead of времяёмкий I would say требующий много времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20030120_dar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="86da2a8e-f907-426b-b446-8787bc533478" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:55:00.307" UserId="625" Text="This duality has appeared due to the wide use of Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language in Ancient Rus. The vowel 'a' came exactly from Old Bulgarian, as well as lots of other loans that still have a great influence in modern Russian language (even in pronunciation, i.e. using a voiced glottal fricative '*g*' in '*бог*'). The roots of this duality are not that vivid, so you do not need to bother about the etymology, just know the rules (as nobody bothers today about the fact that English article '*the*' has masculine gender ages ago)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="a8fa585d-c6dc-4abf-96a4-5c26aa087d04" CreationDate="2012-11-09T21:55:21.460" UserId="242" Text="Linguists believe that this very vowel alternation is due to mainly two reasons: Church Slavonic influence and lack of strong stress in Old Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there was a verb &quot;расти&quot; and noun &quot;растъ&quot;. If you look in modern Bulgarian or Serbian and some other Slavonic languages, you'll find exactly this word, &quot;раст&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Russian the root was &quot;рост&quot;. But, once again, on early stage of Russian language evolution this difference was not that dramatic. That means that in written form both &quot;а&quot; and &quot;о&quot; root forms had been used. It it not only about `рост`/`раст`, for example `ровно`/`равно` pair shares the same reasons of existence: first root is Old Russian and second one is Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, things got even more complicated when in Moscow dialect with it well-known vowel о/а шифт (which is now a pronunciation norm) overcame other dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there are some other roots with `a`/`о` alternation, some of them exists because two above-mentioned reasons, some of them share even more complicated and old reasons, having their origins in PIE language, which embraced [apophony][1] pretty much - and this apophonic features remains in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="8cd95dc0-f3f9-452a-8692-6f477e518cdb" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:00:23.820" UserId="242" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Linguists believe that this very vowel alternation is due to mainly two reasons: Church Slavonic influence and lack of strong stress in Old Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there was a verb &quot;[расти][1]&quot; and noun &quot;растъ&quot;. If you look in modern Bulgarian or Serbian and some other Slavonic languages, you'll find exactly this word, &quot;раст&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Russian the root was &quot;рост&quot;. But, once again, on early stage of Russian language evolution this difference was not that dramatic. That means that in written form both &quot;а&quot; and &quot;о&quot; root forms had been used. It it not only about `рост`/`раст`, for example `ровно`/`равно` pair shares the same reasons of existence: first root is Old Russian and second one is Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, things got even more complicated when in Moscow dialect with it well-known vowel о/а шифт (which is now a pronunciation norm) overcame other dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there are some other roots with `a`/`о` alternation (к*о*снуться/к*а*саться, пол*а*гать/пол*о*жить, пл*а*вник/пл*о*вец, выскочка/cкакун etc.). Some of this forms exists because two above-mentioned reasons, some of them share even more complicated and old reasons, having their origins in PIE language, which embraced [apophony][2] pretty much - and this apophonic features remains in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0545.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="65e10fd3-4c6a-40c6-bcda-228b300c1b3e" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:09:28.817" UserId="242" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Linguists believe that this very vowel alternation is due to mainly two reasons: Church Slavonic influence and lack of strong stress in Old Russian. (After a bit of thinking we can even claim that actually those two reasons are related, though nevertheless are different.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there was a verb &quot;[расти][1]&quot; and noun &quot;растъ&quot;. If you look in modern Bulgarian or Serbian and some other Slavonic languages (and some of them historically experienced Church Slavonic influence as well) you'll find exactly this word, &quot;раст&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Russian the root was &quot;рост&quot;. But, once again, on early stage of Russian language evolution this difference was not that dramatic. That means that in written form both &quot;а&quot; and &quot;о&quot; root forms had been used. It it not only about `рост`/`раст`, for example `ровно`/`равно` pair shares the same reasons of existence: first root is Old Russian and second one is Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, things got even more complicated when in Moscow dialect with it well-known vowel о/а шифт (which is now a pronunciation norm) overcame other dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there are some other roots with `a`/`о` alternation (коснуться/касаться, полагать/положить, плавник/пловец, выскочка/cкакун, творец/тварь etc.). Some of this forms exists because two above-mentioned reasons, some of them share even more complicated and old reasons, having their origins in PIE language, which embraced [apophony][2] (i.e. alternation of sounds for indicating grammatical information) pretty much - and this apophonic features hadn't gone without a trace in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ps:**&#xD;&#xA;As for the mnemonic rule you've provided, it worth to mention that there are two exclusions: `росток` and `отрасль`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0545.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="13c65f4a-3d2e-4fd0-ae87-83b8280b0fe4" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:15:59.090" UserId="242" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="Linguists believe that this very vowel alternation is due to mainly two reasons: Church Slavonic influence and lack of strong stress in Old Russian. (After a bit of thinking we can even claim that actually those two reasons are related, though nevertheless are different.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there was a verb &quot;[расти][1]&quot; and noun &quot;растъ&quot;. If you look in modern Bulgarian or Serbian and some other Slavonic languages (and some of them historically experienced Church Slavonic influence as well) you'll find exactly this word, &quot;раст&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Russian the root was &quot;рост&quot;. But, once again, on early stage of Russian language evolution this difference was not that dramatic. That means that in written form both &quot;а&quot; and &quot;о&quot; root forms had been used. It it not only about `рост`/`раст`, for example `ровно`/`равно` pair shares the same reasons of existence: first root is Old Russian and second one is Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, things got even more complicated when in Moscow dialect with it well-known vowel о/а шифт (which is now a pronunciation norm) overcame other dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there are some other roots with `a`/`о` alternation (коснуться/касаться, полагать/положить, плавник/пловец, выскочка/cкакун, творец/тварь etc.). Some of this forms exists because two above-mentioned reasons, some of them share even more complicated and old reasons, having their origins in PIE language, which embraced [apophony][2] (i.e. alternation of sounds for indicating grammatical information) pretty much - and this apophonic features hadn't gone without a trace in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ps:**&#xD;&#xA;As for the mnemonic rule you've provided, it worth to mention that there are two exclusions: `росток`, `ростовщик` and `отрасль`. As for mentioned in  other answer `Ростов` and `Ростислав`, it is not that easy, there's no clear evidence that Рост in Ростов is related to slavic root, so this is still disputable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0545.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="433d84b7-974f-466a-935b-aae16beb7136" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:43:47.077" UserId="496" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="There is no such word времяёмкий. The article that Olga found is about [experimenting with language][1]. People suggest some words. These words are not in dictionaries yet and maybe  never will be. Instead of времяёмкий I would say требующий/отнимающий много времени.&#xD;&#xA;If this word does not exist we do not need to explain it I guess. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20030120_dar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1298" RevisionGUID="31240d33-af18-46df-9ddb-af3d338fd548" CreationDate="2012-11-09T22:50:56.543" UserId="185" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Поскольку чудо-юдо рыба-кит рождена в стихах и в фольклоре и применяется только в сказочном контексте, то мне кажется, что важнее сохранить стихотворный размер, распевность, народный стиль (которому в литературе позволительно появляться в нарочито безграмотном виде), чем пытаться соблюдать какие-либо правила языка, поэтому &quot;чудо&quot;, &quot;юдо&quot; и &quot;рыбу&quot; - склонять, &quot;кит&quot; - оставлять без изменений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правило** я бы так сформулировал: если существительные одного рода, то склонять оба, а если разного, то только главное из них, например: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;рыбу-пилу, рыбе-пиле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но &#xD;&#xA;&gt;рыбу-молот, рыбе-молот. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="d4115097-43c2-471e-b07a-b3318eea4ca0" CreationDate="2012-11-10T01:35:12.133" UserId="496" Comment="added 878 characters in body" Text="I think this should be explained to a foreigner in a different way than explaining horizontal and vertical positions. A non-Russian speaker should imagine that the object that is positioned on the table is in fact a creature (animate object). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has the verbs *to stand* and *to lie* but they normally only used with people or mammals. The person should think that if the book would be a creature and it was in its current position, what would he/she say about this creature: *stands* or *lies*. If *stands* would be more appropriate for creature - say *stands* for the book, say *lies* otherwise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, there will be exceptions from the rule which need to be memorized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at the тарелка стоит на столе. The plate is ready to serve you - to hold the food. Of course, it is standing. :-) If the plates are put in the box for moving, for example, they will be *положены (lying)*. I.e. ***стоять* и *лежать* also has the connotation of being in a working position or in an out-of-work position.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it seems the story of how difficult it is to explain to English speaker the difference between *stand* and *lie* for objects is a bit exaggerated. It is kind of &quot;new urban myth&quot; - a nice story to retell and have fun. In fact, in English *standing* and *lying* is also used for objects (but not usually *stand* and *lie*). You cannot say: `CN tower stands in downtown Toronto.` But you can say: `CN tower is the world's tallest free standing tower.` The same for lying: `He checked the pile of dirty cloths lying on the floor.` So, it is quite clear to the English speaker that *stands/стоит* denotes a vertical position, and *lies/лежит* denotes a horizontal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="d0cd59ca-9b5d-4129-abe6-22b4bb35cb98" CreationDate="2012-11-10T03:39:03.453" UserId="968" Text="In the meaning &quot;to throw&quot; both words “кидать/кинуть” and “бросать/бросить” are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить камень &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кинуть камень&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only “бросать/бросить” has meaning &quot;to stop doing smth, to leave some place, to break relationship&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить учебу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить курить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить жену (divorce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“кидать/кинуть” also has other meaning: &quot;to deceive or betray smbd, not fulfill the promise&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кинуть лоха" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="99b4fd05-aa2c-49a0-9de2-a3424f6ef83b" CreationDate="2012-11-10T03:52:54.943" UserId="970" Text="&quot;Фиг&quot;. How I use it in Russia as a nativespeaker?&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. in a state of a shock: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Мой кот весит 20 килограмм (45 фунтов)&quot; &#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Нифига себе!&quot; or &quot;Офигеть!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. when I'm angry and don't want to give something to somebody:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Дай сюда свой мобильник!&quot; as in a robbery attempt&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Фиг тебе, а не мобильник!&quot; or &quot;Фига-с-два тебе&quot; meaning &quot;i will never give it to you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. to say &quot;do what you want. I don't care about you/it anymore&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Я все равно пойду на концерт&quot; or &quot;Я ненавижу тебя&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Фиг с тобой!&quot; or &quot;Ну и фиг с тобой!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. to say that something is weird/unclear/strange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;По тебе ползет что-то мерзкое!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Что это за фигня! Сними ее с меня!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. to say that something is unpleasant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Ты приготовил невкусный ужин! Это просто фигня какая-то!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. to say that you don't have or can't do something: &quot;У меня совсем ничего нет!&quot; or &quot;У меня нифига нет!&quot;, &quot;У меня нифига (ничего) не получается сделать!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS1: &quot;Фига-с-два тебе&quot; is a rare form of this word's usage. It doubles the force of the refusal. Means &quot;take my two figs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS2: &quot;фиг&quot; is often considered as a more polite everyday form of swearing exclamation. Other forms include (in the order of harshness increase) :&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фиг&quot;, &quot;хрен&quot;, &quot;хер&quot;, &quot;хуй&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;Хрен тебе, а не деньги!&quot;, &quot;Ни хуя себе!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Фиг&quot; is the most common form for kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Хрен&quot; means &quot;horseradish&quot; in russian (used because it is bitter) and it is much less common for kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;хер&quot; and &quot;хуй&quot; are the words for male genitalia. The later is the most filthy language, so try no to use it. And it is unappropriate for kids to use this forms either... but you know the kids these days...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;fig&quot; is a very common word, that is used when you want to swear a little bit, so that your friends or even parents doesn't think very badly of you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="61f3f1a8-943c-4292-9c6f-bca54d63565a" CreationDate="2012-11-10T04:01:21.707" UserId="968" Text="Some history versions http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шиш (all phrases are colloquialisms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фиг  - Nothing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фигня - Smth slight, insignificant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни фига - No, nothing, negation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На фига? - Why?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На фиг! - It doesn't matter&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни фига себе - Expressing amazement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; До фига - a lot of smth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошел на фиг - fk you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="3f6d7c39-acf6-4846-96ef-cdeeb2920b93" CreationDate="2012-11-10T10:49:29.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/267217481947557889" />
  <row Id="4066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="a4117903-73a0-4273-99ba-fe2386234011" CreationDate="2012-11-10T11:13:31.630" UserId="625" Comment="improved by request, moved from comments" Text="Usually, the gender of the whole word is defined by the part describing animated, live object, which is not necessarily the first part. The example mentioned above describes this idea quite well: both *рыба-кит* and *меч-рыба* are feminine. As well as *девушка-виденье*, *бой-баба* etc.&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, the declension would be logically connected with the object part of the word (рыба). The definition part does not affect the declension and has **gender-dependent** morphology itself: if the object part has a masculine gender, the definition part is affected by declension; if the object part has a feminine gender, the definitive part stays indefinite. I.e. *рыба-меч, рыбы-меч, рыбу-меч*, but *конь-огонь, коня-огня*; *меч-кладенец, меча-кладенца*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4067" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1043" RevisionGUID="659304dd-4631-4f67-a6b6-61127a7878ab" CreationDate="2012-11-10T13:49:29.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/267262783270301696" />
  <row Id="4074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1310" RevisionGUID="a858466a-b7ba-48e7-a530-27b316cbf9ed" CreationDate="2012-11-10T15:29:54.663" UserId="969" Text="Хотя техническое построение фразы &quot;наказание, влекомое за преступлением&quot; верно, обычно употребляют иную конструкцию: &quot;преступление, влекущее наказание&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Почему так? Во втором предложении: &quot;человек, влекомый интересом к искусству&quot; пожалуй, нагляднее всего раскрывается смысл употребления слова &quot;влекомый&quot;. Объектом выступает в этом предложении &quot;искусство&quot;, оно воздействует на субъект (человека) и вызывает влечение. Объектом может выступать, как правило, идея, понятие, человек или даже неодушевленные предметы или животные, в зависимости от контекста. Но когда слово &quot;влекомый&quot; употребляют в контексте с неодушевленными предметами, то фраза приобретает некоторый метафорический подтекст. Например, в первом предложении: &quot;карета, влекомая лошадью&quot;, автор пытается изобразить, что в этом процессе передвижения кареты есть нечто волшебное, поэтому они применяет слово &quot;влекомый&quot;, который чаще употребляется в разговорах об идеях и понятиях, которые вызывают влечение. &#xD;&#xA;Если вернутся к предложению: &quot;наказание, влекомое за преступлением&quot;, то в нем невозможно даже метафорически, что понятие &quot;наказание&quot; будет испытывать чувство влечения к понятию &quot;преступление&quot;. Здесь &quot;влекомое&quot; может выступать только в роли не очень удачного синонима фразы &quot;следующее за&quot;, то есть: &quot;наказание, следующее за преступлением&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Попробую перевести на английский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though your example: &quot;преступление, влекомое наказанием&quot; technically correct, usually we use another phrase: &quot;преступление, влекущее наказание&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Why so? Perhaps in the second sentence: &quot;человек, влекомый интересом к искусству&quot; the meaning of the word &quot;влекомый&quot; is best revealed. &quot;Искусство&quot; is an object, it affects on subject (человек) and causes affection. Object can be an idea, conception, human or even inanimated thing or animal according to context. But when we use &quot;влекомый&quot; in context of inanimated things, the phrase takes on a metaphorical sense. For example, in the first sentence: &quot;карета, влекомая лошадью&quot;, author tried to show that in the process of coach's moving was something magic. That's why he used the word &quot;влекомый&quot;, which is usually used in talks about ideas and conceptions, which causes affection, causes sympathy or inspiration.&#xD;&#xA;When we read the sentence: &quot;наказание, влекомое за преступлением&quot; we can't imagine, that even metaphorically &quot;наказание&quot; may have the feeling of attraction of &quot;преступление&quot;. In this sentence the word &quot;влекомое&quot; may be used as not very good synonym of &quot;следующее за&quot;: &quot;наказание, следующее за преступлением&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="d1f98e78-d5bb-45fe-b1f1-b6ec978973fa" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:31:21.573" UserId="5" Text="I am having a hard time to get the exact meaning of &quot;криворукий&quot; because the online dictionaries that I tried refuse to translate it. Does it have anything to do with &quot;косорукий&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original sentence is: Монтажники - криворукие уроды: вместо того, чтобы просверлить аккуратную дырочку и завести провод в щиток, они просто оторвали щиток от стены и в образовавшуюся щель пропихнули провод." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="d1f98e78-d5bb-45fe-b1f1-b6ec978973fa" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:31:21.573" UserId="5" Text="The meaning of кривокруий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="d1f98e78-d5bb-45fe-b1f1-b6ec978973fa" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:31:21.573" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1312" RevisionGUID="aa627f07-0c92-4c40-ac0e-0758f249baf0" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:33:26.520" UserId="983" Text="those who can not fix/construct/build/make some stuff... comes from &quot;кривые руки&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="d125cfbb-dd33-4ed7-933f-4ba05eb5fc1f" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:35:11.103" UserId="487" Text="It's something in English would mean *butterfingered*. Here, *криво* means  &#xD;&#xA;and *рукий* is the adjective for *hand*:  *handed*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="c1b60e50-8d5e-4381-8576-69a19a4c7712" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:40:23.817" UserId="487" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="It's something in English would mean *butterfingered*. Here, *криво* means  *crooked* and *рукий* is the adjective for *hand*:  *handed*. So, it expresses a lack of hability to perform something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="c82c970f-a0ee-4ea5-aa40-5ea59beac280" CreationDate="2012-11-10T18:42:52.043" UserId="71" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Linguists believe that this very vowel alternation is due to mainly two reasons: Church Slavonic influence and lack of strong stress in Old Russian. (After a bit of thinking we can even claim that actually those two reasons are related, though nevertheless are different.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there was a verb &quot;[расти][1]&quot; and noun &quot;растъ&quot;. If you look in modern Bulgarian or Serbian and some other Slavonic languages (and some of them historically experienced Church Slavonic influence as well) you'll find exactly this word, &quot;раст&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Russian the root was &quot;рост&quot;. But, once again, on early stage of Russian language evolution this difference was not that dramatic. That means that in written form both &quot;а&quot; and &quot;о&quot; root forms had been used. It it not only about **рост/раст**, for example **ровно/равно** pair shares the same reasons of existence: first root is Old Russian and second one is Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, things got even more complicated when in Moscow dialect with it well-known vowel о/а шифт (which is now a pronunciation norm) overcame other dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there are some other roots with **a/o** alternation (коснуться/касаться, полагать/положить, плавник/пловец, выскочка/cкакун, творец/тварь etc.). Some of this forms exists because two above-mentioned reasons, some of them share even more complicated and old reasons, having their origins in PIE language, which embraced [apophony][2] (i.e. alternation of sounds for indicating grammatical information) pretty much - and this apophonic features hadn't gone without a trace in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A final note: As for the mnemonic rule you've provided, it worth to mention that there are two exclusions: **росток**, **ростовщик** and **отрасль**. As for mentioned in  other answer **Ростов** and **Ростислав**, it is not that easy, there's no clear evidence that Рост in Ростов is related to slavic root, so this is still disputable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slavdict.narod.ru/_0545.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophony" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1317" RevisionGUID="f7608dd3-61b8-4c5d-bd63-fa6a293017f5" CreationDate="2012-11-10T19:20:47.940" UserId="969" Text="Обычно не говорят &quot;косорукий&quot; - это словотворчество. Слово &quot;криворукий&quot; - это прилагательное, образованное в результате слияния двух слов &quot;кривой&quot; и &quot;руки&quot;. Это негативная характеристика человека, который плохо выполняет определенную работу руками или пальцами. Если он делает что-то неверным образом, нерационально, некачественно, то его обзывают &quot;криворукий&quot;. При этом, например, ученого выдвинувшего неверную теорию не назовут криворуким. А вот если ученый разбил чашку, то видевший это может обозвать ученого криворуким.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't use the word &quot;косорукий&quot;. The word &quot;криворукий&quot; is an adjective formed by two words: &quot;кривой&quot; and &quot;руки&quot;. And it's a negative characteristic of a person, who does some work (by hand or by fingers) badly. When he does something wrong, in irrational way or produces something of poor quality he is called &quot;криворукий&quot;. It's important to understand, that it's only characteristic for people who made something by hand. For example, nobody can say &quot;криворукий&quot; about the scientist who proposed wrong theory. But someone can say &quot;криворукий&quot;, when he see that this scientis has broke his cup." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1314" RevisionGUID="7293e02d-b171-49ce-b4bb-008060904ef7" CreationDate="2012-11-10T19:21:35.293" UserId="487" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="It's something in English would mean *butterfingered*. Here, *криво* means  *crooked* and *рукий* is the adjective for *hand*:  *handed*. So, it expresses a lack of hability to physically perform something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="a723c105-e4ec-4dd7-8e58-cc8f11e6238f" CreationDate="2012-11-10T19:24:10.523" UserId="5" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I am having a hard time trying to get the exact meaning of &quot;криворукий&quot; because the online dictionaries that I tried refuse to translate it. Does it have anything to do with &quot;косорукий&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original sentence is: Монтажники - криворукие уроды: вместо того, чтобы просверлить аккуратную дырочку и завести провод в щиток, они просто оторвали щиток от стены и в образовавшуюся щель пропихнули провод." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1318" RevisionGUID="2e9d061a-70a0-4ee8-b07f-7957bc213078" CreationDate="2012-11-10T19:37:06.100" UserId="985" Text="If a person did something bad / awry / inaccurately, then they say about him &quot;криворукий&quot;. Is a colloquial expression. This expression is made up of the words &quot;curve&quot; and &quot;hand&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4089" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="948faf97-efda-48af-8275-1c8eab7895a5" CreationDate="2012-11-10T19:50:54.503" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="The meaning of &quot;криворукий&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4093" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="c5becd46-7da1-48d8-9e52-767e37261ead" CreationDate="2012-11-10T20:58:56.293" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1321" RevisionGUID="de711236-54e8-4019-b181-97fbdaf67de6" CreationDate="2012-11-10T22:38:26.997" UserId="968" Text="There is no simple rule about using “лежит на столе” and “стоит на столе”. We even have a joke&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед нами стол. На столе стакан и вилка. Что они делают? Стакан&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоит, а вилка лежит. Если мы воткнем вилку в столешницу, вилка будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоять. То есть стоят вертикальные предметы, а лежат горизонтальные?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Добавляем на стол тарелку и сковороду. Они вроде горизонтальные, но на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столе стоят. Теперь положим тарелку в сковородку. Там она лежит, а&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ведь на столе стояла. Может быть, стоят предметы готовые к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; использованию? Нет, вилка–то готова была, когда лежала. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Теперь на стол залезает кошка. Она может стоять, сидеть и лежать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если в плане стояния и лежания она как–то лезет в логику&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;вертикальный–горизонтальный&quot;, то сидение — это новое свойство. Сидит&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она на попе. Теперь на стол села птичка. Она на столе сидит, но сидит&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на ногах, а не на попе. Хотя вроде бы должна стоять. Но стоять она не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; может вовсе. Но если мы убьём бедную птичку и сделаем чучело, оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет на столе стоять. Может показаться, что сидение — атрибут живого,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; но сапог на ноге тоже сидит, хотя он не живой и не имеет попы. Так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что, поди ж пойми, что стоит, что лежит, а что сидит. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; А мы ещё удивляемся, что иностранцы считают наш язык сложным и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сравнивают с китайским." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1322" RevisionGUID="f2e41314-4fcd-434f-92f9-a4ec5adb73f3" CreationDate="2012-11-10T22:44:49.733" UserId="780" Text="бросить - can be just &quot;put smth down&quot;, like, &quot;put the gun down&quot; - &quot;брось пистолет&quot;. &quot;кинь пистолет&quot; would be wrong. Also, I believe that &quot;бросить&quot; can be used as harmful action but &quot;кинуть&quot; can't.&#xD;&#xA;кинуть - can mean deceive (slang).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there is geographically difference in use of these two words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1323" RevisionGUID="68c01e88-c270-4045-be4d-59ecd024eff6" CreationDate="2012-11-10T22:57:55.337" UserId="988" Text="To illustrate the usage, here's a children's poem by Valentin Berestov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Приятная весть. &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     -Без четверти шесть!&#xD;&#xA;     Без пятнадцати шесть!&#xD;&#xA;     Хотите услышать &#xD;&#xA;     Приятную весть?&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     -Так что же случилось &#xD;&#xA;     Без четверти шесть?&#xD;&#xA;     Какая такая &#xD;&#xA;     Приятная весть?&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     -А то, что я сам, &#xD;&#xA;     Понимаете, САМ, &#xD;&#xA;     Умею часы &#xD;&#xA;     Узнавать по часам.&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     -Ты прав. Так и есть, &#xD;&#xA;     Без пятнадцати шесть!&#xD;&#xA;     Спасибо тебе &#xD;&#xA;     За приятную весть!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that '*at* a quarter to six' is also said &quot;без четверти шесть&quot;; no extra preposition here - unlike &quot;в шесть часов&quot;, &quot;в четверть шестого&quot; ('at a quarter *past five*') - because there is already one preposition present, &quot;без&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="f30dbbb5-f6e5-4f89-8812-0b139b10e785" CreationDate="2012-11-11T00:22:07.390" UserId="496" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is no such word *времяёмкий*. The article that Olga found is about [experimenting with language][1]. People suggest some words. These words are not in dictionaries yet and maybe  never will be. Instead of времяёмкий I would say требующий/отнимающий много времени.&#xD;&#xA;If this word does not exist we do not need to explain it I guess. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20030120_dar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="5d7e5b3a-369e-45ab-b3ab-406d80ed8eec" CreationDate="2012-11-11T01:37:35.877" UserId="496" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is no such word *времяёмкий* in Russian standard dictionaries yet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article that Olga found is about [experimenting with language][1]. People suggest some words. These words are not in dictionaries yet and perhaps will never be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with comment by hazzic to the OP (Aug 10) that Google Translate is not a reputable source to conclude if word exists or not. It can return translations that are very far from perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionary of Zalizniak (1980) gives only 7 words ending with -ёмкий. (I ordered them by the frequency, defined here as the number of web-pages found by yandex.ru with the word: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    трудоёмкий     5 mln&#xD;&#xA;    энергоёмкий    1 mln&#xD;&#xA;    теплоёмкий    142000&#xD;&#xA;    металлоёмкий   66000&#xD;&#xA;    влагоёмкий     42000&#xD;&#xA;    водоёмкий      30000&#xD;&#xA;    электроёмкий   10000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not in Zalizniak (1980) but on internet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    наукоемкий     2mln&#xD;&#xA;    времязатратный 9000&#xD;&#xA;    времяемкий     5000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the pages found with времяемкий: on top was the page quoted by Olga which is kind of experimental; many pages were using this word enclosed into apostrophes to show that the word was invented on the spot for brevity, and many could just be attributed to an erroneous usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 10 years from now this word may become a first class citizen in Russian, but now it is on the brink of existence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe in 10 years I will use this word, too, but now I wouldn't because ёмкий has positive connotation in Russian. For spending time I would prefer to use времязатратный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20030120_dar.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="c83593f9-c574-4775-8085-321a7967f1e3" CreationDate="2012-11-11T04:33:47.397" UserId="992" Text="The use of теперь requires a temporal discourse antecedent: &quot;What time is it now? ... And now?&quot; You can only use сейчас to answer the first question, but you can use теперь to answer the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1325" RevisionGUID="0a4fefa9-0cef-40d3-9c5e-562e5d793492" CreationDate="2012-11-11T09:02:20.427" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="The use of *теперь* requires a temporal discourse antecedent: &quot;What time is it now? ... And now?&quot; You can only use *сейчас* to answer the first question, but you can use *теперь* to answer the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4111" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="c0b7ad30-3027-4598-94c7-65b4b6767ec6" CreationDate="2012-11-11T13:49:30.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/267625192111628288" />
  <row Id="4120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="91f46b39-d34e-42db-a82d-ad0d0515019b" CreationDate="2012-11-11T23:50:37.703" UserId="194" Text="I know that nasals are used when pronouncing the interjection, but I always perceived the full form to be &quot;ага&quot;. I wonder what and when happened so that people started to write &quot;угу&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="91f46b39-d34e-42db-a82d-ad0d0515019b" CreationDate="2012-11-11T23:50:37.703" UserId="194" Text="When and why &quot;угу&quot; replaced &quot;ага&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="91f46b39-d34e-42db-a82d-ad0d0515019b" CreationDate="2012-11-11T23:50:37.703" UserId="194" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1329" RevisionGUID="7b954a25-74aa-48fb-8ae0-02b9b6c68fe2" CreationDate="2012-11-12T00:30:32.137" UserId="1005" Text="Actually, the two words are partial synonyms. 'Угу' is really pronounced with nasals, 'ага' is not, the vowels are fully articulated, but Г sounds different, it's a velar voiced fricative in 'ага'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are interjections. 'Угу' expresses agreement, consent, often an unwilling, reserved, or irritated one: *Ты меня понял, Шикалов? ― Угу, ― мрачно кивнул Шикалов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Aга' also expresses agreement, consent, but a neutral one: *— Ага, — согласился Зубов и выпил.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, 'aга' expresses surprise, happiness: *— Ага, тут у вас и лимончик есть!*&#xD;&#xA;or the feeling of revelation, triumph (like English 'Gotcha!'): *Ага, вот ты где!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1330" RevisionGUID="9812e8a9-7d6b-4196-88de-755ce5a5df71" CreationDate="2012-11-12T03:12:49.663" UserId="1006" Text="Basically, it's &quot;A-ha&quot; versus &quot;M-hm&quot;. Nobody actually says &quot;угу&quot;, they just reluctantly say &quot;ага&quot; with they mouth shut." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1331" RevisionGUID="4e1eafc2-66ae-4410-bb9e-cefd94e9ab70" CreationDate="2012-11-12T08:12:04.647" UserId="551" Text="As far as I know, in many cases when in Russian someone uses an ellipsis (...) in English the em-dash (&amp;mdash;) will be used instead. Here's what [Wikipedia writes on usage of the Em-dash](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Em_dash):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is also used to indicate that a sentence is unfinished because the speaker has been interrupted. For example, the em dash is used in the following way in Joseph Heller's Catch-22:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *He was Cain, Ulysses, the Flying Dutchman; he was Lot in Sodom, Deirdre of the Sorrows, Sweeney in the nightingales among trees. He was the miracle ingredient Z-147. He was—   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Crazy!&quot; Clevinger interrupted, shrieking. &quot;That's what you are! Crazy!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;—immense. I'm a real, slam-bang, honest-to-goodness, three-fisted humdinger. I'm a bona fide supraman.&quot;*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, it can be used instead of an ellipsis to indicate aposiopesis, the rhetorical device by which a sentence is stopped short not because of interruption but because the speaker is too emotional to continue, such as Darth Vader's line *&quot;I sense something; a presence I've not felt since—&quot;* in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1332" RevisionGUID="826ed4d7-4f18-4ec2-b0b8-6eae3362a55a" CreationDate="2012-11-12T10:44:54.433" UserId="776" Text="From the point of style, the form with non-synchronized case in parentheses reflects colloquial speech. I would not recommend using it in an article, but in the mail it's perfectly suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form with commas is neutral, in theory commas can be replaced with dashes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из &quot;Преступления и наказания&quot; Ф.Достоевского - моего любимого романа - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(which one to use is a matter of personal preference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, another problem with this phrase: syntactically it's not perfectly clear whether &quot;моего любимого романа&quot; refers to the book or to the writer. Taking into account that &quot;роман&quot; can also mean love affair, we end up with a funny-looking sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There can be several ways to remedy this problem, the easiest one would be to make sure that the words &quot;novel&quot; and &quot;Dostoevsky&quot; are not in the same case, this way you get rid of the ambiguity for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моем любимом романе Достоевского - &quot;Преступлении и наказании&quot; -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорится о том, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you mean that this is your favorite book in principle, you might be able drop the name of the author completely, depending on the context. It's common knowledge that Crime and Punishment is written by Dostoevsky, and this book is part of the obligatory high school curriculum. But this is only valid for that particular example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1333" RevisionGUID="0fc52961-05f4-4eaa-924e-436978e7f2dc" CreationDate="2012-11-12T10:49:23.343" UserId="97" Text="I would say there is a slight difference between _кинуть_ and _бросить_ in the meaning _to throw_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Кинуть_ implies _to propel_ something, throw with some force in a particular direction, for example _кинуть камень в окно_: one actually throws the stone into the window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Бросить_ has a slight connotation of _to let go_, and is related to the meaning _stop doing something_ (in this case, _stop carrying_), for example _бросить сумку на пол_: one just lets go the bag and falls to the floor on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, both words are often used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other meanings of the words, other answers summarize them quite well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1334" RevisionGUID="1c28f9a9-964e-4412-9e0f-b9d19dfd3fe0" CreationDate="2012-11-12T14:27:11.023" UserId="744" Text="&quot;Ага&quot; гораздо ближе к &quot;да&quot;, нежели &quot;угу&quot;. &quot;Угу&quot; обычно говорят, когда тема разговора неинтересна и угукают только для того, чтобы хоть что-то сказать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1335" RevisionGUID="2581275f-ad57-4d99-94a3-e374dd8c6a42" CreationDate="2012-11-12T15:29:21.617" UserId="1017" Text="Criminal slang &quot;кидать&quot; is not exactly &quot;to betray&quot;, more likely it means &quot;to cheat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кинуть лоха&quot; is &quot;to make some business, often illegal, with the victim, and then disappear with all his money&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, &quot;кидать&quot; is similar to &quot;покидать&quot;, &quot;to leave someone&quot;, and in this case it's close to &quot;to betray&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="bf72d2cb-819a-493c-b6d5-7ab82691d7f7" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:16:06.080" UserId="185" Comment="translated into Russian" Text="I suppose that everything long — *стоит*; everything horizontally-oriented (like laptop) — *лежит*. In some situations you need to remember word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. One can say *чашка лежит на столе*, when it is laying on its side: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RqyImLpZwHA/S-peUizdQnI/AAAAAAAAAgw/uGVo3XV5aRo/s400/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F.JPG In all other cases *чашка стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A ball always *лежит на столе*. You cannot say *стоит* about a ball. It would mean that a ball is something steady, which it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A closed laptop always *лежит на столе*, unless it is positioned on its side (by some miracle). If a laptop is open, it *стоит*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4133" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="935a8162-52b8-4bdb-99bc-911dd5ec53fb" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:22:24.370" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4134" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1176" RevisionGUID="02ef1614-2ce2-4f3b-b699-d7601781fa14" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:24:10.443" UserId="185" Comment="24" />
  <row Id="4136" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="ce553152-2636-4fcb-8503-cd37fd3e8ad6" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:24:35.390" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1205" RevisionGUID="0fba5d95-d91d-42e6-9b3b-327942782fc6" CreationDate="2012-11-12T17:29:58.770" UserId="185" Comment="corrected English, removed the joke because it didn't contain any explanation and it would be incomprehensible for nonnative speakers, changed the formatting, too" Text="&quot;Привет&quot; is a short form for &quot;Приветствую&quot; and means &quot;Greeting!&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Здравствуй - это не только форма приветствия, но и прощания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуйте&quot; is a formal wish for health expressed in the imperative mood, so it could be not the best way to greet a terminally ill or a disabled person. It can be also used for leave-taking, but it is not so common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуй&quot; can be used to greet a person of the same level and age (someone you would address as &quot;ты&quot;), expecting good relations.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Здравствуйте&quot; can be used for group greetings (many people you'd address as &quot;вы&quot;) or for person you reverence (someone you would politely and formally address as &quot;Вы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;There are short forms for &quot;здравствуй&quot;: &quot;здорово&quot;, &quot;здоров&quot;, &quot;здрав будешь&quot;, &quot;здоровеньки&quot; etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1336" RevisionGUID="e3ec54ec-dd17-4853-85fc-d325609d3799" CreationDate="2012-11-12T19:54:45.237" UserId="1022" Text="Simply colloquial vs. formal, BUT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to use these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Приветствую!** (I've just been introduced to you, but I'd like to show that I'm a nice and merry guy!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Здравствуй!** (Actually, we know each other, and you're like no more than 20 years older than me, but who ever cares? Just Здравствуй!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**И Вам доброго здравия!** (You greeted me in a very unusual way? So, I will try to do the same by saying this one! And I see you're already smiling back!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Желаю здравствовать!** (I'm an aristocratic man from the 19th century in my 20s/30s and I'd like to greet you, dear lady. So I Желаю здравствовать!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почитаю приятным долгом засвидетельствовать Вам моё почтение**. (Same as the previous one but much much much more obsolete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Рад(-а) Вас (тебя) видеть!** (I'm amazingly glad to see you, and I haven't seen you for so long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Да мы тыщу лет не виделись!** (Hey, my friend! Like a few infinities have passed by since last time we've met! Forget about everything you have to do, let's go and drink some coffee and chat!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1337" RevisionGUID="80298156-7e51-41e9-822c-469eb1df8cb0" CreationDate="2012-11-12T20:30:53.357" UserId="1022" Text="**00:00** - **полночь** (midnight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:05** - **пять минут первого** (but people will sooner tell you &quot;it's midnight&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:15** - **пятнадцать минут первого** (actually, try to notice that people often ask you &quot;what time is it?&quot; and when you look at your watch, it's almost always 15 minutes! Wooo!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:25** - **двадцать пять минут первого** (but people would sooner tell you &quot;it's half past midnight&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:30** - **половина первого / полпервого** (&quot;it's half past midnight&quot; from roughly 00:26 to 00:34)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:40** - **сорок минут первого** / **без двадцати час** (60 minus 40, yeah!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:45** - **без пятнадцати час / без четверти час** (fifteen, or a quarter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:50** - **без десяти час** (simple and clear)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**00:59** - **час ночи** (yeah, people will tell you as if it is 01:00 already. Of course, some would tell you smth like &quot;без минуты час&quot;, but whatever... Also, alothough, it's clear that 00:59 is night time, still we say &quot;ночи&quot; to separate it from 12:59 and 01:00 PM).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you enlighten other people of what time it is, you can always say it's XX:XX, if the first number is more than zero:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**01:20 - час двадцать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**04:45 - четыре сорок пять**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**11:15 - одиннадцать пятнадцать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**17:50 - семнадцать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unbelievably normal. Or you can also use it with the patterns I've written above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing you should remember - never use the XX:XX pattern when it's 00:XX - use only the general patterns above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4145" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="92939862-5b97-4e89-a433-def03a22c36e" CreationDate="2012-11-12T21:27:26.320" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4146" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="f39ffc94-68be-47ad-a7c0-9cef30462e80" CreationDate="2012-11-12T21:27:31.793" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4149" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1201" RevisionGUID="bb72603c-240c-48d3-9356-051ae794e8a2" CreationDate="2012-11-12T21:44:40.880" UserId="185" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="4150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="40aae981-85ba-4c33-a335-d5ff18455024" CreationDate="2012-11-12T21:48:14.677" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="**I think that only the second variant (&quot;много кого&quot;) is correct.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different parts of speech in the examples you gave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first example, *многих* is a form of *многие*, which is an adjective and modifies *кого*. It has the same structure as *многие люди*, or if you put it in the same context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Церковь не одобряет многих людей. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a native speaker, you can feel for yourself that *многие кто* sounds incorrect. I didn't manage to find any literature that describes syntactic properties of *кто*, but I think that it can hardly be modified by any adjectives at all. The only examples of this kind I can come up with are colloquial back-check questions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие монофизиты пострадали в то время.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Многие кто?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, *много* is an adverb. I didn't find anything about this function of *много* in a dictionary, but it seems to be very similar in function to *мало* in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало с кем разговаривает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало кто об этом помнит. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он мало где бывает.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there is a special entry for this kind of usages of *мало* in the dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (с местоим. и нареч.).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Указывает на недостаточность, незначительное количество, редкость того, что обозначает местоименное слово. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. что хорошего я услышал (немного).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. где он бывает (в немногих местах).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. какой прохожий остановится у калитки (немногие)*.&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*М. когда солнце светит с утра (изредка).*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*мало* (with pronouns and adverbs).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Denotes insufficient, insignificant amount or rarity of the thing that is referred to by the pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can assume that *много кто* is a correct form, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="b53423e4-7ff9-44ca-8bc7-816a4b90432b" CreationDate="2012-11-12T22:05:23.887" UserId="1005" Text="I'm doing subtitles for the Soviet cult film, &quot;Чучело&quot;, 1983, directed by Rolan Bykov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085335/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key words in the film is the Soviet ideological term, &quot;трудовой десант&quot;. That means, when, say, a whole school volunteers to work somewhere, for example, at a collective farm for some time, and they earn money for that. My question is: how can I translate the term &quot;трудовой десант&quot; in a way that English-speaking people could understand that? &lt;br/&gt;My own variants are two:&lt;br/&gt; 1. literary translation, 'labour landing' - I leave it in quotation marks and let the audience guess what it is by what they see it next in the film; and&lt;br/&gt; 2. 'volunteer job' - that's the variant which explains the idea of what they do, but 'volunteering' typically means no payment, that's why I don't like it...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Please, share your ideas on the way this Soviet term can be translated, because it's crucial for the understanding of the film, I'd like the people who watch it get the meaning of it at once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="b53423e4-7ff9-44ca-8bc7-816a4b90432b" CreationDate="2012-11-12T22:05:23.887" UserId="1005" Text="What is the English for 'трудовой десант'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="b53423e4-7ff9-44ca-8bc7-816a4b90432b" CreationDate="2012-11-12T22:05:23.887" UserId="1005" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="7f32579f-7826-4f65-a4bd-d8266c335866" CreationDate="2012-11-12T22:18:32.737" UserId="1005" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I'm doing subtitles for the Soviet cult film, &quot;Чучело&quot;, 1983, directed by Rolan Bykov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085335/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key words in the film is the Soviet ideological term, &quot;трудовой десант&quot;. That means, when, say, a whole school volunteers to work somewhere, for example, at a collective farm for some time, and they earn money for that. My question is: how can I translate the term &quot;трудовой десант&quot; in a way that English-speaking people could understand that? &lt;br/&gt;My own variants are two:&lt;br/&gt; 1. literary translation, 'labour landing' - I leave it in quotation marks and let the audience guess what it is by what they see next in the film; and&lt;br/&gt; 2. 'volunteer job' - that's the variant which explains the idea of what they do, but 'volunteering' typically means no payment, that's why I don't like it...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Please, share your ideas on the way this Soviet term can be translated, because it's crucial for the understanding of the film, I'd like the people who watch it get the meaning of it at once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4156" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1340" RevisionGUID="8a88eb8e-1792-4609-8ef3-a457cee97804" CreationDate="2012-11-12T22:24:01.840" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;v'-5o-1's73-&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="f198e591-3df8-43d3-9f80-e9bddac659e4" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:18:50.050" UserId="487" Text="I've only read and heard *нету* in unformal contexts (Or I somehow associate this to kids saying *нету* as a cool version of *нет*, but that's just an impression based on a lack of practice of Russian, so I'm sure I'm wrong). [Lingvo](http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Translate/en-ru/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83) just says it means нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When can one use *нету*? Would you answer your boss with *нету, начальник* ? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="f198e591-3df8-43d3-9f80-e9bddac659e4" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:18:50.050" UserId="487" Text="When can one use &quot;нету&quot; insetead of &quot;нет&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="f198e591-3df8-43d3-9f80-e9bddac659e4" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:18:50.050" UserId="487" Text="|single-word-requests|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4161" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="f1236f31-571e-4aac-9e96-1e43a6a32868" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:25:31.647" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1342" RevisionGUID="21824c6b-27b8-4d05-a33e-3acabce5d336" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:38:03.997" UserId="1005" Text="You're right in filing 'нет' as formal and 'нету' as informal. If you feel your boss is even 1% on informal terms with you, you can use 'нету'. But still, both 'нет' and 'нету' are *always* suitable. That's true, if you say 'нету' to your boss, the boss won't think you're too unceremonious with her|him [unless s|he's an extremist grammar-nazi :D]. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="9e122c18-e200-40ad-a4b3-a85004d2f5bc" CreationDate="2012-11-13T00:54:36.780" UserId="222" Text="The word “нету” is an informal form of “нет”. You can always use “нет” instead of “нету”. If “нет” means “do not have” or “am not”, you can use “нету” instead of “нет”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нету денег.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его нету дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you cannot use “нету” instead of “нет” in some other cases.&#xD;&#xA;Here are several examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Вы написали письмо? &lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — **Нет**, не написал.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Нет**, я не Байрон, я другой, ещё неведомый избранник... (М. Ю. Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это произойдёт, хотим мы этого или **нет**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use “нету” in informal speech. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1344" RevisionGUID="d4227573-fcf7-4397-9483-4255512da429" CreationDate="2012-11-13T00:59:57.527" UserId="1025" Text="Рисунок, детально поясняющий степени родства.&#xD;&#xA;http://uaix.piccy.info/i7/4f42c6a30a3d2671d783391b19c83d52/4-48-451/20769907/6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1345" RevisionGUID="6aa0d17c-fd2e-4844-bf0e-e8fd6d0074d6" CreationDate="2012-11-13T05:37:14.640" UserId="1027" Text="*Нету* is a conversational word. You shouldn't use it in commercial correspondence or business books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nope* means *не-а!* or *не*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;- Ты пойдешь со мной?&#xD;&#xA;- Не-а!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &#xD;&#xA;- У тебя книга с собой?&#xD;&#xA;- Не.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike *nope*, *нету* **always** means 'haven't got something': У меня нету с собой книги." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4166" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="661a43e8-62fc-466c-95ec-0a7d4344e80d" CreationDate="2012-11-13T06:25:31.420" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="When can one use &quot;нету&quot; instead of &quot;нет&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1345" RevisionGUID="2c072370-aea0-4e1c-9f02-a4341801143c" CreationDate="2012-11-13T07:47:17.107" UserId="47" Comment="Formatting improved." Text="*Нету* is a conversational word. You shouldn't use it in commercial correspondence or business books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nope* means *не-а!* or *не*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ты пойдешь со мной? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Не-а!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У тебя книга с собой?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Не.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike *nope*, *нету* **always** means *haven't got something*: *У меня нету с собой книги*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="27b59f4d-e9ca-4800-ba76-97bc612551a0" CreationDate="2012-11-13T07:52:29.293" UserId="47" Comment="Slight style and format corrections." Text=" 4. You can use “нету” in informal speech only. &#xD;&#xA; 1. The word “нету” is an informal form of “нет”. You can always use “нет” instead of “нету”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. If “нет” is used for “does not have” or “is not”, you can use “нету” instead of “нет”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; У меня нету денег. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Его нету дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. In other cases, you cannot use “нету” instead of “нет”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Вы написали письмо? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — **Нет**, не написал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Нет**, я не Байрон, я другой, ещё неведомый избранник... (М. Ю. Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Это произойдёт, хотим мы этого или **нет**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1346" RevisionGUID="34d0eaa5-8efd-46a8-b3ae-eefa41dd90c6" CreationDate="2012-11-13T08:09:11.140" UserId="47" Text=" 1. I wouldn't say that *угу* replaced *ага*. [According to the corpora][1], the usage frequency has been growing in parallel, *угу* always being less frequent than *ага*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The meaning of the two words is more or less the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Большой толковый словарь: УГУ, частица. *Разг.-сниж.* Выражает согласие с чем-л., подтверждение чего-л.; да, так. &lt;br/&gt;— Вы хотите пить? — Угу. &lt;br/&gt;— Надо выйти из вагона. — Угу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Большой толковый словарь: АГА [aha]. частица. *Разг.-сниж.* Употр. для выражения согласия, подтверждения; да, хорошо, так. *Встретились? — Ага.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Ага* can also have an additional emotional meaning, which *угу* does not have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Большой толковый словарь: *межд.* Выражает злорадство, торжество, замешательство и т.п. *Ага, Мамон! дрожишь передо мною* (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0&amp;t2=%D1%83%D0%B3%D1%83&amp;start=1680&amp;end=2012&amp;smoothing=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1347" RevisionGUID="9e9972c4-202e-411c-b424-e1b40a4fb7fa" CreationDate="2012-11-13T08:45:35.060" UserId="134" Text="According to Vasmer, *нету* and *нет* both originated from Old Russian *нѣту* and *нѣтъ* from the older *нѣ ѥ тъ, нѣ ѥ ту*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*тъ* and *ту* are sg. acc. from improper pronouns *тъ* and *та* (in modern Russian *тот* and *та*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally both words meant &quot;there is no&quot; (with respect to gender), however, later the gender distinction was lost, and yet later the latter also has come to mean &quot;not&quot; (along with the old meaning) and the former became colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нету* can only mean &quot;there is no&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Всё. Больше никаких вещей нету. ― Спасибо, ― сказал Андрей, убирая письмо в карман. *[Виктор Пелевин. Желтая стрела (1993)]* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other colloquial but not rude words, it's OK to use this word in informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is considered a little bit childish though, so it's OK to answer your boss *нету* in a private informal conversation but not on an official meeting or in business communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="856ffd54-a157-419b-a55f-c3f4892acf9c" CreationDate="2012-11-13T12:04:45.237" UserId="104" Text="What's the correct punctuation in the following usage of что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;- Ты что с ума сошел?&#xD;&#xA; &gt;- Он что сам не может справиться?&#xD;&#xA; &gt;- Я что дура?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should there be a comma, a dash or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as additional bonus questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;- What part of speech is что here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;- Is there a special name/term for this usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="856ffd54-a157-419b-a55f-c3f4892acf9c" CreationDate="2012-11-13T12:04:45.237" UserId="104" Text="What's the correct punctuation for что in &quot;Ты что с ума сошел?&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="856ffd54-a157-419b-a55f-c3f4892acf9c" CreationDate="2012-11-13T12:04:45.237" UserId="104" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1349" RevisionGUID="cae6e027-8b72-4f16-aeee-cbe217b3ccaf" CreationDate="2012-11-13T12:54:21.927" UserId="1031" Text="It is also typical to use 'Ага' to express sudden discovery of hidden link, like 'Bingo!'. Imagine you explore some complex machinery and as you push some buttons in some particular sequence, a hatch opens somewhere, and you suddenly understand why it happened or how it worked. 'Ага..' exclaim you to yourself :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1350" RevisionGUID="6a441bb6-348e-4452-8b2b-b1a8b8817dae" CreationDate="2012-11-13T12:57:59.847" UserId="1027" Text="These are clarification questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ты что, с ума сошел?&#xD;&#xA;Он что, сам не может справиться?&#xD;&#xA;Я что, дура?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что* is interrogative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="8e859a35-fa85-41d0-a63a-0f7b915c3d46" CreationDate="2012-11-13T13:05:31.210" UserId="242" Text=" I guess in this context &quot;что&quot; is extremely close to [interrogative particle][1].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; In Polish, as well as in Ukrainian there [exists][2] `czy` (`чи`), that interrogative particle is used in yes-no questions. For example, phrase, provided in above-mentioned link &quot;Czy ten pan jest z Anglii?&quot;, can be translated &quot;Этот господин из Англии&quot; as well as it can be translated &quot;Этот господин [он] что, из Англии&quot;? Also, this can be translated with another interrogative particle, `ли`:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Этот господин из Англии ли&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It's just that in Russian this  form with &quot;что&quot; is definitely have some stylistical connotations. Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Хочешь булочку?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты что, хочешь булочку&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In second case one who asks this question is assuming that the answer will be affirmative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for punctuation, stick with comma after &quot;что&quot;, but keep in mind that in some cases when you want to separate second part more clearly, you can use dash as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_interrogative_particles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/czy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1349" RevisionGUID="5951c264-1902-4543-b168-d921688a8d2b" CreationDate="2012-11-13T13:05:34.317" UserId="1031" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="It is also typical to use 'Ага' to express sudden discovery of hidden link, like 'Bingo!'. Imagine you explore some complex machinery and as you push some buttons in some particular sequence, a hatch opens somewhere, and you suddenly understand why it happened or how it worked. 'Ага..' exclaim you to yourself :) But never 'угу'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="0a7c5f63-38e2-478a-be4c-2deb651039d7" CreationDate="2012-11-13T13:10:34.627" UserId="242" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text=" I guess in this context &quot;что&quot; is extremely close to [interrogative particle][1].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; In Polish, as well as in Ukrainian there [exists][2] `czy` (`чи`), that interrogative particle is used in yes-no questions. For example, phrase, provided in above-mentioned link &quot;Czy ten pan jest z Anglii?&quot;, can be translated &quot;Этот господин из Англии&quot; as well as it can be translated &quot;Этот господин [он] что, из Англии&quot;? Also, this can be translated with another interrogative particle, `ли`:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Этот господин из Англии ли&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Let's look close to your examples, actually, all of them can be replaced by following forms:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты с ума сошёл что ли?&#xD;&#xA; - Я дура что ли?&#xD;&#xA; - Он сам не может справиться что ли? (Or - он, что ли, сам не может справиться?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Что ли` is, by the way, yet another form of interrogative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It's just that in Russian this  form with &quot;что&quot; is definitely have some stylistical connotations. Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Хочешь булочку?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты что, хочешь булочку&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In second case one who asks this question is assuming that the answer most probably will be affirmative. Also, such &quot;что&quot;-questions is a bit pathetical (&quot;Мы что же это, Родину предадим?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for punctuation, stick with comma after &quot;что&quot;, but keep in mind that in some cases when you want to separate second part more clearly, you can use dash as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_interrogative_particles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/czy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1351" RevisionGUID="695ca2fd-f576-4614-ad5c-e362811b9f01" CreationDate="2012-11-13T13:37:32.403" UserId="242" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text=" I guess in this context &quot;что&quot; is extremely close to [interrogative particle][1].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; In Polish, as well as in Ukrainian there [exists][2] `czy` (`чи`), that interrogative particle is used in yes-no questions. For example, phrase, provided in above-mentioned link &quot;Czy ten pan jest z Anglii?&quot;, can be translated &quot;Этот господин из Англии&quot; as well as it can be translated &quot;Этот господин [он] что, из Англии&quot;? Also, this can be translated with another interrogative particle, `ли`:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Этот господин из Англии ли&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Let's look close to your examples, actually, all of them can be replaced by following forms:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты с ума сошёл что ли?&#xD;&#xA; - Я дура что ли?&#xD;&#xA; - Он сам не может справиться что ли? (Or - он, что ли, сам не может справиться?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Что ли` is, by the way, yet another form of interrogative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It's just that in Russian this  form with &quot;что&quot; is definitely have some stylistical connotations. Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Хочешь булочку?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты что, хочешь булочку&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In second case one who asks this question is assuming that the answer most probably will be affirmative. Also, such &quot;что&quot;-questions is a bit pathetical (&quot;Мы что же это, Родину предадим?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for punctuation, stick with comma after &quot;что&quot;, but keep in mind that in some cases when you want to separate second part more clearly, you can use dash as well. In some phrases, especially short ones, you can omit comma at all, no one will judge you hard. By doing this you can convey liveliness of colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_interrogative_particles&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/czy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1344" RevisionGUID="ff9ca973-9742-4ced-95e0-bde09f70baa2" CreationDate="2012-11-13T18:50:39.030" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Рисунок, детально поясняющий степени родства:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GRFhY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="a543e0e9-4a9a-48af-b315-e4808e459ad8" CreationDate="2012-11-13T21:19:40.073" UserId="71" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Some history versions on the Wikipedia page of [Шиш][1] (all phrases are colloquialisms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Фиг** - Nothing  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Фигня** - Something slight, insignificant  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ни фига** - No, nothing, negation  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На фига?** - Why?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На фиг!** - It doesn't matter  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ни фига себе** - Expressing amazement  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **До фига** - A lot of something  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пошел на фиг** - F**k you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B8%D1%88" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="c6e15778-40b7-4cbf-9389-4700b9b52247" CreationDate="2012-11-13T21:57:30.170" UserId="1042" Text="Actually here is a good example illustrating the difference between &quot;ага&quot; and &quot;угу&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посетитель ресторана, старый еврей, обращается к официанту, тоже еврею, но молодому:&#xD;&#xA;- Мойша, попробуй суп!&#xD;&#xA;- Что такое? Это такой же суп, как всегда.&#xD;&#xA;- Попробуй!&#xD;&#xA;- Да я же никогда не подавал вам плохой суп!&#xD;&#xA;- А я тебе говорю: попробуй!&#xD;&#xA;- Ну хорошо, хорошо, попробую... А где же ложка?&#xD;&#xA;- Ага! - говорит посетитель.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="e2bffbb0-2e58-413f-8606-aacbb1ca61f9" CreationDate="2012-11-13T22:17:43.960" UserId="304" Text="I have seem alternative spellings of this name listed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Samovojska&#xD;&#xA;* Samovojsky&#xD;&#xA;* Samovosky&#xD;&#xA;* Samosky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a Rus surname?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin or root meaning of this surname?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="e2bffbb0-2e58-413f-8606-aacbb1ca61f9" CreationDate="2012-11-13T22:17:43.960" UserId="304" Text="What is the root meaning of the name 'Samovojska'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1353" RevisionGUID="e2bffbb0-2e58-413f-8606-aacbb1ca61f9" CreationDate="2012-11-13T22:17:43.960" UserId="304" Text="|этимология|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="d847a3c5-6227-4281-a708-4b43b895ada7" CreationDate="2012-11-13T22:46:27.433" UserId="1044" Text="the last one is Poland (or Ukraine or other surround teritories). in root it  means actually the native terirory of this person - city or village.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;usefull reference about russian last names http://www.genway.ru/lib/allfam/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="58ac4fb0-08c1-4ac4-b6ad-3f17112961e7" CreationDate="2012-11-13T22:49:45.473" UserId="1045" Text="I heard recently that `нету` is not in use anymore. That somehow this word is incorrect. So you better use simple `нет`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1355" RevisionGUID="c3616184-a648-444c-a58e-6a8701433a7d" CreationDate="2012-11-13T23:03:23.503" UserId="71" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The last one is from Poland (or Ukraine or other surround territories). The root actually refers to the native territory of this person - city or village.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;usefull reference about russian last names http://www.genway.ru/lib/allfam/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="8be0ff73-0044-46ed-9216-1f69fd55f58f" CreationDate="2012-11-14T00:25:41.027" UserId="776" Comment="added 529 characters in body" Text="Цитата из Энциклопедии русского быта:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;         СВЕКОР – отец мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        СВЕКРОВЬ – мать мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        ТЕСТЬ – отец жены. &#xD;&#xA;        ТЕЩА – мать жены. &#xD;&#xA;        ЗЯТЬ: 1) муж дочери; 2) муж сестры. &#xD;&#xA;        СНОХА – жена сына по отношению к его отцу, реже – по отношению к его матери. &#xD;&#xA;        НЕВЕСТКА: 1) жена брата; 2) жена сына по отношению к его матери, реже – по отношению к его отцу; 3) жена одного брата по отношению к жене другого брата. &#xD;&#xA;        ШУРИН – брат жены. &#xD;&#xA;        ДЕВЕРЬ – брат мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        ЗОЛОВКА – сестра мужа. &#xD;&#xA;        СВОЯЧЕНИЦА – сестра жены. &#xD;&#xA;        СВОЯК – муж сестры жены. &#xD;&#xA;        СВАТ – отец жены сына или мужа дочери. &#xD;&#xA;        СВАТЬЯ – мать жены сына или мужа дочери. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_rus_mod_of_life_xix/5/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, если верить уважаемому словарю, то невестка - это жена сына по отношению к матери, а сноха - это жена сына по отношению к отцу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично мне слово &quot;сноха&quot; кажется менее употребляемым, чем слово &quot;невестка&quot;, да и вообще в обиходной речи многие, особенно люди помоложе, избегают этих терминов, так как, во-первых, никогда нет полной ясности, кто и что под ними понимает, а во-вторых, они звучат очень обезличенно. Не могу припомнить, чтобы я сама когда-то употребляла слово &quot;сноха&quot; или слышала его от кого-нибудь. Слово &quot;невестка&quot; слышала часто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1357" RevisionGUID="080fd64b-5665-429f-bc0d-8fbf309e6f4e" CreationDate="2012-11-14T03:43:04.937" UserId="1025" Text="**Серый** is also meaning a wolf, **зеленый** - an unripe fruit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="6d11899a-a796-4923-ae07-c8a7d7865441" CreationDate="2012-11-14T10:16:03.543" UserId="97" Text="Like any language, Russian has plenty of words of foreign origin.  Specifically: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there are lots of words from Latin (most likely, because Latin was wide-spread from old time), e.g. _вакуум_, _диссертация_ and many other (see [this wiki article](http://ru.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there are many words of French origin (because Russians have been fascinated with French culture, etc., especially in 18-19 centuries), for example _шансон_, _авангард_ and many other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* German words are aplenty (most likely, because historically Russians have been in - often unpleasant - communication with Germans), e.g. _шлагбаум_, _гастарбайтер_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few English-origin words are present (probably, because English is so wide spread), for example, _джинсы_, _компьютер_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from these, what are other sources of loan words in Russian?  I am particularly interested in those where a lot of words came from (as opposed to a small number) - together with possible reasons why there are many words coming from those languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="6d11899a-a796-4923-ae07-c8a7d7865441" CreationDate="2012-11-14T10:16:03.543" UserId="97" Text="Words in Russian of foreign origin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="6d11899a-a796-4923-ae07-c8a7d7865441" CreationDate="2012-11-14T10:16:03.543" UserId="97" Text="|лексикон|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4203" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="38cb5ff4-d261-419c-9a40-f4b5eab46e76" CreationDate="2012-11-14T10:49:32.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/268667112527118336" />
  <row Id="4204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="f50ee942-e87c-4635-9d73-5b24cfdcf3b1" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:18:54.763" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="Like any language, Russian has plenty of words of foreign origin.  Specifically: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there are lots of words from Latin (most likely, because Latin was wide-spread from old time), e.g. _вакуум_, _диссертация_ and many other (see [this wiki article](http://ru.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* there are many words of French origin (because Russians have been fascinated with French culture, etc., especially in 18-19 centuries), for example _шансон_, _авангард_ and many other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* German words are aplenty (most likely, because historically Russians have been in - often unpleasant - communication with Germans), e.g. _шлагбаум_, _гастарбайтер_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few English-origin words are present (probably, because English is so wide spread), for example, _джинсы_, _компьютер_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly including these, what are the top 5 sources of loan words in Russian?  If you can explain why many words from those languages came into Russian, that could be worth extra points." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="72093a56-7211-4cc9-adb4-136520bd6f63" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:41:22.697" UserId="-1" Comment="added one more meaning" Text=" - **Серый** is also a policeman because of the uniform colour.&#xD;&#xA; - **Зеленые** - US$ (e.g. штука зеленых/зелени == 1000$)&#xD;&#xA; - **Серый** can be also a nick name for Sergey (Сергей) or a kind of pet name along with Серёжа " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="72093a56-7211-4cc9-adb4-136520bd6f63" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:41:22.697" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1117" RevisionGUID="ca398857-7739-4298-bf72-fea1c636ebe3" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:41:22.697" UserId="71" Comment="added one more meaning" Text=" - **Серый** is also a policeman because of the uniform colour. It can be also a nick name for Sergey (Сергей) or a kind of pet name along with Серёжа.&#xD;&#xA; - **Зеленые** - US$ (e.g. штука зеленых/зелени == 1000$)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1360" RevisionGUID="61199129-b223-480d-a469-c071900bd380" CreationDate="2012-11-14T11:54:59.823" UserId="1025" Text="There are a few of Japanese words in Russian, such as самурай, банзай, хокку, каратэ, цунами etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Chinese words - женьшень, тайфун, чай, шарпей, хунвэйбин, фэншуй etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А lot of Turkic words - башка, сундук, казна, утюг, чугун, шашлык, алыча, амбар, сарай, халат etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Greek words - анафема, ангел, демон, известь, сахар, скамья, фонарь, фасоль etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Spanish words - армада, марихуана, хунта, фламенко, мачо, коррида etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4209" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1348" RevisionGUID="70294d74-919d-4865-8d39-792fed186e9d" CreationDate="2012-11-14T13:49:32.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/268712413010993152" />
  <row Id="4210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1361" RevisionGUID="34c3ef32-c128-4917-97ed-793893091b1b" CreationDate="2012-11-14T14:57:24.007" UserId="47" Text="The words are often borrowed from another language if &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. there is a strong influence of one culture on another for historic reasons, e.g. the Dutch in Russia during Peter I, the Germans in Russia in the times of Catherine the Great etc.&#xD;&#xA; 2. some field of knowledge is being created primarily in one country and does not yet exist in other languages (e.g. quantum physics in Germany in 1930s or computer science in &#xD;&#xA;England and then the US in the second half of 20th century etc).&#xD;&#xA; 3. An item or category is closely associated with another language culture, such as *chanson*, *junta*, *samurai* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, sometimes the very process of such borrowing is influenced by the current relations between the countries/cultures. For example, in the 18th century the Germans were considered much better educated than the Russians, and such influence was welcome. In the first half of the 20th century the relations were spoiled, and the influence on the language went as far as renaming Petersbourg (which in fact had little to do with the German language) to Petrograd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="4a817e78-d4f1-48c1-abb8-965ad6868f0c" CreationDate="2012-11-14T15:00:00.397" UserId="959" Text="There was a long period in history when the territory of modern Russia was dependent on Golden Horde, then Russia fought many wars with the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate, so this yielded in a large number of Turkic words. See this [article][1]. I was surprised to find so many words that do not seem to have Turkic origin, but still they do, e.g. &quot;хозяин&quot;, &quot;жесть&quot;, &quot;серьга&quot;, &quot;стакан&quot;, &quot;очаг&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1362" RevisionGUID="7008fdf7-a7cf-4f0e-89c9-747eb8b6cad4" CreationDate="2012-11-14T15:11:12.333" UserId="959" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There was a long period in history when the territory of modern Russia was dependent on Golden Horde, then Russia fought many wars against the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate, so this yielded in a large number of Turkic words. See this [article][1]. I was surprised to find so many words that do not seem to have Turkic origin, but still they do, e.g. &quot;хозяин&quot;, &quot;жесть&quot;, &quot;серьга&quot;, &quot;стакан&quot;, &quot;очаг&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="bf68ef2e-63d4-4eae-8450-1f9198e78f82" CreationDate="2012-11-14T15:38:44.110" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Correct form: Я хочу чашку чаЮ, but if you want some tea you should say: Я хочу чаЯ. If you mention about quantity tea or cognac you should use form чаЮ or коньякУ, if you don't tell about how many tea or cognac you want, you should use form чаЯ/коньякА.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="d56dda41-1bac-4fc3-9fdc-8cc88fcb3131" CreationDate="2012-11-15T01:49:24.417" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="Well, let me try )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** - boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** - fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** - (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is it first, original meaning, and later it became color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** - male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** - in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозь розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** - greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** - (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** - illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** - in phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is an exact equivalent of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;, there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (Вся эта статья - чистая желтуха). In phrase &quot;желторотый птенец&quot;, means very unexperienced person.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** - (as adverb, not as an adjective) - is used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** - (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;), to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;), check out also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *Серо-буро-малиновый* - colloquial description of the color that is hard to determine or due to a strange medley of hues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also - an edit has been suggested to incorporate into this list phrase `малиновый звон`, but be warned, this [has nothing to do][4] with color (малиновый), this is actually phonetical coincidence, just like `Китай-город` by no means is related to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="aed2216c-546c-4c40-ac14-979a7aac71f8" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:42:54.237" UserId="496" Comment="replaced &quot;is not&quot; example with a different explanation because not in all cases English &quot;is not&quot; can be substituted by &quot;нету&quot;" Text=" 4. You can use “нету” in informal speech only. &#xD;&#xA; 1. The word “нету” is an informal form of “нет”. You can always use “нет” instead of “нету”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. If “нет” is used for “does not have” or other English phrases expressing absence of something, you can use “нету” instead of “нет”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; У меня нету денег. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Его нету дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. In other cases, you cannot use “нету” instead of “нет”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Вы написали письмо? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — **Нет**, не написал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Нет**, я не Байрон, я другой, ещё неведомый избранник... (М. Ю. Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Это произойдёт, хотим мы этого или **нет**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4229" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="aed2216c-546c-4c40-ac14-979a7aac71f8" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:42:54.237" Comment="Proposed by 496 approved by 47, 71 edit id of 256" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1347" RevisionGUID="7e212847-a31a-4f19-b73b-b619b66ee847" CreationDate="2012-11-15T11:59:09.213" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="According to Vasmer, *нету* and *нет* both originated from Old Russian *нѣту* and *нѣтъ* from the older *не ѥ тъ, не ѥ ту*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*тъ* and *ту* are sg. acc. from improper pronouns *тъ* and *та* (in modern Russian *тот* and *та*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally both words meant &quot;there is no&quot; (with respect to gender), however, later the gender distinction was lost, and yet later the latter also has come to mean &quot;not&quot; (along with the old meaning) and the former became colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нету* can only mean &quot;there is no&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Всё. Больше никаких вещей нету. ― Спасибо, ― сказал Андрей, убирая письмо в карман. *[Виктор Пелевин. Желтая стрела (1993)]* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other colloquial but not rude words, it's OK to use this word in informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is considered a little bit childish though, so it's OK to answer your boss *нету* in a private informal conversation but not on an official meeting or in business communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1343" RevisionGUID="00c9f3f6-abec-4409-953d-76e21b470faa" CreationDate="2012-11-15T19:11:50.867" UserId="222" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text=" 4. You can use “нету” in informal speech only. &#xD;&#xA; 1. The word “нету” is an informal form of “нет”. You can always use “нет” instead of “нету”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. When “нет” is used to express absence of something (when one would use an expression like “does not have”, “am not”, or “there is no” in English), you can use “нету” instead of “нет”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; У меня нету денег. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Его нету дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. In other cases, you cannot use “нету” instead of “нет”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Вы написали письмо? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — **Нет**, не написал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **Нет**, я не Байрон, я другой, ещё неведомый избранник... (М. Ю. Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Это произойдёт, хотим мы этого или **нет**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1368" RevisionGUID="e4e31ec2-c5ff-45ee-bdf4-68b995623a05" CreationDate="2012-11-15T20:58:31.817" UserId="1069" Text="I just say &quot;sorry, ...&quot; (&quot;простите / извините&quot;) in situations like that. Moreover, it's more or less okay to use &quot;sorry&quot; with people you know but whose names you don't remember (I used to begin most of conversations with my teachers at the university with &quot;sorry&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1369" RevisionGUID="f119c84a-7f73-48b8-99d6-eaeb371eb2d1" CreationDate="2012-11-16T10:39:57.827" UserId="1073" Text="&quot;Ахуеть&quot; - more cheeky and emotional spoken form of the word&#xD;&#xA;cheeky joke &quot;охуеть&quot;. Approximately &quot;очень охуеть = ахуеть&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1369" RevisionGUID="cf87c500-c30d-4532-a853-79ef4902fb48" CreationDate="2012-11-16T10:51:58.700" UserId="1073" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ахуеть&quot; - more cheeky and emotional spoken form of the word &quot;охуеть&quot;. Approximately &quot;очень охуеть = ахуеть&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4240" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="436c974a-29d8-47b9-9d59-05d1c59de3c0" CreationDate="2012-11-16T11:04:36.207" UserId="1074" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="4241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1370" RevisionGUID="0ca61735-14ca-4d6a-8aeb-04572b47c876" CreationDate="2012-11-16T11:49:54.383" UserId="959" Text="**&quot;Ахуеть&quot;** is acceptable. When you use it, you care about expressing your strong emotions, and as this word is obscene, grammar steps aside anyway. Also, this misspelling can express intonation and additional information about your feelings that are difficult to express in written form, you can show the extreme astonishment, maybe mixed with anger, deviding the word into syllables, as if you said **&quot;о-ху-еть!&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1371" RevisionGUID="6c33aa0c-bbe2-40f6-8643-df11c3306547" CreationDate="2012-11-16T16:27:34.660" UserId="1076" Text="Немного устаревшее, но до сих пор встречающееся сейчас обращение *сударь/сударыня*. Лучше всего подойдет в форме обращения к официанту: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Сударь, налейте чашку кофе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1373" RevisionGUID="c01196eb-778d-43d8-82a2-241eba95a095" CreationDate="2012-11-16T18:19:42.767" UserId="1078" Text="Если говорится о порции пива, то можно сказать в множественном числе: &quot;Дайте, пожалуйста, два пива.&quot; (Если речь идет о двух бокалах или двух бутылках пива, например.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4246" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1341" RevisionGUID="36c33e2b-f0dc-435c-bf49-d6fb37dad6ee" CreationDate="2012-11-16T19:49:35.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/269527835331416064" />
  <row Id="4247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="803d2de5-572b-45d5-a266-1a029404a638" CreationDate="2012-11-16T20:01:43.197" UserId="115" Text="IMHO, the best way to think about the borrowed words in Russian is from a historical prospective.  The influx of foreign words came in waves depending on what country or culture had influence in Russia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Byzantine influence and conversion to Christianity: influx of Greek words&#xD;&#xA; - Mongol conquest: influx of Turkic words&#xD;&#xA; - The reign of Peter the Great: influx of German words&#xD;&#xA; - Middle of the 18-th century though the 19th century: nobility speaks French, influx of French words&#xD;&#xA; - End of 20-th century, perestroyka and post-soviet Russia, globalization: influx of English words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="911b8ea7-3896-4a23-98af-f198e8a4887d" CreationDate="2012-11-16T20:30:49.317" UserId="71" Comment="Please use the extended version of expressions in answers. Thanks." Text="In my opinion, the best way to think about the borrowed words in Russian is from a historical prospective.  The influx of foreign words came in waves depending on what country or culture had influence in Russia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Byzantine influence and conversion to Christianity: influx of Greek words&#xD;&#xA; - Mongol conquest: influx of Turkic words&#xD;&#xA; - The reign of Peter the Great: influx of German words&#xD;&#xA; - Middle of the 18-th century though the 19th century: nobility speaks French, influx of French words&#xD;&#xA; - End of 20-th century, perestroyka and post-soviet Russia, globalization: influx of English words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="91241a22-674d-41ed-a8db-32380fb081f8" CreationDate="2012-11-17T09:37:22.203" UserId="1083" Text="МАСС-МЕДИА неизм.; ж.&#xD;&#xA;Средства массовой информации (пресса, телевидение, радио и т.п.). Западная, отечественная м.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4258" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1376" RevisionGUID="e335ae82-952f-4f68-9d3d-f3ab538c38f3" CreationDate="2012-11-17T16:30:54.200" UserId="71" Comment="26" />
  <row Id="4259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="e2ea21e3-6c0c-4de4-b041-3c81caeaf8cf" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:08:28.353" UserId="222" Text="I am aware of two meanings of the word “акция”. It may mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a stock (a financial instrument), or&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 2. a political, diplomatic or military act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was in Moscow a few months ago, I saw ads that read “У нас акция”, meaning “We have a sale”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the word “акция” exactly mean in this sentence? Is it a new meaning? Does the word “акция” have any other meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="e2ea21e3-6c0c-4de4-b041-3c81caeaf8cf" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:08:28.353" UserId="222" Text="what meanings does the word “акция” have" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="e2ea21e3-6c0c-4de4-b041-3c81caeaf8cf" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:08:28.353" UserId="222" Text="|значения|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1378" RevisionGUID="08bf8582-5120-45e4-9f06-2a6bc0ff93a4" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:21:04.097" UserId="744" Text="АКЦИЯ, -и; ж. [от лат. aсtio - действие]. Офиц.&#xD;&#xA;Действие, выступление кого-л., предпринимаемое для достижения какой-л. цели; акт (1 зн.). Дипломатическая а. Политическая, террористическая а. А. милосердия. Кем-л. принята, совершена новая а. Осуществить задуманную акцию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%E0%EA%F6%E8%FF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае &quot;акция&quot; есть действия, направленные на привлечение внимания к конкретному бренду. Например, продажа по заниженной цене. Это рекламная акция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Применительно к Москве &quot;акция&quot;, как правило, идет постоянно, никаких реально занижаемых цен при [рекламной] акции не бывает." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="1a1fbc77-bb10-41d5-a81e-d3e9c8dc546f" CreationDate="2012-11-17T22:06:50.987" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am aware of two meanings of the word “акция”. It may mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a stock (a financial instrument), or&#xD;&#xA; 2. a political, diplomatic or military act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was in Moscow a few months ago, I saw ads that read *“У нас акция”*, meaning “We have a sale”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the word “акция” exactly mean in this sentence? Is it a new meaning? Does the word “акция” have any other meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4264" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="1a1fbc77-bb10-41d5-a81e-d3e9c8dc546f" CreationDate="2012-11-17T22:06:50.987" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What does “акция” mean in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4265" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="1a1fbc77-bb10-41d5-a81e-d3e9c8dc546f" CreationDate="2012-11-17T22:06:50.987" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="37ce31db-c6d4-4390-98fd-27eb2e9b8cf9" CreationDate="2012-11-18T00:07:26.600" UserId="564" Text="I would like to add to the above because there is one point missed. For me as for a native speaker and active Internet-user the word &lt;code&gt;ахуеть&lt;/code&gt; belongs to so-called &quot;*Albanian language*&quot; which is a trend to write words phonetically (and is not related to real Albanian language at all of course). This style was popular in Internet-communications a few years ago. Compare to well-known words &lt;code&gt;&quot;Превед&quot;&lt;/code&gt; (&quot;привет&quot;), &lt;code&gt;&quot;фтопку&quot;&lt;/code&gt; (&quot;в топку&quot;) and other similar Internet-mems. Today this &quot;*Albanian style*&quot; is not as popular but it engendered a few of stable words which are still used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally to phonetic writing the word &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; is related to the noun &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуй&quot;&lt;/code&gt; which was constructed recently too (at the least in Internet time) and means highest level of surprising. I would say from my experience that &lt;code&gt;&quot;ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; means more positive surprising, rather than &lt;code&gt;&quot;охуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; which sounds more aggressive. &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ты чо, охуел, что-ли!?&quot;&lt;/code&gt; expresses that the speaker does not like what the 2nd person did and expresses aggressive displeasure. &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; does not have the aggressive connotation, this is pure surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; 1) follows the rules of phonetically-based &quot;*albanian language*&quot; and 2) expresses surprising w/o aggressive connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course as consequence of 1) the word is grammatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Also there is stable popular sentence &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть, дайте две&quot;&lt;code&gt; which is explained at [lurkmore](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C,_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1379" RevisionGUID="1f920eb3-dc1b-426c-942f-dac0534b3189" CreationDate="2012-11-18T00:12:38.910" UserId="564" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="I would like to add to the above because there is one point missed. For me as for a native speaker and active Internet-user the word &lt;code&gt;ахуеть&lt;/code&gt; belongs to so-called &quot;*Albanian language*&quot; which is a trend to write words phonetically (and is not related to real Albanian language at all of course). This style was popular in Internet-communications a few years ago. Compare to well-known words &lt;code&gt;&quot;Превед&quot;&lt;/code&gt; (&quot;привет&quot;), &lt;code&gt;&quot;фтопку&quot;&lt;/code&gt; (&quot;в топку&quot;) and other similar Internet-mems. Today this &quot;*Albanian style*&quot; is not as popular but it engendered a few of stable words which are still used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally to phonetic writing the word &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; is related to the noun &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуй&quot;&lt;/code&gt; which was constructed recently too (at the least in Internet time) and means highest level of surprising. I would say from my experience that &lt;code&gt;&quot;ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; means more positive surprising, rather than &lt;code&gt;&quot;охуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; which sounds more aggressive. &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ты чо, охуел, что-ли!?&quot;&lt;/code&gt; expresses that the speaker does not like what the 2nd person did and expresses aggressive displeasure. I would ever say that &lt;code&gt;&quot;охуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; always shows negative emotions, though this may be not stressed. &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; does not have the aggressive connotation, this is pure surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть&quot;&lt;/code&gt; 1) follows the rules of phonetically-based &quot;*albanian language*&quot; and 2) expresses surprising w/o aggressive connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course as consequence of 1) the word is grammatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Also there is stable popular sentence &lt;code&gt;&quot;Ахуеть, дайте две&quot;&lt;code&gt; which is explained at [lurkmore](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C,_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4268" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="dd94b864-c6a5-4703-bc89-e3ee0d2f02c0" CreationDate="2012-11-18T01:49:36.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/269980847443161089" />
  <row Id="4269" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="197a3e2d-b66c-43be-9e3f-a042d95bf000" CreationDate="2012-11-18T06:15:15.537" UserId="1074" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="4270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1380" RevisionGUID="584e1112-6865-4630-8a06-3fcbb924fada" CreationDate="2012-11-18T07:17:39.103" UserId="1090" Text="The meaning here is close to second statement proposed: &quot;a political, diplomatic or military act&quot;, because it is an &quot;**act of sale**&quot;, which sounds silly in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Акция&quot;* is an abridged version of *&quot;рекламная акция&quot;*, а popular term emerged in 90s on post-soviet territory. *&quot;Рекламная акция&quot;* could, but shouldn't be translated as &quot;**an act of advertisement**&quot;, because it sounds silly in English too. What it does really mean is &quot;**an act of product or service promotion**&quot;. And product promotion in Russia is a sale in 90% cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you see a word &quot;акция&quot; again in unknown context, suggest that it is more likely an act of something, and not a stock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1380" RevisionGUID="206cd44a-150a-4825-84b1-3151e33d20fa" CreationDate="2012-11-18T07:30:48.363" UserId="1090" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="The meaning here is close to second statement proposed: &quot;a political, diplomatic or military act&quot;, because it is an &quot;**act of sale**&quot;, which sounds silly in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Акция&quot;* is an abridged version of *&quot;рекламная акция&quot;*, а popular term emerged in 90s on post-soviet territory. *&quot;Рекламная акция&quot;* could, but shouldn't be translated as &quot;**an act of advertisement**&quot;, because it sounds silly in English too. What it does really mean is &quot;**an act of product or service promotion**&quot;. And product promotion in Russia is a sale in 90% cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no other meaning of *&quot;акция&quot;* I can think of, so if you see a word *&quot;акция&quot;* again in unknown context, suggest that it is more likely an act of something, and not a stock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1381" RevisionGUID="27873fea-4d52-4898-91cd-00f26f9230fa" CreationDate="2012-11-18T10:53:22.907" UserId="1091" Text="You can use &quot;эфирные медиа&quot; or &quot;эфирные сми&quot; but it is not a widespread phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="bc41d8b8-8d85-4db7-bd50-f9c09e5a7529" CreationDate="2012-11-18T13:16:40.967" UserId="27" Comment="Removed awkwardly placed word." Text="I am aware of two meanings of the word “акция”. It may mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. a stock (a financial instrument), or&#xD;&#xA;2. a political, diplomatic or military act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was in Moscow a few months ago, I saw ads that read *“У нас акция”*, meaning “We have a sale”. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the word “акция” mean in this sentence? Is it a new meaning? Does the word “акция” have any other meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4274" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="bc41d8b8-8d85-4db7-bd50-f9c09e5a7529" CreationDate="2012-11-18T13:16:40.967" Comment="Proposed by 27 approved by 185 edit id of 257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1382" RevisionGUID="67e58512-b4b3-4e7b-8f09-3607b3ed2ff0" CreationDate="2012-11-18T15:45:43.797" UserId="1093" Text="Для данного примера - наречие &quot;теперь&quot; более конкретное, чем &quot;сейчас&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Когда вы говорите &quot;Я теперь работаю в Microsoft&quot; - это вы подчеркиваете, что работа в Microsoft ваша новая (или относительно новая) работа.  &#xD;&#xA;А из &quot;Я сейчас работаю в Microsoft&quot; понятно только, что вы сейчас работаете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. чтобы точно решить какой вариант более правильный, нужно знать контекст, в котором вы используете это предложение. Более универсальный вариант - &quot;Я сейчас работаю в Microsoft&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4278" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1377" RevisionGUID="5e7f2623-a1b7-441d-b248-a907b62c86cc" CreationDate="2012-11-19T01:49:36.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/270343248432742400" />
  <row Id="4279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1383" RevisionGUID="41e7b151-3be8-448b-867d-9ae3e3d1fd8d" CreationDate="2012-11-19T03:22:53.663" UserId="1027" Text="*Акция* is a promotional event in this case. For example, *акция* may be a discount, a gift or the second thing after buying the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скидка 50% на холодильник до 15 декабря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При покупке шубы - брюки в подарок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 шарфа по цене одного&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other context *акция* may mean share or capital stock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1383" RevisionGUID="4b1d8c68-6d2d-49e1-836b-49efbfb4bebb" CreationDate="2012-11-19T03:28:07.550" UserId="1027" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="*Акция* is a promotional event in this case. For example, *акция* may be a discount, a gift or the second thing at the price of the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скидка 50% на холодильник до 15 декабря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При покупке шубы - брюки в подарок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 шарфа по цене одного&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1383" RevisionGUID="684333c8-60c0-464d-b040-b980db324e5b" CreationDate="2012-11-19T03:37:24.813" UserId="1027" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="*Акция* is a promotional event in this case. For example, *акция* may be a discount, a gift or two-for-one thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скидка 50% на холодильник до 15 декабря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При покупке шубы - брюки в подарок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 шарфа по цене одного&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1384" RevisionGUID="02e1a51a-af06-4ad4-ae0e-491363bf84db" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:57:26.737" UserId="637" Text="As mentioned above, main sources of borrowing words are cultural, military, technical and other contacts. But, these words oftenly got special, particular meaning, slightly different from its original sense. Sometimes they could be completely distorted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian phrase &quot;рынду бей&quot; borrowed from English navy command &quot;ring the bell&quot; (issue general alarm on a ship), but verb and noun were mutually changed - 'ring' became &quot;рында&quot;, i.e ship bell and 'bell' came to 'бей'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word 'фюрер' was borrowed from Deutsch 'führer' and strongly related with Hitler, but in sense 'leader' it is still used in German language like 'Geschäftsführer'(CEO)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1385" RevisionGUID="32c45243-136f-4f97-8b73-85c10fe76b3e" CreationDate="2012-11-19T05:04:07.570" UserId="1096" Text="I'm sorry for bad english.&#xD;&#xA;'ахуеть' is a deliberate distortion of spelling (missplelling of) 'охуеть', like 'dat' instead 'that' in english.&#xD;&#xA;so it's written as heard and more expressively. used in texting, IRC, ICQ, etc.&#xD;&#xA;word 'ахуеть' spread widely. google result 1,030,000 vs 'охуеть' with 921,000 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1385" RevisionGUID="963a7588-8105-4bf7-8eee-49f4cde41045" CreationDate="2012-11-19T08:47:49.767" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="'ахуеть' is a deliberate distortion of spelling (missplelling of) 'охуеть', like 'dat' instead 'that' in english.&#xD;&#xA;so it's written as heard and more expressively. used in texting, IRC, ICQ, etc.&#xD;&#xA;word 'ахуеть' spread widely. google result 1,030,000 vs 'охуеть' with 921,000 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="f4771052-4738-45e5-9fa6-b3726492ff42" CreationDate="2012-11-19T11:03:58.030" UserId="1098" Text="What does exactly this words mean? How can you can correctly use it in speech?&#xD;&#xA;I'll know that &quot;портак&quot; is some sort of a prison tattoo, but then what is &quot;напортачил&quot; means?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="f4771052-4738-45e5-9fa6-b3726492ff42" CreationDate="2012-11-19T11:03:58.030" UserId="1098" Text="What does mean &quot;напортачил&quot; and &quot;портак&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="f4771052-4738-45e5-9fa6-b3726492ff42" CreationDate="2012-11-19T11:03:58.030" UserId="1098" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="c1eec893-45c4-4262-9eae-eb4ba51e8976" CreationDate="2012-11-19T11:16:03.963" UserId="959" Text="&quot;Напортачил&quot; means that someone has failed to do his work right, maybe has spoiled expensive materials. When you &quot;напортачил&quot;, you have to apply too much efforts to correct you mistake, sometimes it is even impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Напортачить&quot; comes from &quot;портак&quot; because a spoiled tattoo is a very good example. Also, prison tattoos are low-quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="4c2c81eb-eaa1-4225-8839-c0960299ce14" CreationDate="2012-11-19T11:57:18.133" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="*Напортачил* means that someone has failed to do his work right, maybe has spoiled expensive materials. When you *напортачил*, you have to apply too much effort to correct you mistake, sometimes it is even impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Напортачить* comes from *портак* because a spoiled tattoo is a very good example. Also, prison tattoos are low-quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="ed929a3e-5b87-4420-8846-515f15c0c8c1" CreationDate="2012-11-19T12:14:36.393" UserId="71" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &#xA;&#xA;Please [look around][1] to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &#xA;&#xA;Got a question for Moderators about moderation, spam, troublesome users, questions and issues you need diamond input on? [*Ask a Russian Moderator*][2]!&#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&#xA;&#xA;We have created a [single resource question][3], where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is **very specific**, we will close it as a duplicate.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/search&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6466/ask-a-russian-moderator&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1388" RevisionGUID="ff3dca07-fc35-4db7-ac8d-844626b0d7f5" CreationDate="2012-11-19T12:27:32.977" UserId="134" Text="Kobyakov in *Бессмертный дар* argues that *портачить* is originated from *порт* (&quot;linen fabric&quot;), having the same root as *портной, портки, портянка* and *пороть*, which is a remote cognate to English &quot;fare&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He explains that the serf tailors often spoiled their masters' fabric so this previously neutral word came to mean &quot;to bungle, to spoil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, he does not provide any sources for that, and this explanation seems quite implausible to me, since the word did not come into any significant use until 1930's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1388" RevisionGUID="5cdc5bb6-7071-4f9b-b67a-676167f41a22" CreationDate="2012-11-19T12:44:47.180" UserId="134" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Kobyakov in *Бессмертный дар* argues that *портачить* is originated from *порт* (&quot;linen fabric&quot;), having the same root as *портной, портки, портянка* and *пороть*, which is a remote cognate to English &quot;fare&quot; (both originate from PIE *&amp;#42;per*, &quot;to pass through&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He explains that the serf tailors often spoiled their masters' fabric so this previously neutral word came to mean &quot;to bungle, to spoil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, he does not provide any sources for that, and this explanation seems quite implausible to me, since the word did not come into any significant use until 1930's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1387" RevisionGUID="8d23de49-d557-4e64-9ba2-edd4762ba4d1" CreationDate="2012-11-19T12:45:14.513" UserId="959" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="*Напортачил* means that someone has failed to do his work right, maybe has spoiled expensive materials. When you *напортачил*, you have to apply too much effort to correct your mistake, sometimes it is even impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Напортачить* comes from *портак* because a spoiled tattoo is a very good example. Also, prison tattoos are low-quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Напортачить* is strictly colloquial. Some colloquial synonyms are *накосячить*, *налажать*, *набедокурить*. An idiom *наломать дров* has the same meaning, but is more widely used. Use *наделать ошибок* in most cases and see Quassnoi's comment for good examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1388" RevisionGUID="60c347dc-3c2a-4ba7-9b46-1de5aa9ae182" CreationDate="2012-11-19T13:09:57.773" UserId="134" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="*Портачить* is a [dictionary word][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПОРТАЧИТЬ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -чу, -чишь; несов. (прост.). Плохо, неумело или небрежно делать что-н., портить. || сов. напортачить, -чу, -чишь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kobyakov in *Бессмертный дар* argues that *портачить* is originated from *порт* (&quot;linen fabric&quot;), having the same root as *портной, портки, портянка* and *пороть*, which is a remote cognate to English &quot;fare&quot; (both originate from PIE *&amp;#42;per*, &quot;to pass through&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He explains that the serf tailors often spoiled their masters' fabric so this previously neutral word came to mean &quot;to bungle, to spoil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, he does not provide any sources for that, and this explanation seems quite implausible to me, since the word did not come into any significant use until 1930's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ozhegov.info/slovar/?q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1388" RevisionGUID="e007a0f6-b273-4c58-a2a4-3b4a2f47dc26" CreationDate="2012-11-19T13:15:03.457" UserId="134" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="*Портачить* is a [dictionary word][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПОРТАЧИТЬ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -чу, -чишь; несов. (прост.). Плохо, неумело или небрежно делать что-н., портить. || сов. напортачить, -чу, -чишь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kobyakov in *Бессмертный дар* argues that *портачить* originates from *порт* (&quot;linen fabric&quot;), having the same root as *портной, портки, портянка* and *пороть*, which is a remote cognate to English &quot;fare&quot; (both originate from PIE *&amp;#42;per*, &quot;to pass through&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He explains that the serf tailors often spoiled their masters' fabric so this previously neutral word came to mean &quot;to bungle, to spoil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, he does not provide any sources for that, and this explanation seems quite implausible to me, since the word did not come into any significant use until 1930's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ozhegov.info/slovar/?q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1389" RevisionGUID="1987d289-f9fb-4b2d-a414-4f2f217a56c6" CreationDate="2012-11-19T13:28:53.880" UserId="1100" Text="&quot;бОшки&quot; пожалуй корректнее. &#xD;&#xA;Например &quot;бестолковые бОшки&quot;. бывают в разговорной речи и &quot;глупые башкИ&quot;, но реже.&#xD;&#xA;можно и башОк.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;гатожь - связка рыбы в дюжину башок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Также:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;бОшки поотрываю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;стукнулись башкАми&quot;&#xD;&#xA;И - можно и &quot;глупым башкАм&quot; и &quot;глупым бОшкам&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="c2995a37-f0a9-43d4-8c3f-710a6b781b02" CreationDate="2012-11-19T13:40:01.077" UserId="1100" Text="есть еще слово &quot;святоша&quot;. Он может быть как лицемером, так и нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="cbe154c2-c790-4c2c-9047-797bda0ba5e5" CreationDate="2012-11-19T13:49:43.500" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/270524481611644928" />
  <row Id="4299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="6cc2bd45-8771-4cfb-8481-473bc2286a43" CreationDate="2012-11-19T14:39:17.270" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Есть такое слово — **моралист**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это именно человек, который напрягает, хотя при этом он может быть искренним.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь у человека есть два признака: Первый, он добродетелен, а второй, он лезет другим людям в душу без мыла. Мне в русском языке неизвестно слово, охватывающее сразу оба признака (язык не считает, что они связаны).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но - второй признак можно назвать &quot;моралист&quot; и это не вызовет явного конфликта с первым признаком, как в слове &quot;ханжа&quot;. Моралист может не быть добродетелен, но может и быть. И тогда это добродетельный моралист. Наверное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы такого человека не встречали, приводите - назовём его как-нибудь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1390" RevisionGUID="5304d770-ac7f-424e-b43c-9c8249630615" CreationDate="2012-11-19T14:39:44.087" UserId="71" Comment="edited body" Text="Есть еще слово &quot;святоша&quot;. Он может быть как лицемером, так и нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4301" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="3665df17-bfa8-4e5e-9113-33711218a062" CreationDate="2012-11-19T19:49:43.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/270615082898182144" />
  <row Id="4302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1391" RevisionGUID="831a015b-5d18-482f-9b63-417ee581db7c" CreationDate="2012-11-19T21:49:33.283" UserId="1102" Text="I'm russian teen, I don't speak english, but I tell you:&#xD;&#xA;ахуеть = охуеть.&#xD;&#xA;But! You can use this word only with your friends , because it is ***матерное***(abusive, obscene, worthless, foul, cheap (google translate)) word.&#xD;&#xA;You can use this word for description very different emotions and situations.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;Ахуеть (охуеть)! Я не ожидал от него такого плохого отношения!&#xD;&#xA;У него ахуенная (охуенная) стрижка.&#xD;&#xA;Охуеть (ахуеть) можно от такого количества домашней работы.&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="650448a5-9486-40cd-aa4f-a0bcf2098920" CreationDate="2012-11-19T22:30:09.707" UserId="71" Comment="fixed some formatting" Text="&gt; Q: Is the spelling ахуеть acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is a resounding **no**. Just because a word is colloquial doesn't mean that it gets to bend all the language norms, rules, and logic. The only correct spelling is *охуеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: What are some realistic examples of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Я не мог поверить своим глазам! Я просто охуел от увиденного! (surprise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ты что, oхуел? (Have you lost your f***ing mind?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the infinitive as a complete sentence to express bewilderment, surprise, anger, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Охуеть! (cf. С ума сойти!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the word derives from хуй, which is a rude word for penis, referred to as слово из трех букв (the three letter word, c.f. the f-word in English). The meaning of the word охуеть isn't obscene, but because of the derivation, the word itself should be used only with close people and only if you know that they are OK with this type of language. A milder version of the word would be офигеть or охренеть, although they should also be used with caution. Even milder versions are обалдеть and ошалеть, but they lack the strength of the word, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the word is rather common. Of course, some people just don't use this type of language, but those who do, use this word quite commonly. As you may have noticed the meaning range of the word is pretty wide, so this is kind of a universal word :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so, mostly because of the multifuncionality of the word. In some cases it can be rendered as *Wow!*, but it doesn't exactly convey all the connotations and feelings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="6fcc9e9e-9898-4b53-9e56-35dd0ea370cb" CreationDate="2012-11-19T22:30:53.857" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; What are some realistic examples of use? And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable? Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech? Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General word of advice about Russian obscenities — understand them, but don't use them yourself. The famous 4 roots sound much stronger then their English equivalents, and the social taboo is also much stronger. For example, in a movie that is set up in some sort of a criminal or military environment, no one will use the 4 roots, even though it's perfectly understood that in real life everybody would have used them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-native speaker, you will hardly ever find yourself in a situation that justifies cursing and the artificiality of your cussing will be spotted immediately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate — it's very obscene, unacceptable in all situations you might find yourself in as a foreigner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="b2a3c597-808a-452a-bec3-9121b8162ac8" CreationDate="2012-11-19T22:32:35.427" UserId="71" Comment="fixed some issues" Text="&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation? What are some realistic examples of use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took my time to think about it, and came to three main situations in which the word has  more or less different meanings, just something a native speaker can feel in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Representing great astonishment and surprise, as in *&quot;Я охуел, увидев новый спортивный автомобиль соседа&quot;* (I was astonished when I saw my neighbour's new sports car).&#xD;&#xA; - Telling about someone's extremely inadequate (or just very unusual for the speaker) behaviour, like in *&quot;Совсем охуел, на такой скорости без шлема ездишь?&quot;* (Are you crazy, riding at such speed without a helmet?).&#xD;&#xA; - Very similar to the second, when it is used as an offensive reaction to someone's behaviour at the same time. An english speaker probably wouldn't say *&quot;Are you crazy to call my sister a &quot;bitch&quot;?&quot;*, because he or she needs something much stronger to answer. The difference between this case and the previous one is that in the second we just express our attitude, and in the last we express hostility, challenge an opponent to a serious argument or even a fight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Exactly how obscene is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plainly speaking, you should not use it in situations when you would not use &quot;f-word&quot; in English, and vice versa. Also, the reason why I draw your attention to the last example of use is that people can often take this as a sign of hostility, so be careful with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is the spelling *ахуеть* acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is no, this just means the person speaking doesn't care much about the spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="0e038de2-9f5d-48c2-a5f2-cc69ee777006" CreationDate="2012-11-20T05:48:56.057" UserId="637" Text="Note, that in prisoner's slang 'портак' (tattoo) oftenly said and written as 'партак'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In army slang 'портак' a short name for 'портупея' (shoulder belt, Sam Browne Belt) ('Подтянуть портаки!')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1394" RevisionGUID="9fc39129-bf9f-45ab-9496-3078ad36e1fb" CreationDate="2012-11-20T07:24:57.957" UserId="1103" Text="According to paragraph 158 of Russian orthography and punctuation rules as of 1956:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запятая ставится после слов **да**, **конечно** и т. п., обозначающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; утверждение, после **нет**, обозначающего отрицание, после **как же**, **что же**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначающих подтверждение, согласие и т. п., после **что**, обозначающего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вопрос, если эти слова тесно связаны с непосредственно следующим за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ними предложением, раскрывающим их конкретный смысл, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Да, я тот несчастный, которого ваш отец лишил куска хлеба, выгнал из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отеческого дома и послал грабить на больших дорогах (Пушкин).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *— А вы были в Москве, доктор? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Да, я имел там некоторую практику (Лермонтов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нет, не дряхлому Востоку покорить меня (Лермонтов).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *— Вы помните Катюшу у тётушки Марии Ивановны?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Как же, я её шить учила (Л. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *— Что, испугался давеча? — спросил отец, толкнув меня (М. Горький).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that correct punctuation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты что, с ума сошел?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он что, сам не может справиться?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я что, дура?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1391" RevisionGUID="73704ff3-8c47-4a2e-9684-e1f3601803ff" CreationDate="2012-11-20T09:25:14.247" UserId="109" Comment="paragraphs, block quote" Text="I'm Russian teen, I don't speak English, but I tell you:  &#xD;&#xA;*ахуеть* = *охуеть*.  &#xD;&#xA;But! You can use this word only with your friends, because it is ***матерное*** (abusive, obscene, worthless, foul, cheap (Google translate)) word.  &#xD;&#xA;You can use this word for description very different emotions and situations.  &#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ахуеть (охуеть)! Я не ожидал от него такого плохого отношения!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него ахуенная (охуенная) стрижка.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Охуеть (ахуеть) можно от такого количества домашней работы.  &#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4310" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1391" RevisionGUID="73704ff3-8c47-4a2e-9684-e1f3601803ff" CreationDate="2012-11-20T09:25:14.247" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 97, 71 edit id of 260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1392" RevisionGUID="227f2a22-4c05-4421-be74-63522ff41bb5" CreationDate="2012-11-20T09:27:34.693" UserId="134" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Note that in prisoners' slang *портак* (tattoo) is often pronounced and spelt as *партак*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the army slang *портак* is a short name for *портупея* (&quot;shoulder belt, Sam Browne Belt&quot;): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *— Подтянуть портаки!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="641d42a8-f561-4572-a893-dbda57aca2bb" CreationDate="2012-11-20T09:27:57.440" UserId="71" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Nominative: бОшки   &#xD;&#xA;Genitive: бОшек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is on the second syllable. That is what I use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very informal, by the way. I guess you know. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="844d8ae5-6a2c-407e-98b1-a17b4ad36bbc" CreationDate="2012-11-20T14:47:19.243" UserId="1107" Text="well all i can say (as a native speaker) is that this comma is put here to help the reader to understand the intonation, cuz the meaning of this sentence is clear. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4317" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="2e4b1ba0-11f8-4420-89f2-afbdbd4c0ff6" CreationDate="2012-11-20T14:58:33.627" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4318" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="ddb1345d-c972-46d4-85ff-8c6eaa58f8ea" CreationDate="2012-11-20T14:59:03.860" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1395" RevisionGUID="bc4194bb-8b5b-4a7e-8416-37f5a367dbc4" CreationDate="2012-11-20T14:59:13.907" UserId="71" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Well all i can say (as a native speaker) is that this comma is put here to help the reader to understand the intonation, because the meaning of this sentence is clear. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="4656803a-26d0-4611-a247-9ceccf658cc9" CreationDate="2012-11-21T09:29:55.697" UserId="97" Text="What is the origin/etymology of phrase _Семь пятниц на неделю_ (literally, _seven Fridays in a week_)? I am not interested in the meaning of it (I know what it means), but rather where it came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen some references to Friday historically being a day off, market day, etc., that is when people could do something beyond/outside their normal day-to-day work, so I can imagine the phrase's origin being linked to it: every day something new.  However I'd like to get a more definitive answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="4656803a-26d0-4611-a247-9ceccf658cc9" CreationDate="2012-11-21T09:29:55.697" UserId="97" Text="Origin of &quot;cемь пятниц на неделю&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="4656803a-26d0-4611-a247-9ceccf658cc9" CreationDate="2012-11-21T09:29:55.697" UserId="97" Text="|этимология|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="860765e8-579d-4145-b1ea-39f02bc98a81" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:11:22.230" UserId="134" Text="Snegiryov in *Русские в своих пословицах* suggests that Friday was a settlement day in Slavic culture and a traditional due date for debts, bonds, obligations etc. It was common to hear: &quot;this will be done (or paid, or settled) by the next Friday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An irresponsible person would be inclined to shift the due date &quot;just for one day&quot; over and over again so that this constantly drifting due date covers all the weekdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, &quot;seven Fridays in a week&quot; means that a person cannot hold to his time estimations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maskimov in *Крылатые слова* offers (and criticizes) another etymology: allegedly, of several dozens of churches standing once upon a time by the Kremlin wall, there were seven churches dedicated to St. Paraskevi of Iconium, glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church as &quot;St. Paraskevi the Friday&quot; (*св. Параскева Пятница*). However, there no records survived of those churches, neither any of those are extant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1397" RevisionGUID="c949cd0d-d8bc-4f92-8217-9ec000fd549a" CreationDate="2012-11-21T10:29:35.680" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Snegiryov in *Русские в своих пословицах* suggests that Friday was a settlement day in Slavic culture and a traditional due date for debts, bonds, obligations etc. It was common to hear: &quot;this will be done (or paid, or settled) by the next Friday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An irresponsible person would be inclined to shift the due date &quot;just for one day&quot; over and over again so that this constantly drifting due date covers all the weekdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, &quot;seven Fridays in a week&quot; means that a person cannot hold to his time estimations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maksimov in *Крылатые слова* offers (and criticizes) another etymology: allegedly, of several dozens of churches standing once upon a time by the Kremlin wall, there were seven churches dedicated to St. Paraskevi of Iconium, glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church as &quot;St. Paraskevi the Friday&quot; (*св. Параскева Пятница*). However, there no records survived of those churches, neither any of those are extant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1401" RevisionGUID="9057c7ad-7cb4-439b-82a3-875f7214e149" CreationDate="2012-11-21T14:18:19.407" UserId="1120" Text="It's possible to use form &quot;пив&quot; in colloquial speech as, for example, &quot;мечт&quot; (dreams, that don't have plural form in Russian either). You may use it to be irony or sarcastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="3fdea8b3-aff5-4873-9046-cbbfb2e979b9" CreationDate="2012-11-21T15:02:01.923" UserId="185" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What is the origin/etymology of phrase _Семь пятниц на неделе_ (literally, _seven Fridays in a week_)? I am not interested in the meaning of it (I know what it means), but rather where it came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen some references to Friday historically being a day off, market day, etc., that is when people could do something beyond/outside their normal day-to-day work, so I can imagine the phrase's origin being linked to it: every day something new.  However I'd like to get a more definitive answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="3fdea8b3-aff5-4873-9046-cbbfb2e979b9" CreationDate="2012-11-21T15:02:01.923" UserId="185" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Origin of &quot;cемь пятниц на неделе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="d790a680-a39e-4c98-a509-120cbfe3316c" CreationDate="2012-11-21T17:48:14.253" UserId="1125" Text="&quot;Ага&quot; произносят тогда,когда согласны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ага&quot; произносит человек который внимательно слушет и охотно помогает собеседнику.&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Угу&quot; произносят тогда, когда согласны,но сейчас заняты либо не могут открыть рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Дорогой,убери в гараже!&#xD;&#xA;-Ага дорогая!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;За завтраком:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Дорогой ты будешь мыть посуду?&#xD;&#xA;-угу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Дорогой,ты починишь кран?&#xD;&#xA;-угу,дорогая,но я смотрю футбол!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4336" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1328" RevisionGUID="02938e57-26b8-44ba-ba64-2fc4b8d19873" CreationDate="2012-11-21T22:17:54.247" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1402" RevisionGUID="2feb58ba-096a-4891-910f-243d8d900b41" CreationDate="2012-11-22T08:28:25.753" UserId="97" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ага&quot; произносят тогда, когда согласны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ага&quot; произносит человек который внимательно слушет и охотно помогает собеседнику.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Угу&quot; произносят тогда, когда согласны,но сейчас заняты либо не могут открыть рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Дорогой,убери в гараже!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ага дорогая!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или за завтраком:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Дорогой ты будешь мыть посуду?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -угу!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Дорогой,ты починишь кран?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -угу,дорогая,но я смотрю футбол!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4342" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1359" RevisionGUID="910aa61b-aeaa-4f1c-adac-ba8deb508537" CreationDate="2012-11-22T11:22:25.193" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="202226c1-5ec2-44fd-b24e-0dd0ec369a74" CreationDate="2012-11-22T11:23:50.327" UserId="71" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does exactly these words mean? How can you can correctly use them in speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that &quot;портак&quot; is some sort of a prison tattoo, but then what does &quot;напортачил&quot; mean?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4344" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="202226c1-5ec2-44fd-b24e-0dd0ec369a74" CreationDate="2012-11-22T11:23:50.327" UserId="71" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;напортачил&quot; and &quot;портак&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="558efb30-e1b1-4825-9592-ea941d157e42" CreationDate="2012-11-22T11:59:15.947" UserId="1133" Text="what does саморазмораживающийся mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="558efb30-e1b1-4825-9592-ea941d157e42" CreationDate="2012-11-22T11:59:15.947" UserId="1133" Text="definition of Russian word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="558efb30-e1b1-4825-9592-ea941d157e42" CreationDate="2012-11-22T11:59:15.947" UserId="1133" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1406" RevisionGUID="928af8b8-655f-43af-b46a-826d429f2e85" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:19:20.147" UserId="68" Text="&quot;self-defrosting&quot; as adjective (само+раз+моражив...), presumably as in &quot;саморазмораживающийся холодильник&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4349" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1405" RevisionGUID="52021448-2452-4073-bfd3-1072ebc0fe44" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:40:57.897" UserId="71" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="8d5fb466-4123-4f80-8442-a2528f38f6a5" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:40:52.623" UserId="1135" Text="I came across some words chatting with my friend (he's a native speaker). What's the difference between &quot;пиздато&quot;, &quot;охуенно&quot;, &quot;хуёво&quot; and &quot;пиздец&quot;? The first two words have a positive meaning but &quot;хуёво&quot; and &quot;пиздец&quot; are negative. Why? They derive from the same words, don't they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="8d5fb466-4123-4f80-8442-a2528f38f6a5" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:40:52.623" UserId="1135" Text="Obscene language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="8d5fb466-4123-4f80-8442-a2528f38f6a5" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:40:52.623" UserId="1135" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="a36ed3c7-4767-42ec-8e10-ed3c1f93b6ea" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:47:19.307" UserId="47" Comment="Tag SWEARING added." Text="|перевод|значения|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="b7593808-83c0-4ec7-ae09-a932e8da5238" CreationDate="2012-11-22T15:09:12.990" UserId="242" Text="This is somewhat close to question: &quot;Why does in English awesome mean 'great' but awful mean something horrible?&quot;. The short answer is - the fact that a pair of words is derived from common root does not means that this words have not opposite meaning. Even more, the same word in different context can stand for completely different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English word terrible in colloquial speech can be interpreted as 'formidably great', compare to &quot;ужасно круто&quot;/ &quot;ты ужасна красива&quot;. Recall English usage of &quot;fucking&quot;, it is used to indicate an extreme degree of something, whether positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why exactly some forms acquired positive connotation (охуенный, пиздатый) and some negative (хуёвый, пиздецовый) - I guess we can only explore when exactly this become common, but not why. As far you are asking &quot;why&quot;, not &quot;when&quot;, I do consider this question answered) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simple, it's not something specific to Russian and just because :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4355" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="9f951a82-10c6-4aef-ad16-4f14eefaadf6" CreationDate="2012-11-22T15:10:20.583" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does &quot;охуенно&quot; means &quot;great&quot; but &quot;хуёвый&quot; mean &quot;bad&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4356" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="5528dd26-ea32-4d2f-94a6-29a9b542d0cf" CreationDate="2012-11-22T15:16:05.143" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="e8b98003-e964-4e25-b6b1-e4cad61cc125" CreationDate="2012-11-22T15:21:56.447" UserId="242" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="This is somewhat close to question: &quot;Why does in English awesome mean 'great' but awful mean something horrible?&quot;. The short answer is - the fact that a pair of words is derived from common root does not means that this words have not opposite meaning. Even more, the same word in different context can stand for completely different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English word terrible in colloquial speech can be interpreted as 'formidably great', compare to &quot;ужасно круто&quot;/ &quot;ты ужасна красива&quot;. Recall English usage of &quot;fucking&quot;, it is used to indicate an extreme degree of something, whether positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why exactly some forms acquired positive connotation (охуенный, пиздатый) and some negative (хуёвый, пиздецовый) - I guess we can only explore when exactly this become common, but not why. As far you are asking about &quot;why&quot;, not about &quot;when&quot;, I do consider this question answered) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simple, it's not something specific to Russian and just because :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="d795da6a-3c8b-4949-9a4d-f9c987a54832" CreationDate="2012-11-22T15:47:08.817" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="This is somewhat close to question: &quot;Why does in English awesome mean 'great' but awful mean something horrible?&quot;. The short answer is - the fact that a pair of words is derived from common root does not means that this words have not opposite meaning. Even more, the same word in different context can stand for completely different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English word terrible in colloquial speech can be interpreted as 'formidably great', compare to &quot;ужасно круто&quot;/ &quot;ты ужасно красива&quot;. Recall English usage of &quot;fucking&quot;, it is used to indicate an extreme degree of something, whether positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why exactly some forms acquired positive connotation (охуенный, пиздатый) and some negative (хуёвый, пиздецовый) - I guess we can only explore when exactly this become common, but not why. As far you are asking about &quot;why&quot;, not about &quot;when&quot;, I do consider this question answered) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simple, it's not something specific to Russian and just because :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="a8b55088-a056-4d08-9e3f-0eaabd67cc2a" CreationDate="2012-11-22T17:09:11.660" UserId="626" Text="Just like in English you can add &quot;fucking&quot; to both &quot;great&quot; and &quot;horrible&quot;, in Russian you can use the root &quot;хуй&quot; to express both positive and negative emotions. The body parts that &quot;хуй&quot; and &quot;пизда&quot; refer to are not *bad* or *good*, they are just taboo to talk about — hence, if you do refer to them, your speech becomes more expressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference between these words, you got it right that &quot;пиздато&quot; is positive and &quot;хуево&quot; is negative. &quot;Пиздец&quot; and &quot;охуенно&quot;, however, can also mean &quot;extremely&quot;, or, in case with &quot;пиздец&quot;, &quot;an extreme situation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Он пиздец умный!&quot; (He's so fucking clever)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Он охуенно тупой!&quot; (He's so fucking dumb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Это пиздец как круто!&quot; (It's fucking awesome) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="759aca9a-c9a3-4f5a-a093-4db502fd6b98" CreationDate="2012-11-22T17:41:49.777" UserId="194" Text="&quot;пиздато&quot; means good and &quot;хуёво&quot; meand bad because vagina usually brings positive feelings (i.e. if you fuck somebody) while penis usually brings negative feelings (i.e. if somebody fucks you), I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="a94405ca-5b49-4451-a436-ed60e7928ea3" CreationDate="2012-11-22T17:48:49.543" UserId="194" Text="It is definitely connected to the word &quot;портной&quot; (tailor). It is well known that if you cut the material you cannot undo it. If you sew a bad suit you also hardly can improve it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="d7898b29-ba88-4a69-8d1a-7bc64e4e4ea9" CreationDate="2012-11-22T19:11:30.280" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="This is somewhat close to question: &quot;Why does in English awesome mean 'great' but awful mean something horrible?&quot;. The short answer is - the fact that a pair of words is derived from common root does not means that this words have not opposite meaning. Moreover, the same word in different context can stand for completely different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English word terrible in colloquial speech can be interpreted as 'formidably great', compare to &quot;ужасно круто&quot;/ &quot;ты ужасно красива&quot;. Recall English usage of &quot;fucking&quot;, it is used to indicate an extreme degree of something, whether positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why exactly some forms acquired positive connotation (охуенный, пиздатый) and some negative (хуёвый, пиздецовый) - I guess we can only explore when exactly this become common, but not why. As far you are asking about &quot;why&quot;, not about &quot;when&quot;, I do consider this question answered) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simple, it's not something specific to Russian and just because :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4363" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="31182d29-1fa9-4d77-a22d-f3c7f8584ef1" CreationDate="2012-11-22T19:33:45.577" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does &quot;охуенно&quot; mean &quot;great&quot; but &quot;хуёвый&quot; mean &quot;bad&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4365" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="47919c41-76f2-43bf-89f8-89919e3bdab5" CreationDate="2012-11-22T22:49:45.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/271747323334389760" />
  <row Id="4366" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1410" RevisionGUID="11ae9ef2-ceee-480b-9342-e3a761764acb" CreationDate="2012-11-22T23:46:15.150" UserId="71" Comment="27" />
  <row Id="4367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="4267847f-0fbe-4a34-8223-210d5aaf8eea" CreationDate="2012-11-23T05:45:26.180" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I came across some words chatting with my friend (he's a native speaker). What's the difference between *пиздато, охуенно, хуёво and пиздец*? The first two words have a positive meaning but *хуёво* and *пиздец* are negative. Why? They derive from the same words, don't they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="765d1cde-dffa-4708-95f6-f8584734b250" CreationDate="2012-11-23T09:47:58.160" UserId="626" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Just like in English you can add &quot;fucking&quot; to both &quot;great&quot; and &quot;horrible&quot;, in Russian you can use the root &quot;хуй&quot; to express both positive and negative emotions. The body parts that &quot;хуй&quot; and &quot;пизда&quot; refer to are not *bad* or *good*, they are just taboo to talk about — that's why, if you do refer to them, your speech becomes more expressive, more extreme; but not necessarily positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference between these words, you got it right that &quot;пиздато&quot; is positive and &quot;хуево&quot; is negative. &quot;Пиздец&quot; and &quot;охуенно&quot;, however, can also mean &quot;extremely&quot;, or, in case with &quot;пиздец&quot;, &quot;an extreme situation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Он пиздец умный!&quot; (He's so fucking clever)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Он охуенно тупой!&quot; (He's so fucking dumb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Это пиздец как круто!&quot; (It's fucking awesome) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4369" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1411" RevisionGUID="2ba0ff2d-f314-4a6e-928e-66cdfedbe501" CreationDate="2012-11-23T10:49:43.007" UserId="71" Comment="28" />
  <row Id="4370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1396" RevisionGUID="a19f5dcf-7b39-44b2-bc4f-ce2899aefb83" CreationDate="2012-11-23T10:49:47.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/271928525618024448" />
  <row Id="4372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="fd854198-f2cb-4937-bd38-a69e94ed4af2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T16:55:43.013" UserId="71" Text="I was wondering, how would we translate &quot;I feel like doing *something*.&quot; and the negative version in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fixed expression in English, so I suppose a similar idiomatic expression would be possible in Russian, even if with a different structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a quick search, I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне (не) охота это делать.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I (don't) feel like doing that.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by using this structure *&quot;I feel like dancing.&quot;* would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне охота танцывать.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="fd854198-f2cb-4937-bd38-a69e94ed4af2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T16:55:43.013" UserId="71" Text="What is the Russian translation for &quot;I (don't) feel like doing...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="fd854198-f2cb-4937-bd38-a69e94ed4af2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T16:55:43.013" UserId="71" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="13c6f0a7-4e9b-4245-89c3-81972c8885a8" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:03:45.100" UserId="1140" Text="I have followed a couple of different methods (Iso 9 and Passport 2010) and have looked at others which are mentioned on [this wiki page][1], but no matter what I do, something like the name `Александр` ends up getting rendered in Latin as having `ks` instead of `x`.  I am quite happy with rendering that name as `Aleksandr`, but in the end I need to compare the transliteration with say the way the name is printed in English language newspapers.  I am just wondering where one gets the `x` from?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="13c6f0a7-4e9b-4245-89c3-81972c8885a8" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:03:45.100" UserId="1140" Text="Under what set of transliteration rules is кс rendered as the latin x?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="13c6f0a7-4e9b-4245-89c3-81972c8885a8" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:03:45.100" UserId="1140" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="ca2d8323-b5f1-4b46-a472-410c9489cf41" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:18:17.010" UserId="141" Text="A Russian friend of mine claims that the word &quot;чита&quot; can mean &quot;small monkey&quot;.  She thinks that it might be a colloquialism, but she cannot recall its etymology.  I believe she has been using it since childhood (50+ years ago), so it may be an [archaism][1].  I can't seem to find any references of this usage online, however, other than perhaps the fact that [there was a Chimpanzee named Cheeta][2], famous for having appeared in the Tarzan movies from the 1930s through the 1960s, [who is referred to in the Russian media as &quot;чита&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Is my friend using this word erroneously?  If not, what is the etymology of this odd usage?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheeta&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://alt.kp.ru/daily/25812/2791160/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="ca2d8323-b5f1-4b46-a472-410c9489cf41" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:18:17.010" UserId="141" Text="Can &quot;чита&quot; mean &quot;monkey&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="ca2d8323-b5f1-4b46-a472-410c9489cf41" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:18:17.010" UserId="141" Text="|этимология|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1418" RevisionGUID="dd48dc3a-4088-4285-97ab-2f7f5c0f4299" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:33:24.090" UserId="626" Text="There is an old Georgian song, that used to be very popular in the Soviet Union, the chorus of which starts with words &quot;Чито грито&quot;, which means &quot;A little birdy&quot; (&quot;птичка&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is a children poem that talks about a monkey called Чи-Чи-Чи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two are the closest things I can think of. I'm pretty sure &quot;чита&quot; meaning &quot;small monkey&quot; is a local thing that only works for your friend and people she grew up with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1418" RevisionGUID="2aa44319-8919-4fe9-9e73-a9a0c1642c1c" CreationDate="2012-11-23T17:40:43.610" UserId="626" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="There is an old Georgian &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MATetAVwFsg&quot;&gt;song&lt;/a&gt;, the chorus of which starts with words &quot;Чито грито&quot;, which means &quot;A little birdy&quot; (&quot;птичка&quot;). The song appeared in the movie &quot;Мимино&quot; and became very popular in the Soviet Union.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also is a children folklore poem about a monkey called Чи-Чи-Чи. It has many &lt;a href=&quot;http://curspring.livejournal.com/384462.html&quot;&gt;versions&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two are the closest things I can think of. I'm pretty sure &quot;чита&quot; meaning &quot;small monkey&quot; is a local thing that only works for your friend and people she grew up with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1419" RevisionGUID="66845d2c-d701-4875-9b2d-bfdf55f23cd3" CreationDate="2012-11-23T18:06:50.940" UserId="626" Text="&quot;Мне (не) хочется&quot; would be a closer match to &quot;I (don't) feel like doing something.&quot; &quot;Мне (не) охота&quot; is a more colloquial and rarely used version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="4dac0db7-57ce-4b00-9867-023c7a845e1d" CreationDate="2012-11-23T18:42:40.243" UserId="47" Comment="Spelling corrected." Text="I was wondering, how would we translate &quot;I feel like doing *something*.&quot; and the negative version in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fixed expression in English, so I suppose a similar idiomatic expression would be possible in Russian, even if with a different structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a quick search, I found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне (не) охота это делать.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I (don't) feel like doing that.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by using this structure *&quot;I feel like dancing.&quot;* would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне охота танцевать.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4387" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="8480a7bb-a546-4493-9d7e-c0219d53a4b2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T18:47:12.703" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the plural for &quot;пиво&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4390" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="ec37eda5-d28d-4e82-acfa-89141ae88ff0" CreationDate="2012-11-23T18:51:56.420" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="9cf57933-f47c-4692-8767-56740ec1b656" CreationDate="2012-11-23T19:02:30.460" UserId="71" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I would translate both words as **now**, and convey the distinction in their meaning by using a different tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. I work for Microsoft now. **(теперь)** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. I am working for Microsoft now. **(сейчас)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative **these days** could be used in the first translation, but not in the second. The word **теперь** implies a subtle link to past, while **сейчас** does not. Compare the two following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Я теперь работаю.**  &#xD;&#xA; *I work these days/now.*   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Я сейчас работаю.**  &#xD;&#xA; *I am working (now).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase implies that there has been a time in the past when I did not work, while the second phrase does not bear the same implication.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="edefef93-6e1e-4c65-be29-c84eec7e24c3" CreationDate="2012-11-23T19:03:44.563" UserId="71" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="*теперь* is used to connect two sentences (one of which may be implied) and is close to conjunction, *сейчас* is a stand-alone adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *теперь* itself originated from Slavic *&amp;#42;то прьво* which means &quot;now that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **Сейчас я пойду в магазин.**  &#xD;&#xA; *I'll go to the shop now.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. **Теперь (когда я сделал другие дела) я пойду в магазин.**  &#xD;&#xA; *Now (that I'm done with the other tasks) I'll go to the shop.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="496d7b79-d05c-4201-9f88-6916bd9c03c2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T19:04:37.060" UserId="71" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="One might also add that *сейчас* has another connotation, which *теперь* does not - acknowledgement that a request was received and assurance that the speaker will perform the requested action immediately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense, сейчас can be translated into English as *right away*, *presently*,  *I'm on my way/I'm coming* or even simply *yes/okay*; it's not dissimilar to the French *j'arrive*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A. Коля, иди обедать!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; B. Сейчас, мама.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А. Kolya, come eat!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Б. Be right there, mom.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="b9006232-a560-4a85-8d21-d60afb17e1c3" CreationDate="2012-11-23T19:07:08.140" UserId="71" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The word *Теперь* is a kind of logical connective and usually requires а context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сейчас Россия окончательно созрела для новой революции.**  &#xD;&#xA; *Now Russia finally ripe for the new revolution.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Путин вновь переизбран и теперь Россия окончательно созрела для новой революции.**  &#xD;&#xA; *Putin again resigned. And now Russia finally ripe for the new revolution.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А теперь о главном.**  &#xD;&#xA; *Now I get to the point.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the previous half-hour conversation was about nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я сейчас работаю в Майкрасофт. И я счастлив.**  &#xD;&#xA; *I am working for Microsoft now. And I'm happy.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меня уволили из Гугла. И теперь я вынужден работать в Майкрософт.**  &#xD;&#xA; *I was fired from Google. And now I have to work for Microsoft.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="3c7ac744-c75f-4da7-9aac-7362e179eda2" CreationDate="2012-11-23T19:10:13.513" UserId="97" Text="On the whole, I do not believe there are strict rules about when _кс_ should become _x_ and when it should become _x_.  Most of the times, the transliteration will either follow some traditional rules or just be whatever the person writing it decides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, Russian name _Александр_ and English/Latin name _Alexander_ both originate from Greek name _Αλεξανδρος_.  Greek letter _ξ (Xi)_ is pronounced as _ks_ in Greek.  Because in English (Latin), there's letter _x_, which is pronounced (in most cases) as _ks_, the English writing of the name is more closely conforms to the original Greek writing. In Russian (Cyrillic) there is no such letter, therefore sound combination _ks_ has to be indicated by the closest possible way, which is letter combination _кс_.  Thus, comparing transliteration rules from Russian into English in this case isn't particularly useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1421" RevisionGUID="f32eba52-8d31-4291-8892-2f07be8e98ff" CreationDate="2012-11-23T21:18:19.583" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="On the whole, I do not believe there are strict rules about when _кс_ should become _x_ and when it should become _ks_.  Most of the times, the transliteration will either follow some traditional rules or just be whatever the person writing it decides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, Russian name _Александр_ and English/Latin name _Alexander_ both originate from Greek name _Αλεξανδρος_.  Greek letter _ξ (Xi)_ is pronounced as _ks_ in Greek.  Because in English (Latin), there's letter _x_, which is pronounced (in most cases) as _ks_, the English writing of the name is more closely conforms to the original Greek writing. In Russian (Cyrillic) there is no such letter, therefore sound combination _ks_ has to be indicated by the closest possible way, which is letter combination _кс_.  Thus, comparing transliteration rules from Russian into English in this case isn't particularly useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="62c04a34-3e3b-402d-9fe8-99c4886adaf3" CreationDate="2012-11-24T04:07:44.677" UserId="1097" Text="'Чита' is short form from 'обезьянка Чита' (not обезьяна) and it's mean 'little or baby monkey (name?) Чита'  &#xD;&#xA;I don't know etymology of this name, but I think it's from fairy tales/cartoons/child's books. Once upon a time somebody named that baby monkey character is Чита and so on.  &#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure, may be 'Teddy' means 'bear' the same way in English, like Чита means 'baby monkey' in Russian, but Чита is used very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;(You can use the name of any other popular character instead of Teddy)&#xD;&#xA;More examples: Миша(Мишка)=медведь Миша (медвежонок Мишка), Серый=серый волк, Тортилла=черепаха Тортилла  &#xD;&#xA;You can use 'Чита'='baby monkey' only when you talk to children/in jokes/in kidding's and you must pretty sure the other person understands you.&#xD;&#xA;'Чита' in ordinary speech is not used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="533f6aab-d863-46c6-9385-9799a29db016" CreationDate="2012-11-24T04:18:39.133" UserId="1097" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="'Чита' is short form from 'обезьянка Чита' (not обезьяна) and it's mean 'little or baby monkey (name?) Чита'  &#xD;&#xA;I don't know etymology of this name, but I think it's from fairy tales/cartoons/child's books. Once upon a time somebody named that baby monkey character is Чита and so on.  &#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure, may be 'Teddy' means 'bear' the same way in English, like Чита means 'baby monkey' in Russian, but Чита is used very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;(You can use the name of any other popular character instead of Teddy)&#xD;&#xA;More examples: Миша(Мишка)=медведь Миша (медвежонок Мишка), Серый=серый волк, Тортилла=черепаха Тортилла  &#xD;&#xA;You can use 'Чита'='baby monkey' only when you talk to children/in jokes/in kidding's and you must pretty sure the other person understands you.&#xD;&#xA;'Чита' in ordinary(everyday) speech is not used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="22c97acb-c9e6-43cf-82d9-617c957c7691" CreationDate="2012-11-24T04:54:52.673" UserId="1097" Text="'I feel like ...' close to 'настроение', 'настрой', 'дух' - mood, tune, spirits.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like dancing - (У меня) настроение танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like dancing - (У меня) нет настроения танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like doing that - Я настроен делать это  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like doing that - Я не настроен делать это/Я не в настроении делать это/Я не в духе делать это" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="c0ddaf6b-8244-4758-b6a0-7e63493239d3" CreationDate="2012-11-24T05:27:19.287" UserId="626" Text="Most of the examples I can think of are imperatives used in an angry tone (&quot;Пошел вон!&quot;, &quot;Упал, отжался!&quot;) and it seems the past tense is used just to underline that there's no alternative to the action suggested/ordered. The person speaking is so sure their orders will be followed, they talk as if it already happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;пошли&quot; is often a friendly suggestion that doesn't come with a lot of authority. Is there a better explanation for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="c0ddaf6b-8244-4758-b6a0-7e63493239d3" CreationDate="2012-11-24T05:27:19.287" UserId="626" Text="Why are past tense verbs used as imperative at times (&quot;пошел вон&quot;, &quot;пошли пообедаем&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="c0ddaf6b-8244-4758-b6a0-7e63493239d3" CreationDate="2012-11-24T05:27:19.287" UserId="626" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1418" RevisionGUID="a96ef37d-a7ae-4694-9ce0-d6e12838c9fd" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:19:42.860" UserId="626" Comment="added 459 characters in body" Text="It seems that names starting with &quot;Чи&quot; are popular among monkeys: in my childhood, there was a popular children folklore poem about a monkey called &lt;a href=&quot;http://curspring.livejournal.com/384462.html&quot;&gt;Чи-Чи-Чи&lt;/a&gt;. A quick google search found stories with monkeys named &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.proza.ru/2012/04/23/943&quot;&gt;Чинита (Чита)&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kykymber.ru/stories.php?story=1729&quot;&gt;Чичи&lt;/a&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, animals in Russian fairy tales have names that often travel from one story to another. A bear is Миша or Мишка, a fox can be Лиса Патрикеевна, and so on. These names can be used instead of actual species' names when talking to children, or in some other contexts (say, a villager may use them to show that their relationship with nature is somewhat personal). However, monkeys never were a part of Russian folklore, so there is no such name commonly accepted for monkeys. While your friend has &quot;Чита&quot; reserved for small monkeys, others may have &quot;Чичи&quot;, and the majority of Russians probably has no such name set for monkeys at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="f014bdce-5da6-4b1c-ba6b-85b25d71a10e" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:37:57.390" UserId="626" Text="&quot;**Теперь**&quot; usually means there was a change that led to the situation described. &quot;**Сейчас**&quot; describes the present and doesn't give any information about the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Сейчас идет дождь.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*It's raining.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Раньше было солнечно, а теперь идет дождь.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It used to be sunny, and now it's raining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Сейчас у меня нет работы.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm unemployed at the moment. *(No information on whether it was always the case.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Теперь у меня нет работы.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Now *(unlike before!)* I'm unemployed. *(A person quit or was fired recently.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1426" RevisionGUID="11e051a8-891a-41b4-9f2b-8d7781168ea3" CreationDate="2012-11-24T06:55:12.287" UserId="242" Text="First, present tense also can be used as imperative, for example &quot;быстро уходим!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, usage of certain forms as some another forms (in a very wide sense - semantical, syntactical, grammatical etc.)  is called [transposition][1].&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia claims that there are 12 different types of transposition in Russian, but I'm not sure how, regarding this classification, it is called exactly this one, but actually I've seen in literature term `прошедшее время в директивном употреблении`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this is property of some verbs which are used for designation of motivation of joint actions (`пошли`, `побежали`, `поплыли`). I guess it is quite obvious how this forms became imperative, at least for usage with plural pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;А поплыли туда, друзья, к той скале&quot; =&gt; &quot;Эй, поплыли туда!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%28%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1427" RevisionGUID="ba76d2ca-316a-4372-a4b8-c318a220209f" CreationDate="2012-11-24T09:26:51.947" UserId="1143" Text="I see many people consider the word &quot;нету&quot; as colloquial but it's not quite true. In fact, it doesn't exist at all. It's just a common mistake of Russians which now is believed to be just &quot;informal&quot;, though actually educated people will never use it! So forget about this word since only milkmaids in the country may use it, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="38cccf61-c667-4231-86a3-0995d1395eb1" CreationDate="2012-11-24T10:23:50.827" UserId="1097" Comment="edited body" Text="'I feel like ...' close to 'настроение', 'настрой', 'дух' - mood, tune, spirits.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like dancing - (У меня) настроение танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like dancing - (У меня) нет настроения танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like doing that - Я настроен это делать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like doing that - Я не настроен это делать/Я не в настроении это делать/Я не в духе это делать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="d543cbbc-71f6-40ca-9713-8d36ec4820ed" CreationDate="2012-11-24T12:44:19.390" UserId="959" Text="Предложенные ранее варианты звучат как-то пластмассово, не живо. Я бы переводил так: *&quot;Думаю, мне стОит...&quot;, &quot;Кажется, было бы неплохо...&quot;, &quot;А почему бы мне не...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Неплохо бы прогуляться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Думаю, мне стоит подкрепиться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А не выпить ли нам чаю?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1429" RevisionGUID="8d0230f0-3bef-46c4-abd8-440c214555c2" CreationDate="2012-11-24T12:49:45.027" UserId="959" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Предложенные в других ответах варианты звучат как-то пластмассово, не живо. Я бы переводил так: *&quot;Думаю, мне стОит...&quot;, &quot;Кажется, было бы неплохо...&quot;, &quot;А почему бы мне не...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Неплохо бы прогуляться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Думаю, мне стоит подкрепиться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А не выпить ли нам чаю?&#xD;&#xA;Что касается *охота/не охота&quot;*, то *охота* звучит старовато, а *не охота* применяется чаще и звучит естественно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1425" RevisionGUID="1bb65789-c9ed-42af-bffd-e75318f3dec7" CreationDate="2012-11-24T13:41:16.543" UserId="71" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Теперь**&quot; usually means there was a change that led to the situation described. &quot;**Сейчас**&quot; describes the present and doesn't give any information about the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сейчас идет дождь.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*It's raining.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Раньше было солнечно, а теперь идет дождь.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;It used to be sunny, and now it's raining.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Сейчас у меня нет работы.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm unemployed at the moment. *(No information on whether it was always the case.)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Теперь у меня нет работы.**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Now *(unlike before!)* I'm unemployed. *(A person quit or was fired recently.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1431" RevisionGUID="bcf43d82-568a-418f-b780-a24012d146ca" CreationDate="2012-11-24T14:44:02.317" UserId="1149" Text="Yes, all right about ПОШЛИ - this friendly offer. Even as one can say &quot;вон смотри они пошли в банк&quot; или &quot;она пошла домой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Clerk about the tone in the past tense - it can tell a man who believes himself to higher position or more companion. Such orders in the army or in the courtyard outside. But this is against the rules of the Russian language!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="290251e1-afe5-40f6-b1c0-182881abec7a" CreationDate="2012-11-24T15:05:51.967" UserId="1147" Comment="incorporated the picture into the post, fixed a mistaken word" Text="I suppose that everything long — *стоит*; everything horizontally-oriented (like laptop) — *лежит*. In some situations you need to remember word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. One can say *чашка лежит на столе*, when it is lying on its side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Чашка лежит на столе](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RqyImLpZwHA/S-peUizdQnI/AAAAAAAAAgw/uGVo3XV5aRo/s400/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F.JPG &quot;Чашка лежит на столе (на блюдце)&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In all other cases *чашка стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A ball always *лежит на столе*. You cannot say *стоит* about a ball. It would mean that a ball is something steady, which it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A closed laptop always *лежит на столе*, unless it is positioned on its side (by some miracle). If a laptop is open, it *стоит*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4416" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="290251e1-afe5-40f6-b1c0-182881abec7a" CreationDate="2012-11-24T15:05:51.967" Comment="Proposed by 1147 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 261" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4417" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1356" RevisionGUID="cbd5bf79-3994-4a1f-9f30-5ac2314e71d3" CreationDate="2012-11-24T15:06:37.147" UserId="71" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="4418" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1427" RevisionGUID="21827c6e-5e52-4d15-8e2e-3ac19a7554d5" CreationDate="2012-11-24T15:06:51.937" UserId="71" Comment="30" />
  <row Id="4419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="5a8c38f9-382a-4415-859e-83ed5e2e9460" CreationDate="2012-11-24T17:42:53.910" UserId="1097" Comment="added one more answer" Text="'I feel like ...' close to 'настроение', 'настрой', 'дух' - mood, tune, spirits.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like dancing - (У меня) настроение танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like dancing - (У меня) нет настроения танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like doing that - Я настроен это делать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like doing that - Я не настроен это делать/Я не в настроении это делать/Я не в духе это делать  &#xD;&#xA;added:  &#xD;&#xA;It's hard to explain, I'll try. If I talk 'Мне (не)хочется', in most cases I can answer on next question '-Why?' '-Because of ...' It's probably rational thing.  &#xD;&#xA;But when I use 'настроение' - don't need any explanation. &quot;-Why? -Just because&quot; It's  irrational thing, pure emotional, I can't answer even to myself, why.&#xD;&#xA;(please somebody fix this post to make it readable)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4420" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1416" RevisionGUID="16163ad4-91d6-40d5-9e2d-b2b71badbf8d" CreationDate="2012-11-24T21:55:47.660" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1409" RevisionGUID="efcb3840-7c38-4a02-a1b3-0f7845fd227a" CreationDate="2012-11-24T22:03:32.633" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Just like in English you can add &quot;fucking&quot; to both &quot;great&quot; and &quot;horrible&quot;, in Russian you can use the root *хуй* to express both positive and negative emotions. The body parts that *хуй* and *пизда* refer to are not &quot;bad&quot; or &quot;good&quot;, they are just taboo to talk about — that's why, if you do refer to them, your speech becomes more expressive, more extreme; but not necessarily positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference between these words, you got it right that *пиздато* is positive and *хуёво* is negative. *Пиздец* and *охуенно*, however, can also mean &quot;extremely&quot;, or, in case with *пиздец*, &quot;an extreme situation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он пиздец умный!* (&quot;He's so fucking clever&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он охуенно тупой!* (&quot;He's so fucking dumb&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Это пиздец как круто!* (&quot;It's fucking awesome&quot;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1424" RevisionGUID="dd633d6e-8c0a-4993-a608-0816f9841d4e" CreationDate="2012-11-24T22:49:47.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/272472106967633920" />
  <row Id="4424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1432" RevisionGUID="2430756f-028b-4a09-a88f-5d790bc3d80c" CreationDate="2012-11-24T23:47:29.790" UserId="134" Text="Long story short: Russian verb's features like aspect, tense, mood and voice cannot be always determined through morphological analysis. It's the feature characteristic of Russian verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Russian grammatists criticize traditional morphological approach to tense / aspect / mood / voice analysis of Russian verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, all three traditional tenses and infinitive can be used as imperatives, varying the mood nuances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Да пошёл ты к дьяволу со своими гландами! ― рассердилась Нюра. *[Василий Шукшин. Печки-лавочки (1970-1972)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ― Значит, так, сейчас ты встаешь и любой ценой прекращаешь эту кутерьму. *[Михаил Козаков. Актерская книга (1978-1995)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Возьмёшь с собой пару или тройку рабочих с лопатами! *[Ю. О. Домбровский. Факультет ненужных вещей, часть 1 (1978)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Встать, учитель идёт! ― приказали дети, и Лагарпов послушно встал. *[Алексей Слаповский. Жизнь Лагарпова (1999)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the (morphological) imperative itself can be used, say, as optative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Лопни мои глаза, Камилла, если я спал! *[Роберт Штильмарк. Наследник из Калькутты (1950-1951)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or subjunctive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Повой она ещё каких-нибудь минут пять, и Серый схватил бы её. *[М. М. Пришвин. Кладовая солнца (1945)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noted, contrasting sg. past and the pl. past distinguishes imperative from hortative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, formal morphology does not unequivocally define the actual verb features. As @shabunc noted, this is called transposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vinogradov in *Русский язык* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, в грамматической традиции чаще всего речь идет не столько о языковых формах глагольного времени и их значениях, сколько о психологических планах времени, об абстрактных линиях и точках времени3 . Система живых форм времени русского глагола в их основных значениях и в их сложном грамматическом взаимоотношении с другими глагольными формами почти никем из русских лингвистов последнего времени (кроме акад. А. А. Шахматова) не осмыслялась. На этой почве складывается убеждение: время русского глагола психологично и субъективно. Оно не вполне &quot;грамматикализовано&quot;. Оно определяется больше психологически, чем грамматически.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Учение современной грамматики о формах времени русского глагола является отчасти бледным и искаженным видоизменением старой теории &quot;вневременности&quot; русского глагола, отчасти воспроизведением упрощенных грамматических схем русского глагола, предназначавшихся для иностранцев и возникших еще в XVII в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian verb is subject to develop it much more readily than the other parts of speech. For instnance, Chukovsky in *Живой как жизнь* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или эта форма: «я пошел» вместо «я ухожу». Человек еще сидит за столом, он только собирается уйти, но изображает свой будущий поступок уже совершенным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С этим я долго не мог примириться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also Vinogradov, *ibid*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значение 2-го лица в форме повелительного наклонения определяется лишь интонацией и отсутствием указаний на иное действующее лицо. Между тем эта форма может сочетаться и с существительными в качестве субъектов действия, получая значение 3-го лица, и может употребляться в неопределенно-личном значении. Известно, что до 20 — 30-х годов XIX в. в русском литературном языке способность этой формы относиться к 3-му лицу была гораздо активнее и шире. В современном языке употребление этой формы в значении 3-го лица живо, хотя и непродуктивно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Спи, кто может, я спать не могу. *(Некрасов)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ах! тот скажи любви конец, // Кто на три года вдаль уедет. *(Грибоедов, &quot;Горе от ума&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that developing and losing verb forms may be a matter of decades in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has developed a hortative form by adding the pl. imp. ending *-те* to I. sg. present:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Пойдёмте и поговорим за бутылкой доброго вина. [А. Н. Толстой. Черная пятница (1924)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, it's only considered grammatical for verbs derived from *-идти, -ехать, -быть*, however, this form is developing and most probably will soon make it into literary language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="31ff0cc2-c911-4a98-aac7-b503842a2c31" CreationDate="2012-11-24T23:51:30.617" UserId="1147" Comment="each &quot;mistake is ...&quot; is unfolded as a description of a *problem*, or difficulty, rather than a mistake (&quot;incorrect use of smth.&quot; would describe a *mistake*); fixed gender names and some grammar; added a link to an article about the more formal linguistics term related to &quot;hard&quot;/&quot;soft&quot; consonants" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ problem is the ending differences on adjectives between masculine/feminine/neuter types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ая&lt;/b&gt; кошка&quot; or &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This is one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ problem is the difference between [hard/soft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization &quot;Palatalization (Wikipedia)&quot;) letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4426" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="31ff0cc2-c911-4a98-aac7-b503842a2c31" CreationDate="2012-11-24T23:51:30.617" Comment="Proposed by 1147 approved by 134 edit id of 262" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1433" RevisionGUID="e9e112f0-aa4f-43e4-9ab8-bc3e2f1a2e67" CreationDate="2012-11-25T01:27:32.147" UserId="1147" Text="The context may dictate different translations in each case. If, however, for some reason you would need your translations of the word *excite* and its derivatives to be more or less uniform, you could consider using various forms of *впечатление*, *впечатлять* etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **I'm very excited about my new job.**  &#xD;&#xA;*Я очень впечатлён/впечатлена (своей) новой работой.*  &#xD;&#xA;*Я под большим впечатлением от (своей) новой работы.*  &#xD;&#xA;*Меня очень впечатляет (моя) новая работа.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **My trip to Europe was so exciting.**  &#xD;&#xA;*Моя поездка в Европу была такой впечатляющей!*  &#xD;&#xA;*У меня столько впечатлений/такие впечатления от поездки в Европу!*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Are you excited about going to the party?**  &#xD;&#xA;*Тебя впечатляет, что ты идёшь на (эту) вечеринку?*  &#xD;&#xA;*Ты под впечатлением от предстоящей вечеринки?*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *excited* may also imply nervousness. In particular, one could indeed be excited to the point of being nervous about going to a party. I think, *под впечатлением* does cover this aspect too. Although a somewhat closer alternative in this respect might be *заинтригованный*, *интриговать*, as in *Ты заинтригован предстоящей вечеринкой?*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4428" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1417" RevisionGUID="6585801d-6647-43c6-b5f6-c8c71997fa6f" CreationDate="2012-11-25T01:49:47.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/272517406730108929" />
  <row Id="4430" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1414" RevisionGUID="d377ddea-5fc1-4239-849c-acdc67bec43c" CreationDate="2012-11-25T04:49:47.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/272562705313968128" />
  <row Id="4431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="2ed843d6-b497-455c-bc00-2f3c0afdd574" CreationDate="2012-11-25T09:52:49.243" UserId="71" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="I find it very hard to translate &quot;excited&quot; to Russian. Dictionary says &quot;взволнованный, возбуждённый&quot; which doesn't fit in most cases. For example how would you translate the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. I'm very excited about my new job.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. My trip to Europe was so exciting.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Are you excited about going to the party?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4432" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="2ed843d6-b497-455c-bc00-2f3c0afdd574" CreationDate="2012-11-25T09:52:49.243" UserId="71" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the Russian translation of &quot;excited about something&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1422" RevisionGUID="9361614c-fcd9-4c5a-a7ad-358f7d2ea6e0" CreationDate="2012-11-25T10:05:52.987" UserId="71" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="'Чита' is short form from 'обезьянка Чита' (not обезьяна) and it means *'little or baby monkey (name?) Чита'*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't know the etymology for this name, but I think it's from fairy tales/cartoons/children's books. Once upon a time somebody named that baby monkey character is Чита and so on. I'm not sure, maybe 'Teddy' means 'bear' the same way in English, like Чита means 'baby monkey' in Russian, but Чита is used very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the name of any other popular character instead of Teddy. More examples are Миша(Мишка)= медведь, Миша (медвежонок Мишка), Серый=серый волк, Тортилла=черепаха Тортилла  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use 'Чита'='baby monkey' only when you talk to children/in jokes/when kidding and you must be pretty sure the other person understands you. 'Чита' in ordinary, everyday speech is not used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="1e6b60a0-d535-43bd-a217-11b7ebe1e4cd" CreationDate="2012-11-25T11:44:53.977" UserId="1097" Comment="added 1041 characters in body" Text="'I feel like ...' close to 'настроение', 'настрой', 'дух' - mood, tune, spirits.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like dancing - (У меня) настроение танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like dancing - (У меня) нет настроения танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like doing that - Я настроен это делать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like doing that - Я не настроен это делать/Я не в настроении это делать/Я не в духе это делать  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;added:  &#xD;&#xA;It's hard to explain, I'll try. If I talk 'Мне (не)хочется', in most cases I can answer on next question '-Why?' '-Because of ...' It's probably rational thing.  &#xD;&#xA;But when I use 'настроение' - don't need any explanation. &quot;-Why? -Just because&quot; It's  irrational thing, pure emotional, I can't answer even to myself, why.&#xD;&#xA;(please somebody fix this post to make it readable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;added:  &#xD;&#xA;I agree with КуЪ, &quot;охота&quot; and &quot;настроение&quot; rarely used in a positive sense(in the affirmative). It somehow lifeless, expressionless.&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;охота&quot; and &quot;настроение&quot; commonly used in negative sense(denial). So, I think I found a more good translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I feel like (do smth) [right now]&quot; better translated as &quot;Я бы по+(делал что-нибудь) [сейчас]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Я бы по+(рисовал, спал, танцевал, пил, лежал, ехал, смотрел, слушал, ...) [сейчас]&quot; means: &quot;Я бы порисовал сейчас&quot;, &quot;Я бы поспал&quot;, ...  &#xD;&#xA;Summary: &quot;Я бы по+(imperfect verb first-person past tense) [сейчас]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Prefix &quot;по&quot; is very important - &quot;Я бы порисовал&quot;. &quot;Я бы рисовал&quot; - completely different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I don't feel like (do smth) [right now]&quot; better translated as &quot;Мне не охота (что-нибудь делать) [сейчас]&quot; or &quot;Я не хочу (что-нибудь делать) [сейчас]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Мне не охота/Я не хочу рисовать (спать, танцевать, пить, лежать, ехать, смотреть, слушать, ...)&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Summary: &quot;Мне не охота (verb infinitive) [сейчас]&quot; or &quot;Я не хочу (verb infinitive) [сейчас]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1423" RevisionGUID="5fa6ef44-b9e3-444a-be09-c62ad8fe12a1" CreationDate="2012-11-25T12:50:09.007" UserId="71" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="'I feel like ...' close to 'настроение', 'настрой', 'дух' - mood, tune, spirits.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like dancing - (У меня) настроение танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like dancing - (У меня) нет настроения танцевать/потанцевать  &#xD;&#xA;I feel like doing that - Я настроен это делать  &#xD;&#xA;I don't feel like doing that - Я не настроен это делать/Я не в настроении это делать/Я не в духе это делать  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different between &quot;Мне (не) хочется&quot; and &quot;(У меня) настроение&quot; is hard to explain, I'll try. If I say 'Мне (не) хочется', in most cases I can answer on next question &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - 'Why?' &#xD;&#xA; - 'Because of ...'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably a rational thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when I use 'настроение' - don't need any explanation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'Why?'&#xD;&#xA; - 'Just because' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an irrational thing, pure emotional, I can't answer even to myself, why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I agree with КуЪ: &quot;охота&quot; and &quot;настроение&quot; are rarely used in a positive sense (in the affirmative). It's somehow lifeless, expressionless. But &quot;охота&quot; and &quot;настроение&quot; are commonly used in negative sense (denial). So, I think I found a better translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I feel like (do smth) [right now]&quot; better translated as &quot;Я бы по+(делал что-нибудь) [сейчас]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Я бы по+(рисовал, спал, танцевал, пил, лежал, ехал, смотрел, слушал, ...) [сейчас]&quot; means: &quot;Я бы порисовал сейчас&quot;, &quot;Я бы поспал&quot;, ...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: &quot;Я бы по+(imperfect verb first-person past tense) [сейчас]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Prefix &quot;по&quot; is very important - &quot;Я бы порисовал&quot;. &quot;Я бы рисовал&quot; - completely different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I don't feel like (do smth) [right now]&quot; better translated as &quot;Мне не охота (что-нибудь делать) [сейчас]&quot; or &quot;Я не хочу (что-нибудь делать) [сейчас]&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Мне не охота/Я не хочу рисовать (спать, танцевать, пить, лежать, ехать, смотреть, слушать, ...)&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Summary: &quot;Мне не охота (verb infinitive) [сейчас]&quot; or &quot;Я не хочу (verb infinitive) [сейчас]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4436" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="96905ada-c6fb-4bc0-8343-1ca870b1622d" CreationDate="2012-11-25T19:39:09.153" UserId="97" Comment="Rollback to [945364bc-e059-499b-96c7-e816bde22072]" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between muscular/feminine/indefinite types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ая&lt;/b&gt; кошка&quot; or &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the difference between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4437" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="9dcd154c-fc0b-4d7c-8937-98f2b134bd8b" CreationDate="2012-11-25T19:39:49.463" UserId="97" Comment="Rollback to [31ff0cc2-c911-4a98-aac7-b503842a2c31]" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ problem is the ending differences on adjectives between masculine/feminine/neuter types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ая&lt;/b&gt; кошка&quot; or &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш&lt;b&gt;ой&lt;/b&gt; дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This is one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ problem is the difference between [hard/soft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization &quot;Palatalization (Wikipedia)&quot;) letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4438" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="41f2efaa-5b22-475d-bb5a-b6172d5cd112" CreationDate="2012-11-25T19:40:31.850" UserId="97" Comment="Rollback to [143156de-af19-451a-8d9f-0506d12efabc]" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between muscular/feminine/indefinite types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ая** кошка&quot; or &quot;больш**ой** кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ой** дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the difference between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="719c7479-cefe-4a63-bc7b-d58038c18a14" CreationDate="2012-11-25T19:41:15.250" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between masculine/feminine/neuter types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ая** кошка&quot; or &quot;больш**ой** кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ой** дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the difference between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;slyushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4440" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1311" RevisionGUID="0208c060-69e8-4335-b25c-1602dfc74ec5" CreationDate="2012-11-25T22:49:49.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/272834505419657216" />
  <row Id="4441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="06da8323-7214-48b1-95a5-74784bcc2307" CreationDate="2012-11-26T01:10:39.897" UserId="5" Text="I don't understand what makes &quot;ну ты бухать&quot; a valid language construct. Can anybody point out some references?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="06da8323-7214-48b1-95a5-74784bcc2307" CreationDate="2012-11-26T01:10:39.897" UserId="5" Text="Is &quot;ну ты бухать&quot; grammatically valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="06da8323-7214-48b1-95a5-74784bcc2307" CreationDate="2012-11-26T01:10:39.897" UserId="5" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="1382915d-dc95-4fd2-954c-2e3dedc7fe6b" CreationDate="2012-11-26T02:39:13.543" UserId="5" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I don't understand what makes &quot;ну ты бухать&quot; a valid language construct. Can anybody point out some references?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it some sort of a similar thing to &quot;ну ты даешь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="36e60ba1-7aa5-4ca4-bd35-999c85549857" CreationDate="2012-11-26T02:52:04.000" UserId="1027" Text="A valid language construct is *Ну ты (и) бухаешь!* in this case. Last time the Russians became to say: *ну ты бухать*. But it is not a valid language construct, in my opinion, it's more like a slang construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the phrase *ну ты бухать* could have come from the phrases like *ну ты (и) бухгалтер!* (or any other noun). *&quot;Бухгалтер&quot;* means a drunk here, it is a slang word (http://teenslang.su/?page=224&amp;adv=1). I think that a verb *бухать* takes the meaning of the noun in this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it can be a constrict sentence of *ну ты (и любишь) (по)бухать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="80b52e89-b202-4e9a-87fe-970137a945e3" CreationDate="2012-11-26T02:58:04.750" UserId="1027" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="A valid language construct is *Ну ты (и) бухаешь!* in this case. Last time the Russians became to say: *ну ты бухать*. But it is not a valid language construct, in my opinion, it's more like a slang construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the phrase *ну ты бухать* could have come from the phrases like *ну ты (и) бухгалтер!* (or any other noun). *&quot;Бухгалтер&quot;* means a drunk here, it is a slang word (http://teenslang.su/?page=224&amp;adv=1). I think that a verb *бухать* takes the meaning of the noun in this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it can be a constrict sentence of *ну ты (и любишь) (по)бухать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of this phrase is similar to *ну ты даешь*. When someone says it, he expresses his surprise at the fact that someone has so much to drink." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1437" RevisionGUID="ccf050c3-6ecf-4f6a-9dab-f665b0df5c5d" CreationDate="2012-11-26T08:27:31.240" UserId="560" Text="Without punctuation it can be anything. Not only the pointed out &quot;ну ты *(и мастер)* бухать&quot;, but also &quot;ну, ты *(идёшь)* бухать?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite common for Russians to omit verbs in similar questions:  &#xD;&#xA;- Ну, я — гулять.  &#xD;&#xA;- Ты — работать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4457" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="860813eb-e15c-4deb-b13d-354619cc1d7d" CreationDate="2012-11-26T20:06:27.460" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1440" RevisionGUID="5b76ce63-5b7a-4614-aa8e-351ed2cae260" CreationDate="2012-11-26T21:41:44.990" UserId="1164" Text="well, in the expression &quot;пошли домой&quot; - &quot;пошли&quot; is rather ungrammatical colloquial alternative to a grammatically correct &quot;пойдем домой&quot; than a typical example of a past tense used as an imperative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1441" RevisionGUID="05f97fc1-a0c9-4671-a0b6-b6b9c8f8838a" CreationDate="2012-11-27T01:18:22.673" UserId="637" Text="In short, no. There is no special name for monkey in Russia, since in this country monkeys are not spreaded widely due to cold climate. There is some evidence that monkeys were seen at Russian Far East - Primorye and Khabarovsk region. From some people, living at Far East, I heard word зёма, they used one ironically when referring to monkeys. But this use is rare, because зёма itself means slang form of земляк (countryman)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1442" RevisionGUID="7f97f595-c41a-45a6-af04-02485fa233f5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T01:57:10.497" UserId="637" Text="Everyone forgot such a wonderful word as holywar or flaming :) срач is a usual business at Internet forums, there disputing on some matter in offensive and warring manner easily become a holywar, there noone wants to agree or to understand position of another person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If thread in forum have already started with provocational topic, oftenly someone may post an ironical disclaimer in English LET THE SRATCH BEGIN!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="780d3115-09d9-4daa-967c-4b7ed26bb2d2" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:49:53.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/273423398774923264" />
  <row Id="4466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="37aba39b-3a91-400e-8a0f-84f9f7ff5340" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:37:20.780" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Synonyms for `срач` meaning &quot;a mess&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - беспорядок&#xD;&#xA; - грязь (в доме)&#xD;&#xA; - бардак&#xD;&#xA; - раскардаш&#xD;&#xA; - свинюшник&#xD;&#xA; - бедлам&#xD;&#xA; - разгром&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="f45296e8-9cc1-4630-9593-378d5623c9ea" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:21:43.000" UserId="60" Text="I heard the following phrase in one media advertisement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глядя на нас, сразу понятно, что я ... , а он ... .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subconsciously I doubt if it is grammatically correct phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you clarify it please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="f45296e8-9cc1-4630-9593-378d5623c9ea" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:21:43.000" UserId="60" Text="Is &quot;глядя на нас, сразу понятно, что ...&quot; grammatically valid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="f45296e8-9cc1-4630-9593-378d5623c9ea" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:21:43.000" UserId="60" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1444" RevisionGUID="be6a3e35-df91-4e91-9c7e-7f0e881821e4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:43:05.553" UserId="1005" Text="It's absolutely grammatically correct. It's &quot;From looking at us, it is absolutely clear [for him/her/them] that I ... and he ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="94ee8dcb-e4e4-4490-81f5-3abca3c1594e" CreationDate="2012-11-27T18:22:26.330" UserId="134" Text="This form is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 212.1.2:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если же в безличном предложении нет инфинитива, к которому мог бы относиться деепричастный оборот, то употребление последнего стилистически неоправданно, например: *Уезжая из родного города, мне стало грустно; Прочитав вторично рукопись, редактору показалось, что она нуждается в серьезной доработке»*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При взгляде на нас сразу понятно, что я …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глядя на нас, можно сразу понять, что я …" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1445" RevisionGUID="b5a43d8d-2fbb-4edf-8234-299eaa5bf7f9" CreationDate="2012-11-27T18:31:09.570" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="This form is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР, 212.1.2:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если же в безличном предложении нет инфинитива, к которому мог бы относиться деепричастный оборот, то употребление последнего стилистически неоправданно, например: *Уезжая из родного города, мне стало грустно; Прочитав вторично рукопись, редактору показалось, что она нуждается в серьезной доработке*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При взгляде на нас сразу понятно, что я …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глядя на нас, можно сразу понять, что я …" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1446" RevisionGUID="c4b96da5-2992-4800-8e39-4ff98c5dfdf3" CreationDate="2012-11-28T01:24:56.070" UserId="426" Text="Being grammatically invalid, people have been using constructs like that anyway&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. Even native speakers get it wrong from time to time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some very famous authors did it, too - to attract your attention, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поселившись теперь в деревне, его мечта и идеал были в том, чтобы воскресить ту форму жизни, которая была при деде (Л. Н. Толстой)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in a direct speech - to hint at a poor command of the Russian grammar on the part of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Подъезжая к сией станции и глядя на природу в окно, у меня слетела шляпа&quot; (А. П. Чехов) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Useful references: [one][1], [two][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; Yes, I structured the sentence incorrectly, with the idea to illustrate a similar mistake in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/2009/07/31/2/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=26&amp;i=3683&amp;t=3683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1447" RevisionGUID="324885a9-fbaf-4320-90c2-47bc9eb994e9" CreationDate="2012-11-28T07:26:12.547" UserId="637" Text="The correct is бОшки with stress on о. бОшки also found in smoker's slang. This term extensively used to name top part of weed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive plural is бОшек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посмотри, каких я амстердамских бошек притащил!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1448" RevisionGUID="e7116058-5a51-44cc-8fcd-c96c7344f0e7" CreationDate="2012-11-28T07:37:52.637" UserId="904" Text="Monkey in Russian is &quot;обезьяна&quot;. Male monkey too. &quot;Обезьян&quot; is used sometimes, but it is a joke form, hinting the monkey is mean or looks serious.  Sometimes, for diversity, it can be &quot;примат&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чита&quot; is a Russian city. The accent on last letter. &#xD;&#xA;Although, Чита is a name of the ape filmed in old Tarzan movies. Accent on second letter. It was listed along with actors. Film was very popular with Russian children and ape became a subject of many rhymes, mostly indecent. From there the name moved to some children books as a trickster character. &#xD;&#xA;In rhymes it was mostly &quot;обезьянка Чита&quot;, that's why you think it is about ape cub. No, &quot;обезьянка&quot; just means it is small ape, not stating if it is because of age or species." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1418" RevisionGUID="21c1a910-02dd-47a3-883b-59b7b09c5a0f" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:53:21.833" UserId="626" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Names starting with &quot;Чи&quot; are popular among monkeys: in my childhood, there was a popular children folklore poem about a monkey called &lt;a href=&quot;http://curspring.livejournal.com/384462.html&quot;&gt;Чи-Чи-Чи&lt;/a&gt;. A quick google search found stories with monkeys named &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.proza.ru/2012/04/23/943&quot;&gt;Чинита (Чита)&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kykymber.ru/stories.php?story=1729&quot;&gt;Чичи&lt;/a&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, animals in Russian fairy tales have names that often travel from one story to another. A bear is Миша or Мишка, a fox can be Лиса Патрикеевна, and so on. These names can be used instead of actual species' names when talking to children, or in some other contexts (say, a villager may use them to show that their relationship with nature is somewhat personal). However, monkeys never were a part of Russian folklore, so there is no such name commonly accepted for monkeys. While your friend has &quot;Чита&quot; reserved for small monkeys, others may have &quot;Чичи&quot;, and the majority of Russians probably has no such name set for monkeys at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="76707fa2-680e-49b1-94d6-80756ca9924d" CreationDate="2012-11-28T15:50:45.517" UserId="1177" Text="Why is &quot;нет&quot; pronounced &quot;nyet&quot; instead of &quot;net&quot;? I was informed that the Cyrillic letter 'е' is equivalent to the Latin letter 'e'. Is this incorrect? If so, what is the equivalent of 'e' if one exists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="76707fa2-680e-49b1-94d6-80756ca9924d" CreationDate="2012-11-28T15:50:45.517" UserId="1177" Text="Pronunciation of 'E'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="76707fa2-680e-49b1-94d6-80756ca9924d" CreationDate="2012-11-28T15:50:45.517" UserId="1177" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1450" RevisionGUID="9b9c44fa-891d-4076-b7a8-b0efcfeb65ec" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:53:04.560" UserId="242" Text="There is so called [close-mid front unrounded vowel][1], this is the sound you are exactly talking about, to put it simple it is 'e' :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there are two letters you can use for indicating this sound, `e` and `э`.  In the beginning of the word 'e', actually stand for 'je', after consonants it stands, almost always, for [e] as well, it's just that the preceding vowel is palatalised. Exceptions are `ж`, `ш` and `ц` plus the majority of foreign words (e.g. `шоссе`, `молибден`, `темп`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-mid_front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1451" RevisionGUID="b6b1916a-ca76-4402-ae9a-e38ea0383d67" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:58:04.373" UserId="426" Text="The fact that the Russian 'е' is an equivalent of the Latin letter 'e' does not mean that they should necessarily correspond to the same sound. Pronunciation of 'е' depends on the preceding consonant: 'е' &quot;softens&quot; most consonants (б, в, г, д, з, к, л, м, н, п, р, с, т, ф, х, ч. щ), producing the [`ʲe̞`][1] sound not found in English, as in &quot;нет&quot; (no) or &quot;день&quot; (day). When 'е' follows one of the remaining consonants (ж, ц, ш), it makes a sound that is similar to the Latin `e`, as in &quot;цель&quot; (aim), &quot;шея&quot; (neck) or &quot;жесть&quot; (tin-plate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1450" RevisionGUID="6c305c28-1b36-4719-b833-dff56becfc37" CreationDate="2012-11-28T16:58:22.923" UserId="242" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="There is so called [close-mid front unrounded vowel][1], this is the sound you are exactly talking about, to put it simple it is 'e' :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there are two letters you can use for indicating this sound, `e` and  `э`. As many other letters, letter 'е' is used for indicating different set of phonemes.  In the beginning of the word 'e', for example, actually stands for 'je', after consonants it stands, almost always, for [e] as well, it's just that the preceding vowel is palatalised. Exceptions are `ж`, `ш` and `ц` plus the majority of foreign words (e.g. `шоссе`, `молибден`, `темп`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not that simple, since there are lot of words of foreign origin obeying &quot;normal rule&quot;: checkout for example `демократия`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-mid_front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1452" RevisionGUID="cd633ecf-1dd6-4759-948b-b39e4233e5f7" CreationDate="2012-11-28T19:22:32.350" UserId="334" Text="'Е' Can be pronounced in several ways, depending on position, stress and previous letter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Russian vowels comes in pair. First are simple vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'А' as in u in run&#xD;&#xA; - 'O' as a in all&#xD;&#xA; - 'У' as u in bull&#xD;&#xA; - 'И' as ee in cheese&#xD;&#xA; - 'Э' as a in cat&#xD;&#xA; - 'Ы' with no direct analog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several derived vowels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Э - Е&#xD;&#xA; - У - Ю&#xD;&#xA; - О - Ё&#xD;&#xA; - А - Я&#xD;&#xA; - (technically Ы - И are often paired, but this relation is incomplete)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These derived vowels are pronounced differently in different positions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning of the word, after 'Ь' and 'Ъ' and after other vowel they are prononced as &#xD;&#xA; - Е - ЙЭ&#xD;&#xA; - У - ЙУ&#xD;&#xA; - Ё - ЙО&#xD;&#xA; - Я - ЙА&#xD;&#xA; - И can be sometimes pronounced as йи or й, but very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, after сonsonants they are threated differently. First, they are pronounced as their basic vowel. Second previous consonant is palatalized (some consonants are always palatalized and И is still pronounced as И and has pretty quirks after ш/ж, but the base is this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not all, we have something to blow your mind: reduction. Every vowel if unstressed is reduced.&#xD;&#xA; - О (and O part of Ё) &amp; A (and A part of Я) are reduced to really short 'a'&#xD;&#xA; - Э (and Э part of E) &amp; И are reduced to really short 'и'&#xD;&#xA; - in fast speech most vowels in unstressed positions may be reduced to some common sound I doubt I can describe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several inconsistencies, like ши/жи is pronounced ЖЫ/ШЫ , but never written. Another complication is the Ё often typed as Е and without context it is often impossible to guess which one is really here. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="5d702b07-8180-443c-951f-69b109f5c2b9" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:29:39.080" UserId="1177" Text="The reference material I have been reading is somewhat confusing. Some sources say that Й is equivalent to J, while others say it is equivalent to Y. Which is it? For example, is it pronounced J as in _Jar_, Y as in _Yes_, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="5d702b07-8180-443c-951f-69b109f5c2b9" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:29:39.080" UserId="1177" Text="Is Й pronounced as J or Y?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="5d702b07-8180-443c-951f-69b109f5c2b9" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:29:39.080" UserId="1177" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="a6e275e8-423d-4be8-8fdd-473a4d924442" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:50:42.157" UserId="1177" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="The reference material I have been reading is somewhat confusing. Some sources say that `Й` is equivalent to `J`, while others say it is equivalent to `Y`. Which is it? For example, is it pronounced `J` as in _Jar_, `Y` as in _Yes_, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4489" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="a6e275e8-423d-4be8-8fdd-473a4d924442" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:50:42.157" UserId="1177" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is `Й` pronounced as `J` or `Y`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1454" RevisionGUID="4d62777f-72f1-4658-8f62-ae91d7bfa5ea" CreationDate="2012-11-29T00:24:02.917" UserId="1180" Text="`Й` doesn't really have an independent pronunciation--other than a few foreign loan words, it only occurs after vowels and changes the vowel pronunciation. It's sometimes transliterated as J, but it's definitely not like J in Jar--more like a German J, which is like an English Y. So it's better to think of it like Y in Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="1079bd7a-e4f3-421a-ae1b-01705eb6261d" CreationDate="2012-11-29T01:01:37.063" UserId="115" Text="Й is always pronounced like Y in &quot;Yes&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1455" RevisionGUID="6648379d-8cf9-47c3-b51b-4eec729c06e9" CreationDate="2012-11-29T01:07:06.310" UserId="115" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="Й is always pronounced like Y in &quot;Yes&quot;.  The reason it is often tansliterated as J is that in many languages (German, Polish) J is also pronounced like Y in &quot;Yes&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4493" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="ac316532-3a84-4616-ae5a-6214d33421d3" CreationDate="2012-11-29T02:40:21.913" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;й&quot; pronounced as &quot;j&quot; or &quot;y&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="c3f6316b-6088-4a7d-ab5b-15fb6aa8225e" CreationDate="2012-11-29T02:41:03.350" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;е&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1452" RevisionGUID="0121f14c-a711-4df9-bdd3-61bc8597201c" CreationDate="2012-11-29T05:06:55.703" UserId="334" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="'Е' Can be pronounced in several ways, depending on position, stress and previous letter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Russian vowels comes in pair. First are simple vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'А' as in u in run&#xD;&#xA; - 'O' as a in all&#xD;&#xA; - 'У' as u in bull&#xD;&#xA; - 'И' as ee in cheese&#xD;&#xA; - 'Э' as a in cat&#xD;&#xA; - 'Ы' with no direct analog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several derived vowels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Э - Е&#xD;&#xA; - У - Ю&#xD;&#xA; - О - Ё&#xD;&#xA; - А - Я&#xD;&#xA; - (technically Ы - И are often paired, but this relation is incomplete)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These derived vowels are pronounced differently in different positions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning of the word, after 'Ь' and 'Ъ' and after other vowel they are prononced as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Е - ЙЭ&#xD;&#xA; - У - ЙУ&#xD;&#xA; - Ё - ЙО&#xD;&#xA; - Я - ЙА&#xD;&#xA; - И can be sometimes pronounced as йи or й, but very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, after сonsonants they are threated differently. First, they are pronounced as their basic vowel. Second previous consonant is palatalized (some consonants are always palatalized and И is still pronounced as И and has pretty quirks after ш/ж, but the base is this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not all, we have something to blow your mind: reduction. Every vowel if unstressed is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - О (and O part of Ё) &amp; A (and A part of Я) are reduced to really short 'a'&#xD;&#xA; - Э (and Э part of E) &amp; И are reduced to really short 'и'&#xD;&#xA; - in fast speech most vowels in unstressed positions may be reduced to some common sound I doubt I can describe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several inconsistencies, like жи/ши is pronounced ЖЫ/ШЫ , but never written. Another complication is the Ё often typed as Е and without context it is often impossible to guess which one is really here. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4496" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="7d0425b9-aa7f-4cc4-8f27-34b31d1797d4" CreationDate="2012-11-29T05:17:52.463" UserId="1177" Comment="edited title" Text="Is 'Й' pronounced as 'J' or 'Y'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1452" RevisionGUID="888fd815-4317-45f8-a3b5-fdc444aedb28" CreationDate="2012-11-29T08:02:22.847" UserId="334" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="'Е' Can be pronounced in several ways, depending on position, stress and previous letter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Russian vowels comes in pairs. First are simple vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'А' as in u in run&#xD;&#xA; - 'O' as a in all&#xD;&#xA; - 'У' as u in bull&#xD;&#xA; - 'И' as ee in cheese&#xD;&#xA; - 'Э' as a in cat&#xD;&#xA; - 'Ы' with no direct analog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several derived vowels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Э - Е&#xD;&#xA; - У - Ю&#xD;&#xA; - О - Ё&#xD;&#xA; - А - Я&#xD;&#xA; - (technically Ы - И are often paired, but this relation is incomplete)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These derived vowels are pronounced differently in different positions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning of the word, after 'Ь' and 'Ъ' and after other vowel they are prononced as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Е - ЙЭ&#xD;&#xA; - У - ЙУ&#xD;&#xA; - Ё - ЙО&#xD;&#xA; - Я - ЙА&#xD;&#xA; - И can be sometimes pronounced as йи or й, but very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, after сonsonants they are threated differently. First, they are pronounced as their basic vowel. Second previous consonant is palatalized (some consonants are always palatalized and И is still pronounced as И and has pretty quirks after ш/ж, but the base is this). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not all, we have something to blow your mind: reduction. Every vowel if unstressed is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - О (and O part of Ё) &amp; A (and A part of Я) are reduced to really short 'a'&#xD;&#xA; - Э (and Э part of E) &amp; И are reduced to really short 'и'&#xD;&#xA; - in fast speech most vowels in unstressed positions may be reduced to some common sound I doubt I can describe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several inconsistencies, like жи/ши is pronounced ЖЫ/ШЫ , but never written. Another complication is the Ё often typed as Е and without context it is often impossible to guess which one is really here. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1452" RevisionGUID="4a8666e6-7820-455c-a47a-33ca9278a617" CreationDate="2012-11-29T09:53:06.727" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="'Е' Can be pronounced in several ways, depending on position, stress and previous letter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, Russian vowels comes in pairs. First are simple vowels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'А' as in u in run&#xD;&#xA; - 'O' as a in all&#xD;&#xA; - 'У' as u in bull&#xD;&#xA; - 'И' as ee in cheese&#xD;&#xA; - 'Э' as a in cat&#xD;&#xA; - 'Ы' with no direct analog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several derived vowels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Э - Е&#xD;&#xA; - У - Ю&#xD;&#xA; - О - Ё&#xD;&#xA; - А - Я&#xD;&#xA; - (technically Ы - И are often paired, but this relation is incomplete)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These derived vowels are pronounced differently in different positions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the beginning of the word, after 'Ь' and 'Ъ' and after other vowel they are prononced as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Е - ЙЭ&#xD;&#xA; - Ю - ЙУ&#xD;&#xA; - Ё - ЙО&#xD;&#xA; - Я - ЙА&#xD;&#xA; - И can be sometimes pronounced as йи or й, but very rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, after сonsonants they are threated differently. First, they are pronounced as their basic vowel. Second previous consonant is palatalized (some consonants are always palatalized and И is still pronounced as И and has pretty quirks after ш/ж, but the base is this). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not all, we have something to blow your mind: reduction. Every vowel if unstressed is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - О (and O part of Ё) &amp; A (and A part of Я) are reduced to really short 'a'&#xD;&#xA; - Э (and Э part of E) &amp; И are reduced to really short 'и'&#xD;&#xA; - in fast speech most vowels in unstressed positions may be reduced to some common sound I doubt I can describe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several inconsistencies, like жи/ши is pronounced ЖЫ/ШЫ , but never written. Another complication is the Ё often typed as Е and without context it is often impossible to guess which one is really here. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1456" RevisionGUID="9f447a85-8455-481e-a575-4d575eb78a73" CreationDate="2012-11-29T10:35:25.380" UserId="1146" Text="As a letter &quot;Й&quot; is used to make sound like Y in Yes, but its accurate to say that combination &quot;Ye&quot; from Yes sounds like russian &quot;E&quot;. There are several russian letters that sounds like &quot;Й&quot; + another letter, for example E = Й + Э, Ю = Й + У, Ё = Й + О. Thus, the main purpose of &quot;Й&quot; is the formation of new letters. :)&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for english" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1458" RevisionGUID="16fba29e-11f9-4d1a-9292-3da93bb74a86" CreationDate="2012-11-29T17:49:52.880" UserId="1188" Text="No, such a construction is absolutely grammatically INCORRECT. The sentence will be correct if the participial construction coinсides with the subject" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1459" RevisionGUID="57cac960-3612-430f-af3a-893796feedbf" CreationDate="2012-11-29T19:06:55.640" UserId="1170" Text="I'm Russian and this sounds correct to me. At the very least Russian-speaking people often say so. It might be not entirely correct from the formal grammar point of view, but colloquially it is perfectly fine to use this construction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1460" RevisionGUID="7a3f5a7d-9262-4d4c-9205-a5cd00da8a18" CreationDate="2012-11-30T00:30:24.487" UserId="194" Text="&quot;нет&quot; is NEVER pronounced as &quot;nyet&quot;. There is no &quot;y&quot; sound there. It is pronounced as &quot;net&quot; but with soft &quot;n&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="891d2f61-1cc6-47f8-8480-7c86ce3a1c4c" CreationDate="2012-11-30T03:26:27.877" UserId="60" Comment="Improved English" Text="This is somewhat close to question: &quot;Why does in English *&quot;awesome&quot;* means *great* but *&quot;awful&quot;* means something *horrible*?&quot;. The short answer is: the fact that a pair of words is derived from common root does not mean that these words do not have opposite meaning. Moreover, the same word in different context can stand for completely different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English word *&quot;terrible&quot;* in colloquial speech can be interpreted as &quot;formidably great&quot;, compare to *&quot;ужасно круто&quot;* / *&quot;ты ужасно красива&quot;*. Recall English usage of *&quot;fucking&quot;*, it is used to indicate an extreme degree of something either positive, or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the question why exactly some forms acquire *positive* connotation (*&quot;охуенный&quot;*, *&quot;пиздатый&quot;*) and some *negative* (*&quot;хуёвый&quot;*, *&quot;пиздецовый&quot;*), we can only explore *when* exactly it becomes common, but not *why*, I guess. As far as you are asking about *why* but not about *when*, I do consider this question answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simple, it's not something specific to Russian and *just because* :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4506" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="891d2f61-1cc6-47f8-8480-7c86ce3a1c4c" CreationDate="2012-11-30T03:26:27.877" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 242 edit id of 263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="7c9beabb-8e82-4a20-b26c-0deca6e9b323" CreationDate="2012-11-30T08:29:19.287" UserId="637" Text="Not an g/h issue, but just to show an example of transliteration variants. A friend of Sherlock Holmes - Dr.Watson may be spelt as Ватсон or Уотсон, the later one oftenly seen in old (Soviet) translations of Arthur Conan Doyle's books. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sir Winston Churchill always translated as сэр Уинстон Черчилль, but Winston cigarettes brand always translated as Винстон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In German language ei always pronounced as ай. Names of town Heidelberg and Mannheim will be correctly pronounced as Хайдельберг и Маннхайм not a Гейдельберг и Мангейм, as we have seen these at Russian maps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1462" RevisionGUID="f33dc79f-6ea4-4cd3-89b7-5be97e4e0797" CreationDate="2012-11-30T15:02:11.117" UserId="1196" Text="&quot;Портак/партак&quot; is also a bad quality tattoo in general. Tattoo artists use this word not only for prison or army tattoos but for the bad ones too. To see the examples, type &quot;портак&quot; in the Google search box and browse the pictures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1463" RevisionGUID="059e98d4-e862-4da8-9619-da7a39091ca0" CreationDate="2012-11-30T19:28:13.333" UserId="1198" Text="&quot;не разбираюсь/не уверен/не знаю&quot; хорошо передает смысл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сбит с толку/запутался/помогите/нужна помощь&quot;, как ни странно, тоже означает то же самое&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1464" RevisionGUID="46fb676e-9077-40fd-91ee-bb458d89ba31" CreationDate="2012-11-30T19:44:22.653" UserId="1198" Text="&gt;  Is it a new meaning? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes this is new meaning. Before 90s, the word for &quot;sale&quot; was &quot;Распродажа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess Распродажа sounds now obsolete, hardly used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Акция в смысле Распродажа/sale probably did not yet make it into the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="bdb32c06-0f16-4cdf-b931-67065f79a1ea" CreationDate="2012-12-01T01:05:35.437" UserId="95" Comment="copyedit english usage" Text="Not a g/h issue, but just to show an example of transliteration variants. A friend of Sherlock Holmes - Dr.Watson may be spelt as Ватсон or Уотсон, the later one often seen in old (Soviet) translations of Arthur Conan Doyle's books. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sir Winston Churchill is always translated as сэр Уинстон Черчилль, but Winston cigarettes brand always translated as Винстон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In the German language ei is always pronounced as ай. The names of the towns Heidelberg and Mannheim will be correctly pronounced as Хайдельберг и Маннхайм not as Гейдельберг и Мангейм, as we have seen these on Russian maps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4512" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1461" RevisionGUID="bdb32c06-0f16-4cdf-b931-67065f79a1ea" CreationDate="2012-12-01T01:05:35.437" Comment="Proposed by 95 approved by 71 edit id of 264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="4e04abe6-44c0-4cd6-a5dc-c7fec778f7b6" CreationDate="2012-12-01T22:49:58.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/275008867199508480" />
  <row Id="4514" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1453" RevisionGUID="d9979e56-ccb6-43b0-b009-4024228eba5c" CreationDate="2012-12-02T02:22:11.227" UserId="1177" Comment="edited title" Text="Is 'й' pronounced as 'j' or 'y'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="16444e44-804b-4f8f-b2f9-4b8346823992" CreationDate="2012-12-02T04:44:20.133" UserId="1177" Text="Some sources say that there are 32 letters in the alphabet, while others say there are 33. The discrepancy seems to be a result of including/excluding `Ё`. They also mention (whether or not they include `Ё`) that `Ё` is frequently rendered as `Е`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is `Ё` a distinct letter, or is it just `Е` with a diaeresis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="16444e44-804b-4f8f-b2f9-4b8346823992" CreationDate="2012-12-02T04:44:20.133" UserId="1177" Text="Is 'ё' a distinct letter, or is it just 'е' with a diaeresis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="16444e44-804b-4f8f-b2f9-4b8346823992" CreationDate="2012-12-02T04:44:20.133" UserId="1177" Text="|правописание|орфография|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="4e41653b-1855-42c6-a175-e24582b6751f" CreationDate="2012-12-02T04:51:29.263" UserId="1177" Comment="edited body" Text="Some sources say that there are 32 letters in the alphabet, while others say there are 33. The discrepancy seems to be a result of including/excluding `ё`. They also mention (whether or not they include `ё`) that `ё` is frequently rendered as `е`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is `ё` a distinct letter, or is it just `е` with a diaeresis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="37729189-6e52-4405-9818-7095ecf368f8" CreationDate="2012-12-02T06:01:52.943" UserId="1027" Text="`Ё` is a distinct letter. You can find `ё` in children's literature `(ёжик, ёлочка, самолёт)`. But almost all authors replace `ё` by `e` in the business, academic and journalistic literature. This exchange is found only on the letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` is pronounced like `yo` in the English word `Yoga`. It is Russion sound `[йо]`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the problem of the letter `ё` occurs among all Russian editors, writers and authors. Some scientists believe that we should use `ё` in the literature, others believe that it should be replace by `е`. For example, Arkady Milchin argues that `ё` is used in literature only if the meaning of the word with `е` is unclear, for example, `все - everybody` and `всё - everything`. There are different meanings in the words with е and ё. For example, `Тема is a topic` and `Тёма is diminutive-hypocoristic name of Артём`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A magazine `&quot;За рулём&quot;` was published in 1928. It used the letter `e` in the word `&quot;рулем&quot;` until 1956. Then, 1956-1975 it used the letter `ё`. From 1975 to nowadays it used the letter `е` in the name of the magazine. You can look through the photos - http://bolknote.ru/2012/11/30/~3806/#05" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="85945216-9136-40d4-abe1-c178bae66353" CreationDate="2012-12-02T07:07:12.280" UserId="1027" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="`Ё` is a distinct letter. You can find `ё` in children's literature `(ёжик, ёлочка, самолёт)`. But almost all authors replace `ё` by `e` in the business, academic and journalistic literature. This exchange is found only on the letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` is pronounced like `yo` in the English word `Yoga`. It is Russion sound `[йо]`. &#xD;&#xA;Accent always falls by `ё`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the problem of the letter `ё` occurs among all Russian editors, writers and authors. Some scientists believe that we should use `ё` in the literature, others believe that it should be replace by `е`. For example, Arkady Milchin argues that `ё` is used in literature only if the meaning of the word with `е` is unclear, for example, `все - everybody` and `всё - everything`. There are different meanings in the words with е and ё. For example, `Тема is a topic` and `Тёма is diminutive-hypocoristic name of Артём`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A magazine `&quot;За рулём&quot;` was published in 1928. It used the letter `e` in the word `&quot;рулем&quot;` until 1956. Then, 1956-1975 it used the letter `ё`. From 1975 to nowadays it used the letter `е` in the name of the magazine. You can look through the photos - http://bolknote.ru/2012/11/30/~3806/#05" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1449" RevisionGUID="61c6b358-6126-49d9-9c81-5441a9ef6944" CreationDate="2012-12-02T07:49:59.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/275144767883587585" />
  <row Id="4523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1466" RevisionGUID="00140951-2b84-429d-aebd-4a8856e14912" CreationDate="2012-12-02T10:09:02.450" UserId="71" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="**Ё** is a distinct letter. You can find **ё** in children's literature **(ёжик, ёлочка, самолёт)**, but almost all authors will have **e** replacing it in the business, academic and journalistic literature. This exchange is found only on the letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ё** is pronounced like **yo** in the English word **Yoga**. Remember: the accent always falls on **ё**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the problem of the letter **ё** occurs among all Russian editors, writers and authors. Some scientists believe that we should use **ё** in the literature, others believe that it should be replaced by **е**. For example, Arkady Milchin argues that **ё** is used in literature only if the meaning of the word with **е** is unclear, such as with *&quot;все - everybody&quot;* and *&quot;всё - everything&quot;*. There are different meanings in the words with е and ё. For example, *Тема* is a topic and *Тёма* is diminutive-hypocoristic name of Артём. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A magazine *&quot;За рулём&quot;* was published in 1928. It used the letter **e** in the word **&quot;рулем&quot;** until 1956. Then, in the years 1956-1975 it used the letter **ё**. From 1975 to nowadays it used the letter **е** in the name of the magazine. You can look through [the photos][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bolknote.ru/2012/11/30/~3806/#05" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="1b71ac22-966e-4d16-acc6-2ea3efffb15f" CreationDate="2012-12-02T10:09:28.020" UserId="71" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Some sources say that there are 32 letters in the alphabet, while others say there are 33. The discrepancy seems to be a result of including/excluding **ё**. They also mention (whether or not they include **ё**) that **ё** is frequently rendered as **е**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is **ё** a distinct letter, or is it just **е** with a diaeresis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1467" RevisionGUID="a328b09b-b07f-406d-bede-7332d774acb3" CreationDate="2012-12-02T14:41:09.803" UserId="952" Text="According to the executive order from Dec 24th, 1942 the letter &quot;ё&quot; is to be used in school education and in litterature, but many people recently have ignored this letter. Actually, it makes reading easier, because we read words as a whole, not by letters, and this letter is very much helpful, especially in fast reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="08a92262-8160-4a5c-83f6-d4d063d40406" CreationDate="2012-12-03T00:12:42.897" UserId="637" Text="Use of е instead ё may change the sense of word. **Все** means all. **Всё** has another meaning; the End or death like in joke about the shortest telegram Изя - всё!, or &#xD;&#xA;all ot this (Всё это).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все собрались? - Everybody here?&#xD;&#xA;Всё собрали? - Did you collect all the stuff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1469" RevisionGUID="c5791523-7385-4d07-aca6-712062745cdc" CreationDate="2012-12-03T08:45:18.927" UserId="637" Text="1.Speaking about very complex, hardly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;В его формулах и выводах сам чёрт ногу сломит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Synonym: Китайская грамота*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Something in great disorder, chaotic. Impossible to go through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Круглый год в городе царствовала та хлопотливая неурядица, около которой можно было греть руки, зная вперед, что тут черт ногу сломит, прежде чем до чего-нибудь доищется. Салтыков-Щедрин. Пошехонская старина*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonym: Левая рука не знает, что делает правая. Дурдом, бардак и хаос. Большая заморока.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4529" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="e85b3faa-b6e7-439d-97fe-5b9c426f007f" CreationDate="2012-12-03T16:50:01.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/275643060765986816" />
  <row Id="4530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="3605da55-110e-4902-b5ff-90ba1751656e" CreationDate="2012-12-03T19:21:54.870" UserId="1177" Text="Which quotation marks should I use? Some sentences use double-quotes, i.e. `&quot;The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.&quot;`, while others use double-angle-quotes, i.e. `«The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.»`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the `&quot;` is correct in English. However, I am not sure which ones to use in Russian. For example, should I write `&quot;Быстрая коричневая лиса прыгает над ленивой собакой.&quot;` or `«Быстрая коричневая лиса прыгает над ленивой собакой.»`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used Google translator to translate the sentence, but for some reason the output is `«Быстрая коричневая лиса прыгает над ленивой собакой&quot;.`. I am pretty sure we don't mix quotation marks like that, so it makes me wonder if the text is correct too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the correct symbols to use? Should I use `&quot;...&quot;` or `«...»`? If both should be used, when should I use one or the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="3605da55-110e-4902-b5ff-90ba1751656e" CreationDate="2012-12-03T19:21:54.870" UserId="1177" Text="Quotation marks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="3605da55-110e-4902-b5ff-90ba1751656e" CreationDate="2012-12-03T19:21:54.870" UserId="1177" Text="|словоупотребление|цитата|грамматика|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1471" RevisionGUID="a1cc4fe4-8ae6-4f8d-8e99-34330d4f4147" CreationDate="2012-12-03T19:41:16.587" UserId="959" Text="You should use `«...»`. The problem is that many text editors don't allow to use `«...»` directly, so often you have to replace it with `&quot;...&quot;`. It seems to be the only reason why `&quot;...&quot;` are used in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="76e5da70-f342-43a9-af0c-d8c723dc1d15" CreationDate="2012-12-03T20:07:13.013" UserId="334" Text="In typography text «...» are preferable. In da internetz &quot;...&quot; are used, as no other quotes available on the keyboard. In hand-writing „...“ are used almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, if you want translate something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It's useful to have a gun.&quot; He said with calm voice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is better to avoid quotes at all, using alternative writing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Очень полезно иметь пушку, -- хладнокровно сказал он.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="0b9290eb-6dfb-4247-b08e-49ead4a90f0c" CreationDate="2012-12-03T20:41:27.137" UserId="1177" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Which quotation marks should I use? Some sentences use double-quotes, i.e. `&quot;The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.&quot;`, while others use double-angle-quotes, i.e. `«The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.»`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the `&quot;` is correct in English. However, I am not sure which ones to use in Russian. For example, should I write `&quot;Быстрая коричневая лиса прыгает над ленивой собакой.&quot;` or `«Быстрая коричневая лиса прыгает над ленивой собакой.»`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used Google translator to translate the sentence, but for some reason the output is `«Быстрая коричневая лиса прыгает над ленивой собакой&quot;.`. I am pretty sure we don't mix quotation marks like that, so it makes me wonder if the text is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the correct symbols to use? Should I use `&quot;...&quot;` or `«...»`? If both should be used, when should I use one or the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="c615a1dc-c4fe-46e6-b1ba-45f8afbbb0f4" CreationDate="2012-12-03T22:24:28.890" UserId="1212" Text="Y in &quot;Yes&quot; is pronounced in a much more light way than the Russian Й, the distance between the tongue and the palate in English is wider. In Russian, that distance is the smallest possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for J as in jar, it has nothing in common with Й *or any other Russian sound*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="097e0e39-bad1-45f4-bdc4-e318ef0a1555" CreationDate="2012-12-03T22:40:23.520" UserId="1212" Text="A little monkey is called мартышка. I have never heard or read the form &quot;чита&quot; in my 50 years life. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="0db2b27d-1192-432c-8f64-876ff21b06ee" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:11:12.227" UserId="1177" Comment="deleted 388 characters in body" Text="Which quotation marks should I use? Some sentences use double-quotes, i.e. `&quot;...&quot;`, while others use double-angle-quotes, i.e. `«...»`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the `&quot;` is correct in English. However, I am not sure which ones to use in Russian. For example, should I write `&quot;Это цитирует приговор.&quot;` or `«Это цитирует приговор.»`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the correct symbols to use? Should I use `&quot;...&quot;` or `«...»`? If both should be used, when should I use one or the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="489e8da9-d78b-42c8-bee8-c4e338788d98" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:12:31.163" UserId="39" Text="I was always wondering ... when at the end of the phone or other conversation people say &quot;ну давай&quot; meaning &quot;see you later&quot;, where does this come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="489e8da9-d78b-42c8-bee8-c4e338788d98" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:12:31.163" UserId="39" Text="The meaning of &quot;давай&quot; when saying good bye" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="489e8da9-d78b-42c8-bee8-c4e338788d98" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:12:31.163" UserId="39" Text="|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="917c672b-abf8-43e3-a513-eb1636b8e957" CreationDate="2012-12-04T01:51:00.587" UserId="39" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="I was always wondering ... when at the end of the phone or other conversation people say &quot;ну давай&quot; meaning &quot;see you later&quot;, where does this come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of meaning, i always understood it to mean &quot;давай уже хватит болтать, потом поговорим&quot; sort of thing, but i am not sure of the true origins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1476" RevisionGUID="45d77256-2c13-460d-8f6a-1baa6da88715" CreationDate="2012-12-04T04:43:43.173" UserId="222" Text="Two types of quotation marks are used in Russian typography. The first one is «ёлочки», which is used in more formal writing. The other one is „лапки“. When you have one quote inside another you can use both of them.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На первой полосе было крупными буквами написано: «Пароход „Титаник“ столкнулся с айсбергом».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, even though the sentence “Это цитирует приговор” is grammatically correct, I don't understand what it means. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="0077040f-dbb6-49b9-9d2e-062a64f9715d" CreationDate="2012-12-04T06:12:14.850" UserId="242" Text="You are actually asking very, very interesting question. I believe that, among others, exactly such questions should be explored by modern linguists. As far as I know, nobody knows for sure, when and how exactly this form came to usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only list here all common hypotheses, but it is important to understand that none of them is scientific, i.e. proved by any kind of statistical data. To be more exigent, such estimates can be listed as examples of so-called &quot;[folk etymology][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The most popular opinion is this form is derived from `давай прощаться`. &#xD;&#xA; - Some claim that this is derived from `давай руку`, but I have strongly doubts about this. Opposed to `давай лапу`  it is less common in Russian to say something like this to human.&#xD;&#xA; - Some claim that this is derived from `давай пять`. I wonder why in that case the final form is not &quot;Дай&quot;, since actually it is way more common to say `дай пять`, not `давай`.&#xD;&#xA; - The form `давай` by itself is used as motivational (&quot;давай, сделай это!&quot;, &quot;давай, Вася!!!&quot;), so `давай` can be a shorten form of `давай пока` and/or famous `Давай, до свидания`. The most funny part of this is that `пока` actually is also relatively knew form of farewell. Korney Chukovsky [wrote][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Помню, как страшно я был возмущен, когда молодые люди, словно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сговорившись друг с другом, стали вместо до свиданья говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; почему-то пока.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The doubled form `давай-давай` is used to ask somebody to act quicker. By analogy with `пока-пока` one can used `давай-давай` for saying goodbye when he/she is in a hurry: &quot;Давай-давай, Оль, я побежала уже на работу&quot;. And shortened form &quot;давай&quot; had been used in same meaning: &quot;Давай, мне пора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I don't know why, but, to my knowledge, the word `давай` with this meaning is one of  the most popular russian word among non-native speakers. Moreover, it is quite popular among those who even don't know Russian. I've encountered this usage in Сentral Asia, in Caucasus and among Estonians and Lithuanian people. The second such word is `вообще` :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/BOOKS/LANG/LANG_1.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1478" RevisionGUID="667dae3b-fb79-4cb2-8c59-7f9403fa736e" CreationDate="2012-12-04T07:29:31.593" UserId="1097" Text="In addition, in this case I think, 'давай' - is a sort of &quot;junk word&quot; (слово-паразит).  &#xD;&#xA;- давай, до завтра.  &#xD;&#xA;- ну давай, пока!  &#xD;&#xA;- давай, до встречи!  &#xD;&#xA;- ну давай, увидимся.  &#xD;&#xA;or short:  &#xD;&#xA;- (ну) давай!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not everyone likes this figure of speech, in response you can get a joke:  &#xD;&#xA;- давай! &#xD;&#xA;- не дам!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="945acda7-fef1-4fa2-b811-84ffca48d9c8" CreationDate="2012-12-04T08:25:01.903" UserId="560" Text="Here's what Artemiy Lebedev, the (in?)famous designer, has to say about [quotation marks](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/104/). And a little more - [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/62/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, he also says, that the only correct forms of quotation marks in Russian writing/typography are these: «» and „“. They can be used interchangeably, but, as Yury correctly [states](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1476/560) they can be combined if you need to enclose something in quotation marks when the sentence itself is already quoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of these quotes: &quot;&quot; is considered sloppy, excluding special cases, such as writing source code. They is common on the Internet, although it is not true that the correct form of quotation marks is inaccessible on the standard keyboard. They are just slightly harder to remember. :) Here's the list for Windows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+0171 = «&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+0187 = »&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+201E = „&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+201C = “&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, for the last two to work you need to change the registry and I never succeeded in making it work for me. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and there's yet another way - Ilya Birman's [typographic keyboard layout](http://ilyabirman.ru/projects/typography-layout/). It has all the symbols you may need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="49323bfb-da0a-48ef-b47f-2ae7a61ab3b8" CreationDate="2012-12-04T08:26:26.773" UserId="626" Text="To add to the answers above, here's how you can use the right kind of quotation marks on your computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Mac,** while using Russian keyboard layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push &quot;**alt**&quot;, &quot;**shift**&quot; and &quot;**=**&quot; to type &quot;**«**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push &quot;**alt**&quot; and &quot;**=**&quot; to type &quot;**»**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Win,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn on **num lock**, then push and hold **alt**, then type these sequences of numbers on the numeric keypad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **0171** to type &quot;«&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **0187** to type &quot;»&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **0132** to type &quot;„&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **0147** to type &quot;“&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="f7a0d11a-a300-429e-a66b-458eae21df69" CreationDate="2012-12-04T08:39:06.937" UserId="626" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="To add to the answers above, here's how you can use the right kind of quotation marks on your computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Mac,** while using Russian keyboard layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push `alt`, `shift` and `=` to type `«`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push `alt` and `=` to type `»`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Win,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn on `num lock`, then push and hold `alt`, then type these sequences of numbers on the numeric keypad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0171` to type `«`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0187` to type `»`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0132` to type `„`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0147` to type `“`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be also said, that the outstanding majority of Russians don't use the correct quotation marks on the Internet. As far as I know, the `&quot;` symbol didn't use to be a quotation mark either (the English quotation marks are `“` and `”`), and is only used now due to the fact that typewriters lacked the proper signs. However, it is accepted now in English, and is widely used in Russian, despite the snobby attitude the graphic designers have towards it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1473" RevisionGUID="e5529650-054a-4a30-907b-95f5a56d90e7" CreationDate="2012-12-04T12:25:18.887" UserId="1212" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Y in &quot;Yes&quot; is pronounced in a much more light way than the Russian Й, the distance between the tongue and the palate in English is wider.   	&#xD;&#xA;Try to say it as Y in Yes, but the air should pass between the tongue and palate with much more strength. The hole between tongue and palate should be as narrow as it possible and also longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for J as in jar, it has nothing in common with Й *or any other Russian sound*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1481" RevisionGUID="a7b1d9ef-a3fc-409f-9404-1fe831828c5d" CreationDate="2012-12-04T12:44:24.493" UserId="1219" Text="As a native speaker, I believe this means &quot;давай прощаться&quot;, &quot;давай&quot; is often used in Russian in the meaning Let's + any verb. You can use &quot;давай&quot; actually with all verbs to suggest doing something. &#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;Давай поцелуемся. Давай останемся. Давай посмотрим...&#xD;&#xA;I hope I helped :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1474" RevisionGUID="120df46d-bf13-49a4-8cf4-c2f99fa47533" CreationDate="2012-12-04T12:51:25.800" UserId="1212" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="A little monkey is called мартышка. I have never heard or read the form &quot;чита&quot; in my 50 years life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your friend obviously, when being a child&quot; had taken the well-known [Cheeta shimp][1] name for a name for all small monkeys. It often happens that people are taking their child memories for absolute facts. Maybe she or her mother used the name this way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly: It is NOT the part of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.svoboda.org/content/article/463245.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="7ae6a207-af9c-4ae8-b54b-cb4a8764010d" CreationDate="2012-12-04T14:55:51.427" UserId="1065" Text="1. For official documents should only be used «...»;&#xD;&#xA;2. When writing by hand - the upper and lower double quotes („...“).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases - as you prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="6139f77e-50fd-4bdf-875b-7cd42efbe418" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:07:46.027" UserId="626" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="To add to the answers above, here's how you can use the right kind of quotation marks on your computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Mac,** while using Russian keyboard layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push `alt`, `shift` and `=` to type `«`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push `alt` and `=` to type `»`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Win,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn on `num lock`, then push and hold `alt`, then type these sequences of numbers on the numeric keypad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0171` to type `«`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0187` to type `»`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0132` to type `„`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0147` to type `“`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference between Russian and English quotation marks is where you put the period. In English, the period is put inside the quote: &quot;Like this`.&quot;` In Russian, the period is put after the quote: «Вот так`».`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be also said, that the outstanding majority of Russians don't use the correct quotation marks on the Internet. As far as I know, the `&quot;` symbol didn't use to be a quotation mark either (the English quotation marks are `“` and `”`), and is only used now due to the fact that typewriters lacked the proper signs. However, it is accepted now in English, and is widely used in Russian, despite the snobby attitude the graphic designers have towards it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="64aa95b0-bd2e-457f-b559-4d5e8fb3bb4d" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:42:24.623" UserId="1177" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="Which quotation marks should I use? Some sentences use double-quotes, i.e. `&quot;...&quot;`, while others use double-angle-quotes, i.e. `«...»`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the `&quot;` is correct in English. However, I am not sure which ones to use in Russian. For example, should I write `&quot;Это цитата.&quot;` or `«Это цитата.»`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the correct symbols to use? Should I use `&quot;...&quot;` or `«...»`? If both should be used, when should I use one or the other?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="418d130b-6f45-459a-901c-6a7fc491ee25" CreationDate="2012-12-04T19:50:01.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/276050747005747202" />
  <row Id="4557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="505626c9-0509-40e1-ab06-6aa327b7f9ec" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:40:56.530" UserId="194" Text="I believe this meant for ending a discussion in the course of which the sides had reached an agreement about any actions in the future. Thus the word could initially be a sign that the agreement remains in force even if other topics were discussed after it, because otherwise the later discussion could create an impression that the agreement idea is abandoned or not that important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ну давай тогда, будем действовать как договорились.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Хорошо, давай, до свидания тогда.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Давай встретимся на той неделе, обсудим наши результаты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ну давай тогда, до встречи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1484" RevisionGUID="f53e09a7-c623-4ce0-937d-000d56db3dd5" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:45:09.740" UserId="1225" Text="Letter &quot;й&quot; is pronounced as sound /j/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1483" RevisionGUID="f4350232-623e-4049-942a-687268c8cfdf" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:47:26.183" UserId="194" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="I believe this meant for ending a discussion in the course of which the sides had reached an agreement about any actions in the future. Thus the word could initially be a sign that the agreement remains in force even if other topics were discussed after it, because otherwise the later discussion could create an impression that the agreement idea is abandoned or not that important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ну давай тогда, будем действовать как договорились.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Хорошо, давай, до свидания тогда.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Давай встретимся на той неделе, обсудим наши результаты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ну давай тогда, до встречи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Давай действуй, нечего тут базарить, время терять!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Хорошо, сделаю, как вы сказали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="550a171e-96f5-412c-b3b2-5220af46b2f7" CreationDate="2012-12-04T22:15:18.223" UserId="496" Text="It is very interesting question indeed.&#xD;&#xA;It is also very good answer by shabunc. For example, I did not know that &quot;Пока&quot; was introduced at Korney Chukovsky's time - beginning of 20th century. I thought it existed always :-). And I did not know also about his attitude to this word introduction then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember when &quot;давай&quot; in place of &quot;до свидания&quot; or &quot;пока&quot; was introduced. It was in the end of 1970s - beginning of 80s. I remember how I myself started to use it. My understanding of its meaning was the bullet number 4 in shabunc's list, i.e. motivational. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem with more formal expressions of goodbye like &quot;прощай&quot; (almost never used), &quot;до свидания&quot;, &quot;счастливо&quot;, and even &quot;пока&quot; is that they have too much pathos for certain situations. When you parting with a good friend casually, you do not want to show too much senses but at the same time you want to finish your conversation on a positive note. Something like wish him/her good luck but without too much pathos. Here &quot;давай&quot; comes into play with a hand wave for example. Давай goes (to my mind, at least that is what I was thinking when I was using it) as shortening of &quot;давай, будь здоров&quot;, &quot;давай, наслаждайся жизнью&quot;, &quot;давай, делай что задумал&quot;, or if I may mix Russian and English &quot;давай, continue with your life&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is that давай in motivational meaning (used as a soft motivation in Russian) conveys some positive attitude to the person who it is addressed to. Something like &quot;I believe you can do it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I used/use it personally I do not think about &quot;давай прощаться&quot;, &quot;давай руку&quot;, &quot;давай пять&quot; or &quot;давай-давай&quot;. But it is just me. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4561" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1470" RevisionGUID="027f9f8f-a6fa-41b4-a522-130a80772a24" CreationDate="2012-12-05T01:50:01.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/276141344982986752" />
  <row Id="4562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="ae87d16a-207a-4fd9-91a5-3b298533cce7" CreationDate="2012-12-05T04:11:54.580" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="You are actually asking very, very interesting question. I believe that, among others, exactly such questions should be explored by modern linguists. As far as I know, nobody knows for sure, when and how exactly this form came to usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only list here all common hypotheses, but it is important to understand that none of them is scientific, i.e. proved by any kind of statistical data. To be more exigent, such estimates can be listed as examples of so-called &quot;[folk etymology][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The most popular opinion is this form is derived from `давай прощаться`. &#xD;&#xA; - Some claim that this is derived from `давай руку`, but I have strongly doubts about this. Opposed to `давай лапу`  it is less common in Russian to say something like this to human.&#xD;&#xA; - Some claim that this is derived from `давай пять`. I wonder why in that case the final form is not &quot;Дай&quot;, since actually it is way more common to say `дай пять`, not `давай`.&#xD;&#xA; - The form `давай` by itself is used as motivational (&quot;давай, сделай это!&quot;, &quot;давай, Вася!!!&quot;), so `давай` can be a shorten form of `давай пока` and/or famous `Давай, до свидания`. The most funny part of this is that `пока` actually is also relatively new form of farewell. Korney Chukovsky [wrote][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Помню, как страшно я был возмущен, когда молодые люди, словно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сговорившись друг с другом, стали вместо до свиданья говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; почему-то пока.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The doubled form `давай-давай` is used to ask somebody to act quicker. By analogy with `пока-пока` one can used `давай-давай` for saying goodbye when he/she is in a hurry: &quot;Давай-давай, Оль, я побежала уже на работу&quot;. And shortened form &quot;давай&quot; had been used in same meaning: &quot;Давай, мне пора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I don't know why, but, to my knowledge, the word `давай` with this meaning is one of  the most popular russian word among non-native speakers. Moreover, it is quite popular among those who even don't know Russian. I've encountered this usage in Сentral Asia, in Caucasus and among Estonians and Lithuanian people. The second such word is `вообще` :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/BOOKS/LANG/LANG_1.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="ab7c1fb0-1ed0-4460-ac8b-f235ac74020b" CreationDate="2012-12-05T04:49:33.323" UserId="39" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I was always wondering ... when at the end of the phone or other conversation people say &quot;ну давай&quot; meaning &quot;see you later&quot;, where does this come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of meaning, i always understood it to mean &quot;давай уже сколько можно болтать, потом поговорим&quot; sort of thing, but i am not sure of the true origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one of those things where i understand when and how to use the phrase but am complete unsure where it comes from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1490" RevisionGUID="9d361b3d-1cf2-4286-9f1f-5ffb17d5bfa2" CreationDate="2012-12-05T10:39:51.447" UserId="1230" Text="It is a distinct letter. You can find more details on [Wikipedia][1] ([Original Russian Wiki][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter has a rich history, and is currently somewhat-optional but required in specific cases (translation from Russian Wiki):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the Letter of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of 03.05.2007, № AF-159/03 &quot;Decisions of the Interdepartmental Commission on the Russian language&quot; [17] one is required to write the letter &quot;ё&quot; in cases where there may be confusion in pronouncing the word, such as in proper names; as ignoring the letter &quot;ё&quot; in this case is a violation of Federal Law &quot;On the state language of the Russian Federation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the rules of Russian spelling and punctuation in the regular printed texts the usage of &quot;ё&quot; is optional.  However, at the request of the author or editor any book can be reprinted using &quot;ё&quot;.  (src: &quot;Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации. Полный академический справочник. Под ред. В. В. Лопатина&quot;, ЭКСМО, 2006. Стр. 20, § 5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_%28Cyrillic%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="93f96128-fd22-4d09-bb26-6e2d67ba085e" CreationDate="2012-12-05T14:23:12.087" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="9b6f405d-d41f-45e4-8e19-84dff16f6181" CreationDate="2012-12-05T23:01:42.153" UserId="496" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="It's true that the words that end with ь are usually feminine grammatical gender in Russian but it does not mean that adding ь at the end is a good way of creating woman profession name from the masculine gender profession name. For this there are other standard endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only remember one such usage with ь in a children's story tale. In this story the author used мыш instead of мышь for the name of a male mouse personage. It was mimicking children's language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For feminine of врач - врачиха can be used but only in an informal conversation. In more formal speech (more respectful) you do not have any other choice except using врач and show that it is she by using feminine ending of a verb (if it is the past tense), adjective, or use она nearby. For example: Врач Иваненко пришл**а** сегодня очень рано. Врач Иваненко очень компетентн**а** в этом вопросе. Врач сегодня не принимает, **она** будет принимать завтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: OP is definitely not the first who thinks about such experimentation with Russian. Example: [Ночи без мягких знаков, глухие мужские ночи (Зимовье зверей)][1]. But it is more natural to remove ь (for fun) to make masculine from feminine than vice versa. When we make (for fun) feminine from masculine we usually add -а or -я ending (or some other ending that ends with a). Like мыша (stress on second syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example I could remember of going from masculine to feminine via -ь is лёд -&gt; наледь. But it is quite rare case not mentioning that it involves also adding prefix на- and changing ё to е. More often when you add -ь you get completely different word: вон - вонь, мол - моль. I guess the difference in sound is too small to be distinguishable enough, so the language did not accept such way of word creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/tKPm-Cxz5w4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="dcba6ea6-5e5e-4449-8657-8b9bee558d52" CreationDate="2012-12-06T01:28:35.367" UserId="62" Text="There's a famous conjecture in math that is called the abc conjecture. When I was preparing a lecture on this for a summer school in Russia a few months ago I was initially going to call it abc гипотеза, but a search of the literature suggested that the correct translation is гипотеза abc (in the same style as гипотеза Римана), so I used that instead. However, after a mathematician announced in September that he proved the conjecture (the status of *that* is not something for this website :)) I have noticed that the label abc-гипотеза (same format as Континуум-гипотеза), rather than гипотеза abc, is being used a lot more often when writing about the problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a native speaker comment on whether one form (гипотеза abc or abc-гипотеза) sounds better than another, or do they both sound reasonable?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="dcba6ea6-5e5e-4449-8657-8b9bee558d52" CreationDate="2012-12-06T01:28:35.367" UserId="62" Text="abc-гипотеза or гипотеза abc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1491" RevisionGUID="dcba6ea6-5e5e-4449-8657-8b9bee558d52" CreationDate="2012-12-06T01:28:35.367" UserId="62" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1492" RevisionGUID="e54ae05d-7b70-4ce3-af81-3e7075b8c790" CreationDate="2012-12-06T03:14:24.947" UserId="1027" Text="I like that you have this question. It is very correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, **abc-гипотеза** sounds better than **гипотеза abc**. It is really in same format as *Континуум-гипотеза*. If you want to use the same style as *гипотеза Римана*, you may use the term *гипотеза Эстерле — Массера*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also confirmed by [Wikipedia][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc-%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1493" RevisionGUID="19b7468e-1c0b-4a99-9b44-dda0803d1d4a" CreationDate="2012-12-06T05:42:21.313" UserId="1234" Text="&quot;смущен этим&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;это вызвало трудности&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Если более развернуто то&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я не морально не готов к...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="191006d5-4c70-4c2e-aeb6-b2a3338a45e6" CreationDate="2012-12-06T07:01:42.417" UserId="1235" Text="Maria had a right answer, but I just want to contribute about the &quot;general rule&quot; of usage of such constructions - when you can place &quot;of&quot;, &quot;about&quot;, &quot;by&quot; in the English version, then it's гипотеза Чего-То, otherwise it's usually Что-то-гипотеза. It's not universal, but helps a lot (for example, теорема Ферма = Ferma theorem (= theorem OF Ferma, or BY Ferma), but RGB-кодирование (RGB coding in graphics, because RGB is a &quot;type&quot; of coding, not smth like &quot;coding of RGB&quot;). However, both variants will be easily understood by any native speaker, even if one of them isn't quite right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="024b1e3a-c49f-4020-b6bd-479dec269d64" CreationDate="2012-12-06T09:51:16.303" UserId="1154" Text="Given that народ is connected to &quot;род&quot;, and has to do with birth and нация derives from the Latin &quot;natus&quot;, past participle of &quot;nasci&quot; (being born) is there any difference between the two terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been instructed that народ should be referred to people like the Komi, Yakut, Chuvash i.e. minorities in the Russian Federation, while the Russian people make up a нация, but suspect this is not the whole truth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="024b1e3a-c49f-4020-b6bd-479dec269d64" CreationDate="2012-12-06T09:51:16.303" UserId="1154" Text="Difference between нация and народ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="024b1e3a-c49f-4020-b6bd-479dec269d64" CreationDate="2012-12-06T09:51:16.303" UserId="1154" Text="|перевод|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1497" RevisionGUID="37dddb11-7780-4de0-bed7-1e648dd33888" CreationDate="2012-12-06T10:39:57.540" UserId="97" Text="Word _народ_ generally refers to a large group of people with a common something (culture, customs, language, interests, etc.), normally also within the same geographical boundaries.  The word normally infers actual physical people. It is also often used to describe a large crowd of people gathered in a particular place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там собрался у ворот // Этот, как его, народ.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Л. Филатов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _нация_ refers to an abstract group of people with the same ethnic origin.  It's very closed translated into English as _nation_ and has the same meaning.  This word does not have to infer physical people (although it could) and can simply mean some abstract group of the same nationality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нация без литературы нелюбопытна.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (З. Прилепин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When referring to an ethnic minority, you can use both words, depending on what you want to say, keeping in mind the differences I described above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="a1c4ef31-73da-4510-be69-e9060772c6cb" CreationDate="2012-12-06T11:13:13.560" UserId="194" Comment="correct language" Text="Use of е instead ё may change the meaning of word. **Все** means all. **Всё** has another meaning; the End or death like in joke about the shortest telegram Изя - всё!, or &#xD;&#xA;all ot this (Всё это).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все собрались? - Everybody here?&#xD;&#xA;Всё собрали? - Did you collect all the stuff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4588" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="a1c4ef31-73da-4510-be69-e9060772c6cb" CreationDate="2012-12-06T11:13:13.560" Comment="Proposed by 194 approved by 242, -1 edit id of 265" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1468" RevisionGUID="83395278-a790-4e19-96ae-f94b48db3e4f" CreationDate="2012-12-06T11:13:13.560" UserId="71" Comment="correct language" Text="Use of е instead ё may change the meaning of word. **Все** means all. **Всё** has another meaning; the End or death like in joke about the shortest telegram *&quot;Изя - всё!&quot;*, or &#xD;&#xA;all ot this *&quot;Всё это&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Все** собрались?*  &#xD;&#xA;Everybody here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Всё** собрали?*  &#xD;&#xA;Did you collect all the stuff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="2948c664-d1a1-4bd6-aa8d-d38aeba10bd9" CreationDate="2012-12-06T11:15:31.667" UserId="134" Text="Both *народ* and *нация* originate from Latin *natio*, though the former is a calque while the latter is a borrowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both terms are polysemic, but according to majority of views, *нация* is a political entity while *народ* is cultural, ethnical or lingistical entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two are often used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is with many philosophical terms, different authors cannot agree on exact definitions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to *Большой энциклопедический словарь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **НАЦИЯ** (от лат. *natio* - племя, народ), историческая общность людей, складывающаяся в процессе формирования общности их территории, экономических связей, литературного языка, этнических особенностей культуры и характера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **НАРОД** , 1) все население определенной страны. 2) Различные формы исторических общностей (племя, народность, нация)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4592" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="cd5cb2e6-0662-405d-9ba9-645310f11475" CreationDate="2012-12-06T11:22:02.017" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1498" RevisionGUID="55e39079-8423-4f75-8b50-a96cf87c040f" CreationDate="2012-12-06T13:39:27.863" UserId="134" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Both *народ* and *нация* originate from Latin *natio*, though the former is a calque while the latter is a borrowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both terms are polysemic, but according to majority of views, *нация* is a political entity while *народ* is cultural, ethnical or linguistical entity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two are often used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As is the case with many philosophical terms, different authors cannot agree on exact definitions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to *Большой энциклопедический словарь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **НАЦИЯ** (от лат. *natio* - племя, народ), историческая общность людей, складывающаяся в процессе формирования общности их территории, экономических связей, литературного языка, этнических особенностей культуры и характера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **НАРОД** , 1) все население определенной страны. 2) Различные формы исторических общностей (племя, народность, нация)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="5dd6399a-64bd-456a-b3bd-3803d343a4d7" CreationDate="2012-12-06T21:49:21.097" UserId="496" Comment="edited body" Text="It's true that the words that end with ь are usually feminine grammatical gender in Russian but it does not mean that adding ь at the end is a good way of creating woman profession name from the masculine gender profession name. For this there are other standard endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I only remember one such usage with ь in a children's story tale. In this story the author used мыш instead of мышь for the name of a male mouse personage. It was mimicking children's language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For feminine of врач - врачиха can be used but only in an informal conversation. In more formal speech (more respectful) you do not have any other choice except using врач and show that it is she by using feminine ending of a verb (if it is the past tense), adjective, or use она nearby. For example: Врач Иваненко пришл**а** сегодня очень рано. Врач Иваненко очень компетентн**а** в этом вопросе. Врач сегодня не принимает, **она** будет принимать завтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: OP is definitely not the first who thinks about such experimentation with Russian. Example: [Ночи без мягких знаков][1], глухие мужские ночи (Зимовье зверей). But it is more natural to remove ь (for fun) to make masculine from feminine than vice versa. When we make (for fun) feminine from masculine we usually add -а or -я ending (or some other ending that ends with a). Like мыша (stress on second syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example I could remember of going from masculine to feminine via -ь is лёд -&gt; наледь. But it is quite rare case not mentioning that it involves also adding prefix на- and changing ё to е. More often when you add -ь you get completely different word: вон - вонь, мол - моль. I guess the difference in sound is too small to be distinguishable enough, so the language did not accept such way of word creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/tKPm-Cxz5w4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="9343d3cd-afa8-4b44-afb2-dfd6592200ba" CreationDate="2012-12-06T22:09:19.027" UserId="194" Text="In most cases you should use &quot;*народ*&quot;, including the case of Russian people. Sometimes you may use &quot;*национальность*&quot; to refer either ethnicity or a small *народ*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You normally do not use the word &quot;*нация*&quot;. It is mostly used in translated texts so to translate what English language denotes as &quot;nation&quot;, a pathetic reference to a state or a power. Some neo-Nazi also may use this word in idioms like *благо нации*, *нация превыше всего*. This usage has racist overtones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, *нация* is pathetic, high-style and rare. Народ is unmarked to refer a people, страна is unmarked to refer a country.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="149f19c7-7f6f-41d7-9267-5a68116219e8" CreationDate="2012-12-07T01:30:39.117" UserId="1241" Text="I've always thought that the formal rules for declining decimals in Russian seem a little...unwieldy. For example, I gather that the *correct* way to say &quot;pi is approximately equal to 3.14159&quot; -- which isn't an uncommon thing to say, at least in some circles -- would require one to say something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;pi primerno ravno trem celym i chetyrnadcati tyseche sta pjatidesjati devjati sto tysechnym&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Is this more or less right? Sorry -- I haven't figured out how to use Cyrillic...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an English speaker would just say &quot;3-point-one-four-one-five-nine&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is -- do native Russian speakers actually take the *correct* approach in colloquial speech? Is there no easier way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="149f19c7-7f6f-41d7-9267-5a68116219e8" CreationDate="2012-12-07T01:30:39.117" UserId="1241" Text="Decimal Declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="149f19c7-7f6f-41d7-9267-5a68116219e8" CreationDate="2012-12-07T01:30:39.117" UserId="1241" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="114e8d7d-463a-4b9f-8048-d851a8b3214e" CreationDate="2012-12-07T02:49:26.133" UserId="496" Text="No, we do not use the &quot;correct&quot; way of pronouncing with сто тысячными. In colloquial speech we would pronounce it as &quot;Три запятая четырнадцать сто пятьдесят девять&quot; или &quot;Три запятая сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that Russians tend to group digits by 2 or 3 (f.e. сто сорок один) when pronounce while English usually pronounce by single digits (one four one). It is applicable to phone numbers as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="b57a90c4-65ef-409c-b939-3ca6bcb1809a" CreationDate="2012-12-07T04:17:26.373" UserId="185" Comment="Changed the transliterated text into Russian" Text="I've always thought that the formal rules for declining decimals in Russian seem a little...unwieldy. For example, I gather that the *correct* way to say &quot;pi is approximately equal to 3.14159&quot; -- which isn't an uncommon thing to say, at least in some circles -- would require one to say something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пи примерно равно трем целым и четырнадцати тесяче ста пятидесяти девяти сто тысячным&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an English speaker would just say &quot;3-point-one-four-one-five-nine&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is -- do native Russian speakers actually take the *correct* approach in colloquial speech? Is there no easier way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1504" RevisionGUID="27d54a31-a12d-41b5-94ef-a03df7942cac" CreationDate="2012-12-07T04:46:05.153" UserId="1243" Text="A very good question indeed.  I have been pondering this for a while too and conclude that the origin lies in an old Russian tradition of drinking, specifically toasting.  It is equivalent to a parting exclamation of &quot;Cheers!&quot;.  Everybody is familiar with a common toast &quot;Давай (выпьем) за...&quot; as in Let's drink to...A common one is  &quot;Давай за здоровье &quot;may we all be healthy&quot; akin to &quot;Cheers.&quot; I have been a part of many a heated convesation that ended with a peace-maiking, amicable &quot;Ну ладно, давай за...&quot;(Well, okay, let's drink to...) With time it shortened to &quot;Ну...давай,&quot; or simply &quot;давай!&quot; Eventually, it became a positive parting greeting.  Incidentally, a lot of my male friends end conversations with &quot;Ну...давай&quot; whereas I can not think of any female friend who does.  Coincidence? Well, maybe. &quot;Ну...давай&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4612" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="a7a655fc-0bcb-4dcf-b037-eabad5048abb" CreationDate="2012-12-07T04:48:30.913" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1501" RevisionGUID="d094ecb1-b469-40d0-a571-790671647acb" CreationDate="2012-12-07T08:44:56.940" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've always thought that the formal rules for declining decimals in Russian seem a little...unwieldy. For example, I gather that the *correct* way to say &quot;pi is approximately equal to 3.14159&quot; -- which isn't an uncommon thing to say, at least in some circles -- would require one to say something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пи примерно равно трём целым, четырнадцати тысячам ста пятидесяти девяти стотысячным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an English speaker would just say &quot;3-point-one-four-one-five-nine&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is -- do native Russian speakers actually take the *correct* approach in colloquial speech? Is there no easier way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="543411ef-1ee6-497c-bcb8-0b42fd8bceac" CreationDate="2012-12-07T09:57:06.713" UserId="1154" Text="Can anyone help me in telling what the woman says in [this][1] cartoon? It is only few words before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;крокодиль играи&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it is an appropriate question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: By the way, one of the best cartoons *ever!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1PJNK5aBNk&amp;t=0m15s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="543411ef-1ee6-497c-bcb8-0b42fd8bceac" CreationDate="2012-12-07T09:57:06.713" UserId="1154" Text="What does she say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="543411ef-1ee6-497c-bcb8-0b42fd8bceac" CreationDate="2012-12-07T09:57:06.713" UserId="1154" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1506" RevisionGUID="edcbf951-61f1-4728-bdf5-a0f57e7dab23" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:10:39.937" UserId="1236" Text="She gives Gena the Crocodile a garmon (&lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmon&gt;) and commands, &quot;Крокодил, играй!&quot; which means, &quot;Crocodile, play [it]!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1507" RevisionGUID="96a080bb-a8fd-44fa-b436-b701deb041e3" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:43:28.920" UserId="959" Text="— Молодец, старик! Не оставил друга! А ну-ка, подвинься... Крокодил, играй!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Good for you, old fellow! Did not leave a friend! C'mon, move over ... Crocodile, play!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1505" RevisionGUID="9ad55565-36ca-4cfa-a96c-43eb166acdf0" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:53:45.880" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 169 characters in body" Text="Can anyone help me in telling what the woman says in [this][1] cartoon? It is only few words before: &quot;крокодиль играи&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1PJNK5aBNk&amp;t=0m15s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="20b80442-eabf-453d-9138-2dae16c87d2f" CreationDate="2012-12-07T11:09:57.720" UserId="194" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="In most cases you should use &quot;*народ*&quot;, including the case of Russian people. Sometimes you may use &quot;*национальность*&quot; to refer either ethnicity as a person's quality or a small *народ*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You normally do not use the word &quot;*нация*&quot;. It is mostly used in translated texts so to translate what English language denotes as &quot;nation&quot;, a pathetic reference to a state or a power. Some neo-Nazi also may use this word in idioms like *благо нации*, *нация превыше всего*. This usage has racist overtones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, *нация* is pathetic, high-style and rare. Народ is unmarked to refer a people, страна is unmarked to refer a country.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="0fcfa136-b5c9-469b-9f31-f8e295d5fc5e" CreationDate="2012-12-07T17:36:48.820" UserId="496" Comment="added 361 characters in body" Text="No, we do not use the &quot;correct&quot; way of pronouncing with сто тысячными. In colloquial speech we would pronounce it as &quot;Три запятая четырнадцать сто пятьдесят девять&quot; или &quot;Три запятая сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that Russians tend to group digits by 2 or 3 (f.e. сто сорок один) when pronounce while English usually pronounce by single digits (one four one). It is applicable to phone numbers as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Answering question of DET of how to decline that simplified pronunciation of fractions. We bend the rules here and say &quot;пи равно три [pause] сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два...&quot; because the other possibility &quot;пи равно трем [pause] ста сорока двум пятистам девяноста двум...&quot; or &quot;трем четырнадцати пятнадцати девяноста двум&quot; sounds completely ugly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="52deb3ac-e10f-4762-a4c8-507e92b397fd" CreationDate="2012-12-07T18:13:48.043" UserId="496" Text="Бухать is a slang word for 'to drink alcohol'. But the grammatical construction is valid and can be found in many other phrases conveying amazement with somebody doing something in sheer excess. It conveys a mixture of approval and disapproval (ну ты и силен бухать). All this phrases are from spoken language because the intonation plays a big role here in conveying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и спать!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и есть!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и гулять!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и кричать!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и ругаться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;и&quot; can be omitted for brevity. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну ты даешь&quot; is grammatically similar but follows slightly different pattern meaning-wise. It is said when a person did something stupid or in other way amazing, not necessarily in excess.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="fedce7b1-aa93-4550-99e8-7b059c61bda4" CreationDate="2012-12-07T20:29:45.610" UserId="496" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="Бухать is a slang word for 'to drink alcohol'. But the grammatical construction is valid and can be found in many other phrases conveying amazement with somebody doing something in sheer excess. It conveys a mixture of approval and disapproval (ну ты и силен бухать), and aimed at embarrassing a person to whom it is said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the first part of phrase is expressing some positive amazement (ну ты и), the second part - just to balance - usually uses more or less offensive/colloquial word for person's behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this phrases are from spoken language because the intonation plays a big role here in conveying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и спать (дрыхнуть)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и есть (жрать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и гулять (шляться)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и кричать (орать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и ругаться (пи..еть)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;и&quot; after ты can be omitted for brevity. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну ты даешь&quot; is grammatically similar but follows slightly different pattern meaning-wise. It is said when a person did something stupid or in other way amazing, not necessarily in excess.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="3c8d4a3f-99a4-462f-b25f-cc03d3aaae6d" CreationDate="2012-12-07T21:54:29.757" UserId="496" Comment="pathetic = жалкий, достойный презрения. pompous sounds better in the meaning that you intended." Text="In most cases you should use &quot;*народ*&quot;, including the case of Russian people. Sometimes you may use &quot;*национальность*&quot; to refer either ethnicity as a person's quality or a small *народ*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You normally do not use the word &quot;*нация*&quot;. It is mostly used in translated texts so to translate what English language denotes as &quot;nation&quot;, a pompous reference to a state or a power. Some neo-Nazi also may use this word in idioms like *благо нации*, *нация превыше всего*. This usage has racist overtones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, *нация* is pompous, high-style and rare. Народ is unmarked to refer a people, страна is unmarked to refer a country.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4629" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="3c8d4a3f-99a4-462f-b25f-cc03d3aaae6d" CreationDate="2012-12-07T21:54:29.757" Comment="Proposed by 496 approved by 194 edit id of 266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="bd45fd44-36ba-4905-807d-d30030d87af2" CreationDate="2012-12-07T22:21:36.600" UserId="496" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Бухать is a slang word for 'to drink alcohol'. But the grammatical construction is valid and can be found in many other phrases conveying amazement with somebody doing something in sheer excess. It conveys a mixture of approval and disapproval (ну ты и силен бухать), and aimed at embarrassing a person to whom it is said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the first part of phrase is expressing some positive amazement (ну ты и), the second part - just to balance - usually uses more or less offensive/colloquial word for person's behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this phrases are from spoken language because the intonation plays a big role here in conveying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и спать (дрыхнуть)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и есть (жрать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и гулять (шляться)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и кричать (орать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и ругаться (пи..еть)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;и&quot; after &quot;ты&quot; can be omitted for brevity. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну ты даешь&quot; is grammatically similar but follows a slightly different pattern meaning-wise. It is said when a person did something stupid or in other way amazing, not necessarily in excess.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="f8b8c482-e410-4a5b-be7a-16c6757bafce" CreationDate="2012-12-08T02:20:01.290" UserId="496" Text="First of all, I would like to say that I do not think that the proving of conjecture had direct influence to the fact that it started to be written in a different manner. :-) Something like: for uncertain things we use гипотеза х, but for known things x-гипотеза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding to the question of what sounds better to Russian ear, the answer is as usual: it depends. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally Russian has two types of constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. теорема/гипотеза/теория/уравнение + &lt;сущ. в родительном падеже&gt; (Noun + noun in Genetive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;F.e. уравнения Максвелла, теория чисел, теория струн&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2. &lt;прилагательное&gt; + теорема/гипотеза/теория/уравнение (adjective + noun)&#xD;&#xA;F.e. Евклидова геометрия, флуктуационная гипотеза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the first way is the most commonly used for names of theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the first way corresponds to *theory of + noun* and is quite rarely used. Example: theory of relativity. But the most common construction in English is *attributive noun + noun*. All my examples of Russian way 1. will be translated using attributive noun in English: Maxwell equation, number theory, string theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third way in Russian like Континуум-гипотеза, abc-гипотеза is calque from English. It became more fashionable now in the days of globalization when researches read a lot of material in English and translate their works into English, so why bother doing full adoption into language - it may be more practical to keep it closer to English, less re-wording when translate. So while *гипотеза континуума* sounds more Russian *Континуум-гипотеза* sounds cooler and is shorter. Compare with older adoption *теорема вириала*, was not taken as *вириал-теорема*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abc-гипотеза is even more obvious candidate to the use of English way with attributive noun in front because it is anyway written in Latin alphabet and &quot;abc&quot; does not decline. So it does not sounds Russian even if you put &quot;abc&quot; after the &quot;гипотеза&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1511" RevisionGUID="5c58c5aa-2899-428b-b041-e64a55916d41" CreationDate="2012-12-08T02:25:24.717" UserId="496" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="First of all, I would like to say that I do not think that the proving of conjecture had direct influence to the fact that it started to be written in a different manner. :-) Something like: for uncertain things we use гипотеза х, but for known things x-гипотеза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding to the question of what sounds better to Russian ear, the answer is as usual: it depends. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally Russian has two types of constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. теорема/гипотеза/теория/уравнение + &lt;сущ. в родительном падеже&gt; (Noun + noun in Genetive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;F.e. уравнения Максвелла, теория чисел, теория струн&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2. &lt;прилагательное&gt; + теорема/гипотеза/теория/уравнение (adjective + noun)&#xD;&#xA;F.e. Евклидова геометрия, флуктуационная гипотеза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the first way is the most commonly used for names of theories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English the first way corresponds to *theory of + noun* and is quite rarely used. Example: theory of relativity. But the most common construction in English is *attributive noun + noun*. All my examples of Russian way 1. will be translated using attributive noun in English: Maxwell equation, number theory, string theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third way in Russian like Континуум-гипотеза, abc-гипотеза is calque from English. It became more fashionable now in the days of globalization when researches read a lot of material in English and translate their works into English, so why bother doing full adoption into language - it may be more practical to keep it closer to English, less re-wording when translate. So while *гипотеза континуума* sounds more Russian *Континуум-гипотеза* sounds cooler and is shorter. Compare with older adoption: *теорема вириала*, was not taken as *вириал-теорема*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abc-гипотеза is even more obvious candidate to the use of English way with attributive noun in front because it is anyway written in Latin alphabet and &quot;abc&quot; does not decline. So it does not sounds Russian even if you put &quot;abc&quot; after the &quot;гипотеза&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="770fb7e9-0586-4b59-8c8b-24ce53735825" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:02:03.403" UserId="496" Comment="Ферма spelled Fermat in English." Text="Maria had a right answer, but I just want to contribute about the &quot;general rule&quot; of usage of such constructions.  When you can place &quot;of&quot;, &quot;about&quot;, &quot;by&quot; in the English version, then it's гипотеза Чего-То, otherwise it's usually Что-то-гипотеза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not universal, but helps a lot (for example, теорема Ферма = Fermat theorem (= theorem OF Fermat, or BY Fermat), but RGB-кодирование (RGB coding in graphics, because RGB is a &quot;type&quot; of coding, not smth like &quot;coding of RGB&quot;). However, both variants will be easily understood by any native speaker, even if one of them isn't quite right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4634" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1494" RevisionGUID="770fb7e9-0586-4b59-8c8b-24ce53735825" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:02:03.403" Comment="Proposed by 496 approved by 71 edit id of 267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="49731574-020b-4404-9d0f-14c20a1160b8" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:50:10.423" UserId="1249" Text="When using an imperative form, what effect does the speaker's choice of aspect have? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More concretely - what's the difference between (for example) &quot;snimaj pal'to&quot; and &quot;snimi pal'to&quot;? In both cases, the speaker intends for the action to be completed &quot;immediately&quot;, so the choice of aspect (imperfective vs perfective) doesn't seem to have it's usual grammatical significance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the choice of aspect  mostly a matter of &quot;etiquette&quot;? It may be just me, but the imperfective form (&quot;snimaj&quot;) seems more polite. But I think I've heard plenty of native speakers use imperfective forms when they intend to be rude (for example, there's a scene in &quot;Brat&quot; when our hero tells a hooligan on the bus to &quot;bezhai&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="49731574-020b-4404-9d0f-14c20a1160b8" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:50:10.423" UserId="1249" Text="Imperatives and Aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="49731574-020b-4404-9d0f-14c20a1160b8" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:50:10.423" UserId="1249" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="d4f07622-de5f-4c17-92b6-9d374a1736b6" CreationDate="2012-12-08T16:58:52.110" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="When using an imperative form, what effect does the speaker's choice of aspect have? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More concretely - what's the difference between (for example) `снимай пальто` and `сними пальто`? In both cases, the speaker intends for the action to be completed &quot;immediately&quot;, so the choice of aspect (imperfective vs perfective) doesn't seem to have it's usual grammatical significance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the choice of aspect  mostly a matter of &quot;etiquette&quot;? It may be just me, but the imperfective form (`снимай`) seems more polite. But I think I've heard plenty of native speakers use imperfective forms when they intend to be rude (for example, there's a scene in &quot;Brat&quot; when our hero tells a hooligan on the bus to &quot;bezhai&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="dfe77eb3-3277-4d76-8654-f16df85d84a8" CreationDate="2012-12-08T17:59:21.490" UserId="496" Comment="added 711 characters in body" Text="Бухать is a slang word for 'to drink alcohol'. But the grammatical construction is valid and can be found in many other phrases conveying amazement with somebody doing something in sheer excess. It conveys a mixture of approval and disapproval (ну ты и силен бухать), and aimed at embarrassing a person to whom it is said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the first part of phrase is expressing some positive amazement (ну ты и), the second part - just to balance - usually uses more or less offensive/colloquial word for person's behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this phrases are from spoken language because the intonation plays a big role here in conveying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и спать (дрыхнуть)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и есть (жрать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и гулять (шляться)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и кричать (орать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и ругаться (пи..еть)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;и&quot; after &quot;ты&quot; can be omitted for brevity. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну ты даешь&quot; is grammatically similar but follows a slightly different pattern meaning-wise. It is said when a person did something stupid or in other way amazing, not necessarily in excess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Because OP was asking for references (not only personal experiences) I looked on internet. The only source discussing exactly this question I found is [here][1]. Apparently, many Russians believe that it is not a valid construction. While others sure that it is. To approach the problem of this disagreement scientifically we now need to find the correlation between the fact of believe that it exists/not exists and other characteristics of believers. :-) We obviously do not have time to do this research but my guess it is geographical differentiation. I think this phrase is used in certain geographical locations and is not used in others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=37617.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="6a8065bf-96fc-4004-8f5a-c1f02937ffd2" CreationDate="2012-12-08T18:17:17.010" UserId="1253" Text="Is there a difference between these two words or are they synonyms? I understand that both words describe weather conditions, that are colder, than just &quot;холод&quot;. It does seem to me that &quot;стужа&quot; sounds harsher than &quot;мороз&quot;, but I cannot explain it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="6a8065bf-96fc-4004-8f5a-c1f02937ffd2" CreationDate="2012-12-08T18:17:17.010" UserId="1253" Text="Difference between &quot;стужа&quot; and &quot;мороз&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="6a8065bf-96fc-4004-8f5a-c1f02937ffd2" CreationDate="2012-12-08T18:17:17.010" UserId="1253" Text="|выбор-слова|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1514" RevisionGUID="a29d2485-1bf8-44ab-a15b-b8751840a78c" CreationDate="2012-12-08T19:33:54.923" UserId="441" Text="You're right, &quot;стужа&quot; (or old-fashioned &quot;студа&quot;) means &quot;сильный мороз&quot;. You can consult [Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language][1] by Vladimir Dal to get a comprehensive explanation of the words' meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovardalja.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="0019bc8e-0f5e-469f-b15b-76de1719342c" CreationDate="2012-12-08T19:46:51.620" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|вид|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="952ab7f1-3d7b-4f04-bc03-62cbde29bfba" CreationDate="2012-12-08T20:06:42.000" UserId="71" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="When using an imperative form, what effect does the speaker's choice of aspect have? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More concretely — what's the difference between (for example) *снимай пальто* and *сними пальто*? In both cases, the speaker intends for the action to be completed &quot;immediately&quot;, so the choice of aspect (imperfective vs perfective) doesn't seem to have it's usual grammatical significance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the choice of aspect  mostly a matter of &quot;etiquette&quot;? It may be just me, but the imperfective form (*снимай*) seems more polite. But I think I've heard plenty of native speakers use imperfective forms when they intend to be rude (for example, there's a scene in &quot;Brat&quot; when our hero tells a hooligan on the bus to &quot;bezhai&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="f2ab4ff2-25b2-497c-b38a-9df74f79c279" CreationDate="2012-12-08T20:39:45.717" UserId="134" Text="As with other moods, perfective form focuses on state transition (start, end, result) while imperfective focuses on state (or process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It naturally occurs that a request to perform a process sounds more polite than a request to obtain the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Babaytseva et. al, *Современный русский язык*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Основным модальным значением формы несовершенного вида является выражение побуждения. Внимание говорящего направлено на факт действия, а не на его результат, цель:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ты скоро соберешься? Собирайся, я подожду на крыльце *(Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; — Здесь не положено расхаживать, уходите, а не то задержу!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; — Задерживайте,— сказал Синцов с полной готовностью *(Симонов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Формы совершенного вида обычно выражают приказание, совет, просьбу и т. д. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; А ну, расскажи, как ты там жил в эти два года *(Горький).*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Возьмите деньги и дайте туда.. *(Гончаров).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; — Леонид, остынь!  &#xD;&#xA;— Куда же больше остывать? Я и так из ледяной воды! *(Бубеннов).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1516" RevisionGUID="6692668a-5e43-4d59-819e-c5ad1c9f0304" CreationDate="2012-12-08T20:42:08.293" UserId="626" Text="Imperfective forms as imperatives are more demanding and sometimes even rude. While `дай денег` sounds like a request and can be followed by `пожалуйста`, `давай деньги` is a demand, appropriate for a robbery. `Давай деньги, пожалуйста` is a demand said with a mocking intonation: I'm being polite, but if you don't abide, you're in trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, `снимай пальто` is not rude, but doesn't leave any place for disagreeing. Sort of &quot;take off your coat, and I will not take &quot;no&quot; for an answer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual rules for perfective/imperfective verbs apply too, of course. In &quot;when you visit a friend, you should always take your coat off&quot;, you should use `снимай(те)` (repeated action). In a particular situation, the perfective is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In &quot;Brat&quot;, the hero says `бежать`. The infinitives are used as imperatives when giving orders (in army, or police.) This is, I guess, a hint to the military past of the character." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1516" RevisionGUID="11293b50-4d0b-451d-8110-93fffeb3517e" CreationDate="2012-12-08T20:47:23.593" UserId="626" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Imperfective forms as imperatives are usually more demanding and sometimes even rude. While `дай денег` sounds like a request and can be followed by `пожалуйста`, `давай деньги` is a demand, appropriate for a robbery. `Давай деньги, пожалуйста` is a demand said with a mocking intonation: I'm being polite, but if you don't abide, you're in trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, `снимай пальто` is not rude, but doesn't leave any place for disagreeing. Sort of &quot;take off your coat, and I will not take &quot;no&quot; for an answer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the intonation plays the bigger part than the aspect in all the examples mentioned above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual rules for perfective/imperfective verbs apply too, of course. In &quot;when you visit a friend, you should always take your coat off&quot;, you should use `снимай(те)` (repeated action). In a particular situation, the perfective is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In &quot;Brat&quot;, the hero says `бежать`. The infinitives are used as imperatives when giving orders (in army, or police.) This is, I guess, a hint to the military past of the character." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1516" RevisionGUID="55d8c477-e131-4f33-8a66-20b209752815" CreationDate="2012-12-08T21:44:56.640" UserId="71" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Imperfective forms as imperatives are usually more demanding and sometimes even rude. While *дай денег* sounds like a request and can be followed by *пожалуйста*, *давай деньги* is a demand, appropriate for a robbery. *Давай деньги, пожалуйста* is a demand said with a mocking intonation: I'm being polite, but if you don't abide, you're in trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, *снимай пальто* is not rude, but doesn't leave any place for disagreeing. Sort of &quot;take off your coat, and I will not take &quot;no&quot; for an answer.&quot; However, the intonation plays the bigger part than the aspect in all the examples mentioned above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual rules for perfective/imperfective verbs apply too, of course. In &quot;when you visit a friend, you should always take your coat off&quot;, you should use *снимай(те)* (repeated action). In a particular situation, the perfective is more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, in &quot;Brat&quot;, the hero says *бежать*. The infinitives are used as imperatives when giving orders (in army, or police.) This is, I guess, a hint to the military past of the character." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4650" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="66ea2c58-9bc4-47b2-b462-e0bae616f26d" CreationDate="2012-12-08T22:50:10.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/277545632724553728" />
  <row Id="4651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="1f090863-7e58-4884-af12-533369d8760c" CreationDate="2012-12-09T04:00:12.093" UserId="1177" Text="In a recent question about the [pronunciation of 'е'](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1449/pronunciation-of-%D0%B5), there was [an answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1452/1177) by [permeakra](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/334/permeakra) which says,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... 'Э' as a in cat ... ,&quot; and a comment by [Andrei](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/1198/andrei) which says,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... 'net' is pronounced as with Э not as with Russian Е.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should 'э' be pronounced as 'a' in &quot;cat&quot;, or 'e' in &quot;net&quot;? Is its pronunciation context dependent? If so what are the rules for its pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="1f090863-7e58-4884-af12-533369d8760c" CreationDate="2012-12-09T04:00:12.093" UserId="1177" Text="Pronunciation of 'э'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="1f090863-7e58-4884-af12-533369d8760c" CreationDate="2012-12-09T04:00:12.093" UserId="1177" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1513" RevisionGUID="b727ac29-59d7-4b29-b05f-3511cbe1896f" CreationDate="2012-12-09T04:50:10.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/277636230341083136" />
  <row Id="4657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="2d33056d-4c21-4f02-88e6-795ac9f3e4fb" CreationDate="2012-12-09T06:56:20.153" UserId="1177" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&lt;!--In a recent question about the [pronunciation of 'е'](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1449/pronunciation-of-%D0%B5), there was [an answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1452/1177) by [permeakra](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/334/permeakra) which says,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... 'Э' as a in cat ... ,&quot; and a comment by [Andrei](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/1198/andrei) which says,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... 'net' is pronounced as with Э not as with Russian Е.&quot;--&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should 'э' be pronounced as 'a' in &quot;cat&quot;, or 'e' in &quot;net&quot;? Is its pronunciation context dependent? If so what are the rules for its pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="f0667018-7ba2-4030-ac43-3d55ca669a23" CreationDate="2012-12-09T08:26:51.603" UserId="334" Text="[Here][1] is an article in the wiki about sound, that is ideal russian 'Э' from linguistic POV. However, from POV of native speaker [this][2] sound is the same. To be precise, this is a part of English, that gives hard time native Russians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_front_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1521" RevisionGUID="14127893-f6a4-45e9-b8fc-89cc16e0659a" CreationDate="2012-12-09T08:35:30.310" UserId="1027" Text="**'Э'** often is used to transmit sound **[æ]** *(blackpool)* or diphthong **[ɛə]** *(Delaware, Blair)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules for its pronounciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **'Э'** is pronounced in initial position before hard consonants: *этот, энциклопедия, эклиптика, эволюция, элементарно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **'Э'** after the consonants *(пэр, мэр, сэр)* denotes the hardness of the consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **'Е'** reads as **'э'** after some hard consonants of loanwords: *фон**е**тика*, *от**е**ль, каф**е**, эсс**е***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **'Э'** is used to write a few words of ingrained Russian: *этот, этакий, это, эк, эвон, эва, эдак, эх, эхе-хе, эй, эхма, эге-ге, эге.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1522" RevisionGUID="2aa7d9b3-e253-4754-b725-53bdf3e4d71f" CreationDate="2012-12-09T08:36:28.407" UserId="194" Text="&quot;Стужа&quot; is outdated. You will not normally encounter this word in modern speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="d0784dfa-ca52-4a4e-b68b-9b95d8b85351" CreationDate="2012-12-09T08:36:29.920" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="[Here is][1] a quote from today news:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;На прошлой неделе выпал первый снег, и серые журавли, обитающие на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белом озере, сразу *поднялись на крыло и улетели*&quot;, - рассказал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представитель регионального управления Росприроднадзора, добавив, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; птенцы стерхов не смогли полететь вместе с ними, так как, скорее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всего, не успели полностью адаптироваться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - what exactly does &quot;подняться на крыло&quot; mean and how does it differ from &quot;улетели&quot;? Is it an exact synonym for &quot;взлететь&quot; or there are some shifts in connotation/denotaion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2012/10/10/n_2565605.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4662" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="d0784dfa-ca52-4a4e-b68b-9b95d8b85351" CreationDate="2012-12-09T08:36:29.920" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242 edit id of 268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1521" RevisionGUID="aa3850b4-37d4-4ffd-b4e7-7a292c58cbfc" CreationDate="2012-12-09T09:00:18.733" UserId="1027" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="**'Э'** often is used to transmit sound **[æ]** *(blackpool)* or diphthong **[ɛə]** *(Delaware, Blair)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules for its pronounciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **'Э'** is pronounced in initial position before hard consonants: *этот, энциклопедия, эклиптика, эволюция, элементарно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **'Э'** after the consonants *(пэр, мэр, сэр)* denotes the hardness of the consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **'Е'** reads as **'э'** after some hard consonants of loanwords: *фонетика, отель, кафе, эссе.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **'Э'** is used to write a few words of ingrained Russian: *этот, этакий, это, эк, эвон, эва, эдак, эх, эхе-хе, эй, эхма, эге-ге, эге.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="718ea9dd-6530-4cdd-9516-2bd7ebca55cd" CreationDate="2012-12-09T10:49:30.033" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="What exactly do these words mean? How can you correctly use them in speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that &quot;портак&quot; is some sort of a prison tattoo, but then what does &quot;напортачил&quot; mean?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4665" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1386" RevisionGUID="718ea9dd-6530-4cdd-9516-2bd7ebca55cd" CreationDate="2012-12-09T10:49:30.033" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 269" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="3ce30552-cc7c-4df6-94bc-b9f350304f88" CreationDate="2012-12-09T10:49:59.750" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="1. For official documents only «...» should be used;&#xD;&#xA;2. When writing by hand, the upper and lower double quotes („...“).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In other cases - as you prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4667" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1482" RevisionGUID="3ce30552-cc7c-4df6-94bc-b9f350304f88" CreationDate="2012-12-09T10:49:59.750" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="20fcf854-b370-4b75-b62b-b431d6b942fe" CreationDate="2012-12-09T13:18:30.853" UserId="827" Text="If you mean British pronounciation of [æ] as in &quot;cat&quot;, this is definitely not our 'э'; it's like 'я' between two palatalized consonants. The closest to russian 'э' among symbols used for English is [ɛ], but [e] is also acceptable. But, on the other side, Russians usually have difficulties to pronounce [æ] correctly here and replace it with long [ɛ]; this is supported by some American dialects affection and that can confuse native English speakers to find a relation between sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page at &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_Russian&gt; declares [ɛ] as main variant for 'э'. It's rather true because relations between [ɛ] and [e] follows common relations between the mid-back vowel row, after unpalatalized consonants, and the front row, after palatalized consonants. The letter &quot;э&quot; is never used to palatalize a consonant before it, so it means [ɛ]. OTOH, &quot;е&quot; can mean both [e] after a palatalized consonant (the most used case), [e̞] after non-palatalized sibilant as &quot;ш&quot;, or [ɛ] in loanwords (тест, кашне, проект, etc.); the native words usually have no non-palatalization effect, but it's typical for loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shall also notice that Russians which haven't got special linguistics education can't understand difference between [ɛ] and [e], as with most other pairs ([a] vs. [ä], etc.) because the factor which affects vowel allphone selection is palatalization of previous consonant, but in written the latter is defined by vowel letter selection (а/я, э/е, etc.); this could confuse if not understood clearly. Traditional school grammar requires a student to sign the vowel as [э] independently of its implementation variant, so e.g. &quot;лето&quot; is transcribed as [л'эта].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the short final conclusion is that you can pronounce it like [e] in &quot;net&quot;, etc., or better as the first sound in &quot;air&quot; [ɛə], but the main factor is that you shan't palatalize (&quot;soften&quot;) the preceding consonant and you will be correctly understood when using either of them; and [æ] isn't applicable here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="67279bec-56e2-495f-8d7f-81e415ace38d" CreationDate="2012-12-09T13:44:57.630" UserId="827" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="If you mean British pronounciation of [æ] as in &quot;cat&quot;, this is definitely not our 'э'; it's like 'я' between two palatalized consonants. The closest to russian 'э' among symbols used for English is [ɛ], but [e] is also acceptable. But, on the other side, Russians usually have difficulties to pronounce [æ] correctly here and replace it with long [ɛ]; this is supported by some American dialects affection and that can confuse native English speakers to find a relation between sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page at &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_Russian&gt; declares [ɛ] as main variant for 'э'. It's rather true because relations between [ɛ] and [e] follows common relations between the mid-back vowel row, after unpalatalized consonants, and the front row, after palatalized consonants. The letter &quot;э&quot; is never used to palatalize a consonant before it, so it means [ɛ]. OTOH, &quot;е&quot; can mean both [e] after a palatalized consonant (the most used case), [e̞] after non-palatalized sibilant as &quot;ш&quot;, or [ɛ] in loanwords (тест, кашне, проект, etc.); the native words usually have no non-palatalization effect, but it's typical for loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shall also notice that Russians which haven't got special linguistics education can't understand difference between [ɛ] and [e], as with most other pairs ([a] vs. [ä], etc.) because the factor which affects vowel allphone selection is palatalization of previous consonant, but in written the latter is defined by vowel letter selection (а/я, э/е, etc.); this could confuse if not understood clearly. Traditional school grammar requires a student to sign the vowel as [э] independently of its implementation variant, so e.g. &quot;лето&quot; is transcribed as [л'эта].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the short final conclusion is that you can pronounce it like [e] in &quot;net&quot;, etc., or better as the first sound in &quot;air&quot; [ɛə], but the main factor is that you shan't palatalize (&quot;soften&quot;) the preceding consonant and you will be correctly understood when using either of them; and [æ] isn't applicable here. And, BTW, unstressed 'э' is most likely [ə]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1524" RevisionGUID="e306a959-d04f-4ea0-9079-2f0855f26b98" CreationDate="2012-12-09T15:42:23.597" UserId="1238" Text="Стужа-это когда зимой,дует сильны ветер и очень холодно (как правило,стужа бывает при сильном морозе )а мороз-это просто очень низкая температура,то есть -много ))&#xD;&#xA; Стужа - от слова Студить,остывать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1524" RevisionGUID="71aebbc1-406a-456f-9c6d-f0df05f0ee38" CreationDate="2012-12-09T16:00:26.457" UserId="185" Comment="Formatted the answer changed the order of the clauses to make the answer clearer." Text="*Стужа* - это когда зимой дует сильный ветер и очень холодно, а *мороз* - это просто очень низкая температура, то есть - много. Как правило, *стужа* бывает при сильном *морозе*.&#xD;&#xA;*Стужа* имеет общий корень со словами *студить*, *остывать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="de55a94f-1fd6-4488-99a8-c0020eb9b874" CreationDate="2012-12-09T19:33:47.867" UserId="827" Comment="added 872 characters in body" Text="Another instance of extended cases list I've saved from FidoNet echoareas (which aren't stably archived at WWW resources so are continually lost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It differs from the list posted by Anixx in the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In presence of 3 vocatives but miss of Ablative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I have regroupped these cases according to traditional order of 6 main cases used in school grammars, and others which differs from their &quot;bases&quot; only for some words are listed as subvariants (e.g. (2a) is variant of (2)). I treat this order as more useful because it simplifies learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm currently editing it, not for contents, but for form, so one can see intermediate partially edited variants.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2. **Родительный (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2a. **Количественно-отделительный (Родительный-II)**&#xD;&#xA;(ложка сахару, налейте мне чаю vs. нет сахара, пять пачек чая)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2b. **Счётный-I**&#xD;&#xA;(два шага́, часа́, ряда́ vs. (Род. ед.): ша́га, ча́са, ря́да; в разговорном также - два раза́)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used for some words with numerals like 2-4, 22-24, etc. instead of Sing. Gen. and differs only in stress placement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-2c. **Счётный-II**&#xD;&#xA;(чулок — чулков, сапог — сапогов, гусар — гусаров, вольт — вольтов, грамм —&#xD;&#xA;граммов, байт — байтов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used for some words with numerals like 5-20, 25-30, etc. instead of Pl. Gen. and differs in style of endings forming. There is no single rule for it, but there are a few patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-3. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-4. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-4a. **Включительный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(взять в солдаты, в зятья; выйти в люди; пройти в кандидаты)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is grammatically equal to old Pl. Acc. and used for one stable pattern. The difference with the current Acc. is that it is identical in forms with Pl. Nom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-5. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-6. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-6a. Местный aka Предложный-II (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;(в лесу́, в крови́, в слеза́х vs. о ле́се, о кро́ви, о слёзах)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-7a. Звательный-I (церковнославянский)&#xD;&#xA;Боже, господи, владыко, отче&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-7b. **Звательный-II (старый)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;деда, доча, сынка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-7c. **Звательный-III (новый)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-8. **Ждательный**&#xD;&#xA;(жду письма, мать, результата — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Вин.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-9. **Лишительный**&#xD;&#xA;(нет читал газеты vs. газету — внешне всегда совпадает с Род. или Дат.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дядь, мам, Лен, тёть, Солнц, ребят, девчат, батянь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;этот список я собрал, начитавшись обсуждения здесь и полазив по интернету за&#xD;&#xA;опубликованными лингвистами, так что вот еще и ссылочки для полноты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: Зализняк А.А. &quot;Русское именное словоизменение.&quot; Москва.: Hаука, 1967.&#xD;&#xA;2: Успенский В.А. &quot;К определению падежа по А. H .Колмогорову //&#xD;&#xA;Бюллетень объединения по проблемам машинного перевода.&quot; . том 5.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kolmogorov.pms.ru/uspensky-k_opredeleniyu_padezha_po_kolmogorovu&#xD;&#xA;3. Клобуков Е.В. &quot;Семантика падежных форм в современном русском&#xD;&#xA;литературном языке. (Введение в методику позиционного анализа)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Москва, изд МГУ, 1986.&#xD;&#xA;4: Милославский И.Г., &quot;Морфология // Современный русский язык / Под ред.&#xD;&#xA;В. А. Белошапковой&quot;. 2е изд.. М.: Высшая школа, 1989.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I'm citing groundings for some cases, from the same discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Ждательный падеж* представлен однопадежным рядом именных словоформ,&#xD;&#xA;встречающихся в оборотах _жду мать, жду результата, жду поезд, жду&#xD;&#xA;поезда, жду письмо, жду письма_ и им подобных. Здесь существенно, что в&#xD;&#xA;этом ряду отсутствуют такие обороты, как _жду матери_ и _жду результат,_&#xD;&#xA;которые объявляются недопустимыми; если же допустить такие обороты, то&#xD;&#xA;ждательного падежа не возникнет, а окажется просто-напросто, что после&#xD;&#xA;глагола _ждать_ всегда возможен как винительный, так и родительный падеж&#xD;&#xA;(по аналогичной причине в схеме Зализняка отсутствует лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;о чём будет сказано ниже). Ждательный падеж не возникнет и в том случае,&#xD;&#xA;если признать актуальным почти стёртое ныне архаичное смысловое различие&#xD;&#xA;между оборотами вида _ждать письмо_ и _ждать письма;_ в этом случае&#xD;&#xA;также окажется, что после глагола _ждать_ возможен как винительный, так&#xD;&#xA;и родительный падеж -- но не по произволу, как в предыдущем случае,&#xD;&#xA;а в зависимости от степени определённости предмета; именно, для&#xD;&#xA;определённого предмета будет употребляться винительный падеж, а для&#xD;&#xA;неопределённого -- родительный (возможно, что &quot;письмо&quot; со значением&#xD;&#xA;определённости и &quot;письмо&quot; со значением неопределённости целесообразно&#xD;&#xA;считать разными лексемами).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь о *включительном падеже.* В этом падеже предположительно&#xD;&#xA;пребывают словоформы _солдаты_ и _зятья_ в контекстах _идти в солдаты_&#xD;&#xA;и _взять в зятья._ Слово &quot;предположительно&quot; означает, что включительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж возникает при выполнении следующих двух предположений.&#xD;&#xA;Предполагается, во-первых, что в указанных контекстах словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдаты_ и _зятья_ принадлежат тем же лексемам, что и словоформы&#xD;&#xA;_солдат_ и _зять,_ -- а не особым лексемам, означающим нерасчленённые&#xD;&#xA;совокупности солдат или зятьёв; при этой противоположной точке зрения&#xD;&#xA;падеж имён в рассматриваемых контекстах окажется винительным или&#xD;&#xA;именительным. Предполагается, во-вторых, что присутствующие в указанных&#xD;&#xA;контекстах смысловые отношения тождественны тем, которые присутствуют&#xD;&#xA;в словосочетаниях _идти в армию_ и _взять в семью;_ при отрицании этого&#xD;&#xA;второго предположения (но принятии первого) падеж имён оказывается&#xD;&#xA;именительным (причём именительным с предлогом!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моей статье в качестве возможного был назван также &quot;лишительный&#xD;&#xA;падеж&quot;. В схеме А. А. Зализняка он отсутствует. Дело в том, что&#xD;&#xA;определение А. А. Зализняка, помимо многочисленных технических&#xD;&#xA;улучшений, отличается от определения, изложенного в моей статье, в&#xD;&#xA;одном принципиальном пункте. А именно, определение Зализняка запрещает&#xD;&#xA;считаться самостоятельным падежом такому претенденту на это звание,&#xD;&#xA;у которого множество соответствующих этому претенденту сегментов&#xD;&#xA;является объединением других множеств, каждое из которых образует свой&#xD;&#xA;собственный падеж. А множество сегментов &quot;лишительного падежа&quot; как&#xD;&#xA;раз и является объединением двух множеств, одно из которых отвечает&#xD;&#xA;винительному падежу, а другое родительному: в приведённом в [РИС] в&#xD;&#xA;качестве примера контексте _&quot;я не узнал...&quot;_ вместо многоточия можно&#xD;&#xA;по произволу поставить слово как в винительном, так и в родительном&#xD;&#xA;падеже. Таким образом, определение Зализняка содержит дополнительную&#xD;&#xA;запретительную клаузулу, но зато даёт более экономную картину: вместо&#xD;&#xA;того, чтобы вводить в рассмотрение двенадцатый, лишительный падеж,&#xD;&#xA;достаточно сказать, что в определённых контекстах можно употреблять как&#xD;&#xA;винительный, так и родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="f861ebb5-4fb1-4f88-af8d-39276d4ebc43" CreationDate="2012-12-09T19:37:40.010" UserId="827" Comment="notes for stress" Text="If you mean British pronounciation of [æ] as in &quot;cat&quot;, this is definitely not our 'э'; it's like 'я' between two palatalized consonants. The closest to stressed Russian 'э' among symbols used for English is [ɛ], but [e] is also acceptable. But, on the other side, Russians usually have difficulties to pronounce [æ] correctly here and replace it with long [ɛ]; this is supported by some American dialects affection and that can confuse native English speakers to find a relation between sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page at &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_Russian&gt; declares [ɛ] as main variant for stressed 'э'. It's rather true because relations between [ɛ] and [e] follows common relations between the mid-back vowel row, after unpalatalized consonants, and the front row, after palatalized consonants. The letter &quot;э&quot; is never used to palatalize a consonant before it, so it means [ɛ]. OTOH, &quot;е&quot; can mean both [e] after a palatalized consonant (the most used case), [e̞] after non-palatalized sibilant as &quot;ш&quot;, or [ɛ] in loanwords (тест, кашне, проект, etc.); the native words usually have no non-palatalization effect, but it's typical for loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shall also notice that Russians which haven't got special linguistics education can't understand difference between [ɛ] and [e], as with most other pairs ([a] vs. [ä], etc.) because the factor which affects vowel allphone selection is palatalization of previous consonant, but in written the latter is defined by vowel letter selection (а/я, э/е, etc.); this could confuse if not understood clearly. Traditional school grammar requires a student to sign the vowel as [э] independently of its implementation variant, so e.g. &quot;лето&quot; is transcribed as [л'эта].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the short final conclusion is that you can pronounce it like [e] in &quot;net&quot;, etc., or better as the first sound in &quot;air&quot; [ɛə], but the main factor is that you shan't palatalize (&quot;soften&quot;) the preceding consonant and you will be correctly understood when using either of them; and [æ] isn't applicable here. And, BTW, unstressed 'э' is most likely [ə]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1493" RevisionGUID="094ea55f-601e-4f73-a9f3-339335280e4d" CreationDate="2012-12-09T20:54:46.777" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;смущен этим&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;это вызвало трудности&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Если более развернуто то&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я морально не готов к...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="21f7e843-0428-4abd-86d8-567833453473" CreationDate="2012-12-10T01:36:52.500" UserId="1177" Text="What is the difference between «нет» and «не»? They both seem to mean &quot;no&quot;. When should each one be used? Are they interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="21f7e843-0428-4abd-86d8-567833453473" CreationDate="2012-12-10T01:36:52.500" UserId="1177" Text="Difference between &quot;нет&quot; and &quot;не&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1525" RevisionGUID="21f7e843-0428-4abd-86d8-567833453473" CreationDate="2012-12-10T01:36:52.500" UserId="1177" Text="|словоупотребление|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4678" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1517" RevisionGUID="cff4ca82-1d52-4489-8134-d9bce3e72876" CreationDate="2012-12-10T01:50:10.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/277953320402956289" />
  <row Id="4679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1526" RevisionGUID="7fa4dd6f-f244-480a-9441-70900a6784df" CreationDate="2012-12-10T02:36:57.133" UserId="222" Text="They are not interchangeable! Roughly speaking “нет” means “no”, and “не” means “not”. Here are several examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не** делай этого! — Don't (=do **not**) do that!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **не** знаю, что делать. — I don't (=do **not**) know what to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня **нет** денег. — I have **no** money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты пойдёшь на вечеринку? **Нет**, **не** пойду. — Will you go to the party? **No**, I will **not**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, however, “нет” means “not”:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы должны это сделать, хотите ли вы этого или **нет**. — You must do that whether you want that or **not**. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="aa6c7362-7be0-479d-9fca-e871e90885f1" CreationDate="2012-12-10T03:52:22.217" UserId="426" Text="Assuming that you are not talking about the &quot;нет&quot; vs. &quot;не&quot; as in &quot;no&quot; vs. &quot;not&quot;, there is a colloquial use of the word &quot;не&quot; in place of &quot;нет&quot;, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В кино пойдешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не, не пойду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, this is incorrect: one should say &quot;Нет&quot; instead of &quot;Не&quot;. However, this incorrect form is commonly used colloquially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1515" RevisionGUID="95a1f6ee-c972-4b81-94fa-a9a2749bae47" CreationDate="2012-12-10T05:26:54.457" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="As with other moods, perfective form focuses on state transition (start, end, result) while imperfective focuses on state (or process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It naturally occurs that a request to perform a process sounds more polite than a request to obtain the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Babaytseva et al., *Современный русский язык*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Основным модальным значением формы несовершенного вида является выражение побуждения. Внимание говорящего направлено на факт действия, а не на его результат, цель:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Ты скоро соберешься? Собирайся, я подожду на крыльце *(Бубеннов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; — Здесь не положено расхаживать, уходите, а не то задержу!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; — Задерживайте,— сказал Синцов с полной готовностью *(Симонов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Формы совершенного вида обычно выражают приказание, совет, просьбу и т. д. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; А ну, расскажи, как ты там жил в эти два года *(Горький).*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Возьмите деньги и дайте туда.. *(Гончаров).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; — Леонид, остынь!  &#xD;&#xA;— Куда же больше остывать? Я и так из ледяной воды! *(Бубеннов).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1528" RevisionGUID="84ee7de6-7c38-454d-93dd-67ffba084d27" CreationDate="2012-12-10T07:42:25.050" UserId="637" Text="Стужа is a dead of winter, мороз is a frost, which may happen every winter day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some synonyms are дубак - colloquail form of the frost, heard in all Siberia, and зусман. The later one comes via Yiddish from Odessa and also means frost, as I heard it from Hebrews. Also, Zusman is a widely known Yiddish family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1529" RevisionGUID="f124de62-6bb4-409e-afd8-7817f0c46262" CreationDate="2012-12-10T17:44:29.487" UserId="1264" Text="These two can be treated as synonyms, but there's a subtle difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, I would say (and Vladimir Dal's dictionary would agree with me) that &quot;стужа&quot; (derived from &quot;студа&quot;) is harsher than &quot;мороз&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, by using &quot;стужа&quot; you can refer to a situation that is &quot;colder than it should be&quot;, for example &quot;стужа в доме&quot; doesn't mean that it's -50 degrees celsius in the house, but rather that it's much colder than it should be. In a similar way you use the verb &quot;остудить&quot; (to cool down, e.g. a cup of tea which is supposed to be served hot) instead of &quot;заморозить&quot; (to freeze so that it turns into ice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;стужа&quot; is somewhat outdated. You would often find it in literature, but not so often in common speech today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://slovardalja.net/word.php?wordid=39357 for &quot;стужа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://slovardalja.net/word.php?wordid=16004 for &quot;мороз&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and both words can also refer to things other than atmospheric conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="77388d54-4e0b-43f8-8b11-3d39989ffdeb" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:24:27.970" UserId="464" Text="As I understand from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation) article, &quot;set comprehension&quot; is an expression like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    { x | x ∈ R, 0&lt;x&lt;1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is familiar to everyone, who reads mathematical literature, but I have never seen any Russian equvalent for naming such expressions in Russian literature. On [this](http://www.rsdn.ru/forum/dictionary/1075214.flat) forum 3 variants are proposed: &quot;Конструктор списка&quot;, &quot;списковое включение&quot;, &quot;ZF-выражение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First and second variants look too programming-related. Third variant looks more &quot;mathematical&quot;, but it seems to be uncommon among mathematicians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any better translation? Should the translation differ between programming and mathematical context?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="77388d54-4e0b-43f8-8b11-3d39989ffdeb" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:24:27.970" UserId="464" Text="What is Russian translation for &quot;set comprehension&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="77388d54-4e0b-43f8-8b11-3d39989ffdeb" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:24:27.970" UserId="464" Text="|перевод|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="83a81033-3261-44b6-9fda-0dea986be40c" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:36:30.057" UserId="62" Comment="fixed english grammar" Text="As I understand from the [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation) article, &quot;set comprehension&quot; is an expression like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    { x | x ∈ R, 0&lt;x&lt;1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is familiar to everyone who reads mathematical literature, but I have never seen an  equvalent for naming such expressions in the Russian literature. On [this](http://www.rsdn.ru/forum/dictionary/1075214.flat) forum 3 variants are proposed: &quot;Конструктор списка&quot;, &quot;списковое включение&quot;, &quot;ZF-выражение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and second variants look too programming-related. The third variant looks more &quot;mathematical&quot;, but it seems to be uncommon among mathematicians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better translation? Should the translation differ between programming and mathematical contexts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4688" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="83a81033-3261-44b6-9fda-0dea986be40c" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:36:30.057" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 464 edit id of 271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="dcc24b8c-ebd8-463b-b671-2185f884e390" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:52:32.043" UserId="62" Text="I am making electronic slides for a presentation, and sometimes Russian words are too long to easily fit, so I'd like to use some abbreviations. From seeing lectures at blank boards, I've seen things like ф-я for функция, Д-во for доказательство, and ст-рa for структура. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I showed a sample of my slides to a native speaker, she thought удов-яют for удовлетворяют, built on the pattern of the previous examples, looked weird and that удов. looked more natural. She thought maybe there is some preference to abbreviate a verb just using initial letters and a noun or adj. using initial and final letters, although she hasn't really done this herself in making slides (and this idea is not always followed, e.g., Теор. for Теорема instead of Теор-а). My basic request is for advice about how to write natural-looking abbreviations of long Russian words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="dcc24b8c-ebd8-463b-b671-2185f884e390" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:52:32.043" UserId="62" Text="Writing abbreviations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1531" RevisionGUID="dcc24b8c-ebd8-463b-b671-2185f884e390" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:52:32.043" UserId="62" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1532" RevisionGUID="f133abff-d36f-4686-b65d-0771f916410b" CreationDate="2012-12-10T20:32:56.397" UserId="959" Text="[This document][1] can help you.&#xD;&#xA;Also try to save the parts of words that contain main information. In this case *ф-я* looks bad, I would use *фун.*, and using *теор-а* doesn't make sense, you win almost nothing, *теор.* is definitely better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://artlib.osu.ru/Docs/gost/7.12-93.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="e78f442c-14cd-44d7-899e-bc8f9127fbfe" CreationDate="2012-12-10T20:41:54.007" UserId="1264" Text="There are two basic rules to follow, and a thousand of complex ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The abbreviated word should be understandable to the reader. Thus, commonly known abbreviations are preferred. Try this [ru.wiktionary.org][1] link, or this [slovari.ru][2] one if you're not sure about your abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Abbreviations should be unambiguous in your context of speech. For example, if you say &quot;фил.&quot;, I'm not too sure if you actually mean &quot;философский&quot; (филос.) or &quot;филологический&quot; (филол.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For complex rules and for more abbreviations, see [the link][3] provided by @КуЪ in [his answer][4]. It seems like it covers a lot of rules and provides a good deal of examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%A3%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slovari.ru/default.aspx?p=266&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://artlib.osu.ru/Docs/gost/7.12-93.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1532/1264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="631febd4-8bc4-4b10-b8e6-efc83c6a9ba0" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:02:29.627" UserId="496" Text="I will put my two cents in. :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I remember from school and university the vertical line &quot;|&quot; in the notation {x|...} was read as &quot;такой что&quot;. It was kind of the term for the symbol: symbol &quot;такой что&quot;. We did not have the term for the whole expression but the vertical line is the most important symbol there. So the logical name for the whole expression would be &quot;запись множества через знак &quot;такой что&quot;&quot; - which sounds ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I searched in Russian wikipedia for mathematical symbols and found this [page][1]. If you search on the page for the &quot;{ | }&quot;, you will find in the 3rd column the name and the pronunciation of the expression. The name is: &quot;Множество элементов, удовлетворяющих условию&quot;. So, the answer to the OP will be &quot;выражение для множества элементов удовлетворяющих условию&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it is not short, but it seems to be the official name for mathematical context. Now we can understand why we sometimes need to borrow words from other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1534" RevisionGUID="5c1b25a2-2400-4897-b719-ae152c43c056" CreationDate="2012-12-10T22:53:49.683" UserId="496" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I will throw my two cents in. :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I remember from school and university the vertical line &quot;|&quot; in the notation {x|...} was read as &quot;такой что&quot;. It was kind of the term for the symbol: symbol &quot;такой что&quot;. We did not have the term for the whole expression but the vertical line is the most important symbol there. So, the logical name for the whole expression would be &quot;определение множества через знак &quot;такой что&quot;&quot; - which sounds a bit ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I searched in Russian wikipedia for mathematical symbols and found this [page][1]. If you search on the page for the &quot;{ | }&quot;, you will find in the 3rd column the name and the pronunciation of the expression. The name is: &quot;Множество элементов, удовлетворяющих условию&quot;. So, the answer to the OP will be &quot;выражение для множества элементов удовлетворяющих условию&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it is not short, but it seems to be the official name for the mathematical context. Now we see why it is sometimes necessary to borrow terms from other languages. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1535" RevisionGUID="4245592a-13c8-4f0f-a92e-95459f63875a" CreationDate="2012-12-11T12:43:23.547" UserId="1167" Text="Вот текст с сайта TheRules.ru пропущенный через мой личный опыт:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Предпочитаю использовать для сокращения точку (**.**) вместо дефиса (-), там, где это возможно. Это позволяет избежать странных слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Начальная буква может быть любая, но первая буква после дефиса, всегда согласная: о-во (общество), д-р (доктор), т-во (товарищество), б-ка (библиотека).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Нельзя сокращать на гласную букву, только если она не в начале слова, и на букву «ь». Например: слово карельский может быть сокращено: **к.**, **кар.**, **карельск.**, а не в виде ка., каре., карель., &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. При стечении двух одинаковых согласных сокращение следует делать после первой согласной,например: **стен.** календарь, **грам.** ошибка (а не стенн., грамм.). При стечении двух различных или нескольких согласных сокращение следует делать после последней согласной, например: **народн.** творчество (а не народ.), **русск.** язык (а не рус.), **искусств.** шёлк (а не искус., или искусс., или искусст.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Есть список, так называемых, общепринятых сокращений. Например: &#xD;&#xA;и т. д.	— и так далее;&#xD;&#xA;и т. п.	— и тому подобное;&#xD;&#xA;и др.	— и другие (после перечисления);&#xD;&#xA;и пр.	— и прочие;&#xD;&#xA;см.	— смотри;&#xD;&#xA;ср.	— сравни (при ссылке; например, на другую часть сочинения);&#xD;&#xA;напр.	— например;&#xD;&#xA;в., вв.	— век, века (при обозначении цифрами веков);&#xD;&#xA;г., гг.	— год, годы	(при обозначении цифрами годов);&#xD;&#xA;т., тт.	— том, томы;&#xD;&#xA;н. ст.	— новый стиль;&#xD;&#xA;ст. ст.	— старый стиль;&#xD;&#xA;н. э.	— нашей эры;&#xD;&#xA;г.	— город;&#xD;&#xA;обл.	— область;&#xD;&#xA;р.	— река;&#xD;&#xA;оз.	— озеро;&#xD;&#xA;о.	— остров;&#xD;&#xA;гр.	— гражданин;&#xD;&#xA;стр.	— страница;&#xD;&#xA;акад.	— академик;&#xD;&#xA;доц.	— доцент;&#xD;&#xA;проф.	— профессор;&#xD;&#xA;ж. д.	— железная дорога;&#xD;&#xA;ж.-д.	— железнодорожный;&#xD;&#xA;им.	— имени;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а также:&#xD;&#xA;гор.    — город;&#xD;&#xA;пос.    — посёлок;&#xD;&#xA;ост.    — остановка;&#xD;&#xA;ст.     — станция;&#xD;&#xA;вх.     — входящий (-ая, ие);&#xD;&#xA;исх.    — исходящий (-ая, ие);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По этому списку видно, что правилом 1 пользуюсь не только я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сокращения вроде «ф-я» встречались мне только в записях лекций. Для записей лекций подобные сокращения вполне допустимы, так как позволяют производить запись с нужной скоростью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того есть сокращения типа: н/д (нет данных), об образовании которых ничего не могу сказать по существу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="408d7a3d-6c69-4a09-bb4a-02b980b39191" CreationDate="2012-12-11T12:45:17.343" UserId="242" Text="As for programming, set comprehensions, by analogy with list comprehensions (which are usually called `генераторы списков`), are called `генераторы множеств`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for maths, in Russian tradition, as far as I know, such constructions ({x | where x have following properties} are called just sets (множества), but when we want to emphasise the fact that there are some properties defining the set, we call such properties `характеристические свойства множества`. So, my 2 cents are - `множество с заданными характеристическоми свойствами` or `множество, определяемое через характеристические свойства`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="b23cc9ef-1438-44b8-967f-05d6a70e3503" CreationDate="2012-12-11T12:57:44.483" UserId="242" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="As for programming, set comprehensions, by analogy with list comprehensions (which are usually called `генераторы списков`), are called `генераторы множеств`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for maths, in Russian tradition, as far as I know, such constructions ({x | where x have following properties} are called just sets (множества), but when we want to emphasise the fact that there are some properties defining the set, we call such properties `характеристические свойства множества`. So, my 2 cents are - `множество с заданными характеристическоми свойствами` or `множество, определяемое через характеристические свойства`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `предикат` is also used instead of `характеристическое свойство`. Also, I've seen phrase `множество, заданное порождающей процедурой`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="a0dcb7b1-4d85-4859-bd71-372ffe05613e" CreationDate="2012-12-11T21:20:25.253" UserId="545" Text="My question is a bit ambiguous, but what I am trying to ask is if there was a way people could  refer to the 'state' system in away that was not that obvious to figure out for everyone else? For instance, how could someone write an article in a newspaper, which would indirectly mention problems in the system, but at the same time, the gov. could not blame that particular article for anti-Russian sanctions. The period that interest me is 1905-17 (before the revolution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen that Mayakovsky (I am not sure), for instance, is using these techniques to portray the gov. in way that allow only the 'people' to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could some one suggest what metaphors, symbols, idioms, et cetera might be used for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Artem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tags [language-and-power, hidden content]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="a0dcb7b1-4d85-4859-bd71-372ffe05613e" CreationDate="2012-12-11T21:20:25.253" UserId="545" Text="How could people in Russian Empire refer to the gov. without mentioning the actual word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="a0dcb7b1-4d85-4859-bd71-372ffe05613e" CreationDate="2012-12-11T21:20:25.253" UserId="545" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="e37840ac-e8b1-4075-9224-53c570152ab4" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:48:59.377" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My question is a bit ambiguous, but what I am trying to ask is if there was a way people could  refer to the 'state' system in away that was not that obvious to figure out for everyone else? For instance, how could someone write an article in a newspaper, which would indirectly mention problems in the system, but at the same time, the gov. could not blame that particular article for anti-Russian sanctions. The period that interest me is 1905-17 (before the revolution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen that Mayakovsky (I am not sure), for instance, is using these techniques to portray the gov. in way that allow only the 'people' to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could some one suggest what metaphors, symbols, idioms, et cetera might be used for this purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4703" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="e37840ac-e8b1-4075-9224-53c570152ab4" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:48:59.377" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|cant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4704" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="8a3a78b6-1bda-4cad-9f17-440c773eb5f4" CreationDate="2012-12-11T23:55:58.300" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1538" RevisionGUID="b82a0f7d-4eb2-4da7-a48a-3a74dbe12bf5" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:18:00.910" UserId="1266" Text="Maybe they just omitted the word &quot;Tsar&quot; (the King), replacing it with a bit of silence while pointing [index] finger up (as if pointing to the God).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no reliable sources althogh, just seen it done in actual discussion [semi]-humorously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="63965387-5454-4af8-8ff0-c9f114e53000" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:18:52.800" UserId="69" Comment="Clarification." Text="Assuming that you are not talking about the &quot;нет&quot; vs. &quot;не&quot; as in &quot;no&quot; vs. &quot;not&quot;, there is a colloquial use of the word &quot;не&quot; in place of &quot;нет&quot;, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В кино пойдешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не, не пойду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, this is incorrect: one should say &quot;Нет&quot; instead of the first &quot;Не&quot;. However, this incorrect form is commonly used colloquially." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4707" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1527" RevisionGUID="63965387-5454-4af8-8ff0-c9f114e53000" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:18:52.800" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 426 edit id of 272" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1539" RevisionGUID="d9bd452c-b681-4a71-8beb-b6d933a992f8" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:49:33.287" UserId="1236" Text="I'd like to give examples from a bit earlier times than you request. In the works of the great Russian satirist Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin (1826 – 1889) there are lots of the things of the kind you need, because in those times the censorship wouldn't simply allow any criticism of the government or the system printed. Saltykov-Shchedrin was so famous that the means he used became classics in Russian social criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his book &quot;The History of a Town&quot; he describes all the vices of the government by describing the history of a Russian town during the Middle Ages, that is speaking about the past he, actually, spoke about the present *- a time shift*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;Messieurs et Mesdames Pompadours&quot; he speaks about France, but means Russia *- a place shift*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;The Golovlyov Family&quot;, one of his best works, he describes a family, whose members reflect and refract the whole life in Russia. In &quot;The Tashkenters Clique&quot; he speaks about problems of a small remote provincial town, but means the whole of Russia *- a scale shift*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote many &quot;fairy-tales&quot; about animals, fishes, about a horse suffering from the work in the field, but they, actually, represented different strata of the then society *- a species shift*, or call it *real-into-fantastic shift*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia gives more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Saltykov-Shchedrin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1538" RevisionGUID="9c378bf2-7448-4398-b288-6f9f4da8e6a8" CreationDate="2012-12-12T02:14:43.593" UserId="1266" Comment="edited body" Text="Maybe they just omitted the word &quot;Tsar&quot; (the King), replacing it with a bit of silence while pointing [index] finger up (as if pointing at the God).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no reliable sources althogh, just seen it done in actual discussion [semi]-humorously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1540" RevisionGUID="023241f5-2c4d-433e-8e50-5a9490841ab7" CreationDate="2012-12-12T07:21:15.690" UserId="1167" Text="«Мороз» means only low temperature. At my point «мороз» often been used to indicate dry cold. And usually it's objective definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Стужа» means not only low temperature but also a cold wind and/or humid cold. Usually it's subjective definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if «на улице мороз» — you can feel yourself comfort, but if «на улице стужа» — this means that you can't feel comfortably because of wind or humid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1541" RevisionGUID="da139a12-8960-4506-98d7-bc6f8daa4bc0" CreationDate="2012-12-12T09:06:55.880" UserId="1267" Text="I think that abc-гипотеза is more convenient because the cases (падежи) influence the very end of collocation. That makes it easier to understand the relations inside the sentence because we jump to the next word right after the case marker (the ending)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="148b63e8-1a0c-46bc-bfd0-361e6007645a" CreationDate="2012-12-12T09:20:31.880" UserId="827" Text="There are a few cases which shall be described separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.1. &quot;Нет&quot; as the single word in phrase, or parenthetic, is mainly the same as English &quot;no&quot;, &quot;nope&quot;. Example: &quot;Хотите чаю?&quot; - &quot;Нет, не хочу&quot;. &quot;Do you want some tea?&quot; - &quot;No, I don't.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if the question is formed with negative clause, the correct translation shall be according to the sense, not the parenthetic word. &quot;Don't you want some tea?&quot; in English shall be answered as &quot;Yes&quot; if he wants tea and &quot;No&quot; if he doesn't. In Russian you can answer &quot;Нет, хочу&quot; (literally &quot;No, I do&quot;) or &quot;Да, не хочу&quot; (&quot;Yes, I don't&quot;) which would confuse English native speaker. It's also common mistake for most Slavic men when talking in English to form such phrases instead of the allowed &quot;Yes, I do&quot; / &quot;No, I don't&quot;. Without digging to the sense of the phrase, one could imagine that &quot;нет&quot; means &quot;yes&quot;:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Variants for the same case are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The &quot;word&quot; &quot;unh-unh&quot; (two clearly separated m-like sounds without opening a mouth) is usually written as &quot;не-а&quot;. Sometimes &quot;не-а&quot; is said explicitly, as /nʲeɁa/ (with distinct glottal stop).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Не&quot; (mentioned in some other answers) as parenthetic is explicitly colloquial and originally regional (Southern), and seems to be isogloss with Ukrainian &quot;ні&quot; for the same. You unlikely will meet it in written texts, mainly in combinations like &quot;Та не, эт' невозможно&quot; (southern &quot;та&quot; instead of central and northern &quot;да&quot;, &quot;эт'&quot; as reduced &quot;это&quot;). Also, this &quot;не&quot; has often got the vowel long, and written as &quot;нее&quot;, it is more often in modern texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.2. &quot;Нет&quot; as &quot;don't exist&quot;, or &quot;haven't&quot;, &quot;there isn't&quot;. Example: &quot;У меня нет карандашей&quot;. &quot;I don't have pencils&quot;. (Literally: &quot;At me, there aren't pencils.&quot;) Colloquial language often uses &quot;нету&quot; for the same but it isn't allowed in written literature language. Both originate in earlier &quot;не есть тут&quot; (&quot;not present here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.3. &quot;Не&quot; with verbs is usually &quot;not&quot;, placed accordinly to the target grammar: &quot;Он не поехал в путешествие&quot; - &quot;He haven't gone to the journey&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It shall be also noticed here that Russian uses double negation instead of literature English single negation: &quot;Я не нашёл его нигде&quot; - &quot;I haven't found it anywhere&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.4. &quot;Не&quot; with adjectives and adverbs can be directly translated as &quot;not&quot; but this is often less adequate than negation prefix. E.g. &quot;не приятный&quot; is &quot;not pleasant&quot; (&quot;Он мне не показался приятным человеком&quot; - &quot;He wasn't look pleasant for me&quot;; &quot;Это не самый приятный вариант&quot; - &quot;It's not the most pleasant case&quot;), but &quot;неприятный&quot; is &quot;unpleasant&quot;, &quot;nasty&quot;; in the latter, &quot;не&quot; means not negation, but inversion of the sign. There are rules where to put this &quot;не&quot; separated with the following adjection or adverb, or tied with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.5. &quot;Не&quot; as prefix for some pronouns is not negation but its opposite - like &quot;a few (present)&quot;; it is omonymic morpheme originated in earlier &quot;нѣ&quot;. &quot;Несколько&quot; - &quot;a few&quot;; &quot;некто&quot; - &quot;somebody (known to the speaker)&quot;. It can be easily mixed with negation: &quot;негде&quot; - &quot;there is no place (for)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4713" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1537" RevisionGUID="9620f007-25bb-45f7-ae65-d86a5956a008" CreationDate="2012-12-12T09:35:33.473" UserId="185" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1530" RevisionGUID="69e59bc3-3686-45fc-83cf-869d9631a6ad" CreationDate="2012-12-12T18:19:05.887" UserId="464" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="As I understand from the [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation) article, &quot;set comprehension&quot; is an expression like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    { x | x ∈ R, 0&lt;x&lt;1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is familiar to everyone who reads mathematical literature, but I have never seen an  equvalent for naming such expressions in the Russian literature. On [this](http://www.rsdn.ru/forum/dictionary/1075214.flat) forum 3 variants are proposed: &quot;ZF-выражение&quot; and two analogs of &quot;list comprehension&quot;, which is &quot;Конструктор списка&quot; or &quot;списковое включение&quot;, .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and second variants look too programming-related. The third variant looks more &quot;mathematical&quot;, but it seems to be uncommon among mathematicians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better translation? Should the translation differ between programming and mathematical contexts?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="13d4bc42-cf5f-45de-b6f4-4a8487c64342" CreationDate="2012-12-12T20:30:58.627" UserId="1262" Text="пиздато literally means something like 'cuntush', and is an expression of positive exprience obtained at heterosexual male's genitalia; you might hardly, if ever, hear heterosexual women saying 'пиздато'; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хуево literally meas something like 'dicky', or 'prickish', and therefore is an expression of negative feeling of a heterosexual person equipped with male genitalia towards same sex genitalia; it might also have a slight overtone of self-denial;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;охуенно is different; it is all about o-prefix (cf. овладеть/овладевать, ополоуметь, одолеть/одолевать, ошеломить/ошеломлять, огрести/огребать, описать/описывать, остепениться, обрести/обретать, etc.), where the prefix has a meaning of 'taking smb/smth over completely, loosing the sense of self-identity', and охуенно stands therefore for smth like 'having almost a sexual pleasure', 'feeling like turning oneself into a one big hard-on'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1536" RevisionGUID="37b98d5c-208e-4221-a7ec-194f86b36fa7" CreationDate="2012-12-12T20:39:05.493" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="As for programming, set comprehensions, by analogy with list comprehensions (which are usually called `генераторы списков`), are called `генераторы множеств`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for maths, in Russian tradition, as far as I know, such constructions ({x | where x have following properties} are called just sets (множества), but when we want to emphasise the fact that there are some properties defining the set, we call such properties `характеристические свойства множества`. So, my 2 cents are - `множество с заданными характеристическими свойствами` or `множество, определяемое через характеристические свойства`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `предикат` is also used instead of `характеристическое свойство`. Also, I've seen phrase `множество, заданное порождающей процедурой`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="ba590910-5af5-45a9-badc-2417b05f0d80" CreationDate="2012-12-13T14:21:47.857" UserId="194" Text="When one should use the first or the second? Is *вождь* a direct equivalent to English *headman*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="ba590910-5af5-45a9-badc-2417b05f0d80" CreationDate="2012-12-13T14:21:47.857" UserId="194" Text="What is difference between вождь and лидер?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1544" RevisionGUID="ba590910-5af5-45a9-badc-2417b05f0d80" CreationDate="2012-12-13T14:21:47.857" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1545" RevisionGUID="fd49929d-04da-4a1b-b16e-7f6000529059" CreationDate="2012-12-13T14:23:47.110" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="The ZF axiom schema of (restricted) comprehension is called [Схема выделения](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F). Set comprehension itself is sometimes called выделение (из множества), though this is rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1500" RevisionGUID="44d88690-6ab1-4a79-a03e-101073eb13e3" CreationDate="2012-12-13T14:51:51.663" UserId="194" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="In most cases you should use &quot;*народ*&quot;, including the case of Russian people. Sometimes you may use &quot;*национальность*&quot; to refer either ethnicity as a person's quality or a small *народ*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You normally do not use the word &quot;*нация*&quot;. It is mostly used in translated texts so to translate what English language denotes as &quot;nation&quot;, a pompous reference to a state or a power. Some neo-Nazi also may use this word in idioms like *благо нации*, *нация превыше всего*. This usage has racist overtones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, *нация* is pompous, high-style and rare. Народ is unmarked to refer a people, страна is unmarked to refer a country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth mentioning that *народ* can be counter-posited to the elite (similarly to the English word &quot;people&quot;), but can include the elite as well, while *нация* always includes the elite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он считал, что принадлежит к элите нации. = He thought he belonged to the elite of the nation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был на равных с (простым) народом. = He was on par with the (simple) people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1546" RevisionGUID="2f1e18fc-3fc7-44ed-b441-35e7c5abd64a" CreationDate="2012-12-13T15:13:38.733" UserId="959" Text="*Вождь* — это обычно *вождь племени*. Также Ленина называли *вождь мирового пролетариата*, Сталина — *вождь народов*, вообще руководителей коммунистического движения часто называют *вождями* (в т.ч. имея в виду Китай, С.Корею).&#xD;&#xA;Слово *лидер* вошло в обиход сравнительно недавно, употребляется, например, в таких случаях: *лидер политической партии*, *лидеры стран Большой Восьмёрки*, *лидер атак* (в спортивных репортажах), *лидер чемпионата*. *Лидер* наиболее часто применяется для обозначения человека, способного увлечь своими идеями большие массы людей и возглавить их, в таком случае говорят, что &quot;человек обладает лидерскими качествами&quot;. Про успешную организацию можно сказать, что она &quot;занимает лидерские позиции&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Что касается эквивалента 'headman', то тут скорее будет уместно слово *глава*, например, *глава государства, глава правительства, глава администрации, глава организации*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="d8d54227-5b41-4ece-b6f6-f4cb3241c770" CreationDate="2012-12-13T16:43:07.420" UserId="626" Text="Originally, the word *вождь* meant &quot;a leader of a tribe&quot;, &quot;a chieftain.&quot; After the October revolution, however, the word became popular as a political term. Lenin and Trotsky were sometimes referred to as *вожди революции* (&quot;leaders of the revolution&quot;), Stalin was later called *вождь народов* (&quot;the leader of the peoples&quot;), and so on. Nowadays, *вождь* is pretty much reserved to the Communist leaders (of North Korea, for example). It can also be used in an ironical way to call the President, or other leaders, hinting on the their authoritarian style. This has to do both with the Communist tradition to call leaders *вожди* and with the fact that *вождизм* means &quot;the cult of the leader.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Лидер*, on the other hand, is a completely neutral word. It can be applied to leaders of countries, political parties, a race or a championship, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are best translated as &quot;leader.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1548" RevisionGUID="7627d66a-990c-4465-bd98-4db52d7961a4" CreationDate="2012-12-13T19:44:52.513" UserId="334" Text="'Вождь' usually means 'Tribal chief'. It can be used to mark headmen in some closely tied group or movement, and they probably will understand you, but this is not right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Лидер' has two meanings. The first one is simply 'the (currently) first one' in some competition. The second meaning is 'informal authority figure'. 'Лидер' is one who decides, but his authority is informal, based on charisma, tradition, or unchallenged claim. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1551" RevisionGUID="e77a4d4f-3bc6-47da-ba70-3faad6714506" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:25:25.810" UserId="1270" Text="You actually asking for English idiom, similar for this one. I'd suggest &quot;It's just rocket science for me&quot; or it's &quot;Chinese&quot;\&quot;Hebrew&quot; to me. Use it, Russians love to use lot of idioms in their speech..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1547" RevisionGUID="891c9264-f322-4b93-bb97-4337b1729798" CreationDate="2012-12-13T21:38:14.747" UserId="626" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Originally, the word *вождь* meant &quot;a leader of a tribe&quot;, &quot;a chieftain.&quot; After the October revolution, however, the word became popular as a political term. Lenin and Trotsky were sometimes referred to as *вожди революции* (&quot;leaders of the revolution&quot;), Stalin was later called *вождь народов* (&quot;the leader of the peoples&quot;), and so on. Nowadays, *вождь* is pretty much reserved to the Communist leaders (of North Korea, for example). It can also be used in an ironical way to call the President, or other leaders, hinting on the their authoritarian style. This has to do both with the Communist tradition to call leaders *вожди* and with the fact that *вождизм* means &quot;the cult of the leader.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Лидер*, on the other hand, is a completely neutral word. It can be applied to leaders of countries, political parties, a race or a championship, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are best translated as &quot;leader&quot;, except for situations when *вождь* actually means &quot;a leader of a tribe&quot; (in which case &quot;chief&quot; would be more appropriate.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="26e48028-7a77-4c7f-9111-1964582acdc4" CreationDate="2012-12-14T02:22:45.470" UserId="1177" Text="The Cyrillic letter 'т', when italicized, looks like a Latin 'm'. This is illustrated in the image below. The first row is the Cyrillic letter 'т', the second is the Cyrillic letter 'м', and the third is the Latin letter 'm':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Cyrillic Т, Cyrillic М, Latin M](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7G21B.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with most Cyrillic letters, the Cyrillic lowercase 'м' looks like a small capital 'М' in both normal and italic type. The ones that do not look the same at least resemble the uppercase form, as with 'и' and '_и_'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for some reason an italic 'т' ('_т_') looks like a Latin '_m_', so that the letter forms seem unrelated. It also seems as if it tends be written this way in handwriting. Why is this the case? Is this for historical reasons? A lot of documents that say this is how it is, but I have not found any that explain why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="26e48028-7a77-4c7f-9111-1964582acdc4" CreationDate="2012-12-14T02:22:45.470" UserId="1177" Text="Why does italic 'т' look like 'm'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="26e48028-7a77-4c7f-9111-1964582acdc4" CreationDate="2012-12-14T02:22:45.470" UserId="1177" Text="|буквы|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="edcb2655-4674-46c4-88be-9c38f503ce61" CreationDate="2012-12-14T03:54:28.623" UserId="1236" Text="This is for historical reasons and the letter forms are, actually, related. Before the invention of printing the typical handwriting style used for writing books was [полуустав][1], in which the shape of the T letter was like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see, it had long serifs going down from the horizontal bar, and they very often reached the line on which the letters stand, making т look like ш turned upside downd. When book printing began in Russia, the first movable types copied this полуустав. In 1708 Peter the Great commanded a reform of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, eliminating several letters and changing the shapes of the printed letters so that they look more like the Dutch Antiqua of that time, he chose the shapes himself (Peter spent some time in the Netherlands and liked everything Dutch). This reformed alphabet is called &quot;гражданский шрифт&quot; (civil script/font). Now the Russian alphabet looked like this (the 4 lines at the top are upper-case letters, the rest is lower case.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seemed quite natural for Peter that *m* is the closest Antiqua shape to an upside-down ш. There's a detailed [article][4] in Russian about the reform. This shape of the letters was used during all the 18th century and the first third of the 19th, only the shape of з was used rather early instead of Peter's &quot;s&quot;, also и and й were reintroduced. Later, the modern shape of a lower-case т was used, but in italics and handwriting we still use the shape that was introduced by Peter the Great and continues the tradition of handwritten books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.callig.ru/history/rus-halfustav&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aTP0O.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rb8l0.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://fontproblem.narod.ru/index.html?http://fontproblem.narod.ru/crosref/aticles/Peter_reforma.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="6f7156cf-8a8d-403d-b4a0-308c9e14a030" CreationDate="2012-12-14T04:47:12.380" UserId="1236" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="This is for historical reasons, and the form of the Russian italic '*т*' is, actually, related to both 'т' and Latin 'm'. Before the invention of printing the typical handwriting style used for writing books in Russia was [полуустав][1], in which the shape of 'T' was like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it had long serifs going down from the horizontal bar, and they very often reached the line on which the letters stand, making 'т' look like 'ш' turned upside down. When book printing began in Russia, the first movable types copied this полуустав. In 1708 Peter the Great commanded a reform of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, eliminating several letters and changing the shapes of the printed letters so that they look more like the Dutch Antiqua of that time, he chose the shapes himself (Peter spent some time in the Netherlands and liked everything Dutch). This reformed alphabet is called &quot;гражданский шрифт&quot; (civil script/font). Now the Russian alphabet looked like this (the 4 lines at the top are upper-case letters, the rest is lower case.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seemed quite natural for Peter that '*m*' is the closest Antiqua shape to an upside-down 'ш'. There's a detailed [article][4] in Russian about the reform. This shape of the letters was used during all the 18th century and the first third of the 19th, only the shape of 'з' was used rather early instead of Peter's &quot;s&quot;, also 'и' and 'й' were reintroduced. Later, the modern shape of a lower-case т was used, but in italics and handwriting we still use the shape that was introduced by Peter the Great and continues the tradition of handwritten books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.callig.ru/history/rus-halfustav&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aTP0O.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rb8l0.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://fontproblem.narod.ru/index.html?http://fontproblem.narod.ru/crosref/aticles/Peter_reforma.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="5d0e7f74-56c8-4339-b280-f8eb61974995" CreationDate="2012-12-14T05:04:47.940" UserId="1177" Comment="edited body" Text="The Cyrillic letter 'т', when italicized, looks like a Latin 'm'. This is illustrated in the image below. The first row is the Cyrillic letter 'т', the second is the Cyrillic letter 'м', and the third is the Latin letter 'm':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Cyrillic Т, Cyrillic М, Latin M](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7G21B.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with most Cyrillic letters, the Cyrillic lowercase 'м' looks like a small capital 'М' in both normal and italic type. The ones that do not look the same at least resemble the uppercase form, as with 'и' and '_и_'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for some reason an italic 'т' ('_т_') looks like a Latin '_m_', so that the letter forms seem unrelated. It also seems as if it tends be written this way in handwriting. Why is this the case? Is this for historical reasons? A lot of documents say that this is how it is, but I have not found any that explain why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="c4586900-6501-48df-a74f-9c05f67701f8" CreationDate="2012-12-14T05:34:52.263" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, improved formatting" Text="There are a few cases which should be described separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Нет&quot; as the single word in a phrase, or parenthetic, is mainly the same as English &quot;no&quot;, &quot;nope&quot;. Example: &quot;Хотите чаю?&quot; - &quot;Нет, не хочу&quot;. &quot;Do you want some tea?&quot; - &quot;No, I don't.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But, if the question is formed with a negative clause, the correct translation should be according to the sense, not the parenthetic word. &quot;Don't you want some tea?&quot; in English should be answered as &quot;Yes&quot; if he wants tea and &quot;No&quot; if he doesn't. In Russian you can answer &quot;Нет, хочу&quot; (literally &quot;No, I do&quot;) or &quot;Да, не хочу&quot; (&quot;Yes, I don't&quot;), which would confuse native English speakers. It's also a common mistake for most Slavic men when talking in English to form such phrases instead of the allowed &quot;Yes, I do&quot; / &quot;No, I don't&quot;. Without digging to the sense of the phrase, one could imagine that &quot;нет&quot; means &quot;yes&quot;:)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Variants for the same case are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;word&quot; &quot;unh-unh&quot; (two clearly separated m-like sounds without opening a mouth) is usually written as &quot;не-а&quot;. Sometimes &quot;не-а&quot; is said explicitly, as /nʲeɁa/ (with distinct glottal stop).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Не&quot; (mentioned in some other answers) as a parenthetic is explicitly colloquial and originally regional (Southern), and seems to be isogloss with Ukrainian &quot;ні&quot; for the same. You unlikely will meet it in written texts, mainly in combinations like &quot;Та не, эт' невозможно&quot; (southern &quot;та&quot; instead of central and northern &quot;да&quot;, &quot;эт'&quot; as reduced &quot;это&quot;). Also, this &quot;не&quot; often has a long vowel, and is written as &quot;нее&quot;; it is more often in modern texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Нет&quot; as &quot;don't exist&quot;, or &quot;haven't&quot;, &quot;there isn't&quot;. Example: &quot;У меня нет карандашей&quot;. &quot;I don't have pencils&quot;. (Literally: &quot;At me, there aren't pencils.&quot;) Colloquial language often uses &quot;нету&quot; for the same but it isn't allowed in written literature language. Both originate in earlier &quot;не есть тут&quot; (&quot;not present here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Не&quot; with verbs is usually &quot;not&quot;, placed according to the target grammar: &quot;Он не поехал в путешествие&quot; - &quot;He haven't gone to the journey&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It should also be noted that Russian uses double negation instead of literature English single negation: &quot;Я не нашёл его нигде&quot; - &quot;I haven't found it anywhere&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Не&quot; with adjectives and adverbs can be directly translated as &quot;not&quot; but this is often less adequate than negation prefix. E.g. &quot;не приятный&quot; is &quot;not pleasant&quot; (&quot;Он мне не показался приятным человеком&quot; - &quot;He wasn't look pleasant for me&quot;; &quot;Это не самый приятный вариант&quot; - &quot;It's not the most pleasant case&quot;), but &quot;неприятный&quot; is &quot;unpleasant&quot;, &quot;nasty&quot;; in the latter, &quot;не&quot; means not negation, but inversion of the sign. There are rules where to put this &quot;не&quot; separated with the following adjective or adverb, or tied with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;Не&quot; as prefix for some pronouns is not negation but its opposite - like &quot;a few (present)&quot;; it is omonymic morpheme originated in earlier &quot;нѣ&quot;. &quot;Несколько&quot; - &quot;a few&quot;; &quot;некто&quot; - &quot;somebody (known to the speaker)&quot;. It can be easily mixed with negation: &quot;негде&quot; - &quot;there is no place (for)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4743" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1542" RevisionGUID="c4586900-6501-48df-a74f-9c05f67701f8" CreationDate="2012-12-14T05:34:52.263" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 134 edit id of 273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="dc96582d-128f-42e5-9722-4628481c22a0" CreationDate="2012-12-14T06:06:26.183" UserId="1177" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The Cyrillic letter 'т', when italicized, looks like a Latin 'm'. This is illustrated in the image below. The first row is the Cyrillic letter 'т', the second is the Cyrillic letter 'м', and the third is the Latin letter 'm':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Cyrillic Т, Cyrillic М, Latin M](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7G21B.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with most Cyrillic letters, the Cyrillic lowercase 'м' looks like a small capital 'М' in both normal and italic type. The ones that do not look the same at least resemble the uppercase form, as with 'и' and '_и_'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for some reason an italic 'т' ('_т_') looks like a Latin '_m_', so that the letter forms seem unrelated. It also seems that it tends be written this way in handwriting. Why is this the case? Is this for historical reasons? A lot of documents say that this is how it is, but I have not found any that explain why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1555" RevisionGUID="232a8fa3-54e1-4f23-b310-c94fd2f0ce59" CreationDate="2012-12-14T07:40:30.267" UserId="1272" Text="It is really a very interesing question. And there were many interesting answers :-) but, I guess, I've got one more, a little bit different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Давай is a word, that combines two meanings. One one hand, it connotates with бывай (будь здоров). On the other, it means давай иди уже,  the time for conversation is over. At the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a result, we have something about &quot;Be OK, I'm glad to meet you, but it's time to stop that&quot; in one word. I have NOT any scientific proofs, it's just my feeling of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, yes, native russian with catastrophic lack of practice in English, sorry for bad one).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1556" RevisionGUID="daf22b49-f0be-4c6d-8a39-0d70070ca3c3" CreationDate="2012-12-14T08:51:48.027" UserId="560" Text="Well, if you look at how we are taught to write in the early days of school, you'll notice that the italicized capital &quot;Т&quot; does resemble its lowercase variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](http://cloud.zujev.eu/image/0F1z0I3t3o3V/e24-ABC.gif)  &#xD;&#xA;*The letter in question is in the fifth row, third from the left*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="6aec536e-09ea-4b14-a3a0-a6396d84fc79" CreationDate="2012-12-14T10:55:11.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/279540031650144257" />
  <row Id="4749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1557" RevisionGUID="ffd01e57-2934-4d72-81f6-aec1ba6a02b6" CreationDate="2012-12-14T12:29:07.753" UserId="1167" Text="I suppose that it's just a shortening for «давай прощаться» или «давай закругляться»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1558" RevisionGUID="10e43cbc-8294-479e-9828-861e42f439d4" CreationDate="2012-12-14T19:44:40.837" UserId="1212" Text="Use of тысячных, миллионных etc., belongs only to the 5th year of the middle school. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would said: три, четырнадцать, сто пятьдесят девять. Pronouncing &quot;запятая&quot; is excessive and won't be used really. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct about grouping. Also I would add, that the choose of how many digits are in the groups, decides the speaker, according to his own reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1558" RevisionGUID="a37d21f4-bac0-482e-bea2-87e76134d3bb" CreationDate="2012-12-14T19:49:57.453" UserId="1212" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Use of тысячных, миллионных etc., belongs only to the 5th year of the middle school. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say: три, четырнадцать, сто пятьдесят девять. Pronouncing &quot;запятая&quot; is excessive and won't be used really. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct about grouping. Also I would add, that the choose of how many digits are in the groups, decides the speaker, according to his own reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1559" RevisionGUID="4e6152fb-da2a-46d8-bc62-5f14c134748b" CreationDate="2012-12-15T00:44:21.910" UserId="1241" Text="This is a follow-up question to my earlier question about decimal declensions in colloquial speech (thanks to everyone who weighed in on that question). I understand that in everyday speech, native speakers bend the rules a little, and may not fully decline *long* decimal expressions (&quot;pi equals 3.14159...&quot;). But what about *short* decimals? For example, in everyday speech -- or even in a radio or TV broadcast -- how would one say &quot;ot 1,4% do 5,7%&quot;? Could you say &quot;ot odnoj [pause] chetyrekh procenta do pjati [pause] semi procenta&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1559" RevisionGUID="4e6152fb-da2a-46d8-bc62-5f14c134748b" CreationDate="2012-12-15T00:44:21.910" UserId="1241" Text="Decimal Declension II" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1559" RevisionGUID="4e6152fb-da2a-46d8-bc62-5f14c134748b" CreationDate="2012-12-15T00:44:21.910" UserId="1241" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="26ff64f8-118b-4ab6-becb-3195156cb666" CreationDate="2012-12-15T02:02:40.373" UserId="1236" Text="For short ones like that, having 1-3 digits after the coma (Russian uses a comma, not a dot in decimal fractions) we usually use the full form: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от 1,4% дo 5,7%` is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одной целой [и] четырёх десятых процента до пяти целых [и] семи десятых процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, rather colloquially, one can say that in such a way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одного и четырёх процентов до пяти и семи процентов`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are 2 digits after the comma, we say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от 1,45% дo 5,72%`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одной целой [и] сорока пяти сотых процента до пяти целых [и] семидесяти двух сотых процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одного [и] сорока пяти процента до пяти целых [и] семидесяти двух процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, we can omit the word 'целая' (the feminine is used, because it is short for 'целая *часть*'), then the numeral becomes masculine agreeing with &quot;процент&quot;, and we can omit the name of the place of the last digit (разряд), which are десятая for 1 digit after the comma, сотая for 2 digits after the comma, тысячная for 3 digits after the comma, and so on, they are also feminine, because it is short for 'десятая (сотая, etc.) *часть*':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1,1 одна целая [и] одна десятая&#xD;&#xA;    1,11 одна целая [и] одинадцать сотых&#xD;&#xA;    1,111 одна целая [и] сто одинадцать тысячных&#xD;&#xA;    1,1111 одна целая [и] тысяча сто одинадцать десятитысячных&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if there are several digits after the comma we never say them as separate digits, like in English, we tend to say them as a full number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3.141 три целых [и] сто сорок одна тысячная / три [и] сто сорок одна&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't know what link or proof I can give, but I'm a linguist, a native speaker of Russian, and I studied at a mathematical school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="fd164490-490e-4432-bfea-de866c08872c" CreationDate="2012-12-15T02:22:41.527" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="For short ones like that, having 1-3 digits after the coma (Russian uses a comma, not a dot in decimal fractions) we usually use the full form: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от 1,4% дo 5,7%` is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одной целой [и] четырёх десятых процента до пяти целых [и] семи десятых процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, rather colloquially, one can say that in such a way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одного и четырёх процентов до пяти и семи процентов`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are 2 digits after the comma, we say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от 1,45% дo 5,72%`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одной целой [и] сорока пяти сотых процента до пяти целых [и] семидесяти двух сотых процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одного [и] сорока пяти процента до пяти целых [и] семидесяти двух процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, we can omit the word 'целая' (the feminine is used, because it is short for 'целая *часть*'), then the numeral becomes masculine agreeing with &quot;процент&quot;, and we can omit the name of the place of the last digit (разряд), which are десятая for 1 digit after the comma, сотая for 2 digits after the comma, тысячная for 3 digits after the comma, and so on, they are also feminine, because it is short for 'десятая (сотая, etc.) *часть*':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1,1 одна целая [и] одна десятая&#xD;&#xA;    1,11 одна целая [и] одинадцать сотых&#xD;&#xA;    1,111 одна целая [и] сто одинадцать тысячных&#xD;&#xA;    1,1111 одна целая [и] тысяча сто одинадцать десятитысячных&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if there are several digits after the comma we never say them as separate digits, like in English, we tend to say them as a full number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3,141 три целых [и] сто сорок одна тысячная / три [и] сто сорок одна&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't know what link or proof I can give, but I'm a linguist, a native speaker of Russian, and I studied at a mathematical school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1560" RevisionGUID="11d1d87a-9f07-4f49-b877-aceac1488493" CreationDate="2012-12-15T02:31:22.990" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="For short ones like that, having 1-3 digits after the coma (Russian uses a comma, not a dot in decimal fractions) we usually use the full form: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от 1,4% дo 5,7%` is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одной целой [и] четырёх десятых процента до пяти целых [и] семи десятых процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, rather colloquially, one can say that in such a way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одного и четырёх процентов до пяти и семи процентов`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are 2 digits after the comma, we say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от 1,45% дo 5,72%`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одной целой [и] сорока пяти сотых процента до пяти целых [и] семидесяти двух сотых процента`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`от одного [и] сорока пяти процента до пяти [и] семидесяти двух процентов`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, we can omit the word 'целая' (the feminine is used, because it is short for 'целая *часть*'), then the numeral becomes masculine agreeing with &quot;процент&quot;, and we can omit the name of the place of the last digit (разряд), which are десятая for 1 digit after the comma, сотая for 2 digits after the comma, тысячная for 3 digits after the comma, and so on, they are also feminine, because it is short for 'десятая (сотая, etc.) *часть*':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1,1 одна целая [и] одна десятая&#xD;&#xA;    1,11 одна целая [и] одинадцать сотых&#xD;&#xA;    1,111 одна целая [и] сто одинадцать тысячных&#xD;&#xA;    1,1111 одна целая [и] тысяча сто одинадцать десятитысячных&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if there are several digits after the comma we never say them as separate digits, like in English, we tend to say them as a full number:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3,141 три целых [и] сто сорок одна тысячная / три [и] сто сорок одна&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really don't know what link or proof I can give, but I'm a linguist, a native speaker of Russian, and I studied at a mathematical school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1561" RevisionGUID="b687450f-7f4a-4c5a-8e8d-f8108e3743fa" CreationDate="2012-12-15T05:44:55.393" UserId="1097" Text="In everyday speech we are omit 'percent' first word in range 1,4%-5,7%, like an other measure unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1,4% - 5,7% = 1,4-5,7%&#xD;&#xA; - 2kg - 3kg = 2-3kg&#xD;&#xA; - 50cm - 70cm = 50-70cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comma (decimal point) replaced by ...[pause] or 'и'. Also you may or may not to decline for cases integer and/or fractional part.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;от 1,4% до 5,7%&quot; I'd pronounce like:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - от один и четыре до пять и семь процента  &#xD;&#xA;(separate digits only, like in English)  &#xD;&#xA; - от одного и четыре до пяти и семь процента  &#xD;&#xA;(от одного и четыре до пяти [целых] и семь процента)  &#xD;&#xA; - от одной и четыре до пяти и семи процента  &#xD;&#xA; (от одной [целой] и четыре до пяти [целых] и семи [десятых] процента) &#xD;&#xA; - от одного и четырёх до пяти и семи процента  &#xD;&#xA;(от одного и четырёх [десятых] до пяти [целых] и семи [десятых] процента)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;1,4-5,7%&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;один и четыре тире пять и семь процента&quot; (separate digits with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;1,2%&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- один и два процента (separate digits only)&#xD;&#xA;- одна и две процента (omit words: одна [целая] и две [десятых] процента)&#xD;&#xA;- один и две процента (mixed case: один и две [десятых] процента) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this phases acceptable to colloquial speech, but not all to Radio and TV.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="447fcee5-f7e9-4eeb-850b-ea4caea3574e" CreationDate="2012-12-15T20:18:00.727" UserId="62" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If a person goes up (e.g., on a staircase), then человек поднимается. If an elevator is going up, then лифт поднимается. That's the same verb for the person and for the elevator. However, if a person is coming down then человек спускается while if an elevator comes down then лифт опускается. I'm surprised that one direction has the same verb while the other direction uses different verbs. If the language can handle the idea that going up is the same thing for people and for elevators, why doesn't it do that for going down? Is there a commonly used verb for going down that can be applied to both people and elevators? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="447fcee5-f7e9-4eeb-850b-ea4caea3574e" CreationDate="2012-12-15T20:18:00.727" UserId="62" Text="спускаться/опускаться, но подниматься" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="447fcee5-f7e9-4eeb-850b-ea4caea3574e" CreationDate="2012-12-15T20:18:00.727" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="e92f26df-3424-4dae-903a-973281a7c2eb" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:34:41.063" UserId="185" Text="It is not true that the verb &quot;опуститься&quot; is used only for objects and &quot;спуститься&quot; is used for people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is a tendency to use the verb &quot;спуститься&quot; to denote a deliberate action and the verb &quot;опуститься&quot; for an uncontrolled movement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, there is also another difference. &quot;Спуститься&quot; denotes movement down relative to an object (a tree, a mountain), while &quot;опуститься&quot; refers to downward movement in general. In particular, the verb &quot;спуститься&quot; is more likely to be used with preposition &quot;с&quot; - &quot;from&quot; and &quot;в\на&quot; - &quot;to&quot;, than the verb &quot;опуститься&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вася, спустись с дерева!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я спустился в подвал (по лестнице).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сорочка лёгкая спустилась c её прелестного плеча.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Паром спустился по течению реки.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лифт спустился с пятого этажа.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лифт наконец-то опустился, и мы вошли в него.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Занавес опустился, и зазвучали аплодисменты.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1564" RevisionGUID="8a99760a-f044-4b13-a111-6c71e76220f0" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:40:54.317" UserId="1274" Text="I think it's ok to use *спускается* for an elevator. *Спускаться* bears meaning of &quot;to go down by own will&quot; and when used with inanimate objects indirectly animates them (which is perfectly fine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Опускаться* is more difficult; the difference between *спускать* and *опускать* is like &quot;to bring down&quot; and &quot;to bring down gently/steadily&quot;. This extra detail plays a dirty trick on reflexive suffix &quot;-ся&quot; and gives an extra meaning of &quot;being brought down (by someone or something)&quot;. More than that, *опускать* has a second meaning &quot;to omit&quot; (*опускаться* — &quot;to be omitted&quot;), and a third — &quot;to bring down&quot; in a moral point of view (*опускаться* — &quot;to fall&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative you may use &quot;идти вниз&quot; (literally &quot;go down&quot;) — &quot;лифт идёт вниз&quot;, &quot;человек идёт вниз&quot; are both normal phrases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="d58a0130-5a81-480a-965b-06421bce4abb" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:41:13.413" UserId="185" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="It is not true that the verb &quot;опуститься&quot; is used only for objects and &quot;спуститься&quot; is used for people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is a tendency to use the verb &quot;спуститься&quot; to denote a deliberate action and the verb &quot;опуститься&quot; for an uncontrolled movement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Птицы спустились с неба. - The birds flew down to the ground.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Воздушный шар плавно опускался на землю. - The balloon was slowly going down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, there is also another difference. &quot;Спуститься&quot; denotes movement down relative to an object (a tree, a mountain), while &quot;опуститься&quot; refers to downward movement in general. In particular, the verb &quot;спуститься&quot; is more likely to be used with preposition &quot;с&quot; - &quot;from&quot; and &quot;в\на&quot; - &quot;to&quot;, than the verb &quot;опуститься&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вася, спустись с дерева! - Vasya, get down the tree!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я спустился в подвал (по лестнице). - I went (downstairs) to the basement.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сорочка лёгкая спустилась c её прелестного плеча. - The light chemise fell from her lovely shoulder.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Паром спустился по течению реки. - The ferry came down the river.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лифт спустился с пятого этажа. - The elevator came down from the 5th floor.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лифт наконец-то опустился, и мы вошли в него. - The elevator has finally arrived, and we entered it.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Занавес опустился, и зазвучали аплодисменты. - The curtain fell down, and there was applause.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На гору опустилось облако. - A cloud covered a mountain. (literally: fell down to the mountain)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1563" RevisionGUID="8c8aca11-067a-4992-81c9-48931fddf715" CreationDate="2012-12-15T21:51:14.487" UserId="185" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="It is not true that the verb &quot;опуститься&quot; is used only for objects and &quot;спуститься&quot; is used for people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a tendency to use the verb &quot;спуститься&quot; to denote a deliberate action and the verb &quot;опуститься&quot; for an uncontrolled movement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Птицы спустились с неба. - The birds flew down to the ground.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Воздушный шар плавно опускался на землю. - The balloon was slowly going down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my opinion, there is also another difference, which may be even more important to consider, when you choose, which verb to say. &quot;Спуститься&quot; denotes movement down relative to an object (a tree, a mountain), while &quot;опуститься&quot; refers to downward movement in general. In particular, the verb &quot;спуститься&quot; is more likely to be used with preposition &quot;с&quot; - &quot;from&quot; and &quot;в\на&quot; - &quot;to&quot;, than the verb &quot;опуститься&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вася, спустись с дерева! - Vasya, get down the tree!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я спустился в подвал (по лестнице). - I went (downstairs) to the basement.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сорочка лёгкая спустилась c её прелестного плеча. - The light chemise fell from her lovely shoulder.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Паром спустился по течению реки. - The ferry came down the river.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Этот лифт спустился с пятого этажа. - This elevator came down from the 5th floor.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лифт наконец-то опустился, и мы вошли в него. - The elevator has finally arrived (from above), and we entered it. (actually, you could also use &quot;спуститься&quot;, if you cared enough about the fact that it has been above before)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Занавес опустился, и зазвучали аплодисменты. - The curtain fell down, and there was applause. (we don't care where the curtain fell from)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На гору опустилось облако. - A cloud covered a mountain. (literally: fell down onto the mountain)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question: you can use both verbs for people and for elevators, it does not depend that much on who or what came down, it rather depends whether you care from where it came down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4766" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1562" RevisionGUID="c4dc0209-72b3-407a-b77c-34c4aadd63e4" CreationDate="2012-12-16T01:55:12.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/280128912846094336" />
  <row Id="4767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1565" RevisionGUID="5d9122b4-87d8-4044-82f4-5c9bed8b6b17" CreationDate="2012-12-16T03:51:21.950" UserId="496" Text="Language is not math.  And even strictly scientifically: going up and going down are two very different things - it is not like going left and going right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Olga's answer. I could really put my answer as comment to her, just putting as separate answer because of size. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are talking here only about спускаться and опускаться in the meaning of going down. They have other meanings as Lyth points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опускаться&quot; accents the moment of final smooth breaking before to stop on the ground. It is especially noticeable in the form &quot;Он опустился на землю&quot; - here most of the people imagine the moment of landing and smooth breaking before it (притормаживание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cпускаться&quot; - accents the process moving legs, hands and whatever else during the descending. &quot;Он спустился на землю&quot; - here people will imagine the end of possibly long the process of steps of descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is no natural moment of soft breaking when the person or object goes up there is no special word &quot;оподняться&quot; for moving up. Even when there is ceiling, usually objects just hits it when goes up - there is no smooth breaking before it. It may happen but the language did not need a special word for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1565" RevisionGUID="5a30880d-622d-4ff0-978b-fab2fc9fa008" CreationDate="2012-12-16T04:34:04.620" UserId="496" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Language is not math.  And even strictly scientifically: going up and going down are two very different things - it is not like going left and going right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Olga's answer. I could really put my answer as a comment to hers, just putting as a separate answer because of the size. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are talking here only about &quot;спускаться&quot; and &quot;опускаться&quot; in the meaning of going down. They have other meanings as Lyth points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опускаться&quot; accents the moment of final smooth breaking before to stop on the ground. It is especially noticeable in the form &quot;Он опустился на землю&quot; - here most of the people imagine the moment of landing and smooth breaking before it (притормаживание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cпускаться&quot; - accents the process moving legs, hands and whatever else during the descending. &quot;Он спустился на землю&quot; - here people will imagine the end of possibly long process of steps of descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is no natural moment of soft breaking when a person or object goes up there is no special word &quot;оподняться&quot; for moving up. Even when there is ceiling, usually objects just hits it when goes up - there is no smooth breaking before it. It may happen but the language did not need a special word for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1565" RevisionGUID="be25c313-9290-4c02-8027-aa7b549bc299" CreationDate="2012-12-16T04:42:03.220" UserId="496" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Language is not math.  And even strictly scientifically: going up and going down are two very different things - it is not like going left and going right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Olga's answer. I could have really put my answer as a comment to hers, just putting it as a separate answer because of the size. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are talking here only about &quot;спускаться&quot; and &quot;опускаться&quot; in the meaning of going down. They have other meanings as Lyth points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опускаться&quot; accents the moment of final smooth breaking before to stop on the ground. It is especially noticeable in the form &quot;Он опустился на землю&quot; - here most of the people imagine the moment of landing and smooth breaking before it (притормаживание). It may mean the whole process but just accents the ending part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cпускаться&quot; - accents the process of moving legs, hands and whatever else during the descending. &quot;Он спустился на землю&quot; - here people will imagine the end of possibly long process of steps of descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is no natural moment of soft breaking when a person or object goes up there is no special word &quot;оподняться&quot; for moving up. Even when there is some ceiling, usually objects just hit it when go up - there is no smooth breaking before it. OK, the smooth breaking may happen but the language did not need a special word for it because of rareness and insignificance of this phenomenon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="b16dfa06-e842-45c3-b5f3-0da5e4ebc33c" CreationDate="2012-12-16T14:11:05.957" UserId="170" Text="Is there any difference in meaning between &quot;Люблю идти по дороге&quot; and &quot;Люблю проходить по дороге&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="b16dfa06-e842-45c3-b5f3-0da5e4ebc33c" CreationDate="2012-12-16T14:11:05.957" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Люблю идти по дороге&quot; and &quot;Люблю проходить по дороге&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1566" RevisionGUID="b16dfa06-e842-45c3-b5f3-0da5e4ebc33c" CreationDate="2012-12-16T14:11:05.957" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1565" RevisionGUID="369ed112-91f1-4367-9754-b9b8b3876be6" CreationDate="2012-12-16T15:11:12.073" UserId="496" Comment="added illustration" Text="Language is not math.  And even strictly scientifically: going up and going down are two very different things - it is not like going left and going right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Olga's answer. I could have really put my answer as a comment to hers, just putting it as a separate answer because of the size. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are talking here only about &quot;спускаться&quot; and &quot;опускаться&quot; in the meaning of going down. They have other meanings as Lyth points out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опускаться&quot; accents the moment of final smooth breaking before to stop on the ground. It is especially noticeable in the form &quot;Он опустился на землю&quot; - here most of the people imagine the moment of landing and smooth breaking before it (притормаживание). It may mean the whole process but just accents the ending part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cпускаться&quot; - accents the process of moving legs, hands and whatever else during the descending. &quot;Он спустился на землю&quot; - here people will imagine the end of possibly long process of steps of descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is no natural moment of soft breaking when a person or object goes up there is no special word &quot;оподняться&quot; for moving up. Even when there is some ceiling, usually objects just hit it when go up - there is no smooth breaking before it. OK, the smooth breaking may happen but the language did not need a special word for it because of rareness and insignificance of this phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just for illustration of non-equivalence of up and down movements, let's look at moving through the water for objects. In Russian there are two more or less equivalent (except for the direction) verbs &quot;тонуть&quot; and &quot;всплывать&quot;. In English there is &quot;to sink&quot; for &quot;тонуть&quot; but for &quot;всплывать&quot; there is no direct equivalent (or I could not find it :). There is &quot;to surface&quot; but it accents the moment of emerging on the surface - not the whole movement, and there is &quot;to float&quot; which mostly means (according to Webster) &quot;to rest on the surface, or be suspended in liquid&quot;, or even moving in any direction: &quot;yellow leaves floated down&quot; (= плыть in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="69cf309b-59af-4a94-9b86-fc96e3426cbd" CreationDate="2012-12-16T16:03:18.190" UserId="185" Text="If you just wonder about the difference between verbs &quot;идти&quot; and &quot;проходить&quot;, it is the following: &quot;идти&quot; means walking, and it often concerns some particular situation, not activity in general; &quot;проходить&quot; means the activity of passing through a place, or a landmark, either some particular situation or activity in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the phrases, they both sound strange. A Russian would probably say &quot;Я предпочитаю идти по этой дороге&quot;, or &quot;По этой дороге я люблю идти&quot;, or &quot;я люблю ходить по дорогам&quot;. Or use some accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;люблю идти по дороге&quot; sounds a little weird if you don't put any stress or if you stress &quot;люблю&quot;. In this case, it means that you specifically enjoy the activity of walking on some specific road in a certain area, probably on a road that is in front of you right now. You like the walking itself, the feeling of your legs and feet moving. If you stress &quot;по дороге&quot;, it means that you like going on the road (and, for instance, not across the field). If you stress &quot;идти&quot;, it means that you like walking (and, for example, not driving) down a road. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;люблю проходить по дороге&quot; is even more weird, because the verb suggests that you especially enjoy to walk down a road, because of a scenery, for example. But you don't specify which road it is that you like. If you say &quot;люблю проходить по этой дороге&quot;, it would make infinitely more sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1567" RevisionGUID="9856f3e6-3719-46bc-a58c-7bbb0e77f75c" CreationDate="2012-12-16T16:08:38.310" UserId="185" Comment="added 483 characters in body" Text="If you just wonder about the difference between verbs &quot;идти&quot; and &quot;проходить&quot;, it is the following: &quot;идти&quot; means walking, and it often concerns some particular situation, not activity in general; &quot;проходить&quot; means the activity of passing through a place, or a landmark, either some particular situation or activity in general. If you want to refer to the activity of walking in general, you need to use the verb &quot;ходить&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты можешь идти? is appropriate if your friend has just fell down hurt his leg, and you are asking if he can walk&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты можешь ходить? is good when your friend has had an operation after an accident, and you ask whether he will be able to walk again&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты можешь здесь пройти? is when you are asking if someone can walk through a specific area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the phrases, they both sound strange to me. A Russian would probably say &quot;Я предпочитаю идти по этой дороге&quot;, or &quot;По этой дороге я люблю идти&quot;, or &quot;я люблю ходить по дорогам&quot;, &quot;я люблю проходить по этой дороге&quot;. Or use some accentuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;люблю идти по дороге&quot; sounds a little weird if you don't put any stress or if you stress &quot;люблю&quot;. In this case, it means that you specifically enjoy the activity of walking on some specific road in a certain area, probably on a road that is in front of you right now. You like the walking itself, the feeling of your legs and feet moving. If you stress &quot;по дороге&quot;, it means that you like going on the road (and, for instance, not across the field). If you stress &quot;идти&quot;, it means that you like walking (and, for example, not driving) down a road. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;люблю проходить по дороге&quot; is even more weird, because the verb suggests that you especially enjoy to walk down a road, because of a scenery, for example. But you don't specify which road it is that you like. If you say &quot;люблю проходить по этой дороге&quot;, it would make infinitely more sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="2f2056ef-61ca-43a3-a79f-128a6d0a690b" CreationDate="2012-12-17T08:48:21.853" UserId="185" Text="Как правильно употрбелять (и как обычно употребляется) слово &quot;источник&quot; во фразах вроде *пишет Bloomberg со ссылкой на 2 источник..., знаком... с ситуацией*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны, в этом случае разговор идет о людях, имеющих доступ к какой-то информации, поэтому логично предположить, что слово &quot;источник&quot; здесь одушевленное и что правильно использовать окончание род. падежа: *со ссылкой на двух источников*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, такое употребление режет слух (возможно, только мне), и по словарям я себя проверить не могу, т.к. на Академике и на Грамоте не указана одушевленность слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня интересует 3 вопроса:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. как правильно говорить, и регулируется ли это употребление где-либо?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. как обычно говорят?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. есть ли еще какие-нибудь случаи, когда слово &quot;источник&quot; употребляется как одушевленное (окончание родительного падежа в контексте винительного)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="2f2056ef-61ca-43a3-a79f-128a6d0a690b" CreationDate="2012-12-17T08:48:21.853" UserId="185" Text="Одушевленный &quot;источник&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="2f2056ef-61ca-43a3-a79f-128a6d0a690b" CreationDate="2012-12-17T08:48:21.853" UserId="185" Text="|словоупотребление|animatedness|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="58b22c6a-cc19-4e6a-bd5f-3f85b618ab5d" CreationDate="2012-12-17T10:13:49.293" UserId="952" Text="Со ссылкой на два источника.&#xD;&#xA;Неодушевлённое слово и есть неодушевлённое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="07a28751-45bb-44e7-b5c5-2a1bdfdf182f" CreationDate="2012-12-17T10:20:38.370" UserId="952" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Со ссылкой на два источника.&#xD;&#xA;Неодушевлённое слово и есть неодушевлённое. Так звучит правильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В то же время имена существительные неодушевленные при употреблении их в переносном значении категорию неодушевленности не сохраняют и при склонении изменяются как существительные одушевленные.&quot; (Валгина, Розенталь, Фомина, глава 114.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае, всё-таки, переносный смысл сомнителен, поскольку речь идёт об &quot;источнике информации&quot;, пусть и одушевлённом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="e1696cf1-e2cb-4baa-8376-ea15ccdd87f0" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:17:57.303" UserId="1277" Text="I'd like to know when I should use the `—` sign in sentences like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Это как собирать базу данных ? не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними ? тем более.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`?` marks places I'm not entirely sure about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="e1696cf1-e2cb-4baa-8376-ea15ccdd87f0" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:17:57.303" UserId="1277" Text="When should I use the — sign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="e1696cf1-e2cb-4baa-8376-ea15ccdd87f0" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:17:57.303" UserId="1277" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1571" RevisionGUID="2ed0b653-4ba2-44db-8eb9-ffcb6af5979c" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:23:03.230" UserId="959" Text="Это как собирать базу данных: не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними — тем более." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="be1bcf51-796e-4e18-b7b6-305a646c7c5e" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:29:13.153" UserId="1277" Text="Нужна ли запятая после «также» в этих случаях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Также ? в сегодняшнем выпуске мы обсудим следующие темы: &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы обсудим все ? что касается политики, а также ? следующие темы: &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="be1bcf51-796e-4e18-b7b6-305a646c7c5e" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:29:13.153" UserId="1277" Text="Запятая после «также»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="be1bcf51-796e-4e18-b7b6-305a646c7c5e" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:29:13.153" UserId="1277" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1573" RevisionGUID="af89f626-b299-491c-9d35-90be4c973227" CreationDate="2012-12-17T14:43:30.527" UserId="959" Text="Также в сегодняшнем выпуске мы обсудим следующие темы: &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы обсудим всё, что касается политики, а также следующие темы: &lt;...&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1574" RevisionGUID="d6491331-bc77-4587-b5bc-bd8327282062" CreationDate="2012-12-17T15:19:48.550" UserId="97" Text="Запятую необходимо ставить после вводных слов (в большинстве случаев).  Слово _также_ вводным не является.  _Также_ - это союз, синоним союзу _и_.  Поэтому запятая не нужна ни в первом, ни во втором случае.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также в сегодняшнем выпуске мы обсудим следующие темы: &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы обсудим всё, что касается политики, а также следующие темы: &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хочть также отметить, что Грамота.ру [не советует](http://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?text=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D1%81%20%22%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B6%D0%B5%22&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gramota.ru%2Fspravka%2Fburo%2F%3Fpage%3D2466&amp;fmode=inject&amp;mime=html&amp;l10n=ru&amp;sign=af04fe8377f5c6261bb1247e04b2d97f&amp;keyno=0) начинать предложения со слова _также_, хотя исключения бывают в зависимости от контекста. На мой взгляд, первое из этих предложение подпадает под это исключение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1561" RevisionGUID="5ae2ad0a-c40e-44e8-9997-78c3b15dd4ef" CreationDate="2012-12-17T15:26:29.823" UserId="1097" Comment="formating" Text="In everyday speech we are omit 'percent' first word in range 1,4%-5,7%, like an other measure unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1,4% - 5,7% = 1,4-5,7%&#xD;&#xA; - 2kg - 3kg = 2-3kg&#xD;&#xA; - 50cm - 70cm = 50-70cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comma (decimal point) replaced by ...[pause] or 'и'. Also you may or may not to decline for cases integer and/or fractional part.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;от 1,4% до 5,7%&quot; I'd pronounce like:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - от одного и четырёх до пяти и семи процента  &#xD;&#xA;(от одного [процента] и четырёх [десятых] до пяти [целых] и семи [десятых] процента)&#xD;&#xA; - от одной и четыре до пяти и семи процента  &#xD;&#xA; (от одной [целой] и четыре [десятых] до пяти [целых] и семи [десятых] процента) &#xD;&#xA; - от одного и четыре до пяти и семь процента  &#xD;&#xA;(от одного [процента] и четыре [десятых] до пяти [целых] и семь [десятых] процента)  &#xD;&#xA; - от один и четыре до пять и семь процента  &#xD;&#xA;(separate digits only, like in English)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;1,4-5,7%&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;один-и-четыре тире пять-и-семь процента&quot; (separate digits with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;1,2%&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- один и два процента (separate digits only)&#xD;&#xA;- одна и две процента (omit words: одна [целая] и две [десятых] процента)&#xD;&#xA;- один и две процента (mixed case: один [процент] и две [десятых] процента) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this phases acceptable to colloquial speech, but not all to Radio and TV.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1575" RevisionGUID="1a0d3774-a97a-4e79-961e-47edbd1b85e2" CreationDate="2012-12-17T15:28:43.210" UserId="97" Text="The correct syntax is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это как собирать базу данных: не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними — тем более.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Двоеточие (`:`) is used in the first place, because you have a causation clause, you can put _because_ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second place you use Тире (`—`), because there are implied skipped word _не определны_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это как собирать базу данных, _[потому что_] не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними [_не определены_] и подавно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1575" RevisionGUID="0b70bee3-2b9f-452c-a418-a6fcf05c154b" CreationDate="2012-12-17T17:38:18.983" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The correct syntax is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это как собирать базу данных: не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними — тем более.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Двоеточие (`:`) is used in the first place, because you have a causation clause, you can put _because_ there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second place you use Тире (`—`), because there are implied skipped words _не определны_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это как собирать базу данных, _[потому что_] не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними [_не определены_] и подавно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4794" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="86ae5820-98a8-4954-89a7-2395988d4d4a" CreationDate="2012-12-17T19:55:12.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/280763092407828480" />
  <row Id="4795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="a3204590-25ea-4665-89a1-4924443205e0" CreationDate="2012-12-17T20:06:59.473" UserId="496" Text="Let's look at the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю идти по этой дороге по вечерам, не о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю проходить по этой дороге по вечерам, не о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `идти` and `проходить` are in the same context.&#xD;&#xA;I must admit both phrases are possible and correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is general use and does not need further explanation. (Yuri mentioned that it would sound even better with гулять or ходить, but we are talking about the difference of идти and проходить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase can be perfect in some additional context. For example: `По вечерам на моем длинном пути с работы домой я люблю проходить по этой дороге, не о чём не думая.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проходить is usually used when somebody/something goes through a layer, or gate, or some special place during a bigger-scale movement. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через игольное ушко. &#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по коридору. Проходить коридор.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по мосту. Проходить мост.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через тоннель.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить мимо большой березы. Проходить большую березу.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить этот уровень компьютерной игры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that the imperfect form (несовершенный вид) `проходить` corresponds to the perfect form (совершеный вид) `пройти` i.e. &quot;про-идти&quot;. Maybe this was the original prompter for brilliant to ask the question. We can discuss what will be the difference between `пройти по этой дороге` and `проходить по этой дороге`. I think it is implied repetitiveness of the action but it is not how the question was originally asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, to my mind, проходить по дороге implies that the mentioned road (дорога) is a part of a bigger way before and/or after this road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="8c9f79d6-d6f1-4631-bb15-31cfbffd9f24" CreationDate="2012-12-17T22:24:19.190" UserId="496" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Let's look at the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю идти по этой дороге по вечерам, не о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю проходить по этой дороге по вечерам, не о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `идти` and `проходить` are in the same context.&#xD;&#xA;I must admit both phrases are possible and correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is general use and does not need further explanation. (Yuri mentioned that it would sound even better with гулять or ходить, but we are talking about the difference of идти and проходить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase can be perfect in some additional context. For example: `По вечерам на моем длинном пути с работы домой я люблю проходить по этой дороге, не о чём не думая.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проходить is usually used when somebody/something goes through a layer, or gate, or some special place during a bigger-scale movement. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через игольное ушко. &#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по коридору. Проходить коридор.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по мосту. Проходить мост.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через тоннель.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить мимо большой березы. Проходить большую березу.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить этот уровень компьютерной игры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that the imperfect form (несовершенный вид) `проходить` corresponds to the perfect form (совершеный вид) `пройти` i.e. &quot;про-идти&quot;. Maybe this was the original prompter for brilliant to ask the question. We can discuss what will be the difference between `пройти по этой дороге` and `проходить по этой дороге`. I think it is the implied repetitiveness of the action but it is not what the original question was asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, to my mind, проходить по дороге implies that the mentioned road (дорога) is a part of a bigger way before and/or after this road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="9fb9f5e5-181c-44c8-a078-28a01518b1f5" CreationDate="2012-12-18T17:04:54.057" UserId="170" Comment="deleted some characters that were not in the original post" Text="Let's look at the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю идти по этой дороге по вечерам, ни о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю проходить по этой дороге по вечерам, ни о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `идти` and `проходить` are in the same context.&#xD;&#xA;I must admit that both phrases are possible and correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is general use and does not need further explanation. (Yuri mentioned that it would sound even better with гулять or ходить, but we are talking about the difference of идти and проходить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase can be perfect in some additional context. For example: `По вечерам на моем длинном пути с работы домой я люблю проходить по этой дороге, не о чём не думая.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проходить is usually used when somebody/something goes through a layer, or gate, or some special place during a bigger-scale movement. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через игольное ушко. &#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по коридору. Проходить коридор.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по мосту. Проходить мост.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через тоннель.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить мимо большой березы. Проходить большую березу.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить этот уровень компьютерной игры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that the imperfect form (несовершенный вид) `проходить` corresponds to the perfect form (совершеный вид) `пройти` i.e. &quot;про-идти&quot;. Maybe this was the original prompter for brilliant to ask the question. We can discuss what will be the difference between `пройти по этой дороге` and `проходить по этой дороге`. I think it is the implied repetitiveness of the action but it is not what the original question was asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, to my mind, проходить по дороге implies that the mentioned road (дорога) is a part of a bigger way before and/or after this road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4803" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="9fb9f5e5-181c-44c8-a078-28a01518b1f5" CreationDate="2012-12-18T17:04:54.057" Comment="Proposed by 170 approved by 242, 185 edit id of 275" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1576" RevisionGUID="3084b8dd-7b3c-46b0-9063-e32a4d0fb6ab" CreationDate="2012-12-18T17:19:43.690" UserId="496" Comment="edited body" Text="Let's look at the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю идти по этой дороге по вечерам, ни о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;    Люблю проходить по этой дороге по вечерам, ни о чём не думая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `идти` and `проходить` are in the same context.&#xD;&#xA;I must admit that both phrases are possible and correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase is general use and does not need further explanation. (Yuri mentioned that it would sound even better with гулять or ходить, but we are talking about the difference of идти and проходить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase can be perfect in some additional context. For example: `По вечерам на моем длинном пути с работы домой я люблю проходить по этой дороге, ни о чём не думая.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проходить is usually used when somebody/something goes through a layer, or gate, or some special place during a bigger-scale movement. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через игольное ушко. &#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по коридору. Проходить коридор.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить по мосту. Проходить мост.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить через тоннель.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить мимо большой березы. Проходить большую березу.&#xD;&#xA;    Проходить этот уровень компьютерной игры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that the imperfect form (несовершенный вид) `проходить` corresponds to the perfect form (совершеный вид) `пройти` i.e. &quot;про-идти&quot;. Maybe this was the original prompter for brilliant to ask the question. We can discuss what will be the difference between `пройти по этой дороге` and `проходить по этой дороге`. I think it is the implied repetitiveness of the action but it is not what the original question was asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in conclusion, to my mind, проходить по дороге implies that the mentioned road (дорога) is a part of a bigger way before and/or after this road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1578" RevisionGUID="abbcbd6e-2121-4471-86de-39e76e0e607b" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:08:00.607" UserId="1281" Text="Правильно: люблю ходить по дороге: люблю ходить по этой дороге на работу, т.к. она более зеленая." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="5230418d-539e-48de-ba09-044c797872e8" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:38:04.443" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma in &quot;Тут есть, над чем подумать&quot;? And can anyone parse this sentence for me, please? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="5230418d-539e-48de-ba09-044c797872e8" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:38:04.443" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma in &quot;Тут есть, над чем подумать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="5230418d-539e-48de-ba09-044c797872e8" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:38:04.443" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1581" RevisionGUID="eb25d0d8-91a7-4ca3-beb0-64feea4c2d9f" CreationDate="2012-12-19T01:50:16.357" UserId="1236" Text="The comma is not needed. *Над чем подумать* is the subject of the sentence, it's a verbal phrase, an infinitive with an indirect object. The verb *есть* agrees with it, it's singular, &quot;Тут&quot; is a predicative (I have some doubts about &quot;Тут&quot;, it can be an adverbial modifier of place). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4812" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="5c7415d4-f80f-4386-ae5b-31f3531bf689" CreationDate="2012-12-19T14:26:09.130" UserId="170" />
  <row Id="4813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="5c7415d4-f80f-4386-ae5b-31f3531bf689" CreationDate="2012-12-19T14:26:09.130" UserId="170" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Well, the first thing that kind of stands out to me is that '**у меня**' can mean 'I have', while '**мой**' would not convey that meaning on its own. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** конфликт с моим начальником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statement sounds complete. It reports the fact of the existence of some conflict between the speaker and his boss in the present time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мой** конфликт с моим начальником&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This statement is incomplete. It doesn't report any message. In fact, it doesn't report anything. It only names a certain phenomenon - a conflict of a speaker with his boss - however, we know nothing about it. We don't know whether this conflict has started, is still going on or is already over. We know nothing about how big this conflict was (is, has been, or will be). We don't even know whether it is really a phenomenon (something having its place in the objective reality) or simply a concept in the speaker's mind (like in &quot;*Иногда пытаюсь представить себе, каким бы мог быть **мой** конфликт с моим начальником, если бы он мог произойти*&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that comes to my mind is that '**мой**' cannot modify a personal pronoun, while '**у меня**' can. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да пудов этак пять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или шесть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ему не съесть,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **у меня** ещё маленький!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Он **мой** ещё маленький'!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true about possessive adjectives ('мамин', 'папин', 'сестрин', 'дедушкин', etc.). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **у мамы** – вместо швабры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Я **мамин** – вместо швабры')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, '**у меня**' can simply mean 'at my house', in which case it may not at all mean '**мой**'. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сейчас где? Всё ещё универмаге! Давай скорее! Твой друг уже **у меня**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not 'Твой друг уже **мой**', which could meаn a totally different thing :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing, '**у меня**', '**у тебя**', '**у ниx**' and so on, can mean 'in my/your/their thinking' or 'in my/your/their understanding' or 'in my/your/their own little world', in other words, can describe how someone treats something else or somebody else. In this case it does not describe possession at all. For example, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не присылай мне больше своиx консультантов. **Твои** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, как ты относишься к консультантам. **У тебя** консультанты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - сплошные невежды по определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first sentence the speaker is stating the fact that the consultants are ignorant, while in the second sentence he seems to be even defending consultants. In the first sentence consultants belong to the one to whom the speaker is talking, while in the second sentence the person to whom the speaker is talking (interlocutor) may not have, i.e. possess, any consultants at all (in the first sentence, the speaker is talking only about those consultants that belong to his interlocutor, while in the second sentence he is talking about all consultants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, '**у меня**', can describe a certain situation that the speaker has or is experiencing at the moment, while using '**мой**' would not have such a connotation. Compare the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Все мы знаем, где наши родители, и только про твоего папу, Джейн,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никому ничего не известно. Где он сейчас? Возможно, что где-нибудь на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой-нибудь выставке, а возможно, что и в каком-нибудь баре...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **Мой** папа в командировке, и вообще-то это не ваше дело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;********&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Джейн, мы завтра идём в поxод. Пойдёшь с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – К сожалению, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А что так?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **У меня** папа в командировке. Маме нужна моя помощь. Ей тяжело будет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the speaker is introducing and describing her particular situation that she is presenting as a reason why she cannot go hiking. In the first example, however, the fact that the speaker's father is on the business trip is not being presented or described as a particular situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer reflects only my limited understanding of the matter and in no way should be taken as a comprehensive description of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="13d508a6-3e97-4015-a127-ed376f20007b" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:53:16.723" UserId="496" Text="I've seen it in the news web-site. It was used interchangeably with word резус-макак. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="13d508a6-3e97-4015-a127-ed376f20007b" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:53:16.723" UserId="496" Text="Is there the word макак (masculine) in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="13d508a6-3e97-4015-a127-ed376f20007b" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:53:16.723" UserId="496" Text="|словоупотребление|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1583" RevisionGUID="e0102263-26ef-4e37-8f31-400e5a24edbf" CreationDate="2012-12-19T17:31:07.547" UserId="1236" Text="Neither the dictionary of Ushakov nor Ozhegov has the word `макак`, but &quot;Новый англо-русский биологический словарь&quot; © «РУССО», 2003 has it and lists several species using this word. [Gramota.ru][2] doesn't list the word, but [Wikipedia][1] does. The only explanation I can find is that `макак` is used in scientific context, while `макака` is used in neutral, everyday speech. Also, it's better to say макак-резус, not the other way round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EC%E0%EA%E0%EA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="256d96e3-fd07-4b53-adf4-a5a99f5516bd" CreationDate="2012-12-19T18:45:34.817" UserId="496" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I've seen it in the news [web-site][1]. It was used interchangeably with word резус-макак. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lenta.ru/articles/2012/12/12/monkey/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="5ea76cbd-3dda-40a9-b814-7c26483714a8" CreationDate="2012-12-19T18:50:40.283" UserId="496" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I've seen it in the news [web-site][1]. It was used interchangeably with word макак-резус. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lenta.ru/articles/2012/12/12/monkey/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="4d3e9dd5-d190-45d9-8c17-a336c3974d18" CreationDate="2012-12-19T18:59:43.320" UserId="496" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I've seen it in the news [web-site][1]. It was used interchangeably with word макак-резус. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is also interesting, in the same article they first decline both words like &quot;самец макака-резуса&quot; and then completely separate the word макак and use it as a first class citizen word. So, the second related question is weather it is a correct way to decline this compound word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lenta.ru/articles/2012/12/12/monkey/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="711b2638-cf05-465a-affb-dd3f0977eabc" CreationDate="2012-12-20T01:51:07.917" UserId="496" Text="If we use name of a foreign company as a single word f.e. Samsung, Ford, Microsoft, IBM, Shell, and even StackOverflow, what gender form the following verb should take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be `Samsung предложил` or `Samsung предложила`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the gender be guessed from the phonetic traditions of language, like (simplifying) if it ends with consonant, it will be masculine, or it should be taken from the word which is associated with the name, i.e. if it is &quot;компания Samsung&quot; then Samsung will be она? If the latter is right, why Аэрофлот is masculine - because it is not a foreign company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="711b2638-cf05-465a-affb-dd3f0977eabc" CreationDate="2012-12-20T01:51:07.917" UserId="496" Text="Rules for attaching gender to foreign company names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="711b2638-cf05-465a-affb-dd3f0977eabc" CreationDate="2012-12-20T01:51:07.917" UserId="496" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="c7501edf-b5a9-47c4-a744-138dc419158e" CreationDate="2012-12-20T07:15:10.150" UserId="170" Text="I am not sure if I need a comma in &quot;Хорошо, что я прочитал всю статью&quot;? Can anyone shed some light here, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="c7501edf-b5a9-47c4-a744-138dc419158e" CreationDate="2012-12-20T07:15:10.150" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma in &quot;Хорошо, что я прочитал всю статью&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="c7501edf-b5a9-47c4-a744-138dc419158e" CreationDate="2012-12-20T07:15:10.150" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1586" RevisionGUID="a1e00cad-9509-456a-b9e0-630efe24a8d1" CreationDate="2012-12-20T08:43:40.717" UserId="1090" Text="I don't know about the *rule* from THE ultimate Russian language manual, but let's look at everyday users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example [this Forbes article][1]. Its title is: `&quot;Почему Renault-Nissan за 5 лет так и не возродил АвтоВАЗ&quot;`. Renault-Nissan is used here as in your **first** guess, it ends with a consonant, and used as a masculine word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the first sentence in the article is: `В 2008 году концерн Renault-Nissan купил 25% АвтоВАЗа, вчера было объявлено, что доля иностранцев вырастет до контрольной. Где же результат?` The author might be specifically using masculine prefix words through the article: `альянс`, `концерн`, to match the consonant in the end of Renault-Nissan...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...But might be not! Because further down we see this: `Что это изменит и почему Renault-Nissan, получившая блокпакет еще в начале 2008 года, до сих пор не спешила перестраивать работу гиганта социалистической индустрии на современный лад, пользуясь ноу-хау Гона?`. Yes, yes, `Renault-Nissan, получившая`! Here author implies that `Renault-Nissan` is `компания`, as in your **second** option, and guess what, any native speaker will perfectly get his message right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But your second option will not work with Russian company names!** At least not with companies which use Russian words in their names! You can say `&quot;Аэрофлот&quot; заполучил` and `компания &quot;Аэрофлот&quot; заполучила`, but you **can't** say `&quot;Аэрофлот&quot; заполучила`. `&quot;Империя сумок&quot; устроила распродажу` sounds right, but `&quot;Империя сумок&quot; устроил распродажу` doesn't. But in some cases it will sound OK, usually with abbreviations: `ТАНЕКО поглотила`, `Концерн ТАНЕКО поглотил`, `ТАНЕКО поглотил`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, I'm really scratching the surface here, there could be many other little rules in many other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forbes.ru/sobytiya-column/kompanii/230900-pochemu-renault-nissan-za-5-let-tak-i-ne-vozrodil-avtovaz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="f0f1870e-8aec-4817-baae-ae4a9041d6ab" CreationDate="2012-12-20T08:59:59.810" UserId="959" Text="*Хорошо* is an impersonal sentence and it is a part of a complex sentence. Of course, you need a comma before *что*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1587" RevisionGUID="1daffa98-0899-4044-ae59-da4da1cba08f" CreationDate="2012-12-20T13:35:22.250" UserId="959" Comment="edited body" Text="*Хорошо* is an impersonal sentence and it is a part of a complex sentence. You definitely need a comma before *что*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="db8826a5-c838-4f9d-8137-c4a444fef04f" CreationDate="2012-12-20T23:09:41.327" UserId="496" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|заимствования|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1588" RevisionGUID="8c6c18aa-2ee2-4d81-9fba-8cb901d1d6df" CreationDate="2012-12-21T00:49:11.183" UserId="496" Text="I thought I needed to contribute by providing one nice Russian idiom for &quot;be very excited&quot;. It is a little rude/colloquial and it is usually used when talking about somebody else, not yourself. It can be used referring to yourself if you have a good sense of humor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He is very excited about his new job. - Он просто писает кипятком от своей новой работы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a hint of a kind joke about somebody's excitement. English &quot;be excited&quot; is more neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4833" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1584" RevisionGUID="180ab324-d4e6-416a-aaed-978692dac0a0" CreationDate="2012-12-21T19:55:17.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/282212666318147584" />
  <row Id="4834" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1585" RevisionGUID="a6c8f598-b022-4729-8bc9-a7dbcf511375" CreationDate="2012-12-22T01:55:17.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/282303262789627904" />
  <row Id="4835" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1582" RevisionGUID="836a809a-45ed-42a0-a276-0058e4ea23c5" CreationDate="2012-12-22T04:55:17.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/282348560832413697" />
  <row Id="4836" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1580" RevisionGUID="7dc9dac4-5296-47b7-837e-e3c81cae3edd" CreationDate="2012-12-22T07:55:17.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/282393860267728896" />
  <row Id="4837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1589" RevisionGUID="abba6d97-a504-4892-a1b2-0dc31194a668" CreationDate="2012-12-22T12:06:37.853" UserId="1289" Text="Although there are some exceptions, in general you always need a comma before &quot;что&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4838" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="a78eb7b7-f605-4612-8d71-e051045ea2f5" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:32:50.650" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|одушевлённость|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="4a07a0ad-b505-4804-a3e4-1be63005ddba" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:50:48.650" UserId="185" Text="I was explaining to a friend how to use nouns with numerals 2, 3 and 4 and figured out that I don't know which of the following two possibilities is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1a. Я вижу две вороны. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1b. Я вижу двух ворон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In other words, should I use feminine nouns that denote animals as if they are animated (1b) or not (1a)?** For masculine nouns it seems to be clearer, I'd say that 2b is better than 2a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2a. Отец зарезал три барана.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2b. Отец зарезал трех баранов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="4a07a0ad-b505-4804-a3e4-1be63005ddba" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:50:48.650" UserId="185" Text="2, 3 and 4 with feminine nouns denoting animals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="4a07a0ad-b505-4804-a3e4-1be63005ddba" CreationDate="2012-12-22T18:50:48.650" UserId="185" Text="|род|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="f77ef52d-fe02-4502-b8ac-0dc7f79752ce" CreationDate="2012-12-22T19:09:35.763" UserId="185" Text="Похоже, что &quot;Рождество&quot; можно употреблять и с предлогом &quot;в&quot;, и с предлогом &quot;на&quot;, по крайней мере, есть примеры обоих употреблений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Один раз, тоже на рождество, я засадила в ногу кривую занозищу и пряталась с ней по углам, и никого даже близко не подпускала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Вы, наверное, слишком заняты в Рождество, – быстро произнесла Мерль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой вопрос состоит в следующем: точно ли &quot;в Рождество&quot; и &quot;на Рождество&quot; обозначают одно и то же?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="f77ef52d-fe02-4502-b8ac-0dc7f79752ce" CreationDate="2012-12-22T19:09:35.763" UserId="185" Text="на Рождество vs. в Рождество" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="f77ef52d-fe02-4502-b8ac-0dc7f79752ce" CreationDate="2012-12-22T19:09:35.763" UserId="185" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1592" RevisionGUID="d7eaafb1-edee-465b-98b9-292c4bb4baeb" CreationDate="2012-12-22T20:39:53.710" UserId="1290" Text="Не всегда. Напишу по примеру Нового Года, так как мне этот праздник созвучнее, но логика та же.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Я хочу получить НА Новый Год новые духи.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Новый Год&quot; не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;И еще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы поехали отдыхать на Мальдивы НА Новый Год.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае - на промежуток времени (на период праздников).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1593" RevisionGUID="a10a2c5d-b1d5-4b46-a3ff-df3fc87e6870" CreationDate="2012-12-22T20:51:59.677" UserId="242" Text="The first thing we should mention, that, talking about holidays in general, the `на ` form is the only acceptable one in the overwhelming majority of cases: `На Первомай`, but (practically) never &quot;в Первомай&quot;. So, there is a very limited number of religious holidays, and Christmas is among them, that can be used with `в ` form, e. g. `Рождество`, `Пасха`, `Сочельник`, `Рамадан` and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for this holidays, even in semiprofessional theological texts, such like one can find in articles from religion news portals, terms like `Богослужение на Рождество` and `богослужение в Рождество` are used in relatively equal proportions. Yet, there is indeed a subtle difference between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about event that is already happening, or supposed to happen very soon, you should use `в ` form:&#xD;&#xA;  - В [эту] Пасху я желаю тебе, друг , всего самого хорошего.&#xD;&#xA;  - В [это] Рождество желаю нам всем счастья.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about something related to some holiday/festival that happens on a regular basis, you most probably should use &quot;На Рождество&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На Пасху [освящается артос][1] — квасной хлеб особого освящения.&#xD;&#xA; - На Новый год мы стараемся уехать на дачу.&#xD;&#xA; - На Рождество приходится большая часть продаж.&#xD;&#xA; - Специального блюда, которое готовится на Рамадан, нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mnemonic formula we can construct here is &quot;На [какой-то праздник] [обычно принято]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about some personal plans that your are  going to fulfil on some certain day, you, once again, should use `на `:&#xD;&#xA;  - Махнём-ка мы на Рождество к деду!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At last, when you are talking about some event, which is specifically not for any holiday, but for this one, it is more acceptable to use `в`-form:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - [В Пасху][2] около московских кладбищ нельзя будет купить спиртное. (See, this article is about that in a certain place, in Moscow, at certain time, on Easter, alcohol would be banned.)&#xD;&#xA; - Но в Страстную Пятницу все идет наперекосяк, кто-то упорно мешает этому — взрывает и убивает людей Гарольда. (This has happened only once under some certain circumstances with these very guy).&#xD;&#xA; - Домбровскис призывает в Рождество подумать о проделанной работе. (I guess, Mr. Dombrovkis suggest to do think about progress report only once, at this Christmas.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The mnemonic formula for this case can be stated as `в [день, когда празднуется этот праздник] [где-то] [случилось что-то]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one more important thing, I'm talking only about tendencies in language, about the the way it is de-facto in modern Russian, but in all above mentioned cases you actually nevertheless can use both forms interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - В сочельник у православных варили кутью, у католиков - бигилию. (Though `на` form is more frequent in this case).&#xD;&#xA;  - В Страстную пятницу не принято петь, гулять и веселиться.&#xD;&#xA;  - Я желаю тебе в это Рождество всего самого хорошего, здоровья тебе и твоей семье.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newsru.ru/russia/24apr2011/nbh.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1594" RevisionGUID="ea8bb7a5-3f6f-41fc-a309-6cd8092e0d02" CreationDate="2012-12-22T20:52:14.093" UserId="1274" Text="I suppose that (b) is the correct way in both cases. (1a) sounds incomplete, as if you wanted to say &quot;Я вижу две вороны, клюющие хлеб&quot;, which in turn makes the sentence grammatically incorrect (two subjects in a simple sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [similar question][1] on gramota.ru also suggests accusative as the only correct version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как будет правильно: *Я видел две высокие девушки* или *Я видел двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высоких девушек*?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *двух высоких девушек*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_438255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1595" RevisionGUID="34fb4a22-b50e-4c99-802d-c13240a8f27e" CreationDate="2012-12-22T20:57:27.657" UserId="1290" Text="According to Wiki, only singular feminine nouns ending in 'a' have a distinct form in the  accusative case.(1b)&#xD;&#xA;But I personally don't see much difference between these variants. I'd say (1a) because &quot;вижу двух ворон&quot; sounds like &quot;вижу двух девушек&quot;. I think &quot;ворона&quot; is more like an object you are describing looking at a picture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1594" RevisionGUID="ebc19824-372c-4a1f-b87c-9a37557d2892" CreationDate="2012-12-22T20:58:00.373" UserId="1274" Comment="Expanded on animatedness" Text="I suppose that (b) is the correct way in both cases. (1a) sounds incomplete, as if you wanted to say &quot;Я вижу две вороны, клюющие хлеб&quot;, which in turn makes the sentence grammatically incorrect (two subjects in a simple sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [similar question][1] on gramota.ru also suggests accusative as the only correct version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как будет правильно: *Я видел две высокие девушки* или *Я видел двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высоких девушек*?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *двух высоких девушек*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I searched, animatedness only affects collective numerals &quot;двое&quot;, &quot;трое&quot; (Розенталь, &quot;Употребление собирательных числительных&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетании с одушевленными существительнымисобирательные числительные употребляются как в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительном, так и в косвенныхпадежах: трое детей, мать троих детей.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетании с неодушевленными существительными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; используется, как правило, только форма именительно-винительного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа: двое саней, трое ножниц, четверо суток. В косвенных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежах используются формысоответствующих количественных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительных: к двум саням, с тремя ножницами, около четырех суток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_438255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1594" RevisionGUID="10bd9324-eb15-4093-a24b-6b7c53aab378" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:07:45.310" UserId="1274" Comment="Self-check added" Text="I suppose that (b) is the correct way in both cases. (1a) sounds incomplete, as if you wanted to say &quot;Я вижу две вороны, клюющие хлеб&quot;, which in turn makes the sentence grammatically incorrect (two subjects in a simple sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [similar question][1] on gramota.ru also suggests accusative as the only correct version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как будет правильно: *Я видел две высокие девушки* или *Я видел двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высоких девушек*?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *двух высоких девушек*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I searched, animatedness only affects collective numerals &quot;двое&quot;, &quot;трое&quot; (Розенталь, &quot;Употребление собирательных числительных&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетании с одушевленными существительнымисобирательные числительные употребляются как в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительном, так и в косвенныхпадежах: трое детей, мать троих детей.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетании с неодушевленными существительными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; используется, как правило, только форма именительно-винительного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа: двое саней, трое ножниц, четверо суток. В косвенных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежах используются формысоответствующих количественных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительных: к двум саням, с тремя ножницами, около четырех суток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, for a self-check just omit the numeral, retaining plural count:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1a) Я вижу вороны  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1b) Я вижу ворон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct answer is pretty obvious now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_438255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="3df97fda-48d1-4eab-9819-233a4dc7db2a" CreationDate="2012-12-22T21:46:20.850" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|род|числительные|одушевлённость|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1593" RevisionGUID="96aafdab-7db0-4caa-ac98-357caf1baade" CreationDate="2012-12-22T22:10:24.417" UserId="242" Comment="по просьбе Ольги - русский бриф" Text="Обычно употребляется форма `на `, когда:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о конкретном намерении, связанном с личными планами и приуроченным к какому-то конкретному празднику: &quot;На Рождество съезжу, пожалуй, в Чехию&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о некоем контексте, в принципе ассоциируемом с этим праздником: &quot;На Рождество наряжают елку.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Обычно употребляется форма `в `, когда:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о событии, которое в происходит в настоящее время (или произойдёт в самое ближайшее время): &quot;В эту Пасху хочу пожелать нам всем...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о каком-то конкретном празднике, происходящем в определённое время в определённом месте, а не о празднике вообще: &quot;Синоптики обещают, что в Сочельник будет относительно тепло&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом же стоит заметить, что равноправное сосуществование этих двух форм в больше мере специфично для религиозных (не обязательно христианских) праздников, и даже в терминологии употребляемой в полупрофессиональной теологической периодике ,например, в СМИ, ориентированных на освещение религиозной тематики,  эти формы часто взаимозаменямы - например, в словосочетание `богослужение в ` и `богослужение на`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И ещё замечу, что я речь идёт о фактической практике частоты употребления первой или второй форм в современном русском. В принципе, практически во всех  (кроме, пожалуй, упомянутого уважаемым AliCruise случая) приведённых случаях, вполне допустимо применение `на `  вместо `в ` и наоборот. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==============&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing we should mention, that, talking about holidays in general, the `на ` form is the only acceptable one in the overwhelming majority of cases: `На Первомай`, but (practically) never &quot;в Первомай&quot;. So, there is a very limited number of religious holidays, and Christmas is among them, that can be used with `в ` form, e. g. `Рождество`, `Пасха`, `Сочельник`, `Рамадан` and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for this holidays, even in semiprofessional theological texts, such like one can find in articles from religion news portals, terms like `Богослужение на Рождество` and `богослужение в Рождество` are used in relatively equal proportions. Yet, there is indeed a subtle difference between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about event that is already happening, or supposed to happen very soon, you should use `в ` form:&#xD;&#xA;  - В [эту] Пасху я желаю тебе, друг , всего самого хорошего.&#xD;&#xA;  - В [это] Рождество желаю нам всем счастья.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about something related to some holiday/festival that happens on a regular basis, you most probably should use &quot;На Рождество&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На Пасху [освящается артос][1] — квасной хлеб особого освящения.&#xD;&#xA; - На Новый год мы стараемся уехать на дачу.&#xD;&#xA; - На Рождество приходится большая часть продаж.&#xD;&#xA; - Специального блюда, которое готовится на Рамадан, нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mnemonic formula we can construct here is &quot;На [какой-то праздник] [обычно принято]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about some personal plans that your are  going to fulfil on some certain day, you, once again, should use `на `:&#xD;&#xA;  - Махнём-ка мы на Рождество к деду!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At last, when you are talking about some event, which is specifically not for any holiday, but for this one, it is more acceptable to use `в`-form:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - [В Пасху][2] около московских кладбищ нельзя будет купить спиртное. (See, this article is about that in a certain place, in Moscow, at certain time, on Easter, alcohol would be banned.)&#xD;&#xA; - Но в Страстную Пятницу все идет наперекосяк, кто-то упорно мешает этому — взрывает и убивает людей Гарольда. (This has happened only once under some certain circumstances with these very guy).&#xD;&#xA; - Домбровскис призывает в Рождество подумать о проделанной работе. (I guess, Mr. Dombrovkis suggest to do think about progress report only once, at this Christmas.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The mnemonic formula for this case can be stated as `в [день, когда празднуется этот праздник] [где-то] [случилось что-то]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one more important thing, I'm talking only about tendencies in language, about the the way it is de-facto in modern Russian, but in all above mentioned cases you actually nevertheless can use both forms interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - В сочельник у православных варили кутью, у католиков - бигилию. (Though `на` form is more frequent in this case).&#xD;&#xA;  - В Страстную пятницу не принято петь, гулять и веселиться.&#xD;&#xA;  - Я желаю тебе в это Рождество всего самого хорошего, здоровья тебе и твоей семье.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newsru.ru/russia/24apr2011/nbh.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1593" RevisionGUID="d2b6ead3-30e7-4aec-bce0-28a4c04b7714" CreationDate="2012-12-22T22:16:15.800" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Обычно употребляется форма `на `, когда:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о конкретном намерении, связанном с личными планами и приуроченным к какому-то конкретному празднику: &quot;На Рождество съезжу, пожалуй, в Чехию&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о некоем контексте, в принципе ассоциируемом с этим праздником: &quot;На Рождество наряжают елку.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Обычно употребляется форма `в `, когда:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о событии, которое в происходит в настоящее время (или произойдёт в самое ближайшее время): &quot;В эту Пасху хочу пожелать нам всем...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - Речь идёт о каком-то конкретном празднике, происходящем в определённое время в определённом месте, а не о празднике вообще: &quot;Синоптики обещают, что в Сочельник будет относительно тепло&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом же стоит заметить, что равноправное сосуществование этих двух форм в больше мере специфично для религиозных (не обязательно христианских) праздников, и даже в терминологии употребляемой в полупрофессиональной теологической периодике ,например, в СМИ, ориентированных на освещение религиозной тематики,  эти формы часто взаимозаменямы - например, в словосочетание `богослужение в ` и `богослужение на`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И ещё замечу, что я речь идёт о фактической практике частоты употребления первой или второй форм в современном русском. В принципе, практически во всех  (кроме, пожалуй, упомянутого уважаемым AliCruise случая) приведённых случаях, вполне допустимо применение `на `  вместо `в ` и наоборот. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;==============&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about holidays in general, first thing we should mention is that the `на ` form is the only acceptable one in the overwhelming majority of cases: `На Первомай`, but (practically) never &quot;в Первомай&quot;. So, there is a very limited number of religious holidays, and Christmas is among them, that can be used with `в ` form, e. g. `Рождество`, `Пасха`, `Сочельник`, `Рамадан` and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for this holidays, even in semiprofessional theological texts, such like one can find in articles from religion news portals, terms like `Богослужение на Рождество` and `богослужение в Рождество` are used in relatively equal proportions. Yet, there is indeed a subtle difference between these two forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about event that is already happening, or supposed to happen very soon, you should use `в ` form:&#xD;&#xA;  - В [эту] Пасху я желаю тебе, друг , всего самого хорошего.&#xD;&#xA;  - В [это] Рождество желаю нам всем счастья.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about something related to some holiday/festival that happens on a regular basis, you most probably should use &quot;На Рождество&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На Пасху [освящается артос][1] — квасной хлеб особого освящения.&#xD;&#xA; - На Новый год мы стараемся уехать на дачу.&#xD;&#xA; - На Рождество приходится большая часть продаж.&#xD;&#xA; - Специального блюда, которое готовится на Рамадан, нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mnemonic formula we can construct here is &quot;На [какой-то праздник] [обычно принято]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are talking about some personal plans that your are  going to fulfil on some certain day, you, once again, should use `на `:&#xD;&#xA;  - Махнём-ка мы на Рождество к деду!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At last, when you are talking about some event, which is specifically not for any holiday, but for this one, it is more acceptable to use `в`-form:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - [В Пасху][2] около московских кладбищ нельзя будет купить спиртное. (See, this article is about that in a certain place, in Moscow, at certain time, on Easter, alcohol would be banned.)&#xD;&#xA; - Но в Страстную Пятницу все идет наперекосяк, кто-то упорно мешает этому — взрывает и убивает людей Гарольда. (This has happened only once under some certain circumstances with these very guy).&#xD;&#xA; - Домбровскис призывает в Рождество подумать о проделанной работе. (I guess, Mr. Dombrovkis suggest to do think about progress report only once, at this Christmas.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The mnemonic formula for this case can be stated as `в [день, когда празднуется этот праздник] [где-то] [случилось что-то]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one more important thing, I'm talking only about tendencies in language, about the the way it is de-facto in modern Russian, but in all above mentioned cases you actually nevertheless can use both forms interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - В сочельник у православных варили кутью, у католиков - бигилию. (Though `на` form is more frequent in this case).&#xD;&#xA;  - В Страстную пятницу не принято петь, гулять и веселиться.&#xD;&#xA;  - Я желаю тебе в это Рождество всего самого хорошего, здоровья тебе и твоей семье.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%85%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newsru.ru/russia/24apr2011/nbh.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1596" RevisionGUID="3dc42191-7b0b-471f-8890-9f3086bbe535" CreationDate="2012-12-23T03:10:34.167" UserId="496" Text="Предлог **&quot;в&quot;** означает, что что-либо происходит **строго между началом и концом** праздничного (или какого-либо особого) дня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В праздники я был дома.&#xD;&#xA;    В выходные мы ездили загород.&#xD;&#xA;    В День Победы ветераны надевают ордена и проходят по улицам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предлог **&quot;на&quot;** перед названием праздника означает, что что-либо происходит **приблизительно во время праздника** (чуть раньше, чуть позже или начинается немного раньше и кончается немного позже) **и приурочено к нему**. Поэтому подарки мы получаем на Рождество (это может быть и раньше и позже Рождества, но связано с ним по смыслу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На Рождество мы уезжаем в отпуск. &#xD;&#xA;    На праздники мы собираемся поехать к друзьям.&#xD;&#xA;    Получать подарки на Пасху/Рождество/Восьмое марта очень приятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не согласен с уважаемым shabunc, что есть заметная разница между религиозными и светскими праздниками, и **в** используется только с религиозными. **В** перед праздниками, называющимися по дате, (восьмое марта, первое мая) не употребляется поскольку в русском языке не принято ставить предлог **в** перед датой, и даже когда дата - это название праздника, это все равно режет слух.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Похожая ситуация с Новым Годом. **В Новый Год** обычно не говорят из-за того, что слово **год** само по себе означает промежуток времени и вызвало бы двусмысленность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4855" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1590" RevisionGUID="b4b7fe2c-4f72-4c36-b001-283349daf03c" CreationDate="2012-12-23T07:55:17.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/282756247172808704" />
  <row Id="4856" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="d40d4113-1e3d-43c2-94a1-fea0d792aecd" CreationDate="2012-12-23T13:55:17.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/282846845137481729" />
  <row Id="4857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1572" RevisionGUID="40091d70-e4fa-47e9-a3f0-a5438fc1be34" CreationDate="2012-12-24T01:55:17.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/283028038772461570" />
  <row Id="4858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1594" RevisionGUID="9c4f02fa-340e-47de-8a85-f10828e475ea" CreationDate="2012-12-24T07:06:17.493" UserId="1274" Comment="Following the comments" Text="I see no difference, whether an animal is used or human, because they are both animate (disregarding their physical condition), and so it seems that (b) is the correct way in both cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [similar question][1] on gramota.ru also suggests accusative as the only correct version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как будет правильно: *Я видел две высокие девушки* или *Я видел двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высоких девушек*?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *двух высоких девушек*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_438255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1597" RevisionGUID="6927abdf-6a84-4c61-a56f-5fb638f4a172" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:52:43.633" UserId="170" Text="Can anyone, please, parse this sentence for me and tell me what part of speech is &quot;было&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хорошо, что хоть он пришёл, а то я **было** подумал, что и его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; похитили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1597" RevisionGUID="6927abdf-6a84-4c61-a56f-5fb638f4a172" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:52:43.633" UserId="170" Text="What part of speech is &quot;было&quot; in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1597" RevisionGUID="6927abdf-6a84-4c61-a56f-5fb638f4a172" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:52:43.633" UserId="170" Text="|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1599" RevisionGUID="00f059b2-f12f-4b09-aad5-750f5fc87003" CreationDate="2012-12-24T15:13:12.563" UserId="1236" Text="In this sentence `было` is a particle, used in colloquial speech, `а то я было подумал, что ...` can be translated as &quot;for I was at the point of thinking that ...&quot;, or &quot;for I nearly thought that ...&quot;, or &quot;for I was just about to think that ...&quot;. The whole sentence can be translated as &quot;It is good that at least he came, for I was just about to think that he had been kidnapped, too.&quot; You can read about `было` as a particle [here][1], [here][2] (§ 1694), or [here][3] (everything is in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/752814&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rusgram.narod.ru/1689-1705.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://rus.1september.ru/article.php?ID=200100509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="8d614015-3e06-4203-851b-fc35e438f451" CreationDate="2012-12-24T16:34:28.930" UserId="242" Text="This is a [particle][1], or, to be more precise, a verbal particle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This very particle is mostly used with perfect verbs in past tense, since, as it already has been mentioned here, it is used to describe an action which someone had an intention to take, but this action didn't happen (for some reasons, for example, one had changed is mind) in full extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is related participle `чуть было не`, which is also can be used mostly with perfect verbs in past tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="de6e585b-f82c-453c-858a-d8fc96b32959" CreationDate="2012-12-24T16:42:18.033" UserId="242" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="This is a [particle][1], or, to be more precise, a verbal particle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This very particle is mostly used with perfect verbs in past tense, since, as it already has been mentioned here, it is used to describe an action which someone had an intention to take, but this action didn't happen (for some reasons, for example, one had changed is mind) to the full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is related participle `чуть было не`, which is also can be used mostly with perfect verbs in past tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be warned, besides those two forms there exists yet another participle derived from `быть` -  `бывало`, and this one should not be confused with `было` - it gives to a phrase a tone of periodicity, frequency: &quot;В молодости я, бывало, выпивал порядочно&quot; (I've used to drink a lot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1601" RevisionGUID="d07634af-3096-4a8f-aea7-63efa856275a" CreationDate="2012-12-24T18:09:11.033" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal et al., *СППЛР*, #153.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В вариантах *купить двух коров – купить две коровы, подстрелить трех уток – подстрелить три утки* (при названиях животных в форме женского рода, когда речь идет об общем счете, купле-продаже) вторая форма имеет разговорный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, animal names have varying animacy depending on the semantic context: as a dish or ingredient, they are regarded inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ibid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В различии форм *поймал трех рыбок – съел три рыбки* сказывается то обстоятельство, что во втором случае имеется в виду кушанье, т.е. неодушевленность (ср.: *съесть кильки, сардины, шпроты* – как нерасчлененный продукт; но: *съесть карасей, раков, цыплят* – как единичные предметы). Возможные варианты: *есть креветок, устриц, пулярок – есть креветки, устрицы, пулярки*. Такие же колебания наблюдаются у существительных *матрешка, кукла, марионетка*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1602" RevisionGUID="1e109639-6825-4ad0-9297-4f2736d385e6" CreationDate="2012-12-24T19:16:40.967" UserId="616" Text="It's a remnant of Past Perfect ([Pluperfect][1]), as suggested by [this article][2]; nowadays it's almost exclusively used to describe an &quot;annulled action&quot; which was cancelled by an action expressed in a Past Simple tense. And, since the original Pluperfect is lost, as of now &quot;***было***&quot; is indeed merely a particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluperfect&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://danefae.org/pprs/zhivov2/petruxin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4869" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1597" RevisionGUID="023381ff-ab40-4375-8f21-a50500a32530" CreationDate="2012-12-24T19:55:17.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/283299828832813056" />
  <row Id="4870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1603" RevisionGUID="540beda0-44a4-4781-8f51-154499445c11" CreationDate="2012-12-25T01:00:51.593" UserId="487" Text="There is already a negation included in `ничего`, in the statement &quot;Я ничего не понимaю&quot;. I cannot figure out why instead of using &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; one uses that expression that apparently contains a double negation (is the particle `не` emphasizing that _one does not understand absolutely nothing_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; understandable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does this construction `ничего/никого... не + глагол` apply for any verb? (I've heard &quot;Я нечего не вижу&quot; итд.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Do there exist examples where this apparent double negation actually means something affirmative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1603" RevisionGUID="540beda0-44a4-4781-8f51-154499445c11" CreationDate="2012-12-25T01:00:51.593" UserId="487" Text="Why &quot;ничего не понимaю&quot; ? Isn't &quot;я ничего понимaю&quot; enough?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1603" RevisionGUID="540beda0-44a4-4781-8f51-154499445c11" CreationDate="2012-12-25T01:00:51.593" UserId="487" Text="|грамматика|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="c2ce384a-bee1-4b73-81da-45788f117fab" CreationDate="2012-12-25T01:18:47.990" UserId="1113" Comment="formatting and typos" Text="Как правильно употреблять (и как обычно употребляется) слово &quot;источник&quot; во фразах вроде *пишет Bloomberg со ссылкой на 2 источник..., знаком... с ситуацией*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны, в этом случае разговор идет о людях, имеющих доступ к какой-то информации, поэтому логично предположить, что слово &quot;источник&quot; здесь одушевленное и что правильно использовать окончание род. падежа: *со ссылкой на двух источников*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, такое употребление режет слух (возможно, только мне), и по словарям я себя проверить не могу, т.к. на Академике и на Грамоте не указана одушевленность слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня интересует 3 вопроса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Как правильно говорить, и регулируется ли это употребление где-либо?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Как обычно говорят?&#xD;&#xA; 3. Есть ли еще какие-нибудь случаи, когда слово &quot;источник&quot; употребляется как одушевленное (окончание родительного падежа в контексте винительного)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4874" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1568" RevisionGUID="c2ce384a-bee1-4b73-81da-45788f117fab" CreationDate="2012-12-25T01:18:47.990" Comment="Proposed by 1113 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="e32ee7e7-ff69-4976-ab4f-6da581efee2e" CreationDate="2012-12-25T01:46:13.347" UserId="242" Text=" 1. No, in Russian phrase &quot;Я ничего понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. This is called, as you'v already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both PIE and non-PIE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation is also [exists][2] in some niches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most hardest part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use with any verb which can be an answer to the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some example. Classic example is, for instance,  `не мог не` plus verb - which actually means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="4ea8ada4-31cf-421e-96f9-d35a2bced066" CreationDate="2012-12-25T07:40:44.423" UserId="242" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text=" 1. No, in Russian phrase &quot;Я ничего понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. The phrases like &quot;ничего не&quot; are called, as you'v already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both PIE and non-PIE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation is also [exists][2] in some niches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most hardest part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use with any verb which can be an answer to the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some example. Classic example is, for instance,  `не мог не` plus verb - which actually means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1569" RevisionGUID="bd197895-78fd-424c-a8f8-8b4cf76c430f" CreationDate="2012-12-25T11:28:22.690" UserId="185" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="Со ссылкой на два источника.&#xD;&#xA;Неодушевлённое слово и есть неодушевлённое. Так звучит правильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В то же время имена существительные неодушевленные при употреблении их в переносном значении категорию неодушевленности не сохраняют и при склонении изменяются как существительные одушевленные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например: Призовите к порядку этого типа; Уговори поехать с нами за город этого старого колпака; В иного пня и десять лет не вдолбить того, что другой ловит на полете (Фонвизин)&quot;. (Валгина, Розенталь, Фомина, глава 114.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае, всё-таки, переносный смысл сомнителен, поскольку речь идёт об &quot;источнике информации&quot;, пусть и одушевлённом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4879" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1603" RevisionGUID="456772db-925d-4f98-b342-34fe60811af9" CreationDate="2012-12-25T13:55:17.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/283571620407296001" />
  <row Id="4880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1605" RevisionGUID="b7497623-3528-4b31-9b32-17015d1c74f7" CreationDate="2012-12-25T17:28:30.683" UserId="62" Text="I can see from an internet search that виральный has the meaning of &quot;viral&quot;, but what is the translation of the phrase &quot;to go viral&quot;, e.g., &quot;that video has gone viral&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1605" RevisionGUID="b7497623-3528-4b31-9b32-17015d1c74f7" CreationDate="2012-12-25T17:28:30.683" UserId="62" Text="how to say &quot;to go viral&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1605" RevisionGUID="b7497623-3528-4b31-9b32-17015d1c74f7" CreationDate="2012-12-25T17:28:30.683" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1606" RevisionGUID="90575a54-0fac-467c-baac-b2b9c4cd84d2" CreationDate="2012-12-25T18:13:20.600" UserId="1236" Text="We use the word `вирусный`. There are Russian expressions like `вирусный маркетинг`, `вирусная реклама`, `вирусное видео`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That video has gone viral. - Это видео стало вирусным. / Это видео превратилось в вирусное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English [Wiki article on viral marketing][1] has a [counterpart in the Russian Wiki called &quot;Вирусный маркетинг&quot;][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This marketing-related meaning of the Russian word `вирусный` is quite new, but quite established and widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1605" RevisionGUID="d1bab8bc-4275-4a01-95e8-22e48e97324b" CreationDate="2012-12-25T18:16:15.410" UserId="62" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I can see from an internet search that виральный (edit: вирусный) has the meaning of &quot;viral&quot;, but what is the translation of the phrase &quot;*to go* viral&quot;, e.g., &quot;that video has gone viral&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="e0b22b8a-f7a6-418c-a486-c64b58b959fa" CreationDate="2012-12-25T19:37:16.660" UserId="5" Text="Do вчера and день назад refer to the same time period? If no, what is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="e0b22b8a-f7a6-418c-a486-c64b58b959fa" CreationDate="2012-12-25T19:37:16.660" UserId="5" Text="What is the difference between вчера and день назад?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="e0b22b8a-f7a6-418c-a486-c64b58b959fa" CreationDate="2012-12-25T19:37:16.660" UserId="5" Text="|словоупотребление|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1608" RevisionGUID="e9af8e30-60ce-4d4a-96b7-7a1fa9b9c013" CreationDate="2012-12-25T20:22:02.300" UserId="242" Text="There is exactly the same difference between `вчера` и `день назад` as between `yesterday` and `day before`: first, &quot;day before&quot; means yesterday if we assume that we are talking about current day; second, even if we are pretty sure from the context that we are talking about current day,  it is far less typical to say `день назад`. Since there is a separate word for such case - (paraaaam) `yesterday` :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он повёл себя тогда со мной как скотина, хотя день назад ещё был весь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из себя джентельмен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you can also say `день тому назад`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1608" RevisionGUID="0a7eb4de-e024-4327-8d55-31ab071fda33" CreationDate="2012-12-25T20:27:23.013" UserId="242" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="There is exactly the same difference between `вчера` и `день назад` as between `yesterday` and `day before`: first, &quot;day before&quot; means yesterday if we assume that we are talking about current day; second, even if we are pretty sure from the context that we are talking about current day,  it is far less typical to say `день назад`. Since there is a separate word for such case - (paraaaam) `yesterday` :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он повёл себя тогда со мной как скотина, хотя день назад ещё был весь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из себя джентельмен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, if you'd use `вчера` in this phrase, it will look like you are talking about &quot;real&quot; yesterday. Though this is nevertheless both understandable and acceptable usage of word `yesterday`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you can also say `день тому назад`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1509" RevisionGUID="2d8a0d83-1ead-4182-b2d0-d64db4b6f8cb" CreationDate="2012-12-25T21:02:01.520" UserId="496" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="Бухать is a slang word for 'to drink alcohol'. But the grammatical construction is valid and can be found in many other phrases conveying amazement with somebody doing something in sheer excess. It conveys a mixture of approval and disapproval (ну ты и силен бухать), and aimed at embarrassing a person to whom it is said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the first part of phrase is expressing some positive amazement (ну ты и), the second part - just to balance - usually uses more or less offensive/colloquial word for person's behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this phrases are from spoken language because the intonation plays a big role here in conveying meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и спать (дрыхнуть)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и есть (жрать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и гулять (шляться)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и кричать (орать)!&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты и ругаться (пи..еть)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;и&quot; after &quot;ты&quot; can be omitted for brevity. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну ты даешь&quot; is grammatically similar but follows a slightly different pattern meaning-wise. It is said when a person did something stupid or in other way amazing, not necessarily in excess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Because OP was asking for references (not only personal experiences) I looked on internet. The only source discussing exactly this question I found is [here][1]. Apparently, many Russians believe that it is not a valid construction. While others sure that it is. To approach the problem of this disagreement scientifically we now need to find the correlation between the fact of believe that it exists/not exists and other characteristics of believers. :-) We obviously do not have time to do this research but my guess it is geographical differentiation. I think this phrase is used in certain geographical locations and is not used in others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT 2: Although v'-5o-1's73- selected it as the answer (thanks) we can see from voting that most people think this construction does not sound good. In my defense I can say that there is significant part of population (not a majority, but significant) who believe that it is a good phrase (as confirmed by the link to forum and some votes on this site). I think the phrase comes from the phrase with the word *горазд*, for example &quot;ну ты и орать горазд&quot; where *горазд* is omitted for brevity and because it is a very old, not much used word nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=37617.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1609" RevisionGUID="c58a8057-34cc-4e43-bdce-db25d15ac826" CreationDate="2012-12-25T23:26:21.850" UserId="134" Text="If today, Dec 26th, I said the two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. 20-го декабря шёл снег, a день назад его не было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. 20-го декабря шёл снег, а вчера его не было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, the first phrase would mean that it did not snow on Dec, 19th, while the second would mean that it did not snow on Dec, 25th." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1610" RevisionGUID="c38473c8-fb53-4c63-ad1f-7a0b608b22a5" CreationDate="2012-12-26T00:35:35.560" UserId="1236" Text="As @shabunc said, there is exactly the same difference between `вчера` and `день назад` as between `yesterday` and `the day before`, but I'd like to explain the difference in detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both `вчера` and `[один] день [тому] назад` mean the same when this moment of speech is **today**. Let's assume that in the following example sentences **today** is December 25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня я встретил друга, и он сказал мне, что приехал вчера (= сказал мне, что приехал день назад). - I met a friend today, and he told me he came yesterday (= told me he came the day before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence above, my friend was speaking today, the moment of his speech is **today**, on Dec. 25, that is why his words `приехал вчера / приехал день назад` mean he came on Dec. 24, the two expressions mean the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the meaning of the expressions `вчера` and `день назад` mean different things when the moment of speech is in the Past, when it is not **today**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Вчера Сергей сказал мне, что приехал вчера. - Yesterday Sergey told me he came yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Вчера Сергей сказал мне, что приехал день назад. - Yesterday Sergey told me he had come the day before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both 1) and 2) the moment of speech is **yesterday**, that is Dec. 24, so the two expressions mean different things. In 1) Sergey came on Dec. 24. In 2) Sergey came on Dec. 23, the day before he told me about his arrival.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summing it all up, it can be said that `вчера` always means the day before **today**, the day before the present-moment day, it doesn't depend on the date of the moment of speech (just like `сегодня` and `завтра`). On the other hand, `[один] день [тому] назад` is relative to the moment of speech, it means the day before the moment-of-speech day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one more point to be minded. If the date of the moment of speech is not expressed explicitly in a past sentence (the listener cannot understand if it is about **today** or not) or it is not clear from the context, then the relative expression `[один] день [тому] назад` can be misinterpreted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1611" RevisionGUID="9b543358-059d-434e-a8e4-d7bdd778c29a" CreationDate="2012-12-26T04:04:24.283" UserId="496" Text="The answer of shabunc is absolutely right. I just want to dwell more on the internal logic of the phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's clarify/establish the scope and the terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scope:** We are only talking here about the negations of a pattern: `[verb] + [negative adverb]`. Adverbs like *nowhere, never, nobody*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double negations of other patterns in Russian are mostly the same as in Boolean algebra. For example, in colloquial speech it is possible to say &quot;*Я не не-согласен*&quot; to the meaning &quot;*I agree*&quot; when you deny somebody's statement that you &quot;не согласны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terminology:** As far as I understood from the wikipedia [article][1], there are two possibilities: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ***double negation*** - when, like in Boolean algebra, the second&#xD;&#xA;    negation cancels the first. &#xD;&#xA; 2. ***negative concord*** - when further negations add emphasis to the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have already established that Russian language belongs to the &quot;negative concord&quot; group. Let's look at other European languages (source: the same wikipedia article):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English      dbl.neg.&#xD;&#xA;    German       dbl.neg.&#xD;&#xA;    French       concord&#xD;&#xA;    Spanish      concord&#xD;&#xA;    Portuguese   concord&#xD;&#xA;    Welsh        concord&#xD;&#xA;    Greek        concord&#xD;&#xA;    Slavic       concord&#xD;&#xA;    (Polish, Serbian, Belorussian, Ukranian, Russian, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;    Latvian      concord&#xD;&#xA;    Lithuanian   concord&#xD;&#xA;    Hungarian    concord&#xD;&#xA;    Finnish      concord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see, most languages prefer *negative concord*. Why is that? Let's look at the following phrases. (Sorry for some &quot;strictly mathematical&quot; approach :-). Imagine you say these phrases one after another to a girlfriend or boyfriend without changing the word order to make obvious the evolution of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой на ярмарку после 6 вечера.&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой на ярмарку никогда.&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой никуда никогда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are consistently widening your negative message here. In English, following the rule of double negation, as soon as you put the negation in at least one of the adverbs you should remove the negation from the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to go with you to the fair after 6 p.m.&#xD;&#xA;I want to go with you to the fair never.&#xD;&#xA;I want to go with you nowhere never. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you wouldn't torture your [ex-]boy/girl-friend like that. You would say something like &quot;I do not want to go with you ever&quot; or &quot;I will never want to go with you to the fair&quot; but formally the phrases which I have just presented are correct and are allowed by the language. There is an [episode][2] in the Borat movie where he indirectly makes fun of this feature of English (or rather the Old English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the problem with *double negation* is that sometimes you do not know the gist of the phrase until you hear the very end of the phrase. I think, the Germanic languages (English is a Germanic language, too) have an old tradition of placing negation at the very end of the sentence. For example, `&quot;Er hatte das Buch nicht&quot; - He did not have the book.` Thereby this small peculiarity of double negation is not a problem for Germanic languages because the people are already patient enough to wait till the end of the sentence. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/w4k5NwDcucc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1611" RevisionGUID="a84b6e05-9ed6-4ca9-a719-7dcab2fa220c" CreationDate="2012-12-26T05:22:20.237" UserId="496" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The answer of shabunc is absolutely right. I just want to dwell more on the internal logic of the phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's clarify/establish the scope and the terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scope:** We are only talking here about the negations of a pattern: `[verb] + [negative adverb]`. Adverbs like *nowhere, never, nobody*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double negations of other patterns in Russian are mostly the same as in Boolean algebra. For example, in colloquial speech it is possible to say &quot;*Я не не-согласен*&quot; to the meaning &quot;*I agree*&quot; when you deny somebody's statement that you &quot;не согласны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terminology:** As far as I understood from the wikipedia [article][1], there are two possibilities: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ***double negation*** - when, like in Boolean algebra, the second&#xD;&#xA;    negation cancels the first. &#xD;&#xA; 2. ***negative concord*** - when further negations add emphasis to the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have already established that Russian language belongs to the &quot;negative concord&quot; group. Let's look at other European languages (source: the same wikipedia article):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English      dbl.neg.&#xD;&#xA;    German       dbl.neg.&#xD;&#xA;    French       concord&#xD;&#xA;    Spanish      concord&#xD;&#xA;    Portuguese   concord&#xD;&#xA;    Welsh        concord&#xD;&#xA;    Greek        concord&#xD;&#xA;    Slavic       concord&#xD;&#xA;    (Polish, Serbian, Belorussian, Ukranian, Russian, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;    Latvian      concord&#xD;&#xA;    Lithuanian   concord&#xD;&#xA;    Hungarian    concord&#xD;&#xA;    Finnish      concord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see, most languages prefer *negative concord*. Why is that? Let's look at the following phrases. (Sorry for some &quot;strictly mathematical&quot; approach :-). Imagine you say these phrases one after another to a girlfriend or boyfriend without changing the word order to make obvious the evolution of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой на ярмарку после 6 вечера.&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой на ярмарку никогда.&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой никуда никогда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are consistently widening your negative message here. In English, following the rule of double negation, as soon as you put the negation in at least one of the adverbs you should remove the negation from the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I do not want to go with you to the fair after 6 p.m.&#xD;&#xA;    I want to go with you to the fair never.&#xD;&#xA;    I want to go with you nowhere never. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you wouldn't torture your [ex-]boy/girl-friend like that. You would say something like &quot;I do not want to go with you ever&quot; or &quot;I will never want to go with you to the fair&quot; but formally the phrases which I have just presented are correct and are allowed by the language. There is an [episode][2] in the Borat movie where he indirectly makes fun of this feature of English (or rather the Old English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the problem with *double negation* is that sometimes you do not know the gist of the phrase until you hear the very end of the phrase. I think, the Germanic languages (English is a Germanic language, too) have an old tradition of placing negation at the very end of the sentence. For example, `&quot;Er hatte das Buch nicht&quot; - He did not have the book.` Thereby this small peculiarity of double negation is not a problem for Germanic languages because the people are already patient enough to wait till the end of the sentence. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/w4k5NwDcucc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="458d0a70-3e21-4ecb-9de5-ae6faccff63b" CreationDate="2012-12-26T07:44:10.840" UserId="242" Text="In pre-prevoluationary times in Russian gymnasiums there was a 12-level grade system. In Soviet Union, as well as in Russian Federation, schools stand with 5-level grade system, but there is an actively discussed proposal to switch to 10-level system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a special term for a pupil who gets only fives - `отличник`. While thinking of how we should call a pupil who gets only tens (&quot;десятник&quot; may be?), I've realised that I can not recall whether there was a special term for those assiduous children who got only twelves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is: Is there a separate word for tsarist period gymnasium student, similar to modern &quot;отличник&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="458d0a70-3e21-4ecb-9de5-ae6faccff63b" CreationDate="2012-12-26T07:44:10.840" UserId="242" Text="Talking of historical grade systems, how should I call &quot;отличник&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="458d0a70-3e21-4ecb-9de5-ae6faccff63b" CreationDate="2012-12-26T07:44:10.840" UserId="242" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="1d570bf1-69a9-4137-bb8c-940a0f03d189" CreationDate="2012-12-26T07:56:05.517" UserId="242" Comment="an example provided" Text="In pre-prevoluationary times in Russian gymnasiums there was a 12-level grade system. In Soviet Union, as well as in Russian Federation, schools stand with 5-level grade system, but there is an actively discussed proposal to switch to 10-level system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a special term for a pupil who gets only fives - `отличник`. Lisa Simpson is a referenсе example of `отличник`:) While thinking of how we should call a pupil who gets only tens (&quot;десятник&quot; may be?), I've realised that I can not recall whether there was a special term for those assiduous children who got only twelves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is: Is there a separate word for tsarist period gymnasium student, similar to modern &quot;отличник&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="c754e600-8a3c-4a7b-a5b9-1294e1e10b91" CreationDate="2012-12-26T08:15:57.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In pre-prevoluationary times in Russian gymnasiums there was a 12-level grade system. In Soviet Union, as well as in Russian Federation, schools stand with 5-level grade system, but there is an actively discussed proposal to switch to 10-level system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a special term for a pupil who gets only fives - `отличник`. Lisa Simpson is a referenсе example of `отличник`:) While thinking of how we should call a pupil who gets only tens (&quot;десятник&quot; may be?), I've realised that I can not recall whether there was a special term for those assiduous children who got only twelves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is: Is there a separate word relevant for tsarist period gymnasium student, similar to modern &quot;отличник&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="50b014fa-a07f-4999-86b4-10203cf17dee" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:04:07.107" UserId="1300" Text="This word's origin is &quot;отличие&quot;. That means &quot;different from others&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with the grade system.  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is another word &quot;пятерочник&quot;. This one describes a student that gets &quot;fives&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;For the 5-grade system there are other words for students who usually get:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2: двоечник  &#xD;&#xA; - 3: троечник&#xD;&#xA; - 4: четверочник (never heard it being used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="5a966614-83f0-439c-b0a1-269c1a150e64" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:14:22.957" UserId="1300" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="This word's origin is &quot;отличие&quot;. That means &quot;different from others&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with the grade system.  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is another word &quot;пятерочник&quot;. This one describes a student that gets &quot;fives&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;For the 5-grade system there are other words for students who usually get:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2: двоечник  &#xD;&#xA; - 3: троечник&#xD;&#xA; - 4: четверочник (less commonly used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="ad72a84a-58dd-4b6c-a64f-eb1581aa77bf" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:29:34.633" UserId="1300" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="This word's origin is &quot;отличие&quot;. That means &quot;different from others&quot; (the word itself, not the origin, has positive meaning referring the student).   &#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with the grade system.  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is another word &quot;пятерочник&quot;. This one describes a student that gets &quot;fives&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;For the 5-grade system there are other words for students who usually get:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2: двоечник  &#xD;&#xA; - 3: троечник&#xD;&#xA; - 4: четверочник (less commonly used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="30a78e1c-fcfc-4e0c-982a-05b4b0450455" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:42:16.257" UserId="1027" Comment="formatting" Text="This word's origin is `&quot;отличие&quot;`. That means `&quot;different from others&quot;`.  &#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with the grade system.  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is another word `&quot;пятерочник&quot;`. This one describes a student that gets `&quot;fives&quot;`.  &#xD;&#xA;For the 5-grade system there are other words for students who usually get:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 2: двоечник  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 3: троечник&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 4: четверочник (less commonly used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4904" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="30a78e1c-fcfc-4e0c-982a-05b4b0450455" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:42:16.257" Comment="Proposed by 1027 approved by 242, 1300 edit id of 280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="22c364f5-652c-4492-8ec8-f91f9a9c1414" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:43:18.053" UserId="1300" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="This word's origin is `&quot;отличие&quot;`. That means `&quot;different from others&quot;` (the word itself, not the origin, has positive meaning referring the student).  &#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with the grade system.  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is another word `&quot;пятерочник&quot;`. This one describes a student that gets `&quot;fives&quot;`.  &#xD;&#xA;For the 5-grade system there are other words for students who usually get:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 2: двоечник  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 3: троечник&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 4: четверочник (less commonly used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1614" RevisionGUID="849d8942-c87e-4b1e-a77b-ea96fda698f1" CreationDate="2012-12-26T09:47:23.320" UserId="904" Text="Word макак can be directly produced from макака. No matter if dictionaries mention it or not, it is 100% understandable and mostly unambiguous. In Russian language, we constantly morph words to adapt its meaning. Макак can be used to express male animal, or mean, seriously-looking animal of any gender. For example, a monkey in dress, which is sipping tea from the cup and smoking pipe, would most likely be called &quot;макак&quot;, while natural wild animal in the woods would be &quot;макака&quot;, no matter of thier genders. &#xD;&#xA;And of cause such intrinsic details of language may vary from town to town. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4909" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="be99ad89-3f4a-4be4-8304-9bc5bd15eaa1" CreationDate="2012-12-26T16:55:17.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/283979306047242240" />
  <row Id="4914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1603" RevisionGUID="e796318d-2519-4fdc-b8a2-46e775056a5f" CreationDate="2012-12-26T19:04:26.757" UserId="487" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="There is already a negation included in `ничего`, in the statement &quot;Я ничего не понимaю&quot;. I cannot figure out why instead of using &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; one uses that expression that apparently contains a double negation (is the particle `не` emphasizing that _one does not understand absolutely nothing_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; understandable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does this construction `ничего/никого... не + глагол` apply for any verb? (I've heard &quot;Я ничего не вижу&quot; итд.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Do there exist examples where this apparent double negation actually means something affirmative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1617" RevisionGUID="f6486e88-4276-4643-ae2c-fcb870736a35" CreationDate="2012-12-26T23:49:21.093" UserId="1218" Text="Word &quot;отличник&quot; is not linked with any decimal mark and means only &quot;the best result&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, person who always gets 10 from 10 is отличник too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1618" RevisionGUID="b9b3683e-5dc8-40c3-b882-7756f15558cf" CreationDate="2012-12-27T00:59:15.890" UserId="426" Text="There are four verbal grade levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Неудовлетворительно (неуд)** - Unsatisfactory,&#xD;&#xA; - **Удовлетворительно (уд)** - Satisfactory,&#xD;&#xA; - **Хорошо (хор)** - Good,&#xD;&#xA; - **Отлично (отл)** - Excellent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days they correspond to numbers two through five, inclusive, but regardless of the grade scale, &quot;отлично&quot; applies to the highest grade. As a consequence, the word &quot;отличник&quot; describes someone who gets the highest grades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="50117140-945f-4268-9e83-0b5407882eb4" CreationDate="2012-12-27T08:30:38.000" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text=" 1. No, in Russian phrase &quot;Я ничего понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. The phrases like &quot;ничего не&quot; are called, as you'vе already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both PIE and non-PIE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation is also [exists][2] in some niches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most hardest part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use with any verb which can be an answer to the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some example. Classic example is, for instance,  `не мог не` plus verb - which actually means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1611" RevisionGUID="14127f7f-2ed5-4d81-a410-b588cb685df7" CreationDate="2012-12-28T04:40:08.293" UserId="496" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The answer of shabunc is absolutely right. I just want to dwell more on the internal logic of the phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's clarify/establish the scope and the terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scope:** We are only talking here about the negations of a pattern: `[verb] + [negative adverb]`. Adverbs like *nowhere, never, nobody*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double negations of other patterns in Russian are mostly the same as in Boolean algebra. For example, in colloquial speech it is possible to say &quot;*Я не не-согласен*&quot; to the meaning &quot;*I agree*&quot; when you deny somebody's statement that you &quot;не согласны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Terminology:** As far as I understood from the wikipedia [article][1], there are two possibilities: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. ***double negation*** - when, like in Boolean algebra, the second&#xD;&#xA;    negation cancels the first. &#xD;&#xA; 2. ***negative concord*** - when further negations add emphasis to the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have already established that Russian language belongs to the &quot;negative concord&quot; group. Let's look at other European languages (source: the same wikipedia article):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English      dbl.neg.&#xD;&#xA;    German       dbl.neg.&#xD;&#xA;    French       concord&#xD;&#xA;    Spanish      concord&#xD;&#xA;    Portuguese   concord&#xD;&#xA;    Welsh        concord&#xD;&#xA;    Greek        concord&#xD;&#xA;    Slavic       concord&#xD;&#xA;    (Polish, Serbian, Belorussian, Ukranian, Russian, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;    Latvian      concord&#xD;&#xA;    Lithuanian   concord&#xD;&#xA;    Hungarian    concord&#xD;&#xA;    Finnish      concord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see, most languages prefer *negative concord*. Why is that? Let's look at the following phrases. (Sorry for some &quot;strictly mathematical&quot; approach :-). Imagine you say these phrases one after another to a girlfriend or boyfriend without changing the word order to make obvious the evolution of the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой на ярмарку после 6 вечера.&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой на ярмарку никогда.&#xD;&#xA;    - Я не хочу идти с тобой никуда и никогда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are consistently widening your negative message here. In English, following the rule of double negation, as soon as you put the negation in at least one of the adverbs you should remove the negation from the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I do not want to go with you to the fair after 6 p.m.&#xD;&#xA;    I want to go with you to the fair never.&#xD;&#xA;    I want to go with you nowhere and never. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you wouldn't torture your [ex-]boy/girl-friend like that. You would say something like &quot;I do not want to go with you ever&quot; or &quot;I will never want to go with you to the fair&quot; but formally the phrases which I have just presented are correct and are allowed by the language. There is an [episode][2] in the Borat movie where he indirectly makes fun of this feature of English (or rather the Old English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the problem with *double negation* is that sometimes you do not know the gist of the phrase until you hear the very end of the phrase. I think, the Germanic languages (English is a Germanic language, too) have an old tradition of placing negation at the very end of the sentence. For example, `&quot;Er hatte das Buch nicht&quot; - He did not have the book.` Thereby this small peculiarity of double negation is not a problem for Germanic languages because the people are already patient enough to wait till the end of the sentence. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://youtu.be/w4k5NwDcucc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="864d3517-9a49-4810-936d-6842a8c4043d" CreationDate="2012-12-28T04:56:01.193" UserId="19" Comment="all kinds of errors" Text=" 1. No, in Russian, the phrase &quot;Я ничего не понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. The phrases like &quot;ничего не&quot; are called, as you'vе already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both PIE and non-PIE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation [is also used][2] in some niche cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most difficult part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use it with any verb which can be answer the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some examples. A classic example is, for instance, `не мог не` + verb, which means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1608" RevisionGUID="8f7b7326-2b45-4680-b53a-56290da959cf" CreationDate="2012-12-28T05:33:04.170" UserId="19" Comment="edited body" Text="There is exactly the same difference between `вчера` и `день назад` as between `yesterday` and `day before`: first, `day before` means yesterday if we assume that we are talking about current day; second, even if we are pretty sure from the context that we are talking about current day,  it is far less typical to say `день назад`. Since there is a separate word for such case - (paraaaam) `yesterday` :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он повёл себя тогда со мной как скотина, хотя день назад ещё был весь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из себя джентельмен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, if you'd use `вчера` in this phrase, it will look like you are talking about &quot;real&quot; yesterday. Though this is nevertheless both understandable and acceptable usage of word `yesterday`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you can also say `день тому назад`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="83050464-449c-46aa-906a-abc6ed73b965" CreationDate="2012-12-28T07:05:17.667" UserId="242" Comment="Philipp overedited)))" Text=" 1. No, in Russian, the phrase &quot;Я ничего понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. The phrases like &quot;ничего не&quot; are called, as you'vе already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both PIE and non-PIE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation [is also used][2] in some niche cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most difficult part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use it with any verb which can be answer the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some examples. A classic example is, for instance, `не мог не` + verb, which means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4922" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="44228866-62aa-4176-a7dc-88643e4d456b" CreationDate="2012-12-28T10:55:18.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/284613488326868993" />
  <row Id="4923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1619" RevisionGUID="c036c289-b187-4bbb-8fd0-cdea4ee86997" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:08:20.477" UserId="62" Text="The Russian Wikipedia page for the 15-puzzle calls it пятнашки, while the Викисловарь page for пятнашки defines it as a children's running game. A native speaker I know, who hasn't lived in Russia for about 20 years, doesn't recall пятнашки being used as the name of the puzzle. Has the puzzle essentially always had the name пятнашки, or is that a very recent development? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1619" RevisionGUID="c036c289-b187-4bbb-8fd0-cdea4ee86997" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:08:20.477" UserId="62" Text="пятнашки as puzzle name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1619" RevisionGUID="c036c289-b187-4bbb-8fd0-cdea4ee86997" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:08:20.477" UserId="62" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="3cd5c4be-8289-4455-991d-be2a31eeb899" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:10:19.473" UserId="1306" Text="In the following sentence which way would be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Один/одна из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наш врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular of `люди` is `человек` which is male. But what if the aforementioned doctor is a female?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="3cd5c4be-8289-4455-991d-be2a31eeb899" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:10:19.473" UserId="1306" Text="Which way is correct &quot;один/одна&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="3cd5c4be-8289-4455-991d-be2a31eeb899" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:10:19.473" UserId="1306" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1621" RevisionGUID="aa98ec08-ba7d-413c-a0e7-6b0cbfcce845" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:15:17.397" UserId="1306" Text="`Пятнашки` is the 15-puzzle. The children's running game might have been called like that decades ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1622" RevisionGUID="c787286d-9f07-4563-81ca-361c1e9d14ad" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:25:21.933" UserId="97" Text="In a sentence as you wrote it, when you refer to some generic doctor, you will use _один_ (masculine) version in a sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Один из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наш врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason for it is not that the singular of _люди_ is _человек_ (which is masculine), but that _врач_ is masculine (as a word, not a person).  This is why you use _наш_ with it.  You could say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одна из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наша врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you are referring to a specific doctor - and in that case using _одна_ would be grammatically correct: if you are talking about a specific female doctor in a specific group of people.  Another example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одна из этих людей - наша врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in a general conversation you would use the work _один_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="3ab0fc17-6612-498f-a17a-b096e26ccb2c" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:41:24.840" UserId="97" Text="From my distant memory of living in Ukraine (or at that time it was USSR), _пятнашки_ was a children's running game.  The word originated not from _пятнадцать_ (15) but from _пятно_ (mark, stain).  The aim of the game was to run after one of your friends, catch up with him/her and touch them - _запятнать_ (leave a mark).  After that, the person that was marked would be the one catching somebody else.  There is an English game with the same idea, called _tag_ (or a _game of tag_).  I will add that my niece who lived in Moscow for her entire life of 7 years plays this game with her friends and they still call it _пятнашки_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The puzzle you refer to did exist 20 years ago, too, however it used to be called _игра в 15_ or something to that extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite possible that the same word can mean two different things, especially in different geographical areas, therefore it probably isn't correct to state that one is right and the other is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, multitran.ru [lists _пятнашки_](http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;&amp;s=%EF%FF%F2%ED%E0%F8%EA%E8&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=2&amp;l2=1) as the game of tag in _общая лексика_, but also mentions the other game as well in general translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[translate.ru](http://www.translate.ru) only has one translation, _tag_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[google translate](http://translate.google.com/#auto/en/%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8) gives as the first option _barley-break_, which is another name for the game of tag.  Yet, it also in further options mentions the sliding squares game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1622" RevisionGUID="cbe85f76-83b0-490b-985b-9c468ca45167" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:42:38.550" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In a sentence as you wrote it, when you refer to some generic doctor, you will use _один_ (masculine) version in a sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Один из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наш врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason for it is not that the singular of _люди_ is _человек_ (which is masculine), but that _врач_ is masculine (as a word, not a person).  This is why you use _наш_ with it.  You could say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одна из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наша врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you are referring to a specific doctor - and in that case using _одна_ would be grammatically correct: if you are talking about a specific female doctor in a specific group of people.  Another example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одна из этих людей - наша врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in a general conversation you would use word _один_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="a18ac488-4dbf-4a87-b0c4-b716f070c23d" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:47:31.903" UserId="19" Text="The running game `салки` (game of tag) has formerly been called `пятнашки`. Today, this word is only used for the puzzle game, which has been called `игра в пятнадцать` in the past. I'm not sure when the meaning changed... probably some 30-40 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be regional... from [Салки &gt; Названия][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятнашки (дотронуться — «запятнать») — Архангельская обл., Камчатский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; край, Горьковская обл. Оренбургская обл. (Россия); Могилев&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Белоруссия); Западный Казахстан; Ташкент (Узбекистан); Эстония&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="40e38a40-65ca-4d79-a0b2-b4b3659ba6f4" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:52:55.350" UserId="19" Comment="added 397 characters in body" Text="The running game `салки` (game of tag) has formerly been called `пятнашки`. Today, this word is only used for the puzzle game, which has been called `игра в пятнадцать` in the past. I'm not sure when the meaning changed... probably some 30-40 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting to note that `Толковый словарь Ефремовой` from 2000 still lists the original meaning, and doesn't even mention the puzzle game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятна́шки мн.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детская игра, по правилам которой следует попадать мячом в бегущего партнера или, догнав, коснуться его рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be regional... from [Салки &gt; Названия][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Простота правил, отсутствие необходимости в сложных приспособлениях,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; постройках и т. п. привели к чрезвычайной распространённости игры,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; получившей в различных регионах России и бывших союзных республик&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множество наименований. К примеру, простейший «бесконечный вариант»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (см. выше раздел «Обычные салочки») игры имеет не менее 37 названий,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятнашки (дотронуться — «запятнать») — Архангельская обл., Камчатский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; край, Горьковская обл. Оренбургская обл. (Россия); Могилев&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Белоруссия); Западный Казахстан; Ташкент (Узбекистан); Эстония&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="4db72c50-54d5-4f80-94df-fd0d44544d47" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:58:09.827" UserId="19" Comment="added 397 characters in body" Text="The running game `салки` (game of tag) has formerly been called `пятнашки`. Today, this word is only used for the puzzle game, which has been called `игра в пятнадцать` in the past. I'm not sure when the meaning changed... probably some 30-40 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting to note that `Толковый словарь Ефремовой` from 2000 still lists the original meaning, and doesn't even mention the puzzle game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятна́шки мн.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детская игра, по правилам которой следует попадать мячом в бегущего партнера или, догнав, коснуться его рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact there isn't a single Russian dictionary which mentions the puzzle game, despite the fact that this has been the primary meaning of the word for at least two decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also be regional... from [Салки &gt; Названия][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Простота правил, отсутствие необходимости в сложных приспособлениях,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; постройках и т. п. привели к чрезвычайной распространённости игры,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; получившей в различных регионах России и бывших союзных республик&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множество наименований. К примеру, простейший «бесконечный вариант»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (см. выше раздел «Обычные салочки») игры имеет не менее 37 названий,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятнашки (дотронуться — «запятнать») — Архангельская обл., Камчатский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; край, Горьковская обл. Оренбургская обл. (Россия); Могилев&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Белоруссия); Западный Казахстан; Ташкент (Узбекистан); Эстония&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1620" RevisionGUID="58f8c355-5aa5-4e51-92c1-74e91953aa2f" CreationDate="2012-12-28T16:20:22.670" UserId="71" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In the following sentence which way would be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Один/одна из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наш врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular of **люди** is **человек** which is male. But what if the aforementioned doctor is a female?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1623" RevisionGUID="04830b12-1d4a-4eaa-87df-3ba02f7f0395" CreationDate="2012-12-28T17:02:53.377" UserId="97" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="From my distant memory of living in Ukraine (or at that time it was USSR), _пятнашки_ was a children's running game.  The word originated not from _пятнадцать_ (15) but from _пятно_ (mark, stain).  The aim of the game was to run after one of your friends, catch up with him/her and touch them - _запятнать_ (leave a mark).  After that, the person that was marked would be the one catching somebody else.  There is an English game with the same idea, called _tag_ (or a _game of tag_).  I will add that my niece who lived in Moscow for her entire life of 7 years plays this game with her friends and they still call it _пятнашки_, although word _салки_ is also used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The puzzle you refer to did exist 20 years ago, too, however it used to be called _игра в 15_ or something to that extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite possible that the same word can mean two different things, especially in different geographical areas, therefore it probably isn't correct to state that one is right and the other is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, multitran.ru [lists _пятнашки_](http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;&amp;s=%EF%FF%F2%ED%E0%F8%EA%E8&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=2&amp;l2=1) as the game of tag in _общая лексика_, but also mentions the other game as well in general translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[translate.ru](http://www.translate.ru) only has one translation, _tag_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[google translate](http://translate.google.com/#auto/en/%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8) gives as the first option _barley-break_, which is another name for the game of tag.  Yet, it also in further options mentions the sliding squares game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1625" RevisionGUID="dad70c6e-d644-4ae1-81ae-0c5f6da323c2" CreationDate="2012-12-28T17:26:40.097" UserId="1218" Text="Well, you use &quot;врач&quot;, and it's male. So, You should use &quot;один&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Один из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наш врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if noun whould be female, you should use female form. For example:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Одна их тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи -- это наша мать.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1626" RevisionGUID="78ede742-d48f-4752-b090-0f92c3e076c6" CreationDate="2012-12-28T19:08:10.940" UserId="426" Text="According to the [national corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EF%FF%F2%ED%E0%F8%EA%E8&amp;p=0), the word &quot;пятнашки&quot; has been used most often to mean &quot;a running game&quot; since approximately mid-1800:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аксютка бегал очень хорошо; он мастер был **играть в пятнашки** и на небольшом пространстве умел увертываться, делая неожиданные повороты то в ту, то в другую сторону. (1862)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] кончал же обыкновенно тем, что гнал его играть со своими детьми **в прятки, пятнашки, горелки**. (1888)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда говорят об игре в детском саду или в школе, то больше всего обычно говорят не об игре вообще, а об играх: игре **в пятнашки, в кошки-мышки, в горелки**, в крокет, в серсо. (1920)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Кто хочет играть в **пятнашки**? В палочку-выручалочку? (1940)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А ребята загалдели, начали **гоняться в «пятнашки»**, кувыркаться на траве и делать стойки на руках. (1967)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Та отказалась и опять застыла, держа головку на поднятой шее, глядя без всякого чувства на дорогу, где, гоняясь друг за другом, **играли в пятнашки** мальчик и девочка ее лет. (1997)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been adopted to mean [a 15-kopek coin][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тогда я вынул из кармана целую горсть нашей мелочи, остававшейся у меня, ― пятачки, двушки, **пятнашки** (1999)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А денег-то у меня нет! Только две **пятнашки**. (2001)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gets us closer to the meaning from the Wikipedia: the game of 15 also uses 15 pieces, so &quot;пятнашка&quot; that means the number of kopeks can be re-used to mean the number of pieces. I distinctly remember this use of the word, so I was rather surprised to find only one example in the corpus to support this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В случае шахматной доски нам нужно было лишь вспомнить о её существовании, а в случае **доски для игры в «пятнашки»** пришлось таковую раскраску ввести самим. (2000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:15_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BA_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_1978_%D0%B3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="cdda238c-0c3f-45db-8ec2-07cf9337a2ed" CreationDate="2012-12-29T00:49:44.607" UserId="5" Text="What do Russians consider their authentic (not necessarily Russian-original) dishes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="cdda238c-0c3f-45db-8ec2-07cf9337a2ed" CreationDate="2012-12-29T00:49:44.607" UserId="5" Text="What are the names of Russian dishes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="cdda238c-0c3f-45db-8ec2-07cf9337a2ed" CreationDate="2012-12-29T00:49:44.607" UserId="5" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1624" RevisionGUID="f48d1bd4-1646-4e3a-9624-bb50799db3ff" CreationDate="2012-12-29T01:28:12.077" UserId="19" Comment="added 264 characters in body" Text="The running game `салки` (game of tag) has formerly been called `пятнашки`. Today, this word is only used for the puzzle game, which has been called `игра в пятнадцать` in the past. I'm not sure when the meaning changed... probably some 30-40 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting to note that `Толковый словарь Ефремовой` from 2000 still lists the original meaning, and doesn't even mention the puzzle game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятна́шки мн.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детская игра, по правилам которой следует попадать мячом в бегущего партнера или, догнав, коснуться его рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact there isn't a single Russian dictionary which mentions the puzzle game, despite the fact that this has been the primary meaning of the word for at least two decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, unlike with the puzzle game, the name of the running game comes from the word `запятнать/пятно`, not the number `15`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запятнать - [...] 4) разг. Тронуть, ударить рукой, мячом (при игре в пятнашки, в лапту).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of the word to describe the running game might be regional... from [Салки &gt; Названия][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Простота правил, отсутствие необходимости в сложных приспособлениях,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; постройках и т. п. привели к чрезвычайной распространённости игры,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; получившей в различных регионах России и бывших союзных республик&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множество наименований. К примеру, простейший «бесконечный вариант»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (см. выше раздел «Обычные салочки») игры имеет не менее 37 названий,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятнашки (дотронуться — «запятнать») — Архангельская обл., Камчатский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; край, Горьковская обл. Оренбургская обл. (Россия); Могилев&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Белоруссия); Западный Казахстан; Ташкент (Узбекистан); Эстония&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting discussion of various local names of the running game: [салки-пятнашки][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=30290&amp;pg=-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1628" RevisionGUID="beb3d271-9fff-47d8-8d88-3f7d9bd2309f" CreationDate="2012-12-29T01:37:17.927" UserId="19" Text="I don't think that this is a constructive question, and voted to close, but here are some examples...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - пельмени&#xD;&#xA; - окрошка&#xD;&#xA; - борщ&#xD;&#xA; - щи&#xD;&#xA; - уха&#xD;&#xA; - холоде́ц&#xD;&#xA; - шашлы́к&#xD;&#xA; - блины&#xD;&#xA; - сы́рники&#xD;&#xA; - пирожки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="c2bc42c9-bd77-4c03-83cb-4da44adcea2d" CreationDate="2012-12-29T05:07:15.847" UserId="496" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2], online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] - a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1629" RevisionGUID="04c25ed2-d7f6-4544-8fb7-d05b7cd89481" CreationDate="2012-12-29T08:32:26.187" UserId="1027" Text="First of all it is `rye-bread (ржаной хлеб)`. People grew wheat and produced flour. Then they cooked `kolatch (калач)`, `oat meal (толокно)`, `pies (пироги пряженые и подовые)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soups have always played an important role in the Russian meal. The traditional staple of soups such as `borscht (борщ)`, `shchi (щи)`, `ukha (уха́)`, `rassolnik (рассо́льник)`, `solyanka (соля́нка)`, `botvinya (ботви́нья)`, `okroshka (окро́шка)`, and `tyurya (тю́ря)` was enlarged in the 18th to 20th centuries by both European and Central Asian staples like clear soups, pureed soups, stews, and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the distribution of potato (the second half of the XIX century) a `turnip (репа)` served as the main vegetable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditional Russian dressing and dairy product is `smetana (сметана)` (some American people don't call it `&quot;sour cream&quot;` because of other taste and consistence), which is charged with soups and salads. Other Russian dairy product is `cottage cheese (творог)`,  with a help of it we prepare `cottage cheese pancakes (сырники)`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best author of numerous culinary books is [William Vasilyevich Pokhlyobkin][1]. You can find a lot information about Russian (and many others) cuisine in his books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pokhlyobkin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="28509d02-700c-4188-bdaa-cf7f6b2f7087" CreationDate="2012-12-29T08:42:49.020" UserId="282" Text="I know one already:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    in the garden - в саду" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="28509d02-700c-4188-bdaa-cf7f6b2f7087" CreationDate="2012-12-29T08:42:49.020" UserId="282" Text="What are some examples of nouns that end in -у in prepositional case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="28509d02-700c-4188-bdaa-cf7f6b2f7087" CreationDate="2012-12-29T08:42:49.020" UserId="282" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1631" RevisionGUID="c063c2d2-26c0-43c1-966a-91d4de3b3334" CreationDate="2012-12-29T09:03:41.797" UserId="414" Text="    in the forest - в лесу&#xD;&#xA;    in the nose - в носу&#xD;&#xA;    in the heaven - в раю&#xD;&#xA;    in the year - в году&#xD;&#xA;    in the cupboard - в шкафу&#xD;&#xA;    in snow - в снегу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We study 6 cases at school, and things like this we call exceptions. However, this is *locative case* from old Russian. Did you notice all these nouns describe *where*, they point at the location of object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a tricky example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В &quot;Вишнёвом саде&quot; Чехов рассказывает о ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locative forms are not used when the noun is a part of a name of a work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1631" RevisionGUID="b700f55c-e54a-4794-a264-26defe171f10" CreationDate="2012-12-29T09:13:27.310" UserId="414" Comment="A link" Text="    in the forest - в лесу&#xD;&#xA;    in the nose - в носу&#xD;&#xA;    in the heaven - в раю&#xD;&#xA;    in the year - в году&#xD;&#xA;    in the cupboard - в шкафу&#xD;&#xA;    in snow - в снегу&#xD;&#xA;    in delirium - в бреду&#xD;&#xA;    in common use, widespread - в ходу&#xD;&#xA;    in the brain - в мозгу&#xD;&#xA;    in ice - во льду&#xD;&#xA;    in the mouth - во рту&#xD;&#xA;    in the formation - в строю&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We study 6 cases at school, and things like this we call exceptions. However, this is *locative case* from old Russian. Did you notice all these nouns describe *where*, they point at the location of object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a tricky example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В &quot;Вишнёвом саде&quot; Чехов рассказывает о ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locative forms are not used when the noun is a part of a name of a work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your understanding of Russian permits, you may read an [article][1] about other &quot;hidden&quot; cases that are often considered exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA#.D0.A0.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.B9.C2.A0.E2.80.94_.D1.8F.D0.B7.D1.8B.D0.BA_.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.B2.D1.8F.D1.82.D0.B8_.D0.BF.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="659a76ed-b6a8-4520-ac76-85c360c7fd04" CreationDate="2012-12-29T09:23:48.710" UserId="1236" Text="The ones that come first to my mind (apart from already mentioned) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в мозгу (in the brain, but anatomically speaking we say &quot;в мозге&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    в углу (in the corner)&#xD;&#xA;    в порту (in the port)&#xD;&#xA;    в хлеву (in the barn)&#xD;&#xA;    в краю (in the region)&#xD;&#xA;    в зобу (in the bird's croup)&#xD;&#xA;    в Аду (in Hell)&#xD;&#xA;    в строю (in the formation, in the line-up)&#xD;&#xA;    в полку (in the regiment)&#xD;&#xA;    в бою (in the battle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more of them, it's rather hard for me to remember more :D." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4954" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="27c31a8d-75b0-41a9-bbe2-c8c7340edbba" CreationDate="2012-12-29T11:18:27.767" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:19,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Philip Seyfi&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:222,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yury&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="4956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1633" RevisionGUID="62b382a7-7372-4e76-9ac2-cb9bb4165719" CreationDate="2012-12-29T21:58:57.193" UserId="5" Text="So I am curious if there is something similar to the proverb that sounds like: You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1633" RevisionGUID="62b382a7-7372-4e76-9ac2-cb9bb4165719" CreationDate="2012-12-29T21:58:57.193" UserId="5" Text="Is there a similar proverb to the one about a horse and water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1633" RevisionGUID="62b382a7-7372-4e76-9ac2-cb9bb4165719" CreationDate="2012-12-29T21:58:57.193" UserId="5" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="b3cc6cef-1eac-4ed6-9693-0b4951ecabfe" CreationDate="2012-12-29T22:03:56.250" UserId="959" Text="*Насильно мил не будешь*, например." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1635" RevisionGUID="c77ad3b8-5284-4f0b-aa25-a659c8e9dda3" CreationDate="2012-12-30T02:28:38.220" UserId="1097" Text="- Сердцу не прикажешь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not proverb, just figure of speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не всего можно добиться силой&#xD;&#xA;- Не всё от тебя зависит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or direct translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Можно привести коня на водопой, но нельзя заставить его пить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1613" RevisionGUID="6f8eccc5-2460-42ac-8450-06ebead2ed09" CreationDate="2012-12-30T07:55:15.617" UserId="1300" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="This word's origin is `&quot;отличие&quot;`. That means `&quot;different from others&quot;` (the word itself, not the origin, has positive meaning referring the student).  &#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with the grade system.  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is another word `&quot;пятерочник&quot;`. This one describes a student that gets `&quot;fives&quot;`.  &#xD;&#xA;For the 5-grade system there are other words for students who usually get:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 2: двоечник  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 3: троечник&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - 4: четверочник (less commonly used), more common form: &quot;хорошист&quot; (as suggested by @КуЪ)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1636" RevisionGUID="35f3649e-6609-4297-9022-37cd7fa5d589" CreationDate="2012-12-30T09:13:57.080" UserId="134" Text="The following calque is sometimes used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно подвести ишака к воде, но пить его не заставить даже сам шайтан.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can lead an ass to water but the devil himself can't make it drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this proverb, the Turkic loanword *ишак* and Arabic loanword *шайтан* are used for &quot;ass&quot; and &quot;devil&quot;, respectively. Those words are associated with East and Muslim culture. This makes the proverb to sound like a piece of Eastern wisdom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1636" RevisionGUID="52e16663-b02a-49f3-be5b-7dded6538b50" CreationDate="2012-12-30T09:35:11.710" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The following calque is sometimes used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно подвести ишака к воде, но пить его не заставит даже сам шайтан.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can lead an ass to water but the devil himself can't make it drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this proverb, the Turkic loanword *ишак* and Arabic loanword *шайтан* are used for &quot;ass&quot; and &quot;devil&quot;, respectively. Those words are associated with East and Muslim culture. This makes the proverb to sound like a piece of Eastern wisdom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="9aadc015-991f-430a-9f24-430c8445bbbb" CreationDate="2012-12-30T11:05:46.923" UserId="185" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="The ones that come first to my mind (apart from already mentioned) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в мозгу (in the brain, but anatomically speaking we say &quot;в мозге&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    в углу (in the corner)&#xD;&#xA;    в порту (in the port)&#xD;&#xA;    в хлеву (in the barn)&#xD;&#xA;    в краю (in the region)&#xD;&#xA;    в зобу (in the bird's croup)&#xD;&#xA;    в Аду (in Hell)&#xD;&#xA;    в строю (in the formation, in the line-up)&#xD;&#xA;    в полку (in the regiment)&#xD;&#xA;    в бою (in the battle)&#xD;&#xA;    на берегу (on the shore)&#xD;&#xA;    на мосту (on the bridge)&#xD;&#xA;    на дому (at home, only used in phrases like &quot;to give lessons \ to work at home&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more of them, it's rather hard for me to remember more :D." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1637" RevisionGUID="13efc4e3-a000-4420-90de-55d2ed4e39d0" CreationDate="2012-12-30T15:33:46.147" UserId="1249" Text="Not really a direct translation, but I've always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the expression &quot;okhota pushche nevoli&quot; conveys a similar notion..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="4b6a1a5c-e6c2-4e56-a6c7-cbd28d98902d" CreationDate="2012-12-30T19:52:32.917" UserId="496" Text="Unfortunately, there is no full Zaliznyak's dictionary available online (or I do not know about its existence). If we had it, we could easily give you the full list of such words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such words are marked with sign `П₂` in this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the excerpt from П₂ definition (sorry, no translation into English for brevity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ (за которой может следовать в скобках предлог &quot;в&quot; или &quot;на&quot;) - символ&#xD;&#xA;    наличия у данного слова особой формы так-называемого 2-го предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ означает, что у данного существительного в ед. числе после предлогов &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;в&quot; и &quot;на&quot;, выступающих в одном из указанных ниже значений, употребляется особая форма,&#xD;&#xA;    отличная от обычного предложного падежа - так называемый 2-ой предложный падеж. Форма 2-го&#xD;&#xA;    предложного падежа ед. числа по буквенному составу равна форме Д. ед. того же слова, но &#xD;&#xA;    ударение в ней всегда на окончании. Примеры: &quot;шкаф&quot; (Д. ед. &quot;шкАфу&quot;) - П₂ ед. &quot;шкафУ&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;        ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][1], and [here][2] the original scanned pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0066.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0067.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1639" RevisionGUID="ab8cc1ac-6035-47f1-8dc4-53b9032ea59f" CreationDate="2012-12-30T20:05:31.147" UserId="1262" Text="I think that the actual meaning of the verb prefixes is not 'start doing something and become good at it', but rather 'to exceed planned limits of action'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it is natural to say that one has 'shouted/written/scheduled' more than had planned - which might be one-person, or non-communicative actions -  but it is almost impossible to say the same thing about work, reading or thinking - which might be conceptually polipersonal, or communicative actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1640" RevisionGUID="1f9a52b4-4f6b-4780-8648-3b85911e341a" CreationDate="2012-12-30T21:38:51.807" UserId="1309" Text="You should use 'Один из тех людей, которые никогда не откажут в помощи - это наш врач,' because врач means a male doctor so you should use Один." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1641" RevisionGUID="65a490ea-c5d6-4f92-a95a-041c6928c029" CreationDate="2012-12-31T02:45:54.200" UserId="1003" Text="I was searching the Russian National Corpus recently and in the results I noticed that nouns referring to duration in time are sometimes marked with a diminutive suffix, as in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Посидела там **часик** и всё.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, вам не помешает на **недельку** съездить в Инсбрук.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; О нем поговорить так **годика** через два актуальней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When are these sorts of diminutive forms used? Are there certain verbs or constructions they are more likely to occur with? &#xD;&#xA;2. If so, can a non-diminutive form be used in these situations also? What is the difference in meaning between a diminutive form and a non-diminutive form in these contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1641" RevisionGUID="65a490ea-c5d6-4f92-a95a-041c6928c029" CreationDate="2012-12-31T02:45:54.200" UserId="1003" Text="When are diminutive forms of time words (e.g., часик, неделька, годик) used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1641" RevisionGUID="65a490ea-c5d6-4f92-a95a-041c6928c029" CreationDate="2012-12-31T02:45:54.200" UserId="1003" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|значения|словоупотребление|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1642" RevisionGUID="20615226-8ccc-4408-b579-d510a5aafea4" CreationDate="2012-12-31T05:03:40.040" UserId="1312" Text="http://www.ruslichimya.ru/polnoe-lichnoe-imya-i-ego-proizvodnye/umenshitelnye-laskatelnye-i-drugie-formy-imeni.ini &#xD;&#xA;1) something cute, little &#xD;&#xA;2) for expressing sympathy to some heroes of books&#xD;&#xA;3) short time Посидела там часик и всё.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1644" RevisionGUID="f647642f-c402-4b4c-b85f-ca19c98083e2" CreationDate="2012-12-31T07:01:21.830" UserId="1097" Text="В приведённых примерах уменьшительная форма использована для придания незначительности, пренебрежительности отрезку времени: &quot;Только часик, и всё. Что такого?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Съездить на (всю/целую) неделю куда-нибудь&quot; Здесь неделя - значимый период времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Съездить на недельку куда-нибудь&quot; Неделька здесь - незначительный период времени, всего на недельку и сразу обратно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также, уменьшительная форма может ничего не означать, если человек использует её постоянно. Частое или постоянное использование уменьшительных форм свойственно некоторым девушкам-подросткам или в разговоре матери с маленьким ребёнком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples a diminutive form is used to make time period less significant:  &#xD;&#xA;час ~ for an hour  &#xD;&#xA;часик ~ only an hour.  &#xD;&#xA;Also, a diminutive form may mean nothing if a person uses it constantly. Frequent or constant use of the diminutive form of typical some adolescent girls or mothers in conversation with a little child." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1646" RevisionGUID="56de8cf7-44fd-4d5c-9d7c-34bac7e22fdb" CreationDate="2012-12-31T14:43:52.130" UserId="1315" Text="2.&#xD;&#xA;There is another form of ч**а**сик:&#xD;&#xA;час**о**к &#xD;&#xA;Перевод из «Нового большого русско-английского словаря» ABBYY Lingvo&#xD;&#xA;м. **разг**. &#xD;&#xA; an hour or so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;уйти на часок — leave for an hour or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both forms used in unofficial speaking, not official documents (mark разг. means разговорная речь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Неделька is associated with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; набор трусов &quot;неделька&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Годик and годок used in storytales and epic rhymes (былины) для красивого и " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1646" RevisionGUID="deaa3f73-ade9-4ca8-9413-fcb433c4463f" CreationDate="2012-12-31T14:52:30.183" UserId="1315" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;They are approximate and not exact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;There is another form of ч**а**сик:&#xD;&#xA;час**о**к &#xD;&#xA;Перевод из «Нового большого русско-английского словаря» ABBYY Lingvo&#xD;&#xA;м. **разг**. &#xD;&#xA; an hour or so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;уйти на часок — leave for an hour or so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both forms used in unofficial speaking, not official documents (mark разг. means разговорная речь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Неделька is associated with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; набор трусов &quot;неделька&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Годик and годок used in storytales and epic rhymes (былины) для &quot;красивого&quot; детского звучания." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1641" RevisionGUID="db470769-544f-4e47-83d8-1ab11a4d3ee2" CreationDate="2012-12-31T22:55:19.367" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/285881850327609344" />
  <row Id="4982" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1633" RevisionGUID="5cb661d5-5386-4d9f-afc0-9335f00dd734" CreationDate="2013-01-01T10:55:19.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/286063044142956544" />
  <row Id="4983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="19dc6c50-ac42-4610-ba3f-33cd4268ea66" CreationDate="2013-01-01T22:48:53.497" UserId="69" Text="Where and when did the phrase in question originate? Was it the invention of Soviet propaganda, or did authorities themselves adopted the earlier phrase from other literary sources? Could it be used in its disdainful connotation by earlier religious critic or someone on either side of Orientalist/Occidentalist (as the case may have been in Russia) debate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the literal and neutral meaning “their customs” as used by, say, an anthropologist is clear. When and how did “customs” became explicitly “their”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где и когда появилась фраза «их нравы»? Было ли это изобретением советской пропаганды или власти в свою очередь взяли эту фразу из других литературных источников? Могла ли она быть использована с пренебрежительной коннотацией ранним религиозным критиком или, быть может, ориенталистом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очевидно, что буквальный и нейтральный смысл фразы, как используемой, скажем, антропологом, понятен. Когда и как «нравы» стали недвусмысленно «их»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="19dc6c50-ac42-4610-ba3f-33cd4268ea66" CreationDate="2013-01-01T22:48:53.497" UserId="69" Text="Origin of the phrase “их нравы”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="19dc6c50-ac42-4610-ba3f-33cd4268ea66" CreationDate="2013-01-01T22:48:53.497" UserId="69" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="3fb2df27-e5a6-4b2f-a9a5-6dabac58c5b5" CreationDate="2013-01-02T03:15:58.333" UserId="496" Comment="added 955 characters in body" Text="It is not the real answer to the OP but rather a huge comment to the question. I'm suggesting here the algorithm of how to find all (or almost all) such words. Problem is that I did not find the Zalizniak's dictionary in the electronic or online format which would be able to search by grammatical marks. Maybe, somebody from the community can help with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon of having the ending *-у* in prepositional case for some words is described at the [Zalizniak's dictionary][2]. See the excerpt and the link to the original scanned pages below. All these nouns are marked with the sign **`П₂`** in this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at one of online versions of Zaliznyak's dictionary for word &quot;сад&quot;, [here][1] we can see that the word has the mark &quot;п(2)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the excerpt from П₂ definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ (за которой может следовать в скобках предлог &quot;в&quot; или &quot;на&quot;) - символ&#xD;&#xA;    наличия у данного слова особой формы так-называемого 2-го предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ означает, что у данного существительного в ед. числе после предлогов &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;в&quot; и &quot;на&quot;, выступающих в одном из указанных ниже значений, употребляется особая форма,&#xD;&#xA;    отличная от обычного предложного падежа - так называемый 2-ой предложный падеж. Форма 2-го&#xD;&#xA;    предложного падежа ед. числа по буквенному составу равна форме Д. ед. того же слова, но &#xD;&#xA;    ударение в ней всегда на окончании. Примеры: &quot;шкаф&quot; (Д. ед. &quot;шкАфу&quot;) - П₂ ед. &quot;шкафУ&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;        ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][3], and [here][4] the original scanned pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict&amp;first=74481&amp;encoding=utf-rus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0066.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0067.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="8a625d3c-4742-4ff2-8f21-acf385442c23" CreationDate="2013-01-02T04:55:25.983" UserId="496" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="It is not the real answer to the OP but rather a huge comment to the question. I'm trying to suggest here the algorithm of how to find all (or almost all) such words. Problem is that I did not find the Zalizniak's dictionary in the electronic or online format which I would be able to search by grammatical marks. Maybe, somebody from the community can help with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon of having the ending *-у* in prepositional case for some words is described at the [Zalizniak's dictionary][2]. See the excerpt and the link to the original scanned pages below. All these nouns are marked with the sign **`П₂`** in this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at one of online versions of Zaliznyak's dictionary for word &quot;сад&quot;, [here][1] we can see that the word has the mark &quot;п(2)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the excerpt from П₂ definition by Zalizniak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ (за которой может следовать в скобках предлог &quot;в&quot; или &quot;на&quot;) - символ&#xD;&#xA;    наличия у данного слова особой формы так-называемого 2-го предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ означает, что у данного существительного в ед. числе после предлогов &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;в&quot; и &quot;на&quot;, выступающих в одном из указанных ниже значений, употребляется особая форма,&#xD;&#xA;    отличная от обычного предложного падежа - так называемый 2-ой предложный падеж. Форма 2-го&#xD;&#xA;    предложного падежа ед. числа по буквенному составу равна форме Д. ед. того же слова, но &#xD;&#xA;    ударение в ней всегда на окончании. Примеры: &quot;шкаф&quot; (Д. ед. &quot;шкАфу&quot;) - П₂ ед. &quot;шкафУ&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;        ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][3], and [here][4] the original scanned pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict&amp;first=74481&amp;encoding=utf-rus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0066.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0067.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="6db8fb52-a2ee-4187-8d34-19df415f8a20" CreationDate="2013-01-02T09:33:56.367" UserId="1316" Comment="I included a literal English translation of the proverb." Text="*Насильно мил не будешь*, например, которий переводится _you cannot force people to like you_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4991" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="6db8fb52-a2ee-4187-8d34-19df415f8a20" CreationDate="2013-01-02T09:33:56.367" Comment="Proposed by 1316 approved by -1 edit id of 281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1634" RevisionGUID="e4732102-b2d8-47c6-a86b-91d1f6665b2c" CreationDate="2013-01-02T09:33:56.367" UserId="242" Comment="I included a literal English translation of the proverb." Text="*Насильно мил не будешь* (you cannot force people to like you)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="8988dcb5-28f0-4f23-a019-600d48559bbf" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:15:13.060" UserId="496" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][4] - allows to search for examples of a word and the word colocations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="b9eb4144-4cab-462a-9f22-8ac8658922f0" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:18:26.777" UserDisplayName="user538" Comment="added tsya.ru" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][4] - allows to search for examples of a word and the word colocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][5] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://tsya.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="c4ee51c4-eaf3-4e46-91d2-4f925437f6b0" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:42:35.883" UserId="1318" Text="In English, I might make a list of things like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A. This is the first item!&#xD;&#xA;    B. This is the second item!&#xD;&#xA;    C. You guessed it! Third item!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, is that done the same way? i.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    а.&#xD;&#xA;    б.&#xD;&#xA;    b.&#xD;&#xA;    г." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="c4ee51c4-eaf3-4e46-91d2-4f925437f6b0" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:42:35.883" UserId="1318" Text="Alphabetical lists in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="c4ee51c4-eaf3-4e46-91d2-4f925437f6b0" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:42:35.883" UserId="1318" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1650" RevisionGUID="5280b09c-f7e5-4544-9576-896436d076df" CreationDate="2013-01-02T23:18:47.127" UserId="426" Text="Yes, you can do this in Russian. However, letters Ё, Й, Ъ, Ы and Ь [are usually omitted][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collation#Labeling_of_ordered_items" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="372102a4-d06a-4531-848b-169d920a3198" CreationDate="2013-01-03T04:14:36.880" UserId="496" Comment="added 2233 characters in body" Text="I added some more examples of nouns ending with *-у* in the prepositional (aka locative) case to the Yellow Sky's answer (pending peer's review). There are many more of them still not mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this answer I would like to concentrate on the phenomenon of such words, finding common patterns in them, and suggesting the ways of finding them instead of just listing them. Kind of following the Chinese proverb: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common pattern&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that for all these words the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An old Russian word&#xD;&#xA; 2. Single syllable, masculine gender, ending with consonant&#xD;&#xA; 3. Used in the extended meaning of location inside of something &#xD;&#xA; 4. Prepositional case is formed by taking the Dative case of the same word and moving the stress to the ending &quot;*-у*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in the Old Russian almost all the nouns had such form. With time these forms started to be supplanted by more modern forms of prepositional (locative) case but some words resisted and are still keeping their old forms in certain meanings. This my hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the words borrowed/created not very long time ago do not have such forms. F.e. compare мёд (old word) and йод (more new). It is possible to say выдержанный в меду, but it will be выдержанный в йоде - not йоду for йод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the phenomenon&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Zalizniak's dictionary][1] this phenomenon is called the &quot;2-ой предложный падеж&quot; (second prepositional case). [Russian National Corpus website][2] calls it &quot;предложный 2&quot;, or, in their English version: &quot;locative 2&quot;. (Interesting is that *locative* - not *prepositional* - is used as the translation of word предложный for grammatical cases. You can see the &quot;official&quot; list of Russian grammatical cases by clicking &quot;выбрать&quot;/&quot;select&quot; close to the &quot;Грамм. признаки&quot;/&quot;Gramm. features&quot; text box).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the words that can form locative 2 are marked with the sign **`П₂`** in the Zalizniak's  dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the excerpt from П₂ definition by Zalizniak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ (за которой может следовать в скобках предлог &quot;в&quot; или &quot;на&quot;) - символ&#xD;&#xA;    наличия у данного слова особой формы так-называемого 2-го предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ означает, что у данного существительного в ед. числе после предлогов &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;в&quot; и &quot;на&quot;, выступающих в одном из указанных ниже значений, употребляется особая форма,&#xD;&#xA;    отличная от обычного предложного падежа - так называемый 2-ой предложный падеж. Форма 2-го&#xD;&#xA;    предложного падежа ед. числа по буквенному составу равна форме Д. ед. того же слова, но &#xD;&#xA;    ударение в ней всегда на окончании. Примеры: &quot;шкаф&quot; (Д. ед. &quot;шкАфу&quot;) - П₂ ед. &quot;шкафУ&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;        ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][3], and [here][4] the original scanned pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find these words&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is to open [the online version of the Zalizniak's dictionary][5] and scan it page by page searching for the mark &quot;п(2)&quot;. (For example, look for word &quot;сад&quot; on the page references above). At least this is until a better (for our purposes) version of the online dictionary exists which would allow searching by marks. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility for finding such words is by using the National Corpus. Click [this][6]; click on &quot;select&quot; close to &quot;Gramm. features&quot;; in the following popup check &quot;locative 2&quot;. ![enter image description here][7]; on the main page click the &quot;search&quot; button. In the results of search you will see the words in locative 2 case put in the context of their usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0066.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0067.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict&amp;first=74481&amp;encoding=utf-rus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F4l0s.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1651" RevisionGUID="f04a355a-6c14-4dd0-991f-09f7093fac10" CreationDate="2013-01-03T05:45:18.603" UserId="282" Text="In the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы возвращаемся домой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am expecting accusative, so I'm confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1651" RevisionGUID="f04a355a-6c14-4dd0-991f-09f7093fac10" CreationDate="2013-01-03T05:45:18.603" UserId="282" Text="Which case is used for the word &quot;домой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1651" RevisionGUID="f04a355a-6c14-4dd0-991f-09f7093fac10" CreationDate="2013-01-03T05:45:18.603" UserId="282" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1652" RevisionGUID="59b266f2-b79f-4782-8407-08cd41092ca1" CreationDate="2013-01-03T06:09:11.193" UserId="242" Text="You are confused, since this word looks like noun, though it is not. &#xD;&#xA;It is actually adverb, historically [derived from][1] dative singular, but nowadays it is an adverb. So the conception of case is irrelevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1652" RevisionGUID="6d63bc08-88d9-4e41-8f4f-d524390a3f5e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T06:18:00.723" UserId="242" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="You are confused, since this word looks like noun, though it is not. &#xD;&#xA;It is actually adverb, historically [derived from][1] dative singular, but nowadays it is an adverb. So the conception of case is irrelevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some claim this to be a remnant of so called [allative case][2], but as far as I know, allative never been something that existed in (proto)Russian on any stage of it evolution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1652" RevisionGUID="c1a94466-921f-482b-a90f-de3f8f4612f7" CreationDate="2013-01-03T06:25:44.233" UserId="242" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="You are confused, since this word looks like noun, though it is not. &#xD;&#xA;It is actually adverb, historically [derived from][1] dative singular, but nowadays it is an adverb. So the conception of case is irrelevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some claim this to be a remnant of so called [allative case][2], but as far as I know, allative (unlike, for example, [locative  case][3]) never been something that existed in (proto)Russian on any stage of it evolution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="55ba5e94-da3b-4e89-962a-4d1141c5391e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:04:34.623" UserId="97" Comment="added 38 characters in body; edited tags" Text="In English, I might make a list of things like so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A. This is the first item!&#xD;&#xA;    B. This is the second item!&#xD;&#xA;    C. You guessed it! Third item!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, is that done the same way? i.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    а. Первый элемент&#xD;&#xA;    б. Второй элемент&#xD;&#xA;    в. ...&#xD;&#xA;    г. ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="55ba5e94-da3b-4e89-962a-4d1141c5391e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:04:34.623" UserId="97" Comment="added 38 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="0a4e6191-b42c-460e-98a5-6b61f8e2f92d" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:20:46.950" UserId="496" Comment="added more examples, sorted them alphabetically to spot the duplicates easier" Text="The ones that come first to my mind (apart from already mentioned) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в aду (in Hell)&#xD;&#xA;    на балу (at the dance party)&#xD;&#xA;    на бегу (while running)&#xD;&#xA;    на берегу (on the shore)&#xD;&#xA;    на боку (on the side)&#xD;&#xA;    в бору (in the pine forest)&#xD;&#xA;    в бою (in the battle)&#xD;&#xA;    на валу (on the bank)&#xD;&#xA;    на возу (on the cart)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на глазу (in/on the eye)&#xD;&#xA;    в году (in the year)&#xD;&#xA;    на [своём] горбу (on [somebody's own] hump, used figuratively = bring something with your own muscles without any help of mechanisms or other people)&#xD;&#xA;    на Дону (in the Don region)&#xD;&#xA;    в жиру (in the fat)&#xD;&#xA;    в зобу (in the craw)&#xD;&#xA;    на кону (at stake)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на краю (in the region/on the edge)&#xD;&#xA;    в кругу (in the circle, mostly used figuratively f.e. в кругу друзей - among friends)&#xD;&#xA;    на лету (while flying, mostly used figuratively = doing something fast and at the same time with something else)&#xD;&#xA;    в мозгу (in the brain, but anatomically speaking we say &quot;в мозге&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    на мосту (on the bridge)&#xD;&#xA;    на мысу (on the cape)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на носу (in/on the nose)&#xD;&#xA;    на плаву (afloat)&#xD;&#xA;    в плену (in captivity)&#xD;&#xA;    в/при полку (in/attached to the regiment)&#xD;&#xA;    в порту (in the port)&#xD;&#xA;    в поту (all over in sweat)&#xD;&#xA;    в раю (in heaven, in paradise)&#xD;&#xA;    во рту (in the mouth)&#xD;&#xA;    на скаку (while riding)&#xD;&#xA;    на слуху (if a person is на слуху, it means he is talked about a lot)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на снегу (in/on the snow)&#xD;&#xA;    в строю (in the formation, in the line-up)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на углу (in/on the corner)&#xD;&#xA;    в хлеву (in the barn)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на ходу (the one which is being commonly used/while moving)&#xD;&#xA;    в/на шкафу (in/on top of the wardrobe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more of them, it's rather hard for me to remember more :D." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5011" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="0a4e6191-b42c-460e-98a5-6b61f8e2f92d" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:20:46.950" Comment="Proposed by 496 approved by 242, 1236 edit id of 282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1653" RevisionGUID="95013020-c564-47de-bf66-718b0c5a3049" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:51:35.663" UserId="1236" Text="The verb `возвращаться` (like all other reflexive verbs ending in `-ся`) is intransitive, that is why expecting the accusative case after such verbs is a wrong thing to do, they are never followed by the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Домой` is an adverb, not a direct object noun. In the example Lawrence gives, Russian uses the same sentence structure as English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`We are coming home. / We are going home.` - Here `home` is an adverb, too, not a noun, because the verbs `to come` and `to go` are intransitive, they cannot have objects without prepositions in English. In the sentence `We are home. - Мы дóма.` - both `home` and `дóма` are also adverbs. The difference between `домой` and `дóма` is that the former denotes the direction to a place, the latter denotes the place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1651" RevisionGUID="42eeebe6-c499-4747-85d5-a80fb9120cf0" CreationDate="2013-01-03T10:57:59.737" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы возвращаемся домой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am expecting accusative, so I'm confused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1654" RevisionGUID="981e69bf-796a-49cc-93bc-073077245768" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:13:05.357" UserId="1321" Text="You can also hear &quot;Это видео разошлось&quot; or variants like that. As for me, I would not say &quot;Это видео превратилось в вирусное&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1655" RevisionGUID="46e3707a-e73e-49cf-9f3e-8a49edddb4d0" CreationDate="2013-01-03T18:44:06.863" UserId="1298" Text="To say &lt;code&gt;&quot;to go viral&quot;&lt;/code&gt; within the meaning of something became widely known, popular, spreading from one to another, you can use the set phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;That video has gone viral. -- Видеоролик пошёл в народ.&lt;/code&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;or similar idiom:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;That video has gone viral. -- Это видео пошло в массы&lt;/code&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5016" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1651" RevisionGUID="2cebb485-c880-40d5-a5f3-933ef1258612" CreationDate="2013-01-03T19:55:20.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/286923719010553856" />
  <row Id="5017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1656" RevisionGUID="35b5a539-9066-4d6a-92bf-50ef9e997ce7" CreationDate="2013-01-03T20:23:12.553" UserId="1306" Text="Here's a few I could think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Это тебе не хухры-мухры&#xD;&#xA;    Это тебе не халам-балам&#xD;&#xA;    Это тебе не цацки-пуцки&#xD;&#xA;    Это тебе не пипку дёргать :-)&#xD;&#xA;    Тут придётся голову поломать&#xD;&#xA;    Задачка не для средних умов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please feel free to edit my post if you find any of the expressions inappropriate for this website. E.g. #4." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="a5d54f2d-96ee-4df1-9c94-6b593b15205e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T22:21:53.697" UserId="282" Text="I'm just not sure what the pattern is for using each, or if there even is one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="a5d54f2d-96ee-4df1-9c94-6b593b15205e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T22:21:53.697" UserId="282" Text="Difference between &quot;a&quot; and &quot;и&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="a5d54f2d-96ee-4df1-9c94-6b593b15205e" CreationDate="2013-01-03T22:21:53.697" UserId="282" Text="|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1659" RevisionGUID="6e88da54-90dc-4aec-a587-3dd8607c5087" CreationDate="2013-01-04T00:06:49.503" UserId="97" Text="There is a major difference between these two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_и_ is _соединительный союз_ (&quot;connecting&quot; conjunction) and means _and_, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера и сегодня &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; yesterday and today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_а_ is _противительный союз_ (&quot;opposing&quot; conjunction) and in meaning is closer to _but_ in a sense that it requires two opposing elements, e.g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я - тут, а ты - там &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am here, but your are there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this example, the English sentence could use conjunction _while_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am here while you are there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, _a_ can have another usage: in sentences like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. А давай пойдем в кино! &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. А не пойти ли тебе на...?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. А это что такое? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases _a_ is not used to oppose two elements but is standing on its own, usually in the beginning of a sentence, more as an exclamation, expression of emotions, which can be translated as _what if_ in most cases, but can sometimes be translated as _and_ in a similar usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What if we go to a cinema? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What if you just f... off? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. And what is this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1660" RevisionGUID="ab9fdeda-74bf-4050-94fa-158b9f837387" CreationDate="2013-01-04T01:30:56.380" UserId="185" Text="I suppose that you are talking about cases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I want to go home, and he wishes to stay at the club. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The computers are growing much faster every year, and new models have more memory then the old ones.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to use *а* in cases when you wish to switch your attention from one event or fact to another (1) or to stress that two events contrast in some way. That is, one of the circumstances (3) or the whole situation of the second phrase (2) contradicts to the first event. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Я слушаю новости по телевизору, а он читает их в Интернете. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I listen to the news on the TV, but he reads online newspapers.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Я знаю ответ, а ты -- нет. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I know the answer and you don't.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Мама уехала на дачу, а папа -- на рыбалку. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My mom went to dacha, while my dad went fishing.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you would use *и* to stress the temporal (4) or causal (5) relations between the two events, or to say that the two events both support the same idea (6):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. Я слушаю новости по телевизору и потом проверяю их в Интернете. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I listen to the news on the TV and then compare them with the online newspapers. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. Я списал ответы у Паши и сдал экзамен. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I copied the answers from Pasha and passed the exam. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Мама уехала на дачу, и папы тоже нет дома. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My mom went to dacha, and my dad is not at home either. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is possible to have contrasting situations joined by *и*, as in (7). These cases are different from the contrasting situations joined by *а* in that they usually sequences of events. One uses *а* when one talks about general facts (8), habits (1) or simultaneous events (2,3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. Он видел смерч и остался жив. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He saw a tornado and lived to tell the tale of it.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Он любит загорать, а не купаться.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He like to sunbathe, not to swim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that my answer is complete, but I think that it captures the general idea. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1660" RevisionGUID="b85d35c6-a154-42bb-bafd-b39a292b3c97" CreationDate="2013-01-04T01:37:49.007" UserId="185" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I suppose that you are talking about cases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I want to go home, and he wishes to stay at the club. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The computers are growing much faster every year, and new models have more memory then the old ones.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to use *а* in cases when you wish to switch your attention from one event or fact to another (1) or to stress that two events contrast in some way. That is, one of the circumstances (3) or the whole situation of the second phrase (2) contradicts to the first event. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Я слушаю новости по телевизору, а он читает их в Интернете. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I listen to the news on the TV, but he reads online newspapers.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Я знаю ответ, а ты -- нет. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I know the answer and you don't.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Мама уехала на дачу, а папа -- на рыбалку. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My mom went to dacha, while my dad went fishing.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you would use *и* to stress the temporal (ex. 1 below) or causal (ex. 2 below) relations between the two events, or to say that the two events both support the same idea (ex. 3 below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. Я слушаю новости по телевизору и потом проверяю их в Интернете. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I listen to the news on the TV and then compare them with the online newspapers. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5. Я списал ответы у Паши и сдал экзамен. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I copied the answers from Pasha and passed the exam. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;6. Мама уехала на дачу, и папы тоже нет дома. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My mom went to dacha, and my dad is not at home either. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is possible to have contrasting situations joined by *и*, as in (ex. 1 below). These cases are different from the contrasting situations joined by *а* in that they usually sequences of events. One uses *а* when one talks about general facts (ex. 2 below), habits (ex. 1 above) or simultaneous events (ex. 2 and 3 above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;7. Он видел смерч и остался жив. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He saw a tornado and lived to tell the tale of it.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;8. Он любит загорать, а не купаться.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He like to sunbathe, not to swim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that my answer is complete, but I think that it captures the general idea. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="077f2d6c-f3d0-46fc-96d2-0a8f034c72b2" CreationDate="2013-01-04T01:55:05.293" UserId="1236" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="The ones that come first to my mind (apart from already mentioned) are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        в aду (in Hell)&#xD;&#xA;        на балу (at the dance party)&#xD;&#xA;        на бегу (while running)&#xD;&#xA;        на берегу (on the shore)&#xD;&#xA;        на боку (on the side)&#xD;&#xA;        в бору (in the pine forest)&#xD;&#xA;        в бою (in the battle)&#xD;&#xA;        на валу (on the bank)&#xD;&#xA;        на возу (on the cart)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на глазу (in/on the eye)&#xD;&#xA;        в году (in the year)&#xD;&#xA;        на [своём] горбу (on [somebody's own] hump, used figuratively = bring something with your own muscles without any help of mechanisms or other people)&#xD;&#xA;        на Дону (in the Don region)&#xD;&#xA;        в жиру (in the fat)&#xD;&#xA;        в зобу (in the craw)&#xD;&#xA;        на кону (at stake)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на краю (in the region/on the edge)&#xD;&#xA;        в кругу (in the circle, mostly used figuratively f.e. в кругу друзей - among friends)&#xD;&#xA;        на лету (while flying, mostly used figuratively = doing something fast and at the same time with something else)&#xD;&#xA;        во/на льду (in/on the ice)&#xD;&#xA;        в мозгу (in the brain, but anatomically speaking we say &quot;в мозге&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;        на мосту (on the bridge)&#xD;&#xA;        на мысу (on the cape)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на носу (in/on the nose)&#xD;&#xA;        на плаву (afloat)&#xD;&#xA;        в плену (in captivity)&#xD;&#xA;        в/при полку (in/attached to the regiment)&#xD;&#xA;        в порту (in the port)&#xD;&#xA;        в поту (all over in sweat)&#xD;&#xA;        в раю (in heaven, in paradise)&#xD;&#xA;        во рту (in the mouth)&#xD;&#xA;        на скаку (while riding)&#xD;&#xA;        на слуху (if a person is на слуху, it means he is talked about a lot)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на снегу (in/on the snow)&#xD;&#xA;        в строю (in the formation, in the line-up)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на углу (in/on the corner)&#xD;&#xA;        в хлеву (in the barn)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на ходу (the one which is being commonly used/while moving)&#xD;&#xA;        в/на шкафу (in/on top of the wardrobe)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more of them, it's rather hard for me to remember more :D." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5027" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1649" RevisionGUID="cfd6e910-465e-47ac-8ea4-32439776166c" CreationDate="2013-01-04T04:55:20.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/287059618084057088" />
  <row Id="5029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1659" RevisionGUID="155fc01c-b258-4300-909b-5e48afd725f4" CreationDate="2013-01-04T08:09:01.483" UserId="47" Comment="&quot;while&quot; added to &quot;but&quot;" Text="There is a major difference between these two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_и_ is _соединительный союз_ (&quot;connecting&quot; conjunction) and means _and_, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера и сегодня &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; yesterday and today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_а_ is _противительный союз_ (&quot;opposing&quot; conjunction) and in meaning is closer to _but_ or _while_ in a sense that it requires two opposing elements, e.g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я - тут, а ты - там &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am here, but your are there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this example, the English sentence could use conjunction _while_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am here while you are there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, _a_ can have another usage: in sentences like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. А давай пойдем в кино! &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. А не пойти ли тебе на...?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. А это что такое? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases _a_ is not used to oppose two elements but is standing on its own, usually in the beginning of a sentence, more as an exclamation, expression of emotions, which can be translated as _what if_ in most cases, but can sometimes be translated as _and_ in a similar usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What if we go to a cinema? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What if you just f... off? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. And what is this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5030" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1659" RevisionGUID="af265e04-b6e4-40a2-bcfd-d3d134d23873" CreationDate="2013-01-04T08:09:28.927" UserId="47" Comment="Rollback to [6e88da54-90dc-4aec-a587-3dd8607c5087]" Text="There is a major difference between these two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_и_ is _соединительный союз_ (&quot;connecting&quot; conjunction) and means _and_, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера и сегодня &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; yesterday and today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_а_ is _противительный союз_ (&quot;opposing&quot; conjunction) and in meaning is closer to _but_ in a sense that it requires two opposing elements, e.g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я - тут, а ты - там &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am here, but your are there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this example, the English sentence could use conjunction _while_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am here while you are there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to this, _a_ can have another usage: in sentences like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. А давай пойдем в кино! &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. А не пойти ли тебе на...?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. А это что такое? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases _a_ is not used to oppose two elements but is standing on its own, usually in the beginning of a sentence, more as an exclamation, expression of emotions, which can be translated as _what if_ in most cases, but can sometimes be translated as _and_ in a similar usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. What if we go to a cinema? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What if you just f... off? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. And what is this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1661" RevisionGUID="0272dda2-40ac-454b-a54a-9fb5ee5bc435" CreationDate="2013-01-04T13:39:22.360" UserId="1262" Text="Yes, nothing similar to allative case has ever existed in (proto)Russian on any stage of it evolution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, we have a full monty of allative cases in Fenno-Ugric languages of 'native Russians' still spoken here, just like in Tocharian A and in its decendant, Tocharian B, which are, judging by my amateur IE studies, were ancestors of Samskrt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my intuition is that its origin might have something to do with cross-linguistics and language unions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="ff33b4bf-3aad-41e5-9d1a-b3ac9ffeaa83" CreationDate="2013-01-04T13:49:09.620" UserId="1262" Text="Leaving the so-called 'typology' of Olga out of the scope of our discussion, let's give her credit for this word, which is a new coinage, a cross-breed of терпение 'patience' and болячка 'sore place, meaning 'to hide one's [chronical] pain'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is used primary in her 'projects' describing 'Untermaensch' of various typers. Well, those 'types' she thinks to be of 'Uentermensch'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5033" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1657" RevisionGUID="9fc7923d-976f-4746-bdde-70d2d55e82fd" CreationDate="2013-01-04T13:55:20.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/287195509947518976" />
  <row Id="5034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1663" RevisionGUID="0aea1e4d-2572-4c22-93d0-797bbe878084" CreationDate="2013-01-04T14:30:24.017" UserId="426" Text="In most situations, the distinction between &quot;и&quot; and &quot;а&quot; is clear: &quot;и&quot; means &quot;and&quot; (adjunction), while &quot;а&quot; means &quot;but&quot; (contrast, comparison, or discrepancy). There is, however, a situation where &quot;а&quot; means &quot;и&quot;. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сначала у нас зарядка, **а** после зарядки завтрак. (First, we do the morning exercises, and then we have our breakfast.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там стадион, **а** за ним универмаг. (There's a stadium, and a department store behind it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, using &quot;и&quot; in place of &quot;а&quot; is OK:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сначала у нас зарядка, **и** после зарядки завтрак. (First, we do the morning exercises, and then we have our breakfast.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там стадион, **и** за ним универмаг. (There's a stadium, and a department store behind it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are cases when you must use &quot;и&quot; in very similar situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы сделали зарядку **и** позавтракали. (We did our morning exercises and had our breakfast.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там стадион **и** универмаг. (There is a stadium and a department store there.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я обернулся **и** увидел её. (I turned around and saw her.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no &quot;symmetry&quot; here, I would recommend using &quot;и&quot; for &quot;and&quot; in all situations, at least in the beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="092042ca-a86d-4198-9aae-c9313224568e" CreationDate="2013-01-04T16:28:48.437" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I added some more examples of nouns ending with *-у* in the prepositional (aka locative) case to the Yellow Sky's answer (pending peer's review). There are many more of them still not mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this answer I would like to concentrate on the phenomenon of such words, finding common patterns in them, and suggesting the ways of finding them instead of just listing them. Kind of following the Chinese proverb: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common pattern&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that for all these words the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An old Russian word&#xD;&#xA; 2. Masculine gender, ending with consonant&#xD;&#xA; 3. Used in the extended meaning of location inside of something &#xD;&#xA; 4. Prepositional case is formed by taking the Dative case of the same word and moving the stress to the ending &quot;*-у*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in the Old Russian almost all the nouns had such form. With time these forms started to be supplanted by more modern forms of prepositional (locative) case but some words resisted and are still keeping their old forms in certain meanings. This my hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the words borrowed/created not very long time ago do not have such forms. F.e. compare мёд (old word) and йод (more new). It is possible to say выдержанный в меду, but it will be выдержанный в йоде - not йоду for йод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the phenomenon&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Zalizniak's dictionary][1] this phenomenon is called the &quot;2-ой предложный падеж&quot; (second prepositional case). [Russian National Corpus website][2] calls it &quot;предложный 2&quot;, or, in their English version: &quot;locative 2&quot;. (Interesting is that *locative* - not *prepositional* - is used as the translation of word предложный for grammatical cases. You can see the &quot;official&quot; list of Russian grammatical cases by clicking &quot;выбрать&quot;/&quot;select&quot; close to the &quot;Грамм. признаки&quot;/&quot;Gramm. features&quot; text box).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the words that can form locative 2 are marked with the sign **`П₂`** in the Zalizniak's  dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the excerpt from П₂ definition by Zalizniak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ (за которой может следовать в скобках предлог &quot;в&quot; или &quot;на&quot;) - символ&#xD;&#xA;    наличия у данного слова особой формы так-называемого 2-го предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ означает, что у данного существительного в ед. числе после предлогов &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;в&quot; и &quot;на&quot;, выступающих в одном из указанных ниже значений, употребляется особая форма,&#xD;&#xA;    отличная от обычного предложного падежа - так называемый 2-ой предложный падеж. Форма 2-го&#xD;&#xA;    предложного падежа ед. числа по буквенному составу равна форме Д. ед. того же слова, но &#xD;&#xA;    ударение в ней всегда на окончании. Примеры: &quot;шкаф&quot; (Д. ед. &quot;шкАфу&quot;) - П₂ ед. &quot;шкафУ&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;        ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][3], and [here][4] the original scanned pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find these words&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is to open [the online version of the Zalizniak's dictionary][5] and scan it page by page searching for the mark &quot;п(2)&quot;. (For example, look for word &quot;сад&quot; on the page references above). At least this is until a better (for our purposes) version of the online dictionary exists which would allow searching by marks. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility for finding such words is by using the National Corpus. Click [this][6]; click on &quot;select&quot; close to &quot;Gramm. features&quot;; in the following popup check &quot;locative 2&quot;. ![enter image description here][7]; on the main page click the &quot;search&quot; button. In the results of search you will see the words in locative 2 case put in the context of their usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0066.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0067.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict&amp;first=74481&amp;encoding=utf-rus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F4l0s.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="1cdec29c-afd0-45c0-be5e-2ec4081a3cf0" CreationDate="2013-01-05T03:33:20.167" UserId="496" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="I added some more examples of nouns ending with *-у* in the prepositional (aka locative) case to the Yellow Sky's answer (pending peer's review). There are many more of them still not mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this answer I would like to concentrate on the phenomenon of such words, finding common patterns in them, and suggesting the ways of finding them instead of just listing them. Kind of following the Chinese proverb: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common pattern&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that for all these words the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An old Russian word&#xD;&#xA; 2. Masculine gender, ending with consonant&#xD;&#xA; 3. Used in the extended meaning of location inside of something &#xD;&#xA; 4. Prepositional case is formed by taking the Dative case of the same word and moving the stress to the ending &quot;*-у*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in the Old Russian almost all the nouns had such form. With time these forms started to be supplanted by more modern forms of prepositional (locative) case but some words resisted and are still keeping their old forms in certain meanings. This my hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the words borrowed/created not very long time ago do not have such forms. F.e. compare мёд (old word) and йод (more new). It is possible to say выдержанный в меду, but it will be выдержанный в йоде - not йоду for йод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name of the phenomenon&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Zalizniak's dictionary][1] this phenomenon is called the &quot;2-ой предложный падеж&quot; (second prepositional case). [Russian National Corpus website][2] calls it &quot;предложный 2&quot;, or, in their English version: &quot;locative 2&quot;. (Interesting is that *locative* - not *prepositional* - is used as the translation of word предложный for grammatical cases. You can see the &quot;official&quot; list of Russian grammatical cases by clicking &quot;выбрать&quot;/&quot;select&quot; close to the &quot;Грамм. признаки&quot;/&quot;Gramm. features&quot; text box).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the words that can form locative 2 are marked with the sign **`П₂`** in the Zalizniak's  dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the excerpt from П₂ definition by Zalizniak:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ (за которой может следовать в скобках предлог &quot;в&quot; или &quot;на&quot;) - символ&#xD;&#xA;    наличия у данного слова особой формы так-называемого 2-го предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Помета П₂ означает, что у данного существительного в ед. числе после предлогов &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;в&quot; и &quot;на&quot;, выступающих в одном из указанных ниже значений, употребляется особая форма,&#xD;&#xA;    отличная от обычного предложного падежа - так называемый 2-ой предложный падеж. Форма 2-го&#xD;&#xA;    предложного падежа ед. числа по буквенному составу равна форме Д. ед. того же слова, но &#xD;&#xA;    ударение в ней всегда на окончании. Примеры: &quot;шкаф&quot; (Д. ед. &quot;шкАфу&quot;) - П₂ ед. &quot;шкафУ&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;        ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [here][3], and [here][4] the original scanned pages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to find these words&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility is to open [the online version of the Zalizniak's dictionary][5] and scan it page by page searching for the mark &quot;п(2)&quot;. (For example, look for word &quot;сад&quot; on the page references above). At least this is until a better (for our purposes) version of the online dictionary exists which would allow searching by marks. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility for finding such words is by using the National Corpus. Click [this][6]; click on &quot;select&quot; close to &quot;Gramm. features&quot;; in the following popup check &quot;locative 2&quot;. ![enter image description here][7]; ![enter image description here][8]on the main page click the &quot;search&quot; button. In the results of search you will see the words in locative 2 case put in the context of their usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0066.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://zaliznyak-dict.narod.ru/c0067.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict&amp;first=74481&amp;encoding=utf-rus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F4l0s.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6tdWF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="25772929-7a84-4b7c-9460-0b3f79f6bbf7" CreationDate="2013-01-05T03:54:47.660" UserId="496" Text="I'm not sure if I need comma in the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не знаю что сказать.&#xD;&#xA;    Не знаю что вам сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me they seem to be similar to the phrases &quot;[Тут есть над чем подумать][1]&quot; &quot;Тут есть что посмотреть&quot; but the [ruscorpora.ru][2] search shows that many authors use comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1581/496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=langust&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%ED%E5+%E7%ED%E0%FE+%F7%F2%EE+%F1%EA%E0%E7%E0%F2%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="25772929-7a84-4b7c-9460-0b3f79f6bbf7" CreationDate="2013-01-05T03:54:47.660" UserId="496" Text="Comma in &quot;Не знаю, что вам сказать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="25772929-7a84-4b7c-9460-0b3f79f6bbf7" CreationDate="2013-01-05T03:54:47.660" UserId="496" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="c4c11ea5-f41b-405f-98b4-844c2f0d79d8" CreationDate="2013-01-05T16:00:10.920" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if I need comma in the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю что сказать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю что вам сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me they seem to be similar to the phrases &quot;[Тут есть над чем подумать][1]&quot; &quot;Тут есть что посмотреть&quot; but the [ruscorpora.ru][2] search shows that many authors use comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1581/496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=langust&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%ED%E5+%E7%ED%E0%FE+%F7%F2%EE+%F1%EA%E0%E7%E0%F2%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1666" RevisionGUID="900c453b-f433-4f0f-8832-1a4ee83061c3" CreationDate="2013-01-05T21:42:25.097" UserId="185" Text="&quot;Не знаю, что вам сказать&quot; is a case where a sentence occupies the position of an object (a position usually taken by a noun phrase). In this case, you always should surround the sentence with commas, unless there are already other punctuation marks at its boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Eсть над чем подумать&quot; is an exception to this rule. Other exceptions can be found [here](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxix.html#sect114.1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that these sentences are declared to be exceptions because linguists still argue about their internal structure and cannot say if the embedded sentence &quot;над чем подумать&quot; occupies a position of a complement or if &quot;подумать&quot; and &quot;есть&quot; constitute one verbal group." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5044" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="bb0a76b5-bdbb-4a24-9b02-d97fbaba8a59" CreationDate="2013-01-05T22:55:21.070" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/287693795607343104" />
  <row Id="5045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1666" RevisionGUID="b94d47a1-014c-4136-a29a-c30c4508df88" CreationDate="2013-01-06T00:25:03.870" UserId="185" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="&quot;Не знаю, что вам сказать&quot; is a case where the infinitive occupies the position of an object (a position usually taken by a noun phrase). In this case, you always should surround the sentence with commas, unless there are already other punctuation marks at its boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Eсть над чем подумать&quot; is an exception to this rule. It can be found [here in paragraph 6](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxix.html#sect114.1), alongside with other exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that these sentences are declared to be exceptions because linguists still argue about their internal structure and cannot say if the embedded sentence &quot;над чем подумать&quot; occupies a position of a complement or if &quot;подумать&quot; and &quot;есть&quot; constitute one verbal group." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="eaa01f2b-03cb-46fa-9fce-3f3e9ffede01" CreationDate="2013-01-06T11:04:11.003" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="Actually, you can use preposition “по” even when referring to some literary pieces. I.e., when you describe a movie based on a novel or a tale. As in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фильм снят по роману Достоевского «Преступление и наказание»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5048" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="eaa01f2b-03cb-46fa-9fce-3f3e9ffede01" CreationDate="2013-01-06T11:04:11.003" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1667" RevisionGUID="f3108784-795f-4eef-b282-41bac89bbbf8" CreationDate="2013-01-06T19:14:05.863" UserId="1262" Text="The phrase Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского, мой любимый роман is also *grammatically* corrrect, at least when spoken in conversational Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is all about the punctuation; there should be brackets, semicolon, or a separate sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the options are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман).&#xD;&#xA;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского; мой любимый роман.&#xD;&#xA;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского. Mой любимый роман.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="0e364106-105a-4ecb-9ad4-b485d16982ab" CreationDate="2013-01-06T19:33:14.427" UserId="1262" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5051" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="2da50229-77cd-479a-af3a-942d72d1cd0a" CreationDate="2013-01-06T19:55:22.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/288010891394420736" />
  <row Id="5052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1669" RevisionGUID="4c217701-e899-43dd-9180-a2e52e16268b" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:23:56.250" UserId="62" Text="A person who believes the theory of relativity in physics is wrong or that he/she has a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that uses nothing more than high school math is called a &quot;crank&quot; or &quot;crackpot&quot; in English. Is there a word for such people in Russian? I searched around and found чудак, but a native speaker I asked didn't think that was an accurate word for such people and also didn't know of a good translation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1669" RevisionGUID="4c217701-e899-43dd-9180-a2e52e16268b" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:23:56.250" UserId="62" Text="How to say &quot;crank&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1669" RevisionGUID="4c217701-e899-43dd-9180-a2e52e16268b" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:23:56.250" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1670" RevisionGUID="c0f12094-439c-4f44-8176-c47d49842c91" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:43:29.147" UserId="62" Text="The terms от/до and с/в(на) are used to convey the idea &quot;from/to&quot; in different settings. Are there guidelines about when one pair is used instead of another that  would work well in practice? (Somewhat related: с/по is used for intervals of time, and if there is a reason for using по instead of до other than &quot;that's the way it is&quot;, I'd be interested to hear that too.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question came up when I thought the translation of the old movie &quot;From the Earth to the Moon&quot; would be &quot;От Земли до Луны&quot; (isn't a trip from New York to Los Angeles от Нью-Йорка до Лос-Анджелеса?) but I found out that it is С Земли  на Луну. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1670" RevisionGUID="c0f12094-439c-4f44-8176-c47d49842c91" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:43:29.147" UserId="62" Text="От/До and С/В(На) disambiguation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1670" RevisionGUID="c0f12094-439c-4f44-8176-c47d49842c91" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:43:29.147" UserId="62" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1671" RevisionGUID="6dd354fb-114b-445f-a181-16c0ce4feb49" CreationDate="2013-01-06T22:03:50.107" UserId="242" Text="There is a wider term for promoting pseudoscientific practices - [шарлатанство][1] (quackery). All people who don't believe in relativity (and have an alternative theory), know how to prove Fermat's Last Theorem using only sophomoric algebra - all these people are definitely `шарлатаны`. It's just that this term includes not only enthusiastic half-educated amateurs, who believe that there contributions are important, but malicious, deliberate rogues as well. For example, one who sells fake drugs as if it is an efficient cure is definitely a `шарлатан`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the precise equivalent, I hardly can name one, though there are some candidates. In Russian word `любитель` (amateur) in some context has quite strong negative connotations and is used for indicating exactly those who claim to prove something wrong, but his proof is flagrantly unscientific. For example, [this][2] well known speech of russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak is titled &quot;О профессиональной и любительской лингвистике&quot; (&quot;On the professional and amateur linguistics&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person who just denies the achievements of modern science can be called `мракобес`, but this is, once again, somewhat wider. For example, those who deny the evolution, is, most probably `мракобес`, but  in some cases `мракобес` (as well as `обскурант`, or `ретроград`) is about such fanatic person who hates any kind of scientific progress at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At last, it worth to mention that between mathematicians there existed a special term for monomaniac provers of Fermat's theorem: `ферматист` (check out [this article][3]). I've tried to recall something similar about relativist deniers, but, again, have some doubts that there exists something more universal than just `антирелятивист`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elementy.ru/lib/430720&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1671" RevisionGUID="70929446-bbff-4146-88f0-b7d271dded69" CreationDate="2013-01-06T22:33:50.900" UserId="62" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="There is a wider term for promoting pseudoscientific practices - [шарлатанство][1] (quackery). All people who don't believe in relativity (and have an alternative theory), know how to prove Fermat's Last Theorem using only sophomoric algebra - all these people are definitely `шарлатаны`. It's just that this term includes not only enthusiastic half-educated amateurs, who believe that their contributions are important, but malicious, deliberate rogues as well. For example, one who sells fake drugs as if it is an efficient cure is definitely a `шарлатан`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the precise equivalent, I hardly can name one, though there are some candidates. In Russian word `любитель` (amateur) in some context has quite strong negative connotations and is used for indicating exactly those who claim to prove something wrong, but his proof is flagrantly unscientific. For example, [this][2] well known speech of the Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak is titled &quot;О профессиональной и любительской лингвистике&quot; (&quot;On professional and amateur linguistics&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person who just denies the achievements of modern science can be called `мракобес`, but this is, once again, somewhat wider. For example, those who deny evolution, is, most probably `мракобес`, but  in some cases `мракобес` (as well as `обскурант`, or `ретроград`) is about a fanatic person who hates any kind of scientific progress at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's worth mentioning that among mathematicians there existed a special term for monomaniac provers of Fermat's Last Theorem: `ферматист` (check out [this article][3]). I've tried to recall something similar about relativist deniers, but, again, have some doubts that there exists something more universal than just `антирелятивист`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elementy.ru/lib/430720&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5060" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1671" RevisionGUID="70929446-bbff-4146-88f0-b7d271dded69" CreationDate="2013-01-06T22:33:50.900" Comment="Proposed by 62 approved by 185 edit id of 284" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5061" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1669" RevisionGUID="5e44f4c3-f1ea-4597-819a-2772743e26a9" CreationDate="2013-01-06T22:55:22.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/288056189756006400" />
  <row Id="5062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1672" RevisionGUID="853de7ba-9677-4042-824d-7089e19e8177" CreationDate="2013-01-06T23:46:31.560" UserId="1329" Text="Let me start with the first part of your question (about terms с/по).The fact is that actually we mostly use the preposition pair с/до when talking about daytime intervals, whereas with  months and dates we use the pair с/по. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **с утра дó ночи**  ( from morn to night );&#xD;&#xA; - **с часу до двух** (from 1 p.m till 2 pm);&#xD;&#xA; - **с вечера до полудня** (from evening till noon);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **с сентября по декабрь** (from September till December);&#xD;&#xA; - **с 15 по 21 марта** (from the 15 to the 21 of March);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation is general, for more precise rule and nuances you can check this link: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/prepositions-to-denote-time-frames-s--po---s--do---ot--dor/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second pair с/на  - от/до, the usage depends on whether you mean distance or direction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Расстояние от Земли до Луны примерно 384401 км.**  - The distance between the Earth and the Moon is approximately 384401 km.&#xD;&#xA; - **Первый пилотируемый полет с Земли** *(куда?)* **на Луну состоялся в 1969 году.** - The first piloted flight from the Earth to the Moon was in 1969.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is,however, one more issue. There is an extra rule for usage of pairs с/на and из/в that are equivalent, but  used with different categories of nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• **towns, districts, republics, countries, states - we use the pair &quot;в-из&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;в Петербург - из Петербурга, в Щелковский район - из Щелковского района, в Тульскую область - из Тульской области, в Данию - из Дании etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Exception** : на Украину. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• **mountains, mountain areas,planets/stars/satellites,islands, peninsula - we use the pair &quot;c/на&quot;**: с Урала - на Урал, с Алтая - на Алтай,с Кавказа-  на Кавказ,с Венеры - на Венеру, с Луны - на Луну, с Сахалина - на Сахалин, с Ямала - на Ямал. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct way to translate **a trip from New York to Los Angeles** is therefore &quot;путешествие **из** Нью-Йорка **в** Лос-Анджелес&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="c25ee410-c086-47b0-9e67-1cb923d3c231" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:01:19.020" UserId="1262" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***PS This answer was downvoted by two f.....g idiots.***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="9384239a-99b8-4b8d-ab27-824bbaae64d3" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:06:38.370" UserId="242" Comment="removed trolling" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="45b41ee8-17bd-40de-97ba-ee702b029e04" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:08:27.193" UserId="1262" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***This answer was downvoted by a f.....g idiot.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="f10c236a-e63d-4140-90c9-b5faa05cbee9" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:20:09.583" UserId="242" Comment="trolling off" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="867d2ad3-7a65-4721-8ba5-db53f91eaba8" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:59:00.120" UserId="1332" Comment="Joining the two &quot;Television&quot; answers" Text="## Television &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LiveTV][1], online streaming of sporting events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [1tv.ru][2] News in Russian, the lectors speak very good Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://livetv.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://1tv.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="a9ce3836-f3d2-425e-9eeb-af5c90d9f2b1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T20:47:55.903" UserId="1332" Comment="Editing a typo" Text="What does &quot;терпячка&quot; mean? I know that it's connected to suffering and bearing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I need exact meaning, the possibility to say what can be called this word and what can not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5077" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="a9ce3836-f3d2-425e-9eeb-af5c90d9f2b1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T20:47:55.903" Comment="Proposed by 1332 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 285" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="028d656a-8221-494b-9e04-6d40c4f8e208" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:27:04.267" UserId="1262" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Now let's take a look at a broader scope. First, at two ancient IE languages, Sanskrit and Tocharian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings would be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Tocharian (B-dialect, which is the most ancient one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ya**ma**skau = I make/do&#xD;&#xA;ya**m** = I go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nasa**m** = I a**m** (A-dialect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Sanskrit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लट्लकार (present tense): भवामि [bhavaa**mi**] = I am [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;लङ्लकार (past tense):    अभवम् [abhava**m**] = I was [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;लृट्लकार (future tense): भविष्यामि [bhaviShyaa**m**i] = I will/shall be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;विधैलिङ्लकार (optative): भवेयम् (bhaveya**m**) = I may be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hittite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;es**m**i = I am&#xD;&#xA;ep**m**i = I take&#xD;&#xA;ed**m**i = I eat&#xD;&#xA;istamas**m**i = I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common personal ending for (Proto-)Slavic and some (non) Indo-European 1st. p. sg. present. For example, in Polish the 1st. p. sg. for present tense is a regular paradigm for a certain type of verbs (alongside with the -ę 1st person sg. for verbs of another type), e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;być (to be) =&gt; ja jeste**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;czytać (to read) =&gt; ja czyta**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wiedzieć (to know) =&gt; ja wie**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Bulgarian, which, like most of languages at Balkanian area has no verb infinitives, there is also a regular м-paradigm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз съ**м** (I a**m**)&#xD;&#xA;аз обича**м** (I like/love)&#xD;&#xA;аз иска**м** (I want)&#xD;&#xA;аз отваря**м** (I open [smth])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might also compare this to Ghaelig grammar, e.g. the Irish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; táim (or tá mé) = I am&#xD;&#xA;beannaí**m** = I bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or with personal prepositions at the same language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 	aga**m** = at **me**/I have&#xD;&#xA; 	do**m** = to/for **me**&#xD;&#xA;        fú**m** = concerning **me**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lithuanian, on the other hand, provides, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively the vowel 1st. p.sg. present ending paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the ancient languages provide three different paradigms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;m-paradigm, present at most of the IE-languages (either synthetically or as a result of later agglutination process, see the Irish example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vowel-paradigm (sometimes combined with alternative glottoral consonants) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n-paradigm (which is regular for modern Finish and Estonian. e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;olen = I am&#xD;&#xA;haluan = I want&#xD;&#xA;tarvitsen = I need&#xD;&#xA;jatkan = I continue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with ni for 1st p.sg. in Basque, Mongolian and Finnish (personal form of nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="99a78cab-f101-491a-9062-edb7030d642b" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:29:22.057" UserId="1262" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="strong text**The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This answer was downvoted by f......g idiots and mobbers.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="cbd4d150-4036-4006-8f63-15e9e519807e" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:36:15.727" UserId="487" Text="I have not yet understood the difference (if any) of the terms _российский_ and _русский_. I'd like to know whether one is a special case of the other and if the use of the former is old-fashioned. (Dicctionaries only say that _российский_ means _Russian_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="cbd4d150-4036-4006-8f63-15e9e519807e" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:36:15.727" UserId="487" Text="The use of российский" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="cbd4d150-4036-4006-8f63-15e9e519807e" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:36:15.727" UserId="487" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="0d26b9d2-8e75-422b-ac9a-ed7da572abf4" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:37:40.090" UserId="1262" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Leaving the so-called 'typology' of Olga out of the scope of our discussion, let's give her credit for this word, which is a new coinage, a cross-breed of терпение 'patience' and болячка 'sore place, meaning 'to hide one's [chronical] pain'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is used primary in her 'projects' describing 'Untermaensch' of various typers. Well, those 'types' she thinks to be of 'Uentermensch'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This comment was downvoted by a mobbing swine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="a036774c-88e0-4791-a909-e99c9142c27b" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:43:02.217" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Now let's take a look at a broader scope. First, at two ancient IE languages, Sanskrit and Tocharian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings would be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Tocharian (B-dialect, which is the most ancient one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ya**ma**skau = I make/do&#xD;&#xA;ya**m** = I go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nasa**m** = I a**m** (A-dialect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Sanskrit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लट्लकार (present tense): भवामि [bhavaa**mi**] = I am [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;लङ्लकार (past tense):    अभवम् [abhava**m**] = I was [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;लृट्लकार (future tense): भविष्यामि [bhaviShyaa**m**i] = I will/shall be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;विधैलिङ्लकार (optative): भवेयम् (bhaveya**m**) = I may be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hittite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;es**m**i = I am&#xD;&#xA;ep**m**i = I take&#xD;&#xA;ed**m**i = I eat&#xD;&#xA;istamas**m**i = I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common personal ending for (Proto-)Slavic and some (non) Indo-European 1st. p. sg. present. For example, in Polish the 1st. p. sg. for present tense is a regular paradigm for a certain type of verbs (alongside with the -ę 1st person sg. for verbs of another type), e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;być (to be) =&gt; ja jeste**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;czytać (to read) =&gt; ja czyta**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wiedzieć (to know) =&gt; ja wie**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Bulgarian, which, like most of languages at Balkanian area has no verb infinitives, there is also a regular м-paradigm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз съ**м** (I a**m**)&#xD;&#xA;аз обича**м** (I like/love)&#xD;&#xA;аз иска**м** (I want)&#xD;&#xA;аз отваря**м** (I open [smth])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might also compare this to Ghaelig grammar, e.g. the Irish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; táim (or tá mé) = I am&#xD;&#xA;beannaí**m** = I bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or with personal prepositions at the same language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 	aga**m** = at **me**/I have&#xD;&#xA; 	do**m** = to/for **me**&#xD;&#xA;        fú**m** = concerning **me**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lithuanian, on the other hand, provides, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively the vowel 1st. p.sg. present ending paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the ancient languages provide three different paradigms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;m-paradigm, present at most of the IE-languages (either synthetically or as a result of later agglutination process, see the Irish example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vowel-paradigm (sometimes combined with alternative glottoral consonants) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n-paradigm (which is regular for modern Finish and Estonian. e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;olen = I am&#xD;&#xA;haluan = I want&#xD;&#xA;tarvitsen = I need&#xD;&#xA;jatkan = I continue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with ni for 1st p.sg. in Basque, Mongolian and Finnish (personal form of nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5087" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="0e2318ba-09cd-4ea9-a949-12f02b40c8f7" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:45:08.960" UserId="1262" Comment="Rollback to [9384239a-99b8-4b8d-ab27-824bbaae64d3]" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="51ffac24-0935-4bce-bc17-e0fe7f32399c" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:46:17.690" UserId="1262" Comment="protected myself from shubanc's trolling he was removing to my answer" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The answer was downvoted by a f.....g trolling idiot .**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1679" RevisionGUID="9180cd59-c7a7-4605-b424-f93463e46017" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:48:47.193" UserId="97" Text="To put it simply, _русский_ refers to something ethnically Russian, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский язык&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian language&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский человек&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian person&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский менталитет&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian mentality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _российский_ describes something belonging to Russia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Российский флаг&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian flag&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Российское правительство&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian government&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="29de5677-df13-43b9-8d0c-41e523279e27" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:56:05.227" UserId="1262" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Leaving the so-called 'typology' of Olga out of the scope of our discussion, let's give her credit for this word, which is a new coinage, a cross-breed of терпение 'patience' and болячка 'sore place, meaning 'to hide one's [chronical] pain'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is used primary in her 'projects' describing 'Untermaensch' of various typers. Well, those 'types' she thinks to be of 'Uentermensch'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS **This comment was downvoted by a mobbing trolling swine.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1679" RevisionGUID="8748ff87-a0c6-4d91-91c7-c9687247d320" CreationDate="2013-01-07T22:03:52.443" UserId="97" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="To put it simply, _русский_ refers to something ethnically Russian, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский язык&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian language&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский человек&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian person&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский менталитет&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian mentality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _российский_ describes something belonging to Russia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Российский флаг&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian flag&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Российское правительство&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian government&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, _русский_ = _Russian_ while _российский_ = _Russia's_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in some cases you can use either word, precisely when you can use either of the two English words above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="147abb0d-ae2c-4187-b923-94a1c12aa9f2" CreationDate="2013-01-07T22:33:20.367" UserId="487" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I have not yet understood the difference (if any) of the terms _российский_ and _русский_. I'd like to know whether one is a special case of the other and if the use of the former is old-fashioned. (Dicctionaries only say that _российский_ means _Russian_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1680" RevisionGUID="965b1be5-6515-47f0-921a-eb53e3334eb7" CreationDate="2013-01-08T01:46:39.117" UserId="1329" Text="Let's begin with **российский**. It describes anything related to government/politics/geography/bureaucracy. Let me give some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - российский паспорт/флаг&#xD;&#xA; - российское гражданство/правительство&#xD;&#xA; - российские границы&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, with geography, it is better to use the word Russia in Genitiv: **горы России**, **поля России** , **озера России** etc. Also it is more common to say **история России** (history of Russia) than Российская история(Russian history).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русский** is used in all the other cases. Just to mention something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - national/ethnic/traditional characteristics (русский народ, русский язык, русская кухня, русские народные сказки);&#xD;&#xA; - cultural aspects (русская литература/словесность, русский балет/театр, русская художественная школа);&#xD;&#xA; - linguistics (русская грамматика, русский язык );&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, how did it happen that there are two adjectives? The fact is that historically our country was called Русь, the root **-рос-** and, as a consequence, the word Россия, appeared in the middle of the 15th century under Byzantine impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a conlusion I'll quote a nice analogy from this forum:&#xD;&#xA;http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1525097 : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; русский can be compared to English, российский — to British." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="f0b621af-f6f7-4364-9d7f-dea3c4229149" CreationDate="2013-01-08T02:15:57.420" UserId="487" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I have not yet understood the difference (if any) between the terms _российский_ and _русский_. I'd like to know whether one is a special case of the other and if the use of the former is old-fashioned. (Dicctionaries only say that _российский_ means _Russian_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1681" RevisionGUID="534f0abe-df2b-481d-9016-93b5519a2395" CreationDate="2013-01-08T03:20:40.207" UserId="194" Text="Российский refers the the country of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Русский refers to the Russian ethnicity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These things are completely separate and only by incidence have the same spelling in English. &#xD;&#xA;Russian ethnicity is different from Russian citizenship. There are more than a hundred of peoples living in Russia, and the ethnic Russians constitute only about 80% of the population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="86a03942-f41a-4499-b7b6-995c1c859fad" CreationDate="2013-01-08T03:38:41.743" UserId="1262" Comment="more examples" Text="Now let's take a look at a broader scope. First, at two ancient IE languages, Sanskrit and Tocharian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings would be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Tocharian (B-dialect, which is the most ancient one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ya**ma**skau = I make/do&#xD;&#xA;ya*m* = I go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nasa**m** = I a**m** (A-dialect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Sanskrit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लट्लकार (present tense): भवामि [bhavaa**mi**] = I am [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लङ्लकार (past tense):    अभवम् [abhava**m**] = I was [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लृट्लकार (future tense): भविष्यामि [bhaviShyaa**m**i] = I will/shall be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;विधैलिङ्लकार (optative): भवेयम् (bhaveya**m**) = I may be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hittite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;es**m**i = I am&#xD;&#xA;ep**m**i = I take&#xD;&#xA;ed**m**i = I eat&#xD;&#xA;istamas**m**i = I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common personal ending for (Proto-)Slavic and some (non) Indo-European 1st. p. sg. present. For example, in Polish the 1st. p. sg. for present tense is a regular paradigm for a certain type of verbs (alongside with the -ę 1st person sg. for verbs of another type), e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;być (to be) =&gt; ja jeste**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;czytać (to read) =&gt; ja czyta**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wiedzieć (to know) =&gt; ja wie**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Bulgarian, which, like most of languages at Balkanian area has no verb infinitives, there is also a regular м-paradigm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз съ**м** (I a**m**)&#xD;&#xA;аз обича**м** (I like/love)&#xD;&#xA;аз иска**м** (I want)&#xD;&#xA;аз отваря**м** (I open [smth])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might also compare this to Ghaelig grammar, e.g. the Irish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;táim (or tá mé) = I am&#xD;&#xA;beannaí**m** = I bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or with personal prepositions at the same language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 	aga**m** = at **me**/I have&#xD;&#xA; 	do**m** = to/for **me**&#xD;&#xA;        fú**m** = concerning **me**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lithuanian, on the other hand, provides, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively the vowel 1st. p.sg. present ending paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the ancient languages provide three different paradigms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;m-paradigm, present in most of the IE-languages (either synthetically or as a result of later agglutination process, see the Irish example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vowel-paradigm (sometimes combined with alternative glottoral consonants) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n-paradigm (which is regular for modern Finish and Estonian. e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;olen = I am (same in Estonian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;haluan = I want (Estonian: tahan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tarvitsen = I need (the Estonian structure is different, so here is another example: ma sõidan = I travel, I ride)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;jatkan = I continue (Estonian jätkan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with ni for 1st p.sg. in Basque, Mongolian and Finnish (personal form of nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1682" RevisionGUID="c1b24d61-e63f-4a0f-945f-a5ce93a684a1" CreationDate="2013-01-08T03:46:34.823" UserId="1262" Text="You might also say дилетант to emphasise on someone's lack of scientific knowledge and non-professioalism, although I would prefer more harsh words from another semantic field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1683" RevisionGUID="4f957645-3a80-4700-b960-dbeda91a8f48" CreationDate="2013-01-08T03:59:40.267" UserId="194" Text="Quite often a word *[фрик][1]* (borrowed from English *freak*) is used in this context. In Russian it has the meaning of crank in scientific context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use the word &quot;опровергатель&quot; (&quot;refuter&quot;) which can convey negative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lurkmore.to/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1684" RevisionGUID="c4a9ca07-d989-456f-9725-6fd8b7ecc74c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T04:16:41.930" UserId="1262" Text="Interesting enough, in Russian you use sg. gen. when counting up to four items, and pl.gen. when counting from five and more items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два (четыре/три) цветка / пять цветков &#xD;&#xA;две (четыре/три) женщины/пять женщин&#xD;&#xA;два (три/четыре) яблока / пять яблок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature is most likely borrowed from Finno-Ugric languages (cf. with Finnish or some Sami languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also 'a human animate plural' meaning a certain number of persons, like in Irish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) друзей&#xD;&#xA;пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) женщин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is impossible to say in Russian&#xD;&#xA;* пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a  set of 'human animate quantative adverbials' describing a quantity of persons doing an action together. This paradigm is productive for up to ten persons, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдвоем&#xD;&#xA;втроем&#xD;&#xA;вчетвером&#xD;&#xA;впятером&#xD;&#xA;вшестером&#xD;&#xA;всемером&#xD;&#xA;*ввосьмером (something is strange about this word)&#xD;&#xA;вдевятером&#xD;&#xA;вдесятером&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="d71bdd17-75ff-4894-85cf-2a5cda3a4e01" CreationDate="2013-01-08T04:29:09.520" UserId="1262" Text="There is no such a word as universally polite form of address to an unknown person in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that such words are used to emphasise a polite distance, a concept being nearly extinct after the Soviet times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="c43573e7-80f3-40c4-a4f3-0a35ec7924d3" CreationDate="2013-01-08T05:06:28.243" UserId="1262" Text="To scratch the back of one's head is really iterpreted in traditional Russian discourse as a sign of misunderstanding / not understanding something, or that of a long and fruitless thinking over smth. There are also idiomatic expressions *чесать в затылке/затылок* and therefore the expression of &quot;задний ум&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/267751/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression has slightly negative overtones, although there is another dictionary giving it as an only correlate in Russian together with some more examples (in old orthography)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_old/8109/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лестничное остроумие is calquered French l'esprit d'escalier with the same meaning of 'starecase wit'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the strategies are either to use English calque быть умным после события, or to use a neutral saying &#xD;&#xA;осознать/обдумать событие пост-фактум&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or to use minimal syntax with prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;додумать (to rethink, to think more later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;переосмыслить (to rethink)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="1ac92bbd-3d0e-4e6a-88ea-5ec3d90bd6b4" CreationDate="2013-01-08T05:08:18.747" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Now let's take a look at a broader scope. First, at two ancient IE languages, Sanskrit and Tocharian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings would be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Tocharian (B-dialect, which is the most ancient one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ya**ma**skau = I make/do&#xD;&#xA;ya*m* = I go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nasa**m** = I a**m** (A-dialect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Sanskrit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लट्लकार (present tense): भवामि [bhavaa**mi**] = I am [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लङ्लकार (past tense):    अभवम् [abhava**m**] = I was [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लृट्लकार (future tense): भविष्यामि [bhaviShyaa**m**i] = I will/shall be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;विधैलिङ्लकार (optative): भवेयम् (bhaveya**m**) = I may be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hittite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;es**m**i = I am&#xD;&#xA;ep**m**i = I take&#xD;&#xA;ed**m**i = I eat&#xD;&#xA;istamas**m**i = I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common personal ending for (Proto-)Slavic and some (non) Indo-European 1st. p. sg. present. For example, in Polish the 1st. p. sg. for present tense is a regular paradigm for a certain type of verbs (alongside with the -ę 1st person sg. for verbs of another type), e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;być (to be) =&gt; ja jeste**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;czytać (to read) =&gt; ja czyta**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wiedzieć (to know) =&gt; ja wie**m**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Bulgarian, which, like most of languages at Balkanian area has no verb infinitives, there is also a regular м-paradigm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз съ**м** (I a**m**)&#xD;&#xA;аз обича**м** (I like/love)&#xD;&#xA;аз иска**м** (I want)&#xD;&#xA;аз отваря**м** (I open [smth])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might also compare this to Ghaelig grammar, e.g. the Irish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;táim (or tá mé) = I am&#xD;&#xA;beannaí**m** = I bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or with personal prepositions at the same language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 	aga**m** = at **me**/I have&#xD;&#xA; 	do**m** = to/for **me**&#xD;&#xA;        fú**m** = concerning **me**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lithuanian, on the other hand, provides, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively the vowel 1st. p.sg. present ending paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the ancient languages provide three different paradigms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;m-paradigm, present in most of the IE-languages (either synthetically or as a result of later agglutination process, see the Irish example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vowel-paradigm (sometimes combined with alternative glottoral consonants) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n-paradigm (which is regular for modern Finnish and Estonian. e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;olen = I am (same in Estonian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;haluan = I want (Estonian: tahan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tarvitsen = I need (the Estonian structure is different, so here is another example: ma sõidan = I travel, I ride)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;jatkan = I continue (Estonian jätkan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with ni for 1st p.sg. in Basque, Mongolian and Finnish (personal form of nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1684" RevisionGUID="fb8c766f-4b7a-4c9c-98c0-e6888a4eedce" CreationDate="2013-01-08T05:11:15.427" UserId="1262" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Interesting enough, in Russian you use sg. gen. when counting up to four items, and pl.gen. when counting from five and more items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два (четыре/три) цветка / пять цветков &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;две (четыре/три) женщины/пять женщин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два (три/четыре) яблока / пять яблок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature is most likely borrowed from Finno-Ugric languages (cf. with Finnish or some Sami languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also 'a human animate plural' meaning a certain number of persons, like in Irish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) друзей&#xD;&#xA;пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) женщин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is impossible to say in Russian&#xD;&#xA;* пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a  set of 'human animate quantative adverbials' describing a quantity of persons doing an action together. This paradigm is productive for up to ten persons, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдвоем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;втроем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вчетвером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;впятером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вшестером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;всемером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ввосьмером (something is strange about this word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдевятером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдесятером&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1687" RevisionGUID="4fb82646-e7ca-469e-8278-51019837ca26" CreationDate="2013-01-08T08:28:37.973" UserId="1262" Text="There are two differences: a) time reference point and b) productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a time reference point, вчера, позавчера (the day before tomorrow) and even such grammatical, although not too frequently, if ever, used words as поза-позавчера, поза-поза-позавчера и т.д. correlate with сегодня/today as reference point only. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сегодня мне весело, вчера было скучно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вчера было воскресенье. сегодня понедельник, завтра будет вторник.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера их не было дома, завтра они приедут* (with unspoken implication on speaker asking about today).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*день назад* correlates with any time-reference point, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера мне было весело, день назад было скучно, три дня назад меня вообще там не было.* ( три дня назад = three days ago (from now on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера мне весело, день (тому) назад было скучно.* (here тому is a distant demonstrative similar to some of Finno-Ugric, e.g. Finnish *tuo*, Komi *тайö*). Russian speakers normally use *тому* to emphasise that the reference point is/was/choose any matching English tense/ at distant past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера мне было весело, день назад было скучно, три дня тому назад меня вообще там не было.* Here *три дня тому назад* may refer to any context-defined time reference point standing by default for день назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main diffrence is about productivity. *День назад* is more productive and may refer to any number of days, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два дня назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;четыре дня назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;десять дней назад, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hазад may be used togther with some other time measuring units as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1684" RevisionGUID="9560b1f5-8427-40a2-b9a4-346423bac83d" CreationDate="2013-01-08T08:32:17.010" UserId="1262" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Interesting enough, in Russian you use sg. gen. when counting up to four items, and pl.gen. when counting from five and more items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два (четыре/три) цветка / пять цветков &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;две (четыре/три) женщины/пять женщин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два (три/четыре) яблока / пять яблок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature is most likely borrowed from Finno-Ugric languages (cf. with Finnish or some Sami languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also 'a human animate plural' meaning a certain number of persons, like in Irish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) друзей&#xD;&#xA;пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) женщин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is impossible to say in Russian&#xD;&#xA;* пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a  set of 'human animate quantative adverbials' describing a quantity of persons acting  together. This paradigm is productive for up to ten persons, although the list may be extended with tens, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдвоем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;втроем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вчетвером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;впятером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вшестером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;всемером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?ввосьмером (something is strange about this word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдевятером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вдесятером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?вдвадцатером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?втридцатером&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1682" RevisionGUID="47dc6db7-2d09-4fbb-8937-3e5a99438757" CreationDate="2013-01-08T08:46:42.293" UserId="242" Comment="merging two answers" Text="You might also say дилетант to emphasise on someone's lack of scientific knowledge and non-professioalism, although I would prefer more harsh words from another semantic field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about specific pseudo-sciences/quasi-theories, Russian speakers also use productive models derived from personal names of 'founders' referring to their followers, e.g. лысенковцы, фоменковцы, княжениты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1682" RevisionGUID="f28a4c8e-6ca1-4359-9777-8f9e921d0ec0" CreationDate="2013-01-08T08:52:11.790" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="You might also say дилетант to emphasise on someone's lack of scientific knowledge and non-professionalism, although I would prefer harsher words from another semantic field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about specific pseudo-sciences/quasi-theories, Russian speakers also use productive models derived from personal names of 'founders' referring to their followers, e.g. лысенковцы, фоменковцы, княжениты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1670" RevisionGUID="81242a75-7ffd-47af-808b-b1ea1dd1e760" CreationDate="2013-01-08T10:55:22.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/288599774788218880" />
  <row Id="5110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="3d4b1c31-aab7-4294-88c8-a34efa01ee5c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T11:33:20.553" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 66 characters in body" Text="Leaving the so-called 'typology' of Olga out of the scope of our discussion, let's give her credit for this word, which is a new coinage, a cross-breed of терпение 'patience' and болячка 'sore place, meaning 'to hide one's [chronical] pain'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is used primary in her 'projects' describing 'Untermaensch' of various typers. Well, those 'types' she thinks to be of 'Uentermensch'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1687" RevisionGUID="c9f0e114-70d4-4ba4-b045-7335aa8aaf0e" CreationDate="2013-01-08T12:37:59.740" UserId="1262" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="There are two differences: a) time reference point and b) productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a time reference point, вчера, позавчера (the day before tomorrow) and even such grammatical, although not too frequently, if ever, used words as поза-позавчера, поза-поза-позавчера и т.д. correlate with сегодня/today as reference point only. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сегодня мне весело, вчера было скучно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вчера было воскресенье. сегодня понедельник, завтра будет вторник.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера их не было дома, завтра они приедут* (with unspoken implication on speaker asking about today).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*день назад* correlates with any time-reference point, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера мне было весело, день назад было скучно, три дня назад меня вообще там не было.* ( три дня назад = three days ago (from now on, or with a specific reference to any presupposed time point)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера мне весело, день (тому) назад было скучно.* (here тому is a distant demonstrative similar to some of Finno-Ugric, e.g. Finnish *tuo*, Komi *тайö*). Russian speakers normally use *тому* to emphasise that the reference point is/was/choose any matching English tense/ at distant past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Позавчера мне было весело, день назад было скучно, три дня тому назад меня вообще там не было.* Here *три дня тому назад* may refer to any context-defined time reference point standing by default for день назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main diffrence is about productivity. *День назад* is more productive and may refer to any number of days, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;два дня назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;четыре дня назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;десять дней назад, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hазад may be used togther with some other time measuring units as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1682" RevisionGUID="d981b9bc-5973-4621-b252-c25216912e69" CreationDate="2013-01-08T14:24:07.660" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 213 characters in body" Text="You might also say дилетант to emphasise on someone's lack of scientific knowledge and non-professionalism, although I would prefer harsher words from another semantic field.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1689" RevisionGUID="5ca55f8b-f97e-4270-a9af-1886ddc6493d" CreationDate="2013-01-08T14:26:23.493" UserId="1262" Text="*This is a separate part which I would not like to be confused with my previous answer. This ones deals exclusively with quantitative groups description strategies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about specific pseudo-sciences/quasi-theories, Russian speakers also use productive models derived from personal names of 'founders' referring to their followers, e.g. *лысенковцы*, *фоменковцы*, *княжениты*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="31a45151-3a2d-4d50-b83d-aa3e8a138adb" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:02:41.913" UserId="1262" Text="В современнном русском знак ударения поджидает примерно такая же судьба, что и букву ё. Тем не менее хотелось бы уточнить: предусмотрен ли это знак в  русской раскладке клавиатуры? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если да, то каким магическим сочетанием клавиш оный знак вызывается?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О чем, на ваш взгляд, свидетельствует выход знака ударения из употребления?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="31a45151-3a2d-4d50-b83d-aa3e8a138adb" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:02:41.913" UserId="1262" Text="Знак ударения (в раскладке и не только)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="31a45151-3a2d-4d50-b83d-aa3e8a138adb" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:02:41.913" UserId="1262" Text="|словоупотребление|пунктуация|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1689" RevisionGUID="8fb9cf06-8210-495e-ba6b-6e7e01112640" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:04:02.083" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="*This is a separate part which I would not like to be confused with my previous answer. This ones deals exclusively with quantitative groups description strategies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When referring to specific pseudo-sciences/quasi-theories, Russian speakers also use productive models derived from personal names of 'founders' referring to their followers, e.g. *лысенковцы*, *фоменковцы*, *княжениты*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1686" RevisionGUID="3b97ee64-6a78-4370-8de1-3d169eea3260" CreationDate="2013-01-08T18:14:04.597" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="To scratch the back of one's head is really iterpreted in traditional Russian discourse as a sign of misunderstanding / not understanding something, or that of a long and fruitless thinking over smth. There are also idiomatic expressions *чесать в затылке/затылок* and therefore the expression of &quot;задний ум&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/267751/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression has slightly negative overtones, although there is another dictionary giving it as an only correlate in Russian together with some more examples (in old orthography)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_old/8109/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лестничное остроумие is calqued French *l'esprit d'escalier* with the same meaning of 'starecase wit'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the strategies are either to use English calque быть умным после события, or to use a neutral saying &#xD;&#xA;осознать/обдумать событие пост-фактум&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or to use minimal syntax with prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;додумать (to rethink, to have afterthouhts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;переосмыслить (to rethink)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1691" RevisionGUID="0d16f061-e174-42b2-9863-c67b5c319a86" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:20:10.083" UserId="1262" Text="Both 'yes' and 'no'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Yes', because the mixture of Russian Empire *канцелярит* with calques from French and, especially, German has prevailed throughout the Soviet times, entering the legal and official language(s) of, for example, Estonia. Its modern variety has a great number of legal sovietisms these days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any dialect or slang, or pronunciation variety (with a single exception of Moscow pronunciation, perhaps) is considered to be 'unappropriate' at any official communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The division into three Lomonosov's 'styles', or registers, is also recognisable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'No', because any 'official language' with a legal body governing its standards requires social appreciation of 'soft skills &amp; power' like arts &amp; humanities, which Russian society is deprived off. Actually, the Russia itsels lacks any decent social institutions per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that Russian with its syntaxic flexibility adopts cognitive pattersns of other languages at perfect ease, so if someone reads a translated text its sourse language can be deduced to quite a high accuracy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can always be told in Russian whether a source text had been written in Chinese, Arabic, English or French, even without realia and/or any personal names mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1689" RevisionGUID="3ca9b64d-d8d6-4d17-b8e8-4716e9d5af07" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:21:24.467" UserId="1262" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="*This is a separate part and a separate answer which I would not like to be confused with the  previous one. This ones deals exclusively with quantitative groups description strategies.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When referring to specific pseudo-sciences/quasi-theories, Russian speakers also use productive models derived from personal names of 'founders' referring to their followers, e.g. *лысенковцы*, *фоменковцы*, *княжениты*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1692" RevisionGUID="d093860b-b08c-457b-bce1-1c62ce824a82" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:35:19.667" UserId="1236" Text="Самый простой способ - скачать и установить [раскладку Бирмана][1], в ней есть не только ударения, но и много других служебных символов. Вот [рецензия][2] на неё. Если нет желания её качать и ставить, можно последовать советам из [другой статьи][3], но это хлопотнее, и не во всех программах работает (комментарии там тоже почитайте). Стандартная комбинация Alt+769 (цифры набираются на цифровой клавиатуре справа) работает не везде, в Opera и MS Word работает, а, например, в Chrome - нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ilyabirman.ru/projects/typography-layout/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slovomania.ru/dnevnik/2009/01/05/typolayout-2/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.slovomania.ru/dnevnik/2007/08/11/how-to-use-stress-sign/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1693" RevisionGUID="0188fbd2-1212-4091-9444-3da592bf5f6c" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:39:54.577" UserId="97" Text="Я бы хотел знать, откуда взялось мнение, что ударение выходит из употребления.  Этот знак очень даже используется.  Этот знак можно ввести на русской клавиатуре, несмотря на то, что он не показан ни на одной из клавиш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На маке для того, чтобы вводить этот знак, нужно пойти в System Preferences -&gt; Language and Text -&gt; Input Sources и поставить птичку на _Unicode Hex Input_ - это делается один раз.  Далее, когда нужно поставить этот знак, ставите курсор после ударной гласной, переключаетесь на этот unicode hex input и, держа нажатой кнопку _alt_, нажимаете `0301` - и бу́дет вам сча́стье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На виндах нужно, держа нажатой клавишу Alt, нажать &quot;+&quot; на цифровой клавиатуре, после чего нажать `0301` - и, опять же, бу́дет вам сча́стье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, согласен, что это не самое веселое развлечение - но оно работает :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1693" RevisionGUID="504fed93-3ee5-4108-9ffd-919b487c1904" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:53:56.330" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Я бы хотел знать, откуда взялось мнение, что ударение выходит из употребления.  Этот знак очень даже используется.  Этот знак можно ввести на русской клавиатуре, несмотря на то, что он не показан ни на одной из клавиш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На маке для того, чтобы вводить этот знак, нужно пойти в System Preferences -&gt; Language and Text -&gt; Input Sources и поставить птичку на _Unicode Hex Input_ - это делается один раз.  Далее, когда нужно поставить этот знак, ставите курсор после ударной гласной, переключаетесь на этот unicode hex input и, держа нажатой кнопку _alt_, нажимаете `0301` - и бу́дет вам сча́стье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На виндах нужно, держа нажатой клавишу Alt, нажать &quot;+&quot; на цифровой клавиатуре, после чего нажать `0301` - и, опя́ть же, бу́дет вам сча́стье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, согласен, что это не самое весёлое развлечение - но оно работает :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="4f53b276-63f1-4595-825b-1fb2d7e4ee26" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:04:36.093" UserId="1336" Text="You can use this:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Немогли бы вы мне подсказать как пройти на улицу xxx  .&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Простите,Где как пройти на улице xxx. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В руссоком языке,мы редко употребляем Мисс,мистрер.(можно сказать не употребляем)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5126" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="93074093-3e86-449b-ae78-3bac517a1184" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:28:24.670" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5127" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="4e5ff6ac-9f0f-42fd-a23a-3c41266af033" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:28:24.670" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5128" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="c849d811-5d90-46c9-bf4e-8ed44699e7b5" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:30:02.610" UserId="185" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="0bb505fb-613a-4460-be68-9fb7feb6196e" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:33:59.397" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 98 characters in body" Text="Now let's take a look at a broader scope. First, at two ancient IE languages, Sanskrit and Tocharian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings would be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Tocharian (B-dialect, which is the most ancient one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yamaskau = I make/do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yam = I go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nasam = I am (A-dialect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for Sanskrit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लट्लकार (present tense): भवामि [bhavaami] = I am [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लङ्लकार (past tense):    अभवम् [abhavam] = I was [for someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;लृट्लकार (future tense): भविष्यामि [bhaviShyaami] = I will/shall be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;विधैलिङ्लकार (optative): भवेयम् (bhaveyam) = I may be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hittite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;esmi = I am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;epmi = I take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edmi = I eat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;istamasmi = I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common personal ending for (Proto-)Slavic and some (non) Indo-European 1st. p. sg. present. For example, in Polish the 1st. p. sg. for present tense is a regular paradigm for a certain type of verbs (alongside with the -ę 1st person sg. for verbs of another type), e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;być (to be) =&gt; ja jestem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;czytać (to read) =&gt; ja czytam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;wiedzieć (to know) =&gt; ja wiem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Bulgarian, which, like most of languages at Balkanian area has no verb infinitives, there is also a regular м-paradigm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз съм (I am)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз обичам (I like/love)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз искам (I want)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;аз отварям (I open [smth])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might also compare this to Ghaelig grammar, e.g. the Irish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;táim (or tá mé) = I am&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;beannaím = I bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or with personal prepositions at the same language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;agam = at me/I have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;dom = to/for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fúm = concerning me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lithuanian, on the other hand, provides, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively the vowel 1st. p.sg. present ending paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the ancient languages provide three different paradigms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;m-paradigm, present in most of the IE-languages (either synthetically or as a result of later agglutination process, see the Irish example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vowel-paradigm (sometimes combined with alternative glottoral consonants) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n-paradigm (which is regular for modern Finnish and Estonian. e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;olen = I am (same in Estonian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;haluan = I want (Estonian: tahan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tarvitsen = I need (the Estonian structure is different, so here is another example: ma sõidan = I travel, I ride)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;jatkan = I continue (Estonian jätkan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with ni for 1st p.sg. in Basque, Mongolian and Finnish (personal form of nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5130" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="7f6b88ea-4470-400c-a401-6ca103aea3a5" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:34:49.423" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1662" RevisionGUID="641c062e-3f0b-4752-a522-45967df0c671" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:39:00.940" UserId="8" Comment="Removed irrelevant references to some person somewhere on the Internet" Text="This word is a new coinage, a cross-breed of терпение ('patience') and болячка ('sore place'), meaning 'to hide one's [chronical] pain'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1680" RevisionGUID="2927d602-eb23-4e25-b2c5-584f21cd5001" CreationDate="2013-01-08T20:51:49.753" UserId="1329" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Let's begin with **российский**. It describes anything related to government/politics/geography/bureaucracy. Let me give some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - российский паспорт/флаг&#xD;&#xA; - российское гражданство/правительство&#xD;&#xA; - российские границы&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, with geography, it is better to use the word Russia in Genitiv: **горы России**, **поля России** , **озера России** etc. Also it is more common to say **история России** (history of Russia) than Российская история(Russian history).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русский** is used in all the other cases. Just to mention something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - national/ethnic/traditional characteristics (русский народ, русский язык, русская кухня, русские народные сказки);&#xD;&#xA; - cultural aspects (русская литература/словесность, русский балет/театр, русская художественная школа);&#xD;&#xA; - linguistics (русская грамматика, русский язык );&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, how did it happen that there are two adjectives? The fact is that historically our country was called Русь, the stem **-рос-** and, as a consequence, the word Россия, appeared in the middle of the 15th century under Byzantine impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_As a conlusion I'll quote a nice analogy from this forum:_&#xD;&#xA;http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1525097 : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*русский can be compared to English, российский — to British.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Mr. Alex G. correctly denoted, analogy above is not proper. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="a973951c-8aeb-452f-9f46-4fd87de5fbb7" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:03:38.927" UserId="71" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Now let's take a look at a broader scope. First, at two ancient IE languages, Sanskrit and Tocharian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings would be the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. for **Tocharian** (B-dialect, which is the most ancient one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; yamaskau = I make/do  &#xD;&#xA;  yam = I go  &#xD;&#xA;  nasam = I am (A-dialect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. for **Sanskrit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; लट्लकार (present tense): भवामि [bhavaami] = I am [for someone else's benefit]  &#xD;&#xA; लङ्लकार (past tense):    अभवम् [abhavam] = I was [for someone else's benefit]  &#xD;&#xA; लृट्लकार (future tense): भविष्यामि [bhaviShyaami] = I will/shall be [to someone else's benefit]  &#xD;&#xA; विधैलिङ्लकार (optative): भवेयम् (bhaveyam) = I may be [to someone else's benefit]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. for **Hittite**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; esmi = I am  &#xD;&#xA; epmi = I take  &#xD;&#xA; edmi = I eat  &#xD;&#xA; istamasmi = I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common personal ending for (Proto-)Slavic and some (non) Indo-European 1st. p. sg. present. For example, in Polish the 1st. p. sg. for present tense is a regular paradigm for a certain type of verbs (alongside with the -ę 1st person sg. for verbs of another type), e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; być (to be) =&gt; ja jestem  &#xD;&#xA; czytać (to read) =&gt; ja czytam  &#xD;&#xA; wiedzieć (to know) =&gt; ja wiem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Bulgarian, which, like most of languages at Balkanian area has no verb infinitives, there is also a regular м-paradigm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аз съм (I am)  &#xD;&#xA;аз обичам (I like/love)  &#xD;&#xA;аз искам (I want)  &#xD;&#xA;аз отварям (I open [smth])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We might also compare this to Ghaelig grammar, e.g. the Irish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; táim (or tá mé) = I am  &#xD;&#xA;beannaím = I bless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or with personal prepositions at the same language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agam = at me/I have  &#xD;&#xA;dom = to/for me  &#xD;&#xA;fúm = concerning me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lithuanian, on the other hand, provides, to the best of my knowledge, almost exclusively the vowel 1st. p.sg. present ending paradigm. In general, the ancient languages provide three different paradigms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. m-paradigm, present in most of the IE-languages (either synthetically or as a result of later agglutination process, see the Irish example)&#xD;&#xA; 2. vowel-paradigm (sometimes combined with alternative glottoral consonants) and&#xD;&#xA; 3. n-paradigm (which is regular for modern Finnish and Estonian. e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; olen = I am (same in Estonian)  &#xD;&#xA;haluan = I want (Estonian: tahan)  &#xD;&#xA;tarvitsen = I need (the Estonian structure is different, so here is another example: ma sõidan = I travel, I ride)  &#xD;&#xA;jatkan = I continue (Estonian jätkan)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with ni for 1st p.sg. in Basque, Mongolian and Finnish (personal form of nouns)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1680" RevisionGUID="449dc0d6-9f4d-49a8-8736-7c07cbb854b6" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:04:04.493" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 148 characters in body" Text="Let's begin with **российский**. It describes anything related to government/politics/geography/bureaucracy. Let me give some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - российский паспорт/флаг&#xD;&#xA; - российское гражданство/правительство&#xD;&#xA; - российские границы&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, with geography, it is better to use the word Russia in Genitiv: **горы России**, **поля России** , **озера России** etc. Also it is more common to say **история России** (history of Russia) than Российская история(Russian history).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русский** is used in all the other cases. Just to mention something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - national/ethnic/traditional characteristics (русский народ, русский язык, русская кухня, русские народные сказки);&#xD;&#xA; - cultural aspects (русская литература/словесность, русский балет/театр, русская художественная школа);&#xD;&#xA; - linguistics (русская грамматика, русский язык );&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, how did it happen that there are two adjectives? The fact is that historically our country was called Русь, the stem **-рос-** and, as a consequence, the word Россия, appeared in the middle of the 15th century under Byzantine impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_As a conlusion I'll quote a nice analogy from this forum:_&#xD;&#xA;http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1525097 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="1dc2ee72-e612-465c-9207-d43f696ab55b" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:08:01.387" UserId="185" Comment="formatting, spelling, punctuation" Text="You can use this:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не могли бы вы мне подсказать, как пройти на улицу xxx?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Простите, как пройти на улицу xxx? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы редко употребляем *мисс*, *мистер* (можно сказать, сщвсем не употребляем)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1682" RevisionGUID="1a67507a-bc9c-4be4-9b16-1d09a6316bdd" CreationDate="2013-01-08T21:11:27.247" UserId="185" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You might also say *дилетант* to emphasise on someone's lack of scientific knowledge and non-professionalism, although I would prefer harsher words from another semantic field.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5137" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="c5eef017-139b-477c-8980-02c8cb779ee1" CreationDate="2013-01-09T01:55:23.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/288826267137105921" />
  <row Id="5138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="12f91d2f-8786-40c2-9afc-4ed663805fa0" CreationDate="2013-01-09T06:51:16.580" UserId="441" Text="Интересно, было ли у русского народа понятие об этой величине или они просто обходились словами &quot;тепло&quot;, &quot;прохладно&quot; и т. д.? Ведь &quot;температура&quot; - заморское слово. Интересно, есть ли у него исконно русский если не синоним, то аналог?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="12f91d2f-8786-40c2-9afc-4ed663805fa0" CreationDate="2013-01-09T06:51:16.580" UserId="441" Text="А как раньше говорили о температуре за окном?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="12f91d2f-8786-40c2-9afc-4ed663805fa0" CreationDate="2013-01-09T06:51:16.580" UserId="441" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="ade3286c-e1b1-454f-833d-8d7624813bf6" CreationDate="2013-01-09T07:51:27.643" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5142" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="5c93f8d8-7072-40a2-9551-5f19ccc5a446" CreationDate="2013-01-09T11:49:37.440" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1696" RevisionGUID="4d342098-4e6d-41f0-80da-f434e66bbc70" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:08:29.473" UserId="69" Text="When we are talking about utility buildings near or around traditional Russian dwelling (be it _izba_ or _khata_), mayhaps the first that comes to mind is the **сени** (_seni_) — enclosed veranda separating entrance from the porch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I had learned another word describing similar structure in the North of European part of Russia (Arkhangelsk region _etc._) — **поветь** (_povet’_; variants: _повет_ (_povet_), _поветье_ (_povet’je_), _поветка_ (_povetka_) and others). It is an annexe in the back of the house that is used not only as tool, farm implement, firewood and provision storage, but would also contain livestock (say, a cow and few hens), and even the loo, so that in harshest of winters inhabitants of the house would not even have to leave it for days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious, and doing some research on the topic, I came up with several questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Etymology of the first word is fairly clear: “сень” (_sen’_) is archaic equivalent of modern “тень” (_ten’_ — shadow, shade), and in general sense as “cover, shelter”, according to Vasmer, and other dictionaries. But why specifically in plural form? Also, the form **сенцы** — is it purely diminutive, or does it correspond etymologically (_i.e._, would one use this form with regular, non-building-related _сени_ and other similar words)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Historically, _seni_ initially appeared in contemporary form (canopy over the porch → open veranda → enclosed/windowed veranda) or as a simple shed/tambour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Поветь_ is more complicated. Vasmer is not clear: &lt;blockquote&gt;По мнению Миклошича, от ве́ять (зерно). Иначе (из *ро-(v)ětь, родственного слав. jаtа) объясняет это слово Мошинский.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account that other dictionaries (Dal’, Efremova) give such meanings as “canopy, shed” or even simply “roof”, can there be any connection with the word “ветвь” (branch: such as “крыша, крытая ветками” — “roof thatched with branches”)? Are there any modern theories or research?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it fair to consider the two terms as essentially describing same structure in different dialects (at least, where _поветь_ does mean lean-to shed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What other regional terms are there for similar annexes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Why some other words, such as **клеть** (_klet’_), **чулан** (_chulan_) и **кладовая** (_kladovaja_), are more flexible in usage and can mean separate room, separate outbuilding or a lean-to, or even a partition within other outbuilding or an annexe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда мы говорим о служебных строениях возле или вокруг традиционного русского жилища (будь то изба или хата), возможно, первое, что приходит в голову, — **сени** (закрытая веранда, отделяющая вход от крыльца).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Недавно я узнал другое слово, описывающее подобную структуру на севере европейской части России (Архангельская область и др.), — **поветь** (варианты: _повет_, _поветье_, _поветка_ и др.). Это пристройка сзади дома, которая не только используется как хранилище инструмента, сельскохозяйственных орудий, дров и провианта, но и содержит домашний скот (скажем, корову и несколько куриц) и даже уборную, так, что даже в самые суровые зимы жильцы могли бы сидеть дома безвылазно целыми днями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заинтересовавшись и проведя некоторые исследования, у меня возникли следующие вопросы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Этимология первого слова достаточно ясна: «сень» — это архаический эквивалент современного «тень» и в общем смысле как «покров, укрытие» согласно Фасмеру и другим словарям. Но почему именно в форме множественного числа? Также, форма **сенцы** — это чисто уменьшительное, или оно этимологически связано (т. е., могла ли эта форма быть использована с «обычными», нестроительными _сенями_ и другими подобными словами)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Исторически сени изначально появились в современной форме (навес над крыльцом → открытая веранда → закрытая/застеклённая веранда) или как простой сарай-тамбур?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Со _поветью_ сложнее. По Фасмеру неясно: &lt;blockquote&gt;По мнению Миклошича, от ве́ять (зерно). Иначе (из *ро-(v)ětь, родственного слав. jаtа) объясняет это слово Мошинский.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Учитывая, что другие словари (Даль, Ефремова) дают значения как навес или даже просто крыша, может ли быть какая-либо связь со словом «ветвь» (скажем, «крыша, крытая ветками»)? Есть ли какие-либо современные теории или исследования?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Разумно ли рассматривать эти два термина как по-существу описывающие одну и туже структуру в разных диалектах (по крайней мере, где _поветь_ означает пристройку или сарай)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Какие другие региональные термины существуют для подобных пристроек?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Почему некоторые другие слова, такие как **клеть**, **чулан** и **кладовая**, более гибкие в использовании и могут означать отдельную комнату, отдельное строение или пристройку или даже отделение в другом строении или пристройке." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1696" RevisionGUID="4d342098-4e6d-41f0-80da-f434e66bbc70" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:08:29.473" UserId="69" Text="Traditional utility outbuildings and annexes: etymology, patterns, and geogrpaphical differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1696" RevisionGUID="4d342098-4e6d-41f0-80da-f434e66bbc70" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:08:29.473" UserId="69" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="a50a69cd-65e5-4ba6-ac38-cb0e0901e0a4" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:31:05.047" UserId="69" Comment="Translation and some formatting." Text="Было ли у русского народа понятие об этой величине или они просто обходились словами «тепло», «прохладно» и т. д.? Ведь «температура» — заморское слово. Интересно, есть ли у него исконно русский если не синоним, то аналог?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How did people talk about temperature before? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did Russian people have understanding about that quantity, or they simply managed with words “warm”, “cool” _etc._? As you know, “temperature” is a foreign, borrowed word. Interestingly, is there indigenously Russian if not synonym, then analogue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5147" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="a50a69cd-65e5-4ba6-ac38-cb0e0901e0a4" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:31:05.047" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5148" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="409909fb-282f-4055-9281-d7af92596e83" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:31:39.180" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="А как раньше говорили о температуре за окном? How did people talk about temperature before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5149" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="6082b05b-cd50-4374-8ee4-f9f7539fddd1" CreationDate="2013-01-09T16:55:23.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/289052760400355329" />
  <row Id="5150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="d08fda0a-b8e7-4e93-90e6-fe3bfbb0aaf3" CreationDate="2013-01-09T17:24:56.607" UserId="194" Text="Greek *thermometer* is a cognate to English *warm* and Russian *жар*, *жара*. They all derive from PIE ***ġhu̯ermos*** &quot;warm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus its meaning was &quot;degree of warmth&quot;. In this meaning Russians could use the word &quot;жара&quot;: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко* (=high/not high temperature). In the winter they could similarly use the word &quot;холод&quot;: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose they had an idea of degree of warmth and and idea of degree of cold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="37445871-7126-4aca-acb9-4acb81fd2a01" CreationDate="2013-01-09T17:37:03.667" UserId="194" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Greek *thermometer* is a cognate to English *warm* and Russian *жар*, *жара*. They all derive from PIE ***ġhu̯ermos*** &quot;warm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus its meaning was &quot;degree of warmth&quot;. In this meaning Russians could use the word &quot;жара&quot;: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко* (=high/not high temperature). In the winter they could similarly use the word &quot;холод&quot;: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose they had an idea of degree of warmth and and idea of degree of cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thermometer appeared in Italy in 1613, so before that date the Russians as well as any other people had not possibility to measure degree of warmth or cold precisely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1696" RevisionGUID="4a9eef2c-abfb-471a-a37d-b856a3c309df" CreationDate="2013-01-09T21:19:32.200" UserId="69" Comment="Added section about etymology of territorial unit." Text="When we are talking about utility buildings near or around traditional Russian dwelling (be it _izba_ or _khata_), mayhaps the first that comes to mind is the **сени** (_seni_) — enclosed veranda separating entrance from the porch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I had learned another word describing similar structure in the North of European part of Russia (Arkhangelsk region _etc._) — **поветь** (_povet’_; variants: _повет_ (_povet_), _поветье_ (_povet’je_), _поветка_ (_povetka_) and others). It is an annexe in the back of the house that is used not only as tool, farm implement, firewood and provision storage, but would also contain livestock (say, a cow and few hens), and even the loo, so that in harshest of winters inhabitants of the house would not even have to leave it for days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious, and doing some research on the topic, I came up with several questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Etymology of the first word is fairly clear: “сень” (_sen’_) is archaic equivalent of modern “тень” (_ten’_ — shadow, shade), and in general sense as “cover, shelter”, according to Vasmer, and other dictionaries. But why specifically in plural form? Also, the form **сенцы** — is it purely diminutive, or does it correspond etymologically (_i.e._, would one use this form with regular, non-building-related _сени_ and other similar words)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Historically, _seni_ initially appeared in contemporary form (canopy over the porch → open veranda → enclosed/windowed veranda) or as a simple shed/tambour?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _Поветь_ is more complicated. Vasmer is not clear: &lt;blockquote&gt;По мнению Миклошича, от ве́ять (зерно). Иначе (из *ро-(v)ětь, родственного слав. jаtа) объясняет это слово Мошинский.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account that other dictionaries (Dal’, Efremova) give such meanings as “canopy, shed” or even simply “roof”, can there be any connection with the word “ветвь” (branch: such as “крыша, крытая ветками” — “roof thatched with branches”)? Are there any modern theories or research?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Several dictionaries list _повет_ as synonym to _поветь_, yet they give different definition: administrative and territorial unit in Poland, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Western Ukraine, _etc._. For this meaning Vasmer gives different etymology: &lt;blockquote&gt;Через укр. повíт из польск. роwiаt, местн. п. ед. ч. w роwiесiе – то же; см. Христиани, там же. Польск. слово связано с вита́ть.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Now, is this related in any way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it fair to consider the two terms as essentially describing same structure in different dialects (at least, where _поветь_ does mean lean-to shed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What other regional terms are there for similar annexes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Why some other words, such as **клеть** (_klet’_), **чулан** (_chulan_) и **кладовая** (_kladovaja_), are more flexible in usage and can mean separate room, separate outbuilding or a lean-to, or even a partition within other outbuilding or an annexe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда мы говорим о служебных строениях возле или вокруг традиционного русского жилища (будь то изба или хата), возможно, первое, что приходит в голову, — **сени** (закрытая веранда, отделяющая вход от крыльца).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Недавно я узнал другое слово, описывающее подобную структуру на севере европейской части России (Архангельская область и др.), — **поветь** (варианты: _повет_, _поветье_, _поветка_ и др.). Это пристройка сзади дома, которая не только используется как хранилище инструмента, сельскохозяйственных орудий, дров и провианта, но и содержит домашний скот (скажем, корову и несколько куриц) и даже уборную, так, что даже в самые суровые зимы жильцы могли бы сидеть дома безвылазно целыми днями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заинтересовавшись и проведя некоторые исследования, у меня возникли следующие вопросы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Этимология первого слова достаточно ясна: «сень» — это архаический эквивалент современного «тень» и в общем смысле как «покров, укрытие» согласно Фасмеру и другим словарям. Но почему именно в форме множественного числа? Также, форма **сенцы** — это чисто уменьшительное, или оно этимологически связано (т. е., могла ли эта форма быть использована с «обычными», нестроительными _сенями_ и другими подобными словами)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Исторически сени изначально появились в современной форме (навес над крыльцом → открытая веранда → закрытая/застеклённая веранда) или как простой сарай-тамбур?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Со _поветью_ сложнее. По Фасмеру неясно: &lt;blockquote&gt;По мнению Миклошича, от ве́ять (зерно). Иначе (из *ро-(v)ětь, родственного слав. jаtа) объясняет это слово Мошинский.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Учитывая, что другие словари (Даль, Ефремова) дают значения как навес или даже просто крыша, может ли быть какая-либо связь со словом «ветвь» (скажем, «крыша, крытая ветками»)? Есть ли какие-либо современные теории или исследования?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Несколько словарей именуют _повет_ как синоним слова _поветь_, но при этом они дают другое определение: административно-территориальная единица в Польше, Великом княжестве Литовском, на Зап. Украине и т. д. Для этого значения Фасмер даёт другую этимологию: &lt;blockquote&gt;Через укр. повíт из польск. роwiаt, местн. п. ед. ч. w роwiесiе – то же; см. Христиани, там же. Польск. слово связано с вита́ть.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Это как-то связано?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Разумно ли рассматривать эти два термина как по-существу описывающие одну и туже структуру в разных диалектах (по крайней мере, где _поветь_ означает пристройку или сарай)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Какие другие региональные термины существуют для подобных пристроек?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Почему некоторые другие слова, такие как **клеть**, **чулан** и **кладовая**, более гибкие в использовании и могут означать отдельную комнату, отдельное строение или пристройку или даже отделение в другом строении или пристройке?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="be516005-1ae0-4d5a-9892-b30d32b46192" CreationDate="2013-01-09T22:04:55.427" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Greek *thermometer* is a cognate to English *warm* and Russian *жар*, *жара*. They all derive from PIE ***ġhu̯ermos*** &quot;warm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus its meaning was &quot;degree of warmth&quot;. In this meaning Russians could use the word &quot;жара&quot;: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко* (=high/not high temperature). In the winter they could similarly use the word &quot;холод&quot;: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose they had an idea of degree of warmth and and idea of degree of cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thermometer appeared in Italy in 1613, so before that date the Russians as well as any other people had no possibility to measure degree of warmth or cold precisely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="d154cbf7-871b-4925-b3fe-8db29ee19142" CreationDate="2013-01-09T22:10:00.160" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Greek *thermometer* is a cognate to English *warm* and Russian *жар*, *жара*. They all derive from PIE ***ġhu̯ermos*** &quot;warm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus its meaning was &quot;degree of warmth&quot;. In this meaning Russians could use the word &quot;жара&quot;: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко* (=high/not high temperature). In the winter they could similarly use the word &quot;холод&quot;: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose they had an idea of degree of warmth and an idea of degree of cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thermometer appeared in Italy in 1613, so before that date the Russians as well as any other people had no possibility to measure degree of warmth or cold precisely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="0c5f2ddf-3cd8-4d9c-9443-9d9f59e6fa9b" CreationDate="2013-01-10T06:32:05.927" UserId="441" Text="Как назвать принимающую сторону - человека, организацию - по отношению к их гостю? Слово &quot;хозяин&quot;, мне кажется, здесь не подходит. Например, английский язык в этом случае чётко различает два перевода слова &quot;хозяин&quot;: owner (владелец чего-то) и host (владелец чего-то, принимающий гостей в данный момент). Так вот, есть ли в русском языке, может быть, хорошо забытое слово, которое точно соответствует этой последней роли?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5157" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="0c5f2ddf-3cd8-4d9c-9443-9d9f59e6fa9b" CreationDate="2013-01-10T06:32:05.927" UserId="441" Text="Антоним для слова &quot;гость&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5158" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="0c5f2ddf-3cd8-4d9c-9443-9d9f59e6fa9b" CreationDate="2013-01-10T06:32:05.927" UserId="441" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="6fcf5ac4-801d-4f54-9934-9ed57825c493" CreationDate="2013-01-10T07:28:30.167" UserId="441" Comment="edited body" Text="Как назвать принимающую сторону - человека, организацию - по отношению к её гостю? Слово &quot;хозяин&quot;, мне кажется, здесь не подходит. Например, английский язык в этом случае чётко различает два перевода слова &quot;хозяин&quot;: owner (владелец чего-то) и host (владелец чего-то, принимающий гостей в данный момент). Так вот, есть ли в русском языке, может быть, хорошо забытое слово, которое точно соответствует этой последней роли?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1699" RevisionGUID="e00398c2-4aae-46d9-8961-883c5c0b47c3" CreationDate="2013-01-10T12:46:06.170" UserId="1340" Text="Короткий ответ - у слова `гость` антонима нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если взять в целом - таких слов множество, очень часто эти слова многозначны как в данном случае `гость` может означать посетителя приглашенного к определенному лицу, так и в случае с используемым в интернете словом `гость` - бесправным/не совершившим аутентификации пользователем. У каждого значения слова может быть свой антоним, а так же его может и не быть вовсе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак я приведу 3 известных мне значения слова гость и возможные антонимы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Бесправный/не аутентифицированный пользователь&#xD;&#xA;2. Приезжая спортивная команда которая играет против родной - `команда - гость`&#xD;&#xA;3. Постороннее лицо, приглашенное присутствовать на собрании, заседании, празднестве, лицо приглашенное остаться на ночлег/беседу в дом/квартиру&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Их антонимы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Администратор&#xD;&#xA;2. Хозяин (Команда - хозяин)&#xD;&#xA;3. Хозяин места пребывания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не смотря на то, что нет прямого антонима слову `гость`, возможно использовать словосочетание `хозяин &lt;места пребывания&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;К комментарию @krokoziabla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @shabunc А представьте ситуацию. Вы знакомитесь на улице с человеком и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; узнаёте, что он приезжий и гостит у кого-то. Если вы спросите: &quot;Кто же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ваши хозяева?&quot;, то, возможно, человек обидится, не так ли? :-) –&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы спросите &quot;У кого Вы гостите?&quot; или &quot;У кого Вы остаетесь&quot;, а в случае, если хотите использовать слово `хозяин` - &quot;Кто хозяин &lt;места&gt; где вы остались/остаетесь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1699" RevisionGUID="0c5f548d-b955-4031-966c-107cd90e1794" CreationDate="2013-01-10T12:57:39.960" UserId="1340" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Короткий ответ - у слова `гость` антонима нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если взять в целом - таких слов множество, очень часто эти слова многозначны как в данном случае `гость` может означать посетителя приглашенного к определенному лицу, так и в случае с используемым в интернете словом `гость` - бесправным/не совершившим аутентификации пользователем. У каждого значения слова может быть свой антоним, а так же его может и не быть вовсе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак я приведу 3 известных значения слова гость и возможные антонимы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Бесправный/не аутентифицированный пользователь&#xD;&#xA;2. Приезжая спортивная команда которая играет против родной - `команда - гость`&#xD;&#xA;3. Постороннее лицо, приглашенное присутствовать на собрании, заседании, празднестве, лицо приглашенное остаться на ночлег/беседу в дом/квартиру&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Их антонимы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Администратор&#xD;&#xA;2. Хозяин (Команда - хозяин)&#xD;&#xA;3. Хозяин места пребывания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не смотря на то, что нет прямого антонима слову `гость`, возможно использовать словосочетание `хозяин &lt;места пребывания&gt;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;К комментарию @krokoziabla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @shabunc А представьте ситуацию. Вы знакомитесь на улице с человеком и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; узнаёте, что он приезжий и гостит у кого-то. Если вы спросите: &quot;Кто же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ваши хозяева?&quot;, то, возможно, человек обидится, не так ли? :-) –&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы спросите &quot;У кого Вы гостите?&quot; или &quot;У кого Вы остаетесь&quot;, а в случае, если хотите использовать слово `хозяин` - &quot;Кто хозяин &lt;места&gt; где вы остались/остаетесь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="8141d84d-3b0c-4507-8c93-3ea3b1e44846" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:32:37.683" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Greek *thermometer* is a cognate to English *warm* and Russian *жар*, *жара*. They all derive from PIE ***ġhu̯ermos*** &quot;warm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus its meaning was &quot;degree of warmth&quot;. In this meaning Russians could use the word &quot;жара&quot; &quot;hot&quot;: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко* (=high/not high temperature). In the winter they could similarly use the word &quot;холод&quot;: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose they had an idea of degree of warmth and an idea of degree of cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thermometer appeared in Italy in 1613, so before that date the Russians as well as any other people had no possibility to measure degree of warmth or cold precisely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1700" RevisionGUID="a82edf9e-e37b-44e1-8a0e-b658abd7a601" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:42:44.527" UserId="194" Text="&quot;Хозяин&quot; most often means either master or host. It is rarely used for owner (&quot;владелец&quot;). At best &quot;хозяин&quot; mey mean a person who currently uses a thing whether he a legal owner or not (consider &quot;Неожиданно оказалось, что хозяин машины не является ее владельцем&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, *хозяин* is the best antonym. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also that *хозяин* and *гость* are cognates derived from the same PIE root ***ġhostis*** (similarly to *guest* and *host*), which meant a person in reciprocal guest-host relationship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="6a3cd133-10ea-4c9e-b07f-ab6a2a9c26a4" CreationDate="2013-01-10T16:14:13.403" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, tag." Text="Как назвать принимающую сторону — человека, организацию — по отношению к её гостю? Слово «хозяин», мне кажется, здесь не подходит. Например, английский язык в этом случае чётко различает два перевода слова «хозяин»: _owner_ (владелец чего-то) и _host_ (владелец чего-то, принимающий гостей в данный момент). Так вот, есть ли в русском языке, может быть, хорошо забытое слово, которое точно соответствует этой последней роли?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="6a3cd133-10ea-4c9e-b07f-ab6a2a9c26a4" CreationDate="2013-01-10T16:14:13.403" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, tag." Text="Антоним для слова «гость»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="6a3cd133-10ea-4c9e-b07f-ab6a2a9c26a4" CreationDate="2013-01-10T16:14:13.403" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, tag." Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5167" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="6a3cd133-10ea-4c9e-b07f-ab6a2a9c26a4" CreationDate="2013-01-10T16:14:13.403" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1701" RevisionGUID="6cdb2746-6f22-4e5e-b0a7-700c39c4a50f" CreationDate="2013-01-10T23:12:16.033" UserId="194" Text="About a tenth of total population of Israel can speak Russian, especially in East Jerusalem and other disputed territories where Israeli government settles the new immigrants. In some shops and supermarkets the staff is required to know Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian is also widespead in many Arab countries, especially, Egypt and Syria but also Jordan and the Palestine territories. Several factors had contributed to this: the cooperation with the Soviet Union, the Soviet staff and advisers to these countries, the fact that many of the specialists of those countries were studying in Soviet universities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many Russian women dream of a marriage with an Arab man. Only in Syria there are up to 10000 Russian women married local men (with about a total of 30000 Russian citizens living in the country not counting the staff of the Russian naval base in Tartus). The number possibly as high in Egypt. In Jordan and the Palestinian territories the number is also high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other women go for sex tourism for which the preferred destinations are again Egypt and Turkey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general in many other tourist destinations you will be able to encounter services or other tourists speaking in Russian. It is quite common in Thailand for the staff of hotels and restaurants speak Russian and provide a Russian menu.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1702" RevisionGUID="2241601e-8a58-46aa-91d8-18028b02123a" CreationDate="2013-01-11T02:22:49.760" UserId="1236" Text="В литературном и разговорном украинском языке тоже есть слово `повітка`, точно соответствует русскому `повѣтка`, слово до сих пор широко употребляется. Моя бабушка так называла капитальную постройку во дворе, в одной половине её держали коз, в другой хранили уголь, дрова, сено, огородный инвентарь. Кстати, &quot;Етимологічний словник української мови в 7 т.&quot; тоже склонен к тому, чтобы выводить это слово от `*роvětiti` - &quot;покрыть ветками&quot;. Смотрите [том 4, стр. 469][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://litopys.org.ua/djvu/etymolog_slovnyk_tom4.djvu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1703" RevisionGUID="db5fb454-4f00-4f7e-be3c-a1bb5f3a1e6c" CreationDate="2013-01-11T06:50:36.040" UserId="1270" Text="В среде математиков было выражение &quot;ферматист&quot; для людей свихнувшихся на идее доказать великую теорему Ферма...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="19d96cef-e573-427c-b230-df2cccb4a6bc" CreationDate="2013-01-11T13:54:22.800" UserId="1098" Text="&quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I dont understand it at all, it's some kind of slang gibberish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="19d96cef-e573-427c-b230-df2cccb4a6bc" CreationDate="2013-01-11T13:54:22.800" UserId="1098" Text="I need a translation help with this phrase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="19d96cef-e573-427c-b230-df2cccb4a6bc" CreationDate="2013-01-11T13:54:22.800" UserId="1098" Text="|перевод|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1705" RevisionGUID="b2cfdab4-80de-43ef-8cda-43ca4c87bcdc" CreationDate="2013-01-11T14:17:34.110" UserId="97" Text="It's slang all right, but it's not gibberish. Without seeing the context, it can be roughly translated something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I showed him to a couple of my mates.  They were totally stumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that it could be _showed **it**_, depending on what the subject of the phrase it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _тип_, apart from its main meaning _type_, _kind_ is also used to refer to a person, usually in a somewhat derogatory manner, and usually a man, e.g. _подозрительный тип_ could be translated as _twitchy bloke_ (although word-for-word means _suspicious man_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Выпасть с аппарата_ is one of a large number of slang phrases meaning to be totally stumped.  Some other ones you may encounter are _выпасть в осадок_, _офигеть_ и т д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1693" RevisionGUID="b47f623a-935b-4516-8759-c1a287cce378" CreationDate="2013-01-11T14:41:03.953" UserId="97" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="Я бы хотел знать, откуда взялось мнение, что ударение выходит из употребления.  Этот знак очень даже используется.  Этот знак можно ввести на русской клавиатуре, несмотря на то, что он не показан ни на одной из клавиш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На маке для того, чтобы вводить этот знак, нужно пойти в System Preferences -&gt; Language and Text -&gt; Input Sources и поставить птичку на _Unicode Hex Input_ - это делается один раз.  Далее, когда нужно поставить этот знак, ставите курсор после ударной гласной, переключаетесь на этот unicode hex input и, держа нажатой кнопку _alt_, нажимаете `0301` - и бу́дет вам сча́стье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На виндах нужно, держа нажатой клавишу Alt, нажать &quot;+&quot; на цифровой клавиатуре, после чего нажать `0301` - и, опя́ть же, бу́дет вам сча́стье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, согласен, что это не самое весёлое развлечение - но оно работает :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Добавлено:** Чтобы ввести знак ударения на линункс (и вообще в большинстве X-Windows программ), нужно, прижав Ctrl+Shift, набрать u0301, после чего отпустить Ctrl и Shift - и там то́же бу́дет вам сча́стье." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="a47c5511-1c4f-48c6-acfd-4342dd742d08" CreationDate="2013-01-11T17:40:52.830" UserId="1098" Comment="added 227 characters in body; edited title" Text="I had a conversation with my Russian-speaking friend and he used this phrase to describe his impressions of the newly purchased rifle.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I barely understand that he show the rifle, but the other part is complete mystery to me.&#xD;&#xA;Is this some slang gibberish?&#xD;&#xA;What the meaning of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5180" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="a47c5511-1c4f-48c6-acfd-4342dd742d08" CreationDate="2013-01-11T17:40:52.830" UserId="1098" Comment="added 227 characters in body; edited title" Text="Slang phrase meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5181" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="23a3d2ec-9374-49cd-8c98-b87d4f861a3e" CreationDate="2013-01-11T20:24:52.937" UserId="487" Comment="changed the title; now it's more appropriate" Text="Difference between российский and русский" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1706" RevisionGUID="82a586b0-a9a2-4bc6-b6fc-a9063ece6082" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:10:47.377" UserId="496" Text="&gt; &quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, the OP author understands the first sentence (though barely). Just in case I will still explain it: In this context &quot;типы&quot; - means &quot;guys&quot;, &quot;своих&quot; means that the speaker knew them before. &quot;Тут&quot; rather means &quot;recently&quot; than &quot;here&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence is more interesting. It looks like it is a new kind of slang. &quot;Аппарат&quot; in this context means &quot;летательный аппарат&quot;, so the literal meaning of the phrase is that &quot;they fell down from the plane&quot;. &quot;Аппарат&quot; on the pilot's slang meant &quot;plane&quot; since long time ago. See [here][1] for example, in the end of &quot;Жаргонные фразы&quot; section. In 2009 there was a stunning [news][2] that in Omsk region one of pilots of a glider used for agricultural spraying fell down from the plane when the plane was 300 meters above the ground. Here we can see that newspapers use jargon words (&quot;аппарат&quot;) as if they were common use.&#xD;&#xA;The news was [discussed][3] on internet quite a lot and in person I guess, too. So, maybe, it was then when it entered the youth's slang. The meaning of the internet discussion is that it is hardly possible to fall down from the glider because there are a lot of safety features. Pilots do not fall from the plane normally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pilot's slang &quot;выпасть из аппарата&quot; can be found in literature, too. See [here][4] for example, in the 7-th paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the whole second sentence is: They were so amazed that they fell from the plane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://z25t.ru/stats/46-slovar-aviacionnogo-zhargona-slenga.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://omskpress.ru/news/3837/pilot_vypal_iz_apparata/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://delta.wtr.ru/archive/1520.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=139316&amp;p=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1707" RevisionGUID="8123609a-0935-412d-b8b2-0f368b3b0de7" CreationDate="2013-01-12T06:24:17.050" UserId="69" Text="Max Vasmer’s _Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch_ is the etymological source to go for Russian language, as it seems. But I am having hard time finding English version of it in the West. Popular internet retailers carry only German or Russian versions, the library resources (via [WorldCat][1]) are very scarce for books clearly printed in English-speaking countries. Other alternatives such as Terence Wade’s _Russian Etymological Dictionary_ (London, 1996) seem to be a pale shadow of Vasmer (in Wade’s case it’s 1500 words to Vasmer’s 18 000 or so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there English translation of Vasmer’s dictionary (with or without Trubachjov’s addendum)? If not, what do English-speaking academics, philologists and linguists use when studying Russian etymology? Are they expected to know Russian fluently so that they can read the Russian version?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Max%20Vasmer&amp;dblist=638&amp;fq=ap:%22vasmer,%20max%22&amp;qt=facet_ap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1707" RevisionGUID="8123609a-0935-412d-b8b2-0f368b3b0de7" CreationDate="2013-01-12T06:24:17.050" UserId="69" Text="Vasmer’s dictionary in English or other alternatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1707" RevisionGUID="8123609a-0935-412d-b8b2-0f368b3b0de7" CreationDate="2013-01-12T06:24:17.050" UserId="69" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1708" RevisionGUID="8bac141a-e9d7-4715-bae7-3fb6901a9790" CreationDate="2013-01-12T06:44:40.550" UserId="1236" Text="The biggest one I could find is [Russian Etymological Dictionary][1] by [Vladimir Orel][2], in 4 volumes, published in 2011. I hope it will suit all your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Etymological-Dictionary-Vladimir-Orel/dp/1770833005/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1357972647&amp;sr=1-5&amp;keywords=Russian%20Etymological%20Dictionary&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Orel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="9a9b7e12-201b-4d67-b05a-a6eeb60a8309" CreationDate="2013-01-12T09:10:59.197" UserId="69" Comment="Translation, formatting, some clarification." Text="Греческий корень *термос* (*θερμός*), в таких словах как *термометр*, является родственным английскому *warm* и русским *жар*, *жара*. Они все происходят от [праиндоевропейского][1] ***ġhu̯ermos*** — «тёплый».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, значением слова *термометр* было «измерение теплоты». В этом понимании русские могли использовать слово «жара»: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко*. Зимой они могли также использовать слово «холод»: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*. Так, я предполагаю, у них было понятие степеней тепла и холода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первый термометр появился в Италии в первой половине XVII века, поэтому до этого русские, также как любые другие народы, не имели возможности точно измерять степень тепла или холода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek root *thermos* (*θερμός*), as in *thermometer*, is a cognate to English *warm* and Russian *жар*, *жара*. They all derive from [PIE][2] ***ġhu̯ermos*** — “warm&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the meaning of *thermometer* was “measure of warmth”. In this meaning Russians could use the word “жара” — “heat”: *большая жара*, *небольшая жара*, *сильно жарко*, *не сильно жарко* (high/not high temperature). In the winter they could similarly use the word ”холод”: *сильно холодно*, *не сильно холодно*. So I suppose they had an idea of degree of warmth and an idea of degree of cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thermometer appeared in Italy during first half of XVII century, so before that time the Russians as well as any other peoples had no possibility to measure degree of warmth or cold precisely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5188" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1697" RevisionGUID="9a9b7e12-201b-4d67-b05a-a6eeb60a8309" CreationDate="2013-01-12T09:10:59.197" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 194 edit id of 288" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1706" RevisionGUID="15377107-297d-4d76-af0d-bbefb498932c" CreationDate="2013-01-12T16:13:33.197" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, the OP author understands the first sentence (though barely). Just in case I will still explain it: In this context &quot;типы&quot; - means &quot;guys&quot;, &quot;своих&quot; means that the speaker knew them before. &quot;Тут&quot; rather means &quot;recently&quot; than &quot;here&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence is more interesting. It looks like it is a new kind of slang. &quot;Аппарат&quot; in this context means &quot;летательный аппарат&quot;, so the literal meaning of the phrase is that &quot;they fell down from the plane&quot;. &quot;Аппарат&quot; on the pilot's slang meant &quot;plane&quot; since long time ago. See [here][1] for example, in the end of &quot;Жаргонные фразы&quot; section. In 2009 there was a stunning [news][2] that in Omsk region one of pilots of a glider used for agricultural spraying fell down from the plane when the plane was 300 meters above the ground. Here we can see that newspapers use jargon words (&quot;аппарат&quot;) as if they were common use.&#xD;&#xA;The news was [discussed][3] on internet quite a lot and in person I guess, too. So, most likely it was then when it entered the youth's slang. The meaning of the internet discussion is that it is hardly possible to fall down from the glider because there are a lot of safety features. Pilots do not fall from the plane normally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the phrase entered the slang it changed its meaning from literal to figurative. Something like: &quot;they were so amazed that totally lost control and fell from the plane&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://z25t.ru/stats/46-slovar-aviacionnogo-zhargona-slenga.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://omskpress.ru/news/3837/pilot_vypal_iz_apparata/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://delta.wtr.ru/archive/1520.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=139316&amp;p=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1705" RevisionGUID="dfb2a996-0287-44a2-9eee-77d43bf9ed79" CreationDate="2013-01-12T21:28:42.900" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="It's slang all right, but it's not gibberish. Without seeing the context, it can be roughly translated something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I showed it to a couple of my mates.  They were totally stumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I am using _showed **it**_, as you mentioned a rifle in there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _тип_, apart from its main meaning _type_, _kind_ is also used to refer to a person, usually in a somewhat derogatory manner, and usually a man, e.g. _подозрительный тип_ could be translated as _twitchy bloke_ (although word-for-word means _suspicious man_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Выпасть с аппарата_ is one of a large number of slang phrases meaning to be totally stumped.  Some other ones you may encounter are _выпасть в осадок_, _офигеть_ и т д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1709" RevisionGUID="c807656f-a38c-4c0d-be15-2f15886446d5" CreationDate="2013-01-13T09:45:48.970" UserId="47" Text="Could anybody explain to me why Южно-Африканская Республика is written with a hyphen? I thought a hyphen was a sort of replacement for и, meaning that the two parts of the word are of equal relation to the following noun. For example сине-красный купальник. However, in Южно-Африканская Республика the word южный relates to Africa rather than to Republic, just as in центральноевропейское время central defines the part of Europe, not time. Why is then spelling different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1709" RevisionGUID="c807656f-a38c-4c0d-be15-2f15886446d5" CreationDate="2013-01-13T09:45:48.970" UserId="47" Text="Южно-Африканская Республика vs. Центральноевропейское время" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1709" RevisionGUID="c807656f-a38c-4c0d-be15-2f15886446d5" CreationDate="2013-01-13T09:45:48.970" UserId="47" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="14392673-0501-4716-a420-5cfb71b98b1a" CreationDate="2013-01-13T10:19:09.453" UserId="1343" Text="i am interest to learning Russian language beside that where i live there inst any institution that teach Russia language( thats big  problem) how can i start and have a correct pronunciation    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="14392673-0501-4716-a420-5cfb71b98b1a" CreationDate="2013-01-13T10:19:09.453" UserId="1343" Text="how can i begin to learn russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="14392673-0501-4716-a420-5cfb71b98b1a" CreationDate="2013-01-13T10:19:09.453" UserId="1343" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="9079a062-49fe-43df-9221-cf031854ef22" CreationDate="2013-01-13T12:36:51.770" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Resources for learning Russian](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;i am interest to learning Russian language beside that where i live there inst any institution that teach Russia language( thats big  problem) how can i start and have a correct pronunciation    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5199" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="be4b84e4-2bf7-429c-8dd7-af632cc7e698" CreationDate="2013-01-13T12:36:51.770" UserId="71" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[833],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:47,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;texnic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1711" RevisionGUID="fe05a37f-dd8a-4418-8132-b0f238c7723b" CreationDate="2013-01-13T14:00:31.423" UserId="1342" Text="Слова *Южно-Африканская* и *центральноевропейское* - это прилагательные. [Вот правила][1], когда прилагательные пишутся через дефис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилу 80.3 слово *центральноевропейское* пишется слитно, так как образовано от двух слов *Центральная Европа* и используется как термин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилу 81.4 *Южно-Африканская Республика* пишется через дефис, так как это географическое название, начинающееся с *южно-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему появилось такое правило сказать не могу, видимо это одно из многих исключений. Так что часто встречается ошибка, когда пишут [Южноафриканская Республика][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры применения этих правил: южноафриканское время, южноафриканская лисица, Южно-Американская плита.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://therules.ru/hyphen-adjectives/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%AE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="38664f95-a430-43e0-ba3f-543097086fd7" CreationDate="2013-01-13T14:50:27.410" UserId="496" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][4] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][5] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://tsya.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1713" RevisionGUID="7b789eba-5c53-41a0-b2c0-07e9c1dae6f4" CreationDate="2013-01-13T16:53:05.657" UserId="134" Text="*Южно-Африканская* (as in *Южно-Африканская Республика*) is a part of a proper name. Both parts should start with a capital and be separated with a hyphen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Центральноевропейское* (as in *центральноевропейское время*) is not a part of a proper name, and hence is written as a one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ботсвана — небольшая южноафриканская республика, граничащая с Южно-Африканской Республикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Центрально-Европейский университет находится в Будапеште. Занятия в нём начинаются в 8 часов по центральноевропейскому времени." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1711" RevisionGUID="fc16c776-cac9-4f2d-8a9d-d2a94f45ba2f" CreationDate="2013-01-13T18:47:05.463" UserId="1342" Comment="translated to English" Text="*Южно-Африканская* and *центральноевропейское* are adjectives. There are [the rules][1] that govern when adjectives are written with a hyphen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Центральноевропейское* is written in one according to the rule of 80.3, because it is formed by the base *Центральная Европа* and used as a term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Южно-Африканская Республика* is written with a hyphen according to the rule of 81.4, because it is a geographic name starts with *южно-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why this rule exists, perpahs it is one of many exceptions. There is commom mistake when [Южноафриканская Республика][2] is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: южноафриканское время, южноафриканская лисица, Южно-Американская плита.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова *Южно-Африканская* и *центральноевропейское* - это прилагательные. [Вот правила][1], когда прилагательные пишутся через дефис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилу 80.3 слово *центральноевропейское* пишется слитно, так как образовано от двух слов *Центральная Европа* и используется как термин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилу 81.4 *Южно-Африканская Республика* пишется через дефис, так как это географическое название, начинающееся с *южно-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему появилось такое правило сказать не могу, видимо это одно из многих исключений. Так что часто встречается ошибка, когда пишут [Южноафриканская Республика][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры применения этих правил: южноафриканское время, южноафриканская лисица, Южно-Американская плита.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://therules.ru/hyphen-adjectives/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%AE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1714" RevisionGUID="d7c169ce-d5f4-488c-9253-d6ff82b75a09" CreationDate="2013-01-13T19:56:23.267" UserId="1262" Text="the 'icy ripple on the cold water of canal' literally does mean something which can be felt by touch. The charecter ponders suicide and the 'icy touch' of the could waters, but rejects the idea because he thinks that everything will be repeated anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="379fa8b7-d07d-49ce-83a2-7104113e069e" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:27:10.583" UserId="1262" Comment="improving the answer" Text="The phrase obtained its second life in the eighties of the Soviet Union soon after the underground release of casset album of the same name by a pseudo-punk band **ДК (1983)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the first recorded example of the mocking sense given to this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information (in Russian) is available at&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%29&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets's look at the history of the subject. The oldest examples of the phrase can be traced back as long as to the 18th century. The phrase then used to be a part of three-dimetional paradigm accompanied by two cognates, namely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;их нравы/нравы их&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сих нравы/нравы сих&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оных нравы/нравы оных&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that prepositional pronoun combination stands mainly for compound subject, while postpositional pronoun combiation stands mainly for compound object/adverbial; see e.g. Rodionova (2001) and Dyakonova (2009). By the beginning of 1800 их нравы/нравы их began the most frequently used combination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before 1850s both directions were used. However, их нравы became predominant by that time, not being a cliché yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1717" RevisionGUID="88c6eef5-67d0-47fe-8ae0-d477f358c3e5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:14:08.183" UserId="1349" Text="Математик возвращается домой очень уставший, сердитый, и говорит жене:&#xD;&#xA;– Какая ты у меня компактная!&#xD;&#xA;– Что маленькая и миленькая?&#xD;&#xA;– Нет замкнутая и ограниченная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the joke, but I specifically don't understand what &quot;у меня&quot; means in this case (I know what it means in general), and was wondering why it is necessary at all. The sentence makes perfect sense without &quot;у меня&quot; as well, no?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1717" RevisionGUID="88c6eef5-67d0-47fe-8ae0-d477f358c3e5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:14:08.183" UserId="1349" Text="What does the construction &quot;У меня&quot; mean in this joke?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1717" RevisionGUID="88c6eef5-67d0-47fe-8ae0-d477f358c3e5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:14:08.183" UserId="1349" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="c2792993-0385-460d-adb7-3ef859ac5796" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:21:24.737" UserId="1349" Text="When asking somewhere where they live, why is &quot;Куда&quot; used in the question instead of &quot;Где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="c2792993-0385-460d-adb7-3ef859ac5796" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:21:24.737" UserId="1349" Text="Why is &quot;Куда&quot; used here instead of &quot;Где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="c2792993-0385-460d-adb7-3ef859ac5796" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:21:24.737" UserId="1349" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1719" RevisionGUID="bba01f21-95e3-495b-9a62-337813538a19" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:30:20.777" UserId="1349" Text="I understand that the difference between  &quot;щ&quot; and &quot;ш&quot; is (roughly) the difference between &quot;shya-&quot; and &quot;sha-&quot;. But how do you differentiate &quot;щ&quot; and &quot;шь&quot;? For example, I always differentiated, for example &quot;н&quot; and &quot;нь&quot; as &quot;na-&quot; and &quot;nya-&quot;. By that logic, to me,  &quot;щ&quot; and &quot;шь&quot; sound the same when I pronounce it. Its probably not a very important distinction in practical usage, but I still want to understand why the sounds are different. If anyone can find an audio/video clip illustrating the difference, it would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1719" RevisionGUID="bba01f21-95e3-495b-9a62-337813538a19" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:30:20.777" UserId="1349" Text="Difference in pronunciation between &quot;щ&quot; and &quot;шь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1719" RevisionGUID="bba01f21-95e3-495b-9a62-337813538a19" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:30:20.777" UserId="1349" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1720" RevisionGUID="23ca4d78-aa47-4093-88bf-3d6dd04938c0" CreationDate="2013-01-14T06:43:11.710" UserId="1236" Text="The guy uses &quot;у меня&quot;, because the woman is *his* wife, it's typical for a couple to speak that way, it brings in intimacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the expression is not &quot;у меня&quot;, it is &quot;ты у меня&quot;, &quot;you, belonging to me&quot;, roughly &quot;my dear&quot;. It's usually used while complimenting, prasing your spouse, like &quot;Какая ты у меня красивая!&quot; - &quot;How beautiful you are, my dear!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression is used in the joke to make it more funny, the expression makes the husband's words sound like a praise, but actually they are a mockery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1721" RevisionGUID="90f42410-b75f-4f9e-9d1a-209318d9bed8" CreationDate="2013-01-14T07:12:07.467" UserId="414" Text="The thing is that `ш` is always hard (`sha` in your system), even when soft sign `ь` comes after it (`делаешь`, `тушь` -- pronounces exactly how they would be pronounced without ending `ь`). Note situations like this: in word `шип`, `и` does not make `ш` soft, `ш` turns `и` into `ы` in pronunciation.  And 'щ' is always soft (`shya`), in any situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1721" RevisionGUID="73468cb8-5acc-4fb1-ba7f-98dd89a444a7" CreationDate="2013-01-14T07:22:53.650" UserId="414" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="The thing is that `ш` is always hard (`sha` in your system), even when soft sign `ь` comes after it (`делаешь`, `тушь` are pronounced exactly how they would be pronounced without ending `ь`). Note situations like this: in word `шип`, `и` does not make `ш` soft, `ш` turns `и` into `ы` in pronunciation.  And 'щ' is always soft (`shya`), in any situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table is shown to students in primary school:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Russian alphabet phonetic table][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the consonants (the cyan section) -- green letters are always soft (`щ` is green), blue letters are always hard (`ш` is blue). Two-colored letters have both hard and soft sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wq2Ov.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1722" RevisionGUID="354fe34e-154f-4a1a-bd63-5144d11b24ba" CreationDate="2013-01-14T07:26:01.370" UserId="1236" Text="The point is there are at least 2 ways `щ` can be pronounced and there is no difference in the pronunciation between `шь` and `ш`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let us have a look at `ш`. This sound is different from the English &quot;sh&quot; in the word &quot;ship&quot; in that respect, that it is non-palatalized, it is always 'hard' (Russian 'твёрдый'). The fact, that `ь` is written after it in the 2nd person singular preset tense verbs (пишешь) and in feminine nouns ending in `ш` (мышь) must not confuse you, this `ь` is just an orthographic convention, it does not influence the pronunciation of `ш`, **`ш` is always non-palatalized**. The [IPA][1] symbol for the English 'sh' is /ʃ/ and for the Russian 'ш' is [/ʂ/][2], it is a retroflex consonant (you can listen to the sound there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `щ`, it is a **long** alveopalatal consonant, IPA symbol for it is [/ɕː/][3] (you can listen to the sound there, and there is also the sound for the Russian word 'счастье' in which 'сч' is pronounced as 'щ'). Roughly speaking, in Standard Russian it is pronounced like the English 'shsh' in the phrase 'the dish she likes'. Some people pronounce `щ` as 'шч', but this pronunciation is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember, that Russian orthography is rather tricky, the /ʂ/ sound can be spelled as ш, ж, с, з, and the /ɕː/ sound as щ, сч, шч, зщ, сщ, жд. The word 'дождь' can be pronounced as 'дощ' or as 'дошть'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_sibilant&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1720" RevisionGUID="25352fbd-8b5b-4736-89cb-1368827f95bd" CreationDate="2013-01-14T07:34:13.747" UserId="1236" Comment="grammar" Text="The guy uses &quot;у меня&quot;, because the woman is *his* wife, it's typical for a couple to speak that way, it brings in intimacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the expression is not &quot;у меня&quot;, it is &quot;ты у меня&quot;, &quot;you, belonging to me&quot;, roughly &quot;my dear&quot;. It's usually used while complimenting, prasing your spouse, like &quot;Какая ты у меня красивая!&quot; - &quot;How beautiful you are, my dear!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression is used in the joke to make it more funny, the expression makes the husband's words sound like a praise, but actually they are mockery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="13e70571-c80e-448b-8592-7071f4659a93" CreationDate="2013-01-14T08:09:38.310" UserId="1349" Comment="added more explanation to the question" Text="When asking somewhere where they live, why is &quot;Куда&quot; used in the question instead of &quot;Где&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As in why &quot;Откуда вы?&quot; instead of, say, &quot;Вы от где?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6230" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="cbc4c03d-bc3d-4b85-ae50-1633b83eef1f" CreationDate="2013-01-14T08:47:25.157" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;откуда&quot; is used instead of &quot;где&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1723" RevisionGUID="305c7221-4db1-4c4e-a43e-9c671d94a8e5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T09:44:54.617" UserId="1348" Text="Let me try :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest to understand the difference this way:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Где&quot; - just &quot;where&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Куда&quot; - could be interpreted closely to &quot;where *to*&quot;. I assume that using this word you imply some place like destination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Куда ты идёшь? Where _to_ are you going? (Where are you going to?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где ты идёшь? Where are you going _at the moment_ (imagine a situation when you are talking on the phone and your friend asks you where are you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I am wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1724" RevisionGUID="505f95cc-e302-427f-8588-2bbdfe073132" CreationDate="2013-01-14T09:55:31.120" UserId="1350" Text="&quot;Откуда?&quot; means &quot;where from?&quot; and &quot;where?&quot; = &quot;где?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Где моя книга? - Where is my book?&#xD;&#xA;Откуда вы? - Where are you from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1725" RevisionGUID="8b02137a-70f6-44ff-9074-5860c93082dd" CreationDate="2013-01-14T09:58:16.030" UserId="1350" Text="&quot;Ш&quot; is equal to &quot;sh&quot;. And &quot;Щ&quot; is something between &quot;th&quot; and &quot;sh&quot;. When you spell &quot;Щ&quot; your tongue is more close to teeth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1726" RevisionGUID="3b9fd8e8-7740-4387-9a87-279e1d71d46e" CreationDate="2013-01-14T10:02:06.397" UserId="69" Text="This poem is part of the sub-cycle _Пляски смерти_ (“Dances of Death”: reference to [the medieval allegory on universality of death][1]). In it author pictures specific place in Saint Petersburg: the corner of [_Bolshaya Zelenina_][2] street and [_Koltovskaya_][3] embankment near [_Krestovsky_][4] bridge from _Petrogradskaya storona_ across _Malaya Nevka_ to [Krestovsky island][5]. The apothecary was located in house number 44. There is a reason for such specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Likhachov’s Interpretation ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Famous academician, philologist [D. S. Likhachov][6] writes in his book “Literature-Reality-Literature” (1981):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …before the wooden bridge over to Krestovsky island […] at the corner to the left he showed me an apothecary and said that Blok was always concrete in his poetry (same was often repeated by A. A. Blok’s cousin — G. P. Blok) and in the poem “Night, street and streetlight, drugstore…” he meant exactly this apothecary. Blok loved to walk here, loved Petrogradskaya side in general, even after he settled down on Officers’ [side].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likhachov goes on to explain that this desolate bridge at (then) outskirts of Petersburg attracted suicides, who were sometimes rescued and brought into the apothecary for the first aid. The shore was then low, unlike the modern high embankment, which provided for a certain picture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coloured lights of the apothecary, and the kerosene street lamp standing near the entry to the bridge reflected in the water of Malaya Nevka. “The Apothecary of Self-Murderers” had overturned reflection in the water; low bank without a granite embankment sort of bisected two-fold body of the apothecary: the real one, and overturned in the water, “mortal”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further author describes the symmetry of the quatrains, then continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this poem its content in a marvellous way merged with its structure. The reflection depicted in overturned form of the street, streetlamp, apothecary. This reflection is reflected (I intentionally repeat paronymous words — “reflection reflected”) in the structure of the poem, and the theme of death appears to be meaningless reverse reflection of the life spent: “There’s no way out”. Posthumous life as overturned and caricatural repetition of life — usual motif of the folklore. […] Everything is the same, but everything is not real, reflected, devoid of genuine substance and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Eternal Recurrence ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likhachov insists on his interpretation, contradictory to Maximov’s (another noted philologist):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In his excellent commentary on the poem _Night, Street…_ D. E. Maximov writes about “the gloomy symbols of the nocturnal city”. However, from my point of view, this poem is not “about frightful, reverberating, prosaic world” (p. 113), but phantasmal recurrence of life and death. Symmetry of the structure of this poem is not vertical, but with a horisontal axis — axis of the bank separating life above from the death below, in the icy water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I am in no position to argue with esteemed academicians, but both variants, as it seems to me (for my philosophical knowledge is rather limited), this way or another correspond to the fact that Blok was playing with Nietzsche’s ideas (see Papernyj), including the idea of eternal recurrence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Was the Water Frozen? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for Likhachov idea of reflection was central, translators did not ponder over the state of the water too much. Alex Cigale [translates][7] the phrase in question so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …the canal’s rippled icy surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Y. Bonver [translates][8] differently (at that ignoring author’s symmetry for the sake of more convenient rhyme):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swell of the canal in the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that poem was dated 10&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of October ([O.S.][9]), and, therefore, 23&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; of October (N.S.), [historical data about temperature][10] shows that for the several days prior to 23&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; the temperature was staying around 0°C during the day and below at night, therefore it is possible that Malaya Nevka could have been at least partially covered with fresh ice. More thorough research is necessary to determine precise climatic conditions those days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bibliography ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Likhachov, D. S. _Literature-Reality-Literature_. Leningrad, 1981. Excerpt “From the commentary to the poem of A. Blok ‘Night, Street and Streetlamp, Drugstore…’” taken from the Likhachov’s Fund website ([articles][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Maksimov, D. E. _Poetry and Prose of A. Blok_. Leningrad, 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Papernyj, V. M. “Blok and Nietzsche”. Via [ruthenia.ru][12].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Shifrin, M. “Hundred Years of the Famous Blok’s Poem”, [_Around the World_][13].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это стихотворение является частью под-цикла «Пляски смерти» (ссылка на [средневековый аллегорический сюжет всеобщности смерти][14]). В нём автор изображает определённое место в Петербурге: угол [Большой Зеленина улицы][15] и [Колтовской набережной][16] рядом с [Крестовским мостом][17] с Петроградской стороны через Малую Невку на [Крестовский остров][18]. Аптека находилась в доме №44. Такая точность неспроста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Интерпретация Лихачёва ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знамениный академик, филолог [Д. С. Лихачёв][19] пишет в своей книге «Литература-реальность-литература» (1981):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …перед деревянным мостом на Крестовский остров, […] на углу слева он показал мне аптеку и сказал, что Блок всегда конкретен в своей поэзии (то же обычно повторял и двоюродный брат А. А. Блока — Г. П. Блок) и в стихотворении «Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека…» имел в виду именно эту аптеку. Блок любил здесь гулять, любил Петроградскую сторону вообще, даже после того как поселился на Офицерской.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лихачёв продолжает, объясняя, что этот пустынный мост на тогдашней окраине Петербурга привлекал самоубийц, которых иногда спасали и приносили в аптеку для оказания первой помощи. Берег был тогда низким, не таким как современная высокая набережная, что представляло определённую картину:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цветные огни аптеки и стоявший у въезда на мост керосиновый фонарь отражались в воде Малой Невки. «Аптека самоубийц» имела опрокинутое отражение в воде; низкий берег без гранитной набережной как бы разрезал двойное тело аптеки: реальное и опрокинутое в воде, «смертное».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее автор описывает симметрию четверостиший, затем продолжает:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом стихотворении содержание его удивительным образом слито с его построением.&#xD;&#xA;Изображено отражение в опрокинутом виде улицы, фонаря, аптеки. Это отражение отражено (я намеренно повторяю однокоренные слова — «отражение отражено») в построении стихотворения, а тема смерти оказывается бессмысленным обратным отражением прожитой жизни: «Исхода нет». Посмертная жизнь как опрокинутое и карикатурное повторение жизни — обычный для фольклора мотив. […] Всё — то же, но всё ненастоящее, отражённое, лишённое подлинного содержания и смысла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Вечное возвращение ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лихачёв настаивает на своей интерпретации, противоречащей Максимову (другому известному филологу):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своём прекрасном истолковании стихотворения «Ночь, улица…» Д. Е. Максимов пишет об «угрюмых символах ночного города». Впрочем, с моей точки зрения, стихотворение это не «о страшном, повторяющемся, прозаическом мире» (с. 113), а о призрачном повторении жизни и смерти. Симметрия построения этого стихотворения не вертикальная, а с горизонтальной осью — осью берега, отделяющего жизнь наверху от смерти внизу, в ледяной воде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь я уже никак не могу спорить с академиками, однако оба варианта, как мне кажется (ибо мои философские познания весьма ограничены), так или иначе соответствуют тому, что Блок играл с идеями Ницше (см. Паперный), включая идею вечного возвращения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Была ли вода замёрзшей? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если для Лихачёва идея отражения была центральной, переводчики сильно не задумывались о состоянии воды. Alex Cigale [переводит][20] фразу под вопросом так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …the canal’s rippled icy surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Е. Бонвер [переводит][21] иначе (при этом игнорируя авторскую симметрию в пику более удобной рифмы):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swell of the canal in the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитывая, что поэма датирована 10 октября по старому стилю, а, значит, 23 октября по новому, [исторические данные о температуре воздуха][22] показывают, что несколько дней перед 23-м температура держалась около нуля днём и ниже нуля ночью, поэтому вероятно, что Малая Невка могла быть хотя бы частично покрыта свежим льдом. Более подробное исследование вопроса необходимо для точного определения климатических кондиций в те дни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Библиография ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Лихачёв, Д. С. _Литература-реальность-литература_. Л. 1981. Отрывок «Из комментария к стихотворению А. Блока „Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека…”» взят с сайта Фонда им. Д. С. Лихачёва ([статьи][23]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Максимов, Д. Е. _Поэзия и проза Ал. Блока_. Л. 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Паперный, В. М. «Блок и Ницше». Через [ruthenia.ru][24].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Шифрин, М. «Сто лет знаменитому стихотворению Блока», [_Вокруг света_][25].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danse_Macabre&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_%28%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82-%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%29&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krestovsky_Island&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Likhachov&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.albany.edu/offcourse/issue41/cigale_translations6.html#blok&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/yevgeny/blok/night_streets_lantern.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://thermograph.ru/arc/y_1912-st_26063-m_10.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://likhachev.lfond.spb.ru/articles.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/537613.html&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/blogs/Shifrin/1623.php&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_%28%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82-%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%29&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krestovsky_Island&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.albany.edu/offcourse/issue41/cigale_translations6.html#blok&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/yevgeny/blok/night_streets_lantern.html&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://thermograph.ru/arc/y_1912-st_26063-m_10.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://likhachev.lfond.spb.ru/articles.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/537613.html&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/blogs/Shifrin/1623.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1724" RevisionGUID="8ba5a74b-937e-4d34-a262-1879fe11a423" CreationDate="2013-01-14T10:02:41.420" UserId="185" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="&quot;Откуда?&quot; means &quot;where from?&quot; and &quot;where?&quot; means &quot;где?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где моя книга? - Where is my book? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Откуда вы? - Where are you from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6237" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1668" RevisionGUID="5c3d5b34-e58d-4c32-973e-acd5047939b4" CreationDate="2013-01-14T11:00:15.160" UserId="71" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1723" RevisionGUID="a5316e0d-b2a6-4dac-ac9c-98b3804bbcc5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T11:34:12.753" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="Let me try :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest to understand the difference this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Где&quot; - just &quot;where&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Куда&quot; - could be interpreted closely to &quot;where&#xD;&#xA;   *to*&quot;. I assume that using this word you imply some place like destination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Куда ты идёшь? Where _to_ are you going? (Where are you going to?)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где ты идёшь? Where are you going _at the moment_ (imagine a situation when you are talking on the phone and your friend asks you where are you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct me if I am wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1729" RevisionGUID="d03e6036-c6df-4194-a41d-ec5942d2a9f6" CreationDate="2013-01-14T18:28:56.540" UserId="115" Text="In English the word `where` has two meanings: place and direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where are you? - place&#xD;&#xA; - Where are you going? - direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there are two separate words for these meanings: `где` for place and `куда` for direction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Где вы?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Куда вы идёте?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that &quot;Where are you from?&quot; is translated as &quot;Откуда вы?&quot; is that there is an implied direction:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Where did you *come* from? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Откуда вы *приехали*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1730" RevisionGUID="adad15fc-4dcd-4ac6-98ee-6c4e0406a4ca" CreationDate="2013-01-14T18:42:09.207" UserId="1349" Text="Context: We invited a celebrity a while ago and want to follow up by sending him an email showing our gratitude." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1730" RevisionGUID="adad15fc-4dcd-4ac6-98ee-6c4e0406a4ca" CreationDate="2013-01-14T18:42:09.207" UserId="1349" Text="Как сказать &quot;Thank you for honoring us by coming&quot; по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1730" RevisionGUID="adad15fc-4dcd-4ac6-98ee-6c4e0406a4ca" CreationDate="2013-01-14T18:42:09.207" UserId="1349" Text="|выбор-слова|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1731" RevisionGUID="d5e8c9b5-bd58-4776-b8bc-85f58c69b624" CreationDate="2013-01-14T19:15:08.247" UserId="414" Text="&gt; Большое спасибо, что вы пришли, это большая честь для нас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1731" RevisionGUID="d9877cb1-7933-408b-886e-210acb1f6e51" CreationDate="2013-01-14T19:24:43.640" UserId="414" Comment="Два раза &quot;большое&quot; как-то не круто" Text="&gt; Огромное спасибо, что вы пришли, это большая честь для нас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1731" RevisionGUID="09f24ea5-8156-48e9-9ef7-a07e1aa22fb5" CreationDate="2013-01-14T19:30:28.943" UserId="414" Comment="Ещё больше уважения" Text="&gt; Огромное спасибо, что Вы пришли, это большая честь для нас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1732" RevisionGUID="fcbc40b1-46cb-4952-b6bc-1d2f0ca0280b" CreationDate="2013-01-14T19:56:15.193" UserId="426" Text="A relatively direct translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо, что почтили нас своим присутствием." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1732" RevisionGUID="e300c95d-dd0a-40a7-a0f4-ac2306169a8c" CreationDate="2013-01-14T20:03:40.060" UserId="426" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="A relatively direct translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо, что почтили нас своим присутствием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is is a relatively old form of expressing gratitude for a visit. A more modern way would be something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарим вас за честь, которую Вы оказали нам посещением нашего вечера (нашего концерта, нашей презентации, и так далее)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1733" RevisionGUID="d6c63488-bc62-4d65-91cc-01224c453d11" CreationDate="2013-01-15T02:27:43.410" UserId="62" Text="Compared to English, Russian is much more pedantic about distinguishing direction and location, e.g., &quot;from&quot; might be из and от (or other possibilities) since word choice distinguishes between &quot;from the inside&quot; and &quot;from the surface&quot; while in English both are expressed with &quot;from&quot;.  Or just look at the Russian verbs of motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of &quot;where&quot;, there are three words, not two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;где = *where*, as in location (e.g., where am I?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;куда = *to where*, as in direction (e.g., where are you going = where are you going to = to where are you going?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;откуда = *from where*, as in direction (e.g., where are you coming from? or where are you from?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that in English, &quot;where are you going to&quot; is usually expressed as &quot;where are you going&quot;, but in Russian the distinction between location and direction is not glossed over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, although откуда obviously arose historically as от+куда, but you shouldn't regard откуда as being some form of the word кудa. So the way you posed your question (not the heading, but the actual question) is awkward: when asking someone where they live, you don't use куда instead of где, but rather откуда instead of где. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="37375643-a497-4955-8085-0aead2ecef0a" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:17:16.953" UserId="1349" Text="Does it mean yes, or does it mean know, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="37375643-a497-4955-8085-0aead2ecef0a" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:17:16.953" UserId="1349" Text="What does the phrase &quot;Да нет&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="37375643-a497-4955-8085-0aead2ecef0a" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:17:16.953" UserId="1349" Text="|выбор-слова|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="a8c05974-c2e1-40e5-a8ac-80669552f282" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:20:48.680" UserId="1349" Comment="Updated question" Text="When asking somewhere where they live, why is &quot;Куда&quot; used in the question instead of &quot;Где&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As in why &quot;Откуда вы?&quot; instead of, say, &quot;Вы от где?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, where else can you use &quot;откуда&quot; instead of &quot;где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1735" RevisionGUID="e7a50302-be7e-4928-ac5b-507dd1b40151" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:24:02.130" UserId="1262" Text="It means 'yes, but --', or 'actually no/not', or 'I can see your point and accept it, but the real things differ entirely from what you said'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in any conversational strategy, the meaning is defined by context, intentions, implicit/tacit knowledge, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1736" RevisionGUID="5b47d8e0-d4ec-4a0b-a236-205b4d1ca4a5" CreationDate="2013-01-15T06:49:15.377" UserId="1236" Text="Russian 'да' and 'нет' do not mean what English 'yes' and 'no' mean. English is somehow unusual as for the meaning of its 'yes' and 'no', as compared to other languages. In this respect Russian is closer to Japanese, than to English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian 'да' means &quot;I agree with what you say, you are right&quot;, Russian 'нет' means &quot;I disagree with what you say, you are wrong&quot;, while English 'yes' means &quot;What you say reflects the actual state of things&quot; and English 'no' means &quot;What you say does not reflect the actual state of things.&quot; On the surface, there may seem to be no difference between the approaches of the two languages, but, actually, that is not so. In Russian, if I ask you, &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; and you answer &quot;Да.&quot; it means you do not know the person. But in English, if I ask you, &quot;Don't you know him?&quot; your &quot;Yes&quot; answer would mean you do know the person. Am I right? In Russian one can say &quot;Да, я его не знаю,&quot; but in English one cannot say, &quot;Yes, I don't know him,&quot; one has to say, &quot;**No**, I **don't** know him.&quot; This means sometimes Russian 'да' is translated to English as 'yes', but sometimes, when it is the confirmation of a negation, as 'no.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, Russian 'да' has several meanings. As a particle, it is 'yes' (or 'no'). It can be a question paricle, meaning 'right?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ключ в столе, да?&quot; - &quot;The key is in the table, right?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it can mean 'by the way' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Да, ещё одна новость.&quot; — &quot;By the way / Oh yes, (there's) another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; piece of news.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It can mean &quot;really?, indeed?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Вы знаете, он женился? - Да? А я и не знал.&quot; — &quot;You know he has got&#xD;&#xA;&gt; married? - Has he? [Really / Indeed?] I didn't know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used for emotional emphasis - &quot;but, oh but; why; well&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Да не может быть!&quot; — &quot;But it can't be true!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other uses of 'да', but the phrase which is the scope of our question, &quot;да нет&quot;, uses this last meaning of 'да', so it can be translated as &quot;well, no&quot; or &quot;but no&quot;, or as &quot;well, yes&quot; or &quot;but yes&quot;, if the question, to which it is the answer, contains a negation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="33d71cec-ecf4-4d44-b28d-832eafeb439b" CreationDate="2013-01-15T09:20:09.817" UserId="47" Comment="know &gt; no" Text="Does it mean yes, or does it mean no, or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6259" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="ec60bfeb-4f29-4192-bfeb-7d119d87c505" CreationDate="2013-01-15T10:29:35.460" UserId="71" Comment="31" />
  <row Id="6260" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1677" RevisionGUID="c8b6fc26-d4f0-4e8f-9bb2-df404f6629e2" CreationDate="2013-01-15T10:30:05.850" UserId="71" Comment="32" />
  <row Id="6270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1732" RevisionGUID="17d2f7ea-531a-4b5e-8765-b1f0732a0cff" CreationDate="2013-01-15T11:45:57.847" UserId="426" Comment="Added a translation for the second version." Text="A relatively direct translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо, что почтили нас своим присутствием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is is a relatively old form of expressing gratitude for a visit. A more modern way would be something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарим вас за честь, которую Вы оказали нам посещением нашего вечера (нашего концерта, нашей презентации, и так далее).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above translates literally as &quot;We are thanking you for the honor that you made us by visiting our event (our concert, our presentation, and so on).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1738" RevisionGUID="5edf415f-8aa6-4188-a472-95a4e8f9dee0" CreationDate="2013-01-15T18:11:19.277" UserId="1358" Text="It means &quot;No&quot;. Beleve me, I'm from Russia. There is also phrase &quot;Да нет, наверное&quot;. That means &quot;I guess no&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;But this phrase is used in only speacial situations. For example, if one person suggests another to go to the shop with him, the first person is not sure if he wants to go or not. But if he finally tells &quot;Да нет&quot;, he means that he won't go. And almost always &quot;Да нет&quot; is continued with &quot;Не&quot; and a verb like &quot;Да нет, не хочу&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6275" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="98392b02-bf44-426b-948b-5ad729f6c870" CreationDate="2013-01-15T19:55:35.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/291272437411217409" />
  <row Id="6279" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1685" RevisionGUID="844b3798-d772-4dde-830f-4a0d7156bee2" CreationDate="2013-01-15T22:13:09.007" UserId="71" Comment="31" />
  <row Id="6282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="d3e67157-3790-47ba-ba13-18faad9864d8" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:06:30.630" UserId="1262" Text="What is the exact meaning of 'khamstvo' in terms of Wierzbicka's semantics? See e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations (1992)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See also the tags. Although the tags match the specifics of this site, this question has been deleted twice. Don't know why.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каково точное значение концепта &quot;хамство&quot; в терминах семантики Вежбицкой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;См. например &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations (1992)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*См. также тэги. Несмотря на тэги, вопрос удалялся дважды. Почему - непонятно.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="d3e67157-3790-47ba-ba13-18faad9864d8" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:06:30.630" UserId="1262" Text="Значение концепта &quot;хамство&quot;/Concept 'khamstvo'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="d3e67157-3790-47ba-ba13-18faad9864d8" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:06:30.630" UserId="1262" Text="|semantics|узус|этикет|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6285" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="2d3971c5-6783-4c7e-9ed0-e1f011feec7a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:20:15.933" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="Kонцепт &quot;хамство&quot;/Concept 'khamstvo'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="1443df4a-a067-4df9-9299-a1e93dee6ee5" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:34:38.890" UserId="242" Text="Today I've heard on the radio that news presenter pronounced `изображён` (depicted) like `изобра́жен`. This sound to me definitely wrong. For me pronouncing this word wit stress on the last syllable (which is de-facto standard) is the only form accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that this is yet another example of long lasting phenomena in Russian language: words which are constantly spelled without &quot;ё&quot; finally lose phonemes indicated by this letter. One well-known example is Рерих, who was actually Рёрих. Or `свёкла` which is pronounced by many as `свекла́` or even (by few though) `свеколь`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I've realized that the main reason that `изобра́жен` hurts my feeling is actually that it sound like another russian word with same root, `обезобра́жен` (disfigured). Contrary to `изображён` the only linguistic norm I can recall is to pronounce `обезображен` with penultimate stressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Where should I put stress in both of this words and, if rules are different for them, which of form had actually been original one, i.e can we talk about the loss of `ё` here or vice versa." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="1443df4a-a067-4df9-9299-a1e93dee6ee5" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:34:38.890" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Изобра́жен&quot; but &quot;обезобра́жен&quot; - why do stresses in these word differ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="1443df4a-a067-4df9-9299-a1e93dee6ee5" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:34:38.890" UserId="242" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6289" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="e45b89d9-b7a1-43de-821c-c610c3c6f2e3" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:40:45.930" UserId="242" Comment="titled fixed" Text="&quot;Изображён&quot; but &quot;обезобра́жен&quot; - why do stresses in these word differ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="67c546c3-8d25-400a-8794-31abcdfa03bb" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:45:54.660" UserId="1262" Text="Считается, что в русском языке нет исконных слов, начинающихся на букву А. Как объяснить этимологию слова &quot;аист&quot;, явно отличающуюся от лексем в родственных языках?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;бел.     бусел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;укр.     лелека&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;русин.   бузёк/чорногуз/боцан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;польск.  bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словацк. bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;слов.    štorklja&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;болг.    щъкрел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хорв.    рода&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no original Russian words starting with A, then how to esplain the origination of the word 'аист' [stork]? Cf. with words in other languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;бел.     бусел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;укр.     лелека&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;русин.   бузёк/чорногуз/боцан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;польск.  bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словацк. bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;слов.    štorklja&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;болг.    щъкрел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хорв.    рода" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="67c546c3-8d25-400a-8794-31abcdfa03bb" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:45:54.660" UserId="1262" Text="этимология слова &quot;аист&quot; / the etymology of 'аист' [stork]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="67c546c3-8d25-400a-8794-31abcdfa03bb" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:45:54.660" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|semantics|slavic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1743" RevisionGUID="a929f632-1836-42c2-93c8-8d0c0a388d89" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:53:18.577" UserId="1262" Text="What is the possible origin of this word? Can it be related to &quot;сарматы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каково возможное происхождение этого слова? Может ли оно быть связано со словом &quot;сарматы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1743" RevisionGUID="a929f632-1836-42c2-93c8-8d0c0a388d89" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:53:18.577" UserId="1262" Text="Etymology of хорваты / Этимология слова &quot;хорваты&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1743" RevisionGUID="a929f632-1836-42c2-93c8-8d0c0a388d89" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:53:18.577" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|slavic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6296" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="c4de2159-3815-4271-bcd5-b397d7476ae3" CreationDate="2013-01-16T07:53:58.687" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="этимология слова &quot;аист&quot; / etymology of 'аист' [stork]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1744" RevisionGUID="a9bc7cb9-8786-48f7-8d43-4a5eb6b73284" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:07:45.917" UserId="242" Text="This is, actually, a very nice question. The short answer is - no one knows for sure the origin of word аист. Though there are some facts that give us some hints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of using this word in Russian belongs to (most early) XV century. &#xD;&#xA; - There is no evidence of this word in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA; - There exists black (Ciconia nigra) and white (Ciconia ciconia) storks. On the territories populated by Russian language speakers there was no population of white storks before XIX-th century, so originally this word was used to refer black storks only.&#xD;&#xA; - In Old Russian instead of `аист` words `бусел` and  `стьркъ`/`стеркъ` had been used. &#xD;&#xA; - Actually, no one knows for sure whether this words really indicated exactly storks, since the can be used for naming all long-leg birds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of 2013, anything else besides these fact is at least bit speculative. There are many different hypothesis, none of them is accepted by the majority of linguists. [Here is][1] an excellent overview of existing theories on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me conclude with this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Классическая” версия происхождения названия “аист” звучит так. Из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; средневерхненемецкого диалекта было заимствовано слово “Heister”. Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одно из старых местных названий сороки (Pica pica). Современное ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наименование в немецком языке — “Elster”. “Heister” в польском языке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трансформировалось в “hajster”, &quot;hajstra&quot;, затем перешло в украинский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и белорусский языки и некоторые диалекты русского в форме “гайстер”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://roman.by/r-76979.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1744" RevisionGUID="44768416-0033-4dd6-8f23-3eb16e02842c" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:13:19.370" UserId="242" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="This is, actually, a very nice question. The short answer is - no one knows for sure the origin of word аист. Though there are some facts that give us some hints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of using this word in Russian belongs to (most early) XV century. &#xD;&#xA; - There is no evidence of this word in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA; - There exists black (Ciconia nigra) and white (Ciconia ciconia) storks. On the territories populated by Russian language speakers there was no population of white storks before XIX-th century, so originally this word was used to refer black storks only.&#xD;&#xA; - In Old Russian instead of `аист` words `бусел` and  `стьркъ`/`стеркъ` had been used. &#xD;&#xA; - Actually, no one knows for sure whether this words really indicated exactly storks, since the can be used for naming all long-leg birds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of 2013, anything else besides these fact is at least bit speculative. There are many different hypothesis, none of them is accepted by the majority of linguists. [Here is][1] an excellent overview of existing theories on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me conclude with this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Классическая” версия происхождения названия “аист” звучит так. Из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; средневерхненемецкого диалекта было заимствовано слово “Heister”. Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одно из старых местных названий сороки (Pica pica). Современное ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наименование в немецком языке — “Elster”. “Heister” в польском языке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трансформировалось в “hajster”, &quot;hajstra&quot;, затем перешло в украинский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и белорусский языки и некоторые диалекты русского в форме “гайстер”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theory mentioned above is indeed can be treated as the main candidate to be truthful. But be warned: though this overview is informative indeed, it mentions some fact that also are 100% reliable. For example, mentioned word `лелека`, even if it onomatopoeic (which is quite possible indeed, this is quite often case), hardly relates to any sumerian roots. But, once again, no one really knows for sure in this case also :)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://roman.by/r-76979.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1744" RevisionGUID="b7fafd2b-23a2-4b36-b93c-0d2956b41001" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:21:15.273" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="This is, actually, a very nice question. The short answer is - no one knows for sure the origin of word аист. Though there are some facts that give us some hints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of using this word in Russian belongs to (most early) XV century. &#xD;&#xA; - There is no evidence of this word in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA; - There exists black (Ciconia nigra) and white (Ciconia ciconia) storks. On the territories populated by Russian language speakers there was no population of white storks before XIX-th century, so originally this word was used to refer black storks only.&#xD;&#xA; - In Old Russian instead of `аист` words `бусел` and  `стьркъ`/`стеркъ` had been used. &#xD;&#xA; - Actually, no one knows for sure whether this words really indicated exactly storks, since the can be used for naming all long-leg birds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of 2013, anything else besides these fact is at least bit speculative. There are many different hypothesis, none of them is accepted by the majority of linguists. [Here is][1] an excellent overview of existing theories on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me conclude with this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Классическая” версия происхождения названия “аист” звучит так. Из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; средневерхненемецкого диалекта было заимствовано слово “Heister”. Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одно из старых местных названий сороки (Pica pica). Современное ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наименование в немецком языке — “Elster”. “Heister” в польском языке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трансформировалось в “hajster”, &quot;hajstra&quot;, затем перешло в украинский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и белорусский языки и некоторые диалекты русского в форме “гайстер”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theory mentioned above is indeed can be treated as the main candidate to be truthful. But be warned: though this overview is informative indeed, it mentions some fact that also are 100% reliable. For example, mentioned word `лелека`, even if it onomatopoeic (which is quite possible indeed, this is quite often case), hardly relates to any sumerian root. But, once again, no one really knows for sure in this case also :)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://roman.by/r-76979.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="dce18498-a151-469a-aefa-1d516c40fd7e" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:21:19.283" UserId="1262" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Считается, что в русском языке нет исконных слов, начинающихся на букву А. Как объяснить этимологию слова &quot;аист&quot;, явно отличающуюся от лексем в родственных языках?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;бел.     бусел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;укр.     лелека&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;русин.   бузёк/чорногуз/боцан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;польск.  bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словацк. bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;слов.    štorklja&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;болг.    щъкрел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хорв.    рода&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no original Russian words starting with A, then how to esplain the origination of the word 'аист' [stork]? Cf. with words in other languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Belorussian     бусел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ukrainian       лелека&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruthenian       бузёк/чорногуз/боцан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polish          bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slovak          bocian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slovene         štorklja&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bulgarian       щъкрел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Croatian        рода" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1745" RevisionGUID="554b3e1c-3bbc-401d-a4cb-2f7141f35d42" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:36:35.537" UserId="69" Text="Согласно Фасмеру:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **а́ист** др.-русск. _агистъ_ (Фасмер, RS 3, 249). Едва ли правильно Mi.EW (2), Бернекер (1, 25), Преобр. (1, 4) связывают с польск. _hajster_ «серая цапля», укр. _га́йстер_, _а́стер_ «аист черногуз», которые восходят к нем. _Heister_. Ненадежно также сближение Фасмера (RS 6, 207 и сл.) с прибалтийским этнонимом _Aestii_ (Тацит), лит. _Aistmares_ «Вислинский залив», англос. _Estmere_ (Вульфстан), несмотря на такие параллели, как фламинго, нем. _Wallach_ и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иначе говоря, всё равно неясно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1746" RevisionGUID="0ef7d275-3d6e-404e-a64b-51e1a088876a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:48:33.283" UserId="414" Text="Maybe that news presenter just made a slip of the tongue? The two е/ё examples you provided in the second paragraph are quite common mistakes, but `изобра́жен` is something weird. It's even harder to pronounce. Could you remember what the context was?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="b0595566-16a8-41e1-903a-c242ce65597f" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:52:25.333" UserId="242" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Today I've heard on the radio that news presenter pronounced `изображён` (depicted) like `изобра́жен`. This sound to me definitely wrong. For me pronouncing this word wit stress on the last syllable (which is de-facto standard) is the only form accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that this is yet another example of long lasting phenomena in Russian language: words which are constantly spelled without &quot;ё&quot; finally lose phonemes indicated by this letter. One well-known example is Рерих, who was actually Рёрих. Or `свёкла` which is pronounced by many as `свекла́` or even (by few though) `свеколь`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I've realized that the main reason that `изобра́жен` hurts my feeling is actually that it sound like another russian word with same root, `обезобра́жен` (disfigured). Contrary to `изображён` the only linguistic norm I can recall is to pronounce `обезображен` with penultimate stressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Where should I put stress in both of this words and, if rules are different for them, which of form had actually been original one, i.e can we talk about the loss of `ё` here or vice versa. To put it simple (treat this as a subquestion): Does обезображён form ever existed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1747" RevisionGUID="a69a2dd7-dc94-4267-a97b-5e9d1959038e" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:58:01.337" UserId="1304" Text="Origin of this word is unclear. There are many hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - from ancient Iranian haurvata - guard of cattle (Max Fasmer. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language [Макс Фасмер. Этимологический словарь русского языка (1986)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - from «корванты, корвенты» - Vent, who lives on the border of the space occupied by the Veneto-Wends ([Амплеев И.А. Сербы, хорваты (2006][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In &quot;etymological dictionary of Slavic Languages​​&quot; (1981) refers to &quot;the full etymological identity&quot; (?!) &quot;харваты&quot; and &quot;сарматы&quot;, from Iranian adjective *sarma(n)t / *harva(n)t - «female, full of women» (Амплеев И.А. Сербы, хорваты (2006). But author prejudice this hypothesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/vasmer.php?id=262&amp;vol=4)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://znamo-delo.narod.ru/Srbi_Hrvati.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1745" RevisionGUID="40598f16-356d-410f-97ba-fd594b279d71" CreationDate="2013-01-16T08:58:40.110" UserId="69" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Согласно Фасмеру:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **а́ист** др.-русск. _агистъ_ (Фасмер, RS 3, 249). Едва ли правильно Mi.EW (2), Бернекер (1, 25), Преобр. (1, 4) связывают с польск. _hajster_ «серая цапля», укр. _га́йстер_, _а́стер_ «аист черногуз», которые восходят к нем. _Heister_. Ненадежно также сближение Фасмера (RS 6, 207 и сл.) с прибалтийским этнонимом _Aestii_ (Тацит), лит. _Aistmares_ «Вислинский залив», англос. _Estmere_ (Вульфстан), несмотря на такие параллели, как фламинго, нем. _Wallach_ и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иначе говоря, всё равно неясно, но очевидно, что основные теории даже не рассматривают исконно-славянское происхождение слова «аист»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="0bf4ab09-53a4-4b8a-a089-e1d5b48c6b43" CreationDate="2013-01-16T09:32:03.033" UserId="414" Comment="Small letters in the beginnig of a sentence, Y U use it?" Text="Этимология слова &quot;аист&quot; / etymology of 'аист' [stork]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6307" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="0bf4ab09-53a4-4b8a-a089-e1d5b48c6b43" CreationDate="2013-01-16T09:32:03.033" Comment="Proposed by 414 approved by 242, 1262 edit id of 290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="7b32016c-dfe3-47e6-90f0-b64f4abbab54" CreationDate="2013-01-16T11:33:40.453" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Today I've heard on the radio that news presenter pronounced `изображён` (depicted) like `изобра́жен` (**upd** - here is a [link][1], checkout 19:02). This sound to me definitely wrong. For me pronouncing this word wit stress on the last syllable (which is de-facto standard) is the only form accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that this is yet another example of long lasting phenomena in Russian language: words which are constantly spelled without &quot;ё&quot; finally lose phonemes indicated by this letter. One well-known example is Рерих, who was actually Рёрих. Or `свёкла` which is pronounced by many as `свекла́` or even (by few though) `свеколь`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I've realized that the main reason that `изобра́жен` hurts my feeling is actually that it sound like another russian word with same root, `обезобра́жен` (disfigured). Contrary to `изображён` the only linguistic norm I can recall is to pronounce `обезображен` with penultimate stressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Where should I put stress in both of this words and, if rules are different for them, which of form had actually been original one, i.e can we talk about the loss of `ё` here or vice versa. To put it simple (treat this as a subquestion): Does обезображён form ever existed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.moskva.fm/share/4015/20130116/fromtime:09:18:55" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="f88d7279-b4d5-4516-b3b1-77d2b45e1910" CreationDate="2013-01-16T11:59:14.973" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1993 characters in body" Text="What is the exact meaning of 'khamstvo' in terms of Wierzbicka's semantics? See e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations (1992)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See also the tags. Although the tags match the specifics of this site, this question has been deleted twice. Don't know why.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For shorter reference: ТОЛКОВАНИЕ ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ&#xD;&#xA;КОНЦЕПТОВ*&#xD;&#xA;Defining emotion concepts. Cognitive Science 1992. 16:539-581.&#xD;&#xA;Please see  the Russian reference below (краткая справка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каково точное значение концепта &quot;хамство&quot; в терминах семантики Вежбицкой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;См. например &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations (1992)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*См. также тэги. Несмотря на тэги, вопрос удалялся дважды. Почему - непонятно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая справка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: А. Вежбицка ТОЛКОВАНИЕ ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ&#xD;&#xA;КОНЦЕПТОВ*&#xD;&#xA;Defining emotion concepts. Cognitive Science 1992. 16:539-581.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку эмпирическая основа исследования расширялась, а теоретический анализ продолжался многие годы, первоначальный список примитивов был пересмотрен и расширен. В настоящее время я полагаю, что список должен включать следующие примитивы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«субстантивы»: я (I), ты (you), кто-то (someone), что-то (something), люди (people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«детерминаторы и квантификаторы»: этот (this), тот же самый (the same), другой (other), один (one), два (two), много (many/much), все/весь (all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«ментальные предикаты»: думать (о) (think (about)), говорить (say), знать (о) (know (about)), чувствовать (feel), хотеть (want)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«действия и события»: делать (do), происходить/случаться (happen (to))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«оценки»: хороший (good), плохой (bad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«дескрипторы»: большой (big), маленький (small)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«время и место»: когда (when), где (where), после/до (after/before), под/над (under/above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«мстапредикаты»: не/нет/отрицание (по), потому что/из-за (because), если (if/would), мочь (сап)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«интенсификатор»: очень (very)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«таксономия и партономия»: вид/разновидность (kind of), часть (part of)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«нестрогость/прототип»: подобный/как (like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(см. с. 330-331).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример концептуального описания концепта Amazement (с. 339):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amazement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X чувствует что-то&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;иногда человек думает примерно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сейчас что-то произошло&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;до этого я нс знал: это может произойти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;если бы я подумал об этом, я бы сказал: этого не может&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;произойти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;поэтому этот человек чувствует что-то&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X чувствует что-то похожее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Источник цитат:&#xD;&#xA;Всжбиикая А. Язык. Культура. Познание: Пер. с англ. Отв. ред.&#xD;&#xA;М. А. КроНГауз, ВСТуп. ст. Е. В. Паллчевой. - М.: Pvc-&#xD;&#xA;ские словари,1996. 416 с. ISBN'5-89216-002-5.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="be0598e9-8842-404b-b255-7ec38d39810a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T12:22:54.003" UserId="185" Comment="formatting, spelling, removed superfluous references" Text="Каково точное значение концепта &quot;хамство&quot; в терминах семантики Вежбицкой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опишите, пожалуйста, понятие &quot;хамство&quot;, используя &quot;семантические примитивы&quot; из списка ниже. Внизу также дан пример описания другого концепта (Amazement). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «субстантивы»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;я (I), ты (you), кто-то (someone), что-то (something), люди (people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «детерминаторы и квантификаторы»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;этот (this), тот же самый (the same), другой (other), один (one), два (two), много (many/much), все/весь (all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «ментальные предикаты»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;думать (о) (think (about)), говорить (say), знать (о) (know (about)), чувствовать (feel), хотеть (want)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «действия и события»:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;делать (do), происходить/случаться (happen (to))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «оценки»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;хороший (good), плохой (bad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «дескрипторы»:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;большой (big), маленький (small)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «время и место»:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;когда (when), где (where), после/до (after/before), под/над (under/above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «метапредикаты»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;не/нет/отрицание (по), потому что/из-за (because), если (if/would), мочь (сап)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «интенсификатор»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;очень (very)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «таксономия и партономия»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;вид/разновидность (kind of), часть (part of)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «нестрогость/прототип»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;подобный/как (like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример описания концепта Amazement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Amazement**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;X чувствует что-то&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;иногда человек думает примерно так:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;сейчас что-то произошло&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;до этого я не знал: это может произойти&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;если бы я подумал об этом, я бы сказал: этого не может произойти&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;поэтому этот человек чувствует что-то&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;X чувствует что-то похожее&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Список &quot;семантических примитивов&quot; и схема описания взяты из:&#xD;&#xA;Вежбицкая А. *Язык. Культура. Познание.* М.: Pуcские словари, 1996.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="be0598e9-8842-404b-b255-7ec38d39810a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T12:22:54.003" UserId="185" Comment="formatting, spelling, removed superfluous references" Text="Kонцепт &quot;хамство&quot; / Concept 'khamstvo'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1749" RevisionGUID="cc31e02d-5bd2-482d-92b9-f88bd975d333" CreationDate="2013-01-16T15:11:51.833" UserId="1097" Text="По ссылке — утреннее развлекательное шоу, где ведущие шутят и дурачатся в прямом эфире, чтобы поднять настроение людям, собирающимся на работу. В таких шоу вполне допустимо исказить слово или ударение, сделать его &quot;смешнее&quot;, чтобы привлечь внимание слушателей.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;изобра́жен&quot; было произнесено, когда ведущий комментировал [эту статью](http://www.kp.ru/daily/26014/2937761/) из &quot;Комсомольской правды&quot; (таблоид, жёлтая пресса). Конкретно — фотографию &quot;Как правильно наматывать портянку&quot;, где журналист наматывает портянку поверх носка (правильно наматывать портянку на голую ногу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Намеренно ошибочное ударение ведущего высмеивает неправильные действия человека на фотографии. Комментатор насмехается над ним, показывая его малообразованным человеком." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="d08a52bb-7602-4aea-9856-43fdefc3d40a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T15:18:12.747" UserId="242" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="Today I've heard on the radio that news presenter pronounced `изображён` (depicted) like `изобра́жен` (**upd** - here is a [link][1], checkout 19:02). This sound to me definitely wrong. For me pronouncing this word wit stress on the last syllable (which is de-facto standard) is the only form accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that this is yet another example of long lasting phenomena in Russian language: words which are constantly spelled without &quot;ё&quot; finally lose phonemes indicated by this letter. One well-known example is Рерих, who was actually Рёрих. Or `свёкла` which is pronounced by many as `свекла́` or even (by few though) `свеколь`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I've realized that the main reason that `изобра́жен` hurts my feeling is actually that it sound like another russian word with same root, `обезобра́жен` (disfigured). Contrary to `изображён` the only linguistic norm I can recall is to pronounce `обезображен` with penultimate stressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Where should I put stress in both of this words and, if rules are different for them, which of form had actually been original one, i.e can we talk about the loss of `ё` here or vice versa (or, may be both form coexisted &quot;from the very beginning&quot;). To put it simple (treat this as a subquestion): Does обезображён form ever existed and if it haven't, what are rules regulating such stressing? Why, for example, we say обнажён, изображён, утверждён but обезображен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.moskva.fm/share/4015/20130116/fromtime:09:18:55" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1749" RevisionGUID="f651ef7c-116f-4cd1-9766-462f2d5fb774" CreationDate="2013-01-16T15:52:54.427" UserId="1097" Comment="deleted 134 characters in body" Text="По ссылке — утреннее развлекательное шоу, где ведущие шутят и дурачатся в прямом эфире, чтобы поднять настроение людям, собирающимся на работу. В таких шоу вполне допустимо исказить слово или ударение, сделать его &quot;смешнее&quot;, чтобы привлечь внимание слушателей.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Правильно: изображён (ударение всегда на ё), обезобра́жен (всегда на а). Почему так?&#xD;&#xA;Даже в словах с одним корнем ударение меняется: изображён, изображена́, изображено́.&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю, нет общего правила, по которому можно определить, где должно быть ударение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например: зо́лото, боло́то, долото́ - только 1 гласная, а ударение на первый, второй или третий слог." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="3279312d-3e97-4486-8e19-dcc270e13328" CreationDate="2013-01-16T15:54:55.740" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Today I've heard on the radio that news presenter pronounced `изображён` (depicted) like `изобра́жен` (**upd** - here is a [link][1], checkout 19:02). This sounds to me definitely wrong. For me pronouncing this word wit stress on the last syllable (which is de-facto standard) is the only form accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was that this is yet another example of long lasting phenomena in Russian language: words which are constantly spelled without &quot;ё&quot; finally lose phonemes indicated by this letter. One well-known example is Рерих, who was actually Рёрих. Or `свёкла` which is pronounced by many as `свекла́` or even (by few though) `свеколь`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I've realized that the main reason that `изобра́жен` hurts my feeling is actually that it sound like another russian word with same root, `обезобра́жен` (disfigured). Contrary to `изображён` the only linguistic norm I can recall is to pronounce `обезображен` with penultimate stressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: Where should I put stress in both of this words and, if rules are different for them, which of form had actually been original one, i.e can we talk about the loss of `ё` here or vice versa (or, may be both form coexisted &quot;from the very beginning&quot;). To put it simple (treat this as a subquestion): Does обезображён form ever existed and if it haven't, what are rules regulating such stressing? Why, for example, we say обнажён, изображён, утверждён but обезображен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.moskva.fm/share/4015/20130116/fromtime:09:18:55" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1750" RevisionGUID="c7d2fe83-fd20-420d-81cc-870bd960f51f" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:36:15.900" UserId="1329" Text="The correct way to pronounce those two words is : изображ**Ё**н and обезобр**А**жен. According to the modern orthoepic norm, this is the only possible variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way we pronounce short participles in Russian depends on their long form. And the long form depends on the future for of the verb this participle was derived from. I'll quote an extract from the [prometod.ru](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=890&amp;met3) site : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Страдательные причастия, образованные от глаголов, инфинитив которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заканчивается суффиксом -и-, подчиняются следующим правилам:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. если ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончание, то ударение в полных формах страдательного причастия падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на суффикс -онн-/-енн-: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - заверш**И**ть, заверш**A**т — заверш**Ё**нный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - покор**И**ть,покор**Я**т — покор**Ё**нный.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. если же ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на основу, то ударение в причастии предшествует суффиксу -енн-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ув**И**дишь, ув**И**дят — ув**И**денный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - засл**У**жишь, засл**У**жат — засл**У**женный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, then the question remains: why is the stress put in each **verb** differently, if they both originate from the same root? Why do we say изобраз**И**шь but  обезобр**А**зишь? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it happens mostly due to the fact that the word **обезобразить** was formed from an adjective безобразный, which may have two different stresses depending on the meaning ( i.e. these are actually two homographs, not one word ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безобразный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. БЕЗО́БРАЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно. Лит. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключающий в себе образности. Б-ая речь автора. Б-ое мышление. ◁&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безо́бразность, -и; ж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. БЕЗОБРА́ЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Отталкивающе некрасивый; уродливый. Б-ая ведьма. Б. вид. Б-ое платье.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Непристойный, возмутительный. Б. поступок. Б-ое поведение. Б-ая история.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Разг. Очень плохой, отвратительный, скверный. Доро́ги просто безобразны! ◁ Безобра́зно, нареч. Расходы б. велики (очень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно). Безобра́зность, -и; ж. * Красота и безобразность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разделены чертой одной (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт С. А. Кузнецов. 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the stress in the verb originates from the stress in the adjective. That stress was distinguishing two adjectives, and was so meaningful that remained in the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we make a derivation of the verb обезобр**А**зить, it is **not** like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - **О**браз --&gt;   обез-**O**браз-и-ть   &#xD;&#xA;(prefix **обез-/обес-** means deprive smth./smb. of smth., in this case the verb would have the meaning &quot;deprive of image/personality&quot;, or better &quot;make plain&quot; - лишить образа)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but rather like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - образ --&gt; без-обр**A**з-н-ый --&gt; безобр**A**з-и-ть --&gt; о-безобразить  &#xD;&#xA;    (where the meaning of the verb is &quot;make ugly&quot; - сделать безобр**A**зным,    уродливым)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I haven't found any verbs derived from без**О**бразный. We may say &quot;**лишить образности**&quot; instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1750" RevisionGUID="e4513073-698f-4f7b-b897-46d9721879ce" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:50:24.277" UserId="1329" Comment="solved the markup problem (treated bolding inside the word as italiks )" Text="The correct way to pronounce those two words is : изображ&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;н and обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;жен. According to the modern orthoepic norm, this is the only possible variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way we pronounce short participles in Russian depends on their long form. And the long form depends on the future for of the verb this participle was derived from. I'll quote an extract from the [prometod.ru](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=890&amp;met3) site : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Страдательные причастия, образованные от глаголов, инфинитив которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заканчивается суффиксом -и-, подчиняются следующим правилам:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. если ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончание, то ударение в полных формах страдательного причастия падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на суффикс -онн-/-енн-: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - заверш&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;ть, заверш&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;т — заверш&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;нный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - покор&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;ть,покор&lt;strong&gt;Я&lt;/strong&gt;т — покор&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;нный.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. если же ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на основу, то ударение в причастии предшествует суффиксу -енн-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;дишь, ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;дят — ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;денный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;жишь, засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;жат — засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;женный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, then the question remains: why is the stress put in each &lt;strong&gt;verb&lt;/strong&gt; differently, if they both originate from the same root? Why do we say изобраз&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;шь but  обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;зишь? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it happens mostly due to the fact that the word &lt;strong&gt;обезобразить&lt;/strong&gt; was formed from an adjective безобразный, which may have two different stresses depending on the meaning ( i.e. these are actually two homographs, not one word ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безобразный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. БЕЗО́БРАЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно. Лит. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключающий в себе образности. Б-ая речь автора. Б-ое мышление. ◁&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безо́бразность, -и; ж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. БЕЗОБРА́ЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Отталкивающе некрасивый; уродливый. Б-ая ведьма. Б. вид. Б-ое платье.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Непристойный, возмутительный. Б. поступок. Б-ое поведение. Б-ая история.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Разг. Очень плохой, отвратительный, скверный. Доро́ги просто безобразны! ◁ Безобра́зно, нареч. Расходы б. велики (очень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно). Безобра́зность, -и; ж. * Красота и безобразность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разделены чертой одной (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт С. А. Кузнецов. 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the stress in the verb originates from the stress in the adjective. That stress was distinguishing two adjectives, and was so meaningful that remained in the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we make a derivation of the verb обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;зить, it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - &lt;strong&gt;О&lt;/strong&gt;браз --&gt;   обез-&lt;strong&gt;O&lt;/strong&gt;браз-и-ть   &#xD;&#xA;(prefix &lt;strong&gt;обез-/обес-&lt;/strong&gt; means deprive smth./smb. of smth., in this case the verb would have the meaning &quot;deprive of image/personality&quot;, or better &quot;make plain&quot; - лишить образа)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but rather like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - образ --&gt; без-обр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;з-н-ый --&gt; безобр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;з-и-ть --&gt; о-безобразить  &#xD;&#xA;    (where the meaning of the verb is &quot;make ugly&quot; - сделать безобр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;зным,    уродливым)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I haven't found any verbs derived from без&lt;strong&gt;О&lt;/strong&gt;бразный. We may say &quot;&lt;strong&gt;лишить образности&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1750" RevisionGUID="6a870830-68f7-4e8b-89dd-3372b16a3b75" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:00:31.930" UserId="1329" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="The correct way to pronounce those two words is : изображ&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;н and обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;жен. According to the modern orthoepic norm, this is the only possible variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way we pronounce short participles in Russian depends on their long form. And the long form depends on the future for of the verb this participle was derived from. I'll quote an extract from the [prometod.ru](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=890&amp;met3) site : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Страдательные причастия, образованные от глаголов, инфинитив которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заканчивается суффиксом -и-, подчиняются следующим правилам:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. если ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончание, то ударение в полных формах страдательного причастия падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на суффикс -онн-/-енн-: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - заверш&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;ть, заверш&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;т — заверш&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;нный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - покор&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;ть,покор&lt;strong&gt;Я&lt;/strong&gt;т — покор&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;нный.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. если же ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на основу, то ударение в причастии предшествует суффиксу -енн-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;дишь, ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;дят — ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;денный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;жишь, засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;жат — засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;женный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, then the question remains: why is the stress put in each &lt;strong&gt;verb&lt;/strong&gt; differently, if they both originate from the same root? Why do we say изобраз&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;шь but  обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;зишь? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it happens mostly due to the fact that the word &lt;strong&gt;обезобразить&lt;/strong&gt; was formed from an adjective безобр&lt;strong&gt;а&lt;/strong&gt;зный, which may have two different stresses depending on the meaning ( i.e. these are actually two homographs, not one word ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безобразный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. БЕЗО́БРАЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно. Лит. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключающий в себе образности. Б-ая речь автора. Б-ое мышление. ◁&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безо́бразность, -и; ж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. БЕЗОБРА́ЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Отталкивающе некрасивый; уродливый. Б-ая ведьма. Б. вид. Б-ое платье.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Непристойный, возмутительный. Б. поступок. Б-ое поведение. Б-ая история.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Разг. Очень плохой, отвратительный, скверный. Доро́ги просто безобразны! ◁ Безобра́зно, нареч. Расходы б. велики (очень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно). Безобра́зность, -и; ж. * Красота и безобразность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разделены чертой одной (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт С. А. Кузнецов. 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the stress in the verb originates from the stress in the adjective. That stress was distinguishing two adjectives, and was so meaningful that remained in the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we make a derivation of the verb обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;зить, it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - &lt;strong&gt;О&lt;/strong&gt;браз --&gt;   обез-&lt;strong&gt;O&lt;/strong&gt;браз-и-ть   &#xD;&#xA;(prefix &lt;strong&gt;обез-/обес-&lt;/strong&gt; means deprive smth./smb. of smth., in this case the verb would have the meaning &quot;deprive of image/personality&quot;, or better &quot;make plain&quot; - лишить образа)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but rather like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - образ --&gt; без-обр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;з-н-ый --&gt; безобр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;з-и-ть --&gt; о-безобразить  &#xD;&#xA;    (where the meaning of the verb is &quot;make ugly&quot; - сделать безобр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;зным,    уродливым)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I haven't found any verbs derived from без&lt;strong&gt;О&lt;/strong&gt;бразный. We may say &quot;&lt;strong&gt;лишить образности&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="f026b6aa-ddb5-4b52-bb74-d391961c3b9a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:54:39.927" UserId="69" Comment="Clarified title, added peoper quotation marks." Text="Каково точное значение концепта &quot;хамство&quot; в терминах семантики Вежбицкой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опишите, пожалуйста, понятие &quot;хамство&quot;, используя &quot;семантические примитивы&quot; из списка ниже. Внизу также дан пример описания другого концепта (Amazement). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «субстантивы»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;я (I), ты (you), кто-то (someone), что-то (something), люди (people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «детерминаторы и квантификаторы»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;этот (this), тот же самый (the same), другой (other), один (one), два (two), много (many/much), все/весь (all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «ментальные предикаты»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;думать (о) (think (about)), говорить (say), знать (о) (know (about)), чувствовать (feel), хотеть (want)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «действия и события»:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;делать (do), происходить/случаться (happen (to))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «оценки»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;хороший (good), плохой (bad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «дескрипторы»:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;большой (big), маленький (small)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «время и место»:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;когда (when), где (where), после/до (after/before), под/над (under/above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «метапредикаты»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;не/нет/отрицание (по), потому что/из-за (because), если (if/would), мочь (сап)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «интенсификатор»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;очень (very)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «таксономия и партономия»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;вид/разновидность (kind of), часть (part of)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «нестрогость/прототип»: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;подобный/как (like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример описания концепта Amazement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Amazement**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;X чувствует что-то&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;иногда человек думает примерно так:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;сейчас что-то произошло&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;до этого я не знал: это может произойти&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;если бы я подумал об этом, я бы сказал: этого не может произойти&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;поэтому этот человек чувствует что-то&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;X чувствует что-то похожее&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Список &quot;семантических примитивов&quot; и схема описания взяты из:&#xD;&#xA;Вежбицкая А. *Язык. Культура. Познание.* М.: Pуcские словари, 1996." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6328" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="f026b6aa-ddb5-4b52-bb74-d391961c3b9a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:54:39.927" UserId="69" Comment="Clarified title, added peoper quotation marks." Text="Kонцепт «хамство» по Вежбицкой / Concept “khamstvo” according to Wierzbicka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6329" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="f026b6aa-ddb5-4b52-bb74-d391961c3b9a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:54:39.927" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 292" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="d83995c7-840e-43d6-a089-4ce37343df77" CreationDate="2013-01-16T19:55:39.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/291634841257115648" />
  <row Id="6331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1751" RevisionGUID="9b6be2b9-7f4d-44b2-9870-55fab0181cd7" CreationDate="2013-01-16T20:17:51.097" UserId="1262" Text="**надо** means 'I have a need and it is not mine/it is for someone else's benefit, for I don't feel it myself'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нужно** means roughly 'I have a need and it is mine/I want to satisfy it to my personal benefit, for I feel it myself', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the former is likely to be explained as Supinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference has an exact lexical manifestation in Balto-Finnish languages *(e.g. Finnish  quasi-ergative 'minun täytyy' VS 'tarvitsen'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be a result of a language contact and is therefore almost uncoceivable by most of native speakers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1750" RevisionGUID="b4ee99db-cdfd-4cc1-b7d2-aa620a5d4f9a" CreationDate="2013-01-16T22:48:21.003" UserId="1329" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The correct way to pronounce those two words is : изображ&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;н and обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;жен. According to the modern orthoepic norm, this is the only possible variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way we pronounce short participles in Russian depends on their long form. And the long form depends on the future form of the verb this participle was derived from. I'll quote an extract from the [prometod.ru](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=890&amp;met3) site : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Страдательные причастия, образованные от глаголов, инфинитив которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заканчивается суффиксом -и-, подчиняются следующим правилам:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. если ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончание, то ударение в полных формах страдательного причастия падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на суффикс -онн-/-енн-: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - заверш&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;ть, заверш&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;т — заверш&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;нный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - покор&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;ть,покор&lt;strong&gt;Я&lt;/strong&gt;т — покор&lt;strong&gt;Ё&lt;/strong&gt;нный.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. если же ударение в личных формах простого будущего времени падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на основу, то ударение в причастии предшествует суффиксу -енн-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;дишь, ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;дят — ув&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;денный; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;жишь, засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;жат — засл&lt;strong&gt;У&lt;/strong&gt;женный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, then the question remains: why is the stress put in each &lt;strong&gt;verb&lt;/strong&gt; differently, if they both originate from the same root? Why do we say изобраз&lt;strong&gt;И&lt;/strong&gt;шь but  обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;зишь? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it happens mostly due to the fact that the word &lt;strong&gt;обезобразить&lt;/strong&gt; was formed from an adjective безобр&lt;strong&gt;а&lt;/strong&gt;зный, which may have two different stresses depending on the meaning ( i.e. these are actually two homographs, not one word ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безобразный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I. БЕЗО́БРАЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно. Лит. Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заключающий в себе образности. Б-ая речь автора. Б-ое мышление. ◁&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Безо́бразность, -и; ж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II. БЕЗОБРА́ЗНЫЙ -ая, -ое; -зен, -зна, -зно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Отталкивающе некрасивый; уродливый. Б-ая ведьма. Б. вид. Б-ое платье.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Непристойный, возмутительный. Б. поступок. Б-ое поведение. Б-ая история.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Разг. Очень плохой, отвратительный, скверный. Доро́ги просто безобразны! ◁ Безобра́зно, нареч. Расходы б. велики (очень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно). Безобра́зность, -и; ж. * Красота и безобразность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разделены чертой одной (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт С. А. Кузнецов. 1998&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the stress in the verb originates from the stress in the adjective. That stress was distinguishing two adjectives, and was so meaningful that remained in the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we make a derivation of the verb обезобр&lt;strong&gt;А&lt;/strong&gt;зить, it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - &lt;strong&gt;О&lt;/strong&gt;браз --&gt;   обез-&lt;strong&gt;O&lt;/strong&gt;браз-и-ть   &#xD;&#xA;(prefix &lt;strong&gt;обез-/обес-&lt;/strong&gt; means deprive smth./smb. of smth., in this case the verb would have the meaning &quot;deprive of image/personality&quot;, or better &quot;make plain&quot; - лишить образа)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but rather like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - образ --&gt; без-обр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;з-н-ый --&gt; безобр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;з-и-ть --&gt; о-безобразить  &#xD;&#xA;    (where the meaning of the verb is &quot;make ugly&quot; - сделать безобр&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;зным,    уродливым)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I haven't found any verbs derived from без&lt;strong&gt;О&lt;/strong&gt;бразный. We may say &quot;&lt;strong&gt;лишить образности&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1752" RevisionGUID="1c5a27fa-f343-4118-ad1e-7980e7e04f96" CreationDate="2013-01-17T00:50:59.033" UserId="480" Text="&lt;strong&gt;Russian Language and Usage&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian, as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about the Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1753" RevisionGUID="02c9649d-258c-4a04-ad7e-0c1b0ff3874e" CreationDate="2013-01-17T03:25:03.600" UserId="1329" Text="Какое интересное задание! Вежбицкую я не читала, но Вы очень понятно объясняете, так что попытаюсь решить проблему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хамство = манера поведения, свойственная хаму | конкретный поступок, в котором человек проявил себя как хам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хам &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; хама, м. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. В языке дворян: человек, принадлежащий к низшим классам и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лишенный потому всякого человеческого достоинства (презрит,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дореволюц.). - Он там дворовых людей по-французски учить выдумал! Это,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дескать, ему полезно! Хаму-то, слуге-то! Достоевский. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. перен.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грубый, наглый и невоспитанный человек, готовый на подлости (разг.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; презрит, бран.). Секретари его все хамы, все продажны, людишки,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пишущая тварь, все вышли в знать, все ныне важны. Грибоедов. (По имени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хама, сына библейского Ноя, проклятого отцом за непочтение.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь Ушакова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда переходим к составляющим 2-го пункта: грубость, наглость,невоспитанность, подлость. Попробую сразу сконструировать окончательное описание... Явно понадобятся 2 субъекта, потому что эти понятия связаны с оценкой поведения нашего хама обществом (или конкретным его представителем).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Грубиян**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    иногда человек Z говорит другому (R) очень плохое&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого потом R чувствует: мне плохо&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наглец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наглый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на́глый прил., употр. сравн. часто Морфология: на́гл, нагла́, на́гло,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на́глы; нагле́е; нар. на́гло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Человека называют наглым, если он грубо и вызывающе ведёт себя, не уважает других людей; слово выражает осуждение. В молодости он был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно наглым и самоуверенным. | Он просто наглый шантажист.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; = нахальный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Слова, поступки и т. д. называют наглыми, если они дерзкие, вызывающие; слово выражает осуждение. Это был наглый обман. |&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар. Ощущение безнаказанности во всём проникло и в сознание водителей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; многие начали нагло ездить на красный свет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Взгляд, смех и т. д. называют наглыми, если в них проявляется дерзость, бесстыдство. Его наглый тон взбесил меня. |&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар. Андрей оценивающе и нагло посмотрел на неё.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; • на́глость сущ., ж.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь русского языка Дмитриева Д. В. Дмитриев. 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь попробую сконцентрироваться на неуважении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    R - часть людей                      &#xD;&#xA;    Z делает или говорит что-то&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого R потом думает: Z не думает и не чувствует, что я часть людей&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого R потом чувствует: мне плохо&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В переводе: R человек, а Z ведет себя так, как будто R не человек. И R это чувствует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Невоспитанный человек**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    многие люди думают и знают : что-то (A) хорошо, что-то другое (B) - плохо&#xD;&#xA;    эти люди делают A и хотят не делать B&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B, потом все другие думают: &#xD;&#xA;    этот кто-то многого не знает и из-за этого не может делать A&#xD;&#xA;    Z делает много B &#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Человек, способный на подлость**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    многие люди думают и знают : что-то (A) хорошо, что-то другое (B) - очень плохо&#xD;&#xA;    эти люди хотят не делать B&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B, кому-то другому очень плохо&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B и знает: я делаю B, потом все другие думают: &#xD;&#xA;    этот кто-то многого не чувствует, этот кто-то плохой&#xD;&#xA;    Z может сделать B&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Конечно, я не учла множество аспектов вышеприведенных слов. Иначе, если бы я продолжила конкретизацию, то пришлось бы написать как минимум статью. По-моему, перевод слова на термины Вежбицкой очень похож на чтение толкового словаря, причем на языке, в котором знаешь только примитивы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Осталось только применить конъюнкцию на все четыре определения, использовав разные переменные ( J,K,L,M, например ),  и перевести все с субъекта на его манеру поведения (или на поступок)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    случилось что-то (G)                --Gадость =)&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание J&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание K&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание L&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание M&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на J&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на K&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на L&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на M&#xD;&#xA;    G случилось из-за Y                  -- хамство как поступок&#xD;&#xA;    Y делает много G                     -- хамство как черта хама" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1753" RevisionGUID="6d35562a-64ad-449e-a330-7ab126e1d359" CreationDate="2013-01-17T04:43:36.423" UserId="1329" Comment="added 1565 characters in body" Text="Какое интересное задание! Вежбицкую я не читала, но Вы очень понятно объясняете, так что попытаюсь решить проблему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хамство = манера поведения, свойственная хаму | конкретный поступок, в котором человек проявил себя как хам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хам &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; хама, м. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. В языке дворян: человек, принадлежащий к низшим классам и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лишенный потому всякого человеческого достоинства (презрит,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дореволюц.). - Он там дворовых людей по-французски учить выдумал! Это,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дескать, ему полезно! Хаму-то, слуге-то! Достоевский. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. перен.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грубый, наглый и невоспитанный человек, готовый на подлости (разг.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; презрит, бран.). Секретари его все хамы, все продажны, людишки,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пишущая тварь, все вышли в знать, все ныне важны. Грибоедов. (По имени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хама, сына библейского Ноя, проклятого отцом за непочтение.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь Ушакова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда переходим к составляющим 2-го пункта: грубость, наглость,невоспитанность, подлость. Попробую сразу сконструировать окончательное описание... Явно понадобятся 2 субъекта, потому что эти понятия связаны с оценкой поведения нашего хама обществом (или конкретным его представителем).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Грубиян**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    иногда человек Z говорит другому (R) очень плохое&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого потом R чувствует: мне плохо&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наглец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наглый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на́глый прил., употр. сравн. часто Морфология: на́гл, нагла́, на́гло,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на́глы; нагле́е; нар. на́гло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Человека называют наглым, если он грубо и вызывающе ведёт себя, не уважает других людей; слово выражает осуждение. В молодости он был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно наглым и самоуверенным. | Он просто наглый шантажист.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; = нахальный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Слова, поступки и т. д. называют наглыми, если они дерзкие, вызывающие; слово выражает осуждение. Это был наглый обман. |&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар. Ощущение безнаказанности во всём проникло и в сознание водителей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; многие начали нагло ездить на красный свет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Взгляд, смех и т. д. называют наглыми, если в них проявляется дерзость, бесстыдство. Его наглый тон взбесил меня. |&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар. Андрей оценивающе и нагло посмотрел на неё.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; • на́глость сущ., ж.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь русского языка Дмитриева Д. В. Дмитриев. 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь попробую сконцентрироваться на неуважении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    R - часть людей                      &#xD;&#xA;    Z делает или говорит что-то&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого R потом думает: Z не думает и не чувствует, что я часть людей&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого R потом чувствует: мне плохо&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В переводе: R человек, а Z ведет себя так, как будто R не человек. И R это чувствует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Невоспитанный человек**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    многие люди думают и знают : что-то (A) хорошо, что-то другое (B) - плохо&#xD;&#xA;    эти люди делают A и хотят не делать B&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B, потом все другие думают: &#xD;&#xA;    этот кто-то многого не знает и из-за этого не может делать A&#xD;&#xA;    Z делает много B &#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Человек, способный на подлость**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    многие люди думают и знают : что-то (A) хорошо, что-то другое (B) - очень плохо&#xD;&#xA;    эти люди хотят не делать B&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B, кому-то другому очень плохо&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B и знает: я делаю B, потом все другие думают: &#xD;&#xA;    этот кто-то многого не чувствует, этот кто-то плохой&#xD;&#xA;    Z может сделать B&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Конечно, я не учла множество аспектов вышеприведенных слов. Иначе, если бы я продолжила конкретизацию, то пришлось бы написать как минимум статью. По-моему, перевод слова на термины Вежбицкой очень похож на чтение толкового словаря, причем на языке, в котором знаешь только примитивы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Осталось только применить конъюнкцию на все четыре определения, использовав разные переменные ( J,K,L,M, например ),  и перевести все с субъекта на его манеру поведения (или на поступок)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    случилось что-то (G)                --Gадость =)&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание J&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание K&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание L&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание M&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на J&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на K&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на L&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на M&#xD;&#xA;    G случилось из-за Y                  -- хамство как поступок&#xD;&#xA;    Y делает много G                     -- хамство как черта хама&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT (очень важно!)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Только что вспомнила про одно эссе Сергея Довлатова: [&quot;Это непереводимое слово &quot;хамство&quot;&quot;](http://www.sergeidovlatov.com/books/etoneper.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И вот я долго думал над всем этим и, в отличие от Набокова,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сформулировал, что такое хамство, а именно: хамство есть не что иное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как грубость, наглость, нахальство, вместе взятые, но при этом –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; умноженные на безнаказанность. Именно в безнаказанности все дело, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заведомом ощущении ненаказуемости, неподсудности деяний, в том чувстве&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полнейшей беспомощности, которое охватывает жертву. Именно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безнаказанностью своей хамство и убивает вас наповал, вам нечего ему&#xD;&#xA;&gt; противопоставить, кроме собственного унижения, потому что хамство –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это всегда «сверху вниз», это всегда «от сильного – слабому», потому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что хамство – это беспомощность одного и безнаказанность другого,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; потому что хамство – это неравенство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю, в связи с этим нужно подкорректировать окончательный вариант определения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    случилось что-то (G)                --Gадость =)&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание J&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание K&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание L&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание M&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на J&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на K&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на L&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на M&#xD;&#xA;    Y знает:  с ним не случится плохого, если он сделает G&#xD;&#xA;    X чувствует: я маленький, а Y большой&#xD;&#xA;    X чувствует: я не могу, а Y может&#xD;&#xA;    G случилось из-за Y                  -- хамство как поступок&#xD;&#xA;    Y делает много G                     -- хамство как черта хама" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1754" RevisionGUID="b9fd7154-844f-4dd0-9f32-514e7e55f190" CreationDate="2013-01-17T07:04:51.690" UserId="827" Text="Вначале надо определиться с самим смыслом слова &quot;хамство&quot;. Обычные определения из словарей, по-моему, не годятся, потому что они построены по методу &quot;сепуление - см. сепульки&quot; (ссылки на &quot;поведение, свойственное хаму&quot; и тому подобное - а как себя ведёт хам? если по-хамски, то круг замкнулся).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потерял источник, но однажды видел такое определение (привожу своими словами, может быть, громоздко): &quot;Хамство - открытое действие по дестабилизации эмоциональной сферы собеседника (оппонента) для достижения желаемого результата, который иначе не был бы достигнут или не предполагался&quot;. Ключевые моменты - 1) наличие второго участника взаимодействия (или более двух), 2) цель (например, для довлатовской продавщицы - заставить &quot;интеллигента&quot; купить именно то, что она хочет продать, а не качественный товар, и она оскорбляет его, чтобы он не смог добиться своего), 3) действие (как правило, словами, но бывают и варианты физического воздействия), 4) естественное отличие от грубости (кто-то может даже разговаривать матом, но явно не иметь цели оскорбить, просто потому что он иначе не умеет) и от наглости (например, вклиниться в ряд машин, потому что хочется ехать быстрее - это наглость, но не хамство), с которыми тут сравнивали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Я заранее предполагаю возражения против этого определения, что оно неадекватно чьим-то персональным представлениям об обсуждаемом слове. Возможны корректировки отдельных моментов в нём. Но оно по любому лучше рекурсивных определений из обычных словарей, которые ничего не объясняют, а вместо этого апеллируют к эмоциональным понятиям, которые каждый воспринимает по-своему.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда описание &quot;по Вежбицкой&quot; будет где-то так (я смотрю на пример и делаю аналогично ему):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* X взаимодействует (общается) c Y&#xD;&#xA;* X желает достичь некоей цели&#xD;&#xA;* X предполагает, что &quot;спокойное&quot; общение, рекомендованное моралью, этикой, этикетом и т.д., не даст нужного X'у результата&#xD;&#xA;* X выбирает достижение результата путём эмоциональной дестабилизации Y&#xD;&#xA;* X подбирает метод, который должен привести к такой дестабилизации, согласно тому, что знает про Y&#xD;&#xA;* X применяет этот метод к Y (вероятнее всего, оскорблением, но возможны и другие пути)&#xD;&#xA;* Y, вероятнее всего, теряется (тушуется) и теряет силы для достижения своей цели&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1754" RevisionGUID="b513e3e0-2f64-4894-ab66-f3adee022b44" CreationDate="2013-01-17T07:41:33.973" UserId="827" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Вначале надо определиться с самим смыслом слова &quot;хамство&quot;. Обычные определения из словарей, по-моему, не годятся, потому что они построены по методу &quot;сепуление - см. сепульки&quot; (ссылки на &quot;поведение, свойственное хаму&quot; и тому подобное - а как себя ведёт хам? если по-хамски, то круг замкнулся).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потерял источник, но однажды видел такое определение (привожу своими словами, может быть, громоздко): &quot;Хамство - открытое действие по дестабилизации эмоциональной сферы собеседника (оппонента) для достижения желаемого результата, который иначе не был бы достигнут или не предполагался&quot;. Ключевые моменты - 1) наличие второго участника взаимодействия (или более двух), 2) цель (например, для довлатовской продавщицы - заставить &quot;интеллигента&quot; купить именно то, что она хочет продать, а не качественный товар, и она оскорбляет его, чтобы он не смог добиться своего), 3) действие (как правило, словами, но бывают и варианты физического воздействия), 4) естественное отличие от грубости (кто-то может даже разговаривать матом, но явно не иметь цели оскорбить, просто потому что он иначе не умеет) и от наглости (например, вклиниться в ряд машин, потому что что-то заставляет ехать быстрее - это наглость, но не хамство), с которыми тут сравнивали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Я заранее предполагаю возражения против этого определения, что оно неадекватно чьим-то персональным представлениям об обсуждаемом слове. Возможны корректировки отдельных моментов в нём. Но оно по любому лучше рекурсивных определений из обычных словарей, которые ничего не объясняют, а вместо этого апеллируют к эмоциональным понятиям, которые каждый воспринимает по-своему.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда описание &quot;по Вежбицкой&quot; будет где-то так (я смотрю на пример и делаю аналогично ему):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* X взаимодействует (общается) c Y&#xD;&#xA;* X желает достичь некоей цели&#xD;&#xA;* X предполагает, что &quot;спокойное&quot; общение, рекомендованное моралью, этикой, этикетом и т.д., не даст нужного X'у результата&#xD;&#xA;* X выбирает достижение результата путём эмоциональной дестабилизации Y&#xD;&#xA;* X подбирает метод, который должен привести к такой дестабилизации, согласно тому, что знает про Y&#xD;&#xA;* X применяет этот метод к Y (вероятнее всего, оскорблением, но возможны и другие пути)&#xD;&#xA;* Y, вероятнее всего, теряется (тушуется) и теряет силы для достижения своей цели&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6341" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1740" RevisionGUID="17c8927e-2ea3-4569-9538-5c3a0fb0e695" CreationDate="2013-01-17T07:47:51.607" UserId="1262" Comment="edited tags" Text="|semantics|узус|социолингвистика|психолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1744" RevisionGUID="a2c90b7e-d5ea-470e-b257-3e06af18e9b4" CreationDate="2013-01-17T07:53:02.947" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="This is, actually, a very nice question. The short answer is - no one knows for sure the origin of word аист. Though there are some facts that give us some hints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of using this word in Russian belongs to (most early) XV century. &#xD;&#xA; - There is no evidence of this word in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA; - There exists black (Ciconia nigra) and white (Ciconia ciconia) storks. On the territories populated by Russian language speakers there was no population of white storks before XIX-th century, so originally this word was used to refer black storks only.&#xD;&#xA; - In Old Russian instead of `аист` words `бусел` and  `стьркъ`/`стеркъ` had been used. &#xD;&#xA; - Actually, no one knows for sure whether this words really indicated exactly storks, since the can be used for naming all long-leg birds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of 2013, anything else besides these fact is at least bit speculative. There are many different hypothesis, none of them is accepted by the majority of linguists. [Here is][1] an excellent overview of existing theories on this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me conclude with this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Классическая” версия происхождения названия “аист” звучит так. Из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; средневерхненемецкого диалекта было заимствовано слово “Heister”. Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одно из старых местных названий сороки (Pica pica). Современное ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наименование в немецком языке — “Elster”. “Heister” в польском языке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трансформировалось в “hajster”, &quot;hajstra&quot;, затем перешло в украинский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и белорусский языки и некоторые диалекты русского в форме “гайстер”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The theory mentioned above is indeed can be treated as the main candidate to be truthful. But be warned: though this overview is informative indeed, it mentions some fact that also are not 100% reliable. For example, mentioned word `лелека`, even if it onomatopoeic (which is quite possible indeed, this is quite often case), hardly relates to any sumerian root. But, once again, no one really knows for sure in this case also :)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://roman.by/r-76979.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="8bd2edd5-23af-43fb-91d9-7190574c727c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T08:52:50.217" UserId="1262" Text="Каково происхождение слова? Сочетание да + же представляется слишком очевидным. Фасмер дает только *датже, не останавливаясь на использовании современной лексемы и не останавливаясь на элизии (маловероятной). Есть ли другие источники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the word? The combination of да + же seems too obvious. Vasmer provides the only example of ****датже*** without detailed explanation of its origin, nor the elision is explained. Any other sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="8bd2edd5-23af-43fb-91d9-7190574c727c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T08:52:50.217" UserId="1262" Text="Этимология слова &quot;даже&quot; / etymology of 'dazhe' (= 'even', although)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="8bd2edd5-23af-43fb-91d9-7190574c727c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T08:52:50.217" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|психолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1721" RevisionGUID="9f9ca452-9d5f-487b-b4f5-eb08e89f14bb" CreationDate="2013-01-17T08:54:25.583" UserId="414" Comment="Added info about exceptions" Text="The thing is that `ш` is usually *(see exceptions in comments)* hard (`sha` in your system), even when soft sign `ь` comes after it (`делаешь`, `тушь` are pronounced exactly how they would be pronounced without ending `ь`). Note situations like this: in word `шип`, `и` does not make `ш` soft, `ш` turns `и` into `ы` in pronunciation.  And 'щ' is usually soft (`shya`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table is shown to students in primary school:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Russian alphabet phonetic table][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the consonants (the cyan section) -- green letters are always soft (`щ` is green), blue letters are always hard (`ш` is blue). Two-colored letters have both hard and soft sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wq2Ov.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1751" RevisionGUID="f2a212d2-5a29-448b-8ff9-74d5a2b0ae02" CreationDate="2013-01-17T09:27:23.400" UserId="1262" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="**надо** means 'I have a need and it is not mine/it is for someone else's benefit, for I don't feel it myself'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нужно** means roughly 'I have a need and it is mine/I want to satisfy it to my personal benefit, for I feel it myself', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the former is likely to be explained as Supinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference has an exact lexical manifestation in Balto-Finnish languages *(e.g. Finnish  quasi-ergative 'minun täytyy' VS 'tarvitsen'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be a result of a language contact and is therefore almost uncoceivable by most of native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, both **надо** &amp; **нужно** are forms of past tenses (participle/Supinum) of the set ending in n-consonant / d-consonant, althought I am not sure yet which one stands for what. Cf. with Swedish '*behövde*' (and n-forms/d-forms for other verbs), English 'needed', or Spanish '**debida'/'debido**', etc. Cf. also with Sanskrit and Tochar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vasmer and Vinogradov suggesting its origin from OR **надобѣ** which originates from **доба** (&quot;use, merit&quot;), akin to **добрый, удобный** etc (quote from Quassnoi's comment- M.), yet give no explanation of the first part of the word **на**, which is either an IE or Germanic imperative from the verb meaning either 'to have' or 'to take'. Cf. Russian ***имя/иметь***, or Ductch ***'nemen'***. It has survived in modern conversational Russian in the form ***на!*** (='here you are!'/'take[it]'!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, *нужно/надо* is historically the same construction as 'One has'to', also governing infinite form of the verb, like in English 'one has to'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1751" RevisionGUID="ea9887c6-064c-46b1-8a2e-97eeab957245" CreationDate="2013-01-17T09:33:20.853" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**надо** means 'I have a need and it is not mine/it is for someone else's benefit, for I don't feel it myself'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нужно** means roughly 'I have a need and it is mine/I want to satisfy it to my personal benefit, for I feel it myself', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the former is likely to be explained as Supinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference has an exact lexical manifestation in Balto-Finnish languages *(e.g. Finnish  quasi-ergative 'minun täytyy' VS 'tarvitsen'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be a result of a language contact and is therefore almost uncoceivable by most of native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, both **надо** &amp; **нужно** are forms of past tenses (participle/Supinum) of the set ending in n-consonant / d-consonant, althought I am not sure yet which one stands for what. Cf. with Swedish '*behövde*' (and n-forms/d-forms for other verbs in this language), English 'needed', or Spanish '**debida'/'debido**', etc. Cf. also with Sanskrit and Tochar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vasmer and Vinogradov suggesting its origin from OR **надобѣ** which originates from **доба** (&quot;use, merit&quot;), akin to **добрый, удобный** etc (quote from Quassnoi's comment- M.), yet give no explanation of the first part of the word **на**, which is either an IE or Germanic imperative from the verb meaning either 'to have' or 'to take'. Cf. Russian ***имя/иметь***, or Ductch ***'nemen'***. It has survived in modern conversational Russian in the form of interjection ***на!*** (='here you are!'/'take[it]'!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, *нужно/надо* is historically the same construction as 'One has'to', also governing infinite form of the verb, like in English.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1756" RevisionGUID="31634491-3389-42cd-a2ac-21b4b2f72505" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:00:36.153" UserId="1262" Text="Can someone shed some light on this? The differences in 1st. p. sg. past tense are obvious, but there should be some more discrepancies in male and female varieties of Russian than just preferences in swearing. Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1756" RevisionGUID="31634491-3389-42cd-a2ac-21b4b2f72505" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:00:36.153" UserId="1262" Text="What are the differences between male and female speech in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1756" RevisionGUID="31634491-3389-42cd-a2ac-21b4b2f72505" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:00:36.153" UserId="1262" Text="|узус|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1757" RevisionGUID="6fdd4d5b-58e0-4282-8a12-a4f8b823a0c8" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:15:54.447" UserId="1262" Text="In Russian, when we speak with past participle, there are either н-patterns (сделано/положено/доказано/разъяснено) or т-patterns (принято/сшито/открыто).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No verb, to the best of my knowledge, can have both p.pt. patterns at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the general rule for defining correct pattern?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1757" RevisionGUID="6fdd4d5b-58e0-4282-8a12-a4f8b823a0c8" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:15:54.447" UserId="1262" Text="How to define a general pattern to choose between n-participles and t-participles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1757" RevisionGUID="6fdd4d5b-58e0-4282-8a12-a4f8b823a0c8" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:15:54.447" UserId="1262" Text="|грамматика|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1751" RevisionGUID="e80d3df6-c5a6-4e99-958b-0e4794e35312" CreationDate="2013-01-17T12:25:54.537" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**надо** means 'I have a need and it is not mine/it is for someone else's benefit, for I don't feel it myself'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нужно** means roughly 'I have a need and it is mine/I want to satisfy it to my personal benefit, for I feel it myself', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the former is likely to be explained as Supinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference has an exact lexical manifestation in Balto-Finnish languages *(e.g. Finnish  quasi-ergative 'minun täytyy' VS 'tarvitsen'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be a result of a language contact and is therefore almost uncoceivable by most of native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, both **надо** &amp; **нужно** are forms of past tenses (participle/Supinum) of the set ending in n-consonant / d-consonant, althought I am not sure yet which one stands for what. Cf. with Swedish '*behövde*' (and n-forms/d-forms for other verbs in this language), English 'needed', or Spanish '**debida'/'debido**', etc. Cf. also with Sanskrit and Tochar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vasmer and Vinogradov suggesting its origin from OR **надобѣ** which originates from **доба** (&quot;use, merit&quot;), akin to **добрый, удобный** etc (quote from Quassnoi's comment- M.), yet give no explanation of the first part of the word **на**, which is either an IE or Germanic imperative from the verb meaning either 'to have' or 'to take'. Cf. Russian ***имя/иметь***, or Ductch ***'nemen'***. It has survived in modern conversational Russian in the form of interjection ***на!*** (='here you are!'/'take[it]'it!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, *нужно/надо* is historically the same construction as 'One has'to', also governing infinite form of the verb, like in English. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1751" RevisionGUID="cbb79588-1481-403c-9133-526e13f1a21a" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:02:44.383" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**надо** means 'I have a need and it is not mine/it is for someone else's benefit, for I don't feel it myself'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нужно** means roughly 'I have a need and it is mine/I want to satisfy it to my personal benefit, for I feel it myself', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, the former is likely to be explained as Supinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference has an exact lexical manifestation in Balto-Finnish languages *(e.g. Finnish  quasi-ergative 'minun täytyy' VS 'tarvitsen'). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be a result of a language contact and is therefore almost uncoceivable by most of native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, both **надо** &amp; **нужно** are forms of past tenses (participle/Supinum) of the set ending in n-consonant / d-consonant, althought I am not sure yet which one stands for what. Cf. with Swedish '*behövde*' (and n-forms/d-forms for other verbs in this language), English 'needed', or Spanish '**debida'/'debido**', etc. Cf. also with Sanskrit and Tochar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vasmer and Vinogradov suggesting its origin from OR **надобѣ** which originates from **доба** (&quot;use, merit&quot;), akin to **добрый, удобный** etc (quote from Quassnoi's comment- M.), yet give no explanation of the first part of the word **на**, which is either an IE or Germanic imperative from the verb meaning either 'to have' or 'to take'. Cf. Russian ***имя/иметь***, or Ductch ***'nemen'***. It has survived in modern conversational Russian in the form of interjection ***на!*** (='here you are!'/'take[it]'!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, *нужно/надо* is historically the same construction as 'One has'to', also governing infinite form of the verb, like in English. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="7c3432f8-e8dc-4c5c-91b6-2365f6d8fcd6" CreationDate="2013-01-17T14:33:08.573" UserId="1365" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="## Books &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *add the resource here, following an alphabetical order*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian for Mathematicians, Edited by Doctor of Sciences A. Petukhov, Publishing House of Moscow Center, for Continous Mathematical Education, MOSCOW, 2004 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="960dfe57-1f9f-40bb-b729-92255187210c" CreationDate="2013-01-17T16:52:35.467" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="## Books &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Russian for Mathematicians, Edited by Doctor of Sciences A. Petukhov, Publishing House of Moscow Center, for Continous Mathematical Education, MOSCOW, 2004 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6359" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1757" RevisionGUID="b9603709-327b-47c5-809c-3a1e02426f04" CreationDate="2013-01-17T16:55:38.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/291951929284755456" />
  <row Id="6360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1758" RevisionGUID="bad209ad-5141-4d58-adec-a339b978ddee" CreationDate="2013-01-17T17:10:22.740" UserId="1329" Text="Passive past participles are formed from infinitives according to those rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if the base of infinitive ends with  **-а (-я)**, **-е**  , passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-нн-**:&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;   - чита-ть – читанный; &#xD;&#xA;   - посея-ть – посеянный; &#xD;&#xA;   - виде-ть – виденный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. if the base of infinitive ends with consonant  or **и** (the **и** is then dropped in the resulting past participle ), then the passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-енн (-ённ-)**: &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   - унес-ти – унесённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - запеч-ь – запечённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - раскраси-ть – раскрашенный; &#xD;&#xA;   - освети-ть – освещённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - убеди-ть – убеждённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - прослави-ть – прославленный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs of second conjugation type consonant gradation takes place : (**с – ш**, **з – ж**, **т – ч – щ**, **д – ж – жд**, **в – вл** и т. д.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the base of **first conjugation group** infinitive ends with &#xD;&#xA;- **и**, **ы**, **у**, **о**,&#xD;&#xA;- **я (а)** , which is being interchanged with **н** or **м**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; then the passive past participle is formed with suffix **-т-**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мы-ть – мытый; &#xD;&#xA;- ви-ть – витый; &#xD;&#xA;- трону-ть – тронутый; &#xD;&#xA;- тере-ть – тёртый; &#xD;&#xA;- запере-ть – запертый; &#xD;&#xA;- моло-ть – молотый; &#xD;&#xA;- коло-ть –  колотый,&#xD;&#xA;- мять (мн-у) – мятый, &#xD;&#xA;- сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs which have an infinitive base ending with **-ере-** the final **е** of the base is dropped : тере-ть – тёртый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the short passive past participles from your question have the same letter as the one appearing in long forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сделанный    - сделан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- положенный   - положен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- доказанный   - доказан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- разъяснённый - разъяснён&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- принятый - принят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сшитый   - сшит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- открытый - открыт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1758" RevisionGUID="a9852ca0-83a4-46e8-bb3d-5439356b58b2" CreationDate="2013-01-17T17:16:47.933" UserId="1329" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Passive past participles are formed from infinitives according to those rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if the base of infinitive ends with  **-а (-я)**, **-е**  , passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-нн-**:&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;   - чита-ть – читанный; &#xD;&#xA;   - посея-ть – посеянный; &#xD;&#xA;   - виде-ть – виденный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. if the base of infinitive ends with consonant  or **и** (the **и** is then dropped in the resulting past participle ), then the passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-енн (-ённ-)**: &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   - унес-ти – унесённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - запеч-ь – запечённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - раскраси-ть – раскрашенный; &#xD;&#xA;   - освети-ть – освещённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - убеди-ть – убеждённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - прослави-ть – прославленный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs of second conjugation type consonant gradation takes place : (**с – ш**, **з – ж**, **т – ч – щ**, **д – ж – жд**, **в – вл** и т. д.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the base of **first conjugation group** infinitive ends with &#xD;&#xA;- **и**, **ы**, **у**, **о**,&#xD;&#xA;- **я (а)** , which is being interchanged with **н** or **м**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; then the passive past participle is formed with suffix **-т-**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мы-ть – мытый; &#xD;&#xA;- ви-ть – витый; &#xD;&#xA;- трону-ть – тронутый; &#xD;&#xA;- тере-ть – тёртый; &#xD;&#xA;- запере-ть – запертый; &#xD;&#xA;- моло-ть – молотый; &#xD;&#xA;- коло-ть –  колотый,&#xD;&#xA;- мять (мн-у) – мятый, &#xD;&#xA;- сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs which have an infinitive base ending with **-ере-** the final **е** of the base is dropped : тере-ть – тёртый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the short passive past participles from your question have the same letter as the one appearing in long forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сделанный    - сделан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- положенный   - положен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- доказанный   - доказан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- разъяснённый - разъяснён&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- принятый - принят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сшитый   - сшит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- открытый - открыт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information taken from [this site](http://stcreserv.narod.ru/Tutorial/prichastie.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6362" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="4424b8ca-be2e-4a28-ad80-e0c4d7b88adb" CreationDate="2013-01-17T19:55:39.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/291997233287688192" />
  <row Id="6363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1756" RevisionGUID="beb43db1-bc1b-4cf5-91e1-3aa39d44aa85" CreationDate="2013-01-17T20:37:20.080" UserId="1262" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Can someone shed some light on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences in *1st. p. sg. past tense* are obvious, but there should be some more discrepancies in male and female varieties of Russian than just preferences in swearing (like men are likely to swear more often and with a specific vocabulary). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be some more differences in *monologue speech* between the two genders. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1758" RevisionGUID="bc691cdc-e2dc-42ce-a4f3-5a32a732c1b1" CreationDate="2013-01-17T22:03:55.923" UserId="1329" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Passive past participles are formed from infinitives according to those rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if the base of infinitive ends with  **-а (-я)**, **-е**  , passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-нн-**:&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;   - чита-ть – читанный; &#xD;&#xA;   - посея-ть – посеянный; &#xD;&#xA;   - виде-ть – виденный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. if the base of infinitive ends with consonant  or **и** (the **и** is then dropped in the resulting past participle ), then the passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-енн (-ённ-)**: &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   - унес-ти – унесённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - запеч-ь – запечённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - раскраси-ть – раскрашенный; &#xD;&#xA;   - освети-ть – освещённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - убеди-ть – убеждённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - прослави-ть – прославленный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs of second conjugation type consonant gradation takes place : (**с – ш**, **з – ж**, **т – ч – щ**, **д – ж – жд**, **в – вл** и т. д.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the base of **first conjugation group** infinitive ends with &#xD;&#xA;- **и**, **ы**, **у**, **о**,&#xD;&#xA;- **я (а)** , which is being interchanged with **н** or **м**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; then the passive past participle is formed with suffix **-т-**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мы-ть – мытый; &#xD;&#xA;- ви-ть – витый; &#xD;&#xA;- трону-ть – тронутый; &#xD;&#xA;- тере-ть – тёртый; &#xD;&#xA;- запере-ть – запертый; &#xD;&#xA;- моло-ть – молотый; &#xD;&#xA;- коло-ть –  колотый,&#xD;&#xA;- мять (мн-у) – мятый, &#xD;&#xA;- сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs which have an infinitive base ending with **-ере-** the final **е** of the base is dropped : тере-ть – тёртый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the short passive past participles from your question have the same letter as the one appearing in long forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сделанный    - сделан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- положенный   - положен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- доказанный   - доказан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- разъяснённый - разъяснён&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- принятый - принят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сшитый   - сшит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- открытый - открыт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information taken from [this site](http://stcreserv.narod.ru/Tutorial/prichastie.html), §111 part II" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1758" RevisionGUID="0ad93550-424a-43e4-bc9c-a88837745c4a" CreationDate="2013-01-17T22:11:48.487" UserId="1329" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Passive past participles are formed from infinitives according to those rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if the base of infinitive ends with  **-а (-я)**, **-е**  , passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-нн-**:&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;   - чита-ть – читанный; &#xD;&#xA;   - посея-ть – посеянный; &#xD;&#xA;   - виде-ть – виденный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. if the base of infinitive ends with consonant  or **и** (the **и** is then dropped in the resulting past participle ), then the passive past participle is formed with suffix  **-енн (-ённ-)**: &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   - унес-ти – унесённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - запеч-ь – запечённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - раскраси-ть – раскрашенный; &#xD;&#xA;   - освети-ть – освещённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - убеди-ть – убеждённый; &#xD;&#xA;   - прослави-ть – прославленный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs of second conjugation type consonant gradation takes place : (**с – ш**, **з – ж**, **т – ч – щ**, **д – ж – жд**, **в – вл** и т. д.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the base of **first conjugation group** infinitive ends with &#xD;&#xA;- **и**, **ы**, **у**, **о**,&#xD;&#xA;- **я (а)** , which is being interchanged with **н** or **м**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; then the passive past participle is formed with suffix **-т-**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мы-ть – мытый; &#xD;&#xA;- ви-ть – витый; &#xD;&#xA;- трону-ть – тронутый; &#xD;&#xA;- тере-ть – тёртый; &#xD;&#xA;- запере-ть – запертый; &#xD;&#xA;- моло-ть – молотый; &#xD;&#xA;- коло-ть –  колотый,&#xD;&#xA;- мять (мн-у) – мятый, &#xD;&#xA;- сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; Note that in the verbs which have an infinitive base ending with **-ере-** the final **е** of the base is dropped : тере-ть – тёртый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the short passive past participles from your question have the same letter as the one appearing in long forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сделанный    - сделан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- положенный   - положен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- доказанный   - доказан&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- разъяснённый - разъяснён&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- принятый - принят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- сшитый   - сшит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- открытый - открыт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information taken from [this site](http://stcreserv.narod.ru/Tutorial/prichastie.html), see §111 part II" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1759" RevisionGUID="5bb147d6-9890-4425-a2b5-1e7dbd99d770" CreationDate="2013-01-17T23:51:06.710" UserId="69" Text="What you are referring to is (or related to) a concept of [_trial_ grammatical number][1]. Short answer is “no”, as only some [Austronesian languages][2] were so far identified as those having this grammatical category. What follows is lengthy explanation as to significance of [dual][3] (Lat. _dualis_) grammatical number in development of Russian language and its numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## On Dual ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[PIE][4], and many languages derived from it (Sanskrit, Ancient Greek _etc._) had the dual, thus forming tripartite grammatical number system (singular, dual, plural (&gt;2)). Russian language also had dual, but it became to disintegrate since about XIV century (Gasparov, p. 32).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R. Jakobson in his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” talks about difficulty of translation from one language that would not have category of dual and the other that would. However, the other way around is easier (p. 235):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If some grammatical category is absent in a given language, its meaning may be translated into this language by lexical means. Dual forms like Old Russian _брата_ are translated with the help of a numeral: “two brothers.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the same thing is what happened during the development of the modern Russian language: in effect, Old Russian _брата_ was translated into modern Russian “_два брата_”. And while today we would designate the word _брата_ as a genitive or accusative singular, in Old Russian it was also nominative dual. For declension paradigms in Old Russian see _Historical grammar of Russian Language_ (2008) &lt;sup&gt;([Rus][5], p. 25)&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gasparov talks about “free dual” (not sure if my translation of the term is correct) as something related to paired objects (eyes, ears). Then developed “related dual” which describes any two of any noun, thus this form becoming “the universal quantitative determinant”. After that, this form for the paired objects took a function similar to that of a definite article in English — it is not just _eyes_, but _eyes of one person_ (pp. 32—33):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руцѣ [dual] — рукы [plural] ≈ the hands [definite] — hands [indefinite].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then (p. 34) he talks about development of the separation of concepts “small multitude” and “large multitude”. “Small multitude” developed from dual and now, as a relic of extinct dual, it manifests in modern Russian in special plural form for object count from 2 to 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 стол → 2 стола → 3 стола → 4 стола → 5 столов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, small multitude is something that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and starting with five and more, it is just “a lot”. Gasparov (_ibid._) points to sources that establish significance of ancient base-five counting system as related to a hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Specificity of the Word _оба_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word _оба_ is, in a way, a very special one. Schenikova &lt;sup&gt;([Rus][6], p. 7)&lt;/sup&gt; notes that in the opinion of many philologists it cannot be simply lumped with aggregative numerals (_двое_ (“two-of” (or “[those] two”?)), _трое_ (“three-of”) and so on) due to their “formally-grammatical and semantic differences” being so great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Krylov’s Etymological Dictionary (2004) defines it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ОБА** All-Slavic [?] word of Indo-European nature. In Greek we find _ampho_, in Latin — _ambo_, in English — both. Literally “located near”, kindred to preposition [_об_][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I would posit a hypothesis (as I have not researched that far) that the word _оба_, while etymologically not related to the quantity “two”, has something to do with paired objects specifically (as Gasparov was talking about “definite” function of dual).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things are ever so murky because numeral as an independent part of speech in Russian language is a gray area. Some researchers (Kalinina, L. V., qtd. by Schenikova) contend that it is yet not fully formed even in the beginning of XXI century, yet others (Zholobov &lt;sup&gt;([Rus][8])&lt;/sup&gt;) argue that numerals were integral and distinct part of speech from the beginning in Slavic and many other languages, and that scientists failed to thoroughly research and classify them as such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bibliography ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Gasparov, B. M. “Structure of Russian language from typological point of view (Intro to sociogrammatics). Article 2. Morphology of the noun”. _Scholarly notes of Tartu University_, issue 486. Tartu, 1979. Pp. 23—44.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Гаспаров, Б. М. [«Структура русского языка с типологической точки зрения (Введение в&#xD;&#xA;    социограмматику). Статья вторая. Морфология имени»][9]. _Ученые записки Тартуского государственного университета_, выпуск 486. Тарту, 1979. Стр. 23—44.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Jakobson, R. O.][10] [“On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”][11]. Harward. 1959. Also, see Wiki [explanation of this article][12].&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; [Якобсон, Р. О.][13] [«О лингвистических аспектах перевода»][14]. _Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной лингвистике_. М., 1978. Стр. 16—24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number#Trial&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number#Dual&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://phil-vsu.narod.ru/dl/3k/5_istgram1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.unn.ru/pages/disser/108.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BE%D0%B1/en/#lingvo/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://old.kpfu.ru/fil/kn1/win/kn1_13.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/25795/acta_486_problemy_1979.pdf?sequence=1#page=24&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Jakobson&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/jakobson.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Linguistic_Aspects_of_Translation&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/jakobson-78.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="197d54db-873e-4309-b394-332b5dd5dfe7" CreationDate="2013-01-18T09:59:47.097" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In Proto-Slavic, third-person pronouns were used as grammatical articles to form pronominal adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* великъ домъ (a large house) / великъ-jь домъ (this house is large)&#xD;&#xA;* глубока рѣка (a deep river) / глубока-ja рѣка (this river is deep)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&amp;#42;jь* and *&amp;#42;ja* here are extinct third-person pronouns meaning a local person participating in the conversation (as opposed to a remote person designated with *он, она*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their traces remain in the language in oblique cases (*его* but not *оного*, *ему* but not *оному* etc.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6369" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1730" RevisionGUID="1c135177-acf6-4920-943e-9c041d0705c4" CreationDate="2013-01-18T10:55:39.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/292223725141647360" />
  <row Id="6375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1761" RevisionGUID="2d6e1dcf-d79a-47c5-bf23-25cba7f0d57d" CreationDate="2013-01-18T15:54:25.153" UserId="115" Text="I think that your question is interesting, but too broad for this forum.  You have already pointed out grammatical differences in the past tense: Я сказал vs. Я сказала.  Beyond that, I am sure there are differences in intonation, vocabulary, and probably many other factors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have recently listened to an audio course called [He Said/She Said: Women, Men and Language][1] by Deborah Tannen.  Naturally, her research mainly involves English speakers.  She points out that women speaking English tend to use rising intonation more often then men, making their statements sound a bit like questions.  She also talks about how men tend to talk to convey information, while women tend to use conversation to maintain relationships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have said, this is all pertaining to the speakers of English, but this might be a starting point for you, if you wish to look for similar research concerning the speakers of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Modern-Scholar-Women-Language/dp/B001GKVBXI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1762" RevisionGUID="2a9a2c7c-11d2-4937-9e58-24aec1f7f622" CreationDate="2013-01-18T16:25:37.463" UserId="114" Text="To be honest, as a native speaker I can assure you that absolutely no grammatic difference between male and female speech exists apart from the past tense you mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Culturally speaking, modern Russia is so westernized that any difference between genders erased from speech and you can easily find woman which speaks like a brute or a man who speaks tenderly and with care. Women swear, too, there's no unspoken rule about what obscenities are allowed to only men or only women. So, no difference there, too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="75db5c95-a7ab-48dd-8d9d-9dd9c1eb3168" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:25:18.730" UserId="1262" Text="Рассмотрим (*на этот раз предлагаю включить мозги*) такие слова как *ласка, тоска, доска, миска, полоска, колбаска, опаска, ряска*. Морфемно-орфографический словарь выдает следующее разделение (в скобках - информация по Фасмеру):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ласк.а (сопоставл. с болг. &quot;лаская&quot;= русск.  &quot;льщу&quot;, лат.lascivus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тоск.а (возм. связ. с &quot;тощий&quot;) - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;доск.а  - и &quot;дощатый&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;миск.а = этимологии нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;опек.а (связано с &quot;печаль&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ряск.а (растение) - этимологии нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;коляск.а (коло-, колесо) - ср.с тохарским kälaskam (одна из форм косв.п., по Иванову)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;НО:&#xD;&#xA;лас.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дос.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ряс.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;коляс.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о.глас.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о.пас.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;полос.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;колбас.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ряс.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раздел на морфемы кажется слишком произвольным -при том, что в русском и др. славянских яз.есть примеры чередования согласных, а в древних родственных языках -когнаты означенных слов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравни с санскритским -ка, присутсвующим в неодушевленных объектах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что такое -ка в этих словах? Как оно появлялось исторически и может ли быть связано с (пра)индоевропейскими суффиксами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning and history of -ка among the Russian words listed above (given the fact that there is for sht in Bulgarian and even in Russian language the stem consonants alternate). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact of cognate words (e.g. in Tocharian kälaskam for Russian &quot;коляска&quot; according to Ivanov) and -ka in Sanskrit words for inanimate/istrumentive objects have something to do with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it in fact a single consonant claster (like Greek x or Bulgarian щ) which is in fact perceived by native Russian speakers as two separate consonants?&#xD;&#xA;The division into stem/root consonants seems to be too orbituary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="75db5c95-a7ab-48dd-8d9d-9dd9c1eb3168" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:25:18.730" UserId="1262" Text="What is the origin and meanining of -ка in these words/Какова этимология и смысл -ка в этих словах?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="75db5c95-a7ab-48dd-8d9d-9dd9c1eb3168" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:25:18.730" UserId="1262" Text="|морфология|история|психолингвистика|фоносемантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="3125a106-fb83-418c-811b-068f0c920a9e" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:30:55.840" UserId="1262" Text="The rest of the words seem to follow the productive pattern. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf:  картошка &lt;=&gt; картоха; плашка &lt;=&gt; плаха; Антошка &lt;=&gt; Антоха; Машка &lt;=&gt; Маха и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="3125a106-fb83-418c-811b-068f0c920a9e" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:30:55.840" UserId="1262" Text="Why мартышка but not *мартыха?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="3125a106-fb83-418c-811b-068f0c920a9e" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:30:55.840" UserId="1262" Text="|морфология|психолингвистика|фоносемантика|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="4690b41e-090c-48bf-9e46-cfc980bb58fa" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:44:24.010" UserId="1262" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим (*на этот раз предлагаю включить мозги*) такие слова как *ласка, тоска, доска, миска, полоска, колбаска, опаска, ряска*. Морфемно-орфографический словарь выдает следующее разделение (в скобках - информация по Фасмеру):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ласк.а (сопоставл. с болг. &quot;лаская&quot;= русск.  &quot;льщу&quot;, лат.lascivus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тоск.а (возм. связ. с &quot;тощий&quot;) - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;доск.а  - и &quot;дощатый&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;миск.а = этимологии нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;опек.а (связано с &quot;печаль&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ряск.а (растение) - этимологии нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;коляск.а (коло-, колесо) - ср.с тохарским kälaskam (одна из форм косв.п., по Иванову)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;НО:&#xD;&#xA;лас.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дос.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ряс.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;коляс.о.ч.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о.глас.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о.пас.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;полос.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;колбас.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ряс.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раздел на морфемы кажется слишком произвольным -при том, что в русском и др. славянских яз.есть примеры чередования согласных, а в древних родственных языках -когнаты означенных слов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравни с санскритским -ка, присутствующим в словах для обозначения неодушевленных объектов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что такое -ка в этих словах? Как оно появлялось исторически и может ли быть связано с (пра)индоевропейскими суффиксами?  Не является ли это (с)ка в действительности вариативным консонантным кластером (наподобие древнегреческого кс или болгарсого щ), воспринимаемым носителями языка как две разных согласных?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning and history of -ка among the Russian words listed above (given the fact that there is for sht in Bulgarian and even in Russian language the stem consonants alternate). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact of cognate words (e.g. in Tocharian kälaskam for Russian &quot;коляска&quot; according to Ivanov) and -ka in Sanskrit words for inanimate/istrumentive objects have something to do with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it in fact a single consonant claster (like Greek x or Bulgarian щ) which is perceived by native Russian speakers as two separate consonants?&#xD;&#xA;The division into stem/root consonants seems to be too arbitrary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="dc2d08e2-a463-4e4d-ae4e-f794ba3f136a" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:05:55.957" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим такие слова как *ласка, тоска, доска, миска, полоска, колбаска, опаска, ряска*. Морфемно-орфографический словарь выдает следующее разделение (в скобках - информация по Фасмеру):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ласк.а (сопоставл. с болг. &quot;лаская&quot; = русск. &quot;льщу&quot;, лат.lascivus); тоск.а (возм. связ. с &quot;тощий&quot;); доск.а (&quot;дощатый&quot;); миск.а (этимологии нет);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;опек.а (связано с &quot;печаль&quot;); ряск.а (растение, этимологии нет); коляск.а (коло-, колесо, ср.с тохарским kälaskam - одна из форм косв.п., по Иванову)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;лас.о.ч.к.а, дос.о.ч.к.а, ряс.о.ч.к.а, коляс.о.ч.к.а, о.глас.к.а, о.пас.к.а, полос.к.а, колбас.к.а, ряс.к.а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раздел на морфемы кажется слишком произвольным - при том, что в русском и др. славянских языках есть примеры чередования согласных, а в древних родственных языках - когнаты означенных слов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравни с санскритским -ка, присутствующим в словах для обозначения неодушевленных объектов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что такое -ка в этих словах? Как оно появлялось исторически и может ли быть связано с (пра)индоевропейскими суффиксами?  Не является ли это (с)ка в действительности вариативным консонантным кластером (наподобие древнегреческого кс или болгарсого щ), воспринимаемым носителями языка как две разных согласных?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning and history of -ка among the Russian words listed above (given the fact that there is for sht in Bulgarian and even in Russian language the stem consonants alternate). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact of cognate words (e.g. in Tocharian kälaskam for Russian &quot;коляска&quot; according to Ivanov) and -ka in Sanskrit words for inanimate/istrumentive objects have something to do with this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it in fact a single consonant claster (like Greek x or Bulgarian щ) which is perceived by native Russian speakers as two separate consonants?&#xD;&#xA;The division into stem/root consonants seems to be too arbitrary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="13ee79f8-5693-476a-9703-825ee446c709" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:12:09.910" UserId="185" Comment="formatting" Text="Why does *мартышка* exist, but **мартыха* does not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the words seem to follow this productive pattern. Cf: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;картошка &lt;=&gt; картоха; плашка &lt;=&gt; плаха; Антошка &lt;=&gt; Антоха; Машка &lt;=&gt; Маха и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1767" RevisionGUID="24e893bf-9eb4-47c5-a7ae-f7a581df6d0d" CreationDate="2013-01-18T22:37:23.433" UserId="185" Text="Знает ли кто-нибудь слово *устряпаться*? Я недавно слышала его в контексте, из которого понятно, что оно значит что-то вроде *испачкаться*, но может быть я и ошибаюсь. И заодно интересно узнать, какое у этого глагола несовершенный вид. Неужели *стряпаться*? И в какой части России оно распространено?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1767" RevisionGUID="24e893bf-9eb4-47c5-a7ae-f7a581df6d0d" CreationDate="2013-01-18T22:37:23.433" UserId="185" Text="Значение слова &quot;устряпаться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1767" RevisionGUID="24e893bf-9eb4-47c5-a7ae-f7a581df6d0d" CreationDate="2013-01-18T22:37:23.433" UserId="185" Text="|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6403" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1741" RevisionGUID="cde21676-b1a5-49de-815c-d4e92edfca05" CreationDate="2013-01-19T01:55:41.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/292450225010925569" />
  <row Id="6405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1717" RevisionGUID="7dd8ad7c-1cf9-4df7-aae6-ab1c9526a741" CreationDate="2013-01-19T10:55:42.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/292586121563602947" />
  <row Id="6406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="e074bb1a-c398-4616-8bf5-b939e72d269b" CreationDate="2013-01-19T16:44:01.983" UserId="282" Text="It only says it is a noun and in singular number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="e074bb1a-c398-4616-8bf5-b939e72d269b" CreationDate="2013-01-19T16:44:01.983" UserId="282" Text="Why does the dictionary not have a gender for &quot;часы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="e074bb1a-c398-4616-8bf5-b939e72d269b" CreationDate="2013-01-19T16:44:01.983" UserId="282" Text="|существительные|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1769" RevisionGUID="cc0770e6-b57d-4fd7-8ef3-afbd1b7c9fa7" CreationDate="2013-01-19T17:20:39.580" UserId="1262" Text="Actually it is not a singular, but so called 'pluralia tantum', or nouns normally used in plural (e.g. like English 'news').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm for this type of declention is the same as for plural of час/часы (= hour/hours)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="caf2cd8c-7c9b-4f8b-9183-befb23602f02" CreationDate="2013-01-19T17:31:34.207" UserId="1262" Text="I'm curious how to render in Russian this specific term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *травля* has subtones of victimity, while mobbed people do tend to fight back, and *гонения* is too obsolete and politicized a word. Besides, that word would be out of the work-life context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been also thinking about *подлость* or *пакости(ть)* as Russian cognates like 'They've been mobbed'  = &quot;*Им (на)пакостили (на работе)*&quot;, but, again, this is too emotional a word while mobbing stands for professional/interpersonal things between an individual and a group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how to say 'mobbing' in Russian without getting into long strings of words? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="caf2cd8c-7c9b-4f8b-9183-befb23602f02" CreationDate="2013-01-19T17:31:34.207" UserId="1262" Text="What is Russian term for 'mobbing'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="caf2cd8c-7c9b-4f8b-9183-befb23602f02" CreationDate="2013-01-19T17:31:34.207" UserId="1262" Text="|выбор-слова|выражения|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1771" RevisionGUID="da9ece89-90fe-4333-a295-5af26b4e7440" CreationDate="2013-01-19T17:51:52.773" UserId="47" Text="Because it is a plural form and is only used as such. For example, 'one clock' would be *одни часы* in Russian. Similar words are *ножницы*, *сани*, *колготы* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1769" RevisionGUID="7435e989-e6b9-4b66-abca-bbe41cd7d506" CreationDate="2013-01-19T18:27:38.800" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Actually it is not a singular, but so called 'pluralia tantum', or nouns normally used in plural (e.g. like English 'news').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm for this type of declension is the same as for plural of час/часы (= hour/hours)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1773" RevisionGUID="ffcfa771-264f-4653-9805-c54ec1d97bea" CreationDate="2013-01-19T18:39:14.967" UserId="1329" Text="**Устряпать**   (  несовершенный вид  **устряпывать**  ) означает:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. испачкать; &#xD;&#xA; 2. перен. покрыть чем-л. в большом количестве, обильно; &#xD;&#xA; 3. побить, победить, побороть кого-л., одержать верх над кем-л.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Устроить что-л. ловко, успешно (толковый словарь Ефремовой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Распространено это слово в Сибири, на Урале ( Пермь, Уфа, Свердловская обл., Челябинская обл.), в Алма-Ате, а также в Нижнем Новгороде и ряде других городов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Устряпаться** (  несовершенный вид **устряпываться** ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. испачкаться; &#xD;&#xA; 2. перен. попасть в неприятное, затруднительное положение, &quot;вляпаться&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; 3. кончить стряпню; много наготовить и устать;&#xD;&#xA; 4. прийти в состояние алкогольного, наркотического опьянения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнем значении является частью молодежного жаргона и встречается только в Новосибирске и Омске.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Информацию нашла на форуме [городские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; диалекты](http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualtopics.aspx?bid=26), [отдельная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тема о слове&#xD;&#xA;&gt; устряпать](http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=111770). Там же можно найти примеры из ЖЖ, интервью, современной художественной литературы (разумеется,все написано жителями вышеперечисленных областей)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1777" RevisionGUID="72b93dc0-05ca-483f-8b56-93a577fcffc7" CreationDate="2013-01-19T22:03:30.993" UserId="1329" Text="I would suggest **издевательство**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На работе он постоянно терпит издевательства со стороны коллег.&#xD;&#xA;    На работе над ним постоянно издеваются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1778" RevisionGUID="f30b1050-08bc-4748-8203-2dc54c6897d1" CreationDate="2013-01-20T05:04:10.920" UserId="496" Text="Quassnoi is right asking what dictionary doesn't have the gender mark for the word часы. For example, [wikidictionary][1] specifies that the gender is *masculine* as well as it specifies that the word is only used in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other dictionaries which I checked, for example Щерба, Матусевич. Русско-французский словарь, 1993, only specify _plural_, and no gender for часы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not specifying gender for the words that are only used in plural makes sense for Russian language because their gender has only historical value and does not manifests itself grammatically in any way. In Russian neither endings of adjectives, nor endings of verbs will differ in case, if they are related to plural nouns in different genders. Compare with French which differentiates gender in plural via adjective endings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pallissades **vertes** (fem.) - зелёные заборы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feux **verts** (masc.) - зелёные огни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1778" RevisionGUID="e07077b3-29bd-46b8-afa3-74d00d6e527d" CreationDate="2013-01-20T05:15:27.917" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Quassnoi is right asking what dictionary doesn't have the gender mark for the word часы. For example, [wikidictionary][1] specifies that the gender is *masculine* as well as it specifies that the word is only used in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other dictionaries which I checked, for example Щерба, Матусевич. Русско-французский словарь, 1993, only specify _plural_, and no gender for часы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not specifying gender for the words that are only used in plural makes sense for Russian language because their gender has only historical value and does not manifests itself grammatically in any way. In Russian neither endings of adjectives, nor endings of verbs will differ when they are related to plural nouns of different genders. Compare with French which differentiates gender in plural via adjective endings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pallissades **vertes** (fem.) - зелёные заборы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feux **verts** (masc.) - зелёные огни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1779" RevisionGUID="f248e0ae-db59-4b1f-8d8f-64ae6c6fabb5" CreationDate="2013-01-20T06:15:27.247" UserId="827" Text="Вы как-то странно смешали несколько разных вопросов в одном, и упомянутый ряд слов слишком разнороден. Как минимум, следовало бы разделить на слова, у которых как минимум это -к- в -ка входит в основу как минимум в раннеобщеславянские времена, затем те, у которых это часть основы только в поздние времена (история русского языка после отделения), и те, у которых видно происхождение и сейчас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, &quot;полоска&quot; однозначно увязывается с &quot;полоса&quot; стандартным способом (-к- как уменьшительный суффикс) любым носителем языка. Таких примеров в языке сотни. Во всех этих случаях этимология рассказывает про уменьшительный суффикс -ък-, который дал беглый гласный (им.ед. полоска - род.мн. полосок). Для &quot;ласка&quot; этимология сложнее, но тоже можно предполагать, что -к- - суффикс, хоть и более древний. В то же время, для &quot;тоска&quot; тут -к- есть согласный корня, и иной вариант не прослеживается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее, морфемно-орфографический словарь показывает текущее состояние с точки зрения носителей языка, а не историю, которая может не согласовываться с ним и даже противоречить. Хрестоматийный пример - голландское zonnedek (что-то вроде &quot;крышка от солнца&quot;; тут могу налажать в написании, поправьте, если что) превратилось в &quot;зонтик&quot;, а далее образовалось &quot;зонт&quot;. С точки зрения истории тут нелепица, а с точки зрения морфологии тут уменьшительный суффикс -ик-. Поэтому морфемно-орфографический словарь показывает те слова, которые делятся на морфемы для современного языкового сознания, так, как они делятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что за санскритское -ка, Вы не уточнили (лучше бы пару примеров), но история чётко показывает, что никакого подобного явления в этом ряду слов нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1768" RevisionGUID="a7d84f87-4d14-4e47-9975-8d6e907d2b04" CreationDate="2013-01-20T07:55:42.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/292903212476928001" />
  <row Id="6435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1780" RevisionGUID="65788de7-e9d6-43ab-9dc7-d018cd8ada52" CreationDate="2013-01-20T09:40:03.917" UserId="1371" Text="`*мартыха` exists too. If you say &quot;мартыха&quot; for russian native, he (she) wil understand you.&#xD;&#xA;But all this forms (`*ха`) belongs to colloquial speech. So you may not find them in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excuse me for my poor English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1780" RevisionGUID="ff5d1ac2-baff-41b8-88e2-b22503532477" CreationDate="2013-01-20T09:53:14.953" UserId="1371" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="`*мартыха` exists too. If you say &quot;мартыха&quot; for russian native, he (she) wil understand you.&#xD;&#xA;But some of this forms (`*ха`: Антоха, Маха, картоха, мартыха) belongs to colloquial speech. So you may not find them in dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;Exception:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плашка &lt;=&gt; плаха&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case **плаха** is literary form, and **плашка** is diminutive form of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excuse me for my poor English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1778" RevisionGUID="525109e2-bec0-42ef-b75c-077c644b115d" CreationDate="2013-01-20T13:54:32.547" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Quassnoi is right asking what dictionary doesn't have the gender mark for the word часы. For example, [wikidictionary][1] specifies that the gender is *masculine* as well as it specifies that the word is only used in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other dictionaries which I checked, for example Щерба, Матусевич. Русско-французский словарь, 1993, only specify _plural_, and no gender for часы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not specifying gender for the words that are only used in plural makes sense for Russian language because their gender has only historical value and does not manifests itself grammatically in any way. In Russian neither endings of adjectives, nor endings of verbs will differ when they are related to plural nouns of different genders. Compare with French which differentiates gender in plural via adjective endings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; palissades **vertes** (fem.) - зелёные заборы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feux **verts** (masc.) - зелёные огни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="2d8cc6bf-4b65-4996-b6dc-5aa5346aa4e9" CreationDate="2013-01-20T15:44:07.807" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 154 characters in body" Text="Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &#xA;&#xA;Please [look around][1] to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &#xA;&#xA;## Can I request a translation?&#xA;&#xA;We do not forbid translation requests but note that **this is not a translation service**, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&#xA;&#xA; - **Russian to *any language* translations**  &#xA; This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&#xA; - ***any language* to Russian translations**  &#xA; Welcome as long as you provide *enough* explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask for resources?&#xA;&#xA;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&#xA;&#xA;We have created a [single resource question][3], where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is **very specific**, we will close it as a duplicate.&#xA;&#xA;## Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&#xA;&#xA;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &#xA; &#xA; - It's in the dictionary;   &#xA; - It's easily found in a Google search.&#xA;&#xA;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&#xA;&#xA;## Should I post in Russian or English?&#xA;&#xA;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&#xA;&#xA; - If the question is in English, please answer in English;&#xA; - If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you **should** post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/search&#xA;  [2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6466/ask-a-russian-moderator&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1778" RevisionGUID="03b7a13c-0c84-4c10-b55f-13a38817fb5d" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:53:01.563" UserId="496" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Quassnoi is right asking what dictionary doesn't have the gender mark for the word часы. For example, [wikidictionary][1] specifies that the gender is *masculine* as well as it specifies that the word is only used in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other dictionaries, which I checked, for example Щерба, Матусевич. Русско-французский словарь, 1993, only specify _plural_, and no gender for часы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not specifying gender for the words that are only used in plural makes sense for Russian language because their gender has only historical value and does not manifests itself grammatically in any way. In Russian neither endings of adjectives, nor endings of verbs will differ when they are related to plural nouns of different genders. Compare with French which differentiates gender in plural via adjective endings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; palissades **vertes** (fem.) - зелёные заборы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feux **verts** (masc.) - зелёные огни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="92e5b219-0c52-4962-ad15-92921aaac209" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:08:30.530" UserId="496" Text="If the question is formulated with negation to the verb, and it is answered with one word: **да** or **нет**, what is the rule of how to understand it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Imagine that the question is a logical expression (no matter does&#xD;&#xA;    it have negation or not in it); answer **да** means that you think&#xD;&#xA;    that the whole expression is true, answer **нет** means you think it&#xD;&#xA;    is false.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Take the verb of question without negation; answer **да**, if in&#xD;&#xA;    your full answer (which would repeat the verb) you would not need to&#xD;&#xA;    put negation to the verb; answer **нет**, if you would put negation&#xD;&#xA;    to the verb in your full answer.&#xD;&#xA; 3. There is no definite rule, in each particular case the meaning is&#xD;&#xA;    clarified with intonation, or facial expression, or with additional&#xD;&#xA;    questions/answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, variant 1) used in Chinese and Japanese, variant 2) is used in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parent asks his/her child: &quot;Так ты не будешь есть?&quot; --&quot;Нет!&quot; (said strongly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking acquaintance: &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; --&quot;Да.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="92e5b219-0c52-4962-ad15-92921aaac209" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:08:30.530" UserId="496" Text="Answering negative questions with one word (да/нет) - are there the rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="92e5b219-0c52-4962-ad15-92921aaac209" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:08:30.530" UserId="496" Text="|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1771" RevisionGUID="962d74dc-5244-42d0-a712-8f020430e5de" CreationDate="2013-01-20T22:27:23.750" UserId="47" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Because it is a plural form and is only used as such. For example, 'one clock' would be *одни часы* in Russian. Similar words are *ножницы*, *сани*, *колготки* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="4e913d24-a3d0-489e-b59c-ce06718c8f57" CreationDate="2013-01-21T01:55:43.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/293175008455454721" />
  <row Id="6447" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1709" RevisionGUID="b72336bd-b32e-4974-bd96-ef40fcdc039f" CreationDate="2013-01-21T07:55:43.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/293265605048557570" />
  <row Id="6448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1782" RevisionGUID="2fdceb21-4671-485d-b13b-9288488b250f" CreationDate="2013-01-21T08:23:57.457" UserId="69" Text="По Шанскому (_Школьный этимологический словарь русского языка. Происхождение слов_, 2004, у Крылова (2008) также):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ДАЖЕ** Искон. Сращение частиц _да_ и _же_. Ср. _аж_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравниваем _аж_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **АЖ**. Искон. Сращение союза _а_ &quot;и, да&quot; и частицы _же_. Конечный безударный _е_ отпал так же, как и в _авось_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У Фасмера _даже_ упоминается здесь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **да** — нареч., союз, _да́бы_, _да́же_;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фасмер также указывает на сращение в словах _аж_ и _уже_, _уж_. Т. е., похоже, что это достаточно обычное явление." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1782" RevisionGUID="8b9d6e7a-8f22-467b-8bf2-49fd14571fc3" CreationDate="2013-01-21T08:32:45.877" UserId="69" Comment="edited body" Text="По Шанскому (_Школьный этимологический словарь русского языка. Происхождение слов_, 2004, у Крылова (2008) также):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ДАЖЕ** Искон. Сращение частиц _да_ и _же_. Ср. _аж_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравниваем _аж_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **АЖ**. Искон. Сращение союза _а_ «и, да» и частицы _же_. Конечный безударный _е_ отпал так же, как и в _авось_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У Фасмера _даже_ упоминается здесь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **да** — нареч., союз, _да́бы_, _да́же_;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фасмер также указывает на сращение в словах _аж_ и _уже_, _уж_. Т. е., похоже, что это достаточно обычное явление." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1783" RevisionGUID="e6ee2dbb-de45-4c73-8151-68f172c4b4bf" CreationDate="2013-01-21T09:09:41.873" UserId="1372" Text="In Russian you must resolve ambiguities explicitly. Below both variants, separated by &quot;|&quot; are acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Так ты не будешь есть?&quot;  -- &quot;Нет, не буду&quot; | &quot;Да, я не буду есть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; -- &quot;Нет, не знаю&quot; | &quot;Да я его не знаю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just **да**, or **нет** here sounds vague and makes your answer feel evasive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1784" RevisionGUID="d0901d55-44c5-4332-8f27-c064d41eda62" CreationDate="2013-01-21T09:10:42.817" UserId="1274" Text="In fact, the more I think about it, the more strange &quot;да&quot; seems as an answer to a negative question. Most likely I would not understand it if it is written (just as I do not understand it in the question), and if it is spoken I'd have to rely on intonation and gestures (choice 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one-word &quot;нет&quot; answer always negates the verb (choice 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-understood positive answer to a negative question can be constructed by repeating the verb: &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; -- &quot;Знаю.&quot;,  &quot;Так ты не будешь есть?&quot; --&quot;Буду!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1785" RevisionGUID="922c4df1-19fe-4cb4-9f7d-64f7af540cfb" CreationDate="2013-01-21T10:04:16.953" UserId="1262" Text="Russian is like Irish or Finnish in this respect; the former has no specific word for 'yes'/'no', the latter has some specific words for 'yes' and several varieties for 'no' govered by grammatical person &amp; number with almost obligatory repetition of the verb from the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g. the question &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot;  might be answered with both 'yes' or 'no' depending on intonation and pauses maid. To avoid ambiguities one should use the same verb as that of the question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1785" RevisionGUID="8a3aebe8-6ff6-49a8-9193-6a72c7457cb7" CreationDate="2013-01-21T10:28:17.817" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="Russian is like Irish or Finnish in this respect; the former has no specific word for 'yes'/'no', the latter has some specific words for 'yes' and several varieties for 'no' govered by grammatical person &amp; number with almost obligatory repetition of the verb from the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g. the question &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot;  might be answered with both 'yes' or 'no' depending on intonation and pauses made. To avoid ambiguities one should use the same verb as that of the question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1785" RevisionGUID="a1d87343-0903-421d-9074-954c8261fc4b" CreationDate="2013-01-21T11:48:38.853" UserId="1262" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Russian is like Irish or Finnish in this respect; the former has no specific word for 'yes'/'no', the latter has some specific words for 'yes' and several varieties for 'no' govered by grammatical person &amp; number with almost obligatory repetition of the verb from the question asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g. the question &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot;  might be answered with both 'yes' or 'no' depending on intonation and pauses made. To avoid ambiguities one should use the same verb as that of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore Russian is more like Type 3 language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1719" RevisionGUID="4293501f-0011-4f47-b27c-e3990d12d13b" CreationDate="2013-01-21T22:55:43.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/293492098550861824" />
  <row Id="6462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="365e9741-89ee-479c-b2f7-86d00f5dcf14" CreationDate="2013-01-22T03:08:42.243" UserId="1329" Text="There was a small [discussion](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1768) between [texnic](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/47/texnic) and me about the appropriate way to denote tights - a classical question on forums related to Russian linguistics. As I do not consider myself an expert in Russian language, I would like to ask the community for their opinion, *preferably documented*. Maybe I was wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my reasons to prefer **колготки** over  **колготы** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **childhood stereotypes**: at school I was taught that the word **колготы** doesn't exist; however, sad experience showed me later that not every teacher knows their matter perfectly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **stylistical prejudices**: in my family and kindergarden (yes, again childhood =) )this word was used frequently, but with different stress - **колготЫ** (sometimes even **колготУшки** to rhyme with my name); this gave it а vernacular and stylistically colloquial tone - just like it happens with &quot;inner&quot; words that are made up inside a family and don't sound appropriate when you pronounce them in public;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **frequency in dictionaries**: as I am not a linguist, I mostly refer to dictionaries written by Ожегов, Ушаков, or Даль (the latter certainly doesn't fit for this question). None of them shows the word колготы; **maybe somebody here has the Big Academic Dictionary?** On the internet while searching for occurence in dictionaries I have also found [this](http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=5b8706464e7bc79b&amp;pli=1), **while texnic found opposite information (i.e. this word [*can*](http://www.caretta-shop.ru/statall/19/stat58/) be found in modern dictionaries)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Google and StackExchange underline колготы with red;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I come up with more arguments, I'll add them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the usage of those words depends on some geographical/cultural/demographic aspect? Maybe the word **колготы** is actually stylistically neutral? Or is this just another topic where linguists can't come to a consensus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="365e9741-89ee-479c-b2f7-86d00f5dcf14" CreationDate="2013-01-22T03:08:42.243" UserId="1329" Text="Колготки or колготы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="365e9741-89ee-479c-b2f7-86d00f5dcf14" CreationDate="2013-01-22T03:08:42.243" UserId="1329" Text="|выбор-слова|словарь|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1788" RevisionGUID="798df2dc-c1c8-45af-8bda-1abdaaf5d715" CreationDate="2013-01-22T03:37:54.670" UserId="426" Text="A brief search of the [national corpus][1] shows that the word &quot;колготы&quot; has been used as a genitive of &quot;колгота&quot; (a synonym of &quot;суета&quot;) until the eighties, when the meaning of &quot;колготы&quot; as a synonym of &quot;колготки&quot; started to appear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А для той колготы и начальников много понаставили. (1924)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кстати, черные, темные чулки (или колготы) не худят полных ног. (1988)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;колготки&quot; has appeared in the corpus more than a decade earlier, so your teacher was right: for a while, only &quot;колготки&quot; was a real word, and &quot;колготы&quot; did not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the search results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Колготы][2] - [(distribution by year)][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [Колготки][4] - [(distribution by year)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;t=100&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;req=%EA%EE%EB%E3%EE%F2%FB&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;t=100&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;req=%EA%EE%EB%E3%EE%F2%FB&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;t=100&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=en&amp;req=%EA%EE%EB%E3%EE%F2%EA%E8&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;t=100&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;req=%EA%EE%EB%E3%EE%F2%EA%E8&amp;lang=ru&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6466" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="59c32e53-d8f1-4f97-93c4-4605cb81b85e" CreationDate="2013-01-22T04:55:43.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/293582695852822528" />
  <row Id="6467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="97c1027c-128a-4fd1-9c41-3ce09d847121" CreationDate="2013-01-22T04:57:01.600" UserId="1329" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="There was a small [discussion](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1768) between [texnic](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/47/texnic) and me about the appropriate way to denote tights - a classical question on forums related to Russian linguistics. As I do not consider myself an expert in Russian language, I would like to ask the community for their opinion, *preferably documented*. Maybe I was wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my reasons to prefer **колготки** over  **колготы** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **childhood stereotypes**: at school I was taught that the word **колготы** doesn't exist; however, sad experience showed me later that not every teacher knows their matter perfectly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **stylistical prejudices**: in my family and kindergarden (yes, again childhood =) )this word was used frequently, but with different stress - **колготЫ** (sometimes even **колготУшки** to rhyme with my name); this gave it а vernacular and stylistically colloquial tone - just like it happens with &quot;inner&quot; words that are made up inside a family and don't sound appropriate when you pronounce them in public;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **frequency in dictionaries**: as I am not a linguist, I mostly refer to dictionaries written by Ожегов, Ушаков, or Даль (the latter certainly doesn't fit for this question). None of them shows the word колготы; **maybe somebody here has the Big Academic Dictionary?** On the internet while searching for occurence in dictionaries I have also found [this](http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=5b8706464e7bc79b&amp;pli=1), **while texnic found opposite information (i.e. this word [*can*](http://www.caretta-shop.ru/statall/19/stat58/) be found in modern dictionaries)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Google and StackExchange underline колготы with red;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I come up with more arguments, I'll add them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, to sum it up, is this strange word **колготы**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- dependent on geographical/cultural/demographic aspects; &#xD;&#xA;- stylistically neutral; &#xD;&#xA;- a common grammatical mistake that almost turned into a norm (like infamous **coffee** gender or stress in **заиндевелый**, **фольга** );&#xD;&#xA;- absolutely wrong (like **сосули** instead of **сосульки**);&#xD;&#xA;- just another topic where linguists can't come to a consensus?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1783" RevisionGUID="7dc1ce59-6664-4631-a043-533cff272f34" CreationDate="2013-01-22T05:47:06.487" UserId="1372" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="In Russian you must resolve ambiguities explicitly. Below both variants, separated by &quot;|&quot; are acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Так ты не будешь есть?&quot;  -- &quot;Нет, не буду&quot; | &quot;Да, я не буду есть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; -- &quot;Нет, не знаю&quot; | &quot;Да я его не знаю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just **да**, or **нет** here sounds vague and makes your answer feel evasive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By request of comment, I will also add example for discarding negative question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Так ты не будешь есть?&quot;  -- &quot;Нет, я буду есть&quot; | &quot;Нет, буду&quot; | &quot;Буду&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; -- &quot;Нет, я его знаю&quot; | &quot;Нет, знаю&quot; | &quot;Знаю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how to decline in both cases, using &quot;да&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1777" RevisionGUID="8b866a48-41c0-40cd-93f0-ff000175af08" CreationDate="2013-01-22T10:17:58.487" UserId="1329" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="I would suggest **издевательство**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На работе он постоянно терпит издевательства со стороны коллег.&#xD;&#xA;    На работе над ним постоянно издеваются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just have noticed your request for translation of &quot;They've been mobbed&quot; in perfect tense. In this case  **&quot;Их подставили&quot;** is often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as far as I know, this refers to career only ( i.e. one can't say &quot;Его в школе подставили&quot;,that would sound weird ). The noun associated with this verb is &quot;**подстава**&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="b75ebaa6-6372-4653-a6a0-3717a45c4e73" CreationDate="2013-01-22T10:35:36.687" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="Каково происхождение слова? Сочетание _да_ + _же_ представляется слишком очевидным. Фасмер дает только ****датже***, не останавливаясь на использовании современной лексемы и не останавливаясь на элизии (маловероятной). Есть ли другие источники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the word? The combination of _да_ + _же_ seems too obvious. Vasmer provides the only example of ****датже*** without detailed explanation of its origin, nor the elision is explained. Are there any other sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="b75ebaa6-6372-4653-a6a0-3717a45c4e73" CreationDate="2013-01-22T10:35:36.687" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="Этимология слова «даже» / Etymology of the word “dazhe” (even, although)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6472" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1755" RevisionGUID="b75ebaa6-6372-4653-a6a0-3717a45c4e73" CreationDate="2013-01-22T10:35:36.687" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 97, 71 edit id of 294" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1777" RevisionGUID="be3cf116-ecaf-4dd2-bc16-d2fdff4af6d3" CreationDate="2013-01-22T11:30:02.813" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I would suggest **издевательство**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На работе он постоянно терпит издевательства со стороны коллег.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На работе над ним постоянно издеваются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About your request for translation of *&quot;They've been mobbed&quot;* in perfect tense, I want to say that in this case  **Их подставили** is often used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as far as I know, this refers to career only (i.e. one can't say **Его в школе подставили**, that would sound weird ). The noun associated with this verb is **подстава**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1789" RevisionGUID="2ac00e54-13bd-47f5-ac20-5bf673c52fa0" CreationDate="2013-01-22T14:23:48.913" UserId="1377" Text="A widespread term — ***электронные СМИ***, which includes TV, radio and internet media." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1781" RevisionGUID="58a4d401-b275-4341-9b6a-a884e56ec6fa" CreationDate="2013-01-22T17:11:04.187" UserId="496" Comment="edited title" Text="Answering negative questions with one word (да/нет) - are there rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="64c4a0ae-a46f-426c-812f-3a6490fd58a1" CreationDate="2013-01-23T00:23:51.070" UserId="282" Text="Why is dative case used in the following for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - месяцы в году  &#xD;&#xA;    - игры на снегу&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;There is no sentence, so how can there be an indirect object.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="64c4a0ae-a46f-426c-812f-3a6490fd58a1" CreationDate="2013-01-23T00:23:51.070" UserId="282" Text="Dative case in subjects and titles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="64c4a0ae-a46f-426c-812f-3a6490fd58a1" CreationDate="2013-01-23T00:23:51.070" UserId="282" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1791" RevisionGUID="deeb9648-b343-4cef-a840-c3dd45aacece" CreationDate="2013-01-23T03:11:01.313" UserId="426" Text="Although the word forms match dative letter-for-letter, the stress falls on the wrong syllable, giving you a hint that something fishy is going on. Indeed, this is not dative: it is [*locative*][1], one of a lesser-known cases of Russian nouns. [According to Wikipedia][2], approximately 150 masculine nouns retain a distinct form for the locative case, used only after &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot;. These forms end in &quot;-у́&quot; or &quot;-ю́&quot;&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лежать на снегу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоять на Краю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/426&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="119de785-bd08-4cbf-8043-c38aa13e9e37" CreationDate="2013-01-23T08:16:59.353" UserId="626" Comment="Added my own website with Russian lessons, Ruskie.info." Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [3] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][5] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][6] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tsya.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1791" RevisionGUID="b0396e02-9d4e-40eb-9209-91b5f59120b2" CreationDate="2013-01-23T09:45:30.667" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Although the word forms match dative letter-for-letter, the stress falls on another syllable, giving you a hint that something fishy is going on. Indeed, this is not dative: it is [*locative*][1], one of a lesser-known cases of Russian nouns. [According to Wikipedia][2], approximately 150 masculine nouns retain a distinct form for the locative case, used only after &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot;. These forms end in &quot;-у́&quot; or &quot;-ю́&quot;&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лежать на снегу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоять на Краю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/426&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="65104a3f-9fcd-41a1-a7fe-da7d43c40d36" CreationDate="2013-01-23T09:52:25.357" UserId="108" Comment="added new resources" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][7], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][1], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][8], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [3] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][5] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][6] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6484" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="65104a3f-9fcd-41a1-a7fe-da7d43c40d36" CreationDate="2013-01-23T09:52:25.357" Comment="Proposed by 108 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 295" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1792" RevisionGUID="b7efdfb8-ba8d-4632-9a86-9d52d86d1eec" CreationDate="2013-01-23T13:26:02.087" UserId="1090" Text="If you're searching for **mobbing** as **bullying** term, maybe word `наезд` would suit you well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня задолбало терпеть их наезды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would personally prefer to use a verb when trying to descript **bullying**, because of much more options. So, you can use a verb `наезжать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На меня постоянно все наезжают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also use a profanity `доебываться`, a good old phrase `катить бочку` and a jargonic `крошить батон`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1793" RevisionGUID="1f9f3d77-b88d-4cc1-af1b-a5ef67388583" CreationDate="2013-01-23T14:29:06.563" UserId="1097" Text="**Гноби́ть, загноби́ть** — травить, угнетать, притеснять, изводить, приставать, давить, преследовать, докучать, надоедать, раздражать, несправедливо критиковать с целью выжать с места или устранить из круга конкурентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Третировать** — обращаться с кем-либо пренебрежительно, свысока, враждебно и агрессивно; не считаться с кем-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чмори́ть, чмари́ть, чмыри́ть** (школьный, подростковый сленг) ~ гнобить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6487" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="6a4521dd-f261-4306-850e-25b852f072d9" CreationDate="2013-01-23T16:55:45.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/294126283850399745" />
  <row Id="6488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1791" RevisionGUID="51347075-dd1a-4a99-8ad5-b6998fd00a2b" CreationDate="2013-01-23T17:05:12.993" UserId="426" Comment="fixing a typo." Text="Although the word forms match dative letter-for-letter, the stress falls on another syllable, giving you a hint that something fishy is going on. Indeed, this is not dative: it is [*locative*][1], one of a lesser-known cases of Russian nouns. [According to Wikipedia][2], approximately 150 masculine nouns retain a distinct form for the locative case, used only after &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot;. These forms end in &quot;-у́&quot; or &quot;-ю́&quot;&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лежать на снегу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоять на краю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/426&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="72306901-3578-4953-89a8-837eda845a8a" CreationDate="2013-01-23T20:31:46.067" UserId="1262" Text="Did it desappear in some transitional period or later, when Modern Russian already existed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="72306901-3578-4953-89a8-837eda845a8a" CreationDate="2013-01-23T20:31:46.067" UserId="1262" Text="When did (Old) Russian lose its Plusquamperfect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="72306901-3578-4953-89a8-837eda845a8a" CreationDate="2013-01-23T20:31:46.067" UserId="1262" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1795" RevisionGUID="6f267ea0-3c0b-4260-97a4-a523ed04e86c" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:14:49.667" UserId="1236" Text="The point is the Russian Plusquamperfect hasn't disappeared, it is still used with a bit transformed meaning and it is used with its normal meaning in Russian dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the 17th century its meaning changed and it began to mean an action which was going to start, but didn't start for some reason: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я *было собрался* идти, но передумал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%EF%EB%FE%F1%EA%E2%E0%EC%EF%E5%F0%F4%E5%EA%F2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical beginning of the Russian fairy tales, `жили-были`, is an example of the Plusquamperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a [detailed study][1] of the Russian Plusquamperfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://danefae.org/pprs/zhivov2/petruxin.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6493" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1770" RevisionGUID="4a49970e-ca22-4346-8e8c-19878b127d79" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:55:45.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/294262179425816576" />
  <row Id="6494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="b1372969-6a8f-4a4f-8fe1-35233fb5aee1" CreationDate="2013-01-24T11:09:59.477" UserId="71" Comment="edited body" Text="Did it disappear in some transitional period or later, when Modern Russian already existed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1796" RevisionGUID="ed657393-27b5-4c8c-bacd-e8f9afbb86a0" CreationDate="2013-01-24T13:24:04.463" UserId="1372" Text="&quot;Мартышка&quot; reflects disparaging attitude. Marmosets are small, ugly and human-like (that is why this word often may be used in Russian to offend African American). &quot;Мартыха&quot; may be possible as a poetical description of some very big marmoset, deserving respect. But nobody ever seen marmosets like those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a reverse example you may take &quot;Гиббон&quot;. There is no stable form &quot;Гиббонишка&quot;, because Gibbons are big apes, they are strong, noble, and deserving respect by their own nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as an example, try to analyze also word &quot;Америкашка&quot;..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="e68a8fdc-eab3-4c72-82bc-b67cdda43671" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:09:07.413" UserId="1262" Text="Recently Russian has obtain two more clichés of which I am not quite certain how to use them properly. The clichés are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**a) вот это вот (всё)** &#xD;&#xA;Is this a humorous pattern or should it be taken seriously? When is it normally used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one is something I call 'explanative ellipsis'. It is typically represented in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) monologous speech going like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Statement A. =&gt;  =&gt; Ну как[Statement A repeated]? =&gt; Statement A elaborated transforming into Statement B.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="e68a8fdc-eab3-4c72-82bc-b67cdda43671" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:09:07.413" UserId="1262" Text="Two communicative patterns: how typical are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="e68a8fdc-eab3-4c72-82bc-b67cdda43671" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:09:07.413" UserId="1262" Text="|узус|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="449efeed-0e7a-45c4-a75c-4e55ab122746" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:11:51.020" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Recently Russian has obtain two more clichés of which I am not quite certain how to use them properly. The clichés are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) вот это вот (всё)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a humorous pattern or should it be taken seriously? When is it normally used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one is something I call 'explanative ellipsis'. It is typically represented in b) monologous speech going like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Statement A.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну как [Statement A repeated]? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Statement A elaborated transforming into Statement B.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="4480f9e6-4a36-4433-b0ff-e1215e4ba3ac" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:13:27.830" UserId="1262" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Recently Russian has obtain two more clichés of which I am not quite certain how to use them properly. The clichés are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) вот это вот (всё)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a humorous pattern or should it be taken seriously? When is it normally used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one is something I call 'explanative ellipsis'. It is typically represented in b) monologous speech going like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Statement A. =&gt;&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; =&gt; Ну как [Statement A repeated]? =&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =&gt; Statement A elaborated transforming into Statement B.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1798" RevisionGUID="db613773-0dbb-4378-911d-33210f654f10" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:34:04.530" UserId="1236" Text="As for point a), it's an Internet meme. It originated from this [YouTube video][1]. Света из Иваново is speaking uneducated Russian, the phrase is `овощи, там, рожь, вот это всё`. Another meme from this video is `более лучше`, which is surely ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase `вот это всё` is used jokingly, after an enumeration, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю разных зверей: котиков, собачек, зайчиков, вот это всё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24XBX0Wkmpw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="01d076f6-e496-45fc-a8f1-2fcc6b9782cb" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:42:08.007" UserId="1262" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Recently Russian has obtained two more clichés of which I am not quite certain how to use them properly. The clichés are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) вот это вот (всё)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a humorous pattern or should it be taken seriously? When is it normally used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other one is something I call 'explanative ellipsis'. It is typically represented in b) monologous speech going like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Statement A. =&gt;&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; =&gt; Ну как [Statement A repeated]? =&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =&gt; Statement A elaborated transforming into Statement B.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="ef273568-cde4-451c-9cda-3a6e1c84125c" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:54:39.663" UserId="1262" Text="*Does it have anything in common with Sanskrit चषक (casaaka) = bowl, glass, cup, wine, liquour?&#xD;&#xA;And, before downvoting, pls keep in minds that Wierzbicka has a long essay about cups &amp; mugs. Pls avoid elliptic definitions like 'it is a diminutive from 'чаша'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли у слова что-либо общее с санскритским चषक (casaaka) = &quot;кубок, стакан, чашка, вино, сладкий винный напиток&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И прежде чем минусовать, вспомните, что у Вежбицкой есть длинное эссе о чашках и кружках. Просьба избегать эллиптических определений наподобие &quot;это уменьшительное от слова &quot;чаша&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="ef273568-cde4-451c-9cda-3a6e1c84125c" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:54:39.663" UserId="1262" Text="What is the etymology of чашка? Какова этимология слова &quot;чашка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="ef273568-cde4-451c-9cda-3a6e1c84125c" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:54:39.663" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1800" RevisionGUID="facf6511-edc3-4718-b536-bbc5463d1376" CreationDate="2013-01-24T21:16:32.763" UserId="1236" Text="I am inclined to think there is no etymological connection between the Russian and Sanskrit words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [dictionary][1] says about Russian `чаша`: &quot;Более предпочтительным кажется толкование *kesja &gt; чаша как суф. образования от *кесати &gt; чесать в значении &quot;чесать, отделять, резать, долбить&quot;. В таком случае чаша буквально — &quot;деревянная выдолбленная или вырезанная посуда&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Sanskrit `cashaka` is apparently connected with the Sanskrit verbal root `cash` - &quot;to eat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://glossword.info/index.php/term/,6ea3ab6f59585e926e6b6a9a5aa4a459955b71a460a6a9545b575aa5589aa2565958989a61a69f5e6e939fa1b05c5cacaab198aa5dac9a5761.xhtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1726" RevisionGUID="2d0d4f04-0285-430d-a6dc-1fddbae62524" CreationDate="2013-01-25T03:03:28.357" UserId="69" Comment="Made more definite assumption about whether the river was frozen." Text="This poem is part of the sub-cycle _Пляски смерти_ (“Dances of Death”: reference to [the medieval allegory on universality of death][1]). In it author pictures specific place in Saint Petersburg: the corner of [_Bolshaya Zelenina_][2] street and [_Koltovskaya_][3] embankment near [_Krestovsky_][4] bridge from _Petrogradskaya storona_ across _Malaya Nevka_ to [Krestovsky island][5]. The apothecary was located in house number 44. There is a reason for such specificity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Likhachov’s Interpretation ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Famous academician, philologist [D. S. Likhachov][6] writes in his book “Literature-Reality-Literature” (1981):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …before the wooden bridge over to Krestovsky island […] at the corner to the left he showed me an apothecary and said that Blok was always concrete in his poetry (same was often repeated by A. A. Blok’s cousin — G. P. Blok) and in the poem “Night, street and streetlight, drugstore…” he meant exactly this apothecary. Blok loved to walk here, loved Petrogradskaya side in general, even after he settled down on Officers’ [side].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likhachov goes on to explain that this desolate bridge at (then) outskirts of Petersburg attracted suicides, who were sometimes rescued and brought into the apothecary for the first aid. The shore was then low, unlike the modern high embankment, which provided for a certain picture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coloured lights of the apothecary, and the kerosene street lamp standing near the entry to the bridge reflected in the water of Malaya Nevka. “The Apothecary of Self-Murderers” had overturned reflection in the water; low bank without a granite embankment sort of bisected two-fold body of the apothecary: the real one, and overturned in the water, “mortal”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further author describes the symmetry of the quatrains, then continues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this poem its content in a marvellous way merged with its structure. The reflection depicted in overturned form of the street, streetlamp, apothecary. This reflection is reflected (I intentionally repeat paronymous words — “reflection reflected”) in the structure of the poem, and the theme of death appears to be meaningless reverse reflection of the life spent: “There’s no way out”. Posthumous life as overturned and caricatural repetition of life — usual motif of the folklore. […] Everything is the same, but everything is not real, reflected, devoid of genuine substance and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Eternal Recurrence ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likhachov insists on his interpretation, contradictory to Maximov’s (another noted philologist):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In his excellent commentary on the poem _Night, Street…_ D. E. Maximov writes about “the gloomy symbols of the nocturnal city”. However, from my point of view, this poem is not “about frightful, reverberating, prosaic world” (p. 113), but phantasmal recurrence of life and death. Symmetry of the structure of this poem is not vertical, but with a horisontal axis — axis of the bank separating life above from the death below, in the icy water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I am in no position to argue with esteemed academicians, but both variants, as it seems to me (for my philosophical knowledge is rather limited), this way or another correspond to the fact that Blok was playing with Nietzsche’s ideas (see Papernyj), including the idea of eternal recurrence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Was the Water Frozen? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for Likhachov idea of reflection was central, translators did not ponder over the state of the water too much. Alex Cigale [translates][7] the phrase in question so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …the canal’s rippled icy surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Y. Bonver [translates][8] differently (at that ignoring author’s symmetry for the sake of more convenient rhyme):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swell of the canal in the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that poem was dated 10&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; of October ([O.S.][9]), and, therefore, 23&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; of October (N.S.), [historical data about temperature][10] shows that for the several days prior to 23&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; the temperature was staying around 0°C during the day and below at night, therefore it is possible that Malaya Nevka could have been at least partially covered with fresh ice. However, given the winds, and the tide, it is highly unlikely the river would be frozen solid in a couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bibliography ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Likhachov, D. S. _Literature-Reality-Literature_. Leningrad, 1981. Excerpt “From the commentary to the poem of A. Blok ‘Night, Street and Streetlamp, Drugstore…’” taken from the Likhachov’s Fund website ([articles][11]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Maksimov, D. E. _Poetry and Prose of A. Blok_. Leningrad, 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Papernyj, V. M. “Blok and Nietzsche”. Via [ruthenia.ru][12].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Shifrin, M. “Hundred Years of the Famous Blok’s Poem”, [_Around the World_][13].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это стихотворение является частью под-цикла «Пляски смерти» (ссылка на [средневековый аллегорический сюжет всеобщности смерти][14]). В нём автор изображает определённое место в Петербурге: угол [Большой Зеленина улицы][15] и [Колтовской набережной][16] рядом с [Крестовским мостом][17] с Петроградской стороны через Малую Невку на [Крестовский остров][18]. Аптека находилась в доме №44. Такая точность неспроста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Интерпретация Лихачёва ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знамениный академик, филолог [Д. С. Лихачёв][19] пишет в своей книге «Литература-реальность-литература» (1981):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …перед деревянным мостом на Крестовский остров, […] на углу слева он показал мне аптеку и сказал, что Блок всегда конкретен в своей поэзии (то же обычно повторял и двоюродный брат А. А. Блока — Г. П. Блок) и в стихотворении «Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека…» имел в виду именно эту аптеку. Блок любил здесь гулять, любил Петроградскую сторону вообще, даже после того как поселился на Офицерской.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лихачёв продолжает, объясняя, что этот пустынный мост на тогдашней окраине Петербурга привлекал самоубийц, которых иногда спасали и приносили в аптеку для оказания первой помощи. Берег был тогда низким, не таким как современная высокая набережная, что представляло определённую картину:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цветные огни аптеки и стоявший у въезда на мост керосиновый фонарь отражались в воде Малой Невки. «Аптека самоубийц» имела опрокинутое отражение в воде; низкий берег без гранитной набережной как бы разрезал двойное тело аптеки: реальное и опрокинутое в воде, «смертное».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее автор описывает симметрию четверостиший, затем продолжает:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом стихотворении содержание его удивительным образом слито с его построением.&#xD;&#xA;Изображено отражение в опрокинутом виде улицы, фонаря, аптеки. Это отражение отражено (я намеренно повторяю однокоренные слова — «отражение отражено») в построении стихотворения, а тема смерти оказывается бессмысленным обратным отражением прожитой жизни: «Исхода нет». Посмертная жизнь как опрокинутое и карикатурное повторение жизни — обычный для фольклора мотив. […] Всё — то же, но всё ненастоящее, отражённое, лишённое подлинного содержания и смысла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Вечное возвращение ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лихачёв настаивает на своей интерпретации, противоречащей Максимову (другому известному филологу):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своём прекрасном истолковании стихотворения «Ночь, улица…» Д. Е. Максимов пишет об «угрюмых символах ночного города». Впрочем, с моей точки зрения, стихотворение это не «о страшном, повторяющемся, прозаическом мире» (с. 113), а о призрачном повторении жизни и смерти. Симметрия построения этого стихотворения не вертикальная, а с горизонтальной осью — осью берега, отделяющего жизнь наверху от смерти внизу, в ледяной воде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь я уже никак не могу спорить с академиками, однако оба варианта, как мне кажется (ибо мои философские познания весьма ограничены), так или иначе соответствуют тому, что Блок играл с идеями Ницше (см. Паперный), включая идею вечного возвращения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Была ли вода замёрзшей? ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если для Лихачёва идея отражения была центральной, переводчики сильно не задумывались о состоянии воды. Alex Cigale [переводит][20] фразу под вопросом так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …the canal’s rippled icy surface&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Е. Бонвер [переводит][21] иначе (при этом игнорируя авторскую симметрию в пику более удобной рифмы):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swell of the canal in the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитывая, что поэма датирована 10 октября по старому стилю, а, значит, 23 октября по новому, [исторические данные о температуре воздуха][22] показывают, что несколько дней перед 23-м температура держалась около нуля днём и ниже нуля ночью, поэтому вероятно, что Малая Невка могла быть хотя бы частично покрыта свежим льдом. Тем не менее, учитывая ветра и прилив, весьма маловероятно, что река была бы полностью скована льдом за пару дней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Библиография ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Лихачёв, Д. С. _Литература-реальность-литература_. Л. 1981. Отрывок «Из комментария к стихотворению А. Блока „Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека…”» взят с сайта Фонда им. Д. С. Лихачёва ([статьи][23]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Максимов, Д. Е. _Поэзия и проза Ал. Блока_. Л. 1975.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Паперный, В. М. «Блок и Ницше». Через [ruthenia.ru][24].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Шифрин, М. «Сто лет знаменитому стихотворению Блока», [_Вокруг света_][25].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danse_Macabre&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_%28%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82-%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%29&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krestovsky_Island&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Likhachov&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.albany.edu/offcourse/issue41/cigale_translations6.html#blok&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/yevgeny/blok/night_streets_lantern.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://thermograph.ru/arc/y_1912-st_26063-m_10.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://likhachev.lfond.spb.ru/articles.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/537613.html&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/blogs/Shifrin/1623.php&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_%28%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82-%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%29&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krestovsky_Island&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.albany.edu/offcourse/issue41/cigale_translations6.html#blok&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/yevgeny/blok/night_streets_lantern.html&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://thermograph.ru/arc/y_1912-st_26063-m_10.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://likhachev.lfond.spb.ru/articles.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/537613.html&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/blogs/Shifrin/1623.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="f47c9a75-faae-4cb3-801c-6f0a223cefd6" CreationDate="2013-01-25T07:37:58.963" UserId="242" Comment="removed a passage irrelevant to the aim this question is asked" Text="*Does it have anything in common with Sanskrit चषक (casaaka) = bowl, glass, cup, wine, liquour?&#xD;&#xA;And, before downvoting, pls keep in minds that Wierzbicka has a long essay about cups &amp; mugs. Pls avoid elliptic definitions like 'it is a diminutive from 'чаша'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли у слова что-либо общее с санскритским चषक (casaaka) = &quot;кубок, стакан, чашка, вино, сладкий винный напиток&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Просьба избегать эллиптических определений наподобие &quot;это уменьшительное от слова &quot;чаша&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="138453e0-a9dd-4a75-ad1c-dabd6ee6bc8c" CreationDate="2013-01-25T08:04:03.677" UserId="1262" Comment="Restored the passage relevant to the purpose of the question in particular and semantics in general." Text="*Does it have anything in common with Sanskrit चषक (casaaka) = bowl, glass, cup, wine, liquour?&#xD;&#xA;And, before downvoting, pls keep in minds that Wierzbicka has a long essay about cups &amp; mugs. Pls avoid elliptic definitions like 'it is a diminutive from 'чаша'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли у слова что-либо общее с санскритским चषक (casaaka) = &quot;кубок, стакан, чашка, вино, сладкий винный напиток&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;И прежде чем минусовать, вспомните, что у Вежбицкой есть длинное эссе о чашках и кружках.&#xD;&#xA;Просьба избегать эллиптических определений наподобие &quot;это уменьшительное от слова &quot;чаша&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="826ab79b-a98a-478d-806e-492371d09219" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:11:38.530" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, added relevant tag" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Resources for learning Russian](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in learning the Russian language. Where I live, there isn't any institution that teaches the Russian language (that's a big  problem). How can I start and have correct pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6512" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="826ab79b-a98a-478d-806e-492371d09219" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:11:38.530" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, added relevant tag" Text="How can I begin to learn the Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="826ab79b-a98a-478d-806e-492371d09219" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:11:38.530" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, added relevant tag" Text="|значения|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6514" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="826ab79b-a98a-478d-806e-492371d09219" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:11:38.530" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 298" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1738" RevisionGUID="a533fa31-2d92-4004-8f0d-081d6bab0c31" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:12:02.947" UserId="1177" Comment="Objectivity" Text="It means &quot;No&quot;. There is also phrase &quot;Да нет, наверное&quot;. That means &quot;I guess no&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;But this phrase is used in only speacial situations. For example, if one person suggests another to go to the shop with him, the first person is not sure if he wants to go or not. But if he finally tells &quot;Да нет&quot;, he means that he won't go. And almost always &quot;Да нет&quot; is continued with &quot;Не&quot; and a verb like &quot;Да нет, не хочу&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6516" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1738" RevisionGUID="a533fa31-2d92-4004-8f0d-081d6bab0c31" CreationDate="2013-01-25T09:12:02.947" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1801" RevisionGUID="cf9cfb44-e0ec-4f92-b0d5-831a43eda17d" CreationDate="2013-01-25T12:00:04.130" UserId="334" Text="It didn't. Modern Russian has three tenses (present, past and future), but in addition its verbs are either perfect or imperfect, like &quot;приходить&quot; &amp; &quot;прийти&quot;. Example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was coming to conclusion at that time. == Он тогда приходил к заключению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the verb (приходить) means that process is in making. However&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He had come to conclusion at that time. == Он тогда пришел к заключению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the verb (Прийти) means that at time considered in the sentence the result is already achieved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short 'perfectness' of verb tense have moved from grammar to vocabulary and is defined not by form of the verb, but by the verb used. The 'perfect' verbs are not full-fledged and do not have some forms 'imperfect' ones have. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1801" RevisionGUID="5572365c-2585-458a-a428-eb8dcc85af1a" CreationDate="2013-01-25T12:54:52.390" UserId="334" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="It didn't. Modern Russian has three tenses (present, past and future), but in addition its verbs are either perfect or imperfect, like &quot;приходить&quot; &amp; &quot;прийти&quot;. Example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was coming to conclusion at that time. == Он тогда приходил к заключению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the verb (приходить) means that process was in making. However&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He had come to conclusion at that time. == Он тогда пришел к заключению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the verb (Прийти) means that at time considered in the sentence the result is already achieved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short 'perfectness' of verb tense have moved from grammar to vocabulary and is defined not by form of the verb, but by the verb used. The 'perfect' verbs are not full-fledged and do not have some forms 'imperfect' ones have. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="19456634-fb7b-43da-96b3-888f750daa26" CreationDate="2013-01-25T17:24:44.973" UserId="1262" Text="Правильно ли написание &quot;Вы&quot; со строчной буквы в Интернете? Является ли подобное написание трендом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct to spell Вы (you 2nd.p. sg.) with lower case letter on the Internet? Is it a trend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="19456634-fb7b-43da-96b3-888f750daa26" CreationDate="2013-01-25T17:24:44.973" UserId="1262" Text="Правописание местоимения 2 л. ед.ч. в Интернете / Correct spelling of 2nd sg. pronoun on the Internet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="19456634-fb7b-43da-96b3-888f750daa26" CreationDate="2013-01-25T17:24:44.973" UserId="1262" Text="|правописание|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1803" RevisionGUID="44fc6a93-6d13-4577-9248-9ba3515c40ee" CreationDate="2013-01-25T17:35:10.577" UserId="97" Text="When you are referring to an individual person to whom you are being polite or expressing respect, you should use an uppercase _В_ regardless where you use it: in a book, in a letter, in an internet post, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason you're seeing it often written in internet post starting with the lowercase _в_ is quite simple: speed.  People tend to shorten words and make shortcuts in order to express their thoughts quicker.  It is (for some unknown to me reason) assumed that on the internet one should write as little as possible - using shorthand, abbreviations, etc. - just to get the thought is put across. This in turns translates into the desire to use as few as possible keystrokes. Writing _Вы_ starting with a capital letter would mean to press **[Shift]** button one more time, which means more time taken to complete the post.  Hence a lot of people don't do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other simple reason is that many people simple disregard the fact that you should use capital _В_ in this scenario and use lowercase letter everywhere, including hand-written texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, it is not _correct_ spelling, but it is a spelling that just came to be.  People accept it, just as people accept others making other grammatical mistakes. As for it being a trend, I wouldn't say that it's a trend in itself, it's part of the trend to shorten everything, including the number of key presses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1804" RevisionGUID="da358a29-b556-46df-b596-6fe09e8637c6" CreationDate="2013-01-25T20:13:17.297" UserId="426" Text="This specific question has been [formally answered by the Russian Language Institute][1] in July of 2000. The recommendation is not to capitalize &quot;вы&quot; when writing for the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы, Ваш пишутся с прописной буквы при обращении к одному лицу в текстах следующих жанров:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (а) личное письмо (адресат - конкретное лицо; факультативное написание - выбор определяет сам пишущий, выражая/ не выражая вежливое или уважительное отношение к адресату);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (б) официальные документы (адресат - конкретное лицо, отношение пишущего к адресату не имеет значения);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (в) анкеты (адресат - неконкретное лицо; отношение пишущего к адресату не имеет значения). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку большинство текстов Интернета не соответствуют условиям (а), (б), (в) написания Вы с прописной буквы (сообщения электронной почты не являются личными письмами в традиционном смысле слова), можно рекомендовать написание вы, ваш при обращении к читателям/ посетителям страницы в Интернете со строчной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Вы&quot; is capitalized in texts of these three genres:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (а) Personal letters (addressed to a specific person; this is optional - the decision is up to the writer, who wishes or does not wish to express additional respect to the addressee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (б) Official documents (addressed to a specific person, regardless of whether or not the writer would like to express additional respect to the addressee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (в) Official forms (not addressed to anyone in particular, regardless of whether or not the writer would like to express additional respect to the addressee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the majority of Internet texts do not meet the conditions (а), (б), (в) for capitalizing of &quot;Вы&quot; (e-mails are not personal correspondence in the traditional meaning of the word), we recommend writing &quot;вы&quot;, &quot;ваш&quot; without capitalizing the first letter when referring to readers / visitors of your site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20081022205917/http://www.yandex.ru/info/you_full.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="97992aa7-250e-48b6-85fe-011d2aef89b6" CreationDate="2013-01-26T08:22:32.480" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Правильно ли написание &quot;Вы&quot; со строчной буквы в Интернете? Является ли подобное написание трендом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct to spell Вы (you 2nd.p. pl.) with lower case letter on the Internet? Is it a trend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6526" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="97992aa7-250e-48b6-85fe-011d2aef89b6" CreationDate="2013-01-26T08:22:32.480" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Правописание местоимения 2 л. мн.ч. в Интернете / Correct spelling of 2nd pl. pronoun on the Internet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1806" RevisionGUID="53f489de-e0ff-49e2-a0a8-a230cccd741c" CreationDate="2013-01-26T11:56:08.577" UserId="1385" Text="this is a polite way to say no. that's it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1807" RevisionGUID="a58c691b-16a0-4589-aa60-9c95811babaa" CreationDate="2013-01-26T11:59:41.143" UserId="1385" Text="Это также может значить &quot;напиться&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6531" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1802" RevisionGUID="fc8ed73c-cec5-40ca-9c55-cf79f1ad1a89" CreationDate="2013-01-26T16:55:46.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/295213450743910400" />
  <row Id="6532" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1794" RevisionGUID="4273b6ea-5ab7-4f3e-b94d-e64b7e8f319f" CreationDate="2013-01-26T19:55:47.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/295258755199819776" />
  <row Id="6533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="750b89c8-ae6c-413f-9517-fd8e4a4ed9c4" CreationDate="2013-01-26T22:22:44.513" UserId="1349" Text="According to my teacher, the former means that &quot;I will most definitely call you&quot;, while the latter means that &quot;I'll maybe call you, but it's not likely&quot;; something you would say after a bad date. But somehow I'm still skeptical. Is my teacher right? Is it true that when you use the совершение вид (in the future tense), you are guaranteeing to do something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="750b89c8-ae6c-413f-9517-fd8e4a4ed9c4" CreationDate="2013-01-26T22:22:44.513" UserId="1349" Text="&quot;Позову тебе&quot; vs &quot;Буду звонить тебе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="750b89c8-ae6c-413f-9517-fd8e4a4ed9c4" CreationDate="2013-01-26T22:22:44.513" UserId="1349" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="55d036ec-6391-4bce-bd85-6ec0cbcedb07" CreationDate="2013-01-26T23:33:00.597" UserId="160" Text="If the teacher really says so, they're wrong. The two have rather close meaning (the latter might imply repetitive action, though).&#xD;&#xA;Both imply the same level of &quot;probability&quot; or &quot;enthusiasm&quot; or whatnot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, you probably mean `позвоню`, not `позову` (both translate to &quot;call&quot;, but `звать` means &quot;to call&quot;, as in &quot;The dinner's ready&quot;. And it's `совершенный вид`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="74e4dcae-155b-47cb-be5a-ab8b88b48da9" CreationDate="2013-01-26T23:40:19.333" UserId="160" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="If the teacher really says so, they're wrong. The two have rather close meaning (the latter might imply repetitive action, though, as in: `Я буду звонить тебе по пятницам`, or `...пока не дозвонюсь`).&#xD;&#xA;Both imply the same level of &quot;probability&quot; or &quot;enthusiasm&quot; or whatnot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, you probably mean `позвоню`, not `позову` (both translate to &quot;call&quot;, but `звать` means &quot;to call&quot;, as in &quot;The dinner's ready&quot;. And it's `совершенный вид`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1809" RevisionGUID="77caf02e-750e-4dcc-bdbe-1c4f4160cdf7" CreationDate="2013-01-27T00:05:50.047" UserId="160" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="If the teacher really says so, they're wrong. The two have rather close meaning (the latter might imply repetitive action, though, as in: `Я буду звонить тебе по пятницам`, or `...пока не дозвонюсь`).&#xD;&#xA;Both imply the same level of &quot;probability&quot; or &quot;enthusiasm&quot; or whatnot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, you probably mean `позвоню`, not `позову` (both translate to &quot;call&quot;, but `звать` means &quot;to call&quot;, as in &quot;The dinner's ready&quot;. And it's `[не]совершенный вид`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1811" RevisionGUID="57d5c688-d17c-4afc-974a-70f5d1f8d9f7" CreationDate="2013-01-27T03:47:22.127" UserId="69" Text="Surprisingly, one term was omitted from the previous answers. Similar to _гнобить_ there is a verb _клевать_, which literally means “to peck”, and figuratively often used in a sense that this question is inquiring about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Совсем заклевали бедолагу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That figurative meaning of this verb (in its perfective aspect) stems from the practise of some species of birds to peck the weak and the ill amongst themselves to death when there is not enough feed, or simply to rid the flock from the weakest link." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="b0a3ad1d-096c-4ada-b779-3408f0883981" CreationDate="2013-01-27T07:12:27.067" UserId="426" Comment="Fixed the grammar and a typo." Text="According to my teacher, the former means that &quot;I will most definitely call you&quot;, while the latter means that &quot;I'll maybe call you, but it's not likely&quot;; something you would say after a bad date. But somehow I'm still skeptical. Is my teacher right? Is it true that when you use the совершенный вид (in the future tense), you are guaranteeing to do something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6544" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="b0a3ad1d-096c-4ada-b779-3408f0883981" CreationDate="2013-01-27T07:12:27.067" UserId="426" Comment="Fixed the grammar and a typo." Text="&quot;Позвоню тебе&quot; vs &quot;Буду звонить тебе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6545" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="b0a3ad1d-096c-4ada-b779-3408f0883981" CreationDate="2013-01-27T07:12:27.067" Comment="Proposed by 426 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 299" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="2cffc946-bec0-42d5-b28e-614d68566185" CreationDate="2013-01-27T07:52:32.377" UserDisplayName="user1388" Text="I'm writing a poem in Russian, and maybe I'm tired, but I'm kind of stuck on one particular word. Here's the couplet I'm working on right now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    мне теперь не до твоего смол-тока&#xD;&#xA;    о японском пиве заискивающегося&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic meaning is &quot;Right now, I have no time for your ingratiating small talk about Japanese beer.&quot; (By the way, &quot;ingratiating&quot; coordinates with &quot;small talk.&quot; I can't move the words around because it breaks my rhyme scheme.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dad tells me that *заискивающегося* doesn't really exist, as such (but Google does turn up a few results). He also says that I should use *заискивающего*, but I'm not 100% sure. Something is off with my coordination here (I think we can ask the question &quot;Какого смол-тока?&quot; to test it), but I'm still confused. Can someone please help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much obliged,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Mike" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="2cffc946-bec0-42d5-b28e-614d68566185" CreationDate="2013-01-27T07:52:32.377" UserDisplayName="user1388" Text="заискивающего or заискивающегося?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="2cffc946-bec0-42d5-b28e-614d68566185" CreationDate="2013-01-27T07:52:32.377" UserDisplayName="user1388" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1813" RevisionGUID="feface59-351f-4a25-a8cf-4d0c221e2c6f" CreationDate="2013-01-27T08:06:28.423" UserId="242" Text="Well, poetic language is more liberate than &quot;standard&quot; one. In Russian poetic tradition it is not that rare to change, for example, word stressing in order to make sound things more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word you've mentioned, `заискивающегося` indeed is de-facto not used in Russian Language, but at the same time it is understandable to that extent that can not be even named neologism, just a specific verb form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a [reflexive verb][1], the postfix `-ся` turns the verb to reflexiveness. To put it simple it means, that the subject and the object of the action, indicated by that verb is the same. So it is something like it is small-talk that is about (making up to) get some Japanese beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6550" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="bf8e65f2-d61f-4540-9e8d-185958bf1306" CreationDate="2013-01-27T08:09:35.330" UserId="242" Comment="just uppercasing the title - it look more solid )" Text="Заискивающего or заискивающегося?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="8712ce25-e3e4-4a2f-b0ce-6e49f205dd12" CreationDate="2013-01-27T08:14:55.787" UserId="242" Comment="removed redundant piece of text" Text="I'm writing a poem in Russian, and maybe I'm tired, but I'm kind of stuck on one particular word. Here's the couplet I'm working on right now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    мне теперь не до твоего смол-тока&#xD;&#xA;    о японском пиве заискивающегося&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic meaning is &quot;Right now, I have no time for your ingratiating small talk about Japanese beer.&quot; (By the way, &quot;ingratiating&quot; coordinates with &quot;small talk.&quot; I can't move the words around because it breaks my rhyme scheme.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dad tells me that *заискивающегося* doesn't really exist, as such (but Google does turn up a few results). He also says that I should use *заискивающего*, but I'm not 100% sure. Something is off with my coordination here (I think we can ask the question &quot;Какого смол-тока?&quot; to test it), but I'm still confused. Can someone please help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1813" RevisionGUID="bb1ee0c7-437d-4e87-8601-41f9f8e11a34" CreationDate="2013-01-27T08:17:21.680" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Well, poetic language is more liberate than &quot;standard&quot; one. In Russian poetic tradition it is not that rare to change, for example, word stressing in order to make sound things more pleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word you've mentioned, `заискивающегося` indeed is de-facto not used in Russian Language, but at the same time it is understandable to that extent that can not be even named neologism, just a specific verb form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually a [reflexive verb][1], the postfix `-ся` turns the verb to reflexiveness. To put it simple it means, that the subject and the object of the action, indicated by that verb is the same. So it is something like it is small-talk that is about (making up to) get some Japanese beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to conclude, yes, you can use this form (if you 100% sure what you are exactly meaning), no one will blame you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1814" RevisionGUID="9af2a2c7-307d-47d6-b64a-7bacfb635796" CreationDate="2013-01-27T15:31:36.170" UserId="496" Text="First of all, disclaimer: If your teacher is a native Russian, he/she probably is as good in Russian as most of us here. The only benefit here is in teamwork: numerous people can see an answer and vote on it. :-) Also, the situation in the question is re-told here by you. Maybe, your teacher said it in a slightly different context. Having said that let's proceed to my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not agree with Lev Levitsky answer's first lines that the teacher is wrong. (Note, that Lev also puts disclaimer: &quot;*if the teacher really says so*&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you see the two phrases bare as you put them, the first visible big difference in meaning is that **позвоню** means single action and **буду звонить** *usually* means repetitive action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we put it in the context like this: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Позвоню тебе в 5 часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Буду звонить тебе в 5 часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the second difference comes apparent. &quot;**Позвоню**&quot; means a completed action. Something like: I will try and in the end *you will have been called* (I transformed the phrase to passive to make my point more apparent). &quot;**Буду звонить**&quot; means just that that I will dial the number and if the telephone network does not connect me, so be it: I was calling you but did not get through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hint in meaning. Some people will say &quot;**позвоню**&quot; and really mean just &quot;**буду звонить**&quot;. But if you are a recipient of this message (somebody will call you), &quot;**позвоню**&quot; gives you a little bit more confidence that you will receive the call." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1814" RevisionGUID="471e0595-0a98-468c-adc8-00604ca73a76" CreationDate="2013-01-27T15:38:13.487" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="First of all, disclaimer: If your teacher is a native Russian, he/she probably is as good in Russian as most of us here. The only benefit here is in teamwork: numerous people can see an answer and vote on it. :-) Also, the situation in the question is re-told here by you. Maybe, your teacher said it in a slightly different context. Having said that let's proceed to my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not agree with Lev Levitsky answer's first lines that the teacher is wrong. (Note, that Lev also puts disclaimer: &quot;*if the teacher really says so*&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you see the two phrases bare as you put them, the first visible big difference in meaning is that `позвоню` means single action and `буду звонить` *usually* means repetitive action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we put it in the context like this: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Позвоню тебе в 5 часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Буду звонить тебе в 5 часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the second difference comes apparent. &quot;`Позвоню`&quot; means a completed action. Something like: I will try and in the end *you will have been called* (I transformed the phrase to passive to make my point more apparent). &quot;`Буду звонить`&quot; means just that that I will dial the number and if the telephone network does not connect me, so be it: I was calling you but did not get through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a hint in meaning. Some people will say &quot;`позвоню`&quot; and really mean just &quot;`буду звонить`&quot;. But if you are a recipient of this message (somebody will call you), &quot;`позвоню`&quot; gives you a little bit more confidence that you will receive the call." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1799" RevisionGUID="e7cec523-3323-4031-a2ad-e08ad83b8e2c" CreationDate="2013-01-27T18:43:55.220" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 189 characters in body" Text="*Does it have anything in common with Sanskrit चषक (casaaka) = bowl, glass, cup, wine, liquour? Please avoid elliptic definitions like 'it is a diminutive from 'чаша'.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли у слова что-либо общее с санскритским चषक (casaaka) = &quot;кубок, стакан, чашка, вино, сладкий винный напиток&quot;? Пожалуйста, избегайте эллиптических определений наподобие &quot;это уменьшительное от слова &quot;чаша&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1816" RevisionGUID="396de503-2287-46fa-b34f-164e9f24a50d" CreationDate="2013-01-28T02:51:01.827" UserId="1376" Text="I think it's worth to clarify that phrase `вот это всё` is grammatically correct and before that video it was not humorous. But the whole sentence `овощи, там, рожь, вот это всё` renders the speaker unable to build fine sentences and inexperienced in formal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as Yellow Sky already said, b) is not new, it's widely used in oral speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I hope I have not messed up English grammar too much :))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1817" RevisionGUID="fb32e70d-a672-4c9a-8c84-583c7e5d1e7e" CreationDate="2013-01-28T05:15:10.050" UserId="1349" Text="The first person singular verb conjugation in the present tense is always different from other verb conjugations, so why the need to use &quot;Я&quot; at all in those cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, can't you just say &quot;Занимаюсь&quot; instead of &quot;Я занимаюсь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1817" RevisionGUID="fb32e70d-a672-4c9a-8c84-583c7e5d1e7e" CreationDate="2013-01-28T05:15:10.050" UserId="1349" Text="Why do you need to use Я with verbs in the present tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1817" RevisionGUID="fb32e70d-a672-4c9a-8c84-583c7e5d1e7e" CreationDate="2013-01-28T05:15:10.050" UserId="1349" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1818" RevisionGUID="89b915bf-14b6-492f-b32d-24c75a2573d5" CreationDate="2013-01-28T06:00:15.110" UserId="242" Text="There are indeed some languages where there is a stable tradition of skipping of personal pronouns, especially when you can deduce all relevant information from the verb conjugation. Romance languages are nice example of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even in such languages it is not absolutely inappropriate to use personal pronouns. For example, you almost always say `te quiero` in Spanish, but saying `yo te quiero` wouldn't be a linguistical offense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it is almost opposite: though personal pronouns are used in the majority of cases, form without pronouns is also 100% appropriate and understandable. But definitely untypical. You are asking why, but it is exactly that case when we can confidently name cultural tradition as main reason.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, there are some features of Russian languages that give us hints why impersonal form had not became dominating. First, in past tense verb form is not so informative. Saying  just `занимался` can be both `он занимался` and `ты занимался`. `Любили` stands for `они/мы/вы любили`. And it is not that typical to have completely different approaches in constructing the sentence regarding which tense is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is such thing in Russian like [неопределённо-личные предолжения][1]. In such sentences, there is a subject of the action implied, though this subject is not mentioned directly in order to make the notion of action itself more valuable. So, actually, some verbs are without personal pronoun in some well established contexts and, thus, such verbs have different meaning in personal and impersonal form. Classical example of such pair is `говорят`\`они говорят`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1819" RevisionGUID="a4c04054-0d91-4387-91bb-49fb6d7b6eeb" CreationDate="2013-01-28T06:12:43.503" UserId="1376" Text="You can safely omit `Я` when answering a question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чем ты сейчас занимаешься?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Работаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Сигареты не найдётся?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Не курю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases it's common not to skip `Я`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1818" RevisionGUID="3c19101b-c550-4dbe-92a6-28c187f6a314" CreationDate="2013-01-28T07:30:52.870" UserId="242" Comment="small layout fix" Text="There are indeed some languages where there is a stable tradition of skipping of personal pronouns, especially when you can deduce all relevant information from the verb conjugation. Romance languages are nice example of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even in such languages it is not absolutely inappropriate to use personal pronouns. For example, you almost always say `te quiero` in Spanish, but saying `yo te quiero` wouldn't be a linguistical offense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it is almost opposite: though personal pronouns are used in the majority of cases, form without pronouns is also 100% appropriate and understandable. But definitely untypical. You are asking why, but it is exactly that case when we can confidently name cultural tradition as main reason.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, there are some features of Russian languages that give us hints why impersonal form had not became dominating. First, in past tense verb form is not so informative. Saying  just `занимался` can be both `он занимался` and `ты занимался`. `Любили` stands for `они/мы/вы любили`. And it is not that typical to have completely different approaches in constructing the sentence regarding which tense is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is such thing in Russian like [неопределённо-личные предолжения][1]. In such sentences, there is a subject of the action implied, though this subject is not mentioned directly in order to make the notion of action itself more valuable. So, actually, some verbs are without personal pronoun in some well established contexts and, thus, such verbs have different meaning in personal and impersonal form. Classical example of such pair is `говорят`/`они говорят`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1820" RevisionGUID="473ff844-7c3f-4a2f-b193-aa7655a3add1" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:23:55.380" UserId="959" Text="You can omit any pronoun with a verb in any tense when answering a question that contains a subject. Asking questions without a pronoun is also natural in dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Где-нибудь был вчера?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Да, в кино ходил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А завтра что собираешься делать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Дома останусть, скорее всего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when someone has power over you, he can omit pronoun, usually in past tense, when giving an order or asking something in a rude form. For example, your sergeant can say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Подошли ко мне, быстро!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Упал-отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Куда собрался?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1821" RevisionGUID="7798d542-3dad-4f9f-b330-3a7802b98f74" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:47:27.447" UserId="1262" Text="Like many other languages, Russian has many traits borrowed  from its neighbours throughout its history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, two European languages has been influencing Russian with their paradigms. These languages are German and French. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both canonical structures in German and French require mandatory pronouns in 1st.p. sg. indicative (alongside with other grammatical persons), although both languages distinguish personal verb forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore personal pronouns are required in official/'underlings' ' speech styles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversational/patronising speech style the pronouns may be omitted as a sign of 'rustic', or 'rude' style (see the samples given).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1821" RevisionGUID="6913170e-ab7c-4482-940b-2b9447785d3b" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:56:34.667" UserId="1262" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Like many other languages, Russian has many traits borrowed  from its neighbours throughout its history. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally, two European languages has been influencing Russian with their paradigms. These languages are German and French. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both canonical structures in German and French require mandatory pronouns in 1st.p. sg. indicative (alongside with other grammatical persons), although both languages distinguish personal verb forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore personal pronouns are required in official/'underlings' ' speech styles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversational/patronising speech style the pronouns may be omitted as a sign of 'rustic', or 'rude' style (see the samples given), or as markers of shorter social distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1820" RevisionGUID="9e4f9d94-3d21-49ef-aa82-9c62864d7338" CreationDate="2013-01-28T09:27:38.620" UserId="959" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="You can omit any pronoun with a verb in any tense when answering a question that contains a subject. Asking questions without a pronoun is also natural in dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Где-нибудь был вчера?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Да, в кино ходил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А завтра что собираешься делать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Дома останусь, скорее всего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when someone has power over you, he can omit pronoun, usually in past tense, when giving an order or asking something in a rude form. For example, your sergeant can say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Подошли ко мне, быстро!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Упал-отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Куда собрался?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6574" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1817" RevisionGUID="1bb80657-5c1f-4379-b904-9373dbd3f604" CreationDate="2013-01-28T10:55:49.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/295847642863398913" />
  <row Id="6577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1823" RevisionGUID="0975658e-2c51-4753-8a6f-c13ec0742d6e" CreationDate="2013-01-28T16:04:14.547" UserId="1391" Text="It means &quot;no&quot;. Particle &quot;да&quot;, besides its main affirmative meaning, has [many others][1]. In this case, &quot;да&quot; is an emphatic particle, similar to &quot;but&quot; or &quot;nay&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%B4%D0%B0/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/#lingvo/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1824" RevisionGUID="13af9ada-b728-4dc6-973b-858030737e78" CreationDate="2013-01-28T18:03:12.283" UserId="1329" Text="What is the origin of &quot;**переборщить**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really do doubt it has something in common with Russian soup **борщ**. Another hypothesis was that it is somehow related to &quot;**перебор**&quot; in this meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Derived from the verb **перебрать**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взять, набрать лишку. Вы перебрали жалованья за прошлый месяц десять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рублей. У вас пайковой дачи перебрано лишку.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В. Даль Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПЕРЕБО́Р, переборка, муж. (разг.).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Излишек чего-нибудь, взятый сверх надлежащего количества. Перебор по текущему счету.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Излишнее количество очков на взятых игроком картах (карт.).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Механизм токарного станка, служащий для уменьшения скорости вращения шпинделя (тех.).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь Ушакова. Д.Н. Ушаков. 1935-1940.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, then there is one contradiction (maybe it actually isn't, what do you think?) : the continuous form of **переборщить** is **перебарщивать**, o there is actually vowel alternation in the stem ( **а - о**), whereas in cognate words of **перебор** there is another type of gradation (**и - о - выпадение**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In search for the answer I found materials on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ответы Гугл](http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=098f2493d7a269bb);&#xD;&#xA;- gramota.ru  ( it seems that I share Chernykh's opinion ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Связь слов переборщить и борщ  не исключена: в словаре В. И. Даля&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дается слово борщить, которое в южных диалектах означает 'лить через&#xD;&#xA;&gt; край, слишком много'. Впрочем, П. Я. Черных в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Историко-этимологическом словаре русского языка» указывает: «Что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; касается глаг. переборщить – перебарщивать, то это позднее неуклюжее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новообразование, известное лишь с начала XX в., происходит,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по-видимому, не от борщ, а... от переборка, ср. далее перебрать».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your opinion on the etymology of this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1824" RevisionGUID="13af9ada-b728-4dc6-973b-858030737e78" CreationDate="2013-01-28T18:03:12.283" UserId="1329" Text="Etymology of &quot;переборщить&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1824" RevisionGUID="13af9ada-b728-4dc6-973b-858030737e78" CreationDate="2013-01-28T18:03:12.283" UserId="1329" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1825" RevisionGUID="00ed1e1d-37de-4657-ae93-7ace48acf13c" CreationDate="2013-01-28T22:35:50.237" UserId="1329" Text="I am sorry about it, but I simply **have to** write this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the reason for your confusion is that you have a very good intuition in languages. The problem here is not whether to choose **заискивающий** or **заискивающийся**, but with the choice of the word itself and, which is more important, the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK. If you leave the word **заискивающий** in your poem, then it needs to be followed by preposition **перед** and the word must be in Instrumental. It should look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне теперь не до твоего смол-тока,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **перед** японск**им** пив**ом** заискивающего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the other problem is that this word doesn't correspond with your desired translation. **Заискивающий (перед кем-то)** means **ingratiating oneself (with somebody)**. For reference you can browse [Academica](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/805334), where you can find extracts from different dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could have caused the wrong usage of **заискивать**? Maybe this word resembles the word **заикаться о** ( **заикнуться о**), which means **yпоминать вскользь, осторожно, намёками** and  **could** be used in your case, but it is very different in terms of stylistics, and I personally wouldn't use it here (it seems that the customs worker is quite enthusiastic about Japanese beer and talks about it continuously). Just remember the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `&quot;Даже не заикайся!&quot;`   or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `&quot;Он было заикнулся о поездке, но суровый вид отца напомнил ему о том, что он наказан.&quot;` (Poor guy from my imagination! =))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference to this word : (http://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=заикаться)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1826" RevisionGUID="0518d412-85c5-44cb-bc39-a452f611288f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T03:27:27.863" UserId="1376" Text="In my opinion it's a made up word. It's just a combination of `перебор` and `борщ`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1826" RevisionGUID="20d88b1b-1e71-424e-a9fe-44d5bdc9a59b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T03:52:12.570" UserId="1376" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="In my opinion it's a made up word. It's just a combination of `перебор` and `борщ`.&#xD;&#xA;Похоже на [народную этимологию](http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6586" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1824" RevisionGUID="1602bca6-7df0-46f7-a5c3-2f2ff3c4eb5b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T04:55:48.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/296119433674514432" />
  <row Id="6587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1827" RevisionGUID="3355f509-cb4e-4898-a7a8-6ee1f2ff5eaa" CreationDate="2013-01-29T06:43:23.020" UserId="185" Text="I think that it might be a derivative from *искать - to search* and mean *to search intensively, to get lost in search*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, it might be a metonymy. There are 2 people here: the author and the one who wants to talk. The latter is interested in Japanese beer and searches for information about it. The author attributes this characteristic to the words of the one who is talking, which results in saying that the small talk is intensively searching for information about beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it doesn't have to do anything with the verb *заискивать - to fawn upon smb*, reflexive suffix and unusual preposition need not to be explained in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="2f6f371e-752a-4912-ba30-61ef173c44cb" CreationDate="2013-01-29T17:19:08.940" UserId="242" Text="There is a word `тестировать` in modern Russian which differs from `проверить` (the last one has wider meaning). This word has also colloquial form `тестить`.&#xD;&#xA;I want to ask, regarding de-facto existing rules of word formation in Russian, which derived adjective is more appropriate: `оттесченный` (compare to `обесчестить`/`обесчесченный`) or `оттестенный`? Or may be some other form? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="2f6f371e-752a-4912-ba30-61ef173c44cb" CreationDate="2013-01-29T17:19:08.940" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Оттесченный&quot; or &quot;оттестенный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="2f6f371e-752a-4912-ba30-61ef173c44cb" CreationDate="2013-01-29T17:19:08.940" UserId="242" Text="|выбор-слова|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1829" RevisionGUID="3fa51c5a-f0aa-48a6-a701-ca048f037cab" CreationDate="2013-01-29T17:21:40.143" UserId="38" Text="The word you are looking for is *протестированный*. If you want to sound a little more formal, *прошедший тестирование* is for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="e292629a-3e3f-477c-a7b0-cbe10829c0e5" CreationDate="2013-01-29T18:38:25.710" UserId="426" Text="I think that &quot;оттестированный&quot; (compare to &quot;отремонтированный&quot;) would be a better choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1830" RevisionGUID="9c2d738b-b7d3-424e-9357-8daa4f120985" CreationDate="2013-01-29T18:43:26.167" UserId="426" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I think that &quot;оттестированный&quot; (compare to &quot;ремонтировать&quot;/&quot;отремонтированный&quot;) would be a better choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="d6c90f73-a9ff-4b41-8f89-1c2003e048a1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:26:05.793" UserId="242" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="There is a word `тестировать` in modern Russian which differs from `проверить` (the last one has wider meaning). This word has also colloquial form `тестить`.&#xD;&#xA;I want to ask, regarding de-facto existing rules of word formation in Russian, which derived adjective is more appropriate: `оттесченный` (or even  `оттесщенный` compare to `обесчестить`/`обесчещенный`) or `оттестенный`? Or may be some other form? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1831" RevisionGUID="d97b647a-e002-4827-a067-174494117823" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:02:56.710" UserId="496" Text="Because the word `тестить` is colloquial and kind of funny it would be logical to use `оттестенный`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;logical&quot; I mean that the word `оттестенный` needs to break some rules to be funny. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Оттесченный` may be more proper by the rules, but it sounds to me as if it is derived from the verb `чесать` somehow. As if somebody wanted to say `отчесанный` but misspoke. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1832" RevisionGUID="6d168976-7baf-4969-b7e9-0fa8f65d53d3" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:19:10.740" UserId="1097" Text="At work I can say: Те́стить(imperfect) → Проте́стить(perfect) → Проте́щенный(derived adjective)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1832" RevisionGUID="2f90af1d-48d7-46e4-bc1f-d7dcf6a85f2c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:23:10.180" UserId="1097" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="At work I can say: Те́стить(imperfect) → Проте́стить(perfect) → Проте́щенный(derived adjective) and coworkers will understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, grammatically more correct is проте**сщ**енный or проте**стщ**енный, but it's hard to pronounce, in colloquial speech it shorten to single &quot;щ&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="04868e3c-84ee-44e3-993f-084ab5e7ef4a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:26:19.577" UserId="69" Text="To formalize and summarize the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As it was noted, _врач_ is by definition is of [2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; declension][1], and has nothing to do with feminine words of [3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; declension][2]. More generally, the feminine forms of words are not constructed by fixing “_ь_” to the end of the masculine form. In modern Russian the letter “_ь_” has signal function of pronunciation, although it had some morphological function before, as some scientists think.&#xD;&#xA;2. The form _врачь_ has already been taken, and used extensively throughout history as a gender-neutral professional identification:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; I don’t know if there were any morphological differences historically between _врачь_, _врачъ_ and _врач_ (although I am in the process of obtaining some print sources on their origins), sometimes they had been used interchangeably. I even saw in compendium of the laws of Russian Empire for 1838 how both _врачь_ and _врачъ_ had been used in adjacent paragraphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See examples below, at the tail of Russian version. Note the 1790 classic, then 1886 specific clarification _женщина врачь_ (“woman doctor”), and 1916 entry in the British-published dictionary where “_ъ_” on the end was the pre-reform standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как уже было отмечено, _врач_ — по определению слово второго склонения и не имеет никакого отношения к словам ж. р. третьего склонения. Вообще, формы ж. р. не образовываются добавкой мягкого знака к концу форм м. р. В современном русском языке буква «Ь» имеет сигнальную функцию в произношении, хотя она имела некую морфологическую функцию ранее, как думают некоторые учёные.&#xD;&#xA;2. Форма _врачь_ уже была используема ранее, как гендерно-нейтральное профессиональное обозначение (см. график выше).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Я не знаю была ли исторически какая-то морфологическая разница между словами _врачь_, _врачъ_ и _врач_ (хотя я в настоящее время нахожусь в процессе получения печатных источников), но иногда они были взаимозаменяемы. Я даже видел в сборнике законов Российской Империи от 1838 года, как _врачь_ и _врачъ_ были использованы в соседних параграфах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Примеры ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У Радищева («Путешествiе изъ Петербурга въ Москву», [издание 1905 г.][4] «сохраняя правописанiе перваго его изданiя 1790 года»):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Л. Ф. Змеев в своём сборнике [«Русскiе врачи писатели»][6] (1886) даже отметил «женщина врачь»:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В 1916 году в [словаре Джона Генри Фриза][8] твёрдый знак был дореформенным стандартом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_grammar#Second_declension_-_masculine_nouns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_grammar#Third_declension&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wMrt5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/books?id=-Mg2AAAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LboV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://books.google.com/books?id=ivEWAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZXpHB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://books.google.com/books?id=2VBEAAAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pws6S.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1832" RevisionGUID="008ed67b-ecc3-48fc-878d-260394ae145e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:31:42.847" UserId="1097" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="At work I can say: Те́стить(imperfect) → Проте́стить(perfect) → Проте́щенный(derived adjective) and coworkers will understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, grammatically more correct is проте*сщ*енный or проте_стщ_енный, but it's hard to pronounce, in colloquial speech it shorten to single &quot;щ&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1832" RevisionGUID="876a7d63-a389-403e-9236-d055c5d1f737" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:36:45.910" UserId="1097" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="At work I can say: Те́стить(imperfect) → Проте́стить(perfect) → Проте́щенный(derived adjective) and coworkers will understand me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, grammatically more correct is протеСЩенный or протеСТЩенный, but it's hard to pronounce, in colloquial speech it shorten to single &quot;щ&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1793" RevisionGUID="d1287093-af4c-494c-8be6-67f5a436ac5b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T01:26:49.357" UserId="1097" Comment="added links to gramota.ru" Text="[**Гноби́ть](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/argo/53_2486), загноби́ть** — травить, угнетать, притеснять, изводить, приставать, давить, преследовать, докучать, надоедать, раздражать, несправедливо критиковать с целью выжать с места или устранить из круга конкурентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Третировать**](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F2%F0%E5%F2%E8%F0%EE%E2%E0%F2%FC&amp;all=x) — обращаться с кем-либо пренебрежительно, свысока, враждебно и агрессивно; не считаться с кем-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чмори́ть, [чмари́ть](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/argo/53_16039), [чмыри́ть](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/argo/53_16054)** (школьный, подростковый сленг) ~ гнобить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1833" RevisionGUID="284979bf-1358-46d0-9903-2d7c1a9026f6" CreationDate="2013-01-30T01:59:28.530" UserId="69" Comment="Clarifications." Text="1. As it was noted, _врач_ by definition is of [2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; declension][1], and has nothing to do with feminine words of [3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; declension][2], such as _ночь_. More generally, the _fem._ forms of words are not constructed by fixing “_ь_” to the end of the _m._ form (likewise, there is no masculine _ноч_). In modern Russian the letter “_ь_” has signal function of pronunciation, although it had some morphological function before, as some scientists think.&#xD;&#xA;2. The form _врачь_ already exists, and has been used extensively throughout history:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; I don’t know if there were any morphological differences historically between _врачь_, _врачъ_ and _врач_ (although I am in the process of obtaining some print sources on their origins), sometimes they had been used interchangeably. I even saw in compendium of the laws of Russian Empire for 1838 how both _врачь_ and _врачъ_ had been used in adjacent paragraphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See examples below, at the tail of Russian version. Note the 1790 classic, where the female character uses the word, but declines it according to 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; declension, as masculine: “_врачь присланный къ тебѣ_” (“healer that was sent to you”); then 1886 specific clarification “_женщина врачь_” (“woman doctor”), and 1916 entry in the British-published dictionary where “_ъ_” on the end was the pre-reform standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как уже было отмечено, _врач_ — по определению слово второго склонения и не имеет никакого отношения к словам ж. р. третьего склонения, таким как _ночь_. Вообще, формы ж. р. не образовываются добавкой мягкого знака к концу форм м. р (также, нет формы м. р. _ноч_). В современном русском языке буква «Ь» имеет сигнальную функцию в произношении, хотя она имела некую морфологическую функцию ранее, как думают некоторые учёные.&#xD;&#xA;2. Форма _врачь_ уже была используема ранее (см. график выше). Я не знаю была ли исторически какая-то морфологическая разница между словами _врачь_, _врачъ_ и _врач_ (хотя я в настоящее время нахожусь в процессе получения печатных источников), но иногда они были взаимозаменяемы. Я даже видел в сборнике законов Российской Империи от 1838 года, как _врачь_ и _врачъ_ были использованы в соседних параграфах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Примеры ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У Радищева («Путешествiе изъ Петербурга въ Москву», [издание 1905 г.][4] «сохраняя правописанiе перваго его изданiя 1790 года»):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обратите внимание, как женщина, называя себя врачом, использует его как м. р., II склонения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Л. Ф. Змеев в своём сборнике [«Русскiе врачи писатели»][6] (1886) даже отметил «женщина врачь»:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В 1916 году в [словаре Джона Генри Фриза][8] твёрдый знак был дореформенным стандартом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_grammar#Second_declension_-_masculine_nouns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_grammar#Third_declension&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wMrt5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/books?id=-Mg2AAAAMAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LboV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://books.google.com/books?id=ivEWAAAAYAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZXpHB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://books.google.com/books?id=2VBEAAAAIAAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pws6S.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="768b2ad7-cf06-4938-82d8-2bc043084a2b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T03:57:42.497" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="So my question is whether I should use a soft sign at the end of _врач_ when I am referring to a woman doctor? It seems like in this case _врач_ becomes feminine and the same rule as for _ночь_ has to be used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6604" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="768b2ad7-cf06-4938-82d8-2bc043084a2b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T03:57:42.497" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="“Она врач” or “она врачь”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6605" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="768b2ad7-cf06-4938-82d8-2bc043084a2b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T03:57:42.497" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 5 edit id of 300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1825" RevisionGUID="e277845e-83d4-4ec5-b4c4-3d623ed04ab3" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:34:23.927" UserId="1329" Comment="added 570 characters in body" Text="I am sorry about it, but I simply **have to** write this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the reason for your confusion is that you have a very good intuition in languages. The problem here is not whether to choose **заискивающий** or **заискивающийся**, but with the choice of the word itself and, which is more important, the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK. If you leave the word **заискивающий** in your poem, then it needs to be followed by preposition **перед** and the word must be in Instrumental. It should look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне теперь не до твоего смол-тока,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **перед** японск&lt;strong&gt;им&lt;/strong&gt; пив&lt;strong&gt;ом&lt;/strong&gt; заискивающего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually here the usage is not quite correct, too: one can be ingratiating oneself with **somebody**, not **something**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the other problem is that this word doesn't correspond with your desired translation. **Заискивающий (перед кем-то)** means **ingratiating oneself (with somebody)**. For reference you can browse [Academica](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/805334), where you can find extracts from different dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could have caused the wrong usage of **заискивать**? Maybe this word resembles the word **заикаться о** ( **заикнуться о**), which means **yпоминать вскользь, осторожно, намёками** and  **could** be used in your case, but it is very different in terms of stylistics, and I personally wouldn't use it here (it seems that the customs worker is quite enthusiastic about Japanese beer and talks about it continuously). Just remember the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `&quot;Даже не заикайся!&quot;`   or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `&quot;Он было заикнулся о поездке, но суровый вид отца напомнил ему о том, что он наказан.&quot;` (Poor guy from my imagination! =))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference to this word : (http://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=заикаться)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll be adding my ideas of how those two lines could be translated here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have come up with some simplified versions (i.e. they are shorter than the original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне теперь не до твоего смол-тока (about what?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о (всех - optional) прелестях пива японского  &#xD;&#xA;  о японцах с их пивом (add suitable beer characteristics here) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of them show that the traveler is ironic about both the beer and the customs worker's enthusiasm. However, here the obsequiousness of the small talk is not directly mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="b0c2dc69-f5e7-4424-837d-f800fe0a5e56" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:59:31.873" UserId="1329" Text="While reading Osip Mandelshtam, I came across the word **качель** in singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; Я качался в далеком саду    &#xD;&#xA;    На простой деревянной качели,   &#xD;&#xA;    И высокие темные ели    &#xD;&#xA;    Вспоминаю в туманном бреду.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language the word is always used in plural ( plurale tantum ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  when did качель become качели;&#xD;&#xA;-  why, and&#xD;&#xA;-  what is this process called in linguistics.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="b0c2dc69-f5e7-4424-837d-f800fe0a5e56" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:59:31.873" UserId="1329" Text="Качели vs. качель" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="b0c2dc69-f5e7-4424-837d-f800fe0a5e56" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:59:31.873" UserId="1329" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="fec7e25a-7c36-4ff7-8c26-f26234c7b721" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:16:49.827" UserId="1329" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="While reading Osip Mandelshtam, I came across the word **качель** in singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; Я качался в далеком саду    &#xD;&#xA;    На простой деревянной качели,   &#xD;&#xA;    И высокие темные ели    &#xD;&#xA;    Вспоминаю в туманном бреду.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language the word, as far as I know, is always used in plural ( plurale tantum ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  when did качель become качели;&#xD;&#xA;-  why;&#xD;&#xA;-  maybe it happened in another direction;&#xD;&#xA;-  what is this process called in linguistics;&#xD;&#xA;-  are both forms legal nowadays?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1835" RevisionGUID="136af89a-1dc2-49bb-9e57-d5aadae55fee" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:43:16.513" UserId="1405" Text="The main use of this word nowdays is &quot;качели&quot;, you are right, it is always used in plural. But   the usage of &quot;качели&quot; in singular form is allowed only in author's poetic speech.: &quot;качеля&quot;. And in this poem this word is used in prepositional form &quot;качели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I am not a philologist, I am simply Russian, and I can only assume that this process is called &quot;historicism&quot;(историзм). It is old word or nowdays the usage of the world has changed. Maybe one century ago this word was used really in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope, my explanation is understandable for you. My level of English isn't high.=))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1835" RevisionGUID="99055cc2-c93f-4da6-9f3c-f418db765321" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:48:35.643" UserId="1405" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="The main use of this word nowdays is &quot;качели&quot;, you are right, it is always used in plural. But   the usage of &quot;качели&quot; in singular form is allowed only in author's poetic speech.: &quot;качеля&quot;. And in this poem this word is used in prepositional form &quot;качели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I am not a philologist, I am simply Russian, and I can only assume that this process is called &quot;historicism&quot;(историзм). It is old word or nowdays the usage of the world has changed. Maybe one century ago this word was used really in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope, my explanation is understandable for you. My level of English isn't high.=))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can read about this word. http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any text about when the usage was chaged." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1835" RevisionGUID="fd1d3fa7-5910-4ee0-8f29-03c4cd0a0493" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:04:21.947" UserId="1405" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="The main use of this word nowdays is &quot;качели&quot;, you are right, it is always used in plural. But   the usage of &quot;качели&quot; in singular form is allowed only in author's poetic speech.: &quot;качеля&quot;. And in this poem this word is used in prepositional form &quot;качели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I am not a philologist, I am simply Russian, and I can only assume that this process is called &quot;архаизм&quot;. It is old word, the usage of which has changed. Maybe one century ago this word was used really in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope, my explanation is understandable for you. My level of English isn't high.=))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can read about this word. http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any text about when the usage was chaged." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1836" RevisionGUID="07d15102-5257-40b9-bbcb-8636d7622e87" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:19:56.247" UserId="496" Text="Yellow Sky provided a perfect answer for this specific phrase about the wife. I just want to start from generic meaning of `у меня` and then apply it to this particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only recently when I become better in English and got acquainted with French I realized how much Russian is fond of constructions with pronouns/nouns in objective cases (косвенных падежах) `мне`, `меня`, `у меня`, `ему`, `его`, `у него` where other languages would use subjective case. This constructions in Russian became an integral part of the language. For example, let's look at the simplest phrases which everybody learn first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English: My name is Alex. or I'm Alex.&#xD;&#xA;    French: Je m'appelle Alex. (I call myself Alex)&#xD;&#xA;    Russian: Меня зовут Алекс. (One calls me Alex)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English: He is 5 years old. &#xD;&#xA;    French: Il a 5 ans. (He has 5 years).&#xD;&#xA;    Russian: Ему 5 лет. (Kind of: There are 5 years to him.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English: I have a sore throat.&#xD;&#xA;    French: J'ai mal à la gorge. (I have pain in my throat)&#xD;&#xA;    Russian: У меня болит горло. (Kind of: Throat hurts at me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common feature of all these sentences is that the subject is switched from me/him to the other thing that becomes active, or the whole sentence becomes impersonal, like `It is sunny` instead of `The sun is shining` in English. In [this answer][1] I suggest that the literal translation of the constructions `у меня`, `у него` would be 'There is smth. in my/his world of perception'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two reasons of this phenomenon in Russian language. The first is mechanical: there is a developed system of grammatical cases, which is absent in other languages, and we do it just because we can. The second is probably cultural. From young age we are told `Я - последняя буква алфавита` (Я is the last letter of the alphabet). This is to say &quot;do not emphasize your person too much&quot; and literally &quot;do not say `я` too much&quot;. Maybe because of this a child would prefer to say &quot;мне хочется это пирожное&quot; instead of &quot;я хочу это пирожное&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when you see how much these constructions are embedded in Russian language, how much they are an integral part of the language I hope you understand that a Russian native speaker couldn't help saying &quot;Какая ты *у меня* компактная!&quot; Just &quot;Какая ты компактная&quot; would sound unnatural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1024/496" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="d0e537ec-2955-46bb-9ec6-22d203ebdedc" CreationDate="2013-01-31T04:40:43.097" UserId="242" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="There is a word `тестировать` in modern Russian which differs from `проверять`/`испытывать` (both of these has wider meaning). This word has also colloquial form `тестить`.&#xD;&#xA;I want to ask, regarding de-facto existing rules of word formation in Russian, which derived adjective is more appropriate: `оттесченный` (or even  `оттесщенный` compare to `обесчестить`/`обесчещенный`) or `оттестенный`? Or may be some other form? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="a8d5a0f6-f1eb-4bf0-8471-c764d46b1de1" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:36:21.670" UserId="1262" Text="Каково семантическое поле этого глагола? Пожалуйста, предлагайте варианты в одно слово. What are semantic implications of the word? Please offer one-word Russian options; thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="a8d5a0f6-f1eb-4bf0-8471-c764d46b1de1" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:36:21.670" UserId="1262" Text="Каковы синонимы слова &quot;очеловечиться&quot;? / What are synonims for &quot;очеловечиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="a8d5a0f6-f1eb-4bf0-8471-c764d46b1de1" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:36:21.670" UserId="1262" Text="|выбор-слова|synonims|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6621" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="7316eb4a-390f-44ff-8706-4f5270739520" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:41:27.800" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="Каковы синонимы слова &quot;очеловечиться&quot;? / What are synonyms for &quot;очеловечиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="7316eb4a-390f-44ff-8706-4f5270739520" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:41:27.800" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="Каково семантическое поле этого глагола? Пожалуйста, предлагайте варианты в одно слово. What are semantic implications for the word? Please offer one-word Russian options; thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6623" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="28a281cd-6b0e-40c3-bce6-de0c9349a7c8" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:11:50.233" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1840" RevisionGUID="c6154f30-2851-442f-b13f-23df74079daf" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:09:06.973" UserId="358" Text="Олицетвориться, персонифицироваться (в значении &quot;принять образ лица, человека&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6625" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="17c9633e-6f6e-45d9-98d8-4b89aa14bc54" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:56:05.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/297161366903586816" />
  <row Id="6626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1841" RevisionGUID="a9777318-f496-4029-9348-035e79430d4a" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:08:36.250" UserId="1409" Text="I think that using `'I'` in English is the way more common that using 'Я' in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to say `'I think yes'`, I can't just say `'think yes'`, in Russian you can say `'думаю да'`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases you say `Я` with endings of some of the words you use in your sentence, so if you have verbs with correct endings you can omit `Я`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1842" RevisionGUID="af9b6f3b-5efb-454e-a1bb-a90568306296" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:13:48.313" UserId="1409" Text="Очеловечение - одухотворение, оживление, оживление, олицетворение. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1843" RevisionGUID="40d010cb-2950-4e55-ac70-636ccd9b517d" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:26:29.723" UserId="1409" Text="If you'r being asked `-Где она?`, you need to say `-Она пошла`, but `Она` was already said, it's clear that you talk about her, why you need to use that again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1843" RevisionGUID="40d010cb-2950-4e55-ac70-636ccd9b517d" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:26:29.723" UserId="1409" Text="Why you need to say &quot;Она&quot; in sentence &quot;Она пошла&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1843" RevisionGUID="40d010cb-2950-4e55-ac70-636ccd9b517d" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:26:29.723" UserId="1409" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="0d83f034-1fd8-4a0f-beae-967c40d6d3f1" CreationDate="2013-02-01T03:30:17.427" UserId="242" Text="Well, the closest word I guess is `воплощение`, one of it's meaning stands for what you are exactly for act of embodiment in flesh, or incarnation. So, in Russian  theological tradition we talk about &quot;воплощение Бога во Христе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very word [origins from][1] `во плоти`/`въплъти` , literally in flesh/in skin - in Old Slavic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can used this word talking not only in context of Christianity. It is perfectly valid to say about reincarnation of any deity, for example, &quot;воплощение Вишны&quot; or &quot;воплощение Рамы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="e825fca6-f619-41b0-baf6-8524cdfbfdaf" CreationDate="2013-02-01T03:43:18.600" UserId="242" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Well, the closest word I guess is `воплощение`, one of it's meaning stands for what you are exactly for act of embodiment in flesh, or incarnation. So, in Russian  theological tradition we talk about &quot;воплощение Бога во Христе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very word [origins from][1] `во плоти`/`въплъти` , literally in flesh/in skin - in Old Slavic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can used this word talking not only in context of Christianity. It is perfectly valid to say about reincarnation of any deity, for example, &quot;воплощение Вишны&quot; or &quot;воплощение Рамы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another synonymous word, `претворение`, but be warned, as far as I know, in Christian literature it is not typical to use it in this sense. Moreover it is traditionally used in phrase eucharistic context: &quot;претворение вина в кровь, а хлеба - в тело Христово&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1845" RevisionGUID="cb4edbb5-679e-465c-b189-067dd7cd9a3a" CreationDate="2013-02-01T04:12:09.450" UserId="69" Text="Studying n-grams, we can see that the plural form appeared before the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that the number of occurrences of the form _качель_ was multiplied by five to make for a better graph, it can be seen that it was used much less than _качели_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that these results can be not very accurate in the early years. For instance, between 1740 and 1774 out of six exemplars for _качели_, three were in a foreign language (some form of Latin) and highlighted words had nothing to do with the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct results, however, show that the word was already well established in its pl. form as evidenced in [I. I. Betskoj’s book][2] about laws pertaining to education of youngsters (1774):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is possible that it means several separate _качелей_ (swings or see-saws). It is hard to tell, because Google's corpora are not indexed with grammatical number in mind (or, at least, it cannot be accessed via web-interface).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, not far from then, in [_Полный немецко-россiйской лексиконъ_][4] (German-to-Russian dictionary) by Mr. Adelung (1798), sg. form is asserted just as strongly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage both forms are used in its original sense (outside of colloquial “_туды его в качель_”), but the singular form is rare. Modern rulebooks indeed declare it _pluralia tantum_, but it still can be used in fiction. See Shishkov’s [_Угрюм-река_][6] (1928—1933):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes things even more complicated, the pl. gen. form that is _качелей_ now, used to be _качель_ as well, like here ([Kostomarov][8], late XIX century, from modern reprint):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3diEG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=CgkZAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PP9#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dDyrh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc0GAAAAQAAJ&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PP7#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0TPVJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%BC-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%29&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mQkca.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Kostomarov&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c4rQC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1845" RevisionGUID="ef9886fe-061e-4297-89aa-b58313d443be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T04:23:01.550" UserId="69" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Studying n-grams, we can see that the plural form appeared before the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Noting that the number of occurrences of the form _качель_ was multiplied by five to make for a better graph, it can be seen that it was used much less than _качели_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that these results can be not very accurate in the early years. For instance, between 1740 and 1774 out of six exemplars for _качели_, three were in a foreign language (some form of Latin) and highlighted words had nothing to do with the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct results, however, show that the word was already well established in its pl. form as evidenced in [I. I. Betskoj’s book][2] about laws pertaining to education of youngsters (1774):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is possible that it means several separate _качелей_ (swings or see-saws). It is hard to tell, because Google's corpora are not indexed with grammatical number in mind (or, at least, it cannot be accessed via web-interface).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, not far from then, in [_Полный немецко-россiйской лексиконъ_][4] (German-to-Russian dictionary) by Mr. Adelung (1798), sg. form is asserted just as strongly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern usage both forms are used in its original sense (outside of colloquial “_туды его в качель_”), but the singular form is rare. Modern rulebooks indeed declare it _pluralia tantum_ (allegedly, [from 1930s][6]), but it still can be used in fiction. See Shishkov’s [_Угрюм-река_][7] (1928—1933):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes things even more complicated, the pl. gen. form that is _качелей_ now, used to be _качель_ as well, like here ([Kostomarov][9], late XIX century, from modern reprint):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3diEG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=CgkZAAAAYAAJ&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PP9#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dDyrh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc0GAAAAQAAJ&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PP7#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0TPVJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://newforum.gramota.ru/viewtopic.php?p=37447&amp;sid=2d09e3aee5ad351eef9a2ea0aee1a737#p37447&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%BC-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%29&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mQkca.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Kostomarov&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c4rQC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1828" RevisionGUID="cbcac4ef-c870-4644-8520-e783a7915929" CreationDate="2013-02-01T04:56:05.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/297206663620993024" />
  <row Id="6636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="7e50c8a9-30c8-44c3-a864-7ab74e9337fa" CreationDate="2013-02-01T06:49:55.350" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, wording." Text="While reading Osip Mandelshtam, I came across the word **качель** in singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Я качался в далеком саду    &#xD;&#xA;    На простой деревянной качели,   &#xD;&#xA;    И высокие темные ели    &#xD;&#xA;    Вспоминаю в туманном бреду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern language the word, as far as I know, is always used in plural (_plurale tantum_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When and why did _качель_ become _качели_?&#xD;&#xA;- Did it, perhaps, happen in another direction?&#xD;&#xA;- What is this process called in linguistics?&#xD;&#xA;- Are both forms legal nowadays?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6637" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="7e50c8a9-30c8-44c3-a864-7ab74e9337fa" CreationDate="2013-02-01T06:49:55.350" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, wording." Text="&quot;Качели&quot; vs. &quot;качель&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6638" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="7e50c8a9-30c8-44c3-a864-7ab74e9337fa" CreationDate="2013-02-01T06:49:55.350" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 97 edit id of 301" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="eef76cb7-cc20-4f24-9123-2c39e78d29b6" CreationDate="2013-02-01T06:50:01.047" UserId="242" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Well, the closest word I guess is `воплощение`, one of it's meaning stands for what you are exactly for act of embodiment in flesh, or incarnation. So, in Russian  theological tradition we talk about &quot;воплощение Бога во Христе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very word [origins from][1] `во плоти`/`въплъти` , literally in flesh/in skin - in Old Slavic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can used this word talking not only in context of Christianity. It is perfectly valid to say about reincarnation of any deity, for example, &quot;воплощение Вишны&quot; or &quot;воплощение Рамы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another synonymous (in some contexts) word, `претворение`, but be warned, as far as I know, in Christian literature it is not typical to use it in this sense. Moreover it is traditionally used in phrase eucharistic context: &quot;претворение вина в кровь, а хлеба - в тело Христово&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1846" RevisionGUID="04b61b37-2a1a-4d62-973b-5caef2d0f468" CreationDate="2013-02-01T07:12:26.737" UserId="97" Text="In the example you gave, it is **not** strictly necessary to repeat _Она_. As you correctly pointed out, the previous sentence is already speaking of _она_, therefore it is clear what the conversation is about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где она?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ушла&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как она тебе?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хороша!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing wrong with using _она_ for the second time, however in the examples above it would only make sentences sound worse, not better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are much more likely to actually **need** to use it where there's more than one (feminine or otherwise) subject (e.g. the _она_ you're talking about plus somebody/something else).  For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где она сейчас, где ее мать?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она - в Лондоне.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (This means, _she is in London_, but I am not saying anything about her mother.  On the other hand, saying simply _In London_ would mean that they both are in London.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где она со своим другом? (Note that a better usage would be _где они_.)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она ушла.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (She's gone, but I am not saying anything about her friend.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6642" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1407" RevisionGUID="20defcd5-93e9-4f72-9331-938a2a885223" CreationDate="2013-02-01T08:22:07.950" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="fcf23eae-a524-49c2-9b65-5dc947b8864d" CreationDate="2013-02-01T08:43:38.563" UserId="194" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="This ending came from Proto-Indo-European athematic indicative singular first person verb ending -mi. The PIE word for &quot;(I) eat&quot; was ***e̯ed-mi***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see an example of full PIE verb declension here:  &#xD;&#xA;http://pie.allderek.com/doku.php?id=steh%E2%82%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same ending gave the English form *&quot;(I) am&quot;* from the PIE form of the verb ***e̯es-mi***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1843" RevisionGUID="b928b7bc-674e-4c89-ab0a-f372612c2452" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:15:10.870" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="If you'r being asked `-Где она?`, you need to say `-Она пошла`, but `Она` was already said, it's clear that you talk about her, why you need to use that again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="23a2aa59-909e-4b8f-ab1e-112f9ecb174b" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:08:21.440" UserId="1236" Comment="grammar" Text="Well, the closest word I guess is `воплощение`, one of it's meaning stands for what you are exactly for act of embodiment in flesh, or incarnation. So, in Russian  theological tradition we talk about &quot;воплощение Бога во Христе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very word [origins from][1] `во плоти`/`въплъти` , literally in flesh/in skin - in Old Slavic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can used this word talking not only in context of Christianity. It is perfectly valid to say about reincarnation of any deity, for example, &quot;воплощение Вишну&quot; or &quot;воплощение Рамы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another synonymous (in some contexts) word, `претворение`, but be warned, as far as I know, in Christian literature it is not typical to use it in this sense. Moreover it is traditionally used in phrase eucharistic context: &quot;претворение вина в кровь, а хлеба - в тело Христово&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1844" RevisionGUID="8b57401d-f395-4299-bf03-12ef03590a0a" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:04:45.843" UserId="242" Comment="added info on verb derived" Text="Well, the closest word I guess is `воплощение` (and the verb derived `воплотиться` to be precise, since you are asking about verb), one of it's meaning stands for what you are exactly for act of embodiment in flesh, or incarnation. So, in Russian  theological tradition we talk about &quot;воплощение Бога во Христе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very word [origins from][1] `во плоти`/`въплъти` , literally in flesh/in skin - in Old Slavic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can used this word talking not only in context of Christianity. It is perfectly valid to say about reincarnation of any deity, for example, &quot;воплощение Вишну&quot; or &quot;воплощение Рамы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another synonymous (in some contexts) word, `претворение` (verb form is `претвориться`, shouldn't be confused with `притвориться`), but be warned, as far as I know, in Christian literature it is not typical to use it in this sense. Moreover it is traditionally used in phrase eucharistic context: &quot;претворение вина в кровь, а хлеба - в тело Христово&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="04f75d08-38f7-46f9-a6da-7e0d38f05b1b" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:25:11.527" UserId="1262" Text="Имеется в виду буквальное значение слова. The word is meant in its literal sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="04f75d08-38f7-46f9-a6da-7e0d38f05b1b" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:25:11.527" UserId="1262" Text="Kакова этимология слова &quot;варяг&quot;? What is the etymology of 'varyag'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="04f75d08-38f7-46f9-a6da-7e0d38f05b1b" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:25:11.527" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="b300cd73-a558-4db9-9ba6-693238c6896d" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:06:36.763" UserId="1329" Comment="added one more site - about stresses - clarified explanation" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][7], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][1], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][8], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [3] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][5] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][6] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][9] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.udarenie.info" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1848" RevisionGUID="722de111-17fe-4591-bdf8-75970628bad7" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:11:02.270" UserId="47" Text="Well, it is just the ethnic name, `Vaeringjar` in Old Islandic or `væringi` in Old Norse. It probably got into Slavic languages via Greek `Βάραγγοι`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word itself is probably a compound of `vár` &quot;pledge&quot; and `gengi` &quot;companion&quot;, i.e. &quot;a sworn person&quot; or &quot;a foreigner who has taken service with a new lord by a treaty of fealty to him, or protégé&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: English and Russian Wikipedia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6652" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1839" RevisionGUID="cbc0bf64-e4de-411f-9d84-50b985e0fdc4" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:05.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/297342561444577280" />
  <row Id="6653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1849" RevisionGUID="c932106a-400c-45bc-9827-6c5dcc7c0964" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:59:00.310" UserId="1262" Text="If you answer the question with -Она пошла, you should specify where to, and that is obligatory. If you say 'она ушла', then the usage of the pronoun is arbitrary; that is, you don't always have to use it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strange enough, here I might agree with 'shabunc'; this being a partially duplicating question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6654" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="b2516e3b-d534-4542-a69f-05a08da4a982" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:08:43.337" UserId="69" Comment="33" />
  <row Id="6655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="518ad9c5-6e8f-4947-b22e-bd25bc7f5c2e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:15:47.153" UserId="170" Text="I am totally confused in how I should write &quot;потому что&quot;. There could be at least 4 possible options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) потому что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) потому, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) по тому что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) по тому, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, there should be a comma placed in this  case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он просто ходил по брусу - **по тому, что** ещё его дед где-то отыскал и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приволок в этот &quot;спортивный зал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and, perhaps, no comma is needed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Почему вы отказались сотрудничать с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Да **потому что** у вас всё перевёрнуто с ног на голову!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide an overview of the relevant rules here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="518ad9c5-6e8f-4947-b22e-bd25bc7f5c2e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:15:47.153" UserId="170" Text="How to write &quot;потому что&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="518ad9c5-6e8f-4947-b22e-bd25bc7f5c2e" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:15:47.153" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1851" RevisionGUID="cbee39d9-a16a-49fa-a7c4-f529be4907fa" CreationDate="2013-02-01T17:37:14.583" UserId="170" Text="Just a side note, which, however, could still serve as an answer. The thing is &quot;пошла&quot; could as well be a verb in the imperative mood, that is, it could mean &quot;Start walking!&quot;, &quot;Go!&quot;, &quot;Forward!&quot;, &quot;Go forward!&quot; when applied to a woman. So, if we imagine that the one who asked the question &quot;Где она?&quot; is a female, then the answer &quot;Пошла&quot; in this case would simply mean something like &quot;Start walking and don't ask stupid questions!&quot; or &quot;Start walking, and no talking!&quot; (of course, in the written speech &quot;Пошла&quot; would probably be written with an exclamation mark: &quot;Пошла!&quot;). So, to avoid that connotation, adding &quot;Она&quot; before &quot;пошла&quot; will make sure that the one who is answering is still speaking in the indicative mood, not in the imperative one, which means that he or she is still answering the question and not giving any commands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="51bb63e6-5710-4c30-bd5b-d7fc977dcb8a" CreationDate="2013-02-01T19:56:05.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/297433158436130816" />
  <row Id="6660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1852" RevisionGUID="b83384e8-a0e3-40a8-8078-c84c33caede5" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:42:39.173" UserId="426" Text="Only numbers (1) and (4) are correct; the other two are incorrect. Your post provides perfect example sentences to illustrate both cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic rule about commas before &quot;что&quot; is that you need one in all cases except when &quot;что&quot; is a part of an indivisible compound expression, such as &quot;во что бы то ни стало&quot;, &quot;потому что&quot;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;потому что&quot; is a *compound subordinating conjunction* (составной подчинительный союз). It is a single part of speech, so you should not separate its two parts with a comma. &quot;по-&quot; in &quot;потому&quot; is not a separate word, it is a *prefix*, so it is written together with &quot;-тому&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;по тому&quot;, on the other hand, is a *preposition* (предлог) followed by a demonstrative pronoun (указательное местоимение). The word &quot;что&quot;, a *conjunction* (изъяснительный союз), is a separate word, so the basic rule applies, i.e. you need a comma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1853" RevisionGUID="3bdec550-fcbc-4151-a975-8ad144ace6f5" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:03:02.840" UserId="1322" Text="Just as a theory that has a chance of being true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;Кавказский пленник&quot; by А. С. Пушкин one may meet the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Но европейца всё вниманье&#xD;&#xA;Народ сей чудный привлекал.&#xD;&#xA;Меж горцев пленник наблюдал&#xD;&#xA;Их веру, нравы, воспитанье,&#xD;&#xA;Любил их жизни простоту,&#xD;&#xA;Гостеприимство, жажду брани,&#xD;&#xA;Движений вольных быстроту,&#xD;&#xA;И легкость ног, и силу длани;&#xD;&#xA;Смотрел по целым он часам,&#xD;&#xA;Как иногда черкес проворный,&#xD;&#xA;Широкой степью, по горам,&#xD;&#xA;В косматой шапке, в бурке черной,&#xD;&#xA;К луке склонясь, на стремена&#xD;&#xA;Ногою стройной опираясь,&#xD;&#xA;Летал по воле скакуна,&#xD;&#xA;К войне заране приучаясь.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the enormous success the poem enjoyed right after its publication, it had plenty of time to form some popular quotations, one of which (or the unchanged passage) could just come across someone's mind when writing the aforementioned newspaper headline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1852" RevisionGUID="e274766a-f7aa-4812-9da4-27a862b72911" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:12:12.450" UserId="426" Comment="Edited in response to a comment by Yellow Sky." Text="Only numbers (1), (2) and (4) are correct; the number (3) is incorrect. Your post provides perfect example sentences to illustrate both cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic rule about commas before &quot;что&quot; is that you need one in all cases except when &quot;что&quot; is a part of an indivisible compound expression, such as &quot;во что бы то ни стало&quot;, &quot;потому что&quot;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;потому что&quot; is a *compound subordinating conjunction* (составной подчинительный союз). It is a single part of speech, so normally you should not separate its two parts with a comma. &quot;по-&quot; in &quot;потому&quot; is not a separate word, it is a *prefix*, so it is written together with &quot;-тому&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;по тому&quot;, on the other hand, is a *preposition* (предлог) followed by a demonstrative pronoun (указательное местоимение). The word &quot;что&quot;, a *conjunction* (изъяснительный союз), is a separate word, so the basic rule applies, i.e. you need a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using number (2) is an advanced subject. Consider these two comma placements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ей нравился, потому что был очень мужественным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ей нравился потому, что был очень мужественным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences translate roughly as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She liked him, because he was very courageous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that placing the comma before &quot;потому&quot; stresses the the consequence (i.e. the fact that she liked him), while placing the comma before &quot;что&quot; stresses the cause (i.e. the fact that he was courageous). This is called &quot;расчленение союза&quot; (splitting up the conjunction), and it is a somewhat non-trivial subject. You can read more about it [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramma.ru/RUS/?id=13.31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="9c232427-0f85-40a1-a219-aab93efa9981" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:15:35.017" UserId="1262" Text="В (древне)русском языке есть (был) набор специфических фонем. В языках, из которых осуществлялись заимствования, тоже был набор специфических фонем. Вопрос: могли ли одни и те же звуки (древне)русского языка быть обусловлены разными фонемами? Например, звук я в предположительно заимствованном слове &quot;варяг&quot;: может ли он объясняться в т.ч. и уральским e/ä? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The Old) Russian has (had) its specific set of phonemes. The languages from which the words were borrowed also had sets of phonemes specific for them. The question is, could same phonemes in (Old) Russian be results of different phonemes in source languages? E.g. я in the supposedly loaned варяг: can it be a transformation of Uralic e/ä?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="9c232427-0f85-40a1-a219-aab93efa9981" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:15:35.017" UserId="1262" Text="Are there any source language-specific patterns for loanwords phonetics in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="9c232427-0f85-40a1-a219-aab93efa9981" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:15:35.017" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1559" RevisionGUID="dbedbd6e-96af-45f8-b29c-3164d13fce46" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:16:09.910" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="This is a follow-up question to my earlier question about decimal declensions in colloquial speech. I understand that in everyday speech, native speakers bend the rules a little, and may not fully decline *long* decimal expressions (&quot;pi equals 3.14159...&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about *short* decimals? For example, in everyday speech — or even in a radio or TV broadcast — how would one say &quot;ot 1,4% do 5,7%&quot;? Could you say the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;ot odnoj [pause] chetyrekh procenta do pjati [pause] semi procenta&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1570" RevisionGUID="0f5e9a23-2b18-4166-9f68-b74eb380ba0b" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:21:44.673" UserId="71" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I'd like to know when I should use the `—` sign in sentences like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это как собирать базу данных ? не все элементы определены, а уж связи между ними ? тем более.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The symbol **?** marks parts I'm not entirely sure about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="3f19de5a-7974-427f-813c-edc8c5b7ded2" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:41:59.160" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="Do _вчера_ and _день назад_ refer to the same time period? If no, what is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6676" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="3f19de5a-7974-427f-813c-edc8c5b7ded2" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:41:59.160" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="What is the difference between “вчера” and “день назад”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6677" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1607" RevisionGUID="3f19de5a-7974-427f-813c-edc8c5b7ded2" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:41:59.160" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="debc36e4-d3c4-403e-9cb9-5124773debdb" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:42:11.640" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, citations." Text="Похоже, что _Рождество_ можно употреблять и с предлогом «в», и с предлогом «на», по крайней мере, есть примеры обоих употреблений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Один раз, тоже на рождество, я засадила в ногу кривую занозищу и пряталась с ней по углам, и никого даже близко не подпускала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Харпер Ли, _Убить пересмешника…_ в переводе Н. Галь и Р. Облонской.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Вы, наверное, слишком заняты в Рождество, — быстро произнесла Мерль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Патриция Корнуэлл, _Чёрная метка_.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой вопрос состоит в следующем: точно ли «в Рождество» и «на Рождество» обозначают одно и то же?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6679" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="debc36e4-d3c4-403e-9cb9-5124773debdb" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:42:11.640" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, citations." Text="«На Рождество» или «в Рождество»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6680" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1591" RevisionGUID="debc36e4-d3c4-403e-9cb9-5124773debdb" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:42:11.640" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 302" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="d1fe16f2-ef79-4bd3-b3b0-498c400d157a" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:43:55.380" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, grammar." Text="Given that _народ_ is connected to _род_, and has to do with birth, and _нация_ derives from the Latin _natus_, past participle of _nasci_ (being born), is there any difference between the two terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been instructed that _народ_ should be referred to peoples like the Komi, Yakut, Chuvash, i.e., minorities in the Russian Federation, while the Russian people make up a _нация_, but I suspect this is not the whole truth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6682" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="d1fe16f2-ef79-4bd3-b3b0-498c400d157a" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:43:55.380" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, grammar." Text="Difference between “нация” and “народ”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6683" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="d1fe16f2-ef79-4bd3-b3b0-498c400d157a" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:43:55.380" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 304" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6684" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1850" RevisionGUID="8531fdbe-0259-4792-a442-0329bdede74e" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:56:05.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/297750248640622592" />
  <row Id="6686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="34a15bf6-a5d6-4555-b925-a1092033b873" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:12:01.803" UserId="69" Text="While I since had learned that linguistics works in much more mysterious ways than simply “if words sounds alike, or also mean similar things, they must be related”, for a long time I presumed that the Russian word _рыжий_ (red, ginger (of hair)) was not only related, but a direct borrowing from the French word _rouge_ (red, vermillion (colour); blush (of face)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, many people can make this or similar connections, and it could be useful to tell a more complex story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Несмотря на то, что я узнал, что лингвистика ходит [куда более таинственными путями][1], нежели простое «если слова звучат похоже и даже имеют сходные значения, то они должны быть связаны друг с другом», долгое время я предполагал, что русское слово _рыжий_ было не только связано, но являлось прямым заимствованием французского слова _rouge_ (красный, румяный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю, многие люди могут делать такое же или подобные предположения и более сложное описание этой связи может оказаться полезным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://elementy.ru/lib/430720#3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="34a15bf6-a5d6-4555-b925-a1092033b873" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:12:01.803" UserId="69" Text="Are the Russian “рыжий” and French “rouge” (red) related? / Как связаны русское «рыжий» и французское «rouge»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="34a15bf6-a5d6-4555-b925-a1092033b873" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:12:01.803" UserId="69" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="ecd74725-27d6-4de5-abf1-fe6744d29b54" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:00:08.747" UserId="242" Text="*Short answer.* Yes, they are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer.* These words both are descending from the same PIE root  `reudh`, which stood for indicating something related red. I use phrase something related to red, since no one knows for sure (and, alas, no one most probably will know in future) whether this root in it first meaning indicated colour and than some additional meanings(blood, red-coloured fruits or berries etc.)  had been derived; or vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as far as I know, red is one of the few colours (if not the only one) for which we have solid evidence of common PIE origin. English words `red`, `rust`, `rusty`, Russian words `руда` (in some dialect of Old Russian this also meant &quot;blood&quot; by the way), `рыжий`, French word `rouge`, all of them are related. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="0c1ba77e-f0d6-4c60-8a58-be5cedbbac7d" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:27:02.210" UserId="242" Comment="added more info on the issue" Text="*Short answer.* Yes, they are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer.* These words both are descending from the same PIE root  `reudh`, which stood for indicating something related red. I use phrase something related to red, since no one knows for sure (and, alas, no one most probably will know in future) whether this root in it first meaning indicated colour and than some additional meanings(blood, red-coloured fruits or berries etc.)  had been derived; or vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as far as I know, red is one of the few colours (if not the only one) for which we have solid evidence of common PIE origin. English words `red`, `rust`, `rusty`, Russian words `руда` (in some dialect of Old Russian this also meant &quot;blood&quot; by the way), `рыжий`, `рдеть`, French word `rouge`, all of them are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The longest answer I can provide.* French is a Romance language but it's phonetics evolution was very intensive. If one would be asked to characterise this evolution in a single words, it wouldn't be too bold oversimplification to say reduction. For example, French word août (which [is pronounced just][1] `u`) actually originally had been latin &quot;augustus&quot;. Something similar had happened to Latin word `rubeus` (red, reddish), which had been transformed to modern `rouge`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for russian `рыжий` it indeed is related to `рудый` which, in turn, is related to `руда`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also one thing we always should remember almost each time when we are talking that two words in different languages are related in deep historical context: those relations are not always straightforward. It's not always that simple that there existed some word in some mother language and this word have precisely that meaning and had been derived from exactly that word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, above mentioned Latin word `rebus` claimed to be originated [from][2] `rubus` (blackberry). And `rubus` is related to `wr̥dʰo` (some plant with red flowers, presumably sweetbrier or rose, or part of this plant) Oh, by the way, almost forget to mention that `rose` is also related to `рыжий`, but, once again note directly. And `wr̥dʰo` is, once again, related to the first PIE root I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao%C3%BBt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="7b66eee0-1393-4bfa-bcde-a6824332da39" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:35:38.920" UserId="69" Comment="Grammar." Text="Questions on the history of the Russian language, its origin and changes it underwent through the centuries. This includes historical changes in vocabulary, grammar, phonetics and semantics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6692" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="7b66eee0-1393-4bfa-bcde-a6824332da39" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:35:38.920" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 305" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="783481da-6bec-4337-9951-4853dfc7d42d" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:35:49.747" UserId="69" Comment="Grammar." Text="Questions on the history of the Russian language, its origin and changes it underwent through the centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6694" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="783481da-6bec-4337-9951-4853dfc7d42d" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:35:49.747" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6695" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="ff8fb241-10c4-400e-b58a-2e98ac7d70c6" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:38:00.100" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="5fe901d1-0c84-4cfe-88bf-523690437cad" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:42:09.490" UserId="242" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="*Short answer.* Yes, they are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer.* These words both are descending from the same PIE root  `reudh`, which stood for indicating something related red. I use phrase something related to red, since no one knows for sure (and, alas, no one most probably will know in future) whether this root in it first meaning indicated colour and than some additional meanings(blood, red-coloured fruits or berries etc.)  had been derived; or vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as far as I know, red is one of the few colours (if not the only one) for which we have solid evidence of common PIE origin. English words `red`, `rust`, `rusty`, Russian words `руда` (in some dialect of Old Russian this also meant &quot;blood&quot; by the way), `рыжий`, `рдеть`, `ржавый`, French word `rouge`, all of them are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The longest answer I can provide.* French is a Romance language but it's phonetics evolution was very intensive. If one would be asked to characterise this evolution in a single words, it wouldn't be too bold oversimplification to say reduction. For example, French word août (which [is pronounced just][1] `u`) actually originally had been latin &quot;augustus&quot;. Something similar had happened to Latin word `rubeus` (red, reddish), which had been transformed to modern `rouge`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for russian `рыжий` it indeed is related to `рудый` which, in turn, is related to `руда`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also one thing we always should remember almost each time when we are talking that two words in different languages are related in deep historical context: those relations are not always straightforward. It's not always that simple that there existed some word in some mother language and this word have precisely that meaning and had been derived from exactly that word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, above mentioned Latin word `rebus` claimed to be originated [from][2] `rubus` (blackberry). And `rubus` is related to `wr̥dʰo` (some plant with red flowers, presumably sweetbrier or rose, or part of this plant) Oh, by the way, almost forget to mention that `rose` is also related to `рыжий`, but, once again note directly. And `wr̥dʰo` is, once again, related to the first PIE root I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao%C3%BBt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="dd1c936d-d85a-478f-a26b-b5914dbb8591" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:53:24.407" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="*Short answer.* Yes, they are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer.* These words both are descending from the same PIE root  `reudh`, which stood for indicating something related red. I use phrase something related to red, since no one knows for sure (and, alas, no one most probably will know in future) whether this root in it first meaning indicated colour and than some additional meanings(blood, red-coloured fruits or berries etc.)  had been derived; or vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as far as I know, red is one of the few colours (if not the only one) for which we have solid evidence of common PIE origin. English words `red`, `rust`, `rusty`, Russian words `руда` (in some dialects of Old Russian this also meant &quot;blood&quot; by the way), `рыжий`, `рдеть`, `ржавый`, French word `rouge`, all of them are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The longest answer I can provide.* French is a Romance language but it's phonetics evolution was very intensive. If one would be asked to characterise this evolution in a single words, it wouldn't be too bold oversimplification to say reduction. For example, French word août (which [is pronounced just][1] `u`) actually originally had been latin &quot;augustus&quot;. Something similar had happened to Latin word `rubeus` (red, reddish), which had been transformed to modern `rouge`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for russian `рыжий` it indeed is related to `рудый` which, in turn, is related to `руда`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also one thing we always should remember almost each time when we are talking that two words in different languages are related in deep historical context: those relations are not always straightforward. It's not always that simple that there existed some word in some mother language and this word have precisely that meaning and had been derived from exactly that word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, above mentioned Latin word `rebus` claimed to be originated [from][2] `rubus` (blackberry). And `rubus` is related to `wr̥dʰo` (some plant with red flowers, presumably sweetbrier or rose, or part of this plant) Oh, by the way, almost forget to mention that `rose` is also related to `рыжий`, but, once again note directly. And `wr̥dʰo` is, once again, related to the first PIE root I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao%C3%BBt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1859" RevisionGUID="7fba2bc3-d325-4742-8872-7962c4c03bdc" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:58:33.857" UserId="69" Text="_Work in progress._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many noted that the word _отличник_ has nothing to do with the grade system, and it was indeed used before the Revolution. While corporal data from both National Corpus and Google shows the usage take off [around 1930][1], one does not have to dig deep to find pre-revolutionary examples of this word. _Толковый словарь живаго великарускаго языка_ ([Dahl’s _Explanatory Dictionary_][2], 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; ed., Volume II, 1881, [p. 761][3]) has this entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![definition of “отличник”][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to see if first edition (1863—1866) had this definition, and what other words could have been used. If I am to find more, I shall add to this post, time permitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_Dictionary_of_the_Live_Great_Russian_language&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.google.com/books?id=a-8GAAAAQAAJ&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PA761#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zs5gE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1860" RevisionGUID="4f3eaa82-7ed8-4d5c-9893-bb68384734a6" CreationDate="2013-02-03T12:33:38.903" UserId="134" Text="In Polish and Bulgarian there existed, though now obsolete, words *rydzy* and *рижд*. The latter is still used in modern Bulgarian to denote reddish-yellow color of animals (dogs and horses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at the yotation table, say, here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Изменение согласных в сочетании с j в праславянском языке][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we will see that *ж* in an East Slavic version of the word, *dz* in a West Slavic one and *жд* in a South Slavic one is a sign that the word originated in Proto-Slavic and had been a subject to yotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would give us the proto-Slavic word *&amp;#42;rydjь*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The borrowing, thus, cound not happen later than VII century if at all (after that time the Slavic families were separated too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By that time French rouge had not acquired its modern reading yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's impossible that *рыжий* is borrowed from *rouge*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%81_j_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="fe3c0d66-9351-4eae-a76f-6aab0fbcf615" CreationDate="2013-02-03T16:20:17.543" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="*Short answer.* Yes, they are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer.* These words both are descending from the same PIE root  `reudh`, which stood for indicating something related red. I use phrase something related to red, since no one knows for sure (and, alas, no one most probably will know in future) whether this root in it first meaning indicated colour and than some additional meanings(blood, red-coloured fruits or berries etc.)  had been derived; or vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as far as I know, red is one of the few colours (if not the only one) for which we have solid evidence of common PIE origin. English words `red`, `rust`, `rusty`, Russian words `руда` (in some dialects of Old Russian this also meant &quot;blood&quot; by the way), `рыжий`, `рдеть`, `ржавый`, French word `rouge`, all of them are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The longest answer I can provide.* French is a Romance language but it's phonetics evolution was very intensive. If one would be asked to characterise this evolution in a single words, it wouldn't be too bold oversimplification to say reduction. For example, French word août (which [is pronounced just][1] `u`) actually originally had been latin &quot;augustus&quot;. Something similar had happened to Latin word `rubeus` (red, reddish), which had been transformed to modern `rouge`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for russian `рыжий` it indeed is related to `рудый` which, in turn, is related to `руда`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also one thing we always should remember almost each time when we are talking that two words in different languages are related in deep historical context: those relations are not always straightforward. It's not always that simple that there existed some word in some mother language and this word have precisely that meaning and had been derived from exactly that word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, above mentioned Latin word `rubeus` claimed to be originated [from][2] `rubus` (blackberry). And `rubus` is related to `wr̥dʰo` (some plant with red flowers, presumably sweetbrier or rose, or part of this plant) Oh, by the way, almost forget to mention that `rose` is also related to `рыжий`, but, once again note directly. And `wr̥dʰo` is, once again, related to the first PIE root I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao%C3%BBt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="0496e539-8646-4467-b770-7ebc63d14d23" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:42:33.443" UserId="1262" Text="In words like доска - досочка or миска - мисочка. Can this be a result of Uralic influence? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словах наподобие доска - досочка или миска - мисочка. Может ли это быть результатом влияния уральских языков?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="0496e539-8646-4467-b770-7ebc63d14d23" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:42:33.443" UserId="1262" Text="When did the к/ч consonant alteration appear in Russian? Когда в русском языке впервые появилось чередование к/ч?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="0496e539-8646-4467-b770-7ebc63d14d23" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:42:33.443" UserId="1262" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6713" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1857" RevisionGUID="995ba9e0-575c-4887-a5ca-f6083a6769cf" CreationDate="2013-02-03T22:56:13.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/298203265470963712" />
  <row Id="6714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1863" RevisionGUID="2da23525-35f4-44e9-905b-1f071755a504" CreationDate="2013-02-04T03:49:12.457" UserId="1262" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="In words like век - вечный, урок - урочный, доска - досочка or миска - мисочка. Can this be a result of Uralic influence? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словах наподобие век - вечный, урок - урочный, доска - досочка или миска - мисочка. Может ли это быть результатом влияния уральских языков?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="70669633-49e6-4958-900f-8849e5baa9a5" CreationDate="2013-02-04T04:43:16.033" UserId="1262" Text="You may use as a closed response to an answer suggesting broader reply whenever a) you wish to emphasise that you do not wish to continue a conversation and b) the question has been asked with a reference to a subject denoting same topic - both logically and grammatically. That is, ничто is used like a form of total negation (not to be confused with a partial negation, which is expressed with ничего). Here что? is a subject-question, a form of **complete/total negation**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что заставило их совершить столько идиотских поступков?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь нравится больше всего?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что здесь оказалось полезно/полезным?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе может помешать?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with questions where что? is an object-question (accusative) requiring a genitive form of negative pronoun as an example of Finno-Ugric substratum. a mode of **partial negation**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты читаешь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что они (с)делали?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты любишь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь пригодилось? (here что? is aspectually a passive object because of reciprocal verb form)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="c9072102-f633-4e89-a397-ef186117f6b0" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:18:34.067" UserId="1262" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="You may use as a closed response to an answer suggesting broader reply whenever a) you wish to emphasise that you do not wish to continue a conversation and b) the question has been asked with a reference to a subject denoting same topic - both logically and grammatically. That is, ничто is used like a form of total negation (not to be confused with a partial negation, which is expressed with ничего). Here что? is a subject-question, a form of **complete/total negation**, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что заставило их совершить столько идиотских поступков?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь нравится больше всего?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что здесь оказалось полезно/полезным?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе может помешать?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with questions where что? is an object-question (accusative) requiring a genitive form of negative pronoun as an example of Finno-Ugric substratum. a mode of **partial negation**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты читаешь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что они (с)делали?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты любишь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь пригодилось? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="12f96f6a-db5d-4f02-87db-5fa846fa5e23" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:34:13.700" UserId="1262" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="You may use as a closed response to an answer suggesting broader reply whenever a) you wish to emphasise that you do not wish to continue a conversation and b) the question has been asked with a reference to a subject denoting same topic - both logically and grammatically. That is, ничто is used like a form of total negation (not to be confused with a partial negation, which is expressed with ничего). Here что? is a subject-question, a form of **complete/total negation**, which does not imply any existential aspect, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что заставило их совершить столько идиотских поступков?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь нравится больше всего? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что здесь оказалось полезно/полезным? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе может помешать?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with questions where что? is an object-question (accusative) requiring a genitive form of negative pronoun as an example of Finno-Ugric substratum. a mode of **partial negation**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты читаешь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что они (с)делали?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты любишь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь пригодилось? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="abc677d3-3d98-4190-9e24-125ec4e6310a" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:41:00.017" UserId="1262" Text="The case has two primary aspectual meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. possessive, e.g. &quot;Невинность мусульман&quot; (here &quot;мусульман&quot; denotes possessors) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. partitive, e.g. &quot;Не надо дураков&quot; (here 'дураков' denotes partial negation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the other aspects of Genitive in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аспектуально, у падежа есть два основных значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. притяжательно-принадлежностное, например &quot;Невинность мусульман&quot; (здесь &quot;мусульман&quot; означает обладателей) и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. парциальное, например &quot;Не надо дураков&quot; (здесь 'дураков' означает частичное отрицание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каковы другие аспекты родительного падежа в русском?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="abc677d3-3d98-4190-9e24-125ec4e6310a" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:41:00.017" UserId="1262" Text="Aspectual meaning of genitive/Аспектуальное значение генитива" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="abc677d3-3d98-4190-9e24-125ec4e6310a" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:41:00.017" UserId="1262" Text="|лингвистика|аспектология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="e10d60ef-cb0e-42ca-8a42-1e0c9f2e2c4b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T06:42:39.987" UserId="1262" Text="Читаем Иванова, &quot;Историческая грамматика русского языка&quot;: &quot;...в древнерусском языке противопоставление [ц'] и [ч1] на стыке корневой и флективной морфем могло иметь такой характер, что при помощи этого противопоставления различались разные словоформы, и поэтому неразличение [ц'] и [ч'] могло привести к развитию омонимов. Это наблюдалось, во-первых, в противопоставлении некоторых имен существительных с основой на -ц(ь) и однокорневых с ними притяжательных прилагательных на *ч(ь), исконно образованных с помощью суффикса [j] : заглць — запчь, корабльць —-корабльчь, льстьць — льстьчь, ловьць — ловьчь, отьць — отьчь, письць — письчь, пътица — пътича, старьць — старьчь, сълнь-це— сълньче, тельць — тельчь и др. Во-вторых, это обнаруживается в нескольких иных парах словоформ: куца („хижина&quot;) — куча, ниць— ничь („ничто&quot;), тьмьница—тьмьнича (прилаг. от тьмьникъ— „тысячник&quot;) и др. Известно, что притяжательные прилагательные с древним суффиксом [j] были относительно рано утрачены древнерусским языком. Что же касается второй группы противопоставленных слов, то и здесь в истории языка один член этой пары также был утрачен в развитии русского языка&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О древности чередования говорит и присутствие ц в словах &quot;цветок&quot; и &quot;звезда&quot; (ср. с польск. kwiat, gwiazda). Иванов объясняет это палатализацией заднеязычных, но в этом случае переход взрывных в свистящие после гласных переднего ряда (вторая палатализация) осуществлялся по закону гармонии гласных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как все-таки происходила палатализация и нет ли в этом финно-угорского субстрата?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage from Ivanov's Historical Grammar of Russian (1985) quoted above renders the old к/ц palatalisation subsequently becoming ц/ч. The fact of the alteration к/ц being the most old one is also confirmed by Polish cognates of kwiat and gwiazda for Russian  цветок &amp; звезда. Ivanov explains all the alterations by palatalisation of velar consonants before front vowels, yet in such a case the transition from plosives to alveolar fricatives was happening according to vowel harmony (see Ivanov : 114).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the palatalisation actually happen and was there any Finno-Ugric substratum as a driving power of the process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="e10d60ef-cb0e-42ca-8a42-1e0c9f2e2c4b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T06:42:39.987" UserId="1262" Text="к/ц becoming к/ч in Russian: chronology and reasons? Чередование к/ц и его переход в к/ч в русском: хронология и причины?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="e10d60ef-cb0e-42ca-8a42-1e0c9f2e2c4b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T06:42:39.987" UserId="1262" Text="|история-языка|slavic|фоносемантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="cd81ccdb-101a-45b9-9163-bbf3211c0653" CreationDate="2013-02-04T06:51:38.313" UserId="1262" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="You may use as a closed response to an answer suggesting broader reply whenever a) you wish to emphasise that you do not wish to continue a conversation and b) the question has been asked with a reference to a subject denoting a non-existential topic - both logically and grammatically. That is, ничто is used like a form of total negation (not to be confused with a partial negation, which is expressed with ничего), e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что заставило их совершить столько идиотских поступков? (here что? is a subject-question, a form of **complete/total negation**, which does not imply any existential aspect).&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь нравится больше всего? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что здесь оказалось полезно/полезным? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе может помешать?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with questions where что? is an object-question (accusative) requiring a genitive form of negative pronoun as an example of Finno-Ugric substratum. a mode of **partial negation**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты читаешь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что они (с)делали?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты любишь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь пригодилось? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1866" RevisionGUID="6a15e682-1f15-457b-a8ad-d94a5dba6cc9" CreationDate="2013-02-04T13:05:34.100" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="Читаем Иванова, &quot;Историческая грамматика русского языка&quot;: &quot;...в древнерусском языке противопоставление [ц'] и [ч'] на стыке корневой и флективной морфем могло иметь такой характер, что при помощи этого противопоставления различались разные словоформы, и поэтому неразличение [ц'] и [ч'] могло привести к развитию омонимов. Это наблюдалось, во-первых, в противопоставлении некоторых имен существительных с основой на -ц(ь) и однокорневых с ними притяжательных прилагательных на *ч(ь), исконно образованных с помощью суффикса [j] : заглць — запчь, корабльць —-корабльчь, льстьць — льстьчь, ловьць — ловьчь, отьць — отьчь, письць — письчь, пътица — пътича, старьць — старьчь, сълнь-це— сълньче, тельць — тельчь и др. Во-вторых, это обнаруживается в нескольких иных парах словоформ: куца („хижина&quot;) — куча, ниць— ничь („ничто&quot;), тьмьница—тьмьнича (прилаг. от тьмьникъ— „тысячник&quot;) и др. Известно, что притяжательные прилагательные с древним суффиксом [j] были относительно рано утрачены древнерусским языком. Что же касается второй группы противопоставленных слов, то и здесь в истории языка один член этой пары также был утрачен в развитии русского языка&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О древности чередования говорит и присутствие ц в словах &quot;цветок&quot; и &quot;звезда&quot; (ср. с польск. kwiat, gwiazda). Иванов объясняет это палатализацией заднеязычных, но в этом случае переход взрывных в свистящие после гласных переднего ряда (вторая палатализация) осуществлялся по закону гармонии гласных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как все-таки происходила палатализация и нет ли в этом финно-угорского субстрата?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The passage from Ivanov's Historical Grammar of Russian (1985) quoted above renders the old к/ц palatalisation subsequently becoming ц/ч. The fact of the alteration к/ц being the most old one is also confirmed by Polish cognates of kwiat and gwiazda for Russian  цветок &amp; звезда. Ivanov explains all the alterations by palatalisation of velar consonants before front vowels, yet in such a case the transition from plosives to alveolar fricatives was happening according to vowel harmony (see Ivanov : 114).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the palatalisation actually happen and was there any Finno-Ugric substratum as a driving power of the process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1864" RevisionGUID="54b4b66a-af71-4807-affb-279200f09cff" CreationDate="2013-02-04T18:45:48.983" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You may use it as a closed response to an answer suggesting broader reply whenever a) you wish to emphasise that you do not wish to continue a conversation and b) the question has been asked with a reference to a subject denoting a non-existential topic - both logically and grammatically. That is, ничто is used like a form of total negation (not to be confused with a partial negation, which is expressed with ничего), e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что заставило их совершить столько идиотских поступков? (here что? is a subject-question, a form of **complete/total negation**, which does not imply any existential aspect).&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь нравится больше всего? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что здесь оказалось полезно/полезным? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе может помешать?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. with questions where что? is an object-question (accusative) requiring a genitive form of negative pronoun as an example of Finno-Ugric substratum. a mode of **partial negation**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты читаешь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что они (с)делали?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты любишь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Что тебе здесь пригодилось? (here что? is aspectually an existetial subject and therefore an answer can  be used in genitive)&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего/ничто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1847" RevisionGUID="8ae0a31b-42b5-4196-9987-ab7025fb553c" CreationDate="2013-02-04T19:56:14.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/298520357533528064" />
  <row Id="6733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1867" RevisionGUID="e143da91-c9e8-4651-bbd0-e7ba0ed7f7db" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:18:30.267" UserId="1262" Text="***Он ревмя ревёт.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear that the phrase means an intensive and, possibly, frequentative action. But what is the grammatical meaning of the phrase? Is it a productive pattern?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понятно, что фраза означает некое интенсивное и, предположительно, фреквентативное действие. Но каково грамматическое значение фразы? Насколько продуктивна конструкция?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1867" RevisionGUID="e143da91-c9e8-4651-bbd0-e7ba0ed7f7db" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:18:30.267" UserId="1262" Text="What kind of grammatical form is this?/ Что это за грамматическая форма?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1867" RevisionGUID="e143da91-c9e8-4651-bbd0-e7ba0ed7f7db" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:18:30.267" UserId="1262" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6736" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1867" RevisionGUID="e1db128f-157b-42e7-a2ee-27239c96fc44" CreationDate="2013-02-04T22:56:13.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/298565655261753344" />
  <row Id="6737" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="b2048485-4fb0-4b30-af9d-a6cca17f3156" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:51:21.030" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="b2048485-4fb0-4b30-af9d-a6cca17f3156" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:51:21.030" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="The case has two primary meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. possessive, e.g. &quot;Невинность мусульман&quot; (here &quot;мусульман&quot; denotes possessors) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. partitive, e.g. &quot;Не надо дураков&quot; (here 'дураков' denotes partial negation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the other meanings of Genitive in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У падежа есть два основных значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. притяжательно-принадлежностное, например &quot;Невинность мусульман&quot; (здесь &quot;мусульман&quot; означает обладателей) и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. парциальное, например &quot;Не надо дураков&quot; (здесь 'дураков' означает частичное отрицание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каковы другие значения родительного падежа в русском?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6739" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="b2048485-4fb0-4b30-af9d-a6cca17f3156" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:51:21.030" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="Meaning of genitive / Значение родительного падежа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1868" RevisionGUID="ab62f0c9-9743-4606-af1c-89a08b57cd83" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:59:03.047" UserId="134" Text="*Ревмя, кричмя, лежмя* and similar are adverbs, derived from reduplicated nominalized verbs in dual instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This model is similar to *сидеть сиднем, волочь волоком*; however instead of sg. inst., du. inst. is used. The traces of this now extinct number are preserved in Russian word *двумя* (which had also influenced *тремя* and *четырьмя*), and also in Ukrainian *очима, плечима*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov, this model is quite productive due to its proximity to adverbial participles (*ревя, крича, лёжа*), even though usage of dual is not justified anymore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несомненно, что в современном языке с этими группами наречий сближаются и глагольно-именные формы на *-мя, -ма*: *ливмя, лежмя, стоймя — стойма, ревмя* и др.; ср. *плашмя.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже если видеть в суффиксе *-мя* отложение древних именных флексий двойственного числа (ср.: *двумя, тремя*), все же трудно отрицать для современного языкового сознания их морфологическую близость к наречиям типа *лежа, сидя* и т. п. Функционально же они не отделимы от фразеологических сочетаний, возникающих из творительного усиления: *есть поедом, ходить ходуном* и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все эти отглагольные группы наречий сближаются с наречиями образа действия. В них очень ощутительны качественно-обстоятельственные оттенки (ср.: *крадучись* и *украдкой*, *умеючи* и *умело* и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оттенок усиления, свойственный словам *ливмя, стоймя* и т. п., объясняется их тавтологическим или плеонастическим употреблением при словах той же основы или сходного значения (ср.: *стоном стонать, бегом бежать* и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs *плашмя, весьма, задарма* follow the similar model, though they are derived from nouns and pronouns, not nominalized verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1867" RevisionGUID="b30df786-afa3-4cf5-8e5a-119fa1fbdc77" CreationDate="2013-02-05T09:19:34.490" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1868" RevisionGUID="c5886b86-577f-4bb3-98f1-2093a42852b9" CreationDate="2013-02-05T11:01:50.567" UserId="194" Comment="typo fix" Text="*Ревмя, кричмя, лежмя* and similar are adverbs, derived from reduplicated nominalized verbs in dual instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This model is similar to *сидеть сиднем, волочь волоком*; however instead of du. inst., sg. inst. is used. The traces of this now extinct number are preserved in Russian word *двумя* (which had also influenced *тремя* and *четырьмя*), and also in Ukrainian *очима, плечима*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov, this model is quite productive due to its proximity to adverbial participles (*ревя, крича, лёжа*), even though usage of dual is not justified anymore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несомненно, что в современном языке с этими группами наречий сближаются и глагольно-именные формы на *-мя, -ма*: *ливмя, лежмя, стоймя — стойма, ревмя* и др.; ср. *плашмя.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже если видеть в суффиксе *-мя* отложение древних именных флексий двойственного числа (ср.: *двумя, тремя*), все же трудно отрицать для современного языкового сознания их морфологическую близость к наречиям типа *лежа, сидя* и т. п. Функционально же они не отделимы от фразеологических сочетаний, возникающих из творительного усиления: *есть поедом, ходить ходуном* и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все эти отглагольные группы наречий сближаются с наречиями образа действия. В них очень ощутительны качественно-обстоятельственные оттенки (ср.: *крадучись* и *украдкой*, *умеючи* и *умело* и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оттенок усиления, свойственный словам *ливмя, стоймя* и т. п., объясняется их тавтологическим или плеонастическим употреблением при словах той же основы или сходного значения (ср.: *стоном стонать, бегом бежать* и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs *плашмя, весьма, задарма* follow the similar model, though they are derived from nouns and pronouns, not nominalized verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="8a5b0c50-38ca-4037-bc3b-d3f47f3570bf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:26:07.927" UserId="1262" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="The case has two primary semantical roles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. possessive, e.g. &quot;Невинность мусульман&quot; (here &quot;мусульман&quot; denotes possessors) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. partitive, e.g. &quot;Не надо дураков&quot; (here 'дураков' denotes partial negation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the other semantical roles of Genitive in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У падежа есть две основные грамматические роли (далее - &quot;семантические аспекты&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. притяжательно-принадлежностное значение, например &quot;Невинность мусульман&quot; (здесь &quot;мусульман&quot; означает обладателей) и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. парциальное, например &quot;Не надо дураков&quot; (здесь 'дураков' означает частичное отрицание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каковы другие семантические аспекты родительного падежа в русском?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6749" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="8a5b0c50-38ca-4037-bc3b-d3f47f3570bf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:26:07.927" UserId="1262" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Semantical Role of Genitive / Значение родительного падежа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6750" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="8a5b0c50-38ca-4037-bc3b-d3f47f3570bf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:26:07.927" UserId="1262" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|лингвистика|порождающая-грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6751" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1865" RevisionGUID="1e5a21b6-13fb-4947-a384-a0919948fc09" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:57:50.410" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6755" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1854" RevisionGUID="36310f6c-c389-4efb-94e4-14e8c8db37cd" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:00:03.057" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="Are there any patterns for loanwords phonetics in Russian which are specific for a source language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1871" RevisionGUID="6d80cc70-df13-4f37-8c28-dfab31bce287" CreationDate="2013-02-06T07:45:04.390" UserId="1272" Text="Процитирую Вам Розенталя. Это не является прямым ответом на ваш вопрос, но, возможно, с Вашими познаниями в языках поможет Вам самостоятельно понять некоторые ответы, благодаря тому, что приведено множество примеров использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В родительном падеже возможны вариантные окончания в сочетаниях типа стакан чаю – стакан чая, много народу – много народа. Форма на -у(ю), с присущим ей разговорным оттенком, допускается в следующих случаях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)      у имен существительных с вещественным значением при указании на количество, т.е. для обозначения части целого, например: стакан чаю (ср.: вкус чая), килограмм сахару (ср.: сладость сахара); достать воску, керосину, клею, лаку, мелу, скипидару, тесу; купить гороху, жиру, луку, меду, перцу, рису, сыру; то же с ударным окончанием: килограмм песку, достать чесноку, прибавить кипятку, прикупить миндалю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С окончанием -у употребляются существительные, имеющие в своем составе ударный уменьшительный суффикс и ударение на окончании во всех косвенных падежах: выпить кваску, коньячку, чайку, поесть медку, сахарку, сырку, чесночку (выпить чайка, съесть сырка употребить невозможно), а также некоторые существительные с безударным уменьшительным суффиксом: выпить кефирчику, достать бензинчику;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)      у собирательных существительных с тем же количественным значением: много народу (ср.: история народа); всякого сброду понаехало;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)      у имен существительных отвлеченных, входящих в состав разговорных устойчивых сочетаний: наделать шуму, нагнать страху, наговорить вздору;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)      в некоторых фразеологических оборотах: без году неделя, без роду и племени, дать маху, добиться толку, задать перцу, конца-краю нет, много шуму из ничего, нашего полку прибыло, не до смеху, поддать жару, прибавить шагу, с глазу на глаз, с кругу спиться, с миру по нитке, сбить с толку, спору нет, только и разговору, что есть духу, упустить из виду, тридцать лет от роду, беситься с жиру, умереть с голоду, танцевать до упаду, говорить без умолку, ни разу, ни слуху ни духу, ни шагу дальше и др." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1872" RevisionGUID="05bb0b9d-31af-4f06-8f75-d657cda37978" CreationDate="2013-02-06T07:57:59.413" UserId="1272" Text="There are 19 different cases of using m-dash in russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://evartist.narod.ru/text1/42.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am almost sure that no-one, except professionals, really remembers them all :-). Your case is 80.3: missing word,  what was already said in previous comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1873" RevisionGUID="67a724c5-15cd-40c0-b8ab-ed16af3c77da" CreationDate="2013-02-06T08:43:40.190" UserId="1272" Text="http://www.kls.ksu.ru/krush/articles.php?id=6&amp;num=2000000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try this. It's a complex research of alteration in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1874" RevisionGUID="2ea6acc7-898d-4191-90d0-e387cb36209b" CreationDate="2013-02-06T09:09:37.613" UserId="134" Text="According to Vasmer and Vinogradov, *варяг* is loaned from Old Norse *&amp;#42;varingr*, &quot;a trusted one&quot;, remotely related to Russian *вера*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time, Slavic has nasalized vowels *ѧ* and *ѫ* (preserved in modern Polish as *ę* and *ą*), the former sounding similar enough to *-in-* to substitute it in loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later Old Slavic nasalized vowels turned into *a* and *у* in Russian so *&amp;#42;варѧгъ* became modern *варяг*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other Germanic loanwords following the same model: *князь &lt; &amp;#42;кънѧзь &lt; &amp;#42;kuningaz (PG)*, *витязь &lt; &amp;#42;витѧзь &lt; &amp;#42;vikingr (ON)*, *чадо &lt; &amp;#42;чѧдо &lt; &amp;#42;kind (disputed)* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Finnish, which had also loaned words *kuningas* and *ruhtinas* from Proto-Germanic, preserved the combination *-in-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fact, as well as the fact that the loss of nasalized vowels was a common Slavic process not limited to areas populated by Uralic-speaking people, argues against Uralic influence on the loss of the nasalized vowels and hence *я* in Russian *варяг*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1875" RevisionGUID="55232ba7-0568-4d1a-9230-3d2b0a19e24d" CreationDate="2013-02-06T09:22:16.050" UserId="1272" Text="I'm not sure that we can really find the sourse of the phrase. There can be dozens of theories. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Castigat ridento mores&#xD;&#xA;«Смехом бичуют нравы»&#xD;&#xA;Девиз театра комедии (Opera Comique) в Париже. Первоначально - девиз итальянской труппы комического актера Доминика (Dominico Brancolelli) в Париже, сочиненный для нее новолатинским поэтом Сантелем (XVII в.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a period in Russia when French culture (Paris theatre is a part of) was very popular (just try to start reading Война и Мир, you'll see :-), and it could easily come frome there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, just because this is not a Russian slogan, &quot;their&quot; appears, to accent that this is not russian, это их нравы, not ours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the common ironic meaning of the source transforms into irony about THEM, not us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * * &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That was just an example. It could be so, definitely before USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1876" RevisionGUID="2384c711-3321-4318-86f9-8e4f370905fa" CreationDate="2013-02-06T09:42:14.100" UserId="1272" Text="The other thing is that such transforming does change the emotional additional meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Машка is just a girl, Маха is &quot;свой парень&quot;, a good friend. (same for Антоха)&#xD;&#xA;Пожрать картошки is to fill the emptyness in the stomach, навернуть картохи is to have some great event, some gastronomic fun.&#xD;&#xA;Плаха (in first association) is a place for killing a person. Плашка is anything at all (плашка памяти DDR, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in -ха case, we show more respect than in -шка case. Showing any respect to a funny monkey is... Well, yes, everyone will understand the word Мартыха, but almost no-one really use it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1874" RevisionGUID="07090449-7d9c-4772-b1d1-ebe3090856d2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:29:33.030" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="According to Vasmer and Vinogradov, *варяг* is loaned from Old Norse *&amp;#42;varingr*, &quot;a trusted one&quot;, remotely related to Russian *вера*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time, Slavic had nasalized vowels *ѧ* and *ѫ* (preserved in modern Polish as *ę* and *ą*), the former sounding similar enough to *-in-* to substitute it in loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later Old Slavic nasalized vowels turned into *a* and *у* in Russian so *&amp;#42;варѧгъ* became modern *варяг*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other Germanic loanwords following the same model: *князь &lt; &amp;#42;кънѧзь &lt; &amp;#42;kuningaz (PG)*, *витязь &lt; &amp;#42;витѧзь &lt; &amp;#42;vikingr (ON)*, *чадо &lt; &amp;#42;чѧдо &lt; &amp;#42;kind (disputed)* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, Finnish, which had also loaned words *kuningas* and *ruhtinas* from Proto-Germanic, preserved the combination *-in-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fact, as well as the fact that the loss of nasalized vowels was a common Slavic process not limited to areas populated by Uralic-speaking people, argues against Uralic influence on the loss of the nasalized vowels and hence *я* in Russian *варяг*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1868" RevisionGUID="c7e83827-1c2d-4cfb-bdc2-c16d40721707" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:39:25.030" UserId="134" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="*Ревмя, кричмя, лежмя* and similar are adverbs, derived from reduplicated nominalized verbs in dual instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traces of this now extinct number are preserved in Russian word *двумя* (which had also influenced *тремя* and *четырьмя*), and also in Ukrainian *очима, плечима*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This model is similar to *сидеть сиднем, волочь волоком*; however instead of du. inst., sg. inst. is used in these examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov, this model is quite productive due to its proximity to adverbial participles (*ревя, крича, лёжа*), even though usage of dual is not justified anymore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несомненно, что в современном языке с этими группами наречий сближаются и глагольно-именные формы на *-мя, -ма*: *ливмя, лежмя, стоймя — стойма, ревмя* и др.; ср. *плашмя.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже если видеть в суффиксе *-мя* отложение древних именных флексий двойственного числа (ср.: *двумя, тремя*), все же трудно отрицать для современного языкового сознания их морфологическую близость к наречиям типа *лежа, сидя* и т. п. Функционально же они не отделимы от фразеологических сочетаний, возникающих из творительного усиления: *есть поедом, ходить ходуном* и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все эти отглагольные группы наречий сближаются с наречиями образа действия. В них очень ощутительны качественно-обстоятельственные оттенки (ср.: *крадучись* и *украдкой*, *умеючи* и *умело* и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оттенок усиления, свойственный словам *ливмя, стоймя* и т. п., объясняется их тавтологическим или плеонастическим употреблением при словах той же основы или сходного значения (ср.: *стоном стонать, бегом бежать* и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverbs *плашмя, весьма, задарма* follow the similar model, though they are derived from nouns and pronouns, not nominalized verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6766" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1808" RevisionGUID="114853d6-cb46-4dcc-a156-fb15f88f7637" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:56:17.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/299154552928747520" />
  <row Id="6767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="d44cd222-206a-4693-a8f7-6454ed44ab5e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:09:44.473" UserId="1262" Text="The word itself is like a standard p.pt., except that such words can be in Russian either т- or н-ending. How come that рукопожатен has both affixes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Само слово похоже на обычное причастие прошедшего времени - если не считать того факта, что в русском языке слова такого рода могут быть либо оканчивающимися на н, либо на т. Как получилось, что слово &quot;рукопожатен&quot; имеет сразу оба аффикса?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="d44cd222-206a-4693-a8f7-6454ed44ab5e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:09:44.473" UserId="1262" Text="Why рукопожатный?/ Почему говорится &quot;рукопожатный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="d44cd222-206a-4693-a8f7-6454ed44ab5e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:09:44.473" UserId="1262" Text="|история-языка|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1878" RevisionGUID="65b50b78-2c20-4a67-a30d-480a3166f95f" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:12:49.900" UserId="134" Text="*Рукопожатный* is not a participle, it's a verbal adjective (*отглагольное прилагательное*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It defines the ability of the noun defined to be an object to the verb in question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From *Русская грамматика*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  § 646. Прилагательные с суффиксом, представленным морфом `-н1` (фонемат. `|н|`; перед `|н|` беглая `|о|`) и рядом других морфов с конечной фонемой `|н|` имеют значение &quot;характеризующийся отношением к действию, названному мотивирующим словом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) &quot;являющийся объектом действия&quot;, обычно с оттенком &quot;способный стать объектом действия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 648. Все морфы этого суффикса выступают в структуре мотивированных прилагательных после согласных; при этом инф. основы мотивирующих глаголов преобразуются следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Путем наращения односложных корней на гласную: а) за счет финали `-|т1|-` в *знать - знатный (известный, знаменитый), слить - слитный, скрытный, занятный, понятный, внятный, необъятный* (везде перед морфом `-н1-`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1879" RevisionGUID="601f12c8-9513-4882-a4a2-d7657c5d7c39" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:14:36.390" UserId="1236" Text="Это не причастие, а прилагательное, поскольку образовано не от глагола, а от существительного `рукопожатие` при помощи типичного суффикса прилагательных -н-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово является неологизмом, возникшем в советской диссидентской и российской либеральной среде. Происхождение, значение, примеры употребления и производные слова [приводятся тут][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="416" RevisionGUID="86d7db78-c686-4cad-a814-6378b745e445" CreationDate="2013-02-07T00:11:23.387" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="I think &quot;про&quot; implies certain narrative or a certain concrete thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала про тебя, что ты алкоголик - I thought about you that you're a drunkard. (&quot;о&quot; is bad here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне рассказывали о тебе - I was told about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне рассказывали про тебя ужасные вещи - I was told bad things about you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also say that whеn referring to a person not introduced before, you better use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали про своих молодых людей - The girls were telling about their boyfriends (this kind of implies that you did not know about them before or at least they are not familiar to you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали о моем молодом человеке - The girls were telling about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but when there is narrative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали плохие вещи про моего молодого человека - The girls were saying bad things about my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушки рассказывали про плохое поведение моего молодого человека - The girls were telling about the bad behavior of my boyfriend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if you learn something new and concrete, you usually use &quot;про&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you love a man and just want to say that you are thinking about him and being with him, you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала о тебе - I thought about you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you thought what to do with him (or with your relations) then you would use &quot;про&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думала про тебя... Я думаю, нам лучше расстаться. - I thought about what to do with you (with our relations). I think we better part ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;о&quot; implies intimate thoughts about a person while &quot;про&quot; implies some distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думал про тебя. Я думаю, мы найдем применение твоим способностям даже не смотря на то, что других сотрудников уволят. - I thought about [what to do with] you. I think we can make use of your talents, even though other coworkers are going to be fired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думал о тебе - тебе будет нелегко после смерти матери. - I thought about you. I think it will be difficult for you after the death of your mother. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6773" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1877" RevisionGUID="6e41fbc0-ca7b-47ca-bd92-0636f467550c" CreationDate="2013-02-07T01:56:19.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/299335750728687616" />
  <row Id="6774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="4600a470-224a-4b20-912d-5ec2f28af8a6" CreationDate="2013-02-07T14:15:32.427" UserId="1053" Text="Вопрос по пунктуации. Рассмотрим короткий диалог:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так - да,&#xD;&#xA;ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно ставить тире и запятую: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так - да, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так, да - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно первый вариант нравится больше, но теоретически обосновать не могу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="4600a470-224a-4b20-912d-5ec2f28af8a6" CreationDate="2013-02-07T14:15:32.427" UserId="1053" Text="&quot;А так - да, ...&quot; или &quot;А так, да - ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="4600a470-224a-4b20-912d-5ec2f28af8a6" CreationDate="2013-02-07T14:15:32.427" UserId="1053" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="40f1cf19-7655-4ba7-ae87-51179f73a327" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:12:20.297" UserId="1422" Text="`Какая ты у меня` contrasts woman's quality to everyone else in the context of their relationship.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;The two subtle points `ты у меня` deliveres:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Demonstrates speakers perspective on the social relationship between him and the lady, he thinks of her as &quot;his woman&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Contrasts the lady to everyone else: &quot;My woman is compact as opposed to other women.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yellow Sky's states incorrectly that the expression &quot;Какая ты у меня&quot; usually leads to a compliment, which is simply not true, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня неуклюжая.&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня капризная.&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня непутевая.&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня беспокойная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the examples above still deliver the two subtle points: the relationship and possession of certain quality as contrasted to everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="3db5044b-383b-46f7-97ba-c740014f740a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:16:15.297" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Вопрос по пунктуации. Рассмотрим короткий диалог:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да,&#xD;&#xA;ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно ставить тире и запятую: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так — да, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так, да — ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно первый вариант нравится больше, но теоретически обосновать не могу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6779" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="3db5044b-383b-46f7-97ba-c740014f740a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:16:15.297" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;А так — да, ...&quot; или &quot;А так, да — ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1881" RevisionGUID="7a82cc3c-a5e9-4a66-b2d2-d6e1deecd537" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:26:26.073" UserId="1422" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="`Какая ты у меня` contrasts woman's quality to everyone else in the context of their relationship.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;The two subtle points `ты у меня` delivers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Demonstrates speakers perspective on the social relationship between him and the lady, he thinks of her as &quot;his woman&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Contrasts the lady to everyone else: &quot;You, my lady, is compact as opposed to other ladies.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yellow Sky states incorrectly that the expression &quot;Какая ты у меня&quot; usually leads to a compliment, which is simply not true, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня неуклюжая.&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня капризная.&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня непутевая.&#xD;&#xA;  - Какая ты у меня беспокойная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the examples above still deliver the two subtle points: the relationship and possession of certain quality as contrasted to everyone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="dfc05f78-b4f6-4bf3-8541-709f40525c1a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T18:26:35.177" UserId="1053" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Вопрос по пунктуации. Рассмотрим короткий диалог:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да,&#xD;&#xA;ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно ставить тире и запятую: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так — да, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так, да — ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И почему? Интересно именно обосновать теоретически.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно первый вариант нравится больше, но обосновать не могу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1882" RevisionGUID="eb478238-b7f3-428d-b017-d236bb81ef61" CreationDate="2013-02-07T19:13:39.170" UserId="1262" Text="Вообще не должно быть ни тире, ни, тем более, дефиса. Только многоточие." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1882" RevisionGUID="2088e552-90eb-4af5-9931-3d27a0265dce" CreationDate="2013-02-07T19:25:44.873" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1031 characters in body" Text="Вообще не должно быть ни тире, ни, тем более, дефиса. Только многоточие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 185. Многоточие ставится для обозначения незаконченности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высказывания, причем знаки вопросительный и восклицательный, если они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; требуются характером предложения, сохраняются перед многоточием,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Простите, государь!.. Стоять я не могу... Мои колени слабеют...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Душно... Душно... Где ключи? Ключи, ключи мои!..&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Пушкин&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Не правда ль, ты одна?.. Ты плачешь? Я спокоен... Но если...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Пушкин&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Не мешает сделать замечание, что Манилова... но, признаюсь, о дамах я очень боюсь говорить, да притом мне пора возвратиться к нашим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; героям.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Гоголь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 186. Многоточие ставится для обозначения заминок в речи, в том числе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и внутри слова, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Мама, ты не входи ко мне, а только подойди к двери. Вот что... Третьего дня я заразился в больнице дифтеритом и теперь... мне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нехорошо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Чехов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     ...Ва... ва... ва... ваше превосходительство, – шептал Попов.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     А. К. Толстой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=mnogo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6785" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="8e963220-521c-4a1e-bc1b-8e44546f03b0" CreationDate="2013-02-08T07:56:18.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/299788733375463424" />
  <row Id="6812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1888" RevisionGUID="5d04366a-24fc-4c5e-82af-9cce523b41f5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T13:24:43.550" UserId="1426" Text="Очеловечиться - вообще так нельзя говорить. Только в разговорном языке. Означает обрести культуру, начать выполнять принятые обычаи, отказаться от наркотической или алкогольной зависимости, раскаяться в злодеяниях.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6813" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1797" RevisionGUID="6c8b3bd6-202e-4af3-bd0e-c0d7b503a664" CreationDate="2013-02-08T13:56:18.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/299879331008761856" />
  <row Id="6814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1889" RevisionGUID="31c54406-11a4-4350-8c4c-6d35edc631f3" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:24:13.433" UserId="1428" Text="You are a quite right. But &quot;Borscht&quot; is Ukrainian national soup that is popular in many Eastern countries and especially in Ukraine and Russia. One of its main ingredients in the past was Heracleum(in Ukrainian its name is &quot;борщівник(borschtshyivnyk)&quot; or just &quot;борщ(borshth&quot;). So &quot;переборщить&quot; means put a little bit more parts of Heracleum(борщ) that it's necessary into Ukrainian soup Borshcht . When Borscht and the word &quot;переборщить&quot; came into Moscow Country the word &quot;переборщить&quot; became to be used in meaning &quot;do it a little bit wrong&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracleum_(plant)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borscht" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="3b0a6d18-6fc8-4d24-b78a-6cab99c18e99" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:54:26.623" UserId="194" Text="Откуда пошло выражение &quot;ежу понятно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="3b0a6d18-6fc8-4d24-b78a-6cab99c18e99" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:54:26.623" UserId="194" Text="Etymology of &quot;ежу понятно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="3b0a6d18-6fc8-4d24-b78a-6cab99c18e99" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:54:26.623" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1891" RevisionGUID="a4f9fd4f-99d8-420d-96f4-ef728776499d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T22:20:47.947" UserId="1236" Text="Это цитата из стихотворения В. В. Маяковского «Сказка о Пете, толстом ребенке, и о Симе, который тонкий» (1925): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ясно даже и ежу —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этот Петя был буржуй.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Строки Маяковского настолько врезались в память каждому, кто прочел их в детстве, что, по статистике Google, в 1190 случаях говорящие употребляют это выражение именно в его исходной форме (ясно даже и ежу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть и другая версия, в СССР существовала сеть интернатов для одаренных детей — например, физ.-мат. интернаты (Москва, Новосибирск, Санкт-Петербург, Киев…). В них набирали подростков, которым осталось учиться два года (классы А, Б, В, Г, Д, Е) или один год (классы **Е, Ж, И**). Учеников одногодичного потока так и называли — &quot;ежи&quot;, между ними и учениками двухгодичного потока всегда существовали трения и конкуренция. За год обучения в интернате по нестандартной программе ученик двухгодичного потока сильно опережал только что поступивших в интернат &quot;ежей&quot;, поэтому в начале учебного года выражение &quot;ежу понятно&quot; было очень актуально.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Взято [отсюда][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramma.ru/RUS/?id=14.77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="eda93c46-df7f-41f0-8847-5fa981aab938" CreationDate="2013-02-08T22:56:18.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/300015226663866368" />
  <row Id="6821" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1678" RevisionGUID="476b4345-bc9b-4d20-b73d-905d348e5781" CreationDate="2013-02-09T01:56:18.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/300060524157231104" />
  <row Id="6822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1892" RevisionGUID="f46bf4ab-18d4-4e89-987a-bcd6ce4171d2" CreationDate="2013-02-09T06:43:28.507" UserId="1429" Text="&quot;А так - да...&quot; - это простонародный вариант &quot;А в этом случае - да, ...(и расшифровка - как должны обстоять дела)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Думаю, тут подойдет вариант постановки тире, когда &quot;вторая часть содержит следствие, результат, вывод из того, о чем говорится в первой&quot;, а вообще возможностей поставить тире очень много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кто не понял, многоточие автор вопроса употребил, чтобы показать, что у предложения есть продолжение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="cab609bb-6df2-4e2c-939f-2641d2a3c263" CreationDate="2013-02-09T08:52:58.163" UserId="1053" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Вопрос по пунктуации. Рассмотрим короткий диалог:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да,&#xD;&#xA;ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно ставить тире и запятую: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так — да, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так, да — ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И почему? Интересно именно обосновать теоретически.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно первый вариант нравится больше, но обосновать не могу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Точнее, даже так: второй вариант мне кажется явно неправильным, но обосновать это у меня не получается. Буду признателен, если кто-то поможет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="9eb98105-218c-424a-b216-0a8abd82286d" CreationDate="2013-02-09T08:58:26.273" UserId="1053" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Вопрос по пунктуации. Рассмотрим короткий диалог:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да,&#xD;&#xA;ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно ставить тире и запятую: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так — да, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так, да — ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И почему? Интересно именно обосновать теоретически.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно первый вариант нравится больше, но обосновать не могу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Точнее, даже так: второй вариант мне кажется явно неправильным, но обосновать это у меня не получается. Буду признателен, если кто-то поможет разобраться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="c567a623-7036-42e6-8224-e494e486029f" CreationDate="2013-02-09T09:43:19.907" UserId="33" Text="Задание из учебника по русскому языку для 3-го класса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Укажи слово, в котором 8 букв и 9 звуков:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. волшебник,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. животное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. фантазия,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. экспресс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое и последнее сразу отпадают. Остаются 2 и 3, и оба подходят, так как последняя гласная в обоих случаях передает два звука:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - е = йэ&#xD;&#xA; - я = йа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но должен быть только один *правильный* ответ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="c567a623-7036-42e6-8224-e494e486029f" CreationDate="2013-02-09T09:43:19.907" UserId="33" Text="Слово, в котором 8 букв и 9 звуков" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="c567a623-7036-42e6-8224-e494e486029f" CreationDate="2013-02-09T09:43:19.907" UserId="33" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1894" RevisionGUID="e4ae7aaa-ed66-4068-82b3-d2e8fab7145a" CreationDate="2013-02-09T11:17:12.823" UserId="185" Text="Как правильно сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*На скольких человек заказывать пиццу* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*На сколько человек заказывать пиццу*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1894" RevisionGUID="e4ae7aaa-ed66-4068-82b3-d2e8fab7145a" CreationDate="2013-02-09T11:17:12.823" UserId="185" Text="Склоняется ли &quot;сколько&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1894" RevisionGUID="e4ae7aaa-ed66-4068-82b3-d2e8fab7145a" CreationDate="2013-02-09T11:17:12.823" UserId="185" Text="|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1895" RevisionGUID="ea9aa2d4-cbe3-4270-94df-ffc4546fe2d7" CreationDate="2013-02-09T12:04:34.593" UserId="1236" Text="Склоняется. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Им.**  `сколько`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Род.** `скольких` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дат.** `скольким`, `(по) скольку`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тв.**  `сколькими`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пр.**  `скольких`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вин. одуш.** `скольких`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Вин. неодуш.** `сколько` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Местоимение `сколько` склоняется по типу прилагательных с основой на мягкий согласный. К особенностям склонения относится то, что в именительном и винительном падежах оно, подобно именам числительным, управляет падежом, т.е. требует после себя определенного падежа, а именно род. п. мн. ч., например: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько окон в доме?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Употребляясь в остальных падежах, это местоимение, как имена прилагательные, согласуется с существительным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Взято [отсюда][1], там же есть и мнемоническое стихотворение для запоминания падежных форм этого слова и места ударения в них (ударение всегда на корне, не на окончании).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://spelling.siteedit.ru/skolko" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6832" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1647" RevisionGUID="c398d317-154f-415d-86e2-7ed281b39ab7" CreationDate="2013-02-09T19:17:09.053" UserId="-1" Comment="33" />
  <row Id="6833" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="e02d5f51-13c4-4e30-a114-9ed2f7ddb6d9" CreationDate="2013-02-09T19:20:15.390" UserId="1053" Comment="34" />
  <row Id="6834" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1894" RevisionGUID="469a93aa-bbcb-4c7a-ad8b-2e04554f9c21" CreationDate="2013-02-09T19:56:19.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian" />
  <row Id="6835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1896" RevisionGUID="065822da-5f8e-4880-9525-4ac84140c7f7" CreationDate="2013-02-09T21:18:29.040" UserId="185" Text="Краткий ответ: в вашем примере верно поставить тире, а не запятую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь я попробую объяснить, почему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш пример содержит *эллипсис*, то есть пропуск одного или нескольких элементов в предложении, которые восстанавливаются по контексту. Это явление с трудом может быть описано в рамках грамматики зависимостей (примерно то, чему учат в русских школах) или грамматики составляющих (примерно то, о чем писал Хомский), и я могу лишь на пальцах объяснить, что здесь происходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассмотрим пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да, ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере есть вопрос и ответ. Ответ состоит из двух предложений с одинаковой структурой, но во втором предложении опущено сказуемое и подлежащее. Оба предложения состоят из трёх частей, первая - это обстоятельство времени, уточняющее, к какому периоду времени относится трансляция (*сегодня*), вторая часть - это сказуемое и подлежащее (*будет трансляция*), и третья часть - обстоятельство места, отвечающее на вопрос, в каком месте будет проходить трансляция (*в первом зале*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, во втором предложении обстоятельство места заменено целым новым предложением, которое не описывает место проведения трансляций, а дает указание насчет того, где эту информацию можно найти - в анонсах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второе предложение с трудом укладывается в рамки письменной речи, для которой, собственно, и созданы правила пунктуции, но тем не менее есть правило, которое в данном случае подходит лучше всего. [Вот оно в справочнике Розенталя](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxi.html#sect80.1). Коротко говоря, правило сводится к тому, что эллиптические предложения содержат тире вместо пропущенной части. Поэтому в вашем примере вместо подлежащего и сказуемого *трансляция будет* должно стоять тире." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="7c0ce7d3-abd0-47c7-9944-c0728180679e" CreationDate="2013-02-10T03:25:40.193" UserId="5" Text="What is the most offensive word in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="7c0ce7d3-abd0-47c7-9944-c0728180679e" CreationDate="2013-02-10T03:25:40.193" UserId="5" Text="what is the most offensive word in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="7c0ce7d3-abd0-47c7-9944-c0728180679e" CreationDate="2013-02-10T03:25:40.193" UserId="5" Text="|most-offensive-words|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1899" RevisionGUID="c21b00db-6d84-4779-a5dd-f7bad6c4c227" CreationDate="2013-02-10T07:19:40.853" UserId="69" Text="Minding the comment I had left to the question, I can give a simple generic answer (provided sensitive women and children had left the room): the most offensive words would those describing such tabooed things like the sex organs, and the sex act itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the first category the most offensive forms would be _хуй_ (penis) and _пизда_ (vagina), with former being so offensive that even its euphemism — _хер_ (from the name of Old-Russian letter _хѣръ_ which is [today’s _ха_][1] — basically an “Х-word”) — nowadays is just slightly less offensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the second it would be the verb _ебать_ which means “to fuck” which is contraction of “to fuck your mother” meaning, in a sense, “How dare you argue with me? I’ve had an intercourse with your mother, and for all we know, you well may be my son, so behave accordingly!”. That explanation is culturally universal, really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kha_%28Cyrillic%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="3df0946a-d384-4adc-b86f-e2be49bdad4a" CreationDate="2013-02-10T07:21:35.863" UserId="1053" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Вопрос по пунктуации. Рассмотрим короткий диалог:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да,&#xD;&#xA;ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно ставить тире и запятую: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так — да, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так, да — ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И почему? Интересно именно обосновать теоретически.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно первый вариант нравится больше, но обосновать не могу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Точнее, даже так: второй вариант мне кажется явно неправильным, но обосновать это у меня не получается. Буду признателен, если кто-то поможет разобраться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1896" RevisionGUID="d46068b7-bd88-458c-b9c3-3b2fd151a57f" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:00:41.550" UserId="185" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="Краткий ответ: в вашем примере верно поставить тире, а не запятую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь я попробую объяснить, почему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш пример содержит *эллипсис*, то есть пропуск одного или нескольких элементов в предложении, которые восстанавливаются по контексту. Это явление с трудом может быть описано в рамках грамматики зависимостей (примерно то, чему учат в русских школах) или грамматики составляющих (примерно то, о чем писал Хомский), и я могу лишь на пальцах объяснить, что здесь происходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассмотрим пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да, ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере есть вопрос и ответ. Ответ состоит из двух предложений с одинаковой структурой, но во втором предложении опущено сказуемое и подлежащее. Оба предложения состоят из трёх частей, первая - это обстоятельство времени, уточняющее, к какому периоду времени относится трансляция (*сегодня*), вторая часть - это сказуемое и подлежащее (*будет трансляция*), и третья часть - обстоятельство места, отвечающее на вопрос, в каком месте будет проходить трансляция (*в первом зале*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, во втором предложении обстоятельство места заменено целым новым предложением, которое не описывает место проведения трансляций, а дает указание насчет того, где эту информацию можно найти - в анонсах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второе предложение с трудом укладывается в рамки письменной речи, для которой, собственно, и созданы правила пунктуции, но тем не менее есть правило, которое в данном случае подходит лучше всего. [Вот оно в справочнике Розенталя](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxi.html#sect80.1). Коротко говоря, правило сводится к тому, что эллиптические предложения содержат тире вместо пропущенной части. Поэтому в вашем примере вместо подлежащего и сказуемого *трансляция будет* должно стоять тире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь насчет запятой. Почему верно поставить запятую после *да*? В примере фраза *да, ориентируйтесь на анонсы* является не только заменителем обстоятельства места, но еще и ответом на вопрос. Поэтому я считаю, что *да* и *ориентируйтесь на анонсы* составляют единое предложение. [Согласно этому правилу](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxvi.html#sect103), *да* должно быть отделено запятой, если оно входит в состав большего предложения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="70e15320-f1e7-49c1-9c77-5b480e51f43e" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:02:00.587" UserId="47" Text="I am not certain how to decline it. Wikipedia has no problem with that, and declines all three words independently: `в Северном Рейне-Вестфалии`. However, intuitively `Рейн-Вестфалия` seems to be a composite noun. Due to this, I believe I've heard in use `Северная Рейн-Вестфалия`, `в Северной Рейн-Вестфалии`, which is probably wrong. So, are there any clear rules for this case? If possible, please give other examples of such combinations.d" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="70e15320-f1e7-49c1-9c77-5b480e51f43e" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:02:00.587" UserId="47" Text="How to decline North Rhein-Westphalia (Северный Рейн-Вестфалия)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="70e15320-f1e7-49c1-9c77-5b480e51f43e" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:02:00.587" UserId="47" Text="|склонение|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1896" RevisionGUID="2bfc80f2-3506-4f5b-986c-2300946e104d" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:09:40.757" UserId="185" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="Краткий ответ: в вашем примере верно поставить тире, а не запятую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь я попробую объяснить, почему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш пример содержит *эллипсис*, то есть пропуск одного или нескольких элементов в предложении, которые восстанавливаются по контексту. Это явление с трудом может быть описано в рамках грамматики зависимостей (примерно то, чему учат в русских школах) или грамматики составляющих (примерно то, о чем писал Хомский), и я могу лишь на пальцах объяснить, что здесь происходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассмотрим пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Сегодня будет трансляция в первом зале. А так — да, ориентируйтесь на анонсы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере есть вопрос и ответ. Ответ состоит из двух предложений с одинаковой структурой, но во втором предложении опущено сказуемое и подлежащее. Оба предложения состоят из трёх частей, первая - это обстоятельство времени, уточняющее, к какому периоду времени относится трансляция (*сегодня*), вторая часть - это сказуемое и подлежащее (*будет трансляция*), и третья часть - обстоятельство места, отвечающее на вопрос, в каком месте будет проходить трансляция (*в первом зале*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, во втором предложении обстоятельство места заменено целым новым предложением, которое не описывает место проведения трансляций, а дает указание насчет того, где эту информацию можно найти - в анонсах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно также подчеркнуть, что порядок компонетов в обоих предложениях одинаков: сначала идет обстоятельство времени, потом сказуемое и подлежащее, а в конце - обстоятельство места.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второе предложение с трудом укладывается в рамки письменной речи, для которой, собственно, и созданы правила пунктуции, но тем не менее есть правило, которое в данном случае подходит лучше всего. [Вот оно в справочнике Розенталя](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxi.html#sect80.1). Коротко говоря, правило сводится к тому, что эллиптические предложения содержат тире вместо пропущенной части. Поэтому в вашем примере вместо подлежащего и сказуемого *трансляция будет* должно стоять тире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь насчет запятой. Почему верно поставить запятую после *да*? В примере фраза *да, ориентируйтесь на анонсы* является не только заменителем обстоятельства места, но еще и ответом на вопрос *Впредь нужно ориентироваться на анонсы трансляций?*. Здесь *ориентируйтесь на ананосы* -- это более развернутый ответ, раскрывающий смысл *да*. Поэтому я считаю, что *да* и *ориентируйтесь на анонсы* составляют единое предложение. [Согласно этому правилу](http://rosental.virtbox.ru/punct_xxvi.html#sect103), *да* должно быть отделено запятой, если оно входит в состав большего предложения.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6849" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="093aacb3-b7cb-4fb8-8d3c-d6f1285bf8af" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:10:23.067" UserId="71" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6850" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="554c8031-3d97-40e0-b3f4-21a112f0aa5c" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:13:50.290" UserId="71" Comment="edited tags" Text="|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="2da0a12e-b6f5-498b-a420-b1bb743a3530" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:16:05.377" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I am not certain how to decline it. Wikipedia has no problem with that, and declines all three words independently: **в Северном Рейне-Вестфалии**. However, intuitively *Рейн-Вестфалия* seems to be a composite noun. Due to this, I believe I've heard in use *Северная Рейн-Вестфалия*, *в Северной Рейн-Вестфалии*, which is probably wrong. So, are there any clear rules for this case? If possible, please give other examples of such combinations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1901" RevisionGUID="313dd67b-bce5-4f7b-b05a-3366c613a6cf" CreationDate="2013-02-10T11:20:02.353" UserId="1236" Text="The name of this land contains not a hyphen, but [a long dash](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%D1%E5%E2%E5%F0%ED%FB%E9+%D0%E5%E9%ED-%C2%E5%F1%F2%F4%E0%EB%E8%FF), that's why it's not a composite noun. The land was formed by merging Westfalen (Вестфалия) and the nothern part of Rheinprovinz (Рейнская провинция), so it consists of 2 parts, Северный Рейн *and* Вестфалия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One should [decline all the 3 words](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%C6%E8%F2%E5%EB%FC+%D1%E5%E2%E5%F0%ED%EE%E3%EE+%D0%E5%E9%ED-%C2%E5%F1%F2%F4%E0%EB%E8%E8) in the name of this land:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Им.**  `Северный Рейн – Вестфалия`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Род.** `Северного Рейна – Вестфалии` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дат.** `Северному Рейну – Вестфалии`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тв.**  `Северным Рейном – Вестфалией`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пр.**  `Северном Рейне – Вестфалии`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вин.** `Северный Рейн – Вестфалию`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why, the correct form is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Северном Рейне – Вестфалии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из Северного Рейна – Вестфалии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if one does not want to decline the 3 words, one can use the generic name, `земля` (land), before it, then only the word `земля` is declined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В земле Северный Рейн – Вестфалия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из земли Северный Рейн – Вестфалия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is this last way of saying it, with the word `земля`, that is used most often in Russian texts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="276c556e-582b-4430-a933-b97fed23ab25" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:02:10.197" UserId="170" Text="What would be the best word to describe what a педант does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following list there are some people along with the things normally do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мазохист занимается мазохизмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Казуист занимается казуистикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Альпинист занимается альпиизмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пацифист занимается пацифизмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ростовщик занимается ростовщичеством.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бизмесмен занимается бизнесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Педант занимается ... ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="276c556e-582b-4430-a933-b97fed23ab25" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:02:10.197" UserId="170" Text="Best word to describe what a педант does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="276c556e-582b-4430-a933-b97fed23ab25" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:02:10.197" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="0640bbb2-938b-4bba-a30e-350da9e58f2a" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:30:57.317" UserId="1433" Text="    Педант занимается педантством.  &#xD;&#xA;Means nit-picking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="9542f52c-3947-4083-988d-e47a628f4e87" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:31:07.580" UserId="1236" Text="&gt;Педант *предаётся* педантизму, точности, аккуратности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Педант *практикует* педантизм, точность, аккуратность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нельзя использовать здесь слово `занимается`, поскольку педант - это не занятие, не профессия, не род деятельности, педанты не объединяются в клубы, цеха, гильдии, это склад характера, особенность личности, склонность. Невозможно заниматься педантизмом, это всё равно, что сказать, что неряха занимается неряшливостью, или честный человек занимается честностью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1903" RevisionGUID="d73e01be-1f60-45dc-b333-3f2b3f38a7b9" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:40:26.917" UserId="1433" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="    Педант педантствует.  &#xD;&#xA;Means nit-picking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1904" RevisionGUID="e4e8a4d4-3237-415e-a96e-f59e5ef2c7df" CreationDate="2013-02-10T13:45:13.903" UserId="1236" Comment="added 364 characters in body" Text="&gt;Педант *предаётся* педантизму, точности, аккуратности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Педант *практикует* педантизм, точность, аккуратность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нельзя использовать здесь слово `занимается`, поскольку педант - это не занятие, не профессия, не род деятельности, педанты не объединяются в клубы, цеха, гильдии, это склад характера, особенность личности, склонность. Невозможно заниматься педантизмом, это всё равно, что сказать, что неряха занимается неряшливостью, или честный человек занимается честностью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use the word `занимается` here, because a pedant is not a profession, not a trade, not an occupation, pedants do not have their clubs, guilds, it is a character trend, a peculiarity of personality, a tendency. It is impossible to be engaged in pedantry, it is like saying that a slob is engaged in sloppiness, or an honest man is engaged in honesty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="de57b8f4-33de-4192-b268-5a6688e01a29" CreationDate="2013-02-10T14:48:03.360" UserId="71" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="What would be the best word to describe what a педант does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following list there are some people along with the things normally do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мазохист занимается мазохизмом.  &#xD;&#xA;Казуист занимается казуистикой.  &#xD;&#xA;Альпинист занимается альпиизмом.  &#xD;&#xA;Пацифист занимается пацифизмом.  &#xD;&#xA;Ростовщик занимается ростовщичеством.  &#xD;&#xA;Бизмесмен занимается бизнесом.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Педант занимается ... ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6862" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1880" RevisionGUID="ae566b46-58be-4ad3-9615-02d395c42f37" CreationDate="2013-02-10T20:56:33.117" UserId="1053" Comment="34" />
  <row Id="6863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="43372d0c-8812-414e-aae3-bbd270f21557" CreationDate="2013-02-10T23:00:37.980" UserId="1329" Text="I am studying informatics in the Czech Republic and recently have noticed that when I talk to Russian programmers, I tend to mispronounce widely known words (famous site names,abbreviations, language names). &#xD;&#xA;So I would be grateful to anyone who could provide me with a relatively long list of phonetical conventions in Russian IT diaspora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  https://github.com - **[гитхуп]** or **[гифап]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  PHP - **[пэхапэ]** or **[п'иэй'ч'п'и]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  Java - **[джава]** or **[й'ава]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  C  - **[c'и]** or **[цэ]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  Bash - **[бэш]**  or **[баш]**&#xD;&#xA; -  VHDL  - **[вэхадээл]** or  **[в'иэйч'д'иэл']**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="43372d0c-8812-414e-aae3-bbd270f21557" CreationDate="2013-02-10T23:00:37.980" UserId="1329" Text="Pronunciation of foreign IT abbreviations / languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="43372d0c-8812-414e-aae3-bbd270f21557" CreationDate="2013-02-10T23:00:37.980" UserId="1329" Text="|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="f11d4c20-b18e-4d85-97c0-b6bab1c875ae" CreationDate="2013-02-10T23:07:55.063" UserId="1329" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronounciation of foreign IT abbreviations / languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6867" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="f11d4c20-b18e-4d85-97c0-b6bab1c875ae" CreationDate="2013-02-10T23:07:55.063" UserId="1329" Comment="edited title" Text="|информатика|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="ebd04bdf-1260-463e-8075-11fe50cabb22" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:36:16.167" UserId="1329" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am studying informatics in the Czech Republic and recently have noticed that when I talk to Russian programmers, I tend to mispronounce widely known words (famous site names,abbreviations, language names). &#xD;&#xA;So I would be grateful to anyone who could provide me with a relatively long list of phonetical conventions in Russian IT diaspora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  https://github.com - **[г'итхуп]** or **[г'ифап]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  PHP - **[пэхапэ]** or **[п'иэй'ч'п'и]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  Java - **[джава]** or **[й'ава]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  C  - **[c'и]** or **[цэ]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  Bash - **[бэш]**  or **[баш]**&#xD;&#xA; -  VHDL  - **[вэхадээл]** or  **[в'иэй'ч'д'иэл']**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="ebd04bdf-1260-463e-8075-11fe50cabb22" CreationDate="2013-02-11T00:36:16.167" UserId="1329" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Pronunciation of foreign IT abbreviations / languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1906" RevisionGUID="641a8b1d-8403-433d-a85a-eb423a2a50ee" CreationDate="2013-02-11T02:55:19.260" UserId="1027" Text=" - github.com - [гит'хап] &#xD;&#xA; - PHP - [пэхэпэ] and also [пи эйч пи] &#xD;&#xA; - Java - [джава]  &#xD;&#xA; - C - [c'и]  &#xD;&#xA; - Bash - [б'аш]  &#xD;&#xA; - VHDL - [в'иэй'ч'д'иэл']  &#xD;&#xA; - HTML - [хэ тэ мэ эл'] and also [эйч ти эм эл']  &#xD;&#xA; - CSS - [цэ эс эс] and also  [си эс эс] &#xD;&#xA; - CMS - [цэ мэ эс] and also [си эм эс]  &#xD;&#xA; - Python - [пи'тон]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these terms are colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1907" RevisionGUID="0034f3a2-008a-4bf8-b832-df25974157cc" CreationDate="2013-02-11T02:57:05.083" UserId="1433" Text="Unreal. I believe 90% of Ru IT community will be glad *to know* how to spell those words correctly and if they do spell good enough now. There are too many unofficial variants to cover.   &#xD;&#xA;More examples:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - www: [3цэ], [вэ-вэ-вэ], [цэ-цэ-цэ], [дабл'ю-дабл'ю-дабл'ю];&#xD;&#xA; - Mysql: [май-эс-кью-эл], [май-сиквел], [мускул], [мускуль], [мАйсикл];  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All those are ~correct and depend only on local rules. Usually you can't be sure will you match or not even if you use well known spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1906" RevisionGUID="d37f6b6d-3d56-4d38-a842-63e473a5214d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T03:02:30.003" UserId="1027" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text=" - github.com - [гит'хап] &#xD;&#xA; - PHP - [пэхэпэ] and also [пи эйч пи] &#xD;&#xA; - Java - [джава]  &#xD;&#xA; - C - [c'и]  &#xD;&#xA; - Bash - [б'аш]  &#xD;&#xA; - VHDL - [в'иэй'ч'д'иэл']  &#xD;&#xA; - HTML - [хэ тэ мэ эл'] and also [эйч ти эм эл']  &#xD;&#xA; - CSS - [цэ эс эс] and also  [си эс эс] &#xD;&#xA; - CMS - [цэ мэ эс] and also [си эм эс]  &#xD;&#xA; - Python - [пи'тон]&#xD;&#xA; - IT - [и тэ] and also [ай ти]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these terms are colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="f35aa831-0d47-4d70-a186-3fdb9c2e40fb" CreationDate="2013-02-11T07:30:59.553" UserId="69" Text="Couple additions to what already had been mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- WWW sometimes referred to as _цэ-цэ-цэ_ because it is a simple mistake one can make when forgetting to switch keyboard layout. Standard QWERTY layout corresponds to standard Russian ЙЦУКЕН, and there when one tries to use &lt;kbd&gt;W&lt;/kbd&gt; key, the letter _Ц_ appears.&#xD;&#xA;- CMS, as “Content Management Systems” sometimes translated to “_Система управления контентом (содержанием)_”, and as such abbreviated as _СУКа_, and declined accordingly. It is done in a humorous way, precisely for [the reasons][1] that Wikipedia article mentions. It may not be very common, but I had seen, and adopted it from some known site or author in RuNet. I could try and find a source, if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BC#cite_note-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="15cefd40-c314-47c4-9600-455c583401a6" CreationDate="2013-02-11T07:36:38.817" UserId="69" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Couple additions to what already had been mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- WWW sometimes referred to as _цэ-цэ-цэ_ because it is a simple mistake one can make when forgetting to switch keyboard layout. Standard QWERTY layout corresponds to standard Russian ЙЦУКЕН, and there when one tries to use &lt;kbd&gt;W&lt;/kbd&gt; key, the letter _Ц_ appears.&#xD;&#xA;- CMS, as “Content Management System” sometimes translated to “_Система управления контентом (содержанием)_”, and as such abbreviated as _СУКа_, and declined accordingly. It is done in a humorous way, precisely for [the reasons][1] that Wikipedia article mentions. It may not be very common, but I had seen, and adopted it from some known site or author in RuNet (possibly, via [Spectator][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BC#cite_note-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spectator.ru/entry/821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="488c01e3-5739-40ac-b34d-2627ddaeb712" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:08:06.443" UserId="69" Comment="Added some more." Text="Couple additions to what already had been mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most technical abbreviations can be understood if either phonetically copied from their English reading (_e.g._, for HTML it would be _эйч-ти-эм-эл_), transliterated into respective Russian letters (_e.g. ха-тэ-эм-эл_, with variations such as _ха_ / _хэ_, _эм_ / _мэ_ and so forth), or voiced in Latin letter names (_аш-тэ-эм-эль_) just as customary in sciences, like chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;- For brand names, again, either phonetic calque (_Джава_ for Java, _Майкрософт_ for Microsoft, _Эпл_ for Apple, or, with slight modifications, such as _пайтон_ for Python), Russian equivalent for words (_Питон_, _Яблоко_), or phonetic transliteration (_Микрософт_).&#xD;&#xA;- Some brand names may have slang versions, such as _Мелкомягк(ое, ие…)_ for Microsoft (a bit disdainful), or _красная шапочка_ for Red Hat Linux.&#xD;&#xA;- WWW sometimes referred to as _цэ-цэ-цэ_ because it is a simple mistake one can make when forgetting to switch keyboard layout. Standard QWERTY layout corresponds to standard Russian ЙЦУКЕН, and there when one tries to use &lt;kbd&gt;W&lt;/kbd&gt; key, the letter _Ц_ appears.&#xD;&#xA;- CMS, as “Content Management System” sometimes translated to “_Система управления контентом (содержанием)_”, and thus abbreviated as _СУКа_, and declined accordingly. It is done in a humorous way, precisely for [the reasons][1] that Wikipedia article mentions. It may not be very common, but I had seen, and adopted it from some known site or author in RuNet (possibly, via [Spectator][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BC#cite_note-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spectator.ru/entry/821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1909" RevisionGUID="31bc7d30-f1ca-42b0-bdd8-d84fdc316415" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:11:41.780" UserId="1376" Text="I want to extend Masha's answer with what I use/see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- github - [жит'хап]&#xD;&#xA;- PHP - [по-ха-пэ]&#xD;&#xA;- Java - [жава], [ява], [жаба]&#xD;&#xA;- C++ - [си плюс плюс], [си пэ пэ]&#xD;&#xA;- MySQL - [май-эс-ку-эль]&#xD;&#xA;- DHCP - [дэ-хэ-цэ-пэ], [ди-аш-си-пи]&#xD;&#xA;- DNS - [дэ-эн-эс]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these terms are colloquial, some of them are humorous and some are correct (i.e. follow [rules of transcription](http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And @revoua is right: you can't be sure will you match or not even if you use well known spelling because it depends only on local rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="fc83dda7-ef53-4c9a-acbf-0915348aa2b6" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:18:45.807" UserId="69" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Couple additions to what already had been mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most technical abbreviations can be understood if either phonetically copied from their English reading (_e.g._, for HTML it would be _эйч-ти-эм-эл_), transliterated into respective Russian letters (_e.g. ха-тэ-эм-эл_, with variations such as _ха_ / _хэ_, _эм_ / _мэ_ and so forth), or voiced in Latin letter names (_аш-тэ-эм-эль_) just as customary in sciences, like chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;- For brand names, again, either phonetic calque (_Джава_ for Java, _Майкрософт_ for Microsoft, _Эпл_ for Apple, or, with slight modifications, such as _пайтон_ for Python), Russian equivalent for words (_Питон_, _Яблоко_), or phonetic transliteration (_Микрософт_).&#xD;&#xA;- Some brand names may have slang versions, such as _Мелкомягк(ое, ие…)_ for Microsoft (a bit disdainful), _жаба_ for Java (humorous, near-consonance), or _красная шапочка_ for Red Hat Linux.&#xD;&#xA;- WWW sometimes referred to as _цэ-цэ-цэ_ because it is a simple mistake one can make when forgetting to switch keyboard layout. Standard QWERTY layout corresponds to standard Russian ЙЦУКЕН, and there when one tries to use &lt;kbd&gt;W&lt;/kbd&gt; key, the letter _Ц_ appears.&#xD;&#xA;- CMS, as “Content Management System” sometimes translated to “_Система управления контентом (содержанием)_”, and thus abbreviated as _СУКа_, and declined accordingly. It is done in a humorous way, precisely for [the reasons][1] that Wikipedia article mentions. It may not be very common, but I had seen, and adopted it from some known site or author in RuNet (possibly, via [Spectator][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BC#cite_note-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spectator.ru/entry/821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1910" RevisionGUID="26a9dbb1-003c-48b3-8b26-13acd16b2ecd" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:21:25.413" UserId="47" Text="To add a slightly different point of view to many nice answers and comments here: Probably, there is no correct answer to this question, and it is not specific to Russian only. For example, the American abbreviation SPIE is pronounced both as S-P-I-E and as [spai] by native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, not only the traditions but also the knowledge of foreign languages define how a person will pronounce a particular word. My IT professor in university tended to pronounce FALSE as [фальш], the reason being her bad knowledge of English and a logical use of the corresponding German word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, pronunciation such as [пэ-ха-пэ] for PHP come from Latin, since in Russian schools Latin letter names are used: [цэ] for *c*, [икс] for *x*, [ха] for *h* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I have noticed that those with good knowledge of English tend to pronounce the abbreviations, mostly coming from English, in the proper English way: using [дабл-ю] for *w*, [эйч] for *h* etc. Simply because they use the same conventions when e.g. spelling words in English. Of course, traditions play an important role here. While the language name С will be in most cases pronounced as [си], it will also often be declined: `писать на сях`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1910" RevisionGUID="e04b2a1a-d26d-4dff-b000-7de52a61c1e8" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:29:44.963" UserId="47" Comment="Formatting" Text="To add a slightly different point of view to many nice answers and comments here: Probably, there is no correct answer to this question, and it is not specific to Russian only. For example, the American abbreviation SPIE is pronounced both as S-P-I-E and as [spai] by native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, not only the traditions but also the knowledge of foreign languages define how a person will pronounce a particular word. My IT professor in university tended to pronounce FALSE as [фальш], the reason being her bad knowledge of English and a logical use of the corresponding German word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, pronunciation such as [пэ-ха-пэ] for PHP come from Latin, since in Russian schools Latin letter names are used: [цэ] for *c*, [икс] for *x*, [ха] for *h* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I have noticed that those with good knowledge of English tend to pronounce the abbreviations, mostly coming from English, in the proper English way: using [дабл-ю] for *w*, [эйч] for *h* etc. Simply because they use the same conventions when e.g. spelling words in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, traditions play an important role here. While the language name С will be in most cases pronounced as [си], it will also often be declined: `писать на сях`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, some IT terms have equivalents in Russian; in these rare cases Russian words are often used: [ада] for *Ada*, [опал] for *Opal*, [питон] for *Python* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="c711fb87-fade-4b6b-a9b1-77f8cecaedf0" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:33:15.427" UserId="69" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Couple additions to what already had been mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most technical abbreviations can be understood if either phonetically copied from their English reading (_e.g._, for HTML it would be _эйч-ти-эм-эл_), transliterated into respective Russian letters (_e.g. ха-тэ-эм-эл_, with variations such as _ха_ / _хэ_, _эм_ / _мэ_ and so forth), or voiced in Latin letter names (_аш-тэ-эм-эль_) just as customary in sciences, like chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;- For brand names, again, either phonetic calque (_Джава_ for Java, _Майкрософт_ for Microsoft, _Эпл_ for Apple, or, with slight modifications, such as _пайтон_ for Python), Russian equivalent for words (_Питон_, _Яблоко_), or phonetic transliteration (_Микрософт_).&#xD;&#xA;- Some brand names may have slang versions, such as _Мелкомягк(ое, ие…)_ for Microsoft (a bit disdainful), _жаба_ for Java, _аська_ for ICQ, and _ирка_ for IRC (humorous, near-consonance), or _красная шапочка_ for Red Hat Linux.&#xD;&#xA;- WWW sometimes referred to as _цэ-цэ-цэ_ because it is a simple mistake one can make when forgetting to switch keyboard layout. Standard QWERTY layout corresponds to standard Russian ЙЦУКЕН, and there when one tries to use &lt;kbd&gt;W&lt;/kbd&gt; key, the letter _Ц_ appears.&#xD;&#xA;- CMS, as “Content Management System” sometimes translated to “_Система управления контентом (содержанием)_”, and thus abbreviated as _СУКа_, and declined accordingly. It is done in a humorous way, precisely for [the reasons][1] that Wikipedia article mentions. It may not be very common, but I had seen, and adopted it from some known site or author in RuNet (possibly, via [Spectator][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BC#cite_note-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spectator.ru/entry/821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="51ec47c7-68da-479b-a7ff-385139058f46" CreationDate="2013-02-11T09:39:36.263" UserId="69" Comment="Attempt to make it more constructive." Text="Which swear words or subjects are considered as most offensive in Russian, and why?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6882" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="51ec47c7-68da-479b-a7ff-385139058f46" CreationDate="2013-02-11T09:39:36.263" UserId="69" Comment="Attempt to make it more constructive." Text="What are the most offensive words in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6883" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1898" RevisionGUID="51ec47c7-68da-479b-a7ff-385139058f46" CreationDate="2013-02-11T09:39:36.263" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 97 edit id of 307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="87f4d35c-b195-481d-b2c8-8f7666a7a20d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:32:09.110" UserId="1329" Text="Probably it is a stupid question (I won't be offended if you closed it as off topic) , but here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading @texnic's [answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329) to my question http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329 I became curious **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон](http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon), not [игрик](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_). But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wi' /wiː/ settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="87f4d35c-b195-481d-b2c8-8f7666a7a20d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:32:09.110" UserId="1329" Text="Letter Y issues, or Latin vs. Greek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="87f4d35c-b195-481d-b2c8-8f7666a7a20d" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:32:09.110" UserId="1329" Text="|фонетика|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1912" RevisionGUID="046d5242-cf27-493e-ba89-c4ec74c47111" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:49:27.957" UserId="1329" Text="I asked my mother. Yes, it turned out to be that simple =) After all she graduated from [ The Herzen University](http://www.herzen.spb.ru) and Russian language  was her specialization. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Kолготы** is a wrong form, often shows lack of culture and/or education. And this is my final decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anybody needs more proof, I can also mention that - long ago - in some comment a person that I respect very much (professor of biblical studies at the Saint Petersburg State University **Татьяна Ткачeва**) noted that this word is not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Колготы, марш к сосулям!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="77149070-aea1-43ee-9950-62073d4ca181" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:50:55.740" UserId="1329" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Probably it is a stupid question (I wouldn't be offended if you closed it as off topic) , but here it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After reading @texnic's [answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329) to my question http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329 I became curious **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон](http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon), not [игрик](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_). But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wi' /wiː/ settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="622e76fd-864f-4be4-9707-c73143f3b952" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:57:57.807" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body" Text="After reading [texnic's answer][1] to my question http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329, I became curious about **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон][2], not [игрик][3]. But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wi' /wiː/ settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1913" RevisionGUID="0c5c8882-48e3-4b04-ad35-5a45606299ae" CreationDate="2013-02-11T19:16:21.180" UserId="1433" Text="Because Latin is de facto international alphabet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="1022d836-f482-46cc-a40a-fd0dc0143e5e" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:05:00.240" UserId="33" Text="Правильным ответом оказалось слово **«фантазия»**. В нем 8 букв и 9 звуков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Занимательный вопрос, *почему «фантазия», а не «животное»*. Оказывается, в слове «животное» будет 8 звуков:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [жы'вотнаи]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Потому что на «-ное» не падает ударение, звук [й] исчезнет из редуцированного до [и] сочетания [йэ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Позже я нашел подтверждение этому в Википедии в статье [Русская фонетика][1] в разделе [Скользящий сонант][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;li&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/j/&lt;/span&gt; (/j/) — орфографически &lt;b&gt;й&lt;/b&gt;, а также в составе йотированных гласных (я, ё, ю, е) не после согласных: &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%99%D0%BE%D0%B4&quot; title=&quot;Йод&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot;&gt;йод&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/jot/&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA&quot; title=&quot;Як&quot;&gt;як&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/jak/&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%81%D0%B6&quot; title=&quot;Ёж&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot;&gt;ёж&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/joʂ/&lt;/span&gt;, еле &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/'jelʲi/&lt;/span&gt;, юг &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/juk/&lt;/span&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;li&gt;Полугласный аллофон (глайд) &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;[ɪ̯]&lt;/span&gt; произносится после гласных, образуя дифтонгические сочетания, которые в русском являются двухфонемными: яйцо &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;[ɪɪ̯ˈʦo]&lt;/span&gt;, ей &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;[jeɪ̯]&lt;/span&gt;. После безударных &amp;lt;и&amp;gt; и &amp;lt;ы&amp;gt; в окончаниях прилагательных в обычной речи не произносится: красный &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/'krasnɨ/&lt;/span&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;li&gt;/j/ обычно не произносится между любой гласной и /i/: &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D1%86&quot; title=&quot;Заяц&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot;&gt;заяц&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; /'za.iʦ/ &amp;lt; |za.jaʦ|, &lt;i&gt;кланяется&lt;/i&gt; /'kɫa.nʲi.iʦ.ʦa/.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь ключевым является последний пункт: */j/ обычно не произносится между любой гласной и /i/.* Таким образом, в соответствии с этим правилом, и правильным ответом должно быть слово *«животное»*, если принять, что «е» редуцируется до [и] (/i/). Но ведь при произнесении явно слышен неопределенный звук /ə/, а не четкое /i/, и звук /j/ ([й]) тоже слышен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом в [транскрипции слова «животное»][3] в Викисловаре выделено 9 звуков:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ʐɨˈvotnəjə]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К данной транскрипции у меня нет никаких претензий: в конце слова мы слышим два [неопределенных звука][4], разделенных звуком /j/ ([й]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, для слова [«фантазия»][5] в Викисловаре нет транскрипции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.BD.D1.82.D1.8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B2%D0%B0 &quot;Шва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1915" RevisionGUID="73cc6168-6fb1-4869-b009-6c863a8cd1ac" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:18:40.650" UserId="959" Text="Russian science made its first steps under strong influence of Germans. Also, rich Russians hired private teachers from Germany and France for their children. That must be some of the most important reasons.&#xD;&#xA;So the question must be why Greek tradition exists in Czech Republic which is even closer to Germany.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1916" RevisionGUID="dd000d1d-ffc5-4eea-adca-0a8b3d6723bf" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:33:36.567" UserId="194" Text="If you are referring to mathematics, the both letters are used: sometimes used Latin Y, sometimes the Greek ϒ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In programming there is no Greek alphabet available for variable names so we use the Latin letters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="309d9fc7-97ff-45a7-8527-1af5f7bdd754" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:25:58.347" UserId="5" Text="I am wondering why the shelter of медведь is берлога." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="309d9fc7-97ff-45a7-8527-1af5f7bdd754" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:25:58.347" UserId="5" Text="Why is the shelter of медведь is берлога?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="309d9fc7-97ff-45a7-8527-1af5f7bdd754" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:25:58.347" UserId="5" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="d298c325-4b89-43a5-936d-5ef452a63808" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:46:56.427" UserId="1329" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="After reading [texnic's answer][1] to my question http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329, I became curious about **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон][2], not [игрик][3]. But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wai' /wai/ settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6898" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="396107b8-9652-46d5-9d1e-1d32c7d386fe" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:50:23.410" UserId="5" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is the shelter of медведь берлога?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="45e912f3-c091-4229-9a29-f5486356f619" CreationDate="2013-02-11T23:02:05.643" UserId="71" Comment="edited body" Text="After reading [texnic's answer][1] to my question http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329, I became curious about **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон][2], not [игрик][3]. But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wai' [waɪ] settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1916" RevisionGUID="c4a91ad3-4d54-49fc-932a-ec72af5301aa" CreationDate="2013-02-12T00:31:26.840" UserId="194" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="If you are referring to mathematics, the both letters are used: sometimes used Latin Y &quot;игрек&quot;, sometimes the Greek ϒ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In programming there is no Greek alphabet available for variable names so we use the Latin letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are different standards for Latin letter names. For example in some textbooks &quot;I&quot; is called &quot;и&quot;, in the others - &quot;йот&quot;. Calling Latin Y &quot;ипсилон&quot; I encounter for the first time, this name is reserved for the Greek letter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="0355d42a-5909-43c6-9c44-575422045c38" CreationDate="2013-02-12T01:39:04.700" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="After reading [texnic's answer][1] to my question http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329, I became curious about **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон][2], not [игрек][3]. But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wai' [waɪ] settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1918" RevisionGUID="5ca2cca4-8ef9-4e4d-a9f0-57f64ebe3054" CreationDate="2013-02-12T01:45:05.170" UserId="62" Text="In the 19th century Russian educated society spoke French, which is probably why they adopted the French pronunciation of the Latin alphabet when they are used as variables. Compare the French, German, and English pronunciation of A, B, C, ..., Z with the Russian pronunciation of these letters in scientific contexts and it's pretty clear that French is the source of the Russian pronunciation (H = аш, J = жи, Y = игрек are all French pronunciation) except for the Latin letters E and O that are pronounced as Russian letters.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variable y typically shows up in contexts involving x and z, which are all Latin letters (e.g., the equation y = f(x) or the coordinates (x,y) and (x,y,z)), so it's completely reasonable to pronounce y as a Latin letter. In my experience the Greek letter ипсилон, as a Greek letter and not the Latin Y, is used quite rarely in scientific circles. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6903" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="64f97e35-35e8-4936-ae52-fd61f74e2f22" CreationDate="2013-02-12T04:16:49.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/301183048056205314" />
  <row Id="6904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1899" RevisionGUID="d2677932-d343-48de-b91f-5d63b405a2a4" CreationDate="2013-02-12T04:43:03.263" UserId="69" Comment="Added couple paragraphs on culture." Text="Minding the comment I had left to the question, I can give a simple generic answer (provided sensitive women and children had left the room): the most offensive words would those describing such tabooed things like the sex organs, and the sex act itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the first category the most offensive forms would be _хуй_ (penis) and _пизда_ (vagina), with former being so offensive that even its euphemism — _хер_ (from the name of Old-Russian letter _хѣръ_ which is [today’s _ха_][1] — basically an “Х-word”) — nowadays is just slightly less offensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the second it would be the verb _ебать_ which means “to fuck” which is contraction of “to fuck your mother” meaning, in a sense, “How dare you argue with me? I’ve had an intercourse with your mother, and for all we know, you well may be my son, so behave accordingly!”. That explanation is culturally universal, really. Or so I’ve read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also add that this kind of swearing is offensive by the virtue of its shock value, not necessarily literally. Of course, there are elements in society where this language is used in its own right, as a sort of group identification (such as criminal circles). But in a mainstream culture it is considered extremely crass and inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, there would be traditional cultures where mention of one’s mother in any context other than respectful would constitute a deathly offence, perhaps, even within the borders of Russia and former Soviet republics. But for your average urbanite cosmopolitan Russian, so to speak, it would be offensive as it is plainly rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kha_%28Cyrillic%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1919" RevisionGUID="3a0a9c93-d74e-4bba-85b9-4a746f81a89a" CreationDate="2013-02-12T04:56:45.903" UserId="1437" Text="I suppose that it's connected with slavic word бер, that means &quot;bear&quot; itself. Plus the russian word логово, so it can be interpreted as логово бера. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1908" RevisionGUID="df4ba410-87c7-4e8b-94cb-3b5371c9147d" CreationDate="2013-02-12T05:06:28.733" UserId="69" Comment="More additions." Text="Instead of listing all possible variations of any which abbreviation, here is the summary of the usage of such terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most technical abbreviations can be understood if either phonetically copied from their English reading (_e.g._, for HTML it would be _эйч-ти-эм-эл_), transliterated into respective Russian letters (_e.g. ха-тэ-эм-эл_, with variations such as _ха_ / _хэ_, _эм_ / _мэ_ and so forth), or voiced in Latin letter names (_аш-тэ-эм-эль_) just as customary in sciences, like chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;- For brand names, again, either phonetic calque (_Джава_ for Java, _Майкрософт_ for Microsoft, _Эпл_ for Apple, or, with slight modifications, such as _пайтон_ for Python), Russian equivalent for words (_Питон_, _Яблоко_), or phonetic transliteration (_Микрософт_, _Нове́лл_, _Борланд_).&#xD;&#xA;- Some brand names or abbreviations may have slang versions, such as _Мелкомягк(ое, ие…)_ for Microsoft (a bit disdainful), _жаба_ for Java, _аська_ for ICQ, _ирка_ for IRC, or _мускул_ for MySQL (humorous, near-consonance), or _красная шапочка_ for Red Hat Linux. Or neverending associations of Fedora Linux with the phrase “_дело в шляпе_”.&#xD;&#xA;- WWW sometimes referred to as _цэ-цэ-цэ_ or _три цэ_ because it is a simple mistake one can make when forgetting to switch keyboard layout. Standard QWERTY layout corresponds to standard Russian ЙЦУКЕН, and there when one tries to use &lt;kbd&gt;W&lt;/kbd&gt; key, the letter _Ц_ appears.&#xD;&#xA;- CMS, as “Content Management System” sometimes translated to “_Система управления контентом (содержанием)_”, and thus abbreviated as _СУКа_, and declined accordingly. It is done in a humorous way, precisely for [the reasons][1] that Wikipedia article mentions. It may not be very common, but I had seen, and adopted it from some known site or author in RuNet (possibly, via [Spectator][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BC#cite_note-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://spectator.ru/entry/821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="7d056796-605a-41dc-9b97-98dd9ac37f93" CreationDate="2013-02-12T05:25:33.797" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am wondering why the shelter of *медведь* is *берлога*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="7d056796-605a-41dc-9b97-98dd9ac37f93" CreationDate="2013-02-12T05:25:33.797" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the etymology of берлога?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="41ba88e8-62b2-467d-ba37-78955230b2e1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T09:46:59.723" UserId="134" Text="Upon [this discussion][1] with @YellowSky, a follow-up question arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some adjectives ending in *-тный* which could be possibly originated from a noun or a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there adjectives ending in *-тный* which have definitely originated from a noun and not from a verb, **with *-т-* not being a part of the verb's infinitive stem**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рукопожатный* can (theoretically) be derived both from *пожать руку* and *рукопожатие*, since  they define the same concept. Same with *кровопролитный, старожитный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Занятный* (&quot;amusing, interesting&quot;) cannot be derived from *занятие* but only from *занимать* (&quot;take one's attention, curiosity, interest&quot;), since *занятие* does not have this metaphorical meaning. Same with *понятный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Приметный* (&quot;related to omens, superstitions&quot;, as in *народно-приметный календарь*) is definitely originated from *примета* and not *приметить*, however, *-т-* here is a part of the verb's stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7420/discussion-between-quassnoi-and-yellow-sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="41ba88e8-62b2-467d-ba37-78955230b2e1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T09:46:59.723" UserId="134" Text="Adjectives ending in -тный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="41ba88e8-62b2-467d-ba37-78955230b2e1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T09:46:59.723" UserId="134" Text="|этимология|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="0529bc0b-aebf-4e07-9492-ed479990754c" CreationDate="2013-02-12T10:42:19.150" UserId="134" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="Upon [this discussion][1] with @YellowSky, a follow-up question arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some adjectives ending in *-тный* which could be possibly originated from a noun or a verb **with *-т-* not being a part of the verb's infinitive stem**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there adjectives ending in *-тный* which have definitely originated from a noun and not from a verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рукопожатный* can (theoretically) be derived both from *пожать руку* and *рукопожатие*, since  they define the same concept. Same with *кровопролитный, старожитный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Занятный* (&quot;amusing, interesting&quot;) cannot be derived from *занятие* but only from *занимать* (&quot;take one's attention, curiosity, interest&quot;), since *занятие* does not have this metaphorical meaning. Same with *понятный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Приметный* (&quot;related to omens, superstitions&quot;, as in *народно-приметный календарь*) is definitely originated from *примета* and not *приметить*, however, *-т-* here is a part of the verb's stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рвотный* (&quot;emetic&quot;) could only be originated from *рвота* and not *рвать*, because *рвать* lacks *-о-*. Same for *блевотный, тошнотный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7420/discussion-between-quassnoi-and-yellow-sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="eec0b95a-1c8f-46b2-9879-99da93f8cec2" CreationDate="2013-02-12T10:47:19.433" UserId="1304" Text="&gt; Берлога - диал. мерлога, мерлуга - то же, русск.-цслав. бьрлогъ, укр.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; берлога &quot;соломенная подстилка, скверная постель&quot;, болг. бърлок &quot;мусор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мутные помои&quot;, сербохорв. брлог &quot;свинарник, логово, мусорная свалка&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брльог – то же, словен. brlog, род. brloga &quot;пещера, убежище&quot;, чеш.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brloh &quot;логово, хибара&quot;, польск. barog, род. -ogu &quot;соломенная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка, мусор, нечистоты&quot;, в.-луж. boroh, н.-луж. barog &quot;соломенная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка&quot;. Вместе с сербохорв. брљати &quot;путать, пачкать&quot;, брљага&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;лужа&quot;, болг. бърлок &quot;лужа&quot; эти слова, по-видимому, связаны с лит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burlas &quot;грязь, кал&quot;, burlungis &quot;топкое место&quot;; Еще более сомнительны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др. предположения: против объяснения сложением с -logъ см. Ягич, там&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же. Столь же ошибочно пытались выделить в этом слове bьr-, якобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; родственное нем. Bar &quot;медведь&quot;, др.-инд. bhallas, bhallakas &quot;медведь&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лит. beras &quot;коричневый&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Фабер М.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БЕРЛОГА, -и, ж. —«зимнее логовище медведя»; (иногда) «место зимней&#xD;&#xA;&gt; спячки другого зверя». Укр. (из польск.) барлiг, род. барлoга —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «берлога» и «грязная лужа», «грязь»; блр. бярлог, ж.—«берлога»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «логово»; словен. brlog — «берлога», «логово зверя»; чеш. и словац.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brloh — «берлога»; польск. bartog — «берлога», «(смятая соломенная)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка». Из русского — болг. бърлoга — тж. (но ср. по говорам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бърлог — «мусор», «помои»). в.-луж. borto, ср. — «смятая грязная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка», «логово», также «лужа», «залив»; н.-луж. bartog — «смятая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грязная солома». Др.-рус. (XII в.) бьрлогъ ( :бьрлога, ж.?) —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «логово». Старославянскими (балканского происхождения) памятниками&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слово берлога не засвидетельствовано. □ В этимологическом отношении не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вполне ясное, спорное слово. Учитывая, однако, значение этого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (очевидно, сложного, с двумя основами) слова, можно полагать, что оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; восходит к о.-с. •bьrlogъ [относительно -log-ъ ср. рус. логово (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лежать)]. По первой части сложения это о.-с. слово связано, с одной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стороны, с др.-рус. бьрние — «грязь», «глина».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[П. Я. Черных. Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/vasmer.php?id=159&amp;vol=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chernykh-etym.narod.ru/t1/p086.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="3e1637c8-7b22-426d-bd1f-1232f938c7a6" CreationDate="2013-02-12T10:54:34.293" UserId="1304" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="&gt; Берлога - диал. мерлога, мерлуга - то же, русск.-цслав. бьрлогъ, укр.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; берлога &quot;соломенная подстилка, скверная постель&quot;, болг. бърлок &quot;мусор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мутные помои&quot;, сербохорв. брлог &quot;свинарник, логово, мусорная свалка&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брльог – то же, словен. brlog, род. brloga &quot;пещера, убежище&quot;, чеш.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brloh &quot;логово, хибара&quot;, польск. barog, род. -ogu &quot;соломенная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка, мусор, нечистоты&quot;, в.-луж. boroh, н.-луж. barog &quot;соломенная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка&quot;. Вместе с сербохорв. брљати &quot;путать, пачкать&quot;, брљага&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;лужа&quot;, болг. бърлок &quot;лужа&quot; эти слова, по-видимому, связаны с лит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burlas &quot;грязь, кал&quot;, burlungis &quot;топкое место&quot;; Еще более сомнительны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др. предположения: против объяснения сложением с -logъ см. Ягич, там&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же. Столь же ошибочно пытались выделить в этом слове bьr-, якобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; родственное нем. Bar &quot;медведь&quot;, др.-инд. bhallas, bhallakas &quot;медведь&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лит. beras &quot;коричневый&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Фабер М.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БЕРЛОГА, -и, ж. —«зимнее логовище медведя»; (иногда) «место зимней&#xD;&#xA;&gt; спячки другого зверя». Укр. (из польск.) барлiг, род. барлoга —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «берлога» и «грязная лужа», «грязь»; блр. бярлог, ж.—«берлога»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «логово»; словен. brlog — «берлога», «логово зверя»; чеш. и словац.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brloh — «берлога»; польск. bartog — «берлога», «(смятая соломенная)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка». Из русского — болг. бърлoга — тж. (но ср. по говорам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бърлог — «мусор», «помои»). в.-луж. borto, ср. — «смятая грязная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка», «логово», также «лужа», «залив»; н.-луж. bartog — «смятая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грязная солома». Др.-рус. (XII в.) бьрлогъ ( :бьрлога, ж.?) —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «логово». Старославянскими (балканского происхождения) памятниками&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слово берлога не засвидетельствовано. □ В этимологическом отношении не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вполне ясное, спорное слово. Учитывая, однако, значение этого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (очевидно, сложного, с двумя основами) слова, можно полагать, что оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; восходит к о.-с. •bьrlogъ [относительно -log-ъ ср. рус. логово (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лежать)]. По первой части сложения это о.-с. слово связано, с одной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стороны, с др.-рус. бьрние — «грязь», «глина».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[П. Я. Черных. Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's connected with some word that means &quot;dirt, feces, garbage&quot;. And not with bear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/vasmer.php?id=159&amp;vol=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chernykh-etym.narod.ru/t1/p086.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1922" RevisionGUID="a6e3e875-a3a7-4443-a2cf-2f8f07bb0625" CreationDate="2013-02-12T11:04:00.647" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; Берлога - диал. мерлога, мерлуга - то же, русск.-цслав. бьрлогъ, укр.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; берлога &quot;соломенная подстилка, скверная постель&quot;, болг. бърлок &quot;мусор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мутные помои&quot;, сербохорв. брлог &quot;свинарник, логово, мусорная свалка&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брльог – то же, словен. brlog, род. brloga &quot;пещера, убежище&quot;, чеш.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brloh &quot;логово, хибара&quot;, польск. barog, род. -ogu &quot;соломенная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка, мусор, нечистоты&quot;, в.-луж. boroh, н.-луж. barog &quot;соломенная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка&quot;. Вместе с сербохорв. брљати &quot;путать, пачкать&quot;, брљага&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;лужа&quot;, болг. бърлок &quot;лужа&quot; эти слова, по-видимому, связаны с лит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burlas &quot;грязь, кал&quot;, burlungis &quot;топкое место&quot;; Еще более сомнительны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др. предположения: против объяснения сложением с -logъ см. Ягич, там&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же. Столь же ошибочно пытались выделить в этом слове bьr-, якобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; родственное нем. Bar &quot;медведь&quot;, др.-инд. bhallas, bhallakas &quot;медведь&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лит. beras &quot;коричневый&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Фасмер М.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БЕРЛОГА, -и, ж. —«зимнее логовище медведя»; (иногда) «место зимней&#xD;&#xA;&gt; спячки другого зверя». Укр. (из польск.) барлiг, род. барлoга —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «берлога» и «грязная лужа», «грязь»; блр. бярлог, ж.—«берлога»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «логово»; словен. brlog — «берлога», «логово зверя»; чеш. и словац.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brloh — «берлога»; польск. bartog — «берлога», «(смятая соломенная)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка». Из русского — болг. бърлoга — тж. (но ср. по говорам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бърлог — «мусор», «помои»). в.-луж. borto, ср. — «смятая грязная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подстилка», «логово», также «лужа», «залив»; н.-луж. bartog — «смятая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грязная солома». Др.-рус. (XII в.) бьрлогъ ( :бьрлога, ж.?) —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «логово». Старославянскими (балканского происхождения) памятниками&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слово берлога не засвидетельствовано. □ В этимологическом отношении не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вполне ясное, спорное слово. Учитывая, однако, значение этого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (очевидно, сложного, с двумя основами) слова, можно полагать, что оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; восходит к о.-с. •bьrlogъ [относительно -log-ъ ср. рус. логово (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лежать)]. По первой части сложения это о.-с. слово связано, с одной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стороны, с др.-рус. бьрние — «грязь», «глина».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[П. Я. Черных. Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's connected with some word that means &quot;dirt, feces, garbage&quot;. And not with bear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/vasmer.php?id=159&amp;vol=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://chernykh-etym.narod.ru/t1/p086.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="535c514c-ba3e-4122-ac41-92989a5eb529" CreationDate="2013-02-12T11:50:07.757" UserId="71" Comment="@ doesn't work in questions. :)" Text="Upon [this discussion][1] with YellowSky, a follow-up question arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some adjectives ending in *-тный* which could be possibly originated from a noun or a verb **with *-т-* not being a part of the verb's infinitive stem**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there adjectives ending in *-тный* which have definitely originated from a noun and not from a verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рукопожатный* can (theoretically) be derived both from *пожать руку* and *рукопожатие*, since  they define the same concept. Same with *кровопролитный, старожитный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Занятный* (&quot;amusing, interesting&quot;) cannot be derived from *занятие* but only from *занимать* (&quot;take one's attention, curiosity, interest&quot;), since *занятие* does not have this metaphorical meaning. Same with *понятный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Приметный* (&quot;related to omens, superstitions&quot;, as in *народно-приметный календарь*) is definitely originated from *примета* and not *приметить*, however, *-т-* here is a part of the verb's stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рвотный* (&quot;emetic&quot;) could only be originated from *рвота* and not *рвать*, because *рвать* lacks *-о-*. Same for *блевотный, тошнотный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7420/discussion-between-quassnoi-and-yellow-sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1923" RevisionGUID="2274faab-a50c-4487-b46d-d3e068d87039" CreationDate="2013-02-12T12:27:59.880" UserId="194" Text="In the religion of the ancient Indo-Europeans the word for a bear was tabooed because this animal induced fear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most ancient Indo-European word for bear was ***a̯rtcos*** which meant &quot;destructor&quot;. As the word was tabooed, it was replaced by a word meaning &quot;brown&quot;, a derivative of the PIE ***bhrua̯nos*** &quot;brown&quot;. It is the source of the English word &quot;bear&quot; and &quot;бер-&quot;, the first part in &quot;берлога&quot;. The second part meant &quot;lair&quot; and the derivative of the Proto-Indo-European ***leġhos*** &quot;lair, bed&quot;. Thus &quot;берлога&quot; means &quot;bear's lair&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the word &quot;бер&quot; became tabooed again and was replaced by a new word &quot;медведь&quot; which meant &quot;honey-eater&quot;. It derives from the ***medhu***, a Proto-Indo European word for mead, a drink produced from honey and the root ***e̯ed-*** &quot;to eat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1923" RevisionGUID="b4b397e4-80a5-4c5a-bb32-df73e62cfdf4" CreationDate="2013-02-12T12:33:45.097" UserId="194" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="In the religion of the ancient Indo-Europeans the word for a bear was tabooed because this animal induced fear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most ancient Indo-European word for bear was ***a̯rtcos*** which meant &quot;destructor&quot;. As the word was tabooed, it was replaced by a word meaning &quot;brown&quot;, a derivative of the PIE ***bhrua̯nos*** &quot;brown&quot;. It is the source of the English word &quot;bear&quot; and &quot;бер-&quot;, the first part in &quot;берлога&quot;. The second part meant &quot;lair&quot; and the derivative of the Proto-Indo-European ***leġhos*** &quot;lair, bed&quot;. Thus &quot;берлога&quot; means &quot;bear's lair&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the word &quot;бер&quot; became tabooed again and was replaced by a new word &quot;медведь&quot; which meant &quot;honey-eater&quot;. It derives from the ***medhu***, a Proto-Indo European word for mead, a drink produced from honey (honey is called мёд in Russian) and the root ***e̯ed-*** &quot;to eat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6923" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1902" RevisionGUID="597162b2-a5d5-42ac-ad7a-a49a176905c3" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:16:52.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/301364256060874752" />
  <row Id="6924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="5b5aae18-20c6-4a6a-90d3-3f44e951725d" CreationDate="2013-02-12T18:01:02.933" UserId="134" Text="All Russian verbs ending in *-оть* I can think of had been subject to the metathesis or the liquids and did not have this ending in Old Slavic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бороть &lt; *брати (cf. *брань*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колоть &lt; *клати (cf. *заклание*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молоть &lt; *млѣти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полоть &lt; *плѣти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пороть &lt; *прати&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there verbs that did have this ending in OS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="5b5aae18-20c6-4a6a-90d3-3f44e951725d" CreationDate="2013-02-12T18:01:02.933" UserId="134" Text="Are there verbs in -оть not having been subject to the metathesis of the liquids?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="5b5aae18-20c6-4a6a-90d3-3f44e951725d" CreationDate="2013-02-12T18:01:02.933" UserId="134" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="5d6edd20-bb06-4adc-adbf-e5a72a2654f7" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:25:41.393" UserId="1329" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][7], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][1], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][8], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [3] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][5] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][6] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][9] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [russian language history][10] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="175c3b2b-8e4d-4bf7-adc4-fefd73ade001" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:03:17.970" UserId="134" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Upon [this discussion][1] with YellowSky, a follow-up question arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some adjectives ending in *-тный* which could be possibly originated from a noun or a verb **with *-т-* not being a part of the verb's infinitive stem**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of those adjectives, are there such which can definitely be said to have originated from the noun and not from the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рукопожатный* can (theoretically) be derived both from *пожать руку* and *рукопожатие*, since  they define the same concept. Same with *кровопролитный, старожитный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Занятный* (&quot;amusing, interesting&quot;) cannot be derived from *занятие* but only from *занимать* (&quot;take one's attention, curiosity, interest&quot;), since *занятие* does not have this metaphorical meaning. Same with *понятный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Приметный* (&quot;related to omens, superstitions&quot;, as in *народно-приметный календарь*) is definitely originated from *примета* and not *приметить*, however, *-т-* here is a part of the verb's stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рвотный* (&quot;emetic&quot;) could only be originated from *рвота* and not *рвать*, because *рвать* lacks *-о-*. Same for *блевотный, тошнотный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7420/discussion-between-quassnoi-and-yellow-sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="f19e0b4e-ad35-4349-bd2e-8bad5b961aae" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:10:14.103" UserId="134" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="All Russian verbs ending in *-оть* I can think of had been subject to the metathesis or the liquids and did not have this ending in Proto-Slavic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бороть (CS брати) &lt; *барти (cf. *брань*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колоть (CS клати) &lt; *калти (cf. *заклание*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молоть (CS млѣти) &lt; *мелти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полоть (CS *плѣти) &lt; *пелти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пороть (CS *прати) &lt; *порти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there verbs that did have this ending in PS or CS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="1fce2445-927a-4d66-91d7-70548eabaa46" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:33:13.733" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="All Russian verbs ending in *-оть* I can think of had been subject to the metathesis or the liquids and did not have this ending in Proto-Slavic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бороть (CS брати) &lt; *барти (cf. *брань*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колоть (CS клати) &lt; *калти (cf. *заклание*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молоть (CS млѣти) &lt; *мелти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полоть (CS плѣти) &lt; *пелти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пороть (CS прати) &lt; *порти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there verbs that did have this ending in PS or CS?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6932" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1924" RevisionGUID="be8bce9d-c7b1-40cf-8777-6b3250eb49d3" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:16:51.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/301545446332067841" />
  <row Id="6933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="c6fcd686-389a-4572-b386-bd383cbfb6c2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:48:25.750" UserId="1441" Text="My apologies in advance for asking this 'stupid' question. I received an email from someone called &quot;Ogulsabyr&quot;, and I'm not sure whether to use Mr. or Ms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering whether &quot;Ogulsabyr&quot; a male name or female name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you and sorry again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I try to google the name but nothing really was helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="c6fcd686-389a-4572-b386-bd383cbfb6c2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:48:25.750" UserId="1441" Text="Is it a male or female name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="c6fcd686-389a-4572-b386-bd383cbfb6c2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:48:25.750" UserId="1441" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1926" RevisionGUID="f6c7dedb-c6d7-49a0-b8c7-0ae373367d0b" CreationDate="2013-02-14T02:37:34.937" UserId="69" Text="It is a [Turkmen][1] name, and it is a girl’s name. To add some general knowledge so one could identify those names in the future, here is the quote from the ethnography [_Tradition and Society in Turkmenistan: Gender, Oral Culture and Song_][2] by Carole Blackwell (2001, Richmond, Surrey, UK, [p. 62][3]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In families with several daughters, it is not uncommon for the name of every girl to began with _Ogul_, the Turkmen word for son; common examples are Ogulsabyr (let us wait patiently for a son), Oguldursun and Oguldurndy (may a son be born who will stay), and Ogulgerek (we need a son).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as a general rule, many people form former Soviet republics adopted for their family names the convention from Russian tradition, that is, the pattern to end the last name with _-ov_ (_-ow_) for males and _-ova_ (_-owa_) for women (grammatical gender identification). You can see many of this type of last names amongst, say, respective Olympic athletes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZwUSitzGojkC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZwUSitzGojkC&amp;lpg=PA62&amp;ots=CHvcp_c3my&amp;dq=meaning%20of%20turkmen%20names%20ogulsabyr&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PA62#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="528f081c-c63c-424a-9629-fc5960ae8228" CreationDate="2013-02-14T06:36:32.283" UserId="69" Comment="Wording, tags." Text="I received an email from someone called _Ogulsabyr_, and I’m not sure whether to use Mr. or Ms. That is, I was wondering whether Ogulsabyr a male or female name. I’ve tried search engines, but could not find anything helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6938" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="528f081c-c63c-424a-9629-fc5960ae8228" CreationDate="2013-02-14T06:36:32.283" UserId="69" Comment="Wording, tags." Text="Is Ogulsabyr a male or female name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6939" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="528f081c-c63c-424a-9629-fc5960ae8228" CreationDate="2013-02-14T06:36:32.283" UserId="69" Comment="Wording, tags." Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6940" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="528f081c-c63c-424a-9629-fc5960ae8228" CreationDate="2013-02-14T06:36:32.283" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, -1 edit id of 308" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="7d9a753b-d10d-4cd3-a6d4-ce1d929227e9" CreationDate="2013-02-14T06:36:32.283" UserId="97" Comment="Wording, tags." Text="I received an email from someone called _Ogulsabyr_, and I’m not sure whether to use Mr. or Ms. in my reply. That is, I was wondering whether Ogulsabyr is a male or female name. I’ve tried search engines, but could not find anything helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="f77d7c35-9d0a-4880-9b2d-634b3d16e768" CreationDate="2013-02-14T07:16:53.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/301953140876525568" />
  <row Id="6943" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="66f79269-4ac8-4386-9975-2088e36168dd" CreationDate="2013-02-14T11:29:13.207" UserId="185" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="9ac9beea-0d7d-400b-9a99-d3a9cd3a444a" CreationDate="2013-02-14T21:31:21.923" UserId="1051" Text="лёх (or лох, I'm unsure about the correct spelling) is a word that I heard also among Russians and Ukrainians who never visited Germany. So it's not quite clear whether the German language is the origin. Can anyone shed any light on the origin of this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My *guess* would be it derives from the German word (Arsch)loch (by sound in Cyrillic it would be approx. &quot;арш-лох&quot;), literally for (ass)hole. But if possible I'd like to see some kind of authoritative answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard that German is one of the few languages where most words derive from fecal context, where in other languages offensive terms used in a similar context would be derived from a sexual context. This would actually be an argument *for* the theory that it derives from German, but again it's more hearsay than anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="9ac9beea-0d7d-400b-9a99-d3a9cd3a444a" CreationDate="2013-02-14T21:31:21.923" UserId="1051" Text="Can someone tell whether this Russian swear word derives from German?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="9ac9beea-0d7d-400b-9a99-d3a9cd3a444a" CreationDate="2013-02-14T21:31:21.923" UserId="1051" Text="|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="ee0351bb-2924-461e-b3c7-ae86faff2857" CreationDate="2013-02-14T22:43:23.597" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, wording, tags." Text="_Лох_ is a word that I heard among Russians and Ukrainians who never visited Germany. So it’s not quite clear whether the German language is the origin. Can anyone shed any light on the origin of this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My *guess* would be it derives from the German word (Arsch)loch (by sound in Cyrillic it would be approx. [арш-лох]), literally for (ass)hole. But if possible I’d like to see some kind of authoritative answer to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve also heard that German is one of the few languages where most swear words derive from fecal context, where in other languages offensive terms used in a similar way would be derived from a sexual context. This would actually be an argument *for* the theory that it derives from German, but again, it’s more hearsay than anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6949" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="ee0351bb-2924-461e-b3c7-ae86faff2857" CreationDate="2013-02-14T22:43:23.597" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, wording, tags." Text="|этимология|мат|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6950" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="ee0351bb-2924-461e-b3c7-ae86faff2857" CreationDate="2013-02-14T22:43:23.597" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 1051 edit id of 309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1928" RevisionGUID="ce0cd6b9-6dee-4d32-b31b-1652f4fd4bbf" CreationDate="2013-02-15T06:44:32.167" UserId="560" Text="Nobody knows where it comes from. The only thing known for sure (as it *is* a popular theory) is that it **isn't** derived from the German &quot;Loch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F_3) states that it may be a shortened version of the word ```лопух``` (in its informal meaning, &quot;simpleton&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, there's [Vasmer](http://vasmer.narod.ru/p373.htm). His descriptions of the word ```лох``` do not include the colloquial meaning, but he has an entry for the word ```лоха```, which is a colloquial word in Pskov and Tver for a stupid woman. Vasmer assumes that it can come from ```лошь``` which means &quot;bad&quot;. And he has an entry for ```лашуня``` which means also something like &quot;simpleton&quot; or just &quot;fool&quot;. Vasmer assumes that this word is also dervied from ```лошь```.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's also [Lurkmore](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%9B%D0%BE%D1%85#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.85.D0.BE.D0.B6.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D0.B2.D1.8B.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F) that has an impressive list of supposed origins of the word ```лох```. I won't translate them, as they are most likely all invalid - examples of folk etymology. The version that it originates in German, being derived from ```Arschloch``` is also there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1929" RevisionGUID="a1c959f4-7b9a-4be0-8ef8-afe751fd922f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:47:04.393" UserId="1446" Text="&amp;mdash; Что ты делаешь во вторник вечером?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; Занимаюсь английским языком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; Давай встретимся во вторник вечером.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; Я занимаюсь английским языком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't omit first person pronoun when giving an indirect answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1818" RevisionGUID="ad7b2e48-c293-4bad-8f80-a0d10d6b3347" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:41:31.237" UserId="194" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="There are indeed some languages where there is a stable tradition of skipping of personal pronouns, especially when you can deduce all relevant information from the verb conjugation. Romance languages are nice example of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even in such languages it is not absolutely inappropriate to use personal pronouns. For example, you almost always say `te quiero` in Spanish, but saying `yo te quiero` wouldn't be a linguistical offense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it is almost opposite: though personal pronouns are used in the majority of cases, form without pronouns is also 100% appropriate and understandable. But definitely untypical. You are asking why, but it is exactly that case when we can confidently name cultural tradition as main reason.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, there are some features of Russian languages that give us hints why impersonal form had not became dominating. First, in past tense verb form is not so informative. Saying  just `занимался` can be both `он занимался`, `я занимался` and `ты занимался`. `Любили` stands for `они/мы/вы любили`. And it is not that typical to have completely different approaches in constructing the sentence regarding which tense is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there is such thing in Russian like [неопределённо-личные предолжения][1]. In such sentences, there is a subject of the action implied, though this subject is not mentioned directly in order to make the notion of action itself more valuable. So, actually, some verbs are without personal pronoun in some well established contexts and, thus, such verbs have different meaning in personal and impersonal form. Classical example of such pair is `говорят`/`они говорят`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1841" RevisionGUID="0af4fdcf-2b43-4a5b-94d3-72abf6e200ac" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:48:09.243" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I think that using `'I'` in English is the way more common that using 'Я' in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to say `'I think yes'`, I can't just say `'think yes'`, in Russian you can say `'думаю, да'`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases you say `Я` with endings of some of the words you use in your sentence, so if you have verbs with correct endings you can omit `Я`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1930" RevisionGUID="75e32d5a-e27b-4a36-b1ce-2641a1f256cf" CreationDate="2013-02-15T15:02:33.310" UserId="194" Text="These usages have slightly different semantic meanings. Omitting the first person pronoun kind of implies that the answer is related o the question, while the presence of such pronoun means the answer is not related to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a telephone call:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ты уже выполнил моё задание?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Занимаюсь(, скоро закончу)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is kinda implies he is doing the task now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ты уже выполнил моё задание?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я занимаюсь( с преподавателем)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kinda implies he cannot do the task right now because he is doing his homework or studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Скорее приезжай в офис&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Еду в метро(, скоро буду)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kinda implies he is currently goes to the office by metro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Скорее приезжай в офис&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я еду в метро(, давай поговорим позже)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kinda implies he cannot talk because of the noise or bad connection because he is in metro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="7ba4f2b6-bf5e-4246-9275-9e3cb82f06f3" CreationDate="2013-02-15T16:11:38.243" UserId="69" Comment="Typography, clarification." Text="In typographic text «…» are preferable. In da internetz &quot;…&quot; are used, as no other quotes available on the keyboard. In hand-writing „…“ are used almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you want translate something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “It’s useful to have a gun.” He said with calm voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is better to avoid quotes at all, using direct speech, where applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Очень полезно иметь пушку, — хладнокровно сказал он.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6957" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="7ba4f2b6-bf5e-4246-9275-9e3cb82f06f3" CreationDate="2013-02-15T16:11:38.243" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6958" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1927" RevisionGUID="078e16b2-8b11-46da-9af5-0d6693f26554" CreationDate="2013-02-16T07:17:16.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/302678013718437888" />
  <row Id="6963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1932" RevisionGUID="771a4439-3ca3-4de7-8045-69ba4cf0cf05" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:26:42.663" UserId="1410" Text="The letters `е`, `ё`, `ю` and `я` indicates someitme that consonant before it is palatalized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="fa01fcdf-6e61-4d13-83e0-322e1a428718" CreationDate="2013-02-17T07:03:13.260" UserId="282" Text="Ex. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Поиски осколков метеорита, взорвавшегося над территорией Челябинской области&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the name of the participle for the word &quot;взорвавшегося&quot;?  Why isn't it shown here:&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="fa01fcdf-6e61-4d13-83e0-322e1a428718" CreationDate="2013-02-17T07:03:13.260" UserId="282" Text="Participles: взорваться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="fa01fcdf-6e61-4d13-83e0-322e1a428718" CreationDate="2013-02-17T07:03:13.260" UserId="282" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1934" RevisionGUID="dfcf15b5-af2f-48a8-a6c9-0afedc0f046a" CreationDate="2013-02-17T07:25:04.513" UserId="194" Text="It is shown there: ***взорва́вшийся***. It is nominative, in genitive it will be ***взорвавшегося***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1932" RevisionGUID="dfb0902e-9cf3-43bc-b1f1-cd3f1c5c3a53" CreationDate="2013-02-17T18:57:06.190" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="The letters `е`, `ё`, `ю` and `я` sometimes indicate that the consonants before them are palatalized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6969" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1932" RevisionGUID="dfb0902e-9cf3-43bc-b1f1-cd3f1c5c3a53" CreationDate="2013-02-17T18:57:06.190" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 185 edit id of 311" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1935" RevisionGUID="8575565a-9b83-42f1-8c0e-3207de2ba661" CreationDate="2013-02-17T21:33:06.900" UserId="194" Text="Consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;программист-раздолбай" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="8fc1296b-242a-4c3d-bae9-85204c27ac16" CreationDate="2013-02-18T09:16:04.703" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, spelling." Text="Считается, что в русском языке нет исконных слов, начинающихся на букву «А». Как объяснить этимологию слова «аист», явно отличающуюся от лексем в родственных языках?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- бел. _бусел_&#xD;&#xA;- укр. _лелека_&#xD;&#xA;- русин. _бузёк_ / _чорногуз_ / _боцан_&#xD;&#xA;- польск. _bocian_&#xD;&#xA;- словацк. _bocian_&#xD;&#xA;- слов. _štorklja_&#xD;&#xA;- болг. _щъкрел_&#xD;&#xA;- хорв. _рода_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no original Russian words starting with ‘a’, then how to explain the origins of the word _аист_ (stork)? Cf. with words in other languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Belorussian _бусел_&#xD;&#xA;- Ukrainian _лелека_&#xD;&#xA;- Ruthenian _бузёк_ / _чорногуз_ / _боцан_&#xD;&#xA;- Polish _bocian_&#xD;&#xA;- Slovak _bocian_&#xD;&#xA;- Slovene _štorklja_&#xD;&#xA;- Bulgarian _щъкрел_&#xD;&#xA;- Croatian _рода_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6972" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="8fc1296b-242a-4c3d-bae9-85204c27ac16" CreationDate="2013-02-18T09:16:04.703" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, spelling." Text="Этимология слова «аист» / etymology of “аист” (stork)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6973" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1742" RevisionGUID="8fc1296b-242a-4c3d-bae9-85204c27ac16" CreationDate="2013-02-18T09:16:04.703" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 97 edit id of 312" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="48d682e9-fcb1-43a9-bab7-3e10af82236a" CreationDate="2013-02-18T09:35:09.580" UserId="1452" Text="Just let us get closer to the picture Harms is drawing.&#xD;&#xA;At the time he was writing ,to his disposition he had set expression &quot; в головах&quot; means before ,now rarely used.&#xD;&#xA;He could not use it for a connotation of an ailing person lying in bed it conveys.&#xD;&#xA;He could not use &quot;перед&quot; in front of ,for the reason the gipsy would never be opposed to the horse he obviously adores.&#xD;&#xA;Poets often invent  new metaphors, or they are not poets.So in this case we are facing new metaphor freshly minted for this precise purpose, and never used anywhere else. Metaphors invented by the poets often have double if not triple meaning, and in this case we have very nice example of it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1937" RevisionGUID="5f3c5457-b2af-400b-adb3-e5e4fe905a35" CreationDate="2013-02-18T12:06:54.273" UserId="1452" Text="I am quite confident Russian &quot;откуда&quot; may be translated into English as &quot;why&quot; in expressions as &#xD;&#xA;&quot;откуда вы знаете&quot;, &quot; Откуда вы решили, что...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;which are widely used in a discussion to induce a sense of the  incompetence of an opponent.&#xD;&#xA;Just to mention of that for it is not an answer  corresponding to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="5340a448-e679-415d-80c1-fe366db3fcf0" CreationDate="2013-02-18T12:30:34.973" UserId="1452" Text="&quot;Он сел между мной и Верой&quot; и &quot; Он сел между мною и Верой&quot; are quite different in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;While 1 is neutral, the 2 suggests untypathy between me and him,who sat between us.&#xD;&#xA;That is why this form is used.The form &quot;мною&quot; suggests firm interest involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1939" RevisionGUID="830f250d-3dd2-441e-9848-adf14a8ade52" CreationDate="2013-02-18T20:35:28.340" UserId="1329" Text="There is a well-known rule that a masculine noun is animate if its Accusative form has a non-zero ending. However, I haven't noticed this information to be mentioned in dictionaries... Maybe I just don't know what each part of a dictionary article means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I thought that maybe the opposite is true (as each definition is de facto an equivalence relation): if the word is animate, than its Accusative requires a non-zero ending. But in this case, how do I decide if a noun is animate or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Animate is everything that is alive. This is a common definition. But let's consider two words that are practically synonyms: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - я вижу (**кого? что?**)  труп - null ending =&gt; not animate&#xD;&#xA;    - я вижу (**кого? что?**)  покойника  -  non-zero ending =&gt; animate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where's the logics? Both corpses are dead and can't be considered animate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1939" RevisionGUID="830f250d-3dd2-441e-9848-adf14a8ade52" CreationDate="2013-02-18T20:35:28.340" UserId="1329" Text="Animate nouns - how to detect them without knowledge of Accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1939" RevisionGUID="830f250d-3dd2-441e-9848-adf14a8ade52" CreationDate="2013-02-18T20:35:28.340" UserId="1329" Text="|падежи|окончания|одушевлённость|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1939" RevisionGUID="42fde38b-4b9e-42b4-9072-08b36a577f98" CreationDate="2013-02-18T20:54:18.070" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="There is a well-known rule that a masculine noun is animate if its Accusative form has a non-zero ending. However, I haven't noticed this information to be mentioned in dictionaries... Maybe I just don't know what each part of a dictionary article means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I thought that maybe the opposite is true (as each definition is de facto an equivalence relation): if the word is animate, than its Accusative requires a non-zero ending. But in this case, how do I decide if a noun is animate or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Animate is everything that is alive. This is a common definition. But let's consider two words that are practically synonyms: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - я вижу (**кого? что?**)  труп - null ending =&gt; not animate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - я вижу (**кого? что?**)  покойника  -  non-zero ending =&gt; animate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where's the logics? Both corpses are dead and can't be considered animate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="43dd4f3f-0601-4d5c-9d40-935cbb645a0c" CreationDate="2013-02-18T23:09:39.277" UserId="185" Text="Indeed, it is not always possible to know, whether a noun is animate or inanimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rule is that nouns that denote animate objects (people or animals) are grammatically animated, i.e. the form of their Accusative case coincides with the form of their Genitive case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It cannot be seen in case of nouns that do not change morphologically (like *пальто* or *Пьеро*). But their animatedness can be identified by the endings of adjectives that describe these nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу грустного Пьеро*, but *Я вижу старое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problems arise in cases when semantic and grammatical animatedness do not coincide. I will try to list these cases here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;народ, толпа, стая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кукла, снеговик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;валет, король, слон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;дворники&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are cases when the noun can be both used as animated and as inanimate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запускать воздушный змей and Запускать воздушного змея&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Изучать микробы and изучать микробов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="8d24d3b1-f355-4d76-b2e5-bd2bc83ff275" CreationDate="2013-02-18T23:21:11.840" UserId="185" Comment="now my answer is ready!" Text="Indeed, it is not always possible to know, whether a noun is animate or inanimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rule is that nouns that denote animate objects (people or animals) are grammatically animated, i.e. the form of their Accusative case coincides with the form of their Genitive case. Inanimate objects (basically, the rest of the world) behave like grammatically inanimate: their Accusative case coincides with their Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, whether a noun is animate or inanimate cannot be seen in case of nouns that do not change morphologically (like *пальто* or *Пьеро*). But their animatedness can be identified by the endings of adjectives that describe these nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу грустного Пьеро*, but &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу старое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problems arise in cases when semantic and grammatical animatedness do not coincide. I will try to list these cases here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of aggregations: народ, толпа, стая. They denote animate objects, but behave like inanimate nouns. *Истребить целый народ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of anthropomorphuous objects: кукла, снеговик. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Слепить толстого снеговика.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of card and chess figures: валет, король, слон. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Побить чужого валета.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of mechanisms and tools that sound like names of people: дворники. They have the same form as animate nouns, but be careful: when they denote inanimate objects, they change like inanimate nouns. *Сломать дворник у машины*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are cases when the noun can be both used as animated and as inanimate and denote the same thing (I only know three cases, but there might be more):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Запускать воздушный змей* and *Запускать воздушного змея*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Изучать микробы, бактерии* and *Изучать микробов, бактерий*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1941" RevisionGUID="4395c2f1-3839-4170-8ef4-8609b1eab30a" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:58:03.343" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Where's the logics? Both corpses are dead and can't be considered animate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Труп* and *покойник* differ in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Труп* is &quot;corpse, dead body&quot;. This means material remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Покойник* is &quot;late, deceased&quot;. This means a person who had passed away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вороны, разумеется, прилетали клевать трупы в верхнем ярусе ворот. *Акутагава Рюноскэ, &quot;Ворота Расёмон&quot;, пер. Н .Фельдмана*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Покойник был дурак и так любил чины, // Что требует в аду короны сатаны. *Роберт Бернс, &quot;Надпись на могиле честолюбца&quot;, пер. С. Я. Маршака*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't swap the words in the excerpts above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="344bf4b0-3de4-4e48-9d46-8934fc11bfa6" CreationDate="2013-02-19T07:09:24.573" UserId="69" Comment="Wording, grammar, formatting." Text="“Он сел между мной и Верой” и “Он сел между мною и Верой” are quite different in meaning. While first is neutral, the second suggests antipathy between me and him, one who sat between us. That is why this form is used. The form _мною_ suggests firm interest involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6985" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1938" RevisionGUID="344bf4b0-3de4-4e48-9d46-8934fc11bfa6" CreationDate="2013-02-19T07:09:24.573" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 97, 242 edit id of 314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6986" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1939" RevisionGUID="fbee4e2f-2e94-42ef-a0be-9336f5c319eb" CreationDate="2013-02-19T07:20:39.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/303766028415021057" />
  <row Id="6987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="7cdd0864-cd5a-41ba-8205-547f8da6b7c8" CreationDate="2013-02-19T11:37:43.917" UserId="69" Comment="Wording, grammar, formatting." Text="Just let us get closer to the picture Harms is drawing. At the time he was writing, to his disposition he had set expression _в головах_, meaning before, now rarely used. He could not use it for a connotation of an ailing person lying in bed it conveys. He could not use _перед_ (in front of) for the reason the gypsy would never be opposed to the horse he obviously adores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poets often invent  new metaphors, or they are not poets. So in this case we are facing new metaphor freshly minted for this precise purpose, and never used anywhere else. Metaphors invented by the poets often have double if not triple meaning, and in this case we have very nice example of it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6988" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1936" RevisionGUID="7cdd0864-cd5a-41ba-8205-547f8da6b7c8" CreationDate="2013-02-19T11:37:43.917" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="fa39eea3-46f9-440e-91f2-8fd3d73d1fce" CreationDate="2013-02-19T12:22:49.020" UserId="185" Comment="added comments by Quassnoi and YellowDog" Text="Indeed, it is not always possible to know, whether a noun is animate or inanimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rule is that nouns that denote animate objects (people or animals) are grammatically animated, i.e. the form of their Accusative case coincides with the form of their Genitive case. Inanimate objects (basically, the rest of the world) behave like grammatically inanimate: their Accusative case coincides with their Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, whether a noun is animate or inanimate cannot be seen in case of nouns that do not change morphologically (like *пальто* or *Пьеро*). But their animatedness can be identified by the endings of adjectives that describe these nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу грустного Пьеро*, but &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу старое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problems arise in cases when semantic and grammatical animatedness do not coincide. I will try to list these cases here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of aggregations: народ, толпа, стая. They denote animate objects, but behave like inanimate nouns. *Истребить целый народ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of anthropomorphuous objects: кукла, снеговикб матрёшка, марионетка, робот. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Слепить толстого снеговика.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of card and chess figures: валет, король, слон и т.п. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Побить чужого валета.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of mechanisms and tools that sound like names of people: дворники. They have the same form as animate nouns, but be careful: when they denote inanimate objects, they change like inanimate nouns. *Сломать дворник у машины*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are cases when the noun can be both used as animated and as inanimate and denote the same thing (I only know three cases, but there might be more):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Запускать воздушный змей* and *Запускать воздушного змея*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Изучать микробы, бактерии* and *Изучать микробов, бактерий*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Готовить кальмары, креветки, моллюски* and *Готовить кальмаров, креветок, моллюсков* (but always *изучать кальмаров, кревечток, моллюсков*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="94bebf40-9884-4046-a6c4-d4823d165112" CreationDate="2013-02-19T12:55:13.860" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="Indeed, it is not always possible to know, whether a noun is animate or inanimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rule is that nouns that denote animate objects (people or animals) are grammatically animated, i.e. the form of their Accusative case coincides with the form of their Genitive case. Inanimate objects (basically, the rest of the world) behave like grammatically inanimate: their Accusative case coincides with their Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, whether a noun is animate or inanimate cannot be seen in case of nouns that do not change morphologically (like *пальто* or *Пьеро*). But their animatedness can be identified by the endings of adjectives that describe these nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу грустного Пьеро*, but &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу старое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problems arise in cases when semantic and grammatical animatedness do not coincide. I will try to list these cases here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of aggregations: народ, толпа, стая. They denote animate objects, but behave like inanimate nouns. *Истребить целый народ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of anthropomorphuous objects: кукла, снеговик, матрёшка, марионетка, робот. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Слепить толстого снеговика.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of card and chess figures: валет, король, слон и т.п. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Побить чужого валета.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of mechanisms and tools that sound like names of people: дворники. They have the same form as animate nouns, but be careful: when they denote inanimate objects, they change like inanimate nouns. *Сломать дворник у машины*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are cases when the noun can be both used as animated and as inanimate and denote the same thing (I only know three cases, but there might be more):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Запускать воздушный змей* and *Запускать воздушного змея*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Изучать микробы, бактерии* and *Изучать микробов, бактерий*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Готовить кальмары, креветки, моллюски* and *Готовить кальмаров, креветок, моллюсков* (but always *изучать кальмаров, кревечток, моллюсков*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1943" RevisionGUID="ab76e6d5-d5a0-4d7c-8422-7ba5385aebf9" CreationDate="2013-02-20T06:01:24.020" UserId="827" Text="Во-первых, мне кажется, Вы методологически неверно подошли к вопросу - в том смысле, что Иванов принципиально ограничен в возможностях проработки фонетической истории форматом общего обзора. Начните хотя бы с &quot;Исторической фонетики русского языка&quot; В.В.Колёсова (версия 1980-го года есть у Ксаны К.), даже с первых страниц виден совершенно другой уровень изложения, на порядок глубже в плане методики фонологии и проработанных деталей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну а далее, скорее всего, интересующие Вас аспекты уже далеко за пределами учебников и надо уходить в анализ научной периодики." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6996" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="65cc32ed-2d80-4136-be17-0169d75b928a" CreationDate="2013-02-20T10:22:41.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/304174223507738624" />
  <row Id="6997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="2e4db79b-c815-4b42-af23-0c390548344b" CreationDate="2013-02-20T13:49:14.480" UserId="194" Text="Покойник retains qualities of a personality which a труп does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can speak about name, age, property, character, relatives, friends, colleagues, occupation, nationality of a покойник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot speak about say, relatives or name of a труп. Труп is a body, corpse, покойник is a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покойник был старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means the deceased was old when he died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Труп был старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means the corpse was lying here for a long time since the death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="b6a2bed9-b2f1-4306-897c-8181684e9868" CreationDate="2013-02-20T13:54:49.543" UserId="194" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Покойник retains qualities of a personality which a труп does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can speak about name, age, property, character, relatives, friends, colleagues, occupation, nationality of a покойник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot speak about say, relatives or name of a труп. Труп is a body, corpse, покойник is a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покойник был старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means the deceased was old when he died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Труп был старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means the corpse was lying here for a long time since the death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покойник can be молодой, but a труп only can be свежий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1940" RevisionGUID="2ab827cf-1467-4d9a-abbe-127e67839290" CreationDate="2013-02-20T14:02:55.253" UserId="185" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Indeed, it is not always possible to know, whether a noun is animate or inanimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rule is that nouns that denote animate objects (people or animals) are grammatically animated, i.e. the form of their Accusative case coincides with the form of their Genitive case. Inanimate objects (basically, the rest of the world) behave like grammatically inanimate: their Accusative case coincides with their Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, whether a noun is animate or inanimate cannot be seen in case of nouns that do not change morphologically (like *пальто* or *Пьеро*). But their animatedness can be identified by the endings of adjectives that describe these nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу грустного Пьеро*, but &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Я вижу старое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More problems arise in cases when semantic and grammatical animatedness do not coincide. I will try to list these cases here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of aggregations: народ, толпа, стая. They denote animate objects, but behave like inanimate nouns. *Истребить целый народ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of anthropomorphous objects (e.g. toys): кукла, снеговик, матрёшка, марионетка, робот, солдатик. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Слепить толстого снеговика.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of card and chess figures: валет, король, слон и т.п. They denote inanimate objects, but behave like animate nouns. *Побить чужого валета.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Names of mechanisms and tools that sound like names of people: дворники. They have the same form as animate nouns, but be careful: when they denote inanimate objects, they change like inanimate nouns. *Сломать дворник у машины*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are cases when the noun can be both used as animated and as inanimate and denote the same thing (I only know three cases, but there might be more):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Запускать воздушный змей* and *Запускать воздушного змея*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Изучать микробы, бактерии* and *Изучать микробов, бактерий*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Готовить кальмары, креветки, моллюски* and *Готовить кальмаров, креветок, моллюсков* (but always *изучать кальмаров, кревечток, моллюсков*).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1944" RevisionGUID="91adccb8-16fb-45e2-b571-3d6900226402" CreationDate="2013-02-20T15:39:09.677" UserId="194" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="Покойник retains qualities of a personality which a труп does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can speak about name, age, property, character, relatives, friends, colleagues, occupation, nationality of a покойник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot speak about say, relatives or name of a труп. Труп is a body, corpse, покойник is a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покойник был старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means the deceased was old when he died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Труп был старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means the corpse was lying here for a long time since the death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покойник can be молодой, but a труп only can be свежий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar distinction exists not only among the dead but also among the alive: compare &quot;человек&quot; and &quot;тело человека&quot;. While both may refer to the same physical object, the &quot;тело&quot; is inanimate. We can speak about water and fat reserves of a &quot;тело человека&quot; but we can talk about water and fat reserves of a человек only in the sense of property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="29b9723d-cc9a-4859-a554-f809b4846dfb" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:03:10.840" UserId="346" Text="В частности в вот этом вот отрывке текста - `The display of an iOS device is at the heart of the user’s experience. Not only do people view beautiful text, graphics, and media on the display, they also physically interact with the Multi-Touch screen to drive their experience (even when they can’t see the screen). `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что здесь пользователи делают со своим опытом? Как это сказать по человечески?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="29b9723d-cc9a-4859-a554-f809b4846dfb" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:03:10.840" UserId="346" Text="Как лучше всего перевести user experience?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="29b9723d-cc9a-4859-a554-f809b4846dfb" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:03:10.840" UserId="346" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="b3a8a2e9-5e7d-4a9e-8db0-fa66089b46e3" CreationDate="2013-02-20T17:01:39.970" UserId="71" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="В частности в вот этом вот отрывке текста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The display of an iOS device is at the heart of the user’s experience. Not only do people view beautiful text, graphics, and media on the display, they also physically interact with the Multi-Touch screen to drive their experience (even when they can’t see the screen). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что здесь пользователи делают со своим опытом? Как это сказать по человечески?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1946" RevisionGUID="89cd9862-68bd-4699-9c33-cc3b7921ddc6" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:38:34.773" UserId="134" Text="Garrett's book title is translated into Russian as *Веб-дизайн: элементы опыта взаимодействия*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite an ugly calque in my opinion however it had rooted in the Russian web design argot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be *пользовательские ожидания*. Your excerpt describes what do iOS users expect from their devices and apps they run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately *опыт взаимодействия* or *пользовательские ожидания* are not breakable in the same way the English phrases are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the original phrase (&quot;to drive their [users'] experience&quot;) seems quite ostentatious and apparently just means &quot;to do their stuff&quot;. I believe the author wanted to shift the focus from &quot;using the device&quot; or &quot;using the app&quot; to &quot;getting things done the way they expect&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you'll have to invent your own translation or rephrase the sentence completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something along these lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно не глядя выполнять привычные действия, касаясь пальцами дисплея Multi-Touch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="5687f332-0157-4522-8e6c-1917b518de24" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:47:59.420" UserId="1456" Text="I'm a native Russian speaker and I have question for those whose mothertongue is English. Can you recollect some **English phrases or expressions** with complicated sound and articulation? The Russian examples are *&quot;Шла Саша по шоссе и сосала сушку&quot;, &quot;Мама мыла мою малину&quot;* - the first one is a tongue twister (or a patter, I don't know really) and the second is just a testing phrase for different speech systems. I need english phrases which are **hard to pronounce/have many different sound combinations and to understand when you listen to them** (they may as well include some omophones such as night-knight).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="5687f332-0157-4522-8e6c-1917b518de24" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:47:59.420" UserId="1456" Text="Enslish expressions like &quot;Шла Саша по шоссе и сосала сушку&quot;, &quot;Мама мыла мою малину&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="5687f332-0157-4522-8e6c-1917b518de24" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:47:59.420" UserId="1456" Text="|произношение|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7009" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="93c943b9-864c-4de9-ae67-0e7694601b69" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:56:22.087" UserId="1456" Comment="edited title" Text="English expressions like &quot;Шла Саша по шоссе и сосала сушку&quot;, &quot;Мама мыла мою малину&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="5c329fed-e044-4ed5-9643-298fdffc745c" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:01:15.737" UserId="69" Comment="Spelling, formatting." Text="В частности в этом вот отрывке текста:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The display of an iOS device is at the heart of the user’s experience. Not only do people view beautiful text, graphics, and media on the display, they also physically interact with the Multi-Touch screen to drive their experience (even when they can’t see the screen). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что здесь пользователи делают со своим опытом? Как это сказать по-человечески?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7011" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="5c329fed-e044-4ed5-9643-298fdffc745c" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:01:15.737" UserId="69" Comment="Spelling, formatting." Text="Как лучше всего перевести «user experience»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7012" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="5c329fed-e044-4ed5-9643-298fdffc745c" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:01:15.737" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 315" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1948" RevisionGUID="4a4fb3f5-0623-4908-9d50-1f0171838edb" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:19:38.327" UserId="194" Text="The best term for &quot;user experience&quot; in Russian would be ***эргономика***. Yoiu can also use &quot;***удобство работы***&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7014" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="2ecb22a0-beb9-4694-be0b-0131ef713006" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:50:07.243" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7015" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="e38e7659-2b5f-485a-abab-216775574f6e" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:50:07.243" UserId="134" Comment="to http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/104757/english-expressions-like" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Umari&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7016" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="7f8818c2-d83b-406d-a134-2c80ff6b988e" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:50:07.243" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Umari&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7018" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="1947" RevisionGUID="a80fcbad-3d50-4005-9c6d-0a026f44e297" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:56:34.727" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="eb5603d9-95a7-41ca-b171-24355739f9db" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:41:37.413" UserId="487" Text="I've often heard the interjection &quot;так, так, так, так!&quot;. *What does it mean? Can somebody illustrate with examples?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="eb5603d9-95a7-41ca-b171-24355739f9db" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:41:37.413" UserId="487" Text="Meaning of &quot;так так так так!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="eb5603d9-95a7-41ca-b171-24355739f9db" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:41:37.413" UserId="487" Text="|одним-словом|междометие|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1950" RevisionGUID="8fd00fb4-051c-4d0e-8d92-c8ec84ef03be" CreationDate="2013-02-21T02:01:56.407" UserId="1236" Text="That can be translated as `Well, well, well!` which means &quot;that's quite interesting.&quot; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A teacher comes into the classroom, two pupils are kissing. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teacher says, &quot;Tак, так, та-a-a-aк!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A guy comes to a police station in Moscow and says, &quot;I'm a CIA afent,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've been spying on the Bolshoi Theater for 5 years.&quot; The policeman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; says, &quot;Tак, так, та-a-a-aк!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7026" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="d107aacc-1a99-43f4-ad1b-afbbb325bd4a" CreationDate="2013-02-21T10:22:55.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/304536671762927616" />
  <row Id="7027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1952" RevisionGUID="38cd23d0-95a3-456d-8a2a-f86340357a38" CreationDate="2013-02-21T11:59:58.543" UserId="560" Text="My impression is that it isn't what Yellow Sky thought it was in his answer. I'd say, on paper, I would expect two completely different meanings and intonations, depending on the number of &quot;так&quot;s:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Так, так, так!&quot;, especially with that prolonged &quot;а&quot; in the last &quot;так&quot; is exactly what Yellow Sky said it was - an expression of interest. They are pronounced slowly, as if you're savoring the moment. I'll just quote his examples to illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A teacher comes into the classroom, two pupils are kissing. The teacher says, &quot;Tак, так, та-a-a-aк!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A guy comes to a police station in Moscow and says, &quot;I'm a CIA agent, I've been spying on the Bolshoi Theater for 5 years.&quot; The policeman says, &quot;Tак, так, та-a-a-aк!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if I see 4+ &quot;так&quot;s, in my mind I pronounce them faster and I'd expect them to be used to stop the other speaker from continuing. Probably I'd continue the &quot;так&quot;s with &quot;подожди&quot;. It means something along the lines of the English &quot;wait, wait, wait&quot;. Here's an example to illustrate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- И тут этот парень ударил его прямо в лицо, и...  &#xD;&#xA;-- Так, так, так, так, подожди, имеешь в виду того парня, который перед этим приставал к его жене или того, который пил виски у бара?  &#xD;&#xA;*Meaning:*  &#xD;&#xA;-- And then that guy hits him right in the face and...  &#xD;&#xA;-- Wait, wait, wait, do you mean the guy who was hitting on his wife or the one who was drinking whiskey at the bar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="cc197f5a-bf86-41ce-8d64-e053ab4ae2f1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T14:28:46.403" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've often heard the interjection &quot;так, так, так, так!&quot;. What does it mean? Can somebody illustrate with examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1953" RevisionGUID="15722e92-a688-41be-bb9a-161182ca3b72" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:28:28.217" UserId="69" Text="I do not know all the intricacies of the usage of this word, and the changes in it over time, but to provide some background, and to clear up some misconceptions, here are some additional information and usage examples (of which I was not able to find many).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word in question is not new, and was included in [Dahl’s explanatory dictionary][1] in its first edition (1866, [p. 367][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That definition simply equates the word with _терпение_, which translates as “patience” or “endurance”, without any notes on special usage. Notably, the dictionary of Ukrainian language by [B. Hrinchenko][4] (1907‒1909) gives exactly same definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Yury Trifonov][5]’s 1978 novel _The Old Man_ in which the hero remembers [Russian Civil War][6]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Когда Данилов уехал, он пришел крайне подавленный и сказал: «Если у каторжного терпячка лопнула, то мне что же остается — пулю в лоб?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here it seems to be used the same way someone would use the common phrase _терпение лопнуло_ (one’s patience was lost). However, it has some leaning towards the “endurance” sence. That is, if Danilov, former labour camp convict, could not bear or endure certain event, how could others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- contemporary Kazakh writer and Ural region and Cossack historian [A. Yalfimov][7] used the word in the novel that is still in progress, but with few chapters published in some regional literary magazines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; И вот, когда терпячка совсем кончилась, сна не было и кусок не лез в горло, вздрогнули казаки на ранней заре от могучего, протяжного гула.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_Dictionary_of_the_Living_Great_Russian_Language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=cN1EAAAAcAAJ&amp;dq=%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PA367#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ravKf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borys_Hrinchenko&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Trifonov&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://orenlit.ru/blog/%D0%AF%D0%BB%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="dd80c9ab-e2ec-4e73-941d-a42b48485639" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:44:49.383" UserId="487" Comment="Ereased one extra tak" Text="I've often heard the interjection &quot;так, так, так!&quot;. What does it mean? Can somebody illustrate with examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1949" RevisionGUID="dd80c9ab-e2ec-4e73-941d-a42b48485639" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:44:49.383" UserId="487" Comment="Ereased one extra tak" Text="Meaning of &quot;так так так!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="8316bcba-1dc3-4e09-aa94-837cfe1b12b9" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:56:26.300" UserId="1323" Text="I'm reading Незнайка в солнечном городе and just encountered something I cannot properly make sense of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подъем был такой крутой, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, подъем (= climb, rise, ascent, etc.) is a male noun, but why is the adjective not in instrumental case?&#xD;&#xA;At least I learned that it should be instrumental with был and будет in such a sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tested it with Google translate. I know it's not reliable for translation, but it usually offers interesting alternatives. Google translate gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъем был такой крутой  = climb was so steep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the version, I though was the proper one with instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъем был таким крутым  = rise was so cool&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have two questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why is the adjective not in instrumental? Or in other words, which grammatical construct is it that I didn't learn about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is Google translate right, does the adjective really mean something different if I put it in instrumental case? Why is that?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be happy if someone could enlighten me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="8316bcba-1dc3-4e09-aa94-837cfe1b12b9" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:56:26.300" UserId="1323" Text="Meaning depending on case with &quot;был&quot; + adjective in infinitive or instrumental" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="8316bcba-1dc3-4e09-aa94-837cfe1b12b9" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:56:26.300" UserId="1323" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1955" RevisionGUID="ebc1e2d3-0167-4314-a412-0ce57ca5ed4b" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:39:03.603" UserId="404" Text="These two versions actually mean the same thing (without differences in emphasis or anything else). Google Translate is often not a suitable source to rely on because [it translates phrases and sentences by patterns][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative instead of instrumental case here is kind of colloquial transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://translate.google.ru/about/intl/en_ALL/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7036" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="c4ee870d-3144-4a9a-8919-8cd9451165bb" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:51:24.853" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Does &quot;был крутой&quot; means the same as &quot;был крутым&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="c4ee870d-3144-4a9a-8919-8cd9451165bb" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:51:24.853" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|склонение|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="e4bcd7fa-c209-4d55-b80c-f2b573f773d1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:05:56.617" UserId="487" Text="For non-Russian-speakers it might be not so easy to detect the difference between words which are *almost* synonyms; for instance the difference between &quot;теперь&quot; и &quot;сейчас&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would you use &quot;**опять**&quot;, when &quot;**еще раз**&quot; and when &quot;**снова**&quot;? (assuming, of course, that I'm not wrong and they are indeed (*almost*) synonyms)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="e4bcd7fa-c209-4d55-b80c-f2b573f773d1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:05:56.617" UserId="487" Text="Oпять, еще раз and снова" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="e4bcd7fa-c209-4d55-b80c-f2b573f773d1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:05:56.617" UserId="487" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7041" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="25c43aa5-2a4a-4711-94fd-9b13be890572" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:25:10.760" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="dd9af549-ccb3-4c54-868c-be2b169deb78" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:39:41.983" UserId="487" Comment="added a link" Text="For non-Russian-speakers it might be not so easy to detect the difference between words which are *almost* synonyms; for instance the difference between &quot;теперь&quot; и &quot;сейчас&quot; (cf. [this question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1062/what-is-the-difference-between-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8C-and-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would you use &quot;**опять**&quot;, when &quot;**еще раз**&quot; and when &quot;**снова**&quot;? (assuming, of course, that I'm not wrong and they are indeed (*almost*) synonyms)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="36d0e652-b332-49c6-a44a-be13489cc5c1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:38:36.003" UserId="827" Text="Not from dictionaries, but from persional experience:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ещё раз&quot; is mainly used when somebody asks to do something in a future, while &quot;опять&quot; and &quot;снова&quot; are preferred for finished actions. &quot;Надо позвонить ему ещё раз.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, &quot;снова&quot; is used for intentional actions, but &quot;опять&quot; for occasional (unexpected) ones. There is phrase: &quot;Не &lt;&lt;опять&gt;&gt;, а &lt;&lt;снова&gt;&gt;!&quot;, which expresses that the action was intentional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these nuances aren't strict and can be easily mixed: &quot;Он ещё раз сходил за ёлкой, потом ещё раз...&quot;. But, I can't imagine use of &quot;опять&quot; for future actions (seems it's strict constraint).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="d51d6d81-3f9a-433e-9f90-023304ada59b" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:49:28.720" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="For non-Russian-speakers it might be not so easy to detect the difference between words that are *almost* synonyms; for instance the difference between &quot;теперь&quot; и &quot;сейчас&quot; (cf. [this question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1062/what-is-the-difference-between-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8C-and-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would you use &quot;**опять**&quot;, when &quot;**еще раз**&quot; and when &quot;**снова**&quot;? (assuming, of course, that I'm not wrong and they are indeed (*almost*) synonyms)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="2c1adfbc-c702-4009-bafa-70237721ee2c" CreationDate="2013-02-21T23:04:29.063" UserId="71" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Not from dictionaries, but from persional experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё раз** is mainly used when somebody asks to do something in a future, while **опять** and **снова** are preferred for finished actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо позвонить ему ещё раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, *снова* is used for intentional actions, but *опять* for occasional (unexpected) ones. There is phrase which expresses that the action was intentional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не «опять», а «снова»!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these nuances aren't strict and can be easily mixed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ещё раз сходил за ёлкой, потом ещё раз... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I can't imagine use of &quot;опять&quot; for future actions (seems it's strict constraint)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="b519ed6d-05dc-487c-bd15-f0a761161c63" CreationDate="2013-02-22T01:00:09.907" UserId="1459" Text=" - Ещё раз means one more time.&#xD;&#xA; - Oпять means again.&#xD;&#xA; - снова means from the top, again, new beginning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7047" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="9d32b2b2-c777-46fe-957a-a6ff0c3b493a" CreationDate="2013-02-22T04:23:34.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/304808627917692928" />
  <row Id="7048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="635cabbb-2b2d-4be6-875f-708b4ff3915b" CreationDate="2013-02-22T07:27:25.477" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text=" - _Ещё раз_ means “one more time”.&#xD;&#xA; - _Oпять_ means “again”.&#xD;&#xA; - _Снова_ means “from the top, again, new beginning”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7049" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1958" RevisionGUID="635cabbb-2b2d-4be6-875f-708b4ff3915b" CreationDate="2013-02-22T07:27:25.477" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 1459 edit id of 316" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="a2dec44a-6e7c-4e33-90d8-65ef655436f7" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:37:23.967" UserId="194" Text="The answer by Netch is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Еще раз&quot; &quot;one more time&quot; is used when you expect that the event happens or will happen the last time, you do not expect it to repeat again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опять&quot; and &quot;снова&quot; are used for actions that you expect to repeat again and again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опять&quot; is usually used for non-desirable events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Опять придется его об этом просить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to irritate him with my request again but I have no other choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничего страшного, я снова его об этом попрошу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing bad, I can ask him again and he will do it without negative reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попрошу его об этом еще раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will ask him again one more time (I hope it will be the last time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;снова&quot; may refer to starting anew a prolonged action, while &quot;опять&quot; may mean a continuation of the previous action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он снова начал готовиться к экзаменам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly a year passed from the last time, and he choose another university so he started to prepare anew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он опять начал готовиться к экзаменам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably something interrupted his preparations for a day or two and now he continued the preparations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он решил построить дом снова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He decided to build a house anew instead of his previous house that was destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он опять решил построить дом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He again decided to build a house (he already decided so previously but changed his mind).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1960" RevisionGUID="d79df463-6509-48e5-bfe4-6c988a8536c2" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:54:44.907" UserId="194" Comment="added 536 characters in body" Text="The answer by Netch is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Еще раз&quot; &quot;one more time&quot; is used when you expect that the event happens or will happen the last time, you do not expect it to repeat again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опять&quot; and &quot;снова&quot; are used for actions that you expect to repeat again and again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опять&quot; is usually used for non-desirable events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Опять придется его об этом просить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to irritate him with my request again but I have no other choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничего страшного, я снова его об этом попрошу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing bad, I can ask him again and he will do it without negative reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попрошу его об этом еще раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will ask him again one more time (I hope it will be the last time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;снова&quot; may refer to starting anew a prolonged action, while &quot;опять&quot; may mean a continuation of the previous action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он снова начал готовиться к экзаменам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly a year passed from the last time, and he choose another university so he started to prepare anew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он опять начал готовиться к экзаменам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably something interrupted his preparations for a day or two and now he continued the preparations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он решил построить дом снова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He decided to build a house anew instead of his previous house that was destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он опять решил построить дом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He again decided to build a house (he already decided so previously but changed his mind).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, &quot;опять&quot; is used wen you want to underline the unavoidable repetitiveness of the event:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;опять начались дожди&quot;, &quot;опять я заболел&quot;, &quot;опять крысы испортили продукты&quot;, &quot;он опять стал принимать наркотики&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Снова&quot; is used when you want to underline that the event starts anew and the results of the previous event are lost or that the event gained new inpulse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;придется снова собирать все документы&quot;, &quot;он снова влюбился и снова приобрел интерес к жизни&quot;, &quot;после выхода из тюрьмы он снова начал строить свою карьеру&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="8936e4e0-4fee-4c52-8542-85c8fb06480d" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:47:07.427" UserId="1230" Text="Is there a way to express &quot;geek&quot;/&quot;nerd&quot; idiom in Russian without a whole paragraph describing what or who a nerd/geek is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing I can think of that would be culturally equivalent would be &quot;очкарик&quot; but semantically, the meaning is different even if there's some idiomatic overlap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="8936e4e0-4fee-4c52-8542-85c8fb06480d" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:47:07.427" UserId="1230" Text="How do you say &quot;Geek&quot;/&quot;nerd&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="8936e4e0-4fee-4c52-8542-85c8fb06480d" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:47:07.427" UserId="1230" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1962" RevisionGUID="7649e0a4-0e9c-4715-bdd7-698a92edb841" CreationDate="2013-02-23T05:30:42.790" UserId="115" Text="&quot;Ботаник&quot; seems like a good candidate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1963" RevisionGUID="ad426240-98a2-4914-95a9-428be9208310" CreationDate="2013-02-23T06:03:17.020" UserId="1304" Text="&quot;Зубрила&quot; may be what you are looking for. Also &quot;зануда&quot; if you want negative connotation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="967e4c97-56c2-49a4-827f-c5ad7d2102fc" CreationDate="2013-02-23T07:02:12.153" UserId="1461" Text="&quot;задрот&quot; if you need strong negative connotation. &#xD;&#xA;that's usually male, in his teens or older, weird appearance and no girlfriend :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1962" RevisionGUID="7e775b9e-dd35-4d8a-b2b8-cb5bfb64a43b" CreationDate="2013-02-23T08:52:28.487" UserId="47" Comment="Added short form. Reformatted." Text="`Ботаник` looks like a good candidate. Often shortened to `ботан`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1962" RevisionGUID="899c2e7d-7271-42dd-845f-bf6d987237ba" CreationDate="2013-02-23T09:05:09.287" UserId="47" Comment="Added link to Wikipedia" Text="`Ботаник` looks like a good candidate. Often shortened to `ботан`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, Russian Wikipedia [links][1] from `Ботаник` to `гик` and `нёрд`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%28%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="bcfb2635-8c85-47e1-9e03-baebfcffa1f8" CreationDate="2013-02-23T10:37:22.560" UserId="827" Comment="Fixing some nuances" Text="Not from dictionaries, but from persional experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё раз** is mainly used when somebody asks to do something in a future, while **опять** and **снова** are preferred for finished actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты должен позвонить ему ещё раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, *снова* is used for intentional actions, but *опять* for occasional (unexpected) ones, even in future. There is phrase which expresses that the action was intentional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не «опять», а «снова»!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ещё раз&quot; may be used for past events to put accent on repetition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ещё раз сходил за ёлкой, потом ещё раз... ([&quot;Падал прошлогодний снег&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1957" RevisionGUID="72cc2ef4-d050-45cf-8a87-6938d327a9ae" CreationDate="2013-02-23T11:42:03.420" UserId="827" Comment="return occasionally deleted statement" Text="Not from dictionaries, but from persional experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё раз** is mainly used when somebody asks to do something in a future, while **опять** and **снова** are preferred for finished actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты должен позвонить ему ещё раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, *снова* is used for intentional actions, but *опять* for occasional (unexpected) ones, even in future. There is phrase which expresses that the action was intentional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не «опять», а «снова»!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ещё раз&quot; may be used for past events to put accent on repetition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ещё раз сходил за ёлкой, потом ещё раз... ([&quot;Падал прошлогодний снег&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boundaries between these meanings aren't strict and relate on speaker.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1966" RevisionGUID="152399cd-9779-404e-b3c0-44113ed63003" CreationDate="2013-02-23T14:59:43.367" UserId="1262" Text="The major difference is about 'durative predicate' vs 'temporal predicate'. This difference in predicates is not so obvious in English, although it can be rendered by its means as well, cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подъем был такой крутой = climb was so steep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подъем был таким крутым = climb had been/used to be so steep&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="1282f16e-f639-4042-8c97-31139240bb73" CreationDate="2013-02-23T15:15:35.630" UserId="1262" Text="Actually, none of the CS or PS verbs could have -оть in its endings, because -оть is a MR ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="127d6228-feff-4ac8-b95d-3ece1ff71d33" CreationDate="2013-02-23T15:21:39.727" UserId="1262" Text="One of the best matches is word *покой*, although  &quot;*оставьте меня в покое*&quot; means rather 'leave me alone' than 'can I have some privicy'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1380" RevisionGUID="29359520-aacf-42c8-9e78-5feaaf726ade" CreationDate="2013-02-23T22:42:35.917" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="The meaning here is close to second statement proposed: &quot;a political, diplomatic or military act&quot;, because it is an &quot;**act of sale**&quot;, which sounds silly in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Акция&quot;* is an abridged version of *&quot;рекламная акция&quot;*, а popular term emerged in the 90s in post-soviet territory. *&quot;Рекламная акция&quot;* could, but shouldn't be translated as &quot;**an act of advertisement**&quot;, because it sounds silly in English too. What it really means is &quot;**an act of product or service promotion**&quot;. And product promotion in Russia is a sale in 90% of cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no other meaning of *&quot;акция&quot;* I can think of, so if you see a word *&quot;акция&quot;* again in unknown context, I suggest that it is more likely an act of something, and not a stock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7072" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1380" RevisionGUID="29359520-aacf-42c8-9e78-5feaaf726ade" CreationDate="2013-02-23T22:42:35.917" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 71 edit id of 318" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="8dd1e9b4-7377-41e1-92ab-350d833da019" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:28:07.160" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, punctuation." Text="_Задрот_ if you need strong negative connotation. That’s usually male, in his teens or older, with weird appearance and no girlfriend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7074" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1964" RevisionGUID="8dd1e9b4-7377-41e1-92ab-350d833da019" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:28:07.160" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="0504a2f9-c655-4dfb-aa51-c6f77db272e9" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:44:50.163" UserId="194" Text="According to Mallory we have the following PIE words (in this notation, g = palatal/plain ġ=plain/uvular):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enġhu̯is*** snake (&gt; уж)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghus*** narrow (&gt; узко)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghnos*** constriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯eghlea̯*** affliction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hints at that the words could be related if the exact value of the g was determined wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder whether the following words are related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯oġhu̯is*** snake, serpent (in Fortson, ***e̯eghu̯is***). Mallory claims this is unrelated to the ***a̯enġhu̯is***. Fortson claims it is related to the following entry and reconstructs the same consonant in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghis*** hedgehog (&gt; russ. ёж, eng. hedgehog)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghs*** out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯egherom*** lake (&gt; russ. озеро)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="0504a2f9-c655-4dfb-aa51-c6f77db272e9" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:44:50.163" UserId="194" Text="Are the уж (a kind of snake) and узко (narrow) related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="0504a2f9-c655-4dfb-aa51-c6f77db272e9" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:44:50.163" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="34eae3eb-0e6f-4bc2-874d-e969d94e237f" CreationDate="2013-02-24T00:19:43.727" UserId="194" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="According to Mallory we have the following PIE words (in this notation, g = palatal/plain ġ=plain/uvular):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enġhu̯is*** snake (&gt; уж)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghus*** narrow (&gt; узко)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghnos*** constriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hints at that the words could be related if the exact value of the g was determined wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder whether the following words are related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯oġhu̯is*** snake, serpent (in Fortson, ***e̯eghu̯is***). Mallory claims this is unrelated to the ***a̯enġhu̯is***. Fortson claims it is related to the following entry and reconstructs the same consonant in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghis*** hedgehog (&gt; russ. ёж, eng. hedgehog)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghs*** out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯egherom*** lake (&gt; russ. озеро)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If ***e̯oġhu̯is***, it could be connected to ***e̯eġhu̯ti*** drinks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="f2f5b1de-b09e-44b4-9379-f4566e590cb0" CreationDate="2013-02-24T01:25:37.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/305488619756478464" />
  <row Id="7080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="2ff2eb5c-f818-4af7-8b62-681d068d6d6b" CreationDate="2013-02-24T04:36:44.367" UserId="194" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="According to Mallory we have the following PIE words (in this notation, g = palatal/plain ġ=plain/uvular):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enġhu̯is*** snake (&gt; уж)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghus*** narrow (&gt; узко)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghnos*** constriction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hints at that the words could be related if the exact value of the g was determined wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder whether the following words are related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯oġhu̯is*** snake, serpent (in Fortson, ***e̯eghu̯is***). Mallory claims this is unrelated to the ***a̯enġhu̯is***. Fortson claims it is related to the following entry and reconstructs the same consonant in the root. Mallory claims that the &quot;traditional school&quot; derived hedgehog as &quot;snake-eater&quot;. The Brill etymological dictionary of Latin reconstructs the initial a̯- here and links this root to the ***a̯enġhu̯is***, claiming that the -n- infix appeared here due to analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghis*** hedgehog (&gt; russ. ёж, eng. hedgehog)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghs*** out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯egherom*** lake (&gt; russ. озеро)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If ***e̯oġhu̯is***, it could be connected to ***e̯eġhu̯ti*** drinks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="6ed2e76f-cefc-4aad-8dc9-6e75b409bdad" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:28:49.977" UserId="1177" Comment="Alphabetical order" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2], online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] - a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype.&#xD;&#xA; - [LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="1a8208bc-d1e8-40fa-bdab-1bea583448d2" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:39:12.317" UserId="1177" Comment="Added resource, alphabetized items" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][7], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][1], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][8], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [3] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][5] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][6] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][9] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="13751d41-bc52-4f5f-a680-3eb6c65f9222" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:47:38.277" UserId="1177" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][7], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][1], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][2] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][8], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [3] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][11] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][5] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][6] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][9] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="d183ebfa-cd1f-46dc-a909-37313e422250" CreationDate="2013-02-24T06:49:45.587" UserId="69" Text="While there are not direct equivalents to _geek_, and _nerd_, we can find some terms that can match them closely, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to [OED definition][1], geek is “an unfashionable or socially inept person”, with the sub-sense of “a knowledgeable and _obsessive_ enthusiast” (emphasis mine). If we stress the obsessiveness of that enthusiasm, then the translations _**чо́кнутый**_ ([_cracked_ **2.**][2], [_batty_ &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;][3], also _тронутый_ (_touched_)) and _**поме́шанный**_ (_insane_; literally: _messed (up)_) often [given by on-line dictionaries][4] are suitable. Moreover, they line up with original etymology of _geek_ (“related to Dutch _gek_ ‘mad, silly’”). But these words do not necessarily imply “social ineptitude”, although they are usually used with disapproval to describe someone who is way too much into something or someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Nerd_, who is [defined by OED][5] as “a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious”, is easy to match by the word _**бота́ник**_ (literally: _botanist_, shortened as _ботан_ or _бата́н_). Why this discipline of biology acquired such dubious distinction is unclear, but there is a version that looks more like a folk etymology (as I have not seen a serious source on the subject), but it actually makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In 1825 classic of Russian literature, [Griboyedov][6]’s satire [_Woe from Wit_][7] (_Горе от ума_), there is a passage in Act III, where the Duchess talks about her nephew who is so involved in studying chemistry and botany that he is not interested in women or a career:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нет, в Петербурге институт  &#xD;&#xA;   Пе-да-го-гический, так, кажется, зовут:  &#xD;&#xA;   Там упражняются в расколах и в безверьи,  &#xD;&#xA;   Профессоры!! — У них учился наш родня,  &#xD;&#xA;   И вышел! Хоть сейчас в аптеку, в подмастерьи.  &#xD;&#xA;   От женщин бегает, и даже от меня!  &#xD;&#xA;   Чинов не хочет знать! Он химик, он ботаник,  &#xD;&#xA;   Князь Фёдор, мой племянник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The word _очкарик_ (one who wears glasses), while a good alternative, obviously limits its application to people whose sight had suffered from all that studying. On the contrary, why some dictionaries list _зануда_ (_bore, pest_) as the first choice translation for _nerd_ is beyond my comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related topic, as a warning, while the word _ботаник_ came to be strongly associated with nerdiness, the informal meaning of the word _химик_ (_chemist_) and related slang verb _химичить_ (“do chemistry”) are usually used to describe someone doing some inappropriately dangerous tinkering, messing things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/geek?q=geek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cracked?q=cracked&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/batty?q=batty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/geek/en/#lingvo/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nerd?q=nerd&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Griboyedov&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woe_from_Wit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1970" RevisionGUID="116f4a61-14b1-4d0d-b71b-96af02a9c24b" CreationDate="2013-02-24T07:03:42.697" UserId="69" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="While there are not direct equivalents to _geek_, and _nerd_, we can find some terms that can match them closely, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- According to [OED definition][1], _geek_ is “an unfashionable or socially inept person”, with the sub-sense of “a knowledgeable and _obsessive_ enthusiast” (emphasis mine). If we stress the obsessiveness of that enthusiasm, then the translations _**чо́кнутый**_ ([_cracked_ **2.**][2], [_batty_ &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;][3], also _тронутый_ (_touched_)) and _**поме́шанный**_ (_insane_; literally: _messed (up)_) often [given by on-line dictionaries][4] are suitable. Moreover, they line up with original etymology of _geek_ (“related to Dutch _gek_ ‘mad, silly’”). But these words do not necessarily imply “social ineptitude”, although they are usually used with disapproval to describe someone who is way too much into something or someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Nerd_, who is [defined by OED][5] as “a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious”, is easy to match by the word _**бота́ник**_ (literally: _botanist_, shortened as _ботан_ or _бата́н_). Why this discipline of biology acquired such dubious distinction is unclear, but there is a version that looks more like a folk etymology (as I have not seen a serious source on the subject), but it actually makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In 1825 classic of Russian literature, [Griboyedov][6]’s satire [_Woe from Wit_][7] (_Горе от ума_), there is a passage in Act III, where the Duchess talks about her nephew who is so involved in studying chemistry and botany that he is not interested in women or a career:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нет, в Петербурге институт  &#xD;&#xA;   Пе-да-го-гический, так, кажется, зовут:  &#xD;&#xA;   Там упражняются в расколах и в безверьи,  &#xD;&#xA;   Профессоры!! — У них учился наш родня,  &#xD;&#xA;   И вышел! Хоть сейчас в аптеку, в подмастерьи.  &#xD;&#xA;   От женщин бегает, и даже от меня!  &#xD;&#xA;   Чинов не хочет знать! Он химик, он ботаник,  &#xD;&#xA;   Князь Фёдор, мой племянник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The word _очкарик_ (one who wears glasses), while a good alternative, obviously limits its application to people whose sight had suffered from all that studying. On the contrary, why some dictionaries list _зануда_ (_bore, pest_) as the first choice translation for _nerd_ is beyond my comprehension. The word _умник_, while originally may have had a positive sense of someone who is laudably intelligent, now became to mean to address someone (usually in a form of exclamation) who is “too clever” and knows too much for their own good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related topic, as a warning, while the word _ботаник_ came to be strongly associated with nerdiness, the informal meaning of the word _химик_ (_chemist_) and related slang verb _химичить_ (“do chemistry”) are usually used to describe someone doing some inappropriately dangerous tinkering, messing things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/geek?q=geek&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cracked?q=cracked&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/batty?q=batty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/geek/en/#lingvo/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nerd?q=nerd&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Griboyedov&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woe_from_Wit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="9d6c5951-4ed4-4cbd-9371-c2545af7eda2" CreationDate="2013-02-24T12:21:35.920" UserId="194" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="According to Mallory we have the following PIE words (in this notation, g = palatal/plain ġ=plain/uvular):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enġhu̯is*** snake (&gt; уж)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghus*** narrow (&gt; узко)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯enghnos*** fear, constriction (&gt; ужас)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hints at that the words could be related if the exact value of the g was determined wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wonder whether the following words are related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯oġhu̯is*** snake, serpent (in Fortson, ***e̯eghu̯is***). Mallory claims this is unrelated to the ***a̯enġhu̯is***. Fortson claims it is related to the following entry and reconstructs the same consonant in the root. Mallory claims that the &quot;traditional school&quot; derived hedgehog as &quot;snake-eater&quot;. The Brill etymological dictionary of Latin reconstructs the initial a̯- here and links this root to the ***a̯enġhu̯is***, claiming that the -n- infix appeared here due to analogy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghis*** hedgehog (&gt; russ. ёж, eng. hedgehog)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯eghs*** out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***e̯egherom*** lake (&gt; russ. озеро)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If ***e̯oġhu̯is***, it could be connected to ***e̯eġhu̯ti*** drinks &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7087" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="92352d7b-7ab9-4d66-a6ef-9777b16d3138" CreationDate="2013-02-24T12:36:04.697" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7088" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="471e9b33-5610-420a-a83d-dc7ed9d9f996" CreationDate="2013-02-24T12:36:04.697" UserId="71" Comment="to http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3268/are-the-a-kind-of-snake-and-narrow-related" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7089" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="44d1a934-f6ab-4dc5-8cb2-e9aeb991efda" CreationDate="2013-02-24T12:36:04.697" UserId="71" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7091" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="1969" RevisionGUID="ec35fd5a-db80-4ba8-a414-184c3880318e" CreationDate="2013-02-24T12:44:38.650" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7092" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1961" RevisionGUID="5ff23609-6f0a-45f3-8350-966303a3aa74" CreationDate="2013-02-24T13:26:28.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/305670031767924736" />
  <row Id="7093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="8bc458d6-511b-4404-8c64-94c046df3ce9" CreationDate="2013-02-24T16:26:29.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/305715330955763712" />
  <row Id="7100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1945" RevisionGUID="fec96a2c-e660-4007-9280-afb64a82db33" CreationDate="2013-02-24T22:26:29.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/305805929994137602" />
  <row Id="7101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="058a2b47-bf4e-48b5-8e65-ef90011a8595" CreationDate="2013-02-25T09:09:57.557" UserId="1177" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="I'm writing a poem in Russian, and maybe I'm tired, but I'm kind of stuck on one particular word. Here's the couplet I'm working on right now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;мне теперь не до твоего смол-тока&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;о японском пиве заискивающегося&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic meaning is &quot;Right now, I have no time for your ingratiating small talk about Japanese beer.&quot; (By the way, &quot;ingratiating&quot; coordinates with &quot;small talk.&quot; I can't move the words around because it breaks my rhyme scheme.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My dad tells me that *заискивающегося* doesn't really exist, as such (but Google does turn up a few results). He also says that I should use *заискивающего*, but I'm not 100% sure. Something is off with my coordination here (I think we can ask the question &quot;Какого смол-тока?&quot; to test it), but I'm still confused. Can someone please help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7102" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1812" RevisionGUID="058a2b47-bf4e-48b5-8e65-ef90011a8595" CreationDate="2013-02-25T09:09:57.557" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 185 edit id of 320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="17a6f6cf-77ea-469a-b2a2-198ea51715b2" CreationDate="2013-02-25T09:10:04.233" UserId="1177" Comment="Links, formatting" Text="&gt;Поиски осколков метеорита, взорвавшегося над территорией Челябинской области&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the name of the participle for the word &quot;взорвавшегося&quot;?  Why isn't it shown here:&#xD;&#xA;[взорваться — Викисловарь](http://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7104" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1933" RevisionGUID="17a6f6cf-77ea-469a-b2a2-198ea51715b2" CreationDate="2013-02-25T09:10:04.233" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 185 edit id of 319" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1968" RevisionGUID="aceb2e31-3132-4c60-b200-6eda33b16542" CreationDate="2013-02-25T10:12:13.550" UserId="1262" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="One of the best matches is word *покой*, although  &quot;*оставьте меня в покое*&quot; means rather 'leave me alone' than 'can I have some privаcy'. The examples suggested for translation would become:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не могли бы Вы оставить меня в покое?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне небезразличен мой покой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="7ac2787f-851f-438d-b70d-0555f3cc432f" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:03:23.380" UserId="1177" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Why is dative case used in the following for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;месяцы в году  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;игры на снегу&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;There is no sentence, so how can there be an indirect object.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7112" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1790" RevisionGUID="7ac2787f-851f-438d-b70d-0555f3cc432f" CreationDate="2013-02-25T15:03:23.380" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 185 edit id of 321" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="8835a039-a09e-4b8d-9543-19940bb58a54" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:12:19.487" UserId="1262" Text="I have come across a striking similarity between Russian (neglective) diminitive suffix -шка for personal names (like Антошка, Машка, Мишка, Ивашка) and  Illative case in Mari languages (-ышке/-ышко /-ышкö, depending on vowel harmony).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian and Mari speakers has long been sharing common linguistic areal to create a linguistic union. The question is, whether this suffix is a result of Mari influence (Illative being used a polite impersonal form of address), or a common IE feature (cf. with my questions on -шка origin with no satisfactory answer). *Any* ideas? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. also with duminitive-cariative suffixes: солнышко, донышко, пёрышко / Сашенька, Аллочка, Эллочка etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обнаружил поразительное сходство между русским уничижительно-пренебрежительным суффиксом  -шка для имен собственных (Антошка, Машка, Мишка, Ивашка) и показателем иллатива в марийских языках  (-ышке/-ышко /-ышкö, в зависимости от гармонии гласных).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Носители русского и марийского языков достаточно долго находились в общем языковом ареале, чтобы создать языковой союз. Вопрос в том, является ли этот суффикс следствием влияния марийского (с использованием иллативной формы нарицательного имени как вежливо-безличного обращения, или же общей ИЕ чертой (ср. с моим вопросом о происхождении и исконности суффикса -шка, на который не было получено ни одного удовлетворительного ответа).  Есть ли *хоть какие-нибудь* идеи? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ср. также с уменьшительно-ласкательными суффиксами: солнышко, донышко, пёрышко / Сашенька, Аллочка, Эллочка, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="8835a039-a09e-4b8d-9543-19940bb58a54" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:12:19.487" UserId="1262" Text="Negl. diminitive in proper nouns: origin? Окуда в рус.яз. пренебрежит.-уничижит. суффикс -шка для нар.им.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="8835a039-a09e-4b8d-9543-19940bb58a54" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:12:19.487" UserId="1262" Text="|история-языка|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7116" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="dfe0ebc7-4f26-4e34-a38c-6dc02bf64e41" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:19:24.667" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="Negl. diminitive in proper nouns: origin? Окуда в рус.яз. пренебрежит.-уничижит. суффикс -шка для им.собств?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="dfe0ebc7-4f26-4e34-a38c-6dc02bf64e41" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:19:24.667" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="I have come across a striking similarity between Russian (neglective) diminitive suffix -шка for personal names (like Антошка, Машка, Мишка, Ивашка) and  Illative case in Mari languages (-ышке/-ышко /-ышкö, depending on vowel harmony).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian and Mari speakers has long been sharing common linguistic areal to create a linguistic union. The question is, whether this suffix is a result of Mari influence (Illative being used a polite impersonal form of address), or a common IE feature (cf. with my questions on -шка origin with no satisfactory answer). *Any* ideas? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. also with duminitive-cariative suffixes: солнышко, донышко, пёрышко / Сашенька, Аллочка, Эллочка etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обнаружил поразительное сходство между русским уничижительно-пренебрежительным суффиксом  -шка для имен собственных (Антошка, Машка, Мишка, Ивашка) и показателем иллатива в марийских языках  (-ышке/-ышко /-ышкö, в зависимости от гармонии гласных).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Носители русского и марийского языков достаточно долго находились в общем языковом ареале, чтобы создать языковой союз. Вопрос в том, является ли этот суффикс следствием влияния марийского (с использованием иллативной формы как вежливо-безличного обращения), или же общей ИЕ чертой (ср. с моим вопросом о происхождении и исконности суффикса -шка, на который не было получено ни одного удовлетворительного ответа).  Есть ли *хоть какие-нибудь* идеи? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ср. также с уменьшительно-ласкательными суффиксами: солнышко, донышко, пёрышко / Сашенька, Аллочка, Эллочка, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7118" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="71467a3a-3589-4f5a-8dc7-ec273c29133e" CreationDate="2013-02-25T20:07:30.790" UserId="185" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="5636a963-7bec-4c59-a040-8be4f4f7ca75" CreationDate="2013-02-26T08:24:18.263" UserId="1465" Text="    1. Где ты это узнал?&#xD;&#xA;    2. Откуда ты это узнал?&#xD;&#xA;These questions seem to be identical, but answers may be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. - I have heard it at the market.&#xD;&#xA;- I have read it at the university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  - I heard it from Jhon, He told me about it at the market.&#xD;&#xA;-  I read it from tutorial at the university library.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="d1c41388-a08d-41ce-89ef-9ee459a4b1b0" CreationDate="2013-02-26T09:07:01.523" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, articles, typos." Text="&gt; 1. Где ты это узнал?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Откуда ты это узнал?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions seem to be identical, but the answers may be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. - I have heard it at the market.&#xD;&#xA;- I have read it at the university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  - I heard it from John; he told me about it at the market.&#xD;&#xA;-  I read it in the tutorial at the university library.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7130" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1975" RevisionGUID="d1c41388-a08d-41ce-89ef-9ee459a4b1b0" CreationDate="2013-02-26T09:07:01.523" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 185 edit id of 322" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="270f50aa-73fd-4c53-ac8b-524cfa0b17ad" CreationDate="2013-02-26T09:37:31.827" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1400 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the origin of diminitive suffix *-шк-* for personal names (like *Антошка, Машка, Мишка, Ивашка*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="270f50aa-73fd-4c53-ac8b-524cfa0b17ad" CreationDate="2013-02-26T09:37:31.827" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1400 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the origin of Russian suffix -шк-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7133" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="5a6c283a-b956-45cc-9848-5f2e674bc2b4" CreationDate="2013-02-26T09:37:36.070" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="ff5cacf4-a680-448a-9b68-f4a9b3162633" CreationDate="2013-02-26T09:51:08.880" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="When asking someone where they live, why is &quot;Куда&quot; used in the question instead of &quot;Где&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As in why &quot;Откуда вы?&quot; instead of, say, &quot;Вы от где?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, where else can you use &quot;откуда&quot; instead of &quot;где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1976" RevisionGUID="cce40ca1-64a0-4769-a269-bd43193638f0" CreationDate="2013-02-26T13:50:20.417" UserId="134" Text="It's a combination of *-Vх-* (*Антон &gt; Антоха, Илья &gt; Илюха*) and diminutive *-к-*  (&lt; *&amp;ast;-ьк*) (*Тоня &gt; Тонька, Маша &gt; Машка*), affected by palatalization: *&amp;ast;-хьк- &gt; -шк-*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="ade5eb21-fc04-4e20-b1d5-c966aa0fa92d" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:35:05.537" UserId="967" Text="For example in English it is usually scatological diminutives, e.g. poopy. In French, &quot;[caca bouda][1]&quot;, in both cases adults just don't use this set of cuss words, they use real cuss words that children wouldn't be allowed to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the situation in Russian? Google and rambler are telling me that toddlers using adult cuss words in Russian is a concern but I'm not finding what cuss words Russian toddlers can get away with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard **блин горелый** a lot, but I don't know if it's a toddler word or an adult stand in for a cussword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to answer in English or Russian, I read it okay, but my writing is pretty ужасно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caca_boudin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="ade5eb21-fc04-4e20-b1d5-c966aa0fa92d" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:35:05.537" UserId="967" Text="How do toddler curse in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="ade5eb21-fc04-4e20-b1d5-c966aa0fa92d" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:35:05.537" UserId="967" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="d3dfd39e-d3c6-4295-a958-064b0904259b" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:46:59.677" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, improved formatting" Text="For example, in English it is usually scatological diminutives, e.g. _poopy_. In French, &quot;[caca bouda][1]&quot;, in both cases adults just don't use this set of cuss words, they use real cuss words that children wouldn't be allowed to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the situation in Russian? Google and rambler are telling me that toddlers using adult cuss words in Russian is a concern but I'm not finding what cuss words Russian toddlers can get away with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard **блин горелый** a lot, but I don't know if it's a toddler word or an adult stand in for a cussword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to answer in English or Russian, I read it okay, but my writing is pretty ужасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caca_boudin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7142" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="d3dfd39e-d3c6-4295-a958-064b0904259b" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:46:59.677" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, improved formatting" Text="How do toddlers curse in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7143" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="d3dfd39e-d3c6-4295-a958-064b0904259b" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:46:59.677" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 967 edit id of 323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="6b87f9f7-ae11-47e7-a361-bd9fa3f0d1e1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:50:15.737" UserId="967" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="For example, in English it is usually scatological diminutives, e.g. _poopy_. In French, &quot;[caca bouda][1]&quot;, in both cases adults just don't use this set of cuss words, they use real cuss words that children wouldn't be allowed to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the situation in Russian? Google and rambler are telling me that toddlers using adult cuss words in Russian is a concern but I'm not finding what cuss words Russian toddlers can get away with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard **блин горелый** a lot, but I don't know if it's a toddler word or an adult stand in for a cussword.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to answer in English or Russian, I read it okay, but my writing is pretty ужасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please form your answer in a manner that is not a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caca_boudin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1978" RevisionGUID="5b92c1f0-bc5e-4676-85cc-49f4fbd27ae8" CreationDate="2013-02-27T04:10:26.040" UserId="194" Text="You can use the both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где вы живёте?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Откуда вы приехали?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1979" RevisionGUID="0b4161ff-1a79-46c0-b351-f8169bc80a23" CreationDate="2013-02-27T07:45:42.420" UserId="1262" Text="That's mainly defined by milieu, e.g. toddles from poor families can curse in quite an ault Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Блин горелый** is a euphemism unrelated to any secific age. A fact proving my point that children often imitate adult behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, like most child languages, Russian 'toddle cursing' has a tendency for shorter words; therefore, the word *кака* is used more often, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кака! Это кака!***&#xD;&#xA;***Брось каку!*** (mother to a child)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike in Romance languages, this word does not necessary mean 'faeces'. It may mean any bad/rotten/unpleasant thing (another point proving ISFP being a generalised MBTI sociotype for Russian culture).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian culture is also more strict towards children's negative self-expression, and actions like verbal/actional aggression are often tabooed, even when committed in self-defence/assertiveness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1979" RevisionGUID="a3dd1a7e-fe8d-4e47-8516-78500ecc9737" CreationDate="2013-02-27T07:53:19.993" UserId="1262" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="That's mainly defined by milieu, e.g. toddles from poor/socially deprived families can curse in quite an ault Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Блин горелый** is a euphemism unrelated to any specific age. A fact proving a point that children often imitate adult behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, like most child languages, Russian 'toddle cursing' has a tendency for shorter words; therefore, the word *кака* is used more often, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кака! Это кака!***&#xD;&#xA;***Брось каку!*** (mother to a child)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike in Romance languages, this word does not necessary mean 'faeces'. It may mean any bad/rotten/unpleasant thing (another point proving ISFP being a generalised MBTI sociotype for Russian culture, annd another example of similarities between Russian and French cultures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that Russian culture encourages stricter views on children's negative self-expression, and actions like verbal/actional aggression are often tabooed, even when committed in self-defence/assertiveness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1967" RevisionGUID="04f4092d-428d-4bc6-a876-a33d463ac8ff" CreationDate="2013-02-27T08:00:29.067" UserId="1262" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Actually, none of the CS or PS verbs could have -оть in its endings, because -оть is a MR ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you have missed the dialect form of надоть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1979" RevisionGUID="8b4893c0-6b77-426d-9e1d-95298400d459" CreationDate="2013-02-27T09:59:18.773" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="That's mainly defined by milieu, e.g. toddles from poor/socially deprived families can curse in quite an adult Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Блин горелый** is a euphemism unrelated to any specific age. A fact proving a point that children often imitate adult behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, like most child languages, Russian 'toddle cursing' has a tendency for shorter words; therefore, the word *кака* is used more often, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кака! Это кака!***&#xD;&#xA;***Брось каку!*** (mother to a child)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike in Romance languages, this word does not necessary mean 'faeces'. It may mean any bad/rotten/unpleasant thing (another point proving ISFP being a generalised MBTI sociotype for Russian culture, annd another example of similarities between Russian and French cultures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that Russian culture encourages stricter views on children's negative self-expression, and actions like verbal/actional aggression are often tabooed, even when committed in self-defence/assertiveness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="89d9f164-f8bf-4ad7-bce5-3eecfa7cb112" CreationDate="2013-02-27T11:05:03.783" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="I was always wondering: When at the end of the phone or other conversation people say &quot;ну давай&quot; meaning &quot;see you later&quot;. Where does this come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of meaning, I always understood it to mean &quot;давай уже сколько можно болтать, потом поговорим&quot;, but I am not sure of the true origins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one of those things where I understand when and how to use the phrase but am completely unsure where it comes from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7151" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1475" RevisionGUID="89d9f164-f8bf-4ad7-bce5-3eecfa7cb112" CreationDate="2013-02-27T11:05:03.783" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 324" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7152" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1977" RevisionGUID="ba91e640-a3a1-4c24-8a10-4465b36ce557" CreationDate="2013-02-27T22:29:21.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/306893814327541761" />
  <row Id="7153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="5dab6443-6bbc-4107-9e06-1b88bc82c318" CreationDate="2013-02-27T23:15:16.727" UserId="1152" Text="I've looked up the pronunciation of the word &quot;Египет&quot; at [forvo.com](http://www.forvo.com/word/%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82/), and while it says that the pronunciation is /jɪˈgʲipʲɪt/, I hear a [b] and not a [p] in both available sound files. Am I hearing it correctly? If I am, then in what enviroments is [b] the realization of /p/ in Russian? Is it a phenomenon that affects other plosives too? Does it have a name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, please answer in English. My Russian is _very_ poor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="5dab6443-6bbc-4107-9e06-1b88bc82c318" CreationDate="2013-02-27T23:15:16.727" UserId="1152" Text="Is there a [b] or a [p] in &quot;Египет&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="5dab6443-6bbc-4107-9e06-1b88bc82c318" CreationDate="2013-02-27T23:15:16.727" UserId="1152" Text="|произношение|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="0843a63e-668a-4b4c-896c-0ab6e0eace88" CreationDate="2013-02-27T23:54:43.473" UserId="1152" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="I've looked up the pronunciation of the word &quot;Египет&quot; at [forvo.com](http://www.forvo.com/word/%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%82/), and while it says that the pronunciation is /jɪˈgʲipʲɪt/, I hear a [b] and not a [p] in both available sound files. Am I hearing it correctly? If I am, then in what enviroments is [b] the realization of /p/ in Russian? Is it a phenomenon that affects other plosives too? Does it have a name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="baea0afa-5796-4adc-977d-51157f7d1e19" CreationDate="2013-02-28T00:17:59.383" UserId="1236" Text="It is definitely [p] in both sound files and everybody pronounces it with [p].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why you hear it as [b] is that the difference between /p/ and /b/ in Russian is merely in the absence/presence of voice, while in English it is more than that, English [pʰ] is not only voiceless, but is strongly aspirated, while [b] is weak and not aspirated. Engish speakers tend to rely mostly on aspiration in distinguishing between /p/ and /b/, if there's no aspiration, like in Russian [p], one perceives it as English [b]. In Russian there are no aspirated sounds, you will have to learn to detect if the sound is voiced or voiceless, if you are going to learn Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two languages *can* have a pair of sounds that are distinguished by different features in each language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1982" RevisionGUID="c11cb9df-17b0-4552-be0f-6962492c4c78" CreationDate="2013-02-28T11:32:40.487" UserId="134" Text="&gt; I hear a [b] and not a [p] in both available sound files. Am I hearing it correctly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've made a spectrogram of the first phrase in Praat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZbxnU.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O2Tdf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels and vocal consonants are clearly distinguished by pulses in the lower part of the spectrum (black wave-like patterns in the lower part of the picture).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The red cross is positioned at the middle of the stop for `/п/` which as you can easily see is the least voiced part of the whole word (the lower part of the spectrum is almost silent and definitely not pulsing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian voiced consonants are full-voiced, that is they have significantly negative voice onset time, and be that a voiced consonant, the voice would have merged with the previous vocal sound, which we don't observe here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, it's definitely `[p]`, not `[b]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what enviroments is [b] the realization of /p/ in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other consonants, voiceless consontants in week positions before voiced sounds become voiced too (and voiced consonants lose voice before voiceless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those processes are (quite creatively) called &quot;vocalization of the voiceless&quot; and &quot;devocalization of the voiced&quot; (*озвончение глухих* and *оглушение звонких*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be observed on morpheme or word boundaries: *крепдешин, шлюпбалка* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1982" RevisionGUID="dd8f7223-2738-4e35-92b1-48b4b02b2b28" CreationDate="2013-02-28T14:32:07.963" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; I hear a [b] and not a [p] in both available sound files. Am I hearing it correctly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've made a spectrogram of the first phrase in Praat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZbxnU.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/O2Tdf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels and vocal consonants are clearly distinguished by pulses in the lower part of the spectrum (black wave-like patterns in the lower part of the picture).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The red cross is positioned at the middle of the stop for `/п/` which as you can easily see is the least voiced part of the whole word (the lower part of the spectrum is almost silent and definitely not pulsing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian voiced consonants are full-voiced, that is they have significantly negative voice onset time, and be that a voiced consonant, the voice would have merged with the previous vocal sound, which we don't observe here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, it's definitely `[p]`, not `[b]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what enviroments is [b] the realization of /p/ in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other consonants, voiceless consonants in weak positions before voiced sounds become voiced too (and voiced consonants lose voice before voiceless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those processes are (quite creatively) called &quot;vocalization of the voiceless&quot; and &quot;devocalization of the voiced&quot; (*озвончение глухих* and *оглушение звонких*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be observed on morpheme or word boundaries: *крепдешин, шлюпбалка* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7160" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1980" RevisionGUID="74ffb9e1-87d1-43df-b561-9780a77f0447" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:30:04.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/307165785607000064" />
  <row Id="7161" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1972" RevisionGUID="ae5131b4-06f9-4a31-bbcb-44f514418e68" CreationDate="2013-03-01T22:30:51.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/307618964698189824" />
  <row Id="7168" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1900" RevisionGUID="2fad52f3-8ea6-4fbd-b616-3a69a11d5e01" CreationDate="2013-03-02T22:31:37.833" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/307981549779972096" />
  <row Id="7169" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="6a5a41d9-91f5-4145-9bc5-030e6b7443a4" CreationDate="2013-03-03T07:31:51.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/308117498979549184" />
  <row Id="7170" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1890" RevisionGUID="95f5bd45-490b-49fe-8510-1914a44857f1" CreationDate="2013-03-03T13:31:53.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/308208106981167104" />
  <row Id="7172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="712c108c-c636-4451-aba7-d98bea7f3233" CreationDate="2013-03-03T21:39:15.890" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="It is definitely [p] in both sound files and everybody pronounces it with [p].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why you hear it as [b] is that the difference between /p/ and /b/ in Russian is merely in the absence/presence of voice, while in English it is more than that, English [pʰ] is not only voiceless, but is strongly aspirated, while [b] is weak and not aspirated. English speakers tend to rely mostly on aspiration to distinguish between /p/ and /b/. If there's no aspiration, like in Russian [p], one perceives it as an English [b]. In Russian there are no aspirated sounds; you will have to learn to detect if the sound is voiced or voiceless, if you are going to learn Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two languages *can* have a pair of sounds that are distinguished by different features in each language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7173" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1981" RevisionGUID="712c108c-c636-4451-aba7-d98bea7f3233" CreationDate="2013-03-03T21:39:15.890" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 1236 edit id of 325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="7ecd0275-cc8d-46dc-99f0-85c152765bfe" CreationDate="2013-03-04T02:23:22.653" UserId="1484" Text="It is п not б! Its not apsirated like english p." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="b03bfd2f-888e-4b61-9c22-d104abd575e9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:12:33.510" UserId="1177" Text="Several resources that I am using says that 'и' and 'ы' represent the same vowel sound, and the only difference is palatalization of consonants preceding 'и', but I perceive two different sounds. The same sources say that 'и' sounds like the 'ee' in &quot;see,&quot; and that 'ы' sounds like the 'i' in &quot;bit,&quot; but I think I hear a different sound for 'ы'. Additionally, the recordings of 'ы' do not sound anything like either of those. What is actually the case? Am I correct in assuming that the sound is not the same, or am did I mishear the recordings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="b03bfd2f-888e-4b61-9c22-d104abd575e9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:12:33.510" UserId="1177" Text="Pronunciation of 'ы'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="b03bfd2f-888e-4b61-9c22-d104abd575e9" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:12:33.510" UserId="1177" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="8e3e6eae-62af-44ce-94f2-56a9d1f96095" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:19:00.923" UserId="1177" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Several resources that I am using say that 'и' and 'ы' represent the same vowel sound, and the only difference is palatalization of consonants preceding 'и', but I perceive two different sounds. The same sources say that 'и' sounds like the 'ee' in &quot;see,&quot; and that 'ы' sounds like the 'i' in &quot;bit,&quot; but I think I am hearing a different sound for 'ы'. Additionally, the recordings of 'ы' do not sound anything like either of those. What is actually the case? Am I correct in assuming that the sound is not the same, or did I mishear the recordings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="bcd60272-32b9-47d7-b017-46ea433417dc" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:40:58.160" UserId="1177" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Several resources that I am using say that 'и' and 'ы' represent the same vowel sound, and that the only difference is the palatalization of consonants preceding 'и', but I perceive two different sounds. The same sources say that 'и' sounds like the 'ee' in &quot;see,&quot; and that 'ы' sounds like the 'i' in &quot;bit,&quot; but I think I am hearing a different sound for 'ы'. Additionally, the recordings of 'ы' do not sound anything like either of those. What is actually the case? Am I correct in assuming that the sound is not the same, or did I mishear the recordings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="29868500-9261-4b97-b901-02e35f6f86d7" CreationDate="2013-03-04T07:21:48.187" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, improved formatting, added IPA" Text="It is _п_ [p], not _б_ [b]. It's not aspirated like the English _p_ [p&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7191" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="29868500-9261-4b97-b901-02e35f6f86d7" CreationDate="2013-03-04T07:21:48.187" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7202" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="5aebddd9-b5d3-4173-8ffc-48a58157e2ec" CreationDate="2013-03-04T08:19:53.867" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7203" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="1983" RevisionGUID="1a98dea7-c6c0-4b7b-82cd-b50fa8636949" CreationDate="2013-03-04T08:22:47.887" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1995" RevisionGUID="42914114-f23e-4662-a42a-8d9270c093a6" CreationDate="2013-03-04T08:39:45.450" UserId="1475" Text="These sounds are not the same indeed. Moreover, it is probably the only sound in Russian language that cannot be represented by any combination of Latin letters. And I don't think it sounds like 'i' in 'bit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; This vowel does not have an equivalent in English. Try to invest some time in learning it and differentiating from other sounds. To get Russian sound ы, you should  place your tongue in the position right between the positions of English sounds i in kit and u in sugar. Then make a new sound of ы. Note that this sound is different form the English i in bit. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken from here   http://masterrussian.com/aa032301a.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all tutorial videos in the net post a completely correct pronounciation. So it can be difficult to get used to. Try pronouncing ' i ' and move your jaw forward a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I have a feeling that people emit this sound when crying or being hit in the stomach" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1996" RevisionGUID="1ed4acd8-6bb9-4d5d-af6a-a6ebfff11e30" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:04:16.200" UserId="194" Text="The sounds are not the same but the difference is determined by what consonant precedes those vowels. In other words, the softness of the preceding consonant affects the following vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would not usually encounter Ы in the word beginning, so that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair the vowels can have soft and hard onset as if soft or hard consonant was preceding them. At the beginning of the words (when not preceded by other consonants)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    и has soft onset&#xD;&#xA;    ы has hard onset&#xD;&#xA;    э has soft onset&#xD;&#xA;    y has hard onset&#xD;&#xA;    а has hard onset&#xD;&#xA;    o has hard onset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not directly dependent on whether a vowel makes the previous consonant soft **in the middle** of the words. For example, э does not make the preceding consonant soft, but in the word beginning it is pronounced as if it was preceded by a soft consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1997" RevisionGUID="1ca40be4-00b8-4baa-9bf1-765c52edb587" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:39:21.773" UserId="194" Text="I would say that the ending -их adds a meaning similar to the definite article in English. In your sentences it is meaningless, so I would always say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На сколько человек заказывать пиццу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встретил нескольких товарищей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I encountered several of **the** comrades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I encountered certain comrades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встретил несколькo товарищей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I encountered a few comrades.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1997" RevisionGUID="fb41c282-b3a0-4080-84ba-3bf175a53241" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:55:08.373" UserId="194" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I would say that the ending -их adds a meaning similar to the definite article in English. In your sentences it is meaningless, so I would always say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На сколько человек заказывать пиццу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встретил нескольких товарищей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I encountered several of **the** comrades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I encountered certain comrades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встретил несколькo товарищей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I encountered a few comrades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The -их implies an omitted clarifier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На скольких [из вас] накрывать стол?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встретил нескольких [из них].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use the &quot;сколько&quot; with this clarifyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1998" RevisionGUID="3e68f3b4-21b3-4d94-bccc-127faf3d73e4" CreationDate="2013-03-04T12:26:10.500" UserId="1495" Text="It is worthwhile to note that if the text is addressed to young tech-savvy (and yeah, geeky) audience, the word `гик` will be understanded by most. There are almost 2 million mentions of the word found by Google.&#xD;&#xA;However, the calque `нерд` or `нёрд` is used much less frequently, so translations suggested by other answers (`ботаник`, `ботан` or `задрот`, in the order of increasing negative connotation) should be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1999" RevisionGUID="5fd911d9-bb17-42ad-a71e-db1f428456c8" CreationDate="2013-03-04T13:03:13.230" UserId="1495" Text="Unfortunately, 'User Experience' usually cannot be translated in a consistent way throughout long texts and the translation must be contextually adapted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the translation *пользовательские ожидания* proposed by Quassnoi is wrong. This is a common pitfall to understand the word 'Experience' here as life experience (`опыт`). Experience here means `впечатления`, `переживания`. Hence, `эргономика` is a far more narrow concept. Ergonomic quality of the product is only one part of the User Experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, I would translate as `опыт взаимодействия` if the author is talking about UX as a field of knowledge, job or discipline. In all other cases a replacement should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дисплей — это главная особенность работы с устройствами на базе iOS. Впечатления людей состоят не только из просмотра красивых шрифтов и графики, но и физического взаимодействия с мультисенсорным дисплеем, которое может происходить даже, когда они не видят экран." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="3a687856-84d2-454a-b97e-8351e1cf3fa6" CreationDate="2013-03-04T15:52:04.783" UserId="1496" Text="If you want to hear sound **ы** in english word i would propose **milk**, **city**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in other words, when you say **see**, you smile. When you say **city** - you dont. This is easiest way to explain difference between **ы** and **и**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explaining the mimics - just try to push your **lower jaw forward** as much as possible when you try to say **ы**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2001" RevisionGUID="cbec95db-fa8c-4f07-9a00-0ffc43f0bf37" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:31:11.403" UserId="115" Text="These are indeed different sounds, and `ы` is notoriously difficult for non-native speakers. There are Slavic languages (e. g. Serbo-Croatian) that do not have `ы`.  Another interesting thing is that AFAIK no Russian word starts with `ы`, and saying `ы` by itself sounds awkward even to native speakers. It works much better when it is preceded by a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the sound itself, `i` in `city` is a good approximation, at least the way Americans typically pronounce it. Also, the `i` in `Matilda`.  I also like Stepan's observation that you smile when you pronounce `и`, but not when you pronounce `ы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal feeling on this is when you learn a language as an adult, you are never going to get the pronunciation exactly right. So you just have to approximate it as best you can.  Even if you say `и` instead of `ы` you will still be understood, although you may sound funny.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2002" RevisionGUID="4ef1451f-d8e6-4563-9d8f-80abef756923" CreationDate="2013-03-04T23:53:14.563" UserId="1498" Text="**It's very simple!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Картофель` - official, full form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Картошка` - common speaking form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't say `&quot;Иди в магазин и купи картофель.&quot;` (&quot;Go to shop and buy some potato&quot;) - It's too official for shopping. We say `&quot;Иди в магазин и купи картошки.&quot;` (&quot;Go to shop and buy some potato&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Плаха` is scaffold: a half of wooden barrel/block. This word is very old and we don't use it in everyday life (Guess, why!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Плашка` - It's a little plate or nameplate .. or screw-thread die (a cutting tool).&#xD;&#xA;We never say `&quot;Метчик и плаха - режущие инструменты&quot;` (`&quot;Taps and dies are cutting tools&quot;`) - it sounds very wierd. `&quot;Метчик и плашка - режущие инструменты&quot;` - is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So we use shortened form `&quot;плашка&quot;` but we almost do not use full form `&quot;плаха&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next. Names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Антон`, `Мария` - official, full form (passport, forms, at work, etc)&#xD;&#xA;`Антошка`/`Антоша`, `Маша`/`Машка` - speaking shortened form. We use it with childs and good friends in good mood.&#xD;&#xA;`Антоха` - very lightly, brute form, only for good friends. This form is very similar to cases of use like `&quot;How are ya, you old bastard?&quot;`. Its very tricky to define when you may it use, when - may not. I think that for foreigners Its better not to use that form.&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I cant remember that I have had hear `&quot;Маха&quot;`. May be it's too brute for girl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Мартышка&quot;` as word evolved from `&quot;Март&quot;` (March). We never needed lightly, brute form of this word for good friends. So it sounds wierd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT. In everyday life some people sometimes name `&quot;Martini&quot;` as `&quot;Мартышка&quot;` and may me `&quot;Мартыха&quot;`. But these cases are infrequent. And I dont suggest them for foreigners to use.&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2002" RevisionGUID="3d81cdf5-024e-494e-a761-8a2bda5e8a15" CreationDate="2013-03-05T09:12:38.557" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, typos, grammar, wording." Text="## Картофель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Картофель_ — official, full form.&#xD;&#xA;- _Картошка_ — informal, common speaking form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we are trying to say “Go to the shop and buy some potatoes”, we don’t say _“Иди в магазин и купи картофель.”_ — it’s too official for shopping. We say _“Иди в магазин и купи картошки.”_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Плаха&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Плаха_ is scaffold for executions: a half of wooden barrel or block. This word is very old and we don’t use it in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;- _Плашка_ — it’s a little plate, or nameplate, or screw-thread die (a cutting tool). We never say _“Метчик и плаха — режущие инструменты”_ (“Taps and dies are cutting tools”) — it sounds very weird. _“Метчик и плашка — режущие инструменты”_ is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we use the diminutive form _плашка_, but we almost do not use the full form _плаха_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Антон_, _Мария_ — official, full form (passport, forms, at work, etc.). _Антоша_ / _Антошка_, _Маша_ / _Машка_ — diminutive form. We use it with children and good friends in good mood. _Антоха_ — very light, brute form, only for good friends. This form is very similar to cases of use like “How are ya, you old bastard?”. It’s very tricky to define when you may it use, and when — not. I think that for foreigners it’s better not to use that form. By the way, I can’t remember that I have had heard _Маха_. Maybe, it’s too brute to call a girl that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Мартышка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Мартышка_ evolved from _Март_ (March). We never needed light, brute form of this word for good friends. So it sounds weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in everyday life some people sometimes use _мартышка_ for the brand name _Martini_, and, maybe, _мартыха_. But these cases are infrequent. And I don’t suggest them for foreigners to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7215" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2002" RevisionGUID="3d81cdf5-024e-494e-a761-8a2bda5e8a15" CreationDate="2013-03-05T09:12:38.557" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="ff404f79-423a-4051-bf40-c1ac2339bcd8" CreationDate="2013-03-05T09:12:49.630" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, more appropriate arrow (before it was the one signifying material equivalence, and it is false)." Text="Why does *мартышка* exist, but **мартыха* does not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the words seem to follow this productive pattern. Cf: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _картошка_ ⇒ _картоха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _плашка_ ⇒ _плаха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _Антошка_ ⇒ _Антоха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _Машка_ ⇒ _Маха_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7217" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="ff404f79-423a-4051-bf40-c1ac2339bcd8" CreationDate="2013-03-05T09:12:49.630" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, more appropriate arrow (before it was the one signifying material equivalence, and it is false)." Text="Why “мартышка” but not “мартыха”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7218" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="ff404f79-423a-4051-bf40-c1ac2339bcd8" CreationDate="2013-03-05T09:12:49.630" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 71 edit id of 329" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="faf1da9a-44c9-40ce-aecd-69057d41fc27" CreationDate="2013-03-05T16:32:48.903" UserId="1262" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Why does *мартышка* exist, but **мартыха* does not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the words seem to follow this productive pattern. Cf: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _картошка_ &lt;=&gt; _картоха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _плашка_ &lt;=&gt; _плаха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _Антошка_ &lt;=&gt; _Антоха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _Машка_ &lt;=&gt; _Маха_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1765" RevisionGUID="0a03b8d7-b2b3-4e13-a487-dc6b54e35fbf" CreationDate="2013-03-05T16:51:16.450" UserId="71" Comment="fixed quote and made text all English." Text="Why does *мартышка* exist, but **мартыха* does not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of the words seem to follow this productive pattern. Cf: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - _картошка_ &lt;=&gt; _картоха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _плашка_ &lt;=&gt; _плаха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _Антошка_ &lt;=&gt; _Антоха_;&#xD;&#xA;- _Машка_ &lt;=&gt; _Маха_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1996" RevisionGUID="4fe07b74-9fa9-4840-8c30-39d54c86adbf" CreationDate="2013-03-05T19:21:39.680" UserId="194" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="The sounds are not the same but the difference is determined by what consonant precedes those vowels. In other words, the softness of the preceding consonant affects the following vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would not usually encounter Ы in the word beginning, so that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be fair the vowels can have soft and hard onset as if soft or hard consonant was preceding them. At the beginning of the words (when not preceded by other consonants)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    и has soft onset&#xD;&#xA;    ы has hard onset&#xD;&#xA;    э has soft onset&#xD;&#xA;    y has hard onset&#xD;&#xA;    а has hard onset&#xD;&#xA;    o has hard onset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not directly dependent on whether a vowel makes the previous consonant soft **in the middle** of the words. For example, э does not make the preceding consonant soft, but in the word beginning it is pronounced as if it was preceded by a soft consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This distinction is not phonemic in Russian, that's why it is not reflected in grammars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="14a5104a-2895-4ea3-9ecd-4d1f51e5b0e6" CreationDate="2013-03-05T21:30:43.803" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, improved formatting" Text="If you want to hear the **ы** sound in an English word I would propose **milk** or **city**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in other words, when you say **see**, you smile. When you say **city**, you don't. This is the easiest way to explain difference between **ы** and **и**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explaining the mimics&amp;mdash;just try to push your **lower jaw forward** as much as possible when you try to say **ы**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7223" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2000" RevisionGUID="14a5104a-2895-4ea3-9ecd-4d1f51e5b0e6" CreationDate="2013-03-05T21:30:43.803" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 185 edit id of 330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2003" RevisionGUID="0e3021bd-6b06-4ada-8661-05ee609a3d9f" CreationDate="2013-03-06T12:43:02.223" UserId="1502" Text="Woktionary says origin of this word is deutch &quot;marten&quot; or dutch &quot;martijn&quot; (and refers to M.Fasmer dictionary). So this probably happened about 200 (+-100) years ago (my own number). Мартын - at that time popular russian male name. So natural association occurs. And Мартын would 200 years ago be Мартышка. Just like Иван-Ивашка, Петр-Пертушка. This is quite natural for aristocrates of that time to use -шка- suffix when talking to peasants (just recalling Pushkin, Gogol, Saltykov-S.). No idea how you call this form of a name scientifically in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also russian language has suffix -их- which is dedicated to female species of animals. Слон-слониха, заяц-зайчиха. Which borders мартыха which has suffix -х-. But not the same (almost) obviously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then suffix -х- is quite new compared to -шк-. I suspect (from my memory) that is was not widely used even 50 years ago, and probably has to do with borrowing words from Ukraine/Poland. I.e Петруха - is definetly Петр in Ukraine. So мартыха would sound as 'ukrainism(украинизм)'. Those who consider examples as картоха, братуха - are not aware those are ukrainisms, and try to follow the patterns, so naturally suffix -х- becomes kind of &quot;Russian&quot;. But still very limited compared to -шк-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This day native Russian speaker is not aware мартышка is a form of Мартын. So someone might use &quot;Мартыха&quot; occasionally. But мартышка has so many strong associations so it is hard to imagine to widely use other forms. &quot;Мартышка и очки&quot; by Krylov is on top. &quot;Мартышкин труд&quot;, &quot;кривлятся как мартышка&quot;. Those are unseparable strong forms. If you say &quot;мартыхин труд&quot; association will not ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus see that мартышка is just a 'meme' in real life we would very very seldom see мартышка and refer to it, and memes tend to keep it's original form. (ie &quot;All your base are belong to us&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2004" RevisionGUID="d0fcae75-8cfc-4615-8aa7-0476c4d9c1d6" CreationDate="2013-03-06T13:08:13.983" UserId="1502" Text="This might be obscure, but the fact is that in Russian 'такой' is sort of special word. It has extra meaning, I would translate as &quot;soooo&quot;. And 'таким' has no such association. Saying 'такой крутой' is like 'soooo steep', and 'таким крутым' just 'so steep', or maybe just 'steep'. Because the listener ear could just omit 'таким' as a service word, which is not possible for 'такой' which is a very-very special word, as said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok this might need some proof. Consider this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    такой-сякой! &#xD;&#xA;    ты кто такой? &#xD;&#xA;    да, - я такой! &#xD;&#xA;    какой-такой (павлин-мавлин)? &#xD;&#xA;    ух ты какой!&#xD;&#xA;Those idioms are complete sentences, are quite powerful, and can be only explained and understood if you comprehend the strange special meaning of the word 'такой'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2005" RevisionGUID="05628805-24dd-4c59-a69b-cc6cd6af79bd" CreationDate="2013-03-06T13:22:15.137" UserId="1502" Text="This _is_ complicated. This suffix is composed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is small example from one (http://slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=5310&amp;0a0=2) dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck, this can keep you busy for an evening.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Неодинаковы по степени продуктивности образования с уничижительным суффиксом разговорной речи -шк(а). Суффикс -шк(а) с этимологической&#xD;&#xA;&gt; точки зрения составной. Он включает в себя уменьшительно-ласкательный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; суффикс -к-, но облекает его оттенками фамильярного пренебрежения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: &quot;Вошел старичок низенький и толстенький, из породы людей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называемых коротышками или карандашами&quot; (Тургенев, &quot;Затишье&quot;). В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; суффиксе -шк(а), кроме суффикса -к-, этимологически различаются разные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; экспрессивные суффиксы, содержащие звук ш и восходящие к суффиксам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -их-, -ух-, -ах-. Среди слов общего рода, оканчивающихся на -шк(а), кроме -ишк(а), выделяются еще два непродуктивных типа:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;       1) слова с суффиксом -ушк(а): болтушка, вертушка и т. п.; этот суффикс соотносится с суффиксами лица -ун, -унья (ср. также слова на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -уха) и присоединяется к глагольным основам; 2) слова с суффиксом -ашк(а): замарашка, побирашка, старикашка и т. д. (суффикс -ашк(а) частью соотносителен с суффиксом -ах(а), частью с -ан). Ср. у Л.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толстого в &quot;Крейцеровой сонате&quot;: &quot;Про себя я думал, что я милашка, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я вполне нравственный человек&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;       4. Все теснее сливаются с категорией личных слов на -а презрительно-уничижительные формы с суффиксами -ишк(а) и -онк(а):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мальчишка, актеришка, фанфаронишка, хвастунишка, старичишка, мужичонка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (51).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;       Ср.: &quot;И вот только что показался этот скверный князишка, этот дрянной идиотишка, и все опять взбаламутилось&quot; (Достоевский, &quot;Идиот&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;       Образования с этими суффиксами свойственны преимущественно разговорной речи. В формах мужского рода продуктивен суффикс -ишк(а),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в формах женского рода -онк(а).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even that is only scratching a surface. Sometimes -шк- comes from -жк- which comes from -г- (). Each example of шк can have it's own story tracing to different languages and ages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also google &quot;общий род&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="77edd855-af0c-4891-af83-31af4e8394ff" CreationDate="2013-03-07T05:58:31.403" UserId="1262" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это г@лимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это г@лимые сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word галима (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="77edd855-af0c-4891-af83-31af4e8394ff" CreationDate="2013-03-07T05:58:31.403" UserId="1262" Text="What are the exact orthography, etymology and explicit semantics of г@лимо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="77edd855-af0c-4891-af83-31af4e8394ff" CreationDate="2013-03-07T05:58:31.403" UserId="1262" Text="|этимология|орфография|semantics|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2007" RevisionGUID="21eae5a0-48fb-4e5d-8520-279ee8abd464" CreationDate="2013-03-07T06:24:32.677" UserId="1236" Text="It's probably derived from `галиматья` (from `galimatias` «неразбериха», Parisian students' slang).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are no *Gipsy languages*, all the Romani people speak the same language with lots of local dialects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2008" RevisionGUID="67e52500-5159-4a36-a953-3dd36f092c3c" CreationDate="2013-03-07T06:31:33.433" UserId="242" Text="No, it is not a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages (you are not sure which one of them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According][1] to Phasmer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. голъ (др.-греч. γυμνός), руск. голый, укр. го́лий, белор.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; го́лы, болг. гол, сербохорв. го̑, го̀ла, го̀ло, словенск. gòl, góla,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чешск. holý, польск. goły, в.-луж. hoły, н.-луж. goły. Родственно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; латышск. gāla «гололедица», gàle ж. «тонкая корка льда», др.-в.-нем.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kalo «лысый». Сюда же (с другим вокализмом) польск. gałąź, чешск.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haluz «ветвь».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original form was `голимый`, but due to the process of shifting from `о` to `а` in Russian dialect which finally became major one, form `галимый` had been introduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it first sense `голимый` meant something pure, so it related to `беспримесный`, `чистый`, `незамутнённый`. So `галимый бред` is basically `pure nonsense`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's related word `голяк`\`полный голяк` which is used to describe the state of catastrophic lack of something, money for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="819363b4-c6bb-4110-9fe6-530a2521fa42" CreationDate="2013-03-07T06:51:04.673" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это галимый/голимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это галимые/голимые сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word галима (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="819363b4-c6bb-4110-9fe6-530a2521fa42" CreationDate="2013-03-07T06:51:04.673" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the exact orthography, etymology and explicit semantics of голимо/галимо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2008" RevisionGUID="42173c8e-1e45-4d8a-abf1-588e0c4f5970" CreationDate="2013-03-07T07:04:53.170" UserId="242" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="No, it is not a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages (you are not sure which one of them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According][1] to Phasmer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. голъ (др.-греч. γυμνός), руск. голый, укр. го́лий, белор.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; го́лы, болг. гол, сербохорв. го̑, го̀ла, го̀ло, словенск. gòl, góla,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чешск. holý, польск. goły, в.-луж. hoły, н.-луж. goły. Родственно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; латышск. gāla «гололедица», gàle ж. «тонкая корка льда», др.-в.-нем.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kalo «лысый». Сюда же (с другим вокализмом) польск. gałąź, чешск.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haluz «ветвь».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original form was `голимый`, but due to the process of shifting from `о` to `а` in Russian dialect which finally became major one, form `галимый` had been introduced. This is the same reason why forms гондон/гандон (о-form is correct) and изгаляться/изголяться (a-form is correct) coexist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it first sense `голимый` meant something pure, so it related to `беспримесный`, `чистый`, `незамутнённый`. So `галимый бред` is basically `pure nonsense`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's related word `голяк`\`полный голяк` which is used to describe the state of catastrophic lack of something, money for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2008" RevisionGUID="c3f29c80-4a2d-4eef-830f-1fca23e79735" CreationDate="2013-03-07T07:11:20.767" UserId="242" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="No, it is not a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages (you are not sure which one of them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According][1] to Phasmer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. формы, от которой в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. голъ (др.-греч. γυμνός), руск. голый, укр. го́лий, белор.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; го́лы, болг. гол, сербохорв. го̑, го̀ла, го̀ло, словенск. gòl, góla,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чешск. holý, польск. goły, в.-луж. hoły, н.-луж. goły. Родственно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; латышск. gāla «гололедица», gàle ж. «тонкая корка льда», др.-в.-нем.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kalo «лысый». Сюда же (с другим вокализмом) польск. gałąź, чешск.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; haluz «ветвь».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original form was `голимый`, but due to the process of shifting from `о` to `а` in Russian dialect which finally became major one, form `галимый` had been introduced. This is the same reason why forms гондон/гандон (о-form is correct) and изгаляться/изголяться (a-form is correct) coexist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is known at least [from XVIII century][2] (already with negative connotations) and, I repeat, definitely has nothing in common with any Romani dialect lexeme. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it first sense `голимый` meant something pure, so it related to `беспримесный`, `чистый`, `незамутнённый`. So `галимый бред` is basically `pure nonsense`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's related word `голяк`\`полный голяк` which is used to describe the state of catastrophic lack of something, money for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/04/sl515208.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="9efc686f-5f4f-4691-9d0c-18e8404f03d9" CreationDate="2013-03-07T09:09:15.407" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это галимый/голимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это галимые/голимые сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word *галима* (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="4db50285-3dee-4c75-95d2-148a6db27c09" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:07:43.903" UserId="185" Text="There are pairs of verbs with similar meaning and similar prefixes such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Солнце восходит - Солнце взошло. - Побеги всходят.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он воззвал к милосердию. - Эти люди взывают к разуму, а не к чувствам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он воздел руки к солнцу - Прежде чем вздевать руки к небу, не лучше ли сосредоточиться на насущных проблемах?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крестьяне восстали. - Я встал рядом и стал слушать их разговор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are prefixes *вз-* and *вс-*, *воз-* and *вос-* phonetic variants of each other? Or do they differ in meaning as well?&#xD;&#xA;According to what rules are *вос-*, *воз-*, *вс-* and *вз-* alternated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="4db50285-3dee-4c75-95d2-148a6db27c09" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:07:43.903" UserId="185" Text="Prefixes &quot;вос-&quot;, &quot;воз-&quot;, &quot;вс-&quot; and &quot;вз-&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="4db50285-3dee-4c75-95d2-148a6db27c09" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:07:43.903" UserId="185" Text="|глаголы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2010" RevisionGUID="55d9aef6-791a-496e-9f69-c89dbcc30e1b" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:25:29.957" UserId="1097" Text="[Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации (1956) § 50.](http://gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=sogl&amp;text=19_14)  &#xD;&#xA;В приставках без-, воз-, вз-, из-, низ-, раз-, роз-, чрез- (через-) перед глухими к, п, с, т, ф, х, ц, ч, ш, щ пишется с вместо з, например: бесполезный, воспитать, вспахать, искусать, ниспровергнуть, рассыпать, роспись, чересполосица, но: безвкусный, бездарный, вздремнуть, возбудить, избавить и т. п" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="02a2a8ce-3458-4fb3-85d0-b13c86043980" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:46:14.720" UserId="104" Text="Я тут составляю задачу для студентов. Она звучит примерно так. В ряд расположены N воздушных шариков разных цветов. Мальшик проходится по последовательности шариков и как только видит два соседних шарика одинакового цвета, он их... и дальше мысль обрывается :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сказать, что он их лопает? Может взрывает? Помогите найти слово. Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="02a2a8ce-3458-4fb3-85d0-b13c86043980" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:46:14.720" UserId="104" Text="Что сделал мальчик с воздушным шариком?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="02a2a8ce-3458-4fb3-85d0-b13c86043980" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:46:14.720" UserId="104" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="1823410a-a949-4b9c-adb5-0671a35b6250" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:50:56.277" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это г@лимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это г@лимые сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word *галима* (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7245" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="1823410a-a949-4b9c-adb5-0671a35b6250" CreationDate="2013-03-07T11:50:56.277" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the exact orthography, etymology and explicit semantics of г@лимо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="28e04569-7e2e-4a9d-ad96-72f71424ffee" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:00:13.687" UserId="134" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это галимый/голимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это галимый/голимый сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word *галима* (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7247" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="28e04569-7e2e-4a9d-ad96-72f71424ffee" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:00:13.687" UserId="134" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the exact orthography, etymology and explicit semantics of галимо/голимо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="f57cbd23-6726-4907-92c8-2b07b6ab5945" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:01:50.537" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это г@лимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это г@лимый сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word *галима* (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="c35bfeb6-df32-48d5-a304-21a695b04b1f" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:04:26.613" UserId="134" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Я тут составляю задачу для студентов. Она звучит примерно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ряд расположены N воздушных шариков разных цветов. Мальчик проходится по последовательности шариков и, как только видит два соседних шарика одинакового цвета, он их...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше мысль обрывается :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сказать, что он их лопает? Может, взрывает? Помогите найти слово. Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2010" RevisionGUID="9f3ea612-2ffb-40e2-b9a1-13fc31e70f72" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:08:21.120" UserId="1097" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="[Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации (1956) § 50.](http://gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=sogl&amp;text=19_14)  &#xD;&#xA;В приставках без-, воз-, вз-, из-, низ-, раз-, роз-, чрез- (через-) перед глухими к, п, с, т, ф, х, ц, ч, ш, щ пишется с вместо з, например: бесполезный, воспитать, вспахать, искусать, ниспровергнуть, рассыпать, роспись, чересполосица, но: безвкусный, бездарный, вздремнуть, возбудить, избавить и т. п  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Звонкая &quot;з&quot; в приставках приглушается, если за ней стоит глухая согласная. Это правило действует и в произношении, и в написании. вос- и воз- это не две разные приставки, это одна и та же приставка воз-, употребление воз- или вос- подчиняется только правилу из § 50, смысл/значение слова при этом не меняется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2012" RevisionGUID="9905815c-bc55-4af6-a9f6-2ddaf187c9bf" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:31:49.767" UserId="1097" Text="Лопать(св. слопать) также означает есть/кушать и к этой задаче не очень подходит.&#xD;&#xA;Может быть хлопает? хлопнуть шарик. хлопо́к - как раз звук лопающегося шарика.  &#xD;&#xA;ещё варианты: убирает, протыкает, прокалывает, сдувает." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2013" RevisionGUID="d8f2fbe0-227e-4432-9c37-fe47c49b9928" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:31:56.437" UserId="1027" Text="Протыкает! И лопает - так тоже говорят. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2014" RevisionGUID="30570d72-570a-4e65-a595-196c4cc05d78" CreationDate="2013-03-07T12:42:35.553" UserId="1496" Text="Можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда шарик делает это сам - он лопается. Это 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда мы ему помогаем - мы его лопаем. Причем именно иголкой или типа того. Сдуть шарик - значит сделать это аккуратно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати есть способ проткнуть шарик так, чтобы он не лопнул. Так что &quot;протыкать&quot; тоже не подходит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="ea48030c-ec62-4408-9981-92f8f2260e87" CreationDate="2013-03-07T13:57:00.607" UserId="134" Text="All those prefixes are derived from *&amp;ast;въз*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the fall of the reduced *ъ* transformed into *о* in strong positions and fell in weak positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It fell in proper Russian words: *всход &lt; &amp;ast;възходъ* etc. but retained in writing in OCS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian rendition of CS words required voicing of *ъ* in this preposision so CS loanwords use *вос*: *восход &lt; (CS.) восходъ &lt; (OCS.) възходъ*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="6147d6d3-115c-4c8a-acb0-993cc14989e2" CreationDate="2013-03-07T14:10:01.663" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="All those prefixes are derived from *&amp;ast;въз*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the fall of the reduced *ъ* transformed into *о* in strong positions and fell in weak positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It fell in proper Russian words: *всход &lt; &amp;ast;възходъ* etc. but retained in writing in OCS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian rendition of CS words required voicing of *ъ* in this preposition so CS loanwords use *вос*: *восход &lt; (CS.) восходъ &lt; (OCS.) възходъ*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2015" RevisionGUID="e4dd2fb6-1090-49dd-a9cc-6b6655aa3c53" CreationDate="2013-03-07T14:24:39.543" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="All those prefixes are derived from *&amp;ast;въз*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the fall of the reduced *ъ* transformed into *о* in strong positions and fell in weak positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It fell in proper Russian words: *всход &lt; &amp;ast;възходъ* etc. but retained in writing in OCS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian rendition of CS words required voicing of *ъ* in this prefix so CS loanwords use *вос*: *восход &lt; (CS.) восходъ &lt; (OCS.) възходъ*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2006" RevisionGUID="58ba1b61-1b23-4f6b-8338-1fbdd3c22b90" CreationDate="2013-03-07T15:51:30.010" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="In phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это г@лимый бред.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это г@лимыe сопли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word has been detected in conversational register of middle/low class native speakers in NW Russia, sometimes in fictional literature to convey such a register. It is pronounced with the stressed ***и***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall meaning is perhaps 'sheer', 'mere' or 'that of a worst kind', or all the three aspects together. But what are the exact semantics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it be a borrowing from one of Gipsy languages in Russia (I am not sure from which one of them) where the word *галима* (pronounced with stress on final a) means 'bad'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="9a6dd75c-2ea5-4d70-a6c4-19ec9803afc1" CreationDate="2013-03-07T16:19:54.030" UserId="1496" Text="At first, word composition looks a bit more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ending is only &quot;ный&quot; here. &quot;т&quot; and &quot;н&quot; are 2 suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On my personal opinion - there should be always a relation between bot, noun and verb. The problem is, that some words are changing their meaning and loose this relation. Sometimes words change their meaning to opposite in comparison with their ancestor. I don't think its even possible to find exact direction of originating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closer to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Занятный&quot; - means usually &quot;funny&quot;, &quot;interesting&quot;. In other words - &quot;able to take/occupy time&quot;. &quot;Занимать&quot; - is exactly &quot;take/occupy&quot;. &quot;Занятие&quot; - &quot;activity&quot;, or &quot;something that occupy your time&quot;, but also a process/result of occupation (занятие крепости)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;понятный&quot; - is much more interesting, here you can see meaning of suffix &quot;н&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;понятный&quot; = a thing/man, which is easy to understand&#xD;&#xA;&quot;понятый&quot; = a man/information, which is understood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Приметный&quot; - the most obvious meaning is &quot;noticeable&quot;. You now see a direct relation with &quot;приметить&quot; (to notice). &quot;Примета&quot; is not exactly &quot;omens, superstitions&quot;, if i understand these words correctly. It is nothing about belief or mystic. These are usually related with nature behavior. Example - &quot;when swallows fly low - it will be raining&quot;. It is some kind of dependency, which was some when **noticed** and now used as a rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure, I've answered your question exactly. But i hope, I've explained your examples at least ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To examples from comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. блевота &gt; блевотный and блевать. there are many pairs of letters, which replace each other in different forms of a word. Just for easier pronunciation. They are &quot;o-a&quot;, &quot;o-e&quot;, &quot;o-ы&quot;, &quot;о-е-и&quot;, &quot;о-ы-у&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Осмотр — осматривать; назову — называть; посол — посылать; вдох — дыхание — душно; призыв — зов; беру — сбор; просить — выпрашивать; запереть — запирать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Yes, воротить means вернуть. But usually not something but someone. You can understand that as &quot;turn someone around and send back&quot;. Воротиться - return your self, come back.&#xD;&#xA;ворота(gates) can look strange in this list, but if you imagine them - trey rotate around their axis. So common basis &quot;rotate/turn&quot; is visible everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Notice &quot;чета&quot;, which means &quot;pair&quot;. Also &quot;считать&quot; (count) и &quot;сочетать&quot;(set/find a pair). Your assumption seems to be right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2016" RevisionGUID="28636baa-179d-4633-b704-2e6767bbe4a2" CreationDate="2013-03-07T19:35:29.643" UserId="1496" Comment="deleted 1449 characters in body" Text="At first, word composition looks a bit more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ending is only &quot;ый&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;т&quot; and &quot;н&quot; could be 2 suffixes or parts of suffixes (we wish, it is not part of a stem). &quot;н&quot; is definitive one, but suffix &quot;т&quot; doesn't seem to exist at all. It could be a part of a suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Adjective suffixes:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;оват&quot;/&quot;овит&quot; in &quot;угловатый&quot;,&quot;деловитый&quot;. I cannot imagine any combination like &quot;оватный&quot;, it just sounds unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar story with suffix &quot;чат&quot;, &quot;аст&quot;, &quot;ат&quot;, &quot;ист&quot;. There is no need to add another suffix after. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Noun suffixes:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ет&quot;(&quot;от&quot;) **example: доброта - добротный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ист&quot; - i cannot imagine something with &quot;истный&quot;, and it doesn't look really Russian. Adjectives are build usually with &quot;истический&quot;. sounds more German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;есть&quot;(&quot;ость&quot;) **example: жалость - безжалостный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://irgali.narod.ru/files/znashenia_suffiksov.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2017" RevisionGUID="f098e70a-638e-4e36-be28-a430088808ba" CreationDate="2013-03-07T21:26:22.083" UserId="115" Text="Может быть эти шарики надуты гелием?  Мальчик их отвязывает - они улетают." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="3f67baf2-1aee-4e4b-9722-ad81bc9f5e0a" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:47:07.040" UserId="1262" Text="In Remizov's (1877-1957) novel &quot;Пруд&quot; (The Pond), there are two passages with this word which is obscure for me. E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Колечка, — вдруг услышал он такой знакомый голос с ласкающей ***оттяжкой***, это звала Маша, — Колечка, чай кушать ступайте!&#xD;&#xA;Коля обрадовался, вскочил, и неловко ему, что так обрадовался, супится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...от звона стекла вздрогнули, а часы, под которыми в восемь Финогеновы топчут мышей, ***с оттяжкой*** пропели свои три часа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word definately means a kind of sound/pronunciation, but what kind of sound or pronunciation is it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7262" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="3f67baf2-1aee-4e4b-9722-ad81bc9f5e0a" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:47:07.040" UserId="1262" Text="What does &quot;оттяжка&quot; mean here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7263" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="3f67baf2-1aee-4e4b-9722-ad81bc9f5e0a" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:47:07.040" UserId="1262" Text="|литература|социолингвистика|лексикология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2019" RevisionGUID="e11c4f05-4381-434d-9c67-5a40096727d6" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:58:34.660" UserId="1262" Text="I think *рвотный* makes an exception here, while the rest of the adjectives shows a т + н combination of suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that these suffixes were first used to designate two different actants: т used to be a marker of (past) passive *participle*, like in Germanic languages, while н was to designate an *adjective* derived from a participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This participle/adjective distinction has survived up to day in modern Swedish language. Thus, т is an older marker and н appeared later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The т + н combination might appear in Russian during the period of distribution of т/н participles by their conjugation types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="bf241da4-9664-462d-914b-baf31df4c8c5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:06:16.280" UserId="1262" Text="I've stumbled upon this word in Andrey Bely's (Bugaev's) Символизм как миропонимание (СПб 1994). Even then the word is used negatively referring to 'широковещательность метафизики'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be applied as a radio term, yet it's basic meaning, according to dictionaries, is negative and 'fictional' (книжный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did it become a negative term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="bf241da4-9664-462d-914b-baf31df4c8c5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:06:16.280" UserId="1262" Text="When and how has the word широковещательный obtained its negative connotations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="bf241da4-9664-462d-914b-baf31df4c8c5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:06:16.280" UserId="1262" Text="|история-языка|semantics|sociolinguistics|лексикология|pragmatics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="0715b4ec-5e6e-4ec9-959e-e7d6ce69898e" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:45:39.880" UserId="1262" Text="Известно, что в русском языке интонация (тон) важна для смысла высказывания, и что тональность играет синтаксическую роль (вопросительная, восклицательная, модальное значение интонации и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существуют ли исследования по тональности русского языка? Есть ли шкала синтаксических тонов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="0715b4ec-5e6e-4ec9-959e-e7d6ce69898e" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:45:39.880" UserId="1262" Text="Cуществуют ли исследования тоники русского языка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="0715b4ec-5e6e-4ec9-959e-e7d6ce69898e" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:45:39.880" UserId="1262" Text="|модальность|syntaxe|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7271" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="bf591efa-2dd7-4e14-9bea-6e046ec93ff9" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:55:33.193" UserId="1262" Comment="edited title" Text="Cуществуют ли исследования тонической системы русского языка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2019" RevisionGUID="dc26f156-1ba7-4c5e-b30c-68a4a6214d16" CreationDate="2013-03-08T09:31:07.363" UserId="1262" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I think *рвотный* makes an exception here, while the rest of the adjectives shows a т + н combination of suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that these suffixes were first used to designate two different actants: т used to be a marker of (past) passive *participle*, like in Germanic languages, while н was to designate an *adjective* derived from a participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This participle/adjective distinction has survived up to day in modern Swedish language. Thus, т is a more ancient marker and н appeared later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The т + н combination might appear in Russian during the period of distribution of т/н participles by their conjugation types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="903c1d12-683d-4a70-8892-fef6450a21a9" CreationDate="2013-03-08T11:44:36.417" UserId="1262" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I've stumbled upon this word in Andrey Bely's (Bugaev's) Символизм как миропонимание (СПб 1994). Even in early 20th century the word was used negatively referring to 'широковещательность метафизики'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be applied as a radio term, yet it's basic meaning, according to dictionaries, is negative and 'fictional' (книжный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did it become a negative term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2022" RevisionGUID="edd8b345-7861-457a-80c4-daf2d70766db" CreationDate="2013-03-08T14:45:16.083" UserId="274" Text="Several versions are presented in [http://forum.lingvo.ru][1]. I prefer version German (Ein Loch in dem Kopf) -&gt; Jiddisch -&gt; Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?bid=18&amp;tid=1035" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2018" RevisionGUID="bbc68ef7-a4e7-4d53-86d9-191c1cd98e5b" CreationDate="2013-03-08T15:43:58.950" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="f9c8315a-e101-4e13-a636-ea6af5abb822" CreationDate="2013-03-08T15:46:29.137" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2023" RevisionGUID="0836e501-a9c6-4a7e-b229-6e078ea2daa8" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:07:55.767" UserId="1262" Text="Definately not. You may find this word, together with many others, in В. И. Даль и тайные языки в России (2004) by В. Д Бондалетов, Владимир Иванович Даль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of a sudden, this word (and many others) are presented there like - yes! - borrowings from Finno-Ugric languages of peoples settled in NW Russia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was a part of Ofenya slang and meant then мужик, обыватель, не-офеня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source word is Finno-Ugric word ***lohi*** meaning *salmon*. The meaning in Ofenya slang was metonimical and stood for salmons being easy capture during spawning season." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="763de8ef-4a3a-46c2-981f-f106d83a4327" CreationDate="2013-03-08T17:35:10.683" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Upon [this discussion][1] with YellowSky, a follow-up question arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some adjectives ending in *-тный* which could be possibly originated from **both a noun and a verb with *-т-* not being a part of the verb's infinitive stem**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of those adjectives, are there such which can definitely be said to have originated from the noun and not from the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рукопожатный* can (theoretically) be derived both from *пожать руку* and *рукопожатие*, since  they define the same concept. Same with *кровопролитный, старожитный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Занятный* (&quot;amusing, interesting&quot;) cannot be derived from *занятие* but only from *занимать* (&quot;take one's attention, curiosity, interest&quot;), since *занятие* does not have this metaphorical meaning. Same with *понятный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Приметный* (&quot;related to omens, superstitions&quot;, as in *народно-приметный календарь*) is definitely originated from *примета* and not *приметить*, however, *-т-* here is a part of the verb's stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рвотный* (&quot;emetic&quot;) could only be originated from *рвота* and not *рвать*, because *рвать* lacks *-о-*. Same for *блевотный, тошнотный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7420/discussion-between-quassnoi-and-yellow-sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2024" RevisionGUID="d9f2ec2a-d935-4835-8371-b0eb6194df28" CreationDate="2013-03-08T17:44:57.647" UserId="1505" Text="1) Way of pronouncing when you are singing your vowels and extending them. Generally when you are seducing someone or try to be nice, not really in use any more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Same thing as above, but figurative, as if the clock was actually singing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2025" RevisionGUID="46ca0d97-17fa-4c74-9215-7479a137f74a" CreationDate="2013-03-08T17:53:22.593" UserId="1262" Text="The three sounds are different. ы sounds more like back vocal compared to i in city, milk, or think. One of the close cognates of the ы sound is Polish y. The sound is pronounced with a tip of tongue moved more backwards from the lower front teeth, dorsum upwards. Since, the 'back vocal'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description sounds a bit like linguistic yoga, but you just have to check on your tongue moves when speaking a native language (whatever the concept is) and then compare them to those done when imitating a foreign pronunciation. That's simple enough, I hope.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="954405be-c1c9-41f1-ba59-baca296d0241" CreationDate="2013-03-08T19:07:17.243" UserId="134" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Upon [this discussion][1] with YellowSky, a follow-up question arose:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are some adjectives ending in *-тный* which could be grammatically possibly originated from **both a noun and a verb with *-т-* not being a part of the verb's infinitive stem**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of those adjectives, are there such which for semantic reasons can definitely be said to have originated from the noun and not from the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рукопожатный* can (theoretically) be derived both from *пожать руку* and *рукопожатие*, since  they define the same concept. Same with *кровопролитный, старожитный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Занятный* (&quot;amusing, interesting&quot;) cannot be derived from *занятие* but only from *занимать* (&quot;take one's attention, curiosity, interest&quot;), since *занятие* does not have this metaphorical meaning. Same with *понятный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Приметный* (&quot;related to omens, superstitions&quot;, as in *народно-приметный календарь*) is definitely originated from *примета* and not *приметить*, however, *-т-* here is a part of the verb's stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рвотный* (&quot;emetic&quot;) could only be originated from *рвота* and not *рвать*, because *рвать* lacks *-о-*. Same for *блевотный, тошнотный* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7420/discussion-between-quassnoi-and-yellow-sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="6246f051-6537-4598-9869-2943f14420a5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T20:44:19.020" UserId="185" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="There are pairs of verbs with similar meaning and similar prefixes such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Восход солнца - Солнце взошло. - Побеги всходят.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он воззвал к милосердию. - Эти люди взывают к разуму, а не к чувствам.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он воздел руки к солнцу - Прежде чем вздевать руки к небу, не лучше ли сосредоточиться на насущных проблемах?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are prefixes *вз-* and *вс-*, *воз-* and *вос-* phonetic variants of each other? Or do they differ in meaning as well?&#xD;&#xA;According to what rules are *вос-*, *воз-*, *вс-* and *вз-* alternated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2026" RevisionGUID="08917bd5-95ee-4db7-aa01-6621daf7ce15" CreationDate="2013-03-08T23:57:02.270" UserId="1236" Text="Конечно же существуют, их много, например [вот][1] (с §150 по §171). Или [вот][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.narod.ru/136-154.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://fonetica.philol.msu.ru/index1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="b90b493f-1daa-458a-a8af-4d22225516dd" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:26:23.140" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="cafb236c-d960-4453-881c-342ca2293a1f" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:40:30.123" UserId="19" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2], online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] - a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (paid)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="fdcefa06-a9b4-4c19-b38d-34617aa83663" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:50:35.643" UserId="19" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][2], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][3] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][4], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [5] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][7] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][9] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][10] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][11] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][12] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2027" RevisionGUID="8a3e0dc4-216e-4951-8992-b7faaba372d9" CreationDate="2013-03-09T13:02:16.573" UserId="9" Text="According to [Толковый словарь Ушакова][1], this term has the second meaning. I could translate it to English as &quot;populist&quot; or &quot;promising&quot; (ironic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; привлекающий обилием и многообразием обещаний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1092150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2023" RevisionGUID="fd696068-4b3f-45e8-824b-926a170966fe" CreationDate="2013-03-09T17:52:59.027" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Definately not. You may find this word, together with many others, in В. И. Даль и тайные языки в России (2004) by В. Д Бондалетов, Владимир Иванович Даль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of a sudden, this word (and many others) are presented there like - yes! - borrowings from Finno-Ugric languages of peoples settled in NW Russia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was a part of Ofenya slang and meant then мужик, обыватель, не-офеня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source word is Finno-Ugric ***lohi*** meaning *salmon*. The meaning in Ofenya slang was metonimical and stood for salmons being easy capture during spawning season." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="c968e05a-24a0-4a5d-913f-6f49401485d2" CreationDate="2013-03-09T21:51:43.690" UserId="1509" Text="I think the closest sound is &quot;ea&quot; in &quot;teacher&quot;. Evry russian will heard &quot;ы&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry for my english)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2030" RevisionGUID="1ba19b7d-afdf-4375-9d99-7d59d6c9c980" CreationDate="2013-03-10T03:14:15.217" UserId="1510" Text="In the first quote it refers to the woman extending the vowels in this guy's first name; that's common when you call someone who's at some distance from you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one refers to the way a sound of a bell of the [striking clock][1] lingers on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striking_clock" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="c9c7f272-74f9-4f7a-b153-fe4bd5b6968e" CreationDate="2013-03-10T07:11:32.090" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, typos." Text="I think the closest sound is ‘ea’ in _teacher_. Every Russian will hear ‘ы’." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7296" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2029" RevisionGUID="c9c7f272-74f9-4f7a-b153-fe4bd5b6968e" CreationDate="2013-03-10T07:11:32.090" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 331" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="2f425294-e151-4974-8cfe-66d2687de96e" CreationDate="2013-03-10T10:35:49.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/310700514125967360" />
  <row Id="7298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2031" RevisionGUID="8356c874-b85c-4990-bec7-21ded9dd7881" CreationDate="2013-03-10T12:38:37.423" UserId="281" Text="Данное словосочетание часто встречается в экологии.&#xD;&#xA;К примеру:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3% of US energy footprint comes from heating water for laundry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильно ли сказать &quot;энергетический след&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2031" RevisionGUID="8356c874-b85c-4990-bec7-21ded9dd7881" CreationDate="2013-03-10T12:38:37.423" UserId="281" Text="Как по-русски будет &quot;energy footprint&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2031" RevisionGUID="8356c874-b85c-4990-bec7-21ded9dd7881" CreationDate="2013-03-10T12:38:37.423" UserId="281" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2032" RevisionGUID="ca1393d0-bfa3-45a8-8d28-7e5797dc21ce" CreationDate="2013-03-10T13:51:31.497" UserId="426" Text="No, &quot;след&quot; is not the right word here: although &quot;footprint&quot; does translate as &quot;след&quot; in a related term of &quot;carbon footprint&quot; (&quot;углеродный след&quot;), the meaning is quite different when the word is used in combination with &quot;energy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the term as &quot;объем энергии&quot; using the &quot;memory footprint&quot; (&quot;объем памяти&quot;) as a template, or simply use the &quot;энергопотребление&quot; word, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3% энергопотребления США приходится на нагревание воды для стирки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2033" RevisionGUID="32c3f5ef-9d4a-4883-bf4b-19a0b64eb6ca" CreationDate="2013-03-10T17:02:59.527" UserId="1513" Text="One of the most important things to understand about the differences between Russian and English pronounciation is that in Russian, the vowel sound isn't really all that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In English, there are 20 vowel sounds and 24 consonant sounds.&#xD;&#xA;* In Russian, there are 5 vowel sounds and 36 consonant sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you think you hear a difference in the sound, it's because in Russian you pronounce the entire consonant but not the entire vowel; in other words, you move your tongue to make the vowel *after* the consonant has been &quot;spoken&quot; and start moving it for the next consonant sound *before* the vowel is &quot;finished&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the word очень; there is no й in it, but if you listen closely (to a native speaker) it almost sounds like there is one.  Why? Because ч is always soft and so the back of your tongue moves up before you actually finish the &quot;o&quot; sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of ы compared to и, you're mainly thinking too hard about it; if you pronounce the consonants correctly you'll get the vowel right 90% of the time.  If you actually pronounce a hard с in the word сырь then you'll get the sound right... but since it's a soft sound at the end it's going to change the end of the ы as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an interesting game to play if you have the chance.  When speaking english, try holding your tongue between your back teeth while speaking; you won't hardly pronounce a single consonant correctly, but any experienced English speaker will understand you perfectly. Beginning English students, however, will not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, pick a single vowel sound -- o, for example -- and use that for all vowels.  Russian people will understand you if you pronounce all the consonants correctly, but most beginning russian students will not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2034" RevisionGUID="9a05fe04-1671-403e-a68f-bb6fab199478" CreationDate="2013-03-10T17:30:32.160" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="I'm Russian, I have a diploma in Economics, and here's my answer: there's no such concept as &quot;footprint&quot; meaning &quot;total cost&quot; in Russian, you need to search for an appropriate word, as by &quot;footprint&quot; you always mean different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context I'd write &quot;3% потребляемой энергии приходится на стирку.&quot; But be careful, in some context you might want to use энергоёмкость (specific energy conumption) which means that to do X you need Y kWt*Hrs of energy. Or, to improve costs by M% you need to reduce энергоёмкость by K%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7308" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2031" RevisionGUID="512e64e0-54b5-4634-917b-49a298b0789e" CreationDate="2013-03-11T13:36:48.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/311108448421048320" />
  <row Id="7309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2011" RevisionGUID="e8894326-7cf8-4b4d-a9cd-5204c3b2d12a" CreationDate="2013-03-11T22:37:10.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/311244432852799488" />
  <row Id="7320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="df2c2958-6cd8-40a0-b29a-8ed157ef9a69" CreationDate="2013-03-12T16:59:33.577" UserId="1526" Text="How can I translate &quot;featuring&quot; which is used to mark guest singers/musicians in song titles? As if in: Crystal Castles - Not In Love (feat. Robert Smith)&#xD;&#xA;&quot; X и Y - название песни&quot; is obvious, i'd like to find an accurate translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="df2c2958-6cd8-40a0-b29a-8ed157ef9a69" CreationDate="2013-03-12T16:59:33.577" UserId="1526" Text="How would you translate &quot;feat.&quot; (featuring) in song titles to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="df2c2958-6cd8-40a0-b29a-8ed157ef9a69" CreationDate="2013-03-12T16:59:33.577" UserId="1526" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2043" RevisionGUID="8f83dd82-5c92-45fe-9e24-20e78b74bf84" CreationDate="2013-03-12T17:28:10.143" UserId="134" Text="I would say *при участии*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВИА &quot;Кристал Каслз&quot; при участии Роберта Смита, композиция &quot;Никто мне не люб&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2044" RevisionGUID="e40a5dd7-4e70-4f9e-94b5-201fe9c263ee" CreationDate="2013-03-12T19:36:07.357" UserId="44" Text="May be you need grotesque action, it's more fun :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уничтожает, ликвидирует, устраняет, аннигилирует, дематериализует." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="7188363a-5fde-4b3d-ad34-6002e9b63ca5" CreationDate="2013-03-13T15:53:30.100" UserId="1531" Text="I'm working with a website related to homosexuality and coming out and I need to translate the concept of &quot;coming out of the closet&quot; into Russian. Multitran suggest выйти из тени, публично заявить (аналогия со шкафом, потому что дети прячутся в шкафу, когда играют в прятки - предложено иностранцем-знакомым TaylorZodi), but I'm not so convinced. So, how would you translate &quot;coming out,&quot; both with and without the part &quot;of the closet&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="7188363a-5fde-4b3d-ad34-6002e9b63ca5" CreationDate="2013-03-13T15:53:30.100" UserId="1531" Text="How would you translate &quot;coming out&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="7188363a-5fde-4b3d-ad34-6002e9b63ca5" CreationDate="2013-03-13T15:53:30.100" UserId="1531" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="2bfc6b06-4676-4c80-b433-ddfa9eef7aaa" CreationDate="2013-03-13T16:37:29.120" UserId="1097" Text=" - открыться&#xD;&#xA; - выйти на свет (из тени)&#xD;&#xA; - признаться&#xD;&#xA; - раскрыть карты&#xD;&#xA; - заявить о себе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2042" RevisionGUID="06d06d74-7b94-4e20-ba74-b0c067892b7d" CreationDate="2013-03-13T16:39:27.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/311879189026443264" />
  <row Id="7331" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2009" RevisionGUID="4e4a29b6-ac8f-437c-9a00-a1f7e2c281c9" CreationDate="2013-03-13T19:39:27.920" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/311924487966834689" />
  <row Id="7333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2048" RevisionGUID="e76bdc56-0bbc-41d0-b98a-60cbf26f9e14" CreationDate="2013-03-13T20:17:11.170" UserId="1533" Text="There is no common and well accepted term for this in modern Russian. This means that variants are possible. Any of the following will work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - открыться&#xD;&#xA; - признаться&#xD;&#xA; - заявить о себе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7334" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1993" RevisionGUID="7b308e51-3551-4abf-bef1-6b1e11b908b4" CreationDate="2013-03-13T22:39:28.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/311969790648524800" />
  <row Id="7335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2049" RevisionGUID="9fee3279-5c97-480a-8ce8-40eb7c7c0abd" CreationDate="2013-03-13T23:41:18.467" UserId="626" Text="There is no specific term or expression for this in Russian, so you can consider three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - use plain common words and simple narrative: &quot;он признал, что он&#xD;&#xA;   гей&quot;, &quot;он заявил о своей нетрадиционной ориентации&quot;, &quot;он перестал скрывать, что он гомосексуал&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - translate the English expression. This is becoming common in the media, but&#xD;&#xA;   always demands additional explanation: &quot;как говорят на Западе, он &quot;вышел из шкафа&quot;, т.е. заявил о своей гомосексуальности&quot; or &quot;Красовский, как теперь говорят, совершил камин-аут — в прямом эфире сказал, что он гей&quot;. It sounds a little awkward, like many other words and expressions Russian is trying to adopt at the moment (&quot;smoothie&quot; becomes &quot;смусси&quot; and sounds just plain weird), but it is spreading quite fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - try to invent a new expression. &quot;Раскрыть карты&quot; or &quot;выйти на свет&quot; that were suggested here are by no means accepted expressions to talk  about homosexuality, but &quot;to come out of the closet&quot; wasn't once either. If you do that, however, you risk sounding corny." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2050" RevisionGUID="15b8e3ca-dd01-44bc-832d-4ecba2c8313e" CreationDate="2013-03-14T00:18:58.717" UserId="1533" Text="In oral conversation between programmers is can be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вылетела с ЖиПиФ'ом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not sound like literature Russian, but it is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2047" RevisionGUID="6424e93a-d856-431b-8e15-d6d8ac07cbb5" CreationDate="2013-03-14T01:57:05.037" UserId="1097" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text=" - открыться&#xD;&#xA; - выйти на свет (из тени)&#xD;&#xA; - признаться&#xD;&#xA; - раскрыть карты&#xD;&#xA; - заявить о себе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have noted, these expressions do not point directly to a 'coming out', only in the sense of &quot;confess&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7339" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2021" RevisionGUID="31fc9ef9-72b4-44ef-985a-7f6db83c24be" CreationDate="2013-03-14T04:39:29.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/312060390848729088" />
  <row Id="7340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="44b514d4-c9a3-41c3-aa7f-1751f48c054e" CreationDate="2013-03-14T05:06:18.227" UserId="1262" Text="*От добра добра не ищут.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is its meaning the same as in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Лучшее - враг хорошего?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, are there any similar idioms in Russian which might clarify the meaning of the former phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="44b514d4-c9a3-41c3-aa7f-1751f48c054e" CreationDate="2013-03-14T05:06:18.227" UserId="1262" Text="What does this phrase mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="44b514d4-c9a3-41c3-aa7f-1751f48c054e" CreationDate="2013-03-14T05:06:18.227" UserId="1262" Text="|узус|semantics|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="f71949c8-83c3-4a22-bd20-8b0e09cbc3cf" CreationDate="2013-03-14T05:47:16.597" UserId="1097" Text="Нет, это не совсем одно и тоже.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*От добра добра не ищут*](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D1%89%D1%83%D1%82) - получив нечто даром, не следует ожидать или требовать бо́́льшего. Чаще применяется к отношениям между людьми или к ситуации, на которую сложно повлиять.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Лучшее - враг хорошего* - не сто́ит пытаться улучшить/доработать что-то, что уже работает хорошо. Чаще применяется к материальным вещам/процессам/технологиям, на которые можно легко повлиять и легко испортить, получив результат, обратный ожидаемому." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="ff7361c0-9bd1-4656-b700-5bea46426301" CreationDate="2013-03-14T07:49:06.793" UserId="242" Text="У этого узко специфического термина в той среде и в том информационном контексте, в котором он употребляется уже довольно прочно сформировалась традиция не переводить этот термин и употреблять его как есть - `каминг аут` или `каминг-аут`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De-facto this term is not translates and is used &quot;as is&quot;, transliterated as `каминг аут` or `каминг-аут`. Also, as far as I know, the term `выйти из шкафа` is also pretty understandable in Russian gay community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="50e4c6d2-80b9-4e24-9971-23e4c6a05e54" CreationDate="2013-03-14T07:59:04.080" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="4162d5a9-50c9-4bd6-a15c-52705fe1c279" CreationDate="2013-03-14T08:07:14.330" UserId="242" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="У этого узко специфического термина в той среде и в том информационном контексте, в котором он употребляется уже довольно прочно сформировалась традиция не переводить этот термин и употреблять его как есть - `каминг аут` или `каминг-аут`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De-facto this term is not translates and is used &quot;as is&quot;, transliterated as `каминг аут` or `каминг-аут`. Also, as far as I know, the term `выйти из шкафа` is also pretty understandable in Russian gay community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ps**&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of using this terms by &quot;native speakers&quot; ))) - [http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="717cc81d-90d8-4cd8-a6b8-a44b412e57b4" CreationDate="2013-03-14T08:15:27.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="У этого узко специфического термина в той среде и в том информационном контексте, в котором он употребляется уже довольно прочно сформировалась традиция не переводить этот термин и употреблять его как есть - `каминг аут` или `каминг-аут`. Чаще всего употребляется вместе с глаголами действий вроде `сделать`, `совершить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De-facto this term is not translates and is used &quot;as is&quot;, transliterated as `каминг аут` or `каминг-аут`. This is a noun, which is used most typically with action verbs, such like `сделать` (to make) or `совершить` (to commit). Also, as far as I know, the term `выйти из шкафа` is also pretty understandable in Russian gay community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ps**&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of using this terms by &quot;native speakers&quot; ))) - [http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7349" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="6c35d537-1c2e-4ef1-afb3-5425577eb4bd" CreationDate="2013-03-14T13:39:37.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/312196319424946176" />
  <row Id="7350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2055" RevisionGUID="a9973f70-2195-445b-bf8d-fdbe0bd72fa5" CreationDate="2013-03-14T17:12:17.410" UserId="1452" Text="Mechanically оттяжка means redirection of force.&#xD;&#xA;When a whip is used оттяжка means draw of the whip after  shot to add pain.&#xD;&#xA;So vowels are pronounced with оттяжка -a prolonged ,sometimes accentuated melodic sound used purposefully for redirection of meaning, adding emotion-characteristic of an emotive prose.&#xD;&#xA;Clock in question reverberate with оттяжка-here it means reverberation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2053" RevisionGUID="085d9e23-c54e-470c-bcc3-25336b776886" CreationDate="2013-03-15T01:07:04.037" UserId="1097" Comment="added answer" Text="Нет, это не совсем одно и тоже.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*От добра добра не ищут*](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D1%89%D1%83%D1%82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Получив нечто даром, не следует ожидать или требовать бо́́льшего. Чаще применяется к отношениям между людьми или к ситуации, на которую сложно повлиять.&#xD;&#xA;2. Делая добро людям не надейся на благодарность в ответ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Лучшее - враг хорошего* - не сто́ит пытаться улучшить/доработать что-то, что уже работает хорошо. Чаще применяется к материальным вещам/процессам/технологиям, на которые можно легко повлиять и легко испортить, получив результат, обратный ожидаемому." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2056" RevisionGUID="632f659c-3d9b-402f-a859-0d030b8e6e58" CreationDate="2013-03-15T04:53:16.097" UserId="242" Text="Russian language is de-facto used (to greater or lesser extent) in some countries, even in those one where it is not recognized as official one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among Latvian residents I've recently encountered phrase `экологическая стопа`, which I've never heard before but nevertheless came up to conclusion that this is exactly what &quot;ecological footprint&quot; stands for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some research (a-ha-ha, that's how googling should be called to sound more scientific) I've [found this term][1] used in official Latvian documents translated to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, there are some examples of using this term in Russian documents as well. &#xD;&#xA;So, since this is a relatively new term and thus this is a question of adoption of some certain form, I'd stick to `стопа`. This perfectly understandable, clear and correlates with english word footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my advice would be to say `энергетическая стопа`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.latvija2030.lv/upload/latvija2030_rus.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2057" RevisionGUID="c3e8d902-8fc5-4c9f-834a-dc3759198e93" CreationDate="2013-03-15T12:08:48.307" UserId="1540" Text="Well, given the general Russian tendency to literally copy English terminology, almost word for word, this particular case poses one of the most misleading concepts since &quot;footprint&quot; appears to be of ultimately metaphorical simile comprising both area and the trace left by carbon emissions per hectare, so, fair enough,it would be logical to perceive it as a proportion of carbon dioxide pollution per area unit, a required quotient  rather than just measurement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2058" RevisionGUID="330db479-bf1a-404e-9012-47d58b8405a1" CreationDate="2013-03-15T12:54:52.917" UserId="1540" Text="&quot;коэффициент эмиссии парниковых газов на единицу площади&quot; or a slightly reduced version &quot;коэффициент парникового эффекта&quot; would be a bit wordy but no less concise suggestion in my opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2058" RevisionGUID="bbd487cf-262b-4935-80b5-927147b039c3" CreationDate="2013-03-15T13:03:41.100" UserId="1540" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&quot;коэффициент эмиссии парниковых газов на единицу площади&quot; or a slightly reduced version &quot;энергокоэффициент парникового эффекта&quot; would be a bit wordy but no less concise suggestion in my opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2059" RevisionGUID="1d9625bf-a414-448a-9f74-8c513f03808e" CreationDate="2013-03-15T16:24:52.887" UserId="1542" Text="I would translate with a verb like 'отнимает' or 'отбирает' or 'забирает'.&#xD;&#xA;Means - takes from the whole consumption or from the whole energy production even better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="0ce23bde-f7a7-4485-bdbe-9f069cd79e58" CreationDate="2013-03-16T07:42:21.803" UserId="426" Text="Yes, that was precisely the interpretation&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; by Leo Tolstoy: he even wrote a short fable to illustrate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бежал заяц от собак и ушёл в лес. В лесу ему хорошо было, да уж много он страху набрался и хотел ещё лучше спрятаться. Стал искать, где поглуше место, и полез в чащу в овраге — и наскочил на волка. Волк схватил его. Видно, правда,— подумал заяц, что от добра добра искать не надо. Хотел лучше спрятаться и вовсе пропал. **(Л. Н. Толстой)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A rabbit ran away from a dog, and hid in the woods. He was safe there, but because he was scared so much, he decided to look for an even better hiding place. He ran into the thickets in the ravine, and got caught by a wolf. That's when the rabbit understood that one shouldn't try improving what's good: he wanted to hid better, but got caught instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushkin's well-known [&quot;Видел я трех царей ...&quot;][1] quote suggests that his interpretation has been identical to that of Tolstoy, that giving up what's good in exchange for what you perceive to be even better may carry significant risks. This meaning is the same as &quot;Лучшее - враг хорошего&quot;, which translates as &quot;Perfect is the enemy of good&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; Until today, I thought this was the only interpretation in existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/texts/selected/ppl/ppl-036-.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="12a14b9d-5f42-425d-8c67-e927f9d56b46" CreationDate="2013-03-16T16:03:11.377" UserId="1540" Text="In &quot;знакомый голос с ласкающей оттяжкой&quot; some typically Russian melodious manner to prolong or drag out vowels seems to be implied. The quality of vocalization can differ due to a certain attitude of the speaker ranging from anger to tenderness or endearment. Here, obviously, Masha calls the boy with a soothing tenderness in her voice that is so familiar to him, as if singing [Ko-o-olye-e-tchka] (maybe not singing out too loudly)which adds even more palatalization to the already palatalized [L]consonant. &#xD;&#xA;   Yes, &quot;растягивая&quot; would scan here as well (as shows a quote from B.Akunin's novel, 'Будет петь, подумал Романов. Но висельник не запел, а протяжно, подвывая и растягивая звуки, продекламировал...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, agree with the above mentioned observation, besides, the author's choice was presumably dictated by the syntactical or/and phonological specificity of the word. Besides, from my perspective, &quot;оттяжка&quot; sounds a tad less trivial in this particular context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="ea89fca5-3d9b-42ab-a430-e65653bf99e0" CreationDate="2013-03-16T16:08:17.173" UserId="1540" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="In &quot;знакомый голос с ласкающей оттяжкой&quot; some typically Russian melodious manner to prolong or drag out vowels seems to be implied. The quality of vocalization can differ due to a certain attitude of the speaker ranging from anger to tenderness or endearment. Here, obviously, Masha calls the boy with a soothing tenderness in her voice that is so familiar to him, as if singing [Ko-o-olye-e-tchka] (maybe not singing out too loudly)which adds even more palatalization to the already palatalized [L]consonant. &#xD;&#xA;   Yes, &quot;растягивая&quot; would scan here as well (as shows a quote from B.Akunin's novel, 'Будет петь, подумал Романов. Но висельник не запел, а протяжно, подвывая и растягивая звуки, продекламировал...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, while taking into account the above mentioned observation, the author's choice might presumably have been dictated by the syntactical or/and phonological specificity of the word. Besides, from my perspective, &quot;оттяжка&quot; sounds a tad less trivial in this particular context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="ace7533a-491e-4f9f-96ce-6e5ab6f86c67" CreationDate="2013-03-16T16:36:02.673" UserId="1540" Text="The quote&quot;...от звона стекла вздрогнули, а часы, под которыми в восемь Финогеновы топчут мышей, с оттяжкой пропели свои три часа.&quot;, in this instance, gives an additional nuanced meaning to the previously highlighted noun. The noun phrase &quot;С оттяжкой&quot; modifies the sound of the clock's chime which appears to be not only rather lengthy and melodious but also flexible and smooth, akin, truly so, to an abrupt swishing whip-like motion preceding a strike. Needless to say, the sound description underscores the irony of the situation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="650a8a66-8656-4858-806a-a2026556339c" CreationDate="2013-03-16T16:40:35.727" UserId="1540" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="In &quot;знакомый голос с ласкающей оттяжкой&quot; some typically Russian melodious manner to prolong or drag out vowels seems to be implied. The quality of vocalization can differ due to a certain attitude of the speaker ranging from anger to tenderness or endearment. Here, obviously, Masha calls the boy with a soothing tenderness in her voice that is so familiar to him, as if singing [Ko-o-olye-e-tchka] (maybe not singing out too loudly)which adds even more palatalization to the already palatalized [L]consonant. &#xD;&#xA;   Yes, &quot;растягивая&quot; would scan here as well (as shows a quote from B.Akunin's novel, 'Будет петь, подумал Романов. Но висельник не запел, а протяжно, подвывая и растягивая звуки, продекламировал...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, while taking into account the above mentioned observation, I would point out that the author's choice might presumably have been dictated by the syntactical or/and phonological specificity of the word. Besides, from my perspective, &quot;оттяжка&quot; sounds a tad less trivial in this particular context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="94be65bb-072a-4d41-87ec-eb73747b89bb" CreationDate="2013-03-16T16:43:47.487" UserId="1540" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The quote&quot;...от звона стекла вздрогнули, а часы, под которыми в восемь Финогеновы топчут мышей, с оттяжкой пропели свои три часа.&quot;, in this instance, gives an additional nuanced meaning to the previously highlighted noun. The noun phrase &quot;С оттяжкой&quot; modifies the sound of the clock's chime which appears to be not only rather lengthy and melodious but also flexible and smooth, akin, truly so, to an abrupt, swishing, whip-like motion preceding a strike. Needless to say, the word choice used in the description underscores the irony of the situation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="d9ea3a08-e69a-4dbf-967f-b8d296e6c3bd" CreationDate="2013-03-16T18:07:57.413" UserId="1540" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="The quote&quot;...от звона стекла вздрогнули, а часы, под которыми в восемь Финогеновы топчут мышей, с оттяжкой пропели свои три часа.&quot;, in this instance, gives an additional nuanced meaning to the previously highlighted noun. The noun phrase, metaphorical as it is, &quot;С оттяжкой&quot; modifies the sound of the clock's chime which appears to be not only rather lengthy and melodious but also flexible and smooth, akin, truly so, to an abrupt, swishing, whip-like motion preceding a strike. Needless to say, the word choice used in the description underscores a mild irony of the situation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2061" RevisionGUID="fcbb516c-3a79-462a-9084-4aff7bfc3fd2" CreationDate="2013-03-16T18:29:35.910" UserId="1540" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="In &quot;знакомый голос с ласкающей оттяжкой&quot; some typically Russian melodious manner to prolong or drag out vowels seems to be implied. The quality of vocalization can differ due to a certain attitude of the speaker ranging from anger to tenderness or endearment. Here, obviously, Masha calls the boy with a soothing tenderness in her voice that is so familiar to him, as if singing [Ko-o-olye-e-tchka] (maybe not singing out too loudly)which adds even more palatalization to the already palatalized [L]consonant. &#xD;&#xA;   Yes, &quot;растягивая&quot; would scan here as well (as shows a quote from B.Akunin's novel, 'Будет петь, подумал Романов. Но висельник не запел, а протяжно, подвывая и растягивая звуки, продекламировал...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, while taking into account the above mentioned observation, I would point out that the author's choice might presumably have been dictated by the syntactical or/and phonological/prosodic specificity of the whole sentence. Besides, from my perspective, &quot;оттяжка&quot; sounds a tad less trivial in this particular context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2060" RevisionGUID="e9c0eb95-e70e-4af7-86b1-b87a21fd25a8" CreationDate="2013-03-17T06:32:09.750" UserId="426" Comment="Clarified the similarity point." Text="Yes, that was precisely the interpretation&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; by Leo Tolstoy: he even wrote a short fable to illustrate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бежал заяц от собак и ушёл в лес. В лесу ему хорошо было, да уж много он страху набрался и хотел ещё лучше спрятаться. Стал искать, где поглуше место, и полез в чащу в овраге — и наскочил на волка. Волк схватил его. Видно, правда,— подумал заяц, что от добра добра искать не надо. Хотел лучше спрятаться и вовсе пропал. **(Л. Н. Толстой)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A rabbit ran away from a dog, and hid in the woods. He was safe there, but because he was scared so much, he decided to look for an even better hiding place. He ran into the thickets in the ravine, and got caught by a wolf. That's when the rabbit understood that one shouldn't try improving what's good: he wanted to hid better, but got caught instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushkin's well-known [&quot;Видел я трех царей ...&quot;][1] quote suggests that his interpretation has been identical to that of Tolstoy, that giving up what's good in exchange for what you perceive to be even better may carry significant risks. This meaning is close to &quot;Лучшее - враг хорошего&quot;, which translates as &quot;Perfect is the enemy of good&quot;, though it is not entirely the same: it implies that the current state is definitely not perfect, and that it does not address the risk aspect of searching for the perfection, which may or may not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; Until today, I thought this was the only interpretation in existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/texts/selected/ppl/ppl-036-.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7368" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2052" RevisionGUID="f0c95a52-1f4c-4309-9a52-50b6b8384638" CreationDate="2013-03-17T09:31:38.493" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;от добра добра не ищут&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2064" RevisionGUID="edf5d0bd-91be-443f-956b-361cd1c88c3c" CreationDate="2013-03-17T14:41:13.287" UserId="194" Text="I would say that they have roughly the same meaning with some nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*От добра добра не ищут*&quot; usually refers to a complete change, which is too risky (such as changing job, place of living, place of studying, citizenship, changing the key elements of business such as personality of the management, market target, basic design and so on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Лучшее враг хорошего*&quot; usually refers to to minor improvements which may be good taken separately but have tendency to never end because of newer and newer ideas appearing and hamper normal production process. This may also refer to never-ending reconstruction and other pursuits for perfection.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="4d978214-9875-4558-8582-937de4f93fec" CreationDate="2013-03-17T20:06:22.290" UserId="5" Text="How can I say &quot;why are you making a duck face&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="4d978214-9875-4558-8582-937de4f93fec" CreationDate="2013-03-17T20:06:22.290" UserId="5" Text="How can I say &quot;why you making a duck face&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="4d978214-9875-4558-8582-937de4f93fec" CreationDate="2013-03-17T20:06:22.290" UserId="5" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7374" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="594b3b28-2e08-4fc2-bc2a-6551645c55e3" CreationDate="2013-03-17T20:47:03.317" UserId="5" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I say &quot;why are you making a duck face&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2066" RevisionGUID="79db6edd-e597-4cae-a29f-1ad28ae20e39" CreationDate="2013-03-17T22:34:12.767" UserId="222" Text="The literal translation is “Зачем ты выпячиваешь губы?” You can also say “Зачем ты гримасничаешь?”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2067" RevisionGUID="e0e5615d-6b6a-42c7-9a34-047314d39e7b" CreationDate="2013-03-17T23:23:29.893" UserId="1097" Text="_why are you making a duck face?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Зачем ты делаешь лицо «уточкой»?&#xD;&#xA; - Зачем ты делаешь губы «уточкой»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_making a duck face_ - сделать/показать «уточку» (short form)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7377" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2045" RevisionGUID="13c678dc-8684-45ed-b3eb-26035183db61" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:43:12.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/313556176094760960" />
  <row Id="7378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="0575af00-61be-4a08-90d2-fdce19c1a4dc" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:49:02.870" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="У этого узко специфического термина в той среде и в том информационном контексте, в котором он употребляется уже довольно прочно сформировалась традиция не переводить этот термин и употреблять его как есть - `каминг аут` или `каминг-аут`. Чаще всего употребляется вместе с глаголами действий вроде `сделать`, `совершить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De-facto this term does not translate and is used &quot;as is&quot;, transliterated as `каминг аут` or `каминг-аут`. This is a noun, which is typically used with action verbs, such as `сделать` (to make) or `совершить` (to commit). Also, as far as I know, the term `выйти из шкафа` is also pretty understandable in the Russian gay community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ps**&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of using this terms by &quot;native speakers&quot; ))) - [http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7379" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="0575af00-61be-4a08-90d2-fdce19c1a4dc" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:49:02.870" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242 edit id of 351" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="3f6003a3-86cf-407b-bc40-8e728c10d3a4" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:57:59.640" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, improved formatting" Text="I've stumbled upon this word in Andrey Bely's (Bugaev's) _Символизм как миропонимание_ (СПб 1994). Even in the early 20th century the word was used negatively referring to 'широковещательность метафизики'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be applied as a radio term, yet its basic meaning, according to dictionaries, is negative and 'fictional' (книжный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did it become a negative term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="3f6003a3-86cf-407b-bc40-8e728c10d3a4" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:57:59.640" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 352" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2057" RevisionGUID="2e78c14b-6eb2-4ea4-8fdf-77606e3e954f" CreationDate="2013-03-18T09:30:09.280" UserId="1540" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Well, given the general Russian tendency to literally copy English terminology, almost word for word, this particular case poses one of the most misleading concepts since &quot;footprint&quot; appears to be of an ultimately metaphorical simile comprising both area and the trace left by carbon emissions per hectare, so, fair enough,it would be logical to perceive it as a proportion of carbon dioxide pollution per area unit, a required quotient  rather than just measurement. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2062" RevisionGUID="43a77a8d-d766-4e7f-a94d-72de406327a4" CreationDate="2013-03-18T11:28:49.257" UserId="1540" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="The quote&quot;...от звона стекла вздрогнули, а часы, под которыми в восемь Финогеновы топчут мышей, с оттяжкой пропели свои три часа.&quot;, in this instance, gives an additional nuanced meaning to the previously highlighted noun. The noun phrase, metaphorical as it is, &quot;С оттяжкой&quot; modifies the sound of the clock's chime which appears to be not only rather lengthy and melodious but also flexible and smooth, akin, truly so, to an abrupt, swishing, whip-like motion preceding a strike. Needless to say, the word choice used in the description underscores a mild irony of the situation. &#xD;&#xA;  One more cursory remark, it's interesting how the slang verb &quot;оттягиваться&quot; basically meaning &quot;have a good time&quot; or closer stylistically &quot;hang loose&quot;, &quot;chill out&quot; relates to the whole bunch of connoted implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="d24a55c2-e72a-4ca9-8a81-ca3d982b8043" CreationDate="2013-03-18T17:35:24.523" UserId="1540" Text="Since the adjective is generally perceived as a derogatory one, I assume, the following excerpt from Vladimir Dahl's dictionary entry(aka Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language)I have stumbled upon, might prove relevant here: ГАЛИТЬ вят. гадовать, блевать, рвать, тошнить, тянуть с души. Его галить. Более говор. о грудных младенцах. Галить или галеть или галить сев. галегать зап. галяндать сев. олон. шалить, проказить, дурить, шутить, смешить: или зубоскалить, смеяться. || Арх. лягаться? || Галить сиб. подавать мяч или шар в игре, гилить. Галиться над кем, сев. изгаляться, смеяться, насмехаться, издеваться. || Новг. пск. ниж. орл. пялить глаза, глазеть, смотреть, дивиться или любоваться, засматриваться. На красавицу люди галятся. || Галить младенца, орл. дать полежать несвитому; он галится, тянется и подает голос. Галенье ср. новг. яросл. перм. смех, насмешка, насмешничество. То–то будет галенья! Галяй, пск. кто галится, насмешник.&#xD;&#xA;   Supposedly, the verbal definitions particularly related to those of various &quot;vomit&quot; derivatives especially marked by the vulgar register, such as &quot;throw up&quot; and/or &quot;puke&quot; as well as cat, retch, barf, spew, spue, might potentially approximate to &quot;галить, гадовать, блевать&quot;, etc. on a highly pejorative scale. &#xD;&#xA;  At some point the verb &quot;галить&quot;, having its origin from the country's rural areas and, consequently, of a regional, dialectal tinge, might have transformed into the adjective &quot;галимый&quot; that ended up proliferating among urban low class communities in the course of influx into big cities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="bc95983f-6db6-4b27-90bc-747410562d7d" CreationDate="2013-03-18T17:50:27.760" UserId="1540" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Since the adjective is generally perceived as a derogatory one, I assume, the following excerpt from Vladimir Dahl's dictionary entry(aka Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language)I have stumbled upon, might prove relevant here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ГАЛИТЬ вят. гадовать, блевать, рвать, тошнить, тянуть с души. Его галить. Более говор. о грудных младенцах. Галить или галеть или галить сев. галегать зап. галяндать сев. олон. шалить, проказить, дурить, шутить, смешить: или зубоскалить, смеяться. || Арх. лягаться? || Галить сиб. подавать мяч или шар в игре, гилить. Галиться над кем, сев. изгаляться, смеяться, насмехаться, издеваться. || Новг. пск. ниж. орл. пялить глаза, глазеть, смотреть, дивиться или любоваться, засматриваться. На красавицу люди галятся. || Галить младенца, орл. дать полежать несвитому; он галится, тянется и подает голос. Галенье ср. новг. яросл. перм. смех, насмешка, насмешничество. То–то будет галенья! Галяй, пск. кто галится, насмешник.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Supposedly, the verbal definitions particularly related to those of various &quot;vomit&quot; derivatives and especially marked by the vulgar register such as &quot;throw up&quot; and/or &quot;puke&quot; as well as cat, retch, barf, spew, spue, might potentially approximate to &quot;галить, гадовать, блевать&quot;, etc. if not in totally overlapped meaning but at least on a highly pejorative scale. &#xD;&#xA;  At some point the verb &quot;галить&quot;, having its origin from the country's rural areas and, consequently, of a regional, dialectal tinge, might have transformed into the adjective &quot;галимый&quot;(hypothetically, retaining the same root)that ended up proliferating among urban low class communities in the course of influx into big cities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="3379e471-9139-4742-b2d2-5b93447af270" CreationDate="2013-03-18T19:49:36.447" UserId="1540" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Since the adjective/adverb is generally perceived as a derogatory one, I assume, the following excerpt from Vladimir Dahl's dictionary entry(aka Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language)I have stumbled upon, might prove relevant here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ГАЛИТЬ вят. гадовать, блевать, рвать, тошнить, тянуть с души. Его галить. Более говор. о грудных младенцах. Галить или галеть или галить сев. галегать зап. галяндать сев. олон. шалить, проказить, дурить, шутить, смешить: или зубоскалить, смеяться. || Арх. лягаться? || Галить сиб. подавать мяч или шар в игре, гилить. Галиться над кем, сев. изгаляться, смеяться, насмехаться, издеваться. || Новг. пск. ниж. орл. пялить глаза, глазеть, смотреть, дивиться или любоваться, засматриваться. На красавицу люди галятся. || Галить младенца, орл. дать полежать несвитому; он галится, тянется и подает голос. Галенье ср. новг. яросл. перм. смех, насмешка, насмешничество. То–то будет галенья! Галяй, пск. кто галится, насмешник.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Supposedly, the verbal definitions particularly related to those of various &quot;vomit&quot; derivatives and especially marked by the vulgar register such as &quot;throw up&quot; and/or &quot;puke&quot; as well as cat, retch, barf, spew, spue, might potentially approximate to &quot;галить, гадовать, блевать&quot;, etc. if not in totally overlapped meaning but at least on a highly pejorative scale. &#xD;&#xA;  At some point the verb &quot;галить&quot;, having its origin from the country's rural areas and, consequently, of a regional, dialectal tinge, might have transformed into the adjective &quot;галимый&quot;(hypothetically, retaining the same root)that ended up proliferating among urban low class communities in the course of influx into big cities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="9163ea90-316e-4930-9e3f-c71af8db0d44" CreationDate="2013-03-18T19:55:13.573" UserId="1540" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Since the adjective/adverb is generally perceived as a derogatory one, I assume, the following excerpt from Vladimir Dahl's dictionary entry(aka Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language)I have stumbled upon recently, might prove relevant here or possibly shed some light on its quite obscure origin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ГАЛИТЬ вят. гадовать, блевать, рвать, тошнить, тянуть с души. Его галить. Более говор. о грудных младенцах. Галить или галеть или галить сев. галегать зап. галяндать сев. олон. шалить, проказить, дурить, шутить, смешить: или зубоскалить, смеяться. || Арх. лягаться? || Галить сиб. подавать мяч или шар в игре, гилить. Галиться над кем, сев. изгаляться, смеяться, насмехаться, издеваться. || Новг. пск. ниж. орл. пялить глаза, глазеть, смотреть, дивиться или любоваться, засматриваться. На красавицу люди галятся. || Галить младенца, орл. дать полежать несвитому; он галится, тянется и подает голос. Галенье ср. новг. яросл. перм. смех, насмешка, насмешничество. То–то будет галенья! Галяй, пск. кто галится, насмешник.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Supposedly, the verbal definitions particularly related to those of various &quot;vomit&quot; derivatives and especially marked by the vulgar register such as &quot;throw up&quot; and/or &quot;puke&quot; as well as cat, retch, barf, spew, spue, might potentially approximate to &quot;галить, гадовать, блевать&quot;, etc. if not in totally overlapped meaning but at least on a highly pejorative scale. &#xD;&#xA;  At some point the verb &quot;галить&quot;, having its origin from the country's rural areas and, consequently, of a regional, dialectal tinge, might have transformed into the adjective &quot;галимый&quot;(hypothetically, retaining the same root)that ended up proliferating among urban low class communities in the course of influx into big cities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="435bb4f2-4d07-4bc9-a907-352101697e16" CreationDate="2013-03-18T20:01:18.700" UserId="1540" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Since the adjective/adverb is generally perceived as a derogatory one, I assume, the following excerpt from Vladimir Dahl's dictionary entry(aka Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language)I have stumbled upon recently, might prove relevant here or possibly shed some light on its quite obscure origin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ГАЛИТЬ вят. гадовать, блевать, рвать, тошнить, тянуть с души. Его галить. Более говор. о грудных младенцах. Галить или галеть или галить сев. галегать зап. галяндать сев. олон. шалить, проказить, дурить, шутить, смешить: или зубоскалить, смеяться. || Арх. лягаться? || Галить сиб. подавать мяч или шар в игре, гилить. Галиться над кем, сев. изгаляться, смеяться, насмехаться, издеваться. || Новг. пск. ниж. орл. пялить глаза, глазеть, смотреть, дивиться или любоваться, засматриваться. На красавицу люди галятся. || Галить младенца, орл. дать полежать несвитому; он галится, тянется и подает голос. Галенье ср. новг. яросл. перм. смех, насмешка, насмешничество. То–то будет галенья! Галяй, пск. кто галится, насмешник.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Supposedly, the verbal definitions particularly related to those of various &quot;vomit&quot; derivatives and especially marked by the vulgar register such as &quot;throw up&quot; and/or &quot;puke&quot; as well as cat, retch, barf, spew, spue, might potentially approximate to &quot;галить, гадовать, блевать&quot;, etc. if not in totally overlapped meaning but at least on a highly pejorative scale. &#xD;&#xA;  At some point the verb &quot;галить&quot;, having its origin from the country's rural areas and, consequently, of a regional, dialectal tinge, might have transformed into the adjective &quot;галимый&quot;(hypothetically, retaining the same root)that ended up proliferating among urban lower class communities with poor educational background in the course of influx into big cities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2068" RevisionGUID="8445d20e-a34b-4d55-a8be-8876921cafc4" CreationDate="2013-03-18T20:09:21.673" UserId="1540" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Since the adjective/adverb is now generally perceived as a derogatory one, I assume, the following excerpt from Vladimir Dahl's dictionary entry(aka Explanatory Dictionary of the Live Great Russian language)I have stumbled upon recently, might prove relevant here or possibly shed some light on its quite obscure origin: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ГАЛИТЬ вят. гадовать, блевать, рвать, тошнить, тянуть с души. Его галить. Более говор. о грудных младенцах. Галить или галеть или галить сев. галегать зап. галяндать сев. олон. шалить, проказить, дурить, шутить, смешить: или зубоскалить, смеяться. || Арх. лягаться? || Галить сиб. подавать мяч или шар в игре, гилить. Галиться над кем, сев. изгаляться, смеяться, насмехаться, издеваться. || Новг. пск. ниж. орл. пялить глаза, глазеть, смотреть, дивиться или любоваться, засматриваться. На красавицу люди галятся. || Галить младенца, орл. дать полежать несвитому; он галится, тянется и подает голос. Галенье ср. новг. яросл. перм. смех, насмешка, насмешничество. То–то будет галенья! Галяй, пск. кто галится, насмешник.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Supposedly, the verbal definitions particularly related to those of various &quot;vomit&quot; derivatives and especially marked by the vulgar register such as &quot;throw up&quot; and/or &quot;puke&quot; as well as cat, retch, barf, spew, spue, might potentially approximate to &quot;галить, гадовать, блевать&quot;, etc. if not in totally overlapped meaning but at least on a highly pejorative scale. &#xD;&#xA;  At some point the verb &quot;галить&quot;, having its origin from the country's rural areas and, consequently, of a regional, dialectal tinge, might have transformed into the adjective &quot;галимый&quot;(hypothetically, retaining the same root)that ended up proliferating among urban lower class communities with poor educational background in the course of influx into big cities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2069" RevisionGUID="934545bc-279d-4ddc-9e6c-8d601c494aad" CreationDate="2013-03-19T11:46:51.227" UserId="1540" Text="As far as the peculiarities of colloquiallisms in Russian are concerned as well as, quite typically so, in English or other languages, more often than not they do not always appear to be going along the lines of logic or at least are likely to be viewed as such, pretty much confusing, as it were, by a non-native speaker. In the aforementioned phrase the &quot;да&quot; ingredient is used, in a nutshell, to express an emphatic &quot;no&quot; being used as a means to put an additional stress to the negative response rather than add to some cognitive ambiguity which one can possibly overcome with practice and experience. What's more, when attempting to deconstruct a spoken language, there's no way to treat any particle of it as redundant, since every single speck of it comes into existence in the course of natural process. I wonder if we can consider this very instance an interjection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2069" RevisionGUID="f8424ba8-3972-47ff-8687-02f17ee35189" CreationDate="2013-03-19T15:03:51.400" UserId="1540" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="As far as the peculiarities of colloquiallisms in Russian are concerned as well as, quite typically so, in English or other languages, more often than not they do not always appear to be going along the lines of logic or at least are likely to be viewed as such, pretty much confusing, as it were, by a non-native speaker. In the aforementioned phrase the &quot;да&quot; ingredient is used, in a nutshell, to express an emphatic &quot;no&quot; being used as a means to put an additional stress to the negative response rather than add to some cognitive ambiguity which one can possibly overcome with practice and experience. What's more, when attempting to deconstruct a spoken language, there's no way to treat any particle of it as redundant, since every single speck of it comes into existence in the course of natural process. I wonder if we can consider this very instance an interjection. To illustrate this with an example, here's a quote from L.Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata: — Ах, что вы! Да нет. Нет, позвольте, — в один голос заговорили мы все трое. Даже приказчик издал какой-то неодобрительный звук.&#xD;&#xA;   Another example shows that it can serve a certain emotionally charged purpose, somewhat similar to &quot;хотел, да не успел!&quot;. Sometimes the exclamation mark may read quite apt for that matter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="7ec3f5ed-3644-4532-a6d9-3b608c00458d" CreationDate="2013-03-19T21:00:43.933" UserId="1540" Text="That sentence makes me smile. Sure enough, Urban Dictionary, being an open resource, would unlikely be considered the most trustworthy one on the web in this respect, and yet, here is an entry I like:&quot;A facial expression utilized by attention-seeking teenage girls in which they push their lips outward and upward to give the appearance of large, pouty lips.&#xD;&#xA;Amanda Fuchs makes a duckface in all of her profile pictures.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some coquetry given, I would suggest something like Милая, к чему такое&quot;поцелуйное&quot;личико? or Ты уверена, что твоя утиная гримаска здесь уместна? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet yields another sample:&quot;...сбегала к зеркалу, скроила утиную морду - реально кажется. что суперсекси...&quot; which indicates that the English authentic(?), not sure about its etymology, phrase has been successfully infiltrating the Russian everyday speech). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2070" RevisionGUID="898d365e-06f5-4660-9027-61173d912233" CreationDate="2013-03-19T21:10:23.863" UserId="1540" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="That sentence makes me smile. Sure enough, to its credit, Urban Dictionary, being an open resource, at the same time would unlikely be considered the most trustworthy one on the web in this respect, and yet, here is an entry I like:&quot;A facial expression utilized by attention-seeking teenage girls in which they push their lips outward and upward to give the appearance of large, pouty lips.&#xD;&#xA;Amanda Fuchs makes a duckface in all of her profile pictures.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some coquetry given, I would suggest something like Милая, к чему такое&quot;поцелуйное&quot;личико? or Ты уверена, что твоя утиная гримаска здесь уместна? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet yields another sample:&quot;...сбегала к зеркалу, скроила утиную морду - реально кажется. что суперсекси...&quot; which indicates that the English authentic(?), not sure about its etymology, phrase has been successfully infiltrating the Russian everyday speech). &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="0620d554-f97c-473d-b6bc-2afafad409c4" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:25:34.813" UserId="1262" Text="Is ni written separately or together with the main word? And is it ni, or is it ne? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="0620d554-f97c-473d-b6bc-2afafad409c4" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:25:34.813" UserId="1262" Text="How do you write 'nipochemu'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="0620d554-f97c-473d-b6bc-2afafad409c4" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:25:34.813" UserId="1262" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="bb624f9c-cdd6-417b-83ef-160403ac69f2" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:59:24.997" UserId="194" Text="This depends on what word/sequence you really mean. Depending on the meaning there can be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ни почему &#xD;&#xA;    нипочему &#xD;&#xA;    не почему&#xD;&#xA;    непочему&#xD;&#xA;    ну почему&#xD;&#xA;    но почему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="5c167437-0ced-4565-bd45-00d5f19ab65a" CreationDate="2013-03-19T23:04:59.747" UserId="194" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="This depends on what word/sequence you really mean. Depending on the meaning there can be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ни почему &#xD;&#xA;    нипочему &#xD;&#xA;    не почему&#xD;&#xA;    непочему&#xD;&#xA;    не по чему&#xD;&#xA;    ну почему&#xD;&#xA;    ну по чему&#xD;&#xA;    но почему&#xD;&#xA;    но по чему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Он ни о чем меня не спрашивал - *ни почему*, ни зачем.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Почему ты злишься на меня? &#xD;&#xA;    - *Нипочему*.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Спрашивать надо было *не почему*, а зачем.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Я бы перешел на тот берег, да *непочему*.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - По чему она скучает?&#xD;&#xA;    - *Не по чему*, а по кому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="810e35e2-b270-4ba7-b4c3-1a1512a78709" CreationDate="2013-03-19T23:11:46.770" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="This depends on what word/sequence you really mean. Depending on the context there can be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ни почему &#xD;&#xA;    нипочему &#xD;&#xA;    ни по чему&#xD;&#xA;    не почему&#xD;&#xA;    непочему&#xD;&#xA;    не по чему&#xD;&#xA;    ну почему&#xD;&#xA;    ну по чему&#xD;&#xA;    но почему&#xD;&#xA;    но по чему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Он ни о чем меня не спрашивал - *ни почему*, ни зачем.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Почему ты злишься на меня? &#xD;&#xA;    - *Нипочему*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Я уже ни по чему не скучаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - По чему ты перешёл на этот берег?&#xD;&#xA;    - Ни почему не перешел, я переплыл.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Спрашивать надо было *не почему*, а зачем.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Я бы перешел на тот берег, да *непочему*.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - По чему она скучает?&#xD;&#xA;    - *Не по чему*, а по кому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2072" RevisionGUID="fa5f075f-d104-4710-a686-8f5921bc477e" CreationDate="2013-03-19T23:17:39.460" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="This depends on what word/sequence you really mean. Depending on the context there can be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ни почему &#xD;&#xA;    нипочему &#xD;&#xA;    ни по чему&#xD;&#xA;    не почему&#xD;&#xA;    непочему&#xD;&#xA;    не по чему&#xD;&#xA;    ну почему&#xD;&#xA;    ну по чему&#xD;&#xA;    но почему&#xD;&#xA;    но по чему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Он ни о чем меня не спрашивал - *ни почему*, ни зачем.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Почему ты злишься на меня? &#xD;&#xA;    - *Нипочему*, просто так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Я уже *ни по чему* не скучаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - По чему ты перешёл на этот берег?&#xD;&#xA;    - *Ни по чему* не перешёл, я переплыл.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Спрашивать надо было *не почему*, а зачем.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Я бы перешел на тот берег, да *непочему*.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - По чему она скучает?&#xD;&#xA;    - *Не по чему*, а по кому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7402" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="0feb6a0c-e1fb-418b-bee8-62ef172d89da" CreationDate="2013-03-20T07:34:02.213" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How do you write 'нипочему'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="1e24e099-aea7-4b2a-a37d-0abf430dbf04" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:17:35.867" UserId="1177" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Is _ни_ written separately or together with the main word? And is it _ни_, or is it _не_? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7404" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="1e24e099-aea7-4b2a-a37d-0abf430dbf04" CreationDate="2013-03-20T09:17:35.867" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="19912078-b29f-40f4-b5a4-942c9c944288" CreationDate="2013-03-20T13:45:12.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/314372050724732929" />
  <row Id="7406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="d78694be-4e5c-47c5-b5f5-cb2264e426d6" CreationDate="2013-03-20T16:15:40.410" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar, added IPA" Text="[Here][1] is an article in the wiki about the sound [ɛ], which is the ideal Russian 'Э' from a linguistic POV. However, from the POV of a native speaker [this][2] sound [æ] is the same. To be precise, this is a part of English that gives native Russians a hard time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_front_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7407" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="d78694be-4e5c-47c5-b5f5-cb2264e426d6" CreationDate="2013-03-20T16:15:40.410" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 354" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7408" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="b3bc6903-a5a9-4d56-9e5a-63d7afad13de" CreationDate="2013-03-20T16:45:12.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/314417349564440577" />
  <row Id="7409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2073" RevisionGUID="efcbf1ca-9ef9-428d-8bea-2dd10212c24a" CreationDate="2013-03-20T20:35:15.817" UserId="1547" Text="I've only ever heard this word used in the sense of &quot;wide-band&quot; or &quot;broadcasting&quot; (e.g. широковещательный приемник). I doubt a native Russian these days would know the second meaning outside of context, leaving aside its possible negative connotations. I think it should be demoted to &quot;устар.&quot; (obsolete)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2065" RevisionGUID="16352987-804a-4d9a-96e0-c615629f6b90" CreationDate="2013-03-21T04:45:28.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/314598613626011649" />
  <row Id="7413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2074" RevisionGUID="352c4757-2620-4b5d-a269-4c02d0c26d4a" CreationDate="2013-03-21T09:26:59.213" UserId="1502" Text="I would not agree with other interpretations. You should first understand what is `искать добро`. Which is similar to `seeking the truth`. Now `от добра` is different and means `in comfort`, `having happy life`, `being rich`, `having full house of goods`. So comfort living will not make you the truth seeker. This may confuse if you think that `добро` is used in same meaning twice, which is not exactly so. The context is normally mildly negative. It's like accusing someone (or self) of being lazy in a fancy philosophical way of saying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just realized you can say `with goods you won't seek for good` in english." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7415" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1495" RevisionGUID="8563c0da-0642-48b9-8df5-f6e3c19ad636" CreationDate="2013-03-22T07:47:06.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/315006707757613056" />
  <row Id="7421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="994e7c48-1274-4121-93dc-814cf28ddfec" CreationDate="2013-03-22T15:22:40.827" UserId="71" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="## Podcasts &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [PodFM][1], Podcast directory for Russian language podcasts&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Podcast][2], Simple audio for those who know basic grammar and want to improve their Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Taste of Russian][3] Resource for upper-intermediate or advanced learners of Russian. Downloadable Russian mp3 podcast feed with scripts submitted. As far as basic practical use is concerned, registration is not required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianpodcast.eu/podcasts.html &quot;Russian Podast&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://podfm.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tasteofrussian.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="9075d55c-c892-497e-a058-428b312a8a8b" CreationDate="2013-03-22T18:01:36.987" UserId="1552" Text="Мартыха is not a real russian word. It's using as a joke. As an exaple, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мартышка - мартыха&#xD;&#xA;is like as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monkey - monkie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2079" RevisionGUID="9a957dab-1ff4-4caa-956f-9c24e44115f0" CreationDate="2013-03-22T18:03:51.353" UserId="1552" Text="Почему ты придуриваешься уткой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2081" RevisionGUID="be66dfed-8c21-4107-a7f4-5c75c7acb162" CreationDate="2013-03-22T19:05:05.577" UserId="5" Text="зачем делать губки бантиком???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1520" RevisionGUID="578869b1-8ed0-4cdd-b6b4-4b151fa54dda" CreationDate="2013-03-23T03:57:21.983" UserId="334" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="[Here][1] is an article in the wiki about the sound with sound file, denoted in phonetic transcription as [ɛ], which is the ideal Russian 'Э' from a linguistic POV. However, from the POV of a native speaker [this][2] sound denoted in phonetic transcription as [æ] is the same. To be precise, this is a part of English that gives native Russians a hard time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_front_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="380e1e3f-c5f7-45b0-b18f-8112eaebb87a" CreationDate="2013-03-23T20:04:17.973" UserId="1277" Text="Правильно ли писать `тридцати трех процентные сливки`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="380e1e3f-c5f7-45b0-b18f-8112eaebb87a" CreationDate="2013-03-23T20:04:17.973" UserId="1277" Text="Как правильно пишется 33%-ный текстом?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="380e1e3f-c5f7-45b0-b18f-8112eaebb87a" CreationDate="2013-03-23T20:04:17.973" UserId="1277" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="044db4f4-7890-4e18-84d4-7110a7211f61" CreationDate="2013-03-23T20:29:03.330" UserId="1554" Text="Знак % указывать не нужно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - тридцати трех процентные сливки&#xD;&#xA; - 33-процентные сливки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2083" RevisionGUID="180cc0be-3568-4779-98d5-c2c4d0f3761d" CreationDate="2013-03-23T20:34:46.947" UserId="1554" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Знак % указывать не нужно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - тридцати трех процентные сливки&#xD;&#xA; - 33-процентные сливки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Со знаком %:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - сливки 32%" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7438" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="3d119ad1-65ff-4c26-bced-51b7a1014dc3" CreationDate="2013-03-24T01:49:02.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/315641371711135744" />
  <row Id="7439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2084" RevisionGUID="1cc154f1-2533-40af-9cac-66674140621a" CreationDate="2013-03-24T05:12:32.513" UserId="1556" Text="What are the basic words and phrases of politeness in Russian, and their English equivalents (preferably explained in English)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that words, phrases, and occasions for politeness differ among languages, so if there is a phrase appropriate to e.g. both &quot;Thank you&quot; and &quot;I'm sorry&quot; (where I live, drivers raise and clearly wave their hands in a gesture that means either depending on context), I would appreciate an explanation of how the boundary lines are drawn in Russian where they are different from American English boundary lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for really obscure information known only to specialists in etiquette, but barring that, I would like as much detail as possible for words/phrases of politeness in dealing with ordinary Russians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spaseba, bolshoe spaseba," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2084" RevisionGUID="1cc154f1-2533-40af-9cac-66674140621a" CreationDate="2013-03-24T05:12:32.513" UserId="1556" Text="What are the words (and phrases) of politeness, with English equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2084" RevisionGUID="1cc154f1-2533-40af-9cac-66674140621a" CreationDate="2013-03-24T05:12:32.513" UserId="1556" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="9b2b55d2-0c4c-4828-bdc4-8fe05dba66e9" CreationDate="2013-03-24T09:54:30.197" UserId="1097" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Правильно ли писать `тридцатитрёхпроцентные сливки`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7443" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="9b2b55d2-0c4c-4828-bdc4-8fe05dba66e9" CreationDate="2013-03-24T09:54:30.197" UserId="1097" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Как правильно пишется &quot;33%-ный&quot; прописью?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7444" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2082" RevisionGUID="9b2b55d2-0c4c-4828-bdc4-8fe05dba66e9" CreationDate="2013-03-24T09:54:30.197" Comment="Proposed by 1097 approved by 242, 1277 edit id of 356" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2085" RevisionGUID="6814e350-825d-4f97-9272-3e4db37ba4eb" CreationDate="2013-03-24T09:55:10.250" UserId="1475" Text="I'm not absolutely sure about correctness of certain phrases of politeness in English, but I can give some simple examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you ask something, for example, in a ticket booth or a shop, you can say &quot;Будьте добры&quot; or &quot;Пожалуйста&quot;, and then - whatever you wanted to be given. You don't even have to say &quot;дайте мне&quot; (give me). You can put that either in the beginning of sentence or in the end, doesn't matter much. For example, &quot;Будьте добры, 2 билета на спектакль.&quot; &quot;Билет на две поездки, пожалуйста/будьте добры&quot;. Those are the equivalents of &quot;Please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words of gratitude: &quot;Спасибо&quot; &quot;Благодарю&quot; &quot;Благодарю вас&quot;. &quot;Спасибо большое&quot; can be used, but I rarely use it, it just feels too strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're welcome: &quot;Пожалуйста&quot; &quot;Не за что&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you accidentally pushed someone: &quot;Извините&quot; &quot;Простите&quot; &quot;Прошу прощения&quot; &quot;Простите, ради Бога&quot; (this can be useful if a person fell because of you and you help them get up, a stronger form of being sorry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you stop somebody in the street to ask for directions, first word: &quot;Извините&quot; &quot;Простите&quot; &quot;Прошу прощения&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent of &quot;could you please...&quot; : &quot;Не могли бы вы...?&quot; For example: &quot;Не могли бы вы показать мне этот аппарат, пожалуйста?&quot; (&quot;Could you please show me this device?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be more. You can write in the comments if you want me to add something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2085" RevisionGUID="76bcadc6-f0e8-46fe-bca9-5c9dfe730e71" CreationDate="2013-03-24T10:01:24.557" UserId="1475" Comment="будьте любезны added, I've just remembered" Text="I'm not absolutely sure about correctness of certain phrases of politeness in English, but I can give some simple examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you ask something, for example, in a ticket booth or a shop, you can say &quot;Будьте добры&quot;, &quot;Будьте любезны&quot; or &quot;Пожалуйста&quot;, and then - whatever you wanted to be given. You don't even have to say &quot;дайте мне&quot; (give me). You can put that either in the beginning of sentence or in the end, doesn't matter much. For example, &quot;Будьте добры, 2 билета на спектакль.&quot; &quot;Билет на две поездки, пожалуйста/будьте добры/будьте любезны&quot;. Those are the equivalents of &quot;Please&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words of gratitude: &quot;Спасибо&quot; &quot;Благодарю&quot; &quot;Благодарю вас&quot;. &quot;Спасибо большое&quot; can be used, but I rarely use it, it just feels too strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're welcome: &quot;Пожалуйста&quot; &quot;Не за что&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you accidentally pushed someone: &quot;Извините&quot; &quot;Простите&quot; &quot;Прошу прощения&quot; &quot;Простите, ради Бога&quot; (this can be useful if a person fell because of you and you help them get up, a stronger form of being sorry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you stop somebody in the street to ask for directions, first word: &quot;Извините&quot; &quot;Простите&quot; &quot;Прошу прощения&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent of &quot;could you please...&quot; : &quot;Не могли бы вы...?&quot; For example: &quot;Не могли бы вы показать мне этот аппарат, пожалуйста?&quot; (&quot;Could you please show me this device?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There might be more. You can write in the comments if you want me to add something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2086" RevisionGUID="835462e6-cf0e-453e-a63a-3c118ada03d2" CreationDate="2013-03-24T12:00:35.487" UserId="1236" Text="Сложные прилагательные, первая часть которых – числительное, [пишутся][1] слитно. Поэтому правильным будет написание `тридцатитрёхпроцентные`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://yarus.aspu.ru/?id=101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="afaf036c-a4e7-4d4b-bce6-0f02f5a399eb" CreationDate="2013-03-26T11:16:13.510" UserId="81" Comment="typos, spelling, format" Text="`Мартыха` is not a real Russian word. It's being used as a joke. For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мартышка - мартыха&#xD;&#xA;is like as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; monkey - monkie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7450" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2078" RevisionGUID="afaf036c-a4e7-4d4b-bce6-0f02f5a399eb" CreationDate="2013-03-26T11:16:13.510" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="9b285c93-988c-42ac-b7ef-5f91a999be89" CreationDate="2013-03-27T07:04:39.940" UserId="242" Text="Speaking of words &quot;лгун&quot; and &quot;лжец&quot;, which as to me as to a native speaker sound quite interchangeable, which form is used more often? And which of these words of so close origin and meaning can be considered the &quot;original&quot; form. Can we speak that one of this words had been in use longer than another? At last, are there any connotational an stylistic differences between these two forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="9b285c93-988c-42ac-b7ef-5f91a999be89" CreationDate="2013-03-27T07:04:39.940" UserId="242" Text="Difference between &quot;лгун&quot; and &quot;лжец&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="9b285c93-988c-42ac-b7ef-5f91a999be89" CreationDate="2013-03-27T07:04:39.940" UserId="242" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="16cf4f19-0846-40df-ad8c-0579ab7066da" CreationDate="2013-03-27T07:15:25.167" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Speaking of words &quot;лгун&quot; and &quot;лжец&quot;, which as to me as to a native speaker sound quite interchangeable, which form is used more often? And which of these words of so close origin and meaning can be considered the &quot;original&quot; form. Can we speak that one of these words had been in use longer than another? At last, are there any connotational an stylistic differences between these two forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="0dd3e417-dbf1-4b9a-b8b7-38cd630a488c" CreationDate="2013-03-27T09:16:09.287" UserId="1562" Text="It seems that many English (online) sources list cases in the following order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative - Accusative - Genitive - Dative - Instrumental - Prepositional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that this ordering is inspired by the unfamiliarity of many English speakers with case systems. Other sources use an ordering that is obviously inspired from Latin grammar schools:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative - Genitive - Dative - Accussative - Instrumental - Prepositional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar issue arises with the gender. The standard Latin grammar school ordering is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Masculine - Feminine - Neuter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while some sources, like the Wikipedia article on &quot;Russian grammar&quot;, sometimes employ the ordering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Masculine - Neuter - Feminine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to learn which of these ordering, or maybe something different, is to be considered authorative. I am beginner in Russian, but I think the question is beyond standard text books and therefore appropiate for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="0dd3e417-dbf1-4b9a-b8b7-38cd630a488c" CreationDate="2013-03-27T09:16:09.287" UserId="1562" Text="How to arrange declesion tables in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="0dd3e417-dbf1-4b9a-b8b7-38cd630a488c" CreationDate="2013-03-27T09:16:09.287" UserId="1562" Text="|склонение|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="a0c788ae-e4c2-48d2-96e9-2d8276948f4f" CreationDate="2013-03-27T10:09:50.103" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="It seems that many English (online) sources list cases in the following order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative - Accusative - Genitive - Dative - Instrumental - Prepositional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that this ordering is inspired by the unfamiliarity of many English speakers with case systems. Other sources use an ordering that is obviously inspired from Latin grammar schools:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative - Genitive - Dative - Accusative - Instrumental - Prepositional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar issue arises with the gender. The standard Latin grammar school ordering is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Masculine - Feminine - Neuter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while some sources, like the Wikipedia article on &quot;Russian grammar&quot;, sometimes employ the ordering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Masculine - Neuter - Feminine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to learn which of these ordering, or maybe something different, is to be considered authorative. I am beginner in Russian, but I think the question is beyond standard text books and therefore appropiate for this site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2089" RevisionGUID="576df078-9e84-412b-91ea-1922da6a84fd" CreationDate="2013-03-27T10:18:02.503" UserId="71" Text="The one you say to be inspired from Latin grammar schools seems to be the one used in Russian schools. See this page: [Russian Declension Overview][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Linguistic order, so to speak, is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Prepositional, Dative, Instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian school order is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Instrumental, Prepositional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this last is used in universities but this order is not really to be followed strictly. For example, I'm not sure whether the last two are switched, but in my studies, I studied them in another order. The prepositional came before the Genitive and the Instrumental because it's simpler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the order of show could be this one, but the order of learning is not to be considered strict as you can choose to learn whatever you want first. Certainly choosing the simpler stuff first (or the most used) could be a good strategy in your studying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.public.asu.edu/~deliving/russgram/declover.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="eee2cd0d-efc0-4129-bc3e-f361ddb459cb" CreationDate="2013-03-27T13:41:34.933" UserId="1563" Text="&quot;Хватит дуться&quot; or &quot;Чего ты дуишься?&quot;. It is slang." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2091" RevisionGUID="d055ccbe-59f2-48a3-9c5b-45fb0f4d6180" CreationDate="2013-03-27T16:00:10.110" UserId="1558" Text="«Лгун» is softer. Almost harmless word. For example see [this movie][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Лжец» is more offensive. It may be adulterer or swindler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BB%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2092" RevisionGUID="37ac9854-4555-4dbf-b0c7-1e012ca165e2" CreationDate="2013-03-28T16:06:22.943" UserId="1564" Text="From the Russian point of view, the sounds you are asking about ( 'a' in &quot;cat&quot;, or 'e' in &quot;net&quot;? ) are just the same. Many Russians learning English do believe that &quot;bed&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; are homophones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="edccf2e2-4727-404d-91c8-7a5545917478" CreationDate="2013-03-29T04:38:14.160" UserId="1177" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="Speaking of words &quot;лгун&quot; and &quot;лжец&quot;, which to me as a native speaker sound quite interchangeable, which form is used more often? And which of these words of such close origin and meaning can be considered the &quot;original&quot; form. Can we say that one of these words has been in use longer than another? At last, are there any connotational and stylistic differences between these two forms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="edccf2e2-4727-404d-91c8-7a5545917478" CreationDate="2013-03-29T04:38:14.160" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242 edit id of 358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="3ac34d48-b467-4be3-b294-cdc63e7ed864" CreationDate="2013-03-29T05:20:08.427" UserId="62" Text="Is there a particular significance to the use of это after a hyphen? For instance, I think  Москва — столица России or Москва — это столица России mean the same thing. But I don't know the point of inserting это there. (In English it is wrong to stick &quot;this is&quot; in the middle of a sentence like that, saying &quot;Moscow this is the capital of Russia&quot;.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="3ac34d48-b467-4be3-b294-cdc63e7ed864" CreationDate="2013-03-29T05:20:08.427" UserId="62" Text="Use of это after a hyphen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="3ac34d48-b467-4be3-b294-cdc63e7ed864" CreationDate="2013-03-29T05:20:08.427" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2094" RevisionGUID="13620923-91c6-4bb9-bd77-9ee1fa964e8d" CreationDate="2013-03-29T06:17:12.820" UserId="242" Text="Generally a hyphen is used here just as so called [copula][1] is used in English. So your guess is right, hyphen here is a some kind of punctuational copula, therefore can be translated as &quot;is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though `— это` is indeed another form of such copula, there is a subtle difference between usage of these two forms. Roughly speaking, pure punctuational form is more universal, you can use it in a wider set of cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы - подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this phrase will sound definitely unnatural to native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы - это подлец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with personal pronoun usage of `это` is untypical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for me, it is very difficult to describe exact rules for choosing one these forms, but here is a rule of thumb that can give you a hint. If you can imagine the phrase used in some kind of dictionary as an article, for example:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * Париж - столица Франции.&#xD;&#xA;  * Слон - млекопитающее. &#xD;&#xA;  * Солнце - звезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you can use `— это` form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when you want to emphasise the second part of phrase, you can use `это`. So, when you can imagine this very phrase used with some adjective, it looks like you cane use `- это` form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр - [это] [ужасный] негодяй. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2094" RevisionGUID="1538dec5-817e-4a7c-bb81-389d5f7e42f3" CreationDate="2013-03-29T06:31:20.070" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Generally a hyphen is used here just as so called [copula][1] is used in English. So your guess is right, hyphen here is a some kind of punctuational copula, therefore can be translated as &quot;is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though `— это` is indeed another form of such copula, there is a subtle difference between usage of these two forms. Roughly speaking, pure punctuational form is more universal, you can use it in a wider set of cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы - подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this phrase will sound definitely unnatural to native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы - это подлец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with personal pronouns usage of `это` is untypical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for me, it is very difficult to describe exact rules for choosing one these forms, but here is a rule of thumb that can give you a hint. If you can imagine the phrase used in some kind of dictionary as an article, for example:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * Париж - столица Франции.&#xD;&#xA;  * Слон - млекопитающее. &#xD;&#xA;  * Солнце - звезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you can use `— это` form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when you want to emphasise the second part of phrase, you can use `это`. So, when you can imagine this very phrase used with some adjective, it looks like you cane use `- это` form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр - [это] [ужасный] негодяй. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7472" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="3cc5bc7a-8f1d-435c-bd32-046ac00d01f7" CreationDate="2013-03-29T06:47:21.800" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="adcb7ade-8e0b-4d85-bbcb-f4467cff2089" CreationDate="2013-03-29T07:10:45.940" UserId="81" Text="&gt;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@shabunc showed in his answer that not every `A - B` sentence can be used with `это`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When `это` is actually used there's, AFAIK, no practical difference in written form. But there is a difference in spoken language where `это` is a way to &quot;pronounce&quot; hyphen. Note, that actual verb in this sentences is omitted (in English, you would expect `is/are` somewhere) and without `это` meaning may become unclear, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — радость&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when used without context/great dramatic skills sounds extremely weird. Here `это` helps to clarify the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — это радость&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can safely use well-known phrases and obvious statements without `это`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время — деньги.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Знание — сила!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Волк — хищник!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Москва — столица России" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="e778607e-228f-4a3f-bb25-0c1d161f8f3c" CreationDate="2013-03-29T07:20:40.727" UserId="81" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="&gt;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@shabunc showed in his answer that not every `A - B` sentence can be used with `это`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When `это` is actually used there's, AFAIK, no practical difference in written form. But there is a difference in spoken language where `это` is a way to &quot;pronounce&quot; hyphen. Note, that actual verb in this sentences is omitted (in English, you would expect `is/are` somewhere) and without `это` meaning may become unclear. For example, these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when used without context/great dramatic skills may sound unclear. Here `это` helps to clarify the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — это радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can safely use well-known phrases and obvious statements without `это`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время — деньги.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Знание — сила!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Волк — хищник!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Москва — столица России" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="8e3dfe91-7a36-4386-9560-700e5a40a131" CreationDate="2013-03-29T07:27:16.377" UserId="81" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="&gt;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@shabunc showed in his answer that not every `A - B` sentence can be used with `это`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When `это` is actually used there's, AFAIK, no practical difference in written form. But there is a difference in spoken language where `это` is a way to &quot;pronounce&quot; hyphen. Note, that actual verb in this sentences is omitted (in English, you would expect `is/are` somewhere) and without `это` meaning may become unclear. For example, these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when used without context/great dramatic skills may sound unclear. Here `это` helps to clarify the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — это радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can safely use well-known phrases and obvious statements without `это`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время — деньги.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Знание — сила!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Волк — хищник!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Москва — столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** [wiktionary entry on это][1] mentions five different meanings. In this particular case `это` is a particle and not really equivalent to `this [is]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2094" RevisionGUID="82674fac-8bf5-4d39-bf44-59604159e06f" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:23:59.003" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Generally a hyphen is used here just as so called [copula][1] is used in English. So your guess is right, hyphen here is a some kind of punctuational copula, therefore can be translated as &quot;is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though `— это` is indeed another form of such copula, there is a subtle difference between usage of these two forms. Roughly speaking, pure punctuational form is more universal, you can use it in a wider set of cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы — подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this phrase will sound definitely unnatural to native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы — это подлец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with personal pronouns usage of `это` is untypical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for me, it is very difficult to describe exact rules for choosing one these forms, but here is a rule of thumb that can give you a hint. If you can imagine the phrase used in some kind of dictionary as an article, for example:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * Париж — столица Франции.&#xD;&#xA;  * Слон — млекопитающее. &#xD;&#xA;  * Солнце — звезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you can use `— это` form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when you want to emphasise the second part of phrase, you can use `это`. So, when you can imagine this very phrase used with some adjective, it looks like you cane use `- это` form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр — [это] [ужасный] негодяй. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="82492e5f-9a71-4ddc-be2a-4af84503ad97" CreationDate="2013-03-29T12:36:50.323" UserId="81" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@shabunc showed in his answer that not every `A - B` sentence can be used with `это`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When `это` is actually used there's, AFAIK, no practical difference in written form. But there is a difference in spoken language where `это` is a way to &quot;pronounce&quot; hyphen. Note, that actual verb in this sentences is omitted (in English, you would expect `is/are` somewhere) and without `это` meaning may become unclear. For example, these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when used without context/great dramatic skills may sound unclear. Here `это` helps to clarify the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — это радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — это рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can safely use well-known phrases and obvious statements without `это`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время — деньги.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Знание — сила!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Волк — хищник!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Москва — столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** [wiktionary entry on это][1] mentions five different meanings. In this particular case `это` is a particle and not really equivalent to `this [is]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2090" RevisionGUID="410f573d-4475-48c4-9ea2-5331d5cf5569" CreationDate="2013-03-30T06:13:48.150" UserId="185" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Хватит дуться&quot; or &quot;Чего ты дуешься?&quot;. It is slang." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="31513aa6-16b5-4d4f-b253-9d3aa828c5d5" CreationDate="2013-03-30T15:14:06.380" UserId="1329" Text="I am writing a database for room rent. How should I call it - аренда помещений or бронирование помещений? What is the main difference between those two words? I am sorry, I just have no time to look it up in the dictionaries myself (I have always thought that it means the same). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="31513aa6-16b5-4d4f-b253-9d3aa828c5d5" CreationDate="2013-03-30T15:14:06.380" UserId="1329" Text="Difference between аренда and бронирование" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="31513aa6-16b5-4d4f-b253-9d3aa828c5d5" CreationDate="2013-03-30T15:14:06.380" UserId="1329" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2098" RevisionGUID="7bf80655-cccf-4ad4-9705-0a4eefe9f8ee" CreationDate="2013-03-30T17:15:54.283" UserId="1558" Text="You need word «Аренда».&#xD;&#xA;«Бронирование» is reservation or booking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="ac70805c-28ba-4be2-b196-041f96e480a0" CreationDate="2013-03-30T17:53:40.270" UserId="1329" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="I am writing a database for room rent. How should I call it - аренда помещений or бронирование помещений? What is the main difference between those two words? I have always thought that it means the same. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="afeee75c-62a2-4ad8-bbae-a82ff5b647c9" CreationDate="2013-03-30T18:02:47.540" UserId="194" Text="These are completely different things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By бронирование you declare that you intend to pay for some service or product. Since the moment of the бронирование, the seller has no right to offer this product to another party unless you cancel the бронирование. Бронирование can be pay-free or for money, but the sum may be less than the total price of the product or service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So speaking about a room you can забронировать it before moving to it so that it will not be offered to other clients. Yet if you change your mind you can cancel the бронирование before starting using the room and get money back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7488" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="b8807727-4998-4ae6-a306-8f4179be3112" CreationDate="2013-03-31T04:54:47.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/318224833286643712" />
  <row Id="7489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2100" RevisionGUID="9ac26727-5abf-4f07-b63b-df4fbaad0b68" CreationDate="2013-03-31T08:18:08.830" UserId="1557" Text="Although most dictionaries I checked regard these two as full synonyms, there is a difference in word usage. *Толковый словарь Ушакова* says, &quot;ЛЖЕЦ. Человек, **заведомо** говорящий ложь; то же, что лгун. Он лжец и клеветник.&quot; and *Толковый словарь Ефремовой* says, &quot;ЛГУН. Тот, кто постоянно лжёт или **привык** лгать.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So `лжец` is a liar who lies with a malicious intent, pursuing his benefit at the expense of others. His lies are harmful. Calling someone `лжец` is right at par with calling them a traitor or a coward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Лгун` is a liar who lies out of habit, not specific intent to harm someone or gain benefit. While `лжец` accuses someone of specific facts and actions, `лгун` refers to a character trait. It even has a diminutive form `лгунишка`, most commonly describing children who lie. But it still bears negative connotation, unlike `выдумщик` or `фантазёр`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a LOT of other synonyms, if you want to go deeper: `врун, враль, брехун, обманщик...`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2099" RevisionGUID="3f4ddfc8-6617-410c-939a-3f7eb2298c14" CreationDate="2013-03-31T12:40:02.217" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="These are completely different things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By бронирование you declare that you intend to pay for some service or product. Since the moment of the бронирование, the seller has no right to offer this product to another party unless you cancel the бронирование. Бронирование can be free of charge or for money, but the sum may be less than the total price of the product or service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So speaking about a room you can забронировать it before moving to it so that it will not be offered to other clients. Yet if you change your mind you can cancel the бронирование before starting using the room and get money back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="d913e0a9-2f62-453a-afe2-3cadbf9818c1" CreationDate="2013-03-31T19:14:17.010" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix in title" Text="How to arrange declension tables in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2097" RevisionGUID="ab7b813b-65f3-4733-96ca-5f9b7aa18057" CreationDate="2013-04-01T19:55:04.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/318813784091283457" />
  <row Id="7498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="6db07332-900d-4b64-8843-80b813c5da11" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:31:40.447" UserId="1572" Text="&quot;лжец&quot; is used more often according to personal feeling and google search results :)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can't pick one as original, because they are synonims with different roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;корень слова &quot;лгун&quot; -лг-; суффикс: -ун-;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;корень слова &quot;лжец&quot;: -лж-; суффикс: -ец-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in humble my vision:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгать - to lie&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгал(а) - he(she) lied&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;подлог - forgery&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лжец, лгун - liar&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгунья - (female) liar&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лже-(что-то) - false (something)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лживо - falsely&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ложный - false&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ложь - a lie&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see verb &quot;ЛГАТЬ&quot; in Dahl Dictionary for reference of usage in old russian (some forms are obsolete):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://vidahl.agava.ru/P091.HTM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nearly all russian dictionaries for &quot;лжец&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=%D0%BB%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%86&amp;stype=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="58e3ed7c-76f9-44ae-8e33-7866b95515fd" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:43:07.660" UserId="1572" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="`лжец` is used more often according to personal feeling and google search results :)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can't pick one as original, because they are synonims with different roots, each form used in different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;корень слова `лгун` -лг-; суффикс: -ун-;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;корень слова `лжец`: -лж-; суффикс: -ец-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in humble my vision:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгать - to lie&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгал(а) - he(she) lied&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;подлог - forgery&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лжец, лгун - liar&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгунья - (female) liar&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лже-(что-то) - false (something)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лживо - falsely&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ложный - false&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ложь - a lie&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see verb `ЛГАТЬ` in *Толковый словарь Даля* for reference of usage in old russian (some forms are obsolete):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://vidahl.agava.ru/P091.HTM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nearly all russian dictionaries for `лжец`:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=%D0%BB%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%86&amp;stype=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7500" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="0fc75ab2-d793-4d08-a08b-d9b5e5193f14" CreationDate="2013-04-02T16:55:07.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/319130886958362624" />
  <row Id="7501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2102" RevisionGUID="cce89386-392e-4143-b6c6-1776f398ae85" CreationDate="2013-04-02T22:17:40.973" UserId="1572" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="`лжец` is used more often according to personal feeling and google search results :)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can't pick one as original, because they are synonims with different roots, each form used in different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;корень слова `лгун`: -лг-; суффикс: -ун-;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;корень слова `лжец`: -лж-; суффикс: -ец-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my humble vision:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгать - to lie&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгал(а) - he(she) lied&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лжец, лгун - liar&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лгунья - (female) liar&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лже-(что-то) - false (something)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;лживо - falsely&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ложный - false&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ложь - a lie&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see verb `ЛГАТЬ` in *Толковый словарь Даля* for reference of usage in old russian (some forms are obsolete):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://vidahl.agava.ru/P091.HTM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nearly all russian dictionaries for `лжец`:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=%D0%BB%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%86&amp;stype=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2103" RevisionGUID="fdecd91e-8ac6-4033-81d3-f7da496bacc5" CreationDate="2013-04-03T02:17:27.550" UserId="1574" Text="Часто можно окликнуть человека просто словом &quot;извините&quot;. Если требуется уточнение, если человек не слышит, или место слишком людное, можно сказать &quot;молодой человек&quot; или &quot;девушка&quot;. Но только если они действительно молоды :) Для более старших подойдут &quot;женщина&quot; и &quot;мужчина&quot;, в том числе и для людей преклонного возраста. Это никоим образом не будет звучать вульгарно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1523" RevisionGUID="cf59b953-89a3-4f97-826e-48c99e928fc6" CreationDate="2013-04-03T04:43:37.457" UserId="827" Comment="more polite modal" Text="If you mean British pronounciation of [æ] as in &quot;cat&quot;, this is definitely not our 'э'; it's like 'я' between two palatalized consonants. The closest to stressed Russian 'э' among symbols used for English is [ɛ], but [e] is also acceptable. But, on the other side, Russians usually have difficulties to pronounce [æ] correctly here and replace it with long [ɛ]; this is supported by some American dialects affection and that can confuse native English speakers to find a relation between sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page at &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_for_Russian&gt; declares [ɛ] as main variant for stressed 'э'. It's rather true because relations between [ɛ] and [e] follows common relations between the mid-back vowel row, after unpalatalized consonants, and the front row, after palatalized consonants. The letter &quot;э&quot; is never used to palatalize a consonant before it, so it means [ɛ]. OTOH, &quot;е&quot; can mean both [e] after a palatalized consonant (the most used case), [e̞] after non-palatalized sibilant as &quot;ш&quot;, or [ɛ] in loanwords (тест, кашне, проект, etc.); the native words usually have no non-palatalization effect, but it's typical for loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also notice that Russians which haven't got special linguistics education can't understand difference between [ɛ] and [e], as with most other pairs ([a] vs. [ä], etc.) because the factor which affects vowel allphone selection is palatalization of previous consonant, but in written the latter is defined by vowel letter selection (а/я, э/е, etc.); this could confuse if not understood clearly. Traditional school grammar requires a student to sign the vowel as [э] independently of its implementation variant, so e.g. &quot;лето&quot; is transcribed as [л'эта].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the short final conclusion is that you can pronounce it like [e] in &quot;net&quot;, etc., or better as the first sound in &quot;air&quot; [ɛə], but the main factor is that you shan't palatalize (&quot;soften&quot;) the preceding consonant and you will be correctly understood when using either of them; and [æ] isn't applicable here. And, BTW, unstressed 'э' is most likely [ə]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="fa398609-33ab-413d-aea9-7dc9ed3a87f0" CreationDate="2013-04-03T04:59:37.133" UserId="242" Text="These days I'm reading a book &quot;История моего современника&quot; by V. G. Korolenko (don't feel bad for reading it [online][1], you are not breaching any copyright laws in this case, since the author is actually a XIX-early XX centuries revolutionist, there's no copyright infringement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a chapter on living in exile, in rural Russia (not in Siberia though :)&#xD;&#xA;Korolenko describes the speech of local residents, which is full of dialecticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * Чё-ко-ся это?.. Что за мужичок у нас? - спросил незнакомец, отведя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лучину от моего лица.  &#xD;&#xA; * Негодь ты, негодь... Гли-ко-ся, Володимер:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три дня шатался по лесу, а не принес ничего... Большой вырос, ума не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынес. Не стану и оружья давать дураку... &#xD;&#xA; * Ин полно-те вам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужички,- примирительно сказала жена Гаври - Лукерья... -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Собирай-ко-сь на стол, Марьюшка...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some thought I've realised that this strange (and unintelligible to modern Russian speaker) form `ко-ся`/`ко-сь` actually remains in at least one phrase which is known by any native speaker, i.e. `накося выкуси`.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what is exactly is `ко-ся` from linguistics point of view (for example, what part of speech it is), when and to what extent is had been used in Russian and, of course, what does it mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/k/korolenko_w_g/text_1921_istoriya1.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="fa398609-33ab-413d-aea9-7dc9ed3a87f0" CreationDate="2013-04-03T04:59:37.133" UserId="242" Text="What does &quot;кося&quot; in phrase &quot;накося выкуси&quot; exactly mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="fa398609-33ab-413d-aea9-7dc9ed3a87f0" CreationDate="2013-04-03T04:59:37.133" UserId="242" Text="|значения|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="54ade472-e04f-4f3a-b6c4-3d3f88274c91" CreationDate="2013-04-03T07:34:02.633" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="These days I'm reading a book &quot;История моего современника&quot; by V. G. Korolenko (don't feel guilty for reading it [online][1], you are not breaching any copyright laws in this case, since the author is actually a XIX-early XX centuries revolutionist, there's no copyright infringement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a chapter on living in exile, in rural Russia (not in Siberia though :)&#xD;&#xA;Korolenko describes the speech of local residents, which is full of dialecticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some quotes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * Чё-ко-ся это?.. Что за мужичок у нас? - спросил незнакомец, отведя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лучину от моего лица.  &#xD;&#xA; * Негодь ты, негодь... Гли-ко-ся, Володимер:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три дня шатался по лесу, а не принес ничего... Большой вырос, ума не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынес. Не стану и оружья давать дураку... &#xD;&#xA; * Ин полно-те вам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужички,- примирительно сказала жена Гаври - Лукерья... -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Собирай-ко-сь на стол, Марьюшка...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After some thought I've realised that this strange (and unintelligible to modern Russian speaker) form `ко-ся`/`ко-сь` actually remains in at least one phrase which is known by any native speaker, i.e. `накося выкуси`.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what is exactly is `ко-ся` from linguistics point of view (for example, what part of speech it is), when and to what extent is had been used in Russian and, of course, what does it mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/k/korolenko_w_g/text_1921_istoriya1.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="2828bcb9-079e-4c76-815c-85b9bc3eeb91" CreationDate="2013-04-03T08:22:51.607" UserId="1572" Text="*Толковый словарь Даля* can help you a bit:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;look for `ко` in the meaning of `ка` -&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/255986&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and `ся` - &#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/362314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="05ffa5e4-5e10-4f38-998c-23bcf47934f8" CreationDate="2013-04-03T08:27:59.110" UserId="1572" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="*Толковый словарь Даля* can help you a bit:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;look for `ко` in the meaning of `ка` -&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/255986&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and `ся` - &#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/362314&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;there are also definitions for `ГЛИКО` can be found in *Толковый словарь Даля*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and for `накося` in several other dictionaries on dic.academic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2105" RevisionGUID="2a178c11-de14-45b5-b225-71666d162145" CreationDate="2013-04-03T08:35:05.607" UserId="1572" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="*Толковый словарь Даля* can help you a bit:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;look for `ко` in the meaning of `ка` -&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/255986&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and `ся` - &#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/362314&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;there are also definitions for `ГЛИКО` can be found in *Толковый словарь Даля*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and for `накося` in several other dictionaries on dic.academic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dal's dictionary dated by 1863-1866, but we still use `ка` today(instead of `ко`), `ся` is also used sometimes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7511" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2104" RevisionGUID="c359972a-685d-4e4b-9a01-32c5110df665" CreationDate="2013-04-03T10:55:10.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/319402689765179392" />
  <row Id="7513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2106" RevisionGUID="f4a41abe-8600-4564-bf10-13fd30ca0e81" CreationDate="2013-04-03T12:01:06.140" UserId="134" Text="*-ка* is an imperative particle akin to the dative preposition *к*, cf *дай-ка*, *ну-ка* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ся* is a relaxed form of *себе*, as in *иди себе, смотри себе* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole idiom is most probably a result of an alliteration, influenced by the second word *выкуси*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="2e503b6e-e191-4e29-8747-2e2a90e098c5" CreationDate="2013-04-03T14:35:18.000" UserId="170" Text="What way is correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ... водитель не справился с управлением транспортным средством&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot; ... водитель не справился с управлением транспортного средства&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="2e503b6e-e191-4e29-8747-2e2a90e098c5" CreationDate="2013-04-03T14:35:18.000" UserId="170" Text="не справился с управлением транспортным средством/транспортного средства?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="2e503b6e-e191-4e29-8747-2e2a90e098c5" CreationDate="2013-04-03T14:35:18.000" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2109" RevisionGUID="f9276271-14bc-4bea-82fa-ca1bfca1e365" CreationDate="2013-04-03T15:28:41.133" UserId="97" Text="While you may encounter both versions in conversations, the correct way is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... водитель не справился с управлением транспортным средством&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you use the instrumental case: _управление [чем] транспортным средством_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, here's a link to a section of the administrative laws, which deals with [driving without a license](http://www.prav-net.ru/statya-127-upravlenie-transportnym-sredstvom-voditelem-ne-imeyushhim-prava-upravleniya-transportnym-sredstvom/).  In that section, the wording is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Статья 12.7 - **Управление транспортным средством** водителем, не имеющим права **управления транспортным средством**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(highlights are mine - to emphasise the use of the instrumental case)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="cc0cfc3e-fe82-4be2-a88b-646e5a1463d7" CreationDate="2013-04-04T06:35:33.543" UserId="1177" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="What way is correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... водитель не справился с управлением транспортным средством&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... водитель не справился с управлением транспортного средства" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7524" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="cc0cfc3e-fe82-4be2-a88b-646e5a1463d7" CreationDate="2013-04-04T06:35:33.543" UserId="1177" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Не справился с управлением транспортным средством/транспортного средства?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="cc0cfc3e-fe82-4be2-a88b-646e5a1463d7" CreationDate="2013-04-04T06:35:33.543" Comment="Proposed by 1177 approved by 242, 134 edit id of 359" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7528" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2108" RevisionGUID="4ce0c765-3d92-4952-acdc-2d920c3e059d" CreationDate="2013-04-05T10:55:10.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/320127466117136384" />
  <row Id="7529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="bc06ccbc-5a14-48d3-b9f2-bf794090bee6" CreationDate="2013-04-06T00:32:03.497" UserId="194" Text="This depends on what do you mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Управление* may mean either &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Interface for controlling a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Process of controlling a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are playing a computer game you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У этой игры сложное управление.&#xD;&#xA;* Управление этой игры рассчитано на дураков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say &quot;управление этой игрой рассчитано на дураков&quot;. Why? Because even though the game has control interface, it is not the game which you control, but some objects inside the game (unless you are a jury). But when referring a starship in this game you can say  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;У звездолета в этой игре сложное управление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление звездолёта в этой игре рассчитано на дураков&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (when referring to the interface)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление зведолетом закончилось, когда я пристыковался к орбитальной станции&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление звездолётом затянулось надолго&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (when referring to the process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an automobile both has a control interface and can be controlled, the both can be used but with different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этого автомобиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(he did not understand the interface)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase can refer to a class of automobiles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой модели автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when referring to the process,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Управление автомобилем - не простое дело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use Genitive here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой модели автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He did not understand the control interface of this model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой моделью автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He being a marketing specialist (brand-manager) failed to position this model on the market&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не справился с управлением автомобиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He failed to properly use the automobile control interface (which led to a catastrophe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не справился с управлением автомобилем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He failed the task to control the automobile (which led to a failed exam in the automobile school).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="cd073adb-82b6-46e0-9d73-7a866ed3cf88" CreationDate="2013-04-06T00:39:19.117" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="This depends on what do you mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Управление* may mean either &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Interface for controlling a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Process of controlling a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are playing a computer game you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У этой игры сложное управление.&#xD;&#xA;* Управление этой игры рассчитано на дураков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say &quot;управление этой игрой рассчитано на дураков&quot;. Why? Because even though the game has control interface, it is not the game which you control, but some objects inside the game (unless you are a jury). But when referring a starship in this game you can say  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;У звездолета в этой игре сложное управление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление звездолёта в этой игре рассчитано на дураков&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (when referring to the interface)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление зведолетом закончилось, когда я пристыковался к орбитальной станции&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление звездолётом затянулось надолго&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (when referring to the process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an automobile both has a control interface and can be controlled, the both can be used but with different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этого автомобиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(he did not understand the interface)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase can refer to a class of automobiles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой модели автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when referring to the process,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Управление автомобилем - не простое дело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you cannot use Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой модели автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He did not understand the control interface of this model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой моделью автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He being a marketing specialist (brand-manager) failed to position this model on the market&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не справился с управлением автомобиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He failed to properly use the automobile control interface (which led to a catastrophe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не справился с управлением автомобилем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He failed the task to control the automobile (which led to a failed exam in the automobile school).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2110" RevisionGUID="ded1a487-367c-4ac0-8d91-dede8f38907a" CreationDate="2013-04-06T00:49:52.590" UserId="194" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="This depends on what do you mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Управление* may mean either &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Interface for controlling a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Process of controlling a device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are playing a computer game you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У этой игры сложное управление.&#xD;&#xA;* Управление этой игры рассчитано на дураков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say &quot;управление этой игрой рассчитано на дураков&quot;. Why? Because even though the game has control interface, it is not the game which you control, but some objects inside the game (unless you are a jury). But when referring a starship in this game you can say  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;У звездолета в этой игре сложное управление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление звездолёта в этой игре рассчитано на дураков&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (when referring to the interface)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление зведолетом закончилось, когда я пристыковался к орбитальной станции&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Управление звездолётом затянулось надолго&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (when referring to the process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since an automobile both has a control interface and can be controlled, the both can be used but with different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этого автомобиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(he did not understand the interface)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase can refer to a class of automobiles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой модели автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when referring to the process,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Управление автомобилем - не простое дело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you cannot use Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой модели автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He did not understand the control interface of this model&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не разобрался с управлением этой моделью автомобилей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He being a marketing specialist (brand-manager) failed to position this model on the market&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не справился с управлением автомобиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He failed to properly use the automobile control interface (which led to a catastrophe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он не справился с управлением автомобилем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He failed the task to control the automobile (which led to a failed exam in the automobile school for the subject &quot;управление автомобилем&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2111" RevisionGUID="369ec3dd-3f2d-4f30-90da-1b42472a240f" CreationDate="2013-04-06T00:59:45.547" UserId="194" Text="*Лгун* is somebody who did tell lie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Лжец* is somebody who tells lies often, permanently or sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="8004ed59-b435-45ba-a9b0-8c536208c469" CreationDate="2013-04-06T06:18:32.940" UserId="1571" Text="According to the spelling of the word, I would think it would be pronounced  &#xD;&#xA;`Seguhdnya  -  Сегодня`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, i've seen several lessons in Russian where it would be pronounced  &#xD;&#xA;`SeVuhdnya  - (but spelled Сегодня)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason why it's pronounced like this?&#xD;&#xA;Would a Russian speaker consider this incorrect pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="8004ed59-b435-45ba-a9b0-8c536208c469" CreationDate="2013-04-06T06:18:32.940" UserId="1571" Text="Pronunciation of 'Сегодня'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="8004ed59-b435-45ba-a9b0-8c536208c469" CreationDate="2013-04-06T06:18:32.940" UserId="1571" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2113" RevisionGUID="0f3da819-a3ef-4252-a03e-595f0ddc7260" CreationDate="2013-04-06T06:39:29.410" UserId="194" Text="It is NOT pronounced &quot;seVuhdnya&quot; - there are NO &quot;u&quot; and &quot;y&quot; sounds in this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronounciation is [с'эводн'а] or [с'иводн'а] - these pronunciations are correct and allophonic. Pronunciation via [г] is incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="6f56552a-e011-45b5-9062-4e1fb0f04ffa" CreationDate="2013-04-06T09:30:21.407" UserId="1236" Text="The adverb `cегодня` is derived, like many other Russian adverbs, from a noun phrase, `cего дня` (&quot;[on] this day&quot;). Both words in this noun phrase are in the Genetive case, the first one having a typical pronominal declension endinhg `-его`, in which `г` is written, but `в` is pronounced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сего` - pronounced as `[си'во]`,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`его` - pronounced as `[йи'во]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`синего` - pronounced as `['синива]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the same rule applies to the variant of this ending, `-ого` - `большого` - pronounced as `[баль'шовa]`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the letter `e` as `[и]` in these words is due to the rule of the reduction of unstressed vowels. According to this rule, *the letter `e` in the syllable that precedes the stressed syllable is pronounced as* `[и]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the IPA for `cегодня` is [sʲɪˈvodʲnʲə], practical Russian transcription is [сиˈводьня].&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can listen to the [recording][1] of this word pronounced by a native speaker of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Ru-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F.ogg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2114" RevisionGUID="1c19bedb-b3cc-47be-8765-6b6233786910" CreationDate="2013-04-06T09:51:10.637" UserId="1236" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="The adverb `cегодня` is derived, like many other Russian adverbs, from a noun phrase, `cего дня` (&quot;[on] this day&quot;). Both words in this noun phrase are in the Genetive case, the first one having a typical pronominal declension endinhg `-его`, in which `г` is written, but `в` is pronounced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сего` - pronounced as `[си'во]`,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`его` - pronounced as `[йи'во]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`синего` - pronounced as `['синива]`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the same rule applies to the variant of this ending, `-ого` - `большого` - pronounced as `[баль'шовa]`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the letter `e` as `[и]` in these words is due to the rule of the reduction of unstressed vowels. According to this rule, *the letter `e` in the syllable that precedes the stressed syllable is pronounced as* `[и]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the IPA for `cегодня` is [sʲɪˈvodʲnʲə], practical Russian transcription is [сиˈводьня].&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can listen to the [recording][1] of this word pronounced by a native speaker of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Ru-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F.ogg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation with [г]/[g] is incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="acb16bef-390b-4103-8f11-a78bc525e593" CreationDate="2013-04-06T13:15:43.127" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text=" 1. No, in Russian, the phrase &quot;Я ничего понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. The phrases like &quot;ничего не&quot; are called, as you'vе already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both IE and non-IE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation [is also used][2] in some niche cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most difficult part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use it with any verb which can be answer the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some examples. A classic example is, for instance, `не мог не` + verb, which means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7540" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2112" RevisionGUID="790fe57b-1949-4b9a-9586-e441cb5767e5" CreationDate="2013-04-06T13:55:13.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/320535164763660288" />
  <row Id="7541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2115" RevisionGUID="6c7df8e7-52d8-4e12-9f65-7216ce9eb776" CreationDate="2013-04-06T14:38:44.917" UserId="1329" Text="Well, everybody knows that there exist pairings between names. For example, **Александра - Александр**, **Виктория - Виктор** etc. However, sometimes these pairs can be confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally accepted that official female name equivalent of **Иван** is **Жанна** ( or **Иоанна,Ивана**). But what about the name **Яна**? Is this a variant of **Жанна**? In some countries it is a pair for **Jan (Ян)**, which is another variant of **Jean (Жан)**. So can **Яна** also be a pair for **Иван**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2115" RevisionGUID="6c7df8e7-52d8-4e12-9f65-7216ce9eb776" CreationDate="2013-04-06T14:38:44.917" UserId="1329" Text="Яна and Жанна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2115" RevisionGUID="6c7df8e7-52d8-4e12-9f65-7216ce9eb776" CreationDate="2013-04-06T14:38:44.917" UserId="1329" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="3033ace8-e7e2-44f3-83f0-9a626a4755e6" CreationDate="2013-04-06T15:23:38.020" UserId="993" Text="In the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мужчина идёт к дому Павла. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The man goes to Paul's house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the same sentence be written as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мужчина идёт в дом Павла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really understand the  difference of use between К and В. The resources has have state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When followed by the accusative case, в means 'to' or 'into', as in 'I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; walked into the house' (Я шёл в дом), and на means 'onto' or 'toward',&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as in 'I walked onto the street' (Я шёл на улицу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К is relatively simpler, referring to or gesturing at the direction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something is located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Dative_case][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Accusative_case][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Dative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Accusative_case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="3033ace8-e7e2-44f3-83f0-9a626a4755e6" CreationDate="2013-04-06T15:23:38.020" UserId="993" Text="The use of К (Dative) vs. В (Accusative)...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="3033ace8-e7e2-44f3-83f0-9a626a4755e6" CreationDate="2013-04-06T15:23:38.020" UserId="993" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2117" RevisionGUID="e030aa09-c706-4dbb-b28b-ac3762c94a57" CreationDate="2013-04-06T15:35:47.380" UserId="967" Text="On twitter they say &quot;ЧИТАЕМЫХ&quot; and &quot;ЧИТАТЕЛЯ&quot; Is this pattern productive starting with the root of the verb (ЧИТА) and applicable to other verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2117" RevisionGUID="e030aa09-c706-4dbb-b28b-ac3762c94a57" CreationDate="2013-04-06T15:35:47.380" UserId="967" Text="What is the rule for creating &quot;readers&quot; / &quot;readees&quot; pairs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2117" RevisionGUID="e030aa09-c706-4dbb-b28b-ac3762c94a57" CreationDate="2013-04-06T15:35:47.380" UserId="967" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2118" RevisionGUID="198daf11-0841-48ae-890e-1e2b905794a0" CreationDate="2013-04-06T16:09:21.367" UserId="1329" Text="In the examples above, you have two different types of movement in each of the sentences.&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, both of them can be translated into English as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The man goes to Paul's house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this sentence has a disambiguation :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It can mean that the man is heading **towards** Paul's house, not necessarily intending to visit Paul or enter the house:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчина идёт (по направлению) к дому Павла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- or it can mean that the man is going to visit Paul, or to hide in the house from hail, or maybe he is Paul's neighbor. Anyway, what matters is that the man wants to enter the house, to go **into** it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчина идёт в дом Павла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to put it simple, when we talk about movement, the preposition **в** followed by Accusative means **into**, whereas the preposition **к** followed by Dative means **towards**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to go towards one's goal: идти к своей цели&#xD;&#xA;- to go to the park : идти в парк&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that, if we mean a meeting with a particular person, the preposition **к** is used :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The man goes to Paul - Мужчина идёт **к** Павлу (в гости). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The man takes his daughter to the doctor - Мужчина ведёт дочку на приём **к** врачу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rules of usage of those two prepositions of movement (because I just explained the usage in your particular example) are described [here even with pictures](http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/directions-and-places/). A really nice cite for learning Russian. Note that some nouns require the preposition **в**, some - **на**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2119" RevisionGUID="f410173e-6e95-41c4-bec3-ce3ba7cced25" CreationDate="2013-04-06T17:13:44.700" UserId="1547" Text="**Жанна** (Jeanne) is a transliteration of the Western (French) name, similar to **Джон** (Jon/John) or **Жан** (Jean). **Яна** feels very Slavic but although it does seem to be derived from **Иванна** (Joanna), it's IMO unlikely to be considered to be a pair of **Иван** by a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I see the pairs for these names:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жан - Жанна  &#xD;&#xA;Ян - Яна (Янина)  &#xD;&#xA;Иван (Иоанн) - Иванна (Иоанна)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/ivan.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2120" RevisionGUID="5b0ccef2-8fdf-45d1-8daf-0233bd238a04" CreationDate="2013-04-06T20:15:47.117" UserId="1329" Text="In some cases this pattern is productive, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;интервьюер&quot; - &quot;интервьюируемый&quot; (interviewer - interviewee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;экзаменатор&quot; - &quot;экзаменуемый&quot; (examinator - examinee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;испытатель - испытуемый&quot; (tester - testee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, indeed, both words are nouns, the last one formed by changing the part of speech from passive participle to noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this rule cannot be used in some situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when the meaning is not &quot;the person who is being exposed to an action&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   we can't say &quot;спасатель - спасаемый&quot; (this one is unnatural),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;работодатель - работоданный&quot; (this is simply incorrect)...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when we are not talking about a person:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      this happens in your example. A book can be read (for example : читаемая мной книга) and it will be a passive participle, but there is no word for a person that is made to read by his angry mother =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2121" RevisionGUID="c6ed503b-a59c-4460-9d3c-5fb4c316af67" CreationDate="2013-04-07T03:51:38.653" UserId="194" Text="Жанна is a French name borrowed into Russian, Яна is a Polish name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although they derive from the same source, they are distinct names in modern Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2120" RevisionGUID="afbd776d-dbe2-4fe0-8daf-d93b984790c5" CreationDate="2013-04-07T10:46:11.403" UserId="1329" Comment="added 480 characters in body" Text="In some cases this pattern is productive, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;интервьюер&quot; - &quot;интервьюируемый&quot; (interviewer - interviewee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;экзаменатор&quot; - &quot;экзаменуемый&quot; (examinator - examinee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;испытатель - испытуемый&quot; (tester - testee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, indeed, both words are nouns, the last one formed by changing the part of speech from passive participle to noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this rule cannot be used in some situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when the meaning is not &quot;the person who is being exposed to an action&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   we can't say &quot;спасатель - спасаемый&quot; (this one is unnatural),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;работодатель - работоданный&quot; (this is simply incorrect)...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when we are not talking about a person:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      this happens in your example. A book can be read (for example : читаемая мной книга) and it will be a passive participle, but there is no word for a person that is made to read by his angry mother =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a short survey suggested by Anixx, I have found out that, indeed, the passive participle &quot;спасаемый&quot; can be used as a noun (mostly in The Bible). However, I have a feeling that the semantics is slightly different : those nouns derived from passive participle can sometimes mean &quot;somebody who can be (...*insert the indefinite aspect of passive participle here*)&quot;. So I have a feeling that &quot;спасаемый&quot; could mean &quot;the one who still can be saved&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2120" RevisionGUID="f7a80bbb-b3ba-4efa-bde0-b51793da054f" CreationDate="2013-04-07T18:57:34.307" UserId="1329" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="In some cases this pattern is productive, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;интервьюер&quot; - &quot;интервьюируемый&quot; (interviewer - interviewee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;экзаменатор&quot; - &quot;экзаменуемый&quot; (examinator - examinee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;испытатель - испытуемый&quot; (tester - testee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, indeed, both words are nouns, the last one formed by changing the part of speech from passive participle to noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this rule cannot be used in some situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when the meaning is not &quot;the person who is being exposed to an action&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   we can't say &quot;спасатель - спасаемый&quot; (this one is unnatural),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;работодатель - работоданный&quot; (this is simply incorrect)...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when we are not talking about a person:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      this happens in your example. A book can be read (for example : читаемая мной книга) and it will be a passive participle, but there is no word for a person that is made to read by his angry mother =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a short survey suggested by Anixx, I have found out that, indeed, the passive participle &quot;спасаемый&quot; can be used as a noun (mostly in The Bible). However, I have a feeling that the semantics is slightly different : those nouns derived from passive participle can sometimes mean &quot;somebody who can be (...*insert the indefinite aspect of passive participle here*)&quot;. So I have a feeling that &quot;спасаемый&quot; could mean &quot;the one who still can be saved&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FINAL EDIT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The noun &quot;спасаемый&quot; really exists, as shown in Quaanoi's comment.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="609c6f52-7084-4238-9f04-c7b329ea4585" CreationDate="2013-04-08T07:27:43.817" UserId="1587" Text="кто нибудь знает происхождение слова &quot;ружьё&quot;? не смог найти ни одного однокоренного слова, ну, кроме его производных." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="609c6f52-7084-4238-9f04-c7b329ea4585" CreationDate="2013-04-08T07:27:43.817" UserId="1587" Text="этимология слова &quot;ружьё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="609c6f52-7084-4238-9f04-c7b329ea4585" CreationDate="2013-04-08T07:27:43.817" UserId="1587" Text="|этимология|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="9dbc36f3-27a0-44a6-bcf3-7b1bbefd6a0e" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:24:48.957" UserId="487" Text="I often hear in Russian an expression that I suppose can be translated as &quot;I swear it&quot;, or &quot;I give you my word&quot;. I hear something as &quot;часно слово&quot;, &quot;час на слово&quot; ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is its right spelling and what does it exactly mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remark:** I cannot find it in lingvo, wikipedia, gramota nor by translation, even trying with combinations of possible spelling mistakes (exchanging ч by ш, the о's by a's, итд.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit:* of course, my ear can just be unmature to hear Russian and detect *all* possible spellings .&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="9dbc36f3-27a0-44a6-bcf3-7b1bbefd6a0e" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:24:48.957" UserId="487" Text="What's the right spelling of (something I hear, but cannot find, as) &quot;часно слово&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="9dbc36f3-27a0-44a6-bcf3-7b1bbefd6a0e" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:24:48.957" UserId="487" Text="|значения|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2124" RevisionGUID="11c14d85-e584-4a35-8f1d-ac1e57c801a3" CreationDate="2013-04-08T14:30:40.877" UserId="242" Text="It is actually `[моё] честное слово`, which can translated as  `an honest word [of mine]`. Phrase `давать честное слово` is interchangeable with `обещать` (to promise). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a word `клянуться`, but this is more close to `to vow`: it is somewhat stronger than making a promise. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2124" RevisionGUID="84b82b0b-b704-4f14-a3c7-8b08f825b369" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:23:00.230" UserId="1557" Comment="you really need to improve both your Russian (клянуться - клясться) and English (literate translation - literal translation)" Text="It is actually `[моё] честное слово`, which can be translated as `an honest word [of mine]`. Phrase `давать честное слово` is interchangeable with `обещать` (to promise). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a word `клясться`, but this is more close to `to vow`: it is somewhat stronger than making a promise. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7564" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2124" RevisionGUID="84b82b0b-b704-4f14-a3c7-8b08f825b369" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:23:00.230" Comment="Proposed by 1557 approved by 97, 242 edit id of 360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2125" RevisionGUID="7f05af7b-3780-46b7-8638-18820564ab5c" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:30:17.707" UserId="1557" Text="Here's a link to Vasmer, see both `орудие` and `оружие`: http://vasmer.narod.ru/p470.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="d04e3427-d5d6-41ce-8bb9-c35522baf5a0" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:44:38.253" UserId="1557" Comment="грамматика" Text="Кто-нибудь знает происхождение слова &quot;ружьё&quot;? Не смог найти ни одного однокоренного слова, кроме его производных." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7567" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2122" RevisionGUID="d04e3427-d5d6-41ce-8bb9-c35522baf5a0" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:44:38.253" Comment="Proposed by 1557 approved by 242, 1587 edit id of 361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="7db4e749-068f-4db5-9394-5d14749abfd5" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:01:24.657" UserId="1589" Text="In English we say, &quot;the sign says,&quot; &quot;the letter says&quot; etc.  In russian do you use говорить or говориться?&#xD;&#xA;Ex. The sign says no smoking. &#xD;&#xA;Would it be: знак говорит не курить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or how would you interpret this phrase: On the door was a note saying they were gone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="7db4e749-068f-4db5-9394-5d14749abfd5" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:01:24.657" UserId="1589" Text="How do you say, &quot;the note says&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="7db4e749-068f-4db5-9394-5d14749abfd5" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:01:24.657" UserId="1589" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="3d29f486-7d05-4044-80a4-395b613c549b" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:15:56.167" UserId="242" Text="The literal translation will sound unnatural in most cases, the most closest colloquial form is that one which is used with the verb &quot;написано&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На двери было написано, что все ушли. &#xD;&#xA; - Написано же, не шуметь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with imperative verbs &quot;сказать&quot; is also appropriate and understandable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сказано не курить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formal, phrase `On the door was a note saying they were gone` can be translated as `на двери висело объявление/записка о том, что все ушли`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `говориться`, it can be used to translate a slightly different English construction, i.e. &quot;it is said that&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - В книге говориться, что не не стоит злоупотреблять алкоголем. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2128" RevisionGUID="28f1267d-bf75-4cb5-8c5e-ad6b71ed1fb2" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:16:04.203" UserId="115" Text="This somewhat depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the sign says&quot; - знак гласит, на знаке написано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the letter says&quot; - в письме написано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;On the door was a note saying they were gone.&quot; - На двери была записка о том, что они ушли. В записке на двери было сказано что они ушли." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2129" RevisionGUID="2373c32b-9548-4f41-a8ec-371f088fc2f3" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:18:29.120" UserId="97" Text="Usually such phrases can be translated using a past tense without an explicit object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на знаке написано; or&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в записке говорилось;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence phrase _On the door was a note saying they were gone_ could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В записке на двери говорилось, что они ушли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that depending on the context, _they were gone_ could be translated into something other than _они ушли_.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="183179d8-59d9-4e3c-8773-21f6b6e278b0" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:21:27.263" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The literal translation will sound unnatural in most cases, the most closest colloquial form is that one which is used with the verb &quot;написано&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На двери было написано, что все ушли. &#xD;&#xA; - Написано же, не шуметь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with imperative verbs &quot;сказать&quot; is also appropriate and understandable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сказано не курить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formal, phrase `On the door was a note saying they were gone` can be translated as `на двери висело объявление/записка о том, что все ушли`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `говориться`, it can be used to translate a slightly different English construction, &quot;it is said that&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - В книге говориться, что не не стоит злоупотреблять алкоголем. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2127" RevisionGUID="f30800a7-0a44-49e4-946c-4d8877fdceb0" CreationDate="2013-04-09T03:22:15.307" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The literal translation will sound unnatural in most cases, the most closest colloquial form is that one which is used with the verb &quot;написано&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На двери было написано, что все ушли. &#xD;&#xA; - Написано же, не шуметь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with imperative verbs &quot;сказать&quot; is also appropriate and understandable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сказано не курить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formal, phrase `On the door was a note saying they were gone` can be translated as `на двери висело объявление/записка о том, что все ушли`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `говорится`, it can be used to translate a slightly different English construction, &quot;it is said that&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - В книге говорится, что не не стоит злоупотреблять алкоголем. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2130" RevisionGUID="33024b8f-08d3-4acd-9efa-a0fbdc90dbe9" CreationDate="2013-04-09T03:25:33.457" UserId="194" Text="Yes, you can use similar wording&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Инструкция говорит о том, что нужно закрывать дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В инструкции не сказано, как быть в такой ситуации.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В инструкции говорится о мерах предосторожности.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В инструкции написано о другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7578" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="c37e2a91-2cae-45c0-a787-cbfcc02b14a6" CreationDate="2013-04-09T07:55:18.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/321531753623851008" />
  <row Id="7579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2132" RevisionGUID="760ded3b-cc84-4a3d-9a64-ff82a677bf0d" CreationDate="2013-04-09T08:17:57.697" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="Да is also a union, meaninng &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;but&quot;. In this case the phrase translates as &quot;But no&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7581" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2123" RevisionGUID="ac1007b4-5798-49a2-8eb5-f23583eec29c" CreationDate="2013-04-09T10:55:18.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/321577052102877185" />
  <row Id="7582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2071" RevisionGUID="fec84c6b-0f69-4f34-b995-61655ec7c097" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:58:27.203" UserId="1262" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Is **_ни_** written separately or together with the main word? And is it **_ни_,** or is it **_не_**? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2020" RevisionGUID="d4cdeb51-9568-40ca-9c3b-37f1b2b34afa" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:59:09.283" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've stumbled upon this word in Andrey Bely's (Bugaev's) *Символизм как миропонимание (СПб 1994)*. Even in the early 20th century the word was used negatively referring to 'широковещательность метафизики'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be applied as a radio term, yet its basic meaning, according to dictionaries, is negative and 'fictional' (книжный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When and how did it become a negative term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="c1efd22f-07e2-43aa-b672-355ce35b9f9c" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:07:56.410" UserId="1262" Text="This form seems to be very common in modern conversational Russian, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пойдём-ка, покурим-ка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Давайте-ка не будем пороть горячку.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Подожди(те)-ка!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form also has its more colloquial (and dialectal) counterpart with -ко:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Слышь-ко, чё скажу...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the -ка imperative (particle) is attested as early as in *Lermontov's* Borodino:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Скажи-ка, дядя, ведь недаром...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the eldest attribution of this form together with its geographical area of usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="c1efd22f-07e2-43aa-b672-355ce35b9f9c" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:07:56.410" UserId="1262" Text="Colloquial imperative with the particle -ка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="c1efd22f-07e2-43aa-b672-355ce35b9f9c" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:07:56.410" UserId="1262" Text="|грамматика|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2134" RevisionGUID="c54d9e2f-8eed-45cf-a357-b88293f4eaa0" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:41:48.710" UserId="1236" Text="This particle is found in most Slavic languages, so it dates back to the Proto-Slavic times. It is attested in writing as early as in the OCS Codex Suprasliensis (Супрасльская рукопись), the middle of the 9th century. See [Vasmer][1] (Vol. 2, page 147).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/vasmer.php?id=147&amp;vol=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="8225dd14-c317-409c-bc38-9507e97e2438" CreationDate="2013-04-12T15:26:07.843" UserId="170" Text="Is it like this phrase can have two almost opposite meanings in Russian (one of which would be something like &quot;The way to that place for him has already been ordered/provided/arranged&quot;, and the other one something like &quot;That way is forbidden for him&quot;)? &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="8225dd14-c317-409c-bc38-9507e97e2438" CreationDate="2013-04-12T15:26:07.843" UserId="170" Text="Possible meanings of &quot;Путь ему туда заказан&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="8225dd14-c317-409c-bc38-9507e97e2438" CreationDate="2013-04-12T15:26:07.843" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="3f20b871-27d8-4a3a-87c1-95b03a74ca38" CreationDate="2013-04-12T15:40:38.660" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Is it like this phrase can have two almost opposite meanings in Russian (one of which would be something like &quot;The way to that place for him has already been ordered/provided/arranged&quot;, and the other one &quot;That way is forbidden for him&quot;)? &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2136" RevisionGUID="3abf117a-999d-409c-8158-d10c406de688" CreationDate="2013-04-12T16:17:06.683" UserId="1236" Text="`Путь ему туда заказан` can mean *only* `The way there is forbidden for him.` Although `заказан` means both `ordered` and `forbidden`, this word in such a phrase is usually understood correctly, as `forbidden`, because you can order tickets, a car, a plane, a yacht, but *not* the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2136" RevisionGUID="36b4c27f-725e-4328-b53b-f82ec2a0ec17" CreationDate="2013-04-12T16:22:59.770" UserId="1236" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="`Путь ему туда заказан` can mean *only* `The way there is forbidden for him.` Although `заказан` means both `ordered / booked` and `forbidden`, this word in such a phrase is usually understood correctly, as `forbidden`, because you can order tickets, a car, a plane, a yacht, but *not* the way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2137" RevisionGUID="df7d28f1-0ebe-4f9e-895b-63545c604c60" CreationDate="2013-04-12T17:28:49.917" UserId="194" Text="In modern Russian заказан only means booked/ordered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase is just an idiom which uses заказан in an archaic sense &quot;forbidden&quot;. This meaning is so different from the familiar meaning of the word that it is often used in quotes, like [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.superomsk.ru/news/detail.php?ID=44237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2138" RevisionGUID="0681980a-4514-4837-80e0-e94bcc910bd3" CreationDate="2013-04-13T19:04:31.093" UserId="1262" Text="In some contexts - yes, one may say 'the way there is booked/ordered', although I can hardly imagine such a context. Politians usually, if ever, don't pay for their ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2126" RevisionGUID="05f3abb0-578f-415a-80e2-e0d0b06e09b6" CreationDate="2013-04-13T19:27:16.523" UserId="185" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="In English we say *the sign says*, *the letter says*, etc.  In Russian do you use *говорить* or *говориться*?&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The sign says no smoking. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be: &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;знак говорит не курить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or how would you interpret this phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;On the door was a note saying they were gone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="510a29fe-676a-441a-8a4c-34227277709e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T16:04:43.327" UserId="170" Text="What way is correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... пользователь услуг почтовой связи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... пользователь услугами почтовой связи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="510a29fe-676a-441a-8a4c-34227277709e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T16:04:43.327" UserId="170" Text="Уважаемые пользователи услуг/услугАМИ почтовой связи?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="510a29fe-676a-441a-8a4c-34227277709e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T16:04:43.327" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2140" RevisionGUID="7bd0207b-1993-44fe-8343-22ea93bc0024" CreationDate="2013-04-14T17:32:44.710" UserId="242" Text="Only the first is correct, the word `пользователь` is used with noun in genitive case, so it governed by &quot;пользователь чего&quot;, though the verb itself is used with instrumental case(`кем`/`чем`), I believe this is the root of your suspicions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true, by the way, for verbs like `повелевать`, `руководить`: повелевать [чем?] царством, but повелитель [чего?] бурь, руководить [кем?] людьми, but руководитель [чего?] стройки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2140" RevisionGUID="b3700581-4c21-4735-9f6a-140df5ff552f" CreationDate="2013-04-14T17:39:09.287" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Only the first one is correct, the word `пользователь` is used with noun in genitive case, so it governed by &quot;пользователь чего&quot;, though the verb itself is used with instrumental case (`кем`/`чем`), I believe this is the root of your suspicions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true, by the way, for verbs like `повелевать`, `руководить`: повелевать [чем?] царством, but повелитель [чего?] бурь, руководить [кем?] людьми, but руководитель [чего?] стройки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2141" RevisionGUID="98f1453b-a8c0-4346-a9c1-2732ee5d1f6f" CreationDate="2013-04-14T19:32:52.050" UserId="1602" Text="There is a general rule one can apply to choosing a correct case - inductive reasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пользователь связи (user) is a doer - always use genitive case for &quot;doer of something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;@shabunc correctly pointed out that &quot;пользователь услугами&quot; is grammatically incorrect, as well as &quot;торговец яблокАМИ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;управлениe автомобилем (operating) is a noun (gerund) derived from a verb &quot;to operate&quot;, so all rules that apply to the verb &quot;to operate&quot; will apply to the derived noun &quot;operating&quot;. The verb &quot;operate&quot; hints you that you need some &quot;instrument&quot; to operate - in this case a car, therefore &quot;instrumental case&quot;.  The instrumental case indicates that a noun is the instrument with which the subject performs an action.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2142" RevisionGUID="a1b27020-be10-4cc9-b0dd-8746079b9054" CreationDate="2013-04-15T02:10:27.993" UserId="1602" Text="I don't think that Russian native speakers should be too hard on English speaking people trying to learn Russian :) If one is not a linguist giving IPA [sʲɪˈvodʲnʲə] would not help a bit. Here is an alternative pronunciation for English native speakers for &quot;сегодня&quot;: &quot;S'ehvohdn'a&quot;, where apostrophe indicates palatalization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="39ff3bfd-f6ea-4688-8495-fa2d9829a49a" CreationDate="2013-04-15T07:41:05.263" UserId="194" Text="Nouns ending in *-тель* always require an object in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гонитель свободы* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ценитель искусства*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *родитель девочек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *растлитель малолетних*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *водитель машины*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *первооткрыватель Антарктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *руководитель предприятия*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="bc854d7a-ff64-4bbd-924f-abe0c0c82465" CreationDate="2013-04-15T07:48:09.257" UserId="194" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Nouns ending in *-тель* always require an object in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гонитель свободы* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ценитель искусства*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *родитель девочек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *растлитель малолетних*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *водитель машины*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *первооткрыватель Антарктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *руководитель предприятия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *носитель информации*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *любитель сладостей*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *строитель социализма*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2144" RevisionGUID="2c4384b4-32f1-4044-b333-e3457736d082" CreationDate="2013-04-15T07:48:38.720" UserId="97" Text="At the risk of having stones thrown at me, I'll say that both phrases are grammatically correct, however one of them may be used more often than the other.  Here are a few links to the by-laws of using Russian Postal Server - on the Russian Postal Service's website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://www.russianpost.ru/rp/servise/ru/home/documents/postlaw/postlaw2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Статья 16. Услуги почтовой связи&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Пользователь услуг почтовой связи&lt;/strong&gt; обязан оплатить оказанные ему услуги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's a link to another section in the same by-laws:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    http://www.russianpost.ru/rp/servise/ru/home/documents/postrules/postrules7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глава 7&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ответственность операторов почтовой связи и &lt;strong&gt;пользователей услугами почтовой связи&lt;/strong&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphases are mine in both quotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trailing this same document, it's evident that the second version (instrumental case) is used more often than the first one (genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While Russian Postal Service is not the authority on Russian Language, I'd like to believe that such important documents as the by-laws and terms and conditions have been properly proof-read by somebody that knows a thing or two about the grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="14f75629-a4f9-4f0b-9a79-7ee09ee6c6f6" CreationDate="2013-04-15T07:56:14.877" UserId="194" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Nouns ending in *-тель* always require an object in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гонитель свободы* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ценитель искусства*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *родитель девочек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *растлитель малолетних*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *водитель машины*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *первооткрыватель Антарктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *руководитель предприятия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *носитель информации*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *любитель сладостей*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *строитель социализма*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *учитель географии*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *исследователь Арктики*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="f586f3bf-91a9-40ba-9fe8-902cc8ed6d3c" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:02:01.423" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Which way is correct here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... пользователь услуг почтовой связи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... пользователь услугами почтовой связи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="5afb80af-3b7a-44e4-b775-d9c3df04ff34" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:04:00.030" UserId="194" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Nouns ending in *-тель* always require an object in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гонитель свободы* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ценитель искусства*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *родитель девочек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *растлитель малолетних*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *водитель машины*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *первооткрыватель Антарктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *руководитель предприятия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *носитель информации*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *любитель сладостей*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *строитель социализма*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *учитель географии*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *исследователь Арктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *издатель газеты*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *приятель мужа*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="9c0f796a-102e-45f2-bc4a-0de561665040" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:11:22.977" UserId="194" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Nouns ending in *-тель* always require an object in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гонитель свободы* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ценитель искусства*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *родитель девочек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *растлитель малолетних*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *водитель машины*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *первооткрыватель Антарктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *руководитель предприятия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *носитель информации*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *любитель сладостей*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *строитель социализма*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *учитель географии*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *исследователь Арктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *издатель газеты*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *приятель мужа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *деятель Сопротивления*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *правитель Азии*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2143" RevisionGUID="5046c115-998c-4b8c-8649-27f0f3e430f4" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:27:21.360" UserId="194" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Nouns ending in *-тель* always require an object in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *гонитель свободы* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ценитель искусства*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *родитель девочек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *растлитель малолетних*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *водитель машины*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *первооткрыватель Антарктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *руководитель предприятия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *носитель информации*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *любитель сладостей*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *строитель социализма*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *учитель географии*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *исследователь Арктики*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *издатель газеты*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *приятель мужа*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *деятель Сопротивления*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *правитель Азии*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *победитель дракона*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="7ab704ac-38c0-4724-b9dc-24c11adc8d2e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:31:49.187" UserId="194" Text="It seems that in Internet discussions only women use this interjection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it gender-specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are other gender-specific words in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="7ab704ac-38c0-4724-b9dc-24c11adc8d2e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:31:49.187" UserId="194" Text="Is &quot;мде&quot; a gender-specific word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="7ab704ac-38c0-4724-b9dc-24c11adc8d2e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T08:31:49.187" UserId="194" Text="|словоупотребление|междометие|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7617" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="5ab52368-3373-4b58-9c44-471a31f14a7a" CreationDate="2013-04-15T09:44:06.830" UserId="194" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;мде&quot;/&quot;мдя&quot; a gender-specific word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2145" RevisionGUID="5ab52368-3373-4b58-9c44-471a31f14a7a" CreationDate="2013-04-15T09:44:06.830" UserId="194" Comment="edited title" Text="It seems that in Internet discussions only women use this interjection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it gender-specific?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the word &quot;секес&quot;/&quot;секас&quot; is also gender-specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are other gender-specific words in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7619" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2139" RevisionGUID="e6899e03-86fa-477c-b1e4-d90ae83114b7" CreationDate="2013-04-15T12:09:30.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/323770050622406657" />
  <row Id="7620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2146" RevisionGUID="97fcc8d2-0a0b-454d-a615-81777b84ca15" CreationDate="2013-04-15T12:11:02.810" UserId="1606" Text="As a native English speaker, I always thought it meant &quot;of course, not&quot;. This makes sense in most contexts as mentioned above. As well as in my practical experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7621" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2135" RevisionGUID="38444572-58d5-4e12-a4fb-cc93953cff99" CreationDate="2013-04-15T18:09:29.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/323860647131619328" />
  <row Id="7622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2147" RevisionGUID="90009b41-ea47-4f0f-ab12-ce2da9387fc6" CreationDate="2013-04-15T18:51:46.353" UserId="1607" Text="Is not are gender-specific words. This is incorrect distortion of normal words used immature personalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;М-да&quot;, &quot;М-де&quot;, &quot;м-дя&quot; - I can not translate, the phrase shows some disappointment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Секес&quot;, &quot;Секас&quot; the correct spelling is: &quot;Секс&quot;, and refers to sex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Sorry for my poor english :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2147" RevisionGUID="71ac7f1a-fba9-4e51-8b31-749b650c4f95" CreationDate="2013-04-15T18:57:21.220" UserId="1607" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Is not are gender-specific words. This is incorrect distortion of normal words used immature personalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;М-да&quot;, &quot;М-де&quot;, &quot;м-дя&quot; - I can not translate, the phrase shows some disappointment. Maybe correct translate is &quot;eh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Секес&quot;, &quot;Секас&quot; the correct spelling is: &quot;Секс&quot;, and refers to sex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often these distortions are used to mask the obscene or indecent words. Women often use &quot;Мдя&quot; because it sounds similar to the Japanese &quot;nya&quot;, we have it was in the nature of things, unfortunately ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Sorry for my poor english :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2147" RevisionGUID="fe28545c-1c5d-47ac-8637-2368475473e3" CreationDate="2013-04-15T19:02:46.487" UserId="1607" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="Is not are gender-specific words. This is incorrect distortion of normal words used immature personalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;М-да&quot;, &quot;М-де&quot;, &quot;м-дя&quot; - I can not translate, the phrase shows some disappointment. Maybe correct translate is &quot;eh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Секес&quot;, &quot;Секас&quot; the correct spelling is: &quot;Секс&quot;, and refers to sex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often these distortions are used to mask the obscene or indecent words. Women often use &quot;Мдя&quot; because it sounds similar to the Japanese &quot;nya&quot;, we have it was in the nature of things, unfortunately ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian language, as far as I can remember, there is no gender-specific words and expressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Sorry for my poor english :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2148" RevisionGUID="553a7b98-eabc-4e57-8133-d4a111711027" CreationDate="2013-04-15T20:28:28.023" UserDisplayName="user790" Text="I found the following two expressions in a bus schedule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время отправления с НП &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время прибытия на КП&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the first means time of departure and the second time of arrival. But what do the additions &quot;с НП&quot; and &quot;на КП&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2148" RevisionGUID="553a7b98-eabc-4e57-8133-d4a111711027" CreationDate="2013-04-15T20:28:28.023" UserDisplayName="user790" Text="Abbreviations in Bus Schedules" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2148" RevisionGUID="553a7b98-eabc-4e57-8133-d4a111711027" CreationDate="2013-04-15T20:28:28.023" UserDisplayName="user790" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2149" RevisionGUID="71dcabda-4bae-4dd3-bdc4-7a82b32c6f22" CreationDate="2013-04-15T20:35:03.757" UserId="97" Text="As far as I understand, this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; НП - начальный пункт (starting point/stop)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КП - конечный пункт (ending point/stop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence the two lines are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время отправления с НП&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Time of departure from the starting point&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время прибытия на КП&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Time of arrival to the ending point&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2150" RevisionGUID="bbed8860-7983-4e0b-8fff-a8b074af390e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T21:10:04.990" UserId="1608" Text="It's pronouncing like this: &quot;Sevodnya&quot; or (in Cyrillic) &quot;Сиводня&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="4b07eb70-b565-4704-a4dd-2aa6e2f650ce" CreationDate="2013-04-15T22:26:58.960" UserId="487" Text="The expression *&quot;Вот где собака зарыта&quot;* can be translated, as far as I know, as *that is where the shoe pinches*. The literal translation, of course, doesn't match. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my literal (vague) translation amounts to *&quot;there is where the dog buries (something)&quot;*, making reference to an issue that was hidden and suddenly emerges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find what kind of word is **зарыта**, though. That is, it seems to be derived from the verb *bury*, &quot;зарыть&quot; as lingvo, wiktionary and gramota point out.  But what kind of word is **зарыта**? it doesn't seem to be a conjugation of *зарыть*, and if so my apologies for not finding it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="4b07eb70-b565-4704-a4dd-2aa6e2f650ce" CreationDate="2013-04-15T22:26:58.960" UserId="487" Text="Explanation of &quot;зарыта&quot; in &quot;Вот где собака зарыта&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="4b07eb70-b565-4704-a4dd-2aa6e2f650ce" CreationDate="2013-04-15T22:26:58.960" UserId="487" Text="|одним-словом|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="252926f4-e38b-402b-8804-5ea741750fe4" CreationDate="2013-04-15T22:33:30.310" UserId="487" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The expression *&quot;Вот где собака зарыта&quot;* can be translated, as far as I know, as *(that is) where the shoe pinches*. The literal translation, of course, doesn't match. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my literal (vague) translation amounts to *&quot;there is where the dog buries (something)&quot;*, making reference to an issue that was hidden and suddenly emerges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find what kind of word is **зарыта**, though. That is, it seems to be derived from the verb *bury*, &quot;зарыть&quot; as lingvo, wiktionary and gramota point out.  But what kind of word is **зарыта**? it doesn't seem to be a conjugation of *зарыть*, and if so my apologies for not finding it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2152" RevisionGUID="d9ffe8d0-744c-4053-91f9-e49ad2d619fc" CreationDate="2013-04-15T23:14:25.443" UserId="626" Text="The literal translation is &quot;That's where the dog is buried,&quot; and the meaning is &quot;This is the core of the issue&quot; or &quot;That's where the answer is.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="7ae90df6-d95e-40c9-8b66-d02add0549a0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T00:29:38.020" UserId="993" Text="I came across this phrase in a Russian reader I purchased and translated the phrase to mean, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I cannot do nothing with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation given by the author is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't do anything about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the uses of the preposition &quot;с&quot; with the instrumental case in a Russian Grammar book, which stated the following uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) *with* in the sense of together with, along with, accompanied by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;(b) to indicate an accompanying characteristic or attribute of someone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or something &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) to indicate manner&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also used with a list of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this phrase an idiomatic expression, or am I missing a case of use with the preposition с + instrumental? Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="7ae90df6-d95e-40c9-8b66-d02add0549a0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T00:29:38.020" UserId="993" Text="Translation of &quot;Я ничего не могу с этим сделать&quot;...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="7ae90df6-d95e-40c9-8b66-d02add0549a0" CreationDate="2013-04-16T00:29:38.020" UserId="993" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2154" RevisionGUID="dff35943-a4bc-4bc6-bf8a-b21dffee843d" CreationDate="2013-04-16T02:41:39.790" UserId="487" Text="It seems that it corresponds then to the last sentence given in the Russian Grammar book that you quoted (&quot;it is also used with a list of verbs&quot;). The preposition *c* is used along with the verb *делать*: &quot;to do something about/with ...&quot; is &quot;делать что с + (instr.)&quot;, which is indeed present in the phrase in question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2155" RevisionGUID="ff5e4641-7723-4f0d-8083-16eed4454119" CreationDate="2013-04-16T03:15:10.093" UserId="426" Text="Another meaning of the Russian preposition &quot;с&quot; when used with the instrumental case is expressing associations, rather than spacial or temporal closeness. English &quot;with&quot; expresses a similar meaning in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't have anything to do **with** this. (я тут ни при чём)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the meaning changes based on context: compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю что делать с лопатой. (I don't know what to do with a shovel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю что делать с головной болью. (I don't know what to do *about* my headache.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am assuming that your question is not about the double negative in the reader's translation: that's commonplace in Russian - &quot;**ни**чего **не** могу сделать&quot; becomes &quot;cannot do anything&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2147" RevisionGUID="0f90968c-f5f8-42a2-925a-a2d9ada04fbc" CreationDate="2013-04-16T06:36:35.017" UserId="185" Comment="corrected mistakes, edited the answer so that it is easier to understand." Text="These are not gender-specific words. This is a distortion of normal words used by immature personalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often these distortions are used to mask obscene or indecent words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that &quot;м-да&quot;, &quot;м-де&quot;, &quot;м-дя&quot; could be translated as &quot;eh&quot;, because they express disappointment. It may also be that women often use &quot;мдя&quot; because it sounds similar to the Japanese &quot;nya&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Секес&quot;, &quot;Секас&quot; refers to sex and the correct spelling is &quot;секс&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your second question, in the Russian language there are no gender-specific words and expressions as far as I can remember." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2156" RevisionGUID="23a7b5e5-4e68-4c69-95f7-e4d898131674" CreationDate="2013-04-16T08:29:36.943" UserId="560" Text="As @ruskie.info and @Eugene S have [written][1], &quot;зарыта&quot; means buried. It's an adjective derived from the verb &quot;to bury&quot; and it is declined regularly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я зарыт&#xD;&#xA;* ты зарыт&#xD;&#xA;* он зарыт/**она зарыта**/оно зарыто&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мы зарыты&#xD;&#xA;* вы зарыты&#xD;&#xA;* они зарыты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2152/560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2157" RevisionGUID="b254590a-9c67-4780-ad9e-dea37ddd3645" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:06:13.150" UserId="1329" Text="In Czech language, the word **&quot;вероятность&quot;** sounds like **&quot;pravděpodobnost&quot;**   [правдеподобность], and means **&quot;it is truthlike&quot;** (подобно правде). This made me look to Russian word - **вероятность**. Does it have something to do with **&quot;вера&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;For example **&quot;ятный вере&quot;** or something like this, where the first word is obviously an archaism...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2157" RevisionGUID="b254590a-9c67-4780-ad9e-dea37ddd3645" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:06:13.150" UserId="1329" Text="Вероятность and вера" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2157" RevisionGUID="b254590a-9c67-4780-ad9e-dea37ddd3645" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:06:13.150" UserId="1329" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2158" RevisionGUID="f6bd17c2-39c0-4d26-9e94-be19e3a90a42" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:27:38.620" UserId="81" Text="[Wiktionary article on вероятность][1] cites *Vasmer's Etymological Dictionary*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от прилагательного вероятный, далее от др.-русск., ст.-слав. вѣрѫ ѩти, букв. «принять веру», «уверовать»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - вероятный - такой, в который можно поверить;&#xD;&#xA; - вероятность - мера веры во что бы то ни было&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at least Vasmer agrees with you on connection between `вероятность` and `вера`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2159" RevisionGUID="b8dd7fce-e0a0-433c-a486-46e821869d23" CreationDate="2013-04-16T14:56:25.747" UserId="1262" Text="Considering words (nominals, verbs and adjectives) we can notice that words derived from a same stem (e.g. -лив-/-лит-) like полив, разлив, перелив, вылить, долить, отлить, etc. suggest certain actions pertinent to some liquid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, considering words with same prefixes, like почёт, помощь, поддержка, поступь, познать, разнос, раздрай, размазать, etc. we notice that they imply certain scenarios: surficial distriution (po-) or centripetal perfective/telic/progressive distribution (raz-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, whether these event scenarios are defined by semantics of the words, or by the prefixes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2159" RevisionGUID="b8dd7fce-e0a0-433c-a486-46e821869d23" CreationDate="2013-04-16T14:56:25.747" UserId="1262" Text="Do Russian prefixes embody event structures?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2159" RevisionGUID="b8dd7fce-e0a0-433c-a486-46e821869d23" CreationDate="2013-04-16T14:56:25.747" UserId="1262" Text="|semantics|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2160" RevisionGUID="f3b698f6-13ff-4d9c-a7b9-58472c3c0c00" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:11:23.900" UserId="115" Text="`зарытa` is the *passive voice* of the verb `зарыть`, present tense, feminine. So it literally means &quot;buried&quot;.  This is similar to `закрыта` from `закрыть` or `залита` from `залить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective would be `зарытая`.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2159" RevisionGUID="11b1c2b4-61a3-4022-ae43-3931177c9f67" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:12:29.607" UserId="1262" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Considering words (nominals, verbs and adjectives) we can notice that lexical items derived from a same stem (e.g. ***-лив-/-лит-***) like *полив, разлив, перелив, вылить, долить, отлить,* etc. suggest certain actions pertinent to some liquid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, considering words with same prefixes, like *почёт, помощь, побег, поступь, познать, разнос, раздрай, размазать,* etc. we notice that they imply certain scenarios: surficial distribution (***po-***) or centripetal perfective/telic/progressive distribution (***raz-***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, whether these event scenarios, or event structures, are defined by semantics of the words, or by the prefixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2161" RevisionGUID="2efd4db1-a10f-4baf-a1b0-8a117c74ef6f" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:35:44.723" UserId="134" Text="*Вероятный* (along with other compound words like *милосердный, самостоятельный, необходимый* etc.) most probably is a German calque (cf. German *glaubhaft*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is definitely connected to *вера*. Compare Ukrainian *не йняти вiри* - &quot;not to trust&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="06db3aef-9e52-46ea-8745-9535e440d355" CreationDate="2013-04-16T21:31:10.983" UserId="71" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="`But` can be translated into Russian as `а` or `но`, depending on the context. `А` can be translated into English as `but` or `and`, depending on the context. Let's examine the most typical situations, without pretending that the following list is complete :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The conjunction `но` contrasts actions, objects and their characteristics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я не живу в России, но хорошо говорю по-русски. I don't live in Russia, but I speak Russian well.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Стены были деревянные, но крепкие. The walls were wooden, but strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Indeed, I will agree with GSerg that in this case но has connotations of however, nonetheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The conjunction `а` is used to give a more accurate description of an object or action, rather than to contrast them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Стол не стеклянный, а деревянный. The table is not made of glass, but of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Ему не десять лет, а одиннадцать. He's not ten years old, but eleven.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `a`, is used when one clause contradicts the other clause. `Но` is used when they simply contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я попросил его купить сметану, а он купил молоко. I asked him to buy sour-cream, but he bought milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Они жили вместе, но не разговаривали друг с другом. They lived together, but didn't speak to each other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Now, in the two examples above, one could replace `a` with `но` and vice versa. That wouldn't make the sentences incorrect, just a bit clumsy. It all boils down to whether you want to emphasize contrast or contradiction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. `a` is used as contrasting `and`, meaning whereas, while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; У Маши было три сестры, а у Пети четыре. Masha had three sisters, and/whereas Petya had four.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я живу в Италии, а мой брат в Швеции. I live in Italy, and/whereas my brother lives in Switzerland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In these examples you couldn't replace `а` with `и`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Родители уехали на дачу, а дети остались дома. The parents went to dacha, and/whereas the kids stayed home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this example you could replace `a` with `но`, but the meaning would change to `but`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  Родители уехали на дачу, но дети остались дома. The parents went to dacha, but the kids stayed home. (implies that this is somehow a surprise, a contradiction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `A` is used in situations when you state something about something, and request a similar something about something else :) sort of... This meaning can be translated as `and` into English, or not translated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Меня зовут Василий. А тебя? My name is Vasiliy. What's yours? (And what's yours?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Вот мой дом. А где твой? Here's my house. Where's yours? (And where's yours?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. `A` can be used to change the subject, meaning something like `by the way`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; А у нас в здании пожар был вчера. (By the way, we had a fire in our building yesterday).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In most situations, the choice between `а`, and `но` is rather unambiguous. But, as with everything, there are certain corner cases where two conjunctions are possible, with slight, if any, differences in meaning. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Меня попросили подождать, а я не подождал. I was asked to wait, but I didn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Меня попросили подождать, но я не подождал. I was asked to wait, but I didn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The first version underlines the contradiction more than the second, but there is really very slight, if any difference in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2157" RevisionGUID="11acfdf0-965b-4d87-aa63-5a32da2b01e0" CreationDate="2013-04-17T21:09:32.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/324630732850991104" />
  <row Id="7655" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2148" RevisionGUID="067c9984-a647-44f3-98fd-69722e19658e" CreationDate="2013-04-18T06:09:32.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/324766628812292096" />
  <row Id="7656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2162" RevisionGUID="27c2fe4c-c40f-4bb3-ba5b-85afd321af75" CreationDate="2013-04-18T08:30:36.750" UserId="194" Text="The both words derive from PIE ***u̯ee̯ros*** meaning &quot;true&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2163" RevisionGUID="4591603a-a25e-4d9f-9b53-5495842d779e" CreationDate="2013-04-18T09:49:31.623" UserId="242" Text="My two cents. It is obviously connected to `вера` it's just that this connection is not that straightforward as it provided in other answers: it is neither direct derivation or a straightforward calque. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is actually another cognate word, `вероятие` (вѣроятie in old orphograhy) from which the word `вероятность` had evolved. [Вероятие][1] can be translated as `likelihood`, so it is synonymous to modern Russian достоверность, возможность (besides the fact that it had been used as in sense of `вера` as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge `вероятие` is not very old word, most probably it came to usage in XVIII century. For example in book &quot;Приключения Фемистокла&quot; by Fyodor Emin (publish in 1763) we can find following quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многия так от докторов как и от безумных баб облехчение получают; что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дѣлается чрез сильное воображение желаемаго, и вѣроятие тому, кто нас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лѣчит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word has not been some kind of bookish slang not quite used in colloquial speech. On the contrary it was quite colloquial and less pathetic than `вера`. &#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it even had been used in so-called `феня` [jargon][2] (some stick to term cant language), the slang of russian semi-crime vagabonds: `дать вероятие` meant to check out, to test something/someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `вероятность` has been in use at least from late XVIII century and it's first usages had **not** been related to any strict scientific terminology. Is had been used by analogy with вероятие and gradually (and relatively slowly, word вероятие had been use in XIX century as well) replaced first form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the first usages can be find in Eulers Russian letters dated 90-s of XVIII century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вѣроятность того мнѣния, что каждая неподвижная звѣзда есть такоеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солнце как наше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to avoid possible questions: Euler live in Russia for years, had been a fluent speaker and had no problems with writing on Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/03/sl304707.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenya" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2163" RevisionGUID="29c8986d-21b1-4fee-b305-28e16429f291" CreationDate="2013-04-18T10:00:50.727" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="My two cents. It is obviously connected to `вера` it's just that this connection is not that straightforward as it provided in other answers: it is neither direct derivation or a straightforward calque. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is actually another cognate word, `вероятие` (вѣроятie in old orphograhy) from which the word `вероятность` had evolved. [Вероятие][1] can be translated as `likelihood`, so it is synonymous to modern Russian достоверность, возможность (besides the fact that it had been used as in sense of `вера` as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge `вероятие` is not very old word, most probably it came to usage in XVIII century. For example in book &quot;Приключения Фемистокла&quot; by Fyodor Emin (publish in 1763) we can find following quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многия так от докторов как и от безумных баб облехчение получают; что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дѣлается чрез сильное воображение желаемаго, и вѣроятие тому, кто нас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лѣчит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word has not been some kind of bookish slang not quite used in colloquial speech. On the contrary it was quite colloquial and less pathetic than `вера`. &#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it even had been used in so-called `феня` [jargon][2] (some stick to term cant language), the slang of russian semi-crime vagabonds: `дать вероятие` meant to check out, to test something/someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `вероятность` has been in use at least from late XVIII century and it's first usages had **not** been related to any strict scientific terminology. Is had been used by analogy with вероятие and gradually (and relatively slowly, word вероятие had been use in XIX century as well) replaced first form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the first usages can be find in Eulers Russian letters dated 90-s of XVIII century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вѣроятность того мнѣния, что каждая неподвижная звѣзда есть такоеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солнце как наше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to avoid possible questions: Euler lived in Russia for years, had been a fluent speaker and had no problems with writing in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/03/sl304707.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenya" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2163" RevisionGUID="e759848e-e6a7-4368-9d91-3948f9cd21f5" CreationDate="2013-04-18T13:46:27.630" UserId="242" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="My two cents. It is obviously connected to `вера` it's just that this connection is not that straightforward as it claimed to be in other answers provided: it is neither direct derivation or a straightforward calque. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is actually another cognate word, `вероятие` (вѣроятie in old orphograhy) from which the word `вероятность` had evolved. [Вероятие][1] can be translated as `likelihood`, so it is synonymous to modern Russian достоверность, возможность (besides the fact that it had been used as in sense of `вера` as well). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge `вероятие` is not very old word, most probably it came to usage in XVIII century. For example in book &quot;Приключения Фемистокла&quot; by Fyodor Emin (published in 1763) we can find following quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многия так от докторов как и от безумных баб облехчение получают; что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дѣлается чрез сильное воображение желаемаго, и вѣроятие тому, кто нас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лѣчит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word has not been some kind of bookish slang not quite used in colloquial speech. On the contrary it was quite colloquial and less pathetic than `вера`. &#xD;&#xA;Moreover, it even had been used in so-called `феня` [jargon][2] (some stick to term cant language), the slang of russian semi-crime vagabonds: `дать вероятие` meant to check out, to test something/someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `вероятность` has been in use at least from late XVIII century and it's first usages had **not** been related to any strict scientific terminology. Is had been used by analogy with вероятие and gradually (and relatively slowly, word вероятие had been use in XIX century as well) replaced first form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the first usages can be find in Eulers Russian letters dated 90-s of XVIII century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вѣроятность того мнѣния, что каждая неподвижная звѣзда есть такоеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солнце как наше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to avoid possible questions: Euler lived in Russia for years, had been a fluent speaker and had no problems with writing in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/03/sl304707.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenya" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2164" RevisionGUID="fea0c75d-bbbc-4aa9-b93a-08bcdfb737f6" CreationDate="2013-04-18T19:35:27.067" UserId="1613" Text="You have indeed a double negation in russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу не разговаривать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't (what can't i?) (NEGATION) speaking, means &quot;I can't remain silent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in case of any question words used with prefix &quot;ни&quot;, those enhance the negation effect (it is called &quot;усиление отрицания&quot;). The list includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде, никогда, ниоткуда, никак, нисколько etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pay attention to the other case, when question words are written separately with 'ни' and the sentence has overall a different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Я не знаю ни где он был, ни когда, ни зачем он туда отправился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you state: &quot;Я не знаю&quot; (I don't know) and then you enumerate, which information do you miss:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;где он был &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;когда [он там был]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;зачем он туда отправился&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three &quot;ни&quot; are optional here and you can omit them. They mark out, that neither of those facts is known to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you omit them, the sentence sounds very formal and emotionally detached:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не знаю где он был, когда, зачем он туда отправился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping them is what a native speaker usually does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2165" RevisionGUID="4d7ab770-6df6-4ab8-9cd0-d6d07d0e29c5" CreationDate="2013-04-18T19:48:41.497" UserId="1613" Text="Young people mostly use a word &quot;дакфейс&quot; (read exactly like englich 'duck face' ), specially when facing a phenomenon of a young woman wearing this facial expression on a photo. A verb would be &quot;сделать дакфейс&quot; (perfect form), and here is another common example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;На новом фото Катя опять с дакфейсом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Katya makes a duck face on her photo again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples in this thread feel a bit odd to me. They are correct indeed but suit older people or some official speech better (f.e. journal, book), however, the duck face phenomenon is clearly out of the list of topics discussed in journals or between politics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7662" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2153" RevisionGUID="5c91423b-4b88-4dd3-801c-40d6798abb38" CreationDate="2013-04-19T00:09:33.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/325038423234719745" />
  <row Id="7669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="6a162b9c-c988-405d-9c40-2d5a3bcb3c2e" CreationDate="2013-04-19T23:29:47.830" UserId="282" Text="E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Instead of going to the ball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know &quot;вместо&quot; means instead by I don't know how to translate &quot;of doing something&quot;. Maybe there is another way of saying the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="6a162b9c-c988-405d-9c40-2d5a3bcb3c2e" CreationDate="2013-04-19T23:29:47.830" UserId="282" Text="How to say: &quot;instead of &quot; + verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="6a162b9c-c988-405d-9c40-2d5a3bcb3c2e" CreationDate="2013-04-19T23:29:47.830" UserId="282" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2168" RevisionGUID="e92a579f-9e5a-4d8a-9bed-1b174e0dfaf2" CreationDate="2013-04-20T01:26:02.813" UserId="1097" Text="`Instead of` + `doing something` translate as `вместо того, чтобы` + `что-то делать/сделать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Instead of going to the ball'. -&gt; &quot;Вместо того, чтобы идти/пойти на бал.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="c1b48663-60ba-42ba-b864-5b91319edb4d" CreationDate="2013-04-20T13:15:15.657" UserId="71" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited title" Text="Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Instead of going to the ball.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know &quot;вместо&quot; means instead but I don't know how to translate &quot;of doing something&quot;. Maybe there is another way of saying the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7674" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="c1b48663-60ba-42ba-b864-5b91319edb4d" CreationDate="2013-04-20T13:15:15.657" UserId="71" Comment="added 26 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to say: &quot;instead of&quot; + verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2169" RevisionGUID="82b6b8e1-5f32-4ce9-b4a0-9ed0157ba073" CreationDate="2013-04-20T18:37:40.453" UserId="242" Text="The answer of @eugen is 100% valid, I just want to add yet another translation pattern which can be used in context of colloquial speech when there's some verb in imperative mood: чем [&quot;instead&quot; part], лучше б...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Чем на бал ходить, ты б лучше подмела. &#xD;&#xA; * Чем на велосипеде кататься, ты б лучше уроки сделала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in some cases &quot;instead of&quot; can be translated this way, but, once again, the set of use cases is quite narrower than speaking of pattern provided in @eugens' answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2170" RevisionGUID="57bbb120-cac9-42be-b29a-4a24e59a9bdd" CreationDate="2013-04-20T19:37:48.217" UserId="1618" Text="Sometimes you can use verb-derived nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вместо похода на бал, Золушка весь вечер занималась уборкой.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2171" RevisionGUID="f29b4d8f-680e-45d0-bcba-ada155a9cc0f" CreationDate="2013-04-20T20:14:43.273" UserId="1619" Text="the old form of duckface in russian is &quot;губошлёп&quot;. you can say &quot;зачем ты прикидываешься губошлёпом?&quot;. or if you talk this to women &quot;почему ты надуваешь губки?&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2170" RevisionGUID="da9e4236-52d3-4dda-b2ba-d853f86c5357" CreationDate="2013-04-20T20:48:32.230" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Sometimes you can use verb-derived nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вместо похода на бал Золушка весь вечер занималась уборкой.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2169" RevisionGUID="11a04dab-7f44-41bf-bb46-a2b210642985" CreationDate="2013-04-20T20:57:33.137" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The answer of @eugen is 100% valid, I just want to add yet another translation pattern which can be used in context of colloquial speech when there's some verb in imperative mood: чем [&quot;instead&quot; part], лучше б/б лучше...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Чем на бал ходить, ты б лучше подмела. &#xD;&#xA; * Чем на велосипеде кататься, ты б лучше уроки сделала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in some cases &quot;instead of&quot; can be translated this way, but, once again, the set of use cases is quite narrower than speaking of pattern provided in @eugens' answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2172" RevisionGUID="35a9086f-4969-4981-9f6d-ef6550b51e99" CreationDate="2013-04-22T16:49:05.953" UserId="1622" Text="I am not fully agree with the previous replies. The phrase *Я ничего не понимаю* is not a double negation. Double negation means that the final meaning of the phrase becomes positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example: *Я **не** смогла **не** думать об этом* (I **didn't** manage **not** to think about it) = Я **подумала** (I **thought** about it). This **is** double negation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *Я ничего не понимаю* (I understand nothing) was a double negation, it would mean *Я понимаю* (I understand), which is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a normal negation, the trick is with the word **ничего** (the negative pronounce). This word, and other pronounces starting with &quot;ни-&quot; (никто, никого, ничто, ничего) when used together with negations, add more emphasis to the negative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="8cdf95f4-e856-41ca-b1e9-6cdba0b45a25" CreationDate="2013-04-22T16:51:45.807" UserId="487" Text="Sometimes I feel the need to fill a gap in my conversation with something that in English I would fill with &quot;you know&quot; in the sense described by [thefreedictionary.com](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/you+know):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Used parenthetically in conversation, as to fill pauses or educe the listener's agreement or sympathy: *Please try to be, you know, a little quieter*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case people are used to say something analogue in Russian, which expression can be used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="8cdf95f4-e856-41ca-b1e9-6cdba0b45a25" CreationDate="2013-04-22T16:51:45.807" UserId="487" Text="Russian equivalent of expression &quot;you know&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="8cdf95f4-e856-41ca-b1e9-6cdba0b45a25" CreationDate="2013-04-22T16:51:45.807" UserId="487" Text="|выражения|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="bda217bc-5097-4170-ae36-cbb79bec0617" CreationDate="2013-04-22T17:03:43.020" UserId="134" Text="Those expressions are called &quot;filters&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, as most languages, has many of them: *как бы, типа, знаешь, так сказать* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They usually don't need to be translated verbatim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Постарайся вести себя, ну, знаешь, потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя как бы потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя, типа, потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя, так сказать, потише&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are all valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian linguistics, those are called &quot;parasitic words&quot; (*слова-паразиты*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7686" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="3cf98bd0-557b-4385-8a9a-d366384b85f4" CreationDate="2013-04-22T17:08:42.537" UserId="487" Comment="added tag" Text="|выражения|idioms|слова-паразиты|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="f0029fbb-031c-45b2-9119-c6358ec0e158" CreationDate="2013-04-22T17:32:55.513" UserId="487" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Sometimes I feel the need to fill a gap, while conversing, with something that in English would be filled with &quot;you know&quot; in the sense described by [thefreedictionary.com](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/you+know):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Used parenthetically in conversation, as to fill pauses or educe the listener's agreement or sympathy: *Please try to be, you know, a little quieter*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case people are used to say something analogue in Russian, which expression can be used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="914a77a6-bef9-4c1f-b027-91372274e7a4" CreationDate="2013-04-22T17:47:38.400" UserId="194" Text="&quot;**знаешь ли**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знаешь ли, дорогой, веди себя, потише.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7689" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2173" RevisionGUID="8b714711-8a14-4680-b730-b6b1e3d519bd" CreationDate="2013-04-23T00:09:54.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/326488062970449920" />
  <row Id="7690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="9258a83d-dc41-4e36-8d7c-43d914373940" CreationDate="2013-04-23T06:35:41.997" UserId="1097" Comment="fix typo, add links." Text="Those expressions are called &quot;[fillers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(linguistics))&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, as most languages, has many of them: *как бы, типа, знаешь, так сказать* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They usually don't need to be translated verbatim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Постарайся вести себя, ну, знаешь, потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя как бы потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя, типа, потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя, так сказать, потише&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are all valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian linguistics, those are called &quot;parasitic words&quot; ([слова-паразиты](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8B))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7691" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="9258a83d-dc41-4e36-8d7c-43d914373940" CreationDate="2013-04-23T06:35:41.997" Comment="Proposed by 1097 approved by 242, -1 edit id of 362" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2174" RevisionGUID="5f16cbcd-38e6-4025-8a4d-b55a2ace29a3" CreationDate="2013-04-23T06:35:41.997" UserId="134" Comment="fix typo, add links." Text="Those expressions are called &quot;fillers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, as most languages, has many of them: *как бы, типа, знаешь, так сказать* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They usually don't need to be translated verbatim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Постарайся вести себя, ну, знаешь, потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя как бы потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя, типа, потише&#xD;&#xA;* Постарайся вести себя, так сказать, потише&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are all valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian linguistics, those are called &quot;parasitic words&quot; (*слова-паразиты*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2176" RevisionGUID="ba448d3e-4b3f-437b-9f86-0f26d852a20d" CreationDate="2013-04-23T17:29:14.287" UserId="115" Text="Here are some more possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Слышишь, веди себя потише. &#xD;&#xA; - Видишь ли, надо себя вести потише.&#xD;&#xA; - Веди себя, понимаешь, потише." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="052b2066-abcf-4998-9e6f-3e5081a1a2f3" CreationDate="2013-04-24T02:46:44.110" UserId="197" Text="Looking помнить and вспомнить up in a dictionary yields the same results. Is there any difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="052b2066-abcf-4998-9e6f-3e5081a1a2f3" CreationDate="2013-04-24T02:46:44.110" UserId="197" Text="What's the difference between помнить and вспомнить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="052b2066-abcf-4998-9e6f-3e5081a1a2f3" CreationDate="2013-04-24T02:46:44.110" UserId="197" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="b648ca85-4112-462a-bbb5-14783eb05a2d" CreationDate="2013-04-24T04:08:31.047" UserId="242" Text="`Помнить` is just &quot;to remember&quot; in sense to keep in mind, to retain (in the memory), so it is not bind any temporal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to `вспомнить` is &quot;to recall&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="d7250770-4647-4f9b-a520-9992390e07a1" CreationDate="2013-04-24T04:13:52.427" UserId="242" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="`Помнить` is just &quot;to remember&quot; in sense to keep in mind, to retain (in the memory), so it is not bind any temporal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to `вспомнить` is &quot;to recall&quot;, &quot;to recollect&quot;. So it is something about having something in mind again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мария помнит о работе. (Maria [always] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA; - Мария вспомнила о работе. (Maria [suddenly] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you are confused because in English you can express both of this with remember, but, be warned, in Russian phrase such like &quot;он вдруг помнил&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="79619960-0bdd-4449-b1a9-dd9fd393e80f" CreationDate="2013-04-24T04:23:41.510" UserId="242" Comment="added section about a wider context" Text="`Помнить` is just &quot;to remember&quot; in sense to keep in mind, to retain (in the memory), so it is not bind any temporal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to `вспомнить` is &quot;to recall&quot;, &quot;to recollect&quot;. So it is something about having something in mind again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мария помнит о работе. (Maria [always] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA; - Мария вспомнила о работе. (Maria [suddenly] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you are confused because in English you can express both of this with remember, but, be warned, in Russian phrase such like &quot;он вдруг помнил&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that by adding prefix `вс-` (or `вз-` with voiced consonants) to some other verbs gives an [additional sense of suddenness][1] as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="30623d61-d89e-432e-9d8f-b02eb618fa79" CreationDate="2013-04-24T06:25:05.203" UserId="242" Comment="a better word" Text="`Помнить` is just &quot;to remember&quot; in sense to keep in mind, to retain (in the memory), so it is not bind any temporal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to `вспомнить` is &quot;to recall&quot;, &quot;to recollect&quot;. So it is something about having something in mind again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мария помнит о работе. (Maria [always] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA; - Мария вспомнила о работе. (Maria [suddenly] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you are confused because in English you can express both of this with remember, but, be warned, in Russian phrase such like &quot;он вдруг помнил&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that by adding prefix `вс-` (or `вз-` with voiced consonants) to some other verbs gives an [connotation of suddenness][1] as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="68f5be36-dcc2-485a-a070-0905c67d2880" CreationDate="2013-04-24T06:37:08.180" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="`Помнить` is just &quot;to remember&quot; in sense to keep in mind, to retain (in the memory), so it is not bind any temporal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to `вспомнить` is &quot;to recall&quot;, &quot;to recollect&quot;. So it is something about having something in mind again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мария помнит о работе. (Maria [always] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA; - Мария вспомнила о работе. ([All of a sudden] Maria remembered about the job).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you are confused because in English you can express both of this with remember, but, be warned, in Russian phrase such like &quot;он вдруг помнил&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that by adding prefix `вс-` (or `вз-` with voiced consonants) to some other verbs gives an [connotation of suddenness][1] as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2178" RevisionGUID="c2a13187-048c-4417-b69d-33426955376f" CreationDate="2013-04-24T08:22:19.977" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="`Помнить` is just &quot;to remember&quot; in sense to keep in mind, to retain (in the memory), so it is not bind any temporal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to `вспомнить` is &quot;to recall&quot;, &quot;to recollect&quot;. So it is something about having something in mind again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мария помнит о работе. (Maria [always] remembers about the job).&#xD;&#xA; - Мария вспомнила о работе. ([All of a sudden] Maria remembered about the job).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess you are confused because in English you can express both of this with remember, but, be warned, in Russian phrase such like &quot;он вдруг помнил&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that by adding prefix `вс-` (or `вз-` with voiced consonants) to some other verbs gives a [connotation of suddenness][1] as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7704" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2167" RevisionGUID="e32008bc-78e7-42ed-9b98-85bd19b6e8a8" CreationDate="2013-04-24T09:10:01.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/326986373577973760" />
  <row Id="7706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2164" RevisionGUID="1716cc9b-16ac-4a8e-bb37-15db8cf06caf" CreationDate="2013-04-24T14:44:15.973" UserId="1613" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="You have indeed a double negation in russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу не разговаривать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't (what can't i?) (NEGATION) speaking, means &quot;I can't remain silent&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in case of any question words used with prefix &quot;ни&quot;, those enhance the negation effect (it is called &quot;усиление отрицания&quot;). The list includes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде, никогда, ниоткуда, никак, нисколько etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, f.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Я никогда не был доволен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Я нигде не побывал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Я нисколько не расстроен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pay attention to the other case, when question words are written separately with 'ни' and the sentence has overall a different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Я не знаю ни где он был, ни когда, ни зачем он туда отправился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you state: &quot;Я не знаю&quot; (I don't know) and then you enumerate, which information do you miss:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;где он был &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;когда [он там был]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;зачем он туда отправился&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three &quot;ни&quot; are optional here and you can omit them. They mark out, that neither of those facts is known to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you omit them, the sentence sounds very formal and emotionally detached:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не знаю где он был, когда, зачем он туда отправился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping them is what a native speaker usually does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2175" RevisionGUID="0ad32bce-df3d-419f-a9b0-6d0d0bc7ce0b" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:18:59.680" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&quot;**знаешь ли**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знаешь ли, дорогой, веди себя потише.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7711" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2177" RevisionGUID="e3790da0-45a7-4cc4-850a-a03c9570aa6e" CreationDate="2013-04-24T21:10:00.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/327167565103251456" />
  <row Id="7712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2180" RevisionGUID="bd78d85c-274f-405a-b267-db36cbe8c6d7" CreationDate="2013-04-24T22:46:42.693" UserId="1632" Text="I suspect that this question may be both too specific *and* too vague for this forum, but here goes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently tried to watch the film &quot;Жила-была одна баба&quot; (2011) -- I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone reading this, but I do think it has garnered some awards and is relatively well-known, perhaps because it provides such a graphic (some might say gruesome) depiction of Russian provincial life at the start of the 20th century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of its artistic merits, though, the one thing that struck me about the film is that -- for me at least -- most of the dialogue is basically *incomprehensible*. Needless to say, I am not a native speaker, but I studied, lived and worked in Russia for many years, and I've always thought that my grasp of the language was very good -- in any event, I have absolutely no trouble following Russian-language movies where the dialogue is more...contemporary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question is this -- for those among you who have seen the film, is the dialogue at all challenging to understand? Or is it just me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of what is interesting to me about this is that underscores how subtle language can be -- &quot;uneducated&quot; or &quot;sub-standard&quot; speech (in any language) is NOT &quot;simple&quot;...in fact, it is often just the opposite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing that this reminds me of is that Russian seems to have more &quot;sub-standard&quot; variants than, say, American English -- not sure that urban or rural American English can offer anything like &quot;Феня&quot; for example. But again, that may just be me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2180" RevisionGUID="bd78d85c-274f-405a-b267-db36cbe8c6d7" CreationDate="2013-04-24T22:46:42.693" UserId="1632" Text="Comprehensibility of &quot;Sub-Standard&quot; Speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2180" RevisionGUID="bd78d85c-274f-405a-b267-db36cbe8c6d7" CreationDate="2013-04-24T22:46:42.693" UserId="1632" Text="|история-языка|лингвистика|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2181" RevisionGUID="a71e18ef-1a02-4bb5-90c8-43b717cc1d48" CreationDate="2013-04-25T00:57:55.163" UserId="1236" Text="The action of the film is set near the city of Tambov (Тамбов), the characters speak the dialect of that region, the Eastern variant of the [Southern Russian dialect][1], Tambov is in the east of the red area on the map there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for me, a native Russian speaker, it's quite easy to understand everything they say in the film, although I've never been exposed to that kind of dialect in any way. Still, it is a dialect, it has many words transformed, it has some morphological differences from the standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can suggest for you to facilitate it somehow, is watching this film with subtitles. [Here][2] it is, you can watch it online with Russian subtitles in that dialect, it's not the translation into the standard Russian (scroll the page down, the film is closer to the bottom of the page). I hope this will help you to see why it was difficult to make it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Russian_dialects&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://new.deaf-club.ru/films_sub/drama/3911-zhila-byla-odna-baba-s-russkimi-subtitrami-film-smotret-onlayn-besplatno.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://vk.com/video95567136_162619570?hash=edb9029b44e946a9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2182" RevisionGUID="c489b742-7f8b-4356-a051-6606f9ae79b8" CreationDate="2013-04-25T12:33:48.673" UserId="194" Text="I would not be confident in the accuracy of this film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Russian Wikipedia, the critics called it &quot;specimen of anti-Bolshevist propaganda&quot;, produced for the elections and sponsored by the wealthiest Russian oligarchs. The ethnographic accuracy also was criticized. The actors were taught to speak &quot;Tambov dialect&quot; rather than being natural speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At times it is evident that the actors &quot;overplay&quot; with it. In one scene a Jewish Bolshevist commissar speaks a very exaggerated stereotypical Jewish accent (that is wrong pronounciation of &quot;r&quot;). This level of exaggeration is very unnatural and never can be seen in real life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2151" RevisionGUID="c26ce400-a95f-4e69-b40d-e3a524b62344" CreationDate="2013-04-25T15:10:02.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/327439363048886273" />
  <row Id="7718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="3427b558-e6c9-438b-b40f-f4cc0be6edb8" CreationDate="2013-04-25T17:38:02.887" UserId="1633" Text="In other words how to translate this line:&#xD;&#xA;`Ласточка с весною в сени к нам летит`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="3427b558-e6c9-438b-b40f-f4cc0be6edb8" CreationDate="2013-04-25T17:38:02.887" UserId="1633" Text="How to translate the word &quot;cени&quot; to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="3427b558-e6c9-438b-b40f-f4cc0be6edb8" CreationDate="2013-04-25T17:38:02.887" UserId="1633" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7721" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2116" RevisionGUID="84c00331-0f5a-4107-bbd5-f1a59fbc75f6" CreationDate="2013-04-25T18:10:01.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/327484660160532481" />
  <row Id="7722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2184" RevisionGUID="18bd4e5b-1bce-4aa9-8218-668a860da15f" CreationDate="2013-04-25T21:33:23.177" UserId="1604" Text="porch... Something like &quot;It's spring. Swallow sits on our porch&quot;. Obviously, my translation lacks poetic beauty :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="99a7b22e-23b3-4030-80ec-21b1574ca2f1" CreationDate="2013-04-25T23:20:10.133" UserId="1573" Text="It's kind of non-habitable inner porch, typically used for storage, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there during a summer. Sometimes it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual porch, if there is one. I think vestibule is probably the closest English equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="cbef03a7-1bd6-4d7f-b36e-af4bf8545c5c" CreationDate="2013-04-25T23:25:12.577" UserId="1573" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="It's kind of non-habitable inner porch, typically used for storage of coats and shoes, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there during a summer. Often it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual (outer) porch, if there is one. I think mudroom is probably the closest English equivalent. Vestibule or entryway are two other possibilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![mudroom?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="0c689159-e306-466b-b76c-e01e4f7ed499" CreationDate="2013-04-25T23:46:47.317" UserId="1573" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="It's kind of non-residential inner porch, typically used for storage of coats and shoes, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there in the summer. Often it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual (outer) porch, if there is one. I think mudroom is probably the closest English equivalent. Vestibule or entryway are two other possibilities. The only problem with mudroom is that it is often a secondary entrance to the house, which is usually not the case with сени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the photo below, you can see the heavy door leading into the main house as well as the doorway to outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![mudroom?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="b4989051-326d-4286-959d-6dc91121abd8" CreationDate="2013-04-26T00:00:57.183" UserId="1573" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Although one swallow does not a summer make, it might be enough for spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cени is a kind of non-residential inner porch, typically used for storage of coats and shoes, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there in the summer. Often it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual (outer) porch, if there is one. I think mudroom is probably the closest English equivalent. Vestibule or entryway are two other possibilities. The only problem with mudroom is that it is often a secondary entrance to the house, which is usually not the case with сени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the photo below, you can see the heavy door leading into the main house as well as the doorway to outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![mudroom?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7727" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2183" RevisionGUID="e423d7b8-201e-42a7-83c3-472d412ba098" CreationDate="2013-04-26T08:18:29.040" UserId="134" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7728" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2115" RevisionGUID="cbf2badf-de70-4f23-90f7-401690bbde42" CreationDate="2013-04-26T12:10:02.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/327756454956257280" />
  <row Id="7732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="62c20333-3a6d-4f00-a318-2cbf0835a729" CreationDate="2013-04-26T22:23:47.293" UserId="1573" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Although one swallow does not a summer make, it might be enough for spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cени is a kind of non-residential inner porch, typically used for storage of coats and shoes, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there in the summer. Often it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual (outer) porch (крыльцо), if there is one. I think mudroom is probably the closest English equivalent. Vestibule or entryway are two other possibilities. The only problem with mudroom is that it is often a secondary entrance to the house, which is usually not the case with сени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the photo below, you can see the heavy door leading into the main house as well as the doorway to outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![mudroom?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="7fb8c15d-2b63-4dd2-b9af-6f7911c2c350" CreationDate="2013-04-27T15:21:56.653" UserId="1641" Text="In a journal article I came across a claim that &quot;сноск&quot; is the &quot;genitive plural zero ending&quot; form of the word &quot;сноска&quot; (English: footnote).  However, a Russian speaker I know is insistent that this is incorrect, and that the only correct genitive form is &quot;сносок&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Google search for &quot;сноск&quot; doesn't turn up any uses which can't be discounted as typos for &quot;сноска&quot; or other forms.  We also can't find the form &quot;сноск&quot; in any online dictionary which gives inflectional tables.  Can anyone here confirm whether the form &quot;сноск&quot; is actually attested anywhere in print?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="7fb8c15d-2b63-4dd2-b9af-6f7911c2c350" CreationDate="2013-04-27T15:21:56.653" UserId="1641" Text="Is &quot;сноск&quot; a correct inflection of &quot;сноска&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="7fb8c15d-2b63-4dd2-b9af-6f7911c2c350" CreationDate="2013-04-27T15:21:56.653" UserId="1641" Text="|склонение|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2190" RevisionGUID="7e00907d-9637-4fb7-80a7-c542a4abf05e" CreationDate="2013-04-27T17:50:31.713" UserId="242" Text="The thing is in Russian there are tens of different types of noun declensions, the most well known and widely accepted classification of such patterns is one that had been assembled by Andrey Zaliznyak, a famous Russian linguist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this classification, the word &quot;сноска&quot; [belongs to][1] 3*a type of Russian nouns. That is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [the stem][2] of the word (this should not be confused with [the root][3] of the word, it is slightly a different concept) ends with `г`, `к` или `х`&#xD;&#xA; - the stem is always stressed&#xD;&#xA; - there is so called `беглая гласная` in the stem, which means that, depending on declension vowel is or not present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To decipher, yes, according to Zaliznyaks` classification the only accepted form for word сноска is &quot;сносок&quot;. I cannot recall any moment on Russian language history when сноск had been an accepted form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_stem&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_%28linguistics%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2191" RevisionGUID="7d1dc3e3-cbc2-4060-9973-4aa63c837b99" CreationDate="2013-04-27T18:38:27.307" UserId="134" Text="As with other nouns ending with the diminutive suffixes *-ок*, *-ка*; the *-о-* in the suffix is fleeting, meaning that it falls in the penultimate position and retains in the ultimate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пал-&amp;empty;-ка - палок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; носок - нос-&amp;empty;-ка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a trace of such called reduced vowel *ъ* which historically was in the suffix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; палъка / палъкъ &gt; палка / палок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; носъкъ / носъка &gt; носок / носка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So correct form of *сноска* (*&lt; cъносъка*) in sg. gen. would be *сносок*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These is another suffix *-ок* in Russian which is not diminutive and etymologically not connected to *-ък* in the words *ходок, игрок* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words don't have a fleeting vowel: in the suffix: *ходока, игрока* (with exception of *стрелок / стрелка* which is most probably due to contamination)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2191" RevisionGUID="91cc70f9-b342-4ff9-b7af-4c40c561a5d3" CreationDate="2013-04-27T19:40:05.893" UserId="47" Comment="typos corrected" Text="As with other nouns ending with the diminutive suffixes *-ок* and *-ка*, the *-о-* in the suffix is fleeting. It falls in the penultimate position and retains in the ultimate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пал-&amp;empty;-ка - палок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; носок - нос-&amp;empty;-ка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a trace of so called reduced vowel *ъ* which historically was in the suffix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; палъка / палъкъ &gt; палка / палок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; носъкъ / носъка &gt; носок / носка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the correct form of *сноска* (*&lt; cъносъка*) in pl. gen. would be *сносок*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These is another suffix *-ок* in Russian which is not diminutive and etymologically not connected to *-ък* in the words *ходок, игрок* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words don't have a fleeting vowel: in the suffix: *ходока, игрока* (with exception of *стрелок / стрелка* which is most probably due to contamination)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="eec04fdf-7fe3-44fc-a510-eb7b98d130ab" CreationDate="2013-04-27T19:43:16.890" UserId="47" Comment="minor English corrections" Text="Although one swallow does not make summer, it might be enough for spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cени is a kind of non-residential inner porch, typically used for storage of coats and shoes, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there in the summer. Often it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual (outer) porch (крыльцо), if there is one. I think mudroom is probably the closest English equivalent. Vestibule or entryway are two other possibilities. The only problem with mudroom is that it is often a secondary entrance to the house, which is usually not the case with сени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the photo below, you can see the heavy door leading into the main house as well as the doorway to outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![mudroom?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2192" RevisionGUID="3703c980-44fd-4de6-b72e-92c73dc9355f" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:11:36.997" UserId="1645" Text="How to understend &quot;да нет наверно&quot; like an unswer ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Будешь чай ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Да нет наверно...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2192" RevisionGUID="3703c980-44fd-4de6-b72e-92c73dc9355f" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:11:36.997" UserId="1645" Text="How do you understend &quot;да нет наверно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2192" RevisionGUID="3703c980-44fd-4de6-b72e-92c73dc9355f" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:11:36.997" UserId="1645" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7748" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2192" RevisionGUID="a185d6a8-4a46-40a5-b696-d456016b82a7" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:37:00.030" UserId="242" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1734],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2191" RevisionGUID="33655aca-2f96-49c9-98f6-fdcc6d6aa0e6" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:52:33.277" UserId="134" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="As with other nouns ending with the diminutive suffixes *-ок* and *-ка*, the *-о-* in the suffix is fleeting. It falls in the penultimate position and retains in the ultimate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пал-&amp;empty;-ка - палок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; носок - нос-&amp;empty;-ка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a trace of so called reduced vowel *ъ* which historically was in the suffix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; палъка / палъкъ &gt; палка / палок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; носъкъ / носъка &gt; носок / носка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the correct form of *сноска* (*&lt; cъносъка*) in pl. gen. would be *сносок*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exists another suffix *-ок* in Russian (which is not diminutive and etymologically not connected to *-ък*) in the words *ходок, игрок* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words don't have a fleeting vowel in the suffix: *ходока, игрока* (with exception of *стрелок / стрелка* which is most probably due to contamination)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="b77447ba-9fae-47f6-8d23-64988fdff823" CreationDate="2013-04-29T12:10:20.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/328843694780317696" />
  <row Id="7752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2193" RevisionGUID="8f516de3-4619-49cf-9ac4-dc9be3e393d3" CreationDate="2013-04-29T17:35:19.713" UserId="1650" Text="I guess &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; in Russian and English are quite similar. It depends, however, on what deepness of language one wants to master. If someone wants to ask &quot;Do you want coffee?&quot; and one answers &quot;да&quot; for yes or &quot;нет&quot; for no, there is no difference. However, in Russian &quot;да&quot; in some cases acts as a conjunction meaning &quot;and&quot;, e.g. &quot;Иван-да-Марья&quot; (literally &quot;Ivan and Mary&quot;) is a name of a plant. Nowadays, &quot;да&quot; is used as a conjunction only in a small number of cases, mainly in expressions like &quot;да нет&quot; (a weaker or less-sure &quot;no&quot;) or &quot;да нет, наверное&quot; (a even weaker form, where the person is not sure whether he agrees or disagrees, but slightly more disagrees) and in proverbs like &quot;мал да удал&quot; (small but clever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer &quot;да&quot; to &quot;Ты его не знаешь?&quot; is not very clear for Russians too, but is grammatically and stylistically possible. Some people will ask '&quot;да&quot; what?' to know for sure what one means - &quot;yes, you know him&quot; or &quot;no, I don't know him&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2194" RevisionGUID="10143c84-5927-4329-8f72-18bdb82aad03" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:07:44.067" UserId="1651" Text="When learning Russian, the most complicated thing for me has always been the pronunciation of the Russian letter 'o'. You know, it's sometimes pronounced like 'a' (like in 'Moskva'), and sometimes pronounced like 'o' (like in 'dom'), depending on the position and the stress of the syllable (and maybe other factors). The pronunciation rules don't seem to be consistent, there are many exceptions, so you basically have to remember for every single word how it's pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be a vague question, but I want to know how much of a problem it actually is when I make mistakes regarding this rule. Let's say I make my life easier and always pronounce 'o' like 'o', will a Russian still understand me? Will the words change their meaning? Will it sound funny?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is there a very basic rule to get at least 9/10 of these words right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2194" RevisionGUID="10143c84-5927-4329-8f72-18bdb82aad03" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:07:44.067" UserId="1651" Text="Is it bad if I don't bother to pronounce 'o' correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2194" RevisionGUID="10143c84-5927-4329-8f72-18bdb82aad03" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:07:44.067" UserId="1651" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2195" RevisionGUID="4cd7f5de-0e9d-44f5-a8dd-412cde5072c6" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:45:05.680" UserId="242" Text="Let's start from the and. As of rule of thumb which will help you to memorize cases whether you should pronounce `а` or `о` (strict phonology purists, don't judge me hard, you know what I mean), strictly speaking there's no such rule of thumb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say, wait, actually there is such rule, since `o` is pronounces like `а` only in unstressed positions, but this is quite delusive, since that actually means that you should memorize the stress patterns. And actually there are some pattern, but I would strongly advise you to memorize each word you need to learn separately. The thing is that such patterns are by no means rules and do not cover all the cases. There's a classic triple зо́лото/боло́то/молоко́.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, but if one had insisted I should present him such rule, I guess I'd say: don't bother with stressing prefixes (so, сопричастность, соучастие - all of these is pronounced with `a`, exceptions like помОщь will be excused to a foreigner); always pronounce `о` in monosyllabic words (there's just no other place you can put the stress).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for errors in pronouncing. Well, saying `а` instead of `о` where it is actually is pronounced is a very rude mistake which can make your speech unintelligible. No one says  `ан` instead of `он`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2196" RevisionGUID="a190650f-833c-4022-9078-b74e02a274ff" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:46:22.997" UserId="134" Text="Yes, Russians will understand you, but such a pronunciation will sound hypercorrect. It will seem like you're spelling the words instead of pronouncing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Russian dialects exhibit phenomenonon of &quot;okanye&quot; (*оканье*) which makes unstressed *о* and *а* to be pronounced differently. You may sound like a speaker of one of those dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian rendition of Church Slavonic also forbids vowel reduction, so a person speaking with such a pronunciation may resemble a priest reciting a Church Slavonic text to a Russian speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="40b7f864-c627-4215-ab2c-058e036029b3" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:53:43.220" UserId="194" Text="It is not that bad. The words will not change their meanings and possibly in some cases you will be understood even better. If you are a novice language learner I suggest just to forget about vowel reduction.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2195" RevisionGUID="b9fb7bc6-9d30-4c75-9b41-e1565401d235" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:56:42.590" UserId="242" Comment="added 643 characters in body" Text="Let's start from the and. As of rule of thumb which will help you to memorize cases whether you should pronounce `а` or `о` (strict phonology purists, don't judge me hard, you know what I mean), strictly speaking there's no such rule of thumb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say, wait, actually there is such rule, since `o` is pronounces like `а` only in unstressed positions, but this is quite delusive, since that actually means that you should memorize the stress patterns. And actually there are some pattern, but I would strongly advise you to memorize each word you need to learn separately. The thing is that such patterns are by no means rules and do not cover all the cases. There's a classic triple зо́лото/боло́то/молоко́.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, but if one had insisted I should present him such rule, I guess I'd say: don't bother with stressing prefixes (so, сопричастность, соучастие - all of these is pronounced with `a`, mispronounced words like помОщь or памащь will be excused to a foreigner); always pronounce `о` in monosyllabic words (there's just no other place you can put the stress).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for errors in pronouncing. Well, saying `а` instead of `о` where it is actually is pronounced is a very rude mistake which can make your speech unintelligible. No one says  `ан` instead of `он`. Pronouncing `o` instead of `a` also is quite a big deal. But pronouncing `о` without reduction well be 100% understandable ti any native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as @Quassnoi had already mentioned, you will sound definitely outdated and theatrical but as to me, this is a common mistake each novice language learner is doing: trying to pronounce everything as native speaker does. Well, you won't. It takes years to get decent native-like pronunciation. But if your vocabulary is reach, you is irreproachable, many of phonetics mistakes will be forgiven. Moreover, the number of such mistakes will surprisingly decrease with time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="27946934-3e59-4783-a24d-12e573281cdb" CreationDate="2013-04-29T19:59:04.693" UserId="194" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="It is not that bad. The words will not change their meanings and possibly in some cases you will be understood even better. If you are a novice language learner I suggest just to forget about vowel reduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example are the words **кампания** &quot;campaign&quot; and **компания** &quot;company&quot;. With vowel reduction they are indistinguishable, so to be understood correctly you may in some cases pronounce the fist vowel without reduction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2185" RevisionGUID="d44870d7-cb78-4ee1-9c3e-eed943447be4" CreationDate="2013-04-29T21:14:42.180" UserId="1573" Comment="One swallow does not a summer make is the original, poetic Aristotle quote." Text="Although one swallow does not a summer make, it might be enough for spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cени is a kind of non-residential inner porch, typically used for storage of coats and shoes, though sometimes you might have guests sleep there in the summer. Often it separates two wings of a house, and opens on to an actual (outer) porch (крыльцо), if there is one. I think mudroom is probably the closest English equivalent. Vestibule or entryway are two other possibilities. The only problem with mudroom is that it is often a secondary entrance to the house, which is usually not the case with сени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the photo below, you can see the heavy door leading into the main house as well as the doorway to outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![mudroom?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xGQcw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7762" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2194" RevisionGUID="9ea2b002-7514-44a5-8093-957dbb2ac619" CreationDate="2013-04-30T00:10:24.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/329024904034914308" />
  <row Id="7763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="4c9c72ec-4e4b-4db2-8fc5-d32119c12d1d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T02:46:22.397" UserId="194" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="It is not that bad. The words will not change their meanings and possibly in some cases you will be understood even better. If you are a novice language learner I suggest just to forget about vowel reduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example are the words **кампания** &quot;campaign&quot; and **компания** &quot;company&quot;. With vowel reduction they are indistinguishable, so to be understood correctly you may in some cases pronounce the fist vowel without reduction. Another example is **маток** vs. **моток**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2195" RevisionGUID="0fb12fab-7630-43fb-9a39-4715b522d8ae" CreationDate="2013-04-30T11:03:18.123" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Let's start from the and. As of rule of thumb which will help you to memorize cases whether you should pronounce `а` or `о` (strict phonology purists, don't judge me hard, you know what I mean), strictly speaking there's no such rule of thumb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say, wait, actually there is such rule, since `o` is pronounces like `а` only in unstressed positions, but this is quite delusive, since that actually means that you should memorize the stress patterns. And actually there are some pattern, but I would strongly advise you to memorize each word you need to learn separately. The thing is that such patterns are by no means rules and do not cover all the cases. There's a classic triple зо́лото/боло́то/молоко́.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, but if one had insisted I should present him such rule, I guess I'd say: don't bother with stressing prefixes (so, сопричастность, соучастие - all of these is pronounced with `a`, mispronounced words like помОщь or памащь will be excused to a foreigner); always pronounce `о` in monosyllabic words (there's just no other place you can put the stress).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for errors in pronouncing. Well, saying `а` instead of `о` where it is actually is pronounced is a very rude mistake which can make your speech unintelligible. No one says  `ан` instead of `он`. Pronouncing `o` instead of `a` also is quite a big deal. But pronouncing `о` without reduction well be 100% understandable ti any native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, as @Quassnoi had already mentioned, you will sound definitely outdated and theatrical but as to me, this is a common mistake each novice language learner is doing: trying to pronounce everything as native speaker does. Well, you won't. It takes years to get decent native-like pronunciation. But if your vocabulary is reach, you grammar is irreproachable, many of phonetics mistakes will be forgiven. Moreover, the number of such mistakes will surprisingly decrease with time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2198" RevisionGUID="57419ffb-8f2e-4e36-9272-47e106641db3" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:02:42.077" UserId="1652" Text="Often in russian the names are changed `Александра - Александр`, which is Alessandra and Alexandre can change, for `Александра`, you might use `Саша` and `Александр` you can use `Саш`. You cannot always literally translate the names from one langage to another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2200" RevisionGUID="e07ef4d7-a864-4724-b0ec-85b9114291f6" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:08:01.490" UserId="1652" Text="A bit late and guess you figured out, but э is like in French `et moi`(and me), the `e` from that word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2201" RevisionGUID="787a1440-84d9-44fa-9023-9aef38784594" CreationDate="2013-05-01T18:32:37.407" UserId="1654" Text="I believe **Яна** is borrowed from some western language, most probably from Polish. In some decades foreign names were very popular among &quot;new parents&quot;. So there is no reason to search for the equivalent in Russian. The equivalent should be Polish **Jan**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="bc74922c-ea0d-4c4a-9cc1-4cf9587f5489" CreationDate="2013-05-01T18:41:40.380" UserId="1654" Text="The word **сноск** sounds quite non-pronounceable and non-understandable for a native speaker (me). Forms of this words are (singular/plural):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;именительный **сноска/сноски**&#xD;&#xA;родительный **сноски/сносок**&#xD;&#xA;дательный **сноске/сноскам**&#xD;&#xA;винительный **сноску/сносок**&#xD;&#xA;творительный **сноской/сносками**&#xD;&#xA;предложный **о сноске/о сносках**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="3ac6c677-6db9-4fc5-a2e2-ec1d37e753ff" CreationDate="2013-05-01T19:25:28.097" UserId="1654" Text="Word **однако** is equal to **но**. It gives some old-style coloration and can be used to accent this word in the sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2202" RevisionGUID="04795a04-c938-49c5-95e5-a1ca5eb017d5" CreationDate="2013-05-01T19:27:34.433" UserId="1654" Comment="edited body" Text="The word **сноск** sounds quite non-pronounceable and non-understandable for a native speaker (me). Forms of this words are (singular/plural):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;именительный **сноска/сноски**&#xD;&#xA;родительный **сноски/сносок**&#xD;&#xA;дательный **сноске/сноскам**&#xD;&#xA;винительный **сноску/сноски**&#xD;&#xA;творительный **сноской/сносками**&#xD;&#xA;предложный **о сноске/о сносках**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2204" RevisionGUID="f777c512-70c9-4c39-a395-a7a382d5d837" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:22:22.223" UserId="1654" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="Word **однако** is equal to **но** (but). It gives some old-style coloration and can be used to stress this word in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other words that can be used instead of **но**: **так**, **дык** (not a formal word), **да** and many more. In some cases **но** can even be omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Хотел поспать, но не получилось.&#xD;&#xA; - Хотел поспать, однако не получилось.&#xD;&#xA; - Хотел поспать, так не получилось.&#xD;&#xA; - Хотел поспать, дык не получилось.&#xD;&#xA; - Хотел поспать, да не получилось.&#xD;&#xA; - Хотел поспать, не получилось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2197" RevisionGUID="4d937dfd-a1e4-4c26-8fbe-0aa0098779be" CreationDate="2013-05-02T01:51:23.780" UserId="194" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="It is not that bad. The words will not change their meanings and possibly in some cases you will be understood even better. If you are a novice language learner I suggest just to forget about vowel reduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example are the words **кампания** &quot;campaign&quot; and **компания** &quot;company&quot;. With vowel reduction they are indistinguishable, so to be understood correctly you may in some cases pronounce the fist vowel without reduction. Another example is **маток** &quot;small mat&quot; vs. **моток** &quot;skein&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2159" RevisionGUID="14d086a0-6434-49e4-a9cd-fc23f509c405" CreationDate="2013-05-02T15:10:41.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/329976244378681346" />
  <row Id="7777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="706c6b42-111d-403a-b8df-2300dce7fe8c" CreationDate="2013-05-03T03:21:54.243" UserId="487" Text="I came across different translations of *PhD*. I'm always unsure how to use those. The title itself, as lingvo states, can be translated as *доктор философии*. I've sometimes heard *доктор наук* too, which I guess is the particular title granted to any *PhD* studies concerning a scientific discipline. Another term that a (non-academic) Russian mentioned is *диссертаця* (which, etimologycally suggests it's the *PhD* thesis or the dissertation itself) as a translation for PhD. The last (as for me, confusing) term is *&quot;аспирантура&quot;*, which again I've seen as a translation of *PhD*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is: how to say in Russian &quot;He studies a PhD&quot; &quot;She has a PhD&quot; &quot;I write a PhD thesis&quot;, and &quot;They are studying a PhD&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="706c6b42-111d-403a-b8df-2300dce7fe8c" CreationDate="2013-05-03T03:21:54.243" UserId="487" Text="Translation for &quot;PhD&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="706c6b42-111d-403a-b8df-2300dce7fe8c" CreationDate="2013-05-03T03:21:54.243" UserId="487" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2206" RevisionGUID="227d7016-c9ad-4999-9ee7-4712b40786d2" CreationDate="2013-05-03T04:05:03.023" UserId="194" Text="The correct translation is **кандидат наук**. &quot;Доктор наук&quot; is higher (= D.Sci), &quot;аспирант&quot; is a Ph.D student. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="5107476d-f684-477b-b076-13d6764dd23c" CreationDate="2013-05-03T04:10:50.183" UserId="487" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I came across different translations of *PhD*. I'm always unsure how to use those. The title itself, as lingvo states, can be translated as *доктор философии*. I've sometimes heard *доктор наук* too, which I guess is the particular title granted to any *PhD* studies concerning a scientific discipline. Another term that a (non-academic) Russian mentioned is *диссертаця* (which, etimologycally suggests it's the *PhD* thesis or the dissertation itself) as a translation for PhD. The last (as for me, confusing) term is *&quot;аспирантура&quot;*, which again I've seen as a translation of *PhD*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Which are the actual differences between those translations? &#xD;&#xA; - How to say in Russian &quot;He studies a PhD&quot; &quot;She has a PhD&quot; &quot;I write a PhD thesis&quot;, and &quot;They are studying a PhD&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2207" RevisionGUID="1dc3d8d8-c50a-4222-8fe3-fcf3f9370b8d" CreationDate="2013-05-03T05:20:35.543" UserId="1329" Text="I'd better begin with the easiest part - the required translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - He studies a PhD. - Он учится в аспирантуре. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - He's a PhD student. - Он аспирант. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - She has a PhD. - Она кандидат наук. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I write a PhD thesis. - Я пишу кандидатскую диссертацию. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I write a PhD thesis. - Я пишу кандидатскую. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - They are studying a PhD. - Они учатся в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - He has a DPhil. - Он доктор философских наук.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;доктор наук&quot; doesn't have an equivalent in English, but it is one level higher than PhD. In specific fields of studies, however, it has a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - DPhil - доктор философии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - MUDr  - доктор медицинских наук&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - D.Litt  - доктор словесных наук  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - D.Sc  - доктор естественных наук&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - LL.D  - доктор права&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the word &quot;диссертация&quot; can refer either to PhD or Doctor of Science thesis. If it is not clear from the context, you can add adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Он защитил докторскую диссертацию / кандидатскую диссертацию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often those adjectives are used as substantives :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Он защитил *(что?)* докторскую / кандидатскую. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of thesis defense is called защита докторской / кандидатской.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uREyE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a sort of sausage called &quot;докторская&quot;, feel free to delete this picture ˆ__ˆ ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, let's continue. The difference between those translations is that PhD can refer to :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - current studies at University  - then it means &quot;аспирантура&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an academic degree - then it means &quot;кандидат наук&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a person who is capped with that degree is also &quot;кандидат наук&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a person that is currently in the middle of PhD studies - &quot;аспирант&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a PhD thesis - &quot;кандидатская диссертация&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last - some notes on usage of those words. Don't be surprised to hear &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он получил кандидата наук&quot; or &quot;Он защитил кандидата наук&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't mean that he received a person by post or that he protected a poor PhD student from bullies. It only means that he was finally assigned PhD degree ˆ_ˆ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All degrees are used with Genitiv, so we don't say &quot;степень кандидат наук&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but &quot;степень *(кого? чего?)* кандидата наук&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7783" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2205" RevisionGUID="671a1f56-ef0a-4b34-9407-14a1e1dd986d" CreationDate="2013-05-03T06:10:47.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/330202759049662464" />
  <row Id="7785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2207" RevisionGUID="6ff12419-9da8-4699-8574-807a1f6cfbcb" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:48:22.937" UserId="1329" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="I'd better begin with the easiest part - the required translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - He studies a PhD. - Он учится в аспирантуре. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - He's a PhD student. - Он аспирант. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - She has a PhD. - Она кандидат наук. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I write a PhD thesis. - Я пишу кандидатскую диссертацию. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I write a PhD thesis. - Я пишу кандидатскую. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - They are studying a PhD. - Они учатся в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - He has a DPhil. - Он доктор философских наук.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;доктор наук&quot; doesn't have an equivalent in English, but it is one level higher than PhD. In specific fields of studies, however, it has a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - DPhil - доктор философии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - MUDr  - доктор медицинских наук&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - D.Litt  - доктор словесных наук  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - D.Sc  - доктор естественных наук&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - LL.D  - доктор права&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analogously with &quot;аспирантура&quot;, there exists a word &quot;докторантура&quot;, and the student studying for their Doctor of Science degree is called &quot;докторант&quot; (note how alike it is to &quot;аспирант&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the word &quot;диссертация&quot; can refer either to PhD or Doctor of Science thesis. If it is not clear from the context, you can add adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Он защитил докторскую диссертацию / кандидатскую диссертацию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often those adjectives are used as substantives :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Он защитил *(что?)* докторскую / кандидатскую. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of thesis defense is called защита докторской / кандидатской.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uREyE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a sort of sausage called &quot;докторская&quot;, feel free to delete this picture ˆ__ˆ ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, let's continue. The difference between those translations is that PhD can refer to :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - current studies at University  - then it means &quot;аспирантура&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - an academic degree - then it means &quot;кандидат наук&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a person who is capped with that degree is also &quot;кандидат наук&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a person that is currently in the middle of PhD studies - &quot;аспирант&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - a PhD thesis - &quot;кандидатская диссертация&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last - some notes on usage of those words. Don't be surprised to hear &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он получил кандидата наук&quot; or &quot;Он защитил кандидата наук&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't mean that he received a person by post or that he protected a poor PhD student from bullies. It only means that he was finally assigned PhD degree ˆ_ˆ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All degrees are used with Genitiv, so we don't say &quot;степень кандидат наук&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but &quot;степень *(кого? чего?)* кандидата наук&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="0d6956de-8019-478e-b71c-3b5f69a57f2a" CreationDate="2013-05-03T19:04:21.670" UserId="222" Text="Russian academic degrees are different from those in the rest of the world. Whereas most countries have only one Ph.D. degree, Russia has two degrees “кандидат наук” (*lit.* candidate of science) and “доктор наук” (*lit.* doctor of science). *There is no clear correspondence between Ph.D and these two degrees.* Historically — when the “кандидат наук” and “доктор наук” degrees were introduced in Russia — “доктор наук” was meant to be equivalent to Western European Ph.D. and “кандидат наук” to be equivalent or similar to master's degree. However, nowadays many people would argue that “доктор наук” is a higher degree than Ph.D., and “кандидат наук” is more or less equivalent to Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That being said, PhD has always been translated to Russian as “доктор философии” (not “доктор наук”, not “доктор философских наук”).** The translation “кандидат наук” is incorrect. For example, if you read biographies of foreign scientists in Russian Wikipedia, you will see sentences like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своей *докторской* Гаусс впервые доказал основную теорему алгебры. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “В своей кандидатской Гаусс впервые доказал ...”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1880 году Герц получил степень *доктора философии* в Берлинском университете [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “Герц получил степень кандидата наук.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Даниель Рутерфорд получил] образование в Эдинбургском университете, где и получил степень *доктора* в 1772 году за работу под названием «De aëre mephitica» [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, both Russian degrees are often translated to English as PhD." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="6eee71a1-7834-4d02-bbef-71791ad462c3" CreationDate="2013-05-03T19:18:00.567" UserId="222" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="Russian academic degrees are different from those in the rest of the world. Whereas most countries have only one Ph.D. degree, Russia has two degrees “кандидат наук” (*lit.* candidate of science) and “доктор наук” (*lit.* doctor of science). *There is no clear correspondence between Ph.D and these two degrees.* Historically — when the “кандидат наук” and “доктор наук” degrees were introduced in Russia — “доктор наук” was meant to be equivalent to Western European Ph.D. and “кандидат наук” to be equivalent or similar to master's degree. However, nowadays many people would argue that “доктор наук” is a higher degree than Ph.D., and “кандидат наук” is more or less equivalent to Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That being said, PhD has always been translated to Russian as “доктор философии” (not “доктор наук”, not “доктор философских наук”).** The translation “кандидат наук” is incorrect. For example, if you read biographies of foreign scientists in Russian Wikipedia, you will see sentences like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своей *докторской* Гаусс впервые доказал основную теорему алгебры. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “В своей кандидатской Гаусс впервые доказал ...”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1880 году Герц получил степень *доктора философии* в Берлинском университете [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “Герц получил степень кандидата наук.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Даниель Рутерфорд получил] образование в Эдинбургском университете, где и получил степень *доктора* в 1772 году за работу под названием «De aëre mephitica» [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, both Russian degrees are often translated to English as PhD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - диссертация = dissertation or thesis&#xD;&#xA; - аспирант = PhD student&#xD;&#xA; - аспирантура = PhD program &#xD;&#xA; - He studies a PhD = Он в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA; - She has a PhD = Она доктор философии.&#xD;&#xA; - I write a PhD thesis = Я работаю над диссертацией&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="afe97d2f-1390-41e8-a152-0fc2ebbf4f21" CreationDate="2013-05-03T19:24:44.110" UserId="222" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="Russian academic degrees are different from those in the rest of the world. Whereas most countries have only one Ph.D. degree, Russia has two degrees “кандидат наук” (*lit.* candidate of science) and “доктор наук” (*lit.* doctor of science). *There is no clear correspondence between Ph.D and these two degrees.* Historically — when the “кандидат наук” and “доктор наук” degrees were introduced in Russia — “доктор наук” was meant to be equivalent to Western European Ph.D. and “кандидат наук” to be equivalent or similar to master's degree. However, nowadays many people would argue that “доктор наук” is a higher degree than Ph.D., and “кандидат наук” is more or less equivalent to Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That being said, PhD has always been translated to Russian as “доктор философии” (not “доктор наук”, not “доктор философских наук”).** The translation “кандидат наук” is incorrect. For example, if you read biographies of foreign scientists in Russian Wikipedia, you will see sentences like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своей *докторской* Гаусс впервые доказал основную теорему алгебры. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “В своей кандидатской Гаусс впервые доказал ...”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1880 году Герц получил степень *доктора философии* в Берлинском университете [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “Герц получил степень кандидата наук.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Даниель Рутерфорд получил] образование в Эдинбургском университете, где и получил степень *доктора* в 1772 году за работу под названием «De aëre mephitica» [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sometimes both Russian degrees are translated to English as PhD; and sometimes “кандидат наук” is translated as PhD and “доктор наук” is translated as “doctor of science”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - диссертация = dissertation or thesis&#xD;&#xA; - аспирант = PhD student&#xD;&#xA; - аспирантура = PhD program &#xD;&#xA; - He studies a PhD = Он в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA; - She has a PhD = Она доктор философии.&#xD;&#xA; - I write a PhD thesis = Я работаю над диссертацией&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="0e0b8eee-cfcf-444e-80cc-e50ea85c7b20" CreationDate="2013-05-03T21:47:07.427" UserId="1152" Text="In [this rendition][1] of the *Весеннее танго*, I hear &quot;с юга&quot; (for example at 1:04) pronounced as ['st͡sjʉgə]. Am I hearing it right, and, if so, what's the [t͡s] doing there? Is it part of some more general thing? I hear it every time German sings the words so it doesn't seem to be accidental, and, as far as I know, she was a native Russian speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking this because, if it's a real thing, it's very strange to me as a Polish speaker. What we'd do with the onset of the first syllable is voice the /s/, but then the Polish version of &quot;c&quot; is &quot;z&quot;, and it's voiced by default. I don't think Polish speakers insert extra affricates anywhere. (I could be wrong of course, but I'm sure enough to be almost shocked by the Russian thing --- again, if it's real.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE40I9_chaU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="0e0b8eee-cfcf-444e-80cc-e50ea85c7b20" CreationDate="2013-05-03T21:47:07.427" UserId="1152" Text="Is there a [t͡s] in &quot;с юга&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="0e0b8eee-cfcf-444e-80cc-e50ea85c7b20" CreationDate="2013-05-03T21:47:07.427" UserId="1152" Text="|произношение|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2210" RevisionGUID="23ef0b88-cfee-48b8-b9fa-d0563a27fde4" CreationDate="2013-05-04T02:19:16.107" UserId="1097" Text="Video is not available for users from Russia, you can download it [here](http://s03.savefrom.net/media/361469369/a71a9a918502af5d4aa44e1f0b78cbbe/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD+-+%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BE+%28%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82+%D0%9C.%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%29.mp4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I listened to a few times a phrase &quot;с юга&quot; (0:20, 1:04, 1:45), but &quot;с тьюга&quot; I heard only in the second chorus (1:04). May be it is a record defect or slip of the tongue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise, that she was a native Russian speaker. She was born in the Soviet Union, but always sang with a Polish accent. Barely noticeable but the accent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2210" RevisionGUID="a4a21ba7-9109-478b-a8a4-d4b206eccf02" CreationDate="2013-05-05T08:24:42.140" UserId="1097" Comment="fix download link; deleted text, not related to the issue." Text="Video is not available for users from Russia, you can download it [here](http://en.savefrom.net/#url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=AE40I9_chaU).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I listened to a few times a phrase &quot;с юга&quot; (0:20, 1:04, 1:45), but &quot;с тьюга&quot; I heard only in the second chorus (1:04).  &#xD;&#xA;May be it is a defect of record or slip of the tongue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2211" RevisionGUID="cf90e7dd-ba80-4bde-badf-eb9969eede51" CreationDate="2013-05-05T16:56:08.670" UserId="134" Text="*s* is alveolar (and voiceless) while *j* (in *ю = йу*) is palatal (and voiced).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In normal speech one first releases the tip of the tongue from the alveolar ridge then moves its back to the hard palate while adding voice. This makes two distinct sounds, `[s]` and `[j]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while singing it's somewhat hard to move the tongue this way. It's easier to &quot;roll&quot; the tongue over the palate. During the roll the middle of the tongue touches the place between the alveolar ridge and the hard palate and is instantly released (as *j* is an approximant). This results in a palatalized alveolar plosive, i. e. Russian *ть* (`[tʲ]`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may easily reproduce this if you roll the tongue over the palate while articulating the phrase, as if you were trying to use the tongue to help blocking the air between the two sounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2212" RevisionGUID="4d9426b0-ef2d-4269-a2f9-d1350a87b2e3" CreationDate="2013-05-05T19:56:06.690" UserId="1665" Text="Как правильно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* исходные тексты доступны в GitHub&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, или,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* исходные тексты доступны на GitHub&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2212" RevisionGUID="4d9426b0-ef2d-4269-a2f9-d1350a87b2e3" CreationDate="2013-05-05T19:56:06.690" UserId="1665" Text="Как правильно: «на GitHub» или «в GitHub»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2212" RevisionGUID="4d9426b0-ef2d-4269-a2f9-d1350a87b2e3" CreationDate="2013-05-05T19:56:06.690" UserId="1665" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2213" RevisionGUID="c78da63b-acad-4ce7-9fb5-b7424876643b" CreationDate="2013-05-05T20:13:37.557" UserId="1665" Text="According to Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [&quot;на github&quot;][0] &amp;mdash; 87,1k results;&#xD;&#xA;* [&quot;в github&quot;][1] &amp;mdash; 34,1k results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [&quot;доступны на github&quot;][2] &amp;mdash; 64.500 results;&#xD;&#xA;* [&quot;доступны в github&quot;][3] &amp;mdash; 71 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, «доступны на GitHub» is probably the correct way of saying this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [0]: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0+github%22&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B2+github%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B+%D0%BD%D0%B0+github%22&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B+%D0%B2+github%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="ca99bee8-b4ae-444a-b3ac-02ddf3cbe334" CreationDate="2013-05-06T02:30:44.310" UserId="1329" Text="Чтобы определить предлог, используемый с именем собственным, которое обозначает название фирмы или её продукта, необходимо подставить подходящее по смыслу нарицательное существительное. С именем собственным употребляется тот же предлог, что и с соответствующим ему именем нарицательным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GitHub - это сайт (точнее, веб-сервис, но в приведённом Вами примере уместнее первое). Со словом &quot;сайт&quot; употребляется предлог &quot;на&quot;. Следовательно, правильный вариант - &quot;Исходники доступны на GitHub&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, я часто встречала варианты, где &quot;GitHub&quot; склоняется. Только тогда название пишется кириллицей : &quot;Исходники доступны на гитхубе&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2214" RevisionGUID="c2914b6c-f745-48a5-a15f-73147c21f8c8" CreationDate="2013-05-06T05:24:26.220" UserId="1329" Comment="edited body" Text="Чтобы определить предлог, используемый с именем собственным, которое обозначает название фирмы или её продукта, необходимо подставить подходящее по смыслу нарицательное существительное. С именем собственным употребляется тот же предлог, что и с соответствующим ему именем нарицательным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GitHub - это сайт (точнее, веб-сервис, но в приведённом Вами примере уместнее первое). Со словом &quot;сайт&quot; употребляется предлог &quot;на&quot;. Следовательно, правильный вариант - &quot;Исходники доступны на GitHub&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, я часто встречала варианты, где &quot;GitHub&quot; склоняется. Только тогда название пишется кириллицей : &quot;Исходники доступны на гитхабе&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7803" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2209" RevisionGUID="17f86420-fd0e-476d-86c5-7adf33964370" CreationDate="2013-05-06T06:11:08.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/331290011943182336" />
  <row Id="7804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="3e8a20e2-6c28-4011-adbc-052ddfdd915f" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:55:29.903" UserId="134" Text="In Russian, we use some fruit and vegetable names as mass nouns and don't form plural for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Салат с луком / капустой / клубникой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the others do form plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Салат с огурцами / кабачками / артишоками / помидорами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes some vegetable names form the plural and the others not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="3e8a20e2-6c28-4011-adbc-052ddfdd915f" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:55:29.903" UserId="134" Text="Why лук is a mass noun while огурец is not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="3e8a20e2-6c28-4011-adbc-052ddfdd915f" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:55:29.903" UserId="134" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2216" RevisionGUID="ae2856e6-09ed-4a15-afe9-aec16e089417" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:36:14.963" UserId="115" Text="It appears that all berries are mass nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- с клубникой&#xD;&#xA;- с малиной&#xD;&#xA;- с черникой&#xD;&#xA;- с кизилом&#xD;&#xA;- с крыжовником&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at least there is a pattern there.  I don't know what the deal is with onions, cabbage, and potatoes vs. cucumbers and squash.  Could it be that things that grow under ground are mass nowns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- с картошкой&#xD;&#xA;- с морковью&#xD;&#xA;- с редиской&#xD;&#xA;- с луком&#xD;&#xA;- с чесноком&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Капуста grows above ground, but there is rarely more than one head of cabbage in a salad. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="5b78e5b8-a182-437c-bf28-ff8abb4fe76f" CreationDate="2013-05-06T14:01:05.143" UserId="194" Text="This is because one onion is луковица, one cabbage is качан and one strawberry is ягода. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you can say &quot;салат с луковицами/качанами капусты/ягодами клубники&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2212" RevisionGUID="ace2b0cd-2642-46a7-b971-6adb11d2c5b7" CreationDate="2013-05-06T17:21:13.380" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Как правильно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исходные тексты доступны в GitHub&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исходные тексты доступны на GitHub&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="31e413c2-0902-44ce-8f1e-b17f78d314c4" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:43:23.930" UserId="134" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="In Russian, we use some fruit and vegetable names as mass nouns and don't form plural for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Салат с луком / капустой / клубникой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the others do form plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Салат с огурцами / кабачками / артишоками / помидорами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you ask someone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что у тебя в сумке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня в сумке огурец / кабачок / баклажан / артишок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would unequivocally mean there's exactly one vegetable in the bag, while this answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня в сумке лук / капуста / клубника&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean any quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes some vegetable names form the plural and the others not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7811" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="ad3c0832-8e42-48f1-ae91-30f696624bc6" CreationDate="2013-05-07T00:11:08.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/331561802443931648" />
  <row Id="7812" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2212" RevisionGUID="1597a119-f406-48eb-9020-8d9ca4098284" CreationDate="2013-05-07T03:11:08.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/331607102734876673" />
  <row Id="7813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2218" RevisionGUID="fc126b0c-2c13-4c57-8464-0d0a2a519c97" CreationDate="2013-05-07T03:52:25.823" UserDisplayName="user1667" Text="I came across a Russian forum that required an invitation code (код приглашения) to be eligible for registration, so I have to write a request email in Russian to the forum admin in order to get the code. It has to be written in Russian, but I don't have enough confidence in composing a mail that is fluent and appropriate in Russian yet. I'm wondering what is the structure of this kind of mail that follow the basic email etiquette in Russia? I'd really appreciate a example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2218" RevisionGUID="fc126b0c-2c13-4c57-8464-0d0a2a519c97" CreationDate="2013-05-07T03:52:25.823" UserDisplayName="user1667" Text="How to write a request letter in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2218" RevisionGUID="fc126b0c-2c13-4c57-8464-0d0a2a519c97" CreationDate="2013-05-07T03:52:25.823" UserDisplayName="user1667" Text="|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2219" RevisionGUID="39d2bce6-59c5-4fcc-8ede-690809dad6e4" CreationDate="2013-05-07T11:43:53.323" UserId="1027" Text="Your question is very interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. So, `салат с луком / капустой / клубникой`. Unlikely you will cook a salad whith a lot of onion (it's too bitter) or (God forbid!) a [cabbage][1] because it's too large. Strawberry here is a category, type. Unlike a cabbage a strawberry is small. You should use many berries for a salad. But there are no such words as `&quot;клубничинки&quot;` or `&quot;клубники&quot;` as plural form or strawberry as English word `&quot;strawberries&quot;`. So, because of this `&quot;клубника&quot;` in this context is used as a type. You also can say: `&quot;Салат из ягод клубники&quot;`, it is plural form for this context.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;2. `Салат с огурцами / кабачками / артишоками / помидорами`. You easy can say: `&quot;Салат с огурцом/ кабачком/ артишоком / помидором&quot;` if you put only one piese of these vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `У меня в сумке лук / капуста / клубника`. You can say `луковицы, кочаны капусты, ягоды`. `Лук` and `клубника` here are also a type. You don't buy one onion or one berry, because of this we use these terms in a single form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a situation: how many vegetables you can put in a dish, this is a class or a single product. It is a problem of semantic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.calorizator.ru/sites/default/files/product/heads-cabbage.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2220" RevisionGUID="5a03a5fe-7572-4de8-aedd-18f1e923b37f" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:28:45.627" UserId="1669" Text="Получать инвайт - всегда сложное дело ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я носитель языка и на вашем месте я написал бы так (замените угловые скобки на соответствующие имена и названия):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Здравствуйте! Меня зовут &lt;ваше имя&gt; , я из &lt;страна в родительном&#xD;&#xA;    падеже&gt;, изучаю русский и давно интересуюсь вашим сервисом.&#xD;&#xA;    Не могли бы вы выслать мне инвайт, пожалуйста?&#xD;&#xA;    Буду очень благодарен!&#xD;&#xA;    _________________________ &#xD;&#xA;    С уважением, &lt;(ваше имя)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7818" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2088" RevisionGUID="1b0b3705-ec8d-46ca-abe4-932c5752855a" CreationDate="2013-05-08T00:11:08.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/331924193199403009" />
  <row Id="7819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2221" RevisionGUID="aefdde2f-0a00-4e0f-8566-9d755c128525" CreationDate="2013-05-08T04:31:00.297" UserId="1670" Text="I would say go, do mistakes and learn from them - it will be very fast. If you say дом (house) as дам (which means &quot;I will give&quot;) a person you are talking to would correct you almost immediately. If you try always pronounce &quot;o&quot; as &quot;o&quot; that would work as well, people will understand you always even though you would be sounding like 19th century dweller of Volga-basin area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would say pronunciation should be the last thing to worry for anybody who is learning Russian. Grammar, this is what a learner should be focusing on. It is so much more convoluted in Russian, English would feel extremely liberating in that regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2222" RevisionGUID="81aba132-4c5c-4a80-99bf-891c69663e6c" CreationDate="2013-05-08T12:15:19.903" UserId="1671" Text="`помнить` and `вспомнить` are imperfective and perfective aspects of the same verb. See [Russian Verbs - Aspect][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why you probably find both of them when looking up 'remember'. And in the Russian-English dictionary again they both refer to 'remember'. Do not get confused by other examples mentioned here. Almost all Russian verbs have 2 aspects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    помнить - вспомнить&#xD;&#xA;    напоминать - напомнить&#xD;&#xA;    вспоминать - вспомнить&#xD;&#xA;    вставлять - вставить&#xD;&#xA;    таять - растаять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for forming perfective aspect from imperfective exist but most of the time you'll have to learn these two forms for each verb and even for each meaning of the verb separately. Eg.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    держать слово - сдержать слово (keep your word)&#xD;&#xA;    держать ложку - взять вилку (hold a spoon - take a fork)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably one of the hardest things to learn for a foreigner as for a native speaker most of this is very intuitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. although `помнить` and `вспоминать` are both in the imperfective aspect and they both have the same perfective counterpart they still have different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты его помнишь? - Do you remember him?&#xD;&#xA;    Ты часто его вспоминаешь? - Do you reminisce/recall/recollect him often?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2222" RevisionGUID="db07edd7-2029-40e8-8530-669368593a01" CreationDate="2013-05-08T12:32:36.813" UserId="1671" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="`помнить` and `вспомнить` are imperfective and perfective aspects of the same verb. See [Russian Verbs - Aspect][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why you probably find both of them when looking up 'remember'. And in the Russian-English dictionary again they both refer to 'remember'. Do not get confused by other examples mentioned here. Almost all Russian verbs have 2 aspects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    помнить - вспомнить&#xD;&#xA;    напоминать - напомнить&#xD;&#xA;    вспоминать - вспомнить&#xD;&#xA;    поминать - помянуть&#xD;&#xA;    мнить - возомнить&#xD;&#xA;    мять - смять&#xD;&#xA;    внимать - внять&#xD;&#xA;    вставлять - вставить&#xD;&#xA;    таять - растаять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules for forming perfective aspect from imperfective exist but most of the time you'll have to learn these two forms for each verb and even for each meaning of the verb separately. Eg.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    держать слово - сдержать слово (keep your word)&#xD;&#xA;    держать ложку - взять вилку (hold a spoon - take a fork)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably one of the hardest things to learn for a foreigner as for a native speaker most of this is very intuitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. although `помнить` and `вспоминать` are both in the imperfective aspect and they both have the same perfective counterpart they still have different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты его помнишь? - Do you remember him?&#xD;&#xA;    Ты часто его вспоминаешь? - Do you reminisce/recall/recollect him often?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="59ae7ccc-4516-406b-8f6b-0844a94e4e50" CreationDate="2013-05-08T20:22:36.743" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="This is because one onion is луковица, one cabbage is кочан and one strawberry is ягода. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you can say &quot;салат с луковицами/качанами капусты/ягодами клубники&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2084" RevisionGUID="35e3a8ba-3ef0-40b6-b2eb-a596d326c8e7" CreationDate="2013-05-09T06:11:13.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/332377196666707969" />
  <row Id="7824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2223" RevisionGUID="4fb9233e-7670-46c0-871f-bcc134d1146e" CreationDate="2013-05-09T06:18:42.120" UserId="1654" Text="The question about correspondence between degrees is a difficult one. To my knowledge, there are no formal agreements between Russia and Western countries on the subject. The common sense says that **кандидат наук** corresponds to **PhD** and **доктор наук** to **Doctor of Science**. Note that the degree Doctor of Science is not the same in different European countries (and even do not exist in many).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the common sense says so? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - PhD degree is obtained after 3-4 years of study (as PhD student).&#xD;&#xA;   Кандидат наук degree is obtained after 3-4 years of study (as&#xD;&#xA;   аспирант). &#xD;&#xA; - Formal requirements to outcome (theses/диссертация) are&#xD;&#xA;   similar. The most common requirement is: “three good scientific&#xD;&#xA;   papers must be published”.  &#xD;&#xA; - Capacity/knowledge of a freshly graduated&#xD;&#xA;   PhD is approximately at the same level (at least in Natural and&#xD;&#xA;   Technical science). Russian PhD-s are accepted as post-docs in all&#xD;&#xA;   Western countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA; - кандидат наук corresponds to PhD&#xD;&#xA; - доктор наук could be translated as Doctor of Science but with certain reservations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1: Кандидат наук and доктор наук are commonly used but incomplete descriptions of degrees. If you need to write formally, always specify what the science: **кандидат химических наук**, **кандидат физико-математических наук**, **кандидат философских наук** (not the same as the letter D in PhD) and so on. The words химических, физико-математических... are taken from formal list of degrees. If you use a wrong word, the degree would sound as a joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2: My considerations cover only the modern situation. There could not be such a simple solution for old texts. Yury cited good examples concerning translation of “old” degrees but I would apply these examples with certain reservations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7825" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2133" RevisionGUID="24d249f2-34c9-4bbc-995d-35007a636b05" CreationDate="2013-05-10T03:11:22.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/332694324720582656" />
  <row Id="7826" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1920" RevisionGUID="5052613b-c8cf-4ef7-97a3-7d6cc85a301b" CreationDate="2013-05-10T12:11:22.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/332830220107268098" />
  <row Id="7827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="7f881746-62d7-4bff-9b0b-724a03799e50" CreationDate="2013-05-10T15:14:03.630" UserId="222" Comment="added 882 characters in body" Text="Russian academic degrees are different from those in the rest of the world. Whereas most countries have only one Ph.D. degree, Russia has two degrees “кандидат наук” (*lit.* candidate of science) and “доктор наук” (*lit.* doctor of science). *There is no clear correspondence between Ph.D and these two degrees.* Historically — when the “кандидат наук” and “доктор наук” degrees were introduced in Russia — “доктор наук” was meant to be equivalent to Western European Ph.D. and “кандидат наук” to be equivalent or similar to master's degree. However, nowadays many people would argue that “доктор наук” is a higher degree than Ph.D., and “кандидат наук” is more or less equivalent to Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That being said, PhD has always been translated to Russian as “доктор философии” (not “доктор наук”, not “доктор философских наук”).** The translation “кандидат наук” is incorrect. For example, if you read biographies of foreign scientists in Russian Wikipedia, you will see sentences like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своей *докторской* Гаусс впервые доказал основную теорему алгебры. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “В своей кандидатской Гаусс впервые доказал ...”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1880 году Герц получил степень *доктора философии* в Берлинском университете [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “Герц получил степень кандидата наук.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Даниель Рутерфорд получил] образование в Эдинбургском университете, где и получил степень *доктора* в 1772 году за работу под названием «De aëre mephitica» [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  С 1992 по 1996 Тао учился в Принстонском университете под руководством Элиаса Стейна, получил степень *доктора* в возрасте 20-ти лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sometimes both Russian degrees are translated to English as PhD; and sometimes “кандидат наук” is translated as PhD and “доктор наук” is translated as “doctor of science”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - диссертация = dissertation or thesis&#xD;&#xA; - аспирант = PhD student&#xD;&#xA; - аспирантура = PhD program &#xD;&#xA; - He studies a PhD = Он в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA; - She has a PhD = Она доктор философии.&#xD;&#xA; - I write a PhD thesis = Я работаю над диссертацией&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** To clarify my answer, if the question was — What is the Russian degree equivalent to Ph.D? — I would answer “кандидат наук”. But the question is about the proper translation of Ph.D. to Russian. And the *only* correct translation to this question is “доктор философии”. This translation is unambiguous since there is no “доктор философии” degree in Russia. This translation is and has always been used. **I have never seen a single reputable translation that translated Ph.D. as “кандидат наук”.** In general, when you translate foreign titles or degrees, you don't replace them with Russian equivalents. For example, you cannot say “Маргарет Тэтчер была *президентом* Великобритании с 1979 по 1990 год” even though the role of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is more similar to that of the President of Russia than that of the Prime Minister of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="069539a4-f552-4d0c-af3d-735c36b80ad6" CreationDate="2013-05-10T15:27:21.760" UserId="222" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="Russian academic degrees are different from those in the rest of the world. Whereas most countries have only one Ph.D. degree, Russia has two degrees “кандидат наук” (*lit.* candidate of science) and “доктор наук” (*lit.* doctor of science). *There is no clear correspondence between Ph.D and these two degrees.* Historically — when the “кандидат наук” and “доктор наук” degrees were introduced in Russia — “доктор наук” was meant to be equivalent to Western European Ph.D. and “кандидат наук” to be equivalent or similar to master's degree. However, nowadays many people would argue that “доктор наук” is a higher degree than Ph.D., and “кандидат наук” is more or less equivalent to Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That being said, PhD has always been translated to Russian as “доктор философии” (not “доктор наук”, not “доктор философских наук”).** The translation “кандидат наук” is incorrect. For example, if you read biographies of foreign scientists in Russian Wikipedia, you will see sentences like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своей *докторской* Гаусс впервые доказал основную теорему алгебры. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “В своей кандидатской Гаусс впервые доказал ...”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1880 году Герц получил степень *доктора философии* в Берлинском университете [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “Герц получил степень кандидата наук.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Даниель Рутерфорд получил] образование в Эдинбургском университете, где и получил степень *доктора* в 1772 году за работу под названием «De aëre mephitica» [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  С 1992 по 1996 Тао учился в Принстонском университете под руководством Элиаса Стейна, получил степень *доктора* в возрасте 20-ти лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После окончания СПбГУ [Смирнов] был приглашен Николаем Георгиевичем Макаровым [...] в аспирантуру в Калифорнийский технологический институт, где защитил *докторскую диссертацию* [в 1996 году].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sometimes both Russian degrees are translated to English as PhD; and sometimes “кандидат наук” is translated as PhD and “доктор наук” is translated as “doctor of science”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - диссертация = dissertation or thesis&#xD;&#xA; - аспирант = PhD student&#xD;&#xA; - аспирантура = PhD program &#xD;&#xA; - He studies a PhD = Он в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA; - She has a PhD = Она доктор философии.&#xD;&#xA; - I write a PhD thesis = Я работаю над диссертацией&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** To clarify my answer, if the question was — What is the Russian degree equivalent to Ph.D? — I would answer “кандидат наук”. But the question is about the proper translation of Ph.D. to Russian. And the *only* correct answer to this question is “доктор философии”. This translation is unambiguous since there is no “доктор философии” degree in Russia. This translation is and has always been used. **I have never seen a single reputable translation that translated Ph.D. as “кандидат наук”.** In general, when you translate foreign titles or degrees, you don't replace them with Russian equivalents. For example, you cannot say “Маргарет Тэтчер была *президентом* Великобритании с 1979 по 1990 год” even though the role of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is more similar to that of the President of Russia than that of the Prime Minister of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2208" RevisionGUID="afa8eabf-1d8e-4b7f-a889-c4070e3c90d3" CreationDate="2013-05-10T15:56:58.237" UserId="222" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="Russian academic degrees are different from those in the rest of the world. Whereas most countries have only one Ph.D. degree, Russia has two degrees “кандидат наук” (*lit.* candidate of science) and “доктор наук” (*lit.* doctor of science). *There is no clear correspondence between Ph.D and these two degrees.* Historically — when the “кандидат наук” and “доктор наук” degrees were introduced in Russia — “доктор наук” was meant to be equivalent to Western European Ph.D. and “кандидат наук” to be equivalent or similar to master's degree. However, nowadays many people would argue that “доктор наук” is a higher degree than Ph.D., and “кандидат наук” is more or less equivalent to Ph.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That being said, PhD has always been translated to Russian as “доктор философии” (not “доктор наук”, not “доктор философских наук”).** The translation “кандидат наук” is incorrect. For example, if you read biographies of scientists in Russian Wikipedia, you will see sentences like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В своей *докторской* Гаусс впервые доказал основную теорему алгебры. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “В своей кандидатской Гаусс впервые доказал ...”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1880 году Герц получил степень *доктора философии* в Берлинском университете [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not “Герц получил степень кандидата наук.”)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Даниель Рутерфорд получил] образование в Эдинбургском университете, где и получил степень *доктора* в 1772 году за работу под названием «De aëre mephitica» [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  С 1992 по 1996 Тао учился в Принстонском университете под руководством Элиаса Стейна, получил степень *доктора* в возрасте 20-ти лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После окончания СПбГУ [Смирнов] был приглашен Николаем Георгиевичем Макаровым [...] в аспирантуру в Калифорнийский технологический институт, где защитил *докторскую диссертацию* [в 1996 году].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ааронсон получил] степень бакалавра теоретической информатики в Корнелльском университете в 2000 году и *степень доктора философии* в Калифорнийском университете Беркли в 2004 году под руководством Умеша Вазирани. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, sometimes both Russian degrees are translated to English as PhD; and sometimes “кандидат наук” is translated as PhD and “доктор наук” is translated as “doctor of science”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - диссертация = dissertation or thesis&#xD;&#xA; - аспирант = PhD student&#xD;&#xA; - аспирантура = PhD program &#xD;&#xA; - He studies a PhD = Он в аспирантуре.&#xD;&#xA; - She has a PhD = Она доктор философии.&#xD;&#xA; - I write a PhD thesis = Я работаю над диссертацией&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** To clarify my answer, if the question was — What is the Russian degree equivalent to Ph.D? — I would answer “кандидат наук”. But the question is about the proper translation of Ph.D. to Russian. And the *only* correct answer to this question is “доктор философии”. This translation is unambiguous since there is no “доктор философии” degree in Russia. This translation is and has always been used. **I have never seen a single reputable translation that translated Ph.D. as “кандидат наук”.** In general, when you translate foreign titles or degrees, you don't replace them with Russian equivalents. For example, you cannot say “Маргарет Тэтчер была *президентом* Великобритании с 1979 по 1990 год” even though the role of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is more similar to that of the President of Russia than that of the Prime Minister of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="f909b8c3-53d5-4237-bf1d-63cf1491d59f" CreationDate="2013-05-11T01:07:24.457" UserId="1679" Text="I don’t know any Russian, but I have a CD of Russian folk songs that I’m giving to a Russian learner as a gift. The liner notes have parallel lyrics in Russian and English, which is great. But from my experience listening to opera and from learning other languages, I’ve found that it’s a *lot* easier to follow along to music in an unfamiliar language when there are notes to follow too. You end up following the song in three languages at the same time—printed music, English, and the foreign language—two familiar, one unfamiliar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the Russian term for “sheet music” that I can use to try and find scores/manuscripts/notes for folk songs on the internet?** For example, what do I add to the end of “начну на флейте стихи печальны” in Google to turn up printed notes instead of mp3s or lyrics? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve tried looking up related terms in online dictionaries and I’ve gotten things like ноты (notes) and принтед музыки (printed music) that seem better than plain музыка (music), but I’m not getting any sheet music back from Google using them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="f909b8c3-53d5-4237-bf1d-63cf1491d59f" CreationDate="2013-05-11T01:07:24.457" UserId="1679" Text="How to find Russian sheet music?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2224" RevisionGUID="f909b8c3-53d5-4237-bf1d-63cf1491d59f" CreationDate="2013-05-11T01:07:24.457" UserId="1679" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2225" RevisionGUID="4b6ee964-cf2c-4325-8a4c-1f85440d0b69" CreationDate="2013-05-11T01:28:02.353" UserId="1680" Text="You were right, you should use ноты. Unfortunately though, the song you're trying to find is old and rare, most probably you can find the original notes only in specialized libraries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2226" RevisionGUID="4c58dfe1-57a7-4d68-9787-924ae54a9d65" CreationDate="2013-05-11T01:43:40.603" UserId="1680" Text="Since the particle is never stressed, it was probably mutated from -ко to -ка due to vowel reduction. Same with noun diminutive -ко (Садко, stressed) which is commonly fixed as -ка (Васька, unstressed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2220" RevisionGUID="98a4a3ec-33c7-4002-bdb2-cee51be7a5a0" CreationDate="2013-05-11T06:43:55.530" UserId="194" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Получать приглашение - всегда сложное дело ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я носитель языка и на вашем месте я написал бы так (замените угловые скобки на соответствующие имена и названия):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Здравствуйте! Меня зовут &lt;ваше имя&gt; , я из &lt;страна в родительном&#xD;&#xA;    падеже&gt;, изучаю русский и давно интересуюсь вашим сервисом.&#xD;&#xA;    Не могли бы вы выслать мне приглашение, пожалуйста?&#xD;&#xA;    Буду очень благодарен!&#xD;&#xA;    _________________________ &#xD;&#xA;    С уважением, &lt;(ваше имя)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2228" RevisionGUID="8cb590ac-cbf6-4681-bee4-7891b1bae6a3" CreationDate="2013-05-11T13:04:13.830" UserId="97" Text="Translation _ноты_ is the correct one - and the one you should use when searching for sheet music.  While you can try searching on the site suggested by c.p., it's worth remembering that folk songs originate in exactly that manner: from regular folk (people), of whom rare few would even realise that you can write the music on a sheet of paper, let alone do it.  The melodies to such songs are passed from people to people and from generation to generation, slightly changing in the process, therefore it's pretty much all but impossible to find the _real_ sheet music for the folk songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you may find are versions recorded and transcribed by various composers at various times.  The same song would likely be recorded differently by different composers, too.  On the whole, only a small fraction of the folk songs was ever recorded in a sheet music format to be released publicly.  The folk songs on a recorded CD, if they are performed with a music and not vocal only, were likely written down as sheet music for the specific recording/performance and were not releases publicly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="f06a5149-adaa-4afc-98ae-4bc97a3c27cd" CreationDate="2013-05-11T16:45:39.007" UserId="1262" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be more like a Chinese emphatical clitic, for же-particle is normally, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="f06a5149-adaa-4afc-98ae-4bc97a3c27cd" CreationDate="2013-05-11T16:45:39.007" UserId="1262" Text="What is the modern usage of particle же?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="f06a5149-adaa-4afc-98ae-4bc97a3c27cd" CreationDate="2013-05-11T16:45:39.007" UserId="1262" Text="|узус|синтаксис|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="9a3114be-e905-4b14-8cfe-d2231924b929" CreationDate="2013-05-12T06:02:38.870" UserId="1262" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be more like a Chinese emphatical clitic always taking utterance-final position, for же-particle is normally, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7844" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="a9c7e048-ac09-48bd-88ca-41b3a75fe98d" CreationDate="2013-05-12T06:11:22.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/333464397529878528" />
  <row Id="7846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2231" RevisionGUID="0f4ebac8-8142-42c6-ab71-2e5e0ca17ee4" CreationDate="2013-05-12T14:12:22.983" UserId="1654" Text="These examples sound like discussion sentences. The speaker emphasizes the statement with help of **же** if the opponent does not understand a thing that is obvious for the speaker. An exclamation symbol (**!**) should be suitable at end of each example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Двойное отрицание **же!**&#xD;&#xA; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not answer for the question **Since when** but may help in some way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="4258c692-ea68-4804-9720-03f42076abfd" CreationDate="2013-05-12T15:09:31.027" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 109 characters in body" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particle, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="42c0bee2-e376-4b40-8177-752445a98298" CreationDate="2013-05-12T15:25:03.033" UserId="1262" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particle seems to be more like a Chinese emphatical clitic always taking utterance-final position, for же-particle is normally particle, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="8ea2cee1-bb1c-4847-814e-d3edc7bdedcf" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:40:52.257" UserId="487" Text="I want to understand the case aspects of the dates in Russian (I think that rather than learning them as a rule of thumb, after understanding them, I won't forget them so easily). So far, I only came across two forms of dates: (a) nominative, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 03.12.2008: третье декабря две тысячи восьмого года &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and (b) after the preposition *в*, for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On Friday 1.04.1962: в пятнтицу первого апреля тысяча девятьсот шестьдесят второго года &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt of explanation:** The way I understand (a) is as the literal (not correct English-) translation of *the third of december of the year two thousand eight*. So *third* stands in nominative, *of december* is *декабря* (in genitive). Moreover one uses *две* and not *двa* because *тысяча* is femenine; *тысячи* is the genitive form of *thousand* induced by the number 2, and the last genitive *&quot;восьмого года&quot;* stands for &quot;of the year 2008&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand (b) is essencially the same, except that the preposition *в* induces acusative(?) on the day of the week, and now the number of day, in this case 1, stands in genitive (why?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0. Which errors can you find in this explanation? If so, kindly provide a better understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which case is it used for the dates when dealing with periods of time? Is the year modified? For instance &quot;20&quot; and &quot;31&quot; and the years in:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С 20 декабря 1999 по 31 декабря 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there something more to know about how to say the dates in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="8ea2cee1-bb1c-4847-814e-d3edc7bdedcf" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:40:52.257" UserId="487" Text="On the case aspects of the full (oral) form of the dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="8ea2cee1-bb1c-4847-814e-d3edc7bdedcf" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:40:52.257" UserId="487" Text="|падежи|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="0c54c7f7-2d4b-4e6d-9655-4e96091f805b" CreationDate="2013-05-12T18:46:44.997" UserId="487" Comment="typography and typos" Text="I want to understand the case aspects of the dates in Russian (I think that rather than learning them as a rule of thumb, after understanding them, I won't forget them so easily). So far, I only came across two forms of dates: (a) nominative, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 03.12.2008: третье декабря две тысячи восьмого года &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and (b) after the preposition *в*, for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On Friday 1.04.1962: в пятнтицу первого апреля тысяча девятьсот шестьдесят второго года &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt of explanation:** The way I understand (a) is as the literal (not correct English-) translation of *the third of december of the year two thousand eight*. So *third* stands in nominative, *of december* is *декабря* (in genitive). Moreover one uses *две* and not *двa* because *тысяча* is femenine; *тысячи* is the genitive form of *thousand* induced by the number 2, and the last genitive *&quot;восьмого года&quot;* comes from the possesive in &quot;*of the year 2008*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand (b) is essencially the same, except that the preposition *в* induces acusative(?) on the day of the week, and now the number of day, in this case 1, stands in genitive (why?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0. Which errors can you find in this explanation? If so, kindly provide a better understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which case is it used for the dates when dealing with periods of time? Is the year modified? For instance &quot;20&quot; and &quot;31&quot; and the years in:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С 20 декабря 1999 по 31 декабря 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there something more to know about how to say the dates in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2233" RevisionGUID="b8cce6fa-9e1e-4268-8ff0-80f1a66f89a7" CreationDate="2013-05-12T21:47:44.217" UserId="1236" Text="To begin with, I must point out that in Russian, when we say dates, e.g., `03.12.2008`, the name of the month is an attribute in Genitive to the number of the date (03 in this example), this number of the date itself is an ordinal number in the neuter gender, it agrees with the word `число` (number), which is neuter and is almost always omitted, and the number of the year is an attribute in Genitive to the name of the month:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 03.12.2008 - Третье [число] декабря две тысячи восьмого года (Word for word: *The 3rd [number] of December of the 2008th year).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different prepositions used before dates govern different cases, but **the attributes in Genitive (usually the month and the year) *always* remain in Genitive. If the name of the day of the week or a name of a holiday is used before the date, then the number of the day also becomes an attribute in Genitive to these latter.** In other words, only the first word in the date is declined, all the other words are in Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, however you name a day (Friday, Easter, April 1), you use &quot;on&quot;: `on Friday, on Easter, on April 1`. In Russian, in every of these cases it will be different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `B` + Accusative, if it's the day of the week: `В понедельник, в среду, в пятницу, в воскресенье`;&#xD;&#xA; - `На` + Accusative, if it's the name of a holiday: `На Рождество, на Новый год, на Пасху`;&#xD;&#xA; - No preposition, the number in Genitive, then followed by Genitive of the the name of the month, the year, AD / BC, if you use the numerical date designation: `Первого апреля две тысячи тринадцатого года нашей эры`. The number of the year is an ordinal numeral in Russian, while in English it's cardinal. In longer Russian ordinal numerals of several words only the last numeral pronounced is, actually, ordinal, the first ones are cardinal, and, when declined, it is only this last numeral pronounced that is declined (the declinable numeral is italicized):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 год - *тысячный* год - Первого апреля *тысячного* года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1900 год - тысяча *девятисотый* год - Первого апреля тысяча *девятисотого* года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1901 год - тысяча девятьсот *первый* год - Первого апреля тысяча девятьсот *первого* года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1915 год - тысяча девятьсот *пятнадцатый* год - Первого апреля тысяча девятьсот *пятнадцатого* года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1999 год - тысяча девятьсот девяносто *девятый* год - Первого апреля тысяча девятьсот девяносто *девятого* года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2000 год - *двухтысячный* год - Первого апреля *двухтысячного* года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you name periods longer than a day, you use &quot;in&quot; in English (`in April, in 2013, in the 21st century`). In Russian, the pattern is `B` + Prepositional: `В апреле, в две тысячи тринадцатом году, в двадцать первом веке`. If you combine the month and the year (`In April, 2013`), it follows the same pattern, only the number of the year, together with the word `год`,  is in Genitive: `В апреле две тысячи тринадцатого года`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С 20 декабря 1999 по 31 декабря 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the number of the day after `C` is in Genitive, and the number of the day after `По` is in Accusative (in the ordinal numerals of several words, naturally, only the last word in declined):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С 20 декабря 1999 по 31 декабря 2002 - С двадцатого декабря тысяча девятьсот девяносто девятого года по тридцать первое декабря две тысячи второго года." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="9b0a3fd9-3692-4493-b334-01dc3438dc32" CreationDate="2013-05-13T00:56:08.593" UserId="309" Comment="grammar fixes" Text="I want to understand the case aspects of the dates in Russian (I think that rather than learning them as a rule of thumb, after understanding them I won't forget them so easily). So far, I only came across two forms of dates: (a) nominative, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 03.12.2008: третье декабря две тысячи восьмого года &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and (b) after the preposition *в*, for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On Friday 1.04.1962: в пятницу первого апреля тысяча девятьсот шестьдесят второго года &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt of explanation:** The way I understand (a) is as the literal (not correct English) translation of *the third of december of the year two thousand eight*. So *third* stands in nominative, *of december* is *декабря* (in genitive). Moreover, one uses *две* and not *двa* because *тысяча* is feminine; *тысячи* is the genitive form of *thousand* induced by the number 2, and the last genitive *&quot;восьмого года&quot;* comes from the possessive in &quot;*of the year 2008*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I understand (b) is essencially the same, except that the preposition *в* induces accusative(?) on the day of the week, and now the number of day, in this case 1, stands in genitive (why?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0. Which errors can you find in this explanation? If so, kindly provide a better understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which case is used for the dates when dealing with periods of time? Is the year modified? For instance &quot;20&quot; and &quot;31&quot; and the years in:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С 20 декабря 1999 по 31 декабря 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there something more to know about how to say the dates in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7855" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="9b0a3fd9-3692-4493-b334-01dc3438dc32" CreationDate="2013-05-13T00:56:08.593" Comment="Proposed by 309 approved by 487 edit id of 363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7856" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="77da4b92-47d8-49c0-9e49-82bc5ee70226" CreationDate="2013-05-13T03:11:23.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/333781491056271360" />
  <row Id="7857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2234" RevisionGUID="1affaa5e-a079-4987-bbfc-33497b4aa247" CreationDate="2013-05-13T07:45:46.127" UserId="194" Text="I encountered a description of a person as &quot;математик в законе&quot;. Does it mean he is a criminal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2234" RevisionGUID="1affaa5e-a079-4987-bbfc-33497b4aa247" CreationDate="2013-05-13T07:45:46.127" UserId="194" Text="What does mean &quot;математик в законе&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2234" RevisionGUID="1affaa5e-a079-4987-bbfc-33497b4aa247" CreationDate="2013-05-13T07:45:46.127" UserId="194" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2217" RevisionGUID="5ecdd16c-4be0-4993-857a-56909c3b1564" CreationDate="2013-05-13T08:49:34.810" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="This is because one onion is луковица, one cabbage is кочан and one strawberry is ягода. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you can say &quot;салат с луковицами/кочанами капусты/ягодами клубники&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7861" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="44ef0b1c-de21-427d-a599-a71363ca9734" CreationDate="2013-05-13T08:51:18.330" UserId="134" Comment="Rollback to [4258c692-ea68-4804-9720-03f42076abfd]" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particle, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2235" RevisionGUID="21a711b3-9faf-47aa-8ced-ec1e5771eb39" CreationDate="2013-05-13T09:55:45.667" UserId="959" Text="Когда первый участник диалога не замечает, не видит, не обращает внимания на очевидные вещи или просто не знает, не понимает их, не реагирует на приводимые доводы, то второй собеседник может реагировать приведёнными в качестве примера фразами. Если их переформулировать, то получится примерно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Но ведь это двойное отрицание!&#xD;&#xA; - Как ты не поймёшь, что это определено законодательством!&#xD;&#xA; - Прочти внимательно предыдущий комментарий, в нём всё доходчиво изложено!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Применение *же* просто позволяет вместить тот же самый смысл в очень короткую фразу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="63c2d2ec-dd1a-41e0-a219-3d14275f06ea" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:33:22.383" UserId="1262" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particle seems to be more like a Chinese emphatical clitic always taking utterance-final position, for же-particle is normally, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7864" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2232" RevisionGUID="2935d93c-b8c0-4349-922a-6ef64dcca027" CreationDate="2013-05-13T14:23:12.927" UserId="487" Comment="changed the title; now it's more appropriate" Text="Fully expanded form of the dates (years, specially) and their case aspects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2236" RevisionGUID="f8828929-4882-4518-afd6-21ea6e9f7297" CreationDate="2013-05-13T14:50:34.833" UserId="1027" Text="If this is analogy with &quot;вор в законе&quot;, then it means respected, authoritative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7866" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="40f95d1b-a37c-456b-954f-19f4ca98d9fd" CreationDate="2013-05-13T15:42:13.743" UserId="134" Comment="Rollback to [44ef0b1c-de21-427d-a599-a71363ca9734]" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particle, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="7d3e49f4-6ee0-4de4-8d5b-4d5f2ba52164" CreationDate="2013-05-13T18:32:12.373" UserId="1262" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This partice seems to be more like that of Chinese emphatical clitics always taking utterance-final position, for же-particle is normally, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2237" RevisionGUID="d54ae326-dc54-427a-b207-67532e75acf4" CreationDate="2013-05-13T19:34:07.970" UserId="426" Text="All three sentences are constructed using the same transformation: what's usually written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {pronoun} же {something}!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;often becomes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {something} же!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;colloquially in situations when {pronoun} can be derived from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your three sentences can be rewritten as follows to get the familiar form of these sentences with &quot;же&quot; used to emphasize the point that the speaker considers compelling or indisputable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это же двойное отрицание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это же законодательство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это же комментарий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate these sentences without much context. Here is one way to do it, with a context where it would make sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Why &quot;не может не радоватъ&quot; means &quot;makes one happy?&quot; (Почему &quot;не может не радовать&quot; значит &quot;радует&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Clearly, that's a double negative. (Двойное отрицание же.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Why did police release them so soon? (Почему полицейские отпустили их так быстро?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- You know that such is the legislation. (Законодательство же.)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Why was he so rude? (Почему он так нагрубил?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- C'mon, it's only a comment. (Комментарий же.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7869" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="91189482-878b-48f7-a986-656c9e104fca" CreationDate="2013-05-13T19:43:15.220" UserId="134" Comment="Rollback to [40f95d1b-a37c-456b-954f-19f4ca98d9fd]" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particle, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2229" RevisionGUID="2a558fdd-c69c-4c0f-b318-88e3407b3068" CreationDate="2013-05-14T03:12:05.513" UserId="1262" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="In current Internet speech, there are a lot of colloquial phrases placing this particle at the end of a phrase, mostly in topic-commentary strategies (thematic comments) like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Двойное отрицание **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Законодательство **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Комментарий **же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This partice seems to be more like that of Chinese emphatical clitics always taking utterance-final position, for же-particle normally, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since when did this usage become wide-spread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2238" RevisionGUID="e7dac34c-a9d2-4f97-b71e-48a330e19dfb" CreationDate="2013-05-14T08:44:46.870" UserId="1207" Text="&gt; Since when did this usage become wide-spread?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IIRC this usage of же become popular in Internet last 2-3 years, but in spoken language it isn't something new or modern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2239" RevisionGUID="bfa800ae-239a-4351-8e09-ad3141fc5919" CreationDate="2013-05-14T09:14:31.117" UserId="1684" Text="Помнить - to remember, to actively keep remembering, indicating an ongoing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вспомнить - to recall something that you did not actively keep in mind, to all of a sudden remember something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2235" RevisionGUID="a5abdbbc-d393-4dd6-b257-213a46891223" CreationDate="2013-05-14T09:36:35.503" UserId="959" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Когда первый участник диалога не замечает, не видит, не обращает внимания на очевидные вещи или просто не знает, не понимает их, не реагирует на приводимые доводы, то второй собеседник может реагировать приведёнными в качестве примера фразами. Если их переформулировать, то получится примерно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Но ведь это двойное отрицание!&#xD;&#xA; - Как ты не поймёшь, что это определено законодательством!&#xD;&#xA; - Прочти внимательно предыдущий комментарий, в нём всё доходчиво изложено!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Применение *же* просто позволяет вместить тот же самый смысл в очень короткую фразу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эта форма стала широко применяться в последние 2-3 года в связи с ростом популярности блогов, микроблогов, борд и т.п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2240" RevisionGUID="f516dd8e-ade6-49dd-bfca-624dbd742c48" CreationDate="2013-05-15T03:56:40.183" UserId="197" Text="When I look up the word наверное I always see two definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Probably, most likely&#xD;&#xA;2. Certainly, for sure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two definitions mean completely different things to me but I don't know how to interpret what is meant based on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты читала эту книгу?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наверное нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is she saying that she definitely hasn't read the book, or that she isn't sure but probably hasn't? How do I interpret sentences with наверное in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2240" RevisionGUID="f516dd8e-ade6-49dd-bfca-624dbd742c48" CreationDate="2013-05-15T03:56:40.183" UserId="197" Text="How should I interpret the word наверное?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2240" RevisionGUID="f516dd8e-ade6-49dd-bfca-624dbd742c48" CreationDate="2013-05-15T03:56:40.183" UserId="197" Text="|значения|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2241" RevisionGUID="45686728-4a63-4360-a45d-cd34f24bf437" CreationDate="2013-05-15T05:36:11.813" UserId="1670" Text="In modern Russian **наверное** means &quot;probably but I am not sure&quot;. But is seems like that in times of Tolstoy it meant possibly both or just &quot;for sure&quot; - many who read classical Russian literature could confirm that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other note the word **наверняка**, which is of the same root, means &quot;definitely&quot; or &quot;for sure&quot;. Which is kinda puzzling indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="9bf080f7-8b39-431d-bf98-298ed0c4764d" CreationDate="2013-05-15T05:36:46.097" UserId="1573" Text="When it is an adverb (modifying something), it means certainly, as in &quot;я наверно придумаю что-нибудь плохое.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it is separated by punctuation, typically commas (or pauses in speech), it means probably. I would have written the answer as &quot;Наверно, нет.&quot; For instance, take Okudzhava's *Song About Combat Boots*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А где же наше мужество, солдат, &#xD;&#xA;    когда мы возвращаемся назад? &#xD;&#xA;    Его, наверно, женщины крадут, &#xD;&#xA;    и, как птенца, за пазуху кладут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, lots of confusion exists. For example, the [Russian Wiki entry][1] for the comedy *The Gods Must Be Crazy* is punctuated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5,_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="f40f4fa8-cb06-4cda-bab0-e13002349286" CreationDate="2013-05-15T05:42:38.620" UserId="1573" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="When it is an adverb (modifying something), it means certainly, as in &quot;я наверно придумаю что-нибудь плохое,&quot; which means &quot;I will certainly come up with something bad.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it is separated by punctuation, typically commas (or pauses in speech), it means probably. I would have written the answer as &quot;Наверно, нет.&quot; For instance, take Okudzhava's *Song About Combat Boots*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А где же наше мужество, солдат, &#xD;&#xA;    когда мы возвращаемся назад? &#xD;&#xA;    Его, наверно, женщины крадут, &#xD;&#xA;    и, как птенца, за пазуху кладут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, lots of confusion exists. For example, the [Russian Wiki entry][1] for the comedy *The Gods Must Be Crazy* is punctuated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5,_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="f0ca8730-172a-45cf-ac58-e4bb708766ad" CreationDate="2013-05-15T05:59:58.030" UserId="1573" Comment="added 293 characters in body" Text="When it is an adverb (modifying something), it means certainly, as in &quot;я наверно придумаю что-нибудь плохое,&quot; which means &quot;I will certainly come up with something bad.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it is separated by punctuation, typically commas (or pauses in speech), it means probably. I would have written the answer as &quot;Наверно, нет.&quot; For instance, take Okudzhava's *Song About Combat Boots*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А где же наше мужество, солдат, &#xD;&#xA;    когда мы возвращаемся назад? &#xD;&#xA;    Его, наверно, женщины крадут, &#xD;&#xA;    и, как птенца, за пазуху кладут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, lots of confusion exists. For example, the [Russian Wiki entry][1] for the comedy *The Gods Must Be Crazy* is punctuated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, certainty, roughly speaking, is just probability going to one. An example of this is &quot;almost sure convergence&quot; in math, which is translated as &quot;почти наверное сходимость&quot; in K. A. Borovkov's *English-Russian Dictionary on Probability, Statistics, and Combinatorics* 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5,_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2242" RevisionGUID="55c91169-c88c-4948-b672-c57dcadf4a15" CreationDate="2013-05-15T06:18:39.307" UserId="1573" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="When it is an adverb (modifying something), it means certainly, as in &quot;я наверно придумаю что-нибудь плохое,&quot; which means &quot;I will certainly come up with something bad.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it is separated by punctuation, typically commas (or pauses in speech), it means probably. I would have written the answer as &quot;Наверно, нет.&quot; For instance, take Okudzhava's *Song About Combat Boots*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А где же наше мужество, солдат, &#xD;&#xA;    когда мы возвращаемся назад? &#xD;&#xA;    Его, наверно, женщины крадут, &#xD;&#xA;    и, как птенца, за пазуху кладут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, lots of confusion exists. For example, the [Russian Wiki entry][1] for the comedy *The Gods Must Be Crazy* is punctuated. But the meaning is almost the same.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the negation in your example is making the difference between the two loom large. Certainty, roughly speaking, is just probability going to one. An example of this is &quot;almost sure/certain convergence&quot; in math, which is translated as &quot;почти наверное сходимость&quot; in K. A. Borovkov's *English-Russian Dictionary on Probability, Statistics, and Combinatorics,* 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5,_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="5259492d-ddca-4949-b650-7ff993e9ff19" CreationDate="2013-05-15T12:20:12.493" UserId="1568" Text="The following quote is from the beginning of Part 1, chapter 7 (Раскольников stands at the old woman's door):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...и опять два вострые и недоверчивые взгяда уставились на него из темноты.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is &quot;вострые и недоверчивые&quot; in nominative? Does 'два' not govern a genitive singular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one person (in this case the old woman) look with &quot;two glances&quot; (&quot;два взгляда&quot;)? Can &quot;взгляд&quot; be a synonym for &quot;глаз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="5259492d-ddca-4949-b650-7ff993e9ff19" CreationDate="2013-05-15T12:20:12.493" UserId="1568" Text="Use of genitive in Преступление и наказание" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2243" RevisionGUID="5259492d-ddca-4949-b650-7ff993e9ff19" CreationDate="2013-05-15T12:20:12.493" UserId="1568" Text="|литература|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2244" RevisionGUID="874fa1f4-c934-475c-9551-5c25a61fd337" CreationDate="2013-05-15T13:16:25.010" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Why is &quot;вострые и недоверчивые&quot; in nominative? Does 'два' not govern a genitive singular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does govern sg. gen. for nouns, but may govern both gen. and nom. for the adjectives defining them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., #193.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. При существительных мужского и среднего рода, зависящих от числительных *два, три, четыре* (а также от составных числительных, оканчивающихся на указанные цифры), определение, находящееся между числительным и существительным, в современном языке ставится, как правило, в форме родительного падежа множественного числа: *два высоких дома, три больших окна, двадцать четыре деревянных стола.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the remark about &quot;modern language&quot; and &quot;usually&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This graph: http://goo.gl/P1EoA shows decline in usage of nominative over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How can one person (in this case the old woman) look with &quot;two glances&quot; (&quot;два взгляда&quot;)? Can &quot;взгляд&quot; be a synonym for &quot;глаз&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it's a metonymy, and Dostoevsky is known for wide usage of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … возбуждало в нем желчь и конвульсии (*желчь* instead of *разлитие желчи*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … cестра моя скорее в негры пойдет к плантатору или в латыши к остзейскому немцу … (*негры* and *латыши* instead of *батраки* or *рабы*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В другой расположились музыканты: две скрипки, флейта и контрбас. (instruments instead of players)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2245" RevisionGUID="148bc70e-9b67-4159-997d-cb478596b499" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:30:15.330" UserId="170" Text="&gt;  Только три процента всей воды на Земле явля(Е/Ю)тся пресной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What letter should I choose there? Е or Ю?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2245" RevisionGUID="148bc70e-9b67-4159-997d-cb478596b499" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:30:15.330" UserId="170" Text="Только три процента всей воды на Земле явля(Е/Ю)тся пресной" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2245" RevisionGUID="148bc70e-9b67-4159-997d-cb478596b499" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:30:15.330" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2246" RevisionGUID="170633c8-a1b2-4de5-b85b-1b9d4f89e702" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:31:06.960" UserId="194" Text="When in history of Russian language &quot;кде&quot; became &quot;где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2246" RevisionGUID="170633c8-a1b2-4de5-b85b-1b9d4f89e702" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:31:06.960" UserId="194" Text="When &quot;кде&quot; became &quot;где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2246" RevisionGUID="170633c8-a1b2-4de5-b85b-1b9d4f89e702" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:31:06.960" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2247" RevisionGUID="b5bf4439-b879-41c9-887a-828f208b70d0" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:50:12.190" UserId="134" Text="After the fall of the reduced, *къде* became *кде* which then turned into *где* trough vocalization of the voiceless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*къде* is used in the gramotas ([788][1], dated 1180-1200), *где* in several Old Russian texts  of no later than XIII. Note that written Old Novgorod dialect mixed `ъ` and `e`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The intermittent form *кде* is used, say in the Primary Chronicle dated 1117.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's some time around the fall of the reduced coming to its end, so depending on the dialect it's XII to XIII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?no=788&amp;act=full&amp;key=bb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="e357ea51-83fa-48b6-ac8c-af609a74c2c0" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:59:28.553" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal et al, #184.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма единственного числа сказуемого употребляется при обозначении меры веса, пространства, времени и т.д., так как в этом случае имеется в виду единое целое, например: *На покраску крыши ушло двадцать килограммов олифы; До конца пути оставалось пятнадцать километров; На выполнение всей работы понадобится шесть месяцев.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use singular here: *три процента всей воды на Земле является пресной*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="e7261d53-96f5-4567-bf2d-821e369cd60e" CreationDate="2013-05-15T16:12:24.973" UserId="134" Comment="added 512 characters in body" Text="Rosenthal et al, №184.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма единственного числа сказуемого употребляется при обозначении меры веса, пространства, времени и т.д., так как в этом случае имеется в виду единое целое, например: *На покраску крыши ушло двадцать килограммов олифы; До конца пути оставалось пятнадцать километров; На выполнение всей работы понадобится шесть месяцев.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use singular here: *три процента всей воды на Земле является пресной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, in this case another rule would apply (ibid, №184.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма единственного числа сказуемого указывает на совокупность предметов, форма множественного числа – на отдельные предметы. Ср.: *В городе строится пять объектов соцкультбыта* (единое нерасчлененное представление о действии). – *В крупнейших городах страны строятся еще пять объектов соцкультбыта* (расчлененное представление о действии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since we regard Earth's sweetwater as a whole, the outcome is the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2249" RevisionGUID="16d6d610-7055-4a4e-ba20-a894f9fb8e3b" CreationDate="2013-05-15T17:37:15.433" UserId="1693" Text="три процента ... являются, так как &quot;являться&quot; - глагол относится к 1 спряжению. http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_91&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="8805e24e-c592-43b8-9e6b-a6410b89d0c2" CreationDate="2013-05-15T21:02:26.137" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 457 characters in body" Text="In this case the following rule would apply (ibid, №184.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма единственного числа сказуемого указывает на совокупность предметов, форма множественного числа – на отдельные предметы. Ср.: *В городе строится пять объектов соцкультбыта* (единое нерасчлененное представление о действии). – *В крупнейших городах страны строятся еще пять объектов соцкультбыта* (расчлененное представление о действии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we do not refer each percent separately, we should use the singular form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2246" RevisionGUID="85da9918-636c-4622-ab94-a0163bbd27dd" CreationDate="2013-05-15T21:13:22.203" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="289e1d6f-ee4c-409f-9cd0-e847ab8a36b5" CreationDate="2013-05-16T06:07:34.107" UserDisplayName="user1388" Text="It's clear enough that something like &quot;1993 г.&quot; signifies a precise year, but in English one can write &quot;c. 1993&quot; (i.e. &quot;circa 1993&quot;), indicating that the exact year is unknown. Is there an equivalent in Russian? It feels awkward to write &quot;около 1993 г.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="289e1d6f-ee4c-409f-9cd0-e847ab8a36b5" CreationDate="2013-05-16T06:07:34.107" UserDisplayName="user1388" Text="What is the Russian equivalent for &quot;circa&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="289e1d6f-ee4c-409f-9cd0-e847ab8a36b5" CreationDate="2013-05-16T06:07:34.107" UserDisplayName="user1388" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2248" RevisionGUID="508fdc60-2058-45b2-b63e-b414b6edb5f0" CreationDate="2013-05-16T06:32:40.263" UserId="134" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="In this case the following rule would apply (Rosenthal et al., №184.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма единственного числа сказуемого указывает на совокупность предметов, форма множественного числа – на отдельные предметы. Ср.: *В городе строится пять объектов соцкультбыта* (единое нерасчлененное представление о действии). – *В крупнейших городах страны строятся еще пять объектов соцкультбыта* (расчлененное представление о действии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we do not refer each percent separately, we should use the singular form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2253" RevisionGUID="d3f8ac63-53f5-4a76-b651-7818ce9814a7" CreationDate="2013-05-16T06:51:39.593" UserId="134" Text="This form is ok when there are no conflicting governments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Около 1804 года в Смоленской губернии, верстах в двадцати от города Ельни, проживал в собственном своем имении, селе Новоспасском, отставной капитан Иван Николаевич Глинка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in case of government conflict (when adding the preposition *около* would change the noun's case), Rosenthal suggests replacing it with an adverb (Rosenthal et al., №200.4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конструкция может оказаться в двойной зависимости при несочетаемости двух форм управления, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *…потребовал обнародования петиции, подписанной свыше миллиона граждан, выступающих против повышения квартирной платы* (подписанной *кем?* свыше *чего?*; возможный вариант правки: **);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *В проходе разрешается стоять не свыше 25 экскурсантов* (разрешается *кому?* не свыше  *чего?*;  возможный вариант: *…не больше чем 25 экскурсантам*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Издание, датируемое около 1600 года* (датируемое *таким-то* годом; около *такого-то* года; возможный вариант: *датируемое приблизительно 1600 годом*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an abbrebiation, it's widely used in encyclopaedia articles and similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Архимед (Archimedes; ок. 287 — 212 до н. э.), древнегреческий учёный, математик и механик." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2253" RevisionGUID="335831b5-d7ca-4fc7-9cc2-00d801c5efbe" CreationDate="2013-05-16T07:08:05.127" UserId="1236" Comment="missing phrase added" Text="This form is ok when there are no conflicting governments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Около 1804 года в Смоленской губернии, верстах в двадцати от города Ельни, проживал в собственном своем имении, селе Новоспасском, отставной капитан Иван Николаевич Глинка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in case of government conflict (when adding the preposition *около* would change the noun's case), Rosenthal suggests replacing it with an adverb (Rosenthal et al., №200.4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конструкция может оказаться в двойной зависимости при несочетаемости двух форм управления, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *…потребовал обнародования петиции, подписанной свыше миллиона граждан, выступающих против повышения квартирной платы* (подписанной *кем?* свыше *чего?*; возможный вариант правки: *подписанной свыше чем миллионом граждан*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *В проходе разрешается стоять не свыше 25 экскурсантов* (разрешается *кому?* не свыше  *чего?*;  возможный вариант: *…не больше чем 25 экскурсантам*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; *Издание, датируемое около 1600 года* (датируемое *таким-то* годом; около *такого-то* года; возможный вариант: *датируемое приблизительно 1600 годом*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an abbrebiation, it's widely used in encyclopaedia articles and similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Архимед (Archimedes; ок. 287 — 212 до н. э.), древнегреческий учёный, математик и механик." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2247" RevisionGUID="f2d240a2-69c7-41cf-a8c9-05e57403fa85" CreationDate="2013-05-16T12:02:15.350" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="After the fall of the reduced, *къде* became *кде* which then turned into *где* trough vocalization of the voiceless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*къде* is used in the gramotas ([788][1], dated 1180-1200), *где* in several Old Russian texts  of no later than XIII. Note that written Old Novgorod dialect mixed `ъ` and `e`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interjacent form *кде* is used, say in the Primary Chronicle dated 1117.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's some time around the fall of the reduced coming to its end, so depending on the dialect it's XII to XIII.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramoty.ru/index.php?no=788&amp;act=full&amp;key=bb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7913" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2252" RevisionGUID="30c3943f-5fd7-4e40-8bb4-2d6d13245f67" CreationDate="2013-05-16T12:11:31.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/335004581794836480" />
  <row Id="7918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2255" RevisionGUID="95b093de-bd5f-42e1-ae43-b54eb4e37f25" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:22:43.767" UserId="487" Text="The Russian expressions in the title refer to god. Are there equivalent interjections that do not refer to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2255" RevisionGUID="95b093de-bd5f-42e1-ae43-b54eb4e37f25" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:22:43.767" UserId="487" Text="Not god-alluding expressions equivalent to &quot;боже мой!&quot;, &quot;о господи!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2255" RevisionGUID="95b093de-bd5f-42e1-ae43-b54eb4e37f25" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:22:43.767" UserId="487" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2256" RevisionGUID="0bbe7291-912d-4718-b94c-dfe3ed178d78" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:55:58.047" UserId="1027" Text="These are the words that express astonishment or fright both positive and negative form. There are a lot of such words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Чёрт!&#xD;&#xA;    Ё-моё!&#xD;&#xA;    Ого! &#xD;&#xA;    Ух ты! &#xD;&#xA;    Ничего себе!&#xD;&#xA;    Нифига!&#xD;&#xA;    Ой-ёй-ёй!&#xD;&#xA;    Ёлки-палки!&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это да!&#xD;&#xA;    Надо же!&#xD;&#xA;    Ох!&#xD;&#xA;    Обалдеть!&#xD;&#xA;    Невероятно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="4507a0d7-d95f-4e6f-9a8b-dd7ba2e3e265" CreationDate="2013-05-18T20:54:26.903" UserId="1670" Text="The list contains right expressions but by no means it is a complete one.&#xD;&#xA;You often would also hear **&quot;С ума сойти!&quot;**, and bizarrely enough, some totally inexplicable exclamations referring to the same emotion of awe or astonishment like, for example, **&quot;япона мать!&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that majority of such expressions are from the realm of profanity and cannot be mentioned here. But believe me - ones you are in Russia, you would learn them very quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1914" RevisionGUID="59168547-a5df-40bc-9d39-ed975aff3e32" CreationDate="2013-05-19T09:26:48.103" UserId="33" Comment="Added our teacher's opinion to this task in test." Text="Правильным ответом оказалось слово **«фантазия»**. В нем 8 букв и 9 звуков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Занимательный вопрос, *почему «фантазия», а не «животное»*. Оказывается, в слове «животное» будет 8 звуков:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [жы'вотнаи]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Потому что на «-ное» не падает ударение, звук [й] исчезнет из редуцированного до [и] сочетания [йэ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Позже я нашел подтверждение этому в Википедии в статье [Русская фонетика][1] в разделе [Скользящий сонант][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;li&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/j/&lt;/span&gt; (/j/) — орфографически &lt;b&gt;й&lt;/b&gt;, а также в составе йотированных гласных (я, ё, ю, е) не после согласных: &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%99%D0%BE%D0%B4&quot; title=&quot;Йод&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot;&gt;йод&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/jot/&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA&quot; title=&quot;Як&quot;&gt;як&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/jak/&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%81%D0%B6&quot; title=&quot;Ёж&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot;&gt;ёж&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/joʂ/&lt;/span&gt;, еле &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/'jelʲi/&lt;/span&gt;, юг &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/juk/&lt;/span&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;li&gt;Полугласный аллофон (глайд) &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;[ɪ̯]&lt;/span&gt; произносится после гласных, образуя дифтонгические сочетания, которые в русском являются двухфонемными: яйцо &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;[ɪɪ̯ˈʦo]&lt;/span&gt;, ей &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;[jeɪ̯]&lt;/span&gt;. После безударных &amp;lt;и&amp;gt; и &amp;lt;ы&amp;gt; в окончаниях прилагательных в обычной речи не произносится: красный &lt;span class=&quot;IPA&quot;&gt;/'krasnɨ/&lt;/span&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;li&gt;/j/ обычно не произносится между любой гласной и /i/: &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D1%86&quot; title=&quot;Заяц&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot;&gt;заяц&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; /'za.iʦ/ &amp;lt; |za.jaʦ|, &lt;i&gt;кланяется&lt;/i&gt; /'kɫa.nʲi.iʦ.ʦa/.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь ключевым является последний пункт: */j/ обычно не произносится между любой гласной и /i/.* Таким образом, в соответствии с этим правилом, и правильным ответом должно быть слово *«животное»*, если принять, что «е» редуцируется до [и] (/i/). Но ведь при произнесении явно слышен неопределенный звук /ə/, а не четкое /i/, и звук /j/ ([й]) тоже слышен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом в [транскрипции слова «животное»][3] в Викисловаре выделено 9 звуков:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ʐɨˈvotnəjə]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К данной транскрипции у меня нет никаких претензий: в конце слова мы слышим два [неопределенных звука][4], разделенных звуком /j/ ([й]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, для слова [«фантазия»][5] в Викисловаре нет транскрипции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обновлено:** Со слов учительницы, правильным ответом признано слово «фантазия», потому что &lt;em&gt;«партия так приказала»&lt;/em&gt;. А так в обоих словах одинаковое количество звуков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.BD.D1.82.D1.8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B2%D0%B0 &quot;Шва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="eeaa615a-d41d-491c-975b-6dd4fb9c0f5c" CreationDate="2013-05-19T15:42:24.690" UserId="487" Comment="little spelling correction" Text="The list contains right expressions but by no means it is a complete one.&#xD;&#xA;You often would also hear **&quot;С ума сойти!&quot;**, and bizarrely enough, some totally inexplicable exclamations referring to the same emotion of awe or astonishment like, for example, **&quot;япона мать!&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the majority of such expressions are from the realm of profanity and cannot be mentioned here. But believe me - once you are in Russia, you would learn them very quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7925" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2257" RevisionGUID="eeaa615a-d41d-491c-975b-6dd4fb9c0f5c" CreationDate="2013-05-19T15:42:24.690" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by 71 edit id of 364" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7926" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2255" RevisionGUID="2ff1c960-8e88-4c59-9d87-89f254a81291" CreationDate="2013-05-20T06:11:51.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/336363622617989120" />
  <row Id="7927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2258" RevisionGUID="10761675-1ff9-4943-a933-6e9d0b49c859" CreationDate="2013-05-20T09:25:13.023" UserId="1702" Text="В классике русской литературы разных изданий встречается написание слова &quot;бог&quot; в сходном контексте как с прописной, так и со строчной буквы. Например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во  главе  тамошнего  местного  духовенства  находился  тогда  епископ,&#xD;&#xA;человек,  надо  полагать, очень  добрый,  участливый  и  чистосердечный.  Он&#xD;&#xA;принимал скорбь народа близко  к своему  сердцу и сам усердно молился, чтобы&#xD;&#xA;Бог послал дождь на землю, но дождя все-таки не было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Н.С.Лесков. Повесть о богоугодном дровоколе.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорят:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&amp;mdash; Мы еще и сами не знаем, что учиним, а только будем на бога надеяться, и авось слово царское ради нас в постыждении не будет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так и Платов умом виляет, и туляки тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Н.С.Лесков. Левша. Сказ о тульском косом Левше и о стальной блохе.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли формальное правило, строго определяющее, когда надо писать со строчной, а когда с прописной. Или выбор может быть оставлен за автором (издателем)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2258" RevisionGUID="10761675-1ff9-4943-a933-6e9d0b49c859" CreationDate="2013-05-20T09:25:13.023" UserId="1702" Text="Слово &quot;Бог&quot;: с прописной или со строчной" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2258" RevisionGUID="10761675-1ff9-4943-a933-6e9d0b49c859" CreationDate="2013-05-20T09:25:13.023" UserId="1702" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="101e1e31-cdfb-4fe2-9c4b-f4572ee2bf8d" CreationDate="2013-05-20T09:34:56.413" UserId="551" Text="В советских изданиях &quot;бог&quot; всегда писался со строчной буквы, потому что &quot;бога нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В дореволюционных изданиях и пост-советских изданиях &quot;Бог&quot; пишется с заглавной буквы (если имеется в виду христианство, где Бог един и любые упоминания Бога относятся к Нему), причем и местоимения, относящиеся к Нему (Его, Ему, Он и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же божество относится к пантеону древнегреческих божеств и т.п. то у этих божеств есть собственные имена (Анубис, Гефест, Кецалькоатль), поэтому &quot;бог&quot; здесь также пишется с маленькой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю что и в современной практике отдельные издательства могут придерживаться советских норм (например в газете &quot;Голос атеиста&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="7de0add3-d418-4a26-be52-b8c6c8c77960" CreationDate="2013-05-20T09:43:20.813" UserId="551" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="В советских изданиях &quot;бог&quot; всегда писался со строчной буквы, потому что &quot;бога нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В дореволюционных изданиях и пост-советских изданиях &quot;Бог&quot; пишется с заглавной буквы (если имеется в виду христианство, где Бог един и любые упоминания Бога относятся к Нему), причем и местоимения, относящиеся к Нему (Его, Ему, Он и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же божество относится к пантеону языческих божеств (греческих, египетских и т.п.) то у этих божеств есть собственные имена (Анубис, Гефест, Кецалькоатль), поэтому &quot;бог&quot; здесь также пишется с маленькой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю что и в современной практике отдельные издательства могут придерживаться советских норм (например в какой-нибудь газете с названием &quot;Голос атеиста&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="88fff1da-fae8-43c6-8127-26dfff8e68e0" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:16:00.637" UserId="551" Comment="added citation from reliable source" Text="В советских изданиях &quot;бог&quot; всегда писался со строчной буквы, потому что &quot;бога нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В дореволюционных изданиях и пост-советских изданиях &quot;Бог&quot; пишется с заглавной буквы (если имеется в виду христианство, где Бог един и любые упоминания Бога относятся к Нему), причем и местоимения, относящиеся к Нему (Его, Ему, Он и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же божество относится к пантеону языческих божеств (греческих, египетских и т.п.) то у этих божеств есть собственные имена (Анубис, Гефест, Кецалькоатль), поэтому &quot;бог&quot; здесь также пишется с маленькой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю что и в современной практике отдельные издательства могут придерживаться советских норм (например в какой-нибудь газете с названием &quot;Голос атеиста&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Вот цитата из книги *Мильчин, Чельцова. Справочник издателя и автора, 2003*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.22.1. Имена богов, апостолов, пророков, святых  &#xD;&#xA;С прописной буквы пишутся слово Бог (в значении единого верховного существа) и имена богов во всех религиях. Напр.: Иегова, Саваоф, Яхве, Иисус Христос…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечание 2. Слово бог в значении одного из множества богов или в переносном значении пишется со строчной буквы. Напр.: бог Аполлон, бог войны, боги Олимпа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.22.2. Устойчивые сочетания со словами бог, господь   &#xD;&#xA;В многочисленных устойчивых сочетаниях, постоянно употребляющихся в разговорной речи вне прямой связи с религией, следует писать бог (а также господь) со строчной буквы. К ним относятся: (не) бог весть или (не) бог знает (кто, что, какой) — о ком-, чем-либо не очень важном, значительном; бог (господь) его знает — неизвестно, не знаю; бог с ним (ней, тобой, вами), (не) дай бог, ради бога, убей меня бог, как бог на душу положит, не приведи бог (господь), богом обиженный, забытый богом, к богу в рай, не верить ни в бога ни в черта, не гони бога в лес, коли в избу влез, и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не следует также писать с прописной буквы междометия ей-богу, боже, боже мой, господи, господи боже мой, бог ты мой, боже упаси, боже сохрани, в отличие от тех случаев, когда формы боже, господи выражают обращение к Богу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В некоторых случаях выбор написания зависит от контекста. Так, может быть написано слава Богу (если контекст указывает, что говорящий действительно благодарит Господа Бога) и слава богу (если по контексту ясно, что употреблен расхожий разговорный оборот: В тот раз он, слава богу, пришел вовремя!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но в сочетании не слава богу прописная буква невозможна (У него все не слава богу)».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Взято с сайта http://www.gramota.ru/forum/klass/109512/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2261" RevisionGUID="c79cca3f-4a91-4a67-8a27-e764cb31651f" CreationDate="2013-05-20T12:36:37.993" UserId="235" Text="&quot;Well, no&quot;. &quot;Да&quot; here is just an interjection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2259" RevisionGUID="08b6fc6b-14fc-43b3-8f1d-5861b031001b" CreationDate="2013-05-20T12:55:45.763" UserId="551" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="В советских изданиях &quot;бог&quot; всегда писался со строчной буквы, потому что &quot;бога нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В дореволюционных изданиях и пост-советских (современных) изданиях &quot;Бог&quot; пишется с заглавной буквы (если имеется в виду христианство, где Бог един и любые упоминания Бога относятся к Нему), причем и местоимения, относящиеся к Нему (Его, Ему, Он и т. п.) (т.е. слово &quot;Бог&quot; здесь выступает в роли имени).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же божество относится к пантеону языческих божеств (греческих, египетских и т.п.) то у этих божеств есть собственные имена (Анубис, Гефест, Кецалькоатль), поэтому &quot;бог&quot; здесь не играет роль имени собственного и пишется с маленькой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю что и в современной практике отдельные издательства могут придерживаться советских норм (например в какой-нибудь газете с названием &quot;Голос атеиста&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Вот цитата из книги *Мильчин, Чельцова. Справочник издателя и автора, 2003*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.22.1. Имена богов, апостолов, пророков, святых  &#xD;&#xA;С прописной буквы пишутся слово Бог (в значении единого верховного существа) и имена богов во всех религиях. Напр.: Иегова, Саваоф, Яхве, Иисус Христос…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечание 2. Слово бог в значении одного из множества богов или в переносном значении пишется со строчной буквы. Напр.: бог Аполлон, бог войны, боги Олимпа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.22.2. Устойчивые сочетания со словами бог, господь   &#xD;&#xA;В многочисленных устойчивых сочетаниях, постоянно употребляющихся в разговорной речи вне прямой связи с религией, следует писать бог (а также господь) со строчной буквы. К ним относятся: (не) бог весть или (не) бог знает (кто, что, какой) — о ком-, чем-либо не очень важном, значительном; бог (господь) его знает — неизвестно, не знаю; бог с ним (ней, тобой, вами), (не) дай бог, ради бога, убей меня бог, как бог на душу положит, не приведи бог (господь), богом обиженный, забытый богом, к богу в рай, не верить ни в бога ни в черта, не гони бога в лес, коли в избу влез, и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не следует также писать с прописной буквы междометия ей-богу, боже, боже мой, господи, господи боже мой, бог ты мой, боже упаси, боже сохрани, в отличие от тех случаев, когда формы боже, господи выражают обращение к Богу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В некоторых случаях выбор написания зависит от контекста. Так, может быть написано слава Богу (если контекст указывает, что говорящий действительно благодарит Господа Бога) и слава богу (если по контексту ясно, что употреблен расхожий разговорный оборот: В тот раз он, слава богу, пришел вовремя!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но в сочетании не слава богу прописная буква невозможна (У него все не слава богу)».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Взято с сайта http://www.gramota.ru/forum/klass/109512/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7937" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2180" RevisionGUID="0e4cb2b3-04cd-48c7-b5c5-5023069762c6" CreationDate="2013-05-20T15:11:52.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/336499521553043456" />
  <row Id="7938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="f57ca3b3-6c66-4804-9f7f-dc19bfd34e26" CreationDate="2013-05-21T04:42:56.743" UserId="31" Comment="Excerpt was too long (it was created before length constraints were enforced)." Text="Covers questions about different cases. Case is a morphological category of nouns and adjectives that signals their relation to other words in a sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, words &quot;одна машина&quot; in &quot;Одна машина остановилась перед другой машиной&quot; are in nominative case and signal that &quot;одна машина&quot; is the subject of &quot;остановилась&quot;; &quot;другой машиной&quot; is in instrumental case and signals that this word is in certain relation to preposition &quot;перед&quot;. Both &quot;машина&quot; and &quot;машиной&quot; are forms of the same word (same entry in a dictionary)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="c026310f-47c5-4050-adb9-df0df98778ac" CreationDate="2013-05-21T04:42:56.743" UserId="31" Comment="Excerpt was too long (it was created before length constraints were enforced)." Text="Covers questions about different cases. Case is a morphological category of nouns and adjectives that signals their relation to other words in a sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2263" RevisionGUID="b9e004bd-dd36-4cf5-b583-3516f649d234" CreationDate="2013-05-21T06:04:36.387" UserId="1705" Text="answer to your quote would be &quot;that she isn't sure but probably hasn't?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наверное&quot; - brings uncertainty in to the sentence and than flowing word is defining whether its more yes or no ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translation would be the same that you have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2264" RevisionGUID="b3a92472-e15c-49a4-9af5-eac35f8a91d9" CreationDate="2013-05-21T16:58:43.307" UserId="1706" Text="try please: можете, пожалуйста, вести себя потише?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2265" RevisionGUID="14f8a4b2-7a10-4aa9-9258-980971d76c9b" CreationDate="2013-05-21T19:20:00.807" UserId="1705" Text="I just glance through the movie , and all i can say , that it's they speak old Russian, and i didn't find it hard to understand. But langue they use is rear so you may find some old people some where in the village will actually speak this way. Rather then that it's not common to use most of the words in modern Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2266" RevisionGUID="e8bb6310-430f-404b-8307-d8b47acc7043" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:16:48.607" UserId="551" Text="В русском языке есть много так называемых &quot;слов-паразитов&quot;, которые можно убрать из текста, причем сам текст от этого не пострадает. Более того - текст (или устная речь) станет грамотнее, &quot;чище&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, словами-паразитами называют частицы &quot;же&quot;, &quot;ведь&quot;, &quot;ну&quot;, &quot;вот&quot;; слова и выражения &quot;кстати&quot;, &quot;так вот&quot;, &quot;вообще&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужны ли эти слова в русском языке? Если единственная функция этих слов - &quot;заполнение времени&quot;, то почему слов-паразитов так много? Неужели нельзя обойтись только словом &quot;э&quot; или &quot;ну&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2266" RevisionGUID="e8bb6310-430f-404b-8307-d8b47acc7043" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:16:48.607" UserId="551" Text="Для чего нужны &quot;слова-паразиты&quot; - &quot;ну&quot;, &quot;ведь&quot;, &quot;же&quot;, &quot;вот&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2266" RevisionGUID="e8bb6310-430f-404b-8307-d8b47acc7043" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:16:48.607" UserId="551" Text="|лексикон|выражения|слова-паразиты|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2267" RevisionGUID="a6797c32-bca9-42e8-a19e-5caad3593257" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:45:58.587" UserId="551" Text="Википедия пишет о [словах-паразитах](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8B) следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Слова-паразиты» — лингвистическое явление, выраженное в употреблении лишних и бессмысленных в данном контексте слов вроде «типа», «например», «как бы», «это самое», «собственно», «ну..», «так сказать», «вот», «как сказать», «в общем-то», «понимаешь», «а именно», «на этом» и других. Синтаксически большинство «слов-паразитов» являются вводными словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но есть у этих слов и другая роль - они могут использоваться для обеспечения связности текста и выступают в этом случае в роли [дискурсивных слов](http://postnauka.ru/faq/8572).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дискурсивные слова – это сравнительно новая область лингвистики. Так в узком смысле называют особую группу слов: не существительные, не глаголы, не прилагательные, не &quot;основное ядро&quot;, несущее главную нагрузку в передаче смыслового задания, а, так сказать &quot;служебные&quot; слова. Слова отражающие то, как говорящий работает над текстом, что он думает: трудно ему или легко, как он воспринимает адресата, много или мало, по его мнению, знает адресат, раздражает он говорящего или, наоборот, нравится ему. И многое другое. Эти слова помечают разные этапы создания текста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Например, «слушай меня внимательно, сейчас будет самое важное» – в этом значении мы часто употребляем единицу **так вот**. Или, например: «А сейчас я делаю отступление, это менее важно, имейте в виду, но скоро я вернусь к важному». Этот смысла может скрываться за коротким **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, дискурсивные слова часто выражают разное отношение к адресату. Хорошо ли я знаю его, близко ли он мне знаком. Не всякому человеку в речи скажешь то же *ведь*, или *вот*, или, скажем, *ка* (как в *сделай-ка*) – эта частица тоже дискурсивное слово, которое свидетельствует об особом отношении между говорящим и адресатом, скорее всего, об их близком знакомстве или неформальных отношениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты **ведь** туда уже ходил&quot; – попробуйте перевести его на какой-то другой язык. Если попытаться это сделать, то приблизительно получится: «ты знаешь и я знаю, что ты туда ходил, но, наверное, ты об этом забыл, и я хочу тебе напомнить об этом, при этом я удивляюсь, потому что я считаю, что ты об этом должен бы был помнить». В этом слове помещается очень сложное и очень эмоциональное значение – напоминание говорящего адресату, что тот должен извлечь из своей памяти нечто очевидное, но при этом потерянное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У слова **ну** тоже очень сложный комплекс значений. Оно возникает, как правило, в начале реплики и свидетельствует о том, что говорящий раздумывает, не знает точно, что ответить, и пытается выиграть время, чтобы выбрать то, что кажется ему оптимальным. Это такое слово-взвешивание, слово-выжидание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не надо думать, что дискурсивные слова принадлежат только к разговорной речи. По крайней мере для русского языка это совершенно точно не так. Даже в русской научной статье их очень много: *таким образом, очевидно, тем не менее, в целом*, и т.д., и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дискурсивные слова не связаны также со степенью литературной обработанности, «развитости» языка: они есть и в литературных языках с давней традицией, и в малых, в бесписьменных языках. А связано их присутствие, скорее всего, с тем, насколько в данном языке – и в данной культуре – важен вот этот самый суггестивный компонент, внимание к информации, получаемой только при межличностном общении (и лучше всего при таком, когда собеседники давно и хорошо знают друг друга). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Известно, что дискурсивных слов (в традиционных терминах, «частиц») было очень много в древнегреческом языке, гораздо больше, чем в латинском (где они тоже, конечно, были, но далеко не в таком количестве). Даже не очень понятно было всегда, как их переводить – чаще всего переводчики с греческого просто их пропускали. Видимо, греческий текст – в том числе и научный текст – вырастал непосредственно из диалога, ведь дискурсивных слов много там, где есть установка на постоянное межличностное взаимодействие." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2267" RevisionGUID="930d9bb9-d487-4c77-b52d-c58d1d14621a" CreationDate="2013-05-22T09:24:35.940" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 412 characters in body" Text="Википедия пишет о [словах-паразитах](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8B) следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Слова-паразиты» — лингвистическое явление, выраженное в употреблении лишних и бессмысленных в данном контексте слов вроде «типа», «например», «как бы», «это самое», «собственно», «ну..», «так сказать», «вот», «как сказать», «в общем-то», «понимаешь», «а именно», «на этом» и других. Синтаксически большинство «слов-паразитов» являются вводными словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но есть у этих слов и другая роль - они могут использоваться для обеспечения связности текста и выступают в этом случае в роли [дискурсивных слов](http://postnauka.ru/faq/8572).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дискурсивные слова – это сравнительно новая область лингвистики. Так в узком смысле называют особую группу слов: не &quot;основное ядро&quot;, несущее главную нагрузку в передаче смыслового задания, а &quot;служебные&quot; слова, отражающие то, как говорящий работает над текстом, что он думает: трудно ему или легко, как он воспринимает адресата, много или мало, по его мнению, знает адресат, раздражает он говорящего или, наоборот, нравится ему. Эти слова помечают разные этапы создания текста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Например, «слушай меня внимательно, сейчас будет самое важное» – в этом значении мы часто употребляем единицу **так вот**. Или, например: «А сейчас я делаю отступление, это менее важно, имейте в виду, но скоро я вернусь к важному». Этот смысла может скрываться за коротким **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, дискурсивные слова часто выражают разное отношение к адресату. Хорошо ли я знаю его, близко ли он мне знаком. Не всякому человеку скажешь *ведь*, или *вот*, или *ка* (как в *сделай-ка*) – эта частица тоже дискурсивное слово, которое свидетельствует об особом отношении между говорящим и адресатом, скорее всего, об их близком знакомстве или неформальных отношениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты **ведь** туда уже ходил&quot; – попробуйте перевести его на какой-то другой язык. Если попытаться это сделать, то приблизительно получится: «ты знаешь и я знаю, что ты туда ходил, но, наверное, ты об этом забыл, и я хочу тебе напомнить об этом, при этом я удивляюсь, потому что я считаю, что ты об этом должен бы был помнить». В этом слове помещается очень сложное и очень эмоциональное значение – напоминание говорящего адресату, что тот должен извлечь из своей памяти нечто очевидное, но при этом потерянное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У слова **ну** тоже очень сложный комплекс значений. Оно возникает, как правило, в начале реплики и свидетельствует о том, что говорящий раздумывает, не знает точно, что ответить, и пытается выиграть время, чтобы выбрать то, что кажется ему оптимальным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дискурсивные слова принадлежат не только к разговорной речи, по крайней мере для русского языка это не так. Даже в русских научных статьях их очень много: *таким образом, очевидно, тем не менее, в целом*, и т.д., и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дискурсивные слова не связаны также со степенью литературной обработанности, «развитости» языка: они есть и в литературных языках с давней традицией, и в малых, в бесписьменных языках. А связано их присутствие, скорее всего, с тем, насколько в данном языке – и в данной культуре – важно внимание к информации, получаемой только при межличностном общении (особенно когда собеседники хорошо знают друг друга). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что дискурсивных слов было очень много в древнегреческом языке. Не всегда было понятно как их переводить, поэтому часто переводчики их просто пропускали. Видимо, греческий текст – в том числе и научный – вырастал непосредственно из диалога, ведь дискурсивных слов много там, где есть установка на постоянное межличностное взаимодействие." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2268" RevisionGUID="8a1517e2-729e-4aed-8fde-ed65cfcd8991" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:53:21.420" UserId="1708" Text="Why/How these names have different grammatical endings: Marija - Natalija?&#xD;&#xA;Or do they have the same endings in Dative case? Could somebody give me all 6 singular case endings for these two names for women, please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2268" RevisionGUID="8a1517e2-729e-4aed-8fde-ed65cfcd8991" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:53:21.420" UserId="1708" Text="Why/How these names have different grammatical endings: Marija - Natalija" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2268" RevisionGUID="8a1517e2-729e-4aed-8fde-ed65cfcd8991" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:53:21.420" UserId="1708" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2269" RevisionGUID="b1953153-2d7e-4751-84e2-bfb6685eb3a4" CreationDate="2013-05-22T18:11:43.790" UserId="134" Text="    Nom:  Мария    Наталья  &#xD;&#xA;    Gen:  Марии    Натальи  &#xD;&#xA;    Dat:  Марии    Наталье  &#xD;&#xA;    Acc:  Марию    Наталью  &#xD;&#xA;    Inst: Марией   Натальей&#xD;&#xA;    Prp:  Марии    Наталье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings differ indeed because *Мария* belongs to declension 1-7a while *Наталья* belongs to 1-6a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that both names have complementary forms (*Ма&amp;#769;рья* and *Ната&amp;#769;лия*), accordingly, which do decline similarly to *Наталья* and *Мария* (*Наталия* and *Мария* both belong to 1-7a; *Наталья* and *Марья* both belong to 1-6a)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2269" RevisionGUID="d2bf8a31-b40d-418b-9325-60ab003a3ab6" CreationDate="2013-05-22T18:17:11.340" UserId="134" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="    Nom:  Мария    Наталья  &#xD;&#xA;    Gen:  Марии    Натальи  &#xD;&#xA;    Dat:  Марии    Наталье  &#xD;&#xA;    Acc:  Марию    Наталью  &#xD;&#xA;    Inst: Марией   Натальей&#xD;&#xA;    Prp:  Марии    Наталье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings differ indeed: *Мария* belongs to declension 1-7a while *Наталья* belongs to 1-6a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that both names have complementary forms (*Ма&amp;#769;рья* and *Ната&amp;#769;лия*), accordingly, which do decline similarly to *Наталья* and *Мария* (*Наталия* and *Мария* both belong to 1-7a; *Наталья* and *Марья* both belong to 1-6a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the orthography reform of 1917, both words ended in *iѣ* in both dative and prepositive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="a5386051-ca11-40f3-971e-83a63b268221" CreationDate="2013-05-22T20:54:08.523" UserId="1710" Text="I think that «отказ от прав» is very clumsy and «предупреждение» didn't cupture the sence thought even here (http://russian.stackexchange.com/) it used widely in cases where second choice is more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="a5386051-ca11-40f3-971e-83a63b268221" CreationDate="2013-05-22T20:54:08.523" UserId="1710" Text="How to translate «disclaimer» into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="a5386051-ca11-40f3-971e-83a63b268221" CreationDate="2013-05-22T20:54:08.523" UserId="1710" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2271" RevisionGUID="c5eca20f-cbfc-4e83-bb0b-45fdcae2b654" CreationDate="2013-05-22T23:50:02.003" UserId="1027" Text="We call it simply &quot;дисклеймер&quot;. Wikipedia also [confirms][1] it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="c5ed0325-2921-40ae-9fc0-e2485fef7040" CreationDate="2013-05-23T07:42:44.520" UserId="551" Text="[Multitran.ru][1] lists several translations that are used in different situations. I think that it depends on &quot;professional slang&quot; in different industries (software, telecommunications, cinema, etc.) where they had to invent russian equivalent of western word &quot;disclaimer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that most general translation is &quot;отказ от ответственности&quot;. I think this is the best translation for the software EULA, where they write &quot;The end user uses this free software 'as is'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the movies when they state that all the characters are fictional the translation may be &quot;оговорка о случайном характере совпадений&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More official &quot;corporate style&quot; translation may be &quot;заявление об отказе от ответственности&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=disclaimer&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="c9ef676b-9b81-4b6c-abfe-a205068882c3" CreationDate="2013-05-23T07:56:23.367" UserId="551" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="If I understand correctly &quot;disclaimer&quot; is not widely used in russian law, so the translators usually are trying to find the appropriate existing russian terms in different fields of knowledge (business, software, telecommunications, cinema, etc.). This is typical situation with freshly borrowed terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the translation depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that most general translation is &quot;отказ от ответственности&quot;. I think this is the best translation for the software EULA, where they write &quot;The end user uses this free software 'as is'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the movies when they state that all the characters are fictional the translation may be &quot;оговорка о случайном характере совпадений&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More official &quot;corporate style&quot; translation may be &quot;заявление об отказе от ответственности&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in patents and in jurisprudence (legal practice) there may be more appropriate translations in different situations: правовая оговорка, защитительная оговорка, отказ от прав, отказ от изобретения, дискламация элемента товарного знака, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=disclaimer&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="06a8a97b-35ed-4473-a69b-8de7ede5c127" CreationDate="2013-05-23T08:02:11.983" UserId="551" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="If I understand correctly &quot;disclaimer&quot; is not widely used in russian law, so the translators usually are trying to find the appropriate existing russian terms in different fields of knowledge (business, software, telecommunications, cinema, etc.). This is typical situation with freshly borrowed terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the translation depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that most general translation is &quot;отказ от ответственности&quot;. I think this is the best translation for the software EULA, where they write &quot;The end user uses this free software 'as is'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the movies when they state that all the characters are fictional the translation may be &quot;оговорка о случайном характере совпадений&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More official &quot;corporate style&quot; translation may be &quot;заявление об отказе от ответственности&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in patents and in jurisprudence (legal practice) there may be more appropriate translations in different situations: правовая оговорка, защитительная оговорка, отказ от прав, отказ от изобретения, дискламация элемента товарного знака, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more alternative translations on [Multitran.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=disclaimer&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="e630cb40-8bf1-448b-9db9-4d52243190db" CreationDate="2013-05-23T08:31:54.193" UserId="551" Comment="added 1578 characters in body" Text="If I understand correctly &quot;disclaimer&quot; is not widely used in russian law, so the translators usually are trying to find the appropriate existing russian terms in different fields of knowledge (business, software, telecommunications, cinema, etc.). This is typical situation with freshly borrowed terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the translation depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that most general translation is &quot;отказ от ответственности&quot;. I think this is the best translation for the software EULA, where they write &quot;The end user uses this free software 'as is'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the movies when they state that all the characters are fictional the translation may be &quot;оговорка о случайном характере совпадений&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More official &quot;corporate style&quot; translation may be &quot;заявление об отказе от ответственности&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in patents and in jurisprudence (legal practice) there may be more appropriate translations in different situations: правовая оговорка, защитительная оговорка, отказ от прав, отказ от изобретения, дискламация элемента товарного знака, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more alternative translations on [Multitran.ru][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia][1] article that Clever Masha referenced, reads that disclaimer is widely used in US including every day life situations. However it is well known that russian culture is not used to legal terms in every day life. I think that we have to separate situations when disclaimer is used by companies and when it is used elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when publishing house, software company or cinema studio uses disclaimer it is translated as legal notice. All examples below are typical &quot;заявления об отказе от ответственности&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Издательство не несет ответственности и не предоставляет гарантий в связи с публикацией фактов, данных, результатов и другой информации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Редакция не несёт ответственности за содержание авторских материалов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все персонажи являются вымышленными и любое совпадение с реально живущими или жившими людьми случайно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When disclaimer is used in other situations it is not common to Russian culture. The example that you are giving &quot;Disclaimer: J. K. Rowling owns Harry Potter, and no one owns the methods of rationality.&quot; references both legal and &quot;non-legal&quot; sphere, so it is hard to find adequate translation immediately. This disclaimer references fantasy setting of the book, so to translate it one should try to find some creative solution. In this case &quot;предупреждение&quot; seems not so bad, but definetely looses 'legal' feeling of the term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It worth to note that Multitran also lists &quot;юридическое предупреждение&quot; as invention of cell phone provider MTC. Here 'legal' background is back).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=disclaimer&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="b91f6465-f5a2-415e-afd9-cfa270ae625e" CreationDate="2013-05-23T08:48:55.283" UserId="551" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia][1] article that Clever Masha referenced, reads that disclaimer is widely used in US including every day life situations. However it is well known that russian culture is not used to legal terms in every day life. I think that we have to separate situations when disclaimer is used by companies and when it is used elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when publishing house, software company or cinema studio uses disclaimer it is translated as legal notice. All examples below are typical &quot;заявления об отказе от ответственности&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Издательство не несет ответственности и не предоставляет гарантий в связи с публикацией фактов, данных, результатов и другой информации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Редакция не несёт ответственности за содержание авторских материалов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все персонажи являются вымышленными и любое совпадение с реально живущими или жившими людьми случайно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When disclaimer is used in other situations it is not common to Russian culture. The example that you are giving &quot;Disclaimer: J. K. Rowling owns Harry Potter, and no one owns the methods of rationality.&quot; references both legal and &quot;non-legal&quot; sphere, so it is hard to find adequate translation immediately. This disclaimer references fantasy setting of the book, so to translate it one should try to find some creative solution. In this case &quot;предупреждение&quot; seems not so bad, but definetely looses 'legal' feeling of the term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It worth to note that Multitran also lists &quot;юридическое предупреждение&quot; as invention of cell phone provider MTC. Here 'legal' background is back).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Original answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly &quot;disclaimer&quot; is not widely used in russian law, so the translators usually are trying to find the appropriate existing russian terms in different fields of knowledge (business, software, telecommunications, cinema, etc.). This is typical situation with freshly borrowed terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the translation depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that most general translation is &quot;отказ от ответственности&quot;. I think this is the best translation for the software EULA, where they write &quot;The end user uses this free software 'as is'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the movies when they state that all the characters are fictional the translation may be &quot;оговорка о случайном характере совпадений&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More official &quot;corporate style&quot; translation may be &quot;заявление об отказе от ответственности&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in patents and in jurisprudence (legal practice) there may be more appropriate translations in different situations: правовая оговорка, защитительная оговорка, отказ от прав, отказ от изобретения, дискламация элемента товарного знака, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more alternative translations on [Multitran.ru][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=disclaimer&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="7859c64c-c408-4781-8bf3-052066aab1ec" CreationDate="2013-05-23T12:18:59.457" UserId="194" Text="Many Russian interrogatives start with к-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто?&#xD;&#xA;кому?&#xD;&#xA;куда?&#xD;&#xA;кем?&#xD;&#xA;как?&#xD;&#xA;который?&#xD;&#xA;где? (&lt;кде?)&#xD;&#xA;когда?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, some interrogatives start with ч-. They seems to be case variants of &quot;что?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;что?&#xD;&#xA;чему?&#xD;&#xA;чем?&#xD;&#xA;чего?&#xD;&#xA;о чём?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that all these interrogatives came from Proto-Indo-European &quot;qu̯-&quot;, which also gave English wh- (as in what, who, when, which,...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes I wonder why кто (&quot;who&quot;) and &quot;что&quot;(&quot;what&quot;) got different initial consonant? Can it be explained solely by dissimilation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="7859c64c-c408-4781-8bf3-052066aab1ec" CreationDate="2013-05-23T12:18:59.457" UserId="194" Text="Why some Russian interrogatives start with к- and others - with ч-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="7859c64c-c408-4781-8bf3-052066aab1ec" CreationDate="2013-05-23T12:18:59.457" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="874d52b0-28e8-4b89-9e36-500c7598815c" CreationDate="2013-05-23T15:24:03.000" UserId="1027" Text="## Articles about writing texts in Russian &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Collection of articles][1] by art-director A. Lebedev, editor M. Ilyahov and other respectable people in web-development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al3ROaF1pTROdEFjc1REcDdxTkE0T0g2eHJsNDQ2NFE#gid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7968" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2274" RevisionGUID="b60c252c-f6e6-47be-b6bf-7a55f5ffe293" CreationDate="2013-05-23T15:24:03.000" UserId="1027" />
  <row Id="7969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="b0929b5c-0c16-4b1d-8b98-67bc14233f46" CreationDate="2013-05-23T15:32:03.950" UserId="194" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Many Russian interrogatives start with к-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто?&#xD;&#xA;кому?&#xD;&#xA;куда?&#xD;&#xA;кем?&#xD;&#xA;как?&#xD;&#xA;который?&#xD;&#xA;где? (&lt;кде?)&#xD;&#xA;когда?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, some interrogatives start with ч-. They seems to be case variants of &quot;что?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;что?&#xD;&#xA;чему?&#xD;&#xA;чем?&#xD;&#xA;чего?&#xD;&#xA;о чём?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that all these interrogatives came from Proto-Indo-European &quot;qu̯-&quot;, which also gave English wh- (as in what, who, when, which,...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I wonder why кто (&quot;who&quot;) and &quot;что&quot;(&quot;what&quot;) got different initial consonant? Can it be explained solely by dissimilation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2275" RevisionGUID="e1362140-5e74-4ee4-b45b-ffdf91a7673f" CreationDate="2013-05-23T16:03:33.293" UserId="1236" Text="Кто (&quot;who&quot;) and &quot;что&quot;(&quot;what&quot;) have different initial consonants due to the so-called [*Slavic first palatalization*][1] which happened rather early, in the Proto=Slavic times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Кто][2] &lt;  *Pr-Sl.* *kъ-to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Что][3] &lt;  *Pr-Sl.* *čь-to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this palatalisation *k changed *k &gt; *kʲ &gt; *č before front vowels. *ь being a front vowel, *čь is the result of *ki undergoing the Slavic first palatalization, this *ki is a cognate of Greek `ti` (&quot;what&quot;) and Latin `quid` (&quot;what&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_first_palatalization&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7971" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="2e10f512-91cb-48d2-9c8d-2a1376651460" CreationDate="2013-05-23T18:12:02.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/337632024670121984" />
  <row Id="7972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="06e2db26-0808-495f-90a9-81498c60ba9d" CreationDate="2013-05-23T20:53:16.517" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|мат|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7973" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2268" RevisionGUID="f536b7c5-6bcb-4da2-82ae-e8a8b7e568e4" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:05:28.403" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1512" RevisionGUID="69096875-0a5a-4bfd-8395-bd6bf273d5e6" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:08:17.723" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|вид|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7975" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2268" RevisionGUID="073e9b08-1d7c-41ea-972c-a1b054425b79" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:12:01.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/337677322519969795" />
  <row Id="7976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="9d665ec2-96c7-48f4-a023-ceef447d7619" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:24:33.997" UserId="194" Text="Actually, &quot;снимай пальто&quot; is more rude and less polite than &quot;сними пальто&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already mentioned, &quot;сними пальто&quot; may sound like an advice, while &quot;снимай пальто&quot; is like an order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;сними пальто&quot; may imply that the person who says so may help in the action, while &quot;снимай пальто&quot; somehow implies that the saying person does not care when you are going to do the action like in &quot;the coat should be taken off and I do not care, I will check in a while if it is done&quot;. &quot;Снимай&quot; means &quot;start doing so yourself, and I do not bother&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="966af5a0-8fa4-4242-adba-25d4d59d1ba2" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:30:37.627" UserId="194" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Actually, &quot;снимай пальто&quot; is more rude and less polite than &quot;сними пальто&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already mentioned, &quot;сними пальто&quot; may sound like an advice, while &quot;снимай пальто&quot; is like an order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;сними пальто&quot; may imply that the person who says so may help in the action or continue the dialog, while &quot;снимай пальто&quot; somehow implies that the saying person does not want to continue the conversation until the action is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*снимайте пальто* - do it yourself, I will do my business while you are doing it (or I will watch). No further talks with me until you finished, do not bother me until you done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*снимите пальто* - do it and I will help you in the process or after you finished. After this phrase may be continued with further talk with the saying person during the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2276" RevisionGUID="e9e2fa80-735f-4d2d-bb1f-dfd44c166818" CreationDate="2013-05-23T21:36:21.630" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Actually, &quot;снимай пальто&quot; is more rude and less polite than &quot;сними пальто&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already mentioned, &quot;сними пальто&quot; may sound like an advice, while &quot;снимай пальто&quot; is like an order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;сними пальто&quot; may imply that the person who says so may help in the action or continue the dialog, while &quot;снимай пальто&quot; somehow implies that the saying person does not want to continue the conversation until the action is done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*снимайте пальто* - do it yourself, I will do my business while you are doing it (or I will watch). No further talks with me until you finished, do not bother me until you done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*снимите пальто* - do it and I will help you in the process or after you finished. This phrase may be continued with further talk with the saying person during the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="b11c0f82-c3e7-4ac1-8f87-fd0d4b679b63" CreationDate="2013-05-24T12:47:08.957" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Because you have to chase the pills down with water. Eating would also suggest chewing the pills rather than swallowing them. You can also say *глотать таблетки* (swallow pills), but it implies that there are quite a few pills being taken. Another way to say it is *принимать лекарства* (take medicines), but it is not specific to pills; *принимать таблетки* seems slightly weird colloquially, but is often used in instructions that come with pills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7982" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="ff55b38a-d2ae-45ee-a507-8498cd23dce5" CreationDate="2013-05-25T03:12:02.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/338130307993702400" />
  <row Id="7983" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2266" RevisionGUID="459e3410-e36a-4219-811a-e297adf64b1b" CreationDate="2013-05-25T06:12:02.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/338175608158838784" />
  <row Id="7985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2278" RevisionGUID="eb6d1f1b-1533-4e4f-8957-c91831c17c67" CreationDate="2013-05-27T02:29:15.463" UserId="1670" Text="I would say it is understandable in general, especially when spoken not too fast. Majority of words are very similar and get inflected similarly although there are some notable exceptions (like **коханка** in Ukrainian is quite different from Russian **любовница** or **бачить** does not look like **видеть** at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written text is understandable in context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many Slavic languages look alike and can be understood by average Russian speaker to a point. Some are easier, some harder. Say Serbo-Croatian is easier to comprehend than Polish (my personal perception).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years back I have visited once a village of Semirechie Cossaks in Central Asia where older generation was still speaking the version of Russian they brought with themselves back in early 19th century when Tsar sent them to colonize outskirts of then growing Russian Empire. And I would say that language was more difficult to comprehend than modern Ukrainian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2279" RevisionGUID="5162940f-7a4c-4bbe-9f3d-5da39a0c0ec8" CreationDate="2013-05-27T07:15:11.677" UserId="194" Text="My personal understanding of written languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Belarusian: 75%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ukrainian: 60%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bulgarian: 40%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Macedonian: 40%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Serbian: 35%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chech: 30%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polish: 20%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7989" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2258" RevisionGUID="32d4b72c-fcb9-4ccd-a744-ce10ada8388d" CreationDate="2013-05-27T21:12:25.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/339126971944558592" />
  <row Id="7990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="3b564ec3-6618-4476-94f8-d11495906c0f" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:11:30.007" UserId="487" Text="The first part of the question is straightforward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any difference between &quot;тоже&quot; and &quot;также&quot;? Which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is likely to have a &quot;yes&quot;-answer, but anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From all the allowed places in a sentence, does putting &quot;тоже&quot; in different ones alters the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I better explain this second part with an example, for sake of concreteness. Do the following sentences mean the same? (I guess not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ты тоже танцуешь сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;- Тоже ты танцуешь сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;- Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Maybe* the second and third options have a clear meaning (*&quot;do you (like somebody else) dance Salsa?&quot;* and *&quot;do you dance salsa (as well as Tango)&quot;*, respectively) but, in a context-free environment, so does the first one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Optional question.** Here is how the second question was originated. Once I was trying to socialize with three fellows: a Russian guy, which we all knew was Russian, and two Russian-speaking girls. In order to know the nacionality of the girls I asked *&quot;вы тоже русские?&quot;*. But what they understood was that I was introducing myself as Russian, while by saying &quot;тоже&quot; I actually meant *&quot;are you Russians too? (as the other guy is)&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What should I have asked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="3b564ec3-6618-4476-94f8-d11495906c0f" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:11:30.007" UserId="487" Text="Difference between &quot;тоже&quot; and &quot;также&quot;. Does the placing &quot;тоже&quot; in different places changes the meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="3b564ec3-6618-4476-94f8-d11495906c0f" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:11:30.007" UserId="487" Text="|грамматика|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="95597554-48ec-4329-afbf-91eab8a21061" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:34:09.977" UserId="487" Text="&quot;Интонация&quot; is the word my tutor mentioned. In case he was right, I'd like to know how important it is. As I understood (don't blame him if I'm wrong!), context-free questions need certain verbal aid to distinguish what is the speaker after. Example (inspired by the book &quot;русский язык для всех&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама, нашь папа выступает по телевисору в пятнитцу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can one tell, without intonation nor context, what is really asked here? &#xD;&#xA;- Is true stressing certain word with a characteristic pitch, higher than the rest of the words, helps to discern what is asked (namely the stressed word)? In the previous example, if one stresses *&quot;по телевисору&quot;* one is asked &quot;in TV?&quot;(or, say, Radio?); if one stresses *&quot;пятнитцу&quot;* one is after the day in which dad is on TV, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="95597554-48ec-4329-afbf-91eab8a21061" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:34:09.977" UserId="487" Text="How important is the &quot;musical&quot; intonation by asking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="95597554-48ec-4329-afbf-91eab8a21061" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:34:09.977" UserId="487" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="49affcdf-be58-4a79-900e-92955ce10790" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:35:34.327" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The first part of the question is straightforward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any difference between &quot;тоже&quot; and &quot;также&quot;? Which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is likely to have a &quot;yes&quot;-answer, but anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From all the allowed places in a sentence, does putting &quot;тоже&quot; in different ones alters the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I better explain this second part with an example, for sake of concreteness. Do the following sentences mean the same? (I guess not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ты тоже танцуешь сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;- Тоже ты танцуешь сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;- Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Maybe* the second and third options have a clear meaning (*&quot;do you (like somebody else) dance Salsa?&quot;* and *&quot;do you dance salsa (as well as Tango)&quot;*, respectively) but, in a context-free environment, so does the first one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Optional question.** Here is how the second question was originated. Once I was trying to socialize with three fellows: a guy, which we all knew was Russian, and two Russian-speaking girls. In order to know the nacionality of the girls I asked *&quot;вы тоже русские?&quot;*. But what they understood was that I was introducing myself as Russian, while by saying &quot;тоже&quot; I actually meant *&quot;are you Russians too? (as the other guy is)&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What should I have asked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2282" RevisionGUID="db5c891c-96cb-4f37-a9b6-3cc39e07878a" CreationDate="2013-05-28T04:46:53.673" UserId="1461" Text="1) The difference is, that &quot;тоже&quot; is 'also' (вы **тоже** танцуете сальсу?) and &quot;так же&quot; is more like &quot;did the same&quot; (он танцует сальсу, и я поступаю **так же**&quot; while, &quot;также&quot; means &quot;and&quot; (for example мы танцуем сальсу, а **также** бочатту) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) only the first sentence is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) it was a correct question, the only thing you could do to make it more clear for the girls is to say &quot;вы тоже русские, как и ... (the guy's name)?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="55c2de26-7a77-4983-98fe-8dc2dae1c021" CreationDate="2013-05-28T05:48:42.330" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&quot;Интонация&quot; is the word my tutor mentioned. In case he was right, I'd like to know how important it is. As I understood (don't blame him if I'm wrong!), context-free questions need certain verbal aid to distinguish what is the speaker after. Example (inspired by the book &quot;русский язык для всех&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору в пятнитцу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can one tell, without intonation nor context, what is really asked here? &#xD;&#xA;- Is true stressing certain word with a characteristic pitch, higher than the rest of the words, helps to discern what is asked (namely the stressed word)? In the previous example, if one stresses *&quot;по телевисору&quot;* one is asked &quot;in TV?&quot;(or, say, Radio?); if one stresses *&quot;пятнитцу&quot;* one is after the day in which dad is on TV, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="343b24ab-ab53-4862-b71a-e2911c670822" CreationDate="2013-05-28T07:10:06.117" UserId="1670" Text="Without intonation or context true meaning of the sentence will not be clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possibilities for interpretation here (stress is marked in bold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, **наш** папа выступает по телевизору в пятнитцу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that precisely our dad not Natasha's is gonna be on TV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш **папа** выступает по телевизору в пятнитцу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that our dad and not grandpa or uncle Dima is gonna be on TV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш папа **выступает** по телевизору в пятнитцу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that our dad will be talking on TV and not dancing or moving lips silently as IRA political leaders on BBC back in 80s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш папа выступает **по телевизору** в пятнитцу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that the dad will be on TV and not radio or podcast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору **в пятнитцу**?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean the dad will be on TV on Friday and not on Monday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say stressing what is meant by intonation is quite important.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="4945f900-014d-4651-a7ed-e72c10124413" CreationDate="2013-05-28T09:21:00.320" UserId="134" Text="Yes, intonation is crucial to telling what's being asked in Russian, and even to telling a statement from a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inhabitants of Mordovia (a region in Central Russia, home to Fenno-Ugric Erzya and Moksha languages) are notable for using the rising intonation at the end of every sentence, which makes every sentence sound as an interrogative. So Russian dialect spoken in Mordovia uses an supporting interrogative clause *чо-ли* (&lt; *что-ли*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она картошку выкопала (she has harvested potatoes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она картошку выкопала чо-ли? (has she harvested potatoes?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она чо-ли картошку выкопала? (was it she who harvested potatoes?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2284" RevisionGUID="0e88fe48-191c-45d2-9991-5e918d0d656b" CreationDate="2013-05-28T12:10:53.463" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Yes, intonation is crucial to telling what's being asked in Russian, and even to telling a statement from a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inhabitants of Mordovia (a region in Central Russia, home to Fenno-Ugric Erzya and Moksha languages) are notable for using the rising intonation at the end of every sentence, which makes every sentence sound as an interrogative. So Russian dialect spoken in Mordovia uses a supporting interrogative clause *чо-ли* (&lt; *что ли*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она картошку выкопала (she has harvested potatoes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она картошку выкопала чо-ли? (has she harvested potatoes?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она чо-ли картошку выкопала? (was it she who harvested potatoes?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2285" RevisionGUID="eaabb8fa-5554-4319-959f-b00dfc0972fb" CreationDate="2013-05-28T12:21:14.913" UserId="1717" Text="Well, strictly speaking, intonations are _not_ necessary. Any question is just asking whether _the whole proposition_ is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is «Наш папа выступает по телевизору в пятницу» can be false because it's your friend's father who'll be on TV. Or because your relative will be on TV but he is not your father. Or maybe your father will be on TV, but not on friday, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;The same is true for, say, english: “Will out father be on TV on friday?” can also be false in multiple ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that in Russian you use intotanion to stress that part ot the question you are particularly interrested in. If you know he'll be giving a speach on friday, but you are not sure whether he will be on TV or radio, you'll stress «**по телевизору**». If you are sure that your father will be on TV, but you're not sure when, you'll stress «**в пятницу**». In english you'll have to restructure your sentence: “Is it friday when our father will be on TV?”, while in Russian it is not necessary you just change your intonation. Although you can choose a different structure if you wish: «В пятницу ли наш папа выступает по телевизору?» and in this case intonation doesn't matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2286" RevisionGUID="525180a2-a3ff-4c35-8063-2970d4b19733" CreationDate="2013-05-28T13:06:39.120" UserId="1717" Text="Let me give you a more detailed answer to your second question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Note: I used another sentence in my examples below because I need more verbs and I can't think of  other things you can do with salsa._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is «Ты тоже чинишь телефоны?» (“Do you repair phones too?”). Right now it means “like somebody else”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use «и» instead of «тоже» to get some freedom with its placing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* «И ты чинишь телефоны?» works for your “like somebody else” case.&#xD;&#xA;* «Ты чинишь и телефоны?» — “as well as TVs”.&#xD;&#xA;* You know that someone sells phones but now you are surprised to learn that he can also repair them: «Ты и чинишь телефоны?»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="a02e8c67-d71d-4824-88f3-e9556eea590e" CreationDate="2013-05-28T13:56:06.507" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&quot;Интонация&quot; is the word my tutor mentioned. In case he was right, I'd like to know how important it is. As I understood (don't blame him if I'm wrong!), context-free questions need certain verbal aid to distinguish what is the speaker after. Example (inspired by the book &quot;русский язык для всех&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can one tell, without intonation nor context, what is really asked here? &#xD;&#xA;- Is true stressing certain word with a characteristic pitch, higher than the rest of the words, helps to discern what is asked (namely the stressed word)? In the previous example, if one stresses *&quot;по телевисору&quot;* one is asked &quot;in TV?&quot;(or, say, Radio?); if one stresses *&quot;пятнитцу&quot;* one is after the day in which dad is on TV, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="9cfbd33a-d5b0-4829-bf79-8c564550dba8" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:01:29.900" UserId="487" Comment="bad spelling and syntaxis" Text="&quot;Интонация&quot; is the word my tutor mentioned. In case he was right, I'd like to know how important it is. As I understood (don't blame him if I'm wrong!), context-free questions need certain verbal aid to distinguish what is the speaker after. Example (inspired by the book &quot;русский язык для всех&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can one tell, without intonation nor context, what is really asked here? &#xD;&#xA;- Is true that stressing certain word with a characteristic pitch, higher than the rest of the words, helps to discern what is asked (namely the doubt relies on the  stressed word)? In the previous example, if one stresses *&quot;по телевизору&quot;* one is asked &quot;in TV?&quot;(or, say, Radio?); if one stresses *&quot;пятницу&quot;* one is after the day in which dad is on TV, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8006" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="288891da-a123-427a-876e-8a98f117d047" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:09:58.100" UserId="487" Comment="syntaxis" Text="Difference between &quot;тоже&quot; and &quot;также&quot;. Does the writing &quot;тоже&quot; in different places changes the meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2287" RevisionGUID="8a85cf68-efff-48d5-9994-303d1a5617b9" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:26:25.180" UserId="194" Text="*Тоже* means &quot;also&quot;, *также* means &quot;similarly&quot;, &quot;the same way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? = Do you also dance salsa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты также танцуешь сальсу? = Do you dance salsa the same way as I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? = Do you also dance salsa?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тоже ты танцуешь сальсу? - Is it also you who dances salsa? (this word order is slightly incorret, better word order would be &quot;Сальсу тоже ты танцуешь?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу? = It it salsa that you dance as I do or some another dance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2287" RevisionGUID="9282e86b-c74a-40dc-a6e7-f854a7027ab0" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:33:36.253" UserId="194" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="*Тоже* means &quot;also&quot;, *также* means &quot;similarly&quot;, &quot;the same way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? = Do you also dance salsa (besides somebody else does)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты также танцуешь сальсу? = Do you dance salsa the same way as I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? = Do you also dance salsa (besides somebody else does)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тоже ты танцуешь сальсу? - Is it also you who dances salsa? (this word order is slightly incorret, better word order would be &quot;Сальсу тоже ты танцуешь?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу? = It it salsa that you dance as I do, or some another dance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="a2d4704d-b76a-444a-88f6-2a8573837862" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:43:39.747" UserId="487" Comment="my bad spelling in question inherited here. I corrected that" Text="Without intonation or context true meaning of the sentence will not be clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possibilities for interpretation here (stress is marked in bold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, **наш** папа выступает по телевизору в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that precisely our dad not Natasha's is gonna be on TV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш **папа** выступает по телевизору в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that our dad and not grandpa or uncle Dima is gonna be on TV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш папа **выступает** по телевизору в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that our dad will be talking on TV and not dancing or moving lips silently as IRA political leaders on BBC back in 80s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш папа выступает **по телевизору** в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that dad will be on TV and not radio or podcast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору **в пятницу**?&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that dad will be on TV on Friday and not on Monday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say stressing what is meant by intonation is quite important.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8010" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2283" RevisionGUID="a2d4704d-b76a-444a-88f6-2a8573837862" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:43:39.747" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by 185, 194 edit id of 366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2288" RevisionGUID="40f9b95a-80a8-49e2-bf17-bd06a056f39e" CreationDate="2013-05-28T17:13:31.813" UserId="134" Text="*Тоже* and *также* very roughly correspond to English &quot;too&quot; and &quot;as well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Тоже* is a thematic (topical) adverb, *также* is rhematic (commentary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Тоже* means that the comment on the topic of the previous sentence also applies to the topic of the new one (topic switch). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Также* means that another comment also applies to the topic of the previous sentence (comment addition). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not always possible to say exactly which is which in a statement, so sometimes the two could be used intechangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your examples, if the statement was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он танцует сальсу (He dances Salsa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, with &quot;him&quot; as a topic and &quot;dancing Salsa&quot; as a comment, the following questions are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? (&quot;as for dancing Salsa, do you, the new topic of the sentence, do this too?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он также танцует танго? (&quot;expanding the topic of his dancing abilities, does he do Tango as well?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тоже ты танцуешь сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence means &quot;(while someone else is dancing Salsa) are you dancing Salsa too?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As *тоже* should follow the topic, it cannot be the first word in a sentence (except for the idioms like *тоже мне*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third sentence implies that the topic is &quot;dancing&quot;, so theoretically the following conversation could occur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Он танцует сальсу, но я не пойму, что танцуешь ты. Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу? (&quot;He dances Salsa, but I can't understand what is what you are dancing. Is it Salsa too, the thing you're dancing?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What should I have asked?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should have defined the topic first before switching it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asked outside context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы тоже русские?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;Are you Russians too?&quot; with an implication of switching the topic. As the only possible previous topic was yourself, the asker, this would imply you were a Russian too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would work better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А вы все русские? (&quot;Are you all Russians?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2287" RevisionGUID="bd4c4e13-3b3b-4f8c-b3ae-c9d57c6f29b6" CreationDate="2013-05-28T20:23:55.693" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="*Тоже* means &quot;also&quot;, *также* means &quot;similarly&quot;, &quot;the same way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? = Do you also dance salsa (besides somebody else does)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты также танцуешь сальсу? = Do you dance salsa the same way as I do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты тоже танцуешь сальсу? = Do you also dance salsa (besides somebody else does)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тоже ты танцуешь сальсу? - Is it also you who dances salsa? (this word order is slightly incorret, better word order would be &quot;Сальсу тоже ты танцуешь?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты танцуешь тоже сальсу? = Is it salsa that you dance as I do, or some another dance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="1b35de85-7998-4acb-8f79-11ab0664285c" CreationDate="2013-05-28T20:34:59.787" UserId="487" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&quot;Интонация&quot; is the word my tutor mentioned. In case he was right, I'd like to know how important it is. As I understood (don't blame him if I'm wrong!), context-free questions need certain verbal aid to distinguish what the speaker is really after. Example (inspired by the book &quot;русский язык для всех&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору в пятницу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can one tell, without intonation nor context, what is really asked here? &#xD;&#xA;- Is true that stressing certain word with a characteristic pitch, higher than the rest of the words, helps to discern what is asked (namely the doubt relies on the  stressed word)? In the previous example, if one stresses *&quot;по телевизору&quot;* one is asked &quot;in TV?&quot;(or, say, Radio?); if one stresses *&quot;пятницу&quot;* one is after the day in which dad is on TV, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8014" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="8462ce2a-56bd-4eb3-a0e9-b2eb397fbc91" CreationDate="2013-05-28T22:18:10.783" UserId="487" Comment="modified title" Text="Difference between &quot;тоже&quot; and &quot;также&quot;. Where to place &quot;тоже&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2285" RevisionGUID="f687850c-ff36-4fe1-94bf-76230c1d1b86" CreationDate="2013-05-29T10:17:25.663" UserId="1717" Comment="added 486 characters in body" Text="Well, strictly speaking, intonations are _not_ necessary. Any question is just asking whether _the whole proposition_ is true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is «Наш папа выступает по телевизору в пятницу» can be false because it's your friend's father who'll be on TV. Or because your relative will be on TV but he is not your father. Or maybe your father will be on TV, but not on friday, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;The same is true for, say, english: “Will out father be on TV on friday?” can also be false in multiple ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that in Russian you use intotanion to stress that part ot the question you are particularly interrested in. If you know he'll be giving a speach on friday, but you are not sure whether he will be on TV or radio, you'll stress «**по телевизору**». If you are sure that your father will be on TV, but you're not sure when, you'll stress «**в пятницу**». In english you'll have to restructure your sentence: “Is it friday when our father will be on TV?”, while in Russian it is not necessary you just change your intonation. Although you can choose a different structure if you wish: «В пятницу ли наш папа выступает по телевизору?» and in this case intonation doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Update_. And one more thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you definitely can use intonations it might be a better idea to restructure your question and put the most relevant part closer to the end. It's not only easier for a non-russian speaker but it also sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Мама, наш папа выступает по телевизору **в пятницу**?&#xD;&#xA;* Мама, наш папа выступает в пятницу **по телевизору**?&#xD;&#xA;* Мама, в пятницу по телевизору выступает **наш** папа?&#xD;&#xA;* Мама, в пятницу по телевизору выступает наш **папа**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8016" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2280" RevisionGUID="68c09be6-da44-4dee-93b6-1548a34b8e62" CreationDate="2013-05-29T21:12:26.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/339851749143760896" />
  <row Id="8017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2289" RevisionGUID="d8046393-5cad-4203-9070-8860552ffd7b" CreationDate="2013-05-30T06:40:49.540" UserId="1726" Text="Most of us have как минимум a passive knowledge of Russian; that is to say, nearly everyone will at least understand what you're saying. Since the mid-2000's, schools have changed the status of Russian from a language required from grade one onward to an optional foreign language beginning in grade seven. The youngest generation now primarily learns Russian from listening to music, watching TV (especially movies), and hearing &quot;street Russian&quot; in Tbilisi; therefore, their speech tends to be more colloquial and they tend to make many more mistakes than the older generations. However, since this change happened so recently, virtually all Georgians you'll meet who are in their mid-20's onwards will be schooled in Russian and will speak in a perfectly intelligible manner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, a working knowledge of Russian вам хватит в Грузии. I'd still learn a few words of Georgian if I were you. There's nothing we find more delightful (and surprising!) than a foreigner who knows even a word or two in our language! Some words you can try are: მადლობა (*mad**loba) meaning &quot;thank you&quot; and გაუმარჯოს ბატონო X (**ga**-u-mar-jos **ba**-to-no) meaning &quot;Hello Mr. X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;получайте удовольствие!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2289" RevisionGUID="b49e987f-4cb5-4e73-b158-b277b315c93e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T06:46:29.347" UserId="1726" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Most of us have как минимум a passive knowledge of Russian; that is to say, nearly everyone will at least understand what you're saying. Since the mid-2000's, schools have changed the status of Russian from a language required from grade one onward to an optional foreign language beginning in grade seven. The youngest generation now primarily learns Russian from listening to music, watching TV (especially movies), and hearing &quot;street Russian&quot; in Tbilisi; therefore, their speech tends to be more colloquial and they tend to make many more mistakes than the older generations. However, since this change happened so recently, virtually all Georgians you'll meet who are in their mid-20's onwards will be schooled in Russian and will speak in a perfectly intelligible manner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, a working knowledge of Russian вам хватит в Грузии. I'd still learn a few words of Georgian if I were you, because there's nothing we Georgians find more delightful (and surprising!) than a foreigner who knows even a word or two of our language! Some words you can try are: მადლობა (**mad**-lo-ba) meaning &quot;thank you&quot; and გაუმარჯოს ბატონო X (**ga**-u-mar-jos **ba**-to-no) meaning &quot;Hello Mr. X&quot;. Note that the equivalent for a woman would be ქალბატონო (**kal**-ba-to-no) and that in both cases you should address the person by first name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;получайте удовольствие!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2289" RevisionGUID="c15558bf-e4da-4699-9349-04c03487231d" CreationDate="2013-05-30T06:52:43.783" UserId="1726" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Most of us have как минимум a passive knowledge of Russian; that is to say, nearly everyone will at least understand what you're saying. Since the mid-2000's, schools have changed the status of Russian from a language required from grade one onward to an optional foreign language beginning in grade seven. The youngest generation now primarily learns Russian from listening to music, watching TV (especially movies), and hearing &quot;street Russian&quot; in Tbilisi; therefore, their speech tends to be more colloquial and they tend to make many more mistakes than the older generations. However, since this change happened so recently, virtually all Georgians you'll meet who are in their mid-20's onwards will be schooled in Russian and will speak in a perfectly intelligible manner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, a working knowledge of Russian вам хватит в Грузии. I'd still learn a few words of Georgian if I were you, because there's nothing we Georgians find more delightful (and surprising!) than a foreigner who knows a word or two of our language! Some words you can try are: მადლობა (**mad**-lo-ba) meaning &quot;thank you&quot; and გაუმარჯოს ბატონო X (**ga**-u-mar-jos **ba**-to-no) meaning &quot;Hello Mr. X&quot;. Note that the equivalent for a woman would be ქალბატონო (**kal**-ba-to-no) and that in both cases you should address the person by first name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;получайте удовольствие!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2290" RevisionGUID="5d6c8342-7279-4aa6-a864-ecbd8ac0de88" CreationDate="2013-05-30T07:15:44.123" UserId="1726" Text="I used to visit Ukraine often for business, and have never had to speak Ukrainian for the simple reason that most natives (at least in the major cities) speak Russian fluently. I've had exposure to Ukrainian in only two ways: legal documents (which I always end up asking my friends to translate for me) and talking to some non-Russophone locals en route from Kiev to Kharkov. In both cases, I noticed that a lot of the more &quot;educated&quot; or technical vocabulary was borrowed directly from Russian, but that much of the basic everyday vocabulary seemed very alien. Moreover, spoken Ukrainian sounded very strange to my ears, although I could understand clusters of words here and there. I felt much like an English speaker trying to understand German." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2289" RevisionGUID="4d9fee96-5a6a-47f2-94f1-578d291eee80" CreationDate="2013-05-30T07:47:45.753" UserId="1726" Comment="edited body" Text="Most of us have как минимум a passive knowledge of Russian; that is to say, nearly everyone will at least understand what you're saying. Since the mid-2000's, schools have changed the status of Russian from a language required from grade one onward to an optional foreign language beginning in grade seven. The youngest generation now primarily learns Russian from listening to music, watching TV (especially movies), and hearing &quot;street Russian&quot; in Tbilisi; therefore, their speech tends to be more colloquial and they tend to make more mistakes than the older generations. However, since this change happened so recently, virtually all Georgians you'll meet who are in their mid-20's onwards will be well-schooled in Russian and will speak in a perfectly intelligible manner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, a working knowledge of Russian вам хватит в Грузии. I'd still learn a few words of Georgian if I were you, because there's nothing we Georgians find more delightful (and surprising!) than a foreigner who knows a word or two of our language! Some words you can try are: მადლობა (**mad**-lo-ba) meaning &quot;thank you&quot; and გაუმარჯოს ბატონო X (**ga**-u-mar-jos **ba**-to-no) meaning &quot;Hello Mr. X&quot;. Note that the equivalent for a woman would be ქალბატონო (**kal**-ba-to-no) and that in both cases you should address the person by first name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;получайте удовольствие!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8022" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="de3cea18-6059-42df-b419-23f448d5f8f0" CreationDate="2013-05-30T09:12:25.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/340032942283816960" />
  <row Id="8023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2291" RevisionGUID="32d4c1e8-f2d0-4979-a0b3-627577c9cf74" CreationDate="2013-05-30T15:03:56.190" UserId="1036" Text="По идее, &quot;в сервисе&quot; кажется правильным вариантом, поскольку подразумевает место внутри помещения, в то время как второй вариант интуитивно указывает место на крыше сервиса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если это так, то почему тогда правильно будет &quot;холодильник стоит на кухне&quot;, а не &quot;в кухне&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какие либо конкретные правила в русском языке, которые описывают данную дилемму?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2291" RevisionGUID="32d4c1e8-f2d0-4979-a0b3-627577c9cf74" CreationDate="2013-05-30T15:03:56.190" UserId="1036" Text="&quot;Мы встретились в авто-сервисе&quot; или &quot;мы встретились на авто-сервисе&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2291" RevisionGUID="32d4c1e8-f2d0-4979-a0b3-627577c9cf74" CreationDate="2013-05-30T15:03:56.190" UserId="1036" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2293" RevisionGUID="1db6517c-923c-402c-8861-762f75fcfc3c" CreationDate="2013-05-30T15:58:54.393" UserId="1236" Text="`На кухне` и `в кухне` - это [два равноправных варианта](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%ED%E0+%EA%F3%F5%ED%E5).&#xD;&#xA;`На` не всегда означает &quot;сверху на&quot;, сравните:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Работать на заводе, на фабрике, на предприятии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть на концерте, на уроке, на выставке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение `на авто-сервисе` звучит для меня необычно, я бы предпочёл `в авто-сервисе`, по аналогии с `в мастерской`, а `на авто-сервисе` образовано по аналогии с `на заводе, на фабрике`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот вам ещё про кухню, Григорий Остер, из книги &quot;Вредные советы&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вы по коридору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мчитесь на велосипеде,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А навстречу вам из ванной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вышел папа погулять,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не сворачивайте `в кухню`,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`В кухне` — твёрдый холодильник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тормозите лучше в папу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Папа мягкий. Он простит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2294" RevisionGUID="cc723f16-5bc1-4b60-adee-7057c3a2bc91" CreationDate="2013-05-30T16:10:29.297" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal et al., № 199.3.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В выражениях *на почте, на заводе, на фабрике, на стадионе* употребление предлога на объясняется тем, что первоначально понятия *«почта», «завод», «фабрика», «стадион»* не связывались с представлением о помещении или здании: почта когда-то была на почтовой станции, на которой содержали ямщиков и держали лошадей; завод, фабрика, стадион могли занимать открытую территорию и состоять из нескольких сооружений (ср.: *в мастерской, в цехе, в спортзале* связывалось с представлением о закрытом помещении). Употребляются сочетания: *на избирательном участке*, но: *в полицейском участке*, *на полевом стане*, но устарелое: *в военном стане*, *в агитпункте*, но: *на наблюдательном пункте*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the rule is ad hoc, you should just learn the correct preposition in the edge cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that those two prepositions may be used interchangeably in some constructs, like *на / в кухне* which you have mentioned, and several others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This graph][1] shows how the usage varied in time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. e. *в кухне* prevailed between 1860 and 1930; *на кухне* after that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Argots use non-standard prepositions in phrases like *на тюрьме, на больнице* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goo.gl/Rhp5v&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ljkR3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2295" RevisionGUID="27342fa3-4ec1-47f6-99a3-764266464beb" CreationDate="2013-05-30T18:39:30.540" UserId="551" Text="Мне кажется что &quot;на автосервисе&quot; - это скорее &quot;на обслуживании в автосервисе&quot; или &quot;на территории авто-сервиса&quot;: &quot;машина на авто-сервисе&quot;. &quot;Мы встретились на автосервисе&quot; - мы встретились, когда машины проходили обслуживание в автосервисе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А &quot;в автосервисе&quot; это скорее &quot;в помещении автосервиса&quot;, т.е. &quot;мы встретились в автосервисе&quot; - мы встретились в здании автосервиса." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8031" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2291" RevisionGUID="b77bfbfe-1927-4c72-b3cc-6ee084ea3c0e" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:12:25.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/340395330820517888" />
  <row Id="8032" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2245" RevisionGUID="605d7a41-4f32-4493-8ed7-2c3e8e7b863b" CreationDate="2013-05-31T12:12:25.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/340440628850741248" />
  <row Id="8033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="43d4849a-b88b-46f1-8631-98da408a668c" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:20:55.320" UserId="1729" Text="As a native Portuguese speaker, I was told &quot;ж&quot; in Russian is pronounced like the Portuguese and French &quot;j&quot; (IPA: ʒ), a [voiced palato-alveolar fricative][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However according to Wikipedia the Russian &quot;ж&quot; is a [retroflex fricative][2] (IPA: ʐ). Is this the only correct pronunciation, and if so, how incorrect is the approximation above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_palato-alveolar_fricative&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_retroflex_fricative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="43d4849a-b88b-46f1-8631-98da408a668c" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:20:55.320" UserId="1729" Text="Is &quot;ж&quot; palato-alveolar or retroflex?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="43d4849a-b88b-46f1-8631-98da408a668c" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:20:55.320" UserId="1729" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="8adb6ec3-5cdf-4dea-87fb-1091e8ce9e22" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:54:28.627" UserId="1236" Text="Wikipedia is right, Russian `Ж` is a retroflex fricative (IPA: ʐ), and the sound sample they have in the article is exactly how it sounds in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pronounce it like the Portuguese and French &quot;j&quot; (IPA: ʒ), you will be understood well, but this will add a foreign accent to your speech, I'd advise sticking to the correct, retroflex fricative variant. Russian `Ж` (IPA: ʐ) can never be &quot;soft&quot; (palatalized), even when in spelling it is followed by the palatalizing vowels (е, ё, и, ю, я,), so `жизнь` is actually pronounced as `*жызнь`, `Жюль Верн` as `*Жуль Верн`, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there is another phoneme, a long (gemminated) voiced palato-alveolar fricative (IPA: ʑː which can also be transcribed as ʒ:), which is normally spelled `ЖЖ`, like in `вожжи, дрожжи, жжение, жужжать, можжевельник`. But this sound is now substituted in the speech of most people by /ʐ:/, that is it looses its palatal nature, the tendency in Russian is to have all Ж-like phonemes non-palatalized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2297" RevisionGUID="00b5e61a-f7ff-4614-bcf7-184151cf3c8c" CreationDate="2013-05-31T17:04:05.357" UserId="1236" Comment="Spelling" Text="Wikipedia is right, Russian `Ж` is a retroflex fricative (IPA: ʐ), and the sound sample they have in the article is exactly how it sounds in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pronounce it like the Portuguese and French &quot;j&quot; (IPA: ʒ), you will be understood well, but this will add a foreign accent to your speech, I'd advise sticking to the correct, retroflex fricative variant. Russian `Ж` (IPA: ʐ) can never be &quot;soft&quot; (palatalized), even when in spelling it is followed by the palatalizing vowels (е, ё, и, ю, я,), so `жизнь` is actually pronounced as `*жызнь`, `Жюль Верн` as `*Жуль Верн`, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there is another phoneme, a long (gemminated) voiced palato-alveolar fricative (IPA: ʑː which can also be transcribed as ʒ:), which is normally spelled `ЖЖ`, like in `вожжи, дрожжи, жжение, жужжать, можжевельник`. But this sound is now substituted in the speech of most people by /ʐ:/, that is it loses its palatal nature, the tendency in Russian is to have all Ж-like phonemes non-palatalized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="b1fbd11f-4528-4b44-8181-9d680bb68365" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:26:51.823" UserId="441" Text="Есть ли в русском языке название для списка дел, которые предстоит выполнить, и, может быть, выполнить не в самое ближайшее время, списка отложенных дел? В английском языке, например, для этого можно использовать краткое, но ёмкое слово **backlog**, одно из значений которого как раз соответствует такому накопившемуся набору дел." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="b1fbd11f-4528-4b44-8181-9d680bb68365" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:26:51.823" UserId="441" Text="Как назвать список предстоящих дел?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="b1fbd11f-4528-4b44-8181-9d680bb68365" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:26:51.823" UserId="441" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2299" RevisionGUID="8e8c2243-d4f8-4069-87c1-35873e591007" CreationDate="2013-05-31T21:30:32.807" UserId="194" Text="долгосрочная программа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;долгосрочный план&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2300" RevisionGUID="73f702ea-f8dc-4bd5-9d20-ec638f875554" CreationDate="2013-05-31T22:16:53.983" UserId="1236" Text="В словаре &quot;Английский язык: вчера, сегодня и завтра&quot;, Брайан Локетт. «Русский язык — Медиа», 2005, значение слова **backlog** описывается так:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запас, задел. Британцы позаимствовали это очень полезное слово у американцев. Буквально оно значит большое бревно, положенное глубоко в камин, чтобы поддерживать огонь. В Америке это слово употребляется с позитивным оттенком, таким образом, американский бизнесмен рад иметь *a backlog of orders* (портфель заказов). В Великобритании же это слово приобрело негативное значение, означая кучу накопившейся работы из-за забастовок или других непредвиденных обстоятельств. В Америке радостно говорят о *a backlog*, а в Англии — с кислым выражением лица. *It will take several years to clear the backlog of political asylum applications*. — Потребуется несколько лет, чтобы рассмотреть огромное количество заявлений о предоставлении политического убежища.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В свете этого могу предложить такие варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - невыполненные заказы / планы&#xD;&#xA; - задолженность [по заказам]&#xD;&#xA; - отставание [от плана, графика]&#xD;&#xA; - незавершённая работа, незавершённые задания&#xD;&#xA; - накопившиеся дела&#xD;&#xA; - неразобранные дела" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2301" RevisionGUID="ac023e98-94a7-42bc-b4fe-12e15c8aafc2" CreationDate="2013-06-01T01:46:11.463" UserId="1027" Text="Задачи. &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;План (на сегодня, месяц, год)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="373a81e9-6e51-4039-859d-b910e00d49e4" CreationDate="2013-06-01T07:31:59.057" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2299" RevisionGUID="2787bbab-af09-4183-ae00-eec840f26d03" CreationDate="2013-06-01T14:12:23.663" UserId="194" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="долгосрочная программа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;долгосрочный план&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;намеченное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;задания" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="8954fd6d-b394-4359-ab9e-8b79807648ee" CreationDate="2013-06-02T07:28:11.957" UserId="1733" Comment="Added link to RussianForFree.com" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] - Free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2], online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] - a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (paid)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="7704eee8-65bb-404f-82ed-64a921dc7fa3" CreationDate="2013-06-02T07:34:33.103" UserId="1733" Comment="Added link to Пиздец!" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][2], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][4], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][5], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][6], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA; - [Пиздец!][7] - Russian-English slang dictionary | Словарь русского мата и неформального языка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lurkmore.to&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.russki-mat.net/e/Russian.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="1ed9c10e-787f-48d7-afd7-db4f3a3a6cd9" CreationDate="2013-06-02T07:37:40.570" UserId="1733" Comment="Moved the link to RussianForFree.com to be correctly sorted alphabetically." Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2], online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] - a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (paid)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] - Free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][1], online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games (paid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2302" RevisionGUID="8bc7f511-0760-4d65-9f30-57a0506fd2c3" CreationDate="2013-06-02T11:53:48.203" UserId="1717" Text="Сейчас часто можно встретить рекомендации использовать так назыаемую счетную форму (давайте для примера рассматривать словосочетание «20 байт(-ов)»). На этом всячески [настаивает Справка Грамоты.ру](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%F1%F7%E5%F2%ED%E0%FF+%F4%EE%F0%EC%E0), а другие источники обычно на неё ссылаются. Кроме того, я наткнулся на [статью](http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/krysin-04c.htm), в которой со ссылкой на «Орфоэпический словарь 1989» говорится:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Современный &quot;Орфоэпический словарь русского языка&quot; вводит понятие счетной формы &lt;…&gt;, которое актуально для названий единиц измерения - существительных мужского рода с основами на твердый согласный.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При указании количества какой-либо энергии или физической величины&#xD;&#xA;&gt; формы типа _5 вольт_, _10 ампер_, _100 ватт_ являются **нормативными**; наряду с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ними возможны и формы с флексией _-ов_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_(выделение полужирным моё)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я уж подумал, что всё однозначно и следует использовать форму «20 байт», но не тут-то было. Институт Виноградова [считает (сообщение № 22)](http://www.slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=2669&amp;0a1=t&amp;0p1=60&amp;0y1=2008&amp;0r1=False), что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По данным &quot;Русского орфографического словаря&quot; (М., 2005), кроме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обычной формы родительного падежа - _битов_, _байтов_, _килобайтов_ -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существует счетная форма, которая используется в сочетании с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительными: _8 байт_, _16 килобайт_. Счетная форма является&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **разговорной**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_(выделение полужирным опять моё)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так как же правильно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2302" RevisionGUID="8bc7f511-0760-4d65-9f30-57a0506fd2c3" CreationDate="2013-06-02T11:53:48.203" UserId="1717" Text="Счётная форма существительного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2302" RevisionGUID="8bc7f511-0760-4d65-9f30-57a0506fd2c3" CreationDate="2013-06-02T11:53:48.203" UserId="1717" Text="|грамматика|падежи|числительные|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2303" RevisionGUID="4a02372b-89b7-40a7-bb2c-7b0bf12bdabf" CreationDate="2013-06-02T12:52:49.257" UserId="1027" Text="Аркадий Мильчин в своём Справочнике издателя и автора пишет о количественных числительных: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В изданиях для массового читателя рекомендуется в подобных случаях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отказываться не от словесно-цифровой формы чисел, а от сокращённых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначений единиц величин - заменять их полными наименованиями.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Напр.: 20 миллионов километров, 500 тысяч вольт* (6.1. Количественные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные, с. 142).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У Артемия Лебедева есть [статья о байтах][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В связи с этим статью в Википедии о счётной форме я бы посчитала валидной:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Счётная фо́рма — в русском языке особая форма множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных, употребляемая в сочетании с численными обозначениями&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количества чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: восемь бит, двести пятьдесят шесть байт, пять килограмм (или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; килограммов). Но: количество байтов, избавиться от лишних&#xD;&#xA;&gt; килограммов.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для некоторых слов нет счётной формы, в таком случае для них&#xD;&#xA;&gt; используется обычная форма родительного падежа множественного числа:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пять метров, десять литров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/84/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="9d314b82-d426-4ab5-b934-7c9edae2fb52" CreationDate="2013-06-02T16:37:31.483" UserId="967" Text="The и in both of these sentences appears extra. What is it doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зачем мне насос? - ответил гена.-- я **и** ртом надую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and from another kid's book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всех друзей я киселем вкусным угостила, не беда, что мне самой так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **и** не хватило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to answer in Russian or English, I can read it, I just can't write it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="9d314b82-d426-4ab5-b934-7c9edae2fb52" CreationDate="2013-06-02T16:37:31.483" UserId="967" Text="What does и mean in these sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="9d314b82-d426-4ab5-b934-7c9edae2fb52" CreationDate="2013-06-02T16:37:31.483" UserId="967" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2306" RevisionGUID="68cd6de5-f303-4d3d-a3d7-3dd367ca649a" CreationDate="2013-06-02T18:53:27.277" UserId="1717" Text="In the first case the closest english word I can think of is “even” like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can inflate it _even_ with my mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is slightly more difficult. «Так и не» is often used as “never”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её даже построили, но «добро» на запуск _так и не_ было дано. — It had actually been built, but the fire order had _never_ come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning actually doesn't seem appropriate in this case, but I (being a native speaker) interpreted it exactly this way. While writing my answer I realised that this is nonsense and the author probably meant something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here is my guess. «Так» stands for “thus.” «И» here doesn't have any special meaning. You can often find it in sentences explaining something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он молодой, потому _и_ быстрый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он молодой, потому быстрый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These statements are essentially the same, but the latter one is more like a logical proposition, saying “He is young. As a consequence he is quick.” The former is more like an explanation: “He is young and that's the reason why he is quick.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure it's difficult to grasp. Maybe others, who know theory, can explain it better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="e28a4a67-6668-4a92-ae7b-e5537501f0ea" CreationDate="2013-06-02T21:06:13.773" UserId="1717" Comment="Fix punctuation, make title more readable" Text="The _и_ in both of these sentences appears extra. What is it doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Зачем мне насос? — ответил Гена. — Я **и** ртом надую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from another kid's book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всех друзей я киселем вкусным угостила, не беда, что мне самой так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **и** не хватило.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to answer in Russian or English, I can read it, I just can't write it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8067" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="e28a4a67-6668-4a92-ae7b-e5537501f0ea" CreationDate="2013-06-02T21:06:13.773" UserId="1717" Comment="Fix punctuation, make title more readable" Text="What does «и» mean in these sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8068" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="e28a4a67-6668-4a92-ae7b-e5537501f0ea" CreationDate="2013-06-02T21:06:13.773" Comment="Proposed by 1717 approved by 97, 134 edit id of 368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2307" RevisionGUID="66a831d5-6fbd-4ee9-9c75-2f932e7ac1d2" CreationDate="2013-06-02T21:14:44.773" UserId="1717" Text="Рассмотрим в качестве примера пару глаголов «везти — возить». Я встречал упоминания, что эти формы называются «Imperfective definite» и «Imperfective indefinite» соответственно (не знаю, насколько это правда). Допустим, я хочу добавить приставку «пере-».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я повспоминал разные глаголы и составил вот такую таблицу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    плыву   плаваю      —   переплываю&#xD;&#xA;    бреду   брожу       —   перебредаю&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    иду     хожу        —                     перехожу&#xD;&#xA;    еду     езжу        —                     переезжаю&#xD;&#xA;    везу    вожу        —                     перевожу&#xD;&#xA;    тащу    таскаю      —                     перетаскиваю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как видно, в некоторых случаях используется первая форма, в некоторых — вторая. Такое впечатление, что вторая форма за основу берется чаще (я, кажется, знаю ещё одно слово, относящееся к первой группе, но не хотел бы пока его упоминать, поскольку с ним всё ещё сложнее).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему так? Чем это регулируется?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2307" RevisionGUID="66a831d5-6fbd-4ee9-9c75-2f932e7ac1d2" CreationDate="2013-06-02T21:14:44.773" UserId="1717" Text="Добавление приставок к глаголам перемещения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2307" RevisionGUID="66a831d5-6fbd-4ee9-9c75-2f932e7ac1d2" CreationDate="2013-06-02T21:14:44.773" UserId="1717" Text="|глаголы|словообразование|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2308" RevisionGUID="25007c05-fd4a-4962-bc85-87d1274c2824" CreationDate="2013-06-03T01:33:55.423" UserId="194" Text="Are пырей and перо somehow connected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2308" RevisionGUID="25007c05-fd4a-4962-bc85-87d1274c2824" CreationDate="2013-06-03T01:33:55.423" UserId="194" Text="Are пырей and перо somehow connected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2308" RevisionGUID="25007c05-fd4a-4962-bc85-87d1274c2824" CreationDate="2013-06-03T01:33:55.423" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2309" RevisionGUID="7c78373e-1c4a-44a4-a8ef-97aa54dce8e8" CreationDate="2013-06-03T03:20:07.517" UserId="426" Text="According to [wiki dictionary][2], &quot;пырей&quot; derives from a proto-slavic [&quot;пыро&quot;][3], which means among other things, &quot;мука&quot; (flour). Another word derived from &quot;пыро&quot; appear to be &quot;пирог&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this page][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наши предки не гнушались приготовлением из сушеных корневищ пырея муки, из которой пекли вкусный и полезный хлеб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Our ancestors did not shun using dried roots of bluegrass to make flour, from which they baked tasty and wholesome bread).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so &quot;пырей&quot; and &quot;flour&quot; appear to be related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://luzhok.ru/magic/health/art2422.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/churchslav/7034/%D0%BF%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="776aae34-98f8-4504-ae81-28f523894c51" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:11:01.173" UserId="1733" Text="In English (at least American English), we have the term `&quot;legalese&quot;`, which [Wikipedia][1] defines as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Legal writing that is very difficult for laymen to read and understand, the implication being that this abstruseness is deliberate for excluding the legally untrained and to justify high fees.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most literal translation seems to be `юридическим языком` (legal language), but that seems to loose the implication of being excessively &quot;legal&quot; or otherwise convoluted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this word appears to have made it's way into the French&lt;sup&gt;[1][2]&lt;/sup&gt; and Spanish&lt;sup&gt;[2][2]&lt;/sup&gt; lexicons, I've yet to come across anything comparable in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_writing#Legalese&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.babylon.com/definition/legalese/French&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/law%3A_contracts/1551838-estimaci%C3%B3n_para_el_posterior_deslinde_en_tr%C3%A1mite_de_ejecuci%C3%B3n_de_sentencia.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="776aae34-98f8-4504-ae81-28f523894c51" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:11:01.173" UserId="1733" Text="Is there a word or phrase that is comparable to &quot;legalese&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="776aae34-98f8-4504-ae81-28f523894c51" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:11:01.173" UserId="1733" Text="|заимствования|терминология|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="1c75e440-af24-423b-bed5-663f86a05d50" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:53:14.540" UserId="134" Text="I think the closest Russian term would be *канцелярит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As defined by *Большой толковый словарь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сухой, невыразительный, заштампованный язык (первоначально - канцелярские бумаги). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike legalese, it's not intentionally obscuring, however it is also excessively used in legal and official papers and may be hardly understood by people not familiar with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nora Gal defines it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – вытеснение глагола, то есть движения, действия, причастием, деепричастием, существительным (особенно отглагольным!), а значит – застойность, неподвижность. И из всех глагольных форм пристрастие к инфинитиву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – нагромождение существительных в косвенных падежах, чаще всего длинные цепи существительных в одном и том же падеже – родительном, так что уже нельзя понять, что к чему относится и о чем идет речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – обилие иностранных слов там, где их вполне можно заменить словами русскими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – вытеснение активных оборотов пассивными, почти всегда более тяжелыми, громоздкими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Это – тяжелый, путаный строй фразы, невразумительность. Несчетные придаточные предложения, вдвойне тяжеловесные и неестественные в разговорной речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, thought it's not exactly the same, in Russian we have the term *крючкотворство*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Намеренное использование мелочей и различных формальностей для затягивания и запутывания судебных и административных дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be applied to abusing language as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Натуральный канцелярский слог середины позапрошлого века. Взамен сюжета ― уловки тогдашнего крючкотворства. Скука смертная ― причем в буквальном смысле. *С. Гедройц. Арефьевский круг. Дело Сухово-Кобылина // «Звезда», 2003*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="ebb8ffb4-1b8e-493f-af26-03388d0fee7b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:20:10.540" UserId="1717" Text="Well, I asked a lawyer and she was almost sure there is no such word in Russian. I also tried direct transcription «легализ», but she's never heard it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2313" RevisionGUID="0b61a3fc-6b20-41c3-ba29-56086961d9a7" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:33:54.650" UserId="134" Text="According to Vasmer, *пырей* (the plant) originates from a word akin to Greek *πυρήνας* (&quot;kernel, core&quot;). The latter may have originated from PIE *&amp;#42;paəw&amp;#x325;r* (&quot;fire&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Перо* originates from PIE *&amp;#42;pet-* (&quot;to rush, fly&quot;), and is akin to English &quot;feather&quot; and &quot;fern&quot;. The Russian word for &quot;fern&quot;, *папоротник*, is also related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not say that *пырей* and *перо* are related." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2308" RevisionGUID="dca0e287-3360-41b5-906e-ce26294ee32f" CreationDate="2013-06-03T12:04:14.950" UserId="194" Comment="added 822 characters in body" Text="Are пырей and перо somehow connected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some material from PIE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***pulos*** a single hair of the human body &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***poums*** body hair &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***peumos*** adult (having hair)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***peuqs*** tail (&gt; Eng. fox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***peuros*** wheat &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***putos*** vulva (&gt; Eng. pussy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder cannot the ***peuros*** for wheat derive from &quot;hair&quot;? The proposed derivation by Quassnoi from &quot;fire&quot; looks unlikely to me because the word for bonfire would be ***pea̯ur***, having another root (am I wrong?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, even if Eng. *feather* is traditionally derived from ***peta̯trom*** (a root meaning &quot;fly&quot;), why it cannot be derived from something like ***peutrom***? The etymology of *перо* according to Vasmer is uncertain, but why it could not also derive from ***peutrom*** or hypothetic ***peuros***/***peutrom***? If so, then it directly coincides with the word for wheat.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2308" RevisionGUID="ee3fb501-93aa-4963-841c-fe387d951d0b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T12:10:03.787" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Are пырей and перо somehow connected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some material from PIE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***pulos*** a single hair of the human body &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***poums*** body hair &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***peumos*** adult (having hair)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***peuqs*** tail (&gt; Eng. fox)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***peuros*** wheat &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***putos*** vulva (&gt; Eng. pussy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder cannot the ***peuros*** for wheat derive from &quot;hair&quot;? The proposed derivation by Quassnoi from &quot;fire&quot; looks unlikely to me because the word for bonfire would be ***pea̯ur***, having another root (am I wrong?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, even if Eng. *feather* is traditionally derived from ***peta̯trom*** (a root meaning &quot;fly&quot;), why it cannot be derived from something like ***peutrom***? The etymology of *перо* according to Vasmer is uncertain, but why it could not also derive from ***peutrom*** or hypothetic ***peuros***/***peurom***? If so, then it directly coincides with the word for wheat.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8084" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="cfc8be85-6890-4a6c-8ce4-8fdf0bf394b9" CreationDate="2013-06-03T12:12:29.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/341527808486559745" />
  <row Id="8086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2314" RevisionGUID="e4245935-c561-421e-a27c-ee9591e70c66" CreationDate="2013-06-03T14:59:53.500" UserId="1688" Text="To me they seem to be two different usages. In the former example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Зачем мне насос? — ответил Гена. — Я и ртом надую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the particle *и* seems to imply alternatives: &quot;I don't need a pump, because I can **also** inflate [whatever] with my mouth[, **and** possibly with my nose...]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter example the *и* seems to hint at an omitted clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всех друзей я киселем вкусным угостила, не беда, что мне самой так и не хватило.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I brewed some kissel for my friends [but they ate all of it] **and** therefore there wasn't anything left for me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её даже построили, но «добро» на запуск так и не было дано.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It has even been built, but [the management have changed their minds] **and** didn't give the go-ahead to launch it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2314" RevisionGUID="5fb240e1-bb23-4a2b-b1f2-b77a535cd77b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T15:28:40.107" UserId="1688" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="To me they seem to be two different usages. In the former example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Зачем мне насос? — ответил Гена. — Я и ртом надую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the particle *и* seems to imply alternatives: &quot;I don't need a pump, because I can **also** inflate [whatever] with my mouth[, **and** possibly with my nose...]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter example the *и* seems to hint at an omitted clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всех друзей я киселем вкусным угостила, не беда, что мне самой так и не хватило.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I brewed some kissel for my friends [but they ate all of it] **and** therefore there wasn't anything left for me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её даже построили, но «добро» на запуск так и не было дано.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It had even been built, but [the management had changed their minds] **and** didn't give the go-ahead to launch it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="fb4b826e-eff7-4d27-b402-2addd347a403" CreationDate="2013-06-03T18:18:00.827" UserId="1733" Text="The word `Совет` seems to always be transliterated in English as `Soviet`. However, it seems to me that it would be more appropriately transliterated as `Sovyet`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the most logical variant as there are three syllables when `Soviet` is spoken by a native English speaker, whereas `Совет` and `Sovyet` each only have two syllables. This also seems to more accurately reflect the Russian pronunciation of the word (as I understand it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if there's something that I'm misunderstanding, or if this is just a result of some arbitrary difference between transliterations that has been simply been standardized over time, while some other words have not (e.g. tsar vs. czar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="fb4b826e-eff7-4d27-b402-2addd347a403" CreationDate="2013-06-03T18:18:00.827" UserId="1733" Text="Why is «Совет» Transliterated to &quot;Soviet&quot; in English Instead of &quot;Sovyet&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="fb4b826e-eff7-4d27-b402-2addd347a403" CreationDate="2013-06-03T18:18:00.827" UserId="1733" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="5faa1f9d-063b-4847-b85a-d0e6868c0eaa" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:21:22.283" UserId="1733" Comment="Added section underneath the &quot;Edit&quot; header." Text="The word `Совет` seems to always be transliterated in English as `Soviet`. However, it seems to me that it would be more appropriately transliterated as `Sovyet`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is the most logical variant as there are three syllables when `Soviet` is spoken by a native English speaker, whereas `Совет` and `Sovyet` each only have two syllables. This also seems to more accurately reflect the Russian pronunciation of the word (as I understand it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if there's something that I'm misunderstanding, or if this is just a result of some arbitrary difference between transliterations that has been simply been standardized over time, while some other words have not (e.g. tsar vs. czar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;***Edit***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'd like to find the etymology of the word `Soviet` that would include references to various historical usages and/or information about alternative transliterations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2316" RevisionGUID="a6088541-a956-477f-8edb-58bbd07a4f1b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:50:21.683" UserId="1738" Text="I'm not sure of the etymology behind the English translation, but `vyet` sounds kind of weird to us English people; it just seems more natural for us to use `viet` instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="03d434e6-d451-41fa-9aad-c9de5b0bea0b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:05:38.683" UserId="71" Text="The transliteration ***ye*** is only used in two romanization systems: **BGN/PCGN** and **Passport (1997–2010)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these, though, use this version when &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The digraphs ye and yë are used to indicate iotation at the beginning of a word and after vowels й, ъ, or ь.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Romanization of Russian][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your case does not match any of what is being described here so no ***ye***. The other systems use ***e*** but I've always seen ***ie*** to keep the original reading of the Russian letter &quot;Э&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep also in mind that the letter &quot;y&quot; is used to transcribe &quot;ы&quot; and it might explain why ***ye*** is not so used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="51ef8de4-77d2-4558-b156-3c0b060c96f9" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:36:18.620" UserId="134" Text="Before the Russian orthography reform of 1917, the word was written as *совѣтъ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *ѣ*, though having long since merged with *е* in standard Russian, is pronounced as a long vowel or even as a diphtong in several Slavic languages (compare Croatian *Rijeka &lt; рѣка*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was common to transliterate *ѣ* as *ie*, and some borrowed Russian words, especially those borrowed before the *ѣ-е* merger, transliterated non-Russian diphtongs *ie* as *ѣ*: *Вѣна &lt; Wien*, *индѣецъ &lt; (American) Indian* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="e7d32cca-dd95-4039-b6f3-27dcc9e727b1" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:38:00.300" UserId="1717" Text="For every Russian it is obvious that “y” is pronounced «й» (Nyan Cat being an obvious exception), so “Sovyet” will become [сав'**й**эт], but there is no «й» in Russian pronounciation. I think that's the reason why they didn't use “ye”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another option is “Sovet” but here `v` won't become soft — [совэт]. That's also not really cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In “Soviet” [сов'иэт] `e` sounds really close to what it should be in Russian. That `и` should be there, of course, and there is also a problem with stress. But if you pronounce it quickly and stressing `e` you'll get something similar to [совыэт] which is fairly close to Russian pronounciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="4566187a-8886-4e65-a990-4aae848c50ee" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:49:12.303" UserId="134" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Before the Russian orthography reform of 1917, the word was written as *совѣтъ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *ѣ*, though having long since merged with *е* in standard Russian, is pronounced as a long vowel or even as a diphtong in several Slavic languages (compare Croatian *Rijeka &lt; рѣка*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was common to transliterate *ѣ* as *ie*, and some borrowed Russian words, especially those borrowed before the *ѣ-е* merger, transliterated non-Russian diphtongs *ie* as *ѣ*: *Вѣна &lt; Wien*, *индѣецъ &lt; (American) Indian* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word itself, it's a loanword from Church Slavonic *съвѣтъ* which is a calque from Greek *symbulion* (&quot;common counsel&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="fb0c1cc4-438d-4c58-8367-f383e0f3ef42" CreationDate="2013-06-03T21:04:19.467" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Before the Russian orthography reform of 1918, the word was written as *совѣтъ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *ѣ*, though having long since merged with *е* in standard Russian, is pronounced as a long vowel or even as a diphtong in several Slavic languages (compare Croatian *Rijeka &lt; рѣка*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was common to transliterate *ѣ* as *ie*, and some borrowed Russian words, especially those borrowed before the *ѣ-е* merger, transliterated non-Russian diphtongs *ie* as *ѣ*: *Вѣна &lt; Wien*, *индѣецъ &lt; (American) Indian* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word itself, it's a loanword from Church Slavonic *съвѣтъ* which is a calque from Greek *symbulion* (&quot;common counsel&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="849155f0-6caf-4fef-86c5-5059a4432aef" CreationDate="2013-06-04T02:26:46.723" UserId="124" Text="&lt;p&gt;Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I request a translation?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not forbid translation requests but note that &lt;strong&gt;this is not a translation service&lt;/strong&gt;, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Russian to &lt;em&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; to Russian translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome as long as you provide &lt;em&gt;enough&lt;/em&gt; explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask for resources?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have created a &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71&quot;&gt;single resource question&lt;/a&gt;, where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is &lt;strong&gt;very specific&lt;/strong&gt;, we will close it as a duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's in the dictionary;   &lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's easily found in a Google search.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Should I post in Russian or English?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in English, please answer in English;&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for Russian Stack Exchange, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="be2e2064-244a-4011-aa4c-6318bdb8e9d7" CreationDate="2013-06-04T10:28:15.700" UserId="1236" Comment="corrected transliteration of a Greek word" Text="Before the Russian orthography reform of 1918, the word was written as *совѣтъ*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter *ѣ*, though having long since merged with *е* in standard Russian, is pronounced as a long vowel or even as a diphtong in several Slavic languages (compare Croatian *Rijeka &lt; рѣка*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was common to transliterate *ѣ* as *ie*, and some borrowed Russian words, especially those borrowed before the *ѣ-е* merger, transliterated non-Russian diphtongs *ie* as *ѣ*: *Вѣна &lt; Wien*, *индѣецъ &lt; (American) Indian* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word itself, it's a loanword from Church Slavonic *съвѣтъ* which is a calque from Greek *symboulion* (&quot;common counsel&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="637e54a6-4ff7-43f9-a53d-6359828d4bef" CreationDate="2013-06-04T10:43:36.933" UserId="1717" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="For every Russian it is obvious that “y” is pronounced «й» (Nyan Cat being an obvious exception), so “Sovyet” will become [сав'**й**эт], but there is no «й» in Russian pronounciation. I think that's the reason why they didn't use “ye”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, another option is “Sovet” but here `v` won't become soft — [совэт]. That's also not really cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In “Soviet” [сов'иэт] `e` sounds really close to what it should be in Russian. That `и` shouldn't be there, of course, and there is also a problem with stress. But if you pronounce it quickly and stressing `e` you'll get something similar to [совыэт] which is fairly close to Russian pronounciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="bc257a6c-ac40-43d8-8a77-5567d278838f" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:08:15.780" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I think the closest Russian term would be *канцелярит* (officialese).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As defined by *Большой толковый словарь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сухой, невыразительный, заштампованный язык (первоначально - канцелярские бумаги). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike legalese, it's not intentionally obscuring, however it is also excessively used in legal and official papers and may be hardly understood by people not familiar with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nora Gal defines it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – вытеснение глагола, то есть движения, действия, причастием, деепричастием, существительным (особенно отглагольным!), а значит – застойность, неподвижность. И из всех глагольных форм пристрастие к инфинитиву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – нагромождение существительных в косвенных падежах, чаще всего длинные цепи существительных в одном и том же падеже – родительном, так что уже нельзя понять, что к чему относится и о чем идет речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – обилие иностранных слов там, где их вполне можно заменить словами русскими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это – вытеснение активных оборотов пассивными, почти всегда более тяжелыми, громоздкими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Это – тяжелый, путаный строй фразы, невразумительность. Несчетные придаточные предложения, вдвойне тяжеловесные и неестественные в разговорной речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, thought it's not exactly the same, in Russian we have the term *крючкотворство*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Намеренное использование мелочей и различных формальностей для затягивания и запутывания судебных и административных дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be applied to abusing language as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Натуральный канцелярский слог середины позапрошлого века. Взамен сюжета ― уловки тогдашнего крючкотворства. Скука смертная ― причем в буквальном смысле. *С. Гедройц. Арефьевский круг. Дело Сухово-Кобылина // «Звезда», 2003*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="95aa2288-daeb-4a46-b735-de96a0843abc" CreationDate="2013-06-04T12:12:29.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/341890196243095552" />
  <row Id="8107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2322" RevisionGUID="5fab4670-c166-4a17-a7d6-65ad8d89f9e9" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:49:35.433" UserId="194" Text="How common is drawing Л the way similar to Greek letter Λ in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;Does it vary depending on region?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2322" RevisionGUID="5fab4670-c166-4a17-a7d6-65ad8d89f9e9" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:49:35.433" UserId="194" Text="How common is angle-shaped Л in modern Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2322" RevisionGUID="5fab4670-c166-4a17-a7d6-65ad8d89f9e9" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:49:35.433" UserId="194" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2323" RevisionGUID="52c62d6b-ce99-40c8-9312-228f17372a37" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:24:55.917" UserId="1717" Text="Well I've never seen it in printed media and I've never met a font using this shape for «л». I'm afraid it will be a bit difficult to recognise, but, well, as part of a logo it might be fine (I don't remember any logos with Λ though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that it is more common to use it instead of «A» in logos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2323" RevisionGUID="6b7f980d-a586-4fa4-8148-ed09e0969a3f" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:35:53.413" UserId="1717" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Well I've never seen it in printed media and I've never met a font using this shape for «л». I'm afraid it will be a bit difficult to recognise, but, well, as part of a logo it might be fine (I don't remember any logos with Λ though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that it is more common to use it instead of «A» in logos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. Here are some fonts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ITC Kabel Book](http://www.linotype.com/320105/itckabelcyrillicbook-font.html)&#xD;&#xA;* [Hypatia Sans](http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/landing/hypatia/pdfs/Hypatia_Sans_language_samples.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2323" RevisionGUID="20ae488b-db1e-4c01-b243-43d9f2a81ee0" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:40:54.293" UserId="1717" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Well I've never seen it in printed media &lt;strike&gt;and I've never met a font using this shape for «л»&lt;/strike&gt;. I'm afraid it will be a bit difficult to recognise, but, well, as part of a logo it might be fine (I don't remember any logos with Λ though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that it is more common to use it instead of «A» in logos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. Here are some fonts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ITC Kabel Book](http://www.linotype.com/320105/itckabelcyrillicbook-font.html)&#xD;&#xA;* [Hypatia Sans](http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/landing/hypatia/pdfs/Hypatia_Sans_language_samples.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;* [Romul](http://www.paratype.com/pstore/fonts/Romul.htm)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2323" RevisionGUID="d0406df8-38fa-4779-9ad0-64b8c0448c8b" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:51:25.927" UserId="1717" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="Well I've never seen it in printed media &lt;strike&gt;and I've never met a font using this shape for «л»&lt;/strike&gt;. I'm afraid it will be a bit difficult to recognise, but, well, as part of a logo it might be fine (I don't remember any logos with Λ though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that it is more common to use it instead of «A» in logos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. Here are some fonts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ITC Kabel Book](http://www.linotype.com/320105/itckabelcyrillicbook-font.html)&#xD;&#xA;* [Hypatia Sans](http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/landing/hypatia/pdfs/Hypatia_Sans_language_samples.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;* [Romul](http://www.paratype.com/pstore/fonts/Romul.htm)&#xD;&#xA;* [Trojan](http://store1.adobe.com/type/browser/pdfs/1952.pdf) (famous for its appearance on every other movie cover)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="0c6b0869-6edd-41d8-a1f0-04198ce694a1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:34:41.157" UserId="1733" Text="I know that `один, два, три` is equivalent to `one, two, three` in English. But, I've also heard `раз, два, три` used in multiple Russian songs from different artists, and I've seen this in several places online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;German has `zwei` &amp; `zwo` for the number two, with `zwo` used primarily to make the #2 more easily distinguishable from the #3 (`drei`) when multiple numbers are being communicated simultaneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's not clear to me whether this is the case with `раз`. I wouldn't expect that there's much of an issue with people confusing `один` and `два` for one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have the following questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When should `раз` be used instead of `один` (and vice versa)?&#xD;&#xA;2. What are the rules for the usage of `раз`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="0c6b0869-6edd-41d8-a1f0-04198ce694a1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:34:41.157" UserId="1733" Text="When to use «раз, два, три» instead of «один, два, три»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="0c6b0869-6edd-41d8-a1f0-04198ce694a1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T19:34:41.157" UserId="1733" Text="|словоупотребление|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2326" RevisionGUID="07cb76c3-1a3b-4892-96fa-ef2893627540" CreationDate="2013-06-04T20:09:33.143" UserId="1717" Text="&gt; 1. **РАЗ**, -а (-у); *мн.* разы, раз; *м.* I. числ. колич.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =Один (при счёте). *Раз, два, три... Раз, два и готово* (о том, что делается, совершается очень быстро). *Раз, два и обчёлся* (об очень&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малом количестве кого-, чего-л.). II. в зн. сущ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Большой толковый словарь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of «один» it's used only when counting. When you are counting objects aloud you will normally say «Раз, два, три, …». While «Один, два три, …» is also absolutely fine, «раз» is used more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what is the reason, but my guess is that it is simply shorter («два» and «три» both have just one syllable, but «один» has two, so it's more difficult to pronounce in everyday life)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2326" RevisionGUID="f8676c8f-bb4b-4de2-a7a2-467915933bd3" CreationDate="2013-06-04T20:17:20.170" UserId="1717" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. **РАЗ**, -а (-у); *мн.* разы, раз; *м.* I. числ. колич.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =Один (при счёте). *Раз, два, три... Раз, два и готово* (о том, что делается, совершается очень быстро). *Раз, два и обчёлся* (об очень&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малом количестве кого-, чего-л.). II. в зн. сущ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Большой толковый словарь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of «один» it's used only when counting. When you are counting objects aloud you will normally say «Раз, два, три, …». While «Один, два три, …» is also perfectly fine (though, sounds kinda officially), «раз» is used more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what is the reason, but my guess is that it is simply shorter («два» and «три» both have just one syllable, but «один» has two, so it's more difficult to pronounce in everyday life)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2326" RevisionGUID="112dad2d-6364-4776-9607-b2baf8e5585a" CreationDate="2013-06-04T20:24:34.857" UserId="1717" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. **РАЗ**, -а (-у); *мн.* разы, раз; *м.* I. числ. колич.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; =Один (при счёте). *Раз, два, три... Раз, два и готово* (о том, что делается, совершается очень быстро). *Раз, два и обчёлся* (об очень&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малом количестве кого-, чего-л.). II. в зн. сущ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Большой толковый словарь](http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%F0%E0%E7))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of «один» it's used only when counting. When you are counting objects aloud you will normally say «раз, два, три, …». While «один, два три, …» is also perfectly fine (though, sounds kinda officially), «раз» is used more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what is the reason, but my guess is that it is simply shorter («два» and «три» both have just one syllable, but «один» has two, so it's more difficult to pronounce in everyday life)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="b5357ae5-98c5-4c3e-9e57-b68792882145" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:52:56.397" UserId="194" Text="When to use &quot;зарплата&quot; and when &quot;жалование&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="b5357ae5-98c5-4c3e-9e57-b68792882145" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:52:56.397" UserId="194" Text="&quot;зарплата&quot; vs. &quot;жалование&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="b5357ae5-98c5-4c3e-9e57-b68792882145" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:52:56.397" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2328" RevisionGUID="5315dc2b-4e87-4adf-9c5e-08719a4e11f3" CreationDate="2013-06-04T23:42:57.160" UserId="1688" Text="I believe &quot;жалован**ь**е&quot; (not &quot;жалован**и**е&quot;) is obsolete these days, so use &quot;зарплата&quot; unless you're writing an historical novel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2328" RevisionGUID="55622d0d-5793-4213-90b9-dada15bf1095" CreationDate="2013-06-04T23:50:08.097" UserId="1688" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="I believe &quot;жалован&lt;b&gt;ь&lt;/b&gt;е&quot; (not &quot;жалован&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;е&quot;) is obsolete these days, so use &quot;зарплата&quot; unless you're writing an historical novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words have different connotations too. Жалованье comes from an act of charity or benevolence; зарплата (&lt;b&gt;зар&lt;/b&gt;аботная &lt;b&gt;плата&lt;/b&gt;) is pay for work performed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2329" RevisionGUID="e4a65366-e34d-4c5c-a213-b58096bee9cc" CreationDate="2013-06-05T01:13:16.987" UserId="1670" Text="The word **жалованье** is really outdated although you can use it in humorous way. The word **зарплата** is contemporary but not official one, it should not be used in legal or official documents - use the word **оклад** instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another word, **получка**, which means the fact of getting pay in hands. Back in a day when **получка** was happening at fairly large enterprises (state steel factory, for example) that usually meant sharp increase in alcohol sales in vicinity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2329" RevisionGUID="6c272d5b-be49-4b70-b8ea-515ca2629bc7" CreationDate="2013-06-05T04:24:44.187" UserId="1670" Comment="corrected style" Text="The word **жалованье** is really outdated although you can use it in humorous way. The word **зарплата** is contemporary but not official one, it should not be used in legal or official documents - use the word **оклад** instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another word, **получка**, which means the fact of getting the pay in hands. Back in a day when **получка** was happening at fairly large enterprises (state steel factory, for example) that usually meant sharp increase in alcohol sales in vicinity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8132" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="51b3c94f-62d1-46c0-b7a2-125d4802cdde" CreationDate="2013-06-05T06:12:30.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/342161989478514689" />
  <row Id="8133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2331" RevisionGUID="1d67baa0-b99e-40fe-ad43-f97629f6a32a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T06:52:42.227" UserId="551" Text="As others have already noted the word [жалованье](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5) is outdated. Historically this word was officially used in pre-Soviet Russia (in nineteenth cent as a name of a salary of people that *worked for government* (officials, soldiers, police, etc.), so even today most people couldn't call their wages as 'жалованье' anyway. During early Soviet times this word was also used by people that used to it (you may encounter it when reading Bulgakov novels, for instance), but it was no longer officially used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about Bulgakov we can also recall the &quot;Иван Васильевич меняет профессию&quot; movie when one of the characters says &quot;Жалую тебе шубу с царского плеча&quot;. This shows that жалованье could be not only in monetary form, but also in form of different gifts and preferences. Also this is the phrase that most people associate with word *жалованье* nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for зарплата - this is informal short form of official term [заработная плата](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0). This is a general term that describes monetary reward for an employee for the job performed, but the 'legal' name for such reward may vary depending on type of a contract. For example *оклад* usually means that an employee receives fixed payment every month, *почасовая оплата* if an employee's reward is based on how many hours they worked etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="8e8960e3-d8b1-4bf8-85cc-bab128976f3f" CreationDate="2013-06-05T07:26:18.017" UserId="551" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is not because &quot;it is funny&quot; - it is because it is much simple to draw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the shapes of the letter (taken from [this question][1]): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гражданский шрифт (Пётр I)   &#xD;&#xA;![Гражданский шрифт][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Школьные прописи:   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are talking about fonts, then you might notice that in modern fonts the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T5Qws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="9bfc3956-2b6d-4eb1-a9d6-2087b8d1a341" CreationDate="2013-06-05T07:37:17.827" UserId="551" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is not because &quot;it is funny&quot; - it is because it is much simple to draw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the shapes of the letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гражданский шрифт (Пётр I)   &#xD;&#xA;![Гражданский шрифт][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Школьные прописи:   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are talking about fonts, then you might notice that in modern fonts the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/T5Qws.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="7ee62786-9314-490b-9a39-e92357fd900e" CreationDate="2013-06-05T08:09:52.693" UserId="551" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is not because &quot;it is funny&quot; - it is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter become popular [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B). Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [Here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="94649f1d-6d4a-4e48-b873-65ead08ee6e0" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:28:31.470" UserId="1710" Text="How I should translate phrases like these ones into Russian if I want to avoid simple transliterations from English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="94649f1d-6d4a-4e48-b873-65ead08ee6e0" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:28:31.470" UserId="1710" Text="Phrases like «fan-made book», «fan-art» and «fan-fanfiction of this fanfiction»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="94649f1d-6d4a-4e48-b873-65ead08ee6e0" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:28:31.470" UserId="1710" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2334" RevisionGUID="187ae886-c7d2-46f0-93c8-34e1f160546d" CreationDate="2013-06-05T18:55:57.330" UserId="1717" Text="Well, you probably shouldn't try to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Фан-арт» is used extensively in Russian. Say «фанфик» instead of fan fiction (and it is declined as a normal noun, like «котик»). I don't know how fans call their books… you could use «книга, сделанная фанатами».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you _really really_ want to avoid transliteration, you should probably say «творчество фанатов», but I think you won't be able to translate “fanfiction” without using «фанфик» and without going into long explanations «произведение, созданное фанатами по мотивам…»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2334" RevisionGUID="92a55f73-4500-4ca4-bae2-464db8fc47ff" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:01:29.243" UserId="1717" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Well, you probably shouldn't try to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Фан-арт» is used extensively in Russian. Say «фанфик» instead of fan fiction (and it is declined as a normal noun, like «котик»). I don't know how fans call their books… you could use «книга, сделанная фанатами».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you _really really_ want to avoid transliteration, you should probably say «творчество фанатов», «фанатское творчество», «фанатские произведения». But I think you won't be able to translate “fanfiction” without using «фанфик» and without going into long explanations «произведение, созданное фанатами по мотивам…»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="16be1cc1-6e3c-48a6-be4a-84f17569a28f" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:05:29.967" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2335" RevisionGUID="1a6b19b2-d973-4df7-9e4b-2b55356461c5" CreationDate="2013-06-05T19:40:24.157" UserId="551" Text="Pushkin once wrote: &quot;Но панталоны, фрак, жилет - всех этих слов по русски нет&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Fan art as phenomenon widely spread in Russian culture during last 20 years and its form is inspired and influenced by Western culture. So, all these new and borrowed words are intensively used by fans themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if you want to avoid and translate them to Russian then I think this what you'll get: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Книга, написанная поклонниками xxx&#xD;&#xA; - Творчество поклонников yyy&#xD;&#xA; - Рассказ по мотивам книги, написанной поклонником zzz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I don't think this way will give you any benefits, because fanfics have very [detailed classificaton][1] (borrowed from English as well), and these фанфик, фан-арт, etc. words are nowadays are used even on news sites like [lenta.ru][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lenta.ru/news/2013/02/13/bastard/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2335" RevisionGUID="aff5cb15-38cf-458d-bc8b-39ea2e8bc596" CreationDate="2013-06-06T05:44:47.653" UserId="551" Comment="added 798 characters in body" Text="Pushkin once wrote: &quot;Но панталоны, фрак, жилет - всех этих слов по русски нет&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Fan art as phenomenon widely spread in Russian culture during last 20 years and its form is inspired and influenced by Western culture. So, all these new and borrowed words are intensively used by fans themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if you want to avoid and translate them to Russian then I think this what you'll get: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Книга, написанная поклонниками xxx&#xD;&#xA; - Творчество поклонников yyy&#xD;&#xA; - Рассказ по мотивам книги, написанной поклонником zzz&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these descriptions are rather long. I think in each particular case we may shorten the name if we look closer on each fan-artifact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Пародия на &quot;Звездные войны&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - (Любительская) Постановка по мотивам &quot;Властелина колец&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Стихи о Бэггинсах* &#xD;&#xA; - Анекдоты о Наташе Ростовой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*персонажи из книги Дж. Р. Р. Толкина &quot;Властелин колец&quot; (If the title is too short, you'll have to put some background information to the footnote).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all these titles are missing the reference to the fan-art as a phenomenon. You can understand from the context that the book or a story was created by some other author than the original book/movie or that the author is not a professional, but you can hardly see that many people are creating their works based on these books or movies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I don't think this kind of translation will give you any benefits, because fanfics have very [detailed classificaton][1] (borrowed from English as well), and these фанфик, фан-арт, etc. words are nowadays are used even on news sites like [lenta.ru][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lenta.ru/news/2013/02/13/bastard/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="bc2206af-d885-4ff1-8f87-9ac91fa078af" CreationDate="2013-06-06T05:46:10.083" UserId="551" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="6abfa2be-8bbb-4c72-88f4-22d3976eb60b" CreationDate="2013-06-06T07:40:15.003" UserId="1733" Text="It seems strange to me that the numero sign (знак номера) `№` is used in Russian, despite the fact that the letter `N` is not present in the Cyrillic alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not knowing any better, I would have expected something like **Нр.** or **Н&lt;sup&gt;р&lt;/sup&gt;** to be used as an abbreviation; similar to **No.** in English or **Nr.** in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How and when was this symbol introduced into Cyrillic typography?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="6abfa2be-8bbb-4c72-88f4-22d3976eb60b" CreationDate="2013-06-06T07:40:15.003" UserId="1733" Text="Why is the numero sign (знак номера) ­«№» used in Russian when the letter &quot;N&quot; is not in the Cyrillic alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="6abfa2be-8bbb-4c72-88f4-22d3976eb60b" CreationDate="2013-06-06T07:40:15.003" UserId="1733" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="c645b6b0-e5ea-4d85-a0d6-05ae2127b6f6" CreationDate="2013-06-06T07:40:15.003" UserId="1733" Text="The only mention about the usage of this symbol in Russian on the [English Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign) says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the letter &quot;N&quot; is not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the numero sign is typeset in Russian publishing, and is available on Russian computer and typewriter keyboards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the Russian version of the page ([ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Знак_номера](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0)), this was borrowed from the French sometime during the 14th century. Here's the exact quote from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во французской типографике в XIX веке обозначался как **№** (и был в таком виде заимствован в Россию); сейчас принято обозначение **N &lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt;**, **n &lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt;** (**N &lt;sup&gt;os&lt;/sup&gt;** и **n &lt;sup&gt;os&lt;/sup&gt;** для множественного числа) или **No**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, this appears to have fallen out of favor in contemporary French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign#French](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign#French):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The numero symbol is not in common use in France and does not appear on a standard AZERTY keyboard. Instead, the French Imprimerie nationale recommends the use of the form &quot;n&lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt;&quot; (an &quot;n&quot; followed by a superscript lowercase &quot;o&quot;). The plural form &quot;n&lt;sup&gt;os&lt;/sup&gt;&quot; can also be used.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="d3c96774-e8cd-4371-b457-48e25dfa6f52" CreationDate="2013-06-06T07:49:23.987" UserId="1733" Comment="Corrected &quot;14th century&quot; to &quot;19th century&quot;." Text="The only mention about the usage of this symbol in Russian on the [English Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign) says this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the letter &quot;N&quot; is not in the Cyrillic alphabet, the numero sign is typeset in Russian publishing, and is available on Russian computer and typewriter keyboards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to the Russian version of the page ([ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Знак_номера](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0)), this was borrowed from the French sometime during the 19th century. Here's the exact quote from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во французской типографике в XIX веке обозначался как **№** (и был в таком виде заимствован в Россию); сейчас принято обозначение **N &lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt;**, **n &lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt;** (**N &lt;sup&gt;os&lt;/sup&gt;** и **n &lt;sup&gt;os&lt;/sup&gt;** для множественного числа) или **No**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, this appears to have fallen out of favor in contemporary French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign#French](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_sign#French):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *The numero symbol is not in common use in France and does not appear on a standard AZERTY keyboard. Instead, the French Imprimerie nationale recommends the use of the form &quot;n&lt;sup&gt;o&lt;/sup&gt;&quot; (an &quot;n&quot; followed by a superscript lowercase &quot;o&quot;). The plural form &quot;n&lt;sup&gt;os&lt;/sup&gt;&quot; can also be used.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="7d5d4223-15f1-486d-be34-04776d5ec2c5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T20:22:50.720" UserId="551" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Литературные памятники - каталог][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kniginina.com/imgs/big/44362.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="6da7235b-1fe8-45bf-b817-673d4bf56944" CreationDate="2013-06-06T20:46:22.517" UserId="551" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="d9540647-8a6f-4314-9511-ce0d5f4e987d" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:18:21.133" UserId="551" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1552" RevisionGUID="0efdee34-fba9-4394-bc9c-08568ab620ba" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:27:26.940" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|буквы|typography|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2322" RevisionGUID="0b317a11-e693-46a6-9ae2-d2d76648bb7f" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:27:57.973" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|буквы|typography|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="ff815d4f-c73e-46c2-83d9-6c9c17fbe8ae" CreationDate="2013-06-06T23:09:43.037" UserId="1733" Text="Aside from answering your personal phone, are there any other situations where it is considered appropriate to use **алло** when greeting someone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that because **алло** wasn't even mentioned in any of the answers to the question http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2/when-is-it-more-appropriate-to-use-%D0%B7%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5-rather-than-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82 that it's a very informal way of greeting someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not as informal as I'm thinking it is, would saying **алло** be considered a professional way to answer a phone call (e.g. answering a customer's call to a business)? Or, would this be similar to an in-person greeting where something like **Здравствуйте** should be used instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="ff815d4f-c73e-46c2-83d9-6c9c17fbe8ae" CreationDate="2013-06-06T23:09:43.037" UserId="1733" Text="When is it appropriate to use «алло»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="ff815d4f-c73e-46c2-83d9-6c9c17fbe8ae" CreationDate="2013-06-06T23:09:43.037" UserId="1733" Text="|этикет|приветствия|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8162" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="47ee3704-a732-40db-9cea-919c0bc1ed58" CreationDate="2013-06-06T23:15:49.573" UserId="1733" Comment="Added the алфавит tag." Text="|other-languages|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2340" RevisionGUID="32fef533-b425-46bb-9a15-3bf7f958a671" CreationDate="2013-06-06T23:45:58.730" UserId="1717" Text="«Алло» is very informal. «Слушаю», «у телефона», «у аппарата» are slightly better choices for a businessman (to answer a private call or a call from a partner), but still not polite enough to answer a customer's call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you call a company you'll normally hear «Здравствуйте. Компания такая-то…» or simply «Компания такая-то…».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general you can just use «Добрый вечер. (Иван Петров/Компания «Рога и копыта»). Слушаю Вас», that's always appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="c48eb0a2-b66d-4c52-bace-d400120ca716" CreationDate="2013-06-07T03:52:16.403" UserId="194" Text="Алло is not a replacement for здравствуйте. You can perfectly well say &quot;Алло, здравствуйте&quot; and &quot;алло&quot; without &quot;здравствуйте&quot; will be impolite (like talking without greeting at all). I think it is appropriate for all phone calls but should not be used by an automated caller or responder, because it looks like a test phrase to check the link. It you have a bad connection, you can say &quot;алло&quot; several times to indicate that the connection is bad and get a feedback, even in the middle of a call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, &quot;алло&quot; is not a greeting, but a *test phrase*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the more widespread form is &quot;алё&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="9f9e7685-ccc5-499f-be77-51bee0e3488f" CreationDate="2013-06-07T03:57:51.953" UserId="194" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="&quot;Алло&quot; is not a greeting, but a *test phrase*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a replacement for здравствуйте. You can perfectly well say &quot;Алло, здравствуйте&quot; and &quot;алло&quot; without &quot;здравствуйте&quot; will be impolite (like talking without greeting at all). If you have a bad connection, you can say &quot;алло&quot; several times to get a feedback or check if the other party is still connected, even in the middle of a call. I think it is appropriate for all phone calls but should not be used by an automated caller or responder, because they do not need a test phrase to get a response so to check the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is similar to &quot;ау&quot; in a forest :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the more widespread form is &quot;алё&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="322aa7e6-cfc0-436d-890f-4a2ff588d34e" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:05:23.903" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Алло&quot; is not a greeting, but a *ping phrase*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a replacement for здравствуйте. You can perfectly well say &quot;Алло, здравствуйте&quot; and &quot;алло&quot; without &quot;здравствуйте&quot; will be impolite (like talking without greeting at all). If you have a bad connection, you can say &quot;алло&quot; several times to get a feedback or check if the other party is still connected, even in the middle of a call. I think it is appropriate for all phone calls but should not be used by an automated caller or responder, because they do not need a test phrase to get a response so to check the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is similar to &quot;ау&quot; in a forest :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the more widespread form is &quot;алё&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="b94fa82b-c3b3-4da8-9e66-8362f31aaea9" CreationDate="2013-06-07T06:08:59.967" UserId="551" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone - домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, or bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend. You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="79759865-ff7b-4d37-914c-11222958d393" CreationDate="2013-06-07T06:46:01.183" UserId="551" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone = домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend (it is very uncommon to see 'he' there). You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can be used when you are trying to say that your opponent is insane, like &quot;У вас все дома? Алё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (I don't remember if I heard it myself, but it is also shown in movies or cartoons) very old people may use 'Алё' (as a synonym to 'can anybody hear me') without any rudeness or insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, in Russian 'Алло' has no any connection to 'hello' anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="5d171b40-5e33-496f-92e6-6ace2c8ab681" CreationDate="2013-06-07T14:43:29.613" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone = домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend (it is very uncommon to see 'he' there). You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can be used when you are trying to say that your opponent is insane, like &quot;У вас все дома? Алё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (I don't remember if I heard it myself, but it is also shown in movies or cartoons) very old people may use 'Алё' (as a synonym to 'can anybody hear me') without any rudeness or insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, in Russian 'Алло' has no any connection to 'hello'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8170" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="f245dead-03b0-4577-9aeb-81ceb5ffe2fc" CreationDate="2013-06-07T21:12:40.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/343113301158400001" />
  <row Id="8171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="64e76a2e-453f-4339-b7f2-838ae04a4bb2" CreationDate="2013-06-08T02:35:27.680" UserId="194" Text="Regarding etymology, as Quassnoi pointed out it is a borrowing from Church Slavonic, where it is in turn a calque from Greek. The word itself derives from two Proto-Indo-Europeam roots: ***qom*** meaning &quot;with&quot; and ***u̯oq̆-*** (***u̯oq̆s*** meaning &quot;voice&quot;). So the literal meaning is &quot;co-voice&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8172" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="ba960bba-1d4a-4ccf-a45b-1d459a12d0af" CreationDate="2013-06-08T03:12:40.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/343203898095435777" />
  <row Id="8173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="f906d2b6-5ca7-404c-8b13-9d8cf91a521d" CreationDate="2013-06-08T04:43:37.173" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Regarding etymology, as Quassnoi pointed out it is a borrowing from Church Slavonic, where it is in turn a calque from Greek. The word itself derives from two Proto-Indo-Europeam roots: ***com*** meaning &quot;with&quot; and ***u̯eq̆-*** (***u̯oq̆s*** meaning &quot;voice&quot;). So the literal meaning is &quot;co-voice&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="22eade08-8016-475d-99ff-8d9cf852cbc5" CreationDate="2013-06-08T04:53:56.843" UserId="551" Comment="Examples from literature" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone = домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend (it is very uncommon to see 'he' there). You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can be used when you are trying to say that your opponent is insane, like &quot;У вас все дома? Алё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (I don't remember if I heard it myself, but it is also shown in movies or cartoons) very old people may use 'Алё' (as a synonym to 'can anybody hear me') without any rudeness or insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, in Russian 'Алло' has no any connection to 'hello'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of usage from [National Russian Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E0%EB%E5&amp;p=0). 5 out of first 40 matches are showing usage of 'Алё' when people are not talking by phone. It is interesting that in most cases 'Алё' is used almost identically as 'эй!':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Булат Окуджава. Искусство кроийки и шитья (1985):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев случайному прохожему, ― тут, кажись, колоночка должна быть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдруг послышались торопливые шаги, и из-за угла вынырнул мужчина. ― Але, ― радостно сказал Сысоев, ― погоди, дорогой… Увидев нас, мужчина отскочил в сторону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчина выпил и вдруг заплакал. ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев, ― что это ты? ― Письмо ему написать хочу, ― сказал мужчина, ― чтоб разобрался во всем…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Заповедник (1983):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем приоткрыл дверь и скомандовал: ― Алё! Раздолбай Иваныч!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем сказал как можно более внушительно: ― Алё, кузен, пожалуйста, без рук! Я давно собираюсь конструктивно обсудить тему брака. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Александр Солженицын. В круге первом (1968):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алё! ― коротко окликнул прораб, ― и женщина перестала мыть и посторонилась, давая дорогу на одного и не поднимая лица от ведра с тряпкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алексей Слаповский. Синдром Феникса (2006):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри, милиция заинтересуется, в самом деле! Але, гражданин, проснись! Бомж проснулся, сел, протер глаза, увидел Татьяну и обрадовался&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Афанасий Мамедов, Исаак Милькин. Самому себе (2003): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где подобрали и все такое… Але, дед, понял меня? ― обратился бригадир к Семенычу: тот, видимо, показался ему хитрее и несговорчивее меня." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2322" RevisionGUID="5303a83e-d3f7-4cca-b746-76162cf08e27" CreationDate="2013-06-08T12:12:40.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/343339792945258497" />
  <row Id="8176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="9643bc04-a66d-4880-92bb-9b3299f258bb" CreationDate="2013-06-08T20:26:48.270" UserId="551" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone = домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend (it is very uncommon to see 'he' there). You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can be used when you are trying to say that your opponent is insane, like &quot;У вас все дома? Алё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (I don't remember if I heard it myself, but it is also shown in movies or cartoons) very old people may use 'Алё' (as a synonym to 'can anybody hear me') without any rudeness or insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, in Russian 'Алло' has no any connection to 'hello'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of usage from [National Russian Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E0%EB%E5&amp;p=0). 5 out of first 40 matches are showing usage of 'Алё' when people are not talking by phone. It is interesting that in most cases 'Алё' is used almost identically as 'эй!':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Булат Окуджава. Искусство кроийки и шитья (1985):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев случайному прохожему, ― тут, кажись, колоночка должна быть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдруг послышались торопливые шаги, и из-за угла вынырнул мужчина. ― Але, ― радостно сказал Сысоев, ― погоди, дорогой… Увидев нас, мужчина отскочил в сторону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчина выпил и вдруг заплакал. ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев, ― что это ты? ― Письмо ему написать хочу, ― сказал мужчина, ― чтоб разобрался во всем…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Заповедник (1983):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем приоткрыл дверь и скомандовал: ― Алё! Раздолбай Иваныч!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем сказал как можно более внушительно: ― Алё, кузен, пожалуйста, без рук! Я давно собираюсь конструктивно обсудить тему брака. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Александр Солженицын. В круге первом (1968):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алё! ― коротко окликнул прораб, ― и женщина перестала мыть и посторонилась, давая дорогу на одного и не поднимая лица от ведра с тряпкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алексей Слаповский. Синдром Феникса (2006):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри, милиция заинтересуется, в самом деле! Але, гражданин, проснись! Бомж проснулся, сел, протер глаза, увидел Татьяну и обрадовался&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Афанасий Мамедов, Исаак Милькин. Самому себе (2003): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где подобрали и все такое… Але, дед, понял меня? ― обратился бригадир к Семенычу: тот, видимо, показался ему хитрее и несговорчивее меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting information about phone etiquette in Soviet times [by Maxim Krongauz][1] on Youtube (5:38 - 7:00).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/1Z9Mf6dmZeM?t=5m38s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8177" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="208e0ee8-50e2-417f-af53-9742172707ff" CreationDate="2013-06-09T15:12:41.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/343747486076239872" />
  <row Id="8178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="d2d98fa2-e664-4015-97a2-4ecd7c91a819" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:22:21.667" UserId="1759" Text="What is the root in word &quot;вынуть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="d2d98fa2-e664-4015-97a2-4ecd7c91a819" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:22:21.667" UserId="1759" Text="What is the root in word &quot;вынуть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="d2d98fa2-e664-4015-97a2-4ecd7c91a819" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:22:21.667" UserId="1759" Text="|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="562b4bfa-08c0-42b8-8635-aa72bc19d34d" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:42:05.967" UserId="97" Text="_Вынуть_ is quite a unique word.  There are multiple theories about its structure.  One of them states that it's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы-ну-ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _вы-_ - prefix &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-ну-_ - root &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-ть_ - suffix (or ending - depending on your favourite theory)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one states that it's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы-н-уть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _вы-_ - prefix &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-н-_ - root &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-уть_ - suffix (or ending - depending on your favourite theory)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that word вы-_ним_-ать has the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to yet another theory, this word does not have a root at all and only has prefix _вы-_ and two suffixes _-ну-_ и _-ть-.  This theory was taught to us in school in 1980s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, there are loads of discussion on this subject - and specifically this word.  Search google for [корень слова вынуть](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a) - and you'll see what I mean about theories. (I am assuming that you're ok reading Russian.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="868d45ff-5f18-4298-bd0d-8a513e137f89" CreationDate="2013-06-10T03:54:03.040" UserId="1236" Text="Aleks G is right, there are many theories about the structure of this word. Here is the one I like most, it is connected with the history of this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the historical point of view, the root of this word is `-им-` which, before consonants, has an alternative form `-я-`. The reason for this alternation is the fact that according to the [Law of open syllables][1] a nasal consonant could not be followed by a voiceless stop, like `т` in the infinitive suffix `-ти &gt; -ть`, so the Proto-Slavic diphthong `*im` before voiceless stops became a nasal monophthong `*ę` which later in Russian changed into `я`. Thus Old Church Slavonic had an imperfective-perfective pair of words `имати - яти` (take), these words could be used without prefixes then, but in modern Russian only prefixed forms are used, and there are many imperfective-perfective pairs with the 2 forms of this root, `-им- / -я-`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снимать-снять, внимать-внять, обнимать-обнять, поднимать-поднять, взимать-взять, etc. {1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `-н-` between the prefix and the root is also due to historical reasons. The modern prefixes (which derive from prepositions) `в-` and `с-` in Old Church Slavonic had the form of `*vъn` and `*sъn` and this final `-n` regulary reoccurs before vowels in modern Russian, both in verbs and before pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его, but в него, с него&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By analogy this `-n` is used after other prefixes and prepositions, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, taking into the account everything said above, the word, actually, had to have the form `*вынять` with the imperfective counterpart `вынимать`, fitting well the word-building pattern {1}. But for some reasons the morpheme boundaries inside the word shifted, the `-ня-`, which consisted of the last sound of the prefix and the root, got contaminated with the single act suffix `-ну-`, by analogy with the verbs `прыгнуть, вдохнуть, чихнуть`, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian it is impossible to find the root of this word, but such explanation shows the reason for that and gives us the clue to where the root is hidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_liquid_metathesis_and_pleophony#Law_of_open_syllables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8187" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="5c3b6674-27cf-42b7-a49d-13860f44bae4" CreationDate="2013-06-10T06:12:42.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/343973981973532672" />
  <row Id="8188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="5c96fc83-942b-4a10-82d7-6a6ed949fd70" CreationDate="2013-06-10T06:56:43.210" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="_Вынуть_ is quite a unique word.  There are multiple theories about its structure.  One of them states that it's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы-ну-ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _вы-_ - prefix &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-ну-_ - root &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-ть_ - suffix (or ending - depending on your favourite theory)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one states that it's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы-н-уть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _вы-_ - prefix &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-н-_ - root &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _-уть_ - suffix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that word вы-_ним_-ать has the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to yet another theory, this word does not have a root at all and only has prefix _вы-_ and two suffixes _-ну-_ и _-ть_-.  This theory was taught to us in school in 1980s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, there are loads of discussion on this subject - and specifically this word.  Search google for [корень слова вынуть](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a) - and you'll see what I mean about theories. (I am assuming that you're ok reading Russian.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="d8c843f1-a9ae-4626-b237-bf27e5174c7f" CreationDate="2013-06-10T07:43:50.057" UserId="551" Comment="added 1193 characters in body" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone = домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend (it is very uncommon to see 'he' there). You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can be used when you are trying to say that your opponent is insane, like &quot;У вас все дома? Алё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (I don't remember if I heard it myself, but it is also shown in movies or cartoons) very old people may use 'Алё' (as a synonym to 'can anybody hear me') without any rudeness or insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, in Russian 'Алло' has no any connection to 'hello'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of usage from [National Russian Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E0%EB%E5&amp;p=0). 5 out of first 40 matches are showing usage of 'Алё' when people are not talking by phone. It is interesting that in most cases 'Алё' is used almost identically as 'эй!':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Булат Окуджава. Искусство кроийки и шитья (1985):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев случайному прохожему, ― тут, кажись, колоночка должна быть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдруг послышались торопливые шаги, и из-за угла вынырнул мужчина. ― Але, ― радостно сказал Сысоев, ― погоди, дорогой… Увидев нас, мужчина отскочил в сторону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчина выпил и вдруг заплакал. ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев, ― что это ты? ― Письмо ему написать хочу, ― сказал мужчина, ― чтоб разобрался во всем…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Заповедник (1983):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем приоткрыл дверь и скомандовал: ― Алё! Раздолбай Иваныч!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем сказал как можно более внушительно: ― Алё, кузен, пожалуйста, без рук! Я давно собираюсь конструктивно обсудить тему брака. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Александр Солженицын. В круге первом (1968):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алё! ― коротко окликнул прораб, ― и женщина перестала мыть и посторонилась, давая дорогу на одного и не поднимая лица от ведра с тряпкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алексей Слаповский. Синдром Феникса (2006):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри, милиция заинтересуется, в самом деле! Але, гражданин, проснись! Бомж проснулся, сел, протер глаза, увидел Татьяну и обрадовался&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Афанасий Мамедов, Исаак Милькин. Самому себе (2003): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где подобрали и все такое… Але, дед, понял меня? ― обратился бригадир к Семенычу: тот, видимо, показался ему хитрее и несговорчивее меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the use of &quot;алё&quot; instead of &quot;эй&quot; goes from phrase &quot;Алё, гараж!&quot; (I found several examples of its usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Словарь русского арго, 2002][2],&#xD;&#xA; - [Живая речь. Словарь разговорных выражений, 1994][3] and &#xD;&#xA; - on some [urban-dictionary-like site][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase seems to be a citation from extremely popular movie &quot;[Волга-Волга][4]&quot; (released in 1938), where one of the characters, Бывалов, is an authority in small town. Still, he wants to be assigned on a position in Moscow and tries to show it in all posible ways. So, he calls to the so-called 'garage' and says: &quot;Алё, гараж? Заложите кобылу!&quot; (and everyone understands that it is not a 'garage', but in fact stables). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase in it's short form &quot;Алё, гараж!&quot; became an ironic way of addressing a person, and possibly it was later shortened to just &quot;Алё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting information about phone etiquette in Soviet times [by Maxim Krongauz][5] on Youtube (5:38 - 7:00).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slovoborg.su/definition/%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%91,+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian_argo.academic.ru/132/%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%91,_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://enc-dic.com/speech/Al-garazh-1389.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0-%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://youtu.be/1Z9Mf6dmZeM?t=5m38s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2342" RevisionGUID="862ac42d-419c-4ac8-a5e2-d427ffd956f3" CreationDate="2013-06-10T07:49:09.950" UserId="551" Comment="added 1193 characters in body" Text="As Anixx already mentioned, &quot;алло&quot; is a ping-phrase. So it can be used when you are using any other phone-like communication device (e.g. entry phone = домофон) and you are not sure if anyone can hear you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алло can also be used when you are not using the phone, but still wish to check if anyone can hear you. However this is informal and sometimes may be considered rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you want to buy a ticket to a theatre. You came to the cashdesk, but though the window is open, there is nobody inside. You are waiting for a several minutes, but still nobody came back. Finally you start 'pinging': Есть здесь кто нибудь? Отзовитесь!. Still there is no answer. Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. You are visiting some institution with Soviet traditions (post office, bank, etc.). You came to the cashdesk, and though the cashier is there, she is talking to her colleague or a friend (it is very uncommon to see 'he' there). You understand that she is discussing details of her private life (how she spent the weekends etc.) and do not pay attantion to you. You start with 'Девушка...', she still talks to colleague. After other attempts to bring her attantion you start to say 'Алё, меня кто-нибудь слышит?'. But be prepared to hear an aswer like: 'Мужчина, вы что не видите что у нас обед?'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can be used when you are trying to say that your opponent is insane, like &quot;У вас все дома? Алё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However (I don't remember if I heard it myself, but it is also shown in movies or cartoons) very old people may use 'Алё' (as a synonym to 'can anybody hear me') without any rudeness or insult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, in Russian 'Алло' has no any connection to 'hello'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of usage from [National Russian Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E0%EB%E5&amp;p=0). 5 out of first 40 matches are showing usage of 'Алё' when people are not talking by phone. It is interesting that in most cases 'Алё' is used almost identically as 'эй!':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Булат Окуджава. Искусство кроийки и шитья (1985):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев случайному прохожему, ― тут, кажись, колоночка должна быть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдруг послышались торопливые шаги, и из-за угла вынырнул мужчина. ― Але, ― радостно сказал Сысоев, ― погоди, дорогой… Увидев нас, мужчина отскочил в сторону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчина выпил и вдруг заплакал. ― Але, ― сказал Сысоев, ― что это ты? ― Письмо ему написать хочу, ― сказал мужчина, ― чтоб разобрался во всем…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Заповедник (1983):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем приоткрыл дверь и скомандовал: ― Алё! Раздолбай Иваныч!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Затем сказал как можно более внушительно: ― Алё, кузен, пожалуйста, без рук! Я давно собираюсь конструктивно обсудить тему брака. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Александр Солженицын. В круге первом (1968):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алё! ― коротко окликнул прораб, ― и женщина перестала мыть и посторонилась, давая дорогу на одного и не поднимая лица от ведра с тряпкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алексей Слаповский. Синдром Феникса (2006):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри, милиция заинтересуется, в самом деле! Але, гражданин, проснись! Бомж проснулся, сел, протер глаза, увидел Татьяну и обрадовался&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Афанасий Мамедов, Исаак Милькин. Самому себе (2003): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где подобрали и все такое… Але, дед, понял меня? ― обратился бригадир к Семенычу: тот, видимо, показался ему хитрее и несговорчивее меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the use of &quot;алё&quot; instead of &quot;эй&quot; goes from phrase &quot;Алё, гараж!&quot; (I found several examples of its usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Словарь русского арго, 2002][2],&#xD;&#xA; - [Живая речь. Словарь разговорных выражений, 1994][3] and &#xD;&#xA; - on some [urban-dictionary-like site][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase seems to be a citation from extremely popular movie &quot;[Волга-Волга][4]&quot; (released in 1938), where one of the characters, Бывалов, is an authority in small town. Still, he wants to be assigned on a position in Moscow and tries to show it in all posible ways. So, he calls to the so-called 'garage' and says: &quot;Алё, гараж? Заложите кобылу!&quot; (and everyone understands that it is not a 'garage', but in fact stables). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase in it's short form &quot;Алё, гараж!&quot; became an ironic way of addressing a person, and possibly it was later shortened to just &quot;Алё&quot; (at least one of the dictionaries referenced lists both as synonyms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting information about phone etiquette in Soviet times [by Maxim Krongauz][5] on Youtube (5:38 - 7:00).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slovoborg.su/definition/%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%91,+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian_argo.academic.ru/132/%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%91,_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://enc-dic.com/speech/Al-garazh-1389.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0-%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://youtu.be/1Z9Mf6dmZeM?t=5m38s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8191" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="94ec8faf-4fda-4601-b83e-ff8c3d1e0def" CreationDate="2013-06-10T09:12:42.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/344019280481894401" />
  <row Id="8192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2348" RevisionGUID="044f6842-735c-41d2-9c9e-81914b3b78aa" CreationDate="2013-06-10T13:41:53.253" UserId="1761" Text="There is no root in this word. It is one word in all russian language that has no root. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вы - prefix&#xD;&#xA;ну - suffix&#xD;&#xA;ть - suffix&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="8bbd5111-be8f-4d30-b431-19397a22215e" CreationDate="2013-06-10T15:39:00.197" UserId="170" Text="I am really puzzled here. What's the right way to say in Russian &quot;I have five male monkeys&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="8bbd5111-be8f-4d30-b431-19397a22215e" CreationDate="2013-06-10T15:39:00.197" UserId="170" Text="&quot;У меня пять самцов обезьян&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="8bbd5111-be8f-4d30-b431-19397a22215e" CreationDate="2013-06-10T15:39:00.197" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="b6299931-1738-43c1-9f72-a74b2e5921b9" CreationDate="2013-06-10T15:47:20.533" UserId="170" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;У меня пять самцов обезьян/обезьян-самцов/обезьян-особей мужского пола/обезьянних самцов&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="c6436655-4464-4903-b415-d23740ab8b16" CreationDate="2013-06-10T16:17:13.580" UserId="1755" Text="I'd prefer 'обезьян-самцов'. Other options are possible too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 'самцов обезьян' - common&#xD;&#xA;- 'самцов обезьяны' - also common (plural form of 'самец обезьяны')&#xD;&#xA;- 'обезьян-особей мужского пола' - technically correct but not used &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'обезьянних самцов' - incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="a8f16d89-9737-439a-b0fd-dd24c95c78b7" CreationDate="2013-06-10T19:30:32.300" UserId="1755" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="I'd prefer 'обезьян-самцов'. Other possible options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 'самцов обезьяны' - common (plural form of 'самец обезьяны')&#xD;&#xA;- 'обезьян-особей мужского пола' - technically correct but not used &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrect options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 'обезьянних самцов' - obviously incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;- 'самцов обезьян' - technically incorrect, sometimes used by mistake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2348" RevisionGUID="7c3abbd8-7405-4975-9074-273bf9ef0974" CreationDate="2013-06-10T21:38:34.617" UserId="1733" Comment="Fixed capitalization of &quot;Russia&quot; &amp; reformatted the link." Text="There is no root in this word. It is one word in all Russian language that has no root. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вы - prefix&#xD;&#xA;ну - suffix&#xD;&#xA;ть - suffix&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/вынуть](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8203" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2348" RevisionGUID="7c3abbd8-7405-4975-9074-273bf9ef0974" CreationDate="2013-06-10T21:38:34.617" Comment="Proposed by 1733 approved by 1236, 97 edit id of 370" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="4e571b53-4e93-4cdd-8fc5-b5b619e4863a" CreationDate="2013-06-12T06:40:46.867" UserId="551" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Written on a street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="4827e365-7ece-42a1-b036-8d3a5066aee6" CreationDate="2013-06-12T07:02:31.657" UserId="551" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Written on a street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eG1sJ.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rzzys.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="bb50e44b-dbb5-4bb8-9af3-61f07e3df6ed" CreationDate="2013-06-12T07:29:06.743" UserId="551" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As seen in the street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eG1sJ.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rzzys.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ET3z.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This font was popular back in 50-s, so you can frequently see it on objects created in those times, or ones that have retro-design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hAWv1.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaJgd.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="eb1f77b4-fc3f-4685-b4c4-f6df9142712b" CreationDate="2013-06-12T11:29:46.067" UserId="170" Text="Here is a song by Bulat Okudzhava &quot;Дежурный по апрелю&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ах, какие удивительные ночи, только мама моя в грусти и тревоге: &quot;Что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же ты гуляешь, мой сыночек, одинокий, одинокий? Что же ты гуляешь, мой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сыночек, одинокий, одинокий?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из конца в конец апреля путь держу я, стали звёзды и крупнее, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; добрее. &quot;Мама, мама, это я дежурю – я дежурный по апрелю. Мама, мама,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это я дежурю – я дежурный по апрелю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мой сыночек, вспоминаю всё, что было. Стали грустными глаза твои,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сыночек. Может быть, она тебя забыла, знать не хочет, знать не хочет?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, она тебя забыла, знать не хочет, знать не хочет?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из конца в конец апреля путь держу я, Стали звёзды и крупнее, и добрее. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что ты, мама! Просто я дежурю – я дежурный по апрелю. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама, мама, это я дежурю – я дежурный по апрелю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I kind of understand the plot of the song, I still don't get the meaning of the phrase &quot;дежурный по апрелю&quot;. I've looked through all available resources and couldn't find the answer. Is it a kind of idiom in Russian? Or, perhaps, it was a common phrase with some special meaning pertaining only to the time when the song was written?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="eb1f77b4-fc3f-4685-b4c4-f6df9142712b" CreationDate="2013-06-12T11:29:46.067" UserId="170" Text="What does &quot;Я дежурный по апрелю&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="eb1f77b4-fc3f-4685-b4c4-f6df9142712b" CreationDate="2013-06-12T11:29:46.067" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="4fe2dc79-575d-4187-a28f-ef5c9ea8a2e8" CreationDate="2013-06-12T12:10:37.883" UserId="1688" Text="&quot;_Дежурный по чему-либо_&quot; means a person keeping watch over something. Cf. дежурный по железнодорожной станции -- railway station attendant; дежурный по воинскому подразделению -- military unit duty officer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this verse the phrase is used metaphorically; the persona spends nights out, walking the streets, as if he were keeping watch over the month of April." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="df8b8b3b-3768-4742-a033-2f57b66e13bd" CreationDate="2013-06-12T12:19:29.090" UserId="1236" Text="It is not an idiom, it is an [occasionalism][1] coined by Okudzhava, it means &quot;the one responsible for April&quot;, &quot;the one in charge of April&quot;, &quot;the sentry of April&quot;, the overall meaning being &quot;the person controlling the bloonimg, the awakening of the Nature from the winter sleep&quot;, that's a great metaphor, created by an outstanding poet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="bab5b685-8b96-4442-9018-3d9ccb689d9d" CreationDate="2013-06-12T13:21:04.657" UserId="97" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Here is a song by Bulat Okudzhava &quot;Дежурный по апрелю&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ах, какие удивительные ночи,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; только мама моя в грусти и тревоге:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что же ты гуляешь, мой сыночек,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одинокий, одинокий?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же ты гуляешь, мой сыночек,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одинокий, одинокий?&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из конца в конец апреля путь держу я,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стали звёзды и крупнее, и добрее.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мама, мама, это я дежурю –&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама, мама, это я дежурю –&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мой сыночек, вспоминаю всё, что было.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стали грустными глаза твои, сыночек.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, она тебя забыла,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знать не хочет, знать не хочет?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, она тебя забыла,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знать не хочет, знать не хочет?&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из конца в конец апреля путь держу я,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стали звёзды и крупнее, и добрее.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что ты, мама! Просто я дежурю –&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама, мама, это я дежурю –&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I kind of understand the plot of the song, I still don't get the meaning of the phrase &quot;дежурный по апрелю&quot;. I've looked through all available resources and couldn't find the answer. Is it a kind of idiom in Russian? Or, perhaps, it was a common phrase with some special meaning pertaining only to the time when the song was written?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="cc707169-478e-45fc-87b4-c939b6ed658c" CreationDate="2013-06-12T13:34:21.607" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 72 characters in body" Text="Here is a song by Bulat Okudzhava &quot;Дежурный по апрелю&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ах, какие удивительные ночи,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; только мама моя в грусти и тревоге:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что же ты гуляешь, мой сыночек,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; одинокий, одинокий?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же ты гуляешь, мой сыночек,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; одинокий, одинокий?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из конца в конец апреля путь держу я,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; стали звёзды и крупнее, и добрее.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мама, мама, это я дежурю –  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама, мама, это я дежурю –  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мой сыночек, вспоминаю всё, что было.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стали грустными глаза твои, сыночек.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, она тебя забыла,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; знать не хочет, знать не хочет?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, она тебя забыла,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; знать не хочет, знать не хочет?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из конца в конец апреля путь держу я,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стали звёзды и крупнее, и добрее.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что ты, мама! Просто я дежурю –  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама, мама, это я дежурю –  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я дежурный по апрелю&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I kind of understand the plot of the song, I still don't get the meaning of the phrase &quot;дежурный по апрелю&quot;. I've looked through all available resources and couldn't find the answer. Is it a kind of idiom in Russian? Or, perhaps, it was a common phrase with some special meaning pertaining only to the time when the song was written?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="dd56a623-adad-44aa-a7a6-e9327d500f61" CreationDate="2013-06-12T14:15:42.740" UserId="194" Text="Here one meets the phenomenon of *application*. When root ends with the same phoneme as the suffix starts, then the both phonemes fuse into one. In this case underlyingly the root is -н- as seen from the verb &quot;вынь&quot;. But it was fused with the suffix -нуть-: **вы-н-нуть* =&gt; *вынуть*. Now one can consider either root or the suffix deformed by the procees of application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar process can be seen in **у-сн-нуть* =&gt; *уснуть*, **об-ман-нуть* =&gt; *обмануть*, **регби-ист* =&gt; *регбист*, **такси-ист* =&gt; *таксист*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="7dc3b5e9-6cd6-47f4-a252-2625fe57b232" CreationDate="2013-06-12T22:00:24.460" UserId="115" Text="[Феликс Кривин][1] утверждал что в глаголе &quot;вынуть&quot; исчез корень.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rulit.net/books/kalejdoskop-read-74037-11.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="e9e1e4e4-700a-4b6d-8205-30644ca1e728" CreationDate="2013-06-13T05:24:25.083" UserId="194" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Here one meets the phenomenon of *application*. When root ends with the same phoneme as the suffix starts, then the both phonemes fuse into one. In this case underlyingly the root is -н- as seen from the verb &quot;вынь&quot;. But it was fused with the suffix -нуть-: **вы-н-нуть* =&gt; *вынуть*. Now one can consider either root or the suffix deformed by the process of application, or count the last root phoneme as belonging to both root and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar process can be seen in **у-сн-нуть* =&gt; *уснуть*, **об-ман-нуть* =&gt; *обмануть*, **регби-ист* =&gt; *регбист*, **такси-ист* =&gt; *таксист*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="dbe95cb2-a4e9-4dcb-8ceb-1a97db007b2d" CreationDate="2013-06-13T09:13:02.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/345106528308699136" />
  <row Id="8219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="754fa8a0-2d1d-4fe4-ae9c-0c125b8c901b" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:04:08.217" UserId="124" Comment="User toggled feature status. Now: not featured" Text="&lt;p&gt;Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I request a translation?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not forbid translation requests but note that &lt;strong&gt;this is not a translation service&lt;/strong&gt;, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Russian to &lt;em&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; to Russian translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Welcome as long as you provide &lt;em&gt;enough&lt;/em&gt; explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask for resources?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have created a &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71&quot;&gt;single resource question&lt;/a&gt;, where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is &lt;strong&gt;very specific&lt;/strong&gt;, we will close it as a duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's in the dictionary;   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's easily found in a Google search.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Should I post in Russian or English?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in English, please answer in English;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for Russian Stack Exchange, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2356" RevisionGUID="e0eba35f-da9b-49cf-bda4-5969a0d6d441" CreationDate="2013-06-14T00:57:11.513" UserId="62" Text="I once asked a native speaker what the difference is between выходить and уходить, and I was told that выходить means to exit in a general direction, while уходить means to exit in a specific direction, and that is related to why exit signs on transportation say выход. Recently another native speaker told me that there isn't really a serious distinction between выходить and уходить, and in particular that the distinction I was told before is false. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can native speakers here describe whether they see a difference between выходить and уходить, and if so what it is in practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2356" RevisionGUID="e0eba35f-da9b-49cf-bda4-5969a0d6d441" CreationDate="2013-06-14T00:57:11.513" UserId="62" Text="выходить vs. уходить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2356" RevisionGUID="e0eba35f-da9b-49cf-bda4-5969a0d6d441" CreationDate="2013-06-14T00:57:11.513" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2357" RevisionGUID="630100fa-b365-4661-aeeb-b36925375e75" CreationDate="2013-06-14T01:19:09.633" UserId="1236" Text="`Выходить` is to &quot;go / come **out**&quot;, `уходить` is &quot;to leave, to go **away**&quot;, every dictionary has it like that. The noun derived from `выходить` is `выход`, which is not only &quot;exit&quot;, but also &quot;a way out&quot;. The noun derived from `уходить` is `уход`, which is &quot;departure&quot; and &quot;passing away&quot; (especially in `уход из жизни` which means &quot;death&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the difference between `выходить` and `уходить` is obvious for a native speaker of Russian, it is best described as being the same as the difference between the English &quot;go **out**&quot; and &quot;go **away**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2358" RevisionGUID="39c0708f-dcc8-4dd1-b5a4-173d76aff0f8" CreationDate="2013-06-14T06:28:07.387" UserId="1670" Text="One of the distinctions is that **выходить** implies possibility of return while **уходить** usually means &quot;leaving with no return&quot;. You can say **я вышел покурить** and that means that you gonna be back after the smoking. On the other hand if you say **я ушел из этого клуба** that would mean that you left that club &quot;forever&quot; (of course you might return sometime in future but presently everyone believes you are not coming back).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can be confusing. For example, the word **выход** can mean the process of appearing of actors on the scene in a theater. Which means, technically they are not leaving - they are, on contrary, coming in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="d464915a-b970-428f-811d-c0c785b7afbd" CreationDate="2013-06-14T09:42:46.417" UserId="-1" Comment="update broken URL" Text="Ruslan and Ludmila in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;http://public-library.ru/Pushkin.Alexander/ruslan.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20060104082442re_/www.sunbirds.com/lacquer/readings/1015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other translations but this one seems the most readable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8227" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="d464915a-b970-428f-811d-c0c785b7afbd" CreationDate="2013-06-14T09:42:46.417" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 134 edit id of 371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8228" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2356" RevisionGUID="0be76c79-9888-4f7d-9598-f36c51f1225c" CreationDate="2013-06-15T06:13:04.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/345786012989022208" />
  <row Id="8229" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="0dfa168d-5bd0-45cf-868c-eb287a5ef9ae" CreationDate="2013-06-15T15:13:11.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/345921939304488960" />
  <row Id="8230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2359" RevisionGUID="84a69c26-3c64-4c59-af7c-c612caaf4020" CreationDate="2013-06-16T21:09:23.423" UserId="496" Text="Just an addition to previous answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is a possible association to дежурный that &quot;he spends nights out, walking the streets&quot; - to me the other aspect is coming to mind first. It is that April is synonym to spring and while many are falling in love in this month and loose their heads (теряют головы), he must keep his clear mind as person on duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is not physical aspect of him walking a lot, and literally not sleeping, but metaphorically while others go to dreams of love, he needs to stay awake and with cool head and pass this difficult place for him - place with the name &quot;April&quot;. He walks axis of time - not only x, y, z axes of space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what he pretends to be to his mom (a person on duty) but in fact, probably, he still cannot get over his love for someone (as mom says: &quot;может быть она тебя забыла, знать не хочет&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="0a40d243-77cf-474e-a900-37e0e3ee9515" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:32:31.267" UserDisplayName="user1190" Text="If you are looking for the right russian word (especially for websites) that's closer to &quot;Legal terms / terms of use / disclaimer&quot;, use the russian word: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правила&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every russian speaking person will understand this a lot better than `дисклеймер` which is still an english word written in cyrillic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2307" RevisionGUID="cc4f66f1-7741-49d8-a2ce-471b5c05d67f" CreationDate="2013-06-17T15:13:12.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/346646718043017217" />
  <row Id="8233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="5a3e2351-0792-44e9-aec0-fb5026c46dbc" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:56:27.207" UserId="115" Text="It is not so much about the direction. `Выходить` has to do with exiting some confined space, like a room, as in `Выйди из комнаты!` The space can be virtual as in `выходить из партии` - leaving a political party. Another way to translate `выходить` is &quot;to come out&quot;. That is why an actor's first appearance on the stage is called `выход`.  The actor is coming out onto the stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, `yходить` just means &quot;to leave&quot; or &quot;to go away&quot;, without any implication of going from an &quot;inside&quot; to an &quot;outside&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="22b6f177-c68b-48e5-ba08-f8f7144d923d" CreationDate="2013-06-17T21:17:31.360" UserId="1779" Text="There are too many aspects here to answer briefly. Consider just one prefix, &quot;по&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Значение**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с наречиями*: словно, как, т.е. указывает на подобие. *по-мужски*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с наречиями и прилагательными* указывает на сравнительную степень.    *побольше, поменьше*. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на завершение действия с полным или частичным охватом: *позавтракать, покончить*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на совершение действия в течение некоторого времени: *покрутить, порубить, походить*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на начало движения: *поехать, поползти, подвинуть*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на приобретение признака: *побагроветь, побелеть, подвинуть*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на действие, произведенное в значительном количестве или объёме, одновременно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придавая пренебрежительный оттенок: *понаехать, поразбросать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пораскидать*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="e642238f-8957-44dc-b31e-6d730ac4df19" CreationDate="2013-06-18T04:14:47.187" UserId="1733" Comment="Reformatted the link." Text="There are too many aspects here to answer briefly. Consider just one prefix, &quot;по&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Значение**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с наречиями*: словно, как, т.е. указывает на подобие. *по-мужски*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с наречиями и прилагательными* указывает на сравнительную степень.    *побольше, поменьше*. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на завершение действия с полным или частичным охватом: *позавтракать, покончить*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на совершение действия в течение некоторого времени: *покрутить, порубить, походить*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на начало движения: *поехать, поползти, подвинуть*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на приобретение признака: *побагроветь, побелеть, подвинуть*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на действие, произведенное в значительном количестве или объёме, одновременно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придавая пренебрежительный оттенок: *понаехать, поразбросать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пораскидать*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from [ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/по-](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8236" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="e642238f-8957-44dc-b31e-6d730ac4df19" CreationDate="2013-06-18T04:14:47.187" Comment="Proposed by 1733 approved by 1779 edit id of 374" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="128ff089-a032-4139-9f5d-214c40fd003a" CreationDate="2013-06-18T13:19:37.467" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="There are too many aspects here to answer briefly. Consider just one prefix, &quot;по&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Значение**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с наречиями*: словно, как, т.е. указывает на подобие. *по-мужски*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с наречиями и прилагательными* указывает на сравнительную степень.    *побольше, поменьше*. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на завершение действия с полным или частичным охватом: *позавтракать, покончить*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на совершение действия в течение некоторого времени: *покрутить, порубить, походить*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на начало движения: *поехать, поползти, поплыть*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на приобретение признака: *побагроветь, побелеть, позеленеть*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - *с глаголами и их производными*: указывает на действие, произведенное в значительном количестве или объёме, одновременно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придавая пренебрежительный оттенок: *понаехать, поразбросать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пораскидать*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - ... etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from [ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/по-](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2363" RevisionGUID="76685fb5-73c0-433a-865c-8d47d243f258" CreationDate="2013-06-18T17:31:24.060" UserId="1782" Text="The semantics is defined by the both prefixes and words. Some words from your example allow to use any of the prefixes with different meanings. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - помазать (anoint) and размазать (smear) are 2 different actions&#xD;&#xA;    - побег (escape, runaway) and разбег (running start) &#xD;&#xA;      are 2 different nouns which come from бег" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="212c258e-3003-4e44-a619-5dbbd19cb055" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:50:08.257" UserId="1779" Text="This has puzzled me for a long time. In Russian, we count objects in a weird way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Один камень&#xD;&#xA; - Два камня&#xD;&#xA; - Три камня&#xD;&#xA; - Четыре камня&#xD;&#xA; - Пять камней&#xD;&#xA; - ...&#xD;&#xA; - Двадцать камней&#xD;&#xA; - Двадцать один камень&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the pattern repeats for every 1, 2-4 and 5-0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two interesting things here: the &quot;1, 2-4, 5+&quot; pattern is present in several slavic languages, but not in English. The other thing is special treatment of the numbers from 11 to 20 - many languages seem to treat the &quot;teens&quot; differently from the other tens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the origins of such oddities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="212c258e-3003-4e44-a619-5dbbd19cb055" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:50:08.257" UserId="1779" Text="Special treatment for plural forms depending on number of objects - where does it originate from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="212c258e-3003-4e44-a619-5dbbd19cb055" CreationDate="2013-06-18T18:50:08.257" UserId="1779" Text="|этимология|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2365" RevisionGUID="ddfe1bc4-77d7-41cc-9fe1-c390c5d3183f" CreationDate="2013-06-18T19:44:09.477" UserId="1236" Text="In Old Church Slavonic numerals didn't constitute a distinct part of speech, numbers 1-4 were numerical adjectives, numbers bigger than 5 were numerical nouns, that is why numbers 1-4 agreed in gender with the following noun, the noun being in singular after 1, in dual after 2, and in plural after 3 and 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. єдин чловѣкъ (m.), єдина жєна (f.), єдино сєло (n.) - Singular&#xD;&#xA;2. два чловѣка (m.), двѣ жєнѣ (f.), двѣ сєлѣ (n.) - Dual&#xD;&#xA;3. триѥ чловѣци (m.), три жєны (f.), три сєла (n.) - Plural&#xD;&#xA;4. чєтырє чловѣци (m.), чєтыри жєны (f.), чєтыри сєла (n.) - Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers bigger than 5 were numerical nouns, so the nouns that followed them were attributes in the Genitive case, and, naturally, in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пѧть чловѣкъ (m.), пѧть жєнъ (f.), пѧть сєлъ (n.) - Gen. Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, when numerals formed as a part of speech and the noun declension paradigms got leveled by analogy, the gender distinction of numbers 3 and 4 got lost, and the noun forms after numbers 2, 3, and 4 became the same (namely, always ending in `-a`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traces of this Old Church Slavonic state of things with numerals can be seen in all the modern Slavic languages, although the leveling went on in slightly different ways in each of them, for example in Ukrainian after 2, 3, 4 the Nominative Plural is used, only the stress in that case is the same as in the Genitive Plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2365" RevisionGUID="60f34ec6-6252-4b23-8eea-983b33d41c80" CreationDate="2013-06-18T21:23:51.153" UserId="1236" Comment="better wording" Text="In Old Church Slavonic numerals didn't constitute a distinct part of speech, numbers 1-4 were numerical adjectives, numbers bigger than 5 were numerical nouns, that is why numbers 1-4 agreed in gender and number with the following noun, the noun being in singular after 1, in dual after 2, and in plural after 3 and 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. єдин чловѣкъ (m.), єдина жєна (f.), єдино сєло (n.) - Singular&#xD;&#xA;2. два чловѣка (m.), двѣ жєнѣ (f.), двѣ сєлѣ (n.) - Dual&#xD;&#xA;3. триѥ чловѣци (m.), три жєны (f.), три сєла (n.) - Plural&#xD;&#xA;4. чєтырє чловѣци (m.), чєтыри жєны (f.), чєтыри сєла (n.) - Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers bigger than 5 were numerical nouns, so the nouns that followed them were attributes in the Genitive case, and, naturally, in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пѧть чловѣкъ (m.), пѧть жєнъ (f.), пѧть сєлъ (n.) - Gen. Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, when numerals formed as a part of speech and the noun declension paradigms got leveled by analogy, the gender distinction of numbers 3 and 4 got lost, and the noun forms after numbers 2, 3, and 4 became the same (namely, always ending in `-a`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traces of this old state of things which is reflected in the Old Church Slavonic examples I gave can be seen in all the modern Slavic languages, although the leveling went on in slightly different ways in each of them, for example in Ukrainian after 2, 3, 4 the Nominative Plural is used, only the stress in that case is the same as in the Genitive Plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="0b40cb8d-1ca2-4af4-aed9-b6818ecbc9fc" CreationDate="2013-06-19T12:13:14.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/347326200445796353" />
  <row Id="8245" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2296" RevisionGUID="a43dd74f-28de-4b88-98de-52c3bbe46119" CreationDate="2013-06-19T18:13:14.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/347416797995225089" />
  <row Id="8247" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2298" RevisionGUID="40cd5ce9-370f-44f6-a702-eddc2c0dc102" CreationDate="2013-06-20T09:13:14.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/347643289664618496" />
  <row Id="8248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2365" RevisionGUID="f44d43ea-b41a-4fd2-a36c-1e15ba58152a" CreationDate="2013-06-20T20:08:54.020" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In Old Church Slavonic numerals didn't constitute a distinct part of speech, numbers 1-4 were numerical adjectives, numbers bigger than 5 were numerical nouns, that is why numbers 1-4 agreed in gender and number with the following noun, the noun being in singular after 1, in dual after 2, and in plural after 3 and 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. єдинъ чловѣкъ (m.), єдина жєна (f.), єдино сєло (n.) - Singular&#xD;&#xA;2. два чловѣка (m.), двѣ жєнѣ (f.), двѣ сєлѣ (n.) - Dual&#xD;&#xA;3. триѥ чловѣци (m.), три жєны (f.), три сєла (n.) - Plural&#xD;&#xA;4. чєтырє чловѣци (m.), чєтыри жєны (f.), чєтыри сєла (n.) - Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers bigger than 5 were numerical nouns, so the nouns that followed them were attributes in the Genitive case, and, naturally, in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пѧть чловѣкъ (m.), пѧть жєнъ (f.), пѧть сєлъ (n.) - Gen. Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, when numerals formed as a part of speech and the noun declension paradigms got leveled by analogy, the gender distinction of numbers 3 and 4 got lost, and the noun forms after numbers 2, 3, and 4 became the same (namely, always ending in `-a`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traces of this old state of things which is reflected in the Old Church Slavonic examples I gave can be seen in all the modern Slavic languages, although the leveling went on in slightly different ways in each of them, for example in Ukrainian after 2, 3, 4 the Nominative Plural is used, only the stress in that case is the same as in the Genitive Plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="08a9be4c-f33a-4443-9e50-f161f212971f" CreationDate="2013-06-20T22:49:10.343" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Что ты улыбаешься?&quot; и &quot;Почему ты улыбаешься?&quot; or in some other similar cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="08a9be4c-f33a-4443-9e50-f161f212971f" CreationDate="2013-06-20T22:49:10.343" UserId="170" Text="Difference between Что and Почему?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="08a9be4c-f33a-4443-9e50-f161f212971f" CreationDate="2013-06-20T22:49:10.343" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="3fe62052-e5c5-45ff-87e9-8440cf0fb000" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:32:02.950" UserId="971" Text="&quot;Почему ты улыбаешься?&quot; is always a neutral or friendly question, meaning &quot;What made you smile?&quot; The person who is asking is interested in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ты улыбаешься?&quot; may mean exactly the same when told in a positive manner, but it can also work as a rude opening, meaning &quot;I'd better not be smiling&quot;. The person who is talking like that implies that there's nothing to smile about. In that case, a more aggressive version of this question would be &quot;Что ты лыбишься?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="93ceac6c-3441-49e9-88d4-b93b78682878" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:41:02.523" UserId="971" Comment="I realized that the question was for generic что/почему, not the particular phrases." Text="&quot;Почему&quot; simply means &quot;why/what the reason&quot;; &quot;что&quot; has a broader range of meanings, including a mix of &quot;why/what for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, &quot;Почему ты улыбаешься?&quot; is always a neutral or friendly question, meaning &quot;What made you smile?&quot; The person who is asking is interested in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ты улыбаешься?&quot; may mean exactly the same when told in a positive manner, but it can also work as a rude opening, meaning &quot;I'd better not be smiling&quot;. The person who is talking like that implies that there's nothing to smile about and/or that the smiling won't make any good. In that case, there's even a more aggressive version of this question: &quot;Что ты лыбишься?&quot; (&quot;What the f*k are you smiling at/for?&quot;). In many cases you can't really tell is &quot;что&quot; &quot;why&quot; or &quot;what for&quot;, it is context dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="8e87678d-33bf-4a62-8b5d-9be6d1702f31" CreationDate="2013-06-20T23:51:26.543" UserId="971" Comment="I realized that the question was for generic что/почему, not the particular phrases." Text="&quot;Почему&quot; simply means &quot;why/what the reason&quot;; &quot;что&quot; also has a variety of сontext-dependent informal meanings, including a mix of &quot;why/what for&quot;. &quot;Что&quot; may also introduce a rhetorical tone to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, &quot;Почему ты улыбаешься?&quot; is always a neutral or friendly question, meaning &quot;What made you smile?&quot; The person who is asking is interested in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ты улыбаешься?&quot; may mean exactly the same when told in a positive manner, but it can also work as a rude opening, meaning &quot;I'd better not be smiling&quot;. The person who is talking like that implies that there's nothing to smile about and/or that the smiling won't make any good. In that case, there's even a more aggressive version of this question: &quot;Что ты лыбишься?&quot; (&quot;What the f*k are you smiling at/for?&quot;). In many cases you can't really tell is &quot;что&quot; &quot;why&quot; or &quot;what for&quot;, it is context dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что&quot; in this type of questions will never be used in formal speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="4a60788a-d90a-4d51-b775-9460b78eaa9d" CreationDate="2013-06-21T00:29:31.260" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Почему&quot; simply means &quot;why/what the reason&quot;; &quot;что&quot; also has a variety of context-dependent informal meanings, including a mix of &quot;why/what for&quot;. &quot;Что&quot; may also introduce a rhetorical tone to the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, &quot;Почему ты улыбаешься?&quot; is always a neutral or friendly question, meaning &quot;What made you smile?&quot; The person who is asking is interested in an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ты улыбаешься?&quot; may mean exactly the same when told in a positive manner, but it can also work as a rude opening, meaning &quot;You'd better not be smiling&quot;. The person who is talking like that implies that there's nothing to smile about and/or that the smiling won't make any good. In that case, there's even a more aggressive version of this question: &quot;Что ты лыбишься?&quot; (&quot;What the f*k are you smiling at/for?&quot;). In many cases you can't really tell is &quot;что&quot; &quot;why&quot; or &quot;what for&quot;, it is context dependent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что&quot; in this type of questions will never be used in formal speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8256" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="90e140b5-b184-4e3f-a73a-6cb11a07f6b2" CreationDate="2013-06-21T03:13:15.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/347915085903167491" />
  <row Id="8257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="61696281-a8f2-4e6b-93eb-73d35431ecb1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T06:52:20.540" UserId="278" Text="Same as title: When is the right time to use &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*без боле*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and when is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*безболезленно* and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="61696281-a8f2-4e6b-93eb-73d35431ecb1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T06:52:20.540" UserId="278" Text="When would you use без боле vs. безболезленно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="61696281-a8f2-4e6b-93eb-73d35431ecb1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T06:52:20.540" UserId="278" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="14b9089d-b8ab-457d-aea4-4e93dbea53cc" CreationDate="2013-06-22T07:10:37.677" UserId="1236" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="Same as title: When is the right time to use &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*без боли*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and when &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*безболезненно* and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8261" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="14b9089d-b8ab-457d-aea4-4e93dbea53cc" CreationDate="2013-06-22T07:10:37.677" UserId="1236" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="When would you use без боли vs. безболезненно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="d2c93ce1-42e3-4972-9954-2bff6f61a1ec" CreationDate="2013-06-22T08:19:42.103" UserId="1755" Text="*безболезненно* and *без боли* have a similar meaning &quot;painless&quot;. *без боли* is rarely used, usually with an infinitive or a noun in a header or a slogan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Стоматология без боли&#xD;&#xA;- Как жить без боли&#xD;&#xA;- Любовь без боли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases *безболезненно* can't be used. It requires a verb that means a short-term action. For example, you can't live *безболезненно*, but you can die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*безболезненно* is common to describe a short-term painless action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- безболезненно удалить зуб&#xD;&#xA;- безболезненно умереть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*без боли* can be used in this case, but it will sound strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*безболезненно* has another meaning &quot;smooth, trouble-free&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- бесболезненно развестись&#xD;&#xA;- реформа прошла безболезненно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*без боли* can't be used in this case (but you can use *без головной боли* in a figurative meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*без боли* also can be used as a form of *боль*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- расстаться без боли и сожаления&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case *безболезненно* can't be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="ba25ec72-2ee1-4f16-bcdc-46f7b41d7a07" CreationDate="2013-06-22T09:57:07.157" UserId="1733" Comment="Reformatted the question, clarified the grammar, and added the выбор-слова &amp; usage tags." Text="When is most appropriate to use `без боли` vs. `безболезненно`, and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8264" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="ba25ec72-2ee1-4f16-bcdc-46f7b41d7a07" CreationDate="2013-06-22T09:57:07.157" UserId="1733" Comment="Reformatted the question, clarified the grammar, and added the выбор-слова &amp; usage tags." Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8265" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="ba25ec72-2ee1-4f16-bcdc-46f7b41d7a07" CreationDate="2013-06-22T09:57:07.157" Comment="Proposed by 1733 approved by -1 edit id of 375" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="cd75a27b-a424-441e-84fd-cbc6895ba7d0" CreationDate="2013-06-22T09:57:07.157" UserId="1236" Comment="Reformatted the question, clarified the grammar, and added the выбор-слова &amp; usage tags." Text="When is it most appropriate to use `без боли` vs. `безболезненно`, and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="6dc86a82-abfa-45f8-bad7-0a0cef28f95e" CreationDate="2013-06-22T16:43:34.217" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Here one meets the phenomenon of *application*. When root ends with the same phoneme as the suffix starts, then the both phonemes fuse into one. In this case underlyingly the root is -н- as seen from the verb &quot;вынь&quot;. But it was fused with the suffix -нуть-: *вы-н-нуть* =&gt; *вынуть*. Now one can consider either root or the suffix deformed by the process of application, or count the last root phoneme as belonging to both root and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar process can be seen in *у-сн-нуть* =&gt; *уснуть*, *об-ман-нуть* =&gt; *обмануть*, *регби-ист* =&gt; *регбист*, *такси-ист* =&gt; *таксист*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="b232e6f1-86d5-42f8-b9b2-08857a660a3d" CreationDate="2013-06-23T17:10:16.633" UserId="1789" Text="Одна из проблем, которая бросается в глаза: слева взято настоящее время глаголов, хотя стоило бы взять неопределённую форму. По пути от левого столбца до правого происходит подмена, изменяется суффикс или корень, и по неопределённой форме эта подмена более заметна. Если взять неопределённую форму, получатся такие слова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;плыть, плавать, переплыть, переплавать, переплывать (переплывать можно реку, а переплавать — это слишком долго находиться в воде)&#xD;&#xA;брести, бродить, побрести, побродить (взял другую приставку, иначе слова странные по смыслу получаются)&#xD;&#xA;идти, ходить, отойти, отходить, отхаживать&#xD;&#xA;ехать, ездить, заехать, заездить, заезжать&#xD;&#xA;везти, возить, отвезти, отвозить&#xD;&#xA;тащить, таскать, перетащить, перетаскать, перетаскивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разные времена глаголов — это одна сторона вопроса, а разные корни и суффиксы — это другая сторона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, про приставки и совершенные виды. Меня в школе учили трём временам, но [есть мнение, что стоит выделять четыре][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://language.ucoz.ru/str4.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2373" RevisionGUID="6e9a545b-55d8-4a3e-9f5b-fe4cc3a5e95a" CreationDate="2013-06-23T17:52:12.340" UserId="1789" Text="Мне как носителю кажется, что дело в том, что байты — это не количество энергии или физической величины, а объекты, которые могут восприниматься как по отдельности, так и в совокупности. Совокупность проявляется ярче, когда используются приставки кратности. 5 байтов — это допустимо, а 5 килобайтов — уже режет ухо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Химики измеряют количество вещества в молях, но с тем же успехом могли бы измерять в иоттамолекулах или иоттаатомах. При этом 5 атомов — это допустимо, а 5 иоттаатомов — нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2374" RevisionGUID="5f2211ee-3920-4447-8871-012668d1b671" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:00:36.940" UserId="1790" Text="I would like just to add to other perfect answers here that in the time this song was composed it was common in Soviet Union to have so-called дружинники (=&quot;народная дружина&quot;, [something like vigilantes, neighborhood guards or citizen patrols][1]). Despite the claimed &quot;voluntary&quot; nature of this squads, there were in fact not and every grown-up man was obliged to join it and to patrol the streets in his neighborhood during one night in 2-3 months. I remember my father to do it several times, and these night patrols were called &quot;duties&quot; (=дежурства) or &quot;duties for your neighborhood&quot; (дежурство по микрорайону). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a native speaker of Russian and a person who grew up there I always understood these words as an allusion to these &quot;duties&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_People%27s_Druzhina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="88c6361c-18bf-42b8-b886-50e48cdc3cec" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:12:25.833" UserId="1790" Text="Мой навигатор (если это важно -- Navigon) в русской озвучке при завершении маршрута говорит фразу &quot;Вы достигли Вашей цели&quot;. С одной стороны, конечно, это логично -- достичь ЧЕГО? Но фраза &quot;он достиг своей цели&quot; звучит для меня совершенно корректно, однако я понимаю её только в значении &quot;достичь того, что хотел получить&quot; (например получить образование, построить дом).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Относительно места назначения я бы сказал &quot;Вы достигли Вашу цель&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что в данном случае является более корректным и какую фразу следует предпочесть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="88c6361c-18bf-42b8-b886-50e48cdc3cec" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:12:25.833" UserId="1790" Text="&quot;Вы достигли Вашей цели&quot; или &quot;... Вашу цель&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="88c6361c-18bf-42b8-b886-50e48cdc3cec" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:12:25.833" UserId="1790" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="d6a90f01-d528-4bd0-8fb0-ffda4035c690" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:40:00.740" UserId="426" Text="В данном случае, слово &quot;цель&quot; не очень подходит: так лучше переводить английские &quot;goal&quot;, &quot;purpose&quot;, или &quot;objective&quot;. &quot;Destination&quot; тоже подходит как одно из значений, но &quot;вы прибыли в пункт назначения&quot; звучит предпочтительнее, чем &quot;Вы достигли вашей цели&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2377" RevisionGUID="f213155a-effe-4b81-9243-960051bdc669" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:48:17.970" UserId="1236" Text="Глагол `достичь` непереходный, управляет родительным падежом, это отмечено в любом нормальном словаре, например [у Ожегова][1], ни о каком винительном падеже после него и речи быть не может, только `Вы достигли Вашей цели`, это единственно правильный вариант падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К чему тут ещё можно придраться, так это к слову `Вашей`, по-русски обычно говорят `Вы достигли своей цели`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozhegov.org/words/7673.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2374" RevisionGUID="3daef22a-effe-4f42-8594-7db54d3c9ac9" CreationDate="2013-06-23T22:48:01.903" UserId="1790" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I would like just to add to other perfect answers here that in the time this song was composed it was common in Soviet Union to have so-called дружинники (=&quot;народная дружина&quot;, [something like vigilantes, neighborhood guards or citizen patrols][1]). Despite the claimed &quot;voluntary&quot; nature of these squads, there were in fact not and every grown-up man was obliged to join them and to patrol the streets in his neighborhood during one night in 2-3 months. I remember my father to do it several times, and these night patrols were called &quot;duties&quot; (=дежурства) or &quot;duties for your neighborhood&quot; (дежурство по микрорайону). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a native speaker of Russian and a person who grew up there I always understood these words as an allusion to these &quot;duties&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_People%27s_Druzhina" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8284" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="d05bb9e9-77ad-4a8a-95c2-68d33c3088c0" CreationDate="2013-06-25T00:13:32.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/349319409954852865" />
  <row Id="8285" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="58c9540b-fc8c-43d4-be44-36051fdebc12" CreationDate="2013-06-25T18:13:31.827" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/349591200145223682" />
  <row Id="8286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="55743634-8c39-4ac5-9a09-9238ef99b61e" CreationDate="2013-06-25T19:54:03.380" UserId="194" Text="Recently I started to notice that in some contexts, mostly crime-related the form &quot;раён&quot; is used instead of &quot;район&quot;. Although the words are pronounced similarly, they are used in different contexts and with different prepositions: &quot;в районе&quot; but &quot;на раёне&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody please clarify the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="55743634-8c39-4ac5-9a09-9238ef99b61e" CreationDate="2013-06-25T19:54:03.380" UserId="194" Text="Usage of the word &quot;раён&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="55743634-8c39-4ac5-9a09-9238ef99b61e" CreationDate="2013-06-25T19:54:03.380" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="2d86c223-2f5d-43af-844f-0b3cff6e5fef" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:37:48.233" UserId="62" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I once gave a math lecture to students in Russia and stated a theorem that certain mathematical data that &quot;locally&quot; have no obvious relations are connected to each other by a single &quot;global&quot; relation (if you know math, then consider the Gauss--Bonnet theorem or the Hilbert reciprocity law). I commented that this single global relation is like the Force: это соотношение как Сила.  However, this sounds just like это соотношение как сила, so I suspect my joke was largely not understood. How would you distinguish between &quot;like the Force&quot; and &quot;like a force&quot; in a way that would be understood by anyone familiar with Star Wars even when the context has nothing to do with Star Wars? This is no problem in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked on Wikipedia and see that Сила has the synonym Великая сила. Is this alternate term the best way to handle my question? (Saying Это как Сила в Звездных Войнах doesn't seem like a good solution, since it is not concise.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="2d86c223-2f5d-43af-844f-0b3cff6e5fef" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:37:48.233" UserId="62" Text="distinguishing between &quot;a force&quot; and &quot;the Force&quot; in speech" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="2d86c223-2f5d-43af-844f-0b3cff6e5fef" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:37:48.233" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8292" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="b3510c72-f3b6-4c2f-b3ff-4affca728a1a" CreationDate="2013-06-26T03:13:32.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/349727096282689536" />
  <row Id="8293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2380" RevisionGUID="0d2dfc34-c997-42de-9fc8-2a0c3453a747" CreationDate="2013-06-26T04:29:05.140" UserId="1376" Text="It's a criminal slang. There is no difference other than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's obvious that `раён` is incorrect, it's only used to emphasis the criminality of the speaker. But even `на районе` is sufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2381" RevisionGUID="ac98b9d8-a694-48ce-b944-105e5caadd3d" CreationDate="2013-06-26T04:47:43.113" UserId="194" Text="The film is not enough familiar to the students, so to be properly understood you have to mention the movie name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это соотношение - как магическая сила из фальма &quot;Звёздные Войны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the name of the force is also not established as a recognizable meme, so if you do not clarify that you mean the magic force, you may be understood as if you meant one of the opposing factions from that film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still do not understand your joke and where is the humor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2381" RevisionGUID="33c1460d-93d8-4c29-876e-0f83f5aa4fcc" CreationDate="2013-06-26T04:53:36.777" UserId="194" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="The film is not enough familiar to the students, so to be properly understood you have to mention the movie name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это соотношение - как магическая сила из фальма &quot;Звёздные Войны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the name of the force is also not established as a recognizable meme and many people do not know what was the role of the force in that film, so if you do not clarify that you mean the magic force, you may be understood as if you meant one of the opposing factions from that film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still do not understand your joke and where is the humor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2382" RevisionGUID="72893b7e-400d-4a51-b3e5-5e0952e25c1d" CreationDate="2013-06-26T07:44:10.563" UserId="194" Text="Ну тут очевидно же, что зависит от смысла: используется родительный падеж или счетный. Если говорится о конкретных объектах, то это родительный падеж. Если об абстрактной величине, то счетный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это устройство передаёт пять байт в секунду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне эти пять байтов испортили карьеру&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2381" RevisionGUID="6a33b087-1fa7-4ec7-abc7-2de9ef7887ea" CreationDate="2013-06-26T08:06:38.650" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="The film is not enough familiar to the students, so to be properly understood you have to mention the movie name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это соотношение - как магическая сила из фильма &quot;Звёздные Войны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the name of the force is also not established as a recognizable meme and many people do not know what was the role of the force in that film, so if you do not clarify that you mean the magic force, you may be understood as if you meant one of the opposing factions from that film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still do not understand your joke and where is the humor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="f005f2d2-5e14-4c24-8612-210be863e989" CreationDate="2013-06-26T08:37:17.097" UserId="1305" Text="Star Wars series haven't penetrated in Russian culture as deeply as in American. So, in Russian language, difference between the force and the Force can be felt obviously in case of the phrase clearly referring to the some quote from the films, for example, &quot;Используй Силу&quot; (&quot;Use the Force&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;If you want to emphasize the importance of this relation in the context being discussed, you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это так же важно, как гравицаппа для пепелаца&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be reference to the movie &quot;Кин-дза-дза!&quot;, which should be commonly known to the Russian students. I hope they will appreciate the joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="4af161dc-f129-4c5d-ae59-29397ff74b1f" CreationDate="2013-06-26T10:10:50.857" UserId="1305" Text="In many cases, mispelled word &quot;раён&quot; as well as the wrong combinations &quot;на районе, с района&quot; is used in an ironic way by the people who are not criminals or hooligans. Such writing and using of wrong prepositions are often used to emphasize IQ level of bullies/criminals, also there is stereotype that they are actually talking this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;район - correct spelling, раён - incorrect&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;в районе - correct, на районе - incorrect&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;из района - correct, с района - incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="1302c97f-d0a2-4500-8605-d1f899493869" CreationDate="2013-06-26T10:17:15.153" UserId="1305" Comment="edited body" Text="In many cases, mispelled word `раён` as well as the wrong combinations `на районе`, `с района` is used in an ironic way by the people who are not criminals or hooligans. Such writing and using of wrong prepositions are often used to emphasize IQ level of bullies/criminals, also there is stereotype that they are actually talking this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To summarize:**  &#xD;&#xA;район - correct spelling, раён - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;в районе - correct, на районе - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;из района - correct, с района - incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="90c60fad-3edc-455b-af11-5ca4e268012f" CreationDate="2013-06-26T10:24:47.423" UserId="1305" Comment="edited body" Text="In many cases, mispelled word `раён` as well as the wrong combinations `на районе`, `с района` is used in an ironic way by the people who are not criminals or hooligans. Such writing and using of wrong prepositions are often used to emphasize IQ level of bullies/criminals, also there is stereotype that they are actually talking this way. Increased attention to the word &quot;район&quot; can be explained by the gopniks' catch phrases &quot;Ты с какого района?&quot; and &quot;Мы сидели с пацанами на районе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To summarize:**  &#xD;&#xA;район - correct spelling, раён - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;в районе - correct, на районе - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;из района - correct, с района - incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="047fecf1-9dd5-4116-840d-629ae37fa85d" CreationDate="2013-06-26T10:30:49.653" UserId="1305" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In many cases, mispelled word `раён` as well as the wrong combinations `на районе`, `с района` is used in an ironic way by the people who are not criminals or hooligans. Such writing and using of wrong prepositions are often used to emphasize IQ level of bullies/criminals, also there is stereotype that they are actually talking this way. Increased attention to the word &quot;район&quot; can be explained by the gopniks' catch phrases &quot;Ты с какого района?&quot; and &quot;Сидим с пацанами на районе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To summarize:**  &#xD;&#xA;район - correct spelling, раён - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;в районе - correct, на районе - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;из района - correct, с района - incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="eeff90b5-5357-4b92-ae35-e03955fbe6af" CreationDate="2013-06-26T11:39:09.063" UserId="1305" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In many cases, mispelled word `раён` as well as the wrong combinations `на районе`, `с района` is used in an ironic way by the people who are not criminals or hooligans. Such writing and using of wrong prepositions are often used to emphasize IQ level of bullies/criminals, because there is stereotype that they are actually talking this way. Increased attention to the word &quot;район&quot; can be explained by the gopniks' catch phrases &quot;Ты с какого района?&quot; and &quot;Сидим с пацанами на районе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To summarize:**  &#xD;&#xA;район - correct spelling, раён - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;в районе - correct, на районе - incorrect  &#xD;&#xA;из района - correct, с района - incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="1ce22073-a0c7-4f0a-87ce-05af00c0376c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T12:00:32.507" UserId="278" Text="Looking for online games to improve my vocabulary and grammar, do you know of any?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="1ce22073-a0c7-4f0a-87ce-05af00c0376c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T12:00:32.507" UserId="278" Text="Games for russian vocabulary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="1ce22073-a0c7-4f0a-87ce-05af00c0376c" CreationDate="2013-06-26T12:00:32.507" UserId="278" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="7319eb6e-683d-446e-a3da-b7801264fcf4" CreationDate="2013-06-26T12:32:40.873" UserId="551" Text="Not sure if this game is for beginner, but proposing anyway - [Балда](http://www.naturalist.ru/balda/balda.html). This game will improve your vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;The user can set the opponent's smartness level. Here are the rules (from the site):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правила игры в Балду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Играют двое (в данном случае Вы и моя программа). В середине поля, состоящего из 25 клеток, выбирается слово из пяти букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваш ход первый - Вы должны придумать новое слово, состоящее из уже находящихся на поле букв и обязательно одной новой буквы, которую вы добавляете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чем длиннее слово вы придумаете, тем больше очков Вы получаете.&#xD;&#xA;Одна буква - одно очко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потом, с добавлением новой буквы, ходит соперник и так далее по очереди.&#xD;&#xA;Слова в одной игре повторяться не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Игра завершается при заполнении последней клетки поля. Выигрывает тот, у кого больше очков." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2387" RevisionGUID="6822dc88-b71e-4b61-b696-95e7969cfa21" CreationDate="2013-06-26T12:53:23.167" UserId="551" Text="This is not a criminal slang (especially just the spelling &quot;раён&quot;), though it has &quot;criminal roots&quot;. You can hear many people speak like that - taxi drivers, street sales persons, workers, etc. Most of them are not well-educated, so they do not know the right way to speak. Of course the criminals are also not educated, so when you imagine how criminals speak - they will certanly use incorrect forms of words and language constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for spelling &quot;раён&quot; sounds exactly as &quot;район&quot;, so &quot;ё&quot; is used here to emphasize the incorrectness of the speech, especially in the expression &quot;на раёне&quot; (and most likely the person speaking so will spell it incorrectly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;на&quot; - this preposition is often used in argots instead of &quot;в&quot;: &quot;на зоне&quot;, &quot;на больнице&quot;, &quot;на тюрьме&quot; (see this [answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2291/%d0%9c%d1%8b-%d0%b2%d1%81%d1%82%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8%d1%81%d1%8c-%d0%b2-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d1%82%d0%be-%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b2%d0%b8%d1%81%d0%b5-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-%d0%bc%d1%8b-%d0%b2%d1%81%d1%82%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8%d1%81%d1%8c-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d1%82%d0%be-%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b2%d0%b8%d1%81%d0%b5/2294#2294) by Quassnoi)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="2e17e0e4-ef1b-4ad0-96c4-83c1c748eb66" CreationDate="2013-06-26T18:13:32.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/349953588472201216" />
  <row Id="8310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2388" RevisionGUID="b6583994-3426-4ef0-8743-1277c427c975" CreationDate="2013-06-26T21:50:19.850" UserId="134" Text="Star Wars universe is much less familiar to Russians than Americans, so your joke would probably elude majority of students. Even if they recognized the reference, they would probably be not familiar enough with the properties of the Force to understand your point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you insist on using a Star Wars reference, you could use one of the following devices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make an explicit reference to Star Wars: *это соотношение — как Сила из &quot;Звёздных войн&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the word *джедай*: *это соотношение — как джедайская сила*.&#xD;&#xA;1. Use the verb *пребыть*: *это соотношение пребудет в мире как Сила*. &quot;May the Force be with you&quot; is commonly translated as *да пребудет с вами Сила*, so when used like this, the meaning of *сила* would be unequivocal.&#xD;&#xA;1. Use &quot;Yoda's hyperbaton&quot;: *Силе Великой соотношение подобно это*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the last two tropes can easily be mistaken for a grammar fault, especially if your Russian is not perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest a more common topic for the joke. Maybe something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Это соотношение связывает, казалось бы, огородную бузину и киевского дядьку&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Это соотношение как тайный ход: у вас кликнут, а у нас откликаются&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2389" RevisionGUID="4257af93-11ad-4e6b-af1b-df9d28312d92" CreationDate="2013-06-26T22:54:16.433" UserId="1733" Text="There are some fun games on the [RussianForFree.com website](http://www.russianforfree.com/quizzes-to-learn-russian.php).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to easy to follow courses, they have other interesting resources as well, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Music Videos](http://www.russianforfree.com/music-videos-in-russian.php) (with translated lyrics)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cartoons](http://www.russianforfree.com/cartoons-in-russian.php) (with translations)&#xD;&#xA; - [Comics](http://www.russianforfree.com/comics-in-russian.php) (also with translations)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2390" RevisionGUID="a42f0a50-a996-484b-9058-c8f60cd415e6" CreationDate="2013-06-27T08:19:05.373" UserId="551" Text="I would also add that &quot;начну на флейте стихи печальны&quot; is not a folk song - it is a romance, so in contrast to folk songs you can potentially find the right notes for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for searching with Google - use search options to filter out the irrelevant results: add &quot;-mp3&quot; to filter out mp3's. Also try to specify file type that usually contains notes (for instance pdf: &quot;filetype:pdf&quot;. So, the search line for instance will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`начну на флейте стихи печальны -mp3 filetype:pdf`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As notes are often are posted as images - try to search for images: click on Images tab in Google search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2390" RevisionGUID="5453fcdb-68b3-47d1-a691-15ba1bb966df" CreationDate="2013-06-27T08:31:17.753" UserId="551" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="I would also add that &quot;начну на флейте стихи печальны&quot; is not a folk song - it is a romance, so in contrast to folk songs you can potentially find the right notes for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for searching with Google - use search options to filter out the irrelevant results: add &quot;-mp3&quot; to filter out mp3's. Also try to specify file type that usually contains notes (for instance pdf: &quot;filetype:pdf&quot;. So, the search line for instance will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`начну на флейте стихи печальны ноты -mp3 filetype:pdf`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes lyrics in such files may be separated by dashes, so maybe it would be worth to replace lyrics with song title `Стихи похвальные России`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As notes are often are posted as images - try to search for images: click on Images tab in Google search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2390" RevisionGUID="809007a3-eb06-4a08-9358-c965dbedea4e" CreationDate="2013-06-27T09:15:28.913" UserId="551" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I would also add that &quot;начну на флейте стихи печальны&quot; is not a folk song - it is a canticle (кант), so in contrast to folk songs you can potentially find the right notes for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for searching with Google - use search options to filter out the irrelevant results: add &quot;-mp3&quot; to filter out mp3's. Also try to specify file type that usually contains notes (for instance pdf: &quot;filetype:pdf&quot;. So, the search line for instance will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`начну на флейте стихи печальны ноты -mp3 filetype:pdf`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes lyrics in such files may be separated by dashes, so maybe it would be worth to replace lyrics with song title `Стихи похвальные России`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As notes are often are posted as images - try to search for images: click on Images tab in Google search." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2391" RevisionGUID="30e75d31-383d-40ed-979c-4764119dc480" CreationDate="2013-06-27T10:20:37.057" UserId="256" Text="&quot;Алло, мы ищем таланты&quot; was a title of TV-show in the 1970s. The TV-show used to be quite popular and today &quot;Алло, мы ищем таланты&quot; is used as a name for all kinds of talent show competitions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="1b94bb4c-bd8f-4d9e-9113-dc07aa858490" CreationDate="2013-06-27T10:32:36.727" UserId="1800" Text="The relevance of aspect for the correct usage of verbs seems to be explained only for the personal moods of verbs (e.g. indicative), but what is the meaning of aspect for the impersonal moods, such as the infinitive or the imperative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, whereas I can detect a certain difference between *Я открываю окно* and *Я открою окно*, I don't understand how one would choose between the two aspects in the imperative. Is there a difference between *Открывай!* and *Открой!* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once asked a native speaker about this, and while they acknowledged the two forms to have roughly the same meaning in the imperative, they seemed to think the imperfective implied more urgency of the request. As an example, a person requesting access multiple times would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; *Открой!* (pause) *Открой!* (pause) *Ну открывай же!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But somehow this doesn't quite fit in with my understanding of aspect. Similarly, for the infinitive, what is the difference between *Нельзя открыть окно* and *Нельзя открывать окно*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="1b94bb4c-bd8f-4d9e-9113-dc07aa858490" CreationDate="2013-06-27T10:32:36.727" UserId="1800" Text="Imperfective and Perfective Aspects for non-personal moods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="1b94bb4c-bd8f-4d9e-9113-dc07aa858490" CreationDate="2013-06-27T10:32:36.727" UserId="1800" Text="|выбор-слова|грамматика|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="23cfab78-1da1-4aca-aa76-4bf6df202326" CreationDate="2013-06-27T10:55:14.373" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Similarly, for the infinitive, what is the difference between *Нельзя открыть окно* and *Нельзя открывать окно*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нельзя* in those sentences has different modalities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (невозможно) открыть окно* - you are not able to open the window&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (запрещено) открывать окно* - you should not attempt opening the window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physical impossibility to open the window only applies to result (nothing prevents you from trying), that's why we use perfective (state) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forbiddance only applies to a person (you can't forbid an openable window from being open, only a person from opening it), so we use imperfective (state transition) aspect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="34f941eb-707d-4a9c-a861-3f1678676918" CreationDate="2013-06-27T11:08:38.970" UserId="134" Comment="added 740 characters in body" Text="&gt; Similarly, for the infinitive, what is the difference between *Нельзя открыть окно* and *Нельзя открывать окно*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нельзя* in those sentences has different modalities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (невозможно) открыть окно* - you are not able to open the window&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (запрещено) открывать окно* - you should not attempt opening the window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physical impossibility to open the window only applies to result (nothing prevents you from trying), that's why we use perfective (state) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forbiddance only applies to a person (you can't forbid an openable window from being open, only a person from opening it), so we use imperfective (state transition) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with a positive predicative, this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Можно открыть окно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean both &quot;is it possible to open the window?&quot; and &quot;may I open the window?&quot;, while this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Можно открывать окно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean only the latter. It implies that the window had been closed for a reason with is no more valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those subtleties of *нельзя* and *можно* are so confusing that the use of the words is discouraged in Russian Army:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Товарищ капитан, рядовой Иванов по вашему приказанию прибыл, можно войти?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Можно Машку за ляжку, а в армии — &quot;разрешите&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's impossible to tell whether Private Ivanov asked for permission to enter or for physical possibility, that's why the captain told him to clarify his question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="3584c9f8-2f6d-454c-afce-47c87abc3681" CreationDate="2013-06-27T13:27:33.660" UserId="134" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="&gt; Similarly, for the infinitive, what is the difference between *Нельзя открыть окно* and *Нельзя открывать окно*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нельзя* in those sentences has different modalities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (невозможно) открыть окно* - you are not able to open the window&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (запрещено) открывать окно* - you should not attempt opening the window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physical impossibility to open the window only applies to result (nothing prevents you from trying), that's why we use perfective (state) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forbiddance only applies to a person (you can't forbid an openable window from being open, only a person from opening it), so we use imperfective (state transition) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with a positive predicative, this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Можно открыть окно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean both &quot;is it possible to open the window?&quot; and &quot;may I open the window?&quot;, while this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Можно открывать окно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean only the latter. It implies that the window had been closed for a reason with is no more valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those subtleties of *нельзя* and *можно* are so confusing that the use of the words is discouraged in Russian Army:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Товарищ капитан, рядовой Иванов по вашему приказанию прибыл, можно войти?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Можно Машку за ляжку, а в армии — &quot;разрешите&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the grammar's point of view, it's impossible to tell whether Private Ivanov asked for permission to enter or for physical possibility, that's why the captain told him to clarify his question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8322" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="a1c52126-9c7c-411e-8494-5b652c874777" CreationDate="2013-06-27T15:33:52.253" UserId="1800" Comment="Title Case" Text="Imperfective and Perfective Aspects for Non-Personal Moods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="cd9dc089-058b-46ab-9380-b8027a121027" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:42:07.087" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; Similarly, for the infinitive, what is the difference between *Нельзя открыть окно* and *Нельзя открывать окно*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нельзя* in those sentences has different modalities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (невозможно) открыть окно* - you are not able to open the window&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Нельзя (запрещено) открывать окно* - you should not attempt opening the window&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Physical impossibility to open the window only applies to result (nothing prevents you from trying), that's why we use perfective (state transition) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forbiddance only applies to a person (you can't forbid an openable window from being open, only a person from opening it), so we use imperfective (state) aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with a positive predicative, this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Можно открыть окно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean both &quot;is it possible to open the window?&quot; and &quot;may I open the window?&quot;, while this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Можно открывать окно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may mean only the latter. It implies that the window had been closed for a reason which is no more valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those subtleties of *нельзя* and *можно* are so confusing that the use of the words is discouraged in Russian Army:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Товарищ капитан, рядовой Иванов по вашему приказанию прибыл, можно войти?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Можно Машку за ляжку, а в армии — &quot;разрешите&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the grammar's point of view, it's impossible to tell whether Private Ivanov asked for permission to enter or for physical possibility, that's why the captain told him to clarify his question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2394" RevisionGUID="ae566477-75d6-459d-b6ec-60664e901df5" CreationDate="2013-06-27T22:48:53.357" UserId="1801" Text="Try a game of [mafia][1]. Conviencing people that you killed nobody will sure improve your vocabulary. Might be pretty hard, but after a few games of remaining silent you will remember all the mostly used expressions and will be able to learn more complex things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mafiaweb.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="abedaa42-793a-4332-b05b-cc2b62671686" CreationDate="2013-06-28T12:21:41.177" UserId="1767" Text="I'm studying the Russian language and I try to watch lots of Russian television series. Recently I have watched the comedy show Наша Раша and in a specific sketch a character Иван Дулин many times repeats something like the words: &quot;Вон оно чё&quot; or &quot;Вот оно чё&quot;. I have tried googling, but haven't found any answers. Does anyone have any ideas what those words might generally mean? When would a person use them? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="abedaa42-793a-4332-b05b-cc2b62671686" CreationDate="2013-06-28T12:21:41.177" UserId="1767" Text="What does &quot;Вон оно чё&quot; mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="abedaa42-793a-4332-b05b-cc2b62671686" CreationDate="2013-06-28T12:21:41.177" UserId="1767" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="4f482f91-4fcd-4b8a-ab8d-b0cb9c9d874a" CreationDate="2013-06-28T12:30:52.073" UserId="1767" Comment="added examples" Text="I'm studying the Russian language and I try to watch lots of Russian television series. Recently I have watched the comedy show Наша Раша and in a specific sketch a character Иван Дулин many times repeats something like the words: &quot;Вон оно чё&quot; or &quot;Вот оно чё&quot;. I have tried googling, but haven't found any answers. Does anyone have any ideas what those words might generally mean? When would a person use them? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for any help! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples I found: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот оно чего Михалыч! Выйдешь ты сейчас в цех, а меня нет, ни у станка, ни в столовой, даже в Челябинске меня нет.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот оно че Михалыч, мне давеча сон про тебя приснился. Идешь ты значит по цеху в красных труселях, все по сторонам оглядываешься&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="c2b61314-6e28-4dbb-928d-37b1b6d16789" CreationDate="2013-06-28T12:56:21.717" UserId="1755" Text="&quot;чё&quot; is an informal version of &quot;что&quot;. &quot;Вот &lt;вон&gt; оно что&quot; usually means expression of surprising.  See [dictionary page][1] for definition and examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phraseologiya.academic.ru/168/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="2d7986d5-2684-46e6-82a2-12877050b58a" CreationDate="2013-06-28T15:19:32.627" UserId="97" Text="As @Riateche correctly pointed out, &quot;чё&quot; is a slang word for &quot;что&quot; - meaning &quot;what&quot;.  &quot;Вон&quot; (in this context) means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;there&quot; (compare with &quot;вот&quot; for &quot;this&quot; or &quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to express an understanding of something at last, i.e. if somebody couldn't understand something for a while and then finally it dawned on them, it would be the right time to use it. The English equivalent would be _&quot;That's what it is!&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Не понимаю, нафига тебе нужна это штуковина?  &#xD;&#xA;    - Эта штуковина - это ключ от замка на моём сарае.  &#xD;&#xA;    - Вон оно че!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with its English equivalent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - I don't get it, what the heck do you need this thing for?  &#xD;&#xA;    - This thing is the key from the lock on my shed.  &#xD;&#xA;    - That's what it is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="58af4af2-e9c2-4ad1-859b-ec371f239a31" CreationDate="2013-06-28T15:29:11.700" UserId="97" Comment="added 905 characters in body" Text="As @Riateche correctly pointed out, &quot;чё&quot; is a slang word for &quot;что&quot; - meaning &quot;what&quot;.  &quot;Вон&quot; (in this context) means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;there&quot; (compare with &quot;вот&quot; for &quot;this&quot; or &quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two distinct - and slightly different - meaning this phrase can take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to express an understanding of something at last, i.e. if somebody couldn't understand something for a while and then finally it dawned on them, it would be the right time to use it. The English equivalent would be _&quot;That's what it is!&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Не понимаю, нафига тебе нужна это штуковина?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Эта штуковина - это ключ от замка на моём сарае.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Вон оно че!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with its English equivalent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - I don't get it, what the heck do you need this thing for?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - This thing is the key from the lock on my shed.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - That's what it is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the meaning of &quot;вон/вот&quot; is &quot;that/this&quot;.  In its second meaning, &quot;вон/вот&quot; is used as &quot;there/here&quot; and means, literally, &quot;here's what&quot;.  It would be used to express a level of certainty or authority at the start of a speach, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно чего Михалыч! Выйдешь ты сейчас в цех, а меня нет, ни у станка, ни в столовой, даже в Челябинске меня нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what it is, Mikhalych!  You'll now come out onto the machine floor - and I'm not there, not near the workbench, not in the canteet, not even in Chelyabinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно че Михалыч, мне давеча сон про тебя приснился. Идешь ты значит по цеху в красных труселях, все по сторонам оглядываешься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what it is, Mikhalych, I saw a dream about you the other day. You're walking along the machine floor in your red underpants and looking around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="fe62d515-0600-4af8-99a6-65d6b9b48532" CreationDate="2013-06-28T15:35:22.370" UserId="97" Comment="added 905 characters in body" Text="As @Riateche correctly pointed out, &quot;чё&quot; is a slang word for &quot;что&quot; - meaning &quot;what&quot;.  &quot;Вон&quot; (in this context) means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;there&quot; (compare with &quot;вот&quot; for &quot;this&quot; or &quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two distinct - and slightly different - meaning this phrase can take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to express an understanding of something at last, i.e. if somebody couldn't understand something for a while and then finally it dawned on them, it would be the right time to use it. The English equivalent would be _&quot;That's what it is!&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Не понимаю, нафига тебе нужна это штуковина?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Эта штуковина - это ключ от замка на моём сарае.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Вон оно че!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with its English equivalent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; I don't get it, what the heck do you need this thing for?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; This thing is the key from the lock on my shed.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; That's what it is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the meaning of &quot;вон/вот&quot; is &quot;that/this&quot;.  In its second meaning, &quot;вон/вот&quot; is used as &quot;there/here&quot; and means, literally, &quot;here's what&quot;.  It would be used to express a level of certainty or authority at the start of a speach, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно чего Михалыч! Выйдешь ты сейчас в цех, а меня нет, ни у станка, ни в столовой, даже в Челябинске меня нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what it is, Mikhalych!  You'll now come out onto the machine floor - and I'm not there, not near the workbench, not in the canteen, not even in Chelyabinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно че Михалыч, мне давеча сон про тебя приснился. Идешь ты значит по цеху в красных труселях, все по сторонам оглядываешься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what it is, Mikhalych, I saw a dream about you the other day. You're walking along the machine floor in your red underpants and looking around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="8d4a06a0-710d-489a-aae9-2987d24fb73b" CreationDate="2013-06-28T15:59:20.743" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="As @Riateche correctly pointed out, &quot;чё&quot; is a slang word for &quot;что&quot; - meaning &quot;what&quot;.  &quot;Вон&quot; (in this context) means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;there&quot; (similarly, &quot;вот&quot; for &quot;this&quot; or &quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two - somwhat different - meaning this phrase can take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to express an understanding of something at last, i.e. if somebody couldn't understand something for a while and then finally it dawned on them, it would be the right time to use it. The English equivalent would be _&quot;That's what it is!&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Не понимаю, нафига тебе нужна это штуковина?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Эта штуковина - это ключ от замка на моём сарае.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Вон оно че!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with its English equivalent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; I don't get it, what the heck do you need this thing for?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; This thing is the key from the lock on my shed.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; That's what it is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the meaning of &quot;вон/вот&quot; is &quot;that/this&quot;.  In its second meaning, &quot;вон/вот&quot; is used as &quot;there/here&quot; and means, literally, &quot;here's what&quot; or &quot;here's the thing&quot;/&quot;here's the deal&quot;.  It would be used to express a level of certainty or authority at the start of a speech, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно чего Михалыч! Выйдешь ты сейчас в цех, а меня нет, ни у станка, ни в столовой, даже в Челябинске меня нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's the deal, Mikhalych!  You'll come out now onto the machine floor - and I'm not there, not near the workbench, not in the canteen, not even in Chelyabinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно че Михалыч, мне давеча сон про тебя приснился. Идешь ты значит по цеху в красных труселях, все по сторонам оглядываешься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what [it is], Mikhalych, I saw a dream about you the other day. You're walking along the machine floor in your red underpants and looking around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="cd825982-be67-404a-ada1-7ca30134d5b9" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:26:01.233" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="As @Riateche correctly pointed out, &quot;чё&quot; is a slang word for &quot;что&quot; - meaning &quot;what&quot;.  &quot;Вон&quot; (in this context) means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;there&quot; (similarly, &quot;вот&quot; for &quot;this&quot; or &quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two - somwhat different - meaning this phrase can take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to express an understanding of something at last, i.e. if somebody couldn't understand something for a while and then finally it dawned on them, it would be the right time to use it. The English equivalent would be _&quot;That's what it is!&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Не понимаю, нафига тебе нужна эта штуковина?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Эта штуковина - это ключ от замка на моём сарае.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Вон оно че!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with its English equivalent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; I don't get it, what the heck do you need this thing for?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; This thing is the key from the lock on my shed.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; That's what it is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the meaning of &quot;вон/вот&quot; is &quot;that/this&quot;.  In its second meaning, &quot;вон/вот&quot; is used as &quot;there/here&quot; and means, literally, &quot;here's what&quot; or &quot;here's the thing&quot;/&quot;here's the deal&quot;.  It would be used to express a level of certainty or authority at the start of a speech, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно чего Михалыч! Выйдешь ты сейчас в цех, а меня нет, ни у станка, ни в столовой, даже в Челябинске меня нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's the deal, Mikhalych!  You'll come out now onto the machine floor - and I'm not there, not near the workbench, not in the canteen, not even in Chelyabinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно че Михалыч, мне давеча сон про тебя приснился. Идешь ты значит по цеху в красных труселях, все по сторонам оглядываешься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what [it is], Mikhalych, I saw a dream about you the other day. You're walking along the machine floor in your red underpants and looking around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="3075ebce-c81b-48a2-a34f-fd4185661b1e" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:32:13.333" UserId="1804" Text="Question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to translate the below quote into Russian.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody help me ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what I have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я эгоистичны, нетерпеливы и немного неуверенно. Я делаю ошибки, я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из-под контроля, и порой трудно справиться. Но если ты не может&#xD;&#xA;&gt; справиться с меня в мои худшие, то ты уж точно не заслуживают меня в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моих силах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the top part is more or less correct, however, I have problems with the last sentence ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="3075ebce-c81b-48a2-a34f-fd4185661b1e" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:32:13.333" UserId="1804" Text="Help with a quote :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="3075ebce-c81b-48a2-a34f-fd4185661b1e" CreationDate="2013-06-29T09:32:13.333" UserId="1804" Text="|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="c9d388e8-eeb1-4921-9b08-987fda202548" CreationDate="2013-06-29T10:42:20.363" UserId="1329" Text="Although this site is not intended for translation requests, I'll try... Neither of the sentences is grammatically correct, actually. As well as my English =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Я эгоистичен, нетерпелив и немного неуверен в себе. Я совершаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ошибки, необуздан, и порой со мной бывает трудно справиться. Но если&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не в состоянии осилить худшую сторону моего характера, то, чёрт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; побери, Вы точно не заслуживаете знакомства с лучшей.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, something like that. Please note that I am not a professional translator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="ebc2a690-25ba-40f4-9d0f-e666d21b4959" CreationDate="2013-06-29T10:48:04.213" UserId="1329" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Although this site is not intended for translation requests, I'll try... Neither of the sentences is grammatically correct, actually. As well as my English =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Я эгоистична, нетерпелива и немного неуверенна. Я совершаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ошибки, необузданна , и порой со мной бывает трудно справиться. Но если&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не в состоянии осилить худшую сторону моего характера, то, чёрт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; побери, Вы точно не заслуживаете знакомства с лучшей.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, something like that. Please note that I am not a professional translator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8343" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="38072af3-9edd-4877-a55c-a7a85da93fa1" CreationDate="2013-06-29T16:24:45.813" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="Translating a quote by Marilyn Monroe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="a4806014-df48-4054-b98d-2765effa21ad" CreationDate="2013-06-29T16:35:36.827" UserId="1329" Comment="added 372 characters in body" Text="Although this site is not intended for translation requests, I'll try... Neither of the sentences is grammatically correct, actually. As well as my English =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Я эгоистична, нетерпелива и немного неуверенна. Я совершаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ошибки, необузданна , и порой со мной бывает трудно справиться. Но если&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не в состоянии осилить худшую сторону моего характера, то, чёрт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; побери, Вы точно не заслуживаете знакомства с лучшей.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, something like that. Please note that I am not a professional translator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT. Official translation:&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я эгоистичная, нетерпеливая и немного неуверенная в себе. Я делаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ошибки, выхожу из-под контроля и порой со мной трудно справиться. Но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; если вы не можете общаться со мной, когда я в плохом настроении, то не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заслуживаете меня в хорошем. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С сайта http://www.inpearls.ru/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where did you find the word &quot;hell&quot;???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="2e3be1f3-26dc-41cc-943e-65375c0726d8" CreationDate="2013-06-30T07:13:39.863" UserId="1717" Text="If you say «Используй Силу», almost everyone will understand. But don't try to refer to the Star Wars in other contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I normally use «глубокий» in all situations like these. You can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это очень глубокое соотношение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почувствуйте глубокую связь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочувствуйте глубину этой теоремы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and make a scary face).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least you can be sure that everyone understands this, and your scary face kinda makes up for the missing joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for «гравицапа» and «бузина» suggested in other answers, I wouldn't use those either, no one will understand what you are trying to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="86039b33-09c4-4a1d-8857-28fd335f4ac3" CreationDate="2013-07-01T02:40:45.153" UserId="1808" Text="it was always here. and it didnt become wide-spread lately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what are talkin about is most likely near-imageboards and japanese(anime)-based. &quot;десу же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not far of from Chinese and &quot;Internet speech&quot;, huh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2386" RevisionGUID="e6d8e58a-abf9-4a8a-a1e7-67d0d7018edb" CreationDate="2013-07-01T11:42:47.467" UserId="551" Comment="About the dictionaries" Text="Not sure if this game is for beginner, but proposing anyway - [Балда](http://www.naturalist.ru/balda/balda.html). This game will improve your vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;The user can set the opponent's smartness level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** The words used during the game are shown in the list as hyperlinks to explanatory/spelling/etymological dictionaries ([example](http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%97/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5/)). Though the dictionaries are Russian, but they say that the best way to understand the meaning of the word is to use native explanatory dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the rules (from the site):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правила игры в Балду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Играют двое (в данном случае Вы и моя программа). В середине поля, состоящего из 25 клеток, выбирается слово из пяти букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваш ход первый - Вы должны придумать новое слово, состоящее из уже находящихся на поле букв и обязательно одной новой буквы, которую вы добавляете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чем длиннее слово вы придумаете, тем больше очков Вы получаете.&#xD;&#xA;Одна буква - одно очко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потом, с добавлением новой буквы, ходит соперник и так далее по очереди.&#xD;&#xA;Слова в одной игре повторяться не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Игра завершается при заполнении последней клетки поля. Выигрывает тот, у кого больше очков." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8348" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="c0a2f6fe-6034-4623-b704-d40cf4cb94a6" CreationDate="2013-07-02T00:13:35.217" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/351856136363851779" />
  <row Id="8349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1753" RevisionGUID="241099ac-3a4b-4f62-aa78-c67dd593bac4" CreationDate="2013-07-02T00:57:13.070" UserId="1329" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Какое интересное задание! Вежбицку я не читала, но Вы очень понятно объясняете, так что попытаюсь решить проблему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хамство = манера поведения, свойственная хаму | конкретный поступок, в котором человек проявил себя как хам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хам &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; хама, м. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. В языке дворян: человек, принадлежащий к низшим классам и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лишенный потому всякого человеческого достоинства (презрит,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дореволюц.). - Он там дворовых людей по-французски учить выдумал! Это,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дескать, ему полезно! Хаму-то, слуге-то! Достоевский. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. перен.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грубый, наглый и невоспитанный человек, готовый на подлости (разг.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; презрит, бран.). Секретари его все хамы, все продажны, людишки,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пишущая тварь, все вышли в знать, все ныне важны. Грибоедов. (По имени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хама, сына библейского Ноя, проклятого отцом за непочтение.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь Ушакова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда переходим к составляющим 2-го пункта: грубость, наглость,невоспитанность, подлость. Попробую сразу сконструировать окончательное описание... Явно понадобятся 2 субъекта, потому что эти понятия связаны с оценкой поведения нашего хама обществом (или конкретным его представителем).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Грубиян**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    иногда человек Z говорит другому (R) очень плохое&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого потом R чувствует: мне плохо&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наглец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наглый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на́глый прил., употр. сравн. часто Морфология: на́гл, нагла́, на́гло,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на́глы; нагле́е; нар. на́гло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Человека называют наглым, если он грубо и вызывающе ведёт себя, не уважает других людей; слово выражает осуждение. В молодости он был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чрезвычайно наглым и самоуверенным. | Он просто наглый шантажист.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; = нахальный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Слова, поступки и т. д. называют наглыми, если они дерзкие, вызывающие; слово выражает осуждение. Это был наглый обман. |&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар. Ощущение безнаказанности во всём проникло и в сознание водителей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; многие начали нагло ездить на красный свет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Взгляд, смех и т. д. называют наглыми, если в них проявляется дерзость, бесстыдство. Его наглый тон взбесил меня. |&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар. Андрей оценивающе и нагло посмотрел на неё.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; • на́глость сущ., ж.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Толковый словарь русского языка Дмитриева Д. В. Дмитриев. 2003&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь попробую сконцентрироваться на неуважении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    R - часть людей                      &#xD;&#xA;    Z делает или говорит что-то&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого R потом думает: Z не думает и не чувствует, что я часть людей&#xD;&#xA;    из-за этого R потом чувствует: мне плохо&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В переводе: R человек, а Z ведет себя так, как будто R не человек. И R это чувствует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Невоспитанный человек**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    многие люди думают и знают : что-то (A) хорошо, что-то другое (B) - плохо&#xD;&#xA;    эти люди делают A и хотят не делать B&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B, потом все другие думают: &#xD;&#xA;    этот кто-то многого не знает и из-за этого не может делать A&#xD;&#xA;    Z делает много B &#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Человек, способный на подлость**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    многие люди думают и знают : что-то (A) хорошо, что-то другое (B) - очень плохо&#xD;&#xA;    эти люди хотят не делать B&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B, кому-то другому очень плохо&#xD;&#xA;    если кто-то делает B и знает: я делаю B, потом все другие думают: &#xD;&#xA;    этот кто-то многого не чувствует, этот кто-то плохой&#xD;&#xA;    Z может сделать B&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на Z&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Конечно, я не учла множество аспектов вышеприведенных слов. Иначе, если бы я продолжила конкретизацию, то пришлось бы написать как минимум статью. По-моему, перевод слова на термины Вежбицкой очень похож на чтение толкового словаря, причем на языке, в котором знаешь только примитивы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Осталось только применить конъюнкцию на все четыре определения, использовав разные переменные ( J,K,L,M, например ),  и перевести все с субъекта на его манеру поведения (или на поступок)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    случилось что-то (G)                --Gадость =)&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание J&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание K&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание L&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание M&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на J&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на K&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на L&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на M&#xD;&#xA;    G случилось из-за Y                  -- хамство как поступок&#xD;&#xA;    Y делает много G                     -- хамство как черта хама&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT (очень важно!)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Только что вспомнила про одно эссе Сергея Довлатова: [&quot;Это непереводимое слово &quot;хамство&quot;&quot;](http://www.sergeidovlatov.com/books/etoneper.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И вот я долго думал над всем этим и, в отличие от Набокова,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сформулировал, что такое хамство, а именно: хамство есть не что иное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как грубость, наглость, нахальство, вместе взятые, но при этом –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; умноженные на безнаказанность. Именно в безнаказанности все дело, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заведомом ощущении ненаказуемости, неподсудности деяний, в том чувстве&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полнейшей беспомощности, которое охватывает жертву. Именно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безнаказанностью своей хамство и убивает вас наповал, вам нечего ему&#xD;&#xA;&gt; противопоставить, кроме собственного унижения, потому что хамство –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это всегда «сверху вниз», это всегда «от сильного – слабому», потому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что хамство – это беспомощность одного и безнаказанность другого,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; потому что хамство – это неравенство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю, в связи с этим нужно подкорректировать окончательный вариант определения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    случилось что-то (G)                --Gадость =)&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на кого-то&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание J&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание K&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание L&#xD;&#xA;    ...описание M&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на J&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на K&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на L&#xD;&#xA;    X думает: Y похож на M&#xD;&#xA;    Y знает:  с ним не случится плохого, если он сделает G&#xD;&#xA;    X чувствует: я маленький, а Y большой&#xD;&#xA;    X чувствует: я не могу, а Y может&#xD;&#xA;    G случилось из-за Y                  -- хамство как поступок&#xD;&#xA;    Y делает много G                     -- хамство как черта хама" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="fc7c9a99-7f1a-4cbb-89b5-4a67ca1c4249" CreationDate="2013-07-03T06:14:16.530" UserId="278" Text="как бы вы объясните &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бродил ли он...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="fc7c9a99-7f1a-4cbb-89b5-4a67ca1c4249" CreationDate="2013-07-03T06:14:16.530" UserId="278" Text="как бы вы объясните Бродил ли он" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="fc7c9a99-7f1a-4cbb-89b5-4a67ca1c4249" CreationDate="2013-07-03T06:14:16.530" UserId="278" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2405" RevisionGUID="b2097cbd-430e-41c2-8af1-480f7c62c50f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T06:52:53.477" UserId="278" Text="On the [wiktionary page for gift][1] on the fourth definition, the abbreviations &quot;мн. ч.&quot; appear, what do they mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2405" RevisionGUID="b2097cbd-430e-41c2-8af1-480f7c62c50f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T06:52:53.477" UserId="278" Text="What do the abbreviations мн. and ч. mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2405" RevisionGUID="b2097cbd-430e-41c2-8af1-480f7c62c50f" CreationDate="2013-07-03T06:52:53.477" UserId="278" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="318d0c20-ca45-4de4-a1e2-b6cade6e07ed" CreationDate="2013-07-03T07:01:57.323" UserId="1793" Text="&quot;мн.ч.&quot; is just a reduction for &quot;множественное число&quot; (plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also can find &quot;ед.ч&quot; there. It is &quot;единственное число&quot; (singular)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2407" RevisionGUID="13ab5f64-269c-4804-8268-8045fd9fd85c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T07:53:50.953" UserId="97" Text="It's rather difficult to explain this phrase without any context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One meaning of verb _бродить_ is _walk around, wonder aimlessly, roam_. Particle _ли_ indicates uncertainty.  And pronoun _он_ means _he_. Therefore the full phrase can mean _has he wondered aimlessly..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a completely different possibility though.  Another meaning of verb _бродить_ is _ferment_.  When, for example, you pour alcohol over fresh berries and leave the mixture to ferment, in Russian, word _бродить_ describes this process.  Therefore, taking into account meaning of particle _ли_ and pronoun _он_, the phrase can mean _has it fermented..._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2408" RevisionGUID="794a5d6e-0f93-4cda-bef4-ec33d20eebe0" CreationDate="2013-07-03T08:01:13.343" UserId="1755" Text="&quot;Ли&quot; has many meanings. In your example it's used as an interrogative particle in a direct question without negation (вопросительная частица в прямом вопросе без отрицания). More examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ◆ Далеко ли тут до беды? (И. С. Тургенев)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ◆ Занятий мало ль есть у ней: // Грибы солить, кормить гусей, // Заказывать обед и ужин, // В анбар и в погреб заглянуть, — // Хозяйки глаз повсюду нужен: // Он вмиг заметит что-нибудь. (А. С. Пушкин, «Граф Нулин», 1825 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Complete list of meanings and other examples can be found at the [wiktionary page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Бродил ли он?&quot; has the same meaning as &quot;Он бродил?&quot; (&quot;Did he wander?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if there are more words in the sentence, meaning can change. For example, it could be a conditional disjunctive conjunction (условно-разделительный союз):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Бродил ли он или стоял на месте, — ничего не менялось.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That can be explained as &quot;Nothing was changed regardless of the fact that he was wandering or standing&quot; (may be not entirely correct translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2407" RevisionGUID="468de7ce-1add-4ff8-9440-15f62fde2261" CreationDate="2013-07-03T08:02:03.450" UserId="97" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="It's rather difficult to explain this phrase without any context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One meaning of verb _бродить_ is _walk around, wonder aimlessly, roam_. Particle _ли_ indicates uncertainty.  And pronoun _он_ means _he_. Therefore the full phrase can mean _has he really been roaming aimlessly..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a completely different possibility though.  Another meaning of verb _бродить_ is _ferment_.  When, for example, you pour alcohol over fresh berries and leave the mixture to ferment, in Russian, word _бродить_ describes this process.  Therefore, taking into account meaning of particle _ли_ and pronoun _он_, the phrase can mean _has it realy been fermenting..._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that _бродить_ is an imperfect verb, indicating an action in the process, not necessarily completed - and this affects the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, this structure is commonly indicative of a question, where the person asking is not sure whether it happened or not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бродил ли он?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Has he really been roaming aimlessly?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Has it really been fermenting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be used without being a question, usually indicating pondering on the subject and uncertainty of events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бродил ли он - неизвестно.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether he really was roaming aimlessly is not known.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whether it really was fermenting is not known." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="403e9af0-0b6c-411e-9ca7-b787d5591411" CreationDate="2013-07-03T08:50:40.227" UserId="194" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&quot;мн.ч.&quot; is just a reduction for &quot;множественное число&quot; (plural number).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also can find &quot;ед.ч&quot; there. It is &quot;единственное число&quot; (singular number)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="4b22c8d7-e7b6-47ae-a031-ffda28ba3c67" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:35:36.940" UserId="551" Text="Several years ago I have heard that the correct title of soap-opera &quot;Рабыня Изаура&quot; is &quot;Раба Изаура&quot;, though the translators picked &quot;рабыня&quot; instead. Though, I see that Даль lists рабыня, раба, рабица as synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in usage between these words (semantical, stylistical, etc.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only example I can think of is &quot;раба божия&quot; (church term) vs. &quot;рабыня божия&quot; (never heard such expression).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Несколько лет назад я где-то услышал что сериал &quot;Рабыня Изаура&quot; по-правильному должен называться &quot;Раба Изаура&quot;, но переводчики почему-то выбрали слово &quot;рабыня&quot;. В то же время в словаре Даля раба, рабыня и рабица перечислены как синонимы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли различие в употреблении этих слов (семантическое, стилистическое и т.д.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственный пример который мне приходит на ум это церковное &quot;раба божия&quot;, которое не употребляется как &quot;рабыня божия&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="4b22c8d7-e7b6-47ae-a031-ffda28ba3c67" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:35:36.940" UserId="551" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;раба&quot; and &quot;рабыня&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="4b22c8d7-e7b6-47ae-a031-ffda28ba3c67" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:35:36.940" UserId="551" Text="|словоупотребление|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2411" RevisionGUID="8a6928b0-38e0-4945-9ee9-a5cf3be2fcb1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T12:46:50.397" UserId="959" Text="&quot;Раба&quot; уместно звучит только в поэтично-пафосном контексте — упомянутая &quot;раба божья&quot;, а также, например, &quot;раба любви&quot;, &quot;я твоя раба!&quot;. &quot;Рабыня&quot; же — обозначения угнетённой женщины, можно и в переносном смысле.&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку сериал про Изауру — любовный роман, то с этим, похоже, и связано мнение об альтернативной версии перевода, &quot;Раба [любви] Изаура&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2405" RevisionGUID="9e6ac5f9-c53e-408c-8734-fa43c1f81986" CreationDate="2013-07-03T18:13:36.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/352490323458523137" />
  <row Id="8372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="95969f3f-b4de-47a9-943c-64c88997b8c1" CreationDate="2013-07-04T08:05:06.037" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Yesterday I visited a friend in Oxford.  At some point we stopped at his favourite pub, where, as he said, was &quot;большой выбор пив&quot;. This didn't sound right and got me thinking, but I soon realised that I have no idea what the plural form of *пиво* is, let alone its declensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody can shed a light on this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8373" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="84c056c9-5bc7-4121-a8b1-67b6ade41e8e" CreationDate="2013-07-04T08:44:35.840" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="Как бы вы объяснили &quot;Бродил ли он&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="84c056c9-5bc7-4121-a8b1-67b6ade41e8e" CreationDate="2013-07-04T08:44:35.840" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="Как бы вы объяснили &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бродил ли он...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="fe5e3745-1211-43a8-9d78-5056abb38cba" CreationDate="2013-07-04T11:48:39.927" UserId="551" Comment="Is there a difference in word origins?" Text="Several years ago I have heard that the correct title of soap-opera &quot;Рабыня Изаура&quot; is &quot;Раба Изаура&quot;, though the translators picked &quot;рабыня&quot; instead. Though, I see that Даль lists рабыня, раба, рабица as synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in usage between these words (semantical, stylistical, etc.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only example I can think of is &quot;раба божия&quot; (church term) vs. &quot;рабыня божия&quot; (never heard such expression).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Несколько лет назад я где-то услышал что сериал &quot;Рабыня Изаура&quot; по-правильному должен называться &quot;Раба Изаура&quot;, но переводчики почему-то выбрали слово &quot;рабыня&quot;. В то же время в словаре Даля раба, рабыня и рабица перечислены как синонимы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли различие в употреблении этих слов (семантическое, стилистическое и т.д.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственный пример который мне приходит на ум это церковное &quot;раба божия&quot;, которое не употребляется как &quot;рабыня божия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** Хорошо, допустим есть только стилистическая разница. Как возникло это стилистическое различие? Возможно дело в происхождении этих слов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда еще вопрос: есть ли различия в происхождении этих слов? Может быть слово &quot;раба&quot; пришло из церковно-славянского, а &quot;рабыня&quot; возникло позже? Можно ли это подтвердить или опровергнуть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="e6a0879f-60cb-4bd8-88a0-c1a09ba06271" CreationDate="2013-07-04T13:28:29.720" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="It was always here  and didn't become wide-spread lately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are talking about is most likely near-image boards and Japanese (anime) -based &quot;десу же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not far off from Chinese and &quot;Internet speech&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="6da3f03b-2b8a-4758-ad7c-d64d7edcc030" CreationDate="2013-07-04T18:11:16.187" UserId="426" Comment="Slightly improved upon the translation of &quot;множественное/единственное число&quot;." Text="&quot;мн.ч.&quot; is just a reduction for &quot;множественное число&quot; (plural form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also can find &quot;ед.ч&quot; there. It is &quot;единственное число&quot; (singular form)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="bd8457bc-2fbf-4e50-ae42-99efa37d49e2" CreationDate="2013-07-05T06:13:38.630" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/353033913519702017" />
  <row Id="8379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="bf7970e4-2acb-4730-af6b-50883c17da61" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:02:14.230" UserId="170" Text="&quot;Буран со снегом&quot;, &quot;метель&quot;, &quot;вьюга&quot;, &quot;пурга&quot; - What's the difference here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="bf7970e4-2acb-4730-af6b-50883c17da61" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:02:14.230" UserId="170" Text="How do &quot;буран со снегом&quot;, &quot;метель&quot;, &quot;вьюга&quot;, &quot;пурга&quot; differ in their meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="bf7970e4-2acb-4730-af6b-50883c17da61" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:02:14.230" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="3d40ebd8-14e6-480b-96d5-ffa85087dbdf" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:55:22.850" UserId="426" Text="These words represent a sample of [some fifty words used in different parts of Russia to describe snowstorms][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Метель&quot; is the official word used in meteorology,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Буран со снегом&quot; usually describes a snowstorm in steppes with falling snow,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Вьюга&quot; usually describes a severe ground blizzard with little or no falling snow,&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Пурга&quot; usually describes a ground blizzard as well, perhaps less severe than &quot;вьюга&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.B7.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="9b47b701-741e-41fe-b19c-d8ada1da90a0" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:01:24.140" UserId="551" Text="Метель is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вьюга is a метель, but stronger one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Буран is also a метель, but happens in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key difference here is that буран can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пурга is similar to буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used in nothern part of Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="8b4e929f-be8c-42d4-bec4-1da9a7f70ef4" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:08:45.840" UserId="551" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Метель is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вьюга is a метель, but stronger one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Буран is also a метель, but happens in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пурга is similar to буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used in nothern part of Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="53d0d23a-415d-4500-b96e-1fab525d18ea" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:20:56.803" UserId="551" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Метель is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вьюга is a метель, but stronger one:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сильная метель, снежная буря.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Буран is also a метель, but happens in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пурга is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot;. All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="eb8a5d9b-0230-462b-99c4-f590d07173a7" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:25:45.027" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|synonyms|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="eb8a5d9b-0230-462b-99c4-f590d07173a7" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:25:45.027" Comment="Proposed by 551 approved by -1 edit id of 376" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="dcff0231-7b7f-4cd0-90e4-65fdb021927f" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:25:45.027" UserId="97" Comment="&quot;синонимы&quot; and &quot;synonyms&quot; are tag synonyms, there's no need to add both" Text="|значения|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="9c79912b-e857-46cb-a36f-9959a5fa4663" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:27:10.937" UserId="551" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Метель is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вьюга is a метель, but stronger one:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сильная метель, снежная буря.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Буран is also a метель, but happens in steppes. It conforms with the origins of the word - it was borrowed from people that lived mostly in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пурга is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot;. All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="428eaeee-c582-427c-96e4-adb9c7f5e735" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:48:27.577" UserId="551" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="**Метель** is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground. It is also used as a term in meteorology - all other words are expressed there as метель with different modifications (верховая, общая, слабая, сильная, сверхсильная).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вьюга** is a метель, but stronger one. Most dictionaries define it as &quot;сильная метель, снежная буря&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Буран** is also a метель, but happens in steppes. It conforms with the origins of the word - it was borrowed from people that lived mostly in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пурга** is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot;. All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="d77f8d79-6af1-420c-989b-7f278b00b83b" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:29:19.547" UserId="551" Comment="added 731 characters in body" Text="**Метель** is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground. It is also used as a term in meteorology - all other words are expressed there as метель with different modifications (верховая, общая, слабая, сильная, сверхсильная, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вьюга** is a метель, but stronger one. Most dictionaries define it as &quot;сильная метель, снежная буря&quot;. Wikipedia's [meteorogically-based article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.B7.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F) that [dasblinkenlight](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/426/dasblinkenlight) posted a link to, defines вьюга in such way: &quot;вьюга - сильная, как правило, низовая метель&quot; (this means that usually snow is not falling from the sky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Буран** is also a метель, but happens in steppes. It conforms with the origins of the word - it was borrowed from people that lived mostly in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to strong метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already referenced Wikipedia article, however, tells that &quot;буран - сильная общая метель в степи при низкой температуре&quot;, this definition conforms with буран's first case. But most sources agree that this word is used mostly in Asian part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пурга** is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot; (and so does Google as well). All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="bbe0129f-7562-4340-864b-3956b4d7b561" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:41:41.703" UserId="551" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="**Метель** is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground. It is also used as a term in meteorology - all other words are expressed there as метель with different modifications (верховая, общая, слабая, сильная, сверхсильная, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вьюга** is a метель, but stronger one. Most dictionaries define it as &quot;сильная метель, снежная буря&quot;. Wikipedia's [meteorogically-based article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.B7.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F) that [dasblinkenlight](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/426/dasblinkenlight) posted a link to, defines вьюга in such way: &quot;вьюга - сильная, как правило, низовая метель&quot; (this means that usually snow is not falling from the sky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Буран** is also a метель, but happens in steppes. It conforms with the origins of the word - it was borrowed from people that lived mostly in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to strong метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already referenced Wikipedia article, however, tells that &quot;буран - сильная общая метель в степи при низкой температуре&quot;, this definition conforms with буран's first case and even states it is so strong that one can't see the sky through the flying snow. Anyway, most sources agree that this word is used mostly in Asian part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пурга** is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot; (and so does Google as well). All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="ff132320-0ae4-47a1-9eaf-077397296b16" CreationDate="2013-07-05T16:23:06.460" UserId="551" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="**Метель** is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground. It is also used as a term in meteorology - all other words are expressed there as метель with different modifications (верховая, общая, слабая, сильная, сверхсильная, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вьюга** is a метель, but strong one. Most dictionaries define it as &quot;сильная метель, снежная буря&quot;. Wikipedia's [meteorogically-based article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.B7.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F) that [dasblinkenlight](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/426/dasblinkenlight) posted a link to, defines вьюга in such way: &quot;вьюга - сильная, как правило, низовая метель&quot; (this means that usually snow is not falling from the sky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Буран** is also a метель, but happens in steppes. It conforms with the origins of the word - it was borrowed from people that lived mostly in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to strong метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already referenced Wikipedia article, however, tells that &quot;буран - сильная общая метель в степи при низкой температуре&quot;, this definition conforms with буран's first case and even states it is so strong that one can't see the sky through the flying snow. Anyway, most sources agree that this word is used mostly in Asian part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пурга** is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia. The [Wiktionary's definition](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0) of the word is: &quot;сильная низовая метель, преимущественно возникающая в равнинных безлесных местностях *при вторжениях холодного воздуха*&quot;. This also means that the wind that causes this type of метель is always cold - colder that the general mass of the air. So, it is usual that someone describing the weather will use both пурга and холодный ветер in their speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot; (and so does Google as well). All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8394" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="3bfab621-71de-4a38-87eb-42c5993b64ae" CreationDate="2013-07-06T09:13:38.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/353441600984199168" />
  <row Id="8399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="3a5c06e9-6050-4097-b596-33b4aa3111fe" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:08:49.227" UserId="551" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As seen in the street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eG1sJ.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rzzys.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ET3z.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fonts with such letter were popular back in 50-s (because of Constructionism that preferred simple geometric forms), so you can frequently see it on objects created in those times, or ones that have retro-design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hAWv1.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaJgd.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8400" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="e776557e-6168-4925-966a-3ba5e499fdd7" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:23:28.203" UserId="551" Comment="Rollback to [4e571b53-4e93-4cdd-8fc5-b5b619e4863a]" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Written on a street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="dee04fd5-5f27-4e45-b38c-3d33af19e155" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:24:26.257" UserId="551" Comment="added 532 characters in body" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As seen in the street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eG1sJ.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rzzys.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ET3z.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fonts with such letter were popular back in 50-s (because of Constructionism art movement that preferred simple geometric forms), so you can frequently see it on objects created in those times, or ones that have retro-design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hAWv1.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaJgd.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="9b6e97a4-b5b0-4f71-a87d-c9b6741493f0" CreationDate="2013-07-08T09:14:23.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/354166564234346499" />
  <row Id="8413" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="ac2623f0-212a-4f83-97cb-5433f9568c11" CreationDate="2013-07-10T00:14:24.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/354755448940937218" />
  <row Id="8414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="78b987d2-bf2c-4e95-b21d-19bf9dce3549" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:17:57.977" UserId="5" Text="I am not sure what this means exactly. Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="78b987d2-bf2c-4e95-b21d-19bf9dce3549" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:17:57.977" UserId="5" Text="Казалось бы, причем здесь это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="78b987d2-bf2c-4e95-b21d-19bf9dce3549" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:17:57.977" UserId="5" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2420" RevisionGUID="a42885c3-1b56-40a5-8e99-45431d216e0b" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:50:52.380" UserId="1832" Text="Same: It's (something) lookin not really needed / important (etc), but in real this &quot;something&quot; really needed / important (etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, it's lookin like question, but is not&#xD;&#xA;Ususally ppls in Russia never answer for this question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of usage (ru):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера врезался в машину. Во всем оказалась виновата птица. Казалось бы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при чем здесь она? А это, на вид невинное животное, влетело в турбину&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моего самолета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my bad engl, if i wrote something, what can be hard for understanding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2420" RevisionGUID="22efb14f-111c-4241-b74e-ef7d71275047" CreationDate="2013-07-10T02:08:48.330" UserId="1832" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Same: It's (something) lookin not really needed / important (etc), but in real this &quot;something&quot; really needed / important (etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, it's lookin like question to someone, but is not, it question to 	&#xD;&#xA;oneself&#xD;&#xA;Ususally ppls in Russia never answer for this question,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of usage (ru):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера врезался в машину. Во всем оказалась виновата птица. Казалось бы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при чем здесь она? А это, на вид невинное животное, влетело в турбину&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моего самолета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my bad engl, if i wrote something, what can be hard for understanding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2421" RevisionGUID="a973475c-57db-4a89-bd2a-e27c598c118d" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:27:45.683" UserId="75" Text="It is a rhetorical question that can be translated quite accurately (although a bit wordier than the original) as &quot;One might ask/wonder, what does it have to do with anything?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit (grammar nazi): the correct spelling in this case is &quot;при чем&quot;, not &quot;причем&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="ee13137e-48e3-4ac9-a6a2-1043963c64c8" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:35:36.280" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="&gt;To mention just one more of the catastrophic implication...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Касаясь еще одного катастрофического последствия ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's the most precise translation here, given that Russian infinitive clauses do not always function in the same way as English ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the object of &quot;mention&quot; is a relatively short phrase, you can also translate it as &quot;что касается&quot;. If &quot;to mention X&quot; is a stand-alone phrase, you can use &quot;кстати&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To mention the cats. My sister once had a cat who could open the fridge...&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кстати, о кошках. У моей сестры однажды был кот, который умел открывать холодильник..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2420" RevisionGUID="aec6725e-4ada-48f6-81e1-a273f8424ded" CreationDate="2013-07-10T06:00:46.377" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="Same: it's something that seems to be unnecessary/unimportant but in reality is necessary/important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this appears to be a question to someone, it is actually a question to oneself. Usually people in Russia don't answer this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of its usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера врезался в машину. Во всем оказалась виновата птица. Казалось бы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при чем здесь она? А это, на вид невинное животное, влетело в турбину&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моего самолета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my bad English if I wrote something that is hard to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2423" RevisionGUID="8dc4c0af-21f5-4f60-9de8-b3ee036ab1ca" CreationDate="2013-07-10T08:13:34.600" UserId="97" Text="As Bogdan correctly pointed out, a very accurate English translation of the phrase is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One might wonder what is has to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'd think what's it got to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while in Russian this sentence would normally be a question, in English it can be translated as both a question and a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individually, verb _казаться_ means _to seem_, however when use with particle _бы_ (as in _казалось бы_) it indicates that the following statement is unintuitive, totally unexpected, unnatural. However it actually is correct. Usually this following sentence (in Russian) is a question and it is further followed by an explanation of why this seemingly nonsensical statement is true, often starting with words _оказывается_ (_turns out_) or _на самом деле_ (_actually_) For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, при чем здесь это? Оказывается, эта доска еще вчера была частью моего забора.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One might wonder, what it has to do with it?  Turns out this piece of wood only yesterday was part of my fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, зачем строить дом в середине леса? На самом деле, имеет полный смысл: чистый воздух, тишина и никакой суеты.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'd think, why build a house in the middle of a forest?  Actually, it makes total sense - clean air, quiet, and no fuss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8429" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="7ac14b4a-a2d9-4fbd-9891-7bd465bc9354" CreationDate="2013-07-10T10:14:31.447" UserId="1376" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="Казалось бы, при чём здесь это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8430" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="7ac14b4a-a2d9-4fbd-9891-7bd465bc9354" CreationDate="2013-07-10T10:14:31.447" Comment="Proposed by 1376 approved by 97, 134 edit id of 378" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="a8aa64b2-c1af-4ca1-ba18-d2f3a5f6cf6a" CreationDate="2013-07-10T14:32:49.830" UserId="62" Text="I asked someone in Moscow what a suitable translation is for &quot;urban legend&quot;, and he said that байка would work (this person is young and didn't understand a literal translation like городская легенда). But he thinks байка is more often used for events that happened quite recently, say in the last year, and that isn't a constraint on the term urban legend. The Wikipedia page for байка doesn't suggest that there is a very narrow temporal constraint on its usage. Can байка be applied as broadly in time as urban legend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="a8aa64b2-c1af-4ca1-ba18-d2f3a5f6cf6a" CreationDate="2013-07-10T14:32:49.830" UserId="62" Text="urban legend =?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="a8aa64b2-c1af-4ca1-ba18-d2f3a5f6cf6a" CreationDate="2013-07-10T14:32:49.830" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="eff95711-35c0-4b16-a9a1-27cf09244ad1" CreationDate="2013-07-10T15:30:31.583" UserId="97" Text="_Байка_ - is not quite the same as _urban legend_.  _Байка_ is much closer in meaning to word _anecdote_ (in its English meaning, not Russian) and originates from a Ukrainian word meaning _басня_ in Russian (_apologue_ in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While words _байка_, _басня_ and  _выдумка_ (_made up story_) can be used, they are are significantly more colloquial in their meaning. I don't think there is a word (or a stable phrase) analogous to _urban legend_, but if I had to translate it, I would probably use word _миф_ (_myth_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2426" RevisionGUID="35b6fd36-0f68-4c76-bad9-3cb5f75740b5" CreationDate="2013-07-10T19:15:24.277" UserId="1557" Text="`Городская легенда` is 100% correct and corresponds to `urban legend` exactly. `Байка` can be any sort of story, urban or not, while urban legend is a very specific type of crocodile-in-the-sewers myth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="40b0d5b2-59dd-4f90-8d86-f893eef3c23b" CreationDate="2013-07-10T22:07:31.177" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="_Байка_ - is not quite the same as _urban legend_.  _Байка_ is much closer in meaning to word _anecdote_ (in its English meaning, not Russian) and originates from a Ukrainian word meaning _басня_ in Russian (_apologue_ in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While words _байка_, _басня_ and  _выдумка_ (_made up story_) can be used, they are significantly more colloquial in their meaning. I don't think there is a word (or a stable phrase) analogous to _urban legend_, but if I had to translate it, I would probably use word _миф_ (_myth_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2427" RevisionGUID="645ae2ba-b63c-4fde-b0a1-576b20d4c382" CreationDate="2013-07-11T08:47:13.527" UserId="194" Text="I would say &quot;современные мифы&quot; or &quot;популярные мифы&quot; or &quot;обывательские мифы&quot;. &quot;Легенда&quot; is wrong in this context. In Russian легенда means a story, while the majority of &quot;urban legends&quot; are not stories, but some claims and rumors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2421" RevisionGUID="478ef8f7-463a-4218-8fbf-c3d4a9b3e611" CreationDate="2013-07-11T08:47:43.513" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 83 characters in body" Text="It is a rhetorical question that can be translated quite accurately (although a bit wordier than the original) as &quot;One might ask/wonder, what does it have to do with anything?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="417af9c4-5ca6-4d62-8efe-73cf5ca11080" CreationDate="2013-07-11T09:05:08.833" UserId="1839" Text="There is widespread consent among grammarians of Germanic languages that there is no future tense in those languages. The idea of futurity is either conveyed periphrastically (often with modal or semimodal verbs, as in English &quot;will/shall/be going to&quot;) or omitted altogether and expected to be inferred from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That led me to think about the Russian language. We are taught in school that there are 3 tenses in Russian: past, present, and future. But it seems to me that Russian has the same problem with the future tense as the Germanic languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian doesn't seem to have any morphological markers to denote a future tense. However, I can't find any authoritative sources to confirm this idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you look carefully at how a future tense is formed in Russian, you will see that we use present tense conjugation and we call it a future tense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways to form a so-called future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Conjugate the auxiliary verb &quot;быть&quot; in the *present tense* + imperfective verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я буд**у** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты буд**ешь** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он/она буд**ет** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы буд**ем** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы буд**ете** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они буд**ут** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Conjugate a perfective verb in the *present tense*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скаж**у** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты скаж**ешь**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он/она скаж**ет**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы скаж**ем**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы скаж**ете**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они скаж**ут**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, we use *present tense* endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the pair &quot;я пишу - я напишу&quot;, the only thing that's different is the aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So wouldn't it be more correct to say that we really have only two tenses (past and present) and two aspects (imperfective and perfective) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="417af9c4-5ca6-4d62-8efe-73cf5ca11080" CreationDate="2013-07-11T09:05:08.833" UserId="1839" Text="Is there a future tense in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="417af9c4-5ca6-4d62-8efe-73cf5ca11080" CreationDate="2013-07-11T09:05:08.833" UserId="1839" Text="|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="ce47468f-d412-4f07-9ff9-8fa7cff8c709" CreationDate="2013-07-11T09:12:59.243" UserId="1839" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="There is widespread consent among grammarians of Germanic languages that there is no future tense in those languages. The idea of futurity is either conveyed periphrastically (often with modal or semimodal verbs, as in English &quot;will/shall/be going to&quot;) or omitted altogether and expected to be inferred from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That led me to think about the Russian language. We are taught in school that there are 3 tenses in Russian: past, present, and future. But it seems to me that Russian has the same problem with the future tense as the Germanic languages. However, I can't find any authoritative sources to confirm this idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian doesn't seem to have any morphological markers to denote a future tense. And if you look carefully at how a future tense is formed in Russian, you will see that we use present tense conjugation and we call it a future tense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways to form a so-called future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Conjugate the auxiliary verb &quot;быть&quot; in the *present tense* + imperfective verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я буд**у** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты буд**ешь** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он/она буд**ет** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы буд**ем** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы буд**ете** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они буд**ут** + говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Conjugate a perfective verb in the *present tense*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скаж**у** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты скаж**ешь**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он/она скаж**ет**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы скаж**ем**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы скаж**ете**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они скаж**ут**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, we use *present tense* endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the pair &quot;я пишу - я напишу&quot;, the only thing that's different is the aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So wouldn't it be more correct to say that we really have only two tenses (past and present) and two aspects (imperfective and perfective) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="61ff5526-b99c-42e7-82bd-6c75d68eaf9a" CreationDate="2013-07-11T09:27:47.533" UserId="1755" Text="Future tense in Russian can be indicated by the form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будущее время глагола может быть выражено двумя типами форм: простыми (синтетическими) и сложными (аналитическими). Формы будущего простого времени образуются от основы настоящего времени глаголов совершенного вида с помощью тех же окончаний лица и числа, что и при образовании форм настоящего времени: приду, придёшь, придёт, придём, придёте, придут; услышу, услышишь, услышит, услышим, услышите, услышат. Простые формы будущего времени иногда называют также формами наст.-буд. времени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Формы будущего сложного времени образуются от глаголов несовершенного вида и представляют собой сочетание личных форм вспомогательного глагола быть с инфинитивом: буду писать, будешь писать, будет писать, будем писать, будете писать, будут писать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source][1] (see more details there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your example &quot;Я скаж*у*&quot; the verb `скажу` has the future tense. It can't be used in present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiyyazik.ru/113/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="85248d15-f8be-4385-9586-f91c4bee429d" CreationDate="2013-07-11T10:40:43.770" UserId="1836" Text="I'm native Russian, but I cannot say exactly wot does this &quot;и&quot; means. As I see, it strengthens the expression. @kirelagin gave good translations and examples. In main, &quot;и&quot; used like this doesn't need an exact translation. It will be OK if you first translate sentence without it, and then just strengthen it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2431" RevisionGUID="c6afcf5d-ce86-44c9-9f7f-e44c3f26514a" CreationDate="2013-07-11T11:16:03.080" UserId="194" Text="to mention = говоря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to mention just one more of the catastrophic implications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говоря ещё раз о катастрофических последствиях..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="e2d77d16-cefd-495c-bf24-2e44bc271ad8" CreationDate="2013-07-11T11:39:50.350" UserId="551" Text="Байка is a story, but &quot;Urban legend&quot; can be also a well-known &quot;fact&quot;. For instance one of such &quot;facts&quot; is that cactuses protect from computer monitor's radiation. Or if the bullet hits the tank with fuel it will immediatly blow up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation for &quot;Urban legend&quot; is городская легенда. I found only two [examples in Russian National Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E3%EE%F0%EE%E4%F1%EA%EE%E9&amp;gramm1=%28sg%7Cpl%29%2C%28m%7Cf%7Cn%7Cmf%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EB%E5%E3%E5%ED%E4%E0&amp;gramm2=%28sg%7Cpl%29%2C%28m%7Cf%7Cn%7Cmf%29&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несколько девушек, видимо, слышавших городские легенды о распространителях вируса, колющих посетителей в ночных клубах, пронзительно завизжали. [Герман Садулаев. Таблетка (2008)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так, осененная всевозможными литературными байками, городскими легендами и родительскими фантазиями, дочь вошла в мир. [Владимир Арро. Дом прибежища // «Звезда», 2002]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, Wikipedia article entitled [Городская легенда](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0) has a link to an scientific article that uses the &quot;Городская легенда&quot; in its title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Е. В. Смирнова. Устойчивые мотивы сюжета «геопатогенная зона» в городской легенде (2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a newspaper article that uses this term:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Городские легенды: чем пугают себя минчане](http://www.interfax.by/article/49737)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that the term is relatively new, but it is used nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2433" RevisionGUID="a3cd747a-8328-4bc1-a296-b109e00f9df3" CreationDate="2013-07-11T12:11:41.153" UserId="1839" Text="I spent a couple of hours googling the Internet to find support for my observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting book called *[Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe][1]* on Google Books that answered my question .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some excerpts from it (highlights are mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One, which is relatively unproblematic to ascertain, is the **absence of inflectional futures**, which holds for all Germanic and Finno-Ugrian languages and for the majority of the **Slavic** ones; as well as for some more peripheral parts of Romance and for the non-Slavic languages in the Balkans. Another manifestation of a slightly more elusive kind is the tendency not to distinguish present and future time reference in any systematic way at all, be it inflectionally or periphrastically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also notes that different grammatical ways of conveying futurity found in the Slavic languages are a relatively recent invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, there seems to be **no evidence of any grammaticalized future markings** in Finno-Ugrian. Furthermore, the area may also originally included **Slavic**. The different FTR devices found in **the Slavic languages** are, like the Germanic and Finno-Ugrian ones, **relatively recent**, with one exception: the use of the Perfective Present for future time reference, which, according to standard descriptions, goes back to Old Church Slavonic. However, there is good reason to doubt that this was a trait of Common Slavic. It is not in general found in the modern South Slavic languages, and there is some evidence that the link between the Perfective Present and future time reference was at least not fully developed in Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books/about/Tense_and_Aspect_in_the_Languages_of_Eur.html?id=ZouSLQn6dX0C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="bff27b6b-3f92-4d7a-8c9e-0516bf2fc3e3" CreationDate="2013-07-11T16:53:32.127" UserId="69" Comment="Title (English quotation marks), clarification in the post itself." Text="The _и_ in both of these sentences appears extra. What is it doing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Зачем мне насос? — ответил Гена. — Я **и** ртом надую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from another children’s book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всех друзей я киселем вкусным угостила, не беда, что мне самой так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **и** не хватило.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to answer in Russian or English, I can read it, I just can’t write it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="bff27b6b-3f92-4d7a-8c9e-0516bf2fc3e3" CreationDate="2013-07-11T16:53:32.127" UserId="69" Comment="Title (English quotation marks), clarification in the post itself." Text="What does “и” mean in these sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8452" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="bff27b6b-3f92-4d7a-8c9e-0516bf2fc3e3" CreationDate="2013-07-11T16:53:32.127" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 134 edit id of 380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="dd19363c-5db0-4d32-9333-065014032909" CreationDate="2013-07-11T16:53:43.860" UserId="69" Comment="Typos, formatting." Text="I’m native Russian, but I cannot say exactly what does this _и_ means. As I see, it strengthens the expression. @kirelagin gave good translations and examples. In general, _и_ used like this doesn’t need an exact translation. It will be OK if you first translate sentence without it, and then just strengthen it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8454" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="dd19363c-5db0-4d32-9333-065014032909" CreationDate="2013-07-11T16:53:43.860" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 134 edit id of 379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="69793176-52b0-4bf6-95b4-b08028bd35cb" CreationDate="2013-07-11T19:08:23.707" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="There is widespread consent among grammarians of Germanic languages that there is no future tense in those languages. The idea of futurity is either conveyed periphrastically (often with modal or semimodal verbs, as in English _will/shall/be going to_) or omitted altogether and expected to be inferred from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That led me to think about the Russian language. We are taught in school that there are three tenses in Russian: past, present, and future. But it seems to me that Russian has the same problem with the future tense as the Germanic languages. However, I can’t find any authoritative sources to confirm this idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian doesn’t seem to have any morphological markers to denote a future tense. And if you look carefully at how a future tense is formed in Russian, you will see that we use present tense conjugation and we call it a future tense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways to form a so-called future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Conjugate the auxiliary verb _быть_ in *present tense* + infinitive form of imperfective verb:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я буд·**у** говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты буд·**ешь** говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он/она буд·**ет** говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы буд·**ем** говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы буд·**ете** говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они буд·**ут** говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Conjugate a perfective verb in *present tense*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я скаж·**у**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты скаж·**ешь**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он/она скаж·**ет**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы скаж·**ем**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы скаж·**ете**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они скаж·**ут**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, we use *present tense* endings. For example, in the pair “_я пишу — я напишу_”, the only thing that’s different is the aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, wouldn’t it be more correct to say that we really have only two tenses (past and present) and two aspects (imperfective and perfective) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8456" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="69793176-52b0-4bf6-95b4-b08028bd35cb" CreationDate="2013-07-11T19:08:23.707" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 242 edit id of 381" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="fc284689-f8c9-49fe-a545-9f7558147c1d" CreationDate="2013-07-11T21:55:11.963" UserId="69" Text="_Disclaimer: this is a debative answer, that challenges the assumptions made in the question, therefore, as of this writing, it is not intended to address the said question directly, but contains more information that a simple comment would warrant._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view, the question, as it was posed, commits one or more logical fallacies that prevent the adequate conclusion to be reached. First of all, as with any argument, we need to agree upon our definitions. What do we call a future tense? If we say that by “future tense” we mean “inflective future tense”, or “morphological future tense”, then, absolutely, the short answer to such question would be “No, contemporary Russian language does not have a future tense _per se_, and the grade school curriculum, as always, simplifies the matter much in the same way it simplifies other grammatical features of the language, as, for instance, it omits Locative case and labels its uses as exceptions”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then, why have those qualifications? Why have inflective or morphological future tense? Why specify simple versus complex or analytic versus synthetic future tense? If we agree that mostly synthetic Russian language uses analytical devices to indicate futurity, does it make its future tense less important or self-worthy than that of Latin? Thus, the question commits a bifurcation fallacy, commonly known as false dilemma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we have linguists who argue that if the future tense is not a noble morphological kind, but a lowly analytical, then it’s not a future tense at all (which is the point of view your question implies). To which I say that if the trained grammarians cannot agree on that, what do you expect finding here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What complicates matters, is that, if we focus on our Indo-European language cousins, some of those noble morphological future tenses have dubious bastard roots. Western Romance languages, such as French or Italian have that, but, at least according to Wikipedia article on [future tense][1], these forms themselves originated from earlier analytical constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sound changes in Vulgar Latin made future forms difficult to distinguish from other verb forms (e.g., _amabit_ “he will love” vs. _amavit_ “he loved”), and the Latin simple future forms were gradually replaced by periphrastic structures involving the infinitive and an auxiliary verb, such as *debere*, *venire*, *velle*, and especially *habere*. All of the modern Romance languages have grammaticalized one of these periphrastic constructions for expressing the future tense; none of them has preserved the original Latin future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for examples you gave, who’s to say that those forms are the forms of present tense? Sure, they may look the same, but can you use words like _буду_ or _скажу_ and expect anyone to understand them as anything, but the future tense? Now, I am not a trained linguist, and it can indeed be a simple analytical combination of present tense and an aspect, but to give counter-argument to your argument on its own merit, in Russian declension system, for example, 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Declension Genitive, and 3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; Declension Genitive, Dative and Prepositional cases all have the same ending _и_, but we do not lump them together simply because of one morphological unit that is the same. Clearly, the information extraneous to morphology, such as context, plays role across different grammatical categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, you had failed to mention so-called dual-aspect verbs, which can express futurity both analytically, and morphologically (via prefix). _E.g._ “_он будет ранить_” and “_он поранит_” or “_мы будем жениться_” and “_мы поженимся_”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2431" RevisionGUID="7e7cbac7-53fa-4489-86ae-84b685ec3b53" CreationDate="2013-07-13T10:05:57.143" UserId="194" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="to mention = говоря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to mention just one more of the catastrophic implications...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говоря о ещё одном из катастрофических последствий..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2433" RevisionGUID="f7e705bc-ac7c-4dff-892c-6abdd6e450d0" CreationDate="2013-07-13T12:14:22.380" UserId="1839" Comment="added 4167 characters in body" Text="I spent a couple of hours googling the Internet to find support for my observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting book called *[Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe][1]* on Google Books that answered my question .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some excerpts from it (highlights are mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One, which is relatively unproblematic to ascertain, is the **absence of inflectional futures**, which holds for all Germanic and Finno-Ugrian languages and for the majority of the **Slavic** ones; as well as for some more peripheral parts of Romance and for the non-Slavic languages in the Balkans. Another manifestation of a slightly more elusive kind is the tendency not to distinguish present and future time reference in any systematic way at all, be it inflectionally or periphrastically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also notes that different grammatical ways of conveying futurity found in the Slavic languages are a relatively recent invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, there seems to be **no evidence of any grammaticalized future markings** in Finno-Ugrian. Furthermore, the area may also originally included **Slavic**. The different FTR devices found in **the Slavic languages** are, like the Germanic and Finno-Ugrian ones, **relatively recent**, with one exception: the use of the Perfective Present for future time reference, which, according to standard descriptions, goes back to Old Church Slavonic. However, there is good reason to doubt that this was a trait of Common Slavic. It is not in general found in the modern South Slavic languages, and there is some evidence that the link between the Perfective Present and future time reference was at least not fully developed in Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to expand on my above answer as there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and discontent in the comments about future tense in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to mention that I'm not trying to impose my view on anyone who prefers to disagree with it. It is indeed a very debatable question that can be looked at from different angles. If you'd like to read more about what should be considered tense, I think there's a great post on ELU [*When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?*][2]. The things discussed there can be applied to Russian as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was asked in the comments to add more scientific sources to my answer so I will try to do it below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a nice write-up on the topic by [Cyril Babaev][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present tense had not quite simple usage. Besides its direct meaning as the present action, it could be meaning also future actions, because there was no simple future in Common Slavic. Usually Indo-European languages have some suffixes to mark the future tense: -s- is one of the most frequent of them, existing in Baltic and Hellenic languages, -f- is used in some Celtic tongues. But Slavs unified present and future, and any verb could be used in the forms pointed above and mean the future event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to say that in the absence of future tense, the *aspects* took on the role of expressing futurity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Later Slavic languages, nevertheless, acquired a form of difference between future and present. The category of aspect (perfective and imperfective) possesses also the meaning of tense in Modern Slavic languages, and  imperfective verbs which denote the action which is still taking place go for the real present tense (Russian daju - I am giving, from Common Slavic *dajo.), while perfective verbs denoting the final action usually mean the future (Russian dam - I will give, from Common Slavic *damï). Scientists came to a conclusion that there were not such a distinction in Common Slavic. Even Old Church Slavonic, which was spoken in 7-10 centuries AD, much later than the Common language, was just starting distinguishing aspects as present and future, and still mixed them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the periphrastic &quot;быть&quot; type compound future, it arises from the lexical Common Slavic verb **byti* that means to *be(come)* and now it is used as an auxiliary verb to form future forms in most of the West and East Slavic languages. But &quot;быть&quot; is not the only verb that can be used to form compound future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Currently, *stati* can be used as an alternative form of a future tense auxiliary in all East Slavic languages, as in the Russian example from a poem by Lermontov. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stanu skazyvat’ ja skazku&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; begin(PRES.1SG) tell(INF) I story&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “I will (begin to) tell a story”  (Source: [The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, Balkan Slavic uses a descendant of the verb ‘to want’, instead of &quot;to be&quot;. That's because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nature of the future, necessarily uncertain and at varying distances ahead, means that the speaker may refer to future events with the modality either of probability (what the speaker expects to happen) or intent (what the speaker plans to make happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, constructions like &quot;Я намерен/хочу/должен делать что-либо&quot; can all be used to express futurity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about you, but I think it is a little unfair that we see &quot;Я буду делать&quot; as a special &quot;future tense&quot; form, but &quot;Я стану делать&quot; is not viewed as such. But I don't want to provoke another debate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is 'how come Russian grammars talk about future tense if it's not there?' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that's because traditional grammars (also known as school grammar) are largely based on the principles of Latin grammar, not on current linguistic research in Russian. (This sentence was originally said about English, but I rephrased it for Russian, because I believe it gets the point across nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books/about/Tense_and_Aspect_in_the_Languages_of_Eur.html?id=ZouSLQn6dX0C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/grammar33.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001809/bookpart.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2433" RevisionGUID="122ffa54-6b10-4313-b9b3-ad4173591b26" CreationDate="2013-07-13T16:46:47.507" UserId="1839" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="I spent a couple of hours googling the Internet to find support for my observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting book called *[Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe][1]* on Google Books that answered my question .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some excerpts from it (highlights are mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One, which is relatively unproblematic to ascertain, is the **absence of inflectional futures**, which holds for all Germanic and Finno-Ugrian languages and for the majority of the **Slavic** ones; as well as for some more peripheral parts of Romance and for the non-Slavic languages in the Balkans. Another manifestation of a slightly more elusive kind is the tendency not to distinguish present and future time reference in any systematic way at all, be it inflectionally or periphrastically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also notes that different grammatical ways of conveying futurity found in the Slavic languages are a relatively recent invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, there seems to be **no evidence of any grammaticalized future markings** in Finno-Ugrian. Furthermore, the area may also originally included **Slavic**. The different FTR devices found in **the Slavic languages** are, like the Germanic and Finno-Ugrian ones, **relatively recent**, with one exception: the use of the Perfective Present for future time reference, which, according to standard descriptions, goes back to Old Church Slavonic. However, there is good reason to doubt that this was a trait of Common Slavic. It is not in general found in the modern South Slavic languages, and there is some evidence that the link between the Perfective Present and future time reference was at least not fully developed in Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to expand on my above answer as there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and discontent in the comments about future tense in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to mention that I'm not trying to impose my view on anyone who prefers to disagree with it. It is indeed a very debatable question that can be looked at from different angles. If you'd like to read more about what should be considered tense, I think there are great posts on ELU *[Whose tense is it, anyway?][2]* and [*When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?*][3]. The things discussed there can be applied to Russian as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was asked in the comments to add more scientific sources to my answer so I will try to do it below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a nice write-up on the topic by [Cyril Babaev][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present tense had not quite simple usage. Besides its direct meaning as the present action, it could be meaning also future actions, because there was no simple future in Common Slavic. Usually Indo-European languages have some suffixes to mark the future tense: -s- is one of the most frequent of them, existing in Baltic and Hellenic languages, -f- is used in some Celtic tongues. But Slavs unified present and future, and any verb could be used in the forms pointed above and mean the future event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to say that in the absence of future tense, the *aspects* took on the role of expressing futurity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Later Slavic languages, nevertheless, acquired a form of difference between future and present. The category of aspect (perfective and imperfective) possesses also the meaning of tense in Modern Slavic languages, and  imperfective verbs which denote the action which is still taking place go for the real present tense (Russian daju - I am giving, from Common Slavic *dajo.), while perfective verbs denoting the final action usually mean the future (Russian dam - I will give, from Common Slavic *damï). Scientists came to a conclusion that there were not such a distinction in Common Slavic. Even Old Church Slavonic, which was spoken in 7-10 centuries AD, much later than the Common language, was just starting distinguishing aspects as present and future, and still mixed them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the periphrastic &quot;быть&quot; type compound future, it arises from the lexical Common Slavic verb **byti* that means to *be(come)* and now it is used as an auxiliary verb to form future forms in most of the West and East Slavic languages. But &quot;быть&quot; is not the only verb that can be used to form compound future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Currently, *stati* can be used as an alternative form of a future tense auxiliary in all East Slavic languages, as in the Russian example from a poem by Lermontov. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stanu skazyvat’ ja skazku&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; begin(PRES.1SG) tell(INF) I story&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “I will (begin to) tell a story”  (Source: [The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, Balkan Slavic uses a descendant of the verb ‘to want’, instead of &quot;to be&quot;. That's because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nature of the future, necessarily uncertain and at varying distances ahead, means that the speaker may refer to future events with the modality either of probability (what the speaker expects to happen) or intent (what the speaker plans to make happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, constructions like &quot;Я намерен/хочу/должен делать что-либо&quot; can all be used to express futurity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about you, but I think it is a little unfair that we see &quot;Я буду делать&quot; as a special &quot;future tense&quot; form, but &quot;Я стану делать&quot; is not viewed as such. But I don't want to provoke another debate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is 'how come Russian grammars talk about future tense if it's not there?' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that's because traditional grammars (also known as school grammar) are largely based on the principles of Latin grammar, not on current linguistic research in Russian. (This sentence was originally said about English, but I rephrased it for Russian, because I believe it gets the point across nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books/about/Tense_and_Aspect_in_the_Languages_of_Eur.html?id=ZouSLQn6dX0C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/86812/whose-tense-is-it-anyway&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/grammar33.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001809/bookpart.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="c9797e4b-57ff-4fba-8401-b813d3990518" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:12:59.723" UserId="1684" Text="как подписать письмо, если я пишу родственникам (бабушке и дедушке)? у меня с ними не близкие отношения, поэтому я не уверена как подписать. Единственое что приходить в голову это: &quot;Ваша Настя&quot; или такое не подходить? &#xD;&#xA;У вас есть другие идеи? Спасибо ! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="c9797e4b-57ff-4fba-8401-b813d3990518" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:12:59.723" UserId="1684" Text="как подписать письмо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="c9797e4b-57ff-4fba-8401-b813d3990518" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:12:59.723" UserId="1684" Text="|выбор-слова|одним-словом|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="c84ec92e-b881-4f6d-8fb8-e05d7220a809" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:32:34.453" UserId="1755" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Как подписать письмо, если я пишу родственникам (бабушке и дедушке)? У меня с ними не близкие отношения, поэтому я не уверена, как подписать. Единственое, что приходить в голову, - &quot;Ваша Настя&quot;. Или такое не подходит? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас есть другие идеи? Спасибо! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8475" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="c84ec92e-b881-4f6d-8fb8-e05d7220a809" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:32:34.453" UserId="1755" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Как подписать письмо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8476" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="c84ec92e-b881-4f6d-8fb8-e05d7220a809" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:32:34.453" Comment="Proposed by 1755 approved by 1684 edit id of 383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="d0c6817c-d778-4e33-9891-f2c4d549765d" CreationDate="2013-07-14T02:43:01.177" UserId="5" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Здоровья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="bd9fdfa7-9755-4259-961a-e781ff7e43c3" CreationDate="2013-07-14T02:48:16.000" UserId="5" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Здоровья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="fb944fee-7e86-450c-b199-c0b4ea4c34df" CreationDate="2013-07-14T02:53:18.880" UserId="5" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю счастья&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Здоровья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Вот такие дела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="51ff198b-95ef-4e4d-b38f-188a02344779" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:00:10.327" UserId="5" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша должница&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю счастья&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Здоровья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Вот такие дела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="a089c69d-6268-4641-a662-b761daa2dac2" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:13:27.910" UserId="5" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша должница&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю счастья&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Здоровья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="c7225ead-9108-4aff-bd23-b29c9d71ec56" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:19:14.133" UserId="5" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша должница&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам моря счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="9d35098a-0018-4144-ad7e-11cf50809db1" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:24:56.157" UserId="5" Comment="edited body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша должница&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA; - Поехали!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="9346833f-5f65-41d0-998a-997a4f353972" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:30:07.847" UserId="5" Comment="edited body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="4f70cea0-bd9d-484b-91c8-7bb7072eb597" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:38:11.660" UserId="5" Comment="edited body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша любимая внученка&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего доброго&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Будьте всегда молоды и красивы&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Всего хорошего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Не отчаивайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть ваши желания пренепременно сбудутся&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Люблю&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="6cbb6fa7-7e42-43fe-8212-906da809a9ed" CreationDate="2013-07-14T03:48:20.840" UserId="5" Comment="edited body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша любимая внученка&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего доброго&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Будьте всегда молоды и красивы&#xD;&#xA; - С уважением к Вам и к Вашему бизнесу&#xD;&#xA; - С почтением&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Заранее спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Всего хорошего&#xD;&#xA; - С любовью&#xD;&#xA; - С искренними извинениями&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Не отчаивайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть ваши желания пренепременно сбудутся&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - С нетерпением жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, вы рассмотрите мое предложение&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Буду рада помочь&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь на совместное плодотворное сотрудничество&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Люблю&#xD;&#xA; - Сожалею&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Мои искренние соболезнования&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - Ждите в гости&#xD;&#xA; - Приезжайте скорее&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, теперь точно все&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA; - Конец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="e52ffb21-ff9a-4e80-881a-23f395732e03" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:03:02.973" UserId="5" Comment="added 116 characters in body; added 26 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша любимая внученка&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего доброго&#xD;&#xA; - Если что, обращайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Будьте всегда молоды и красивы&#xD;&#xA; - С уважением к Вам и к Вашему бизнесу&#xD;&#xA; - С почтением&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Заранее спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, понятно написала&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - Сообщите, если будут вопросы&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Всего хорошего&#xD;&#xA; - С любовью&#xD;&#xA; - С искренними извинениями&#xD;&#xA; - Не принимайте близко к сердцу&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Не отчаивайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть ваши желания пренепременно сбудутся&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - С нетерпением жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - Не держите зла&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, вы рассмотрите мое предложение&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Буду рада помочь&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь на совместное плодотворное сотрудничество&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Люблю&#xD;&#xA; - Сожалею&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Мои искренние соболезнования&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - Ждите в гости&#xD;&#xA; - Приезжайте скорее&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, теперь точно все&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA; - Конец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8488" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="e52ffb21-ff9a-4e80-881a-23f395732e03" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:03:02.973" UserId="5" />
  <row Id="8489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="649f77b8-7a06-4f90-9ddf-d5c05ba1540b" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:08:57.870" UserId="5" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша любимая внученка&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего доброго&#xD;&#xA; - Если что, обращайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Очень жаль, что так получилось&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Будьте всегда так же молоды и красивы&#xD;&#xA; - С уважением к Вам и к Вашему бизнесу&#xD;&#xA; - С почтением&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Заранее спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, понятно написала&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - Сообщите, если будут вопросы&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Всего хорошего&#xD;&#xA; - С любовью&#xD;&#xA; - С искренними извинениями&#xD;&#xA; - Не принимайте близко к сердцу&#xD;&#xA; - Так уж вышло&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Не отчаивайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть ваши желания пренепременно сбудутся&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - С нетерпением жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - Не держите зла&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, вы рассмотрите мое предложение&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Буду рада помочь&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь на совместное плодотворное сотрудничество&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Люблю&#xD;&#xA; - Сожалею&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Мои искренние соболезнования&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - Ждите в гости&#xD;&#xA; - Приезжайте скорее&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, теперь точно все&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA; - Конец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="5db6537f-2bd7-4221-a907-ffa9c1788274" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:18:25.733" UserId="5" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша любимая внученка&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Так и живу&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего доброго&#xD;&#xA; - Если что, обращайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Очень жаль, что так получилось&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Будьте всегда так же молоды и красивы&#xD;&#xA; - С уважением к Вам и к Вашему бизнесу&#xD;&#xA; - С почтением&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Заранее спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, понятно написала&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - Сообщите, если будут вопросы&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Всего хорошего&#xD;&#xA; - С любовью&#xD;&#xA; - С искренними извинениями&#xD;&#xA; - Не принимайте близко к сердцу&#xD;&#xA; - Так уж вышло&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Не отчаивайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть ваши желания пренепременно сбудутся&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - С нетерпением жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как словей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - Не держите зла&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, вы рассмотрите мое предложение&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Буду рада помочь&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь на совместное плодотворное сотрудничество&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Люблю&#xD;&#xA; - Сожалею&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Мои искренние соболезнования&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - Ждите в гости&#xD;&#xA; - Приезжайте скорее&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, теперь точно все&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA; - Конец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="4a37b860-90e1-492f-8661-21df96100a1c" CreationDate="2013-07-14T13:41:35.370" UserId="97" Text="This question was born from the discussion in comments under [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2397/97).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Чё_ is a slang/colloquial word, but does it mean _что_ or _чего_?  I believe that it's the equivalent of _что_, although it can't be substituted in all cases - and I used this in my answer to the linked question.  However another user stated that I was wrong and that the correct meaning is _чего_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which meaning is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="4a37b860-90e1-492f-8661-21df96100a1c" CreationDate="2013-07-14T13:41:35.370" UserId="97" Text="Meaning of чё - что or чего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="4a37b860-90e1-492f-8661-21df96100a1c" CreationDate="2013-07-14T13:41:35.370" UserId="97" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="c726a2d4-9a18-4fd9-bf38-fa64033e51cb" CreationDate="2013-07-14T15:35:53.030" UserId="97" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="This question was born from the discussion in comments under [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2397/97).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Чё_ is a slang/colloquial word, but does it mean _что_ or _чего_?  I believe that it's the equivalent of _что_, although it can't be substituted in all cases - and I used this in my answer to the linked question.  However another user stated that I was wrong and that the correct meaning is _чего_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which meaning is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** I was suggested that it can mean both, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чё тебе надо?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что тебе надо?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего тебе надо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in this case I would say that in the last version (_чего тебе надо_), _чего_ is in itself is a colloquial from of _что_, hence can't be argued to be the meaning of _чё_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="6821a533-e202-4be9-9de0-0a16d9c1adcf" CreationDate="2013-07-14T16:49:56.863" UserId="1847" Text="*чё* - is the ressult of the omission of the *-ег-* syllable in *чего*. This is called [Ellison][1] in phonetics. So *чё* is just a shortened form of *чего* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="0d20b3d4-95a7-495d-b10f-da51b79d3b67" CreationDate="2013-07-14T19:31:56.487" UserId="1847" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**чё** is the ressult of the omission of the -**ег**- syllable in **чего**. This is called [Elison][1] in phonetics. So **чё** is just a shortened form of **чего** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="98785aee-fbef-4496-bfd8-d33e85817b1d" CreationDate="2013-07-14T19:53:33.440" UserId="1847" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="**чё** is the result of the omission of the -**ег**- syllable in **чего**. This is called [Elison][1] in phonetics. So **чё** is just a shortened form of **чего** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8498" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="ea865f17-0234-4ea9-b0fb-8b5a2d9be626" CreationDate="2013-07-14T21:14:41.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/356522157628592128" />
  <row Id="8499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2439" RevisionGUID="e4b8aca9-c02b-4a1f-8888-85ff5866a101" CreationDate="2013-07-15T06:03:10.240" UserId="256" Text="Я бы просто подписал  &quot;Настя&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="329ff3e3-e5dd-4f3e-ab45-11490b29e92a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T08:24:18.183" UserId="1800" Text="Something that I realised early on when learning Russian were the different words Russians would use where an English speaker would just say *magic*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word I came into contact with was *волшебство* and the associated *волшебник* (&quot;wizard&quot;) and for a while I thought it was the only was to say *magic* in Russian. Then I learned about *колдовство* and *колдун* / *колдуня*. Upon searching further, I came upon *чародейство* and *чародей* and began wondering how come there are so many words in Russian for describing what I considered to be the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regsrding *волшебство*, I couldn't help but see a relation to *воля*, &quot;will&quot;, suggesting that a *волшебник* employs supernatural methods to do his will or project his will onto others. I looked up the etymologies of the words and saw that *волшебство* is actually related to the older *волшба* and ultimately *волхв*, which seems to be a word for *magus*. Further research revealed that *волхвы* were priests or shamans of some sort, associated with pre-Christian religions and therefore being accused of witchcraft and persecuted during Christian times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any material on the connotations of *волшебство* in contemporary usage, however. Is it a more negative word or maybe neutral?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kолдовство*, on the other hand, seems to be derived from an earlier word with connotations of *speech* or *tongue*, as is clear when examining the Lithuanian cognate *kalba* (language/tongue) or even the Latin *calō* (I call). A Proto-Indo-European root for this could be **kele-* (&quot;to shout&quot;). This implies that using this word has a connotation of speech, perhaps referring to &quot;magic&quot; done by incancation or, by a wider definition, charisma and the power to influence people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *чародейство* and *чары*, roughly translating to &quot;magical means&quot; or &quot;charms&quot; (cognate?) has a connotation of action, as opposed to magic by influence, perhaps referring to a more concrete, evident type of magic, as opposed to magic of a mysterious, mystical type. An interesting dimension to this word is given, however, by its cognated in other languages (Slavic or not). For example, Vasmer's etymological dictionary identifies various cognates of *чара*: Avestan *čārā* (*средство*, &quot;means&quot;) and Lithuanian *kẽras* (*колдовство*, &quot;magic&quot;). The Proto-Indo-European root seems to be **kʷer-* (&quot;to do&quot;, &quot;action&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having outlined some of my impressions and theories, I now turn to the native speakers of Russian to ask: what are the finer connotations of each of these words? Are some of them more negative than others? And how would a native speaker use them in conversation or choose between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there might be words meaning *magic* I might have missed. If so, I would be curious to learn them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="329ff3e3-e5dd-4f3e-ab45-11490b29e92a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T08:24:18.183" UserId="1800" Text="Russian words for magic. Etymology, usage and connotations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="329ff3e3-e5dd-4f3e-ab45-11490b29e92a" CreationDate="2013-07-16T08:24:18.183" UserId="1800" Text="|лексикон|выбор-слова|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="75a7c3ad-2a46-42b2-b1b9-a32e432ed4a1" CreationDate="2013-07-16T08:50:44.807" UserId="959" Text="*Колдун* обычно злой, а *волшебник* - добрый, соответственно как бы тёмный маг и светлый маг. *Чародей* более нейтральный, но для меня звучит скорее в положительном контексте, как творец разных красивых и удивительных вещей вне понятий добра и зла. Также есть слово *кудесник*, происходит от слова &quot;чудо&quot;, звучит более архаично, а лично для меня имеет оттенок фокусника. Например, бразильских футболистов называют &quot;кудесники мяча&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2442" RevisionGUID="497af5a4-c5b2-46fd-96d8-0e6038f6e6cf" CreationDate="2013-07-16T09:06:09.717" UserId="1305" Text="You have missed the word `магия`, which IMO is used more often than other words that you cited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="309ab515-32b6-4472-834e-aed70af167ea" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:05:47.213" UserId="1800" Comment="typo" Text="Something that I realised early on when learning Russian were the different words Russians would use where an English speaker would just say *magic*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word I came into contact with was *волшебство* and the associated *волшебник* (&quot;wizard&quot;) and for a while I thought it was the only was to say *magic* in Russian. Then I learned about *колдовство* and *колдун* / *колдуня*. Upon searching further, I came upon *чародейство* and *чародей* and began wondering how come there are so many words in Russian for describing what I considered to be the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *волшебство*, I couldn't help but see a relation to *воля*, &quot;will&quot;, suggesting that a *волшебник* employs supernatural methods to do his will or project his will onto others. I looked up the etymologies of the words and saw that *волшебство* is actually related to the older *волшба* and ultimately *волхв*, which seems to be a word for *magus*. Further research revealed that *волхвы* were priests or shamans of some sort, associated with pre-Christian religions and therefore being accused of witchcraft and persecuted during Christian times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any material on the connotations of *волшебство* in contemporary usage, however. Is it a more negative word or maybe neutral?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kолдовство*, on the other hand, seems to be derived from an earlier word with connotations of *speech* or *tongue*, as is clear when examining the Lithuanian cognate *kalba* (language/tongue) or even the Latin *calō* (I call). A Proto-Indo-European root for this could be **kele-* (&quot;to shout&quot;). This implies that using this word has a connotation of speech, perhaps referring to &quot;magic&quot; done by incancation or, by a wider definition, charisma and the power to influence people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *чародейство* and *чары*, roughly translating to &quot;magical means&quot; or &quot;charms&quot; (cognate?) has a connotation of action, as opposed to magic by influence, perhaps referring to a more concrete, evident type of magic, as opposed to magic of a mysterious, mystical type. An interesting dimension to this word is given, however, by its cognated in other languages (Slavic or not). For example, Vasmer's etymological dictionary identifies various cognates of *чара*: Avestan *čārā* (*средство*, &quot;means&quot;) and Lithuanian *kẽras* (*колдовство*, &quot;magic&quot;). The Proto-Indo-European root seems to be **kʷer-* (&quot;to do&quot;, &quot;action&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having outlined some of my impressions and theories, I now turn to the native speakers of Russian to ask: what are the finer connotations of each of these words? Are some of them more negative than others? And how would a native speaker use them in conversation or choose between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there might be words meaning *magic* I might have missed. If so, I would be curious to learn them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="1b36e75f-8b23-4683-be9a-89d23bafda87" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:07:33.737" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Something that I realised early on when learning Russian were the different words Russians would use where an English speaker would just say *magic*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first word I came into contact with was *волшебство* and the associated *волшебник* (&quot;wizard&quot;) and for a while I thought it was the only was to say *magic* in Russian. Then I learned about *колдовство* and *колдун* / *колдунья*. Upon searching further, I came upon *чародейство* and *чародей* and began wondering how come there are so many words in Russian for describing what I considered to be the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *волшебство*, I couldn't help but see a relation to *воля*, &quot;will&quot;, suggesting that a *волшебник* employs supernatural methods to do his will or project his will onto others. I looked up the etymologies of the words and saw that *волшебство* is actually related to the older *волшба* and ultimately *волхв*, which seems to be a word for *magus*. Further research revealed that *волхвы* were priests or shamans of some sort, associated with pre-Christian religions and therefore being accused of witchcraft and persecuted during Christian times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any material on the connotations of *волшебство* in contemporary usage, however. Is it a more negative word or maybe neutral?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kолдовство*, on the other hand, seems to be derived from an earlier word with connotations of *speech* or *tongue*, as is clear when examining the Lithuanian cognate *kalba* (language/tongue) or even the Latin *calō* (I call). A Proto-Indo-European root for this could be **kele-* (&quot;to shout&quot;). This implies that using this word has a connotation of speech, perhaps referring to &quot;magic&quot; done by incancation or, by a wider definition, charisma and the power to influence people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *чародейство* and *чары*, roughly translating to &quot;magical means&quot; or &quot;charms&quot; (cognate?) has a connotation of action, as opposed to magic by influence, perhaps referring to a more concrete, evident type of magic, as opposed to magic of a mysterious, mystical type. An interesting dimension to this word is given, however, by its cognated in other languages (Slavic or not). For example, Vasmer's etymological dictionary identifies various cognates of *чара*: Avestan *čārā* (*средство*, &quot;means&quot;) and Lithuanian *kẽras* (*колдовство*, &quot;magic&quot;). The Proto-Indo-European root seems to be **kʷer-* (&quot;to do&quot;, &quot;action&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having outlined some of my impressions and theories, I now turn to the native speakers of Russian to ask: what are the finer connotations of each of these words? Are some of them more negative than others? And how would a native speaker use them in conversation or choose between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there might be words meaning *magic* I might have missed. If so, I would be curious to learn them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="5449fa2c-4a01-41cb-91bd-34b663d2f5db" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:15:51.510" UserId="551" Text="On the darker side of the magic there are also ведьма и ведун that have the same root as word ведать - знать. There is also a popular book by Анджей Сапковский - &quot;Ведьмак&quot; that is also shares the same root, but the character described there is not a magician." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="d7e2db53-b57d-470f-8dee-149f6733bfb6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:22:28.040" UserId="551" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="On the darker side of the magic there are also *[ведьма](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0)*, *ведьмак*, *ведун* и *ведунья* that have the same root as word ведать - знать. Their magic is called `ведовство`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a popular book by Анджей Сапковский (Andrzej Sapkowski) - Ведьмак, but the wikipedia states that the character depicted there is not *ведьмак* from the mythological point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like before the adoption of the Christianity in 988 they were considered good ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="a1297d0d-6838-4477-bf08-7452f2e5fce4" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:35:51.227" UserId="551" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="On the darker side of the magic there are also *[ведьма](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0)* и *ведьмак*. *Ведун* и *ведунья* are the good ones, according to wikipedia, that states that practicing *ведун* is *волхв*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, all these words have the same root as word ведать - знать. Their magic is called `ведовство`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a popular book by Анджей Сапковский (Andrzej Sapkowski) - Ведьмак, but the wikipedia states that the character depicted there is not *ведьмак* from the mythological point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like before the adoption of the Christianity in 988 they were considered good ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, though I'm not sure if it is still magic - there are *знахарь* and *знахарка* that are performing *знахарство*. These words have the same root as *знать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="b8d83f38-d405-44fe-921e-9c392fa43258" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:42:31.293" UserId="194" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. Чудо is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a king of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="c361e19b-0f38-43de-bae6-a5a3026d776e" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:47:26.043" UserId="551" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="On the darker side of the magic there are also *[ведьма](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0)* и *ведьмак*. *Ведун* и *ведунья* are the good ones, according to wikipedia, that states that practicing *ведун* is *волхв*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There is also a popular book by Анджей Сапковский (Andrzej Sapkowski) - Ведьмак, but the wikipedia states that the character depicted there is not *ведьмак* from the mythological point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, all these words have the same root as word `ведать` - знать. Their magic is called `ведовство`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a battle magician that is called *[характерник](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)* that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, though I'm not sure if it is still magic - there are *знахарь* and *знахарка* that are performing *знахарство* (magic healing). These words have the same root as *знать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="a8f8f811-9280-43fe-9898-406ca5f3751c" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:54:49.417" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. Чудо is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="32b4091e-45fb-44df-9eaa-90b6f5f24d96" CreationDate="2013-07-16T12:10:43.870" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. Чудо is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="739452e7-5014-44ba-84ea-cc3b71f1c22b" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:25:16.883" UserId="334" Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Магия' ('Маг(иня)') is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Маг' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Волшебство' ('Волшебни(к/ца)') is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Чародейство' ('Чародей(ка)') literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Колдовство' ('Колдун(ья)') is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ведовство' ('Ведьма(к)') is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Алхимия&quot; ('Алхимик') means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Прорицание' ('Проро(к/чица)') is someone who has means to gain knowledge buy magical means or innate talent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Псионика' ('Псион') with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. 'Телепатия' ('телепат') i.e. mind-reading and 'Телекинез' i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Чудо' ('Чудотворец', 'Святой') is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God. Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Фокус'('Фокусник') is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Экстрасенсорика' ('Экстрасенс') is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Вуду' (usually performed by'Вудуист', but proper term is 'Бокор') is 'Шаманство' with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Шаманство' ('Шаман') is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with 'Шаманские пляски' (shamanic dances) performed with 'Бубен' (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say 'Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало'. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, 'Ведьмак' may refer very specific type of magic|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Друид' sometimes means this http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of latin word used, like 'Некромантия' - магия смерти, 'техномантия' - магия работы с машинами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I will clean this post and add fancy formatting later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="7e184c00-b572-4896-8414-dcfb03c8af12" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:34:20.317" UserId="334" Comment="improved formatting." Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Магия` (`Маг(иня)`) is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Маг' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Волшебство` (`Волшебни(к/ца)`) is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чародейство` (`Чародей(ка)`) literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Колдовство` (`Колдун(ья)`, often implied to be old and ugly) is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ведовство` (`Ведьма(к)` , often implied to be old and ugly) is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Алхимия` (`Алхимик`) means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Прорицание` (`Проро(к/чица)`) is process of gaining knowledge directly by magical means or innate talent, usually about future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Псионика` (`Псион`) with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. `Телепатия` (`телепат`) i.e. mind-reading and `Телекинез` i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чудо` is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God (`Чудотворец`, `Святой`) or pagan gods (no good word here, because christianisation stomped native slavic pagan gods). Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Фокус`(`Фокусник`) is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Экстрасенсорика` (`Экстрасенс`) is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вуду` (usually performed by `Вудуист`, but proper term is `Бокор`) is `Шаманство` with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Шаманство` (`Шаман`) is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with `Шаманские пляски` (shamanic dances) performed with `Бубен` (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Астрология` (`Астролог`, sometimes `Звездочёт`) is Astrology, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say `Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало`. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, `Ведьмак` may refer very specific type of magic|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Друид` sometimes means [this][1] type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of latin word used, like 'Некромантия' - магия смерти, 'техномантия' - магия работы с машинами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="167348da-6dd4-402e-b680-c0e9069548e5" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:39:43.637" UserId="334" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Магия` (`Маг(иня)`) is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Маг' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Волшебство` (`Волшебни(к/ца)`) is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чародейство` (`Чародей(ка)`) literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Колдовство` (`Колдун(ья)`, often implied to be old and ugly) is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ведовство` (`Ведьма(к)` , often implied to be old and ugly) is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Алхимия` (`Алхимик`) means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Прорицание` (`Проро(к/чица)`) is process of gaining knowledge directly by magical means or innate talent, usually about future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Псионика` (`Псион`) with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. `Телепатия` (`телепат`) i.e. mind-reading and `Телекинез` i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чудо` is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God (`Чудотворец`, `Святой`) or pagan gods (no good word here, because christianisation stomped native slavic pagan gods). Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Фокус`(`Фокусник`) is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Экстрасенсорика` (`Экстрасенс`) is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вуду` (usually performed by `Вудуист`, but proper term is `Бокор`) is `Шаманство` with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Шаманство` (`Шаман`) is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with `Шаманские пляски` (shamanic dances) performed with `Бубен` (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Астрология` (`Астролог`, sometimes `Звездочёт`) is Astrology, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say `Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало`. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, `Ведьмак` may refer very specific type of mage|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Друид` sometimes means [this][1] type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of latin word used, like 'Некромантия' - магия смерти, 'техномантия' - магия работы с машинами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="7072cd1d-ef75-493f-9b0c-b55f1c482f2b" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:50:03.853" UserId="334" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Магия` (`Маг(иня)`) is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Маг' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Волшебство` (`Волшебни(к/ца)`) is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чародейство` (`Чародей(ка)`) literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Колдовство` (`Колдун(ья)`, often implied to be old and ugly) is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ведовство` (`Ведьма(к)`, `Ведун` , often implied to be old and ugly) is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Алхимия` (`Алхимик`) means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Прорицание` (`Проро(к/чица)`) is process of gaining knowledge directly by magical means or innate talent, usually about future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Псионика` (`Псион`) with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. `Телепатия` (`телепат`) i.e. mind-reading and `Телекинез` i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чудо` is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God (`Чудотворец`, `Святой`) or pagan gods (no good word here, because christianisation stomped native slavic pagan gods). Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Фокус`(`Фокусник`) is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Экстрасенсорика` (`Экстрасенс`) is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вуду` (usually performed by `Вудуист`, but proper term is `Бокор`) is `Шаманство` with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Шаманство` (`Шаман`) is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with `Шаманские пляски` (shamanic dances) performed with `Бубен` (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Астрология` (`Астролог`, sometimes `Звездочёт`) is Astrology, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say `Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало`. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, `Ведьмак` may refer very specific type of mage|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Друид` sometimes means [this][1] type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of latin word used, like 'Некромантия' - магия смерти, 'техномантия' - магия работы с машинами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="2a5ce59d-7076-4b80-918b-790f3f0c4b55" CreationDate="2013-07-16T16:10:33.477" UserId="334" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Магия` (`Маг(иня)`) is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Маг' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Волшебство` (`Волшебни(к/ца)`) is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чародейство` (`Чародей(ка)`) literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Колдовство` (`Колдун(ья)`, often implied to be old and ugly) is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ведовство` (`Ведьма(к)`, `Ведун` , often implied to be old and ugly) is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Алхимия` (`Алхимик`) means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Прорицание` (`Проро(к/чица)`) is process of gaining knowledge directly by magical means or innate talent, usually about future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Псионика` (`Псион`) with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. `Телепатия` (`телепат`) i.e. mind-reading and `Телекинез` i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чудо` is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God (`Чудотворец`, `Святой`) or pagan gods (no good word here, because christianisation stomped native slavic pagan gods). Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Фокус`(`Фокусник`) is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Экстрасенсорика` (`Экстрасенс`) is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вуду` (usually performed by `Вудуист`, but proper term is `Бокор`) is `Шаманство` with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Шаманство` (`Шаман`) is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with `Шаманские пляски` (shamanic dances) performed with `Бубен` (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Астрология` (`Астролог`, sometimes `Звездочёт`) is Astrology, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say `Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало`. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, `Ведьмак` may refer very specific type of mage|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Друид` sometimes means [this][1] type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of latin word used, like 'Некромантия' - magic of death, 'техномантия' - magic of machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Post is waiting for edit of English native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="1103fa0b-8d6f-4658-abcb-3bd0dc070c92" CreationDate="2013-07-16T16:26:33.143" UserId="334" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Магия` (`Маг(иня)`) is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Маг' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Волшебство` (`Волшебни(к/ца)`) is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чародейство` (`Чародей(ка)`) literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Колдовство` (`Колдун(ья)`, often implied to be old and ugly) is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ведовство` (`Ведьма(к)`, `Ведун` , often implied to be old and ugly) is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Алхимия` (`Алхимик`) means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Прорицание` (`Проро(к/чица)`) is process of gaining knowledge directly by magical means or innate talent, usually about future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Псионика` (`Псион`) with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. `Телепатия` (`телепат`) i.e. mind-reading and `Телекинез` i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чудо` is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God (`Чудотворец`, `Святой`) or pagan gods (no good word here, because christianisation stomped native slavic pagan gods). Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Фокус`(`Фокусник`) is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Экстрасенсорика` (`Экстрасенс`) is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вуду` (usually performed by `Вудуист`, but proper term is `Бокор`) is `Шаманство` with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Шаманство` (`Шаман`) is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with `Шаманские пляски` (shamanic dances) performed with `Бубен` (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Астрология` (`Астролог`, sometimes `Звездочёт`) is Astrology, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say `Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало`. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, `Ведьмак` may refer very specific type of mage|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Друид` sometimes means [this][1] type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin or other imported words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of foreign word used, like 'Некромантия' - magic of death, 'техномантия' - magic of machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Post is waiting for edit of English native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="f5d77d86-d0fb-4032-963f-6999486dd6ed" CreationDate="2013-07-16T16:32:17.237" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="04b67117-46f9-479c-bfb7-02792bc45f74" CreationDate="2013-07-16T17:06:34.677" UserId="334" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Russian language has several words that can be used to translate 'magic', each one has corresponding 'job' word. Each one, however, has different origins and bears separate semantical details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Магия` (`Маг(иня)`) is a practitioner of it) is the most general term, including many different types of magic. It is the most straightforward translation with almost no other tied meaning. The word 'Магия' is the only one occurring in scientific papers about tribal magic and has most chances to occur in contemporary adult fantasy. This type is expected to be powerful and flashy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Волшебство` (`Волшебни(к/ца)`) is the second general term, but it implies some mystery and may be used to describe stage magicians. It is also tied to childhood, and has most chances to occur in child or young adult novels. This type often depicted in weird clothes (high hat, colorful robe with stars etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чародейство` (`Чародей(ка)`) literally means 'making &quot;Чары&quot;'. 'Чары' is uncountable noun that is always in plural form. This word sometimes means magical (or spontaneous) affection, but this implication is almost lost. Anyway, 'Чары' means continuous, prolonged effect, so this type usually is not flashy at all, but his magic lasts and can be dispelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Колдовство` (`Колдун(ья)`, often implied to be old and ugly) is also magic, but usually with dark undertones. If a magician has to make deal with devil to gain magical power, this word is probably the best one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ведовство` (`Ведьма(к)`, `Ведун` , often implied to be old and ugly) is derived from verb 'ведать' ('знать', to know). So, this type usually implies heavy use of 'arcane components' and rituals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words above are more or less interchangeable. There are also some borderline terms that are close to magic, but are not interchangeable with words above. Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Алхимия` (`Алхимик`) means magic based on natural properties of natural substances with strict rules. It can also mean real-life alchemie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Прорицание` (`Проро(к/чица)`) is process of gaining knowledge directly by magical means or innate talent, usually about future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Псионика` (`Псион`) with many subtypes means magic performed by power of mind/will alone. `Телепатия` (`телепат`) i.e. mind-reading and `Телекинез` i.e. telekinesis are common subtypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чудо` is basically a wander that occurred because of the will of God (`Чудотворец`, `Святой`) or pagan gods (no good word here, because christianisation stomped native slavic pagan gods). Also, this word may describe or mean any extremely uncommon event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Фокус`(`Фокусник`) is a trick performed by sleight of hands and proper equipment. The most direct translation will be 'Stage magic'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Экстрасенсорика` (`Экстрасенс`) is a common techno-buble adopted by con-mans to look scientific and trustworthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вуду` (usually performed by `Вудуист`, but proper term is `Бокор`) is `Шаманство` with dark undertones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Шаманство` (`Шаман`) is an art of dealing with spirits. Associated with `Шаманские пляски` (shamanic dances) performed with `Бубен` (Tambourine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Астрология` (`Астролог`, sometimes `Звездочёт`) is Astrology, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Any* of these words can be used to describe process of performing completely mysterious actions to get specific result. For example, it is common to say `Пришел, пошаманил, постучал в бубен, оно и заработало`. In fact, in folklore, tamborine is necessary tool of computer administrator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there are common tropes in literature you may want to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, `Ведьмак` may refer very specific type of mage|fighter hybrid, because there are quite influential series of novels and video games under same name with that type (I believe, English brand is 'witcher'). Originally it meant a male witch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Друид` sometimes means [this][1] type of druids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, last, but not least, many latin or other imported words combined with '-мантия' will mean magic strongly tied with meaning of foreign word used, like 'Некромантия' - magic of death, 'техномантия' - magic of machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Post is waiting for edit of English native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Druid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="cc1cf91f-2917-476f-bfba-187401de6d3c" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:55:28.933" UserId="551" Comment="Total rewriting of the answer" Text="Most neutral magicians are already mentioned, so I'm focusing on darker and lesser ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чернокнижник** is a person that practices **чернокнижие** - knowledge of magic based on &quot;black books&quot; (черные книги) that contain cabbalistic symbols, spell formulas, magic recipes, etc. Basically it is a synonym of **колдун** and shares the negative connotation with his colleague. Though in dictionaries this term is marked as outdated, it is used in RPG games as a translation of *warlock*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведьма** is translated to English as *witch*. [She](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0) is also believed to use demonic powers and, of course, this word has also a negative connotation. You can encounter this word when reading fairy tales. It is also used nowadays to describe an old woman with bad temper: *старая ведьма*. The word ведьма has the same root as the word *ведать* - to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other words that are lesser used than ведьма, though sharing the same etymology. **Ведьмак** is a male posessing the same powers as ведьма. Sometimes he is also believed to be capable to turn into a wolf. This word is rarely used, though it became popular because of a fantasy saga Ведьмак written by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведун** and **ведунья** are also connected to word *ведать* (to know). They practice **ведовство**. These words are rarely used nowadays and may mean different things depending on context. The oldest meaning of the **ведун** is similar to **волхв**. Later both *ведун* and *волхв* are used as synonyms to *колдун*. Nowadays it may be a synonym to *знахарь* or even in colloquial style *специалист в какой-либо сфере деятельности* (specialist in some field). By the way, Three Kings, that visited Jesus after his birth, in Russian Bible are called [волхвы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cossack mythology there is an interesting battle magician - **характерник** (see this [wiki article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)) that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. This word is not widely known though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Знахарь** and **знахарка** (sorcerer/sorceress, wise man/woman) are performing **знахарство** - magic healing, removing curses, etc. using different plants and spells. These words have the same root as *знать* (to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, many words are connected with synonyms of 'to know'. It is believed that all of them had positive connotation before adoption of Christianity in 988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** is also a wise woman. **Ворожба** and **ворожить** are words that describe her activity. She sees the future, removes curses, heals using spells. She can also **отворожить**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ОТВОРАЖИВАТЬ, **отворожить** кого, исцелить ворожбою, отучать от чего заговорами, чарами. Отворожить лихорадку, удалить ее ворожбой. **Отворожная** болезнь, которую можно отворожить. (Толковый словарь Даля)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** can be replaced with **бабка** or even **бабушка** (because she is nice - she makes good magic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бабушка ворожит кому (разг. шутл.) о том, кто удачлив, кому во всём везёт. (Словарь Ожегова)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Хорошо тому жить, кому бабушка ворожит.» (посл.) (Толковый словарь Ушакова)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="2c9975b0-9322-48f9-a308-30c7635a0fc3" CreationDate="2013-07-17T07:05:00.497" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="539648f2-e178-4bd2-9ebd-605dcae6f77b" CreationDate="2013-07-17T07:59:03.240" UserId="551" Comment="About Кощей Бессмертный" Text="Most neutral magicians are already mentioned, so I'm focusing on darker and lesser ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чернокнижник** is a person that practices **чернокнижие** - knowledge of magic based on &quot;black books&quot; (черные книги) that contain cabbalistic symbols, spell formulas, magic recipes, etc. Basically it is a synonym of **колдун** and shares the negative connotation with his colleague. Though in dictionaries this term is marked as outdated, it is used in RPG games as a translation of *warlock*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведьма** is translated to English as *witch*. [She](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0) is also believed to use demonic powers and, of course, this word has also a negative connotation. You can encounter this word when reading fairy tales. It is also used nowadays to describe an old woman with bad temper: *старая ведьма*. The word ведьма has the same root as the word *ведать* - to know. In fact ведьма is not always bad character. In fairy-tales Баба Яга is also ведьма, but she often helps the protagonist if he knows the right way to speak to her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other words that are lesser used than ведьма, though sharing the same etymology. **Ведьмак** is a male posessing the same powers as ведьма. Sometimes he is also believed to be capable to turn into a wolf. This word is rarely used, though it became popular because of a fantasy saga Ведьмак written by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведун** and **ведунья** are also connected to word *ведать* (to know). They practice **ведовство**. These words are rarely used nowadays and may mean different things depending on context. The oldest meaning of the **ведун** is similar to **волхв**. Later both *ведун* and *волхв* are used as synonyms to *колдун*. Nowadays it may be a synonym to *знахарь* or even in colloquial style *специалист в какой-либо сфере деятельности* (specialist in some field). By the way, Three Kings, that visited Jesus after his birth, in Russian Bible are called [волхвы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cossack mythology there is an interesting battle magician - **характерник** (see this [wiki article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)) that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. This word is not widely known though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Знахарь** and **знахарка** (sorcerer/sorceress, wise man/woman) are performing **знахарство** - magic healing, removing curses, etc. using different plants and spells. These words have the same root as *знать* (to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, many words are connected with synonyms of 'to know'. It is believed that all of them had positive connotation before adoption of Christianity in 988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** is also a wise woman (there is also **ворожей**, but I did not found it until Quassnoi's remark).  **Ворожба** and **ворожить** are words that describe her activity. She sees the future, removes curses, heals using spells. She can also **отворожить**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Отвораживать**, **отворожить** кого, исцелить ворожбою, отучать от чего заговорами, чарами. Отворожить лихорадку, удалить ее ворожбой. **Отворожная** болезнь, которую можно отворожить. (Толковый словарь Даля)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** can be replaced with **бабка** or even **бабушка** (because she is nice - she makes good magic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бабушка ворожит кому (разг. шутл.) о том, кто удачлив, кому во всём везёт. (Словарь Ожегова)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Хорошо тому жить, кому бабушка ворожит.» (посл.) (Толковый словарь Ушакова)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И к бабке не ходи - и слепому видно, очевидно, ясно как божий день (Словарь синонимов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian mythology there is an interesting character - **Царь Кощей Бессмертный**. He posesses magical powers and is an antagonist to Иван Царевич or other hero from the mortal world. The name [Кощей](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B9) has interesting etymology. Many people think that it comes from word *кости* (bones), maybe because Кощей Бессмертный is usually depicted as having skeleton-like look - hairless head, greyish skin color, clothing or armor that depicts bones, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are theories that the *кощей* is in fact comes from **кощун**, **кощунство**. Nowadays these words mean blasphemer and blasphemy accordingly, but it had different meaning before Сhristianity. There are examples of usage of word *кощюн* as a translation of greek word *mythos* in a [book by Срезневский](https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B+%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F+%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE+%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC), so possibly *кощюнник* would be a person that tells such myths. (There are many claims in the Internet that *кощюньник* was also a wizard according to him, but I could not find proofs for them in the book)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="85f9ef45-1c53-4f2b-8884-1abdcd0d1e1f" CreationDate="2013-07-17T12:26:28.040" UserId="81" Text="Is there any information on the first usage of the word `спутник` for natural (`Луна - спутник Земли`) and/or artificial (`Вывести спутник на орбиту`) satellites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear that at the moment of [Спутник 1][1] launch phrase `искусственный спутник Земли` was already in active use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While researching this topic I've found numerous references to this quote from [&quot;The Brothers Karamazov&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что станется в пространстве с топором? Если куда попадет подальше, то примется, я думаю, летать вокруг земли, сам не зная зачем, в виде **спутника**. ...Астрономы вычислят восхождение и захождение топора, Гатцук внесет в календарь, вот и все&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did Dostoyevsky use already established meaning of `спутник` as natural satellite (moon)? Or did he originate entirely new meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="85f9ef45-1c53-4f2b-8884-1abdcd0d1e1f" CreationDate="2013-07-17T12:26:28.040" UserId="81" Text="Спутники естественные и искусственные" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="85f9ef45-1c53-4f2b-8884-1abdcd0d1e1f" CreationDate="2013-07-17T12:26:28.040" UserId="81" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="cfad64ba-fee8-4cf9-ac70-fc45111c1db2" CreationDate="2013-07-17T12:39:16.153" UserId="81" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="Is there any information on the first usage of the word `спутник` for natural (`Луна - спутник Земли`) and/or artificial (`Вывести спутник на орбиту`) satellites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear that at the moment of [Спутник 1][1] launch phrase `искусственный спутник Земли` was already in active use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While researching this topic I've found numerous references to this quote from [&quot;The Brothers Karamazov&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что станется в пространстве с топором? Если куда попадет подальше, то примется, я думаю, летать вокруг земли, сам не зная зачем, в виде **спутника**. ...Астрономы вычислят восхождение и захождение топора, Гатцук внесет в календарь, вот и все&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did Dostoyevsky use already established meaning of `спутник` as natural satellite (moon)? Or did he originate entirely new meaning (based on `спутник` as fellow traveller)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More general question on gramota.ru][3] received vague answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В середине XX века, в связи с развитием космонавтики, слово приобрело еще одно значение: космический летательный аппарат, движущийся по орбите вокруг Земли, других планет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural satellites are not covered in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/hardwords/25_114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="d87cd556-3b52-403b-ba37-6827f3a90b73" CreationDate="2013-07-17T14:21:01.690" UserId="1847" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="**чё** is the result of the omission of the -**ег**- syllable in **чего**. This is called [Elison][1] in phonetics. So **чё** is just a shortened form of **чего** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="8a7e6acb-e41d-4e57-b1d4-774abde4e7d5" CreationDate="2013-07-17T14:28:38.047" UserId="551" Text="Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in [Google Books](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false) gives a following citation from the magazine &quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2, 1851&quot; on page 17: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Russian National Corpus](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mode=main&amp;env=fol1&amp;text=lexform&amp;req=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%C2%A0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;mycorp=created:1916&amp;sort=gr_tagging) gives following citations for 1916:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Я думаю, ― сказал Ньютон, ― что напугавший нас камень есть спутник Земли. [К. Э. Циолковский. Вне Земли (1916)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можем спуститься на Луну и исследовать этот спутник Земли, определив его значение для Земли и вообще. [К. Э. Циолковский. Вне Земли (1916)] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="16acbd36-3a27-4ad0-86c7-e93630249e32" CreationDate="2013-07-17T14:42:18.917" UserId="551" Comment="Got the answer" Text="Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2448" RevisionGUID="59b58830-ac8e-4338-a7e5-e229e70faa41" CreationDate="2013-07-17T18:45:46.893" UserId="256" Text="Ещё более ранний пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уже большая половина солнца была закрыта спутником земли, и затмение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стояло с лишком полтора часа, как никто еще в монастыре не знал об&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этом. [О. И. Сенковский. Воспоминания о Сирии (1822)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="e58c1cc2-f204-46df-b85d-b4d77bb3578b" CreationDate="2013-07-18T09:02:39.890" UserId="551" Comment="Lomonosov" Text="Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, first 4 satellites of Jupiter was discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 and in 1612 he proved that they are orbiting the planet. So, the concept of satellites was known for 270 years when the book was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there is a question - when the word спутник was used to describe the satellite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we need to find when the Russian astronomers began to write the articles on astronomy. According to [this article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA) first observatory was established in Russia in 1690. In 1725 the observatory in Petersburg was established and there worked the prominent Russian scientist Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his works on astronomy and many of them were written in Latin. However I found his russian translation of the German article on observation of the comet in 1744. The russian translation was published in 1744 as well. The article among other things is discussing a possibility of finding the size of the comet's atmosphere. Here is what Lomonosov [writes](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo4/lo4-007-.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою или пропорцию их силы, которою Солнце и комета действуют на тело, в равном расстоянии от них отдаленное. Последнее уже нам известно, а помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из **обращения около кометы ее спутника,** если бы она хотя одного имела. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Описание кометы, явившияся в начале 1744 года, с немецкого языка перевел императорской Академии Наук адъюнкт Михайло Ломоносов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still not clear if this was the first time when the спутник was used to describe smaller object orbiting the larger one. But Lomonosov invented [many russian terms in astronomy](http://www.msu.ru/lomonosov/science/astronom.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the translation of the article by Lomonosov used many russian words to make the article more understandible to [russian reader](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/kes-abc/kes/kes-1261.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the term was not used before, Lomonosov could propose it first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="57b33ef9-2c76-4bad-a63f-3cb48e9d1498" CreationDate="2013-07-18T09:23:34.577" UserId="551" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="**Update** Lomonosov uses this term in 1744 (see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, first 4 satellites of Jupiter was discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 and in 1612 he proved that they are orbiting the planet. This has proved that the Earth is not the only celestial body that can be orbited by other bodies (previously the Earth was considered to be the center of the Universe). So, the concept of satellites was known for 270 years when the book was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there is a question - when the word спутник was used to describe the satellite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we need to find when the Russian astronomers began to write the articles on astronomy. According to [this article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA) first observatory was established in Russia in 1690. In 1725 the observatory in Petersburg was established and there worked the prominent Russian scientist Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his works on astronomy and many of them were written in Latin. However I found his russian translation of the German article on observation of the comet in 1744. The russian translation was published in 1744 as well. The article among other things is discussing a possibility of finding the size of the comet's atmosphere. Here is what Lomonosov [writes](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo4/lo4-007-.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою или пропорцию их силы, которою Солнце и комета действуют на тело, в равном расстоянии от них отдаленное. Последнее уже нам известно, а помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из **обращения около кометы ее спутника,** если бы она хотя одного имела. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Описание кометы, явившияся в начале 1744 года, с немецкого языка перевел императорской Академии Наук адъюнкт Михайло Ломоносов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still not clear if this was the first time when the спутник was used to describe smaller object orbiting the larger one. But Lomonosov invented [many russian terms in astronomy](http://www.msu.ru/lomonosov/science/astronom.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the translation of the article by Lomonosov used many russian words to make the article more understandible to [russian reader](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/kes-abc/kes/kes-1261.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the term was not used before, Lomonosov could propose it first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="7e192192-5e3f-40ca-87f1-b7998224cf4f" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:31:36.307" UserId="551" Comment="added 1386 characters in body" Text="**Update** Lomonosov uses this term in 1744 (see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, first 4 satellites of Jupiter was discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 and in 1612 he proved that they are orbiting the planet. This has proved that the Earth is not the only celestial body that can be orbited by other bodies (previously the Earth was considered to be the center of the Universe). So, the concept of satellites was known for 270 years when the book was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there is a question - when the word спутник was used to describe the satellite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we need to find when the Russian astronomers began to write the articles on astronomy. According to [this article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA) first observatory was established in Russia in 1690. In 1725 the observatory in Petersburg was established and there worked the prominent Russian scientist Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his works on astronomy and many of them were written in Latin. However I found his russian translation of the German article on observation of the comet in 1744. The russian translation was published in 1744 as well. The article among other things is discussing a possibility of finding the size of the comet's atmosphere. Here is what Lomonosov [writes](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo4/lo4-007-.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою или пропорцию их силы, которою Солнце и комета действуют на тело, в равном расстоянии от них отдаленное. Последнее уже нам известно, а помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из **обращения около кометы ее спутника,** если бы она хотя одного имела. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Описание кометы, явившияся в начале 1744 года, с немецкого языка перевел императорской Академии Наук адъюнкт Михайло Ломоносов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still not clear if this was the first time when the спутник was used to describe smaller object orbiting the larger one. But Lomonosov invented [many russian terms in astronomy](http://www.msu.ru/lomonosov/science/astronom.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the translation of the article by Lomonosov used many russian words to make the article more understandible to [russian reader](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/kes-abc/kes/kes-1261.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the term was not used before, Lomonosov could propose it first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** There is a chance that the term спутник was coined around 1670. According to the book &quot;П. Г. Куликовский. М. В. Ломоносов астроном и астрофизик&quot;, by request of the [Tzar Alexey Mikhailovich](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) in 70-es the book Selenographia (1647) by [Johannes Hevelius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hevelius) was translated into Russian (to be precise - into Church Slavonic). Though it was not published (it was stored in Tzar's library) it was known to Peter I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В &quot;Селенографии&quot; была также изложена система Коперника, приведены числовые данные о размерах Солнечной системы и об обращении планет (с точностью до минут времени!), **описаны спутники Юпитера**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it was the first manuscript written in Russian that mentioned the existence of Jupiter satellites, though I am not certain what word was used to describe them. For example the book title was translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иоганна Гевелия Селенография еже есть Луны описание и прилежное крапин ее и подвижений различных и иных всех изменений и изображений, зрительного сосуда помощью испытанных, &#xD;&#xA;определение. В нем же зде иных многих планет природных зрак и многая блюдения, наипаче же крапин солнечных и поветовых трубозрением изобретенных и таблиями вельми прилежно на меди изваянными во увидение полагаются." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="f9faf214-a04a-4d93-bcf0-6cc103741328" CreationDate="2013-07-18T21:40:51.007" UserId="1684" Comment="Correct spelling" Text="Как подписать письмо, если я пишу родственникам (бабушке и дедушке)? У меня с ними не близкие отношения, поэтому я не уверена, как подписать. Единственное, что приходит в голову, - &quot;Ваша Настя&quot;. Или такое не подходит? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас есть другие идеи? Спасибо! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="433eed97-d21c-4985-b854-7a3280aad2bc" CreationDate="2013-07-20T00:22:02.450" UserId="1733" Text="Both words have similar meanings and they both seem phonetically similar as well. So, it seems to me that there's the possibility of some relation between the two words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if one of the words is derived or borrowed from the other, or if perhaps they share some common &quot;ancestor&quot; word borrowed from a completely different language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/рейс](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81#Etymology), the Russian `рейс` is derived from `reis` in Dutch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, according to [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reis](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reis#Dutch), the Dutch word appears to have been borrowed from Estonian (at least that was how I vaguely understood the page). And, subsequently the Estonian word was derived from the German `Reise`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my preliminary research has lead me to believe that the Russian `рейс` is indirectly derived from the German `Reise`. Although, I'm not really confident that this is entirely accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="433eed97-d21c-4985-b854-7a3280aad2bc" CreationDate="2013-07-20T00:22:02.450" UserId="1733" Text="Does the Russian word «рейс» have any realtion to the German word &quot;Reise&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="433eed97-d21c-4985-b854-7a3280aad2bc" CreationDate="2013-07-20T00:22:02.450" UserId="1733" Text="|этимология|other-languages|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8541" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="0b6251dd-0587-4fff-be0e-2359f0f8accd" CreationDate="2013-07-20T09:09:25.507" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the Russian word «рейс» is related to the German word &quot;Reise&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8542" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="b665030c-dc01-469e-9acf-6f29711a9bf6" CreationDate="2013-07-20T09:11:22.240" UserId="1733" Comment="Fixed grammar of edit #2 by Alenanno." Text="Is the Russian word «рейс» related to the German word &quot;Reise&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="b341797f-1624-4b34-8d89-da6a738866ae" CreationDate="2013-07-20T11:06:38.790" UserId="1266" Text="Как сказать &quot;star&quot; и &quot;unstar&quot; (типа как отметить репозиторий звёздочной на GitHub'е или снять такую отметку) кратко и ясно? Желательно литературно, без &quot;лайкнуть&quot; и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to say &quot;star&quot; and &quot;unstar&quot; (as if you marking a repository with star on Github or removing such mark) shortly and clearly? Advisably not slangish like &quot;to put a like&quot; and so on..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="b341797f-1624-4b34-8d89-da6a738866ae" CreationDate="2013-07-20T11:06:38.790" UserId="1266" Text="How to say &quot;star&quot; and &quot;unstar&quot; (as in Github) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="b341797f-1624-4b34-8d89-da6a738866ae" CreationDate="2013-07-20T11:06:38.790" UserId="1266" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="c29e7be7-99ab-4265-8b85-b29a458127e1" CreationDate="2013-07-20T19:37:29.407" UserId="242" Text="The straightforward translation will be: &quot;отметить звёздочкой&quot; to indicate &quot;starring&quot; action. This is 100% understandable but nevertheless sounds quite unnatural to native. Moreover there's no such straightforward equivalent for the opposite action - phrase &quot;разометить звёзочкой&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;добавить звёздочку&quot; / &quot;убрать звёздочку&quot; (to add/to remove a star) is acceptable, but there's a subtle inconsistency between the action itself and the actions' description. Adding a star to some entity and starring it are a slightly different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, yet there is no exact equivalent of &quot;star&quot;/&quot;unstar&quot; pair, words &quot;залайкать&quot;/&quot;отлайкать&quot; are very common in modern Russian web slang. Since those terms are very close in almost all cases, I'd recommend this translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="764e728f-1368-4811-8bec-106b7bbab8ee" CreationDate="2013-07-20T20:13:43.060" UserId="242" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="The straightforward translation will be: &quot;отметить звёздочкой&quot; to indicate &quot;starring&quot; action. This is 100% understandable but nevertheless sounds quite unnatural to native. Moreover there's no such straightforward equivalent for the opposite action - phrase &quot;разометить звёзочкой&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;добавить звёздочку&quot; / &quot;убрать звёздочку&quot; (to add/to remove a star) is acceptable, but there's a subtle inconsistency between the action itself and the actions' description. Adding a star to some entity and starring it are a slightly different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, yet there is no exact (especially &quot;not slang&quot;) equivalent of &quot;star&quot;/&quot;unstar&quot; pair, words &quot;залайкать&quot;/&quot;отлайкать&quot; are very common in modern Russian web slang. Since those terms are very close in almost all cases, I'd recommend this translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="1da95cd7-509b-49ef-a112-1a9028a12e1d" CreationDate="2013-07-20T21:15:51.983" UserId="242" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="The straightforward translation will be: &quot;отметить звёздочкой&quot; to indicate &quot;starring&quot; action. This is 100% understandable but nevertheless sounds quite unnatural to native. Moreover there's no such straightforward equivalent for the opposite action - phrase &quot;разометить звёзочкой&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying &quot;добавить звёздочку&quot; / &quot;убрать звёздочку&quot; (to add/to remove a star) is acceptable, but there's a subtle inconsistency between the action itself and the actions' description. Adding a star to some entity and starring it are a slightly different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, yet there is no exact (especially &quot;not slang&quot;) equivalent of &quot;star&quot;/&quot;unstar&quot; pair, words &quot;залайкать&quot;/&quot;отлайкать&quot; are very common in modern Russian web slang. Since those terms are very close in almost all cases, I'd recommend nervertheless this translation. I hardly believe you'll find anything more relevant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2452" RevisionGUID="8d587d5c-ff24-4c27-8e3f-9f6f24c86654" CreationDate="2013-07-20T23:47:37.507" UserId="298" Text="`star` I would tranlate as `Выделить` или `Отметить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`unstar` I would translate as `Снять выделение` или `Снять отметку`.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I don't see any more eloquent variants as loquacious `Снять выделение` or `Снять отметку`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2453" RevisionGUID="1e239aa0-153d-46ed-9eb9-ba21099cbbd4" CreationDate="2013-07-20T23:55:58.483" UserId="298" Text="Правильно `на Github`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для запоминания можно применять фразу `на [сайте] Github`. По-русски не скажут `в сайте` (это звучит неправильно), скажут `на сайте`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2454" RevisionGUID="afb1f751-12fa-4d78-a30a-5eab6a7ac3f2" CreationDate="2013-07-21T05:36:19.990" UserId="1097" Text="In addition to previous answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**star** — &quot;проголосовать&quot;, &quot;проголосовать «за»&quot;, &quot;отдать свой голос&quot; (up-vote)  &#xD;&#xA;**unstar** — &quot;проголосовать «против»&quot;, &quot;снять свой голос&quot; (down-vote)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;**star/unstar** — &quot;поставить(дать, отдать) звезду&quot;/&quot;снять(убрать, забрать) звезду&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;**star/unstar** — &quot;плюсануть&quot;/&quot;минусануть&quot; (slang, to click on 'plus' or 'minus')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8553" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="ceb34d02-20b1-404e-bf39-fa78cd7e22ca" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:15:13.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/359194905639264257" />
  <row Id="8554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="31ac0dbc-dfa1-4617-bca8-13e7750693a9" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:45:44.497" UserId="551" Comment="Added кудесник, чародей" Text="**Кудесник** is a magician. Etymologically this word comes from *чудо*. Usually he is not evil, though I would not call him good - he is nice. Usually you imagine him as an odd person. His magic has no obvious purpose (or it seems so). You can't call Saruman the White using this word, but, from the hobbit's point of view the Gandalf, as we see him in the beginning of LOTR movie is кудесник - strange person that can do funny magical things. Radagast the Brown in recent Hobbit movie can also be called a кудесник. &quot;Кудесники мяча&quot; - a cliche that is used for football (soccer) players also shows this fun-but-impractical kind of magic meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already described **чародей** is another synonym to **волшебник**, however I would not say that he is evil. I would call him less good than *добрый волшебник*. Though the word **чары** is often used with word злые: *злые чары* - evil spells. Usually this expression means that the person under this spells has altered state of mind that changes the character of the person, like Kai from [The Snow Queen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snow_Queen) under the spell of the Snow Queen become cold-minded and has forgot his love. Nevertheless, love magic is not the main field of activity of a *чародей*. This is a work mostly for a wise-woman, *ворожея*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there was a soviet movie - [Чародеи](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B8_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)) about institution where mages were working. Though there also was described an example of love forgetfulness spell (it is called &quot;Зимнее сердце&quot; in the movie), the most of the mages (all of them are called чародеи) that were working in this institution were occupied in more practical fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other neutral magicians are already mentioned, so I'm focusing on darker and lesser ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чернокнижник** is a person that practices **чернокнижие** - knowledge of magic based on &quot;black books&quot; (черные книги) that contain cabbalistic symbols, spell formulas, magic recipes, etc. Basically it is a synonym of **колдун** and shares the negative connotation with his colleague. Though in dictionaries this term is marked as outdated, it is used in RPG games as a translation of *warlock*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведьма** is translated to English as *witch*. [She](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0) is also believed to use demonic powers and, of course, this word has also a negative connotation. You can encounter this word when reading fairy tales. It is also used nowadays to describe an old woman with bad temper: *старая ведьма*. The word ведьма has the same root as the word *ведать* - to know. In fact ведьма is not always bad character. In fairy-tales Баба Яга is also ведьма, but she often helps the protagonist if he knows the right way to speak to her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other words that are lesser used than ведьма, though sharing the same etymology. **Ведьмак** is a male posessing the same powers as ведьма. Sometimes he is also believed to be capable to turn into a wolf. This word is rarely used, though it became popular because of a fantasy saga Ведьмак written by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведун** and **ведунья** are also connected to word *ведать* (to know). They practice **ведовство**. These words are rarely used nowadays and may mean different things depending on context. The oldest meaning of the **ведун** is similar to **волхв**. Later both *ведун* and *волхв* are used as synonyms to *колдун*. Nowadays it may be a synonym to *знахарь* or even in colloquial style *специалист в какой-либо сфере деятельности* (specialist in some field). By the way, Three Kings, that visited Jesus after his birth, in Russian Bible are called [волхвы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cossack mythology there is an interesting battle magician - **характерник** (see this [wiki article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)) that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. This word is not widely known though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Знахарь** and **знахарка** (sorcerer/sorceress, wise man/woman) are performing **знахарство** - magic healing, removing curses, etc. using different plants and spells. These words have the same root as *знать* (to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, many words are connected with synonyms of 'to know'. It is believed that all of them had positive connotation before adoption of Christianity in 988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** is also a wise woman (there is also **ворожей**, but I did not found it until Quassnoi's remark).  **Ворожба** and **ворожить** are words that describe her activity. She sees the future, removes curses, heals using spells. She can also **отворожить**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Отвораживать**, **отворожить** кого, исцелить ворожбою, отучать от чего заговорами, чарами. Отворожить лихорадку, удалить ее ворожбой. **Отворожная** болезнь, которую можно отворожить. (Толковый словарь Даля)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворожея, ворожка also helps in love affairs using potions and the like. She can *отворожить*, *отворотить* using *отворотное зелье* (potion or herbs) - make someone to forget his love. Or she can *приворожить*, *приворотить* using *приворотное зелье* - to make someone to fall in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** can be replaced with **бабка** or even **бабушка** (because she is nice - she makes good magic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бабушка ворожит кому (разг. шутл.) о том, кто удачлив, кому во всём везёт. (Словарь Ожегова)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Хорошо тому жить, кому бабушка ворожит.» (посл.) (Толковый словарь Ушакова)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И к бабке не ходи - и слепому видно, очевидно, ясно как божий день (Словарь синонимов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian mythology there is an interesting character - **Царь Кощей Бессмертный**. He posesses magical powers and is an antagonist to Иван Царевич or other hero from the mortal world. The name [Кощей](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B9) has interesting etymology. Many people think that it comes from word *кости* (bones), maybe because Кощей Бессмертный is usually depicted as having skeleton-like look - hairless head, greyish skin color, clothing or armor that depicts bones, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are theories that the *кощей* is in fact comes from **кощун**, **кощунство**. Nowadays these words mean blasphemer and blasphemy accordingly, but it had different meaning before Сhristianity. There are examples of usage of word *кощюн* as a translation of greek word *mythos* in a [book by Срезневский](https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B+%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F+%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE+%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC), so possibly *кощюнник* would be a person that tells such myths. (There are many claims in the Internet that *кощюньник* was also a wizard according to him, but I could not find proofs for them in the book)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="ba78a1c2-2745-4cbb-99dc-64ee8aa7bb91" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:51:46.710" UserId="551" Comment="Added кудесник, чародей" Text="**Кудесник** is a magician. Etymologically this word comes from *чудо*. Usually he is not evil, though I would not call him good - he is nice. Usually you imagine him as an odd person. His magic has no obvious purpose (or it seems so). You can't call Saruman the White using this word (either before or after he has turned from good to evil), but, from the hobbit's point of view the Gandalf, as we see him in the beginning of LOTR movie is кудесник - strange person that can do funny magical things. Radagast the Brown in recent Hobbit movie can also be called a кудесник. &quot;Кудесники мяча&quot; - a cliche that is used for football (soccer) players also shows this fun-but-impractical kind of magic meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already described **чародей** is another synonym to **волшебник**, however I would not say that he is evil. When the word is used in its literal meaning - he is neutral magician. Though the word **чары** is often used with word злые: *злые чары* - evil spells. Usually this expression means that the person under this spells has altered state of mind that changes the character of the person, like Kai from [The Snow Queen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snow_Queen) under the spell of the Snow Queen become cold-minded and has forgot his love. Nevertheless, love magic is not the main field of activity of a *чародей*. This is a work mostly for a wise-woman, *ворожея*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there was a soviet movie - [Чародеи](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B8_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)) about institution where mages were working. Though there also was described an example of love forgetfulness spell (it is called &quot;Зимнее сердце&quot; in the movie), the most of the mages (all of them are called чародеи) that were working in this institution were occupied in more practical fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most examples of usage of words derived from чары has no negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чарующие звуки скрипки.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она была само очарование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other neutral magicians are already mentioned, so I'm focusing on darker and lesser ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чернокнижник** is a person that practices **чернокнижие** - knowledge of magic based on &quot;black books&quot; (черные книги) that contain cabbalistic symbols, spell formulas, magic recipes, etc. Basically it is a synonym of **колдун** and shares the negative connotation with his colleague. Though in dictionaries this term is marked as outdated, it is used in RPG games as a translation of *warlock*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведьма** is translated to English as *witch*. [She](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0) is also believed to use demonic powers and, of course, this word has also a negative connotation. You can encounter this word when reading fairy tales. It is also used nowadays to describe an old woman with bad temper: *старая ведьма*. The word ведьма has the same root as the word *ведать* - to know. In fact ведьма is not always bad character. In fairy-tales Баба Яга is also ведьма, but she often helps the protagonist if he knows the right way to speak to her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other words that are lesser used than ведьма, though sharing the same etymology. **Ведьмак** is a male posessing the same powers as ведьма. Sometimes he is also believed to be capable to turn into a wolf. This word is rarely used, though it became popular because of a fantasy saga Ведьмак written by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведун** and **ведунья** are also connected to word *ведать* (to know). They practice **ведовство**. These words are rarely used nowadays and may mean different things depending on context. The oldest meaning of the **ведун** is similar to **волхв**. Later both *ведун* and *волхв* are used as synonyms to *колдун*. Nowadays it may be a synonym to *знахарь* or even in colloquial style *специалист в какой-либо сфере деятельности* (specialist in some field). By the way, Three Kings, that visited Jesus after his birth, in Russian Bible are called [волхвы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cossack mythology there is an interesting battle magician - **характерник** (see this [wiki article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)) that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. This word is not widely known though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Знахарь** and **знахарка** (sorcerer/sorceress, wise man/woman) are performing **знахарство** - magic healing, removing curses, etc. using different plants and spells. These words have the same root as *знать* (to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, many words are connected with synonyms of 'to know'. It is believed that all of them had positive connotation before adoption of Christianity in 988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** is also a wise woman (there is also **ворожей**, but I did not found it until Quassnoi's remark).  **Ворожба** and **ворожить** are words that describe her activity. She sees the future, removes curses, heals using spells. She can also **отворожить**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Отвораживать**, **отворожить** кого, исцелить ворожбою, отучать от чего заговорами, чарами. Отворожить лихорадку, удалить ее ворожбой. **Отворожная** болезнь, которую можно отворожить. (Толковый словарь Даля)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворожея, ворожка also helps in love affairs using potions and the like. She can *отворожить*, *отворотить* using *отворотное зелье* (potion or herbs) - make someone to forget his love. Or she can *приворожить*, *приворотить* using *приворотное зелье* - to make someone to fall in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** can be replaced with **бабка** or even **бабушка** (because she is nice - she makes good magic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бабушка ворожит кому (разг. шутл.) о том, кто удачлив, кому во всём везёт. (Словарь Ожегова)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Хорошо тому жить, кому бабушка ворожит.» (посл.) (Толковый словарь Ушакова)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И к бабке не ходи - и слепому видно, очевидно, ясно как божий день (Словарь синонимов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian mythology there is an interesting character - **Царь Кощей Бессмертный**. He posesses magical powers and is an antagonist to Иван Царевич or other hero from the mortal world. The name [Кощей](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B9) has interesting etymology. Many people think that it comes from word *кости* (bones), maybe because Кощей Бессмертный is usually depicted as having skeleton-like look - hairless head, greyish skin color, clothing or armor that depicts bones, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are theories that the *кощей* is in fact comes from **кощун**, **кощунство**. Nowadays these words mean blasphemer and blasphemy accordingly, but it had different meaning before Сhristianity. There are examples of usage of word *кощюн* as a translation of greek word *mythos* in a [book by Срезневский](https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B+%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F+%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE+%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC), so possibly *кощюнник* would be a person that tells such myths. (There are many claims in the Internet that *кощюньник* was also a wizard according to him, but I could not find proofs for them in the book)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="500f66e2-6165-48db-b1e7-63cc37f7d2a0" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:57:24.050" UserId="551" Comment="Added кудесник, чародей" Text="**Кудесник** is a magician. Etymologically this word comes from *чудо*. Usually he is not evil, though I would not call him good - he is nice. Usually you imagine him as an odd person. His magic has no obvious purpose (or it seems so). You can't call Saruman the White using this word (either before or after he has turned from good to evil), but, from the hobbit's point of view the Gandalf, as we see him in the beginning of LOTR movie is кудесник - strange person that can do funny magical things. Radagast the Brown in recent Hobbit movie can also be called a кудесник. &quot;Кудесники мяча&quot; - a cliche that is used for football (soccer) players also shows this fun-but-impractical kind of magic meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already described **чародей** is another synonym to **волшебник**, however I would not say that he is evil. When the word is used in its literal meaning - he is neutral magician. Though the word **чары** is often used with word злые: *злые чары* - evil spells. Usually this expression means that the person under this spells has altered state of mind that changes the character of the person. For example, Kai from [The Snow Queen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snow_Queen) under the spell of the Snow Queen become cold-minded and has forgot his love (I think though that the forgetting of the love is a side effect of cold-mindeness itself). Nevertheless, love magic is not the main field of activity of a *чародей*. This is a work mostly for a wise-woman, *ворожея*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there was a soviet movie - [Чародеи](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B8_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)) about institution where mages were working. Though there also was described an example of love forgetfulness spell (it is called &quot;Зимнее сердце&quot; in the movie), the most of the mages (all of them are called чародеи) that were working in this institution were occupied in more practical fields. In fact this love-forgetfulness is also a side effect of cold-heartiness, and not because the person started to love someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most examples of usage of words derived from чары has no negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чарующие звуки скрипки.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она была само очарование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other neutral magicians are already mentioned, so I'm focusing on darker and lesser ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чернокнижник** is a person that practices **чернокнижие** - knowledge of magic based on &quot;black books&quot; (черные книги) that contain cabbalistic symbols, spell formulas, magic recipes, etc. Basically it is a synonym of **колдун** and shares the negative connotation with his colleague. Though in dictionaries this term is marked as outdated, it is used in RPG games as a translation of *warlock*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведьма** is translated to English as *witch*. [She](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0) is also believed to use demonic powers and, of course, this word has also a negative connotation. You can encounter this word when reading fairy tales. It is also used nowadays to describe an old woman with bad temper: *старая ведьма*. The word ведьма has the same root as the word *ведать* - to know. In fact ведьма is not always bad character. In fairy-tales Баба Яга is also ведьма, but she often helps the protagonist if he knows the right way to speak to her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other words that are lesser used than ведьма, though sharing the same etymology. **Ведьмак** is a male posessing the same powers as ведьма. Sometimes he is also believed to be capable to turn into a wolf. This word is rarely used, though it became popular because of a fantasy saga Ведьмак written by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведун** and **ведунья** are also connected to word *ведать* (to know). They practice **ведовство**. These words are rarely used nowadays and may mean different things depending on context. The oldest meaning of the **ведун** is similar to **волхв**. Later both *ведун* and *волхв* are used as synonyms to *колдун*. Nowadays it may be a synonym to *знахарь* or even in colloquial style *специалист в какой-либо сфере деятельности* (specialist in some field). By the way, Three Kings, that visited Jesus after his birth, in Russian Bible are called [волхвы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cossack mythology there is an interesting battle magician - **характерник** (see this [wiki article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)) that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. This word is not widely known though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Знахарь** and **знахарка** (sorcerer/sorceress, wise man/woman) are performing **знахарство** - magic healing, removing curses, etc. using different plants and spells. These words have the same root as *знать* (to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, many words are connected with synonyms of 'to know'. It is believed that all of them had positive connotation before adoption of Christianity in 988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** is also a wise woman (there is also **ворожей**, but I did not found it until Quassnoi's remark).  **Ворожба** and **ворожить** are words that describe her activity. She sees the future, removes curses, heals using spells. She can also **отворожить**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Отвораживать**, **отворожить** кого, исцелить ворожбою, отучать от чего заговорами, чарами. Отворожить лихорадку, удалить ее ворожбой. **Отворожная** болезнь, которую можно отворожить. (Толковый словарь Даля)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворожея, ворожка also helps in love affairs using potions and the like. She can *отворожить*, *отворотить* using *отворотное зелье* (potion or herbs) - make someone to forget his love. Or she can *приворожить*, *приворотить* using *приворотное зелье* - to make someone to fall in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** can be replaced with **бабка** or even **бабушка** (because she is nice - she makes good magic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бабушка ворожит кому (разг. шутл.) о том, кто удачлив, кому во всём везёт. (Словарь Ожегова)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Хорошо тому жить, кому бабушка ворожит.» (посл.) (Толковый словарь Ушакова)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И к бабке не ходи - и слепому видно, очевидно, ясно как божий день (Словарь синонимов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian mythology there is an interesting character - **Царь Кощей Бессмертный**. He posesses magical powers and is an antagonist to Иван Царевич or other hero from the mortal world. The name [Кощей](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B9) has interesting etymology. Many people think that it comes from word *кости* (bones), maybe because Кощей Бессмертный is usually depicted as having skeleton-like look - hairless head, greyish skin color, clothing or armor that depicts bones, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are theories that the *кощей* is in fact comes from **кощун**, **кощунство**. Nowadays these words mean blasphemer and blasphemy accordingly, but it had different meaning before Сhristianity. There are examples of usage of word *кощюн* as a translation of greek word *mythos* in a [book by Срезневский](https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B+%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F+%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F+%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE+%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC), so possibly *кощюнник* would be a person that tells such myths. (There are many claims in the Internet that *кощюньник* was also a wizard according to him, but I could not find proofs for them in the book)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8557" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="ec814f98-8f24-43b9-8a10-63a51cd554b6" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:54:46.513" UserId="5" Comment="You cannot start a question with &quot;how to &quot;" Text="How can &quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn&quot; be translated to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8558" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="c79696d8-19c0-4147-8945-e476836c0e80" CreationDate="2013-07-23T03:15:24.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/359512039556775936" />
  <row Id="8559" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="54942256-2872-4bad-b3d1-c40fcef689f2" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:37:24.063" UserId="1266" Comment="edited title" Text="How shall I say &quot;star&quot; and &quot;unstar&quot; (as in Github) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2455" RevisionGUID="dc1d67b3-a3e7-47d3-9600-c2c8b08a636b" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:22:27.340" UserId="1305" Text="Если брать в качестве примера тот же самый GitHub, то имеет смысл рассмотреть практическую значимость &quot;проставления звезд&quot;: люди используют их для того, чтобы:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. Выразить свое положительное отношение к проекту.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Иметь возможность быстрого доступа к проектам, интересующим пользователя.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Исходя из этих значений можно формулировать краткие аналоги для русского языка, при этом совершенно не обязательно использовать глаголы. Вот несколько подходящих вариантов:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Интересно / Не интересно**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Поддержать / Не поддерживать**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Отметить / Снять отметку** (предложено ovgolovin)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**В избранное / Удалить из избранного**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Нравится / Не нравится**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Важно / Не важно**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если немного отвлечься от концепции GitHub, в котором функция отслеживания является отдельной возможностью, то в каких-то случаях могут подойти слова **Отслеживать/Не отслеживать**. В любом случае, при переводе данной функциональности нужно рассматривать, в чем заключается смысл данной функции в конкретном сервисе/приложении/и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="ecb3ca7a-d875-45ca-a0ff-38ef63475e39" CreationDate="2013-07-24T09:15:01.067" UserId="551" Text="&gt; же-particle normally, to the best of my knowledge, seldom, if ever, takes final position in a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's check this using [Russian National Corpus](http://ruscorpora.ru/). Internet speech is very close to the spoken speech. However many people are not good with typing and tend to write shorter sentences. Anyway, let's check the Spoken corpus that contains transcripts of the speech from movies and magnetic tape records of public and private speech. I took the version of the corpus that disambiguates particles and conjunctions. Here are the results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [787 entries contain particle же](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=%28%28tagging%253A%2522manual%2522%29%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=216112&amp;mysentsize=33686&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E6%E5&amp;gramm1=PART&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;lang=ru);&#xD;&#xA; * [62 entries where же is placed at the end of the sentence](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=%28%28tagging%253A%2522manual%2522%29%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=216112&amp;mysentsize=33686&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E6%E5&amp;gramm1=PART&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=last&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=);&#xD;&#xA; * [15 entries where же is placed after a noun](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=%28%28tagging%253A%2522manual%2522%29%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=216112&amp;mysentsize=33686&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%E6%E5&amp;gramm2=PART&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see же is used at the end of the sentence in 8% of all cases - not so often, but it is not so rare as well. As for же after a noun at the end of the sentence, looks like the manually tagged corpus is too small to show such case: if there are still 8% then out of 15 entries there should be only 1. But if searched in disambiguated version the amount is close to 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though if we look closely on examples of usage of же after a noun, 3 of them come before pause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну уничтожение же**/ они же уничтожали те нации / которые считали низшими как бы. [Беседа в Москве // Фонд «Общественное мнение», 2003]   &#xD;&#xA;**Какой-то процент же есть же** / смотрят же. [Беседа в Москве // Фонд «Общественное мнение», 2003]   &#xD;&#xA;**Не Лукьяненко же** / или кто у нас там сельсовет в Госдуме? [Беседа в Новосибирске // Фонд «Общественное мнение», 2000]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such case almost 20% of such cases match the pattern &quot;комментарий же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we look at non-disambiguated corpus the numbers are almost the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [43 213 entries with the particle же](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E6%E5&amp;gramm1=PART&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=);&#xD;&#xA; * [3 707 entries with the particle же at the end of the sentence](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E6%E5&amp;gramm1=PART&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=last&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=);&#xD;&#xA; * [2 794 entries with the particle же after a noun](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%E6%E5&amp;gramm2=PART&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=);&#xD;&#xA; * [308 entries with the particle же after a noun at the end of the sentence](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;mode=spoken&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%E6%E5&amp;gramm2=PART&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=last)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, 8.5% times же is placed at the end of the sentence. If we require that the же is placed after a noun then the number of such expressions at the end of the sentence is 11%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кстати / с днём рождения! У вас сегодня **день рождения же.** Да? [Шаши Мартынова, Елена Лихачева. Интервью в передаче «Они сделали это» // Finam_FM, 2009]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Сеня, муж] Командный. [Юля, жен] **Начальник же.** [Оля, жен] У меня был такой в детстве. [Разговоры за игрой в карты (2009)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Сергей] Да я про театр совершенно забыл. [Костя] Точно, **театр же!** Так возьми такси, может, успеешь ещё. [Карен Шахназаров и др. Исчезнувшая империя, к/ф (2008)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Алла, жен, 22] А как терь учиться буишь кста? [Даша, жен, 20] Дык я не учусь / **практика же!** [Алла, жен, 22] Везет тебе! [В гостях у подруги. Разговор московских студенток (2007)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Мужчина1] Я говорил / стакан и бутылка! [Мужчина2] Ну да / **ну и тарелка же**. [Мужчина1] Ну и… тарелка. [Городок (юмористическая передача), вып. 39-40, 49-52 (1995-1998)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for beginning of the usage &quot;noun + particle at the end of the sentence&quot;. I searched in main corpus for [such structure](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%E6%E5&amp;gramm2=PART&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=last&amp;m2=) and according to [this chart](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%E6%E5&amp;gramm2=PART&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=last&amp;m2=) (you can get it by clicking &quot;Распределение по годам&quot; link) it looks like there is no big difference between modern usage and with usage during previous 180 years. Though currently we have local maximum of usage after local minimum at the beginning of 2000. In fact global maximum is around 1910.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Frequency of usage noun + же at the end of the sentence][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it doesn't look to me that it is something newly invented. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8hseM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2457" RevisionGUID="e630cb31-c831-46e4-94e8-496a9953605b" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:02:24.180" UserId="1839" Text="Yes, these words are cognates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to etymolgical dictionaries, the Russian word **рейс** wasn't borrowed from German but rather from Dutch where it is known as **reis**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the German **Reise** and the Dutch **reis** have the same origin and are derived from Old High German [*reisa*][1] (“a setting out, expedtion, journey”) from Proto-Germanic *raisōną (“to set out, depart”), from Proto-Indo-European *rei- (“to rise, arise”). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word has cognates in many languages: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; North Frisian *reyse* (“travel, expedition”), Danish *rejse* (“journey,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; trip, travel”), Swedish *resa* (“trip, journey”), Old English *rāsian*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (“to explore, examine, research”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reisen#Etymology_1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8566" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="27770b0c-f186-40c4-8172-809a42f3adfc" CreationDate="2013-07-24T18:15:25.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/360100925873987584" />
  <row Id="8567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="2bfd7b68-affe-472a-ba3c-44b99325f8b5" CreationDate="2013-07-25T00:15:26.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/360191524723625984" />
  <row Id="8569" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="20175a13-5ac3-4c68-85e7-d5a1e0670ad9" CreationDate="2013-07-25T15:15:26.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/360418018230140929" />
  <row Id="8570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="d23f9b75-4217-4d29-ae11-61abe3d66636" CreationDate="2013-07-25T15:42:21.083" UserId="551" Text="Современные словари определяют слово кощун как &quot;насмешник, богохульник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Однако в &quot;Материалах для словаря древнерусского языка&quot; Срезневского напротив слов кощуна, коштяна, коштюна написано &quot;mythos, leros, басня, вздоръ&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![басня, вздоръ][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что же означало это слово? В интернете много сомнительных источников, которые охотно принимают вариант перевода &quot;миф&quot; и утверждают, что с приходом христианства все эти &quot;мифы&quot; стали считаться в лучшем случае баснями и вздором, а в худшем случае - оскорблением религиозных святынь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все-таки, есть ли основания для перевода слова &quot;кощун&quot; словом &quot;миф&quot;? В какой степени можно их отождествлять? Можно ли, например, думать что у славян были мифы-кощуны о героях, подобные греческим? Или кощуны в лучшем случае были небылицами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2v0Qb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="d23f9b75-4217-4d29-ae11-61abe3d66636" CreationDate="2013-07-25T15:42:21.083" UserId="551" Text="Значение слова кощун в средние века" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="d23f9b75-4217-4d29-ae11-61abe3d66636" CreationDate="2013-07-25T15:42:21.083" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|значения|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="4f2372e8-b652-4966-80dd-a4279a09c82d" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:34:17.137" UserId="1874" Text="Russian &quot;х&quot; sounds kind of like the Latin &quot;H&quot; except with a more guttural sound (like Hebrew &quot;ח&quot; except less harsh). Your problem with &quot;г&quot;  is that in Ukrainian, &quot;г&quot; is equivalent to Latin &quot;H&quot; , and Russian &quot;г&quot; is equivalent to &quot;ґ&quot;. That's probably a bit confusing, but I hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="58784a08-2922-4f37-b5b8-7fd68fa60d63" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:55:44.483" UserId="242" Text="Согласно Фасмеру,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Насмешник, богохульник, укр. кощун, болг. кощун, - то же, кощуня - &quot;хитрю, интригую, насмехаюсь&quot;. Вероятно, от костить, так же есть толкование как заиствование из тюркско-булгарского, ср. соответствующее ему тат. koštan- &quot;корыстный человек&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть приведённому Срезневским толкованию ничего не противоречит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот логический вывод от смысла &quot;басня, вздор&quot; и далее, через &quot;небылицу&quot;, в &quot;миф&quot; - это спекуляция чистейшей воды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы очень мало знаем про дохристианскую Русь, есть большие основания полагать, что христианизация произошла и стремительно, и жестоко, но трактовать так этимологию слова кощунство имея на руках те данные, что мы имеем сейчас - чистая спекуляция.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="99754895-ae72-45cc-8cbd-15046d8e97d0" CreationDate="2013-07-25T19:35:34.040" UserId="242" Text="While I believe that both answers provided are actually answering your question, there are still some information you may find relevant to the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the fact that modern russian T is [homoglyphic][1] to Latin T should not confuse you. @yellowsky has provided an image of T like it had been shaped earlier, before Peters' I reforms. Actually, this is almost the end of evolution of this letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [quote][2] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В славянской письменности буква Т имела несколько разновидностей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начертания: наряду с обычным т-образным рано возникло трёхногое&#xD;&#xA;&gt; m-образное; в старопечатных украинских книгах обнаруживается тенденция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; к орфографическому разграничению этих начертаний (впрочем, до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полностью формализованного и обязательного правила не дошедшая). А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно, т писали в начале слов, а m — в середине; но если слово было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не славянским, а заимствованным, то и в середине слова ставили т.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сверх того существовало и «высокое» начертание этой буквы, похожее на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифру «7»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short summary: three-legged shape happily existed and even co-existed with one-legged form. In old Ukrainian books one can find that т-form had been used in initial positions, while m - in the middle of the words (except loan-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going even further, there are some evidences that Cyrillic script was at least heavily influenced by (if not a direct ancestor) of [Glagolitic alphabet][3], and here's how glagolitic t looked like:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In macedonian language, for example, letter t is still written like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, it basically an inverted (compared to Russian) form with additional line above - in order to look different from ш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, actually this three-legness is quite common to cyrillic languages and quite old story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFrEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLICt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="5ebaac5c-7c4b-45dc-9990-b87db9b2a864" CreationDate="2013-07-26T05:19:19.277" UserId="197" Text="I was told that &quot;мне хорошо&quot; would sound very strange as a response to &quot;как дела&quot;, and indeed I've never seen or heard in such a context, but I don't completely understand why. I've seen it in contexts like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне хорошо рядом с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is it about the construction that makes it acceptable in this context, but not as a response to &quot;как дела&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="5ebaac5c-7c4b-45dc-9990-b87db9b2a864" CreationDate="2013-07-26T05:19:19.277" UserId="197" Text="Why is &quot;мне хорошо&quot; an odd response to &quot;как дела&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="5ebaac5c-7c4b-45dc-9990-b87db9b2a864" CreationDate="2013-07-26T05:19:19.277" UserId="197" Text="|выбор-слова|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2464" RevisionGUID="d7e2b424-6020-48cc-937b-5500725a267c" CreationDate="2013-07-26T05:29:54.047" UserId="242" Text="&quot;У меня всё хорошо&quot; will be OK - I guess this is a phrase you are looking for actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне хорошо&quot; is actually close to &quot;I feel good&quot;, not &quot;I'm fine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imagine a dialog&#xD;&#xA;A: How are you?&#xD;&#xA;B: I'm feeling good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit odd, isn't it? )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="cf882b77-6701-4d36-babc-65f64db063f7" CreationDate="2013-07-26T05:32:54.123" UserId="194" Text="This response is wrong both grammatically and semantically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как дела?&quot; literally means &quot;How well are your deals?&quot;. So the answer should be about the deals. For example you can answer &quot;Спасибо, мои дела идут хорошо.&quot; &quot;Thanks, my deals are going well&quot;. When answering &quot;Мне хорошо&quot; you do not answer the asked question, because it refers to you rather than the deals. That's why the answer is grammatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also incorrect semantically because &quot;Как дела?&quot; refers to overall state of affairs of your life, while &quot;Мне хорошо&quot; means you feel pleasure just now. In fact your affairs can be bad but you still can feel pleasure currently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the proposed dialog looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -How well are your affairs?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -I feel pleasure now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really there is no much meaning in it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2465" RevisionGUID="7867a66a-2a4f-4236-b689-4bc7e93d6a5f" CreationDate="2013-07-26T05:39:20.507" UserId="194" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="This response is wrong both grammatically and semantically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как дела?&quot; literally means &quot;How well are your deals?&quot;. So the answer should be about the deals. For example you can answer &quot;Спасибо, мои дела идут хорошо.&quot; &quot;Thanks, my deals are going well&quot;. When answering &quot;Мне хорошо&quot; you do not answer the asked question, because it refers to you rather than the deals. That's why the answer is grammatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also incorrect semantically because &quot;Как дела?&quot; refers to overall state of affairs of your life, while &quot;Мне хорошо&quot; means you feel pleasure just now. In fact your affairs can be bad but you still can feel pleasure currently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the proposed dialog looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -How well are your affairs?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -I feel pleasure now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really there is no much meaning in it. It makes impression that you are a drug addict whose business is to feel pleasure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="c3f9f972-c55b-4024-a3fe-58e1a39b18a7" CreationDate="2013-07-26T07:59:43.927" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Современные словари определяют слово кощун как &quot;насмешник, богохульник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Однако в &quot;Материалах для словаря древнерусского языка&quot; Срезневского напротив слов кощуна, коштяна, коштюна написано &quot;μύθος, λήρος, басня, вздоръ&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![басня, вздоръ][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что же означало это слово? В интернете много сомнительных источников, которые охотно принимают вариант перевода &quot;миф&quot; и утверждают, что с приходом христианства все эти &quot;мифы&quot; стали считаться в лучшем случае баснями и вздором, а в худшем случае - оскорблением религиозных святынь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все-таки, есть ли основания для перевода слова &quot;кощун&quot; словом &quot;миф&quot;? В какой степени можно их отождествлять? Можно ли, например, думать что у славян были мифы-кощуны о героях, подобные греческим? Или кощуны в лучшем случае были небылицами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2v0Qb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8583" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="3e9e79b9-665d-4f17-b9be-a681ac7368dd" CreationDate="2013-07-26T09:23:49.533" UserId="242" Comment="informative title" Text="Translation for &quot;Urban legend&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="b1676bf4-bdbf-4b50-801c-dd1d2f0a88d4" CreationDate="2013-07-26T10:30:27.420" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="While I believe that both answers provided are actually answering your question, there are still some information you may find relevant to the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the fact that modern russian T is [homoglyphic][1] to Latin T should not confuse you. @yellowsky has provided an image of T like it had been shaped earlier, before Peters' I reforms. Actually, this is almost the end of evolution of this letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [quote][2] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В славянской письменности буква Т имела несколько разновидностей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начертания: наряду с обычным т-образным рано возникло трёхногое&#xD;&#xA;&gt; m-образное; в старопечатных украинских книгах обнаруживается тенденция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; к орфографическому разграничению этих начертаний (впрочем, до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полностью формализованного и обязательного правила не дошедшая). А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно, т писали в начале слов, а m — в середине; но если слово было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не славянским, а заимствованным, то и в середине слова ставили т.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сверх того существовало и «высокое» начертание этой буквы, похожее на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифру «7»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short summary: three-legged shape happily existed and even co-existed with one-legged form. In old Ukrainian books one can find that т-form had been used in initial positions, while m - in the middle of the words (except loan-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going even further, there are some evidences that Cyrillic script was at least heavily influenced by (if not a direct ancestor) of [Glagolitic alphabet][3], and here's how glagolitic t looked like:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In macedonian language, for example, letter t is still written like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, it basically an inverted (compared to Russian) form with additional line above - in order to look different from ш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, actually this three-legness is quite common to cyrillic scripts and quite old story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFrEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLICt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="7e160c4e-4924-4e63-ae15-d244b3667faa" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:19:35.423" UserId="551" Comment="Translated title to Russian" Text="Многие говорят, что согласно новым правилам &quot;кофе&quot; официально стал(о) считаться существительным среднего рода. Насколько это соответствует действительности? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если это действительно так, то когда было принято это правило, и считается ли ошибкой использование &quot;кофе&quot; как существительного мужского рода? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="7e160c4e-4924-4e63-ae15-d244b3667faa" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:19:35.423" UserId="551" Comment="Translated title to Russian" Text="Действительно ли по новым правилам слово &quot;кофе&quot; среднего рода?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8587" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="7e160c4e-4924-4e63-ae15-d244b3667faa" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:19:35.423" Comment="Proposed by 551 approved by 242 edit id of 384" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2466" RevisionGUID="ceb99558-a857-4c82-a41e-7dc1a0ecf2b8" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:23:57.860" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="The first one means &quot;just as well&quot; which is also, in a sense, redundant, so your intuition is correct. *I can/will inflate it with my mouth (just as well)*. Often one can also translate this usage of *и* as &quot;too&quot; or &quot;also&quot;, too ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is not a standalone word but a part of the compound particle *так и* which means &quot;in the end&quot; here (there are other meanings too). It *can* be used without an explicit negative: *всех покормила, а сама так и осталась голодной&quot; *I have fed them all but stayed hungry myself in the end*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="be6e7507-dcc5-4ea3-90a3-01a24aca5edf" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:36:21.277" UserId="551" Comment="Highlighting words using extra spaces between letters is old-pre-computer-style." Text="As [Dima mentioned][1], the necessary condition is for each syllable to have one and exactly one vowel. But it's by far not sufficient. From [here](http://www.pshelp.narod.ru/lib/applicant/0002-007.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Законы слогоделения в разных языках и даже диалектах одного языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неодинаковы. Например, представители севернорусского наречия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произнесут при скандировании слово “дружба” так: друж-ба. А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представители южнорусского наречия – иначе: дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   В русском литературном языке деление на слоги опирается на **принцип восходящей звучности**. Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначает, что звуки в слоге (незаконченом) располагаются от наименее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучного к наиболее звучному. Если звучность условно обозначить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифрами, получится следующее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 – гласный звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 – сонорный согласный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 – остальные (шумные) согласные звуки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разделение на слоги&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет производится по принципу восходящей звучности: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Трудности при разделении слова на слоги могут возникнуть при стечении согласных. При этом в русском литературном языке, опирающемся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на московское произношение, разделение на слоги будет осуществляться с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учетом следующего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. Если на границе слогов рядом оказались два шумных или два сонорных звука (кроме [j]), они относятся к последующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2. Если в сочетании согласных первый [j], он всегда отходит к предшествующему гласному: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3. В сочетании согласных, первым из которых является сонорный, а вторым – шумный, сонорный может отходить к предшествующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in most cases it's a phonetic thing. You have to feel the pronunciation of the word, its phonetic division into syllables. Above are some good guidelines, but they require knowledge of phonetics and are not trivial to apply in practice. Also, note that the rules of hyphen (перенос, moving part of the word to the next line) are slightly different. If you're interested in them, [check][2] [out][3] [these][4] [links][5]. Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Per Alenanno's request, here's an attempt of translating the above source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rules of splitting a word into syllables are different not only between languages but also between different dialects of the same language. For example in North-Russian dialect, one would utter the word дружба as друж-ба, whereas in South-Russian it'd be дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the literary Russian language the splitting into syllables is based on the principle of increasing sonority. This means that the sounds in a syllable are arranged from least sonorous to most sonorous. If we denote sonority with numbers, we'll have the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 - vowel sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 - sonorant consonant sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 - other (obstruent) consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The splitting into syllables will be done according to the principle of increasing sonority: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Difficulties arise in case of consonant clusters. In literary Russian based on Moscow pronunciation, the splitting is done with consideration of the following rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If on the syllable border there are two sonorants sounds or two obstruents (except for й) they refer to the latter vowel. пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If the first in the consonant group is й, it refers to the previous vowel: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In a consonant group where the first is a sonorant, and the second is an obstruent, the sonorant may join the preceeding vowel. кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/139/47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Spel_Hyph.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=perenos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://shkola.lv/index.php?mode=cht&amp;chtid=660&amp;subid=141&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8591" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="be6e7507-dcc5-4ea3-90a3-01a24aca5edf" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:36:21.277" Comment="Proposed by 551 approved by 242 edit id of 385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="721337b2-0f34-4184-93a6-835bf05eedbe" CreationDate="2013-07-27T11:08:01.957" UserId="1880" Text="&gt; Blockquote Есть ли точный перевод? Есть ли точный перевод?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Есть ли точный перевод?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;буквально &quot;ахуеть&quot; означает &quot;обрести член&quot;, &quot;иметь член&quot;,  &quot;проити процесс полового созревания&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Часто говорят с возмущением &quot;ты ахуел?!\ты совсем ахуел?!&quot;, что означает (иронично) &quot;ты теперь считаешь себя мужчиной?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;этот парень совсем ахуел&quot;, что означает &quot;этот парень теперь считает себя сильным\мужчиной и теперь позволяет себе большее чем раньше, ведет себя необоснованно самоуверенно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое значение слово &quot;ахуел&quot; имеет, если говорят &quot;ахуел&quot; с возмущением и недовольством.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Позднее это слово стали применять и в значении крайней степени удивления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="cebf371a-f0bd-46bf-97f6-d2c7342b3332" CreationDate="2013-07-27T11:10:33.637" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="The transliteration rules changed with time in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, *Daniel Defoe* is *Даниэль Дэфо* (but *Daniel Craig* is *Дэниэл Крейг*); *Thackeray*, *Disney* and *Halley* are *Теккерей*, *Дисней* and *Галлей* (but *P. J. Harvey* is *Полли Харви*) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The names with well-established rules like *Harry* and *Henry* are almost always transliterated as *Гарри* and *Генри*; less common names like *Harold* and *Harris* can be transliterared both ways (*Гарольд* и *Хэролд*, *Гаррис* and *Хэррис*), modern last names (like *Harvey* above) are almost always transliterated phonetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *George Washington* is *Георг Вашингтон* in older texts and *Джордж Вашингтон* in the more recent texts (the last name kept the transliteration, though *Washington Park, FL* would be *Уошингтон-Парк*)&#xD;&#xA;* *Harris*, the deuteragonist in *Three Men in a Boat…* is called *Гаррис*, but *Joanne Harris* is *Джоан Харрис*&#xD;&#xA;* *Hudson River* is translated as *река Гудзон*, but *Mrs. Hudson*, the Sherlock Holmes' landlady, is *миссис Хадсон* (and *Sherlock Holmes* himself is *Шерлок Холмс*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question: modern transliteration rules (as defined by the classic work *Старостин, Гиляревский. Иностранные имена и названия в русском тексте*) prescribe to transliterate English fricative `h` as Cyrillic `х`, unless there is an established tradition to transliterate the name otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This transliteration is a rule, not an exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book does not provide a complete list of traditional names, but includes *Гамильтон (Hamilton)*, *Гайд-Парк (Hyde Park)*, *Герберт (Herbert)* and *Говард (Howard)*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="8ac8c0eb-5b73-48c5-87c0-7644810d4eda" CreationDate="2013-07-27T11:14:16.150" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body" Text="&gt;  Есть ли точный перевод?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;буквально &quot;ахуеть&quot; означает &quot;обрести член&quot;, &quot;иметь член&quot;,  &quot;проити процесс полового созревания&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Часто говорят с возмущением &quot;ты ахуел?!\ты совсем ахуел?!&quot;, что означает (иронично) &quot;ты теперь считаешь себя мужчиной?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;этот парень совсем ахуел&quot;, что означает &quot;этот парень теперь считает себя сильным\мужчиной и теперь позволяет себе большее чем раньше, ведет себя необоснованно самоуверенно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое значение слово &quot;ахуел&quot; имеет, если говорят &quot;ахуел&quot; с возмущением и недовольством.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Позднее это слово стали применять и в значении крайней степени удивления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="7f5ca1e4-36ec-48ce-912f-0a89cfd0caf0" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:00:32.127" UserId="1881" Text="I saw this on taboeba.org and it seems wrong to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Доктор не должен брать подарков у небогатых людей.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd translate the given Russian as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The doctor must not take gifts from the poor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is the notion of past continuous action (would not take) here wouldn't this be more accurate: (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Доктор не брал подарков у небогатых людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="7f5ca1e4-36ec-48ce-912f-0a89cfd0caf0" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:00:32.127" UserId="1881" Text="Translation to Russian: &quot;The doctor would not take any gifts from the poor.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="7f5ca1e4-36ec-48ce-912f-0a89cfd0caf0" CreationDate="2013-07-27T12:00:32.127" UserId="1881" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8617" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="ae8dc5f2-0ed5-4673-8253-a874098a8b8c" CreationDate="2013-07-27T13:21:58.767" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8618" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="ab576719-efa1-422b-87d4-eb6b5302dbf8" CreationDate="2013-07-27T13:24:23.963" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2478" RevisionGUID="649a14fe-83ed-43f0-8048-cebfbc0b93c9" CreationDate="2013-07-27T13:29:23.777" UserId="242" Text="I guess this should be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A doctor should not accept gifts...&quot; it is not about some certain person who had not taken an action, it is about an ethic rule any doctor should follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be warned, this Stack is not about questions about translations to English, but as far as you are actually asking about the correctness of initial form, then well, first form is correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2478" RevisionGUID="c6f069ee-1d49-43dc-a61e-f301edb6f78d" CreationDate="2013-07-27T13:39:59.893" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I guess this should be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;A doctor should not accept gifts...&quot; it is not about some certain person who had not taken an action, it is about an ethic rule any doctor should follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be warned, this Stack is not about questions on translations **to** English, but as far as you are actually asking about the correctness of initial form, then well, first form is correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="d63a7872-f80a-4470-949e-3d5d79f0a2a3" CreationDate="2013-07-28T01:14:47.583" UserId="967" Text="I was trying to do an on the spot translation of children's book, that had the phrases, &quot;baby bear, baby whale, baby etc&quot; I wasn't sure because Russian doesn't seem to covert nouns to adjective as easily as English does. So I tried google translate and seemed to get a bunch of possibilities &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I see a baby whale. Baby foxes live with me. I live with baby foxes. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Baby bears prefer blondes. Baby rabbits never go far from their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mothers. This is a baby rhinoceros. Baby tigers are delicious. Baby tigers prefer dark meat. The chef boiled the baby tiger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу ребенка кита. Детские лисы жить со мной. Я живу с ребенком лис.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мишки предпочитают блондинок. Детские кролики не уезжать далеко от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; своих матерей. Это ребенок носорога. Детские тигров восхитительны. Детские тигры предпочитают темное мясо. Повар варил тигренка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ребенка кита, с ребенком лис and ребенок носорога look wrong, but I don't know why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мишки, тигренка - looks okay, but is there really a special word for each kind of baby animal, including, say baby pangolins?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Детские кролики - looks like this means childish rabbit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(yeah, I know I should quite my job and go learn this at a Uni instead of using google translate, but I got bills to pay)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="d63a7872-f80a-4470-949e-3d5d79f0a2a3" CreationDate="2013-07-28T01:14:47.583" UserId="967" Text="Baby fox, baby lion, baby X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="d63a7872-f80a-4470-949e-3d5d79f0a2a3" CreationDate="2013-07-28T01:14:47.583" UserId="967" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="5047292b-360f-4a6b-bb6d-5730791b7264" CreationDate="2013-07-28T02:20:17.183" UserId="1236" Text="Russian has the names of most baby animals as separate nouns, they are formed after the following pattern: [the name of the animal] + -ёнок / -онок, the plural is [the name of the animal] + -ята / -ата, both with all the palatalization phenomena in the root,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиса - лисёнок (Pl. лисята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; волк - волчонок (Pl. волчата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кот - котёнок (Pl. котята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рысь - рысёнок (Pl. рысята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лягушка - лягушонок (Pl. лягушата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some special cases, when the name of the baby animal is formed from a different root than the name of the adult one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корова - телёнок (Pl. телята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; овца - ягнёнок (Pl. ягнята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свинья - поросёнок (Pl. поросята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - щенок (Pl. щенки or щенята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курица - цыплёнок (Pl. цыплята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some exotic animals, like rhinoceros or pangolin, there is no noun in -ёнок / -онок, you form the name of the baby animal this way: детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case]. The word `ребёнок` does not apply here, it refers only to human babies and human children, never to animals, `детёныш` is what is used for baby animals. You have got to consult a dictionary of Russian to find out if the word in -ёнок / -онок exists, if it does not, use the детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case] pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby pangolin - детёныш панголина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English way of calling babies of big animals 'а calf' (Russian `телёнок`, like elephant calf, whale calf) does not apply in Russian, `телёнок` refers only to the bovine babies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your text, the baby animals' names in it are like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby whale - китёнок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby foxes - лисята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby bears - медвежата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rabbits - крольчата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby tiger -  тигрёнок, Pl. тигрята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="e0f18896-8b3d-4727-98b6-f4b749788696" CreationDate="2013-07-28T02:35:24.877" UserId="1236" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Russian has the names of most baby animals as separate, distinct nouns, they are formed after the following pattern: [the name of the animal] + -ёнок / -онок, the plural is [the name of the animal] + -ята / -ата, both with all the palatalization phenomena in the root,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиса - лисёнок (Pl. лисята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; волк - волчонок (Pl. волчата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кот - котёнок (Pl. котята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рысь - рысёнок (Pl. рысята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лягушка - лягушонок (Pl. лягушата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some special cases, when the name of the baby animal is formed from a different root than the name of the adult one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корова - телёнок (Pl. телята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; овца - ягнёнок (Pl. ягнята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свинья - поросёнок (Pl. поросята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - щенок (Pl. щенки or щенята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курица - цыплёнок (Pl. цыплята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some exotic animals, like rhinoceros or pangolin, there is no noun in -ёнок / -онок, you form the name of the baby animal this way: детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case]. The word `ребёнок` does not apply here, it refers only to human babies and human children, never to animals, `детёныш` is what is used for baby animals. You have got to consult a dictionary of Russian to find out if the word in -ёнок / -онок exists, if it does not, use the детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case] pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby pangolin - детёныш панголина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English way of calling babies of big animals 'а calf' (Russian `телёнок`, like elephant calf, whale calf) does not apply in Russian, `телёнок` refers only to the bovine babies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your text, the baby animals' names in it are like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby whale - китёнок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby foxes - лисята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby bears - медвежата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rabbits - крольчата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby tiger -  тигрёнок, Pl. тигрята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="09b97141-3792-467e-865d-70b0d745aed8" CreationDate="2013-07-28T03:28:36.430" UserId="1236" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Russian has the names of most baby animals as separate, distinct nouns, they are formed after the following pattern: [the name of the animal] + -ёнок / -онок, the plural is [the name of the animal] + -ята / -ата, both with all the palatalization phenomena in the root,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиса - лисёнок (Pl. лисята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; волк - волчонок (Pl. волчата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кот - котёнок (Pl. котята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рысь - рысёнок (Pl. рысята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лев - львёнок (Pl. львята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лягушка - лягушонок (Pl. лягушата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some special cases, when the name of the baby animal is formed from a different root than the name of the adult one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корова - телёнок (Pl. телята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; овца - ягнёнок (Pl. ягнята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свинья - поросёнок (Pl. поросята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - щенок (Pl. щенки or щенята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курица - цыплёнок (Pl. цыплята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some exotic animals, like rhinoceros or pangolin, there is no noun in -ёнок / -онок, you form the name of the baby animal this way: детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case]. The word `ребёнок` does not apply here, it refers only to human babies and human children, never to animals, `детёныш` is what is used for baby animals. You have got to consult a dictionary of Russian to find out if the word in -ёнок / -онок exists, if it does not, use the детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case] pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby pangolin - детёныш панголина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English way of calling babies of big animals 'а calf' (Russian `телёнок`, like elephant calf, whale calf) does not apply in Russian, `телёнок` refers only to the bovine babies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your text, the baby animals' names in it are like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby whale - китёнок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby foxes - лисята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby bears - медвежата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rabbits - крольчата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby tiger -  тигрёнок, Pl. тигрята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="304dc26f-8a68-4fc6-ace0-24891863132f" CreationDate="2013-07-28T03:53:12.293" UserId="1236" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Russian has the names of most baby animals as separate, distinct nouns, they are formed after the following pattern: [the name of the animal] + -ёнок / -онок, the plural is [the name of the animal] + -ята / -ата, both with all the palatalization phenomena in the root,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиса - лисёнок (Pl. лисята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; волк - волчонок (Pl. волчата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медведь - медвежонок (Pl. медвежата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кот - котёнок (Pl. котята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рысь - рысёнок (Pl. рысята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лев - львёнок (Pl. львята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лягушка - лягушонок (Pl. лягушата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some special cases, when the name of the baby animal is formed from a different root than the name of the adult one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корова - телёнок (Pl. телята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; овца - ягнёнок (Pl. ягнята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свинья - поросёнок (Pl. поросята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - щенок (Pl. щенки or щенята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курица - цыплёнок (Pl. цыплята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some exotic animals, like rhinoceros or pangolin, there is no noun in -ёнок / -онок, you form the name of the baby animal this way: детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case]. The word `ребёнок` does not apply here, it refers only to human babies and human children, never to animals, `детёныш` is what is used for baby animals. You have got to consult a dictionary of Russian to find out if the word in -ёнок / -онок exists, if it does not, use the детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case] pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby pangolin - детёныш панголина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English way of calling babies of big animals 'а calf' (Russian `телёнок`, like elephant calf, whale calf) does not apply in Russian, `телёнок` refers only to the bovine babies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your text, the baby animals' names in it are like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby whale - китёнок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby foxes - лисята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby bears - медвежата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rabbits - крольчата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby tiger -  тигрёнок, Pl. тигрята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="af1d278f-337d-4aa8-927f-8fc32cbacf6e" CreationDate="2013-07-28T07:43:50.097" UserId="551" Comment="Removed кощей section" Text="**Кудесник** is a magician. Etymologically this word comes from *чудо*. Usually he is not evil, though I would not call him good - he is nice. Usually you imagine him as an odd person. His magic has no obvious purpose (or it seems so). You can't call Saruman the White using this word (either before or after he has turned from good to evil), but, from the hobbit's point of view the Gandalf, as we see him in the beginning of LOTR movie is кудесник - strange person that can do funny magical things. Radagast the Brown in recent Hobbit movie can also be called a кудесник. &quot;Кудесники мяча&quot; - a cliche that is used for football (soccer) players also shows this fun-but-impractical kind of magic meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already described **чародей** is another synonym to **волшебник**, however I would not say that he is evil. When the word is used in its literal meaning - he is neutral magician. Though the word **чары** is often used with word злые: *злые чары* - evil spells. Usually this expression means that the person under this spells has altered state of mind that changes the character of the person. For example, Kai from [The Snow Queen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snow_Queen) under the spell of the Snow Queen become cold-minded and has forgot his love (I think though that the forgetting of the love is a side effect of cold-mindeness itself). Nevertheless, love magic is not the main field of activity of a *чародей*. This is a work mostly for a wise-woman, *ворожея*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there was a soviet movie - [Чародеи](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B8_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)) about institution where mages were working. Though there also was described an example of love forgetfulness spell (it is called &quot;Зимнее сердце&quot; in the movie), the most of the mages (all of them are called чародеи) that were working in this institution were occupied in more practical fields. In fact this love-forgetfulness is also a side effect of cold-heartiness, and not because the person started to love someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most examples of usage of words derived from чары has no negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чарующие звуки скрипки.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она была само очарование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other neutral magicians are already mentioned, so I'm focusing on darker and lesser ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чернокнижник** is a person that practices **чернокнижие** - knowledge of magic based on &quot;black books&quot; (черные книги) that contain cabbalistic symbols, spell formulas, magic recipes, etc. Basically it is a synonym of **колдун** and shares the negative connotation with his colleague. Though in dictionaries this term is marked as outdated, it is used in RPG games as a translation of *warlock*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведьма** is translated to English as *witch*. [She](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0) is also believed to use demonic powers and, of course, this word has also a negative connotation. You can encounter this word when reading fairy tales. It is also used nowadays to describe an old woman with bad temper: *старая ведьма*. The word ведьма has the same root as the word *ведать* - to know. In fact ведьма is not always bad character. In fairy-tales Баба Яга is also ведьма, but she often helps the protagonist if he knows the right way to speak to her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several other words that are lesser used than ведьма, though sharing the same etymology. **Ведьмак** is a male posessing the same powers as ведьма. Sometimes he is also believed to be capable to turn into a wolf. This word is rarely used, though it became popular because of a fantasy saga Ведьмак written by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведун** and **ведунья** are also connected to word *ведать* (to know). They practice **ведовство**. These words are rarely used nowadays and may mean different things depending on context. The oldest meaning of the **ведун** is similar to **волхв**. Later both *ведун* and *волхв* are used as synonyms to *колдун*. Nowadays it may be a synonym to *знахарь* or even in colloquial style *специалист в какой-либо сфере деятельности* (specialist in some field). By the way, Three Kings, that visited Jesus after his birth, in Russian Bible are called [волхвы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Cossack mythology there is an interesting battle magician - **характерник** (see this [wiki article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA)) that could do many things that are useful on the balltefield: stop bullets, stop bleeding, become invisible, see the future, resurrect dead, etc. This word is not widely known though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Знахарь** and **знахарка** (sorcerer/sorceress, wise man/woman) are performing **знахарство** - magic healing, removing curses, etc. using different plants and spells. These words have the same root as *знать* (to know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, many words are connected with synonyms of 'to know'. It is believed that all of them had positive connotation before adoption of Christianity in 988.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** is also a wise woman (there is also **ворожей**, but I did not found it until Quassnoi's remark).  **Ворожба** and **ворожить** are words that describe her activity. She sees the future, removes curses, heals using spells. She can also **отворожить**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Отвораживать**, **отворожить** кого, исцелить ворожбою, отучать от чего заговорами, чарами. Отворожить лихорадку, удалить ее ворожбой. **Отворожная** болезнь, которую можно отворожить. (Толковый словарь Даля)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворожея, ворожка also helps in love affairs using potions and the like. She can *отворожить*, *отворотить* using *отворотное зелье* (potion or herbs) - make someone to forget his love. Or she can *приворожить*, *приворотить* using *приворотное зелье* - to make someone to fall in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ворожея** can be replaced with **бабка** or even **бабушка** (because she is nice - she makes good magic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бабушка ворожит кому (разг. шутл.) о том, кто удачлив, кому во всём везёт. (Словарь Ожегова)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Хорошо тому жить, кому бабушка ворожит.» (посл.) (Толковый словарь Ушакова)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И к бабке не ходи - и слепому видно, очевидно, ясно как божий день (Словарь синонимов)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="6df11a36-51f3-4944-85d5-183e135d5f8b" CreationDate="2013-07-28T09:22:33.343" UserId="551" Comment="Искусственный спутник земли" Text="### Искусственный спутник Земли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сложно сказать, является ли цитата Достоевского первым описанием рукотворного объекта на орбите Земли. Если же говорить о серьезном описании именно технического объекта, то, пожалуй, первенство здесь скорее всего принадлежит [Циолковскому](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%AD%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). В 1911 году в своей работе *Исследование мировых пространств реактивными приборами* он писал:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мы можем совершенно успокоиться, так как ракета приобрела прочное положение: она стала **спутником Земли**.&#xD;&#xA;С ракеты виден громадный шар планеты в том или другом фазисе, как Луна. Видно, как поворачивается шар, как показывает в несколько часов все свои стороны последовательно. Чем он ближе к ракете, тем громаднее кажется, тем вогнутая, распростертая по небосклону форма его причудливей, тем более блеску она дает **своему спутнику (ракете)**, тем последний крутится скорее вокруг своей матери — Земли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В своих заметках &quot;Этапы промышленности в эфире или в поясе астероидов&quot; сделанных 7.12.1923 Циолковский пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Работы на Земле. Образование планеты, движущейся кругом Земли — **искусственный спутник**. Решетчатый куб со множеством изолированных стеклом и металлом ячеек. Отправляется по частям. Там соединяются в одно целое.  &#xD;&#xA;Такая же колония кругом Луны. Спуск и заимствование материала. К жизни приспособят ее позднее. Проще всего прямо направляться с **искусственного спутника Земли**…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обе цитаты приведены по книге [&quot;Промышленное освоение космоса&quot;, 1989](http://ruslit.traumlibrary.net/book/ciolkovskiy-osvoeniekosmosa/ciolkovskiy-osvoeniekosmosa.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но устоявшимся термином &quot;искусственный спутник Земли&quot; стал позже. В декабре 1948 года в СССР стало известно о намерении США создать искусственный спутник Земли, а в 1950 году [начали выполняться исследования](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-1) по этой программе и в СССР:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретическим обоснованием для такого письма была серия научно-исследовательских работ «Исследования по вопросам создания **искусственного спутника Земли**», которая была проведена в 1950—1953 годах в НИИ-4 Министерства обороны под руководством М. К. Тихонравова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Луна как спутник Земли&#xD;&#xA;**Update** Lomonosov uses this term in 1744 (see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, first 4 satellites of Jupiter was discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 and in 1612 he proved that they are orbiting the planet. This has proved that the Earth is not the only celestial body that can be orbited by other bodies (previously the Earth was considered to be the center of the Universe). So, the concept of satellites was known for 270 years when the book was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there is a question - when the word спутник was used to describe the satellite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we need to find when the Russian astronomers began to write the articles on astronomy. According to [this article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA) first observatory was established in Russia in 1690. In 1725 the observatory in Petersburg was established and there worked the prominent Russian scientist Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his works on astronomy and many of them were written in Latin. However I found his russian translation of the German article on observation of the comet in 1744. The russian translation was published in 1744 as well. The article among other things is discussing a possibility of finding the size of the comet's atmosphere. Here is what Lomonosov [writes](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo4/lo4-007-.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою или пропорцию их силы, которою Солнце и комета действуют на тело, в равном расстоянии от них отдаленное. Последнее уже нам известно, а помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из **обращения около кометы ее спутника,** если бы она хотя одного имела. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Описание кометы, явившияся в начале 1744 года, с немецкого языка перевел императорской Академии Наук адъюнкт Михайло Ломоносов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still not clear if this was the first time when the спутник was used to describe smaller object orbiting the larger one. But Lomonosov invented [many russian terms in astronomy](http://www.msu.ru/lomonosov/science/astronom.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the translation of the article by Lomonosov used many russian words to make the article more understandible to [russian reader](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/kes-abc/kes/kes-1261.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the term was not used before, Lomonosov could propose it first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** There is a chance that the term спутник was coined around 1670. According to the book &quot;П. Г. Куликовский. М. В. Ломоносов астроном и астрофизик&quot;, by request of the [Tzar Alexey Mikhailovich](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) in 70-es the book Selenographia (1647) by [Johannes Hevelius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hevelius) was translated into Russian (to be precise - into Church Slavonic). Though it was not published (it was stored in Tzar's library) it was known to Peter I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В &quot;Селенографии&quot; была также изложена система Коперника, приведены числовые данные о размерах Солнечной системы и об обращении планет (с точностью до минут времени!), **описаны спутники Юпитера**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it was the first manuscript written in Russian that mentioned the existence of Jupiter satellites, though I am not certain what word was used to describe them. For example the book title was translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иоганна Гевелия Селенография еже есть Луны описание и прилежное крапин ее и подвижений различных и иных всех изменений и изображений, зрительного сосуда помощью испытанных, &#xD;&#xA;определение. В нем же зде иных многих планет природных зрак и многая блюдения, наипаче же крапин солнечных и поветовых трубозрением изобретенных и таблиями вельми прилежно на меди изваянными во увидение полагаются." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="7c78917e-716a-4858-b4e3-2cd23c4819d1" CreationDate="2013-07-28T13:28:15.883" UserId="1236" Comment="added one more example of an irregular baby animal name" Text="Russian has the names of most baby animals as separate, distinct nouns, they are formed after the following pattern: [the name of the animal] + -ёнок / -онок, the plural is [the name of the animal] + -ята / -ата, both with all the palatalization phenomena in the root,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиса - лисёнок (Pl. лисята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; волк - волчонок (Pl. волчата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медведь - медвежонок (Pl. медвежата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кот - котёнок (Pl. котята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рысь - рысёнок (Pl. рысята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лев - львёнок (Pl. львята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лягушка - лягушонок (Pl. лягушата)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some special cases, when the name of the baby animal is formed from a different root than the name of the adult one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; корова - телёнок (Pl. телята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лошадь, конь - жеребёнок (Pl. жеребята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; овца - ягнёнок (Pl. ягнята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свинья - поросёнок (Pl. поросята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - щенок (Pl. щенки or щенята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; курица - цыплёнок (Pl. цыплята)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some exotic animals, like rhinoceros or pangolin, there is no noun in -ёнок / -онок, you form the name of the baby animal this way: детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case]. The word `ребёнок` does not apply here, it refers only to human babies and human children, never to animals, `детёныш` is what is used for baby animals. You have got to consult a dictionary of Russian to find out if the word in -ёнок / -онок exists, if it does not, use the детёныш + [the name of the animal in Genitive case] pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby pangolin - детёныш панголина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English way of calling babies of big animals 'а calf' (Russian `телёнок`, like elephant calf, whale calf) does not apply in Russian, `телёнок` refers only to the bovine babies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your text, the baby animals' names in it are like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby whale - китёнок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby foxes - лисята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby bears - медвежата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rabbits - крольчата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby rhinoceros - детёныш носорога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; baby tiger -  тигрёнок, Pl. тигрята&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="6622b2c7-e498-4452-aec9-060f1db825d7" CreationDate="2013-07-28T15:08:02.490" UserId="81" Comment="Translation" Text="Есть ли сведения о том, когда впервые было использовано слово `спутник` для обозначения естественных (`Луна - спутник Земли`), либо искусственных спутников (`вывести спутник на орбиту`)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разыскивая информацию в интернете я обнаружил многочисленные упоминания цитаты из &quot;Братьев Карамазовых&quot; Достоевского (см. ниже).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использовал ли Достоевский уже существующее значение слова `спутник` как спутник планеты (луна)? Или он создал совершенно новое значение для слова &quot;спутник&quot;, основанное на значении &quot;попутчик&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что станется в пространстве с топором? Если куда попадет подальше, то примется, я думаю, летать вокруг земли, сам не зная зачем, в виде **спутника**. ...Астрономы вычислят восхождение и захождение топора, Гатцук внесет в календарь, вот и все&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Аналогичный вопрос на грамота.ру][3] получил крайне общий ответ, не затрагивающий естественные спутники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any information on the first usage of the word `спутник` for natural (`Луна - спутник Земли`) and/or artificial (`Вывести спутник на орбиту`) satellites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear that at the moment of [Спутник 1][1] launch phrase `искусственный спутник Земли` was already in active use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While researching this topic I've found numerous references to this quote from [&quot;The Brothers Karamazov&quot;][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что станется в пространстве с топором? Если куда попадет подальше, то примется, я думаю, летать вокруг земли, сам не зная зачем, в виде **спутника**. ...Астрономы вычислят восхождение и захождение топора, Гатцук внесет в календарь, вот и все&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did Dostoyevsky use already established meaning of `спутник` as natural satellite (moon)? Or did he originate entirely new meaning (based on `спутник` as fellow traveller)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More general question on gramota.ru][3] received vague answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В середине XX века, в связи с развитием космонавтики, слово приобрело еще одно значение: космический летательный аппарат, движущийся по орбите вокруг Земли, других планет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural satellites are not covered in this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/hardwords/25_114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="4e1c2beb-ff71-4608-a3a7-c358af7df6e5" CreationDate="2013-07-28T23:17:15.303" UserId="1886" Text="I want to transcribe some foreign words into Cyrillic. I read that Russian doesn't differentiate long and short vowels in the orthography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you represent long vowels in the Cyrillic orthography ? Does a double short vowel fit into the orthography ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, ɑː &lt;аа&gt;, iː &lt;ии&gt;, uː &lt;уу&gt;, eː &lt;ээ&gt;, oː &lt;оо&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it better to leave the vowel lengths undifferentiated ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="4e1c2beb-ff71-4608-a3a7-c358af7df6e5" CreationDate="2013-07-28T23:17:15.303" UserId="1886" Text="Representing long vowels in Russian Cyrillic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="4e1c2beb-ff71-4608-a3a7-c358af7df6e5" CreationDate="2013-07-28T23:17:15.303" UserId="1886" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="02f55f6c-6afe-46a2-b160-ee4816d32954" CreationDate="2013-07-28T23:25:17.480" UserId="1886" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I want to transcribe some foreign words into Russian. I read that Russian doesn't differentiate long and short vowels in the orthography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how do you represent long vowels in the Russian Cyrillic orthography ? Does a double short vowel fit into the orthography ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, ɑː &lt;аа&gt;, iː &lt;ии&gt;, uː &lt;уу&gt;, eː &lt;ээ&gt;, oː &lt;оо&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears Mongolian Cyrillic adopts this approach. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it better to leave the vowel lengths undifferentiated ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks !&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2482" RevisionGUID="55026dea-04a3-4f1d-9b77-947a69c79e76" CreationDate="2013-07-29T04:11:36.850" UserId="1376" Text="`Доктор не возьмёт подарков у бедных` or `Доктор не берёт подарков у бедных`, I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2483" RevisionGUID="e589a3b3-be13-4f63-94d4-141936a6fbca" CreationDate="2013-07-29T06:03:19.930" UserId="1839" Text="Since Russian doesn't differentiate between long and short vowels, this difference will often be omitted for most foreign words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так, средствами русской графики, как правило, не передается различие в долготе и краткости гласных. Действительно, почти никогда не обозначается долгота немецких гласных двойными русскими при их передаче; более того, написания вроде Швериин, Рююген, Бааден, Оодер и т. п., очевидно, вызвали бы по меньшей мере удивление. Однако дело здесь было бы не столько в неправильности принципа передачи долгого гласного языка-подлинника двумя русскими гласными, сколько в новизне и неоправданном усложнении передачи. [Source][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Russian orthographic system does not usually render the difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between short and long vowels. In fact, German long vowels are hardly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ever transcribed with a double letter in Russian; furthermore,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spellings like *Швериин*, *Рююген*, *Бааден*, *Оодер* etc. would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obviously be surprising. However, it wouldn't be for the reason of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unacceptability of using a double vowel in Russian to represent a long&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowel, but rather it would defy custom and unnecessarily complicate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, double letters are sometimes used in Russian to transcribe long vowels of some languages. One example is [Finnish][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; для обозначения долгих гласных финского языка употребляются во всех позициях последовательно два русских буквенных знака.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Two sequential Russian letters are used to represent long Finnish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels in all positions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aavasaksa=Аавасакса, Koillismaa=Койллисмаа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the rule of thumb would be: use a single vowel in Russian regardless of whether the vowel is long or short in the original, unless there is a tradition in Russian orthography of using double vowels for this particular language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://norse.ulver.com/articles/berkov/names.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2484" RevisionGUID="6ef60421-d449-4a3e-b8fb-47bfe53f881f" CreationDate="2013-07-29T06:16:00.063" UserId="194" Text="This depends on whether the piece in question create one or two syllables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are two syllables (i.e. vowel [hiatus][1]), the vowel should be doubled (note that the second vowel letter should be non-iotized, so no юю, but should be юу or уу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is only one syllable (i.e., long vowel proper), the vowel length should not be indicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_%28linguistics%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8639" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="0e39eac1-9210-448f-b6d6-10caa9ee35d4" CreationDate="2013-07-29T06:38:06.877" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="82fe1370-2674-495d-90f2-65a145b1ef7d" CreationDate="2013-07-29T07:52:52.990" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="In Russian there's no such thing like distinguishing between long and short vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is - are there, nevertheless, any orthographic rules for representing long vowers in Russian. Does a double short vowel fit into the orthography ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Mongolian long vowels are represented as follows: ɑː &lt;аа&gt;, iː &lt;ии&gt;, uː &lt;уу&gt;, eː &lt;ээ&gt;, oː &lt;оо&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8641" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="a39a357e-c711-4ad5-a261-30801b6d9206" CreationDate="2013-07-29T07:52:57.647" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="03583a31-e62c-466e-ba89-e7b812010531" CreationDate="2013-07-29T10:27:05.787" UserId="1839" Text="It is not an easy task to define the semantic role of the Genitive case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a number of Indo-European languages, the genitive case exhibits a great variety of semantic functions, expressing meanings as diverse as the agent of an action and the constituent material (out of which something is made), the possessor and the Standard of comparison. Some of these meanings denote more concrete relationships while others denote more abstract ones between the modifier and the modifying noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an abstractionist approach,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One of the inevitable conclusions of the general/abstract analysis, is that the possible interpretations of the genitive morpheme should be indefinite, given that there are infinite and indefinite imaginable contexts and noun-noun combinations. This would seem to suggest that there is (are) really no conventional meaning(s) attached to the genitive morpheme, other than, that is, a very abstract meaning which, depending on the context, can be realized in a thousand different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to find the general meaning of the Genitive case in Russian, Jakobson came to a conclusion that it is used to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indicate the limit of the referent's involvement in the content of the utterance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be interested in reading this linguistic work on the topic: *[The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change][1]*. All of the above citations come from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, Russian genitive has a wide variety of meanings probably comparable to the genitive of Classical Greek which is among the languages with the largest number of genitive meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the classification provided in [Wikipedia][2], I'll give you some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- possession&#xD;&#xA;    - inalienable possession (&quot;глаза кошки&quot;, &quot;вес слона&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    - alienable possession (&quot;платье моей мамы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    - relationship indicated by the noun being modified (&quot;муж Марии&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- composition (partly similar in meaning to the partitive case in other languages): &#xD;&#xA;    - substance (&quot;кусок мяса&quot;, &quot;кубик сахара&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;    - elements (&quot;группа людей&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- participation in an action: &#xD;&#xA;    - as an agent (the subjective genitive) (&quot;любовь матери&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- origin (&quot;жители Рима&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- reference (&quot;столица России&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- description (&quot;человек чести&quot;, &quot;день возмездия&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More categories can be added to the list and some categories can be further expanded to zoom in on more detaled meanings. Also, take a look at the section on [Slavic languages][3] in the above mentioned Wikipedia article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/ocs-uploads/conferences/1/schedConfs/1/papers/reading-list/cogl.1991.2.2.149.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case#Slavic_languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2482" RevisionGUID="01379563-99c7-4efa-9cbd-5d243ed25a7c" CreationDate="2013-07-29T10:36:25.030" UserId="1376" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="`Доктор не станет брать подарков у бедных`&#xD;&#xA;In fact, `would/would not` can be translated in several ways, but I believe that it means `will not` in this example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8644" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="e92a96b7-1a11-4e52-bdb6-237695e423e0" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:41:51.710" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="062e83c9-3ed2-4273-8b3a-ccfa71d44151" CreationDate="2013-07-30T08:17:20.360" UserId="551" Comment="added 3682 characters in body" Text="### Искусственный спутник Земли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сложно сказать, является ли цитата Достоевского первым описанием рукотворного объекта на орбите Земли. Если же говорить о серьезном описании именно технического объекта, то, пожалуй, первенство здесь скорее всего принадлежит [Циолковскому](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%AD%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). В 1911 году в своей работе *Исследование мировых пространств реактивными приборами* он описывает воображаемый полет в космосе:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мы можем совершенно успокоиться, так как ракета приобрела прочное положение: она стала **спутником Земли**.&#xD;&#xA;С ракеты виден громадный шар планеты в том или другом фазисе, как Луна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В своих заметках &quot;Этапы промышленности в эфире или в поясе астероидов&quot; сделанных 7.12.1923 Циолковский пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Работы на Земле. Образование планеты, движущейся кругом Земли — **искусственный спутник**. Решетчатый куб со множеством изолированных стеклом и металлом ячеек. Отправляется по частям. Там соединяются в одно целое.  &#xD;&#xA;Такая же колония кругом Луны. Спуск и заимствование материала. К жизни приспособят ее позднее. Проще всего прямо направляться с **искусственного спутника Земли**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обе цитаты приведены по книге [&quot;Промышленное освоение космоса&quot;, 1989](http://ruslit.traumlibrary.net/book/ciolkovskiy-osvoeniekosmosa/ciolkovskiy-osvoeniekosmosa.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но устоявшимся термином &quot;искусственный спутник Земли&quot; стал позже. В декабре 1948 года в СССР стало известно о намерении США создать искусственный спутник Земли, а в 1950 году [начали выполняться исследования](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-1) по этой программе и в СССР:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретическим обоснованием для такого письма была серия научно-исследовательских работ «Исследования по вопросам создания **искусственного спутника Земли**», которая была проведена в 1950—1953 годах в НИИ-4 Министерства обороны под руководством М. К. Тихонравова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Луна как спутник Земли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для того чтобы назвать Луну спутником Земли, даже в переносном смысле, необходимо знать что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Земля движется в пространстве,&#xD;&#xA;2. Луна, и только Луна движется вокруг Земли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мысль о том, что Луна сопровождает Землю в движении в космосе стала общепринятой не так давно. Почти два тысячелетия Земля считалась неподвижным центром Вселенной, а Луна (как и Солнце) входили в число семи планет, вращающихся вокруг Земли. В 1543 году [Николай Коперник](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9) предположил что в центре Вселенной находится Солнце, но еще 70 лет это считалось скорее удобным математическим приемом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но даже когда у системы Коперника появились сторонники, это еще не привело к появлению термина &quot;спутник&quot;: вокруг Солнца вращались планеты, а вокруг Земли - Луна (и сейчас мы вполне можем сказать &quot;луны Марса&quot; или &quot;луны Юпитера&quot;). Других подобных примеров известно не было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец Галилей в 1610 году при помощи изобретенного им телескопа обнаружил четыре небесных тела, обращающихся вокруг Юпитера. В 1611 году Кеплер предложил назвать их satellitem (&quot;сопровождающие лица&quot;), впервые выделив понятие &quot;спутник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Появление этого термина в русском языке, скорее всего связано с переводом с латыни книги Гевелия &quot;Селенография&quot;, написанной в 1647 году. В этой книге, кроме описания Луны также приводились сведения о конструировании телескопов, системе Коперника и были описаны спутники Юпитера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эта книга была переведена на церковно-славянский язык в 1670-х годах по указанию царя Алексея Михайловича, при этом переводчикам пришлось изобретать отсутствующие термины (например &quot;трубозрение&quot;). Она не была издана, но хранилась в царской библиотеке, использовалась как учебник по оптике и была известна Петру I. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какие слова использовались для описания спутников Юпитера неясно, но по сведениям, которые привел Quassnoi, сам Гевелий для описания спутников использовал три слова: circulatores, satellites и comites. Последнее слово происходит от com-, &quot;вместе&quot;, and ire, &quot;идти&quot;. В других текстах это слово обычно переводится на церковно-славянский как сопутникъ и вполне вероятно что оно использовалось и в переводе &quot;Селенографии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается опубликованных текстов, использующих слово &quot;спутник&quot;, то в 1744 году был опубликован перевод Ломоносовым статьи немецкого астронома, описывающей появление в начале 1744 года кометы. В части, посвященной оценке размера атмосферы кометы Ломоносов пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из обращения **около кометы ее спутника**, если бы она хотя одного имела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При переводе на русский язык Ломоносов использовал как можно больше русских слов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что вполне вероятно, что если даже термин &quot;спутник&quot; не был использован в переводе &quot;Селенографии&quot; или не был принят в русской астрономии (на тот момент преимущественно использовалась латынь), его вполне мог ввести Ломоносов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из найденных цитат (в том числе цитата, которую привел Alexander Serebrenik) видно, что сочетание &quot;Луна - спутник Земли&quot; уже как минимум в 1822 году использовалось за пределами астрономии, и следовательно на момент написания &quot;Братьев Карамазовых&quot; (1880) Достоевский уже никак не мог претендовать на изобретение этого термина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** Lomonosov uses this term in 1744 (see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, first 4 satellites of Jupiter was discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 and in 1612 he proved that they are orbiting the planet. This has proved that the Earth is not the only celestial body that can be orbited by other bodies (previously the Earth was considered to be the center of the Universe). So, the concept of satellites was known for 270 years when the book was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there is a question - when the word спутник was used to describe the satellite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we need to find when the Russian astronomers began to write the articles on astronomy. According to [this article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA) first observatory was established in Russia in 1690. In 1725 the observatory in Petersburg was established and there worked the prominent Russian scientist Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his works on astronomy and many of them were written in Latin. However I found his russian translation of the German article on observation of the comet in 1744. The russian translation was published in 1744 as well. The article among other things is discussing a possibility of finding the size of the comet's atmosphere. Here is what Lomonosov [writes](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo4/lo4-007-.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою или пропорцию их силы, которою Солнце и комета действуют на тело, в равном расстоянии от них отдаленное. Последнее уже нам известно, а помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из **обращения около кометы ее спутника,** если бы она хотя одного имела. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Описание кометы, явившияся в начале 1744 года, с немецкого языка перевел императорской Академии Наук адъюнкт Михайло Ломоносов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still not clear if this was the first time when the спутник was used to describe smaller object orbiting the larger one. But Lomonosov invented [many russian terms in astronomy](http://www.msu.ru/lomonosov/science/astronom.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the translation of the article by Lomonosov used many russian words to make the article more understandible to [russian reader](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/kes-abc/kes/kes-1261.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the term was not used before, Lomonosov could propose it first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** There is a chance that the term спутник was coined around 1670. According to the book &quot;П. Г. Куликовский. М. В. Ломоносов астроном и астрофизик&quot;, by request of the [Tzar Alexey Mikhailovich](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) in 70-es the book Selenographia (1647) by [Johannes Hevelius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hevelius) was translated into Russian (to be precise - into Church Slavonic). Though it was not published (it was stored in Tzar's library) it was known to Peter I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В &quot;Селенографии&quot; была также изложена система Коперника, приведены числовые данные о размерах Солнечной системы и об обращении планет (с точностью до минут времени!), **описаны спутники Юпитера**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it was the first manuscript written in Russian that mentioned the existence of Jupiter satellites, though I am not certain what word was used to describe them. For example the book title was translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иоганна Гевелия Селенография еже есть Луны описание и прилежное крапин ее и подвижений различных и иных всех изменений и изображений, зрительного сосуда помощью испытанных, &#xD;&#xA;определение. В нем же зде иных многих планет природных зрак и многая блюдения, наипаче же крапин солнечных и поветовых трубозрением изобретенных и таблиями вельми прилежно на меди изваянными во увидение полагаются." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="d3695c98-7e5a-47a2-985f-ef0662d26760" CreationDate="2013-07-30T12:29:43.773" UserId="62" Text="The phrase я ошибся is past tense but doesn't include an л near the end. Are there any other examples of this phenomenon?  I asked some native speakers and they couldn't think of any.  One of them proposed that this might be a special property of the verbs that only have a form ending with -ся, but this isn't the case since the past tense for надеятся, смеяться, and улыбаться uses л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="d3695c98-7e5a-47a2-985f-ef0662d26760" CreationDate="2013-07-30T12:29:43.773" UserId="62" Text="past tense without л" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="d3695c98-7e5a-47a2-985f-ef0662d26760" CreationDate="2013-07-30T12:29:43.773" UserId="62" Text="|окончания|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2488" RevisionGUID="863a1fef-ba44-47e7-a899-df23e2b035e9" CreationDate="2013-07-30T14:23:46.523" UserId="1839" Text="There are a number of verbs that do not take &quot;-л-&quot; to form past masculine forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are verbs that have the stem ending in -с, -з, -б, -г, -к, -р in the past tense. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нести -&gt; нёс, спасти -&gt; спас, трясти -&gt; тряс, везти -&gt; вёз, ползти -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полз, лезть -&gt; лез, грызть -&gt; грыз, грести -&gt; грёб, скрести -&gt; скрёб,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ошибиться -&gt; ошиб-ся, ушибить(ся) -&gt; ушиб-(ся), мочь -&gt; мог, умереть -&gt; умер&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;-л-&quot; is missing only in masculine forms. Feminine, neuter and plural forms all take &quot;-л-&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я/ты/она несла, спасла, лезла, гребла, ошиблась, могла etc. мы/вы/они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несли, спасли, лезли гребли, ошиблись, могли etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation for this that I could find is that in Old Russian, short participle forms (that in modern Russian are used for past tense) took gender endings -ъ(masculine), -а(feminine), -о(neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; писалъ - писала - писало, моглъ - могла - могло&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the weak reduced vowel -ъ was dropped, and pronouncing consonant clusters like &quot;-сл-, -зл-, -бл-, -гл-, -кл-, -рл-&quot; at the end of a word became more problematic. &quot;-л-&quot; was often devoiced or hard to pronounce in words like *спасл, *могл, *умерл and was later dropped as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It didn't happen with feminine, neuter and plural endings because there was a vowel following &quot;-л-&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="fccfb2bf-a411-4257-a793-bf85b901da11" CreationDate="2013-07-30T14:39:20.877" UserId="525" Text="I am dealing with books explaining different ways to pronounce letters in Russias. Below are examples of some of the cases and pronunciations for those cases that vary. How do I make sense of all this and find out what is the correct way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Small differences in the examples of English words that have an &quot;A&quot; that sounds like the stressed &quot;Ah&quot;  sound - ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C&lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt;r / C&lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt;lm / F&lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt;ther / &lt;b&gt;A&lt;/b&gt;rm - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Adding more cases when A makes the stressed &quot;Ah&quot; Sound##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One books adds that not only when 'A', is stressed should it sound like &quot;AH,&quot; but it should also sound like &quot;AH&quot; when located at the syllable before the stressed syllable. Example - такси (tahk-SEE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Inconsistency on when 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;			&#xD;&#xA;One books says 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when otherwise ( not in the stressed / unstressed syllable, ) while another books has a more expansive definition of &quot;otherwise.&quot; It explains that the letter 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when 'A' is in any syllable following the stressed syllable. Another book claims the 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when unstressed and is NOT located in the syllable immediately before the stressed syllable. Another books says 'A' makes the &quot;UH&quot; sound when it is unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###One books adding a &quot;EE&quot; sound rule to A###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only one book says that 'A' will make a &quot;EE&quot; sound when it is located after a soft consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Inconsistency on when 'A' makes the unstressed &quot;Ah&quot; sound###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One books says 'A' makes the unstressed and softer &quot;Ah&quot; sound ( a softer less distinct a in father arm car ) when unstressed and located in syllable immediately before the stressed syllable. On the other hand, another book has a less exact rule, saying 'A' makes this sound when simply unstressed.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;A side note: Since the books vary a tiny bit for the stressed 'A', the unstressed 'A' will vary a bit in sound also from book to book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="fccfb2bf-a411-4257-a793-bf85b901da11" CreationDate="2013-07-30T14:39:20.877" UserId="525" Text="Inconsistencies books pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="fccfb2bf-a411-4257-a793-bf85b901da11" CreationDate="2013-07-30T14:39:20.877" UserId="525" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="441576e0-243f-41ee-972e-b293373fb955" CreationDate="2013-07-30T14:50:53.810" UserId="551" Comment="Added short English version" Text="### Short English version&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Artificial satellite**: Used by [Tsiolkovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky) in 1911 &quot;ракета... стала спутником Земли&quot;. In 1923 he describes artificial planet: &quot;Проще всего прямо направляться с **искусственного спутника Земли**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Natural satellite**: Possibly used around 1670 for translation to Church Slavonic words *satellites* and *comites* that were used in Hevelius's book &quot;Selenography&quot; for Jupiter satellites around 1670. In 1744 Lomonosov uses this word to translate 'satellite' from German: &quot;...можно сие заключить из обращения **около кометы ее спутника**, если бы она хотя одного имела&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Искусственный спутник Земли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сложно сказать, является ли цитата Достоевского первым описанием рукотворного объекта на орбите Земли. Если же говорить о серьезном описании именно технического объекта, то, пожалуй, первенство здесь скорее всего принадлежит [Циолковскому](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%AD%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). В 1911 году в своей работе *Исследование мировых пространств реактивными приборами* он описывает воображаемый полет в космосе:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мы можем совершенно успокоиться, так как ракета приобрела прочное положение: она стала **спутником Земли**.&#xD;&#xA;С ракеты виден громадный шар планеты в том или другом фазисе, как Луна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В своих заметках &quot;Этапы промышленности в эфире или в поясе астероидов&quot; сделанных 7.12.1923 Циолковский пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Работы на Земле. Образование планеты, движущейся кругом Земли — **искусственный спутник**. Решетчатый куб со множеством изолированных стеклом и металлом ячеек. Отправляется по частям. Там соединяются в одно целое.  &#xD;&#xA;Такая же колония кругом Луны. Спуск и заимствование материала. К жизни приспособят ее позднее. Проще всего прямо направляться с **искусственного спутника Земли**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обе цитаты приведены по книге [&quot;Промышленное освоение космоса&quot;, 1989](http://ruslit.traumlibrary.net/book/ciolkovskiy-osvoeniekosmosa/ciolkovskiy-osvoeniekosmosa.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но устоявшимся термином &quot;искусственный спутник Земли&quot; стал позже. В декабре 1948 года в СССР стало известно о намерении США создать искусственный спутник Земли, а в 1950 году [начали выполняться исследования](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-1) по этой программе и в СССР:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретическим обоснованием для такого письма была серия научно-исследовательских работ «Исследования по вопросам создания **искусственного спутника Земли**», которая была проведена в 1950—1953 годах в НИИ-4 Министерства обороны под руководством М. К. Тихонравова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Луна как спутник Земли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для того чтобы назвать Луну спутником Земли, даже в переносном смысле, необходимо знать что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Земля движется в пространстве,&#xD;&#xA;2. Луна, и только Луна движется вокруг Земли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мысль о том, что Луна сопровождает Землю в движении в космосе стала общепринятой не так давно. Почти два тысячелетия Земля считалась неподвижным центром Вселенной, а Луна (как и Солнце) входили в число семи планет, вращающихся вокруг Земли. В 1543 году [Николай Коперник](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9) предположил что в центре Вселенной находится Солнце, но еще 70 лет это считалось скорее удобным математическим приемом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но даже когда у системы Коперника появились сторонники, это еще не привело к появлению термина &quot;спутник&quot;: вокруг Солнца вращались планеты, а вокруг Земли - Луна (и сейчас мы вполне можем сказать &quot;луны Марса&quot; или &quot;луны Юпитера&quot;). Других подобных примеров известно не было.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец Галилей в 1610 году при помощи изобретенного им телескопа обнаружил четыре небесных тела, обращающихся вокруг Юпитера. В 1611 году Кеплер предложил назвать их satellitem (&quot;сопровождающие лица&quot;), впервые выделив понятие &quot;спутник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Появление этого термина в русском языке, скорее всего связано с переводом с латыни книги Гевелия &quot;Селенография&quot;, написанной в 1647 году. В этой книге, кроме описания Луны также приводились сведения о конструировании телескопов, системе Коперника и были описаны спутники Юпитера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эта книга была переведена на церковно-славянский язык в 1670-х годах по указанию царя Алексея Михайловича, при этом переводчикам пришлось изобретать отсутствующие термины (например &quot;трубозрение&quot;). Она не была издана, но хранилась в царской библиотеке, использовалась как учебник по оптике и была известна Петру I. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какие слова использовались для описания спутников Юпитера неясно, но по сведениям, которые привел Quassnoi, сам Гевелий для описания спутников использовал три слова: circulatores, satellites и comites. Последнее слово происходит от com-, &quot;вместе&quot;, and ire, &quot;идти&quot;. В других текстах это слово обычно переводится на церковно-славянский как сопутникъ и вполне вероятно что оно использовалось и в переводе &quot;Селенографии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается опубликованных текстов, использующих слово &quot;спутник&quot;, то в 1744 году был опубликован перевод Ломоносовым статьи немецкого астронома, описывающей появление в начале 1744 года кометы. В части, посвященной оценке размера атмосферы кометы Ломоносов пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из обращения **около кометы ее спутника**, если бы она хотя одного имела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При переводе на русский язык Ломоносов использовал как можно больше русских слов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что вполне вероятно, что если даже термин &quot;спутник&quot; не был использован в переводе &quot;Селенографии&quot; или не был принят в русской астрономии (на тот момент преимущественно использовалась латынь), его вполне мог ввести Ломоносов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из найденных цитат (в том числе цитата, которую привел Alexander Serebrenik) видно, что сочетание &quot;Луна - спутник Земли&quot; уже как минимум в 1822 году использовалось за пределами астрономии, и следовательно на момент написания &quot;Братьев Карамазовых&quot; (1880) Достоевский уже никак не мог претендовать на изобретение этого термина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** Lomonosov uses this term in 1744 (see below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [Google Ngrams](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1850&amp;year_end=1870&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=) I have found in several citations for &quot;спутник земли&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;1851 - The magazine [&quot;Сын отечества: историческій и политическій журнал - Книги 1-2&quot; on page 17](http://books.google.com/books?id=INEGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=RA4-PA17&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wKfmUcCGOqmIiAK9jIAw&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Астрономы, наблюдавшие Луну вскоре по изобретении Зрительных труб, находили гораздо более сходств между Землею и ея спутником, чем новейшие наблюдатели&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1864 - [Настольный словарь для справок по всѣм отраслям знанія: ... - Том 3 - Страница 776](http://books.google.com/books?id=1WQoAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA776&amp;dq=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=wafmUa7sAqnWiwLN6oDwCg&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B8%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гершель тщательными наблюдениями открыл, что У.(Уран) имеет 6 спутников, кот. назв. Георговыми спутниками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [The Brothers Karamazov](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov) were written in 1880 - the term was **not** invented by Dostoyevsky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, first 4 satellites of Jupiter was discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 and in 1612 he proved that they are orbiting the planet. This has proved that the Earth is not the only celestial body that can be orbited by other bodies (previously the Earth was considered to be the center of the Universe). So, the concept of satellites was known for 270 years when the book was written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there is a question - when the word спутник was used to describe the satellite?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we need to find when the Russian astronomers began to write the articles on astronomy. According to [this article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA) first observatory was established in Russia in 1690. In 1725 the observatory in Petersburg was established and there worked the prominent Russian scientist Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked through his works on astronomy and many of them were written in Latin. However I found his russian translation of the German article on observation of the comet in 1744. The russian translation was published in 1744 as well. The article among other things is discussing a possibility of finding the size of the comet's atmosphere. Here is what Lomonosov [writes](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo4/lo4-007-.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К сему определению, кроме показанного обстоятельства равной тягости к Солнцу и комете, требуется еще, чтобы знать пропорцию материи между Солнцем и кометою или пропорцию их силы, которою Солнце и комета действуют на тело, в равном расстоянии от них отдаленное. Последнее уже нам известно, а помянутой пропорции нам знать невозможно, для того что только можно сие заключить из **обращения около кометы ее спутника,** если бы она хотя одного имела. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Описание кометы, явившияся в начале 1744 года, с немецкого языка перевел императорской Академии Наук адъюнкт Михайло Ломоносов.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is still not clear if this was the first time when the спутник was used to describe smaller object orbiting the larger one. But Lomonosov invented [many russian terms in astronomy](http://www.msu.ru/lomonosov/science/astronom.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ломоносов ввёл в обращение десятки научных терминов из области астрономии, многие из которых используются до сих пор, как, например, законы движения планет, земная ось,горизонт, преломление лучей, полнолуние, созвездие, атмосфера и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the translation of the article by Lomonosov used many russian words to make the article more understandible to [russian reader](http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/kes-abc/kes/kes-1261.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Л. переводил так, чтобы сделать понятными русскому читателю латинские и немецкие термины. Так, например, термин «hipothesis» (гипотеза) он переводит как «произвольное мнение», «relative Schwere» — «излишняя тяжесть» и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the term was not used before, Lomonosov could propose it first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** There is a chance that the term спутник was coined around 1670. According to the book &quot;П. Г. Куликовский. М. В. Ломоносов астроном и астрофизик&quot;, by request of the [Tzar Alexey Mikhailovich](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) in 70-es the book Selenographia (1647) by [Johannes Hevelius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hevelius) was translated into Russian (to be precise - into Church Slavonic). Though it was not published (it was stored in Tzar's library) it was known to Peter I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В &quot;Селенографии&quot; была также изложена система Коперника, приведены числовые данные о размерах Солнечной системы и об обращении планет (с точностью до минут времени!), **описаны спутники Юпитера**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it was the first manuscript written in Russian that mentioned the existence of Jupiter satellites, though I am not certain what word was used to describe them. For example the book title was translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иоганна Гевелия Селенография еже есть Луны описание и прилежное крапин ее и подвижений различных и иных всех изменений и изображений, зрительного сосуда помощью испытанных, &#xD;&#xA;определение. В нем же зде иных многих планет природных зрак и многая блюдения, наипаче же крапин солнечных и поветовых трубозрением изобретенных и таблиями вельми прилежно на меди изваянными во увидение полагаются." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="0297348e-4ad0-4ed1-908d-f46b21b4774b" CreationDate="2013-07-30T16:10:55.847" UserId="1839" Text="There is really no inconsistency. Just slightly different views. Additionally, it seems like the authors in your books use analogies with English which is fine to get a rough idea of how a sound is pronounced but if you want more precision, then you'll have to resort to IPA transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You say,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One books adds that not only when 'A', is stressed should it sound like &quot;AH,&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, what you are talking about is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed position: [a] -&gt; [ɑ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In stressed position, the letter а is usually pronounced [ä] which is the [open central unrounded vowel][1]. It sounds kind of like *a* in the word car or father, but unlike it, your tongue shouldn't be retracted to far in the back of your mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; там [t̪äm] 'there' ([click here to listen][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/a/ is retracted to [open back unrounded vowel][3] [ɑ̟] before /l/ as in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; палка [ˈpɑ̟ɫkə] 'stick'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ɑ̟] sounds just like a in the words car or father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between [ä] and [ɑ̟] bears little significance to Russian speakers. It is just slightly more natural to pronounce them a little differently. So if you can't here any difference just stick with &quot;father-like&quot; a. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then you say,** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but it should also sound like &quot;AH&quot; when located at the syllable before the stressed syllable. Example - такси (tahk-SEE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here, you start to deal with so-called [vowel reduction][4], which consists of two levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*First level reduction:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the syllable immediately before the stress (like in 'такси') and in absolute word-initial position, /a/ reduces to [near-open central vowel][5] [ɐ] (sometimes also transcribed as [ʌ]), similar to 'u' in the word 'nut'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; паром [pɐˈrom] 'ferry'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Second level reduction:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all other locations, /a/ is reduced further to a short, poorly enunciated [schwa][6] [ə].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  облако [ˈobləkə] 'cloud', это [ˈɛt̪ə] 'this' ([click to listen][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You go on to say,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while another books has a more expansive definition of &quot;otherwise.&quot; It explains that the letter 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when 'A' is in any syllable following the stressed syllable. Another book claims the 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when unstressed and is NOT located in the syllable immediately before the stressed syllable. Another books says 'A' makes the &quot;UH&quot; sound when it is unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here is nicely addressed in [wikipedia][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In practice, the second reduction has a gradient character: if the vowel in question is afforded enough duration (e.g. due to hyperarticulation), it may be pronounced as [ɐ]. Shorter durations have the effect of gradually transforming [ɐ] into schwa. It has been argued recently that the change of sound quality during second-degree reduction is merely an artifact of duration-dependent &quot;phonetic undershoot&quot;, the situation where the speaker intends to pronounce [ɐ], but the limited time budget constrains the likelihood of the tongue being able to arrive at the intended vowel target. During fast speech, reduction ultimately may result in the vowel being dropped altogether, and the preceding consonant slightly lengthened or turned into a syllabic consonant: сапоги [sːpɐˈɡʲi], vs. [səpɐˈɡʲi] ('boots')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And finally, when you say,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Only one book says that 'A' will make a &quot;EE&quot; sound when it is located&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after a soft consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're talking about [palatalization][9]. /a/ is pronounced as [near-open front unrounded vowel][10] [æ], similar to 'a' in the word 'cat'. (I don't know why your book talks about &quot;ee&quot; instead. This is wrong, at least for stressed syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пять  [pʲætʲ] 'five' ([listen][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that /a/ will be spelled as '**я**' to show that the preceding consonant is soft ('palatalized').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 'я' is reduced in unstressed syllable, it will sound like [\[ɪ\]][12], similar to 'i' in the word 'bit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; язык [jɪˈzɨk] ('tongue')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_central_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC.ogg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_back_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_central_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-central_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE.ogg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian#Back_vowels&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_front_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C.ogg&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-close_near-front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="faf1303a-7641-4fbd-87d5-f44e91f668bf" CreationDate="2013-07-30T16:17:27.750" UserId="1839" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="There is really no inconsistency. Just slightly different views. Additionally, it seems like the authors in your books use analogies with English which is fine to get a rough idea of how a sound is pronounced but if you want more precision, then you'll have to resort to IPA transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You say,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One books adds that not only when 'A', is stressed should it sound like &quot;AH,&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, what you are talking about is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed position: [a] -&gt; [ɑ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In stressed position, the letter а is usually pronounced [ä] which is the [open central unrounded vowel][1]. It sounds kind of like '*a*' in the word 'car' or 'father', but unlike it, your tongue shouldn't be retracted to far in the back of your mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; там [t̪äm] 'there' ([click here to listen][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/a/ is retracted to [open back unrounded vowel][3] [ɑ̟] before /l/ as in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; палка [ˈpɑ̟ɫkə] 'stick'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ɑ̟] sounds just like 'a' in the words 'car' or 'father'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between [ä] and [ɑ̟] bears little significance to Russian speakers. It is just slightly more natural to pronounce them a little differently. So if you can't hear any difference just stick with &quot;father-like&quot; a. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then you say,** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but it should also sound like &quot;AH&quot; when located at the syllable before the stressed syllable. Example - такси (tahk-SEE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here, you start to deal with so-called [vowel reduction][4], which consists of two levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*First level reduction:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the syllable immediately before the stress (like in 'такси') and in absolute word-initial position, /a/ reduces to [near-open central vowel][5] [ɐ] (sometimes also transcribed as [ʌ]), similar to 'u' in the word 'nut'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; паром [pɐˈrom] 'ferry'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Second level reduction:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all other locations, /a/ is reduced further to a short, poorly enunciated [schwa][6] [ə].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  облако [ˈobləkə] 'cloud', это [ˈɛt̪ə] 'this' ([click to listen][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You go on to say,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; while another books has a more expansive definition of &quot;otherwise.&quot; It explains that the letter 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when 'A' is in any syllable following the stressed syllable. Another book claims the 'A' makes the &quot;Uh&quot; sound when unstressed and is NOT located in the syllable immediately before the stressed syllable. Another books says 'A' makes the &quot;UH&quot; sound when it is unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's going on here is nicely addressed in [wikipedia][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In practice, the second reduction has a gradient character: if the vowel in question is afforded enough duration (e.g. due to hyperarticulation), it may be pronounced as [ɐ]. Shorter durations have the effect of gradually transforming [ɐ] into schwa. It has been argued recently that the change of sound quality during second-degree reduction is merely an artifact of duration-dependent &quot;phonetic undershoot&quot;, the situation where the speaker intends to pronounce [ɐ], but the limited time budget constrains the likelihood of the tongue being able to arrive at the intended vowel target. During fast speech, reduction ultimately may result in the vowel being dropped altogether, and the preceding consonant slightly lengthened or turned into a syllabic consonant: сапоги [sːpɐˈɡʲi], vs. [səpɐˈɡʲi] ('boots')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And finally, when you say,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Only one book says that 'A' will make a &quot;EE&quot; sound when it is located&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after a soft consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're talking about [palatalization][9]. /a/ is pronounced as [near-open front unrounded vowel][10] [æ], similar to 'a' in the word 'cat'. (I don't know why your book talks about &quot;ee&quot; instead. This is wrong, at least for stressed syllables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пять  [pʲætʲ] 'five' ([listen][11])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that /a/ will be spelled as '**я**' to show that the preceding consonant is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 'я' is reduced in unstressed syllable, it will sound like [\[ɪ\]][12], similar to 'i' in the word 'bit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; язык [jɪˈzɨk] ('tongue')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_central_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC.ogg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_back_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_central_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-central_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE.ogg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian#Back_vowels&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_front_unrounded_vowel&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C.ogg&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-close_near-front_unrounded_vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="542c8762-a4c0-4f55-be18-7ed3422f05b6" CreationDate="2013-07-31T11:29:26.307" UserId="1890" Text="Quoting [this](http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson11_main.php) article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`If the number is 1, or the number ends in the word 'один' (example: 1, 21, 61) (but not 11), then you should use the case (singular) that is suitable for the position in the sentence. The number one declines like an adjective`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does that mean ? Are numbers ending with 1 used in singular ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="542c8762-a4c0-4f55-be18-7ed3422f05b6" CreationDate="2013-07-31T11:29:26.307" UserId="1890" Text="Numbers ending in 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="542c8762-a4c0-4f55-be18-7ed3422f05b6" CreationDate="2013-07-31T11:29:26.307" UserId="1890" Text="|грамматика|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="2f4e9038-32ab-426a-b9a2-37211ba94be1" CreationDate="2013-07-31T11:40:39.680" UserId="1890" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Quoting [this](http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson11_main.php) article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`If the number is 1, or the number ends in the word 'один' (example: 1, 21, 61) (but not 11), then you should use the case (singular) that is suitable for the position in the sentence. The number one declines like an adjective`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does that mean ? Are numbers ending with 1 used in singular ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I would appreciate it if someone could provide some examples of those numbers in proper sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2492" RevisionGUID="26f1fd33-bf09-4cea-943d-11db44429d68" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:26:59.420" UserId="1839" Text="The number 1 or the word &quot;один&quot; takes singular forms of nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнате был только один человек. (There was only one person-SINGULAR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true for all numbers that end in &quot;один&quot; (the actual word, not the number):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В июле 31 / тридцать один день. (July has 31 day-SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11 / одиннадцать does not end in &quot;один&quot;, but rather in &quot;-надцать&quot;. That's why a different rule applies to this number. It doesn't defy logic and takes plural noun forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он спал 11 часов. (He slept for 11 hours-PLURAL+GENITIVE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;один&quot; can be declined for gender and case (so it behaves similar to adjectives):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - одна девочка (one-FEMININE+NOMINATIVE girl) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - один мальчик (one-MASCULINE+NOMINATIVE boy)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - одно слово (one-NEUTER+NOMINATIVE word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я знаю одну девочку (I know one-FEMININE+ACCUSATIVE girl+ACCUSATIVE) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я знаю одного мальчика (I know one-MASCULINE+ACCUSATIVE boy+ACCUSATIVE)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я знаю одно слово (I know one-NEUTER+ACCUSATIVE word+ACCUSATIVE)&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2492" RevisionGUID="067ab898-c26d-453c-b6b8-da70ec4c4142" CreationDate="2013-08-01T04:59:09.793" UserId="1839" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="The number 1 or the word &quot;один&quot; takes singular forms of nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнате был только один человек. (There was only one person-SINGULAR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true for all numbers that end in &quot;один&quot; (the actual word you say, not the last digit, so it's different for 11 'одиннадцать'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В июле 31 / тридцать один день. (July has 31 day-SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11 / одиннадцать does not end in &quot;один&quot;, but rather in &quot;-надцать&quot;. That's why a different rule applies to this number. It doesn't defy logic and takes plural noun forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он спал 11 часов. (He slept for 11 hours-PLURAL+GENITIVE.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;один&quot; can be declined for gender and case (so it behaves similar to adjectives):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - одна девочка (one-FEMININE+NOMINATIVE girl) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - один мальчик (one-MASCULINE+NOMINATIVE boy)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - одно слово (one-NEUTER+NOMINATIVE word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я знаю одну девочку (I know one-FEMININE+ACCUSATIVE girl+ACCUSATIVE) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я знаю одного мальчика (I know one-MASCULINE+ACCUSATIVE boy+ACCUSATIVE)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я знаю одно слово (I know one-NEUTER+ACCUSATIVE word+ACCUSATIVE)&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="2630c89c-f8e9-43a5-b347-a1c9ce29d91f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:15:53.777" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting." Text="Quoting [this article on Russian plurals](http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson11_main.php):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If the number is 1, or the number ends in the word “один” (example: 1, 21, 61) (but not 11), then you should use the case (singular) that is suitable for the position in the sentence. The number one declines like an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly does that mean? Are numbers ending with 1 used in singular ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I would appreciate it if someone could provide some examples of those numbers in proper sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8666" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="2630c89c-f8e9-43a5-b347-a1c9ce29d91f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:15:53.777" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 134 edit id of 387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="5939d26b-c691-4fda-886e-926284c6cf89" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:26:52.190" UserId="282" Text="Examples:  &#xD;&#xA;- version 1.5  &#xD;&#xA;- period at the end of a sentence  &#xD;&#xA;- decimal point  &#xD;&#xA;- stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="5939d26b-c691-4fda-886e-926284c6cf89" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:26:52.190" UserId="282" Text="What are the various ways to say &quot;.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="5939d26b-c691-4fda-886e-926284c6cf89" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:26:52.190" UserId="282" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="b21192d7-f2cb-4a90-812d-8297dad0326e" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:39:38.660" UserId="551" Text="In all these cases *точка* is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Версия один точка пять&#xD;&#xA;* точка в конце предложения&#xD;&#xA;* десятичная точка (this is incorrect however, see below)&#xD;&#xA;* стэковерфлоу точка ком&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="86cb1be2-0cb7-433e-b324-2d410fb85832" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:45:19.513" UserId="551" Comment="added 403 characters in body" Text="In all these cases *точка* is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Версия один точка пять;&#xD;&#xA;* точка в конце предложения;&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;s&gt;десятичная точка&lt;/s&gt; (this is incorrect however, see below);&#xD;&#xA;* стэковерфлоу точка ком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the delimiter between whole numbers and decimals after the &quot;decimal point&quot; is decimal comma. So, the correct way to call this delimiter is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* десятичная запятая (decimal point)&#xD;&#xA;* числа с плавающей запятой (floating-point numbers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, nowadays most books on computer science is published in English and many people translate &quot;decimal point&quot; as &quot;десятичная точка&quot;, which is incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="51dab368-a166-4ce8-a067-4fd19257ab2a" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:51:12.110" UserId="1547" Text="In most cases you either say &quot;точка&quot;, or nothing. In Russian, there are no different words for &quot;dot&quot;, &quot;period&quot; (in sense of punctuation) or &quot;full stop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#version 1.5&#xD;&#xA;- версия один-пять&#xD;&#xA;- версия один-точка-пять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#period at the end of a sentence&#xD;&#xA;- точка (e.g. &quot;Ты забыл поставить точку.&quot; - &quot;You forgot to put a period/full stop&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#decimal point&#xD;&#xA;In Russian schools, as in most of Europe, the comma is used to delimit the fractional part, thus it's literally &quot;запятая&quot;. However, when reading numbers aloud, you're supposed to convert the notation to decimal fractions and read it like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 20,3  -&gt; двадцать целых, три десятых = twenty wholes (=whole parts), three tenths (=one-tenth parts)&#xD;&#xA;- 345,567 -&gt; триста сорок пять целых, пятьсот шестьдесят семь тысячных = 345 wholes, 567 thousandths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In casual speech, most people don't bother, and use one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - двадцать и три&#xD;&#xA; - двадцать запятая три&#xD;&#xA; - двадцать точка три (this is common among programmers who are used to the US notation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes you can even omit the word for comma/period if it's clear from the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - ноль-пять (0,5) - commonly used to refer to a 0.5L liquor bottle, e.g. &quot;В магазине не забудь взять ноль-пять!&quot; (Don't forget to buy a bottle of vodka!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# www.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA; - три дубль-вэ (точка) стэковерфлоу (точка) ком&#xD;&#xA; - вэ вэ вэ (точка) стэковерфлоу (точка) ком&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. you don't have to read out the period if it's obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="af47562c-16df-4360-92ae-c260ec28990a" CreationDate="2013-08-01T11:54:35.443" UserId="551" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="In all these cases *точка* is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Версия один точка пять;&#xD;&#xA;* точка в конце предложения;&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;s&gt;десятичная точка&lt;/s&gt; (this is incorrect however, see below);&#xD;&#xA;* стэковерфлоу точка ком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the delimiter between whole numbers and decimals after the &quot;decimal point&quot; is decimal comma. So, the correct way to call this delimiter is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* десятичная запятая (decimal point)&#xD;&#xA;* числа с плавающей запятой (floating-point numbers)&#xD;&#xA;* пять знаков после запятой (five decimal places)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, nowadays most books on computer science is published in English and many people translate &quot;decimal point&quot; as &quot;десятичная точка&quot;, which is incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8678" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="e82bab52-15df-407f-8da5-c7189555c9b3" CreationDate="2013-08-01T12:23:09.710" UserId="1547" Comment="Spell out &quot;period&quot; for easier searching; add tags" Text="What are the various ways to say &quot;.&quot; (period/dot/full stop)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="e82bab52-15df-407f-8da5-c7189555c9b3" CreationDate="2013-08-01T12:23:09.710" UserId="1547" Comment="Spell out &quot;period&quot; for easier searching; add tags" Text="|произношение|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8680" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="e82bab52-15df-407f-8da5-c7189555c9b3" CreationDate="2013-08-01T12:23:09.710" Comment="Proposed by 1547 approved by 242 edit id of 388" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="145ab27a-f708-4dd6-9d7e-08f4c1e414fe" CreationDate="2013-08-01T13:08:14.330" UserId="1547" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="In most cases you either say &quot;точка&quot;, or nothing. In Russian, there are no different words for &quot;dot&quot;, &quot;period&quot; (in sense of punctuation) or &quot;full stop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#version 1.5&#xD;&#xA;- версия один-пять&#xD;&#xA;- версия один-точка-пять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#period at the end of a sentence&#xD;&#xA;- точка (e.g. &quot;Ты забыл поставить точку.&quot; - &quot;You forgot to put a period/full stop&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#decimal point&#xD;&#xA;In Russian schools, as in most of Europe, the comma is used to delimit the fractional part, thus it's literally &quot;запятая&quot;. However, when reading numbers aloud, you're supposed to convert the notation to decimal fractions and read it like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 20,3  -&gt; двадцать целых, три десятых = twenty wholes (=whole parts), three tenths (=one-tenth parts)&#xD;&#xA;- 345,567 -&gt; триста сорок пять целых, пятьсот шестьдесят семь тысячных = 345 wholes, 567 thousandths&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In casual speech, most people don't bother, and use one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - двадцать и три&#xD;&#xA; - двадцать запятая три&#xD;&#xA; - двадцать точка три (this is common among programmers who are used to the US notation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the fractional part is .5, you can use &quot;с половиной&quot; (&quot;and one half&quot;) in casual speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 10.5 - десять и пять; десять с половиной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes you can even omit the word for comma/period if it's clear from the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - ноль-пять (0,5) - commonly used to refer to a 0.5L liquor bottle, e.g. &quot;В магазине не забудь взять ноль-пять!&quot; (Don't forget to buy a bottle of vodka!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# www.stackoverflow.com&#xD;&#xA; - три дубль-вэ (точка) стэковерфлоу (точка) ком&#xD;&#xA; - вэ вэ вэ (точка) стэковерфлоу (точка) ком&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. you don't have to read out the period if it's obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="e2a0cfa5-4e33-4754-91bc-a83f1a2d7673" CreationDate="2013-08-02T07:21:15.723" UserId="551" Comment="Morze code" Text="In most cases *точка* is used, except for decimal delimiter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Версия один точка пять` (or just *один пять*);&#xD;&#xA;* точка в конце предложения;&#xD;&#xA;* десятичная **запятая**;&#xD;&#xA;* `стэковерфлоу точка ком` (but usually just `стэковерфлоу ком`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the delimiter between whole numbers and decimals after the &quot;decimal point&quot; is decimal comma. So, the correct way to call this delimiter is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* десятичная запятая (decimal point)&#xD;&#xA;* числа с плавающей запятой (floating-point numbers)&#xD;&#xA;* пять знаков после запятой (five decimal places)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, nowadays most books on computer science is published in English and many people translate &quot;decimal point&quot; as &quot;десятичная точка&quot;, which is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In telegraphy the word точка is used for both 'dot' and 'stop' as well.&#xD;&#xA;For example, Morse code for letter R is `• — •` and it is pronounced as dot-dash-dot. In Russian it is pronounced as `точка-тире-точка`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In telegram 'STOP' is translated as 'ТЧК':&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SHIP ORANGES BARRELS STOP BROTHERS KARAMAZOV STOP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated to Russian as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГРУЗИТЕ АПЕЛЬСИНЫ БОЧКАХ ТЧК БРАТЬЯ КАРАМАЗОВЫ ТЧК" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8689" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="7cbefeca-d9b2-4d57-afa9-0833b63ecd49" CreationDate="2013-08-04T15:15:36.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/364041940603789312" />
  <row Id="8690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="8032ee9e-9433-4f02-951b-362c856bdfaa" CreationDate="2013-08-04T18:15:37.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/364087240319709184" />
  <row Id="8691" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="5c0dad97-f907-452f-8e08-037e9c5fb411" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:15:36.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/364223134431727616" />
  <row Id="8692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="23ea6271-44e8-4c84-a3c3-e14382300d45" CreationDate="2013-08-05T10:06:51.000" UserId="194" Comment="added 676 characters in body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***кудесник*** and ***волхв*** mean pagan priests and foretellers. In Pushkin's &quot;Песнь о вещем Олеге&quot; they are used interchangeably to mean a man who foretells the future to the prince:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        „Скажи мне, ***кудесник***, любимец богов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Что сбудется в жизни со мною?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        И скоро ль, на радость соседей-врагов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Могильной засыплюсь землёю?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Открой мне всю правду, не бойся меня:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        В награду любого возьмешь ты коня“. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        ***Волхвы*** не боятся могучих владык,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        И княжеский дар им не нужен; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Правдив и свободен их вещий язык.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        И с волей небесною дружен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In Christian context, visit of the magi to the newborn Jesus is called &quot;поклонение волхвов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="7313fcfa-51ac-4194-b7e2-0254c97a0441" CreationDate="2013-08-05T10:12:21.910" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***кудесник*** and ***волхв*** mean pagan priests and foretellers. In Christian context, visit of the magi to the newborn Jesus is called &quot;поклонение волхвов&quot;. In Pushkin's &quot;Песнь о вещем Олеге&quot; they are used interchangeably to mean a man who foretells the future to the prince:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        „Скажи мне, ***кудесник***, любимец богов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Что сбудется в жизни со мною?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        И скоро ль, на радость соседей-врагов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Могильной засыплюсь землёю?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Открой мне всю правду, не бойся меня:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        В награду любого возьмешь ты коня“. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        &quot;***Волхвы*** не боятся могучих владык,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        И княжеский дар им не нужен; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        Правдив и свободен их вещий язык.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;        И с волей небесною дружен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="1fe90592-d64a-463e-a5ca-360fd8407f36" CreationDate="2013-08-06T09:17:53.810" UserId="487" Text="I've heard from a stranger a tongue-twister, from which I understood not a single word. It's supposed to be a particularly difficult short Russian phrase which, I was told, it's pronounced mostly when people get drunk and they tend to say bad words when they fail to pronounce it correctly. Which is this phrase or tonge-twister? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the actual question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Which bad words emerge when it's pronounced?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="1fe90592-d64a-463e-a5ca-360fd8407f36" CreationDate="2013-08-06T09:17:53.810" UserId="487" Text="Famous tonge-twister which is pronounced in parties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="1fe90592-d64a-463e-a5ca-360fd8407f36" CreationDate="2013-08-06T09:17:53.810" UserId="487" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="cf0833ac-a3ed-4a75-9c99-6be4154b7550" CreationDate="2013-08-06T09:38:32.603" UserId="71" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've heard from a stranger a tongue-twister, from which I understood not a single word. It's supposed to be a particularly difficult short Russian phrase which, I was told, it's pronounced mostly when people get drunk and they tend to say bad words when they fail to pronounce it correctly. Which is this phrase or tongue-twister? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the actual question is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Which bad words emerge when it's pronounced?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8698" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="cf0833ac-a3ed-4a75-9c99-6be4154b7550" CreationDate="2013-08-06T09:38:32.603" UserId="71" Comment="added 1 characters in body; edited title" Text="Famous tongue-twister which is pronounced in parties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="7031b3bc-9131-4b4d-baa4-65fc7652344a" CreationDate="2013-08-06T10:17:22.800" UserId="551" Text="I'm not sure, but maybe it was **Прыжок с переподвыподвертом** or (simpler case) **Прыжок с подвыподвертом**. This means something like &quot;jump with body overtwist&quot; (&quot;подвыподверт&quot; here comes from the words *подвернуть* and/or *вертеть*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one fails to pronounce the second word correctly, they have very high chance to say *подпердом*, *подвыпердом*, *переподвыпердом* (all these words are derived from the word *пердеть* - *to fart*) which replaces &quot;body twist&quot; to &quot;farting&quot;, and the result is &quot;jump with overfarting&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="d8b04969-0011-4197-8810-0587b5a5d2bf" CreationDate="2013-08-06T10:38:04.590" UserId="551" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure, but maybe it was **Прыжок с переподвыподвертом** or (simpler case) **Прыжок с подвыподвертом**. This means something like &quot;jump with body overtwist&quot; (&quot;подвыподверт&quot; here comes from the words *подвернуть* and/or *вертеть*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one fails to pronounce the second word correctly, they have very high chance to say *подпердом*, *подвыпердом*, *переподвыпердом*. All these words are derived from the word *пердеть* - *to fart*) which replaces &quot;body twist&quot; to &quot;farting&quot;, and the result is &quot;jump with overfarting&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comic effect here contains sudden appearance of a rude word and additionaly because if someone would try to make said jump, they could also &quot;pass wind&quot; because of strain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="0be2ec05-7b7a-43cf-bcc4-b0c132c63bd2" CreationDate="2013-08-06T14:01:28.647" UserId="551" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure, but maybe it was **Прыжок с переподвыподвертом** or (simpler case) **Прыжок с подвыподвертом**. This means something like &quot;jump with body overtwist&quot; (&quot;подвыподверт&quot; here comes from the words *подвернуть* and/or *вертеть*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one fails to pronounce the second word correctly, they have very high chance to say *подпердом*, *подвыпердом*, *переподвыпердом*. All these words are derived from the word *пердеть* - *to fart*) which replaces &quot;body twist&quot; to &quot;farting&quot;, and the result is &quot;jump with overfarting&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word переподвыподверт is constructed using a bunch of prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пере- под- вы- под- верт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The selection of the prefixes clearly shows that the main goal of this tongue-twister is to make the person that pronounces it to mix up initial &quot;в&quot; and &quot;п&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="478fadea-7a7b-405f-a640-88e68e569de7" CreationDate="2013-08-06T21:15:40.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/364857329927192576" />
  <row Id="8707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="b0d2dd3b-840e-463a-9690-e8727fd80e5f" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:52:59.927" UserId="1841" Comment="Improved formatting of poem's quote" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***кудесник*** and ***волхв*** mean pagan priests and foretellers. In Christian context, visit of the magi to the newborn Jesus is called &quot;поклонение волхвов&quot;. In Pushkin's &quot;Песнь о вещем Олеге&quot; they are used interchangeably to mean a man who foretells the future to the prince:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„Скажи мне, ***кудесник***, любимец богов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Что сбудется в жизни со мною?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И скоро ль, на радость соседей-врагов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Могильной засыплюсь землёю?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Открой мне всю правду, не бойся меня:  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;В награду любого возьмешь ты коня“.   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;      &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;&quot;***Волхвы*** не боятся могучих владык,    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И княжеский дар им не нужен;   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Правдив и свободен их вещий язык.    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И с волей небесною дружен.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8708" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="b0d2dd3b-840e-463a-9690-e8727fd80e5f" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:52:59.927" Comment="Proposed by 1841 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="51d4958d-da2b-4648-8e9f-f9bf98dfb855" CreationDate="2013-08-07T08:42:28.247" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***кудесник*** and ***волхв*** mean pagan priests and foretellers. In Christian context, visit of the magi to the newborn Jesus is called &quot;поклонение волхвов&quot;. In Pushkin's &quot;Песнь о вещем Олеге&quot; they are used interchangeably to mean a man who foretells the future to the prince:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„Скажи мне, ***кудесник***, любимец богов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Что сбудется в жизни со мною?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И скоро ль, на радость соседей-врагов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Могильной засыплюсь землёю?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Открой мне всю правду, не бойся меня:  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;В награду любого возьмешь ты коня“.   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;      &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„***Волхвы*** не боятся могучих владык,    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И княжеский дар им не нужен;   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Правдив и свободен их вещий язык.    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И с волей небесною дружен.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="6f164c47-6e05-4107-8817-eba7b9d07055" CreationDate="2013-08-07T08:52:36.053" UserId="194" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***кудесник*** and ***волхв*** mean adherents of ancient pagan religion and foretellers, ***волхв*** seems to be a more general term. In Christian context, visit of the magi to the newborn Jesus is called &quot;поклонение волхвов&quot;. In Pushkin's &quot;Песнь о вещем Олеге&quot; they are used interchangeably to mean a man who foretells the future to the prince:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„Скажи мне, ***кудесник***, любимец богов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Что сбудется в жизни со мною?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И скоро ль, на радость соседей-врагов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Могильной засыплюсь землёю?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Открой мне всю правду, не бойся меня:  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;В награду любого возьмешь ты коня“.   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;      &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„***Волхвы*** не боятся могучих владык,    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И княжеский дар им не нужен;   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Правдив и свободен их вещий язык.    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И с волей небесною дружен.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8715" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="7a44e888-6538-4022-a9ef-ba8be581698e" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:15:54.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/365219774956961794" />
  <row Id="8716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="d057dc18-2abb-466c-bd99-e671b685200c" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:14:31.380" UserId="1277" Text="Как правильно пишется фраза «Почему ? неизвестно», где знак `?` обозначает место где, как мне кажется, может быть какой-то знак препинания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Земля вращается вокруг Солнца. Почему ? неизвестно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="d057dc18-2abb-466c-bd99-e671b685200c" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:14:31.380" UserId="1277" Text="«Почему ? неизвестно»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="d057dc18-2abb-466c-bd99-e671b685200c" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:14:31.380" UserId="1277" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="13858fd6-b96f-4133-926d-e17efc78192e" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:44:16.410" UserId="1236" Text="Вместо &quot;?&quot; должно быть тире:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Земля вращается вокруг Солнца. Почему — неизвестно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё примеры из прессы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [1.][1] Янукович срочно собрал министров, почему — неизвестно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.][2] Арбитра поменяли в РФС. Почему — неизвестно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [3.][3] В Мурманске запретили купаться, но почему — неизвестно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://plus-news.ru/fakty/item/8236-%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87-%D1%81%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%83-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://football.sport-express.ru/reviews/1757/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.regnum.ru/news/483559.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="efc88106-da2b-45a4-ab9d-13c7aec22c36" CreationDate="2013-08-09T08:38:38.380" UserId="1373" Comment="clear title" Text="Как правильно пишется фраза «почему ? неизвестно»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8723" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="efc88106-da2b-45a4-ab9d-13c7aec22c36" CreationDate="2013-08-09T08:38:38.380" Comment="Proposed by 1373 approved by 242 edit id of 390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8725" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="dbb33773-d095-4fe7-ba75-012433312bca" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:15:56.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/365808661857185793" />
  <row Id="8727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="0238e8f9-96ef-4ed2-946e-1a5856dfca4a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T18:58:01.663" UserId="993" Text="What is the difference of usage when these verbs, I frequently see them and cannot determine their specific usage respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Исползаьвать &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Использоваться&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пользоваться / воспользоваться / попользоваться &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Употреблять / Употребить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I frequently see the use of these adverbs and cannot determine their usage, any examples will help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В осноном&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вообще&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вообще-то&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    В Общее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="0238e8f9-96ef-4ed2-946e-1a5856dfca4a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T18:58:01.663" UserId="993" Text="The difference in usage amongst these verbs and adverbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="0238e8f9-96ef-4ed2-946e-1a5856dfca4a" CreationDate="2013-08-09T18:58:01.663" UserId="993" Text="|глаголы|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="aed778d5-2604-4b73-8456-39ea237e8cdd" CreationDate="2013-08-09T19:58:32.363" UserId="1911" Text="How about (по)бороть/перебороть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="ca04dd6c-3466-471f-bbc4-7a62d3110708" CreationDate="2013-08-09T20:16:48.660" UserId="1755" Text="The difference between `использоваться` and `использовать` is that the first word is a reflexive verb (&quot;to be used&quot;) and the second one is not (&quot;to use&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Использовать` and `пользоваться` and `воспользоваться` has similar meaning but vary in grammar. `пользоваться` has perfective aspect, `воспользоваться` has imperfective aspect, and `использовать` can be used in both aspects. Also, `использовать` requires винительный падеж, and two others require творительный падеж. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Нужно использовать предмет. Нужно воспользоваться предметом. (imperfective aspect)&#xD;&#xA;- Я использовал предмет. Я воспользовался предметом. (perfect aspect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `попользоваться` is similar to `воспользоваться` or `использовать` but has additional meaning &quot;to use and cease to use&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я попользовался книгой - I have used the book and ceased to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Употреблять` and `употребить` are similar to `пользоваться` and `воспользоваться` but have another meaning &quot;to take, consume&quot; (drinks, food, drugs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`В основном` - in principle, mainly, largely, basically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Играли не все – то шестеро, то семеро, остальные только глазели, болея в основном за Вадика.`  - `Most of them supported Vadik.`&#xD;&#xA;- `Ему просто здесь нечего делать, потому что принцы в основном занимаются охотой на оленей.` - `Most of princes hunts cervids.` Or: `Princes hunts cervids most of the time.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вообще` - generally or on the whole:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Этот человек вообще необщителен.` - `This man is always unsociable.`&#xD;&#xA;- `Я говорю о людях вообще, а не о тебе.` - `I'm telling about people as a whole, not about you alone.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вообще` and `вообще-то` can be used in oppositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Над ним всегда смеются, хотя вообще он прав.` - `They are always laughing at him, although he is right.`&#xD;&#xA;- `Над ним всегда смеются, хотя, вообще-то, он прав.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`В общее` has no special meaning and cannot be used without a noun: `в общее дело` - `in the general work`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8732" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="c6de37ef-ff83-4a0e-84a2-a40f3bce5bb8" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:26:15.140" UserId="71" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="8733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="6a0bc674-a236-4f20-898b-1798d9520dce" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:38:09.123" UserId="967" Text="I get that у меня is the most common pattern for showing ownership of things, say леопарда or самокат. What happens to the meaning were I to use Иметь instead? Does it mean the exact same thing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this Q seems to imply Иметь is for abstract things that &quot;have&quot; abstract things, like triangles *have* sides), so it isn't a dupe question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/881/the-usage-of-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="6a0bc674-a236-4f20-898b-1798d9520dce" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:38:09.123" UserId="967" Text="Иметь vs у меня for physical things" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="6a0bc674-a236-4f20-898b-1798d9520dce" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:38:09.123" UserId="967" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="5190ec51-18d3-4343-9653-0a10777815e9" CreationDate="2013-08-10T15:20:50.247" UserId="134" Text="These sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я имею леопарда&#xD;&#xA;* Я имею самокат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are comprehensible but barely grammatical in modern Russian, unless you want to say that you're engaging in an intimate encounter with the leopard or the scooter. In the modern dialect those would be the primary meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Иметь* is used in positions which grammarically require a verb and cannot be easily replaced with an existential clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Чего бы ты хотел больше: быть здоровым или иметь много денег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one can be replaced with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Чего бы ты хотел больше: быть здоровым или чтобы у тебя было много денег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this is more bulky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Имея много денег, легко быть здоровым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existential clauses do not form adverbial participles that easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Будучи приверженцем здорового образа жизни, я имею в собственности самокат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the existential clause here would result in a dangling adverbial participle here (describing the scooter, not the narrator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (this Q seems to imply Иметь is for abstract things that &quot;have&quot; abstract things, like triangles have sides), so it isn't a dupe question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not exactly the case. Russian proximity clause distinguishes between state and possession by using or omitting *есть*. This is somewhat like alienable vs. non-alienable possession found in other languages, though not exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У треугольника три стороны // Triangles are three-sided&#xD;&#xA;* У людей две руки // People are two-handed&#xD;&#xA;* У меня бородавки // I'm warty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У прямоугольного треугольника есть катеты и гипотенуза // Right triangles have catheti and a hypotenuse&#xD;&#xA;* У него есть обе руки // He has both hands&#xD;&#xA;* У меня есть бородавка на пальце // I have a wart on my finger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used with *есть*, the clauses imply possession or transient state, used without it, they imply inherence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="15241feb-bdf6-4171-91c2-92631d938fcb" CreationDate="2013-08-10T19:22:40.070" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="These sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я имею леопарда&#xD;&#xA;* Я имею самокат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are comprehensible but barely grammatical in modern Russian, unless you want to say that you're engaging in an intimate encounter with the leopard or the scooter. In the modern dialect those would be the primary meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Иметь* is used in positions which grammatically require a verb and cannot be easily filled with an existential clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Чего бы ты хотел больше: быть здоровым или иметь много денег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one can be replaced with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Чего бы ты хотел больше: быть здоровым или чтобы у тебя было много денег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this is more bulky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Имея много денег, легко быть здоровым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existential clauses do not form adverbial participles that easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Будучи приверженцем здорового образа жизни, я имею в собственности самокат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the existential clause here would result in a dangling adverbial participle here (describing the scooter, not the narrator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (this Q seems to imply Иметь is for abstract things that &quot;have&quot; abstract things, like triangles have sides), so it isn't a dupe question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not exactly the case. Russian proximity clause distinguishes between state and possession by using or omitting *есть*. This is somewhat like alienable vs. non-alienable possession found in other languages, though not exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У треугольника три стороны // Triangles are three-sided&#xD;&#xA;* У людей две руки // People are two-handed&#xD;&#xA;* У меня бородавки // I'm warty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У прямоугольного треугольника есть катеты и гипотенуза // Right triangles have catheti and a hypotenuse&#xD;&#xA;* У него есть обе руки // He has both hands&#xD;&#xA;* У меня есть бородавка на пальце // I have a wart on my finger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used with *есть*, the clauses imply possession or transient state, used without it, they imply inherence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="24865554-0810-4c7e-bd8b-d12cdf90a8ac" CreationDate="2013-08-11T10:49:16.557" UserId="194" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="* ***волшебник*** is a general term having some positive connotations, although there can be ***злой волшебник***. It is often used in fairy tales. ***Волшебство*** is a general term for magic, especially prolonged one or a set of miracles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***колдун*** has negative associations. It is synonym to ***злой волшебник***. Somebody who practices black magic, which can render you disabled or paralyzed, or make a thing cursed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Я был как околдованный и не мог пошевелиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Замок был как заколдованный и не хотел открываться ключом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чародей*** has negative associations but less so than ***колдун***. It is somebody who can prepare a poition with hallucinogenic or psycho-active properties and can make you loose your rationality, memory, fall in love with somebody, forgetting your previous love, fall asleep, see an illusion or a dream without sleeping and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Девушка была настолько красивая, что очаровала меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворец был настолько красивый, что я смотрел вокруг как зачарованный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Овцы, как зачарованные, шли в сторону пропасти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заклинатель*** is somebody who commits spells, especially in order to make somebody to do or not to do something. Sometimes used for people who control poisonous snakes making them not to attack (***заклинатель змей***). ***Заклинание*** is a general term for &quot;spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Заклинаю тебя, не ходи туда, для твоего же блага - там очень опасно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***чудотворец*** is somebody who commits miracles. This can be used in religious context, for Christian saints who committed miracles. ***Чудо*** is a general term for a single one-time miracle, while prolonged magic or a set of miracles (outside of religious context) would be ***волшебство***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***маг*** is synonym to ***волшебник*** but with a claim of being well educated or enlightened, and understanding his magic as a kind of scientific discipline. It can be used to western-type people like Faust, not connected to Russian folklore. Archetypical ***маг*** wears a black cloak and gloves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***кудесник*** and ***волхв*** mean wandering adherents of ancient pagan religion and foretellers, ***волхв*** seems to be a more general term, while ***кудесник*** is limited to the ancient Slavic religion. In Christian context, visit of the magi to the newborn Jesus is called &quot;поклонение волхвов&quot;. In Pushkin's &quot;Песнь о вещем Олеге&quot; they are used interchangeably to mean a man who foretells the future to the prince:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„Скажи мне, ***кудесник***, любимец богов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Что сбудется в жизни со мною?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И скоро ль, на радость соседей-врагов,  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Могильной засыплюсь землёю?  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Открой мне всю правду, не бойся меня:  &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;В награду любого возьмешь ты коня“.   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;      &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;„***Волхвы*** не боятся могучих владык,    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И княжеский дар им не нужен;   &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;Правдив и свободен их вещий язык.    &#xD;&#xA;       &gt;И с волей небесною дружен.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8739" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="cd0a5401-9066-4d37-9f66-c4809154e292" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:16:03.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/366533467229523968" />
  <row Id="8740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2511" RevisionGUID="f1d44267-767b-4d70-8573-6b9a5c9a8abd" CreationDate="2013-08-12T02:05:27.357" UserId="1376" Text="I know one tongue-twister which indeed produces bad words and is really difficult:&#xD;&#xA;`Ох у ямы холм с кулями, выйду нá холм куль поправлю`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="7fbb6824-7be3-44d9-a707-81a02a3a98d9" CreationDate="2013-08-12T09:58:44.970" UserId="551" Text="`Гудеть, гудок` is used in professional drivers slang. You can see this word in the online [Словарь автолюбителя](http://www.avtoslovar.com/g.php) dictionary for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting term is `гукнуть` - which means give a short signal to attract someone's attention. This signal is very short, so it can be done even when sound signals are prohibited by driving rules (in the cities, or by special sign).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth mentioning that it is used in Nabokov's Lolita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут колоссальный грузовик вырос за машиной Траппа и с громом проехал мимо меня, после чего я услышал, как он судорожно **гукнул**. [В. В. Набоков. Лолита (1967)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="fae1e0ba-f4ca-4156-a8e5-29c60d171f9a" CreationDate="2013-08-12T10:08:52.453" UserId="551" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="`Гудеть, гудок` is used in professional drivers slang. You can see this word in the online [Словарь автолюбителя](http://www.avtoslovar.com/g.php) dictionary for example. So, the professional driver would likely say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я погудел ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more correct way would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я посигналил ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this would tell the professionals that you are not a real driver, just `автолюбитель` (this is like sailors say комп**а**с, while non-sailors say к**о**мпас).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting term is `гукнуть` - which means give a short signal to attract someone's attention. This signal is very short, so it can be done even when sound signals are prohibited by driving rules (in the cities, or by special sign).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth mentioning that it is used in Nabokov's Lolita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут колоссальный грузовик вырос за машиной Траппа и с громом проехал мимо меня, после чего я услышал, как он судорожно **гукнул**. [В. В. Набоков. Лолита (1967)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="356beec7-5e66-4e55-b040-5e937f56e2f7" CreationDate="2013-08-12T11:21:43.507" UserId="551" Comment="edited body" Text="`Гудеть, гудок` is used in professional drivers slang. You can see this word in the online [Словарь автолюбителя](http://www.avtoslovar.com/g.php) dictionary for example. So, the professional driver would likely say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я погудел ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more correct way would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я посигналил ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this would tell the professionals that you are not a real driver, just `автолюбитель` (this is like sailors say комп__а__с, while non-sailors say к**о**мпас).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting term is `гукнуть` - which means give a short signal to attract someone's attention. This signal is very short, so it can be done even when sound signals are prohibited by driving rules (in the cities, or by special sign).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth mentioning that it is used in Nabokov's Lolita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут колоссальный грузовик вырос за машиной Траппа и с громом проехал мимо меня, после чего я услышал, как он судорожно **гукнул**. [В. В. Набоков. Лолита (1967)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2512" RevisionGUID="c43d2d01-c8f7-4a75-91c0-b1005bdd4609" CreationDate="2013-08-12T13:12:33.453" UserId="551" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="`Гудеть, гудок` is used in professional drivers slang. You can see this word in the online [Словарь автолюбителя](http://www.avtoslovar.com/g.php) dictionary for example. So, the professional driver would likely say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я погудел ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, more correct way would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я посигналил ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this would tell the professionals that you are not a real driver, just `автолюбитель` (this is like sailors say комп&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;с, while non-sailors say к&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt;мпас).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting term is `гукнуть` - which means give a short signal to attract someone's attention. This signal is very short, so it can be done even when sound signals are prohibited by driving rules (in the cities, or by special sign).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth mentioning that it is used in Nabokov's Lolita:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут колоссальный грузовик вырос за машиной Траппа и с громом проехал мимо меня, после чего я услышал, как он судорожно **гукнул**. [В. В. Набоков. Лолита (1967)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8746" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="e6ba9fc3-caef-4bab-9a49-ad228dc23a9c" CreationDate="2013-08-13T09:16:12.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/367212986358046720" />
  <row Id="8747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="bce661ab-412a-473d-be28-f4194088fc42" CreationDate="2013-08-13T15:16:13.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/367303584549179392" />
  <row Id="8748" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="3cc5593f-3fc4-4edd-afb9-bcf157e6683a" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:16:13.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/367439480573399040" />
  <row Id="8749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2424" RevisionGUID="b3db0965-bbba-4aa3-b176-8ab701ec3f3d" CreationDate="2013-08-14T09:16:13.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/367575374580154368" />
  <row Id="8750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="c5a3a241-0885-47b2-b0df-bcec816ad65a" CreationDate="2013-08-14T09:32:46.050" UserId="551" Comment="replacing known markdown 'feature' with html-style highlighting" Text="You should use plural form of the verb here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Россия, и Франция вxод&lt;b&gt;ят&lt;/b&gt; во Всемирную Торговую Организацию." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8751" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="c5a3a241-0885-47b2-b0df-bcec816ad65a" CreationDate="2013-08-14T09:32:46.050" Comment="Proposed by 551 approved by 71 edit id of 391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="44b2036b-4e1d-4cf4-8782-d5282c676589" CreationDate="2013-08-14T12:06:50.343" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="**Фарисей** comes from the Bible (&quot;Фарисеи, увидев это, сказали Ему: вот, ученики Твои делают, чего не должно делать в субботу.&quot; - Матф 12:2) and as such sounds extremely bookish. Similarly, **ипокрит** is Greek and seems to be very infrequent. *Национальный корпус русского языка* gives only two examples for this word: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Единственные честные *ипокриты* ― актеры. Хазлит [М. А. Чехов. О технике актера (1945)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут описываются следующие изображения: 1) Жизнь истинного монаха; 2) Небесный путь спасения души; 3) Смерть лицемера (*ипокрита*); 4) Смерть праведника; 5) Смерть грешника; 6) Обманчивость времени земной жизни. [А. С. Уваров. Русская символика (1864-1874)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ханжа** and **лицемер** are more common. Ханжество is always related to piousness, righteousness and (often sexual) mores ([&quot;сознат маскировке собств. неблаговидных желаний и поступков под заботу о нравств. чистоте и порядочности&quot;][1]), while лицемерие is a more general term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the first and foremost meaning of **лицедей** is actor, and while лицедей can be used as a synonym to лицемер, it seems to be not very common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://didacts.ru/dictionary/1041/word/hanzhestvo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8753" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="44b2036b-4e1d-4cf4-8782-d5282c676589" CreationDate="2013-08-14T12:06:50.343" Comment="Proposed by 551 approved by 97, 1236 edit id of 392" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="114fe694-aa18-4fe8-acaf-cc018ddd5013" CreationDate="2013-08-14T13:04:52.467" UserId="551" Comment="Fixed lost quotes around letters" Text="There is a rare word _ы́кать_, which actually means ‘to pronounce words with Ы instead of И’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [quote][1] on a subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A long-standing dispute among linguists is whether Russian possesses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; five vowel phonemes or six; that is, scholars disagree as to whether&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ɨ] constitutes an allophone of /i/ or if there is an independent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phoneme /ɨ/. The five-vowel analysis, taken up by the Moscow school,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rests on the complementary distribution of [ɨ] and [i], with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; former occurring after hard (non-palatalized) consonants and [i]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The six-vowel view, held by the Saint-Petersburg (Leningrad) phonology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; school, points to several phenomena to make its case:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Native Russian speakers' ability to articulate [ɨ] in isolation (for example, in the names of respective letters, &quot;и&quot; and &quot;ы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rare instances of word-initial [ɨ] (including the minimal pair _и́кать_ ‘to produce the sound и’ and _ы́кать_ ‘to produce the sound ы’),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as well as names and toponyms, like _Ыб_ [ɨp], the name of a river and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several villages in the Komi Republic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8755" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="717" RevisionGUID="114fe694-aa18-4fe8-acaf-cc018ddd5013" CreationDate="2013-08-14T13:04:52.467" Comment="Proposed by 551 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="a62acff3-2a18-4058-8211-189cbbe75862" CreationDate="2013-08-15T00:16:13.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/367801869961543680" />
  <row Id="8758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="56132c73-cd64-4623-88a8-07ae393f54b3" CreationDate="2013-08-15T08:23:25.930" UserId="1925" Text="Меня учили, что это синонимы. Но читая некоторые книги, мне кажется, что все-таки некоторая смысловая разница есть. А какая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="56132c73-cd64-4623-88a8-07ae393f54b3" CreationDate="2013-08-15T08:23:25.930" UserId="1925" Text="больница vs госпиталь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="56132c73-cd64-4623-88a8-07ae393f54b3" CreationDate="2013-08-15T08:23:25.930" UserId="1925" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2515" RevisionGUID="c6866993-e559-48e4-8764-69c2ee4a223b" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:03:01.023" UserId="551" Text="Словари определяют госпиталь преимущественно как военное лечебное учереждение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГОСПИТАЛЬ, -я; м. [нем. Hospital]&#xD;&#xA;Лечебное учреждение, больница (преимущественно военная). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Большой толковый словарь](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E3%EE%F1%EF%E8%F2%E0%EB%FC&amp;all=x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Википедия](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C) приводит целую классификацию госпиталей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Го́спиталь (от лат. hospitalis, гостеприимный) — медицинское учреждение вооружённых сил многих государств, предназначенное для оказания медицинской помощи военнослужащим.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На территории России различают госпитали:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * постоянные (работающие в мирное время): гарнизонные, окружные, видов вооружённых сил, центральные;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * формируемые в военное время: полевые передвижные госпитали, эвакуационные госпитали, тыловые госпитали.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время госпитали есть не только у военных, но и других силовых структур: МВД (полиция), МЧС (служба спасения) и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Судя по всему и железнодорожники тоже называют свои больницы госпиталями:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Центральный клинический госпиталь с научно-клиническим центром физиологии (Железнодорожная больница)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно вспомнить, что слово &quot;госпиталь&quot; связано с историей крестовых походов и монашескими орденами (например существовал [Орден госпитальеров](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8B)). Наверное поэтому можно встретить слово &quot;госпиталь&quot; в названиях больниц, организационно связанных с религией:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больница городская клиническая № 70 (Госпиталь мира и милосердия Спасо-Перовский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще говоря английское слово hospital относится к так называемым &quot;ложным друзьям переводчиков&quot; - увидев его неопытный переводчик переводит его как &quot;госпиталь&quot;, в то время как основным значением в русском языке для этого слова является &quot;больница&quot;. Поэтому сегодня многие названия иностранных лечебных учереждений часто необоснованно переводят как &quot;госпиталь&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="b40d6205-a26d-4e00-baa3-c72afd27d043" CreationDate="2013-08-15T09:38:16.617" UserId="134" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Меня учили, что это синонимы. Но по прочтении некоторых книг мне кажется, что все-таки некоторая смысловая разница есть. А какая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2515" RevisionGUID="bf7dc528-3cb7-45e3-86cd-a589763b0ab5" CreationDate="2013-08-15T11:36:05.887" UserId="551" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Словари определяют госпиталь преимущественно как военное лечебное учреждение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГОСПИТАЛЬ, -я; м. [нем. Hospital]&#xD;&#xA;Лечебное учреждение, больница (преимущественно военная). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Большой толковый словарь](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E3%EE%F1%EF%E8%F2%E0%EB%FC&amp;all=x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Википедия](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C) приводит целую классификацию госпиталей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Го́спиталь (от лат. hospitalis, гостеприимный) — медицинское учреждение вооружённых сил многих государств, предназначенное для оказания медицинской помощи военнослужащим.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На территории России различают госпитали:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * постоянные (работающие в мирное время): гарнизонные, окружные, видов вооружённых сил, центральные;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * формируемые в военное время: полевые передвижные госпитали, эвакуационные госпитали, тыловые госпитали.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время госпитали есть не только у военных, но и других &quot;силовых&quot; структур: МВД (полиция), МЧС (служба спасения, пожарная служба) и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Судя по всему и железнодорожники тоже называют свои больницы госпиталями (у них, кстати есть своя собственная пожарная служба):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Центральный клинический госпиталь с научно-клиническим центром физиологии (Железнодорожная больница)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно вспомнить, что слово &quot;госпиталь&quot; связано с историей крестовых походов и монашескими орденами (например существовал [Орден госпитальеров](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8B)). Наверное поэтому можно встретить слово &quot;госпиталь&quot; в названиях больниц, организационно связанных с религией:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больница городская клиническая № 70 (Госпиталь мира и милосердия Спасо-Перовский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще говоря английское слово hospital относится к так называемым &quot;ложным друзьям переводчика&quot; - встретив это слово неопытный переводчик сразу же переводит его как &quot;госпиталь&quot;, в то время как основным значением в русском языке для этого слова является &quot;больница&quot;. Поэтому сегодня многие названия иностранных лечебных учреждений часто необоснованно переводят как &quot;госпиталь&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8765" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="f7b770ed-a122-41f3-a307-6fe523ab8b57" CreationDate="2013-08-15T12:16:14.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/367983066373173248" />
  <row Id="8767" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="8c340a28-d673-4f32-98e7-385135eef0be" CreationDate="2013-08-18T00:16:20.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/368889059277410304" />
  <row Id="8769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="df1e33e8-a09d-4c2e-8c75-98fcc3b5bbdd" CreationDate="2013-08-19T09:18:10.857" UserId="170" Text="Москва, Калуга, Пенза, Кострома&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these toponyms end on -a and, as far as I know, they are all feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I know that in Russian some nouns ending on -a can be masculine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ябеда, неряха, голова, воевода, непоседа, жадина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;including some forms of proper nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петруха, Серёжа, Саша, Вова, Миша&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аre there any masculine toponyms in Russian ending on -a?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="df1e33e8-a09d-4c2e-8c75-98fcc3b5bbdd" CreationDate="2013-08-19T09:18:10.857" UserId="170" Text="Аre there any masculine toponyms in Russian ending on -a?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="df1e33e8-a09d-4c2e-8c75-98fcc3b5bbdd" CreationDate="2013-08-19T09:18:10.857" UserId="170" Text="|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8772" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="9deaa588-8005-4548-9197-997a6f049f68" CreationDate="2013-08-20T00:16:37.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/369613909164314624" />
  <row Id="8773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="62c022d5-df2f-49a1-a7ce-1bd8991a825c" CreationDate="2013-08-20T06:57:17.087" UserId="1943" Text="My late mother-in-law's story of her captivity in the Soviet Union as a German civilian forced laborer after WW2 contains a number of words which are apparently Russian, but for which I cannot find any confirmation (some of them I can find, but these others are giving me trouble).  The original text is a transcription in German from an audio recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A word commanding &quot;to stop&quot;.  In her description she gives &quot;Stoy!&quot; as a command from the Russian soldier who captured her.  Bing Translater says &quot;stop!&quot; is &quot;стоп!&quot; which of course transliterates to &quot;stop!&quot;  Is there some word, &quot;stoy&quot;, which answers to what she remembers hearing?&#xD;&#xA; - A word that seems to sound like &quot;yest&quot;, used in demanding one to show personal documents.  This word in the exchange that she describes sounds like &quot;yest&quot;, and occurs with the word in German and Russian for &quot;document&quot; (&quot;документы&quot; or &quot;Dokumente&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - A word for an article of winter clothing, a quilted jacket.  The word she uses is &quot;kupeikas&quot;, which I cannot find anywhere.  In her tale, the clothin item is using in connection with the felt boots, valenki or Валенки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="62c022d5-df2f-49a1-a7ce-1bd8991a825c" CreationDate="2013-08-20T06:57:17.087" UserId="1943" Text="Certain words supposedly in Russian that I can't verify!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="62c022d5-df2f-49a1-a7ce-1bd8991a825c" CreationDate="2013-08-20T06:57:17.087" UserId="1943" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="266fd795-f8f2-4802-af58-b20be91d0581" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:04:31.350" UserId="242" Text="Well, let me try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Стой!&quot; or &quot;стоять!&quot; (stoy or, in infinitive, stoyat') is a phrase which indeed is used like English &quot;freeze!&quot; or &quot;stay were you are&quot;. In fact, &quot;стой&quot; and &quot;stay&quot; share same origin on PIE level.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Depends on context. It can be &quot;есть&quot; (yest)  is the meaning &quot;there is/there are&quot; (literally, &quot;is&quot;). &quot;Do you have any documents?&quot; - &quot;У вас есть с собой какие-то документы?&quot; -  &quot;Есть&quot;. On the other hand, &quot;есть&quot; is a standard confirmation phrase in Russian Army. It is sorta of English &quot;Sir, yes sir&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Hm, this is indeed quite weird. You see, there is indeed such word &quot;купейке&quot; (koopeyke), it is a national fur clothing of [Khakas people][1]. I can easily imagine this word respelled as &quot;купейка&quot;, such phonetic transformation is typical to Russian. I can also admit the probability of using this word in a wider context, but personally I've never heard of such. Still, may be you are actually searching for some other word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khakas_people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2519" RevisionGUID="015ff3c4-677b-47d4-bbc4-8fb381d6b632" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:52:50.847" UserId="242" Text="This is an excellent question. Actually, it is touching a very, very reach issue. The morphology of toponyms in Russian is indeed a bit complicated. Some forms originally not ending on `-a` (like Warsaw) have such ending in Russian. Some (like Roma), on contrary, lose original `-a` ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head it was really hard to name any example of such masculine toponym. But finally I found one pattern which definitely fulfill your requirements. One-syllable words which do not have inclination tends to be masculine. Example - the famous `Спа` city. It is de-facto more often used in masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare how it sounds: &quot;Старинный город Спа&quot; versus &quot;Старинная город Спа&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="9e97f78b-2c5a-4159-9d0c-d895efd2a17a" CreationDate="2013-08-20T09:04:59.873" UserId="1755" Text="Most of nouns ending with *-а* (*-я*) have feminine gender. Exceptions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- words that mean men: *воевода, слуга, папа*&#xD;&#xA;- words with *-ин-* suffix (увеличительный субъективно-оценочный суффикс): *мостина, домина*&#xD;&#xA;- words ending with *-мя*: * пла­мя, имя, бремя, стремя*&#xD;&#xA;- *дитя*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(Source)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when a toponym ends with *-а*, it is considered feminine by default. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foreign toponyms behave differently. When a foreign toponym ends with *-а*, it is usually declined according to feminine gender. But the following cases produce indeclinable nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- toponyms adopted from French while they ends with *-a* in French: *Гра, Спа, Ле-Дора, Юра*&#xD;&#xA;- toponyms adopted from Estonian, Finnish: *Ювяскюля, Сааремаа*&#xD;&#xA;- toponyms adopted from Spanish and other Romanic languages while ending *-a* is unaccented: *Баия-Бланка, Баия-Лaypa, Херес-­де-ла-Фронтера, Сантьяго-де-Куба, Пола-де-Лена, Сантьяго-де-Компостела*&#xD;&#xA;- some toponyms adopted from Abkhazian and Georgian while ending *-a* is unaccented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(Source)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can't say that these words have feminine gender. The gender is neuter at best. But when such city names are used with adjectives, the &quot;город&quot; word is used or implied so the adjective stands in masculine form: *знаменитый (город) Гра*. For rivers, etc this can vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://yarus.aspu.ru/?id=420&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_90" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8779" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="ea31603d-c5e8-4089-a4c8-e9ac1c88b869" CreationDate="2013-08-20T09:16:37.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/369749805796700160" />
  <row Id="8780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2519" RevisionGUID="f8391d25-010f-4242-8e86-bb9e2d3c29df" CreationDate="2013-08-20T09:36:49.500" UserId="242" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="This is an excellent question. Actually, it is touching a very, very reach issue. The morphology of toponyms in Russian is indeed a bit complicated. Some forms originally not ending on `-a` (like Warsaw) have such ending in Russian. Some (like Roma), on contrary, lose original `-a` ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head it was really hard to name any example of such masculine toponym. But finally I found one pattern which definitely fulfill your requirements. One-syllable words which do not have inclination tends to be masculine. Example - the famous `Спа` city. It is de-facto more often used in masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare how it sounds: &quot;Старинный Спа&quot; versus &quot;Старинная Спа&quot;. First form sounds more natural to native speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2521" RevisionGUID="188468dd-d0ed-43b5-afcf-6aba32217293" CreationDate="2013-08-20T10:15:06.457" UserId="1944" Text=" 1. *Stoy* (стой) is imperative for *stoyat'* &quot;to stand&quot;, and can be used as a command to stand still.&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Dokumenty yest'?* (Документы есть?) translates to &quot;Have you got you papers?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The word in question may be *fufayka* (фуфайка), which used to be a synonym for *vatnik* (ватник), or quilted jacket." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="01fbb43e-19f9-4f1a-b5c9-a0814d53ccfb" CreationDate="2013-08-20T22:02:14.063" UserId="1946" Text="I think that the word for winter cloth article might be шубейка (shubeika). The word derive from shuba, winter fur coat (шуба). &#xD;&#xA;Шубейка is rather pitiful looking, maybe super old and worn out, maybe cheap and thin, does not give much protection from cold weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the situation your mother-in-law is talking about, many people would wear such clothes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is just my guess, of course I might be wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="ba84f590-9731-41a6-9492-82876b26714a" CreationDate="2013-08-21T00:37:49.357" UserId="551" Text="## On modern usage of Ы-words.##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The absense of words starting from letter **Ы** was challenged by many creative people in literature and cinema. The letter itself become a codename for &quot;cover operation&quot; in [&quot;Операция &quot;Ы&quot; movie](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%C2%AB%D0%AB%C2%BB_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)) and a name of a fictional animal [Вепрь Ы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%AB) from the SF-book by Strugatskies [&quot;Трудно быть богом&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my mind, the most influential nowadays is the cult film &quot;Кин-дза-дза&quot; by Georgiy Daneliya. It depicts a high-tech alien civilization with primitive culture. The aliens used Ы as interjection to show any kind of emotions ranging from anger to happiness. &#xD;&#xA;This usage of letter Ы become very popular in the Internet, so you can see that people use **ы** or even **ыыы** to show different emotions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После выхода фильма «Кин-дза-дза» буква «Ы» также стала использоваться в качестве обозначения смеха или любых сильных, но невербализуемых эмоций. ([Wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AB#.C2.AB.D0.AB.C2.BB_.D0.B2_.D0.B8.D1.81.D0.BA.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B5.2C_.D0.BA.D1.83.D0.BB.D1.8C.D1.82.D1.83.D1.80.D0.B5.2C_.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.85.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B5_.D0.B8_.D0.98.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.BD.D0.B5.D1.82.D0.B5))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason why Ы become popular to describe laugh is its visual similarity to English lol (laughing out loud) acronym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when usage of &quot;ыыы&quot; become more common the word &quot;ыкать&quot; from &quot;rare linguistic term to denote usage of ы instead of и&quot; began to mean just &quot;extensive usage of ы&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loki: ы, клева  &#xD;&#xA;pyatachyok: чем ыкать да угукать, не забудь про десктоп, апач и инет :) ([board.rt.mipt.ru](http://board.rt.mipt.ru/?read=4746238))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this was only the beginning of intensive usage of Ы. [Словарь молодежного сленга](http://teenslang.ru/) lists the following [words starting from Ы](http://teenslang.ru/?page=1&amp;novar=1&amp;content=%D0%AB*):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ы**,  1. междометие. Обозначение громкого смеха, иногда с повторением ыыы.&#xD;&#xA;2. предикатив. Выражение насмешки, издевки. Пример: Ы!!! Ржу!!! Ни как лошадь, конечно!&#xD;&#xA;Синонимы: ыыы , гы, хы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ыбло**, -а, ср. идея сценария флэшмоба, которая уже была проведена. (анаграмма от было).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ыть**, междометие&#xD;&#xA;1 так, да, используется дли усиления подтверждения, выражения эмоциональной окраски. 2: оп, опа. Пример текста: Ыть в конце концов - есть-таки положительные результаты. • Ыть, я псых. • Ыть держите меня семеро, модерите меня в три руки. • Ыть я никуда не собирался ваабще-та.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ычк**, местоим., сущ., нареч. Все, всё. Происходит из систематической ошибки: на клавиатуре компьютера клавиши «ы» «ч» «к» расположены рядом с клавишами «в» «с» «е».&#xD;&#xA;Пример текста: И мой низкий поклон и Мэру и Администрации, я думаю у них ычк получится. • Правильный ответ в окошечке с кодом (1,1,1,1) в котором имеются ычк четыре признака. • Да мне по барабону ычк, что ты сказал. • Вроде бы, я ычк поимаю. • да Да я ычк знаю, но фотки клёвые. • • Как-то размыто ычк. • Ычк мужики по натуре охотники — добиваются того, чего хотят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ышник**, -а, м. Уважаемый человек в обществе. Пример текста: Он назвал его ышником, после чего они вместе бежали по коридору и кричали ы... Синонимы: наш человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ыыы**, междометие. Возглас выражения эмоций, чаще всего смеха, усмешки, но иногда плача, разочарования и др. Пример текста: Ыыыыыыы, это так кульно! • Ыыы вот так я отдыхал по весне. • Ыыы! лошадка то мля злая попалась! • Я тоже употребляю «ыыы», «гыыыы», «бугагаа». • Ыыы - опять же смех, а точнее передача текстом гортанного звука при глухом смехе. • Ыыы убится мона всё ыыы да ыыы!! • ЫЫы, непруха! • Ни плакай... ЫыЫ... Всё образуется!! Синонимы: гыы, бугага.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Словарь синонимов on dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/dic_synonims/?f=0YjQu9Cw0LM=&amp;t=0Y3Qu9C10Lo=&amp;nt=3910&amp;p=70) along with words mentioned above adds the following: **ычно** (классно, круто, непонятно, ржачно, смешно, странно), **ыка** (заика), **ыжлость** (грусть, уныние), **ыжливший** (грустивший, унывавший), **ыгы** (ага), etc. Looks like ычно, ыжлость, ыжливший also exploit the meaning of &quot;ы&quot; as &quot;strong unverbalizable emotion&quot; which can be &quot;cool or funny or strange or incomprehensible or anything else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about more traditional words starting from Ы, its worth to mention that Ы itself is a word - the name of letter Ы:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ы**, неизм. &#xD;&#xA;1. ж. и ср.&#xD;&#xA;Двадцать девятая буква русского алфавита, обозначающая гласный звук [ы]. Строчное ы.&#xD;&#xA;2. м.&#xD;&#xA;Гласный звук [ы],&#xD;&#xA;обозначаемый этой буквой. Ударное ы. ([Большой толковый словарь](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%FB&amp;all=x))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ы** (произн. также еры (устар.)), нескл., ср. название буквы &quot;ы&quot;, название соответствующего звука и другие значения: ср. а 1; см. также еры. ([Толковый словарь Ушакова](http://ushakovdictionary.ru/word.php?wordid=87030))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it may seem trivial that letter &quot;Ы&quot; has name &quot;Ы&quot;, though for many other letters it is not so. For instance &quot;Э&quot; is &quot;э оборотное&quot;, &quot;Й&quot; - &quot;и краткое&quot;, &quot;Б&quot; is read as &quot;бэ&quot;, &quot;К&quot; as &quot;ка&quot;, &quot;С&quot; as &quot;эс&quot; and so on and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. After searching for different examples of modern usage of words starting from letter Ы I found a [good article on Wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AB) that summarizes many answers already given. (By the way, in modern internet slang P. S. is replaced by **З. Ы.** because corresponding letters are sharing the same keys on Russian/Latin keyboard)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="f1b2720b-c1f9-40be-8e3f-bd467fd29c01" CreationDate="2013-08-21T09:51:01.970" UserId="242" Text="Here's a title I've found in today's news: &quot;Крымские чиновники получили от 3 до 6 лет колонии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that actually the officials mentioned in crime chronicles are from russian city of Krymsk, not from Crimea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is - while producing toponymical adjective, can I avoid this disambiguation, can I used something else instead of &quot;крымский&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="f1b2720b-c1f9-40be-8e3f-bd467fd29c01" CreationDate="2013-08-21T09:51:01.970" UserId="242" Text="How to say &quot;житель Крымска&quot; and not to confuse it with &quot;житель Крыма&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="f1b2720b-c1f9-40be-8e3f-bd467fd29c01" CreationDate="2013-08-21T09:51:01.970" UserId="242" Text="|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="feadad0f-e06d-4720-9968-0224c25bdad9" CreationDate="2013-08-21T10:14:49.553" UserId="1948" Text="You may use phrases like &quot;Чиновники Крымска получили...&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8794" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="3942a847-1059-4de8-b77c-a456a420924d" CreationDate="2013-08-21T10:38:52.667" UserId="71" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="8795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="60dada2d-5c83-4ba0-ab92-64e3f21fa796" CreationDate="2013-08-21T11:30:33.033" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="Here's a title I've found in today's news: &quot;Крымские чиновники получили от 3 до 6 лет колонии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that actually the officials mentioned in crime chronicles are from russian city of Krymsk, not from Crimea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is - while producing toponymical adjective, can I avoid this disambiguation, can I use something else instead of &quot;крымский&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8796" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="37f4f309-86a9-4477-99a7-acc85317c337" CreationDate="2013-08-21T12:27:44.607" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2527" RevisionGUID="cb43e80e-360b-4ab3-a64e-c0eae419e1a8" CreationDate="2013-08-21T14:47:29.653" UserId="1934" Text="First of all, in about 80% of situations, I would put the words in a different order: &quot;Я ему бибикнул/просигналил/гуднул/whatever&quot;. Both grammatical forms are acceptable though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The absolutely precise and formal construct for something like a court record is &quot;Я подал (ему) звуковой сигнал&quot;. &quot;Я (про)сигналил&quot; is fine enough for the formal common speech but a bit ambiguous because it also can mean &quot;I waved at him&quot;, &quot;I flashed my headlights&quot;, etc. The word &quot;бибикнул&quot; may sound childish, but it is a common enough and a neutral enough word, and it is what I often say myself when on the road: &quot;Ну что, побибикать ему что ли?&quot; or &quot;Кто это там сзади бибикает?&quot;. The word &quot;гуднул&quot; has a connotation of a short and authoritative signal like &quot;I'm the boss here!&quot;. &quot;Я ему гудел&quot; means &quot;I was (have been) honking&quot; (usually without any effect). That's what a driver will say if, for instance, he hits a pedestrian who went to the road without paying any attention to the approaching car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8798" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="d5324828-22a6-43cf-8398-bee542849330" CreationDate="2013-08-21T17:24:16.053" UserId="551" Comment="added tags" Text="|значения|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="6a3a77a5-95a0-4120-814d-883241b3bbbb" CreationDate="2013-08-22T15:05:01.167" UserId="109" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Well, let me try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Стой!&quot; or &quot;стоять!&quot; (stoy or, in infinitive, stoyat') is a phrase which indeed is used like English &quot;freeze!&quot; or &quot;stay where you are&quot;. In fact, &quot;стой&quot; and &quot;stay&quot; share same origin on PIE level.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Depends on context. It can be &quot;есть&quot; (yest) with the meaning &quot;there is/there are&quot; (literally, &quot;is&quot;). &quot;Do you have any documents?&quot; - &quot;У вас есть с собой какие-то документы?&quot; -  &quot;Есть&quot;. On the other hand, &quot;есть&quot; is a standard confirmation phrase in Russian Army. It is sort of English &quot;Sir, yes sir&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Hm, this is indeed quite weird. You see, there is indeed such word &quot;купейке&quot; (koopeyke), it is a national fur clothing of [Khakas people][1]. I can easily imagine this word respelled as &quot;купейка&quot;, such phonetic transformation is typical to Russian. I can also admit the probability of using this word in a wider context, but personally I've never heard of such. Still, may be you are actually searching for some other word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khakas_people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8801" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="6a3a77a5-95a0-4120-814d-883241b3bbbb" CreationDate="2013-08-22T15:05:01.167" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 242 edit id of 394" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="d21a626d-396b-4cb2-a476-e20ddee04ba0" CreationDate="2013-08-22T19:26:27.377" UserId="551" Text="This particuar form of this phrase is marked as youthspeak (молодежный жаргон), so it looks like it is a quite modern invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Рухнуть с дуба**&#xD;&#xA;Жарг. мол. Неодобр. Сойти с ума, начать вести себя подобно сумасшедшему. СИ, 1998, № 6; Вахитов 2003, 160. [Большой словарь русских поговорок](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/20813/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I recall that we used similar expression in elementary school: &quot;[Упал] с дуба на кактус[, с кактуса на дуб]&quot; in the end of 80-es.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary of russian argot also has several entries that I was unable to find in Russian National Corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Упасть с дерева** (свалиться, рухнуть, брякнуться с березы) повести себя странно, неумно, неуместно, всех удивить; сойти с ума. - [Словарь русского арго](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/13398)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one looks almost the same as expression in question, though I was unable to find any other references to its usage and time when it was first recorded. I believe that Морд. here stands for [Мордовия](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%8F):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сорваться с дуба** - Морд. Неодобр. Потерять выдержку, самообладание. СРГМ 2002, 108. [Большой словарь русских поговорок](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/20814/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there are a lot of similar expressions that have a long history:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Да ты что? **С луны свалился**? Не знаешь разве, что красная армия отступила? [Елизавета Скобцова (Кузьмина-Караваева). Равнина Русская (хроника наших дней) (1924)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего на своих орете, **как с гвоздя сорвались**? [Юрий Бондарев. Горячий снег (1969)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ...одни люди *с крюку*, а другие, глядя на сих мудреных предводителей и начальников зла, **с дубу** ругают, поносят и проклинают мстителей, а об обидчиках не говорят ни слова, как бы они не имели пристойного человечеству дарования, то-есть здравого ума, чтоб рассудить, кто был начальник и родитель зла, мститель ли или обидчик... [Я. П. Козельский. Философические предложения, сочиненные надворным советником и правительствующего сената секретарем Яковом Козельским в Санкт-Петербурге 1768 года (1768)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter example shows that &quot;с дубу&quot; was used for a long time as &quot;without reason&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **как с дубу(рвет)**&#xD;&#xA;иноск.: придирается без причины, бестолково, зря. [Большой толково-фразеологический словарь Михельсона 1896—1912](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/3928/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, though the origin of the expression is not clear, there are many other expressions that were used for a long time with the same structure and meaning and referensing &quot;упасть&quot;, &quot;сорваться&quot;, &quot;дуб&quot; or any other tree." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2529" RevisionGUID="3e193bca-bedf-4f60-b305-131a859d0b68" CreationDate="2013-08-22T21:24:30.533" UserId="551" Text="Большинство словарей определяет **чопорность** как слово, производное от **чопорный**, то есть это, в первую очередь личностная характеристика - это не &quot;идеология&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ЧО́ПОРНЫЙ**. Чрезмерно, неестественно строгий в поведении, обращении, *крайне щепетильный в отношении приличий*. Чопорная вежливость. Чопорно (нареч.) держаться. [Толковый словарь Ушакова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1089034). 1935-1940.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Крайняя щепетильность в отношении приличий у чопорного человека распространяется в том числе и на окружающих - если кто-то делает что-то не так - чопорный человек будет относится к этому с явным неодобрением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В качестве иллюстрации можно вспомнить &quot;чопорных англичан&quot;, про которых существует множество анекдотов, и образ джентльмена многократно воспроизведенный в кино и литературе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пуризм** от чопорности отличается тем, что может распространятся не только на строгость соблюдения приличий, но и на соблюдение некого набора правил вообще. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например [Никлаус Вирт](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%82,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%81), создатель нескольких языков программирования, является пуристом в отношении принципов структурного программирования. Он не включил в язык Pascal оператор безусловного перехода goto, и считает что объекты (основа объектно-ориентированного программмирования) - это всего-навсего структуры содержащие данные и указатели на функции - не более того. (См. также описание его [научных принципов](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%82,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%81#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.83.D1.87.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.BD.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.BF.D1.8B))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же говорить говорить о пуризме как о &quot;соблюдении приличий&quot;, то здесь тоже возможен пуризм как личная характеристика, так и пуризм по отношению к другим (например, стиль воспитания). Во втором случае пуризм может использоваться как синоним пуританства:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иногда пуризм доходит до таких размеров, что из рук девушки вырывают всякий роман, всякую книгу, в которой встречается слово «любовь». Писарев, Дворянское гнездо. Роман И. С. Тургенева. [Малый академический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/mas/56594/%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пурист&quot; может не требовать строгости нравов от других, строгость в поведении может быть его личным выбором. В этом случае строгость в поведении может характеризовать образ жизни человека в целом, а не только умение &quot;держать себя в обществе&quot;. Толковый словарь иностранных слов в качестве синонимов пуризма приводит аскетизм, пуританизм и ригоризм:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ПУРИ́ЗМ**, а, мн. нет, м. [фр. purisme &lt; лат. pūris чистый].1.Стремление к чистоте и строгости нравов, иногда показное.||Ср. аскетизм (во 2-м знач.), пуританизм (во 2-м знач.), ригоризм.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; АСКЕТИ́ЗМ ... 2. Вообще крайнее воздержание, отказ от жизненных благ.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПУРИТАНИ́ЗМ ... 2. перен. Строгий образ жизни, неукоснительное следование строгим нравственным нормам.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; РИГОРИ́ЗМ, Чрезмерная строгость, прямолинейность в соблюдении нравственных принципов, в поведении.&#xD;&#xA;[Толковый словарь иноязычных слов. — 2004](http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8810" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="8bf01e38-6605-4622-948a-ddb6d5bba180" CreationDate="2013-08-24T00:16:53.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/371063524975714304" />
  <row Id="8812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1842" RevisionGUID="717d3686-4eab-4fcb-b0c5-783a86a7ab75" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:24:39.283" UserId="551" Comment="removed duplicate word" Text="Очеловечение - одухотворение, оживление, олицетворение. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="6e2921d0-20b5-465a-b480-7a7ce1316378" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:24:25.367" UserId="109" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="On a [German page about the Russian language][1], I learned the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прямо [prjáma] – gerade aus &lt;sub&gt;(straight on)&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; направо [napráwa] – rechts &lt;sub&gt;(right)&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; налево [naléwa] – links &lt;sub&gt;(left)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for directions (location plan[*]), for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идите прямо и потом поверните налево. &lt;sub&gt;(Go ahead and then turn left.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coincidentally, I came across an [academic work][2] (written in German) about *left* and *right* in the Russian language. While reading I learned that there are another two words for both *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;left&lt;/b&gt;   &lt;b&gt;right&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;сле́ва	спра́ва&#xD;&#xA;вле́во	впра́во&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the academic work the three words are compared to each other. The author examined two corpora with more than one million words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![frequency of usage table][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the word pair which I learned (*налево* / *направо*) is just the second most common designator for *left* and *right*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to briefly summarize what I came to know from the academic work. (I hope that I don't have any misconceptions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The writer distinguishes between three cases. The (1) &quot;direct personal direction&quot; (e.g. The sea is to my left), the (2) &quot;indirect personal direction&quot; (e.g. The police station is on the left side from the church) and the (3) &quot;non-personal direction&quot; (e.g. The seats on the left side of the cinema).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples she uses are solely taken from literary texts (sorry, I was wrong. Not solely, a few one are taken from a dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. I start with (1). When talking about direct personal directions, the most common word pair is *сле́ва* / *спра́ва*. Only *налево* / *направо* can be used without changing the meaning of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. I continue with (2). When talking about indirect personal directions, *сле́ва* / *спра́ва* is, again, most frequently used. Both other word pairs can be used synonymously; examples for *налево* / *направо* were only found in dictionaries though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. Lastly (3). When talking about non-personal directions, only the word pair *сле́ва* / *спра́ва* is used. No written examples exist using the other word pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since the writer isn't native Russian herself, she consulted Russian friends asking them about their personal opinions for interchangeability.&#xD;&#xA;* The time of the origin of the literary texts is not clear. At least I haven't been able to find that information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, finally here are my questions. I'm sorry for combining a couple of questions into one, but they belong together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are the summarized results valid for nowadays colloquial speech and everyday conversations? Would you also agree that *сле́ва* / *спра́ва* is the most frequent word pair, while *вле́во* / *впра́во* only rarely used? (The gap seems very large.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I learned *налево* / *направо* for directions (location plan). According to b. there are no written examples using them in indirect personal directions. I personally would integrate directions into category (2), i.e. indirect personal directions. However, *налево* / *направо* are accepted as synonyms for the category (2), but only dictionary examples are existing. That's somewhat ambivalent and inconsistent. Are *налево* and *направо* the preferred words for describing directions (location plan)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Which main distinctions do you personally see between those three word pairs. As a non-native, do I need to carefully think about which word I use for not being mistaken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. I tried to figure out if German or English do also have different words for *left* and *right*, but I can't think of any. Maybe my understanding of the three word pairs is just wrong and therefore I can't conclude the correct German or English counterparts, if any existing. Do you know counterparts in the English language (and German, if applicable)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess after writing that long text and now being tired and weary, I might have forgotten something. Please feel free to add any thoughts to your answer if you consider them to be important, interesting or helpful in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[*] Since I often used the word &quot;directions&quot; in two different senses, I (hopefully always) designated that word with &quot;location plan&quot; when talking about ... yeah, directions ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russlandjournal.de/podcasts/lektionen/urok-18-wegbeschreibung/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uppsala.academia.edu/IngridMaier/Papers/1351781/Die_Semantik_vonrechts_undlinks_auf_Russisch_und_die_Dimension_des_Personenbezugs&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iTkQ4.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="6457af7c-2577-4b6a-8906-228c1f09ebed" CreationDate="2013-08-24T18:42:06.270" UserId="551" Text="In addition of previous answers. The word &quot;разработаться&quot; is perfectly valid, and, in fact have several meanings (though most marked as colloquial), including a special one. Only first one may have an ironic or negative comnnotatation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Войти в работу; разохотиться работать. / To start working good and eagerly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Так разработался, что и про обед забыл. ([Толковый словарь Ефремовой](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/235107/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Работая, действуя, прийти в хорошее рабочее состояние (о механизмах) / To start working properly (about mechanisms)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Замок разработался. Подожди, пока мотор разработается. ([Толковый словарь русского языка Кузнецова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/kuznetsov/51711/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Начать нормально работать (о ранее поврежденных частях тела) / To start working properly (about previously injured parts of a body.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пальцы на руке почти вылечил — хотя они еще не разработались, все же смогли бы, наверно, управиться с винтовкой. Евдокимов, Была похоронка. ([Малый академический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/mas/58174/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В работе износиться, перестать быть годным. / To wear-off due to intensive usage.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Шестерня разработалась. Винт, гайка разработались. ([Толковый словарь Ушакова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/999118))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2302" RevisionGUID="42d22458-1da2-4c9a-8664-ef918c15f15d" CreationDate="2013-08-25T18:17:06.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/371697762917965825" />
  <row Id="8817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="e9b5cc91-3555-4b18-826e-400f177926dd" CreationDate="2013-08-25T23:36:56.897" UserId="170" Text="У меня оба часов/обеи часы/обои часы сломались.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What' s the correct way of stating the fact that both of my watches are not functioning?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="e9b5cc91-3555-4b18-826e-400f177926dd" CreationDate="2013-08-25T23:36:56.897" UserId="170" Text="&quot;У меня оба часов/обеи часы/обои часы сломались&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="e9b5cc91-3555-4b18-826e-400f177926dd" CreationDate="2013-08-25T23:36:56.897" UserId="170" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2534" RevisionGUID="eb700dbd-57c7-4fa3-937c-ff1ad16c162a" CreationDate="2013-08-26T00:05:00.570" UserId="1934" Text="&quot;оба&quot; is never used with nouns without singular form. The correct version is &quot;у меня сломались и те, и эти часы&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="23946e59-5d78-46c3-a032-ac37dcb89e37" CreationDate="2013-08-26T01:02:27.407" UserId="426" Text="Since &quot;часы&quot; has no singular form, you normally need to add the word &quot;пара&quot; (pair) to make the phrase work, in a way similar to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я погладил обе пары брюк. (I ironed both pairs of trousers.)&#xD;&#xA;    Точильщик наточил обе пары ножниц. (The sharpener has sharpened both pairs of scissors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how I would translate your phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня сломались обе пары часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means two watches, not four, although it does not make much sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="49fd1b03-5b3d-4c83-8b93-56b333e09363" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:03:10.997" UserId="5" Text="What I would say and expect to hear from somebody is &quot;обои часы&quot;. Not sure about how canonically right it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="af586db9-846c-4fe3-94bf-9f4ba84ee966" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:16:19.853" UserId="1770" Text="Здравствуйте! I speak spanish, and I'm learning russian. We're studying perfective and imperfective verbes (I hope I'm using this words right), like читать - прочитать. I get really confuse with some глаголы, like купить &amp; покупать, i thougth they were imperfective and perfective respectively, but it turns out that is the other way around, is there a rule for this or it's just an exception?&#xD;&#xA;Then another глагол wich is confusing is говорить, and разговаривать, заговаривать, поговорить, I assume that all of this are perfective глаголы of говорить, but i don't know when to use them.&#xD;&#xA;There are other words like полюбить that i don't understand how to use, here i have an example from the excersize book: Хуан полюбил Марию, когда они вместе учились в школе, here полюбил is perfective, but the translation isn't clear for me, is it: &quot;Juan loved María when they were studying together in the school&quot;? or &quot;Juan used to love María when ....&quot; I don't know if you can tell the difference in english, but in spanish there's a difference. Hope you can help me, спасибо большое.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="af586db9-846c-4fe3-94bf-9f4ba84ee966" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:16:19.853" UserId="1770" Text="Talking about perfective and imperfective verbes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="af586db9-846c-4fe3-94bf-9f4ba84ee966" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:16:19.853" UserId="1770" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="ffd0765b-155c-4a18-9d42-0ba2e1cf007e" CreationDate="2013-08-26T03:26:35.970" UserId="551" Text="As @fedja already answered, the word `оба` cannot be used here. I would use `двое` instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня сломалось двое часов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="267118b7-032a-4e3c-a064-5b6c0aafe2b1" CreationDate="2013-08-26T03:36:01.810" UserId="115" Text="Yes, this is confusing. What is happening here is that sometimes a prefix is used to change the aspect of the verb, and sometimes it is used to modify its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- говорить means &quot;to talk&quot; or &quot;to say&quot; in general. The perfective form is сказать. Разговаривать, on the other hand, means &quot;to have a conversation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он говорил о погоде.  - He was talking about the weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он сказал, что он был в Москве. - He said, that he was in Moscow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они разговаривали. - They were talking / They were having a conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="3464359c-5d39-4a0c-a105-9fd2d2fe992a" CreationDate="2013-08-26T03:41:54.533" UserId="115" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is confusing. What is happening here is that sometimes a prefix is used to change the aspect of the verb, and sometimes it is used to modify its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- говорить means &quot;to talk&quot; or &quot;to say&quot; in general. The perfective form is сказать. Разговаривать, on the other hand, means &quot;to have a conversation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он говорил о погоде.  - He was talking about the weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он сказал, что он был в Москве. - He said, that he was in Moscow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они разговаривали. - They were talking / They were having a conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it gets even more interesting. Заговаривать means &quot;to strike up a conversation&quot;. It can also mean to talk so much as to make your interlocutor tired of your talking: Он меня заговорил! On top of that заговаривать can mean &quot;to cast a magical spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- полюбить is the easy one.  It simply means &quot;to fall in love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="4196428b-1f0c-4b3d-994a-8c74a09e1b61" CreationDate="2013-08-26T03:48:24.387" UserId="115" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is confusing. What is happening here is that sometimes a prefix is used to change the aspect of the verb, and sometimes it is used to modify its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- говорить means &quot;to talk&quot; or &quot;to say&quot; in general. The perfective form is сказать. Разговаривать, on the other hand, means &quot;to have a conversation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он говорил о погоде.  - He was talking about the weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он сказал, что он был в Москве. - He said, that he was in Moscow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они разговаривали. - They were talking / They were having a conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it gets even more interesting. Заговаривать means &quot;to strike up a conversation&quot;. It can also mean to talk so much as to make your interlocutor tired of your talking: Он меня заговорил! On top of that заговаривать can mean &quot;to cast a magical spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поговорить means &quot;to have a talk&quot; with someone. Typically a short talk, but not necessarily. For example, &quot;I need to talk to you&quot; would be translated as Мне нужно с Вами поговорить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- полюбить is the easy one.  It simply means &quot;to fall in love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="96b6cb34-69cf-41f7-a2ba-e56b0177bc53" CreationDate="2013-08-26T04:32:14.460" UserId="551" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="As @fedja already answered, the word `оба` cannot be used here. I would use `двое` instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня сломалось двое часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Двое моих часов сломалось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that it is rarely expected that one has more than one watch, so it is clear enough that no more watches left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="404704df-5976-471c-ad49-2da231f510ff" CreationDate="2013-08-26T06:25:24.787" UserId="1604" Text="The one that comes to my mind is &quot;Себя от холода страхуя, купил доху я на меху [я]&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2541" RevisionGUID="ff216e35-2bdf-40ff-adaa-7fac50c39f48" CreationDate="2013-08-26T06:32:16.210" UserId="1604" Text="попользоваться also has the colloquial meaning of &quot;borrowed without owner's permission or even knowledge&quot; as in &quot;Саша попользовался Юриной теннисной ракеткой&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="3ee7a97d-0cc6-4b48-a559-81ba8b76858f" CreationDate="2013-08-26T10:25:13.337" UserId="560" Text="As D.Rosenthal puts it in his [famous guidebook](http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/59.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разговорный характер имеют также сочетания «у обоих ворот», «у обоих часов», не отвечающие грамматической норме, так как форма косвенного падежа образована от несуществующей начальной формы (нет формы именительного падежа «оба – обе ворота», «оба – обе часы» в связи с отсутствием категории рода у существительных, употребляющихся только в форме множественного числа). Возможная правка: у тех и у других ворот (часов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При слове часы (прибор) употребляется собирательное числительное (одни часы, двое часов) или добавляется слово штука (не хватает пяти штук часов). Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the best way would be to say &quot;у меня сломались и те, и другие часы&quot; or &quot;у меня сломались обе штуки часов&quot;. I have never heard anyone say the latter though and I'd never say it myself. But then again I never knew someone who was in such a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Myself, I'd say &quot;у меня сломались обе пары часов&quot;, although Rosenthal deems this as low colloquial language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="d6d4bbbb-41c0-464a-bc19-a9f79e5a4623" CreationDate="2013-08-26T10:32:39.277" UserId="426" Comment="Mentioned the meaning of &quot;пара часов&quot; in contexts where &quot;часы&quot; mean &quot;hours&quot;." Text="Since &quot;часы&quot; has no singular form, you normally need to add the word &quot;пара&quot; (pair) to make the phrase work, in a way similar to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я погладил обе пары брюк. (I ironed both pairs of trousers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Точильщик наточил обе пары ножниц. (The sharpener has sharpened both pairs of scissors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how I would translate your phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня сломались обе пары часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;two watches&quot;, not four, although it does not make much sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in the contexts where &quot;часы&quot; is used as a plural for &quot;an hour&quot;, not &quot;watches&quot;, &quot;пара часов&quot; means &quot;a couple of hours&quot;, as in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вернулся через пару часов. (He was back in a couple of hours)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="3ff572e2-775e-41b7-8fe5-1fbff4f4a8d5" CreationDate="2013-08-26T10:47:25.937" UserId="426" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Since &quot;часы&quot; has no singular form, you would need to add the word &quot;пара&quot; (pair) to make the phrase work, in a way similar to these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я погладил обе пары брюк. (I ironed both pairs of trousers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Точильщик наточил обе пары ножниц. (The sharpener has sharpened both pairs of scissors.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how I would translate your phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня сломались обе пары часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;two watches&quot;, not four, although it does not make much sense. According to D. Rosenthal, this use is considered colloquial (see [165-3][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in the contexts where &quot;часы&quot; is used as a plural for &quot;an hour&quot;, not &quot;watches&quot;, &quot;пара часов&quot; means &quot;a couple of hours&quot;, as in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вернулся через пару часов. (He was back in a couple of hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rosental-book.ru/styli_xxxviii.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="eaa55364-a6ec-460f-bb76-a852d43c06f6" CreationDate="2013-08-26T13:41:57.113" UserId="115" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is confusing. What is happening here is that sometimes a prefix is used to change the aspect of the verb, and sometimes it is used to modify its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- говорить means &quot;to talk&quot; or &quot;to say&quot; in general. The perfective form is сказать. Разговаривать, on the other hand, means &quot;to have a conversation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он говорил о погоде.  - He was talking about the weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, что он был в Москве. - He has said, that he was in Moscow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они разговаривали. - They were talking / They were having a conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it gets even more interesting. Заговаривать can mean &quot;to strike up a conversation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он часто заговаривал с людьми на улице. - He was often striking up conversations with people on the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean to talk so much as to make your interlocutor tired of your talking. Он меня заговорил! On top of that заговаривать can mean &quot;to cast a magical spell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поговорить means &quot;to have a talk&quot; with someone. Typically a short talk, but not necessarily. For example, &quot;I need to talk to you&quot; would be translated as Мне нужно с Вами поговорить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- полюбить is the easy one.  It simply means &quot;to fall in love&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2545" RevisionGUID="80206f9d-fd1a-4b4b-8dc7-2de6c2189dc8" CreationDate="2013-08-26T19:44:21.980" UserId="5" Text="I think the difference is in the emphasis that is slightly shifted. The first phrase is about &quot;**my dad** who is on the trip&quot; while the second one is more of &quot;**me** having my dad on the trip&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2546" RevisionGUID="295f80d2-1e5b-4eda-9457-84773747b00f" CreationDate="2013-08-26T21:10:20.023" UserId="194" Text="У меня обе пары часов сломались." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="174c2820-8bc9-45b2-9043-98cc8196ba77" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:12:18.343" UserId="560" Comment="added additional citations" Text="As D.Rosenthal puts it in his [famous guidebook](http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/59.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разговорный характер имеют также сочетания «у обоих ворот», «у обоих часов», не отвечающие грамматической норме, так как форма косвенного падежа образована от несуществующей начальной формы (нет формы именительного падежа «оба – обе ворота», «оба – обе часы» в связи с отсутствием категории рода у существительных, употребляющихся только в форме множественного числа). Возможная правка: у тех и у других ворот (часов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При слове часы (прибор) употребляется собирательное числительное (одни часы, двое часов) или добавляется слово штука (не хватает пяти штук часов). Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the best way would be to say &quot;у меня сломались и те, и другие часы&quot; or &quot;у меня сломались обе штуки часов&quot;. I have never heard anyone say the latter though and I'd never say it myself. But then again I never knew someone who was in such a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Myself, I'd say &quot;у меня сломались обе пары часов&quot;, although Rosenthal deems this as low colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add more proof, here's a couple of citations from literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Василий Гроссман. Жизнь и судьба:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У командира первой роты две пары часов на руке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Марк Алданов. Чертов мост:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... как он, заторопившись, посмотрит на левую пару часов (правой ведь нет) и немедленно простится с обиженным, недовольным видом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Встретились и поговорили:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какие-то сувениры, авторучки, радиоприемники, две пары часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Компромисс:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потом разглядел две пары часов с металлическими браслетами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Блюма Зейгарник. Патопсихология:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так, например, при предъявлении карточки, на которой изображены три пары часов и монет, один из больных этой группы не соглашается исключить деньги...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Герман Матвеев. Зеленые цепочки:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вернулся в свой кабинет и, положив обе пары часов на стол, повернулся к своему помощнику, который сидел в кресле около телефона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to tell me that in all of these cases the authors mean &quot;four watches&quot; and &quot;six watches&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="34c7bf11-c4af-467d-bf32-dc257acc9e32" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:20:16.083" UserId="560" Comment="added summary" Text="As D.Rosenthal puts it in his [famous guidebook](http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/59.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разговорный характер имеют также сочетания «у обоих ворот», «у обоих часов», не отвечающие грамматической норме, так как форма косвенного падежа образована от несуществующей начальной формы (нет формы именительного падежа «оба – обе ворота», «оба – обе часы» в связи с отсутствием категории рода у существительных, употребляющихся только в форме множественного числа). Возможная правка: у тех и у других ворот (часов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При слове часы (прибор) употребляется собирательное числительное (одни часы, двое часов) или добавляется слово штука (не хватает пяти штук часов). Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the best way would be to say &quot;у меня сломались и те, и другие часы&quot; or &quot;у меня сломались обе штуки часов&quot;. I have never heard anyone say the latter though and I'd never say it myself. But then again I never knew someone who was in such a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Myself, I'd say &quot;у меня сломались обе пары часов&quot;, although Rosenthal deems this as low colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add more proof, here's a couple of citations from literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Василий Гроссман. Жизнь и судьба:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У командира первой роты две пары часов на руке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Марк Алданов. Чертов мост:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... как он, заторопившись, посмотрит на левую пару часов (правой ведь нет) и немедленно простится с обиженным, недовольным видом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Встретились и поговорили:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какие-то сувениры, авторучки, радиоприемники, две пары часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Компромисс:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потом разглядел две пары часов с металлическими браслетами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Блюма Зейгарник. Патопсихология:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так, например, при предъявлении карточки, на которой изображены три пары часов и монет, один из больных этой группы не соглашается исключить деньги...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Герман Матвеев. Зеленые цепочки:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вернулся в свой кабинет и, положив обе пары часов на стол, повернулся к своему помощнику, который сидел в кресле около телефона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to tell me that in all of these cases the authors mean &quot;four watches&quot; and &quot;six watches&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (probably even better) alternative is the one by [@Artemix](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2538/560): to use двое. Here's a [link](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E4%E2%EE%E5+%F7%E0%F1%EE%E2) to a search, showing that it does show up in literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У меня сломались обе пары часов&quot;: not really correct, but colloquially used;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У меня сломались двое часов&quot;: okay, but doesn't 100% translate into &quot;both&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У меня сломались обе штуки часов&quot;: preferable, although rarely used (at least from my experience)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="c2248602-88f2-496f-a77f-f36e91a48a56" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:57:52.153" UserId="1958" Text="Раз-ся has a meaning &quot;to do something OUT&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sounds pretty OK, just not frequent. Usually YOU work something out (разрабатываешь/ете), not the thing itself. (But there is расстараться).&#xD;&#xA;2. Really don't know. But you can зачитаться.&#xD;&#xA;3. Thinking is about concentration, not disconcentration, so you can for ex. задуматься (like fall IN thinking), but not раздуматься.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word generating model is quite powerful, not all possible combination are in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2548" RevisionGUID="d3bc44d9-172a-422b-9639-2b9e02334393" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:12:05.403" UserId="1958" Text="Think of prefixes as they were prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С +gen: слева, справа (like English *from*, from left/right side)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;В +acc: влево, вправо (like English *in*)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;На +acc: налево, направо (like English *on*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difference between влево and налево is not that much. Use any if you doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2549" RevisionGUID="96b583c9-d083-46f0-bd26-0c387468b4ef" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:18:04.960" UserId="1958" Text="Actually there is Воевода bay in Primorye (Russian Island), http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVbeyNiF. I think you can find lots of other examples of this kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="e6e6d6e5-d3b4-4492-bf9b-0ad6fbed4434" CreationDate="2013-08-27T08:30:30.410" UserId="1958" Text="From Russian National Corpus:&#xD;&#xA;Шарлеруа, Гоа (Старый Гоа).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in India: округ Кришна. Probably other Indian toponyms ending with -кришна, -рама, -раджа may be recognized in Russian as masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in Turkey: everything ending with -паша, for ex. Байрампаша, Мустафакемальпаша." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="a1c26e40-f87a-4746-908e-c44ebe605d01" CreationDate="2013-08-27T08:32:26.527" UserId="551" Comment="usage of word двое " Text="As @fedja already answered, the word `оба` cannot be used here. I would use `двое` instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня сломалось двое часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Двое моих часов сломалось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that it is rarely expected that one has more than one watch, so it is clear enough that no more watches left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Словарь Ушакова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/785206) states that word `двое` is a form of `два` that can be applied to living masculine objects or to the objects that do not have singular form. But it is interesting to know that this word can also mean `две пары` for the paired objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ДВО́Е**, двоих, числ. колич.  &#xD;&#xA;1. Два (с сущ. мужск., обозначающем живые существа, и с сущ., употребляющимися только во мн.). Двое братьев. Двое суток. Двое щипцов. Нас было двое. На двое суток, по двое суток.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Две пары чего-нибудь (с сущ., обозначающими парные предметы; косвенные падежи могут заменяться косв. падежами от два). Двое глаз. Двое рук. Двое колес." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2551" RevisionGUID="1d9f4f17-128f-42ad-9a71-b5a49bf89a21" CreationDate="2013-08-27T09:37:03.227" UserId="1958" Text="Please note that *иметь* may have another, indirect meaning: &quot;to have sex with&quot; in spoken language. So, by saying &quot;я имею коня&quot; you may provoke jokes among people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="20b7778f-f9c2-4743-97b5-64876f91bc81" CreationDate="2013-08-27T11:47:45.880" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In addition of previous answers. The word &quot;разработаться&quot; is perfectly valid, and, in fact have several meanings (though most marked as colloquial), including a special one. Only first one may have an ironic or negative comnnotatation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Войти в работу; разохотиться работать. / To start working good and eagerly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Так разработался, что и про обед забыл. ([Толковый словарь Ефремовой](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/235107/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Работая, действуя, прийти в хорошее рабочее состояние (о механизмах) / To start working properly (about mechanisms)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Замок разработался. Подожди, пока мотор разработается. ([Толковый словарь русского языка Кузнецова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/kuznetsov/51711/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Начать нормально работать (о ранее поврежденных частях тела) / To start working properly (about previously injured parts of a body).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пальцы на руке почти вылечил — хотя они еще не разработались, все же смогли бы, наверно, управиться с винтовкой. Евдокимов, Была похоронка. ([Малый академический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/mas/58174/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В работе износиться, перестать быть годным. / To wear-off due to intensive usage.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Шестерня разработалась. Винт, гайка разработались. ([Толковый словарь Ушакова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/999118))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="a31f11c3-3bcb-4c50-b3da-2450098d86d7" CreationDate="2013-08-27T16:42:44.973" UserId="5" Comment="added 624 characters in body" Text="What I would say and expect to hear from somebody is &quot;обои часы&quot;. Not sure about how canonically right it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the people who don't know Russian well enough and claim there is no such word as &quot;обои&quot; in the meaning of &quot;both&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Местами говорят обои м. новг. смол. и обое ср. о вещах: платье двое,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; да обое худое. Два брата хвалились, да оба никуда не годились. Обое&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рябое, зап. все равно. Оба лучше, шуточное. Обои брата, новг. обои&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брата, смол. обои браты, вор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Толковый словарь Даля][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F/%D0%9E%D0%91%D0%90/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="31b783bb-4922-4ad9-bf06-82536d180760" CreationDate="2013-08-27T16:54:22.050" UserId="5" Text="Caring about the purity of the Russian language, you can phrase it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;из двух часов, что у меня, ни одни не работают" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="dcf8a702-faf2-4b16-8dc6-31e7fafb202d" CreationDate="2013-08-28T09:10:32.293" UserId="1961" Text="I am studying russian and sometimes in the dictionary i find words that seems too much 'academical'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to ask clarification about two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Tissue (the paper to clean to the nose) in russian is: 	**бумажный носовой платок** ?&#xD;&#xA;  There is perhaps a short form to refer to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rolling paper (to roll a cigarette) is: **прокатки бумаги** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="dcf8a702-faf2-4b16-8dc6-31e7fafb202d" CreationDate="2013-08-28T09:10:32.293" UserId="1961" Text="Rolling paper and tissue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="dcf8a702-faf2-4b16-8dc6-31e7fafb202d" CreationDate="2013-08-28T09:10:32.293" UserId="1961" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2554" RevisionGUID="efb68861-fc3e-4ccf-ae35-a5cbb641b8a8" CreationDate="2013-08-28T10:26:26.857" UserId="732" Text="&quot;*Tissue*&quot; is usually translated as &quot;*носовой платок*&quot;, regardless of material one is made from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Rolling paper*&quot; can be referred as &quot;*сигаретная бумага*&quot;, &quot;*папиросная бумага*&quot; or as &quot;*бумага для самокруток*&quot;. If you need to buy paper for rolling machine it is more correct to ask for the last." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2555" RevisionGUID="62461c0a-8a40-44ba-8603-4842ccd5efe7" CreationDate="2013-08-28T10:37:25.030" UserId="1963" Text="I do not know how to say &quot;бумажный носовой платок&quot; in one word. Usually these three words are used. Or sometimes there can be &quot;бумажные салфетки&quot; which is actually is the same in that context. Салфетка (napkin) is a paper or cloth used to clean the mouth after eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;прокатка бумаги&quot; there is a &quot;скрутить&quot; (skrutit') word (to curl up). Speaking about hand made cigarette there is a word &quot;самокрутка&quot; (samokrutka). That means a cigarette made by скручивание (skruchivanie) of parer by yourself (сам-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2548" RevisionGUID="fea61394-733a-4c9a-ac68-08306b65258a" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:14:31.850" UserId="69" Comment="Formatting, grammar, glossing." Text="Think of prefixes as if they were prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _С_ + ɢᴇɴ: _слева_, _справа_ (like English *from*, from left/right side)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _В_ + ᴀᴄᴄ: _влево_, _вправо_ (like English *in*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _На_ + ᴀᴄᴄ: _налево_, _направо_ (like English *on*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between _влево_ and _налево_ is not that great. Use either if in doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8864" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2548" RevisionGUID="fea61394-733a-4c9a-ac68-08306b65258a" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:14:31.850" Comment="Proposed by 69 approved by 71 edit id of 395" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="1675527f-73a5-4252-b677-654fc7278c3f" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:14:52.710" UserId="71" Comment="removing salutations and thanks as per the policy" Text="I am studying russian and sometimes in the dictionary i find words that seems too much 'academical'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to ask clarification about two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Tissue (the paper to clean to the nose) in russian is: 	**бумажный носовой платок** ?&#xD;&#xA;  There is perhaps a short form to refer to it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rolling paper (to roll a cigarette) is: **прокатки бумаги** ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="1a880577-bff7-492f-8feb-1f33c21250b6" CreationDate="2013-08-29T04:58:59.963" UserId="1839" Text="&gt; I tried to figure out if German or English do also have different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; words for left and right, but I can't think of any. Maybe my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; understanding of the three word pairs is just wrong and therefore I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can't conclude the correct German or English counterparts, if any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; existing. Do you know counterparts in the English language (and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; German, if applicable)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the meaning and context, both German and English use different prepositional phrases for _left_ and _right_.  It just so happens that the Russian rules prescribe to write these adverbial phrases as one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **на лево*  is the German *nach links* and **на право* is the German _nach rechts_. But we spell them as one word like *налево* → **nachlinks* and *направо* → **nachrechts*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *слева направо* is equivalent to the German *von links nach rechts*. Again we spell it like **vonlinks nachrecths*, even though it can actually be thought of as **с лева на право*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't let the spelling confuse you! As a matter of fact, it is not intuitive even for Russian speakers so school kids and sometimes even adults are having a hard time with all this *Getrennt-und-Zusammenschreibung* stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you continue to learn Russian, you will come across other similar adverbs like that. For example, *сзади* (= с + зади) → *von hinten* and *назад* (= на + зад) → *nach hinten*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="5f2350fc-dde0-43cc-aa26-5715704fce52" CreationDate="2013-08-29T08:43:27.597" UserId="1839" Text="[Perfective / imperfective verbs][1] in Russian is a way of expressing [grammatical aspect][2] of a verb. *Aspect* is a very important grammatical category, along with *tense* and *mood*, and probably all world languages have means of expressing it one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the perfective meaning is often expressed with the auxiliary verb *have*, hence the names for differrent &quot;perfective&quot; tenses like Present Perfect, Past Perfect etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, perfective / imperfective meaning is often encoded in *prefixes* or more rarely *suffixes*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are quite a lot of different prefixes and suffixes in Russian, and of course, there's no reason to remember them when you start learning Russian. Just remember what aspect a verb has, if possible, but don't get too overwhelmed, it will make more sense with more practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective meaning is often expressed with prefixes like *по-* or *с-* and sometimes suffixes like *-ну-*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, compare imperfective / perfective pairs like *просить - попросить* (ask/be asking - have asked), *делать - сделать* (do/be doing - have done), *улыбаться - улыбнуться* (smile/be smiling - have smiled/give a smile).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of an imperfective suffix is *-ыва-*: *забыть - забывать* (have forgotten - forget/be forgetting), *закрыть - закрывать* (have closed - be closing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in your example, *купить - покупать*, it's the suffix that changes the aspectual meaning, not the prefix *по-*. Compare another similar pair *закупить - закупать*. In these verbs, the suffix *-и-* expresses perfectiveness and the suffix *-a-* expresses imperfectiveness. But it's only true for some verbs, others can use *-и-* for imperfective meanings, e.g. *стелить* 'spread, lay' and *клеить* 'to glue' are imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it's not always easy to &quot;guess&quot; the aspect simply by looking at the verb. But it will get easier when you've learned a good number of Russian verbs because there's a common pattern. Always consult a good dictionary when in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when you know what aspect a verb has, it can still be tricky to figure out when to use perfective versus imperfective, as the aspectual meaning is quite abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general rule would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use *imperfective verbs* for *repeated* and/or *continuous* actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говори́л ей не гуля́ть до поздна́. (I told her / I kept telling her not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to go out until late at night.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the imperfective *говорить* implies a repeated past action. I told her numerous times in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use *perfective verbs* for *short* and/or *one time* and/or *finished* actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сказа́л ей не гуля́ть до поздна́. (I told her her not to go out until late at night.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the perfective *сказать* refers to a one-time past action. It implies that I told her one time / on one occasion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is just a very general rule. Aspect + tense + context produce a wide variety of different shades of meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So always feel free to ask about specific verbs and contexts for more explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect_in_Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="568198b1-174a-46e9-ab49-7946646ed2c4" CreationDate="2013-08-29T09:05:26.803" UserId="1839" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="[Perfective / imperfective verbs][1] in Russian is a way of expressing [grammatical aspect][2] of a verb. *Aspect* is a very important grammatical category, along with *tense* and *mood*, and probably all world languages have means of expressing it one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the perfective meaning is often expressed with the auxiliary verb *have*, hence the names for differrent &quot;perfective&quot; tenses like Present Perfect, Past Perfect etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, perfective / imperfective meaning is often encoded in *prefixes* or more rarely *suffixes*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are quite a lot of different prefixes and suffixes in Russian, and of course, there's no reason to remember them when you start learning Russian. Just remember what aspect a verb has, if possible, but don't get too overwhelmed, it will make more sense with more practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective meaning is often expressed with prefixes like *по-* or *с-* and sometimes suffixes like *-ну-*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, compare imperfective / perfective pairs like *просить - попросить* (ask/be asking - have asked), *делать - сделать* (do/be doing - have done), *улыбаться - улыбнуться* (smile/be smiling - have smiled/give a smile).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of an imperfective suffix is *-ыва-*: *забыть - забывать* (have forgotten - forget/be forgetting), *закрыть - закрывать* (have closed - be closing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in your example, *купить - покупать*, it's the suffix that changes the aspectual meaning, not the prefix *по-*. Compare another similar pair *закупить - закупать*. In these verbs, the suffix *-и-* expresses perfectiveness and the suffix *-a-* expresses imperfectiveness. But it's only true for some verbs, others can use *-и-* for imperfective meanings, e.g. *стелить* 'spread, lay' and *клеить* 'to glue' are imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it's not always easy to &quot;guess&quot; the aspect simply by looking at the verb. But it will get easier when you've learned a good number of Russian verbs because there's a common pattern. Always consult a good dictionary when in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when you know what aspect a verb has, it can still be tricky to figure out when to use perfective versus imperfective, as the aspectual meaning is quite abstract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A general rule would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use *imperfective verbs* for *repeated* and/or *continuous* actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говори́л ей не гуля́ть допоздна́. (I told her / I kept telling her not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to go out until late at night.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the imperfective *говорить* implies a repeated past action. I told her numerous times in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use *perfective verbs* for *short* and/or *one time* and/or *finished* actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сказа́л ей не гуля́ть допоздна́. (I told her not to go out until late at night.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the perfective *сказать* refers to a one-time past action. It implies that I told her one time / on one occasion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is just a very general rule. Aspect + tense + context produce a wide variety of different shades of meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So always feel free to ask about specific verbs and contexts for more explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect_in_Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="8d2e35f5-8ee6-4025-ab0c-93d00c6f3f6c" CreationDate="2013-08-29T12:15:02.883" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="Здравствуйте! I speak spanish, and I'm learning russian. We're studying perfective and imperfective verbs, like читать - прочитать. I get really confuse with some глаголы, like купить &amp; покупать, i thougth they were imperfective and perfective respectively, but it turns out that is the other way around, is there a rule for this or it's just an exception?&#xD;&#xA;Then another глагол wich is confusing is говорить, and разговаривать, заговаривать, поговорить, I assume that all of this are perfective глаголы of говорить, but i don't know when to use them.&#xD;&#xA;There are other words like полюбить that i don't understand how to use, here i have an example from the excersize book: Хуан полюбил Марию, когда они вместе учились в школе, here полюбил is perfective, but the translation isn't clear for me, is it: &quot;Juan loved María when they were studying together in the school&quot;? or &quot;Juan used to love María when ....&quot; I don't know if you can tell the difference in english, but in spanish there's a difference. Hope you can help me, спасибо большое.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8870" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="8d2e35f5-8ee6-4025-ab0c-93d00c6f3f6c" CreationDate="2013-08-29T12:15:02.883" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body; edited title" Text="Talking about perfective and imperfective verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="87948fc5-122c-4b69-95a9-cd6f3fd61995" CreationDate="2013-08-29T12:16:11.393" UserId="1839" Text="Letters have almost no etymological significance. When talking about etymology, you should always look at the phonetic structure of a word. Most languages have existed and developed without any alphabets for centuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that there are no native words starting with the letter A can be mostly correct but misleading because the Russian alphabet itself is very misleading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A and Я are different letters but they are the exact same phoneme [a]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are plenty of native Russian words that start with [a], a lot of them have a history as old as the Proto-Indo-European language (for example, яблоко, ягода etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iotation that was already mentioned in another answer, along with palatalization, has blurred the fact that *а* and *я* are actually the same phoneme. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iotation is not phonemic in Russian. And all Russian words that started with a vowel had a tendency to be iotized. It was almost like a glottal stop that precedes vowels in German. The difference is there are no special letters for glottalized vowels in German (*Apfel* is still *Apfel*), but there are speciall letters for iotized vowels in Russian (so *аблоко* becomes *яблоко*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true for У and Ю, and Э and E etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="bedb4000-8904-486a-94ef-24a921320e76" CreationDate="2013-08-29T13:43:54.933" UserId="1839" Comment="added clarification" Text="Letters have almost no etymological significance. When talking about etymology, you should always look at the phonetic structure of a word. Most languages have existed and developed without any alphabets for centuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a layman, saying that there are no native words starting with the letter A is by and large a correct and satisfactory answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this answer is also misleading because the Russian alphabet itself is very misleading. It's definitely not a good answer for a linguist or etymologist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A and Я are different letters but they are the exact same phoneme [a] so, in terms of etymology and phonetics, *A and Я should generally be treated as the same letter*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are plenty of native Russian words that start with [a], a lot of them have a history as old as the Proto-Indo-European language (for example, яблоко, ягода etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iotation that was already mentioned in another answer, along with palatalization, has blurred the fact that *а* and *я* are actually the same phoneme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iotation is not phonemic in Russian. And all Russian words that started with a vowel had a tendency to be iotized. It was almost like a glottal stop that precedes vowels in German. The difference is there are no special letters for glottalized vowels in German (*Apfel* is still *Apfel*), but there are speciall letters for iotized vowels in Russian (so *аблоко* becomes *яблоко*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is true for У and Ю, and Э and E etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="29db9b20-791d-4a1e-90b8-e4685955abbb" CreationDate="2013-08-30T09:51:59.473" UserId="282" Text="I acknowledge that sometimes there is a different way to say things in Russian, but I've seen the following, and do not know where to begin to know how it is derived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;У неё было спрятано шесть ананасов.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just seems to be no information out there on participles.&#xD;&#xA;I found info on forming active present and past participles [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't really help in the instance of participles ending in -en.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bit.ly/1dsGmF5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="29db9b20-791d-4a1e-90b8-e4685955abbb" CreationDate="2013-08-30T09:51:59.473" UserId="282" Text="How can I learn how to form the corresponding participles such as hidden, fallen, laden, etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="29db9b20-791d-4a1e-90b8-e4685955abbb" CreationDate="2013-08-30T09:51:59.473" UserId="282" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2560" RevisionGUID="482180a7-aa94-4d4f-903e-adf605d1f4f9" CreationDate="2013-08-30T13:04:14.283" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="The participles ending in -en usually, but not always, correspond to the passive voice. That's why you don't see them on that page; it's about active participles. Passive participles are discussed [here](http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/forming-passive-present-and-past-participles/). I will expand a bit on the material outlined there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian term for passive participle is страдательное причастие. There's no form that is common to them all. Many such word will have -анн- or -енн-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, long form: спрятанный, спрятанная, спрятанное, спрятанные&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, short form: спрятан, спрятана, спрятано, спрятаны&#xD;&#xA;    frozen: замороженный (make all the other forms yourself)&#xD;&#xA;    laden: нагруженный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often an -en participle can be translated with an adjective as well: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    laden гружёный&#xD;&#xA;    frozen мороженый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike страдательное причастие, these are written with a single -н- in the long form. An easy rule to remember, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact it's hard even for native speakers, because the distinction between these two parts of speech is somewhat artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    stolen: краденый и украденный&#xD;&#xA;    written: писаный и написанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often there is no -анн- or -енн-, there's -т-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, long form: скрытый, скрытая, скрытое, скрытые&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, short form: скрыт, скрыта, скрыто, скрыты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    beaten битый&#xD;&#xA;    taken взятый&#xD;&#xA;    broken разбитый (also сломанный, ломаный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes an English passive participle corresponds to a Russian active participle (причастие действительного залога). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    fallen павший (or падший, depending on whether it's a warrior or an angel)&#xD;&#xA;    rotten сгнивший (there's an adjective too: гнилой)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short form of the active participle is rarely used, if ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that страдательное причастие can be used in the present tense too (mostly in writing). Such forms have -ем- -им- or -ом- in them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (being) driven ведомый&#xD;&#xA;    (being) thrown бросаемый&#xD;&#xA;    (being) blown раздуваемый" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2560" RevisionGUID="a074e13a-ff97-4c71-86b7-29df4ace63e6" CreationDate="2013-08-30T17:14:19.617" UserDisplayName="user248" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The participles ending in -en usually, but not always, correspond to the passive voice. That's why you don't see them on that page; it's about active participles. Passive participles are discussed [here](http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/forming-passive-present-and-past-participles/). I will expand a bit on the material outlined there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian term for passive participle is страдательное причастие. There's no form that is common to them all. Many such word will have -анн- or -енн-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, long form: спрятанный, спрятанная, спрятанное, спрятанные&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, short form: спрятан, спрятана, спрятано, спрятаны&#xD;&#xA;    frozen: замороженный (make all the other forms yourself)&#xD;&#xA;    laden: нагруженный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often an -en participle can be translated with an adjective as well: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    laden гружёный&#xD;&#xA;    frozen мороженый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike страдательное причастие, these are written with a single -н- in the long form. An easy rule to remember, isn't it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact it's hard even for native speakers, because the distinction between these two parts of speech is somewhat artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    stolen: краденый и украденный&#xD;&#xA;    written: писаный и написанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But often there is no -анн- or -енн-, there's -т-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, long form: скрытый, скрытая, скрытое, скрытые&#xD;&#xA;    hidden, short form: скрыт, скрыта, скрыто, скрыты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    beaten битый&#xD;&#xA;    taken взятый&#xD;&#xA;    broken разбитый (also сломанный, ломаный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes an English -en participle corresponds to a Russian active participle (причастие действительного залога). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    fallen павший (or падший, depending on whether it's a warrior or an angel)&#xD;&#xA;    rotten сгнивший (there's an adjective too: гнилой)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short form of the active participle is rarely used, if ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that страдательное причастие can be used in the present tense too (mostly in writing). Such forms have -ем- -им- or -ом- in them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (being) driven ведомый&#xD;&#xA;    (being) thrown бросаемый&#xD;&#xA;    (being) blown раздуваемый" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="6fc5d944-70ef-40a0-89cc-cc2e5d2c4b68" CreationDate="2013-08-31T05:45:01.393" UserId="1277" Text="Как образовалось слово «глюк»? Различные источники утверждают, что оно произошло от слова «галлюцинация», но без дальнейших объяснений, а они так друг на друга не похожи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="6fc5d944-70ef-40a0-89cc-cc2e5d2c4b68" CreationDate="2013-08-31T05:45:01.393" UserId="1277" Text="Этимология слова «Глюк»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="6fc5d944-70ef-40a0-89cc-cc2e5d2c4b68" CreationDate="2013-08-31T05:45:01.393" UserId="1277" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="00052e40-4a56-4ce9-b902-fe875eaabf39" CreationDate="2013-08-31T08:49:49.220" UserId="242" Text="This word and its derivatives (`приглючилось`, `глючный`, `глючить`) originally belongs to slang of the Russian hippies community, which has been established a bit later then in western word, in 70s. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its first meaning `глюк` was just a shorthand for `галлюцинация` (hallucination) and has been used in context of drug usage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="8571224c-59ef-496a-a4e1-95c9a221849c" CreationDate="2013-08-31T08:59:22.437" UserId="242" Comment="added section on thoughts on how exactly this would was adopted" Text="This word and its derivatives (`приглючилось`, `глючный`, `глючить`) originally belongs to slang of the Russian hippies community, which has been established a bit later then in western word, in 70s. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its first meaning `глюк` was indeed just a shorthand for `галлюцинация` (hallucination) and has been used in context of drug usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the reasons why exactly this form has been adopted, I guess this word has been widely adopted because it is short, sounds funny to native speaker and at the same time can be easily used to produce new forms (such as mentioned above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gradually this word migrated to IT community which (to some extent) overlapped with hippies community. In IT slang this word acquires new meaning close to the word `баг` but not equivalent to it.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="6d29480c-3941-4cfa-accf-0ad02bf3e6b4" CreationDate="2013-08-31T14:34:16.653" UserId="71" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="This word and its derivatives (**приглючилось**, **глючный**, **глючить**) originally belongs to slang of the Russian hippies community, which has been established a bit later then in western word, in 70s. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In its first meaning **глюк** was indeed just a shorthand for **галлюцинация** (hallucination) and has been used in context of drug usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the reasons why exactly this form has been adopted, I guess this word has been widely adopted because it is short, sounds funny to native speaker and at the same time can be easily used to produce new forms (such as mentioned above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gradually this word migrated to IT community which (to some extent) overlapped with hippies community. In IT slang this word acquires new meaning close to the word **баг** but not equivalent to it.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="dc704b01-486a-4906-9a16-f33fae25061b" CreationDate="2013-08-31T14:34:29.170" UserId="62" Text="In comments on dasblinkenlight's answer to the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2533/%D0%A3-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B8-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B8-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some write that две пары часов means 2 watches and три пары часов means 3 watches, while others write that these terms mean 4 watches and 6 watches. I'm not sure if the context of &quot;watches&quot; is the source of the conflict here, on account of часы having a plural appearance while referring to a single physical object. (Let's not take часы to mean &quot;hours&quot; for this question!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To clear up the situation, if that is possible, I'd like to know if native speakers who think две пары часов means 2 watches also think две пары книг and три пары книг mean 2 books and 3 books, rather than 4 books and 6 books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you think the meaning is 2 books and 3 books, then what do you think the purpose of the word пара is in those phrases, since две книги and три книги also mean 2 books and 3 books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Remark: This argument about whether две пары means 2 or 4 and три пары means 3 or 6 reminds me of the conflict in mathematics over whether the notation &lt;i&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/i&gt; for dihedral groups means a group of order *n* or 2&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;; some mathematicians interpret it one way and some interpret it the other way, but somehow they manage to get along. :)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="dc704b01-486a-4906-9a16-f33fae25061b" CreationDate="2013-08-31T14:34:29.170" UserId="62" Text="две пары = 2 or 4?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="dc704b01-486a-4906-9a16-f33fae25061b" CreationDate="2013-08-31T14:34:29.170" UserId="62" Text="|грамматика|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="fe71d817-52d7-4700-9674-73f25b34d172" CreationDate="2013-08-31T14:34:44.687" UserId="71" Comment="edited body" Text="I acknowledge that sometimes there is a different way to say things in Russian, but I've seen the following, and do not know where to begin to know how it is derived:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;У неё было спрятано шесть ананасов.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just seems to be no information out there on participles. I found info on forming active present and past participles [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't really help in the instance of participles ending in -en.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://bit.ly/1dsGmF5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2564" RevisionGUID="4ec04c4b-3bb6-42d7-81c1-96de5fa78877" CreationDate="2013-08-31T15:57:27.713" UserId="222" Text="«n пар книг» means “n pairs of books”. The total number of books is 2n (since usually it is assumed that pairs are disjoint). Similarly, if you have «n пар прдметов», you have 2n «предметов» in total. That being said, we talk about pairs of objects only if objects are divided into pairs in some logical way, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я купил две пары ботинок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ко мне в гости пришли 3 (супружеские) пары.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В показательной программе выступили 5 пар (фигуристов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 2n books, you will not say «у меня есть n пар книг». That would sound very weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2564" RevisionGUID="08aa22ca-a501-4de9-bbf2-b5747ccb4b7a" CreationDate="2013-08-31T16:03:57.707" UserId="222" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="«n пар книг» means “n pairs of books”. The total number of books is 2n (since usually it is assumed that pairs are disjoint). Similarly, if you have «n пар предметов», you have 2n «предметов» in total. That being said, we talk about pairs of objects only if objects are divided into pairs in some logical way, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я купил две пары ботинок. [т.е. 4 ботинка]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ко мне в гости пришли 3 (супружеские) пары. [всего было 6 человек]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В показательной программе выступили 5 пар (фигуристов). [выступили 10 спортсменов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 2n books, you will not say «у меня есть n пар книг». That would sound very weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2564" RevisionGUID="d37d6fa1-1b1f-4204-b2c1-dd5b3c21efda" CreationDate="2013-08-31T16:12:25.347" UserId="222" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="«n пар книг» means “n pairs of books”. The total number of books is 2n (since usually it is assumed that pairs are disjoint). Similarly, if you have «n пар предметов», you have 2n «предметов» in total. That being said, we talk about pairs of objects only if objects are divided into pairs in some logical way, like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я купил две пары ботинок. [т.е. 4 ботинка]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ко мне в гости пришли 3 (супружеские) пары. [всего было 6 человек]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В показательной программе выступили 5 пар (фигуристов). [выступили 10 спортсменов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have 2n books, you will not say «у меня есть n пар книг». That would sound very weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only when you use a noun that doesn't have a singular form «n пар» means that you have n objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Он купил две пары штанов. = He bought two pairs of pants.  [He bought two items of clothing.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="a1221f4f-cb32-496a-8561-92f5e5dcef6e" CreationDate="2013-08-31T19:53:53.127" UserId="62" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="In comments on dasblinkenlight's answer to the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2533/%D0%A3-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B8-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B8-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some write that две пары часов means 2 watches and три пары часов means 3 watches, while others write that these terms mean 4 watches and 6 watches. I'm not sure if the context of &quot;watches&quot; is the source of the conflict here, on account of часы having a plural appearance while referring to a single physical object. (Let's not take часы to mean &quot;hours&quot; for this question!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To clear up the situation, if that is possible, I'd like to know if native speakers who think две пары часов means 2 watches also think две пары книг and три пары книг mean 2 books and 3 books, rather than 4 books and 6 books.  (I have in mind, of course, that each book is counted just one time.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you think the meaning is 2 books and 3 books, then what do you think the purpose of the word пара is in those phrases, since две книги and три книги also mean 2 books and 3 books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Remark: This argument about whether две пары means 2 or 4 and три пары means 3 or 6 reminds me of the conflict in mathematics over whether the notation &lt;i&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/i&gt; for dihedral groups means a group of order *n* or 2&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;; some mathematicians interpret it one way and some interpret it the other way, but somehow they manage to get along. :)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8892" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="02529e1c-0ad3-4c91-8a24-fae5887ff7f8" CreationDate="2013-09-01T00:18:00.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/373962913322909696" />
  <row Id="8893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="7e9b72e5-e69a-4276-b449-24f8ab737720" CreationDate="2013-09-01T02:57:57.213" UserId="115" Text="This actually works exactly the same way as in English. Some nouns have no singular form, and require the word &quot;pair&quot; to indicate a single object.  Examples are &quot;scissors&quot;, &quot;pants&quot; and &quot;glasses&quot;.  &quot;A pair of scissors&quot;, &quot;a pair of pants&quot;, and &quot;a pair of glasses&quot; all mean a single object.  Thus &quot;N pairs of scissors&quot; means N objects. This is also true in Russian for the same words (ножницы, брюки, и очки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that the word &quot;watch&quot; has a singular form in English, but not in Russian. &quot;Two watches&quot; has to be translated as &quot;две пары часов&quot;. In Russian the word часы is used the same way grammatically as ножницы, брюки, or очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="fde132ab-d147-43b6-b3af-d98e4b379c17" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:03:02.377" UserId="115" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="With all due respect, &quot;две пары часов&quot; always means &quot;two watches&quot;, and &quot;три пары часов&quot; always means &quot;three watches&quot;.  There is no ambiguity here at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually works exactly the same way as in English. Some nouns have no singular form, and require the word &quot;pair&quot; to indicate a single object.  Examples are &quot;scissors&quot;, &quot;pants&quot; and &quot;glasses&quot;.  &quot;A pair of scissors&quot;, &quot;a pair of pants&quot;, and &quot;a pair of glasses&quot; all mean a single object.  Thus &quot;N pairs of scissors&quot; means N objects. This is also true in Russian for the same words (ножницы, брюки и очки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that the word &quot;watch&quot; has a singular form in English, but not in Russian. &quot;Two watches&quot; has to be translated as &quot;две пары часов&quot;. In Russian the word часы is used the same way grammatically as ножницы, брюки, or очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8895" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="fb59cf65-0162-4892-996e-8ad11c7ad4f6" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:07:59.150" UserId="115" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:115,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dima&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8896" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="dd7ea403-fac9-4039-883a-114d9c205c43" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:08:56.327" UserId="115" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:115,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dima&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="8897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="f3a55191-105b-48a5-89d4-0479192a2396" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:12:35.470" UserId="115" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="With all due respect, &quot;две пары часов&quot; always means &quot;two watches&quot;, and &quot;три пары часов&quot; always means &quot;three watches&quot;.  There is no ambiguity here at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually works exactly the same way as in English. Some nouns have no singular form, and require the word &quot;pair&quot; to indicate a single object.  Examples are &quot;scissors&quot;, &quot;pants&quot; and &quot;glasses&quot;.  &quot;A pair of scissors&quot;, &quot;a pair of pants&quot;, and &quot;a pair of glasses&quot; all mean a single object.  Thus &quot;N pairs of scissors&quot; means N objects. This is also true in Russian for the same words (ножницы, брюки и очки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that the word &quot;watch&quot; has a singular form in English, but not in Russian. &quot;Two watches&quot; has to be translated as either &quot;двое часов&quot; or &quot;две пары часов&quot;. If you google this, you will find that there are questions as to which of these two forms is correct. However, the question you've linked to presents examples from literature that use &quot;две пары часов&quot;, which is good enough for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="da454317-c39c-4e12-87c6-34e274390716" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:20:31.740" UserId="115" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="From my own experience, &quot;две пары часов&quot; always means &quot;two watches&quot;, and &quot;три пары часов&quot; always means &quot;three watches&quot;. It is hard to imagine a &quot;use case&quot; where two separate watches would be paired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Two watches&quot; has to be translated as either &quot;двое часов&quot; or &quot;две пары часов&quot;. In the question you've linked to there is a huge debate over which of these two forms is correct, which I found very surprising. However, there are also examples from literature that use &quot;две пары часов&quot; meaning &quot;two watches&quot;, which is good enough for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2565" RevisionGUID="32979242-76d0-4a25-b3c5-7ed46c8dc2de" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:26:08.797" UserId="115" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="From my own experience, &quot;две пары часов&quot; always means &quot;two watches&quot;, and &quot;три пары часов&quot; always means &quot;three watches&quot;. It is hard to imagine a &quot;use case&quot; where two separate watches would be paired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Two watches&quot; has to be translated as either &quot;двое часов&quot; or &quot;две пары часов&quot;. In the question you've linked to there is a huge debate over which of these two forms is correct, which I found very surprising. Both forms are used, and there are examples from literature that use &quot;две пары часов&quot; meaning &quot;two watches&quot;, which is good enough for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, &quot;двое часов&quot; and &quot;трое часов&quot; sounds fine, but &quot;четверо часов&quot; sounds wrong. So if you have a display case with more than three watches, I would not know how to express that without using the word &quot;пара&quot;, meaning a single watch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="d767fa51-ea7e-4ca2-9963-9b73197de209" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:42:04.160" UserId="487" Text="Is it completely normal to call *товарищ* to one of my Russian friends? I like the word, but I don't now if its meaning is somehow more politically charged than friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there reasons to avoid using *товарищ*? In which circumstances is it normal to use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="d767fa51-ea7e-4ca2-9963-9b73197de209" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:42:04.160" UserId="487" Text="How does it sound товарищ now? (social aspects)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="d767fa51-ea7e-4ca2-9963-9b73197de209" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:42:04.160" UserId="487" Text="|словоупотребление|одним-словом|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="8dc12d28-7c43-4bc6-82f5-4723151edcef" CreationDate="2013-09-01T21:00:36.087" UserId="242" Text="Yet by no means and under no circumstances this word is used as [honorific][1] nowadays, in phrases like  &quot;Это мой товарищ&quot; there's no hint of any political or historical connotations. It is quite common word usage, though it word &quot;товарищ&quot; is less used nowadays than word &quot;приятель&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, especially while appealing to a group of people (colleagues, friends etc.) form &quot;товарищи&quot; is used in ironical context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Товарищи! Давайте-ка поторопимся и успеем всё доделать к обеду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="9a8c00a9-da03-4bd8-aa40-c8770429e91b" CreationDate="2013-09-01T21:06:16.423" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Although by no means and under no circumstances this word is used as [honorific][1] nowadays, in phrases like  &quot;Это мой товарищ&quot; there's no hint of any political or historical connotations. It is quite common usage of this word, though it word &quot;товарищ&quot; is less used nowadays than word &quot;приятель&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, especially while appealing to a group of people (colleagues, friends etc.) form &quot;товарищи&quot; is used in ironical context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Товарищи! Давайте-ка поторопимся и успеем всё доделать к обеду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, there's no such connotation (if, once again, it is not intentional) in related words, such like `по-товарищески`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8905" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="5f8c8be3-a6f3-47bc-ae65-7eede70fc0a0" CreationDate="2013-09-01T21:09:47.480" UserId="487" Comment="edited title" Text="How does товарищ sound nowadays? (social aspects)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2568" RevisionGUID="f9cfdd65-e862-47fa-8727-104c6894406e" CreationDate="2013-09-02T08:51:11.903" UserId="1958" Text="Some folklore you might consider useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone hypocritically address to other as a товарищ, he might get as an answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «Тамбовский волк тебе товарищ».&#xD;&#xA; - «Гусь свинье не товарищ».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these phrases were known even in Soviet time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2569" RevisionGUID="c0e6b96e-f9b6-4824-aae7-c35a7b56454a" CreationDate="2013-09-02T13:12:49.923" UserId="1971" Text="This is the 2nd year I'm taking Russian at my university and we've a couple of russian students. I was talking to a girl and told her I learned to write Russian letters on my own. She said &quot;тогда я в повидле&quot; (I asked her to write down what she said). What did she mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2569" RevisionGUID="c0e6b96e-f9b6-4824-aae7-c35a7b56454a" CreationDate="2013-09-02T13:12:49.923" UserId="1971" Text="What does expression &quot;тогда я в повидле&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2569" RevisionGUID="c0e6b96e-f9b6-4824-aae7-c35a7b56454a" CreationDate="2013-09-02T13:12:49.923" UserId="1971" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2570" RevisionGUID="c78875d3-8b80-4470-8a2c-b3e2958297aa" CreationDate="2013-09-02T13:49:32.873" UserId="959" Text="Personally I didn't meet a phrase &quot;быть в повидле&quot;, but it sounds similar to &quot;быть в шоколаде&quot; which means to be in a very favorable situation. &quot;Кататься как сыр в масле&quot; might also be close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2571" RevisionGUID="3259d791-4143-4757-b836-808da0b6fab5" CreationDate="2013-09-02T14:00:06.687" UserId="959" Text="В словосочетании &quot;пара часов&quot; слово &quot;пара&quot; значит всего лишь &quot;комплект&quot;, &quot;экземпляр&quot;. Просто, видимо, не нашлось в своё время для обозначения изделия &quot;часы&quot; во множественном числе более подходящего слова. Да и стрелок на них обычно две. В общем, &quot;две пары часов&quot; — это &quot;two watches&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2570" RevisionGUID="3c75e11c-40a1-4942-8392-d5c2916f6250" CreationDate="2013-09-02T17:57:43.837" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Personally I haven't met phrase &quot;быть в повидле&quot;, but it sounds similar to &quot;быть в шоколаде&quot;, which means to be in a very favorable situation. &quot;Кататься как сыр в масле&quot; might also be close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="48d710d2-f8b2-414b-a774-5c85c1fa05a7" CreationDate="2013-09-03T08:45:30.067" UserId="170" Text="&gt; Размышлять подобным образом значит исключать из из числа **таких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исторических личностей** как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What case should I use here? Accusative or Genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="48d710d2-f8b2-414b-a774-5c85c1fa05a7" CreationDate="2013-09-03T08:45:30.067" UserId="170" Text="исключать такИЕ историческИЕ личностИ or такИХ историческИХ личонстЕЙ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="48d710d2-f8b2-414b-a774-5c85c1fa05a7" CreationDate="2013-09-03T08:45:30.067" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="aa48d04a-e325-482b-84b5-61a7fab3235a" CreationDate="2013-09-03T09:24:14.357" UserId="170" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Размышлять подобным образом значит исключать из их числа **таких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исторических личностей** как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What case should I use here? Accusative or Genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8918" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="8246e6ab-cee8-4e36-a217-6a04320cf90a" CreationDate="2013-09-03T09:39:31.957" UserId="242" Comment="Removed redundant lowercase/uppercase mix" Text="Исключать такие исторические личности or таких исторических личностей?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="35adee29-e712-4d3c-a25d-ddc4935e3c5f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T10:00:09.003" UserId="1671" Text="Indeed `исключать` is a transitive verb that requires accusitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`личность` in accusative plural is `личности` (see http://morpher.ru) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My variant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Размышлять подобным образом - значит исключать из их числа такие исторические личности, как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive with `личность` instead of accusative (only in plural) sounds very informal. It is also most often used jokingly. &#xD;&#xA;I was able to google another usage of genitive with this word where accusative is supposed to be used:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Dart_evader &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сорри, Дарт. Вы, конечно, правы - не надо увековечивать тут подобных личностей :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by using genitive here we kind of express sarcasm. It's no longer someone famous, but someone who pretends to be famous. Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="d085487b-a900-4924-940b-c08897da64d7" CreationDate="2013-09-03T10:33:45.630" UserId="81" Comment="URL parameter to morpher. Quote formatting." Text="Indeed `исключать` is a transitive verb that requires accusitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`личность` in accusative plural is `личности` (see [morpher.ru](http://morpher.ru/?s=%eb%e8%f7%ed%ee%f1%f2%fc)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My variant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Размышлять подобным образом - значит исключать из их числа такие исторические личности, как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive with `личность` instead of accusative (only in plural) sounds very informal. It is also most often used jokingly. &#xD;&#xA;I was able to google another usage of genitive with this word where accusative is supposed to be used:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Dart_evader &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сорри, Дарт. Вы, конечно, правы - не надо увековечивать тут подобных личностей :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by using genitive here we kind of express sarcasm. It's no longer someone famous, but someone who pretends to be famous. Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8921" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="d085487b-a900-4924-940b-c08897da64d7" CreationDate="2013-09-03T10:33:45.630" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by 97, 551 edit id of 398" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="e7e5605f-ece7-40d2-ae97-6aa739ff5ad9" CreationDate="2013-09-03T11:35:22.163" UserId="1671" Comment="added 560 characters in body" Text="Indeed `исключать` is a transitive verb that requires accusitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`личность` in accusative plural is `личности` (see [morpher.ru](http://morpher.ru/?s=%eb%e8%f7%ed%ee%f1%f2%fc)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My variant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Размышлять подобным образом - значит исключать из их числа такие исторические личности, как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive with `личность` instead of accusative (only in plural) sounds very informal. It is also most often used jokingly. &#xD;&#xA;I was able to google another usage of genitive with this word where accusative is supposed to be used:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Dart_evader &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сорри, Дарт. Вы, конечно, правы - не надо увековечивать тут подобных личностей :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by using genitive here we kind of express sarcasm. It's no longer someone famous, but someone who pretends to be famous. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (some more examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uralskweek.kz/2013/09/02/shkolnik-iz-uralska-sozdal-socialnuyu-set/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    собираемся приглашать знаменитых и интересных личностей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No sarcasm here, why not accusative? It's informal speach and the word is used in a different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a real example of accusative plural on the Internet. Need a different kind of search engine. But here is a more or less realistic example of my own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В юности он старательно изучал личности Берии и Сталина, стараясь в чём-то даже походить на них.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="e8cfee88-2a28-4246-94ad-438bd20024f1" CreationDate="2013-09-03T11:41:23.313" UserId="1671" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Indeed `исключать` is a transitive verb that requires accusitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`личность` in accusative plural is `личности` (see [morpher.ru](http://morpher.ru/?s=%eb%e8%f7%ed%ee%f1%f2%fc)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My variant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Размышлять подобным образом - значит исключать из их числа такие исторические личности, как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using genitive with `личность` instead of accusative (only in plural) sounds very informal and not like an obvious grammatical error. It is also most often used jokingly. &#xD;&#xA;I was able to google another usage of genitive with this word where accusative is supposed to be used:&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Dart_evader &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сорри, Дарт. Вы, конечно, правы - не надо увековечивать тут подобных личностей :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by using genitive here we kind of express sarcasm. It's no longer someone famous, but someone who pretends to be famous. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update** (some more examples):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.uralskweek.kz/2013/09/02/shkolnik-iz-uralska-sozdal-socialnuyu-set/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    собираемся приглашать знаменитых и интересных личностей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No sarcasm here, why not accusative? It's informal speach and the word is used in a different meaning (person, not personality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a real example of accusative plural on the Internet. Need a different kind of search engine. But here is a more or less realistic example of my own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В юности он старательно изучал личности Берии и Сталина, стараясь в чём-то даже походить на них.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="5b88907a-162b-4126-9087-cc7431d6286b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:58:41.113" UserId="1925" Text="Очень часто напоследок встречаю слово &quot;хорош&quot; как синоним на &quot;хватит&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Употребляют его даже в книгах, действие которых развивается в прошлом. Но мне кажется, что в старых книгах я никогда не встречал такое употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как давно это слово приобрело смысл &quot;хватит&quot;? Не современной ли это жаргон?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="5b88907a-162b-4126-9087-cc7431d6286b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:58:41.113" UserId="1925" Text="&quot;хорош&quot; и &quot;хватит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="5b88907a-162b-4126-9087-cc7431d6286b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T13:58:41.113" UserId="1925" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="ccd328b9-d9eb-4d83-b093-c9f200c663d6" CreationDate="2013-09-03T14:14:28.050" UserId="115" Text="Это, конечно, разговорное выражение, но появилось оно давно. По крайней мере лет 25 назад оно уже употреблялось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="e2643647-004e-40f0-86f6-3219a097659f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T14:57:16.650" UserId="1925" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Очень часто в последнее время встречаю слово &quot;хорош&quot; как синоним на &quot;хватит&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Употребляют его даже в книгах, действие которых развивается в прошлом. Но мне кажется, что в старых книгах я никогда не встречал такое употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как давно это слово приобрело смысл &quot;хватит&quot;? Не современной ли это жаргон?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="2bf55160-e000-4c3e-a082-1552e7d1985e" CreationDate="2013-09-03T15:04:16.850" UserId="1671" Text="Исходя из своего языкового опыта, я бы определил эти и синонимичные слова следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нейтральная лексика:** `хватит, достаточно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**разговорный стиль:** `хорош, стоп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возвышенный/литературный:** `довольно, будет, полно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**жаргон:** `харэ` (http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8D)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из всех этих слов только `харэ`, видимо, появилось относительно недавно. Сомневаюсь, что в этимологическом словаре будет статья на &quot;`хорош`&quot;. Лучший способ найти упоминания - это поиск в корпусах русской классики, но у меня такой возможности нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Что касается &quot;`хорош`&quot;, то я прекрасно могу себе представить, как кучер из произведения Достоевского говорит &quot;`хорош`&quot; в  определённом контексте." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="088a16a9-e79b-49c0-87ef-293a70a9763b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T15:32:34.110" UserId="1671" Text="It is an **occasionalism** based on the expression `всё будет в шоколаде`. To better understand what it means watch Михаил Гребенщиков - Булки: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP2ZDM8MvDQ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically &quot;`тогда я в повидле`&quot; means &quot;`then I'm even better off`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The expression is used mostly by younger generation. In the context of chocolate most Russian speakers would understand it correctly. Without chocolate context it would be much harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run it's not very hard to understand why cookies, marsh-mallow (`зефир` - род пастилы), sweets in **chocolate glaze** are better than without it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="40ec705e-c146-4123-b04c-0fd7ab4d505a" CreationDate="2013-09-03T15:37:25.523" UserId="1671" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Исходя из своего языкового опыта, я бы определил эти и синонимичные слова следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нейтральная лексика:** `хватит, достаточно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**разговорный стиль:** `хорош, стоп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возвышенный/литературный:** `довольно, будет, полно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**жаргон:** `харэ` (http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8D)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из всех этих слов только `харэ`, видимо, появилось относительно недавно. Сомневаюсь, что в этимологическом словаре будет статья на &quot;`хорош`&quot;. Лучший способ найти упоминания - это поиск в корпусах русской классики, но у меня такой возможности нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Что касается &quot;`хорош`&quot;, то я прекрасно могу себе представить, как кучер из произведения Достоевского говорит &quot;`хорош`&quot; в  определённом контексте. Использование `харэ` было бы уже анахронизмом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="60ce0aaf-1f73-4dea-8ff8-66b32437480f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T15:51:51.013" UserId="967" Text="What does it mean? It looks like something to turn nouns into adjectives, but so far I've only seen it in things that could have been possessive phrase. Is there a difference between -ин and using the ordinary genitive case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="60ce0aaf-1f73-4dea-8ff8-66b32437480f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T15:51:51.013" UserId="967" Text="ин stuffix in &quot;Мамин Дом&quot; &quot;кошкин дом&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="60ce0aaf-1f73-4dea-8ff8-66b32437480f" CreationDate="2013-09-03T15:51:51.013" UserId="967" Text="|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8935" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="c9bef5bb-88f3-467f-96d4-518bec8aca5b" CreationDate="2013-09-03T16:04:34.730" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="ин suffix in &quot;Мамин Дом&quot; &quot;кошкин дом&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2579" RevisionGUID="5bc68e26-bf33-4cae-9540-68e4892ba86c" CreationDate="2013-09-03T16:23:16.450" UserId="1671" Text="Semantically I do not see any difference. The suffix `-ин` is used to express posessiveness.&#xD;&#xA;So: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    кошкин дом = дом кошки&#xD;&#xA;    мамин дом = дом мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically you can't add more attributes to cat or mother because they've become an attribute themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    дом моей мамы = ?&#xD;&#xA;    дом серой кошки = ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can't form possessive adjectives that way freely. There are many exceptions and other ways to express possessiveness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Петька - петькин&#xD;&#xA;    Катька - катькин (and other names formed like this apply for this rule)&#xD;&#xA;    Нина - нинин&#xD;&#xA;    лиса - лисий&#xD;&#xA;    заяц - заячий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have nothing else to add about `mother`, go ahead and use `мамин`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2580" RevisionGUID="91fdc418-381f-4104-99e7-aa98c3abffd3" CreationDate="2013-09-03T20:04:30.123" UserId="115" Text="This is analogous to the two ways of expressing possession in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mother's house vs. the house of the mother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мамин дом vs. дом мамы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="312385ab-78ed-459f-b042-47c0fe4a3461" CreationDate="2013-09-04T08:30:58.867" UserId="551" Text="На сайте Национального корпуса русского языка, в устном корпусе (на основе фильмов, магнитофонных записей и т.п.) есть [примеры употребления слова &quot;хорош&quot; в смысле &quot;хватит&quot;](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F5%EE%F0%EE%F8&amp;mode=spoken&amp;p=24), которые относятся к середине 30-х годов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Яшка! Хороош! Хорош! Хорош! Бюро собралось… [Иван Пырьев, Катерина Виноградская. Партийный билет, к/ф (1936)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Офицер] Левей / левей / левей / стоп! Ещё / ещё! Хорош! Готовсь! [На корабле Ушакова] [Михаил Ромм, Александр Штейн. Адмирал Ушаков, к/ф (1953)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [Пасечник] [командует] Хорош! [Строитель1] Слушай / ты не чувствуешь / чем пахнет / а? [Александр Зархи и др. Высота, к/ф (1957)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что в разговорной речи выражение используется уже как минимум 80 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в основном корпусе (текстов) употребления слова &quot;хорош&quot; мне удалось найти только после 1989 года:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, все, хватит… Хорош! Пошел, вали отсюда… [Николай Коляда. Рогатка (1989)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― А вот грузин на рынке мне говорит, ― сказал еще один безымянный собеседник, ― плесни… хорош! [Владимир Крупин. Дети кочегара // Библиотека «Огонек», 1989]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="9a962710-76dd-43b6-9ea3-77e134a7920a" CreationDate="2013-09-05T02:34:41.200" UserId="62" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia page for творог says that its stress could be in either syllable, but that in standard speech, especially in the mainstream media, the stress is only used in the second syllable. Can someone indicate how widely творог  is pronounced with stress on the first syllable?  Is that generally rare, or is such usage concentrated in certain parts of Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="9a962710-76dd-43b6-9ea3-77e134a7920a" CreationDate="2013-09-05T02:34:41.200" UserId="62" Text="stress in творог" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="9a962710-76dd-43b6-9ea3-77e134a7920a" CreationDate="2013-09-05T02:34:41.200" UserId="62" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="2e8a5a76-1a76-48a8-a3a5-adcdbb77566c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T03:29:06.933" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia page for творог says that its stress could be in either syllable, but that in standard speech, especially in the mainstream media, the stress is only used in the second syllable. Can someone indicate how widely творог  is pronounced with stress on the first syllable?  Is that generally rare, or is such usage concentrated in certain parts of Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8952" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="2e8a5a76-1a76-48a8-a3a5-adcdbb77566c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T03:29:06.933" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Stress in творог" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="4de172e3-306e-4b82-acaa-92903b384544" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:29:44.537" UserId="1976" Text="I think the article in russian wikipedia a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native russian speaker personally, i don't know which type of stress i prefer. And i don't think it's rare one or other usage. It's obvious that we cant say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But i don't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and distribution across russian spoken countries. In [russian corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;mode=accent&amp;accent=1&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=0) if i search in subcorpus with lexical stress i have those results: 39 contexts of usage of творог; normalized distribution (withount context of 18 century) 15 contexts with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and 17 contexts with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So i think you cat say which of usage is preferable by russian speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="c4977467-2590-4230-a4b8-96a899732e68" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:38:01.077" UserId="1976" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think the article in russian wikipedia a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native russian speaker personally, i don't know which type of stress i prefer. And i don't think it's rare one or other usage. It's obvious that we cant say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But i don't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and distribution across russian spoken countries. In [russian corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;mode=accent&amp;accent=1&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=0) if i search in subcorpus with lexical stress i have those results: 39 contexts of usage of творог; normalized distribution (withount context of 18 century) *15 contexts* with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and *17 contexts* with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So i think you cat say which of usage is preferable by russian speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="6e2d0612-c1af-404a-a9f6-a488e21895a0" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:55:08.230" UserId="1976" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think the article in russian wikipedia a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native russian speaker personally, i don't know which type of stress i prefer. And i don't think it's rare one or other usage. It's obvious that we cant say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But i don't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and distribution across russian spoken countries. In [russian corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;mode=accent&amp;accent=1&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=0) if i search in subcorpus with lexical stress i have those results: 39 contexts of usage of творог; normalized distribution (withount context of 18 century) *15 contexts* with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and *17 contexts* with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So i think you cat say which of usage is preferable by russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about cited sources in this wikipedia article only this source i consider like reliable - *Зарва М.В. Словарь ударений русского языка (2001).* Two others sources have very questionable reputation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Штудинер М.А. Словарь образцового русского ударения (2009)](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%86%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F) Even the name of this dictionary (especially the word *образцовый* seems to me very strange). More information you can find in wikipedia article on this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Окунцова Е.А. Трудности устной речи. Словарь-справочник.* Never heard about this dictionary like a foundational text in russian lexical stress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="ecb16693-4586-46dc-975a-2f766195b741" CreationDate="2013-09-05T05:08:28.863" UserId="194" Text="For myself, the stress on the first syllable is much more natural, although I think in the media they usually pronounce it with a stress on the second syllable. Such pronunciation colored as &quot;rural&quot; to me even though it is used always in the media. Sometimes people who stress the second syllable also pronounce the &quot;г&quot; as fricative, a feature of South Russian/Ukrainian speech which also sounds &quot;rural&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="29c0be21-571c-432b-880f-bf6906349d2f" CreationDate="2013-09-05T05:14:40.420" UserId="194" Comment="added 654 characters in body" Text="For myself, the stress on the first syllable is much more natural, although I think in the media they usually pronounce it with a stress on the second syllable. Such pronunciation colored as &quot;rural&quot; to me even though it is used always in the media. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here one can see a video the speaker pronounces the word with stress on the second syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krnF4WeeS0A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker stresses the first syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xCOsbSBe4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker starts with stressing the first syllable but then switches to the second (apparently in attempt to be more &quot;correct&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSvVa0jNCs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think stressing the first syllable sounds more natural and easy to pronounce, but stressing the second is more grammatical formally (or perceived by the people to be more grammatical, as with the word кофе being masculine gender even if more natural to consider in neuter)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="2d49c391-0413-4bbf-9cf7-7912232ce3aa" CreationDate="2013-09-05T05:20:52.067" UserId="194" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="For myself, the stress on the first syllable is much more natural, although I think in the media they usually pronounce it with a stress on the second syllable. Such pronunciation colored as &quot;rural&quot; to me even though it is used more often in the media. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in Moscow and Moscow region stressing the first syllable is more widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here one can see a video the speaker pronounces the word with stress on the first syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xCOsbSBe4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYzb7fM2v_E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker stresses the second syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krnF4WeeS0A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker starts with stressing the first syllable but then switches to the second (apparently in attempt to be more &quot;correct&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSvVa0jNCs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think stressing the first syllable sounds more natural and easy to pronounce, but stressing the second is more grammatical formally (or perceived by the people to be more grammatical, as with the word кофе being masculine gender even if more natural to consider in neuter).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="8214bafd-2dc7-4584-955c-ec889a49ddc2" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:30:46.960" UserId="1976" Comment="added 1073 characters in body" Text="I think the article in russian wikipedia a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native russian speaker personally, i don't know which type of stress i prefer. And i don't think it's rare one or other usage. It's obvious that we cant say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But i don't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and distribution across russian spoken countries. In [russian corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;mode=accent&amp;accent=1&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=0) if i search in subcorpus with lexical stress i have those results: 39 contexts of usage of творог; normalized distribution (withount context of 18 century) *15 contexts* with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and *17 contexts* with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So i think you cat say which of usage is preferable by russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about cited sources in this wikipedia article only this source i consider like reliable - *Зарва М.В. Словарь ударений русского языка (2001).* Two others sources have very questionable reputation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Штудинер М.А. Словарь образцового русского ударения (2009)* Even the name of this dictionary (especially the word *образцовый* seems to me very strange). More information you can find in wikipedia article on this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Окунцова Е.А. Трудности устной речи. Словарь-справочник.* Never heard about this dictionary like a foundational text in russian lexical stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in russian corpus you have some *video examples* and transcription with lexical stress for word [творог](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;orphoGr1=&amp;orpho1=&amp;strAccent1=&amp;accent1=&amp;before1=&amp;after1=&amp;number1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;orphoGr2=&amp;orpho2=&amp;strAccent2=&amp;accent2=&amp;before2=&amp;after2=&amp;number2=&amp;act_speakersamount=&amp;act_sex=&amp;act_lang=&amp;act_situation=&amp;act_acttypes=&amp;act_appeals=&amp;act_questions=&amp;act_imperatives=&amp;act_modals=&amp;act_negation=&amp;act_pejoratives=&amp;act_praise=&amp;act_consent=&amp;act_trade=&amp;act_assertion=&amp;act_othersspeech=&amp;act_mocking=&amp;act_etiquette=&amp;act_completeness=&amp;act_repetitions=&amp;act_manner=&amp;act_vocals=&amp;gest_actorname=&amp;gest_actorsex=&amp;gest_sex=&amp;gest_actorage=&amp;gest_age=&amp;gest_mainorgan=&amp;gest_palmorientation=&amp;gest_handorientation=&amp;gest_activeorgan=&amp;gest_passiveorgan=&amp;gest_adaptor=&amp;gest_direction=&amp;gest_mult=&amp;gest_gesturename=&amp;gest_gesturetype=&amp;gest_gesturemeaning=&amp;gest_extenders=&amp;gest_spoilers=&amp;gest_emotions=&amp;gest_completeness=&amp;gest_authenticity=&amp;gest_accessories=). In this corpus we have 11 usage contexts and it's **твОрог (8) vs творОг (3)**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2423" RevisionGUID="7c300886-817c-4bec-ad01-f9031fdcc57c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T08:15:49.833" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="As Bogdan correctly pointed out, a very accurate English translation of the phrase is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One might wonder what it has to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'd think what's it got to do with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that while in Russian this sentence would normally be a question, in English it can be translated as both a question and a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individually, verb _казаться_ means _to seem_, however when use with particle _бы_ (as in _казалось бы_) it indicates that the following statement is unintuitive, totally unexpected, unnatural. However it actually is correct. Usually this following sentence (in Russian) is a question and it is further followed by an explanation of why this seemingly nonsensical statement is true, often starting with words _оказывается_ (_turns out_) or _на самом деле_ (_actually_) For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, при чем здесь это? Оказывается, эта доска еще вчера была частью моего забора.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One might wonder, what it has to do with it?  Turns out this piece of wood only yesterday was part of my fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, зачем строить дом в середине леса? На самом деле, имеет полный смысл: чистый воздух, тишина и никакой суеты.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'd think, why build a house in the middle of a forest?  Actually, it makes total sense - clean air, quiet, and no fuss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="505bebb2-481c-4519-8edd-0bfdf3c0cc5c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T08:57:42.177" UserId="1976" Comment="added 803 characters in body" Text="I think the article in russian wikipedia a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native russian speaker personally, i don't know which type of stress i prefer. And i don't think it's rare one or other usage. It's obvious that we cant say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But i don't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and distribution across russian spoken countries. In [russian corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;mode=accent&amp;accent=1&amp;lang=ru&amp;p=0) if i search in subcorpus with lexical stress i have those results: 39 contexts of usage of творог; normalized distribution (withount context of 18 century) *15 contexts* with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and *17 contexts* with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So i think you cat say which of usage is preferable by russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about cited sources in this wikipedia article only this source i consider like reliable - *Зарва М.В. Словарь ударений русского языка (2001).* Two others sources have very questionable reputation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Штудинер М.А. Словарь образцового русского ударения (2009)* Even the name of this dictionary (especially the word *образцовый* seems to me very strange). More information you can find in wikipedia article on this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Окунцова Е.А. Трудности устной речи. Словарь-справочник.* Never heard about this dictionary like a foundational text in russian lexical stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in russian corpus you have some *video examples* and transcription with lexical stress for word [творог](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;orphoGr1=&amp;orpho1=&amp;strAccent1=&amp;accent1=&amp;before1=&amp;after1=&amp;number1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;orphoGr2=&amp;orpho2=&amp;strAccent2=&amp;accent2=&amp;before2=&amp;after2=&amp;number2=&amp;act_speakersamount=&amp;act_sex=&amp;act_lang=&amp;act_situation=&amp;act_acttypes=&amp;act_appeals=&amp;act_questions=&amp;act_imperatives=&amp;act_modals=&amp;act_negation=&amp;act_pejoratives=&amp;act_praise=&amp;act_consent=&amp;act_trade=&amp;act_assertion=&amp;act_othersspeech=&amp;act_mocking=&amp;act_etiquette=&amp;act_completeness=&amp;act_repetitions=&amp;act_manner=&amp;act_vocals=&amp;gest_actorname=&amp;gest_actorsex=&amp;gest_sex=&amp;gest_actorage=&amp;gest_age=&amp;gest_mainorgan=&amp;gest_palmorientation=&amp;gest_handorientation=&amp;gest_activeorgan=&amp;gest_passiveorgan=&amp;gest_adaptor=&amp;gest_direction=&amp;gest_mult=&amp;gest_gesturename=&amp;gest_gesturetype=&amp;gest_gesturemeaning=&amp;gest_extenders=&amp;gest_spoilers=&amp;gest_emotions=&amp;gest_completeness=&amp;gest_authenticity=&amp;gest_accessories=). In this corpus we have 11 usage contexts and it's **твОрог (8) vs творОг (3)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's what I found about stress in *творог*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. В. Даль (1903) &lt;нвг. - новгородское&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ТворОгъ твОрогъ (нвг.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Орфоэпический словарь русского языка. Р. И. Аванесов (1988).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и допустимое твОрог&#xD;&#xA; - Словарь трудностей русского языка. Розенталь Д. Э. (1984).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и разг. твОрог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Новый орфоэпический словарь русского языка. Иванова Т. Ф. (2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и твОрог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point that творОг considered more preferable by the purists, but it's no actual usage of this word. Now we have clear trend to pronounce твОрог (but it's not an actual solid norm it's just a trend, i think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suchwise, both usage it's acceptable with more contemporary *твОрог* and tend to be old (and preferred by the purists :-) *творОг*.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="174aca0a-d1e5-4a77-bb23-bf8872432b65" CreationDate="2013-09-05T09:25:03.430" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="For myself, the stress on the first syllable is much more natural, although I think in the media they usually pronounce it with a stress on the second syllable. Such pronunciation colored as &quot;rural&quot; to me even though it is used more often in the media. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in Moscow and Moscow region stressing the first syllable is more widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here one can see a video the speaker pronounces the word with stress on the first syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xCOsbSBe4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYzb7fM2v_E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker stresses the second syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krnF4WeeS0A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker starts with stressing the first syllable but then switches to the second (apparently in attempt to be more &quot;correct&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSvVa0jNCs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think stressing the first syllable sounds more natural and easy to pronounce, but stressing the second is more grammatical formally (or perceived by the people to be more grammatical, as with the word кофе being masculine gender even if more natural to consider it neuter).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="c6ba880f-8fac-4ad8-ab43-131826c876df" CreationDate="2013-09-05T09:59:13.290" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="For myself, the stress on the first syllable is much more natural, although I think in the media they usually pronounce it with a stress on the second syllable. Such pronunciation colored as &quot;rural&quot; to me even though it is used more often in the media. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in Moscow and Moscow region stressing the first syllable is more widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here one can see a video the speaker pronounces the word with stress on the first syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xCOsbSBe4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYzb7fM2v_E&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker stresses the second syllable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krnF4WeeS0A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the speaker starts with stressing the first syllable but then switches to the second (apparently in attempt to be more &quot;correct&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSvVa0jNCs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think stressing the first syllable sounds more natural and easy to pronounce, but stressing the second is more grammatical formally (or believed by the people to be more grammatical, as with the word кофе being masculine gender even if more natural to consider it neuter).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="00323f04-cfb4-4a4a-8132-328fdd1e6355" CreationDate="2013-09-05T09:59:48.037" UserId="1976" Comment="in russian wikipedia article is partially wrong information" Text="I think the article in russian wikipedia a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native russian speaker personally, i don't know which type of stress i prefer. And i don't think it's rare one or other usage. It's obvious that we cant say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But i don't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and distribution across russian spoken countries. In russian corpus *15 contexts* with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and *17 contexts* with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So i think you cat say which of usage is preferable by russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about cited sources in this wikipedia article only this source i consider like reliable - *Зарва М.В. Словарь ударений русского языка (2001).* Two others sources have very questionable reputation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Штудинер М.А. Словарь образцового русского ударения (2009)* Even the name of this dictionary (especially the word *образцовый* seems to me very strange). More information you can find in wikipedia article on this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Окунцова Е.А. Трудности устной речи. Словарь-справочник.* Never heard about this dictionary like a foundational text in russian lexical stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in russian corpus you have some *video examples* and transcription with lexical stress for word [творог](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;orphoGr1=&amp;orpho1=&amp;strAccent1=&amp;accent1=&amp;before1=&amp;after1=&amp;number1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;orphoGr2=&amp;orpho2=&amp;strAccent2=&amp;accent2=&amp;before2=&amp;after2=&amp;number2=&amp;act_speakersamount=&amp;act_sex=&amp;act_lang=&amp;act_situation=&amp;act_acttypes=&amp;act_appeals=&amp;act_questions=&amp;act_imperatives=&amp;act_modals=&amp;act_negation=&amp;act_pejoratives=&amp;act_praise=&amp;act_consent=&amp;act_trade=&amp;act_assertion=&amp;act_othersspeech=&amp;act_mocking=&amp;act_etiquette=&amp;act_completeness=&amp;act_repetitions=&amp;act_manner=&amp;act_vocals=&amp;gest_actorname=&amp;gest_actorsex=&amp;gest_sex=&amp;gest_actorage=&amp;gest_age=&amp;gest_mainorgan=&amp;gest_palmorientation=&amp;gest_handorientation=&amp;gest_activeorgan=&amp;gest_passiveorgan=&amp;gest_adaptor=&amp;gest_direction=&amp;gest_mult=&amp;gest_gesturename=&amp;gest_gesturetype=&amp;gest_gesturemeaning=&amp;gest_extenders=&amp;gest_spoilers=&amp;gest_emotions=&amp;gest_completeness=&amp;gest_authenticity=&amp;gest_accessories=). In this corpus we have 11 usage contexts and it's **твОрог (8) vs творОг (3)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's what I found about stress in *творог*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. В. Даль (1903) &lt;нвг. - новгородское&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ТворОгъ твОрогъ (нвг.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Орфоэпический словарь русского языка. Р. И. Аванесов (1988).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и допустимое твОрог&#xD;&#xA; - Словарь трудностей русского языка. Розенталь Д. Э. (1984).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и разг. твОрог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Новый орфоэпический словарь русского языка. Иванова Т. Ф. (2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и твОрог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point that творОг considered more preferable by the purists, but it's no actual usage of this word. Now we have clear trend to pronounce твОрог (but it's not an actual solid norm it's just a trend, i think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I found this interesting link in wikipedia article [Изменение ударения в слове «творог» с XVIII по XXI вв. по материалам словарей русского языка](http://www.gidropraktikum.narod.ru/tvorog.htm). And actually it's only in Русское словесное ударение. Зарва М. В. (2001) we have one recommendation for *творОг*. Other cited sources (Окунцова, Штудинер) describe both usage contexts, so **in russian wikipedia article is partially wrong information** about stress in word творог. I will edit this article, i think. And i found this explanation about Зарва dictionary, because this dictionary was conceived for news presenter it's not good for lexical stress reference, because only one exemplar usage was accepted (see gramota portal question # 262504).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Suchwise, both usage it's acceptable with more contemporary *твОрог* and tend to be old (and preferred by the purists :-) *творОг*.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="bdcb1c67-355a-4b5c-8495-afaf830f296d" CreationDate="2013-09-06T10:57:45.787" UserId="551" Text="From the numerical point of view `пара` by itself may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **one** object: пара ножниц, пара щипцов, пара брюк;&#xD;&#xA; - **two** objects: пара яблок, пара апельсинов;&#xD;&#xA; - **one set** of objects: пара весел, пара перчаток, пара носок, пара платья (outdated nowadays, used to mean &quot;сюртук, брюки и жилет&quot;, see [here](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_fwords/25764/%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90)), кофейная пара ([чашка и блюдце для кофе](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/42754/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0)), пара чаю ([порция чаю в двух чайниках для воды и для заварки чая](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/920402));&#xD;&#xA; - **two humans or animals acting together**: пара лошадей, пара танцоров, пара боксеров;&#xD;&#xA; - **small amount**: на пару слов, на пару минут, пожить пару дней, виделись пару раз, подкинь пару монет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a joke the &quot;small amount&quot; may mean even 5 objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Сбегай в магазин, возьми пару бутылок водки.  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это сколько?  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это пять!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to `две пары`. Though mathematically it can be treated as a simple multiplication, though in language such saying has multiple additional aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use `десять` or `десяток` instead of `два` to highlight the difference. While Then `десять пар` means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as one object.** In our first example math works. In this case десять пар means exactly ten times more objects than before (ten objects): десять пар ножниц, десять пар щипцов, десять пар брюк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two objects.** In this case math works as well, but semantically it is implied that the objects are calculated by pairs for some reason (because of packaging, or because price is set for pair): `десять пар яблок` equals 20 apples, `десять пар апельсинов` equals 20 oranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as set of objects.** Here math works differently:&#xD;&#xA;  - `Она перемеряла десять пар туфель` - you cannot just multiply two by ten here. Though 20 shoes were used 10 of them are left ones and another 10 of them are right ones. You cannot take one shoe from first pair and combine it with another shoe from another pair easily.&#xD;&#xA;  - `Десять пар перчаток` - same as above - 20 objects, but left/right glove are different.&#xD;&#xA;  - `У меня десять пар одинаковых черных носок` - Maybe the only example when you can say that you have 20 socks, because usually there is no practical difference between 'right' and 'left' ones.&#xD;&#xA;  - `В гардеробе висят десять пар платья` - in this example mathematically you have 30 objects, but they cannot be treated as equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two humans or animals acting together** - though you can abstractly say &quot;20 humans&quot; or &quot;20 animals&quot;, but in fact it is another example of &quot;пара as set&quot;. When something is done together, in most cases these pairs are matching each other by some criterion  (horses should be of equal sizes and strength, boxers should be in same weight category; dancing pair may or may not require one man and one woman, etc.). So in most cases you cannot mix the pair members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as small amount** - you cannot use *пара as small amount* meaning in `десять пар минут` expression. Here it will mean `пара as grouping by two for counting`, so десять пар минут means 20 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to `две пары часов`. Here the word `пара` can mean `one`, `two` or `set`. The word `часы` may mean `clock` or `wrist watch`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `clock` `пара` means exactly two clocks, so the meaning here is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Four clocks, that were grouped by two either for ease of counting, or because they form a set by their form, color, price, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `wrist watch` пара may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Two watches (wrist or pocket ones) that are weared by a person. This is a colloquialism - most books on Literature Russian discourage usage `пара` in this meaning. As stated by Rosenthal: &quot;Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер&quot;. However, this expression follows a pattern for many other clothing items - пара очков, пара брюк, пара носок, пара перчаток, etc., so it does not sound weird for a person that have never heard such expression before. Anton Zuev listed a [numerous examples](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2542/551) of such sayings. One example from [ruscorpora.ru dates back to 1874](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EF%E0%F0%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F7%E0%F1%FB&amp;gramm2=S&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=30): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пришедшие под вечерок армяне «поддержали коммерцию», купив пару часов и несколько мелочей из сданных мною вещей, как то: цепочки нового золота, коробку слабителъных порошков, перочинные ножики, карандаши и т. под. [П. И. Огородников. Очерки Персии. Калейдоскоп шахруда. Персидское побережье Каспия. Перевал через Кузлук (1874)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is interesting to note that in this citation the pocket watches are described. According to Wikipedia wrist watches [become popular after World War I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch), because pocket watches were impractical on the battlefield. Before that time men, who carried pocket watches, were quoted as saying they would &quot;sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch&quot; (note this idea of &quot;watch as a piece of cloth&quot; connotation, though the citation itself is not russian of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Four watches, grouped by two for counting (see &quot;clocks&quot; example). I beleive that this is the only meaning that Literature Russian allowes. So, to use such phrase these watches have to be counted (in a shop, in a document, etc.). But since alternative meaning exists that has a very long usage history, I believe that you have a very low chanses of seing such expression in literature, because most editors will rephrase it to avoid ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, **две пары часов**, where `часы` means `watches` (and not `clocks` or `hours`) will always mean **two watches**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="eeef8782-62fb-4ced-a408-1231fadcd78d" CreationDate="2013-09-06T11:04:29.267" UserId="551" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="From the numerical point of view `пара` by itself may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **one** object: пара ножниц, пара щипцов, пара брюк;&#xD;&#xA; - **two** objects: пара яблок, пара апельсинов;&#xD;&#xA; - **one set** of objects: пара весел, пара перчаток, пара носок, пара платья (outdated nowadays, used to mean &quot;сюртук, брюки и жилет&quot;, see [here](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_fwords/25764/%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90)), кофейная пара ([чашка и блюдце для кофе](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/42754/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0)), пара чаю ([порция чаю в двух чайниках для воды и для заварки чая](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/920402));&#xD;&#xA; - **two humans or animals acting together**: пара лошадей, пара танцоров, пара боксеров;&#xD;&#xA; - **small amount**: на пару слов, на пару минут, пожить пару дней, виделись пару раз, подкинь пару монет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a joke the &quot;small amount&quot; may mean even 5 objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Сбегай в магазин, возьми пару бутылок водки.  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это сколько?  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это пять!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to `две пары`. Though mathematically it can be treated as a simple multiplication, though in language such saying has multiple additional aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use `десять` or `десяток` instead of `два` to highlight the difference. While Then `десять пар` means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as one object.** In our first example math works. In this case десять пар means exactly ten times more objects than before (ten objects): десять пар ножниц, десять пар щипцов, десять пар брюк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two objects.** In this case math works as well, but semantically it is implied that the objects are calculated by pairs for some reason (because of packaging, or because price is set for pair): `десять пар яблок` equals 20 apples, `десять пар апельсинов` equals 20 oranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as set of objects.** Here math works differently:&#xD;&#xA;  - `Она перемеряла десять пар туфель` - you cannot just multiply two by ten here. Though 20 shoes were used 10 of them are left ones and another 10 of them are right ones. You cannot take one shoe from first pair and combine it with another shoe from another pair easily.&#xD;&#xA;  - `Десять пар перчаток` - same as above - 20 objects, but left/right glove are different.&#xD;&#xA;  - `У меня десять пар одинаковых черных носок` - Maybe the only example when you can say that you have 20 socks, because usually there is no practical difference between 'right' and 'left' ones.&#xD;&#xA;  - `В гардеробе висят десять пар платья` - in this example mathematically you have 30 objects, but they cannot be treated as equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two humans or animals acting together** - though you can abstractly say &quot;20 humans&quot; or &quot;20 animals&quot;, but in fact it is another example of &quot;пара as set&quot;. When something is done together, in most cases these pairs are matching each other by some criterion  (horses should be of equal sizes and strength, boxers should be in same weight category; dancing pair may or may not require one man and one woman, etc.). So in most cases you cannot mix the pair members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as small amount** - you cannot use *пара as small amount* meaning in `десять пар минут` expression. Here it will mean `пара as grouping by two for counting`, so десять пар минут means 20 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to `две пары часов`. Here the word `пара` can mean `one`, `two` or `set`. The word `часы` may mean `clock` or `wrist watch`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `clock` `пара` means exactly two clocks, so the meaning here is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Four clocks, that were grouped by two either for ease of counting, or because they form a set by their form, color, price, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `wrist watch` пара may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Two watches (wrist or pocket ones) that are weared by a person. This is a colloquialism - most books on Literature Russian discourage usage `пара` in this meaning. As stated by Rosenthal: &quot;Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер&quot;. However, this expression follows a pattern for many other clothing items - пара очков, пара брюк, пара носок, пара перчаток, etc., so it does not sound weird for a person that have never heard such expression before. Anton Zuev listed a [numerous examples](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2542/551) of such sayings. One example from [ruscorpora.ru dates back to 1874](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EF%E0%F0%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F7%E0%F1%FB&amp;gramm2=S&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=30): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пришедшие под вечерок армяне «поддержали коммерцию», купив пару часов и несколько мелочей из сданных мною вещей, как то: цепочки нового золота, коробку слабителъных порошков, перочинные ножики, карандаши и т. под. [П. И. Огородников. Очерки Персии. Калейдоскоп шахруда. Персидское побережье Каспия. Перевал через Кузлук (1874)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is interesting to note that in this citation the pocket watches are described. According to Wikipedia wrist watches [become popular after World War I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch), because pocket watches were impractical on the battlefield. Before that time men, who carried pocket watches, were quoted as saying they would &quot;sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch&quot; (note this idea of &quot;watch as a piece of cloth&quot; connotation, though the citation itself is not russian of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Four watches, grouped by two for counting (see &quot;clocks&quot; example). I beleive that this is the only meaning that Literature Russian allowes. So, such phrase can only be used in a context where these watches are counted (in a shop, in a document, etc.). But since alternative meaning exists that has a very long usage history, I believe that you have a very low chanses of seing such expression in literature, because most editors will rephrase it to avoid ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, **две пары часов**, where `часы` means `watches` (and not `clocks` or `hours`) will always mean **two watches**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="76483c31-a9c5-4c68-8da7-87056fac99ca" CreationDate="2013-09-06T11:39:46.970" UserId="551" Comment="added 571 characters in body" Text="From the numerical point of view `пара` by itself may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **one** object: пара ножниц, пара щипцов, пара брюк;&#xD;&#xA; - **two** objects: пара яблок, пара апельсинов;&#xD;&#xA; - **one set** of objects: пара весел, пара перчаток, пара носок, пара платья (outdated nowadays, used to mean &quot;сюртук, брюки и жилет&quot;, see [here](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_fwords/25764/%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90)), кофейная пара ([чашка и блюдце для кофе](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/42754/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0)), пара чаю ([порция чаю в двух чайниках для воды и для заварки чая](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/920402));&#xD;&#xA; - **two humans or animals acting together**: пара лошадей, пара танцоров, пара боксеров;&#xD;&#xA; - **small amount**: на пару слов, на пару минут, пожить пару дней, виделись пару раз, подкинь пару монет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a joke the &quot;small amount&quot; may mean even 5 objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Сбегай в магазин, возьми пару бутылок водки.  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это сколько?  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это пять!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to `две пары`. Though mathematically it can be treated as a simple multiplication, though in language such saying has multiple additional aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use `десять` or `десяток` instead of `два` to highlight the difference. While Then `десять пар` means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as one object.** In our first example math works. In this case десять пар means exactly ten times more objects than before (ten objects): десять пар ножниц, десять пар щипцов, десять пар брюк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two objects.** In this case math works as well, but semantically it is implied that the objects are calculated by pairs for some reason (because of packaging, or because price is set for pair): `десять пар яблок` equals 20 apples, `десять пар апельсинов` equals 20 oranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as set of objects.** Here math works differently:&#xD;&#xA;  - `Она перемеряла десять пар туфель` - you cannot just multiply two by ten here. Though 20 shoes were used 10 of them are left ones and another 10 of them are right ones. You cannot take one shoe from first pair and combine it with another shoe from another pair easily.&#xD;&#xA;  - `Десять пар перчаток` - same as above - 20 objects, but left/right glove are different.&#xD;&#xA;  - `У меня десять пар одинаковых черных носок` - Maybe the only example when you can say that you have 20 socks, because usually there is no practical difference between 'right' and 'left' ones.&#xD;&#xA;  - `В гардеробе висят десять пар платья` - in this example mathematically you have 30 objects, but they cannot be treated as equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two humans or animals acting together** - though you can abstractly say &quot;20 humans&quot; or &quot;20 animals&quot;, but in fact it is another example of &quot;пара as set&quot;. When something is done together, in most cases these pairs are matching each other by some criterion  (horses should be of equal sizes and strength, boxers should be in same weight category; dancing pair may or may not require one man and one woman, etc.). So in most cases you cannot mix the pair members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as small amount** - you cannot use *пара as small amount* meaning in `десять пар минут` expression. Here it will mean `пара as grouping by two for counting`, so десять пар минут means 20 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to `две пары часов`. Here the word `пара` can mean `one`, `two` or `set`. The word `часы` may mean `clock` or `wrist/pocket watch` or `hours`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of **hours** `две пары часов` sounds quite weird by itself, because usually `пара часов` is used, which means `a couple of hours`, but `две пары часов` will have the meaning `four hours, grouped by two hours for some reason` (note that in universities `пара` stands for `two academic hours` - a study session in an educational institution consisting of two 45-minute periods).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of **clock** `пара` means exactly two clocks, so the meaning here is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Four clocks, that were grouped by two either for ease of counting, or because they form a set by their form, color, price, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though since for watches the result is quite different one would likely add &quot;настенных&quot; to disambiguate clocks and watches (две пары настенных часов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of **wrist/pocket watch** пара may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Two watches (wrist or pocket ones) that are weared by a person. This is a colloquialism - most books on Literature Russian discourage usage `пара` in this meaning. As stated by Rosenthal: &quot;Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер&quot;. However, this expression follows a pattern for many other clothing items - пара очков, пара брюк, пара носок, пара перчаток, etc., so it does not sound weird for a person that have never heard such expression before. Anton Zuev listed a [numerous examples](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2542/551) of such sayings. One example from [ruscorpora.ru dates back to 1874](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EF%E0%F0%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F7%E0%F1%FB&amp;gramm2=S&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=30): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пришедшие под вечерок армяне «поддержали коммерцию», купив пару часов и несколько мелочей из сданных мною вещей, как то: цепочки нового золота, коробку слабителъных порошков, перочинные ножики, карандаши и т. под. [П. И. Огородников. Очерки Персии. Калейдоскоп шахруда. Персидское побережье Каспия. Перевал через Кузлук (1874)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is interesting to note that in this citation the pocket watches are described. According to Wikipedia wrist watches [become popular after World War I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch), because pocket watches were impractical on the battlefield. Before that time men, who carried pocket watches, were quoted as saying they would &quot;sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch&quot; (note this idea of &quot;watch as a piece of cloth&quot; connotation, though the citation itself is not russian of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Four watches, grouped by two for counting (see &quot;clocks&quot; example). I beleive that this is the only meaning that Literature Russian allowes. So, such phrase can only be used in a context where these watches are counted (in a shop, in a document, etc.). But since alternative meaning exists that has a very long usage history, I believe that you have a very low chanses of seing such expression in literature, because most editors will rephrase it to avoid ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, **две пары часов**, where `часы` means `watches` (and not `clocks` or `hours`) will always mean **two watches**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="7aa2bc29-3d9a-4198-bc01-b4ad234fc128" CreationDate="2013-09-07T10:56:15.020" UserId="1982" Text="Actually, there are some native Russian words beginning with **А**. **Аист** was mentioned above. I would add **азбука** (= alphabet) to the list. The word derives from **аз** &amp; **буки** - the ancient names of the two first letters of Russian alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there are no native Russian words beginning with **Ф** :) Most are taken from Greek, some from German, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Russian is my native language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="0b2c30ab-b44f-46b4-a5d1-f9effc20e1d7" CreationDate="2013-09-07T11:06:52.783" UserId="1982" Text="**Товарищ** sounds more ironic these days. I'd agree on this point, it's been already mentioned here in the thread. Also it is used in the military when talking to an officer.&#xD;&#xA;If you need an equivalent to **mister**, I'd say there's no such word nowadays. Some were in the past (товарищ, господин, сударь), now not.&#xD;&#xA;In a conversation with your friend you can use **друг**, **дружище**, **приятель**, **чувак** (the latter sounds very informal, equals to **dude**). Or just use his name and don't wory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="d15ea340-5503-4502-86c8-29f4f6e1a273" CreationDate="2013-09-08T12:16:49.790" UserId="1984" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="What is the difference of usage when these verbs, I frequently see them and cannot determine their specific usage respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Использовать &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Использоваться&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пользоваться / воспользоваться / попользоваться &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Употреблять / Употребить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I frequently see the use of these adverbs and cannot determine their usage, any examples will help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В основном&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вообще&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вообще-то&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    В общее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8982" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="d15ea340-5503-4502-86c8-29f4f6e1a273" CreationDate="2013-09-08T12:16:49.790" Comment="Proposed by 1984 approved by 97, 242 edit id of 399" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="e32d91d4-3212-47d9-ae48-541a252bfb32" CreationDate="2013-09-08T21:54:07.990" UserId="487" Text="I was kidding with friends about them sending me something irrealistic. The written answer I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тока позже!)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with &quot;))&quot; being what I think are the Russian emoticons for *lol* (without eyes - just the smile). *позже* is after but in [lingvo](http://www.lingvo-online.ru/en/Translate/en-ru/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0) I didn't found something really helpful in order to translate *тока*, which is presummably the genitive of *ток*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does тока позже mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="e32d91d4-3212-47d9-ae48-541a252bfb32" CreationDate="2013-09-08T21:54:07.990" UserId="487" Text="What does тока позже mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="e32d91d4-3212-47d9-ae48-541a252bfb32" CreationDate="2013-09-08T21:54:07.990" UserId="487" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="d5c90c1c-4a33-42cb-989a-90c6f9f1a25d" CreationDate="2013-09-08T22:04:24.107" UserId="487" Comment="added 9 characters in body; deleted 10 characters in body" Text="I was kidding with friends about them sending me something irrealistic. The written answer I got was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тока позже!)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with &quot;))&quot; being what I think are the Russian emoticons for *lol* (without eyes - just the smile). *позже* is after but in [lingvo](http://www.lingvo-online.ru/en/Translate/en-ru/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0) I didn't find something really helpful in order to translate *тока*, which is presummably the genitive of *ток*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does тока позже mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="e23d4662-a1c7-4662-88d9-9b4a550c2cbd" CreationDate="2013-09-09T01:47:48.287" UserId="75" Text="&quot;Тока&quot; is a (usually intentionally) incorrect spelling of &quot;только&quot;, imitating its common pronunciation (similar to &quot;чо&quot; = &quot;что&quot;). &quot;Тока позже&quot; thus means &quot;only later&quot; or &quot;just later&quot;. The unmatched parentheses are indeed emoticons (I don't think this form is specific to Russia though)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="1f292f4e-18a7-48e9-8f90-9991037c8813" CreationDate="2013-09-09T02:44:09.583" UserId="62" Text="In the US we say that someone &quot;couldn't even be elected dogcatcher&quot; to indicate that the person is very unpopular or unqualified; the position of dogcatcher is imagined to be the lowest kind of elective office, so you're truly disliked or incapable if you can't win an election to that position. (In reality, the position of dogcatcher is never on a ballot; the phrase was born in the 19th century.)  Is there anything even close to this kind of phrase in Russia to convey indirectly that a person is very unpopular or incompetent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="1f292f4e-18a7-48e9-8f90-9991037c8813" CreationDate="2013-09-09T02:44:09.583" UserId="62" Text="analogue of &quot;being elected dogcatcher&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="1f292f4e-18a7-48e9-8f90-9991037c8813" CreationDate="2013-09-09T02:44:09.583" UserId="62" Text="|idioms|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2596" RevisionGUID="4c8c8fd5-30c5-417e-a8dd-e33cda127064" CreationDate="2013-09-09T07:52:32.787" UserId="194" Text="There is no such idiom but depending on the meaning you want to convey, you can express it figuratively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он годится только в мусорщики.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его бы и в мусорщики не взяли.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он бы только дворником мог работать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его и в дворники не возьмут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дворник, уборщик, мусорщик are considered the lowest professions by prestige.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2596" RevisionGUID="924e0ba4-0dc1-45f6-a353-c5c3b296912f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T07:59:54.220" UserId="194" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="There is no such idiom but depending on the meaning you want to convey, you can express it figuratively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он годится только в мусорщики.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его бы и в мусорщики не взяли.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он бы только дворником мог работать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его и в дворники не возьмут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дворник, уборщик, мусорщик are considered the lowest professions by prestige. These phrases are used to express incompetence. I currently cannot construct a similar phrase to express unpopularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="b60b551d-a383-41c3-b8f0-a4fa42e562c8" CreationDate="2013-09-09T10:16:38.203" UserId="551" Text="This one is very rude, but may match what you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни в пизду, ни в Красную армию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о человеке или предмете, который никуда не годится, не имеет видимых достоинств, или о котором нельзя сказать что-либо определённое. [ru.wiktionary.org](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D1%83,_%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8E)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb says about a human or an object that is not worth anything, has no visible advantages or one that cannot be characterized in any way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="cab6f171-2bb7-4f35-a4d2-c770fd79b0af" CreationDate="2013-09-09T10:37:51.633" UserId="551" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="This one is very rude, but may match what you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни в пизду, ни в Красную армию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о человеке или предмете, который никуда не годится, не имеет видимых достоинств, или о котором нельзя сказать что-либо определённое. [ru.wiktionary.org](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D1%83,_%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8E)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb says about a human or an object that is not worth anything, has no visible advantages or one that cannot be characterized in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think non-rude proverb would be one of the list that Anixx has posted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for this one, here you can't find the election, but selection. During Soviet time all men had to serve in military forces. The only possible chance to avoid military service was the state of the health of potential warrior (and this chance was very low). So the man in the proverb is not healthy enough to be selected for the military forces and also is not capable of having sex with a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="a9155667-f6e2-4646-8f85-4c716cd5151c" CreationDate="2013-09-09T10:46:40.913" UserId="551" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="This one is very rude, but may match what you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни в пизду, ни в Красную армию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о человеке или предмете, который никуда не годится, не имеет видимых достоинств, или о котором нельзя сказать что-либо определённое. [ru.wiktionary.org](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D1%83,_%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8E)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb says about a human or an object that is not worth anything, has no visible advantages or one that cannot be characterized in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think non-rude proverb would be one of the list that Anixx has posted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for this one, here you can't find the election, but selection. During Soviet time all men had to serve in military forces. The only possible chance to avoid military service was the state of the health of potential warrior (and this chance was very low). So the man in the proverb has very poor health, that he was deselected even by military medical comission and also he is not capable of having sex with a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="d9a519be-ee72-4940-9a83-33671278d5f1" CreationDate="2013-09-10T06:53:42.170" UserId="551" Comment="Removed misleading 'medical' aspect" Text="This one is very rude, but may match what you need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни в пизду, ни в Красную армию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о человеке или предмете, который никуда не годится, не имеет видимых достоинств, или о котором нельзя сказать что-либо определённое. [ru.wiktionary.org](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D1%83,_%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8E)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb says about a human or an object that is not worth anything, has no visible advantages or one that cannot be characterized in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think non-rude proverb would be one of the list that Anixx has posted (my favourite one is &quot;Его даже в дворники не возьмут&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During Soviet time all men had to serve in military forces*, so one had almost 100% chance to join the Red Army without having any developed skills. Other part of the proverb says that one cannot cope with having sex with a woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically this proverb says that someone cannot cope even with simpliest tasks that do not require any qualification at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;* Previously I described here a misleading medical aspect of being selected to military forces, but in fact this is not the case.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="d6caeb60-e480-4be4-bc33-b5d4dffd0b49" CreationDate="2013-09-11T13:53:59.573" UserId="1266" Text="Why cows/bulls rarely called so, especially in official documents, but the term КРС (Крупный рогатый скот, lit. &quot;large horned cattle&quot;) is used instead? Other farming animals are called simpler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему коров/быков так часто называют КРС (Крупный рогатый скот), особенно в документах? Другие сельскохозяйственные животные называют проще." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="d6caeb60-e480-4be4-bc33-b5d4dffd0b49" CreationDate="2013-09-11T13:53:59.573" UserId="1266" Text="Why cows (коровы) are called &quot;крупный роганый скот&quot; so frequently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="d6caeb60-e480-4be4-bc33-b5d4dffd0b49" CreationDate="2013-09-11T13:53:59.573" UserId="1266" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="04f27440-18c8-4b52-baa4-5ee023d47d6a" CreationDate="2013-09-11T15:00:56.897" UserId="1305" Text="The term `корова` is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. `Бык` means non-castrated bull. There are also several terms to describe cows and bulls: Волы, Бычки, Бычки-кастраты, Телята молочные, Тёлки, Нетели. (Information from [Russian wiki][1]).&#xD;&#xA;All this words can be combined as `Крупный рогатый скот`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="5c574a70-38cc-4dd7-9158-409ee10f2d73" CreationDate="2013-09-11T15:10:03.830" UserId="1305" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="The term `корова` is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. `Бык` means non-castrated bull. There are also several terms to describe cows and bulls (Information from [Russian wiki][1]):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Волы - bulls of 3 years and older which have been castrated at an&#xD;&#xA;   early age;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки - bulls aged between 3 months and 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки-кастраты - castrated bulls under 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Телята молочные - cows and bulls under 3 months fed on milk;&#xD;&#xA; - Тёлки - cows never calved;&#xD;&#xA; - Нетели - cows inseminated artifically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this words can be combined as `Крупный рогатый скот`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="24c9fee0-bad8-40c8-946a-a0e87a045d54" CreationDate="2013-09-11T15:11:58.110" UserId="1236" Comment="grammar" Text="The term `корова` is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. `Бык` means non-castrated bull. There are also several terms to describe cows and bulls (Information from [Russian wiki][1]):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Волы - bulls of 3 years and older which have been castrated at an&#xD;&#xA;   early age;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки - bulls aged between 3 months and 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки-кастраты - castrated bulls under 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Телята молочные - cows and bulls under 3 months fed on milk;&#xD;&#xA; - Тёлки - cows never calved;&#xD;&#xA; - Нетели - cows inseminated artifically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these words can be combined as `Крупный рогатый скот`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="0cafae71-c90d-4d65-a9eb-5051bbdcbb67" CreationDate="2013-09-11T15:24:20.350" UserId="1305" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The term `корова` is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. `Бык` means non-castrated bull. There are also several more terms to describe cows and bulls (Information from [Russian wiki][1]):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Волы - bulls of 3 years and older which have been castrated at an&#xD;&#xA;   early age;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки - bulls aged between 3 months and 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки-кастраты - castrated bulls under 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Телята молочные - cows and bulls under 3 months fed on milk;&#xD;&#xA; - Тёлки - cows never calved;&#xD;&#xA; - Нетели - cows inseminated artifically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these words can be combined as `Крупный рогатый скот`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="16399510-6766-435c-8066-674d542f0d2a" CreationDate="2013-09-11T16:24:08.847" UserId="1305" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="The term `корова` is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. `Бык` means non-castrated bull. There are also several more terms to describe cows and bulls (Information from [Russian wiki][1]):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Волы - bulls of 3 years and older which have been castrated at an&#xD;&#xA;   early age;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки - bulls aged between 3 months and 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки-кастраты - castrated bulls under 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Телята молочные - cows and bulls under 3 months fed on milk;&#xD;&#xA; - Тёлки - cows never calved;&#xD;&#xA; - Нетели - cows inseminated artifically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these terms can be combined as `Крупный рогатый скот`. In colloquial speech, the words `корова` and `бык` are enough to describe any of them (considering gender, of course), but when it comes to official documentation, there is a need in a more general denomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2600" RevisionGUID="e400c47c-2b1a-4ce6-bbb9-df4f3507d58e" CreationDate="2013-09-11T17:03:11.810" UserId="115" Text="I think this is just the difference between normal speech and the bureaucratic style of official documents and speeches.  Consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; население vs. люди&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проживать vs. жить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продукты питания vs. еда или пища&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; место жительства vs. дом или адрес" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="0dd20017-8a3e-4ba2-9056-96282788d06b" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:10:11.707" UserId="1958" Text="Because КРС is not only cows, but also зубры, бизоны, буйволы, яки and овцебыки (thought formally last are not Bovinae but Ovibos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simple word for КРС in Polish, I believe, is bydło." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="56c0633d-155e-4ed9-823d-8eef97a83e11" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:42:07.960" UserId="1958" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Because КРС is not only cows, but also зубры, бизоны, буйволы, яки and овцебыки (thought formally last are not Bovinae but Ovibos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simple word for КРС in Polish, I believe, is *bydło*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="32c1cef9-dc1c-47da-a014-a88cd3ed710e" CreationDate="2013-09-11T22:28:19.600" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Why cows/bulls rarely called so, especially in official documents, but the term КРС (Крупный рогатый скот, lit. &quot;large horned cattle&quot;) is used instead? Other farming animals are called simpler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему коров/быков так часто называют КРС (Крупный рогатый скот), особенно в документах? Других сельскохозяйственных животных называют проще." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9009" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="772a6d1f-8e2b-441e-b2f5-c6628c6d107a" CreationDate="2013-09-12T03:19:21.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/377994818418655232" />
  <row Id="9010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="3db16331-5255-4cb0-9344-39bfd82c3924" CreationDate="2013-09-12T08:07:19.267" UserId="1305" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Officially, the term `корова` is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. `Бык` means non-castrated bull. There are also several more terms to describe cows and bulls (Information from [Russian wiki][1]):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Волы - bulls of 3 years and older which have been castrated at an&#xD;&#xA;   early age;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки - bulls aged between 3 months and 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Бычки-кастраты - castrated bulls under 3 years;&#xD;&#xA; - Телята молочные - cows and bulls under 3 months fed on milk;&#xD;&#xA; - Тёлки - cows never calved;&#xD;&#xA; - Нетели - cows inseminated artifically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is just no short term to designate all representatives of this species. All these terms can be combined as `Крупный рогатый скот`. In colloquial speech, the words `корова` and `бык` are enough to describe any of them (considering gender, of course), but when it comes to official documentation, there is a need in a more general denomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="1e10431a-5f2e-427b-9d0e-66a9e3206989" CreationDate="2013-09-12T09:57:16.533" UserId="1990" Text="Actually, when using у меня есть pattern, it is giving a sense that the owned thing is existed or not in that person. However, when using the Иметь verb it is giving a sense that the owned thing is being had (*to have* actually) by that person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="12620af6-7d6d-4ecf-964e-2940f2520039" CreationDate="2013-09-12T13:45:06.220" UserId="1860" Text="I am fully bilingual but for the life of me, I cannot think of how to tell my little one that we are having a &quot;sleepover&quot; in Russian. Help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="12620af6-7d6d-4ecf-964e-2940f2520039" CreationDate="2013-09-12T13:45:06.220" UserId="1860" Text="How would you translate &quot;sleepover&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="12620af6-7d6d-4ecf-964e-2940f2520039" CreationDate="2013-09-12T13:45:06.220" UserId="1860" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="6a65722d-7da6-4ed4-a4fb-2cd1aea7dcda" CreationDate="2013-09-12T14:23:32.800" UserId="551" Text="Возможно Сходить в гости с ночевкой?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словаре [multitran.ru](http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=sleepover&amp;l1=1) приводятся также варианты из Даля: переночеванье, переночевка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще говоря, без контекста трудно подобрать аналог." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="d7802fad-2df8-4601-9b5b-edd346bd15e3" CreationDate="2013-09-12T14:53:43.080" UserId="551" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="Maybe **сходить в гости с ночевкой**?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many similar cases **ночевка** is used to say that you are going to spend the night out of home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поехать на выходных на дачу с ночевкой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поехать на пикник с ночевкой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in online [multitran.ru](http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=sleepover&amp;l1=1) dictionary the following words are listed from the Vladimir Dal's dictionary: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; переночеванье, переночевка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Actually it would be much better if you provide the context where the word is used. Otherwise the final result has a chance to sound weird.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9017" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2603" RevisionGUID="da55fa2a-1a2c-434e-892a-adef7ef141ec" CreationDate="2013-09-13T00:19:33.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/378311954232008704" />
  <row Id="9018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="c1aa4467-972e-418d-927a-7a6b459058a5" CreationDate="2013-09-13T08:38:08.447" UserId="1993" Text="The question [How do I split a word into syllables?][1] and its answers are helpful if one speaks Russian. Unfortunately I do not speak Russian but need to hyphenate 'Churyumov-Gerasimenko' (there must be other possibilities besides the existing hyphen). Is there some on-line hyphenation tool or dictionary for Russian which provides hyphenation and has an English GUI?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/138/how-do-i-split-a-word-into-syllables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="c1aa4467-972e-418d-927a-7a6b459058a5" CreationDate="2013-09-13T08:38:08.447" UserId="1993" Text="Is there an on-line hyphenation tool?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="c1aa4467-972e-418d-927a-7a6b459058a5" CreationDate="2013-09-13T08:38:08.447" UserId="1993" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="7ccf574c-bf70-48de-ad83-724625ace58b" CreationDate="2013-09-13T13:47:32.467" UserId="1990" Text="What I know usually is the following for referring to unknown persons in the street or in a restaurant: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - девушка -- young lady, misses (Ms.)&#xD;&#xA; - молодой человек -- young man, mister but younger ones (18-25 age)&#xD;&#xA; - госпожа -- lady, Mrs.&#xD;&#xA; - господин -- older man, Mister (Mr.)&#xD;&#xA; - официант - официантка -- waiter - waitress in a restaurant (However if the waiter or waitress is young, молодой человек - девушка is more convenient for referring)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="f64f61e9-6acb-4b27-aaff-372769b05c6c" CreationDate="2013-09-13T16:13:43.323" UserId="1688" Comment="spelling in the title" Text="Why cows (коровы) are called &quot;крупный рогатый скот&quot; so frequently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9026" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="f64f61e9-6acb-4b27-aaff-372769b05c6c" CreationDate="2013-09-13T16:13:43.323" Comment="Proposed by 1688 approved by 242 edit id of 400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9027" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="133a67d9-021b-490e-9f82-9dc211c8c6b7" CreationDate="2013-09-13T21:19:52.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/378629123415240704" />
  <row Id="9028" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="7c9f0a9e-12b0-43f3-8b92-c0de768143ab" CreationDate="2013-09-14T12:19:58.230" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/378855640745385985" />
  <row Id="9029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="cff79057-dc4d-4701-8f77-a79c8dcb150f" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:48:38.353" UserId="1994" Text="Direct translation as &quot;Взрыв&quot; sounds extremely wrong when talking about neural bursting. Some neurons can fire a number of spikes (burst of spikes) in a short period of time, followed by a period of quiescence. This phenomenon is called bursting. I have trouble finding a proper translation for the term" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="cff79057-dc4d-4701-8f77-a79c8dcb150f" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:48:38.353" UserId="1994" Text="Translation for &quot;Burst&quot; (neuroscience)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="cff79057-dc4d-4701-8f77-a79c8dcb150f" CreationDate="2013-09-14T21:48:38.353" UserId="1994" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="f5d4cfbe-6ac5-4e0b-940d-61c4c32bf6a9" CreationDate="2013-09-15T09:16:55.213" UserId="1305" Text="Here some of the examples that use `Всплеск` in the sense of &quot;neuron activity burst&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всплеск** нейронной активности, как причина ярких «предсмертных видений» [\[1\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более того, у активных мышей мозг проявлял все признаки контроля над&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реакциями, поскольку был зарегистрирован **всплеск** активности так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называемых тормозящих нейронов, которые отвечают за контроль над легко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возбудимыми нейронами, а также нейроны у этих мышей вырабатывали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большее количество нейромедиатора гамма-аминомасляной кислоты (GABA),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которая также снижает возбудимость нейронов. [\[2\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ходе односекундного пения отдельные нейроны в HVC запускают лишь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один короткий **всплеск** активности в определенной точке времени пения. [\[3\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Вспышка` is acceptable too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот, при приступах катаплексии, как и в парадоксальном сне, у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собак отмечались мощные **вспышки** активности этих нейронов! [\[4\]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://med36.com/new/593&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detalimira.com/news/1722/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sbio.info/page.php?al=nejrony_rabotajut_po_pri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/11_05/SLEEP.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="868f4a16-8ea4-49ef-b57a-5c22e1bbe56d" CreationDate="2013-09-15T09:23:30.007" UserId="1305" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Here is some examples that use `Всплеск` in the sense of &quot;neuron activity burst&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всплеск** нейронной активности, как причина ярких «предсмертных видений» [\[1\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более того, у активных мышей мозг проявлял все признаки контроля над&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реакциями, поскольку был зарегистрирован **всплеск** активности так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называемых тормозящих нейронов, которые отвечают за контроль над легко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возбудимыми нейронами, а также нейроны у этих мышей вырабатывали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большее количество нейромедиатора гамма-аминомасляной кислоты (GABA),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которая также снижает возбудимость нейронов. [\[2\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ходе односекундного пения отдельные нейроны в HVC запускают лишь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один короткий **всплеск** активности в определенной точке времени пения. [\[3\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Вспышка` is acceptable too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот, при приступах катаплексии, как и в парадоксальном сне, у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собак отмечались мощные **вспышки** активности этих нейронов! [\[4\]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://med36.com/new/593&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detalimira.com/news/1722/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sbio.info/page.php?al=nejrony_rabotajut_po_pri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/11_05/SLEEP.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="14a07e97-3d67-442a-9c51-3a7d3c6cb736" CreationDate="2013-09-15T11:26:00.903" UserId="1994" Comment="added 420 characters in body; edited title" Text="Direct translation as &quot;Взрыв&quot; sounds extremely wrong when talking about neural bursting. Some neurons can fire a number of spikes (burst of spikes) in a short period of time, followed by a period of quiescence. This phenomenon is called bursting. I have trouble finding a proper translation for the term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD**: thanks for the suggestions. I'll try to resolve the confusion. I'm referring to a specific dynamical regime of a *single* neuron, which happens to be called &quot;bursting&quot;, as described here: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bursting. It's different from the notion of an abstract abrupt increase in the (possibly collective) neural activity, which, I agree, can be nicely translated as &quot;всплеск&quot;/&quot;вспышка&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9040" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="14a07e97-3d67-442a-9c51-3a7d3c6cb736" CreationDate="2013-09-15T11:26:00.903" UserId="1994" Comment="added 420 characters in body; edited title" Text="Translation for &quot;Burst&quot;/&quot;Bursting&quot; (neuroscience)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9041" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="f60d0035-d65b-42be-a3fd-a96c7d46d808" CreationDate="2013-09-15T12:19:59.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/379218033895800832" />
  <row Id="9042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="97233a87-8448-4a1c-b6cc-2040fc133b20" CreationDate="2013-09-15T16:07:44.940" UserId="1305" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="Proper equivalent for &quot;bursting neuron&quot; in Russian neuroscience is `залповый нейрон` ([see here][5]). It seems weird for me, but google finds many examples of such collocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here is some examples that use `Всплеск` in the sense of &quot;neuron activity burst&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всплеск** нейронной активности, как причина ярких «предсмертных видений» [\[1\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более того, у активных мышей мозг проявлял все признаки контроля над&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реакциями, поскольку был зарегистрирован **всплеск** активности так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называемых тормозящих нейронов, которые отвечают за контроль над легко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возбудимыми нейронами, а также нейроны у этих мышей вырабатывали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большее количество нейромедиатора гамма-аминомасляной кислоты (GABA),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которая также снижает возбудимость нейронов. [\[2\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ходе односекундного пения отдельные нейроны в HVC запускают лишь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один короткий **всплеск** активности в определенной точке времени пения. [\[3\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Вспышка` is acceptable too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот, при приступах катаплексии, как и в парадоксальном сне, у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собак отмечались мощные **вспышки** активности этих нейронов! [\[4\]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://med36.com/new/593&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detalimira.com/news/1722/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sbio.info/page.php?al=nejrony_rabotajut_po_pri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/11_05/SLEEP.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://biology_en_ru.academic.ru/9754/bursting_neuron" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="010f2396-b40f-4490-8fc9-8de67c080531" CreationDate="2013-09-15T16:13:23.133" UserId="1305" Comment="edited body" Text="Proper equivalent for &quot;bursting neuron&quot; in Russian neuroscience is `залповый нейрон` ([see here][5]). It seems weird for me, but google finds some examples of such collocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here is some examples that use `Всплеск` in the sense of &quot;neuron activity burst&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всплеск** нейронной активности, как причина ярких «предсмертных видений» [\[1\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более того, у активных мышей мозг проявлял все признаки контроля над&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реакциями, поскольку был зарегистрирован **всплеск** активности так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называемых тормозящих нейронов, которые отвечают за контроль над легко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возбудимыми нейронами, а также нейроны у этих мышей вырабатывали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большее количество нейромедиатора гамма-аминомасляной кислоты (GABA),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которая также снижает возбудимость нейронов. [\[2\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ходе односекундного пения отдельные нейроны в HVC запускают лишь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один короткий **всплеск** активности в определенной точке времени пения. [\[3\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Вспышка` is acceptable too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот, при приступах катаплексии, как и в парадоксальном сне, у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собак отмечались мощные **вспышки** активности этих нейронов! [\[4\]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://med36.com/new/593&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detalimira.com/news/1722/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sbio.info/page.php?al=nejrony_rabotajut_po_pri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/11_05/SLEEP.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://biology_en_ru.academic.ru/9754/bursting_neuron" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="a2de8b48-bd6f-4157-bb27-b64e365750b0" CreationDate="2013-09-15T19:37:40.803" UserId="1305" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**UPD**: Proper equivalent for &quot;bursting neuron&quot; in Russian neuroscience is `залповый нейрон` ([see here][5]). It seems weird for me, but google finds some examples of such collocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Here is some examples that use `Всплеск` in the sense of &quot;neuron activity burst&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всплеск** нейронной активности, как причина ярких «предсмертных видений» [\[1\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более того, у активных мышей мозг проявлял все признаки контроля над&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реакциями, поскольку был зарегистрирован **всплеск** активности так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называемых тормозящих нейронов, которые отвечают за контроль над легко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возбудимыми нейронами, а также нейроны у этих мышей вырабатывали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большее количество нейромедиатора гамма-аминомасляной кислоты (GABA),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которая также снижает возбудимость нейронов. [\[2\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ходе односекундного пения отдельные нейроны в HVC запускают лишь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один короткий **всплеск** активности в определенной точке времени пения. [\[3\]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Вспышка` is acceptable too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот, при приступах катаплексии, как и в парадоксальном сне, у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собак отмечались мощные **вспышки** активности этих нейронов! [\[4\]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://med36.com/new/593&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://detalimira.com/news/1722/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sbio.info/page.php?al=nejrony_rabotajut_po_pri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/11_05/SLEEP.HTM&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://biology_en_ru.academic.ru/9754/bursting_neuron" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="3e209fb5-c42a-44c1-84e1-bf10b6ecf225" CreationDate="2013-09-15T19:38:49.197" UserId="293" Text="There's a verb for being a smartass - *умничать*. However I can't think about a noun except for already noted умник, which is not widely used and is not as strong as &quot;smartass&quot;. One could also say something like &quot;*сильно умный, да?*&quot; which would be like &quot;you're a smartass, aren't you?&quot; if expressed with proper attitude :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best way to conway the idea is to use verbs - *умничать* or *выпендриваться* mentioned in Dima's answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="4fa7c81c-0f75-4de0-b4a4-69e06762e32b" CreationDate="2013-09-16T01:40:35.690" UserId="5" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Caring about the purity of the Russian language, you can phrase it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;из двух часов, что у меня, ни одни (больше) не работают" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9048" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="ca4a2818-082d-4306-a476-11593e56c5a7" CreationDate="2013-09-16T03:20:08.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/379444562445762560" />
  <row Id="9049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="a6f0b8c0-bca5-441e-beba-14c0d1d516df" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:15:17.110" UserId="1770" Text="I get really confused on when should I use какая and when какую, aren't the same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="a6f0b8c0-bca5-441e-beba-14c0d1d516df" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:15:17.110" UserId="1770" Text="When to use какая or какую?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="a6f0b8c0-bca5-441e-beba-14c0d1d516df" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:15:17.110" UserId="1770" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="1625b70b-9d35-423f-bbe3-c5f82b30f3e2" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:52:23.523" UserId="75" Text="They are the same thing, in a certain sense. These are two grammatical cases of a single pronoun &quot;какая&quot; - &quot;which&quot;/&quot;what&quot; (a feminine form, the masculine being &quot;какой&quot;). Namely, &quot;какая&quot; is a nominative, and &quot;какую&quot; is a genitive or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, the form you have to choose is governed by the noun it substitutes or is attached to. For example, the nominative form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как**ая** девушк**а** тебе нравится?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl do you like?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; (girl) is the subject in this sentence (in the Russian one) and is in nominative case itself. On the other hand, the genitive form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как**ую** девушк**у** ты бы пригласил на танец?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl would you invite to a dance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; is the object for the verb &quot;пригласить (кого-то)&quot;, which requires its subject to be in genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="90b5a8da-be8c-4f75-883d-29b2924da520" CreationDate="2013-09-16T05:59:09.363" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="They are the same thing, in a certain sense. These are two grammatical cases of a single pronoun &quot;какая&quot; - &quot;which&quot;/&quot;what&quot; (a feminine form, the masculine being &quot;какой&quot;). Namely, &quot;какая&quot; is a nominative, and &quot;какую&quot; is a genitive or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, the form you have to choose is governed by the noun it substitutes or is attached to. For example, the nominative form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как**ая** девушк**а** тебе нравится?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl do you like?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; (girl) is the subject in this sentence (in the Russian one) and is in nominative case itself. On the other hand, the genitive form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как**ую** девушк**у** ты бы пригласил на танец?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl would you invite to a dance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; is the object for the verb &quot;пригласить (кого-то)&quot;, which requires its object to be in genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="de6973f0-4522-437a-a86b-8889baaae411" CreationDate="2013-09-16T06:57:47.307" UserId="551" Comment="Fixed known markdown intra-word highlighting issue." Text="They are the same thing, in a certain sense. These are two grammatical cases of a single pronoun &quot;какая&quot; - &quot;which&quot;/&quot;what&quot; (a feminine form, the masculine being &quot;какой&quot;). Namely, &quot;какая&quot; is a nominative, and &quot;какую&quot; is a genitive or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, the form you have to choose is governed by the noun it substitutes or is attached to. For example, the nominative form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как&lt;b&gt;ая&lt;/b&gt; девушк&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt; тебе нравится?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl do you like?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; (girl) is the subject in this sentence (in the Russian one) and is in nominative case itself. On the other hand, the genitive form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как&lt;b&gt;ую&lt;/b&gt; девушк&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt; ты бы пригласил на танец?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl would you invite to a dance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; is the object for the verb &quot;пригласить (кого-то)&quot;, which requires its object to be in genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="5205ce44-d9b3-4bd6-a11f-a5555547d066" CreationDate="2013-09-16T11:49:05.657" UserId="75" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="They are the same thing, in a certain sense. These are two grammatical cases of a single pronoun &quot;какая&quot; - &quot;which&quot;/&quot;what&quot; (a feminine form, the masculine being &quot;какой&quot;). Namely, &quot;какая&quot; is a nominative, and &quot;какую&quot; is an accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, the form you have to choose is governed by the noun it substitutes or is attached to. For example, the nominative form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как&lt;b&gt;ая&lt;/b&gt; девушк&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt; тебе нравится?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl do you like?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; (girl) is the subject in this sentence (in the Russian one) and is in nominative case itself. On the other hand, the accusative form is used in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как&lt;b&gt;ую&lt;/b&gt; девушк&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt; ты бы пригласил на танец?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which girl would you invite to a dance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because the noun &quot;девушка&quot; is the object for the verb &quot;пригласить (кого-то)&quot;, which requires its object to be in accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="b3c2c13e-cee0-42d9-b661-fafe499fc4c8" CreationDate="2013-09-16T14:49:31.913" UserId="115" Comment="spelling" Text="There's a verb for being a smartass - *умничать*. However I can't think about a noun except for already noted умник, which is not widely used and is not as strong as &quot;smartass&quot;. One could also say something like &quot;*сильно умный, да?*&quot; which would be like &quot;you're a smartass, aren't you?&quot; if expressed with proper attitude :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best way to convey the idea is to use verbs - *умничать* or *выпендриваться* mentioned in Dima's answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="22319079-bc23-4d13-b176-90816252c73b" CreationDate="2013-09-16T21:20:10.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/379716362488516608" />
  <row Id="9061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="b69448b7-0aa6-4961-8672-aea14c435ff5" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:22:04.857" UserId="1995" Text="I've seen the word &quot;hushers&quot; used to describe the Russian consonants **ч, ш, щ, ж** (especially in the context of spelling rules). Is this an accepted linguistic concept or is it just a convenient name coined to help language learners?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that they make a &quot;hushing&quot; sound, but what actually distinguishes these consonants *linguistically* (phonetically/phonologically)? It seems that the letters **ш/ж** are retroflex consonants and **ч/щ** are alveolo-palatal. Are these the only distinguishing feature that makes them &quot;hushers&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to be more precise linguistically, could I just refer to them as **&quot;retroflex and alveolo-palatal consonants&quot;**? Or is there some other feature I am missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="b69448b7-0aa6-4961-8672-aea14c435ff5" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:22:04.857" UserId="1995" Text="What distinguishes the &quot;hushers&quot; (ч, ш, щ, ж) linguistically from other consonants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="b69448b7-0aa6-4961-8672-aea14c435ff5" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:22:04.857" UserId="1995" Text="|произношение|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="3ab8aa28-75ac-41ab-b298-e19764995dc8" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:51:03.873" UserId="1995" Text="I was taught that certain consonants such as **ш** are always 'hard'.  What function does the soft sign ь have when placed after these 'always hard' consonants? For example, in words such as **учишься**? Does ш + ь change the pronunciation of the ш? Or does it just indicate a pause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="3ab8aa28-75ac-41ab-b298-e19764995dc8" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:51:03.873" UserId="1995" Text="What function does the soft sign ь have in a word like учишься?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="3ab8aa28-75ac-41ab-b298-e19764995dc8" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:51:03.873" UserId="1995" Text="|произношение|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="f347b501-8eba-4015-b09d-7b658a3e638b" CreationDate="2013-09-17T10:44:51.250" UserId="959" Text="Ь doesn't change the pronunciation of the ш. It doesn't indicate a pause. It is only used in written speech to indicate the form of a verb. Also ь doesn't change the pronunciation in the words &quot;туш&quot; and &quot;тушь&quot;, but these words have different meaning and gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="b6d9833f-53c8-4774-a10e-af826a4c15ca" CreationDate="2013-09-17T11:04:09.997" UserId="1995" Text="There is a multilingual hyphenation tool online here: [ushuaia•pl online hyphenation tool][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is based on the same hyphenation engine that is used in OpenOffice and can auto-hyphenate Russian words, but unfortunately can only accept words written in Cyrillic (which in your case would be Чурюмов-Герасименко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ushuaia.pl/hyphen/?ln=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="c9f62bf3-b3b8-43e9-bcf8-d764ff5bc3fe" CreationDate="2013-09-17T11:45:48.260" UserId="551" Text="Интересно, что слово &quot;говядина&quot; происходит от слова &quot;говядо&quot;, которое означает &quot;коровы, быки и волы&quot;. В [словаре Ефремовой][1] это слово помечено как &quot;местн.&quot; (правда не понятно где это &quot;местное&quot; употребление зафиксировано, но это в любом случае &quot;диалектное, устаревшее&quot; слово):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крупный рогатый скот (бык, вол, корова).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть это слово и в словаре Фасмера, и в словаре Даля. Примечательно что Даль в определении этого слова использует выражение &quot;крупная рогатая скотина&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГОВЯДО&#xD;&#xA;ср., церк. крупная рогатая скотина, бык, вол или корова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Заметьте, что словари не упоминают здесь ни телок, ни бычков-кастратов, ни других специализированных с/х терминов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если верить сайту [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/225390), эта статья взята из редакции 1866 года, так что термин КРС имеет давнюю историю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему же для коров и быков используют этот термин?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скорее всего потому что другого слова для обозначения быков, коров и волов в русском языке нет (почему-то &quot;говядо&quot; не стало общеупотребимым словом), а другого &quot;крупного рогатого скота&quot; [в широком смысле](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_colier/4024/%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A3%D0%9F%D0%9D%D0%AB%D0%99) (зубры, бизоны, буйволы, яки) в сельском хозяйстве России не используют. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Самое раннее употребление в Русском национальном корпусе относится к 1783 году, так что этот термин не изобретение советской бюрократии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Превеликое употребление мяса, нужное англичанам, и великий вывоз соленого мяса, коровьего масла, сыру и т. п. доказывают, на каком степени процветения должно быть там скотоводство крупного рогатого скота. [Н. И. Новиков. О торговле вообще (1783)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/154640/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="e95d4418-7670-4744-9fa6-e44acabefb3e" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:00:32.267" UserId="551" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="Интересно, что слово &quot;говядина&quot; происходит от слова &quot;говядо&quot;, которое означает &quot;коровы, быки и волы&quot;. В [словаре Ефремовой][1] это слово помечено как &quot;местн.&quot; (правда не понятно где это &quot;местное&quot; употребление зафиксировано, но это в любом случае &quot;диалектное, устаревшее&quot; слово):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крупный рогатый скот (бык, вол, корова).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть это слово и в словаре Фасмера, и в словаре Даля. Примечательно что Даль в определении этого слова использует выражение &quot;крупная рогатая скотина&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГОВЯДО&#xD;&#xA;ср., церк. крупная рогатая скотина, бык, вол или корова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Заметьте, что словари не упоминают здесь ни телок, ни бычков-кастратов, ни других специализированных с/х терминов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если верить сайту [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/225390), эта статья взята из редакции 1866 года, так что термин КРС имеет давнюю историю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему же для коров и быков используют этот термин?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скорее всего потому что другого слова для обозначения быков, коров и волов в русском языке нет (почему-то &quot;говядо&quot; не стало общеупотребимым словом), а другого &quot;крупного рогатого скота&quot; [в широком смысле](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_colier/4024/%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A3%D0%9F%D0%9D%D0%AB%D0%99) (зубры, бизоны, буйволы, яки) в сельском хозяйстве России не используют. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Самое раннее употребление в Русском национальном корпусе относится к 1783 году, так что этот термин не изобретение советской бюрократии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Превеликое употребление мяса, нужное англичанам, и великий вывоз соленого мяса, коровьего масла, сыру и т. п. доказывают, на каком степени процветения должно быть там скотоводство крупного рогатого скота. [Н. И. Новиков. О торговле вообще (1783)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/154640/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some Russian dialects there is a word **говядо** that exactly matches English word cattle (cows, bulls and oxen). However this word is not widely used in Russian. The **Крупный рогатый скот** term, however is used for at least 220 years. Though it can also mean many other animals like yaks or bisons, in fact these animals are not used in Russia, so *крупный рогатый скот* means exactly cows, bulls and oxen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2621" RevisionGUID="341a0358-ac0c-4b21-ba83-f5e0f30edb0a" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:01:14.830" UserId="2002" Text="All verbs and adverbs with trailing ж, ш and ч always has soft sign as the last character. It's just grammar rules, so soft sign in this cases has no function.&#xD;&#xA;In your example, &quot;учишься&quot; is derivative from &quot;учишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more info and make exercises here: http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_88&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2621" RevisionGUID="2795c476-d533-42cd-97ad-5a3bc50c79c3" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:08:23.983" UserId="2002" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="All verbs and adverbs with trailing ж, ш and ч always have soft sign as the last character. It's just grammar rules, so soft sign in this cases has no function.&#xD;&#xA;In your example, &quot;учишься&quot; is derivative from &quot;учишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more info and make exercises here: http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_88&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2621" RevisionGUID="5fd97eee-f79c-461e-a6f1-2545927133d8" CreationDate="2013-09-17T14:12:01.157" UserId="115" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="All verbs and adverbs with trailing ж, ш and ч always have soft sign as the last character. It's just grammar rules, so soft sign in this cases has no function.&#xD;&#xA;In your example, &quot;учишься&quot; is derivative from &quot;учишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more info and make exercises here: http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_88&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.	Глаголы с шипящим на конце всегда пишутся с мягким знаком. Например: СМОТРИШЬ или ПОСМОТРИШЬ (в форме второго лица ед. числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего или будущего времени), РЕЖЬ (в повелительном наклонении),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЖЕЧЬ (в неопределенной форме). Обратите внимание, что в глаголах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мягкий знак может оказаться после шипящей и не на самом конце слова, а&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перед постфиксами –СЯ или -ТЕ, например: КУПАЕШЬСЯ, СПРЯЧЬТЕ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="92a02cf4-3a28-442b-a1b3-c5a3d3d2121b" CreationDate="2013-09-17T14:17:19.410" UserId="551" Comment="Брокгауз и Ефрон" Text="Интересно, что слово &quot;говядина&quot; происходит от слова &quot;говядо&quot;, которое означает &quot;коровы, быки и волы&quot;. В [словаре Ефремовой][1] это слово помечено как &quot;местн.&quot; (правда не понятно где это &quot;местное&quot; употребление зафиксировано, но это в любом случае &quot;диалектное, устаревшее&quot; слово):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крупный рогатый скот (бык, вол, корова).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть это слово и в словаре Фасмера, и в словаре Даля. Примечательно что Даль в определении этого слова использует выражение &quot;крупная рогатая скотина&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГОВЯДО&#xD;&#xA;ср., церк. крупная рогатая скотина, бык, вол или корова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Заметьте, что словари не упоминают здесь ни телок, ни бычков-кастратов, ни других специализированных с/х терминов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если верить сайту [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/225390), эта статья взята из редакции 1866 года, так что термин КРС имеет давнюю историю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему же для коров и быков используют этот термин?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скорее всего потому что другого слова для обозначения быков, коров и волов в русском языке нет (почему-то &quot;говядо&quot; не стало общеупотребимым словом), а другого &quot;крупного рогатого скота&quot; [в широком смысле](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_colier/4024/%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A3%D0%9F%D0%9D%D0%AB%D0%99) (зубры, бизоны, буйволы, яки) в сельском хозяйстве России не используют. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Самое раннее употребление в Русском национальном корпусе относится к 1783 году, так что этот термин не изобретение советской бюрократии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Превеликое употребление мяса, нужное англичанам, и великий вывоз соленого мяса, коровьего масла, сыру и т. п. доказывают, на каком степени процветения должно быть там скотоводство крупного рогатого скота. [Н. И. Новиков. О торговле вообще (1783)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/154640/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [&quot;Словаре Брокгауза и Ефрона&quot; (1907)](http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%A1%D0%91%D0%95/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9) сказано следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Скот рогатый крупный**. — Такое название издавна усвоено виду рода Bos — В. taurus, т. е. нашему быку и корове. Другие виды этого рода также крупны и рогаты, но их обыкновенно называют своими именами. Так, В. bubalus называется буйволом, В. Bison в Америке бизоном, а у нас зубром и т. д. И из других домашних животных также рогаты овцы, но их так и называют овцами, а не **рогатым скотом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из чего можно сделать вывод что быков и коров могли называть и просто *рогатым скотом* (без слова &quot;крупный&quot;, которое, кстати в корпусе иногда заменяется на &quot;большой&quot;). Поиск в корпусе дает следующие цитаты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пифагор за изобретение одного геометрического правила Зевесу принёс на жертву сто **волов**. Но ежели бы за найденные в нынешние времена от остроумных математиков правила по суеверной его ревности поступать, то бы едва в целом свете столько **рогатого скота** сыскалось.  [М. В. Ломоносов. Волфианская экспериментальная физика, с немецкого подлинника на латинском языке сокращенная (1745)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Весною ж **рогатый скот** чесать железными скребницами и при том мыть в реке, чрез что грязь и плоть и линючая шерсть вытти может; сие для скота весьма здорово. [В. Н. Татищев. Краткие экономические до деревни следующие записки (1742)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some Russian dialects there is a word **говядо** that exactly matches English word cattle (cows, bulls and oxen). However this word is not widely used in Russian. The **Крупный рогатый скот** term, however is used for at least 220 years. Though it can also mean many other animals like yaks or bisons, in fact these animals are not used in Russia, so *крупный рогатый скот* means exactly cows, bulls and oxen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="560a9141-e775-4440-9360-ffe49b7dcb2d" CreationDate="2013-09-17T14:28:40.857" UserId="551" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="Интересно, что слово &quot;говядина&quot; происходит от слова &quot;говядо&quot;, которое означает &quot;коровы, быки и волы&quot;. &quot;Словарь русского языка XVIII в.&quot; дает такой [пример употребления](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/04/sl514909.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ГОВЯ́ДО**, а, ср. Слав. Общее название быков и коров.   &#xD;&#xA;Охотно лижут соль овцы, голуби, козы, лошади, и **говяда**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [словаре Ефремовой][1] это слово помечено как &quot;местн.&quot; (правда не понятно где это &quot;местное&quot; употребление зафиксировано, но это в любом случае &quot;диалектное, устаревшее&quot; слово):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крупный рогатый скот (бык, вол, корова).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть это слово и в словаре Фасмера, и в словаре Даля. Примечательно что Даль в определении этого слова использует выражение &quot;крупная рогатая скотина&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГОВЯДО&#xD;&#xA;ср., церк. крупная рогатая скотина, бык, вол или корова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Заметьте, что словари не упоминают здесь ни телок, ни бычков-кастратов, ни других специализированных с/х терминов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если верить сайту [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/225390), эта статья взята из редакции 1866 года, так что термин КРС имеет давнюю историю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему же для коров и быков используют этот термин?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скорее всего потому что другого слова для обозначения быков, коров и волов в русском языке нет (почему-то &quot;говядо&quot; не стало общеупотребимым словом), а другого &quot;крупного рогатого скота&quot; [в широком смысле](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_colier/4024/%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A3%D0%9F%D0%9D%D0%AB%D0%99) (зубры, бизоны, буйволы, яки) в сельском хозяйстве России не используют. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Самое раннее употребление в Русском национальном корпусе относится к 1783 году, так что этот термин не изобретение советской бюрократии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Превеликое употребление мяса, нужное англичанам, и великий вывоз соленого мяса, коровьего масла, сыру и т. п. доказывают, на каком степени процветения должно быть там скотоводство крупного рогатого скота. [Н. И. Новиков. О торговле вообще (1783)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/154640/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [&quot;Словаре Брокгауза и Ефрона&quot; (1907)](http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%A1%D0%91%D0%95/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9) сказано следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Скот рогатый крупный**. — Такое название издавна усвоено виду рода Bos — В. taurus, т. е. нашему быку и корове. Другие виды этого рода также крупны и рогаты, но их обыкновенно называют своими именами. Так, В. bubalus называется буйволом, В. Bison в Америке бизоном, а у нас зубром и т. д. И из других домашних животных также рогаты овцы, но их так и называют овцами, а не **рогатым скотом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из чего можно сделать вывод что быков и коров могли называть и просто *рогатым скотом* (без слова &quot;крупный&quot;, которое, кстати в корпусе иногда заменяется на &quot;большой&quot;). Поиск в корпусе дает следующие цитаты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пифагор за изобретение одного геометрического правила Зевесу принёс на жертву сто **волов**. Но ежели бы за найденные в нынешние времена от остроумных математиков правила по суеверной его ревности поступать, то бы едва в целом свете столько **рогатого скота** сыскалось.  [М. В. Ломоносов. Волфианская экспериментальная физика, с немецкого подлинника на латинском языке сокращенная (1745)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Весною ж **рогатый скот** чесать железными скребницами и при том мыть в реке, чрез что грязь и плоть и линючая шерсть вытти может; сие для скота весьма здорово. [В. Н. Татищев. Краткие экономические до деревни следующие записки (1742)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some Russian dialects there is a word **говядо** that exactly matches English word cattle (cows, bulls and oxen). However this word is not widely used in Russian nowadays. The **Крупный рогатый скот** term, however is used for at least 220 years. Though it can also mean many other animals like yaks or bisons, in fact these animals are not used in Russia, so *крупный рогатый скот* means exactly cows, bulls and oxen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="5a32d2f5-b673-4b8d-aaa7-716bc9a8b648" CreationDate="2013-09-17T14:41:22.950" UserId="551" Comment="Кощунья" Text="Современные словари определяют слово кощун как &quot;насмешник, богохульник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Однако в &quot;Материалах для словаря древнерусского языка&quot; Срезневского напротив слов кощуна, коштяна, коштюна написано &quot;μύθος, λήρος, басня, вздоръ&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![басня, вздоръ][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что же означало это слово? В интернете много сомнительных источников, которые охотно принимают вариант перевода &quot;миф&quot; и утверждают, что с приходом христианства все эти &quot;мифы&quot; стали считаться в лучшем случае баснями и вздором, а в худшем случае - оскорблением религиозных святынь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все-таки, есть ли основания для перевода слова &quot;кощун&quot; словом &quot;миф&quot;? В какой степени можно их отождествлять? Можно ли, например, думать что у славян были мифы-кощуны о героях, подобные греческим? Или кощуны в лучшем случае были небылицами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** В [Словаре русского языка XVIII в.](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/11/sla21801.htm) обнаружил слово *кощунья*, несколько выпадающее из ряда слов производных от &quot;шутка, насмешка&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КОЩУ́НЬЯ, и, ж. (Един.) Гадалка, ворожея. *Вопрошающия особы болтливы, и для того объявляют такой кощуньѣ наперед всѣ свои чаяния; а она располагает свои отвѣты всегда по сим мнѣниям. Жив. 148.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2v0Qb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="a819ce3a-176e-4d79-88b2-3d2b99a01624" CreationDate="2013-09-17T14:42:53.973" UserId="134" Text="The reason is purely historical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the orthography reform of 1918, the two words mentioned by @КуЪ were written as *тушъ* and *тушь*, accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two writings are relics of the law of open syllables which, among other things, forbade the words to end with consonants in early Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters *ъ* and *ь* denoted reduced vowels present in Slavic languages at the time the Cyrillic alphabet was developed, and, though they later had either fallen or been transformed into full-length vowels both in Russian and in Russian rendition of Church Slavonic, the end-vowel rule had survived in Russian orthography (though it was not reflecting actual pronunciation anymore), because some kind of marking was required to distinguish words in pairs like *мол/моль*, *кров/кровь* and similar, where palatalization of the final consonant distinguishes between the meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1918's reform retained the *ь* in final positions for all words where it was historically present (including those ending with consonants not forming soft/hard pairs anymore), and dropped *ъ* in all final positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Slavic languages using Cyrillic had also undergone similar reforms: 1945's reform of Bulgarian orthography dropped both trailing *ъ* and *ь* (as all trailing Bulgarian consonants are hard), and 1847's reform of Serbian removed both *ъ* and *ь* from the alphabet at all (as only *л, н, ц, ч* and *ж* have hard/soft varieties in Serbian, the Serbs introduced separate letters for the each variety instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some orthography reform projects (i. e. Fortunatov's 1912 project) suggested that final *ь* would be dropped after hard consonants at all, as the distinction it marks is only valid for  but a few pairs and not represented at speech at all. However, none of those projects had passed so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="4a717e49-d210-41eb-964c-a3288fee9921" CreationDate="2013-09-17T15:00:17.173" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The reason is purely historical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the orthography reform of 1918, the two words mentioned by @КуЪ were written as *тушъ* and *тушь*, accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two writings are relics of the law of open syllables which, among other things, forbade the words to end with consonants in early Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters *ъ* and *ь* denoted reduced vowels present in Slavic languages at the time the Cyrillic alphabet was developed, and, though they later had either fallen or been transformed into full-length vowels both in Russian and in Russian rendition of Church Slavonic, the end-vowel rule had survived in Russian orthography (though it was not reflecting actual pronunciation anymore), because some kind of marking was required to distinguish words in pairs like *мол/моль*, *кров/кровь* and similar, where palatalization of the final consonant distinguishes between the meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1918's reform retained *ь* in final positions for all words where it was historically present (including those ending with consonants not forming soft/hard pairs anymore), and dropped *ъ* in all final positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Slavic languages using Cyrillic had also undergone similar reforms: 1945's reform of Bulgarian orthography dropped both trailing *ъ* and *ь* (as all trailing Bulgarian consonants are hard), and 1847's reform of Serbian removed both *ъ* and *ь* from the alphabet at all (as only *л, н, ц, ч* and *ж* have hard/soft varieties in Serbian, the Serbs introduced separate letters for the each variety instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some orthography reform projects (i. e. Fortunatov's 1912 project) suggested that final *ь* would be dropped after hard consonants as well, as the distinction it marks is only valid for  but a few pairs and not represented at speech at all. However, none of those projects had passed so far." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="abf57ed4-db65-4840-870b-53ad5c710d06" CreationDate="2013-09-17T15:18:26.080" UserId="1990" Text="Accusative is the object of the sentence that has been affected by the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я увидел девушку какую ты пригласил на танец&#xD;&#xA;    I saw the girl that you invited to dance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="a63787b1-b964-4368-afd7-f8c54ad76200" CreationDate="2013-09-17T15:25:33.980" UserId="1990" Comment="improved" Text="Accusative is used when the object of the sentence has been affected directly by the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я увидел девушку какую ты пригласил на танец&#xD;&#xA;    I saw the girl that you invited to dance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9082" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="7f743429-b25d-491f-ac22-a7a36d2d3b5b" CreationDate="2013-09-17T18:20:14.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/380033471307333632" />
  <row Id="9083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2624" RevisionGUID="ba9a3785-172f-4ecd-9c9a-e975e80d1369" CreationDate="2013-09-17T22:59:18.427" UserId="1236" Text="As for me, I've never encountered the word &quot;hushers&quot; before, but since you are writing about **ч, ш, щ, ж**, I guess you mean what is called `шипящие звуки` in Russian. `Шипящие звуки` can be translated as &quot;hissing sounds&quot; into English, but there is a conceptual difference between the ideas behind the English `hissing` and Russian `шипящий`: in English snakes hissssssss, in Russian snakes шшшшшшшипят, that is they say not &quot;s-s-s-s&quot;, but &quot;sh-sh-sh-sh&quot;, hence the sounds that are sh-like are called `шипящие звуки` in Russian. So, the term `hushers` sounds rather apt, since &quot;sh-sh-sh-sh&quot; is exactly the way you hush someone. To sum it up, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hushers are sh-like sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why these four sounds are groupped together and considered sh-like is rather logical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ж` is a voiced counterpart of `ш`,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`щ` is a long palatalised `ш`,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ч` is an affricate that includes a palatalised version of `ш` as its second component." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9084" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="2473ffdd-865d-4964-a514-fd00682aceff" CreationDate="2013-09-18T00:20:14.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/380124068537974785" />
  <row Id="9085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="f8ab0780-3466-4720-83ee-758c70cc1440" CreationDate="2013-09-18T03:09:57.523" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Согласно Фасмеру,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Насмешник, богохульник, укр. кощун, болг. кощун, - то же, кощуня - &quot;хитрю, интригую, насмехаюсь&quot;. Вероятно, от костить, так же есть толкование как заиствование из тюркско-булгарского, ср. соответствующее ему тат. koštan- &quot;корыстный человек&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть приведённому Срезневским толкованию ничего не противоречит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот логический вывод от смысла &quot;басня, вздор&quot; и далее, через &quot;небылицу&quot;, в &quot;миф&quot; - это спекуляция чистейшей воды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы очень мало знаем про дохристианскую Русь, есть большие основания полагать, что христианизация произошла и стремительно и жестоко, но трактовать так этимологию слова кощунство имея на руках те данные, что мы имеем сейчас - чистая спекуляция.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="a8c60c6a-c5ec-498f-aa32-de004375428e" CreationDate="2013-09-19T09:03:04.507" UserId="551" Text="There is another series of similar proverbs featuring **синица** as a little bird that does not worth anything:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синица не птица, а прапорщик не офицер  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синица не птица, зять не родня  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синица-не птица, Польша-не заграница  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синичку хоть в пшеничку, а толще не будет  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хвалилась синица море спалить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in some cases even such small bird still matters (examlpes from Vladimir Dal's dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За морем и синица птица (там всё едят)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мала синичка, да ноготок остер  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не величка синичка, да та же птичка  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that the &quot;Синица не птица&quot; cannot be found in National Corpus and Google Ngrams, but &quot;курица не птица&quot; is mentioned in Pushkin's letter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это напоминает славное решение, приписываемое Петру I: женщина не человек, курица не птица, прапорщик не офицер. [А. С. Пушкин. Отрывки из писем, мысли и замечания (1827)]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="ecde7435-38e9-4730-acf4-5c06a367f3be" CreationDate="2013-09-19T12:12:42.367" UserId="1671" Text="I think you need to take a look at the following table. As you can see there are other consonants in the system. From the 4 consonants that you mention 3 belong to the same group but still differ in some way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your question about &quot;**retroflex and alveolo-palatal consonants**&quot;, I found this in Wikipedia's [Retroflex consonant][3] article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Retroflex sounds need to be **distinguished** from other consonants made in the same parts of the mouth (postalveolar, alveolar, or palatal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that a consonant cannot be retroflex and alveolo-palatal at the same time and your question is erroneous per se? I am not sure, I am not a phonologist, but I hope my answer helps you to work in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Russian phonetics (in Russian)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O26xX.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lik-bez.com/board/2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroflex_consonant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="255a7d5f-3537-43ef-bb72-e91bd5ab67cc" CreationDate="2013-09-19T17:09:03.303" UserId="71" Text="The Linguistic term of these sounds is [sibilant consonants][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from their differences, what they have in common is that they all have a more or less hissing sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibilant_consonant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="38294818-a62e-41c2-8b86-50584ac310ae" CreationDate="2013-09-19T20:35:07.267" UserId="134" Text="&gt; What case should I use here? Accusative or Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should without doubt use accusative here, but I think you intended to ask whether *личность* is animate or not in this context (in other words, whether to use *кого?* or *что?* in accusative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this passage from Rosenthal (153.5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово *лицо* в значении «человек» употребляется во множественном числе как существительное одушевленное, например: *наградить отдельных лиц*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would apply to *личность* as well, so your example is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="2a3cc932-7f51-42a4-bca8-77c885f9d8b5" CreationDate="2013-09-19T20:57:28.240" UserId="194" Text="It depends on what the author wanted to say. As of your variant, it is ungrammatical, but there are two possible corrections with different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Размышлять подобным образом значит исключать из их числа такие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исторические личности как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Размышлять подобным образом значит исключать их из числа таких&#xD;&#xA;&gt; исторических личностей как Бендамор и Контратий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you swap &quot;их&quot; and &quot;из&quot; the sentence becomes fully grammatical, but the meaning is different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="99a0794f-c1ad-4797-94bb-6c9ad5ef6293" CreationDate="2013-09-19T23:32:53.630" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="*Курица не птица* is an adage (*поговорка*) , a short metaphorical saying, which, unlike proverb (*пословица*), lacks a moral on its own and is used to emphasize another sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used in the form *курица не птица, А не Б* (meaning that `А` is a `Б` only formally, lacking the essential featured of `Б`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl mentions it as *курица не птица, баба не человек* which is a proverb and is probably the origin for this adage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also common are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *… [студентка] (химичка, физичка*, any other technical major) *не девица*&#xD;&#xA;* *… [прапорщик][1] не офицер*&#xD;&#xA;* *… [some hated car brand here] не машина*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and lots of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Googling for [&quot;курица не птица * не&quot; -заграница -человек][2] will yield lots of other usage examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praporshchik&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20*%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%22%20-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%20-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="3daf518a-2622-45e0-8fa8-070ecddf7121" CreationDate="2013-09-20T12:20:30.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/381030135291711488" />
  <row Id="9097" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="cbbe61ee-90f8-40e9-8f68-8d3cd80344c7" CreationDate="2013-09-20T21:20:30.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/381166036265238528" />
  <row Id="9098" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="0f92760a-6169-4004-8997-ea038d15b765" CreationDate="2013-09-21T12:20:33.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/381392502789767168" />
  <row Id="9111" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="1651dd71-e757-413a-8906-1cf4d595b30e" CreationDate="2013-09-22T18:20:39.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/381845512804401152" />
  <row Id="9112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="ce45badb-a7a2-47a4-a611-38bea69b9419" CreationDate="2013-09-22T21:20:39.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/381890811010777088" />
  <row Id="9113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="82cb6fc7-83cd-4a79-b659-46f81d3ac4f5" CreationDate="2013-09-23T08:26:18.723" UserId="194" Text="Russian has free word order. So the the syntactic role of a noun is usually determined by morphology. Yet there are some indeclinable nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider a sentence about two football clubs, &quot;Lokomotiv&quot; and &quot;Dinamo&quot;, the both being indeclinable nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Динамо&quot; побеждает &quot;Локомотив&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it is unclear from this sentence who really wins - the &quot;Динамо&quot; or the &quot;Локомотив&quot;. Even the intonation does not help here to resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was in first grade I asked a teacher about such sentences (Another example being &quot;Добро побеждает зло&quot;), and she said it is the SVO (subject-verb-object) word order that should be assumed by default. I still wonder whether there is such real rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="82cb6fc7-83cd-4a79-b659-46f81d3ac4f5" CreationDate="2013-09-23T08:26:18.723" UserId="194" Text="How to assume the syntactic role of indeclinable nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="82cb6fc7-83cd-4a79-b659-46f81d3ac4f5" CreationDate="2013-09-23T08:26:18.723" UserId="194" Text="|синтаксис|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="a51add7e-4113-494f-9a7d-432bbe007771" CreationDate="2013-09-23T08:40:30.203" UserId="134" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="&gt; What case should I use here? Accusative or Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should without doubt use accusative here, but I think you intended to ask whether *личность* is animate or not in this context (in other words, whether to use *кого?* or *что?* in accusative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this passage from Rosenthal (153.5):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово *лицо* в значении «человек» употребляется во множественном числе как существительное одушевленное, например: *наградить отдельных лиц*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would apply to *личность* as well, so your example is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Yeskova's *Краткий словарь трудностей русского языка*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YbL4o.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2635" RevisionGUID="fe02a735-2b16-4bf1-be34-9992b56d7c24" CreationDate="2013-09-23T09:23:14.203" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal, 180.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лексико-грамматическое значение главного слова предопределяет необходимость управляемого слова (одного или нескольких) и их форму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, глагол *резать* обозначает действие, которое должно быть на что-то направлено (объект действия) и чем-то производиться (орудие действия). Объект, на который распространяется действие, имеет форму винительного падежа, а орудие действия – творительного. Причем обязательность объекта и инструмента при этом глаголе неодинакова: объект обязателен (класс переходных глаголов), поэтому управление между глаголом и существительным здесь сильное; орудие действия менее обязательно, поэтому управление слабое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если у главного слова несколько зависимых, как в вышеприведенном примере, то, естественно, что сначала идет слово более обязательное (сильное управление), а затем менее обязательное (слабое управление), поэтому предполагается следующий порядок слов: *резать (что?) бумагу (чем?) ножницами; приезд (кого?) сына (к кому?) к родителям*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, Dynamo should be assumed the winner, because this way your sentence could produce complex sentences more readily. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Динамо побеждает Анжи и выходит в финал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Динамо побеждает Анжи, которая находится в лучшей форме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase is grammatical but would be fit as a continuation of some previous discourse, not just by itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="1e012e21-7be4-4664-8099-46c16cdd3e0a" CreationDate="2013-09-23T10:31:05.120" UserId="194" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Russian has free word order. So the the syntactic role of a noun is usually determined by morphology. Yet there are some indeclinable nouns and nouns for which say Accusative and Nominative forms do not differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider a sentence about two football clubs, &quot;Lokomotiv&quot; and &quot;Dinamo&quot;, the both being indeclinable nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Динамо&quot; побеждает &quot;Локомотив&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it is unclear from this sentence who really wins - the &quot;Динамо&quot; or the &quot;Локомотив&quot;. Even the intonation does not help here to resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was in first grade I asked a teacher about such sentences (Another example being &quot;Добро побеждает зло&quot;), and she said it is the SVO (subject-verb-object) word order that should be assumed by default. I still wonder whether there is such real rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="daed1927-b16d-44e7-b609-210293d22a7f" CreationDate="2013-09-23T10:34:27.087" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="Russian has free word order. So the the syntactic role of a noun is usually determined by morphology. Yet there are some indeclinable nouns and nouns for which say Accusative and Nominative forms do not differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider a sentence about two football clubs, &quot;Lokomotiv&quot; and &quot;Dinamo&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Динамо&quot; побеждает &quot;Локомотив&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it is unclear from this sentence who really wins - the &quot;Динамо&quot; or the &quot;Локомотив&quot;. Even the intonation does not help here to resolve the ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was in first grade I asked a teacher about such sentences (Another example being &quot;Добро побеждает зло&quot;), and she said it is the SVO (subject-verb-object) word order that should be assumed by default. I still wonder whether there is such real rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="2b9d91de-0fb2-4621-818b-45e8c9cfd8d4" CreationDate="2013-09-23T12:04:40.797" UserId="1755" Text="Russian has free word order indeed. However, word order must be reasonable. For example, you need to say &quot;I defeated you&quot;. If there is no context, &quot;Я победил тебя&quot; would be the correct translation. &quot;Тебя победил я&quot; has slightly different meaning depending on the content (e.g. contrasting implied: &quot;Тебя победил я, а его победил кто-то другой&quot;). So, if we have an ambiguity and do not have a context, we should assume the SVO word order. It's hard to believe that the author implied &quot;Динамо is defeated by the Локомотив&quot; and used inversed word order without an obvious reason. Even if there is a reason to do this, you should avoid the reversed order in such cases because your goal is that your readers understand you correctly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the usual word order provides meaningless sentense and the reversed order does not, you can assume that the reversed order is used even without a context. However, it would still sound odd. The classical example is &quot;Солнце закрыло облако&quot;. The meaning is clear, but this sentense sounds ridiculous nevertheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other cases where an ambiguity can occur. Generally, if the meaning is not obvious, such ambiguity is considered as an error. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="dfd18736-80ee-4c1d-93fc-f4806a86c4c9" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:41:12.340" UserId="33" Text="В слове *окрестность* есть непроизносимая согласная *т*.&#xD;&#xA;Какое будет проверочное слово?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если верить Викисловарю, корень здесь *окрест-*. Каким словом показать, что в корне есть *т*, чтобы она произносилась?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="dfd18736-80ee-4c1d-93fc-f4806a86c4c9" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:41:12.340" UserId="33" Text="Проверочное слово к слову «окрестность»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="dfd18736-80ee-4c1d-93fc-f4806a86c4c9" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:41:12.340" UserId="33" Text="|орфография|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2638" RevisionGUID="0fc0dc81-d243-4b9e-8553-ab25d2046b22" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:54:57.967" UserId="551" Text="**Окрест** - не только корень, но и устаревшее слово, синоним слова **вокруг**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь Ушакова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ОКРЕ́СТ (книжн. поэт. устар.). 1. предлог с род. Вокруг, по соседству от чего-нибудь. «Окрест него дремучий бор.» Жуковский. 2. нареч. Вокруг, по близости, по соседству. «Окрест ни один не мерцает маяк.» А.Блок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="57b7f96b-0e8c-4e1f-a412-167a2b18b6cd" CreationDate="2013-09-23T15:32:29.873" UserId="2018" Text="Простите, как пройти ... ?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(touch him/her:)Извините, вы тут ... ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2638" RevisionGUID="eeacc325-b0df-4ab8-b295-8e658b3c8892" CreationDate="2013-09-23T15:42:18.003" UserId="551" Comment="added 561 characters in body" Text="**Окрест** - не только корень, но и устаревшее слово, синоним слова **вокруг**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь Ушакова:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ОКРЕ́СТ (книжн. поэт. устар.). 1. предлог с род. Вокруг, по соседству от чего-нибудь. «Окрест него дремучий бор.» Жуковский. 2. нареч. Вокруг, по близости, по соседству. «Окрест ни один не мерцает маяк.» А.Блок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этимологически это слово заимствовано из старо-славянского (производное от слова *крест*) и буквально означало &quot;местность вокруг креста&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ОКРЕСТ. Заимств. из ст.-сл. яз., где оно является преф. производным от крьстъ (см. крест). Буквально — &quot;местность вокруг креста, окрестность&quot;. Ср. вокруг. ([Этимологический словарь](http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82/))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2641" RevisionGUID="1daeea3c-1b7a-45c7-b807-b75ed6a29c3d" CreationDate="2013-09-23T15:50:52.717" UserId="2018" Text="It means that if you have already received good, trying to take even more may leave you with bare hands. This rabbit tried to hide even better, but lost his hiding place at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9135" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="45ef5e6e-507f-4f65-ac25-6ab4730278f4" CreationDate="2013-09-25T06:20:57.407" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/382751558284640256" />
  <row Id="9153" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="9fa5af92-783a-4adb-b1b7-df51d6591858" CreationDate="2013-09-26T18:21:02.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/383295160555417601" />
  <row Id="9154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="a28fa4e5-a44d-48ba-be34-ceda5b2f5ae2" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:14:31.190" UserId="170" Text="&quot;Согласно Вашего запроса&quot; or &quot;Согласно Вашему запросу&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if both are correct, what's the difference, if any?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="a28fa4e5-a44d-48ba-be34-ceda5b2f5ae2" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:14:31.190" UserId="170" Text="&quot;Согласно Вашего запроса&quot; or &quot;Согласно Вашему запросу&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="a28fa4e5-a44d-48ba-be34-ceda5b2f5ae2" CreationDate="2013-09-26T23:14:31.190" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2537" RevisionGUID="0bdbb439-4ff5-45f2-81a7-887dfcaa2edf" CreationDate="2013-09-27T00:21:02.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/383385757517639680" />
  <row Id="9159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2649" RevisionGUID="bf95917f-e5d3-422e-a857-9e33bc204c7d" CreationDate="2013-09-27T00:53:28.813" UserId="1236" Text="The correct variant is `Согласно Вашему запросу`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern Russian language the preposition `согласно` [needs][1] the **Dative case**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уже в XIX веке конструкция согласно чего, то есть с родительным падежом, расценивалась как характерная примета официально-деловой, канцелярской речи. В современном русском литературном языке нормативна только конструкция согласно чему, то есть с дательным падежом. Такая конструкция должна употребляться и в официально-деловом стиле.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *согласно закону, согласно договору, согласно приказу,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; согласно указу, согласно распоряжению*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Already in the 19th century the usage of &quot;согласно&quot; with the Genitive case was considered too official. In the modern Russian language only the Dative case is used with this preposition, even in the official-style texts.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The correct forms: *согласно закону, согласно договору, согласно приказу,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; согласно указу, согласно распоряжению*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti/36_64" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="88b710b2-164c-4f27-b1e6-3663f3e2020d" CreationDate="2013-09-27T14:15:39.853" UserId="2042" Text="It seems some words pertaining to the topic (albeit kind of rare) were missed.  &#xD;&#xA;'Кобь' –  an archaic word, meaning 'волхование', 'ворожба', 'гадание по приметам, полету птиц'.  &#xD;&#xA;And a few words having the same root morpheme:  &#xD;&#xA;'коб(л)ение' – 'гадание по полету птиц';  &#xD;&#xA;'кобник' – 'гадатель, знахарь'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also “кам” – a word encountered in syberian dialects ([according to V. I. Dal][1]), meaning “shaman”.  &#xD;&#xA;Камлать – to tell fortunes, to perform a shamanic ritual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more:  &#xD;&#xA;гадатель – fortune-teller;  &#xD;&#xA;гадалка – his female counterpart;  &#xD;&#xA;гадание - fortune-telling, divination;  &#xD;&#xA;гадать – (in this case) to tell fortunes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vidahl.agava.ru/cgi-bin/dic.cgi?p=76&amp;t=12546" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="79d3c4a4-7374-4302-9613-d7c18a3e037b" CreationDate="2013-09-27T21:21:50.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/383703050588000256" />
  <row Id="9165" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2569" RevisionGUID="e6fed288-9ff4-4203-b46f-c7d43e164c81" CreationDate="2013-09-29T00:21:52.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/384110742007709696" />
  <row Id="9183" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="20785aaa-0916-4cd5-ae37-a6594a5e6612" CreationDate="2013-10-02T03:21:59.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/385243237214334976" />
  <row Id="9184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="6ad53fe7-d6c0-4038-adb7-6e6871c0a6de" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:22:15.730" UserId="2057" Text="в Хельсинк**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**OR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в Хельсинк**ах**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="6ad53fe7-d6c0-4038-adb7-6e6871c0a6de" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:22:15.730" UserId="2057" Text="What is the right form of answer for the question &quot;Where?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="6ad53fe7-d6c0-4038-adb7-6e6871c0a6de" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:22:15.730" UserId="2057" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="f6822b2b-a6dd-4132-bb12-12618f6cce60" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:36:01.220" UserId="551" Comment="inline formatting doesn't work well" Text="в Хельсинк&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**OR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в Хельсинк&lt;b&gt;ах&lt;/b&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="ad4c0518-4dd9-4ada-8bc1-d55c13dd22af" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:38:22.280" UserId="194" Text="In most cases we create a noun in -щик from a verb, we observe the following pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    носить - носильщик&#xD;&#xA;    давить - давильщик&#xD;&#xA;    морить - морильщик&#xD;&#xA;    красить - красильщик&#xD;&#xA;    просить - просильщик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have also платить. Why it is платЕльщик then? It seems highly unnatural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="ad4c0518-4dd9-4ada-8bc1-d55c13dd22af" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:38:22.280" UserId="194" Text="Why налогоплатЕльщик rather than налогоплатИльщик is the correct form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="ad4c0518-4dd9-4ada-8bc1-d55c13dd22af" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:38:22.280" UserId="194" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="6815acab-8b05-480e-8a3f-68c788caf7f9" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:49:49.010" UserId="97" Text="According to paragraph 184 (non-declining nouns) of the Short Russian Grammar ([direct link - in Russian](http://slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=5312&amp;0a0=1712#184)), foreign-language toponyms that end in vowels other than _-а_ and _ы_ do not decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, you'll get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Хельсинки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Каннах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do often hear _в Хельсинках_, however this usage is colloquial and is not grammatically correct.  This is just an analogue of the declension of Russian toponyms with similar ending.  Compare the above with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Лужниках&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2656" RevisionGUID="3ad4c881-7fbc-4772-bcaa-1df61ee8aa35" CreationDate="2013-10-02T13:09:55.017" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="According to paragraph 184 (non-declining nouns) of the Short Russian Grammar ([direct link - in Russian](http://slovari.ru/default.aspx?s=0&amp;p=5312&amp;0a0=1712#184)), foreign-language toponyms that end in vowels other than _-а_ and _-ы_ do not decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, you'll get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Хельсинки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Каннах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do often hear _в Хельсинках_, however this usage is colloquial and is not grammatically correct.  This is just an analogue of the declension of Russian toponyms with similar ending.  Compare the above with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Лужниках&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2657" RevisionGUID="6c816c04-5031-405a-b1ae-a7f5121017a7" CreationDate="2013-10-02T13:25:02.483" UserId="134" Text="Toponyms which calque plural from the language of origin do decline as plurals in Russian: *в Афинах / Кумах / Каннах / Сиракузах*, just the same as native Russian toponyms in plural: в *Мытищах / Химках / Чебоксарах*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, *Хельсинки* is not plural in Finnish and hence not plural in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a singular noun, and as any singular Russian noun ending in *-и*, is not declinable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct form would be *в Хельсинки*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="36839b03-1447-411a-b88e-4480ac54d9d6" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:24:05.763" UserId="134" Text="This is such called &quot;и - е swap&quot; (*мена и - е*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trubachyov in *Труды по этимологии: Слово. История. Культура* attributes it to Russian glycolalia (*сладкоязычие*) which tends to mix stressed *й* and *ль* in some dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is common to replace stressed *ий* with *ей* in Russian. That's why we have names like *Сергей, Мокей, Алексей* (from *Сергий, Мокий, Алексий*), words like *змей, книгочей* and the dialectal word *Расея*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glycolalia, among other things, makes stressed *иль* to be replaced with *ель* in some words by analogy with *ей &lt; ий*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* апрель &lt; априль &lt; Aprilis&#xD;&#xA;* канитель &lt; канетиль &lt; cannetille&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This contamination is most probably the cause of the swap in the word you're mentioning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* плательщик (= платейщик) &lt; платильщик (= платийщик)&#xD;&#xA;* молельщик (= молейщик) &lt; молильщик (= молийщик)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9195" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2654" RevisionGUID="3c2ee09b-55a6-4cd6-b49f-689192388801" CreationDate="2013-10-02T21:22:10.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/385515069926555649" />
  <row Id="9197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="0377f384-c01d-48f2-88a5-0d33f59be5b4" CreationDate="2013-10-03T11:10:46.993" UserId="194" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="In most cases we create a noun in -щик from a verb, we observe the following pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    носить - носильщик&#xD;&#xA;    давить - давильщик&#xD;&#xA;    морить - морильщик&#xD;&#xA;    красить - красильщик&#xD;&#xA;    просить - просильщик&#xD;&#xA;    лудить - лудильщик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have also платить. Why it is платЕльщик then? It seems highly unnatural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="1445e644-fb50-4ada-9b4d-b3795ecc94f8" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:06:13.840" UserId="170" Text="Я сейчас нахожусь в Дно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сейчас нахожусь в Дне ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am especially curious about how the natives of the city go about this matter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="1445e644-fb50-4ada-9b4d-b3795ecc94f8" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:06:13.840" UserId="170" Text="Does the name of Дно city need to be conjugated in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="1445e644-fb50-4ada-9b4d-b3795ecc94f8" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:06:13.840" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|падежи|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="d8051a0f-5e4a-4da4-a3aa-e99da2100779" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:11:34.113" UserId="2060" Text="Nouns are not conjugated, they are declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City names in Russian are declined with the exception of some foreign names, in which case the rules are quite complicated -- see http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_90 (in Russian). So the correct version is &quot;Я сейчас нахожусь в Дне&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, when in doubt whether you must decline a foreign city name or not, safer would be to say &quot;в городе X&quot; (vs. just &quot;в X&quot;) and not decline the name. The reason is that it's a pretty common error for Russians not to decline city names at all if prepended with &quot;город[-е/-а/etc]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9205" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="9cf5dbc9-955b-4e0c-8485-d7b9dc793d8b" CreationDate="2013-10-04T08:02:04.950" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the toponym Дно decline in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="90da1b10-53c9-4ed0-a274-54aa6935138e" CreationDate="2013-10-04T08:37:44.913" UserId="2060" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Nouns are not conjugated, they are declined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City names in Russian are declined with the exception of some foreign names, in which case the rules are quite complicated -- see http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_90 (in Russian). So the correct version is &quot;Я сейчас нахожусь в Дне&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, when in doubt whether you must decline a city name or not, safer would be to say &quot;в городе X&quot; (vs. just &quot;в X&quot;) and not decline the name. The reason is that it's a pretty common error for Russians not to decline city names at all if prepended with &quot;город[-е/-а/etc]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="51ef91ae-e526-4eb0-b5c0-02593238020d" CreationDate="2013-10-04T12:53:07.777" UserId="1958" Text="*Дно* is recognized as native word, so it should be declined. Even more – Russians will doubt for a moment before saying ***в Дне***, because *на дне* is more probable and &quot;natural&quot; way of saying this common word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сан-Диего* and *Сан-Франциско* are recognized as foreign words, so they shouldn't be declined. Some common non-native words like *пальто*, *бюро*, *кимоно* – also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transitional case are native toponyms like *Домодедово*, *Шереметьево*. They used to be immutable in Soviet times (don't know why), but currently more people tend to decline them: *в Домодедове* for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of it like when Russians got some new word from other language, they don't know what to do with it – what gender to use, how to decline. After some time they may adapt it and start to decline it as usual Russian word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="b7f52bd0-826f-4aa4-a961-53e964c21a9a" CreationDate="2013-10-04T12:56:15.397" UserId="967" Text="At the moment it is fashionable to not praise children on issues they don't control (inherent intelligence) and instead praise them on what they can control-- effort, hard work. [Ref][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't have a tidy word for this that I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Icelandic does, duglegur, which basically means persistent, hard work and is routinely used to praise children. [One online dictionary][2] says this means работящий, энергичный, способный, ловкий. I'm not sure how to use these in a colloquial phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What phrases in Russian convey this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/200909/parenting-dont-praise-your-children&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://slovarus.info/isl.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="b7f52bd0-826f-4aa4-a961-53e964c21a9a" CreationDate="2013-10-04T12:56:15.397" UserId="967" Text="How to praise a toddler's effort in Russian (instead of intelligence?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="b7f52bd0-826f-4aa4-a961-53e964c21a9a" CreationDate="2013-10-04T12:56:15.397" UserId="967" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2663" RevisionGUID="639f9df4-8e40-4b4c-81d2-baabeca7dcbe" CreationDate="2013-10-04T13:03:33.180" UserId="1958" Text="Maybe because  of *платеж* / *платежный*. Maybe if the Russian have *платильный* not *платежный*, it would be *платИльщик*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2664" RevisionGUID="cf0f4669-fab9-4227-b838-71ad1d2e01fd" CreationDate="2013-10-04T13:19:54.500" UserId="134" Text="The word you are looking for is most probably *прилежный*: &quot;diligent, thorough, able to perform routine work and do their best to get things done&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian schools used to grade *поведение* (&quot;demeanor&quot;) and *прилежание* (&quot;diligence&quot;) at the end of school terms, along with the subjects taught in the school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those grades did not necessarily correlate with the subject grades: a not so bright pupil could get a 5 (highest mark) for diligence but 4 for the subject itself, while brilliant but lazy kid could ignore homework and classwork being good in tests, getting excellent subject results but a lower grade for diligence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="572c338d-8bb0-4458-b1e3-298d4b25652d" CreationDate="2013-10-04T13:27:57.410" UserId="551" Text="As for &quot;Good job&quot; analogue for the &quot;Good job&quot; (that is not recommended in the article you posted the link to) it is &quot;молодец&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though Quassnoi is probably right that &quot;прилежный&quot; is best match for what you are seeking, the word itself (as for me) is so bound to school marks that I would not be happy if someone told me that I am. I would propose **старательный**, **усердный**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for phrases I would probably say *&quot;У тебя очень хорошо получается&quot;*, *&quot;ты очень старался&quot;*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="ba4f8ca2-b9ea-4ffa-bf64-d2c48bb6a2a7" CreationDate="2013-10-04T13:59:59.413" UserId="551" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="As for &quot;Good job&quot; analogue for the &quot;Good job&quot; (that is not recommended in the article you posted the link to) it is &quot;молодец&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though Quassnoi is probably right that &quot;прилежный&quot; is best match for what you are seeking, the word itself (as for me) is so bound to school marks that I would not be happy if someone told me that I am. I would propose **старательный**, **усердный**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for phrases I would probably say *&quot;У тебя очень хорошо получается&quot;*, *&quot;ты очень старался&quot;*,   *&quot;ты на славу поработал&quot;*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="b591b281-1347-4df3-96b6-37acac273751" CreationDate="2013-10-04T14:18:39.037" UserId="551" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="As for &quot;Good job&quot; analogue for the &quot;Good job&quot; (that is not recommended in the article you posted the link to) it is &quot;молодец&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though Quassnoi is probably right that &quot;прилежный&quot; is best match for what you are seeking, the word itself (as for me) is so bound to school marks that I would not be happy if someone told me that I am. I would propose **старательный**, **усердный**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for phrases I would probably say *&quot;У тебя очень хорошо получается&quot;*, *&quot;ты очень старался&quot;*,   *&quot;ты на славу поработал&quot;*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some more examples from russian [article on parenting][1]. Note that all praises are focused on current situation and you cannot just say one word to achieve your parenting goal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Умница! Очень аккуратно строишь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молодец! Отлично для первого раза!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gaverdovskaya.ru/public/consch/story787.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="293c2ae5-e015-41bc-8a83-8ae1eb8f3f15" CreationDate="2013-10-04T17:28:42.403" UserId="967" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="At the moment it is fashionable to not praise children on issues they don't control (inherent intelligence) and instead praise them on what they can control-- effort, hard work. [Ref][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English doesn't have a tidy word for this that I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Icelandic does, duglegur, which basically means persistent and, hard working and is routinely used to praise children. [One online dictionary][2] says this means работящий, энергичный, способный, ловкий. I'm not sure how to use these in a colloquial phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What phrases in Russian convey this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/200909/parenting-dont-praise-your-children&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://slovarus.info/isl.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="4a312029-b9fd-4f43-9b67-176d75602c3c" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:25:26.500" UserId="1755" Comment="improve word order for better understanding" Text="Analogue for the &quot;Good job&quot; is &quot;молодец&quot; (that is not recommended in the article you posted the link to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though Quassnoi is probably right that &quot;прилежный&quot; is best match for what you are seeking, the word itself (as for me) is so bound to school marks that I would not be happy if someone told me that I am. I would propose **старательный**, **усердный**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for phrases I would probably say *&quot;У тебя очень хорошо получается&quot;*, *&quot;ты очень старался&quot;*,   *&quot;ты на славу поработал&quot;*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some more examples from russian [article on parenting][1]. Note that all praises are focused on current situation and you cannot just say one word to achieve your parenting goal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Умница! Очень аккуратно строишь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молодец! Отлично для первого раза!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gaverdovskaya.ru/public/consch/story787.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9219" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2665" RevisionGUID="4a312029-b9fd-4f43-9b67-176d75602c3c" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:25:26.500" Comment="Proposed by 1755 approved by 1236, 551 edit id of 402" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="0edb6f54-a044-4efc-89ac-f5d834a36adb" CreationDate="2013-10-06T00:19:07.633" UserId="1665" Text="Как правильно сокращать слово «байт»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В английском языке, принято использовать заглавную букву «Б» для «байт», и прописную букву «б» для «бит».  По-русски будет по-другому?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, почему товарищи из Sun Microsystems так не делают, когда пишут по-русски: https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/entry/space_maps_russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Для файловой системы в 1Гб битовая карта займет 32Кб -- её можно держать в оперативной памяти и довольно быстро сканировать для поиска свободного пространства. Для файловой системы в 1Тб размер битовой карты составит уже 32 Мб -- такой объём ещё можно уместить в оперативной памяти, но это уже нетривиально в смысле размера и времени сканирования. Битовая карта для файловой системы в 1Пб потребует уже 32Гб, и уже просто-напросто не поместится в оперативной памяти большинства машин. Следовательно, сканирование битовой карты в этом случае потребует её чтения с диска, который намного медленнее оперативной памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="0edb6f54-a044-4efc-89ac-f5d834a36adb" CreationDate="2013-10-06T00:19:07.633" UserId="1665" Text="Правильное сокращение «байт» и «бит»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="0edb6f54-a044-4efc-89ac-f5d834a36adb" CreationDate="2013-10-06T00:19:07.633" UserId="1665" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="2b724d16-e880-4c89-98ce-44567892f4a0" CreationDate="2013-10-06T02:04:48.520" UserId="221" Text="When writing Cyrillic by hand is it preferred to write in roman type italic type? For example, should I write г, *г*? д or *д*? и and й or *и* and *й*? т or *т*? Or should one use cursive to write? What type is normally written in handwriting in countries that use Cyrillic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="2b724d16-e880-4c89-98ce-44567892f4a0" CreationDate="2013-10-06T02:04:48.520" UserId="221" Text="What is the preferred form of Cyrillic to use for handwriting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="2b724d16-e880-4c89-98ce-44567892f4a0" CreationDate="2013-10-06T02:04:48.520" UserId="221" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="d40ed067-b03b-4969-9dee-3ae720078013" CreationDate="2013-10-06T02:13:22.320" UserId="967" Text="Not sure if I'm looking for the [optative][1] or [hortative][2]. I'm trying to translate a religious text, expressing wish and the hope that the listener and speaker will follow through on those wishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the weather be seasonable, may the harvest be fruitful, may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; countries exist in harmony, and may all people enjoy happiness. May we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; share these benefits equally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The google translate version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть сезонной погоды, урожай может быть плодотворным, может&#xD;&#xA;&gt; странах существуют в гармонии, и все люди могут наслаждаться счастьем.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может мы разделяем эти преимущества в равной степени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть -- looks like &quot;maybe&quot; as in uncertainty?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="d40ed067-b03b-4969-9dee-3ae720078013" CreationDate="2013-10-06T02:13:22.320" UserId="967" Text="Express optative/hortative other than &quot;Давай&quot; or &quot;Может быть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="d40ed067-b03b-4969-9dee-3ae720078013" CreationDate="2013-10-06T02:13:22.320" UserId="967" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2669" RevisionGUID="19ec732d-4636-4e38-91ab-53d38c0c8a2d" CreationDate="2013-10-06T04:06:02.630" UserId="1236" Text="This &quot;may&quot; in wishes is translated into Russian with the rare construction which is the remains of the old Slavic optative mood, `да` + `the Future Tense verb` or `пусть / пускай`+ `the Future Tense verb`. &quot;Может&quot; does not go here, since it expresses only probability, not wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the weather be seasonable - Да будет погода хорошей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the harvest be fruitful - Да будет урожай богатым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; May countries exist in harmony - Пусть страны будут пребывать в гармонии&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;May we share these benefits equally - Да разделим мы все эти блага в равной мере" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="04d638a2-d465-409c-9a48-020c4a1866a3" CreationDate="2013-10-06T04:24:18.767" UserId="1236" Text="The [preferred][1] form is the standard modern Russian Cyrillic [cursive][2]. Russians do not normally write in typed block letters, everybody uses the cursive. If you prefer the block letters, you can choose any letter shape available, all of them will be understood. The only limitation is that mixing italic and block shapes should be avoided (like по*г*ода), or else what you wrote will be looked at as something written by a barely literate person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cursive&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Russian_Cursive_Cyrillic.svg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="14a5fa42-fe4f-4b06-a30c-a6c3ea1541cf" CreationDate="2013-10-06T04:48:23.750" UserId="1236" Comment="better typography" Text="The [preferred][1] form is the standard modern Russian Cyrillic [cursive][2]. Russians do not normally write in typed block letters, everybody uses the cursive. If you prefer the block letters, you can choose any letter shape available, all of them will be understood. The only limitation is that mixing italic and block shapes should be avoided (like по *г* ода), or else what you wrote will be looked at as something written by a barely literate person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cursive&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Russian_Cursive_Cyrillic.svg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="64db1a6f-9e16-4385-988e-5e5645248515" CreationDate="2013-10-06T08:16:08.113" UserId="551" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2672" RevisionGUID="823cbdab-fe46-436e-9028-8db04550a68e" CreationDate="2013-10-06T08:31:27.773" UserId="194" Text="Когда речь идет о единицах, производных от байта, в пишут строчную букву б:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5 Гб = 5 гигабайт&#xD;&#xA;    5 Мб = 5 мегабайт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда речь идет о единицах, производных от бита, пишут &quot;бит&quot; полностью:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5 Гбит = 5 гигабит&#xD;&#xA;    5 Мбит = 5 мегабит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сами бит и байт пишут полностью:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5 бит&#xD;&#xA;    5 байт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня так в школе учили. Так что, в вашем примере всё написано правильно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="572c10b9-2818-429f-880d-34603d65cea4" CreationDate="2013-10-06T08:43:57.670" UserId="551" Comment="added 836 characters in body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, например [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 103 принято 1024 = 210) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать &quot;Кбайт&quot; или &quot;КБ&quot;, а для бит - только &quot;Кбит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="17ed42f3-5ba4-4bc7-a72d-d658122f8e2b" CreationDate="2013-10-06T11:28:54.053" UserId="551" Comment="edited body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, например [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;Кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 103 принято 1024 = 210) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать &quot;Кбайт&quot; или &quot;КБ&quot;, а для бит - только &quot;Кбит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="864bba1b-f1b4-41bc-8d06-b1adb56b0be3" CreationDate="2013-10-06T12:53:32.953" UserId="551" Comment="added 943 characters in body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, например [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;Кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![таблица единиц информации и их сокращений][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 103 принято 1024 = 210) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать &quot;Кбайт&quot; или &quot;КБ&quot;, а для бит - только &quot;Кбит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, внимательный читатель обратит внимание что приложение &quot;А&quot; ГОСТа не обязательное, а рекомендованное, поэтому можно догадаться что существуют другие взгляды на проблему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень хорошая статья описывающая историю путаницы с байтами и битами есть на [сайте Артемия Лебедева][2]. В ней в частности утверждается что правильные аббревиатуры для Кбайта - КБ, для Кбита - Кб. Там же можно увидеть и такие аббревиатуры как кБ (десятичный килобайт = 1000 байт) и кб (килобит - 1000 бит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, хотя мнение Лебедева является достаточно влиятельным, вряд ли можно ссылаться на него как на официальный источник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается Википедии, то она поддерживает ГОСТ: [КБ - &quot;килобайт&quot;][3], [Кбит - &quot;килобит&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/84/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="8388f1c1-dd8a-4bb5-9aec-8a103fd6bdd9" CreationDate="2013-10-06T12:59:55.770" UserId="551" Comment="added 943 characters in body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, например [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;Кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![таблица единиц информации и их сокращений][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 103 принято 1024 = 210) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать &quot;Кбайт&quot; или &quot;КБ&quot;, а для бит - только &quot;Кбит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, внимательный читатель обратит внимание что приложение &quot;А&quot; ГОСТа не обязательное, а рекомендованное, поэтому можно догадаться что существуют другие взгляды на проблему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень хорошая статья описывающая историю путаницы с байтами и битами есть на [сайте Артемия Лебедева][2]. В ней в частности утверждается что правильные аббревиатуры для Кбайта - КБ, для Кбита - Кб. Там же можно увидеть и такие аббревиатуры как кБ (десятичный килобайт = 1000 байт) и кб (килобит - 1000 бит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, хотя мнение Лебедева является достаточно влиятельным, вряд ли можно ссылаться на него как на официальный источник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается Википедии, то она поддерживает ГОСТ: [КБ - &quot;килобайт&quot;][3], [Кбит - &quot;килобит&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот в этом учебнике информатики биты и байты вообще не сокращаются: Кбайт и Кбит: [Информатика 7-9 кл. А. Г. Кушниренко и др.](http://www.niisi.ru/kumir/books/2.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/84/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="8035c180-1f13-4eae-a7cf-17248b733180" CreationDate="2013-10-06T13:23:35.327" UserId="2065" Text="Preffered form is the cursive, as said Orcris. But also one more thing is not use two or more forms of one letter in the same text. For example, if you started to use &quot;д&quot; as &quot;*д*&quot;, do not use it as &quot;*g*&quot; or &quot;д&quot; in the same text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="f9e05fd9-d275-491f-80c4-047b95d34334" CreationDate="2013-10-06T13:33:45.780" UserId="551" Comment="added 453 characters in body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, то например действующий [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;Кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![таблица единиц информации и их сокращений][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; принято 1024 = 2&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать **Кбайт** или **КБ**, а для бит - только **Кбит**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Солидарна с ГОСТом и Википедия: [КБ - &quot;килобайт&quot;][3], [Кбит - &quot;килобит&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, внимательный читатель обратит внимание что приложение &quot;А&quot; ГОСТа не обязательное, а рекомендованное, что, конечно, не позволяет сказать что нужно писать только так, а не иначе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень хорошая статья описывающая историю путаницы с байтами и битами есть на [сайте Артемия Лебедева][2]. Он достаточно обоснованно утверждает что путаница в обозначениях активно используется в рекламных целях (попробуйте &quot;пораскачивать&quot; в рекламных целях систему СИ). В конце статьи приводятся &quot;правильные аббревиатуры&quot; для единиц измерения информации: для Кбайта - КБ, для Кбита - Кб. Там же можно увидеть и такие аббревиатуры как кБ (десятичный килобайт = 1000 байт) и кб (килобит - 1000 бит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, хотя мнение Лебедева является достаточно влиятельным, вряд ли можно ссылаться на него как на официальный источник. Очевидно также что Лебедев за основу правильных аббревиатур взял англо-американский стандарт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот в этом учебнике информатики биты и байты вообще не сокращаются: Кбайт и Кбит: [Информатика 7-9 кл. А. Г. Кушниренко и др.](http://www.niisi.ru/kumir/books/2.pdf). К сожалению не удалось найти что по этому поводу думают составители ЕГЭ, но похоже что их мнение тоже может не совпадать с ГОСТом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/84/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="22aef3ee-182e-4757-9505-f58499cd4861" CreationDate="2013-10-06T14:35:32.667" UserId="1665" Comment="добавил &quot;обычно&quot; и исправил s/прописную/строчную/ (спасибо Artemix)" Text="Как правильно сокращать слово «байт»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В английском языке, обычно принято использовать заглавную букву «Б» для «байт», и строчную букву «б» для «бит».  По-русски будет по-другому?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, почему товарищи из Sun Microsystems так не делают, когда пишут по-русски: https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/entry/space_maps_russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Для файловой системы в 1Гб битовая карта займет 32Кб -- её можно держать в оперативной памяти и довольно быстро сканировать для поиска свободного пространства. Для файловой системы в 1Тб размер битовой карты составит уже 32 Мб -- такой объём ещё можно уместить в оперативной памяти, но это уже нетривиально в смысле размера и времени сканирования. Битовая карта для файловой системы в 1Пб потребует уже 32Гб, и уже просто-напросто не поместится в оперативной памяти большинства машин. Следовательно, сканирование битовой карты в этом случае потребует её чтения с диска, который намного медленнее оперативной памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="eab8bbe6-f542-4d9f-a4be-ac35b3d48fae" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:55:08.213" UserId="551" Comment="added 2180 characters in body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, то например действующий [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;Кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![таблица единиц информации и их сокращений][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; принято 1024 = 2&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать **Кбайт** или **КБ**, а для бит - только **Кбит**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Солидарна с ГОСТом и Википедия: [КБ - &quot;килобайт&quot;][3], [Кбит - &quot;килобит&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, внимательный читатель обратит внимание что приложение &quot;А&quot; ГОСТа не обязательное, а рекомендованное, что, конечно, не позволяет сказать что нужно писать только так, а не иначе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень хорошая статья описывающая историю путаницы с байтами и битами есть на [сайте Артемия Лебедева][2]. Он достаточно обоснованно утверждает что путаница в обозначениях активно используется в рекламных целях (попробуйте &quot;пораскачивать&quot; в рекламных целях систему СИ). В конце статьи приводятся &quot;правильные аббревиатуры&quot; для единиц измерения информации: для Кбайта - КБ, для Кбита - Кб. Там же можно увидеть и такие аббревиатуры как кБ (десятичный килобайт = 1000 байт) и кб (килобит - 1000 бит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, хотя мнение Лебедева является достаточно влиятельным, вряд ли можно ссылаться на него как на официальный источник. Очевидно также что Лебедев за основу правильных аббревиатур взял англо-американский стандарт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот в этом учебнике информатики биты и байты вообще не сокращаются: Кбайт и Кбит: [Информатика 7-9 кл. А. Г. Кушниренко и др.](http://www.niisi.ru/kumir/books/2.pdf). К сожалению не удалось найти что по этому поводу думают составители ЕГЭ, но похоже что их мнение тоже может не совпадать с ГОСТом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Раз уж не удалось найти рекомендации в авторитетных источниках, обратимся к словарям. Вот подборка статей про значение слова мегабайт:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Научно-технический энциклопедический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ntes/2664/%D0%9C%D0%95%D0%93%D0%90%D0%91%D0%90%D0%99%D0%A2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; МЕГАБАЙТ (обозначается **Мб**), в вычислительной технике - единица объема информации, равная 1024 килобайт. Часто используется для выражения объема компьютерной памяти или запоминающего устройства. Иногда мегабайт округляют до 1 млн. БАЙТ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Яндекс.Словари › Издательский словарь. — 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; МЕГАБАЙТ — единица емкости памяти или длины записи, равная 1024 килобайтам. Упрощенно под М. понимается также значение 103 килобайтов или 106 байтов. Сокращенная форма М. — Мбайт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Энциклопедия Кольера](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_colier/6035)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КОМПЬЮТЕР устройство, выполняющее математические и логические операции над символами и другими формами информации и выдающее результаты в форме, воспринимаемой человеком или машиной.&#xD;&#xA;ОЗУ работают быстро: микропроцессор может получать доступ к ним за 10-20 нс. Обычные коммерческие модули ОЗУ хранят до 256 **Мб** (1 Мб равен 1 048 576 байт).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Финансовый словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/fin_enc/24944)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мегабайт&#xD;&#xA;Мегабайт - единица измерения объема передаваемой или хранимой информации. 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт.   &#xD;&#xA;По-английски: Megabyte   &#xD;&#xA;Синонимы:  Мбайт, Мб   &#xD;&#xA;Синонимы английские:  MB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как видим сокращение **Мб** используется чаще чем **Мбайт** (а **МБ** вообще не удалось встретить). Некоторые словари (в частности полиграфический) утверждают что мегабайт можно сократить до М, а килобайт до К (например &quot;объемом 64К&quot;). Так что единства нет и среди словарей, но вариант **Мб** в технических словарях явно более предпочтительный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается сокращения бит - все словари единодушны - &quot;бит&quot; не сокращается, а пишется целиком - Кбит, Мбит, Гбит. Так что несмотря на статью Лебедева, все авторитетные источники не позволяют сокращать бит до одной строчной &quot;б&quot;. Что же касается байт, то ГОСТ предписывает сокращать его до прописной Б (КБ, МБ, ГБ), а словари приводят то же сокращение со строчной б (Кб, Мб, Гб).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/84/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="d0e998ce-f247-4c3b-a033-8019086523f5" CreationDate="2013-10-07T12:57:49.763" UserId="551" Comment="added 632 characters in body" Text="В области компьютерных единиц измерения остается много подобных несоответствий, поскольку это инженерная дисциплина, а не научная. Поэтому номенклатура исторически создавалась похожей на научную, но с научной точки зрения развивалась &quot;неправильно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время есть последовательные шаги в сторону стандартизации номенклатуры (например новые названия &quot;кибибиты&quot; и &quot;кибибайты&quot; вместо с научной точки зрения неправильных &quot;килобитов&quot; и &quot;килобайт&quot;), но не все внимательно за этим следят. В целом русские обозначения ориентируются на английские, т.к. именно английский язык является законодателем мод в области IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается блогов и прочих &quot;самописных&quot; ресурсов, то ожидать 100% грамотности и точности в употреблении терминов ожидать не приходится, ведь текст не проходит через руки корректоров, редакторов и научных редакторов перед публикацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же обратиться к документации, то например действующий [ГОСТ 8.417-2002](http://pribor.info/docs/?start=0&amp;action=obj&amp;objid=82476&amp;relid=3) не приводит однобуквенного сокращения для слова &quot;бит&quot;, оно должно писаться как &quot;Кбит&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![таблица единиц информации и их сокращений][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ниже приводится такое примечание (обратите внимание что слово &quot;байт&quot; указано целиком):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исторически сложилась такая ситуация, что с наименованием „байт“ некорректно (вместо 1000 = 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; принято 1024 = 2&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;) использовали (и используют) приставки СИ: 1 Кбайт = 1024 байт, 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт, 1 Гбайт = 1024 Мбайт и т.д. При этом обозначение Кбайт начинают с прописной буквы в отличие от строчной буквы „к“ для обозначения множителя 103.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что согласно ГОСТу для байт нужно писать **Кбайт** или **КБ**, а для бит - только **Кбит**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Солидарна с ГОСТом и Википедия: [КБ - &quot;килобайт&quot;][2], [Кбит - &quot;килобит&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, внимательный читатель обратит внимание что приложение &quot;А&quot; ГОСТа не обязательное, а рекомендованное, что, конечно, не позволяет сказать что нужно писать только так, а не иначе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень хорошая статья описывающая историю путаницы с байтами и битами есть на [сайте Артемия Лебедева][3]. Он достаточно обоснованно утверждает что путаница в обозначениях активно используется в рекламных целях (попробуйте &quot;пораскачивать&quot; в рекламных целях систему СИ). В конце статьи приводятся &quot;правильные аббревиатуры&quot; для единиц измерения информации: для Кбайта - КБ, для Кбита - Кб. Там же можно увидеть и такие аббревиатуры как кБ (десятичный килобайт = 1000 байт) и кб (килобит - 1000 бит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, хотя мнение Лебедева является достаточно влиятельным, вряд ли можно ссылаться на него как на официальный источник. Очевидно также что Лебедев за основу правильных аббревиатур взял англо-американский стандарт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот в этом учебнике информатики биты и байты вообще не сокращаются: Кбайт и Кбит: [Информатика 7-9 кл. А. Г. Кушниренко и др.](http://www.niisi.ru/kumir/books/2.pdf). К сожалению не удалось найти что по этому поводу думают составители ЕГЭ, но похоже что их мнение тоже может не совпадать с ГОСТом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Раз уж не удалось найти рекомендации в авторитетных источниках, обратимся к словарям. Вот подборка статей про значение слова мегабайт:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Научно-технический энциклопедический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ntes/2664/%D0%9C%D0%95%D0%93%D0%90%D0%91%D0%90%D0%99%D0%A2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; МЕГАБАЙТ (обозначается **Мб**), в вычислительной технике - единица объема информации, равная 1024 килобайт. Часто используется для выражения объема компьютерной памяти или запоминающего устройства. Иногда мегабайт округляют до 1 млн. БАЙТ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Яндекс.Словари › Издательский словарь. — 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; МЕГАБАЙТ — единица емкости памяти или длины записи, равная 1024 килобайтам. Упрощенно под М. понимается также значение 103 килобайтов или 106 байтов. Сокращенная форма М. — Мбайт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Энциклопедия Кольера](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_colier/6035)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КОМПЬЮТЕР устройство, выполняющее математические и логические операции над символами и другими формами информации и выдающее результаты в форме, воспринимаемой человеком или машиной.&#xD;&#xA;ОЗУ работают быстро: микропроцессор может получать доступ к ним за 10-20 нс. Обычные коммерческие модули ОЗУ хранят до 256 **Мб** (1 Мб равен 1 048 576 байт).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Финансовый словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/fin_enc/24944)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мегабайт&#xD;&#xA;Мегабайт - единица измерения объема передаваемой или хранимой информации. 1 Мбайт = 1024 Кбайт.   &#xD;&#xA;По-английски: Megabyte   &#xD;&#xA;Синонимы:  Мбайт, Мб   &#xD;&#xA;Синонимы английские:  MB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как видим сокращение **Мб** используется чаще чем **Мбайт** (а **МБ** вообще не удалось встретить). Некоторые словари (в частности полиграфический) утверждают что мегабайт можно сократить до М, а килобайт до К (например &quot;объемом 64К&quot;). Так что единства нет и среди словарей, но вариант **Мб** в технических словарях явно более предпочтительный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не знаю, можно ли считать его авторитетным источником, но [справочник В. П. Леонтьева (2004)](http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hpxWY6xL8pQC&amp;pg=PA174&amp;lpg=PA174&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82+%22%D0%9A%D0%B1%22+%22%D0%9C%D0%B1%22+%22%D0%93%D0%B1%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ShoTw50f2Q&amp;sig=0t3y8TlcKqTPoddM9Mw91TVx65Y&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=pKdSUoCLC4OC4gS_roHABg&amp;ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false) автора многочисленных книг на компьютерную тематику также использует строчную &quot;б&quot; для байт:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Персональный компьютер. Карманный справочник.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается сокращения бит - все словари единодушны - &quot;бит&quot; не сокращается, а пишется целиком - Кбит, Мбит, Гбит. Так что несмотря на статью Лебедева, все авторитетные источники не позволяют сокращать бит до одной строчной &quot;б&quot;. Что же касается байт, то ГОСТ предписывает сокращать его до прописной Б (КБ, МБ, ГБ), а словари приводят то же сокращение со строчной б (Кб, Мб, Гб).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AnTmt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/84/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGXK9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="1232cb8e-79d1-402c-8f33-b7a0d386f617" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:28:38.980" UserId="967" Comment="deleted 134 characters in body" Text="Not sure if I'm looking for the [optative][1] or [hortative][2]. I'm trying to translate a religious text, expressing wish and the hope that the listener and speaker will follow through on those wishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; May the weather be seasonable, may the harvest be fruitful, may&#xD;&#xA;&gt; countries exist in harmony, and may all people enjoy happiness. May we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; share these benefits equally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't type Cyrillic to save my life. I can't demonstrate due diligence in writing this question. I can't delete it because it has an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="9c95002f-5ce7-415b-83cf-d97ff59b3ab0" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:36:06.723" UserId="104" Text="Вот одно из определений слова cheesy из [Urban Dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is an important word and nobody has it right yet. What it means is: Trying too hard, unsubtle, and inauthentic. &#xD;&#xA;Specifically that which is unsubtle or inauthentic in its way of trying to elicit a certain response from a viewer, listener, audience, etc. Celine Dion is cheesy because her lyrics, timbre, key changes, and swelling orchestral accompaniment telegraph 'i want you to be moved' instead of moving you. Gold chains on an exposed hairy chest are cheesy because they shout out: &quot;I have money and I am manly&quot; instead of impressing a woman in a more subtle way, or allowing a woman to form her own judgments. The excessive showing off suggests he's compensating for what he does not have--i.e., he's actually poor, insecure, or short with an inferiority complex. Cliches are often cheesy because they are an obvious and artless way of making a point. A movie might be cheesy if it contains 'on the nose' dialogue, like &quot;I can't live without you&quot; or &quot;You had me at hello.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надеюсь, переводить не надо. Если надо, намекните, переведу :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли в русском языке эквивалентное прилагательное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheesy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="9c95002f-5ce7-415b-83cf-d97ff59b3ab0" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:36:06.723" UserId="104" Text="Эквивалент английского cheesy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="9c95002f-5ce7-415b-83cf-d97ff59b3ab0" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:36:06.723" UserId="104" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="21827dbc-8c1a-4cb3-b162-d32e3048b21d" CreationDate="2013-10-07T18:40:36.533" UserId="2065" Comment="Corrected wrong name" Text="Preffered form is the cursive, as said Yellow Sky. But also one more thing is not use two or more forms of one letter in the same text. For example, if you started to use &quot;д&quot; as &quot;*д*&quot;, do not use it as &quot;*g*&quot; or &quot;д&quot; in the same text." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="957ca6b3-ce10-48db-a643-a02db513651d" CreationDate="2013-10-07T19:32:12.410" UserId="2060" Text="Generally it is *низкосортный*, *безвкусный*, *пошлый*. *Попсовый* might be the best equivalent, but it is highly colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Quassnoi says in his comment, there may be better alternatives in certain contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="cf0977db-fdb1-49b8-b93d-e07a8d716494" CreationDate="2013-10-08T00:38:18.020" UserId="2060" Text="Some nouns including vegetables and berries may be used to designate both specific objects (*у меня в сумке огурцы*) and materials (*салат с огурцом*). Material (mass) nouns are only used in singular form, except for special uses like *масла́* ([kinds of] oils).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, strictly speaking, *салат с огурцами* is incorrect. Colloquially, however, some mass nouns (only fruits and vegetables, it seems) are often used in plural form (*пирог с яблоками*). Note that if whole apples are used, they must be plural (*утка с яблоками*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *лук* and *капуста* -- they are just never used in plural, even when one refers to a collection of vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are cases when some nouns act as normal and the others as mass (*ведро кабачков* vs. *ведро черники*), and even more weird ones (*лежат арбузы / бананы* vs. *любишь арбуз / бананы*). I believe you cannot come up with a rule for those so you need to learn it by heart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="921ef90b-1159-4da5-aa1a-4b2faa74f6dd" CreationDate="2013-10-08T03:24:48.477" UserId="194" Text="I think it is *вульгарный*, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="b65f9c25-c33d-4325-aaa2-9e406c659d38" CreationDate="2013-10-08T06:24:16.307" UserId="551" Text="Попсовый это очень хороший вариант он молодежный, сленговый, &quot;на слуху&quot;, может относиться и к кино, к книгам, живописи и т.п. Но мне кажется что в случае музыки это определение довольно расплывчато, т.к. обозначает собственно поп-музыку (не всегда с негативным отношением). Например песни Селин Дион придется назвать &quot;попсовыми в плохом смысле&quot;. Образ крутого мачо эксплуатируется в рэпе и R'n'B, поэтому назвать их попсовыми тоже &quot;не поднимается&quot; рука - придется уточнять что именно имидж попсовый, и тут опять нестыковка - попсовый имидж это скорее имидж поп-певца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется что точного аналога в русском языке для всех приведенных случаев нет (вульгарный, пошлый и т.д. хороши, но тоже несленговые). Но если обратиться к альтернативным толкованиям слова cheesy, многие пишут о чрезмерной сентиментальности музыки, кино и т.п.   &#xD;&#xA;В этом случае можно подобрать слова с гастрономическим оттенком (*слащавый, приторный*, опять же *безвкусный*). Еще одно слово, хорошо передающее идею форсированной сентиментальности - *слезоточивый* (подчеркивает идею насильных слез).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если говорить о спорте или каких-то других победах то можно использовать выражение *&quot;с душком&quot;* передав идею &quot;сырного запаха&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2679" RevisionGUID="f0960499-e65b-4e2b-8c15-c6efa3b1632d" CreationDate="2013-10-08T13:16:58.670" UserId="1958" Text="Probably because you only add *some* лук (and it is often less than 1 луковица), so you usually count лук by mass (volume, rings, small pieces). And because of this лук, чеснок, капуста have special count words for them, while огурец doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More interesting is why редиска is a mass noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="4d4d7e75-548c-4e79-a1bb-c81731afb15e" CreationDate="2013-10-08T19:06:24.937" UserId="194" Text="Are платье (platie) and платок (platok) connected? Did платье initially mean a square piece of cloth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the both words ultimately derive from the same PIE root meaning &quot;flat&quot; (from which the English word &quot;flat&quot; also derives). But does it mean tha платье initially meant something similar to платок?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="4d4d7e75-548c-4e79-a1bb-c81731afb15e" CreationDate="2013-10-08T19:06:24.937" UserId="194" Text="Are платье and платок connected? Did платье initially mean a square piece of cloth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="4d4d7e75-548c-4e79-a1bb-c81731afb15e" CreationDate="2013-10-08T19:06:24.937" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="309b5a34-2e44-4876-a6a4-b421e64f1edd" CreationDate="2013-10-08T21:09:12.407" UserId="1236" Text="As Vasmer [shows][1] it, both `платье`, `платок`, and also `плата` and `платить` derive from the word `плат` which meant &quot;a piece of textile, cloth&quot; and which is connected with the words in different IE languages that mean &quot;wide&quot;, that was perhaps the original meaning of this root. The English `flat` also derives from the same root, but with its meaning a bit changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `плат` gave such derivative words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `платок` - a diminutive noun, &quot;a small piece of cloth&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`платье` - a collective noun, &quot;things made of cloth&quot; (cf. the English &quot;clothes&quot;, `платье` originally meant &quot;clothes in general&quot;, not just &quot;a dress&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`плата` and `платить` - a piece of cloth was, probably, used as a means of payment, a currency unit, hence the meaning of these two words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fasmer-dictionary.info/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%A4%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0/9959/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="f796456d-e52d-462f-973e-63174b912585" CreationDate="2013-10-08T21:20:10.427" UserId="1236" Comment="expanding" Text="As Vasmer [shows][1] it, both `платье`, `платок`, and also `плата` and `платить` derive from the word `плат` which meant &quot;a piece of textile, cloth&quot; and which is connected with the words in different IE languages that mean &quot;wide&quot;, that was perhaps the original meaning of this root. The English `flat` also derives from the same root, but with its meaning a bit changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `плат` gave such derivative words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `платок` - a diminutive noun, &quot;a small piece of cloth&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`платье` - a collective noun, &quot;things made of cloth&quot; (cf. the English &quot;clothes&quot;, `платье` originally meant &quot;clothes in general&quot;, not just &quot;a dress&quot;, even now this word is sometimes used in its original wider sence, like in the phrase &quot;Магазин готового платья&quot;, which sells any kind of clothes, both male and female. So, the modern meaning &quot;a dress&quot; is just narrowing of its original wider meaning &quot;clothes, clothes in general&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`плата` and `платить` - a piece of cloth was, probably, used as a means of payment, a currency unit, hence the meaning of these two words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fasmer-dictionary.info/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%A4%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0/9959/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2662" RevisionGUID="17192eeb-96c5-45b0-ba9e-134cd4c945c8" CreationDate="2013-10-08T21:22:21.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/387689446449356800" />
  <row Id="9259" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="53024fd7-00f7-4fa9-97bd-be9241e500f9" CreationDate="2013-10-09T03:22:21.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/387780042308476928" />
  <row Id="9260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="1a873052-b83c-45c5-8617-aa3f1cbfcaf9" CreationDate="2013-10-09T12:00:23.710" UserId="235" Text="&quot;Показушный&quot; or &quot;нарочитый&quot; seems to me to be pretty close equivalents to meaning described in quoted entry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="eb97a03b-a757-4176-99bc-7ef1c66bdb8b" CreationDate="2013-10-09T16:45:04.613" UserId="2071" Text="When to make the &quot;v&quot; / &quot;в&quot; or to make the &quot;g&quot; / &quot;г&quot; in place of &quot;г&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the word &quot;его&quot; is said &quot;evo&quot;, but phonetically it's said &quot;ego&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cрасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="eb97a03b-a757-4176-99bc-7ef1c66bdb8b" CreationDate="2013-10-09T16:45:04.613" UserId="2071" Text="When to make the &quot;v&quot; / &quot;в&quot; or to make the &quot;g&quot; / &quot;г&quot; in place of &quot;г&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="eb97a03b-a757-4176-99bc-7ef1c66bdb8b" CreationDate="2013-10-09T16:45:04.613" UserId="2071" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="76497742-4987-4c21-8e35-28b77304e236" CreationDate="2013-10-09T17:58:27.103" UserId="1236" Text="It's very simple. If the pronoun, or an adjective, or an ordinal pronoun is in the Genitive case, then their ending `-его` is pronounced like -ih-vuh or -ih-VOH, and the ending -ого like -uh-vuh or -uh-VOH, depending on the accent stress in the word. The bold letters show the stressed vowels in Russian words, the capital letters show the stressed syllables in the English words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ег**о** - pronounced &quot;yih-VOH&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;с**и**него - &quot;SIH-nih-vuh&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;одног**о** - ud-nuh-VOH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кр**а**сного - KRUS-nuh-vuh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the rest of the cases `Г` is pronounced like `G` in &quot;great&quot; (but sometimes like `K`). To tell the truth, if you always pronounce `Г` like `G` in &quot;great&quot;, you will be well understood. But if you'd like to always pronounce everything correctly, you'll have to spend much time and effort to achieve that. I wish you good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="7e5d60e2-18a6-4e3f-91a0-df865188d038" CreationDate="2013-10-09T19:19:44.863" UserId="551" Comment="Bold does'nt work inside words in markdown" Text="It's very simple. If the pronoun, or an adjective, or an ordinal pronoun is in the Genitive case, then their ending `-его` is pronounced like -ih-vuh or -ih-VOH, and the ending -ого like -uh-vuh or -uh-VOH, depending on the accent stress in the word. The bold letters show the stressed vowels in Russian words, the capital letters show the stressed syllables in the English words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ег&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; - pronounced &quot;yih-VOH&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;с&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;него - &quot;SIH-nih-vuh&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;одног&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; - ud-nuh-VOH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;сного - KRUS-nuh-vuh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the rest of the cases `Г` is pronounced like `G` in &quot;great&quot; (but sometimes like `K`). To tell the truth, if you always pronounce `Г` like `G` in &quot;great&quot;, you will be well understood. But if you'd like to always pronounce everything correctly, you'll have to spend much time and effort to achieve that. I wish you good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="aff3e36b-8372-4cbd-8c1f-e79bdc3171bd" CreationDate="2013-10-09T20:13:08.267" UserId="1958" Text="That is the reason why Russian has developed whole new [anymacy category][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is SVO default for this case, but you will still be unsure, because Russian has free word order. And OVS is not an error. So, you better rely on context. And in case `Добро побеждает зло` there is no doubt just because you knew who's the winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In real life Russians try to make it clear even from text, saying, for example: `Гугл покупает Моторолу` instead of `Google покупает Motorola`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="c1fdaa3a-1d78-43bc-b4fc-74cbe583f801" CreationDate="2013-10-09T22:11:07.080" UserId="1236" Comment="a wrong word substituted" Text="It's very simple. If the pronoun, or an adjective, or an ordinal numeral is in the Genitive case, then their ending `-его` is pronounced like -ih-vuh or -ih-VOH, and the ending -ого like -uh-vuh or -uh-VOH, depending on the accent stress in the word. The bold letters show the stressed vowels in Russian words, the capital letters show the stressed syllables in the English words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ег&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; - pronounced &quot;yih-VOH&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;с&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;него - &quot;SIH-nih-vuh&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;одног&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; - ud-nuh-VOH&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кр&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;сного - KRUS-nuh-vuh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the rest of the cases `Г` is pronounced like `G` in &quot;great&quot; (but sometimes like `K`). To tell the truth, if you always pronounce `Г` like `G` in &quot;great&quot;, you will be well understood. But if you'd like to always pronounce everything correctly, you'll have to spend much time and effort to achieve that. I wish you good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="8ea15d71-b794-4381-89f0-a3267ca30445" CreationDate="2013-10-10T00:53:33.650" UserId="1329" Comment="Corrected a small mistake that made the word &quot;thanks&quot; sound a bit impolite" Text="When to make the &quot;v&quot; / &quot;в&quot; or to make the &quot;g&quot; / &quot;г&quot; in place of &quot;г&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the word &quot;его&quot; is said &quot;evo&quot;, but phonetically it's said &quot;ego&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cпасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="960f74d4-2687-414d-8b71-1efbe366f5ae" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:55:15.483" UserId="551" Text="Артемий Лебедев в своем &quot;ководстве&quot; [пишет][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужской род бедному напитку достался от устаревших форм «кофий» или «кофей».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У Корнея Чуковского в книге &quot;Живой как жизнь&quot; [сказано](http://book-online.com.ua/read.php?book=1581&amp;page=7):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский язык вообще тяготеет к склонению несклоняемых слов. Не потому ли, например, создалось слово кофий, что кофе никак не возможно склонять?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так все же - какая форма слова &quot;кофе&quot; от какой произошла? Они заимствованы независимо или &quot;кофий&quot; - это просторечное слово от &quot;кофе&quot;? Или сначала был все-таки &quot;кофий&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Чуковский для меня более авторитетный автор, но и у него встречаются устаревшие сведения о происхождении слов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read in different sources that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;кофе&quot; is masculine because it was used as &quot;кофий&quot; in the past and the latter word has masculine ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;кофе&quot; is indeclinable and that's why the word &quot;кофий&quot; emerged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which word was the first to be borrowed? And which word was the initial one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/138/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="960f74d4-2687-414d-8b71-1efbe366f5ae" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:55:15.483" UserId="551" Text="Кофий и кофе - что от чего произошло? Is the кофе derived from кофий or vice versa?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="960f74d4-2687-414d-8b71-1efbe366f5ae" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:55:15.483" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="91cdd42d-aadc-4f1a-8856-40fe0b391fc7" CreationDate="2013-10-10T07:21:15.297" UserId="242" Text="Surprisingly, both form has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech of course) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms does not recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="ee2270c3-3884-4e23-a69e-63503bdb0e46" CreationDate="2013-10-10T07:42:16.190" UserId="242" Comment="added some explanation" Text="Surprisingly, both form has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech of course) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms does not recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sen, there's no such thing as a strict procedure of intruding new loanwords to the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="02f7c3b3-9352-4f9a-8463-3f55c3aa142b" CreationDate="2013-10-10T07:49:00.560" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Surprisingly, both form has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms does not recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sen, there's no such thing as a strict procedure of intruding new loanwords to the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="a522a2f2-2f39-4727-a6a6-cfa77fe862f1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T08:05:02.040" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Surprisingly, both forms has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms does not recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sen, there's no such thing as a strict procedure of intruding new loanwords to the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="21a5e948-b2d3-4667-948f-d85044d5d9bb" CreationDate="2013-10-10T08:14:46.247" UserId="134" Text="*в* is pronounced instead of *г* in *его* and connected words: full form adjectives, ordinal numerals and possessive pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Красивого&#xD;&#xA;* Второго&#xD;&#xA;* Моего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymologically, the full form's endings (*красив / красивый, красива / красивая*) are pronouns extinct by now in Russian but surviving in oblique cases of the words *он, она*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for such pronunciation is the fall of *г* during its transition from a fricative to a stop and introduction of epenthetic *в*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [krɐsʲivəvə] &lt; [krɐsʲivə:] &lt; [krɐsʲivəɤə]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Epenthetic  *в* is common for East Slavic languages: *Лявон &lt; Leon (Belorussian), павук &lt; &amp;ast;паѫкъ (Ukrainian); какава &lt; cacao (Russian dialectal)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in *-го* not etymologically connected to *его* pronounce *г*: *индиго [ɪnʲdʲigə], фанданго [fɐndangə]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="f197cfab-ff7e-43b4-95b4-140f644fdb4f" CreationDate="2013-10-10T09:14:23.827" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="Surprisingly, both forms has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms does not recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, there's no such thing as a strict and well-established procedure of intruding new loanwords to the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="58c52aef-180c-4028-916d-a2d0b46fc859" CreationDate="2013-10-10T11:12:25.700" UserId="1236" Comment="improved grammar" Text="Surprisingly, both forms has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms is recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, there's no such thing as a strict and well-established procedure of introducing new loanwords into the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="c2e7db03-f24c-4354-ba67-9df791fa8fa3" CreationDate="2013-10-10T15:29:36.393" UserId="487" Text="Both *Planck* and *Nietzsche* are foreign names. Why does one say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю Планка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю Ницше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="c2e7db03-f24c-4354-ba67-9df791fa8fa3" CreationDate="2013-10-10T15:29:36.393" UserId="487" Text="Why does one decline Planck and not Nietzsche?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="c2e7db03-f24c-4354-ba67-9df791fa8fa3" CreationDate="2013-10-10T15:29:36.393" UserId="487" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="e71734cb-f98d-4421-8849-e4bdc9782b53" CreationDate="2013-10-10T16:04:25.053" UserId="487" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Both *Planck* and *Nietzsche* are foreign names. Why does one say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю Планка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю Ницше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a criterion to know when does a borrowed name should be declined? Is the &quot;-e&quot; ending that YellowSky mentions enough?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2690" RevisionGUID="1dbabd74-9c87-4d90-85bf-c0139b533b57" CreationDate="2013-10-10T17:45:32.483" UserId="2060" Text="&gt; Все прочие мужские фамилии, имеющие основы на согласные и нулевое окончание в именительном падеже, склоняются как существительные второго склонения мужского рода, т. е. имеют в творительном падеже окончание -ом, (-ем): Герценом, Левитаном, Гоголем, Врубелем, Хемингуэем, Гайдаем. Такие фамилии воспринимаются как «нерусские».&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Соотносительные женские фамилии не склоняются: Наталии Александровны Герцен, Любови Дмитриевне Блок, с Анной Магдалиной Бах, с Надеждой Ивановной Забелой-Врубель, о Мэри Хемингуэй, о Зое Гайдай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фамилии, пишущиеся с е, э, и, ы, у, ю на конце, могут быть только несклоняемыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, Ницше doesn't decline because it ends with -е, and Планк is only declined if it's a male.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complete declension rules for names are found here: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_482 (in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="565cc0e4-b12e-470b-8fa4-23bf844ba9fd" CreationDate="2013-10-11T04:58:56.733" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Surprisingly, both forms has been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms is recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, there's no such thing as a strict and well-established procedure for introducing new loanwords into the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2691" RevisionGUID="a093f46f-9a09-46ed-bb28-720890b231e3" CreationDate="2013-10-12T05:06:17.123" UserId="1178" Text="Прямого аналога конечно же нет, но мне кажется что такое слово как `биспантовый` (именно так биспантовый, хотя это в какой то мере образующее от беспонтовый) будет очень близко к 'сильным' вариантам cheesy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Биспантовая лирика Селин Дион...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Биспантовый мужик с золотой цепью на волосатой груди и дешевыми понтами:)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Забитые фразы биспантовы по своему определению...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Биспантовый фильм, с наматыванием соплей на кулак...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще раз подчеркну, все фразы с этим словом очень эмоциональны с сугубо сленговые. А вот слово `cheesy` можно встретить в окружениях более близких к обычному языку." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2693" RevisionGUID="6dcc746d-11ce-4636-9da2-2401d87888e4" CreationDate="2013-10-12T17:30:44.477" UserId="2073" Text="Yeah, quite easy. They cannot be both 'soft' and 'hard' depending on the vowel next to it. Example, take letter **К**. It can be **Ка** or **Кя** — different sound. Your hushers may be only one: **Ж** is always 'hard', **Ч, Ш, Щ** are anyway 'soft'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="3d510f71-768f-4593-a235-a83d0c14b221" CreationDate="2013-10-12T18:22:52.203" UserId="2077" Text="what is the difference between Доброе and Добрый? Both mean the same but when we say good morning we use the former instead of the latter ,  as per this site http://masterrussian.com/blday_greeting.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="3d510f71-768f-4593-a235-a83d0c14b221" CreationDate="2013-10-12T18:22:52.203" UserId="2077" Text="Good in russians" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="3d510f71-768f-4593-a235-a83d0c14b221" CreationDate="2013-10-12T18:22:52.203" UserId="2077" Text="|перевод|значения|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="e04a007c-5c19-4923-92e1-3a7b5d1fdbe9" CreationDate="2013-10-12T19:10:38.090" UserId="242" Text="Well, it is just a grammatical gender indication.&#xD;&#xA;`Доброе утро` is &quot;доброе&quot; because &quot;утро&quot; is neuter in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;`Добрый день` and `добрый вечер` contain `добрый`  since both &quot;день&quot; and &quot;вечер&quot; are masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="e2f0fcbf-d09a-41dc-b8a9-ac9bb2b73242" CreationDate="2013-10-12T19:19:03.373" UserId="242" Comment="some clarification" Text="Well, it is just a grammatical gender indication.&#xD;&#xA;`Доброе утро` is &quot;доброе&quot; because &quot;утро&quot; is neuter in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;`Добрый день` and `добрый вечер` contain `добрый`  since both &quot;день&quot; and &quot;вечер&quot; are masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out [this article][1] for further information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there's one subtle issue I want you to be warned about.&#xD;&#xA;While it is grammatically valid to say &quot;добрая ночь&quot; (good night), nobody says this in Russian. The valid form is de-facto `доброй ночи` or `спокойной ночи` and this, surprisingly, this is more about declension that about grammatical gender (but gender is important as well, has the noun been masculine, form &quot;доброго&quot; would be used). In this particular case, the adjective &quot;добрый&quot; is [genitive case][2], because &quot;доброй ночи&quot; is actually is a shortened form of &quot;[I wish you] a good night&quot;.  And in Russian verb &quot;wish&quot; in this case is governed by genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.study-languages-online.com/russian-gender.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9297" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="92369f8f-acba-45a2-811d-a4358e4ac777" CreationDate="2013-10-12T19:19:32.893" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;доброе утро&quot; but &quot;добрый день&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2697" RevisionGUID="37690b59-9c2e-4f89-9438-a6921476efac" CreationDate="2013-10-12T22:20:06.360" UserId="2080" Text="Мне потребовалось несколько лет в Америке чтобы понять, что это слово обозначает и как его использовать. Для меня это точно было понятием без аналога в русском языке. Чем больше я встречаю таких слов, тем лучше я понимаю особенности той и другой культуры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Показушный&quot; и &quot;нарочитый&quot; describe something artificial, non-authentic, which is not the same as cheesiness. Someone or something can be genuinely cheesy. It certainly has to do with lack of taste, so &quot;безвкусный&quot; is somewhat close, but &quot;cheesy&quot; is some specific. It refers to a very particular kind of lack of taste, roughly --- overdoing something, and not to a lack of taste in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="c640b015-ad95-4ee8-be25-0053a60687a1" CreationDate="2013-10-12T22:41:17.927" UserId="2080" Text="Even though &quot;молодец&quot; и &quot;умница&quot; are correct translations, I'd say that there are used much less commonly than &quot;Good job&quot; in America. After 8 years in the U.S. I'd say that &quot;Good job&quot; is used very often, all the time, and it seems to be true in different states. In particular, parents seem to be saying &quot;Good job&quot; to their children very often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it is that common to praise children in Russia, either for effort or for intelligence. In general, I'd say, it is much more in the Russian culture to criticize than to praise. Constant praise kind of feels cheesy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9304" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="78993f1a-8be3-4cb4-8ab8-eddafd8d839b" CreationDate="2013-10-13T00:22:37.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/389184361637363712" />
  <row Id="9308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="cd5504a4-e025-4cc9-be55-aeabeb27cfc8" CreationDate="2013-10-13T07:13:39.810" UserId="1236" Comment="a wrong word corrected" Text="Well, it is just a grammatical gender indication.&#xD;&#xA;`Доброе утро` is &quot;доброе&quot; because &quot;утро&quot; is neuter in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;`Добрый день` and `добрый вечер` contain `добрый`  since both &quot;день&quot; and &quot;вечер&quot; are masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out [this article][1] for further information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there's one subtle issue I want you to be warned about.&#xD;&#xA;While it is grammatically valid to say &quot;добрая ночь&quot; (good night), nobody says this in Russian. The valid form is de-facto `доброй ночи` or `спокойной ночи` and this, surprisingly, this is more about declension than about grammatical gender (but gender is important as well, has the noun been masculine, form &quot;доброго&quot; would be used). In this particular case, the adjective &quot;добрый&quot; is [genitive case][2], because &quot;доброй ночи&quot; is actually is a shortened form of &quot;[I wish you] a good night&quot;.  And in Russian verb &quot;wish&quot; in this case is governed by genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.study-languages-online.com/russian-gender.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2701" RevisionGUID="4d0a6e5c-08b8-45e4-80ca-7e0c23bf1334" CreationDate="2013-10-14T14:58:34.260" UserId="2084" Text="   Deciding phonemes by minimal pairs is quite logical. In English for example, there are no minimal pairs between [h] and [ŋ]. Thus, they are the same phoneme. It makes no difference that any child can tell the difference, and no-one can see any the similarity between the two. &#xD;&#xA;   Similarly, И and Ы are allophones of the same phoneme, even though all speakers of Russian are consciously aware of producing them separately.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="fedd0a9e-17c4-45fe-b5b1-a862ad6229f3" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:24:17.257" UserId="2085" Text="Before I start, I want to point out that although I want to learn Russian, my current level is 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently saw the movie &quot;The Deer Hunter&quot; (Great movie). One of the characters is of russian ascendence, and in the beggining there is a wedding full of toasts, in them, they always say the same, which I could transcribe as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наше здоровье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that здоровье is neutral gender so they use наше. My question is if this is what is actually used. Reading the russian wikipedia page for toast (тост), I've seen that they use the second plural person, either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ваше здоровье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за ваше здоровье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to ask, given the fact that they're all gramatically correct (if I'm wrong in this point tell me), which one is really used as a standard sentence, which one is the one people use without thinking...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If using any person is normally seen, then I guess dedicating it to only one person &quot;за твоë здоровье&quot; would be correct too, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="fedd0a9e-17c4-45fe-b5b1-a862ad6229f3" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:24:17.257" UserId="2085" Text="What to say in a toast?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="fedd0a9e-17c4-45fe-b5b1-a862ad6229f3" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:24:17.257" UserId="2085" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="c5d52d83-f7be-42d6-878c-9975eb9afce8" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:45:05.087" UserId="104" Text=" &gt; Before I start, I want to point out that although I want to learn Russian, my current level is 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question, it seems your Russian is not at zero level :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I guess that здоровье is neutral gender so they use наше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; My question is if this is what is actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't know unless you could provide a link to the relevant part for us to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I just want to ask, given the fact that they're all gramatically[sic] correct (if I'm wrong in this point tell me),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you're right, they're all grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which one is really used as a standard sentence, which one is the one people use without thinking...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the following are very common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - За Вас! (За тебя!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ваше здоровье! (Tвое здоровье!)&#xD;&#xA; - За ваше здоровье! (За твое здоровье!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't say that *(За) наше здоровье* is very common, although can be perfectly valid in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; if using any person is normally seen, then I guess dedicating it to only one person &quot;за твоë здоровье&quot; would be correct too, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. Moreover, when, for example, toasting a friend, not only is *за твое здоровье* correct **too**, but using the plural or the honorary may sound a bit awkward unless used for humorous effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="651d696f-cc8b-40cc-9d1c-7ada832e6df4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:52:24.340" UserId="104" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text=" &gt; Before I start, I want to point out that although I want to learn Russian, my current level is 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question, it seems your Russian is not at zero level :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I guess that здоровье is neutral gender so they use наше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; My question is if this is what is actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't know unless you could provide a link to the relevant part for us to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I just want to ask, given the fact that they're all gramatically[sic] correct (if I'm wrong in this point tell me),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you're right, they're all grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which one is really used as a standard sentence, which one is the one people use without thinking...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the following are very common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - За Вас! (За тебя!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ваше здоровье! (Tвое здоровье!)&#xD;&#xA; - За ваше здоровье! (За твое здоровье!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't say that *(За) наше здоровье* is very common, although can be perfectly valid in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; if using any person is normally seen, then I guess dedicating it to only one person &quot;за твоë здоровье&quot; would be correct too, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. Moreover, when, for example, toasting a friend, not only is *за твое здоровье* correct **too**, but using the plural or the honorary may sound a bit awkward unless used for humorous effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Update:]** Indeed, another phrase for toasting is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; На здоровье! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a set phrase and you shouldn't dissect it into its constituents. This phrase is also used when saying you're welcome after being thanked for a meal/drink&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Спасибо за пирожки!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; На здоровье!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2703" RevisionGUID="13ef0eff-cd57-4845-b49f-4d6b52b0b048" CreationDate="2013-10-15T09:52:27.607" UserId="104" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text=" &gt; Before I start, I want to point out that although I want to learn Russian, my current level is 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question, it seems your Russian is not at zero level :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I guess that здоровье is neutral gender so they use наше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; My question is if this is what is actually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't know unless you could provide a link to the relevant part for us to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I just want to ask, given the fact that they're all gramatically[sic] correct (if I'm wrong in this point tell me),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you're right, they're all grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; which one is really used as a standard sentence, which one is the one people use without thinking...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the following are very common:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - За Вас! (За тебя!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ваше здоровье! (Tвое здоровье!)&#xD;&#xA; - За ваше здоровье! (За твое здоровье!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't say that *(За) наше здоровье* is very common, although can be perfectly valid in certain contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; if using any person is normally seen, then I guess dedicating it to only one person &quot;за твоë здоровье&quot; would be correct too, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. Moreover, when, for example, toasting a friend, not only is *за твое здоровье* correct **too**, but using the plural or the honorary may sound a bit awkward unless used for humorous effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Update:]** Indeed, you must have heard &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; На здоровье! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a set phrase and you shouldn't dissect it into its constituents. This is a foreign cliche of how Russians toast. I have never heard anyone toast with this phrase, although I have been told by native speakers that this is indeed sometimes used. Comments under this answer do not agree. Therefore, because it is debatable, it's best to avoid using this phrase for toasting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase has another meaning and is often used when saying &quot;you're welcome&quot; after being thanked for a meal/drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Спасибо за пирожки!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; На здоровье!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9320" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="f9df651f-3e17-45b9-b667-19277e2a59ec" CreationDate="2013-10-15T12:23:40.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/390090595018235906" />
  <row Id="9321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="dcc9ab5d-0fd1-49ce-9575-23fc2dbf8525" CreationDate="2013-10-15T19:18:09.687" UserId="2060" Text="*Urban legend* is a term of USA origin and obscure semantics. *Городская легенда* is obviously a verbatim translation of it. It is very recent and not well-known. Before the term was introduced in Russian language, Russian urban legends had been called ***миф*** or ***легенда*** or whatever without the need for 'urban' connotation. So you can readily go with those two. If you use *городская легенда*, you have less chances to be understood correctly or you may sound &quot;westernized&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="8b4a60d1-0075-40cd-801d-19660a768ddf" CreationDate="2013-10-15T19:24:17.517" UserId="2060" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="*Urban legend* is a term of USA origin and obscure semantics. *Городская легенда* is obviously a verbatim translation of it. It is very recent and not well-known. Before the term was introduced in Russian language, Russian urban legends had been called ***миф*** or ***легенда*** or whatever -- without the need for 'urban' connotation. So you can readily go with these two (I'd prefer *миф* for its supposedly fake nature). If you use *городская легенда*, you have less chances to be understood correctly or you may sound &quot;westernized&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="9d37da47-b1a0-4b9b-a481-50701b51a94d" CreationDate="2013-10-16T00:19:06.877" UserId="1027" Text="Put it crudely, tell `[u]` as in the word `put`, but make your lips as if you want to say `[i]` as in the word `deep`. The difference between `и` and `ы` is in that `ы` is close **central** unrounded vowel, but `и` is close **front** unrounded vowel. Dorsum of tongue is raised not in the front but in the middle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="a598b4fd-8c61-44c5-a8a8-0f254fbb68d4" CreationDate="2013-10-16T00:24:26.643" UserId="1027" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Put it crudely, tell `[u]` as in the word `put`, but make your lips as if you want to say `[i:]` as in the word `deep`. The difference between `и` and `ы` is in that `ы` is close **central** unrounded vowel, but `и` is close **front** unrounded vowel. Dorsum of tongue is raised not in the front but in the middle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9325" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="3866bf0b-6e63-457a-8f1f-014a86e0dba1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T03:25:07.753" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/390317454997852160" />
  <row Id="9328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2706" RevisionGUID="3a881aaf-1e94-4615-81d4-39300ab0c4bb" CreationDate="2013-10-16T18:16:44.577" UserId="2093" Text=" На здоровье!    used all the time when toasting. I just double checked with my Russian wife and her Russian girlfriend and they confirm it is not just Americans who use На здоровье!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when saying &quot;you're welcome&quot; after being thanked for a meal/drink - Again from my experience in St Petersburg, most people say 'пожалуйста' for you're welcome, but it is possible to use 'На здоровье' (although I have not heard very often)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2707" RevisionGUID="6a407f47-6e05-4689-aa1d-aa707e733df3" CreationDate="2013-10-16T18:33:56.140" UserId="2094" Text="I think you can translate both of them as &quot;if it works, don't fix it.&quot;  Although, the more obvious one (лучшее - враг хорошего) is probably best seen as a justification for the first one rather than as its synonym." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="1cb48266-9373-4890-a4e9-a17b428478a2" CreationDate="2013-10-16T21:20:34.407" UserId="2085" Text="That's it, for example, is it acceptable to say Люблю тебя, or do you have to use я Люблю тебя. Or читал книгу instead of Я читал книгу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="1cb48266-9373-4890-a4e9-a17b428478a2" CreationDate="2013-10-16T21:20:34.407" UserId="2085" Text="Is the subject always neccesary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="1cb48266-9373-4890-a4e9-a17b428478a2" CreationDate="2013-10-16T21:20:34.407" UserId="2085" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="1a6b0d28-cb9d-48ad-a18a-6bd7fa699881" CreationDate="2013-10-16T22:20:08.127" UserId="2060" Text="It is not necessary, but it is implied by the verb's person (*люблю тебя*, *любим тебя*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to have an object, too (*Пока! Люблю!* = Bye! Love you!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="785186c7-16d0-4800-a1d6-fdeabf36da5e" CreationDate="2013-10-16T22:30:32.217" UserId="2060" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="It is not necessary, but it is implied by the verb's person (*люблю тебя*, *любим тебя*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to have an object, too (*Пока! Люблю!* = Bye! Love you!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are impersonal sentences where you use *it* in English but you don't use any subject in Russian (*it's getting dark* = *темнеет*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="df2c8c40-3a05-491b-905e-6fb1184be09c" CreationDate="2013-10-16T22:36:50.277" UserId="2060" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="It is not necessary, but it is implied by the verb's person (*люблю тебя*, *любим тебя*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to have an object, too (*Пока! Люблю!* = Bye! Love you!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are impersonal sentences where you use *it* or *they* in English but you don't use any subject in Russian (*it's getting dark* = *темнеет*, *they say you learn it* = *говорят, [что ты] учишь*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="c5d1da81-6703-48d6-9815-7b936ab7f76c" CreationDate="2013-10-17T00:01:59.770" UserId="242" Text="Actually you are asking about whether Russian is a pro-drop language. A pro-drop language is, [according to Wikipedia][1], a language in which pronounces are usually omitted when they are inferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Spanish and Portuguese are classical examples of pro-drop languages. &quot;Te quiero&quot; (I love you) can be heard way more often than &quot;yo the quiero&quot; just because verbs are conjugates in Spanish, so that you in a moment recognize contextual pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's go back to Russian. The simplest valid answer we can give - Russian is partially pro-drop. The actual degree of this pro-dropness is an open issue and a [subject to debates][2]. Here's another relevant [quote][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is disagreement as to whether Russian has pro-drop (alternatively, subject pronoun omission is treated as an instance of contextually licensed ellipsis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/prodrop1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="7c00e150-a9a9-4de6-99e3-ec8e0665f39d" CreationDate="2013-10-17T00:10:16.730" UserId="242" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="Actually you are asking about whether Russian is a pro-drop language. A pro-drop language, [according to Wikipedia][1], is a language in which pronounces are usually omitted when they are inferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Spanish and Portuguese are classical examples of pro-drop languages. &quot;Te quiero&quot; (I love you) can be heard way more often than &quot;yo the quiero&quot; just because verbs are conjugates in Spanish, so that you in a moment recognize contextual pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's go back to Russian. The simplest valid answer we can give - Russian is partially pro-drop. The actual degree of this pro-dropness is an open issue and a [subject to debates][2]. Here's another relevant [quote][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is disagreement as to whether Russian has pro-drop (alternatively, subject pronoun omission is treated as an instance of contextually licensed ellipsis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information I'd recommend you to checkout the last link, but to sum it up: Russian is a pro-drop language, but less pro-drop that Japanese or Spanish. There are some reasons for this, one of most notable is lack of information we can get from verbs in past fence. [Он] читал / [я] читал / [ты] читал will be indistinguishable without context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/prodrop1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9338" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="7dee2b75-5f85-48ee-bc4f-79d31452fcde" CreationDate="2013-10-17T00:11:40.490" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How acceptable is to omit pronouns in certain verb usages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="630a0149-9f5f-4958-b1bb-8994b614ec6a" CreationDate="2013-10-17T00:16:36.167" UserId="2060" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Subject pronoun is not necessary, but it is implied by the verb's person (*люблю тебя*, *любим тебя*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to have an object, too (*Пока! Люблю!* = Bye! Love you!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are impersonal sentences where you use *it* or *they* in English but you don't use any subject in Russian (*it's getting dark* = *темнеет*, *they say you learn it* = *говорят, [что ты] учишь*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="1c7b2668-ffc3-4c6a-aafd-987dffcce35c" CreationDate="2013-10-17T05:19:03.863" UserId="194" Text="No. If you want just say &quot;I love you&quot;, you should use the pronoun &quot;Я люблю тебя&quot;. Omitting the pronoun here is marked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Люблю тебя&quot; sounds as if the phrase was unfinished. It is ok to omit pronounces if&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is an answer to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ты кого любишь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Люблю тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Что ты делаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чиню окно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or if the sentence will be continued:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Люблю тебя за твою улыбку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Люблю тебя, красавица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the last sentence has an overtone of being a joke or just telling somewhat already well known to her, it is not suitable if you want to make a confession or just to say you love her for the first time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="9c5f1710-e372-487b-9376-3a3ec0b92e54" CreationDate="2013-10-17T07:04:36.920" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Actually you are asking about whether Russian is a pro-drop language. A pro-drop language, [according to Wikipedia][1], is a language in which pronounces are usually omitted when they are inferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Spanish and Portuguese are classical examples of pro-drop languages. &quot;Te quiero&quot; (I love you) can be heard way more often than &quot;yo te quiero&quot; just because verbs are conjugates in Spanish, so that you in a moment recognize contextual pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's go back to Russian. The simplest valid answer we can give - Russian is partially pro-drop. The actual degree of this pro-dropness is an open issue and a [subject to debates][2]. Here's another relevant [quote][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is disagreement as to whether Russian has pro-drop (alternatively, subject pronoun omission is treated as an instance of contextually licensed ellipsis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information I'd recommend you to checkout the last link, but to sum it up: Russian is a pro-drop language, but less pro-drop that Japanese or Spanish. There are some reasons for this, one of most notable is lack of information we can get from verbs in past fence. [Он] читал / [я] читал / [ты] читал will be indistinguishable without context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/prodrop1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="76a15dac-9ecb-4f0f-9032-cc7031d33e8f" CreationDate="2013-10-17T15:04:29.860" UserId="104" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Actually you are asking about whether Russian is a pro-drop language. A pro-drop language, [according to Wikipedia][1], is a language in which pronouns are usually omitted when they can be inferred. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Spanish and Portuguese are classical examples of pro-drop languages. &quot;Te quiero&quot; (I love you) can be heard way more often than &quot;yo te quiero&quot; just because verbs are conjugates in Spanish, so that you in a moment recognize contextual pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's go back to Russian. The simplest valid answer we can give - Russian is partially pro-drop. The actual degree of this &quot;pro-dropness&quot; is an open issue and a [subject to debates][2]. Here's another relevant [quote][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is disagreement as to whether Russian has pro-drop (alternatively, subject pronoun omission is treated as an instance of contextually licensed ellipsis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information I'd recommend you to checkout the last link, but to sum it up: Russian is a pro-drop language, but less pro-drop that Japanese or Spanish. There are some reasons for this, one of most notable is lack of information we can get from verbs in past fence. [Он] читал / [я] читал / [ты] читал will be indistinguishable without context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/prodrop1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="64f5ae34-1229-4d32-8c28-1191e78dd1c0" CreationDate="2013-10-17T15:19:08.883" UserId="104" Text="Названия тональностей обычно пишутся раздельно. Например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Симфония до минор Брамса&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как писать, если тональность выступает в роли прилагательного?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Фамажорная гамма, фа-мажорная гамма, фа мажорная гамма?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; доминорная симфония Брамса, до-минорная симфония Брамса, до минорная симфония Брамса?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю, что звучит несколько нелитературно, но все же эти фразы употребляются, несмотря на очевидный вариант перефразировки: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; гамма фа мажор, симфония Брамса до минор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня интересует, согласно каким рассуждениям/правилам нужно предпочесть одно из написаний." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="64f5ae34-1229-4d32-8c28-1191e78dd1c0" CreationDate="2013-10-17T15:19:08.883" UserId="104" Text="Тональности в качестве прилагательных - слитно, раздельно или через дефис?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="64f5ae34-1229-4d32-8c28-1191e78dd1c0" CreationDate="2013-10-17T15:19:08.883" UserId="104" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="8d563f8c-7217-4f21-8c70-8ba2ccf68165" CreationDate="2013-10-17T16:46:28.367" UserId="2060" Text="&gt; до-диез мажор&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;до-диез-мажорный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Русский орфографический словарь Российской академии наук.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Отв. ред. В. В. Лопатин.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;© Электронная версия, «ГРАМОТА.РУ», 2001–2007." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9347" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="cf3b1660-838b-43dc-bc53-0c309794dfb1" CreationDate="2013-10-17T21:27:48.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/390952307116244992" />
  <row Id="9348" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="c00bd838-af2a-4f0f-926d-c2b826382be8" CreationDate="2013-10-18T00:27:48.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/390997604550856704" />
  <row Id="9349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="f090b962-547a-4517-8a60-e34fed9f0c30" CreationDate="2013-10-18T07:26:41.840" UserDisplayName="user2101" Text="There is also a word popular among students called вписка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="981efd52-f131-4c66-917b-a2be40031004" CreationDate="2013-10-18T08:19:15.397" UserId="551" Comment="Moved text from comments" Text="There is also a word popular among students called **вписка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly it means to go somewhere for the night, and it just means stay for the night, but as it is popular among students, then it normally also means a small party, drinking and the sleepover itself.&#xD;&#xA; 	&#xD;&#xA;It is used in a sentence like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы едем на вписку (we are going on vpiska) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Впиши меня завтра к себе (can I sleep at your place tomorrow) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Маша устраивает вписку на выходных (Masha is inviting us for a sleepover)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="958acef6-7d6e-4f48-996a-471eb7cf97fb" CreationDate="2013-10-18T11:23:34.943" UserId="2102" Text="I'm having a hard time finding a good translation for some simple calls to action on a website that are all variants of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do x to win&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `do x` can be one of a few different verbs but the `to win` bit has me stumped. Someone has suggested I use `и побеждайте` but that doesn't sound right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="958acef6-7d6e-4f48-996a-471eb7cf97fb" CreationDate="2013-10-18T11:23:34.943" UserId="2102" Text="A good translation for 'do x to win'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="958acef6-7d6e-4f48-996a-471eb7cf97fb" CreationDate="2013-10-18T11:23:34.943" UserId="2102" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="1af7b8c0-42a6-4818-b526-0a03d55ea307" CreationDate="2013-10-18T11:33:29.517" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Нажмите кнопку и победите!&quot; is most closest one. &#xD;&#xA;First of all, it assumes that second action (win something) is imposed by a first action (do something). Second, it sound motivating. Third, it is shorter than &quot;чтобы победить, сделай то-то&quot; form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9355" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="17c08455-06d8-4089-b94f-541308a1b0a2" CreationDate="2013-10-18T12:07:20.233" UserId="242" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9356" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="b220d3aa-e672-4c6b-bdbf-ec80078499b2" CreationDate="2013-10-18T15:38:06.123" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="fe70b26a-b47c-4c81-a24b-fce7305d1de2" CreationDate="2013-10-18T15:39:58.110" UserId="242" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="&quot;Нажмите кнопку и выиграйте!&quot; is the most closest one. &#xD;&#xA;First of all, it assumes that second action (win something) is imposed by a first action (do something). Second, it sound motivating. Third, it is shorter than &quot;чтобы победить, сделай то-то&quot; form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm nuch obliged to @YellowSky for pointing out that &quot;выиграйте&quot; is better than &quot;победите&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2716" RevisionGUID="cc036c12-49a1-4c60-a7f9-6de1a39d1e6e" CreationDate="2013-10-18T15:46:19.027" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Нажмите кнопку и выиграйте!&quot; is the most closest one. &#xD;&#xA;First of all, it assumes that second action (win something) is imposed by a first action (do something). Second, it sound motivating. Third, it is shorter than &quot;чтобы победить, сделай то-то&quot; form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm much obliged to @YellowSky for pointing out that &quot;выиграйте&quot; is better than &quot;победите&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="d41177e0-af12-4a45-94a7-46a9c3315bd7" CreationDate="2013-10-18T18:34:54.120" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Сносок&quot; is the only correct genitive plural of &quot;сноска&quot;.  In case of doubt, check yourself against this online tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://morpher.ru/?s=%f1%ed%ee%f1%ea%e0&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9360" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="677b1656-4008-46ec-abf4-5e0a07fbd2d0" CreationDate="2013-10-18T21:29:20.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/391315079641436160" />
  <row Id="9361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="0eef3531-4e80-4c33-a4f4-7ea070103fa8" CreationDate="2013-10-19T02:01:59.253" UserId="62" Comment="edited body" Text="When I was giving a lecture, I was saying *бывает, что* whenever I wanted to say &quot;It turns out that...&quot; (thinking of it as &quot;It happens that...&quot;), and afterwards someone told me that I should have said *oказывается* instead of *бывает*. So starting in the next lecture I used *оказывается, что*.  Recently I noticed that people often seem to write or say *оказывается*, not just *оказывается, что*.  Is it standard to omit *что*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two concrete examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1) If I want to say &quot;It turns out that this calculation works in general&quot;, which of the following two variants would be correct: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это вычисление работает вообще  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это вычисление работает вообще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit: From answers below I see that I should write at the end of the sentence в общем случае instead of вообще, as I meant &quot;works all the time&quot;, not &quot;unexpectedly, it always works&quot;.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   2) And if I want to say &quot;It turns out that this is the unique solution&quot;, which of the following two would it be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, что это единственное решение.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оказывается, это единственное решение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="0cbc9271-8f73-4f62-9a50-12f38ee377a1" CreationDate="2013-10-19T21:07:43.827" UserId="2069" Text="According to the [reverse Russian dictionary][1], there are no Russian verbs ending in *-оть*, other than those listed in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the answer is no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0-122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9365" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="75d498f5-3139-4287-ba33-13eb69492a56" CreationDate="2013-10-20T12:31:38.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/391904541710745600" />
  <row Id="9366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="b099592c-34e8-48c4-bf32-243824fa06b9" CreationDate="2013-10-20T13:49:10.557" UserId="2069" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="According to the [reverse Russian dictionary][1], there are no Russian verbs ending in *-оть*, other than those listed in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the answer is no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, all Russian verbs ending in *-оть* have been subject to the metathesis of the liquids, and there are no Russian verbs that inherited that ending (*оть/оти*) from PS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0-122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="0e9941b2-e625-4df0-ad38-543fd456d85d" CreationDate="2013-10-20T17:40:08.577" UserId="2108" Comment="Добавил сленг программистов" Text="If you mean the software context, then it's *отла́дка*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *отла́дка програ́ммы* (debugging of a program)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отла́живать програ́мму* (to debug a program)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отла́дчик* (debugger)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But sometimes speak on slang (Runglush):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *дебаг*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *дебажить*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *дебаггер*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Вчера весь вечер **дебажил** программу.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9368" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="0e9941b2-e625-4df0-ad38-543fd456d85d" CreationDate="2013-10-20T17:40:08.577" Comment="Proposed by 2108 approved by 242 edit id of 405" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="47867c30-550f-4f6d-b628-1cfca635e4b5" CreationDate="2013-10-21T08:32:11.507" UserId="134" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="I'm having a hard time finding a good translation for some simple calls to action on a website that are all variants of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do x to win&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The `do x` can be one of a few different verbs but the `to win` bit has me stumped. Someone has suggested I use `и побеждайте` but that doesn't sound right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of phrases are &quot;Guess the sound to win&quot; or &quot;Listen carefully to win&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2722" RevisionGUID="cf8abe54-5c37-40f9-9a35-2dc365481083" CreationDate="2013-10-22T07:21:15.793" UserId="551" Text="Впервые я встретил это выражение в сказке Шарля Перро &quot;Синяя Борода&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он узнал братьев своей жены - один служил в драгунах, другой в конных егерях, - и тотчас навострил лыжи; но братья нагнали его, прежде чем он успел забежать за крыльцо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда это выражение показалось мне каким-то чуждым: дело происходит в доме, ни о каком снеге в сказке не упоминалось, да и деревянные лыжи не очень-то заостришь. Я подумал что это калька с французского. Но оказывается, что это выражение достаточно распространено и упоминается во многих фразеологических и толковых словарях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас смысл выражения мне понятен - в словаре Ожегова, например, написано:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (разг.) приготовиться бежать, а также убежать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но почему &quot;вострить&quot;? Во всех примерах употребления слова &quot;вострить&quot; = &quot;острить&quot; лыжи упоминаются только в составе фразеологизма. Остальные же значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ОСТРИТЬ, -рю, -ришь; нсв. что. Нар.-разг.&#xD;&#xA;    1. Делать острым; заострять. О. меч. О. топор. Кот острит когти.&#xD;&#xA;    2. Делать более восприимчивым. О. память. О. слух. * Нужда ум острит (Погов.).&#xD;&#xA;2. ОСТРИТЬ, -рю, -ришь; нсв. Говорить остроты; шутить. Удачно, постоянно о. Любит о. кто-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему же острят, вострят лыжи? Их действительно острят (делают более острыми) или имеется в виду некое переносное значение как в выражении &quot;навострил уши&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of &quot;вострить лыжи&quot; is &quot;sharpen the skis&quot;. Though in all the dictionaries I have seen the word &quot;острить&quot; is never applied to skis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the usage of the word &quot;вострить&quot; here metaphorical, or skis can be sharpened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2722" RevisionGUID="cf8abe54-5c37-40f9-9a35-2dc365481083" CreationDate="2013-10-22T07:21:15.793" UserId="551" Text="Почему говорят &quot;вострить лыжи&quot;? Why the &quot;skis&quot; are being &quot;sharpened&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2722" RevisionGUID="cf8abe54-5c37-40f9-9a35-2dc365481083" CreationDate="2013-10-22T07:21:15.793" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="4f3cc9d2-e79a-4b5b-a841-36d4f8384480" CreationDate="2013-10-22T07:44:57.010" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="If you mean the software context, then it's ***отла́дка***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *отла́дка програ́ммы* (debugging of a program)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отла́живать програ́мму* (to debug a program)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *отла́дчик* (debugger)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But sometimes speak on slang (Runglush):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *дебаг*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *дебажить*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *дебаггер*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Вчера весь вечер **дебажил** программу.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="ea9f1be3-36e9-433d-a3b1-c67db681d093" CreationDate="2013-10-22T09:44:28.953" UserId="194" Text="Why беСхвостый but беЗфюзеляжный? I thought it should be &quot;c&quot; in the latter case as well because the ф is voiceless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="ea9f1be3-36e9-433d-a3b1-c67db681d093" CreationDate="2013-10-22T09:44:28.953" UserId="194" Text="Why беСхвостый but беЗфюзеляжный?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="ea9f1be3-36e9-433d-a3b1-c67db681d093" CreationDate="2013-10-22T09:44:28.953" UserId="194" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2724" RevisionGUID="2cb865c8-39b4-4ff0-84a0-3ecf10cb49df" CreationDate="2013-10-22T10:50:19.347" UserId="134" Text="I've never met this word in print, but I'm pretty sure it should be *бесфюзеляжный*, similarly to *бесфамильный* or *бесформенный*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9388" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="64bb7cb2-4772-4770-8cc7-80fd96e9008b" CreationDate="2013-10-22T18:33:58.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/392720501371854848" />
  <row Id="9389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="8ef661e5-e47e-426e-bbd0-6335dc789ead" CreationDate="2013-10-23T09:15:28.973" UserId="2117" Text="I'm looking for table or database or just a list of words with similar spelling on both languages, English and Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    stool = стул&#xD;&#xA;    carousel = карусель&#xD;&#xA;    apogee = апогей&#xD;&#xA;    cigarette = сигарета&#xD;&#xA;    scarf = шарф&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including the words that comes to Russian from English, like molasses - меласса, черная патока. Or dramatic - драматический, pacifist - пацифист, segment - сегмент, datagram - дейтаграмма, mayor - мэр, buffet - буфет, chloroform - хлороформ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the way to speak English so that it is heard as a pure Russian. Native-speakers of both languages understand the same, crystal-cleanly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="8ef661e5-e47e-426e-bbd0-6335dc789ead" CreationDate="2013-10-23T09:15:28.973" UserId="2117" Text="Is there dictionary of words with similar spelling of English and Russian languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="8ef661e5-e47e-426e-bbd0-6335dc789ead" CreationDate="2013-10-23T09:15:28.973" UserId="2117" Text="|узус|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2726" RevisionGUID="f6c52f40-5d48-4352-9cc8-069ebcd2eccc" CreationDate="2013-10-23T09:36:56.780" UserId="1236" Text="I should say that all the words you call &quot;the words that come to Russian from English&quot; actually came to Russian from German and French, Latin, and Greek (excluding the IT term).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such dictionaries do exist, they are called `Словарь иностранных слов`, like [this one](http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2/), but usually they include not only the words that came from English, but from other languages, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2727" RevisionGUID="99d84341-ba7e-4167-ab1f-f69dd7fbc564" CreationDate="2013-10-23T09:37:31.567" UserId="134" Text="You might want to check a Russian loanword dictionary (*словарь иностранных слов*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the words in your example are borrowed by Russian and most probably represented there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that some of your pairs are false friends: for instance &quot;stool&quot; is translated as *табурет* (*стул* means &quot;chair&quot;); &quot;buffet&quot; is *шведский стол* or *фуршет* (*буфет* is &quot;sideboard&quot; or &quot;bar&quot; or &quot;canteen&quot;) and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="76e0eda9-d4f3-4f54-8846-a243b6ff5f1f" CreationDate="2013-10-23T11:57:53.260" UserId="551" Text="Покопавшись в Национальном корпусе нашел множество примеров использования слов &quot;вострить&quot; и &quot;навострить&quot;, которые не приводятся в словарях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В буквальном смысле (наточить): вострить/навострить можно ножи, топоры, пики, штыки, мечи, зубные инструменты (стоматолога);&#xD;&#xA; - В переносном смысле - готовиться к нападению: вострить когти правосудия, вострить зубы на кого-то или что-то, вострить кулаки:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он только и знает, что кулаки вострит на меня, да так на меня поглядывает, как словно ты на батраков, когда их таскать захочешь. [П. А. Плавильщиков. Бобыль (1790)]&#xD;&#xA; - Поднять торчком: навострить уши (о животных) и даже палец:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ― Вот, ― Петр Семенович многозначительно навострил палец, ― вот речь закоренелого представителя эпохи Кали-Юги! [Михаил Елизаров. Pasternak (2003)]&#xD;&#xA; - Внимательно слушать/смотреть/чувствовать: навострить уши, глаза, сердце; навострить слух, зрение; навостренный взгляд. Даже человек в целом может быть навостренным:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворовые, как люди более или менее навостренные, с вежливостью раскланивались с немкой и старались заискать в ее расположении. [Г.И. Успенский. Тише воды, ниже травы / Из цикла «Разоренье» (1870)]  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Пойми ты: навострил он меня настолько, что поняла я, отчего он стал пить. [А. И. Левитов. Погибшее, но милое создание (1862)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - упражняться в разговорах - навострить язык:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так как история моей женитьбы, мое бегство и болезнь не могли не навострить языков, то это меня раздражало. [П. И. Чайковский. Переписка с Н.Ф. фон-Мекк (1877)]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книжек начиталась, со студентами язык навострила, социалистку из себя кривляешь, ― берегись! [А. В. Амфитеатров. Марья Лусьева (1903)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ну и заключительный, самый общий смысл - подготовить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; навостренную шуточку за пазухой приберегал  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострив свои бандуры, грянули «Интернационал»  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; начав со всхлипа, словно доскребаясь до нужного голоса, и, достав, навострив его, пустил тонкий и длинный, режущий по живому, жалобный и убийственный стон.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострила карандаш (приготовилась писать)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострив в бумагу карандаш (направив)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; с вечера навострили там сундук  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострили перья и штыки  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встретилось несколько вариаций на тему &quot;собираться уходить&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть и навострил крылья в сторону, а чую, на мое гнездо вернется… [В. Я. Шишков. Угрюм-река. Ч. 1-4 (1913-1932)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...доказал отцам города, что просто обязан попасть в состав делегации чиновников, навостривших стопы в Швецию... [Несколько шагов от иглы до Воли (2003) // «Сельская новь», 2003.12.16] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что &quot;навострить&quot; в сочетании &quot;навострить лыжи&quot; скорее всего означает просто - подготовить к использованию. Что касается их парности и остроты носов - подавляющая часть примеров позволяет вострить что угодно вне зависимости от остроты и парности предметов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="80cbe992-0fdb-43ec-9f99-1678a7cd018f" CreationDate="2013-10-23T12:38:59.357" UserId="2117" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I'm looking for table or database or just a list of words with similar spelling on both languages, English and Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    stool = стул&#xD;&#xA;    carousel = карусель&#xD;&#xA;    apogee = апогей&#xD;&#xA;    cigarette = сигарета&#xD;&#xA;    scarf = шарф&#xD;&#xA;    soup = суп&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including the words that comes to Russian from English, like molasses - меласса, черная патока. Or dramatic - драматический, pacifist - пацифист, segment - сегмент, datagram - дейтаграмма, mayor - мэр, buffet - буфет, chloroform - хлороформ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the way to speak English so that it is heard as a pure Russian. Native-speakers of both languages understand the same, crystal-cleanly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="185e00b1-ac5d-4e3e-8273-93c4be52d339" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:31:13.820" UserId="551" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="Покопавшись в Национальном корпусе нашел множество примеров использования слов &quot;вострить&quot; и &quot;навострить&quot;, которые не приводятся в словарях. Некоторые из этих примеров существуют в единичном случае, некоторые (навострить глаза) встречались когда-то достаточно часто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В буквальном смысле (наточить): вострить/навострить можно ножи, топоры, пики, штыки, мечи, зубные инструменты (стоматолога);&#xD;&#xA; - В переносном смысле - готовиться к нападению: вострить когти правосудия, вострить зубы на кого-то или что-то, вострить кулаки:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он только и знает, что кулаки вострит на меня, да так на меня поглядывает, как словно ты на батраков, когда их таскать захочешь. [П. А. Плавильщиков. Бобыль (1790)]&#xD;&#xA; - Поднять торчком: навострить уши (о животных) и даже палец:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ― Вот, ― Петр Семенович многозначительно навострил палец, ― вот речь закоренелого представителя эпохи Кали-Юги! [Михаил Елизаров. Pasternak (2003)]&#xD;&#xA; - Внимательно слушать/смотреть/чувствовать: навострить уши, глаза, сердце; навострить слух, зрение; навостренный взгляд. Даже человек в целом может быть навостренным:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дворовые, как люди более или менее навостренные, с вежливостью раскланивались с немкой и старались заискать в ее расположении. [Г.И. Успенский. Тише воды, ниже травы / Из цикла «Разоренье» (1870)]  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Пойми ты: навострил он меня настолько, что поняла я, отчего он стал пить. [А. И. Левитов. Погибшее, но милое создание (1862)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - упражняться в разговорах - навострить язык:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так как история моей женитьбы, мое бегство и болезнь не могли не навострить языков, то это меня раздражало. [П. И. Чайковский. Переписка с Н.Ф. фон-Мекк (1877)]   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книжек начиталась, со студентами язык навострила, социалистку из себя кривляешь, ― берегись! [А. В. Амфитеатров. Марья Лусьева (1903)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ну и заключительный, самый общий смысл - подготовить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; навостренную шуточку за пазухой приберегал  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострив свои бандуры, грянули «Интернационал»  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; начав со всхлипа, словно доскребаясь до нужного голоса, и, достав, навострив его, пустил тонкий и длинный, режущий по живому, жалобный и убийственный стон.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострила карандаш (приготовилась писать)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострив в бумагу карандаш (направив)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; с вечера навострили там сундук  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; навострили перья и штыки  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встретилось несколько вариаций на тему &quot;собираться уходить&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть и навострил крылья в сторону, а чую, на мое гнездо вернется… [В. Я. Шишков. Угрюм-река. Ч. 1-4 (1913-1932)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...доказал отцам города, что просто обязан попасть в состав делегации чиновников, навостривших стопы в Швецию... [Несколько шагов от иглы до Воли (2003) // «Сельская новь», 2003.12.16] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что &quot;навострить&quot; в сочетании &quot;навострить лыжи&quot; скорее всего означает просто - подготовить к использованию. Что касается их парности и остроты носов - подавляющая часть примеров позволяет вострить что угодно вне зависимости от остроты и парности предметов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like in old times (19 century) the word &quot;вострить&quot;, &quot;навострить&quot; was used very often because there were a lot of weapons or other tools (e.g. for writing) that required sharpening before usage and so the word itself had in some phrases the meaning &quot;prepare something to be used&quot; (examples include fists, tongue, musical instrument, joke, trunk), so &quot;sharpening the skis&quot; was in fact just &quot;preparing the skis&quot; and not real &quot;sharpening&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9397" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2722" RevisionGUID="0c40ed5e-b5da-4716-81e1-88cb676c7935" CreationDate="2013-10-23T15:35:20.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/393037935966441472" />
  <row Id="9399" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="a1c6f527-cb11-4201-b4f1-db99014cb844" CreationDate="2013-10-26T12:40:06.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/394080999640158208" />
  <row Id="9401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="96742542-cc8b-45d0-b40c-17f4c9241c01" CreationDate="2013-10-26T18:40:07.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/394171597692866561" />
  <row Id="9402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9c6fd39d-b17d-4eb6-9d40-790ad4a13fc1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T21:41:27.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/394217232789954560" />
  <row Id="9405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="e9b15ca1-b166-493f-8c65-0fc7aa5f8d55" CreationDate="2013-10-27T12:41:36.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/394443762820472832" />
  <row Id="9406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="bd15cef3-7f2f-4d7c-a589-b052dc6ac92e" CreationDate="2013-10-27T15:02:46.483" UserId="423" Text="Читаю курсив и не понимаю, это то самое или нет, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Курсив?&#xD;&#xA;Читаю [Русское_курсивное_письмо][1]. Но оно противопоставляется &quot;русскому рукописному письму&quot;. И нихрена не понимаю, каким писмом я всю жизнь писал. Может прописью? Но пропись для заглавных букв вроде. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Английский вроде однозначнее, там если handwriting значит [cursive][2]. Но в статье нет ссылки на русскую википедию, что подтверждает моё мнение, что в русском языке нет чёткого слова, обозначающего данное понятие. Вобщем в этом вашем русском разобраться можно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="bd15cef3-7f2f-4d7c-a589-b052dc6ac92e" CreationDate="2013-10-27T15:02:46.483" UserId="423" Text="Каким шрифтом пишут от руки (противопол. печатному слову)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="bd15cef3-7f2f-4d7c-a589-b052dc6ac92e" CreationDate="2013-10-27T15:02:46.483" UserId="423" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="2c2996eb-88a7-4514-872c-de9e132869fd" CreationDate="2013-10-27T15:12:41.470" UserId="423" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Читаю курсив и не понимаю, это то самое или нет, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Курсив?&#xD;&#xA;Читаю [Русское_курсивное_письмо][1]. Но оно противопоставляется &quot;русскому рукописному письму&quot;. И нихрена не понимаю, каким писмом я всю жизнь писал. Может прописью? Но пропись для заглавных букв вроде. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Английский вроде однозначнее, там если handwriting значит [cursive][2]. Но в статье нет ссылки на русскую википедию, что подтверждает моё мнение, что в русском языке нет чёткого слова, обозначающего данное понятие. Вобщем в этом вашем русском разобраться можно? Чему учат детей в первом классе на уроках &quot;Письма&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="74b3c7aa-f5bf-4c61-876c-9dce1336b512" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:09:16.747" UserId="2127" Text="What is the different between  присылать and послать? With examples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="74b3c7aa-f5bf-4c61-876c-9dce1336b512" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:09:16.747" UserId="2127" Text="What is the different between присылать and послать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="74b3c7aa-f5bf-4c61-876c-9dce1336b512" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:09:16.747" UserId="2127" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2733" RevisionGUID="32b4ecac-ae24-4093-a822-5d342dcb1b47" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:24:56.840" UserId="2125" Text="Писать от руки можно либо рукописным письмом (производной от скорописи), либо печатными буквами (имитирующими книжное написание).&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Русское курсивное письмо&quot; не противопоставляется &quot;русскому рукописному письму&quot;, как минимум, в Wiki это одна и та же страница.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В английском существует точно такое же разделение и handwriting вовсе не значит cursive. (Для уточнения разницы погуглите обсуждения школьных реформ в духе &quot;Should we still use cursive handwriting?&quot;). При этом handwriting может использоваться в качестве синонима к слову cursive, как и написано в Wiki. То же самое в русском: можно сказать &quot;рукописный почерк / рукописная запись&quot;, подразумевая &quot;курсив&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В типографике русское понятие &quot;рукописный/каллиграфический&quot; соответствует английскому handwriting/script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Детей учат писать печатными буквами в детском садике и рукописным письмом в первом классе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="e9bfe55e-e289-41fe-977f-c992140b26e7" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:54:23.837" UserId="423" Text="Я думаю что `писмо прислано` означает то что оно было отпарвлено и доставлено. `Писмо послано = писмо отправлено`, но может быть ещё не дошло. `При-` and `до-` means arrival. `По-` as well as `от-` and `вы-` means departure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2735" RevisionGUID="224a7737-4930-4c61-b760-006e0e98c113" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:07:13.340" UserId="242" Text="While those two verbs indeed are often translated in dictionaries without the same word, I do believe that question is valid and valuable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, `прислать` and `послать` are synonyms, yet there is a subtle, but crucial difference in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Послать`  is just &quot;send&quot; and `прислать` is for action with implication that the message, the letter (or whatever has been send) is already received. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one can say &quot;Я послал тебе письмо&quot; or &quot;он послал мне письмо, но оно не дошло, в инбоксе не вижу его&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, for example &quot;я прислал тебе письмо&quot; (with out knowing whether the letter has been received) sounds a bit wrong for native speaker. On the other hand, if message has been received it is more correct to say &quot;Ты прислал мне письмо, я его видел&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though &quot;ты послал мне письмо&quot; (or &quot;отправил&quot;, which is, contrary to `прислал` a full synonym to &quot;послал&quot;) wouldn't be considered as a rude offence or even noticed in most cases.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9419" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="ca4d639c-3d96-4333-a351-7175fb22547c" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:09:31.460" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the different between &quot;присылать&quot; and &quot;посылать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="ab6a7615-00e9-4d7a-b082-f4972a63ed2d" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:11:15.813" UserId="423" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Читаю [курсив][1] и не понимаю, это то самое или нет?&#xD;&#xA;[Русское курсивное письмо][2] противопоставляется &quot;русскому рукописному письму&quot;. Каким же письмом я всю жизнь писал? Может прописью? Но пропись для заглавных букв вроде. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Английский вроде однозначнее, там если handwriting значит [cursive][3]. Но в статье нет ссылки на русскую википедию, что подтверждает моё мнение, что в русском языке нет чёткого слова, обозначающего данное понятие. Чему учат детей в первом классе на уроках &quot;Письма&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9421" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="b1047cf4-f56a-4ee7-8f2d-f57c757112f4" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:19:45.167" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Каким шрифтом пишут от руки (в противоположность типографскому письму)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2736" RevisionGUID="bb552001-07f8-4eb3-b933-fe4e1c8a6b5e" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:35:45.550" UserId="242" Text="Тут смотрите какая штука, нужно чётко определиться с терминологией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Шрифт** В самом широком смысле - графическое начертание букв. Чаще всего, когда мы говорим о шрифтах, мы имеем ввиду типографские шрифты, хотя это словосочетание стремительно устаревает - нынешние компьютерные шрифты всё-таки - не набор типографских литер. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Рукописное письмо** В самом широком смысле - любая практика написания текстов не машинным способом. В чуть более узком смысле - некоторая устоявшаяся культурная традиция начертания букв носителями данного конкретного языка. То есть это некоторая общепринятая форма начертания, а, значит, мы можем говорить о том, что это шрифт, хотя исторически так вышло, что шрифтом это называть не принято. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Курсив** Вид начертания типографских шрифтов, возникший под влиянием, собственно, рукописных форм письма. Его основная характеристика (но не единственная! - см. [абзац][1] про наклонный шрифт) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русское курсивное письмо** - наиболее распространённая форма русского рукописного письма **и** его типографского аналога (впрочем, на практике применяемого крайне редко). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2736" RevisionGUID="7492345e-474a-49b6-8d47-b7186292d1b6" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:48:32.790" UserId="242" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Тут смотрите какая штука, нужно чётко определиться с терминологией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Шрифт** В самом широком смысле - графическое начертание букв. Чаще всего, когда мы говорим о шрифтах, мы имеем ввиду типографские шрифты, хотя это словосочетание стремительно устаревает - нынешние компьютерные шрифты всё-таки - не набор типографских литер. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Рукописное письмо** В самом широком смысле - любая практика написания текстов не машинным способом. В чуть более узком смысле - некоторая устоявшаяся культурная традиция начертания букв носителями данного конкретного языка. То есть это некоторая общепринятая форма начертания, а, значит, мы можем говорить о том, что это шрифт, хотя исторически так вышло, что шрифтом это называть не принято. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Курсив** Вид начертания типографских шрифтов, возникший под влиянием, собственно, рукописных форм письма. Его основная характеристика (но не единственная! - см. [абзац][1] про наклонный шрифт) - наклон. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русское курсивное письмо** - наиболее распространённая форма русского рукописного письма **и** его типографского аналога (впрочем, на практике применяемого крайне редко). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="8502bf34-c3e6-445c-b6d8-57e9282cd0d6" CreationDate="2013-10-28T06:35:49.010" UserId="2127" Text="which case should be used after the preposition &quot;путем&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;could you give couple of examples?&#xD;&#xA;what is the exact meaning? what is the difference between путем and через?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="8502bf34-c3e6-445c-b6d8-57e9282cd0d6" CreationDate="2013-10-28T06:35:49.010" UserId="2127" Text="preposition &quot;путем&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="8502bf34-c3e6-445c-b6d8-57e9282cd0d6" CreationDate="2013-10-28T06:35:49.010" UserId="2127" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="17541c8e-ea75-410b-bbbd-18c8845dc61f" CreationDate="2013-10-28T09:42:29.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/394761074517766144" />
  <row Id="9430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2738" RevisionGUID="3949e2c5-2c2d-45ed-96c5-85b146dd9973" CreationDate="2013-10-28T11:25:44.430" UserId="2130" Text="&quot;Путем&quot; isn't proposition, this adverb means: all right, sensibly.&#xD;&#xA;Often say: &quot;Все путем&quot;, verbatim this means - all right.&#xD;&#xA;http://ozhegov.slovaronline.com/%D0%9F/%D0%9F%D0%A3/28265-PUTEM&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="3f997bdc-4869-48d6-b4f7-07cababf4533" CreationDate="2013-10-28T11:57:25.087" UserId="2127" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="which case should be used after the preposition &quot;путем&quot; which means &quot;by means of&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;could you give couple of examples?&#xD;&#xA;what is the exact meaning? what is the difference between путем and через?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2739" RevisionGUID="c75b08c8-89e4-4fb4-a523-4a98b9e784e8" CreationDate="2013-10-28T12:04:36.733" UserId="1236" Text="The preposition `путём` needs Genitive case, and means &quot;with the help of&quot;, &quot;by the means of&quot;, and it is rather bookish. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы добьёмся решения этой проблемы **путём референдума**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом случае открытый аукцион в электронной форме проводится **путем повышения** цены контракта.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Физическая терморегуляция осуществляется **путем изменений** отдачи тепла организмом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9433" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="c5dc907a-d031-4a53-83c2-7c71cbed8ef8" CreationDate="2013-10-28T12:42:29.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/394806373974048768" />
  <row Id="9434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2736" RevisionGUID="e0976819-b5d0-471d-b649-4b74fa167706" CreationDate="2013-10-28T12:57:06.630" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Тут смотрите какая штука, нужно чётко определиться с терминологией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Шрифт** В самом широком смысле - графическое начертание букв. Чаще всего, когда мы говорим о шрифтах, мы имеем ввиду типографские шрифты, хотя и это словосочетание стремительно устаревает - нынешние компьютерные шрифты всё-таки - не набор типографских литер. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Рукописное письмо** В самом широком смысле - любая практика написания текстов не машинным способом. В чуть более узком смысле - некоторая устоявшаяся культурная традиция начертания букв носителями данного конкретного языка. То есть это некоторая общепринятая форма начертания, а, значит, мы можем говорить о том, что это шрифт, хотя исторически так вышло, что шрифтом это называть не принято. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Курсив** Вид начертания типографских шрифтов, возникший под влиянием, собственно, рукописных форм письма. Его основная характеристика (но не единственная! - см. [абзац][1] про наклонный шрифт) - наклон. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русское курсивное письмо** - наиболее распространённая форма русского рукописного письма **и** его типографского аналога (впрочем, на практике применяемого крайне редко). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2735" RevisionGUID="ea3a555a-7c67-4005-b871-76159449b1ac" CreationDate="2013-10-28T15:11:45.390" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="While those two verbs indeed are often translated in dictionaries without the same word, I do believe that question is valid and valuable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, `прислать` and `послать` are synonyms, yet there is a subtle, but crucial difference in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Послать`  is just &quot;send&quot; and `прислать` is for action with implication that the message, the letter (or whatever has been send) is already received. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one can say &quot;Я послал тебе письмо&quot; or &quot;он послал мне письмо, но оно не дошло, в инбоксе не вижу его&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, for example &quot;я прислал тебе письмо&quot; (without knowing whether the letter has been received) sounds a bit wrong for native speaker. On the other hand, if message has been received it is more correct to say &quot;Ты прислал мне письмо, я его видел&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though &quot;ты послал мне письмо&quot; (or &quot;отправил&quot;, which is, contrary to `прислал` a full synonym to &quot;послал&quot;) wouldn't be considered as a rude offence or even noticed in most cases.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="662e2827-c8c1-47a2-adf4-7af163495925" CreationDate="2013-10-28T15:12:17.030" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Which case should be used after the preposition &quot;путем&quot; which means &quot;by means of&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;could you give couple of examples?&#xD;&#xA;What is the exact meaning? What is the difference between путем and через?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="446a243f-3770-429d-9808-47114e3e5df8" CreationDate="2013-10-28T19:01:59.437" UserId="1236" Text="`Послал` means sending was done, without mentioning if it was delivered to the addressee. `Прислал` means it was sent and delivered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JTU6a.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="65c7352c-ff0a-4774-83a9-98083a1bb12a" CreationDate="2013-10-29T14:44:08.300" UserId="2133" Text="к/ч consonant alteration is the result of **Slavic first palatalization**. It happened because inherited velars *k and *g had no soft counterparts in Proto-Slavic, so they changed before front vowels *e/ē, *i/ī, and also before the palatal semivowel *j.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Researchers argue about dating of this process. Some believe it happened during VI-V centuries BC, and some postpone it to V—VI CE. I found no direct evidence, and I'm not a specialist in language or Slavic history, but it seems highly unlikely to me that this process had Uralic influence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more on Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Первая палатализация][1] &#xD;&#xA; - [Slavic first palatalization][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_first_palatalization" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="c53ac486-4669-435d-a945-0c4497d4598d" CreationDate="2013-10-29T19:37:07.543" UserId="222" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Я думаю, что `письмо прислано` означает то, что оно было отправлено и доставлено. `Письмо послано = письмо отправлено`, но, может быть, ещё не дошло. `При-` and `до-` means arrival. `По-` as well as `от-` and `вы-` means departure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9440" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="c53ac486-4669-435d-a945-0c4497d4598d" CreationDate="2013-10-29T19:37:07.543" Comment="Proposed by 222 approved by 242 edit id of 406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9441" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="214b162c-bdec-4b60-b5fc-5d0159ea6efc" CreationDate="2013-10-30T03:45:01.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/395395890724487168" />
  <row Id="9442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="c5ec108d-88d5-4a33-837b-6ceba2211780" CreationDate="2013-10-30T09:36:17.630" UserId="19" Text="What is the origin of the expression `Да будет свет! - сказал электрик и перерезал провода.`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="c5ec108d-88d5-4a33-837b-6ceba2211780" CreationDate="2013-10-30T09:36:17.630" UserId="19" Text="Origin of Да будет свет! - сказал электрик и перерезал провода" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="c5ec108d-88d5-4a33-837b-6ceba2211780" CreationDate="2013-10-30T09:36:17.630" UserId="19" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2743" RevisionGUID="2aa6556a-a2f9-421e-b36c-e1fbfb98edf8" CreationDate="2013-10-30T10:24:27.047" UserId="1824" Text="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellerism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's based on the Charles Dickens idea of using clichéd sayings in unexpected ways.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="a5b64af8-e422-4f1c-a92d-0e8357aaa77d" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:45:55.867" UserId="551" Text="I don't think this phrase has &quot;origin&quot;. It seems to me that this phrase has a very simple structure and it could be invented many times by different persons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase begins with &quot;Да будет свет!&quot; (&quot;Let it be the light!&quot;). Here we should note that &quot;свет&quot; is usually a synonym of &quot;электричество&quot;. &quot;У вас есть свет?&quot; is a very common phrase that means &quot;Is there an electricity in your house?&quot;. &quot;У нас нету света&quot; is used to describe power outage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when someone sits without &quot;light&quot; for several hours waiting for an electrician that will fix it and finally turns the switch and the light is back - in many cases this biblical phrase comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, an electrician himself may use this phrase in literal sense to emphasize his light-bringer mission. So, we got &quot;Да будет свет! - сказал электрик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next stage - is adding counter-effect to the above phrase by changing &quot;light-bringer&quot; to &quot;light-destroyer&quot; - and here &quot;перерезал провод&quot; is added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, all three stages are very basic (&quot;ассоциации первого уровня&quot;) and can be performed by any person with basic sense of humor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="9c330d88-5ab8-4d0f-bebe-ac97ecda34cb" CreationDate="2013-10-30T12:20:19.237" UserId="2125" Text="I second the previous answers. The joke is build on replacing the subject of the Biblical phrase &quot;Let there be light&quot; to an unexpected person (possibly having to do something with light and electricity).&#xD;&#xA;Given a great number of streetwise phrases starting with `Да будет свет!`, it's nearly impossible to say which one appeared first and who was its author. If you can read in Russian, I'd recommend [this page][1] with several examples.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://livespeak.academic.ru/380/%D0%94%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="fac894fc-a1fa-4846-922e-d8e674088c3e" CreationDate="2013-10-30T12:28:23.647" UserId="551" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="I don't think this phrase has &quot;origin&quot; (other than modern folklore - thanks to Yellow Sky for the remark). It seems to me that this phrase has a very simple structure and it could be invented many times by different persons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase begins with &quot;Да будет свет!&quot; (&quot;Let it be the light!&quot;). Here we should note that &quot;свет&quot; is usually a synonym of &quot;электричество&quot;. &quot;У вас есть свет?&quot; is a very common phrase that means &quot;Is there an electricity in your house?&quot;. &quot;У нас нету света&quot; is used to describe power outage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when someone sits without &quot;light&quot; for several hours waiting for an electrician that will fix it and finally turns the switch and the light is back - in many cases this biblical phrase comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, an electrician himself may use this phrase in literal sense to emphasize his light-bringer mission. So, we got &quot;Да будет свет! - сказал электрик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next stage - is adding counter-effect to the above phrase by changing &quot;light-bringer&quot; to &quot;light-destroyer&quot; - and here &quot;перерезал провод&quot; is added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, all three stages are very basic (&quot;ассоциации первого уровня&quot;) and can be performed by any person with basic sense of humor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="ff8a4199-1340-4a0e-91ae-0428a00928eb" CreationDate="2013-10-30T12:46:00.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/395532034766299136" />
  <row Id="9451" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2742" RevisionGUID="31e068cd-126f-476b-94e2-f6c27eb04ad9" CreationDate="2013-10-31T12:46:33.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/395894561517895680" />
  <row Id="9452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="2a00576e-6e93-455f-8ee9-93026f0e40ea" CreationDate="2013-11-01T09:29:32.290" UserId="2139" Text="**Навострить лыжи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Смысл выражения:** собирать уйти куда-нибудь, либо удалиться откуда-нибудь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Возникновение фразы:** каждый, кто хоть раз в жизни видел лыжи, наверняка помнит, что концы лыж заострены - это сделано для того, чтобы лыжи лучше рассекали снег и, следовательно, лучше скользили. В старину, когда массового производства лыж специализированными фирмами не было и в помине, люди изготавливали лыжи самостоятельно, и, разумеется, острили их концы.&#xD;&#xA;Конечно же, перед тем как выйти на лыжную прогулку сначала нужно было наострить лыжи, иначе на них никуда не уедешь. Со временем словосочетание &quot;острить лыжи&quot;, имеющее вполне практический смысл, преобразовалось в словосочетание &quot;навострить лыжи&quot;, имеющее смысл переносный, и к самим лыжам вообще не имеющий никакого отношения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*источник*: http://yznai-ka.ru/publ/quot_n_quot/navostrit_lyzhi/13-1-0-1692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="9f33a1ad-9f72-44fa-99d9-f09d373e18c4" CreationDate="2013-11-02T00:36:33.690" UserId="2144" Text="&quot;Вострить лыжи&quot;, как это не смешно, но идея с &quot;заточить носы (острия) лыж&quot; весьма распространена даже в России. Сам по себе, в отрыве от фразеологизма - факт имел место быть. Но на самом деле все намного проще. &#xD;&#xA;Лыжи, для улучшения скольжения и ходкости необходимо СМАЗЫВАТЬ. Раньше это был жир (животный жир, по типу гусиного жира). РАНЬШЕ большинство лыж снизу обтягивались мехом, который повышал ходовые характеристики, но слипался от растаявшего и вновь замерзшего снега. Если же смазать мех жиром - он перестанет принимать влагу и смерзаться, образовывать ледяные наросты. А значит - лыжи будут лучше идти и РАЗРЕЗАТЬ снег. Лыжи помогают идти по снегу -&gt; помогают РАЗРЕЗАТЬ снег -&gt; лыжи РЕЖУТ снег -&gt; если их смазать то они будут лучше РЕЗАТЬ снег -&gt; лыжи ОСТРЯТ (устаревшая форма - ВОСТРЯТ) с помощью ЖИРА (лыжной смазки) -&gt; Подготовить (смазать) лыжи означает ЗАТОЧИТЬ(&quot;сделать острее&quot;, острить, вострить).&#xD;&#xA;И никаких острых концов (которые делали СРАЗУ и ОДИН раз при изготовлении), ибо мне сложно представить лыжи в роли карандаша :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="2404798f-ab14-4f9d-9178-81367e5dae8d" CreationDate="2013-11-02T01:15:10.323" UserId="2144" Text="ПРИ-слать - incoming, end of sending&#xD;&#xA;ПО-слать  - outcoming, start of sending, motion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПРИ-слать (НАСТОЯЩЕЕ время)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Друг ПРИ-слал мне книгу. (Я держу её в руках; она на почте - скоро заберу; мне везет её курьер - скоро она будет у меня в руках). Действие законченно. &#xD;&#xA;Друг ПО-слал мне книгу. (Только что отдал в службу доставки и позвонил мне сказать об этом; книга сейчас находится в пути; посылку потеряли и я ей не получу; посылка придет через неделю). Процесс отправки либо только что начался, либо продолжается. Но книга еще не достигла адресата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПО-слал и ПРИ-слал могут использоваться в ПРОШЕДШЕМ времени, и в БУДУЩЕМ времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этих случаях ПО-слал и ПРИ-слал используются в зависимости от желания говорящего сделать акцент на личности ОТ-правителя/ПО-лучателя/процесса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Друг ПО-шлет(ПО-слал) мне книгу. ДРУГ -&gt; мне. Либо факт отправки либо движения(для прошлого времени)&#xD;&#xA;Друг ПРИ-шлет(ПРИ-слал) мне книгу. МНЕ &lt;- книгу. Я УЖЕ получил книгу либо я ПОЛУЧУ(точно, без сомнений) книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;НО:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Книгу мне ПО-слал(ПРИ-слал) Бог. Синонимы :). Тут значение имеет КНИГА, ЗНАЧИМОСТЬ и НАЛИЧИЕ оной. В подобном контексте любая фраза будет звучать созвучно библейской &quot;Знамение было послано Богом&quot;. Собственно, примерно такой подтекст и вкладывается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Книгу послал/прислал мне друг. Сам факт отправки/получения/процесса и т.д. не имеет НИКАКОГО значения. Главное &quot;КНИГА от друга&quot;, либо &quot;книга от ДРУГА&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иными словами - если вы хотите указать Факт наличия чего-то/кого-то и источник чего-то/кого-то - то ПРИ.&#xD;&#xA;Если процесс отправки или же сам факт отправки чего-то/кого-то - то ПО.&#xD;&#xA;Если же у вы УЖЕ получили чего-то/кого-то, но значение имеет на сам факт отправки а ПРЕДМЕТ и/или ИСТОЧНИК - то тут на ваш выбор. Особой разницы нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Точнее она есть - но её способны уловить ОЧЕНЬ немногие даже среди русскоговорящих. Очень многие оттенки слов, их порядок, интонация, контекст как правило понятны немногим носителям. И используются ТОЛЬКО при общение между способными понять и оценить вложенный смысл. Либо как шутка(точнее, как правило - ирония/насмешка) понятная ТОЛЬКО говорящему). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2120" RevisionGUID="44d27464-361a-44b1-96ae-04a10166ff80" CreationDate="2013-11-02T18:38:28.657" UserId="1329" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="In some cases this pattern is productive, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;интервьюер&quot; - &quot;интервьюируемый&quot; (interviewer - interviewee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;экзаменатор&quot; - &quot;экзаменуемый&quot; (examinator - examinee)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - &quot;испытатель - испытуемый&quot; (tester - testee)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, indeed, both words are nouns, the last one formed by changing the part of speech from passive participle to noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this rule cannot be used in some situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when the meaning is not &quot;the person who is being exposed to an action&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   we can't say &quot;спасатель - спасаемый&quot; (this one is unnatural),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;работодатель - работоданный&quot; (this is simply incorrect)...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - when we are not talking about a person:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      this happens in your example. A book can be read (for example : читаемая мной книга) and it will be a passive participle, but there is no word for a person that is made to read by his angry mother =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a short survey suggested by Anixx, I have found out that, indeed, the passive participle &quot;спасаемый&quot; can be used as a noun (mostly in The Bible). However, I have a feeling that the semantics is slightly different : those nouns derived from passive participle can sometimes mean &quot;somebody who can be (...*insert the indefinite aspect of passive participle here*)&quot;. So I have a feeling that &quot;спасаемый&quot; could mean &quot;the one who still can be saved&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FINAL EDIT.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The noun &quot;спасаемый&quot; really exists, as shown in Quassnoi's comment.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="9e8d93b8-4944-4584-a9b3-405e312b1541" CreationDate="2013-11-05T13:12:21.377" UserId="2154" Text="Is there any fixed phrase for 'year-on-year' in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="9e8d93b8-4944-4584-a9b3-405e312b1541" CreationDate="2013-11-05T13:12:21.377" UserId="2154" Text="How to say year-on-year in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="9e8d93b8-4944-4584-a9b3-405e312b1541" CreationDate="2013-11-05T13:12:21.377" UserId="2154" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="3d157928-2635-4eca-9d52-df5fba0ed893" CreationDate="2013-11-05T13:34:11.340" UserId="551" Text="In news this phrase is usually sounds as &quot;По сравнению с аналогичным периодом предыдущего года&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мировые продажи корпорации Toyota Motor с января по сентябрь текущего года достигли 7,41 млн автомобилей. И хотя **по сравнению с аналогичным периодом предыдущего года** это изменение незначительно — всего 0,1%, этого оказалось достаточно, чтобы Toyota сохранила мировое лидерство и оставила позади General Motors и Volkswagen. - [kommersant.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2330446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="2d118e7a-6def-4f82-9fc9-04fca1d6c17e" CreationDate="2013-11-05T13:49:42.480" UserId="551" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="In news this phrase is usually sounds as &quot;По сравнению с аналогичным периодом предыдущего года&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мировые продажи корпорации Toyota Motor с января по сентябрь текущего года достигли 7,41 млн автомобилей. И хотя **по сравнению с аналогичным периодом предыдущего года** это изменение незначительно — всего 0,1%, этого оказалось достаточно, чтобы Toyota сохранила мировое лидерство и оставила позади General Motors и Volkswagen. - [kommersant.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the periods are equal to year, then you can use  `по сравнению с предыдущим годом`, `в годовом исчислении` (about interest rates).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other alternatives from [multitran.ru][2] include `годичный`, `в течение года` or even `год к году`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to pick the right translation you should look at the context where year-on-year is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2330446&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=year-on-year&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="b1059e86-a516-4588-a3c5-c5d63c7b2424" CreationDate="2013-11-06T05:32:08.723" UserId="1277" Text="Почему популярный рецепт торта и конфет называется «Птичье молоко»? Как это связано с пернатыми? Насколько мне известно, не существует млекопитающих птиц, а значит название вымышленное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="b1059e86-a516-4588-a3c5-c5d63c7b2424" CreationDate="2013-11-06T05:32:08.723" UserId="1277" Text="Название «Птичье молоко» для конфет и тортов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="b1059e86-a516-4588-a3c5-c5d63c7b2424" CreationDate="2013-11-06T05:32:08.723" UserId="1277" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="b8977874-9673-4380-ab19-51317bf90fe2" CreationDate="2013-11-06T05:57:19.877" UserId="1236" Text="На самом деле некоторые птицы (голуби, фламинго, некоторые виды пингвинов) [выделяют][1] в своём зобу питательную жидкость, которой кормят птенцов, она называется &quot;голубиное молоко&quot; и напоминает жидкий творог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Название же этих конфет [возникло][2] в Польше, где компания &quot;E. Wedel&quot; начала их производить с 1936 года под названием &quot;Ptasie mleczko&quot; («Птичье молоко»). Название значит &quot;то, что достать невозможно&quot;, является идиомой и имеет аналоги в других языках. В СССР эти конфеты начали производить с 1967 года.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://otvet.mail.ru/question/31551190&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptasie_mleczko" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2756" RevisionGUID="f1aad485-405a-47f4-a339-b68b978fd784" CreationDate="2013-11-06T08:41:06.697" UserId="551" Text="Если говорить об этимологии, то существуют версии что выражение &quot;Птичье молоко&quot; заимствовано из древнегреческих источников:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как поговорка, означающая нечто редкое и драгоценное, оно приводится Аристофаном, Афенеем, Страбоном, Лукианом и др. По словам Стробона, поэты, прославлявшие плодородие острова Самоса, говорили, что на нем есть, по пословице, даже и &quot;птичье молоко&quot; (И.Е. Тимошенко. Литературные источники трехсот русских пословиц и поговорок. – Киев, 1897, с. 52-53).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это выражение обозначает &quot;нечто неслыханное&quot;, &quot;невозможное&quot;, &quot;предел, вершина всех желаний&quot; и входит в такие пословицы как: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все есть у богатого, опричь птичьего молока   &#xD;&#xA;В Москве все найдешь, кроме птичьего молока&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встречается это выражение и в литературе:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня в Москве целая усадьба на Полявине была, и дом каменный, и сад, и заведения всякие, ягоды, фрукты — все свое. Только птичьего молока не было.&#xD;&#xA;*Салтыков. Пошехонская старина.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ведь ей не перечу ни в чем, птичья молока пожелает, и молока птичья достану, птицу такую сам сделаю, коли нет такой птицы!&#xD;&#xA;*Достоевский. Хозяйка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что есть еще и торт &quot;Птичье молоко&quot;, рецепт которого был создан в московском ресторане &quot;Прага&quot; под руководством Владимира Гуральника. Ресторан выпускал их по 600 штук в день. [Википедия пишет][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этого москвичам и гостям столицы катастрофически не хватало: в 80-е за тортом выстраивались такие очереди, что их приходилось разворачивать, чтобы люди не перекрывали движение между проспектом Калинина (ныне Новый Арбат) и Арбатом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Считается что название этого торта возникло из-за того что его было очень трудно &quot;достать&quot; (вначале он назывался «[суфлейным тортом][2]»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%8C%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE_%28%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://supercook.ru/za-24-02.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9476" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="bb350cdc-e6da-4075-a3aa-50b4cfacb1d2" CreationDate="2013-11-07T15:57:26.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/398479313684942848" />
  <row Id="9477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="53729f45-733b-4d3b-bb41-469d369c476d" CreationDate="2013-11-07T15:58:09.527" UserId="1329" Text="OK, this question has been asked many-many times on the internet, and yet I can't google any reliable and constructive answer with a bit of documented proof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How come the meaning of this phrase - &quot;души в ком-то не чаять&quot; - is &quot;to love somebody very much&quot;? Душа (soul) is associated with emotions, with high morality, with religion, with eternity, with the essence of a person, anyway, it has positive meaning. Бездушный is a very negative characteristics meaning that the person has no mercy and is soulless...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everybody explains this phraseme word-by-word, saying that this was a result of either replacement of the word &quot;чуять&quot; by the word &quot;чаять&quot;, or their blend. Hmm. Possible, but yet not documented. They just give links to Dal's definition of single words from it, and this is not enough for me to believe in the whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very interesting point was given by Anonymous in this link :&#xD;&#xA;http://rousseau.livejournal.com/83281.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the person giving this opinion (about slavic roots of the phrase, meaning it all comes from pagan notions) didn't seem to be even able to construct sentences properly in Russian. This made me doubt very much that his idea could be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you could give me a different explanation or at least document some of the ideas listed above?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="53729f45-733b-4d3b-bb41-469d369c476d" CreationDate="2013-11-07T15:58:09.527" UserId="1329" Text="Why does the phraseme &quot;души не чаять&quot; has positive meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="53729f45-733b-4d3b-bb41-469d369c476d" CreationDate="2013-11-07T15:58:09.527" UserId="1329" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="58a4bf48-e81f-4e32-bcd1-3bd247b1e899" CreationDate="2013-11-07T16:16:48.487" UserId="2106" Text="I think, the hidden meaning is &quot;to love somebody without taking into account their genuine soul&quot; (which might be not so awesome as the loving person thinks). It's &quot;добровольное самообольщение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~AY&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="4302418e-f38c-4725-a477-636264f57070" CreationDate="2013-11-07T16:43:50.800" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I think, the hidden meaning is &quot;to love somebody without taking into account their genuine soul&quot; (which might be not so awesome as the loving person thinks). It's &quot;добровольное самообольщение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="f8931fb7-c811-4fe9-adaa-632ab31bb430" CreationDate="2013-11-07T17:00:00.880" UserId="551" Text="Usually when the saying contains &quot;soul&quot; it is the speaker's soul that is talked about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; душа не принимает; душа не лежит (к кому-чему); душа болит; за милую душу; душа ушла в пятки; сколько душе угодно (вдоволь, без всяких ограничений)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that someone &quot;души не чает в ком-то&quot; it is about his/her soul and not about this other person. Actually though I never tried before to deconstruct the saying - I always felt that soul here belongs to this first person. So the saying may be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чаял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if we replace &quot;чаять&quot; to &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) which sounds like a reasonable version, we will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чуял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, take into account that душа according to Ushakov's dictionary except for religious meaning also means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ДУША́ &#xD;&#xA;2. В старой психологии - совокупность психических явлений, переживаний, основа психической жизни человека.&#xD;&#xA;3. Внутренний, психический мир человека.&#xD;&#xA;4. Свойство характера, основные черты личности, а также человек с теми или иными свойствами. Человек с открытой душой. Низкая душа. Робкая душа.&#xD;&#xA;5. Чувство, отзывчивость, пыл.&#xD;&#xA;8. Человек (разг.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which to my mind can be &quot;translated&quot; as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений забывал о себе от любви к Татьяне**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also compare other sayings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений без ума от Татьяны    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любит Татьяну до потери сознания   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любит Татьяну до потери пульса" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="0e93ae51-70c7-46f0-92c7-c05776883019" CreationDate="2013-11-07T17:05:16.603" UserId="551" Comment="edited body" Text="Usually when the saying contains &quot;soul&quot; it is the speaker's soul that is talked about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; душа не принимает; душа не лежит (к кому-чему); душа болит; за милую душу; душа ушла в пятки; сколько душе угодно (вдоволь, без всяких ограничений)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that someone &quot;души не чает в ком-то&quot; it is about his/her soul and not about this other person. (Actually though I never tried before to deconstruct the saying I always felt that soul here belongs to this first person.) So the saying may be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чаял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if we replace &quot;чаять&quot; to &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) which sounds like a reasonable version, we will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чуял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, take into account that душа according to Ushakov's dictionary except for religious meaning also means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ДУША́ &#xD;&#xA;2. В старой психологии - совокупность психических явлений, переживаний, основа психической жизни человека.&#xD;&#xA;3. Внутренний, психический мир человека.&#xD;&#xA;4. Свойство характера, основные черты личности, а также человек с теми или иными свойствами. Человек с открытой душой. Низкая душа. Робкая душа.&#xD;&#xA;5. Чувство, отзывчивость, пыл.&#xD;&#xA;8. Человек (разг.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which to my mind can be &quot;translated&quot; as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений забывал о себе от любви к Татьяне**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also compare other sayings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений без ума от Татьяны    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любит Татьяну до потери сознания   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любит Татьяну до потери пульса" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2758" RevisionGUID="0296e5dd-2f9d-45fd-9df5-84ada1127c11" CreationDate="2013-11-07T17:21:05.423" UserId="2106" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="I think, the hidden meaning is &quot;to love somebody without taking into account their genuine soul&quot; (which might be not so awesome as the loving person thinks). It's &quot;добровольное самообольщение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And - the meaning is not unconditionally positive, it's a little bit ironic. Self-possessed people normally don't &quot;души не чают&quot; (oh, double negation!).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="5ae78c4b-b879-4af5-8d4b-d6be3859453a" CreationDate="2013-11-07T20:02:43.127" UserId="1347" Text="The **basic** forms of right and left are, respectively право and лево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What apparently confused you are the preposition forms, с, в and, на which mean &quot;to,&quot; &quot;in,&quot; and &quot;on&quot; respectively, and are connected to  право and лево. That is, the prespositions are connected to the directions in Russian, while they are separated in English. With the connected prepositions, the respective forms are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; left   right     meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сле́ва  спра́ва    to the left/right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вле́во  впра́во    in the left/right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; налево направо   on the left/right&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="3905a685-f4b0-40cb-ba38-d5d972c8f9e8" CreationDate="2013-11-08T01:01:15.240" UserId="109" Comment="code style for formatting reasons, typo, italic" Text="The **basic** forms of right and left are, respectively *право* and *лево*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What apparently confused you are the preposition forms, *с*, *в* and, *на* which mean &quot;to,&quot; &quot;in,&quot; and &quot;on&quot; respectively, and are connected to  *право* and *лево*. That is, the prepositions are connected to the directions in Russian, while they are separated in English. With the connected prepositions, the respective forms are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    left   right     meaning&#xD;&#xA;    сле́ва  спра́ва    to the left/right&#xD;&#xA;    вле́во  впра́во    in the left/right&#xD;&#xA;    налево направо   on the left/right&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9487" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="3905a685-f4b0-40cb-ba38-d5d972c8f9e8" CreationDate="2013-11-08T01:01:15.240" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 1347 edit id of 407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="d9fe434f-e5a5-4478-a1d2-c6ad356ced4f" CreationDate="2013-11-08T09:21:15.463" UserId="551" Comment="added 5039 characters in body" Text="Usually when the saying contains &quot;soul&quot; it is the speaker's soul that is talked about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; душа не принимает; душа не лежит (к кому-чему); душа болит; за милую душу; душа ушла в пятки; сколько душе угодно (вдоволь, без всяких ограничений)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that someone &quot;души не чает в ком-то&quot; it is about his/her soul and not about this other person. (Actually though I never tried before to deconstruct the saying I always felt that soul here belongs to this first person.) So the saying may be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чаял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if we replace &quot;чаять&quot; to &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) which sounds like a reasonable version, we will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чуял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, take into account that душа according to Ushakov's dictionary except for religious meaning also means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ДУША́ &#xD;&#xA;2. В старой психологии - совокупность психических явлений, переживаний, основа психической жизни человека.&#xD;&#xA;3. Внутренний, психический мир человека.&#xD;&#xA;4. Свойство характера, основные черты личности, а также человек с теми или иными свойствами. Человек с открытой душой. Низкая душа. Робкая душа.&#xD;&#xA;5. Чувство, отзывчивость, пыл.&#xD;&#xA;8. Человек (разг.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which to my mind can be &quot;translated&quot; as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений забывал о себе от любви к Татьяне**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also compare other sayings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений без ума от Татьяны    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений влюбился в Татьяну до потери сознания   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений влюбился в Татьяну до потери пульса    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений самозабвенно любил Татьяну    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любил Татьяну до самозабвения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;I'm tryint to understand what can &quot;не чуя души&quot; mean. I recall the phrase &quot;не чуя ног&quot;. It is used in two meanings - positive and negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Бежать не чуя ног - run wery quickly (as flying on wings) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Идти не чуя ног (от радости) - be so happy that feel like flying   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (прийти домой) не чуя ног от усталости - barely moving feet because of being tired&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see - you can lose control over your legs because they refuse to function properly, or because without control they work more efficient (like when dancing, fighting or running when body better controls its movements itself than when you try to control movements using your mind or consciousness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;не чуять души&quot; can also mean - (in negative meaning) to lose the control over your mind or to lose consiousness because of exhaustion, or to lose (logic?) control over your mind because your soul (sences, emotions, feelings) performs better using it's intuition without logic explanation of all the &quot;hows&quot; and &quot;whys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question is: why &quot;не чаять души **в** ком-то&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this other person is also thought as &quot;another soul&quot; (compare &quot;подушный налог&quot; = per-soul fee, поместье и 1000 душ (=крестьян),  на улице ни души (there is nobody in the street), etc.). In this case we can recall the &quot;жить душа в душу&quot; phrase, which means &quot;in harmony, understanding each other without words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe joining these two ideas we can interpret the original saying as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eugene understands all the needs and feelings of Tatyana intuitively - directly by his soul (feelings, emotions) without applying mental (logical) efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is like partial meaning of &quot;жить душа в душу&quot;. The latter saying implies that both persons love each other, while &quot;души не чаять&quot; is telling about only one person of two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect of this saying can be seen using the reference formula: &quot;Татьяна, душенька моя, принеси книгу из библиотеки&quot;. Here a person says literaly &quot;Tatiana, you are my soul&quot;. Using this idea we can treat the original phrase as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eugene's feelings are only about Tatiana, his mind is filled only with the thoughts about her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other explanation of &quot;в&quot; is comparison with saying &quot;видеть смысл жизни в чем-то или ком-то&quot; (To see the sence of the life in something or someone): &quot;Евгений видит смысл своей жизни в любви к Татьяне&quot;.  In this interpretation we don't even need чает-чует replacement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений не чает** (желает) своей **души** (жизни без Татьяны), потому что он видит смысл своей жизни **в Татьяне**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, using чает-чует replacement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений не чует** (осознанно контролирует чувства) своей **души**, потому что он видит смысл своей жизни **в Татьяне** (все его чувства направлены к ней).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though all the examples above are about man and woman, in fact the &quot;души не чаять&quot; is not about romantic love. There are a numerous examples about relations between (grand)children and (grand)parants, teachers and pupils, peasants and landlords, etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Был у нас коновод по таланту, в котором Павел Петрович души не чаял. [К.С. Петров-Водкин. Моя повесть. Часть 2. Пространство Эвклида (1932)] **(очень ценит работника)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот, думал я, дядя Платон Маркович… до семидесяти лет прожил он рыцарем чести; доброты он необычайной, крестьяне в нем души не чают. [А. Н. Апухтин. Дневник Павлика Дольского (1891)]  **(любят своего барина)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Арина Тимофеевна души не чаяла в своей воспитаннице и сопровождала ее на прогулку и к подругам-соседкам. [Н.Э. Гейнце. Коронованный рыцарь (1898)] **(любит воспитанницу)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть разные любители живописи, и многие в этих артистических до манерности мазках души не чают… [И. Е. Репин. Далекое близкое (1912-1917)] **(любят искусство)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А Пантелей Прокофьевич, души не чаявший во внуках, вскочил из-за стола и, прослезившись, не вытирая струившихся по бороде слез, радостно закричал: [М. А. Шолохов. Тихий Дон. Книга четвёртая (1928-1940)] **(любит внуков)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любили они с Василием Ивановичем друг друга умною, серьезною любовью; в детях, которых у них было мал мала меньше целых пятеро, души не чаяли. [М.Ф. Каменская. Воспоминания (1894)] &#xD;&#xA;**(любят детей)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возле госпиталя на горе толстый и багровощекий английский шеф-повар Джек пас на поводке старого помойного кота, в котором он души не чаял. [Юрий Герман. Дорогой мой человек (1961)]  **(любит животное)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взводный души не чаял в этих двух алтайцах-кумовьях, которые родились, жили и работали в самой красивой на свете, по их заверению, алтайской деревне Ключи. [Виктор Астафьев. Пастух и пастушка. Современная пастораль (1967-1989)]  **(ценит солдат)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знал весь гарнизон, и весь гарнизон в нем души не чаял за вечные приколы и прорывающуюся порой доброту в предоставлении тихой гавани лазарета для приятеля, у которого в роте настали черные дни и которому надо отсидеться, переждать, пока все затихнет. [Александр Терехов. Мемуары срочной службы (1991)] **(ценят сослуживца)**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="419da5ad-81dc-491c-8637-ee1063716af6" CreationDate="2013-11-09T05:47:51.207" UserId="194" Text="ц is an always-hard consonant. Yet in some cases it is followed by и while in other cases - with ы. Consider цыган vs Ельцин vs. Курицын. What are the general rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="419da5ad-81dc-491c-8637-ee1063716af6" CreationDate="2013-11-09T05:47:51.207" UserId="194" Text="What are the rules for writing ци or цы in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="419da5ad-81dc-491c-8637-ee1063716af6" CreationDate="2013-11-09T05:47:51.207" UserId="194" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="f2115c49-f009-4553-a17e-488292ff301b" CreationDate="2013-11-09T06:26:34.507" UserId="1236" Text="[The rule][1] is rather simple. In the root of a word, usually `ци` is written, `цы` is written only in the following words and in all their derivatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цыган, цыпленок, цыпочки, цыц&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be easily remembered with the help of this mnemonic sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цыган на цыпочках цыкнул цыплёнку: &quot;Цыц!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the suffixes and endings, `цы` can appear when the suffix `-ын` and the adjectival ending `-ый` are added after `ц`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синицын, Курицына&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;куцый, бледнолицый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also `цы` appears when the ending `-и / -ы` is added after the words with stems ending in `-ц` (after `-ц` which is always 'hard', non-palatalized, it is always `-ы`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молодцы, красавцы, отцы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** In the texts printed in the first half of the 20th century and earlier, `цы` can appear in other roots, too: `цыгарка`, `цымбалы`, `цыбуля`, etc., but that is obsolete spelling, these words are written with `ци` now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.liferus.ru/dictionary_3.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="f448b567-a213-4f5a-9720-de99bb8a1f7d" CreationDate="2013-11-09T06:46:46.307" UserId="1236" Comment="addition" Text="[The rule][1] is rather simple. In the root of a word, usually `ци` is written, `цы` is written only in the following words and in all their derivatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цыган, цыпленок, цыпочки, цыц&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be easily remembered with the help of this mnemonic sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цыган на цыпочках цыкнул цыплёнку: &quot;Цыц!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the suffixes and endings, `цы` can appear when the suffix `-ын` and the adjectival ending `-ый` are added after `ц`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синицын, Курицына&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;куцый, бледнолицый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also `цы` appears when the ending `-и / -ы` is added after the words with stems ending in `-ц` (after `-ц` which is always 'hard', non-palatalized, it is always `-ы`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молодцы, красавцы, отцы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note 1:** There are [no rules that apply to surnames](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%C5%EB%FC%F6%E8%ED), each surname must be written exactly as it is written in the person's passport. That is why the surname `Ельцин` is written with `и`, one more famous idiosyncratic surname is `Вицин`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note 2:** In the texts printed in the first half of the 20th century and earlier, `цы` can appear in other roots, too: `цыгарка`, `цымбалы`, `цыбуля`, etc., but that is obsolete spelling, these words are written with `ци` now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.liferus.ru/dictionary_3.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="72c77b75-bc86-47e0-8b84-a7f36332fcf8" CreationDate="2013-11-09T08:23:40.400" UserId="1236" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="[The rule][1] is rather simple. In the root of a word, usually `ци` is written, `цы` is written only in the following words and in all their derivatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цыган, цыпленок, цыпочки, цыц&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be easily remembered with the help of this mnemonic sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цыган на цыпочках цыкнул цыплёнку: &quot;Цыц!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the suffixes and endings, `цы` can appear when the suffix `-ын` and the adjectival ending `-ый` are added after `ц`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синицын, Курицына&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;куцый, бледнолицый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also `цы` appears when the ending `-и / -ы` is added after the words with stems ending in `-ц` (after `-ц` which is always 'hard', non-palatalized, it is always `-ы`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молодцы, красавцы, отцы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note 1:** There are [no specific rules that apply to surnames](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%C5%EB%FC%F6%E8%ED), each surname must be written exactly as it is written in the person's passport. That is why the surname `Ельцин` is written with `и`, one more famous idiosyncratic surname is `Вицин`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note 2:** In the texts printed in the first half of the 20th century and earlier, `цы` can appear in other roots, too: `цыгарка`, `цымбалы`, `цыбуля`, etc., but that is obsolete spelling, these words are written with `ци` now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.liferus.ru/dictionary_3.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9500" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="8b4acca6-6dfe-422b-a0fc-e2de641e1655" CreationDate="2013-11-09T16:00:54.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/399204961219014656" />
  <row Id="9501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="3674f0a0-3ae5-4755-90a8-37ec1737643d" CreationDate="2013-11-10T13:01:30.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/399522202527092736" />
  <row Id="9511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="736bf833-7687-414c-bbfd-7c041962b630" CreationDate="2013-11-11T22:12:59.207" UserId="2164" Text="I sometimes consult the site Советская Россия - Свод персоналий at http://www.proza.ru/avtor/igorjan.  But I cannot find персоналия in any dictionary.  What is its exact meaning?  Is it an equivalent of 'persons' or 'personnel', or more like 'personalities' in English? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="736bf833-7687-414c-bbfd-7c041962b630" CreationDate="2013-11-11T22:12:59.207" UserId="2164" Text="Exact meaning of персоналия" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="736bf833-7687-414c-bbfd-7c041962b630" CreationDate="2013-11-11T22:12:59.207" UserId="2164" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2767" RevisionGUID="547544cc-5505-45e3-8d93-e1f6806acf95" CreationDate="2013-11-12T00:55:44.283" UserId="2060" Text="It is *person/personality bio/info* ([Wikipedia][1]) but often it is incorrectly used for *person* ([Wikireality][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="3a722e09-08db-46fb-94dd-32c57cbbc94a" CreationDate="2013-11-12T06:13:02.780" UserId="2166" Text="The word of *персоналия* isn't used in single form, only in plural as *персоналии*. The single form is *персона*. Yes, it is a person in context of its biography descrption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="aa5ddeb4-4e55-4b06-a9cd-a837b30cc911" CreationDate="2013-11-12T08:26:50.370" UserId="551" Text="The word **персоналия** means collection of information about a person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПЕРСОНА́ЛИЯ -и; ж. [от лат. personalis - личный]. Материалы (литература, фотографии, документы и т.п.), посвящённые жизни какого-л. известного человека. *[Большой толковый словарь русского языка]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Персона́лия. Ж. Раздел в энциклопедии, статья в юбилейном сборнике и т.п., содержащие библиографические данные о ком-либо (обычно ученом, писателе, политическом деятеле и т.п.).&#xD;&#xA;*[Толковый словарь Ефремовой]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is borrowed from Latin, where *personalia* is neuter plural of *persōnālis* - personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is funny that in Russian the word *персоналия* is singular and can form a plural itself - *персоналии*, which means &quot;collection of personalia&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word персоналия is not a synonym for a персона or персонал. In fact the word *personalia* is also present in English, where it means &quot;personal belongings&quot; or &quot;biographical data, personal reminiscences, or the like&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="108a4063-8364-452f-8be1-65ecc3d2d9d3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:12:10.993" UserId="1824" Text="I really hope this question doesn't get deleted or flagged, so to make sure it doesn't I will try to keep it as academic as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently an American student studying in Saint Petersburg and several times I have been shocked by the use of the &quot;N-Word,&quot; (it's a racist word for Black people in case there is any ambiguity).  In my college classes, my professors, when speaking about Black people, will use it in place of the word &quot;black.&quot;  Needless to say, as an American where if a professor said this word, they would be fired immediately, my heart stops every time I hear it and I just can't seem to understand why it is ok here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question:  Is the origin of the word in Russia such that it really isn't as offensive as it is in America?  Or is it because Russia is less than 0.01% black that nobody has made a big deal about it?  I am genuinely interested to know.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="108a4063-8364-452f-8be1-65ecc3d2d9d3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:12:10.993" UserId="1824" Text="Racist language in Russia/USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="108a4063-8364-452f-8be1-65ecc3d2d9d3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:12:10.993" UserId="1824" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="acc48fdc-27df-403c-ae3c-bb87ae970874" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:41:04.637" UserId="115" Text="There is a subtle difference in pronunciation between the English N-word and the Russian word &quot;негр&quot;. The latter is equivalent to &quot;black&quot; or &quot;negro&quot;, and is not a slur, in and of itself. However, it is not clear whether what you have heard was &quot;негр&quot; or the N-word.  The N-word is known in Russia, and it is understood to be a slur. Furthermore, the word &quot;негр&quot; may also be used in a derogatory sense, depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can read Russian, [this wiki article][1] may be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="cfb4d381-fcbd-40c3-b640-c23bb084bf12" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:42:45.763" UserId="97" Text="There is no reason to worry that this question would be closed - it is indeed a very good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _Негр_ is not considered racist in Russia or Russian language.  Do note that the scientific name for the race is _Negroid_ - hence the word to describe an individual representative of that race.  This word is different in pronunciation from the N-word in America that you're referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally have studied and lived in the USA for over 10 years and do understand your sentiments very well.  However the reason the N-word is considered racist is historical rather than linguistic.  In the USA, the racism of the word has origins in the black slave trade of 18-19th centuries, where word _negro_ was pretty much equated to the word &quot;slave&quot;.  The N-word is simply a derogative derivative of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in Russian historically the black population has always been extremely small and Russian never really experienced the black slave trade anywhere near the level of the USA, there was no reason for the word to gain a negative connotation. Hence, again, In Russian the word is not racist and is not considered derogatory in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts, naturally, word _негр_ may be used as a derogative, but that would be a minority case.  There is also a rather rude version _ниггер_, which corresponds directly to the N-word you are referring to - and this word _is_ racist and derogative and would not be used in normal conversations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1374" RevisionGUID="fc1930b7-f88d-48fd-94c1-b08a434bae3b" CreationDate="2013-11-12T16:25:45.510" UserId="115" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In my opinion, the best way to think about the borrowed words in Russian is from a historical prospective.  The influx of foreign words came in waves depending on what country or culture had influence in Russia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Byzantine influence and conversion to Christianity: influx of Greek words&#xD;&#xA; - Mongol conquest: influx of Turkic words&#xD;&#xA; - The reign of Peter the Great: influx of German and Dutch words&#xD;&#xA; - Middle of the 18-th century though the 19th century: nobility speaks French, influx of French words&#xD;&#xA; - End of 20-th century, perestroyka and post-soviet Russia, globalization: influx of English words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="d1ba9dfc-b844-4dc6-b6ef-49fb397f4199" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:17:42.670" UserId="194" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="There is no reason to worry that this question would be closed - it is indeed a very good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _Негр_ is not considered racist in Russia or Russian language.  Do note that the scientific name for the race is _Negroid_ - hence the word to describe an individual representative of that race.  This word is different in pronunciation from the N-word in America that you're referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally have studied and lived in the USA for over 10 years and do understand your sentiments very well.  However the reason the N-word is considered racist is historical rather than linguistic.  In the USA, the racism of the word has origins in the black slave trade of 18-19th centuries, where word _negro_ was pretty much equated to the word &quot;slave&quot;.  The N-word is simply a derogative derivative of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in Russian historically the black population has always been extremely small and Russian never really experienced the black slave trade anywhere near the level of the USA, there was no reason for the word to gain a negative connotation. Hence, again, In Russian the word is not racist and is not considered derogatory in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts, naturally, word _негр_ may be used as a derogative, but that would be a minority case.  There is also a rather rude version _ниггер_, borrowed from English, which corresponds directly to the N-word you are referring to - and this word _is_ racist and derogative and would not be used in normal conversations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="98440d80-b719-468e-84f0-201129c1b425" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:33:47.357" UserId="194" Text="In Russian &quot;чёрные&quot; is a racist slur for Caucasians. It is not associated with people of African descent at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрные люди&quot; sounds not connected to race at all, it looks as if you were speaking about their soul being &quot;black&quot; and evil and the persons were immoral, so it is derogatory but not racist. In archaic meaning it may mean servants who do the &quot;black work&quot;, i.e. dirty work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use just &quot;чёрные&quot;, this is very much derogatory and racist, although implies the people are Caucasians rather than blacks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="98d365b8-ee06-484f-b4df-fa4f4f3ede1f" CreationDate="2013-11-13T19:15:30.523" UserId="194" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="There is no reason to worry that this question would be closed - it is indeed a very good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _Негр_ is not considered racist in Russia or Russian language.  Do note that the scientific name for the race is _Negroid_ - hence the word to describe an individual representative of that race.  This word is different in pronunciation from the N-word in America that you're referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally have studied and lived in the USA for over 10 years and do understand your sentiments very well.  However the reason the N-word is considered racist is historical rather than linguistic.  In the USA, the racism of the word has origins in the black slave trade of 18-19th centuries, where word _negro_ was pretty much equated to the word &quot;slave&quot;.  The N-word is simply a derogative derivative of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in Russian historically the black population has always been extremely small and Russian never really experienced the black slave trade anywhere near the level of the USA, there was no reason for the word to gain a negative connotation. Hence, again, In Russian the word is not racist and is not considered derogatory in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts, naturally, word _негр_ may be used as a derogative, but that would be a minority case.  There is also a rather rude version _ниггер_, recently borrowed from English, which corresponds directly to the N-word you are referring to - and this word _is_ racist and derogative and would not be used in normal conversations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="869c2be3-3f7f-45fa-8587-070c9fd45c67" CreationDate="2013-11-13T19:31:37.900" UserId="194" Text="The most of sources I encountered (Vasmer, Mellory-Adams etc) assert the Russian word &quot;voda&quot; &quot;вода&quot; originates from the same PIE root as English word &quot;water&quot;, i.e. from the PIE form ***u̯odr***. This is allegedly supported by adjective ***водный*** which indicates that the PIE word had the r/n stem (-r in Nominative and -n in other cases, this is common for very archaic stems in PIE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But recently I encountered with a person who seems to be very much confident that the word is a borrowing from proto-Germanic wađan (which gave also the English &quot;wade&quot;). He cites Winter's law and claims that the idea that voda is related to water is outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So who is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="869c2be3-3f7f-45fa-8587-070c9fd45c67" CreationDate="2013-11-13T19:31:37.900" UserId="194" Text="Origin of the Russian word for water &quot;voda&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="869c2be3-3f7f-45fa-8587-070c9fd45c67" CreationDate="2013-11-13T19:31:37.900" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2776" RevisionGUID="bd39bbc8-a750-4869-a0d9-2b2726683236" CreationDate="2013-11-13T20:17:19.863" UserId="242" Text="There are so many evidences of that Russian &quot;вода&quot; and English &quot;water&quot; are produced from u̯odr/wódr̥ that it will be very strange if the person you've encountered is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Proto-Slavic &quot;voda&quot; is at least as old root as one that forms wađan.  &#xD;&#xA;Second, the number of parallels with other PIE languages are striking - even with these of such languages that diverged with from PIE trunk independently from germanic languages. I'm talking not only about the fact that all these derived words relate to water in wide context, I'm talking about that the history of phonetical evolutions of these words conforms with everything we know about PIE phonetic events at all (Armenian &quot;գետ&quot; (get) for river, Lithuanian vanduo for water, Hittite [wa-a-tar][1] for &quot;water&quot;, Tocharian &quot;war&quot; for water and so on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, in all Germanic languages water is some variation of &quot;water&quot; actually. &#xD;&#xA;It would be kinda strange if Germanic and Slavic word used for designating exactly the same and sounding exactly the same wouldn't be related (though in history of languages such things happen, this is not the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting to thing that questions of the type are more welcome on [linguistics SE][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%89%BF%F0%92%80%80%F0%92%8B%BB#Hittite&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2776" RevisionGUID="713f8012-5147-4943-a967-de72840ba34d" CreationDate="2013-11-13T22:13:07.903" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar" Text="There are so many evidences of that Russian &quot;вода&quot; and English &quot;water&quot; are produced from u̯odr/wódr̥ that it will be very strange if the person you've encountered is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, Proto-Slavic &quot;voda&quot; is at least as old a root as the one that forms wađan.  &#xD;&#xA;Second, the number of parallels with other PIE languages are striking - even with those of such languages that diverged from PIE trunk independently from Germanic languages. I'm speaking not only about the fact that all these derived words relate to water in wide context, I'm speaking about the fact that the history of phonetical evolutions of these words conforms with everything we know about PIE phonetic events at all (Armenian &quot;գետ&quot; (get) for river, Lithuanian &quot;vanduo&quot; for water, Hittite [wa-a-tar][1] for &quot;water&quot;, Tocharian &quot;war&quot; for water and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, in all Germanic languages water is some variation of &quot;water&quot; actually. &#xD;&#xA;It would be kinda strange if Germanic and Slavic word used for designating exactly the same and sounding exactly the same wouldn't be related (though in history of languages such things happen, this is not the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS&#xD;&#xA;I'm starting to think that questions of the type are more welcome on [linguistics SE][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%89%BF%F0%92%80%80%F0%92%8B%BB#Hittite&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2777" RevisionGUID="d4b3127e-b3da-435f-9d75-4712f28ed989" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:21:02.393" UserId="551" Text="&lt;sup&gt;Предыдущий ответ был основан на моих личных соображениях по поводу значения этой фразы. В этом ответе я приведу ссылки на авторитетные мнения и источники которые мне удалось недавно найти.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд наиболее полным толкованием значения этого оборота, включающем не только влюбленных, супругов и т.д., но и другие отношения (например покровительство) является следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чаять - безгранично любить кого-л., всячески заботиться и оберегать кого-либо. *Яранцев Р. И. Русская фразеология // Словарь-справочник. М.: Русский язык, 2001., стр. 111)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[В. В. Виноградов](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) приводит это выражение как пример &quot;[фразеологического сращения](http://www.textologia.ru/russkiy/leksikologia/frazeologia/frazeologicheskie-srascheniya/730/?q=463&amp;n=730), представляющего собою такое слитное семантическое единство, что лексические значения компонентов вовсе безразличны для понимания целого&quot; ([см. здесь](http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/vinogradov-77d.htm)). Такие выражения с течением времени могут сильно видоизменяться:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Внешняя форма иногда бывает очень неустойчивой... Она подвержена фонетическим или эвфоническим воздействиям. Так, идиома *с боку припёка* без всяких грамматических оснований превращается в парное созвучие *с боку припеку*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или же выражение может &quot;безболезненно терять свои части - одну за другой&quot;. В качестве примера Виноградов приводит выражение &quot;ни в зуб толкнуть не смыслит (не умеет)&quot;, которое может употребляться в форме &quot;ни в зуб толкнуть&quot; и даже в форме &quot;ни в зуб&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец, одно ни в зуб употребляется в том же значении; например, у Достоевского в &quot;Дневнике писателя&quot; (1876 г., февраль): &quot;Человек он темный, законов ни в зуб&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обратимся теперь к тому как же возникло это выражение. Справочная служба сайта gramma.ru так [отвечает на этот вопрос](http://www.gramma.ru/ARRM/?RG1=11&amp;flag=1&amp;RG2=all&amp;page=23&amp;PHPSESSID=4172b9e6bee814ce8ee0a224b195cfd3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чаять - этот фразеологический оборот первоначально имел иной вид (души в себе не чуять от счастья, радости), и нынешняя его форма стала результатом смешения в речи глаголов &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) и &quot;чаять&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учебный фразеологический словарь [с осторожностью говорит][1] о замене &quot;чуять&quot; на &quot;чаять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **души не чаять** Разг. Только несов. Очень сильно, безгранично любить.  &#xD;&#xA;(?) Чаять (устар.) – «надеяться, полагать, думать». Утвердился в указанной форме в результате смешения глаголов чаять и чуять – «чувствовать».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большой словарь русских поговорок [приводит такие формы](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/2572/%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%A8%D0%90) этого выражения:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не ведать *в ком. Прикам.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чуять в *ком. Курск.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чаять (не слышать) *в ком. Народн.*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не помнить (не чуять, не чувствовать). *Пск.* 1. Быть вне себя от радости. 2. *в ком.*  Безгранично любить, обожать кого-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отметим что в последнее выражение может употребляться без &quot;в ком&quot;. В этом случае это &quot;Души не помнить, души не чуять, души не чувствовать&quot; означает &quot;быть вне себя от радости&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, на основании всех приведенных материалов мне кажется что выражение приобрело современную форму таким путем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Исходная форма: **души в себе не чуять от счастья/радости**;&#xD;&#xA;2. Сокращение экспрессивного выражения: **души не чуять**;&#xD;&#xA;3. Замена слова по созвучности: **души не чаять**;&#xD;&#xA;4. Указание на источник счастья/радости (а именно любовь к кому-то): **души не чаять в ком-то**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Загадка появления предлога &quot;в&quot;, на мой взгляд объясняется тем что при объяснении источника этого чувства, когда &quot;человек не чует души&quot; а именно от любви к кому-то (а не просто *от* счастья или *от* радости), внешняя синтаксическая форма выражения диктует выбор именно предлога *в*: *[души не чаять] [в ком-то]*. (для примера &quot;счастье в личной жизни&quot;, &quot;нашел себя в спорте&quot;. Т.е. &quot;в&quot; здесь изначально не связывает &quot;душу&quot; и этого &quot;кого-то&quot;, а соединяет форму &quot;души не чаять&quot; с дополнением, [объясняющим источник этого чувства](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/71848/%D0%92).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Напоследок укажу что и толкование &quot;не чаять&quot; как &quot;видеть только желаемое&quot; тоже встречается. Фразеологический словарь так [толкует это выражение][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Имеется в виду, что лицо (Х) так эмоционально расположено к другому лицу (Y), что видит только привлекательные черты, свойства его натуры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд это толкование обладает тем недостатком, что объясняя фразеологизм, смысл которого не выводится из слов, его составляющих, четко придерживается смысла, порядка и синтаксических взаимодействий между этими словами (не удержавшись, впрочем, от замены &quot;чаять&quot; на &quot;чуять&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phraseologiya.academic.ru/344/%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://phrase_dictionary.academic.ru/681/%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%A8%D0%98_%D0%9D%D0%95_%D0%A7%D0%90%D0%AF%D0%A2%D0%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="da388455-106a-4e4b-acf2-72f232bee4af" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:25:07.610" UserId="551" Comment="added disclaimer" Text="&lt;sup&gt;This answer was about my personal feelings and thoughts about the phraseme. In my new answer I have posted many links to other sources that basically support my point of view. Still I think the answer is useful because of examples of how &quot;soul&quot; is used in russian and how the phraseme itself is used in literature.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually when the saying contains &quot;soul&quot; it is the speaker's soul that is talked about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; душа не принимает; душа не лежит (к кому-чему); душа болит; за милую душу; душа ушла в пятки; сколько душе угодно (вдоволь, без всяких ограничений)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that someone &quot;души не чает в ком-то&quot; it is about his/her soul and not about this other person. (Actually though I never tried before to deconstruct the saying I always felt that soul here belongs to this first person.) So the saying may be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чаял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if we replace &quot;чаять&quot; to &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) which sounds like a reasonable version, we will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чуял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, take into account that душа according to Ushakov's dictionary except for religious meaning also means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ДУША́ &#xD;&#xA;2. В старой психологии - совокупность психических явлений, переживаний, основа психической жизни человека.&#xD;&#xA;3. Внутренний, психический мир человека.&#xD;&#xA;4. Свойство характера, основные черты личности, а также человек с теми или иными свойствами. Человек с открытой душой. Низкая душа. Робкая душа.&#xD;&#xA;5. Чувство, отзывчивость, пыл.&#xD;&#xA;8. Человек (разг.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which to my mind can be &quot;translated&quot; as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений забывал о себе от любви к Татьяне**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also compare other sayings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений без ума от Татьяны    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений влюбился в Татьяну до потери сознания   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений влюбился в Татьяну до потери пульса    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений самозабвенно любил Татьяну    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любил Татьяну до самозабвения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;I'm tryint to understand what can &quot;не чуя души&quot; mean. I recall the phrase &quot;не чуя ног&quot;. It is used in two meanings - positive and negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Бежать не чуя ног - run wery quickly (as flying on wings) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Идти не чуя ног (от радости) - be so happy that feel like flying   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (прийти домой) не чуя ног от усталости - barely moving feet because of being tired&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see - you can lose control over your legs because they refuse to function properly, or because without control they work more efficient (like when dancing, fighting or running when body better controls its movements itself than when you try to control movements using your mind or consciousness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;не чуять души&quot; can also mean - (in negative meaning) to lose the control over your mind or to lose consiousness because of exhaustion, or to lose (logic?) control over your mind because your soul (sences, emotions, feelings) performs better using it's intuition without logic explanation of all the &quot;hows&quot; and &quot;whys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question is: why &quot;не чаять души **в** ком-то&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this other person is also thought as &quot;another soul&quot; (compare &quot;подушный налог&quot; = per-soul fee, поместье и 1000 душ (=крестьян),  на улице ни души (there is nobody in the street), etc.). In this case we can recall the &quot;жить душа в душу&quot; phrase, which means &quot;in harmony, understanding each other without words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe joining these two ideas we can interpret the original saying as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eugene understands all the needs and feelings of Tatyana intuitively - directly by his soul (feelings, emotions) without applying mental (logical) efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is like partial meaning of &quot;жить душа в душу&quot;. The latter saying implies that both persons love each other, while &quot;души не чаять&quot; is telling about only one person of two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect of this saying can be seen using the reference formula: &quot;Татьяна, душенька моя, принеси книгу из библиотеки&quot;. Here a person says literaly &quot;Tatiana, you are my soul&quot;. Using this idea we can treat the original phrase as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eugene's feelings are only about Tatiana, his mind is filled only with the thoughts about her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other explanation of &quot;в&quot; is comparison with saying &quot;видеть смысл жизни в чем-то или ком-то&quot; (To see the sence of the life in something or someone): &quot;Евгений видит смысл своей жизни в любви к Татьяне&quot;.  In this interpretation we don't even need чает-чует replacement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений не чает** (желает) своей **души** (жизни без Татьяны), потому что он видит смысл своей жизни **в Татьяне**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, using чает-чует replacement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений не чует** (осознанно контролирует чувства) своей **души**, потому что он видит смысл своей жизни **в Татьяне** (все его чувства направлены к ней).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though all the examples above are about man and woman, in fact the &quot;души не чаять&quot; is not about romantic love. There are a numerous examples about relations between (grand)children and (grand)parants, teachers and pupils, peasants and landlords, etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Был у нас коновод по таланту, в котором Павел Петрович души не чаял. [К.С. Петров-Водкин. Моя повесть. Часть 2. Пространство Эвклида (1932)] **(очень ценит работника)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот, думал я, дядя Платон Маркович… до семидесяти лет прожил он рыцарем чести; доброты он необычайной, крестьяне в нем души не чают. [А. Н. Апухтин. Дневник Павлика Дольского (1891)]  **(любят своего барина)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Арина Тимофеевна души не чаяла в своей воспитаннице и сопровождала ее на прогулку и к подругам-соседкам. [Н.Э. Гейнце. Коронованный рыцарь (1898)] **(любит воспитанницу)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть разные любители живописи, и многие в этих артистических до манерности мазках души не чают… [И. Е. Репин. Далекое близкое (1912-1917)] **(любят искусство)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А Пантелей Прокофьевич, души не чаявший во внуках, вскочил из-за стола и, прослезившись, не вытирая струившихся по бороде слез, радостно закричал: [М. А. Шолохов. Тихий Дон. Книга четвёртая (1928-1940)] **(любит внуков)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любили они с Василием Ивановичем друг друга умною, серьезною любовью; в детях, которых у них было мал мала меньше целых пятеро, души не чаяли. [М.Ф. Каменская. Воспоминания (1894)] &#xD;&#xA;**(любят детей)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возле госпиталя на горе толстый и багровощекий английский шеф-повар Джек пас на поводке старого помойного кота, в котором он души не чаял. [Юрий Герман. Дорогой мой человек (1961)]  **(любит животное)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взводный души не чаял в этих двух алтайцах-кумовьях, которые родились, жили и работали в самой красивой на свете, по их заверению, алтайской деревне Ключи. [Виктор Астафьев. Пастух и пастушка. Современная пастораль (1967-1989)]  **(ценит солдат)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знал весь гарнизон, и весь гарнизон в нем души не чаял за вечные приколы и прорывающуюся порой доброту в предоставлении тихой гавани лазарета для приятеля, у которого в роте настали черные дни и которому надо отсидеться, переждать, пока все затихнет. [Александр Терехов. Мемуары срочной службы (1991)] **(ценят сослуживца)**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2777" RevisionGUID="c397101f-77a6-4bb7-9448-770f414965dd" CreationDate="2013-11-15T09:29:49.447" UserId="551" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="&lt;sup&gt;Предыдущий ответ был основан на моих личных соображениях по поводу значения этой фразы. В этом ответе я приведу ссылки на авторитетные мнения и источники которые мне удалось недавно найти.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд наиболее полным толкованием значения этого оборота, включающем не только влюбленных, супругов и т.д., но и другие отношения (например покровительство) является следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чаять - безгранично любить кого-л., всячески заботиться и оберегать кого-либо. *Яранцев Р. И. Русская фразеология // Словарь-справочник. М.: Русский язык, 2001., стр. 111)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[В. В. Виноградов](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) приводит это выражение как пример &quot;[фразеологического сращения](http://www.textologia.ru/russkiy/leksikologia/frazeologia/frazeologicheskie-srascheniya/730/?q=463&amp;n=730), представляющего собою такое слитное семантическое единство, что лексические значения компонентов вовсе безразличны для понимания целого&quot; ([см. здесь](http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/vinogradov-77d.htm)). Такие выражения с течением времени могут сильно видоизменяться:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Внешняя форма иногда бывает очень неустойчивой... Она подвержена фонетическим или эвфоническим воздействиям. Так, идиома *с боку припёка* без всяких грамматических оснований превращается в парное созвучие *с боку припеку*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или же выражение может &quot;безболезненно терять свои части - одну за другой&quot;. В качестве примера Виноградов приводит выражение &quot;ни в зуб толкнуть не смыслит (не умеет)&quot;, которое может употребляться в форме &quot;ни в зуб толкнуть&quot; и даже в форме &quot;ни в зуб&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец, одно ни в зуб употребляется в том же значении; например, у Достоевского в &quot;Дневнике писателя&quot; (1876 г., февраль): &quot;Человек он темный, законов ни в зуб&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обратимся теперь к тому как же возникло это выражение. Справочная служба сайта gramma.ru так [отвечает на этот вопрос](http://www.gramma.ru/ARRM/?RG1=11&amp;flag=1&amp;RG2=all&amp;page=23&amp;PHPSESSID=4172b9e6bee814ce8ee0a224b195cfd3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чаять - этот фразеологический оборот первоначально имел иной вид (души в себе не чуять от счастья, радости), и нынешняя его форма стала результатом смешения в речи глаголов &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) и &quot;чаять&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учебный фразеологический словарь [с осторожностью говорит][1] о замене &quot;чуять&quot; на &quot;чаять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **души не чаять** Разг. Только несов. Очень сильно, безгранично любить.  &#xD;&#xA;(?) Чаять (устар.) – «надеяться, полагать, думать». Утвердился в указанной форме в результате смешения глаголов чаять и чуять – «чувствовать».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большой словарь русских поговорок [приводит такие формы](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/2572/%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%A8%D0%90) этого выражения:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не ведать *в ком. Прикам.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чуять в *ком. Курск.*   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не чаять (не слышать) *в ком. Народн.*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Души не помнить (не чуять, не чувствовать). *Пск.* 1. Быть вне себя от радости. 2. *в ком.*  Безгранично любить, обожать кого-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отметим что в последнее выражение может употребляться без &quot;в ком&quot;. В этом случае эта фраза &quot;души не помнить, души не чуять, души не чувствовать&quot; означает &quot;быть вне себя от радости&quot; не указывая на источник этих чувств (не обязательно любви и необязательно по отношению к другому человеку).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, на основании всех приведенных материалов мне кажется что выражение приобрело современную форму таким путем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Исходная форма: **души в себе не чуять от счастья/радости**;&#xD;&#xA;2. Сокращение экспрессивного выражения: **души не чуять**;&#xD;&#xA;3. Замена слова по созвучности: **души не чаять**;&#xD;&#xA;4. Указание на источник счастья/радости (а именно любовь к кому-то): **души не чаять в ком-то**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Загадка появления предлога &quot;в&quot;, на мой взгляд объясняется тем что при объяснении источника этого чувства, когда &quot;человек не чует души&quot; а именно от любви к кому-то (а не просто *от* счастья или *от* радости), внешняя синтаксическая форма выражения диктует выбор именно предлога *в*: *[души не чаять] [в ком-то]*. (для примера &quot;счастье в личной жизни&quot;, &quot;нашел себя в спорте&quot;. Т.е. &quot;в&quot; здесь изначально не связывает &quot;душу&quot; и этого &quot;кого-то&quot;, а соединяет форму &quot;души не чаять&quot; с дополнением, [объясняющим источник этого чувства](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/71848/%D0%92).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Напоследок укажу что и толкование &quot;не чаять&quot; как &quot;видеть только желаемое&quot; тоже встречается. Фразеологический словарь так [толкует это выражение][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Имеется в виду, что лицо (Х) так эмоционально расположено к другому лицу (Y), что видит только привлекательные черты, свойства его натуры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд это толкование обладает тем недостатком, что объясняя фразеологизм, смысл которого не выводится из слов, его составляющих, четко придерживается смысла, порядка и синтаксических взаимодействий между этими словами (не удержавшись, впрочем, от замены &quot;чаять&quot; на &quot;чуять&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phraseologiya.academic.ru/344/%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://phrase_dictionary.academic.ru/681/%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%A8%D0%98_%D0%9D%D0%95_%D0%A7%D0%90%D0%AF%D0%A2%D0%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9539" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="36c508ca-6180-4753-a420-32b0b22392d5" CreationDate="2013-11-15T10:02:26.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/401289078437855232" />
  <row Id="9540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="9e47eb33-d8ac-448a-adda-de94f803b9b6" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:40:05.047" UserId="551" Comment="disclaimer" Text="&lt;sup&gt;This answer was about my personal feelings and thoughts about the phraseme. In my new answer (not this one) I have posted many links to other sources that basically support my point of view. Still I think that this answer is still useful because of examples of how &quot;soul&quot; is used in russian and how the phraseme itself is used in literature.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually when the saying contains &quot;soul&quot; it is the speaker's soul that is talked about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; душа не принимает; душа не лежит (к кому-чему); душа болит; за милую душу; душа ушла в пятки; сколько душе угодно (вдоволь, без всяких ограничений)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that someone &quot;души не чает в ком-то&quot; it is about his/her soul and not about this other person. (Actually though I never tried before to deconstruct the saying I always felt that soul here belongs to this first person.) So the saying may be rewritten as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чаял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if we replace &quot;чаять&quot; to &quot;чуять&quot; (чувствовать) which sounds like a reasonable version, we will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений (своей) души не чуял в Татьяне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, take into account that душа according to Ushakov's dictionary except for religious meaning also means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ДУША́ &#xD;&#xA;2. В старой психологии - совокупность психических явлений, переживаний, основа психической жизни человека.&#xD;&#xA;3. Внутренний, психический мир человека.&#xD;&#xA;4. Свойство характера, основные черты личности, а также человек с теми или иными свойствами. Человек с открытой душой. Низкая душа. Робкая душа.&#xD;&#xA;5. Чувство, отзывчивость, пыл.&#xD;&#xA;8. Человек (разг.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which to my mind can be &quot;translated&quot; as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений забывал о себе от любви к Татьяне**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also compare other sayings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений без ума от Татьяны    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений влюбился в Татьяну до потери сознания   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений влюбился в Татьяну до потери пульса    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений самозабвенно любил Татьяну    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евгений любил Татьяну до самозабвения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more thoughts.&#xD;&#xA;I'm tryint to understand what can &quot;не чуя души&quot; mean. I recall the phrase &quot;не чуя ног&quot;. It is used in two meanings - positive and negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Бежать не чуя ног - run wery quickly (as flying on wings) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Идти не чуя ног (от радости) - be so happy that feel like flying   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. (прийти домой) не чуя ног от усталости - barely moving feet because of being tired&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see - you can lose control over your legs because they refuse to function properly, or because without control they work more efficient (like when dancing, fighting or running when body better controls its movements itself than when you try to control movements using your mind or consciousness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;не чуять души&quot; can also mean - (in negative meaning) to lose the control over your mind or to lose consiousness because of exhaustion, or to lose (logic?) control over your mind because your soul (sences, emotions, feelings) performs better using it's intuition without logic explanation of all the &quot;hows&quot; and &quot;whys&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question is: why &quot;не чаять души **в** ком-то&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this other person is also thought as &quot;another soul&quot; (compare &quot;подушный налог&quot; = per-soul fee, поместье и 1000 душ (=крестьян),  на улице ни души (there is nobody in the street), etc.). In this case we can recall the &quot;жить душа в душу&quot; phrase, which means &quot;in harmony, understanding each other without words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe joining these two ideas we can interpret the original saying as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eugene understands all the needs and feelings of Tatyana intuitively - directly by his soul (feelings, emotions) without applying mental (logical) efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is like partial meaning of &quot;жить душа в душу&quot;. The latter saying implies that both persons love each other, while &quot;души не чаять&quot; is telling about only one person of two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect of this saying can be seen using the reference formula: &quot;Татьяна, душенька моя, принеси книгу из библиотеки&quot;. Here a person says literaly &quot;Tatiana, you are my soul&quot;. Using this idea we can treat the original phrase as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eugene's feelings are only about Tatiana, his mind is filled only with the thoughts about her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other explanation of &quot;в&quot; is comparison with saying &quot;видеть смысл жизни в чем-то или ком-то&quot; (To see the sence of the life in something or someone): &quot;Евгений видит смысл своей жизни в любви к Татьяне&quot;.  In this interpretation we don't even need чает-чует replacement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений не чает** (желает) своей **души** (жизни без Татьяны), потому что он видит смысл своей жизни **в Татьяне**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, using чает-чует replacement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Евгений не чует** (осознанно контролирует чувства) своей **души**, потому что он видит смысл своей жизни **в Татьяне** (все его чувства направлены к ней).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though all the examples above are about man and woman, in fact the &quot;души не чаять&quot; is not about romantic love. There are a numerous examples about relations between (grand)children and (grand)parants, teachers and pupils, peasants and landlords, etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Был у нас коновод по таланту, в котором Павел Петрович души не чаял. [К.С. Петров-Водкин. Моя повесть. Часть 2. Пространство Эвклида (1932)] **(очень ценит работника)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот, думал я, дядя Платон Маркович… до семидесяти лет прожил он рыцарем чести; доброты он необычайной, крестьяне в нем души не чают. [А. Н. Апухтин. Дневник Павлика Дольского (1891)]  **(любят своего барина)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Арина Тимофеевна души не чаяла в своей воспитаннице и сопровождала ее на прогулку и к подругам-соседкам. [Н.Э. Гейнце. Коронованный рыцарь (1898)] **(любит воспитанницу)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть разные любители живописи, и многие в этих артистических до манерности мазках души не чают… [И. Е. Репин. Далекое близкое (1912-1917)] **(любят искусство)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А Пантелей Прокофьевич, души не чаявший во внуках, вскочил из-за стола и, прослезившись, не вытирая струившихся по бороде слез, радостно закричал: [М. А. Шолохов. Тихий Дон. Книга четвёртая (1928-1940)] **(любит внуков)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любили они с Василием Ивановичем друг друга умною, серьезною любовью; в детях, которых у них было мал мала меньше целых пятеро, души не чаяли. [М.Ф. Каменская. Воспоминания (1894)] &#xD;&#xA;**(любят детей)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возле госпиталя на горе толстый и багровощекий английский шеф-повар Джек пас на поводке старого помойного кота, в котором он души не чаял. [Юрий Герман. Дорогой мой человек (1961)]  **(любит животное)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взводный души не чаял в этих двух алтайцах-кумовьях, которые родились, жили и работали в самой красивой на свете, по их заверению, алтайской деревне Ключи. [Виктор Астафьев. Пастух и пастушка. Современная пастораль (1967-1989)]  **(ценит солдат)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знал весь гарнизон, и весь гарнизон в нем души не чаял за вечные приколы и прорывающуюся порой доброту в предоставлении тихой гавани лазарета для приятеля, у которого в роте настали черные дни и которому надо отсидеться, переждать, пока все затихнет. [Александр Терехов. Мемуары срочной службы (1991)] **(ценят сослуживца)**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="0109d71f-fa65-4c35-a249-2e449544bf64" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:49:29.343" UserId="1961" Text="I am a webdesigner and i am working right now for a russian client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to tell him that i will work now on the LAYOUT of the site.&#xD;&#xA;The translator give many options and don't know which is better in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you suggest to translate LAYOUT for webdesign and graphic design context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spasibo bolshoe!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="0109d71f-fa65-4c35-a249-2e449544bf64" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:49:29.343" UserId="1961" Text="How to sat layout in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="0109d71f-fa65-4c35-a249-2e449544bf64" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:49:29.343" UserId="1961" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9547" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="f236c1e0-a2aa-4260-961e-20a94fff3e83" CreationDate="2013-11-16T15:03:58.820" UserId="1961" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;layout&quot; in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="f4c46c66-afe1-4272-b68d-695bcd1394a7" CreationDate="2013-11-16T16:05:30.270" UserId="1097" Text="My suggestions:  &#xD;&#xA;(web)site layout - макет сайта, оформление сайта  &#xD;&#xA;(web)page layout - макет страницы, разметка страницы  &#xD;&#xA;graphic design layout - макет, графический макет, макет изображения.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="528eefe8-bbf5-4ff1-a631-fba19121e21c" CreationDate="2013-11-16T16:07:05.667" UserId="242" Text="It looks like you actually talking about &quot;вёрстка&quot; - if you mean the very process of translating psd-files (or whatever is drawn) to html, this is exactly the word you are looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The coder who usually deals with such translations is called &quot;верстальщик&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="e07956d8-d015-473a-b97f-99e24f872123" CreationDate="2013-11-17T07:55:39.917" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixed some grammar and usage, and tweaked the emphasis to be clearer (native speaker, US English)" Text="This is similar to the following question about English: &quot;Why does *awesome* mean great but *awful* mean something horrible?&quot;. The short answer is that the fact that a pair of words is derived from a common root does not mean that these words do not have opposite meaning. Moreover, the same word in different contexts can stand for completely different concepts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the word *terrible* in colloquial speech can be interpreted as &quot;formidably great&quot; - compare to *ужасно круто* / *ты ужасно красива*. Recall the English usage of *fucking*: it is used to indicate an extreme degree of something, either positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why exactly some forms acquire positive connotation (*охуенный*, *пиздатый*) and some negative (*хуёвый*, *пиздецовый*), we can only explore when the connotation became common, but not why, I guess. Since you are asking about why and not about when, I consider this question answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simply, this isn't something specific to Russian and &quot;just because&quot;. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9551" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1408" RevisionGUID="e07956d8-d015-473a-b97f-99e24f872123" CreationDate="2013-11-17T07:55:39.917" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 551, 134 edit id of 408" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="144f93eb-5b5c-47b5-b9c6-e1b453674733" CreationDate="2013-11-18T15:20:18.093" UserId="194" Text="What word was used in Russian for a line before &quot;линия&quot; was borrewed in 18th century?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it &quot;struna&quot;? Or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="144f93eb-5b5c-47b5-b9c6-e1b453674733" CreationDate="2013-11-18T15:20:18.093" UserId="194" Text="What word was used in Russian for line before the borrowing of &quot;linia&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="144f93eb-5b5c-47b5-b9c6-e1b453674733" CreationDate="2013-11-18T15:20:18.093" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="3ba6681c-3366-4eac-a844-293a36f5a834" CreationDate="2013-11-18T17:44:18.997" UserId="551" Text="В словарь древне-русского языка Срезневского есть [статья про слово *черта*][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЧЕРТА 1) Протяжение, имеющее одну длину без ширины и толщины, линия. *Иота едина, или едина черта не прейдет от закона. Провесть черту.* 2) *Стар.* Пограничная линия; рубеж с укреплениями. *Велели столнику и воеводе... Колычевскому быти по Белогородской черте в Олшанску.* 3) Действие, поступок. *Это прекрасная черта в его жизни. Прошедшаго житья подлейшия черты.* 4) В минералогии: царапина, сделанная на минерале твердейшим его телом. 5) У плотников: орудие, коим прочерчивают доски. 6) *Во мн.* Облик, очертание лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этимологический [словарь Семенова][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Черта - черта  &#xD;&#xA;Древнерусское – чьрта.&#xD;&#xA;Старославянское – чръта.&#xD;&#xA;Общеславянское – cьrta.&#xD;&#xA;Индоевропейское – ker(s)- (резать).  &#xD;&#xA;Слово известно с XI в., с XIV в. вошло в употребление слово «чертеж» в значении «отметка, грань». Широкое распространение слово получило в начале XVIII в. Существует во всех славянских языках, т.к. восходит к общеславянскому cьrta.&#xD;&#xA;Родственными являются:&#xD;&#xA;Украинское, белорусское – черта.&#xD;&#xA;Болгарское – чьрта.&#xD;&#xA;Производные: черточка, чертить, начертать, чертеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, церковно-славянский словарь [переводит слово черта][3] как &quot;1) малая часть минуты 2) малая буква&quot;. Встречается в нем и перевод слова &quot;строка&quot; как &quot;линия&quot;, но это только [шестое значение][4]. Вопрос в том насколько можно пользоваться этим или подобным словарем для поиска предшественника &quot;линии&quot;? С другой стороны, в допетровские времена именно церковно-славянский был литературным языком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что **черта**, похоже является главным претендентом на предшественника слова &quot;линия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://urokirus.com/slovarsreznevskogo/displayimage.php?pid=1901&amp;fullsize=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://enc-dic.com/semenov/Cherta-354.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.orthodic.org/cs/%D0%A7/3&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.orthodic.org/cs/%D0%A1/46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="1144f65b-993e-4c6e-96eb-5343436f9975" CreationDate="2013-11-18T17:58:45.803" UserId="551" Comment="added 766 characters in body" Text="В словарь древне-русского языка Срезневского есть [статья про слово *черта*][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЧЕРТА 1) Протяжение, имеющее одну длину без ширины и толщины, линия. *Иота едина, или едина черта не прейдет от закона. Провесть черту.* 2) *Стар.* Пограничная линия; рубеж с укреплениями. *Велели столнику и воеводе... Колычевскому быти по Белогородской черте в Олшанску.* 3) Действие, поступок. *Это прекрасная черта в его жизни. Прошедшаго житья подлейшия черты.* 4) В минералогии: царапина, сделанная на минерале твердейшим его телом. 5) У плотников: орудие, коим прочерчивают доски. 6) *Во мн.* Облик, очертание лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, у Срезневского есть и [слово линия][2]: &quot;черта, проведенная от одной точки до другой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этимологический [словарь Семенова][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Черта**  &#xD;&#xA;Древнерусское – чьрта.&#xD;&#xA;Старославянское – чръта.&#xD;&#xA;Общеславянское – cьrta.&#xD;&#xA;Индоевропейское – ker(s)- (резать).  &#xD;&#xA;Слово известно с XI в., с XIV в. вошло в употребление слово «чертеж» в значении «отметка, грань». Широкое распространение слово получило в начале XVIII в. Существует во всех славянских языках, т.к. восходит к общеславянскому cьrta.&#xD;&#xA;Родственными являются:&#xD;&#xA;Украинское, белорусское – черта.&#xD;&#xA;Болгарское – чьрта.&#xD;&#xA;Производные: черточка, чертить, начертать, чертеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О слове линия словарь Семенова явно указывает что впервые оно упоминается в словарях с 1731 года:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Линия**  &#xD;&#xA;Заимствование слова произошло в XVIII в., впервые в словаре встречается в 1731 г. Современное значение слова: «черта, определяющая предел какой-либо поверхности или направление в движении».&#xD;&#xA;Первоисточник слова – латинский язык, значение «льняная нить», «льняной шнур», «черта». В русском языке слово появилось из немецкого. Сначала в русском языке писали «линея».&#xD;&#xA;Слово встречается в других славянских языках, при этом оно не претерпевает никаких изменений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, церковно-славянский словарь [переводит слово черта][4] как &quot;1) малая часть минуты 2) малая буква&quot;. Встречается в нем и перевод слова &quot;строка&quot; как &quot;линия&quot;, но это только [шестое значение][5]. Вопрос в том насколько можно пользоваться этим или подобным словарем для поиска предшественника &quot;линии&quot;? С другой стороны, в допетровские времена именно церковно-славянский был литературным языком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что **черта**, похоже является главным претендентом на предшественника слова &quot;линия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://urokirus.com/slovarsreznevskogo/displayimage.php?pid=1901&amp;fullsize=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://urokirus.com/slovarsreznevskogo/displayimage.php?pid=375&amp;fullsize=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://enc-dic.com/semenov/Cherta-354.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.orthodic.org/cs/%D0%A7/3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.orthodic.org/cs/%D0%A1/46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="68a5dec0-ad0b-4018-be74-411613cb3cdf" CreationDate="2013-11-18T18:13:29.687" UserId="551" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="В словарь древне-русского языка Срезневского есть [статья про слово *черта*][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЧЕРТА 1) Протяжение, имеющее одну длину без ширины и толщины, линия. *Иота едина, или едина черта не прейдет от закона. Провесть черту.* 2) *Стар.* Пограничная линия; рубеж с укреплениями. *Велели столнику и воеводе... Колычевскому быти по Белогородской черте в Олшанску.* 3) Действие, поступок. *Это прекрасная черта в его жизни. Прошедшаго житья подлейшия черты.* 4) В минералогии: царапина, сделанная на минерале твердейшим его телом. 5) У плотников: орудие, коим прочерчивают доски. 6) *Во мн.* Облик, очертание лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, у Срезневского есть и [слово линия][2]: &quot;черта, проведенная от одной точки до другой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этимологический [словарь Семенова][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Черта**  &#xD;&#xA;Древнерусское – чьрта.&#xD;&#xA;Старославянское – чръта.&#xD;&#xA;Общеславянское – cьrta.&#xD;&#xA;Индоевропейское – ker(s)- (резать).  &#xD;&#xA;Слово известно с XI в., с XIV в. вошло в употребление слово «чертеж» в значении «отметка, грань». Широкое распространение слово получило в начале XVIII в. Существует во всех славянских языках, т.к. восходит к общеславянскому cьrta.&#xD;&#xA;Родственными являются:&#xD;&#xA;Украинское, белорусское – черта.&#xD;&#xA;Болгарское – чьрта.&#xD;&#xA;Производные: черточка, чертить, начертать, чертеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О слове линия словарь Семенова явно указывает что впервые оно упоминается в словарях с 1731 года:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Линия**  &#xD;&#xA;Заимствование слова произошло в XVIII в., впервые в словаре встречается в 1731 г. Современное значение слова: «черта, определяющая предел какой-либо поверхности или направление в движении».&#xD;&#xA;Первоисточник слова – латинский язык, значение «льняная нить», «льняной шнур», «черта». В русском языке слово появилось из немецкого. Сначала в русском языке писали «линея».&#xD;&#xA;Слово встречается в других славянских языках, при этом оно не претерпевает никаких изменений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, церковно-славянский словарь [переводит слово черта][4] как &quot;1) малая часть минуты 2) малая буква&quot;. Встречается в нем и перевод слова &quot;строка&quot; как &quot;линия&quot;, но это только [шестое значение][5]. Вопрос в том насколько можно пользоваться этим или подобным словарем для поиска предшественника &quot;линии&quot;? С другой стороны, в допетровские времена именно церковно-славянский был литературным языком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается слова **струна**, то в [словаре Стрезневского][6] оно упоминается только в значении &quot;струна муз. инструмента&quot; или &quot;тетива&quot;. В качестве синонимов (в том числе во фразеологизмах) предлагаются &quot;нитка&quot;, &quot;жила&quot;, &quot;тетива&quot;, так что струна - не претендент.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что **черта**, похоже является главным претендентом на предшественника слова &quot;линия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://urokirus.com/slovarsreznevskogo/displayimage.php?pid=1901&amp;fullsize=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://urokirus.com/slovarsreznevskogo/displayimage.php?pid=375&amp;fullsize=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://enc-dic.com/semenov/Cherta-354.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.orthodic.org/cs/%D0%A7/3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.orthodic.org/cs/%D0%A1/46&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://urokirus.com/slovarsreznevskogo/displayimage.php?pid=1705&amp;fullsize=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9558" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="29d4ae5b-2a00-455c-a5c3-7acfacf89c03" CreationDate="2013-11-18T22:02:40.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/402557493702049793" />
  <row Id="9559" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="9146173a-df51-4608-8ca5-c5cd830a36f3" CreationDate="2013-11-19T04:02:40.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/402648091029155840" />
  <row Id="9560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2784" RevisionGUID="3f9034a5-2944-43ed-8ba6-fc678a1267f6" CreationDate="2013-11-20T13:28:42.453" UserId="400" Text="It's a phraseologism. An example of a phraseologism is 'to be between hammer and anvil'. Of course every phraseologism has it's history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Russian poets think about it as for some 'reinforcing denial'. If you remove the first part 'не' you have the same sense (&quot;to feel, to recognise somebody's soul&quot;). The &quot;не&quot; adds emotional denial here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also 'не' is for additional *syllable*. Syllables are important in Russian - Russian tries to be euphonious (it's better when stressed syllable alternates with unstressed one). And it's more 'pleasure for hears' to start with unstressed syllable. So, this 'не' is using to create an unstressed one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why does have a positive meaning? The 'не' is accentuating only, the source phrase (without the 'не') has a positive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's agains the Russian standart grammar, but it is possible for phraseologisms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2784" RevisionGUID="5194c428-a7cf-4ca4-a71f-eb5922df43ef" CreationDate="2013-11-20T13:35:21.103" UserId="400" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="It's a phraseologism. An example of a phraseologism is 'to be between hammer and anvil'. Of course every phraseologism has it's history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Russian poets think about it as for some 'reinforcing denial'. If you remove the first part 'не' you have the same sense (&quot;to feel, to recognise somebody's soul&quot;). The &quot;не&quot; adds emotional denial here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also 'не' is for additional *syllable*. Syllables are important in Russian - Russian tries to be euphonious. And it's more 'pleasure for hears' to start with unstressed syllable. So, this 'не' is using to create an unstressed one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why does have a positive meaning? The 'не' is accentuating only, the source phrase (without the 'не') has a positive meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's agains the Russian standart grammar, but it is possible for phraseologisms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="d850cc31-044c-4264-a0a6-fbb8b8312d67" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:25:01.040" UserId="5" Text="I wonder what people in Russia say about doing some hard tedious work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="d850cc31-044c-4264-a0a6-fbb8b8312d67" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:25:01.040" UserId="5" Text="What would you use for elbow grease?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="d850cc31-044c-4264-a0a6-fbb8b8312d67" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:25:01.040" UserId="5" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9565" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="e5fe1115-275d-45d8-a867-250dda801554" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:02:55.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/403418227016859648" />
  <row Id="9566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="9f6e5b07-666a-4997-a619-99be14727d98" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:14:43.497" UserId="242" Text="Today I've learned that there exists a term for thief who is specializing in stealing icons and church plates - `клюквенник`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder when this term had been adopted and why does it actually &quot;клюквенник&quot;. I mean, a `фороточник` is self descriptive, `щипач` after a bit of though is also quite explainable term, but `клюквенник`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="9f6e5b07-666a-4997-a619-99be14727d98" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:14:43.497" UserId="242" Text="Why is this who steals icons called &quot;клюквенник&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="9f6e5b07-666a-4997-a619-99be14727d98" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:14:43.497" UserId="242" Text="|этимология|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="da2f0463-8b7c-460d-bf85-961c7ac548e7" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:46:27.163" UserId="134" Text="I think it would be *пердячий X*, where X is some tool or improvement; most commonly *пердячий пар*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Работа пыльная, грязная, тяжелая, из механизмов один пердячий пар *[В. С. Шаменков. А не слабо ли...? (2006)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Раньше ручная работа была, раньше все пердячим краном поднимали. *[К. К. Вагинов. Гарпагониада (1934)]*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="4c189aa8-41ab-47c9-b90c-a33cf2cd1475" CreationDate="2013-11-21T08:11:33.587" UserId="2188" Text="The one of the version is the following:&#xD;&#xA;A bunch of grapes is the most famous decoration for the icon. It is symbol of church papacy. The grapes looks just like  cranberry.&#xD;&#xA;That’s why thief, how stole icons is cranberry man = клюквенник&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2789" RevisionGUID="bcf8a6db-744e-45ad-a1c7-072f99a7cf7c" CreationDate="2013-11-21T08:21:33.557" UserId="2188" Text="If talking about a slang, I would suggest the word задолбаться. It is commonly used everywhere, it is not a hard slang, so you can say it to your parents, friends.&#xD;&#xA;Example: Вчера переезжали в новый дом, задолбались вытаскивать холодильник с пятого этажа.&#xD;&#xA;Or&#xD;&#xA;Он задолбался ремонтировать свой автомобиль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition this word can be attached to person, who keep asking you about a help/favors/job to do or advising you some stupid ideas.&#xD;&#xA;Like: Она уже задолбала меня звонить и просить денег в долг. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="dd3be9e2-a3cc-4227-b5f2-cb57ecf103e5" CreationDate="2013-11-21T08:22:59.557" UserId="551" Text="Many online [dictionaries][1] (including [this one][2], that is dated as being printed in 1912) say that `клюква` is a word for a church:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КЛЮКВА - церковь, часовня   &#xD;&#xA;КЛЮКВЕННИК - церковный вор; церковный карманщик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is hard to tell which word was &quot;the original one&quot; and which is &quot;derived&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this forum][3] I found an interesting version why the thieves are called this way:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давным-давно заинтересовался, почему воров, специализирующихся на краже церковной утвари из храмов, называли &quot;клюквенниками&quot; (во времена до &quot;без царя&quot;)- так вот, эти специалисты в темноте, не зажигая свечу, на язык и на зуб определяли, серебрянный оклад у иконы или нет!&#xD;&#xA;Серебро кислит, как клюква.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the thief could tell if the icon setting (icon cover) was made of silver without using the light or candle. He tasted it with his tongue. If it had an acidic taste (as cranberry has) than it was silver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pseudology.org/Crim/CrimeSubCulture/05.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://starling.rinet.ru/~minlos/Non-literary_Russian/1912%20%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%A1%D0%BB%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forum.watch.ru/archive/index.php/t-5962.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2791" RevisionGUID="5f1a4ab2-1a40-4442-83c0-2a16fe0169d0" CreationDate="2013-11-21T10:23:15.980" UserId="2189" Text="There was the word &quot;межа&quot;. Thus, the verb &quot;отмежеваться&quot; means 'to discard someone or something', 'to separate from somebody or something'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9574" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="4fc4a28e-f86b-4d17-aeb0-d9bf3e187de4" CreationDate="2013-11-21T13:02:55.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/403508824004632576" />
  <row Id="9575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="c579034b-825e-48d7-a43b-61d7d8dc0aa8" CreationDate="2013-11-21T17:28:56.310" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Today I've learned that there exists a term for thief who is specializing in stealing icons and church plates - `клюквенник`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder when this term had been adopted and why does it actually &quot;клюквенник&quot;. I mean, a `форточник` is self descriptive, `щипач` after a bit of though is also quite explainable term, but `клюквенник`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="d90234ce-7438-449f-81ce-99c02a6e6e98" CreationDate="2013-11-22T11:38:04.843" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Many online [dictionaries][1] (including [this one][2], that is dated as being printed in 1912) say that `клюква` is a word for a church:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КЛЮКВА - церковь, часовня   &#xD;&#xA;КЛЮКВЕННИК - церковный вор; церковный карманщик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is hard to tell which word was &quot;the original one&quot; and which is &quot;derived&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this forum][3] I found an interesting version why the thieves are called this way:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давным-давно заинтересовался, почему воров, специализирующихся на краже церковной утвари из храмов, называли &quot;клюквенниками&quot; (во времена до &quot;без царя&quot;)- так вот, эти специалисты в темноте, не зажигая свечу, на язык и на зуб определяли, серебрянный оклад у иконы или нет!&#xD;&#xA;Серебро кислит, как клюква.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the thief could tell if the icon setting (icon cover) was made of silver without using the light or candle. He tasted it with his tongue. If it had an acidic taste (as cranberry has) then it was silver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pseudology.org/Crim/CrimeSubCulture/05.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://starling.rinet.ru/~minlos/Non-literary_Russian/1912%20%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%A1%D0%BB%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forum.watch.ru/archive/index.php/t-5962.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="913ade24-2e75-4604-b30d-00c2906c93d4" CreationDate="2013-11-22T13:24:49.480" UserId="2193" Text="I have been thinking about starting to learn Russian and one thing I have noticed is the huge difference between handwritten Russian and typed Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Why is there such and difference and how did this come about?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;James" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="913ade24-2e75-4604-b30d-00c2906c93d4" CreationDate="2013-11-22T13:24:49.480" UserId="2193" Text="Typeface vs Handwriten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="913ade24-2e75-4604-b30d-00c2906c93d4" CreationDate="2013-11-22T13:24:49.480" UserId="2193" Text="|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="6f1d111e-bf30-4938-9960-f3fa7405b24a" CreationDate="2013-11-22T13:49:52.403" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I have been thinking about starting to learn Russian and one thing I have noticed is the huge difference between handwritten Russian and typed Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Why is there such and difference and how did this come about?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="e9e0f557-3021-4245-8010-c6e17ee1ed6d" CreationDate="2013-11-22T16:44:47.470" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Today I've learned that there exists a term for thief who is specializing in stealing icons and church plates - `клюквенник`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wonder when this term had been adopted and why does it actually &quot;клюквенник&quot;. I mean, a `форточник` is self descriptive, `щипач` after a bit of thought is also quite explainable term, but `клюквенник`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9582" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="8e988376-b1ad-49f8-83ff-247ed16343cb" CreationDate="2013-11-23T09:35:32.347" UserId="1961" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;layout&quot; in russian (in Webdesign context)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="112ba4d0-b064-48b9-8ac7-4a6a919a44d0" CreationDate="2013-11-23T10:25:47.047" UserId="1027" Text="Do hard tedious work means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `вкалывать`,  &#xD;&#xA; - `ишачить`,&#xD;&#xA; - `пахать`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хрип`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать горб`,&#xD;&#xA; - `горбатиться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хребет`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хребтину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать спину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать (пахать) как вол`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать в поте лица`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как каторжный`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как ломовая лошадь`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как проклятый`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать до кровавого пота`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать до седьмого пота`,  &#xD;&#xA; - `работать без разгибу`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать на износ`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать за семерых`,&#xD;&#xA; - `упираться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `хрячиться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `умываться потом`,&#xD;&#xA; - `гнуть хребет`,&#xD;&#xA; - `гнуть спину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `рвать жилы`,&#xD;&#xA; - `мантулить`,&#xD;&#xA; - `натирать мозоли`,&#xD;&#xA; - `мозолить руки`,&#xD;&#xA; - `надрывать пуп`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Въёбывать` — sorry for a negative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns are `адский труд` or `каторжная работа`; `надрыв`, `надсада` (from `надрываться`, `надсаждаться`). `Страда` is the period of hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Воду возить` in the phrase `на сердитых воду возят` means to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loaded by hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cleaning out this kitchen will take a lot of elbow grease — пока&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уберёшь эту кухню, `семь потов сойдёт`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elbow grease gives the best polish — `терпение и труд всё перетрут`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="2944e1c1-dfd8-409c-b045-451d5ac9e62c" CreationDate="2013-11-23T10:33:01.600" UserId="1027" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="Do hard tedious work means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `вкалывать`,  &#xD;&#xA; - `ишачить`,&#xD;&#xA; - `пахать`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хрип`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать горб`,&#xD;&#xA; - `горбатиться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хребет`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хребтину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать спину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать (пахать) как вол`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать в поте лица`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как каторжный`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как ломовая лошадь`,  &#xD;&#xA; - `работать без разгибу`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать на износ`,&#xD;&#xA; - `упираться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `хрячиться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `умываться потом`,&#xD;&#xA; - `гнуть хребет`,&#xD;&#xA; - `гнуть спину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `мантулить`,&#xD;&#xA; - `натирать мозоли`,&#xD;&#xA; - `мозолить руки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Въёбывать` — sorry for a negative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns are `адский труд` or `каторжная работа`; `надрыв`, `надсада` (from `надрываться`, `надсаждаться`). `Страда` is the period of hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Воду возить` in the phrase `на сердитых воду возят` means to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loaded by hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cleaning out this kitchen will take a lot of elbow grease — пока&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уберёшь эту кухню, `семь потов сойдёт`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elbow grease gives the best polish — `терпение и труд всё перетрут`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="79eff379-5099-4874-b7a0-25233413caa1" CreationDate="2013-11-23T10:45:18.387" UserId="1027" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Doing hard tedious work means `Въёбывать`. It is colloquial obscene word. Every native speaker will say so. It is quite consistent with the notion of hard tedious work, and not always carry negative connotation. You can proudly say `въебываю с утра до ночи`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other words are euphemisms which used only if the environment does not allow to express directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `вкалывать`,  &#xD;&#xA; - `ишачить`,&#xD;&#xA; - `пахать`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хрип`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать горб`,&#xD;&#xA; - `горбатиться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хребет`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать хребтину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `ломать спину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать (пахать) как вол`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать в поте лица`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как каторжный`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать как ломовая лошадь`,  &#xD;&#xA; - `работать без разгибу`,&#xD;&#xA; - `работать на износ`,&#xD;&#xA; - `упираться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `хрячиться`,&#xD;&#xA; - `умываться потом`,&#xD;&#xA; - `гнуть хребет`,&#xD;&#xA; - `гнуть спину`,&#xD;&#xA; - `мантулить`,&#xD;&#xA; - `натирать мозоли`,&#xD;&#xA; - `мозолить руки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns are `адский труд` or `каторжная работа`; `надрыв`, `надсада` (from `надрываться`, `надсаждаться`). `Страда` is the period of hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Воду возить` in the phrase `на сердитых воду возят` means to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loaded by hard work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cleaning out this kitchen will take a lot of elbow grease — пока&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уберёшь эту кухню, `семь потов сойдёт`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Elbow grease gives the best polish — `терпение и труд всё перетрут`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="7bcb993c-a01f-411a-8e31-96a6caaee980" CreationDate="2013-11-24T01:20:22.703" UserId="2079" Text="Here is a list of words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * въёбывать - colloquial and obscene, like Clever Masha told. &#xD;&#xA;Colloquial, but not obscene:&#xD;&#xA; * ишачить &#xD;&#xA; * вкалывать&#xD;&#xA; * пахать&#xD;&#xA; * горбатиться - similar to горбить спину&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not colloquial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * гнуть спину, горбить спину - this one is poetic and slightly archaic. About one who works hard for somebody else, especially if he remains poor in spite of the hard work.&#xD;&#xA; * работать (пахать) как лошадь (как вол, как ломовая лошадь, как каторжный)&#xD;&#xA; * работать не разгибая спины&#xD;&#xA; * работать на износ - to work so hard that one eventually becomes unable to work anymore (i.e. because of health problems caused by overworking)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are about hard and long work.  You cannot say &quot;я повъёбывал полчаса, а потом пошёл в кино&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fixing something which does not function properly, especially in a computer area, there is a word &quot;трахаться&quot;, i. e. &quot;я всё утро трахался с этим долбаным линуксом&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9588" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="8d1318b1-1860-4cce-8306-0123012bd8bb" CreationDate="2013-11-24T05:43:52.477" UserId="5" Comment="edited title" Text="What do people in Russia say about doing some hard tedious work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="d5b5b644-fd50-4abc-a488-c9333c624159" CreationDate="2013-11-24T12:56:16.243" UserId="487" Text="I'm not sure if two dative objects are allowed in a sentence. My doubt arose while trying to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно ему сказать, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the only way to distinguish who needs something is the order in the sentence, am I right? The question sounds trivial, but I thought that the different cases were like slots, that when filled, could travel along the sentence, thus being their commutativity allowed, since no confusion arises. But in the example –assuming it is right– &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ему нужно мнe сказать, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a particular интонация help to distinguish what one want? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="d5b5b644-fd50-4abc-a488-c9333c624159" CreationDate="2013-11-24T12:56:16.243" UserId="487" Text="Two dative objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="d5b5b644-fd50-4abc-a488-c9333c624159" CreationDate="2013-11-24T12:56:16.243" UserId="487" Text="|падежи|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2796" RevisionGUID="48f07b29-199a-44d1-a3e0-941dfd36d769" CreationDate="2013-11-24T13:09:31.097" UserId="242" Text="In phrase `мне нужно ему сказать, что` there's no slightest hint on disambiguation. Moreover, it is 100% valid grammar construction. It is translated like &quot;I need to tell him that ...&quot;. And the second phrase, `ему нужно мнe сказать, что` is translated &quot;He needs to tell me that ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be I don't get right the second part of you question, but no, the order is not that much strict, so you can say 'ему нужно сказать мне' (which is a full equivalent of second phrase) or 'мне нужно сказать ему' (which is identical to the first phrase)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="b817a93a-9255-4b92-bf01-de5563a0b04a" CreationDate="2013-11-24T13:26:02.720" UserId="487" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if two dative objects are allowed in a sentence. My doubt arose while trying to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно ему сказать, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the only way to distinguish who needs something is the order in the sentence, am I right? The question sounds trivial, but I thought that the different cases were like slots, that when filled, could travel along the sentence, thus being their commutativity allowed, since no confusion arises. But playing with this example –assuming it is right– suppose you want to stress &quot;ему&quot;, so you bring &quot;ему&quot; to the first place in the sentence, like in the following situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; –Kому тебе нужно сказать праву? Ей?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; –(да нет,) **ему** нужно мнe сказать правду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a particular интонация help to distinguish what one want? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2797" RevisionGUID="c7f332d5-7498-45fa-863e-ce36c7dc5728" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:11:02.153" UserId="1236" Text="The point is, in your sentences there are no two dative objects referring to the same predicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Нужно` (&quot;is needed&quot;) is the predicate, it has one Dative object (&quot;for whom&quot;). The subject of `нужно` is, naturally, in the Nominative case (&quot;what&quot;). But in your examples the subject is expressed by a verbal phrase, an infinitive + its objects, that is why `нужно` agrees with this infinitive in the Neuter gender. So, `сказать` is the subject of your sentences. In its own turn, `сказать` has two objects, an Accusative one (&quot;what&quot;), and a Dative one (&quot;to whom&quot;). The Accusative object in your sentences is expressed by an objective clause beginning with `, что ...` Well, this all may seem complicated, but actually it is not. Have a look at this chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VxvVG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="580c0f3c-4b16-4105-a79a-5c40bc870012" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:26:41.280" UserId="2060" Text="While Yellow Sky's answer may explain it technically, it doesn't seem to help distinguishing the two dative objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мне (ему / ей / и т. д.) нужно` at the beginning of a clause is a &quot;strong&quot; collocation that makes the phrase unambiguous. You don't need any special intonation to make it understandable. If you make it &quot;Yodic&quot; (which is still normally understandable), it makes it ambiguous: `ему сказать нужно мне` or `ему сказать мне нужно`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2797" RevisionGUID="6b9345d0-1a5c-4852-a008-fabbd7b9dbf2" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:27:45.633" UserId="1236" Comment="A better image" Text="The point is, in your sentences there are no two dative objects referring to the same predicate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Нужно` (&quot;is needed&quot;) is the predicate, it has one Dative object (&quot;for whom&quot;). The subject of `нужно` is, naturally, in the Nominative case (&quot;what&quot;). But in your examples the subject is expressed by a verbal phrase, an infinitive + its objects, that is why `нужно` agrees with this infinitive in the Neuter gender. So, `сказать` is the subject of your sentences. In its own turn, `сказать` has two objects, an Accusative one (&quot;what&quot;), and a Dative one (&quot;to whom&quot;). The Accusative object in your sentences is expressed by an objective clause beginning with `, что ...` Well, this all may seem complicated, but actually it is not. Have a look at this chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CzKNB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="720c0e39-e6fe-45a8-8722-3d5c84a4ab5b" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:34:07.803" UserId="2060" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="While Yellow Sky's answer may explain it technically, it doesn't seem to help distinguishing the two dative objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мне (ему / ей / и т. д.) нужно` at the beginning of a clause is a &quot;strong&quot; collocation that makes the phrase unambiguous. You don't need any special intonation to make it understandable. If you make it &quot;Yodic&quot; (which would be still normally understandable in other cases), it makes it ambiguous: `ему сказать нужно мне` or `ему сказать мне нужно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when you need to make a stress, you don't have to move the word to the first position. Moreover, it won't help it in your example, but the intonation will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="0aa9e584-c73a-45b4-a318-b25a250aa2d8" CreationDate="2013-11-24T19:15:29.197" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if two dative objects are allowed in a sentence. My doubt arose while trying to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно ему сказать, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the only way to distinguish who needs something is the order in the sentence, am I right? The question sounds trivial, but I thought that the different cases were like slots, that when filled, could travel along the sentence, thus being their commutativity allowed, since no confusion arises. But playing with this example –assuming it is right– suppose you want to stress &quot;ему&quot;, so you bring &quot;ему&quot; to the first place in the sentence, like in the following situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; –Kому тебе нужно сказать правду? Ей?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; –(да нет,) **ему** нужно мнe сказать правду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a particular интонация help to distinguish what one want? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9600" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="0cf0d920-6119-4670-b4fa-0df805693e33" CreationDate="2013-11-25T20:13:51.487" UserId="194" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does the phraseme &quot;души не чаять&quot; have positive meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="4ee8c398-4a2b-4997-be67-5bbeb111f7e1" CreationDate="2013-11-28T16:27:10.247" UserId="1323" Text="This might be wild speculation, but I suspect it is because writing curves etc. by hand is fast, whereas cutting out a proper curve of a piece of wood to make a stamp is comparably hard. Cursive handwriting is designed to be fast and easy for a human operator. But printing text with letters has different requirements. I would say the typeface &quot;diverged&quot; simply due to some economic choices along the way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;German typeface also looks a lot different from my handwriting, if I write the way I have learned it in grammar school. I guess this can be observed for probably any language. Yet, English cursive handwriting seems to be an old form of art not taught any more in English schools, where they seem to prefer writing in block letters. Therefore it might take a bit more getting used to cursive writing for English native speakers. (Apologies if I generalized too much.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="e34a6e6b-70ac-4de9-9310-e670ccc6fbff" CreationDate="2013-11-28T21:25:31.030" UserId="2208" Text="Just to add my two cents to the @shabunc's answer (which is itself good and full).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There can also be &lt;code&gt;доброго дня&lt;/code&gt; and (however rarely used, obviously because it's a rare case to say goodbye in the morning) &lt;code&gt;доброго утра&lt;/code&gt;. Which would mean: have a good day, have a good morning. The situation with good night when you can't greet anyone saying &quot;добрая ночь&quot; seems to happen because there was no &quot;night life&quot; as nowadays and thus no one would have needed this form of greeting. So that, all the languages have some traditions, Russian just doesn't have a tradition to greet at night." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="0f409098-2115-4909-bcb5-bc0a97a60ddc" CreationDate="2013-11-29T08:25:10.950" UserId="551" Text="This is called a [cursive script](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive). According to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cursive, also known as script, joined-up writing, joint writing, running writing, or handwriting is any style of penmanship in which the symbols of the language are written in a conjoined and/or flowing manner, generally for the purpose of making writing faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In the Persian, Arabic, Latin, and Cyrillic alphabets, many or all letters in a word are connected, sometimes making a word one single complex stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, before the invention of a [typewriter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter) in 1860 it was the only way to compose a document. But even after that cursive was used in personal correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In USSR only official institutions and companies (and professional writers) typed their documents using typewriters, but even to prepare a long document it could be prepared first by the hand and then sent to &quot;машбюро&quot; a typing office. All the requests (e.g. for the vacation etc.) were written by the hand and never typed (you can sometimes meet this requirement even today - &quot;the request should be hand-written using blue ink&quot;). Also you could rare see the preprinted form where you should just fill in the gaps - usually you had to start from the blank page and write all the document yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To apply for a Ph.D. one had to write a Doctoral Dissertation which in printed form has several hundreds of pages - in 80'es this was made by the hand and then sent to a typing office where it was typed for several weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you try to write several pages in block letters - it will take enormous time and effort. The cursive is much faster and easier to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when the computers and printers are widespread you don't have to write so much. But still in some areas computers are rare and you likely will have to write any documents there in old-fasioned way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian cursive letters (from [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1556/551)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An here is the English cursive. In Russian schools the pupils are also taught to write this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that in the US the cursive is almost extinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the 2006 SAT, a United States post-secondary education entrance exam, only 15 percent of the students wrote their essay answers in cursive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 2012, the American states of Indiana and Hawaii announced that their schools will no longer be required to teach cursive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XILCa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YsdPg.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GNqJY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="6c213b1e-f482-4175-bf99-1a5a63d59caa" CreationDate="2013-11-29T08:46:27.963" UserId="551" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="As for difference between written and printed form of the letters, here is my personal experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I studied English handwriting to me the small letters k, r, s, z and the capital G, I, Q, S, Z looked completely different from their printed counterparts. Maybe this is because they are &quot;optimized&quot; for fast writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it looks like as time goes by the printed letters may change, while handwritten ones stay almost the same. For example in this [answer about letter Л](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2332/551) you can see that its modern form become popular in 1840, while before that time printed and handwritten Л had the similar &quot;angle-shaped&quot; form similar to Greek Λ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about usage of handwriting. This is called a [cursive script](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive). According to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cursive, also known as script, joined-up writing, joint writing, running writing, or handwriting is any style of penmanship in which the symbols of the language are written in a conjoined and/or flowing manner, generally for the purpose of making writing faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In the Persian, Arabic, Latin, and Cyrillic alphabets, many or all letters in a word are connected, sometimes making a word one single complex stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, before the invention of a [typewriter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter) in 1860 it was the only way to compose a document. But even after that cursive was used in personal correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In USSR only official institutions and companies (and professional writers) typed their documents using typewriters, but even to prepare a long document it could be prepared first by the hand and then sent to &quot;машбюро&quot; a typing office. All the requests (e.g. for the vacation etc.) were written by the hand and never typed (you can sometimes meet this requirement even today - &quot;the request should be hand-written using blue ink&quot;). Also you could rare see the preprinted form where you should just fill in the gaps - usually you had to start from the blank page and write all the document yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To apply for a Ph.D. one had to write a Doctoral Dissertation which in printed form has several hundreds of pages - in 80'es this was made by the hand and then sent to a typing office where it was typed for several weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you try to write several pages in block letters - it will take enormous time and effort. The cursive is much faster and easier to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when the computers and printers are widespread you don't have to write so much. But still in some areas computers are rare and you likely will have to write any documents there in old-fasioned way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian cursive letters (from [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1556/551)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An here is the English cursive. In Russian schools the pupils are also taught to write this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that in the US the cursive is almost extinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the 2006 SAT, a United States post-secondary education entrance exam, only 15 percent of the students wrote their essay answers in cursive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 2012, the American states of Indiana and Hawaii announced that their schools will no longer be required to teach cursive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XILCa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YsdPg.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GNqJY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="0dbf02c1-6d06-43cc-9b39-066ae4aebf88" CreationDate="2013-11-29T12:44:15.940" UserId="551" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="As for difference between written and printed form of the letters, here is my personal experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I studied English handwriting to me the small letters k (looks like small R), r (is written backwards), s (looks like triangle), z (suddenly has a loop below the line) and the capital G (looks like Y), I (looks like Я), Q (a huge 2), S (big triangle), Z (doesn't look like Z at all) looked completely different from their printed counterparts. Maybe this is because they are &quot;optimized&quot; for fast writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it looks like as time goes by the printed letters may change, while handwritten ones stay almost the same. For example in this [answer about letter Л](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2332/551) you can see that its modern form become popular in 1840, while before that time printed and handwritten Л had the similar &quot;angle-shaped&quot; form similar to Greek Λ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question was about difference between [printed т and hand-written *т*](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1552/551). And looks like the difference is also has historical roots - both letters had almost the same shape before 1708 reform by Peter the Great. So, looks like handwriting is more conservative than printed fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about usage of handwriting. This is called a [cursive script](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive). According to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cursive, also known as script, joined-up writing, joint writing, running writing, or handwriting is any style of penmanship in which the symbols of the language are written in a conjoined and/or flowing manner, generally for the purpose of making writing faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In the Persian, Arabic, Latin, and Cyrillic alphabets, many or all letters in a word are connected, sometimes making a word one single complex stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, before the invention of a [typewriter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter) in 1860 it was the only way to compose a document. But even after that cursive was used in personal correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In USSR only official institutions and companies (and professional writers) typed their documents using typewriters, but even to prepare a long document it could be prepared first by the hand and then sent to &quot;машбюро&quot; a typing office. All the requests (e.g. for the vacation etc.) were written by the hand and never typed (you can sometimes meet this requirement even today - &quot;the request should be hand-written using blue ink&quot;). Also you could rare see the preprinted form where you should just fill in the gaps - usually you had to start from the blank page and write all the document yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To apply for a Ph.D. one had to write a Doctoral Dissertation which in printed form has several hundreds of pages - in 80'es this was made by the hand and then sent to a typing office where it was typed for several weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you try to write several pages in block letters - it will take enormous time and effort. The cursive is much faster and easier to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when the computers and printers are widespread you don't have to write so much. But still in some areas computers are rare and you likely will have to write any documents there in old-fasioned way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian cursive letters (from [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1556/551)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An here is the English cursive. In Russian schools the pupils are also taught to write this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that in the US the cursive is almost extinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the 2006 SAT, a United States post-secondary education entrance exam, only 15 percent of the students wrote their essay answers in cursive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 2012, the American states of Indiana and Hawaii announced that their schools will no longer be required to teach cursive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XILCa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YsdPg.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GNqJY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9607" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2792" RevisionGUID="2f887771-2086-442a-99c5-6309fbc9df86" CreationDate="2013-11-29T15:29:19.880" UserId="71" Comment="edited title" Text="Typeface vs Handwritten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="15ff7786-285e-46b9-ad03-621ecb9dbb7a" CreationDate="2013-11-30T10:23:45.527" UserId="2208" Text="I would say that however the following is grammatically correct, this is not what natives would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; –Kому тебе нужно сказать правду? Ей?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; –(да нет,) ему нужно мнe сказать правду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better to say this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Кому [тебе] нужно сказать правду? Ей?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -(да нет,) ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressing (с интонацией) at the word `ему`. No one would use the full answer in real life,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Maybe even better worded question to avoid double Dative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Кому ты должен сказать правду? Ей?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="79cbf7b2-9f53-42d8-96f6-9f546522c3d7" CreationDate="2013-11-30T19:43:44.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/406871185386123264" />
  <row Id="9610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="576220ac-e14f-4a88-a159-5b0a72e320dd" CreationDate="2013-12-01T16:34:05.340" UserId="2191" Text="From examples that I have seen, I understand that titles of media (books, films etc.) enclosed in quotation marks that are nouns (possibly modified by adjectives) or adjectives and that are not preceded by the type of media are declined.  For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я прочитала «Вечного мужа».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Актёр из «Утомлённых солнцем» подозревается в убийстве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: are there any other types of grammatical structures for titles within quotation marks that are declined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My apologies if there is already an answer in English available on the internet.  The only related page I could find was [this question on Yahoo! Answers](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202190327AAjkht8), which answers a slightly different question (should one write ‘see: “Venera-9”’ as см.: «Венера-9» or см.: «Венеру-9»?).  I also do not understand why «Венера-9» should not be declined for this example.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="576220ac-e14f-4a88-a159-5b0a72e320dd" CreationDate="2013-12-01T16:34:05.340" UserId="2191" Text="When is a title in quotation marks that is not preceded by the type of media declined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="576220ac-e14f-4a88-a159-5b0a72e320dd" CreationDate="2013-12-01T16:34:05.340" UserId="2191" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="fa9a3ebd-6226-4066-b78d-b9394548bd9f" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:29:13.737" UserId="2208" Text="There are two grammatically correct variants:&#xD;&#xA;For example: &quot;Я прочитал «Войну и мир»&quot; or &quot;Я еще не смотрел последний эпизод «Звёздных войн»&quot; are correct as well as &quot;Я прочитал книгу «Война и мир»&quot; or &quot;Я еще не смотрел последний эпизод эпопеи «Звёздные войны»&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there can also be such titles that hardly possible to use without the media type. For example: &quot;Что вы думаете о фильме «Здравствуйте, я ваша тётя!»?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases if the title doesn't sound like a title, though easily declined, the media type is better to be used: &quot;Вы читали «Братьев Карамазовых»?&quot; For a person who is not well-read, it may sound like you ask about some brothers Karamazovs who wrote some book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of «Венера-9» vs «Венеру-9», «Венера-9» is used in case of &quot;см. Венера-9&quot;. It's becase it can be extended &quot;смотри статью с названием «Венера-9»&quot;. So, nominative case is used when you refer using &quot;см.&quot;. But if «Венера-9» were a movie, we would say: &quot;посмотри «Венеру-9»&quot; or &quot;посмотри фильм «Венера-9»&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="5fdb618d-51b8-4b35-9eef-5d28c9be4ea0" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:35:48.373" UserId="2208" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="There are two grammatically correct variants:&#xD;&#xA;For example: &quot;`Я прочитал «Войну и мир»`&quot; or &quot;`Я еще не смотрел последний эпизод «Звёздных войн»`&quot; are correct as well as &quot;`Я прочитал книгу «Война и мир»`&quot; or &quot;`Я еще не смотрел последний эпизод эпопеи «Звёздные войны»`&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there can also be such titles that hardly possible to use without the media type. For example: &quot;`Что вы думаете о фильме «Здравствуйте, я ваша тётя!»?`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases if the title doesn't sound like a title, though easily declined, the media type is better to be used: &quot;`Вы читали «Братьев Карамазовых»?`&quot; For a person who is not well-read, it may sound like you ask about some brothers Karamazovs who wrote some book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of «`Венера-9`» vs «`Венеру-9`», «`Венера-9`» is used in case of &quot;`см. Венера-9`&quot;. It's because it can be extended to &quot;`смотри статью с названием «Венера-9»`&quot;. So, nominative case is used when you refer using &quot;`см.`&quot;. But if «`Венера-9`» were a movie, we would say: &quot;`посмотри «Венеру-9`»&quot; or &quot;`посмотри фильм «Венера-9»`&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9615" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="3c81a2c3-c43b-4c83-bef0-b95bf5ed311b" CreationDate="2013-12-01T19:43:57.070" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/407233625722454016" />
  <row Id="9616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="5a089c93-2eea-40bb-ac84-0d8199cb157e" CreationDate="2013-12-01T19:47:09.070" UserId="2085" Text="That's it, specifically in the sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;не встать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;не вставать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they exactly the same, what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="5a089c93-2eea-40bb-ac84-0d8199cb157e" CreationDate="2013-12-01T19:47:09.070" UserId="2085" Text="Difference between вставать and встать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="5a089c93-2eea-40bb-ac84-0d8199cb157e" CreationDate="2013-12-01T19:47:09.070" UserId="2085" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2806" RevisionGUID="9c12376b-298c-4482-936e-8a70c22ed4bb" CreationDate="2013-12-01T20:17:46.093" UserId="1236" Text="The difference between these two words is a usual difference between a pair of an imperfective (вставать) and a perfective (встать) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, `не встать!` looks ungrammatical as imperative, imperfective verbs are not used in negative (forbidding) imperative commands (the `!` suggests you meant it to be imperative), although it is possible to use the phrase to express regret, then it means `cannot stand/get up!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Не вставать!` is a usual strongly forbidding imperative command, it means `don't you stand/get up!`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="aaf7f24a-58f8-46c2-8506-99c9d8bd7186" CreationDate="2013-12-01T21:45:33.310" UserId="2191" Comment="improved formatting" Text="From examples that I have seen, I understand that titles of media (books, films etc.) enclosed in quotation marks that are nouns (possibly modified by adjectives) or adjectives in the nominative case and that are not preceded by the type of media are declined.  For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я прочитала «Вечного мужа».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Актёр из «Утомлённых солнцем» подозревается в убийстве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: are there any other types of grammatical structures for titles within quotation marks that are declined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(My apologies if there is already an answer in English available on the internet.  The only related page I could find was [this question on Yahoo! Answers](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202190327AAjkht8), which answers a slightly different question (should one write ‘`see: “Venera-9”`’ as ‘`см.: «Венера-9»`’ or ‘`см.: «Венеру-9»`’?).  I also do not understand why `«Венера-9»` should not be declined for this example.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="8d3f7e9b-2b55-46ba-abc6-6f3cf7fc9869" CreationDate="2013-12-01T23:16:53.830" UserId="2217" Text="I was reviewing an older Russian textbook today, and it says that the genitive case has to be used for the direct object of negated verbs. For example: I don't see the table (&quot;Я не вижу стола&quot;), and not Я не вижу стол.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of the newer Russian textbooks make no mention of this rule, and a few Russians I've spoken to have said that although it's possible to say Я не вижу стола, most people just say Я не вижу стол. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would mean that if I had the sentence &quot;He doesn't read my book&quot;, it would be &quot;Он не читает мою книгу,&quot; and not &quot;Он не читает моей книги.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is this rule really a rule, or is it one that can be disregarded in the context of current usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="8d3f7e9b-2b55-46ba-abc6-6f3cf7fc9869" CreationDate="2013-12-01T23:16:53.830" UserId="2217" Text="Direct object of negated verbs takes which case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="8d3f7e9b-2b55-46ba-abc6-6f3cf7fc9869" CreationDate="2013-12-01T23:16:53.830" UserId="2217" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="1e2a4827-3e8a-4802-8494-b654b2863482" CreationDate="2013-12-02T05:48:41.917" UserId="242" Text="Well, [there][1] are some rules for this, let me give a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, [transitive verbs][2] with negation are governed by genitive or accusative in following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genitive*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With strong negation with [`ни`][3] particle - &quot;Не люблю ни кофе, ни чай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With separative/quantitative (sorry, don't know exact English term) [objects][4] - &quot;Не понял моих слов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. After verbs `видеть, слышать, думать, хотеть, чувствовать, ждать`&#xD;&#xA; 1. With words used for describing abstract concepts (like time, honor and so one) - &quot;Не теряет времени&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***accusative*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In cases when in English one most likely will use &quot;the&quot; -  &quot;Не прочёл книгу, которую ему рекомендовали&quot; (he hadn't red the book, which…)&#xD;&#xA; 1. With animate nouns and proper nouns.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With double negations - Нельзя не заметить определённую логику в его доводах.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With adverbs of extreme [degree][5] (like almost, nearly etc.) - Едва не пропустил урок. &#xD;&#xA; 1. If there is a word (usually this is an adjective) which logically connected with both the verb and and the corresponding noun. Here we need a bit of explanation. For example, in phrase &quot;не считаю книгу интересной&quot; you can just drop &quot;книгу&quot; and leave &quot;не считаю интересной&quot; - this is exactly what is meant by connection with both verb and noun.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If negation is separated by some additional word (thus, if the verb is not negated directly) - &quot;Не часто слушаю музыку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If it is subsequent infinitive which is the subject of negation, not a noun - Не хотел читать книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rulinguistic.com/normy-upravleniya/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/adverbs_degree.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="f72cb642-5f81-4c39-903d-ad664ed5024d" CreationDate="2013-12-02T05:57:32.060" UserId="242" Comment="added 784 characters in body" Text="Well, [there][1] are some rules for this, let me give a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, [transitive verbs][2] with negation are governed by genitive or accusative in following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genitive*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With strong negation with [`ни`][3] particle - &quot;Не люблю ни кофе, ни чай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With separative/quantitative (sorry, don't know exact English term) [objects][4] - &quot;Не понял моих слов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. After verbs `видеть, слышать, думать, хотеть, чувствовать, ждать`&#xD;&#xA; 1. With words used for describing abstract concepts (like time, honor and so one) - &quot;Не теряет времени&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***accusative*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In cases when in English one most likely will use &quot;the&quot; -  &quot;Не прочёл книгу, которую ему рекомендовали&quot; (he hadn't red the book, which…)&#xD;&#xA; 1. With animate nouns and proper nouns.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With double negations - Нельзя не заметить определённую логику в его доводах.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With adverbs of extreme [degree][5] (like almost, nearly etc.) - Едва не пропустил урок. &#xD;&#xA; 1. If there is a word (usually this is an adjective) which logically connected with both the verb and and the corresponding noun. Here we need a bit of explanation. For example, in phrase &quot;не считаю книгу интересной&quot; you can just drop &quot;книгу&quot; and leave &quot;не считаю интересной&quot; - this is exactly what is meant by connection with both verb and noun.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If negation is separated by some additional word (thus, if the verb is not negated directly) - &quot;Не часто слушаю музыку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If it is subsequent infinitive which is the subject of negation, not a noun - Не хотел читать книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a sharp reader, you've noticed that I've a bit shortened the second list of rules. This is not because I'm lazy - well, not only because of this :)&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the rules are getting quite vague, even self-repeating and, most important, all these rules are not always strict. You indeed can say &quot;не читал этой книги&quot; or &quot;не читал эту книгу&quot;; but at the same time thee are cases when only one form is (de-facto) appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question belongs to that kind of questions which make learning any language a difficult task, since even rules trying to describe something are quite fuzzy. &#xD;&#xA;If you ask any native Russian speaker why he/she prefers one form to another, the less probabilistic scenario it that this native speaker will name you any of tules describe above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! Speaking of for the verb &quot;видеть&quot; there's a little mnemonic trick you can use. &#xD;&#xA;If you use &quot;не видеть&quot; in the meaning &quot;не замечать&quot; (do not notice) in colloquial speech you most probably will end with genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rulinguistic.com/normy-upravleniya/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/adverbs_degree.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2809" RevisionGUID="d0da2a21-89fb-41dd-9670-f813a383ddee" CreationDate="2013-12-02T05:59:30.363" UserId="2060" Text="&gt; При переходных глаголах с отрицанием в одних случаях явно преобладает употребление родительного падежа дополнения, в других – употребление винительного падежа, в третьих – наблюдается факультативное их использование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Падеж дополнения при переходных глаголах с отрицанием][1] (Розенталь Д.Э. и др. Справочник.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your observation is correct -- genitive is mostly bookish. I'd say only 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 cases of the article are more widely used in genitive, but even those are often disregarded in informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/66.htm#%D0%B7_04" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="91c3af3b-73b1-4e56-8406-687362bc0de3" CreationDate="2013-12-02T06:26:22.853" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="Well, [there][1] are some rules for this, let me give a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, [transitive verbs][2] with negation are governed by genitive or accusative in following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genitive*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With strong negation with [`ни`][3] particle - &quot;Не люблю ни чрезмерной жары, ни чрезмерного холода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With partitive [objects][4] - &quot;Не понял моих слов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. After verbs `видеть, слышать, думать, хотеть, чувствовать, ждать`&#xD;&#xA; 1. With words used for describing abstract concepts (like time, honor and so one) - &quot;Не теряет времени&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***accusative*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In cases when in English one most likely will use &quot;the&quot; -  &quot;Не прочёл книгу, которую ему рекомендовали&quot; (he hadn't red the book, which…)&#xD;&#xA; 1. With animate nouns and proper nouns.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With double negations - Нельзя не заметить определённую логику в его доводах.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With adverbs of extreme [degree][5] (like almost, nearly etc.) - Едва не пропустил урок. &#xD;&#xA; 1. If there is a word (usually this is an adjective) which logically connected with both the verb and and the corresponding noun. Here we need a bit of explanation. For example, in phrase &quot;не считаю книгу интересной&quot; you can just drop &quot;книгу&quot; and leave &quot;не считаю интересной&quot; - this is exactly what is meant by connection with both verb and noun.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If negation is separated by some additional word (thus, if the verb is not negated directly) - &quot;Не часто слушаю музыку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If it is subsequent infinitive which is the subject of negation, not a noun - Не хотел читать книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a sharp reader, you've noticed that I've a bit shortened the second list of rules. This is not because I'm lazy - well, not only because of this :)&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the rules are getting quite vague, even self-repeating and, most important, all these rules are not always strict. You indeed can say &quot;не читал этой книги&quot; or &quot;не читал эту книгу&quot;; but at the same time thee are cases when only one form is (de-facto) appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question belongs to that kind of questions which make learning any language a difficult task, since even rules trying to describe something are quite fuzzy. &#xD;&#xA;If you ask any native Russian speaker why he/she prefers one form to another, the less probabilistic scenario it that this native speaker will name you any of tules describe above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! Speaking of for the verb &quot;видеть&quot; there's a little mnemonic trick you can use. &#xD;&#xA;If you use &quot;не видеть&quot; in the meaning &quot;не замечать&quot; (do not notice) in colloquial speech you most probably will end with genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rulinguistic.com/normy-upravleniya/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/adverbs_degree.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2809" RevisionGUID="36c99ae9-0fdb-40b2-a298-abff303a5be4" CreationDate="2013-12-02T07:31:12.667" UserId="2060" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&gt; При переходных глаголах с отрицанием в одних случаях явно преобладает употребление родительного падежа дополнения, в других – употребление винительного падежа, в третьих – наблюдается факультативное их использование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Падеж дополнения при переходных глаголах с отрицанием][1] (Розенталь Д.Э. и др. Справочник.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your observation is correct -- usually genitive is more bookish than accusative. I'd say only 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 cases of the article are more widely used in genitive, but even those are often disregarded in informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/66.htm#%D0%B7_04" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="48120187-72bc-4451-be22-ae7217419cf3" CreationDate="2013-12-02T13:16:43.117" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Well, [there][1] are some rules for this, let me give a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, [transitive verbs][2] with negation are governed by genitive or accusative in following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genitive*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With strong negation with [`ни`][3] particle - &quot;Не люблю ни чрезмерной жары, ни чрезмерного холода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With partitive [objects][4] -  Не cделал вычислений.&#xD;&#xA; 1. After verbs `видеть, слышать, думать, хотеть, чувствовать, ждать`&#xD;&#xA; 1. With words used for describing abstract concepts (like time, honor and so one) - &quot;Не теряет времени&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***accusative*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In cases when in English one most likely will use &quot;the&quot; -  &quot;Не прочёл книгу, которую ему рекомендовали&quot; (he hadn't red the book, which…)&#xD;&#xA; 1. With animate nouns and proper nouns.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With double negations - Нельзя не заметить определённую логику в его доводах.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With adverbs of extreme [degree][5] (like almost, nearly etc.) - Едва не пропустил урок. &#xD;&#xA; 1. If there is a word (usually this is an adjective) which logically connected with both the verb and and the corresponding noun. Here we need a bit of explanation. For example, in phrase &quot;не считаю книгу интересной&quot; you can just drop &quot;книгу&quot; and leave &quot;не считаю интересной&quot; - this is exactly what is meant by connection with both verb and noun.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If negation is separated by some additional word (thus, if the verb is not negated directly) - &quot;Не часто слушаю музыку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If it is subsequent infinitive which is the subject of negation, not a noun - Не хотел читать книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a sharp reader, you've noticed that I've a bit shortened the second list of rules. This is not because I'm lazy - well, not only because of this :)&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the rules are getting quite vague, even self-repeating and, most important, all these rules are not always strict. You indeed can say &quot;не читал этой книги&quot; or &quot;не читал эту книгу&quot;; but at the same time thee are cases when only one form is (de-facto) appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question belongs to that kind of questions which make learning any language a difficult task, since even rules trying to describe something are quite fuzzy. &#xD;&#xA;If you ask any native Russian speaker why he/she prefers one form to another, the less probabilistic scenario it that this native speaker will name you any of tules describe above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! Speaking of for the verb &quot;видеть&quot; there's a little mnemonic trick you can use. &#xD;&#xA;If you use &quot;не видеть&quot; in the meaning &quot;не замечать&quot; (do not notice) in colloquial speech you most probably will end with genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rulinguistic.com/normy-upravleniya/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/adverbs_degree.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="df68ce44-da8c-4e37-8279-4d3d3f5b2667" CreationDate="2013-12-02T19:35:35.697" UserId="1329" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get infinitive when only short passive participle is available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not (which is what I suppose), then how can I **minimize the usage of a dictionary** in order to get the infinitive? And which exceptions will I have to define externally in order to get it right? Probably I will even need to include extra rules for consonant/vowel alternation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case when the short participle is ended with -ан is pretty easy for automatic processing : I just replace -ан with -ать. But for other patterns, there is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a question on this site about the choice of -t or -n pattern choice when forming passive participles. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1757/1329&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see, the mapping   verb_infinitive -&gt; pattern is non-injective and surjective, so in order to determine the verb infinitive, I need extra resources.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="df68ce44-da8c-4e37-8279-4d3d3f5b2667" CreationDate="2013-12-02T19:35:35.697" UserId="1329" Text="Reverse procedure : how to get infinitive when only short passive participle is available" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="df68ce44-da8c-4e37-8279-4d3d3f5b2667" CreationDate="2013-12-02T19:35:35.697" UserId="1329" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2806" RevisionGUID="adeacee7-16b7-4f3b-b787-0c5cfc4f567b" CreationDate="2013-12-02T20:19:19.363" UserId="1236" Comment="typo corrected" Text="The difference between these two words is a usual difference between a pair of an imperfective (вставать) and a perfective (встать) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, `не встать!` looks ungrammatical as imperative, perfective verbs are not used in negative (forbidding) imperative commands (the `!` suggests you meant it to be imperative), although it is possible to use the phrase to express regret, then it means `cannot stand/get up!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Не вставать!` is a usual strongly forbidding imperative command, it means `don't you stand/get up!`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="61d6caf9-d1b7-486f-bbef-833da9f4481a" CreationDate="2013-12-02T20:48:40.777" UserId="2079" Text="*Встать* and *вставать* is a **видовая пара**.  This means that *встать* is perfective, *вставать* is imperfective, but otherwise their meaning is the same.  Their past forms (singular masculine) are *встал* and *вставал*, their future forms (singular first person) are *встану* and *буду вставать*.  In present time, they are the same (встаю/встаём/встаёшь/встаёте/встаёт/встают).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Встать* means one-time action, *вставать* means a repeating action. For example, you can say &quot;я вставал каждое утро&quot;, but not &quot;я встал каждое утро&quot;, which is gramatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, *встать* means a simple action, *вставать* means an action with internal structure.  For instance, &quot;надо встать&quot; refers to an physical action of standing up or raising from the bed. &quot;Надо вставать&quot; means that one needs to get up, clean teeth, dress him/herself etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не вставать!&quot; is an order prohibiting to stand up.  &quot;Не встать&quot; is a phrase, not a sentence, meaning that it is impossible to stand up or get up (due to weariness, wounds, absence of space to stand up, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a colloquial phrase &quot;умереть, не встать&quot; (&quot;упасть, не встать&quot;, &quot;не встать&quot;) which means &quot;very funny&quot;, &quot;LOLMAO&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="8b031ce0-e418-45e7-bf14-cd5f50673eee" CreationDate="2013-12-02T20:50:18.437" UserId="1236" Comment="spelling and grammar" Text="Well, [there][1] are some rules for this, let me give a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, [transitive verbs][2] with negation are governed by genitive or accusative in following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***genitive*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With strong negation with [`ни`][3] particle - &quot;Не люблю ни чрезмерной жары, ни чрезмерного холода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With partitive [objects][4] -  Не cделал вычислений.&#xD;&#xA; 1. After verbs `видеть, слышать, думать, хотеть, чувствовать, ждать`&#xD;&#xA; 1. With words used for describing abstract concepts (like time, honor and so one) - &quot;Не теряет времени&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***accusative*** *(usually used)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In cases when in English one most likely will use &quot;the&quot; -  &quot;Не прочёл книгу, которую ему рекомендовали&quot; (he hadn't read the book, which…).&#xD;&#xA; 1. With animate nouns and proper nouns.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With double negations - Нельзя не заметить определённую логику в его доводах.&#xD;&#xA; 1. With adverbs of extreme [degree][5] (like almost, nearly etc.) - Едва не пропустил урок. &#xD;&#xA; 1. If there is a word (usually this is an adjective) which is logically connected with both the verb and and the corresponding noun. Here we need a bit of explanation. For example, in phrase &quot;не считаю книгу интересной&quot; you can just drop &quot;книгу&quot; and leave &quot;не считаю интересной&quot; - this is exactly what is meant by connection with both verb and noun.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If negation is separated by some additional word (thus, if the verb is not negated directly) - &quot;Не часто слушаю музыку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 1. If it is subsequent infinitive which is the subject of negation, not a noun - Не хотел читать книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a sharp reader, you've noticed that I've a bit shortened the second list of rules. This is not because I'm lazy - well, not only because of this :)&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the rules are getting quite vague, even self-repeating and, most important, all these rules are not always strict. You indeed can say &quot;не читал этой книги&quot; or &quot;не читал эту книгу&quot;; but at the same time there are cases when only one form is (de-facto) appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question belongs to that kind of questions which makes learning any language a difficult task, since even rules trying to describe something are quite fuzzy. &#xD;&#xA;If you ask any native Russian speaker why he/she prefers one form to another, the less probabilistic scenario is that this native speaker will name you any of the rules described above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But! Speaking of the verb &quot;видеть&quot; there's a little mnemonic trick you can use. &#xD;&#xA;If you use &quot;не видеть&quot; in the meaning &quot;не замечать&quot; (do not notice) in colloquial speech you most probably will end with genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rulinguistic.com/normy-upravleniya/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/adverbs_degree.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="51c952cd-5a41-4b47-9593-b4b84cc2ac74" CreationDate="2013-12-02T21:14:29.037" UserId="2079" Comment="added 906 characters in body" Text="*Встать* and *вставать* is a **видовая пара**.  This means that *встать* is perfective, *вставать* is imperfective, but otherwise their meaning is the same.  Their past forms (singular masculine) are *встал* and *вставал*, their future forms (singular first person) are *встану* and *буду вставать*.  In present time, they are the same (встаю/встаём/встаёшь/встаёте/встаёт/встают).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Встать* means one-time action, *вставать* means a repeating action. For example, you can say &quot;я вставал каждое утро&quot;, but not &quot;я встал каждое утро&quot;, which is gramatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, *встать* means a simple action, *вставать* means an action with internal structure.  For instance, &quot;надо встать&quot; refers to an physical action of standing up or raising from the bed. &quot;Надо вставать&quot; means that one needs to get up, which takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Waking up somebody, the correct verb is &quot;вставай(те)&quot;, not &quot;встань(те)&quot;, because a sleeping person cannot raise immediately, the process takes time.&#xD;&#xA;* But &quot;Я встану завтра в 7 утра&quot;, &quot;завтра мне надо встать в 7 утра&quot; - because the process of getting up will/should be finished at 7.  Similarly, &quot;я вчера встал в 7 утра&quot;, because at 7am you already finished the process of getting up.  &quot;Я вчера вставал в 7 утра&quot; means, if anything, that at 7am you were in bed making heroic efforts to get up.&#xD;&#xA;* When doing physical exercises, &quot;встань(те)&quot; (встали, встать) is correct, because it refers to a physical movement.&#xD;&#xA;* When sitting in a train, &quot;вставай, мы приехали&quot; means that the train is at the destination station, and you ask the person to stand up, but before it he may put his book into the bag, for example.  &quot;Встань&quot; in the train means that you want him to stand up immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не вставать!&quot; is an order prohibiting to stand up.  &quot;Не встать&quot; is a phrase, not a sentence, meaning that it is impossible to stand up or get up (due to weariness, wounds, absence of space to stand up, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a colloquial phrase &quot;умереть, не встать&quot; (&quot;упасть, не встать&quot;, &quot;не встать&quot;) which means &quot;very funny&quot;, &quot;LOLMAO&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="9fd326b2-2339-4f97-afdf-994735c5488a" CreationDate="2013-12-02T21:20:52.363" UserId="2079" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="*Встать* and *вставать* is a **видовая пара**.  This means that *встать* is perfective, *вставать* is imperfective, but otherwise their meaning is the same.  Their past forms (singular masculine) are *встал* and *вставал*, their future forms (singular first person) are *встану* and *буду вставать*.  In present time, they are the same (встаю/встаём/встаёшь/встаёте/встаёт/встают).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Встать* means one-time action, *вставать* means a repeating action. For example, you can say &quot;я вставал каждое утро&quot;, but not &quot;я встал каждое утро&quot;, which is gramatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, *встать* means a simple action, *вставать* means an action with internal structure.  For instance, &quot;надо встать&quot; refers to an physical action of standing up or raising from the bed. &quot;Надо вставать&quot; means that one needs to get up, which takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Waking up somebody, the correct verb is &quot;вставай(те)&quot;, not &quot;встань(те)&quot;, because a sleeping person cannot raise immediately, the process takes time.&#xD;&#xA;* But &quot;Я встану завтра в 7 утра&quot;, &quot;завтра мне надо встать в 7 утра&quot; - because the process of getting up will/should be finished at 7.  Similarly, &quot;я вчера встал в 7 утра&quot;, because at 7am you already finished the process of getting up.  &quot;Я вчера вставал в 7 утра&quot; means, if anything, that at 7am you were in bed making heroic efforts to get up.&#xD;&#xA;* When doing physical exercises, &quot;встань(те)&quot; (встали, встать) is the correct verb, because it refers to a physical movement.&#xD;&#xA;* When sitting in a train, &quot;вставай, мы приехали&quot; means that the train is at the destination station, and you ask the person to stand up, but before it he may put his book into the bag, for example.  &quot;Встань&quot; in the train means that you want him to stand up immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не вставать!&quot; is an order prohibiting to stand up.  &quot;Не встать&quot; is a phrase, not a sentence, meaning that it is impossible to stand up or get up (due to weariness, wounds, absence of space to stand up, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a colloquial phrase &quot;умереть, не встать&quot; (&quot;упасть, не встать&quot;, &quot;не встать&quot;) which means &quot;very funny&quot;, &quot;LOLMAO&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="78d30f47-c327-4596-9663-4fc8e96a1252" CreationDate="2013-12-03T04:35:39.430" UserId="905" Text="There might be rules and my kids probably learn them.&#xD;&#xA;I tried to figure it out, and simple patterns come into mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Perfect forms of verbs end with the same vowel as in the participle ending (что сделать?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Imperfect forms of verbs always end with: -ать/-ять (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ан -ана -ано -&gt; -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сделан сделана сделано -&gt; сделать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;прочитан прочитана прочитано -&gt; прочит-ать (что сделать?), прочитыв-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ат -ата -ато -&gt; -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сжат сжата сжато -&gt; сж-ать (что сделать?), сжим-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ят -ята -ято -&gt; -ять, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;смять смята смято -&gt; см-ять (что сделать?), сжим-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ян -яна -яно -&gt; -ять, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;засеян засеяна засеяно -&gt; засе-ять (что сделать?), засев-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ен -ена -ено -&gt; -ить, -ять, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;скошен скошена скошено -&gt; скос-ить (что сделать?), скашив-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оставлен оставлена оставлено -&gt; остав-ить (что сделать?), оставл-ять (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ет -ета -ето -&gt; -еть, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спет спета спето -&gt; сп-еть (что сделать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;одет одета одето -&gt; од-еть (что сделать?), одев-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ит -ита -ито -&gt; -ить, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сбит сбита сбито -&gt; сб-ить (что сделать?), сбив-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ыт -ыта -ыто -&gt; -ыть, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;открыт открыта открыто -&gt; откр-ыть (что сделать?), открыв-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ут -ута -уто -&gt; -уть, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тронут тронута тронуто -&gt; трон-уть (что сделать?), трог-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -от -ота -ото -&gt; -оть, -ать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;прополот прополота прополото -&gt; пропол-оть (что сделать?), пропалыв-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - -ён -ена -ено -&gt; -ить, -ать, -ять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;обозлён обозлена обозлено -&gt; обозл-ить (что сделать?), обозл-ять (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;взращён взращена взращено -&gt; взраст-ить (что сделать?), взращив-ать (что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="9f5dccc9-840d-4725-acdb-65441ad4abc0" CreationDate="2013-12-03T04:44:01.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/407731927597469696" />
  <row Id="9642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="f75ce94e-054e-495d-a14f-033a722e3efe" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:36:02.090" UserId="2191" Text="Certain words govern more than one case even when the meaning is identical in both cases.  For example, `простить` governs both the genitive and dative cases and «`прости меня`» and «`прости мне`» have the same meaning.  I have a few questions regarding this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a reason why more than one case is allowed (apart from ‘that’s just the way it is’)?&#xD;&#xA;2. A Yandex search shows that `«прости меня»` is used much more frequently than `«прости мне»`.  Would usage of `«прости мне»` (or the less common case in any situation where more than one case can be used) send a certain kind of signal about your speech? (The closest analogue I can think of in English is usage of ‘`different than`’ or ‘`different to`’ when others would use ‘`different from`’ (i.e. not in a context where most people would agree that ‘`different than`’ works better than than ‘`different from`’).)&#xD;&#xA;3. Might the choice of case be regional or is it fairly evenly spread among the population?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="f75ce94e-054e-495d-a14f-033a722e3efe" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:36:02.090" UserId="2191" Text="Choice of case when more than one is allowed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="f75ce94e-054e-495d-a14f-033a722e3efe" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:36:02.090" UserId="2191" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="03b3af48-240e-45da-b584-d81bdadcdf08" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:46:26.987" UserId="2191" Comment="added 40 characters in body; deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Certain words govern more than one case even when the meaning is identical in both cases.  For example, `простить` governs both the genitive and dative cases and «`прости меня`» and «`прости мне`» have the same meaning.  I have a few questions regarding this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a reason why more than one case is allowed (apart from ‘that’s just the way it is’)?&#xD;&#xA;2. A Yandex search shows that `«прости меня»` is used much more frequently than `«прости мне»`.  Would usage of `«прости мне»` (or the less common case in any situation where more than one case can be used) send a certain kind of signal about your speech? (The closest analogue I can think of in English (which may not be a good analogue) is usage of ‘`different than`’ or ‘`different to`’ when others would use ‘`different from`’ (i.e. not in a context where most people would agree that ‘`different than`’ works better than than ‘`different from`’).)&#xD;&#xA;3. Might the choice of case be regional or is it fairly evenly spread among the population?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="a3b8d97f-bee3-41fb-b0af-812a078b9197" CreationDate="2013-12-03T20:03:24.687" UserId="2220" Text="I read an example that said this sentence was personal:&#xD;&#xA;Его ослепила молния&#xD;&#xA;and this one impersonal:&#xD;&#xA;Его ослепило молнией&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me they both mean &quot;The lightning blinded him.&quot;  I don't really understand how to tell the difference between a personal and impersonal sentence.  Is it something like &quot;he was blinded by the lightning&quot; in the instrumental case as opposed to &quot;the lightening blinded him&quot; in nominative?  When writing my own sentences what is the easiest way to know whether it is a personal or impersonal construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="a3b8d97f-bee3-41fb-b0af-812a078b9197" CreationDate="2013-12-03T20:03:24.687" UserId="2220" Text="How to tell a personal vs. impersonal sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="a3b8d97f-bee3-41fb-b0af-812a078b9197" CreationDate="2013-12-03T20:03:24.687" UserId="2220" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="97e3b498-da54-4508-882d-cea17c76d8b5" CreationDate="2013-12-03T20:55:24.347" UserId="115" Text="Personal sentences have a subject. Impersonal sentences do not. In the sentence &quot;Его ослепила молния&quot;, &quot;молния&quot; is the subject (nominative case), while &quot;его&quot; is the object (genitive case).  On the other hand, in the sentence &quot;Его ослепило молнией&quot;, &quot;молнией&quot; is in the instrumental case, and &quot;его&quot; is still in genitive. So neither can be the subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="315971c1-8ef0-4cf9-891c-db2a54fdf470" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:10:20.153" UserId="2225" Text="Sorry, a native Russian speaker hear. I disagree with the premise of this question. &quot;Прости меня&quot; and &quot;Прости мне&quot; have a completely different meaning to me, albeit in a nuanced way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Прости меня&quot; (who? -- &quot;me&quot; as a person) -- for example, &quot;forgive me that I've been unfaithful to you&quot; (&quot;прости меня, что был тебе неверен&quot;) -- the subject of forgiveness is &quot;I&quot; as individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Прости мне&quot; (what?) -- e.g., &quot;прости мне мои измены&quot; (forgive me my transgressions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;прости мне&quot; therefore has a somewhat deflecting, impersonal effect, perhaps comparable to  &quot;mistakes were made&quot; in English -- a different grammatical structure completely, but the end result is also a &quot;disappearing act&quot; of the responsible party from the discourse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="490f8bec-cfb2-4bc4-9285-bb6dd3c2c374" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:18:04.237" UserId="1123" Text="1. Yes there is a reason for using these two forms. See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is a certain &quot;signal&quot; when using `прости мне` instead of `прости меня` when it's allowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  `Прости меня` - say when someone want to be forgiven **entirely** and after that doesn't remain any reasons to be offended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  `Прости мне` - say when someone want to apologise for **a certain** bad action(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The choice of case of the form `прости` is individual for everyone irrespective of localisation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="2605519f-ee5f-4e30-a1e7-8b57cd275654" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:43:24.357" UserId="2191" Comment="edited to clarify question" Text="Certain words govern more than one case even when the meaning is identical in both cases.  For example, `простить` governs both the genitive and dative cases and «`прости меня`» and «`прости мне`» have the same meaning.  I have a few questions regarding this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a reason why more than one case is allowed (apart from ‘that’s just the way it is’)?&#xD;&#xA;2. A Yandex search shows that «`прости меня`» is used much more frequently than `«прости мне»`.  Would usage of «`прости мне`» (or the less common case in any situation where more than one case can be used) send a certain kind of signal about your speech? (The closest analogue I can think of in English (which may not be a good analogue) is usage of ‘`different than`’ or ‘`different to`’ when others would use ‘`different from`’ (i.e. not in a context where most people would agree that ‘`different than`’ works better than than ‘`different from`’).)&#xD;&#xA;3. Might the choice of case be regional or is it fairly evenly spread among the population?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It has been pointed out that the example is bad.  I understand the difference between «`прости меня`» and «`прости мне`» now.  **My question is about the choice of case when more than one case is permitted and both cases yield identical meanings**; unfortunately I don’t have an example at hand now because what I thought was an example turned out not to be one.  I would be glad to edit the example if someone can provide a valid example.  **I would appreciate it if future answers could address the question that I intended to ask.  It’s possible that the question is vacuous because there is always a difference in meaning when both cases are used irrespective of the verb in question; if this is so, somebody can point it out and I would be happy to consider the question closed.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2819" RevisionGUID="d4a259b3-41a0-47c7-9a13-752c7b8ada18" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:48:37.753" UserId="1236" Text="[Dima][1] is right, I would like to expand the answer a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The predicate agrees with the subject in person, number, and (in the past tense) in gender. Naturally, the subject must be in the Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first example, `Его ослепила молния`, is definitely personal, because the Feminine gender of the predicate explicitly points to `молния` being the subject, there is no other Feminine noun in the sentence, and `молния` is in the Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example, `Его ослепило молнией` must at once draw you attention by several obvious differences from the first one: 1. there in no noun or pronoun in the Nominative case in that sentence (no explicit candidate for the role of the subject); 2. the predicate is in Neuter gender, but there are no Neuter gender nouns (and no infinitives which also make predicate take the Neuter gender form). That means the Neuter gender subject is omitted, and there is only one such subject, `оно` (&quot;it&quot;), it is always omitted in Russian, and this is very typical of an impersonal sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/115/dima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2820" RevisionGUID="5c27fde0-8528-4439-8001-363d809b4d43" CreationDate="2013-12-03T22:56:25.953" UserId="2079" Text="Usage and semantics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a native Russian speaker, I'd say that &quot;его ослепила молния&quot; and &quot;его ослепило молнией&quot; are semantically equivalent.  But until you know Russian very well, you should generally avoid impersonal sentences, because it is easy to make a mistake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Его ослепило молнией - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его дёрнуло/ударило током - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его убило пулей - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его убило шальной пулей - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его разбило параличом - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Корабль снесло ветром - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его укусило собакой - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* Его разбудило звонком - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* Его воскресило дефибриллятором - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, impersonal sentences of this kind are used when inanimate object performs some action, and the action was not purposeful.  You can say &quot;Джона убило пулей&quot; if he was a soldier, and enemy soldier shot to the general direction of his military unit, but not if the shooter had a purpose to kill John personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *ток*, when it means electric current, requires impersonal sentence. You cannot say &quot;меня ударил ток&quot; or &quot;меня дёрнул ток&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In personal sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The object is in nominative case&#xD;&#xA;* The subject is usually in accusative case (not genitive), unless there is a preposition (however, there are exceptions from this rule: Вася владел русским языком)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb has the same gender/number as the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In impersonal sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The subject is in instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* The object is in accusative case (not genitive)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb is in singular neuter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2821" RevisionGUID="80255e5a-b6aa-4b9d-9c14-0939644a26d6" CreationDate="2013-12-03T22:59:30.950" UserId="115" Text="There are situations when [two cases can be used interchangeably][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would still like to expand on the discussion of your original example. &quot;Прости меня.&quot; is a complete sentence, where &quot;меня&quot; is the direct object in genitive case. On the other hand &quot;прости мне&quot; is not a complete sentence. It is missing a direct object. It has to be &quot;прости мне [something]&quot;, such as &quot;прости мне мою грубость&quot; (&quot;forgive me my rudeness&quot;). Notice that once you add the direct object, it is again in genitive case, while &quot;мне&quot; is an indirect object in dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, this is exactly the same construction as &quot;дай мне книгу&quot;. &quot;книгу&quot; is the direct object in genitive, and &quot;мне&quot; is the indirect object in dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/direct-object-of-negated-verbs-takes-which-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="e9c1f7a0-a9d5-4c37-90f1-b6fb566da85c" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:06:25.790" UserId="2225" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Sorry, a native Russian speaker here. I disagree with the premise of this question. &quot;Прости меня&quot; and &quot;Прости мне&quot; have a completely different meaning to me, albeit in a nuanced way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Прости меня&quot; (who? -- &quot;me&quot; as a person) -- for example, &quot;forgive me that I've been unfaithful to you&quot; (&quot;прости меня, что был тебе неверен&quot;) -- the subject of forgiveness is &quot;I&quot; as an individual&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Прости мне&quot; (what?) -- e.g., &quot;прости мне мои измены&quot; (forgive me my transgressions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;прости мне&quot; therefore has a somewhat deflecting, impersonal effect, perhaps comparable to  &quot;mistakes were made&quot; in English -- a different grammatical structure completely, but the end result is also a &quot;disappearing act&quot; of the responsible party from the discourse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2820" RevisionGUID="d5d3bd03-c16e-4422-b868-9b21cdb59dcc" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:06:34.530" UserId="2079" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Usage and semantics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a native Russian speaker, I'd say that &quot;его ослепила молния&quot; and &quot;его ослепило молнией&quot; are semantically equivalent.  But until you know Russian very well, you should generally avoid impersonal sentences, because it is easy to make a mistake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Его ослепило молнией - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его дёрнуло/ударило током - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его убило пулей - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его убило шальной пулей - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его разбило параличом - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Корабль снесло ветром - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его укусило собакой - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* Его воскресило дефибриллятором - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* Его вылечило от туберкулёза горным воздухом - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, impersonal sentences of this kind are used when inanimate object performs some action, and the action was not purposeful.  You can say &quot;Джона убило пулей&quot; if he was a soldier, and enemy soldier shot to the general direction of his military unit, but not if the shooter had a purpose to kill John personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *ток*, when it means electric current, requires impersonal sentence. You cannot say &quot;меня ударил ток&quot; or &quot;меня дёрнул ток&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In personal sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The object is in nominative case&#xD;&#xA;* The subject is usually in accusative case (not genitive), unless there is a preposition (however, there are exceptions from this rule: Вася владел русским языком)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb has the same gender/number as the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In impersonal sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The subject is in instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* The object is in accusative case (not genitive)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb is in singular neuter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="d59df91c-1f5f-46aa-b9da-c9967ffd2530" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:07:17.970" UserId="2191" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Certain words govern more than one case even when the meaning is identical in both cases.  For example, `простить` governs both the genitive and dative cases and «`прости меня`» and «`прости мне`» have the same meaning.  I have a few questions regarding this phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there a reason why more than one case is allowed (apart from ‘that’s just the way it is’)?&#xD;&#xA;2. A Yandex search shows that «`прости меня`» is used much more frequently than `«прости мне»`.  Would usage of «`прости мне`» (or the less common case in any situation where more than one case can be used) send a certain kind of signal about your speech? (The closest analogue I can think of in English (which may not be a good analogue) is usage of ‘`different than`’ or ‘`different to`’ when others would use ‘`different from`’ (i.e. not in a context where most people would agree that ‘`different than`’ works better than than ‘`different from`’).)&#xD;&#xA;3. Might the choice of case be regional or is it fairly evenly spread among the population?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It has been pointed out that the example is bad.  I understand the difference between «`прости меня`» and «`прости мне что-то`» now.  **My question is about the choice of case when more than one case is permitted and both cases yield identical meanings**; unfortunately I don’t have an example at hand now because what I thought was an example turned out not to be one.  I would be glad to edit the example if someone can provide a valid example.  **I would appreciate it if future answers could address the question that I intended to ask.  It’s possible that the question is vacuous because there is always a difference in meaning when both cases are used irrespective of the verb in question; if this is so, somebody can point it out and I would be happy to consider the question closed.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2820" RevisionGUID="f074498a-eccd-4556-93dd-4edc1489944d" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:33:28.603" UserId="2079" Comment="edited body" Text="Usage and semantics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a native Russian speaker, I'd say that &quot;его ослепила молния&quot; and &quot;его ослепило молнией&quot; are semantically equivalent.  But until you know Russian very well, you should generally avoid impersonal sentences, because it is easy to make a mistake:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Его ослепило молнией - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его дёрнуло/ударило током - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его убило пулей - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его убило шальной пулей - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его разбило параличом - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Корабль снесло ветром - correct&#xD;&#xA;* Его укусило собакой - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* Его воскресило дефибриллятором - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* Его вылечило от туберкулёза горным воздухом - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, impersonal sentences of this kind are used when inanimate object performs some action, and the action was not purposeful.  You can say &quot;Джона убило пулей&quot; if he was a soldier, and enemy soldier shot to the general direction of his military unit, but not if the shooter had a purpose to kill John personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *ток*, when it means electric current, requires impersonal sentence. You cannot say &quot;меня ударил ток&quot; or &quot;меня дёрнул ток&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In personal sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The subject is in nominative case&#xD;&#xA;* The object is usually in accusative case (not genitive), unless there is a preposition (however, there are exceptions from this rule: Вася владел русским языком)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb has the same gender/number as the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In impersonal sentences of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The subject is in instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;* The object is in accusative case (not genitive)&#xD;&#xA;* The verb is in singular neuter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="2ef5e215-a998-4cae-b8fe-a6149853b797" CreationDate="2013-12-04T05:19:34.023" UserId="2225" Text="I think the difference between the two terms is closely paralleled by two English words -- &quot;heroism&quot; and &quot;heroics&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if somebody is meant to be portrayed as a true hero (without irony), his or her actions may be described as &quot;heroism&quot; (героизм); a wannabe, pretense or show-off hero, however, could be said to be acting with &quot;heroics&quot; (геройство).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that, depending on the context, the choice of a verb could be more important than the choice of a noun in order to convey the speaker's state of mind. A whole spectrum from very high to very low is possible here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Они проявил настоящий героизм*   &lt;-- an aura of high respectability and objectivity&#xD;&#xA; - *Она повела себя по-геройски*        &lt;-- ditto          &#xD;&#xA; - *Они продемонстрировали мужество и героизм*  &lt;-- ditto, although &quot;demonstrated&quot; is a more subjective and less lofty term than &quot;exhibited&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Устроили мне здесь трудовой героизм -- в две смены пахать.* &lt;-- &quot;heroism&quot; used sarcastically and indignantly&#xD;&#xA; - *Развели геройство -- молчат, не выдают, кто разбил окно.*  &lt;-- ditto, but using &quot;heroics&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="a1ce8034-2cc3-4c24-9264-ff5f57d4e539" CreationDate="2013-12-04T07:00:29.970" UserId="2060" Text="You are confused because there is no exact translation for `его ослепило молнией` into English. It should be `it blinded him by the lightning` with `it` being a dummy pronoun as in `it is raining`. An good impersonal sentence example would be `it is getting dark` = `темнеет`. In English you use a dummy pronoun for the subject, in Russian you omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a slightly different type of a sentence that lacks a subject -- a zero person construction. In impersonal sentences the implied subject is a weather or other natural force causing the action, whereas zero person implies a human: `they say miracles are past` = `говорят, что чудес больше не бывает`. In English the difference here is the dummy pronoun, it is `they` or `one` as opposed to `it`, in Russian you still omit it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="5ddcebfe-f402-41dc-8d6b-8d0d9c0d0fe1" CreationDate="2013-12-04T07:06:11.377" UserId="2060" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="You are confused because there is no exact translation for `его ослепило молнией` into English. It should be `it blinded him by the lightning` with `it` being a dummy pronoun as in `it is raining`. An good impersonal sentence example would be `it is getting dark` = `темнеет`. In English you use a dummy pronoun for the subject, in Russian you omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a slightly different type of a sentence that lacks a subject -- a zero person construction. In impersonal sentences the implied subject is a weather or other natural force causing the action, whereas zero person implies a person: `they say miracles are past` = `говорят, что чудес больше не бывает`. In English the difference here is the dummy pronoun, it is `they` or `one` as opposed to `it`, in Russian you still omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically when you cannot find an explicit actor in the sentence, it is either impersonal or zero-person construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="4cd82c55-a17d-4f30-8031-fff1f474d95c" CreationDate="2013-12-04T08:01:54.127" UserId="2060" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="You are confused because there is no exact translation for `его ослепило молнией` into English. It should be `it blinded him by the lightning` with `it` being a dummy pronoun as in `it is raining`. A good impersonal sentence example would be `it is getting dark` = `темнеет`. In English you use a dummy pronoun for the subject, in Russian you omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a slightly different type of a sentence that lacks a subject -- a zero person construction. In impersonal sentences the implied subject is a weather or other natural force causing the action, whereas zero person implies a person: `they say miracles are past` = `говорят, что чудес больше не бывает`. In English the difference here is the dummy pronoun, it is `they` or `one` as opposed to `it`, in Russian you still omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically when you cannot find an explicit actor in the sentence, it is either impersonal or zero-person construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="d54ad99b-4450-4ab1-9a78-69037406dd96" CreationDate="2013-12-04T09:16:40.310" UserId="2060" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="You are confused because there is no exact translation for `его ослепило молнией` into English. It should be `it blinded him by the lightning` with `it` being a dummy pronoun as in `it is raining`. A good impersonal sentence example would be `it is getting dark` = `темнеет`. In English you use a dummy pronoun for the subject, in Russian you omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a slightly different type of sentence that lacks a subject -- a zero person construction. In impersonal sentences the implied subject is a weather or other natural force causing the action, whereas zero person implies a person: `they say miracles are past` = `говорят, что чудес больше не бывает`. In English the difference here is the dummy pronoun, it is `they` or `one` as opposed to `it`, in Russian you still omit it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically when you cannot find an explicit actor in the sentence, it is either impersonal or zero-person construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="3bac539c-102f-4ae6-bcb0-29d12efc3cb4" CreationDate="2013-12-04T12:53:03.810" UserId="2225" Text="For example, *&quot;Bluetooth devices have become commonplace in recent years...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia offers **Блютус**. I am not 100% certain this is the case; for example Bulgarian and Beloroussian pages seem to lean towards ***Блутут***..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="3bac539c-102f-4ae6-bcb0-29d12efc3cb4" CreationDate="2013-12-04T12:53:03.810" UserId="2225" Text="How would you translate &quot;Bluetooth&quot; (as in wireless technology) into proper Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="3bac539c-102f-4ae6-bcb0-29d12efc3cb4" CreationDate="2013-12-04T12:53:03.810" UserId="2225" Text="|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="dd6d2a56-065d-4d21-8d16-35b9332aee63" CreationDate="2013-12-04T12:58:35.950" UserId="2225" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="For example, *&quot;Bluetooth devices have become commonplace in recent years...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia [offers][1] **Блютус**. I am not 100% certain this is the case; for example [Bulgarian][2] and (I believe) some other Slavic language pages seem to lean towards ***Блутут***...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2826" RevisionGUID="54a4d66a-6da3-4978-97dc-b4a528906911" CreationDate="2013-12-04T13:44:32.450" UserId="1958" Text="I think it is still unstable. Russian doesn't have [θ] sound, so it usually became [т] (ортофосфорный) or [ф] (орфография, Федора) or even [с] or [з] (Саус Парк).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely, it is not *блутут* now (nobody will understand you). I, personally, spell *блутус* or *блютус*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2821" RevisionGUID="78d11429-606e-42de-8108-15553197b9ae" CreationDate="2013-12-04T14:22:57.580" UserId="115" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There are situations when [two cases can be used interchangeably][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would still like to expand on the discussion of your original example. &quot;Прости меня.&quot; is a complete sentence, where &quot;меня&quot; is the direct object in accusative case. On the other hand &quot;прости мне&quot; is not a complete sentence. It is missing a direct object. It has to be &quot;прости мне [something]&quot;, such as &quot;прости мне мою грубость&quot; (&quot;forgive me my rudeness&quot;). Notice that once you add the direct object, it is again in genitive case, while &quot;мне&quot; is an indirect object in dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, this is exactly the same construction as &quot;дай мне книгу&quot;. &quot;книгу&quot; is the direct object in accusative, and &quot;мне&quot; is the indirect object in dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/direct-object-of-negated-verbs-takes-which-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="351c057a-6a3f-4eb2-81f5-76e5efd7dee9" CreationDate="2013-12-04T14:44:17.103" UserId="2199" Text="Блютуз or Блютус will be most appropriate. Nobody says Блутут in Russian:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="a4ba3029-a70d-4588-9c0d-b95e0eb3b616" CreationDate="2013-12-04T14:49:57.600" UserId="2199" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Блютуз or Блютус will be most appropriate. Nobody says Блутут in Russian:)&#xD;&#xA;You can find version Голубой Зуб in texts of humorous nature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2826" RevisionGUID="532f1bcf-e3b7-4b9b-a952-5c97cd1996fb" CreationDate="2013-12-04T16:13:37.080" UserId="1958" Comment="merge" Text="I think it is still unstable. Russian doesn't have [θ] sound, so it usually became [т] (ортофосфорный) or [ф] (Федора) or even [с] or [з] (Саус Парк).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely, it is not *блутут* now (nobody will understand you). I, personally, spell *блутус* or *блютус*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, here is my vision about how **th** is transcripted in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Long-loaned Greek or Hebrew words: `Руфь`, `Юдифь`, `кафедра`, `Феодосий`,&#xD;&#xA;    `Фома`. Usually these are biblical words, but there are also&#xD;&#xA;    `орфография` и `орфоэпия`. I think the time usually is near&#xD;&#xA;    [Christianization of Rus][1].&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. Not-so-long-loaned Greek and other words, especially if they came&#xD;&#xA;    through European languages: `ортогональный` (note same 'ortho'),&#xD;&#xA;    `теология`, `католичество`. Here are also some traditionally translated&#xD;&#xA;    English words like `Хитроу` (Heathrow), `Джонатан`, `Джудит` (though she&#xD;&#xA;    is the same biblical Judith).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 3. Some modern unofficial English translations: `стелс` (stealth), `блютус`&#xD;&#xA;    (bluetooth), `Хизер Миллс` (Heather Mills).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    I think it begins when most of Russians started to learn&#xD;&#xA;    English at schools (second half of 20th century?), because they&#xD;&#xA;    really hear **th** as [с] or [з] (`Зыс из э тэйбл`). There was a&#xD;&#xA;    discussion 'How should we transcript *South Park*?' in Russian&#xD;&#xA;    Wikipedia, and the reason for `Саутпарк` was that there is already good old &#xD;&#xA;    `Саутгемптон` (Southampton).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="c60bdc99-ec0e-4b2c-a24e-a0c33972c8ad" CreationDate="2013-12-04T16:18:25.213" UserId="2225" Comment="clarified/explanded question" Text="For example, *&quot;Bluetooth devices have become commonplace in recent years...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia [offers][1] **Блютус**. I am not 100% certain this is the case; for example [Bulgarian][2] and (I believe) some other Slavic language pages seem to lean towards ***Блутут***...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification of the question vis-a-vis the angle of some of the answers provided. This is not a theoretical linguistics question. The peculiarities of the genesis of the term Bluetooth, or incompatibilities of the sound systems between languages, while interesting topics all, are not really relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the following scenario: you are the managing director of an electronics company, and you are being interviewed for a (Russian) TV or radio infomercial about some of the upcoming gadgets in your product pipeline. So in your statement like &quot;... this exciting new product takes full advantage of the Bluetooth technology...&quot;, what would be the term you use (or, better yet, what term your PR person would advise you to use so that the interview goes down smoothly with educated, affluent, tech-oriented segment of the Russian audience)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="5d1c87df-b3be-445e-9979-b9d66d264626" CreationDate="2013-12-04T16:27:47.443" UserId="2225" Comment="grammar" Text="For example, *&quot;Bluetooth devices have become commonplace in recent years...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia [offers][1] **Блютус**. I am not 100% certain this is the case; for example [Bulgarian][2] and (I believe) some other Slavic language pages seem to lean towards ***Блутут***...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clarification of the question vis-a-vis the angle of some of the answers provided. This is not a theoretical linguistics question. The peculiarities of the genesis of the term Bluetooth, or incompatibilities of the sound systems between languages, while interesting topics all, are not really relevant here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the following scenario: you are the managing director of an electronics company, and you are being interviewed for a (Russian) TV or radio infomercial about some of the upcoming gadgets in your product pipeline. So in your statement like &quot;... this exciting new product takes full advantage of the Bluetooth technology...&quot;, what would be the term you use (or, better yet, what term your PR person would advise you to use so that the interview goes down smoothly with the educated, affluent, tech-oriented segment of the Russian audience)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2821" RevisionGUID="937ece8a-f1a7-44ed-bcc1-4f1feae2fd2f" CreationDate="2013-12-04T16:31:13.823" UserId="115" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are situations when [two cases can be used interchangeably][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would still like to expand on the discussion of your original example. &quot;Прости меня.&quot; is a complete sentence, where &quot;меня&quot; is the direct object in accusative case. On the other hand &quot;прости мне&quot; is not a complete sentence. It is missing a direct object. It has to be &quot;прости мне [something]&quot;, such as &quot;прости мне мою грубость&quot; (&quot;forgive me my rudeness&quot;). Notice that once you add the direct object, it is again in accusative case, while &quot;мне&quot; is an indirect object in dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, this is exactly the same construction as &quot;дай мне книгу&quot;. &quot;книгу&quot; is the direct object in accusative, and &quot;мне&quot; is the indirect object in dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/direct-object-of-negated-verbs-takes-which-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="9894fe7d-c660-4d91-b1d3-e7e88d572cb1" CreationDate="2013-12-04T22:58:58.480" UserId="2225" Text="Some additional examples that come to mind --&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ernest Hemmingway&#xD;&#xA; - Hippy&#xD;&#xA; - Happy End&#xD;&#xA; - Hula Hoop&#xD;&#xA; - Jimmy Hendrix&#xD;&#xA; - Doctor House&#xD;&#xA; - Audrey Hepburn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="8d363f55-0ce3-4928-b513-71940fc33ac5" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:31:03.433" UserId="2225" Text="I find it curious that (arguably) one of the easiest to pronounce English/Scottish surnames -- *Shaw* -- is consistently reappearing on the Russian soil as *Шоу*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This spelling/pronunciation applies to some of the best known figures in the literary world (Бернард Шоу, Ирвин Шоу) familiar to the Russian public for a better part of the century, as well as very recent celebrities like hockey players and flash-in-the-pan supermodels. Furthermore, the English historian Ian Kershaw is known to the Russian readers as Ян Кершоу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this scheme is simply a result of a historical accident, or (considering how stable it is) there is more to it than that? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="8d363f55-0ce3-4928-b513-71940fc33ac5" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:31:03.433" UserId="2225" Text="What's so showy about this common Scottish surname?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="8d363f55-0ce3-4928-b513-71940fc33ac5" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:31:03.433" UserId="2225" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="4e6de667-d9ba-4bd2-8157-98d21427dcd5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T01:40:07.687" UserId="282" Text="How do you remember when to use the right verb - or is it simply by memory - or are they interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the same could be said for прийти/войти" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="4e6de667-d9ba-4bd2-8157-98d21427dcd5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T01:40:07.687" UserId="282" Text="Is there a mneumonic for when to use уйти vs. выйти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="4e6de667-d9ba-4bd2-8157-98d21427dcd5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T01:40:07.687" UserId="282" Text="|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="d06b880c-3da9-42aa-a9ce-9ccf1b510c78" CreationDate="2013-12-05T02:23:29.000" UserId="2225" Text="Уйти = leave, go away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выйти (из) = exit (from some confound -- a room, a building, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прийти and войти аre the opposites of уйти and выйти, respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the question is about mneumonics, the prefix is the key here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefix у- indicates movement from &quot;here&quot; (from the point of view of the narrator or subject) out, elsewhere: ушел, убежал, уехал, уполз" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2835" RevisionGUID="b9c51e46-d486-434a-a1f2-86545cb2e306" CreationDate="2013-12-05T02:27:31.653" UserId="2079" Text="In Russian, *Bluetooth* (i. e. *Bluetooth-технология*) is used in &gt;90% of cases.  Less used is *блютуз*, and even less used is *блютус*.  Below are the results of the search on Russian web-auction molotok.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Bluetooth* - 501 ads&#xD;&#xA;* *блютуз* - 28 ads&#xD;&#xA;* *блютус* - 6 ads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a jargon or colloquial expression *голубой/синий зуб* (and adjectives *голубозубый*, *синезубый*), used at phorums and blogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words &quot;блютуз&quot; and &quot;блютус&quot; are not capitalized, and any declension of them is colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no words &quot;блютут&quot;, &quot;блютуф&quot; or &quot;блютуфь&quot; in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="1c8ef8e4-6362-4eee-92ea-31d32d7dd9e5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T03:43:27.587" UserId="1236" Text="When I studied at the university, here, in Ukraine, in the late 90s, our professor of English and American literature was outraged by that spelling, and even in our examination cards in his subject he spelled &quot;Bernard Shaw&quot; as &quot;Бернард Шо&quot;. Moreover, he also spelled &quot;Edgar Poe&quot; as &quot;Эдгар Поу&quot;, although the standard Russian rendering of that name is &quot;Едгар По&quot;. &lt; we had a joke that the two writers, Shaw and Poe, were mirror spelling twins :D &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure, that the `Шоу` spelling is just a result of a historical accident. Since the 19th century several ways of rendering of the English names were used, almost every quarter of a century they changed, creating lots of variants of the same English name. For example, &quot;William&quot; is `Вильям`, but also `Уильям`. The famous biologist Thomas Henry Huxley is `Гексли`, but his grandson, a famous writer Aldous Leonard Huxley, is `Хаксли`. James used to be `Джемс`, but now it is almost always `Джеймс`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a long tradition of rendering the names of the English and British monarchs not the way they sound in English, but in their Latin form adapted to Russian phonetics and morphology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfred is Альфрéд&#xD;&#xA; - Harold is Гарóльд&#xD;&#xA; - Henry is Гéнрих&#xD;&#xA; - John is Иоáнн&#xD;&#xA; - Charles is Карл&#xD;&#xA; - James is **Я**ков or Иáков&#xD;&#xA; - Mary is Мар**и**я&#xD;&#xA; - Louis is Людóвик&#xD;&#xA; - Stephen is Стефáн&#xD;&#xA; - Anne is Áнна&#xD;&#xA; - George is Геóрг&#xD;&#xA; - Edward is Эдуáрд&#xD;&#xA; - Elizabeth is Елизавéта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, when it goes about the names of celebrities, one has to know exactly how the person's name is rendered in Russian. There is no set of rules you can use to render those names yourself. The easiest way is to find the Wiki article about the person and then switch it to Russian, but still, you should be ready to see several Russian variants of the person's name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2832" RevisionGUID="46dbf718-74db-4cb0-addf-60d422a680f2" CreationDate="2013-12-05T04:46:38.380" UserId="62" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a mnemonic for when to use уйти vs. выйти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="0f245eb2-17c7-4d4b-903a-880f7105a8ed" CreationDate="2013-12-05T04:46:50.193" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Уйти = leave, go away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выйти (из) = exit (from some confound -- a room, a building, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прийти and войти аre the opposites of уйти and выйти, respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the question is about mnemonics, the prefix is the key here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefix у- indicates movement from &quot;here&quot; (from the point of view of the narrator or subject) out, elsewhere: ушел, убежал, уехал, уполз" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="839e7750-47a4-40c3-9ecc-50155e5301f5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T05:42:42.673" UserId="2225" Comment="deleted superfluous markup" Text="Уйти = leave, go away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выйти (из) = exit (from some confound -- a room, a building, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прийти and войти аre the opposites of уйти and выйти, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the question is about mnemonics, the prefix is the key here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefix **у-** indicates movement from &quot;here&quot; (from the point of view of the narrator or subject) out, elsewhere: ушел, убежал, уехал, уполз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefix **вы-** indicates movement from within to outside of something: вышел, выехал, выбежал, выполз &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate, consider this narrative involving a certain education professional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мэри Поппинс:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Прилетела неизвестно откуда&#xD;&#xA; - Влетела в окно детской комнаты&#xD;&#xA; - Вылетела (из дома на улицу) через парадную дверь&#xD;&#xA; - Улетела в неизвестном направлении" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="41676603-fe21-48de-a74d-bc1e1f45a3a5" CreationDate="2013-12-05T06:05:32.607" UserId="1236" Comment="spelling" Text="When I studied at the university, here, in Ukraine, in the late 90s, our professor of English and American literature was outraged by that spelling, and even in our examination cards in his subject he spelled &quot;Bernard Shaw&quot; as &quot;Бернард Шо&quot;. Moreover, he also spelled &quot;Edgar Poe&quot; as &quot;Эдгар Поу&quot;, although the standard Russian rendering of that name is &quot;Эдгар По&quot;. &lt; we had a joke that the two writers, Shaw and Poe, were mirror spelling twins :D &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure, that the `Шоу` spelling is just a result of a historical accident. Since the 19th century several ways of rendering of the English names were used, almost every quarter of a century they changed, creating lots of variants of the same English name. For example, &quot;William&quot; is `Вильям`, but also `Уильям`. The famous biologist Thomas Henry Huxley is `Гексли`, but his grandson, a famous writer Aldous Leonard Huxley, is `Хаксли`. James used to be `Джемс`, but now it is almost always `Джеймс`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a long tradition of rendering the names of the English and British monarchs not the way they sound in English, but in their Latin form adapted to Russian phonetics and morphology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfred is Альфрéд&#xD;&#xA; - Harold is Гарóльд&#xD;&#xA; - Henry is Гéнрих&#xD;&#xA; - John is Иоáнн&#xD;&#xA; - Charles is Карл&#xD;&#xA; - James is _Я_ков or Иáков&#xD;&#xA; - Mary is Мар_и_я&#xD;&#xA; - Louis is Людóвик&#xD;&#xA; - Stephen is Стефáн&#xD;&#xA; - Anne is Áнна&#xD;&#xA; - George is Геóрг&#xD;&#xA; - Edward is Эдуáрд&#xD;&#xA; - Elizabeth is Елизавéта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, when it goes about the names of celebrities, one has to know exactly how the person's name is rendered in Russian. There is no set of rules you can use to render those names yourself. The easiest way is to find the Wiki article about the person and then switch it to Russian, but still, you should be ready to see several Russian variants of the person's name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="a68fcecf-a820-4626-b7bb-37fa149e4002" CreationDate="2013-12-05T06:11:15.867" UserId="1236" Comment="spelling" Text="When I studied at the university, here, in Ukraine, in the late 90s, our professor of English and American literature was outraged by that spelling, and even in our examination cards in his subject he spelled &quot;Bernard Shaw&quot; as &quot;Бернард Шо&quot;. Moreover, he also spelled &quot;Edgar Poe&quot; as &quot;Эдгар Поу&quot;, although the standard Russian rendering of that name is &quot;Эдгар По&quot;. &lt; we had a joke that the two writers, Shaw and Poe, were mirror spelling twins :D &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure, that the `Шоу` spelling is just a result of a historical accident. Since the 19th century several ways of rendering of the English names were used, almost every quarter of a century they changed, creating lots of variants of the same English name. For example, &quot;William&quot; is `Вильям`, but also `Уильям`. The famous biologist Thomas Henry Huxley is `Гексли`, but his grandson, a famous writer Aldous Leonard Huxley, is `Хаксли`. James used to be `Джемс`, but now it is almost always `Джеймс`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a long tradition of rendering the names of the English and British monarchs not the way they sound in English, but in their Latin form adapted to Russian phonetics and morphology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfred is Альфрéд&#xD;&#xA; - Harold is Гарóльд&#xD;&#xA; - Henry is Гéнрих&#xD;&#xA; - John is Иоáнн&#xD;&#xA; - Charles is Карл&#xD;&#xA; - James is Яков or Иáков&#xD;&#xA; - Mary is Мария&#xD;&#xA; - Louis is Людóвик&#xD;&#xA; - Stephen is Стефáн&#xD;&#xA; - Anne is Áнна&#xD;&#xA; - George is Геóрг&#xD;&#xA; - Edward is Эдуáрд&#xD;&#xA; - Elizabeth is Елизавéта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is, when it goes about the names of celebrities, one has to know exactly how the person's name is rendered in Russian. There is no set of rules you can use to render those names yourself. The easiest way is to find the Wiki article about the person and then switch it to Russian, but still, you should be ready to see several Russian variants of the person's name there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="708d8a3e-e3ee-4fae-97a3-9a7bf7ff4b34" CreationDate="2013-12-05T09:53:57.393" UserId="2060" Text="While I agree there are issues with translating names from certain languages, another point could be that you have to make sure they don't sound too odd, which is the case with `Шо`. Just a wild guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="cd78d1c1-3b06-46f6-ad75-c1ac93abe67d" CreationDate="2013-12-05T12:06:34.440" UserId="2233" Text="While other replies do provide some workarounds, none of those can be actually used as a direct equivalent of “I'm thirsty” in a modern spoken Russian language, the most suggested reply uses archaic examples those would not be understood by modern Russians. So, “Я хочу пить” is the most correct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="1c5a5986-f7cc-4c25-97bc-df3131929c76" CreationDate="2013-12-05T17:46:36.930" UserId="2238" Text="Fasmer is far too old. He did not believe берлога could come from the *bher-, that gave English bear. But he was wrong. Берлога certainly is логово bher'а. Reasons are given. And... actually бурый comes from the same root." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1923" RevisionGUID="e9dc3b37-2df5-4a64-8f37-b639164081b6" CreationDate="2013-12-05T23:23:28.550" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="In the religion of the ancient Indo-Europeans the word for a bear was tabooed because this animal induced fear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most ancient Indo-European word for bear was ***a̯rtcos*** which meant &quot;destructor&quot;. As the word was tabooed, it was replaced by a word meaning &quot;brown&quot;, a derivative of the PIE ***bhrua̯nos*** &quot;brown&quot;. It is the source of the English word &quot;bear&quot; and &quot;бер-&quot;, the first part in &quot;берлога&quot;. The second part meant &quot;lair&quot; and the derivative of the Proto-Indo-European ***leghos*** &quot;lair, bed&quot;. Thus &quot;берлога&quot; means &quot;bear's lair&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the word &quot;бер&quot; became tabooed again and was replaced by a new word &quot;медведь&quot; which meant &quot;honey-eater&quot;. It derives from the ***medhu***, a Proto-Indo European word for mead, a drink produced from honey (honey is called мёд in Russian) and the root ***e̯ed-*** &quot;to eat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2840" RevisionGUID="e1171504-c07b-49a3-b476-e2fe6b9b6a2c" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:31:47.310" UserId="899" Text="One could use уйти in the meaning of 'leave with no immediate intent of coming back' and выйти otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Где Павел? Where is Pavel?&#xD;&#xA;    - Он вышел. He is away [but is likely to return].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Он ушел. He is away [and he had shown no intention of coming back soon].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2840" RevisionGUID="ac360732-a096-41de-9e6f-3a2bc434fd08" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:37:38.407" UserId="899" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="One could use уйти in the meaning of 'leave with no immediate intent of coming back' and выйти otherwise (it is especially the case with выйти).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Где Павел? Where is Pavel?&#xD;&#xA;    - Он вышел. He is away [but is likely to return].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Он ушел. He is away [and he had shown no intention of coming back soon].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="3954caff-7abe-4dbb-a194-138d70b7d68c" CreationDate="2013-12-06T22:18:07.320" UserId="115" Text="IMHO, &quot;Shaw&quot; is actually not that easy to pronounce to a Russian speaker (I am going by the American pronunciation here.) It is not really &quot;Шо&quot;, and not really &quot;Ша&quot;, but somewhere in between, which is typical of English vowels. &#xD;&#xA;Not to mention, that the &quot;sh&quot; sounds more like a щ than a ш. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, &quot;шо&quot; is a Ukrainian colloquialism meaning &quot;what&quot;, while &quot;ша!&quot; is a colloquialism derived from Yiddish, meaning &quot;be quite&quot;. &quot;Шоу&quot;, on the other hand, sounds very English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, there seem to be patterns for transliterating foreign names which do not necessarily make sense, and which change over time. I have read about a bilingual child wondering why the name Sherlock (as in Holmes) is transliterated as Шерлок, when it sounds so much more like Щёлок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="c7c2e78f-cf7b-467a-a913-0a6c4ce60bed" CreationDate="2013-12-07T02:00:43.310" UserId="194" Text="The language of 19th century (even its beginning), judging from the poetry and prose of Pushkin and Lermontov was quite the same language we speak today. Even if somebody decided to compose similar things today he would arrive to quite the same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The language of 18th century, that of Peter the Great and Lomonosov was quite different. It used many service words considered today archaic and most importantly, used a very different word order. While Russian language has a free word order, certain word order still considered the default, and this is the most prominent feature that distinguishes the language of 18th century. It is still well comprehensible and mostly remains grammatically valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if to consider the language of 17th century, it is unlikely that a modern speaker would understand it without prior training. Actually it is a different language, comprehensible no more than modern Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what led to this dramatic change in Russian language in 17th century and also what caused the change in word order in the 18th century. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="c7c2e78f-cf7b-467a-a913-0a6c4ce60bed" CreationDate="2013-12-07T02:00:43.310" UserId="194" Text="What circumstances led to dramatic change in Russian language between 17th and 18th centuries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="c7c2e78f-cf7b-467a-a913-0a6c4ce60bed" CreationDate="2013-12-07T02:00:43.310" UserId="194" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="62e5de1b-39d5-4e00-a138-23272356ff78" CreationDate="2013-12-07T16:18:22.587" UserId="2225" Text="This is a great, multilayered question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an opinion expressed by a school of thought represented by the contemporary writer Mikhail Veller. I quote it in full as it is very relevant for this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пушкин и русский язык&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Весь восемнадцатый век на русский язык, фигурально выражаясь, натягивалась по возможности немецкая грамматика; общеизвестно. А в первой трети девятнадцатого у Пушкина (в прозе) и особенно у Лермонтова – у него это просто ясно видно – появляется нечто совсем новое: они как бы пишут французским языком по-русски, или русским языком на французский лад, если угодно: строй фразы, ее синтаксис – не русские, с точки зрения русской грамматики – местами буквально не мотивированы, а калькированы с французского. Любимые лермонтовские точка с запятой между отдельными словами, двоеточие как знак скорее интонационно-оттеночный, нежели несущий какую бы то ни было конкретную грамматическую функцию, – столь же характерны для художественного французского языка той эпохи, сколь нехарактерны для русского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот это изящное и фривольное офранцузивание русского языка и стало началом и основанием языка русского литературного классического.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дивная тема для кучи диссертаций. А что? Образованные дворяне того времени овладевали французским часто раньше и основательнее, чем русским; вот вышеупомянутые и впали в ересь: смешали языки – в хорошем, высоком смысле – придворный аристократический французский и житейский родной русский: вот и легкость, и гибкость, и блеск, и длинное дыхание фразы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[  Source: http://book-online.com.ua/read.php?book=7484&amp;page=86 ]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="09269d52-7088-4fc4-b91d-a2af04e6d6a8" CreationDate="2013-12-07T16:34:22.117" UserId="2042" Text="Actually, if you consider secular texts, especially those the compilers of which were not likely to have been much subjected to the influence of the bookish style (in particular, that of the Church Slavonic language), they are, while containing some dialect words, cliches uncommon for the modern language and historisms, perfectly understandable.&#xD;&#xA;As the examples below suggest (archaic letters were removed, either way the spelling is preserved).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из Таможенных книг Курска (1620 г.): Марта в 5 день приехол с Елца Степан Шерапов [.] товару у него три бочки дехтю [.] пошлин взято двадцать алтын без алтына&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из Таможенных книг Старого Оскола (1651-52) Да в том же месяце в торговые дни и в будни с продажных товаров с хлеба и с воску и с вощин с коров и с волов с овец и козлов и со всяких мелких товаров пятна и пошлин и мимоезду с ыногородцов продажных товаров взято рубль три алтына две денги&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Царь Алексей Михайлович в одном из писем: От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича... нарядись в ездовое платье да съезди к сестрам бутто ты от меня приехал да спрошаи о здоровъе да скожи што я буду в воскресенья...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из любовных писем (1686): ... я головы своие не щажу[.] был я у вас ночес и в ызбе а у вас никово не было... вчерась я к тебе писал чтобы ты вышла а ты и не вышла а я приходил [.] впрям ныне ты меня водиш в узде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples from: Хрестоматия по истории русского языка: Учеб. пособие для стдентов пед. ин-тов по спец. № 2101 &quot;Рус. яз. и лит.&quot; / Авт.-сост. В.В. Иванов, Т.А. Сумникова, Н.П. Панкратова. -- М.: Просвещение, 1990. -- 496 с." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9714" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="f899b0cc-aad0-4737-9f3a-83a2b6ce4db6" CreationDate="2013-12-07T16:44:25.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/409362774154702848" />
  <row Id="9715" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="583b30ee-2e39-4f38-ae98-638b8d590c1b" CreationDate="2013-12-07T19:44:25.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/409408071057039360" />
  <row Id="9716" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="e340e9ff-09e3-4341-9dd2-46d39804f1d7" CreationDate="2013-12-08T07:44:25.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/409589264826261504" />
  <row Id="9717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="5e4c3204-f826-46d1-b5d0-01e456d430d3" CreationDate="2013-12-08T10:30:39.973" UserId="2246" Text="The main objective is to say something that sounds like a Russian word, I think. **Блютус** is fine then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather risky, but you might definitely say **Синезуб** — it would sound like real Russian word, and I'm sure about 90% of Russians (especially those who are familiar with the technology) will understand you. And it will cause some nice smiles too :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="ba58afff-ce7d-429e-9832-82593f0d4e54" CreationDate="2013-12-08T10:45:42.027" UserId="2246" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The main objective is to say something that sounds like a Russian word, I think. **Блютус** is fine then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather risky, but you may definitely say **Синезуб** — it would sound like real Russian word, and I'm sure about 90% of Russians (especially those who are familiar with the technology) will understand you. And it will cause some nice smiles too :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="b6d2e132-961c-4447-b727-bbbc5ce2308f" CreationDate="2013-12-09T22:12:03.130" UserId="2252" Text="жажден, though relatively rarely used, does mean 'thirsty' and it is used both literally and metaphorically, as for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лев алчен и волк жажден, иже тиранствует, нищь сый, над языком убогим." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="6c98500a-5126-455b-9d9d-4f842795e8f3" CreationDate="2013-12-09T22:29:48.870" UserId="2253" Text="I am writing an English letter to a married Russian couple, and they've got the same root for their last name, with a '-a' suffix for hers. Is there an acceptable way to address them both without writing out both names in full?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, for a couple 'Eva Ivanova' and 'Victor Ivanov', could I address them collectively as 'Eva and Victor Ivanov[a]'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="6c98500a-5126-455b-9d9d-4f842795e8f3" CreationDate="2013-12-09T22:29:48.870" UserId="2253" Text="How to conflate feminine and masculine last names for a couple?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="6c98500a-5126-455b-9d9d-4f842795e8f3" CreationDate="2013-12-09T22:29:48.870" UserId="2253" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="78c495cc-a609-4839-97ff-0be83324ebc2" CreationDate="2013-12-10T00:18:19.807" UserId="1236" Text="Just the same way like in English you can put any last name in the plural to mean &quot;the family of ...&quot;, like `the Smiths, the Lennons, the Bushes`, so you can do that in Russian, and that's what you need to do when addressing a couple. In your case, you can write `Ева и Виктор Ивановы`. Still, putting last names into plural and declining them is a tricky thing when dealing with Russian, Rosental has a [whole chapter][1] devoted to that. What is the most important, is that last names (rather rare ones, though) that end in `-аго, -ако, -яго, -ых, -их, -ово` and (Ukrainian, rather widespread) that end in `-ко (-енко)` are not declined, and their plural is the same as the singular, that is why `Ева Черных` and `Ева и Виктор Черных`, `Виктор Петренко` and `Ева и Виктор Петренко`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/57.htm#%D0%B7_06" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="03678c21-fee8-4eb8-9e2b-139e6645dcfd" CreationDate="2013-12-10T10:13:02.397" UserId="2254" Text="I'm an absolute beginner with Russian, and am really struggling to simply pronounce some of the sounds! I remember when I learned Chinese I found a website guide on where to put my tongue (and also how far back in the mouth/throat to make the sound), which turned out to be incredibly useful. Does anyone know of something similar for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="03678c21-fee8-4eb8-9e2b-139e6645dcfd" CreationDate="2013-12-10T10:13:02.397" UserId="2254" Text="Where do I put my tongue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="03678c21-fee8-4eb8-9e2b-139e6645dcfd" CreationDate="2013-12-10T10:13:02.397" UserId="2254" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9727" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="996d6c6a-d208-4941-92f4-597d69508795" CreationDate="2013-12-10T10:44:26.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/410359346418425856" />
  <row Id="9728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2850" RevisionGUID="c420f1b2-ea89-4e13-b976-f4dfde1ddc4e" CreationDate="2013-12-10T10:56:18.923" UserId="1305" Text="Here is detailed description for pronunciation of vowels and consonants, and also some other useful articles: http://masterrussian.com/index-6.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="ad8acf62-3bab-4da1-9c15-dc54840cffdf" CreationDate="2013-12-10T11:33:08.743" UserId="1929" Text="Я еще на нашел подробную инфорнацию об этих словах, то есть я бы хотел знать &#xD;&#xA;когда надо написать слово &quot;только&quot; и когда надо написать &quot;лишь&quot;ю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли случае когда можно менять &quot;только&quot; на &quot;лишь&quot; без потери смысл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="ad8acf62-3bab-4da1-9c15-dc54840cffdf" CreationDate="2013-12-10T11:33:08.743" UserId="1929" Text="Какая разница между лишь и только?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="ad8acf62-3bab-4da1-9c15-dc54840cffdf" CreationDate="2013-12-10T11:33:08.743" UserId="1929" Text="|выбор-слова|правописание|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="3d3ea04c-971d-4a0b-8a37-de53b30fc776" CreationDate="2013-12-10T11:41:28.680" UserId="1236" Comment="grammar" Text="Я еще на нашел подробную инфорнацию об этих словах, то есть я бы хотел знать? &#xD;&#xA;когда надо писать слово &quot;только&quot;, и когда надо писать &quot;лишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли случаи, когда можно менять &quot;только&quot; на &quot;лишь&quot; без потери смысла?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="e4bb7dd5-c916-44af-aabc-8f8aea021415" CreationDate="2013-12-10T12:46:27.857" UserId="1929" Comment="Правописание" Text="Я еще не нашел подробную инфорнацию об этих словах, то есть я бы хотел знать &#xD;&#xA;когда надо писать слово &quot;только&quot;, и когда надо писать &quot;лишь&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли случаи, когда можно менять &quot;только&quot; на &quot;лишь&quot; без потери смысла?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="d0aa2bfd-a016-4ac9-8298-f0b4de62e885" CreationDate="2013-12-10T12:53:05.257" UserId="1929" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; added 13 characters in body" Text="Я еще не нашел подробную инфорнацию об этих словах, то есть я бы хотел знать &#xD;&#xA;когда надо писать слово &quot;только&quot;, и когда надо писать &quot;лишь&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли случаи, когда можно менять &quot;только&quot; на &quot;лишь&quot; (и наоборот) без потери смысла?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="13fdb55a-2a58-40c8-bb4a-a8aabe8a2358" CreationDate="2013-12-10T12:54:54.960" UserId="2256" Text="Я зашел сюда случайно и, если я правильно понял, это вопрос человека, который учит русский язык. Я русский.  &#xD;&#xA;Постараюсь ответить.&#xD;&#xA;Разницы между &quot;только&quot; и &quot;лишь&quot; особой нет, но &quot;лишь&quot; употребляется реже. Если не знаете, что употреблять, говорите &quot;только&quot;, хотя в любом случае это, скорее всего, будет нормально звучать.  &#xD;&#xA;Пример:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю только русский язык.    &#xD;&#xA;Я знаю лишь русский язык.  &#xD;&#xA;Оба варианта нормально звучат.  &#xD;&#xA;(Примера неправильного употребления не смог придумать)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также есть союз &quot;лишь только&quot;, означающий &quot;как только&quot;, &quot;сразу после того, как&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он начинал трепетать, лишь только она появлялась." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="bd94822e-88c5-4757-a61e-7bf7d415e76b" CreationDate="2013-12-10T12:59:50.153" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="Я зашел сюда случайно и, если я правильно понял, это вопрос человека, который учит русский язык. Я русский.  &#xD;&#xA;Постараюсь ответить.&#xD;&#xA;Разницы между &quot;только&quot; и &quot;лишь&quot; особой нет, но &quot;лишь&quot; употребляется реже. Если не знаете, что употреблять, говорите &quot;только&quot;, хотя в любом случае это, скорее всего, будет нормально звучать.  &#xD;&#xA;Пример:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю только русский язык.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю лишь русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оба варианта нормально звучат.  (Примера неправильного употребления не смог придумать)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также есть союз &quot;лишь только&quot;, означающий &quot;как только&quot;, &quot;сразу после того, как&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он начинал трепетать, лишь только она появлялась." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="c2631aac-7387-4673-8250-8b9c1fb97d84" CreationDate="2013-12-10T14:01:32.323" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Я еще не нашел подробную инфорнацию об этих словах, то есть я бы хотел знать, &#xD;&#xA;когда надо писать слово &quot;только&quot;, и когда надо писать &quot;лишь&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли случаи, когда можно менять &quot;только&quot; на &quot;лишь&quot; (и наоборот) без потери смысла?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2853" RevisionGUID="8e733a12-384d-46b3-b0ac-b9808c8d54b6" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:09:14.597" UserId="2258" Text="On the wiki page for the Russian hockey player Evgeni Malkin, it says that he used to text &quot;$&quot; to agree to an invitation and &quot;da&quot; to decline. It is uncited, so I can't check the original interview. Is this likely to be true? I thought 'Da' mean yes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiki section in question:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;There are several stories in which teammates would text Malkin to go out to dinner and his responses would be &quot;Da&quot; or &quot;$&quot;. The teammates had no idea what those responses meant, but when Malkin replied with &quot;$&quot; he would be at dinner and when he replied &quot;Da&quot; he would not show up. They surmised the $ meant yes and the Da meant no.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeni_Malkin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2853" RevisionGUID="8e733a12-384d-46b3-b0ac-b9808c8d54b6" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:09:14.597" UserId="2258" Text="Russian texting shorthand for yes and no" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2853" RevisionGUID="8e733a12-384d-46b3-b0ac-b9808c8d54b6" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:09:14.597" UserId="2258" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="f97b584e-2a44-45fd-9d66-42e82a5ee426" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:45:55.790" UserId="2060" Text="&gt; Malkin's friends say he is charming and funny, and the English is coming, slowly.  His buddies and teammates used to chuckle at his replies to their texts, which would usually consist of nothing but a &quot;K&quot;, a &quot;$&quot;(they have no idea what that meant), or a &quot;Da&quot;, the Russian word for yes.  Now, there are actual words in complete sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/james_duthie/?id=272375&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have absolutely no idea what &quot;$&quot; means. Short on cash? :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="0d726dc8-b6e6-4289-b773-28a984ae4425" CreationDate="2013-12-10T17:16:54.097" UserId="582" Text="In Russian language you can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;yes = ага, угу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;no = не&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="a69643b6-250a-4c5f-a508-4ccd6810f499" CreationDate="2013-12-10T17:50:32.477" UserId="194" Text="Предлог &quot;лишь&quot; подчеркивает малость, незначительность. Предлог &quot;только&quot; не имеет такой окраски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пропускать только посетителей с билетами!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь использование предлога &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо, поскольку посетителей с билетами может быть много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Летать только на исправных самолётах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично. Исправных самолётов может быть больше, чем неисправных, поэтому &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Принимать только способных студентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="5063b287-7711-4f68-b711-239c2f40e6da" CreationDate="2013-12-10T17:56:01.920" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="Предлог &quot;лишь&quot; подчеркивает малость, незначительность. Предлог &quot;только&quot; не имеет такой окраски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пропускать только посетителей с билетами!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь использование предлога &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо, поскольку посетителей с билетами может быть много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Летать только на исправных самолётах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично. Исправных самолётов может быть больше, чем неисправных, поэтому &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="02aeab1a-aaf6-47a9-a9d3-7a03a06a1409" CreationDate="2013-12-10T18:02:53.383" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="Предлог &quot;лишь&quot; подчеркивает малость, незначительность. Предлог &quot;только&quot; не имеет такой окраски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пропускать только посетителей с билетами!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь использование предлога &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо, поскольку посетителей с билетами может быть много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Летать только на исправных самолётах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично. Исправных самолётов может быть больше, чем неисправных, поэтому &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они принимают заявления только на испанском языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорящий констатирует факт и обращает внимание на необходимость перевести заявление, если оно на другом языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они принимают заявления лишь на испанском языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорящий с сожалением подчеркивает, что количество языков, на которых можно написать заявление мало и не соответствует ожиданиям.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="b9b02915-acd5-402e-9a79-3e8ccb95b5b2" CreationDate="2013-12-10T18:43:35.703" UserId="2259" Text="&gt; не встать!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; не вставать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the better answer here should sound on the Russian language, let me give you answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не встать! - Например, &quot;Эй Вась, Мне не встать!&quot; - это означает, что не возможно подняться. Очень тяжело. Или угроза: &quot;Тебе не встать!&quot;, это может означать, что условия будут такими, что встать ты не сможешь, имей это ввиду, даже не пытайся. Или как предупреждение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то время как &quot;Не вставать!&quot;, это либо приказ, либо рекомендация. Т.е. то чего не стоит делать. &quot;Нельзя вставать!&quot;. Здесь &quot;НЕ&quot; может быть без ошибки заменено словом &quot;НЕЛЬЗЯ&quot;. Хотя, в предыдущем примере, тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тоже время, когда я увидел заголовок вопроса, я прочитал его совершенно иначе, я не видел слова &quot;не&quot;, и восклицательного знака. `Difference between вставать and встать` - Разнится между двумя словами встать и вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встать: Я пытаюсь встать. Мне надо встать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или приказ: &quot;Встать ! Смирно !&quot; - Типичный приказ лежащим по званию ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то время как, &quot;Вставать !&quot;, более мягкая форма, но далеко не просьба. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пытался вставать. Я пытаюсь вставать. Мне надо вставать.&#xD;&#xA;Более ленивая, и в тоже время абсолютно идентичная по смысле форма одного и того же выражения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приказ может звучать, абсолютно идентично по тону: &quot;Вставать!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Более короткая форма &quot;Встать&quot; - более резкая. Так всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are they exactly the same, what are the differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are exactly the same. Differences only in shorter little bit more sharp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your case. `не встать!`, one person signal another or his group, that **he can not**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не вставать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One person signal another or his group, that &quot;they should not вставать!&quot; Waiting for something, or something is detected, that is why, Stop ! Do not get up !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="af22e5a0-cca5-42c3-aa53-8f079f2766cc" CreationDate="2013-12-10T18:49:44.967" UserId="2259" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; не встать!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; не вставать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the better answer here should sound on the Russian language, let me give you answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не встать! - Например, &quot;Эй Вась, Мне не встать!&quot; - это означает, что не возможно подняться. Очень тяжело. Или угроза: &quot;Тебе не встать!&quot;, это может означать, что условия будут такими, что встать ты не сможешь, имей это ввиду, даже не пытайся. Или как предупреждение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то время как &quot;Не вставать!&quot;, это либо приказ, либо рекомендация. Т.е. то чего не стоит делать. &quot;Нельзя вставать!&quot;. Здесь &quot;НЕ&quot; может быть без ошибки заменено словом &quot;НЕЛЬЗЯ&quot;. Хотя, в предыдущем примере, тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тоже время, когда я увидел заголовок вопроса, я прочитал его совершенно иначе, я не видел слова &quot;не&quot;, и восклицательного знака. `Difference between вставать and встать` - Разнится между двумя словами встать и вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встать: Я пытаюсь встать. Мне надо встать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или приказ: &quot;Встать ! Смирно !&quot; - Типичный приказ лежащим по званию ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то время как, &quot;Вставать !&quot;, более мягкая форма, но далеко не просьба. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пытался вставать. Я пытаюсь вставать. Мне надо вставать.&#xD;&#xA;Более ленивая, и в тоже время абсолютно идентичная по смысле форма одного и того же выражения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приказ может звучать, абсолютно идентично по тону: &quot;Вставать!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Более короткая форма &quot;Встать&quot; - более резкая. Так всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are they exactly the same, what are the differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are exactly the same. Differences only in shorter little bit more sharp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your case. `Не встать!`, one person signal another or his group, that **he can not**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Не вставать!` - One person signal another or his group, that &quot;they should not вставать!&quot; Waiting for something, or something is detected, that is why, Stop ! Do not get up !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="25547b56-6d48-4dc3-b779-02570e6a56c8" CreationDate="2013-12-10T18:54:52.837" UserId="2259" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="&gt; не встать!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; не вставать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the better answer here should sound on the Russian language, let me give you answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не встать! - Например, &quot;Эй Вась, Мне не встать!&quot; - это означает, что не возможно подняться. Очень тяжело. Или угроза: &quot;Тебе не встать!&quot;, это может означать, что условия будут такими, что встать ты не сможешь, имей это ввиду, даже не пытайся. Или как предупреждение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то время как &quot;Не вставать!&quot;, это либо приказ, либо рекомендация. Т.е. то чего не стоит делать. &quot;Нельзя вставать!&quot;. Здесь &quot;НЕ&quot; может быть без ошибки заменено словом &quot;НЕЛЬЗЯ&quot;. Хотя, в предыдущем примере, тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тоже время, когда я увидел заголовок вопроса, я прочитал его совершенно иначе, я не видел слова &quot;не&quot;, и восклицательного знака. `Difference between вставать and встать` - Разнится между двумя словами встать и вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встать: Я пытаюсь встать. Мне надо встать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или приказ: &quot;Встать ! Смирно !&quot; - Типичный приказ лежащим по званию ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то время как, &quot;Вставать !&quot;, более мягкая форма, но далеко не просьба. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пытался вставать. Я пытаюсь вставать. Мне надо вставать.&#xD;&#xA;Более ленивая, и в тоже время абсолютно идентичная по смысле форма одного и того же выражения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приказ может звучать, абсолютно идентично по тону: &quot;Вставать!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Более короткая форма &quot;Встать&quot; - более резкая. Так всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are they exactly the same, what are the differences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are exactly the same. Differences only in shorter little bit more sharp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your case. `Не встать!`, one person signal another or his group, that **he can not**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Не вставать!` - One person signal another or his group, that &quot;they should not вставать!&quot; Waiting for something, or something is detected, that is why, Stop ! Do not get up !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. it can not be vice verse. One person can not signal group &quot;Не встать!&quot;, to stop them from standing up. It will mean &quot;I can not get up !&quot;. Or &quot;Here, is not possible to standing up !&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again &quot;Не вставать !&quot;, can not be used to self. It is broadcast. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="34bb45fe-550d-4685-96c4-12b99c6114f9" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:15:16.453" UserId="2259" Text="If you replace your request&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я голоден.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня голод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than `thirsty` will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня жажда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Philip Seyfi noticed: `жажден` - `archaic and almost never used.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я жажден.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody use this sentence. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="9656a4e4-4aaa-46fe-9a4a-56f8644893ee" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:35:54.527" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Предлог &quot;лишь&quot; подчеркивает малость, незначительность. Предлог &quot;только&quot; не имеет такой окраски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пропускать только посетителей с билетами!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь использование предлога &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо, поскольку посетителей с билетами может быть много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Летать только на исправных самолётах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично. Исправных самолётов может быть больше, чем неисправных, поэтому &quot;лишь&quot; недопустимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они принимают заявления только на испанском языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорящий констатирует факт и обращает внимание на необходимость перевести заявление, если оно на другом языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они принимают заявления лишь на испанском языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорящий с сожалением подчеркивает, что количество языков, на которых можно написать заявление, мало и не соответствует ожиданиям.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="8544ca77-bacf-49a6-84a0-73170eb8d655" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:41:52.860" UserId="1665" Text="I would probably translate «stream cipher» as «потоковый шифр», от слова «поток», но на wikipedia статья почему-то называется &lt;a href=&quot;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%80&quot;&gt;«поточный шифр»&lt;/a&gt;, хотя в содержании часто встречается словосочетание «потоковые шифры».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the deal here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as Google goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* потоковый шифр — 167.000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* поточный шифр — 53.800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, an exact search is exactly the opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;поточный шифр&quot; — 26.000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;потоковый шифр&quot; — 11.600&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="8544ca77-bacf-49a6-84a0-73170eb8d655" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:41:52.860" UserId="1665" Text="«stream cipher» — «потоковый шифр» или «поточный»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="8544ca77-bacf-49a6-84a0-73170eb8d655" CreationDate="2013-12-10T20:41:52.860" UserId="1665" Text="|прилагательные|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="4706b8fe-6997-4528-a488-cf824ff14319" CreationDate="2013-12-11T04:10:52.600" UserId="2244" Text="Using first name + patronimic for each of them is the normal polite way to address a Russian couple, whether you're writing in English or in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Dear Olga Petrovna &amp; Viktor Vladimirovich&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own example sounds very official, government-like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="ec4abd3a-b535-4f9e-8564-2892ad573c6c" CreationDate="2013-12-11T07:44:26.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/410676436278992897" />
  <row Id="9757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="55d0f896-6f07-4b94-b3f6-d8d261e8dd9e" CreationDate="2013-12-11T09:49:32.293" UserId="2244" Text="I've checked several Russian crypto books, they use both, sometimes within the same chapter. There is no discernible difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="292cfa72-c8b4-4422-964a-0621798e8183" CreationDate="2013-12-11T21:20:23.653" UserId="99" Text="Is it the same &quot;приятное с полезным&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="292cfa72-c8b4-4422-964a-0621798e8183" CreationDate="2013-12-11T21:20:23.653" UserId="99" Text="Mixing Business with Pleasure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="292cfa72-c8b4-4422-964a-0621798e8183" CreationDate="2013-12-11T21:20:23.653" UserId="99" Text="|перевод|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="9742af67-e087-480d-b223-7a5066eec0a2" CreationDate="2013-12-12T08:20:16.067" UserId="1305" Text="It's not quite the same. In English-speaking world this phrase is used to describe a situation when a person actually combines his working activities and enjoyment, often with a detriment to productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mix business with pleasure**&lt;br&gt; to combine work with social activities or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enjoyment (usually negative) *Let's keep this relationship strictly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; professional. I prefer not to mix business with pleasure*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source: Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in English this idiom is usually used in a negative sense, Russian phrase `совмещать приятное с полезным` in most cases is positive and means &quot;to organize useful activities in such a way so you can enjoy it&quot;. Also, from my observations, Russians not so often have the stereotype that work/business must not be enjoyable to a person who does it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *in most cases*:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**to mix business with pleasure** - get pleasure ***instead*** of working&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**совмещать приятное с полезным** - get pleasure ***from*** your job/business/any other useful activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation `совмещать приятное с полезным` can be sometimes used for this phrase, although for most cases you should prefer something like `совмещать работу и развлечения`, which has more negative connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="c2361d7f-10d1-40d0-8a2e-6d933baa488f" CreationDate="2013-12-12T08:29:58.740" UserId="1305" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="It's not quite the same. In English-speaking world this phrase is used to describe a situation when a person actually combines his working activities and enjoyment, often with a detriment to productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mix business with pleasure**&lt;br&gt; to combine work with social activities or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enjoyment (usually negative) *Let's keep this relationship strictly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; professional. I prefer not to mix business with pleasure*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source: Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in English this idiom is usually used in a negative sense, Russian phrase `совмещать приятное с полезным` in most cases is positive and means &quot;to organize useful activities in such a way so you can enjoy it&quot;. Useful activities also include studying, sport, healthcare etc. Also, from my observations, Russians not so often have the stereotype that work/business must not be enjoyable to a person who does it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *in most cases*:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**to mix business with pleasure** - get pleasure ***instead*** of working&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**совмещать приятное с полезным** - get pleasure ***from*** your job/business/any other useful activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation `совмещать приятное с полезным` can be sometimes used for this phrase, although for most cases you should prefer something like `совмещать работу и развлечения`, which has more negative connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="4d602c80-2efb-41d7-bbf7-e01e0717a5ce" CreationDate="2013-12-12T13:14:59.563" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="Что значит слово “перепсто” и как мы его используем?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="4d602c80-2efb-41d7-bbf7-e01e0717a5ce" CreationDate="2013-12-12T13:14:59.563" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="Значение слова “перепсто”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="4d602c80-2efb-41d7-bbf7-e01e0717a5ce" CreationDate="2013-12-12T13:14:59.563" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="ff88f0c4-475f-4760-ad4e-55173b1b238b" CreationDate="2013-12-12T13:54:33.407" UserId="1958" Text="There was a word `поточный` in the past (`поточное производство`, `поточная линия`): see [slovari.yandex.ru][1]. And there was no word `потоковый`, it is a neologism, but quite popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would force using older form, but it's up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="494ba79e-d2a2-4f4c-af69-7ec4006cd07a" CreationDate="2013-12-12T14:07:55.347" UserId="1236" Text="`Перепсто` comes from the word `псто`, which is a misspell of the word `пост` (post). The origin of the misspell is, probably, the typical mistake when a person mixes up the neighboring letters while typing. So, `перепсто` with its spelling normalized should look like `перепоcт`, which means &quot;re-post&quot;, and is used the same way as its normalized variant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9770" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="82622f2e-dae7-4793-8867-d9d18ea5dac4" CreationDate="2013-12-12T14:12:12.540" UserDisplayName="user2268" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="7940fb5e-fba3-4964-b5ea-1a145f8ff233" CreationDate="2013-12-12T14:20:39.750" UserId="1958" Comment="added link" Text="There was a word `поточный` in the past (`поточное производство`, `поточная линия`): see [slovari.yandex.ru][1]. And there was no word `потоковый`, it is a neologism, but quite popular. See [this distribution][2] from RusCorpora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would force using older form, but it's up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5&amp;start=1940&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3#toggle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="5adc4591-d429-4d18-86e9-5806a7ed0c3b" CreationDate="2013-12-12T21:47:55.743" UserId="1305" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="It's not quite the same. In English-speaking world this phrase is used to describe a situation when a person actually combines his working activities and enjoyment, often with a detriment to productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **mix business with pleasure**&lt;br&gt; to combine work with social activities or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enjoyment (usually negative) *Let's keep this relationship strictly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; professional. I prefer not to mix business with pleasure*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source: Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in English this idiom is usually used in a negative sense, Russian phrase `совмещать приятное с полезным` in most cases is positive and means &quot;to organize useful activities in such a way so you can enjoy it&quot;. Useful activities also include studying, sport, healthcare etc. Also, from my observations, Russians not so often have the stereotype that work/business must not be enjoyable to a person who does it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *in most cases*:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**to mix business with pleasure** - get pleasure ***instead*** of working&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**совмещать приятное с полезным** - get pleasure ***from*** your job/business/any other useful activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the translation `совмещать приятное с полезным` can be sometimes used for this phrase, although for most cases you should prefer something like `совмещать работу и развлечения`, which has more negative connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, if you are translating to English, you may try verbatim translation `to combine useful and pleasant`. It's not a common phrase, but it is grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9773" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="ed66cad3-ddab-48d0-ac56-5253f7988fec" CreationDate="2013-12-13T10:03:05.263" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2870" RevisionGUID="8947b281-8cee-42ed-aa75-ef30bc25b3d7" CreationDate="2013-12-13T17:00:33.197" UserId="2275" Text="а чем не устраивает &quot;mixes business with pleasure&quot;? Вот например http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/mix+business+with+pleasure  такое упоминает.&#xD;&#xA;А приятное с полезным это примерно о том же идиома, хоть и не дословно. Но, позвольте, она и не обязана быть дословной калькой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="73e5c6f4-9536-44da-902d-5b67ecdf3e6d" CreationDate="2013-12-13T18:10:35.907" UserId="2269" Text="Ввести — это еще половина проблемы. Лично я предпочитаю использовать для этого composing sequence из двух обратных апострофов (`) на QWERTY и соответственно двух знаков «ё» на ЙЦУКЕН. Для чего пользователю Иксов, у которого composing уже настроен, достаточно прописать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;Multi_key&gt; &lt;grave&gt; &lt;grave&gt; : &quot;́&quot; U0301 # COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;Multi_key&gt; &lt;Cyrillic_io&gt; &lt;Cyrillic_io&gt; : &quot;́&quot; U0301 # COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в `~/.XCompose`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь, начав использовать знак ударения, он столкнется с тем, что:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ни в одной однобайтовой кодировке для русского языка (CP-1251, КОИ-8) его нет. Да, однобайтовые кодировки умирают, но кое-где до сих пор держаться.&#xD;&#xA;- В некоторых шрифтах его тоже нет. Например, в микрософтской Georgia. И хорошо, если fallback font окажется хотя бы немного нее похожим.&#xD;&#xA;- В некоторых шрифтах он есть так, что лучше бы не было. Например, в микрософтовской же Verdana — одним из самых популярных шрифтов Интернета. В ней знак ударения смещается на букву вправо:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Verdana](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1aga0.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Даже не стоит пытаться расставлять ударения в тексте, который будут читать моноширным шрифтом. Будет что-нибудь из этого:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Mono](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jehYP.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что, боюсь, еще не скоро знак ударения будет поджидать судьба точек над «ё» — превращение из графического элемента, характерного разве что для детских книжек, в используемый повсеместно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="e0789e9e-588e-4874-8bf3-f7cc5eb573a0" CreationDate="2013-12-14T20:52:14.733" UserId="5" Text="Not sure what part of speech 'на!' is when used in the meaning of 'take!'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="e0789e9e-588e-4874-8bf3-f7cc5eb573a0" CreationDate="2013-12-14T20:52:14.733" UserId="5" Text="What part of speech is 'на!' when used for 'take!'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="e0789e9e-588e-4874-8bf3-f7cc5eb573a0" CreationDate="2013-12-14T20:52:14.733" UserId="5" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="79ca20b4-e3fc-4112-9944-e8d339493c8c" CreationDate="2013-12-14T21:32:18.420" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited title" Text="Not sure what part of speech 'на!' is when used in the meaning of 'take!'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="79ca20b4-e3fc-4112-9944-e8d339493c8c" CreationDate="2013-12-14T21:32:18.420" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body; edited title" Text="What part of speech is 'на!' when used for 'take!'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="871e5d2c-3902-48b6-be55-feb50ebb5e55" CreationDate="2013-12-14T22:32:28.620" UserId="194" Text="It is междометие (interjection)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9791" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="ce4ef794-a0cf-4e57-b856-ff5d00b7e357" CreationDate="2013-12-15T13:44:56.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/412216710935371776" />
  <row Id="9792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="a394dcb1-96b1-4c04-b800-4c4b62fcdb08" CreationDate="2013-12-15T13:56:56.527" UserId="2279" Text="When you use `на` like `take`, it is **not** an interjection `междометие`, it's particle `частица` (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="b140ca65-c98d-457b-b2af-eabedc5ea91d" CreationDate="2013-12-15T14:04:01.063" UserId="2279" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="When you use `на` like `take`, it is **not** an interjection `&quot;междометие&quot;`, it's particle `&quot;частица&quot;` (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="1af37ef1-2c07-4863-844a-1c47409a413c" CreationDate="2013-12-15T14:10:00.627" UserId="2279" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="When you use `на` like `take`, it is **not** an interjection `&quot;междометие&quot;`, and of course it is **not** a verb `&quot;глагол&quot;`, it's particle `&quot;частица&quot;` (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA;Prooflink: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="3fe0c8a7-9884-4f1c-852f-ae0de5e0213c" CreationDate="2013-12-15T14:12:17.743" UserId="1236" Comment="article" Text="When you use `на` like `take`, it is **not** an interjection `&quot;междометие&quot;`, and of course it is **not** a verb `&quot;глагол&quot;`, it's a particle `&quot;частица&quot;` (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA;Prooflink: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%E0&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="70ff40c7-5bdb-430e-9b0a-8611c70565ed" CreationDate="2013-12-16T06:44:01.867" UserId="2191" Text="Certain nouns that decline like adjectives are adjectival nouns where it is standard to suppress the noun, e.g. `ванная` is short for `ванная комната`, and it is not too hard to guess what the implicit noun is (if, say, one is an English speaker). On the other hand, in a previous question KCd asked what implicit noun `запятая` modifies, and the answer seems to be, in modern Russian, nothing.  (I tried to link to the question but cannot get the link to work; I am not sure whether it is because the link contains Cyrillic characters.) Today I came across the word `набережная` and I am wondering the same question about it: is there an implicit noun that it modifies, and if so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a difference between `ванная` and `запятая` or `набережная` is that `ванная` can be used as an adjective, whereas `запятая` or `набережная` can only be used as nouns. Is it the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but cannot be used as adjectives simply have no implicit noun in modern Russian?  If this is not the case, what way is there to figure out what the implicit noun is? (And also for adjectival nouns in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing I do not understand is that the [morphological analysis tool](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=kndnnnn) only gives plural declensions for `запятая` or `набережная`: what happened to the singular declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="70ff40c7-5bdb-430e-9b0a-8611c70565ed" CreationDate="2013-12-16T06:44:01.867" UserId="2191" Text="How can one figure out if there is an implicit noun for a noun that declines like an adjective and if so, what it is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="70ff40c7-5bdb-430e-9b0a-8611c70565ed" CreationDate="2013-12-16T06:44:01.867" UserId="2191" Text="|прилагательные|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="eed7f2f4-4f20-4652-87c4-ddd875df94c0" CreationDate="2013-12-16T07:12:33.153" UserId="2191" Comment="clarified conjecture" Text="Certain nouns that decline like adjectives are adjectival nouns where it is standard to suppress the noun, e.g. `ванная` is short for `ванная комната`, and it is not too hard to guess what the implicit noun is (if, say, one is an English speaker). On the other hand, in a previous question KCd asked what implicit noun `запятая` modifies, and the answer seems to be, in modern Russian, nothing.  (I tried to link to the question but cannot get the link to work; I am not sure whether it is because the link contains Cyrillic characters.) Today I came across the word `набережная` and I am wondering the same question about it: is there an implicit noun that it modifies, and if so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a difference between `ванная` and `запятая` or `набережная` is that `ванная` can be used as an adjective, whereas `запятая` or `набережная` can only be used as nouns. Is it the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but cannot be used as adjectives simply have no implicit noun in modern Russian?  If this is not the case, what way is there to figure out what the implicit noun is? (And also for adjectival nouns in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also suggested in the same question of KCd that `запятая` is closer to an adverb than to an adjective.  It feels to me (from the point of view of an absolute novice) that the same is the case for `набережная`—might it be the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but are closer to adverbs than adjectives do not have implicit nouns (if, indeed, they do not) because there was nothing for them to modify historically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing I do not understand is that this [morphological analysis tool](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=kndnnnn) only gives plural declensions for `запятая` or `набережная`: why are there no singular declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9800" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="eed7f2f4-4f20-4652-87c4-ddd875df94c0" CreationDate="2013-12-16T07:12:33.153" UserId="2191" Comment="clarified conjecture" Text="How can one figure out if there is an implicit noun for a noun that declines like an adjective, and if so, what it is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="aa566a4a-1297-4767-b44c-7d0791979688" CreationDate="2013-12-16T11:21:42.363" UserId="235" Text="Well, while there are other words for &quot;да&quot; and &quot;нет&quot;, I don't see how you can find any shorthand for words that are already 2/3 letters long short of writing д/н or +/-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Malkin's behavior you've mentioned have nothing to do with Russian language and is some kind of his own peculiarity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="4962d9d9-ff46-480b-9657-136a71ce9933" CreationDate="2013-12-16T12:35:00.653" UserId="153" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][1] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="17556b40-d7dc-4bbb-957b-1fe16bd15deb" CreationDate="2013-12-16T15:18:42.933" UserId="2191" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Certain nouns that decline like adjectives are adjectival nouns where it is standard to suppress the noun, e.g. `ванная` is short for `ванная комната`, and it is not too hard to guess what the implicit noun is (if, say, one is an English speaker). On the other hand, in a previous question KCd asked what implicit noun `запятая` modifies, and the answer seems to be, in modern Russian, nothing.  (I tried to link to the question but cannot get the link to work; I am not sure whether it is because the link contains Cyrillic characters.) Today I came across the word `набережная` and I am wondering the same question about it: is there an implicit noun that it modifies, and if so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a difference between `ванная` and `запятая` or `набережная` is that `ванная` can be used as an adjective, whereas `запятая` or `набережная` can only be used as nouns. Is it the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but cannot be used as adjectives simply have no implicit noun in modern Russian?  If this is not the case, what way is there to figure out what the implicit noun is? (And also for adjectival nouns in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also suggested in the same question of KCd that `запятая` is closer to an adverb than to an adjective.  It feels to me (from the point of view of an absolute novice) that the same is the case for `набережная`—might it be the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but are closer to adverbs than adjectives do not have implicit nouns (if, indeed, they do not) because there was nothing for them to modify historically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing I do not understand is that [this morphological analysis tool](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=kndnnnn) only gives plural declensions for `запятая` or `набережная`: what happened to the singular declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="01e1b6df-d7c3-487d-850c-260598aed9e6" CreationDate="2013-12-16T16:04:36.687" UserId="2293" Text="&quot;Bit-Plane Encoder&quot; из этого документа:&#xD;&#xA;http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/122x0b1c3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;Страница 2-1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Последнее слово для меня понятно - это кодирующее устройство. А вот &quot;Bit-Plane&quot; для меня не ясно. Спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="01e1b6df-d7c3-487d-850c-260598aed9e6" CreationDate="2013-12-16T16:04:36.687" UserId="2293" Text="Помогите перевести на русский &quot;Bit-Plane Encoder&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="01e1b6df-d7c3-487d-850c-260598aed9e6" CreationDate="2013-12-16T16:04:36.687" UserId="2293" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9807" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="769a7309-848b-4fd2-8e23-34bdf8571e18" CreationDate="2013-12-16T19:44:57.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/412669696295837696" />
  <row Id="9809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="47efc453-7a5c-491c-b79d-d42e57e29791" CreationDate="2013-12-17T11:53:10.897" UserId="170" Text="Do both of them imply killing? Is it possible to &quot;пролить кровь&quot; of somebody, but not take his life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="47efc453-7a5c-491c-b79d-d42e57e29791" CreationDate="2013-12-17T11:53:10.897" UserId="170" Text="Do &quot;пролить кровь&quot; and &quot;лишить жизни&quot; mean the same in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="47efc453-7a5c-491c-b79d-d42e57e29791" CreationDate="2013-12-17T11:53:10.897" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2881" RevisionGUID="a5b896cc-39b4-4a96-9966-f40cc1d333cc" CreationDate="2013-12-17T12:14:44.643" UserId="97" Text="_Лишить жизни_, by its meaning, always means _to kill_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the times, _пролить кровь_ means the same thing, however it may also mean _to inflict serious wounds_.  There is also version _пролить свою кровь_, which sometimes may mean _to suffer_ (without necessarily dying). Yet it's a rare usage and off the top of my head I can't think of an example of such usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an article on [wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C), which has a mention of this meaning, yet it also doesn't provide any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that if the non-lethal meaning is implied, then there will be something else in the context to signify the survival. Usually, however, this phrase will mean _to kill_ or _to die_ (if _свою кровь_)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="54f40487-0543-43f4-990b-d2d4a7c0f7d8" CreationDate="2013-12-17T14:16:02.660" UserId="115" Text="These expressions actually translate into English quite well.&#xD;&#xA;- лишить жизни -- to take (someone's) life&#xD;&#xA;- пролить кровь -- to shed (one's) blood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as &quot;to take a life&quot;, &quot;лишить жизни&quot; necessarily means &quot;to kill&quot;. On the other hand, &quot;to shed blood&quot; and &quot;пролить/проливать кровь&quot; means &quot;to fight for something&quot;, but does not necessarily imply dying. It can also mean &quot;to cause harm to somebody&quot;, as in &quot;to shed blood of innocent people&quot;.  In this case it usually does imply killing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="9a006366-13a4-4a70-b944-06f368f8d26e" CreationDate="2013-12-17T17:10:50.407" UserId="115" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="These expressions actually translate into English quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - лишить жизни -- to take (someone's) life&#xD;&#xA; - пролить кровь -- to shed (one's) blood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as &quot;to take a life&quot;, &quot;лишить жизни&quot; necessarily means &quot;to kill&quot;. On the other hand, &quot;to shed blood&quot; and &quot;пролить/проливать кровь&quot; means &quot;to fight for something&quot;, but does not necessarily imply dying. It can also mean &quot;to cause harm to somebody&quot;, as in &quot;to shed blood of innocent people&quot;.  In this case it usually does imply killing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2881" RevisionGUID="2c213829-66f1-4d4d-a20c-ba8ccf2a64fb" CreationDate="2013-12-17T22:04:36.927" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="_Лишить жизни_, by its meaning, always means _to kill_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the times, _пролить кровь_ means the same thing, however it may also mean _to inflict serious wounds_.  There is also version _пролить свою кровь_, which may mean _to suffer_ (without necessarily dying). For example, _Я за это кровь проливал_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an article on [wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C), which has a mention of this meaning, yet it doesn't provide any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** A couple of people pointed out in comments a phrase like _Я за таких как ты кровь проливал_ - this is indeed a very good example that just didn't come to my mind when I was writing the answer.  I'm removing the reference to 'rare usage'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="cee689cc-0d98-40bd-b7a0-b5b74cf3d948" CreationDate="2013-12-18T13:58:58.590" UserId="551" Text="It's not clear to me why would you need to find this implicit noun, but looks like the most reliable source here is the history of the word usage. Currently the most convenient one is [Russian National Corpus](http://ruscorpora.ru). Explanatory dictionary can also give a hint, but this is not as reliable as the historic documents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the time goes by and nobody uses the &quot;implicit noun&quot; anymore, the word itself may change and the original noun that accompanied it may no longer go well with this &quot;new noun&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in some cities people use &quot;парадная&quot; or &quot;парадное&quot; as a synonym for &quot;подъезд&quot;. Explanatory dictionary defines it as &quot;парадный вход&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пара́дное**&#xD;&#xA;ср. разг.; = пара́дная  &#xD;&#xA;Парадный вход.&#xD;&#xA;*Толковый словарь Ефремовой. Т. Ф. Ефремова. 2000.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But why &quot;вход&quot; is &quot;парадная/парадное&quot;? The possible implicit nouns are &quot;парадная лестница&quot; and &quot;парадное крыльцо&quot;. But is it so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option here is that &quot;парадная&quot; is created to line up with other parts of the house: прихожая, передняя, гостиная, детская, людская etc. And here we have another idea - that the nouns that were created from adjectives may create a new template for the words that describe areas inside the building. For instance - бойлерная, прачечная, электрощитовая, серверная, переговорная, игровая, etc. While &quot;переговорная&quot; or &quot;серверная&quot; may imply &quot;комната&quot;, but бойлерная and прачечная now usually are separate buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the words that may be used with or without their nouns - usually they are accompanied with nouns in the official language, but used separately in colloquial speech: **справочная** vs **справочная служба**, **окружная** vs **окружная дорога**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your examples - **запятая** is in fact borrowed from Church Slavonic, so it is always been a noun in Russian, and as such bears no &quot;implied noun&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ванная** can still be used as &quot;ванная комната&quot; (see National Corpus). There is also душевая by the way, but душевая комната is much rarer than ванная комната. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **набережная** - we can found traces of its usage as &quot;набережная улица&quot; in National Corpus, but in fact it is used only separately after 1800, so many people does not associate набережная with улица any more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Каменная Набережная Линия&quot;, &quot;Набережная Николская Улица&quot;, &quot;Кикины Полаты Набережные&quot; [А. И. Богданов. Описание Санктпетербурга (1751)]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мы въехали в набережную улицу ― и я вспомнил берег Невы. [Н. М. Карамзин. Письма русского путешественника (1793)]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="233f0189-dc1b-423d-8f62-5ddaacb95a40" CreationDate="2013-12-18T17:03:22.217" UserId="2191" Comment="included hyperlink" Text="Certain nouns that decline like adjectives are adjectival nouns where it is standard to suppress the noun, e.g. `ванная` is short for `ванная комната`, and it is not too hard to guess what the implicit noun is (if, say, one is an English speaker). On the other hand, in [this question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/996) KCd asked what implicit noun `запятая` modifies, and the answer seems to be, in modern Russian, nothing. Today I came across the word `набережная` and I am wondering the same question about it: is there an implicit noun that it modifies, and if so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a difference between `ванная` and `запятая` or `набережная` is that `ванная` can be used as an adjective, whereas `запятая` or `набережная` can only be used as nouns. Is it the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but cannot be used as adjectives simply have no implicit noun in modern Russian?  If this is not the case, what way is there to figure out what the implicit noun is? (And also for adjectival nouns in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also suggested in a reply to the same question of KCd that `запятая` is closer to an adverb than to an adjective.  It feels to me (from the point of view of an absolute novice) that the same is the case for `набережная`—might it be the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but are closer to adverbs than adjectives do not have implicit nouns (if, indeed, they do not) because there was nothing for them to modify historically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing I do not understand is that [this morphological analysis tool](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=kndnnnn) only gives plural declensions for `запятая` or `набережная`: what happened to the singular declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="5f37ff76-07b7-4fa3-9002-34f505a2a34f" CreationDate="2013-12-18T19:36:54.010" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="Знаете ли вы примеры такого использования кириллицы? Что-то в роде того [когда латинский алфавит напоминает стилем русский](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_Cyrillic)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="5f37ff76-07b7-4fa3-9002-34f505a2a34f" CreationDate="2013-12-18T19:36:54.010" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="Другие виды письма (например латиница) имитированы кириллицей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="5f37ff76-07b7-4fa3-9002-34f505a2a34f" CreationDate="2013-12-18T19:36:54.010" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="f75223c3-1717-49e8-871f-f04560610940" CreationDate="2013-12-18T19:42:18.813" UserDisplayName="user2268" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Знаете ли вы примеры такого использования кириллицы? Что-то в роде того [когда буквы латинского алфавита напоминают стилем те из русского](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_Cyrillic)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9830" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="73e5fc25-1bec-4526-9aad-a89d4cce5d15" CreationDate="2013-12-18T20:02:32.993" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="aaff9f3a-8f51-4d41-ada2-4b1103d1dfe2" CreationDate="2013-12-18T20:18:26.130" UserId="506" Text="It is interjection (Междометие) http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0#.D0.BD.D0.B0_II" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="888aee0e-5799-4a65-8ff3-c2c7badb5625" CreationDate="2013-12-19T14:40:58.690" UserId="2311" Text="On the products the labels sometimes say &quot;Не содержит кафеин&quot;[Ref1][1] (accusative), and sometimes &quot;Не содержит кофеина&quot;[Ref2][2] (genitive) (both meaning &quot;No caffeine present&quot;). Which one is correct? (On references see the images themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make it a positive statement &quot;Содержит кофеин&quot; (accusative), then you will no longer be able to construct a genitive phrase that is correct but still uses the verb. However, if you say &quot;Нет кофеина&quot; or &quot;Без кофеина&quot;, then it's always genitive, but that is clearly a different grammatical structure, so it is not possible to generalise from these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You can use it with other nouns as well, i've selected caffeine just to talk about something concrete. It could just as well be &quot;Не содержит сахар/сахара&quot; (&quot;No sugar present&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.confetea.ru/?good_id=716&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pushinka34.com/shop/tsikorij/tsikorij-poroshkoobraznyj-zip-upakovka-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="888aee0e-5799-4a65-8ff3-c2c7badb5625" CreationDate="2013-12-19T14:40:58.690" UserId="2311" Text="Is it accusative or genitive for the noun after &quot;Не содержит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="888aee0e-5799-4a65-8ff3-c2c7badb5625" CreationDate="2013-12-19T14:40:58.690" UserId="2311" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="3ba0218d-823f-4b4d-9843-62b344d6be77" CreationDate="2013-12-19T14:46:43.410" UserId="2311" Comment="падежи" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="0af4d706-e01a-4f33-8324-ff3e54d0c598" CreationDate="2013-12-19T20:03:05.917" UserId="194" Text="I think It was already answered. You most likely use accusative when in English you would use definite article and Genitive when you would use indefinite article (or the word &quot;any&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="637da47b-75be-4fbf-88ef-9c156e720910" CreationDate="2013-12-19T20:39:27.590" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="On the products the labels sometimes say &quot;Не содержит кщфеин&quot; [Ref1][1] (accusative), and sometimes &quot;Не содержит кофеина&quot; [Ref2][2] (genitive) (both meaning &quot;No caffeine present&quot;). Which one is correct? (On references see the images themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make it a positive statement &quot;Содержит кофеин&quot; (accusative), then you will no longer be able to construct a genitive phrase that is correct but still uses the verb. However, if you say &quot;Нет кофеина&quot; or &quot;Без кофеина&quot;, then it's always genitive, but that is clearly a different grammatical structure, so it is not possible to generalise from these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You can use it with other nouns as well, I've selected caffeine just to talk about something concrete. It could just as well be &quot;Не содержит сахар/сахара&quot; (&quot;No sugar present&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.confetea.ru/?good_id=716&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pushinka34.com/shop/tsikorij/tsikorij-poroshkoobraznyj-zip-upakovka-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="2942c9a2-33b5-44ee-9db5-f6bd5eb8e315" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:08:51.790" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="On the products the labels sometimes say &quot;Не содержит кофеин&quot; [Ref1][1] (accusative), and sometimes &quot;Не содержит кофеина&quot; [Ref2][2] (genitive) (both meaning &quot;No caffeine present&quot;). Which one is correct? (On references see the images themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make it a positive statement &quot;Содержит кофеин&quot; (accusative), then you will no longer be able to construct a genitive phrase that is correct but still uses the verb. However, if you say &quot;Нет кофеина&quot; or &quot;Без кофеина&quot;, then it's always genitive, but that is clearly a different grammatical structure, so it is not possible to generalise from these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. You can use it with other nouns as well, I've selected caffeine just to talk about something concrete. It could just as well be &quot;Не содержит сахар/сахара&quot; (&quot;No sugar present&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.confetea.ru/?good_id=716&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pushinka34.com/shop/tsikorij/tsikorij-poroshkoobraznyj-zip-upakovka-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="452f1b35-7118-4279-93e8-f7ecb094df6d" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:40:50.193" UserDisplayName="user2268" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body; edited title" Text="I mean something like [faux Cyrillic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_Cyrillic), but the other way round." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9845" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="452f1b35-7118-4279-93e8-f7ecb094df6d" CreationDate="2013-12-19T21:40:50.193" UserDisplayName="user2268" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body; edited title" Text="Cyrillic fonts imitating the look of other writing systems (e.g. Latin, Arabic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="cfc44657-3005-45fd-bf1e-ac0a89f25ed3" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:17:07.383" UserId="2314" Text="what's the difference between Зачем? and  Почему?. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="cfc44657-3005-45fd-bf1e-ac0a89f25ed3" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:17:07.383" UserId="2314" Text="Зачем и Почему. The difference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="cfc44657-3005-45fd-bf1e-ac0a89f25ed3" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:17:07.383" UserId="2314" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="a77804f4-11f7-4c80-b1cb-f7704c11f7dc" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:54:30.023" UserId="1236" Text="`Зачем?` is a question about the purpose (&quot;what for?&quot;) and `почему?` is a question about the the cause (&quot;why?&quot;, &quot;because of what?&quot;). The next two sentences can both be translated &quot;Why have you come?&quot;, but they have the shades of meaning which illustrate the meaning of `зачем?` and `почему?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зачем ты пришёл?` means &quot;What are you expecting to find (hear, see, etc.) here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Почему ты пришёл?` means &quot;What made you come here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes this difference gets too slight and can be neglected, especially in the colloquial speech, the two words can be used interchangeably. But there are some contexts when they cannot be substituted with each other. When you ask what a thing is used for, only `зачем?` must be used, like `Зачем нужна эта кнопка?` (&quot;What is this button used for?&quot;). `Зачем?` cannot be used when asking about some actions that have no purpose, like crying, dying, sitting, etc., only `почему?` can be used in such questions, like `Почему ты плачешь?` (&quot;Why are you crying&quot;). Still, sometimes the context can be weird and somebody is crying on purpose and is being asked about that, but that is a rare case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="e5fd5e6d-6aeb-4374-9a1d-86f390dd7e3f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T04:59:37.727" UserId="1236" Comment="Capitalization" Text="What's the difference between зачем? and почему?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="325c5e3b-f505-49e4-a7b7-5907ea82d6d3" CreationDate="2013-12-20T05:00:58.110" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="`Зачем?` is a question about the purpose (&quot;what for?&quot;) and `почему?` is a question about the the cause (&quot;why?&quot;, &quot;because of what?&quot;). The next two sentences can both be translated &quot;Why have you come?&quot;, but they have the shades of meaning which illustrate the meaning of `зачем?` and `почему?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зачем ты пришёл?` means &quot;What are you expecting to find (hear, see, etc.) here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Почему ты пришёл?` means &quot;What made you come here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes this difference gets too slight and can be neglected, especially in the colloquial speech, the two words can be used interchangeably. But there are some contexts when they cannot be substituted with each other. When you ask what a thing is used for, only `зачем?` must be used, like `Зачем нужна эта кнопка?` (&quot;What is this button used for?&quot;). `Зачем?` cannot be used when asking about some actions that have no purpose, like crying, dying, sitting, etc., only `почему?` can be used in such questions, like `Почему ты плачешь?` (&quot;Why are you crying?&quot;). Still, sometimes the context can be weird and somebody is crying on purpose and is being asked about that, but that is a rare case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="a5643e2f-bf63-459f-bfbe-61a179ce679f" CreationDate="2013-12-20T14:48:30.943" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="`Зачем?` is a question about the purpose (&quot;what for?&quot;) and `почему?` is a question about the cause (&quot;why?&quot;, &quot;because of what?&quot;). The next two sentences can both be translated &quot;Why have you come?&quot;, but they have the shades of meaning which illustrate the meaning of `зачем?` and `почему?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зачем ты пришёл?` means &quot;What are you expecting to find (hear, see, etc.) here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Почему ты пришёл?` means &quot;What made you come here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes this difference gets too slight and can be neglected, especially in the colloquial speech, the two words can be used interchangeably. But there are some contexts when they cannot be substituted with each other. When you ask what a thing is used for, only `зачем?` must be used, like `Зачем нужна эта кнопка?` (&quot;What is this button used for?&quot;). `Зачем?` cannot be used when asking about some actions that have no purpose, like crying, dying, sitting, etc., only `почему?` can be used in such questions, like `Почему ты плачешь?` (&quot;Why are you crying?&quot;). Still, sometimes the context can be weird and somebody is crying on purpose and is being asked about that, but that is a rare case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="d3a0f710-f044-4b8e-a4fd-eb4ecdd5463c" CreationDate="2013-12-20T17:33:59.620" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="Он чем-нибудь отличается от стандартного русского языка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="d3a0f710-f044-4b8e-a4fd-eb4ecdd5463c" CreationDate="2013-12-20T17:33:59.620" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="Русский язык в Калининградской области (разницы)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="d3a0f710-f044-4b8e-a4fd-eb4ecdd5463c" CreationDate="2013-12-20T17:33:59.620" UserDisplayName="user2268" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="65cbb91e-3660-40d5-a702-855327cb4702" CreationDate="2013-12-20T23:34:45.703" UserId="242" Text="You assumption is basically wrong. First of all, Kaliningrad Oblast is not that isolated. I'm talking not only about some obvious things like common media space which drastically reduces dialectal differences all over the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that nowadays in modern Russian there's no such thing like full-fledged dialects - with separate pronunciation norm, grammar and vocabulary. There are some differences, for example, people from Ural have a subtly different pronunciation norm which is very hard to mimic to a speaker from other parts of the country. The same is true about some other regions (not all of them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is by no means close to the dialectal differences in, say, French, German or Italian. You are from Poland, I have (very little) knowledge of Polish and, as far as I understand, even in Poland there are some well established dialects, but, once again, there's no such thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, when we are talking about regional differences in modern Russian, in most cases we can speak about few regional-specific words (as @YellowSky) had already mentioned. It is claimed that there [are such words][1] in Kaliningrad. &#xD;&#xA;But these words are not about something crucial and are not used in an everyday life though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=115403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="d07b4f94-3fa9-422d-bcdb-da8aba46a74d" CreationDate="2013-12-20T23:38:35.883" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="ddb2735a-e2b1-42f9-8914-6a9b793e63bd" CreationDate="2013-12-21T03:34:56.377" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Русский язык в Калининградской области (отличия)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="95bd4cf0-5c15-4966-ac54-1e8ba5147ff9" CreationDate="2013-12-21T08:51:36.737" UserId="153" Text="Did *биток* always only exist in the context of the idiom &quot;битком набиты&quot;, or was it a &quot;perfectly valid noun in its own right&quot; at some point in the past?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="95bd4cf0-5c15-4966-ac54-1e8ba5147ff9" CreationDate="2013-12-21T08:51:36.737" UserId="153" Text="&quot;Битком набиты&quot; — was &quot;биток&quot; actually a noun at some time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="95bd4cf0-5c15-4966-ac54-1e8ba5147ff9" CreationDate="2013-12-21T08:51:36.737" UserId="153" Text="|этимология|существительные|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="9b288bb8-18b8-4c37-8841-855fc2cc478f" CreationDate="2013-12-21T08:59:23.313" UserId="153" Text="Is there a thumb rule for when to capitalize *Родина*? Or is it just a free-for-all poetic-license type of thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lack of a better example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родина, еду я на Родину,  &#xD;&#xA;Пусть кричат — &quot;уродина!&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;А она нам нравится,  &#xD;&#xA;Хоть и не красавица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be capitalized here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again, this is just an example. Is there a general rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="9b288bb8-18b8-4c37-8841-855fc2cc478f" CreationDate="2013-12-21T08:59:23.313" UserId="153" Text="When should &quot;родина&quot; be capitalized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="9b288bb8-18b8-4c37-8841-855fc2cc478f" CreationDate="2013-12-21T08:59:23.313" UserId="153" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="891c8f42-0c73-4ceb-8ec2-4d5b57006b0e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T09:09:36.607" UserId="153" Text="Are there any guidelines on using *Расея* over *Россия*? Is the former archaic or comical? Grandiloquent, ridiculous? Something else? Was it perhaps the actual official name of the country at some point in the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, do both come from Old Church Slavonic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="891c8f42-0c73-4ceb-8ec2-4d5b57006b0e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T09:09:36.607" UserId="153" Text="Connotation of the spelling &quot;Расея&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="891c8f42-0c73-4ceb-8ec2-4d5b57006b0e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T09:09:36.607" UserId="153" Text="|выбор-слова|этимология|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="82c13456-3584-48c3-bedf-255dda659902" CreationDate="2013-12-21T10:57:48.347" UserId="551" Text="Though the word Биток exists as a separate word, this particular saying (набить битком) is similar to others like &quot;бежать бегом&quot; &quot;сидеть сиднем&quot;, &quot;волочь волоком&quot; (see [here](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1868/551)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Биток itself means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бито́к**  &#xD;&#xA;I м. разг.&#xD;&#xA;Небольшая круглая котлета из рубленого мяса; биточек.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II м. разг.&#xD;&#xA;Предмет (палка, бабка и т.п.), которым бьют при игре в городки, бабки и т.п.;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="bed2366a-b92f-4082-9778-2d08bf80b74e" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:05:24.847" UserId="551" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="Though the word **Биток** exists as a separate word (see below), this particular saying (набить битком) is similar to others like &quot;бежать бегом&quot; &quot;сидеть сиднем&quot;, &quot;волочь волоком&quot; (see more details [here](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1868/551)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form of word is tautological enforcement of the idea of packing something very tightly. &quot;Бежать бегом&quot; means &quot;run very fast&quot;, &quot;сидеть сиднем&quot; - sit without moving, &quot;волочь волоком&quot; - drag something very heavy without any other possible option to move it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a meaning of the word Биток itself, but all these meanings have nothing to do with your original saying:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бито́к**  &#xD;&#xA;I м. разг.&#xD;&#xA;Небольшая круглая котлета из рубленого мяса; биточек.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II м. разг.&#xD;&#xA;Предмет (палка, бабка и т.п.), которым бьют при игре в городки, бабки и т.п.;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="298f9b8b-31d8-4f07-9708-768a9f9257e5" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:18:43.680" UserId="551" Text="Расея is a &quot;lower class&quot; equivalent of Россия (see [here](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/8930/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%8F)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually when someone uses this word he or she means that something that happened, or some idea, or the way the person behaves is because of &quot;backwoods mentality&quot; - the way people act or think in rural areas: &quot;Эх, Расея!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="8f6541a3-51a7-4a72-835f-8d934ca94af7" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:30:01.957" UserId="551" Comment="added 537 characters in body" Text="Расея is a &quot;lower class&quot; equivalent of Россия (see [here](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/8930/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%8F)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually when someone uses this word he or she means that something that happened, or some idea, or the way the person behaves is because of &quot;backwoods mentality&quot; - the way people act or think in rural areas: &quot;Эх, Расея!&quot; as opposed to modern ways of doing things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word form is imitating the way the people in some provinces speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for origins of the word, [according to Vasmer](http://fasmer-dictionary.info/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%A4%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0/568/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F) the first occurense of the word is dated 1517. Before that time the word Русь was used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word Русь dates back to 9 century, and has Scandinavian origins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="68f2202c-f2cf-44d2-858d-f82ac704cd0a" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:35:05.530" UserId="2312" Text="Formally speaking, [Справочник по правописанию и стилистике][1] (§ 28. Условные имена собственные) says that such words as Родина, Отчизна, Человек, Вера are capitalized in a special stylistic use. An example of &quot;special stylistic use&quot; is [Высокий стиль][2] which implies that a text has some ceremonial, dramatic, theatrical color.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word Родина is capitalized when author wants to emphasize patriotic feelings, colorize the word and give to it characteristics of a proper noun (e.g. &quot;Они сражались за Родину.&quot;, &quot;Я люблю свою Родину!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not capitalized when author gives no special color to the word and just means &quot;a place where I born&quot; (e.g. &quot;моя родина - Волгоград&quot; - means just &quot;I born in Volgograd&quot;). In this case the word родина acts like a common noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is not a strict rule. It is more about how author expresses his feelings. Some patriotic people always write Родина capitalized in any context, some people make difference between Родина (my country) and родина (a place where I born), and some intentionally don't capitalize родина in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rosental-book.ru/ortho_iii.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stylistics.academic.ru/17/%D0%92%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2903" RevisionGUID="3e247fb5-49dc-4d1c-922e-367417d49b1f" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:36:20.747" UserId="551" Text="It is capitalized when person who writes it uses it has strong patriotic feelings about his/her country. The word may also mean just the geographic place where someone was born, and if the patriotic context is not emphasized the word is written non-capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Soviet movie &quot;Garage&quot; one of the characters says &quot;А я за гараж Родину продал&quot;. An then it turns out that the &quot;родина&quot; he meant was a house in a village where he was born as a child." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2903" RevisionGUID="170392d1-32a3-47b9-811b-fa87a48fd92d" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:45:49.017" UserId="551" Comment="added 1052 characters in body" Text="It is capitalized when person who writes it uses it has strong patriotic feelings about his/her country. The word may also mean just the geographic place where someone was born, and if the patriotic context is not emphasized the word is written non-capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Soviet movie &quot;Garage&quot; one of the characters says &quot;А я за гараж Родину продал&quot;. An then it turns out that the &quot;родина&quot; he meant was a house in a village where he was born as a child.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that in Ushakov's dictionary, published in Soviet times, examples for родина use non-capitalized letter and Советский is usually capitalized:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **РО́ДИНА**, родины, жен.&#xD;&#xA;1. Отечество; страна, в которой человек родился и гражданином которой он состоит. «Мы любим свой язык и свою родину…» Ленин. Защищать родину. Весь Советский народ любит свою социалистическую родину и защищает ее грудью от всех посягательств. Советский Союз - вторая родина трудящихся и угнетенных всего мира.  &#xD;&#xA;|| «Готовил родине ты честных сыновей.» Некрасов. «О, родина святая, какое сердце не дрожит, тебя благословляя?» Жуковский. Тоска по родине.  &#xD;&#xA;|| Место рождения кого-нибудь. Родина Ломоносова - деревня Денисовка близ Холмогор.  &#xD;&#xA;|| перен. Место зарождения, происхождения чего-нибудь. Родина картофеля - Америка.  &#xD;&#xA;2. перен. Место возникновения чего-нибудь. Советский Союз - родина социалистической революции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the examples the word родина may even mean the geographical origin of anything, from potatoes to a Communism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="415402d3-07cb-4654-8ef2-1d125ca6b5a2" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:56:26.283" UserId="153" Text="When I was a child in a Russian school, *склизкий* was sort of *the* textbook example of a dialectal variation. We always found it very peculiar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dal gives this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; СКОЛЬЗИТЬ, скользнуть, скалзывать; или **склизнуть, склизнуть**; пск. слизгать, **новг. склёзить**, подвигаться по гладкому, как санный полоз, волоком или трением. Колесо катится, а полоз скользит. Верхний пласт земли скользит по наклонному глиняному пласту. И гусь скользит по гладкому льду. Старик скользнул на лощеном полу, и расшибся, поскользнулся и упал. В гололедицу и лошадь скользит. Скользиться, или скользать, сколзать, —ся, или **новг. склезать и —ся**, скользить с разбегу по льду, как ребятишки тешатся. Пойдем на лед, сколзать! Сколзанка, новг. склёзанка, чистое место на льду, где ребятишки сколзаются. Скользель, и пск. сковзель, сколзанка, гнездалка, ледяная горушка. Скользкий (хлеско, нареч.) **вост. склезкий, сев. новг. склизкий, слизкий, южн. слезкий** зап. глёздкий и хлёский, гладкий, не дающий упору ногам и рукам, на чем скользишь, что скользит из рук; гладкий, и притом мокрый, жирный, или покрытый слизью;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc., emphasis mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this quote is from like 150 years ago. And it's been a while since my school time, too. Fast forward twenty years or so, I've never actually have encountered *склизкий* in the wild. Not once. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this variation still used in the Novdorod dialect? Or other dialects, even? Can you cite any recent sightings of it in the wild? Or has it just died out for good, never to return? (If so, when?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="415402d3-07cb-4654-8ef2-1d125ca6b5a2" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:56:26.283" UserId="153" Text="Is &quot;склизкий&quot; still alive and doing well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="415402d3-07cb-4654-8ef2-1d125ca6b5a2" CreationDate="2013-12-21T11:56:26.283" UserId="153" Text="|прилагательные|диалект|metathesis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="bb1a23f6-1b41-4341-a20c-f802d334e0da" CreationDate="2013-12-21T12:20:32.953" UserId="153" Text="I am sure you've come across these word pairings before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *город* — *град*&#xD;&#xA;* *смород* — *смрад*&#xD;&#xA;* *скользкий* — *склизкий*&#xD;&#xA;* *ворота* — *врата*&#xD;&#xA;* *ворон* — *враний*&#xD;&#xA;* *ворог* — *враг*&#xD;&#xA;* *холод* — *хлад* (cf. *хладнокровный*)&#xD;&#xA;* and so on and so forth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure you can easily add dozens of examples yourself, off the top of your head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the way I overheard it somewhere (perhaps in grade school), the *град, смрад, вран-, врат-* etc. variants all come from Old Church Slavonic, while the *город, ворот, ворон* etc. are &quot;proper Modern Russian&quot;, for lack of a better description. And as I said, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of other examples. There is really an obvious pattern here. And by the looks of it, it's *always* [metathesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_(linguistics)) at work. And by the looks of it, the Old Church Slavonic variant is almost always the more &quot;formal&quot;, &quot;literary&quot;, &quot;elevated&quot;, poetic one, while the other variants are more colloquial, down-to-earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would that be? What is the reason behind so many Russian words having been &quot;metathesized&quot; vs. their Old Church Slavonic equivalents, getting that more &quot;elevated&quot; poetic version? Did that happen gradually? Or did the variations sort of develop in parallel over the time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say I've never encountered anything quite like this before in any other language I'm remotely familiar with. I'd be most grateful if you could point me to any research on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="bb1a23f6-1b41-4341-a20c-f802d334e0da" CreationDate="2013-12-21T12:20:32.953" UserId="153" Text="&quot;Город, смород&quot; vs. &quot;град, смрад&quot; — is there any rhyme and reason behind all the metatheses of Modern Russian vs. Old Church Slavonic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="bb1a23f6-1b41-4341-a20c-f802d334e0da" CreationDate="2013-12-21T12:20:32.953" UserId="153" Text="|морфология|существительные|диалект|metathesis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="682775db-5206-4aa6-833f-4801f74f4125" CreationDate="2013-12-21T12:21:30.000" UserId="551" Text="Yes, the склизкий is still doing fine. It is not used very often, however mostly you can hear it when talking about a fish or a frog (last two lines of your example). Here whats [search in National Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F1%EA%EB%E8%E7%EA%E8%E9&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=) gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пал Палыч начал чувствовать в груди противную дрожь, как будто холодная **склизкая** толстая жаба забралась прямо в душу. [Олег Павлов. Карагандинские девятины, или Повесть последних дней // «Октябрь», 2001] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тёплых, солёных вод, в которых плавали **склизкие** медузы... [Алексей Варламов. Купавна // «Новый Мир», 2000] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И нащупывалось что-то ещё, **склизкое**, хитрое, уходящее из пальцев, но что это ― он уловить пока не мог, только чувствовал. [Ю. О. Домбровский. Факультет ненужных вещей, часть 2 (1978)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прекрасная золотая рыбка на ощупь оказалась какой-то **склизкой** гадостью. [Михаил Шишкин. Письмовник (2009) // «Знамя», 2010] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="a8b2caf0-6e17-40d0-a5b6-513a7fed67e0" CreationDate="2013-12-21T12:26:01.703" UserId="153" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="When I was a child in a Russian school, *склизкий* was sort of *the* textbook example of a dialectal variation. We always found it very peculiar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dal gives this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; СКОЛЬЗИТЬ, скользнуть, скалзывать; или **склизнуть, склизнуть**; пск. слизгать, **новг. склёзить**, подвигаться по гладкому, как санный полоз, волоком или трением. Колесо катится, а полоз скользит. Верхний пласт земли скользит по наклонному глиняному пласту. И гусь скользит по гладкому льду. Старик скользнул на лощеном полу, и расшибся, поскользнулся и упал. В гололедицу и лошадь скользит. Скользиться, или скользать, сколзать, —ся, или **новг. склезать и —ся**, скользить с разбегу по льду, как ребятишки тешатся. Пойдем на лед, сколзать! Сколзанка, новг. склёзанка, чистое место на льду, где ребятишки сколзаются. Скользель, и пск. сковзель, сколзанка, гнездалка, ледяная горушка. Скользкий (хлеско, нареч.) **вост. склезкий, сев. новг. склизкий, слизкий, южн. слезкий** зап. глёздкий и хлёский, гладкий, не дающий упору ногам и рукам, на чем скользишь, что скользит из рук; гладкий, и притом мокрый, жирный, или покрытый слизью;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etc., emphasis mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this quote is from like 150 years ago. And it's been a while since my school time, too. Fast forward twenty years or so, I've never actually encountered *склизкий* in the wild. Not once. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this variation still used in the Novdorod dialect? Or other dialects, even? Can you cite any recent sightings of it in the wild? Or has it just died out for good, never to return? (If so, when?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="32982cd0-d5ea-4122-88c3-cebac82c8f5f" CreationDate="2013-12-21T12:27:17.617" UserId="153" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I am sure you've come across these word pairings before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *город* — *град*&#xD;&#xA;* *смород* — *смрад*&#xD;&#xA;* *скользкий* — *склизкий*&#xD;&#xA;* *ворота* — *врата*&#xD;&#xA;* *ворон* — *враний*&#xD;&#xA;* *ворог* — *враг*&#xD;&#xA;* *холод* — *хлад* (cf. *хладнокровный*)&#xD;&#xA;* and so on and so forth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know you can easily add dozens of examples yourself, off the top of your head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the way I overheard it somewhere (perhaps in grade school), the *град, смрад, вран-, врат-* etc. variants all come from Old Church Slavonic, while the *город, ворот, ворон* etc. are &quot;proper Modern Russian&quot;, for lack of a better description. And as I said, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of other examples. There is really an obvious pattern here. And by the looks of it, it's *always* [metathesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_(linguistics)) at work. And by the looks of it, the Old Church Slavonic variant is almost always the more &quot;formal&quot;, &quot;literary&quot;, &quot;elevated&quot;, poetic one, while the other variants are more colloquial, down-to-earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would that be? What is the reason behind so many Russian words having been &quot;metathesized&quot; vs. their Old Church Slavonic equivalents, getting that more &quot;elevated&quot; poetic version? Did that happen gradually? Or did the variations sort of develop in parallel over time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say I've never encountered anything quite like this before in any other language I'm remotely familiar with. I'd be most grateful if you could point me to any research on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="6da19197-2a41-4142-b3af-03880b08c980" CreationDate="2013-12-21T13:01:54.407" UserId="153" Comment="formatting, punctuation (proper dashes etc.)" Text="Officially, the term *корова* is being used to identify a cow which already had calved. *Бык* means non-castrated bull. There are also several more terms to describe cows and bulls (information from [Russian Wikipedia][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Волы* — bulls of three years and older which have been castrated at an&#xD;&#xA;   early age;&#xD;&#xA; - *Бычки* — bulls aged between three months and three years;&#xD;&#xA; - *Бычки-кастраты* — castrated bulls under three years;&#xD;&#xA; - *Телята молочные* — cows and bulls under three months fed on milk;&#xD;&#xA; - *Тёлки* — cows never calved;&#xD;&#xA; - *Нетели* — cows inseminated artifically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is just no short term to designate all representatives of this species. All these terms can be combined as &quot;крупный рогатый скот&quot;. In colloquial speech, the words *корова* and *бык* are enough to describe any of them (considering gender, of course), but when it comes to official documentation, there is a need in a more general denomination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9894" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="6da19197-2a41-4142-b3af-03880b08c980" CreationDate="2013-12-21T13:01:54.407" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 1305 edit id of 409" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="709145e7-6f65-4c60-aea0-16595c2345d8" CreationDate="2013-12-21T13:40:48.803" UserId="153" Comment="minor edit for consistent formatting" Text="Is it the same as &quot;приятное с полезным&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9899" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="709145e7-6f65-4c60-aea0-16595c2345d8" CreationDate="2013-12-21T13:40:48.803" UserId="153" Comment="minor edit for consistent formatting" Text="Mixing business with pleasure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9900" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="709145e7-6f65-4c60-aea0-16595c2345d8" CreationDate="2013-12-21T13:40:48.803" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="85d48af5-2326-4afd-8958-0328875236ba" CreationDate="2013-12-21T14:37:24.083" UserId="1236" Text="The words with `-оло- / -оро- / -ере- / -ело-` are typical of the East Slavic languages, not only of Russian, but also of Ukrainian and Belarusian. That phenomenon is called &quot;[полногласие][1]&quot; (pleophony). It is a characteristic feature of the Eastern Slavic languages, West and South Slavic languages don't have that. In the South Slavic languages (Old Church Slavonic (OCS) is one of them) these pleophonic sound combinations correspond to `-ра- / -ла- / -ре- / -ле-` which can be seen in the right part of you word list, the words in the right part are *borrowings from OCS*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words of the OCS origin are more elevated because OCS had always a higher, more spiritual, more learned, more official status, it was associated with the church, literature, learning, government, while Russian was a colloquial, spoken language lacking that prestige.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the metathesis, it would be a mistake to think that the original form of those words is the way they sound in OCS, and they simply got transformed in Russian. The point is, the Proto-Slavic sound combinations *TorT, *TolT, *TerT, *TelT (&quot;T&quot; means any consonant) developed into different sound combinations in different Slavic dialects of those times, giving the pleophonic sequences in East Slavic languages, and `-ра- / -ла-` etc., in South Slavic. In other words, Russian and OCS are sister languages, in those words their mother language,  Proto-Slavic, had sound combinations which were different from both Russian and OSC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having pairs of words in a language that have the same etymological source, but differ in a way, can be seen in lots of languages across the world. Such [pairs][2] (or even bigger groups of words) are called [doublets or etymological twins][3]. English has very many of them. The only difference of Russian doublets is that Russian heavily borrowed words from a very closely related language, OCS, while English borrowed them from distantly related languages, although English - Old Norse doublets are very close, like *shirt* vs. *skirt*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lingvistic/400/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublet_%28linguistics%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2910" RevisionGUID="01517299-d0aa-44dc-a2d3-107517780f64" CreationDate="2013-12-21T18:53:48.120" UserId="2319" Text="Yes, склизкий, is still alive and native used. If anything have this property - it mean that if you hand touch it you'll have thin layer of softy and hydrate dirt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="ff784be7-38e2-4fad-a110-7e91969b55be" CreationDate="2013-12-21T22:30:08.837" UserId="153" Comment="typos, punctuation, formatting" Text="The word &quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier that needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 1:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking about below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas, there are three players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You *must* use plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. However, this rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You *must* use a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; in the context of the expression (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You *can* use a declined number name on the right side to get it to agree  with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четверке икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You *should avoid* using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. You should consider either of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. Using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. Or using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два иск плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. However, you are *highly discouraged* from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You *must* decline a standalone number to get it to agree with the operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2:** I think we can generalize it even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You must *always* decline numbers, with a few exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- there is nothing to get these numbers agreed with&#xD;&#xA;- when the nominative case is required by the construction you use: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3:** There is a catch: although &quot;два&quot; in &quot;единица плюс два&quot; seems to be in nominative, it is actually in the accusative case&quot; that shares the same form with the nominative for inanimate nouns (and numbers). So what's above should be read: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_ACCUSIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_ACCUSIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;равно&quot;, &quot;равна&quot;, &quot;равен&quot; **allows** (but does not require) being followed by a nominative regardless of anything: &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пять&quot; is OK as well as &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пяти&quot;. (On the other hand &quot;меньше&quot; or &quot;больше&quot; always require to be followed by a genitive for that matter)&#xD;&#xA;- quantifiers **are allowed** (but not required) to be used in nominative regardless of anything: &quot;косинус девять икс&quot; is OK as well as &quot;косинус девяти икс&quot;, but &quot;косинус девять&quot; is NOT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can use a noun for a number that is not a quantifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9904" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="e24bfaae-ceac-4dd4-a1d2-b2e6d8b8c5cf" CreationDate="2013-12-21T22:57:03.087" UserId="153" Comment="word order" Text="Why are cows (коровы) called &quot;крупный рогатый скот&quot; so frequently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9905" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="e24bfaae-ceac-4dd4-a1d2-b2e6d8b8c5cf" CreationDate="2013-12-21T22:57:03.087" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 242 edit id of 411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="dcaa2040-c1ea-48d3-a87f-7e9815d566f8" CreationDate="2013-12-23T03:05:12.310" UserId="2191" Text="When translating a list of ingredients into Russian, I inadvertently discovered that a certain Russian swear word literally means ‘horseradish’. Since then horseradish has been mentally classified under ‘things to avoid talking about since I don’t know if I will accidentally say something offensive’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: are there any sentence constructions one should avoid using when talking about horseradish as an ingredient? [This Russian-English mat and slang dictionary](http://www.russki-mat.net/page.php?l=RuEn&amp;a=%D0%A5) says that it is not a very strong swear word but I’m not able to judge what ‘not very strong’ means and it would be nice to be certain that I’m not saying anything offensive or that would cause people to erupt in laughter by accident. The same question for any other types of food that might be used as swear words (if there are others)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="dcaa2040-c1ea-48d3-a87f-7e9815d566f8" CreationDate="2013-12-23T03:05:12.310" UserId="2191" Text="Are there any sentence constructions to avoid when talking about the ingredient horseradish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="dcaa2040-c1ea-48d3-a87f-7e9815d566f8" CreationDate="2013-12-23T03:05:12.310" UserId="2191" Text="|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="b7f576c5-6a31-4784-b48d-db1f6f272490" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:37:09.743" UserId="2269" Text="Actually «хрен» is not an independent swear word (root, exactly, since we have adj. «хреновый», adv. «хреново», etc). It’s only euphemism for (well known to you I think) real mat root «хуй». If you want to soften your speech, you may say e. g. «иди на хрен» instead of «иди на хуй». This is rather simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can’t avoid the word «хрен» when you are talking about horseradish and I believe you do not need to avoid it. Also you do not need to avoid «хреновый» in phrases like «хреновый лист», but you can say «лист хрена»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="2982c8b2-1a3c-4541-bf1e-2a2bbd64432a" CreationDate="2013-12-23T04:53:55.190" UserId="2269" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Actually «хрен» is not an independent swear word (root, exactly, since we have adj. «хреновый», adv. «хреново», «дохрена», etc). It’s only euphemism for (well known to you I think) real mat root «хуй». If you want to soften your speech, you can say e. g. «иди на хрен» instead of «иди на хуй». This is rather simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can’t avoid the word «хрен» when you are talking about horseradish and I believe you do not need to avoid it. Also you do not need to avoid «хреновый» in phrases like «хреновый лист», but you can say «лист хрена». Other words with root «хрен» can not be connected with horseradish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among other food-connected swear words I can only recall the interjection «блин»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="56ba7756-70ac-4ffd-bf03-e05c40bf24ae" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:01:23.003" UserId="2269" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Actually «хрен» is not an independent swear word (root, exactly, since we have adj. «хреновый», adv. «хреново», «дохрена», etc). It’s only an euphemism for (well known to you I think) real mat root «хуй». If you want to make your speech a little less rude, you can say e. g. «иди на хрен» instead of «иди на хуй». This is rather simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can’t avoid the word «хрен» when you are talking about horseradish and I believe you do not need to avoid it. Also you do not need to avoid «хреновый» in phrases like «хреновый лист», but you can say «лист хрена». Other words with root «хрен» can not be connected with horseradish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among other food-connected swear words I can only recall the interjection «блин»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="acb8cf64-779c-47b3-9d95-0b786324c63d" CreationDate="2013-12-23T05:09:53.143" UserId="1571" Text="The reason that this is pronounced `&quot;сиводня&quot;` is because `дня`, meaning `day` is part of the genitive case of `on this` (сиво) and the rule is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`The Letter Г in the masculine and neuter genitive singular ending is pronounced like the English V`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the authoritative answer I was looking for :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2915" RevisionGUID="19915365-0e23-449c-a844-2e1ed2b4dc63" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:12:22.470" UserId="2238" Text="Rule says for both o and a after a non-palatal consonant first unstressed syllable, absolute beginning and absolute end have a, whereas all the other unstressed ones have shwa: [абилиск] (for обелиск), [хəрашо] (for хорошо) with stress on last syllable, [облəка] (for облако) with stress in the very beginning (last a because of absolute end)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="2f9b8b8b-9a34-4625-a543-cce79f146664" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:46:08.647" UserId="153" Text="I feel it is safe to say that outside of any context, *когда-то* defaults to meaning &quot;at some point in the past&quot;, at least in the dialect I am speaking. I might even go so far as to say that that's the only meaning I use it in myself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, every once in a blue moon, I run into it being used to mean &quot;at some point in the future&quot;. And it usually immediately sticks out. Even to the point of sounding ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm struggling to think of sample quotes right now, except for this rather famous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детство кончится когда-то,  &#xD;&#xA;Ведь оно не навсегда.  &#xD;&#xA;Станут взрослыми ребята,  &#xD;&#xA;Разлетятся кто куда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that's none other than Entin right there, so I suppose he knew full well what he was doing. When I sing it I might not even notice or care. But when reading it, and stopping to think about it, I quickly realize that I really want that *когда-то* to be a *когда-нибудь*. Heck, even a *когда-либо* would be a more natural choice for me. At best, the *когда-то* feels like a one-off poetic-license type of thing; at worst, it makes me sound like a German spy blowing his cover. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, my question is: *is* this a one-off thing? Knowing the rules so you can break them? Or did I just happen to acquire a dialect where this is unusual, but other than that it is something well-attested going back hundreds of years? Perhaps even quite typical for other dialects (or registers)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any pointers to research on the subject, or, failing that, a bunch of citations. While I mean no disrespect to Mr Entin, I'd be lying if I said that seeing this from someone of the caliber of a Lermontov or a Chekhov wouldn't be more convincing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="2f9b8b8b-9a34-4625-a543-cce79f146664" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:46:08.647" UserId="153" Text="Using &quot;когда-то&quot; to refer to the future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="2f9b8b8b-9a34-4625-a543-cce79f146664" CreationDate="2013-12-23T20:46:08.647" UserId="153" Text="|выбор-слова|наречия|connotation|либо-vs-нибудь-vs-то|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="82da0e86-4568-42dd-9847-931654662c87" CreationDate="2013-12-23T23:22:12.880" UserId="115" Text="[Wiktionary][1] says that the usage of когда-то to mean &quot;at some point in the future&quot; is a colloquialism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D1%82%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="9852529f-939d-4e43-b6b8-5a3b83cd11f2" CreationDate="2013-12-23T23:29:25.753" UserId="115" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="Excellent question!  [Wiktionary][1] says that the usage of когда-то to mean &quot;at some point in the future&quot; is a colloquialism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick google search did not return any quotes from someone of the caliber of Lermontov or Chekhov, but it did find this [song][2] by Vysotsky. ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that I think about this, когда-нибудь can also mean past or future. This seems to be equivalent to &quot;at some point&quot; in English.  As in &quot;Will you do this at some point?&quot; or &quot;Have you done this at some point?&quot; I guess you just have to go by the tense of the verb here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kulichki.com/vv/pesni/ya-kogda-to-umru.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="ea76eede-ee14-4cc7-888f-fbad0c058671" CreationDate="2013-12-24T13:26:11.300" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="I have a question about pronouncing 1 in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When 1 appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as единица instead of один. For example &lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 1 would be икс квадрат равно единице instead of икс квадрат равно одному, and 3&lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt; ≡ 1 mod 7 would be pronounced три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь instead of три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь. Is this convention followed only when 1 is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have 1 pronounced as единица? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of единица in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with один." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="114f6f87-aaa0-4cbf-83a3-36abfafc74be" CreationDate="2013-12-24T13:34:07.907" UserId="194" Comment="obviously, a typo" Text="The word &quot;единица&quot; is a noun and can be used alone, but &quot;один&quot; is a quantifier that needs something to quantify thus should not be used alone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at three in the expression 3x. It has &quot;x&quot; to quantify, this is why you say &quot;три икс&quot; instead of &quot;тройка икс&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 1:** It's time to summarize what we've been talking about below. Oh man, that was hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to math formulas, there are three players:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - number names (plain numbers in nominative case): &quot;один&quot;, &quot;два&quot;, &quot;три&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - declined number names (in dative case: одному, двум, трем; or genitive case: трех, четырех, восьми)&#xD;&#xA; - nouns representing numbers: &quot;тройка&quot;, &quot;единица&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules I can think of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You *must* use plain number names for numbers that immediately follow &quot;плюс&quot; or &quot;минус&quot;, because it is not clear how to decline these numbers. Good example: &quot;единица *плюс пять* игрек равно четыре *миунс два* корня из трех&quot;. Bad example (wrong one): &quot;икс равен двойке плюс тройку минус четверкy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.1. However, this rule is not the case for stand alone numbers: &quot;в некоторых условиях &#xD;&#xA;единица равна *минус одному*&quot; (it's clear how &quot;минус одному&quot; should be declined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You *must* use a plain number when the number is used as a quantifier: &quot;четыре икс&quot;, &quot;два Пи&quot; in the context of the expression (with other numbers around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.1. You *can* use a declined number name on the right side to get it to agree  with the relation connecting the two sides: &quot;равно&quot; + dative (equal *to*), &quot;больше&quot; + genitive, &quot;меньше&quot; + genitive. Good example: &quot;эф от икс равно *четырём икс*&quot;, &quot;длина окружности равна *двум пи* умноженным на радуис&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. You *should avoid* using plain number names for a number that stands alone on either side of the equation. Although saying something like &quot;один плюс один равно два&quot; isn't a crime, the following would be better: &quot;один плюс один равно *двум*&quot; or &quot;один плюс один равно *двойке*&quot;. You should consider either of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.1. Using a noun for a stand-alone number even if that number is wrapped into an operator/function. For example: &quot;корень *единицы* равен *единице*&quot;, &quot;*единица* больше либо равна косинусу трех икс&quot;, &quot;*двойка* в квадрате равна четырем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.3. Or using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the right side** to get it agree with the predicate of the sentence (&quot;равно&quot;, &quot;не равно&quot;, &quot;больше&quot;, &quot;меньше&quot;). For example: &quot;один плюс два *равно трем*&quot;, &quot;два икс плюс четыре *больше трех*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.4. However, you are *highly discouraged* from using a declined number name for a stand-alone number **on the left side** because there is nothing for it to agree with. (For comparison, the agreement of a declined number name on the right side is with the type of math relation, like = or &lt;, that came before it). Bad example: &quot;одному равно три минус два&quot; even though somebody can find it OK, this sounds like Yoda's way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You *must* decline a standalone number to get it to agree with the operators/functions &quot;корень&quot;, &quot;косинус&quot;, etc. For example: &quot;корень из четырех равен двум&quot;. You cannot say &quot;корень из два&quot; or &quot;косинус один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rules for one side of an equation do not affect rules for the other, so these sides should be considered separately. Which means you CAN use a noun on one side with number on the other if it doesn't break the above rules. For example: &quot;в некоторых условиях единица равна минус одному&quot;, &quot;единица плюс два равно тройке&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2:** I think we can generalize it even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You must *always* decline numbers, with a few exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- there is nothing to get these numbers agreed with&#xD;&#xA;- when the nominative case is required by the construction you use: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_NOMINATIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 3:** There is a catch: although &quot;два&quot; in &quot;единица плюс два&quot; seems to be in nominative, it is actually in the accusative case&quot; that shares the same form with the nominative for inanimate nouns (and numbers). So what's above should be read: &quot;[SOMETHING] минус [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_ACCUSIVE]&quot;, &quot;логарифм икс по основанию [ALWAYS_NUMBER_IN_ACCUSIVE]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;равно&quot;, &quot;равна&quot;, &quot;равен&quot; **allows** (but does not require) being followed by a nominative regardless of anything: &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пять&quot; is OK as well as &quot;[SOMETHING] равно пяти&quot;. (On the other hand &quot;меньше&quot; or &quot;больше&quot; always require to be followed by a genitive for that matter)&#xD;&#xA;- quantifiers **are allowed** (but not required) to be used in nominative regardless of anything: &quot;косинус девять икс&quot; is OK as well as &quot;косинус девяти икс&quot;, but &quot;косинус девять&quot; is NOT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You can use a noun for a number that is not a quantifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="46f78039-5f03-4420-aca1-fc27474a504d" CreationDate="2013-12-24T14:05:33.100" UserId="194" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time in the future&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time in the future&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="3cd429d2-6af3-44a0-a2b6-5b10fa1fab47" CreationDate="2013-12-24T14:13:30.097" UserId="194" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="65844451-65f2-4562-b28e-cc9bd007582a" CreationDate="2013-12-24T14:29:30.283" UserId="194" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a successful manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a heir to an industry tycoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a healthy person living in natural conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a person anticipating a disaster or speaking about a terminally ill group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="e22047bf-bdf9-4692-925a-51f94481a6cf" CreationDate="2013-12-24T14:52:06.623" UserId="194" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a successful manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a heir to an industry tycoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a healthy person living in natural conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a person anticipating a disaster or speaking about a terminally ill group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with mathematical language, one can say that &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;когда-то&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where *p(t)* is the probability distribution of the event, *t&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;* is the present moment and *t&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;* is some moment in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qxnVk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCXjm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="623724f8-b47e-4db2-97d7-f8c339f0bcb3" CreationDate="2013-12-24T18:27:07.550" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a successful employee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a heir to an industry tycoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a healthy person living in natural conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a person anticipating a disaster or speaking about a terminally ill group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with mathematical language, one can say that &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;когда-то&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where *p(t)* is the probability distribution of the event, *t&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;* is the present moment and *t&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;* is some moment in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qxnVk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCXjm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="5da4890c-c4b7-4f56-a88b-757a4c6fe43c" CreationDate="2013-12-24T20:52:47.007" UserId="194" Comment="added 771 characters in body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a successful employee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a heir to an industry tycoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a healthy person living in natural conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a person anticipating a disaster or speaking about a terminally ill group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with mathematical language, one can say that &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;когда-то&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where *p(t)* is the probability distribution of the event, *t&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;* is the present moment and *t&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;* is some moment in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using &quot;когда-то&quot; you can also provide the condition which will lead to the event, the condition should be specifyed with &quot;когда&quot; (&quot;when&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то, *когда закончат строительство металлургического комбината*, наш город станет крупным промышленным центромю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day, *when they finish the building of the metallurgy plant*, our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; in this case.&#xD;&#xA;When using &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; you also can specify a condition but should use the &quot;если&quot; (&quot;if&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь, *если закончат строительство металлургического комбината*, наш город станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day, *if they finish the building of the metallurgy plant*, our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qxnVk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCXjm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="117358db-ae14-40da-8962-44982fb47f8d" CreationDate="2013-12-25T02:33:42.330" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a successful employee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a heir to an industry tycoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a healthy person living in natural conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a person anticipating a disaster or speaking about a terminally ill group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with mathematical language, one can say that &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;когда-то&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where *p(t)* is the probability distribution of the event, *t&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;* is the present moment and *t&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;* is some moment in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using &quot;когда-то&quot; you can also provide the condition which will lead to the event, the condition should be specifyed with &quot;когда&quot; (&quot;when&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то, *когда закончат строительство металлургического комбината*, наш город станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day, *when they finish the building of the metallurgy plant*, our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; in this case.&#xD;&#xA;When using &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; you also can specify a condition but should use the &quot;если&quot; (&quot;if&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь, *если закончат строительство металлургического комбината*, наш город станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day, *if they finish the building of the metallurgy plant*, our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qxnVk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCXjm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="623e011d-045f-4d31-bdb9-d779affbb82a" CreationDate="2013-12-25T03:10:30.270" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 786 characters in body" Text="I would say, the difference between когда-то and когда-нибудь is somewhat similar to the difference between definite and indefinite article. &quot;Когда-нибудь&quot; means &quot;at some time&quot; or &quot;some day&quot;, &quot;когда-то&quot; means &quot;at certain time&quot; or &quot;one day&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-нибудь выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one can hope to win in this lottery only statistically, without solid knowledge of inevitable win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если много играть в эту лотерею, то когда-то выиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you play this lottery much, you will win one day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, one can be sure that the win is inevitable not only statistically but the win is pre-determined (for example because the win is guaranteed to all players before all the tickets are spent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-нибудь станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can reasonably hope that the city will become an industrial center in uncertain future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наш город когда-то станет крупным промышленным центром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day our city will become a big industrial center.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The city will become the industrial center for sure, this is in the plan, and the date even may be known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a successful employee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то я стану руководителем завода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day I will become a factory manager.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be said by a heir to an industry tycoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-нибудь мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a healthy person living in natural conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда-то мы все умрём.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; One day we all will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may be said by a person anticipating a disaster or speaking about a terminally ill group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of no surprise that когда-нибудь is more often used for the future (like &quot;some day&quot;), while когда-то is more often used for the past (like &quot;one day&quot;, &quot;once&quot;). This is because one can be more certain about events in the past than about events in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking with mathematical language, one can say that &quot;когда-нибудь&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &quot;когда-то&quot; means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where *p(t)* is the probability distribution of the event, *t&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;* is the present moment and *t&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;* is some moment in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qxnVk.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCXjm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="3de09429-7310-493f-a3fb-230995155fdf" CreationDate="2013-12-25T12:41:54.600" UserId="487" Text="I'm always unsure as to how to choose my д in handwriting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can one arbitrarily choose between ∂ and the minuscule (little *g* type) here shown? (I mean, sticking to one of them for the whole text, but otherwise arbitrary?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mZEoR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="3de09429-7310-493f-a3fb-230995155fdf" CreationDate="2013-12-25T12:41:54.600" UserId="487" Text="When to use ∂ and when to use the g-type for little д?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="3de09429-7310-493f-a3fb-230995155fdf" CreationDate="2013-12-25T12:41:54.600" UserId="487" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="0a3da4fc-c763-4a0f-a0a4-2ab26ff0bc7c" CreationDate="2013-12-25T15:13:56.460" UserId="899" Text="Both uppercase and lowercase letters you show here are taught in schools as the standard handwriting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The uppercase typical handwriting is either the one you provided or block-letter style (Д). In my experience more people switch to the block letter writing lately. I have never seen the lowercase д (g-style writing) used in an uppercase, same applies to the uppercase ∂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lowercase д (g) is ubiquitous, you might also seldom find a lowercase ∂, however this is exotic nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="9642be9a-0b1f-4434-8442-337397afc9d3" CreationDate="2013-12-25T15:36:51.830" UserId="899" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="Both uppercase and lowercase letters you show here are taught in schools as the standard handwriting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The uppercase typical handwriting is either the one you provided or block-letter style (Д). In my experience more people switch to the block letter writing lately. I have never seen the lowercase д (g-style writing) or ∂ used in an uppercase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lowercase д (g) is ubiquitous, you might also seldom find a lowercase ∂, however this is exotic nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="24c9c733-12e6-4cbe-ab25-136f8b5cd639" CreationDate="2013-12-25T16:45:13.090" UserId="1147" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="Formally speaking, [Справочник по правописанию и стилистике][1] (§ 28. Условные имена собственные) says that such words as Родина, Отчизна, Человек, Вера are capitalized in a special stylistic use. An example of &quot;special stylistic use&quot; is [Высокий стиль][2] which implies that a text has some ceremonial, dramatic, theatrical color.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word Родина is capitalized when author wants to emphasize patriotic feelings, colorize the word and give to it characteristics of a proper noun (e.g. &quot;Они сражались за Родину.&quot;, &quot;Я люблю свою Родину!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not capitalized when author gives no special color to the word and just means &quot;a place where I was born&quot; (e.g. &quot;моя родина - Волгоград&quot; - means just &quot;I was born in Volgograd&quot;). In this case the word родина is a common noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is not a strict rule. It is more about how author expresses his feelings. Some patriotic people always write Родина capitalized in any context, some people make difference between Родина (my country) and родина (a place where I was born), and some intentionally don't capitalize родина in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rosental-book.ru/ortho_iii.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stylistics.academic.ru/17/%D0%92%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9938" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="24c9c733-12e6-4cbe-ab25-136f8b5cd639" CreationDate="2013-12-25T16:45:13.090" Comment="Proposed by 1147 approved by 242 edit id of 412" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="c2849711-0387-42fb-8d82-14008e59fc6a" CreationDate="2013-12-25T20:28:00.333" UserId="153" Text="Perhaps you've noticed this before (every non-native speaker certainly has):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * носатый &#xD;&#xA;* волосатый&#xD;&#xA;* рогатый&#xD;&#xA;* усатый&#xD;&#xA;* хвостатый&#xD;&#xA;* полосатый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * губа&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* морда&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* рука&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* уша&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* глаза&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the pattern here? Is there one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you hurry to reject my very premise: I am of course perfectly aware that for some, or perhaps even many, of these, both alternatives exist (e.g. *хвостастый* is not unheard of, and *Глазатый* happily thrives at least as a family name). It's just that one always wins out considerably over the other. But is there any explanation for *which* one wins *when*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also aware of pairings such as *зубастый кит* vs. *зубатый кит*, which simply mean entirely different things. But again, is there a reason *why* they mean these things in that order&amp;nbsp;— and not exactly the other way round?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: is there any rhyme and reason behind some adjectives being created using &quot;-ст-&quot;, and others using a simple &quot;-т-&quot;? Or is this something like *-ic-* vs. *-ical-* in English, where [no clear pattern exists at all and everything is left entirely to chance](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6581/why-is-it-geometric-but-theoretical)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="c2849711-0387-42fb-8d82-14008e59fc6a" CreationDate="2013-12-25T20:28:00.333" UserId="153" Text="&quot;Какая рогастая, глазатая, ушатая корова!&quot; — or the morphological domains of &quot;-ст-&quot; vs. simply &quot;-т-&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="c2849711-0387-42fb-8d82-14008e59fc6a" CreationDate="2013-12-25T20:28:00.333" UserId="153" Text="|морфология|прилагательные|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="ce19d797-4bc3-44e9-b79f-8b93505e5ee8" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:00:25.007" UserId="153" Text="What is the difference between *родина* vs. *отечество*? (Apart from grammatical gender, of course.) Is either one older? Of a higher register? When should I use which? What is the reason for having two words where one will do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you bring it up, I might as well point out myself that yes, a similar situation can be encountered in a multitude of languages. *Homeland* vs. *fatherland*, *die Heimat* vs. *das Vaterland*, *le pays* vs. *la patrie*, and so on and so forth. But if anything, that raises a follow-up question: is either of *родина* and *отечество* perhaps even a calque?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as a bonus: what about *отчизна*? That seems like a real weird mixture, a feminine noun stemming from *father*. Are there even others still? And again, what is the difference between them all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="ce19d797-4bc3-44e9-b79f-8b93505e5ee8" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:00:25.007" UserId="153" Text="&quot;Родина&quot; vs. &quot;отечество&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="ce19d797-4bc3-44e9-b79f-8b93505e5ee8" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:00:25.007" UserId="153" Text="|существительные|differences|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="9e98ad8d-f227-4648-a81c-d62682354c84" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:21:01.313" UserId="153" Text="It is a common bit of trivia that the letter Ф is an extremely reliable indicator that you are looking at a loan word. Wikipedia tries its best at mentioning a couple of words of Slavic origin, but they are [few and far between](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В современном русском языке буква «Ф» используется почти исключительно в заимствованиях, обозначает глухой твёрдый звук [ф] или мягкий [ф'] (перед «е», «ё», «и», «ю», «я» и «ь»). В словах славянского происхождения «Ф» встречается в звукоподражаниях (*фукать, фыркать*) или в словах, сильно изменивших свою звуковую и письменную форму (*филин, Фили*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: *why* is that the case? Certainly /f/ an extremely common sound in Russian. It is an integral part of the Russian phonological grammar&amp;nbsp;— and in fact, there'd be no reason to introduce a dedicated letter for a sound that is not. It'd be rather silly indeed. I struggle to think of anything remotely similar in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the deal here? Why is it that even after centuries have passed, and even after Ѳ has been discarded for good, Ф has still barely got any traction outside of loan words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="9e98ad8d-f227-4648-a81c-d62682354c84" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:21:01.313" UserId="153" Text="Why is &quot;ф&quot; used almost exclusively in loan words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="9e98ad8d-f227-4648-a81c-d62682354c84" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:21:01.313" UserId="153" Text="|орфография|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="5eb631c3-c01e-4157-9906-3f5c003f1027" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:55:57.813" UserId="153" Text="Full disclosure up front: I've never watched *Star Wars* in Russian. Nor do I plan to. Yeah yeah, sioux me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, on more than one occasion I've been very much interested in recreating Master Yoda's speech patterns in Russian. How do I go about it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, Yoda Speak is all but trivial, as over the course of millenia, the language has been continuously sacrificing flexible word order in favor of having next to no cases at all. Russian, on the other hand, being a highly inflected language, gives me incredible freedom with word order. I can go absolutely crazy and *still* sound grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how do I work around that? Are there any easy rules I can follow to turn a random Russian sentence into something only Grand Jedi Master Yoda would say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="5eb631c3-c01e-4157-9906-3f5c003f1027" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:55:57.813" UserId="153" Text="How is Yoda Speak rendered in Russian? Are there easy, yet universal, rules I can follow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="5eb631c3-c01e-4157-9906-3f5c003f1027" CreationDate="2013-12-25T21:55:57.813" UserId="153" Text="|грамматика|порядок-слов|yoda-speak|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="425ea989-b70b-40a4-8ed3-eec15bf3a05f" CreationDate="2013-12-25T22:23:34.383" UserId="242" Text="The main pattern is to place the [subject][1] to the end of the question, before the [predicate][2]. If predicate id complex, it is most likely to be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. Let's checkout examples provided in the article above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - She dances - Танцует она.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben reads the book - Книгу читает Бен.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben's mother, Felicity, gave me a present - Фелисити, Бена Мать, дала подарок мне. &#xD;&#xA; - She listened to the radio - Радио слушала она.&#xD;&#xA; - She met him in the park - В парке встретила его она. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, grammar is grammar, it's not that anarchical to full extent. Though word order in sentence is something less strict in Russian compared to English, actually, there are some patterns and there are some cases when sentient will sound unnatural to native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="81727936-1809-4aee-a386-b85c0b0f52d7" CreationDate="2013-12-25T22:31:21.247" UserId="242" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="The main pattern is to place the [subject][1] to the end of the question, before the [predicate][2]. If predicate id complex, it is most likely to be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. Let's checkout examples provided in the article above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - She dances - Танцует она.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben reads the book - Книгу читает Бен.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben's mother, Felicity, gave me a present - Фелисити, Бена Мать, дала подарок мне. &#xD;&#xA; - She listened to the radio - Радио слушала она.&#xD;&#xA; - She met him in the park - В парке встретила его она. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, grammar is grammar, it's not that anarchical to full extent. Though word order in sentence is something less strict in Russian compared to English, actually, there are some patterns and there are some cases when sentient will sound unnatural to native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some illustrations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/co2dU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UfYkL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="38137f4b-8900-48a3-bce3-09a38b3ba363" CreationDate="2013-12-25T22:50:43.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/415977937280970753" />
  <row Id="9954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="ea7a8535-6abe-454f-b246-8afc0d0945e5" CreationDate="2013-12-25T22:53:15.197" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="07304941-fb05-4726-b0e1-95297637273a" CreationDate="2013-12-25T23:01:12.677" UserId="153" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="Full disclosure up front: I've never watched *Star Wars* in Russian. Nor do I plan to. (Edit in response to comments: that is not meant as a stab at Russian, of course. It is a stab at the movies themselves. I'm just not too much of a fan. Yeah, I know, sioux me!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, Yoda Speak has been part of popular culture all over the world forever, and on more than one occasion I've been very much interested in recreating Master Yoda's speech patterns in Russian. How do I go about it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, Yoda Speak is all but trivial, as over the course of millenia, the language has been continuously sacrificing flexible word order in favor of having next to no cases at all. Russian, on the other hand, being a highly inflected language, gives me incredible freedom with word order. I can go absolutely crazy and *still* sound grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how do I work around that? Are there any easy rules I can follow to turn a random Russian sentence into something only Grand Jedi Master Yoda would say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="5df5538c-7c2d-466c-9050-c9b1c0fc51d5" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:10:22.623" UserId="115" Text="There is no difference in meaning. As far as usage, родина is used most often in everyday speech, while отечество is more poetic (or pompous, if you will). I would say отчизна is even higher register than отечество." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="25f9baf5-e203-47e4-8ffc-e375bd1c8d32" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:47:31.790" UserId="153" Comment="edited body" Text="Consider this resource: http://www.moviesubtitles.ru/ (http://subtitry.ru/). As well as this one: http://www.dailyscript.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="a1ff9da4-eee7-4523-8fff-a51915207b3c" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:47:49.353" UserId="153" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Ruslan and Ludmila in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;http://public-library.ru/Pushkin.Alexander/ruslan.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;http://web.archive.org/web/20060104082442re_/www.sunbirds.com/lacquer/readings/1015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other translations, but this one seems the most readable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="afec3200-8fc5-4614-938e-d8460b184c31" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:48:23.780" UserId="153" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="This [collection of parallel text articles][1] may be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [website for Russians studying English][2] has some parallel text articles that look quite good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [browser extension Franker][3], available for Safari and Chrome, injects Google Translate translations after each sentence. Machine translation is notoriously wonky, but you should be able to get the gist of what's written. Using it on Russian, rather than English, pages should yield the best results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scribd.com/collections/2316116/english-russian-parallel-texts&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://englishtexts.ru/tag/text&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://code.google.com/p/franker/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="707a0484-041f-43ab-ac10-131d2f7134c0" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:49:01.017" UserId="153" Comment="edited body" Text="The [Moshkow library](http://lib.ru) has explicit sections for [genres in English translation](http://www.lib.ru/TRANSLATION/). It also often includes English translations alongside Russian novels where the rights to such can be obtained. A lot of Soviet-era and older novels can be found there, for which the Russian texts are naturally also available alongside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="911476ff-889f-49eb-973e-1d53ced870f2" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:50:00.680" UserId="153" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text=" - C уважением&#xD;&#xA; - Вечно ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Искренне ваша&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша покорная слуга&#xD;&#xA; - Навеки ваша раба Настя&#xD;&#xA; - Ваша любимая внученка&#xD;&#xA; - По гроб обязанная&#xD;&#xA; - Так и живу&#xD;&#xA; - Спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Всего доброго&#xD;&#xA; - Если что, обращайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Очень жаль, что так получилось&#xD;&#xA; - Благодарю&#xD;&#xA; - Будьте всегда так же молоды и красивы&#xD;&#xA; - С уважением к Вам и к Вашему бизнесу&#xD;&#xA; - С почтением&#xD;&#xA; - Успехов&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все будет хорошо&#xD;&#xA; - Очень приятно&#xD;&#xA; - Заранее спасибо&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, понятно написала&#xD;&#xA; - Всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам всегдашней радости в судьбе&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю удачи&#xD;&#xA; - Удачи вам в ваши добрых начинаниях&#xD;&#xA; - Сообщите, если будут вопросы&#xD;&#xA; - С пожеланием всего наилучшего&#xD;&#xA; - Счастья вам&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам море счастья&#xD;&#xA; - Крепкого кавказского здоровья вам и долголетия&#xD;&#xA; - Всего хорошего&#xD;&#xA; - С любовью&#xD;&#xA; - С искренними извинениями&#xD;&#xA; - Не принимайте близко к сердцу&#xD;&#xA; - Так уж вышло&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам, чтобы все были здоровы&#xD;&#xA; - Долгих лет жизни вам&#xD;&#xA; - Скоро увидимся&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за беспокойство&#xD;&#xA; - Не болейте&#xD;&#xA; - Пишите&#xD;&#xA; - Звоните&#xD;&#xA; - Не отчаивайтесь&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть ваши желания пренепременно сбудутся&#xD;&#xA; - Вспоминайте о мне иногда&#xD;&#xA; - Улыбайтесь почаще&#xD;&#xA; - С нетерпением жду ответа&#xD;&#xA; - Жду ответа, как соловей лета&#xD;&#xA; - Желаю вам многих богатств и процветания&#xD;&#xA; - Не держите зла&#xD;&#xA; - До скорой встречи&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь, вы рассмотрите мое предложение&#xD;&#xA; - До свидания&#xD;&#xA; - Буду рада помочь&#xD;&#xA; - Надеюсь на совместное плодотворное сотрудничество&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все&#xD;&#xA; - Простите за все, если можете&#xD;&#xA; - Прощайте&#xD;&#xA; - Целую&#xD;&#xA; - Обнимаю&#xD;&#xA; - Люблю&#xD;&#xA; - Сожалею&#xD;&#xA; - Тоскую по вам&#xD;&#xA; - Чмоки&#xD;&#xA; - Пока&#xD;&#xA; - Пока-пока&#xD;&#xA; - Чао-о-о&#xD;&#xA; - Не забывайте&#xD;&#xA; - Не поминайте лихом&#xD;&#xA; - Пусть у вас все сложится&#xD;&#xA; - Мои искренние соболезнования&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, наверное все&#xD;&#xA; - Не знаю, что еще написать&#xD;&#xA; - В добрый путь&#xD;&#xA; - Ждите в гости&#xD;&#xA; - Приезжайте скорее&#xD;&#xA; - С богом&#xD;&#xA; - Как-то так&#xD;&#xA; - Такие дела&#xD;&#xA; - Ну, теперь точно все&#xD;&#xA; - Вот&#xD;&#xA; - Конец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://support.google.com/mail/answer/8395?hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="970acdcf-59d7-4965-a22e-92622fdab278" CreationDate="2013-12-26T03:53:42.200" UserId="153" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** — boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** — fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** — (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is its first, original meaning, only later on did it become a color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** — male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** — in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозь розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** — greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** — (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** — illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** — in the phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is a calque of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;; there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (&quot;Вся эта статья&amp;nbsp;— чистая желтуха&quot;). In the phrase &quot;желторотый птенец&quot;, it means a very unexperienced person.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** (as an adverb, not an adjective) — used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;) — to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;). Cf. also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *Серо-буро-малиновый* — colloquial description of a color that is hard to determine or that is a result of a strange medley of hues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, an edit has been suggested to incorporate into this list the phrase *малиновый звон*, but be warned, this [has nothing to do][4] with the color *малиновый*. Much rather, this is a phonetical coincidence, much like *Китай-город* is by no means related to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="19e0142b-0f05-4994-a2dd-10a918c58c11" CreationDate="2013-12-26T05:04:40.600" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The main pattern is to place the [subject][1] to the end of the question, after the [predicate][2]. If predicate id complex, it is most likely to be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. Let's checkout examples provided in the article above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - She dances - Танцует она.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben reads the book - Книгу читает Бен.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben's mother, Felicity, gave me a present - Фелисити, Бена Мать, дала подарок мне. &#xD;&#xA; - She listened to the radio - Радио слушала она.&#xD;&#xA; - She met him in the park - В парке встретила его она. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, grammar is grammar, it's not that anarchical to full extent. Though word order in sentence is something less strict in Russian compared to English, actually, there are some patterns and there are some cases when sentient will sound unnatural to native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some illustrations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/co2dU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UfYkL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="911c4a25-c490-44d2-ba2c-7120d2b39b7a" CreationDate="2013-12-26T07:30:18.243" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="The main pattern is to place the [subject][1] to the end of the question, after the [predicate][2]. If predicate id complex, it is most likely to be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. Let's checkout examples provided in the article above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - She dances - Танцует она.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben reads the book - Книгу читает Бен.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben's mother, Felicity, gave me a present - Фелисити, Бена Мать, дала подарок мне. &#xD;&#xA; - She listened to the radio - Радио слушала она.&#xD;&#xA; - She met him in the park - В парке встретила его она. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, grammar is grammar, it's not that anarchical to full extent. Though word order in sentence is something less strict in Russian compared to English, actually, there are some patterns and there are some cases when sentence will sound unnatural to native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some illustrations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/co2dU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UfYkL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="5f097031-46b5-4f7e-9555-84a025b8b7cd" CreationDate="2013-12-26T07:33:44.373" UserId="2284" Text="As a general rule, it seems, adjectives with -т- mean that a specific feature is [noticeably] present, and -ст- means that a feature is prominent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, носатый is an exception. Волосатый is used both ways: волосатая грудь (a breast that has [noticeable] hairs while as opposed to a breast without [noticeable] hairs) vs волосатый юноша (a young man whose hair-do is more prominent than most men have)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="37b28e68-bd0b-4991-8913-e69c36e4416a" CreationDate="2013-12-26T07:35:42.580" UserId="2269" Text="There should be quite obvious for native speaker, that *-аст-*, *-ист-* are augmentative suffixes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let we take for example the word *усы* (moustache). Since not everyone has it there is common word *усатый*, which stands for somebody who simply has moustache. But there is also less common word *усастый*. It stands for somebody who has very large (or notable for other reason) moustaches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="5b208818-b637-4d3c-b0e3-27985abdb3ae" CreationDate="2013-12-26T07:44:59.070" UserId="2269" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="There should be quite obvious for native speaker, that *-аст-* and *-ист-* are augmentative suffixes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let we take for example the word *усы* (moustache). Since not everyone has it there is common word *усатый*, which stands for somebody who simply has moustache. But there is also less common word *усастый*. It suitable for somebody who has very large (or notable for other reason) moustaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Довольно очевидно для носителя языка, что *-аст-* и *-ист-* — это увеличительные суффиксы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возьмем для примера слово *усы*. Поскольку не каждый их носит, широко распространено слово *устатый*, означающее, что некто просто носит усы. Но есть менее расптраненное слово *усастый*, подходящее для человека с большими (или примечательными по иной причине) усами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="37e244b9-3fcb-424b-b27f-8c35a9572eaa" CreationDate="2013-12-26T07:51:19.113" UserId="2269" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="There should be quite obvious for native speaker, that *-аст-* and *-ист-* are augmentative suffixes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let we take for example the word *усы* (moustache). Since not everyone has it there is a common adjective *усатый*, which stands for somebody who simply has moustache. But there is also less common word *усастый*. It’s suitable for somebody who has very large (or notable for other reason) moustaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Довольно очевидно для носителя языка, что *-аст-* и *-ист-* — это увеличительные суффиксы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возьмем для примера слово *усы*. Поскольку не каждый их носит, широко распространено прилагательное *устатый*, означающее, что некто просто носит усы. Но есть менее расптраненное слово *усастый*, подходящее для человека с большими (или примечательными по иной причине) усами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="ea6985c6-086d-4e31-8c64-0141d9210a6d" CreationDate="2013-12-26T08:02:32.237" UserId="2269" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="It should be quite obvious for native speaker, that *-аст-* and *-ист-* are augmentative suffixes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let we take for example the word *усы* (moustache). Since not everyone has it there is a common adjective *усатый*, which stands for somebody who simply has moustache. But there is also less common word *усастый*. It’s suitable for somebody who has very large (or notable for other reason) moustaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes clear the difference between *зубатый кит* &amp; *зубастный кит*. *Зубатый кит* (toothed whale, this is a biological term) unlike other whales has teeth. *Зубастый кит* (this is an epithet) is quite toothy whale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Довольно очевидно для носителя языка, что *-аст-* и *-ист-* — это увеличительные суффиксы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возьмем для примера слово *усы*. Поскольку не каждый их носит, широко распространено прилагательное *устатый*, означающее, что некто просто носит усы. Но есть менее расптраненное слово *усастый*, подходящее для человека с большими (или примечательными по иной причине) усами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда понятна разница между *зубатым* и *зубастым* китом. *Зубатые* киты (это термин), в отличие от остальных, просто имеют зубы. *Зубастный* же кит (это эпитет) зубаст весьма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="f4c1a619-7b77-491f-9522-07110ce1a6f0" CreationDate="2013-12-26T09:12:57.707" UserId="2269" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It should be quite obvious for native speaker, that *-аст-* and *-ист-* are augmentative suffixes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let we take for example the word *усы* (moustache). Since not everyone has it there is a common adjective *усатый*, which stands for somebody who simply has moustache. But there is also less common word *усастый*. It’s suitable for somebody who has very large (or notable for other reason) moustaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes clear the difference between *зубатый кит* &amp; *зубастый кит*. *Зубатый кит* (toothed whale, this is a biological term) unlike other whales has teeth. *Зубастый кит* (this is an epithet) is quite toothy whale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Довольно очевидно для носителя языка, что *-аст-* и *-ист-* — это увеличительные суффиксы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возьмем для примера слово *усы*. Поскольку не каждый их носит, широко распространено прилагательное *устатый*, означающее, что некто просто носит усы. Но есть и менее распоcтраненное слово *усастый*, подходящее для человека с большими (или примечательными по иной причине) усами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда понятна разница между *зубатым* и *зубастым* китом. *Зубатые* киты (это термин), в отличие от остальных, просто имеют зубы. *Зубастый* же кит (это эпитет) зубаст весьма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="e1558ab1-5f8b-4fa4-aa83-13428e87d1c3" CreationDate="2013-12-26T13:00:43.667" UserId="1768" Text="Grammatical gender has some meaning partcularly in this case. Both words assume some patriotic feelings, but while &quot;Родина&quot; is usually interpreted as something feminine and native (&quot;родина — родить&quot;), &quot;Отечество&quot; means something masculine and even somewhat brave (&quot;отечество — отец&quot;). To simplify things, you may roughly translate &quot;Родина&quot; to &quot;motherland&quot; and &quot;Отечество&quot; to &quot;fatherland&quot;. &quot;Отчизна&quot; has the same sense as &quot;Отечество&quot;, but is used rarely and mostly in poetic context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following Wikipedia pages you might find useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Fatherland][1] — scroll down to &quot;the Russians...&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - [The Motherland Calls][2] — see &quot;Sculpture name and translation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motherland_Calls" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="4f601c74-137f-4edf-9d82-819518fc6767" CreationDate="2013-12-26T14:00:05.337" UserId="1236" Text="The reason why a special letter was introduced for a foreign sound is quite simple, the classical Cyrillic alphabet included _all_ the letters of the Greek alphabet, including `Ѳ` and `Ф`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern Russian, [f] is _not_ used almost exclusively in loan words, as you put it, it is used in numerous original Russian words and in different suffixes, only it is spelled like `в`, not like `ф`. Before a voiceless consonant the letter `в` is pronounced as [f] in words like `завтра`, `вчера`, `второй`, `вперёд`, etc. In the end of a word before a pause it is also [f], like in `котов`, `зубов`, `узнав`, `дав`, `написав` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the reason why /f/ was not a part of the Proto-Slavic inventory of phonemes has no possible answer, asking about it is like asking why Slavic languages lack interdentals, like the English /ð/, or emphatic consonants, like the Arabic /sˤ/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="4e610424-4add-4b89-9f84-7787079a2574" CreationDate="2013-12-26T18:00:01.373" UserId="153" Text="I suppose this one will be tough, or actually impossible, to crack by looking at Russian in isolation&amp;nbsp;— there is no way to know what writers at what point had which meaning in mind, short of going back in time and asking them all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it should be feasible to take a detour via other languages. Obviously, someone, somewhere, in some language, was the first one to translate (or back then, rather mistranslate) *Красная Площадь* as *Red* and not *Beautiful*. Others then followed suit, or even copied him directly, gradually establishing it in everybody's minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, my question is: who was that someone somewhere? Who did it first? When did it stop raising objections as a mistranslation and became established and unexceptionable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="4e610424-4add-4b89-9f84-7787079a2574" CreationDate="2013-12-26T18:00:01.373" UserId="153" Text="When did Красная Площадь begin to shift from Beautiful to Red?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="4e610424-4add-4b89-9f84-7787079a2574" CreationDate="2013-12-26T18:00:01.373" UserId="153" Text="|значения|прилагательные|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="2ecda530-d54b-45d8-836e-5daddc80612c" CreationDate="2013-12-26T18:01:20.723" UserId="153" Text="Here is an attempt at antedating the translation &quot;Red Square&quot; in a variety of languages. Still work in progress. Comments and additions are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **1816:** *The Scots Magazine*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; On the 28th August, the Emperor reviewed troops in the Red Square at Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#German&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **1885:** *Westermann's illustrierte deutsche Monatshefte*, issue 58.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Von den Spuren seiner blutigen Vergangenheit ist der Rote Platz längst gereinigt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#French&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **1898:** *Bulletin de la Société de géographie de Toulouse.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; La place Rouge est rectangulaire. L'un des grands côtés est formé par le mur du Kremlin,...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Spanish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **1836:** Adrien Balbi, *Compendio de Geografía Universal: redactado bajo un nuevo plan con presencia de los ultimos tratados de paz y los descubrimientos mas recientes*, volume 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA; &gt;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Sus mejores plazas son el *Arbate*, la *plaza Roja* cerca del Kremlin donde se halla el monumento de Minin y de Pojarsky; y la del gran teatro ruso llamada *Petravskaïa*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we can see that at the beginning of the 19th century, the square was widely agreed upon to be red. I am still on the lookout for older cites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, we should be homing in from the other side as well: that is, looking for older (yet most recent) translations of *Красная Площадь* as indeed *Beautiful* rather than *Red*. Then we should be able to pin it down to a particular century&amp;nbsp;— or who knows, perhaps even a particular decade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yQVum.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xzcnc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yWrRJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5MC10.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2933" RevisionGUID="5f2f1273-d049-4c14-b157-9a6a8f7fd7c7" CreationDate="2013-12-26T21:43:33.623" UserId="1794" Text="I think back to my Russian history class and I don't recall that even Russians considered the Red Square to be &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; at different time in history it was called by other names but around late 1600 it was names Red Square. I remember reading old Russian сказки where the term was used &quot;красная девица&quot; which meant &quot;Beautiful Girl&quot;. So I'm not sure if it was ever known outside of Russia an Beautiful Square, but even inside Russia it has been treated as &quot;Red&quot; square for a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider, during &quot;Red revolution&quot; some names were changed, and government &quot;rewritten&quot; some history and what people call things. So unless you find really old Russians and ask them i'm not sure who can help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="82768df6-be5f-41bf-a2cf-055af4846f09" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:04:47.813" UserId="496" Comment="answer additional question" Text="No, we do not use the &quot;correct&quot; way of pronouncing with сто тысячными. In colloquial speech we would pronounce it as &quot;Три запятая четырнадцать сто пятьдесят девять&quot; или &quot;Три запятая сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that Russians tend to group digits by 2 or 3 (f.e. сто сорок один) when pronounce while English usually pronounce by single digits (one four one). It is applicable to phone numbers as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Answering question of DET of how to decline that simplified pronunciation of fractions. We bend the rules here and say &quot;пи равно три [pause] сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два...&quot; because the other possibility &quot;пи равно трем [pause] ста сорока двум пятистам девяноста двум...&quot; or &quot;трем четырнадцати пятнадцати девяноста двум&quot; sounds completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT1: Answering question of KCd about pronouncing groups of digits that start with zeros. &#xD;&#xA;First of all, I must say that pronouncing long decimal fractions does not differ from pronouncing any long sequences of digits. I tried to find on internet any standards that regulate this. I found only these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Федеральные авиационные правила][1]. Item 2.3 refers to &quot;usual spoken language&quot; and gives no more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При ведении радиообмена на русском языке при передаче цифровых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значений используется  простой разговорный язык.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 2. [Правила радиосвязи на внутренних водных путях][2] Item 131 gives more details (note, that there is &quot;typo&quot; there: &quot;пятизначные группы 25, 46&quot; should be read as &quot;двузначные группы 25, 46&quot;). This indirectly confirms that in Russian we prefer 2- and 3-digit groups. This standard, though, does not say anything about zeros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, now I'm free to formulate &quot;usual spoken language&quot; rules for pronouncing zeros. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In groups starting from one or more zeros the zeros are never omitted. They are always pronounced. For example 4203 - сорок два [pause] ноль три. This is because the rule of pronouncing the digits in groups of the same size - is a weak rule and can be broken in the middle of the number for convenience of pronouncing or remembering. See my example of pronouncing &quot;e&quot; (2 7 1828 1828). In 99% of cases though the rule is respected: if you started to pronounce in groups of 3, you continue by groups of 3 till the end.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If there are group of subsequent zeros (like 000 in 1230003), you often do not pronounce each of them separately but instead pronounce два ноля, три ноля ... десять нолей, and then continue possibly with the same size of group as you started. So, i.e. 4,200032 can be pronounced as четыре и два три нуля тридцать два. It still also can be pronounced as четыре, двести ровно, ноль тридцать два.&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the group is ending with zeros (as 200 or 20) it may create ambiguity. I.e. if you say двести, тридцать два, it may mean 200 32 (here you voluntary switched from 3-digit groups to 2-digit, or involuntary because it was the end of the sequence), or 232. In this case, to eliminate the ambiguity we say &quot;двести ровно, тридцать два&quot; (two hundred sharp, thirty two), or make an enormously long pause between 200 and 32.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vatrus.info/files/FAP362.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.granit-radio.ru/legislation/prav_5.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="280de6da-22f2-4ca6-85ed-6a50e2c8b4b1" CreationDate="2013-12-27T05:19:15.360" UserId="2330" Text="isnt shifted. &quot;Red&quot; is &quot;beautiful&quot; (but may be &quot;painted&quot; or &quot;coloured&quot;) in old-russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Красна ягодка, красна девица, красна (not краснаЯ) площадь - &#xD;&#xA;red raspberry, red girl, red square - all is beautiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Крас-ота, крас-ивый, крас-ный, крас-ка, крас-ить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="99cf5028-b03a-4fc2-95f8-29535bbd8893" CreationDate="2013-12-27T09:11:07.660" UserId="1769" Text="According to russian wikipedia first meaning of `Красная` was `Beautiful` because of building Saint Basil Cathedral. It used old east slavic word meaning. When red revolution become this meaning was replaced to just color name, which actually is constricted inheritance of previous meaning (for russian language!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="4befa522-6599-4eb0-943e-ad285a1036ef" CreationDate="2013-12-27T09:54:38.550" UserId="1769" Text="*∂* is typewriting symbol and doesn't appear in standart handwriting. Some people use it as decorative element, kind of monogram. But actually it's for typing (usually coursive) only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="e4d8d0d8-311e-473d-8d36-7ef8364abcc6" CreationDate="2013-12-27T10:12:14.643" UserId="1147" Comment="minor formatting &amp; grammar" Text="No, we do not use the &quot;correct&quot; way of pronouncing with сто тысячными. In colloquial speech we would pronounce it as &quot;Три запятая четырнадцать сто пятьдесят девять&quot; или &quot;Три запятая сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting fact is that Russians tend to group digits by 2 or 3 (f.e. сто сорок один) when pronounce while English usually pronounce by single digits (one four one). It is applicable to phone numbers as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Answering DET's question of how to decline that simplified pronunciation of fractions. We bend the rules here and say &quot;пи равно три [pause] сто сорок один пятьсот девяносто два...&quot; because the other possibility &quot;пи равно трем [pause] ста сорока двум пятистам девяноста двум...&quot; or &quot;трем четырнадцати пятнадцати девяноста двум&quot; sounds completely ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT1: Answering KCd's question about pronouncing groups of digits that start with zeros. &#xD;&#xA;First of all, I must say that pronouncing long decimal fractions does not differ from pronouncing any long sequences of digits. I tried to find on internet any standards that regulate this. I found only these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Федеральные авиационные правила][1]. Item 2.3 refers to &quot;usual spoken language&quot; and gives no more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; При ведении радиообмена на русском языке при передаче цифровых&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; значений используется  простой разговорный язык.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 2. [Правила радиосвязи на внутренних водных путях][2] Item 131 gives more details (note, that there is &quot;typo&quot; there: &quot;пятизначные группы 25, 46&quot; should be read as &quot;двузначные группы 25, 46&quot;). This indirectly confirms that in Russian we prefer 2- and 3-digit groups. This standard, though, does not say anything about zeros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, now I'm free to formulate &quot;usual spoken language&quot; rules for pronouncing zeros. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In groups starting from one or more zeros the zeros are never omitted. They are always pronounced. For example 4203 - сорок два [pause] ноль три. This is because the rule of pronouncing the digits in groups of the same size - is a weak rule and can be broken in the middle of the number for convenience of pronouncing or remembering. See my example of pronouncing &quot;e&quot; (2 7 1828 1828). In 99% of cases though the rule is respected: if you started to pronounce in groups of 3, you continue by groups of 3 till the end.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If there are group of subsequent zeros (like 000 in 1230003), you often do not pronounce each of them separately but instead pronounce два ноля, три ноля ... десять нолей, and then continue possibly with the same size of group as you started. So, i.e. 4,200032 can be pronounced as четыре и два три нуля тридцать два. It still also can be pronounced as четыре, двести ровно, ноль тридцать два.&#xD;&#xA; 3. If the group is ending with zeros (as 200 or 20) it may create ambiguity. I.e. if you say двести, тридцать два, it may mean 200 32 (here you voluntary switched from 3-digit groups to 2-digit, or involuntary because it was the end of the sequence), or 232. In this case, to eliminate the ambiguity we say &quot;двести ровно, тридцать два&quot; (two hundred sharp, thirty two), or make an enormously long pause between 200 and 32.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vatrus.info/files/FAP362.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.granit-radio.ru/legislation/prav_5.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9984" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1502" RevisionGUID="e4d8d0d8-311e-473d-8d36-7ef8364abcc6" CreationDate="2013-12-27T10:12:14.643" Comment="Proposed by 1147 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="0ba808e2-5398-456c-a3c0-5da3dabd36e6" CreationDate="2013-12-27T10:19:04.613" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`≡` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only, look division for operation)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2938" RevisionGUID="19a0890b-0b77-40c3-9095-2485e8337fbf" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:18:52.257" UserId="587" Text="I don't think any native Russian speaker would use &quot;когда-то&quot; in future tense, no matter whether talking about definite or probable event. If one wants to emphasize certainty, it's better to skip this word altogether: One day I will become a factory manager = &quot;я обязательно стану директором завода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your quote is clearly a case of poetic license: a slight deviation from rules to fit the rhythm. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="f583fa86-5a67-4a0d-85bc-a1adc1127431" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:39:23.627" UserId="81" Comment="deleted 272 characters in body" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction).&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication).&#xD;&#xA;    More specific:&#xD;&#xA;      `x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&#xD;&#xA;      `*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;`/`,`:` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&#xD;&#xA;    More specific:&#xD;&#xA;      `/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;      `÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;      `:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only).&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&#xD;&#xA;`?` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9988" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="43368cef-0a45-4ec4-abc9-e700cc9d7d5a" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:51:10.777" UserId="81" />
  <row Id="9989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="483d0757-f3d5-47ff-94bb-c5861d205c57" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:51:39.370" UserId="1147" Comment="changed &quot;&lt;&quot; to &quot;&amp;lt;&quot;, capitalised a name" Text="Here is a page on Wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction).&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication).&#xD;&#xA;    More specific:&#xD;&#xA;      `x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&#xD;&#xA;      `*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;`/`,`:` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&#xD;&#xA;    More specific:&#xD;&#xA;      `/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;      `÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;      `:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only).&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&#xD;&#xA;`?` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9990" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="4f3df775-e10f-4c64-9992-af3452b713f0" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:52:27.470" UserId="81" Comment="Rollback to [0ba808e2-5398-456c-a3c0-5da3dabd36e6]" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`≡` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only, look division for operation)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="7631ffe2-454d-4262-b666-cb684073ac67" CreationDate="2013-12-27T11:53:52.550" UserId="81" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/`,`:` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`≡` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `круглые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="e7930b82-bfea-437f-b37b-c3de2db46be2" CreationDate="2013-12-27T12:24:22.377" UserId="81" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Here is a page on wikipedia dedicated to mathematical symbols: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Таблица математических символов][1] (List of mathematical symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a category:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Знаки препинания][2] (punctuation symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example on the [main page][3] you can find a sidebar with links to pretty much all of the symbols from your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: Symbols mentioned in original question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`+` - `плюс`, `знак сложения`. Related operation: `сложение` (addition).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`-` - `минус`,`знак вычитания`. Related operation: `вычитание` (subtraction). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`x`,`*` - `знак умножения`. Related operation: `умножение` (multiplication). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`x` - `крестик` (applicable to symbol only not to the &#xD;&#xA;mathematical operation itself)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`*` - `звёздочка` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`/`,`:` - `знак деления`. Related operation: `деление`(division).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;More specific:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`/` - `косая черта` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`÷` - `обелюс` (symbol only);&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;`:` - `двоеточие` (symbol only);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`=` - `знак равенства`. Related operations: `равенство`(equality), `присвоение`(assignment).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`≡` - `знак тождественности`. Related operation: `сравнение по модулю`(congruence relation, as in modular arithmetic)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;` - `меньше` (literally `less`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&gt;` - `больше` (literally `greater`)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`%` - `знак процента`, `процент`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`()` - `скобки`, `круглые скоки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`(` - `открывающая скобка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`)` - `закрывающая скобка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`{}` - `фигурные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&lt;&gt;` - `угловые скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`[]` - `квадратные скобки`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`&amp;` - `амперсанд` (symbol only). Operation: `логическое И`,`И` (logic AND),`побитовое И`(bitwise AND)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`.` - `точка` (symbol only, literally `point`). Also, `десятичная точка` (decimal point), `десятичный разделитель` (decimal separator)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="278fd917-dd03-4d0f-9bf3-2600f29e3926" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:19:55.627" UserId="1277" Text="«Намеренно» translates into English as &quot;intentionally&quot;. «Преднамеренно» basically has the same meaning, but it has prefix «пред-» which is confusing. It seems redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People say «с намерением» (as in &quot;with intention&quot;), but I haven't heard anyone say «с преднамерением».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What role does the «пред-» prefix play in the word «преднамеренно»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="278fd917-dd03-4d0f-9bf3-2600f29e3926" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:19:55.627" UserId="1277" Text="Prefix «пред-» in «преднамеренно»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="278fd917-dd03-4d0f-9bf3-2600f29e3926" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:19:55.627" UserId="1277" Text="|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="068cf6c6-9e8c-4d2e-8e0c-c0c832931a20" CreationDate="2013-12-27T23:58:37.203" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Преднамеренное&quot; is used mostly in criminal and law enforcement context or, wider, is is used to describe actions the speaker assumes to be mischievous a priory. Examples: &quot;преднамеренное убийство&quot;, &quot;преднамеренное нанесение тяжкого вреда здоровью&quot;. Therefore, &quot;преднамеренное&quot; is definitely more official. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, even in a legal terminology &quot;намеренное&quot; and  &quot;преднамеренное&quot; co-exist in some phrases, for example, (пред)намеренное ухудшение жилищных условий. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, &quot;намеренно&quot; is for an act which had been taken consciously, while &quot;преднамеренно&quot; is for evil intentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="f396fd6e-2324-463e-ba3f-34799e7dabbb" CreationDate="2013-12-28T10:40:33.223" UserId="551" Text="Prefix &quot;Пред-&quot; emhasizes the idea of something being done before the action was performed itself. Like &quot;условие&quot; and &quot;предусловие&quot;. &quot;Условие выполнения чего-то&quot; - it is something you should do in order to achieve something. While &quot;предусловие выполнения чего-то&quot; - it is something you should do before starting the main action, some preparations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while &quot;намеренный&quot; and &quot;преднамеренный&quot; both mean intentional, the latter also assumes that was made not only intentially but had some &quot;history&quot;. Like &quot;намеренная кража из магазина&quot; can mean that some individual saw something while being in the shop and decided to stole it, while &quot;преднамеренная&quot; may also imply that the individual walked in the shop already having an intention to stole something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar for killing - the individual may kill someone because of doing something in the wrong way (e.g. because of a car accident), because he/she had no intention to kill, but this happened (like a bar brawl), or because he or she wanted to kill exactly this particular person and made some preparations for this. The latter will be &quot;преднамеренное убийство&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the prepared and planned actions usually have more strict punishment the prosecutors are interested in proving that every time the law is breaked the individual did this with all necessary preparations, while defenсe is interested in proving that the act was an impulse or because of affect, etc. - not planned at all, or without conscious decisions made. So the word &quot;преднамеренный&quot; serves well for prosecutors because it emphasizes the idea of prepared action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not because &quot;пред-&quot; means &quot;evil&quot;, but because it was planned or prepared." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="c5c4a7f8-1cb1-465b-85fa-336716524374" CreationDate="2013-12-28T11:31:29.853" UserId="1502" Text="You can think that &quot;преднамеренно&quot; means &quot;planned&quot;. Because it refers to the fact that the intention existed long before the action.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="5864966c-e96a-4697-b076-46f9081eca54" CreationDate="2013-12-28T11:56:40.717" UserId="1502" Text="Some words composed in a way similar to &quot;родина&quot; can be found in ancient literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* година - years&#xD;&#xA;* скотина - cattle&#xD;&#xA;* былина - myth&#xD;&#xA;* старина - old times&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that &quot;отечество&quot; originate in great style aristocratic language of 1800-1900." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="653895ba-88b3-4c30-aea2-6af36d716ae6" CreationDate="2013-12-28T12:20:30.997" UserId="1502" Text="Maybe I disappoint you, you mentioned that Russian allows very flexible word order. That is true, but at the same time some word orderings are more usual than others, so basically when Russians try to mimic Yoda speech they will try to get sentence in any unusual word ordering. This still will sound grammatically correct. I have seen some &quot;instructions&quot; - how to &quot;speak Yoda&quot; in Russian on the websites, they will give some rules, but in fact this is just the preference of a person who create the given rule set. The only rule that seems relevant to me is to make the sentence less usual ordered, but not too much, so that it still very easily understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the real purpose of Yoda speech is to make everybody happy and laughing, the rule is to break any rules every time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can share my own algorithm: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) analyze your original sentence and remove the words that make it hard to reshuffle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) pronounce any word and then analyze which word is logically would go after it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) do not put that word after it, puzzle the audience, put any other word from the sentence, less expected in this position of a line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) repeat puzzling as many times as possible, more times the flow is not going where the audience expected - more fun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) in the end you must get the perfectly clear and understandable passage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tricky part is to make as many &quot;shifts&quot; from normal wordflow but arrive in the end to a perfectly correct phrase, this is where people will start laughing - when they realize their ears struggled but they are happy in the end with a clear sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that those &quot;Shifts&quot; that occur when you already hear some word and your mind expects the next word and suddenly you hear something unexpected, a verb instead of a noun, subject instead of an object etc - your mind goes nuts for a second, fantasies arose inside you and that's what makes you happy. And when the sentence come to an end, all is suddenly settled in a correct phrase it makes you laugh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the mind adapts quickly, that's why multiple Yoda phrases in a row are not funny. They are better served unexpected and one in a time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="4b386278-8eb7-42fb-98fb-fac28372d32c" CreationDate="2013-12-28T13:17:44.833" UserId="551" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="Prefix &quot;Пред-&quot; emhasizes the idea of something being done before the action was performed itself. Like &quot;условие&quot; and &quot;предусловие&quot;. &quot;Условие выполнения чего-то&quot; - it is something you should do in order to achieve something. While &quot;предусловие выполнения чего-то&quot; - it is something you should do even before starting the main action, some preparations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while &quot;намеренный&quot; and &quot;преднамеренный&quot; both mean intentional, the latter also assumes that was made not only intentially but had some &quot;history&quot;. Like &quot;намеренная кража из магазина&quot; can mean that some individual saw something while being in the shop and decided to stole it, while &quot;преднамеренная&quot; may also imply that the individual walked in the shop already having an intention to stole something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar for killing - the individual may kill someone because of doing something in the wrong way (e.g. because of a car accident), because he/she had no intention to kill, but they did something that is potentially dangerous (like a bar brawl) and the killing had happened, or because he or she wanted to kill exactly this particular person and made some preparations for this. The latter will be &quot;преднамеренное убийство&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the prepared and planned actions usually have more strict punishment the prosecutors are interested in proving that every time the law is breaked the individual did this with all necessary preparations, while defenсe is interested in proving that the act was an impulse or because of affect, etc. - not planned at all, or without conscious decisions made. So the word &quot;преднамеренный&quot; serves well for prosecutors because it emphasizes the idea of prepared action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not because &quot;пред-&quot; means &quot;evil&quot;, but because it was planned or prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In usual life it is rarely needed to make the precise distinction between &quot;намеренный&quot; and &quot;преднамеренный&quot;, so they can be used as synonyms most of the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="4c9a2f8f-0c1b-45df-a420-649cf4da69ee" CreationDate="2013-12-28T16:17:30.867" UserId="1847" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="**чё** is the result of the omission of the -**ег**- syllable in **чего**. This is called [Elision][1] in phonetics. So **чё** is just a shortened form of **чего** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elision" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="21f8642e-0889-4586-a18c-bccb89924c8b" CreationDate="2013-12-28T19:35:52.017" UserId="1236" Text="There are some sentences in which `чё` cannot be substituted for `чего`, have a look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чё у тебя в карманах?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чё там случилось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such sentences `чё` is the subject, which can be in the Genetive case only in negative sentences, like `Ивана там не было.` or as a part of a quantitative phrase, like `много людей`, `три рубля`, `сколько зайцев`, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не за что. (Cannot be *Не за чё.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And `Ни за что!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some sentences in which `чего` cannot be substituted for `чё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С чего будем прыгать, с моста или с причала? (Not *с чё)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С чего бы это? (Not *с чё)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; От чего ты отталкивался? (Not *от чё)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Без чего не вытащишь и рыбку из пруда? (Not *без чё)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum it up, it looks like `чё` is a colloquial form of `что`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="65fa2e59-6fcd-4590-ac4e-8e716ac68343" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:00:53.857" UserId="62" Comment="changed &quot;catheti&quot; to &quot;legs&quot; because the first term is very rarely used (e.g., never in school)." Text="These sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я имею леопарда&#xD;&#xA;* Я имею самокат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are comprehensible but barely grammatical in modern Russian, unless you want to say that you're engaging in an intimate encounter with the leopard or the scooter. In the modern dialect those would be the primary meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Иметь* is used in positions which grammatically require a verb and cannot be easily filled with an existential clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Чего бы ты хотел больше: быть здоровым или иметь много денег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one can be replaced with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Чего бы ты хотел больше: быть здоровым или чтобы у тебя было много денег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this is more bulky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Имея много денег, легко быть здоровым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Existential clauses do not form adverbial participles that easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Будучи приверженцем здорового образа жизни, я имею в собственности самокат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the existential clause here would result in a dangling adverbial participle here (describing the scooter, not the narrator).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (this Q seems to imply Иметь is for abstract things that &quot;have&quot; abstract things, like triangles have sides), so it isn't a dupe question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not exactly the case. Russian proximity clause distinguishes between state and possession by using or omitting *есть*. This is somewhat like alienable vs. non-alienable possession found in other languages, though not exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У треугольника три стороны // Triangles are three-sided&#xD;&#xA;* У людей две руки // People are two-handed&#xD;&#xA;* У меня бородавки // I'm warty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У прямоугольного треугольника есть катеты и гипотенуза // Right triangles have legs and a hypotenuse&#xD;&#xA;* У него есть обе руки // He has both hands&#xD;&#xA;* У меня есть бородавка на пальце // I have a wart on my finger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used with *есть*, the clauses imply possession or transient state, used without it, they imply inherence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="0845b892-0059-4259-ad65-80592e14391d" CreationDate="2013-12-28T20:54:16.207" UserId="2333" Text="if you revert the sentence - you can get Yoda's speech =) but not always =) &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я гулял по парку - По парку гулял я &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Мы с девченками пошли в клуб танцевать - Танцевать в клуб пошли с девченками мы&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="3d636077-ed50-4f77-a7f1-7ca612a4497a" CreationDate="2013-12-30T00:07:19.747" UserId="62" Comment="edited body" Text="Prefix &quot;Пред-&quot; emhasizes the idea of something being done before the action was performed itself. Like &quot;условие&quot; and &quot;предусловие&quot;. &quot;Условие выполнения чего-то&quot; - it is something you should do in order to achieve something. While &quot;предусловие выполнения чего-то&quot; - it is something you should do even before starting the main action, some preparations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while &quot;намеренный&quot; and &quot;преднамеренный&quot; both mean intentional, the latter also assumes that was made not only intentially but had some &quot;history&quot;. Like &quot;намеренная кража из магазина&quot; can mean that some individual saw something while being in the shop and decided to steal it, while &quot;преднамеренная&quot; may also imply that the individual walked in the shop already having an intention to steal something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar for killing - the individual may kill someone because of doing something in the wrong way (e.g. because of a car accident), because he/she had no intention to kill, but they did something that is potentially dangerous (like a bar brawl) and the killing had happened, or because he or she wanted to kill exactly this particular person and made some preparations for this. The latter will be &quot;преднамеренное убийство&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the prepared and planned actions usually have more strict punishment the prosecutors are interested in proving that every time the law is breaked the individual did this with all necessary preparations, while defenсe is interested in proving that the act was an impulse or because of affect, etc. - not planned at all, or without conscious decisions made. So the word &quot;преднамеренный&quot; serves well for prosecutors because it emphasizes the idea of prepared action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not because &quot;пред-&quot; means &quot;evil&quot;, but because it was planned or prepared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In usual life it is rarely needed to make the precise distinction between &quot;намеренный&quot; and &quot;преднамеренный&quot;, so they can be used as synonyms most of the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="ef5adc0a-301e-49f4-991d-0c91e2676198" CreationDate="2013-12-30T00:21:35.737" UserId="62" Text="Yesterday I came across the term радиус-вектор in physics, which surprised me because the order of the two parts is reversed by comparison with the terms вектор-строка and вектор-столбец in linear algebra, which I knew earlier. Does anyone have a suggestion for why it would be reasonable to use вектор as the second part of the term in one case but as the first part of the term in the other cases? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know when these terms entered the language, but for instance if вектор-строка had been in use first then I'd think вектор-радиус would be a closer fit to the &quot;established&quot; format than радиус-вектор, and likewise for строка-вектор if радиус-вектор had been introduced first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="ef5adc0a-301e-49f4-991d-0c91e2676198" CreationDate="2013-12-30T00:21:35.737" UserId="62" Text="радиус-вектор vs. вектор-строка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="ef5adc0a-301e-49f4-991d-0c91e2676198" CreationDate="2013-12-30T00:21:35.737" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="28b269c7-24e4-42d8-a250-2a6fd620964b" CreationDate="2013-12-30T04:22:13.517" UserId="194" Text="*д* is italic. It is not a handwriting character." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="bbc7a09d-57ba-45a4-8f9a-a90577c2c6dc" CreationDate="2013-12-30T04:48:23.697" UserId="194" Text="In Russian by changing the word order you may arrive at unexpected results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become looking poetic, pompous or high-style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become looking archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may change its meaning either slightly or totally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become ambiguous and depending on the phrase stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language has undergone some heavy changes in the default word order not so long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually you would get something sounding like reading Homer in translation, or a decree by Peter the Great from 18th century or a quote from the Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that the idea of changing word order to empathize the epicness, archaism, deepness of the thought is quite standard tool in Russian. It can be used in aphorisms, in poems, in tales and parables, to underline the wisdom and authority of the speaker etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="49818d69-b2eb-49bd-988e-be0988cf8663" CreationDate="2013-12-30T04:53:50.380" UserId="194" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="In Russian by changing the word order you may arrive at unexpected results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become looking poetic, pompous or high-style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become looking archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may change its meaning either slightly or totally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become ambiguous and depending on the phrase stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The sentence may become looking unfinished, suggesting a continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language has undergone some heavy changes in the default word order not so long ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually you would get something sounding like reading Homer in translation, or a decree by Peter the Great from 18th century or a quote from the Bible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that the idea of changing word order to empathize the epicness, archaism, deepness of the thought is quite standard tool in Russian. It can be used in aphorisms, in poems, in tales and parables, to underline the wisdom and authority of the speaker etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="0cd8729b-6b92-41af-a35d-e598cff0b93d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T05:00:53.987" UserId="62" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Yesterday I came across the term радиус-вектор in physics, which surprised me because the order of the two parts is reversed by comparison with the terms вектор-строка and вектор-столбец in linear algebra, which I knew earlier. Does anyone have a suggestion for why it would be reasonable to use вектор as the second part of the term in one case but as the first part of the term in the other cases? For comparison, in English the terms are all built in the same way: radius vector, row vector, and column vector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know when these terms entered the language, but for instance if вектор-строка had been in use first then I'd think вектор-радиус would be a closer fit to the &quot;established&quot; format than радиус-вектор, and likewise for строка-вектор if радиус-вектор had been introduced first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="78375a03-eeae-4781-a970-bb88739a5290" CreationDate="2013-12-30T06:05:54.380" UserId="194" Text="The Russian word &quot;преднамеренно&quot; means the action was planned beforehand and prepared for, while &quot;намеренно&quot; may mean either the action was improvised or decided on site as well as planned beforehand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;преднамеренно&quot; is a particular case of &quot;намеренно&quot; when the intention arose beforehand rather than on-site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="71ddbd24-ce46-4d88-a1f9-8a97aa74974c" CreationDate="2013-12-30T07:56:06.340" UserId="2259" Text="@Ellen, on the Russian your name truly translated as &quot;Лена&quot;, not a &quot;Настя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know how to finish your letter, simply write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пишите!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's mean, write me back. To keep intensity of correspondence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Люблю! Целую!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's mean action &quot;Kiss you!&quot; and &quot;Love you!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, &quot;Ваша Настя&quot; sounds very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="78f5e088-2cda-4975-a373-d2b9474b95d4" CreationDate="2013-12-30T10:56:16.227" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="@Ellen, on the Russian your name truly translated as &quot;Лена&quot;, not a &quot;Настя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know how to finish your letter, simply write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пишите!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means write me back. To keep intensity of correspondence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Люблю! Целую!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means action &quot;Kiss you!&quot; and &quot;Love you!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, &quot;Ваша Настя&quot; sounds very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="f9b2599b-1eae-4ac7-8faa-78ab4fcfd466" CreationDate="2013-12-30T11:16:51.820" UserId="2244" Text="An answer from a native speaker with a (somewhat rusty) math degree and no linguistic education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is [this радиус-вектор][1] then the phrase emphasizes that this is a vector of some kind. &quot;Vector&quot; is the more important word here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the linear algebra terminology it is the difference between вектор-строка and вектор-столбец that is important. The differentiating word comes last, pushing &quot;вектор&quot; in front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more of a heuristic than a rule cast in stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%83%D1%81-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2954" RevisionGUID="1d0b3eda-265a-4780-b9b8-53a8e90af5b3" CreationDate="2013-12-30T11:47:20.550" UserId="2269" Text="Just as Vitaly Osipov said, the last word should be considered as main, while the first is subordinate. So your question can be reformulated: why *ра́диус-ве́ктор* is more vector than radius but *ве́ктор-строка́* and *ве́ктор-столбе́ц* are more row / column than vector?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer, I guess, is quite simple. It’s in common visual representation. This is definitely a column for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is defenitely a row:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is a vector:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![rv][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cxNcI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mvua8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oYlMl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="750ab9be-b2c5-4674-bf17-7cfa6e208ffa" CreationDate="2013-12-30T13:12:52.440" UserId="2318" Comment="fixed grammer" Text="How would one express that one is &quot;`confused about something`&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was once told that no direct translation exists, as in Russia no one is confused, but jokes aside, I wonder how would I say it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10026" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="750ab9be-b2c5-4674-bf17-7cfa6e208ffa" CreationDate="2013-12-30T13:12:52.440" Comment="Proposed by 2318 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="65aa2bc9-be4d-49b0-941a-74bcef764f89" CreationDate="2013-12-30T13:12:52.440" UserId="1236" Comment="fixed grammer" Text="How would one express that one is &quot;`confused about something`&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was once told that no direct translation exists, as in Russia no one is confused, but jokes aside, I wonder how I would say it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="e1cb923b-9068-4d95-b6e9-169aad77b6b6" CreationDate="2013-12-30T16:30:08.437" UserId="222" Text="In compound nouns like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-истребитель&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-разведчик&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-невидимка&#xD;&#xA; - вектор-строка&#xD;&#xA; - вектор-столбец&#xD;&#xA; - спортсмен-лыжник&#xD;&#xA; - спортсмен-пловец&#xD;&#xA; - садовод-любитель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first noun gives a more general description of the word and the second one gives a more specific description. First consider several other examples and then let us discuss words вектор-строка, вектор-столбец, and радиус-вектор. “Самолёт-неведимка” is an aircraft (this is a high-level description) and more specifically it is a stealth aircraft (this is a more specific description); it would not make much sense to describe it as a stealth object (“невидимка”), which is more specifically a stealth aircraft. Similarly, “садовод-любитель” is a gardener, more specifically, an amateur gardener; again it would not make much sense to say that “садовод-любитель” is an amateur, more specifically, an amateur gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, “вектор-строка” is a vector, specifically it is a vector written as a row; “вектор-столбец” is a vector written as a column. It would make much less sense to say that “вектор-строка” is a row that forms a vector (there is no separate mathematical notion *row*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now “радиус-вектор” is the position (radius) of a point, which is written as a vector. The word вектор specifies that радиус-вектор gives not just the distance to the position but also gives the direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could argue that “радиус-вектор” should be called “вектор-радиус” because it is a vector that (more specifically) gives the position of an object. I think the main reason why “радиус-вектор” is used is the following. The term “радиус-вектор” have been mostly used in physics not in linear algebra. The word вектор just specifies the type of the variable: \vec *r* is “радиус-вектор”, whereas *r* is радиус (скаляр/scalar). If it was a concept studied in linear algebra and we had different kinds of vectors, then we would have terms like: вектор-радиус, вектор-ускорение, вектор-функция." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10029" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="2cd58b11-4052-4338-b117-7bcb6479c59c" CreationDate="2013-12-30T16:50:45.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/417699288157003777" />
  <row Id="10030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="9e518a20-973f-40a5-9cbf-97a8a8ca9517" CreationDate="2013-12-30T17:00:50.783" UserId="222" Comment="added a summary" Text="In compound nouns like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-истребитель&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-разведчик&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-невидимка&#xD;&#xA; - вектор-строка&#xD;&#xA; - вектор-столбец&#xD;&#xA; - спортсмен-лыжник&#xD;&#xA; - спортсмен-пловец&#xD;&#xA; - садовод-любитель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first noun gives a more general description of the word and the second one gives a more specific description. First consider several other examples and then let us discuss words вектор-строка, вектор-столбец, and радиус-вектор. “Самолёт-неведимка” is an aircraft (this is a high-level description) and more specifically it is a stealth aircraft (this is a more specific description); it would not make much sense to describe it as a stealth object (“невидимка”), which is more specifically a stealth aircraft. Similarly, “садовод-любитель” is a gardener, more specifically, an amateur gardener; again it would not make much sense to say that “садовод-любитель” is an amateur, more specifically, an amateur gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, “вектор-строка” is a vector, specifically it is a vector written as a row; “вектор-столбец” is a vector written as a column. It would make much less sense to say that “вектор-строка” is a row that forms a vector (there is no separate mathematical notion *row*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now “радиус-вектор” is the position (radius) of a point, which is written as a vector. The word вектор specifies that радиус-вектор gives not just the distance to the position but also gives the direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could argue that “радиус-вектор” should be called “вектор-радиус” because it is a vector that (more specifically) gives the position of an object. I think the main reason why “радиус-вектор” is used is the following. The term “радиус-вектор” have been mostly used in physics not in linear algebra. The word вектор just specifies the type of the variable: \vec *r* is “радиус-вектор”, whereas *r* is радиус (скаляр/scalar). If it was a concept studied in linear algebra and we had different kinds of vectors, then we would have terms like: вектор-радиус, вектор-ускорение, вектор-функция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary** To check what word order to use, you can apply the following test. Write A-B if you can say “он/она — A, а точнее A-B”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Это самолёт, а точнее самолёт-истребитель. **not** Это истребитель, а точнее самолёт-истребитель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Пусть *v* — произвольный вектор, а точнее вектор-столбец. **not** Пусть *v* — произвольный столбец, а точнее вектор-столбец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Пусть *\vec r* — радиус (положение) частицы, а точнее её радиус-вектор. **not** Пусть *\vec r* — вектор частицы, а точнее её радиус-вектор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="be26149b-e747-48e5-96fb-87a9cb951a69" CreationDate="2013-12-30T18:25:43.610" UserId="115" Text="For simplicity, let's look at the corresponding nouns, rather than adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Намеренный means &quot;intentional&quot;.  Преднамеренный means &quot;premeditated&quot;.  Even the connotation of &quot;premeditated crime&quot; maps into English perfectly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="b45086be-8fa2-48ff-b2ac-2d0e3986d02c" CreationDate="2013-12-30T22:41:39.753" UserId="2269" Comment="опечатка: неведимка → невидимка; ударения для набора минимального об’ема правки" Text="In compound nouns like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-истреби́тель&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-разве́дчик&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-невиди́мка&#xD;&#xA; - ве́ктор-строка́&#xD;&#xA; - ве́ктор-столбе́ц&#xD;&#xA; - спортсме́н-лы́жник&#xD;&#xA; - спортсме́н-плове́ц&#xD;&#xA; - садово́д-люби́тель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first noun gives a more general description of the word and the second one gives a more specific description. First consider several other examples and then let us discuss words вектор-строка, вектор-столбец, and радиус-вектор. “Самолёт-невидимка” is an aircraft (this is a high-level description) and more specifically it is a stealth aircraft (this is a more specific description); it would not make much sense to describe it as a stealth object (“невидимка”), which is more specifically a stealth aircraft. Similarly, “садовод-любитель” is a gardener, more specifically, an amateur gardener; again it would not make much sense to say that “садовод-любитель” is an amateur, more specifically, an amateur gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, “вектор-строка” is a vector, specifically it is a vector written as a row; “вектор-столбец” is a vector written as a column. It would make much less sense to say that “вектор-строка” is a row that forms a vector (there is no separate mathematical notion *row*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now “радиус-вектор” is the position (radius) of a point, which is written as a vector. The word вектор specifies that радиус-вектор gives not just the distance to the position but also gives the direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could argue that “радиус-вектор” should be called “вектор-радиус” because it is a vector that (more specifically) gives the position of an object. I think the main reason why “радиус-вектор” is used is the following. The term “радиус-вектор” have been mostly used in physics not in linear algebra. The word вектор just specifies the type of the variable: \vec *r* is “радиус-вектор”, whereas *r* is радиус (скаляр/scalar). If it was a concept studied in linear algebra and we had different kinds of vectors, then we would have terms like: вектор-радиус, вектор-ускорение, вектор-функция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary** To check what word order to use, you can apply the following test. Write A-B if you can say “он/она — A, а точнее A-B”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Это самолёт, а точнее самолёт-истребитель. **not** Это истребитель, а точнее самолёт-истребитель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Пусть *v* — произвольный вектор, а точнее вектор-столбец. **not** Пусть *v* — произвольный столбец, а точнее вектор-столбец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Пусть *\vec r* — радиус (положение) частицы, а точнее её радиус-вектор. **not** Пусть *\vec r* — вектор частицы, а точнее её радиус-вектор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10033" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="b45086be-8fa2-48ff-b2ac-2d0e3986d02c" CreationDate="2013-12-30T22:41:39.753" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 222 edit id of 415" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="99f8005d-1d3c-4846-8054-3c5703fe96b2" CreationDate="2013-12-31T07:59:14.537" UserId="551" Comment="Replaced translit with cyrillic" Text="What word was used in Russian for a line before **линия** was borrewed in 18th century?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it **черта**? Or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10035" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="99f8005d-1d3c-4846-8054-3c5703fe96b2" CreationDate="2013-12-31T07:59:14.537" UserId="551" Comment="Replaced translit with cyrillic" Text="What word was used in Russian for line before the borrowing of &quot;линия&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="7e40987b-6496-414a-a313-f2d570317b7e" CreationDate="2013-12-31T19:15:13.737" UserId="62" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What word was used in Russian for a line before **линия** was borrowed in the 18th century?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it **черта**? Or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10037" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="7e40987b-6496-414a-a313-f2d570317b7e" CreationDate="2013-12-31T19:15:13.737" UserId="62" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10038" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="596e51e6-64ea-4e41-a8f9-b1d32c75bebd" CreationDate="2013-12-31T19:50:49.367" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/418106991501119488" />
  <row Id="10042" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="4bfeac7f-18c9-46cc-b490-104289881895" CreationDate="2014-01-01T16:50:50.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/418424086705217536" />
  <row Id="10047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="69ecab59-7de0-4642-9330-503541e8b3d7" CreationDate="2014-01-01T18:40:27.180" UserId="194" Text="The word &quot;отечество&quot; is quite outdated in modern Russian. It was widely used before 1917, but after the revolution it was gradually replaced with родина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in most cases you most likely need to use &quot;родина&quot;. Exceptions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The Constitution. It uses &quot;отечество&quot; in the context of military service. It is also used in the law regulating military service and in the military oath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you want to look monarchist, &quot;old-style&quot; person in the context of military service or patriotism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When speaking about &quot;a motherland&quot; (as opposed &quot;the motherland&quot;), you should use &quot;родина&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="0f3b0ccb-78f7-47b3-bc74-3502a40eb731" CreationDate="2014-01-01T22:54:08.707" UserId="506" Text="&quot;I don't see the table&quot; should be translated as &quot;Я не вижу стол&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I don't see a table&quot; should be translated as &quot;Я не вижу стола&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="2263de86-c699-4223-b089-3890817664ac" CreationDate="2014-01-01T22:58:26.103" UserId="506" Text="There is completely no difference in Russian. But sometimes accusative could tell that &quot;the&quot; should be used. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I don't see the table&quot; should be translated as &quot;Я не вижу стол&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I don't see a table&quot; should be translated as &quot;Я не вижу стола&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2964" RevisionGUID="c5aa635d-6acf-481b-8dc0-21467e99c895" CreationDate="2014-01-02T00:42:19.250" UserId="2345" Text="The word маг is noteworthy in that it has no well known feminine form. Theoretically, the correct feminine form is магиня, but this word is very rarely seen. Much more often you see the obnoxious, cringeworthy neologism магичка. But usually, just волшебница is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word экстрасенс is most precisely translated to English as &quot;psychic&quot;. Just like &quot;psychic&quot;, it has overtones of &quot;charlatan&quot; or &quot;wacko&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="18c3f94f-6f46-4149-9317-bdd210bea23b" CreationDate="2014-01-02T00:47:13.197" UserId="2345" Text="Identically to English, &quot;subject object verb&quot;. However, in Russian this seems like poetic or archaic, rather just strange syntax." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="fa7cb334-ab7f-403c-83a4-3bea941f9ea5" CreationDate="2014-01-02T01:09:36.243" UserId="5" Text="Я любопытный что разница между чистящий и очищающий. Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="fa7cb334-ab7f-403c-83a4-3bea941f9ea5" CreationDate="2014-01-02T01:09:36.243" UserId="5" Text="что было бы разница между чистящий и очищающий?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="fa7cb334-ab7f-403c-83a4-3bea941f9ea5" CreationDate="2014-01-02T01:09:36.243" UserId="5" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="a1385b4b-43fe-4820-b98b-51187fc5b62a" CreationDate="2014-01-02T08:29:01.273" UserId="551" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Мне интересно в чем разница между чистящий и очищающий. Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="a1385b4b-43fe-4820-b98b-51187fc5b62a" CreationDate="2014-01-02T08:29:01.273" UserId="551" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="В чем разница между чистящий и очищающий?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="6959a6c3-7a55-403e-bae5-144831300646" CreationDate="2014-01-02T12:56:07.610" UserId="2347" Text="Чистящий означает то, что чистит. Возможно не до конца, только частично.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очищающий означает то, что очищает. Очищает полностью, но возможно до определенной степени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="f4f848b8-0a1e-43f6-a7ca-5ee11f1bf9ba" CreationDate="2014-01-02T13:01:32.223" UserId="2347" Text="Родина often means location where you born. &#xD;&#xA;Отечество means country where you born.&#xD;&#xA;Отечество also means родина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statements is true.&#xD;&#xA;У меня на родине, в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;Отечественного производства. Made in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Отчизна often used with патриотизм." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="1da425bf-e0c4-4001-8007-29848ae387cb" CreationDate="2014-01-02T13:08:02.870" UserId="2347" Text="Когда-то means at some point in time except now.&#xD;&#xA;Used not for near time.&#xD;&#xA;But period may even one day if this is significant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="502f7797-0eba-452c-ab87-0113af7f5b94" CreationDate="2014-01-02T13:50:50.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/418741175286525952" />
  <row Id="10066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="145427df-09e1-4ece-a3ad-07513041f937" CreationDate="2014-01-02T16:20:12.577" UserId="222" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In compound nouns like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-истреби́тель&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-разве́дчик&#xD;&#xA; - самолёт-невиди́мка&#xD;&#xA; - ве́ктор-строка́&#xD;&#xA; - ве́ктор-столбе́ц&#xD;&#xA; - спортсме́н-лы́жник&#xD;&#xA; - спортсме́н-плове́ц&#xD;&#xA; - садово́д-люби́тель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the first noun gives a more general description of the word and the second one gives a more specific description. First consider several other examples and then let us discuss words вектор-строка, вектор-столбец, and радиус-вектор. “Самолёт-невидимка” is an aircraft (this is a more general description) and more specifically it is a stealth aircraft (this is a more specific description); it would not make much sense to describe it as a stealth object (“невидимка”), which is more specifically a stealth aircraft. Similarly, “садовод-любитель” is a gardener, more specifically, an amateur gardener; again it would not make much sense to say that “садовод-любитель” is an amateur, more specifically, an amateur gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, “вектор-строка” is a vector, specifically it is a vector written as a row; “вектор-столбец” is a vector written as a column. It would make much less sense to say that “вектор-строка” is a row that forms a vector (there is no separate mathematical notion of *row*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now “радиус-вектор” is the position (radius) of a point, which is written as a vector. The word вектор specifies that радиус-вектор gives not just the distance to the position but also the direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps one could argue that “радиус-вектор” should be called “вектор-радиус” because it is a vector that (more specifically) gives the position of an object. I think the main reason why “радиус-вектор” is used is the following. The term “радиус-вектор” is mostly used in physics not in linear algebra. The word вектор just specifies the type of the variable: \vec *r* is “радиус-вектор”, whereas *r* is радиус (скаляр/scalar). If “радиус-вектор” was a concept studied in linear algebra and we had different kinds of vectors, then we would have terms like: вектор-радиус, вектор-ускорение, вектор-функция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary** To check what word order to use, you can apply the following test. Write A-B if you can say “он/она — A, а точнее A-B”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Это самолёт, а точнее самолёт-истребитель. **not** Это истребитель, а точнее самолёт-истребитель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Пусть *v* — произвольный вектор, а точнее вектор-столбец. **not** Пусть *v* — произвольный столбец, а точнее вектор-столбец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Пусть *\vec r* — радиус (положение) частицы, а точнее её радиус-вектор. **not** Пусть *\vec r* — вектор частицы, а точнее её радиус-вектор.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="7cfd3b68-67e4-4915-95c3-b6343f8aebf1" CreationDate="2014-01-02T17:21:07.440" UserId="194" Text="I think the word is derogatory and intentionally wrongly-spelled to underline the low culture of either the speaker or the country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2975" RevisionGUID="1dfd2ac0-e0f5-422c-9128-b6b52ae2e311" CreationDate="2014-01-02T19:29:50.933" UserId="2349" Text="Russian language have few own words with &quot;Ф&quot;, because we prefer more strong sound &quot;В&quot;. But in other countries F is one of most popular letter. Gradually this words going in our language and today we have more foreign words with &quot;Ф&quot; then own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="8e25516f-d609-4775-b5f4-3c5e3c8e7c15" CreationDate="2014-01-02T20:05:00.190" UserId="194" Text="A more correct question would be, why other Indo-European languages **have** /f/. This is because the Proto-Indo-European language had no such sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English /f/ evolved from PIE /p/, in Greek the evolution was from PIE /b&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;/ via /p&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;/. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="6b9c3a9f-7ec5-4a02-8453-5a9380809467" CreationDate="2014-01-02T20:10:39.203" UserId="194" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="A more correct question would be, why other Indo-European languages **have** /f/. This is because the Proto-Indo-European language had no such sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in English word-initial /f/ evolved from PIE /p/, in Greek the evolution was from PIE /b&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;/ via /p&lt;sup&gt;h&lt;/sup&gt;/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2977" RevisionGUID="44197ee5-fc33-484f-8a86-bf86d1247cb6" CreationDate="2014-01-02T20:24:45.427" UserId="88" Text="`Чистяший` - способный чистить, то есть удалять загрязнение. Акцент на процесс.&#xD;&#xA;`Очищающий` - способный сделать чистым. Акцент на результат.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2977" RevisionGUID="ad4ca777-a714-43bb-a43d-b6fa0c94677a" CreationDate="2014-01-02T20:32:57.570" UserId="88" Comment="English :)" Text="`Чистяший` - able to clean, that is to remove some contamination. Accent is on the process.&#xD;&#xA;`Очищающий` - able to **make** clean. Accent is on the result.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="0c560953-f9c1-42f2-94c5-96c99fa4be93" CreationDate="2014-01-02T21:59:41.813" UserId="2313" Text="In American English we have the word 'snarky', meaning 'sharply critical; cutting; snide'. A Russian translator suggests the word элегантного, but this does not seem to have the same sense as the English word. How would this concept be expressed in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about the following: Придирчивый, язвительный, ехидный, резкий в высказываниях, язва, or&#xD;&#xA;Сварливый?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="0c560953-f9c1-42f2-94c5-96c99fa4be93" CreationDate="2014-01-02T21:59:41.813" UserId="2313" Text="Does Russian have a word meaning 'snarky'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="0c560953-f9c1-42f2-94c5-96c99fa4be93" CreationDate="2014-01-02T21:59:41.813" UserId="2313" Text="|перевод|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2979" RevisionGUID="6e642118-f42f-46dd-9365-80a8614b78ea" CreationDate="2014-01-03T02:39:37.463" UserId="551" Text="This in fact it is &quot;playing by the rules&quot;. Let's use the dictionaries. Ushakov's dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КОГДА́-ТО, нареч.  &#xD;&#xA;1. Некогда, в прошлом. Когда-то мы были знакомы. «Царь Никита жил когда-то славно, весело, богато.» Пушкин.  &#xD;&#xA;2. **Неизвестно когда в будущем.** Когда-то он соберется! Когда-то еще выпадет такой счастливый случай!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same entry is in Efremova's dictionary. Also the &quot;Большой англо-русский и русско-английский словарь&quot; gives the [following examples](http://academic.ru/dic.nsf/eng_rus/122034/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0) of using &quot;когда-то&quot; to refer the future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) (в будущем) we shall have a long time before...; it will be a long time before... когда-то еще будет такой приятный вечер ≈ **it will be a long time before** we have such a pleasant evening again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) (в будущем) : когда-то мы опять увидимся! **who knows when** we shall meet again!; когда-то он придёт! **will he ever** come!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="90b6ddb2-9d02-49a4-b8de-05e7d74e75ce" CreationDate="2014-01-03T04:50:51.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/418967670617567232" />
  <row Id="10083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="5348bedf-6d73-4525-96a2-accfa3707194" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:14:17.647" UserId="2353" Text="I have difficulties to adequately translate this into Russian, so that translation is short and clear (not something clumsy like &quot;Нажми на кнопку Выйти в моем профиле&quot; or something unnatural like &quot;Выйди меня (из почты/фейсбука)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a clear adequate and (preferably) short translation into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="5348bedf-6d73-4525-96a2-accfa3707194" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:14:17.647" UserId="2353" Text="How would you translate &quot;Log me out&quot;?! (when asking someone to log yourself out of facebook account/ e-mail. etc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="5348bedf-6d73-4525-96a2-accfa3707194" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:14:17.647" UserId="2353" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2981" RevisionGUID="d289fdd7-88d0-498d-9028-65eeebd4cd68" CreationDate="2014-01-03T18:48:13.240" UserId="2353" Text="As already mentioned, there would probably no *precise single word* equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another translation, which I think is very appropriate, is: &quot;**злобный; ехидный**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(see &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.slovari.yandex.ru/translate.xml?text=snide&amp;lang=en&quot;&gt;yandex dictionaries&lt;/a&gt;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="cd19f45b-cba9-44e5-94f2-f737ea6b7ced" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:00:26.970" UserId="551" Text="I would prefer the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из моего профиля в гуглоплюсе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for shorter translations - they will be more informal and/or slangish. Usually I hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из-под меня в фейсбуке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the latter options sounds clumsy. The *account* has also many other more slangish translations: &quot;учетка&quot;, &quot;аккаунт&quot; or even &quot;акк&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="19d9d13f-29e4-4f4b-87a0-136fd5a54d90" CreationDate="2014-01-03T19:11:08.463" UserId="2354" Text="In addition to the `Выйди из-под меня в ...` there is a couple of the new loan words from English 'login' : `залогинится/разлогинится`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Разлогинь меня в Фейсбуке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;залогиниться&quot; About 1,390,000 results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10090" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="0fbab86d-5cc9-4184-bc20-a49a35485f13" CreationDate="2014-01-03T22:50:52.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/419239468810653697" />
  <row Id="10098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2986" RevisionGUID="630bccf8-c02b-4677-81a1-ca618e7c77b9" CreationDate="2014-01-04T10:02:45.187" UserId="1027" Text="Чистящие средства (обычно порошки), чистящий карандаш для оптики, картридж для бритвы - то, чем нужно производить механические действия: скрести, тереть, то есть жестко чистить в буквальном смысле. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очищающий гель (для лица), аэрозоль (для воздуха), лосьон, суп - что-то более щадящее, то, что действует не сразу, не механически и само по себе не обладает чистящими свойствами, а только в совокупности с чем-то (процессами кожи, тела, распределяясь по воздуху)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="c899617b-9d52-483f-8808-f2951919c664" CreationDate="2014-01-04T13:21:34.307" UserId="551" Comment="added 1336 characters in body" Text="I would prefer the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из моего профиля в гуглоплюсе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for shorter translations - they will be more informal and/or slangish. Usually I hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из-под меня в фейсбуке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the latter options sounds clumsy. The *account* has also many other more slangish translations: &quot;учетка&quot;, &quot;аккаунт&quot; or even &quot;акк&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@alex notes that there are two words for log in/log out: *залогиниться* and *разлогиниться*. There is also *перелогиниться* which means - log off and then log in again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Залогиниться** may be used by itself or with the name of login:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Залогинься в фейсбук. Залогинься в программу как админ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard **разлогиниться** to be used with the name of the account. It seems to be used only as &quot;log off from current account&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разлогинься в фейсбуке на всякий случай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Перелогиниться** can also be used by itself or with name of account or user role:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После изменения настроек перелогинься.  &#xD;&#xA;Перелогинься админом чтобы изменить настройки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another three options is using **зайди/выйди/перезайди**. All these options can be used with or without login or user role:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зайди админом. Выйди из-под админа. Перезайди админом.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these words are used without login/user role it may be not clear that log in or log out is required when the software or the site does not requier authentification. &quot;Войди в Ворд&quot; means just &quot;open the Word application&quot;, while &quot;Войди в 1С&quot; implies &quot;Open 1C accounting system and log in&quot;, because the latter application always requires authentification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like &quot;Зайди подо мной. Выйди из-под меня. Перезайди подо мной.&quot; is derived from &quot;админ&quot; log in/log out expressions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="cf3a6700-1bd3-457e-b253-3c8583c2db2e" CreationDate="2014-01-04T15:03:58.030" UserId="2353" Comment="пунктуация" Text="У этого узко специфического термина в той среде и в том информационном контексте, в котором он употребляется, уже довольно прочно сформировалась традиция не переводить этот термин и употреблять его как есть: `каминг аут` или `каминг-аут`. Чаще всего употребляется вместе с глаголами действий вроде `сделать`, `совершить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;De-facto this term does not translate and is used &quot;as is&quot;, transliterated as `каминг аут` or `каминг-аут`. This is a noun, which is typically used with action verbs, such as `сделать` (to make) or `совершить` (to commit). Also, as far as I know, the term `выйти из шкафа` is also pretty understandable in the Russian gay community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ps:**&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples of using this terms by &quot;native speakers&quot;: ))) [http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.afisha.ru/article/gay-issue/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10101" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2054" RevisionGUID="cf3a6700-1bd3-457e-b253-3c8583c2db2e" CreationDate="2014-01-04T15:03:58.030" Comment="Proposed by 2353 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="06ef5d8a-7034-4d35-8626-866b35dc361c" CreationDate="2014-01-04T16:50:53.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/419511262696185856" />
  <row Id="10103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="86fef777-a1fb-4b1f-b149-85401668e356" CreationDate="2014-01-04T21:42:59.100" UserId="2360" Text="I've seen many Russians write it altogether, although I'm 99 % sure it should be written separately. Why is it so often written altogether (because of the stress on на confusing them?) and is the spelling with a space the correct version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="86fef777-a1fb-4b1f-b149-85401668e356" CreationDate="2014-01-04T21:42:59.100" UserId="2360" Text="на х*й или нах*й?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="86fef777-a1fb-4b1f-b149-85401668e356" CreationDate="2014-01-04T21:42:59.100" UserId="2360" Text="|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10106" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="8e7d7ca7-3406-4785-8e59-562076938a90" CreationDate="2014-01-04T22:18:40.430" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="на хуй или нахуй?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="98d0fceb-50af-4833-adf2-469b06006a81" CreationDate="2014-01-04T22:56:37.237" UserId="2269" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй так жить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на ху́й стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you are right, they often confused with each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="d5eb7c9e-654a-418b-a617-f64acaa067d2" CreationDate="2014-01-04T23:08:43.457" UserId="2269" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй вы вообще приперлись?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на ху́й стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be used as interjection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попью а, нахуй, всё, пиздец, не могу больше. (‘Зеленый слоник’ movie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to think it should be spelled as one solid word but I can’t prove it now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="41f2be90-be0c-4dae-a06c-b57a85d0dab7" CreationDate="2014-01-04T23:20:29.683" UserId="2269" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй вы вообще приперлись?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на ху́й стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Also it may be used as interjection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попью а, нахуй, всё, пиздец, не могу больше. (‘Зеленый слоник’ movie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to think it should be spelled as one solid word but I can’t give any rationale now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="d291eec7-11e3-49e2-afcb-a401d5392f2e" CreationDate="2014-01-04T23:59:50.147" UserId="2269" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй вы вообще приперлись?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на хуй стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be used as interjection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попью а, нахуй, всё, пиздец, не могу больше. (‘Зеленый слоник’ movie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to think it should be spelled as one solid word but I can’t give any rationale now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the causes for solid spelling, I do not think they are in stress at _на_. Stress on preposition is still quite usual in Russian: _лечь на́ пол_, _зайти за́ угол_, _взять работу на́ дом_. It most likely by analogy to directional adverbs _направо_, _налево_, _вперед_, etc. There is perfect sense it in. However, _на хуй_ in _иди на хуй_ is considered as noun with preposition by the most of competent people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="c16bee78-7f7e-4199-9c30-5f9ac6573eb5" CreationDate="2014-01-05T00:20:50.267" UserId="2269" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй вы вообще приперлись?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на хуй стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be used as interjection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попью а, нахуй, всё, пиздец, не могу больше. (‘Зеленый слоник’ movie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to think it should be spelled as one solid word but I can’t give any rationale now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the causes for solid spelling, I do not think they are in stress at _на_. Stress on preposition is still quite usual in Russian: _лечь на́ пол_, _зайти за́ угол_, _взять работу на́ дом_. It most likely by analogy to directional adverbs _направо_, _налево_, _вперед_, etc. There is sense it in. However, _на хуй_ in _иди на хуй_ is considered as noun with preposition by the most of competent people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is empirical rule: if you still can separate two parts of stable phrase by adding adjective or somehow else, then they are two separate words. You definitely can describe _хуй_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди ты на большой и толстый хуй!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can even omit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди ты на большой и толстый! (it sounds little less rude)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to describe _право_ or _лево_ in _направо_ / _налево_ and you will fell the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="580d6dad-ca3e-4910-a097-ce0ba18866d4" CreationDate="2014-01-05T00:37:16.490" UserId="2269" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word like as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй вы вообще приперлись? (trivial phrase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на хуй стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be used as interjection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попью а, нахуй, всё, пиздец, не могу больше. (‘Зеленый слоник’ movie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to think it should be spelled as one solid word but I can’t give any rationale now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the causes for solid misspelling, I do not think they are in stress at _на_. Stress on preposition is still quite usual in Russian: _лечь на́ пол_, _зайти за́ угол_, _взять работу на́ дом_. It most likely by analogy to directional adverbs _направо_, _налево_, _вперед_, etc. There is sense it in. However, _на хуй_ in _иди на хуй_ is considered as noun with preposition by the most of competent people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is empirical rule: if you still can separate two parts of stable phrase by adding adjective or somehow else, then they are two separate words. You definitely can describe _хуй_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди ты на большой и толстый хуй!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can even omit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди ты на большой и толстый! (really [in use](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%98%D0%B4%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%B8+%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9%22))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to describe _право_ or _лево_ in _направо_ / _налево_ and you will feel the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2989" RevisionGUID="13bd899c-b0ac-4e88-855e-6e4c5acd6678" CreationDate="2014-01-05T03:18:50.117" UserId="2344" Text="I decided to add my answer since I completely disagree with the accepted answer (Dmitry). The expression should be written separately, this is grammatically correct form. If Dmitry could substantiate his answer, that would be interesting. The reference to the song can't be considered a legitimate proof of the expression correctness (and the song itself could be written incorrectly). &#xD;&#xA;I believe one word version is meant to be a part of &quot;olbanskii ezyg&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10114" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="25994f9e-e359-4524-9550-abcec1ad6e24" CreationDate="2014-01-05T05:01:48.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/419695202497212416" />
  <row Id="10115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2990" RevisionGUID="d675d072-394e-4bcd-ad69-f69d98ef86da" CreationDate="2014-01-05T06:30:04.027" UserId="506" Text="See also циник http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://otvet.mail.ru/question/27719027&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and ёрничать http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/79476-chto-takoe-jornichat.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://otvet.mail.ru/question/2020108&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="afa34340-3096-45a9-a0d7-a0251d06f5ae" CreationDate="2014-01-05T06:46:10.510" UserId="551" Comment="Added Google results" Text="I would prefer the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из моего профиля в гуглоплюсе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for shorter translations - they will be more informal and/or slangish. Usually I hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из-под меня в фейсбуке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the latter options sounds clumsy. The *account* has also many other more slangish translations: &quot;учетка&quot;, &quot;аккаунт&quot; or even &quot;акк&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@alex notes that there are two words for log in/log out: *залогиниться* and *разлогиниться*. There is also *перелогиниться* which means - log off and then log in again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Залогиниться** may be used by itself or with the name of login:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Залогинься в фейсбук. Залогинься в программу как админ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard **разлогиниться** to be used with the name of the account. It seems to be used only as &quot;log off from current account&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разлогинься в фейсбуке на всякий случай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Перелогиниться** can also be used by itself or with name of account or user role:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После изменения настроек перелогинься.  &#xD;&#xA;Перелогинься админом чтобы изменить настройки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another three options is using **зайди/выйди/перезайди**. All these options can be used with or without login or user role:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зайди админом. Выйди из-под админа. Перезайди админом.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these words are used without login/user role it may be not clear that log in or log out is required when the software or the site does not requier authentification. &quot;Войди в Ворд&quot; means just &quot;open the Word application&quot;, while &quot;Войди в 1С&quot; implies &quot;Open 1C accounting system and log in&quot;, because the latter application always requires authentification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like &quot;Зайди подо мной. Выйди из-под меня. Перезайди подо мной.&quot; is derived from &quot;админ&quot; log in/log out expressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Google search results. Estimated results (shown on the first page) are very different from ones shown on the last page. So, to obtain them I had to click on the last page of search results and sometimes click again on &quot;show all results&quot; if necessary to see skipped ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. &quot;выйди из моего профиля&quot; - 72 results&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;выйди из моего аккаунта&quot; - 64 results&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;выйди из моего акка&quot; - 37 results&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;разлогинь меня&quot; - 31 results&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;выйди из-под моего аккаунта&quot; - 29 results&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;выйди из-под меня&quot; - 19 results&#xD;&#xA;6. &quot;выйди из моей учетки&quot; - 9 results&#xD;&#xA;7. &quot;выйди из моего логина&quot; - 6 results&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;выйди из-под моего логина&quot; - 3 results&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;вылогинь меня&quot; - 2 results&#xD;&#xA;8. &quot;перелогинься собой&quot; - 2 results&#xD;&#xA;9. &quot;выйди из-под моего профиля&quot; - 1 result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many results seem to be requests to other users to stop using the account that does not belong to them. Also the word used for account (профиль, учетка, etc.) is dependent from the term that is used in site's user interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the аккаунт seems more preferred - the sum of &quot;выйди из моего аккаунта&quot; and &quot;выйди из-под моего аккаунта&quot; gives 93 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="526ed8c7-7d32-46c3-9ce7-9c8490c5de0c" CreationDate="2014-01-05T09:16:50.433" UserId="2244" Text="I think you are describing not a situation where one person asks another to log them out (which is what everyone answers above), but simply a &quot;Log (me) out&quot; button on a generic web site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the most common usage is &quot;Войти&quot; for &quot;Log (me) in&quot; and &quot;Выйти&quot; for &quot;Log (me) out&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="9302fd41-37eb-46a2-aa8d-779ac173c299" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:10:15.383" UserId="2269" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Both spelling are correct since they stand for at least two different parts of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverb _нахуй_  should be spelled as a solid word like as any other adverb in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may stand for ‘totally’, ‘entirely’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заебала, заткни на́хуй свое ебало! (song by ‘Evil Not Alone’ band)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or along with variant _нахуя_ for ‘why’, ‘what for’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На́хуй вы вообще приперлись? (trivial phrase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нахуя́ козе баян? (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A noun _хуй_ with preposition _на_ undoubtedly should be spelled separately regardless of what sense it used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literal sense (_хуй_ = penis):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень надел на хуй стаканчик и стал им болтать, чтобы получить звук трещетки... (random quote from google)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the positive metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и на́ хуй сесть. (proverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative metaphorical sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди на́ хуй! (very common idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be used as interjection: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я попью а, нахуй, всё, пиздец, не могу больше. (‘Зеленый слоник’ movie)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to think it should be spelled as one solid word but I can’t give any rationale now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the causes for solid misspelling, I do not think they are in stress at _на_. Stress on preposition is still quite usual in Russian: _лечь на́ пол_, _зайти за́ угол_, _взять работу на́ дом_. It most likely by analogy to directional adverbs _направо_, _налево_, _вперед_, etc. There is sense it in. However, _на хуй_ in _иди на хуй_ is considered as noun with preposition by the most of competent people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is empirical rule: if you still can separate two parts of stable phrase by adding adjective or somehow else, then they are two separate words. You definitely can describe _хуй_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди ты на большой и толстый хуй!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can even omit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди ты на большой и толстый! (really [in use](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%98%D0%B4%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%B8+%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9%22))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to describe _право_ or _лево_ in _направо_ / _налево_ and you will feel the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above is also applicable to numerous euphemisms of _хуй_: на́ фиг / на́фиг (нафига́), на́ хрен / на́хрен (нахрена́), на́ хер / на́хер (нахера́)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="174c2cc5-d85d-4e2a-be6d-df777e855344" CreationDate="2014-01-05T17:18:37.980" UserId="2330" Comment="added 405 characters in body" Text="isnt shifted. &quot;Red&quot; is &quot;beautiful&quot; (but may be &quot;painted&quot; or &quot;coloured&quot;) in old-russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Красна ягодка, красна девица, красна (not краснаЯ) площадь - &#xD;&#xA;red raspberry, red girl, red square - all is beautiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Крас-ота, крас-ивый, крас-ный, крас-ка, крас-ить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we have many means for any words. i'm not a history or filology specialist, but for my it is may 3 definitions from old years: &#xD;&#xA;1) really beautyful, &#xD;&#xA;2) really red, maybe coloured, maybe from red kremlin colour, &#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;3) unknown or lost definition of 'red' (bloods from executuon of criminals, pavement redbricks, beautiful things in the market, abundance of red clothing on the market...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="7d71e84f-7210-4497-9e72-972245717fcf" CreationDate="2014-01-06T13:32:34.143" UserId="407" Text="As programmer, I think, in order to comply with your initial sentence `Log Me Out`, the best thing to say in Russian would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Завершить сессию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, simply using `Выход` или `Выйти` also would work fine, and be the shortest but less exact (may be not always). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying `разлогиниться`, personally for me sounds nasty and I would never use it in my app." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="0dea68b4-9a46-404c-813b-e46891437fe9" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:18:29.113" UserId="2344" Text="Why can't we say &quot;I'll win&quot; in Russian using only one word for &quot;win&quot;? Of course, we can use &quot;одержу победу&quot; (any other synonyms?). Maybe in the past it was possible and then for some reason the word became archaic? &#xD;&#xA;Any info is appreciated! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="0dea68b4-9a46-404c-813b-e46891437fe9" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:18:29.113" UserId="2344" Text="Why can't we say &quot;I'll win&quot; in Russian using only one word for &quot;win&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="0dea68b4-9a46-404c-813b-e46891437fe9" CreationDate="2014-01-06T22:18:29.113" UserId="2344" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="6a950235-2653-427b-96bf-296a94ccb935" CreationDate="2014-01-06T23:42:31.063" UserId="2354" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю в этой битве&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю в этой борьбе&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю в этой игре" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="73c839e8-ae55-460a-84cb-537d8ed8dbf6" CreationDate="2014-01-06T23:49:20.393" UserId="2354" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю в этой битве&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю в этой борьбе&#xD;&#xA;    Я выиграю в этой игре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't say &quot;I'll win&quot; fom the world победить. But unexiting word &quot;победю&quot; some times used as a joke because it's sound funny for Russian ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example from the Vladimir Vysotsky song &quot;Про дикого вепря&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    А стрелок: – Да это что за награда?&#xD;&#xA;    Мне бы выкатить портвейна бадью!&#xD;&#xA;    Мол, принцессу мне и даром не надо –&#xD;&#xA;    Чуду-юду я и так победю. &#xD;&#xA;http://nvris.ucoz.ru/text/Visotski-3.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="ea8354f1-97cd-4e10-9fb2-a35d27ba8160" CreationDate="2014-01-07T00:00:27.960" UserId="2269" Text="Почему «мы не можем»? Я могу: «_Я побежу._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу_, _остужу_, _подтвержу_ и др.), но тем не менее почему-то широко не употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие часто избегают:  из того же 1 л. ед. ч. буд. времени можно вспомнить _убежу_ (от _убедить_), _отчужу_ (от _отчудить_), из наст. времени: _держу_ и _бужу_ от _дерзить_ и _бузить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что (как вы уже могли заметить) эти формы в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других слов: побежать, убежать (не литературные, но существующие или по крайней мере существовавшие), отчуждать, держать, будить соответственно.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Формы _победю_ и _побежду_ грамматически некорректны и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однословные синоним, который можно применять без перекраивания предложения: _одолею_, но это несколько возвышенный стиль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="c8720361-7f93-440a-9f3c-a4b138b26a4e" CreationDate="2014-01-07T00:05:56.077" UserId="2269" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Почему «мы не можем»? Я могу: «_Я побежу._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу_, _остужу_, _подтвержу_ и др.), но тем не менее почему-то широко не употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие часто избегают:  из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить _убежу_ (от _убедить_), _отчужу_ (от _отчудить_), из настоящего времени: _держу_ и _бужу_ от _дерзить_ и _бузить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти формы в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежать_, _убежать_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или, по крайней мере, существовавшие), _отчуждать_, _держать_, _будить_ соответственно.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Формы _победю_ и _побежду_ грамматически некорректны и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ОднословныЙ синоним, который можно применять без перекраивания предложения: _одолею_, но это несколько возвышенный стиль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="e1e92272-53fc-4cda-aea3-22489b8870c7" CreationDate="2014-01-07T00:12:42.027" UserId="2269" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Почему «мы не можем»? Я могу: «_Я побежу._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу_, _остужу_, _подтвержу_ и др.), но тем не менее почему-то широко не употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие избегают:  из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить _убежу_ (от _убедить_), _отчужу_ (от _отчудить_), из настоящего времени: _держу_ и _бужу_ от _дерзить_ и _бузить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти формы в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежать_, _убежать_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или, по крайней мере, существовавшие), _отчуждать_, _держать_, _будить_ соответственно.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Формы _победю_ и _побежду_ грамматически некорректны и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однословные синонимы: _выиграю [в чем-либо]_ и _одолею_ [кого-либо], но последнее из несколько возвышенного стиля." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="4185e56c-20aa-4389-926a-3921d62d16ce" CreationDate="2014-01-07T00:30:41.483" UserId="2269" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Почему «мы не можем»? Я могу: «_Я побежу._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу_, _остужу_, _подтвержу_ и др.), но тем не менее почему-то широко не употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие избегают:  из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить _убежу_ (от _убедить_), _отчужу_ (от _отчудить_), из настоящего времени: _держу_ и _бужу_ от _дерзить_ и _бузить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти формы в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежать_, _убежать_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или, по крайней мере, существовавшие), _отчуждать_, _держать_ и _будить_ соответственно.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Форма _победю_ грамматически некорректна и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма _побежду_ использовалась по меньшей мере в XVIII-XIX веках, в частности именно ее рекомендует Я. К. Грот в своем «Русском правописании».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однословные синонимы: _выиграю [в чем-либо]_ и _одолею [кого-либо]_, но последнее из несколько возвышенного стиля." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="768f0df4-2be7-4d1d-8a38-5181f87fac3f" CreationDate="2014-01-07T00:53:44.673" UserId="2269" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Почему «мы не можем»? Я могу: «_Я побежу._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу_, _остужу_, _подтвержу_ и др.), но тем не менее почему-то широко не употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие избегают:  из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить _убежу_ (от _убедить_), _отчужу_ (от _отчудить_), из настоящего времени: _держу_ и _бужу_ от _дерзить_ и _бузить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти формы в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежу_ от _побежать_, _убежу_ от _убежать_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или, по крайней мере, существовавшие), _отчужу_ от _отчуждать_, _держу_ от _держать_ и _бужу_ от _будить_.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Форма _победю_ грамматически некорректна и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма _побежду_ использовалась по меньшей мере в XVIII-XIX веках, в частности именно ее рекомендуют Я. К. Грот в своем «Русском правописании» (1902) и Н. И. Греч в «Пространной русской грамматике» (1827). Но это, вероятно, влияние церковнославянского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однословные синонимы: _выиграю [в чем-либо]_ и _одолею [кого-либо]_, но последнее из несколько возвышенного стиля." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="d367cdec-7b6f-457d-a895-2ba810a55229" CreationDate="2014-01-07T03:25:36.727" UserId="2354" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In addition to the `Выйди из-под меня в ...` there is a couple of the new loan words from English 'login' : `залогиниться/разлогиниться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Разлогинь меня в Фейсбуке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;залогиниться&quot; About 1,390,000 results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="b8fafe93-7c64-4f81-bd24-596297826138" CreationDate="2014-01-07T05:21:06.790" UserId="2269" Comment="added 2045 characters in body" Text="Чегой это «we can’t»? Я вот могу: «_Я побежу._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу_, _остужу_, _подтвержу_ и др.), но тем не менее по некоторым причинам широко не употребляющаяся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие избегают:  из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить, например, _убежу_ (от _убедить_), _отчужу_ (от _отчудить_), из настоящего времени: _держу_ и _бужу_ от _дерзить_ и _бузить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти слова в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежу_ от _побежать_, _убежу_ от _убежать_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или, по меньшей мере, существовавшие), _отчужу_ от _отчуждать_, _держу_ от _держать_ и _бужу_ от _будить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из неправдоподобных гипотез мне на просторах Сети встречалось утверждение, что «я побежу» было мол табуировано, чтоб не сглазить. Неправдоподобно она во-первых потому, что никак не об’ясняет трудностей c тем же _убедить_ и другими словами. А во-вторых потому, что в других родственных языках, где смешения _побежу_ / _побегу_ не было, никакого такого «табу» не возникло: по-белорусски будет _я перамагу_, по-украински _я переможу_.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Форма _победю_ грамматически некорректна и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А стрелок: — Да это что за награда? /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне бы выкатить портвейна бадью! /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мол, принцессу мне и даром не надо — /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чуду-юду я и так победю.&#xD;&#xA;[В. Высоцкий. «Про дикого вепря»]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Побежду_ же, насколько я могу понять — это корректная церковнославянская форма.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;24 И ссѣку ѿ лица єгѡ враги єгѡ, и нєнавидѧщыѧ єго побѣжду:&#xD;&#xA;[Псалом 88, Елизаветинская библия]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Откуда она проникла в русский, где эпизодически использовалась в текстах высокаго штиля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Коль любишь ты меня, пусть твой отец стремится /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Взнесенный на меня низринуть свой удар; /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ко дщери я его храня во сердце жар, /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Несправедливости его опровергая, /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умру иль побежду, Рамиду обожая.&#xD;&#xA;[Я. Княжнин. Вадим Новгородский, 1789]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я теку на брань и побежду; хощу, да по прибытии моем в Киев, когда сердца народные упоеваться будут радостию, — хощу, да первый, кто поздравит меня с победой, — будет прелестная София. &#xD;&#xA;[В. Т. Нарежный. Славенские вечера, 1809]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, сегодня Атрид победил с ясноокой Афиной; /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После и я побежду: покровители боги и с нами. &#xD;&#xA;[Илиада в переводе Н. И. Гнедича, 1809–1829]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А возможно и более широко, по крайней мере именно ее дают как единственно возможную Н. И. Греч в своей «Пространной русской грамматике» (1827) и Я. К. Грот в «Русском правописании» (1902).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Их однословных синонимов можно отметить _выиграю [в чем-либо]_ и _одолею [кого-либо]_, последнее относится к несколько возвышенному стилю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. После всего вышесказанного мне, кстати, уже как-то перестают казаться иронией  строки из «Фортуны» М. И. Цветаевой (1919):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В который раз дивлюсь /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Убожеству мужского лексикона! /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое нищенство! Люблю, убью — /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Убью — люблю… Нет, наш словарь — богаче! /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Взойду, взгляну и побежду… Взгляну — /&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И не возьму…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, действительно: здесь «побежду» серьезно что ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. P. S. Гуглопереводчик понимает _Я побежу_ таки как _I will run_, _Я победю_ как прошедшее _I won_, а _Я побежду_ почему-то как _I defeated._ :-(&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="9fb0c00a-14f3-4af5-ba0c-93260b5d6500" CreationDate="2014-01-07T06:59:44.630" UserId="2353" Comment="Spelling: 'authentication', &quot;require&quot;." Text="I would prefer the following translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из моего профиля в гуглоплюсе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for shorter translations - they will be more informal and/or slangish. Usually I hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выйди из-под меня в фейсбуке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the latter options sounds clumsy. The *account* has also many other more slangish translations: &quot;учетка&quot;, &quot;аккаунт&quot; or even &quot;акк&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@alex notes that there are two words for log in/log out: *залогиниться* and *разлогиниться*. There is also *перелогиниться* which means - log off and then log in again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Залогиниться** may be used by itself or with the name of login:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Залогинься в фейсбук. Залогинься в программу как админ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard **разлогиниться** to be used with the name of the account. It seems to be used only as &quot;log off from current account&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разлогинься в фейсбуке на всякий случай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Перелогиниться** can also be used by itself or with name of account or user role:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После изменения настроек перелогинься.  &#xD;&#xA;Перелогинься админом чтобы изменить настройки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another three options is using **зайди/выйди/перезайди**. All these options can be used with or without login or user role:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зайди админом. Выйди из-под админа. Перезайди админом.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these words are used without login/user role it may be not clear that log in or log out is required when the software or the site does not require authentication. &quot;Войди в Ворд&quot; means just &quot;open the Word application&quot;, while &quot;Войди в 1С&quot; implies &quot;Open 1C accounting system and log in&quot;, because the latter application always requires authentication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like &quot;Зайди подо мной. Выйди из-под меня. Перезайди подо мной.&quot; is derived from &quot;админ&quot; log in/log out expressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is Google search results. Estimated results (shown on the first page) are very different from ones shown on the last page. So, to obtain them I had to click on the last page of search results and sometimes click again on &quot;show all results&quot; if necessary to see skipped ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. &quot;выйди из моего профиля&quot; - 72 results&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;выйди из моего аккаунта&quot; - 64 results&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;выйди из моего акка&quot; - 37 results&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;разлогинь меня&quot; - 31 results&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;выйди из-под моего аккаунта&quot; - 29 results&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;выйди из-под меня&quot; - 19 results&#xD;&#xA;6. &quot;выйди из моей учетки&quot; - 9 results&#xD;&#xA;7. &quot;выйди из моего логина&quot; - 6 results&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;выйди из-под моего логина&quot; - 3 results&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;вылогинь меня&quot; - 2 results&#xD;&#xA;8. &quot;перелогинься собой&quot; - 2 results&#xD;&#xA;9. &quot;выйди из-под моего профиля&quot; - 1 result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many results seem to be requests to other users to stop using the account that does not belong to them. Also the word used for account (профиль, учетка, etc.) is dependent from the term that is used in site's user interface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the аккаунт seems more preferred - the sum of &quot;выйди из моего аккаунта&quot; and &quot;выйди из-под моего аккаунта&quot; gives 93 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10142" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2982" RevisionGUID="9fb0c00a-14f3-4af5-ba0c-93260b5d6500" CreationDate="2014-01-07T06:59:44.630" Comment="Proposed by 2353 approved by 1329, 551 edit id of 419" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="cae12632-64cb-4c85-9df8-1dbd51e70bac" CreationDate="2014-01-07T07:36:02.553" UserId="1647" Text="What does it means &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; ? and when I need to use it ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="cae12632-64cb-4c85-9df8-1dbd51e70bac" CreationDate="2014-01-07T07:36:02.553" UserId="1647" Text="What does it means &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="cae12632-64cb-4c85-9df8-1dbd51e70bac" CreationDate="2014-01-07T07:36:02.553" UserId="1647" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="aa12e4cd-be51-4ac1-95df-cc30a2ee35c2" CreationDate="2014-01-07T10:43:08.387" UserId="2311" Text="«State of art» is a chapter of almost every western dissertation and also is mentioned in most English language scientific papers. But how would one translate this phrase into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Online translation tools get lost and attempt verbatum translations, which completely miss the point (and begin talking about art)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10147" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="aa12e4cd-be51-4ac1-95df-cc30a2ee35c2" CreationDate="2014-01-07T10:43:08.387" UserId="2311" Text="How to translate «State of art»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10148" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="aa12e4cd-be51-4ac1-95df-cc30a2ee35c2" CreationDate="2014-01-07T10:43:08.387" UserId="2311" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2999" RevisionGUID="757802e2-5c0d-4372-8cf3-dde254735c0c" CreationDate="2014-01-07T10:47:04.433" UserId="2311" Text="It is an expletive that somebody says when something negative happens. It is not a vulgar phrase, and is somewhat of a euphemism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally the phrase can be translated as &quot;A cat from Yoshkar-Ola&quot; (in fact there is a monument to this cat in that city).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely it is used as a euphemism, because a person already starts saying &quot;Ё&quot;, which is a beginning of &quot;ёб твою мать&quot;, but then is able to change what is being said. Thus it is akin to &quot;блин&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="fd7f9a59-3aa7-4574-b0d2-0c9db3b73628" CreationDate="2014-01-07T11:50:59.090" UserId="109" Comment="fixed English" Text="What does &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; mean? And when do I use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10152" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="fd7f9a59-3aa7-4574-b0d2-0c9db3b73628" CreationDate="2014-01-07T11:50:59.090" UserId="109" Comment="fixed English" Text="What does &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10153" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="fd7f9a59-3aa7-4574-b0d2-0c9db3b73628" CreationDate="2014-01-07T11:50:59.090" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 97, 242 edit id of 420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2999" RevisionGUID="4f2bd907-1926-48b5-b464-fae3f8ef5092" CreationDate="2014-01-07T12:06:39.927" UserId="2311" Comment="clarification, more similar examples, and useage example" Text="It is an expletive that somebody says when something negative happens. It is not a vulgar phrase, and is somewhat of a euphemism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase can be literally translated as &quot;A cat from Yoshkar-Ola&quot; (in fact there is a monument to this cat in that city), but of course it is never used in this sense..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely it is used as a euphemism, because a person already starts saying &quot;Ё&quot;, which is a beginning of &quot;ёб твою мать&quot;, but then is able to change what is being said. Thus it is akin to other similar phrases like &quot;ё моё&quot;(Yo of mine) or &quot;ёлки палки&quot;(spruce and sticks)/&quot;ёлки зелёные&quot;(green spruce).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar word of this kind is &quot;блин&quot; that is used due to the first two sounds being soft Б and soft Л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use any of these you would need to find yourself in a negative situation... and you would say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ёшкин кот! Куда я засунул свои ключи?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="1da87529-4774-4b87-9dde-f7c02a056596" CreationDate="2014-01-07T12:08:21.390" UserId="2347" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Родина often means location where you born. &#xD;&#xA;Отечество means country where you born.&#xD;&#xA;Отечество also means родина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This statements is true.&#xD;&#xA;У меня на родине, в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;Отечественного производства. Made in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отчизна often used with патриотизм.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Родина (я думаю) одного корня со словом &quot;родной&quot; (близкий сердцу, родственный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Родные просторы - луга и поля." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10156" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="ada3583e-2d94-47b1-b9bf-7a16ce9b621d" CreationDate="2014-01-07T14:05:09.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/420556715554508800" />
  <row Id="10157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="4cb0facf-3aad-46d3-aa08-460d9dfd6e3c" CreationDate="2014-01-07T16:26:46.293" UserId="2311" Comment="doh, forgot 'the'" Text="«State of the art» is a chapter of almost every western dissertation and also is mentioned in most English language scientific papers. But how would one translate this phrase into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Online translation tools get lost and attempt verbatum translations, which completely miss the point (and begin talking about art)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10158" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="4cb0facf-3aad-46d3-aa08-460d9dfd6e3c" CreationDate="2014-01-07T16:26:46.293" UserId="2311" Comment="doh, forgot 'the'" Text="How to translate «State of the art»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="12ab9616-dd91-4d84-ab2a-a82183943937" CreationDate="2014-01-07T16:34:05.103" UserId="2311" Comment="Structure of MRes dissertation" Text="«State of the art» is a chapter of almost every western dissertation and also is mentioned in most English language scientific papers. But how would one translate this phrase into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Online translation tools get lost and attempt verbatum translations, which completely miss the point (and begin talking about art).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dissertation for MRes can take a following form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Introduction&#xD;&#xA; 2. Literature review / State of the art (depending on what you are describing more)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Problem / Aims and objectives (depending on your wording, etc)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Work done&#xD;&#xA; 5. Findings&#xD;&#xA; 6. Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like 'Future research' can be a part of conclusion or be a section before it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using a submitted and accepted dissertation of mine as a reference for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3001" RevisionGUID="990a5eb5-5905-458f-a8b7-157d0c771aa2" CreationDate="2014-01-07T17:50:26.103" UserId="2269" Text="In Russian it’s called _состояние вопроса_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="e685187f-2fb8-418d-b7a8-0e3f4f3111aa" CreationDate="2014-01-08T01:45:03.480" UserId="298" Text="As a native speaker, I would mainly use the work `пахать` in this sense.  &#xD;&#xA;The other option would be `вкалывать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Въебывать` sounds quite obscene to me. I doubt if I used it at all in my speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about a student, you may use the modern verb `ботать`. But it is rather colloquial and applicable to to people who study more like doing a burden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="f8c5125a-ecce-4895-bc49-ec3fd5040e8a" CreationDate="2014-01-08T01:50:21.063" UserId="298" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="As a native speaker, I would mainly use the work `пахать` in this sense.  &#xD;&#xA;Current Russian president used this verb to describe his activity in this role:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpylRAHnpn0  &#xD;&#xA;`пахать` is a good verb to express hard exhausting work.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The other option would be `вкалывать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Въебывать` sounds quite obscene to me. I doubt if I used it at all in my speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about a student, you may use the modern verb `ботать`. But it is rather colloquial and applicable to to people who study more like doing a burden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="6b98d9a0-df52-4635-af05-cf7a17a72480" CreationDate="2014-01-08T06:31:09.543" UserId="1177" Comment="Added a resource" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][1] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][6] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10166" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="aabb8620-2f45-466c-9ac6-435b162d4a45" CreationDate="2014-01-08T11:25:05.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/420878822415040513" />
  <row Id="10167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="0f88add3-0a9b-48d9-869b-3dc599e4452b" CreationDate="2014-01-09T05:25:05.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/421150615373619200" />
  <row Id="10168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="c0a52620-5aa5-480a-88eb-b0e6835598ce" CreationDate="2014-01-09T08:04:59.017" UserId="2373" Text="I tried to find closest word in English which means same as russian &quot;понт&quot; (not a geographical term, but a noun to &quot;show off&quot;), but failed. Is there any?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="c0a52620-5aa5-480a-88eb-b0e6835598ce" CreationDate="2014-01-09T08:04:59.017" UserId="2373" Text="What is the closest word in English for &quot;понт&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="c0a52620-5aa5-480a-88eb-b0e6835598ce" CreationDate="2014-01-09T08:04:59.017" UserId="2373" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="a882d848-2650-4384-bee9-dac94c52d261" CreationDate="2014-01-09T08:25:22.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/421195984040120321" />
  <row Id="10174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="b0a32b0f-7581-48be-9a34-8fa688de49be" CreationDate="2014-01-09T12:58:56.917" UserId="298" Comment="edited body" Text="As a native speaker, I would mainly use the word `пахать` in this sense.  &#xD;&#xA;Current Russian president used this verb to describe his activity in this role:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpylRAHnpn0  &#xD;&#xA;`пахать` is a good verb to express hard exhausting work.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The other option would be `вкалывать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Въебывать` sounds quite obscene to me. I doubt if I used it at all in my speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about a student, you may use the modern verb `ботать`. But it is rather colloquial and applicable to to people who study more like doing a burden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="d6a3877c-1cdd-40ff-baf2-c37dc17c5ee8" CreationDate="2014-01-09T15:40:04.543" UserId="2207" Text="It is a copy of [my answer][1] at http://english.stackexchange.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some variants: bluff, flossing, airs, grandstanding, peacockery, lugs. Bells and whistles, dress-off (for russian word &quot;понты&quot; which has a slightly different meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/145252/61716" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10176" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="036a70c7-502a-4a52-a96a-cacede297eb8" CreationDate="2014-01-09T15:47:37.837" UserId="2207" Comment="Tag adding." Text="|перевод|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10177" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="036a70c7-502a-4a52-a96a-cacede297eb8" CreationDate="2014-01-09T15:47:37.837" Comment="Proposed by 2207 approved by 97, 551 edit id of 422" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10178" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="eba02072-8485-49db-9b90-135022a305ae" CreationDate="2014-01-09T18:24:07.807" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="4069367f-6c78-4ed9-a8b9-726e62cf2271" CreationDate="2014-01-09T18:56:47.930" UserId="88" Text="The Collins Dictionary says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; science, etc, esp at present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd use something from the list below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по последнему слову (техники)&#xD;&#xA; - последние (новейщие) достижения (медицины)&#xD;&#xA; - новейшие течения (в литературе)&#xD;&#xA; - последний писк (моды)&#xD;&#xA; - передовые (результаты ч-л)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10180" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="1ddead17-e74c-45fa-a4f1-e97e10806538" CreationDate="2014-01-09T20:31:57.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/421378834509086720" />
  <row Id="10181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3007" RevisionGUID="d617101d-5381-47f7-a6b3-8dec31bb7e15" CreationDate="2014-01-09T21:27:59.380" UserId="2344" Text="As @Askar Kalykov mentioned in a comment, it could be related to &quot;Баба Яга&quot;. The following link seems to confirm this version:  &#xD;&#xA;http://nashi-koshi.ru/kto-takoy-yoshkin-kot/  &#xD;&#xA;I think, it should be rather &quot;ежкин кот&quot; (Ezhkin-kot) if it is a derivative from &quot;Баба Яга&quot;. But &quot;zh&quot; of course could become &quot;sh&quot; at some point.  &#xD;&#xA;(Sorry I put it as an answer instead of a comment: 1. I can't comment due to lack of reputation; and 2. When I first saw this question, the first thing which came to my mind was &quot;it must be ezhkin&quot;, and now after Askar Kalykov comment it looks plausible).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="4fb8bb1a-413c-4709-81cf-bb0abae560ae" CreationDate="2014-01-10T14:40:57.277" UserId="88" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The Collins Dictionary says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; science, etc, esp at present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd use something from the list below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по последнему слову (техники)&#xD;&#xA; - последние (новейщие) достижения (медицины)&#xD;&#xA; - новейшие течения (в литературе)&#xD;&#xA; - последний писк (моды)&#xD;&#xA; - передовые (результаты ч-л)&#xD;&#xA; - на гребне волны&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="9b938ed5-3867-4298-9285-3679999d21c4" CreationDate="2014-01-10T16:03:41.057" UserId="551" Comment="щ-&gt;ш" Text="The Collins Dictionary says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the level of knowledge and development achieved in a technique,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; science, etc, esp at present&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd use something from the list below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по последнему слову (техники)&#xD;&#xA; - последние (новейшие) достижения (медицины)&#xD;&#xA; - новейшие течения (в литературе)&#xD;&#xA; - последний писк (моды)&#xD;&#xA; - передовые (результаты ч-л)&#xD;&#xA; - на гребне волны" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="c3303f49-c951-49fd-b373-785afad77078" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:24:01.523" UserId="185" Text="I am quite surprised not to find the option &quot;корпеть&quot;, which came first to my mind. It means a long tedious work which requires attention and often writing, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он всю ночь корпел над статьей (= писал статью)&#xD;&#xA;Хватит корпеть над декорациями, они и так хорошо вышли (= хватит рисовать и расставлять декорации)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="df25664a-ffce-4e34-bf24-61bd48a07e43" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:34:22.253" UserId="185" Text="Как можно объяснить иностранному студенту, для каких прилагательных надо использовать суффикс -ов-, а в каких случаях суффикс -н-?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, есть прилагательные &quot;ябочный&quot;, &quot;молочный&quot; и &quot;тучный&quot;, но нет прилагательные &quot;яблоковый&quot;, &quot;молоковый&quot; и &quot;туковый&quot;. С другой стороны, есть прилагательные &quot;сливовый&quot;, и никто не говорит &quot;сливный (сок)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала, что это как-то связано с конечной согласной корня, например, прилагательные, образованный от слов на -к-, образуются с суффиксом -н-. Но такие слова как &quot;замковый&quot; и &quot;замочный&quot;, &quot;паровой&quot; и &quot;парный&quot; на не согласуются с этим правилом. Может, так целая система правил?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="df25664a-ffce-4e34-bf24-61bd48a07e43" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:34:22.253" UserId="185" Text="Как образовывать прилагательные с суффиксами -н- и -ов-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="df25664a-ffce-4e34-bf24-61bd48a07e43" CreationDate="2014-01-10T20:34:22.253" UserId="185" Text="|прилагательные|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="969af826-1d8a-4dc6-9595-4004b3ab9fe5" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:00:28.430" UserId="551" Comment="Подправил пару слов" Text="Как можно объяснить иностранному студенту, для каких прилагательных надо использовать суффикс -ов-, а в каких случаях суффикс -н-?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, есть прилагательные &quot;яблочный&quot;, &quot;молочный&quot; и &quot;тучный&quot;, но нет прилагательных &quot;яблоковый&quot;, &quot;молоковый&quot; и &quot;туковый&quot;. С другой стороны, есть прилагательные &quot;сливовый&quot;, и никто не говорит &quot;сливный (сок)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала, что это как-то связано с конечной согласной корня, например, прилагательные, образованный от слов на -к-, образуются с суффиксом -н-. Но такие слова как &quot;замковый&quot; и &quot;замочный&quot;, &quot;паровой&quot; и &quot;парный&quot; на не согласуются с этим правилом. Может, есть целая система правил?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3010" RevisionGUID="62b8823e-1c05-4d09-a404-a1df41feee02" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:07:48.063" UserId="1236" Text="Извините, но прилагательное _туковый_ [существует](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/256408/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9). От одного и того же корня часто образуются оба прилагательные, и с `-ов-`, и с `-н-`, оба слова в таких парах, как правило, выступают с разными значениями или с разными оттенками значения. Примеров предостаточно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стенный - стенной - стеновой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]польный - половой &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; стольный - столовый - столовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кружный - кружной - круговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; плужный - плуговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; сердечный - сердцевой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]домный - домовый - домовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; конный - коневой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; передний - передовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ладный - ладовый&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снежный - снеговой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И так далее, и тому подобное. Боюсь, что единого правила тут не существует. Единственное что можно заметить в таких парах, это то, что слова с `-н-` имеют более конкретный, материальный смысл, в то время как слова с `-ов-` - более абстрактный, отвлечённый. Но даже это выполняется далеко не всегда.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="ae68ff89-1ece-43f6-82d6-e59df8d728de" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:09:42.920" UserId="551" Text="Думаю что здесь играет роль традиция словоупотребления. Например &quot;замковый&quot; - относящийся к зАмку (строению), а &quot;замочный&quot; - относящийся к замкУ (запорному механизму). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Молоковый может быть от слова &quot;молоки&quot; (рыбные внутренности), &quot;туковый&quot; похож на &quot;тутовый (шелкопряд)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сливный&quot; скорее происходит от слова &quot;слив&quot;, т.е. синоним слова &quot;сточный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в свое время был удивлен выражением &quot;помидоровый сок&quot;, оказывается так тоже говорят. Так что может быть что где-то образуют прилагательные говорят и не по правилам. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3010" RevisionGUID="a34ea00f-fbe1-4874-9ec9-c3bff6a93bcd" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:13:08.547" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Извините, но прилагательное _туковый_ [существует](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/256408/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9). От одного и того же корня часто образуются оба прилагательные, и с `-в-`, и с `-н-`, оба слова в таких парах, как правило, выступают с разными значениями или с разными оттенками значения. Примеров предостаточно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стенный - стенной - стеновой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]польный - половой &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; стольный - столовый - столовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кружный - кружной - круговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; плужный - плуговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; сердечный - сердцевой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]домный - домовый - домовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; конный - коневой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; передний - передовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ладный - ладовый&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снежный - снеговой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И так далее, и тому подобное. Боюсь, что единого правила тут не существует. Единственное что можно заметить в таких парах, это то, что слова с `-н-` имеют более конкретный, материальный смысл, в то время как слова с `-в-` - более абстрактный, отвлечённый. Но даже это выполняется далеко не всегда.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="14edef5d-0fc7-4bf4-bc49-a89656c57e20" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:17:59.340" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Как можно объяснить иностранному студенту, для каких прилагательных надо использовать суффикс -ов-/-ев-, а в каких случаях суффикс -н-?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, есть прилагательные &quot;яблочный&quot;, &quot;молочный&quot; и &quot;тучный&quot;, но нет прилагательных &quot;яблоковый&quot;, &quot;молоковый&quot; и &quot;туковый&quot;. С другой стороны, есть прилагательные &quot;сливовый&quot;, и никто не говорит &quot;сливный (сок)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думала, что это как-то связано с конечной согласной корня, например, прилагательные, образованный от слов на -к-, образуются с суффиксом -н-. Но такие слова как &quot;замковый&quot; и &quot;замочный&quot;, &quot;паровой&quot; и &quot;парный&quot; не согласуются с этим правилом. Может, есть целая система правил?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3010" RevisionGUID="9c80a1b6-a623-4984-9e4c-a7f2fd109621" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:18:59.440" UserId="1236" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Извините, но прилагательное _туковый_ [существует](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/256408/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9). От одного и того же корня часто образуются оба прилагательные, и с `-ов-/-ев-`, и с `-н-`, оба слова в таких парах, как правило, выступают с разными значениями или с разными оттенками значения. Примеров предостаточно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стенный - стенной - стеновой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]польный - половой &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; стольный - столовый - столовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кружный - кружной - круговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; плужный - плуговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; сердечный - сердцевой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]домный - домовый - домовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; конный - коневой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; передний - передовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ладный - ладовый&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снежный - снеговой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И так далее, и тому подобное. Боюсь, что единого правила тут не существует. Единственное что можно заметить в таких парах, это то, что слова с `-н-` имеют более конкретный, материальный смысл, в то время как слова с `-ов-/-ев-` - более абстрактный, отвлечённый. Но даже это выполняется далеко не всегда.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="f3a9c5a1-9659-4edd-afa6-14b6bbe8d1ef" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:19:25.363" UserId="551" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Думаю что здесь играет роль традиция словоупотребления. Например &quot;замковый&quot; - относящийся к зАмку (строению), а &quot;замочный&quot; - относящийся к замкУ (запорному механизму). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Молоковый может быть от слова &quot;молоки&quot; (рыбные внутренности). &quot;Туковый&quot; похож на &quot;тутовый (шелкопряд)&quot;. Кстати я бы предложил в пару к &quot;тучному&quot; слово &quot;тучевый&quot; или &quot;тучевой&quot; (от слова &quot;туча&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сливный&quot; скорее происходит от слова &quot;слив&quot;, т.е. синоним слова &quot;сточный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в свое время был удивлен выражением &quot;помидоровый сок&quot;, оказывается так тоже говорят. Так что может быть что где-то образуют прилагательные непривычным образом. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3012" RevisionGUID="b2747e55-116f-4082-be64-6ef356b76ae4" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:28:08.463" UserId="1934" Text="I think what is meant is that you connected to something using your name and password and now someone else wants to use the computer but your session is still open. In this case, I usually say either &quot;Выйди из моего эккаунта&quot; or &quot;Закрой мой эккаунт&quot; (&quot;account&quot; is almost a Russian word nowadays), depending upon whether he is going to use the same/related application or an independent/different one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the computer terminology is russified English anyway, so no matter how hard you try,&#xD;&#xA;you can choose only between the years the words became common and the degrees of their russification, not between a slavic root and a roman root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3010" RevisionGUID="a9516607-fd8a-44f8-8c0f-ec3308a38ea3" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:35:31.993" UserId="1236" Comment="addition" Text="Извините, но прилагательное [_туковый_](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/256408/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9) существует, также существует и [_сливный_][1] (сок), хотя оно отмечено в словарях как устаревшее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;От одного и того же корня часто образуются оба прилагательные, и с `-ов-/-ев-`, и с `-н-`, оба слова в таких парах, как правило, выступают с разными значениями или с разными оттенками значения. Примеров предостаточно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стенный - стенной - стеновой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]польный - половой &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; стольный - столовый - столовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кружный - кружной - круговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; плужный - плуговой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; сердечный - сердцевой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [на]домный - домовый - домовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; конный - коневой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; передний - передовой&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ладный - ладовый&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снежный - снеговой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И так далее, и тому подобное. Боюсь, что единого правила тут не существует. Единственное что можно заметить в таких парах, это то, что слова с `-н-` имеют более конкретный, материальный смысл, в то время как слова с `-ов-/-ев-` - более абстрактный, отвлечённый. Но даже это выполняется далеко не всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?stype=undefined&amp;SWord=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="00d1a114-0f75-475a-86e0-95a4d9c90e3f" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:38:57.660" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body" Text="Думаю что здесь играет роль традиция словоупотребления. Например &quot;замковый&quot; - относящийся к зАмку (строению), а &quot;замочный&quot; - относящийся к замкУ (запорному механизму). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Молоковый может быть от слова &quot;молоки&quot; (рыбные внутренности).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сливный&quot; скорее происходит от слова &quot;слив&quot;, т.е. синоним слова &quot;сточный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в свое время был удивлен выражением &quot;помидоровый сок&quot;, оказывается так тоже говорят. Так что может быть что где-то образуют прилагательные непривычным образом. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="e2cf366a-f662-467f-b18d-04237cd28f79" CreationDate="2014-01-10T21:49:12.290" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body" Text="Думаю что здесь играет роль традиция словоупотребления, а также тот факт, что из пары возможных слов с разными суффиксами одно имеет неудачное или неуместное созвучие с другим существующим прилагательным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например &quot;замковый&quot; - относящийся к зАмку (строению), а &quot;замочный&quot; - относящийся к замкУ (запорному механизму). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Молоковый может быть от слова &quot;молоки&quot; (рыбные внутренности).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сливный&quot; скорее происходит от слова &quot;слив&quot;, т.е. синоним слова &quot;сточный&quot;. (Кстати, в свое время был удивлен выражением &quot;помидоровый сок&quot;, оказывается так тоже говорят, хотя я бы употребил &quot;помидорный&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того некоторые слова из пары могут иметь &quot;плохую славу&quot;. Так например из пары слов волнующий/волнительный второе считается &quot;плохим&quot; и уже мало кто помнит почему. Оказывается в начале ХХ века второе слово было введено известным театральным режиссером для обозначения особого оттенка вызванного волнения. Со временем из актерского термина оно стало ассоциироваться с наигранностью, &quot;мелкостью чувств&quot; и т.д. и т.п. Происхождение слова забылось, а плохое отношение к нему осталось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="27bff29f-fc39-4d0e-9886-e26f2b041574" CreationDate="2014-01-10T22:25:48.230" UserId="551" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="Думаю что здесь играет роль традиция словоупотребления, а также тот факт, что из пары возможных слов с разными суффиксами одно имеет неудачное или неуместное созвучие с другим существующим прилагательным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например &quot;замковый&quot; - относящийся к зАмку (строению), а &quot;замочный&quot; - относящийся к замкУ (запорному механизму). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Молоковый может быть от слова &quot;молоки&quot; (рыбные внутренности).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сливный&quot; скорее происходит от слова &quot;слив&quot;, т.е. синоним слова &quot;сточный&quot;. (Кстати, в свое время был удивлен выражением &quot;помидоровый сок&quot;, оказывается так тоже говорят, хотя я бы употребил &quot;помидорный&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того некоторые слова из пары могут иметь &quot;плохую славу&quot;. Так например из пары слов волнующий/волнительный второе считается &quot;плохим&quot; и уже мало кто помнит почему. Оказывается в конце XIX - начале ХХ века &quot;волнительный&quot; начал использовать Станиславский  для обозначения особого оттенка волнения. Оно проникло в актерский жаргон и со временем приобрело оттенок жеманства. Происхождение слова забылось, а плохое отношение к нему осталось до сих пор (хотя когда-то его употреблял Толстой). В то же время из пары трогающий/трогательный сегодня используется второе, а &quot;трогающий&quot; уже практически не используется (об этом [рассказывает Ирина Левонтина](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7wdgtPB8Tk&amp;noredirect=1#t=920))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10200" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="68eed29e-4ea6-4b94-9e41-762423bfadf1" CreationDate="2014-01-10T23:37:47.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/421787987723444224" />
  <row Id="10201" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="b908eddb-3aae-4653-b3e5-cd27a16716ca" CreationDate="2014-01-11T11:04:21.043" UserId="2207" Comment="Tag adding." Text="|прилагательные|морфология|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10202" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="b908eddb-3aae-4653-b3e5-cd27a16716ca" CreationDate="2014-01-11T11:04:21.043" Comment="Proposed by 2207 approved by 242 edit id of 423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10203" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="2a596999-cea0-41fc-b322-5b3fd06ec37a" CreationDate="2014-01-11T11:42:08.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/421970278991007744" />
  <row Id="10204" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="104b8afa-f365-4c16-9b82-15e7bcd1f238" CreationDate="2014-01-11T14:42:11.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/422015588148719616" />
  <row Id="10208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1905" RevisionGUID="3258b0d4-15bb-464d-a790-eb6cf69d48f5" CreationDate="2014-01-11T17:14:25.607" UserId="1329" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I am studying CS in the Czech Republic and recently have noticed that when I talk to Russian programmers, I tend to mispronounce widely known words (famous site names,abbreviations, language names). &#xD;&#xA;So I would be grateful to anyone who could provide me with a relatively long list of phonetical conventions in Russian IT diaspora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  https://github.com - **[г'итхуп]** or **[г'ифап]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  PHP - **[пэхапэ]** or **[п'иэй'ч'п'и]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  Java - **[джава]** or **[й'ава]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  C  - **[c'и]** or **[цэ]**?&#xD;&#xA; -  Bash - **[бэш]**  or **[баш]**&#xD;&#xA; -  VHDL  - **[вэхадээл]** or  **[в'иэй'ч'д'иэл']**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="b8713f4c-2b08-40ba-90e7-a6e8fbb9dd5b" CreationDate="2014-01-12T04:19:03.933" UserId="2386" Text="Volodya provided you an accurate translation, and TT_ gave some additional background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's worth noting that &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; (as well as &quot;ёлки-палки&quot;, &quot;ёлки-зелёные&quot;, &quot;ёлки-моталки&quot; etc.) is much different from euphemisms like &quot;блин&quot;, &quot;твою ж налево&quot;, &quot;бляха-муха&quot;, and I would like to point out when you should **not** use &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot;, and when you can hear it from native-speakers, as an answer to the &quot;when do I use it?&quot; part of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. As most other euphemisms, do not use &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; in any formal context. It is an extremely casual phrase, and could be considered as a strong evidence of your immaturity and unprofessionalism when used inappropriately.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Most importantly, &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot;, is used in a **strictly humorous context**, where the joke is often the fact that you used this phrase. It is inherently humorous, whereas &quot;блин&quot; (euphemism of &quot;блять&quot;), &quot;твою ж налево&quot; (euphemism of &quot;твою мать&quot;) or &quot;бляха-муха&quot; (same as &quot;блин&quot;) are commonly used without humorous intentions. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ёшкин-кот&quot; is not likely to be heard as a strong emotional exclamation in a serious conversation. Especially it would be uncommon to hear it being stressed. To put it into context, if a person in a hospital receives news of a serious illness and exclaims loudly: &quot;Ёшкин-кот!&quot;, people around might get confused, some might be even tempted to giggle, even when it would be inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; is not commonly used, so do not overuse it and stick to humorous situations rather than a way to express your emotions seriously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3019" RevisionGUID="fafab978-991b-4665-927e-0dbd906dbc92" CreationDate="2014-01-12T17:54:31.527" UserId="2388" Text="Радиус-вектор is a vector, which is a radius, while for the single-row / single-column matrix it is the other way round. The primary concept is that of a row or a column, and being a vector is a secondary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, I would assume that радиус-вектор is an old compound, which was directly copied from, say, German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortsvektor . This is true of so many scientific terms! English wasn't an influential language of science (and in general) in Russia until 20th century. That's why so many words familiar to the English speaker look strange or have queer stress in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вектор-строка&quot; and &quot;вектор-столбец&quot; look to my eye like native-coined terms. We did not use them at all, mostly just referring to the rows and columns as &quot;строка&quot; as &quot;столбец&quot;. In German they are Spaltenvektor and Zeilenvektor, so the words were definitely not borrowed as-is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="cfd88c8e-8c49-4b4a-9fde-1dacfda40538" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:51:13.520" UserId="185" Comment="I have separated the question from its title and formatted the post according to the standards of this site." Text="Помогите перевести &quot;Bit-Plane Decoder&quot; а этом предложении:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The compressor consists of two functional parts, depicted in figure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2-1, a Discrete Wavelet Transform module that performs decorrelation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in section 3, and a Bit-Plane Encoder which encodes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decorrelated data, described in section 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Контекст можно посмотреть [здесь][1], мое предложение находится в конце страницы 2-1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Последнее слово (&quot;Encoder&quot;) для меня понятно - это кодирующее устройство. А вот &quot;Bit-Plane&quot; для меня не ясно. Спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/122x0b1c3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10224" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="cfd88c8e-8c49-4b4a-9fde-1dacfda40538" CreationDate="2014-01-12T19:51:13.520" UserId="185" Comment="I have separated the question from its title and formatted the post according to the standards of this site." Text="Перевод Bit-Plane Encoder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="d50b7688-d5a9-40b0-8564-cfdafa1c3481" CreationDate="2014-01-12T20:35:08.750" UserId="2386" Comment="deleted 167 characters in body" Text="Volodya provided you an accurate translation, and TT_ gave some additional background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's worth noting that &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; (as well as &quot;ёлки-палки&quot;, &quot;ёлки-зелёные&quot;, &quot;ёлки-моталки&quot; etc.) is much different from euphemisms like &quot;блин&quot;, &quot;твою ж налево&quot;, &quot;бляха-муха&quot;, and I would like to point out when you should **not** use &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot;, and when you can hear it from native-speakers, as an answer to the &quot;when do I use it?&quot; part of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. As most other euphemisms, do not use &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; in any formal context. It is an extremely casual phrase, and could be considered as a strong evidence of your immaturity and unprofessionalism when used inappropriately.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Ёшкин-кот&quot;, is used predominantly in a **humorous context**, where the joke is often the fact that you used this phrase. It is inherently humorous, whereas &quot;блин&quot; (euphemism of &quot;блять&quot;), &quot;твою ж налево&quot; (euphemism of &quot;твою мать&quot;) or &quot;бляха-муха&quot; (same as &quot;блин&quot;) are commonly used without humorous intentions. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ёшкин-кот&quot; is not likely to be heard as a strong emotional exclamation in a serious conversation. Especially it would be uncommon to hear it being stressed. To put it into context, if a person in a hospital receives news of a serious illness and exclaims loudly: &quot;Ёшкин-кот!&quot;, people around might get confused, some might be even tempted to giggle, even when it would be inappropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="ffb3a0b2-9f69-4d73-846b-e952497aec08" CreationDate="2014-01-12T20:48:38.243" UserId="2386" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="Volodya provided you an accurate translation, and TT_ gave some additional background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's worth noting that &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; (as well as &quot;ёлки-палки&quot;, &quot;ёлки-зелёные&quot;, &quot;ёлки-моталки&quot; etc.) is much different from euphemisms like &quot;блин&quot;, &quot;твою ж налево&quot;, &quot;бляха-муха&quot;, and I would like to point out when you should **not** use &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot;, and when you can hear it from native-speakers, as an answer to the &quot;when do I use it?&quot; part of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. As most other euphemisms, do not use &quot;ёшкин-кот&quot; in any formal context. It is a casual phrase, and could be considered as an evidence of your immaturity and unprofessionalism when used inappropriately.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Ёшкин-кот&quot;, is used predominantly in a **humorous context**, where the joke is often the fact that you used this phrase. It is inherently humorous, whereas &quot;блин&quot; (euphemism of &quot;блять&quot;), &quot;твою ж налево&quot; (euphemism of &quot;твою мать&quot;) or &quot;бляха-муха&quot; (same as &quot;блин&quot;) are commonly used without humorous intentions. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ёшкин-кот&quot; is not likely to be heard as a strong emotional exclamation in a serious conversation. Especially it would be uncommon to hear it being stressed. To put it into context, if a person in a hospital receives news of a serious illness and exclaims loudly: &quot;Ёшкин-кот!&quot;, people around might get confused, some might be even tempted to giggle, even when it would be inappropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="4131aa5c-8b2d-4d8d-b4b9-96fbd500a2ee" CreationDate="2014-01-12T21:32:01.410" UserId="97" Text="Почему _баю-бай_, _баюшки_, _басиньки_ и т. д. в русском языке ассоциируются со сном? Эти слова и другие, образованные от них, встречаются практически во всех колыбельных. Интересно, чем это вызвано и с каких времен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are words _баю-бай_, _баюшки_, _басиньки_ etc. in Russian language associated with sleep?  These words and other similar ones are used in pretty much all lullabies.  I wonder why it is so and since when." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="4131aa5c-8b2d-4d8d-b4b9-96fbd500a2ee" CreationDate="2014-01-12T21:32:01.410" UserId="97" Text="Почему &quot;баю-бай&quot; итд? / Why &quot;баю-бай&quot; etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="4131aa5c-8b2d-4d8d-b4b9-96fbd500a2ee" CreationDate="2014-01-12T21:32:01.410" UserId="97" Text="|этимология|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3021" RevisionGUID="b9a146b0-6ad6-4caa-9adc-903997fa9af0" CreationDate="2014-01-12T22:27:30.407" UserId="2390" Text="Most of the answers go beyond the scope of the question.  The OP wanted to know what it meant and when to use it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start with part 2.  You should probably never use it.  It's a silly, archaic, and mostly regional expression and will not add to your proficiency in the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the meaning, the ё definitely puts the expression in the &quot;almost profane&quot; category, since it's using the first letter of a profane root.  As to whether the origins are in Йошка-Ола or Баба-ёжка, no one will probably ever tell with confidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="29e4e075-129c-4382-8f68-ac05521c6a7b" CreationDate="2014-01-12T22:38:43.813" UserId="242" Text="First of all, let me notice that questions in form &quot;Why this specific word is associated with this specific concept&quot; are not that good. Why in Russian &quot;хрю&quot; is associated with that what is described in English with &quot;oink&quot;? Why in vulgar Latin &quot;caballus&quot; had overtaken the usage of &quot;equus&quot;? As to me, those are a bit broader than a valuable question can contain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about &quot;баю-бай&quot;. It is closely related to russian word &quot;байка&quot;, both this words are derivatives from the verb &quot;[баять][1]&quot; - which can be translated as (among other things) like &quot;to cast a spell&quot;. The same very root can be met in &quot;обаяние&quot; (charm) and &quot;басня&quot; (fable). Moreover, fable is actually related tо &quot;баять&quot; от PIE level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;басиньки&quot; - I guess it's way to mimic childish speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="a6bf74fd-708d-475c-a7b6-2fd9490c00c9" CreationDate="2014-01-12T22:59:54.117" UserId="551" Comment="Везде &quot;энкодер&quot; а тут вдруг &quot;декодер&quot;" Text="Помогите перевести &quot;Bit-Plane Encoder&quot; в этом предложении:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The compressor consists of two functional parts, depicted in figure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2-1, a Discrete Wavelet Transform module that performs decorrelation,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described in section 3, and a Bit-Plane Encoder which encodes the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decorrelated data, described in section 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Контекст можно посмотреть [здесь][1], мое предложение находится в конце страницы 2-1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Последнее слово (&quot;Encoder&quot;) для меня понятно - это кодирующее устройство. А вот &quot;Bit-Plane&quot; для меня не ясно. Спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/122x0b1c3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="160aea24-51b2-4b08-8a2e-01fe2eb18f96" CreationDate="2014-01-13T00:20:39.430" UserId="313" Text="I always get tripped up trying to say simple things like these in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I like listening to you speak.&#xD;&#xA; - I like watching you work.&#xD;&#xA; - I'd like to watch you play a videogame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually start to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я люблю слушать...*(неловкая пауза)*...когда/пока ты говоришь.&#xD;&#xA; - Я люблю смотреть когда ты работаешь.&#xD;&#xA; - Я хотел бы смотреть... *(совсем не знаю!)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These always sounds very awkward and incorrect to me. Is there an alternative, simple and informal construction that might help me avoid getting stuck like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="160aea24-51b2-4b08-8a2e-01fe2eb18f96" CreationDate="2014-01-13T00:20:39.430" UserId="313" Text="How do you say &quot;Listen to you play&quot; or &quot;Watch you work&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="160aea24-51b2-4b08-8a2e-01fe2eb18f96" CreationDate="2014-01-13T00:20:39.430" UserId="313" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3024" RevisionGUID="36bf8fd8-2ce8-48a2-a8c0-581d7380f042" CreationDate="2014-01-13T00:57:29.987" UserId="2273" Text="Универсальное слово &quot;как&quot; подойдет сюда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я люблю слушать как ты говоришь.&#xD;&#xA;    Я люблю смотреть как ты работаешь.&#xD;&#xA;    Я бы посмотрел как ты играешь в игры&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3024" RevisionGUID="20ead5b4-36aa-4b97-8056-d27539350ad3" CreationDate="2014-01-13T01:07:38.303" UserId="2273" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Универсальное слово &quot;как&quot; подойдет сюда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я люблю слушать, как ты говоришь.&#xD;&#xA;    Я люблю смотреть, как ты работаешь.&#xD;&#xA;    Я бы посмотрел, как ты играешь в игры&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="217fc14d-b56b-4bfd-8a9c-0f82e6792355" CreationDate="2014-01-13T03:09:59.220" UserId="194" Text="I wonder whether the following suffixes in fact the Latin borrowings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-арь- as in вратарь, писарь, мытарь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-аль- as in брутальный, паяльный, читальный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="217fc14d-b56b-4bfd-8a9c-0f82e6792355" CreationDate="2014-01-13T03:09:59.220" UserId="194" Text="Was it common for Russian to borrow Lating suffixes at the early age?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="217fc14d-b56b-4bfd-8a9c-0f82e6792355" CreationDate="2014-01-13T03:09:59.220" UserId="194" Text="|морфология|заимствования|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3026" RevisionGUID="30a1a376-82a1-45a6-a1a2-b6cba0073b56" CreationDate="2014-01-13T03:49:50.613" UserId="2383" Text="Despite that Vasmer in fact ignores the words with “-арь” suffix, the comparison of terms having that suffix drops hints about it‘s latin roots: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ārius *m* (*f.* -āria, *n.* -ārium)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: псарь, свинарь, виноградарь, ключарь, чеботарь, ложкарь, штукарь, плугарь, пушкарь, косарь, кобзарь, библиотекарь, аптекарь, почтарь, корчмарь, волгарь (and it‘s derivative «болгар[ин]»), главарь, бунтарь, пескарь, словарь, букварь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The etymology of “-аль” is more vague. In “дуальный” and “натуральный” it’s definitely derived from Latin “duālis”/“nātūrālis”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ālis *m*, *f* (*n.* -āle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is as well “москаль”, which looks like awry “москарь”. And there are “планетарный”, “легендарный” etc which have no affiliation with humans (as proper “-arius“ do.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since “р” and “л” sound quite similar, I would suggest that both those suffices are originated to their latin analogues, but nowadays some of they migrate from one to another according to common rules of russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="42887c85-b497-468f-adec-4b0cd4eeca35" CreationDate="2014-01-13T04:12:33.513" UserId="2383" Text="Is there any common rule of when to append the “о” vowel to “к” preposition in front of words starting with “в”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays almost nobody says e.g. “ко врачу,” it sounds quite archaic. I hear a slight semantic difference in intentions gravity, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Этот отчет должен быть готов **ко** вторнику. &#xD;&#xA;* Вечер понедельника удался, и **к** вторнику я оказался не готов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“не готов ко вторнику” here was nearly “have not completed some task until Tuesday,” while “не готов к вторнику” states for “did not consider that Tuesday comes so suddenly.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these the alien voices in my head or the meaning really differs?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="42887c85-b497-468f-adec-4b0cd4eeca35" CreationDate="2014-01-13T04:12:33.513" UserId="2383" Text="“к” vs “ко” preposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="42887c85-b497-468f-adec-4b0cd4eeca35" CreationDate="2014-01-13T04:12:33.513" UserId="2383" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10245" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="f770f7a4-cb62-4315-9fee-273efb5b8c0e" CreationDate="2014-01-13T05:54:49.953" UserId="194" Comment="edited title" Text="Was it common for Russian to borrow Latin suffixes at the early age?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3028" RevisionGUID="89c1b70b-b6fa-41ba-837a-b55736794f79" CreationDate="2014-01-13T06:45:40.537" UserId="1769" Text="Если верить [этой][1] статье, то `Bit-Plane` соответствует определению `битовая плоскость`. Так что корректным переводом станет `кодировщик битовых плоскостей`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bitplane is sometimes used as synonymous to Bitmap; however, technically the former refers to the location of the data in memory and the latter to the data itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;если был использован подобный контекст, то можно использовать в качестве перевода `Карта битов`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_plane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10247" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="7712bd6b-b454-4443-b296-d416a114075c" CreationDate="2014-01-13T07:11:47.913" UserId="242" Comment="title clarified" Text="Origin of suffixes -арь- and -аль-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="ffe8fb73-6fed-4c91-bfcc-486142abbde0" CreationDate="2014-01-13T07:19:33.463" UserId="194" Text="This is a preposition that governs the Egressive semantical case, meaning &quot;by the time of&quot; (while the morphological case is Dative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egressive is not morphologically independent case in Russian, its forms are always the same as of Dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я готовился к встрече&#xD;&#xA;    ко встрече я уже был осведомлен о новостях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many respects the preposition ко is similar to the preposition во, which is used with Locative. If the word is monosyllabic and has a flying vowel in root, then in Locative case the preposition becomes во, while in Prepositional case it remains в:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во сне я летал&#xD;&#xA;    в сне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    лежать во льну &#xD;&#xA;    в льне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    болячка во рту &#xD;&#xA;    в рте много сходства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    под насыпью во рву&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other words also require the во for Locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;    в главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="686ef158-1c29-4783-928e-48730ccb5fda" CreationDate="2014-01-13T07:28:37.957" UserId="194" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="This is a preposition that governs the Egressive semantical case, meaning &quot;by the time of&quot; (while the morphological case is Dative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egressive is not morphologically independent case in Russian, its forms are always the same as of Dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я готовился к встрече&#xD;&#xA;    ко встрече я уже был осведомлен о новостях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many respects the preposition ко is similar to the preposition во, which is used with Locative. If the word is monosyllabic and has a flying vowel in root, then in Locative case the preposition becomes во, while in Prepositional case it remains в:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во сне я летал&#xD;&#xA;    в сне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    лежать во льну &#xD;&#xA;    в льне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    бежать во ржи&#xD;&#xA;    в ржи много белка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    болячка во рту &#xD;&#xA;    в рте много сходства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    под насыпью во рву&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other words also require the во for Locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;    в главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="7b14c344-3eb1-40e9-b7b9-6aabce8fcd75" CreationDate="2014-01-13T10:31:57.170" UserId="2388" Text="cha's answer is just the way you do it! In Russian &quot;как&quot; is very productive for sentences describing perceiving someone/something performing an action. I.e. not only sentences like &quot;I like listening to you singing&quot;, but also &quot;I saw you waiting&quot;, &quot;I heard you stumbling&quot;, &quot;I watched you playing the concert&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just use &quot;I &lt;see, watch, listen/saw, heard etc.&gt;&quot; + как + the action in present, as in:&#xD;&#xA;*Люблю слушать, как ты говоришь.*&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нравится слушать, как ты играешь на гитаре, когда одна.*&#xD;&#xA;*Я видел (-а), как ты прошёл игру.*&#xD;&#xA;*Хотел (хотела) бы посмотреть, как ты в неё играешь.* (&quot;в неё&quot; here is a reference to a previously mentioned game, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;I like listening to **how** you play&quot;, you can use emphasis on *КАК* word in speech or rephrase to something more explicit, as in:&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нравится, как ты играешь.*&#xD;&#xA;*Интересно посмотреть за твоей работой — можно?* (~'It'd be interesting to watch you working - may I?')&#xD;&#xA;*Можно посмотреть, как ты играешь?*&#xD;&#xA;*Люблю твоё пение.*&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нравится то, как ты читаешь стихи.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, remember that the short variants &quot;Люблю, как ты поёшь&quot; sound more natural and colloquial than nouns (&quot;Люблю твоё пение&quot;), and in some cases much more natural (&quot;Люблю твоё чтение стихов&quot; - meh). Not for every possible activity a good deverbal noun exists that doesn't sound stilted. Inserting &quot;то, как&quot; for no real reason will also make it slightly mor bookish (I am not referring to the cases where &quot;то&quot; cannot be omitted). All these phrases are more or less similar in general meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can always make the meaning clear in further conversation. E.g. &quot;У тебя хорошо получается&quot;, &quot;У тебя приятный мелодичный голос&quot;, &quot;Я вряд ли так смогу&quot;, &quot;Никогда не умела&quot; and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="dd61c4b5-eeb1-4b3f-8625-ae1ee89a0893" CreationDate="2014-01-13T12:27:57.260" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="This is a preposition that governs the Egressive semantical case, meaning &quot;by the time of&quot; (while the morphological case is Dative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egressive is not morphologically independent case in Russian, its forms are always the same as of Dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я готовился к встрече&#xD;&#xA;    ко встрече я уже был осведомлен о новостях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many respects the preposition ко is similar to the preposition во, which is used with Locative. If the word is monosyllabic and has a flying vowel in root, then in Locative case the preposition becomes во, while in Prepositional case it remains в:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во сне я летал&#xD;&#xA;    в сне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    лежать во льну &#xD;&#xA;    в льне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    бежать во ржи&#xD;&#xA;    в ржи много белка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    болячка во рту &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    под насыпью во рву&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other words also require the во for Locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;    в главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10252" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="3ba2c34c-6b3e-419a-97f8-be6a7ca1c987" CreationDate="2014-01-13T15:41:28.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/422755283111522305" />
  <row Id="10253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3031" RevisionGUID="8bede8a8-c1bd-45f5-9f8d-1a70d0e6a0f0" CreationDate="2014-01-13T20:41:33.563" UserId="310" Text="Нет, это не bitmap, bitmap совсем другая штука (и переводится как растр).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А здесь можно перевести как битовая плоскость. Там даже определение есть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bit plane b consists of the b-th bit of the two’s-complement integer representation of each DC coefficient, and the b-th bit of the binary integer representation of the magnitude of each AC coefficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если что, я программист." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3032" RevisionGUID="34ba8118-4807-4dcf-a08e-86df38f506d6" CreationDate="2014-01-14T00:48:05.177" UserId="2393" Text="Is the Russian word &quot;ёлка&quot; related to the English word &quot;yule&quot;? &quot;Yule&quot; is related to Old Norse &quot;jol,&quot; which refers to an old pagan feast of midwinter. There could easily be some Norse words surviving in Russian, so it is not too far-fetched. And it isn't hard to imagine the English word &quot;Yule log&quot; referring to a fir wood, as the Russian word does. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3032" RevisionGUID="34ba8118-4807-4dcf-a08e-86df38f506d6" CreationDate="2014-01-14T00:48:05.177" UserId="2393" Text="What is the etymology of the Russian word &quot;ёлка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3032" RevisionGUID="34ba8118-4807-4dcf-a08e-86df38f506d6" CreationDate="2014-01-14T00:48:05.177" UserId="2393" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3033" RevisionGUID="44278a69-45d1-44da-a77e-e6361ddad217" CreationDate="2014-01-14T02:41:35.580" UserId="242" Text="Original word is &quot;ель&quot; and in all Balto-Slavic languages there exists a word sharing the same original root and used as a term for the conifers. Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церк.-слав. ѥла (греч. ἐλάτη), русск. ель, укр. єль, їль, яль, болг.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ела́, сербохорв. jе́лa, словенск. jêl (род. п. jelȋ), др.-чешск.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; jedla, чешск. jedle ж. «пихта», словацк. jedľa, польск. jodła, в.-луж.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; jědla, н.-луж. jedła. Первонач., вероятно, древняя индоевр. основа на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -о ж. р. Родственно др.-прусск. addle, лит. ẽglė, латышск. egle «ель»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;jol&quot;, here's another [quote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Old Norse jól, cognate with Danish, Norwegian, Swedish jul,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Icelandic jól, Old English geōl and English Yule, from Proto-Germanic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *jehwlą, perhaps from Proto-Indo-European *yekə- (“joke, play”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the answer to your question is &quot;no, these words are not related&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to noticed that both quotes can be found very easily and it is always better to try to google such things before asking questions here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like on any Stack, the attempt to take some actions before producing a question is welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/j%C3%B3l" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="8b64c62b-1549-4b4b-adfb-0a86d8302c29" CreationDate="2014-01-14T02:50:30.710" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="First of all, let me notice that questions in form &quot;Why this specific word is associated with this specific concept&quot; are not that good. Why in Russian &quot;хрю&quot; is associated with that what is described in English with &quot;oink&quot;? Why in vulgar Latin &quot;caballus&quot; had overtaken the usage of &quot;equus&quot;? As to me, those are a bit broader than a valuable question can contain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about &quot;баю-бай&quot;. It is closely related to russian word &quot;байка&quot;, both this words are derivatives from the verb &quot;[баять][1]&quot; - which can be translated as (among other things) like &quot;to cast a spell&quot;. The same very root can be met in &quot;обаяние&quot; (charm) and &quot;басня&quot; (fable). Moreover, fable is actually related tо &quot;баять&quot; оn PIE level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;басиньки&quot; - I guess it's way to mimic childish speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="01119b5e-6484-423c-8753-d5d62beb41b7" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:29:28.733" UserId="313" Text="I have always been taught, and have used, the word &quot;чем&quot; when making comparisons (or the genitive case sometimes). However, I have recently encountered the word &quot;нежели&quot; several times in books, used just like &quot;чем&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Этот мир оказался притягательнее, **нежели** тот, в котором мы к тому времени прожили...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rather bookish/formal? Should I attempt to incorporate it into my speech, or will it sound strange in most situations? Does it have subtleties that differentiate it from &quot;чем&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="01119b5e-6484-423c-8753-d5d62beb41b7" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:29:28.733" UserId="313" Text="&quot;нежели&quot; vs. &quot;чем&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="01119b5e-6484-423c-8753-d5d62beb41b7" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:29:28.733" UserId="313" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="caded912-a58f-4e90-b967-b72b5ce42ce1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T20:20:34.390" UserId="123" Text="Basically the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just had a discussion with some of my friends and we could not come up with the origin of this saying.  The best we could come up with was that it sounded closer to &quot;молодец&quot; или &quot;молодчина&quot; but could not tie &quot;молоток&quot; to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="caded912-a58f-4e90-b967-b72b5ce42ce1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T20:20:34.390" UserId="123" Text="What's the origin of saying: &quot;Ну ты молоток!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="caded912-a58f-4e90-b967-b72b5ce42ce1" CreationDate="2014-01-14T20:20:34.390" UserId="123" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="5c3546b0-b3b6-4f0d-9076-c9c9f15105fc" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:48:55.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/423346037085200384" />
  <row Id="10275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="acb79366-ee71-4f23-9cf8-b6eb2287bdc8" CreationDate="2014-01-15T09:28:01.807" UserId="242" Text="Not only &quot;нежели&quot; is more bookish, like @YellowSky had already mentioned, but is is also cannot be used in all contexts, even when &quot;high-style&quot; speech is appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you can not say:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нежели дурью маяться, сходил бы погулял&quot; (this will sound very unnatural even in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;bookish&quot; speech) but only&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чем дурью маяться, сходил бы погулял&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in past, indeed, those were 100% interchangeable. But nowadays forms like &quot;нежели чем&quot; instead of &quot;прежде чем&quot; are completely out of usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention a common mistake of modern native speakers - the usage of redundantly complex form &quot;нежели чем&quot;. It's nothing more than an overkill :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="f0ee6093-9cba-4921-ad51-81c34961d119" CreationDate="2014-01-15T09:34:33.350" UserId="242" Comment="added example of usage" Text="Not only &quot;нежели&quot; is more bookish, like @YellowSky had already mentioned, but is is also cannot be used in all contexts, even when &quot;high-style&quot; speech is appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you can not say:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нежели дурью маяться, сходил бы погулял&quot; (this will sound very unnatural even in &#xD;&#xA;&quot;bookish&quot; speech) but only&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чем дурью маяться, сходил бы погулял&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in past, indeed, those were 100% interchangeable. But nowadays forms like &quot;нежели чем&quot; instead of &quot;прежде чем&quot; are completely out of usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention a common mistake of modern native speakers - the usage of redundantly complex form &quot;нежели чем&quot; (&quot;Для мужчин рак груди более опасен нежели, чем для женщин&quot;). In most cases it's nothing more than an overkill :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="31bacac6-fd4a-4a94-be40-538744fb10db" CreationDate="2014-01-15T09:59:08.723" UserId="185" Text="&quot;Нежели&quot; is bookish, but it is not archaic. I use it in everyday speech quite often, and dictionaries do not mark it as obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Большой Толковый Словарь, it can be used in all the same contexts as &quot;чем&quot;. However, I can notice some differences that are not described in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) I prefer to use &quot;чем&quot; instead of &quot;нежели&quot; to introduce a comparison which is expressed as a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Горы были выше, чем я предполагал. (I will not use &quot;нежели&quot; here, it sounds odd)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Горы были выше, чем на Кавказе. (I can use &quot;нежели&quot; here, it will sound natural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You can use &quot;нежели&quot; with adjectives in analytic form, i.e. forms with &quot;более\менее&quot;. &quot;чем&quot; doesn't work with analytic forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Время от времени вырождение, снижение активности и продуктивности более удобны, нежели эволюция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время от времени вырождение, снижение активности и продуктивности удобнее, чем эволюция &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="2de587f8-043d-43d5-89de-e75e8d62005f" CreationDate="2014-01-16T00:48:56.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/423617833273413632" />
  <row Id="10284" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3032" RevisionGUID="7e893357-5a9d-4dfe-9b87-10616188c5fb" CreationDate="2014-01-16T03:48:57.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/423663135632142336" />
  <row Id="10286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="df5df271-8a8c-4b65-af96-0d1b6c89f5ad" CreationDate="2014-01-16T20:41:15.723" UserId="2104" Text="Try [russiangram.com][1].  It's free and does exactly what you want: add stress marks and dots above the letter Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russiangram.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3024" RevisionGUID="171559ba-251f-481e-b254-dcb511679cd8" CreationDate="2014-01-16T21:05:38.980" UserId="2273" Comment="added an alternative translation as suggested by SaUce" Text="Универсальное слово &quot;как&quot; подойдет сюда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я люблю слушать, как ты говоришь.&#xD;&#xA;    Я люблю смотреть, как ты работаешь.&#xD;&#xA;    Я бы посмотрел, как ты играешь в игры&#xD;&#xA;    (Я бы хотел смотреть, как ты играешь в игры)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="cd5db9f9-ab85-4ca8-bac9-979531d152a3" CreationDate="2014-01-16T21:43:31.660" UserId="2360" Text="I have a stress marker on my personal website. It searches for words [here](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=endnnnnp) and matches the words given with regex. It does not matter if the word is conjugated or not, but keep in mind it cannot know whether to use i.e. &lt;code&gt;&lt;b&gt;О&lt;/b&gt;блака&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;облак&lt;b&gt;А&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. And before searching you need to make it lowercase and strip the dots off of &lt;code&gt;ё&lt;/code&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3044" RevisionGUID="2dae5dbb-340d-4ab1-8380-201b3df62625" CreationDate="2014-01-17T10:08:44.230" UserId="47" Text="*Молоток* is a slang and jokey word for *молодец*, which is a noun in Russian corresponding to the English expression &quot;well done&quot;. (Reference: Большой толковый словарь под ред. Кузнецова). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3044" RevisionGUID="d7c0f7a8-2518-4128-8c6f-63ec24ab668e" CreationDate="2014-01-17T10:16:48.987" UserId="47" Comment="More detailed explanation provided for foreigners" Text="*Молоток* is a slang and jokey word for *молодец*, which is a noun in Russian corresponding to the English expression &quot;well done&quot;. (Reference: Большой толковый словарь под ред. Кузнецова).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason exactly the word *молоток* is used is not explained in dictionaries I saw. But one could speculate with a rather high chance of hitting the point that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the two words sound similar due to sharing the first two syllables and the same stress on the last syllable &#xD;&#xA; 2. the word *молоток* literally means *hammer* i.e. an instrument used to accomplish a task requiring some skill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="bebb9d72-d066-4d35-bab0-8a69ea5408a7" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:19:10.093" UserId="170" Text="Is the word &quot;зелёный&quot; a noun here?:&#xD;&#xA;[Бриллиантовый зелёный][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="bebb9d72-d066-4d35-bab0-8a69ea5408a7" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:19:10.093" UserId="170" Text="Is the word &quot;зелёный&quot; a noun in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="bebb9d72-d066-4d35-bab0-8a69ea5408a7" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:19:10.093" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3046" RevisionGUID="0b7c134c-c7e9-48c2-a457-bea57e91510e" CreationDate="2014-01-17T13:08:27.333" UserId="1934" Text="Almost, but not quite. I'm not sure how the corresponding grammar construction is called (it is some kind of ellipsis), but what is going on is that there is an omitted noun (&quot;color&quot;), which doesn't appear because the speaker wants to be brief but which transfers all its grammatical properties to the adjective &quot;green&quot;. Compare with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какая машина твоя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С прицепом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там две таких. Которая с прицепом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Синяя с прицепом, без правого зеркала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да у твоей с прицепом все шины спущены!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if the first question were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой автомобиль твой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the same combination of words  &quot;с прицепом&quot; would borrow the masculine gender and the following dialog would read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С прицепом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там два таких, который с прицепом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Синий с прицепом, без правого зеркала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да у твоего с прицепом все шины спущены!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it is clear that while the role of &quot;с прицепом&quot; in the sentence is pretty much indistinguishable from the role of a noun, the true noun (&quot;car&quot;) is hiding behind it&#xD;&#xA;and the best name for &quot;с прицепом&quot; would be something like a &quot;noun impostor&quot; (there is no such term, of course, but that's more or less what it really is).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3047" RevisionGUID="0d3b69cb-4169-4d09-8cfb-185bf015c9dc" CreationDate="2014-01-17T13:25:25.653" UserId="1236" Text="It is called _субстантивированное прилагательное_, &quot;substantivized adjective&quot;, an adjective used as a noun. There are a lot of them in Russian, and usually they have a generic noun associated with them, but it is usually elided. As for `бриллиантовый зелёный` the generic noun is &quot;краситель&quot; (pigment, dye), not &quot;color&quot; as @fedja suggested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="88f3ac68-1f62-4618-87be-009a275711b3" CreationDate="2014-01-17T19:10:46.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/424257504584151041" />
  <row Id="10299" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="d81b4958-ec32-4c84-a299-e1fccfa0aacf" CreationDate="2014-01-18T01:10:46.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/424348101823184896" />
  <row Id="10300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="7975334a-f82e-4547-9051-74cb45d13e53" CreationDate="2014-01-18T13:37:52.273" UserId="2418" Text="this sentence is found in the first chapter of Бытие (Генесис -- Genesis), the first book of the Bible. Certainly, it means &quot;Let there be light&quot; in the polite King James english version of the bible. Here &quot;Да&quot; is an emphasis particle and &quot;будет&quot; is the third person of the future of the verb &quot;быть&quot; (to be)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3051" RevisionGUID="4e0445ab-bb85-47a6-8603-19e8120b0720" CreationDate="2014-01-19T21:29:57.970" UserDisplayName="user248" Text="[ru.wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5) agrees w.r.t. -арь, referencing Antoine Meillet *Le slave commun*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-arjь (суффикс профессии, отсюда рус. -арь) &lt; прагерм. *-arjoz &lt; лат. -arius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Аль&quot; is not a single suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There's '-л-' in words like пада-л-ь, бы-л-ь, порос-л-ь (it's a suffix signifying a phenomenon; some words with -аль are here)&#xD;&#xA;- then there's '-л-' in words like чита-л-ьня, вмести-л-ище (it's an interfix, i.e. has no semantic value of its own; some words with -аль- in them are in this category)&#xD;&#xA;- and then there are words like брутальный, лояльный, стерильный which are borrowed wholesale (many words with -аль-, this one is derived from Latin -alis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other meanings of the -л- suffix, but these don't seem to produce any -аль- combinations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="41db9592-cba5-4176-a063-6bf14c7988e4" CreationDate="2014-01-22T07:10:51.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/425888274096603136" />
  <row Id="10311" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="a6b159f8-3359-4f3f-9e91-bde54df3b227" CreationDate="2014-01-23T13:10:51.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/426341259352215552" />
  <row Id="10313" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="b385394e-d44f-4cba-8076-07388c9ed1f3" CreationDate="2014-01-24T16:15:53.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/426750208647913472" />
  <row Id="10314" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="f3e3a104-0d49-42cd-bae1-071132171625" CreationDate="2014-01-25T07:15:53.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/426976702062153728" />
  <row Id="10315" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="a1c934f0-0e6a-4bfa-b1d4-e1667d3fd9ef" CreationDate="2014-01-25T10:15:53.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/427022000834764800" />
  <row Id="10316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="fa261d9b-a03e-4554-88a0-01bfa1c7deb0" CreationDate="2014-01-25T16:48:56.417" UserId="2443" Text="Someone told me they are pronounced like &quot;и&quot;, but when I listen to sound files on wiktionary.com, they are pronounced like &quot;ш/ч&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example the word &quot;горячий&quot; is pronounced according to wiktionary something like &quot;горячиш&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="fa261d9b-a03e-4554-88a0-01bfa1c7deb0" CreationDate="2014-01-25T16:48:56.417" UserId="2443" Text="How is the ending &quot;-ий&quot; pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="fa261d9b-a03e-4554-88a0-01bfa1c7deb0" CreationDate="2014-01-25T16:48:56.417" UserId="2443" Text="|грамматика|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="3d4811ce-bb6b-4222-a1d0-bdf321c572b3" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:07:52.660" UserId="2060" Text="The IPA on wiktionary is correct, the ending is [ij]. You are confused because of her lack of voicing the final [j] and probably lack of recording de-essing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="8da93676-c1bd-4562-bfcd-169ba4b76f53" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:26:38.923" UserId="2442" Text="The one who told you that it's pronounced like *-и*, is mistaken but I could understand why: the last й is often weakened if in absolutely final position.  &#xD;&#xA;What you took for a щ is actually a voiceless й (an [ç], phonetically speaking). As far as I know, such pronounciation is not considered a norm but is not errroneous, either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="3136b72c-c410-4174-adc5-85d8303e75ca" CreationDate="2014-01-25T20:13:22.117" UserId="487" Comment="added link to pronunciation " Text="Someone told me they are pronounced like &quot;и&quot;, but when I listen to sound files on wiktionary.com, they are pronounced like &quot;ш/ч&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example the word &quot;горячий&quot; is pronounced according to [wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9) something like &quot;горячих&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10322" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="3136b72c-c410-4174-adc5-85d8303e75ca" CreationDate="2014-01-25T20:13:22.117" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by 242 edit id of 424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3055" RevisionGUID="55dc9bb2-9b1f-43f9-b7cf-468b9569d996" CreationDate="2014-01-25T20:30:38.320" UserId="2354" Text="You can find examples of the Russian pronunciations word &quot;горячий&quot; on this page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.forvo.com/search/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="4fb279ae-b8eb-45c3-8e7e-f80067456b4c" CreationDate="2014-01-26T01:20:42.667" UserId="2442" Comment="Corrected the answer explaining my point of view." Text="The one who told you that it's pronounced like *-и*, is mistaken but I could understand why: the last й is often weakened if in absolutely final position but you still can't skip it totally.  &#xD;&#xA;What you took for a щ is actually a voiceless й (an [ç], something roughly similar to хь, phonetically speaking). As far as I know, such pronounciation is not considered as a norm but is not erroneous, either. To me it's a bit archaic, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3056" RevisionGUID="d44e8607-1aea-438a-8216-c67990988c3a" CreationDate="2014-01-26T10:29:00.983" UserId="2238" Text="Even though jot is weakened in the absolute end, it could barely be considered right to pronounce it like German pronounce -ig in adjectives and -ch. Weakened jot is a middle-tongue fricative sound, whereas -хь (or German -ch as well) is actually closer to be an affricat from the sound and Russian &quot;х&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="d02e1dba-ee0c-45ef-8950-2c870406b76f" CreationDate="2014-01-26T14:12:25.583" UserId="1152" Comment="corrected english translation of biblical phrase" Text="I don't think this phrase has &quot;origin&quot; (other than modern folklore - thanks to Yellow Sky for the remark). It seems to me that this phrase has a very simple structure and it could be invented many times by different persons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase begins with &quot;Да будет свет!&quot; (&quot;Let there be light!&quot;). Here we should note that &quot;свет&quot; is usually a synonym of &quot;электричество&quot;. &quot;У вас есть свет?&quot; is a very common phrase that means &quot;Is there an electricity in your house?&quot;. &quot;У нас нету света&quot; is used to describe power outage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when someone sits without &quot;light&quot; for several hours waiting for an electrician that will fix it and finally turns the switch and the light is back - in many cases this biblical phrase comes to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, an electrician himself may use this phrase in literal sense to emphasize his light-bringer mission. So, we got &quot;Да будет свет! - сказал электрик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next stage - is adding counter-effect to the above phrase by changing &quot;light-bringer&quot; to &quot;light-destroyer&quot; - and here &quot;перерезал провод&quot; is added.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, all three stages are very basic (&quot;ассоциации первого уровня&quot;) and can be performed by any person with basic sense of humor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10333" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2744" RevisionGUID="d02e1dba-ee0c-45ef-8950-2c870406b76f" CreationDate="2014-01-26T14:12:25.583" Comment="Proposed by 1152 approved by 551 edit id of 425" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10334" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="20a27f24-3a58-4c1c-8d95-f69ad7458b3e" CreationDate="2014-01-26T15:33:31.040" UserId="2442" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2442,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Menelion Elensúle&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10336" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="1810886b-25ff-4b93-b88f-23d12e46f594" CreationDate="2014-01-26T22:02:31.133" UserId="2442" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2442,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Menelion Elensúle&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="2b0579bc-c708-4bff-ac31-fbfe279f2ca1" CreationDate="2014-01-28T00:38:23.320" UserId="2325" Text="My text editor tells me that **водолазовой** is wrong and suggests me **водолазов ой** or **водолазной** or **водолазкой** or **водолазный** or **водолазка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Google Translator I was not able to decide what could be the right one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That word comes from the Sergei's poem **Черный человек** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Черный человек! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не смеешь этого! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живешь водолазовой.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне до жизни &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скандального поэта." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="2b0579bc-c708-4bff-ac31-fbfe279f2ca1" CreationDate="2014-01-28T00:38:23.320" UserId="2325" Text="What does водолазовой mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="2b0579bc-c708-4bff-ac31-fbfe279f2ca1" CreationDate="2014-01-28T00:38:23.320" UserId="2325" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="7fafe77e-ffbc-48c3-a862-de3f340a4f1c" CreationDate="2014-01-28T01:26:19.250" UserId="2269" Comment="you forgot the last name of poet + poem formatting + please do not make a good half of question bold" Text="My text editor tells me that *водолазовой* is wrong and suggests me *водолазов ой* or *водолазной* or *водолазкой* or *водолазный* or *водолазка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Google Translator I was not able to decide what could be the right one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That word comes from the Sergei Esenin's poem *Черный человек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Черный человек!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не смеешь этого!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живешь водолазовой.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне до жизни  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скандального поэта.&lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10344" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="7fafe77e-ffbc-48c3-a862-de3f340a4f1c" CreationDate="2014-01-28T01:26:19.250" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 2325 edit id of 426" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="6514fc7f-6aac-4e88-aae5-de1aa5a0699c" CreationDate="2014-01-28T02:03:25.513" UserId="2269" Text="First of all, the word *водолазовый* (fem. gen. *водолазовой*) is the only right one here of course. If you do not trust your copy of the book, the Internet (Esenin’s poetry is very easy to found), trust your sense of rhythm — no one of your suggestions fit the metre. Spell-checker and Google Translate are not good tools to analyse lyric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal sense is close to word *водолазный* (it’s a mere adjective from *водолаз* — a professional diver), but *водолазный* may be connected with diving (e. g. *водолазный костюм* — diving suite) while *водолазовый* only with diver as a person. So the literal sense of *водолазовая служба* is diving service. There is still no much sense in the context of the poem, is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well. I have not any source at hand now, but as far I remember *водолаз* is the old slang word for priest (*поп*, *священник*) here. So in common words author says to *черный человек*: ‘You are not a pastor. Please, tell your stories to somebody other’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живешь водолазовой.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста, другим  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читай и рассказывай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="dc783a48-0ea6-471c-bde0-09d1863af55a" CreationDate="2014-01-28T02:12:21.257" UserId="2269" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="First of all, the word *водолазовый* (fem. gen. *водолазовой*) is the only right one here of course. If you do not trust your copy of the book, the Internet (Esenin’s poetry is very easy to found), trust your sense of rhythm — no one of your suggestions fit the metre. Spell-checker and Google Translate are not good tools to analyse lyric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal sense is close to word *водолазный* (it’s a mere adjective from *водолаз* — a professional diver), but *водолазный* may be connected with diving (e. g. *водолазный костюм* — diving suite) while *водолазовый* only with diver as a person. So the literal sense of *водолазовая служба* is diving service. There is still no much sense in the context of the poem, is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well. I don’t have any source at hand now, but as far I remember *водолаз* is the old slang word for priest (*поп*, *священник*) here. So in common words author says to *черный человек*: ‘You are not a pastor. Please, tell your stories to someone else, not me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живешь водолазовой.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста, другим  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читай и рассказывай&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="9aa0cfc2-119c-443f-b3e7-f83e216cb7bf" CreationDate="2014-01-28T02:17:38.013" UserId="2269" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="First of all, the word *водолазовый* (fem. gen. *водолазовой*) is the only right one here of course. If you do not trust your copy of the book, the Internet (Esenin’s poetry is very easy to found), trust your sense of rhythm — no one of your suggestions fit the metre. Spell-checker and Google Translate are not good tools to analyse lyric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal sense of *водолазовый* is close to word *водолазный* which is a mere adjective from *водолаз* – a professional diver; but *водолазный* may be connected with diving (e. g. *водолазный костюм* – diving suite) while *водолазовый* only with diver as a person (it’s so called possessive adjective). So the literal sense of *водолазовая служба* is diving service. There is still no much sense in the context of the poem, is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well. I don’t have any source at hand now, but as far I remember *водолаз* is the old slang word for priest (*поп*, *священник*) here. So in common words author says to *черный человек*: ‘You are not a pastor. Please, tell your stories to someone else, not me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живешь водолазовой.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста, другим  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читай и рассказывай&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="2c2f52ac-fe90-4ccd-a656-e58ac0df966b" CreationDate="2014-01-28T02:29:19.000" UserId="2269" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="First of all, the word *водолазовой* (fem. gen. from *водолазовый*) is the only right one here of course. If you do not trust your copy of the book, the Internet (Esenin’s poetry is very easy to found), trust your sense of rhythm – no one of your suggestions fit the metre. Spell-checker and Google Translate are not good tools to analyse lyric poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal sense of *водолазовый* is close to word *водолазный* which is a mere adjective from *водолаз* – a professional diver; but *водолазный* may be connected with diving (e. g. *водолазный костюм* – diving suite) while *водолазовый* only with diver as a person (it’s so called possessive adjective). So the literal sense of *водолазовая служба* is diving service. There is still no much sense in the context of the poem, is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well. I don’t have any proofs at hand now, but as far I remember *водолаз* is the slang word for priest (*поп*, *священник*) here. I can’t say have it word ever been widely understandable in this sense, nowadays it is not. Anyway, in common words author says to *черный человек*: ‘You are not a pastor. Please, tell your stories to someone else, not me’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе / Живешь водолазовой. ... Пожалуйста, другим / Читай и рассказывай." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="57ef2dc8-d46e-49e2-b4bd-8e945d73a36c" CreationDate="2014-01-28T05:21:33.547" UserId="551" Text="&quot;Водолазовой&quot; here is an adjective that comes in pair with word &quot;службе&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на **службе** / Живешь **водолазовой**. = Ты ведь живешь не на **водолазовой службе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Водолазовая служба** literary means **diver's service**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Esenin is using this metaphor is not clear for many people - there are a lot of questions about it on many internet sites. In the book [&quot;Неизвестный Есенин&quot;](http://litrus.net/book/read/3760?p=70) the author proposes a version about a story that could be known to Esenin about a diver that gone mad when found a &quot;forest&quot; of drowned people (killed by bolsheviks). Another possibility is that Esenin says &quot;don't dive into the depths of my soul&quot;. Or maybe Esenin thinks that he is &quot;drowned&quot; and asks the diver that wants to rescue him to go away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="0ee90450-5589-45b3-b80b-3b8a56563d26" CreationDate="2014-01-28T08:53:52.760" UserId="551" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="&quot;Водолазовой&quot; here is an adjective that comes in pair with word &quot;службе&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на **службе** / Живешь **водолазовой**. = Ты ведь живешь не на **водолазовой службе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Водолазовая служба** literary means **diver's service**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Esenin is using this metaphor is not clear for many people - there are a lot of questions about it on many internet sites. In the book [&quot;Неизвестный Есенин&quot;](http://litrus.net/book/read/3760?p=70) the author proposes a version about a story that could be known to Esenin about a diver that gone mad when found a &quot;forest&quot; of drowned people (killed by bolsheviks). Another possibility is that Esenin says &quot;don't dive into the depths of my soul&quot;. Or maybe Esenin thinks that he is &quot;drowned&quot; and asks the diver that wants to rescue him to go away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for spell checker suggestions, there was a known bug in MS Word's spell checker a couple years ago that made funny suggestions for &quot;wrong&quot; words. For instance, it suggested to replace the word *завязочками* (like in &quot;папка с завязочками&quot;) with &quot;завяз очками&quot; (got stuck with eye-glasses). All words with &quot;-очками&quot; ending were suspicious and many gave funny replacement suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, spell checker is not always right, especially when the words are rare or the text is rather old or poetic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="1a5cc418-c4b4-42cc-9120-6186a164a1ac" CreationDate="2014-01-28T18:56:56.077" UserId="551" Comment="added 729 characters in body" Text="&quot;Водолазовой&quot; here is an adjective that comes in pair with word &quot;службе&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на **службе** / Живешь **водолазовой**. = Ты ведь живешь не на **водолазовой службе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Водолазовая служба** literary means **diver's service**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Esenin is using this metaphor is not clear for many people - there are a lot of questions about it on many internet sites. In the book [&quot;Неизвестный Есенин&quot;](http://litrus.net/book/read/3760?p=70) the author proposes a version about a story that could be known to Esenin about a diver that gone mad when found a &quot;forest&quot; of drowned people (killed by bolsheviks). Another possibility is that Esenin says &quot;don't dive into the depths of my soul&quot;. Or maybe Esenin thinks that he is &quot;drowned&quot; and asks the diver that wants to rescue him to go away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for spell checker suggestions, there was a known bug in MS Word's spell checker a couple years ago that made funny suggestions for &quot;wrong&quot; words. For instance, it suggested to replace the word *завязочками* (like in &quot;папка с завязочками&quot;) with &quot;завяз очками&quot; (got stuck with eye-glasses). All words with &quot;-очками&quot; ending were suspicious and many gave funny replacement suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, spell checker is not always right, especially when the words are rare or the text is rather old or poetic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like version that *водолаз* is synonym for *священник* has many supporters. For example, here the priest's youtube channel that is called [Служба Водолазова](http://www.youtube.com/user/sluzhbavodolazova/about). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [Gramota.ru forum](http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=26&amp;i=17162&amp;t=17095) the following citation is posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У Макаренко, в &quot;Педагогической поэме&quot;. &quot;Зачем тебе... здесь это... водолазы понадобились?&quot; или что-то вроде этого, когда пришли сватать колонистку и говорили о церковном венчании.   &#xD;&#xA;...Про водолаза говорит не воспитанник колонии, а работавший там Силантий, самый что ни на есть сельский трудяга, и говорит он простому крестьянину, причем оба друг друга прекрасно понимают." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="7b7fd202-cb71-4114-bdec-2991f87cb304" CreationDate="2014-01-29T03:42:18.913" UserId="2462" Text="3rd year student here, I came across [grammatica](http://www.grammatica.eu) and it looks incredibly useful for cementing grammatical structures. It would be a dream to quickly double check a structure. Unfortunately it is windows-only and the web version is several months off (per an email exchange with the developer). Is there another similar resource? If not I apologize for wasting bandwidth, but it seemed to me that such a resource would be useful to others as well.  If there is no such resource on the mac, do you have any advice as to how one should go about using short stories for grammar acquisition. I feel too passive in just reading them. Perhaps diagramming sentences? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спасибо! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="7b7fd202-cb71-4114-bdec-2991f87cb304" CreationDate="2014-01-29T03:42:18.913" UserId="2462" Text="Is there a mac equivalent of the parsing software grammatica? It looks supremely useful" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="7b7fd202-cb71-4114-bdec-2991f87cb304" CreationDate="2014-01-29T03:42:18.913" UserId="2462" Text="|грамматика|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="806d9659-6eb1-4738-aa33-cadb20baa251" CreationDate="2014-01-29T05:20:56.827" UserId="551" Comment="Corrected Makarenko citation" Text="&quot;Водолазовой&quot; here is an adjective that comes in pair with word &quot;службе&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на **службе** / Живешь **водолазовой**. = Ты ведь живешь не на **водолазовой службе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Водолазовая служба** literary means **diver's service**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Esenin is using this metaphor is not clear for many people - there are a lot of questions about it on many internet sites. In the book [&quot;Неизвестный Есенин&quot;](http://litrus.net/book/read/3760?p=70) the author proposes a version about a story that could be known to Esenin about a diver that gone mad when found a &quot;forest&quot; of drowned people (killed by bolsheviks). Another possibility is that Esenin says &quot;don't dive into the depths of my soul&quot;. Or maybe Esenin thinks that he is &quot;drowned&quot; and asks the diver that wants to rescue him to go away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for spell checker suggestions, there was a known bug in MS Word's spell checker a couple years ago that made funny suggestions for &quot;wrong&quot; words. For instance, it suggested to replace the word *завязочками* (like in &quot;папка с завязочками&quot;) with &quot;завяз очками&quot; (got stuck with eye-glasses). All words with &quot;-очками&quot; ending were suspicious and many gave funny replacement suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, spell checker is not always right, especially when the words are rare or the text is rather old or poetic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like version that *водолаз* is synonym for *священник* has many supporters. For example, here the priest's youtube channel that is called [Служба Водолазова](http://www.youtube.com/user/sluzhbavodolazova/about). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [Gramota.ru forum](http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=26&amp;i=17162&amp;t=17095) the following citation is posted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У Макаренко, в &quot;Педагогической поэме&quot;: &quot;А вот пусть Осип Иванович скажет: для какого хрена *водолазы* здесь это, понадобились?&quot;, когда пришли сватать колонистку и говорили о церковном венчании.   &#xD;&#xA;...Про водолаза говорит не воспитанник колонии, а работавший там Силантий, самый что ни на есть сельский трудяга, и говорит он простому крестьянину, причем оба друг друга прекрасно понимают." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10358" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="f556d17c-7057-4663-85a1-3d3bf1894f37" CreationDate="2014-01-29T10:32:06.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/428475633770201088" />
  <row Id="10359" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="e0d75973-0dce-435e-bd1f-4b7e74c6086a" CreationDate="2014-01-30T01:32:19.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/428702182024941568" />
  <row Id="10363" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="d81d7daf-2d30-48be-9503-d49633089c25" CreationDate="2014-01-31T13:32:22.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/429245774896304128" />
  <row Id="10366" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="3f137206-a6ec-41d3-b54a-d3058b9b9e18" CreationDate="2014-01-31T16:32:22.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/429291074356801537" />
  <row Id="10367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="58f2969a-85ee-4c3c-9f8c-cc3a063022f7" CreationDate="2014-02-01T03:07:52.667" UserId="2480" Text="Is it &quot;Has time stopped you?&quot; or &quot;Have you stopped time?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Or could it be &quot;Has time stopped for you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how тебя or genitive case works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="58f2969a-85ee-4c3c-9f8c-cc3a063022f7" CreationDate="2014-02-01T03:07:52.667" UserId="2480" Text="&quot;Время остановилось у тебя?&quot; - who is subject/object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="58f2969a-85ee-4c3c-9f8c-cc3a063022f7" CreationDate="2014-02-01T03:07:52.667" UserId="2480" Text="|грамматика|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3068" RevisionGUID="65a739c7-b13d-44d2-8769-91f2e2e2c103" CreationDate="2014-02-01T03:43:39.397" UserId="1236" Text="The subject is undoubtedly `время`, it is in the Nominative case, a typical case of the subject, and in Russian the subject cannot be in Genitive, unless it has some quantitative attributes (like `три человека` - &quot;three people&quot;, `несколько лет` - &quot;several years&quot;), or the sentence is negative (`Его там нет.` - &quot;He is not there.&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`У тебя` is an indirect, prepositional object. Genitive is used here because after the preposition `y` nominal phrases must be in Genitive, `y` governs Genitive. Actually, subjects cannot be preceded by prepositions in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your third variant of translation (&quot;Has time stopped for you?&quot;) is the most correct one. Whether `у тебя` should be translated as &quot;for you&quot;, or &quot;with you&quot;, or &quot;around you&quot;, or &quot;in your parts&quot;, or in some other way can be determined only by the context of your sentence, but it is, unfortunately, lacking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3069" RevisionGUID="b25beddb-aa02-40d8-a0b9-d8ceff81f39e" CreationDate="2014-02-01T11:30:15.030" UserId="2484" Text="**Родина**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Слово родина можно привязать к предмету*. К примеру:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шоколад родом из Америки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и это означает что шоколад впервые был создан в Америке. Выражение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечество шоколада - Америка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тоже правильно, но не верно. И если вы используете его в диалоге, то вас не поймут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Слово Родина можно привязать к Городу.* К примеру:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя родина - Иркутск.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вы скажете:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мое Отечество - Иркутск&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вас поймут, но не все. А за спиной скажут &quot;Что то с этим парнем не так...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Отечество**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Данное слово утратило свой смысл, и большое количество людей предпочитают замену - родина так как слово родина универсальней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отечество может использоваться только в тех случаях, когда вы хотите сказать из какой страны вы родом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мое отечество - Россия" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3071" RevisionGUID="a05df924-c629-4538-8be7-95773b5ed127" CreationDate="2014-02-01T19:54:29.660" UserId="2489" Text="I'd like just  to add: your first variant corresponds to &quot;Время остановило тебя?&quot; (subject ВРЕМЯ in Nomonative, direct object ТЕБЯ in Genitive)  and you second one &quot;Ты остановил время?&quot; (suject ТЫ in Nom. and direct object ВРЕМЯ in Gen. - here, you should not be confused by the identity of Gen. and Nom. forms in ВРЕМЯ, it happens)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3072" RevisionGUID="399f100d-5878-4f46-adcb-257263ec94e5" CreationDate="2014-02-01T20:48:14.530" UserId="2489" Text="I haven't got right to comment yet. I absolutely agree with Eurice - it is the clearest reference to Genesis, though the phrase is so popular that it is not  : Да будет свет! И стал свет.&#xD;&#xA;That shows that it's the part of city folklore of literate people: you see, the Bible (and the Old Testament) was not the book everybody read but there were a dozen or so lines everybody knew, and &quot;Let there be light&quot; is one of them. It maybe an off-topic, but to learn the full set of Bible phrases a common Soviet engineer or doctor used to know, you could look at Jean Effel's book. He was a French communist, I guess, very popular in the USSR with his cartoon book &quot;Creation&quot; (Сотворение мира), which was staged at the famous Moscow Puppet Theatre as &quot;Божественная комедия&quot; (sorry, don't know how it is in English - &quot;Divine Comedy&quot;? - as Dante's). A few had the book at home (it was hard to buy books in the USSR), and even fewer visited Obraztsov's Puppet Theatre (it was impossible to get tickets), but the performance was often on TV and those who had the book could give it to others to look through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase is well-known by itself, so its reference to bibleic text is not the first thing you think of, it has lots of variations but the 1st line remains the same : &quot;Да будет свет!&quot; - сказал монтёр... (монтёр, by no means электрик!).&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3073" RevisionGUID="a4b9248d-e1c8-4786-9e97-1da41c5af147" CreationDate="2014-02-01T21:35:02.277" UserId="2443" Text="I cannot find anywhere how to say vegan in russian, only vegetarian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3073" RevisionGUID="a4b9248d-e1c8-4786-9e97-1da41c5af147" CreationDate="2014-02-01T21:35:02.277" UserId="2443" Text="What is the word for &quot;Vegan&quot; in Russian? (NOT Vegetarian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3073" RevisionGUID="a4b9248d-e1c8-4786-9e97-1da41c5af147" CreationDate="2014-02-01T21:35:02.277" UserId="2443" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3074" RevisionGUID="ea732d4a-c372-4ce8-99c9-8ce4a2d9c1de" CreationDate="2014-02-01T21:52:23.417" UserId="1236" Text="It is `веган` or (rarely) `веганец` in Russian, the word is a typical internationalism. The word for &quot;veganism&quot; is `веганство` (analogous to &quot;вегетарианство&quot;) or just `веганизм`. This word has appeared pretty recently in Russian, so no major dictionary has it (some of the newest ones [do have it][1]), but in the Russian Wiki there is [an article about it][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/321819/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3071" RevisionGUID="dc6888aa-779f-4104-9100-99aefff2897f" CreationDate="2014-02-01T21:53:40.673" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I'd like just  to add: your first variant corresponds to &quot;Время остановило тебя?&quot; (subject ВРЕМЯ in Nominative, direct object ТЕБЯ in Genitive)  and you second one &quot;Ты остановил время?&quot; (subject ТЫ in Nom. and direct object ВРЕМЯ in Gen. - here, you should not be confused by the identity of Gen. and Nom. forms in ВРЕМЯ, it happens)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3074" RevisionGUID="673b1525-fe24-446b-b2a6-fd5ea34b7155" CreationDate="2014-02-02T11:41:23.460" UserId="2490" Comment="Link to the Wiki was to a wrong Wiki (ukrainian)" Text="It is `веган` or (rarely) `веганец` in Russian, the word is a typical internationalism. The word for &quot;veganism&quot; is `веганство` (analogous to &quot;вегетарианство&quot;) or just `веганизм`. This word has appeared pretty recently in Russian, so no major dictionary has it (some of the newest ones [do have it][1]), but in the Russian Wiki there is [an article about it][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/321819/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- filler --&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3074" RevisionGUID="673b1525-fe24-446b-b2a6-fd5ea34b7155" CreationDate="2014-02-02T11:41:23.460" Comment="Proposed by 2490 approved by 1236 edit id of 427" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="883eeafc-1440-4423-b6e2-966cdd730c86" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:21:41.217" UserId="1971" Text="My Russian friend told me &quot;я ухажеру бороду отбила&quot;. What did she mean? She told me this after I told her I got in a fight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="883eeafc-1440-4423-b6e2-966cdd730c86" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:21:41.217" UserId="1971" Text="What does 'я ухажеру бороду отбила' mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="883eeafc-1440-4423-b6e2-966cdd730c86" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:21:41.217" UserId="1971" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3078" RevisionGUID="440a25ed-2c8a-431b-801d-be4464aca41f" CreationDate="2014-02-03T18:25:00.743" UserId="185" Text="Сформулируйте, пожалуйста, в чем разница между значением и употреблением слов &quot;выдержка&quot; (как черта характера, а не как фото-термин) и &quot;терпение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3078" RevisionGUID="440a25ed-2c8a-431b-801d-be4464aca41f" CreationDate="2014-02-03T18:25:00.743" UserId="185" Text="&quot;выдержка&quot; vs. &quot;терпение&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3078" RevisionGUID="440a25ed-2c8a-431b-801d-be4464aca41f" CreationDate="2014-02-03T18:25:00.743" UserId="185" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10395" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="1bd4b121-43b8-41fa-bfd6-f31b33ff2857" CreationDate="2014-02-03T22:06:35.537" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3079" RevisionGUID="c579bc6c-2113-4f21-96f6-1edf00a3dce0" CreationDate="2014-02-03T23:44:34.557" UserId="1934" Text="Официальную разницу обьяснить не берусь (тут надо лезть в толковые словари), но&#xD;&#xA;мне кажется, что терпение - это когда тебя обижают, а выдержка - когда провоцируют. Впрочем, могу быть и неправ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3080" RevisionGUID="fcf3e04e-10d5-4e92-bf4b-4bba36bfc58a" CreationDate="2014-02-04T04:03:21.113" UserId="82" Text="In English, tweeters will often tersely credit the originator of an idea using the contraction H/T (or HT) for *hat tip* followed by someone's name or handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What might be an idiomatic equivalent in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3080" RevisionGUID="fcf3e04e-10d5-4e92-bf4b-4bba36bfc58a" CreationDate="2014-02-04T04:03:21.113" UserId="82" Text="Idiomatic equivalent of « H/T » (hat tip) to credit in a tweet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3080" RevisionGUID="fcf3e04e-10d5-4e92-bf4b-4bba36bfc58a" CreationDate="2014-02-04T04:03:21.113" UserId="82" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="796b03de-564c-450b-9aab-e4b42e05b2df" CreationDate="2014-02-04T04:26:14.450" UserId="1770" Text="I know that _проходит_ is for saying like when you pass by a place, like: _я прошла мимо парк_, and _переходит_ is for saying when moving one place to the other, like: _я перешла в другую аудиторию_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are cases when these verbes seem to be the same, when using the preposition _через_, I think you can say _я перешла через улицу_ but you can't say _я прошла через улицу_, however one can say _я прошла через Мехико_ and _я перешла через Мехико_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the deal? what am I understanding wrong? what does those words really mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="796b03de-564c-450b-9aab-e4b42e05b2df" CreationDate="2014-02-04T04:26:14.450" UserId="1770" Text="What's the diference bettween проходит and переходит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="796b03de-564c-450b-9aab-e4b42e05b2df" CreationDate="2014-02-04T04:26:14.450" UserId="1770" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4081" RevisionGUID="fbaa8c64-a8f1-495f-ac21-86b0c5f28218" CreationDate="2014-02-04T06:13:36.353" UserId="3496" Text="In that particular case you can consider following meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    перешла - cross&#xD;&#xA;    прошла - pass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually you can say Я прошла через улицу. It sounds like I pass trough street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Main thing is is prefix пере, про.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    пере  шла&#xD;&#xA;    про   шла&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="6ac19ab4-5148-4656-8e29-323981b69a17" CreationDate="2014-02-04T06:56:19.640" UserId="2496" Text="http://cryptome.org/2013/12/nsa-kills-rsa.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who think it is fine to destroy their own country's industry to get a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leg-up on a bunch of net cowboys and towelheads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How shall be this translated verbatim on Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="6ac19ab4-5148-4656-8e29-323981b69a17" CreationDate="2014-02-04T06:56:19.640" UserId="2496" Text="How to translate on Russian &quot;towelheads&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="6ac19ab4-5148-4656-8e29-323981b69a17" CreationDate="2014-02-04T06:56:19.640" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="fae8bc28-2a94-494b-9db9-cc07866216b0" CreationDate="2014-02-04T09:33:43.577" UserId="2496" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="http://cryptome.org/2013/12/nsa-kills-rsa.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who think it is fine to destroy their own country's industry to get a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leg-up on a bunch of net cowboys and towelheads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How shall be this translated verbatim on Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methinks, that this translated like, very stupid persons, with towel insted of brains in heads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="892dd7a8-21db-4c81-bcf9-adf621b5ceef" CreationDate="2014-02-04T09:42:51.737" UserId="2496" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="http://cryptome.org/2013/12/nsa-kills-rsa.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Who think it is fine to destroy their own country's industry to get a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leg-up on a bunch of net cowboys and towelheads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How shall be this translated verbatim on Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methinks, that this translated like, very stupid persons, with towels insted of brains in heads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or little bit easy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yop0K.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4085" RevisionGUID="d8354934-ec3b-483d-a1f4-00334d307c25" CreationDate="2014-02-04T09:47:23.843" UserId="3497" Text="я думаю выдержка это скорее черта характера, а терпение - характеристика процесса терпения. эти слова были бы больше синонимами, если бы слово терпение было заменено, словом терпеливость" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="de278d5a-4625-4e1f-8a06-2eeb8ebddf5d" CreationDate="2014-02-04T12:13:11.613" UserId="3499" Text="I think this separation is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я перешла улицу - cross (here preposition not required)&#xD;&#xA;    Я прошла через улицу - go through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;Я перешла через улицу&quot;, that's sounds bad like &quot;I crossed street across it&quot;. You can use Через&quot; when there is addition, e.g. &quot;Я перешла улицу через пешеходный переход&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4086" RevisionGUID="128392a6-6362-4b43-9c2c-255a4a84e47d" CreationDate="2014-02-04T12:47:22.550" UserId="3499" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I think this separation is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я перешла улицу - cross (here preposition not required)&#xD;&#xA;    Я прошла через улицу - go through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;Я перешла через улицу&quot;, that's sounds bad like &quot;I crossed street across it&quot;. You can use &quot;через&quot; when there is addition, e.g. &quot;Я перешла улицу через пешеходный переход&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11415" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3078" RevisionGUID="94cd81f7-f5b2-4a84-be76-a902faebc707" CreationDate="2014-02-04T16:32:31.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/430740665350516737" />
  <row Id="11416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4087" RevisionGUID="fcc08674-fa5d-48a8-8ce0-27eb1f5cc781" CreationDate="2014-02-04T17:37:56.847" UserId="185" Text="Your example can literally be translated as &quot;I've hit my admirer in the chin real hard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ухажер&quot; is a colloquial for &quot;admirer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Борода&quot; is used as a synonym of the word &quot;подбородок&quot;, which means &quot;chin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trickiest word to translate is &quot;отбить&quot;. Here is used in the meaning &quot;hit smth so hard that it hurts very much&quot;. Usually, the word &quot;отбить&quot; is used not when you hit someone, but when you hurt yourself, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он неудачно прыгнул и отбил пятки. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He jumped unfortunately and hurt his heels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as in your example, it can also be used to refer to the actions directed at other people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="3d47e01a-9c39-4476-9d69-9de52c7f3ebb" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:03:19.967" UserId="185" Text="Both verbs have the meaning of movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Я прошла парк мимо (Or: Я прошла мимо парка)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Я прошла через парк&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) Я перешла улицу&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(4) Я перешла в другую аудиторию&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;проходить&quot; has many meanings, but here I will focus only on the two that were illustrated by sentences (1) and (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First meaning is &quot;to pass by&quot;. In sentences (1), you do not enter the park, you are only passing it by. Foe example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прошла мимо парка, я не знаю, убрали ли там мусор.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second meaning is &quot;to go through&quot;. In sentence (2), you enter the park, go through it and then leave it. You want to use this verb if you want to focus somebody's attention on the fact they you have actually been in the park. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прошла через парк, и там было чисто, наверное, весь мусор убрали утром.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;переходить&quot; also has also a whole lot of meanings, and again I only want to focus on two of them (sentences (3) and (4))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first meaning is &quot;to cross&quot;. In sentence (3), you may or may not actually step into the street, what is important here is that you were on one side and ended up on the other side. You might have crossed it by a bridge just as well. It is used with objects that look like lines (a road, a river, a railway, a corridor). You cannot really use word &quot;переходить&quot; with &quot;парк&quot; unless the park is known to be long and narrow, and even then it is questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning is &quot;to change location by walking&quot;. In sentence (4), it means that you have walked from one lecture hall into another one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the rest of the meanings of these two verbs, you should probably read the definitions [here](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EF%F0%EE%E9%F2%E8) and [here](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EF%E5%F0%E5%E9%F2%E8) фтв ерут ask your teacher further questions. Russian verbs of movement is a huge topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="da6428fb-a337-473b-93cb-d05f7ffc3cb6" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:05:21.403" UserId="3501" Text="Could you please explain what does subj mean and why?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="da6428fb-a337-473b-93cb-d05f7ffc3cb6" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:05:21.403" UserId="3501" Text="&quot;Руки не доходят посмотреть&quot; - what does it mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="da6428fb-a337-473b-93cb-d05f7ffc3cb6" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:05:21.403" UserId="3501" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="5bcc6f61-0459-4eb9-9329-a39d1c8bdb3d" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:19:54.377" UserId="1305" Text="Generally, idiom `Руки не доходят` means &quot;Cannot find time to do [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your phrase can be translated as &quot;Cannot find time to view/read/watch [something (movie, article, leak in the plumbing etc.)]&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4091" RevisionGUID="825fec6b-beaa-43dd-a411-689bc5158031" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:36:25.400" UserId="3502" Text="As @roman-petrenko said, `Руки не доходят [сделать что-то]` means &quot;Cannot find time to [do something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why &quot;руки&quot;? Generally you use hands to do something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why &quot;дошли/доходят&quot;? &quot;There were too many things I had to do and I haven't **got** to some job.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later the phrase generalized to the actions that don't involve hands (e.g. reading)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="ad393146-1c9f-43c0-a98f-901da391436f" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:39:39.480" UserId="1305" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Generally, idiom `Руки не доходят` means &quot;Cannot find time to do [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your phrase can be translated as &quot;Cannot find time to view/read/watch [something (movie, article, leak in the plumbing etc.)]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the given phrase (with `посмотреть`) is an oxymoron often referenced as an example of collocation which can be hardly understood by no Russian-speaking people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4092" RevisionGUID="87e0b8fe-d514-4449-aea8-241eb9932c34" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:43:16.177" UserId="3503" Text="Эти слова могут значить одно и то же, но в ряде случаев между ними будет явное смысловое различие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Проявить терпение&quot;** - значит показать свою способность стойко и безропотно переносить что-либо, обычно в течение долгого времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Проявить выдержку&quot;** - значит не потерять самообладания в критической ситуации. Показать хорошую выдержку можно и за несколько секунд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Словом &quot;терпение&quot; называют как способность терпеть, так и само это действие и состояние. У этих слов разная коннотация. Слово &quot;терпение&quot; ассоциируется с христианскими добродетелями:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Антоний затворил дверь и ушел, оставив старца. Но увидев терпение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Макария, отворил ему дверь, приветствовал его и сказал: слышав о твоих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; делах, я давно желал видеть тебя»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;выдержка&quot; новее (скажем, у Даля этого слова нет) и больше ассоциируется с эпохой СССР. Малый академический словарь Института русского языка Академии наук СССР определяет выдержку как &quot;Умение владеть собой; самообладание&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="8360f673-786a-4ea1-80c0-89b7ba83442d" CreationDate="2014-02-04T18:58:49.660" UserId="1688" Text="Can't tell about the Russian Twitter users, but in various Internet forums I've seen people use the copyright symbol &quot;(C)&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да будет свет! (с) Бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в значении&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да будет свет!, как сказал Бог." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4093" RevisionGUID="274de69f-0ef8-43cd-a097-fc04ab254765" CreationDate="2014-02-04T19:08:40.137" UserId="1688" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Can't tell about the Russian Twitter users, but in various Internet forums I've seen people use the copyright symbol &quot;(C)&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да будет свет! (с) Бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в значении&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да будет свет!, как сказал Бог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, &quot;hat tip&quot; has a wider meaning than just the indication of someone's authorship, so &quot;(c)&quot; probably cannot be used in all contexts where &quot;HT&quot; is appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4094" RevisionGUID="08e92b3a-9fb4-4daf-888e-0a6bf85bbca0" CreationDate="2014-02-04T19:25:14.497" UserId="3502" Text="The verb `перейти` can be used with subject. `перейти что-то` means `cross/walk across something`.&#xD;&#xA;The verb `перейти` can be used with destination. `перейти куда-то` means `walk/move/relocate somewhere`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb `пройти` roughly meand `to finish walking through something` and requires some explanation about what you've finished walking through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пройти мимо парка` - `to have finished walking along the park` (`to walk through the near-park zone`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пройти игру` - `to finish a game` (`to walk through a game`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пройти вперёд` - `to walk forward [some distance]` (`to walk &quot;through&quot; some space`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пройти в дом` - `to walk into the house` (Hard to say, but maybe it can be interpreted as `to walk through the house doorway`.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's compare `пройти в дом` и `перейти в дом`. The meanings are similar, but there is a slight defference. `пройти в дом` means `to go into the house`, while `перейти в дом` means `to move to the house [from some other concrete place]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My improvised rule is:&#xD;&#xA;**You need to decide what matters more - the journey or the start/destination. If the focus is on the start/destination, use `перейти`. If the focus is on the journey, use `пройти`.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of &quot;to walk near the park&quot; there is no destination, so you always use `пройти`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of &quot;to go to the auditorium&quot; there is destination and you can use either `перейти` or `пройти`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4095" RevisionGUID="da59fe60-d85c-431f-8fb3-08f5ccbc74ef" CreationDate="2014-02-04T19:28:47.450" UserId="3502" Text="`Выдержка` - composure, self-command, self-control, self-possession, self-government, self-mastery, self-restraint, personal coolness, control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Терпение` - patience, bearing, sufferance, tolerance, endurance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4096" RevisionGUID="e98b82c6-3cb9-4cdc-bfeb-440a702fd158" CreationDate="2014-02-04T19:44:30.797" UserId="3502" Text="`чий` = [**chi**]li + ma[**y**]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`чих` = [**chi**]li + [**h**]en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="ccedaff1-4713-4aee-b385-c4b79eee9610" CreationDate="2014-02-05T05:33:05.600" UserId="2496" Text="This is the name of paper, I'm currently can't find concrete source, but it is used everywhere, try to google it, it is every where. E.g. in this [paper][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cryptographic Computational Continuation Passing (CCCP),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule recommend, translation start from the end of sentences, vice verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Переход Продолжительный   Вычислительный Криптографический&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://people.cs.umass.edu/~negin/projects.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="ccedaff1-4713-4aee-b385-c4b79eee9610" CreationDate="2014-02-05T05:33:05.600" UserId="2496" Text="What is true translation of CCCP - Cryptographic Computational Continuation Passing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="ccedaff1-4713-4aee-b385-c4b79eee9610" CreationDate="2014-02-05T05:33:05.600" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4098" RevisionGUID="d2171e0f-3814-4708-b044-cc47b2c8dcd7" CreationDate="2014-02-05T07:18:18.973" UserId="3506" Text="&gt; Продолжительная Вычислительная Криптографическая Передача&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and here is the paper [CCCP: SECURE REMOTE STORAGE FOR COMPUTATIONAL RFIDS][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/salajegheh.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11435" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="56c7be92-32e7-4e54-b6f4-b16e2f75e18c" CreationDate="2014-02-05T07:32:33.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/430967161952415744" />
  <row Id="11436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4099" RevisionGUID="7247521a-8e21-4d24-8ba7-ec2a7b7932db" CreationDate="2014-02-05T09:34:14.253" UserId="2284" Text="'[Computational] continuation' in this context is a concept from functional programming which, AFAIK, has not yet gained a well-established translation in Russian. Many sources use 'продолжение [вычислений]'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the whole phrase may be translated as 'криптографическая передача продолжений вычислений' or 'шифрованная передача продолжений вычислений' or 'шифрованный обмен продолжениями вычислений'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4088" RevisionGUID="b9bf48ef-7954-4b9d-a98a-d3c1bb99cda3" CreationDate="2014-02-05T12:00:07.647" UserId="185" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Both verbs have the meaning of motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(1) Я прошла парк мимо (Or: Я прошла мимо парка)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) Я прошла через парк&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) Я перешла улицу&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(4) Я перешла в другую аудиторию&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;проходить&quot; has many meanings, but here I will focus only on the two that were illustrated by sentences (1) and (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First meaning is &quot;to pass by&quot;. In sentences (1), you do not enter the park, you are only passing it by. Foe example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прошла мимо парка, я не знаю, убрали ли там мусор.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second meaning is &quot;to go through&quot;. In sentence (2), you enter the park, go through it and then leave it. You want to use this verb if you want to focus somebody's attention on the fact they you have actually been in the park. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прошла через парк, и там было чисто, наверное, весь мусор убрали утром.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;переходить&quot; also has also a whole lot of meanings, and again I only want to focus on two of them (sentences (3) and (4))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first meaning is &quot;to cross&quot;. In sentence (3), you may or may not actually step into the street, what is important here is that you were on one side and ended up on the other side. You might have crossed it by a bridge just as well. It is used with objects that look like lines (a road, a river, a railway, a corridor). You cannot really use word &quot;переходить&quot; with &quot;парк&quot; unless the park is known to be long and narrow, and even then it is questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning is &quot;to change location by walking&quot;. In sentence (4), it means that you have walked from one lecture hall into another one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the rest of the meanings of these two verbs, you should probably read the definitions [here](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EF%F0%EE%E9%F2%E8) and [here](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EF%E5%F0%E5%E9%F2%E8) and then ask your teacher further questions. Russian verbs of motion is a huge topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11439" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="e3afa404-08bd-448a-95ea-1f7884570b7c" CreationDate="2014-02-05T16:18:46.837" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;проходит&quot; and &quot;переходит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="a9ed1b92-0111-424d-8c0b-a712da090ad1" CreationDate="2014-02-05T18:40:18.747" UserId="3502" Text="@BlackBada's answer covered the perfect passive particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the imperfect passive particles, every particle that I can think of ends with `-ем-ый`,`-ем-ая`,`-ем-ое`,`-ем-ый` suffixes+inflections. The corresponding short forms shouldm have the `-ем`,`-ем-а`,`-ем-о`,`-ем-ы` suffixes+inflections. To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* читаем -&gt; читать&#xD;&#xA;* сжимаем -&gt; сжимать&#xD;&#xA;* сминаем -&gt; сминать&#xD;&#xA;* засеваем -&gt; засевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that these short imperfect passive particles are spelled identical to the verbs in the &quot;2nd person, plural, present tense&quot; form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="e2a6c2f6-d998-4705-ac7f-4e53e8722efe" CreationDate="2014-02-05T18:47:42.277" UserId="3502" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="@BlackBada's answer covered the perfect passive particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the imperfect passive particles, every particle that I can think of ends with `-ем-ый`,`-ем-ая`,`-ем-ое`,`-ем-ый` suffixes+inflections. The corresponding short forms shouldm have the `-ем`,`-ем-а`,`-ем-о`,`-ем-ы` suffixes+inflections. To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* читаем -&gt; читать (`Код читаем` - `The code is readable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сжимаема -&gt; сжимать (`Жидкость сжимаема` - `The liquid is compressable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сминаем -&gt; сминать&#xD;&#xA;* засеваем -&gt; засевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short imperfect passive particles in masculine form can be ambigous, because they are spelled identical to the verbs in the &quot;2nd person, plural, present tense&quot; form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="86413100-2546-4fa9-b6de-423849112d8a" CreationDate="2014-02-05T23:47:16.457" UserId="1329" Comment="Patrticiples, not particles. Otherwise the answer is good." Text="@BlackBada's answer covered the perfect passive participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the imperfect passive participles, every participle that I can think of ends with `-ем-ый`,`-ем-ая`,`-ем-ое`,`-ем-ый` suffixes+inflections. The corresponding short forms should have the `-ем`,`-ем-а`,`-ем-о`,`-ем-ы` suffixes+inflections. To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* читаем -&gt; читать (`Код читаем` - `The code is readable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сжимаема -&gt; сжимать (`Жидкость сжимаема` - `The liquid is compressable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сминаем -&gt; сминать&#xD;&#xA;* засеваем -&gt; засевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short imperfect passive participles in masculine form can be ambigous, because they are spelled identical to the verbs in the &quot;2nd person, plural, present tense&quot; form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11446" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="99fd74fe-8ed3-497c-aa9a-1ec492c7ea50" CreationDate="2014-02-06T00:03:08.470" UserId="1329" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="11447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="b78e84ea-4752-4026-ba22-2bfc8303e27f" CreationDate="2014-02-06T00:20:22.580" UserId="1770" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I know that _проходит_ is for saying like when you pass by a place, like: _я прошла мимо парка_, and _переходит_ is for saying when moving one place to the other, like: _я перешла в другую аудиторию_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are cases when these verbes seem to be the same, when using the preposition _через_, I think you can say _я перешла через улицу_ but you can't say _я прошла через улицу_, however one can say _я прошла через Мехико_ and _я перешла через Мехико_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the deal? what am I understanding wrong? what does those words really mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11448" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="c7748560-69ee-45c8-a070-dedf3f761dde" CreationDate="2014-02-06T01:32:39.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/431238982979309570" />
  <row Id="11451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="666c7027-9946-4afb-a63e-e1790c54790b" CreationDate="2014-02-06T14:41:26.460" UserId="3502" Comment="edited body" Text="@BlackBada's answer covered the perfect passive participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the imperfect passive participles, every participle that I can think of ends with `-ем-ый`,`-ем-ая`,`-ем-ое`,`-ем-ый` suffixes+inflections. The corresponding short forms should have the `-ем`,`-ем-а`,`-ем-о`,`-ем-ы` suffixes+inflections. To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* читаем -&gt; читать (`Код читаем` - `The code is readable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сжимаема -&gt; сжимать (`Жидкость сжимаема` - `The liquid is compressible`)&#xD;&#xA;* сминаем -&gt; сминать&#xD;&#xA;* засеваем -&gt; засевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short imperfect passive participles in masculine form can be ambigous, because they are spelled identical to the verbs in the &quot;2nd person, plural, present tense&quot; form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="6999e29c-0704-4072-a54e-d65dc5f8238e" CreationDate="2014-02-06T16:16:12.383" UserId="3502" Comment="added 1143 characters in body" Text="There are four types of participles in Russian language. This is how they're formed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Active Present Participle**: suffix `-ущ`/`-ющ` or `-ащ`/`-ящ`; Examples: идущий, дрожащий, заходящий, влияющий, вращающийся, строящийся&#xD;&#xA;* **Active Past Participle**: suffix `-вш` or `-ш`; Examples: заходивший, влиявший, вращавшийся, строившийся, написавший, испугавшийся, пришедший.&#xD;&#xA;* **Passive Present Participle**: suffix `-ем`/`-ом` or `-им`; Examples: вращаемый, изучаемый, образуемый, движимый, несомый&#xD;&#xA;* **Passive Past Participle**: suffix `-?н` or `-т`; Examples: изуч**енн**ый, образова**нн**ый, поби**т**ый, заня**т**ый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're interested in short passive participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть` (or `-ти`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ем/ом/им -&gt; ть/ти/ь&#xD;&#xA;* т -&gt; ть/ти/ь&#xD;&#xA;* ен/ён -&gt; ать/ять or ить (depending on the verb's conjugation)&#xD;&#xA;* н -&gt; ть/ти/ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To chose the correct suffix (ть/ти/ь and ать/ять/ить) you need to know the root verb information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comprehensive article about participles in Russian language can help you a lot: http://rusgram.ru/Причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@BlackBada's answer covered the perfect passive participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the imperfect passive participles, every participle that I can think of ends with `-ем-ый`,`-ем-ая`,`-ем-ое`,`-ем-ый` suffixes+inflections. The corresponding short forms should have the `-ем`,`-ем-а`,`-ем-о`,`-ем-ы` suffixes+inflections. To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* читаем -&gt; читать (`Код читаем` - `The code is readable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сжимаема -&gt; сжимать (`Жидкость сжимаема` - `The liquid is compressible`)&#xD;&#xA;* сминаем -&gt; сминать&#xD;&#xA;* засеваем -&gt; засевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short imperfect passive participles in masculine form can be ambigous, because they are spelled identical to the verbs in the &quot;2nd person, plural, present tense&quot; form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="3a495451-a2a4-466a-ac64-d53dc0a6a7be" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:34:56.853" UserId="3511" Text="I understand that every language has tricky words, meaning, words that do not follow the normal sounds or conventions of most words or letters. However, I do want to ensure I am being taught this word correctly so that I can practice learning it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word: `лёгкий`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The course I'm taking pronounces it to where it almost sounds like: `loo-skee` or `luiskee`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is correct? Or is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="3a495451-a2a4-466a-ac64-d53dc0a6a7be" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:34:56.853" UserId="3511" Text="How to pronounce лёгкий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="3a495451-a2a4-466a-ac64-d53dc0a6a7be" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:34:56.853" UserId="3511" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="c8743031-dd87-42f3-be9f-477428121c19" CreationDate="2014-02-06T20:10:47.037" UserId="242" Text="Quite often you can find answer to such questions [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;So, the phonetic transcription is [ˈlʲɵxʲ.kʲɪj] which roughly can be transmitted as&#xD;&#xA;liokhkiy (kh like Scotsmen spell ch in Loch Ness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4104" RevisionGUID="690d5665-06ee-4e05-99f4-8b28ed90df9d" CreationDate="2014-02-06T20:30:54.780" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Quite often you can find answer to such questions [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;So, the phonetic transcription is [ˈlʲɵxʲ.kʲɪj] which roughly can be transmitted as&#xD;&#xA;liokhkiy (&quot;kh&quot; like Scotsmen spell &quot;ch&quot; in Loch Ness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4105" RevisionGUID="5959ca4f-0df1-4423-8a00-80922c48afa9" CreationDate="2014-02-07T12:11:02.810" UserId="3513" Text="Subject Verb Object - is most typical word order in Russian sentences, but Object Verb Subject - is very rare and sound like &quot;Yoda speech&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general case you can revert words in sentence (as Sirius Black suggested), but with one important exception: preposition in groups with preposition (preposition+noun, preposition+adjective+noun, etc) should be kept in first position into the group. Other words in the group could be reverted - for example: preposition+noun+adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="4df33008-2ff2-4613-bdb8-b07ac49dcba0" CreationDate="2014-02-07T14:31:27.707" UserId="1961" Text="How can i translate LOGIN and REGISTER in webdesign context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can also translate CLIENT LOGIN - EMAIL - USERNAME - PASSWORD ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How they are commonly used in russian websites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="4df33008-2ff2-4613-bdb8-b07ac49dcba0" CreationDate="2014-02-07T14:31:27.707" UserId="1961" Text="How to translate LOGIN and REGISTER?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="4df33008-2ff2-4613-bdb8-b07ac49dcba0" CreationDate="2014-02-07T14:31:27.707" UserId="1961" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="b1105fb0-d6a7-4b4f-ad8f-fcaa1c08fc38" CreationDate="2014-02-07T14:42:19.930" UserId="1961" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="How can i translate LOGIN and REGISTER in webdesign context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can also translate CLIENT LOGIN - EMAIL - USERNAME - PASSWORD - LOGOUT ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i have found are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LOGIN - **логин** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;REGISTER - **регистрировать** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CLIENT LOGIN - **Логин клиента** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;EMAIL - **е-мейл** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;USERNAME - **имя пользователя** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PASSWORD - **пароль** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;LOGOUT - **выйти** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to use these words exactly how they are commonly used in russian websites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11464" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="f1170c23-a8e7-45ef-921e-097c49c29614" CreationDate="2014-02-07T15:05:39.420" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2807],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;petajamaja&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4101" RevisionGUID="63f76a87-2ecb-44dd-99d1-545eb070c219" CreationDate="2014-02-07T15:07:24.313" UserId="3502" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="There are four types of participles in Russian language. This is how they're formed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Active Present Participle**: suffix `-ущ`/`-ющ` or `-ащ`/`-ящ`; Examples: идущий, дрожащий, заходящий, влияющий, вращающийся, строящийся&#xD;&#xA;* **Active Past Participle**: suffix `-вш` or `-ш`; Examples: заходивший, влиявший, вращавшийся, строившийся, написавший, испугавшийся, пришедший.&#xD;&#xA;* **Passive Present Participle**: suffix `-ем`/`-ом` or `-им`; Examples: вращаемый, изучаемый, образуемый, движимый, несомый&#xD;&#xA;* **Passive Past Participle**: suffix `-?н` or `-т`; Examples: изуч**енн**ый, образова**нн**ый, поби**т**ый, заня**т**ый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're interested in short passive participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть` (or `-ти`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ем/ом/им -&gt; ть/ти/ь&#xD;&#xA;* т -&gt; ть/ти/ь&#xD;&#xA;* ен/ён -&gt; ать/ять or ить (depending on the verb's conjugation)&#xD;&#xA;* н -&gt; ть/ти/ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To chose the correct suffix (ть/ти/ь and ать/ять/ить) you need to know the root verb information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comprehensive article about participles in Russian language can help you a lot: [http://rusgram.ru/Причастие][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Old answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@BlackBada's answer covered the perfect passive participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the imperfect passive participles, every participle that I can think of ends with `-ем-ый`,`-ем-ая`,`-ем-ое`,`-ем-ый` suffixes+inflections. The corresponding short forms should have the `-ем`,`-ем-а`,`-ем-о`,`-ем-ы` suffixes+inflections. To recreate the infinitive verb forms just replace those suffixes+inflections with `-ть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* читаем -&gt; читать (`Код читаем` - `The code is readable`)&#xD;&#xA;* сжимаема -&gt; сжимать (`Жидкость сжимаема` - `The liquid is compressible`)&#xD;&#xA;* сминаем -&gt; сминать&#xD;&#xA;* засеваем -&gt; засевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short imperfect passive participles in masculine form can be ambigous, because they are spelled identical to the verbs in the &quot;2nd person, plural, present tense&quot; form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="9bb99eba-e08c-4fa7-a1af-407305b0f819" CreationDate="2014-02-07T15:12:08.617" UserId="3502" Text="username - имя пользователя &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the login - имя пользователя/логин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to login - войти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an account - учётная запись&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to register - зарегистрироваться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;registration - регистрация&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e-mail - е-мейл/почта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;password - пароль&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to logout - выйти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;CLIENT LOGIN&quot; - How is this different from login?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="d52bc1d2-1877-4c2e-96fc-65f9fd592f97" CreationDate="2014-02-07T16:10:16.637" UserId="3502" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="username - имя пользователя &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the login - имя пользователя/логин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to login - войти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an account - учётная запись&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to register - зарегистрироваться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;registration - регистрация&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e-mail - е-мейл/почта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;password - пароль&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to logout - выйти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the client login - вход для клиентов&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="bc7a4747-49d4-42b9-93c0-91fa68cbd451" CreationDate="2014-02-07T17:44:56.547" UserId="2238" Text="The transcription is [l'oxk'ij'], where x is for fricative guttural sound and apostrophee is for palatalisation of the previous consonant. [o] is under stress. Palatalisation of x is facultative. [j] is quite frequently omitted, as in all the forms with [ij] at the end, but it is not the most correct way of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;The word is tricky, because it has *[γk']-&gt;[xk'] where *[gk']-&gt; *[kk']-&gt; [k'] is expected. It is a trace of the ancient state of the language where г was pronounced as fricative sound, [γ]. &quot;-&gt;&quot; is for &quot;became&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4109" RevisionGUID="abe8263a-c6ea-479e-b5c3-708838992f8b" CreationDate="2014-02-07T17:55:06.873" UserId="2238" Text="There are no exceptions. There is a strict but complicated rule. Stressed o is always [o]. Unstressed o in absolute beginning, absolute end and un the syllable before the stressed one is [^] (also written as [a], but actually a sound of medium line rather then low line like [a] (although Moscow people are notorious for saying [a] instead of [^])). Unstressed o in all the other positions is [ъ], which is basically something like reduced [o], but if you are a foreigner you could use your shwa sound (like -er in words like sister, usually shown in transctiprion as e turned by 180 degrees) in this position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4110" RevisionGUID="77ca2b94-a103-4ff9-a0d5-31a3b1eab414" CreationDate="2014-02-07T18:00:23.003" UserId="2238" Text="The pronunciation is [s'ivodn'i] with stressed o and apostrophee for palatalisation. There is [v] because it comes from сего дня, where -его is ending of pronoun which is always pronounced with [v] instead of [g]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4111" RevisionGUID="fe6802cf-95c2-4773-b80c-b7cf59d00114" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:49:57.890" UserId="3517" Text="I would say that Moscow version of today will sound likе &quot;Sevodnya&quot;. Where &quot;o&quot; is somewhere between &quot;o&quot; and &quot;а&quot; in its sound. And &quot;ya&quot; means short soft &quot;n&quot; together with &quot;ya&quot; sound like in nyan cat.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sego&quot; sounding like Sega with &quot;o&quot; on the end is not used in actual spoken language for close to 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;Even in written language you will not see &quot;sego&quot; separately in last hundred of years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4105" RevisionGUID="443869df-3b73-4362-bcc5-8eeaaf445251" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:51:37.533" UserId="3513" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Subject Verb Object - is most typical word order in Russian sentences, but Object Verb Subject - is very rare and sound like &quot;Yoda speech&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general case you can revert words in sentence (as Sirius Black suggested), but with one important exception: preposition in groups with preposition (preposition+noun, preposition+adjective+noun, etc) should be kept in first position within the group. Other words in the group could be reverted - for example: preposition+noun+adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4112" RevisionGUID="93f725ba-dd94-48be-8f82-1b52ae22df5f" CreationDate="2014-02-07T22:02:17.410" UserId="3517" Text="In Moscow version of Russian it is pronounced close to lioghky. Soft L. Then &quot;'о&quot; which together will produce sound like l'o. Close to sound depicted by ё letter. GH is actually somewhere between G and H. Closer to just H. In some cases you will just hear air exit like in &quot;kh&quot; sound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="e46f5046-07e5-4d04-8b2c-5f66f409fd3a" CreationDate="2014-02-08T10:37:44.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/432100932600725504" />
  <row Id="11480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4103" RevisionGUID="145957d9-1d2b-4e43-8288-90c21add8c2b" CreationDate="2014-02-09T01:37:44.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/432327424937033728" />
  <row Id="11482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="c0e5bcb9-8839-41c9-b967-92a7c3f93a16" CreationDate="2014-02-10T00:18:30.410" UserId="194" Text="Ther Russian phonetical transcription of this word is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[л'охк'ий'] where the apostrophe denotes the softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is read totally following the rules of reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4114" RevisionGUID="98fb87d7-902f-4862-bf50-c862e6e499dc" CreationDate="2014-02-10T00:26:18.493" UserId="194" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Ther Russian phonetical transcription of this word is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[л'охк'ий'] where the apostrophe denotes the softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is read totally following the rules of reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can listen to the correct pronounciation here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lingvo-online.ru/ru/Translate/en-ru/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="a45cbf88-656d-4c9f-b4ce-150d6f3cfd39" CreationDate="2014-02-10T09:02:31.817" UserId="1836" Text="As it was written before, &quot;руки не доходят посмотреть&quot; means  &quot;Cannot find time to watch&quot;, but there is an accent like &quot;Well, I want to watch it, but when I have time, I have something with higher priority to watch, or something distracts me&quot;, not &quot;I Can't find time to watch anything, so I didn't watch this thing&quot;. So in general it's used when you have time to watch movies and rest, and you want to watch this movie, but somehow you didn't yet.&#xD;&#xA;And about walking hands, first of all &quot;доходить&quot; is perfect form of &quot;ходить&quot;, so it is closer to &quot;get to&quot;. And &quot;доходить&quot; has rather wide meaning: in different cases it can be translated as &quot;to understand&quot;, &quot;to be done&quot;, &quot;to rise&quot; (to an amount)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="12810938-f96a-48d6-a350-c46691410049" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:02:24.240" UserId="2496" Text="What SE is about translation from English to Russian ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian.SE ( Seems more for those who learn Russian )&#xD;&#xA;* There are Two English.SE&#xD;&#xA;  * http://ell.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  * http://english.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems this English SEs will ban me automatically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't learn Russian, I learn English. Is this SE for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="12810938-f96a-48d6-a350-c46691410049" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:02:24.240" UserId="2496" Text="Where should I ask questions about translation from English to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="12810938-f96a-48d6-a350-c46691410049" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:02:24.240" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4117" RevisionGUID="83f30013-d8b0-435d-8d30-d3991fb346ed" CreationDate="2014-02-10T12:06:02.527" UserId="97" Text="First, I think this question is better suited for meta.russian.SE - I'll flag for moderators to move it there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the actual content of your question, this is indeed the right forum to ask question about translation into Russian, however your questions should not be straight &quot;How do I translate X?&quot; - instead, you need to show some research on your part, e.g. &quot;I believe the right translation is Y, however I'm unsure about the meaning of word Z&quot;. Or, &quot;I don't understand the meaning of this phrase; each word means that and that, however put together they make no sense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main point is to show that you've done some work rather than expect others to do it for you.  If you ask questions right, people will be more than happy to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="35491adf-c94e-49c7-b640-26d45731d938" CreationDate="2014-02-10T14:19:59.853" UserId="2496" Text="source: http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/nsas-ant-division-catalog-of-exploits-for-nearly-every-major-software-hardware-firmware/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tote chaser - азартный преследователь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="35491adf-c94e-49c7-b640-26d45731d938" CreationDate="2014-02-10T14:19:59.853" UserId="2496" Text="How to translate &quot;Tote Chaser&quot; trully? &quot;азартный преследователь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="35491adf-c94e-49c7-b640-26d45731d938" CreationDate="2014-02-10T14:19:59.853" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4118" RevisionGUID="dfac97c6-6f25-4cea-aaf7-ce9868b22628" CreationDate="2014-02-10T14:58:58.007" UserId="2496" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="source: http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/nsas-ant-division-catalog-of-exploits-for-nearly-every-major-software-hardware-firmware/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tote chaser - азартный преследователь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IZYLR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4120" RevisionGUID="2fc4a5f1-b94e-4dd0-a671-8b58b5267c11" CreationDate="2014-02-10T15:47:44.957" UserId="97" Text="Probably the best explanation of the work I found was on [urban dictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=towelhead):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Towel head**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A derogatory term for one of Middle Eastern descent, especially a male. It comes from their custom of wearing a turban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a one-world translation of this work. You could follow @Artemix advice of _Тюрбаноголовые_, however I don't think it conveys the exact meaning.  You could also use longer phrase _с полотенцем на голове_ (literally, _with towel on the head_) - however it's difficult to judge without further context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4120" RevisionGUID="03524711-7d69-43b5-b2bc-4fc7916c74bf" CreationDate="2014-02-10T20:19:34.317" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="Probably the best explanation of the word I found was on [urban dictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=towelhead):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Towel head**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A derogatory term for one of Middle Eastern descent, especially a male. It comes from their custom of wearing a turban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a one-world translation of this word. You could follow @Artemix advice of _Тюрбаноголовые_, however I don't think it conveys the exact meaning.  You could also use longer phrase _с полотенцем на голове_ (literally, _with towel on the head_) - however it's difficult to judge without further context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4121" RevisionGUID="e2fd9cd2-ab2b-4e3d-820d-ebb6d534c552" CreationDate="2014-02-11T04:44:50.720" UserId="194" Text="Definitely, *полотенцеголовые*. But note that this is not an idiom, you would need to provide context so that people understand that you mean people of Middle Eastern descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *something*головый means a person with *something* used for head. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4121" RevisionGUID="f51f78d3-6966-40ce-a8bc-a3103d2f104f" CreationDate="2014-02-11T04:51:02.820" UserId="194" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="Definitely, *полотенцеголовые*. But note that this is not an idiom, you would need to provide context so that people understand that you mean people of Middle Eastern descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *something*головый means a person with *something* used for head. With the *something* being a non-intelligent object the word naturally implies that the person is stupid. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11498" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="977d6ce4-a1a6-4fcd-86be-579ab2e213f5" CreationDate="2014-02-11T12:51:05.153" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="f5808b94-41e6-4a3b-b7d2-47e12a461a43" CreationDate="2014-02-11T13:52:32.440" UserId="1961" Text="Can you help me please to translate &quot;Automatic transmission&quot;  and &quot;Manual transmission&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found this: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Automatic transmission**:  автоматическая коробка передач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Manual transmission**: механическая коробка передач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Transmission**: коробка передач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;Are they abbreviated as **АКП**  and  **МКП** ? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If i will use this abbreviations on a russian website, everybody will understand them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="f5808b94-41e6-4a3b-b7d2-47e12a461a43" CreationDate="2014-02-11T13:52:32.440" UserId="1961" Text="How to translate &quot;Automatic transmission&quot; and &quot;Manual transmission&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="f5808b94-41e6-4a3b-b7d2-47e12a461a43" CreationDate="2014-02-11T13:52:32.440" UserId="1961" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4123" RevisionGUID="80c17c7e-e893-4835-823e-ff8e060aef31" CreationDate="2014-02-11T14:20:53.240" UserId="97" Text="_Механическая коробка передач_ и _автоматическая коробка передач_ - are indeed the correct translations. Abbreviations _МКП_ и _АКП_ are also correct (also sometimes used _МКПП_ and _АКПП_ - _механическая/автоматическая коробка переключения передач_), although I haven't seen these beyond the motor-engineering literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech, you can also hear simple _механика_ и _автомат_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your specific website, I suppose it depends what your audience is.  I personally would avoid using the abbreviations, but it's really up to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4124" RevisionGUID="36cad61c-11de-4d04-9d60-de22dd837812" CreationDate="2014-02-11T14:26:16.023" UserId="3498" Text="Yes, it is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Automatic transmission:** автоматическая коробка **переключения** передач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Manual transmission:** механическая коробка **переключения** передач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Transmission:** коробка **переключения** передач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and they are abbreviated as **АКПП** and **МКПП**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Automatic transmission:** автомат&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Manual transmission:** механика&#xD;&#xA;![http://ab.onliner.by/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0Lf7h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11504" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4122" RevisionGUID="f07bd0a3-5ba6-4fb5-a973-1455f94edae2" CreationDate="2014-02-11T22:37:52.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/433369321360719872" />
  <row Id="11505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4125" RevisionGUID="3474d61b-eba8-43c2-8aa3-e04089f6f9ee" CreationDate="2014-02-12T04:51:36.313" UserId="2244" Text="Most of top-secret codenames are randomly generated pairs of two nouns. Only a few such combinations would be translatable. They are designed not to refer to the purpose of the program/tool nor to have any meaning at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11509" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="5be26568-b7f7-4613-9a65-955c2f8e17b7" CreationDate="2014-02-13T01:38:04.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/433777058812919809" />
  <row Id="11510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4127" RevisionGUID="d2758117-3184-4110-bdea-8fd8a923c55f" CreationDate="2014-02-13T04:29:52.137" UserId="3537" Text="we call em &quot;чурбан&quot; that's kind of mix of &quot;тюрбан&quot; Turban, that is exactly what you ask for and &quot;чурка&quot; that is a dumb person from the south..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="373fa80a-7287-4d64-8b51-8baa4a9c8a2b" CreationDate="2014-02-13T07:43:05.493" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="While doing research for this question, I encountered there is a thing named `местный падеж` as it says on the wikipages for [`пол`][1] and [`берег`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a teacher told me, that there are some words ending in `-у` and there would be three rules which apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. These words have one syllable&#xD;&#xA;2. They are masculine&#xD;&#xA;3. Their accent is on the ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it didn't help me and I doubt the rules. `берег` has two syllables and the accent on the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what those word are?&#xD;&#xA;- which rules do apply?&#xD;&#xA;- how to recognize, if possible?&#xD;&#xA;- when to use `меснтный` and when `родителный падеж`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- why does the accent shift to the ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="373fa80a-7287-4d64-8b51-8baa4a9c8a2b" CreationDate="2014-02-13T07:43:05.493" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Is there a way to determine words ending in &quot;-у&quot; when used in context of localisation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="373fa80a-7287-4d64-8b51-8baa4a9c8a2b" CreationDate="2014-02-13T07:43:05.493" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|падежи|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11514" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="09896c55-0e57-42aa-8b61-642dc8492dd0" CreationDate="2014-02-13T11:00:00.377" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="Corrected title" Text="Is there a way to determine substantives ending in &quot;-у&quot; when used in context of localisation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="e9b8aa7e-9330-4054-b4da-75a737146b49" CreationDate="2014-02-13T11:07:14.750" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="Formatting" Text="Your question seems to be assuming that singular and plural are the only [grammatical numbers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number). This assumptions isn't true for most Slavic languages, in particularly it isn't true for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#When you are counting things..&#xD;&#xA;..then the rules are way more complicated, e.g. there is [Dual](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_%28grammatical_number%29): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      два   грамма&#xD;&#xA;      двух  грамм&#xD;&#xA;      двум  граммам&#xD;&#xA;      два   грамма&#xD;&#xA;      двумя граммами&#xD;&#xA;    о двух  граммах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely, this declination doesn't match either the singular or the plural declination of the word `грамм`. As you noticed, some words also have a special [numeral form](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%87%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0) for numbers other than 2, 3, 4 and it also has its own declination rules: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      девять  грамм&#xD;&#xA;      девяти  граммов&#xD;&#xA;      девяти  граммам&#xD;&#xA;      девять  грамм&#xD;&#xA;      девятью граммами&#xD;&#xA;    о девяти  граммах &#xD;&#xA;This declination mostly matches plural with the exception of Nominative and Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#To sum up&#xD;&#xA;There is only one word but grammatical numbers other than singular and plural make declination more complicated than what you learn in school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11516" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="e9b8aa7e-9330-4054-b4da-75a737146b49" CreationDate="2014-02-13T11:07:14.750" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 428" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4129" RevisionGUID="1c4944d0-fb43-4ab3-963a-64e5b489f499" CreationDate="2014-02-13T18:19:25.303" UserId="629" Text="I'll try to explain, but that's my first answer at language-section of stack, so be free to ask me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Местный падеж` is similar to `Предложный падеж` in russian so word will answer to question `Where?`, but main difference that `Местный падеж` give us information about item's position. Anyway, this difference is so small, that there're no `Местный падеж` in russian, that's just a type of `Предложный падеж`. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Where's Your largest birthmark placed? &#xD;&#xA;    - On my side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Где твоя самая большая родинка?&#xD;&#xA;    - На **боку**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4129" RevisionGUID="9afcb5bf-b2eb-42aa-93f2-138f6f076845" CreationDate="2014-02-13T18:48:15.167" UserId="629" Comment="added 476 characters in body" Text="I'll try to explain, but that's my first answer at language-section of stack, so be free to ask me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Местный падеж` is similar to `Предложный падеж` in russian so word will answer to question `Where?`, but main difference that `Местный падеж` give us information about item's position. Anyway, this difference is so small, that there're no `Местный падеж` in russian, that's just a type of `Предложный падеж`. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Where's Your largest birthmark placed? &#xD;&#xA;    - On my side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Где твоя самая большая родинка?&#xD;&#xA;    - На **боку**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `Местный падеж` specifies the place of action. So there're usual words like `в лесу`, `в городе`, etc&#xD;&#xA;2. There are two preposition used with `Местный падеж`: `в` и `на` *(в лесу, на дереве)*&#xD;&#xA;3. `Местный падеж` is `Предложный падеж` with specifying place of action&#xD;&#xA;4. Use `Местный падеж` if word answer to `Where?` and specifying place of action. Anyway You'll use rules from `Предложный падеж`, 'cause `Местный падеж` is part of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no ideas in fact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11520" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="834002b9-ed7d-4523-a8f1-f242c6b2c7e3" CreationDate="2014-02-13T19:38:04.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/434048848122875904" />
  <row Id="11521" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="ec16d62f-3506-431e-8f09-906f3e4e01c3" CreationDate="2014-02-14T01:34:24.780" UserId="-1" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="11522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="ca9aa8ef-9c4b-4e7b-a131-12156e2c2789" CreationDate="2014-02-14T10:48:32.273" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="While doing research for this question, I encountered there is a thing named `местный падеж` as it says on the wikipages for [`пол`][1] and [`берег`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a teacher told me, that there are some words ending in `-у` and there would be three rules which apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. These words have one syllable&#xD;&#xA;2. They are masculine&#xD;&#xA;3. Their accent is on the ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it didn't help me and I doubt the rules. `берег` has two syllables and the accent on the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what those word are?&#xD;&#xA;- which rules do apply?&#xD;&#xA;- how to recognize, if possible?&#xD;&#xA;- when to use `меснтный` and when &lt;strike&gt;`родителный`&lt;/strike&gt; `предложный падеж`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- why does the accent shift to the ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="f1276ff8-88ed-4e54-bd4d-b52702847b80" CreationDate="2014-02-14T11:12:39.877" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="Added further assumptions" Text="While doing research for this question, I encountered there is a thing named `местный падеж` as it says on the wikipages for [`пол`][1] and [`берег`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a teacher told me, that there are some words ending in `-у` and there would be three rules which apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. These words have one syllable&#xD;&#xA;2. They are masculine&#xD;&#xA;3. Their accent is on the ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it didn't help me and I doubt the rules. `берег` has two syllables and the accent on the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what those word are?&#xD;&#xA;- which rules do apply?&#xD;&#xA;- how to recognize, if possible?&#xD;&#xA;- when to use `меснтный` and when &lt;strike&gt;`родителный`&lt;/strike&gt; `предложный падеж`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- why does the accent shift to the ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My assumptions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some words simply have this *additional ending* `-y`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;БЕРЕГ, -а; предлож. о береге, на берегу; мн. берега, -ов; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ШКАФ, -а, предл. о шкафе, в шкафу; мн. шкафы; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ПОЛ, -а (-у), предлож. о поле, на полу; мн. полы&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЛЕС, -а (-у), предл. о лесе, в лесу; мн. леса, -ов;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ХОД, -а (-у), предлож. в ходе и в ходу, на ходе и на ходу; мн. ходы; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...gramota.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- no way to recognize them right away (it seems they are mostly short, but `берег` has two syllables e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;- `-у` is used in context of question `Where?` otherwise the usual ending (mostly `-e`?!)&#xD;&#xA;- in case `-y` is used, it *always* holds the accent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4130" RevisionGUID="9a169e77-5fb5-4eae-904f-a53725f786b6" CreationDate="2014-02-14T14:05:19.800" UserId="3498" Text="&gt; but берег has two syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the reason is that аrchaic form of the word &quot;берег&quot; is &quot;брег&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;на бреге&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11525" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3073" RevisionGUID="aad95df2-02fa-4489-88fa-25258fe1c9e9" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:38:04.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/434365938797125632" />
  <row Id="11526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="63d439a4-f17a-428d-a636-ed5302538563" CreationDate="2014-02-15T10:00:47.303" UserId="2496" Text="Source: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3658181/PiotrPiasecki-BitcoinMasterThesis.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.5.5 Clock drift &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Standard Client exchanges the current machine time with its peers when establishing new connections. It also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maintains a counter representing the med ian network time reported by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Client's peers. If the counter differs by more than 70 minutes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; than the Node's machine time, it is reset to represent the latter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methinks, that &quot;Clock drift&quot; means the control of time shifting (to forward or to backward)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="63d439a4-f17a-428d-a636-ed5302538563" CreationDate="2014-02-15T10:00:47.303" UserId="2496" Text="How to say &quot;Clock drift&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="63d439a4-f17a-428d-a636-ed5302538563" CreationDate="2014-02-15T10:00:47.303" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4133" RevisionGUID="2572b52d-b556-4357-b040-63c4652e3bb6" CreationDate="2014-02-15T11:35:49.440" UserId="2199" Text="I don't think there is equivalent term in Russian. So you could translate by meaning: `Разница в скорости хода часов`.  &#xD;&#xA;Read [clock drift article][1] on Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_drift" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4135" RevisionGUID="161f3ccb-64be-4624-9016-9a588b7bdd5a" CreationDate="2014-02-15T19:17:39.600" UserId="2238" Text="There are about thirty or fourty words of the second masculine declension (masculine words ending with a consonant) whose Locative (-у like на мосту - on the/a bridge) is not the same as the Prepositional (-е like о мосте- about the/a bridge) case. They are mostly one- or two-syllable, but one must just learn these words. The Locative is used after prepositions в and на if the meaning of the group is either place or time. The most common words of this list are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мост;&#xD;&#xA; - (аэро)порт;&#xD;&#xA; - лес;&#xD;&#xA; - год;&#xD;&#xA; - берег;&#xD;&#xA; - бок;&#xD;&#xA; - бой;&#xD;&#xA; - шкаф.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also word ход which is difficult, because there are expressions &quot;в ходу&quot; that means &quot;widely used&quot; and &quot;на ходу&quot; that means &quot;while moving/driving/flying/piloting&quot;, but in usual usage Locative of ход is ходе - the same as Prepositional, as for most words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="275a0416-6906-4c5a-9427-8aa881dfc878" CreationDate="2014-02-15T19:53:58.263" UserId="2238" Text="I shall try to answer the given questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Quality of vowel reduction**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two stages of reduction. First stage is in the syllable before the stressed one, in the absolute beginning and in the absolute end. Second stage is in all other unstressed positions. Here is the correct table (by Petersburg's norm, Moscow's is a bit different)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed - 1st stage - 2nd stage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a non-palatalised consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а/о - ^ (sound similar to а but with middle up-going of the tongue like in о) - ъ (sound like shwa); э (sometimes written as е) - ы - ъ; ы - ы - ы; у - у - у;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a palatalised consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и - и - и; у (written as ю) - у - у; а (written as я)/о (written as ё)/э (written as е) - и - ь (another reduced sound a bit similar to ъ but pronounced close to teeth like э).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pronunciation of е that stems from ять does not differ from pronunciation of е that stems from е for a long time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Palatalisation and assimilation** is anither rtopic where Petersburg and Moscow are different in pronunciation. According to Petersburg's norm, there is no palatalising assimilation actually at all and there is no sound [ж']. The word дождь is pronounced [дошт'].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pronunciation of г is implosive (not fricative, as in Southern dialects and Ukrainian and modern-Greek languages, although it may be fricative in words like ага, эге, мгм, угу) voiced (unless in the position of absolute end or before a voiceless, in which cases it becomes voiceless itself) guttural sound ([бох] instead of [бок] for бог is old-fashioned and marginal), pronunciation of в is a voiced pair for ф, pronunciation of р is bilateral.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stresses are directed by special dictionaries of stresses. For the word звонит it is on the last syllable, for the word торты it is not.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2915" RevisionGUID="1858615a-7437-4e3d-be13-88a79ae5b90d" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:05:43.833" UserId="2238" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Rule says for both o and a after a non-palatalised consonant first unstressed syllable, absolute beginning and absolute end have [^] - sound similar to а but with a middle up-going like in о, whereas all the other unstressed ones have shwa: [^билиск] (for обелиск), [хəр^шо] (for хорошо) with stress on last syllable, [облəк^] (for облако) with stress in the very beginning (last a because of absolute end)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4130" RevisionGUID="41f438d0-c8a1-4c9b-847a-42eb68cd1467" CreationDate="2014-02-16T07:53:31.423" UserId="3498" Comment="added 1097 characters in body" Text="&gt; but берег has two syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the reason is that аrchaic form of the word &quot;берег&quot; is &quot;брег&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;на бреге&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I found the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Особые формы [3] второго предложного падежа, отличные от основного предложного, существуют, однако, у очень ограниченной группы русских неодушевленных существительных, причем только в парадигме единственного числа. В эту группу входят порядка двадцати существительных женского рода традиционного третьего склонения (т.е. слова типа пыль) и порядка ста двадцати существительных мужского рода традиционного второго склонения с основой на морфонологически твердый [4] согласный или -j (т.е. слова типа шкаф, строй). Практически все эти слова имеют односложную основу, **за исключением следующих девяти** (все они мужского рода): **берег, ветер, перёд, повод, угол, oотпуск, oтерем, oхолод и oаэропорт**; **еще два слова, ворот и корень**, имеют форму локатива только в составе устойчивых сочетаний брань на вороту не виснет и (сгнить / истребить / скупить и т.п.) на корню ~ 'в процессе роста; в самом начале; целиком'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn more: [К СЕМАНТИКЕ РУССКОГО ЛОКАТИВА (&quot;ВТОРОГО ПРЕДЛОЖНОГО&quot; ПАДЕЖА)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/plungyan-02.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4130" RevisionGUID="f65d99e5-2151-41bd-b388-9c4495a89444" CreationDate="2014-02-16T09:28:23.300" UserId="3498" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; but берег has two syllables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the reason is that аrchaic form of the word &quot;берег&quot; is &quot;брег&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;на бреге&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I found the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Особые формы [3] второго предложного падежа, отличные от основного предложного, существуют, однако, у очень ограниченной группы русских неодушевленных существительных, причем только в парадигме единственного числа. В эту группу входят порядка двадцати существительных женского рода традиционного третьего склонения (т.е. слова типа пыль) и порядка ста двадцати существительных мужского рода традиционного второго склонения с основой на морфонологически твердый [4] согласный или -j (т.е. слова типа шкаф, строй). Практически все эти слова имеют односложную основу, **за исключением следующих девяти** (все они мужского рода): **берег, ветер, перёд, повод, угол, отпуск, терем, холод и аэропорт**; **еще два слова, ворот и корень**, имеют форму локатива только в составе устойчивых сочетаний брань на вороту не виснет и (сгнить / истребить / скупить и т.п.) на корню ~ 'в процессе роста; в самом начале; целиком'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn more: [К СЕМАНТИКЕ РУССКОГО ЛОКАТИВА (&quot;ВТОРОГО ПРЕДЛОЖНОГО&quot; ПАДЕЖА)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/plungyan-02.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="5ed76e25-8b03-49d1-a368-7b6072b924ee" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:20:21.530" UserId="194" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму в дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру в мире&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру в жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок в боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слёзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сопли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слюни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="6c33a029-b9aa-478c-955c-27471c5dd7b3" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:26:37.623" UserId="194" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слёзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сопли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слюни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="3f7e2f5f-47b6-407c-9b1e-e789d27d19e0" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:39:15.030" UserId="194" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слёзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сопли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слюни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="8b30c20a-3613-4ab0-a59d-e230a4d56dba" CreationDate="2014-02-17T03:49:56.273" UserId="194" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="e230bc83-99bb-4e8d-8c1a-ff9f1db819c0" CreationDate="2014-02-18T04:12:50.310" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="c855ba5e-e7a7-4a57-bb50-3021c5287eaa" CreationDate="2014-02-18T11:42:34.793" UserId="1427" Text="Leskov's book about the left-handed guy has this passage, when he visits an English factory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всякий работник у них постоянно в сытости, одет не в обрывках, а на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; каждом способный тужурный жилет, обут в толстые щиглеты с железными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; набалдашниками, чтобы нигде ноги ни на что не напороть; работает не с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бойлом, а с обучением и имеет себе понятия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a бойло? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="c855ba5e-e7a7-4a57-bb50-3021c5287eaa" CreationDate="2014-02-18T11:42:34.793" UserId="1427" Text="What is бойло? Is it an abject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="c855ba5e-e7a7-4a57-bb50-3021c5287eaa" CreationDate="2014-02-18T11:42:34.793" UserId="1427" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="d02d4743-6b19-4486-b698-409b65f8c4cb" CreationDate="2014-02-18T11:56:26.313" UserId="551" Text="В словаре Даля [упоминается](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/209902) диалектное слово:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бойло** ср., курск. битва, драка, побоище, пошибанье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом &quot;работает не с бойлом, а с обучением&quot; - т.е. работника не бьют а учат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like it is a dialect word. Dahl's dictionary explains it as &quot;битва, драка, побоище, пошибанье&quot;. So the meaning of the phrase is that the workers are not beaten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11564" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="b51040af-4398-49c5-9361-e4a510145900" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:28:02.403" UserId="1427" Comment="edited title" Text="What is бойло? Is it an object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="a23019d3-e896-4b38-a92d-2d74ac72f8a9" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:35:48.293" UserId="551" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="В словаре Даля [упоминается](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/209902) диалектное слово:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бойло** ср., курск. битва, драка, побоище, пошибанье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом &quot;работает не с бойлом, а с обучением&quot; - т.е. работника не бьют а учат.&#xD;&#xA;Левша был из Тулы. От Тулы до Курска 300 километров, так что Левша вполне может употреблять диалектные слова Курской губернии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like it is a dialect word. Dahl's dictionary [explains](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/209902) it as &quot;битва, драка, побоище, пошибанье&quot;. So the meaning of the phrase is that the workers are not beaten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="66b649bf-fe5e-4fb2-bd12-a90b0038e1a4" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:54:31.977" UserId="551" Text="I googled for &quot;**уход часов**&quot; suggested by jwalker and found a lot of documents. Looks like it is a professional term. Here is a citation from [&quot;Энциклопедия Кругосвет&quot;](http://krugosvet.ru/enc/nauka_i_tehnika/voennaya_tehnika/NAVIGATSIYA.html?page=0,2) about GPS positioning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Система основана на вычислении расстояния от пользователя до спутника по измеренному времени от передачи сигнала спутником до приема этого сигнала пользователем. Пользователю не требуется иметь точные часы, поскольку измеряется расстояние до четырех спутников и по данным этих измерений вычисляются не только три координаты, но и **уход часов** пользователя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Book Search](https://www.google.com.ua/search?tbm=bks&amp;hl=ru&amp;q=%22%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4+%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%22) gives a lot of citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Часы с системой автоподстройки работали с большой стабильностью: среднеквадратическая вариация суточного хода за семь месяцев составила 1*10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; с, а **уход часов** за этот же период — 2,8 мс. - Труды Советской антарктической экспедиции, 1978." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4143" RevisionGUID="fe472ef5-212d-4087-bf27-ce8d12076c85" CreationDate="2014-02-18T12:57:40.523" UserId="551" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="В словаре Даля [упоминается](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/209902) диалектное слово:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бойло** ср., курск. битва, драка, побоище, пошибанье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом &quot;работает не с бойлом, а с обучением&quot; - т.е. работника не бьют а учат.&#xD;&#xA;Левша был из Тулы. От Тулы до Курска 300 километров, так что Левша вполне может употреблять диалектные слова Курской губернии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like it is a dialect word. Dahl's dictionary [explains](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/209902) it as &quot;битва, драка, побоище, пошибанье&quot;. So the meaning of the phrase is that the workers are not beaten. Левша is from Tula, which is only 300 kilometers away from Kursk where this word was recorded by Dahl." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4144" RevisionGUID="15cad04b-d2aa-4dd0-8a5b-8c5a98c4995d" CreationDate="2014-02-18T13:18:13.003" UserId="551" Comment="Found mentioning in Wikipedia" Text="I googled for &quot;**уход часов**&quot; suggested by jwalker and found a lot of documents. Looks like it is a professional term. Here is a citation from [&quot;Энциклопедия Кругосвет&quot;](http://krugosvet.ru/enc/nauka_i_tehnika/voennaya_tehnika/NAVIGATSIYA.html?page=0,2) about GPS positioning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Система основана на вычислении расстояния от пользователя до спутника по измеренному времени от передачи сигнала спутником до приема этого сигнала пользователем. Пользователю не требуется иметь точные часы, поскольку измеряется расстояние до четырех спутников и по данным этих измерений вычисляются не только три координаты, но и **уход часов** пользователя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Book Search](https://www.google.com.ua/search?tbm=bks&amp;hl=ru&amp;q=%22%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4+%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%22) gives a lot of citations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Часы с системой автоподстройки работали с большой стабильностью: среднеквадратическая вариация суточного хода за семь месяцев составила 1*10&lt;sup&gt;-9&lt;/sup&gt; с, а **уход часов** за этот же период — 2,8 мс. - Труды Советской антарктической экспедиции, 1978.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia article [Долгота](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0) uses this (or similar &quot;среднесуточный уход&quot;) term several times:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Для того чтобы определять долготу с такой точностью во время плавания в Вест-Индию, требовались **часы со среднесуточным уходом** не более 3 секунд (при том, что часы в то время считались очень точными, если вообще имели минутную стрелку).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти часы были проверены во время двух плаваний в Вест-Индию — в 1761 и 1764 годах, **уход** при этом составил 5 секунд за три месяца путешествия." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="a25effaf-4a11-4ee3-9865-afc73209bd0f" CreationDate="2014-02-18T15:33:46.623" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added citation" Text="While doing research for this question, I encountered there is a thing named `местный падеж` as it says on the wikipages for [`пол`][1] and [`берег`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a teacher told me, that there are some words ending in `-у` and there would be three rules which apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. These words have one syllable&#xD;&#xA;2. They are masculine&#xD;&#xA;3. Their accent is on the ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it didn't help me and I doubt the rules. `берег` has two syllables and the accent on the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what those word are?&#xD;&#xA;- which rules do apply?&#xD;&#xA;- how to recognize, if possible?&#xD;&#xA;- when to use `меснтный` and when &lt;strike&gt;`родителный`&lt;/strike&gt; `предложный падеж`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- why does the accent shift to the ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My assumptions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some words simply have this *additional ending* `-y`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;БЕРЕГ, -а; предлож. о береге, на берегу; мн. берега, -ов; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ШКАФ, -а, предл. о шкафе, в шкафу; мн. шкафы; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ПОЛ, -а (-у), предлож. о поле, на полу; мн. полы&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЛЕС, -а (-у), предл. о лесе, в лесу; мн. леса, -ов;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ХОД, -а (-у), предлож. в ходе и в ходу, на ходе и на ходу; мн. ходы; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...gramota.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- no way to recognize them right away (it seems they are mostly short, but `берег` has two syllables e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;- `-у` is used in context of question `Where?` otherwise the usual ending (mostly `-e`?!)&#xD;&#xA;- in case `-y` is used, it *always* holds the accent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Later in the source that u.hrybok cited it says also that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Формы второго предложного падежа в морфологическом отношении отличаются тем, что у **слов женского рода это окончание обязательно принимает ударение** (ср. разбирается в крóви [Предл1] vs. испачкан в кровú [Предл2]) [5], а у **слов мужского рода имеется специализированное окончание -ý** (**также всегда ударное**, ср. заинтересован в шкáфе [Предл1] vs. хранится **в шкафуý** [Предл2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="c5ac9f9e-73bd-462a-82b6-7064d3670b16" CreationDate="2014-02-19T09:44:31.490" UserId="3558" Text="Это человек, который работает в этой области или это человек, который обладает высоким уровнем квалификации в данной области?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Контекст.&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос в анкете:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Which of the following descriptions best characterizes you?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможные ответы:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Student/Industry professional/Academic/Professor/Teacher/Hobbyist/Other&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="c5ac9f9e-73bd-462a-82b6-7064d3670b16" CreationDate="2014-02-19T09:44:31.490" UserId="3558" Text="What's the Russian for &quot;Industry professional&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="c5ac9f9e-73bd-462a-82b6-7064d3670b16" CreationDate="2014-02-19T09:44:31.490" UserId="3558" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="061c5e53-8544-47ea-aecf-d5ed5fc69cc3" CreationDate="2014-02-19T09:50:08.463" UserId="97" Text="На мой взгляд, в данном контексте имеется в виду _&quot;человек, работающий в этой области&quot;_.  Для описания _&quot;человека, обладающего высоким уровнем квалификации в этоq области&quot;_ часто используется фраза _&quot;Industry expert&quot;_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="034e4819-c5d6-4701-97e5-1d02629b5299" CreationDate="2014-02-19T09:51:59.770" UserId="3558" Text="Как выше написал **su107**, можно перевести, как &quot;чурка&quot; или &quot;чурбан&quot;. В американском варианте означает осокрбительное название человека из средней Азии, носящего тюрбан." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4149" RevisionGUID="4cf90b21-8fc1-4d88-8bab-a9969fd59881" CreationDate="2014-02-19T13:21:16.807" UserId="3558" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Для объяснения значения слова &quot;towelheads” можно использовать сленговое выражение &quot;чурка&quot; или &quot;чурбан&quot;. В американском варианте означает осокрбительное название человека из средней Азии, носящего тюрбан. В русском языке это значение не связано с головным убором." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="33432c5d-3ef1-4e18-8fe9-0a07be9d0133" CreationDate="2014-02-19T18:10:24.173" UserId="3562" Text="As far as I can tell, &quot;Tal&quot; isn't a Russian word that has any specific meaning.  Is there some kind of translation or history of the sound Tal that would shed light on the meaning of this family name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="33432c5d-3ef1-4e18-8fe9-0a07be9d0133" CreationDate="2014-02-19T18:10:24.173" UserId="3562" Text="What is the meaning of the &quot;Tal&quot; in the Russian/Muldovan last name &quot;Talsky&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="33432c5d-3ef1-4e18-8fe9-0a07be9d0133" CreationDate="2014-02-19T18:10:24.173" UserId="3562" Text="|этимология|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="0d17359c-0bf0-4813-8172-f6654d096c0e" CreationDate="2014-02-19T21:31:27.660" UserId="2269" Comment="Please do not use similar latin letters instead of cyrillic." Text="While doing research for this question, I encountered there is a thing named `местный падеж` as it says on the wikipages for [`пол`][1] and [`берег`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a teacher told me, that there are some words ending in `-у` and there would be three rules which apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. These words have one syllable&#xD;&#xA;2. They are masculine&#xD;&#xA;3. Their accent is on the ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it didn't help me and I doubt the rules. `берег` has two syllables and the accent on the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- what those word are?&#xD;&#xA;- which rules do apply?&#xD;&#xA;- how to recognize, if possible?&#xD;&#xA;- when to use `меснтный` and when &lt;strike&gt;`родителный`&lt;/strike&gt; `предложный падеж`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- why does the accent shift to the ending?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My assumptions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some words simply have this *additional ending* `-y`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;БЕРЕГ, -а; предлож. о береге, на берегу; мн. берега, -ов; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ШКАФ, -а, предл. о шкафе, в шкафу; мн. шкафы; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ПОЛ, -а (-у), предлож. о поле, на полу; мн. полы&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЛЕС, -а (-у), предл. о лесе, в лесу; мн. леса, -ов;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ХОД, -а (-у), предлож. в ходе и в ходу, на ходе и на ходу; мн. ходы; м.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...gramota.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- no way to recognize them right away (it seems they are mostly short, but `берег` has two syllables e.g.)&#xD;&#xA;- `-у` is used in context of question `Where?` otherwise the usual ending (mostly `-e`?!)&#xD;&#xA;- in case `-y` is used, it *always* holds the accent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Later in the source that u.hrybok cited it says also that&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Формы второго предложного падежа в морфологическом отношении отличаются тем, что у **слов женского рода это окончание обязательно принимает ударение** (ср. разбирается в кро́ви [Предл1] vs. испачкан в крови́ [Предл2]) [5], а у **слов мужского рода имеется специализированное окончание -у́** (**также всегда ударное**, ср. заинтересован в шка́фе [Предл1] vs. хранится **в шкафу́** [Предл2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11591" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4128" RevisionGUID="0d17359c-0bf0-4813-8172-f6654d096c0e" CreationDate="2014-02-19T21:31:27.660" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 242 edit id of 431" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4148" RevisionGUID="16beafe7-b7a9-4142-9d5e-f15d937cbf0c" CreationDate="2014-02-20T08:52:32.497" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="На мой взгляд, в данном контексте имеется в виду _&quot;человек, работающий в этой области&quot;_.  Для описания _&quot;человека, обладающего высоким уровнем квалификации в этой области&quot;_ часто используется фраза _&quot;Industry expert&quot;_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4152" RevisionGUID="8bf25e26-e0c5-441d-88f2-6154623264b9" CreationDate="2014-02-20T10:36:41.767" UserId="551" Text="Actually the word таль is present in Russian, however I cannot tell if the origin of your family name is connected with any of the meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a term [**таль**](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_(%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC)): &quot;Грузоподъемное устройство с ручным или моторным приводом.&quot; According to Vasmer it is known used from 1720 (many sailor's terms were borrowed at those times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In some dialects the word **таль** is synonym for &quot;оттепель&quot; (it is connected with words &quot;таять&quot;, &quot;проталина&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dahl's dictionary lists **таль** as an old word for &quot;залог, заложник&quot; (captive): &quot;Детей своих отдает в тали&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4152" RevisionGUID="30d8c50a-31d3-4b10-bb25-d0c1e14d5fed" CreationDate="2014-02-20T10:42:17.523" UserId="551" Comment="added 602 characters in body" Text="Actually the word таль is present in Russian, however I cannot tell if the origin of your family name is connected with any of the meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is a term [**таль**](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_(%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC)): &quot;Грузоподъемное устройство с ручным или моторным приводом.&quot; According to Vasmer it is known used from 1720 (many sailor's terms were borrowed at those times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In some dialects the word **таль** is synonym for &quot;оттепель&quot; (it is connected with words &quot;таять&quot;, &quot;проталина&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dahl's dictionary lists **таль** as an old word for &quot;залог, заложник&quot; (captive): &quot;Детей своих отдает в тали&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Vasmer's dictionary supports Dahl, the similar words exist in Ukrainian, Serbian-croatian and Slovenian languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; **таль** м. &quot;заложник&quot;, укр. таль, др.-русск. таль – то же (часто; см. Срезн. III, 922), сербохорв. та̏лац, род. п. та̏оца &quot;заложник&quot;, словен. tálǝc, род. п. tálca. По мнению Р. Муха (WuS I, 47), родственно лат. tālea &quot;саженец, молодая веточка&quot;, греч. τᾶλις, род. п. -ιδος &quot;взрослая девушка&quot;, τῆλις, род. п. -εως ж. &quot;стручковое растение&quot;, др.-инд. tālī &quot;определенное дерево&quot;, tālas &quot;винная пальма&quot;. О цслав. талии &quot;ramus virens&quot;, которое он относит сюда же, см. выше, тал. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="52baddbf-52e3-48de-95b2-2c5b8a3794c3" CreationDate="2014-02-20T13:53:28.800" UserId="2238" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I shall try to answer the given questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Quality of vowel reduction**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two stages of reduction. First stage is in the syllable before the stressed one, in the absolute beginning and in the absolute end. Second stage is in all other unstressed positions. Here is the correct table (by Petersburg's norm, Moscow's is a bit different)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed - 1st stage - 2nd stage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a non-palatalised consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а/о - ^ (sound similar to а but with middle up-going of the tongue like in о) - ъ (sound like shwa); э (sometimes written as е) - ы - ъ; ы - ы - ы; у - у - у;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a palatalised consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и - и - и; у (written as ю) - у - у; а (written as я)/о (written as ё)/э (written as е) - и - ь (another reduced sound a bit similar to ъ but pronounced close to teeth like э).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pronunciation of е that stems from ять does not differ from pronunciation of е that stems from е for a long time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Palatalisation and assimilation** is another topic where Petersburg and Moscow are different in pronunciation. According to Petersburg's norm, there is no palatalising assimilation actually at all and there is no sound [ж']. The word дождь is pronounced [дошт'].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pronunciation of г is implosive (not fricative, as in Southern dialects and Ukrainian and modern-Greek languages, although it may be fricative in words like ага, эге, мгм, угу) voiced (unless in the position of absolute end or before a voiceless, in which cases it becomes voiceless itself) guttural sound ([бох] instead of [бок] for бог is old-fashioned and marginal), pronunciation of в is a voiced pair for ф, pronunciation of р is bilateral.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stresses are directed by special dictionaries of stresses. For the word звонит it is on the last syllable, for the word торты it is not.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="06ac1025-8480-4130-8db5-374f679cf7e0" CreationDate="2014-02-20T14:39:36.487" UserId="190" Text="There is a saying &quot;The grand piano in the bushes&quot; (&quot;рояль в кустах&quot;). What does it mean precisely, how to correctly use it in speech, and what is its origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="06ac1025-8480-4130-8db5-374f679cf7e0" CreationDate="2014-02-20T14:39:36.487" UserId="190" Text="What is the meaning and origin of &quot;The grand piano in the bushes&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="06ac1025-8480-4130-8db5-374f679cf7e0" CreationDate="2014-02-20T14:39:36.487" UserId="190" Text="|этимология|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="0367e204-294d-446e-9e7f-c60238dfc287" CreationDate="2014-02-20T16:23:01.173" UserId="551" Text="There is a pretty good article on Russian Wikipedia [Рояль в кустах](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рояль_в_кустах)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="db0ea767-93a3-4306-91f8-91858c817d61" CreationDate="2014-02-20T16:36:11.137" UserId="551" Comment="added 1211 characters in body" Text="There is a pretty good article on Russian Wikipedia [Рояль в кустах](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%85). I will translate a part of it as close as I can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was a part of a sketch &quot;Simply by accident&quot; by Arkadii Arkanov and Grigory Gorin in 1963, where the usual Soviet television documentary cliches were exploited. The journalist &quot;accidentaly&quot; meets the old man in the street that happens to be a &quot;передовик производства&quot;. During the interview &quot;accidentaly&quot; all the required people and objects appear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the journalist finds out that the old man can play the violit, the instrument happens to be available. And finally they find a grand piano in the bushes in the street that the old man can play for the TV audience. The phrase &quot;accidenataly&quot; is used by the journalist all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After this sketch the &quot;рояль в кустах&quot; become a famous meme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article on [Gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/hardwords/25_270) and on [Russian Lurkmore](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical &quot;gran dpiano&quot; has the following attributes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's an object, ability or knowledge that allowes the heroes to cope with the situation.&#xD;&#xA; - It appears exactly when needed.&#xD;&#xA; - Before that moment there are no hints that it exists.&#xD;&#xA; - It is used just to support a concrete moment in the plot and is not used or influence the situation aftewards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="1e0f47ba-bc80-47d0-8fbc-8257ccb269b1" CreationDate="2014-02-20T16:43:18.963" UserId="551" Comment="added 797 characters in body" Text="There is a pretty good article on Russian Wikipedia [Рояль в кустах](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%85). I will translate a part of it as close as I can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was a part of a sketch &quot;Simply by accident&quot; by Arkadii Arkanov and Grigory Gorin in 1963, where the usual Soviet television documentary cliches were exploited. The journalist &quot;accidentaly&quot; meets the old man in the street that happens to be a &quot;передовик производства&quot;. During the interview &quot;accidentaly&quot; all the required people and objects appear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the journalist finds out that the old man can play the violit, the instrument happens to be available. And finally they find a grand piano in the bushes in the street that the old man can play for the TV audience. The phrase &quot;accidenataly&quot; is used by the journalist all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After this sketch the &quot;рояль в кустах&quot; become a famous meme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is a part of this scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Серегин:** Да, я случайно взял с собой в сквер скрипку. Я исполню вам на ней «Полонез» Огинского! *(Достает из-под лавки скрипку, водит смычком по струнам. Звучит «Полонез» Огинского в исполнении симфонического оркестра.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ведущий:** Превосходно! Браво! Вы, оказывается, талант!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Серегин:** Да!.. А еще я играю на пианино. Здесь как раз в кустах случайно стоит рояль, я могу сыграть… Я исполню вам «Полонез» Огинского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ведущий:** Благодарим вас, Степан Васильевич, к сожалению, мы ограничены временем… Скажите пожалуйста, а как отдыхает ваша семья?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Серегин:** Моя жена всё больше отдыхает по хозяйству. А сын работает на Дальнем Востоке… А! Вот и он приехал. *(Поднимается навстречу сыну.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ведущий:** Какая приятная неожиданность…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article on [Gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/hardwords/25_270) and on [Russian Lurkmore](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical &quot;gran dpiano&quot; has the following attributes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's an object, ability or knowledge that allowes the heroes to cope with the situation.&#xD;&#xA; - It appears exactly when needed.&#xD;&#xA; - Before that moment there are no hints that it exists.&#xD;&#xA; - It is used just to support a concrete moment in the plot and is not used or influence the situation aftewards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4154" RevisionGUID="198199ae-93cd-4e4a-a8d6-5cf2a4b30b5d" CreationDate="2014-02-21T00:06:18.817" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body" Text="There is a pretty good article on Russian Wikipedia [Рояль в кустах](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%85). I will translate a part of it as close as I can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This was a part of a sketch &quot;Simply by accident&quot; by Arkadii Arkanov and Grigory Gorin in 1963, where the usual Soviet television documentary cliches were exploited. The journalist &quot;accidentaly&quot; meets the old man in the street that happens to be a &quot;передовик производства&quot;. During the interview &quot;accidentaly&quot; all the required people and objects appear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the journalist finds out that the old man can play the violin, the instrument happens to be available. And finally they find a grand piano in the bushes in the street that the old man can play for the TV audience. The phrase &quot;accidenataly&quot; is used by the journalist all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After this sketch the &quot;рояль в кустах&quot; become a famous meme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is a part of this scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Серегин:** Да, я случайно взял с собой в сквер скрипку. Я исполню вам на ней «Полонез» Огинского! *(Достает скрипку, играет.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ведущий:** Превосходно! Браво! Вы, оказывается, талант!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Серегин:** Да!.. А еще я играю на пианино. Здесь как раз в кустах случайно стоит рояль, я могу сыграть… Я исполню вам «Полонез» Огинского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ведущий:** Благодарим вас, Степан Васильевич, к сожалению, мы ограничены временем… Скажите пожалуйста, а как отдыхает ваша семья?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Серегин:** Моя жена всё больше отдыхает по хозяйству. А сын работает на Дальнем Востоке… А! Вот и он приехал. *(Поднимается навстречу сыну.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ведущий:** Какая приятная неожиданность…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article on [Gramota.ru](http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/hardwords/25_270) and on [Russian Lurkmore](http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%85).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical &quot;grand piano&quot; has the following attributes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's an object, ability or knowledge that allowes the heroes to cope with the situation.&#xD;&#xA; - It appears exactly when needed.&#xD;&#xA; - Before that moment there are no hints that it exists.&#xD;&#xA; - It is used just to support a one specific moment of the plot and is not used or influence the situation aftewards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4155" RevisionGUID="1af06703-38e7-4773-8957-8fd24b2c0fdb" CreationDate="2014-02-21T18:34:09.607" UserId="3571" Text="I'm working on translating a piece of fiction into English, and sometimes even when I generally know that some phrase is insulting, dismissive, etc., I don't actually understand precisely what the &quot;flavor&quot; of it is...can I get a native speaker to weigh in? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how does &quot;послан за вином&quot; compare to &quot;послан в зад&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;АмериканкаСправляетсяСлангом...)))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4155" RevisionGUID="1af06703-38e7-4773-8957-8fd24b2c0fdb" CreationDate="2014-02-21T18:34:09.607" UserId="3571" Text="What exactly is the &quot;mood&quot; of the phrase &quot;послан за вином&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4155" RevisionGUID="1af06703-38e7-4773-8957-8fd24b2c0fdb" CreationDate="2014-02-21T18:34:09.607" UserId="3571" Text="|перевод|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4156" RevisionGUID="c30ced94-f3a1-4da8-bf57-a6034e423017" CreationDate="2014-02-22T17:18:44.947" UserId="3565" Text="&quot;Руки не доходят&quot; is not walking by hands. For example. You have to do ten home-made pies. You can't do the sixth pie before the fifth pie. If you doing the fifth pie and somebody ask you about the sixth pie then your answer is &quot;Руки не дошли&quot;. &quot;не дошли&quot; mean &quot;not a turn&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="08c5d131-a346-4c92-872e-60415d274af9" CreationDate="2014-02-22T21:21:46.153" UserId="487" Text="In [*Shostakovich against Stalin*](http://youtu.be/irYM2VcBv4A?t=12m51s) documentary it's explained how Shostakovich once reacted to Stalin's oppinion (&quot;life is now better&quot;, &quot;let's make life better&quot;) by proposing a toast and sarcastically saying, according to the subtitules there: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Let's drink to life not getting any better*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;давайте выпем за то, чтобы лучше не былa (бы)&quot;  (Д.Ш.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now *бы* is in parenthesis, since I'm totally unsure if that's the word pronounced after былa (or maybe *было*). First question would be to confirm this. The second question is, if this a better translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Let's drink to life, for it not be that good.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, given the background." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="08c5d131-a346-4c92-872e-60415d274af9" CreationDate="2014-02-22T21:21:46.153" UserId="487" Text="Russian for a word I cannot hear in &quot;Shostakovich against Stalin&quot; documentary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="08c5d131-a346-4c92-872e-60415d274af9" CreationDate="2014-02-22T21:21:46.153" UserId="487" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4158" RevisionGUID="de11bd1a-a1b2-4191-99fe-40e76dfa29b8" CreationDate="2014-02-22T22:00:35.713" UserId="2060" Text="He says *давайте выпьем за то, чтобы лучше не было бы*, so subtitles translation is correct. Notice the accent: не́ было / не была́." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4159" RevisionGUID="80ea97ac-9e68-4231-a0d6-2a07b990c38d" CreationDate="2014-02-22T22:11:13.777" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="First of all, I've never heard that phrase as a slang phrase. Using the word &quot;послать&quot; here seems to having nothing in common with &quot;послать в зад&quot; and similar phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Russians say &quot;послать за вином&quot; they usually mean two things - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. We have no wine, so let's ask someone to get wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We have some in common to &quot;celebrate&quot; together so, let's get some wine = let's ask some one to bring us wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the context of the original text I can guess that second meaning was right in this case - I'd understand it as -&quot; One person gave money to another to buy wine and drink together.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11612" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="10c8278e-e630-4555-9517-805889beb4fc" CreationDate="2014-02-23T10:45:31.760" UserId="487" Comment="edited title" Text="Correction of Shostakovich's quote &quot;давайте выпем за то, чтобы лучше не былa (бы)&quot; in documentary &quot;Shostakovich against Stalin&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="d4f8775a-c1e7-4f9e-a8c2-30c5b41ded79" CreationDate="2014-02-23T11:25:13.357" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text=" &#xD;&#xA; I want to teach some small group Russian language (they know only &quot;kartoshka&quot;, &quot;babushka&quot;, &quot;Natasha&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA; Thus, my question is not related &quot;how to learn&quot; Russian, but &quot;how to teach&quot; - I suppose there are resources and plans to begin from, but I failed to find something structured. The primary goal is speaking, so alphabet we can include later... As you see, I use &quot;can&quot; because have no plan what to teach and when. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Ask you for suggestions and probably some schedules..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="d4f8775a-c1e7-4f9e-a8c2-30c5b41ded79" CreationDate="2014-02-23T11:25:13.357" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="Teach Russian as non professional teacher" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="d4f8775a-c1e7-4f9e-a8c2-30c5b41ded79" CreationDate="2014-02-23T11:25:13.357" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="0038a68f-01c9-445d-844f-d7d792e3ac71" CreationDate="2014-02-23T12:50:10.403" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Probably this is related to questions such as [this one][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] Russians prefer to hint at their feelings instead of describing them.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying they're excited about new job, they'll say the job is friggin' awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm looking forward to this meeting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;might be expressed somehow like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будет [...] встреча&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the brackets can contain a positive adjectiv of ones choice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is there a phrase which is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- more close to the english `looking forward to` &#xD;&#xA;- and used quite commonly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/23/3538" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="0038a68f-01c9-445d-844f-d7d792e3ac71" CreationDate="2014-02-23T12:50:10.403" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Russian equivalent for &quot;looking forward to&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="0038a68f-01c9-445d-844f-d7d792e3ac71" CreationDate="2014-02-23T12:50:10.403" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|выражения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4162" RevisionGUID="266f42e5-eae5-4427-bdd3-c482cf456fe1" CreationDate="2014-02-23T17:34:21.693" UserId="3578" Text="Из-за этих понтов я, например, больше не решаюсь предлагать ей денег (уже пробовал), поскольку могу быть сразу послан в зад или за вином. Тогда, скорей всего, я тоже захочу ее послать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this attitude^1 I, for example, will not be offering her money(already tried), since I may be suddenly sent to hell^2 or to get wine. Then, probably, I too will want to send^3 her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^1 must be discussed earlier in the piece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^2 closest translation is &quot;sent to hell&quot;, literal is &quot;sent into the ass&quot;, but this is not talking about anal sex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^3 meaning retort the insult earlier 'send her to hell' or may even mean that he will not associate with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically this is an individual(she) who views gifts of money as insulting and prefers actual gifts, the person speaking is most likely of upper class with excess of money and no understanding of Russian culture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="b442fd82-653c-440e-87a9-5a661136afe1" CreationDate="2014-02-23T20:25:06.987" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="I'd like to know the difference in common usage of those four prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- потом  &#xD;&#xA;- затем  &#xD;&#xA;- спустя  &#xD;&#xA;- после чего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides: Is `после чего` equal to `после этого` and if not, what's the difference? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="b442fd82-653c-440e-87a9-5a661136afe1" CreationDate="2014-02-23T20:25:06.987" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="потом vs затем vs спустя vs после чего" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="b442fd82-653c-440e-87a9-5a661136afe1" CreationDate="2014-02-23T20:25:06.987" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="d02319da-ba87-41e3-9013-6da5dd39f674" CreationDate="2014-02-23T21:47:36.337" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="&quot;Потом&quot; &amp; &quot;затем&quot; &amp; &quot;после чего&quot; you can use one instead another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я ответил на вопрос на форуме, потом/затем/после чего пошел спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;спустя&quot; you use to say &quot;after some period of time&quot; =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;after 5 minutes, I went to sleep&quot; = &quot;спустя 5 минут я пошел спать...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;после этого&quot; you use after you have explained you did something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я ответил на вопрос и после этого пошел спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4165" RevisionGUID="a43fadf2-e081-43bc-98f9-742035c22109" CreationDate="2014-02-23T21:59:07.553" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="1. предвкушать что-либо (~~ like foretaste)&#xD;&#xA;2. ожидать чего-либо с удовольствием/нетерпением (~~ wait impatiently)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="fe822a92-f7bc-4cbe-93af-7081837965a4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T23:05:26.797" UserId="2191" Text="I have seen both the constructions ‘Что нового?’ and ‘Что новое?’. I believe that both mean ‘What is new?’, but I cannot tell whether they are interchangable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google search yields [this article](http://iling.spb.ru/confs/rusconstr2013/pdf/handouts/mankila.pdf), but my Russian is not good enough for me to read it without the help of a dictionary/translation programme, and when I try to copy the text it turns into boxes ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="fe822a92-f7bc-4cbe-93af-7081837965a4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T23:05:26.797" UserId="2191" Text="What is the difference between ‘Что нового?’ and ‘Что новое?’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="fe822a92-f7bc-4cbe-93af-7081837965a4" CreationDate="2014-02-23T23:05:26.797" UserId="2191" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="1dd6aec4-5e2d-405d-a34a-239267e83cb1" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:18:05.280" UserId="170" Text="What endings should I choose when I am talking about quantities equal to 21 + 10n? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думал, что все они будут о моей статье. Но оказалось не так. Из всех&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тридцать одн? сообщений только перв(ое/ые) двадцать одн? был(о/и) по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="1dd6aec4-5e2d-405d-a34a-239267e83cb1" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:18:05.280" UserId="170" Text="Из всех тридцать одн? сообщений только перв(ое/ые) двадцать одн? был(о/и) по существу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="1dd6aec4-5e2d-405d-a34a-239267e83cb1" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:18:05.280" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="0c859e2b-59f8-40d5-b85f-cdc7432ffb95" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:34:57.440" UserId="170" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="What endings should I choose when I am talking about quantities equal to 21 + 10n? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из все(х/го)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тридцать одн? сообщени(й/я) только перв(ое/ые) двадцать одн? был(о/и) по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="739cff27-448a-4f38-951a-9dd7d6a551b3" CreationDate="2014-02-24T00:44:50.210" UserId="170" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="What endings should I choose when I am talking about quantities equal to 21 + 10n? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из все(х/го)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тридцать одн? сообщени(й/я) только перв(ое/ые) двадцать одн? был(о/и) по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Судейская коллегия состояла из двадцать одн? суд(ей/ьи). Случай был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уникальный. Впервые за всю историю нашего существования среди судей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царило полное согласие. Все двадцать одн? судь? был? абсолютно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; согласны друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4168" RevisionGUID="01926e60-c8ee-4469-bedb-25632b901e43" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:25:11.830" UserId="2244" Text="Given that the narrator talks about a street bum in denial (see [the full context][1]), I think the meaning is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If I offer her money, she will either tell me to fuck off or send me to spend the money on wine that we will have to drink together as a &quot;celebration&quot; (she thinks accepting money is low). Then I'm probably going to tell her to fuck off&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HeO5AAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT27&amp;lpg=PT27&amp;dq=%D0%98%D0%B7-%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D1%8F,%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80,%20%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%20%28%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%29,%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%83%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%83%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC.%20%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0,%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE,%20%D1%8F%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%83%20%D0%B5%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=GO6Y7SJjLm&amp;sig=g2BMG7mENEmiCtAyIvmSNyHQJ3I&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=3p0KU8SJLYnrlAXf1YHIDQ&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%98%D0%B7-%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D1%8F,%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80,%20%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%20%28%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%29,%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%83%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%83%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC.%20%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0,%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE,%20%D1%8F%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%83%20%D0%B5%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C.&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11634" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4163" RevisionGUID="9050c77f-c94d-46e6-8ada-ba78c0bb25c0" CreationDate="2014-02-24T01:39:03.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/437763571184070656" />
  <row Id="11635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="bd42d373-020a-435d-b58f-3c88a0f5b40f" CreationDate="2014-02-24T05:49:08.147" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="Что нового? Is standard phrase when you meet friend and ask &quot;What's new&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что новое? Can right to exist, however by most it will considered as a low education level of a speaker. In very rare conditions you can ask so about some new things really existing or really happen, but again I'd advice don't use this variant by non native speakers - it's very difficult to use in a right context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4170" RevisionGUID="14c3bf8c-add2-4d8d-aa30-5a8aa3093a70" CreationDate="2014-02-24T06:08:30.177" UserId="2273" Text="I do not know the rule, but this one sounds about right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всех тридцати одного сообщения только первые двадцать одно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; были по существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Судейская коллегия состояла из двадцати одного судьи. Случай был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уникальный. Впервые за всю историю нашего существования среди судей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царило полное согласие. Все двадцать один судья были абсолютно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; согласны друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4171" RevisionGUID="38a15621-c799-4aa9-ac97-c818ef1ad1cd" CreationDate="2014-02-24T08:45:09.013" UserId="551" Text="Буквальный перевод &quot;I'm looking forward to this meeting&quot;, который можно было бы найти в словаре скорее всего такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я с нетерпением ожидаю этой встречи *(или собрания)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но здесь много &quot;лишних&quot; или &quot;редких&quot; слов: &quot;Я&quot;, &quot;ожидаю&quot;, &quot;этой&quot;, которые использованы для того чтобы максимально приблизить все оттенки смысла русской фразы к английскому. Обычно говорят проще:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С нетерпением жду встречи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень жду встречи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чтобы &quot;спрятать&quot; свое эмоциональное отношение к будущему событию, достаточно сказать &quot;жду встречи&quot;. Но если встреча предполагается с каким-то близким человеком, то скорее всего это будет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жду нашей встречи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в этом случае возникает вопрос - насколько уместно скрывать свое эмоциональное отношение к этому событию." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4172" RevisionGUID="4fbf1e3a-cf01-40c6-b406-192a4d632b76" CreationDate="2014-02-24T08:51:54.833" UserId="1958" Text="Another thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the university where I studied, students in dorm have a conception *послать за водкой*, *сбегать за водкой*. Older students ordered younger (inexperienced) ones to go and buy them vodka. They even gave all the needed money, no cheating. But this was treated as an insult among students because a person is asked (or ordered) to serve. So, first advice to novices was: &quot;Don't go for vodka&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe here is also some sense of insulting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="d8dafb79-1cf6-4e19-b96d-6e016e3a8525" CreationDate="2014-02-24T09:07:41.380" UserId="2480" Text="**Video:** http://youtu.be/emWWReNhnPw?t=1h28m25s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Transcript:*&#xD;&#xA;Если бы у человека было такое свойство, как до лени чего-нибудь, я бы постирал бы себе в башке много чего о том, о чем не хочу вспоминать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He's reflecting on his life, and I think talking about some things he'd rather not remember. What does he say about laziness? How would you put it in English? My Russian is only good enough at present to recognise key words :-/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="d8dafb79-1cf6-4e19-b96d-6e016e3a8525" CreationDate="2014-02-24T09:07:41.380" UserId="2480" Text="What does this speaker mean by &quot;Если бы у человека было такое свойство...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="d8dafb79-1cf6-4e19-b96d-6e016e3a8525" CreationDate="2014-02-24T09:07:41.380" UserId="2480" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4174" RevisionGUID="283f3374-f93b-478d-9bc8-a4ca86e5e021" CreationDate="2014-02-24T09:34:21.273" UserId="3581" Text="More correct phrase in this video fragment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Если бы у человека было такое свойство, как **УДАЛЕНИЕ** чего-нибудь, я бы постирал у себя в башке много чего того, о чем не хочу вспоминать.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this teenager says about removing memories." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4175" RevisionGUID="083a6bfd-ecc4-4dc7-bd09-6b7cf7be8ced" CreationDate="2014-02-24T10:07:12.077" UserId="3580" Text="&quot;послан в зад&quot; (обычно говорят: &quot;пошел в жопу&quot;, это довольное грубое оскорбление) - the best translation is &quot;go to hell&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The person who &quot;послан за вином&quot; was insulted because no one wants to serve others by bringing them drinks. That kind of insulting has hidden meaning in a way that person is rejected in a polite manner. It is like trolling on the Internet if we are talking about attitude towards that person.&#xD;&#xA;So, the translation, according to the context, is &quot;was rejected&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="b9ebb5ed-434d-4835-a243-158bdc803e6a" CreationDate="2014-02-24T12:52:48.787" UserId="185" Text="For teaching resources, you should look at [our resource page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that you go to any large bookshop and go through course books and find the one that you like the most. You should buy it (or maybe find it online) and follow it. All your students should have a copy of the book, or at least should keep the print-out pages you give them, because without it, students may feel lost and do not get a coherent learning experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious advantages of following the course other people designed is that you already have texts, dialogues, exercises, vocabulary and grammar selected, explined and prepared for the needs of your students. For example, the book might introduce the locative case together with countries and continents names and questions like &quot;where are you from?&quot; and &quot;Where is the library&quot;, so you don't have to match grammar with fitting topics, come up with the rules you only know intuitively, find examples to illustrate your points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to stick to everything they put in the book, and furthermore, you can add more texts or dialogues. If you do, be sure not to use more than 10-20 new words and 1-2 grammar elements per text. For dialogues this number is even lower, up to 8 words, I'd say, especially in the beginning of the course. Also, you should make your students learn dialogues by heart. Knowing phrases like &quot;Привет, меня зовут...&quot;, &quot;Как добраться до...&quot;, &quot;Тише едешь, дальше будешь&quot; and even &quot;Боже мой!&quot; will help immensely and will give the feeling that they can already say something in Russian, even though they do not really know what &quot;меня&quot; means and what case it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also add own exercises. You might need it if the book only contains translation exercises and you want your students to talk. Ask them to compose dialogues, describe things they see, like or know, ask each other for directions, make compliments to each other, etc., whatever fits the topic of your current chapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest that you don't give up on reading so easily, because while the Cyrillic alphabet may be difficult to learn, reading is the easiest way to maintain and improve the language. Also, learning new words without being able to write them down is tough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, short regular lessons are better than long, but sporadic ones. Without regularity, nothing will work out.&#xD;&#xA;Also, too little new material is better than too much. It is better to take things slowly and after 3 lessons ask your students if they like the pace and whether they'd prefer to do more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4169" RevisionGUID="ccc69d70-6e72-4a4f-97a9-d9ab0b1ba4e6" CreationDate="2014-02-24T13:17:05.363" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="error" Text="Что нового? Is standard phrase when you meet friend and ask &quot;What's new&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что новое? Have right to exist, however by most it will considered as a low education level of a speaker. In very rare conditions you can ask so about some new things really existing or really happen, but again I'd advice don't use this variant by non native speakers - it's very difficult to use in a right context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4177" RevisionGUID="8cc06508-7a9e-4912-ada4-c85bf7ccf90d" CreationDate="2014-02-24T13:28:14.800" UserId="185" Text="The rules are different for the 10n part and for the 1 part of the numerals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10n part changes in the same way it usually changes (for a proper description see [here](http://masterrussian.com/aa050601a.shtml) or your peferred grammar reference book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun should be singular and in the case that matches its grammatical function in the sentence (e.g. nominative for the subject, accusative for the direct object, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1 part you need to put in the form that matches the case, the number and the gender of the following noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are 3 examples from your text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Я получил тридцать одно сообщение &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Из тридцати одного сообщения только первые двадцать одно были по существу. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Двадцать один судья были согласны друг с другом &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In example 1., &quot;сообщение&quot; is of neutral gender and occupies the position of a direct object, which means it needs to be in the accusative case (that matches the form of the nominative case, since &quot;сообщение&quot; is inanimate). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In example 2., you get the genitive case with the preposition &quot;из&quot; and the nominative case for the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In example 3., you get the nominative again, because the word &quot;судья&quot; is the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all examples, the nouns are in singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May I just note that your question looks like you're seeking someone to do a whole exercise for you. I believe that it is frown upon here and you shouldn't do it again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="9b2b9a83-3164-4918-bf1b-2865b8c615ff" CreationDate="2014-02-24T15:03:38.690" UserId="2191" Comment="Added cha’s suggestion ‘Чего нового?’" Text="I have seen both the constructions ‘Что нового?’ and ‘Что новое?’. I believe that both mean ‘What is new?’, but I cannot tell whether they are interchangable. (Edit: cha mentions ‘Чего нового?’ below; any information on this construction in addition to the previous two would be welcomed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google search yields [this article](http://iling.spb.ru/confs/rusconstr2013/pdf/handouts/mankila.pdf), but my Russian is not good enough for me to read it without the help of a dictionary/translation programme, and when I try to copy the text it turns into boxes ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11649" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="9b2b9a83-3164-4918-bf1b-2865b8c615ff" CreationDate="2014-02-24T15:03:38.690" UserId="2191" Comment="Added cha’s suggestion ‘Чего нового?’" Text="What is the difference between ‘Что нового?’, ‘Что новое?’ and ‘Чего нового?’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="34894d5c-1262-4b8e-8751-dc704c768778" CreationDate="2014-02-24T15:40:12.970" UserId="2191" Comment="Inserted additional question" Text="I have seen both the constructions ‘Что нового?’ and ‘Что новое?’. I believe that both mean ‘What is new?’, but I cannot tell whether they are interchangable. (&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; cha mentions ‘Чего нового?’ below; any information on this construction in addition to the previous two would be welcomed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick Google search yields [this article](http://iling.spb.ru/confs/rusconstr2013/pdf/handouts/mankila.pdf), but my Russian is not good enough for me to read it without the help of a dictionary/translation programme, and when I try to copy the text it turns into boxes .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; Would the same comments apply for ‘что-то нового’, ‘что-то новое’ and ‘чего-то нового’? A Google search seems to suggest otherwise, but I do not understand the reason why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="2e72a080-8955-41da-88f0-f56d8e900a1c" CreationDate="2014-02-24T16:04:18.113" UserId="185" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="For teaching resources, you should look at [our resource page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use a course book**&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that you go to any large bookshop and go through course books and find the one that you like the most. You should buy it (or maybe find it online) and follow it. All your students should have a copy of the book, or at least should keep the print-out pages you give them, because without it, students may feel lost and do not get a coherent learning experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious advantages of following the course other people designed is that you already have texts, dialogues, exercises, vocabulary and grammar selected, explained and prepared for the needs of your students. For example, the book might introduce the locative case together with countries and continents names and questions like &quot;where are you from?&quot; and &quot;Where is the library&quot;, so you don't have to match grammar with fitting topics, come up with the rules you only know intuitively, find examples to illustrate your points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You can always add your own material**&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to stick to everything they put in the book, and furthermore, you can add more texts or dialogues. If you do, be sure not to use more than 10-20 new words and 1-2 grammar elements per text. For dialogues this number is even lower, up to 8 words, I'd say, especially in the beginning of the course. Also, you should make your students learn dialogues by heart. Knowing phrases like &quot;Привет, меня зовут...&quot;, &quot;Как добраться до...&quot;, &quot;Тише едешь, дальше будешь&quot; and even &quot;Боже мой!&quot; will help immensely and will give the feeling that they can already say something in Russian, even though they do not really know what &quot;меня&quot; means and what case it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also add own exercises. You might need it if the book only contains translation exercises and you want your students to talk. Ask them to compose dialogues, describe things they see, like or know, ask each other for directions, make compliments to each other, etc., whatever fits the topic of your current chapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't give up on the written language**&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest that you don't give up on reading so easily, because while the Cyrillic alphabet may be difficult to learn, reading is the easiest way to maintain and improve the language. Also, learning new words without being able to write them down is tough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regular and easy lessons are best**&#xD;&#xA;And finally, short regular lessons are better than long, but sporadic ones. Without regularity, nothing will work out.&#xD;&#xA;Also, too little new material is better than too much. It is better to take things slowly and after 3 lessons ask your students if they like the pace and whether they'd prefer to do more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4178" RevisionGUID="b83c125a-580b-4524-a88d-0cfcee9c42fe" CreationDate="2014-02-24T17:16:31.707" UserId="185" Text="Here is a short summary of the article. I personally find some of the examples unnatural and therefore cannot support the hypothesis of this paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;SUMMARY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two constructions of pronoun &quot;что&quot; with an adjective, which may be illustrated by examples &quot;что нового&quot; (adjective in genitive) and &quot;что новое&quot; (adjective in nominative\accusative). They both mean the same (&quot;something new&quot;). They can be used in questions, in relative clauses, in subordinate sentences with &quot;if&quot; and with some demonstrative particles. &#xD;&#xA;The question that this work is trying to answer is &quot;In what cases which of the two constructions should be used?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main hypothesis of the paper is that &quot;что новое&quot; is employed more often with indefinite and demonstrative &quot;что&quot;, while &quot;что нового&quot; is more frequently employed with &quot;что&quot; when it is used to form a question or a relative clause. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 A question: Что нового/новое произошло? (нового is preferred)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2 A relative: единственное, что нового/новое произошло (нового is preferred)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3 A demonstrative: вот что новое/нового произошло (новое is preferred) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 2&#xD;&#xA;Semantically, any adjective may be used in these constructions. When it is used with adjectives &quot;такой&quot; and &quot;свой&quot;, the genitive case is seen more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 3&#xD;&#xA;Syntactic position and the type of the predicate have strong influence on the type of construction that can be used. &#xD;&#xA;If the construction is used as a subject of an active action, nominative case is preferred (4). If the verb denotes a state or is passive, both nominative and genitive are allowed. (5 and 6)&#xD;&#xA;More examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 Так что же хорошее может порадовать, дать надежду нам, людям старшего поколения (...)?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5 Что такого случилось, что я должен уйти? &#xD;&#xA;6 Что своего вы привнесли в сюжет романа?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 4&#xD;&#xA;Pronoun may or may not be placed together with the adjective (Что у тебя нового? vs. Что нового у тебя?). When adjective and noun are placed together, the probability of nominative case is higher (about 25 percent) than when they are placed separately (10 percent). The statistics is collected for 4 constructions, see section 4 of the article for examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in construction with conjunction &quot;если&quot; (see 7), the probability of nominative case is higher than in other constructions (about 48 percent when placed together, about 90 percent when placed apart). Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7 Так что если что новое узнал - пиши, звони, кидай на E-mail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these constructions &quot;что новое&quot; actually means &quot;something new&quot; and can be changed into &quot;что-то новое&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чего нового&quot; is a colloquial variant, it is used with genitive more often, but nominative cases exist, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Section 6.&#xD;&#xA;The tendency of using the adjective in the nominative\accusative case together with pronoun &quot;что&quot; in case if they are put together is a sign that here pronoun &quot;что&quot; is an indefinite pronoun (I didn't get why this conclusion is made, but I guess it has something to do with the fact that using nominative\accusative case looks like agreement, and the use of genitive looks like government).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4179" RevisionGUID="f558b15b-9edf-40f4-bc65-0a147ca12450" CreationDate="2014-02-24T20:26:58.920" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Here is the distribution chart including the comparison of the 2nd person singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;мной - blue  &#xD;&#xA;мною - red  &#xD;&#xA;тобой - green  &#xD;&#xA;тобою - orange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/htHDw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="3147076c-009c-44f7-bc80-35cce661277c" CreationDate="2014-02-24T23:26:29.133" UserId="170" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="What endings should I choose when I am talking about quantities equal to 21 + 10n? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из все(х/го)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прибывш(ий/их) тридцать одн? сообщени(й/я) только перв(ое/ые) двадцать одн? был(о/и) по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Судейская коллегия состояла из двадцать одн? суд(ей/ьи). Случай был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уникальный. Впервые за всю историю нашего существования среди судей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царило полное согласие. Все присутствоваш(ий/ие) двадцать одн? судь? был? абсолютно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; согласны друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;added &quot;прибывш(ий/их)&quot; and &quot;присутствоваш(ий/ие)&quot; to my examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="9a9df1f3-eb2b-44a0-84e3-d78714c50811" CreationDate="2014-02-25T00:31:51.610" UserId="506" Text="You can use wine http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software) to install grammatica on MacOS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11658" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4173" RevisionGUID="3a431c66-8305-4432-a3bd-50a6df2df7b5" CreationDate="2014-02-25T01:39:05.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/438125966796533761" />
  <row Id="11659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="a78cd410-facf-4bc7-9e78-1039d2b39d8b" CreationDate="2014-02-25T05:58:42.963" UserId="313" Text="In [this clip][1] (starting at 8:05), Russian conductor Mravinsky is talking about the composer Sibelius. I can understand most of it, except for the **???** marks below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но этот компоситор до сих пор один из моих любимых потому, что...тот ледяной &#xD;&#xA;    чистоты воздух, который веет из глубин его музыкального текста. Это неповторимо, &#xD;&#xA;    и до его не бывал, и после него, я тоже не знаю, ***таких произведений с которыми &#xD;&#xA;    веел*** (**???**) такой хрустальной, немножко леденящей чистотой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всегда еще в этих произведениях немножко бывает такое ощущение свежевы-**????** веска, как будто вы идете против **???** свежий дух.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, I don't understand the grammar (or I misheard it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second two cases, I can't parse what he's saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/fR_r22oxEh4?t=8m5s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="a78cd410-facf-4bc7-9e78-1039d2b39d8b" CreationDate="2014-02-25T05:58:42.963" UserId="313" Text="Mravinsky mumbles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="a78cd410-facf-4bc7-9e78-1039d2b39d8b" CreationDate="2014-02-25T05:58:42.963" UserId="313" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="26221ff3-f0c5-47d9-b728-cf5c07dccb60" CreationDate="2014-02-25T06:51:05.973" UserId="3581" Text="Unfortunately, the audio is not the best quality. For this reason, you find it difficult to disassemble speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но этот **композитор** до сих пор один из моих любимых, потому что тот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ледяной чистоты воздух, который веет из глубин его музыкального текста&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - это неповторимо, и до него не бывал, и после него я тоже не знаю таких произведений, **от которых веяло** такой хрустальной, немножко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; леденящей чистотой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всегда еще в этих произведениях немножко бывает такое ощущение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **свежего ветерка в висках**, как будто вы идете **против ветра**. Такой вот свежий дух." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="7f0de015-b12d-4d20-b6ea-0fa89bb2c8ba" CreationDate="2014-02-25T06:57:32.483" UserId="3581" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, the audio is not the best quality. For this reason, you find it difficult to disassemble speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но этот **композитор** до сих пор один из моих любимых, потому что тот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ледяной чистоты воздух, который веет из глубин его музыкального текста&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - это неповторимо, и до него не бывал, и после него я тоже не знаю таких произведений, **от которых веяло** такой хрустальной, немножко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; леденящей чистотой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всегда еще в этих произведениях немножко бывает такое ощущение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **свежего ветерка в висках**, как будто вы идете **против ветра**. Такой вот свежий дух.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, in this short note mentioned the last phrase: http://www.moles.ee/05/Jun/01/6-1.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="60ea5c03-aa47-4de5-a5c2-6cc82692ea90" CreationDate="2014-02-25T07:53:35.423" UserId="3581" Comment="edited body" Text="Unfortunately, the audio is not the best quality. For this reason, you find it difficult to disassemble speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но этот **композитор** до сих пор один из моих любимых, потому что тот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ледяной чистоты воздух, который веет из глубин его музыкального текста&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - это неповторимо, и до него не бывал, и после него я тоже не знаю таких произведений, **от которых веяло** такой хрустальной, немножко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; леденящей чистотой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всегда еще в этих произведениях немножко бывает такое ощущение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **свежего ветерка в висках**, как будто вы идете **против ветра**. Такой вот свежий дух.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the last phrase mentioned in this short note: http://www.moles.ee/05/Jun/01/6-1.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4184" RevisionGUID="6dc7a649-b398-4528-94f1-4087118031e5" CreationDate="2014-02-25T08:29:11.070" UserId="3585" Text="Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение. Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из всех прибывших тридцать одного сообщения только первые двадцать одно были по существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Судейская коллегия состояла из двадцать одного судьи. Случай был уникальный. Впервые за всю историю нашего существования среди судей царило полное согласие. Все присутствовашие двадцать один судья были абсолютно согласны друг с другом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4183" RevisionGUID="32ab29ed-6565-4441-8383-33e9d748323b" CreationDate="2014-02-25T10:31:33.337" UserId="3581" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, the audio is not the best quality. For this reason, you find it difficult to disassemble speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но этот **композитор** до сих пор один из моих любимых, потому что тот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ледяной чистоты воздух, который веет из глубин его музыкального текста&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - это неповторимо, и до него не бывало, и после него я тоже не знаю таких произведений, **от которых веяло** такой хрустальной, немножко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; леденящей чистотой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всегда еще в этих произведениях немножко бывает такое ощущение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **свежего ветерка в висках**, как будто вы идете **против ветра**. Такой вот свежий дух.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, the last phrase mentioned in this short note: http://www.moles.ee/05/Jun/01/6-1.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="d1b1e5d8-7e01-4c2c-8914-fb84ae79bf6c" CreationDate="2014-02-25T11:30:17.080" UserId="170" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="What endings should I choose when I am talking about quantities equal to 21 + 10n? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из все(х/го)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тридцать одн? прибывш(ий/их) сообщени(й/я) только перв(ое/ые) двадцать одн? был(о/и) по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Судейская коллегия состояла из двадцать одн? суд(ей/ьи). Случай был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уникальный. Впервые за всю историю нашего существования среди судей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царило полное согласие. Все двадцать одн? присутствоваш(ий/ие) судь? был? абсолютно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; согласны друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;added &quot;прибывш(ий/их)&quot; and &quot;присутствоваш(ий/ие)&quot; to my examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;placed &quot;прибывш(ий/их)&quot; and &quot;присутствоваш(ий/ие)&quot; right before the nouns that they are describing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="7736b9b4-c21a-45a9-ab51-e0eb47e0a6fa" CreationDate="2014-02-25T14:04:33.483" UserId="2496" Text="mental jobs - психическая работа ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In russian, there are two labors: `Умственный труд` vs `Физический труд`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can compose is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`mental jobs - рабочие места для умственного труда`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How it names right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="7736b9b4-c21a-45a9-ab51-e0eb47e0a6fa" CreationDate="2014-02-25T14:04:33.483" UserId="2496" Text="How to translate &quot;mental jobs&quot; to russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="7736b9b4-c21a-45a9-ab51-e0eb47e0a6fa" CreationDate="2014-02-25T14:04:33.483" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="2ac44b45-ce87-4755-a7ad-34a40ab7bcfd" CreationDate="2014-02-25T14:08:15.220" UserId="3581" Text="I believe that for the phrase &quot;mental jobs&quot; is the most suitable the follow - **умственная работа**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4186" RevisionGUID="be40845f-ff5e-4f71-8cef-bf87d603ed9d" CreationDate="2014-02-25T14:14:57.797" UserId="3581" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="I believe that for the phrase &quot;mental jobs&quot; is the most suitable the follow - **умственная работа**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the phrase translation depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я выполняю **умственную работу**&quot; - is correct&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я занимаюсь умственным трудом&quot; - is correct too&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я выполняю **умственный труд**&quot; - is not correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="48c87d65-8031-4f30-8224-069faf827416" CreationDate="2014-02-25T16:39:10.560" UserId="1961" Text="Can you tell me please how can i translate **Responsive** into Russian? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The context is web-design, and Responsive means that the website adapt itself depending on the device through which it is viewed (pc, tablet, iphone..)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate give **отзывчивый** but i don't think is the proper translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone can help me please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="48c87d65-8031-4f30-8224-069faf827416" CreationDate="2014-02-25T16:39:10.560" UserId="1961" Text="How to translate &quot;Responsive&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="48c87d65-8031-4f30-8224-069faf827416" CreationDate="2014-02-25T16:39:10.560" UserId="1961" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4188" RevisionGUID="579234e7-d49d-4eb9-97f0-38f31af5d5a8" CreationDate="2014-02-25T16:52:48.843" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="You cannot use отзывчивый in the mentioned context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use adjective адаптированный/адаптирован instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наш сайт адаптирован под  автоматическое изменение контента в зависимости от платформы пользователя.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наш сайт адаптирован для всех мобильных платформ.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наш сайт платформо-независим.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наш сайт универсален и работает на любой платформе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the general definition for such type of the site is &quot;адаптивный сайт&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4189" RevisionGUID="2d63a426-e83a-4573-aa59-77244fa826fe" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:36:37.430" UserId="2069" Text="The usual translation in this context is &quot;**адаптивный**&quot; (see the [wikipedia article][1]), though the translation &quot;**отзывчивый**&quot; is also mentioned in the same article. The discussion page mentions certain [subtle differences][2] between the two notions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B1-%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://viljamis.com/blog/2012/adaptive-vs-responsive-whats-the-difference.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="465563ee-9a05-477e-8114-a8b11c8605a5" CreationDate="2014-02-26T07:09:19.530" UserId="3592" Text="I have learned how to translate &quot;можно&quot; in phrases (e.g. with &quot;it is possible&quot;, &quot;one can&quot;, &quot;it can be (done)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would like to know the actual grammatical role of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conjecture is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an adjective singular neutrum that simply means &quot;possible&quot;, but which is no longer used outside this kind of phrase, but still exists in composite adjectives like возмо́жный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if this is right and if it indeed comes from an older adjective no longer in common use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="465563ee-9a05-477e-8114-a8b11c8605a5" CreationDate="2014-02-26T07:09:19.530" UserId="3592" Text="Grammatical role of можно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="465563ee-9a05-477e-8114-a8b11c8605a5" CreationDate="2014-02-26T07:09:19.530" UserId="3592" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="3ad7a264-fc5d-4793-a6ca-f2ed2466e0ae" CreationDate="2014-02-26T07:25:28.600" UserId="3592" Text="My book on Russian claims that in phrases like &#xD;&#xA;здесь нет телефо́на&#xD;&#xA;the нет is a contraction of не and есть .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this etymologically true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realize that it is translated as such, but this is not my question.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="3ad7a264-fc5d-4793-a6ca-f2ed2466e0ae" CreationDate="2014-02-26T07:25:28.600" UserId="3592" Text="Is нет ever a contraction of не and есть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="3ad7a264-fc5d-4793-a6ca-f2ed2466e0ae" CreationDate="2014-02-26T07:25:28.600" UserId="3592" Text="|грамматика|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4192" RevisionGUID="2623fbd9-8e89-4218-b061-394b900b1988" CreationDate="2014-02-26T08:03:59.733" UserId="514" Text="I will try form better than in comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be `there is no phone` in this case because of &quot;there is&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of &quot;there is / there is no&quot; - specific phrases &quot;нет&quot; will be both `is no`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in other cases it's not, for example when &quot;нет&quot; is an answer to &quot;yes/no&quot; question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4193" RevisionGUID="4b289bff-423f-4dc8-a027-45ad90829713" CreationDate="2014-02-26T08:22:01.570" UserId="514" Text="It's predicative. equal to `возможно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's really hard to explain fully but will try to clarify some things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can say `мне можно` -&gt; `I may`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can't say `мне возможно` but `это для меня возможно` - `it is possible for me`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In questions `можно` means `may` like a `question to action`... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`можно мне ....` -&gt; `May I ....` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And `возможно-ли что ...` will strongly still be `is it possible that ...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in nutshell `можно` and `возможно` have got the same base `мож` and same suffix but used in different ways...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`как можно скорее - as soon as possible`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`возможно земля круглая - maybe the earth is round`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11688" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="6c34440a-f836-4f2c-b164-280f2c9258af" CreationDate="2014-02-26T09:34:30.877" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11689" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="f4add006-bd37-4325-9846-7cf58694cc72" CreationDate="2014-02-26T09:34:49.477" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="858b2937-5158-4d82-ab64-3233a314bba2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T10:17:07.777" UserId="1212" Text="Does there exist in Russian a pair of sentences which are the formal negation of each other, but have the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="858b2937-5158-4d82-ab64-3233a314bba2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T10:17:07.777" UserId="1212" Text="Can you provide two sentences that being the grammatical negation of each other, mean the same?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="858b2937-5158-4d82-ab64-3233a314bba2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T10:17:07.777" UserId="1212" Text="|синонимы|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4195" RevisionGUID="4c6f9255-f4c7-400b-806c-678292355a48" CreationDate="2014-02-26T10:49:06.323" UserId="1212" Text="- &quot;не&quot; is close to &quot;not&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;нет&quot; is close to &quot;no&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always used that simple rule teaching English to Russian children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, &quot;нет&quot; was sometimes the contraction of &quot;не&quot;+&quot;есть&quot;. The old form was [&quot;несть&quot;][1], and it can be met in classic Russian poetry of XIX Century. But nobody feels that connection anymore, it is too hidden, in contrast to Slovenian, for example, where it is obvious even now. But Slovenian and Czech languages are the most conservative Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ozhegov.info/slovar/?ex=Y&amp;q=%D0%9D%D0%95%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="b7822d5d-578e-4d53-9e5e-5b08b9a10d1c" CreationDate="2014-02-26T11:42:40.330" UserId="551" Text="According to Vasmer, the etymology of **нет**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; народн. **не́ту**, др.-русск. **нѣту** (РП, Владим. Моном., Лаврентьевск. летоп.) и **нѣтъ** (Лаврентьевск. летоп., Договорная грам. Димитр. Донск. 1372 г., Полоцк. грам. 1399 г.; см. Соболевский, Лекции 94 и сл.). **Из более старого *не ѥ ту;** см. Соболевский, там же, 249; Преобр. I, 218, 596; Цв. Тодоров, &quot;Slavia&quot;, 14, 519 (где о -ту, с литер.); ср. также тут (см.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, before 14th century it had a form __*не ѥ ту__ (asterisk means that the written form is reconstructed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the word **есть** etymologically has a prototype in Old Slavonic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ѥстъ, редко ѥ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymology of **тут** by Vasmer is connected with Old Russian word **ту**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. ту - &quot;там, туда, тут&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So looks like the word **нет** before 14th century was expressed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *не ѥ ту = **не есть тут**, **не есть там**, **не есть туда**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4136" RevisionGUID="1c214f93-8264-43ae-96f3-53cf2a975a75" CreationDate="2014-02-26T11:55:27.700" UserId="2238" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="I shall try to answer the given questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Quality of vowel reduction**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two stages of reduction. First stage is in the syllable before the stressed one, in the absolute beginning and in the absolute end. Second stage is in all other unstressed positions. Here is the correct table (by Petersburg's norm, Moscow's is a bit different)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed - 1st stage - 2nd stage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a non-palatalised consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а/о - ^ (sound similar to а but with middle up-going of the tongue like in о) - ъ (sound like shwa); э (sometimes written as е) - ы - ъ; ы - ы - ы; у - у - у;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a palatalised consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и - и - и; у (written as ю) - у - у; а (written as я)/о (written as ё)/э (written as е) - и - ь (another reduced sound a bit similar to ъ but pronounced close to teeth like э).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pronunciation of е that stems from ять does not differ from pronunciation of е that stems from е for a long time.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Palatalisation and assimilation** is another topic where Petersburg and Moscow are different in pronunciation. According to Petersburg's norm, there is no palatalising assimilation actually at all and there is no sound [ж']. The word дождь is pronounced [дошт']. Group зм always has non-palatalised з, the opposite is a dialectical thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pronunciation of г is implosive (not fricative, as in Southern dialects and Ukrainian and modern-Greek languages, although it may be fricative in words like ага, эге, мгм, угу) voiced (unless in the position of absolute end or before a voiceless, in which cases it becomes voiceless itself) guttural sound ([бох] instead of [бок] for бог is old-fashioned and marginal, and then there are words лёгкий and мягкий and their derivates which have [x] not [к] before к and sometimes ч, but that's all), pronunciation of в is a voiced pair for ф, pronunciation of р is bilateral.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stresses are directed by special dictionaries of stresses. For the word звонит it is on the last syllable, for the word торты it is not.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4196" RevisionGUID="8ea3ed63-32f5-4741-aedb-6159cf928c42" CreationDate="2014-02-26T12:27:29.550" UserId="551" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Currently no Russian speaker feels that word **нет** is compressed form of **не есть**. The **нет** and **есть** are thought as antonyms. However looks like long ago (over 600 years ago) the connection between them existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer's dictionary, the etymology of **нет**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; народн. **не́ту**, др.-русск. **нѣту** (РП, Владим. Моном., Лаврентьевск. летоп.) и **нѣтъ** (Лаврентьевск. летоп., Договорная грам. Димитр. Донск. 1372 г., Полоцк. грам. 1399 г.; см. Соболевский, Лекции 94 и сл.). **Из более старого *не ѥ ту;** см. Соболевский, там же, 249; Преобр. I, 218, 596; Цв. Тодоров, &quot;Slavia&quot;, 14, 519 (где о -ту, с литер.); ср. также тут (см.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, before 14th century it had a form __*не ѥ ту__ (asterisk means that the written form is reconstructed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the word **есть** etymologically has a prototype in Old Slavonic:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ѥстъ, редко ѥ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymology of **тут** by Vasmer is connected with Old Russian word **ту**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. ту - &quot;там, туда, тут&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So looks like the word **нет** before 14th century was expressed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *не ѥ ту = **не есть тут**, **не есть там**, **не есть туда**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="68c65ddf-133b-4438-90e9-19379ba611a1" CreationDate="2014-02-26T14:25:34.450" UserId="185" Text="Do you mean that you are looking for two sentences that have opposite meaning, and both contain grammatical negation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, my answer is &quot;indirect negation&quot;. Compare the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не думаю, что Алекс выиграет&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, что Алекс не выиграет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;думать&quot; here means &quot;to believe&quot;, and both sentences state the same: the absence of your belief in Alex's victory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a specifically Russian thing, you can construct the same two sentences in English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't believe that Alex will win&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that Alex will not win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make similar trick with other verbs of statement, such as &quot;считать&quot;, &quot;полагать&quot;, &quot;верить&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11700" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="4a35bf35-bbcb-4cdd-8858-66eb9ee27571" CreationDate="2014-02-26T15:43:14.583" UserId="-1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;petajamaja&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4198" RevisionGUID="b9b36a86-b7f1-4b0f-8959-3be2fa0e0fa8" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:32:26.597" UserId="3595" Text="I assume every complete sentence needs a verb. when you say &quot;здесь нет телефо́на&quot;, &quot;нет&quot; acts like a verb. so it makes a total sense that it is indeed a contraction of &quot;not&quot; and &quot;to be&quot;, very much like &quot;there is no phone&quot;. unless in Russian somehow &quot;нет&quot; is recognized as a verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4199" RevisionGUID="a762b901-9158-498d-bc91-d9f73e05a9da" CreationDate="2014-02-26T21:24:49.043" UserId="3595" Text="I'll throw another answer here. I don't remember where exactly I read it, but there was a translation of Pope's epitaph in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night: God said,  &quot;Let Newton be! and&#xD;&#xA;all was light.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it was well circulated among Soviet physicists as a joke, but the God's words were translated somewhat incorrectly to Russian as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let be the light! And so came Newton&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that &quot;Да будет свет! - сказал электрик и перерезал провода.?&quot; could be a non sequitur around that epitaph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's funny that there's a follow up verse by J.C.Squire, which was also translated to Russian and well known among physicists:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It did not last, the devil a howling, &quot;Ho, let Einstein be!, restored the&#xD;&#xA;status-quo.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4200" RevisionGUID="37bb522c-e1b0-41c8-bc8e-70601b2d5b3a" CreationDate="2014-02-26T21:37:33.547" UserId="3595" Text="потом and затем can also be used separately when answering certain kind of questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When will you do this?&quot; - &quot;потом&quot;. in this context it means &quot;Later on&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why did you do this?&quot; - &quot;затем&quot;. in this context it means &quot;I don't want to answer&quot; or &quot;None of your business&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11707" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="e4d798ed-edc4-460f-9aed-7416c0196d6f" CreationDate="2014-02-27T08:24:38.157" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4202" RevisionGUID="d123995e-ac87-42c8-83bc-26109cdbe29c" CreationDate="2014-02-27T11:09:02.103" UserId="551" Text="My answer would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотите ли откушать рыбки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хотите ли откушать рыбки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter question however cannot be answered with simple **Да** or **Нет** answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="1420a60c-715d-4982-9f4c-39143d450620" CreationDate="2014-02-27T18:40:39.907" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What are commonly used, synonymous words and phrases for **`кстати`**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="1420a60c-715d-4982-9f4c-39143d450620" CreationDate="2014-02-27T18:40:39.907" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Synonyms for кстати" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="1420a60c-715d-4982-9f4c-39143d450620" CreationDate="2014-02-27T18:40:39.907" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4205" RevisionGUID="3dfdf94d-4488-4ac8-8307-5b3d827c46bb" CreationDate="2014-02-27T19:12:33.700" UserId="3589" Text="All words bellow are synonymous:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;уместно, у места, к месту, к лицу, на руку, с руки, к слову, в лад, в меру, впору, в самую пору, впопад, вовремя, в (свое, надлежащее) время, своевременно, благовременно, во благовременьи, под стать, соразмерно, пропорционально, как раз, мимоходом; подходящий; в нужный момент, пользуясь случаем, ко времени, кстати о музыке, тут же, в свое время, кстати замечу, между делом, при случае, замечу кстати, к слову сказать, попутно, попутно замечу, между прочим, благовремение, на ходу, заодно, к руке, кстати сказать, замечу попутно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11719" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="ad62a79b-439f-4d13-9288-8a4dc9436597" CreationDate="2014-02-27T19:39:20.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/439122596802875392" />
  <row Id="11720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="35bafb4d-f619-4caa-b177-6a4001c5aae1" CreationDate="2014-02-27T21:19:42.450" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="What are commonly used, synonymous words and phrases for **`кстати`**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean also in the sense of `мне [вдруг] пришло в голову`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4204" RevisionGUID="b21c2b64-be31-4831-a7a6-72d894699458" CreationDate="2014-02-27T21:25:09.907" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="What are commonly used, synonymous words and phrases for **`кстати`**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean also in the sense of `now that I think about it` (`мне приходит голову`?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11722" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4191" RevisionGUID="ba1df41b-c168-4a07-966f-27006664577f" CreationDate="2014-02-27T22:39:20.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/439167898360492033" />
  <row Id="11723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4206" RevisionGUID="85bd012f-806d-4397-9c46-9570b6876ff7" CreationDate="2014-02-27T23:12:23.067" UserId="3604" Text="**`Кстати`** has two meanings: as in `just when it was needed` [example: мне нужна была информация, и эта статья попалась мне очень кстати - I needed information, and I saw this article just when it was needed], and as in `apropos` or `by the way` [example: кстати, ты читал эту книгу? - By the way, have you read this book?].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous words in first case can be: как раз (exactly at/when/as...; note that this phrase can't be used as a finishing phrase to a sentence, it must be followed by some description: как раз когда нужно, как раз где хотел, как раз как понадобилось etc...), вовремя (on the right time), своевременно (in a timely manner), к месту (in place), на руку (in hand), в нужный момент (on the right time/on the right moment)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous words in second case: к слову (speaking of/by the way), говоря о [...] (speaking of [...]), кстати о птичках (speaking of birds - used jokingly, not to be used in formal conversations, just among friends), между прочим (by the way/among other things), апропо (apropos - extremely rarely used)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11724" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4187" RevisionGUID="147a1a81-365e-4dbf-8af3-29b0360d3061" CreationDate="2014-02-28T01:39:20.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/439213194763304960" />
  <row Id="11725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4207" RevisionGUID="60955d89-60a7-4421-8567-bc3adb1cf484" CreationDate="2014-02-28T04:35:51.153" UserId="3606" Text="All of these words have pretty much the same meaning and it's all about sequence&#xD;&#xA;Потом - then&#xD;&#xA;Затем - next&#xD;&#xA;Спустя - after&#xD;&#xA;После чего - after that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4208" RevisionGUID="5386444a-84cc-4590-b6c4-b51380ebe13b" CreationDate="2014-02-28T13:06:18.547" UserId="3608" Text="text adapted for bitcoin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4.5.5 Погрешность времени**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the name of the section you want to use as the name of the attack, can be rename to:  &#xD;&#xA;**4.5.5 Фальсификация времени**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Falsification in this context combines concepts such as the time is lag and the time is fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Злоумышленник может инициировать атаку **фальсификацией времени**, против двух различных узлов[116], путем создания многочисленных вредоносных соединений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Атака с использованием **фальсификации времени**, может быть использована для облегчения применения двойной атаки (см. 4.5.13), в качестве атакующего. Путем создания альтернативной цепочки блоков, которая будет принята, только атакуемым с **фальсифицированным временем**. В этом случае атакуемому участнику не придется иметь дело с валидной цепочкой блоков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если злоумышленник сможет **фальсифицировать отставание времени** от текущего времени участников сети, у первого майнинг пула, а у второго **опережение времени**, атака может привести пулы к невозможности генерации различных блоков, которые могли бы оказаться в цепочке блоков." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11728" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4190" RevisionGUID="5479454b-06f4-4521-9046-fadb1ab71207" CreationDate="2014-02-28T13:39:20.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/439394389623058432" />
  <row Id="11729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="fab413e9-9cfd-4df2-aefb-edfbee901c34" CreationDate="2014-02-28T14:27:48.450" UserId="185" Text="Какая у слова &quot;Илья&quot; правильная форма множественного числа родительного падежа?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Множественное число от имен собственных вообще редко встречается, но все же возможно, например, в предложении &quot;У меня нет знакомых Маш&quot;. Как заменить в этом предложении слово &quot;Маша&quot; на слово &quot;Илья&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Конечно, всегда можно сказать &quot;У меня нет знакомых по имени Илья&quot;, но это не решает проблему, а обходит ее стороной." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="fab413e9-9cfd-4df2-aefb-edfbee901c34" CreationDate="2014-02-28T14:27:48.450" UserId="185" Text="&quot;Илья&quot; во множественном числе и в родительном падеже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="fab413e9-9cfd-4df2-aefb-edfbee901c34" CreationDate="2014-02-28T14:27:48.450" UserId="185" Text="|множественное-число|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="9c041a3e-e42b-48fb-b12c-0417d60dda25" CreationDate="2014-02-28T15:54:42.157" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="На многих ресурсах указывается правильный вариант &quot;Илей&quot;. Например на [грамотеру][1] - Ильям, Илей, Ильями, Ильях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=14&amp;i=11894&amp;t=11891" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="8769f482-013b-4832-8c7c-a45b54dc6572" CreationDate="2014-02-28T15:59:42.333" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="formatting" Text="На многих ресурсах указывается правильный вариант &quot;Илей&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например на [грамотеру][1] - Ильям, Илей, Ильями, Ильях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=14&amp;i=11894&amp;t=11891" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="7a943fb5-b728-431b-a4c5-29baf3488139" CreationDate="2014-02-28T16:39:31.240" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="better explanation" Text="На многих ресурсах указывается правильный вариант &quot;Илей&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например на [грамотеру][1] - Ильям, Илей, Ильями, Ильях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма &quot;Ильёв&quot; является неправильной и вот как [решена][2] в журнале &quot;Наука и жизнь&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Собственные имена редко употребляются во множественном числе, но обратимся к нарицательным существительным типа: бадья, ладья, попадья, тулья, судья, статья и др. Формы родительного множественного от них: бадей, ладей, судей, статей и др. Значит, от Илья будет... Илей. Эти формы образованы с нулевым окончанием и беглой гласной, на которой и оказывается ударение. В привычных, часто употребляемых формах мы все это легко &quot;проделываем&quot;, но при необходимости образовать родительный множественного от собственного имени Илья произошла заминка. (И не у Саши Пчелкина, конечно, а у самого Валентина Катаева.) Форма Ильей образована без беглой гласной с окончанием -ей, а это окончание не должно выступать после конечной согласной основы j (йот) (именно на j кончается основа имени Илья): ведь от слова край, например, образуется форма краев (а не краей). Так почему же неправильна форма Ильев? Потому что окончание -ов (-ев) не образует родительный множественного от существительных с исходной формой (именительным единственного) на -а (-я).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=14&amp;i=11894&amp;t=11891&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://nauka.relis.ru/56/9810/56810127.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4211" RevisionGUID="ad3ad1ed-d18e-4da3-8008-c4c3ddf4d8a5" CreationDate="2014-02-28T16:51:31.893" UserId="2269" Text="_Или́й_. Вы же не будете пытаться образовать форму _Марей_ от _Марья_ или _Дарей_ от _Дарья_, но возьмете формы _Марий_ и _Дарий_ от полногласных _Мария_ и _Дария_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пока без источников. Так что возможно, это не более, чем мое добросовестное заблуждение, но мне до сего дня в голову не приходил иной возможный вариант." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="eafe4d51-fa1f-48c3-9aeb-d3c2c5c1c846" CreationDate="2014-02-28T20:57:31.540" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="Formatting" Text="На многих ресурсах указывается правильный вариант &quot;**Илей**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например на [грамотеру][1] - Ильям, **Илей**, Ильями, Ильях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма &quot;Ильёв&quot; является неправильной и вот как [решена][2] в журнале &quot;Наука и жизнь&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Собственные имена редко употребляются во множественном числе, но обратимся к нарицательным существительным типа: бадья, ладья, попадья, тулья, судья, статья и др. Формы родительного множественного от них: бадей, ладей, судей, статей и др. Значит, от Илья будет... Илей. Эти формы образованы с нулевым окончанием и беглой гласной, на которой и оказывается ударение. В привычных, часто употребляемых формах мы все это легко &quot;проделываем&quot;, но при необходимости образовать родительный множественного от собственного имени Илья произошла заминка. (И не у Саши Пчелкина, конечно, а у самого Валентина Катаева.) Форма Ильей образована без беглой гласной с окончанием -ей, а это окончание не должно выступать после конечной согласной основы j (йот) (именно на j кончается основа имени Илья): ведь от слова край, например, образуется форма краев (а не краей). Так почему же неправильна форма Ильев? Потому что окончание -ов (-ев) не образует родительный множественного от существительных с исходной формой (именительным единственного) на -а (-я).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.gramota.ru/forum/read.php?f=14&amp;i=11894&amp;t=11891&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://nauka.relis.ru/56/9810/56810127.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11737" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4210" RevisionGUID="eafe4d51-fa1f-48c3-9aeb-d3c2c5c1c846" CreationDate="2014-02-28T20:57:31.540" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 3575 edit id of 432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11738" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="77bdb7e8-78dd-47d4-bef2-f20581782344" CreationDate="2014-03-01T07:39:27.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/439666208712192000" />
  <row Id="11739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="8824cda6-2f2e-44e4-a694-2448e3c8ff2a" CreationDate="2014-03-01T14:48:22.127" UserId="3613" Text="I m visiting Tashkent in April. Is it possible to learn Russian in a months time ??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="8824cda6-2f2e-44e4-a694-2448e3c8ff2a" CreationDate="2014-03-01T14:48:22.127" UserId="3613" Text="In how much time can i learn Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4212" RevisionGUID="8824cda6-2f2e-44e4-a694-2448e3c8ff2a" CreationDate="2014-03-01T14:48:22.127" UserId="3613" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="292595ce-125d-449c-a9ea-7a83b4a5efdc" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:38:28.497" UserId="3595" Text="if you don't know any slavic languages, then it is not possible to learn it in a month. it's the second most difficult language for English speakers after Chinese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is possible to pick up simple conversational phrases like &quot;thank you&quot;, &quot;check, please&quot;, &quot;left-right&quot;, numbers etc. you will not be able to understand anything Russian talk about on TV or in the public transport" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4213" RevisionGUID="e553c292-f3d2-4b6b-b56c-40e38bdf1d1b" CreationDate="2014-03-01T16:59:05.383" UserId="3595" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="if you don't know any slavic languages, then it is not possible to learn it in a month. it's the second most difficult language for English speakers after Chinese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is possible to pick up simple conversational phrases like &quot;thank you&quot;, &quot;check, please&quot;, &quot;left-right&quot;, numbers etc. you will not be able to understand anything Russian talk about on TV or in the public transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also, depending on what would be your environment and who would be your hosts in Tashkent, you may not be able to hear much Russian at all. the local language in Tashkent is Uzbek, which is as different from Russian as English. obviously most urban people speak Russian, but why would they be speaking to you or in front of you in Russian unless they're ethnic Russians? if your hosts are ethnic Russians, then it's a different story, of course, if you spend most of your time with them. otherwise in public places, I would expect most conversation be in Uzbek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="fe224dc8-322b-4d5a-b528-be85d853c6cd" CreationDate="2014-03-02T01:46:57.253" UserId="436" Text="I've been studying Russian for the last few years and I think I could now be searching for native content (probably news and/or books) in order to enhance my vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has not been very easy for me to find books which don't have an underlying socialist agenda (I always look for authors who have been censured by the USSR), but I can't find many news outlets which aren't totally biased towards the current government (for current news).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any suggestions for:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. books by Authors who have been censored and/or expelled form the USSR &#xD;&#xA; 2. politically-*neutral* current news outlets and websites? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of books, I would like, if possible, suggestions for titles which aren't overly complex due to language difficulties (or else very old, which outdated language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: As for my level of Russian, I've learned all cases/declensions but my vocabulary isn't that good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="fe224dc8-322b-4d5a-b528-be85d853c6cd" CreationDate="2014-03-02T01:46:57.253" UserId="436" Text="Unbiased Source of Content in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="fe224dc8-322b-4d5a-b528-be85d853c6cd" CreationDate="2014-03-02T01:46:57.253" UserId="436" Text="|обучение|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="b285bb62-1525-4c94-9767-f12a947eba3f" CreationDate="2014-03-02T03:15:26.287" UserId="3595" Text="&gt; politically-neutral current news outlets and websites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;news aggregators: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  news.yandex.ru&#xD;&#xA; -  news.google.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not absolutely unbiased, but good for an alternative view: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian](http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Reuters Russian](http://ru.reuters.com/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Deutsche Welle Russian](http://www.dw.de/%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F/s-9119)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relatively balanced Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Независимая Газета](http://www.ng.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="586a1eb7-c1c1-4dbb-804d-fe15ae0bf9a3" CreationDate="2014-03-02T07:21:15.693" UserId="1902" Text="Category II: Languages with significant linguistic and/or cultural differences from English&#xD;&#xA;44 weeks (1100 class hours)[Language Learning Difficulty][1] assuming you'll spend half of this time in Russian enviroment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Language_Learning_Difficulty_for_English_Speakers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4216" RevisionGUID="88db62ec-8e60-4e54-a5fb-73d36c2fd716" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:12:00.327" UserId="1902" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Category II: Languages with significant linguistic and/or cultural differences from English&#xD;&#xA;44 weeks (1100 class hours) ([Language Learning Difficulty][1]) assuming you'll spend half of this time in Russian enviroment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Language_Learning_Difficulty_for_English_Speakers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="4f29028f-34c3-4947-b216-7040843ebbd9" CreationDate="2014-03-02T12:59:17.670" UserId="1409" Text="When you say &quot;in Moscow&quot; or any other city or place you change the ending - Москва, в Москве. Why you don't change ending for Sochi ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="4f29028f-34c3-4947-b216-7040843ebbd9" CreationDate="2014-03-02T12:59:17.670" UserId="1409" Text="&quot;In Moscow&quot; - &quot;В Москве&quot;, why &quot;In Sochi&quot; is still &quot;В Сочи&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="4f29028f-34c3-4947-b216-7040843ebbd9" CreationDate="2014-03-02T12:59:17.670" UserId="1409" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="2630b593-94c0-4f10-b67e-b1f096513e75" CreationDate="2014-03-02T15:46:05.753" UserId="3595" Text="I've heard people saying &quot;в Сочях&quot; and &quot;в Гаграх&quot;, where &quot;Гагры&quot; is also a town name in that region. Both have a grammatical form of plural words, but in fact they're foreign words local languages, therefore, it is not correct to pluralize them in usual way. With foreign geographical names ending on &quot;и&quot; there is not change when used as a location. For instance &quot;в Капри&quot; (Italian town), &quot;в Бали&quot; (Indonesia). On the other hand &quot;на Гаваях&quot; is common for &quot;Гавайи&quot; (Hawaii). Confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4215" RevisionGUID="09f3c879-74ed-469b-a83f-e31ba4f50717" CreationDate="2014-03-02T16:09:07.587" UserId="3595" Comment="added 822 characters in body" Text="&gt; politically-neutral current news outlets and websites?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;news aggregators: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  news.yandex.ru&#xD;&#xA; -  news.google.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not absolutely unbiased, but good for an alternative view: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian](http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Reuters Russian](http://ru.reuters.com/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Deutsche Welle Russian](http://www.dw.de/%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F/s-9119)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;relatively balanced Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Независимая Газета](http://www.ng.ru/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;as to writers, I think it is unwise to limit your reading list to dissidents and expelled ones. Censuring in and of itself has little impact on the quality and richness of art. Here's a sample of what we were reading in school, still under communists :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Котлован&quot;, Платонов&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Жизнь и судьба&quot;, Гроссман&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Детство&quot;, Горький - &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Тихий Дон&quot;, Шолохов&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Буранный полустанок&quot;, &quot;Белый пароход&quot;, &quot;Плаха&quot; - Айтматов&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Пикник на обочине&quot;, Стругацкие&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Роковые яйца&quot;, Булгаков&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;12 стульев&quot;, Ильф, Петров - you probably won't get it, but it's a kind of humor Russians enjoy&#xD;&#xA;- short stories, satire, Зощенко&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Визит к Минотавру&quot;, Вайнеры&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Театр теней&quot;, Булычев&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Бегущая по волнам&quot;, Грин&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Тень&quot;, Шварц&#xD;&#xA;- Маяковский - ignore his social pro-labor poetry, his lyrical poetry is quite powerful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4167" RevisionGUID="bb4b6d07-31bc-46d5-b430-26bab64ebc6c" CreationDate="2014-03-02T16:39:27.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/440164495030497280" />
  <row Id="11756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="4d6130ce-fc89-44fe-881d-05f598f1a29b" CreationDate="2014-03-02T20:28:09.253" UserId="2269" Comment="Не могу придумать ни малейших оснований писать _в Сочах_ через _я_, плюс все-таки _на Бали_. (Парные кавычки для набора об’ема правки)" Text="I’ve heard people saying “в Сочах” and “в Гаграх”, where “Гагры” is also a town name in that region. Both have a grammatical form of plural words, but in fact they’re foreign words local languages, therefore, it is not correct to pluralize them in usual way. With foreign geographical names ending on “и” there is not change when used as a location. For instance “в Капри” (Italian town), “на Бали” (Indonesia). On the other hand “на Гаваях” is common for “Гавайи” (Hawaii). Confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11757" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4218" RevisionGUID="4d6130ce-fc89-44fe-881d-05f598f1a29b" CreationDate="2014-03-02T20:28:09.253" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 3595 edit id of 433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="1450eb1c-5ae4-4216-a89a-1e04f6393ef7" CreationDate="2014-03-03T10:55:57.460" UserId="2480" Text="I'm not sure of the context of what the speaker is saying - is she talking about race or general differences in societ? And what is the comment that the narrator follows up with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(context: http://youtu.be/55bC5zowkFE?t=1h39m6s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот если б я рисовала наше общество, я бы нарисовала круг и много-много разных цветов, много разных пятен. Может быть, у нас было все значительно лучше, если бы одного цвета какого-то, основного, было большинство. &#xD;&#xA;Но, к сожалению, опасность и цвет один.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My interpretation:**&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I painted our society I would draw a circle and lots and lots of different colours, lots of different spots. Maybe we'd all be much better if the same colour, the main colour was the majority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, unfortunately, the danger and the colour are one. (??)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="1450eb1c-5ae4-4216-a89a-1e04f6393ef7" CreationDate="2014-03-03T10:55:57.460" UserId="2480" Text="Is she talking about race?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="1450eb1c-5ae4-4216-a89a-1e04f6393ef7" CreationDate="2014-03-03T10:55:57.460" UserId="2480" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="03f7c0a9-6418-4e68-8b4c-233a2ff747ce" CreationDate="2014-03-03T11:44:56.263" UserId="551" Text="No, it's not about race. She is saying that there are lots of colors now, while it would be better to have a one major color among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of race the situation in Russia is opposite - the majority of Russian people are Caucasian, so she is definetely talking not about race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your russian text is equal to what is said in the film, but I cannot understand why &quot;Но, к сожалению, опасность и цвет один&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="a10ecdd1-1490-4158-8717-cd961925e13f" CreationDate="2014-03-03T12:01:29.647" UserId="551" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="No, it's not about race. She is saying that there are lots of colors now, while it would be better to have a one major color among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of race the situation in Russia is opposite - the majority of Russian people are Caucasian, so she is definetely not talking about race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your russian text is equal to what is said in the film, but I cannot understand why &quot;Но, к сожалению, опасность и цвет один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jwalker notes that the last phrase may be read as &quot;Но, к сожалению, **опасности** цвет один&quot;. At this moment the car with big red sticker on its side is crossing the screen. Maybe the narrator means that one major color is not such a good idea after all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="3497dd20-f3d5-4f6c-9235-8e8f29524ff7" CreationDate="2014-03-03T13:05:45.717" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="No, it's not about race. She is saying that there are lots of colors now, while it would be better to have a one major color among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of race the situation in Russia is opposite - the majority of Russian people are white, so she is definetely not talking about race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your russian text is equal to what is said in the film, but I cannot understand why &quot;Но, к сожалению, опасность и цвет один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jwalker notes that the last phrase may be read as &quot;Но, к сожалению, **опасности** цвет один&quot;. At this moment the car with big red sticker on its side is crossing the screen. Maybe the narrator means that one major color is not such a good idea after all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4219" RevisionGUID="16b426d7-5f78-4185-ac86-d23ed30d7836" CreationDate="2014-03-03T13:39:28.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/440481586275188736" />
  <row Id="11765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4220" RevisionGUID="41176853-0d58-46c5-88c8-fa05dcb499c9" CreationDate="2014-03-03T13:40:56.780" UserId="551" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="No, it's not about race. She is saying that there are lots of colors now, while it would be better to have a one major color among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of race the situation in Russia is opposite - the majority of Russian people are white, so she is definetely not talking about race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your russian text is equal to what is said in the film, but I cannot understand why narrator says: &quot;Но, к сожалению, опасность и цвет один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jwalker notes that the last phrase may be read as &quot;Но, к сожалению, **опасности** цвет один&quot;. At this moment the car with big red sticker on its side is crossing the screen. Maybe the narrator means that one major color is not such a good idea after all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="abb777b0-92bd-4136-8df0-fa7b5fb9bbf5" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:01:37.890" UserId="1961" Text="I need again the help of SO!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you tell me please the proper translations of &quot;**CLIENT AREA**&quot; in web context?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate give me:  **клиентская область**. &#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;**область** is not used for geographical area?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating AREA alone, google translate give several possibilities: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**площадь, область, район, зона, сфера, участок**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe зона is more appropriate? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;большое спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="abb777b0-92bd-4136-8df0-fa7b5fb9bbf5" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:01:37.890" UserId="1961" Text="How to translate &quot;Client area&quot; in russian (web context)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="abb777b0-92bd-4136-8df0-fa7b5fb9bbf5" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:01:37.890" UserId="1961" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="9eb0f690-314d-422e-8df8-000814a1ade3" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:08:50.953" UserId="3617" Text="In the web context, especially if it's something that requires the client to sign in to access the area, I've seen the expression Личный кабинет. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="ce81657e-1a4e-41d0-a1ad-db78226fcd16" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:21:02.803" UserId="3617" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="In the web context, especially if it's something that requires the client to sign in to access the area, I've seen the expression Личный кабинет or Кабинет пользователя (the second expression appears to be more rare). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="c535bbac-fcd0-4a46-85b0-2807078d3856" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:21:45.167" UserId="194" Text="There are several terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Личный кабинет**. This is used in the context of internet service providers, internet storage providers, hosting services. Here the user can to choose the subscription services, the speed and volume of services he wants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Моя анкета**. This is used in the context of various dating services and social networks to set up what data you want other people to see on your personal page, such as your interests, age, sex, sexual preferences, place of living and dating aims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Мой профиль**. This is used on various sites, forums, social networks to set up your preferences. This includes the theme in which the site is displayed for you, your e-mail, your default e-mail notification choices, your age and occupation etc. This data may or may not be available to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="fe9802fa-f50e-45f9-bb88-f51a0dde228c" CreationDate="2014-03-03T16:28:30.650" UserId="194" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="There are several terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Личный кабинет**. This is used in the context of internet service providers, internet storage providers, hosting services. Here the user can to choose the subscription services, the speed and volume of services he wants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Моя анкета**. This is used in the context of various dating services and social networks to set up what data you want other people to see on your personal page, such as your interests, age, sex, sexual preferences, place of living and dating aims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Мой профиль**. This is used on various sites, forums, social networks to set up your preferences. This includes the theme in which the site is displayed for you, your e-mail, your default e-mail notification choices, your age and occupation etc. This data may or may not be available to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Платная зона**. This may be used in the context of porn sites, to denote content accessible only to paid accounts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4222" RevisionGUID="68339c5b-01f0-4240-b0db-c954b7286b8e" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:08:01.840" UserId="3617" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In the web context, especially if it's something that requires the client to sign in to access the area, I've seen the expressions Личный кабинет and Кабинет пользователя (the second expression appears to be more rare). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="25e397fc-514b-463a-aae1-4ab5758b8a60" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:43:20.423" UserId="33" Text="У ребенка в домашней работе предложение: _«…Мы отвести не в силах глаз.»_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По смыслу подразумевается множественное число, и тогда слово _«глаз»_ стоит в родительном падеже множественного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, _«отвести»_ — переходный глагол, и следовательно управляет винительным падежом. Следовательно, слово «глаз» стоит в винительном падеже единственного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот такой парадокс…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В каком падеже и числе употреблено слова _«глаз»_ в этом предложении?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="25e397fc-514b-463a-aae1-4ab5758b8a60" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:43:20.423" UserId="33" Text="Какой падеж у слова «глаз»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="25e397fc-514b-463a-aae1-4ab5758b8a60" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:43:20.423" UserId="33" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4225" RevisionGUID="5c45341e-4464-4d2b-8359-4e8d04b561cc" CreationDate="2014-03-03T17:51:33.900" UserId="551" Text="Это [фразеологизм](http://phraseology.academic.ru/7979/%D0%9D%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B7):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не отвести глаз  &#xD;&#xA;от кого, от чего. Разг. Экспрес. О ком-либо или о чём-либо особенно привлекательном, ладном (таком, что залюбуешься). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь именно множественное число, родительный падеж. В единственном числе это выражение становится нелепым. Сравните с выражением: &quot;Работать не покладая рук&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="fa5da9f5-ddf9-4a31-9032-034c3b5a462e" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:15:12.193" UserId="2269" Text="Хм. При отрицании действия, выраженного переходным глаголом, родительный падеж употребляется едва ли не чаще винительного. _Подать руку_ / _Не подать руки_, _взять деньги_ / _не взять денег_ и т. д. Сомневаюсь, что для вас это новость, в чем же вопрос?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="689c6b5f-b9d2-4b0e-a487-d308b4b69f3e" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:17:30.787" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="There are several terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Личный кабинет**. This is used in the context of internet service providers, internet storage providers, hosting services, cellular providers, web money and other billing services. Here the user can choose the subscription services, the speed and volume of services he wants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Моя анкета**. This is used in the context of various dating services and social networks to set up what data you want other people to see on your personal page, such as your interests, age, sex, sexual preferences, place of living and dating aims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Мой профиль**. This is used on various sites, forums, social networks to set up your preferences. This includes the theme in which the site is displayed for you, your e-mail, your default e-mail notification choices, your age and occupation, timezone etc. This data may or may not be available to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Платная зона**. This may be used in the context of porn sites, to denote content accessible only to paid accounts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4226" RevisionGUID="1538a275-3a34-4c43-b424-3e2de9e5a0a5" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:21:46.287" UserId="2269" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Хм. При отрицании действия, выраженного переходным глаголом, родительный падеж употребляется едва ли не чаще винительного. _Подать руку_ / _не подать руки_, _взять деньги_ / _не взять денег_, _услышать шум_ / _не услышать шума_, _найти причину_ / _не найти причины_, _поймать рыбу_ / _не поймать рыбы_ и т. д. Сомневаюсь, что для вас это новость, в чем же вопрос?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4223" RevisionGUID="034415a6-9a74-4b45-85de-a5bbe536cea5" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:22:38.000" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="There are several terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Личный кабинет**. This is used in the context of internet service providers, internet storage providers, hosting services, cellular providers, web money and other billing services. Here the user can choose the subscription services and request the details of recent transactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Моя анкета**. This is used in the context of various dating services and social networks to set up what data you want other people to see on your personal page, such as your interests, age, sex, sexual preferences, place of living and dating aims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Мой профиль**. This is used on various sites, forums, social networks to set up your preferences. This includes the theme in which the site is displayed for you, your e-mail, your default e-mail notification choices, your age and occupation, timezone etc. This data may or may not be available to other users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Платная зона**. This may be used in the context of porn sites, to denote content accessible only to paid accounts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="4b76ed6e-a27c-4b53-9cdc-ab9b94a6ca61" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:25:23.457" UserId="2060" Text="Подобный вопрос уже задавался: [Direct object of negated verbs takes which case?][1], и я сначала хотел оставить комментарий, но решил, что стоит продублировать ответ на русском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При переходных глаголах с отрицанием в одних случаях явно преобладает употребление родительного падежа дополнения, в других – употребление винительного падежа, в третьих – наблюдается факультативное их использование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Падеж дополнения при переходных глаголах с отрицанием][1] (Розенталь Д.Э. и др. Справочник.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказал, что широко используется родительный падеж только в случаях 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 и 1.6, и даже в этих случаях в разговорной речи часто применяется винительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш пример - фразеологизм, пункт 1.6, т. о. падеж здесь - родительный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/2807/2060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11784" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="d8cdc6b8-ed4f-4cb4-b935-f00cb9ec8cb8" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:40:09.870" UserId="2060" Comment="Better title" Text="Падеж дополнения при переходных глаголах с отрицанием" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11785" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="d8cdc6b8-ed4f-4cb4-b935-f00cb9ec8cb8" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:40:09.870" Comment="Proposed by 2060 approved by -1 edit id of 434" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11786" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4217" RevisionGUID="ea7cf16e-f244-4bb1-a17b-ee47cb7ebf50" CreationDate="2014-03-04T01:39:31.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/440662791079608321" />
  <row Id="11787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4185" RevisionGUID="7089f05b-bf9a-4e91-8e95-654c6f93fd9a" CreationDate="2014-03-04T04:39:34.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/440708103072669696" />
  <row Id="11788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4153" RevisionGUID="c10c94d7-c7d2-4793-8bdb-5ddf8fff618a" CreationDate="2014-03-04T07:39:31.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/440753388171829248" />
  <row Id="11789" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4166" RevisionGUID="18c04de8-e353-492d-9c31-2486234e1193" CreationDate="2014-03-04T10:39:31.230" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/440798686675996672" />
  <row Id="11790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="1e1223fd-55ae-4042-a9e2-c3cc9ebb1a99" CreationDate="2014-03-04T16:59:56.460" UserId="1961" Text="Can i ask you what is the proper translation of **ADMIN AREA** in a web context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate give me this translation: **площадь Админ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you know, is much better to ask to Stack Overflow in order to be sure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="1e1223fd-55ae-4042-a9e2-c3cc9ebb1a99" CreationDate="2014-03-04T16:59:56.460" UserId="1961" Text="How to translate &quot;Admin area&quot; into Russian (web context)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="1e1223fd-55ae-4042-a9e2-c3cc9ebb1a99" CreationDate="2014-03-04T16:59:56.460" UserId="1961" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="3ccb6b28-8c97-4aad-8e0b-29985ea4cf88" CreationDate="2014-03-04T17:08:08.750" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="There is no such thing &quot;площадь админ&quot; in Russian. Also, the word admin in Russian is considered a little bit slangy being a short of administrator. If you want to create some button for admin's login it is probably better just  to write &quot;АДМИН&quot;, but if you want some words without any slangy hue - use one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Раздел администратора&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отдел администратора&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Область полномочий администратора&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4229" RevisionGUID="65057e24-3b24-46c4-a1d4-14d82b7e8526" CreationDate="2014-03-04T17:19:26.593" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="addition" Text="There is no such thing &quot;площадь админ&quot; in Russian. Also, the word admin in Russian is considered a little bit slangy being a short of administrator. If you want to create some button for admin's login it is probably better just  to write &quot;АДМИН&quot;, but if you want some words without any slangy hue - use one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Раздел администратора&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отдел администратора&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Область полномочий администратора&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very useful to inform us about usage context of the the phrase, cause sometimes we have special definitions for different things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="fbc123ea-6623-426d-b6f3-cb0342e054b4" CreationDate="2014-03-04T18:29:50.140" UserId="3498" Text="Usually use the word &quot;админка&quot;, but it slang. Also used: &quot;панель администрирования&quot; and &quot;панель администратора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use: &quot;админ панель&quot; (maybe someone will say that it is also slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="f2fae85b-0ad1-41bb-a48a-74144e19438b" CreationDate="2014-03-05T01:39:33.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/441025188587905024" />
  <row Id="11797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="d031e23c-7eb4-4325-9136-97641fdfe856" CreationDate="2014-03-05T07:24:28.763" UserId="2284" Text="It depends on what is meant by 'client area'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a part of your site dedicated to clients as opposed to that dedicated to other audiences (such as contractors, or investors, or staff), a Dative such as Клиентам or Покупателям may be used. For example, rzd.ru uses that convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't know though if that is considered good style in web design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11798" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4214" RevisionGUID="5da4d3be-16e5-4488-a8dd-20c7a1bfa471" CreationDate="2014-03-05T09:36:36.150" UserId="71" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2269,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry Alexandrov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anixx&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="0e8fe11b-f90b-447d-b8d6-238a4c466369" CreationDate="2014-03-05T09:57:28.283" UserId="1961" Comment="added 909 characters in body" Text="Can i ask you what is the proper translation of **ADMIN AREA** in a web context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate give me this translation: **площадь Админ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you know, is much better to ask to Stack Overflow in order to be sure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I try to insert each reply on google and see how many sites contains the possible answer given so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the results: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Раздел администратора** - 24,500,000 results (google images show appropriated images - admin panel in web context)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Отдел администратора** - 19,500,000 results (but google images show not exactly proper images)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**кабинет администратора** - 7,780,000 results (google image show only images of offices, so is not correct in this context)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**админ панель** -  5,130,000 results (proper images on google images)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**админка** - 1,920,000 results (proper images)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Область полномочий администратора** - 1,450,000 results (but google images show not exactly proper images)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**панель администрирования** - 515,000 results  (google images also show appropriate images)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most appropriate answers can be **Раздел администратора** - **админ панель** - **админка** and **панель администрирования**, but since Google show that the first one is more used, i will going to use **Раздел администратора**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="cca4cb3f-4222-4cb5-8369-80d5fccbea05" CreationDate="2014-03-05T10:08:05.350" UserId="185" Text="A friend of mine is working on a software that places stress in Russian words. In the process, he got himself wondering about words that differ only with respect to stress, like &quot;з**а**мок&quot; and &quot;зам**о**к&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, we have only found pairs of words with same written form and different accentuation, like the &quot;замок&quot; example. Can you think of a Russian word that is written in the same way but can be accented in **three** different ways and have **three** different meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="cca4cb3f-4222-4cb5-8369-80d5fccbea05" CreationDate="2014-03-05T10:08:05.350" UserId="185" Text="Homographs that differ only with respect to a stress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="cca4cb3f-4222-4cb5-8369-80d5fccbea05" CreationDate="2014-03-05T10:08:05.350" UserId="185" Text="|ударение|омографы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4233" RevisionGUID="eb4e71a5-fc9c-426f-ba5c-3b493a3f2642" CreationDate="2014-03-05T14:28:46.080" UserId="134" Text="* *во&amp;#x301;роны* - &quot;ravens&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *воро&amp;#x301;ны* - &quot;crows&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* *вороны&amp;#x301;* - &quot;black&quot; (*эти кони саврасы, а те - вороны&amp;#x301;*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="3c52c3b4-9e97-4510-a8b1-811d9a83b150" CreationDate="2014-03-05T22:39:35.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/441342283989155840" />
  <row Id="11805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="8be46acf-12aa-433f-aea1-438f7ae134e1" CreationDate="2014-03-06T04:10:40.217" UserId="1329" Text="I would like to ask if there exists any **online** or **downloadable** descent dictionary of rhymes. I would prefer it to be structured and readable, so that I could eventually parse it. It is very important that it should not be a ready-to-use app like [rifmovnik.ru](http://rifmovnik.ru/docs.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no available free resource, then I would definitely ask you if it is legal to build my own dictionary based on extracts from internet libraries. I think this could be problematic because of the copyright.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="8be46acf-12aa-433f-aea1-438f7ae134e1" CreationDate="2014-03-06T04:10:40.217" UserId="1329" Text="Russian rhymes dictionary/materials" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4234" RevisionGUID="8be46acf-12aa-433f-aea1-438f7ae134e1" CreationDate="2014-03-06T04:10:40.217" UserId="1329" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4182" RevisionGUID="d39ce988-29c5-453e-9b0d-01e714456fe5" CreationDate="2014-03-06T13:39:33.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/441568771632037888" />
  <row Id="11809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4235" RevisionGUID="240f6ed4-b2e7-4c61-b6ca-5e916434c765" CreationDate="2014-03-07T00:39:44.993" UserId="2269" Text="В Гугле по вполне очевидному запросу «тройные омографы» находится по меньшей мере [один весьма продуктивный трэд][1] в ЖЖ. Я позволю себе перечислить приведенные там варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- во́рота (р. п. от _воро́т_) — воро́та — ворота́&#xD;&#xA;- пе́репела (р. п. от _перепел_) — перепе́ла (пр. вр. III л. ж. р. от _перепеть_) — перепела́ (мн. ч. от _перепел_)&#xD;&#xA;- ве́ртела (р. п. от _вертел_) — верте́ла (пр. вр. III л. ж. р. от _вертеть_) — вертела́ (мн. ч. от _вертел_)&#xD;&#xA;- óкруга (р. п. от _округ_) — окрýга — округá (мн. ч. от _округ_)&#xD;&#xA;- го́лубя (р. п. от _голубь_) — голу́бя (деепр. от _голу́бить_) — голубя́ (деепр. от _голуби́ть_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://miklukho-maklay.livejournal.com/100196.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4235" RevisionGUID="95a3e8f7-974e-4e98-8443-08fa204d3838" CreationDate="2014-03-07T01:02:10.887" UserId="2269" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="В Гугле по вполне очевидному запросу «тройные омографы» находится по меньшей мере [один весьма продуктивный трэд][1] в ЖЖ. Я позволю себе перечислить приведенные там варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- пе́репела (р. п. от _перепел_) — перепе́ла (пр. вр. III л. ж. р. от _перепеть_) — перепела́ (мн. ч. от _перепел_)&#xD;&#xA;- ве́ртела (р. п. от _вертел_) — верте́ла (пр. вр. III л. ж. р. от _вертеть_) — вертела́¹ (мн. ч. от _вертел_)&#xD;&#xA;- óкруга (р. п. от _округ_) — окрýга — округá (мн. ч. от _округ_)&#xD;&#xA;- во́рота (р. п. от _во́рот_) — воро́та — ворота́²&#xD;&#xA;- го́лубя (р. п. от _голубь_) — голу́бя (деепр. от _голу́бить_) — голубя́ (деепр. от _голуби́ть_³)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹) Да, это нормативная форма множественного числа. Нет, не _ве́ртелы_. См. ГСРЯ.  &#xD;&#xA;²) _Пришла беда — отворяй ворота́._ Отличное тут от слова _воро́та_ значение или нет — решайте сами.  &#xD;&#xA;³) _Голуби́ть_ — красить голубым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://miklukho-maklay.livejournal.com/100196.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11811" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4131" RevisionGUID="681edaa8-9ab0-4b0f-ba49-e5fbba564a9d" CreationDate="2014-03-07T01:39:48.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/441750027002990592" />
  <row Id="11812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4236" RevisionGUID="792ab1b7-4db3-4a59-9b0c-d509049e5966" CreationDate="2014-03-07T07:24:34.920" UserId="3633" Text="вход администратора = Admin Login&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly the area, but leads to the area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4237" RevisionGUID="32baab4d-b038-44fc-b93c-bc6f62891ac1" CreationDate="2014-03-07T14:30:54.800" UserId="3634" Text="**Раздел администратора** would be most universal, but in web context you may use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Администрирование** - a page or link to page with administrator UI. This is simple way to say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кабинет администратора** - a subdomain or webpage with administrator UI. This is often used instead of *Панель администрирования* on governmental and b2b russian sites.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="0b1fc3c3-4804-413d-acc0-8ddf13ec90e4" CreationDate="2014-03-07T19:21:35.657" UserId="2269" Comment="proper stress marks" Text="A friend of mine is working on a software that places stress in Russian words. In the process, he got himself wondering about words that differ only with respect to stress, like “за́мок” and “замо́к”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, we have only found pairs of words with same written form and different accentuation, like the “замок” example. Can you think of a Russian word that is written in the same way but can be accented in **three** different ways and have **three** different meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11815" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="0b1fc3c3-4804-413d-acc0-8ddf13ec90e4" CreationDate="2014-03-07T19:21:35.657" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 551, 134 edit id of 435" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="b016b22d-af85-4ca7-bef8-9e941c66a9a3" CreationDate="2014-03-08T06:21:49.223" UserId="2480" Text="At 1:36:48 the narrator says something like &quot;Well, and how about the pans?&quot;. The (now adult) Tania answers that she has 'established contact with them already'. In the context of her having had a baby, is she talking about returning to housework or to employment? To my untrained ears, her answer doesn't seem to match the question. What is being implied by 'сковородки'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Video: http://youtu.be/55bC5zowkFE?t=1h36m29s*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Text:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- Дети пошел в детский сад, там можно играть, можно заниматься и мамы могут игрушки покупать, а вот взрослым уже игрушки не нужны. Им нужны только кастрюли да сковородки.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- Ну, и как сковородки?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- Ну, вы знаете, я наладила с ними контакт уже. Не сразу, но наладила.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="b016b22d-af85-4ca7-bef8-9e941c66a9a3" CreationDate="2014-03-08T06:21:49.223" UserId="2480" Text="What is meant by 'сковородки' in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4238" RevisionGUID="b016b22d-af85-4ca7-bef8-9e941c66a9a3" CreationDate="2014-03-08T06:21:49.223" UserId="2480" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4240" RevisionGUID="51c6f541-a591-407d-80a0-55d7a293a8c1" CreationDate="2014-03-08T13:03:31.307" UserId="551" Text="Это вариация на тему &quot;подружиться с книжкой&quot; (полюбить чтение), &quot;подружиться с ложкой&quot; (когда маленький ребенок научился есть ложкой), подружиться с горшком (ребенок сам ходит в туалет),  &quot;подружиться с математикой&quot; (перестать бояться математики и начать решать примеры и задачки).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь вместо &quot;подружиться&quot; сказано &quot;наладить контакт&quot;. &quot;Сковородки и кастрюли&quot; это &quot;готовка&quot; (в более узком смысле) или &quot;работа по хозяйству&quot; (в более широком)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4240" RevisionGUID="e1a062af-9a81-4f84-8bd3-c44bb1bc0189" CreationDate="2014-03-08T13:10:24.600" UserId="551" Comment="added 490 characters in body" Text="Это вариация на тему &quot;подружиться с ...&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **подружиться с книжкой** - полюбить чтение&#xD;&#xA; - **подружиться с ложкой** - когда маленький ребенок научился пользоваться ложкой&#xD;&#xA; - **подружиться с горшком** - когда маленький ребенок сам ходит в туалет&#xD;&#xA; - **подружиться с математикой** - перестать бояться математики и начать решать примеры и задачки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь вместо **подружиться** сказано **наладить контакт**, то есть *освоиться*, *научиться в достаточной степени*. &quot;Сковородки и кастрюли&quot; это &quot;готовка&quot; (в более узком смысле) или &quot;работа по хозяйству&quot; (в более широком). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обычно именно приготовление еды является &quot;камнем преткновения&quot;, так как другие хозяйственные дела могут выполнять все члены семьи (для мыться посуды, стирки в стиральной машине или уборки по дому не требуется особых умений), а вот готовка традиционно считается женским занятием. Так что скорее всего именно под &quot;сковородками&quot; имеется в виду именно готовка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11827" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4142" RevisionGUID="1135bf67-721b-4913-95fd-3dc831f6749c" CreationDate="2014-03-08T16:39:48.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/442338908047966208" />
  <row Id="11829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="14c594d5-5fb1-40ce-89fd-43488c17e274" CreationDate="2014-03-09T02:31:56.183" UserId="436" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][1], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][2], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][3] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][4], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [5] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][7] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][9] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][10] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][11] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][12] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11830" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="9f8e3163-d3b8-4cfa-8b09-7e4d81cd3bfd" CreationDate="2014-03-09T11:42:32.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/442626486106091520" />
  <row Id="11831" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4157" RevisionGUID="0ea840e9-a4b0-4ce4-9d4c-6a4dde0129ae" CreationDate="2014-03-09T14:42:32.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/442671784664780801" />
  <row Id="11832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="a40933dd-3bb3-4ff6-af84-c44893619259" CreationDate="2014-03-09T17:16:04.637" UserId="2496" Comment="Библиотека Максима Мошкова" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][1], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][2], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][3], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][4] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][5], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [6] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][7]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][8] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][10] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][11] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][12] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][13] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11833" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="a40933dd-3bb3-4ff6-af84-c44893619259" CreationDate="2014-03-09T17:16:04.637" Comment="Proposed by 2496 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 436" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11835" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4155" RevisionGUID="bdca1cde-0b40-440e-b8d3-35b819b8dffc" CreationDate="2014-03-09T20:42:32.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/442762381014597632" />
  <row Id="11838" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4147" RevisionGUID="57deae58-aa07-4d8d-9cf0-09b096261cc1" CreationDate="2014-03-10T11:43:41.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/442989162216841217" />
  <row Id="11840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4228" RevisionGUID="0c4fb5cb-dce1-4662-8151-96c9471dfdb3" CreationDate="2014-03-10T15:58:11.157" UserId="1961" Comment="deleted 1065 characters in body" Text="Can i ask you what is the proper translation of **ADMIN AREA** in a web context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate give me this translation: **площадь Админ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you know, is much better to ask to Stack Overflow in order to be sure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="e9222f4a-ae07-4972-bdb7-731dfd4dbdb6" CreationDate="2014-03-11T11:21:38.763" UserId="2318" Text="When would a person use the word родня? I know its literal meaning is relative but what does it loosely translate to in English in its contextual meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="e9222f4a-ae07-4972-bdb7-731dfd4dbdb6" CreationDate="2014-03-11T11:21:38.763" UserId="2318" Text="Use of the word родня" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="e9222f4a-ae07-4972-bdb7-731dfd4dbdb6" CreationDate="2014-03-11T11:21:38.763" UserId="2318" Text="|выбор-слова|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="647ef358-16da-4065-80b7-131fe63b5f34" CreationDate="2014-03-11T11:30:24.913" UserId="97" Text="Word _родня_ does not just mean _a relative_ - it refers to an extended group of relatives, essentially all and any people even remotely related to the person in question.  A rather close English translation is _extended family_, however Russian _родня_ has more of a connotation of familiarity.  Quite often, it's used to describe the collection of _all relatives_, e.g. _вся родня_. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вся моя родня будет ей не рада,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не пеняйте на меня - я уйду из стада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related word is _родичи_, which is colloquial form of _родственники_, meaning _relatives_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11845" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4224" RevisionGUID="5664cc99-4728-4df3-9807-79c62b485662" CreationDate="2014-03-11T11:39:10.573" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2807],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2269,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry Alexandrov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:33,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alexey Ivanov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;petajamaja&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4244" RevisionGUID="2dc49fbe-2511-429f-b409-dcd8c0298dc8" CreationDate="2014-03-11T15:11:34.220" UserId="97" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="Word _родня_ does not just mean _a relative_ - it refers to an extended group of relatives, essentially all and any people even remotely related to the person in question.  A rather close English translation is _extended family_, however Russian _родня_ has more of a connotation of familiarity.  Quite often, it's used to describe the collection of _all relatives_, e.g. _вся родня_. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вся моя родня будет ей не рада,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не пеняйте на меня - я уйду из стада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another related word is _родичи_, which is colloquial form of _родственники_, meaning _relatives_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Following a comment from Andrey 'lolmaus' Mikhaylov, it's worth adding that word _родня_ may also be used to indicate _some (unqualified) relatives_ (e.g. &quot;Провел выходные с родней&quot;) - yet it pretty much always used to refer to a plural _relatives_ rather than one individual relative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="a3c855bf-6949-4178-8336-5e48f2bcd6e7" CreationDate="2014-03-11T19:47:01.273" UserId="1306" Text="Are there homographs in Russian that sound different [besides the stress][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. like &quot;read&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I will read (ee) that book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I have just read (e) that book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I hope the answer to this question won't be just &quot;NO&quot; :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4232/homographs-that-differ-only-with-respect-to-a-stress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="a3c855bf-6949-4178-8336-5e48f2bcd6e7" CreationDate="2014-03-11T19:47:01.273" UserId="1306" Text="Are there non-stress-related homographs in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="a3c855bf-6949-4178-8336-5e48f2bcd6e7" CreationDate="2014-03-11T19:47:01.273" UserId="1306" Text="|ударение|омографы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="d0684c91-0d28-44d7-9ade-970e5c4b9ab4" CreationDate="2014-03-11T21:37:31.067" UserId="3647" Text="Some words can become omographs if we omit dots above ё letter.&#xD;&#xA;This happens oftenly in modern internet communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;мёл / мел&#xD;&#xA;сёл / сел&#xD;&#xA;осёл / осел&#xD;&#xA;берёт / берет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that I don't know any omographs besides the stress.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="0eaa31bd-3eda-4a9c-9de2-c4927683aa66" CreationDate="2014-03-11T21:43:22.707" UserId="3647" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Some words can become omographs if we omit dots above ё letter.&#xD;&#xA;This happens oftenly in modern internet communications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: мёл / мел; сёл / сел; осёл / осел; берёт / берет; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that I don't know any omographs besides the stress.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="bd74be35-7996-4175-bed7-34947e9aa0f5" CreationDate="2014-03-12T07:02:55.527" UserId="2269" Text="First of all, you will hardly find homographs that differ _only_ by stress. Stress position [may affect pronunciation](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/191/pronunciation-rules-for-%D0%BE-in-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%CC%81%D1%82%D1%8C) of all vowels in a word. So I will answer a question whether there are homographs with the stress on the same syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of loaned words where letter _е_ stands for non-iotated sound /ɛ/ and this case isn’t reflected in spelling in any way. And I can recall at least one word which can be misunderstood by this reason. _Те́ста_ may be read /'tɛstə/ (gen. of _тест_ — test) or /'tʲestə/ (gen. of _тесто_ — dough, pastry). The same applies to instr. _те́стом_, dat. _те́сту_ and prep. / loc. _в те́сте_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11864" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="fa06d6c8-cd55-4f2e-9e38-f63932724d0a" CreationDate="2014-03-12T07:24:58.527" UserId="2330" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2330,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nexoma&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="35b43c5c-319a-4488-9f05-8c29b562f57d" CreationDate="2014-03-12T10:46:01.777" UserId="2086" Text="You can also say about your relatives/family/dear friends as &quot;they are my Родные/ they are Родные to me&quot;. When not used in plural, You can say it as You'd say sweetheart/dear/dearest - &quot;родная&quot; (f) and &quot;родной&quot; (m). For example, 'my sweetheart/my dear' to a woman - &quot;родная my/my родная&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, google would translate &quot;native&quot;, as in native land/home land - &quot;родная land&quot;. But we all know, google translator usually sucks when it comes to context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="b699f581-6783-4193-b6d6-d1b8e6c646e5" CreationDate="2014-03-12T15:25:10.967" UserId="1894" Text="Склоняются ли мужские иностранные фамилии, заканчивающаяся на букву &quot;а&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Например, правильно ли говорить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - фильм Эмира Кустурицы,&#xD;&#xA; - метод Рунге-Кутты,&#xD;&#xA; - творчество Акиры Куросавы,&#xD;&#xA; - алгоритм Дейкстры?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли по этому поводу какое-нибудь правило в русском языке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="b699f581-6783-4193-b6d6-d1b8e6c646e5" CreationDate="2014-03-12T15:25:10.967" UserId="1894" Text="Склоняются ли иностранные фамилии мужчин, заканчивающиеся на букву &quot;а&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="b699f581-6783-4193-b6d6-d1b8e6c646e5" CreationDate="2014-03-12T15:25:10.967" UserId="1894" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4254" RevisionGUID="6fdd4d4b-b75e-45fa-9c71-0cc55ba285c2" CreationDate="2014-03-12T17:45:08.060" UserId="303" Text="One example that I know is &quot;считать&quot;. When it means &quot;count&quot; or &quot;consider&quot;, it's pronounced with single &quot;щ&quot; in the beginning; but when it is perfective aspect of the verb &quot;считывать&quot; (to read off?), it's pronounced with separate sounds &quot;s&quot; and &quot;ʧ&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="dccab77a-fa98-48e6-8f84-134cb1357b32" CreationDate="2014-03-12T18:57:57.157" UserId="3654" Text="Going through [Alphabet - LearnRussian][1] I found the sound of **Д** in *ДOM* to be of the English letter **b** (*bom*). Which go me confused with **Б**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cyrillic alphabets][2] states that it has the sound of **d** (*dom*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; /d/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the sound Д in ДOM an exception to this rule? Or am I getting wrong? Or is the pronunciation not so correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://learnrussian.rt.com/alphabet/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabets#Common_letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="dccab77a-fa98-48e6-8f84-134cb1357b32" CreationDate="2014-03-12T18:57:57.157" UserId="3654" Text="Д has the sound of a &quot;d&quot; or &quot;b&quot; in ДOM?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="dccab77a-fa98-48e6-8f84-134cb1357b32" CreationDate="2014-03-12T18:57:57.157" UserId="3654" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="6cf5c433-3273-4277-bf31-8483846997a4" CreationDate="2014-03-12T20:54:42.470" UserId="1860" Text="Actual russian sites that I have seen use these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Панель управления&#xD;&#xA; 2. Центр управления&#xD;&#xA; 3. Настройки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="5ddca03b-7b93-4580-9c89-e6bdef75d3de" CreationDate="2014-03-12T21:08:13.890" UserId="3566" Text="You are right. *Дом* has the sound of **d** (dom)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11879" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="1f65c86d-1e1e-4e21-bc20-3053d9d5c0f4" CreationDate="2014-03-12T23:46:25.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/443895822724636672" />
  <row Id="11880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="a8247262-dbd7-4399-bbb7-0e5c7e8979f3" CreationDate="2014-03-13T08:34:11.900" UserId="3596" Text="[нашел на ГРАМОТА.РУ][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все фамилии, кончающиеся на а, которому предшествуют гласные (чаще&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всего у или и), несклоняемы: *Галуа, Моруа, Делакруа, Моравиа, Эриа,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эредиа, Гулиа*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все фамилии, кончающиеся на неударное а после согласных, склоняются по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; первому склонению: *Рибера — Риберы, Рибере, Риберу, Риберой, Сенека —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сенеки* и т.д.; так же склоняются *Кафка, Спиноза, Сметана, Петрарка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куросава, Глинка, Дейнека, Гулыга, Олеша, Нагнибеда, Окуджава* и др.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все такие фамилии, независимо от происхождения, являются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; морфологически членимыми в русском языке, т. е. в них выделяется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончание -а.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди фамилий с ударным á после согласных есть как морфологически&#xD;&#xA;&gt; членимые, так и нечленимые, т. е. несклоняемые.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несклоняемы фамилии французского происхождения: *Дюма, Тома, Дега,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люка, Ферма, Гамарра, Петипа и др.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фамилии иного происхождения (славянские, из восточных языков)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; склоняются по первому склонению, т. е. в них вычленяется ударное&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончание -а: *Митта — Митты, Митте, Митту, Миттой;* сюда относятся:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Сковорода, Кочерга, Кваша, Цадаса, Хамза и др.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=rubric_482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="74e6b446-9b6c-4cf8-b728-2092afbf45a4" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:32:48.027" UserId="313" Text="How do these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    oтвергать&#xD;&#xA;    отклонять&#xD;&#xA;    отказать&#xD;&#xA;    отрицать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;line up with some common [English equivalents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    reject&#xD;&#xA;    refuse&#xD;&#xA;    decline&#xD;&#xA;    deny (this is the most different of the 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rough understanding is: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    отказать + (verb) ~ decline to do something&#xD;&#xA;    отказать + (noun) ~ reject someone or refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отвергать + (noun) ~ reject someone or refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отрицать + (noun) ~ deny something&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;However, I suppose there is overlap, like in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are any of these 4 Russian words nearly interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other words that fit neatly into this category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.englishgrammar.org/words-refuse-reject-decline-deny/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="74e6b446-9b6c-4cf8-b728-2092afbf45a4" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:32:48.027" UserId="313" Text="Отвергать, отрицать, отклонять, отказать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="74e6b446-9b6c-4cf8-b728-2092afbf45a4" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:32:48.027" UserId="313" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="7957b2cd-7631-4ec3-ae91-df971a5481e7" CreationDate="2014-03-13T17:39:45.227" UserId="313" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="How do these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    oтвергать&#xD;&#xA;    отклонять&#xD;&#xA;    отказать&#xD;&#xA;    отрицать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;line up with some common [English equivalents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    refuse&#xD;&#xA;    decline&#xD;&#xA;    reject&#xD;&#xA;    deny (this is the most different of the 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rough understanding is: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    отказать + (verb) ~ decline to do something&#xD;&#xA;    отказать + (noun) ~ reject someone or refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отвергать + (noun) ~ reject someone or refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отклонять + (noun) ~ refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отрицать + (noun) ~ deny something&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;However, I suppose there is overlap, like in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are any of these 4 Russian words nearly interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other words that fit neatly into this category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples (interchangeable words in English marked with '/':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I rejected/declined/refused his offer.&#xD;&#xA;    I refused/declined to speak to him.&#xD;&#xA;    I rejected his assumption.&#xD;&#xA;    I denied the allegations.&#xD;&#xA;    My manuscript was rejected.&#xD;&#xA;    She rejected me. (implying a romantic advance)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.englishgrammar.org/words-refuse-reject-decline-deny/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11886" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="0504b8e9-664f-4e04-8dc0-c0c0ed2c4361" CreationDate="2014-03-13T20:47:39.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/444213221587947521" />
  <row Id="11888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="887f6722-6747-4d91-ad9c-bb28cf77f862" CreationDate="2014-03-14T12:01:36.923" UserId="267" Text="These verbs in Russian are used with different cases, in different word collocations and in different speech styles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Отказываться-Отказаться + verb: refuse to do smth&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Он отказался убираться в квартире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Отказываться-Отказаться от + noun (Genitive case): to refuse smth, to turn smth down, to deny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алексей отказался от сотрудничества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Отказывать-отказать + noun (Dative case) + в (Prepositional case): refuse smth to smb&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Врач отказал ему в лечении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Отвергать-отвергнуть + noun (Accusative case, smth or smb): reject сompletely, bookish, formal style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты отверг меня!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Президент отверг идею проведения новых реформ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Отклонять-отклонить (Accusative case, smth): decline, formal style, normally used in the collocations: &quot;отклонить предложение&quot;, &quot;отклонить жалобу&quot;, &quot;отклонить рукопись&quot;, &quot;отклонить статью&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, наша фирма вынуждена отклонить предложение вашей компании по ряду причин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Отрицать (Accusative case, smth): deny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подсудимый отрицает свою виновность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to translate your sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я отклонил его предложение: you have to use &quot;отклонил&quot; here because it's a collocation in Russian: &quot;отклонить предложение&quot;. You can also use &quot;отверг&quot;, but it sounds quite agressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Я отказался говорить с ним: &quot;отказаться&quot; is the only verb you can use with an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Я отверг его предположение: collocation &quot;отвергнуть предположение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Я отказался от заявления: collocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Моя рукопись была отклонена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Он отказал мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best,&#xD;&#xA;Yulia Amlinskaya,&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="330ab215-de14-4d65-97ea-890c88ed97cb" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:24:01.340" UserId="551" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="These verbs in Russian are used with different cases, in different word collocations and in different speech styles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Отказываться-Отказаться + verb: refuse to do smth&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Он отказался убираться в квартире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Отказываться-Отказаться от + noun (Genitive case): to refuse smth, to turn smth down, to deny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Алексей отказался от сотрудничества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Отказывать-отказать + noun (Dative case) + в (Prepositional case): refuse smth to smb&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Врач отказал ему в лечении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Отвергать-отвергнуть + noun (Accusative case, smth or smb): reject сompletely, bookish, formal style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Ты отверг меня!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Президент отверг идею проведения новых реформ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Отклонять-отклонить (Accusative case, smth): decline, formal style, normally used in the collocations: &quot;отклонить предложение&quot;, &quot;отклонить жалобу&quot;, &quot;отклонить рукопись&quot;, &quot;отклонить статью&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; К сожалению, наша фирма вынуждена отклонить предложение вашей компании по ряду причин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Отрицать (Accusative case, smth): deny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Подсудимый отрицает свою виновность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to translate your sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я отклонил его предложение: you have to use &quot;отклонил&quot; here because it's a collocation in Russian: &quot;отклонить предложение&quot;. You can also use &quot;отверг&quot;, but it sounds quite agressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Я отказался говорить с ним: &quot;отказаться&quot; is the only verb you can use with an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Я отверг его предположение: collocation &quot;отвергнуть предположение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Я отказался от заявления: collocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Моя рукопись была отклонена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Он отказал мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best,&#xD;&#xA;Yulia Amlinskaya,&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11890" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="f8eeada5-70fa-4f78-885e-5a051721a942" CreationDate="2014-03-15T02:50:07.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/444666826459709440" />
  <row Id="11891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="293057af-2705-4fb8-ade9-38e0de769117" CreationDate="2014-03-15T04:05:16.553" UserId="313" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="How do these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    oтвергать&#xD;&#xA;    отклонять&#xD;&#xA;    отказать&#xD;&#xA;    отрицать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;line up with some common [English equivalents][1]:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    refuse&#xD;&#xA;    decline&#xD;&#xA;    reject&#xD;&#xA;    deny (this is the most different of the 4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rough understanding is: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    отказать + (verb) ~ decline to do something&#xD;&#xA;    отказать + (noun) ~ reject someone or refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отвергать + (noun) ~ reject someone or refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отклонять + (noun) ~ refuse something&#xD;&#xA;    отрицать + (noun) ~ deny something&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;However, I suppose there is overlap, like in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are any of these 4 Russian words nearly interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other words that fit neatly into this category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples (interchangeable words in English marked with '/'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I rejected/declined/refused his offer.&#xD;&#xA;    I refused/declined to speak to him.&#xD;&#xA;    I rejected his assumption.&#xD;&#xA;    I denied the allegations.&#xD;&#xA;    My manuscript was rejected.&#xD;&#xA;    She rejected me. (implying a romantic advance)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.englishgrammar.org/words-refuse-reject-decline-deny/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="7be381b2-1e98-4e6c-82b4-ac0290fad1cf" CreationDate="2014-03-15T07:50:24.640" UserId="1726" Text="А также втроем / на троих и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сегодня я заметил, что я часто употребляю первую форму, которая приходит в голову, не думая о том, считается ли это ошибкой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="7be381b2-1e98-4e6c-82b4-ac0290fad1cf" CreationDate="2014-03-15T07:50:24.640" UserId="1726" Text="В чем разница между вдвоем и на двоих?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="7be381b2-1e98-4e6c-82b4-ac0290fad1cf" CreationDate="2014-03-15T07:50:24.640" UserId="1726" Text="|грамматика|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="bd0767ec-db32-494e-a33b-466aa4c9c086" CreationDate="2014-03-15T11:03:28.300" UserId="267" Text="Добрый день!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наречия вдвоём, втроём, вчетвером, впятером, вшестером, всемером употребляются, когда мы говорим о каком-либо совместном действии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы вдвоём справимся с трудной работой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они пришли в ресторан втроём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На двоих&quot;, &quot;на троих&quot;, &quot;на четверых&quot; и т.д. являются собирательными числительными, употребленными в Винительном падеже. Они не обозначают совместного действия, а значат &quot;на двух человек&quot;, &quot;на трёх человек&quot; и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Давай закажем столик на четверых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нам с тобой на двоих было неба мало&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сообразим на троих!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С уважением,&#xD;&#xA;Юлия Амлинская,&#xD;&#xA;Преподаватель русского языка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="505135a2-2b17-4510-8315-7fa0a58fab01" CreationDate="2014-03-15T16:30:02.560" UserId="3508" Text="So, I have read in  a grammar book that the participles and transgressives in russian are used mainly in the written language and normally not used in conversation. Is this true? Are they used in conversation and if they are, is it a common practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="505135a2-2b17-4510-8315-7fa0a58fab01" CreationDate="2014-03-15T16:30:02.560" UserId="3508" Text="Participles and transgressives in spoken language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="505135a2-2b17-4510-8315-7fa0a58fab01" CreationDate="2014-03-15T16:30:02.560" UserId="3508" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11899" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4243" RevisionGUID="d0855549-3314-4d0c-8cd1-fdb6533c3e05" CreationDate="2014-03-15T17:50:03.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/444893302845095936" />
  <row Id="11900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="d55ca598-eff6-4bb1-871c-0161d71c1d1e" CreationDate="2014-03-15T18:12:58.677" UserId="2269" Text="No, this is not true. It’s not easy to say something like _разбитое стекло_, _обтягивающее белье_, _дрожащие руки_, _лоснящаяся кожа_, _текущий кран_; _придти не предупредив_, _отвечать не думая_ and so on without using participles (причастия) and transgressives (деепричастия).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participle and transgressive clauses (причастные и деепричастные обороты) are less common in conversations than in the written language, yes. But the matter is not in parts of speech – any subordinate clauses are rare in colloquial language, because it’s easier to lose train of thought listening sentences with complicated syntax rather than reading it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11901" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3080" RevisionGUID="4e2ff57b-931a-457a-b728-a17d78ab951b" CreationDate="2014-03-15T23:50:03.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/444983899765350400" />
  <row Id="11902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="36dbdd83-019c-4b26-97b2-37509066bf1d" CreationDate="2014-03-16T02:10:38.670" UserId="2443" Text="A task asked me to conjugate the verb писать in present tense and I thought it whould have these endings:&#xD;&#xA;я пишу,&#xD;&#xA;ты пишёшь,&#xD;&#xA;он/она пишёт,&#xD;&#xA;мы пишём,&#xD;&#xA;вы пишёте,&#xD;&#xA;они пишут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I checked the wiktionary and it tells me it is conjugated this way:&#xD;&#xA;я пишу,&#xD;&#xA;ты пишeшь,&#xD;&#xA;он, она пишeт,&#xD;&#xA;мы пишeм,&#xD;&#xA;вы пишeте,&#xD;&#xA;они пишут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why doesn't the e change to ё??? When ю changes to у? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="36dbdd83-019c-4b26-97b2-37509066bf1d" CreationDate="2014-03-16T02:10:38.670" UserId="2443" Text="Why does this verb conjugate this way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="36dbdd83-019c-4b26-97b2-37509066bf1d" CreationDate="2014-03-16T02:10:38.670" UserId="2443" Text="|грамматика|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="132e4e0e-c946-4779-a92a-7ea6a0757b23" CreationDate="2014-03-16T03:34:40.757" UserId="1604" Text="Ё changes into non-stressed &quot;е&quot; after ш and ж. You get same result with лизать: Я лижу, ты лижешь, мы лижем. When the word is one-syllable, so it's obviously stressed, it remains Ё. Although I can think of only one example: ты лжёшь, вы лжёте" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4083" RevisionGUID="1ea96c5d-2c7e-4d87-b6cf-abe17033c2fd" CreationDate="2014-03-16T05:50:05.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/445074503513956352" />
  <row Id="11907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4268" RevisionGUID="7b6c74f7-b3cb-47c7-97ad-619ccdffa058" CreationDate="2014-03-16T06:29:08.040" UserId="1604" Text="    4. Я не признал обвинений&#xD;&#xA;    6. Он*а* отказала мне :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="93fe9e6d-7aaa-4bf7-961a-56238147ed36" CreationDate="2014-03-16T14:29:21.677" UserId="2269" Comment="1. Здесь, на Стэкэксчендже, как-то не принято приветствовать собеседника и подписываться. 2. Есть мнение, что в при толковании слов стоит расставлять не только точки на ё, но и ударения. 3. Оформление." Text="Наречия вдвоём, втроём, вчетверо́м, впятеро́м, вшестеро́м, всемеро́м употребляются, когда мы говорим о каком-либо совместном действии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы вдвоём справимся с трудной работой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они пришли в ресторан втроём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«На двои́х», «на трои́х», «на четверы́х» и т.&amp;nbsp;д. являются собирательными числительными, употребленными в винительном падеже. Они не обозначают совместного действия, а значат «на двух человек», «на трёх человек» и т.&amp;nbsp;д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай закажем столик на четверых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Нам с тобой на двоих было неба мало».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сообразим на троих!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11909" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="93fe9e6d-7aaa-4bf7-961a-56238147ed36" CreationDate="2014-03-16T14:29:21.677" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 438" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11912" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="d9ab8657-2f9d-4bf7-8ccd-9d897175c81d" CreationDate="2014-03-17T02:50:05.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/445391596373442562" />
  <row Id="11915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="4de056f0-9896-4998-8634-1d2b13f0dc84" CreationDate="2014-03-17T08:00:22.947" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 57 characters in body" Text="These verbs in Russian are used with different cases, in different word collocations and in different speech styles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Отказываться-Отказаться + verb: refuse to do smth&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Он отказался убираться в квартире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Отказываться-Отказаться от + noun (Genitive case): to refuse smth, to turn smth down, to deny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Алексей отказался от сотрудничества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Отказывать-отказать + noun (Dative case) + в (Prepositional case): refuse smth to smb&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Врач отказал ему в лечении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Отвергать-отвергнуть + noun (Accusative case, smth or smb): reject сompletely, bookish, formal style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Ты отверг меня!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Президент отверг идею проведения новых реформ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Отклонять-отклонить (Accusative case, smth): decline, formal style, normally used in the collocations: &quot;отклонить предложение&quot;, &quot;отклонить жалобу&quot;, &quot;отклонить рукопись&quot;, &quot;отклонить статью&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; К сожалению, наша фирма вынуждена отклонить предложение вашей компании по ряду причин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Отрицать (Accusative case, smth): deny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Подсудимый отрицает свою виновность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to translate your sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я отклонил его предложение: you have to use &quot;отклонил&quot; here because it's a collocation in Russian: &quot;отклонить предложение&quot;. You can also use &quot;отверг&quot;, but it sounds quite agressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Я отказался говорить с ним: &quot;отказаться&quot; is the only verb you can use with an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Я отверг его предположение: collocation &quot;отвергнуть предположение&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Я отказался от заявления: collocation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Моя рукопись была отклонена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Он отказал мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11916" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="c41a56db-dcdf-4f66-9150-c26bfcdd0d71" CreationDate="2014-03-17T08:02:53.080" UserId="242" Comment="more informative title" Text="Why &quot;пишешь&quot;, &quot;пишем&quot;, &quot;пишете&quot;, not &quot;пишёшь&quot;, &quot;пишём&quot;, &quot;пишёте&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11917" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="0ccdcf75-87b9-43ec-a362-d2929a291226" CreationDate="2014-03-17T20:50:05.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/445663387482324992" />
  <row Id="11918" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4097" RevisionGUID="a794e30b-874f-4fa1-b3fc-5fb4e00d645f" CreationDate="2014-03-18T08:50:06.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/445844580882464768" />
  <row Id="11919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="8ff7b1ea-f339-46db-aeb4-aeb56e4cd759" CreationDate="2014-03-18T13:36:58.060" UserId="1726" Comment="added 306 characters in body" Text="А также втроем / на троих и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Недавно я заметил, что я часто употребляю первую форму, которая приходит в голову, не думая о том, считается ли это ошибкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне, изучающему русский, непонятно, чем они различаются в данных случаях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я раньше и не думал, что у нас /&#xD;&#xA;на двоих с тобой одно лишь дыхание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Теченье [реки] несло нас уже вдвоем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оба примера из песен Наутилус.&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, что в обоих случаях, можно перевести как «the two [of us] together» ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="a770e0ff-c808-4e90-9313-0a452dea5efc" CreationDate="2014-03-18T14:30:53.673" UserId="1836" Text="I'd better workaround these constructions, as even as a native, I don't know how to write it correct, and either way I can imagine doesn't sound good. What seems to be grammatically correct is `из всего тридцати одного прибывшего сообщения`, `только первое двадцать одно было...` and `Все двадцать один присутствоваший судья были...`. But stylistically it still sounds bad.&#xD;&#xA;To tell what endings need to be used you need to disassemble the sentence. For example, let's do it with `из все(х/го) тридцать одн? прибывш(ий/их) сообщени(й/я)`. First you take `из тридцать одн? -&gt; из тридцати + из одного = из тридцати одного` next you add `все(х/го)`. We have &quot;one&quot;, so it will be `всего`, like in `всего один`.&#xD;&#xA;This far we have `из всего тридцати одного прибывш(ий/их) сообщени(й/я)` and again, we have this &quot;one&quot; thing (yeah, it is confusing), so we write `прибывшего` and `сообщения`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More stylistically nice would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера в ответ на свою статью получил аж тридцать одно сообщение. Думал, что все они будут о моей статье, но оказалось не так – из всех прибывших сообщений только двадцать одно было по существу, остальные же можно было бы и не читать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Судейская коллегия состояла из двадцати одного судьи. Случай был уникальный. Впервые за всю историю нашего существования среди судей царило полное согласие. Все присутствовашие судьи были абсолютно согласны друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="c3bc51ed-9feb-4853-87f4-c081bf4d6a87" CreationDate="2014-03-18T16:03:16.673" UserId="1836" Text="`согласно вашего запроса` is sometimes used as a bureaucratism (not sure about proper word, we call it канцеляризм). It is NOT correct in common speech, but you can see it in some official responses, or in interviews with officials, and it's kind of OK. But really, don't use it. `соласно` always go with Dative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4272" RevisionGUID="badb364f-2d7e-48f1-90a2-fa6304f74f5e" CreationDate="2014-03-18T16:44:52.073" UserId="2238" Text="Endings of the so-called first conjugation have ё if they are under stress, otherwise they have е. One must learn where the endings are stressed and where they are not, although endings, not including the -у/-ю for first person singular, are either all stressed or all not stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot have ю after &quot;shibilants&quot; (ж, ч, ш, and щ) so you have to write у there. Not after shibilants ю is written if there is a palatalised (soft) consonant before it or if there is a vowel (in this case there actually _is_ a jot, which is a soft consonant, but it is not written because *йу changes to ю)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="b2e6e06c-f0ef-447d-9adf-60e3f5603975" CreationDate="2014-03-18T19:42:07.753" UserId="3669" Text="I'm a big fan of websites like longform.org in English, which post longer-length articles (mostly non-fiction) from newspapers, magazines, etc. Can anyone recommend a similar resource in Russian? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="b2e6e06c-f0ef-447d-9adf-60e3f5603975" CreationDate="2014-03-18T19:42:07.753" UserId="3669" Text="Any long form literature websites in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="b2e6e06c-f0ef-447d-9adf-60e3f5603975" CreationDate="2014-03-18T19:42:07.753" UserId="3669" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="3b0c63e7-78f4-48f5-bae8-5d0a1b95fd94" CreationDate="2014-03-19T07:39:12.487" UserId="2390" Text="Трахать is obviously not a good translation of &quot;to hump&quot; when describing what dogs do.  It's not a polite word and can't be used in print, wherеаs &quot;to hump&quot; is perfectly harmless and can be used by parents in front of kids, etc.  Is there a &quot;nice&quot; word for this in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="3b0c63e7-78f4-48f5-bae8-5d0a1b95fd94" CreationDate="2014-03-19T07:39:12.487" UserId="2390" Text="&quot;To hump&quot; in Russian (when referring to a dog)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="3b0c63e7-78f4-48f5-bae8-5d0a1b95fd94" CreationDate="2014-03-19T07:39:12.487" UserId="2390" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="97550a8e-3a9d-492f-adbe-0c99f395c7ff" CreationDate="2014-03-19T08:26:34.443" UserId="267" Text="I would translate the verb &quot;to hump&quot; as &quot;спариваться-спариться&quot;: It is a decent, harmless verb used with all animals when they do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="c58fdde6-c19d-40e8-a20f-0adf4d076dd1" CreationDate="2014-03-19T08:39:33.763" UserId="267" Text="Yes, I have found some sites with articles for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://elgreloo.net/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youknowthat.ru/temi/anomali&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="1c4a3333-edf3-437c-baa5-3aaeedc502b1" CreationDate="2014-03-19T09:46:07.273" UserId="2060" Text="I can't think of a Russian counterpart, and when it has to be polite, I'd use some euphemism like *пристраиваться* or *приставать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Случаться*, *спариваться*, *делать садку* are, as Artemix noted, professional terms, and although they can be used harmlessly, they are really *to mate*, not *to hump*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="53c37e8d-f440-402f-bdf5-95a32142b2b4" CreationDate="2014-03-19T14:07:29.090" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="8a95c87c-817f-4c35-bb6f-14ad4b93d0ef" CreationDate="2014-03-19T20:48:25.717" UserId="2390" Comment="Commented on suggested answers" Text="Трахать is obviously not a good translation of &quot;to hump&quot; when describing what dogs do.  It's not a polite word and can't be used in print, wherеаs &quot;to hump&quot; is perfectly harmless and can be used by parents in front of kids, etc.  Is there a &quot;nice&quot; word for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit***: All the translations suggested so far miss the fact that dogs hump outside of regular intercourse or mating.  So while it's possible to use a euphemism like &quot;Он пристает к игрушкам,&quot; that doesn't come across as clearly as &quot;He humps his toys&quot; and many listeners might miss the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what about &quot;Doctor, he keeps humping my boyfriend's leg, it's so embarrassing&quot;?  Humping is literally the act of thrusting the pelvis toward something, and it's puzzling that there isn't an equivalent *transitive* verb in Russian.  Especially since Russian dogs hump a lot more as neutering is not very popular there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="af988fb1-0869-4fe1-a2ff-0ecd97208938" CreationDate="2014-03-20T02:01:21.263" UserId="3595" Text="I would suggest &quot;кроет&quot; or &quot;покрывает&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11938" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="dac214bf-386f-48c9-9031-50b810e61f20" CreationDate="2014-03-20T05:50:28.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/446524150149300224" />
  <row Id="11940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="a4f8fa08-bf70-4f22-9d61-e4af34c29e9a" CreationDate="2014-03-20T08:24:19.263" UserId="2390" Text="While researching the subject, I've found phrases крыть/покрывать/накрывать (colloquial), делать садку, and &quot;подминать&quot; (игрушки).  These are probably the closest true translations, even though they don't match &quot;to hump&quot; in popularity or usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following euphemisms and phrases would also work to explain what's happening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- направляет половое поведение (на...)&#xD;&#xA;- возбуждается и плохо себя ведет&#xD;&#xA;- выбирает объекты влечения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So much fuss over a funny four-letter word...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit*: just noticed @Aksakal also suggested крыть/покрывать&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="84d875b6-3d94-4a28-a39b-028dcb6c8653" CreationDate="2014-03-20T10:25:27.053" UserId="3589" Text="If I understood you correctly, then try livelib.ru , honestly this is the best site about books, mostly russian books, almost all of them provided with a quite long review and  a opinion. So good luck ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="0e418d64-fe8c-45b2-8307-d585e1654d67" CreationDate="2014-03-20T20:38:17.760" UserId="2441" Text="Colta.ru is a site with mainly intelligent essays on contemporary Russian society. That should for your bill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="2722317e-3588-4286-a9fd-b23202cd83ec" CreationDate="2014-03-20T20:50:28.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/446750642464641024" />
  <row Id="11944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="b8c463d3-dbfe-48eb-8532-63d9c34167d5" CreationDate="2014-03-20T23:09:05.307" UserId="2273" Text="Я бы использовал слово &quot;оседлать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пёс опять сегодня оседлал плюшевого мишку" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="61992e8d-72c0-41a4-bf2e-49c7bef09d48" CreationDate="2014-03-20T23:50:28.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/446795941920927746" />
  <row Id="11946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="2363aca5-820d-4716-ac23-67acee09f466" CreationDate="2014-03-21T08:01:43.783" UserId="334" Text="samlib.ru contains some amount of articles, but it is mostly a fiction site and is very poorly categorized. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most long articles I read come from blogs in livejournal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many web-communities maintain specialized resourses, like habrahabr.ru for IT wannabes, rolemancer.ru  for tabletop rpg gamers, linux.org.ru for it-trolls and lurkmore.ru for bitards. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4285" RevisionGUID="0cd8b483-83fa-48cf-bf5d-9fa9da0b6fb7" CreationDate="2014-03-21T17:15:33.857" UserId="3677" Text="You can take a look at http://primerussia.ru/ page. They publish interesting articles on literature, philosophy, art, society and the authors usually are experts in the fields they are writing about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="0731433b-3aaf-4ae4-be24-8dfaedc41907" CreationDate="2014-03-21T19:12:34.207" UserId="904" Text="One more here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Да, я не люблю медведей.&#xD;&#xA; -  Нет, я не люблю медведей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4197" RevisionGUID="d74fcce5-f44b-4484-9f70-b88db441a791" CreationDate="2014-03-21T21:06:49.437" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Do you mean that you are looking for two sentences that have opposite meaning, and both contain grammatical negation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, my answer is &quot;indirect negation&quot;. Compare the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не думаю, что Алекс выиграет  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, что Алекс не выиграет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;думать&quot; here means &quot;to believe&quot;, and both sentences state the same: the absence of your belief in Alex's victory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a specifically Russian thing, you can construct the same two sentences in English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't believe that Alex will win  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I believe that Alex will not win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make similar trick with other verbs of statement, such as &quot;считать&quot;, &quot;полагать&quot;, &quot;верить&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11950" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="d30bba27-e2fe-4c1a-9e96-f879df383d44" CreationDate="2014-03-22T02:50:36.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/447203663929700352" />
  <row Id="11951" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="204c3c91-bf62-41e1-a8a1-42ac8313f569" CreationDate="2014-03-22T05:50:36.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/447248962064756736" />
  <row Id="11952" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="f36683c1-132b-41cc-9e32-53eaed47c54b" CreationDate="2014-03-22T08:50:36.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/447294260564729856" />
  <row Id="11953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="96874f78-1f2e-4bb0-8e0b-52ba51601a8d" CreationDate="2014-03-22T20:50:50.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/447475511737217024" />
  <row Id="11954" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="23c7d315-0cbe-4d48-afc0-45a2a5090738" CreationDate="2014-03-23T08:50:50.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/447656705644822528" />
  <row Id="11955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="055dc912-6403-4236-bbef-96fb74640c5f" CreationDate="2014-03-23T19:54:59.863" UserId="97" Comment="edited body" Text="Colta.ru is a site with mainly intelligent essays on contemporary Russian society. That should fit your bill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4287" RevisionGUID="87a92b39-1b4e-48ed-82a5-3252544135bd" CreationDate="2014-03-25T16:02:27.417" UserId="222" Text="    1. Он ответил на половину вопросов.&#xD;&#xA;       Он не ответил на половину вопросов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2. Нам нужно будет провести повторный эксперимент с вероятностью ровно 50%.&#xD;&#xA;       Нам не нужно будет проводить повторный эксперимент с вероятностью ровно 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3. Половина опрошенных поддержала президента, а половина не поддержала.&#xD;&#xA;       Половина опрошенных не поддержала президента, а половина поддержала.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11958" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4194" RevisionGUID="8e14fbc8-175c-4c2e-a5ce-9f2751b05376" CreationDate="2014-03-25T21:37:08.260" UserId="185" Comment="changed the title (there is no such thing as two sentences that are grammatical negation of each other)" Text="Can you provide two sentences that mean the same, but one sentence is formally a negation of another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="d45b9270-0dff-4a80-8869-4eb9a177deb7" CreationDate="2014-03-26T08:03:38.953" UserId="904" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="One more here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Да, я не люблю медведей.&#xD;&#xA; -  Нет, я не люблю медведей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Он не понял ничего.&#xD;&#xA; - Он всё не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(However, the second one sounds awkward)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="1f009fe3-a857-4ca7-8733-ed7412a482cc" CreationDate="2014-03-26T11:26:11.277" UserId="3544" Text="&amp;mdash; Ты не будешь больше пить чай?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; **Да**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; Ты не будешь больше пить чай?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; **Нет**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="d86d5361-920e-4494-b3dc-1a60e107558b" CreationDate="2014-03-26T11:32:43.967" UserId="3544" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="&amp;mdash; Ты не будешь больше пить чай?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; **Да**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; Ты не будешь больше пить чай?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;mdash; **Нет**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both answers mean that the person wouldn't drink tea anymore. Both answers are correct, however the first one sounds more natural when question has emphasis on *чай* (i.e. person decided not to drink tea at all), and the second one does when emphasis is on *не будешь* (i.e. person doesn't want tea right now)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="00e79912-cd10-44dc-9c55-591743e38e8c" CreationDate="2014-03-26T11:48:56.493" UserId="1769" Text="It's one of oxymoron phraselogism. Meaning is &quot;No free time to do something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="731db1fa-6cd6-4c14-b7c6-821464a98804" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:42:12.940" UserId="190" Text="&quot;Вдруг бывает только пук&quot; (suddenly happens only fart) is a colloquial humorous phrase, which is a retort to a person asking &quot;а вдруг?&quot; (what if?). I can't find etymology of this phrase. Where did it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="731db1fa-6cd6-4c14-b7c6-821464a98804" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:42:12.940" UserId="190" Text="Where did &quot;вдруг бывает только пук&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="731db1fa-6cd6-4c14-b7c6-821464a98804" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:42:12.940" UserId="190" Text="|этимология|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="b5e16fc2-548e-4432-99a3-4f880a274036" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:51:31.903" UserId="190" Text="Russian has diminutive form (уменьшительно-ласкательная форма) and augmentative form (увеличительно-усиливающая форма). For example: человечек and человечище. But how the middle, normal form is called (человек)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="b5e16fc2-548e-4432-99a3-4f880a274036" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:51:31.903" UserId="190" Text="What is between diminutive and augmentative in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="b5e16fc2-548e-4432-99a3-4f880a274036" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:51:31.903" UserId="190" Text="|морфология|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11969" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="dc077fa5-fc8c-4118-8522-1ecdc30bd946" CreationDate="2014-03-27T02:51:06.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/449015728734494720" />
  <row Id="11970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="00bc78c1-c98e-46fb-9842-00d7dd41fbae" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:06:08.663" UserId="185" Text="There is no fixed equivalent, as far as I know.&#xD;&#xA;Some people use &quot;через&quot; or &quot;via&quot;, followed by the name of the user. It is the way Facebook does it if you repost someone's message, and many users carry this over to Twitter. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не могу и не хочу в это верить. Но это так. Россия заняла второе место&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по числу беженцев из страны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/city/141101-posle-sirii … via&#xD;&#xA;&gt; @villagemsk&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В руки ФСБ попали тысячи чистых бланков украинских паспортов: ими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снабдят «дружинников» #odessa http://dumskaya.net/news/_307-034067/ …&#xD;&#xA;&gt; через @dumskaya_net&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people just use the RT and the name of the user for retweet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть и позитивные новости.. RT @RussiaKapnic: Корабль ВМС США сел на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мель в Черном море http://www.fontanka.ru/2014/02/19/007/  А они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; думали в Рай попали!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I don't see many people use &quot;HT&quot; in Russian tweets. I also don't find people who use (c) in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="ccb58b27-71c1-432d-b1f0-59a0b156460f" CreationDate="2014-03-28T00:53:46.960" UserId="3691" Text="I am a new student of the russian language. I came across 'падать/упасть' **to fall**.&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain this to me because they look like entirely different words to my untrained eyes. Even just a link to an article that explain the grammar behind this would be highly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="ccb58b27-71c1-432d-b1f0-59a0b156460f" CreationDate="2014-03-28T00:53:46.960" UserId="3691" Text="Difference between 'падать' and 'упасть'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="ccb58b27-71c1-432d-b1f0-59a0b156460f" CreationDate="2014-03-28T00:53:46.960" UserId="3691" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="846486ba-5938-4b21-92cb-70273d9e73ca" CreationDate="2014-03-28T01:03:04.973" UserId="194" Text="падать = to be falling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;упасть = to fall" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="a36d5a3c-b87d-44cd-bcc9-9b25307e6289" CreationDate="2014-03-28T01:37:10.100" UserId="1236" Text="This is a typical [imperfective/perfective pair of verbs][1], they are [different in their aspect][2] only. And they, actually, have the same root, `-пад-`, only in `падать` it is followed by a thematic vowel -a-, and `упасть` does not have the vowel, the root is immediately followed by the infinitive suffix -ть, so the two similar consonants get dissimilated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *у-пад-ть -&gt; упасть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, in its Future forms the final д of the root reappears:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я упаду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты упадёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он упадёт, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the Past forms this д diappears again, before the Past Tense suffix -л:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *у-пад-л -&gt; упал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of the two verbs, `падать` is the name of the process of falling, &quot;to fall/to be falling&quot;, and also it means &quot;to fall repeatedly, all the time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Падают листья. - The leaves fall/are falling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я всё время падаю, когда катаюсь на коньках. - I'm always falling while skating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Упасть` also means &quot;to fall&quot;, the difference is it implies falling as having either the beginning or the end of it. Since things usually fall fast, this very verb is rarely used in the meaning &quot;to begin falling&quot;, it mostly means &quot;to fall down (and reach the bottom or the lowest level)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он упал и сломал ногу. - He fell down and broke his leg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цена на нефть упала. - The price of oil has dropped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `упасть`, like all the perfective Russian verbs, cannot be used in the Present Tense, its forms that look like Present actually mean the Future. `Падать` can be used in all the tree Russian tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit13/GramUnit13_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="992e54e8-16c4-4a7d-818d-dc987028cff7" CreationDate="2014-03-28T02:05:33.573" UserId="1236" Comment="a typo corrected" Text="This is a typical [imperfective/perfective pair of verbs][1], they are [different in their aspect][2] only. And they, actually, have the same root, `-пад-`, only in `падать` it is followed by a thematic vowel -a-, and `упасть` does not have the vowel, the root is immediately followed by the infinitive suffix -ть, so the two similar consonants get dissimilated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *у-пад-ть -&gt; упасть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, in its Future forms the final д of the root reappears:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я упаду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты упадёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он упадёт, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the Past forms this д diappears again, before the Past Tense suffix -л:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *у-пад-л -&gt; упал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of the two verbs, `падать` is the name of the process of falling, &quot;to fall/to be falling&quot;, and also it means &quot;to fall repeatedly, all the time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Падают листья. - The leaves fall/are falling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я всё время падаю, когда катаюсь на коньках. - I'm always falling while skating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Упасть` also means &quot;to fall&quot;, the difference is it implies falling as having either the beginning or the end of it. Since things usually fall fast, this very verb is rarely used in the meaning &quot;to begin falling&quot;, it mostly means &quot;to fall down (and reach the bottom or the lowest level)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он упал и сломал ногу. - He fell down and broke his leg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цена на нефть упала. - The price of oil has dropped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `упасть`, like all the perfective Russian verbs, cannot be used in the Present Tense, its forms that look like Present actually mean the Future. `Падать` can be used in all the three Russian tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit13/GramUnit13_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="9d5a10ad-2d89-44dc-be79-545ba520ed2b" CreationDate="2014-03-28T08:43:26.537" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="42e2a7ab-94f6-46ce-8da6-28de217cc92b" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:02:16.313" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="This is a typical [imperfective/perfective pair of verbs][1], they are [different in their aspect][2] only. And they, actually, have the same root, `-пад-`, only in `падать` it is followed by a thematic vowel -a-, and `упасть` does not have the vowel, the root is immediately followed by the infinitive suffix -ть, so the two similar consonants get dissimilated:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *у-пад-ть -&gt; упасть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, in its Future forms the final д of the root reappears:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я упаду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты упадёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он упадёт, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the Past forms this д disappears again, before the Past Tense suffix -л:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *у-пад-л -&gt; упал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of the two verbs, `падать` is the name of the process of falling, &quot;to fall/to be falling&quot;, and also it means &quot;to fall repeatedly, all the time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Падают листья. - The leaves fall/are falling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я всё время падаю, когда катаюсь на коньках. - I'm always falling while skating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Упасть` also means &quot;to fall&quot;, the difference is it implies falling as having either the beginning or the end of it. Since things usually fall fast, this very verb is rarely used in the meaning &quot;to begin falling&quot;, it mostly means &quot;to fall down (and reach the bottom or the lowest level)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он упал и сломал ногу. - He fell down and broke his leg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цена на нефть упала. - The price of oil has dropped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `упасть`, like all the perfective Russian verbs, cannot be used in the Present Tense, its forms that look like Present actually mean the Future. `Падать` can be used in all the three Russian tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit13/GramUnit13_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="0cbc5847-5fa7-47cf-b642-8e37d87a8584" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:10:30.863" UserId="185" Text="Правильно ли называть выступление арфиста, скрипача или пианиста &quot;арфовым&quot;, &quot;скрипковым&quot; и &quot;пианинным&quot; концертом? Правильно ли вообще говорить &quot;арфовый концерт&quot; или &quot;пианинный концерт&quot; применительно к чему бы то ни было?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="0cbc5847-5fa7-47cf-b642-8e37d87a8584" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:10:30.863" UserId="185" Text="названия концертов по музыкальным инструментам" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="0cbc5847-5fa7-47cf-b642-8e37d87a8584" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:10:30.863" UserId="185" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="514cfc16-a0b1-46f8-9e99-2387c50a513b" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:32:21.763" UserDisplayName="user3575" Text="Обычно говорят не пианинный, а фортепианный и это довольно приемлено.&#xD;&#xA;Скрипковый не является общепринятым прилагательным, более подходящий вариант &quot;скрипичный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Арфовый относительно концертов не применяется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Классически концерты называются относительно существительных с предлогом &quot;для&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Концерт&quot; для скрипки/арфы/фортепиано с оркестром&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Пианино в данном контексте не используется, так как является частным случаем фортепиано/клавира." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="3a532d98-6df1-46c3-ab66-eb632a6382e9" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:43:46.680" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="add" Text="Обычно говорят не пианинный, а &quot;фортепианный&quot;, и это довольно приемлено.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скрипковый&quot; не является общепринятым прилагательным, более подходящий вариант &quot;скрипичный&quot;. Например, &quot;скрипичный ключ&quot; нотногл стана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Арфовый относительно концертов не применяется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Классически концерты называются относительно существительных с предлогом &quot;для&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Концерт для скрипки/арфы/фортепиано с оркестром&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино в данном контексте не используется, так как является частным случаем фортепиано/клавира." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="724cf4d0-84e0-46c3-98a2-bac2f88fc2af" CreationDate="2014-03-29T11:23:33.590" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="spelling" Text="Обычно говорят не пианинный, а &quot;фортепианный&quot;, и это довольно приемлено.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скрипковый&quot; не является общепринятым прилагательным, более подходящий вариант &quot;скрипичный&quot;. Например, &quot;скрипичный ключ&quot; нотного стана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Арфовый относительно концертов не применяется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Классически концерты называются относительно существительных с предлогом &quot;для&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Концерт для скрипки/арфы/фортепиано с оркестром&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино в данном контексте не используется, так как является частным случаем фортепиано/клавира." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="5d6922f9-94c1-46af-b33f-4f54e302268d" CreationDate="2014-03-29T11:27:09.167" UserId="551" Text="&quot;Скрипичный концерт&quot;, &quot;фортепианный концерт&quot; и т.д., это концерт не в смысле &quot;выступление&quot;, а в смысле [&quot;произведение&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конце́рт — музыкальное произведение, чаще всего для одного или нескольких солирующих инструментов с оркестром. Существуют также концерты для одного инструмента — без оркестра, концерты для оркестра — без строго определённых сольных партий, концерты для голоса (или голосов) с оркестром и концерты для хора а cappella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой вариант названия произведения - &quot;концерт для (инструмента) с оркестром&quot;, например &quot;концерт для фортепиано с оркестром&quot;, &quot;концерт для арфы с оркестром&quot;. Кстати гугл находит &quot;Гендель. Арфовый концерт&quot; и &quot;Арфовый концерт Бориса Тищенко&quot;, так что вполне употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концерт в смысле &quot;выступление&quot; обычно употребляется в другой форме: &quot;концерт фортепианной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт скрипичной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт арфовой музыки&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино в переводе с итальянского - &quot;маленькое фортепиано&quot;, поэтому пианинных концертов не бывает - его всегда называют фортепиано." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="4ca982ef-37a0-4a0d-bfb3-44f738ca1a7c" CreationDate="2014-03-29T11:32:27.693" UserId="551" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="&quot;Скрипичный концерт&quot;, &quot;фортепианный концерт&quot; и т.д., это концерт не в смысле &quot;выступление&quot;, а в смысле [&quot;произведение&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конце́рт — музыкальное произведение, чаще всего для одного или нескольких солирующих инструментов с оркестром. Существуют также концерты для одного инструмента — без оркестра, концерты для оркестра — без строго определённых сольных партий, концерты для голоса (или голосов) с оркестром и концерты для хора а cappella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой вариант названия произведения - &quot;концерт для (инструмента) с оркестром&quot;, например &quot;концерт для фортепиано с оркестром&quot;, &quot;концерт для арфы с оркестром&quot;. Кстати гугл находит &quot;Гендель. Арфовый концерт&quot; и &quot;Арфовый концерт Бориса Тищенко&quot;, так что вполне употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концерт в смысле &quot;выступление пианиста/арфиста/скрипача&quot; обычно употребляется в другой форме: &quot;концерт фортепианной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт скрипичной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт арфовой музыки&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино в переводе с итальянского - &quot;маленькое фортепиано&quot;, поэтому пианинных концертов не бывает - его всегда называют фортепиано." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="19be8e2e-b6a7-43a5-b4a9-d2a17e65abf5" CreationDate="2014-03-29T11:32:43.893" UserDisplayName="user3575" Comment="correction" Text="Обычно говорят не пианинный, а &quot;фортепианный&quot;, и это довольно приемлено.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скрипковый&quot; не является общепринятым прилагательным, более подходящий вариант &quot;скрипичный&quot;. Например, &quot;скрипичный ключ&quot; нотного стана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Классически концерты называются относительно существительных с предлогом &quot;для&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Концерт для скрипки/арфы/фортепиано с оркестром&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино в данном контексте не используется, так как является частным случаем фортепиано/клавира." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="da45e563-3ebf-4d57-89b3-de7d7f5e7be1" CreationDate="2014-03-29T12:16:21.377" UserId="551" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="&quot;Скрипичный концерт&quot;, &quot;фортепианный концерт&quot; и т.д., это концерт не в смысле &quot;выступление&quot;, а в смысле [&quot;произведение&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конце́рт — музыкальное произведение, чаще всего для одного или нескольких солирующих инструментов с оркестром. Существуют также концерты для одного инструмента — без оркестра, концерты для оркестра — без строго определённых сольных партий, концерты для голоса (или голосов) с оркестром и концерты для хора а cappella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой вариант названия произведения - &quot;концерт для (инструмента) с оркестром&quot;, например &quot;концерт для фортепиано с оркестром&quot;, &quot;концерт для арфы с оркестром&quot;. Кстати гугл находит &quot;Гендель. Арфовый концерт&quot; и &quot;Арфовый концерт Бориса Тищенко&quot;, так что словосочетание &quot;арфовый концерт&quot; вполне употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концерт в смысле &quot;выступление пианиста/арфиста/скрипача&quot; обычно употребляется в другой форме: &quot;концерт фортепианной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт скрипичной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт арфовой музыки&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино в переводе с итальянского - &quot;маленькое фортепиано&quot;, поэтому пианинных концертов не бывает - его всегда называют фортепиано. Интересно что при этом на концертах обычно используют рояль (википедия называет его &quot;основным видом фортепиано&quot;) так как он конструктивно имеет множество преимуществ перед пианино, но &quot;рояльной музыки&quot; тоже не существует." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="1ac136c5-0cc7-4b15-8106-065eff836d76" CreationDate="2014-03-29T12:22:26.273" UserId="551" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="&quot;Скрипичный концерт&quot;, &quot;фортепианный концерт&quot; и т.д., это концерт не в смысле &quot;выступление&quot;, а в смысле [&quot;произведение&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конце́рт — музыкальное произведение, чаще всего для одного или нескольких солирующих инструментов с оркестром. Существуют также концерты для одного инструмента — без оркестра, концерты для оркестра — без строго определённых сольных партий, концерты для голоса (или голосов) с оркестром и концерты для хора а cappella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой вариант названия произведения - &quot;концерт для (инструмента) с оркестром&quot;, например &quot;концерт для фортепиано с оркестром&quot;, &quot;концерт для арфы с оркестром&quot;. Кстати гугл находит &quot;Гендель. Арфовый концерт&quot; и &quot;Арфовый концерт Бориса Тищенко&quot;, так что словосочетание &quot;арфовый концерт&quot; вполне употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концерт в смысле &quot;выступление пианиста/арфиста/скрипача&quot; обычно употребляется в другой форме: &quot;концерт фортепианной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт скрипичной музыки&quot;, &quot;концерт арфовой музыки&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пианино, на самом деле, одна из разновидностей фортепиано (в переводе с итальянского пианино - &quot;маленькое фортепиано&quot;). На концертах обычно используют другую разновидность фортепиано - рояль. Конструктивно пианино отличается от рояля расположением струн (у рояля струны расположены горизонтально, у пианино - вертикально). На концертах обычно используют рояль (википедия называет его &quot;основным видом фортепиано&quot;) так как благодаря его конструкции он  имеет множество музыкальных преимуществ перед пианино (кроме компактности). Но ни &quot;рояльной&quot;, ни &quot;пианинной&quot; музыки не существует - есть только &quot;фортепианная&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="5290b131-7a2e-46bf-a6ff-cd9365b7a66f" CreationDate="2014-03-29T21:30:06.000" UserId="3595" Text="никогда не слышал чтобы выступление пианиста называли фортепианным концертом. термин такой есть но он относится к произведению, а не выступлению. говорят &quot;состоялся сольный концерт пианиста И. Иванова&quot;, если пианист известный то могут и без пианино: &quot;состоялся сольный концерт Кисина&quot;, и так понятно что пианист" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11992" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="289ec93a-48d9-4e0a-9ec0-b0f16b878e51" CreationDate="2014-03-30T11:51:57.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/450238999882645504" />
  <row Id="12000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="8fd25466-c9af-4f05-8637-c3ed94bd6323" CreationDate="2014-04-01T17:54:28.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/451055007165841408" />
  <row Id="12002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="bc8ff086-571e-436e-8402-a253534062f6" CreationDate="2014-04-02T17:04:28.797" UserId="3707" Text="Ukrainian and Russian is NOT very similar. And average russian people don't understand ukrainian. I write this this as ukrainian, who visited Russia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="809e36ec-0eaa-4490-b13b-032f41c5f8ae" CreationDate="2014-04-02T23:59:04.147" UserId="3709" Text="I don't know if this was asked before but I never saw it in search, so I'll just ask it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone list all the situations where &quot;е&quot; would be changed to &quot;ё&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;Like maybe after 2 vowels or if the word is in a certain condition or what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="809e36ec-0eaa-4490-b13b-032f41c5f8ae" CreationDate="2014-04-02T23:59:04.147" UserId="3709" Text="What are all the times where &quot;е&quot; changes to &quot;ё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="809e36ec-0eaa-4490-b13b-032f41c5f8ae" CreationDate="2014-04-02T23:59:04.147" UserId="3709" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="22d56d1e-576d-4d39-8feb-cfdfb4c879ae" CreationDate="2014-04-03T03:17:44.013" UserId="2273" Text="I think it is quite opposite: “ё” changes to “е”. As we all know “ё” can only form a stressed syllable. When a word form changes that the syllable is no longer stressed (such as ёж - ежовый) the “ё” becomes the “е”. However, the opposite does not apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="1e4e2a02-aade-4241-b4f8-e0122931c5ce" CreationDate="2014-04-03T05:56:14.467" UserId="2199" Text="ё can be changed to е, because the former is optional in the modern Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;If you really need such a list of words where ё is used take a look at this [Ё-vocabulary](http://www.yomaker.ru/yoslovar.htm). But if your aim is just to learn Russian you will find [this short list of words with Ё](http://bukva-yo.ru/spisok-slov.html) sufficient. Refer to the cha's answer as a guide to situations where ё change to е is mandatory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="15861db4-8139-4098-80c1-86047dea4b5d" CreationDate="2014-04-03T06:44:41.683" UserId="2199" Comment="expanded a list, added a rule for verbs with ё, added a link." Text="`ё` can be changed to `е`, because the former is optional in the modern Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;If you really need such a list of words where `ё` is used take a look at this [Ё-vocabulary](http://www.yomaker.ru/yoslovar.htm). But if your aim is just to learn Russian you will find [this short list of words with `Ё`](http://bukva-yo.ru/spisok-slov.html) sufficient:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;актёр&#xD;&#xA;бёдра*&#xD;&#xA;берёза&#xD;&#xA;бурёнка&#xD;&#xA;варёный&#xD;&#xA;вёдро*&#xD;&#xA;всё*&#xD;&#xA;вёрткий&#xD;&#xA;вёсны*&#xD;&#xA;вёсла*&#xD;&#xA;взлёт&#xD;&#xA;влёт&#xD;&#xA;вразлёт&#xD;&#xA;гранёный&#xD;&#xA;далёкий&#xD;&#xA;дёрн&#xD;&#xA;дирижёр&#xD;&#xA;ёж&#xD;&#xA;ёжик&#xD;&#xA;ёжиться&#xD;&#xA;ёлка&#xD;&#xA;ёмкость&#xD;&#xA;ёрничать&#xD;&#xA;жёлтый&#xD;&#xA;жёсткий&#xD;&#xA;жёсткость&#xD;&#xA;жжёный&#xD;&#xA;залёт&#xD;&#xA;зелёный&#xD;&#xA;зёрна*&#xD;&#xA;зёрнышко&#xD;&#xA;излёт&#xD;&#xA;калёный&#xD;&#xA;клеёнка&#xD;&#xA;клёв&#xD;&#xA;клёвый&#xD;&#xA;клён&#xD;&#xA;клёпка&#xD;&#xA;клёцки&#xD;&#xA;кнёдли&#xD;&#xA;ковёр*&#xD;&#xA;колёсный&#xD;&#xA;конёк&#xD;&#xA;костёр&#xD;&#xA;крёстный&#xD;&#xA;лёгкий&#xD;&#xA;лёгкость&#xD;&#xA;лёд&#xD;&#xA;лён&#xD;&#xA;лётчик&#xD;&#xA;овёс&#xD;&#xA;огонёк&#xD;&#xA;орёл&#xD;&#xA;осёдлый&#xD;&#xA;осёл&#xD;&#xA;отвёртка&#xD;&#xA;паникёр&#xD;&#xA;пелёнка&#xD;&#xA;пенёк&#xD;&#xA;пёрышко&#xD;&#xA;пёс&#xD;&#xA;пёстрый&#xD;&#xA;плёнка&#xD;&#xA;плёс&#xD;&#xA;поклёвка&#xD;&#xA;подённый&#xD;&#xA;подъём&#xD;&#xA;позёмка&#xD;&#xA;полёт&#xD;&#xA;полётный&#xD;&#xA;посёлок&#xD;&#xA;приём&#xD;&#xA;приёмка&#xD;&#xA;самолёт&#xD;&#xA;свёкор&#xD;&#xA;сгущёнка&#xD;&#xA;сгущёный&#xD;&#xA;сёгун&#xD;&#xA;сёдла*&#xD;&#xA;сёмга&#xD;&#xA;слёт&#xD;&#xA;съёмка&#xD;&#xA;таёжный&#xD;&#xA;телёнок&#xD;&#xA;тёмный&#xD;&#xA;трёхъярусный&#xD;&#xA;трёхколёсный&#xD;&#xA;трёхзвёздочный&#xD;&#xA;утёс&#xD;&#xA;шофёр&#xD;&#xA;четвёртый&#xD;&#xA;чёлка&#xD;&#xA;чёрствый&#xD;&#xA;чёрт*&#xD;&#xA;чёрточка&#xD;&#xA;The words that will change their meaning if you write е instead of ё are marked with *.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for verbs, [this][1] can be taken as a rule:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§** В суффиксах и окончаниях глаголов, суффиксах отглагольных существительных, прилагательных и причастий после шипящих и `ч` под ударением пишется буква `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `стереж[ёшь]`, `стереж[ёт]`, `береж[ёшь]`, `береж[ёт]`, `жж[ёшь]`, `жж[ёт]`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ка`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ый`, `сбереж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`, `сожж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to the [cha's answer][2] as a guide to situations where `ё` change to `е` is mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiy-na-5.ru/rules/93&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4305/2199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="dbbcb840-adf4-4e01-8a04-923f20c05fee" CreationDate="2014-04-03T07:31:15.490" UserId="2199" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="`ё` can be changed to `е`, because the former is optional in the modern Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;If you really need such a list of words where `ё` is used take a look at this [Ё-vocabulary](http://www.yomaker.ru/yoslovar.htm). But if your aim is just to learn Russian you will find [this short list of words with `Ё`](http://bukva-yo.ru/spisok-slov.html) sufficient:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;актёр&#xD;&#xA;бёдра*&#xD;&#xA;берёза&#xD;&#xA;бурёнка&#xD;&#xA;варёный&#xD;&#xA;вёдро*&#xD;&#xA;всё*&#xD;&#xA;вёрткий&#xD;&#xA;вёсны*&#xD;&#xA;вёсла*&#xD;&#xA;взлёт&#xD;&#xA;влёт&#xD;&#xA;вразлёт&#xD;&#xA;гранёный&#xD;&#xA;далёкий&#xD;&#xA;дёрн&#xD;&#xA;дирижёр&#xD;&#xA;ёж&#xD;&#xA;ёжик&#xD;&#xA;ёжиться&#xD;&#xA;ёлка&#xD;&#xA;ёмкость&#xD;&#xA;ёрничать&#xD;&#xA;жёлтый&#xD;&#xA;жёсткий&#xD;&#xA;жёсткость&#xD;&#xA;жжёный&#xD;&#xA;залёт&#xD;&#xA;зелёный&#xD;&#xA;зёрна*&#xD;&#xA;зёрнышко&#xD;&#xA;излёт&#xD;&#xA;калёный&#xD;&#xA;клеёнка&#xD;&#xA;клёв&#xD;&#xA;клёвый&#xD;&#xA;клён&#xD;&#xA;клёпка&#xD;&#xA;клёцки&#xD;&#xA;кнёдли&#xD;&#xA;ковёр*&#xD;&#xA;колёсный&#xD;&#xA;конёк&#xD;&#xA;костёр&#xD;&#xA;крёстный&#xD;&#xA;лёгкий&#xD;&#xA;лёгкость&#xD;&#xA;лёд&#xD;&#xA;лён&#xD;&#xA;лётчик&#xD;&#xA;овёс&#xD;&#xA;огонёк&#xD;&#xA;орёл&#xD;&#xA;осёдлый&#xD;&#xA;осёл&#xD;&#xA;отвёртка&#xD;&#xA;паникёр&#xD;&#xA;пелёнка&#xD;&#xA;пенёк&#xD;&#xA;пёрышко&#xD;&#xA;пёс&#xD;&#xA;пёстрый&#xD;&#xA;плёнка&#xD;&#xA;плёс&#xD;&#xA;поклёвка&#xD;&#xA;подённый&#xD;&#xA;подъём&#xD;&#xA;позёмка&#xD;&#xA;полёт&#xD;&#xA;полётный&#xD;&#xA;посёлок&#xD;&#xA;приём&#xD;&#xA;приёмка&#xD;&#xA;самолёт&#xD;&#xA;свёкор&#xD;&#xA;сгущёнка&#xD;&#xA;сгущёный&#xD;&#xA;сёгун&#xD;&#xA;сёдла*&#xD;&#xA;сёмга&#xD;&#xA;слёт&#xD;&#xA;съёмка&#xD;&#xA;таёжный&#xD;&#xA;телёнок&#xD;&#xA;тёмный&#xD;&#xA;трёхъярусный&#xD;&#xA;трёхколёсный&#xD;&#xA;трёхзвёздочный&#xD;&#xA;утёс&#xD;&#xA;шофёр&#xD;&#xA;четвёртый&#xD;&#xA;чёлка&#xD;&#xA;чёрствый&#xD;&#xA;чёрт*&#xD;&#xA;чёрточка&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* The words that will change their meaning if you write `е` instead of `ё`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for verbs, [this][1] can be taken as a rule:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§** В суффиксах и окончаниях глаголов, суффиксах отглагольных существительных, прилагательных и причастий после шипящих и `ч` под ударением пишется буква `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `стереж[ёшь]`, `стереж[ёт]`, `береж[ёшь]`, `береж[ёт]`, `жж[ёшь]`, `жж[ёт]`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ка`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ый`, `сбереж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`, `сожж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to the [cha's answer][2] as a guide to situations where `ё` change to `е` is mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiy-na-5.ru/rules/93&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4305/2199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="7c2bec04-f2e2-420f-b39a-73b5924f8c55" CreationDate="2014-04-03T07:53:20.053" UserId="2496" Text="Why is this in use: &quot;все точки над И&quot;? There is no dots - **И**, there is dot in English version **i**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why instead there is no usage for such construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* все точки над Ё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* все тире над И краткое&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="7c2bec04-f2e2-420f-b39a-73b5924f8c55" CreationDate="2014-04-03T07:53:20.053" UserId="2496" Text="Why in the russian often used &quot;все точки над И&quot; but not &quot;все точки над Ё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="7c2bec04-f2e2-420f-b39a-73b5924f8c55" CreationDate="2014-04-03T07:53:20.053" UserId="2496" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="138dacb4-6e57-4b96-82ea-5b5d3cb368cf" CreationDate="2014-04-03T07:58:32.757" UserId="1305" Text="When Russians use that proverb they mean not the cyrillic letter `И`, but latin or old cyrillic `i`. The reason may lie in the fact that letter `Ё` is very often being used without dots, like `Е`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="3026eb48-e5f5-4df1-bc6e-b7dcf0933f18" CreationDate="2014-04-03T08:01:21.190" UserId="551" Text="This is a historical phrase. Before 1917 there were two kinds of letter и - и and і. At that time ink was used to write and dots over i were put after all the letters in the word is written completely. The meaning of the phrase is &quot;to do the things until every little thing is in place&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letter ё on the other hand is optional. Most writers do not put the dots over it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="e4f7540d-cc5b-4aa4-83a0-26197c138ad8" CreationDate="2014-04-03T08:05:10.197" UserId="1305" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="When Russians use that proverb they mean not the cyrillic letter `И`, but latin or old cyrillic `i`. The reason may lie in the fact that letter `Ё` is very often being used without dots, like `Е`. **UPD**: Artemix led more compelling reason for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="0a2b00f1-01c0-4f53-afb9-2a4c2534521e" CreationDate="2014-04-03T08:06:43.810" UserId="3711" Text="This proverb is an adaptation of French &quot;mettre les points sur les i et les barres sur les t&quot;. Before the reform of Russian orthography in 1918 there was a letter &quot;i&quot; in Russian alphabet (&quot;и десятеричное&quot;, it presents in contemporary Ukrainian alphabet, for example), but there was no &quot;t&quot;. So the original French proverb was reduced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="3d95f1b1-faef-4a65-b8c2-05e538963a4e" CreationDate="2014-04-03T08:10:08.200" UserId="551" Comment="added 701 characters in body" Text="This is a historical phrase. Before 1918 there were two kinds of letter и - **и** and **і**. At that time ink was used to write and dots over i were put after all the letters in the word is written completely. The meaning of the phrase is &quot;to do the things until every little thing is in place&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letter **ё** on the other hand is optional. Most writers do not put the dots over it. So, the meaning of the phrase changes to &quot;to do even the things nobody cares about&quot;. Actually I've met the phrase &quot;все точки над Ё&quot;, but it causes an obviously humorous effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for letter **й** - the thingy over и is called &quot;кратка&quot;, so the right &quot;proverb&quot; would be &quot;Поставить все кратки над и кратким&quot;, which sounds too repetitious and nobody knows the term anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the letter **i** happend more often than **ё** and **й** and so the saying sounded most logical at the time it become popular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this phrase could be borrowed from other language, for instance in English there is a saying [&quot;to dot the i's and cross the t's&quot;](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dot_the_i's_and_cross_the_t's). (UPD: user3711 claims that the proverb came from French language, which is quite likely)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="e934e077-45d2-4f09-8474-b047e83014ba" CreationDate="2014-04-03T08:11:03.223" UserId="97" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Ukrainian and Russian are NOT very similar. And an average Russian person doesn't understand Ukrainian. I write this this as a Ukrainian, who visited Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="92f4b18b-2bd1-49d8-ab31-fc51a4d8891e" CreationDate="2014-04-03T13:43:26.923" UserId="2496" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Why is this in use: &quot;все точки над И&quot;? There is no dots - **И**, there is dot in English version **i**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why instead there is no usage for such construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* все точки над Ё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* все бреве над И краткое&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="c3d4425d-44d4-4114-978e-49341950d785" CreationDate="2014-04-03T15:18:01.023" UserId="3595" Text="i traveled to Kyiv and Berdichev many years ago, and couldn't understand anything when listening to Ukrainians talking to each other. i couldn't even pick the subjects of their conversations. though when they spoke to me i could understand quite a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i had somewhat similar experience when listening to Scottish people, but could understand much more, and at least would get what they're talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so I think that Ukrainian is more different than Russian, compared to Scottish vs English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="fe04a396-7e7e-40f2-87d6-e5e65deba952" CreationDate="2014-04-03T18:51:17.877" UserId="2269" Text="Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/ в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- он должен был соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_);&#xD;&#xA;- до гласного идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_);&#xD;&#xA;- после гласного не идет мягкий: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_, (шипящий может: _несёшь_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все вышеперичисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился к не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На самом деле все несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при об’яснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="d291a117-1d9a-4371-adea-46137fba5f18" CreationDate="2014-04-03T19:01:31.877" UserId="2269" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- он должен был соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до гласного идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- после гласного не идет мягкий: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _несёшь_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На самом деле все несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при об’яснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все вышеперичисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Посему носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — в сложных случаях проще проверить по словарю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="d3cf6502-940f-42a2-a732-e778af205860" CreationDate="2014-04-03T19:24:01.600" UserId="2269" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="**Short answer for Russian language learners**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no simple rules to detect where Russian letter _е_ should be read as _ё_ (i. e. /jo/ or /ʲo/), as well as there are no rules to detect which syllable is stressed. Use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More detailed answer for native and near-native Russian speakers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- он должен был соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до гласного идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- после гласного не идет мягкий: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _несёшь_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На самом деле все несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при об’яснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все вышеперичисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Посему носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — в сложных случаях проще проверить по словарю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="36075684-b9a0-41ed-9857-52ae882da652" CreationDate="2014-04-03T19:38:34.123" UserId="2269" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="**Short answer for Russian language learners**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no simple rules to detect where Russian letter _е_ should be read as _ё_ (i. e. /jo/ or /ʲo/), as well as there are no rules to detect which syllable is stressed. Use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More detailed answer for native and near-native Russian speakers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- он должен был соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до гласного идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- после гласного не идет мягкий: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _несёшь_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На самом деле все несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при об’яснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все вышеперичисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Еще есть куча церковнославянизмов — заимствований достаточно древних для того, чтобы переход произошел, но старательно поддерживавшихся в исконном состоянии: _небо_ (ср. _нёбо_), _лев_ (но _лёва_) и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посему носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — в сложных случаях проще проверить по словарю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="809b2d0e-f3e2-4155-afa0-5533b6f33800" CreationDate="2014-04-03T20:12:47.423" UserId="2269" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="**Short answer for Russian language learners**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no simple rules to detect where Russian letter _е_ should be read as _ё_ (i. e. /jo/ or /ʲo/), as well as there are no rules to detect which syllable is stressed. Use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More detailed answer for native and near-native Russian speakers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- этот звук должен соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до него идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- а после — не идет мягкий согласный: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _тёща_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с этим, вне зависимости от твердости / мякгости последующего согласного _е_ / _ё_ склонны сохраняться при склонении: _берёза_ /z/ → _на берёзе /zʲ/_; спряжении: идёт /t/ → идёте /tʲ/; иногда словообразовании: зелёный /n/ → зелёненький /nʲ/, уроже́нец /nʲ/ → уроже́нка /n/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На самом деле все несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при об’яснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все вышеперичисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Еще есть куча церковнославянизмов — заимствований достаточно древних для того, чтобы переход произошел, но старательно поддерживавшихся в исконном состоянии: _не́бо_ (ср. _нёбо_), _лев_ (но _лёва_) и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посему носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — в сложных случаях проще проверить по словарю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="2af17e61-109e-478a-be77-6a376743a6e2" CreationDate="2014-04-03T20:19:48.443" UserId="2269" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="**Short answer for Russian language learners**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no simple rules to detect where Russian letter _е_ should be read as _ё_ (i. e. /jo/ or /ʲo/), as well as there are no rules to detect which syllable is stressed. Use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More detailed answer for native and near-native Russian speakers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- этот звук должен соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до него идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- а после — не идет мягкий согласный: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _тёща_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все вышеперичисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ здесь тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Еще есть куча церковнославянизмов — заимствований достаточно древних для того, чтобы переход произошел, но старательно поддерживавшихся в исконном состоянии: _не́бо_ (ср. _нёбо_), _лев_ (но _лёва_) и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Плюс, вне зависимости от твердости / мякгости последующего согласного _е_ / _ё_ склонны сохраняться при склонении: _берёза_ /z/ → _на берёзе_ /zʲ/; спряжении: _идёт_ /t/ → _идёте_ /tʲ/; иногда словообразовании: _зелёный_ /n/ → _зелёненький_ /nʲ/, _уроже́нец_ /nʲ/ → _уроже́нка_ /n/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А на самом деле все еще несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при об’яснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По всему видно, что носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — произношение большинства слов и так прекрасно ему известны, а в сложные случаи проще проверить по словарю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="fefeda7d-132c-42d2-8940-3ed197952b5e" CreationDate="2014-04-03T20:51:50.540" UserId="2273" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I think it is quite opposite: “ё” changes to “е”. As we all know “ё” can only form a stressed syllable. When a word form changes that the syllable is no longer stressed (such as ёж - ежо́вый) the “ё” becomes the “е”. However, the opposite does not apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="795c250d-b57b-47d0-896d-da0bc26e7de6" CreationDate="2014-04-03T21:20:21.643" UserId="2199" Comment="a proof" Text="`ё` can be changed to `е`, because the former is optional in the modern Russian. (*a text* in the more detailed part of [this answer][1] is a good example.)  &#xD;&#xA;If you really need such a list of words where `ё` is used take a look at this [Ё-vocabulary](http://www.yomaker.ru/yoslovar.htm). But if your aim is just to learn Russian you will find [this short list of words with `Ё`](http://bukva-yo.ru/spisok-slov.html) sufficient:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;актёр&#xD;&#xA;бёдра*&#xD;&#xA;берёза&#xD;&#xA;бурёнка&#xD;&#xA;варёный&#xD;&#xA;вёдро*&#xD;&#xA;всё*&#xD;&#xA;вёрткий&#xD;&#xA;вёсны*&#xD;&#xA;вёсла*&#xD;&#xA;взлёт&#xD;&#xA;влёт&#xD;&#xA;вразлёт&#xD;&#xA;гранёный&#xD;&#xA;далёкий&#xD;&#xA;дёрн&#xD;&#xA;дирижёр&#xD;&#xA;ёж&#xD;&#xA;ёжик&#xD;&#xA;ёжиться&#xD;&#xA;ёлка&#xD;&#xA;ёмкость&#xD;&#xA;ёрничать&#xD;&#xA;жёлтый&#xD;&#xA;жёсткий&#xD;&#xA;жёсткость&#xD;&#xA;жжёный&#xD;&#xA;залёт&#xD;&#xA;зелёный&#xD;&#xA;зёрна*&#xD;&#xA;зёрнышко&#xD;&#xA;излёт&#xD;&#xA;калёный&#xD;&#xA;клеёнка&#xD;&#xA;клёв&#xD;&#xA;клёвый&#xD;&#xA;клён&#xD;&#xA;клёпка&#xD;&#xA;клёцки&#xD;&#xA;кнёдли&#xD;&#xA;ковёр*&#xD;&#xA;колёсный&#xD;&#xA;конёк&#xD;&#xA;костёр&#xD;&#xA;крёстный&#xD;&#xA;лёгкий&#xD;&#xA;лёгкость&#xD;&#xA;лёд&#xD;&#xA;лён&#xD;&#xA;лётчик&#xD;&#xA;овёс&#xD;&#xA;огонёк&#xD;&#xA;орёл&#xD;&#xA;осёдлый&#xD;&#xA;осёл&#xD;&#xA;отвёртка&#xD;&#xA;паникёр&#xD;&#xA;пелёнка&#xD;&#xA;пенёк&#xD;&#xA;пёрышко&#xD;&#xA;пёс&#xD;&#xA;пёстрый&#xD;&#xA;плёнка&#xD;&#xA;плёс&#xD;&#xA;поклёвка&#xD;&#xA;подённый&#xD;&#xA;подъём&#xD;&#xA;позёмка&#xD;&#xA;полёт&#xD;&#xA;полётный&#xD;&#xA;посёлок&#xD;&#xA;приём&#xD;&#xA;приёмка&#xD;&#xA;самолёт&#xD;&#xA;свёкор&#xD;&#xA;сгущёнка&#xD;&#xA;сгущёный&#xD;&#xA;сёгун&#xD;&#xA;сёдла*&#xD;&#xA;сёмга&#xD;&#xA;слёт&#xD;&#xA;съёмка&#xD;&#xA;таёжный&#xD;&#xA;телёнок&#xD;&#xA;тёмный&#xD;&#xA;трёхъярусный&#xD;&#xA;трёхколёсный&#xD;&#xA;трёхзвёздочный&#xD;&#xA;утёс&#xD;&#xA;шофёр&#xD;&#xA;четвёртый&#xD;&#xA;чёлка&#xD;&#xA;чёрствый&#xD;&#xA;чёрт*&#xD;&#xA;чёрточка&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* The words that will change their meaning if you write `е` instead of `ё`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for verbs, [this][2] can be taken as a rule:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§** В суффиксах и окончаниях глаголов, суффиксах отглагольных существительных, прилагательных и причастий после шипящих и `ч` под ударением пишется буква `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `стереж[ёшь]`, `стереж[ёт]`, `береж[ёшь]`, `береж[ёт]`, `жж[ёшь]`, `жж[ёт]`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ка`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ый`, `сбереж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`, `сожж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to the [cha's answer][3] as a guide to situations where `ё` change to `е` is mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4312/2199&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russkiy-na-5.ru/rules/93&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4305/2199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="07adffa4-e2d8-470b-a1d8-3486c6d09039" CreationDate="2014-04-03T21:34:52.720" UserId="2199" Comment="fixed typos" Text="**Short answer for Russian language learners**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no simple rules to detect where Russian letter _е_ should be read as _ё_ (i. e. /jo/ or /ʲo/), as well as there are no rules to detect which syllable is stressed. Use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More detailed answer for native and near-native Russian speakers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- этот звук должен соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до него идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- а после — не идет мягкий согласный: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _тёща_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все вышеперечисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ здесь тогда был мягкий; _фанера_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Еще есть куча церковнославянизмов — заимствований достаточно древних для того, чтобы переход произошел, но старательно поддерживавшихся в исконном состоянии: _не́бо_ (ср. _нёбо_), _лев_ (но _лёва_) и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Плюс, вне зависимости от твердости / мягкости последующего согласного _е_ / _ё_ склонны сохраняться при склонении: _берёза_ /z/ → _на берёзе_ /zʲ/; спряжении: _идёт_ /t/ → _идёте_ /tʲ/; иногда словообразовании: _зелёный_ /n/ → _зелёненький_ /nʲ/, _уроже́нец_ /nʲ/ → _уроже́нка_ /n/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А на самом деле все еще несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значение не имело, и это было бы важно при объяснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По всему видно, что носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — произношение большинства слов и так прекрасно ему известны, а сложные случаи проще проверить по словарю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12031" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="07adffa4-e2d8-470b-a1d8-3486c6d09039" CreationDate="2014-04-03T21:34:52.720" Comment="Proposed by 2199 approved by 2269 edit id of 439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12032" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="6516e811-4797-4008-af34-7c2fc907c95b" CreationDate="2014-04-04T03:15:09.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/451920884258078720" />
  <row Id="12033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="49561ce8-5d5b-4bec-80ef-a33f0259a62a" CreationDate="2014-04-04T08:21:40.103" UserId="3716" Text="With Russian being my native language, I came across this phrase only a few times. This, I believe, is an example of typical Russian street-made-up expressions. Answering that to &quot;А вдруг?&quot; would not be very polite, by the way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="6809cf7c-a925-4340-b919-bb9e507660fa" CreationDate="2014-04-04T12:34:54.680" UserId="3717" Text="I'm currently learning the Russian language. While I was in the middle of learning this language and I understood the letters used, I noticed a few cases regarding those letters. One case that got me confused right now is the use of &quot;йа&quot; and &quot;Я&quot;. I have seen &quot;Майами&quot; in one article, but it is not spelled &quot;Маями&quot;. A similar case goes with &quot;йо&quot; and &quot;Ё&quot;. Are there rules regarding those letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="6809cf7c-a925-4340-b919-bb9e507660fa" CreationDate="2014-04-04T12:34:54.680" UserId="3717" Text="Is there really &quot;йа&quot; and &quot;йо&quot; in Russian writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="6809cf7c-a925-4340-b919-bb9e507660fa" CreationDate="2014-04-04T12:34:54.680" UserId="3717" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="8950287e-d4fd-4734-ad5b-b1e47a1457ea" CreationDate="2014-04-04T13:46:53.137" UserId="3522" Text="There are plenty of such words; your *Майами*, or *Айова*, are examples. However, I am not aware of any words of Slavic origin containing *йа* or *йо*; rather, they are loanwords, whether new or old-established." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="fbe2dc4a-f1d6-4267-bd78-dd13b4541a00" CreationDate="2014-04-04T13:48:18.020" UserId="194" Text="The sequences йа and йо are used exclusively in loan words. The reason is unknown to me, but for йо I could hypotesize that it is used so to not be confused with е where the dots over ё are omitted. Another idea is that possibly somebody tried to reflect etymology this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I would prefer always use я and ё if I could influence the usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4317" RevisionGUID="084fe24e-ace9-4474-ac89-b40ec57e5c1c" CreationDate="2014-04-04T14:04:30.760" UserId="1496" Text="I think there is no difference in pronunciation. E.g. i pronounce this sound in &quot;Майами&quot; identical to &quot;Маяк&quot;. But from other hand i can pronounce Й a bit harder and longer in case of йа. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also true, that these combination usually appear in foreign names or geographical names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I've goggled the reason - [Англо-русская практическая транскрипция][1] .&#xD;&#xA;I don't find ё there. Я is mentioned, but some strange way. So they are not supposed to be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, interesting fact, &quot;Я&quot; and also some strange way &quot;ЙА&quot; are both used for Spanish names [Испанско-русская практическая транскрипция][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can suppose, why they avoid to use ё. I don't know why but very often &quot;ё&quot; is written as &quot;e&quot; but still read as &quot;ё&quot;. For example nobody will read &quot;Елка&quot; as it looks, everyone understands its &quot;Ёлка&quot; and reads it properly. Probably this confusion makes letter ё to be unwanted in foreign words, because nobody knows how to read it properly in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="60800b21-43c2-462a-8b2b-c9006f02b1e6" CreationDate="2014-04-04T14:57:19.427" UserId="3522" Comment="Added explanation for use in load words." Text="There are plenty of such words; your *Майами*, or *Айова*, are examples. However, I am not aware of any words of Slavic origin containing *йа* or *йо*; rather, they are loanwords, whether new or old-established. Here, the spelling tends to reflect the spelling of the original as closely as is possible for the different writing systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12041" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="519d5112-f6be-48ee-91e1-80419e409d4b" CreationDate="2014-04-04T18:15:09.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/452147377756180480" />
  <row Id="12042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="692c01af-ab8e-4e83-b224-d0845307247a" CreationDate="2014-04-06T13:59:35.857" UserId="3691" Text="I want to tell a person the name of a book. It is my thinking that I am to use the **Nominative Case** when doing this because I am describing the subject of the sentence. In English the sentence would read `&quot;The book is called 'A Roadside Picnic&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right in saying this in Russian `&quot;Книга называется 'Пикник на обочине'&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I've seen in my text books the names of movies and hotels encased like `&lt;&lt;Пикник на обочине&gt;&gt;` so would saying `&quot;Книга называется &lt;&lt;Пикник на обочине&gt;&gt;&quot;` be more accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for the simple question but Google failed me, or I failed Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="692c01af-ab8e-4e83-b224-d0845307247a" CreationDate="2014-04-06T13:59:35.857" UserId="3691" Text="What case to use when saying &quot;The book is called...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="692c01af-ab8e-4e83-b224-d0845307247a" CreationDate="2014-04-06T13:59:35.857" UserId="3691" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="3261e677-bf1a-41f6-972a-fae9e1d59415" CreationDate="2014-04-06T14:34:41.533" UserId="3723" Text="You are correct, Nominative Case is used in this situation. And correct Russian quotes are actually «» and „“ (latter is used in handwritten texts or when quotes are nested)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="b961327f-09d9-449c-92f8-bebbf6929914" CreationDate="2014-04-06T14:50:49.853" UserId="1236" Text="You are absolutely right, you are to use the **Nominative Case** when doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the quotation marks in Russian, using the English-style both-at-the-top quotation marks ( `“`like this`”` ) is not correct. Russian uses two kinds of quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «ёлочки» - French-style - that is the typical and traditional quotation marks used in printed books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; „лапки“ - German-style - that is used in printed books to mark a quotation inside a quotation, and also that is used in handwriting:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «„Цыганы“ мои не продаются вовсе», — сетовал Пушкин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To type those Russian quotation marks on a computer with Windows, you have to switch the Nom Lock on, hold the Alt key, and type a code on the numpad, on the right of the keyboard. Here are the codes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`«` Alt+0171&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`»` Alt+0187&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`„` Alt+0132&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`“` Alt+0147&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can download and install [Ilya Birman's Typography Layout][1], it is free and has lots of useful symbols which are easy to enter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ilyabirman.net/projects/typography-layout/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="21b8ddec-527c-4cda-aaeb-888de913cb12" CreationDate="2014-04-06T15:01:44.270" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="You are absolutely right, you are to use the **Nominative Case** when doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the quotation marks in Russian, using the English-style both-at-the-top quotation marks ( `“`like this`”` ) is not correct. Russian uses two kinds of quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «ёлочки» - French-style - that is the typical and traditional quotation marks used in printed books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; „лапки“ - German-style - that is used in printed books to mark a quotation inside a quotation, and also that is used in handwriting:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «„Цыганы“ мои не продаются вовсе», — сетовал Пушкин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To type those Russian quotation marks on a computer with Windows, you have to switch the Num Lock on, hold the Alt key, and type a code on the numpad, on the right of the keyboard. Here are the codes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`«` Alt+0171&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`»` Alt+0187&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`„` Alt+0132&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`“` Alt+0147&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can download and install [Ilya Birman's Typography Layout][1], it is free and has lots of useful symbols which are easy to enter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ilyabirman.net/projects/typography-layout/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12048" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="9f4bc226-2bca-4914-9daf-de87e726a9f0" CreationDate="2014-04-06T21:21:09.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/452918961630642176" />
  <row Id="12049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="909b139c-4f14-46e1-85fd-2ad14ee180f3" CreationDate="2014-04-07T07:23:31.083" UserId="551" Text="Yes, both **йа** and **йо** are used in russian writing. They are used mostly in loaned words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Йа** (and its counterpart **ьа**) are used when transcribing foreign proper names only:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брайан, Гайана, Майами, Яньань&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Though I have found a neologism граб**ьа**рмия which is pronounced as &quot;грабь'армия&quot; without **я** in the middle of the word.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Йо** is used in such nouns as &#xD;&#xA;&gt; йог, йод, йота, майор, район, йогурт, майонез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them have foreign origin, though some of them appear in Russian vocabulary for many years. For instance, *йота* is a name of a greek letter and is mentioned in phraseologism &quot;Ни на йоту&quot; which is used for at least 200 years. Many proper nouns (like Майорка) are using **йо** because of transcription rules (see Stepan Stepanovs answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However sometimes **йо** can be a result of concatenating two words into one single word. Such words (like *самолёт*) have a structure **word1 + о + word2** (*самолёт = сам + о + лёт* - &quot;сам летает&quot;). If first word ends on **й** the resulting word will have a **йо**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _стро**йо**тряд = строй + отряд_ - строительный отряд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting case of **ё** being written in some other way is words like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бульон, почтальон, каньон, лосьон, сеньор, батальон, медальон, павильон, шампиньон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance it may seem that this is a case when **ё** after consonant softens the preceding consonant and from **йо** becomes **ьо**. But in fact it is not the case. **Йо** is still there, but is not written. In all these words **ьо** are pronounced as if it is written as **ьйо** or **ьё**: бул**ьйо**н, почтал**ьйо**н, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, Russian language has no &quot;write as you hear&quot; concept. Though the orthography rules exist they have many exceptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="36d660ce-67e2-4335-9753-c99b87dc28d4" CreationDate="2014-04-07T14:17:14.553" UserId="3607" Text="Actually you may see both variants of writing: `Майами` and `Маями`. `Майами` - is official name, however, some people may also use `Маями`. It's just a problems of transleteration names from one language to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no special rules about transliteration names. &#xD;&#xA;For example, in common Miami is used to write like `Майами`. However, Myanmar is used to write like `Мьянма`, with using `я`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are talking about average words, like `йогурт` or `майор` or `ёж` and so on. There is no difference in the sound of `йо` and `ё` or `йа` and `я`. The reason why whe use one or another - is a traditional writing. For foreign words we usually use `йа` and `йо`. For russian words `я` and `ё`. But it's not a strong rule. You should just remember how to write one or another word. Like in english you will write `photo` and not `foto`, even if it's sounds the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As addition: Russians never use `йу` only `ю`. Mistery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4324" RevisionGUID="cd666b5e-2bbe-4548-8487-a10ac6856e97" CreationDate="2014-04-08T04:54:51.600" UserId="3730" Text="Я бы сказала &quot;лажовый&quot;. Беспонтовый тоже звучит хорошо, тут главное подчеркнуть, что и у них это слово сленговое, те не стоит искать аналог в литературной лексике :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4324" RevisionGUID="02361f77-d087-4002-92bb-e0dbea56adc7" CreationDate="2014-04-08T10:06:26.530" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Я бы сказала &quot;лажовый&quot;. Беспонтовый тоже звучит хорошо, тут главное подчеркнуть, что и у них это слово сленговое и не стоит искать аналог в литературной лексике :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="48ee63ce-70d3-403d-89d4-7f3d702499d8" CreationDate="2014-04-08T14:06:37.497" UserId="1236" Comment="A tag added" Text="|грамматика|падежи|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="d4c5bfe8-e8c7-40d5-bab4-e19cc33cd356" CreationDate="2014-04-09T07:02:09.367" UserId="3713" Text="он удовлетворяется&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Шарик получал удовольствие от всего подряд, он удовлетворялся об игрушки, ноги, докторов.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Доктор с Шариком беда, он удовлетворяется обо все подряд, помогите ему доктор!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он ебёт:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Шарик ебёт все подряд: игрушки, одежду, ноги. Особенно заводится с полосатого мишки, это его любимая игрушка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did't used doctor here, because that would be total special case.  &#xD;&#xA;Knocks X suggested *возбуждается и плохо себя ведет*, in proper context there no doubt what dog is doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how it would be descried depends on: who will describe, situation context. Most (if not all) what someone can say about human intercourse, can be used in description of dog behavior. And vice versa. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="8cf087aa-a16c-4e14-8afc-0399436f3317" CreationDate="2014-04-09T15:05:20.273" UserId="3691" Text="To my knowledge `Живое исполнение` translates to `live performance`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the sentence `I prefer live performances` which I attempted to translate into `Я предпочитаю живому исполнениям` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated it like this because it is my understanding that I should use the **Dative** case to express feelings or to say you like something.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Мне нравится Москва&#xD;&#xA;        Как вам нравится фильм?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also `живому`is in **Dative Singular** and `исполнениям`is in **Dative Plural** because that's how it is in English, as far as I am aware anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to disguise this &quot;Is my translation correct?&quot; question as best as I can with some hope that the answer will help someone other than myself.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="8cf087aa-a16c-4e14-8afc-0399436f3317" CreationDate="2014-04-09T15:05:20.273" UserId="3691" Text="Question about cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="8cf087aa-a16c-4e14-8afc-0399436f3317" CreationDate="2014-04-09T15:05:20.273" UserId="3691" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="1ff8e1ec-86f4-4a51-8dea-4bf8bbc9bed5" CreationDate="2014-04-09T15:20:22.097" UserId="97" Text="I'll revisit later the question of whether _живое исполнение_ is the correct translation of _live performance_ and whether in Russian you can use it in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using that translation, in the Russian translation of _I prefer live performances_, dative case is not correct and the accusative case needs to be used instead.  In addition, you have a mismatch of singular/plural of adjective and noun (i.e. singular adjective with plural noun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the sentence would be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я предпочитаю [кого/что] живые исполнения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This however sounds rather unnatural to a native Russian speaker.  While I have heard _живое исполнение_ in the past, it usually was used as a word-for-word translation - and never in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I would translate the phrase as _концертное исполнение_ or _концертное выступление_ (which can often be used in plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе нравится последний диск этой группы?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я предпочитаю концертные выступления.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;или  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я предпочитаю концертное исполнение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="9fd1e77c-98dc-4ae4-b9d1-d9c58c3e7c80" CreationDate="2014-04-09T15:23:11.187" UserId="1236" Text="Your translation is wrong in several ways. The verb `предпочитать` is transitive, so it can have a direct object, and the direct objects are always in the **Accusative case**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `исполнение` in this sentence must be in the **Singular**, irrespective of what number is used in English. Although this noun does have a plural form, while talking about music the Singular form is used. And naturally, adjectives must agree with the noun they modify in number, you сannot have a singular adjective modifying a plural noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the correct way to put it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я предпочитаю живое исполнение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="110f5be3-87c3-446f-9ffe-8737c9ed76d5" CreationDate="2014-04-09T17:19:19.673" UserId="2269" Comment="Заимствованные словосочетания типа «admin panel» → «админ-панель» пишутся через дефис. Плюс парные кавычки для минимального об’ема правки." Text="Usually use the word “админка”, but it slang. Also used: “панель администрирования” and “панель администратора”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use: “админ-панель” (maybe someone will say that it is also slang)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12064" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4230" RevisionGUID="110f5be3-87c3-446f-9ffe-8737c9ed76d5" CreationDate="2014-04-09T17:19:19.673" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="8234ba25-8b88-46a9-8fac-5ee7db0c57cf" CreationDate="2014-04-10T00:38:29.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/454055784138420225" />
  <row Id="12066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="b623f49a-c270-4580-a706-b107b3fddd9f" CreationDate="2014-04-10T02:24:15.517" UserId="1571" Text="I can't seem to find a great example of when to use &quot;его&quot; vs &quot;это&quot; and was hoping somebody could shine some light on this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the phrase, `&quot;I remembered it&quot;`, I believe it's `&quot;я помнил его&quot;` and for `&quot;It is good&quot;`: `&quot;это хорошо&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why in this instance of `it is good` is it not `&quot;его&quot;`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Might it have something to do with the tenses?  I can't for the life of me find an answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="b623f49a-c270-4580-a706-b107b3fddd9f" CreationDate="2014-04-10T02:24:15.517" UserId="1571" Text="Using &quot;его&quot; и &quot;это&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="b623f49a-c270-4580-a706-b107b3fddd9f" CreationDate="2014-04-10T02:24:15.517" UserId="1571" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="4a264156-a1ce-481c-a9a0-043f023cf5f6" CreationDate="2014-04-10T02:32:48.113" UserId="3595" Text="&quot;его&quot; means &quot;his&quot; or &quot;him&quot;, &quot;это&quot; means &quot;it&quot; or &quot;this&quot;. These are very different words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I remembered it&quot; means &quot;Я помнил это&quot; or &quot;Я вспомнил это&quot; depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я помнил его&quot; would be &quot;I remembered him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это его ручка&quot; is &quot;It is his pen&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Его это беспокоит&quot; is &quot;It bothers him&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4332" RevisionGUID="7fa60201-f5bc-4272-a563-3a111e62c45a" CreationDate="2014-04-10T12:43:51.957" UserId="3737" Text="&quot;его&quot; - &quot;him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I remembered it&quot; - &quot;Я запомнил _это_&quot; (Past simple) / &quot;Я помню (все еще) _это_&quot; (Present Continuous)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="35b3b7b7-7cfb-4717-9330-77f5780a68e9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T13:05:11.030" UserId="3595" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="&quot;его&quot; means &quot;his&quot; or &quot;him&quot;, &quot;это&quot; means &quot;it&quot; or &quot;this&quot;. These are very different words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I remembered it&quot; means &quot;Я помнил это&quot; or &quot;Я вспомнил это&quot; depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я помнил его&quot; would be &quot;I remembered him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это его ручка&quot; is &quot;It is his pen&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Его это беспокоит&quot; is &quot;It bothers him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: @Dmitry's example is correct. The explanation is that in Russian everything has a gender, even wrenches. So, the wrench is male. That's why Russians learning English might say &quot;I put him there&quot; referring to a wrench, instead of correct &quot;I put it there&quot;. It also translates into possessive forms, e.g. you'd say &quot;Its place is there&quot;, referring to the place that belongs to a wrench. In Russian you'd say &quot;ego mesto tam&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="3b30a547-44b5-41d8-b2c2-4a15fce694af" CreationDate="2014-04-10T13:24:36.987" UserId="1236" Text="Let me put it in a more systematized way. And no, it has nothing to do with tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English `he` refers *only* to male living beings, but in Russian `он` refers both to male living beings and also to any non-living thing which is named by a noun of the **masculine gender**, like `стол` (table), `дом` (house), `номер` (number), `звук` (sound), etc. In the latter case English uses `it` to refer to those things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты помнишь Ивана? (­Do you remember Ivan?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да, я помню его. (Yes, I remember him.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты помнишь мой номер телефона? (­Do you remember my phone number?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Да, я помню его. (Yes, I remember it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`It is good` is a different case. Actually, English has several meanings of `it`. Apart from referring to non-living things discussed above, English `it` can&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. refer to the whole situation being discussed**, like:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – I've bought a new house!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – It is good!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `it` refers to the friend's buying a house, in English it can also be substituted by `that` ('That is good!'). In such cases both `it` and `that` are translated into Russian as `это`, or omitted altogether, so the dialog above is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Я купил новый дом!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Это замечательно! / Замечательно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. introduce a new object in order to name it.** Here English differentiates between singular/plural and near/far objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Singular: It/This/That is a lawnmower.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plural: They/These/Those are lawnmowers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Russian doesn't make any of those distinctions, and in sentences like that only `это` is used in most cases:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Singular: Это газонокосилка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plural: Это газонокосилки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only when you introduce a *very* far-away object, you can use `вон то` instead of `это`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, probably, everything as for your question. Still, English has other uses of `it`, like in `It is raining.` or `It was an early morning.` or `It was he who helped me.` etc., but, when translating sentences like that into Russian, `it` is omitted, and neither `он` nor `это` is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is raining. - Идёт дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was an early morning. - Было раннее утро.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was he who helped me. - Именно он помог мне." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="5d29b08b-6f66-4f6a-a395-6fb5048a57f9" CreationDate="2014-04-11T06:31:42.590" UserId="2047" Text="Someone knows where Can I download sample exams about TOFRL (Test of Russian as a Foreign Language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="5d29b08b-6f66-4f6a-a395-6fb5048a57f9" CreationDate="2014-04-11T06:31:42.590" UserId="2047" Text="TOFRL (Test of Russian as a Foreign Language) sample" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="5d29b08b-6f66-4f6a-a395-6fb5048a57f9" CreationDate="2014-04-11T06:31:42.590" UserId="2047" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="4daf6921-827f-41bb-a637-396bff4d3393" CreationDate="2014-04-11T07:02:11.130" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|узус|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12080" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="8071d029-7763-48eb-9abf-94c5ceaa9c0f" CreationDate="2014-04-11T07:26:10.680" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="TORFL (Test of Russian as a Foreign Language) sample" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="e9b3619f-57e7-4656-a310-35efa7f11a1f" CreationDate="2014-04-11T20:40:41.030" UserId="298" Text="What does it mean when Russian say: &quot;Здесь стопятьсот графиков, что с ними делать?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="e9b3619f-57e7-4656-a310-35efa7f11a1f" CreationDate="2014-04-11T20:40:41.030" UserId="298" Text="Стопятьсот (100500)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="e9b3619f-57e7-4656-a310-35efa7f11a1f" CreationDate="2014-04-11T20:40:41.030" UserId="298" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="6038644d-6bd2-4e44-a216-8405010a9728" CreationDate="2014-04-11T21:01:31.477" UserId="3742" Text="I have seen &quot;пристраиваться&quot; being used for the occasional dog-humping attempt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would personally use &quot;приставать&quot; for those dogs that are repeat offenders at humping *people*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="09e8c5f0-7a1c-42e9-abdd-bc2ee832bede" CreationDate="2014-04-11T22:36:20.403" UserId="2060" Text="It's an Internet meme basically meaning &quot;a lot&quot; but in a funny way. The fun is two-way (pun intended): *сто пятьсот* sounds totally wrong while resembling regular *сто пятьдесят* (and it having been written as *стопицот* messes it up even more), and *100500* being read as *сто пятьсот* is also comically wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it comes from child talk--children often mix up large numbers, so it's not uncommon to hear things like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12091" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="09a78573-b030-4b8e-aa90-115e5d1266a2" CreationDate="2014-04-13T12:52:49.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/455327748660420608" />
  <row Id="12092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4339" RevisionGUID="7d06b36b-16c1-4589-97e4-b73f181fb62f" CreationDate="2014-04-13T20:30:00.637" UserId="3744" Text="стопятьсот = очень много&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it came from the name of popular videos from youtube&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/user/AdamThomasMoran" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="ef0afe56-d563-48ee-896e-ce4d334dbd13" CreationDate="2014-04-14T12:30:22.253" UserDisplayName="user3735" Text="If you use torrent system I can advise you this link http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3897516 Here you can find tests for different levels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="65618fbc-f31f-462c-8db7-ed09978c5f2f" CreationDate="2014-04-14T17:05:44.497" UserId="993" Text="I would like to know how to translate 'open-source' to Russian and also how to properly translate 'bug' as in, a software bug. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you know any resources for technical dictionaries or terminology, I would appreciate the reference. Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="65618fbc-f31f-462c-8db7-ed09978c5f2f" CreationDate="2014-04-14T17:05:44.497" UserId="993" Text="How to translate open-source to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="65618fbc-f31f-462c-8db7-ed09978c5f2f" CreationDate="2014-04-14T17:05:44.497" UserId="993" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="00a5ec3f-7668-4d8c-aa4a-cb9969618d32" CreationDate="2014-04-14T17:49:31.497" UserId="3595" Text="[Открытое программное обеспечение](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bug - in jargon it's [Баг](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B3), a proper translation would be &quot;ошибка&quot; (my guess)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;debugger&quot; would be &quot;отладчик&quot;, but in jargon people say &quot;debagger&quot; :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="85eb9872-1d8c-4dfb-ba27-77f12ce2f6aa" CreationDate="2014-04-15T00:58:59.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/455872883722833920" />
  <row Id="12101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="40be58fb-d45b-48e5-a3f2-b6e2dcd10021" CreationDate="2014-04-15T06:02:24.740" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="[Открытое программное обеспечение](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bug - in jargon it's [баг](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B3), a proper translation would be &quot;ошибка&quot; (my guess)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;debugger&quot; would be &quot;отладчик&quot;, but in jargon people say &quot;debagger&quot; :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="1f58843b-3222-4095-bcc1-fdfee2b3ba5a" CreationDate="2014-04-15T11:54:10.150" UserId="1769" Text="У Лили Аллен есть песня под названием `Fuck you (very much)`. Собственно припев начинается словами `Fuck you, fuck you very very much`. Каковы варианты адаптированного перевода для этой строки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько я понял это отсылка к сердечной благодарности `thank you,thank you very much` посему мои вариант перевода в том же ключе: `идите нахуй и будьте здоровы`. Будет ли подобное корректным?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="1f58843b-3222-4095-bcc1-fdfee2b3ba5a" CreationDate="2014-04-15T11:54:10.150" UserId="1769" Text="Корректный перевод нецензурного припева" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="1f58843b-3222-4095-bcc1-fdfee2b3ba5a" CreationDate="2014-04-15T11:54:10.150" UserId="1769" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4346" RevisionGUID="9de3253e-3f06-493f-a081-a498848d3133" CreationDate="2014-04-15T17:02:13.090" UserId="298" Text="In 90% of cases, if not more, programmers would use transliterated English terms. This is what I usually hear at work: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*open-source* =&gt; *опенсорс*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*bug* =&gt; *баг*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*debugger* =&gt; *дебаггер*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In writing I would avoid using *опенсорс* and use *программное обеспечение с открытым кодом*. As regards the word *баг*, it is OK to use it in writing. I often see the word *дебагер* in writing (it is usually written with 1 letter *г*), though the use of *отладчик* is as common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12107" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="82cf4d4e-1c92-402a-85f6-3a64e9b4c228" CreationDate="2014-04-15T19:04:19.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/456146013799985152" />
  <row Id="12112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="1f19ee01-4950-444c-b0b4-e2df83de4a2e" CreationDate="2014-04-16T00:48:54.877" UserId="1726" Text="Living things belonging to the masculine gender take on accusative forms identical to their genitive forms, e.g. увидели мальчика, украли мяч мальчика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this doesn't seem to apply to living things in the feminine, which take on -ую for their accusatives the same way nonliving things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this all seemed to make sense, until came across the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...и наконец пришла война, которой уже долго ждали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this usage any different from война, которую ждали?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="1f19ee01-4950-444c-b0b4-e2df83de4a2e" CreationDate="2014-04-16T00:48:54.877" UserId="1726" Text="Которой или которую?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="1f19ee01-4950-444c-b0b4-e2df83de4a2e" CreationDate="2014-04-16T00:48:54.877" UserId="1726" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="ffa64046-5ff9-43eb-b200-f2e0fe6f5eba" CreationDate="2014-04-16T00:58:56.323" UserId="1726" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="One of the first things a student of Russian learns is that living things belonging to the masculine or plural genders (but not the other two) take on accusative forms identical to their genitive forms, e.g. наткнулись на девочек, украли мяч девочек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I keep running into cases where nonliving things seems to take on a genitive endings where the accusative would be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«и наконец пришла война, которой уже долго ждали»   из книги о второй мировой войне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Когда умолкнут все песни, которых я не знаю»   вы уже знаете откуда это :)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Does this usage have a different nuance? Perhaps it's a bookish style?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12116" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="ffa64046-5ff9-43eb-b200-f2e0fe6f5eba" CreationDate="2014-04-16T00:58:56.323" UserId="1726" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="Genitive-style endings in the accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12117" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="af53ea11-b7d2-4b48-ad16-88e6dbfdd7b1" CreationDate="2014-04-16T01:04:16.920" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/456236602600071169" />
  <row Id="12118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="a42255b1-a965-4d25-b384-a7de64463e17" CreationDate="2014-04-16T01:04:18.220" UserId="1726" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="One of the first things a student of Russian learns is that living things belonging to the masculine or plural genders (but not the other two) take on accusative forms identical to their genitive forms, e.g. наткнулись на девочек, украли мяч девочек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I keep running into cases where nonliving things seem to take on genitive endings where the accusative would be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Наконец пришла война, которой долго ждали»   из книги о второй мировой войне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Когда умолкнут все песни, которых я не знаю»   вы уже знаете откуда это :)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Does this usage have a different shade of meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="2a8c0e99-f1c5-4d16-b24d-0cd5d9b68307" CreationDate="2014-04-16T01:09:23.323" UserId="1726" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="One of the first things a student of Russian learns is that living things belonging to the masculine or plural genders (but not the other two) take on accusative forms identical to their genitive forms, e.g. наткнулись на девочек, украли мяч девочек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I keep running into cases where nonliving things seem to take on genitive endings where the accusative would be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Наконец пришла война, которой долго ждали»   из книги о второй мировой войне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Когда умолкнут все песни, которых я не знаю»   вы уже знаете откуда это ))&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Does this usage have a different shade of meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="a01723a2-6c46-4a6c-93e0-f80a5ee12ee0" CreationDate="2014-04-16T01:21:57.923" UserId="1726" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="One of the first things a student of Russian learns is that living things belonging to the masculine or plural genders (but not the other two) take on accusative forms identical to their genitive forms, e.g. identical noun endings for наткнулись на девочек and украли у девочек мяч&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I keep running into cases where nonliving things seem to take on genitive endings where the accusative would be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Наконец пришла война, которой долго ждали» из исторического романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Когда умолкнут все песни, которых я не знаю»   вы уже знаете откуда это ))&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Does this usage have a different shade of meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="7154a783-eede-4965-8d38-5777b591fd0e" CreationDate="2014-04-16T02:57:10.037" UserId="1726" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="One of the first things a student of Russian learns is that living things belonging to the masculine or plural genders (but not the other two) take on accusative forms identical to their genitive forms, e.g. identical noun endings for наткнулись на девочек and украли у девочек мяч&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I keep running into cases where nonliving things seem to take on genitive endings where the accusative would be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Наконец пришла война, которой долго ждали» из исторического романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Когда умолкнут все песни, которых я не знаю»   вы уже знаете откуда это ))&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, I am referred to the declined forms of который.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this usage have a different shade of meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="5f61be33-2927-4b5f-9804-91d797892d4b" CreationDate="2014-04-16T08:14:09.580" UserId="551" Text="According to [Russian Lurkmore](https://lurkmore.to/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%BE%D1%82) this is Russian equivalent of English [&quot;OVER 9000&quot;](http://wikireality.ru/wiki/Over_9000):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень много — это примерно стопицот. Иногда применяется как коэффициент для сравнения: «больше в стопицот раз». Или даже: «больше в стопицот тысяч раз». Ещё используется как усиленная версия фразы «+1» в комментариях, подчёркивающая полное согласие с автором: «+ стопицот».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was invented and become popular as a part of &quot;язык падонкаф&quot;, origins of which go back to pre-internet time. One of the sites of this community was udaff.com, many others do not exist or changed their content. The oldest of the sites was fuck.ru and (according to Maksim Krongaus) it was created [back in 1998](http://modernlib.ru/books/maksim_krongauz/samouchitel_olbanskogo/read_2/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Падонки – это сетевая контркультура, сформировавшаяся на нескольких сайтах, многих из которых уже не существует. Первым таким сайтом стал fuck.ru. Потом открывались и закрывались сайты idiot.ru, fackru.net, down.ru. &#xD;&#xA;Сайт fuck.ru создали в 1998 году Егор Лавров и Константин Рыков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oldest examples of usage I could found are dating back 2004 and 2005:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Udaff.com comment, dated [27-01-2005](http://udaff.com/print_c/read/creo/40773/page1.html):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот блять **стопицот** раз такое четал, а фсёравно- ностальжи, блядь!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ladadriver.ru forum comment, dated [03.12.04](http://www.ladadriver.ru/2004-12/page-94.htm):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прикольно, ведро 96-го года, цвет розовый металлик, а выглядит она в **стопицот** раз свежее моей баклажановой девятины, которую я забарыжил во вторник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As idea of the youtube show +100500 came to its creator in the [summer of 2010](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/+100500) this proves that the origin of the meme was not the title of this show." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="a4c954d6-8d9d-4384-973b-015a5c7062ee" CreationDate="2014-04-16T08:22:21.753" UserId="551" Comment="added 460 characters in body" Text="According to [Russian Lurkmore](https://lurkmore.to/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%BE%D1%82) this is Russian equivalent of English [&quot;OVER 9000&quot;](http://wikireality.ru/wiki/Over_9000):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень много — это примерно стопицот. Иногда применяется как коэффициент для сравнения: «больше в стопицот раз». Или даже: «больше в стопицот тысяч раз». Ещё используется как усиленная версия фразы «+1» в комментариях, подчёркивающая полное согласие с автором: «+ стопицот».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was invented and become popular as a part of &quot;язык падонкаф&quot;, origins of which go back to pre-internet time. One of the sites of this community was udaff.com, many others do not exist or changed their content. The oldest of the sites was fuck.ru and (according to Maksim Krongaus) it was created [back in 1998](http://modernlib.ru/books/maksim_krongauz/samouchitel_olbanskogo/read_2/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Падонки – это сетевая контркультура, сформировавшаяся на нескольких сайтах, многих из которых уже не существует. Первым таким сайтом стал fuck.ru. Потом открывались и закрывались сайты idiot.ru, fackru.net, down.ru. &#xD;&#xA;Сайт fuck.ru создали в 1998 году Егор Лавров и Константин Рыков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oldest examples of usage I could found are dating back 2004 and 2005:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Udaff.com comment, dated [27-01-2005](http://udaff.com/print_c/read/creo/40773/page1.html):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот блять **стопицот** раз такое четал, а фсёравно- ностальжи, блядь!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ladadriver.ru forum comment, dated [03.12.04](http://www.ladadriver.ru/2004-12/page-94.htm):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прикольно, ведро 96-го года, цвет розовый металлик, а выглядит она в **стопицот** раз свежее моей баклажановой девятины, которую я забарыжил во вторник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the oldest origins of the phrase, the Lurkmore.to site has two versions. One version is that for the first time in TV-show &quot;OSP-studio&quot; or by Alexei Kortnev (leader of &quot;Несчастный случай&quot; band):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможно, фраза впервые была исполнена в педераче ОСП-студия персонажем, которого изображал некто Сивохо (стопицот миллионов), либо в педераче «Несчастный случай» (Алексей Кортнев), в ролике про мальчика, который, с его слов: «победил стопетцот врагов». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As idea of the youtube show +100500 came to its creator in the [summer of 2010](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/+100500) this proves that the origin of the meme was not the title of this show." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="8a62ab96-be87-4cdc-bae0-a4c4e435c178" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:03:15.897" UserId="1769" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="У Лили Аллен есть песня под названием `Fuck you (very much)`. Собственно припев начинается словами `Fuck you, fuck you very very much`. Каковы варианты адаптированного перевода для этой строки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько я понял это отсылка к сердечной благодарности `thank you,thank you very much` посему мои вариант перевода в том же ключе: `идите нахуй и будьте здоровы`. Будет ли подобное корректным?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: под &quot;адаптированным&quot; я подразумеваю такой перевод, который при переводе по возможности теряет минимум смысла заложенного в изначальном тексте. То есть замена фразеологизмов на аналогичные в русском, сохранение некой игры слов в переводе. Ярким примером может служить поэзия и её переводы на русский (как у Бальмонта, например). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="76b47b47-53d3-41da-8afd-9316f623ba4f" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:27:34.490" UserId="1079" Text="From wikipedia: The idiom &quot;[red herring][1]&quot; is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there literal translation or similar idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="76b47b47-53d3-41da-8afd-9316f623ba4f" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:27:34.490" UserId="1079" Text="How to translate idiom &quot;red herring&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="76b47b47-53d3-41da-8afd-9316f623ba4f" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:27:34.490" UserId="1079" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="bf723506-6cd5-409f-938f-7db17dc7e13f" CreationDate="2014-04-16T09:57:27.310" UserId="97" Text="I don't think there a phrase in Russian with the exact same meaning as _red herring_.  Depending on the context, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отвлечение внимания  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отвлекающий аргумент  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ложная улика  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ложный манёвр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is term _копчёная сельдь_, however I've never actually heard it in speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="1dd469f2-31a6-4ec4-a890-9bae403a48ef" CreationDate="2014-04-16T14:50:49.800" UserId="62" Text="The genitive которой in the first sentence and которых in the second have different explanations. The reason for genitive in the first sentence is that objects governed by ждать take the genitive case: ждать чего-то (to wait for something). In the second sentence, the genitive is related to the phenomenon of negative genitive: negation, non-possession, or non-existence is generally expressed using genitive for the object that is being negated, e.g., здесь нет таких книг (here there are no such books) or это дифференциальное уравнение не имеет решений (this differential equation has no solutions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="d025dec5-0626-49a1-b77e-f7e80ceb8255" CreationDate="2014-04-16T16:43:45.680" UserId="97" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I don't think there a phrase in Russian with the exact same meaning as _red herring_.  Depending on the context, you could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отвлечение внимания  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отвлекающий аргумент  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отвлекающий манёвр  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ложная улика  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ложный манёвр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is term _копчёная сельдь_, however I've never actually heard it in speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="91757a3a-9378-48dd-82f7-34f23a3ed83e" CreationDate="2014-04-17T02:22:37.170" UserId="286" Text="Как будет правильно написать 21-миллионный словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="91757a3a-9378-48dd-82f7-34f23a3ed83e" CreationDate="2014-04-17T02:22:37.170" UserId="286" Text="21-миллионый словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="91757a3a-9378-48dd-82f7-34f23a3ed83e" CreationDate="2014-04-17T02:22:37.170" UserId="286" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="dbf45985-332c-4fe3-9803-824f8f3df7cb" CreationDate="2014-04-17T02:53:35.533" UserId="286" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|числительные|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4354" RevisionGUID="759e4598-3a26-455d-899a-ddd61eeb947a" CreationDate="2014-04-17T03:23:41.417" UserId="2354" Text="Судя по всему - двадцатиодномиллионный." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="322561d5-6333-4a91-89e6-7918c1ee46db" CreationDate="2014-04-17T03:52:29.117" UserId="286" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как будет правильно написать 21-миллионный и 21-тысячный словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12140" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="322561d5-6333-4a91-89e6-7918c1ee46db" CreationDate="2014-04-17T03:52:29.117" UserId="286" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="21-миллионый, 21-тысячный словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="3405ed2c-ec53-4c78-9395-84c6173f945d" CreationDate="2014-04-17T08:52:17.470" UserId="1496" Text="Не думаю, что подойдет как перевод, но если thank you very much - большое спасибо&#xD;&#xA;то перевести fuck you very much сохраняя игру слов и похожесть выражения можно как &quot;большое посасибо&quot;. Не особо распространено конеч" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="e1748214-1754-49af-9032-fad1f7f88703" CreationDate="2014-04-17T12:04:20.200" UserId="1496" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Не думаю, что подойдет как перевод, но если thank you very much - большое спасибо&#xD;&#xA;то перевести fuck you very much сохраняя игру слов и похожесть выражения можно как &quot;большое посасибо&quot;. Не особо распространено конечно но пару раз слышал ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="fd37e691-cb99-4ae3-acca-20409f36aa74" CreationDate="2014-04-18T13:35:57.237" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As @Riateche correctly pointed out, &quot;чё&quot; is a slang word for &quot;что&quot; - meaning &quot;what&quot;.  &quot;Вон&quot; (in this context) means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;there&quot; (similarly, &quot;вот&quot; for &quot;this&quot; or &quot;here&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two - somewhat different - meanings this phrase can take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used to express an understanding of something at last, i.e. if somebody couldn't understand something for a while and then finally it dawned on them, it would be the right time to use it. The English equivalent would be _&quot;That's what it is!&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider this dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Не понимаю, нафига тебе нужна эта штуковина?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Эта штуковина - это ключ от замка на моём сарае.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Вон оно че!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with its English equivalent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; I don't get it, what the heck do you need this thing for?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; This thing is the key from the lock on my shed.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; That's what it is!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the meaning of &quot;вон/вот&quot; is &quot;that/this&quot;.  In its second meaning, &quot;вон/вот&quot; is used as &quot;there/here&quot; and means, literally, &quot;here's what&quot; or &quot;here's the thing&quot;/&quot;here's the deal&quot;.  It would be used to express a level of certainty or authority at the start of a speech, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно чего Михалыч! Выйдешь ты сейчас в цех, а меня нет, ни у станка, ни в столовой, даже в Челябинске меня нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's the deal, Mikhalych!  You'll come out now onto the machine floor - and I'm not there, not near the workbench, not in the canteen, not even in Chelyabinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот оно че Михалыч, мне давеча сон про тебя приснился. Идешь ты значит по цеху в красных труселях, все по сторонам оглядываешься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here's what [it is], Mikhalych, I saw a dream about you the other day. You're walking along the machine floor in your red underpants and looking around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="f038467c-0418-4916-9163-f7dc63c5959c" CreationDate="2014-04-18T20:56:54.873" UserId="3765" Text="My Russian textbook gives the example, «Я родилась в июне сорок восьмого *года*.»  Shouldn't genitive год following eighth be лет instead of года?  Is this a mistake in my textbook?  If not, could you please explain what's going on here?  Is года in this formation simply a special case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="f038467c-0418-4916-9163-f7dc63c5959c" CreationDate="2014-04-18T20:56:54.873" UserId="3765" Text="Why года instead of лет?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="f038467c-0418-4916-9163-f7dc63c5959c" CreationDate="2014-04-18T20:56:54.873" UserId="3765" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="d5922170-1c6f-471b-960c-bd2c96ce2f71" CreationDate="2014-04-18T21:24:35.617" UserId="3595" Text="When you refer to a point in time (calendar date) it is never &quot;лет&quot;, always some form of &quot;год&quot;. You use &quot;лет&quot; when referring to how many years passed, age etc. Like &quot;I'm 5 years old&quot; - &quot;мне 5 лет&quot;. On the other hand &quot;I'm 2 years old&quot; is &quot;мне 2 года&quot;. &quot;Two/five years ago&quot; is &quot;Два года назад&quot; &quot;Пять лет назад&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="0e6e34b5-c5ff-448f-9794-f7af27aa5d86" CreationDate="2014-04-18T21:37:34.570" UserId="3680" Text="I'm russian, but not a linguist, so my answer is a *practical*. Sorry for this.  &#xD;&#xA;When you reference some particular calendar year, it is always `год`.&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;в *таком-то* году.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;в 1945 году.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;шел 2014 год...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the following &quot;time ago&quot; values `год` is used:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 год назад *(1 year ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 года назад *(2 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 года назад *(3 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;4 года назад *(4 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;5 лет назад *(5 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;6 лет назад *(6 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;20 лет назад *(20 years ago)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;21 год назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;22 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;23 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;24 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the **rule**: if number of *years ago* is `1 .. 4` **OR** (`&gt; 20` and ends with `1 .. 4`) it will be `год` / `года`, else - `лет`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="7e9b0cc0-3a84-4913-b600-f17a19ed69ab" CreationDate="2014-04-18T21:43:32.653" UserId="3680" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I'm russian, but not a linguist, so my answer is a *practical*. Sorry for this.  &#xD;&#xA;When you reference some particular calendar year, it is always `год`.&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;в *таком-то* году.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;в 1945 году.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;шел 2014 год...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the following *time ago* (or *time range*) values `год` is used:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 год назад *(1 year ago)*; это продолжалось 1 год *(it was for 1 year)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 года назад *(2 years ago)*; это продолжалось 2 года  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 года назад *(3 years ago)*; это продолжалось 3 года  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;4 года назад *(4 years ago)*; это продолжалось 4 года  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;5 лет назад *(5 years ago)*; это продолжалось 5 лет  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;6 лет назад *(6 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;20 лет назад *(20 years ago)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;21 год назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;22 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;23 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;24 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;25 лет назад  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the **rule**: if number of *years ago* is `1 .. 4` **OR** (`&gt; 20` and ends with `1 .. 4`) it will be `год` / `года`, else - `лет`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="88cc19ff-629d-47c3-a922-b5cc9d5a283d" CreationDate="2014-04-19T00:38:42.883" UserId="3680" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="I'm russian, but not a linguist, so my answer is a *practical*. Sorry for this.  &#xD;&#xA;When you reference some particular calendar year, it is always `год`.&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;в *таком-то* году.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;в 1945 году.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;шел 2014 год...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the following *time ago* (or *time range*) values `год` is used:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 год назад *(1 year ago)*; это продолжалось 1 год *(it was for 1 year)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 года назад *(2 years ago)*; это продолжалось 2 года  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 года назад *(3 years ago)*; это продолжалось 3 года  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;4 года назад *(4 years ago)*; это продолжалось 4 года  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;5 лет назад *(5 years ago)*; это продолжалось 5 лет  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;6 лет назад *(6 years ago)*  &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;20 лет назад *(20 years ago)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;21 год назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;22 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;23 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;24 года назад  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;25 лет назад  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing for age:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколько ему лет? *(How old is he?)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;41 год *(41 years)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;42 года *(42 years)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;43 года *(43 years)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;44 года *(44 years)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;45 лет *(45 years)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the **rule**:  &#xD;&#xA;if the number of **years ago** or **time range** or **age** is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `1` **OR** (`&gt; 20` and ends with `1`) it will be `год`.&#xD;&#xA; 2. `2 .. 4` **OR** (`&gt; 20` and ends with `2 .. 4`) it will be `года`&#xD;&#xA; 3. In all other cases - `лет`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="2a965c35-8b46-4fd3-b60a-da251397321c" CreationDate="2014-04-19T04:10:51.990" UserId="2079" Text="The textbook is correct. Plural genitive of год is either годов or лет, but singular genitive is года.  Сорок восьмой год is singular, so июнь сорок восьмого года is singular genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="94cdf7f1-c309-4c45-bff0-318f93ebacbf" CreationDate="2014-04-19T14:51:34.947" UserId="3769" Text="&quot;Года&quot; is genitive of &quot;год&quot;, &quot;лет&quot; is *plural* of genitive of &quot;год&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="f2546564-98ae-41c9-8d50-6f442337b259" CreationDate="2014-04-19T18:20:50.330" UserId="3769" Text=" Why &quot;расчёт&quot; with one &quot;с&quot; and &quot;рассчитывать&quot; with two &quot;с&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="f2546564-98ae-41c9-8d50-6f442337b259" CreationDate="2014-04-19T18:20:50.330" UserId="3769" Text="Why &quot;расчёт&quot; but &quot;рассчитывать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="f2546564-98ae-41c9-8d50-6f442337b259" CreationDate="2014-04-19T18:20:50.330" UserId="3769" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="a6540445-7857-439a-9027-432f15976506" CreationDate="2014-04-19T20:42:27.377" UserId="2269" Text="Есть два практически полностью синонимичных глагола глагола: _расче́сть_ и _рассчита́ть_. Первый раскладывеся на морфемы _рас-чес-ть_, второй — _рас-с-чит-а-ть_. От первого очевидным образом образуется существительное _расчёт_, от второго — _рассчёт_. Оба они одинаково широко употреблялись до начала XX века, в тогдашей орфографии: [_расчетъ_][1] и [_разсчетъ_][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что отсутствие слова _рассчёт_ в современном языке — это не более чем одно из волюнтаристских решений «отцов» русской орфографии. Чье именно, сходу не скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="08da647b-bc64-404d-92b9-1217dbeef637" CreationDate="2014-04-19T20:46:34.617" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Есть два практически полностью синонимичных глагола: _расче́сть_ и _рассчита́ть_. Первый раскладывается на морфемы _рас-чес-ть_, второй — _рас-с-чит-а-ть_. От первого очевидным образом образуется существительное _расчёт_, от второго — _рассчёт_. Оба они одинаково широко употреблялись до начала XX века, в тогдашей орфографии: [_расчетъ_][1] и [_разсчетъ_][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что отсутствие слова _рассчёт_ в современном языке — это не более чем одно из волюнтаристских решений «отцов» русской орфографии. Чье именно, сходу не скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="72c2a1a0-8ef0-4200-8cca-92df4cfc9cb9" CreationDate="2014-04-19T21:11:38.863" UserId="2269" Comment="added 540 characters in body" Text="There are two almost synonymous verbs: _расче́сть_ and _рассчита́ть_. The former decomposes into morphemes _рас-чес-ть_, the latter – _рас-с-чит-а-ть_. The former produces a noun _расчёт_ in an obvious way, the latter — _рассчёт_. Both were equally widely used until the early XX century, [_расчетъ_][1] и [_разсчетъ_][2] as they were spelled at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the absence of word _рассчёт_ in modern language is nothing but one of arbitrary decisions of ‘fathers’ of Russian orthography. I can’t say right now whose exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть два практически полностью синонимичных глагола: _расче́сть_ и _рассчита́ть_. Первый раскладывается на морфемы _рас-чес-ть_, второй — _рас-с-чит-а-ть_. От первого очевидным образом образуется существительное _расчёт_, от второго — _рассчёт_. Оба они одинаково широко употреблялись до начала XX века, в тогдашей орфографии: [_расчетъ_][1] и [_разсчетъ_][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что отсутствие слова _рассчёт_ в современном языке — это не более чем одно из волюнтаристских решений «отцов» русской орфографии. Чье именно, сходу не скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="dde816e6-1c05-42a9-a229-785a535c131b" CreationDate="2014-04-19T21:26:28.067" UserId="2269" Comment="added 540 characters in body" Text="There are two almost synonymous¹ verbs: _расче́сть_ and _рассчита́ть_. The former decomposes into morphemes _рас-чес-ть_, the latter – _рас-с-чит-а-ть_. The former produces a noun _расчёт_ in an obvious way, the latter – _рассчёт_. Both were equally widely used until the early XX century: [_расчетъ_][1] and [_разсчетъ_][2] as they were spelled at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the absence of word _рассчёт_ in modern language is nothing but one of arbitrary decisions of ‘fathers’ of Russian orthography. I can’t say right now whose exactly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1) _расче́сть_ is quite rare nowadays&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть два практически полностью синонимичных¹ глагола: _расче́сть_ и _рассчита́ть_. Первый раскладывается на морфемы _рас-чес-ть_, второй — _рас-с-чит-а-ть_. От первого очевидным образом образуется существительное _расчёт_, от второго — _рассчёт_. Оба они одинаково широко употреблялись до начала XX века, в тогдашей орфографии: [_расчетъ_][1] и [_разсчетъ_][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что отсутствие слова _рассчёт_ в современном языке — это не более чем одно из волюнтаристских решений «отцов» русской орфографии. Чье именно, сходу не скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1) _расче́сть_ — слово ныне редкое&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?num=100&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8A%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="88080332-1859-415a-affc-e63730e5fd03" CreationDate="2014-04-21T01:45:30.283" UserId="2480" Text="http://youtu.be/Bz7T8JrZ-eU?t=26m10s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The girl says something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наверноё я бы свободу отнесла бы к числу известных испытаний&#xD;&#xA;наряду с огнём, водой и медными трубами.&#xD;&#xA;И причём такое испытание, наверное&#xD;&#xA;более легко для отдельной личности,&#xD;&#xA;чем для народа, для государства в целом!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She's referring to an old movie, comparing the challenges or something. What does she mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="88080332-1859-415a-affc-e63730e5fd03" CreationDate="2014-04-21T01:45:30.283" UserId="2480" Text="'Fire, water and brass pipes'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="88080332-1859-415a-affc-e63730e5fd03" CreationDate="2014-04-21T01:45:30.283" UserId="2480" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="20ec9a7f-5779-4b77-a1f4-bcc36db58258" CreationDate="2014-04-21T03:03:57.213" UserId="3615" Text="She's not referring to a movie, it's just that movie's name is an idiom http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C,_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D1%8B " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="46ebe820-5166-4cbc-adf6-5a40dfb08735" CreationDate="2014-04-21T12:31:05.713" UserId="2244" Text="&quot;Медные трубы&quot; in this context is not &quot;brass pipes&quot; but &quot;trumpets&quot;. This trial refers to the challenges caused by sudden fame and popularity with the people or the government." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="0a4815b6-d1d2-4a09-8137-387c1598a538" CreationDate="2014-04-21T15:23:04.887" UserId="97" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="She's not referring to a movie, it's just that movie's name is an idiom - [page on wikipedia](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C,_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D1%8B) provides more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="562b5174-b186-4c86-b049-c37efd9b4107" CreationDate="2014-04-21T15:23:24.467" UserId="3595" Text="The idiom &quot;through fire, water and brass pipes&quot; came into Russian through other languages reflecting ancient traditions of trials by ordeal. Trials by &quot;fire and water&quot; is a popular subject, which can be googled to find a ton of references. The brass part sounds original but it also came from ancient tradition, particularly Egyptian cult of Isis. See [this reference](http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/heckethorn-1.pdf) to Heckerthorn's &quot;The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries (1897)&quot; book, pp.72-73. He describes the trials by fire, water and air (in correct order). The air part includes the brass rings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in the Russian namesake movie, and in modern understanding &quot;brass pipes&quot; became &quot;trumpets&quot; completely changing the meaning of the last part from an ordeal to &quot;fame&quot;. I think that this substitution happened relatively recently, maybe in past 50 years. Also, say 100 years ago, the meaning of the whole idiom had a negative connotation, which is lost these days. It used to refer to a shrewd person, who can get his way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="065a256d-543d-4cdd-bdbc-08fe0a9025a0" CreationDate="2014-04-21T23:12:52.317" UserId="1277" Text="Since childhood I instinctively knew if an English word that ends with &quot;-tion&quot; will have a translation into Russian ending with &quot;-ция&quot;. There are some more pairs such as this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Moderation - Модерация&#xD;&#xA;    Administration - Администрация&#xD;&#xA;    Transformation - Трансформация&#xD;&#xA;    Provocation - Провокация&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there such a rule that English loanwords ending with &quot;-tion&quot; will have a Russian counterpart ending with &quot;-ция&quot;? What other such translation rules there are, if any?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="065a256d-543d-4cdd-bdbc-08fe0a9025a0" CreationDate="2014-04-21T23:12:52.317" UserId="1277" Text="Is the ending &quot;-ция&quot; specific to loanwords from English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="065a256d-543d-4cdd-bdbc-08fe0a9025a0" CreationDate="2014-04-21T23:12:52.317" UserId="1277" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="c252b5a0-0b0f-4b16-8d69-801ab0c14654" CreationDate="2014-04-21T23:36:59.870" UserId="3595" Text="It's not English, it's also French and other languages which have words with Latin suffix -tio. It became  -sion -tion in these languages. Russian probably borrowed directly from Latin, hence ция without &quot;n&quot; at the end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="0a9a64d9-926f-414c-a347-c72136d5408f" CreationDate="2014-04-22T03:04:57.057" UserId="3691" Text="    Прошлой зимой я поехал в Москву. Я долетел/прилетел на самолёте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about which one to use **долетел** or **прилетел** my resources tell me that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**прилететь** *совер.* - 1) arrive (by air), fly in |&#xD;&#xA;                         2) fly, come flying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**долететь** *совер.* - fly (to, as far as); reach; be wafted (to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure which one to use, my brain is telling me to use `прилетел`but that is just based on my very limited experience with Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English I want to be saying &quot;Last winter I went to Moscow. I flew by plane.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="0a9a64d9-926f-414c-a347-c72136d5408f" CreationDate="2014-04-22T03:04:57.057" UserId="3691" Text="Долетел VS. Прилетел" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="0a9a64d9-926f-414c-a347-c72136d5408f" CreationDate="2014-04-22T03:04:57.057" UserId="3691" Text="|грамматика|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="32f27a3d-886f-43b7-a126-a979b4178282" CreationDate="2014-04-22T04:16:49.660" UserId="3615" Text="Grammatically, they are both alright, but actually, saying &quot;by plane&quot; already means that you &quot;flew&quot;, you can say &quot;Прошлой зимой я летал/слетал в Москву&quot;; in case you want to use 2 sentences you'd better say &quot;Прошлой зимой я побывал('ve been) в Москве. Я добрался(got, arrived) на самолете&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="17dc0eb6-c0bf-4017-88d8-533d2b214add" CreationDate="2014-04-22T07:11:56.430" UserId="551" Text="Actually both variants are grammatically correct, but the meaning is slightly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я прилетел на самолете** simply means that you arrived. By saying &quot;прилетел&quot; you don't want to focus on the transport you have used.&#xD;&#xA; - By saying **Я добрался на самолете** you are focusing on the fact that you have managed to reach your destination by using plane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to use second case either because:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - **You want to say that there were no other possibilities to reach that point**: &quot;В этот край таёжный / только самолетом можно долететь&quot; - In this Soviet song it is said that to get to taiga (nothern forest) you have no other option but to use a plane.&#xD;&#xA; - Or maybe **you planned to use some other transport**, but because of the different reasons it was not possible and you had to improvise. As a result you have managed to buy tickets on the plane and finally you got to the Moscow by plane: &quot;Поезда не ходили. Пришлось сдать билеты и ехать в аэропорт. До Москвы я добрался на самолете&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - You wanted **to get as far as possible** and you managed to reach Moscow by using plane: &quot;На самолете нам удалось добраться аж до Москвы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="51ab1e59-7dcf-4b06-a0d7-c2a6b398b766" CreationDate="2014-04-22T08:56:06.460" UserId="1475" Text="Both are possible and are fine. Also, &quot;добрался&quot; is possible, as mentioned in Artemix's and Herokiller's answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask me how I would say it as a native speaker - I would say &quot;добрался&quot;. More specifically, I would say: &quot;Я добрался туда на самолёте&quot;. &quot;Туда&quot; (there, to that place) is not mandatory, but it sounds better that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I can say something about the slight difference between прилетел/долетел/добрался:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say прилетел - it's more like &quot;I came/arrived (using an air transport) there by plane&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say долетел - it's more like &quot;I made it to there (to Moscow) by plane&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Добрался it has the same translation as with долетел, but долетел can be used onlywith air transport, and Добрался can be used with any means of travelling: car, train, plane, boat, even on foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motion words with до- prefix have this sliiight shadow of meaning that you arrived and arrived **successfully**. For example, when I arrive somewhere by plane, I send an SMS to my family saying: &quot;Я долетел&quot;. That way I slightly stress the fact that I made it by plane without accidents, in other words, that I didn't crash. 8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same works with приплыл/доплыл (if you're sailing), приехал/доехал (if you're driving or riding public transport or train), пришёл/дошёл (if you're on foot)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="fb595d9d-7fa2-4d84-9ef7-2a669bf0fc58" CreationDate="2014-04-22T13:40:05.870" UserId="2269" Comment="_-ция_ is not an ending (inflection, окончание)" Text="|этимология|суффиксы|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12180" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="fb595d9d-7fa2-4d84-9ef7-2a669bf0fc58" CreationDate="2014-04-22T13:40:05.870" Comment="Proposed by 2269 approved by 551, 1277 edit id of 441" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="a16aa4af-cdec-4f6f-a03b-7c8cd0d302bb" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:30:51.683" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I request a translation?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not forbid translation requests but note that &lt;strong&gt;this is not a translation service&lt;/strong&gt;, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Russian to &lt;em&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; to Russian translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Welcome as long as you provide &lt;em&gt;enough&lt;/em&gt; explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask for resources?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have created a &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71&quot;&gt;single resource question&lt;/a&gt;, where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is &lt;strong&gt;very specific&lt;/strong&gt;, we will close it as a duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's in the dictionary;   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's easily found in a Google search.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Should I post in Russian or English?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in English, please answer in English;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for Russian Stack Exchange, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12184" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="a16aa4af-cdec-4f6f-a03b-7c8cd0d302bb" CreationDate="2014-04-23T09:30:51.683" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="What topics can I ask about here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="f7b0e19b-6553-48e6-95db-38b6ff22b56a" CreationDate="2014-04-23T15:03:01.730" UserId="3777" Text="These words can also be translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; модерирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; администрирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; трансформирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; провоцирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case they would mean the process connected with this english noun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="5014d6ce-50a7-46e8-af4f-bb04a1a5cc66" CreationDate="2014-04-23T15:39:23.473" UserId="551" Comment="Removed extra &gt;'s" Text="These words can also be translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; модерирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; администрирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трансформирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; провоцирование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case they would mean the process connected with this english noun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="18878843-222c-4501-91f3-ac42ec27e91b" CreationDate="2014-04-23T15:53:39.863" UserId="1475" Text="I will agree with Aksakal, that many words ending in -ция have probably been imported from Latin or French. Although модерация might be imported from English, since it is a relatively new word used mostly in the internet and IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question. No, not all words are translated by this rule. Many words do have such a counterpart, and the ones you mentioned are totally okay, along with many others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's take, for example, &quot;motion&quot;. In Russian it is &quot;движение&quot;, and if you say &quot;моция&quot;, I doubt anybody will understand you, this word doesn't really exist in Russian language. Same for &quot;notion&quot;. Or &quot;contribution&quot;. Or &quot;contamination&quot;. But &quot;emotion&quot; translates as &quot;эмоция&quot;, and it's perfectly fine. 8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to note is that some words have such counterparts, but a Russian counterpart means a different thing in Russian language, or it may mean the same thing, but only in secondary/tertiary/whatever meaning, while it's **primary** meaning is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;pollution&quot;. The primary meaning is &quot;a contamination (of environment, for example)&quot; while the meaning of &quot;wet-dream&quot; is secondary. &quot;Поллюция&quot; has it visa versa. When we hear &quot;Поллюция&quot;, we first think about &quot;wet dream&quot;, and barely anybody (except for linguistically literate people) will think of it as &quot;a contamination of environment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or let's take &quot;action&quot;. It is some activity/act/deed. &quot;Акция&quot; can have these meanings (&quot;акция протеста&quot; - &quot;protest action&quot;), but it's more widely used meanings are &quot;a share of stock in a company&quot; and &quot;a sale or a special offer in a shop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to sum it up: yes, there are very many words that can be translated by the rule you stated. But this rule doesn't officially exist, because there are also many words that either cannot be translated that way or that have different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="33702eb3-2d20-48b0-9273-f64f2d0b1683" CreationDate="2014-04-24T16:45:23.720" UserId="2496" Text="&gt; &quot;The money screamed across the wires, its provenance fading in a maze&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of electronic transfers, which shifted it, hid it, broke it up into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manageable wads which would be withdrawn and redeposited elsewhere,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obliterating the trail.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/emoney.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Деньги потерялись в проводах, это произошло затухя в лабиринте&#xD;&#xA;&gt; электронных переводов, которые заменили их, спрятали их, разбили их на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрессированные шматы, которые будут выведены и передепонированны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где-нибудь в другом месте, что бы стереть следы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be refined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="33702eb3-2d20-48b0-9273-f64f2d0b1683" CreationDate="2014-04-24T16:45:23.720" UserId="2496" Text="Translation question, from English to Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="33702eb3-2d20-48b0-9273-f64f2d0b1683" CreationDate="2014-04-24T16:45:23.720" UserId="2496" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="6277228e-4734-423d-a2d2-0fcc196e78ba" CreationDate="2014-04-24T17:18:18.510" UserId="3785" Text="I would say &quot;ПО с открытым исходным кодом&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="1c86ee57-8042-4937-8083-cf9dbd53cda8" CreationDate="2014-04-24T17:46:40.063" UserId="846" Text="Деньги звенели в проводах, их происхождение терялось в лабиринте электронных переводов, которые переместили их, спрятали и разбили на управляемые части, которые могут быть бесследно выведены или внесены на новый депозит где угодно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say something like this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manageable wads - some pieces which could be managed by some manager, &quot;управляемые части&quot; (or &quot;управляемые пачки&quot;) but &quot;пачка&quot; is alsway cash, so i`d say here &quot;часть&quot; - piece." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="2c301539-612d-4355-bbf5-15443b576600" CreationDate="2014-04-25T03:54:17.760" UserId="1475" Text="Деньги со свистом разлетались по проводам, информация об их источнике быстро терялась в лабиринте электронных денежных переводов. Деньги изменялись ими, скрывались и разделялись на части, которые впоследствии незаметно обналичивались или отправлялись на счёта в других местах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty complex sentence, and translating it &quot;word-for-word&quot; is not an option. So, I allowed myself to be loose in my translation. Maybe I didn't understand everything in this sentence properly, so I'm open for corrections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The money screamed across the wires** - I guess that means they flew into and spread around the network at a tremendous speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**its provenance fading in a maze of electronic transfers** - So, the information about the source of this money was getting lost due to numerous transactions. Источник - source. I might also say вкладчик (depositor, a person who deposited the money), but that is not as precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I started a second sentence, because in one sentence it looks pretty overloaded. It's okay to split a sentence into several during translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Деньги изменялись ими, скрывались и разделялись на части,** - In my opinion, using passive voice is less confusing here, so it's like &quot;Money were changed(shifted) by them, were hidden and split into parts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**manageable wads** - I dropped &quot;manageable&quot;, because the context already suggests that. The source sentence, from a perspective of a Russian-speaker, is overloaded with descriptions, so some of them may be dropped, or else the resulting translation will be overloaded and hard to comprehend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**obliterating the trail** - I replaced it with &quot;незаметно&quot;(sneakily,without trace, un-noticeably )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**которые впоследствии незаметно обналичивались или отправлялись на счёта в других местах** - again, passive voice. In the original we have future in the past. Classically it would be translated using future tense in Russian, but here I put &quot;впоследствии&quot; (afterwards) and used past tense, so it suggests that these actions(withdrawal and redeposit) were performed in the past after some other action that took place before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really not sure about this last one. If the original went like &quot;which **could** be withdrawn&quot;, I would simply translate it as &quot;которые впоследствии можно было незаметно обналичить или отправить на счёта в других местах&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="f2fc0acf-67ed-4cc1-bb92-d9d3ab63fea0" CreationDate="2014-04-25T04:01:44.140" UserId="1475" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="Деньги со свистом разлетались по проводам, информация об их источнике быстро терялась в лабиринте электронных денежных переводов. Деньги изменялись ими, скрывались и разделялись на части, которые впоследствии незаметно обналичивались или отправлялись на счёта в других местах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty complex sentence, and translating it &quot;word-for-word&quot; is not an option. So, I allowed myself to be loose in my translation. Maybe I didn't understand everything in this sentence properly, so I'm open for corrections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The money screamed across the wires** - I guess that means they flew into and spread around the network at a tremendous speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**its provenance fading in a maze of electronic transfers** - So, the information about the source of this money was getting lost due to numerous transactions. Источник - source. I might also say вкладчик (depositor, a person who deposited the money), but that is not as precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I started a second sentence, because in one sentence it looks pretty overloaded. It's okay to split a sentence into several during translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Деньги изменялись ими, скрывались и разделялись на части,** - In my opinion, using passive voice is less confusing here, so it's like &quot;Money were changed(shifted) by them, were hidden and split into parts&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**manageable wads** - I dropped &quot;manageable&quot;, because the context already suggests that. The source sentence, from a perspective of a Russian-speaker, is overloaded with descriptions, so some of them may be dropped, or else the resulting translation will be overloaded and hard to comprehend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**obliterating the trail** - I replaced it with &quot;незаметно&quot;(sneakily,without trace, un-noticeably )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**которые впоследствии незаметно обналичивались или отправлялись на счёта в других местах** - again, passive voice. In the original we have future in the past. Classically it would be translated using future tense in Russian, but here I put &quot;впоследствии&quot; (afterwards) and used past tense, so it suggests that these actions(withdrawal and redeposit) were performed in the past after some other action that took place before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm really not sure about this last one. If the original went like &quot;which **could** be withdrawn&quot;, I would simply translate it as &quot;которые впоследствии можно было незаметно обналичить или отправить на счёта в других местах&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT 1: I can be even more loose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разлетаясь со свистом по проводам и теряя информацию о своём вкладчике, деньги быстро скрывались в лабиринте денежных переводов, меняли форму, разбивались на мелкие пачки, которые потом незаметно выводились или отправлялись на счета в других местах." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="8e299929-14c9-492e-af52-4bed0384f41f" CreationDate="2014-04-25T07:44:16.970" UserId="1572" Text="No special term is used. It's just normal form (нормальная форма), or initial form, base form of word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="4f7f4a7e-e402-4a62-9656-42086e2b8328" CreationDate="2014-04-25T14:39:21.993" UserId="3769" Text="&quot;Middle, normal form&quot; is called &quot;начальная форма&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="a98f6598-a102-4862-b18d-14c41b351cc7" CreationDate="2014-04-25T15:52:02.463" UserId="3788" Text="I just used it in &quot;склизкая мякоть хлеба&quot; meaning something in between &quot;скользкий&quot; and &quot;слизь&quot;-)) And was very surprised to find that word to exist) May be it was spoken in Smolensk, were i spent my childhood 30 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="8ce57083-efb8-491d-bf28-4350a1e2036d" CreationDate="2014-04-25T15:57:22.183" UserId="3788" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I just used it in &quot;склизкая мякоть хлеба&quot; meaning something in between &quot;скользкий&quot; and &quot;слизь&quot;-)) And was very surprised to find that word to exist) May be it was spoken in Smolensk, were i spent my childhood 30 years ago. However it's posible, that this word is reinvented every time, cause it's juicy))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="b3cf97b8-caea-4716-87b6-19dba7318b46" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:03:41.170" UserId="286" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Как будет правильно написать 21-миллионный и 21-тысячный словами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова должны быть &quot;двадцатиодн&amp;#8203;__?__&amp;#8203;миллионный&quot; и &quot;двадцатиодн&amp;#8203;**?**&amp;#8203;тысячный&quot;, но сомнения вызывает какая буква будет на месте знака вопроса." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="e7d6b84e-f237-40e2-93ce-fa46147b4811" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:16:49.600" UserId="286" Text="Порядковые числительные, оканчивающийся на `-тысячный`, `-милионный` и т.д., пишутся [слитно][1][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Составные числительные пишутся раздельно, имея столько слов, сколько в числе значащих цифр, не считая нулей (ПЯТЬСОТ ДВАДЦАТЬ ТРИ. ПЯТЬСОТ ДВАДЦАТЬ ТРЕТИЙ). Однако порядковые числительные, оканчивающиеся на -ТЫСЯЧНЫЙ, -МИЛЛИОННЫЙ, -МИЛЛИАРДНЫЙ пишутся слитно (СТОТЫСЯЧНЫЙ, ДВУХСОТТРИДЦАТИПЯТИМИЛЛИАРДНЫЙ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возникает резонный вопрос: до какой части пишется все слитно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;сто двадцать три миллиона четырёхсотпятидесятишеститысячный&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;стодвадцатитрёхмиллионогочетырёхсотпятидесятишеститысячный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или другие варианты?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_110&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramma.ru/RUS/?id=4.30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="e7d6b84e-f237-40e2-93ce-fa46147b4811" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:16:49.600" UserId="286" Text="123456-тысячный словами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="e7d6b84e-f237-40e2-93ce-fa46147b4811" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:16:49.600" UserId="286" Text="|грамматика|орфография|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="3482e065-578c-41df-9e4f-59376c91e2f9" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:20:28.857" UserId="286" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как будет правильно написать 21-миллионный, 21-тысячный и 101-тысячный словами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова должны быть &quot;двадцатиодн&amp;#8203;__?__&amp;#8203;миллионный&quot;, &quot;двадцатиодн&amp;#8203;**?**&amp;#8203;тысячный&quot; и &quot;стоодн&amp;#8203;**?**&amp;#8203;тысячный&quot; соответственно, но сомнения вызывает какая буква будет на месте знака вопроса." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12212" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="3482e065-578c-41df-9e4f-59376c91e2f9" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:20:28.857" UserId="286" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited title" Text="21-миллионый, 21-тысячный, 101-тысячный словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="e1e1f1df-6350-4e38-88da-02b5a9a897d6" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:24:42.767" UserId="286" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Порядковые числительные, оканчивающийся на `-сотый`, `-тысячный`, `-милионный` и т.д., пишутся [слитно][1][2][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Составные числительные пишутся раздельно, имея столько слов, сколько в числе значащих цифр, не считая нулей (ПЯТЬСОТ ДВАДЦАТЬ ТРИ. ПЯТЬСОТ ДВАДЦАТЬ ТРЕТИЙ). Однако порядковые числительные, оканчивающиеся на -ТЫСЯЧНЫЙ, -МИЛЛИОННЫЙ, -МИЛЛИАРДНЫЙ пишутся слитно (СТОТЫСЯЧНЫЙ, ДВУХСОТТРИДЦАТИПЯТИМИЛЛИАРДНЫЙ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возникает резонный вопрос: до какой части пишется все слитно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;сто двадцать три миллиона четырёхсотпятидесятишеститысячный&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;стодвадцатитрёхмиллионогочетырёхсотпятидесятишеститысячный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или другие варианты?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_110&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramma.ru/RUS/?id=4.30&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://saassl.at.tut.by/Book/index66.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12214" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="fcc748da-7a26-4c5c-9c20-5183f9c0de08" CreationDate="2014-04-26T01:39:55.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/459869451639590913" />
  <row Id="12216" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="f75d43b1-cc20-4635-8a69-fcd992092737" CreationDate="2014-04-26T04:39:55.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/459914750487695361" />
  <row Id="12217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="6564679d-df2a-4770-9c0a-37d6f2c54d9c" CreationDate="2014-04-26T09:53:58.740" UserId="1717" Text="    двадцатиодномиллионный&#xD;&#xA;    двадцатиоднотысячный&#xD;&#xA;    стооднотысячный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во всех Ваших примерах проблема в единице. Как я понимаю, практически нереально найти какое-нибудь строгое правило на этот счет, но в одном [источнике](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5#441), на мой взгляд, заслуживающем доверия, пишут:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Большинство таких прилагательных образуется от формы родительного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа количественных числительных. *Сто* и *девяносто* (а также *много*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выступают в форме именительного падежа: *столетний*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *девяностодвухлетний*, *многоцелевой*. Первая часть сложных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных, образованных от *один*, имеет вид *одно-*: *однопролётный*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *односоставный*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;...&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="523c9f0a-082e-463b-9084-0ea219dbb858" CreationDate="2014-04-26T10:00:37.713" UserId="1717" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="    двадцатиодномиллионный&#xD;&#xA;    двадцатиоднотысячный&#xD;&#xA;    стооднотысячный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во всех Ваших примерах проблема в единице. Как я понимаю, практически нереально найти какое-нибудь строгое правило на этот счет, но в одном [источнике](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5#441), на мой взгляд, заслуживающем доверия, пишут:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Большинство таких прилагательных образуется от формы родительного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа количественных числительных. *Сто* и *девяносто* (а также *много*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выступают в форме именительного падежа: *столетний*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *девяностодвухлетний*, *многоцелевой*. Первая часть сложных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных, образованных от *один*, имеет вид *одно-*: *однопролётный*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *односоставный*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;…&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    двухтысячный&#xD;&#xA;    двадцатипятитысячный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(от родительного падежа _двух_, _двадцатипяти_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    стотысячный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(от именительного падежа _сто_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    однотысячный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(от _одно-_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="10895a35-5912-4eea-a4ab-52e8f57448fd" CreationDate="2014-04-26T11:43:29.390" UserId="1236" Text="Насколько я знаю, и, если предположить, что вы написали в заголовке именно то, что имели в виду, ваше числительное, вынесенное в заголовок, является неправильным, даже будучи количественным, или вы просто неверно его записали: нет таких числительных, как '*сто двадцать три тысячи четыреста пятьдесят шесть тысяч'. Это звучит как пресловутое 'стопятьсот'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же вы имеете в виду число 123 456 000 (сто двадцать три миллиона четыреста пятьдесят шесть тысяч), то порядковое числительное от него образуется легко, [по обычным правилам][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сто двадцать три миллиона четырёхсотпятидесятишеститысячный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всё слитно пишется до того разряда, к которому относятся последние тройки нулей, в данном случае это тысячи, поэтому количество тысяч (456) пишется слитно, а всё, что больше - раздельно. Если бы мы имели дело с числом 123 456 000 000, то тут уже количество миллионов будет писаться слитно, а миллиардов - раздельно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сто двадцать три миллиарда четырёхсотпятидесятишестимиллионный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И, соответственно, в числе 123 456 789 000 опять таки слитно будет писаться количество тысяч (789), поскольку тут всего одна тройка нулей, тысячи:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сто двадцать три миллиарда четыреста пятьдесят шесть миллионов семисотвосьмидесятидевятитысячный &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramma.ru/RUS/?id=4.30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="a5b8d073-6bf6-4b3c-8b0d-5e90ef4ce447" CreationDate="2014-04-26T17:40:45.067" UserId="2220" Text="It seems like they both mean &quot;which.&quot;  I know the combination of такой (же)…какой implies similarity, so is that the basic difference?  In other words, does using какой over который in a sentence imply some sort of similarity in the things being discussed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="a5b8d073-6bf6-4b3c-8b0d-5e90ef4ce447" CreationDate="2014-04-26T17:40:45.067" UserId="2220" Text="What is the difference between using который or какой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="a5b8d073-6bf6-4b3c-8b0d-5e90ef4ce447" CreationDate="2014-04-26T17:40:45.067" UserId="2220" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="f038d7a5-0f18-4bd7-89f8-2867b89b0e26" CreationDate="2014-04-26T18:29:21.703" UserId="551" Text="&quot;Который&quot; is used when there is a specific set of objects, and you want to choose one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Который**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Какой по порядку, по счёту? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Какой именно, какой из нескольких? отт. Кто именно, кто из нескольких? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Употребляется как союзное слово, присоединяя изъяснительные и определительные придаточные предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible to answer &quot;- Который тебе понравился? - Первый&quot;. Or &quot;- Который? - Этот&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;- Здесь есть синий, красный и фиолетовый плащи. Который тебе понравился? - Синий.&quot; Note that in the last example the &quot;blue one&quot; is one of the possible choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какой&quot; is more abstract - this is a question about some qualities:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **КАКО́Й**, какая, какое, мест. 1. вопросительное. Обозначает вопрос о качестве и свойстве. К какому выводу вы пришли? Какой ваш любимый цвет? Какая сегодня погода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically &quot;какой&quot; in many cases can be used instead of &quot;который&quot;, but &quot;который&quot; always means that there is a set of possible options, while answering on &quot;какой&quot; you may talk about imaginary things or about options that are currently not present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Какой смартфон бы ты купил? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Я бы купил смартфон, который можно неделю не заряжать.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="e9c8b3be-8dd5-40e9-abbf-43f5827f4a4a" CreationDate="2014-04-27T01:51:11.730" UserId="993" Text="I found this definition located on [AbbyyLingvo][1], and was curious to how to use it in a reflexive manner. For example, if I wanted to say, &quot;I am withdrawing myself from the situation&quot; would I simple say, using вынимать, &quot;Я вынимаю себя из ситуации?&quot; Or could I use a 'ся' ending, &quot;Я вынимаюсь из ситуации?&quot; Or how could you say, &quot;The government is 'withdrawing/pulling out' of the war?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I am confused as to when I can use a a reflexive verb or 'себя.' I wanted to say, &quot;I cannot express myself correctly in Russian,&quot; and a native speaker said I could say, &quot;Я не могу выражать себя правильно на русском&quot; or &quot;Я не могу выражаться правильно на русском,&quot; both of which carry the same meaning. Which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынимать  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (что-л.) несовер. - вынимать; совер. - вынуть take out, pull out;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extract (извлекать); draw out (деньги из банка и т. п. || money from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bank, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;(ленту) unload, (напр., разъём из гнезда) unplug&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;withdraw&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; take out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lingvo-online.ru/en/Translate/ru-en/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="e9c8b3be-8dd5-40e9-abbf-43f5827f4a4a" CreationDate="2014-04-27T01:51:11.730" UserId="993" Text="How to reflexively use the verb вынимать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="e9c8b3be-8dd5-40e9-abbf-43f5827f4a4a" CreationDate="2014-04-27T01:51:11.730" UserId="993" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12227" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="73d346a6-d620-4959-81ed-d66d3ac95a8f" CreationDate="2014-04-27T02:21:46.760" UserId="286" Comment="edited title" Text="123456000-й словами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="17061aad-05f8-4c5b-8f3d-f0f07ca4d061" CreationDate="2014-04-27T05:07:37.607" UserId="1475" Text="&quot;I am withdrawing myself from the situation&quot; - вынимать is not the best word here. Вытаскивать is better in this particular example. Also, neither has have a reflexive form (well, you can make it, but it would sound weird or/and funny 8) ). &quot;Я вытаскиваю себя из этой ситуации&quot; sounds more Russian. We are kinda dragging or pulling ourselves from tricky situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вытаскивать: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%F2%E0%F1%EA%E8%E2%E0%F2%FC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The government is 'withdrawing/pulling out' of the war&quot; - in this example, &quot;выйти из войны&quot;  could work, especially if you mean a country. http://wordweb.ru/history_ww2/50_02.htm the title of this article is &quot;An attempt for Finland to pull out of the war&quot;. Your example would be something like: &quot;Правительство вышло из войны&quot;. Though, it sounds a bit strange to me, because we usually mean the country pulling out of the war, not specifically it's government. So, with a loose translation, I would say &quot;Страна вышла из войны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I cannot express myself correctly in Russian&quot; - both are possible, though it is better to use a reflexive verb here, &quot;выражать себя&quot; - is a bit lyrical. &quot;Я не могу правильно выражаться по-русски/на русском&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little remark on &quot;can&quot; here. You may say &quot;Я не умею правильно выражаться по-русски/на русском&quot; and it would mean that you cannot express yourself correctly **because you haven't learned how to do that yet**. This would sound a bit better because that way you suggest that you are learning Russian and trying to express yourself correctly, and that gives you more respect. You can add &quot;ещё/пока ещё&quot; (still/for now) to make it even more naturally sounding. &quot;Я пока ещё не умею правильно выражаться по-русски&quot; - sounds pretty natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="e707a5d5-a98a-463a-be04-47fbb488f064" CreationDate="2014-04-27T05:15:55.813" UserId="1475" Comment="forgot to add newlines" Text="&quot;I am withdrawing myself from the situation&quot; - вынимать is not the best word here. Вытаскивать is better in this particular example. Also, neither has have a reflexive form (well, you can make it, but it would sound weird or/and funny 8) ). &quot;Я вытаскиваю себя из этой ситуации&quot; sounds more Russian. We are kinda dragging or pulling ourselves from tricky situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вытаскивать: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%F2%E0%F1%EA%E8%E2%E0%F2%FC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я вытягиваю себя из этой ситуации&quot; - also possible, more slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я выбираюсь из этой ситуации&quot; - an example with reflexive verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я выхожу из этой ситуации&quot; - an example without reflexive words or endings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я вылезаю из этой ситуации&quot; - more colloquial/slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The government is 'withdrawing/pulling out' of the war&quot; - in this example, &quot;выйти из войны&quot;  could work, especially if you mean a country. http://wordweb.ru/history_ww2/50_02.htm the title of this article is &quot;An attempt for Finland to pull out of the war&quot;. Your example would be something like: &quot;Правительство вышло из войны&quot;. Though, it sounds a bit strange to me, because we usually mean the country pulling out of the war, not specifically it's government. So, with a loose translation, I would say &quot;Страна вышла из войны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I cannot express myself correctly in Russian&quot; - both are possible, though it is better to use a reflexive verb here, &quot;выражать себя&quot; - is a bit lyrical. &quot;Я не могу правильно выражаться по-русски/на русском&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little remark on &quot;can&quot; here. You may say &quot;Я не умею правильно выражаться по-русски/на русском&quot; and it would mean that you cannot express yourself correctly **because you haven't learned how to do that yet**. This would sound a bit better because that way you suggest that you are learning Russian and trying to express yourself correctly, and that gives you more respect. You can add &quot;ещё/пока ещё&quot; (still/for now) to make it even more naturally sounding. &quot;Я пока ещё не умею правильно выражаться по-русски&quot; - sounds pretty natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="270c154a-7e29-4f94-9d50-d1803397b45e" CreationDate="2014-04-27T05:21:48.183" UserId="1475" Comment="added links to dictionary" Text="&quot;I am withdrawing myself from the situation&quot; - вынимать is not the best word here. Вытаскивать is better in this particular example. Also, neither has have a reflexive form (well, you can make it, but it would sound weird or/and funny 8) ). &quot;Я вытаскиваю себя из этой ситуации&quot; sounds more Russian. We are kinda dragging or pulling ourselves from tricky situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%F2%E0%F1%EA%E8%E2%E0%F2%FC&quot;&gt;Вытаскивать&lt;/a&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%F2%FF%E3%E8%E2%E0%F2%FC&quot;&gt;вытягиваю&lt;/a&gt; себя из этой ситуации&quot; - also possible, more slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%E1%E8%F0%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF&quot;&gt;выбираюсь&lt;/a&gt; из этой ситуации&quot; - an example with reflexive verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%F5%EE%E4%E8%F2%FC&quot;&gt;выхожу&lt;/a&gt; из этой ситуации&quot; - an example without reflexive words or endings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E2%FB%EB%E5%E7%E0%F2%FC&quot;&gt;вылезаю&lt;/a&gt; из этой ситуации&quot; - more colloquial/slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The government is 'withdrawing/pulling out' of the war&quot; - in this example, &quot;выйти из войны&quot;  could work, especially if you mean a country. http://wordweb.ru/history_ww2/50_02.htm the title of this article is &quot;An attempt for Finland to pull out of the war&quot;. Your example would be something like: &quot;Правительство вышло из войны&quot;. Though, it sounds a bit strange to me, because we usually mean the country pulling out of the war, not specifically it's government. So, with a loose translation, I would say &quot;Страна вышла из войны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I cannot express myself correctly in Russian&quot; - both are possible, though it is better to use a reflexive verb here, &quot;выражать себя&quot; - is a bit lyrical. &quot;Я не могу правильно выражаться по-русски/на русском&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little remark on &quot;can&quot; here. You may say &quot;Я не умею правильно выражаться по-русски/на русском&quot; and it would mean that you cannot express yourself correctly **because you haven't learned how to do that yet**. This would sound a bit better because that way you suggest that you are learning Russian and trying to express yourself correctly, and that gives you more respect. You can add &quot;ещё/пока ещё&quot; (still/for now) to make it even more naturally sounding. &quot;Я пока ещё не умею правильно выражаться по-русски&quot; - sounds pretty natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="64389325-3b7b-4c83-b20b-b28cee13c3dd" CreationDate="2014-04-27T12:05:04.827" UserId="551" Comment="added 520 characters in body" Text="&quot;Который&quot; is used when there is a specific set of objects, and you want to choose one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Который**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Какой по порядку, по счёту? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Какой именно, какой из нескольких? отт. Кто именно, кто из нескольких? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Употребляется как союзное слово, присоединяя изъяснительные и определительные придаточные предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible to answer &quot;- Который тебе понравился? - Первый&quot;. Or &quot;- Который? - Этот&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;- Здесь есть синий, красный и фиолетовый плащи. Который тебе понравился? - Синий.&quot; Note that in the last example the &quot;blue one&quot; is one of the possible choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какой&quot; is more abstract - this is a question about some qualities:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **КАКО́Й**, какая, какое, мест. 1. вопросительное. Обозначает вопрос о качестве и свойстве. К какому выводу вы пришли? Какой ваш любимый цвет? Какая сегодня погода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically &quot;какой&quot; in many cases can be used instead of &quot;который&quot;, but &quot;который&quot; always means that there is a set of possible options, while answering on &quot;какой&quot; you may talk about imaginary things or about options that are currently not present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Какой смартфон бы ты купил? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Я бы купил смартфон, который можно неделю не заряжать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Higstaker mentioned in comment, the 3rd meaning that both &quot;which&quot; and &quot;который&quot; have in common, but is not present in &quot;какой&quot; is &quot;союзное слово, присоединяя изъяснительные и определительные придаточные предложения&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Smartphone **which** costs less. = Смартфон **который** стоит меньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A comission was created **which** began to investigate the accident. = Создана комиссия, **которая** приступила к расследованию обстоятельств катастрофы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use &quot;какая&quot; or &quot;какой&quot; in these examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4392" RevisionGUID="ff6bc67b-398c-43f6-8fbb-3a2b6241ac51" CreationDate="2014-04-27T12:50:01.400" UserId="1236" Text="`Вынимать` 'to take out' is used for taking out a material object from a material container, no way using it while talking about situations, wars, governments, banks, or anything that abstract. The same goes about its reflexive counterpart, `выниматься` 'to be [able to be] taken out'. You can use this verb to talk about taking a handkerchief out of the pocket, fingers out of one's mouth, a plug from a socket, a memory card from a card-reader, a photo from your album, a $100 bill out of your wallet, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="0725dcf4-59f0-4b99-ad13-7e18e72531d9" CreationDate="2014-04-27T16:29:08.817" UserId="3794" Text="I found an old friend at an social mediawebsite and I want to contact the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to somehow say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You are her too? Interesting.....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I want to have this in a somehow nice fashion. So if I am already not happy with the english version. I somehow want to express that I was surprised to see the person here again and I want to state that I am POSITIVE suprised and that this is interesting. So I do not want the other person to have negative feeling. So it is important that it has a positive friendly sound. Maybe also somehow a funny version would be ok. I am not a russian pro and this is way to hard for me, my (likely wrong) try would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дю Ош иерархи? круто :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;I further want to add that I think that this person should not have any problems getting in touch with other persons (high social proof well looking). The profile of the person states that he searches for new friends. I also want to imply that I think he shouldn't have any problems to get to know other people in a large city where he lives. So as a complimente.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;english somehow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You shouldn't have any problems getting in touch with other people :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not like this, because I fear that this could be sarcastic. I do not want the risk that he understands it as sarcasm! So how can I express this in russian without risking sarcasm? My basic russian is way too bad, *please help*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="0725dcf4-59f0-4b99-ad13-7e18e72531d9" CreationDate="2014-04-27T16:29:08.817" UserId="3794" Text="How to state this correctly in Russian with the correct intention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="0725dcf4-59f0-4b99-ad13-7e18e72531d9" CreationDate="2014-04-27T16:29:08.817" UserId="3794" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="06ad27fd-867b-41cb-8691-fc82239020aa" CreationDate="2014-04-27T16:35:29.220" UserId="3794" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I found an old friend at an social mediawebsite and I want to contact the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to somehow say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;You are her too? Interesting.....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I want to have this in a somehow nice fashion. So if I am already not happy with the english version. I somehow want to express that I was surprised to see the person here again and I want to state that I am POSITIVE suprised and that this is interesting. So I do not want the other person to have negative feeling. So it is important that it has a positive friendly sound. Maybe also somehow a funny version would be ok. I am not a russian pro and this is way to hard for me, my (likely wrong) try would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дю Ош иерархи? круто :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;I further want to add that I think that this person should not have any problems getting in touch with other persons (high social proof well looking). The profile of the person states that he searches for new friends. I also want to imply that I think he shouldn't have any problems to get to know other people in a large city where he lives. So as a compliment. As sweet-talk so that the person is positive tempered and likley response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;english somehow: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You shouldn't have any problems getting in touch with other people here in xxxxx :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not like this, because I fear that this could be sarcastic. I do not want the risk that he understands it as sarcasm! So how can I express this in russian without risking sarcasm? My basic russian is way too bad, *please help*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12237" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="55460c96-7ec4-4712-bef7-36a8c48675f0" CreationDate="2014-04-27T16:42:51.387" UserId="3794" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="16038946-f13e-499e-980c-099df0c563c7" CreationDate="2014-04-28T00:06:54.040" UserId="170" Text="Is there a demonym in Russian for a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="16038946-f13e-499e-980c-099df0c563c7" CreationDate="2014-04-28T00:06:54.040" UserId="170" Text="A possible Russian demonym for a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="16038946-f13e-499e-980c-099df0c563c7" CreationDate="2014-04-28T00:06:54.040" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="5274c1d2-5bb4-43a1-b6fa-b2450fa4deff" CreationDate="2014-04-28T00:13:16.970" UserId="1604" Text="For complex country name like this, it is usually &quot;житель Сент-Китс и Невиса&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4396" RevisionGUID="1aa7d5c9-773d-4934-9cc1-7c1f31e5ae5c" CreationDate="2014-04-28T00:18:11.480" UserId="1604" Text="Sometime simplicity is best - О! Какой приятный сюрприз! Рад видеть... By the way, slang meaning of *cool* is **opposite** of Russian *прохладно* (прохладно means lukewarm; not cool)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="67323360-3dfe-4855-9c92-28fb68d24de6" CreationDate="2014-04-28T06:44:58.700" UserId="2269" Text="1. Из всего многообразия русских суффиксов для образования этнохоронимов (_-як_, _-ат_, _-ич_, _-лянин_, _-чанин_ и т. д.) с английскими топонимами используется _-ец_: _бирмингемец_, _бостонец_, _оттавец_ и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Жители местностей с названиями вида _сущ. и cущ._: _Босния и Герцеговина_, _Тринидад и Тобаго_,  вполне могут именоваться только по первому слову: _боснийцы_, _тринидадцы_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Дефис при образовании этнохоронима не сохраняется: _ньюйоркец_, _санпаулец_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда возможным названием жителя Сент-Китс и Невиса является _сентки́тсец_. Если это слово кажется труднопроизносимым, то прежде чем сдаться можно вспомнить, что Кит — это диминутив от Кристофор и Saint Christopher and Nevis — все еще [официальное название][1] этого государства, и поздравить Павла Дурова с тем, что он стал _сенткристофо́рцем_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.gov.kn/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12247" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="05db63fd-497c-47a0-977d-2367d74d3708" CreationDate="2014-04-29T19:46:19.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/461230013300637696" />
  <row Id="12248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="45d01e9d-2ca3-4ee3-8a43-e2461399b6e3" CreationDate="2014-04-30T06:57:26.663" UserId="3802" Text="Even if you use the right suffix, it will not sound natural in Russian. It is hard to pronounce, the country is not very widely-known in Russia, and a Russian speaker will just get stuck thinking of the right name of the place where the person you're talking about lives. Thus, I suggest using the word &quot;житель&quot;, &quot;резидент&quot;: житель Сент-Китс и Невис." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="5d4986c8-51af-4684-a962-7f422bcb53d9" CreationDate="2014-04-30T07:03:27.550" UserId="3802" Text="http://lib.ru/ has a wide range of books by classic and modern authors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="fe07d506-e039-47e2-a921-efd17ba172d0" CreationDate="2014-04-30T07:21:40.087" UserId="3802" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="Even if you use the right suffix, it will not sound natural in Russian. It is hard to pronounce, the country is not very widely-known in Russia, and a Russian speaker will just get stuck thinking of the right name of the place where the person you're talking about lives. Thus, I suggest using the word &quot;житель&quot;, &quot;резидент&quot;: житель Сент-Китс и Невис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule says that toponyms which end up with a consonant are not declined in the Russian language as well as compound toponyms: Сент-Китс.&#xD;&#xA;Сент-КитсА и НевисА would sound okay if it was widely-used in Russian as, for example, Washington: житель ВашингтонА (everyone has heard about Washington)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="adbdca7c-4a16-4818-976e-40433adab90d" CreationDate="2014-04-30T07:38:41.663" UserId="3802" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Even if you use the right suffix, it will not sound natural in Russian. It is hard to pronounce, the country is not very widely-known in Russia, and a Russian speaker will just get stuck thinking of the right name of the place where the person you're talking about lives. Thus, I suggest using the words &quot;житель&quot;, &quot;резидент&quot;: житель Сент-Китс и Невис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule says that toponyms which end up with a consonant are not declined in the Russian language as well as compound toponyms: Сент-Китс.&#xD;&#xA;Сент-КитсА и НевисА would sound okay if it was widely-used in Russian as, for example, Washington: житель ВашингтонА (everyone has heard about Washington)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="d670d390-b0d2-497c-97f8-131103f1efb2" CreationDate="2014-04-30T07:46:41.020" UserId="3802" Text="Yes, 'склизкий' is definitely used in the meaning of covered with a thin layer of slim and, thus, giving an unpleasant feeling when being touched. Although, talking about a slippery road, for example, it is never used. Instead it is better to use the word 'скользкий'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="ed351e2a-e192-4bcb-ba8e-093402e2f42f" CreationDate="2014-04-30T16:27:21.237" UserId="3803" Text="This is a reminiscent of two very old constructions. First, the long periods of times were counted by &quot;summers&quot;, i.e. in medieval annals. There we read something like &quot;Лета от сотворения мира ХХXX,...&quot;, i.e. &quot;In the 'summer' XXXX from Wold Creation...&quot;. The other distinctive feature of Russian language is a different paradigm for forming of plurals for the cardinals that end with 2,3,4 (which, according to some hypotheses, reflects a stage of a proto-language that still had no cardinals greater than 5, but this then should have been some Pre-Proto-Indoeuropean language then). Thus, &quot;четрыре кота&quot; (singular genitive) but &quot;пять котов&quot; (plural genitive). The form &quot;лет&quot; is thus a fossilized form that preserves older (possibly Church-Slavonic) norm.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="57f2571c-40dc-4c7f-97ff-f7420517e4c9" CreationDate="2014-04-30T18:32:20.180" UserId="3804" Text="Do I need to put a comma in this phrase &quot;Исходя из этого можно понять(,) насколько сложно...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="57f2571c-40dc-4c7f-97ff-f7420517e4c9" CreationDate="2014-04-30T18:32:20.180" UserId="3804" Text="Do I need to put a comma?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="57f2571c-40dc-4c7f-97ff-f7420517e4c9" CreationDate="2014-04-30T18:32:20.180" UserId="3804" Text="|выражения|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="32b7d04f-47af-4642-b474-28bb09589ee7" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:12:04.867" UserId="267" Text="Yes, you have to put a comma in this phrase because each part of it has its own subject and predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="ffba3350-b2e4-482c-9fb3-aeb319239022" CreationDate="2014-05-01T03:41:44.570" UserId="1236" Text="Actually, *two* commas must be put in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исходя из этого, можно понять, насколько сложно... .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first comma is because phrases introduced by the preposition `исходя из` are [separated by commas][1] if they are not a part of the predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second comma is because clauses  introduced by `насколько` are separated by commas in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/58_248" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="20118076-eb1d-43c0-a17f-1ee2cfb4d4fd" CreationDate="2014-05-01T07:05:11.403" UserId="267" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Yes, you have to put a comma in this phrase  because the clause, introduced by &quot;насколько&quot; needs a comma, being a separate close with a subject and a predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4406" RevisionGUID="627940b6-92eb-450d-b226-a3c4f74d9357" CreationDate="2014-05-01T08:07:59.560" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Кто-то открыл дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody opened the door (and the door is still open).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто-то открывал дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody had opened the door (maybe several times), but now the door is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The door has been opened at least once during the time period in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="570335f5-c252-4fc7-96ac-dcc86c3934fa" CreationDate="2014-05-02T02:34:04.980" UserId="1770" Text="I know that the title is a little weird, sorry about that. The thing is that one day I asked my russian instructor, who's russian, how to pronounce Kolmogorov in russian (because it has too many o's) and she told me that is _Холмогóров_, but in the [wiki article][1] says that his name is _Колмогóров_, why is this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="570335f5-c252-4fc7-96ac-dcc86c3934fa" CreationDate="2014-05-02T02:34:04.980" UserId="1770" Text="What's Kolmogorov's russian name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="570335f5-c252-4fc7-96ac-dcc86c3934fa" CreationDate="2014-05-02T02:34:04.980" UserId="1770" Text="|перевод|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="78913ac0-93ee-4518-8b5a-5d92ea6efe9f" CreationDate="2014-05-02T14:03:01.237" UserId="3595" Text="Your Russian teacher was not a mathematician, so she probably guessed that the name is &quot;kholmogorov&quot;, as there is a Russian word &quot;kholm&quot; meaning a hill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct name is Kolmogorov, and you pronounce it roughly as &quot;Kalmagoraf&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12267" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="d56e2e1d-3bd8-4e12-9eab-68ceed7d7930" CreationDate="2014-05-04T01:02:32.817" UserId="71" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[833],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alenanno&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="cceae447-9794-4897-9451-f5bdef8e82b7" CreationDate="2014-05-04T13:33:53.467" UserId="2446" Text="I've noticed that my Russian-speaking Canadian friends who left Russia before the Internet era always say &quot;*моя* сайт&quot;, &quot;*красивая* сайт&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People in Russia say &quot;*мой*&quot;. Same I hear from Russians in Israel. Not sure about USA guys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could make people think that &quot;site&quot; is &quot;*она*&quot;? One friend said: &quot;Construction Site&quot; is an &quot;area&quot;, &quot;zone&quot; - those words are &quot;она&quot; in Russian. Is that the correct association?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="cceae447-9794-4897-9451-f5bdef8e82b7" CreationDate="2014-05-04T13:33:53.467" UserId="2446" Text="&quot;Website&quot;: in Russia they say &quot;Мой сайт&quot;. In Canada many say &quot;Моя сайт&quot;... Wonder why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="cceae447-9794-4897-9451-f5bdef8e82b7" CreationDate="2014-05-04T13:33:53.467" UserId="2446" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4410" RevisionGUID="fc1a0fb2-fcd3-4b77-af02-5413ea19698b" CreationDate="2014-05-04T15:05:47.737" UserId="1758" Text="It's a difficult question as there is no one definite association for this word. It may be &quot;area&quot; or &quot;zone&quot; (feminine gender), but for me &quot;site&quot; is more like &quot;page&quot; / &quot;web page&quot; (feminine gender in Russian too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="65b7e1b5-095d-4259-a5dc-7aa2eef6e52b" CreationDate="2014-05-04T17:17:47.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/463004573079461888" />
  <row Id="12274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="f31da69c-b15c-47f9-9271-edc4bb8fb4be" CreationDate="2014-05-04T18:00:46.543" UserId="3769" Text="How to say &quot;email&quot; (verb) in russian, using single word (if it is possible)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="f31da69c-b15c-47f9-9271-edc4bb8fb4be" CreationDate="2014-05-04T18:00:46.543" UserId="3769" Text="verb &quot;email&quot; in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="f31da69c-b15c-47f9-9271-edc4bb8fb4be" CreationDate="2014-05-04T18:00:46.543" UserId="3769" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12278" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="f442f7b7-3929-493e-b148-697c68a030bf" CreationDate="2014-05-04T20:17:50.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/463049884711804930" />
  <row Id="12279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="a93c796e-4f72-4524-96e9-a581831c2657" CreationDate="2014-05-04T20:38:57.197" UserId="3566" Text="Послать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Has he **emailed** you that list of addresses yet?* Он тебе **послал** список адресов?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12280" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="5edafa82-e198-40c2-b1cf-f7b7af77362e" CreationDate="2014-05-05T08:10:46.500" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="1174aaee-4e0c-4d5e-a6ef-73a55625c4b8" CreationDate="2014-05-05T10:00:50.560" UserId="194" Text="Counting сайт as feminine is grammatically incorrect and contrary to the rules and paradigms. Among inanimate nouns only those ending with -а or -ь can be feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="5836385b-b98a-470d-ab8c-127ef80d7757" CreationDate="2014-05-05T11:00:52.167" UserId="2446" Comment="Added a link" Text="I've noticed that my Russian-speaking Canadian friends who left Russia before the Internet era always say &quot;*моя* сайт&quot;, &quot;*красивая* сайт&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People in Russia say &quot;*мой*&quot;. Same I hear from Russians in Israel. Not sure about USA guys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could make people think that &quot;site&quot; is &quot;*она*&quot;? One friend said: &quot;Construction Site&quot; is an &quot;area&quot;, &quot;zone&quot; - those words are &quot;она&quot; in Russian. Is that the correct association?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Added on 14-05-05:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.shashki.com/PNphpBB2-printview-t-197-start-60.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="c0a24699-deaf-4813-90cf-3fe323e8e84c" CreationDate="2014-05-05T11:30:18.733" UserId="551" Text="(Initially it was a guess, but then @tivnet found a proof from US speaker)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the word **сайт** (site) was used &quot;as is&quot; in Russian-speaking Canadian community before it was borrowed in Russian language and become widely accepted word. I mean that it was used as &quot;purely English&quot; word that has no Russian counterpart (like &quot;Я вчера на сейле купил большой пэк пива с большим дискаунтом!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it could be used as a shorter word than &quot;домашняя страница&quot; (or &quot;веб-страница&quot;) which was used in 1990-ies and the feminine gender sticked to it at those times. Now when &quot;сайт&quot; is accepted in Russian, the feminine form already existed and continues to be used though &quot;сайт&quot; become a masculine word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when you have found a [proof](http://www.shashki.com/PNphpBB2-printview-t-197-start-60.html) I will cite the US poster:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; когда я использовал слово &quot;сайт&quot;, я имел в виду его перевод на русский язык - &quot;страница&quot;, которое женского рода. А что, существует сегодня такое самостоятельное слово в русском языке - &quot;сайт&quot; ? В моё время, 13 лет назад, его не было. Также как &quot;юзер&quot; (по русски - пользователь) и массу других слов. Когда я использовал слово &quot;сайт - я думал, что это обыкновенное жаргонное загрязнение, но я при этом не один и не первый !  &#xD;&#xA;*alemo - Май 06, 2004*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that 13 years before 2004 is 1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can see that many people use &quot;сайт&quot; as English word and they don't even know that Russian language has already included it in its vocabulary. I think this is very similar to your Canadian friends who left the Russia before сайт become a Russian word.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="22440dae-f544-4803-8988-1a8819eebda6" CreationDate="2014-05-05T12:49:09.663" UserId="194" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Counting сайт as feminine is grammatically incorrect and contrary to the rules and paradigms. Among inanimate nouns only those ending with -а/-я or -ь can be feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="01ef21ba-a243-4c45-99b2-6093980558a9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T13:13:46.977" UserId="551" Comment="added 784 characters in body" Text="(Initially it was a guess, but then @tivnet found a proof from US speaker)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the word **сайт** (site) was used &quot;as is&quot; in Russian-speaking Canadian community before it was borrowed in Russian language and become widely accepted word. I mean that it was used as &quot;purely English&quot; word that has no Russian counterpart (like &quot;Я вчера на сейле купил большой пэк пива с большим дискаунтом!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it could be used as a shorter word than &quot;домашняя страница&quot; (or &quot;веб-страница&quot;) which was used in 1990-ies and the feminine gender sticked to it at those times. Now when &quot;сайт&quot; is accepted in Russian, the feminine form already existed and continues to be used though &quot;сайт&quot; become a masculine word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when @tivnet have found a [proof](http://www.shashki.com/PNphpBB2-printview-t-197-start-60.html) I will cite the US poster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original post contained the following line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сайт не велика по объёму, но сделана с любовью и функциональна. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poster later describes why he used feminine gender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; когда я использовал слово &quot;сайт&quot;, я имел в виду его перевод на русский язык - &quot;страница&quot;, которое женского рода. А что, существует сегодня такое самостоятельное слово в русском языке - &quot;сайт&quot; ? В моё время, 13 лет назад, его не было. Также как &quot;юзер&quot; (по русски - пользователь) и массу других слов. Когда я использовал слово &quot;сайт - я думал, что это обыкновенное жаргонное загрязнение, но я при этом не один и не первый !  &#xD;&#xA;*alemo - Май 06, 2004*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that 13 years before 2004 is 1991)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can see that many people use &quot;сайт&quot; as English word and they don't even know that Russian language has already included it in its vocabulary. I think this is very similar to your Canadian friends who left the Russia before сайт become a Russian word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read somewhere that when people cannot recall the proper word they nevertheless can describe the word's gender, and many other characteristics but not the word itself. For example, talking about traffic accident the speaker can forget the proper word for a car, but finds it just when the word is needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не заметил эту... - как это по-русски?.. - car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;Car&quot; sounds masculine, but in fact it just substitutes the proper word - машина, which is feminine. So all the words in the sentence support the feminine gender, while the used word doesn't sounds the proper way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4415" RevisionGUID="49260040-4ae6-43e2-8219-7a7db43b3e55" CreationDate="2014-05-05T14:11:15.267" UserId="3595" Text="I can suggest a jargon word &quot;Намыльте&quot; for &quot;email&quot; as a verb, here's [an example of usage](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/relcom.games/cDIA35wvAlo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Намыльте коды для Duke. Plssss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from jargon word &quot;мыло&quot; for email. A verb is not used as much as a noun though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="884152aa-9beb-494f-bf17-6b426dde2cd7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T14:27:34.087" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="&gt;Но когда пришли братья Его, тогда и Он пришел на праздник не явно, а как бы тайно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whats *как бы* doing in this sentence (as in function)?&#xD;&#xA;- Would it be possible to leave it out, without changing the meaning? And/Or if it would be let out, what would be changed by it?&#xD;&#xA;- What would be a typical example for when to use *как бы*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="884152aa-9beb-494f-bf17-6b426dde2cd7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T14:27:34.087" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Usage of &quot;как бы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="884152aa-9beb-494f-bf17-6b426dde2cd7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T14:27:34.087" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="530dbcd5-6e9c-4f11-8e18-2ca56c4697b7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:00:17.673" UserId="115" Text="&quot;как бы&quot; can be translated as &quot;as if&quot; or &quot;sort of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example can be trnaslated as &quot;...He came to the celebration not openly, but as if secretly&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a typical example, here is one from Tutchev:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Люблю грозу в начале мая, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда весенний, первый гром, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Как бы** резвяся и играя, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Грохочет в небе голубом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="f24e5e06-8802-4c14-b8bc-04b06b0404b7" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:01:10.107" UserId="551" Text="It can be thrown away if it is used as &quot;parasite&quot; word (which is quite common nowadays - meaning is similar to &quot;kinda&quot; or &quot;like&quot;). But not in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efremova dictionary states that **Как бы**  is used as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I союз  &#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при присоединении члена предложения со значением условно-предположительного сравнения, соответствуя по значению сл.: как будто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при присоединении члена предложения или придаточной части сложноподчиненного предложения со значением сравнения (которое представляется недостоверным), соответствуя по значению сл.: как бы, будто бы, как если бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II част.  &#xD;&#xA;  Употребляется при выражении предположительности, условности высказывания, соответствуя по значению сл.: будто, будто бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in your example it is conjunction that means &quot;as if&quot;. So the meaning here is that &quot;He&quot; did not visit the celebration officially, but he did come without drawing attention to his presence. Though he did not really made a secret from his coming. Omitting &quot;как бы&quot;  here would mean that he did tried to be unnoticed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the Efremova citation there are 2 more other ways of using &quot;как бы&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="d53ec9eb-b520-4fe1-8c5a-4d73083a6910" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:06:29.017" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="From time to time I encounter the word *[таков][3]* (in written language) but do not have a real clue about it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually I replace it (mentally) with *такой* cause it's typically translated as *such*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In which sense *таков* is usually used?&#xD;&#xA;  - Is it linked with or can it be replaced by *такой*?&#xD;&#xA;  - Would there be a use case in spoken language?&#xD;&#xA;- Is the female ending pronounced or not? [Wikislovar][1] and [gramota][2] are discordant about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F2%E0%EA%EE%E2&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=%F2%E0%EA%EE%E2&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="d53ec9eb-b520-4fe1-8c5a-4d73083a6910" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:06:29.017" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="When/How to use таков" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="d53ec9eb-b520-4fe1-8c5a-4d73083a6910" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:06:29.017" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="0d92db30-9090-4567-ab2a-c2ea576aa91e" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:09:05.860" UserId="1236" Text="Your quote is from the Gospel of John 7:10. In correspondence with the Russian `как бы` the Latin Biblia Sacra Vulgata has `quasi`, the English King James Bible has `as it were`. The idea of `как бы` is 'kind of', 'as if'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, it cannot be left out, it's the Bible, long ago every word in it became a part of the foundation of the modern culture. And this very John in Revelation 22:19 says it out right:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="0ccac934-cc88-489b-82e1-50106c0d2d62" CreationDate="2014-05-05T15:25:46.217" UserId="551" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="It can be thrown away if it is used as &quot;parasite&quot; word (which is quite common nowadays - meaning is similar to &quot;kinda&quot; or &quot;like&quot;). But not in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efremova dictionary states that **Как бы**  is used as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I союз  &#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при присоединении члена предложения со значением условно-предположительного сравнения, соответствуя по значению сл.: как будто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при присоединении члена предложения или придаточной части сложноподчиненного предложения со значением сравнения (которое представляется недостоверным), соответствуя по значению сл.: как бы, будто бы, как если бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; II част.  &#xD;&#xA;  Употребляется при выражении предположительности, условности высказывания, соответствуя по значению сл.: будто, будто бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think in your example it is conjunction that means &quot;as if&quot;. So the meaning here is that &quot;He&quot; did not visit the celebration officially, but he did come without drawing attention to his presence. Though he did not really made a secret from his coming. Omitting &quot;как бы&quot;  here would mean that he did tried to be unnoticed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the Efremova citation there are 2 more other ways of using &quot;как бы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, when speaking on religious texts they cannot be taken as typical examples of usage. As Yellow Sky stated, the text of Bible is not changed for centuries and therefore outdated in terms of modern language use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="0ca59444-96f0-4acf-ba87-367c95825446" CreationDate="2014-05-05T17:26:26.947" UserId="487" Text="If you want to say in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have *n* abelian groups *G_1, G_2,...G_n*, such that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which case should after the unknown natural *n*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть *n* коммутативн?? груп??, значит *G_1, G_2,...G_n*, которые ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="0ca59444-96f0-4acf-ba87-367c95825446" CreationDate="2014-05-05T17:26:26.947" UserId="487" Text="Which case do algebraic unknowns induce?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="0ca59444-96f0-4acf-ba87-367c95825446" CreationDate="2014-05-05T17:26:26.947" UserId="487" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="786b7d59-b4ae-4bd5-8537-b12c681da463" CreationDate="2014-05-05T17:40:33.850" UserId="3595" Text="имеются n абелевых групп G_1,G_2,...,G_n, таких что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, in Russian academic writing &quot;we have groups&quot; is not used, instead we write &quot;there are groups&quot;. It's a matter of style, rather than grammar though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="abad2c53-2df4-41a6-a66d-edb832af98b9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T18:03:32.257" UserId="3595" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="имеются n абелевых групп G_1,G_2,...,G_n, таких что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, in Russian academic writing &quot;we have groups&quot; is not used, instead we write &quot;there are groups&quot;. It's a matter of style, rather than grammar though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a linguist, but [nominative plural](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6#.D0.92_.D1.80.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC_.D1.8F.D0.B7.D1.8B.D0.BA.D0.B5) would be my answer, because I test it with a question &quot;имеются кто/что?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="d8a36454-4c69-484c-bb5a-45384463f2bf" CreationDate="2014-05-05T21:11:57.140" UserId="3818" Text="ТАКОВ is a short form of ТАКОВОЙ, which generally means such, the same, above-mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;Now answering your questions specifically&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The main meaning is &quot;such&quot; that might be used as a name-replacement in a bureaucratic documentation, although in a full form ТАКОВОЙ, ТАКОВЫЕ: &quot;К протоколу прилагаются их объяснения и замечания, если ТАКОВЫЕ имеются.&quot; - ... if such are available.&#xD;&#xA;2. In the previous meaning - yes, fully. Using ТАКОВОЙ makes the sentence much more formal.&#xD;&#xA;3. As to the spoken language, there are a couple of idioms with ТАКОВ. &quot;...И был ТАКОВ&quot; = скрылся, убежал (иронически) - in case someone did or said something and then suddenly disappeared. &quot;Каков поп, таков приход&quot; = everyone gets what it is worth of. The last frequent case I can think of is a statement of the type &quot;ТАКОВ ...&quot;: &quot;ТАКОВА судьба&quot; - such is our destiny, &quot;ТАКОВ человек&quot; - such is the man (human nature), &quot;ТАКОВЫ факты&quot; - these are the facts.&#xD;&#xA;4. Sure, ТАКОВА." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="39c7492e-f88d-41e0-acf4-d273095e52c1" CreationDate="2014-05-06T01:42:14.473" UserId="62" Text="The question in the title and the question you wrote are not quite the same. The question in the title sounds like it is asking &quot;what case is used after mathematical objects denoted by letters like G, H, etc.&quot;, while the question you wrote is asking &quot;what case follows a counting variable&quot;? A mathematical notation&#xD;&#xA;for an object (not counting something) is often considered neuter, but things following it may have case endings based on the gender for the Russian name of the object.  For example, an equation x = y has the sign = pronounced as равен, равна, or равно depending on if we consider x to be masculine, feminine, or neuter.  Often x is neuter, but if the equation A = B involves linear operators then = may be pronounced as равен (masculine) because оператор is masculine. If an equation f = g involves functions then = may be pronounced as равна since функция is feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You thought &quot;such that&quot; might be который. It is такой что, but there's more to say about this than just the direct translation. Specifically, in ordinary speech the words такой and что are often not next to each other.  This is best understood by examples. I give three below, putting in parentheses the pronunciation of the mathematical notation. (If you know how to pronounce the alphabet in French then the Russian pronunciation of letters in math will make sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Let x_n be a sequence such that = Пусть x_n (икс эн) — такая последовательность, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Let f(x,y) be a function of two variables such that = Пусть f(x,y) (эф от икс игрек) — такая функция двух переменных, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) A generator of a group G is an element g such that = Образующий группы G (Жи)  —  такой элемент g (жи), что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These literally say &quot;Let x_n be such a sequence that&quot;, &quot;Let f(x,y) be such a function of two variables that&quot;, and &quot;A generator of the group G is such an element g that&quot;, where &quot;such&quot; modifies the object of interest (a sequence, a function, or an element), and all of these sound clumsy in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation of такой что on the blackboard is &quot;,т.ч.&quot; (note the comma), which is like the use of s.t. for such that in English.  However, because такой and что are often separated from each other in speech, it is awkward to replace them with т.ч. on a blackboard if writing resembles speech. To make т.ч. more natural when writing and speaking at the blackboard, the word такой is moved in speech right before что even though, I am told, the result usually sounds stylistically awkward to non-scientists. The new versions of the above examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Пусть x_n — последовательность такая, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Пусть f(x,y) — функция двух переменных такая, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Образующий группы G  — элемент g такой, что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending on такой depends on what is it modifying.  Here are some examples to illustrate this, where the same English sentence is translated in more than one possible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) the dimensions of the spaces such that = размерности пространств такие, что &#xD;&#xA;(when &quot;such that&quot; refers to dimensions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) the dimensions of the spaces such that = размерности пространств таких, что &#xD;&#xA;(when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the spaces) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве такая, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the sequence) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве таких, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the points) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве таком, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the space) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="fe192cf4-3908-4433-9318-044830dd2f3c" CreationDate="2014-05-06T01:48:12.717" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12305" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="6cd7cf4d-1968-4dcd-b220-0198b6aac2d6" CreationDate="2014-05-06T04:36:41.787" UserId="487" Comment="edited title" Text="What case follows an integer counting variable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="bdbc1a20-3192-4bdb-ba40-cc33131c4c23" CreationDate="2014-05-06T04:49:57.660" UserId="487" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="When you have an integer number, it induces declension on the noun you are 'counting'. But to know which case, you need to know the specific number. What about integer unknowns? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have *n* abelian groups *G_1, G_2,...G_n*, such that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which case should I use after the **natural number** *n*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть *n* коммутативн?? груп??, значит *G_1, G_2,...G_n*, которые ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="98ba32e5-2e5d-406b-8343-be672c0a2626" CreationDate="2014-05-06T06:42:11.167" UserId="3819" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, the best option would be to use the &quot;Администрирование&quot; in the answers above, you are advised to use the option &quot;админка&quot;. This expression is used among webmasters, however, to administer the site sometimes attract special employees, for which the expression &quot;админка&quot; looks unusual. Use expressions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Панель администратора&#xD;&#xA;2. Администрирование" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="e12a4094-2719-443f-a941-35384221dead" CreationDate="2014-05-06T10:00:50.687" UserId="2238" Text="Actually, an X that is not 2, 3, 4 or 1.5 or not a constant will be treated just as if it were five or twenty: &quot;X жёлтых домов&quot;, &quot;X абелевых групп&quot;, &quot;X острых ножей&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="44e64e0f-b05a-4ec2-a64b-0b3937f3b6a0" CreationDate="2014-05-06T12:40:19.547" UserId="3812" Text="My sentence starts as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если человек поперхнулся - ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="44e64e0f-b05a-4ec2-a64b-0b3937f3b6a0" CreationDate="2014-05-06T12:40:19.547" UserId="3812" Text="What is correct: &quot;постучи его по спине&quot; or &quot;постучи ему по спине&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="44e64e0f-b05a-4ec2-a64b-0b3937f3b6a0" CreationDate="2014-05-06T12:40:19.547" UserId="3812" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="2770fc5c-6cfc-493f-9812-e7df45029d41" CreationDate="2014-05-06T12:49:55.357" UserId="3818" Text="Постучи его по спине would be correct. It means help him, not hurt him, as compared to the other option. It is best seen with the perfect form: Стукни его по спине - help him breathing, Стукни ему по спине - punch him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="f8ffdc92-08cf-42ca-b286-a0e01d5340a3" CreationDate="2014-05-06T13:27:11.467" UserId="3818" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Постучи его по спине would be correct. It means help him, not hurt him, as compared to the other option. It is best seen with the perfect form: Стукни его по спине - help him breathing, Стукни ему по спине - punch him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;upd&#xD;&#xA;Стукни его по спине ~ hit his back; Стукни ему по спине ~ hit him on his back (possibly in order to help, but not necessarily)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="90d4f088-e79c-4bfc-9909-30b8396a9aeb" CreationDate="2014-05-06T14:04:54.950" UserId="551" Text="There is a slight difference here, but it not so critical in this particular case. I would even recommend to say &quot;Похлопай его по спине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Постучи *его* по спине** - means that you are going to hit **him** in the first place. &quot;по спине&quot; is specifying the area of his body that will be hit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Постучи *ему* по спине** - means that you will hit something in order to do something for him. In this particular case it is his back that will be hit. But in this second case you can use even some external objects, that are not parts of his body:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постучи ему по барабану. - Hit his drum.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постучи ему в окошко. - Knock on his window.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постучи ему в дверь. - Knock on his door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot say &quot;постучи его по барабану&quot; when talking about human, because it will mean that the drum is a part of his body. But it is possible to say about some artificial masculine object that has a drum as a part of its body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="b1a8eda2-214e-4076-83a8-a0ca5dd153e8" CreationDate="2014-05-06T15:47:04.267" UserId="2284" Text="Постучать (unlike стукнуть) is an intransitive verb; one cannot say 'постучи его'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="6e8517cb-75a9-4bc3-802d-1eeba81fb893" CreationDate="2014-05-06T19:22:30.337" UserId="62" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="The question in the title and the question you wrote are not quite the same.  The question in the title sounds like it is asking &quot;what case is used after mathematical objects denoted by letters like G, H, etc.&quot;, while the question you wrote is asking &quot;what case follows a counting variable&quot;? [EDIT: The question in the title was later changed to match the question being asked.] A mathematical notation&#xD;&#xA;for an object (not counting something) is often considered neuter, but things following it may have case endings based on the gender for the Russian name of the object.  For example, an equation x = y has the sign = pronounced as равен, равна, or равно depending on if we consider x to be masculine, feminine, or neuter.  Often x is neuter, but if the equation A = B involves linear operators then = may be pronounced as равен (masculine) because оператор is masculine. If an equation f = g involves functions then = may be pronounced as равна since функция is feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You thought &quot;such that&quot; might be который. It is такой что, but there's more to say about this than just the direct translation. Specifically, in ordinary speech the words такой and что are often not next to each other.  This is best understood by examples. I give three below, putting in parentheses the pronunciation of the mathematical notation. (If you know how to pronounce the alphabet in French then the Russian pronunciation of letters in math will make sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Let x_n be a sequence such that = Пусть x_n (икс эн) — такая последовательность, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Let f(x,y) be a function of two variables such that = Пусть f(x,y) (эф от икс игрек) — такая функция двух переменных, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) A generator of a group G is an element g such that = Образующий группы G (Жи)  —  такой элемент g (жи), что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These literally say &quot;Let x_n be such a sequence that&quot;, &quot;Let f(x,y) be such a function of two variables that&quot;, and &quot;A generator of the group G is such an element g that&quot;, where &quot;such&quot; modifies the object of interest (a sequence, a function, or an element), and all of these sound clumsy in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation of такой что on the blackboard is &quot;,т.ч.&quot; (note the comma), which is like the use of s.t. for such that in English.  However, because такой and что are often separated from each other in speech, it is awkward to replace them with т.ч. on a blackboard if writing resembles speech. To make т.ч. more natural when writing and speaking at the blackboard, the word такой is moved in speech right before что even though, I am told, the result usually sounds stylistically awkward to non-scientists. The new versions of the above examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Пусть x_n — последовательность такая, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Пусть f(x,y) — функция двух переменных такая, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Образующий группы G  — элемент g такой, что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending on такой depends on what is it modifying.  Here are some examples to illustrate this, where the same English sentence is translated in more than one possible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) the dimensions of the spaces such that = размерности пространств такие, что &#xD;&#xA;(when &quot;such that&quot; refers to dimensions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) the dimensions of the spaces such that = размерности пространств таких, что &#xD;&#xA;(when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the spaces) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве такая, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the sequence) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве таких, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the points) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве таком, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the space) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="bda87cc2-0563-4dfc-8f78-565bfe784be6" CreationDate="2014-05-06T21:02:15.977" UserId="115" Text="If you don't want to use slang, then &quot;Послать по электронной почте.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12321" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="e5513a59-85ea-444b-8f64-fd867b85ee9b" CreationDate="2014-05-07T05:25:46.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/463912552863240192" />
  <row Id="12322" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="a570b5ae-b788-4a40-9b39-442b911b9bf9" CreationDate="2014-05-07T06:49:01.063" UserId="3769" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="12323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="ddeed063-7796-47e3-a41c-eb26788f2bef" CreationDate="2014-05-07T06:57:16.527" UserId="152" Text="I use **отправить**:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;email me those logs please - отправьте мне те логи, пожалуйста" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12324" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="47232ad5-9555-4831-9900-89c869fdcede" CreationDate="2014-05-07T08:40:20.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/463961519634411521" />
  <row Id="12325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4433" RevisionGUID="2f59ddfe-ff87-45a4-9aa1-ff8b30db6650" CreationDate="2014-05-07T11:28:25.223" UserId="846" Text="Two words: Послать and Отправить almost same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="1b1f5479-c235-4ead-b92a-bc28fd096e4a" CreationDate="2014-05-07T16:55:39.317" UserId="282" Text="I know it is used as an interrogative pronoun ('Чей это дом?') - &quot;whose&quot;, but I've also seen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Turn one's attention to something&#xD;&#xA;     обратить чье-л. внимание на что-л&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there it is linked to the direct object in gender, but i don't understand why it isn't using the possessive pronoun &quot;своё&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Info on this is hard to find anywhere on the net! Any resources you could link would be nice too )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="1b1f5479-c235-4ead-b92a-bc28fd096e4a" CreationDate="2014-05-07T16:55:39.317" UserId="282" Text="How do you most commonly use чей/чья/чьё/чьи?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="1b1f5479-c235-4ead-b92a-bc28fd096e4a" CreationDate="2014-05-07T16:55:39.317" UserId="282" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="ba6e0bb0-3995-47de-93f5-dee93869d1f4" CreationDate="2014-05-07T18:55:46.060" UserId="3498" Text="Имейлить, имейльнуть - скоро во всех словарях России :-D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="01e73816-3ea5-4177-8240-59e68c85c237" CreationDate="2014-05-07T21:37:04.020" UserId="3824" Text="There is no such possibility.&#xD;&#xA;Отправить эл почту &#xD;&#xA;It is the best for the purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="dfdc4473-dfa4-4633-9a31-f68fd337b70d" CreationDate="2014-05-07T21:57:23.197" UserId="3824" Text="Words have gender in Russian. If you look for ownership so something having female gender you tell like чья, чья это шаль?, for male чей этот мяч&#xD;&#xA;for no gender чьё, чьё копьё?&#xD;&#xA;and finally for plural чьи, чьи эти прыгалки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="86de74eb-ccb5-4393-8006-1992466f8aab" CreationDate="2014-05-07T22:24:11.660" UserId="3824" Text="Хорош = enough&#xD;&#xA;Хватит = sufficient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="a44617e4-732f-482c-aef4-cd573696e843" CreationDate="2014-05-07T23:24:18.333" UserId="3825" Text="How do you tell when you need to pronounce a soft vowel as soft and stressed? I only ask because I've run into a grammatical rule that says that an unstressed я like in &quot;девять&quot; should be pronounced like &quot;i&quot; in &quot;machine&quot; however any time I hear the name &quot;таня&quot;, it's pronounced TAN-YA. Is there some kind of exception to when an unstressed soft vowel is to have its softness pronounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="a44617e4-732f-482c-aef4-cd573696e843" CreationDate="2014-05-07T23:24:18.333" UserId="3825" Text="Soft vowel pronounciation at end of a word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="a44617e4-732f-482c-aef4-cd573696e843" CreationDate="2014-05-07T23:24:18.333" UserId="3825" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="719044dc-d597-4e7c-830c-2ac5890db1bd" CreationDate="2014-05-08T00:45:49.380" UserId="2446" Text="At the end, я is much easier to pronounce. If there are additional sounds after the unstressed я, one's tongue must twist more to say я than и. Therefore девИть but ТанЯ, СенЯ, ПетЯ.&#xA;&#xA;In Ukraine, Russians say девять, лягушка, and so on. That, and their h instead of Г is very &quot;hearable&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12339" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="5bc3973a-8a92-4c3d-b201-41d0ed7932ee" CreationDate="2014-05-08T05:45:07.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/464279812450709504" />
  <row Id="12340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="e7933a3d-3def-43fc-9947-17102e9170f7" CreationDate="2014-05-08T06:16:05.057" UserId="3498" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="Имейлить, имейльнуть - скоро во всех словарях России :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add: Никогда раньше не встречал этих слов и вряд ли их кто-то использует на практике.&#xD;&#xA;Но думаю, что их можно использовать и большинство людей поймет их значение, даже услышав впервые в жизни." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="e8ac712e-41ec-4d24-921c-0b41e968a667" CreationDate="2014-05-08T06:55:11.420" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Fully pronounce the vowel if it is stressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Яркий - мЯгкий - румЯна&#xD;&#xA;If it's in the beginning or ending, you won't fully pronounce it, but it won't be shortened as it is shortened when the vowel comes in between (like in `девять`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    язЫк - Яблоня&#xD;&#xA;If the vowel comes in between you'd take the most comfortable way to get from the previous consonant to the succeeding one. That will be usually an i/e sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    лягУшка - дЕвять&#xD;&#xA;I'd say the `я` is more i-like in девять and some kind of i/e sound in лягушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*caps indicate stressing&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="7169520e-b9d6-4efe-99ea-56726a360e31" CreationDate="2014-05-08T07:05:17.283" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Fully pronounce the vowel if it is stressed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Яркий - мЯгкий - румЯна&#xD;&#xA;If it's in the beginning or ending, you won't fully pronounce it, but it won't be shortened as it is shortened when the vowel comes in between (like in `девять`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    язЫк - Яблоня&#xD;&#xA;If the vowel comes in between you'd take the most comfortable way to get from the previous consonant to the succeeding one. That will be usually an i/e sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    лягУшка - дЕвять - лЮбят&#xD;&#xA;I'd say the `я` is more i-like in девять and some kind of i/e sound in лягушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*caps indicate stressing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look for vowel reduction, but I doubt that some rules always apply, as given e. g. [here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Introduction/IntrUnit6/IntrUnit6.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="4e8b4ca5-b523-4e57-999a-ed31968cc8e0" CreationDate="2014-05-08T12:21:10.977" UserId="185" Text="You are right, words &quot;чей\чья\чьё\чьи&quot; are interrogative pronouns similar to English &quot;whose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the example that you gave, &quot;чьё-л&quot; is not the same as simply &quot;чьё&quot;; &quot;чьё-л&quot; is an abbreviation of &quot;чьё-либо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;чьё-либо&quot; is an indefinite pronoun in neutral gender. It is formed by adding a postfix &quot;либо&quot; to the interrogative pronoun &quot;чьё&quot;. It means &quot;somebody's&quot; and is used when the noun that it refers to is indefinite. For more explanation on pronouns with postfix либо, see [this question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/256/whats-the-difference-between-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE-and-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive &quot;своё&quot; should indeed be used in this example! The correct way to translate `&quot;to turn one's attention to smth&quot;` is `&quot;обратить своё внимание на что-либо&quot;`. The use of &quot;чьё-либо&quot; is incorrect. `&quot;Обратить чьё-либо внимание на что-либо&quot;` means `&quot;to turn somebody's attention to something&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="1953111c-5e4e-4d7b-ab00-c7514d4d3d48" CreationDate="2014-05-08T14:25:18.070" UserId="3713" Text="Отправить, Послать(Отослать), Написать.  &#xD;&#xA;Особенной дифферинциации между обычной почтой и электронной почтой не наблюдается.&#xD;&#xA;Оба варианта имеют свой устойчивый контекст, который слабо пересекается между собой. Пожалуй, отправка письма обычной почтой, требует уточнений, а не отправка мыла: *Я отправил тебе письмо почтой.* *Я отправил заказное письмо.*  &#xD;&#xA;Хотя последнее возможно субьективное утверждение.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Написать* тоже скорее всего потребует уточнений, с незнакомыми(мало знакомыми) с вашим вкусом реципиентами - напишите в контакт, напишите в icq, напишите в ирц, напишите на почту(подразумевается электронная почта без вариантов))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отправить* - оттенок смысла больше в упоре на действие&#xD;&#xA;Отправил сообщение (IM or whatever) , Отправил почту (как вариант), Отправил письмо, Отпавил файл, Отправил архив, Отправил пачку печенья (тут уже вопрос насколько печеньки были реальны)), Отправил посылку (тут несколько вариантов, но скорее всего не электронные)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отослал, Послал, Заслал* - эти пожалуй наиболее зависимые от контекста, возможно кроме: Послал открытку.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="3cb2b4eb-8035-47ae-9648-3c40ae3fc5cd" CreationDate="2014-05-08T14:36:53.597" UserId="3713" Comment="commas" Text="Отправить, Послать(Отослать), Написать.  &#xD;&#xA;Особенной дифферинциации между обычной почтой и электронной почтой не наблюдается.&#xD;&#xA;Оба варианта имеют свой устойчивый контекст, который слабо пересекается между собой. Пожалуй, отправка письма обычной почтой, требует уточнений, а не отправка мыла: *Я отправил тебе письмо почтой.* *Я отправил заказное письмо.*  &#xD;&#xA;Хотя последнее возможно субьективное утверждение.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Написать* тоже скорее всего потребует уточнений, с незнакомыми(мало знакомыми) с вашим вкусом реципиентами - напишите в контакт, напишите в icq, напишите в ирц, напишите на почту(подразумевается электронная почта без вариантов))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отправить* - оттенок смысла больше в упоре на действие&#xD;&#xA;Отправил сообщение (IM or whatever) , Отправил почту (как вариант), Отправил письмо, Отпавил файл, Отправил архив, Отправил пачку печенья (тут уже вопрос насколько печеньки были реальны)), Отправил посылку (тут несколько вариантов, но скорее всего не электронные)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отослал, Послал, Заслал* - эти, пожалуй, наиболее зависимые от контекста, возможно кроме: Послал открытку.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="7868ea63-bbc3-4680-ad9d-04b53e66efce" CreationDate="2014-05-08T14:44:03.547" UserId="3713" Comment="examples" Text="Отправить, Послать(Отослать), Написать.  &#xD;&#xA;Особенной дифферинциации между обычной почтой и электронной почтой не наблюдается.&#xD;&#xA;Оба варианта имеют свой устойчивый контекст, который слабо пересекается между собой. Пожалуй, отправка письма обычной почтой, требует уточнений, а не отправка мыла: *Я отправил тебе письмо почтой.* *Я отправил заказное письмо.*  &#xD;&#xA;Хотя последнее возможно субьективное утверждение.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Написать* тоже скорее всего потребует уточнений, с незнакомыми(мало знакомыми) с вашим вкусом реципиентами - напишите в контакт, напишите в icq, напишите в ирц, напишите на почту(подразумевается электронная почта без вариантов))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отправить* - оттенок смысла больше в упоре на действие&#xD;&#xA;Отправил сообщение (IM or whatever) , Отправил почту (как вариант), Отправил письмо, Отпавил файл, Отправил архив, Отправил пачку печенья (тут уже вопрос насколько печеньки были реальны)), Отправил посылку (тут несколько вариантов, но скорее всего не электронные)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отослал, Послал, Заслал* - эти, пожалуй, наиболее зависимые от контекста. Устойчивые, достаточно определенные варианты, для offline: *Послал посылку. Послал открытку.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4446" RevisionGUID="915049c1-bade-46bf-ab4b-ba2a0fc5c3a2" CreationDate="2014-05-08T15:42:44.323" UserId="3713" Text="add to Artemix answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also suggest to replace &quot;постучи&quot; to &quot;постучите&quot;, sentence will be more like instruction what needs to be done in case of ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **Постучи его по спине** is pretty valid in some cases, let say Mother orders to son to help his Father in that accident: *Постучи папу по спине.* equal to *Постучи папе по спине.* Probably first variant will be used often, because easier to pronounce in fast not expected situation. But both variants are not good somehow. I suggest :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если человек поперхнулся, следует похлопать его по спине.&#xD;&#xA;In that case you assume that someone knows actually what needs to be done and how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of recommendation given on some resource, which looks like correct one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если же человек не в состоянии кашлять (инородное тело полностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; закрыло трахею, а воздуха в легких уже недостаточно) - первое что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нужно сделать - наклонить человека вперед-вниз (или перекинуть на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; живот через колено, спинку кресла...) и сильно **похлопать** открытой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ладонью между лопаток (по направлению ко рту). Помните, нужны именно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; направляющие движения, а не просто хлопки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="0becd9a4-9b4d-4567-a125-38ea8152ce6d" CreationDate="2014-05-08T17:10:49.617" UserId="3769" Comment="replaced л with либо" Text="I know it is used as an interrogative pronoun ('Чей это дом?') - &quot;whose&quot;, but I've also seen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Turn one's attention to something&#xD;&#xA;     обратить чье-либо внимание на что-либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there it is linked to the direct object in gender, but i don't understand why it isn't using the possessive pronoun &quot;своё&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Info on this is hard to find anywhere on the net! Any resources you could link would be nice too )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12349" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="0becd9a4-9b4d-4567-a125-38ea8152ce6d" CreationDate="2014-05-08T17:10:49.617" Comment="Proposed by 3769 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="d0307471-0354-40d5-8b26-d9c5667bc4b0" CreationDate="2014-05-08T17:11:15.223" UserId="3827" Text="these two words have a little different emotional coloring.&#xD;&#xA;прилетел is more official. &#xD;&#xA;долетел means you had long process of flight (&quot;летел, летел и долетел&quot;) and probably you want to tell us how boring or full of adventures was your перелёт.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="2faea8fb-de48-4bef-a39d-300d5110ab1e" CreationDate="2014-05-08T23:42:13.283" UserId="1770" Text="I'm terrible with movement verbs, I never use them well, especially with prefixes, the way to use them changes a lot!!! I get incredibly confuse.&#xA;&#xA;So if someone has a good book reference regarding this topic, I'll appreciate it, especially if it is online. And also if someone could share tips to better understand how to use this глаголы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="2faea8fb-de48-4bef-a39d-300d5110ab1e" CreationDate="2014-05-08T23:42:13.283" UserId="1770" Text="Ways to better study глаголы движения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="2faea8fb-de48-4bef-a39d-300d5110ab1e" CreationDate="2014-05-08T23:42:13.283" UserId="1770" Text="|грамматика|обучение|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="6311d89d-d8ea-4168-995c-35f8c7b40143" CreationDate="2014-05-09T01:30:16.233" UserId="62" Text="The usual term in English is &quot;verbs of motion&quot; rather than &quot;movement verbs&quot;. In any case, I think the best way to learn to use these is to use them a lot with native speakers. You could discuss traveling, going to other cities, arriving and departing, and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a whole book on this topic: Russian Motion Verbs for Intermediate Students, by William Mahota." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="6f8fde4d-f90d-476a-a51f-025ad61d82cf" CreationDate="2014-05-09T05:41:47.970" UserId="62" Comment="edited body" Text="The question in the title and the question you wrote are not quite the same.  The question in the title sounds like it is asking &quot;what case is used after mathematical objects denoted by letters like G, H, etc.&quot;, while the question you wrote is asking &quot;what case follows a counting variable&quot;? [EDIT: The question in the title was later changed to match the question being asked.] A mathematical notation&#xD;&#xA;for an object (not counting something) is often considered neuter, but things following it may have case endings based on the gender for the Russian name of the object.  For example, an equation x = y has the sign = pronounced as равен, равна, or равно depending on if we consider x to be masculine, feminine, or neuter.  Often x is neuter, but if the equation A = B involves linear operators then = may be pronounced as равен (masculine) because оператор is masculine. If an equation f = g involves functions then = may be pronounced as равна since функция is feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You thought &quot;such that&quot; might be который. It is такой что, but there's more to say about this than just the direct translation. Specifically, in ordinary speech the words такой and что are often not next to each other.  This is best understood by examples. I give three below, putting in parentheses the pronunciation of the mathematical notation. (If you know how to pronounce the alphabet in French then the Russian pronunciation of letters in math will make sense.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Let x_n be a sequence such that = Пусть x_n (икс эн) — такая последовательность, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Let f(x,y) be a function of two variables such that = Пусть f(x,y) (эф от икс игрек) — такая функция двух переменных, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) A generator of a group G is an element g such that = Образующий группы G (Жэ)  —  такой элемент g (жэ), что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These literally say &quot;Let x_n be such a sequence that&quot;, &quot;Let f(x,y) be such a function of two variables that&quot;, and &quot;A generator of the group G is such an element g that&quot;, where &quot;such&quot; modifies the object of interest (a sequence, a function, or an element), and all of these sound clumsy in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abbreviation of такой что on the blackboard is &quot;,т.ч.&quot; (note the comma), which is like the use of s.t. for such that in English.  However, because такой and что are often separated from each other in speech, it is awkward to replace them with т.ч. on a blackboard if writing resembles speech. To make т.ч. more natural when writing and speaking at the blackboard, the word такой is moved in speech right before что even though, I am told, the result usually sounds stylistically awkward to non-scientists. The new versions of the above examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Пусть x_n — последовательность такая, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Пусть f(x,y) — функция двух переменных такая, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Образующий группы G  — элемент g такой, что &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending on такой depends on what is it modifying.  Here are some examples to illustrate this, where the same English sentence is translated in more than one possible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) the dimensions of the spaces such that = размерности пространств такие, что &#xD;&#xA;(when &quot;such that&quot; refers to dimensions) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) the dimensions of the spaces such that = размерности пространств таких, что &#xD;&#xA;(when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the spaces) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве такая, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the sequence) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве таких, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the points) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) sequence of points in a metric space such that = последовательность точек в метрическом пространстве таком, что (when &quot;such that&quot; refers to the space) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="afd569d3-7f0b-475d-953b-60ee15136fd7" CreationDate="2014-05-09T10:03:51.590" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Apparently one thing which makes it difficult to deal with verbs of motion is the additional distinction into two groups, beside the given division into verbs of imperfective and perfective aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                         направленного действия  разнонаправленного действия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    несовершенный вид    идти                    ходить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    совершенный вид      зайти                   заходить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the table is correct, I'd say that the prefix (`за-`) turns the verb into one with perfective aspect. However, how about `сходить` then? Corresponding to [gramota.ru][1] its a *imperfect* verb so basically the same aspect as `ходить`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this an exception or does that rule not apply at all?&#xD;&#xA;- Any (other) way to determine the aspect of a verb of motion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%F1%F5%EE%E4%E8%F2%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="afd569d3-7f0b-475d-953b-60ee15136fd7" CreationDate="2014-05-09T10:03:51.590" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="determine the aspect of verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="afd569d3-7f0b-475d-953b-60ee15136fd7" CreationDate="2014-05-09T10:03:51.590" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|грамматика|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="48883823-0478-4d25-9167-95b06b3b1865" CreationDate="2014-05-09T11:13:00.227" UserId="267" Text="If the verbs of motions don't have a prefix, that means that they are both Imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have a prefix, one of them is Imperfective and the other one is Perfective. The verb that witout a prefix means &quot;go and return&quot; forms the Imperfective verb with a prefix, ans the verb that without a prefix means &quot;go&quot; (one direction) forms the Perfective verb with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ходить-идти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приходить-прийти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Переходить-перейти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заходить-зайти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefixed verbs formed from the verb &quot;ходить&quot; are Imperfective and the prefixed verbs formed from the verb &quot;идти&quot; are Perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful when you form the prefixed verbs from &quot;плавать&quot; and &quot;ездить&quot; because they are transformed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;плавать-плыть, but пере**плывать**-переплыть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ездить-ехать, but при**езжать**-приехать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case of the verb &quot;сходить&quot; is quite difficult and confusing. There two verbs with two different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. сходить-сойти: go down, the first one is Imperfective and the second one, Perfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сойти с горы: to go down a mountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. cходить as one of the Perfective verbs formed from &quot;ходить&quot; that means a single quick comleted action to and from somewhere, there and back, often used in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходи в аптеку!&#xD;&#xA;Go to the pharmacy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best,&#xD;&#xA;Yulia Amlinskaya." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="4d73fd21-c3b0-4744-965a-a74bc5fd3f10" CreationDate="2014-05-09T17:16:54.077" UserId="1671" Text="So you are trying to deduct the aspect (perfective/imperfective) from the word form? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see there are many exceptions. Even your example `сходить` depending on the meaning can be both. `сходить с горы/поезда` - imperfective and `сходить в кино` - perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, there are rules and your conclusions are correct: prefixes usually turn the verb into perfective aspect. But there are exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Any (other) way to determine the aspect of a verb of motion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Contextually and semantically? That's how native speakers do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="555bc6fe-b247-4d0c-bef3-293a41fbb879" CreationDate="2014-05-09T19:17:11.213" UserId="2388" Text="I think the dictionary just explains how to use the word in the most general way. Thus, it tells you how to say it when one whould draw _someone else's_ attention to something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, you don't need this if the attention, err.. &quot;belongs&quot; to the same person who is trying to draw it. In this case you usually just omit &quot;своё&quot; altogether (though you may use it to sound more serious and formal): &quot;Обратите также внимание на окна&quot; = &quot;Note the windows, too&quot;/ &quot;Pay attention to the windows as well&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="9ba8385b-9c96-4255-8b29-391b1b7f98b1" CreationDate="2014-05-09T19:35:18.340" UserId="2388" Text="Here are some link for you to look at some pictures that explain the general meaning of prefixes. Fonrtunately, with verbs of motion these really have more or less fixed meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/verbs-of-motion-with-prefixes/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/vom.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the overall use, I like this &quot;practical&quot; explanation of typical patterns of use for _indefinite vs. specific verbs of motion_:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.public.asu.edu/~deliving/russgram/vuses.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just remember that the choice of aspect is a matter of your point of view. It just sounds weird when you suddenly make a choice vastly different from any that a native speaker would. Sometimes it contradicts the nature of the verbs, sometimes not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Memorise some typical constructions where it is virtually impossible to change interpretation: if you *&quot;go to school&quot;* (study there), it is always *&quot;ходить в школу&quot;* (habitual). *&quot;Идти в школу&quot;* is only when you are going to the school, like, right now or soon (specific, definite motion)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4454" RevisionGUID="1952a81a-d06b-4814-859c-e642885bb570" CreationDate="2014-05-09T20:14:01.510" UserId="2388" Comment="typos" Text="Here are some links for you to look at some pictures that explain the general meaning of different prefixes. Fortunately, with verbs of motion these really have more or less fixed meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/verbs-of-motion-with-prefixes/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/vom.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the overall use, I like this &quot;practical&quot; explanation of typical patterns of use for _indefinite vs. specific verbs of motion_:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.public.asu.edu/~deliving/russgram/vuses.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just remember that the choice of aspect is a matter of your point of view. It just sounds weird when you suddenly make a choice vastly different from any that a native speaker would. Sometimes it contradicts the nature of the verbs, sometimes not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Memorise some typical constructions where it is virtually impossible to change interpretation: if you *&quot;go to school&quot;* (study there), it is always *&quot;ходить в школу&quot;* (habitual). *&quot;Идти в школу&quot;* is only when you are going to the school, like, right now or soon (specific, definite motion)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12366" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="b9f0f7ef-a650-43fc-8993-62eae5e390be" CreationDate="2014-05-10T08:46:53.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/465050331429089280" />
  <row Id="12367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="3258b3df-9884-406f-a711-b03675bf41ab" CreationDate="2014-05-10T09:08:00.503" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="I need again the help of SO!  &#xD;&#xA;Can you tell me please the proper translations of &quot;**CLIENT AREA**&quot; in web context?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate give me:  **клиентская область**.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;- **область** is not used for geographical area?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating AREA alone, google translate give several possibilities: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **площадь, область, район, зона, сфера, участок**&#xD;&#xA;- Maybe зона is more appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12368" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="3258b3df-9884-406f-a711-b03675bf41ab" CreationDate="2014-05-10T09:08:00.503" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4221" RevisionGUID="4c5d3db4-700c-4af7-8efe-2de3af657348" CreationDate="2014-05-10T09:08:00.503" UserId="551" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="I need again the help of SO!  &#xD;&#xA;Can you tell me please the proper translations of &quot;**CLIENT AREA**&quot; in web context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate give me:  **клиентская область**.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;- **область** is not used for geographical area?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating AREA alone, google translate give several possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **площадь, область, район, зона, сфера, участок**&#xD;&#xA;- Maybe зона is more appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="8cd1971d-5bc9-42a4-82c0-d76d16de275f" CreationDate="2014-05-10T09:28:49.603" UserId="3833" Text="Носители русского языка никогда не говорят &quot;две пары часов&quot;. Если вы хотите купить, например, 2 часов, вы скажете &quot;двое часов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Proof - http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/107622/%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA; . &quot;Две пары часов&quot; можно сказать в редких случаях, когда вам нужно двое часов одной модели и двое другой. То есть, 2+2 = 4 (четверо) часов.&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;пара&quot; в данном смысле может применяться к парным предметам: пара брюк, пара носков, пара перчаток, пара обуви и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;Но часы, очки, ножницы, грабли, вилы, и т.п. словом &quot;пара&quot; не называются. То есть, слово &quot;пара&quot; для них будет означать 2 штуки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="aac06a01-7958-4ae1-bd27-b5c0a5b0c715" CreationDate="2014-05-10T09:35:05.793" UserId="3833" Text="Напишите &quot;**Для клиентов**&quot; - это будет более литературный перевод." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4457" RevisionGUID="6b3e356a-f6be-467c-9f4c-5478f635cbdd" CreationDate="2014-05-10T09:59:58.743" UserId="3833" Text="If you need a button in web form - &quot;**Пишите**&quot; or &quot;**Пишите нам**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In other cases (in correspondence, for example) - &quot;**Пришлите**&quot;, &quot;**отправьте**&quot;, &quot;**вышлите**&quot;, but it context-dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="6040b67f-9f6b-49bc-aa39-5b05528aa4ff" CreationDate="2014-05-10T11:02:07.403" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="It depends on what is meant by *client area*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a part of your site dedicated to clients as opposed to that dedicated to other audiences (such as contractors, or investors, or staff), a dative such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Клиентам* &#xD;&#xA;- or *Покупателям* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may be used. For example, [rzd.ru][1] uses that convention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't know though if that is considered good style in web design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rzd.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12374" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4231" RevisionGUID="6040b67f-9f6b-49bc-aa39-5b05528aa4ff" CreationDate="2014-05-10T11:02:07.403" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 2284 edit id of 446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="7cc14bb1-01a3-4164-a3b1-b1e176076cdb" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:15:27.967" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="3rd year student here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across [grammatica](http://www.grammatica.eu) and it looks incredibly useful for cementing grammatical structures. It would be a dream to quickly double check a structure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it is windows-only and the web version is several months off (per an email exchange with the developer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there another similar resource? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not I apologize for wasting bandwidth, but it seemed to me that such a resource would be useful to others as well.  If there is no such resource on the mac, do you have any advice as to how one should go about using short stories for grammar acquisition. I feel too passive in just reading them. Perhaps diagramming sentences? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12376" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="7cc14bb1-01a3-4164-a3b1-b1e176076cdb" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:15:27.967" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="39749cbc-1877-4013-a9e0-f5907aff84a4" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:15:49.693" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="My text editor tells me that *водолазовой* is wrong and suggests me &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *водолазов ой* &#xD;&#xA;- or *водолазной* &#xD;&#xA;- or *водолазкой* &#xD;&#xA;- or *водолазный* &#xD;&#xA;- or *водолазка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Google Translator I was not able to decide what could be the right one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That word comes from the Sergei Esenin's poem *Черный человек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Черный человек!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не смеешь этого!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты ведь не на службе  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живешь водолазовой.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне до жизни  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скандального поэта.&lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12378" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="39749cbc-1877-4013-a9e0-f5907aff84a4" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:15:49.693" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 451" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="7ba503d1-e51f-49e5-a577-c6abfc65e137" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:16:31.120" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="You can use [wine][1] to install grammatica on MacOS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_%28software%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12380" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4181" RevisionGUID="7ba503d1-e51f-49e5-a577-c6abfc65e137" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:16:31.120" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 449" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3046" RevisionGUID="64ffc7de-f8a8-4969-bebe-78b4a5a4567e" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:18:51.303" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Almost, but not quite. I'm not sure how the corresponding grammar construction is called (it is some kind of ellipsis), but what is going on is that there is an omitted noun (&quot;color&quot;), which doesn't appear because the speaker wants to be brief but which transfers all its grammatical properties to the adjective &quot;green&quot;. Compare with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какая машина твоя?  &#xD;&#xA;С прицепом.  &#xD;&#xA;Там две таких. Которая с прицепом?  &#xD;&#xA;Синяя с прицепом, без правого зеркала.  &#xD;&#xA;Да у твоей с прицепом все шины спущены!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if the first question were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой автомобиль твой?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the same combination of words  &quot;с прицепом&quot; would borrow the masculine gender and the following dialog would read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С прицепом.  &#xD;&#xA;Там два таких, который с прицепом?  &#xD;&#xA;Синий с прицепом, без правого зеркала.  &#xD;&#xA;Да у твоего с прицепом все шины спущены!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it is clear that while the role of *с прицепом* in the sentence is pretty much indistinguishable from the role of a noun, the true noun (&quot;car&quot;) is hiding behind it&#xD;&#xA;and the best name for *с прицепом* would be something like a &quot;noun impostor&quot; (there is no such term, of course, but that's more or less what it really is).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12382" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3046" RevisionGUID="64ffc7de-f8a8-4969-bebe-78b4a5a4567e" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:18:51.303" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3046" RevisionGUID="5335730c-f286-44d8-afbc-287ff121d926" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:18:51.303" UserId="1236" Comment="formatting" Text="Almost, but not quite. I'm not sure how the corresponding grammar construction is called (it is some kind of ellipsis), but what is going on is that there is an omitted noun (&quot;color&quot;), which doesn't appear because the speaker wants to be brief but which transfers all its grammatical properties to the adjective &quot;green&quot;. Compare with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Какая машина твоя?  &#xD;&#xA; — С прицепом.  &#xD;&#xA;— Там две таких. Которая с прицепом?  &#xD;&#xA;— Синяя с прицепом, без правого зеркала.  &#xD;&#xA;— Да у твоей с прицепом все шины спущены!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if the first question were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Какой автомобиль твой?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the same combination of words  &quot;с прицепом&quot; would borrow the masculine gender and the following dialog would read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— С прицепом.  &#xD;&#xA;— Там два таких, который с прицепом?  &#xD;&#xA;— Синий с прицепом, без правого зеркала.  &#xD;&#xA;— Да у твоего с прицепом все шины спущены!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it is clear that while the role of *с прицепом* in the sentence is pretty much indistinguishable from the role of a noun, the true noun (&quot;car&quot;) is hiding behind it&#xD;&#xA;and the best name for *с прицепом* would be something like a &quot;noun impostor&quot; (there is no such term, of course, but that's more or less what it really is).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="a3300d87-0bc8-4444-9d6d-92c43a44e817" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:19:13.420" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Is it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Has time stopped you?* &#xD;&#xA;- or *Have you stopped time?*&#xD;&#xA;- or could it be *Has time stopped for you?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how *тебя* or genitive case works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12385" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="a3300d87-0bc8-4444-9d6d-92c43a44e817" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:19:13.420" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 448" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="c3e9fe49-7802-4dde-94b3-7944bc9a601b" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:30:45.593" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;Has time stopped for you?&quot; is the only variant that fits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У тебя&quot; here is the same &quot;у тебя&quot; as in &quot;У тебя в доме нет окон&quot; = &quot;There are no windows in your house&quot; or &quot;У тебя мама пилот&quot;= &quot;Your mother is a pilot&quot;. That is, it generally describes &quot;some situation that refers to you or things related to you&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Время&quot; is obviously the grammatical subject, as it is in the Nominative.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;остановилось&quot; (stopped/has stopped) is the verb. Since it is reflexive by morphology, it is virtually impossible for that verb to have an object, as it intrinsically suggests that the action is performed &quot;on itself&quot;, &quot;in general&quot;, &quot;to each other&quot; and so on. There are very. very few verbs on &quot;-ся&quot; that can take an Accusative object, and this is usually just one of the variants. I can only think of &quot;бояться&quot; (to be afraid of): it is mostly Genitive in literature, but colloquially oftentimes Accusative is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the sentence itself sounds non-native. Could you calrify what was the source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12387" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="b746188e-a4e0-4217-a841-2380e5d33ac1" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:46:53.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/465140927695032320" />
  <row Id="12388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4415" RevisionGUID="585aec45-cb01-46de-a007-a15112e26254" CreationDate="2014-05-11T19:13:22.507" UserId="3595" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="I can suggest a jargon word &quot;Намыльте&quot; for &quot;email&quot; as a verb, here's [an example of usage](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/relcom.games/cDIA35wvAlo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Намыльте коды для Duke. Plssss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from jargon word &quot;мыло&quot; for email. A verb is not used as much as a noun though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google used][1] the jargon word in the Gmail promotion in 2008. &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sostav.ru/news/2008/02/06/r3vopr/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c355m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4415" RevisionGUID="165a2d99-b085-4b4f-a575-cd7167125171" CreationDate="2014-05-11T19:24:25.010" UserId="3595" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I can suggest a jargon word &quot;Намыльте&quot; for &quot;email&quot; as a verb, here's [an example of usage](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/relcom.games/cDIA35wvAlo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Намыльте коды для Duke. Plssss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from jargon word &quot;мыло&quot; for email. A verb is not used as much as a noun though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google used][1] the jargon word in the [Gmail promotion][2] in 2008. &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sostav.ru/news/2008/02/06/r3vopr/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gbs.com.ua/ru/company/articles/253.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c355m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4459" RevisionGUID="506bdbe7-5fc2-4e85-96ba-2dbfe9f90faf" CreationDate="2014-05-12T01:13:06.860" UserId="3595" Text="I think that in this case the entire phrase is a noun form, it's not that зеленый is a noun, and бриллиантовый is an adjective; otherwise you should have been able to attach other adjectives to зеленый to refer to other kinds of зеленый, yet there's only one unique entity called бриллиантовый зеленый." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12391" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="4bc8d701-a79b-47c2-8ae3-d7568fdbf97d" CreationDate="2014-05-12T10:46:07.853" UserId="185" Comment="edited title and tags" Text="Soft vowel pronounciation at the end of a word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="4bc8d701-a79b-47c2-8ae3-d7568fdbf97d" CreationDate="2014-05-12T10:46:07.853" UserId="185" Comment="edited title and tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="432a08b4-0428-443f-8139-7217edd7ae01" CreationDate="2014-05-12T10:47:27.487" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|вид|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="e8162146-1237-4877-9026-118a2a065158" CreationDate="2014-05-12T13:21:36.333" UserId="551" Comment="Fixed formatting. Removed signature at the end of the post." Text="If the verbs of motions don't have a prefix, that means that they are both Imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they have a prefix, one of them is Imperfective and the other one is Perfective. The verb that witout a prefix means &quot;go and return&quot; forms the Imperfective verb with a prefix, ans the verb that without a prefix means &quot;go&quot; (one direction) forms the Perfective verb with a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ходить-идти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приходить-прийти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Переходить-перейти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Заходить-зайти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefixed verbs formed from the verb &quot;ходить&quot; are Imperfective and the prefixed verbs formed from the verb &quot;идти&quot; are Perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful when you form the prefixed verbs from &quot;плавать&quot; and &quot;ездить&quot; because they are transformed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;плавать-плыть, but пере&lt;b&gt;плывать&lt;/b&gt;-переплыть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ездить-ехать, but при&lt;b&gt;езжать&lt;/b&gt;-приехать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case of the verb &quot;сходить&quot; is quite difficult and confusing. There two verbs with two different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. сходить-сойти: go down, the first one is Imperfective and the second one, Perfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Сойти с горы: to go down a mountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. cходить as one of the Perfective verbs formed from &quot;ходить&quot; that means a single quick comleted action to and from somewhere, there and back, often used in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Сходи в аптеку!  &#xD;&#xA; Go to the pharmacy!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="ce93fa81-6d94-4541-b34f-cbc6df82d6f4" CreationDate="2014-05-12T16:32:03.380" UserId="3839" Text="I am writing a novel in English. My transliteration novel uses -ov for surnames (Danilov, Kirilov). For consistency sake I would like to spell out Sergei Rachmaninov as such, though he is more traditionally spelled Rachmaninoff. Is the -off simply an archaic form of transliteration? I can only think of Smirnoff &amp; Rachmaninoff as being &quot;branded&quot; with the suffix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="ce93fa81-6d94-4541-b34f-cbc6df82d6f4" CreationDate="2014-05-12T16:32:03.380" UserId="3839" Text="Sergei Rachmaninov or Rachmaninoff" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="ce93fa81-6d94-4541-b34f-cbc6df82d6f4" CreationDate="2014-05-12T16:32:03.380" UserId="3839" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4461" RevisionGUID="e1392b01-4b18-47b0-90a7-535671c03f44" CreationDate="2014-05-12T17:43:38.257" UserId="1758" Text="Sergei Rachmaninov (Rachmaninoff) emigrated from Russia to the United States after the Communist revolution of 1917. He used Latin script to spell his name as &quot;Sergei Rachmaninoff&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the following books about him were published in NY:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rachmaninoff’s recollections told by Oscar von Riesemann, L. — N. Y.,&#xD;&#xA;   1934  &#xD;&#xA; - Bertensson S. and Leyda J., Sergei Rachmaninoff. A lifetime in    &#xD;&#xA;   music, N. Y., 1956&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the standard spelling is actually Rakhmaninov, but en.wikipedia.org and other resources prefer to use traditional spelling (Rachmaninoff)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="8f18f19a-0684-4be4-955b-e54fef36ae75" CreationDate="2014-05-12T18:01:37.130" UserId="3595" Text="You are right, that the current style of romanization of Russian surnames is &quot;-ov&quot; (transliteration), while in the past it used to be &quot;-off&quot; (quasi-phonetic). See [this paper][1] in French (with English abstract) on the subject. Note, that until recently when Russians were issued travel documents, their names were romanized in French style, i.e. &quot;-ow&quot; would have been acceptable too. You could encounter funny endings like &quot;-oukine&quot; etc. Now they switched to Enlgish transliteration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/13/14/13/PDF/sakhno_nompropre_version_meta_2_.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="513b9e89-182b-439f-9242-6db0ce224ea2" CreationDate="2014-05-13T03:08:59.800" UserId="3595" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="You are right, that the current style of romanization of Russian surnames is &quot;-ov&quot; (transliteration), while in the past it used to be &quot;-off&quot; (quasi-phonetic). See [this paper][1] in French (with English abstract) on the subject. Note, that until recently when Russians were issued travel documents, their names were romanized in French style, i.e. &quot;-ow&quot; would have been acceptable too. You could encounter funny endings like &quot;-oukine&quot; etc. Now they switched to Enlgish transliteration. If he were issued a passport today I bet it would have been Rakhmaninov, not _kh_ instead of _ch_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/13/14/13/PDF/sakhno_nompropre_version_meta_2_.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4464" RevisionGUID="93d9107a-e2a5-4498-a577-1542f7e03e13" CreationDate="2014-05-13T08:25:54.097" UserId="3841" Text="Правильно так: &quot;Все точки над i&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Латинская буква i имеется ввиду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="02e8e7a0-74fb-43f4-ac43-c09ffae03a5f" CreationDate="2014-05-13T11:44:18.173" UserId="3843" Text="As the addition to other answers: letter &quot;ё&quot; was added to russian alphabet at the end of XVIII century, so probably this expression existed earlier than letter &quot;ё&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="3aaf84fe-43a9-4730-a327-1a9d98043e45" CreationDate="2014-05-13T11:56:35.707" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="    username         - имя пользователя &#xD;&#xA;    the login        - имя пользователя/логин&#xD;&#xA;    to login         - войти&#xD;&#xA;    an account       - учётная запись&#xD;&#xA;    to register      - зарегистрироваться&#xD;&#xA;    registration     - регистрация&#xD;&#xA;    e-mail           - е-мейл/почта&#xD;&#xA;    password         - пароль&#xD;&#xA;    to logout        - выйти&#xD;&#xA;    the client login - вход для клиентов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12405" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4107" RevisionGUID="3aaf84fe-43a9-4730-a327-1a9d98043e45" CreationDate="2014-05-13T11:56:35.707" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1236, 97 edit id of 447" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="67a4673f-4e14-444e-8fe7-e2c412214ac5" CreationDate="2014-05-13T13:06:10.463" UserId="551" Comment="Added information from English, French and Russian sources" Text="This is a historical phrase. Before 1918 there were two kinds of letter и - **и** and **і**. At that time ink was used to write and dots over i were put after all the letters in the word is written completely. The meaning of the phrase is &quot;to do the things until every little thing is in place&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letter **ё** on the other hand is optional. Most writers do not put the dots over it. So, the meaning of the phrase changes to &quot;to do even the things nobody cares about&quot;. Actually I've met the phrase &quot;все точки над Ё&quot;, but it causes an obviously humorous effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for letter **й** - the thingy over и is called &quot;кратка&quot;, so the right &quot;proverb&quot; would be &quot;Поставить все кратки над и кратким&quot;, which sounds too repetitious and nobody knows the term anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the letter **i** happend more often than **ё** and **й** and so the saying sounded most logical at the time it become popular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this phrase could be borrowed from other language, for instance in English there is a saying [&quot;to dot the i's and cross the t's&quot;](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dot_the_i's_and_cross_the_t's). (UPD: user3711 claims that the proverb came from French language, which is quite likely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что по-французски пословица звучит как &quot;mettre les points sur les i&quot;. [Здесь][1] дается такое объяснение (перевод на основе Google Translate):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В средние века монахи-переписчики экономили пергамент, поэтому готические буквы были очень плотными и краткими. В результате букву `I` можно было спутать с буквой `l`. Чтобы различать их, над буквой I стали ставить точку. Позже точку стали ставить и над буквой J.   Выражение означает: дать все подробности, объяснить все четко и твердо с кем-то кто не понимает или не хочет понять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно что английское &quot;dot the i's and cross the t's&quot; возникло на основе французской поговорки - перечеркивание буквы t не упоминается ни в русской ни во французской версии. American Heritage Dictionary [дает примеры][2] середины 19 века. Кроме того Google Ngram Viewer находит французское выражение [начиная с 1750 года][3], а английское - [начиная с 1840 года][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вяземский пишет в середине 19 века: &quot;В исторических и анекдотических рассказах должно, сколько есть возможности, по французской поговорке, ставить les points sur les i [точки над i]: то есть всякое лыко в строку. [П. А. Вяземский. Старая записная книжка (1830-1870)]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается русского языка, то князь П. А. Вяземский пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В исторических и анекдотических рассказах должно, сколько есть возможности, по французской поговорке, ставить les points sur les i [точки над i]: то есть всякое лыко в строку. [П. А. Вяземский. Старая записная книжка (1830-1870)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один пример из Национального корпуса:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но он терпел полнейшее фиаско, когда дело шло о различных «обличениях», где уже приходилось волей-неволей говорить прямо и ставить точки над «и», как говорят французы. [А.К. Шеллер-Михайлов. Лес рубят - щепки летят (1871)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как видим, оба автора прямо указывают на французское происхождение поговорки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nikibar.com/news/mots-bizarres-expressions-curieuses.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dot+the+i%27s+and+cross+the+t%27s?s=t&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=points%20sur%20les%20i&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1700&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=19&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4;,points%20sur%20les%20i;,c0;,s0;;points%20sur%20les%20i;,c0;;points%20sur%20les%20I;,c0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dot%20the%20i%27s&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4;,dot%20the%20i%20%27s;,c0;,s0;;dot%20the%20i%20%27s;,c0;;dot%20the%20I%20%27s;,c0;;Dot%20the%20i%20%27s;,c0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="e2b5cfe1-d70a-4343-8f84-b63b95a3c155" CreationDate="2014-05-13T14:06:36.227" UserId="3843" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As an addition to other answers: letter &quot;ё&quot; was added to russian alphabet at the end of XVIII century, so probably this expression existed earlier than letter &quot;ё&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12408" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="555874b1-4ab8-440f-8589-175b0207a8a5" CreationDate="2014-05-13T18:11:09.203" UserId="3769" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="12409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="926c5552-145e-49a4-af25-9f6152b22f53" CreationDate="2014-05-13T19:16:29.187" UserId="3845" Text="I took Russian in university and can talk a little. Few days ago my russian friend lost his keys and I wanted to sarcastically say &quot;nice job&quot; in russian, but I didn't really know what was the proper thing to say and said &quot;хорошая работа&quot;. He laughed at me for saying that. What is the proper thing to say? Is there a usual noun or slang for such incident??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="926c5552-145e-49a4-af25-9f6152b22f53" CreationDate="2014-05-13T19:16:29.187" UserId="3845" Text="How to sarcastically say &quot;good job&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="926c5552-145e-49a4-af25-9f6152b22f53" CreationDate="2014-05-13T19:16:29.187" UserId="3845" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="98a1f15e-30ab-4f92-8ceb-f9864e004650" CreationDate="2014-05-13T19:40:59.643" UserId="3846" Text="You can say the word &quot;молодец&quot;, but with sarcastic intonation. In russian you can change a lot with intonation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="d056fc9c-69d4-4da9-b334-15a764d881f9" CreationDate="2014-05-13T19:46:21.720" UserId="3837" Text="&quot;Хорошая работа&quot; is fine, though you can emphasize it with &quot;Отличная работа&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12414" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="3700dbfe-d10e-4299-aa3f-8725d68190c4" CreationDate="2014-05-14T06:00:16.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/466457952447389697" />
  <row Id="12415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="549615be-99ea-493a-b205-ffc87a859fcb" CreationDate="2014-05-14T12:39:58.150" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="I took Russian in university and can talk a little. Few days ago my russian friend lost his keys and I wanted to sarcastically say &quot;nice job&quot; in russian, but I didn't really know what was the proper thing to say and said &quot;*хорошая работа*&quot;. He laughed at me for saying that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is the proper thing to say? &#xD;&#xA;- Is there a usual noun or slang for such incident??&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12416" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="549615be-99ea-493a-b205-ffc87a859fcb" CreationDate="2014-05-14T12:39:58.150" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 3845 edit id of 454" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="37d20782-f405-4936-93c3-b1387dafca08" CreationDate="2014-05-14T13:39:17.750" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You are right, that the current style of romanization of Russian surnames is &quot;-ov&quot; (transliteration), while in the past it used to be &quot;-off&quot; (quasi-phonetic). See [this paper][1] in French (with English abstract) on the subject. Note, that until recently when Russians were issued travel documents, their names were romanized in French style, i.e. &quot;-ow&quot; would have been acceptable too. You could encounter funny endings like &quot;-oukine&quot; etc. Now they switched to Enlgish transliteration. If he were issued a passport today I bet it would have been Rakhmaninov, note _kh_ instead of _ch_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/13/14/13/PDF/sakhno_nompropre_version_meta_2_.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="232e4467-379c-4731-97e5-071ae028f0f0" CreationDate="2014-05-14T14:08:31.843" UserId="3713" Text="Tiny list, if you will have opportunity again ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not good at smiles but added some, Big letters in words = emphasis, all at once or any of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more optimistic, for my opinion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Отличненько, ты просто мОлОдЕц(молодцА) :p&#xD;&#xA;    МолодцаАа :p&#xD;&#xA;    Заме-чАтельно o^&#xD;&#xA;    Удачник, ты просто Удачник, заведи собаку :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more pessimistic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Молодца&#xD;&#xA;    Ну ты крут, Что.&#xD;&#xA;    КрутоОo&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="0d2680f6-2cc5-4520-9bbe-09334af948ef" CreationDate="2014-05-14T19:44:01.647" UserId="277" Text="I mean,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В огороде на грядке **созрела** клубника&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В огороде на грядке **поспела** клубника&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="0d2680f6-2cc5-4520-9bbe-09334af948ef" CreationDate="2014-05-14T19:44:01.647" UserId="277" Text="What is the difference between &quot;созревать&quot; and &quot;поспевать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="0d2680f6-2cc5-4520-9bbe-09334af948ef" CreationDate="2014-05-14T19:44:01.647" UserId="277" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="437a7588-98ca-4da4-b725-f9b86060638a" CreationDate="2014-05-14T20:02:06.073" UserId="3851" Text="There is no difference in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="30de42db-c863-47d7-9ec0-b806348b851e" CreationDate="2014-05-14T20:17:47.277" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="The question might be too broad, anyway:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Which use cases (phrases) are there for ***бы*** **besides when it has this kind of subjunctive meaning coming with a verb ending in `-л / -ла / -ло / -ли`** (see below)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For instance: *как бы*, *почему бы и нет*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_2. What function does **бы** have, i. e. does it always make something &quot;unreal&quot; (subjunctive)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For instance: What's the difference between saying &#xD;&#xA;  - *почему нет* and &#xD;&#xA;  - *почему **бы и** нет*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;What I mentioned in 1. (..coming with a verb..) are the following use cases   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**бы**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1**. употребляется для образования сослагательного наклонения  &#xD;&#xA;1) предположительной возможности  &#xD;&#xA;*кто бы это мог быть? — who could / might that be?*  &#xD;&#xA;2) вежливого пожелания, совета, просьбы  &#xD;&#xA;*было бы очень приятно вас видеть — it would be very nice to see you*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2**. (+ ни) употребляется в составе неопределённых местоимений и союзов   &#xD;&#xA;*кто бы ни пришёл — whoever comes*  &#xD;&#xA;*что бы из этого ни вышло — whatever comes of it*  &#xD;&#xA;*что бы ни случилось — whatever happens*  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ref: D. I. Yermolovich, T. M. Krasavina&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="30de42db-c863-47d7-9ec0-b806348b851e" CreationDate="2014-05-14T20:17:47.277" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Understanding &quot;бы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="30de42db-c863-47d7-9ec0-b806348b851e" CreationDate="2014-05-14T20:17:47.277" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="40978479-1090-45ac-adc6-4fb44cd88bcb" CreationDate="2014-05-14T20:40:27.173" UserId="551" Text="**Поспеть** has two different meanings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **созреть**, стать годным для еды (to become edible) and&#xD;&#xA;* **успеть** (to be in time) - this one is a bit outdated nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **созреть** mean mostly the same: for fruits it means the same as **поспеть**. It also means *to become mature*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example both words mean the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="fcc61556-9d64-4922-b1c8-ca88c8699335" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:05:06.033" UserId="551" Text="**Почему нет?** may mean *why (something) is missing?*, or (another meaning) *what objections do you have?*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-- У нас нет воды.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Почему нет?  &#xD;&#xA;-- Авария - труба лопнула.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ты пойдешь в театр?  &#xD;&#xA;-- Нет.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Почему нет?  &#xD;&#xA;-- Очень плохо себя чувствую. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему бы и нет?** has exactly the same meaning as **why not?**. It is not about asking the about objections, it's an invitation to look at the alternative solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that **бы** is a word for possibilities and alternatives. This also includes polite forms - by using **бы** you allow other person either to agree with you (accept your proposal) or to make own decision. Without **бы** it may sound like you are forcing other person to accept what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other examples of using бы, here is what *Большой толковый словарь* proposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БЫ; Б&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. Указывает на условно-предположительную возможность действия. *Мог бы полюбить. На твоём месте поступил бы иначе. Будто бы твой. Были бы друзья - нашёл бы куда пойти. Если б не ты - мне не жить.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Указывает на желательность или долженствование действия. *Поохотиться бы по-настоящему! Чайку бы сейчас! Потише бы! Ей бы большую семью иметь. Были бы все здоровые. Покрапал бы дождичек! Ты бы хоть позвонил!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. Указывает на вежливо-предупредительное пожелание кому-л., совет, предложение. *Ты бы прилёг. Сходить бы тебе к врачу. Может, поговорил бы с начальством?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. (обычно с отриц.). *Указывает на опасение чего-л. Не опоздать бы. Не кусать бы потом локти. Лишь бы не дурак. Туфли любые, лишь бы не белые.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. (в придат. предл.). Указывает на обусловленность действия. *Не было бы счастья, да несчастье помогло (Погов.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. (в составе сложных союзов, частиц и нареч.). Указывает на различные оттенки условности, предположительности, желаемости действия. *Будто бы, если бы, как бы, хоть бы, хоть бы и так, хоть бы хны, хоть бы что, ещё бы, во что бы то ни стало и т.п.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="2116c7d2-603e-45da-8053-1bfb7deee36b" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:13:35.447" UserId="3852" Text="I came across this line in a [movie scene][1] (at about 20 seconds in the video). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I never know what to say in these moments&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the translation in google translate - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the translation was this - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я никогда не знаю, что сказать в эти моменты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;YA nikogda ne znayu, chto skazat' v eti momenty&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this sounds different from what the actor actually says. So what does he really say and how is it transliterated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJKUpQwnORk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="2116c7d2-603e-45da-8053-1bfb7deee36b" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:13:35.447" UserId="3852" Text="Translation/transliteration question - &quot;I never know what to say in these moments&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="2116c7d2-603e-45da-8053-1bfb7deee36b" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:13:35.447" UserId="3852" Text="|перевод|произношение|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="5c71049c-def5-4536-accb-7a988058e9c3" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:23:11.010" UserId="3595" Text="я никогда не знаю что сказать в таких ситуациях" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4477" RevisionGUID="b31edde5-fa48-4392-81bb-2282ddfeabec" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:28:15.263" UserId="3595" Text="Usually, the first means &quot;mature&quot;, and the second means &quot;ripen&quot;; but in this context they have exactly the same meaning, i.e. &quot;ripen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="a1a7005a-8475-4f3f-a614-f1b795b1ff5f" CreationDate="2014-05-14T21:51:40.130" UserId="3595" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="я никогда не знаю что говорить в такие моменты" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="c9124219-0d03-4ae4-9ce0-13619c31adcd" CreationDate="2014-05-15T01:22:57.680" UserId="3853" Text="Both words are used equally often and have the same meaning. But I think the second one better, because it has no another meaning. `Спелый` only means &quot;ripe&quot;, while you can say `Зрелый` applying not only to vegetables or fruits, but also to people. `Зрелый мужчина` means `mature (or verile) man`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="4b9f1e15-71d3-4571-877a-5cbc602f8506" CreationDate="2014-05-15T04:23:50.323" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="**Почему нет?** may mean *why (something) is missing?*, or (another meaning) *what objections do you have?*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-- У нас нет воды.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Почему нет?  &#xD;&#xA;-- Авария - труба лопнула.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ты пойдешь в театр?  &#xD;&#xA;-- Нет.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Почему нет?  &#xD;&#xA;-- Очень плохо себя чувствую. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему бы и нет?** has exactly the same meaning as **why not?**. It is not for asking about objections, it's an invitation to look at the alternative solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that **бы** is a word for possibilities and alternatives. This also includes polite forms - by using **бы** you allow other person either to agree with you (accept your proposal) or to make own decision. Without **бы** it may sound like you are forcing other person to accept what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other examples of using бы, here is what *Большой толковый словарь* proposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БЫ; Б&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1. Указывает на условно-предположительную возможность действия. *Мог бы полюбить. На твоём месте поступил бы иначе. Будто бы твой. Были бы друзья - нашёл бы куда пойти. Если б не ты - мне не жить.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2. Указывает на желательность или долженствование действия. *Поохотиться бы по-настоящему! Чайку бы сейчас! Потише бы! Ей бы большую семью иметь. Были бы все здоровые. Покрапал бы дождичек! Ты бы хоть позвонил!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  3. Указывает на вежливо-предупредительное пожелание кому-л., совет, предложение. *Ты бы прилёг. Сходить бы тебе к врачу. Может, поговорил бы с начальством?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  4. (обычно с отриц.). *Указывает на опасение чего-л. Не опоздать бы. Не кусать бы потом локти. Лишь бы не дурак. Туфли любые, лишь бы не белые.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  5. (в придат. предл.). Указывает на обусловленность действия. *Не было бы счастья, да несчастье помогло (Погов.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  6. (в составе сложных союзов, частиц и нареч.). Указывает на различные оттенки условности, предположительности, желаемости действия. *Будто бы, если бы, как бы, хоть бы, хоть бы и так, хоть бы хны, хоть бы что, ещё бы, во что бы то ни стало и т.п.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="c002541c-491a-4a04-b88d-b39668203e0b" CreationDate="2014-05-15T06:26:50.617" UserId="3855" Text="How do you say &quot;I am getting ready to apply to college/university.&quot;  Я собираюсь поступать в университет ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="c002541c-491a-4a04-b88d-b39668203e0b" CreationDate="2014-05-15T06:26:50.617" UserId="3855" Text="How to say &quot;to apply to university/college&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="c002541c-491a-4a04-b88d-b39668203e0b" CreationDate="2014-05-15T06:26:50.617" UserId="3855" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="b3087615-b32b-4f55-abf9-b14ff212e6b7" CreationDate="2014-05-15T06:29:41.010" UserId="3856" Text="Honestly I (as a native speaker) never heard of people saying &quot;пара&quot; with meaning of one object although internet states that it is a simplification in casual language (how is that a simplification if it is completly illogical?). I would not recommend you to use &quot;пара&quot; in meaning of one object - just try to avoid that with something else.&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Although after looking in internet for this question - it seems debatable from the formal point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4309" RevisionGUID="93770be2-ac3e-45c2-af39-1044af8ec1e4" CreationDate="2014-05-15T07:59:06.843" UserId="551" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="This is a historical phrase. Before 1918 there were two kinds of letter и - **и** and **і**. At that time ink was used to write and dots over i were put after all the letters in the word is written completely. The meaning of the phrase is &quot;to do the things until every little thing is in place&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letter **ё** on the other hand is optional. Most writers do not put the dots over it. So, the meaning of the phrase changes to &quot;to do even the things nobody cares about&quot;. Actually I've met the phrase &quot;все точки над Ё&quot;, but it causes an obviously humorous effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for letter **й** - the thingy over и is called &quot;кратка&quot;, so the right &quot;proverb&quot; would be &quot;Поставить все кратки над и кратким&quot;, which sounds too repetitious and nobody knows the term anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the letter **i** happend more often than **ё** and **й** and so the saying sounded most logical at the time it become popular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that this phrase could be borrowed from other language, for instance in English there is a saying [&quot;to dot the i's and cross the t's&quot;](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dot_the_i's_and_cross_the_t's). (UPD: user3711 claims that the proverb came from French language, which is quite likely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что по-французски пословица звучит как &quot;mettre les points sur les i&quot;. [Здесь][1] дается такое объяснение (перевод на основе Google Translate):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В средние века монахи-переписчики экономили пергамент, поэтому готические буквы были очень плотными и краткими. В результате букву `I` можно было спутать с буквой `l`. Чтобы различать их, над буквой I стали ставить точку. Позже точку стали ставить и над буквой J.   Выражение означает: дать все подробности, объяснить все четко и твердо с кем-то кто не понимает или не хочет понять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно что английское &quot;dot the i's and cross the t's&quot; возникло на основе французской поговорки - перечеркивание буквы t не упоминается ни в русской ни во французской версии. И, кстати, это перечеркивание t указывает на переосмысливание выражения - уже нет отсылки к средневековым монахам-переписчикам, а имеется в виду сам процесс перечеркивания вертикальных линий в букве t и проставления точек над i и j после того как написано слово целиком при каллиграфическом письме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American Heritage Dictionary [дает примеры английского выражения][2] середины 19 века. Кроме того Google Ngram Viewer находит французское выражение [начиная с 1750 года][3], а английское - [начиная с 1840 года][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается русского языка, то князь П. А. Вяземский пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В исторических и анекдотических рассказах должно, сколько есть возможности, по французской поговорке, ставить les points sur les i [точки над i]: то есть всякое лыко в строку. [П. А. Вяземский. Старая записная книжка (1830-1870)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один пример из Национального корпуса:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но он терпел полнейшее фиаско, когда дело шло о различных «обличениях», где уже приходилось волей-неволей говорить прямо и ставить точки над «и», как говорят французы. [А.К. Шеллер-Михайлов. Лес рубят - щепки летят (1871)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как видим, оба автора прямо указывают на французское происхождение поговорки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nikibar.com/news/mots-bizarres-expressions-curieuses.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dot+the+i%27s+and+cross+the+t%27s?s=t&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=points%20sur%20les%20i&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1700&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=19&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4;,points%20sur%20les%20i;,c0;,s0;;points%20sur%20les%20i;,c0;;points%20sur%20les%20I;,c0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dot%20the%20i%27s&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4;,dot%20the%20i%20%27s;,c0;,s0;;dot%20the%20i%20%27s;,c0;;dot%20the%20I%20%27s;,c0;;Dot%20the%20i%20%27s;,c0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="35e360fc-f062-4304-b714-0b0b07e55512" CreationDate="2014-05-15T08:06:26.830" UserId="97" Text="_Я собираюсь поступ&lt;strong&gt;а&lt;/strong&gt;ть в университет_ is actually a correct translation.  @kishtibargo's answer incorrectly puts the suggested translation as _Я собираюсь поступ&lt;strong&gt;и&lt;/strong&gt;ть в университет_ - and then proceeds to correctly explain why this translation is not right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@kishtibargo's suggestion of _Я собираюсь подать в универ_, while technically correct, is more of a slang.  Your version of _Я собираюсь поступ&lt;strong&gt;а&lt;/strong&gt;ть в университет_ is a perfectly correct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="c84f53e9-b7cf-463a-9183-79577186a2c2" CreationDate="2014-05-15T10:39:46.200" UserId="97" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="_Я собираюсь поступ&lt;strong&gt;а&lt;/strong&gt;ть в университет_ is actually a correct translation.  Another option would be _Я готовлюсь поступать в университет_. This conveys the meaning of _getting ready_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@kishtibargo's answer incorrectly puts the suggested translation as _Я собираюсь поступ&lt;strong&gt;и&lt;/strong&gt;ть в университет_ - and then proceeds to correctly explain why this translation is not right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@kishtibargo's suggestion of _Я собираюсь подать в универ_, while technically correct, is more of a slang.  Your version of _Я собираюсь поступ&lt;strong&gt;а&lt;/strong&gt;ть в университет_ is a perfectly correct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12446" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="15824b4b-b25c-4f11-8e75-b90f91034d20" CreationDate="2014-05-15T19:58:06.840" UserId="3769" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="12448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="0d47eba5-ac9e-498d-a95f-08401eddec54" CreationDate="2014-05-15T20:53:21.997" UserId="3859" Text="A couple of variations for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В такие моменты, я теряю дар речи.&#xD;&#xA; - В таких случаях, я обычно не знаю, что сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="387e8205-ddb4-4bf4-a027-b1d3f195ae86" CreationDate="2014-05-15T21:10:29.550" UserId="3859" Text="Client area, as it relates to the part of the window used by the client application, as opposed to the browser itself, &quot;рабочая площадь.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="8a2cdd69-b2c7-4218-9db0-d5df40e06e4f" CreationDate="2014-05-15T21:13:14.773" UserId="3859" Text="I would call it &quot;Стандартная форма.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="91111509-cee8-422d-a95d-f3ad6ae90211" CreationDate="2014-05-15T21:15:32.343" UserId="3859" Text="&quot;Бы&quot; is pretty close to &quot;would&quot;. Я бы сказал = I would say.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="ae8acdf5-c050-45f7-be69-55fc8982107b" CreationDate="2014-05-15T21:17:58.200" UserId="3859" Text="I believe поспевать is somewhat more colloquial. Созревать is more standard Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="3f83aae4-6c76-4859-9624-2bf8e7efe9ba" CreationDate="2014-05-15T21:24:40.747" UserId="3859" Text="Sorry, but I'm at a loss from the question as well as the answers... There is absolutely no difference in pronunciation of Я in any of the words listed. The only exception is the case of Я as the first letter (Я, Яркий, Ярослав). There is a consonant sound preceding it and it sounds a bit like ЙA. It never, however, comes even remotely close to the pronunciation of &quot;I&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="d62cfd7e-ee69-402d-b35b-31da7c9754ec" CreationDate="2014-05-16T14:37:32.210" UserId="2388" Text="A good ear for different sounds. These sounds maybe a bit different, depending on how a speaker wants it. Or the same. The thing is, usually Russian vowel reduction is described as a process consisting of two stages: first, the reduction in the first pretonic syllable (immediately before the stress) and then the second stage &quot;everywhere else&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some researchers suggest that only pretonic-stage is consistent, and &quot;everywhere else&quot; is just a speedup device, i.e. it largely depends on making speaking easier and is prone to variation depending on the speaker, the amount of hypercorrection and how fast you speak. It was supported in a paper by the experiment, in which words and expressions were subject to less second-stage reduction where read slowly — but still, first-stage reduction remained the same no matter how slowly a person read a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the practical point of view, the recommendation from the books and tips for announcers are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **1st pretonic**, that is, the first syllable before the stressed one: the vowel in Я (with or without Й) is mostly the same as unstressed И and Е: close to &quot;i&quot; in English words like &quot;hit&quot;. I-like vowel, but not as characteristic of &quot;ee&quot;-ness as in words like &quot;eat&quot; of &quot;see&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **everywhere else** in the unstressed position: similar to the previous, but somewhat closer to the unstressed &quot;А/О&quot; sound. More open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while in &quot;девять&quot; and &quot;Таня&quot; the sounds may be rendered a bit differently (also, Н is a nasal consonant which, of course, influences the sound), no distinction between them is usually made. But it is definitely not the kind of **i** you woukld hear in &quot;machine&quot;: only the stressed &quot;И&quot; is pronounced that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I do not undestand the initial question. What can you possibly mean by &quot;have its softness prnounced&quot;? Palatalisation is always pronounced, stressed or unstressed, except when the consonant does not have &quot;soft&quot; counterpart. There are some writing conventions (in reflexive verbs *-ться* and *-тся* are pronounced *ца*). Some actors pronounce reflexive -ся as -са because it sound cooler and more in line with theatrical tradition (and probably saves the microphone a lot of hisses if you are recording their speech).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the difference of how stress works in Russian and English speech. The English language has rhythm, so if a syllable is stressed, then the one before it is reduced, and the one before that one is again a bit stronger. In Russian only the first syllable, IMMEDIATELY before the stressed one is somewhat clearer than the rest — the syllable, that in English is usually quite weak." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12455" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="2eba63a6-ad59-4a62-87d7-f8f5e25916e7" CreationDate="2014-05-16T15:58:19.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/467333228995420160" />
  <row Id="12456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="de63e080-eb8e-4a6e-9574-6c2c08e3ab27" CreationDate="2014-05-16T19:16:19.433" UserId="3769" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="How to say &quot;email&quot; (verb), using a single word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="7a393076-eef4-4bca-8034-0d4a337ef3c4" CreationDate="2014-05-17T16:25:38.593" UserId="3864" Text="Молодец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мá-лá-дéц! or Ну ты молодéц! (more obvious sarcasm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну ты молодец, блин! (sarcasm + mild annoyance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Постарался, ничё не скажешь! (sarcasm + mild reproach)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4494" RevisionGUID="6db4f82a-bbee-4c5a-ad1a-d655e7164502" CreationDate="2014-05-17T17:17:08.310" UserId="3864" Text="I fully support the answer given by Andrey Chernyakhovskiy. &quot;Постучи его&quot; is invalid, although it's not obvious even to some native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct variants would be &quot;постучи ему по спине&quot; (&quot;ему&quot; here is an indirect object), &quot;постучи по его спине&quot; (&quot;по его спине&quot; again is an indirect object) or &quot;похлопай его по спине&quot; (похлопай is a transitive verb).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="cd8c5d66-dc67-4bc9-97fd-8c86eee8d33a" CreationDate="2014-05-17T19:59:11.403" UserId="3830" Text="just for the sake of not giving a complement unintentionally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="cd8c5d66-dc67-4bc9-97fd-8c86eee8d33a" CreationDate="2014-05-17T19:59:11.403" UserId="3830" Text="what would be the correct way to say 'заткнись'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="cd8c5d66-dc67-4bc9-97fd-8c86eee8d33a" CreationDate="2014-05-17T19:59:11.403" UserId="3830" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="078c22b2-9c83-4ec8-af7f-2ab67936b1dd" CreationDate="2014-05-18T06:11:16.107" UserId="3845" Text="You need to explain the question more, but I'm guessing you just want to say 'Shut up' to some one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can either just say 'заткнись' which means 'shut up'&#xD;&#xA;- Or say 'заткнись рот' which means 'shut your mouth'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally find the second version more powerful and use it more often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="6063bc39-96bd-442b-9ccf-57159da885f0" CreationDate="2014-05-18T09:26:45.307" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="[This][1] answer  gives a short idea of using *human animate plural* forms, e. g. that they are used for persons only (?!). However, it's not quite clear, when they apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за стеной стоят пятеро женщин и трое мужчин.  &#xD;&#xA;за стеной стоят пять женщин и три мужчины.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;придут двое бизнесменов на встречу.  &#xD;&#xA;придут два бизнесмена на встречу.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are these sentences grammatically and semantically correct?&#xD;&#xA;- What's the difference in meaning between using a number and the animate plural?&#xD;&#xA;- When can the animate plural be used? Is it always when it designates an animate being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1684/3538" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="6063bc39-96bd-442b-9ccf-57159da885f0" CreationDate="2014-05-18T09:26:45.307" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="human animate plural - двое, трое," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="6063bc39-96bd-442b-9ccf-57159da885f0" CreationDate="2014-05-18T09:26:45.307" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="2377cc19-fcd5-4604-a152-44c45c77950a" CreationDate="2014-05-18T10:53:26.343" UserId="551" Text="According to many dictionaries this form can be applied to animate nouns that have masculine or common gender or to plural personal pronouns. Here's an article from Малый академический словарь (articles for other numbers are almost the same):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**трое**  &#xD;&#xA;трои́х, числ. собир.  &#xD;&#xA;Три (счетного значения не имеет, употребляется с существительными мужского или общего рода, обозначающими лиц, а также с существительными, имеющими только мн. ч., и с личными местоимениями во мн. ч.).  &#xD;&#xA;*Три девушки и трое юношей. Трое суток. Вам троим. У них троих.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see - the first example shows that you cannot say *трое девушек* (or *пятеро женщин*): only **три девушки, пять женщин.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Трое суток** is (I believe) an example of common gender noun. Other dictionaries call this example &quot;существительные не имеющие формы единственного числа&quot; (nouns that do not have singular form). Other examples of such nouns are **очки, часы, штаны, брюки**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вам троим. У них троих.** is an example of usage the words двое, трое, etc. with personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Are these sentences grammatically and semantically correct?  &#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the **пятеро женщин** is not correct. As far as I know there is no big difference between **три мужчины** and **трое мужчин**.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand you cannot say **три суток**, only **трое суток** is allowed. Same for &quot;нас три&quot; is not correct - only &quot;нас трое&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. What's the difference in meaning between using a number and the animate plural?&#xD;&#xA;There is no difference in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. When can the animate plural be used? Is it always when it designates an animate being?&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't always mean the animate. **Ножницы** and **сутки** are not animate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="a5d6b984-7835-4c52-82e6-3512a0454537" CreationDate="2014-05-18T11:29:28.860" UserId="2388" Text="These are called _collective_ plurals (&quot;собирательные числительные&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Usually it is considered that &quot;collective&quot; plurals **двое, трое, четверо** and so on are use only for nouns of masculine and common gender. &quot;пятеро женщин&quot; is incorrect, though natives sometimes make such mistake (as it is not clear why you should not do so: probably, etymologically it was not used for feminine). These numerals are normally used with nouns denoting people, those or masuline and common gender. Also used with люди, ребята, дети, лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The difference is that it is a &quot;collective&quot; plural, so it more closely views people as a single group. A shade of meaning, I'd say. The difference in use is that, first, you rarely go beyond **&quot;семеро&quot;** and, second, oblique cases of collective plurals are really rare. So while you may see something like ***&quot;С теми двоими мужчинами что-то не так&quot;*** (&quot;Something's wrong with these two men&quot;) once in a while, it is by no means a natural construction, and you would sound non-native should you use it often (fortunately, it look so convoluted that you are unlikely to use it often :))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The one additional use you should remember is for *pluralia tantum* nouns: those that are used only in plural (like English &quot;scissors&quot;, &quot;pants&quot;): ***штаны, ворота, ножницы, сутки, часы***. Remember, in Russian when you need a Nominative-like form of *number+noun* for 1,2,3,4, you need Nom/Gen singular? But those nouns do not have singular! So instead you use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***одни*** **ножницы**&#xD;&#xA;- ***двое/трое/четверо*** **ножниц**&#xD;&#xA;And use normal numerals in oblique cases. It becomes convoluted with numbers like 22,23,54 and so on. Believe it or not, they just cannot be used with such nouns. Though you may always say something like &quot;22 items of scissors&quot; (22 штуки ножниц) or just &quot;more that twenty scissors&quot;, which is more useful anyway. The whole problem probably originated in the fact that people do not often use large numbers in colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="c09e376f-0fa5-4723-b9e0-701ad3acd8bf" CreationDate="2014-05-18T11:44:18.827" UserId="2388" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="These are called _collective_ plurals (&quot;собирательные числительные&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Usually it is considered that &quot;collective&quot; plurals **двое, трое, четверо** and so on are used only for nouns of masculine and common gender. &quot;пятеро женщин&quot; is incorrect, though natives sometimes make such mistake (as it is not clear why you should not do so: probably, etymologically it was not used for feminine). These numerals are normally used with nouns denoting people, those or masuline and common gender. Also used with люди, ребята, дети, лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The difference is that it is a &quot;collective&quot; plural, so it more closely views people as a single group. A shade of meaning, I'd say. The difference in use is that, first, you rarely go beyond **&quot;семеро&quot;** and, second, oblique cases of collective plurals are really rare. So while you may see something like ***&quot;С теми двоими мужчинами что-то не так&quot;*** (&quot;Something's wrong with these two men&quot;) once in a while, it is by no means a natural construction, and you would sound non-native should you use it often (fortunately, it look so convoluted that you are unlikely to use it often :))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The one additional use you should remember is for *pluralia tantum* nouns: those that are used only in plural (like English &quot;scissors&quot;, &quot;pants&quot;): ***штаны, ворота, ножницы, сутки, часы***. Remember, in Russian when you need a Nominative-like form of *number+noun* for 1,2,3,4, you need Nom/Gen singular? But those nouns do not have singular! So instead you use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***одни*** **ножницы**&#xD;&#xA;- ***двое/трое/четверо*** **ножниц**, also пятеро, шестеро ножниц. Some sources say that &quot;двое/трое/четверо&quot; should not be used with such nouns, some say nothing like that.&#xD;&#xA;And use normal numerals in oblique cases. It becomes convoluted with numbers like 22,23,54 and so on. Believe it or not, they just cannot be used with such nouns. Though you may always say something like &quot;22 items of scissors&quot; (22 штуки ножниц) or just &quot;more that twenty scissors&quot;, which is more useful anyway. The whole problem probably originated in the fact that people do not often use large numbers in colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="462fa17a-ded0-444d-9f22-e025248e7798" CreationDate="2014-05-18T12:09:21.827" UserId="551" Comment="заткниСЬ рот should be a typo?" Text="You need to explain the question more, but I'm guessing you just want to say 'Shut up' to some one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can either just say 'заткнись' which means 'shut up'&#xD;&#xA;- Or say 'заткни рот' which means 'shut your mouth'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally find the second version more powerful and use it more often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12471" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="b474d838-68d0-4c7c-87d9-681d006c060f" CreationDate="2014-05-18T13:24:03.063" UserId="3769" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3769,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12472" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="39a7c806-680c-4cce-9cc1-fdeed7a00599" CreationDate="2014-05-18T13:24:14.100" UserId="3769" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3769,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12473" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="44865229-cc81-40c9-9584-00b8818b4c59" CreationDate="2014-05-18T13:31:35.087" UserId="3769" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3769,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12474" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="087f6fba-12f3-42eb-be85-bd79ac40a469" CreationDate="2014-05-18T13:32:50.807" UserId="3769" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3769,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="584e0439-fe2e-409a-b553-8a3f8c7bf108" CreationDate="2014-05-18T14:38:10.913" UserId="3812" Text="You could also say:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Умолкни!&#xD;&#xA; - Замолчи!&#xD;&#xA; - Угомонись!&#xD;&#xA; - Тихо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="05c398d0-8ca0-4caa-9c12-9c5cd34b690c" CreationDate="2014-05-18T14:52:06.587" UserId="3812" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="You could also say:&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Умолкни!&#xD;&#xA; - Замолчи!&#xD;&#xA; - Угомонись!&#xD;&#xA; - Тихо!&#xD;&#xA; - Цыц!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="6eeadd8a-ace9-4e72-ad49-e2b4e7d67336" CreationDate="2014-05-18T15:34:13.440" UserId="3812" Text="For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Домашняя девушка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that the same as home bird (домосед)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="6eeadd8a-ace9-4e72-ad49-e2b4e7d67336" CreationDate="2014-05-18T15:34:13.440" UserId="3812" Text="What adjective &quot;домашний&quot; means related to people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="6eeadd8a-ace9-4e72-ad49-e2b4e7d67336" CreationDate="2014-05-18T15:34:13.440" UserId="3812" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="30ae07c8-4309-45e4-b7d3-af01f63b1b98" CreationDate="2014-05-18T15:38:43.703" UserId="3595" Text="If I understand your question you know the Russian translations of &quot;shut up&quot;, but you are also alluding to the expression of incredulity that often comes with &quot;shut up&quot; in some contexts. You called it &quot;a complement&quot;. So, you're trying to avoid this, and convey the main meaning of the expression, i.e. to make someone stop talking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that Russian translations &quot;заткнись&quot; or &quot;(за)молчи&quot; do not have additional meanings. Заткнись is rather aggressive and/or rude, замолчи or молчи are less aggressive, but still are direct and demanding.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="bbcee236-7b01-45ec-b62b-f109ef0645fc" CreationDate="2014-05-18T15:48:32.820" UserId="3595" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="If I understand your question you know the Russian translations of &quot;shut up&quot;, but you are also alluding to the expression of incredulity that often comes with &quot;shut up&quot; in some contexts. You called it &quot;a complement&quot;. So, you're trying to avoid this, and convey the main meaning of the expression, i.e. to make someone stop talking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that Russian translations such as &quot;заткнись&quot; or &quot;(за)молчи&quot; do not have additional meanings. Заткнись is rather aggressive and/or rude, замолчи or молчи are less aggressive, but still are direct and demanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other equivalents such us those in other answers, of course. All of them are of different level of rudeness and aggression, which is difficult to gauge for a beginner Russian speaker. That's why I would try not directly asking someone to shut up in Russian while still learning the basics. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12482" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="472c33c0-3ac9-46df-9656-b18096bd0149" CreationDate="2014-05-18T16:10:52.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/468061165558317057" />
  <row Id="12483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="282b95ad-fcb5-412f-951f-be0fb8f0fb8d" CreationDate="2014-05-18T17:04:01.353" UserId="267" Text="&quot;Домашняя девушка&quot; doesn't mean exactly the same as &quot;домосед&quot;. &quot;Домосед&quot; denotes a person who likes staying at home, while &quot;домашний&quot; denotes a person who likes being at home with his (her) family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="aed5222d-cf69-43ff-b40e-5e5c4f46d005" CreationDate="2014-05-18T17:20:22.330" UserId="3595" Text="&quot;домашнее животное&quot; means domesticated animal, e.g. &quot;домашний кот&quot; vs. &quot;дикий кот&quot; means a domesticated cat kept at home as a pet vs. a wild cat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;домашняя девушка&quot; would be a &quot;domesticated girl&quot; in English, but in a slightly different meaning of the word, e.g. see [M-W][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to train (someone) to behave in an appropriate way at home (such as by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using good manners, being polite, being helpful, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian this expression refers to a girl who tends to stay home most of the time rather going out a lot, partying etc. So, it's a slightly higher bar than simply behaving appropriately by modern Western standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When applied to animals the word &quot;domesticated&quot; means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to breed or train (an animal) to need and accept the care of human&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beings : to tame (an animal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning is similar to Russian word applied to animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, I'd conclude that &quot;домашний&quot; applied to humans or animals means almost the same as &quot;domesticated&quot; in English. Consider the lyrics of [&quot;Blurred Lines&quot; song][2] by R Thicke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me liberate you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/robinthicke/blurredlines.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="7a5e62a2-4ebe-47d3-95a8-876293795b02" CreationDate="2014-05-18T17:23:49.797" UserId="2388" Text="**&quot;домашний&quot;** when aplied to people is more like a neutral word denoting a pleasant person who likes staying at home and pursues activities that do not require much travel, noise and being far from home. Also, by alalogy with domestic animals, the word has a shade of that person being friendly, furry, nice, positive, Does not like conflicts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Домосед&quot; may focus on a person being, like &quot;too much&quot; of домашний — lazy, indifferent, refuses to go to interesting places even if it is easy and when explicitly offered and so on. However, it may still be pretty neutral. Think of &quot;persistent&quot; and &quot;stubborn&quot;, which also mean mostly the same quality but are used one with possitive and the other with negative connotation. &quot;Домосед&quot; is not as clearly positive as &quot;persistent&quot;, but not quite as negative of a characteristic as &quot;stubborn&quot;. Maybe halfway between the two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="4c7ec4e9-42b8-4c0a-973e-e327c2a31286" CreationDate="2014-05-18T17:29:30.843" UserId="3595" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&quot;домашняя девушка&quot; can be approximately translated as &quot;domesticated girl&quot; in English, [meaning][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to train (someone) to behave in an appropriate way at home (such as by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using good manners, being polite, being helpful, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian this expression refers to a girl who tends to stay home most of the time rather going out a lot, partying etc. So, it's a slightly higher bar than simply behaving appropriately by modern Western standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;домашнее животное&quot; means &quot;domesticated animal&quot;, e.g. &quot;домашний кот&quot; vs. &quot;дикий кот&quot; means a domesticated cat kept at home as a pet vs. a wild cat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When applied to animals the word &quot;domesticated&quot; [means][1] (similarly to Russian):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to breed or train (an animal) to need and accept the care of human&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beings : to tame (an animal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, &quot;домашний&quot; applied to humans or animals means almost the same as &quot;domesticated&quot; in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the lyrics of [&quot;Blurred Lines&quot; song][2] by R Thicke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me liberate you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/robinthicke/blurredlines.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="67b7d04c-16d3-4b44-a7a7-a0775a1d26cb" CreationDate="2014-05-18T18:38:54.583" UserId="3867" Text="having difficulty with translating &quot;Industry expertise&quot; to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;appreciate all input!&#xD;&#xA;thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="67b7d04c-16d3-4b44-a7a7-a0775a1d26cb" CreationDate="2014-05-18T18:38:54.583" UserId="3867" Text="How to translate &quot;Industry expertise&quot; to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="67b7d04c-16d3-4b44-a7a7-a0775a1d26cb" CreationDate="2014-05-18T18:38:54.583" UserId="3867" Text="|перевод|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4509" RevisionGUID="346ff7a3-205d-4c38-84d0-0b4fba3c958c" CreationDate="2014-05-18T19:14:21.493" UserId="3868" Text="Depending on context - for example, &quot;мои домашние&quot; means &quot;people I live with&quot;, usually this also means relatives, not just friend who lives with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="aa4ad861-4ba4-4542-944b-72d5bdebe502" CreationDate="2014-05-18T22:34:58.350" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="&gt;This statement expresses in a deep manner something about his nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a proper translation of this phrase. The attempt looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это высказывание, глубоко выражает словами кое-что о него сущности." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="aa4ad861-4ba4-4542-944b-72d5bdebe502" CreationDate="2014-05-18T22:34:58.350" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;statement which expresses something in a deep manner&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="aa4ad861-4ba4-4542-944b-72d5bdebe502" CreationDate="2014-05-18T22:34:58.350" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="b40bab5e-1342-4971-957a-7ad1b95ded01" CreationDate="2014-05-18T22:44:17.963" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="There is also `существо` and `существование` which seem quite different but I fail to differentiate those two in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would somebody give a hint on what's `суть` and in what it differs from `сущность`?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="b40bab5e-1342-4971-957a-7ad1b95ded01" CreationDate="2014-05-18T22:44:17.963" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="суть vs. сущность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="b40bab5e-1342-4971-957a-7ad1b95ded01" CreationDate="2014-05-18T22:44:17.963" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="5a12206e-993e-439c-84d6-0e106a62b991" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:13:15.593" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="After writing a while I got unsure about using `чтоб` instead of `чтобы`. I checked and found `чтоб` would be colloquial for `чтобы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the [ngram][1] indicates a slight rise of using `чтоб` in literature since the last century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it considered normal using `чтоб` in written form or is it uncommon somehow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1,%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B&amp;year_start=1750&amp;year_end=2014&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1;,%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1;,c0;.t1;,%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B;,c0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="5a12206e-993e-439c-84d6-0e106a62b991" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:13:15.593" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="чтоб in written form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4513" RevisionGUID="5a12206e-993e-439c-84d6-0e106a62b991" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:13:15.593" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|словоупотребление|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4514" RevisionGUID="590fa102-2a96-43ef-9419-744a8a3af1c8" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:31:37.513" UserId="2388" Text="In some contexts these would be synonimous. I'd differentiate them as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **суть** is ***the &quot;main point&quot;***,the most important and essential thing in something..Has a shade of &quot;summary&quot;, a short variant of &quot;the main thing&quot; rather than the comprehensive collection of everything important. Also, just a more popular word.&#xD;&#xA;- **сущность** is ***what the thing is, its essense, nature*** , meaning and all there is, central to its being itself. More bookish. Also, a person can have &quot;сущность&quot;/&quot;существо&quot; (&quot;Он раскрыл свою подлую сущность!&quot;) but a least for me it sound weird to use &quot;суть&quot;. Connected to the idea of being and existence, so you use it when discussing nature of something rather than &quot;the main point&quot;. I like the example &quot;Классовая сущность государства&quot;(the class nature of the state) — you just cannot use &quot;суть&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for set expressions, try not mixing this up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по существу/по сути&#xD;&#xA; - в сущности&#xD;&#xA; - вникнуть в суть&#xD;&#xA; - суть дела/вопроса/проблемы and also сущность. I like &quot;суть&quot; better as it is shorter (if you want to get to the essense, why bother using cumbersome &quot;сущность дела&quot; to convey that idea)&#xD;&#xA; - В чём суть?&#xD;&#xA; - Сути это не меняет.&#xD;&#xA; - А суть процесса сводится к тому, что.. ~ &quot;And the main idea is, in essense, as follows ...&quot; → the direct corollary of &quot;the main point&quot;: &quot;the nature of the proccess&quot; cannot come down to some simple explanations, because it cannot be changed just by you speaking about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**А суть в чем? When in doubt, analyze it like that: *&quot;суть&quot;=&quot;the main point&quot;, &quot;сущность&quot;=&quot;essense, nature&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Bonus knowledge: &quot;суть&quot; also used to be a 3rd person plural of &quot;to be&quot;. Still used, often in singular (who cares?) in bookish contexts when people want to sound clever while expressing complicated ideas about the nature of things and laws of nature.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4515" RevisionGUID="a82c7882-4b84-405e-b710-8d300abd64a5" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:40:13.853" UserId="2388" Text="It is common, just not formal. Consider these: &quot;I own no horse&quot;/&quot;I have no horse&quot;/&quot;I haven't got a horse&quot;/&quot;I got no horse&quot;/&quot;Ain't got no horse&quot;. The first is strikingly unnatural and formal, the last is way too informal for most uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чтоб&quot; is slightly stylistically colored as an informal/old variant, and, of course it is freely used in poetry to keep meter right. It does not mostly sound rude in forums, it sound OK in literature (especially when writing &quot;informal&quot; dialogues). But it is a bad choice if you are writing an essay or some other piece of formal writing (a scientific paper, a legal document etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember also that &quot;Чтоб ты сдох/лопнул&quot; is always like that. These type of wishes are not normally expressed &quot;formally&quot; with &quot;чтобы&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise... For instance, I feel that I seldom ever use &quot;чтоб&quot;. There is just no need to (except for &quot;чтоб ты сдох&quot;), and besides, sound much more fluid in speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="6a8579e7-b85c-47df-bedf-fa56b2ad3e1c" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:45:38.063" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Apparently *признавать* conjugates the same like the verb with perfective aspect *признать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus present and future conjugates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Singular  &#xD;&#xA;    признаю, -ешь, -ет  &#xD;&#xA;    Plural  &#xD;&#xA;    признаем, -ете, -ют  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is that right?&#xD;&#xA;- What kind of verb is it?&#xD;&#xA;- How to distinguish present and future then?&#xD;&#xA;- and does it affect the future with a form of `быть` (e. g. `буду` + `признать / признавать`)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="6a8579e7-b85c-47df-bedf-fa56b2ad3e1c" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:45:38.063" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="conjugate признавать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="6a8579e7-b85c-47df-bedf-fa56b2ad3e1c" CreationDate="2014-05-18T23:45:38.063" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|словоупотребление|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4517" RevisionGUID="30c681ff-cd16-430a-a81b-c5c1658fe559" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:00:28.573" UserId="2388" Text="- я признаю&#xD;&#xA;- ты признаёшь&#xD;&#xA;- она признаёт&#xD;&#xA;- мы признаём&#xD;&#xA;- вы признаёте&#xD;&#xA;- они признают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an end-stressed verb, unlike stem-stressed &quot;признать&quot;. Imperfective aspect. They don't have one single form where they sound the same. Better check _gramota.ru_ next time. At least, they always have Ё when needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your last question, &quot;compound&quot; future with &quot;быть&quot; only ever uses imperfective verbs. So use &quot;признавать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4518" RevisionGUID="23de16b8-4a1b-493f-8b21-28f89f4ea28d" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:10:33.220" UserId="1236" Text="This ia an imperfective/perfective pair of verbs, `признавать` is imperfective, `признать` is perfective. The forms of the two verbs are written the same way, but they are distinguished with the stress which is usually not marked in writing, although sometimes it can be marked to get rid of ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Признавáть` (imp.) has the stress on the suffix, just like the infinitive, these forms have the meaning of the Present tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Singular&#xD;&#xA;    признаю́, признаёшь, признаёт&#xD;&#xA;    Plural&#xD;&#xA;    признаём, признаёте, признаю́т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Признáть` (perf.) has the stress on the root, just like the infinitive, these forms have the meaning of the Future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Singular&#xD;&#xA;    признáю, признáешь, признáет&#xD;&#xA;    Plural&#xD;&#xA;    признáем, признáете, признáют&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only `признавать` can have the Future tense formed with &quot;быть&quot;: `буду признавать` (will acknowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4519" RevisionGUID="c6fc606f-cd17-49ef-9fd1-cc4879489dab" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:12:46.300" UserId="2388" Text="I would rather rephrase it as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это высказывание даёт нам понять нечто важное о его сущности&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(lit. &quot;This statement lets us understand something important about his nature&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Not **exactly** the same but sounds much better and get the message across (I hope) approximately in the style you are trying to mimic. Maybe even more bookish I am afraid that there is no way to keep &quot;in a deep manner&quot;, though you may link it somewhere else (i.e &quot;expresses something deep about his nature&quot;, &quot;expressed something about his true, deep nature&quot;). Note also that &quot;something&quot; is one of the sources of the problem here. As it does not sound bookish and profound to just us &quot;что-то о его сущности&quot;, and if fact the whole &quot;tells something about him&quot; sounds kinda informal in Russian, it limits the degree of freedom you have here. You just have to juggle the words around to make it sound right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you clarify what is it exactly you are writing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;о его&quot; is used without the initial &quot;н&quot;. Here &quot;его&quot; is a possessive adjective (his), not a pronoun (him), though, obviously, the possessive form originated as the Genitive form of a pronoun.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="b8998ee3-73fd-4fe6-b157-0c8a6999ad4a" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:37:27.650" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Looking for a word for *longing, yearning* I found `желание` and `стремление`. However,  these seem somehow too shallow for the given use case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'd like to use `тоска` but this word possibly has a negative or melancholic connotation which is also not what I'm looking for. Is that so? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other alternative to express a profound yearning / longing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="b8998ee3-73fd-4fe6-b157-0c8a6999ad4a" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:37:27.650" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="connotation of тоска" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="b8998ee3-73fd-4fe6-b157-0c8a6999ad4a" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:37:27.650" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|значения|connotation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="540d0d13-c003-4ef6-81e5-515b94146f89" CreationDate="2014-05-19T00:48:28.660" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Looking for a word for *longing, yearning* I found `желание` and `стремление`. However,  these seem somehow too shallow for the given use case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually I'd like to use `тоска` but this word possibly has a negative or melancholic connotation which is also not what I'm looking for. Is that so? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there any other alternative to express a profound yearning / longing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What verb would be used with `тоска` and/or any alternative to say *quench the yearning*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4521" RevisionGUID="076b5d61-dafe-4dd4-87c1-cf77955b577b" CreationDate="2014-05-19T01:05:05.223" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;тоска&quot;, mysterious as it is, is associated with melancholical, kinda depressing yearning for thing to be better/more in line with what you want. SO it may mean two things: &quot;yearning/depression&quot; and just &quot;boredom&quot; (then it is the same as &quot;скука&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If what you mean is a strong, emotionally &quot;painful&quot; desire for something that is, perhaps, out of your reach, and has been so, then &quot;тоска&quot; is kind of a right word. **&quot;Заглушить тоску&quot;** will work (though, I just made it up, and it sounds as a &quot;temporary&quot; solution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Желание is &quot;wish, desire&quot; and &quot;стремление&quot; is more like &quot;striving, aspiration&quot; and even &quot;intention&quot; in some context, i.e. something that makes you strive for something (whil &quot;тоска&quot; is a passive thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So.. what is the meaning of your &quot;quench the yearning&quot;? Is it the same as &quot;quench your thirst&quot; (satisfy it) or &quot;quench the disire&quot; (&quot;kill&quot; it). Or maybe &quot;shut off&quot; your desire if only temporary?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alternative words for profound yearnung: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - острое/сильное желание&#xD;&#xA; - жажда (lit. &quot;thirst&quot;, a strong and sometimes active desire)&#xD;&#xA; - стремление (if it is active! And only then)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="629f686a-1230-465a-b2c0-88bf80423159" CreationDate="2014-05-19T01:58:04.363" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Given the verb/expression *to define something/-body through something/-body* as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Some people define themselves through their job.  &#xD;&#xA;He defines himself through his wife.   &#xD;&#xA;The size of a circle can be defined through it's diameter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to translate these sentences into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I though of `определить .. через`, but I'm quite unsure, especially in the first cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Несколько людей определяют себя через их работу.  &#xD;&#xA;Он определяет себя через его жену.  &#xD;&#xA;Размер круга можно определить через его диаметр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="629f686a-1230-465a-b2c0-88bf80423159" CreationDate="2014-05-19T01:58:04.363" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="translation of &quot;to define something/-body through something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="629f686a-1230-465a-b2c0-88bf80423159" CreationDate="2014-05-19T01:58:04.363" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="59cf6ed6-f65c-4620-8e65-c9fd619fa189" CreationDate="2014-05-19T07:42:47.110" UserId="3748" Text="I would translate it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Некоторых людей определяет их работа.&#xD;&#xA;    Он узнается по своей жене.&#xD;&#xA;    Размер окружности определяется ее диаметром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not word-to-word translations, but IMO better reflect the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="ed75f113-6a34-40a5-b22f-9d0af7d46b3c" CreationDate="2014-05-19T07:44:27.343" UserId="899" Text="I would have translated the first ones expression with &quot;самовыражать(ся)&quot; - to self-express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Some people define themselves through their job.&#xD;&#xA;    Некоторые люди самовыражаются через свою работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He defines himself through his wife.&#xD;&#xA;    Он самовыражается через свою жену.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the last sentence's translation seems fine with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="b5c7a496-112f-4bed-b358-bbac546de957" CreationDate="2014-05-19T07:57:15.457" UserId="3812" Text="Depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;If applied to person like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He has industry expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он имеет производственный опыт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он компетентный в вопросах производства. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он разбирается в производстве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он знаком с производством." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="e0a16bb1-3ccc-4b64-ab2b-7fc217063def" CreationDate="2014-05-19T08:02:17.843" UserId="97" Text="I don't think _industry_ in this context refers to _производство_. In English, term _industry expertise_ usually refers to specialist knowledge in any particular area, which could be finance, computing, etc.  Therefore, in relation to a person, I would translate phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He has industry expertise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он - компетентный специалист" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="0139b8de-03a4-458d-bd0b-642e7c4a0f4b" CreationDate="2014-05-19T08:20:40.497" UserId="3812" Text="Would like to add to Shady_arc's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**существо** means living being, organism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**сущность** might mean any entity, not just living being.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**существование**  means being, existence.  Much broader term than living." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1684" RevisionGUID="002e34a1-e7e7-4bb4-9926-884c2c2f5ab9" CreationDate="2014-05-19T08:31:14.083" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, division" Text="Interesting enough, in Russian you use sg. gen. when counting up to four items, and pl.gen. when counting from five and more items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    два (четыре/три) цветка / пять цветков &#xD;&#xA;    две (четыре/три) женщины/пять женщин&#xD;&#xA;    два (три/четыре) яблока / пять яблок&#xD;&#xA;This feature is most likely borrowed from Finno-Ugric languages (cf. with Finnish or some Sami languages).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a &quot;***human animate plural***&quot; meaning a certain number of persons, like in Irish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) друзей&#xD;&#xA;    пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) женщин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is impossible to say in Russian `пятеро (четверо/трое/двое) букв`.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a  set of &quot;***human animate quantative adverbials***&quot; describing a quantity of persons acting  together. This paradigm is productive for up to ten persons, although the list may be extended with tens, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вдвоем&#xD;&#xA;    втроем&#xD;&#xA;    вчетвером&#xD;&#xA;    впятером&#xD;&#xA;    вшестером&#xD;&#xA;    всемером&#xD;&#xA;    ?ввосьмером (something is strange about this word)&#xD;&#xA;    вдевятером&#xD;&#xA;    вдесятером&#xD;&#xA;    ?вдвадцатером&#xD;&#xA;    ?втридцатером&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1684" RevisionGUID="002e34a1-e7e7-4bb4-9926-884c2c2f5ab9" CreationDate="2014-05-19T08:31:14.083" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 455" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4528" RevisionGUID="fb84e19a-08a4-40db-85b1-e604ff6d26d4" CreationDate="2014-05-19T09:55:28.303" UserId="2284" Text="What we hear more and more often in these days is the calque from English, 'экспертиза'. However, this new usage of the word is largely limited to international businesses and hasn't yet made way to the wide audience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="f6ffb529-3105-4e74-a4a0-86ccd8ec98ea" CreationDate="2014-05-19T13:41:30.960" UserId="3859" Text=" - **Суть** - Meaning; main point&#xD;&#xA; - **Сущность** - Essence&#xD;&#xA; - **Существо** - A being&#xD;&#xA; - **Существование** - Existence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="a65c9d72-5198-47a0-9b4c-f5d75ed855a9" CreationDate="2014-05-19T13:50:43.053" UserId="3859" Text="You could try &quot;стремительное желание&quot; if that works for you. One word translations are sometimes inadequate. English tends to be a bit more terse/efficient - able to get more meaning into a smaller space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="ce3ce399-4131-4527-bd2b-fc193acbb041" CreationDate="2014-05-19T13:57:03.367" UserId="3859" Text="If you want to avoid offence, especially in a group, try asking for attention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Прошу внимания!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4533" RevisionGUID="6acf6751-d726-42d8-b8c6-9f1b87451563" CreationDate="2014-05-19T16:31:23.970" UserId="551" Text="**1. The size of a circle can be defined through it's diameter.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation of 'circle' example is quite correct. *Define* here is a mathematical term and it translates by using Russian mathematical terms **определить** and **выразить**:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Размер круга **можно определить** через его диаметр.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Размер круга **может быть выражен** через его диаметра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other two examples - I beleive there may be different translations depending on what is meant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Some people define themselves through their job.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 'defines' describes the phrases like 'Me - is my work' or 'Me - is who my wife is', then I think **ассоциировать** may work here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некоторые люди **ассоциируют себя** со своей работой (или должностью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, here is a citation from psychological site:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, если мы привыкли **ассоциировать себя** с нашим положением на работе, с нашей должностью или положением в обществе, то любая угроза – мнимая или реальная, - порождает тревогу в нашем сердце. Если мы привыкли **ассоциировать себя** с семьей, то любая угроза нашему семейному положению, нашей сути, вызывает у нас неуправляемую тревогу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. He defines himself through his wife.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is not easy to just say &quot;Он ассоциирует себя с женой&quot; - this sounds like &quot;He thinks that he is his wife&quot; (in other words - he is crazy). I think here we need to say *what* in his wife is important to him. If it is her success (in business or in life) then:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Он ассоциирует себя** с успехом жены.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is her beauty then maybe **самоутверждается** is better choice here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Он самоутверждается** с помощью красивой жены." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="015dd946-d0c6-4be7-9d9f-2b308367b4fd" CreationDate="2014-05-19T19:49:02.600" UserId="3595" Text="if what you're after is both longing and yearning, then `тоска` fits the bill" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="f445677d-1a79-4a13-a8b2-7946beb52658" CreationDate="2014-05-20T07:24:49.107" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="I did some research but not getting anywhere. `выполнение` is probably not the right thing and `успех` seems to be too... casual? **The term should express that it is about fulfillment of spiritual needs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance how could these sentences be translated into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He tries to find fulfillment in being perfect in his job.  &#xD;&#xA;She tries to find fulfillment in cleaning the house until it looks polished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="f445677d-1a79-4a13-a8b2-7946beb52658" CreationDate="2014-05-20T07:24:49.107" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="translation of &quot;to find fulfillment in something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="f445677d-1a79-4a13-a8b2-7946beb52658" CreationDate="2014-05-20T07:24:49.107" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4536" RevisionGUID="50f410c4-28f1-4660-b46e-4596f0325b24" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:04:59.073" UserId="97" Text="I don't think there is a direct phrase in Russian that confers the same meaning as _find fulfillment_ in English.  There are a couple of Russian idioms that can be used - depending on context - to provide a translation. One of them is _найти себя_, although it's more often used to describe something that has happened:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он нашел себя на этой работе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other options is to use word _удовлетворение_ (literally _satisfaction_, which could be considered a synonym in this context):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он пытается найти удовлетворение, достигая совершенства в своей работе.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она пытается найти удовлетворение, убирая дом, пока он не выглядит вылизанным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="98017ffd-f3ad-49c0-a794-2cb238743caf" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:09:14.427" UserId="899" Text="'Влечение' and its weaker form 'увлечение'. Both could be used to express yearning/longing to something or somebody (with 'влечение', in the latter case it could also bear subtle sexual context)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="78a53ae8-9d27-484c-9428-4f3c7448580a" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:18:49.673" UserId="3871" Text="If someone asks me Почему ты не сделал домашние задание? how I Have to answer? Мы с другом сходили с собакой , или ходили?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="78a53ae8-9d27-484c-9428-4f3c7448580a" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:18:49.673" UserId="3871" Text="Севершенный вид?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="78a53ae8-9d27-484c-9428-4f3c7448580a" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:18:49.673" UserId="3871" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="4392f6d8-fa4b-4999-a912-f93a09901b7e" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:20:21.447" UserId="97" Comment="added 47 characters in body; edited title" Text="If someone asks me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты не сделал домашние задание?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I Have to answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с другом _сходили_ с собакой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с другом _ходили_ с собакой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="4392f6d8-fa4b-4999-a912-f93a09901b7e" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:20:21.447" UserId="97" Comment="added 47 characters in body; edited title" Text="Совершенный вид?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="def80797-a575-464d-aa86-d59c6889e735" CreationDate="2014-05-20T08:58:51.803" UserId="267" Text="Почему ты не **сделал** домашнее задание? means &quot;Why haven't you done the homework?&quot;, so the person who asked it wants to know if you have finished the homework, is there is a result of doing the homework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему ты не **делал** домашнее задание? means &quot;Why haven't you been doing the homework&quot;, so the person who asked it wants to know why haven't you started to do the homework, he (she) is interested in the action of doing the homework, not in the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer to the first question would be: &quot;Я не сделал домашнее задание, потому что оно очень трудное&quot; or &quot;Я не сделал домашнее задание, потому что заболел&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example of yours, there are two verbs of motion. **&quot;Ходить&quot;** is always imperfective and means a two-way motion on foot. If you use this verb, you have to name the exact direction: &quot;Мы с другом ходили с собакой **в лес**&quot;, for example. It means that you went to the forest and then returned. The verb &quot;ходить&quot; can also denote the absense of direction or a multi-directional movement, so it could also be: &quot;Мы с другом ходили с собакой **по лесу**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Сходить&quot;** is a perfective verb of motion means a quick two-way motion of foot. &quot;Мы с другом сходили с собакой в лес&quot; means you went to the forest quickly an then returned. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="358a93af-a5c2-403d-8fc5-4728a70ea18e" CreationDate="2014-05-20T12:25:26.097" UserId="2388" Text="I would just use &quot;реализовать себя&quot; (реализоваться also works coloquially, but somehow does not sound exactly right) when it is in more general sense (i.e. to make one's life happier and more meaningful). Though, it does not work with cleaning the house, as it has nothing to do with spiritual need. But it works with things like travel, work, family, science, creative work, helping other people etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Он пытается реализовать себя**, *достигая совершенства в работе / идеально&#xD;&#xA; выполняя свою работу* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a less &quot;precise&quot; language the following also sounds kinda OK: &quot;Он пытается реализоваться, идеально делая свою работу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;выразить себя&quot; (to express oneself) may work if it has to do with the desire to find a way to express your personality in your life. Still.. Maybe it is not my business but it seems you are dealing with a long text of the abtract kind. You would be much better looking at the ideas in larger blocks and then rearranging them in Russian to make it for a more natural language. &quot;find fulfilment&quot; will never sound natural in Russian as there is no word of phrase specifically associated with such a construction (in all its uses). So you are aiming here for stilted language at best — and completely unnatural if you are unlucky to mess something up. However, in the longer paragraph it is much easier: you can use a more generic term in one sentence and then make the idea more specific and precise in the next one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="eb263b15-a4b9-4c3a-9941-623d37a4be55" CreationDate="2014-05-20T12:51:46.547" UserId="3848" Text="`Oсуществление` comes close to the definition of `fulfillment` which is a [realization (реализовать) of something][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He tries to find fulfillment in being perfect in his job.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он пытается найти осуществление достигая совершенства в своей работе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She tries to find fulfillment in cleaning the house until it looks polished.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она пытается найти осуществление в уберание дома пока он не выгладит блестящий. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fulfillment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="f335efe6-bbe2-4338-acbe-67590d45be79" CreationDate="2014-05-20T12:52:19.710" UserId="3872" Text="Generally, the Russian scientifical research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PHD degree attainment. Therefore,  PHD degree, frome these respectives, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PHD dissertation in social sciences usually is bigger in length. If PHD dissertation consists at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tascs of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science is the same.This contribution often sounds as &quot; the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system are not applicated to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are caled &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot; academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="f09771c1-5d1b-41ae-a4dd-3e06d16e1f7d" CreationDate="2014-05-20T15:23:51.843" UserId="3595" Text="I think it is incorrect to translate PhD as &quot;кандидат наук&quot; into Russian for this asserts some kind of an equivalence between the degrees. It should be translated as &quot;доктор философии&quot;, and  in my opinion this is the practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your audience is most likely aware of the differences between PhD and кандидат наук degrees. Moreover, almost all Russian speaking countries are in some state of conversion to PhD style graduate studies under [Bologna process][1], e.g. all Baltic states are in PhD style now. For instance, in Kazakhstan it will simply be misleading to refer to PhD as кандидат наук for these are distinct degrees over there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it is Ok to translate PhD student as &quot;аспирант&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dissertation is obviously translated as &quot;диссертаця&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12551" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="d882a4ca-9d31-417b-b338-9d44856d5d39" CreationDate="2014-05-20T16:17:51.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/468787698602229760" />
  <row Id="12552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="6ed5a4cc-521c-472b-bb89-c9d7ecd35eba" CreationDate="2014-05-20T16:40:16.140" UserId="3595" Text="A better translation would be &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы с другом гуляли с собакой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is similar to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с другом ходили с собакой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;except that it sounds more natural when referring to a walk with a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the other option may also work in some contexts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с другом сходили с собакой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not as good as the other option, because `ходили` reflects the prolonged duration of the activity, which caused you to not work on your homework.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, any parent will attest that it's not unusual excuse for skipping the home work :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="bc1152a3-4e01-4f75-b7e8-33a030946633" CreationDate="2014-05-20T18:32:42.067" UserId="3874" Text="Will answer as ukrainian who perfect speak and write both languages. Ukrainian language absolutely different from russian. Almost every ukrainian can speak and write in Russian, because we all study russian language in school for 8 years. But russian especially from regions far away from ukrainian border-dont understand ukrainian at all.Few examples: dad-papa in russian and tato in ukrainian.Flowers in English, zvetu in russian , kvitu in ukrai ian.I think russian and ukrainian language s have no more then 5% common words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12554" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4538" RevisionGUID="886dd95b-fa77-48f6-b43a-94983c31b497" CreationDate="2014-05-20T19:17:52.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/468832998415405057" />
  <row Id="12555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="27e4b5ee-79bc-4e8a-b32b-a717e4806fa6" CreationDate="2014-05-20T20:13:20.990" UserId="3872" Text="Still, if to be correcter, the Russian and some CIS  candidate of sciences dissertaions in the social sciences  consist of nearly 35000-40000 words in average. It is without the list of references,the title, appendices and the table of content. There may be something more than 48000 words  in the candidate of sciences' dissertations in the social sciences in the Ukraine. It is also without the dissertation elements mentioned about.&#xD;&#xA;Despite the candidate of sciences dissertations are generally directed in the research of the uninvestigated or not enough investigated and narrow topics,as well as PhD dissertations are,their structure are something different. PhD dissertations may have the elements like hipotheses and conceptual framework   that may roughly correspond with candidate of sciences dissertation chapter that are called &quot;methodology&quot;. Maybe, even Russian &quot;Doctor nauk&quot; dissertation doesn't exceed five chapters. Therefore tne number of tasks may be in  the PhD dissertation bigger than in the candidate of sciences dissertation despite similarities in the essence (character) of these tasks. Therefore, the translation  of PhD in Russian as &quot;доктор философии&quot; is correct and is concerned with the cultural uniqueness of the Western educational culture. There are not exact equivalents for PhD in Russia and in the CIS countries and it is in many ways accepted in their population. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="a1c993b0-6df6-482e-b0b5-40011e7aac11" CreationDate="2014-05-20T22:23:20.833" UserId="3875" Text="здравствуйте, hello,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm following a Russian language course for beginners (for I am one) on Youtube [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some example dialog about interrogative words and negation :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чьё это пальто ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю , чьё это пальто .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;*My problem :*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This use of the comma seems very odd to me*, and I'm wondering whether I should learn it as a syntax / punctuation rule for the use of commas in the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In French, my mother tongue, I would say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; À qui est cette veste ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Je ne sais pas à qui est cette veste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, I am not completely certain but this :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whose coat is this ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know whose coat this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sounds much better than :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whose coat is this ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't know, whose coat this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My reasoning :*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me it seems logical not to have the comma because the part ***&quot;чьё это пальто.&quot;*** in the answer is the *&quot;direct object&quot;* of the action ***&quot;Я не знаю&quot;***, as I understand it in French and English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Russian sometimes constructs sentences in a much different way, so any advice, short or long, will be much appreciated !  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance, and of course please feel free to correct me on my English sentence if it's wrong. And for my use of commas in general ^_^ .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;*Notes*:&#xD;&#xA;[1] Full Russian language course for English speakers produced years ago on videotapes and archived by some American language school.&#xD;&#xA;Question for moderators : should I provide a link or would it be advertisement ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="a1c993b0-6df6-482e-b0b5-40011e7aac11" CreationDate="2014-05-20T22:23:20.833" UserId="3875" Text="Beginner : Use of comma in some short simple question - answer dialogue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="a1c993b0-6df6-482e-b0b5-40011e7aac11" CreationDate="2014-05-20T22:23:20.833" UserId="3875" Text="|перевод|грамматика|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="f47f0191-b97a-4af7-91e2-cec42af5add8" CreationDate="2014-05-20T23:02:39.767" UserId="1236" Text="This comma is really needed, and it's absolutely in full consent with the Russian grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule is: &quot;every clause that has its own subject and predicate is to be sparated with commas.&quot; {rule 1}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In `Я не знаю, чьё это пальто.` there's an objectibe clause `чьё это пальто`, inside it `это пальто` is the subject and `чьё` is the predicate, so, according to {rule 1} it has to be sparated with commas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="db734ce5-0164-4331-948f-b5e519c3b4ac" CreationDate="2014-05-21T04:55:47.247" UserId="-1" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Generally, the Russian scientific research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PHD degree attainment. Therefore,  PHD degree, frome these respectives, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PHD dissertation in social sciences usually is much bigger in length. If PHD dissertation consists of at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists of nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tasks of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science is the same.This contribution sounds like &quot;the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system are not applicated to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are called &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot; academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12561" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="db734ce5-0164-4331-948f-b5e519c3b4ac" CreationDate="2014-05-21T04:55:47.247" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12567" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="a4934f8b-94d1-4010-b116-a3544bc43f6e" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:29:36.497" UserId="3872" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3872,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Klym Ihor&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12568" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="4fc43b25-dc0f-437a-85e5-849071850d00" CreationDate="2014-05-21T09:30:20.620" UserId="3872" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3872,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Klym Ihor&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="0c02ba12-bb07-4540-b05c-018f617df0b4" CreationDate="2014-05-21T13:43:06.393" UserDisplayName="user3878" Text="To refer to the part of the question about the historical written usage patterns - one might hypothesize that &quot;чтоб&quot; has seen a rise in usage frequency in the 20th century for three reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- before the 20th century the word &quot;чтоб&quot; has been mostly used in its archaic/poetic/high form, i.e. as a direct synonym of &quot;чтобы&quot;. This was probably limited to the (now classical) poetry and literature pieces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in the 20th century, the archaic use was mostly abandoned, with the exception of purposeful stylistic mimicry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- however, the colloquial/pejorative context became much more commonly used in written form, with the liberalization of the language (note how the usage rises sharply right after the October Revolution years in the 1917-1920)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4552" RevisionGUID="b0de69a4-a087-4ada-90fc-39a79758965a" CreationDate="2014-05-21T14:01:56.777" UserDisplayName="user3878" Text="To refer to the somewhat downplayed &quot;in a deep manner&quot; part, something like this might also be appropriate here, depending on what is the focus of the original statement (i.e. it is always better to provide additional context for such translations):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Глубинный смысл данного высказывания позволяет лучше понять его сущность&quot; - note that this is quite formal and to be used in written form or in official public speeches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another remark - the translation of the last word may depend on the context, it might also be translated as &quot;характер&quot; or &quot;природа&quot; (less probable but possible) depending on what exactly is to be understood about the person in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="c58879e1-c2e4-44b6-8bc8-86a38ca9c286" CreationDate="2014-05-21T14:09:43.747" UserId="1958" Text="Easy answer: -off is a French transliteration (or stylisation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past (up to beginning of 20th century) French language was more popular in Russia than English. it is quite usual for old transliterations to be French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, current Brazilian president's name is Dilma Rousseff. In English transliteration her father's surname would be just Rusev." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="3ec50634-8d09-42e5-ae28-69d58e4213fb" CreationDate="2014-05-21T15:09:25.573" UserId="1836" Text="As far as I know, it's &quot;начальная форма&quot;. And in my understanding of how form names are formed, if there was some suffix (affix, postfix, or whatever) to make this neutral form, we would have some special word for it, but there is none. It's just the form from which you start and make any other form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="8b11ee01-a14d-4032-8494-105d4f7d0d3c" CreationDate="2014-05-22T07:25:45.453" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="1. What's the difference in grammar, meaning and so forth between&#xD;&#xA;  - `Любовь Бога`&#xD;&#xA;  - `Любовь Божья`  &#xD;&#xA;  - `Любовь Божия`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is no such thing like `божественная любовь`, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="8b11ee01-a14d-4032-8494-105d4f7d0d3c" CreationDate="2014-05-22T07:25:45.453" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Любовь Бога / Божья / Божия" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="8b11ee01-a14d-4032-8494-105d4f7d0d3c" CreationDate="2014-05-22T07:25:45.453" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4556" RevisionGUID="0044bfe4-3de5-4b1b-940d-00a97c6e6b09" CreationDate="2014-05-22T07:58:23.270" UserId="1236" Text="There's difference, but it's minor, slight stylistic peculiarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `Любовь Бога` - Like every attribute expressed by the Genitive case it has 2 meanings, the active and the passive one, the former is &quot;I love God&quot;, the latter is &quot;God loves me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Любовь Божья` - This one means &quot;The Love of God, the love of the kind as God loves&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. `Любовь Божия` - This one is almost the same as #2, but it's more Church-Slavonic than Russian, it sounds the way they say it in churches.&#xD;&#xA;4. `Божественная любовь` - this is rather different from the previous ones, it means &quot;divine love&quot; which is more about the quality of love than about the subject of love, it's not about who, but about how one  loves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="b9a00c56-fb50-47c4-aed9-b12d1a89a4d9" CreationDate="2014-05-22T09:11:47.507" UserId="1277" Text="I've been seeing the phrase *«Не читайте до обеда советских газет»* used in various contexts related to politics, mass media and biased information sources, but I don't really understand what it means. Here are some of my theories about its meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Newspapers in general can spoil appetite, so it's better to read after the first meal of the day;&#xD;&#xA;- Morning newspapers contain bogus information, so it's better to wait until the afternoon issues;&#xD;&#xA;- Soviet newspapers in particular induce desperation on its readers, so they're better avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are my theories correct, and what is the true meaning of this phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="b9a00c56-fb50-47c4-aed9-b12d1a89a4d9" CreationDate="2014-05-22T09:11:47.507" UserId="1277" Text="Meaning of «Не читайте до обеда советских газет»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="b9a00c56-fb50-47c4-aed9-b12d1a89a4d9" CreationDate="2014-05-22T09:11:47.507" UserId="1277" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="41bb4998-a08c-4017-9145-82005811b007" CreationDate="2014-05-22T09:22:04.270" UserId="3882" Text="This is a quote from Bulgakov's [Heart of a Dog][1] novel widely used in russian language and points to a bad side of soviet propaganda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full quote definitely will help you to understand it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a subtle thing. One must know how to eat, yet just think – most people don’t know how to eat at all. One must not only know what to eat, but when and how.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Philip Philipovich waved his fork meaningfully.) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \-And what to say while you’re eating. Yes, my dear sir. If you care about your digestion, my advice is – don’t talk about bolshevism or medicine at table. **And, God forbid – never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.**’ &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- **M’mm . . . But there are no other newspapers.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- **In that case don’t read any at all.** Do you know I once made thirty tests in my clinic. And what do you think? The patients who never read newspapers felt excellent. Those whom I specially made read Pravda all lost weight.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Dog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="ea5be94c-8875-4040-ae30-94abc6289ff7" CreationDate="2014-05-22T09:22:33.370" UserId="551" Text="This is a citation from **Собачье сердце** book by **Михаил Булгаков**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Преображенский:** Если вы заботитесь о своем пищеварении, мой добрый совет — не говорите за обедом о большевизме и о медицине. И — боже вас сохрани — не читайте до обеда советских газет.  &#xD;&#xA;**Борменталь:** Гм… Да ведь других нет.  &#xD;&#xA;**Преображенский:** Вот никаких и не читайте. Вы знаете, я произвел 30 наблюдений у себя в клинике. И что же вы думаете? Пациенты, не читающие газет, чувствуют себя превосходно. Те же, которых я специально заставлял читать «Правду», — теряли в весе. […] Мало этого. Пониженные коленные рефлексы, скверный аппетит, угнетенное состояние духа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your first assumption is backed by prof. Преображенский: Newspapers in general can spoil appetite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Soviet part of the phrase - the Борменталь's notes that there are no other newspapers available - only Soviet ones. So, here we can see an irony of the author - are the newspapers bad because they are Soviet, or all the newspapers are bad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12589" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4555" RevisionGUID="3c66755e-23dd-4e0e-b71f-4440ec973e01" CreationDate="2014-05-22T16:21:33.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/469513401845026816" />
  <row Id="12590" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="166de0e0-7593-41d2-a93b-4546c658c9ca" CreationDate="2014-05-22T17:35:34.733" UserId="3872" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3872,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Klym Ihor&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12591" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="4dc6ed2d-4d5e-42e2-9c51-4563cfa8483e" CreationDate="2014-05-22T17:35:45.453" UserId="3872" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3872,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Klym Ihor&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12592" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="85ae5d2c-e372-4f38-b64d-1698c3e75ab7" CreationDate="2014-05-22T20:33:58.367" UserId="3769" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3769,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12593" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="8c0f724f-9c8a-4e4f-aafd-f6b91c389ae2" CreationDate="2014-05-22T20:35:31.083" UserId="3769" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3769,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;nicael&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12594" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="3326ca10-7b64-4b16-ad89-364679f2505a" CreationDate="2014-05-22T20:35:42.567" UserId="3769" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="12595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="2be98028-d2dc-49aa-95ef-17ed96ecbe0e" CreationDate="2014-05-22T20:37:23.573" UserId="3769" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="How to say &quot;email&quot; with a single word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="6e8ccafa-6297-4026-87e0-73468fc3efff" CreationDate="2014-05-23T06:20:53.013" UserId="3885" Text="If you are wiling to show high level of expertise of some person, you could use quite common phrase &quot;признанный эксперт&quot;. But that is having slight accent on accepting his expertise by others. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Михайлович был признанным экспертом в области машиностроительства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you could empathise his high-level expertise alone with &quot;высококлассный специалист&quot;, &quot;профессионал высокого класса&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Михайлович был высококлассным специалистом по древообрабатывающим станкам" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="10badca1-5d25-48c2-9a83-61d1043fc43d" CreationDate="2014-05-23T10:55:16.317" UserId="3872" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="Generally, the Russian scientific research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal scientfic topics and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PhD degree attainment. Therefore,  PhD degree, frome these respective, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PhD dissertation in social sciences usually is much bigger in length. If PhD dissertation consists of at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists of nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tasks of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science are the same.This contribution sounds like &quot;the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system is not applied to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences oficially and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are called &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot;academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most correct translation in my opinion are next:&#xD;&#xA;PhD  - доктор философии из (name of science(s)in respective grammar case&#xD;&#xA;PhD student -     учащийся  (or студент) (в) учреждении (учреждения), департаменте (департамента) etc.  на соискания академической степени Доктора философии из (...) при (name of university, country etc., or соискатель академической степени Доктора философии из... при (name of yniversity, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;In the Ruassian official procedures there the copy of  PhD holder certification is needed probably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12598" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="8c30a62e-6d68-4f4c-90f2-feedab50c1bd" CreationDate="2014-05-23T13:21:37.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/469830511213699073" />
  <row Id="12599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="3898a75c-2665-4985-a7b4-7c08093f9fd7" CreationDate="2014-05-23T13:45:29.483" UserId="3872" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="Generally, the Russian scientific research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal scientfic topics and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PhD degree attainment. Therefore,  PhD degree, frome these respective, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PhD dissertation in social sciences usually is much bigger in length. If PhD dissertation consists of at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists of nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tasks of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science are the same.This contribution sounds like &quot;the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system is not applied to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences oficially and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are called &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot;academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most correct translation in my opinion are next:&#xD;&#xA;PhD  - доктор философии из (name of science(s) in respective grammar case.&#xD;&#xA;PhD student -     учащийся (учащаяся)  (or студент(студентка) в учреждении (учреждения),or департаменте (департамента) etc.  на соискание ученой степени Доктора философии (из) (...) при or в (name of university, country etc., or соискатель ученой степени Доктора философии из... при or в (name of the university, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;In the Ruassian official procedures there the copy of  PhD holder certification is needed, probably, as well as there are need of any document affirming status of PhD student for the personal status clarification. Analoguous translations are useful for M.D. and other equivalents of PhD&#xD;&#xA; In the case of the DSc there is also useful to clarify the content of the degree meaning  (as it is in the case of informal communication) by adding an explanation concerning a country which academical degree was attained in (e.g. Я доктор философских наук,германская ученая степень).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="907a5f37-f77e-4325-b223-cb67cf613165" CreationDate="2014-05-23T13:57:24.627" UserId="3872" Comment="added 504 characters in body" Text="Generally, the Russian scientific research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal scientfic topics and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PhD degree attainment. Therefore,  PhD degree, frome these respective, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PhD dissertation in social sciences usually is much bigger in length. If PhD dissertation consists of at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists of nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tasks of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science are the same.This contribution sounds like &quot;the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system is not applied to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences oficially and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are called &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot;academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most correct translation in my opinion are next:&#xD;&#xA;PhD  - доктор философии из (name of science(s) in respective grammar case.&#xD;&#xA;PhD student -     учащийся (учащаяся)  (or студент(студентка) в учреждении (учреждения),or департаменте (департамента) etc.  на соискание ученой степени Доктора философии (из) (...) при or в (name of university, country etc., or соискатель ученой степени Доктора философии из... при or в (name of the university, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;In the Ruassian official procedures there the copy of  PhD holder certification is needed, probably, as well as there are need of any document affirming status of PhD student for the personal status clarification. Analoguous translations are useful for M.D. and other equivalents of PhD&#xD;&#xA; In the case of the DSc there is also useful to clarify the content of the degree meaning  (as it is in the case of informal communication) by adding an explanation concerning a country which academical degree was attained in (e.g. Я доктор философских наук, германская ученая степень).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="bfa2e862-7756-4de8-a029-042338b4f32b" CreationDate="2014-05-23T16:26:40.593" UserId="3872" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Generally, the Russian scientific research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal scientfic topics and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PhD degree attainment. Therefore,  PhD degree, frome these respective, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PhD dissertation in social sciences usually is much bigger in length. If PhD dissertation consists of at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists of nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tasks of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science are the same.This contribution sounds like &quot;the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system is not applied to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences oficially and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are called &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot;academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most correct translation in my opinion are next:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) PhD  - доктор философии из (name of science(s) in respective grammar case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)PhD student -     учащийся (учащаяся)  (or студент(студентка) в учреждении (учреждения),or департаменте (департамента) etc.  на соискание ученой степени Доктора философии (из) (...) при or в (name of university, country etc., or соискатель ученой степени Доктора философии из... при or в (name of the university, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Ruassian official procedures there the copy of  PhD holder certification is needed, probably, as well as there are need of any document affirming status of PhD student for the personal status clarification. Analoguous translations are useful for M.D. and other equivalents of PhD.&#xD;&#xA; In the case of the DSc there is also useful to clarify the content of the degree meaning  (as it is in the case of informal communication) by adding an explanation concerning a country which academical degree was attained in (e.g. Я доктор философских наук, германская ученая степень).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="6b46783d-b7c1-4f5c-822e-e57bc4ff9331" CreationDate="2014-05-23T17:06:38.467" UserId="3872" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Generally, the Russian scientific research degree &quot;doctor nauk&quot; is granted for investigating unresolvable and more universal scientfic topics and not for new and uninvestigated and particular scientfic problems as it is in tne case of PhD degree attainment. Therefore,  PhD degree, frome these respective, more corresponds with Candidate of sciences degree. But PhD dissertation in social sciences usually is much bigger in length. If PhD dissertation consists of at least 80 000 words, the Candidate of sciences dissertation consists of nearly from 40 000 to 60 000 words. But the tasks of the dissertations and necessary demands of the individual contribution in the particular science are the same.This contribution sounds like &quot;the scientifical novelty&quot;, which is necessary declared in the Russian and other CIS countries' candidate of sciences dissertations' introductions. The Bologna system is not applied to the post-graduate degrees, so candidate of sciences oficially and &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degrees are called &quot;scientific degrees&quot; and they are not called &quot;academic&quot; degrees. For the &quot;doctor nauk&quot; degree attainment there are needed the new resolution method for the problems which cannot be resolved by old methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most correct translation in my opinion are next:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) PhD  - доктор философии из (name of science(s) in respective grammar case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)PhD student -     учащийся (учащаяся)  (or студент(студентка) в учреждении (учреждения),or департаменте (департамента) etc.  на соискание ученой степени Доктора философии (из) (...) при or в (name of university, country etc., or соискатель ученой степени Доктора философии из... при or в (name of the university, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian official procedures there the copy of  PhD holder certification is needed, probably, as well as there are need of any document affirming status of PhD student for the personal status clarification. Analoguous translations are useful for M.D. and other equivalents of PhD.&#xD;&#xA; In the case of the DSc there is also useful to clarify the content of the degree meaning  (as it is in the case of informal communication) by adding an explanation concerning a country which academical degree was attained in (e.g. Я доктор философских наук, германская ученая степень).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="742cd85d-7e0a-4338-93bd-c8838b140d0c" CreationDate="2014-05-23T20:13:49.083" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What would be the difference between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `другой` and `иной`&#xD;&#xA;- `по-другому` and `по-иному / иначе`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What comes *иначе* from (is it comparative of *иной*)?   &#xD;&#xA;- Is there something alike for *другой*? And why or why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="742cd85d-7e0a-4338-93bd-c8838b140d0c" CreationDate="2014-05-23T20:13:49.083" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="другой vs. иной" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="742cd85d-7e0a-4338-93bd-c8838b140d0c" CreationDate="2014-05-23T20:13:49.083" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|этимология|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="eaef295e-ae3a-4424-8fa0-6b3e6f51c117" CreationDate="2014-05-23T21:46:06.137" UserId="3889" Text="иной is an adjective and synonymous with другой. The only difference would be common sayings or phrases that use one or the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;по-другому and по-иному / иначе are also synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/иной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/другой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;иначе is an adverb whereas иной is an adjective, so something alike for другой would also be an adverb from другой (probably you would just use по-другому).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="59e54c18-a919-498e-9ac7-4dd4ae9b94b8" CreationDate="2014-05-24T05:27:16.013" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12610" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="f3f9b969-54ed-4285-b6a3-958debc84da9" CreationDate="2014-05-24T05:41:23.880" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="d551f6f6-4777-452c-b44b-5361b26632d7" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:44:20.497" UserId="3891" Text="When counting things, as in 1, 2, 3, 4, ... what suffix is applied to the end of the words? For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is 1 dog, but 2 cats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 planes available today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first 4 doors are locked, but the 5th door is not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="d551f6f6-4777-452c-b44b-5361b26632d7" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:44:20.497" UserId="3891" Text="How does counting change the suffix of a word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="d551f6f6-4777-452c-b44b-5361b26632d7" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:44:20.497" UserId="3891" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="d4883501-85cb-430c-9148-4944262fbe7b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:46:47.433" UserId="3892" Text="When I asked a Russian friend why he lives in Poland, he wrote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;просто однажды я задумался, об образовании, и пришёл к решению, что в Польше уровень образования будет **как-никак** выше, и получив польский диплом у меня будет больше возможностей в будущем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does как-никак mean in this context? The dictionaries give so many different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="d4883501-85cb-430c-9148-4944262fbe7b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:46:47.433" UserId="3892" Text="the meaning of как-никак" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="d4883501-85cb-430c-9148-4944262fbe7b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:46:47.433" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="44860fc2-484c-4732-be2a-7d2c168ccd2b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:56:52.163" UserId="3892" Text="In the following passage, shouldn't кораблекрушение be in the genitive case? Or is this a typo?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Из разговора также совершенно ясно, что вахтенный заметил в свете хвостовых прожекторов человека, потерпевшего **кораблекрушение**.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="44860fc2-484c-4732-be2a-7d2c168ccd2b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:56:52.163" UserId="3892" Text="Should this be genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="44860fc2-484c-4732-be2a-7d2c168ccd2b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:56:52.163" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="18592681-d40c-4eea-8883-629ff79f7509" CreationDate="2014-05-24T14:57:02.840" UserId="3812" Text="When counting there are three plural forms.   n represents a number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -  n%10==1 &amp;&amp; n%100!=11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   remaining of devision by ten is one and remaining of devision by hundred is not eleven&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;один кот, двадцать один кот, сорок один кот, тысяча один кот...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - n%10&gt;=2 &amp;&amp; n%10&lt;=4 &amp;&amp; (n%100&lt;10 || n%100&gt;=20)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   remaining of devision by ten is equal or greater than two and equal of less than four and (remaining of division by a hundred is less than ten or equal of greater than twenty)&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; два кота, три кота, четыре кота, двадцать два кота, тридцать три кота, сорок четыре кота...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пять котов, десять котов, семнадцать котов, двадцать котов, тысяча одиннадцать котов&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="4fc74dfa-926e-4d88-ac5b-3e8cb669da67" CreationDate="2014-05-24T15:09:15.977" UserId="1236" Text="Everything is correct in that sentence, the Accusative case is used correctly. `Потерпеть` is a transitive word, and its direct object, `кораблекрушение` is naturally in the Accusative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4570" RevisionGUID="6f24d69a-9ced-4eb9-a3ee-252829924bfc" CreationDate="2014-05-24T15:11:39.923" UserId="3893" Text="In this context как-никак means **obviously**/**no doubt**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в Польше уровень образования будет *очевидно* выше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="05111614-9243-4f6d-8a14-c2da797c3dfb" CreationDate="2014-05-24T15:39:39.527" UserId="3893" Text="Main difference is If there are *limit* of available entities to choose from you say `другой`, otherwise `иной` (from unknown amount of options)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="4b40d9e1-d4d3-4aa0-9bff-d4f512cefd3c" CreationDate="2014-05-24T18:31:43.673" UserId="3892" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|значения|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4572" RevisionGUID="801494bb-1fb6-4d56-b5c9-3495141b360f" CreationDate="2014-05-24T18:34:39.983" UserId="2388" Text="Here it means &quot;still&quot;, &quot;after all&quot;. So, the author of the passage means that &quot;if you think about it, the level of education in Poland is probably better, anyway, so I'll have more opportunities in the future with a Polish dimploma&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the use of adverbal participle here is not completely correct because in Russian grammar such participle is consider to be attributed to a subject of the main clause.; But in &quot;у меня будет больше возможностей&quot; it is &quot;больше возможностей&quot; that is the subject. Obviously &quot;opprtunities&quot; could not be &quot;having received a diploma&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="d731e608-3616-476b-b3ce-c6871e2c8752" CreationDate="2014-05-24T21:15:48.607" UserId="3892" Text="According to the context in the clip, the translation should have been &quot;I never know what to say at times like this.&quot; We don't use &quot;moment&quot; in English the say way they use it in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="c48142f0-991c-4227-b244-eed83ee0c815" CreationDate="2014-05-24T22:33:03.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/470331668759199744" />
  <row Id="12628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="29320148-15ec-44bb-9b82-4895d4bae779" CreationDate="2014-05-24T23:31:51.617" UserId="3892" Text="In this passage, is this actually a question, or is it more rhetorical, like saying  &quot;Who says that?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“«Человек в небе»! Что это такое? Разве так говорят? Даже дети знают, что надо говорить: «Человек за бортом!» ”&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="29320148-15ec-44bb-9b82-4895d4bae779" CreationDate="2014-05-24T23:31:51.617" UserId="3892" Text="Usе of разве in questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="29320148-15ec-44bb-9b82-4895d4bae779" CreationDate="2014-05-24T23:31:51.617" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12631" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="4ea8750e-c046-4bdd-a20f-0bae19095591" CreationDate="2014-05-25T01:46:06.163" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|числительные|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="76258f79-d3d6-42f5-b479-d82a2e9d15b8" CreationDate="2014-05-25T01:56:44.363" UserId="62" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="When counting there are three plural forms when the object being counted is the subject of the sentence. Let n represent a number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  -  the last (units) digit of n is 1 but the last two digits are not 11: use nominative singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;один кот, двадцать один кот, сорок один кот, тысяча один кот...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - the last (units) digit of n is 2, 3, or 4 but the last two digits are not 12, 13, 14: use genitive singular&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; два кота, три кота, четыре кота, двадцать два кота, тридцать три кота, сорок четыре кота...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - all other cases: the last two digits are 11, 12, ..., 19 or the last digit ends in 5 or higher or ends in 0. Use genitive plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пять котов, десять котов, семнадцать котов, двадцать котов, тысяча одиннадцать котов&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="29588f83-7bb7-48f4-a0f1-3b50ef9c865e" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:20:02.097" UserId="3892" Text="When describing a movie, how does one say &quot;the movie is set in New York, in the early fifties&quot;? Alternatively: &quot;The movie takes place in NY in the early fifties.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="29588f83-7bb7-48f4-a0f1-3b50ef9c865e" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:20:02.097" UserId="3892" Text="Talking about movies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="29588f83-7bb7-48f4-a0f1-3b50ef9c865e" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:20:02.097" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4576" RevisionGUID="e02c29c8-b23c-434e-b0e5-fd17ac335b21" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:22:49.393" UserId="3887" Text="It's definitely a rhetorical question. Slightly different connotations than &quot;who says that&quot;, it's more didactic and less mocking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="52c1ba53-857c-4a98-9982-d444cfb7c8a9" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:25:45.113" UserId="3892" Text="In the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Разговор, который я только что привел, – невозмутимо продолжал я, не обращая внимания на его насмешку, – происходил на борту космического корабля.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="52c1ba53-857c-4a98-9982-d444cfb7c8a9" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:25:45.113" UserId="3892" Text="Что значит &quot;привести разговор&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="52c1ba53-857c-4a98-9982-d444cfb7c8a9" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:25:45.113" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4578" RevisionGUID="dbb89737-6424-4b92-98bc-110a12907804" CreationDate="2014-05-25T04:36:22.967" UserId="3887" Text="Here it means something like &quot;all in all&quot; (as you write in the comment to another answer) or maybe &quot;after all&quot; would be a little closer. This would be the meaning in any context I can think of right now. I wonder what else you found in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your friend made a very common and funny grammatical error at the end of the sentence (not to mention the punctuation): &quot;получив польский диплом у меня будет больше возможностей в будущем&quot;. The classic example is from a Chekhov's story: &quot;подъезжая к вокзалу, у меня слетела шляпа&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4579" RevisionGUID="453452c1-4e3d-49bf-a557-0a6eb58b82c6" CreationDate="2014-05-25T05:55:35.690" UserId="3895" Text="&gt; Разве? in question almost means do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Разве' так говорят = 'Разве кто-то' так говорит - Do some one ...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="bd694353-25d2-4bbb-84e2-1010d3f54c32" CreationDate="2014-05-25T06:01:54.080" UserId="194" Text="The conversation I quoted (put here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="fb1c2c47-44fb-4e64-8af4-49a28df24c5f" CreationDate="2014-05-25T06:31:34.430" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Действие фильма происходит в Нью-Йорке в начале пятидесятых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="c57108e9-e64f-4d29-aabc-d3f6ba7f341c" CreationDate="2014-05-25T07:00:23.963" UserId="194" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="&gt; Действие фильма происходит в Нью-Йорке в начале пятидесятых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="da8127f7-d759-4b3b-96f4-f8c1b6154ec6" CreationDate="2014-05-25T10:48:13.517" UserId="2388" Text="**&quot;привести&quot;** is used here in the same meaning as in &quot;приводить пример&quot;, &quot;приводить доказательства&quot; (to give an example, to produce a proof), i.e. to cite, to show something. In general this meaning can be summarized as &quot;to tell, to use some information to support your point of view and opinion&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="a042887d-18e7-4100-a572-9fc6e9b6f464" CreationDate="2014-05-25T12:43:00.930" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="When I asked a Russian friend why he lives in Poland, he wrote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;просто однажды я задумался, об образовании, и пришёл к решению, что в Польше уровень образования будет **как-никак** выше, и получив польский диплом у меня будет больше возможностей в будущем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does *как-никак* mean in this context? The dictionaries give so many different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12649" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="a042887d-18e7-4100-a572-9fc6e9b6f464" CreationDate="2014-05-25T12:43:00.930" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 3892 edit id of 459" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="1944aa78-543f-4112-b106-a36e1998b500" CreationDate="2014-05-25T12:53:03.827" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="According to the context in the clip, the translation should have been &quot;I never know what to say at times like this.&quot; We don't use &quot;moment&quot; in English the same way they use it in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="1d7286b2-1bab-40c0-bbbe-42140bd86615" CreationDate="2014-05-25T13:57:45.440" UserId="3892" Text="I looked for it in dictionaries, but it doesn't seem to be a standard verb, except in a few cases where it means to run someones name through the police systems. Perhaps it's slang?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;очень хочу **прокачать** мои знания по английскому" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="1d7286b2-1bab-40c0-bbbe-42140bd86615" CreationDate="2014-05-25T13:57:45.440" UserId="3892" Text="What does прокачать mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="1d7286b2-1bab-40c0-bbbe-42140bd86615" CreationDate="2014-05-25T13:57:45.440" UserId="3892" Text="|узус|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4585" RevisionGUID="a3548f0d-1326-4cc4-9450-ecf825d54c6e" CreationDate="2014-05-25T14:17:18.847" UserId="3896" Text="Yes, it's slang. **Качать** means pump. This word (by my opinion) came from bodybuilders, who **pump** theirs muscles. Today this word got wide meaning as improve something. *Прокачать игрового персонажа в Wow.* - pump my hero in WoW. Phrase in question mead &quot;I really want to improve my English skills&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="6d64dc5a-0703-4caa-b352-cca0205becf2" CreationDate="2014-05-25T15:36:45.693" UserId="3892" Text="i've seen this expression a few times online and don't really understand what it means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="6d64dc5a-0703-4caa-b352-cca0205becf2" CreationDate="2014-05-25T15:36:45.693" UserId="3892" Text="How do you use то ли дело what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="6d64dc5a-0703-4caa-b352-cca0205becf2" CreationDate="2014-05-25T15:36:45.693" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="529c5b47-ca2c-4cb4-af01-6a34ab1b8307" CreationDate="2014-05-25T16:19:05.220" UserId="1236" Text="`То ли дело` means &quot;it's quite a different matter; it's another thing altogether; what a difference&quot;. It is used in comparisons, what follows `то ли дело` is shown as really contrasting the thing that precedes that phrase. Usually what follows `то ли дело` is shown as being much better than what precedes it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [fact 1], то ли дело [fact 2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[fact 2] is better than [fact 1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В городе скучно, то ли дело в деревне.&#xD;&#xA;    Staying in town is quite boring, staying in the country is quite a different matter.&#xD;&#xA;    (That is, staying in the country is much less boring than staying in town.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples from Russian famous writers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Истина-то не всякому достаётся - поди, добивайся! - пожалуй, за неё и десятью копеечками&#xD;&#xA;    со строчки не отбояришься! То ли дело обман! Знай, пиши да обманывай.&#xD;&#xA;    (М. Салтыков-Щедрин, Обманщик-газетчик и легковерный читатель) — &#xD;&#xA;    Not everyone is up to the job of writing truth. Anyhow, just go and try to find it.&#xD;&#xA;    It's more than likely that you wouldn't even get it for a kopeck a line. But lies -&#xD;&#xA;    that's a different matter. Just scribble away any nonsense you like.&#xD;&#xA;Or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Светлову шёл тридцать шестой год, но сейчас ему можно было дать все сорок.&#xD;&#xA;    Лысый, располневший, с почти квадратной фигурой мужчина - кому он нужен!&#xD;&#xA;    Соня права. То ли дело Ветрин! (И. Забелин, Без свидетелей) —&#xD;&#xA;    Svetlov was getting on for thirty-six, but now you could have given him&#xD;&#xA;    all of forty. Bald, stout, with an almost square figure, who cared for him?&#xD;&#xA;    Sonya was right. Vetrin was another man altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="854e2b0f-aed4-43f0-9e12-26d2c7343e3b" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:04:20.300" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `так как` and `потому что`&#xD;&#xA;- `так что` and `поэтому`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the reasons to use one over the other?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose they mean the same thing, but I'm not quite sure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="854e2b0f-aed4-43f0-9e12-26d2c7343e3b" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:04:20.300" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="так как vs. потому что AND так что vs. поэтому" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="854e2b0f-aed4-43f0-9e12-26d2c7343e3b" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:04:20.300" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="2651b680-d06b-4f42-a413-6fda842783b4" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:29:41.497" UserId="3898" Text="Они обозначают одно и то же, и мы используем разные варианты для того, чтобы не говорить постоянно &quot;потому что&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="e2d0bbd9-5ae7-4bcb-b86f-d6caa1bd444c" CreationDate="2014-05-25T23:57:46.000" UserId="3892" Text="I found the following passage in a book and I'm confounded by the phrase **под самой крыше**. If I had to guess, I would venture *secluded from the outside world*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сразу можно догадаться, что поэт живет в полном одиночестве чуть ли не **под самой крышей**.  &#xD;&#xA;It was immediately apparent that the poet lived all alone, pretty much ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="e2d0bbd9-5ae7-4bcb-b86f-d6caa1bd444c" CreationDate="2014-05-25T23:57:46.000" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of под самой крыше" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="e2d0bbd9-5ae7-4bcb-b86f-d6caa1bd444c" CreationDate="2014-05-25T23:57:46.000" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|узус|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="31e985ac-6847-427a-a60b-5e87ba694236" CreationDate="2014-05-26T04:00:03.583" UserId="551" Text="It means that the poet lives at the floor that is very close to the roof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="e4c7afd7-2fa8-4804-8282-a80fe1feaeab" CreationDate="2014-05-26T04:06:15.260" UserId="551" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="It means that the poet lives at the floor that is very close to the roof, for instance in the attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Под крышей would mean &quot;in any place under the roof&quot;, in other words - somewhere in the house. When someone uses just &quot;под крышей&quot; it is synonym &quot;in the house&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="eeeee965-c371-4024-a9c5-103c584d101e" CreationDate="2014-05-26T04:11:35.207" UserId="551" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="It means that the poet lives at the floor that is very close to the roof, for instance in the attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под крышей** would mean &quot;in any place under the roof&quot;, in other words - somewhere in the house. When someone uses just &quot;под крышей&quot; it is synonym for &quot;in the house&quot;. Another example is &quot;Иметь крышу над головой&quot; - literally &quot;someone lives in a place where there is a roof&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под самой крышей** means &quot;under the roof, as close as possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чуть ли не под самой крышей** means &quot;almost as close to the roof as possible&quot;, so it can be not the attic itself, but at the last floor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="dd425cf1-f821-4676-b331-4b53462e44ee" CreationDate="2014-05-26T05:36:33.100" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I found the following passage in a book and I'm confounded by the phrase **под самой крышей**. If I had to guess, I would venture *secluded from the outside world*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сразу можно догадаться, что поэт живет в полном одиночестве чуть ли не **под самой крышей**.  &#xD;&#xA;It was immediately apparent that the poet lived all alone, pretty much ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12670" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="dd425cf1-f821-4676-b331-4b53462e44ee" CreationDate="2014-05-26T05:36:33.100" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Meaning of под самой крышей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4591" RevisionGUID="dfdd1a12-712b-48ad-ace4-6bcbc99889a7" CreationDate="2014-05-26T07:20:37.843" UserId="551" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="It means that the poet lives at the floor that is very close to the roof, for instance in the attic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под крышей** would mean &quot;in any place under the roof&quot;, in other words - somewhere in the house. When someone uses just &quot;под крышей&quot; it is synonym for &quot;in the house&quot;. Another example is &quot;Иметь крышу над головой&quot; - literally &quot;someone lives in a place where there is a roof&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под самой крышей** means &quot;under the roof, as close as possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чуть ли не под самой крышей** means &quot;almost as close to the roof as possible&quot;, so it can be not the attic itself, but at the last floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the passage you've shown, the author depicts a typical &quot;romantic poet&quot; figure, that has no money to pay for a better place and lives in a cheapest flat (or even single room) possible. At least in old books and fairy tales the romantic heroes live in such places (when elevators were not invented yet and it was hard to get to the top of the house)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4592" RevisionGUID="dab08b38-2774-46b0-9880-222c23db1961" CreationDate="2014-05-26T07:48:46.493" UserId="3853" Text="Each pair - synonymous expressions. You can use any.&#xA;I never noticed the prevalence of any of the options in an official letter, speech, or somewhere else&#xA;&#xA;But it seems to me, option with `так` is more often used to describe something negative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="691bc83e-565c-49da-b5b4-d4205cd9e23d" CreationDate="2014-05-26T08:02:15.807" UserId="551" Text="Basically **так как** and **потому что** mean the same, but they do have differences in usage.&#xD;&#xA;They both are used to connect some fact with its reasons (like words 'because' or 'since'), but **так как** can be placed both in the beginning of the sentence and in the middle of it, while **потому что** is used mostly in the middle of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Так как** я проспал, я не пришел на первый урок. - The reason here goes before the fact, sounds formal.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Потому что** я проспал, я не пришел на первый урок. - Sounds innatural, though can be used in some rare cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не пришел на первый урок **так как** я проспал. - Sounds formal  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не пришел на первый урок **потому что** я проспал. - Most neutral form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Так как**  is more formal and [according to this source][1] emerged in formal language at the end of 18th century and become accepted around 1850-es. It become popular because it can be used both at the beginning of the sentence and in the middle of it. According to Лев Поливанов (died in 1899), writers avoided to use **так как** because it sounds bad: &quot;Союз так как ... весьма редко употребляется образцовыми писателями, как неблагозвучный.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/wordhistory/648/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="0058b893-8d86-4d6b-87dd-f4f94d05b635" CreationDate="2014-05-26T08:37:51.220" UserId="551" Comment="added 790 characters in body" Text="Basically **так как** and **потому что** mean the same, but they do have differences in usage.&#xD;&#xA;They both are used to connect some fact with its reasons (like words 'because' or 'since'), but **так как** can be placed both in the beginning of the sentence and in the middle of it, while **потому что** is used mostly in the middle of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Так как** я проспал, я не пришел на первый урок. - The reason here goes before the fact, sounds formal.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Потому что** я проспал, я не пришел на первый урок. - Sounds innatural, though can be used in some rare cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не пришел на первый урок **так как** я проспал. - Sounds formal  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не пришел на первый урок **потому что** я проспал. - Most neutral form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Так как**  is more formal and [according to this source][1] emerged in formal language at the end of 18th century and become accepted around 1850-es. It become popular because it can be used both at the beginning of the sentence and in the middle of it. According to Лев Поливанов (died in 1899), writers avoided to use **так как** because it sounds bad: &quot;Союз так как ... весьма редко употребляется образцовыми писателями, как неблагозвучный.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Так что** and **поэтому** are not completely interchangeable. **Поэтому** connects reasons with facts (in other way than *так как* or *потому что*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я проспал, поэтому я не пришел на первый урок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reasons and facts are connected in obvious logical way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Так что** is less formal. It can be used to summarize all previous thoughts or intentions or reasons in a single sentence (like &quot;So, ...&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наши программы пользуются большой популярностью, новые заказчики просят о расширении возможностей. Есть много идей и для нового проекта. Так что без работы мы в ближайшее время не останемся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here some situation is described and the author uses *так что* to express their estimation for the future. I think it can be translated as *so* or *as you can see*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/wordhistory/648/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="ee7f3287-8ad3-46f2-be42-e751ff627090" CreationDate="2014-05-26T13:01:16.320" UserId="3892" Text="I found this sentence and was wondering about the meaning of **сровнялось**.&#xD;&#xA;My guess: &quot;He was all of 96 and a half, ....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Дедушка Джо был в семье самый старый. Ему **сровнялось** девяносто шесть с половиной лет, а это не так уж и мало. ”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="ee7f3287-8ad3-46f2-be42-e751ff627090" CreationDate="2014-05-26T13:01:16.320" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of сровнялось" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="ee7f3287-8ad3-46f2-be42-e751ff627090" CreationDate="2014-05-26T13:01:16.320" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4596" RevisionGUID="2bf3bb84-f0fc-4a5b-9d76-4e665c689478" CreationDate="2014-05-26T13:11:16.817" UserId="1236" Text="In your sentence the verb **сровняться** means &quot;to reach the age of ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning is colloquial, in neutral standard speech this meaning is usually expressed by the verb **исполняться**, so &quot;Ему сровнялось девяносто шесть с половиной лет&quot; means &quot;Ему исполнилось девяносто шесть с половиной лет.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="32b4b496-8e99-4933-84d2-3b2d14a0148a" CreationDate="2014-05-26T17:10:43.233" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="&gt;Alice adopted John, when he was 2 years old. At the age of 15 he got to know **who he really is.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is is possible to express *to be* in a direct manner without reconstruct these sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would *Когда ему было 15 лет он узнал **кто он на самом деле есть*** do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="32b4b496-8e99-4933-84d2-3b2d14a0148a" CreationDate="2014-05-26T17:10:43.233" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Issue making a sentence with &quot;to be&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="32b4b496-8e99-4933-84d2-3b2d14a0148a" CreationDate="2014-05-26T17:10:43.233" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="a99b5eea-1f4c-4600-b4fb-a1265ef4238f" CreationDate="2014-05-26T17:59:33.513" UserId="1236" Text="The English verb **to be** in the Present tense can be rendered in Russian in a number of ways, apart from the complete omission of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `быть (Present есть)` - here two variants are possible,&#xD;&#xA;a) what follows `есть`, the predicative, is in the Nominative case, that is what you suggested, `он узнал, кто он на самом деле есть`; and b) the predicative is in the Instrumental case, so it is `он узнал, кем он на самом деле есть`;&#xD;&#xA;2. `являться` - it is also followed by the Instrumental case, then your sentence is `он узнал, кем он на самом деле является`. `Являться` is a just a little bit bookish, though.&#xD;&#xA;3. `находиться` - this doesn't fit your sentence at all, it means 'to be [situated]', it is about the place where the subject is, like in `Рейкьявик находится в Исландии.` 'Reykjavík is in Iceland.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sentences of the kind `who/what is &lt;somebody/something&gt;?` or `who/what &lt;somebody/something&gt; is` the word `такой, -ая, -ое, -ие` can be added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто ты такой? - Who are you? (to a man)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кто ты такая? - Who are you? (to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, кто они такие. - I don't know who they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case your sentence will be `он узнал, кто он такой на самом деле`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that you missed a comma after &quot;узнал.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="15a83c46-0c82-431a-8b02-95140cd8f77f" CreationDate="2014-05-26T18:20:36.410" UserId="3904" Text="К кому идёт Коля? (Kolia walks to his grand-mother) Коля идёт к бабушке.&#xD;&#xA;Почему Коля думает, что Соня больна? (Kolia thinks that Sonia is sick because she's going to the hospital) потому что Соня идёт в больхицу.&#xD;&#xA;Почему Соня идёт В Больницу? ( Sonia walks to the hospital because her father is a doctor. He works to the hospital). Соня идёт в больницу потому что её отец брач. Он работает в больнице .&#xD;&#xA;Куда идут Соня и её папа? They are going to the cinema. Соня и её папа/Их идут в кино.&#xD;&#xA;And also can you explain me the difference between &quot;komy&quot; and &quot;kyda&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="15a83c46-0c82-431a-8b02-95140cd8f77f" CreationDate="2014-05-26T18:20:36.410" UserId="3904" Text="Could you please correct me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="15a83c46-0c82-431a-8b02-95140cd8f77f" CreationDate="2014-05-26T18:20:36.410" UserId="3904" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="de62b6b3-1991-4aa7-86cd-60d10b35f569" CreationDate="2014-05-26T19:01:16.063" UserId="2388" Text="You made a typo. &quot;Doctor&quot; is &quot;врач&quot; in Russian, not *брач*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference, these are different pronouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кому* is a form of &quot;кто&quot; (who). The whole paradigm (Nom-Acc-Gen-Prep-Dat-Inst) is ***кто, кого, кого, (о) ком, кому, кем***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Куда* is an interrogative adverb &quot;where to?&quot; Similar in meaning or looks are the folowing words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *где* = where (location, place of action or being)&#xD;&#xA; - *откуда* = where from (origin, like in &quot;Where are you from?&quot;~&quot;Откуда ты?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - *туда* = there (direction: *Куда? → Туда*)&#xD;&#xA; - *там* = there (location: *Где? → Там*)&#xD;&#xA; - *тут/здесь* = here (location)&#xD;&#xA; - *сюда* = here (direction: *Come here! = Иди сюда*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a mistake: They are going to the cinema = ***Они*** идут в кино." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="452b143b-ba40-4e92-99a9-cb05502a905e" CreationDate="2014-05-27T10:38:27.780" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="- К кому идёт Коля? &#xD;&#xA;  - (Kolia walks to his grand-mother) &#xD;&#xA;  - Коля идёт к бабушке.&#xD;&#xA;- Почему Коля думает, что Соня больна? &#xD;&#xA;  - (Kolia thinks that Sonia is sick because she's going to the hospital) &#xD;&#xA;  - потому что Соня идёт в больхицу.&#xD;&#xA;- Почему Соня идёт В Больницу? &#xD;&#xA;  - (Sonia walks to the hospital because her father is a doctor. He works to the hospital). &#xD;&#xA;  - Соня идёт в больницу потому что её отец брач. Он работает в больнице .&#xD;&#xA;- Куда идут Соня и её папа? &#xD;&#xA;  - (They are going to the cinema.) &#xD;&#xA;  - Соня и её папа/Их идут в кино.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also can you explain me the difference between &quot;komy&quot; and &quot;kyda&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12693" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="452b143b-ba40-4e92-99a9-cb05502a905e" CreationDate="2014-05-27T10:38:27.780" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 461" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="d6115623-81b5-4d38-be8e-8d65c2ddd70d" CreationDate="2014-05-27T10:38:27.780" UserId="97" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="- К кому идёт Коля? &#xD;&#xA;  - (Kolia walks to his grand-mother) &#xD;&#xA;  - Коля идёт к бабушке.&#xD;&#xA;- Почему Коля думает, что Соня больна? &#xD;&#xA;  - (Kolia thinks that Sonia is sick because she's going to the hospital) &#xD;&#xA;  - потому что Соня идёт в больницу.&#xD;&#xA;- Почему Соня идёт В Больницу? &#xD;&#xA;  - (Sonia walks to the hospital because her father is a doctor. He works at the hospital). &#xD;&#xA;  - Соня идёт в больницу, потому что её отец врач. Он работает в больнице.&#xD;&#xA;- Куда идут Соня и её папа? &#xD;&#xA;  - (They are going to the cinema.) &#xD;&#xA;  - Соня и её папа/их идут в кино.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also can you explain me the difference between &quot;кому&quot; and &quot;куда&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="e2bf4ebf-3edc-4937-b2ff-8bae69f5d82a" CreationDate="2014-05-27T12:37:41.077" UserId="1051" Text="Oftentimes to communicate in a language one only needs a limited repertoire of words. Is there a list of the most frequent Russian words - even if it's only a few hundred?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the book &quot;Roots of the Russian Language&quot; quite intriguing and useful, but a plain wordlist would also help to gauge what to learn and how quick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="e2bf4ebf-3edc-4937-b2ff-8bae69f5d82a" CreationDate="2014-05-27T12:37:41.077" UserId="1051" Text="Where can I find a list of the 1000 most frequent Russian words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="e2bf4ebf-3edc-4937-b2ff-8bae69f5d82a" CreationDate="2014-05-27T12:37:41.077" UserId="1051" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4603" RevisionGUID="af5e3349-9085-462f-bb93-c6d01a5a2379" CreationDate="2014-05-27T12:39:40.760" UserId="3910" Text="In this kind of contexts, *самый/самая* can be approximately translated as *the very*.&#xD;&#xA;В самом конце=in the very end.&#xD;&#xA;So *под самой* means &quot;under the very roof&quot;, meaning, as Artemix has said, the highest inhabitable floor or the attic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="dcaed441-3caa-44c9-9c55-4762f80cfdf3" CreationDate="2014-05-27T12:58:54.410" UserId="2388" Text="Try here: http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General list: http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php?act=show&amp;dic=freq_freq&amp;title=%D7%E0%F1%F2%EE%F2%ED%FB%E9%20%F1%EF%E8%F1%EE%EA%20%EB%E5%EC%EC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquial list: http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php?act=show&amp;dic=freq_spoken&amp;title=%D7%E0%F1%F2%EE%F2%ED%FB%E9%20%F1%EB%EE%E2%E0%F0%FC%20%E6%E8%E2%EE%E9%20%F3%F1%F2%ED%EE%E9%20%F0%E5%F7%E8 (you can copy-paste it into any spreadsheet software and then sort by frrequency).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a list here: http://www.artint.ru/projects/frqlist.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would just consult these lists and try to pinpoint words that you need. Probably, popular but formal words (&quot;too bookish&quot;, i.e. associated with legal, political usage and bureaucracy) are not your priority. It is the same with numerous interjections, diminutives and, probably, strong language (&quot;too colloquial&quot; words). The rest will make a more sensible list that covers basics of the laguage: the words you are more or less equally likely to encounter in media, books and spoken language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="f3d680fd-d572-42c5-b12e-f4e761ea33fc" CreationDate="2014-05-27T13:03:08.200" UserId="3910" Text="One connotation not mentioned here, but perhaps relevant, as maybe the mother still sees the man as a kid. In Soviet times, there was a rotating duty among the children in a class, and the one on duty was supposed to generally help the teacher, e.g. clean the blackboard before the start of each lesson, help bring any lab equipment, know who was absent today, and perhaps help to set the class' table in the school canteen. &#xD;&#xA;So *дежурный по классу* was the one responsible for the class." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="32319a64-f625-4943-8001-97da4b724630" CreationDate="2014-05-27T13:42:20.220" UserId="47" Comment="Expanded to provide more relevant information." Text="http://lib.ru/ has a wide range of books by classic and modern authors. Mainly fiction and no periodicals though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="ca87a0bc-a82f-4da6-960f-6289067de29d" CreationDate="2014-05-27T13:45:34.580" UserId="47" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There is no such possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Отправить эл. почту &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the best for the purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="a8df92f5-1823-465a-ba9d-194867585b04" CreationDate="2014-05-27T14:05:22.153" UserId="47" Text="I think the word *покрывать* is a very close equivalent. Seems to be applicable to all four-legged animals. See [here][1] and [here][2]. The reason why the word is not used so often is probably that all sex-related topics have long been a taboo in the USSR. The same explains why the words used to describe sex to a large extent belong to profanity in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/ushakov/ush-abc/16/us350519.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="65b6e6f5-157f-47d5-8bfc-b45b4391234f" CreationDate="2014-05-27T14:13:20.437" UserId="47" Comment="added 498 characters in body" Text="I think the word *покрывать* is a very close equivalent. Seems to be applicable to all four-legged animals. See [here][1] and [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пристраиваться* as suggested by [jwalker][3] is another option, though the exact meaning may be unclear depending on the situation. *Пристроиться* may very well mean just a cosy comfortable position. To achieve the sexual connotation, one would have to make sure to use it with *к* (to emphasize the direction) rather than *на*, *у* (location). So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пристроиться к его ноге&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rather than &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пристроиться у его ноги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why there is no clarity in this topic is probably that all sex-related topics in general have long been a taboo in the USSR. The same explains why the words used to describe sex to a large extent belong to profanity in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/ushakov/ush-abc/16/us350519.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4278/47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12705" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="ab3eda7e-c96e-4d84-adb6-dd051185138d" CreationDate="2014-05-27T16:39:45.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/471329922158698496" />
  <row Id="12706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="c0925645-ee98-4b53-ac08-3a79d22a1222" CreationDate="2014-05-27T16:59:40.603" UserId="3911" Text="When we're speaking of the future in English, we usually say `will ...` or `am going to ...`. In French, the same is accomplished using Futur Simple for will, and `aller` for going to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, however, the only place I can possibly make this connection is in the perfective/imperfective aspects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thinking is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I will continue` -&gt; `Я буду продолжать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I am going to continue` -&gt; `Я продолжу`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I barking up the wrong tree because there's no difference, or am I on the right track?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="c0925645-ee98-4b53-ac08-3a79d22a1222" CreationDate="2014-05-27T16:59:40.603" UserId="3911" Text="Understanding the future tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="c0925645-ee98-4b53-ac08-3a79d22a1222" CreationDate="2014-05-27T16:59:40.603" UserId="3911" Text="|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="c9732319-e92f-458c-9103-02f509118d36" CreationDate="2014-05-27T17:21:43.457" UserId="2388" Text="The difference in aspect in Russian does not correspond to English concept of Perfect, let alone the difference between &quot;will&quot; and &quot;to be going to&quot;. It is merely a matter of point-of-view: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;буду продолжать&quot;** focuses on the process, or maybe that the action will be repeated&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;продолжу&quot;** focuses on the result (i.e &quot;I'll stop doing whatever&#xD;&#xA;   keeps me from this, and will go on doing this thing that I did before&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, in English the difference is that of how much planning was involved: by &quot;I will continue&quot; you suggest that you made the decision right now, that you promise to do that. With &quot;I am going to continue&quot; you suggest that either the decision has laready been made, or that it is a natural, most proable course of events (especially when talking about someone or something else). Both are used in making predictions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4609" RevisionGUID="eea54284-2dd3-4a9a-b268-12c538ff7125" CreationDate="2014-05-27T17:27:36.383" UserId="3713" Text="What comes to my mind  &#xD;&#xA;дуализм движения и стагнации  &#xD;&#xA;frozen water (ice,frozen,stop,death, 0°K) which looks like living(liquid) water&#xD;&#xA;but is not, is not living water, death.  &#xD;&#xA;this is a symbol, which is not existing but you so close for that, so you can see it, see it in what really is, world and nature opens it's own inside for you, so you can see beyond the reality, but it not helps, you have no use for that knowledge, you can't use it, because you here and you do not belong to the world where that knowledge exists. or maybe this world do not belong to you?  &#xD;&#xA;Frozen and stopped forever like hollywood slow motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;shabunc answer assumes no special meaning in it, just cold water, windy weather&#xD;&#xA;(and nice photo by Anna shows how it looks like), but it is, it is)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ледяная рябь&quot; in that case just another formulation of [uncertainty principle(Schrödinger's cat)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="a95962ab-281a-4dfd-ab2b-cfa348e3a74d" CreationDate="2014-05-27T17:36:42.750" UserId="2388" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="The difference in aspect in Russian does not correspond to English concept of Perfect, let alone the difference between &quot;will&quot; and &quot;to be going to&quot;. It is merely a matter of point-of-view: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;буду продолжать&quot;** focuses on the process, or maybe that the action will be repeated&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;продолжу&quot;** focuses on the result (i.e &quot;I'll stop doing whatever&#xD;&#xA;   keeps me from this, and will go on doing this thing that I did before&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я продолжу&quot; sounds better if what you need is to just express you are about to continue, for example. when giving a speech (like &quot;It seems there are no further questions for the moment. So I am going to continue.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, in English the difference is that of how much planning was involved: by &quot;I will continue&quot; you suggest that you made the decision right now, that you promise to do that. With &quot;I am going to continue&quot; you suggest that either the decision has laready been made, or that it is a natural, most proable course of events (especially when talking about someone or something else). Both are used in making predictions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="afaf0c64-ecb6-40d1-8a6f-3860797697b3" CreationDate="2014-05-28T08:50:36.257" UserId="551" Text="Последние несколько лет слово &quot;риторика&quot; стало использоваться не так, как оно объясняется в словарях, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Риторика государственных СМИ&#xD;&#xA;* Патриотическая риторика&#xD;&#xA;* Впрочем, всё сказанное выше ― риторика, эмоции и сплошной субъективизм. &#xD;&#xA;* Официальная советская риторика «равноправия» и «свобод» &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Словарное значение слова &quot;риторика&quot; такое:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **РИТО́РИКА**, и, ж. [&lt; греч. rhētorikē искусство красноречия].1.В античности и в последующие времена: теория и искусство красноречия. 2. перен.Напыщенная, красивая, но малосодержательная речь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но, как видно ни &quot;искусство красноречия&quot; ни &quot;малосодержательная речь&quot; здесь не подходят. Новое значение по-моему достаточно нейтрально, что-то вроде &quot;высказываемая точка зрения&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какой-то аналог этого слова, который употреблялся в подобных случаях прежде? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="afaf0c64-ecb6-40d1-8a6f-3860797697b3" CreationDate="2014-05-28T08:50:36.257" UserId="551" Text="Современное значение слова &quot;риторика&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="afaf0c64-ecb6-40d1-8a6f-3860797697b3" CreationDate="2014-05-28T08:50:36.257" UserId="551" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="4d3edcaf-73d9-47ca-8e6f-9f1f7350c809" CreationDate="2014-05-28T12:45:42.800" UserId="3595" Text="Возможно тут происходит калька из английского в дополнение к традиционному значению взаимствованного слова. Посмотрите №3 [в M-W][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 :  verbal communication :  discourse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="07a794ff-846c-4310-a67d-d902cfe8258d" CreationDate="2014-05-28T15:08:26.847" UserId="3916" Text="I would set the next correspondence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I will continue -&gt; Я буду продолжать = Я продолжу&#xD;&#xA;It is the same, I think, but in the first case a verb &quot;буду&quot; (быть) is used, which corresponds to English  &quot;will&quot; (to be). The second case is not possible in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I am going to continue -&gt; Я собираюсь продолжать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="c3f723ad-5a0c-4513-b437-f4dbeda70017" CreationDate="2014-05-28T16:40:15.383" UserId="3595" Text="I think the most comprehensive research of modern Russian is [Частотный словарь современного русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their work is based on [Russian Corpus][2], where you can download the raw data and compile your own list. However, it makes a sense to look at how these lists are done by researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://philology.hse.ru/russian_dict&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="40bd84eb-6909-4f96-b9d8-1653d94c6fa0" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:14:32.490" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="For instance&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I confronted him with the fact, that I've seen him entering the building.  &#xD;&#xA;He was confronted with the fact, that somebody has seen him entering the building&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How'd that be put into Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to use `столкнуться` (at least in the second case)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="40bd84eb-6909-4f96-b9d8-1653d94c6fa0" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:14:32.490" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="translation of &quot;to be confronted with&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="40bd84eb-6909-4f96-b9d8-1653d94c6fa0" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:14:32.490" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="18ef75b1-39be-4b3e-a5fc-9bb1e18d26b5" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:19:38.523" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="For instance&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I confronted him with the fact, that I've seen him entering the building.  &#xD;&#xA;He was confronted with the fact, that somebody has seen him entering the building&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How'd that be put into Russian?  &#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to use `столкнуться` (at least in the second case)?  &#xD;&#xA;There seems to be the word `конфронтировать`, but I don't know how it is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12725" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="18ef75b1-39be-4b3e-a5fc-9bb1e18d26b5" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:19:38.523" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Translation of &quot;to be confronted with&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12726" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="c0e8740b-e72e-437f-beba-7baff54b1134" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:21:26.193" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation of &quot;to find fulfillment in something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12727" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="285a3687-ff7f-42b6-9068-1d3ae8aa9ca3" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:21:39.113" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="edited title" Text="Translation of &quot;to define something/-body through something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="f1f32511-a02c-4d8f-b38b-b15a02ebfecc" CreationDate="2014-05-28T19:13:13.730" UserId="551" Text="Скорее всего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поставил его перед фактом, что я видел его входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был поставлен перед фактом, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;конфронтировать&quot; означает &quot;противостоять, противоборствовать&quot; и здесь не подходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Столкнулся с фактом&quot; - так можно сказать, но мне кажется что здесь может не подойти. В принципе &quot;столкнулся с фактом&quot; означает &quot;обнаружил, что&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обнаружил, что его видели входящим в здание." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="95430e2e-0370-4353-90c9-9e1e1b43fda0" CreationDate="2014-05-28T22:41:46.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/471783415478374401" />
  <row Id="12730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="c8623183-e7d0-4f34-82a2-ec3f58244947" CreationDate="2014-05-29T01:43:07.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/471829051842510849" />
  <row Id="12731" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4590" RevisionGUID="750f4a94-b8c4-46f5-83c2-5e382bb317be" CreationDate="2014-05-29T10:43:07.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/471964947639836672" />
  <row Id="12732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="ae097d50-275b-4ac0-bc43-9a5bf510c4ae" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:26:25.607" UserId="3917" Text="In  a dialogue from Langenscheidt's *Praktisches Lehrbuch Russisch* guests are greeted with &quot;Прохолите&quot;, translated as &quot;Come in&quot; (&quot;Kommt herein&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;Is that  usual in contemporary Russian for telling someone to come in ?   &#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries seem to translate &quot; Проходить&quot; as &quot;to move on&quot;, &quot;to pass&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="ae097d50-275b-4ac0-bc43-9a5bf510c4ae" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:26:25.607" UserId="3917" Text="Does Проходите really mean come in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="ae097d50-275b-4ac0-bc43-9a5bf510c4ae" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:26:25.607" UserId="3917" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="0ce2ec75-1f5b-41dc-a85c-b261a55515c8" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:36:12.853" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In  a dialogue from Langenscheidt's *Praktisches Lehrbuch Russisch* guests are greeted with &quot;Проходите&quot;, translated as &quot;Come in&quot; (&quot;Kommt herein&quot;).   &#xD;&#xA;Is that usual in contemporary Russian for telling someone to come in?  &#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries seem to translate &quot;Проходить&quot; as &quot;to move on&quot;, &quot;to pass&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="04a08b76-aae7-4f74-8184-a6deab5b9e4f" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:39:19.387" UserId="551" Text="Yes, **проходите** can be used to say &quot;come in&quot;. It is short form for &quot;проходите в дом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a policeman can say &quot;пройдемте&quot; which is short version of &quot;пройдемте со мной в отделение милиции&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="48475310-c42b-4bab-9a0f-921f57cad849" CreationDate="2014-05-29T12:50:48.233" UserId="551" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="Скорее всего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поставил его перед фактом, что я видел его входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был поставлен перед фактом, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;конфронтировать&quot; означает &quot;противостоять, противоборствовать&quot; и здесь не подходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Столкнулся с фактом&quot; - так можно сказать, но мне кажется что здесь может не подойти. В принципе &quot;столкнулся с фактом&quot; означает &quot;обнаружил, что&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обнаружил, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я специально заменил &quot;кто-то видел&quot; на &quot;видели входящим&quot;, так как если говорят что &quot;вас кто-то видел&quot;, то говорящий скорее всего знает кто видел. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, если стало понятно по косвенным признакам, что его видели входящим в здание (например - полиция окружила здание чтобы поймать преступника, который тайно в это здание вошел). Тогда не понятно кто видел, как он входил в здание и можно сказать &quot;кто-то видел&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="5d499c5d-538f-4951-89a9-73d8b4f7310b" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:02:57.257" UserId="3892" Text="In this sentence, I realize that there's a contrast being draw between the two outcomes of sucking up to the teacher, but (1) is this sentence possible without вот; and (2) what does вот bring to the sentence semantically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если она будет подлизываться к учителю, её оценки от этого не улучшатся, а **вот** другие дети от неё отвернутся.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="5d499c5d-538f-4951-89a9-73d8b4f7310b" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:02:57.257" UserId="3892" Text="What is the function of вот in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="5d499c5d-538f-4951-89a9-73d8b4f7310b" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:02:57.257" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="14c97b25-9546-47b6-8dc8-1a657ea73f76" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:11:36.623" UserId="551" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In this sentence, I realize that there's a contrast being draw between the two outcomes of sucking up to the teacher, but &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. Is this sentence possible without вот; and &#xD;&#xA;2. What does вот bring to the sentence semantically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если она будет подлизываться к учителю, её оценки от этого не улучшатся, а **вот** другие дети от неё отвернутся." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="86236ffb-ec17-414f-8a72-b828697f37aa" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:35:12.680" UserId="899" Text="Проходите literally means 'come through'; it is primarily used in situations where you pass the object you are invited to go through quickly (say, airport metal detectors). It could be used to mean 'come in' - like the situation @Artemix described in the other answer (in the case with *дом*, the 'object to come through' could be a corridor or a hallway), however 'заходите' or 'входите' sound more natural to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12743" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="5189d6f9-a05b-4378-a334-40e4eca501c9" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:43:23.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/472010315484647425" />
  <row Id="12744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4618" RevisionGUID="d6defe57-8977-4118-9bf9-0a366bcbd978" CreationDate="2014-05-29T14:44:35.847" UserId="551" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="Yes, **проходите** can be used to say &quot;come in&quot;. It is short form for &quot;проходите в дом&quot;. Usually when you visit an official person (or a person in an office, or a doctor) you'll have the following dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- К вам можно?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Да, проходите, садитесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Да-да, входите, Тамара Владиславовна, ― изображая дружелюбие, закивал Глебский. ― Проходите, садитесь. [Петр Акимов. Плата за страх (2000)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a policeman can say &quot;пройдемте&quot; which is short version of &quot;пройдемте со мной в отделение милиции&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact Словарь Ефремовой [lists 14 different meanings][1] of the word **проходить**, including the one Eugene mentions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/231591" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="c2e833ee-369a-4760-89ee-de3d67dc38da" CreationDate="2014-05-29T15:36:44.697" UserId="2388" Text="It brings more contrast to the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is kinda possible without it, however **the meaning will shift**:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Если она будет подлизываться к учителю, её оценки от этого не&#xD;&#xA;    улучшатся, *а другие дети от неё отвернутся*&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - it immediately sounds like &quot;her grades won't be any better, and other children will turn their backs on her&quot;. Grammatical, surely, but introduces the idea&#xD;&#xA;    of similarity, that is, you are just listing the consequences of her actions. Why does it happen? &#xD;&#xA; - It happens because ***&quot;а&quot;*** doesn't only introduce contrast of *things* you talk about. It is more complicated than that: sometimes it intorduces the subjective *narrative contrast*: &quot;you might have expected me to end the sentence — yet, I have got another thing to add&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - sometimes ***&quot;а&quot;*** introduces another subject: &quot;The girls like juice, _and_&#xD;&#xA;   the boys only drink water and beer&quot; would use _&quot;а&quot;_. It is also used&#xD;&#xA;   to push narrative forward when there is a link between parts. Then it&#xD;&#xA;   loses its contrasting meaning: _&quot;The girls like juice, and juice is&#xD;&#xA;   good for your health&quot;~&quot;Девочки любят сок, а сок полезен для&#xD;&#xA;   здоровья&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;So &quot;а вот&quot; is essential here to signal that you — unambiguously — want to **show a contrast** here: &quot;first, she won't achieve anything useful — however, she is totally going to get herself frowned upon by other kids&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the structure with ***&quot;а вот&quot;*** is *&quot;She won't succeed in A, yet what she will succeed&#xD;&#xA;   in is B&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA; - when just ***&quot;а&quot;*** is used, it is less effective and can be also interpreted as *&quot;What will happen is A and B&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12746" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="ea68dd1a-c1ce-4c84-b8ff-3cd13fff4302" CreationDate="2014-05-29T19:43:09.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/472100853500084224" />
  <row Id="12747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="c1b3b3ed-b48a-4c0a-8972-57797fe9c0f9" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:19:33.127" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="- сегодня&#xD;&#xA;- ныне&#xD;&#xA;- в наше время&#xD;&#xA;- настоящее время &#xD;&#xA;- нынче&#xD;&#xA;- в наши дни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter two won't appear in the [ngram][1] and `в наше время` sounds kind of profound. Anyway, there is still `сегодня, ныне и настоящее время` and I'd like to know how they differ. Do they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F,%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5,%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5;%20%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%20%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8,%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F,%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F&amp;year_start=1750&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1;,%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F;,c0;.t1;,%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5;,c0;.t1;,%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F;,c0;.t1;,%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F;,c0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="c1b3b3ed-b48a-4c0a-8972-57797fe9c0f9" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:19:33.127" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Differentiate Russian words for &quot;nowadays&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="c1b3b3ed-b48a-4c0a-8972-57797fe9c0f9" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:19:33.127" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="b763cffc-f90c-478a-a2ca-7e4f6723b308" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:25:39.217" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="- сегодня&#xD;&#xA;- ныне&#xD;&#xA;- настоящее время &#xD;&#xA;- нынче&#xD;&#xA;- в наше время&#xD;&#xA;- в наши дни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the [ngram][1] shows `в наше время / в наши дни` are rather seldom. Maybe they are somewhat profound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to know how `сегодня, нынче, ныне и настоящее время` differ. Do they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%2C%D0%B2+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8+%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%2C%D0%B2+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%2C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F&amp;year_start=1750&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%20%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="6b9045bd-43f2-425c-8095-cab5ebe20469" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:40:18.400" UserId="3892" Text="In the following sentence, is this the same as saying the parents &quot;couldn't shake&quot; their feeling of concern?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С са́мого нача́ла роди́телей **не покида́ла** трево́га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="6b9045bd-43f2-425c-8095-cab5ebe20469" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:40:18.400" UserId="3892" Text="Use of the verb покидать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="6b9045bd-43f2-425c-8095-cab5ebe20469" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:40:18.400" UserId="3892" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="ead72f1b-39f9-40c1-a896-fa32e3533b71" CreationDate="2014-05-30T00:06:16.817" UserId="2388" Text=" - сегодня = &quot;today&quot;, your everyday word for the current day or &quot;these days in general&quot; when used in a more broad sense&#xD;&#xA; - ныне = &quot;now/nowadays&quot;, elevated style. Can be used i na more official style as &quot;currently&quot;: _&quot;ныне живущий&quot; (&quot;extant&quot;, &quot;currently living&quot;)_, ныне работающий в Германии (&quot;these days working in Germany&quot;)_&#xD;&#xA; - нынче = colloquial &quot;today, nowadays(recently)&quot; and also &quot;this year&quot; (in proper context, like &quot;this year spring's turned out warm&quot;~&quot;нынче весна выдалась тёплая&quot;). I am not sure it is much used nowadays: its popularity is fading but it is still somewhat frequent.&#xD;&#xA; - в настоящее время = &quot;now, at present time&quot; (it is literally &quot;at present time&quot;). Kinda official, suitable for academic and newspaper articles (those more bookish in style), like _&quot;В настоящее время этот процесс особенно заметен&quot; (&quot;At present time this process is particularly evident&quot;)_, &quot;В настоящее время устарел&quot; (&quot;Outdated nowadays&quot;).&#xD;&#xA; - настоящее время = &quot;present time&quot;, also &quot;Present Tense&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - в наши дни ~ &quot;these days&quot;, &quot;nowadays&quot;: mostly the same as &quot;в настоящее время&quot; but less official — so pretty much any article or any children's book, for example, about history or science can use it (&quot;в настоящее время&quot;, probably, suits but sounds more official, boring and kinda pompous for this kind of writing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend &quot;сегодня&quot; for everyday use, &quot;в настоящее время&quot; for bookish use, &quot;в наши дни&quot; or even &quot;сейчас&quot; for less bookish use... Also don't use &quot;ныне&quot; at all for the time being, and use &quot;нынче&quot; if you are sure you are talking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="fe23fcf5-6842-44f6-9fb7-ac587d97dc43" CreationDate="2014-05-30T06:57:14.010" UserId="3921" Text="не покида́ла means here `didn't leave` so the entire sentence translation is something like `From the very beginning the feeling of concern didn't leave the parents`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="22f00f91-08e0-4fd6-95e6-7d7dab05a3e4" CreationDate="2014-05-30T07:43:09.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/472282047977754624" />
  <row Id="12758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="80e888ab-a1cc-42c3-bfe5-09230376e15e" CreationDate="2014-05-30T08:32:50.223" UserId="3887" Text="*Предъявлять* or *уличать* might work, depending on context (not synonyms). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation might work, although I think it sounds a little awkward because the word факт is referring to the subjective experience of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я предъявил ему тот факт, что видел, как он входил в здание.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this, although it may be too liberal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я уличил его в том, что он входил в здание*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of anything better at the moment, neither one is perfect. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="7876e0c3-def2-449d-8624-3016b4ce44e1" CreationDate="2014-05-30T08:39:43.267" UserId="3887" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="*Предъявлять* or *уличать* might work, depending on context (not synonyms). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation might work, although I think it sounds a little awkward because the word факт is referring to the subjective experience of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я предъявил ему тот факт, что видел, как он входил в здание.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this, although it may be too liberal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я уличил его в том, что он входил в здание*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you could translate it something like this (also liberal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я сказал ему (в лицо), что видел, как он входил в здание*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of anything better at the moment, none of these is perfect.\" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4621" RevisionGUID="ab6b71f9-42ff-4dbc-83bc-d9170815da66" CreationDate="2014-05-30T09:39:55.607" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="It brings more contrast to the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is kinda possible without it, however **the meaning will shift**:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Если она будет подлизываться к учителю, её оценки от этого не улучшатся, *а другие дети от неё отвернутся*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It immediately sounds like &quot;her grades won't be any better, and other children will turn their backs on her&quot;. Grammatical, surely, but introduces the idea of similarity, that is, you are just listing the consequences of her actions. Why does it happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It happens because ***&quot;а&quot;*** doesn't only introduce contrast of *things* you talk about. It is more complicated than that: sometimes it intorduces the subjective *narrative contrast*: &quot;you might have expected me to end the sentence — yet, I have got another thing to add&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - sometimes ***&quot;а&quot;*** introduces another subject: &quot;The girls like juice, _and_&#xD;&#xA;   the boys only drink water and beer&quot; would use _&quot;а&quot;_. It is also used&#xD;&#xA;   to push narrative forward when there is a link between parts. Then it&#xD;&#xA;   loses its contrasting meaning: _&quot;The girls like juice, and juice is&#xD;&#xA;   good for your health&quot; ~ &quot;Девочки любят сок, а сок полезен для&#xD;&#xA;   здоровья&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;So &quot;а вот&quot; is essential here to signal that you — unambiguously — want to **show a contrast** here: &quot;first, she won't achieve anything useful — however, she is totally going to get herself frowned upon by other kids&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the structure with ***&quot;а вот&quot;*** is *&quot;She won't succeed in A, yet what she will succeed&#xD;&#xA;   in is B&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA; - when just ***&quot;а&quot;*** is used, it is less effective and can be also interpreted as *&quot;What will happen is A and B&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4630" RevisionGUID="9ece9fe9-2957-480d-8471-4eadc86b293b" CreationDate="2014-05-30T16:48:09.887" UserId="1452" Text="friends.&#xD;&#xA;Weather I do not know to what extent very much sarcastic it may or may not sound,&#xD;&#xA; but us Russians on such events normally say &quot; Ну, ты даешь!&quot; . &#xD;&#xA;I would not very strongly recommend use of an adjective &quot;молодец&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;for any Russisn normally answers to this word &quot;Молодцы в конюшне стоят&quot;, &#xD;&#xA; that is &quot;Good horses in the stable stay&quot; .&quot;Молодец&quot;=&quot;good horse&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="3a68c698-27e3-46ad-b821-c343fc3d887e" CreationDate="2014-05-30T17:40:56.930" UserId="3920" Text="The fact that your good words is opposite to a bad situation means it's a sarcasm, just like in English I believe, so you can say anything you would say to complement your friend for his ‘nice job’ («хорошая работа», «отлично сработано», «отлично», «прекрасно», «круто» (kinda slang), «супер», «молодец», etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12765" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="5b6db86d-6e15-466e-b31e-95e784792fc4" CreationDate="2014-05-30T22:44:30.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/472508880447344640" />
  <row Id="12766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="d9fd79c8-0b2c-4843-b905-99d0f9e0f136" CreationDate="2014-05-31T04:27:35.733" UserId="3926" Text="Другой - comes from &quot;Два&quot; (two), &quot;Второй&quot; (second) and can be translated as &quot;another&quot; (&quot;not like first&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Другой by meaning can be placed between Иной and Следующий:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иной - Другой - Следующий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different - Another - Next&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иной means something strange, not usual, outstanding and can be translated as &quot;different&quot;, &quot;strange&quot;. Иной is exact adjective to describe an alien.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But иначе is exactly the same as по-другому and can be translated as &quot;different way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Иной is rarely used word (as well as по-иному). I would say these two words are obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the good synonym for другой. It is commonly used word and I believe it does not have competitors between words :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="6b748178-cb03-46f8-bd44-74d69f220553" CreationDate="2014-05-31T04:35:50.563" UserId="3926" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="Другой - comes from &quot;Два&quot; (two), &quot;Второй&quot; (second) and can be translated as &quot;another&quot; (&quot;not like first&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;There is one differences between &quot;another&quot; word usage in English and &quot;другой&quot; word in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;Give me another cake, pls&quot; - you expect to have one more cake, but if you say &quot;Дайте мне другое пироженое, пжлст&quot; - you are going to return the cake you have back and take another (different) one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Другой by meaning can be placed between Иной and Следующий:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иной - Другой - Следующий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different - Another - Next&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иной means something strange, not usual, outstanding and can be translated as &quot;different&quot;, &quot;strange&quot;. Иной is exact adjective to describe an alien.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But иначе is exactly the same as по-другому and can be translated as &quot;different way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Иной is rarely used word (as well as по-иному). I would say these two words are obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the good synonym for другой. It is commonly used word and I believe it does not have competitors between words :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="764e870a-81c0-490f-8a25-7a31a1baa45f" CreationDate="2014-05-31T04:49:43.183" UserId="3926" Text="Любовь Божия == Любовь Божья, but first one is old style, second one is new style.&#xD;&#xA;can be an answer for question &quot;What makes you happy?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любовь Бога - can be answer for question &quot;Whose love makes you happy?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Божественная любовь - there is such thing, but usualy this phrase does not have anything in common with God. Here &quot;Божественная&quot; is adjective that means something like &quot;great&quot;, &quot;awesome&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;Эта любовь была божественна!&#xD;&#xA;This love was awesome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="841edaa5-8da9-4619-972c-14704ef50239" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:52:04.040" UserId="3911" Text="The title of this question is ambiguous as I couldn't think of anything better. What I'm trying to articulate is the thought of 'I didn't know at the time but do now'. Can this be expressed by saying 'Я не знал', or does it go deeper than that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, after going up to someone and asking about their cat, your friend says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его кошка умерла. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To which you respond, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не знал. (Meaning I didn't know at the time, but now I do)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="841edaa5-8da9-4619-972c-14704ef50239" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:52:04.040" UserId="3911" Text="Expressing knowledge gained over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="841edaa5-8da9-4619-972c-14704ef50239" CreationDate="2014-05-31T05:52:04.040" UserId="3911" Text="|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="910a7d0e-d65e-47e1-8d12-1f0f36b11403" CreationDate="2014-05-31T06:40:27.643" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="It depends on your relationship and the context in which it is said. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Здравствуйте&quot;* is fairly formal and *&quot;привет&quot;* is informal. With strangers and superiors *&quot;здравствуйте&quot;* is vastly preferred, while *&quot;привет&quot;* is mostly reserved for friends, family and close acquaintances. If you address a friend who is surrounded by people who should be using *&quot;здравствуйте&quot;* with him, it can be good to use the slightly less formal *&quot;здравствуй&quot;*, if you want to be cordial but not to undermine their authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aren’t the only two ways (or three, if you count *&quot;здравствуй&quot;*) to greet somebody. *&quot;Доброе утро&quot;, &quot;добрый день&quot;, &quot;добрый вечер&quot;* are useful for greeting people you see on a regular basis but aren’t particularly close to, such as colleagues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12773" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="910a7d0e-d65e-47e1-8d12-1f0f36b11403" CreationDate="2014-05-31T06:40:27.643" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 38 edit id of 466" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4636" RevisionGUID="3977ca46-5b2d-4fb2-be68-e39b76cdf54e" CreationDate="2014-05-31T06:56:08.240" UserId="3923" Text="Have you tried following links on downloadable rhyme dictionaries? (I think it is possible to extract database from such programs; or may be it is possible to use open API of their DLLs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://softwarefor.ru/rhymes.html&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.uchiyaziki.ru/index.php/slovar-rifm&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.softportal.com/software-1530-rhymes.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand, you don't need online rhyme dictionaries. But I found and checked small list of working services, so decided to put it here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.stihi.ru/assist/&#xD;&#xA;- http://rifmakslovu.ru/online-generator-rifm&#xD;&#xA;- http://rifmovnik.ru/find.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think it is good idea to try to ask owners of these web-services to send you their rhyme database)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="c519622a-9502-4043-b896-95b65dce9085" CreationDate="2014-05-31T08:55:28.430" UserId="2388" Text="Yup, definitely work. It doesn't go much deeper than that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the situation is you specifically talking about some moment in the past, you may also add &quot;тогда&quot; or/and &quot;ещё&quot;: &quot;Я тогда ещё не знал, что ...&quot; or &quot;Тогда я не знал что&quot; etc. However, it is exactly for &quot;story&quot; about past events, stressing the fact that at the time you describe you did not know something (which you obviously know now, otherwise you could not say anything about it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="a4775ac4-0ba8-4c85-bf2b-7e58acb42320" CreationDate="2014-05-31T09:08:41.957" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="The title of this question is ambiguous as I couldn't think of anything better. What I'm trying to articulate is the thought of *'I didn't know at the time but do now'*. Can this be expressed by saying *'Я не знал'*, or does it go deeper than that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, after going up to someone and asking about their cat, your friend says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его кошка умерла. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To which you respond, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не знал. (Meaning I didn't know at the time, but now I do)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12783" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="a4775ac4-0ba8-4c85-bf2b-7e58acb42320" CreationDate="2014-05-31T09:08:41.957" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1236, 551 edit id of 463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="cb66e9b4-79da-43d3-bd12-e503b69462f1" CreationDate="2014-05-31T09:30:10.770" UserId="2388" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yup, definitely works. It doesn't go much deeper than that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the situation is you specifically talking about some moment in the past, you may also add &quot;тогда&quot; or/and &quot;ещё&quot;: &quot;Я тогда ещё не знал, что ...&quot; or &quot;Тогда я не знал что&quot; etc. However, it is exactly for &quot;story&quot; about past events, stressing the fact that at the time you describe you did not know something (which you obviously know now, otherwise you could not say anything about it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12799" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="23c92efa-d7a3-4148-a266-ec11cb45cc83" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:44:33.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/472735382724153344" />
  <row Id="12800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="0d293adc-7888-4387-9407-514baa651ae4" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:51:16.230" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Другой - comes from &quot;Два&quot; (two), &quot;Второй&quot; (second) and can be translated as &quot;another&quot; (&quot;not like first&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;There is one differences between &quot;another&quot; word usage in English and &quot;другой&quot; word in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say *&quot;Give me another cake, pls&quot;* - you expect to have one more cake, but if you say *&quot;Дайте мне другое пироженое, пжлст&quot;* - you are going to return the cake you have back and take another (different) one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Другой by meaning can be placed between `Иной` and `Следующий`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Иной       - Другой   - Следующий&#xD;&#xA;    Different  - Another  - Next&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Иной* means something strange, not usual, outstanding and can be translated as &quot;different&quot;, &quot;strange&quot;. *Иной* is exact adjective to describe an alien.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *иначе* is exactly the same as *по-другому* and can be translated as *&quot;different way&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also *Иной* is rarely used word (as well as *по-иному*). I would say these two words are obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the good synonym for *другой*. It is commonly used word and I believe it does not have competitors between words :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12801" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="0d293adc-7888-4387-9407-514baa651ae4" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:51:16.230" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 462" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="d4e06555-8f85-41ff-a720-1558005a5af8" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:51:25.960" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Can anyone explain difference between the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *&quot;Чашка лежит на столе&quot;* vs. *&quot;Чашка стоит на столе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;2. *&quot;Мяч лежит на столе&quot;* vs. *&quot;Мяч стоит на столе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;3. *&quot;Лэптоп лежит на столе&quot;* vs. *&quot;Лэптоп стоит на столе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I should use first one and when - the second one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12803" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="d4e06555-8f85-41ff-a720-1558005a5af8" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:51:25.960" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 464" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="577298b9-cf85-4cef-9b30-57e4e15be469" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:51:36.157" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="As far as I understand, both of these mean more or less the same thing. Rosetta Stone, that introduced me to the Russian language seems to prefer *здравствуйте*, but it seems *привет* is more commonly used in day to day speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is *здравствуйте* just more formal, or is there something more subtle going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12805" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="577298b9-cf85-4cef-9b30-57e4e15be469" CreationDate="2014-05-31T13:51:36.157" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 465" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="f23bf25a-8852-44c2-aba0-4fc6f6ec738e" CreationDate="2014-05-31T19:02:39.240" UserId="3917" Text="I am puzzled by the number of different letters that  can be found before a final *я*, for example:      &#xD;&#xA;&gt;до свидания, синяя, третья,...       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last one is especially puzzling since we write &#xD;&#xA; &gt;третий      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;without a *ь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in pronunciation?   &#xD;&#xA;If pronunciation is not the reason, is there a general rule or a grammatical or a historical explanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="f23bf25a-8852-44c2-aba0-4fc6f6ec738e" CreationDate="2014-05-31T19:02:39.240" UserId="3917" Text="Why such a variety of letters before final я?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="f23bf25a-8852-44c2-aba0-4fc6f6ec738e" CreationDate="2014-05-31T19:02:39.240" UserId="3917" Text="|грамматика|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="a534c3b0-4003-48b8-bd2b-2f46f702d1e8" CreationDate="2014-05-31T19:50:12.997" UserId="2388" Text="**свидание → свидание** is a perfectly regular form. It is a noun, not an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Russian adjectives like *синий*** you have a regular pattern with ый(ой)/ий - ая/яя, ое/ее, ые/ие in the Nominative:&#xD;&#xA; - большой/длинный/синий кот (-ой is when if the adjective has an unlimate stress)&#xD;&#xA; - большая/длинная/синяя кошка&#xD;&#xA; - большое/длинное/синее нечто&#xD;&#xA; - большие/длинные/синие кошки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note that velars **к, г, х** cannot have **ы** after them, so they always have **и**: короткий-короткая-короткое-короткие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, these unstressed -ия, -яя -ее are pronounced identical or almost identical in speech. However, some actors and other professional voices ***may** enunciate them a bit more clearly (which is not in fact the current norm but still used, especially in station announcements where they may really want you to hear that &quot;Окское&quot; ends in -ое, not -ая)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**with третья**, I suppose, it is just a historical development. It affects pronunciation and makes it easier (to just omit the unnecessary vowel). That does not affect adjectives. Historically both **Ъ** and **Ь** denoted a short vowel ([ə]-like and  [i]-like). That explains why in poetry -ие and -ье are often used interchangeably, less so in speech (which conforms more to how a speaker is used to pronounce the words, not to some rhytm). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="ccbe6c88-e579-4e16-b58c-de2ed7009d11" CreationDate="2014-05-31T19:58:27.477" UserId="2388" Comment="added 612 characters in body" Text="**свидание → свидания** is a perfectly regular form. It is a noun, not an adjective. Сомнение → сомнения, решение→решения, раздумье→раздумья, вычисление→вычисления, небытие→небытия. You just keep the same stem as in Nominative. Not so with any formation where you need to *remove the vowel*. Then you replace Ь with И (obviously, you cannot leave &quot;ьй&quot; dangling at the end of the word):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- раздумье→раздумий&#xD;&#xA;- колдунья→колдуний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Russian adjectives like *синий*** you have a regular pattern with ый(ой)/ий - ая/яя, ое/ее, ые/ие in the Nominative:&#xD;&#xA; - большой/длинный/синий кот (-ой is when if the adjective has an unlimate stress)&#xD;&#xA; - большая/длинная/синяя кошка&#xD;&#xA; - большое/длинное/синее нечто&#xD;&#xA; - большие/длинные/синие кошки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note that velars **к, г, х** cannot have **ы** after them, so they always have **и**: короткий-короткая-короткое-короткие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, these unstressed -ия, -яя -ее are pronounced identical or almost identical in speech. However, some actors and other professional voices ***may** enunciate them a bit more clearly (which is not in fact the current norm but still used, especially in station announcements where they may really want you to hear that &quot;Окское&quot; ends in -ое, not -ая)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**with третья**, I suppose, it is just a historical development. It affects pronunciation and makes it easier (to just omit the unnecessary vowel). That does not affect adjectives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically both **Ъ** and **Ь** denoted a short vowel ([ə]-like and  [i]-like). It explains why in poetry -ие and -ье are often used interchangeably, less so in speech (which conforms more to how a speaker is used to pronounce the words, not to some rhytm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also explains formation of **колдунья → колдуний**: before a liquid Й and a vowel the short sound was eliminated but before a final consonant the language preferred to make it longer and convert to a normal И instead (&quot;колдуньй&quot; is really hard to pronounce)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="4929cbe6-a30f-4299-823b-15428127bab9" CreationDate="2014-05-31T21:16:53.943" UserId="2388" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**свидание → свидания** is a perfectly regular form. It is a noun, not an adjective. Сомнение → сомнения, решение→решения, раздумье→раздумья, вычисление→вычисления, небытие→небытия. You just keep the same stem as in Nominative. Not so with any formation where you need to *remove the vowel*. Then you replace Ь with И (obviously, you cannot leave &quot;ьй&quot; dangling at the end of the word):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- раздумье→раздумий&#xD;&#xA;- колдунья→колдуний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Russian adjectives like *синий*** you have a regular pattern with ый(ой)/ий - ая/яя, ое/ее, ые/ие in the Nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - большой/длинный/синий кот (-ой is if the adjective has an unlimate stress)&#xD;&#xA; - большая/длинная/синяя кошка&#xD;&#xA; - большое/длинное/синее нечто&#xD;&#xA; - большие/длинные/синие кошки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note that velars **к, г, х** cannot have **ы** after them, so they always have **и**: короткий-короткая-короткое-короткие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, these unstressed -ия, -яя -ее are pronounced identical or almost identical in speech. However, some actors and other professional voices ***may** enunciate them a bit more clearly (which is not in fact the current norm but still used, especially in station announcements where they may really want you to hear that &quot;Окское&quot; ends in -ое, not -ая)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**with третья**, I suppose, it is just a historical development. It affects pronunciation and makes it easier (to just omit the unnecessary vowel). That does not affect adjectives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically both **Ъ** and **Ь** denoted a short vowel ([ə]-like and  [i]-like). It explains why in poetry -ие and -ье are often used interchangeably, less so in speech (which conforms more to how a speaker is used to pronounce the words, not to some rhytm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also explains formation of **колдунья → колдуний**: before a liquid Й and a vowel the short sound was eliminated but before a final consonant the language preferred to make it longer and convert to a normal И instead (&quot;колдуньй&quot; is really hard to pronounce)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13819" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="80bb4a2c-a3c5-40f8-b86c-dffec8372c8a" CreationDate="2014-06-01T00:43:02.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/472901100685647872" />
  <row Id="13821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="272aa1a6-9598-4d2a-8644-90d5971a3b07" CreationDate="2014-06-01T11:36:20.733" UserId="47" Text="Timestamps are widely used in programming. I am trying to write a description of my code in Russian, and I'm stuck at *timestamps*. [Wikipedia suggests][1] the term *временная метка*, but quite reluctantly, as if there was no &quot;official&quot; term. I wonder if there is any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timestamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="272aa1a6-9598-4d2a-8644-90d5971a3b07" CreationDate="2014-06-01T11:36:20.733" UserId="47" Text="How to say &quot;timestamp&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="272aa1a6-9598-4d2a-8644-90d5971a3b07" CreationDate="2014-06-01T11:36:20.733" UserId="47" Text="|перевод|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="fc3c6ad5-4548-488c-a443-920d185fe3a4" CreationDate="2014-06-01T12:28:37.663" UserId="3892" Text="In a recent interview, a man, whose son had passed away, stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A good father teaches his son about life, but *my* son taught *me*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The portion after the comma presents a paradox in the speakers mind: *my* son (unlike other sons) taught *me* (of all things!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is accomplished with stress and intonation, as indicated by my italics. I believe in Russian, this is expressed with stress, intonation AND (I suspect) particles. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="fc3c6ad5-4548-488c-a443-920d185fe3a4" CreationDate="2014-06-01T12:28:37.663" UserId="3892" Text="How does one express a paradox in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="fc3c6ad5-4548-488c-a443-920d185fe3a4" CreationDate="2014-06-01T12:28:37.663" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="85de87c8-639e-4953-bb2b-bb6879c092fb" CreationDate="2014-06-01T14:43:09.173" UserId="1236" Text="You are right, in Russian is accomplished with stress and intonation, and in the case of your sentence also with the particle `же` after the word which shows what is &quot;unlike others&quot;, this particle intensifies the contrast. In this case no conjunction is used: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хороший отец учит своего сына жизни, *мой* же [сын] научил *меня*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can do without any particles and with a conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хороший отец учит своего сына жизни, а *мой* [сын] научил *меня*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases 'son' can be omitted, since Russian has neither like my/mine distinction nor &quot;one&quot; as a universal substitution for any noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="a1521601-92fb-462b-b7c8-5f4db57273f9" CreationDate="2014-06-01T17:43:56.743" UserId="2269" Text="Википедия здесь, как ни неожиданно, абсолютна права, называя русскую статью «Timestamp» — так на самом деле и говорят по-русски: «таймстамп». ИТ — это, наверное, отрасль с самой высокой концентрацией прямых английских заимствований. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А гостовский термин — _отметка времени_ (см., напр., [ГОСТ 28147–89 — С. 16][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://protect.gost.ru/v.aspx?control=8&amp;baseC=-1&amp;page=0&amp;month=-1&amp;year=-1&amp;search=&amp;RegNum=1&amp;DocOnPageCount=15&amp;id=131282&amp;pageK=482D6C28-F2B4-410E-AF8D-3ADE90F6AE78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="1d1d5aa2-d28c-45b7-a903-5b9ec15b88d1" CreationDate="2014-06-01T17:56:58.557" UserId="2269" Comment="added 577 characters in body" Text="Википедия здесь, как ни неожиданно, абсолютна права, называя русскую статью «Timestamp» — так на самом деле и говорят по-русски: «таймстамп». ИТ — это, наверное, отрасль с самой высокой концентрацией прямых английских заимствований. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А гостовский термин — _отметка времени_ (см., напр., [ГОСТ 28147–89 — С. 16][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По гугль-тесту он, кстати, тоже лидирует среди русских, солидно опережая _метку времени_, _временную метку_, но не _таймстамп_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - таймстамп — [867 000][5]&#xD;&#xA; - отметка времени — [103 000][2]&#xD;&#xA; - временная метка — [11 000][3]&#xD;&#xA; - метка времени — [20 000][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://protect.gost.ru/v.aspx?control=8&amp;baseC=-1&amp;page=0&amp;month=-1&amp;year=-1&amp;search=&amp;RegNum=1&amp;DocOnPageCount=15&amp;id=131282&amp;pageK=482D6C28-F2B4-410E-AF8D-3ADE90F6AE78&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%22&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BF%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="3fed84e0-24b3-41d4-9c37-1b16f934bc5c" CreationDate="2014-06-01T18:13:30.550" UserId="2269" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Википедия здесь, как ни неожиданно, абсолютна права, называя русскую статью «Timestamp» — так на самом деле и говорят по-русски: «таймстамп». ИТ — это, наверное, отрасль с самой высокой концентрацией прямых английских заимствований. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А гостовский термин — _отметка времени_, см. хотя бы знаменитый [ГОСТ 28147–89 на странице 16][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По гугль-тесту он, кстати, тоже лидирует среди русских, солидно опережая _метку времени_, _временную метку_, но не _таймстамп_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - таймстамп — [867 000][5]&#xD;&#xA; - отметка времени — [103 000][2]&#xD;&#xA; - временная метка — [11 000][3]&#xD;&#xA; - метка времени — [20 000][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://protect.gost.ru/v.aspx?control=8&amp;baseC=-1&amp;page=0&amp;month=-1&amp;year=-1&amp;search=&amp;RegNum=1&amp;DocOnPageCount=15&amp;id=131282&amp;pageK=482D6C28-F2B4-410E-AF8D-3ADE90F6AE78&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%22&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BF%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13831" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="7648d770-bb66-46db-a6e1-cf99d9687640" CreationDate="2014-06-01T18:48:26.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473174251680182272" />
  <row Id="13850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5646" RevisionGUID="ccffc821-dfc8-4563-8ac4-7a471cc268d5" CreationDate="2014-06-02T07:43:36.507" UserId="3931" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Происхождение фамилии «Колмогоров» связано с топонимом «Колмогоры», а он, вероятно, происходит от финского kolme «три» (т. е. «Трехгорка»), или от kalma, «могила», и kari, «утес». «Холмогоры» – русификация&#xD;&#xA;Происхождение от топонима&#xD;&#xA;Кроме Колмогор (Холмогор) в Архангельской области, топоним известен в Кемеровской. Деревни Колмогорово также существуют в Сибири&#xD;&#xA;Женская форма фамилии - Колмогорова.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="7c6bee4b-0aa8-4c88-b939-4013ba75355e" CreationDate="2014-06-02T08:44:19.273" UserId="551" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="**UPD:** biggvsdiccvs прав, &quot;ставить перед фактом&quot; означает &quot;не оставить другого выбора&quot;. Например человек собирался поехать в отпуск в Чехию или в Польшу, а его поставили перед фактом, что поедет он с детьми к теще в Шушенское. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;конфронтировать&quot; означает &quot;противостоять, противоборствовать&quot; и здесь не подходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Столкнулся с фактом&quot; - так можно сказать, но мне кажется что здесь может не подойти. В принципе &quot;столкнулся с фактом&quot; означает &quot;обнаружил, что&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обнаружил, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я специально заменил &quot;кто-то видел&quot; на &quot;видели входящим&quot;, так как если говорят что &quot;вас кто-то видел&quot;, то говорящий скорее всего знает кто видел. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, если стало понятно по косвенным признакам, что его видели входящим в здание (например - полиция окружила здание чтобы поймать преступника, который тайно в это здание вошел). Тогда не понятно кто видел, как он входил в здание и можно сказать &quot;кто-то видел&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4616" RevisionGUID="e61fc624-a443-4c72-a957-456260fbee2e" CreationDate="2014-06-02T08:49:47.980" UserId="551" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="**UPD:** biggvsdiccvs прав, &quot;ставить перед фактом&quot; означает &quot;не оставить другого выбора&quot;. Например человек собирался поехать в отпуск в Чехию или в Польшу, а его поставили перед фактом, что поедет он с детьми к теще в Шушенское. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все-таки наверное можно здесь употребить &quot;был поставлен перед фактом&quot;, если человек пытался выбрать альтернативные объяснения тому где он был и что он делал, а его лишили выбора и поставили перед фактом того, что уже известно что он делал на самом деле. Но это очень редкий случай и рекомендовать всегда переводить &quot;confronted with the fact&quot; с помощью &quot;поставить перед фактом&quot; все-таки нельзя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поставил его перед фактом, что я видел его входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был поставлен перед фактом, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;конфронтировать&quot; означает &quot;противостоять, противоборствовать&quot; и здесь не подходит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Столкнулся с фактом&quot; - так можно сказать, но мне кажется что здесь может не подойти. В принципе &quot;столкнулся с фактом&quot; означает &quot;обнаружил, что&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обнаружил, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я специально заменил &quot;кто-то видел&quot; на &quot;видели входящим&quot;, так как если говорят что &quot;вас кто-то видел&quot;, то говорящий скорее всего знает кто видел. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, если стало понятно по косвенным признакам, что его видели входящим в здание (например - полиция окружила здание чтобы поймать преступника, который тайно в это здание вошел). Тогда не понятно кто видел, как он входил в здание и можно сказать &quot;кто-то видел&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13853" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="ec91ac19-603d-44cd-a012-5fd31ed5d6d5" CreationDate="2014-06-02T09:48:27.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473400743886467072" />
  <row Id="13854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="76334145-0b07-45d6-abc5-3e8689fa5972" CreationDate="2014-06-02T14:17:14.223" UserId="3892" Text="In this passage the presence of **больше** and **чем** clearly indicates a comparison, however it's not clear to me what is being contrasted. This is an article about the possibility of Russian becoming an language of international communication. [Точка зрения | Русский как язык международного общения][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this says: ...Russian is a language, which makes it possible to grasp, learn and convey much more *than it's modern-day users*. (???)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С одной стороны, русский безусловно является мировым языком во всех значениях слова «мировой»: он и один из пяти официальных языков ООН, и он язык, с помощью которого можно гораздо больше понять, узнать и рассказать, чем это делают современные его носители. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I'm missing the point, because my version wouldn't be a good argument for the promotion of Russian as a language of international communication - in fact, it makes no sense at all. What am I missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://postnauka.ru/talks/22889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="76334145-0b07-45d6-abc5-3e8689fa5972" CreationDate="2014-06-02T14:17:14.223" UserId="3892" Text="чем in comparisons - what am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="76334145-0b07-45d6-abc5-3e8689fa5972" CreationDate="2014-06-02T14:17:14.223" UserId="3892" Text="|перевод|грамматика|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="21450ed1-c124-4824-af78-c0325eaba2ea" CreationDate="2014-06-02T14:24:43.053" UserId="97" Text="The actual translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian is a language, which makes it possible to grasp, learn and convey much more than it's modern-day users **do**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the bold **do** - it's the translation of Russian _делают_. Essentially the phrase is saying that people use it less than they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual comparison here is between _можно делать (понять, узнать, рассказать)_ and _делают_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13858" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="04fcee99-e26e-4c21-9c91-7a7c92115958" CreationDate="2014-06-02T15:51:16.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473492052466864130" />
  <row Id="13859" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="c5667780-743f-4b44-beb3-008a4a644beb" CreationDate="2014-06-02T21:51:17.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473582650951610369" />
  <row Id="13860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="02285211-602b-4991-94fd-b69f3ab5ae44" CreationDate="2014-06-03T00:51:16.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473627946653999104" />
  <row Id="13861" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4634" RevisionGUID="d7463789-cb61-422f-a200-86b18ddf2c2d" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:51:16.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473718544232763393" />
  <row Id="13862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="49007c08-b348-45d5-96e7-aeb32d928e43" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:12:33.003" UserId="3892" Text="I came across the following construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Ерунда! – воскликнул принц. – Я не стану есть свою собаку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is an Indian prince, who is told he may have to eat his dog if the food runs out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompts two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the meaning of **не стать** in this construction, and how would it differ, let's say, from simply saying **Я не съем свою собаку!** ?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Why is the imperfective **есть** used here, when this refers to a specific situation with a specific dog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="49007c08-b348-45d5-96e7-aeb32d928e43" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:12:33.003" UserId="3892" Text="Use of не стать [делать]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="49007c08-b348-45d5-96e7-aeb32d928e43" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:12:33.003" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|вид|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="0c80d264-a09d-484c-9cdb-f42896ca75f3" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:16:41.220" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I came across the following construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Ерунда! – воскликнул принц. – Я не стану есть свою собаку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is an Indian prince, who is told he may have to eat his dog if the food runs out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prompts two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the meaning of **не стану** in this construction, and how would it differ, let's say, from simply saying **Я не съем свою собаку!** ?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Why is the imperfective **есть** used here, when this refers to a specific situation with a specific dog?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="0c80d264-a09d-484c-9cdb-f42896ca75f3" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:16:41.220" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Use of не стану [делать]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="e0b9c926-e3df-498f-bf05-2b5f78d05e95" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:27:18.070" UserId="3892" Text="Obviously I'm not Russian, however I have seen the word **красава** used in this way, and I believe it means something like &quot;good one!&quot; &quot;good going!&quot; The natives will have to weigh in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="3596a59f-80c5-4e89-ba80-34bce2238a38" CreationDate="2014-06-03T15:37:39.607" UserId="97" Text="The whole sentence would properly be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will never eat my own dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However word-for-word it's more like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will not become [such that I] eat my own dog.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will not get to be [such that I] eat my own dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verb _cтать_ (here _не стать_) in this sentence is the equivalent of _become_ in English or _get to be_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not you are talking about a specific dog in a specific situation is irrelevant to using perfective/imperfective verbs.  It's more about the situation as a whole.  As he (the prince) wouldn't eat his own dog, he won't be eating (_есть_) and thus won't have finished eating it (_съесть_). There's just the slight different in meaning (or rather emphasis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не съем свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has the emphasis on _есть_ - (_eat_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не стану есть свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has the emphasis on _не стану_ (_won't become_), making the point that much stronger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5652" RevisionGUID="16462c0c-de72-4c11-b699-f62bcaaef9e4" CreationDate="2014-06-03T16:59:08.843" UserId="115" Text="`не стану` here is equivalent to `не буду`, and the latter is more common in modern Russian.  So you could also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не буду есть свою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the comparison to `Я не съем`, `не стану / не буду` puts more emphasis on the negation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13871" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="f84dbe4a-f6b2-4321-8998-79bb7c77a35e" CreationDate="2014-06-03T18:52:27.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/473900035797557248" />
  <row Id="13872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="71eb3349-736b-4b84-a53b-d10728cfcc3b" CreationDate="2014-06-03T20:26:53.523" UserId="487" Text="My tandem-partner says *короче*. I asked her to tell me the meaning, but she refused to teach me 'bad Russian' (I don't know if she was kidding, though). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen [короче in Lingvo](http://www.lingvo-online.ru/en/Translate/en-ru/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5) but that source doesn't provide the expected meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="71eb3349-736b-4b84-a53b-d10728cfcc3b" CreationDate="2014-06-03T20:26:53.523" UserId="487" Text="What does &quot;короче&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="71eb3349-736b-4b84-a53b-d10728cfcc3b" CreationDate="2014-06-03T20:26:53.523" UserId="487" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="aeed7dc9-693f-4681-b734-a9652b082ca4" CreationDate="2014-06-03T20:56:00.770" UserId="2388" Text="Just a filler word. Associated with being cool and kinda redneck nowadays. A colloquial contraction from an already colloquial **&quot;короче говоря&quot;** (in a nutshell, to make a long story short)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some people are just too used to insert it in the beginning of the sentence, which is grammatically correct but still looks like a verbal tic if you love it too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Короче, я вот что хочу сказать = 'kay, here's what I want to say &#xD;&#xA; - Короче, она пришла ко мне и расплакалась. = Long story short, she came to me and bursted into tears." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="3a5d4bd0-dc68-4516-a31c-ed95082a8a55" CreationDate="2014-06-04T06:52:27.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474081228853764096" />
  <row Id="13877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="38495f8e-a0b7-4716-9388-a77627ac3918" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:53:51.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474126879478128640" />
  <row Id="13878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="8d308596-cb63-43c6-b918-f93929e9418e" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:16:41.130" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Is the Russian `должен (быть)` to be used analogous to `must`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly can one say `не должен (быть)` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- for `must not` as in prohibition &#xD;&#xA;- or would that rather mean, *it shouldn't* (as [linguee][1] suggests) &#xD;&#xA;- or is it to be understood *it's not necessary*?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Or is that negation rather uncommon at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.linguee.com/english-russian/search?source=auto&amp;query=%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="8d308596-cb63-43c6-b918-f93929e9418e" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:16:41.130" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Is &quot;не должен (быть)&quot; like &quot;must not&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="8d308596-cb63-43c6-b918-f93929e9418e" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:16:41.130" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="01535d79-8510-459b-95ee-05dfcf3c68b5" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:37:40.207" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="I found `подходить друг к другу, гармонировать`. However, it sounds a bit like something, that fits together / suits each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there maybe a way to stress the togetherness/unity/fellowship of two things/people of the same nature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="01535d79-8510-459b-95ee-05dfcf3c68b5" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:37:40.207" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;belong together&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="01535d79-8510-459b-95ee-05dfcf3c68b5" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:37:40.207" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="155673a6-439d-4cc5-978b-497dffd209ef" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:45:44.277" UserId="97" Text="_Должен/не должен (быть)_ may mean _must/must not_ or _should/should not_ depending on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солдат должен быть готов отдать жизнь за свою страну.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A soldier must be ready to give his life for his country.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот ресторан должен быть где-то тут.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This restaurant should be somewhere here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the translation can be either _must_ or _should_ and depends on the specific sentence that you're translating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[It's] not necessary_ is a translation of _необязательно_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знание иностранного языка - необязательно.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Knowledge of foreign language isn't necessary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="f72c61bd-fd0e-4598-9505-780439937fd6" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:53:49.263" UserId="97" Text="Especially when talking about people (or couples), but not necessarily, _belong together_ is best translated as _созданы друг для друга_ (literally _made for each other_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They belong together.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они созданы друг для друга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another phrase you can often encounter is _суждено быть вместе_, however it has a slightly different sub-context: _cуждено быть вместе_ implies that they _will_ be together while _belong together_ implies that they are good together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5657" RevisionGUID="9a8b35c0-0176-498e-a12c-95c564b1e85a" CreationDate="2014-06-04T15:56:41.273" UserId="97" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="_Должен/не должен (быть)_ may mean _must/must not_ or _should/should not_ depending on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солдат должен быть готов отдать жизнь за свою страну.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A soldier must be ready to give his life for his country.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пассажиры не должны разговаривать с водителем во время движения автобуса.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Passengers must not talk to the driver while the bus is moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот ресторан должен быть где-то тут.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This restaurant should be somewhere here.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там не должно быть очень шумно.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It shouldn't be too noisy there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the translation can be either _must_ or _should_ and depends on the specific sentence that you're translating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_[It's] not necessary_ is a translation of _необязательно_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знание иностранного языка - необязательно.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Knowledge of foreign language isn't necessary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="56d57eb9-bb40-4105-9368-d70d49254dd5" CreationDate="2014-06-04T16:01:25.380" UserId="97" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Especially when talking about people (or couples), but not necessarily, _belong together_ is best translated as _созданы друг для друга_ (literally _made for each other_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They belong together.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они созданы друг для друга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another phrase you can often encounter is _суждено быть вместе_ (close to English _written in the stars to be together_), however it has a slightly different sub-context: _cуждено быть вместе_ implies that they _will_ be together while _belong together_ implies that they are good together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13888" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="15113809-4b1d-40b3-9785-3451a81980a7" CreationDate="2014-06-04T18:53:51.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474262776567705600" />
  <row Id="13890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="4039bd55-2ad1-43ee-8e1f-f49932eab646" CreationDate="2014-06-04T23:25:50.357" UserId="3892" Text="I believe that both of these adverbs are used to express &quot;must&quot; in assumptions. I wonder if they're completely synonymous, or if one carries a different set of semantic nuances from the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Наверняка/вероятно** вчера с Андреем что-то случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Something must've happened to Andrey yesterday.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(... he never showed up, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="4039bd55-2ad1-43ee-8e1f-f49932eab646" CreationDate="2014-06-04T23:25:50.357" UserId="3892" Text="Is there any difference between вероятно and наверняка in expressing assumptions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="4039bd55-2ad1-43ee-8e1f-f49932eab646" CreationDate="2014-06-04T23:25:50.357" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="2436dd09-1ca2-4518-a569-2555221c5e57" CreationDate="2014-06-05T00:22:48.107" UserId="487" Comment="spelling (then format, so that the changes could take place)" Text="You can say the word **молодец**, but with sarcastic intonation. In Russian you can change a lot with intonation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13894" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="2436dd09-1ca2-4518-a569-2555221c5e57" CreationDate="2014-06-05T00:22:48.107" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="6ca2b77a-f684-4788-8469-dd8bab07e150" CreationDate="2014-06-05T01:43:41.287" UserId="1266" Text="* &quot;Вероятно&quot; is like &quot;probably&quot; or &quot;likely&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Наверняка&quot; is like &quot;for sure&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="6bbb4e15-2f70-4afd-90a4-1dacc7fab92f" CreationDate="2014-06-05T01:52:58.020" UserId="1266" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="* &quot;Вероятно&quot; is like &quot;probably&quot; or &quot;likely&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Наверняка&quot; is like &quot;for sure&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the statement about Andrew's calamities is expected to be overestimated (i.e. a mother which always worries about her son), &quot;наверняка&quot; may sound better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2273" RevisionGUID="de15897e-e495-40a9-a2e9-4d0be49be6d0" CreationDate="2014-06-05T04:15:26.693" UserId="194" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Many Russian interrogatives start with к-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто?&#xD;&#xA;кому?&#xD;&#xA;куда?&#xD;&#xA;кем?&#xD;&#xA;как?&#xD;&#xA;который?&#xD;&#xA;где? (&lt;кде?)&#xD;&#xA;когда?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, some interrogatives start with ч-. They seems to be case variants of &quot;что?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;что?&#xD;&#xA;чему?&#xD;&#xA;чем?&#xD;&#xA;чего?&#xD;&#xA;о чём?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that all these interrogatives came from Proto-Indo-European &quot;q&lt;sup&gt;u̯&lt;/sup&gt;-&quot;, which also gave English wh- (as in what, who, when, which,...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I wonder why кто (&quot;who&quot;) and &quot;что&quot;(&quot;what&quot;) got different initial consonant? Can it be explained solely by dissimilation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5661" RevisionGUID="052c9761-ab16-4a4a-91a1-d9c5f5d3ff14" CreationDate="2014-06-05T10:46:45.240" UserId="3713" Text="I do not like that dog sentence, so I will start with Shady_arc comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не стану учиться на каникулах&quot; (I won't study during my holidays)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a wish, proposal for future - but live is hard, parents may think different about that matter, and everything may turn out different, as it planned.  &#xD;&#xA;So sentence is expression of who speaks, expression of his current feelings.  &#xD;&#xA;But feeling, as any knows, are object of change, especially in long run therms. And highly depends on who makes that statement.  &#xD;&#xA;So focus is on the person. And in literature, I wouldn't be surprised, if everything turns to situation where person have to make choose, or do something he denies(even as unlikely possibility) before, especially when it goes about Indian prince's.  &#xD;&#xA;So person on first place and unlikely situation in far not defined future (as person thinks)  &#xD;&#xA;Also it may be(or actually is) form of oath, vow - in form where unwanted action is not directly connected to the person.(as image in someone else's mind, or it's own mind)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не буду есть свою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dima's equivalent have different flavor, it's more like decision or promise.  &#xD;&#xA;Hard future is now, or can be observed as doom, days, weeks, months.&#xD;&#xA;But anyway here should be a reason, why that question considered to be answered, reasons may be clear from context. One possible reason because you already promised your dog: *&quot;Я не буду тебя есть, Пушок, но будет лучше если ты нам нанюхаешь еды.&quot;*  (and really, most times there is much better ways to use your dog to get some food, then just eat that dog.)  &#xD;&#xA;Also there is another reason as example - because you do not think that dog meat is tasty. (&quot;свою собаку&quot; - makes that reason a bit unlikely, but)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не съем свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a promise, but one word ruins all glory : *&quot;Я не съем свою собаку, один&quot;*, *&quot;Я не съем свою собаку, один, за раз&quot;*  &#xD;&#xA;So flavors of considering to eat that dog, but something ruins the plan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Ерунда! – воскликнул принц. – Я не стану есть свою собаку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорит нам о том, что человек легкомысленный, не слишком далекий,&#xD;&#xA;но возможно хороший человек, имеющий привязанности  &#xD;&#xA;Настоящий младший принц, без забот и хлопот и проблем ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="8f7d7b25-206b-43a6-a64a-a3a6a9404cea" CreationDate="2014-06-05T14:06:36.807" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Я не съем свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such thing will not happen that I complete eating my dog. This may be because the dog is too big for me so I can eat only a part or because the dog will not be with me at the time or due to some other obstacles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не стану есть свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to even start eating my dog. This is due to my intention, and not due to some obstacles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="d65deebb-ba37-45e2-b113-fa8f9532528c" CreationDate="2014-06-05T14:35:46.257" UserId="194" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я не съем свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such thing will not happen that I complete eating my dog. This may be because the dog is too big for me so I can eat only a part or because the dog will not be with me at the time or due to some other obstacles, including, possibly (but not limited to), my own intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не стану есть свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to even start eating my dog. This is due to my intention, and not due to some obstacles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="0d00c726-f365-4d8b-b62b-c2b15ca75195" CreationDate="2014-06-05T14:38:12.130" UserId="190" Text="Sometimes you use a word-combination of 2 nouns to denote a quantity of entities: «большинство людей». Singular or plural form should be used for a verb after that? I.e., «большинство людей не знает» or «большинство людей не знают»? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="0d00c726-f365-4d8b-b62b-c2b15ca75195" CreationDate="2014-06-05T14:38:12.130" UserId="190" Text="Singular or plural verb after a singular noun denoting a quantity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="0d00c726-f365-4d8b-b62b-c2b15ca75195" CreationDate="2014-06-05T14:38:12.130" UserId="190" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="ee7dca53-7b48-4a4d-ab6c-24310863ad2f" CreationDate="2014-06-05T14:40:45.877" UserId="97" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Sometimes you use a word-combination of 2 nouns to denote a quantity of entities: «большинство людей». Should a singular or plural form be used for a verb after that? I.e., «большинство людей не знает» or «большинство людей не знают»? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="df635a1f-74bd-4a99-bc3a-4a4fca6cc949" CreationDate="2014-06-05T15:05:32.163" UserId="267" Text="Actually, both are possible and interchangeable, according to the Russian grammar rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большинство граждан проголосовал**о** за нового президента&#xD;&#xA;Большинство граждан проголосовал**и** за нового президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option is preferable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When the subject is separated from the predicate with another parts of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Множество замечаний по содержанию диссертации и оформлению библиографии **были высказаны** молодому аспиранту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When the subject is separated from the predicate by an attributive construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Часть средств, вырученных от продажи книги, **пойдут** на содержание больниц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the action of every participant is important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ряд сотрудников нашей организации **выступили** с этой инициативой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If there are 2 predicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ряд учеников не считают выполнение домашних заданий необходимым и **приходят** на урок неподготовленными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the predicate is formed by a noun or an adjective in plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большинство домов в этой деревне **были** деревянными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5665" RevisionGUID="0a90eccb-7828-4f72-bedc-aef09329e1f8" CreationDate="2014-06-05T15:10:38.477" UserId="2388" Text="Both are used, i.e. in modern Russian these two forms are interchangeable in many context. Though, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. If it **isn't** a two-word combination, but a single word denoting some concept which is formally a word in singular — then only formal grammatical agreement is correct, i.e. singular: *Большинство не знает*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plural agreement is recommended in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA; - if you need to stress that the actions were performed independently and/or that the agents were active rather than passive: Большинство студентов хорошо написали дипломы.&#xD;&#xA; - if you have a long sentence and there are many words between the subject and the object: formal agreement will sound less clear in this case (you'll have to re-read the sentence to realise that the subject is formally a singular construction)&#xD;&#xA; - when you have several predicates: Большинство родителей любят своих детей, но не всегда знают их друзей.&#xD;&#xA; - if you have an adjectival phrase in plural that describes the subject. if the predicate contains adjective in plural: Большинство кошек в питомнике *были полосатыми*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=bolshinstvo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="33608bc6-ef66-41f5-b68a-2ab045589973" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:11:20.297" UserId="62" Text="I recently came across the two words гостеприимство and гостеприимность. Can someone explain how гостеприимность is different from гостеприимство? Examples where гостеприимность would be used but гостеприимность can not would be helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="33608bc6-ef66-41f5-b68a-2ab045589973" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:11:20.297" UserId="62" Text="Гостеприимство и гостеприимность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="33608bc6-ef66-41f5-b68a-2ab045589973" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:11:20.297" UserId="62" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="fe538587-36d5-4f5d-8961-721fa6386adf" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:20:55.323" UserId="2388" Text="I feel there is no difference except that &quot;гостеприимность&quot; is a really rare word, probably a new variation of &quot;гостеприимство&quot; that uses the other way of forming the abstract noun (гостеприимный → гостеприимность).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I decided to use brute force and look in &quot;Russian National Corpus&quot;... 7 instances of &quot;гостеприимность&quot; for almost 230 million words of corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it does not sound wrong. At least, to my ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="56311e20-02c3-4120-9c66-95b285424c42" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:49:57.220" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Actually, both are possible and interchangeable, according to the Russian grammar rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Большинство граждан проголосовал&lt;b&gt;о&lt;/b&gt; за нового президента  &#xD;&#xA;Большинство граждан проголосовал&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt; за нового президента&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option is preferable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When the subject is separated from the predicate with another parts of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Множество замечаний по содержанию диссертации и оформлению библиографии **были высказаны** молодому аспиранту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When the subject is separated from the predicate by an attributive construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Часть средств, вырученных от продажи книги, **пойдут** на содержание больниц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If the action of every participant is important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ряд сотрудников нашей организации **выступили** с этой инициативой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. If there are two predicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ряд учеников не считают выполнение домашних заданий необходимым и **приходят** на урок неподготовленными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. If the predicate is formed by a noun or an adjective in plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Большинство домов в этой деревне **были** деревянными." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13914" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="56311e20-02c3-4120-9c66-95b285424c42" CreationDate="2014-06-05T16:49:57.220" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 267 edit id of 468" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="875c6273-bcd4-4331-99cb-30ebe7ea7d64" CreationDate="2014-06-05T19:55:54.420" UserId="4188" Text="гостеприимность is a characteristics of somebody or something.&lt;br&gt;(english -ness suffix).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;гостеприимство is a substantive form derived from the word гостеприимный.&lt;br&gt;(english -ship suffix)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="1aa01c7d-2e0f-4911-8a5d-c0b22451ad3b" CreationDate="2014-06-05T20:55:39.470" UserId="4188" Text="&quot;ставить перед фактом&quot; very common. (reveal smth before him, for he will be reduced with the remain options. literally &quot;put him before the fact&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I confronted him with the fact, [of] that I've seen him entering the building.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я поставил его перед фактом того, что я видел его входящим в здание.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He was confronted with the fact, [of] that somebody has seen him entering the building.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Он был поставлен перед фактом [того], что кто-то видел его входящим в здание." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="8a4d9f58-c414-41f3-927c-1a2830643479" CreationDate="2014-06-05T21:24:53.963" UserId="3859" Text="It means something like &quot;without going into detail,&quot; usually after an attempt was made to give the longer version or, literally, &quot;in short&quot;. For many it is a parasite word, getting into their every other sentence. It's not as bad as &quot;так сказать&quot; but similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a Canadian friend who injects &quot;так сказать&quot; into almost every sentence. I witnessed him talking to his Canadian friends and putting it into English sentences. Your friend is right, treat it as if it wasn't spoken at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="0abd9813-dfa5-494d-856b-c79e51fbd7dd" CreationDate="2014-06-05T21:30:06.657" UserId="4188" Text="my guess, the word &quot;сровнялось&quot; is applied to approximate the speech to the style that grandpas, grandmas do use.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and is similiar to &quot;he become aged to the (amount of years)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5674" RevisionGUID="efd1bf18-d331-4972-bb17-25b5ea199780" CreationDate="2014-06-05T21:48:37.937" UserId="4188" Text="как-никак = the way of&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;будет как-никак&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;will be the way of better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="b60d3855-839d-4451-99eb-b867a0ae1b7d" CreationDate="2014-06-05T22:06:13.167" UserId="4188" Text="найти себя в чем-то (is short for &quot;найти полноту самого себя в чем либо&quot;, &quot;себя&quot; in this case is &quot;one's essence/fulfillment&quot;, полный-full)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;example - найти себя в спорте (найти полноту самого себя в спорте)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;well, whether you fully filled with yourself then this one it is the one who you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="3a4718df-107c-47d4-96b8-e7ba5c6cd10f" CreationDate="2014-06-05T22:12:05.373" UserId="4188" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="найти себя в чем-то (is short for &quot;найти полноту самого себя в чем либо&quot;, &quot;себя&quot; in this case is &quot;one's essence/fulfillment&quot;, полный-full)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;example - найти себя в спорте (найти полноту самого себя в спорте)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;well, whether you are fully filled with yourself then this you it is the one who you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="7c414adf-9c06-4a1c-8eb7-e1425e002b5f" CreationDate="2014-06-05T23:42:34.190" UserId="4188" Text="it might be said through &quot;(само)утверждать[ся]/(само)выражать[ся] через кого-то/что-то или с помощью кого-то/чего-то&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Некоторые люди &quot;самоутверждаются&quot; через свою работу.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Он &quot;самоутверждается&quot; с помощью своей жены.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Размер круга может &quot;быть выражен&quot; через его диаметр.&lt;br&gt;(official: может быть выражен = colloquial: может выражаться)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="210ce14b-9d7b-43f1-9224-e2b88a4ac01e" CreationDate="2014-06-06T00:08:30.900" UserId="4188" Text="суть дела - the essence of a matter&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;сущность вопроса - an essence of the issue&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;существо - a creature&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;существование - an existence&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13927" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="7b32cba0-14b9-4b52-95c0-360ae0863090" CreationDate="2014-06-06T03:00:45.313" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13928" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5663" RevisionGUID="e1890bfe-bee3-4895-9731-39b0f16d19d0" CreationDate="2014-06-06T03:53:52.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474761063632609280" />
  <row Id="13929" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="4df5f631-3c82-48ee-a06f-87c390889930" CreationDate="2014-06-06T06:53:52.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474806363596419072" />
  <row Id="13930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="fcb8b0a4-f855-4713-b0f9-cf6a61bae235" CreationDate="2014-06-06T08:36:15.990" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="&quot;ставить перед фактом&quot; is very common. (reveal smth before him, for he will be reduced with the remain options. literally &quot;put him before the fact&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I confronted him with the fact, [of] that I've seen him entering the building.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я поставил его перед фактом того, что я видел его входящим в здание.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He was confronted with the fact, [of] that somebody has seen him entering the building.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Он был поставлен перед фактом [того], что кто-то видел его входящим в здание." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13931" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5671" RevisionGUID="fcb8b0a4-f855-4713-b0f9-cf6a61bae235" CreationDate="2014-06-06T08:36:15.990" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 469" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13932" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="310e7b38-e3fb-4233-901f-724bf8be1f4e" CreationDate="2014-06-06T09:53:53.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474851662360616960" />
  <row Id="13933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="33a3cf17-1df1-487e-b84c-da014e572897" CreationDate="2014-06-06T11:53:02.600" UserId="487" Text="The [Wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5) and the non-existent lingvo entry for **еле-еле** don't shed light on its meaning. I usually misstrust to some percentage, when two words are marked as synonyms. In this case еле-еле must be different from [елe](http://www.lingvo-online.ru/ru/Translate/ru-en/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5). Isn't it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="33a3cf17-1df1-487e-b84c-da014e572897" CreationDate="2014-06-06T11:53:02.600" UserId="487" Text="What's the meaning of еле-еле?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="33a3cf17-1df1-487e-b84c-da014e572897" CreationDate="2014-06-06T11:53:02.600" UserId="487" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="f8681cab-6942-4efe-be8c-04f0c86a69c9" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:02:18.613" UserId="3944" Text="Это означает очень мало. Обычно относительно скорости или достижения каких-то результатов.&#xD;&#xA;Он еле-еле ехал - ехал очень медленно.&#xD;&#xA;Он еле-еле победил - победил с очень небольшим преимуществом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="d49fde77-b2a5-4d43-9133-c7ec46284407" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:08:20.883" UserId="487" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="The [Wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5) and the non-existent lingvo entry for **еле-еле** don't shed light on its meaning. I usually misstrust (at least a little), when two words are marked as synonyms. In this case еле-еле must be different from [елe](http://www.lingvo-online.ru/ru/Translate/ru-en/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5). Isn't it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="d49fde77-b2a5-4d43-9133-c7ec46284407" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:08:20.883" UserId="487" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="4b383922-db85-47ac-a464-496f381fcd4c" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:12:57.250" UserId="487" Comment="format essentially" Text="Это означает очень мало. Обычно относительно скорости или достижения каких-то результатов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **еле-еле** ехал - ехал очень медленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **еле-еле** победил - победил с очень небольшим преимуществом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13940" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="4b383922-db85-47ac-a464-496f381fcd4c" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:12:57.250" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by -1 edit id of 470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="e543aeb5-8b80-4e45-a8fc-d673c21fcc99" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:12:57.250" UserId="551" Comment="format essentially" Text="Это означает очень мало. Обычно относительно скорости или достижения каких-то результатов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **еле-еле** ехал - ехал очень медленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **еле-еле** победил - победил с очень небольшим преимуществом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="7613a48f-85cb-43f4-95b5-6debaccbd4b5" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:42:07.743" UserId="97" Text="As @mr_tron pointed out, the meaning is _very little_, however best English equivalent I can think of is _barely_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле-еле дышал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was barely breathing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле-еле ехал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was barely moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, some other words of similar meaning can be substituted, all around the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле-еле победил.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He barely won. (_This doesn't sound very good._)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He won by a tiny margin. (_This sounds better in English._)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of word _еле_ is exactly the same, although you could argue that repeating the word twice emphasises its meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле дышал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле-еле дышал.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was barely breathing. (_Both versions._)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="64fd0c16-0bb3-47c6-b883-7fe91cc208b9" CreationDate="2014-06-06T13:03:29.967" UserId="97" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Это означает _очень мало_. Обычно относительно скорости или достижения каких-то результатов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **еле-еле** ехал - ехал очень медленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **еле-еле** победил - победил с очень небольшим преимуществом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="e17bd95f-ef50-451e-b6be-adc0215ea8d0" CreationDate="2014-06-06T13:54:13.047" UserId="3859" Text="It means &quot;by a small margin&quot; or &quot;with little room to spare&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="b63f7571-4391-43ef-9fcf-2196502d8ec1" CreationDate="2014-06-06T13:59:01.673" UserId="3859" Text="The exact meaning of the words are as Vi said, one shows a high probability and the other a certainty. In usage, however, they are both used to express the same concept but, Наверняка is colloquial while Вероятно is more literary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="e2968e49-c324-43a3-9841-a4a40fa7ff7c" CreationDate="2014-06-06T17:20:23.297" UserId="194" Text="**суть** - essence, main point of the idea, speech, text, demonstrative act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**сущность** - essence, real, may be hidden nature of a being, thing, object, person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**существо** - being (as an object, not as action)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**существование** - existence (action)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="08dab8c2-5994-41d9-b3ac-1c21f90b0844" CreationDate="2014-06-06T17:23:44.857" UserId="3892" Text="IN SUMMARY and to make sure I understand all your answers: it's a matter of personal volition. If you said something and I didn't understand you, I can't say &quot;Извини, я не стал понимать&quot; because I had no choice in the matter - it just didn't happen. BUT I could say: &quot;Не зная кто он, я не стал давать ему свой номер телефона&quot; meaning simply &quot;I didn't give him my number&quot; but implying &quot;I chose not to under the circumstances.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13948" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="e5af6e26-b4ed-4a86-9e31-799dc4a6a65c" CreationDate="2014-06-06T18:53:54.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/474987562637881344" />
  <row Id="13949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="d3bf69fc-2de6-4615-8fec-09feb884798f" CreationDate="2014-06-06T20:20:50.173" UserId="3859" Text=" - Большинство проголосовало&#xD;&#xA; - Люди, составляющие большинство, проголосовали&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, you are talking about a single entity - Большинство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second, many entities, Люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большинство людей is still a single entity. Людей is just a qualifier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13950" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="2e9220ce-771e-4a59-8195-7492c2b65160" CreationDate="2014-06-07T03:57:19.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/475124318251151360" />
  <row Id="13951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="d3374eff-2ba8-4a2c-bea2-f05a3e6bc042" CreationDate="2014-06-07T05:55:54.343" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="I found `подходить друг к другу, гармонировать`. However, it sounds a bit like something, that fits together / suits each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there maybe a way to stress the togetherness/unity/fellowship of two things/people of the same nature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note**: I'm **not** looking for an expression which is used for a romantic relationship between a man and a woman exclusively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="4b71950b-a7f6-4cfe-9a26-dfc7f550c15c" CreationDate="2014-06-07T06:46:32.520" UserId="3926" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Любовь Божия == Любовь Божья, but first one is old style, second one is new style.&#xD;&#xA;can be an answer for question &quot;What makes you happy?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любовь Бога - can be answer for question &quot;Whose love makes you happy?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Божественная любовь - there is such thing, but usually this phrase does not have anything in common with God. Here &quot;Божественная&quot; is adjective that means something like &quot;great&quot;, &quot;awesome&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;Эта еда была божественна!&#xD;&#xA;This dish was awesome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="257a85be-51eb-461a-a308-ddbce9280880" CreationDate="2014-06-07T07:10:03.953" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="I have a question about pronouncing `1` in Russian for mathematics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When `1` appears by itself on the right side of an equation (or inequality or congruence or other mathematical relation), it seems from what I've heard in lectures that it is always pronounced as `единица` instead of `один`. For example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **&lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 1** would be &#xD;&#xA;  - `икс квадрат равно единице` instead of &#xD;&#xA;  - `икс квадрат равно одному`, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. and **3&lt;i&gt;x&lt;/i&gt; ≡ 1 mod 7** would be pronounced &#xD;&#xA;  - `три икc сравнимо с единицей по модулю семь` instead of &#xD;&#xA;  - `три икс сравнимо с одним по модулю семь`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this convention followed only when `1` is the *only* term on the right side, or are there other situations where an equation/inequality/congruence would have `1` pronounced as `единица`? To be clear, I am not asking about the usage of `единица` in the sense of an identity element in a group or a unit in a ring, but rather a setting where it is really synonymous with `один`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13954" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="257a85be-51eb-461a-a308-ddbce9280880" CreationDate="2014-06-07T07:10:03.953" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 242 edit id of 471" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="88b79c58-3adc-4521-9b66-7fea15445da1" CreationDate="2014-06-07T07:10:20.913" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="No direct translation exists. '*For what it's worth*' usually means that whatever is to follow is going to be a subjective opinion, which translates well to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *На мой взгляд* (*In my opinion*), &#xD;&#xA;- *Я думаю* (*I think*), &#xD;&#xA;- *Я считаю* (*I figure*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to communicate that a piece of information is potentially unimportant for another reason, you could say something like '*Может, это неважно, но*'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13956" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="88b79c58-3adc-4521-9b66-7fea15445da1" CreationDate="2014-06-07T07:10:20.913" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 242 edit id of 472" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="92e777f2-3cba-4b3e-9f8a-54b363586361" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:03:20.477" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Let's say your friend got a new job, but the first week was awful. What would the right word for *encouraging* your friend to not quit the job immediately, but to go on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some possibilities seem to be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- воодушевлять &#xD;&#xA;- вдохновлять &#xD;&#xA;- ободрять&#xD;&#xA;- подбодрять&#xD;&#xA;- поощрять&#xD;&#xA;- ... давать смелость, вселять мужество, придавать бодрости, внушать бодрость&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot figure out which of these are really commonly used, e. g. I was told *поощрять* you'd say to a child only. I also think that *развеселить* is inept, as it's more like *amuse* with the aim of changing ones (superficial) mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the word to choose and how can those given words be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="92e777f2-3cba-4b3e-9f8a-54b363586361" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:03:20.477" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Words for encourage, hearten, embolden" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="92e777f2-3cba-4b3e-9f8a-54b363586361" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:03:20.477" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|выбор-слова|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="3bc2a1d4-40a9-4e62-a41d-b62c21e26ee4" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:26:12.973" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="I've seen copies of *War and Peace* with the old orthography. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the old form carry a different connotation or meaning than the new? &#xD;&#xA;2. Is there a nuance in pronunciation that indicates awareness of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13961" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="3bc2a1d4-40a9-4e62-a41d-b62c21e26ee4" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:26:12.973" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 208 edit id of 473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="10d5aff8-414b-4142-a611-ef9654a3cf0c" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:27:01.610" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="If I want to write the word &quot;n-th&quot; (as in n-th solution, n-th derivative,...), is it more conventional to write `n-ый/n-ая/n-ое` or `n-й/n-я/n-е`, or are both styles equally common? In terms of *pronunciation*, is it always `э́ный/э́ная/э́ное` (e.g., someone who writes n-я wouldn't actually say that as `э́ня`)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I found out later that for every variable `x` it's acceptable to express &quot;*x-th*&quot; as &quot;*xтый*&quot; (e.g., `m-ый = эмтый, n-ый = энтый, j-ый = житый, q-ый = кутый`), and since this works in all cases while the ending *-ный* for *n-ый* doesn't apply to variables ending with a vowel sound, I'll use the *-тый* version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13963" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="10d5aff8-414b-4142-a611-ef9654a3cf0c" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:27:01.610" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 62 edit id of 477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="1800bc23-aee0-4f68-b422-f27074270660" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:27:26.737" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for the solutions of &lt;i&gt;ax&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + &lt;i&gt;bx&lt;/i&gt; + &lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt; = 0 [EDIT: I mean the famous formula with the square root of &lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;-4&lt;i&gt;ac&lt;/i&gt; as part of the numerator]) not really get directly translated into Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this is described by phrases like *формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения or теорема Виета*, but not *квадратная формула.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related issue, I have encountered both *квадратный* and *квадратичный*, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., *квадратичное расширение* or *квадратичный вычет*). Is *квадратичный* allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like *квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень*, or *квадратичная матрица* would all sound weird?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13965" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="1800bc23-aee0-4f68-b422-f27074270660" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:27:26.737" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 62 edit id of 478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="347" RevisionGUID="2faf6850-1560-4f5f-ad2d-bf4091f15216" CreationDate="2014-06-07T08:54:39.923" UserId="62" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Does the phrase &quot;quadratic formula&quot; (the formula for the solutions of &lt;i&gt;ax&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + &lt;i&gt;bx&lt;/i&gt; + &lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt; = 0 [EDIT: I mean the famous formula with the square root of &lt;i&gt;b&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;-4&lt;i&gt;ac&lt;/i&gt; as part of the numerator]) not really get directly translated into Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that this is described by phrases like *формула корней (или решений) квадратного уравнения* or *теорема Виета*, but not *квадратная формула.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related issue, I have encountered both *квадратный* and *квадратичный*, but the latter seems to be less often used (e.g., *квадратичное расширение* or *квадратичный вычет*). Is *квадратичный* allowed only in a more limited range of expressions, so that terms like *квадратичный многочлен, квадратичный корень*, or *квадратичная матрица* would all sound weird?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="b914cb42-dc2b-4b54-a1c7-dc8a3c5c6fe8" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:04:48.227" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="*Ветвление* is always a process, whereas *разветвление* can be either a process or the physical place where something is branching out, the actual &quot;fork&quot;. *Ветвлённый* doesn't exist because *ветвиться* is not a transitive verb - it doesn't have a оbject, just the subject. It's like *краснеть* (to blush), for example. You can't blush something, you can only blush yourself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the outcome of *ветвление* will be an object that is *ветвистый* or *разветвлённый* itself. A &quot;*ветвлённый*&quot; object would be something that *ветвление* was done *to it*, like *варёный*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13968" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="376" RevisionGUID="b914cb42-dc2b-4b54-a1c7-dc8a3c5c6fe8" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:04:48.227" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 113 edit id of 476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="75b79def-795c-453e-b1f9-11c01f4893cb" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:26:12.300" UserId="267" Text="In this case we would use **ободрять-ободрить** or **подбодрять-подбодрить**. Вселять-вселить мужество, придавать-придать бодрости and внушать-внушить бодрость are all synonyms of **ободрять**, but are not commonly used, I would say they are quite bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard of the expression **давать смелость**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use the verb **ободрять-ободрить** when we want to encourage a person because he (she) is in a bad mood or something bad happened. **Подбодрять-подбодрить** means &quot;encourage a little bit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я ободрил друга, сказав ему, что это временные трудности.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   Она приободрила сына и сказала: &quot;Ничего, в следующем году экзамены&#xD;&#xA;   сдашь, не беда!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поощрять-поощрить** is used when we give smth to a person (not only a child) if he (she) did something which was good (correct). It can be translated into English as &quot;reward&quot; or &quot;praise&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Режиссёр поощрял оригинальные идеи артистов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Воодушевлять-воодушевить** means &quot;to inspire smb to do smth&quot;, &quot;fill with enthusiasm&quot;, &quot;inspirit&quot;. It is used with the preposition **на** and the Accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Рассказ воодушевил художника на создание полотна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вдохновлять-вдохновить** means &quot;to inspire smb to do smth&quot;. It is a synonym of **воодушевлять-воодушевить**, but is normally used with artistic or scientific work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Паук-акробат вдохновил учёных на создание робота.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="4c61c647-f621-4126-bc25-9d34e623fc53" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:43:54.247" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Those can be used synonymously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы показали гостям свою **гостеприимство / гостеприимность** и доброжелательность.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, `гостеприимство` is far more widespread in spoken and [written form][1], whereas an increase of using `гостеприимность` [can be observed][2] only since the second half of the last centuryю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE,%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1900&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1;,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE;,c0;.t1;,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C;,c0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1900&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1;,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C;,c0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5688" RevisionGUID="beaa5bcd-29a3-4096-8158-a117c5da8669" CreationDate="2014-06-07T14:12:06.737" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Those can be used synonymously&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы показали гостям **свое гостеприимство / свою гостеприимность** и доброжелательность.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, `гостеприимство` is far more widespread in spoken and [written form][1], whereas an increase of using `гостеприимность` [can be observed][2] only since the second half of the last centuryю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE,%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1900&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1;,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE;,c0;.t1;,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C;,c0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1900&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1;,%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C;,c0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="9b11457b-a9c0-4a09-82bc-3927edb5dd94" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:17:00.133" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="&gt;Я пошел бы с ним в разведку → I would trust him with my life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original, literal meaning is indeed ***to reconnoiter an enemy position*** (not to serve in an intelligence agency)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13973" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="9b11457b-a9c0-4a09-82bc-3927edb5dd94" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:17:00.133" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 248 edit id of 488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="ac373838-a50b-4aa7-a6b5-d83f3b0c1476" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:31:12.957" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="ащкьфеештп" Text="1. `засекать / засечь` is rarely *to whip to death*. Usually it's *to clock*, or *to catch somebody in an act*. Also *to notch*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;засекать время - to clock the time  &#xD;&#xA;Я засёк время  &#xD;&#xA;Я засёк пять минут&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;засечь подчиненных за игрой в карты на работе  &#xD;&#xA;to catch the subordinates at playing cards at their workplace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `усекать / усечь` - trim, truncate.  &#xD;&#xA;For example, to cut the budget. To reduce the functionality.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бесплатная версия этой программы имеет усеченные функции.  &#xD;&#xA;Руководство усекает бюджет нашего отдела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `иссекать / иссечь` - to cut or flog in multiple places, to cover with scars or flogs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него лицо, иссеченное шрамами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. `обсекать` - to rough-hew, to round something by cutting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `пересекать / пересечь` means *to cross, intersect* in general, not just *переехать*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эти две линии пересекаются.  &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;also may mean to meet in slang  &lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Давай пересечёмся в центре города.  &#xD;&#xA;Может быть, пересечёмся на неделе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. `насекать / насечь` - to make насечки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. `рассекать` may also mean *to demonstratively move at high speed*.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассекает по городу на новеньком мотоцикле&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13975" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="ac373838-a50b-4aa7-a6b5-d83f3b0c1476" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:31:12.957" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 194 edit id of 485" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="3a72cc31-35fa-4b6f-bff1-8229abf5d194" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:32:54.930" UserId="3892" Text="In a text, I saw a comment to the effect of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да она хорошенька, нечего сказать! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I believe this was meant to be sarcastic, given the context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in another passage, I saw:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хороший он человек, нечего говорить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between these two, or are they interchangeable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="3a72cc31-35fa-4b6f-bff1-8229abf5d194" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:32:54.930" UserId="3892" Text="нечего сказать versus нечего говорить - What's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="3a72cc31-35fa-4b6f-bff1-8229abf5d194" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:32:54.930" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="4ce493ec-89c2-478f-8a4e-18fade2e06ce" CreationDate="2014-06-07T15:43:13.420" UserId="194" Text="Нечего сказать in this sentence may be sarcastic or not, it expresses slight surprise of the speaker about the said fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нечего говорить here may be either somewhat unusual (and possibly not too correct) synonym to нечего сказать or it may be contraction from &quot;нечего тут и говорить&quot; meaning &quot;here is nothing to argue about&quot;, expressing belief in the fact possibly contrary to the possible opponent's scepticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="b1d12d56-c7c5-4a88-9cc1-d732dc41cef6" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:12:37.733" UserId="1236" Text="In many (or even in most) cases (apart from the sarcastic usage coverad by @Annix) `нечего сказать` and `нечего говорить` are synonimous, meaning &quot;there's no doubt&quot;, &quot;there's nothing to discuss.&quot; Both of your sentences can be examples of this synonious usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, `сказать` implies speaking by one person ('say'), and `говорить` implies a talk by one ore more persons ('talk', 'discuss'), so `Да она хорошенькая, нечего сказать!` can mean &quot;She's beautiful, *I* cannot say anything against that fact&quot;, and `Хороший он человек, нечего говорить!` can mean &quot;He's a great person, there's no feed for *us* to discuss that.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="f6459354-d87b-40fc-a6d5-bbd8bbc54773" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:27:12.653" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In a text, I saw a comment to the effect of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да она хорошенькая, нечего сказать! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I believe this was meant to be sarcastic, given the context.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in another passage, I saw:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хороший он человек, нечего и говорить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between these two, or are they interchangeable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="52722f9f-7810-443e-8988-12da9c68c75b" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:36:21.913" UserId="3892" Text="&gt; (Да) ты крут!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this everywhere. Is it the equivalent of (Am.) English &quot;Oh, you're goo(ooo)d...&quot; when someone does something well or shows what they're capable of (usually to the speakers surprise, who is duly impressed)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="52722f9f-7810-443e-8988-12da9c68c75b" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:36:21.913" UserId="3892" Text="Idiomatic equivalent of ты крут" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="52722f9f-7810-443e-8988-12da9c68c75b" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:36:21.913" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="ff71048e-c549-4647-bece-1d7d2fc79f6a" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:44:51.047" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; (Да) ты крут!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this everywhere. Is it the equivalent of (Am.) English &quot;Oh, you're goo(ooo)d...&quot; when someone does something well or shows what he's capable of (usually to the speaker's surprise, who is also duly impressed)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="7708d1dc-90d3-4f4e-97e6-1b2a2d36112c" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:49:54.940" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="**Do I need a comma in such phrases as**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да он самый, что ни на есть преступник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Математика - самая, что ни на есть точная наука." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13989" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="7708d1dc-90d3-4f4e-97e6-1b2a2d36112c" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:49:54.940" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 479" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="010f0067-7e17-4427-bc57-722206ecff29" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:49:54.940" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting" Text="Do I need a comma in such phrases as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да он самый, что ни на есть преступник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Математика — самая, что ни на есть точная наука." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="010f0067-7e17-4427-bc57-722206ecff29" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:49:54.940" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting" Text="Comma in «самый что ни на есть»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="ef6b081c-de0e-46f1-8e73-1204728d3e79" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:55:28.020" UserId="3892" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="[Oh, you're good!][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Да) ты крут!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this everywhere. Is it the equivalent of (Am.) English &quot;Oh, you're goo(ooo)d...&quot; when someone does something well or shows what he's capable of (usually to the speaker's surprise, who is also duly impressed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7L7lalP1Lk&amp;feature=kp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="e734517b-7d47-47b2-af7f-d4c611fe01bb" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:55:31.083" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="It is perfectly normal not to address a person at all. &#xD;&#xA;Both *подскажите, как пройти на улицу Чехова?* and *вы уронили платок* are normal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **гражданин / гражданка**, &#xD;&#xA;- **мужчина / женщина**, &#xD;&#xA;- **мальчик / девочка**, &#xD;&#xA;- **бабушка / дедушка**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I child may address an adult as **тётя / дядя**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13995" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="e734517b-7d47-47b2-af7f-d4c611fe01bb" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:55:31.083" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="299cad61-6d03-4685-8620-383c8138131f" CreationDate="2014-06-07T16:55:31.083" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting" Text="It is perfectly normal not to address a person at all. &#xD;&#xA;Both *подскажи́те, как пройти́ на у́лицу Че́хова?* and *вы урони́ли плато́к* are normal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *граждани́н* / *гражда́нка*, &#xD;&#xA;- *мужчи́на* / *же́нщина*, &#xD;&#xA;- *ма́льчик* / *де́вочка*, &#xD;&#xA;- *де́душка* / *ба́бушка*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I child may address an adult as *дя́дя* / *тётя*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="f64139ce-ede8-43ee-ad47-094818261c82" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:05:26.387" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="&quot;**Давай, обрадуй меня**&quot; can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might've never done this to you in the past. *Обрадуй* implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Давай, порадуй меня**&quot;, however, can imply that he might've already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is kind of structured and is going to be reported as a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being a point of joy of its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare &quot;*Мама, облей меня!*&quot; and &quot;*Мама, полей на меня!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рутинные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13998" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="f64139ce-ede8-43ee-ad47-094818261c82" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:05:26.387" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 489" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="28ca552e-50dd-4ed0-a42b-0f9562145f75" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:05:26.387" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting" Text="**“Давай, обра́дуй меня”** can imply that the one who is about to share the good news with you is only doing it at this very moment and may never be able to do it in the future and might’ve never done this to you in the past. *Обрадуй* implies reaching the end of the good news very soon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**“Давай, пора́дуй меня”**, however, can imply that he might’ve already done it a number of times in the past and has the potential of doing it again in the future. In other words, it is sort of &quot;possible to be continued&quot; sense. It can also imply that the good news is kind of structured and is going to be reported as a string of a few successive portions (not the whole news all at once), each one being a point of joy of its own. An illustration with a child that is being bathed by her mom in баня could help here: compare *“Мама, облей меня!”* and *“Мама, полей на меня!”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more examples illustrating all of the above said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что? У тебя радостная **новость**?! Впервые слышу, чтобы у тебя была какая-нибудь радостная новость. Обычно ты приносишь с собой только рути́нные отчёты о том, что нам и так всем xорошо известно. Ну что-ж, давай, попробуй **обрадуй** нас. Посмотрим как это у тебя получится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, я вижу у тебя опять xорошие **новости**! Ну давай, скорее **порадуй** нас. У тебя это особенно xорошо получается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обрадуй** fits in better in the first example, and **порадуй** fits in better in the second." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5695" RevisionGUID="4152ef1d-9a34-4bb9-996f-7f6c8ec366a4" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:06:18.623" UserId="3949" Text="There certainly are cases when one of the usages is considered more appropriate than the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example that comes to mind is &quot;еле слышно&quot; (more correct) vs &quot;еле-еле слышно&quot; (less correct (I think))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;он еле-еле двигал ногами&quot; (more correct I think) vs &quot;он еле двигал ногами&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although &quot;еле двигался&quot; seem to be OK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5696" RevisionGUID="e6d27a84-e572-40eb-8256-34d7dce55a0c" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:15:07.273" UserId="3949" Text="It might be added that until (I believe) around the early XXth century &quot;наверное&quot; meant &quot;certainly&quot; whereas today by some reason &quot;наверно&quot; seems to be more towards &quot;вероятно&quot; than &quot;наверняка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5697" RevisionGUID="563cdfed-8e98-416d-b066-41642ce0b57d" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:32:34.140" UserId="3949" Text="I believe in this context &quot;а вот&quot; translates as &quot;however&quot;; if there would be &quot;a&quot; (without &quot;вот&quot;), this should be translated as &quot;whereas&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="93773588-55a7-43ea-ac43-0c75479fc94e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:36:05.017" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="`Раз - ся` has the meaning &quot;*to do something OUT*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sounds pretty OK, just not frequent. Usually YOU work something out (*разрабатываешь/ете*), not the thing itself. (But there is *расстараться*).&#xD;&#xA;2. Really don't know. But you can say *зачитаться*.&#xD;&#xA;3. Thinking is about concentration, not disconcentration, so you can for ex. *задуматься* (like fall IN thinking), but not *раздуматься*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word generating model is quite powerful, not all possible combination are in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14004" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="93773588-55a7-43ea-ac43-0c75479fc94e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:36:05.017" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="704611b8-8425-4b29-bb87-fb257904143e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:36:05.017" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting" Text="_Раз...ся_ has the meaning “to do something **out**”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sounds pretty OK, just not frequent. Usually **you** work something out (*ты разраба́тываешь* / *вы разраба́тываете*), not the thing itself. (But there is *расстара́ться*).&#xD;&#xA;2. Really don’t know. But you can say *зачита́ться*.&#xD;&#xA;3. Thinking is about concentration, not disconcentration, so you can for ex. *заду́маться* (like fall **in** thinking), but not *разду́маться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word generating model is quite powerful, not all possible combination are in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="36efa9d8-b62e-4d56-bb9c-7f0053c255a9" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:49:09.690" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="&gt; &quot;*айфон сдох*&quot;. Question: Can I say it when my phone has simply run out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes you can, but it would create an ambiguity - did it *сдох* permanently or temporarily? But in general, it can be used in both meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes when my friend is visibly exhausted, I will say to him &quot;*не сдыхай*&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably. If would be more appropriate if said, e.g., at the final part of a long race - &quot;*не сдыхай, осталось всего полкилометра!*&quot; - &quot;*don't give up, only 500m left to go!*&quot;. Without such context, IMO it'd sound a bit weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Can also use to say, &quot;*die of laughter*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It'd sound pretty rude if applied to another person. So if it is somebody everybody hated and wished he was dead, then maybe, otherwise better not. Generally, *сдох* has a derisive meaning and usually is applied to wild animals, etc. so applying it to a person usually means the speaker hates that person. However, when you apply it to yourself - saying &quot;*я чуть не сдох от смеха*&quot; (I almost died of laughter) - it is fine, a bit rough but completely acceptable in friendly chat.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14007" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="36efa9d8-b62e-4d56-bb9c-7f0053c255a9" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:49:09.690" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by -1 edit id of 483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="948f79f1-71c7-4cab-9f98-5d8125fff962" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:49:09.690" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting" Text="&gt; *“Айфо́н сдох”*. Question: Can I say it when my phone has simply run out&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes you can, but it would create an ambiguity – did it *сдох* permanently or temporarily? But in general, it can be used in both meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sometimes when my friend is visibly exhausted, I will say to him *“не сдыха́й”* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably. If would be more appropriate if said, e. g., at the final part of a long race – *“не сдыхай, осталось всего полкилометра!”* – “don’t give up, only 500 m left to go!”. Without such context, IMO it’d sound a bit weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Can also use to say, “die of laughter”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’d sound pretty rude if applied to another person. So if it is somebody everybody hated and wished he was dead, then maybe, otherwise better not. Generally, *сдох* has a derisive meaning and usually is applied to wild animals, etc, so applying it to a person usually means the speaker hates that person. However, when you apply it to yourself – saying *“я чуть не сдох от смеха”* (I almost died of laughter) – it is fine, a bit rough but completely acceptable in friendly chat.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="c1ec35a3-393c-447c-bb96-d765cfad0c9e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:51:47.630" UserId="3892" Comment="Changed some typos and made it more idiomatic" Text="In many (or even in most) cases (apart from the sarcastic usage coverad by @Annix) `нечего сказать` and `нечего говорить` are synonymous, meaning &quot;there's no doubt&quot;, &quot;there's nothing to discuss.&quot; Both of your sentences can be examples of this synonymous usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, `сказать` implies one person speaking ('saying'), and `говорить` implies  one ore more persons talking ('talking', 'discussing'), so `Да она хорошенькая, нечего сказать!` can mean &quot;She's beautiful, *I* can't argue with that&quot;, and `Хороший он человек, нечего говорить!` can mean &quot;He's a great person, no question.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14010" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="c1ec35a3-393c-447c-bb96-d765cfad0c9e" CreationDate="2014-06-07T17:51:47.630" Comment="Proposed by 3892 approved by 1236 edit id of 491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14011" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="cc12b50b-d768-4d6e-8e06-a664c6a1d71b" CreationDate="2014-06-07T18:57:32.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/475350865276977154" />
  <row Id="14012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="11fa2bcb-bca7-40ab-a2bc-d3a9a97fc6fb" CreationDate="2014-06-08T04:37:20.507" UserId="3595" Text="In american it would be &quot;you're a badass&quot;. Another option is &quot;mean&quot;, but it's used to characterize a skill or action, e.g. &quot;that's a mean juggling&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="01c4bf33-3b96-4c38-9848-b337c53ce2ca" CreationDate="2014-06-08T07:17:54.893" UserId="194" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Нечего сказать in this sentence may be sarcastic or not, it expresses slight surprise of the speaker about the said fact &quot;I have no words&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нечего говорить here may be either somewhat unusual (and possibly not too correct) synonym to нечего сказать or it may be contraction from &quot;нечего тут и говорить&quot; meaning &quot;here is nothing to argue about&quot;, expressing belief in the fact possibly contrary to the possible opponent's scepticism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="7357bf49-e636-4898-a4fb-80a88ae88ddf" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:07:04.340" UserId="1266" Text="For example, the phrase: &quot;Глупец! Ты не ведаешь что творишь!&quot; (&quot;Fool! You don't know what are you doing!&quot;. How to say the same in female form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Глупышка&quot; does not sound serious (like &quot;goosey&quot;, &quot;silly&quot;); &#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Глупыня&quot;, &quot;Глупица&quot; does not sound grammatical;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Глупая&quot; does sound as high-flown as &quot;глупец&quot; in this context...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which term should one use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LANG=ru:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как сказать &quot;Глупец! Ты не ведаешь, то творишь&quot; про женщину? &quot;Глупышка&quot;, &quot;глупая&quot; - не тот оттенок, &quot;глупица/глупыня&quot; - неправильно. Что лучше использовать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="7357bf49-e636-4898-a4fb-80a88ae88ddf" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:07:04.340" UserId="1266" Text="What is feminine form of &quot;глупец&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="7357bf49-e636-4898-a4fb-80a88ae88ddf" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:07:04.340" UserId="1266" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="3bc26104-933d-491f-847a-5d1a01013476" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:08:50.047" UserId="3892" Text="In this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или как можно вообразить высадку инопланетян и Чехии, Венгрии, Финляндии или хоть в Бельгии? Во-первых, с какой стати? Очень странный выбор! Во-вторых, американцы там тут же окажутся, чтобы всё выяснить. Так что зачем терять инопланетянам время? А они, **коль скоро** долетели до нас, уж точно не дураки. Так что лучше сразу, не теряя времени, в Америку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does the sentence with **коль скоро** relate to the rest of the paragraph, and what does **коль скоро** actually mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="3bc26104-933d-491f-847a-5d1a01013476" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:08:50.047" UserId="3892" Text="What is the meaning of коль скоро?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="3bc26104-933d-491f-847a-5d1a01013476" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:08:50.047" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="ef2c4475-f8a5-405e-8888-f2d67aa4bee5" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:16:48.537" UserId="1266" Text="The phrase means &quot;If alians are clever enough to manage to get to the Earth, they'll found out that USA people will appear whereever they land to investigate, so they are better to land in USA in the first place (to save up time)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I'm not endorsing this, just translating). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="5eedc6e5-d9b2-4453-a6fe-a34a4d57481b" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:24:28.323" UserId="1266" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="Approximate translation to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Так что зачем терять инопланетянам время? &#xD;&#xA;    So why the aliens should waste time?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &gt; А они, коль скоро долетели до нас, уж точно не дураки. &#xD;&#xA;    They, as they managed to get here, are definitely not fools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Так что лучше сразу, не теряя времени, в Америку.&#xD;&#xA;    So better go to America straight from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase means &quot;If alians are clever enough to manage to get to the Earth, they'll find out that USA people will appear wherever they land to investigate, so they are better to land in USA in the first place (to save up time).&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I'm not endorsing this, just translating). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="7b633e95-d8e3-40c8-ac91-7b9e9ce883c2" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:32:19.337" UserId="267" Text="**Глупыня** is not widely used. Google has only 1530 results for this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Глупышка** is used in a different context, often to comfort and console a person, it is a tender form to say &quot;silly&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Глупышка, не плачь! Всё образуется!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Глупая** would be the better option here, although it doesn't sound as bookish as глупец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make is sound high-flown I would put it like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**О, неразумная! Ты не ведаешь, что творишь!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="dc114a5d-e109-418b-9318-133c795e56de" CreationDate="2014-06-08T14:45:37.700" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;(Да) ты крут!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see this everywhere. Is it the equivalent of (Am.) English &quot;Oh, you're goo(ooo)d...&quot; when someone does something well or shows what he's capable of (usually to the speaker's surprise, who is also duly impressed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Oh, you're good!][1]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7L7lalP1Lk&amp;feature=kp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="443e00e2-bc63-401d-b967-2d584c0e7da4" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:28.663" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="1. **вдыхать / вдохнуть**: inhale, breathe in (one direction, inwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **вздыхать / вздохнуть**: one entire breath (in and out), to sigh, pine for smb (metaphorical use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **выдыхать / выдохнуть**: exhale, breathe out (one direction, outwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **сдыхать / сдохнуть**: a really vulgar way of saying &quot;to die&quot;, used only for animals.  &#xD;&#xA;My prof said it's not even used for dogs anymore since they began to be considered &quot;man's best friend&quot;. Or if a guy was a big villain during his lifetime, you can say &quot;*слава Богу, он сдох.*&quot; My friends would use it when their cell phones broke, i.e., &quot;*айфон сдох*&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;**Question:  &#xD;&#xA;Can I say it when my phone has simply run out of battery or does it mean broken, unusable?**  &#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when my friend is visibly exhausted, I will say to him &quot;*не сдыхай*&quot; (hope it's not offensive). Can also use to say, &quot;*die of laughter*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **издыхать / издохнуть**: means the exact same as сдыхать/сдохнуть? minus the &quot;die of laughter&quot; variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **отдыхать / отдохнуть**: well we know this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. I tried some other приставки in Yandex and found:  &#xD;&#xA;**продохнуть**: to have [breathing space][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C/en/#lingvo/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone think of other verbs with this root? Or maybe with `-дышать`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14029" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="443e00e2-bc63-401d-b967-2d584c0e7da4" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:28.663" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, 242 edit id of 481" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="7c795b4e-c057-407d-b893-3122bf1f06fd" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:52.527" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="In the meaning &quot;*to throw*&quot; both words “*кидать/кинуть*” and “*бросать/бросить*” are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить камень  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кинуть камень&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only “*бросать/бросить*” has meaning &quot;*to stop doing something, to leave some place, to break relationship*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить учебу  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить курить  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить жену (divorce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“*кидать/кинуть*” also has other meaning: &quot;*to deceive or betray somebody, not fulfill the promise*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кинуть лоха" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14031" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="7c795b4e-c057-407d-b893-3122bf1f06fd" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:52.527" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, -1 edit id of 474" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="492408e8-c632-49bb-86fe-ff369ec8e4af" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:52.527" UserId="242" Comment="formatting" Text="In the meaning &quot;*to throw*&quot; both words “*кидать/кинуть*” and “*бросать/бросить*” are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить камень  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кинуть камень&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only “*бросать/бросить*” has meaning &quot;*to stop doing something, to leave some place, to break relationship*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить учебу  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить курить  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бросить жену (to divorce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“*кидать/кинуть*” also has other meaning: &quot;*to deceive or betray somebody, not fulfill the promise*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кинуть лоха" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="ec1a6e1a-1448-4972-a04a-f0617a1268e2" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:57.197" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="In Russia &quot;*до свиданья*&quot; can be used in either case of communication termination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is voice or tet-a-tet conversation, then &quot;*до свиданья*&quot; will have different meanings depending on intonation. These meanings include (but are not limited to) friendly &quot;*see you later*&quot;, &quot;*hope see you soon*&quot; etc, or disappointed &quot;*hope never saw you ever*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14034" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="ec1a6e1a-1448-4972-a04a-f0617a1268e2" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:19:57.197" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, 242 edit id of 475" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="fde676de-129c-437e-bc91-4a86960cb5af" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:11.097" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting, removed thanks" Text="I've been trying to master your verbs, especially verbs of motion and with prefixes (приставки). it's interesting to me how verbs with the same root but different приставки can have dramatically different meanings. Let's take `-секать/сечь`, which afaik is an old Slavic word for &quot;*to cut*&quot;, but in Russian also means &quot;*to whip/flog*&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пересекать/пересечь`: afaik this is the same as *переехать*, but without an intended destination, i.e., describes an incidental event. My prof explained this to me when I described a car accident where my sedan cut across two lanes on the highway: &quot;*машина пересекла две полосы* [or do you say сплошные here? i forget =x]&quot;. The meaning is barely related to the original root IMO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`отсекать/отсечь`: this retains the root meaning, to me it's the exact same as *отрубить*, &quot;*to chop off from, sever*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`засекать/засечь`: also still related, &quot;*whip to death*&quot; (I find that &quot;cut&quot; verbs with приставка `за-` tend to mean &quot;*to death*,&quot; i.e., *зарезать*). A quick search in Yandex reveals another (mostly likely new) meaning, to &quot;*locate/pinpoint*&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone give an example?** I'm so afraid to use unfamiliar verbs now ever since I tried to ask my friend Elina if she &quot;ran into&quot; this guy by saying, &quot;*ты залетела в _____?*&quot;... lol. They just have so many slang meanings now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that in meaning these verbs are hardly related anymore, but it helps me organize and remember them if I group by verb root. I sometimes just plug a single verb root with different приставки into Yandex just to see what comes up.  &#xD;&#xA;**Does anyone have more verbs with this root?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14036" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="fde676de-129c-437e-bc91-4a86960cb5af" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:11.097" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, 242 edit id of 484" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="4bc413b8-3573-4750-9c11-ecfad786c68d" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:18.943" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="- ***передыхать / передохнуть*** which is similar to ***отдыхать / отдохнуть*** but implies a short period of rest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **роздых** (noun) - close to ***передыхать / передохнуть*** but even less formal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14038" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="4bc413b8-3573-4750-9c11-ecfad786c68d" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:18.943" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, 242 edit id of 482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="f43c82a2-b296-4fb9-ad28-a37cdf07fbd6" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:32.027" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="This phrase *по первое число*, meaning &quot;large amount&quot;, is usually used when describing a punishment or generally an unpleasant experience &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Завалило снегом **по первое число**.  &#xD;&#xA;Получил от начальства **по первое число**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the origin/etymology of this phrase?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14040" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="f43c82a2-b296-4fb9-ad28-a37cdf07fbd6" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:32.027" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, 242 edit id of 480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="13168533-913b-46fe-8f33-523466b4cb56" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:39.093" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Which one is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***на** материковом Китае* or &#xD;&#xA;- ***в** материковом Китае* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- ***на** континентальном Китае* or &#xD;&#xA;- ***в** континентальном Китае*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14042" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="13168533-913b-46fe-8f33-523466b4cb56" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:20:39.093" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1329, 242 edit id of 490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="80267c8e-638e-4333-a001-c9f8ab945664" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:21:11.340" UserId="3892" Comment="corrected idiomatic usage with &quot;some&quot;" Text="In colloquial american it would be &quot;you're a badass&quot;. Another option is &quot;mean&quot;, but it's used to characterize a skill or action, e.g. &quot;that's some mean juggling&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14044" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="80267c8e-638e-4333-a001-c9f8ab945664" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:21:11.340" Comment="Proposed by 3892 approved by -1 edit id of 492" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="ed9cebaf-4c8d-4f97-b476-0e51af8acfcc" CreationDate="2014-06-08T16:21:11.340" UserId="242" Comment="corrected idiomatic usage with &quot;some&quot;" Text="In colloquial American English it would be &quot;you're a badass&quot;. Another option is &quot;mean&quot;, but it's used to characterize a skill or action, e.g. &quot;that's some mean juggling&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15014" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="be3109ea-db52-4b59-a870-23ae02c41eaa" CreationDate="2014-06-08T22:23:55.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/475765190483779584" />
  <row Id="15015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="9aa3d5ef-f076-4f69-92ba-1e879bc2004d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T00:45:42.047" UserId="3892" Text="In a comment about using foul language: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Только я почти никогда его не использую. Разве что против особо ''поехавших'' в качестве тяжелой артиллерии :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I almost never use it. Except against especially ___ people, by way of heavy artillery.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find a meaning for **поехавший** in any dictionary, so I reckon it must be very colloquial or a funny made-up word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="9aa3d5ef-f076-4f69-92ba-1e879bc2004d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T00:45:42.047" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of поехавшие (люди)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="9aa3d5ef-f076-4f69-92ba-1e879bc2004d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T00:45:42.047" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="6c038506-ac9d-43a3-ac2a-3aa914c61e4d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T01:01:25.347" UserId="3892" Text="Is и то это in the following comment a typo, or a way of emphasizing **это**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я от своих родителей, за все время пока жил с ними, выучил только &quot;бляха муха&quot; **и то это** было так странно, что я даже помню конкретный момент и место, где была произнесена эта фраза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My attempt:** During the whole time I lived with my parents, the only thing I learned from them was &quot;бляха муха,&quot; and (even) *that* was so weird to me, that I remember the precise moment and place it was uttered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="6c038506-ac9d-43a3-ac2a-3aa914c61e4d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T01:01:25.347" UserId="3892" Text="и то это - is this a typo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="6c038506-ac9d-43a3-ac2a-3aa914c61e4d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T01:01:25.347" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="95b6d492-ed84-4481-9b59-d5f975c25d6a" CreationDate="2014-06-09T01:04:46.517" UserId="1236" Text="`Поехавший` means &quot;crazy, weird, inadequate&quot; here. There is a colloquial idiom `[у него] крыша поехала` (literary &quot;[his] roof is gone&quot;) which means &quot;he is off his chump (crumpet, noggin, nut, rocker, trolley); he has bats in his belfry; he has gone bughouse (bugs)&quot;, so the verb `поехать` can also mean &quot;go crazy&quot;, and `поехавший` is the past active participle from this verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ещё хотел что-то сказать, но так и остался с открытым ртом, чем-то неожиданно напуганный. - Ты чё? - уставился на него Вовка. - Крыша поехала? (Б. Новосельцев, Отработка)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He wanted to say a few words more, but suddenly turned to stone, his mouth agape. 'What's the matter with you?' Vovka stared at him. 'Have you gone off your rocker, or what?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="f591e0e7-18fc-455f-a6e8-3c88393a5024" CreationDate="2014-06-09T01:21:17.643" UserId="1236" Text="It is not a typo, althogh a comma is missing after &quot;бляха муха&quot;. `И то` here is a particle which shows contrast, your translation of it as &quot;even&quot; is correct. &quot;Это&quot; is the subject of the second clause of your sentence (&quot;это было странно&quot;). The point is that &quot;бляха муха&quot; is one of the most mild swearwords, but hearing *even* such a mild one from the parents stuck the character of your story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="16509b4f-4e58-4695-b35e-52606baa645a" CreationDate="2014-06-09T01:26:47.590" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It is not a typo, althogh a comma is missing after &quot;бляха муха&quot;. `И то` here is a particle which shows contrast, your translation of it as &quot;even&quot; is correct. &quot;Это&quot; is the subject of the second clause of your sentence (&quot;это было странно&quot;). The point is that &quot;бляха муха&quot; is one of the most mild swearwords, but hearing *even* such a mild one from the parents struck the character of your story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="3e4ab6bc-605a-4baa-8dfb-38f928ce9e19" CreationDate="2014-06-09T17:28:57.913" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="In a very formal way, formal address is called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `формальная форма обращения`, as opposed to &#xD;&#xA;2. `фамильярная форма обращения`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially these forms are known as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `на вы` and &#xD;&#xA;2. `на ты`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15027" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="940" RevisionGUID="3e4ab6bc-605a-4baa-8dfb-38f928ce9e19" CreationDate="2014-06-09T17:28:57.913" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 426 edit id of 493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="677c264b-e998-45eb-b058-8fb5270003ed" CreationDate="2014-06-09T18:53:15.183" UserId="88" Text="In the described situation I can think of one commonly used word: **поддержать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other listed words are more formal *in this case* (maybe, except **подбодрять**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note you hardly can say &quot;**я поддерживаю тебя**&quot; when you are speaking to the friend with tricky job  but absolutely can &quot;**я поддержал его**&quot; when you're relating the story to someone else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="d7f4434b-f602-4dc7-b244-e35af3530bc0" CreationDate="2014-06-09T19:23:55.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/476082281417674752" />
  <row Id="15031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="b14d696d-870a-4ee8-a101-a3c3ad2b7555" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:20:50.097" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="При указании отрезков времени, во фразах вроде  &#xD;&#xA;*`в продолжение / на протяжении / в течение трёх лет`*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *`в течение`* заканчивается на *`-е`* (винительный падеж), &#xD;&#xA;- а *`на протяжении`* на *`-и`* (предложный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Есть тут какая-нибудь логика?   &#xD;&#xA;2. Есть ли другие, помимо *течения* слова, используемые в данном контексте в винительном падеже?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Меня правильно поправили: в моём вопросе *в течение*, *в продолжение* пишется с *-е* в конце. См. ответы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15032" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="b14d696d-870a-4ee8-a101-a3c3ad2b7555" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:20:50.097" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 495" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="a8443807-b29c-4b1e-9170-21ab90854267" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:21:05.367" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="0. Computer parsing of texts in natural languages is really hard and tricky, do NOT rely on any computer translator ever: even if dictionary used is good, idioms are pretty like to be unrecognised and master-slave relations between words in sentence (what correct grammar term for it?) will be often parsed wrong. There is no way about it currently from technical point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Theoretically, &quot;*Зеленое яблоко и банан*&quot; should be translated as &quot;*green apple and (possibly non-green) banana*&quot;. If you wish to mark both as green, you should say &quot;*зеленые яблоко и банан*&quot;. However, it is impossible disambiguate &quot;*зеленые яблоки и бананы*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15034" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="a8443807-b29c-4b1e-9170-21ab90854267" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:21:05.367" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 496" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="1771ab87-1428-44ce-a146-4d09cb40b74e" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:21:13.467" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="I don't think those are interchangeable like you suggested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would always say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Пока стану миллионером, скорее состарюсь* and&#xD;&#xA;2. *Буду работать по выходным пока не стану миллионером*, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but never say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Пока не стану миллионером, скорее состарюсь* or &#xD;&#xA;- *Буду работать по выходным пока стану миллионером*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I would put only future event that I believe will happen before I become millionaire in a statement after *Пока стану миллионером*, but only something continuous that will keep happening until I become millionaire in a statement before or after *пока не стану миллионером*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15036" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="1771ab87-1428-44ce-a146-4d09cb40b74e" CreationDate="2014-06-09T20:21:13.467" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 494" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15037" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="d637cdd6-436c-40f7-a13d-14dca69d4b4e" CreationDate="2014-06-10T04:24:43.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/476218378458132480" />
  <row Id="15038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="44668d49-dbf7-4248-8e6b-0e4fb48efe35" CreationDate="2014-06-10T10:13:56.240" UserId="88" Text="I'd like to extend Aleks G's answer.&#xD;&#xA;Another quite close example is *они (как) одно целое* or *они как две половинки (одного целого)*. The first one esp. good for things which are not alive.&#xD;&#xA;The following works for things as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Идеально подогнаны*&#xD;&#xA; - *как тут и было* (when a new part was added)&#xD;&#xA; - *как родное* (e.g. after something was repaired)&#xD;&#xA; - *как влитой*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both things and people: *два сапога - пара*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For people: *водой не разольешь* or *закадычные друзья*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joke/informal about two things or even people which are (practically) the same: *из одной бочки наливали*. This originate from a joke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A client is asking barman who is swindle but not very smart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Why 3-year-old wine has *better* taste than 5-year-old?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Have no idea, was poured from the same barrel!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15039" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="9e36c276-b96e-492d-9410-1d60e0929d6f" CreationDate="2014-06-10T13:24:43.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/476354271479209985" />
  <row Id="15040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="08731d34-f90a-4839-a752-44e4978ed685" CreationDate="2014-06-10T14:17:24.660" UserId="194" Text="&quot;Айфон сдох&quot; for me definitely points it is broke, probably not from a physical cause but from some internal failure, the process possibly was prolonged (i.e. it was working unstably for a period before finally becoming disfunctional), but the later is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would never understand it as &quot;discharged&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15041" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="b6884f5f-d025-4520-b2cc-dd2160c13818" CreationDate="2014-06-10T16:24:42.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/476399569602097152" />
  <row Id="15042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="55973892-9c64-46a1-90ac-dab6f35e8c00" CreationDate="2014-06-10T19:57:48.387" UserId="3892" Text="I know that in some cases the predicate is marked by the instrumental, however i still don't see the logic behind it. Does it fulfill a specific grammatical need, or is it just arbitrary and accepted as is? Funny enough I use it correctly and instinctively, and even notice its absence, when people don't use it where it belongs. I just don't know why. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="55973892-9c64-46a1-90ac-dab6f35e8c00" CreationDate="2014-06-10T19:57:48.387" UserId="3892" Text="Is there a grammatical or syntactical logic behind the use of the instrumental in predicative nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6707" RevisionGUID="55973892-9c64-46a1-90ac-dab6f35e8c00" CreationDate="2014-06-10T19:57:48.387" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="b0d96d30-8dec-4ad2-aac4-3c0be92ef4c8" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:33:06.277" UserId="267" Text="Earlier, in the 19th century, the Nominative was more widely used in predicative constructions. In the 20th century the situation changed. There is a number of lexico-semantic clauses show clear case preferences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Predicate nouns favouring the Nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nouns of nationality&#xD;&#xA;- Evaluative nouns (дурак, красавица, весельчак)&#xD;&#xA;- Semantically bleached nouns, used as modifiers: человек, мужчина, девушка...&#xD;&#xA;- Temporaly unrestricted states: Ведь он был прекрасный учитель!&#xD;&#xA;- The subject in presumed known and the predicate subject contributes little: Он был талантливый студент!&#xD;&#xA;- Pure state, without attention to the current situation and causal relatiionship to other events: Она была красавица, высокомерная и безразличная ко всему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Predicate nouns favouring the Instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nouns of occupation, status and function: доктор, руководитель, председатель...&#xD;&#xA; - Deverbal and abstract nouns: занятие, чтение, цель, причина...&#xD;&#xA; - Kinship terms&#xD;&#xA; - Temporaly restricted states: Три года он работал в Самаре учителем.&#xD;&#xA; - The individual in question fits a certain definition: Он был самым талантливым студентом из всей группы.&#xD;&#xA; - Expectations (modal Instrumental): Вот если бы я был американцем!&#xD;&#xA; - Restricting adjunct or modifier: В этой одежде она казалась писаной красавицей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good article on this topic on the Internet: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1305/1/fulltext.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="23e5d0e9-3099-4879-b1a7-34af81056a63" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:36:31.877" UserId="3892" Text="It seems that whenever I use one, I'm told to use the other :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="23e5d0e9-3099-4879-b1a7-34af81056a63" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:36:31.877" UserId="3892" Text="What is the difference between пытаться и пробовать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="23e5d0e9-3099-4879-b1a7-34af81056a63" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:36:31.877" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="bc097ce5-1497-4daf-9662-0aea2bd801b3" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:43:05.453" UserId="3892" Text="What is the meaning and usage of (ну) нифига себе! Someone said it to me &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="bc097ce5-1497-4daf-9662-0aea2bd801b3" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:43:05.453" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of нифига себе!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="bc097ce5-1497-4daf-9662-0aea2bd801b3" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:43:05.453" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="bf708266-7d86-4069-a828-1ea65bc14cd9" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:50:41.350" UserId="267" Text="**Пытаться-попытаться** means &quot;to make an effort to do something if you are not sure of the result&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я попытаюсь устроиться на работу, не не уверен, что мне удастся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The synonym of пытаться-попытаться is **стараться-постараться**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пробовать-попробовать** means &quot;to try&quot;, &quot;to taste&quot; or &quot;to test&quot;  It doesn't have the meaning of making a big effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я попробую устроиться на работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу попробовать шоколад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учёные пробуют новый прибор в действии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="d439cf81-aead-4544-9c93-a098212d5b95" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:54:03.227" UserId="1305" Text="Both of these words may be used in sense of trying something, making attempts to do something. Although, word `пытаться` emphasizes that this process is difficult to a person involved. `Пробовать`, when used as &quot;to try something&quot; means that a person doesn't make a big effort to achieve result, just &quot;tastes&quot; a new action. This is because the other meaning of the word &quot;пробовать&quot; is actually &quot;to taste something&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6713" RevisionGUID="55acba90-305f-4201-af21-b380082fc496" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:54:53.033" UserId="267" Text="The correct spelling would be &quot;Ни фига себе!&quot; There is also another slang version of this expression, commonly used in social networks, &quot;фигасе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an exclamation of surprise, astonishment of shock (positive or negative). It can be translated as &quot;Oh boy&quot;, &quot;Wow&quot;, &quot;No way&quot;, &quot;Holy cow&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="aff83130-18be-4d39-8c2f-0cb2923e848b" CreationDate="2014-06-10T21:56:01.130" UserId="267" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Пытаться-попытаться** means &quot;to make an effort to do something if you are not sure of the result&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я попытаюсь устроиться на работу, **но не уверен, что мне удастся.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The synonym of пытаться-попытаться is **стараться-постараться**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пробовать-попробовать** means &quot;to try&quot;, &quot;to taste&quot; or &quot;to test&quot;  It doesn't have the meaning of making a big effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я попробую устроиться на работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу попробовать шоколад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учёные пробуют новый прибор в действии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="a0ec2b43-18f6-4061-a262-841af94063d2" CreationDate="2014-06-10T22:04:44.940" UserId="1305" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Both of these words may be used in sense of trying something, making attempts to do something. Although, word `пытаться` emphasizes that this process is difficult to a person involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Я попытаюсь научиться танцевать танго._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пробовать`, when used as &quot;to try something&quot; means that a person doesn't make a big effort to achieve result, just &quot;tastes&quot; a new action. This is because the other meaning of the word &quot;пробовать&quot; is actually &quot;to taste something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Я попробую сходить на танцы_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="d3955d48-6d6c-446e-8b41-5ca4683a2c0c" CreationDate="2014-06-10T22:12:53.900" UserId="1305" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Both of these words may be used in sense of trying something, making attempts to do something. Although, word `пытаться` emphasizes that this process is difficult to a person involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Я **попытаюсь** научиться танцевать танго._ - _I'll try to learn how to dance tango._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пробовать`, when used as &quot;to try something&quot; means that a person doesn't make a big effort to achieve result, just &quot;tastes&quot; a new action. This is because the other meaning of the word &quot;пробовать&quot; is actually &quot;to taste something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Я **попробую** сходить на занятие по танцам._ - _I'm going to try dance classes_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15058" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="5c30407f-2b71-4a39-9dda-0fa46df4b53c" CreationDate="2014-06-11T07:24:48.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/476626086349266944" />
  <row Id="15059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="20e82cbb-0a5e-4fa7-bb9a-b4c1a2315412" CreationDate="2014-06-11T08:19:43.643" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; &quot;The money screamed across the wires, its provenance fading in a maze&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of electronic transfers, which shifted it, hid it, broke it up into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manageable wads which would be withdrawn and redeposited elsewhere,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obliterating the trail.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/emoney.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Деньги потерялись в проводах, это произошло затухая в лабиринте&#xD;&#xA;&gt; электронных переводов, которые заменили их, спрятали их, разбили их на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрессированные шматы, которые будут выведены и передепонированны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где-нибудь в другом месте, что бы стереть следы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be refined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="1c85d72d-faad-457d-9a1e-f0c2dbd5e080" CreationDate="2014-06-11T08:52:10.317" UserId="551" Comment="Split into paragraphs to improve readability" Text="As it was written before, &quot;руки не доходят посмотреть&quot; means  &quot;Cannot find time to watch&quot;, but there is an accent like &quot;Well, I want to watch it, but when I have time, I have something with higher priority to watch, or something distracts me&quot;, not &quot;I Can't find time to watch anything, so I didn't watch this thing&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general it's used when you have time to watch movies and rest, and you want to watch this movie, but somehow you didn't yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And about &quot;walking hands&quot;. First of all &quot;доходить&quot; is perfect form of &quot;ходить&quot;, so it is closer to &quot;get to&quot;. And &quot;доходить&quot; has rather wide meaning: in different cases it can be translated as &quot;to understand&quot;, &quot;to be done&quot;, &quot;to rise&quot; (to an amount)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6713" RevisionGUID="859db769-4818-4612-b0eb-2ca27d93a6cf" CreationDate="2014-06-11T17:06:39.580" UserId="267" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The correct spelling would be &quot;Ни фига себе!&quot; There is also another slang version of this expression, commonly used in social networks, &quot;фигасе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an exclamation of surprise, astonishment of shock (positive or negative). It can be translated as &quot;Oh boy&quot;, &quot;Wow&quot;, &quot;Holy cow&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15063" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="6515c360-7c7e-4a7b-8621-92fb769fa2c8" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:13:33.830" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[540],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="07628da8-1358-4a13-ab5a-fc3d998b7241" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:13:51.320" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="Online translators seem to only take the gender of the first noun but what if you wanted to mean in the example *one* apple and *one* banana, but *both* are green - could you then pluralize *green*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*green apple and banana* → *зеленое яблоко и банан*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*green banana and apple* → *зеленый банан и яблоко*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15065" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="07628da8-1358-4a13-ab5a-fc3d998b7241" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:13:51.320" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 242 edit id of 498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="185b0008-2e56-46a5-928b-e534d5f542f6" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:41:12.347" UserId="3892" Text="I don't understand what вроде adds to this question. Can someone translate or paraphrase it for me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты вроде говорил, что втречал её?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="185b0008-2e56-46a5-928b-e534d5f542f6" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:41:12.347" UserId="3892" Text="Use of вроде in questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="185b0008-2e56-46a5-928b-e534d5f542f6" CreationDate="2014-06-11T19:41:12.347" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6715" RevisionGUID="efc1e769-779f-4535-b9ea-3989d63b0f3d" CreationDate="2014-06-11T20:15:45.530" UserId="3680" Text="This adds meaning of &quot;not completely sure&quot; to the **declarative** sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;In the other words: *I'm almost sure, but not completely sure*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the translation is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I thought, you told me that you met her. Am I right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In opposite, without `вроде`, this phrase becomes the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have you ever told me, that you met her?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="a9337650-8bc7-4903-a874-7ff0501ecbcc" CreationDate="2014-06-11T20:47:07.433" UserId="3848" Text="@Dmitry is correct for the asked question ( I can't add a comment due to lack of rep ), just wanted to expand on the use of the word 'вроде' ( adding uncertainty/fuzziness ) here's another use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она́ писа́ла что́-то вро́де мемуáров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She was writing something like (or something that resembled) memorandums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты же вро́де как сдал на права́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haven't you passed your driving test?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/vocabulary/vrode_like.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="10f455d5-a091-4bf0-b2d4-26e47281a014" CreationDate="2014-06-12T02:13:36.540" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`согласно вашего запроса` is sometimes used as a bureaucratism (not sure about proper word, we call it канцеляризм). It is NOT correct in common speech, but you can see it in some official responses, or in interviews with officials, and it's kind of OK. But really, don't use it. `согласно` always go with Dative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2155" RevisionGUID="caca6808-bac1-4e74-825b-804d88391133" CreationDate="2014-06-12T03:53:25.463" UserId="551" Comment="Intraword ** works incorrectly" Text="Another meaning of the Russian preposition &quot;с&quot; when used with the instrumental case is expressing associations, rather than spacial or temporal closeness. English &quot;with&quot; expresses a similar meaning in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't have anything to do **with** this. (я тут ни при чём)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the meaning changes based on context: compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю что делать с лопатой. (I don't know what to do with a shovel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю что делать с головной болью. (I don't know what to do *about* my headache.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am assuming that your question is not about the double negative in the reader's translation: that's commonplace in Russian - &quot;&lt;b&gt;ни&lt;/b&gt;чего &lt;b&gt;не&lt;/b&gt; могу сделать&quot; becomes &quot;cannot do anything&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="1e4810a5-43ed-480f-97aa-ecaa282650f0" CreationDate="2014-06-12T13:19:32.850" UserId="3859" Text="It means &quot;similar to&quot;, &quot;like&quot; or &quot;apparently&quot;. Much akin to the English word &quot;like&quot; in the teenage contingent of the California Valley, it can be a parasite in speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="760feb0b-e3b5-47c4-8e5e-bbf04a8b6f92" CreationDate="2014-06-12T13:24:58.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/477079111253241856" />
  <row Id="15080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="dd31b819-b2de-49d3-90d8-8cef1e172c39" CreationDate="2014-06-12T13:43:46.737" UserId="3892" Text="In this comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наталья, я не выношу пауков. Поэтому я их, да, выношу. Глупо было бы жену просить, так? Остальных я выношу, и **потому разве** что &quot;выпускаю&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="dd31b819-b2de-49d3-90d8-8cef1e172c39" CreationDate="2014-06-12T13:43:46.737" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of потому разве" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="dd31b819-b2de-49d3-90d8-8cef1e172c39" CreationDate="2014-06-12T13:43:46.737" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="479b4b59-eeaa-426b-8a23-1607f148039d" CreationDate="2014-06-12T14:02:24.577" UserId="3961" Text="I do not know where have you found the comment, but I can say that the sentence &quot;Остальных я выношу, и потому разве что &quot;выпускаю&quot;&quot; is wrong. So there is no meaning at all.  &#xD;&#xA;It is better to say &quot;Наталья, я не терплю пауков, но я их выношу (на улицу). Глупо было бы просить об этом жену, правильно? Я их выношу и выпускаю (на волю).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I am not linguistic guy, just a native speaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S I have never heard sentence &quot;потому разве&quot; before. The right phrases are &quot;потому что&quot;, &quot;разве что&quot; )) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="d14e30ee-9f9e-4d24-8d90-f004a9e76486" CreationDate="2014-06-12T14:36:44.560" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't understand what вроде adds to this question. Can someone translate or paraphrase it for me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты вроде говорил, что встречал её?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="28832b48-13fb-4c22-9abe-a1840706e962" CreationDate="2014-06-12T19:50:50.770" UserId="115" Text="`вроде` in this case is expressing uncertainty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты вроде говорил, что встречал её?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You seem to have said that you have met her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Haven't you said that you have met her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you omit `вроде`, then it is simply a question: &quot;Have you said that you have met her?&quot; With `вроде` the sentence is expressing doubt: &quot;I thought you said that you've met her, but I am not sure&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="85e810a1-ebbb-4f3e-8091-58a62fa13a49" CreationDate="2014-06-12T20:25:00.870" UserId="3892" Text="Is this word pronounced [ˈbuttɐ] or [ˈbutɐ] ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="85e810a1-ebbb-4f3e-8091-58a62fa13a49" CreationDate="2014-06-12T20:25:00.870" UserId="3892" Text="Pronunciation of БУДТО" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="85e810a1-ebbb-4f3e-8091-58a62fa13a49" CreationDate="2014-06-12T20:25:00.870" UserId="3892" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="e423608f-784e-4dfc-b5ed-251bea02eb97" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:42:34.693" UserId="2273" Text="I would use [ˈbuttɐ] if this word is on its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    После армии его будто подменили: он возмужал и стал по-другому смотреть на жизнь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the latter in `как будто`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Давай представим, как будто сейчас восемнадцатый век: нет ни компьютеров, ни телефонов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="acce3c3b-696e-4bb5-960a-2c662b6e268e" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:44:56.280" UserId="3886" Text="[ˈbuttɐ] : It has a double 't' and ends with short 'o'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="3203e507-11d1-406d-8547-3abd7b5d3011" CreationDate="2014-06-12T22:46:40.413" UserId="3680" Text="Definitely, the first pronunciation (`[ˈbuttɐ]`) is correct.  &#xD;&#xA;Double-`t` sounds like a long `t`. Tongue touches the palate, **sleeps for a moment** and untouches it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="124062aa-5f35-4652-a289-19e27efb0de5" CreationDate="2014-06-12T23:51:11.273" UserId="3859" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="It means &quot;similar to&quot;, &quot;like&quot; or &quot;apparently&quot;. Much akin to the English word &quot;like&quot; in the teenage contingent of the California Valley, it can be a parasite in speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ты вроде говорил, что встречал её?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Didn't you say that you had met her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I believe you had said you had met her, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="f26c337f-ea64-4dae-b1c5-39dc695448b3" CreationDate="2014-06-13T01:25:01.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/477260317936717824" />
  <row Id="15099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6725" RevisionGUID="f79265bd-ab61-453d-90b3-a4ef10120eb7" CreationDate="2014-06-13T10:52:46.537" UserId="194" Text="***Один, два, три*** is usually used when counting items, things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Раз, два, три*** is usually used when counting events (say, time in seconds, ticks) or actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the later case one can interpret it as being a contraction of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[один] раз, два [раза], три [раза]*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc, literally ***[one] time, two [times], three [times]***. So counting objects rather than actions starting with ***раз*** is somewhat incorrect, yet sometemes used colloquially. Counting actions rather than items starting with ***один*** also sounds weird although if the action has masculine gender (like in прыжок, отжим), one can assume ***один*** be related to it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="2d9ccdcf-df89-4420-8414-23b9d333d270" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:14:46.037" UserId="487" Text="In a social context, рекомендовать means to introduce people to somebody. At first I thought is was a complete false-friend, however now I see this, they might not be that far appart. For instance, if you were introducing a commercial product, you probably would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I recommend/advise you read* **X** *book*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you say рекомендовать, is this a biased introduction of somebody? Like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recommend you this person, I know who this person is and it will be beneficial to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and not just introducing the person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="2d9ccdcf-df89-4420-8414-23b9d333d270" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:14:46.037" UserId="487" Text="Has рекомендовать something to do with &quot;recommend&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="2d9ccdcf-df89-4420-8414-23b9d333d270" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:14:46.037" UserId="487" Text="|этимология|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="d33142bb-1ed5-48b2-bd18-55d783890dc6" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:44:29.757" UserId="551" Text="Below is a definition of the word **Рекомендовать** from Словарь иностранных слов. As you can see, unbiased recommendation (3.) is now marked as outdated. Modern meaning is &quot;I recommend you X, because he/she/it is useful/beneficial to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;РЕКОМЕНДОВА́ТЬ, ду́ю, ду́ет, несов. и сов. [польск. rekomendować &lt; ср.-лат. recommendare &lt; лат. mandāre поручать].  &#xD;&#xA;1. кого-что.Давать (дать) благоприятный отзыв о ком-чем-н., предлагать (предложить) использовать, принять куда-н. и т. п.Р. опытного работника. Р. кого-н. на должность заведующего.&#xD;&#xA;2. что и с инфин.Советовать.Врачи не рекомендуют мне отдыхать на юге.  &#xD;&#xA;3. кого (что), устар.Знакомя с кем-н., называть (назвать), представлять (представить).Рекомендую вам мое семейство: жена, дочь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="c94551e2-2b03-47d4-b831-4f14f6f10ff6" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:54:46.340" UserId="551" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="Below is a definition of the word **Рекомендовать** from Словарь иностранных слов. As you can see, unbiased recommendation (3.) is now marked as outdated. Modern meaning is &quot;I recommend you X, because he/she/it is useful/beneficial to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;РЕКОМЕНДОВА́ТЬ, ду́ю, ду́ет, несов. и сов. [польск. rekomendować &lt; ср.-лат. recommendare &lt; лат. mandāre поручать].  &#xD;&#xA;1. кого-что.Давать (дать) благоприятный отзыв о ком-чем-н., предлагать (предложить) использовать, принять куда-н. и т. п.Р. опытного работника. Р. кого-н. на должность заведующего.&#xD;&#xA;2. что и с инфин.Советовать.Врачи не рекомендуют мне отдыхать на юге.  &#xD;&#xA;3. кого (что), устар.Знакомя с кем-н., называть (назвать), представлять (представить).Рекомендую вам мое семейство: жена, дочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several ethymologic dictionaries claim that the word is borrowed around 1705 from Polish language ([rekomendować](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/vasmer/46508)). However Словарь Ушакова marks this word as [borrowed from French language](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1008398#%D0%A0%D0%95%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%9C%D0%95%D0%9D%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%AC0)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="73f2f381-3221-4e2d-b8e2-d4a4aae37c74" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:58:36.277" UserId="3859" Text="    ..потому, разве что, выпускаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ..that's why, I let them go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве что&quot; is a meaningless idiom in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually employed as &quot;unless&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я не люблю колбасу, разве что, когда очень голодный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="b7883e32-a527-4f4a-a24a-125d13bb9519" CreationDate="2014-06-13T13:03:27.683" UserId="3859" Text=" - Пытатся - To make an attempt&#xD;&#xA; - Пробовать - To sample something (try a new dish), also to make an&#xD;&#xA;   attempt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="52640488-2f46-4f2d-a429-84f6b29a3a2e" CreationDate="2014-06-13T19:01:39.847" UserId="194" Text="Рекомендовать always means to advise in modern Russian. So it cannot be used as unmarked &quot;to introduce&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="cb412ccf-22db-4102-bd2a-1fc77776efca" CreationDate="2014-06-13T22:28:31.583" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In a social context, рекомендовать means to introduce people to somebody. At first I thought is was a complete false-friend, however now I see that they might not be that far apart. For instance, if you were introducing a commercial product, you probably would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I recommend/advise you read* **X** *book*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you say рекомендовать, is this a biased introduction of somebody? Like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recommend you this person, I know who this person is and it will be beneficial to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and not just introducing the person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="eaa7cc07-7308-48cf-8068-7cca30118f89" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:43:29.400" UserId="3892" Text="I know they can all be translated as *something*, and I know that **что-то** differs from **что-нибудь** in that it refers to something concrete, but not mentioned (whereas the former refers to anything at all) - but that's *all* I know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="eaa7cc07-7308-48cf-8068-7cca30118f89" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:43:29.400" UserId="3892" Text="What is the difference between что-то, нечто и кое-что?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="eaa7cc07-7308-48cf-8068-7cca30118f89" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:43:29.400" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="d7f045c7-034b-4c0e-b11e-5987d5f36d95" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:51:01.920" UserId="3892" Text="For example, in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там паук ждёт, пока в лову́шку не попадётся небольшое насеко́мое вроде ба́бочки или стрекозы́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¿Could this just as well be expressed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там паук ждёт, пока в лову́шку не попадётся небольшое насеко́мое как ба́бочка или стрекоза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="d7f045c7-034b-4c0e-b11e-5987d5f36d95" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:51:01.920" UserId="3892" Text="Are как and вроде interchangeable when citing or listing things or examples of things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="d7f045c7-034b-4c0e-b11e-5987d5f36d95" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:51:01.920" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="40b6f611-5719-490d-853d-e6a3091e676e" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:51:30.600" UserId="3971" Text="``что-то`` would be normally used when the speaker has no knowledge of what the object is, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    кажется, я что-то вижу - I think I see something&#xD;&#xA;    что-то не так - something is not right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` would be used to name one unknown item that belongs to a category/set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    дай мне что-нибудь [выпить] - give me something [to drink] - from a set of drinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` also replaces ``что-то`` in questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Ты что-нибудь видишь? - Do you see anything?&#xD;&#xA;    - Да, что-то вижу - Yes, I see something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="608f45b0-af4c-4357-88f7-54a8bb3e1c33" CreationDate="2014-06-14T19:56:59.030" UserId="3971" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="``что-то`` would be normally used when the speaker has no knowledge of what the object is, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    кажется, я что-то вижу - I think I see something&#xD;&#xA;    что-то не так - something is not right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` would be used to name one unknown item that belongs to a category/set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    дай мне что-нибудь [выпить] - give me something [to drink] - from a set of drinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` also replaces ``что-то`` in questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Ты что-нибудь видишь? - Do you see anything?&#xD;&#xA;    - Да, что-то вижу - Yes, I see something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``кое-что`` is generally synonymous to ``что-то``, but can be used to express eagerness of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - У меня кое-что для тебя есть! - I have something for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``нечто`` can is a deprecated form of ``что-то``, but now has an additional meaning of surprise/excitement, in this meaning it can be translated as ``thing``:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Это нечто удивительное! - This is [something] wonderful! / This is a wonderful thing!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Он просто нечто - He's just so cool/great (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6734" RevisionGUID="57df0968-ef5e-4ad5-9bda-dfc0704e0c4b" CreationDate="2014-06-14T20:02:23.820" UserId="3971" Text="No, ``как`` can't be used to equally replace ``вроде``.  In this sentence, ``вроде`` means ``such as``, and can be replaced with a clause beginning with ``такое как``: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Там паук ждёт, пока в лову́шку не попадётся небольшое насеко́мое, такое как ба́бочка или стрекоза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(note the case change here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="1093b4e9-1fa5-4cf5-9002-8a4e6f6502d6" CreationDate="2014-06-15T14:07:48.080" UserId="3971" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="``что-то`` would be normally used when the speaker has no knowledge of what the object is, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    кажется, я что-то вижу - I think I see something&#xD;&#xA;    что-то не так - something is not right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` would be used to name one unknown item that belongs to a category/set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    дай мне что-нибудь [выпить] - give me something [to drink] - from a set of drinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` also replaces ``что-то`` in questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Ты что-нибудь видишь? - Do you see anything?&#xD;&#xA;    - Да, что-то вижу - Yes, I see something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``кое-что`` is generally synonymous to ``что-то``, but can be used to express eagerness of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - У меня кое-что для тебя есть! - I have something for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``нечто`` is a deprecated form of ``что-то``, but now has an additional meaning of surprise/excitement, in this meaning it can be translated as ``thing``:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Это нечто удивительное! - This is [something] wonderful! / This is a wonderful thing!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Он просто нечто - He's just so cool/great (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="d8217c69-95e2-452d-9b76-0f9bd893a565" CreationDate="2014-06-15T16:04:23.357" UserId="3892" Text="In this comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваша фраза супер!: &quot;Чуть ли не все два читателя исправили эти имена, порекомендовали варианты или другое склонение.&quot; Именно противопоставление определенного количества &quot;два&quot; и неопределенного &quot;чуть ли не&quot; -- и дает эту изюминку!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="d8217c69-95e2-452d-9b76-0f9bd893a565" CreationDate="2014-06-15T16:04:23.357" UserId="3892" Text="What does давать изюминку mean? Give a raisin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="d8217c69-95e2-452d-9b76-0f9bd893a565" CreationDate="2014-06-15T16:04:23.357" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15123" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="5a5e0faa-1f2e-4e25-9fe0-ed095988890f" CreationDate="2014-06-15T16:30:33.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/478212981504102400" />
  <row Id="15124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="466d18b6-a3be-40b2-862d-1f2135c9ca21" CreationDate="2014-06-15T16:34:57.943" UserId="3971" Text="``иметь изюминку`` (``having a raisin``) means same as ``salting`` in ``The book is a little dull, and needs salting with some interesting examples`` - &quot;having one extremely interesting / standing out feature that makes the whole object much more interesting&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, is said that peculiar use of numerals is what provides that ``изюминку``, a.k.a. ``salting``." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="940d4bf8-8cb4-4c93-ab61-d36b64c965df" CreationDate="2014-06-15T22:11:08.523" UserId="3892" Text="In this comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас в первый раз слушаю )) **Да и то**, если бы не знал что они поют - в жизни бы не догадался." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="940d4bf8-8cb4-4c93-ab61-d36b64c965df" CreationDate="2014-06-15T22:11:08.523" UserId="3892" Text="What is the meaning of да и то?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="940d4bf8-8cb4-4c93-ab61-d36b64c965df" CreationDate="2014-06-15T22:11:08.523" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15128" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="da4030d4-ead4-41cf-be67-800fc27280d9" CreationDate="2014-06-15T22:30:34.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/478303579636129794" />
  <row Id="15129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="4289e870-5ec1-4856-bc8c-9bd7d91bb6b8" CreationDate="2014-06-15T22:41:29.870" UserId="3892" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="In this comment, obviously about a song: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас в первый раз слушаю )) **Да и то**, если бы не знал что они поют - в жизни бы не догадался." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="711d8058-f572-4254-833f-b549cffef441" CreationDate="2014-06-16T12:15:26.437" UserId="194" Text="&quot;And still&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And even given that&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Moreover&quot; - in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="2f679ef5-412d-45c8-9900-9bf441b3f7e6" CreationDate="2014-06-16T13:45:58.453" UserId="1571" Text="I'm having difficulty understanding when to use &quot;Я&quot; and when to use &quot;мне&quot;.  In the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу книга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;Я&quot; meaning `I`.  But in the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно книга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;Мне&quot; meaning `I`.  Why don't we use &quot;Я&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="2f679ef5-412d-45c8-9900-9bf441b3f7e6" CreationDate="2014-06-16T13:45:58.453" UserId="1571" Text="&quot;я&quot; и &quot;мне&quot; използавание" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="2f679ef5-412d-45c8-9900-9bf441b3f7e6" CreationDate="2014-06-16T13:45:58.453" UserId="1571" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="77ca0f64-9797-48ea-b996-f6f34dbbd134" CreationDate="2014-06-16T13:52:15.847" UserId="3892" Text="My dictionary(s) define(s) **безусловный** as *unconditional*. Given that meaning, I don't know how to interpret it in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я прочла дискуссию о &quot;коль скоро&quot;. У меня есть своё мнение. Для меня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; является безусловным, что только для хорошо образованного человека&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребление этого выражения не может являться проблемой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="77ca0f64-9797-48ea-b996-f6f34dbbd134" CreationDate="2014-06-16T13:52:15.847" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of безусловный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="77ca0f64-9797-48ea-b996-f6f34dbbd134" CreationDate="2014-06-16T13:52:15.847" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="c5c61186-e050-417e-956b-d640cff35dc9" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:04:23.030" UserId="3892" Text="**Мне** actually means &quot;to me&quot; and is in the dative case, whereas **я** means &quot;I&quot; and is in the nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To review:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nominative is the case of the subject of the sentence. In this case **я**: &#xD;&#xA;The accusative is the case of the direct object - in this case книга ➝ **книгу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я** хочу книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dative is the case of the indirect object, i.e. the recipient - in this case я ➝ **мне**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне** нужна книга. (literally: to me (is) necessary (a) book)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="ebe1b41e-6720-48f4-ae08-fbf3273e4cf8" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:04:25.863" UserId="3620" Text="My partner's family all speak Russian, which is not my native language. I used to be in classes which helped me have regular practice at listening, but now that they are done, I'm finding myself in embarrassing situations with the family where I mistake one word for another (confusing &quot;как грибы?&quot; for &quot;как рыбы?&quot;, and saying they are good when I clearly have no mushrooms on my plate), or they will ask me questions and I didn't even understand one word. When everybody is speaking Russian I just stay silent now so I don't make a fool of myself, but this is getting to be a big problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading is a lot easier for me since I can go at my own pace, look back at parts that I don't understand, and skim for context. All if this is impossible in conversation, but I don't want to be mute around them forever. How can I improve my listening? Most movies and TV shows are difficult for me because they speak so quickly, but maybe there are some good ones for children that aren't boring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="ebe1b41e-6720-48f4-ae08-fbf3273e4cf8" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:04:25.863" UserId="3620" Text="How can I improve my listening comprehension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="ebe1b41e-6720-48f4-ae08-fbf3273e4cf8" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:04:25.863" UserId="3620" Text="|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6743" RevisionGUID="b5299273-8bba-4453-bb62-a04631d3d45f" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:05:11.190" UserId="3976" Text="In these context it means &quot;without a doubt&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6743" RevisionGUID="6d9dd8bd-963e-4f6e-a782-c1f7f3ed54ab" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:10:16.460" UserId="3976" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In this context it means &quot;without a doubt&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6744" RevisionGUID="68bcfbeb-cc04-423e-98b0-94d3ab275004" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:23:41.613" UserId="3848" Text="Once again, don't have the rep to add a comment to @CocoPop answer, this is only meant as an addition to what's already said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I want a book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужна книга. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need a book ( literally: [Myself | to me] needs [a] book ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нуждюсь в книге.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am in need of a book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="426fec28-9a34-4c9c-9c07-174ee3bdd3c0" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:31:13.413" UserId="899" Text="This expression is used in two distinct cases, which look very similar in English, but convey different intents in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. to speculate on a situation with a highly predictable outcome (this is what @Anixx refers to in the other answer)&#xD;&#xA;2. as a kind of disjunct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example is the first case; the speaker is confident that if he had no knowledge beforehand *[of the song content]* he would likely have not guessed on his own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate it directly as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am hearing it now for the first time. **But unless** I did know what they are singing about beforehand, I would have never guessed it in my whole life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two sentences to illustrate the concept of speculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу починить этот стол без инструментов. **Да и то**, если у меня и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; были они, не смог бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I cannot mend this table without instruments. **But even** if I had them, I could not do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я получил лучшую оценку в классе, потому что готовился всю ночь. **Да и то**, если и просто бы выспался, тоже был бы первым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I got the best mark in my class because I had been studying the whole night. **Although even** if I just slept well, I would have been the first one too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: This expression could be colloquially replaced with &quot;Но даже&quot; in this meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Но даже если бы и просто выспался, был бы первым&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning is used to neglect an action&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока сидели за чаем, он обратился к сестрам только раз, **да и то** с какими-то странными словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While [we/they] have had tea, he addressed the sisters only once, **and even then** with some odd words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or express a deceitful intent or confusion:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тогда он извлек множество смятых бумажек из кармана, но показал их не брату, а инспектору, **да и то** издали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Then he extracted a pile of crumpled papers from a pocket, but had shown them not to a brother, but to an inspector, **and even then** from afar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="8da10da5-62ee-4548-9c49-318cde8ffe03" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:35:14.573" UserId="551" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I'm having difficulty understanding when to use &quot;Я&quot; and when to use &quot;мне&quot;.  In the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу книгу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;Я&quot; meaning `I`.  But in the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужна книга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;Мне&quot; meaning `I`.  Why don't we use &quot;Я&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15146" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="8da10da5-62ee-4548-9c49-318cde8ffe03" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:35:14.573" UserId="551" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Использование &quot;я&quot; и &quot;мне&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="0ed1aa48-37b2-4401-b1c6-07b966e0a261" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:36:11.203" UserId="194" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&quot;And still&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And even given that&quot; - most literally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Moreover&quot; - in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="4b720c3e-dbc9-473f-9738-e806c46bdc31" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:42:24.560" UserId="551" Text="I think you can listen to audiobooks. Narrators won't speak as fast as actors in a movies. Or you can search for a book that is read slowly. Or you can find a software that slows down reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you'll be able to find a text version of the book and check if you understood correctly. And you'll also be able to check if the text is too hard for you to listen to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="421e11bc-e75d-46c8-bc63-af4e4f34df08" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:47:46.660" UserId="194" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&quot;And still&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And even given that&quot; - most literally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And even then&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Moreover&quot; - in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="1eaa0f20-5d86-4731-af18-f9fe1ca731ed" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:49:16.410" UserId="3620" Comment="edited body" Text="My partner's family all speak Russian, which is not my native language. I used to be in classes which helped me have regular practice at listening, but now that they are done, I'm finding myself in embarrassing situations with the family where I mistake one word for another (confusing &quot;как грибы?&quot; for &quot;как рыбы?&quot;, and saying they are good when I clearly have no mushrooms on my plate), or they will ask me questions and I didn't even understand one word. When everybody is speaking Russian I just stay silent now so I don't make a fool of myself, but this is getting to be a big problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading is a lot easier for me since I can go at my own pace, look back at parts that I don't understand, and skim for context. All of this is impossible in conversation, but I don't want to be mute around them forever. How can I improve my listening? Most movies and TV shows are difficult for me because they speak so quickly, but maybe there are some good ones for children that aren't boring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6743" RevisionGUID="b9141099-b37f-4def-89a2-f2327fcb7056" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:50:07.220" UserId="3976" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="In this context it means &quot;without a doubt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I read a discussion on &quot;коль скоро&quot;. I have my own opinion. For me &quot;there is no doubt&quot; that only for a well-educated person use of this expression can not be a problem.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6748" RevisionGUID="18a05bba-6c5b-41b7-90ed-fbb1ed4ea99f" CreationDate="2014-06-16T15:20:37.670" UserId="3971" Text="Use the free Media Player Classic to watch some movies/shows with subtitles and slightly slowed down audio - MPC will slow down speech without making audio sound bassy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="06203c1a-d8f7-4718-821a-bb604a602a00" CreationDate="2014-06-16T15:24:20.710" UserId="2269" Text="As Artemix said, audiobooks may be very useful, but to my mind radio theatre, which is usually distinguished from audiobooks, will be more useful for training comprehension since actors are _talking_ with each other, while in audiobook a narrator just read exactly what was written (often in language which is very far from colloquial). And as I said in comment there is nothing wrong to slow them down a bit if they are still too fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, for example, at Borys Karlov’s collection [[part I]](http://sheba.spb.ru/radio.htm) [[part II]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds.htm) [[part III]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds2.htm) for selected few or at http://www.staroeradio.ru/ for more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for general tips – there is nothing language-specific in your question. So if you have not found in the Internet any advice on comprehension of Russian, why don’t you google around how to improve listening skills in any language (English maybe) – links will be useless but common learning techniques will be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="306a4573-8990-4c80-a16a-26557148991c" CreationDate="2014-06-16T15:34:22.783" UserId="2269" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="As Artemix said, audiobooks may be very useful, but to my mind radio theatre, which is usually distinguished from audiobooks, would be more useful for training comprehension since in drama actors are _talking_ with each other, while in audiobook a narrator just read exactly what was written in a book (often in language which is very far from colloquial). But it would be more difficult to find exact text version of play if it is adapted from a novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as I said in comment, there is nothing wrong to slow a play down a bit if it is still too fast for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Look, for example, at Borys Karlov’s collection [[part I]](http://sheba.spb.ru/radio.htm) [[part II]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds.htm) [[part III]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds2.htm) for selected few or at http://www.staroeradio.ru/ for more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for general tips – there is nothing language-specific in your question. So if you have not found in the Internet any advice on comprehension of Russian, why don’t you google around how to improve listening skills in any language (English maybe) – links will be useless but learning techniques will be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="a227680f-b28e-4f32-9778-df02eb27e62f" CreationDate="2014-06-16T15:41:44.250" UserId="2269" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="As Artemix said, audiobooks (_аудиокниги_) may be very useful, but to my mind radio theatre (_радиоспектакли_), which is usually distinguished from audiobooks, would be more useful for training comprehension since in drama actors are _talking_ with each other, while in audiobook a narrator just read exactly what was written in a book (often in language which is very far from colloquial). But it would be more difficult to find exact text version of play if it is adapted from a novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as I said in comment, there is nothing wrong to slow a play down a bit if it is still too fast for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, for example, at Borys Karlov’s collection [[part I]](http://sheba.spb.ru/radio.htm) [[part II]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds.htm) [[part III]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds2.htm) for selected few or at [_“Старое радио”_](http://www.staroeradio.ru/) for more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for general tips – there is nothing language-specific in your question. So if you have not found in the Internet any advice on comprehension of Russian, why don’t you google around how to improve listening skills in any language (English maybe) – links will be useless but learning techniques will be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6749" RevisionGUID="ad55fe8d-722c-4b3f-8620-3fdfd53f4667" CreationDate="2014-06-16T15:55:20.713" UserId="2269" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="As Artemix said, audiobooks (_аудиокниги_) may be very useful, but to my mind radio theatre (_радиоспектакли_), which is usually distinguished from audiobooks, would be more useful for training comprehension since in drama actors are _talking_ with each other, while in audiobook a narrator just read exactly what was written in a book (often in language which is very far from colloquial). But it would be more difficult to find exact text version of play if it is adapted from a novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as I said in comment, there is nothing wrong to slow a play down a bit if it is still too fast for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look, for example, at Borys Karlov’s collection [[part I]](http://sheba.spb.ru/radio.htm) [[part II]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds.htm) [[part III]](http://mp3-kniga.ru/rds2.htm) for selected few or at [_“Старое радио”_](http://www.staroeradio.ru/) for more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shows for kids may help if you have small vocabulary not if you have difficulty in comprehension. If children take part in show it make things even worse – child accent is quite peculiar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for general tips – there is nothing language-specific in your question. So if you have not found in the Internet any advice on comprehension of Russian, why don’t you google around how to improve listening skills in any language (English maybe) – links will be useless but learning techniques will be the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="5b4f7f0c-8106-4bcf-a622-0768f449a4a0" CreationDate="2014-06-16T16:21:56.943" UserId="3892" Text="I can tell you as an American in your predicament not long ago, that I really benefitted from the tons of dialogs on the (free) site, learnrussian.rt.com for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. they speak at a very normal and natural conversational speed. Slow, word-for-word, unnatural Russian never got me anywhere;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the conversations aren't translated into English - so you won't be distracted by looking at English text while listening to good Russian;&#xD;&#xA; 3. the conversations are only partly written out in Russian and you have to listen carefully and supply the missing words - GREAT TRAINING! This is the part that really helped me start to pick out individual words in actual speech;&#xD;&#xA; 4. There are a bunch of other exercise that are both fun and reinforce grammar, vocabulary, etc. and you can get a free account and track your progress, which is a great boost as you work through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend that you start from Lesson 1 (there are actually 100 audio-packed lessons!) to let your ear get accustomed to the three or four speakers. By the time you get to Lesson 5, you won't believe how much you understand, not only on the site, but in movies, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an added reinforcement to your study, once you're familiar with a conversation, go back and shadow the speakers with a slight delay. &quot;shadowing&quot; is best done with earphones, walking around, and really works. (Find out about shadowing [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mezzoguild.com/language-shadowing-a-superior-learning-method/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="16f23d38-3b30-4a01-aad9-7d55cb8b8362" CreationDate="2014-06-16T16:30:57.163" UserId="2060" Text="The reason behind the inversion in your second example is that _нужна_ is not a verb _need_. It is a modal predicative construct similar to adjective. So, in English it would be close to _a book is necessary to me_. And _to me_ is _мне_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="dee3fa08-06e4-40dc-8e97-f7677f22c0ff" CreationDate="2014-06-16T17:11:37.040" UserId="2060" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="The reason behind the inversion in your second example is that _нужна_ is not a verb _need_. It is a modal predicative construction similar to adjective. So, in English it would be close to _a book is necessary to me_. And _to me_ is _мне_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice you need to know these constructions by heart, but I guess identifying the parts of speech would help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="650bffca-0e71-4c0e-9bf1-ebc5bb8287af" CreationDate="2014-06-16T18:12:25.027" UserId="551" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="I highly recommend to read CocoPop's answer, since he is learning Russian, while most others are native speakers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you may want to check out [Resources for learing Russian](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/551) for educational podcasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I think you can listen to audiobooks. Narrators won't speak as fast as actors in a movies. Or you can search for a book that is read slowly. Or you can find a software that slows down reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you'll be able to find a text version of the book and check if you understood correctly. And you'll also be able to check if the text is too hard for you to listen to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="8d9fdaec-77e7-4a36-8d94-0e706687d183" CreationDate="2014-06-16T20:56:46.120" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="&quot;And still&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And even given that&quot; - most literally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;And even then&quot; - in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15163" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="be6565b3-11c0-4771-b4fd-24ca2122f745" CreationDate="2014-06-16T22:41:48.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/478668793900572672" />
  <row Id="15164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="19d28859-ca6d-46c7-bf96-35eb8c8bf165" CreationDate="2014-06-17T02:26:59.567" UserId="115" Text="The trick here is to note what is the subject of the sentence. In &quot;Мне нужна книга&quot; the subject is actually the book.  Hence книга is in the nominative case, and мне is in the dative case. Spanish has a similar construction with the word &quot;necesito&quot;. The subject is the thing that is necessary, and not the person to whom it is necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you see such forms quite often.  Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравится эта книга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same idea: in the Russian sentence the book is the subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="75217639-52a4-4481-9508-1f7a3aa7a62f" CreationDate="2014-06-17T08:16:30.713" UserId="3979" Text="I think you can use the method I practiced long ago when studying English. I took a bunch of songs of my favorite genre (rock) and found lyrics for all of them. Then read them carefully to understand the text and to remember it. Then I start to listen music and lyrics many times practicing my comprehension (knowing what words are to be heard) and, later, my pronunciation (singing, copying the vocalist). It's easy to take a practice while driving a car and it's a fun way to study the language. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="3cc154aa-25be-493a-9008-d16727f501e7" CreationDate="2014-06-17T10:41:53.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/478850007655649280" />
  <row Id="15168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6751" RevisionGUID="8a7361de-b76b-4cd6-a9c6-366fabcdd2b3" CreationDate="2014-06-17T11:04:29.920" UserId="2060" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The reason behind the inversion in your second example is that _нужна_ is not a verb (_need_). It is a modal predicative construction similar to adjective. So, in English it would be close to _a book is necessary to me_. And _to me_ is _мне_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice you need to know these constructions by heart, but I guess identifying the parts of speech would help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="d5e70fdf-244e-4c58-bb6b-59f8214f7650" CreationDate="2014-06-17T12:51:27.313" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I can tell you as an American in your predicament not long ago, that I really benefitted from the tons of dialogs on the (free) site, learnrussian.rt.com for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. they speak at a very normal and natural conversational speed. Slow, word-for-word, unnatural Russian never got me anywhere;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the conversations aren't translated into English - so you won't be distracted by looking at English text while listening to good Russian;&#xD;&#xA; 3. the conversations are only partly written out in Russian and you have to listen carefully and supply the missing words - GREAT TRAINING! This is the part that really helped me start to pick out individual words in actual speech;&#xD;&#xA; 4. There are a bunch of other exercises that are both fun and reinforce grammar, vocabulary, etc. and you can get a free account and track your progress, which is a great boost as you work through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend that you start from Lesson 1 (there are actually 100 audio-packed lessons!) to let your ear get accustomed to the three or four speakers. By the time you get to Lesson 5, you won't believe how much you understand, not only on the site, but in movies, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an added reinforcement to your study, once you're familiar with a conversation, go back and shadow the speakers with a slight delay. &quot;shadowing&quot; is best done with earphones, walking around, and really works. (Find out about shadowing [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mezzoguild.com/language-shadowing-a-superior-learning-method/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="f96ce84c-caff-46dd-9166-178e7590a709" CreationDate="2014-06-17T13:36:07.003" UserId="3892" Text="Can спешить replace торопиться in this sentence, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “на вашем месте я не **торопился** бы критиковать все направо и налево…”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="f96ce84c-caff-46dd-9166-178e7590a709" CreationDate="2014-06-17T13:36:07.003" UserId="3892" Text="Is there any difference between торопиться и спешить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="f96ce84c-caff-46dd-9166-178e7590a709" CreationDate="2014-06-17T13:36:07.003" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6755" RevisionGUID="6a60de53-a4de-471c-8c88-6ebfc4092d59" CreationDate="2014-06-17T13:48:26.787" UserId="97" Text="_Спешить_ and _торопиться_ are synonyms and there's no real difference in their meaning.  I'm struggling to come up with an example where it would be appropriate to use one word but not the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, in the sentence you provided, you could substitute _спешить_ for _торопиться_ without any change in the meaning, not even the slightest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “на вашем месте я не торопился бы критиковать все направо и налево…”  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “на вашем месте я не спешил бы критиковать все направо и налево…”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** you can see in the synonyms dictionary that _торопиться_ is the first word listed for _спешить_: http://словарь-синонимов.рф/words/спешить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="69a604e7-bfd2-4409-9dc8-ece54beeb3fe" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:00:35.837" UserId="2269" Text="In the general case the only pattern, that came into my mind, when you can not interchange _спеши́ть_ and _торопи́ться_ is a talking about a gaining clock:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Часы спешат на пять минут [_The watch is five minutes fast_]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but extremly rare _часы торопятся_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6755" RevisionGUID="51a897f8-27b9-431c-8c40-e9c9bb423c92" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:05:00.533" UserId="97" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="_Спешить_ and _торопиться_ are synonyms and there's no real difference in their meaning.  I'm struggling to come up with an example where it would be appropriate to use one word but not the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, in the sentence you provided, you could substitute _спешить_ for _торопиться_ without any change in the meaning, not even the slightest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “на вашем месте я не торопился бы критиковать все направо и налево…”  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “на вашем месте я не спешил бы критиковать все направо и налево…”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** you can see in the synonyms dictionary that _торопиться_ is the first word listed for _спешить_: http://словарь-синонимов.рф/words/спешить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 2:** @DmitryAlexandrov brought up a very good example where these words are not interchangeable, but generally they totally are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="b4f7a312-0d95-4ea5-8b04-f720e3a5ccd3" CreationDate="2014-06-17T16:47:47.997" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The trick here is to note what is the subject of the sentence. In &quot;Мне нужна книга&quot; the subject is actually the book.  Hence книга is in the nominative case, and мне is in the dative case. Spanish has a similar construction &quot;Necesito un libro.&quot; The subject is the thing that is necessary, and not the person to whom it is necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you see such forms quite often.  Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравится эта книга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same idea: in the Russian sentence the book is the subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="67fe43b6-dd8f-4c25-a3ab-802749332350" CreationDate="2014-06-17T19:41:43.107" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 56 characters in body" Text="The trick here is to note what is the subject of the sentence. In &quot;Мне нужна книга&quot; the subject is actually the book.  Hence книга is in the nominative case, and мне is in the dative case. The subject is the thing that is necessary, and not the person to whom it is necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you see such forms quite often.  Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравится эта книга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same idea: in the Russian sentence the book is the subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="56c909eb-cd10-4688-979c-32b247c75756" CreationDate="2014-06-18T11:46:03.800" UserId="3985" Text="For example when you go to get new job, you will be given a &quot;тестовое задание&quot;. How to translate this combination of words into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="56c909eb-cd10-4688-979c-32b247c75756" CreationDate="2014-06-18T11:46:03.800" UserId="3985" Text="How correctly traslate into English &quot;тестовое задание&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="56c909eb-cd10-4688-979c-32b247c75756" CreationDate="2014-06-18T11:46:03.800" UserId="3985" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6759" RevisionGUID="e22c81ff-4ba6-4b1f-a22c-604f2f79699f" CreationDate="2014-06-18T11:50:11.480" UserId="267" Text="I would translate **&quot;тестовое задание&quot;** as **&quot;an aptitude test (for job applicants)&quot;**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="f17f5e6f-d7db-41db-85b9-3c5e84549cbb" CreationDate="2014-06-18T12:35:48.277" UserId="97" Text="This type of question is definitely off-topic on this site.  However to help you out, the right translation is _test assignment_ or _trial assignment_. I work as a manager in the software development organisation in England.  When I look for new people, part of the selection process is _technical test_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a candidate is hired, they will typically be given some _test assignments_ (in my previous job we called them _trial assignments_) to confirm that they can really do the work expected of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="5fb8d3d6-803c-4630-9c3d-51e3cd49f8d8" CreationDate="2014-06-18T14:17:21.140" UserId="1236" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The trick here is to note what the subject of the sentence is. In `Мне нужна книга` the subject is, actually, `книга`. Hence, `книга` is in the nominative case, and `мне` is in the dative case. The subject is the thing that is necessary, and not the person to whom it is necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you see such forms quite often.  Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравится эта книга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same idea: in the Russian sentence the book is the subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="b1d6bfb7-48c8-4aa1-8c66-2b86b67ba4c3" CreationDate="2014-06-18T14:48:08.360" UserId="88" Text="We call it just 'test task', esp for IT-related positions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="916a3467-b147-4b4c-a520-376cd0b8c374" CreationDate="2014-06-18T16:56:14.710" UserId="3988" Text="If you do not mean romance, then it is better to say &quot;подходят друг другу&quot;, though wider context could give a better understanding&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6763" RevisionGUID="eed3d144-427a-4d70-b14e-470c8fbf776f" CreationDate="2014-06-18T16:58:16.713" UserId="3988" Text="To my mind only idiomatic use can show any difference, for instance, you can say &quot;поспешишь, людей насмешишь&quot; - and there is no other way to put it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="4b9278bc-de53-4416-bbb0-248a4a25da3d" CreationDate="2014-06-18T20:50:17.280" UserId="194" Text="There is some difference in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Торопись! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means drive, urge on yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Спеши!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really used. If used, I would understand it as &quot;be hurry in panic&quot;. I hardly can imagine where such meaning would be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15192" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="b2817d5c-79a3-47df-aeaa-093beee3a588" CreationDate="2014-06-18T21:01:13.270" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2269,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry Alexandrov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="8f7253a8-3e53-4819-82c7-ac3bc6494b02" CreationDate="2014-06-18T21:01:53.553" UserId="194" Comment="added 508 characters in body" Text="There is some difference in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Торопись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means drive, urge on yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спеши!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really used. If used, I would understand it as &quot;be hurry in panic&quot;. I hardly can imagine where such meaning would be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural it may be used in advertising of a performance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешите посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be hurry in panic to see the new performance because it is very interesting (one can instantly imagine crowds storming the circus or the theater, which is possibly the organizers agitate for). This usage is somewhat outdated I think, at least I encountered it only in books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Торопитесь посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means that you can be too late to see the performance because it will be ceased being shown in a few days. You are not agitated to run to the theater, losing your bags and glasses on the way, you just reminded that you may be too late maybe tomorrow or in a few days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="b4efaa2d-3aa4-41bf-9495-8f6198983c1b" CreationDate="2014-06-18T22:03:07.940" UserId="194" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="There is some difference in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Торопись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means drive, urge on yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спеши!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really used. If used, I would understand it as &quot;be hurry in panic&quot;. I hardly can imagine where such meaning would be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural it may be used in advertising of a performance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешите посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be hurry in panic to see the new performance because it is very interesting (one can instantly imagine crowds storming the circus or the theater, which is possibly the organizers agitate for). This usage is somewhat outdated I think, at least I encountered it only in books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Торопитесь посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means that you can be too late to see the performance because it will be ceased being shown in a few days. You are not agitated to run to the theater, losing your bags and glasses on the way, you just reminded that you may be too late maybe tomorrow or in a few days so that you possibly better to review your plans accordingly and postpone other deals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="9b107c98-2ced-4364-b999-9309c3d46ca5" CreationDate="2014-06-18T22:42:07.867" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="There is some difference in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Торопись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means drive, urge on yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спеши!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really used. If used, I would understand it as &quot;be hurry in panic&quot;. I hardly can imagine where such meaning would be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural it may be used in advertising of a performance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешите посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be hurry in panic to see the new performance because it is very interesting (one can instantly imagine crowds storming the circus or the theater, which is possibly the organizers agitate for). This usage is somewhat outdated I think, at least I encountered it only in books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Торопитесь посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means that you can be too late to see the performance because it will be ceased being shown in a few days. You are not agitated to run to the theater, losing your bags and glasses on the way, you just reminded that you may be too late maybe in a few days so that you possibly better to review your plans accordingly and postpone other deals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6765" RevisionGUID="0a49cf99-8baa-4eaa-bd2e-38c9822b15f8" CreationDate="2014-06-19T05:52:27.970" UserId="3992" Text="Just a side note - there is a saying: &quot;Торопись, не спеша&quot;, - which means &quot;Hurry up without hustle&quot; - so try to do things faster, but do not mess them up by doing so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15202" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="d0c8c1f4-acd3-4bfe-a4f7-069b39bad03e" CreationDate="2014-06-19T22:48:52.643" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/479757736880521216" />
  <row Id="15203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="0c260150-9adf-4543-a0ea-604e79d045ce" CreationDate="2014-06-20T04:56:10.817" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="There is some difference in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Торопись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means drive, urge on yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спеши!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really used. If used, I would understand it as &quot;be hurry in panic&quot;. I hardly can imagine where such meaning would be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural it may be used in advertising of a performance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешите посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be hurry in panic to see the new performance because it is very interesting (one can instantly imagine crowds storming the circus or the theater, which is possibly the organizers agitate for). This usage is somewhat outdated I think, at least I encountered it only in books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Торопитесь посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means that you can be too late to see the performance because it will be ceased being shown in a few days. You are not agitated to run to the theater, losing your bags and glasses on the way, you just reminded so that you possibly better to review your plans accordingly and postpone other deals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15204" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="101255bc-ddcf-49a0-87a4-f3a8fee19ff4" CreationDate="2014-06-20T19:48:52.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/480074825730236417" />
  <row Id="15205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6768" RevisionGUID="f8524d68-6e46-4b8c-9ed4-13145aa14204" CreationDate="2014-06-20T20:46:04.140" UserId="1266" Text="* часы (a clock) - часовой (e.g &quot;часовой магазин&quot; - clock shop)&#xD;&#xA;* час (an hour) - also часовой (e.g. &quot;часовой пояс&quot; - time zone)&#xD;&#xA;* вес (weight) - весовой (e.g. &quot;весовая категория&quot; - weight class)&#xD;&#xA;* весы (scales) - ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it also &quot;весовой&quot;? It sound a bit strange. But the phrase &quot;`весовое оборудование` - weighting equipment&quot; googles...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`LANG=ru`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как образовать прилагательное от &quot;весы&quot;? &quot;весовой&quot;, как с часами и часом? Не звучит (но гуглится)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6768" RevisionGUID="f8524d68-6e46-4b8c-9ed4-13145aa14204" CreationDate="2014-06-20T20:46:04.140" UserId="1266" Text="How to make an adjective from &quot;весы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6768" RevisionGUID="f8524d68-6e46-4b8c-9ed4-13145aa14204" CreationDate="2014-06-20T20:46:04.140" UserId="1266" Text="|выбор-слова|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="7b39b090-5e27-4b81-9907-e7db0af854fd" CreationDate="2014-06-20T21:45:25.767" UserId="2269" Text="Да, _весово́й_. Никакого другого прилагательного вы не образуете, за исключением случая, когда  _весы_ — это кто-то одушевленный, например, человек соответствующего знака зодиака. Тогда, вероятно, возможно образование притяжательного _весо́вий_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чем, собственно, проблема? Что вы хотите выразить при помощи «прилагательного от слова „весы“», что оно у вас «не звучит»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="f379b756-72a1-447f-8e96-1732494e056e" CreationDate="2014-06-20T21:59:54.303" UserId="2269" Comment="added 823 characters in body" Text="Да, _весово́й_. Никакого другого прилагательного вы не образуете, за исключением случая, когда  _весы_ — это кто-то одушевленный, например, человек соответствующего знака зодиака. Тогда, вероятно, возможно образование притяжательного _весо́вий_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чем, собственно, проблема? Что вы хотите выразить при помощи «прилагательного от слова „весы“», что оно у вас «не звучит»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Если вам нужны цитаты из словарей, то держите, (выделение везде мое):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; весовой  &#xD;&#xA;_прил._  &#xD;&#xA;1) Соотносящийся по знач. с сущ.: вес (1), связанный с ним.  &#xD;&#xA;2) Свойственный весу (1), характерный для него.  &#xD;&#xA;3) _разг._ Продаваемый и покупаемый на вес; развесной.  &#xD;&#xA;4) Соотносящийся по знач. с сущ.: **весы**, связанный с ним.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— словарь Ефремовой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; весовой  &#xD;&#xA;1. _см._ вес и **весы**.   &#xD;&#xA;2. Отпускаемый, продаваемый на вес, не поштучно. В. товар. В. хлеб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— словарь Ожегова—Шведовой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; весовой  &#xD;&#xA;1. см. Вес.  &#xD;&#xA;2. см. **Весы**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— «Большой толковый словарь» Кузнецова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; весовой  &#xD;&#xA;1. прил. к **весы**. Весовая гиря, стрелка.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Продаваемый на вес, а не поштучно (_спец._). Весовой товар. Весовой хлеб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— словарь Ушакова и вовсе удивляет отсутствием ссылки на _вес_, только на _весы_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="cbd7ccac-daf6-4403-8d88-f2210d6651a4" CreationDate="2014-06-20T22:20:00.250" UserId="3995" Text="Sometimes I see e written instead of ë&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this actually a common occurence in written Russian, or an acceptable version of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, even google translate will not use the diacritical character" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="cbd7ccac-daf6-4403-8d88-f2210d6651a4" CreationDate="2014-06-20T22:20:00.250" UserId="3995" Text="using written e instead of ë" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="cbd7ccac-daf6-4403-8d88-f2210d6651a4" CreationDate="2014-06-20T22:20:00.250" UserId="3995" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15213" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="81bb8598-57d9-4183-bc69-514fa954e431" CreationDate="2014-06-20T22:48:52.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/480120124117385217" />
  <row Id="15214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="6a4af943-8e2e-48c5-95da-43c9a6b6008c" CreationDate="2014-06-20T22:52:53.467" UserId="2388" Text="It is perfectly acceptable in modern Russian and you will rarely find any materials with consistently spelt Ё. The letter Ё has a difficult history: it was never really obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to always type it explicitly. But according to modern orthography it is completely acceptable to write **е** instead, except in foreign words, names which can be read incorrectly and other cases where the omission would lead to ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that people are lazy and omit it just everywhere, even when the omission leaves a reader guessing from context what you exactly mean — which stems from the fact that there are very few cases in the language where Ё is the only way to distinguish two words or word forms. So people just rely on your ability to figure out the meaning from the context. Does not help with the names, though (Соловьев/Соловьёв, Алехин, Хрущёв, Горбачёв) and rare words that speakers started to mispronounce (афера, свёкла, блёклый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter itself is a relatively recent innovation: ancient Russian used the sound [e] instead. There was no need for Ёю But then, curiously, in 13-14 century stressed ['e] became ['o] and [йэ] became [йо] after a soft consonant (but not before another 'soft' consonants!) This was long considered &quot;improper&quot; pronunciation (and not all dialects were affected), and &quot;е&quot; still was used in poetry as far as in 19 century but the modern Russian, as you might guess is based on accent that has Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Why does Russian have words like &quot;лес&quot; where stressed Е did not become Ё? The reason is, there was e-like sound [ѣ] in Russian which had long been become with the sound of letter &quot;е&quot; by 19 century (and especially by the end of 19 century) in the vast majority of dialects. It was horrible: schoolchildren had to memorise long mnemonic poems from words where you should spell the sound with [ѣ] (we would have to spell it &quot;Бѣдный блѣдный сѣрый бѣс убѣжал голодный в лѣс...&quot; if we were still sticking to spelling it differently). So the spelling reform was suggested (has been suggested since the end of the 19 century), and, well, after the revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks just accepted the project along with many other much more radical things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="ce1c29ef-d66f-4dc0-9679-f5341172d0e7" CreationDate="2014-06-20T22:58:16.557" UserId="2388" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="It is perfectly acceptable in modern Russian and you will rarely find any materials with consistently spelt Ё. The letter Ё has a difficult history: it was never really obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to always type it explicitly. But according to modern orthography it is completely acceptable to write **е** instead, except in foreign words, names which can be read incorrectly and other cases where the omission would lead to ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that people are lazy and omit it just everywhere, even when the omission leaves a reader guessing from context what you exactly mean — which stems from the fact that there are very few cases in the language where Ё is the only way to distinguish two words or word forms. So people just rely on your ability to figure out the meaning from the context. Does not help with the names, though (Соловьев/Соловьёв, Алехин, Хрущёв, Горбачёв) and rare words that speakers started to mispronounce (афера, свёкла, блёклый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a movement in support of Ё in recent years, and I kind of support the ideas that there is no real reason now to not show the difference (there aren't any keyboards that don't let you).. But, just like with the attempts of making English spelling system less ..er.. outdated (but reflecting the pronunciation of 15-16 century should make you proud :)) — I do not believe it is actually going to happen anytime soon. Just like with English spelling, people just get used to the words they see and use, and then you may spell them with or without proper Ё's — it does not matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter itself is a relatively recent innovation: ancient Russian used the sound [e] instead. There was no need for Ёю But then, curiously, in 13-14 century stressed ['e] became ['o] and [йэ] became [йо] after a soft consonant (but not before another 'soft' consonants!) This was long considered &quot;improper&quot; pronunciation (and not all dialects were affected), and &quot;е&quot; still was used in poetry as far as in 19 century but the modern Russian, as you might guess is based on accent that has Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Why does Russian have words like &quot;лес&quot; where stressed Е did not become Ё? The reason is, there was e-like sound [ѣ] in Russian which had long merged with the sound of letter &quot;е&quot; by 19 century (and especially by the end of 19 century) in the vast majority of dialects. It was horrible: schoolchildren had to memorise long mnemonic poems made up from words where you should spell the sound with [ѣ] (we would have to spell it &quot;Бѣдный блѣдный сѣрый бѣс убѣжал голодный в лѣс...&quot; if we were still sticking to spelling it differently). So the spelling reform was suggested (has been suggested since the end of the 19 century), and, well, after the revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks just accepted the project along with many other much more radical things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="f1291cd0-eede-452b-a7c6-7bdc466cced0" CreationDate="2014-06-21T01:25:13.243" UserId="2388" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="It is perfectly acceptable in modern Russian and you will rarely find any materials with consistently spelt Ё. The letter Ё has a difficult history: it was never really obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to always type it explicitly. But according to modern orthography it is completely acceptable to write **е** instead, except in foreign words, names which can be read incorrectly and other cases where the omission would lead to ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that people are lazy and omit it just everywhere, even when the omission leaves a reader guessing from context what you exactly mean — which stems from the fact that there are very few cases in the language where Ё is the only way to distinguish two words or word forms. So people just rely on your ability to figure out the meaning from the context. Does not help with the names, though (Соловьев/Соловьёв, Алехин, Хрущёв, Горбачёв) and rare words that speakers started to mispronounce (афера, свёкла, блёклый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a movement in support of Ё in recent years, and I kind of support the ideas that there is no real reason now to not show the difference (there aren't any keyboards that don't let you).. But, just like with the attempts of making English spelling system less ..er.. outdated (but reflecting the pronunciation of 15-16 century should make you proud :)) — I do not believe it is actually going to happen anytime soon. Just like with English spelling, people just get used to the words they see and use, and then you may spell them with or without proper Ё's — it does not matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter itself is a relatively recent innovation: Old East Slavic, the direct ancestor of Russian, used the sound [e] instead. There was no need for Ё. But then, curiously, around 13-14 century stressed ['e] became ['o] and [йэ] became [йо] after a soft consonant (but not before another 'soft' consonant!) This was long considered &quot;improper&quot; pronunciation (and not all dialects were affected), and &quot;е&quot; still was used in poetry as far as in 19 century but the more or less modern Russian, as you might guess is based on accent that has Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Why does Russian have words like &quot;лес&quot; where stressed Е did not become Ё? The reason is, there used to be another e-like sound [ѣ] in Russian which had long merged with the sound of letter &quot;е&quot; by 19 century (and especially by the end of 19 century) in the vast majority of dialects. It was horrible: schoolchildren had to memorise long mnemonic poems made up from words where you should spell the sound with [ѣ] (we would have to spell it &quot;Бѣдный блѣдный сѣрый бѣс убѣжал голодный в лѣс...&quot; if we were still sticking to spelling it differently). So the spelling reform was suggested (has been suggested since the end of the 19 century), and, well, after the revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks just accepted the project along with many other much more radical things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="ffaa9085-bc8f-4f56-b9ba-be4c3c0ec6d9" CreationDate="2014-06-21T02:18:07.763" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It is perfectly acceptable in modern Russian and you will rarely find any materials with consistently spelt Ё. The letter Ё has a difficult history: it was never really obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to always type it explicitly. But according to modern orthography it is completely acceptable to write **е** instead, except in foreign words, names which can be read incorrectly and other cases where the omission would lead to ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that people are lazy and omit it just everywhere, even when the omission leaves a reader guessing from context what you exactly mean — which stems from the fact that there are very few cases in the language where Ё is the only way to distinguish two words or word forms. So people just rely on your ability to figure out the meaning from the context. Does not help with the names, though (Соловьев/Соловьёв, Алехин, Хрущёв, Горбачёв) and rare words that speakers started to mispronounce (афера, свёкла, блёклый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a movement in support of Ё in recent years, and I kind of support the ideas that there is no real reason now to not show the difference (there aren't any keyboards that don't let you).. But, just like with the attempts of making English spelling system less ..er.. outdated (but reflecting the pronunciation of 15-16 century should make you proud :)) — I do not believe it is actually going to happen anytime soon. Just like with English spelling, people just get used to the words they see and use, and then you may spell them with or without proper Ё's — it does not matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter itself is a relatively recent innovation: Old East Slavic, the direct ancestor of Russian, used the sound [e] instead. There was no need for Ё. But then, curiously, around 13-14 century stressed ['e] became ['o] and [йэ] became [йо] after a soft consonant (but not before another 'soft' consonant!) This was long considered &quot;improper&quot; pronunciation (and not all dialects were affected), and &quot;е&quot; still was used in poetry as far as in 19 century but the more or less modern Russian, as you might guess is based on accent that has Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Why does Russian have words like &quot;лес&quot; where stressed Е did not become Ё? The reason is, there used to be another e-like sound [ѣ] in Russian which had long merged with the sound of letter &quot;е&quot; by 19 century (and especially by the end of 19 century) in the vast majority of dialects. It was horrible: schoolchildren had to memorise long mnemonic poems made up of words where you should spell the sound with [ѣ] (we would have to spell it &quot;Бѣдный блѣдный сѣрый бѣс убѣжал голодный в лѣс...&quot; if we were still sticking to spelling it differently). So the spelling reform was suggested (had been suggested since the end of the 19 century), and, well, after the revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks just accepted the project along with many other much more radical things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15218" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="b3f00b68-6e6f-45fa-80ae-1ba1fcb48f9b" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:22:24.583" UserId="3679" Comment="corrected title to use cyrillic е" Text="using written е instead of ë" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15219" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="b3f00b68-6e6f-45fa-80ae-1ba1fcb48f9b" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:22:24.583" Comment="Proposed by 3679 approved by -1 edit id of 500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="c6c9ecd0-124f-420c-a76b-5aa6a49fde66" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:22:24.583" UserId="551" Comment="corrected title to use cyrillic е" Text="Sometimes I see `е` written instead of `ë`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this actually a common occurence in written Russian, or an acceptable version of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, even Google Translate will not use the diacritical character." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="c6c9ecd0-124f-420c-a76b-5aa6a49fde66" CreationDate="2014-06-21T08:22:24.583" UserId="551" Comment="corrected title to use cyrillic е" Text="Using written е instead of ë" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="478631a0-9dc0-4116-af0e-473370379dd5" CreationDate="2014-06-21T09:45:29.257" UserId="3679" Comment="added wikipedia link for further explanation; corrected period spelling" Text="It is perfectly acceptable in modern Russian and you will rarely find any materials with consistently spelt Ё. The letter Ё has a difficult history: it was never really obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to always type it explicitly. But according to modern orthography it is completely acceptable to write **е** instead, except in foreign words, names which can be read incorrectly and other cases where the omission would lead to ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that people are lazy and omit it just everywhere, even when the omission leaves a reader guessing from context what you exactly mean — which stems from the fact that there are very few cases in the language where Ё is the only way to distinguish two words or word forms. So people just rely on your ability to figure out the meaning from the context. Does not help with the names, though (Соловьев/Соловьёв, Алехин, Хрущёв, Горбачёв) and rare words that speakers started to mispronounce (афера, свёкла, блёклый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a movement in support of Ё in recent years, and I kind of support the ideas that there is no real reason now to not show the difference (there aren't any keyboards that don't let you).. But, just like with the attempts of making English spelling system less ..er.. outdated (but reflecting the pronunciation of 15-16 century should make you proud :)) — I do not believe it is actually going to happen anytime soon. Just like with English spelling, people just get used to the words they see and use, and then you may spell them with or without proper Ё's — it does not matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter itself is a relatively recent innovation: Old East Slavic, the direct ancestor of Russian, used the sound [e] instead. There was no need for Ё. But then, curiously, around 13-14 century stressed ['e] became ['o] and [йэ] became [йо] after a soft consonant (but not before another 'soft' consonant!) This was long considered &quot;improper&quot; pronunciation (and not all dialects were affected), and &quot;е&quot; still was used in poetry as far as in 19 century but the more or less modern Russian, as you might guess is based on accent that has Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Why does Russian have words like &quot;лес&quot; where stressed Е did not become Ё? The reason is, there used to be [another e-like sound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D1%A2) [ѣ] in Russian which had long merged with the sound of letter &quot;е&quot; by 19 century (and especially by the end of 19 century) in the vast majority of dialects. It was horrible: schoolchildren had to memorise long mnemonic poems made up of words where you should spell the sound with [ѣ] (&quot;Бѣдный блѣдный сѣрый бѣсъ убѣжалъ голодный въ лѣсъ…&quot; as it was spelled back then). So the spelling reform was suggested (had been suggested since the end of the 19 century), and, well, after the revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks just accepted the project along with many other much more radical things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15223" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="478631a0-9dc0-4116-af0e-473370379dd5" CreationDate="2014-06-21T09:45:29.257" Comment="Proposed by 3679 approved by 551, 2388 edit id of 501" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="b36325a4-a2e6-4b63-959f-38afa5490af6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T12:53:30.837" UserId="3892" Text="What is the correct verb for this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она заставила себя закрыть глаза и **думать** о чём-нибудь приятном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она заставила себя закрыть глаза и **задуматься** о чём-нибудь приятном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is to close one's eyes and start thinking of something pleasant when one has trouble falling asleep. Are both or either of these possible? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="b36325a4-a2e6-4b63-959f-38afa5490af6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T12:53:30.837" UserId="3892" Text="думать or задуматься?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="b36325a4-a2e6-4b63-959f-38afa5490af6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T12:53:30.837" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6773" RevisionGUID="0149c791-217d-4be4-bdb7-a84e44a863e8" CreationDate="2014-06-21T13:45:39.103" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;задуматься&quot; is not quite the word here. It means &quot;to think deeply about something&quot;, &quot;to reflect on&quot; (also, to be lost in thought: &quot;он задумался и не заметил, как кончился обед&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use &quot;думать&quot; or perfective &quot;подумать&quot;. &quot;Думать&quot; works here. Here it would be automatically interpreted as &quot;made herself to *start* thinking about something good&quot; (make oneself to &quot;be thinking&quot; doesn't sound good to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last part of the sentence you can also just say &quot;... думать о приятном&quot; or even &quot;не думать о плохом&quot; (&quot;to not think about bad things&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="30b71b25-67d8-4238-8508-cdc37c2f41f6" CreationDate="2014-06-21T15:41:00.303" UserId="3996" Text="Yes, both are possible. However, **думать** is much better here in terms of modern colloquial Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two actions - close (*закрыть*) and think (*думать*). Both words end with the suffix **ть**, so it will be correct to use one form of words (infinitive) in the sentence in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use **задуматься**, it sounds like &quot;She forced herself to close her eyes and think deeply about pleasant things&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я заставлю себя сесть за стол и *делать* уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Делать* means *do*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я заставлю себя сесть за стол и *заняться* уроками&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Заняться* means *start doing something*. So it sounds like &quot;I force myself to sit down and start doing homework&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="0e9431a4-89bb-4a67-94c0-4d7b578d1c00" CreationDate="2014-06-21T16:17:12.907" UserId="3996" Text="In the context, **изюминка** (raisin) means that **thing/person/something** is **special/unique**.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In relation to people, it means that a person has a unique property.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &lt;code&gt;в тебе нет никакой изюминки&lt;/code&gt; = &lt;code&gt;you have nothing special&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;you are an ordinary person&lt;/code&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, use of certain words makes the phrase special, more beautiful, unusual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="b083c97d-606a-4d15-8a5e-c72c17f7059f" CreationDate="2014-06-21T17:56:04.863" UserId="3892" Text="The English adverb ***in fact*** has two meanings, at least in my variety of American English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **indeed**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can assure you that this is **in fact** the man I saw coming out of your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; office yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **moreover, what's more**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Claudia loves to play golf. In fact, she moved to Florida so she could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; play every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the Russian word **фактически** also express either or both these nuances, or does it mean something completely different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="b083c97d-606a-4d15-8a5e-c72c17f7059f" CreationDate="2014-06-21T17:56:04.863" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretations of &quot;in fact&quot; vis-à-vis Russian фактически" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="b083c97d-606a-4d15-8a5e-c72c17f7059f" CreationDate="2014-06-21T17:56:04.863" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="7e35da12-eff2-406d-bd90-7a724fa33d8a" CreationDate="2014-06-21T18:25:27.937" UserId="551" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The English adverb ***in fact*** has two meanings, at least in my variety of American English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **indeed**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; I can assure you that this is **in fact** the man I saw coming out of your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; office yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **moreover, what's more**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Claudia loves to play golf. In fact, she moved to Florida so she could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; play every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the Russian word **фактически** also express either or both these nuances, or does it mean something completely different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6777" RevisionGUID="ae9f2492-80d5-46c7-aa11-c0c3be74da44" CreationDate="2014-06-21T18:40:42.493" UserId="267" Text="I would translate **&quot;фактически&quot;** as **&quot;in reality&quot;**. In the colloquial speech it is used with the meaning of **&quot;almost, nearly&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он работает преподавателем, но фактически руководит кафедрой.&#xD;&#xA;He works as a teacher, but in reality he runs the department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Операция была фактически завершена.&#xD;&#xA;The operation was almost finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate your examples like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я могу вас заверить, что это **действительно (в самом деле)** тот мужчина - я видел, как он выходил из твоего офиса вчера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Клаудия любит играть в гольф, **более того**, она переехала во Флориду, чтобы играть каждый день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Клаудия так любит играть в гольф, что она **даже** переехала во Флориду, чтобы играть каждый день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="110c9543-6f72-434b-9507-e0b6cb3ca8c3" CreationDate="2014-06-22T04:50:17.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/480573464869605376" />
  <row Id="15237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="d733e7da-f290-42fa-b6ab-7676acf85917" CreationDate="2014-06-22T09:54:40.317" UserId="3998" Text="Ещё можно сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Засечка, как Робинзон Крузо ставил засечки, сколько лет он прожил на острове.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* точка отсчёта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Или просто `дата`. timestamp - это ни что иное, как дата, дата времени." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="fd8eac0d-ee12-4ac4-84da-64f3c327d3d8" CreationDate="2014-06-22T09:57:14.683" UserId="3998" Text="* в наши дни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дословный и самый верный перевод." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6782" RevisionGUID="10d8bf48-3cb0-4105-bea0-e519fc2cb5a5" CreationDate="2014-06-22T12:58:28.240" UserId="4188" Text="try these&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/Участник:Schwallex/частота&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/Приложение:Рейтинги_частотности_слов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="75036107-8c5a-4223-9701-63ea24b1942f" CreationDate="2014-06-22T15:53:56.297" UserId="4000" Text="In those sentences &quot;и&quot; means &quot;even&quot;, it's used for making the sentences sound stronger or convey the ideas stronger, deeper. It can be omitted but the original meaning will be lost as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="e724843f-3392-4acd-9042-aa63af1e7b3b" CreationDate="2014-06-22T16:50:51.190" UserId="3892" Text="¿Does **нечто вроде паука** mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; something like a spider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; some kind of spider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or can it mean both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="e724843f-3392-4acd-9042-aa63af1e7b3b" CreationDate="2014-06-22T16:50:51.190" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of нечто вроде" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="e724843f-3392-4acd-9042-aa63af1e7b3b" CreationDate="2014-06-22T16:50:51.190" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="1d0fddef-69a7-4ed7-a176-34c94f46b04c" CreationDate="2014-06-22T17:17:05.183" UserId="86" Text="Sometimes computer game may contain main part and several extra things/possibilities for player. So there is a difference between &quot;I've finished that game&quot; and &quot;I've completely cleared/beat that game&quot;. Second one implies that you have finished all extra quests, gathered all items etc (depends on game). I know 2 such expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Completely cleared/beat game. As explained above, to say this you should complete all quests, collect all items, get all gold medals etc.&#xD;&#xA; 2. 1CC (one-credit-clear). That means you have finished game without continuing at all (or using just one live).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian &quot;пройти игру&quot; и &quot;полностью пройти игру&quot; still stands for simple completing of the game. Is there any short expression analogue for complete game clearing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="1d0fddef-69a7-4ed7-a176-34c94f46b04c" CreationDate="2014-06-22T17:17:05.183" UserId="86" Text="Russian analogue of &quot;completely cleared computer game&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="1d0fddef-69a7-4ed7-a176-34c94f46b04c" CreationDate="2014-06-22T17:17:05.183" UserId="86" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="66c89d99-ef0d-4f30-a344-08212e515314" CreationDate="2014-06-22T17:25:11.923" UserId="86" Text="&gt; Нечто вроде паука.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That phrase means &quot;something like a spider&quot;. It implies that you are not sure that it is a spider but it resembles you spider (by color, shape, abilities etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некий/какой-то вид паука.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;some kind of spider&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="2831991a-ff90-44c2-bf14-602a4a0952df" CreationDate="2014-06-22T19:41:07.147" UserId="3892" Text="The way I see it, the English adverbial &quot;at least&quot; has two interpretations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Used with numbers to express a minimum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The temperature has to reach **at least** 98° before we'll turn on the air-conditioning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At least** three people have told me the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Used to express situations one is thankful for in contrast to the alternative; &quot;you can be glad that...&quot;; thank God:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At least** your children aren't in jail. (=like mine are)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The elevator's broken, so we have to take the stairs. **At least** it's only four floors. (=and not twenty!)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Russian **по крайней мере** also cover the second usage, or just the first? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything else I should know about it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="2831991a-ff90-44c2-bf14-602a4a0952df" CreationDate="2014-06-22T19:41:07.147" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretations of &quot;at least&quot; vis-à-vis Russian по крайне мере" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="2831991a-ff90-44c2-bf14-602a4a0952df" CreationDate="2014-06-22T19:41:07.147" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15253" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="766b6a83-3a4b-455d-91ef-8ed3dbbab16a" CreationDate="2014-06-22T19:54:58.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/480801137894109184" />
  <row Id="15254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="ec5e7cd0-ae7d-4e90-80a4-fe7634a107b9" CreationDate="2014-06-22T21:59:16.767" UserId="194" Text="First usage = &quot;как минимум&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second usage = &quot;по крайней мере&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="2175b30f-834a-4ca0-82fc-aabb8df020e9" CreationDate="2014-06-23T06:30:52.913" UserId="1604" Text="Закончил игр*ать* would mean finish the game (finished playing, to be precise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Закончил игр*у* means cleared the game not necessarily beat the game; could be lost as well)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="277e9a57-2033-4703-9538-bcc3cb603c42" CreationDate="2014-06-23T06:49:32.540" UserId="3893" Text="There are several cases: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;100% прохождение&quot; for in-game messages and most of official translations&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;полное прохождение&quot; for walkthrough articles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases *complete* better to specify explicitly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="23709fa1-cea1-4072-99f1-cd1d842b82a2" CreationDate="2014-06-23T07:23:37.160" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What are synonymous expressions for `типо того` (or is it *тип&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;*) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="23709fa1-cea1-4072-99f1-cd1d842b82a2" CreationDate="2014-06-23T07:23:37.160" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Synonyms for &quot;типо того&quot;&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="23709fa1-cea1-4072-99f1-cd1d842b82a2" CreationDate="2014-06-23T07:23:37.160" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="c1e2bc14-9a26-4d03-a6ae-8f51e640a4ad" CreationDate="2014-06-23T08:06:14.423" UserId="899" Text="It is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа того&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, literally 'of this sort'. And it translates almost the same way in English: 'kind of', 'sort of'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты что, надумал покидать компанию?! What, are you thinking of leaving the company?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, типа того... Well, kind of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase usually bears a hint of speaker holding something behind or a degree of uncertainty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="4ae7fe5d-4f6d-466c-91b2-e8b6ec8fea5b" CreationDate="2014-06-23T09:15:22.627" UserId="551" Comment="Fixed list formatting (otherwise 2. is output as 1.)" Text="The way I see it, the English adverbial &quot;at least&quot; has two interpretations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Used with numbers to express a minimum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The temperature has to reach **at least** 98° before we'll turn on the air-conditioning.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **At least** three people have told me the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Used to express situations one is thankful for in contrast to the alternative; &quot;you can be glad that...&quot;; thank God:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; **At least** your children aren't in jail. (=like mine are)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The elevator's broken, so we have to take the stairs. **At least** it's only four floors. (=and not twenty!)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Russian **по крайней мере** also cover the second usage, or just the first? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything else I should know about it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="c9865319-22e8-4054-9395-343311b63518" CreationDate="2014-06-23T11:54:39.147" UserId="3498" Text="вроде (вроде бы , вроде как);&#xD;&#xA;похоже (похоже на то);&#xD;&#xA;может быть (все может быть);&#xD;&#xA;возможно&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15263" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="b0d743f9-ff1b-45fb-823d-db414084d9f1" CreationDate="2014-06-23T13:58:04.500" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/481073708627689472" />
  <row Id="15264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="58dc086a-50dc-46cf-9cd5-1ec417d354fc" CreationDate="2014-06-23T14:33:22.050" UserId="62" Text="What is the difference in usage of материальная точка and точечная частица? Is the first meant to be merely a simplified model (say, in classical mechanics or relativity) while the second is only for literal point particles? Are they synonymous? Is the second a more recent term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to add further tags to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="58dc086a-50dc-46cf-9cd5-1ec417d354fc" CreationDate="2014-06-23T14:33:22.050" UserId="62" Text="материальная точка и точечная частица" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="58dc086a-50dc-46cf-9cd5-1ec417d354fc" CreationDate="2014-06-23T14:33:22.050" UserId="62" Text="|физика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6796" RevisionGUID="9b8f4b0a-2d28-4638-b8bc-5e0b4d4f23bc" CreationDate="2014-06-23T14:57:03.240" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;Материальная точка&quot; is a fixed term from **Mechanics**. Think of material point/rigid body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Точечная частица&quot; is not that important an expression, it is just literally *&quot;a particle which is a point: its spacial dimensions are negligible and are considered zero&quot;*. And here's the trick: right now we use &quot;particle&quot; as a concept in a more recent fields of physics than just mechanics. You can an electron &quot;an infinitesmall particle&quot; but calling it a **материальная точка** &quot;material particle&quot; will immediately signal that you are viewing an atom strictly as a classical system. That is, from a mechanical point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6796" RevisionGUID="6f81e165-5554-49b6-aff4-a36d402f2bdc" CreationDate="2014-06-23T15:30:48.613" UserId="2388" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Материальная точка&quot; is a fixed term from **Mechanics**. Think of material particle/rigid body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Точечная частица&quot; is not that important an expression, it is just literally *&quot;a particle which is a point: its spacial dimensions are negligible and are considered zero&quot;*. And here's the trick: right now we use &quot;particle&quot; as a concept in a more recent fields of physics than just mechanics. You can an electron &quot;an infinitesmall particle&quot; but calling it a **материальная точка** &quot;material particle&quot; will immediately signal that you are viewing an atom strictly as a classical system. That is, from a mechanical point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15269" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="f64a8e4d-d8a4-4078-b84b-5b0f1580501a" CreationDate="2014-06-23T16:05:57.983" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Synonyms for &quot;типа того&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="b85356d4-ed7a-4d82-b013-6f6944d4755c" CreationDate="2014-06-23T19:14:40.080" UserId="88" Text="`где-то так, навроде того (colloquial)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we're speaking about something measurable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`примерно, приблизительно, около, плюс-минус`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact we have really a lot of such 'terms'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="24c3652d-83b9-4316-8e9f-ea64c5b9e877" CreationDate="2014-06-23T22:59:36.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/481209991601209344" />
  <row Id="15273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="8cd6cc9c-d4e8-44db-af94-3df24e2adc51" CreationDate="2014-06-24T05:58:07.557" UserId="4005" Text="**Что-то вроде того** could be used as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15275" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="69cc6167-ef01-4413-a9de-0808e3726a0c" CreationDate="2014-06-24T08:04:32.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/481347128070242304" />
  <row Id="15276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="7663f154-bc1a-4c18-9365-7bd42f22142f" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:22:37.467" UserId="104" Text="Прочитал в статье:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Путин направил соответствующее письмо спикер верхней палаты Валентине Матвиенко перед отлетом в Вену...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сначала был уверен, что опечатка. Потом подумал, может новое правило или тенденция есть, что &#xD;&#xA;названия должностей/профессий, которые можно употреблять по отношению к обоим полам и которые обычно относят ко второму склонению, можно не склонять в случае их употребления по отношению к женскому полу (по аналогии с несклоняемыми женскими именами, оканчивающимися на согласную).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, это опечатка (должно было быть *спикеру*) или так тоже можно теперь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="7663f154-bc1a-4c18-9365-7bd42f22142f" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:22:37.467" UserId="104" Text="Если слово спикер употреблено по отношению к женщине, его можно не склонять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="7663f154-bc1a-4c18-9365-7bd42f22142f" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:22:37.467" UserId="104" Text="|грамматика|склонение|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="dc4e9767-338f-4ab9-b190-afc26c49495e" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:29:31.510" UserId="104" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="Прочитал в [статье][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Путин направил соответствующее письмо спикер верхней палаты Валентине Матвиенко перед отлетом в Вену...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сначала был уверен, что опечатка. Потом подумал, может новое правило или тенденция есть, что &#xD;&#xA;названия должностей/профессий, которые можно употреблять по отношению к обоим полам и которые обычно относят ко второму склонению, можно не склонять в случае их употребления по отношению к женскому полу (по аналогии с несклоняемыми женскими именами, оканчивающимися на согласную).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, это опечатка (должно было быть *спикеру*) или так тоже можно теперь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tvrain.ru/articles/putin_poprosil_sovet_federatsii_otmenit_postanovlenie_ob_ispolzovanii_armii_v_ukraine-370525/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6802" RevisionGUID="e3fe0a92-b688-4980-9dfc-35ea9cd1c6d1" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:42:41.010" UserId="267" Text="The synonyms of &quot;типа+Genitive&quot; (used mostly in colloquial speech) are **&quot;вроде+Genitive&quot;** (used both in colloquial speech and in written speech, but it is more formal than &quot;типа&quot;) and **&quot;наподобие+Genitive&quot;** (used mostly in written speech, quite formal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Он правда это сказал?&#xD;&#xA; - Да, что то типа того (Что-то вроде того, что-то наподобие того)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="a3bbd09a-a489-4812-83df-cd660ef8570c" CreationDate="2014-06-24T11:43:59.730" UserId="267" Text="Добрый день, Армен!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сказать только &quot;спикерУ&quot;, это безусловно опечатка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6804" RevisionGUID="c44c09a7-d273-40dc-b240-acb1c6d97c53" CreationDate="2014-06-24T14:01:58.307" UserId="4188" Text="no equal translation in official russian.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;however it is possible to hear something like this:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-- Ты вчера играл в &quot;game&quot;, как прошел ?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вычистил все.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="e86e8488-fdb0-4c0f-b570-bec0cd00cf2e" CreationDate="2014-06-24T14:03:00.777" UserId="2269" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Добрый день, Армен!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сказать только «спи́кер&lt;b&gt;у&lt;/b&gt;», это безусловно опечатка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6805" RevisionGUID="4e2bcf8c-0b13-4499-be8b-72c7d748f426" CreationDate="2014-06-24T14:41:45.797" UserId="4188" Text="usage of [je] everywhere, i guess was enforced by some church regulations. by resemblance with swears, may be? much of russian swears have [jo]/[je] as their most recognisable part.&#xD;&#xA;and perspective representatives are tend to use it almost everywhere, strange to hear sometimes some words said - братья и сестры[sestrɨ], instead of - братья и сёстры.&#xD;&#xA;that is a complete guess however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6806" RevisionGUID="3f9fc484-6d7c-4c83-88eb-c862fb023f13" CreationDate="2014-06-24T16:24:59.243" UserId="4188" Text="Я прочла дискуссию о &quot;коль скоро&quot;. У меня есть своё мнение. Для меня является безусловным (unconditionally accepted fact), что только для хорошо образованного человека употребление этого выражения не может являться проблемой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="03294245-8c02-4b84-897c-083b24442a44" CreationDate="2014-06-24T16:36:30.053" UserId="4188" Text="Только я почти никогда его не использую. Разве что против особо ''поехавших'' в качестве тяжелой артиллерии :D&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I almost never use it. Except against especially ___ people, by way of heavy artillery.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I almost never use it. Except against people that are naturally have gone far (crazy), in the way that i use heavy artillery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="ebe2ee7b-d32d-4b5b-9dd8-f5ae3ff3b2c7" CreationDate="2014-06-24T16:48:18.943" UserId="4188" Text="&quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've let the guys check that thing up. They told that is sick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="392368f4-f596-4fff-9627-aef931772236" CreationDate="2014-06-24T17:09:27.807" UserId="88" Text="I'd like to add a bit to Aleks G words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выпали с аппарата` I consider as `they were impressed much by the rifle`. Here `c` is shorthand for `из того, что собой представляет` or `от вида (механизма)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please nothe that the first person boasted of the rifle, so I expect there really is something impressive, and the impression is stressed by the word `Выпали` which is quite rarely used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="1d563592-8f37-4860-973e-8c6d63b0c937" CreationDate="2014-06-24T17:17:38.860" UserId="3995" Text="Would someone be willing to explain the meaning of the song to me? I can understand each word, but the sentences dont make any sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be so much idiom, there must be much more meaning in the song than I get just from translating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this is not inappropriate to ask, but the song really interests me. Its a great song." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="1d563592-8f37-4860-973e-8c6d63b0c937" CreationDate="2014-06-24T17:17:38.860" UserId="3995" Text="вою на луну - значение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="1d563592-8f37-4860-973e-8c6d63b0c937" CreationDate="2014-06-24T17:17:38.860" UserId="3995" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="53936cd5-e73a-42d0-84c1-2ac81d05b291" CreationDate="2014-06-24T17:27:26.067" UserId="267" Text="Infact, it is an idiom. The expression is **&quot;выть на луну́&quot;** which means **&quot;to be extremely sad, depressed&quot;**, **&quot;to despair deeply&quot;** or &quot;to miss someone or something too much&quot;. Its literal translation is &quot;to howl at the moon&quot;, that is what wolves and dogs do at night. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="ed7cb0c9-a82d-4e33-9af5-c3ad0828fd76" CreationDate="2014-06-24T17:37:55.387" UserId="88" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I'd like to add a bit to Aleks G words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выпали с аппарата` I consider as `they were impressed much by the rifle`. Here `c` stands for `из того, что собой представляет` or `от вида (механизма)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please nothe that the first person boasted of the rifle, so I expect there really is something impressive, and the impression is stressed by the word `Выпали` which is quite rarely used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="3652e14f-5d56-42d7-9a5e-cd9bb00d4c30" CreationDate="2014-06-24T18:30:33.437" UserId="267" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Infact, it is an idiom. The expression is **&quot;выть на луну́&quot;** which means **&quot;to be extremely sad, depressed&quot;**, **&quot;to despair deeply&quot;** or **&quot;to miss someone or something too much&quot;**. Its literal translation is &quot;to howl at the moon&quot;, that is what wolves and dogs do at night. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="c4dfbe9a-f17c-4db4-bbd0-883f514be02f" CreationDate="2014-06-24T20:01:52.077" UserId="88" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I'd like to add a bit to Aleks G words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Выпали с аппарата` I consider as `they were impressed much by the rifle`. Here `c` stands for `из того, что собой представляет` or `от вида (механизма)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please nothe that the first person boasted of the rifle, so I expect there really is something impressive, and the impression is stressed by the word `Выпали` which is quite rarely used alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="e7885234-a242-4dbf-95c9-d01e5cb2f0d4" CreationDate="2014-06-24T20:53:43.390" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="It is perfectly acceptable in modern Russian and you will rarely find any materials with consistently spelt Ё. The letter Ё has a difficult history: it was never really obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to always type it explicitly. But according to modern orthography it is completely acceptable to write **е** instead, except in foreign words, names which can be read incorrectly and other cases where the omission would lead to ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is that people are lazy and omit it just everywhere, even when the omission leaves a reader guessing from context what you exactly mean — which stems from the fact that there are very few cases in the language where Ё is the only way to distinguish two words or word forms. So people just rely on your ability to figure out the meaning from the context. Does not help with the names, though (Соловьев/Соловьёв, Алехин, Хрущёв, Горбачёв) and rare words that speakers started to mispronounce (афера, свёкла, блёклый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been a movement in support of Ё in recent years, and I kind of support the ideas that there is no real reason now to not show the difference (there aren't any keyboards that don't let you).. But, just like with the attempts of making English spelling system less ..er.. outdated (but reflecting the pronunciation of 15-16 century should make you proud :)) — I do not believe it is actually going to happen anytime soon. Just like with English spelling, people just get used to the words they see and use, and then you may spell them with or without proper Ё's — it does not matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter itself is a relatively recent innovation: Old East Slavic, the direct ancestor of Russian, used the sound [e] instead. There was no need for Ё. But then, curiously, around 13-14 century stressed ['э] became ['o] and [йэ] became [йо] after a soft consonant (but not before another 'soft' consonant!) This was long considered &quot;improper&quot; pronunciation (and not all dialects were affected), and &quot;е&quot; still was used in poetry as far as in 19 century but the more or less modern Russian, as you might guess is based on accent that has Ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Why does Russian have words like &quot;лес&quot; where stressed Е did not become Ё? The reason is, there used to be [another e-like sound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D1%A2) [ѣ] in Russian which had long merged with the sound of letter &quot;е&quot; by 19 century (and especially by the end of 19 century) in the vast majority of dialects. It was horrible: schoolchildren had to memorise long mnemonic poems made up of words where you should spell the sound with [ѣ] (&quot;Бѣдный блѣдный сѣрый бѣсъ убѣжалъ голодный въ лѣсъ…&quot; as it was spelled back then). So the spelling reform was suggested (had been suggested since the end of the 19 century), and, well, after the revolution of 1917 the Bolsheviks just accepted the project along with many other much more radical things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="b8a17ef6-7a4b-48f9-8d27-56785a31ee2e" CreationDate="2014-06-24T20:58:42.017" UserId="1714" Text="Можно еще перевести как &quot;момент времени&quot;. Заимствование 'таймстамп' выглядит очень коряво и скорее всего вы будете не поняты за пределами it-сообщества или людей, знающих английский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15306" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6801" RevisionGUID="d1e3a01b-dba9-4aa7-9fa7-5410f1288f0b" CreationDate="2014-06-25T02:04:39.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/481618947473956864" />
  <row Id="15307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="51f21143-7d45-46a1-a2df-9db275e5d6b5" CreationDate="2014-06-25T08:07:08.217" UserId="2311" Text="What is the context of useage and the meaning of the phrase «ход конём»? Where does it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="51f21143-7d45-46a1-a2df-9db275e5d6b5" CreationDate="2014-06-25T08:07:08.217" UserId="2311" Text="What does «ход конём» («horse move»/«move with a horse») mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="51f21143-7d45-46a1-a2df-9db275e5d6b5" CreationDate="2014-06-25T08:07:08.217" UserId="2311" Text="|значения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6815" RevisionGUID="3346a787-bf21-46df-9661-dcbfdb2f0d89" CreationDate="2014-06-25T08:07:08.217" UserId="2311" Text="The phrase is used to signify something that is unexpected but valid for a situation, something that displays cunning and originality. Potentially something which can surprise adversaries or competitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used as a verb it more often is written as «сделать ход конём» («to make a move with a horse») rather than «пойти конём» («to move the horse»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * Сделав ход конём Билл Гейтс, тесно работая со Стивом Джобсом, написал собственную графическую операционную систему и начал распространять её.&#xD;&#xA;   * Вместо коммерческого сайта я создал бесплатный сервис, это был ход конём, так как теперь его невозможно обанкротить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best translation to English language is «knightʼs gambit».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase relates to the fact that in chess moves (especially opening moves) with a horse are very unexpected due to the fact that it is the only move with one piece potentially jumping over any other pieces¹.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phraseologism has nothing in common with the proverb «Сено к лошади не ходит» («Hay doesnʼt go to a horse»), which relates to the animal and not the chess piece, and refers to the need to act with the situation rather than demanding that the world suits oneʼs desires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In military this phrase is sometimes used to mean a maneuver that leads to oneʼs forces performing the sergical strike behind the enemy line or in some way going around the fighting zone to reach their intended destination. One such operation of World War II has become known as операция «Ход Конём» (operation «Knightʼs Gambit» (en) Operation Rösselsprung (de)), it was a failed operation of Waffen-SS to assassinate Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia, the goal was to destabilise the government.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) In rooking the king also jumps over another piece, the castle, but it can only be done once, and neither king nor rook are able to jump over any piece of the opponent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="7bd1949a-242e-4ea0-bf13-cdf45325e899" CreationDate="2014-06-25T10:46:27.603" UserId="2311" Text="To add something to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also one can say «пока чайник закипал». For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Женя ждал, пока чайник закипал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the sentence, although looking similar, is significantly restructured. It is a complex sentence and it no links the waiting to the boiling of the kettle in any way, apart from the synchronisity. We do not know what is being waited for, we have no guarantee that the waiting will stop after the kettle boils." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15312" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="96070e17-bfee-4923-b64b-4a4443107795" CreationDate="2014-06-25T11:20:02.243" UserId="2311" Comment="give an example in the title, so that it's clear what the question means before one clicks the link." Text="What does «и» mean in the sentence like «Я и ртом надую»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15313" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2304" RevisionGUID="96070e17-bfee-4923-b64b-4a4443107795" CreationDate="2014-06-25T11:20:02.243" Comment="Proposed by 2311 approved by 551, 2388 edit id of 502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="bbc61809-76b9-4d6d-9f5e-e82977b76ca8" CreationDate="2014-06-25T12:24:46.623" UserId="2311" Text="In the sphere of IT the direct imporation of this word is also used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приватность в интернете&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Настройки приватности" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6818" RevisionGUID="e4c6483c-92d4-4802-9c86-36d93acb080a" CreationDate="2014-06-25T13:00:47.977" UserId="4015" Text="Additionally, you should read this article: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Персональные_данные][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you translate privacy into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Приватность&quot;. The IT sphere is the first in line of borrowing of words from another languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15318" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="def76e0e-bc92-40e9-b04a-07906584acc0" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:04:40.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/481800145580093441" />
  <row Id="15319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="1bfbfe71-a8d0-4638-801f-dbb2616a0584" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:06:42.457" UserId="551" Text="Похоже все-таки у выражения есть украинские корни. В [Национальном корпусе](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EF%E5%F0%E5%E1%EE%F0%F9%E8%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=) нашелся такой пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Вы мою просьбу переборщили, Карло Осипович. Я просил вас рекомендовать для детей наших учителя только не бойкого, а вы привезли какого-то дида. [Т. Г. Шевченко. Близнецы (1855)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это самый первый пример употребления этого выражения. Автор &quot;Близнецов&quot; - Тарас Шевченко - классик украинской литературы и скорее всего он отразил реально бытовавшее в то время на Украине выражение. Следующий случай употребления относится к 1900 году, так что конкурентов у Шевченко не наблюдается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сама цитата содержит несколько украинских &quot;акцентов&quot;: &quot;дид&quot; - украинская версия слова &quot;дед&quot;. &quot;Карло Осипович&quot; - пример украинского звательного падежа, причем Осип - распространенное в те времена украинское имя, производное от библейского Иосиф.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересен график употребления этого слова по годам. Первый пик - это цитата из Шевченко, потом затишье до 1900. После 1900 и до 1917 зафиксировано 6 употреблений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Распределение &quot;переборщить&quot; по годам][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EjNGg.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="e3c7723f-da39-4e24-9d15-db21cfcc6f7a" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:27:10.970" UserId="4016" Text="There were people singning the word ХУЙЛО in the streets, but what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="e3c7723f-da39-4e24-9d15-db21cfcc6f7a" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:27:10.970" UserId="4016" Text="what does ХУЙЛО mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="e3c7723f-da39-4e24-9d15-db21cfcc6f7a" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:27:10.970" UserId="4016" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6823" RevisionGUID="3fb2254e-d29e-4746-9f04-dac765bf92a7" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:38:14.573" UserId="551" Text="Хотя &quot;колготки&quot; имеют больше сторонников в академических кругах, &quot;колготы&quot; не должны отчаиваться. Возникновение страшных &quot;ботин&quot; и &quot;перчат&quot; уже много раз увенчивалось успехом и образованные таким образом слова прочно входили в литературный язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такова история слов &quot;зонт&quot; и &quot;фляга&quot;. Зонт пришел в русский язык как &quot;зонтик&quot; (нем. sonnetag), фляга как &quot;фляшка&quot; (польск.). Со временем окончания этих слов были переосмыслены как уменьшительные суффиксы и были созданы несуществовавшие &quot;фляга&quot; и &quot;зонт&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати о &quot;сосулях&quot;. Поищите в Национальном корпусе сосули - будете удивлены. Примеров не много, но когда-то их употребляли Набоков, Горький и Андрей Белый в обычном, не комическом смысле. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот Набоков:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Песком, будто рыжей корицей, усыпан был ледок, облепивший ступени крыльца, а с выступа крыши, остриями вниз, свисали толстые сосули, сквозящие зеленоватой синевой. [В. В. Набоков. Рождество (1925)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Максим Горький:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уже была пятница страстной недели, а капель к ночи намерзала синими сосулями в пол-аршина длиною; лед на реке, оголенной от снега, тоже был синеватый, как зимние облака. [Максим Горький. Ледоход (1912-1915)]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6824" RevisionGUID="40227c35-6d4c-4826-8bb8-1fc5819d815c" CreationDate="2014-06-25T14:43:04.037" UserId="4017" Text="Something similar to dickhead, but with way more negative connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="b05c5efc-5060-4518-a402-16cec91cb062" CreationDate="2014-06-25T16:25:27.710" UserId="2269" Comment="retag" Text="|значения|политика|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6825" RevisionGUID="cc21d768-52e7-4ace-aeaf-8d7a659057a0" CreationDate="2014-06-25T16:41:02.477" UserId="4015" Text="Similar to moron, part of filthy language, with root of word `хуй`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="9c990b72-1005-49a2-8d4f-684f6a6ab782" CreationDate="2014-06-26T02:04:40.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/481981339219288065" />
  <row Id="15331" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="032c9a3a-d076-4e0f-9ad4-b1b6d04bc5dc" CreationDate="2014-06-26T05:04:40.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/482026637975097344" />
  <row Id="15332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="6851b690-34f5-4a08-9c4f-93c1a6e92fec" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:26:03.507" UserId="2387" Text="I had been talking with my Russian friend which used such words like &quot;ебало&quot;, &quot;ебаться&quot; and &quot;ебнутый&quot;. As I understood, this words have completely difference meaning. It is very curious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="6851b690-34f5-4a08-9c4f-93c1a6e92fec" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:26:03.507" UserId="2387" Text="Why does &quot;ебало&quot; mean a face and &quot;ебаться&quot; mean to fuck?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="6851b690-34f5-4a08-9c4f-93c1a6e92fec" CreationDate="2014-06-26T07:26:03.507" UserId="2387" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="2ac640ef-7382-4431-b082-440325ff927c" CreationDate="2014-06-26T08:11:02.673" UserId="194" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (въебать, выебать, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ёбнутый, ебанутый means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* наебать - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* отъебаться - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* заебать - to annoy somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ебашить - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* съебать, съебаться - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* проебать - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="e7b85abe-a34e-40b2-b822-5da73c67a1b4" CreationDate="2014-06-26T08:18:35.597" UserId="194" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, съебаться - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - importune, pester" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="8fe88acd-595c-4291-a168-7208d756d63d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T08:24:11.680" UserId="194" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, съебаться - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - importune, pester" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="5d8353db-a02d-4073-b2be-04b623666d50" CreationDate="2014-06-26T08:30:19.907" UserId="194" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - importune, pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - epater, strive to attract public attention with weird actions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="1a02160f-ff40-46a9-8ca0-d05768adad73" CreationDate="2014-06-26T08:45:51.047" UserId="194" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - importune, pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - epater, strive to attract public attention with weird actions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="b625cd6e-aa37-4e94-b5c4-44e3fd4bcc14" CreationDate="2014-06-26T08:57:26.097" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, strive to attract public attention with weird actions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="a18705bd-cd64-409f-b78a-f11508fcfb1a" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:07:52.460" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ебаться is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, to pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="746a34b4-4b86-4d4d-91d0-46a4c9b2c51d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:13:43.470" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ***ебаться*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, to pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** - to finish badly due to own strive to show off" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="79c34ac1-881a-4e70-a21e-138c2ee42026" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:23:56.810" UserId="194" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ***ебаться*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, to pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** - to finish badly due to own strive to show off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебись*** - well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="bf2324dc-389a-42ca-b021-1d5f44e17d0a" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:30:43.143" UserId="194" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ***ебаться*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, to pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** - to finish badly due to own strive to show off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебись*** - well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебон*** - quirk, idiosyncrasy, kink; also a good thing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="1b66b1cb-bebc-4a6e-bd0a-cf6c70235a78" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:36:09.447" UserId="194" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ***ебаться*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody, unpleasantly, provoke, also convince to do something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, to pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** - to finish badly due to own strive to show off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебись*** - well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебон*** - quirk, idiosyncrasy, kink; also a good thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***недоёб*** - weird, aggressive, often misandric behavior of a woman due to the lack of sexual life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="ac9bd787-8e09-47d1-88a9-383b4c59d7b9" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:41:23.323" UserId="194" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ***ебаться*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning ( ***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** &quot;I fuck&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning &quot;to beat&quot;, (***въебать***, ***выебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, ебало means a place where you can въебать, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean &quot;a face that looks suitable to be beaten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебанутый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наебать*** - to trick, cheat somebody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъебаться*** - to leave alone, leave in peace somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебать*** - to annoy somebody out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***ебашить*** - to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съебать***, ***съебаться*** - to flee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проебать*** - to lose something, for example, money, thing, opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъебать*** - to joke on somebody unpleasantly, provoke&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** - unfriendly joke, provocation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** - to importune, to pester&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** - to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** - to finish badly due to own strive to show off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебись*** - well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебон*** - quirk, idiosyncrasy, kink; also a good thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***недоёб*** - weird, aggressive, often misandric behavior of a woman due to the lack of sexual life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15347" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="77740caf-1ad4-471b-8340-101a8d6dc41b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:46:49.900" UserId="3566" Comment="Added tag Мат" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15348" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="77740caf-1ad4-471b-8340-101a8d6dc41b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:46:49.900" Comment="Proposed by 3566 approved by -1 edit id of 503" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15349" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="4c1da741-8823-46ee-8f25-0a439fa27ac5" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:46:49.900" UserId="551" Comment="Added tag Мат" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15350" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="40dceadb-90af-4a44-977d-89425646892c" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:47:18.907" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="56d5401e-8820-4f84-afca-164a78f583cd" CreationDate="2014-06-26T09:55:50.740" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15352" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="702b599f-3144-4d57-a993-2cb99a00b541" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:01:26.417" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1627" RevisionGUID="6e89b3d1-98a1-4088-bb6e-dc23aba8e24b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:12:36.350" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15354" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1834" RevisionGUID="04c42c9e-f03f-4927-8522-8b54e71628d2" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:19:40.963" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|история-языка|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="5cb865a7-0339-4fff-bdda-5743d48e7ff1" CreationDate="2014-06-26T11:16:02.733" UserId="194" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="As a native Russian speaker married to a native of Georgia, I can say that **the** most common _grammatical_ mistake is the ending differences on adjectives between masculine/feminine/neuter types.  There is no such distinction in Georgian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;დიდი კატა&quot; (&quot;big cat&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ая** кошка&quot; or &quot;больш**ой** кот&quot;, depending on whether you are talking about a female or a male cat respectively, while &quot;დიდი სახლი&quot; (&quot;big house&quot;) in Russian would be &quot;больш**ой** дом&quot; - notice the difference in endings.  This one of those things that people learn eventually, but it takes time - and the feel of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, I'd say that the most common _pronunciation_ mistake is the difference between hard/soft letter &quot;l&quot; in different words. For example, in Russian, word &quot;слушай&quot; (&quot;listen&quot;) is pronounced as &quot;slushay&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;, whereas you could more than often hear from Georgians &quot;слюшай&quot; (&quot;sl&lt;sup&gt;j&lt;/sup&gt;ushay&quot;) - with soft &quot;l&quot;. And the same happens the other way around, for example, with word &quot;соль&quot; (&quot;salt&quot; - with soft &quot;l&quot; in Russian), which I hear Georgians pronounce as &quot;cол&quot; - with hard &quot;l&quot;.  I'm not too sure of the exact reasons, possibly because there is only letter &quot;უ&quot; (&quot;u&quot;) in Georgian, which, when follows a consonant, makes that consonant hard-sounding.  To make it soft-sounding, it would go with &quot;ი&quot;, e.g. &quot;იუ&quot; after a consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an old Russian joke about it (any Georgians reading this, please do not get upset, I have very deep respect for you and your culture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учитель русского языка в грузинской школе говорит: &quot;запомните дети, поскольку понять это невозможно: слова 'сол' и 'мол' пишутся с мягким знаком, а слова 'пошель' и 'нашель' - без.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly translated into English it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language teacher in Georgian school is saying, &quot;Memorise this, children, because it is impossible to understand: words _sol_ and _mol_ (English _salt_ and _moth_ respectively, in Russian with soft 'l' at the end, here expressly with hard 'l') have soft 'l' at the end, while words _poshel'_ and _nashel'_ (English _went_ and _found_ respectively, in Russian with hard 'l' at the end, here expressly with soft 'l') have a hard 'l'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15357" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="4867b08a-4c2b-4b8b-9bb1-813fc3791eda" CreationDate="2014-06-26T11:50:45.070" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1709" RevisionGUID="36f18217-a307-417e-8ad0-27d9eb265ba0" CreationDate="2014-06-26T11:51:58.190" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15359" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="0116d443-28a4-4ae2-9025-2e2c49535965" CreationDate="2014-06-26T11:55:32.380" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|наречия|connotation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15360" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="122" RevisionGUID="a1a10fa0-5113-4f9b-a7e2-c1f36d3b8890" CreationDate="2014-06-26T11:58:13.137" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|лексикон|история-языка|фонология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15361" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1763" RevisionGUID="367ce7f0-95cc-425d-a00c-e2a957e6b29a" CreationDate="2014-06-26T11:58:35.283" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|морфология|история-языка|психолингвистика|фоносемантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15362" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="f8f403ec-f5dd-40d9-b0db-2cd96b7be3f1" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:01:10.590" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|история-языка|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="46b39af1-3ac3-4b84-a0bc-5251ca7b9000" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:04:11.120" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15364" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2115" RevisionGUID="78684324-6d5c-4eda-9e29-be15f0412df5" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:08:36.463" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is Яна a variant of Жанна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15365" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2115" RevisionGUID="78684324-6d5c-4eda-9e29-be15f0412df5" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:08:36.463" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|этимология|ономастика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="f821a500-b98d-4641-967e-31f7c2499b5d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:10:53.717" UserId="551" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="ca001d65-42ab-4a66-9e2c-a9263067bf17" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:10:53.717" UserId="551" Text="Онома́стика, ономатология (от др.-греч. ὀνομαστική — наука, изучающая имена собственные всех типов и их происхождение) — раздел лингвистики, изучающий собственные имена, историю их возникновения и преобразования в результате длительного употребления в языке-источнике или в связи с заимствованием у других языков общения. В более узком смысле ономастика — собственные имена различных типов (ономастическая лексика)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15368" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2281" RevisionGUID="f11bb549-69e1-4d53-8580-95a18ebbde1d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:14:16.073" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="fa4902ab-4515-4958-8ddb-aa51766c573d" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:16:50.693" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ударение|омографы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15370" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4232" RevisionGUID="bd756863-36d4-42fc-9819-3a216a6048a9" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:17:05.777" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ударение|омографы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15371" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="1d13f20d-9963-4c65-9d44-8b10a0ca2a35" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:21:41.943" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|tense|будущее-время|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="96dcc7d3-af83-4f54-829b-2fb11a4e33b1" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:21:48.537" UserId="1236" Text="There is a Russian word [**хлебало**][1] wich is a vulgar way to say &quot;mouth&quot;. It is derived from the verb [**хлебать**][2], &quot;to eat liquid food with a spoon; to drink&quot;, this verb is colloquial and stylistically neutral. **Xлебало** is formed by the non-productive suffix **-ло** which is used to form the names of instruments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    сидеть (to sit) - седло (saddle)&#xD;&#xA;    дышать (to breathe) - дыхало (blowhole)&#xD;&#xA;    скрести (to scrape) - скребло (scraping knife)&#xD;&#xA;    мерить (to measure) - мерило (measure, criterion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since **хлебать** rhimes with **ебать**, &quot;to fuck&quot;, so, by analogy, the word **хлебало** got contaminated with **ебать**, and there appeared the word **ебало**, which is a still more vulgar way to say &quot;mouth&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny to say, but, although meaning &quot;mouth&quot;, from the etymological point of view the word **хлебало** should have meant &quot;penis, a thing to fuck with&quot;. (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15373" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="3eab9dbb-2213-4b13-833d-c29bb6d16ccb" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:22:26.643" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|tense|будущее-время|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15374" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="59286206-3f46-48b3-89d7-7765526489da" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:22:41.860" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|tense|будущее-время|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="f99941da-b59b-4559-975b-60416522b9cc" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:24:12.407" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|транслитерация|ономастика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="64450fe5-de5a-4281-b4e8-6a0dc1e1683b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:24:55.423" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|произношение|ономастика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6829" RevisionGUID="a5c591a2-4825-4587-8072-508362f5a881" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:27:03.007" UserId="551" Comment="Moved long description to full tag wiki" Text="Онома́стика, ономатология (от др.-греч. ὀνομαστική — наука, изучающая имена собственные всех типов и их происхождение) — раздел лингвистики, изучающий собственные имена, историю их возникновения и преобразования в результате длительного употребления в языке-источнике или в связи с заимствованием у других языков общения. В более узком смысле ономастика — собственные имена различных типов (ономастическая лексика)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6830" RevisionGUID="3c1ede4d-969c-408b-8d3f-c640bec1dd49" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:27:03.007" UserId="551" Comment="Moved long description to full tag wiki" Text="Онома́стика — наука, изучающая имена собственные всех типов и их происхождение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15379" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4209" RevisionGUID="28005698-14a1-4cf6-a54a-8ada0eb008c1" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:30:01.997" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|множественное-число|родительный-падеж|ономастика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="3615470d-cbbd-440c-8528-9b7404601d69" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:30:07.040" UserId="1236" Comment="Addition" Text="There is a Russian word [**хлебало**][1] wich is a vulgar way to say &quot;mouth&quot;. It is derived from the verb [**хлебать**][2], &quot;to eat liquid food with a spoon; to drink&quot;, this verb is colloquial and stylistically neutral. **Xлебало** is formed by the non-productive suffix **-ло** which is used to form the names of instruments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    сидеть (to sit) - седло (saddle)&#xD;&#xA;    дышать (to breathe) - дыхало (blowhole)&#xD;&#xA;    скрести (to scrape) - скребло (scraping knife)&#xD;&#xA;    мерить (to measure) - мерило (measure, criterion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since **хлебать** rhimes with **ебать**, &quot;to fuck&quot;, so, by analogy, the word **хлебало** got contaminated with **ебать**, and there appeared the word **ебало**, which is a still more vulgar way to say &quot;mouth&quot;. Later the meaning of the word got wider and it came to mean &quot;face&quot;, too, and now it means both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny to say, but, although meaning &quot;mouth&quot;, from the etymological point of view the word **хлебало** should have meant &quot;penis, a thing to fuck with&quot;. (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="acfc8578-4c85-41b2-a253-735947a50880" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:31:09.267" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|морфология|ономастика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="f8802e3a-1c49-4390-b52f-4e7c4e19b462" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:31:47.497" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How can i translate LOGIN and REGISTER in webdesign context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can also translate CLIENT LOGIN - EMAIL - USERNAME - PASSWORD - LOGOUT ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i have found are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LOGIN - **логин** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;REGISTER - **регистрировать** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CLIENT LOGIN - **Логин клиента** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;EMAIL - **е-мейл** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;USERNAME - **имя пользователя** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PASSWORD - **пароль** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;LOGOUT - **выйти** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to use these words exactly how they are commonly used in russian websites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4106" RevisionGUID="f8802e3a-1c49-4390-b52f-4e7c4e19b462" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:31:47.497" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|перевод|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="99be32d3-de6d-4b8c-a07b-47dce13ad6b2" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:33:18.723" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="159900c4-827a-46e3-9802-ea425b0d4a07" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:34:16.583" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15386" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="c9cbc3c9-8e21-4637-8506-a254c0efc4a8" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:35:43.667" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|существительные|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="66d58d8a-d3ba-4038-b2e8-9101ec93fbe7" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:36:38.257" UserId="2387" Text="What is the English equivalent of the following phrases: &quot;Ни хрена не делаешь&quot;, &quot;Какого хрена?&quot;, &quot;Пошёл на хрен&quot;, &quot;Не хрена тебе здесь делать&quot;, &quot;Ты совсем охренел&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="66d58d8a-d3ba-4038-b2e8-9101ec93fbe7" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:36:38.257" UserId="2387" Text="Хрен and phrases in which it is involved" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="66d58d8a-d3ba-4038-b2e8-9101ec93fbe7" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:36:38.257" UserId="2387" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="8251096c-16ff-4ceb-832a-11ae0eea3bd7" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:37:05.423" UserId="4021" Text="Women in post-Soviet countiries are still rather sensitive about their age. Some middle aged ladies here might feel offended when addressed &quot;zhenschina&quot;. Sometimes a little bit flattering form of address (&quot;devushka&quot;) can do you good. In such a way, you demonstrate that you believe she is still young and looking good. So, use your common sense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15391" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1925" RevisionGUID="2c52315a-bc59-4433-80c7-f51e45ea119a" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:40:22.540" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|other-languages|ономастика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15392" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="c8b066d7-4664-4632-bcd3-454a5f56983a" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:50:10.463" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|узус|slavic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="65ea0b04-1625-46ea-90f4-2adfd821c47c" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:51:16.740" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="c9423dd1-5898-4f69-9659-165500fc2511" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:52:51.133" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|ономастика|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="5c50ba29-fb23-4b0a-81e6-65e9b0ac1342" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:57:28.503" UserId="1236" Text="[**Хрен**][1] (see meaning 3) is a euphemism for **хуй**, &quot;prick&quot;, and all those phrases can be used with **хуй**, too. In English, &quot;fuck&quot; is usually used in that meaning, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ни хрена не делаешь. - You aren't doing a fuck.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какого хрена? - What the fuck?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пошёл на хрен. - Fuck off. / Fuck you.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не хрена тебе здесь делать. - You have not a fuck to do here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6835" RevisionGUID="a325e692-d40a-4a5c-b69a-6790ef40adf8" CreationDate="2014-06-26T13:22:19.733" UserId="3848" Text="NOTE: These are based on a personal usage growing up...not a dictionary definition. So your mileage may vary :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ни хрена не делаешь&quot; - You are doing nothing ( minor vulgar/impolite intonation ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Ни чего не делаешь&quot; = You are doing nothing ( no vulgarity implied ).&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;You lazy sack of potatoes&quot; - would be a slang/colloquial way to say this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Какого хрена?&quot; - &quot;Why the heck [would you do/say that]?&quot; ( minor vulgar/impolite intonation ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Пошёл на хрен&quot; - &quot;Go to hell&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* In this case &quot;hell&quot; is a bit strong, but I can't come up with a closer equivalent ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Не хрена тебе здесь делать&quot; - It's a combination of &quot;You shouldn't be here&quot; and &quot;What the [hell | heck] are you doing here?&quot; ( minor vulgar/impolite intonation ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты совсем охренел&quot; - &quot;You've got some nerve&quot; or &quot;You are crazy&quot; ( minor vulgar/impolite intonation ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. хрен is technically 'horseradish' so imagine applying a 'bitter' connotation  to make these phrases slightly impolite/vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="1d44e336-99ec-47e0-b7ef-0ed4cb7b9c20" CreationDate="2014-06-26T14:30:58.597" UserId="3892" Comment="spelling changes and word order" Text="A boy or girl can be addressed *мальчик* and *девочка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person looking between about 14 and 35 could be addressed *молодой человек* (male) or *девушка* (female).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more senior person lacks the proper addressing in the modern language. There are several forms of address of limited use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *гражданин / гражданка* (used by law enforcement, may also be used by strangers, but this sounds too official)&#xD;&#xA;* *товарищ* (widely used in Soviet time but almost obsolete now, though still acceptable. Without adding a surname, only appropriate for males)&#xD;&#xA;* *мужчина / женщина* (are only appropriate to draw attention of a complete stranger you're unlikely to ever talk to again, in an urgent case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Мужчина, вы кошелёк уронили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Женщина, вы не выходите на следующей остановке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *уважаемый / уважаемая* can be used (somewhat ironically) to make a polite remark to a person violating the norms of behavior:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Уважаемый, разрешите пройти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Уважаемая, уберите тележку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt, it would be best to use an impersonal addressing: *прошу прощения*, *извините* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A child before about 8 can call an adult *дядя / тётя* or *бабушка / дедушка*. The latter are also appropriate for younger people to address senior people, but only if they called them *сынок*, *дочка*, *внучек* or *внучка* first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An Orthodox priest, monk or a nun can be addressed *батюшка / матушка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A police officer can be addressed *товарищ полицейский*, or, if you can read insignia, *товарищ* with addition of their rank: *товарищ сержант*, *товарищ капитан*. Usually, servicemen are very sensitive to rank formalities so use the first if in doubt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When starting a letter, the recipient can be addressed *уважаемый* with compulsory addition of their first name (and probably patronymic) if you know it: *уважаемый Василий Львович*, *уважаемая Светлана*. Without the name, this addressing would sound derogatory (as in the previous examples)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15398" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="1d44e336-99ec-47e0-b7ef-0ed4cb7b9c20" CreationDate="2014-06-26T14:30:58.597" Comment="Proposed by 3892 approved by 1329, 134 edit id of 504" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="be87471b-8c8e-45c8-bb17-72350b800b76" CreationDate="2014-06-26T15:43:51.247" UserId="1236" Comment="correction" Text="There is a Russian word [**хлебало**][1] wich is a vulgar way to say &quot;mouth&quot;. It is derived from the verb [**хлебать**][2], &quot;to eat liquid food with a spoon; to drink&quot;, this verb is colloquial and stylistically neutral. **Xлебало** is formed by the non-productive suffix **-л-** which is used to form the names of instruments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    сидеть (to sit) - седло (saddle)&#xD;&#xA;    дышать (to breathe) - дыхало (blowhole)&#xD;&#xA;    скрести (to scrape) - скребло (scraping knife)&#xD;&#xA;    мерить (to measure) - мерило (measure, criterion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since **хлебать** rhimes with **ебать**, &quot;to fuck&quot;, so, by analogy, the word **хлебало** got contaminated with **ебать**, and there appeared the word **ебало**, which is a still more vulgar way to say &quot;mouth&quot;. Later the meaning of the word got wider and it came to mean &quot;face&quot;, too, and now it means both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny to say, but, although meaning &quot;mouth&quot;, from the etymological point of view the word **ебало** should have meant &quot;penis, a thing to fuck with&quot;. (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="ca8552b2-d000-4da5-b043-5dab1e909033" CreationDate="2014-06-26T16:02:31.733" UserId="88" Comment="сщвсем -&gt; сoвсем mistype" Text="You can use this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не могли бы вы мне подсказать, как пройти на улицу xxx?&#xD;&#xA;    Простите, как пройти на улицу xxx? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы редко употребляем *мисс*, *мистер* (можно сказать, совсем не употребляем)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15402" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="ca8552b2-d000-4da5-b043-5dab1e909033" CreationDate="2014-06-26T16:02:31.733" Comment="Proposed by 88 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 505" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1694" RevisionGUID="52b19412-4954-4c02-a013-dcadfcfa8916" CreationDate="2014-06-26T16:02:31.733" UserId="2388" Comment="сщвсем -&gt; сoвсем mistype" Text="You can use this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    — Не могли бы вы мне подсказать, как пройти на улицу xxx?&#xD;&#xA;    — Простите, как пройти на улицу xxx? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы редко употребляем *мисс*, *мистер* (можно сказать, совсем не употребляем)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="50f9bebe-7456-4268-9b76-a734fd691e03" CreationDate="2014-06-26T17:48:23.723" UserId="2269" Comment="stress marks" Text="Original meaning of ***еба́ться*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning (***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** “I fuck”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning “to beat”, (***въеба́ть***, ***вы́ебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, еба́ло means a place where you can въеба́ть, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean “a face that looks suitable to be beaten”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебану́тый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наеба́ть*** — to trick, cheat somebody;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъеба́ться*** — to leave alone, leave in peace somebody;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заеба́ть*** — to annoy somebody out;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***еба́шить*** — to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съеба́ть***, ***съеба́ться*** — to flee;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проеба́ть*** — to lose something, for example, money, thing, opportunity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъеба́ть*** — to joke on somebody unpleasantly, provoke;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** — unfriendly joke, provocation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** — to importune, to pester;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** — to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** — to finish badly due to own strive to show off;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заеби́сь*** — well;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебо́н*** — quirk, idiosyncrasy, kink; also a good thing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***недоёб*** — weird, aggressive, often misandric behavior of a woman due to the lack of sexual life.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="aedf3bfc-8ba8-46ca-83d6-a799858cade7" CreationDate="2014-06-26T18:01:14.043" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Original meaning of ***еба́ть*** is to fuck. This root comes from Proto-Indo-European language where it had the same meaning (***o̯i̯ebhoa̯*** “I fuck”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root later acquired some developments into the meaning “to beat”, (***въеба́ть***, ***вы́ебать***, means to beat somebody), possibly either because it is common to beat somebody into the reproductive organs or because fuck is associated with rape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, еба́ло means a place where you can въеба́ть, i.e. beat. Since it is common to beat into the face, the word become to mean “a face that looks suitable to be beaten”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, ***ёбнутый***, ***ебану́тый*** means somebody hit so hard that his consciousness is damaged. That is mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words with the same root include &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***наеба́ть*** — to trick, cheat somebody;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***отъеба́ться*** — to leave alone, leave in peace somebody;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заеба́ть*** — to annoy somebody out;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***еба́шить*** — to blindly beat, blindly shoot at a place or object (in military sence), also do something without a break, also go, move blindly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***съеба́ть***, ***съеба́ться*** — to flee;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***проеба́ть*** — to lose something, for example, money, thing, opportunity;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъеба́ть*** — to joke on somebody unpleasantly, provoke;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***подъёбка*** — unfriendly joke, provocation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***доёбываться*** — to importune, to pester;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***выёбываться*** — to epater, to show off, to strive to attract public attention with weird actions, to behave in an affected manner;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***довыёбываться*** — to finish badly due to own strive to show off;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заеби́сь*** — well;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***заебо́н*** — quirk, idiosyncrasy, kink; also a good thing;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***недоёб*** — weird, aggressive, often misandric behavior of a woman due to the lack of sexual life.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="6384845a-9c53-44a0-bcfb-312bcc566b38" CreationDate="2014-06-26T18:19:41.070" UserId="3995" Text="Are the imperative and infinitive always completely reasonable alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сидеть!  -  сиди!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;не повторить! -  не повторя́й!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15407" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="6384845a-9c53-44a0-bcfb-312bcc566b38" CreationDate="2014-06-26T18:19:41.070" UserId="3995" Text="Infinitive used as imperative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15408" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="6384845a-9c53-44a0-bcfb-312bcc566b38" CreationDate="2014-06-26T18:19:41.070" UserId="3995" Text="|грамматика|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="51849161-7d3b-40ac-80da-27492b04518e" CreationDate="2014-06-26T19:39:33.913" UserId="2269" Comment="stress marks" Text="There is a Russian word [**хлеба́ло**][1] wich is a vulgar way to say “mouth”. It is derived from the verb [**хлеба́ть**][2], “to eat liquid food with a spoon; to drink”, this verb is colloquial and stylistically neutral. **Xлеба́ло** is formed by the non-productive suffix **-л-** which is used to form the names of instruments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;сиде́ть (to sit) — седло́ (saddle)  &#xD;&#xA; дыша́ть (to breathe) — ды́хало, дыха́ло (blowhole)  &#xD;&#xA; скрести́ (to scrape) — скребло́ (scraping knife)  &#xD;&#xA; ме́рить (to measure) — мери́ло (measure, criterion)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since **хлеба́ть** rhimes with **еба́ть**, “to fuck”, so, by analogy, the word **хлеба́ло** got contaminated with **еба́ть**, and there appeared the word **еба́ло**, which is a still more vulgar way to say “mouth”. Later the meaning of the word got wider and it came to mean “face”, too, and now it means both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny to say, but, although meaning “mouth”, from the etymological point of view the word **еба́ло** should have meant “penis, a thing to fuck with”. (-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="9a14bcd3-aea6-4af6-a66d-89462f987661" CreationDate="2014-06-26T19:53:38.090" UserId="3995" Text="Would someone be able to analyze the phrase &quot;до сих пор?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I know it means &quot;still,&quot; but I translate it as &quot;until these then,&quot; and I dont understand why it can mean &quot;still.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="9a14bcd3-aea6-4af6-a66d-89462f987661" CreationDate="2014-06-26T19:53:38.090" UserId="3995" Text="How does до сих пор mean 'still'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="9a14bcd3-aea6-4af6-a66d-89462f987661" CreationDate="2014-06-26T19:53:38.090" UserId="3995" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="72b6ef1d-6d23-4001-9c74-a779ca927c9a" CreationDate="2014-06-26T20:04:50.007" UserId="267" Text="**&quot;До сих пор&quot;** means literally **&quot;till these times&quot;**. Yes, it is the Genitive case plural used with the preposition &quot;до&quot;. &quot;Сих&quot; comes from &quot;си&quot;, which used to mean &quot;these&quot;, in the modern Russian language it is the pronoun &quot;эти&quot;. &quot;Пор&quot; comes from &quot;пора&quot; which means &quot;time, period, season&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6840" RevisionGUID="ea1a97d5-2c29-4955-ae24-9e0122513761" CreationDate="2014-06-26T20:11:00.993" UserId="267" Text="There is a slight difference between them, the infinite sentences used as imperative are much more aggressive and exigent. For example, only infinite sentences are used to train dogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ша́рик, сиде́ть! &#xD;&#xA;Sharik (dog's name), sit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты посиди́ здесь, а я пойду́ посмотрю́, в чём там де́ло.&#xD;&#xA;Stay (sit) here, and I will see what is happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6841" RevisionGUID="b5df73ab-d5e9-42eb-971d-572083924c78" CreationDate="2014-06-26T22:11:40.910" UserId="3892" Text="In terms of whether it means &quot;still,&quot; as a Russian learner myself, I've noticed that there are several ways to express &quot;still&quot; in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;Here are just the ones I've learned, with their literal translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (**всё**) **ещё** : *still*&#xD;&#xA; 2. **до сих пор** : *up to (and including) now*&#xD;&#xA; 3. **по-прежнему**: *as before*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="4adbda90-c8b9-4c7e-97fb-4aab17d48a04" CreationDate="2014-06-27T06:12:38.750" UserId="267" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**&quot;До сих пор&quot;** means literally **&quot;till these times&quot;**. Yes, it is the Genitive case plural used with the preposition &quot;до&quot;. &quot;Сих&quot; comes from &quot;сии&quot;, which used to mean &quot;these&quot;, in the modern Russian language it is the pronoun &quot;эти&quot;. &quot;Пор&quot; comes from &quot;пора&quot; which means &quot;time, period, season&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="091058c1-24ae-487f-b74d-35c4b1227a08" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:44:48.947" UserId="551" Comment="grammar, formatting" Text="Are the imperative and infinitive always completely reasonable alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сидеть!  -  сиди!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не повторя́ть! -  не повторя́й!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15418" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="20635e4e-5d4b-4862-9574-73e13c1d8c73" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:54:54.073" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|мат|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="36d8256d-848b-4bc1-adb7-7a8c38396755" CreationDate="2014-06-27T17:39:32.107" UserId="3995" Text="I noticed an acceptable alternative of the first person singular verb ending.&#xD;&#xA;I dont know if &#xD;&#xA;1) this is just an abbreviation or changes the meaning&#xD;&#xA;2) is associated to aspect, &#xD;&#xA;3) is associated to verbs of motion,&#xD;&#xA;4) has analogues in other persons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я бегу  - я бегаю" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="36d8256d-848b-4bc1-adb7-7a8c38396755" CreationDate="2014-06-27T17:39:32.107" UserId="3995" Text="Abbreviated first person singular ending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="36d8256d-848b-4bc1-adb7-7a8c38396755" CreationDate="2014-06-27T17:39:32.107" UserId="3995" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="419de099-c210-40b6-9609-7bbc6ac9e6b1" CreationDate="2014-06-27T18:03:44.600" UserId="267" Text="These are 2 different verbs that form one of the pair of the verbs of motion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бежа́ть-бéгать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бежа́ть:** Я бегу, ты бежи́шь, он (она́, оно́) бежи́т, мы бежи́м, вы бежи́те, они́ бегу́т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бе́гать:** Я бе́гаю, ты бе́гаешь, он (она́, оно́) бе́гает, мы бе́гаем, вы бе́гаете, они́ бе́гают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being the verbs of motion without prefixes, these verbs are both imperfective.The **first** one in the pair, &quot;бежать&quot; means **&quot;to run in one direction&quot;.** The **second** one in the pair, бéгать means **&quot;to run somewhere and then return&quot;, &quot;to run without any direction&quot;** pr &quot;to run regularly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the verbs of motion work like that, the first verb means &quot;to go, fly, swim, run, carry, etc. in one direction&quot; and the second one, in two directions, way and back:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти́-ходи́ть: go on foot&#xD;&#xA;плыть-пла́вать: swim&#xD;&#xA;лете́ть-лета́ть: fly&#xD;&#xA;е́хать-е́здить: go on transport, ride&#xD;&#xA;нести́-носи́ть: carry something on foot&#xD;&#xA;везти́-вози́ть: carry something on transport&#xD;&#xA;вести-води́ть: lead somebody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="9ef404ce-178a-47cf-9707-8919377fc7ec" CreationDate="2014-06-28T03:39:54.153" UserId="4027" Text="I am quite new to Russian and would like feedback on both what I've done correctly and where I am mistaken. For use in a fantasy writing project, I would like to plausibly derive “kamenite” as an imperfect borrowing into English, ultimately from Russian камень + Greek -ίτης.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to learning of its use as a town in Belarus and other placenames, I came up with каменец, modeled on the examples of каменщик and американец. The intended use is in describing a колдун/алхимик. My notion is if -ец functions anything like the English agent noun suffix -er, then Искатели Философского Камня could have been shortened to something like каменец, thence borrowed as above — but is каменец a plausible formation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="9ef404ce-178a-47cf-9707-8919377fc7ec" CreationDate="2014-06-28T03:39:54.153" UserId="4027" Text="Deriving “kamenite” from Russian камень + Greek -ίτης" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="9ef404ce-178a-47cf-9707-8919377fc7ec" CreationDate="2014-06-28T03:39:54.153" UserId="4027" Text="|этимология|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="4ebe2285-2e51-4164-ae72-de7508b1a3c8" CreationDate="2014-06-28T05:04:46.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/482751440193351680" />
  <row Id="15427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="64969d02-70f3-425b-a9ae-2aeee4fc0aac" CreationDate="2014-06-28T07:06:58.497" UserId="4028" Text="This is a phrase in the lyrics of the Russian folk song &quot;Вот мчится тройка почтовая&quot;.  Although there are many web sites about this song in English, they have often translated it by something like &quot;(The coachman) swings his head wildly&quot;.  Grammatically speaking, however, the &quot;буйный&quot; is an adjective to describe the noun &quot;голова&quot; rather than an adverb to qualify the verb &quot;качать&quot;.  How to translate this phrase into English accurately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="64969d02-70f3-425b-a9ae-2aeee4fc0aac" CreationDate="2014-06-28T07:06:58.497" UserId="4028" Text="How to translate &quot;(Ямщик) Качает буйной головой&quot; into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="64969d02-70f3-425b-a9ae-2aeee4fc0aac" CreationDate="2014-06-28T07:06:58.497" UserId="4028" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="a20ff554-21aa-49ee-a772-0502e7a85e71" CreationDate="2014-06-28T08:33:09.900" UserId="4029" Text="You answered your own question, really. &quot;Буйный&quot; can be translated as &quot;wild&quot;, so in this case it would be not &quot;swings head wildly&quot; but &quot;swings his wild head&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, &quot;swings&quot; isn't really appropriate in this case, proper word would be &quot;shakes his head&quot;, for example, &quot;shake one's head in disbelief&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, I'm going off of the most regular usages of these phrases. The original sentence in its full context implies the stage-coachman is preoccupied with thoughts of the woman he loves. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6847" RevisionGUID="044fd8a2-f8fc-486f-b133-6e0f08a0f0cf" CreationDate="2014-06-28T09:29:44.713" UserId="267" Text="**ЕЦ** is a diminutive suffix, used mostly in the Ukranian and Belorussian languages. In Russian, it was transformed in a suffix that forms names of nationalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **&quot;каменец&quot;** just means **&quot;a small stone&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15435" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="fd6b7550-1e15-4456-b958-8592bb1e229b" CreationDate="2014-06-28T11:08:06.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/482842875454308352" />
  <row Id="15436" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="59fce50c-bde2-4d9d-9cc6-4b0cb6f182c5" CreationDate="2014-06-28T14:08:06.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/482888174528921601" />
  <row Id="15437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="ae7859a5-ed6f-4ddd-939c-36a90434521d" CreationDate="2014-06-29T04:07:26.690" UserId="194" Text="Каменец sounds like &quot;a substance looking like stone but not necessary really stone&quot;, which could be not a real stone (may be some organic hard substance). Definitely, not a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need a profession, it would be каменщик but this word is already reserved a bricklayer or mason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="ee2514ef-11ac-4310-9075-eb52be741df6" CreationDate="2014-06-29T04:15:15.050" UserId="194" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Каменец sounds like &quot;a substance looking like stone but not necessary really stone&quot;, which could be not a real stone (may be some organic hard substance). Definitely, not a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need a profession, it would be каменщик but this word is already reserved for a bricklayer or mason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to mind a mineralogist, I suggest минеролог. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="46adf873-7e5e-4995-a014-29b9c5d14944" CreationDate="2014-06-29T08:22:26.953" UserId="2372" Text="This question originated from listening to a [Dido song][1]. &quot;Got bills to pay&quot; is a pretty common expression in English. It expresses the sentiment that we all have our expenses and in more general sense obligations / responsibilities that affect what we do and how we live. In Russian, however, there are two expressions that are similar, but not the same. Can you compare / contrast them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rock.rapgenius.com/Dido-thank-you-lyrics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="46adf873-7e5e-4995-a014-29b9c5d14944" CreationDate="2014-06-29T08:22:26.953" UserId="2372" Text="What is the difference between &quot;платить по счетам&quot; and &quot;оплачивать счета&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="46adf873-7e5e-4995-a014-29b9c5d14944" CreationDate="2014-06-29T08:22:26.953" UserId="2372" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="376d73ff-727a-451f-bcac-1aca66ddeff1" CreationDate="2014-06-29T08:58:24.827" UserId="3522" Text="You are correct about the grammar. However, I think &quot;буйный&quot; is one of those words which are difficult to translate, especially in one word (like &quot;грозный&quot; in &quot;Иван Грозный&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best place to look for the meaning in this case is Dal's dictionary, which [says][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Буйная голова, беспокойная; в сказках и песнях горькая, горемычная,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бесприютная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to translate the phrase as a lyrics line, I would go for something like &quot;The coachman shakes his restless head&quot;. &quot;Wild&quot; is not wrong as such (if used as an adjective), but hard to understand without the necessary background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F/%D0%91%D0%A3%D0%99%D0%9D%D0%AB%D0%99/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="df48cd14-aadf-4bd5-b7d7-2d744f077da2" CreationDate="2014-06-29T09:14:53.527" UserId="4030" Text="I would like to display a sign in Russian in my shop which directs my customers not to try on the clothing.  Something like &quot;Please do not try on the clothing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would someone be kind enough to provide me with text which would make this clear to my Russian customers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="df48cd14-aadf-4bd5-b7d7-2d744f077da2" CreationDate="2014-06-29T09:14:53.527" UserId="4030" Text="Russian signs for my clothes shop" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="df48cd14-aadf-4bd5-b7d7-2d744f077da2" CreationDate="2014-06-29T09:14:53.527" UserId="4030" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="16729a1b-9857-44c4-97ee-8b4c221b9d90" CreationDate="2014-06-29T09:15:36.137" UserId="267" Text="**&quot;Платить по счетам&quot;** can both have a direct and figurative meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To pay bills in the direct meaning (used in formal speech). It is used when there are many bills to pay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В связи́ с повыше́нием тари́фов на электри́чество, газ и во́ду не все жи́тели города смо́гут плати́ть по счетам.&#xD;&#xA;Due to the increase of the prices of electricity, gas and water, not all the inhabitants of the town will be able to pay the bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To pay the bills in the figurative meaning. It means something like &quot;the time has come to pay for something wrong you did in the past&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пришло вре́мя плати́ть по счетам за оши́бки про́шлого.&#xD;&#xA;And now the bills are due to pay the errors of the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Оплачивать-оплатить счёт (счета)&quot;** is more often used in singular and it means &quot;to pay one concrete bill&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне ну́жно оплати́ть счёт за Интерне́т.&#xD;&#xA;I have to pay the Internet bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="0b24c707-69f7-4d7d-b5d4-f3f67b81fdc9" CreationDate="2014-06-29T09:24:36.913" UserId="267" Text="The translation would be **&quot;Пожалуйста, не примеряйте одежду&quot;**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="0d31182d-87ee-4c4d-bd5d-8eecbff9836a" CreationDate="2014-06-29T11:13:36.340" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I would like to display a sign in Russian in my shop which directs my customers not to try on the clothing.  Something like &quot;Please do not try on the clothing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would someone be kind enough to provide me with text which would make this clear to my Russian customers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="20886ff1-9c3b-40aa-94ae-f68de9ca9d8b" CreationDate="2014-06-29T11:58:10.290" UserId="551" Text="When talking about groups of people that share some idea it's not easy to find a &quot;true&quot; russian suffix that suites the task. The only pre-cristian beleiver I can recall is **волхв, ведун**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other kinds were called so by Russian cristians: **язычник, идолопоклонник**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cristian sects like **иконоборец, старовер**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You may also want to see a [list of &quot;magic people&quot;](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/2440/551) that we have here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most other religious movements have names borrowed from Western culture, so they have Latin, Greek, French, English, etc. suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, based on existing names of religious movements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Suffix -ит (каменит) is OK, because many such words were borrowed from Western culture.&#xD;&#xA;2. Most local names for such movements are usually based on several words made into one:&#xD;&#xA; * Старовер = старый + верить: верить по-старому (believe in old way);&#xD;&#xA; * Иконоборец = икона + бороть: бороться с иконами (fight against icons);&#xD;&#xA; * Идолопоклонник = идол + поклоняться: поклоняться идолам (praise the idols).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second model looks interesting to you, then you may try to join some words to create your own like камневер (believer in stone), камнеискатель (stonesearcher), камнепоклонник (praiser of the stone), камневидец (the one who sees a stone), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;true&quot; russian suffixes - I think most of the meanings are already occupied, for instance Wiktionary reads that &quot;каменец&quot; is a [person that lives in cities like Камень-на-Оби, Каменка, Камень, etc.](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15450" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="491b5dec-6fba-4f02-aa84-e7882473d71d" CreationDate="2014-06-29T14:15:38.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/483252454939971584" />
  <row Id="15451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="dbf818ba-8be1-462d-b706-0d1ff7eaf59a" CreationDate="2014-06-30T05:38:59.360" UserId="62" Text="When referring to an event in a specific year, it is в этом году with этом replaced by the year in prepositional, e.g., в 1956м году. But for decades I have seen both в 1950ых годах and в 1950ые годы. What is the difference in usage between these two choices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="dbf818ba-8be1-462d-b706-0d1ff7eaf59a" CreationDate="2014-06-30T05:38:59.360" UserId="62" Text="Годы or годах for &quot;in a decade&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="dbf818ba-8be1-462d-b706-0d1ff7eaf59a" CreationDate="2014-06-30T05:38:59.360" UserId="62" Text="|грамматика|падежи|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="dc3390e0-9460-4bed-9763-8477f6ed7bb3" CreationDate="2014-06-30T06:12:08.717" UserId="2269" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="When referring to an event in a specific year, it is _в этом году_ with _этом_ replaced by the year in prepositional, e. g., _в 1956-м году_. But for decades I have seen both _в 1950-х годах_ and _в 1950-е годы_. What is the difference in usage between these two choices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="47108c5a-ee28-4afa-8df7-e78d9baaeca2" CreationDate="2014-06-30T07:47:57.727" UserId="2269" Text="For me there is no any difference between locative _в пятидеся́тых года́х_ and accusative _в пятидеся́тые го́ды_, neither semantic, nor stylistic, nor dialectical. But in literary Russian the former variant seems to prevail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В двадцатых годах (реже в двадцатые годы) нашего века (при обозначении десятилетий посредством порядковых числительных чаще употребляется не вин. падеж, а предл.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Д. Э. Розенталь. Пунктуация и управление в русском языке. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You’ve asked is it about _год_ only. No, in my Russian units of time with ordinals may be declined to answer _когда?_ question in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в первые секунды  &#xD;&#xA;в первые минуты  &#xD;&#xA;в первые часы  &#xD;&#xA;в первые дни  &#xD;&#xA;в первые недели / на первых неделях  &#xD;&#xA;в первые месяцы / в первых месяцах / на первых месяцах  &#xD;&#xA;в первые годы / в первых годах  &#xD;&#xA;в первые десятилетия / в первых десятилетиях  &#xD;&#xA;в первые века / в первых веках  &#xD;&#xA;на первых порах  &#xD;&#xA;в первые мгновения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I cannot see any system here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15456" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="8318c128-3837-4f36-8770-aabeb64d7dcc" CreationDate="2014-06-30T14:18:08.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/483615474832646145" />
  <row Id="15457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="d8990643-b843-4504-8362-505f967b41d1" CreationDate="2014-06-30T15:52:07.143" UserId="194" Text="The translation of the start button's name always looked weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian &quot;Пуск&quot; is usually used as a launch command in context of missle launching. It can be used to denote a launch of an arrow, missle or a rocket. In industrial environment a &quot;ПУСК&quot; button usually means a button which turns on some, often uncontrollable, machine, mechanism or process. In all contexts such buttons are usually large and can be painted red. They create inpression of being dangerous and starting something that you may be unable to reverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus when I saw Windows 95 for the first time, I was very afraid of pressing the start button becuse it made impression of starting some irreversible process, like disk formatting or at lest some transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view they cold name the button &quot;Старт&quot; which is quite nortmal Russian word, meaning beginning, it is also often used in context of activities of learning, meaning the entry point from which one begins their work or study a new field, which would be quite appropriate because the button is either used in the beginning of the work, or as a first thing one learns about the new operating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder whether the choice of the word &quot;Пуск&quot; is just a weird translation or there is something other than that to it?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="d8990643-b843-4504-8362-505f967b41d1" CreationDate="2014-06-30T15:52:07.143" UserId="194" Text="Why Microsoft coose the name &quot;Пуск&quot; for the Windows start button?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="d8990643-b843-4504-8362-505f967b41d1" CreationDate="2014-06-30T15:52:07.143" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6858" RevisionGUID="a23c11ee-fa1a-4488-823f-f1ebcef18f4a" CreationDate="2014-06-30T16:29:48.440" UserId="1958" Text="Microsoft is known for their effort to keep Russian localization as Russian as possible. They don't even like to use the word информация, preferring данные или сведения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual meaning of the word Start on this button is just &quot;CLICK ME&quot;, as may find from this Raymond Chen's story: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/07/22/54559.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian locatization team probably found the word &quot;Пуск&quot; neat and funny enough to be placed on the button. Just because of your associations with rocket launching." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15461" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="f509785d-462f-4291-8c34-0f4c416253fd" CreationDate="2014-06-30T16:44:31.813" UserId="1958" Comment="type fixed" Text="Why Microsoft chose the name &quot;Пуск&quot; for the Windows start button?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15462" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="f509785d-462f-4291-8c34-0f4c416253fd" CreationDate="2014-06-30T16:44:31.813" Comment="Proposed by 1958 approved by 194 edit id of 508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6858" RevisionGUID="98aabf43-c98c-4df5-948c-e632d55d0575" CreationDate="2014-06-30T16:46:51.433" UserId="1958" Comment="added the word &quot;you&quot;, if you want to know details, StackExchange" Text="Microsoft is known for their effort to keep Russian localization as Russian as possible. They don't even like to use the word информация, preferring данные или сведения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual meaning of the word Start on this button is just &quot;CLICK ME&quot;, as you may find from this Raymond Chen's story: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/07/22/54559.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian localization team probably found the word &quot;Пуск&quot; neat and funny enough to be placed on the button. Just because of your associations with rocket launching." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15464" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6851" RevisionGUID="82579d07-19cc-4558-b6e6-40c8cf82b92e" CreationDate="2014-06-30T20:18:10.610" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/483706079755657216" />
  <row Id="15465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1711" RevisionGUID="60373082-b99b-4fbb-bde5-57fc0e553682" CreationDate="2014-06-30T21:25:31.080" UserId="1958" Comment="fixed two typos" Text="*Южно-Африканская* and *центральноевропейское* are adjectives. There are [the rules][1] that govern when adjectives are written with a hyphen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Центральноевропейское* is written in one according to the rule of 80.3, because it is formed by the base *Центральная Европа* and used as a term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Южно-Африканская Республика* is written with a hyphen according to the rule of 81.4, because it is a geographic name starts with *южно-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why this rule exists, perhaps it is one of many exceptions. There is common mistake when [Южноафриканская Республика][2] is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples: южноафриканское время, южноафриканская лисица, Южно-Американская плита.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова *Южно-Африканская* и *центральноевропейское* - это прилагательные. [Вот правила][1], когда прилагательные пишутся через дефис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилу 80.3 слово *центральноевропейское* пишется слитно, так как образовано от двух слов *Центральная Европа* и используется как термин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилу 81.4 *Южно-Африканская Республика* пишется через дефис, так как это географическое название, начинающееся с *южно-*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему появилось такое правило сказать не могу, видимо это одно из многих исключений. Так что часто встречается ошибка, когда пишут [Южноафриканская Республика][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры применения этих правил: южноафриканское время, южноафриканская лисица, Южно-Американская плита.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://therules.ru/hyphen-adjectives/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%AE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1711" RevisionGUID="60373082-b99b-4fbb-bde5-57fc0e553682" CreationDate="2014-06-30T21:25:31.080" Comment="Proposed by 1958 approved by 551, 2388 edit id of 507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="f6d17928-c3dd-4651-a9e5-b1527fe7144b" CreationDate="2014-06-30T23:17:28.357" UserId="4032" Text="The difference between *Кто-нибудь* and *кто-либо* is akin to that between *somebody* and *someone*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*либо* is also generally a bit more formal and is more likely to be used in a formal context than *нибудь*, which is, in turn, more likely to be used in an informal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually inappropriate nowadays to use когда-нибудь in affirmative sentences when talking about the past, and also seems mildly inappropriate to use когда-либо when talking about the future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это самый красивый зверь, которого я когда-нибудь видел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не теряю надежды, что когда-либо увижу в лесу лисицу. (using когда-нибудь is better)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="01b2e2e9-2a22-4328-97a9-75a6ecbff83b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T07:09:18.617" UserId="194" Text="* The -либо underlines that the choice happens from a limited, known set or interval, while -нибудь usually means a choice from an infinite or indefinite set or interval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The -либо underlines that all outcomes are equal to the speaker while -нибудь does not have such connotation. So -нибудь often means &quot;barely&quot;, &quot;at least&quot;, &quot;a thing or person only barely suitable&quot;, &quot;an unknown, far removed thing or time&quot;, &quot;the thing, person, place or time about which we cannot speculate now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После колледжа я найду какую-нибудь работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the college I will find [at least] some job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this senternce you cannot use какую-либо because the set is undefined and because you mean &quot;at least&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не устраивает какая-либо работа, связанная с программированием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't want any job connected to programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence you cannot use какая-нибудь because the set is definite, your attitude is equal to all and you do not mean &quot;at least&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-либо** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;by some tricks or methods&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks for methods and advices on how to survive on social aid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-нибудь** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (good or bad, at least barely)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks if it is at least possible to survive on social aid, even with low quality of life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="63ae8ada-d9af-4b7a-9292-3ae7c2af3689" CreationDate="2014-07-01T07:18:40.980" UserId="194" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="* The -либо underlines that the choice happens from a limited, known set or interval, while -нибудь usually means a choice from an infinite or indefinite set or interval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The -либо underlines that all outcomes are equal to the speaker while -нибудь does not have such connotation. So -нибудь often means &quot;barely&quot;, &quot;at least&quot;, &quot;a thing or person only barely suitable&quot;, &quot;an unknown, far removed thing or time&quot;, &quot;the thing, person, place or time about which we cannot speculate now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После колледжа я найду какую-нибудь работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the college I will find [at least] some job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this senternce you cannot use какую-либо because the set is undefined and because you mean &quot;at least&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не устраивает какая-либо работа, связанная с программированием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't want any job connected to programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence you cannot use какая-нибудь because the set is definite, your attitude is equal to all and you do not mean &quot;at least&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following questions the English translation is ambiguous, because &quot;somehow&quot; may mean either &quot;by any actions&quot; or &quot;with any result&quot;. In Russian the как-либо/как-нибудь disambiguates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-либо** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;by some tricks or methods&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks for methods and advices on how to survive on social aid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-нибудь** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (good or bad, at least barely)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks if it is at least possible to survive on social aid, even with low quality of life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="b9b46dd4-d893-4c53-8da1-4974702ad0b1" CreationDate="2014-07-01T07:30:20.433" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="* The -либо underlines that the choice happens from a limited, known set or interval, while -нибудь usually means a choice from an infinite or indefinite set or interval.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The -либо underlines that all outcomes are equal to the speaker while -нибудь does not have such connotation. So -нибудь often means &quot;barely&quot;, &quot;at least&quot;, &quot;a thing or person only barely suitable&quot;, &quot;an unknown, far removed thing or time&quot;, &quot;the thing, person, place or time about which we cannot speculate now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После колледжа я найду какую-нибудь работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the college I will find [at least] some job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this senternce you cannot use какую-либо because the set is undefined and because you mean &quot;at least&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не устраивает какая-либо работа, связанная с программированием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't want any job connected to programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence you cannot use какая-нибудь because the set is definite, your attitude is equal to all and you do not mean &quot;at least&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following questions the English translation is ambiguous, because &quot;somehow&quot; may mean either &quot;by any actions&quot; or &quot;with any result&quot;. In Russian the как-либо/как-нибудь disambiguates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-либо** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;by some tricks or methods&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks for methods and advices on how to survive on social aid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-нибудь** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;good or bad, at least barely&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks if it is at least possible to survive on social aid, even with low quality of life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="7a9df949-c297-4d25-96e5-d89303683f5b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T08:36:45.157" UserId="194" Comment="added 979 characters in body" Text="* The -либо underlines that the choice happens from a limited, known set or interval, while -нибудь usually means a choice from an infinite or indefinite set or interval. So the -либо means &quot;no matter who&quot;, &quot;no matter where&quot;, &quot;no matter when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The -либо underlines that all outcomes are equal to the speaker while -нибудь does not have such connotation. So -нибудь often means &quot;barely&quot;, &quot;at least&quot;, &quot;a thing or person only barely suitable&quot;, &quot;an unknown, far removed thing or time&quot;, &quot;the thing, person, place or time about which we cannot speculate now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После колледжа я найду какую-нибудь работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the college I will find [at least] some job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this senternce you cannot use какую-либо because the set is undefined and because you mean &quot;at least&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не устраивает какая-либо работа, связанная с программированием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't want any [no matter what] job connected to programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence you cannot use какая-нибудь because the set is definite, your attitude is equal to all and you do not mean &quot;at least&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following questions the English translation is ambiguous, because &quot;somehow&quot; may mean either &quot;by any actions&quot; or &quot;with any result&quot;. In Russian the как-либо/как-нибудь disambiguates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-либо** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;by some tricks or methods&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks for methods and advices on how to survive on social aid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-нибудь** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;good or bad, at least barely&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks if it is at least possible to survive on social aid, even with low quality of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы планируете **как-либо** пересечь границу, сразу сообщите о себе в посольство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are planning to **somehow** (&quot;this or that way, by the way of your choice, no matter how&quot;) cross the border, immediately report to the embassy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the speaker expects there are multiple equivalent ways to cross the border.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы планируете **как-нибудь** пересечь границу, сразу сообщите о себе в посольство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are planning to **somehow** (&quot;with troubles or not, easily or hardly, at least barely&quot;) cross the border, immediately report to the embassy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that there are possibly no legal means to cross the border, or such means are unknown to the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="2f584598-f65c-4506-ae62-113de16becc5" CreationDate="2014-07-01T08:41:59.667" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="* The -либо underlines that the choice happens from a limited, known set or interval, while -нибудь usually means a choice from an infinite or indefinite set or interval. So the -либо means &quot;no matter who&quot;, &quot;no matter where&quot;, &quot;no matter when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The -либо underlines that all outcomes are equal to the speaker while -нибудь does not have such connotation. So -нибудь often means &quot;barely&quot;, &quot;at least&quot;, &quot;a thing or person only barely suitable&quot;, &quot;an unknown, far removed thing or time&quot;, &quot;the thing, person, place or time about which we cannot speculate now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После колледжа я найду какую-нибудь работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the college I will find [at least] some job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this senternce you cannot use какую-либо because the set is undefined and because you mean &quot;at least&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не устраивает какая-либо работа, связанная с программированием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't want any [no matter what] job connected to programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence you cannot use какая-нибудь because the set is definite, your attitude is equal to all and you do not mean &quot;at least&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following questions the English translation is ambiguous, because &quot;somehow&quot; may mean either &quot;by any actions&quot; or &quot;with any result&quot;. In Russian the как-либо/как-нибудь disambiguates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-либо** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;by some tricks or methods&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks for methods and advices on how to survive on social aid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-нибудь** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;good or bad, at least barely&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks if it is at least possible to survive on social aid, even with low quality of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы планируете **как-либо** пересечь границу, сразу сообщите о себе в посольство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are planning to **somehow** (&quot;this or that way, by the way of your choice, no matter how&quot;) cross the border, immediately report to the embassy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the speaker expects there are multiple equivalent ways to cross the border.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы планируете **как-нибудь** пересечь границу, сразу сообщите о себе в посольство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are planning to **somehow** (&quot;with troubles or not, easily or with effort, at least barely, even with losses&quot;) cross the border, immediately report to the embassy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that there are possibly no legal or safe ways to cross the border, or such means are unknown to the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="cc258f73-59a5-4a42-8afc-1b316231d8cf" CreationDate="2014-07-01T08:48:51.507" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="* The -либо underlines that the choice happens from a limited, known set or interval, while -нибудь usually means a choice from an infinite or indefinite set or interval. So the -либо means &quot;no matter who&quot;, &quot;no matter where&quot;, &quot;no matter when&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The -либо underlines that all outcomes are equal to the speaker while -нибудь does not have such connotation. So -нибудь often means &quot;barely&quot;, &quot;at least&quot;, &quot;a thing or person only barely suitable&quot;, &quot;an unknown, far removed thing or time&quot;, &quot;the thing, person, place or time about which we cannot speculate now&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После колледжа я найду какую-нибудь работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After the college I will find [at least] some job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this senternce you cannot use какую-либо because the set is undefined and because you mean &quot;at least&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не устраивает какая-либо работа, связанная с программированием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't want any [no matter what] job connected to programming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence you cannot use какая-нибудь because the set is definite, your attitude is equal to all and you do not mean &quot;at least&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following questions the English translation is ambiguous, because &quot;somehow&quot; may mean either &quot;by any actions&quot; or &quot;with any result&quot;. In Russian the как-либо/как-нибудь disambiguates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-либо** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;by some tricks or methods&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks for methods and advices on how to survive on social aid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существуют ли способы **как-нибудь** прожить на пособие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any ways to survive on social aid **somehow** (&quot;good or bad, at least barely&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker asks if it is at least possible to survive on social aid, even with low quality of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы планируете **как-либо** пересечь границу, сразу сообщите о себе в посольство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are planning to **somehow** (&quot;this or that way, by the way of your choice, no matter how&quot;) cross the border, immediately report to the embassy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the speaker expects there are multiple equivalent ways to cross the border.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы планируете **как-нибудь** пересечь границу, сразу сообщите о себе в посольство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are planning to **somehow** (&quot;with troubles or not, easily or with effort, at least barely, even with losses&quot;) cross the border, immediately report to the embassy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that there are possibly no legal or safe ways to cross the border, or such ways are unknown to the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="fe2ebfb0-7835-461c-b6d8-247b3c3ca9da" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:29:29.017" UserId="2311" Text="For example, i can say: «Can i run this idea past you?» meaning that i want to get feedback from a person or «I ran this past the director, and he agrees.» meaning that the plan was approved by the director.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The person, who the idea or a plan is being ran past, рецензирует this idea. But what is the verb for presenting for such input?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="fe2ebfb0-7835-461c-b6d8-247b3c3ca9da" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:29:29.017" UserId="2311" Text="How would one say «run something past somebody» in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="fe2ebfb0-7835-461c-b6d8-247b3c3ca9da" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:29:29.017" UserId="2311" Text="|перевод|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6863" RevisionGUID="f5e5982b-9c29-4dd7-a574-49ae79ca09ea" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:43:27.617" UserId="551" Text="Я думаю здесь могут подойти слова показать/посмотреть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можешь посмотреть мое предложение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я показал свое предложение директору и он согласился (не возражал).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть и более официальное слово - рассмотреть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Директор рассмотрит ваше предложение в понедельник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я представил свой проект на рассмотрение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="9f99b2b3-59ac-415b-9da5-d9072747443e" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:44:51.017" UserId="2311" Text="Having traveled in the rural area around Penza i found that almost all the people say «ндравиться» rather than «нравиться», for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Мне ндравится сегодняшняя погода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it some archaic prononciation or is it just something that evolved specifically in that geographical area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="9f99b2b3-59ac-415b-9da5-d9072747443e" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:44:51.017" UserId="2311" Text="Is «ндравиться» archaic or just geographical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="9f99b2b3-59ac-415b-9da5-d9072747443e" CreationDate="2014-07-01T11:44:51.017" UserId="2311" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="3b2fc920-c5dd-492d-a46e-cc45ef63bc30" CreationDate="2014-07-01T13:29:21.697" UserId="267" Text="The verb **&quot;нравиться&quot;** comes from the noun **&quot;нрав&quot;** (temper, disposition), old-Russian **&quot;нъравъ&quot;**, which appears in the documents of the XI-XII centuries. I don't think its pronounciation changed with the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect pronounciation **&quot;нДравиться&quot;** seems to be really old and it used to be quite common among illiterate people in the XIX century. You can see this verb in the book &quot;Penal servitude. Criminals&quot; by Vlas Doroshevich, a Russian journalist and writer of the XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The woman who uses this word in the book comes from Kostroma, a town in the North of Russia, so I don't think this pronounciation evokes specifically in the geographical area of Perm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;нДравиться&quot; is now used to speak in a funny way about something you like (people who use the verb  know it's incorrect):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне нДравится э́тот музон&#xD;&#xA;I like this cool music (not serious, joking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="173bac1f-a4d8-41c9-8ef5-0c6edd8e7448" CreationDate="2014-07-01T13:52:03.823" UserId="267" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="The verb **&quot;нравиться&quot;** comes from the noun **&quot;нрав&quot;** (temper, disposition), old-Russian **&quot;нъравъ&quot;**, which appears in the documents of the XI-XII centuries. I don't think its pronounciation changed with the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect pronounciation **&quot;нДравиться&quot;** seems to be really old and it used to be quite common among illiterate people in the XIX century. You can see this verb in the book &quot;Penal servitude. Criminals&quot; by Vlas Doroshevich, a Russian journalist and writer of the XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The woman who uses this word in the book comes from Kostroma, a town in the North of Russia, so I don't think this pronounciation evokes specifically in the geographical area of Perm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it short, it doesn't depend on the geographical area, but on the social class and level of education of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;нДравиться&quot; is now used to speak in a funny way about something you like (people who use the verb  know it's incorrect):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне нДравится э́тот музон&#xD;&#xA;I like this cool music (not serious, joking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="eae6a1eb-ee8c-46fd-88a3-f689074f2d94" CreationDate="2014-07-01T15:04:33.383" UserId="267" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verb **&quot;нравиться&quot;** comes from the noun **&quot;нрав&quot;** (temper, disposition), old-Russian **&quot;нъравъ&quot;**, which appears in the documents of the XI-XII centuries. I don't think its pronounciation changed with the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect pronounciation **&quot;нДравиться&quot;** seems to be really old and it used to be quite common among illiterate people in the XIX century. You can see this verb in the book &quot;Penal servitude. Criminals&quot; by Vlas Doroshevich, a Russian journalist and writer of the XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The woman who uses this word in the book comes from Kostroma, a town in the North of Russia, so I don't think this pronounciation evokes specifically in the geographical area of Penza.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it short, it doesn't depend on the geographical area, but on the social class and level of education of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;нДравиться&quot; is now used to speak in a funny way about something you like (people who use the verb  know it's incorrect):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне нДравится э́тот музон&#xD;&#xA;I like this cool music (not serious, joking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="ed9c55e7-596d-42b0-ae85-2d22305b6949" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:14:56.947" UserId="2269" Text="Эпентеза (неэтимологическое, по чисто фонетическим причинам, возникновение посередь слова) звука /n/ в русском языке не ограничивается словом _ндравиться_ и, насколько мне известно, не локализована территориально — слова _энтот_ (этот) и _энтак_ (этак) вы наверняка слышали и своем краю. Ту же природу имеет /n/ в словах _преце&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;дент_ и _компроме&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;тировать_, которые вы иногда можете встретить даже там, где орфоэпическую норму блюдут — на телевидении, например.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего архаичного в ней тем более нет — вы сами воочию убедились, что она по сей день встречается в живой речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это не архаично и не географично, а «просторечно» (звучит снобистски, но это термин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="346e15c0-41dd-418f-b555-0462d087dcd7" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:21:02.573" UserId="2269" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Эпентеза (неэтимологическое, по чисто фонетическим причинам, возникновение посередь слова) звука /n/ в русском языке не ограничивается словом _ндравиться_ и, насколько мне известно, не локализована территориально — слова _энтот_ (этот) и _энтак_ (этак) вы наверняка слышали и своем краю. Ту же природу имеет /n/ в словах _преце&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;дент_ и _компроме&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;тировать_, которые вы иногда можете встретить даже там, где орфоэпическую норму блюдут — на телевидении, например.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего архаичного в ней тем более нет — вы сами воочию убедились, что она по сей день встречается в живой речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это не архаично и не географично, а «просторечно» (звучит снобистски, но это термин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, это _ндравиться_ легко найти в литературе, где оно наряду с другими особенностями речи используется для демонстрации социального происхождения героя:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У Еракина нынче электричество зажигали, — сказал он. — Не *ндравится* мне! [Чехов. Архиерей.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кожа тебе не по скусу? Морщинки тебе, морда собачья, не *ндравятся*? Перед народом меня страмить выдумал... [Зощенко. Баба.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="d61924d7-ea42-45db-a9ff-38c8e51544d0" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:33:56.580" UserId="2269" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Эпентеза (неэтимологическое, по чисто фонетическим причинам, возникновение посередь слова) звука /n/ в русском языке не ограничивается словом _ндравиться_ и, насколько мне известно, не локализована территориально — слова _энтот_ (этот) и _энтак_ (этак) вы наверняка слышали и в своем краю. Ту же природу имеет /n/ в словах _преце&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;дент_ и _компроме&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;тировать_, которые вы иногда можете встретить даже там, где орфоэпическую норму блюдут — на телевидении, например.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего архаичного в ней тем более нет — вы сами воочию убедились, что она по сей день встречается в живой речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это не архаично и не географично, а «просторечно» (звучит снобистски, но это термин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, это _ндравиться_ легко найти в литературе, где оно наряду с другими особенностями речи используется именно для демонстрации социального происхождения героя:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас у всех крест на шее... Франчишке Лефорту, что ли, этот крест не *ндравится*? [А. К. Толстой. Петр Первый]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У Еракина нынче электричество зажигали, — сказал он. — Не *ндравится* мне! [Чехов. Архиерей.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кожа тебе не по скусу? Морщинки тебе, морда собачья, не *ндравятся*? Перед народом меня страмить выдумал... [Зощенко. Баба.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="5cade9b6-239e-4de6-a912-2793df19d62f" CreationDate="2014-07-01T16:39:36.680" UserId="2269" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Эпентеза (неэтимологическое, по чисто фонетическим причинам, возникновение звуков посередь слова) в русском языке не ограничивается словом _ндравиться_ и, насколько мне известно, не локализована территориально — слова _энтот_ (этот) и _энтак_ (этак) вы наверняка слышали и в своем краю. Ту же природу имеет /n/ в словах _преце&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;дент_ и _компроме&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;тировать_, которые вы иногда можете встретить даже там, где орфоэпическую норму блюдут — на телевидении, например.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего архаичного в ней тем более нет — вы сами воочию убедились, что она по сей день встречается в живой речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это не архаично и не географично, а «просторечно» (звучит снобистски, но это термин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, это _ндравиться_ легко найти в литературе, где оно наряду с другими особенностями речи используется именно для демонстрации социального происхождения героя:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас у всех крест на шее... Франчишке Лефорту, что ли, этот крест не *ндравится*? [А. К. Толстой. Петр Первый]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У Еракина нынче электричество зажигали, — сказал он. — Не *ндравится* мне! [Чехов. Архиерей.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кожа тебе не по скусу? Морщинки тебе, морда собачья, не *ндравятся*? Перед народом меня страмить выдумал... [Зощенко. Баба.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="c7f9b427-db81-47ed-88b9-8965a4300469" CreationDate="2014-07-01T17:06:20.163" UserId="2269" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Эпентеза (неэтимологическое, по чисто фонетическим причинам, возникновение звуков посередь слова) в русском языке не ограничивается словом _ндравиться_ и, насколько мне известно, не локализована территориально — слова _энтот_ (этот) и _энтак_ (этак), _постле_ (после) вы наверняка слышали и в своем краю. Ту же природу имеет /n/ в словах _преце&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;дент_ и _компроме&lt;b&gt;н&lt;/b&gt;тировать_, которые вы иногда можете встретить даже там, где орфоэпическую норму блюдут — на телевидении, например.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего архаичного в ней тем более нет — вы сами воочию убедились, что она по сей день встречается в живой речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это не архаично и не географично, а «просторечно» (звучит снобистски, но это термин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, это _ндравиться_ легко найти в литературе, где оно наряду с другими особенностями речи используется именно для демонстрации социального происхождения героя:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас у всех крест на шее... Франчишке Лефорту, что ли, этот крест не *ндравится*? [А. К. Толстой. Петр Первый]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У Еракина нынче электричество зажигали, — сказал он. — Не *ндравится* мне! [Чехов. Архиерей.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кожа тебе не по скусу? Морщинки тебе, морда собачья, не *ндравятся*? Перед народом меня страмить выдумал... [Зощенко. Баба.]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="63a09db6-ceb8-492a-8bce-4126f2af2ec2" CreationDate="2014-07-01T17:23:48.307" UserId="3595" Text="How would you translate this to English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="63a09db6-ceb8-492a-8bce-4126f2af2ec2" CreationDate="2014-07-01T17:23:48.307" UserId="3595" Text="Pusti kozla v ogorod" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="63a09db6-ceb8-492a-8bce-4126f2af2ec2" CreationDate="2014-07-01T17:23:48.307" UserId="3595" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="c2146342-5ba9-42d7-a55b-3281d8e57d4b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T17:38:51.640" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Пусти козла в огород" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15495" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="c2146342-5ba9-42d7-a55b-3281d8e57d4b" CreationDate="2014-07-01T17:38:51.640" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="45dde772-fdf1-4fb4-a516-e6920440449a" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:08:55.367" UserId="267" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="The verb **&quot;нравиться&quot;** comes from the noun **&quot;нрав&quot;** (temper, disposition), old-Russian **&quot;нъравъ&quot;**, which already appears in the documents of the XI-XII centuries. I don't think its pronounciation changed with the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incorrect pronounciation **&quot;нДравиться&quot;** seems to be really old and it used to be quite common among **illiterate people** in the XIX century. You can see this verb in the book &quot;Penal servitude. Criminals&quot; by Vlas Doroshevich, a Russian journalist and writer of the XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The woman who uses this word in the book comes from Kostroma, a town in the North of Russia, so I don't think this pronounciation evokes specifically in the geographical area of Penza.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it short, **it doesn't depend on the geographical area, but on the social class and level of education of people.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;нДравиться&quot; is now used to speak in a funny way about something you like (people who use the verb  know it's incorrect):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне нДравится э́тот музон&#xD;&#xA;I like this cool music (not serious, joking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="3d96ef3e-9fe3-4b8c-ad37-8a3f47d62707" CreationDate="2014-07-01T18:12:56.597" UserId="267" Text="The actual expression is &quot;Пусти́ козла́ в огоро́д, он всю капу́сту обдерёт&quot; (Let a he-goat into the garden, and it will eat all the cabbage&quot;) and its English equivalent is &quot;Never trust a wolf with the care of lambs&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15498" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="d7d2153a-86d1-40da-9ca3-81494c452ef8" CreationDate="2014-07-02T02:19:06.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/484159296348119040" />
  <row Id="15499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="7906db79-c346-4ac7-8f43-2ad9791092f9" CreationDate="2014-07-02T06:18:47.200" UserId="4035" Text="These two choices are equivalent, but I would say the *&quot;в пятидесятых годах&quot;* form is a bit more frequently used than *&quot;в пятидесятые годы&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="d09fa893-2c45-4ff0-ba3d-a4dadf9f4926" CreationDate="2014-07-02T11:26:35.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/484297076613054464" />
  <row Id="15502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="57a48706-2f70-47bc-8654-adeec65228d2" CreationDate="2014-07-02T15:51:32.433" UserId="4044" Text="The best way to address (not old) male is to say &quot;Молодой человек&quot;. For example - &quot;молодОй человЕк, не подскАжите, как пройтИ к кремлЮ?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can use &quot;Парень&quot;: &quot;пАрень, не подскАжешь, как пройтИ к кремлЮ?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;First sentence is a bit more formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6873" RevisionGUID="4ab7a8da-0ee9-4da3-a38c-61d73a0407d4" CreationDate="2014-07-02T16:03:53.647" UserId="4044" Text="&quot;Платить по счетам&quot; is equal to &quot;payback time&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оплачивать счета&quot; can be only used when you are literally paying bills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However - first one can be used equally to second one sometimes. But it is very rare. If you say &quot;пора платить по счетам&quot; - it can be translated only as &quot;payback time has come&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="d8e99660-86ba-4128-84c6-430a45f3f8d9" CreationDate="2014-07-02T16:06:31.070" UserId="4044" Text="I think that &quot;Ебало&quot; in Russian is equal to &quot;mouth&quot; because of oral sex )))&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;ебало&quot; is something that is used as a target for &quot;fuck&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="e020aef2-47ab-4e87-9c2f-7f7a98ac356f" CreationDate="2014-07-02T18:03:47.523" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="spelling, formatting" Text="The translation of the start button's name always looked weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian *Пуск* is usually used as a launch command in context of missile launching. It can be used to denote a launch of an arrow, missile or a rocket. In industrial environment a *ПУСК* button usually means a button which turns on some, often uncontrollable, machine, mechanism or process. In all contexts such buttons are usually large and can be painted red. They create impression of being dangerous and starting something that you may be unable to reverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus when I saw Windows 95 for the first time, I was very afraid of pressing the start button because it made impression of starting some irreversible process, like disk formatting or at lest some transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my view they could have named the button *Старт* which is quite normal Russian word, meaning beginning. It is also often used in context of activities of learning, meaning the entry point from which one begins their work or study a new field, which would be quite appropriate because the button is either used in the beginning of the work, or as a first thing one learns about the new operating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder whether the choice of the word *Пуск* is just a weird translation or there is something other than that to it?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15509" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="e020aef2-47ab-4e87-9c2f-7f7a98ac356f" CreationDate="2014-07-02T18:03:47.523" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 2388 edit id of 509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15510" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="91857518-3e2d-4c09-9f4d-042aed55ccd2" CreationDate="2014-07-02T20:26:35.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/484432972402393088" />
  <row Id="15511" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="e71dd09c-cd90-44d1-bc7f-9d0e60529ad2" CreationDate="2014-07-02T21:15:15.573" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15512" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="9d60c8b2-4caf-43c1-8d70-45cf69408766" CreationDate="2014-07-02T23:26:42.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/484478301923475456" />
  <row Id="15513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="a833718b-36c7-4ab2-93a0-27380a89bc03" CreationDate="2014-07-03T05:26:42.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/484568896536846337" />
  <row Id="15515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="ef389428-3ba7-4a6d-bc33-664df7d3327f" CreationDate="2014-07-03T08:46:11.907" UserId="2311" Text="Which one is the better term to be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="ef389428-3ba7-4a6d-bc33-664df7d3327f" CreationDate="2014-07-03T08:46:11.907" UserId="2311" Text="Гомосексуалист or Гомосексуал?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="ef389428-3ba7-4a6d-bc33-664df7d3327f" CreationDate="2014-07-03T08:46:11.907" UserId="2311" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="46e2dddf-68d6-4c53-9a78-e39806784eb3" CreationDate="2014-07-03T08:46:11.907" UserId="2311" Text="The term гомосексуалист (homosexualist) has existed in English language 40 or 50 years ago as well. Today it is considered archaic and possibly a little offensive when used outside of its historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World wide the term is falling into disuse after гомосексуальность (homosexuality) has been declassified from being a psychological disease. As such it was previously called гомосексуализм (homosexualism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian one can quickly determine the position of the person in relation to the question of equal rights depending on the choice between «гомосексуалист» and «гомосексуал». Those who are supportive of LGBT rights use the latter [1], while the opponents tend to use the former [2]. Apathetic people use whichever they have heard first, but more often the former (due to the nature of Russian speaking society). Neutral groups of people use the latter slightly more often [3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1] http://www.gay.ru/science/kon/remark/teacher.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2] http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-гомосексуализм-и-родноверие/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гомосексуальность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within LGBT community the term «гомосексуализм» and «гомосексуалист» get criticised for being incorrect. -изм and -ист are often used to imply that homosexuals are a political group, and not an arbitrary category of people (with sexuality as the only distinguishing factor). Also due to these terms use in psychiatric literature there is a &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the choice of a word depends largely on where you come from and what message you are trying to send. If you are in an international setting, even when you speak Russian, you should try to use гомосексуальность and гомосексуал, as these are less likely to cause misunderstanding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="242b8b05-2a8b-4974-9701-e0cb442e6e2e" CreationDate="2014-07-03T09:00:02.703" UserId="97" Comment="added 349 characters in body" Text="The term гомосексуалист (homosexualist) has existed in English language 40 or 50 years ago as well. Today it is considered archaic and possibly a little offensive when used outside of its historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World wide the term is falling into disuse after гомосексуальность (homosexuality) has been declassified from being a psychological disease. As such it was previously called гомосексуализм (homosexualism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian one can quickly determine the position of the person in relation to the question of equal rights depending on the choice between «гомосексуалист» and «гомосексуал». Those who are supportive of LGBT rights use the latter [1], while the opponents tend to use the former [2]. Apathetic people use whichever they have heard first, but more often the former (due to the nature of Russian speaking society). Neutral groups of people use the latter slightly more often [3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1] http://www.gay.ru/science/kon/remark/teacher.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2] [http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-гомосексуализм-и-родноверие/](http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гомосексуальность](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within LGBT community the term «гомосексуализм» and «гомосексуалист» get criticised for being incorrect. -изм and -ист are often used to imply that homosexuals are a political group, and not an arbitrary category of people (with sexuality as the only distinguishing factor). Also due to these terms use in psychiatric literature there is a &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the choice of a word depends largely on where you come from and what message you are trying to send. If you are in an international setting, even when you speak Russian, you should try to use гомосексуальность and гомосексуал, as these are less likely to cause misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="0fd83122-9069-44af-b4e5-64ab559f7b19" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:32:28.507" UserId="194" Text="Was -ю ending in instrumental mandatory in Pushkin's times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="0fd83122-9069-44af-b4e5-64ab559f7b19" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:32:28.507" UserId="194" Text="Was -ю ending in instrumental mandatory in Pushkin's times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="0fd83122-9069-44af-b4e5-64ab559f7b19" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:32:28.507" UserId="194" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="5730b75e-c08c-4014-a97b-3b979b8bd5a2" CreationDate="2014-07-03T13:20:46.123" UserId="2269" Text="Реплики перестали помещаться в комментарий («too long by %d characters»), пока просто продолжу в виде ответа, а потом «причешу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. Например изнание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма «собою» встречается 23 раза, а «собой» — 6. Причем, будто просто для разнообразия: «Сначала оба племени враждовали **между собою**, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили **между собой** убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="fdbabe75-2459-4a5c-83fe-84dd50962826" CreationDate="2014-07-03T14:29:37.373" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1728 characters in body" Text="При всем уважении к автору вопроса, вопросу я бы «плюс» точно не поставил. Что значит «mandatory»? Какой-то фиксированной на бумаге нормы литературного в пушкинские времена еще не было. А если норма определяется тем, как пишут уважаемые авторы, то найти с десяток примеров окончания _-ой_, чего достаточно, чтобы ответить: «нет, не была обязательна» можно за минуту. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И во времена Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Злой тоской_ удручена, /&#xD;&#xA;К Муравью ползет она: /&#xD;&#xA;«Не оставь меня, кум милый! /&#xD;&#xA;Дай ты мне собраться с _силой_...&#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Крылов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И у самого Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В крови горит огонь желанья, /&#xD;&#xA;Душа _тобой_ уязвлена, /&#xD;&#xA;Лобзай меня: твои лобзанья /&#xD;&#xA;Мне слаще мирра и вина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И до Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ наш, тронутый _заслугой_ толь _великой_, /&#xD;&#xA;Поставил над _собой_ спасителя _владыкой_ &#xD;&#xA;[Яков Княжнин. Вадим Новгородский].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что какие появились основания полагать что, окончание _-ой_ было недопустимо, не знаю. Да, преобладало _-ою_ — это очевидно. Причем, если взглянуть на частоту по Гугловскому корпусу трех самых частых слов русского языка, допускающих вариацию _-ой_ / _-ою_ в творительном падеже — местоимений: _мной_, _тобой_, _собой_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=1950&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=5&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RaKaO.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то, видно, что преобладало оно аж до первой половины xx века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выше я приводил стихотворные примеры, но можно возразить, что поэзия не очень показательна в таких вопросах, ибо допускает многие вольности, хотя здесь и хороша тем, что не требует обращения к оригиналам xıx века — в прозе этот момент могли и осовременить при приведении к новой правописной норме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. Например изнание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма «собою» встречается 23 раза, а «собой» — 6. Причем, будто бы просто для разнообразия: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сначала оба племени враждовали _между собою_, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили _между собой_ убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="1bebac31-7436-4730-8913-d6b74220e032" CreationDate="2014-07-03T14:35:25.000" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1728 characters in body" Text="При всем уважении к автору вопроса, вопросу я бы «плюс» точно не поставил. Что значит «mandatory»? Какой-либо фиксированной на бумаге нормы литературного языка в пушкинские времена еще не было. А если норма определяется тем, как пишут уважаемые авторы, то найти с десяток примеров окончания _-ой_, чего достаточно, чтобы ответить: «нет, не была обязательна», можно за минуту. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И во времена Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Злой тоской_ удручена, /&#xD;&#xA;К Муравью ползет она: /&#xD;&#xA;«Не оставь меня, кум милый! /&#xD;&#xA;Дай ты мне собраться с _силой_...&#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Крылов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И у самого Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В крови горит огонь желанья, /&#xD;&#xA;Душа _тобой_ уязвлена, /&#xD;&#xA;Лобзай меня: твои лобзанья /&#xD;&#xA;Мне слаще мирра и вина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И до Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ наш, тронутый _заслугой_ толь _великой_, /&#xD;&#xA;Поставил над _собой_ спасителя _владыкой_ &#xD;&#xA;[Яков Княжнин].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что, какие появились основания полагать что, окончание _-ой_ было недопустимо, не знаю. Да, преобладало, по всей видимости, _-ою_. Причем, если взглянуть на частоту по Гугловскому корпусу трех самых частых слов русского языка, допускающих вариацию _-ой_ / _-ою_ в творительном падеже — местоимений: _мной_, _тобой_, _собой_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=1950&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=5&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RaKaO.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то, стоит заключить, что по крайней мере в этих словах преобладало оно аж до первой половины xx века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выше я приводил стихотворные примеры, но можно возразить, что поэзия не очень показательна в таких вопросах, ибо допускает многие вольности, хотя здесь и хороша тем, что не требует обращения к оригиналам xıx века — в прозе этот момент могли и осовременить при приведении к новой правописной норме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. Например изнание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма _собою_ встречается 23 раза, а _собой_ — 6. Причем, будто бы просто для разнообразия: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сначала оба племени враждовали _между собою_, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили _между собой_ убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="8096c159-b004-47d1-9f12-6c4a49555e06" CreationDate="2014-07-03T14:46:29.307" UserId="2269" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="При всем уважении к автору вопроса, вопросу этому я бы «плюс» точно не поставил. Что значит «mandatory»? Какой-либо фиксированной на бумаге нормы литературного языка в пушкинские времена еще не было. А если норма определяется тем, как пишут уважаемые авторы, то найти с десяток примеров окончания _-ой_, чего достаточно, чтобы ответить: «нет, не была обязательна», можно за минуту. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И во времена Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Злой тоской_ удручена, /&#xD;&#xA;К Муравью ползет она: /&#xD;&#xA;«Не оставь меня, кум милый! /&#xD;&#xA;Дай ты мне собраться с _силой_...&#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Крылов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И у самого Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В крови горит огонь желанья, /&#xD;&#xA;Душа _тобой_ уязвлена, /&#xD;&#xA;Лобзай меня: твои лобзанья /&#xD;&#xA;Мне слаще мирра и вина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И до Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ наш, тронутый _заслугой_ толь _великой_, /&#xD;&#xA;Поставил над _собой_ спасителя _владыкой_ &#xD;&#xA;[Яков Княжнин].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что, какие появились основания полагать что, окончание _-ой_ было недопустимо, не знаю. Да, преобладало, по всей видимости, _-ою_. Причем, если взглянуть на частоту по Гугловскому корпусу трех самых частых слов русского языка, допускающих вариацию _-ой_ / _-ою_ в творительном падеже — местоимений: _мной_, _тобой_, _собой_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=1950&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=5&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RaKaO.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то, видно, что по крайней мере в этих словах преобладало оно аж до первой половины xx века. В более редких словах — раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выше я приводил стихотворные примеры, но можно возразить, что поэзия не очень показательна в таких вопросах, ибо допускает многие вольности, хотя здесь и хороша тем, что не требует обращения к оригиналам xıx века — в прозе этот момент могли и осовременить при приведении к новой правописной норме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. К примеру, издание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и даже кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма _собою_ встречается 23 раза, а _собой_ — 6. Причем, будто бы просто для разнообразия: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сначала оба племени враждовали _между собою_, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили _между собой_ убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="6bdf6147-7084-4603-ad2f-3e1b253765d3" CreationDate="2014-07-03T14:53:43.477" UserId="2311" Comment="somehow paragraph got chopped up" Text="The term гомосексуалист (homosexualist) has existed in English language 40 or 50 years ago as well. Today it is considered archaic and possibly a little offensive when used outside of its historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World wide the term is falling into disuse after гомосексуальность (homosexuality) has been declassified from being a psychological disease. As such it was previously called гомосексуализм (homosexualism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian one can quickly determine the position of the person in relation to the question of equal rights depending on the choice between «гомосексуалист» and «гомосексуал». Those who are supportive of LGBT rights use the latter [1], while the opponents tend to use the former [2]. Apathetic people use whichever they have heard first, but more often the former (due to the nature of Russian speaking society). Neutral groups of people use the latter slightly more often [3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1] http://www.gay.ru/science/kon/remark/teacher.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2] [http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-гомосексуализм-и-родноверие/](http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гомосексуальность](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within LGBT community the term «гомосексуализм» and «гомосексуалист» get criticised for being incorrect. -изм and -ист are often used to imply that homosexuals are a political group, and not an arbitrary category of people (with sexuality as the only distinguishing factor). Also due to these terms use in psychiatric literature there is a baggage that comes with their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the choice of a word depends largely on where you come from and what message you are trying to send. If you are in an international setting, even when you speak Russian, you should try to use гомосексуальность and гомосексуал, as these are less likely to cause misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="4de4ddff-56a4-40dc-b343-5f725cf5fa39" CreationDate="2014-07-03T15:01:12.730" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 127 characters in body" Text="При всем уважении к автору вопроса, вопросу в такой формулировке я бы «плюс» точно не поставил. Можно за минуту найти с десяток примеров окончания _-ой_ из произведений уважаемых авторов, чего вполне достаточно, чтобы ответить: «нет, не была обязательна».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И до Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ наш, тронутый _заслугой_ толь _великой_, /&#xD;&#xA;Поставил над _собой_ спасителя _владыкой_ &#xD;&#xA;[Яков Княжнин].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И во времена Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Злой тоской_ удручена, /&#xD;&#xA;К Муравью ползет она: /&#xD;&#xA;«Не оставь меня, кум милый! /&#xD;&#xA;Дай ты мне собраться с _силой_...&#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Крылов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И у самого Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В крови горит огонь желанья, /&#xD;&#xA;Душа _тобой_ уязвлена, /&#xD;&#xA;Лобзай меня: твои лобзанья /&#xD;&#xA;Мне слаще мирра и вина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что, какие появились основания полагать что, окончание _-ой_ было недопустимо, не знаю. Да, преобладало, по всей видимости, _-ою_. Причем, если взглянуть на частоту по Гугловскому корпусу трех самых частых слов русского языка, допускающих вариацию _-ой_ / _-ою_ в творительном падеже — местоимений: _мной_, _тобой_, _собой_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=1950&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=5&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RaKaO.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то, видно, что по крайней мере в этих словах преобладало оно аж до первой половины xx века. В более редких словах — раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выше я приводил стихотворные примеры, но можно возразить, что поэзия не очень показательна в таких вопросах, ибо допускает многие вольности, хотя здесь и хороша тем, что не требует обращения к оригиналам xıx века — в прозе этот момент могли и осовременить при приведении к новой правописной норме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. К примеру, издание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и даже кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма _собою_ встречается 23 раза, а _собой_ — 6. Причем, будто бы просто для разнообразия: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сначала оба племени враждовали _между собою_, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили _между собой_ убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15530" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6867" RevisionGUID="35c12815-820b-4e94-b23e-1902a731eed3" CreationDate="2014-07-03T15:44:00.087" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;petajamaja&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="fcafeeb8-97e6-4af2-821e-0c8ee2f11cab" CreationDate="2014-07-03T15:44:33.170" UserId="194" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Was -ю ending in instrumental mandatory or overwhelming in Pushkin's times?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="07b70a62-3f0a-430e-9374-10cf8a457d27" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:11:01.190" UserId="2269" Comment="added 749 characters in body" Text="При всем уважении к автору вопроса, вопросу в такой формулировке я бы «плюс» точно не поставил. Можно за минуту найти с десяток примеров окончания _-ой_ из произведений уважаемых авторов, чего вполне достаточно, чтобы ответить: «нет, не была обязательна».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И до Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ наш, тронутый _заслугой_ толь _великой_, /&#xD;&#xA;Поставил над _собой_ спасителя _владыкой_ &#xD;&#xA;[Яков Княжнин].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И во времена Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Злой тоской_ удручена, /&#xD;&#xA;К Муравью ползет она: /&#xD;&#xA;«Не оставь меня, кум милый! /&#xD;&#xA;Дай ты мне собраться с _силой_...&#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Крылов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И у самого Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В крови горит огонь желанья, /&#xD;&#xA;Душа _тобой_ уязвлена, /&#xD;&#xA;Лобзай меня: твои лобзанья /&#xD;&#xA;Мне слаще мирра и вина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что, какие появились основания полагать что, окончание _-ой_ было недопустимо, не знаю. Да, преобладало, по всей видимости, _-ою_. Причем, если взглянуть на частоту по Гугловскому корпусу трех самых частых слов русского языка, допускающих вариацию _-ой_ / _-ою_ в творительном падеже — местоимений: _мной_, _тобой_, _собой_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=1950&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=5&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RaKaO.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то, видно, что по крайней мере в этих словах преобладало оно аж до первой половины xx века. В более редких словах — раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выше я приводил стихотворные примеры, но можно возразить, что поэзия не очень показательна в таких вопросах, ибо допускает многие вольности, хотя здесь и хороша тем, что не требует обращения к оригиналам xıx века — в прозе этот момент могли и осовременить при приведении к новой правописной норме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. К примеру, издание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и даже кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма _собою_ встречается 23 раза, а _собой_ — 6. Причем, будто бы просто для разнообразия: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сначала оба племени враждовали _между собою_, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили _между собой_ убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается наставлений по грамматике русского языка, то их, наисколько мне известно, в первой половине xıx века было два: Греча и Востокова. В Сети доступны только относительно поздние издания, и они характеризуют обсуждаемый феномен сходным образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Окончаніе _ою_ и _ею_, въ творительномъ падежѣ ед. числа женскаго рода, иногда сокращается; напримѣръ: _черной шубой_, _свѣжей ягодой_ и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Н. И. Гречъ — Начальныя правила русской грамматики — СПб, 1842 — С. 27&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также творительный падежъ единств. числа женскаго рода сокращается въ мѣстоименияхъ, какъ въ существительныхъ и прилагательныхъ именахъ, на _ей_, _ой_; напр. _моей_, вм. _моею_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— А. Х. Востоковъ — Сокращенная русская грамматика — М, 1845 — Ч. I. Гл. III. § 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="0c10b126-49c7-43c8-8124-3d70f18e3afc" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:18:25.450" UserId="2269" Comment="added 749 characters in body" Text="В такой формулировке вопрос напрашивается на односложный ответ. Можно за минуту найти с десяток примеров окончания _-ой_ из произведений уважаемых авторов, чего вполне достаточно, чтобы ответить: «нет, не была обязательна».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И до Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Народ наш, тронутый _заслугой_ толь _великой_, /&#xD;&#xA;Поставил над _собой_ спасителя _владыкой_ &#xD;&#xA;[Яков Княжнин].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И во времена Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Злой тоской_ удручена, /&#xD;&#xA;К Муравью ползет она: /&#xD;&#xA;«Не оставь меня, кум милый! /&#xD;&#xA;Дай ты мне собраться с _силой_...&#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Крылов]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И у самого Пушкина:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В крови горит огонь желанья, /&#xD;&#xA;Душа _тобой_ уязвлена, /&#xD;&#xA;Лобзай меня: твои лобзанья /&#xD;&#xA;Мне слаще мирра и вина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какие появились основания полагать, что окончание _-ой_ было недопустимо, не знаю. Да, преобладало, по всей видимости, _-ою_. Причем, если взглянуть на частоту по Гугловскому корпусу трех самых частых слов русского языка, допускающих вариацию _-ой_ / _-ою_ в творительном падеже — местоимений: _мной_, _тобой_, _собой_,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%2C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%8E&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=1950&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=5&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RaKaO.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то, видно, что по крайней мере в этих словах преобладало оно аж до первой половины xx века. В более редких словах — раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выше я приводил стихотворные примеры, но можно возразить, что поэзия не очень показательна в таких вопросах, ибо допускает многие вольности, хотя здесь и хороша тем, что не требует обращения к оригиналам xıx века — в прозе этот момент могли и осовременить при приведении к новой правописной норме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, часто и к оригиналам обратиться не сложно. К примеру, издание «Сочинений» Пушкина, подготовленное Жуковским, у Гугля есть целиком и даже кое-как распознанное. Так вот, например, в «Истории Пугачева», форма _собою_ встречается 23 раза, а _собой_ — 6. Причем, будто бы просто для разнообразия: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сначала оба племени враждовали _между собою_, но въ послѣдствіи времени вошли въ дружелюбныя сношенія: казаки стали получать женъ изъ Татарскихъ улусовъ. Сохранилось поэтическое преданіе: казаки, страстные къ холостой жизни положили _между собой_ убивать приживаемыхъ дѣтей, а женъ бросать при выстуиленіи въ новый походъ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается наставлений по грамматике русского языка, то их, наисколько мне известно, в первой половине xıx века было два: Греча и Востокова. В Сети доступны только относительно поздние издания, и они характеризуют обсуждаемый феномен сходным образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Окончаніе _ою_ и _ею_, въ творительномъ падежѣ ед. числа женскаго рода, иногда сокращается; напримѣръ: _черной шубой_, _свѣжей ягодой_ и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Н. И. Гречъ — Начальныя правила русской грамматики — СПб, 1842 — С. 27&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также творительный падежъ единств. числа женскаго рода сокращается въ мѣстоименияхъ, какъ въ существительныхъ и прилагательныхъ именахъ, на _ей_, _ой_; напр. _моей_, вм. _моею_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— А. Х. Востоковъ — Сокращенная русская грамматика — М, 1845 — Ч. I. Гл. III. § 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="1f46c415-28fe-4f82-8268-de256e998130" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:25:38.880" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|падежи|история-языка|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="c74f79db-954d-42c7-b921-442ddbe653d7" CreationDate="2014-07-03T16:39:57.783" UserId="2269" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Чего это «we can’t»? Я вот могу: «_Я побежу́._» :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу́_, _остужу́_, _подтвержу́_ и др.), но тем не менее по некоторым причинам широко не употребляющаяся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Причем стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие избегают:  из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить, например, _убежу́_ (от _убеди́ть_), _отчужу́_ (от _отчуди́ть_), из настоящего времени: _держу́_ и _бужу́_ от _дерзи́ть_ и _бузи́ть_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти слова в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежу́_ от _побежа́ть_, _убежу́_ от _убежа́ть_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или по меньшей мере существовавшие), _отчужу́_ от _отчужда́ть_, _держу́_ от _держа́ть_ и _бужу́_ от _буди́ть_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из неправдоподобных гипотез мне на просторах Сети встречалось утверждение, что «я побежу» было табуировано, чтоб не сглазить. Неправдоподобна она во-первых потому, что никак не об’ясняет трудностей c тем же _убедить_ и другими словами. А во-вторых потому, что в родственных языках, где смешения _побежу_ / _побегу_ не было, никакого «табу» не возникло: по-белорусски будет _я перамагу_, по-украински _я переможу_.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Форма _победю́_ грамматически некорректна и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А стрелок: — Да это что за награда?   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне бы выкатить портвейна бадью!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мол, принцессу мне и даром не надо —   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чу́ду-ю́ду я и так победю.   &#xD;&#xA;[В. Высоцкий. Про дикого вепря]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Побежду́_ же, насколько я могу понять, — это корректная церковнославянская форма.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;24 И ссѣку ѿ лица єгѡ враги єгѡ, и нєнавидѧщыѧ єго побѣжду:&#xD;&#xA;[Псалом 88, Елизаветинская библия]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Откуда она проникла в русский, где эпизодически использовалась в текстах высокаго штиля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Коль любишь ты меня, пусть твой отец стремится   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Взнесенный на меня низринуть свой удар;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ко дщери я его храня во сердце жар,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Несправедливости его опровергая,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умру иль побежду, Рамиду обожая.   &#xD;&#xA;[Я. Б. Княжнин. Вадим Новгородский, 1789]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я теку на брань и побежду; хощу, да по прибытии моем в Киев, когда сердца народные упоеваться будут радостию, — хощу, да первый, кто поздравит меня с победой, — будет прелестная София.   &#xD;&#xA;[В. Т. Нарежный. Славенские вечера, 1809]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, сегодня Атрид победил с ясноокой Афиной;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;После и я побежду: покровители боги и с нами.   &#xD;&#xA;[Илиада в переводе Н. И. Гнедича, 1809–1829]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А возможно и более широко, по крайней мере именно ее дают как единственно возможную Н. И. Греч в своей «Пространной русской грамматике» (1827) и Я. К. Грот в «Русском правописании» (1902).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Их однословных синонимов можно отметить _выиграю [в чем-либо]_ и _одолею [кого-либо]_, последнее относится к несколько возвышенному стилю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. После всего вышесказанного мне, кстати, перестают казаться иронией  строки из «Фортуны» М. И. Цветаевой (1919):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В который раз дивлюсь   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Убожеству мужского лексикона!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое нищенство! Люблю, убью —   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Убью — люблю… Нет, наш словарь — богаче!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Взойду, взгляну и побежду… Взгляну —  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;И не возьму...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, действительно: здесь «побежду» употреблено серьезно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. P. S. Гуглопереводчик понимает _Я побежу_ таки как _I will run_, _Я победю_ как прошедшее _I won_, и только _Я побежду_ корректно как _I defeated._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="ddfbffe7-1c2a-43ed-b92f-5eae32b45856" CreationDate="2014-07-03T20:31:32.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/484796605925953538" />
  <row Id="15546" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="b48ab966-739d-47c7-802a-cf2cef74d570" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:55:16.853" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15547" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="33991e3b-21b9-45a1-a0d7-e31c3907bafb" CreationDate="2014-07-04T10:55:16.853" UserId="242" Comment="40" />
  <row Id="15548" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="8ddc4eeb-30bd-442b-9f50-b750dd5a8429" CreationDate="2014-07-04T12:19:45.497" UserId="-1" Comment="40" />
  <row Id="15549" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="acaac413-a07f-42d2-860f-84d99041491a" CreationDate="2014-07-04T12:19:45.497" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15550" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="152d4256-ea08-45db-94c5-b3ce1fb7eaa3" CreationDate="2014-07-04T13:08:55.383" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15551" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="1e98d796-4f7d-4cdd-9c27-dc06165ad6cb" CreationDate="2014-07-04T13:08:55.383" UserId="242" Comment="41" />
  <row Id="15552" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="427cb100-43cf-493e-9699-c7068e878026" CreationDate="2014-07-04T14:19:49.033" UserId="-1" Comment="41" />
  <row Id="15553" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="ff3db14a-6972-441b-9336-fe71371a327e" CreationDate="2014-07-04T14:19:49.033" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="34a0fc8f-4444-4e68-a9bd-126256fd77de" CreationDate="2014-07-04T19:44:26.440" UserId="1329" Text="Очень хотелось бы узнать, правильно ли с грамматической, стилистической итд точки зрения следующее предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **&quot;Я не идеал.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему-то оно мне режет уши. Я бы использовала вместо него предложение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Я не идеальна.&quot;** или **&quot;Я далеко не идеал.&quot;**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но увы : ритм не позволяет.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="34a0fc8f-4444-4e68-a9bd-126256fd77de" CreationDate="2014-07-04T19:44:26.440" UserId="1329" Text="Использование слова идеал вместо соответствующего прилагательного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="34a0fc8f-4444-4e68-a9bd-126256fd77de" CreationDate="2014-07-04T19:44:26.440" UserId="1329" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6881" RevisionGUID="05ecbeac-6b5c-4dbf-8bdc-2f2630b011e8" CreationDate="2014-07-04T20:46:59.767" UserId="3843" Text="Идеал - существительное, обозначающее недостижимый образец для подражания (нечно идеальное). Получается предложение со сказуемым-существительным, которое вполне подходит по значению." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="7fc95146-7c74-4ec1-aa47-d1d9870d4464" CreationDate="2014-07-04T20:55:28.637" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Очень хотелось бы узнать, правильно ли с грамматической, стилистической и т. д. точек зрения следующее предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **«Я не идеал»**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему-то оно мне режет уши. Я бы использовала вместо него предложение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Я не идеальна»** или **«Я далеко не идеал»**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но увы: ритм не позволяет.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15563" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="7fc95146-7c74-4ec1-aa47-d1d9870d4464" CreationDate="2014-07-04T20:55:28.637" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Использование слова «идеал» вместо соответствующего прилагательного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="b0a6c959-7b60-4a30-968c-344b1dad91b0" CreationDate="2014-07-04T22:33:04.023" UserId="4032" Text="In mathematics, neither дыра nor дырка are commonly used to denote an point/set that is excluded from another set. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the actual terminology is somewhat similar: If some set has the point A removed from it (usually with its neighbourhood included in the set), it is said: Точка A *выколота*. Similarly, a set that includes all points close to A but not A itself is called *проколотая/выколотая* окрестность точки A. The direct translation, Punctured neighborhood of A, is also used in english literature. I'm not aware of any english analog for the first phrase, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, generally, scientific nicknames for certain objects (*adjective* hole) tend to have hole translated as дыра only. The only two examples I can think of are ozone and black holes, but there's probably more. Although there are definitely some other uses where дырка is the only option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also uses where only one of the words is commonly used, for example:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A hole in the ground (дыра only)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vulgar synonym to &quot;woman&quot; (дырка only)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would probably also be good to mention that there are at least three other words meaning holes of different sizes:&#xD;&#xA;дырень/дырища for exceptionally large holes and дырочка for small ones (smaller than дырка) or for exaggerating/pointing out the smallness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another fact worth mentioning is that дырка and дырочка almost always mean a &quot;clean&quot; hole, while дыра is often used to refer to holes with irregular/jagged edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of those words, especially the three mentioned above, may also convey the feeling of the speaker in respect to the hole in question:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Using дырень/дырища usually implies awe, surprise, or disgust.&#xD;&#xA;Using дырка instead of дыра implies that the hole is no big deal/not worth your attention, unless you try to direct the listener/reader's attention to the hole, in which case дырка means a non-serious hole and дыра can mean both.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;засунул руку в карман, а там дырка. *the hole is no big deal, I'll fix it when I get home*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;засунул руку в карман, а там дыра. *there's a big hole in my pocket, I should be careful not to put anything in until I fix it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;посмотри, у тебя дырка в кармане!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;посмотри, у тебя дыра в кармане!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*these two sentences mostly mean the same: You have a hole in your pocket, fix it ASAP. The first of them implies a hole at least smaller than the pocket itself, though, whereas the second could refer to a hole of any size.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, дырочка is probably the most emotionally-neutral of these words, meaning just a small (typically smaller than a finger, but could be anything depending on what is considered small in a particular context) hole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="0b8c65df-5a64-4952-bdc0-18562b24b3bd" CreationDate="2014-07-05T02:56:11.627" UserId="242" Text="It worth to mention that, aside from the fact that &quot;дырка&quot; is definitely more colloquial, &quot;дыра&quot; has one very widely recognized and used meaning which &quot;дырка&quot; completely lacks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дыра&quot; stands for a remote and/or forsaken and/or ramshackle place. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В какую же дыру мы с тобой попали &#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слушай, ну какой Урюпинск, я туда не поеду, это же дыра, там нечего ловить! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="e17193e0-519b-44a5-9633-361e7d18d084" CreationDate="2014-07-05T03:25:22.587" UserId="242" Text="С грамматической точки зрения всё нормально, с фактическим словоупотреблением - тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другое дело, что такое словоупотребление лежит в области очень-очень тонких особенностей, делающих изучение иностранных языков таким сложным делом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравните с &quot;Я далеко не гений&quot; и &quot;Я не гениален&quot;. Так сказать можно, это абсолютная норма.&#xD;&#xA;А например форма &quot;Я [далеко] не дурак&quot; единственно употребимая, &quot;я не дурацкий&quot; никто не скажет, скажет &quot;я не глуп[ый/ая]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все эти словосочетания и оттенки их употребления остаётся только выучить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ещё, судя по вашему вопросу, вам кажется что слово &quot;далеко&quot; на что-то в данном контексте влияет. Но это предположение неверно точно, в данном случае ни на что не влияет. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="92e1781b-37ff-409f-a177-de325a2c02aa" CreationDate="2014-07-05T09:41:24.090" UserId="4062" Text="We may use this word talking about a person.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Хуйло&quot; is a form of the word &quot;хуй&quot;, but as we can't call a person this way we use &quot;хуйло&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Try to avoid it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="9979fa5e-e703-4fb6-888d-d98a96fd2069" CreationDate="2014-07-05T16:02:00.197" UserId="3727" Text="Much more idiomatic would be: &quot;хочу с тобой посоветоватса по вопросу...&quot; or &quot;нужен твой совет насчет...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="b777871a-053e-401b-8ab8-dae9ada9ccb7" CreationDate="2014-07-05T16:17:16.393" UserId="3727" Text="I'd like to point out that it is generally quite meaningless to ask &quot;why&quot; when to it comes to live languages, as they (languages) are the results of some &quot;unorganized&quot; collective authorship. &#xD;&#xA;Also, my apologies to the purists of Stack Exchange communities for stating this as an answer. I do realize that the most appropriate place for this will be a comment but it is not an option for me presently for the lack of reputation points." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="dd42c55a-4841-4d9c-859a-77f1632095c9" CreationDate="2014-07-05T16:55:50.810" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Much more idiomatic would be: &quot;хочу с тобой посоветоватся по вопросу...&quot; or &quot;нужен твой совет насчет...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="2fff5a8d-6fc6-40ff-b630-8af5da343b45" CreationDate="2014-07-05T22:51:12.160" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Is the word **лицеприятие** understood by (the vast majority of) Russians?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="2fff5a8d-6fc6-40ff-b630-8af5da343b45" CreationDate="2014-07-05T22:51:12.160" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Is the word лицеприятие understood by (the vast majority of) Russians?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="2fff5a8d-6fc6-40ff-b630-8af5da343b45" CreationDate="2014-07-05T22:51:12.160" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="d3a33969-eae7-4584-bff1-37b77c4c5c1b" CreationDate="2014-07-05T23:29:03.343" UserId="2388" Text="I doubt that. Unless they have a dictionary to look it up. Unpopular since the second half of 19 century, the word has virtually fallen into disuse somewhere after 1930-1940. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check it up at [Russian National Corpus][1] : we are talking about 1 instance of the word in 10 000 000, and even that one would likely be a stylization or quotation. Judging by mere frequency of use, it probably started to fall from active use as early as in 1870's: less than 1 instance per million is generally not a good frequency to have for an active word (the word is beyond 40-50 thousands most useful words you know). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;нелицеприятный&quot;** was more popular even then. And this is exactly why it has lost its original meaning in everyday speech: surely, you can look in the dictionary where it says that the word may mean &quot;not based on personal predilection&quot; — but its (unfrequent) modern use is mostly &quot;a turgid way to say _unpleasant_ in speech&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EB%E8%F6%E5%EF%F0%E8%FF%F2%E8%E5&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="93a12406-43a1-49f7-8bd7-2929269fee57" CreationDate="2014-07-05T23:37:06.293" UserId="2388" Comment="added 523 characters in body" Text="I doubt that. Unless they have a dictionary to look it up. Unpopular since the second half of 19 century, the word has virtually fallen into disuse somewhere after 1930-1940. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check it up at [Russian National Corpus][1] : we are talking about 1 instance of the word in 10 000 000, and even that one would likely be a stylization or quotation. Judging by mere frequency of use, it probably started to fall from active use as early as in 1870's: less than 1 instance per million is generally not a good frequency to have for an active word (the word is beyond 40-50 thousands most useful words you know). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;нелицеприятный&quot;** was more popular even then. And this is exactly why it has lost its original meaning in everyday speech: surely, you can look in the dictionary where it says that the word may mean &quot;not based on personal predilection&quot; — but its (unfrequent) modern use is mostly &quot;a turgid way to say _unpleasant_ in speech&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read about &quot;нелицеприятный&quot; a few years ago, so I made a good guess as to what &quot;лицеприятие&quot; means. Still, had to check the dictionary to be sure. You see, the word is not used *anywhere* in modern language aside from very specific sources. Unless you read such works, it is almost impossible for you to even encounter it. When reading 19 century literature you mostly guess the meaning from context and move on. It appears twice in &quot;Anna Karenina&quot; yet I probably didn't pay attention to memorize it from the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EB%E8%F6%E5%EF%F0%E8%FF%F2%E8%E5&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="c730765c-d984-4b64-a4f4-153d5279b223" CreationDate="2014-07-06T06:34:49.900" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="&gt;Он нам показал свою машину.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a natural way of saying it or would one only do so with a certain purpose which would be figured by the listener, because it does sound strange compared to `Он показал нам свою..`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="c730765c-d984-4b64-a4f4-153d5279b223" CreationDate="2014-07-06T06:34:49.900" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Does it sound strange to put the pronoun before the verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="c730765c-d984-4b64-a4f4-153d5279b223" CreationDate="2014-07-06T06:34:49.900" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|словоупотребление|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15583" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="3616b6d5-9ec3-446c-b649-2297ea09b8d0" CreationDate="2014-07-06T06:58:03.857" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="e9f13ca6-9a3c-47ec-9c5a-19e60f2c8bb4" CreationDate="2014-07-06T07:27:23.960" UserId="267" Text="**&quot;Он нам показал свою машину&quot;** sounds a little bit emphatic because the pronoun normally goes after the verb. So, this example of yours would be translated as &quot;He showed his car **to us (only to us)&quot;.** The sentence **&quot;Он показал свою машину нам&quot;** sounds more emphatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But sometimes when we speak we don't pay attention to the word order, so in this case when we say &quot;Он нам показал свою машину&quot;, it also sounds natural. You have to pay attention to the context to see if it is emphatic of not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он показал нам свою машину&quot; sounds neutral. it is more natural and correct way to say it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="e467fd0c-0c54-4f3f-ab87-fabeb2cc2fe6" CreationDate="2014-07-06T11:31:29.333" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Obviously the word **заповедовать** is an ancient one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is it incomprehensible somehow, so that the reader has to hold while reading, maybe wondering what's meant exactly or does he - i. e. the Russian reader - treat it basically like *приказывать, повелевать*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="e467fd0c-0c54-4f3f-ab87-fabeb2cc2fe6" CreationDate="2014-07-06T11:31:29.333" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Does заповедовать in a sentence interrupt the flow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="e467fd0c-0c54-4f3f-ab87-fabeb2cc2fe6" CreationDate="2014-07-06T11:31:29.333" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6895" RevisionGUID="7f43bc26-561d-453b-abdd-8916a9dec331" CreationDate="2014-07-06T12:00:50.450" UserId="2388" Text="It is slightly arhaic but easily understood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, with words like &quot;лицеприятие&quot; the problem is, there is no clear meaning. &quot;-ие&quot; kinda signals that the word means some phenomenon or process. However, no words look similar to that one. You have &quot;нелицеприятный&quot; which is now mostly used as &quot;unpleasant&quot; except by people who checked it in the dictionary.. sooo.. is &quot;лицеприятие&quot; a word for &quot;pleasantition&quot;? &quot;plesantity&quot;? &quot;pleasanation&quot;? With the old meaning of &quot;нелицеприятный&quot;(unprejudiced) it was obvious what the meaning is, but not anymore in the lack of proper context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a completely different picture with &quot;заповедовать/заповедать&quot;. Russian still has &quot;заповедь&quot; (commandment) used in religious contexts and, figuratively, in some others. Russian still uses the root &quot;вед&quot; (as in &quot;поведать&quot;, &quot;в неведении&quot;, &quot;без моего ведома&quot;) and &quot;заповедь&quot; actually was formed as &quot;the things that are told&quot;. So a native speaker may not be sure such a word as &quot;заповедовать&quot; exists but assuming it is actually a Russian word, one can easily see what is its most probable meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there are two words in modern Russian that should be known to almost any native speaker older than 9 or 10 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - заповедь = commandment *(religious)*&#xD;&#xA; - заповедник = nature reserve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are beyond the list of the most frequent 5000 words, but clearly in the most used 10000–15000 — so yeah, even a moderately well-read elementary school pupil has enough passive vocabulary to make a good guess what &quot;заповедовать&quot; means. The good thing is, this guess is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="055da477-e70a-44cc-a304-f671711cd738" CreationDate="2014-07-06T12:19:36.827" UserId="2388" Text="It is OK and only slightly coloured. The most neutral way is indeed &quot;Он показал нам свою машину&quot; but the variant with &quot;нам показал&quot; is your next best choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, while the sentence roughly follows the *subject-verb-object* word order, it is typical to gather old information closer to the beginning and your statement closer to the end of the sentence. Not a &quot;rule&quot;, just a generic explanation of some phrasings that look strange to a native speaker of a language with a more fixed word order (i.e. the order remains the same even if the message is significantly different).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, in most cases you sentence has *the things you are going to talk about* and then *what you say about these things*. Now, the pronouns (&quot;нам&quot;, &quot;тебе&quot;, &quot;тут&quot;) most likely represent the old information, so as a rule they tend to be closer to the beginning of a sentence than the position a normal noun would feel comfortable in. A second peculiarity is that Russian does not heap up all possible adverbs by the end of the sentence — unlike English, which tends to do exactly that (&quot;He worked very well indeed at the bar yesterday&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case I would use the following, in the order of decreasing neutrality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Он показал нам свою машину.**&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Он нам показал свою машину.***&#xD;&#xA;3. *Он нам свою машину показал.* → with a logical stress on &quot;his car&quot; &#xD;&#xA;4. *Он свою машину нам показал.* → with a logical emphasis on &quot;his car&quot;; not recommended&#xD;&#xA;5. *Он показал свою машину нам.* → with a logical stress on &quot;to us&quot;, not recommended&#xD;&#xA;6. anything else sounds very emphatic (&quot;His car, he have shown us indeed&quot;) or plain master-Yodaic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="55f8daf2-8d5d-49c1-9493-82e96b0d37f8" CreationDate="2014-07-06T16:11:17.150" UserId="2311" Comment="перевод" Text="Which one is the better term to be used? Is there a difference between two terms? Is the etymology different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Который из этих терминов больше подходит для использования? Есть-ли между ними разница? Отличается-ли этимология?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="6ea65690-137c-4505-96bd-90c494f60689" CreationDate="2014-07-06T16:36:52.827" UserId="2311" Comment="перевод" Text="The term гомосексуалист (homosexualist) has existed in English language 40 or 50 years ago as well. Today it is considered archaic and possibly a little offensive when used outside of its historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World wide the term is falling into disuse after гомосексуальность (homosexuality) has been declassified from being a psychological disease. As such it was previously called гомосексуализм (homosexualism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian one can quickly determine the position of the person in relation to the question of equal rights depending on the choice between «гомосексуалист» and «гомосексуал». Those who are supportive of LGBT rights use the latter [1], while the opponents tend to use the former [2]. Apathetic people use whichever they have heard first, but more often the former (due to the nature of Russian speaking society). Neutral groups of people use the latter slightly more often [3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1] http://www.gay.ru/science/kon/remark/teacher.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2] [http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-гомосексуализм-и-родноверие/](http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гомосексуальность](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within LGBT community the terms «гомосексуализм» and «гомосексуалист» get criticised for being incorrect. -изм and -ист are often used to imply that homosexuals are a political group, and not an arbitrary category of people (with sexuality as the only distinguishing factor). Also due to these terms use in psychiatric literature there is a baggage that comes with their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the choice of a word depends largely on where you come from and what message you are trying to send. If you are in an international setting, even when you speak Russian, you should try to use гомосексуальность and гомосексуал, as these are less likely to cause misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перевод:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Термин «гомосексуалист» (homosexualist) также существовал и в английском языке 40 или 50 лет назад. Сегодня он считается архаичным и, возможно, немного унизительным при использовании вне исторического контекста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После деклассификации гомосексуальности (homosexuality) как психологического заболевания, это слово начинает исчезать из речи по всему миру. Как заболевание оно называлось «гомосексуализм» (homosexualism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В России можно быстро уяснить позицию человека в отношении равноправия по выбору между «гомосексуалист» и «гомосексуал». Те, кто поддерживают права ЛГБТ, пользуются вторым термином [1], в то время как оппоненты употребляют как правило первый [2]. Апатичные в этом вопросе люди используют термин, с которым они столкнулись первым, но чаще первый (в связи с историческим порядком в русско-говорящем обществе). Нейтральные группы немного часто останавливаются на втором из двух слов [3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1] http://www.gay.ru/science/kon/remark/teacher.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2] [http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-гомосексуализм-и-родноверие/](http://www.forum.rodnovery.ru/index.php?/topic/4828-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3] [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гомосексуальность](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Внутри ЛГБТ сообщества термины «гомосексуализм» и «гомосексуалист» критикуются как неверные. Суффикс изм и ист часто используются для намёка на то, что гомосексуалы формируют политическую группу, а не являются просто произвольной категорией людей (с их сексуальностью, как единственным определяющим фактором). Также, в связи с использованием этих слов в психиатрической литературе, у них остаётся большое количество стигмы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В связи с этим, выбор слова зависит в основном от того, из какого слоя населения вышел автор, и какие идеи он пытается передать. В международном кругу общения, даже при использовании русского языка, стоит использовать слова гомосексуальность и гомосексуал, в связи с меньшей вероятностью возникновения недопонимания." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15592" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="70eb97df-799f-45b0-9f23-016d272917ea" CreationDate="2014-07-06T17:35:01.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/485839345644212224" />
  <row Id="15593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="ca972d8b-4635-4c0d-a52e-b8f698355e63" CreationDate="2014-07-07T07:11:39.540" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="I checked http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6877/was-%D1%8E-ending-in-instrumental-mandatory-in-pushkins-times but I wonder how about using this ending today for adjectives, pronouns, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What style or color does this give a text?&#xD;&#xA;2. Will it be hardly noticed or is it striking?&#xD;&#xA;3. Would it be strange to switch between `-ой / ей` and `-ою / -ею`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="ca972d8b-4635-4c0d-a52e-b8f698355e63" CreationDate="2014-07-07T07:11:39.540" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Usage of -ю ending for Instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="ca972d8b-4635-4c0d-a52e-b8f698355e63" CreationDate="2014-07-07T07:11:39.540" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|окончания|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="79b18e4d-d1da-4e1d-b39e-62cfa5b7a110" CreationDate="2014-07-07T08:00:12.123" UserId="194" Text="It will look like a speech from 19th century, possibly like a citation from some classical work. Yes, it will be noticed and strange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="61e5bb83-9edf-4c8a-879d-d400348ab70c" CreationDate="2014-07-07T08:35:22.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/486065928531365888" />
  <row Id="15598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="25375342-f1c4-446a-bd23-5d3b6cc1fa00" CreationDate="2014-07-07T10:53:39.493" UserId="2311" Text="I am trying to translate some things into Russia which use pronoun «ze». I would prefer not to have to make stuff up or use footnotes. Is there a gender neutral pronoun in Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Перевод)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пытаюсь перевести некоторые вещи на русский язык, которые используют местоимение «ze». Мне-бы не хотелось придумывать несуществующие слова или использовать сноски. Существуют-ли гендерно-нейтральные местоимения в русском?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="25375342-f1c4-446a-bd23-5d3b6cc1fa00" CreationDate="2014-07-07T10:53:39.493" UserId="2311" Text="Do gender-neutral pronouns exist in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="25375342-f1c4-446a-bd23-5d3b6cc1fa00" CreationDate="2014-07-07T10:53:39.493" UserId="2311" Text="|перевод|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="6a6f43b5-2f84-4ec0-b388-b36f14f856cb" CreationDate="2014-07-07T10:57:55.910" UserId="2388" Text="They do not. As you may have heard from video games localisation companies, there are ways to translate things to obfuscate the gender of a person. But they are not quite natural — actually, any direct usage of an adjective or a Past tense verb applied to that person will immediately require it to take masculine or feminine agreement. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="30b76492-7475-4f1d-880c-349e9ac2447c" CreationDate="2014-07-07T11:31:39.093" UserId="2311" Text="Are there any words which have started with one meaning, then got incorporated into another language while changing the meaning and then got reimported back with a different meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="30b76492-7475-4f1d-880c-349e9ac2447c" CreationDate="2014-07-07T11:31:39.093" UserId="2311" Text="Are there any Russian words, which changed the meaning through the intermediary language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="30b76492-7475-4f1d-880c-349e9ac2447c" CreationDate="2014-07-07T11:31:39.093" UserId="2311" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="02d923d5-6d9a-412b-8b96-d9e6217afcf7" CreationDate="2014-07-07T11:57:00.983" UserId="1236" Text="Such words do exist, but they are quite few, I know of only two, and even these are ultimately of Turkic origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Бирич][1] (Old East Slavic 'herald') &gt; English 'Bridge game' &gt; Russian 'Игра «Бридж»'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Балаклава (city name, from Crimean Tatar) &gt; English 'balaclava' (a hat that covers the face) &gt; Russian 'балаклава' (a hat that covers the face)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biritch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15607" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="60e87af4-7ece-47d0-9466-72141fc36a54" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:09:29.767" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6903" RevisionGUID="e93e86f3-3e5b-4dc9-8388-e97ff3e88f4b" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:53:15.283" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How to translate &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***to be aware / conscious of something***?&#xD;&#xA;1. ***to become aware of something***?&#xD;&#xA;1. ***to make aware of something***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of *сознаться* and *кому-то сознательный*, but I'm uncertain about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6903" RevisionGUID="e93e86f3-3e5b-4dc9-8388-e97ff3e88f4b" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:53:15.283" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;to be aware / conscious of something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6903" RevisionGUID="e93e86f3-3e5b-4dc9-8388-e97ff3e88f4b" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:53:15.283" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15611" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="63df60f9-8f5c-43fc-bb0e-df5171ba611e" CreationDate="2014-07-07T18:29:41.430" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="6ae9dd40-9193-4a22-b993-7ef29b12b2a1" CreationDate="2014-07-07T18:30:22.957" UserId="2388" Text="Your guess is wrong in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are aware of something → it is *known* to you: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мне это **известно**&#xD;&#xA; - Я это **осознаю** (понимаю). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;отдавать себе отчёт&quot;: &quot;Я отдаю себе отчёт, что найти такую же&#xD;&#xA;   работу будет непросто&quot; (&quot;I am well aware that...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you became aware of something, it became known to you → &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Мне **стало известно**&#xD;&#xA;- Я **осознал, понял**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;make aware&quot;... if you mean &quot;let someone know something&quot;, it is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **дать знать** + *Dat.*&#xD;&#xA; - **поставить в известность** + *Acc.*. &#xD;&#xA; - and **передать&quot;/&quot;рассказать** + *Dat.* are also possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сознаться&quot; is actually &quot;to confess&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6905" RevisionGUID="ccb85490-5993-4bd8-bd47-5d1ef574f149" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:13:40.783" UserId="4065" Text=":) To improve your listening skills I would really recommend listening to the dialogues. They are shorter than movies, so you can easily understand them. And for example, Ruspeach dialogues have both translations to 9 different languages and funny comics with them which improves understanding and makes it interesting. Besides they have little tests-games after each dialogue, so you can check that you got everything that you possible could. They helped me a lot! Good luck and check them out here - http://www.ruspeach.com/en/dialogues/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="0b084c87-572d-4b8e-b875-bbb1680832e6" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:36:29.610" UserId="551" Text="Пишут что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `пищаль` стала `пистолем` и вернулась как `пистолет`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `хрип` вернулся как `грипп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и &quot;эхо войны&quot; с Наполеоном в 1912 году:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово `бЫстро`, которым русские солдаты подгоняли официантов в парижских кафе превратилось в `бистрО` и уже из французского языка вернулось в русский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="ca51a5a5-cff0-4f5c-9762-77fc49cf7529" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:39:10.007" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Пишут что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `пищаль` стала `пистолем` и вернулась как `пистолет`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `хрип` вернулся как `грипп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и &quot;эхо войны&quot; с Наполеоном в 1812 году:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово `бЫстро`, которым русские солдаты подгоняли официантов в парижских кафе превратилось в `бистрО` и уже из французского языка вернулось в русский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="b1f4397c-ea34-4082-98e8-47924ea0e45d" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:39:17.020" UserId="4066" Text="I've looked this up more than once, and have received this as the translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Попутно отметим, что ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really like how it sounds, but it appears to be a little too formal for general conversation, no? Is it possible to get away with it without sounding pretentious (i.e. like a smartass)? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="b1f4397c-ea34-4082-98e8-47924ea0e45d" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:39:17.020" UserId="4066" Text="Is there a good way to say &quot;as a side note&quot;, &quot;as an aside&quot; in a conversation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="b1f4397c-ea34-4082-98e8-47924ea0e45d" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:39:17.020" UserId="4066" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="78131dcd-eacc-44db-b949-69714c558e91" CreationDate="2014-07-07T19:58:19.127" UserId="97" Text="It's difficult to be certain without a context, but one way is to say _между прочим_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Графиня... сводила разговоры на любовь и между прочим рассказывала про своего близкого соседа, помещика Хвощинского... (_И. Бунин, Грамматика любви_)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="c2bcf176-d1a5-4039-8c99-4136a32b09d7" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:06:11.667" UserId="97" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="It's difficult to be certain without a context, but one way is to say _между прочим_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Графиня... сводила разговоры на любовь и между прочим рассказывала про своего близкого соседа, помещика Хвощинского... (_И. Бунин, Грамматика любви_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is _кстати_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тогда вы всю жизнь сидите в дворницкой, а я пойду за стульями. Кстати, первый стул над нашей головой. (_И. Ильф, Е. Петров, Двенадцать стульев_)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="15bca610-f997-474e-96d9-aa2858f0d1f0" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:13:19.967" UserId="4065" Comment="added a source for online audiobooks." Text="## Audiobooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - vocalized works of great Russian classics and modern authors. Las obras sonorizadas de los clásicos rusos y autores contemporáneos. Opere vocalizzate dei grandi classici russi e di autori contemporanei. Die verlauten lassenen Werke der großen russischen Klassiker und der modernen Autoren. Trabalhos sonorizados de grande clássicos russos e autores modernos. Rus büyük klasik ve çağdaş yazarların seslendirilmiş eserleri. Les oeuvres sonorisées des grands classiques russes et d`autres auteurs modernes. ロシアの偉大な古典・現代作家の録音した作品. Ruspeach website is translated in 9 languages and it is developing and improving everyday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/handbook/podcasts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15622" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="15bca610-f997-474e-96d9-aa2858f0d1f0" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:13:19.967" Comment="Proposed by 4065 approved by -1 edit id of 512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="835" RevisionGUID="f81a54a2-43d9-44f3-90fc-b7cbb0f8eb1a" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:13:19.967" UserId="97" Comment="added a source for online audiobooks." Text="## Audiobooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - vocalized works of great Russian classics and modern authors. Ruspeach website is translated in 9 languages and it is developing and improving everyday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/handbook/podcasts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="308ced76-dc82-4bf7-b700-dd5e9d237015" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:17:03.430" UserId="4065" Comment="added popular Russian language learning resource" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource translated into 9 languages: Español, Português, Türkçe, Deutsch, Italiano, Français, 日本語, English, Русский. They have vocalized dialogues, phrasebook, everyday posts, idioms, proverbs, podcasts, easy-written Russian grammar, funny Russian comics, interesting tests, Russian language teachers, Russian schools and more.&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15625" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="308ced76-dc82-4bf7-b700-dd5e9d237015" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:17:03.430" Comment="Proposed by 4065 approved by 97, -1 edit id of 511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="d4728aad-b749-4271-b334-bb41d42f9635" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:17:03.430" UserId="71" Comment="added popular Russian language learning resource" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="0b91e457-379c-4d8e-af75-f943f43c20fc" CreationDate="2014-07-07T20:19:28.780" UserId="2311" Comment="наоборот" Text="## Podcasts &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [PodFM][1], Podcast directory for Russian language podcasts&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Podcast][2], Simple audio for those who know basic grammar and want to improve their Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [Taste of Russian][3] Resource for upper-intermediate or advanced learners of Russian. Downloadable Russian mp3 podcast feed with scripts submitted. As far as basic practical use is concerned, registration is not required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://podfm.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russianpodcast.eu/podcasts.html &quot;Russian Podast&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tasteofrussian.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="f0464141-dd04-4896-a562-fefc37923cf6" CreationDate="2014-07-07T23:44:18.180" UserId="3887" Text="&quot;Попутно отметим&quot; is definitely too formal for general conversation. As Aleks G pointed out, it's difficult to find a good translation without context. Just to add another variant: &quot;к слову&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...южанин родом, я полюбил бедную петербургскую природу, белые&#xD;&#xA;&gt; весенние ночи, которые - к слову сказать - ничем не хуже наших&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пресловутых украинских ночей... (В.Гаршин, Петербургские письма)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to disagree with Garshin here, although I also love the white nights :)&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="a32e3e33-925c-47bc-b3ef-786e6b7ed6e0" CreationDate="2014-07-08T03:27:13.010" UserId="62" Text="What is the difference in usage between меняться and изменяться to convey the idea of &quot;change&quot; or &quot;vary&quot;? For example, if someone is talking about a vector field along a curve (that's the context in which this question came up), is there a preferred choice between &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) касательный вектор меняется гладко от точки к точке &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) касательный вектор изменяется гладко от точки к точке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or are these absolutely synonymous?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="a32e3e33-925c-47bc-b3ef-786e6b7ed6e0" CreationDate="2014-07-08T03:27:13.010" UserId="62" Text="меняться и изменяться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="a32e3e33-925c-47bc-b3ef-786e6b7ed6e0" CreationDate="2014-07-08T03:27:13.010" UserId="62" Text="|глаголы|математика|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="6abffbd2-9921-4f4d-a7bc-75be58d2f8c9" CreationDate="2014-07-08T06:38:04.933" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What's the russian equivalent for ***emotional turmoil / turmoil of emotions***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance when a man and a woman just fell in love with each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="6abffbd2-9921-4f4d-a7bc-75be58d2f8c9" CreationDate="2014-07-08T06:38:04.933" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;emotional turmoil&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="6abffbd2-9921-4f4d-a7bc-75be58d2f8c9" CreationDate="2014-07-08T06:38:04.933" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="c4c930f5-8be0-4ba4-ae0a-bc21bf1825e2" CreationDate="2014-07-08T06:53:00.657" UserId="2388" Text="In the meaning of &quot;vary, become different&quot; the verbs are synonymous, with both used in academic style with no difference in connotation — i.e. the choice of a verb in a particular sentence is up to the author (for example, to avoid using only &quot;изменяться&quot; several times in a row)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="f0ba5319-c2d4-4068-b1da-66fba86734e6" CreationDate="2014-07-08T06:58:09.870" UserId="2388" Text="err... **&quot;буря чувств/эмоций&quot;** may suit. Maybe even all too easy a solution. Such things are highly dependent on the sentence you want to use it in. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="dc4cb399-0a80-48fb-a531-f963c6516e04" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:00:17.927" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Which possibilities are there to say ***to break up*** in context of human relations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are alternatives to ***разводиться*** which have a slightly different emphasis. I'm just asking, because ***разводиться*** sounds a bit &quot;active&quot;, but I might be mistaken." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="dc4cb399-0a80-48fb-a531-f963c6516e04" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:00:17.927" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;to break up&quot; in context of human relations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="dc4cb399-0a80-48fb-a531-f963c6516e04" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:00:17.927" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="5c1a19fc-c10a-467d-8cc7-b0257f1b81ea" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:05:28.793" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="What's the russian equivalent for ***emotional turmoil / turmoil of emotions***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance when a man and a woman just fell in love with each other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find something in common dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6916" RevisionGUID="f3a3c33c-20a5-4ddc-9573-5efe6843eaea" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:09:25.947" UserId="267" Text="**&quot;Разводиться-развестись&quot;** is &quot;to get divorced&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate *&quot;to break up&quot;* as **&quot;расходиться-разойтись&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Че́рез пять лет отноше́ний они́ разошли́сь.&#xD;&#xA;After five years of relations they broke up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a colloquial synonym of &quot;расходиться-разойтись&quot; which is **&quot;разбегаться-разбежаться&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну что́, вы уже разбежа́лись и́ли ещё вме́сте?&#xD;&#xA;So, have you already broken up or are you still together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="e561a844-44d8-4ff9-868e-26736165d8af" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:53:41.500" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How to translate ***lovableness / amiableness*** into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find anything. The question **is not** about ***courteousness*** (***любезность***)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="e561a844-44d8-4ff9-868e-26736165d8af" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:53:41.500" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;lovableness / amiableness&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="e561a844-44d8-4ff9-868e-26736165d8af" CreationDate="2014-07-08T07:53:41.500" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="8762360a-8c93-434f-865b-da7dc5f426ec" CreationDate="2014-07-08T08:50:38.230" UserId="71" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="da1e3eae-5d41-4961-8439-3f09341e67fa" CreationDate="2014-07-08T09:12:02.053" UserId="267" Text="I would translate **&quot;lovableness&quot;** as **&quot;привлекательность&quot;**, which can be about both physical apperance and personality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;привлекательность&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;Способность нравиться, привлекать чьё-либо расположение или приязнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;lovableness&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;Having characteristics that attract love or affection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate **&quot;amiableness&quot;** as **&quot;приятность в общении&quot;** or **&quot;приветливость&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;приветливость&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;От прилагательного &quot;приветливый&quot;, проявляющий радушие, благожелательность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;amiableness&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;(Comes from the adjective &quot;amiable&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;1. Friendly and agreeable in disposition; good-natured and likable.&#xD;&#xA;2. Cordial; sociable; congenial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="84921122-43b6-4a7f-80b4-0826603548a0" CreationDate="2014-07-08T09:35:54.013" UserId="1769" Text="Насколько мне известно термина `гомосексуал` в русском языке нет. *Я думаю*, что это разговорное слово и является калькой с английского `homosexual`. [Поисковая выдача][1] для этого слова по различным словарям показывает различные перенаправляния на второе слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/31618/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="9a5ebe84-2543-4ce7-8783-c913e4bd26d8" CreationDate="2014-07-08T10:03:19.947" UserId="3971" Text="I would consider **расстаться** a more commonly used translation in context of dating couples (as opposed to married people):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Мы расстались. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="12948502-aa42-4bbd-b30a-090b1fba5470" CreationDate="2014-07-08T10:03:49.180" UserId="97" Text="When talking about couples breaking up, it's common to use verb _расстаться_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я расстался со своей бывшей прошлым летом.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I broke up with my ex last summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, the context is important here, as the same verb may be used to describe a short-term temporary separation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы вышли из дома вместе и расстались на автобусной остановке [_до вечера_].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We came out of the house together and parted ways at the bus stop [_until evening_]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6918" RevisionGUID="0b1e6fbc-7b21-49d8-925c-50ca47efc309" CreationDate="2014-07-08T17:06:55.507" UserId="267" Comment="edited body" Text="I would translate **&quot;lovableness&quot;** as **&quot;привлекательность&quot;**, which can be about both physical apperance and personality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;привлекательность&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;Способность нравиться, привлекать чьё-либо расположение или приязнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;lovableness&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;Having characteristics that attract love or affection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate **&quot;amiableness&quot;** as **&quot;приятность в общении&quot;** or **&quot;приветливость&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;приветливость&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;От прилагательного &quot;приветливый&quot;, проявляющий радушие, благожелательность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition of &quot;amiableness&quot; is:&#xD;&#xA;(Comes from the adjective &quot;amiable&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;1. Friendly and agreeable in disposition; good-natured and likable.&#xD;&#xA;2. Cordial; sociable; congenial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="9f3c7439-4c7b-4d1f-b61b-1f61424dd1a3" CreationDate="2014-07-08T17:35:26.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/486564227101229056" />
  <row Id="15655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="83d87ceb-5cc5-495b-9795-d4e7aae6e3c7" CreationDate="2014-07-09T00:17:40.733" UserId="4054" Text="One additional option for #1 *to be aware of something*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`быть в курсе (чего-либо)` = to be up-to-date/informed about something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often heard &quot;Он в курсе дела&quot; - He is aware of the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15657" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6907" RevisionGUID="6d471f4f-ed7e-4d25-9724-713f1d7f8052" CreationDate="2014-07-09T02:35:27.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/486700126099222528" />
  <row Id="15658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="3d2634ae-8849-45a6-b6e0-0f181717f777" CreationDate="2014-07-09T03:45:15.397" UserId="2311" Text="If you are looking for a more passive sounding phrase, you can just say **«перестали встречаться»**. Although it probably would not be as useful in cases where people actually got married and then broke up **«расстались»** would be an alternative (as is already pointed out in Hardex's answer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="7ceafadc-fc14-4583-99ab-64da92414ba4" CreationDate="2014-07-09T11:36:37.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/486836317855416320" />
  <row Id="15667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="5fc906dc-ae49-46f6-bcfe-3dd728bae147" CreationDate="2014-07-09T18:10:51.870" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What's the difference between those two (hopefully correct) sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вам нужен человек, у кого быстрая машина.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вам нужен человек, у которого быстрая машина." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="5fc906dc-ae49-46f6-bcfe-3dd728bae147" CreationDate="2014-07-09T18:10:51.870" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Difference between &quot;..., кто&quot; and &quot;..., который&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="5fc906dc-ae49-46f6-bcfe-3dd728bae147" CreationDate="2014-07-09T18:10:51.870" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="fc391474-1953-4e4e-8ecb-60faeb83aeb0" CreationDate="2014-07-09T18:26:02.880" UserId="1236" Text="“…, который” introduces attributive clauses. Since your sentence has an attributive clause, only the second variant is correct, and the first one is grammatically wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6901" RevisionGUID="4c6e2324-fa45-46c1-a331-546d66966bc0" CreationDate="2014-07-09T20:36:41.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/486972226705850368" />
  <row Id="15675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="44670093-024c-4b77-87d3-ca1da6b53c63" CreationDate="2014-07-10T06:05:18.270" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How to make a sentence with an adjective which refers to different nouns? Do I have to put it twice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его приветствовали с большим ликованием и радостью.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его приветствовали с большим ликованием и большой радостью.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его приветствовали с большим ликованием и с большой радостью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и молоко.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и охлаждённое молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how is it, if the verb refers to words with different numeral? Would it be like&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ей нравится лилия и вот эти растения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="44670093-024c-4b77-87d3-ca1da6b53c63" CreationDate="2014-07-10T06:05:18.270" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How to decline an adjective, referring to different nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="44670093-024c-4b77-87d3-ca1da6b53c63" CreationDate="2014-07-10T06:05:18.270" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="035891ce-72ae-4ced-be8c-25f478a972be" CreationDate="2014-07-10T06:22:38.080" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="How to make a sentence with an adjective which refers to different nouns? Do I have to put it twice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его приветствовали с большим ликованием и радостью.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его приветствовали с большим ликованием и большой радостью.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его приветствовали с большим ликованием и с большой радостью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и молоко.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и охлаждённое молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нам нужно масло и вода.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нам нужно масло и нужна так же вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how is it, if the verb refers to words with different numeral? Would it be like&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ей нравится лилия и вот эти растения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="13f3474e-aed2-4e22-a513-d85648425750" CreationDate="2014-07-10T08:16:39.700" UserId="334" Text="Grammatical norms require that adjective was put in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его приветствовали с большими ликованием и радостью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if adj. is in singular form, it is dependent on closest noun in same grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, it is impossible to say from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if the milk was cooled, as the adjective must be in plural form either way. To disambiguate, one of the following must be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла молоко и охлаждённые сосиски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые молока и сосиски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech, however, many clumsy constructs are used because people don't build the sentence before starting to speak it. In 'Hi-Russian' (written language and language of public speeches) this should be avoided. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective may be declined together with the closest noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам нужно масло и вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or adjective may be repeated &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и охлаждённое молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="5c341070-5b68-4e48-91ff-b681fb7a81ad" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:18:15.043" UserId="1773" Text="They both mean &quot;something&quot; but I have seen somewhere that there is a subtle difference between their respective senses. Could someone give me a hint at the difference along with sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="5c341070-5b68-4e48-91ff-b681fb7a81ad" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:18:15.043" UserId="1773" Text="Difference что–тот and что–нибудь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="5c341070-5b68-4e48-91ff-b681fb7a81ad" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:18:15.043" UserId="1773" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15688" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="743e10c8-05e6-4425-9b9e-490778085156" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:20:15.320" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Что–то or что–нибудь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15689" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="743e10c8-05e6-4425-9b9e-490778085156" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:20:15.320" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="a05ebec9-55bf-415d-86df-a6b122337e75" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:23:31.493" UserId="242" Text="Roughly, the difference is like between &quot;something&quot; (more close to &quot;что-то&quot;) and &quot;anything&quot; (more close to &quot;что-нибудь&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While these words are indeed interchangeable in many context, you can say only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то ударилось о бампер (Something hit the bumper)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-нибудь ударилось о бампер (Anything hit the bumper)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the same is true about &quot;кто-то&quot; and &quot;кто-нибудь&quot;, which can be translated like &quot;somebody&quot; and &quot;anybody&quot; respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="743e10c8-05e6-4425-9b9e-490778085156" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:20:15.320" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="They both mean &quot;something&quot; but I have seen somewhere that there is a subtle difference between their respective senses. Could someone give me a hint at the difference along with sentences?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="433ab34e-fbbb-47ca-9c21-f23c0361dc0f" CreationDate="2014-07-10T09:27:01.807" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Что–то&quot; or &quot;что–нибудь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="b65fd6d3-74d1-4146-8082-02ae3fc2fb4e" CreationDate="2014-07-10T10:08:54.970" UserId="267" Text="When you are speaking about a person, a thing or a place that actually exists, but whose identity is not known to the speaker, use pronouns, adjectives and adverbs combined with the particle -то: кто-то, что-то, какой-то, чей-то, почему-то, где-то, куда-то, откуда-то...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, note that **&quot;когда-то&quot;** means **&quot;a long time ago&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кто́-то дал мне э́тот каранда́ш, но не по́мню кто.&#xD;&#xA;    Somebody gave me this pencil, but I don't remember who.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вдруг отку́да-то пришёл Ва́ся.&#xD;&#xA;    Suddenly Vasia came from somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are speaking about a person, a thing or a place that hasn't yet been chosen or identifies, use pronouns, adjectives and adverbs combined with the particle -нибудь: кто-нибудь, что-нибудь, какой-нибудь, чей-нибудь, где-нибудь, куда-нибудь...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, note that **&quot;когда-нибудь&quot;** means **&quot;some day in the future&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я хочу́ что-нибудь почита́ть.&#xD;&#xA;    I want to read something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кто́-нибу́дь зна́ет, где кни́га?&#xD;&#xA;    Does anybody know where the book is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="6224b8c5-f2df-44d5-988b-6cbe8108e9ec" CreationDate="2014-07-10T11:02:36.057" UserId="267" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="When you are speaking about a person, a thing or a place that actually exists, but whose identity is not known to the speaker, use pronouns, adjectives and adverbs combined with the particle -то: кто-то, что-то, какой-то, чей-то, почему-то, где-то, куда-то, откуда-то...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, note that **&quot;когда-то&quot;** means **&quot;a long time ago&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кто́-то дал мне э́тот каранда́ш, но не по́мню кто.**&#xD;&#xA;Somebody gave me this pencil, but I don't remember who.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вдруг отку́да-то пришёл Ва́ся.**&#xD;&#xA;Suddenly Vasia came from somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are speaking about a person, a thing or a place that hasn't yet been chosen or identifies, use pronouns, adjectives and adverbs combined with the particle -нибудь: кто-нибудь, что-нибудь, какой-нибудь, чей-нибудь, где-нибудь, куда-нибудь...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, note that **&quot;когда-нибудь&quot;** means **&quot;some day in the future&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я хочу́ что-нибудь почита́ть.**&#xD;&#xA;I want to read something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кто́-нибу́дь зна́ет, где кни́га?**&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody know where the book is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="4c538780-9550-4388-9b55-4d362c0d1abd" CreationDate="2014-07-10T12:50:34.083" UserId="334" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Grammatical norms require that adjective was put in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его приветствовали с большими ликованием и радостью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if adj. is in singular form, it is dependent on closest noun in same grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, it is impossible to say from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if the milk was cooled, as the adjective must be in plural form either way. To disambiguate, one of the following must be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла молоко и охлаждённые сосиски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённое молоко и сосиски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech, however, many clumsy constructs are used because people don't build the sentence before starting to speak it. In 'Hi-Russian' (written language and language of public speeches) this should be avoided. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective may be declined together with the closest noun. While **grammatically incorrect**, the following sentence may occur in common speech and states, that both oil and water are needed. The reason is, that at the moment when the speaker tells 'нужно' he automatically decline it with 'масло', but later says that water is also needed, but 'нужно' is already said. This is a grammatical error, but extremely common even among native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам нужно масло и вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or adjective may be repeated &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и охлаждённое молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="9c59e7db-db4a-425c-aedd-bde39ba881ae" CreationDate="2014-07-10T14:29:00.540" UserId="334" Comment="edited body" Text="Grammatical norms require that adjective was put in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его приветствовали с большими ликованием и радостью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if adj. is in singular form, it is dependent on closest noun in same grammatical case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, it is impossible to say from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if the milk was cooled, as the adjective must be in plural form either way. To disambiguate, one of the following must be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла молоко и охлаждённые сосиски. (sausage is cool, but not milk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые молоко и сосиски. (both sausage and milk are cool)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённое молоко и сосиски. (only milk is cool)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech, however, many clumsy constructs are used because people don't build the sentence before starting to speak it. In 'Hi-Russian' (written language and language of public speeches) this should be avoided. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective may be declined together with the closest noun. While **grammatically incorrect**, the following sentence may occur in common speech and states, that both oil and water are needed. The reason is, that at the moment when the speaker tells 'нужно' he automatically decline it with 'масло', but later says that water is also needed, but 'нужно' is already said. This is a grammatical error, but extremely common even among native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам нужно масло и вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or adjective may be repeated &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она принесла охлаждённые сосиски и охлаждённое молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15698" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="5b76d0e9-63d5-424c-8c5b-0586c51631dc" CreationDate="2014-07-10T14:30:41.450" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="15699" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="0f1c920c-bf94-4a3b-9fc8-255c58cfa044" CreationDate="2014-07-10T17:36:42.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/487289323327619072" />
  <row Id="15700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="e6d5f516-d0e4-4ee4-baf6-9b7b81764e1b" CreationDate="2014-07-10T18:14:16.057" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Is there anything that can help to know which to use, i. e. verb + ending *ся* or verb + *себя*, or does this differ from verb to verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example I don't know which of these would be correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашиваются.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашивают себя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="e6d5f516-d0e4-4ee4-baf6-9b7b81764e1b" CreationDate="2014-07-10T18:14:16.057" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="When to use &quot;ся&quot; and when &quot;себя&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="e6d5f516-d0e4-4ee4-baf6-9b7b81764e1b" CreationDate="2014-07-10T18:14:16.057" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="204ec17c-b581-4adc-a168-5668ca3eb23d" CreationDate="2014-07-10T18:28:15.373" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Is there anything that can help to know which to use, i. e. verb + ending *ся* or verb + *себя*, or does this differ from verb to verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example I don't know which of these would be correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашиваются.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашивают себя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="c7c9ec81-1dec-4c9f-836b-7234dd436db6" CreationDate="2014-07-10T20:46:42.353" UserId="4077" Text="Technically, most of your sentences can be used in spoken speech, with the exception of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Нам нужно масло и нужна так же вода&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's invalid, although you could say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Нам нужно масло и нужна вода, or&#xD;&#xA;    Нам нужно масло и так же нужна вода&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the rest of your sentences, you would usually only say the first versions in spoken speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ей нравится лилия и вот эти растения&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would need to become plural by changing to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ей нравЯтся лилиИ и вот эти растения&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you asked specifically for what to do with different numbers in the same clause, but you really can't say something like that, just how in English you wouldn't say &quot;She likes a lily and these plants&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you wanted to say something like &quot;She likes this [specific] lily and these plants, you could say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ей нравятся эта лилия и эти растения&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="4067f9d8-1a2d-4ff2-9987-d41d040ad8e9" CreationDate="2014-07-10T21:54:51.223" UserId="4075" Text="What is the difference between &quot;наверно&quot; and &quot;наверное&quot;? Is there any slight difference in their meaning or in their usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="4067f9d8-1a2d-4ff2-9987-d41d040ad8e9" CreationDate="2014-07-10T21:54:51.223" UserId="4075" Text="&quot;Наверное&quot; and &quot;наверно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="4067f9d8-1a2d-4ff2-9987-d41d040ad8e9" CreationDate="2014-07-10T21:54:51.223" UserId="4075" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="2269d009-ec76-417f-b58b-4bcbd52de0a5" CreationDate="2014-07-10T22:04:58.180" UserId="3680" Text="No difference in meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;Usage:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Written form: `Наверное`.&#xD;&#xA; - Oral form: `Наверно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the last one can be seen in books, articles etc. It's illiterate writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="d041c750-ebdc-42d3-9b85-e97f94608b5d" CreationDate="2014-07-11T09:16:18.697" UserId="4048" Text="It's like a `kind of` and a `kinda` difference. `Наверное` is more formal, but both is acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="cf74dcf6-1716-4e9d-866d-140c6246871f" CreationDate="2014-07-11T09:31:02.467" UserId="4048" Text="Both examples are wrong, the correct will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашивают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашиваeтся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, looks like `-ся` suffix used in general situations when we have no particular person but want to specify how it usual was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About word `себя` and suffix '-ся' usage. Is not the same. Use word when you want to say something about yourself, but suffix rather used in usual/general actions. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question does not asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашиваeтся`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`No one is asking this particular question`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="04d40c4c-6e13-49da-9e44-f4feb4bbf64d" CreationDate="2014-07-11T13:46:07.257" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Is there anything that can help to know which to use, i. e. verb + ending *ся* or verb + *себя*, or does this differ from verb to verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example I don't know which of these would be correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они именно этот вопрос никогда себе не задают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они именно этим вопросом никогда не задаются." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6941" RevisionGUID="94f7ac5d-16d9-431c-b9a3-c09755ef487a" CreationDate="2014-07-11T13:46:44.137" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="Let's consider these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашивают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашиваeтся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, looks like `-ся` suffix used in general situations when we have no particular person but want to specify how it usual was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About word `себя` and suffix '-ся' usage. Is not the same. Use word when you want to say something about yourself, but suffix rather used in usual/general actions. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question does not asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Именно вот этот вопрос никогда не спрашиваeтся`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`No one is asking this particular question`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15714" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="e318a4ba-b166-4fd9-b078-5a280ca476b9" CreationDate="2014-07-11T20:38:18.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/487697410278555648" />
  <row Id="15721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="4490936b-2cb6-4438-a83a-56c603589276" CreationDate="2014-07-12T05:11:44.483" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What is the exact difference between those two words an especially when can ***пожелание*** be used and the other one not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="4490936b-2cb6-4438-a83a-56c603589276" CreationDate="2014-07-12T05:11:44.483" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="желание vs. пожелание" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="4490936b-2cb6-4438-a83a-56c603589276" CreationDate="2014-07-12T05:11:44.483" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="f86b1c44-dd85-4a43-9f09-ca3153d0ed56" CreationDate="2014-07-12T07:32:49.480" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How to determine whether to use ***значить*** or ***означать***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example are both of the following variants correct or should one prefer one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что значит этот знак?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что означает этот знак?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="f86b1c44-dd85-4a43-9f09-ca3153d0ed56" CreationDate="2014-07-12T07:32:49.480" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="значить vs. означать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="f86b1c44-dd85-4a43-9f09-ca3153d0ed56" CreationDate="2014-07-12T07:32:49.480" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6946" RevisionGUID="abdc3277-8999-4989-9a26-3622edc23ee0" CreationDate="2014-07-12T07:43:47.063" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;желание&quot; is **wish, desire** in a sense that you usually asssociate with the word: something you want to happen/to have. When a djihn or a fairy grants a wish, it is usually &quot;желание&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пожелание&quot; is something you *wish someone*. Also a very popular word for ***suggestions ,request, wish***, *often  for improvements* (a stock phrase &quot;ваши пожелания&quot; ~ &quot;any suggestions?&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Наши наилучшие пожелания! = Our best wishes!&#xD;&#xA;- Они учли наши пожелания относительно длины текста ~ They have taken our wishes/suggestions concerning the length of the text into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6947" RevisionGUID="fdbd2a03-000d-4a30-b2ad-e3f47a545598" CreationDate="2014-07-12T08:21:25.633" UserId="2388" Text="In your example both can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are indeed quite close in meaning. However, mind the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;означать&quot; cannot be used to express &quot;to be important&quot;: we only ever use &quot;Это много для меня значит&quot; = &quot;It means much to me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;означать&quot; is not used in &quot;вот что значит&quot;: Вот что значит настоящая любовь! ~ &quot;That's what true love is!&quot; or something like that. Shows how special, important something is (as an explanation for what is happening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, they are somewhat inequal in how they are used in their meaning &quot;to indicate&quot; (&quot;Defeat means death&quot;). Though, they are both used in the meaning so this may indeed be just a matter of style or use with nouns/verbal phrases (&quot;Пессимизм означает крушение всех иллюзий.&quot;/&quot;Противиться року — значит противиться самому себе&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally do not like how &quot;означать&quot; sounds with verb infinitives. It is &quot;X means to see only what you want to&quot; vs &quot;Y means true happiness&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="dbe6e8e6-68b4-4fd6-979f-127f1ef1ef39" CreationDate="2014-07-12T09:46:57.840" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; Q: Is the spelling ахуеть acceptable because of the colloquial nature of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is a resounding **no**. Just because a word is colloquial doesn't mean that it gets to bend all the language norms, rules, and logic. The only correct spelling is *охуеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: What are some realistic examples of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Я не мог поверить своим глазам! Я просто охуел от увиденного! (surprise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ты что, oхуел? (Have you lost your f***ing mind?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the infinitive as a complete sentence to express bewilderment, surprise, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Охуеть! (cf. С ума сойти!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: And exactly how obscene is it - in which contexts would it be unacceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the word derives from хуй, which is a rude word for penis, referred to as слово из трех букв (the three letter word, c.f. the f-word in English). The meaning of the word охуеть isn't offensive, but because of the derivation, the word itself should be used only with close people and only if you know that they are OK with this type of language. A milder version of the word would be офигеть or охренеть, although they should also be used with caution. Even milder versions are обалдеть and ошалеть, but they lack the strength of the word, as it were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is it used commonly in day-to-day speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the word is rather common. Of course, some people just don't use this type of language, but those who do, use this word quite commonly. As you may have noticed the meaning range of the word is pretty wide, so this is kind of a universal word :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Is there an accurate translation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe so, mostly because of the multifuncionality of the word. In some cases it can be rendered as *Wow!*, but it doesn't exactly convey all the connotations and feelings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="488faa85-2c2b-4a4c-9d64-36a45dc1e2b5" CreationDate="2014-07-12T18:56:51.560" UserId="4085" Text="Yes, in the speech both of these options are the same, because they sounds the same. But if you talk over the last letter clearly, it will be perceived positively. In writing &quot;наверно&quot; looks too folksy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="8504cc4d-9ab8-4268-915e-5c09ec6285f7" CreationDate="2014-07-12T20:31:46.007" UserId="551" Comment="added 656 characters in body" Text="Пишут что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `пищаль` стала `пистолем` и вернулась как `пистолет`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `хрип` вернулся как `грипп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и &quot;эхо войны&quot; с Наполеоном в 1812 году:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово `бЫстро`, которым русские солдаты подгоняли официантов в парижских кафе превратилось в `бистрО` и уже из французского языка вернулось в русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот про &quot;бистро&quot; из английского этимологического [словаря][1] (у Фасмера нет):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **bistro** &#xD;&#xA;1922, from Fr. bistro (1884), originally Parisian slang for &quot;little wineshop or restaurant,&quot; of unknown origin. Commonly said to be from Russian bee-stra &quot;quickly,&quot; picked up during the Allied occupation of Paris in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon; but this, however quaint, is unlikely. Another guess is that it is from bistraud &quot;a little shepherd,&quot; a word of the Poitou dialect, from biste &quot;goat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. происхождение неизвестно; версия про войну с Наполеоном популярная, но маловероятная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bistro?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="544c62dd-cf9c-4b3a-97a4-de4505c70f6a" CreationDate="2014-07-12T21:03:57.810" UserId="551" Comment="added 656 characters in body" Text="Пишут что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `пищаль` стала `пистолем` и вернулась как `пистолет`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; @shabunc указывает что &quot;пищаль&quot; была не русской, а чешской, вот и Фасмер об этом пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пистоле́т род. п. -а, впервые в 1689 r., при Петре I см. Христиани 34; диал. в знач. &quot;карапуз&quot;, петерб. Через стар. нем. Pistolet (ХVI в.; см. Шульц–Баслер 2, 541) или непосредственно из франц. pistolet от ит. pistola. Романисты ищут источник этого слова в чеш. рišt᾽аl (см. пища́ль).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;Кстати &quot;гаубица&quot; также пришла из германии, но его прототипом была чешская &quot;праща&quot; houfnice.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `хрип` вернулся как `грип`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; В комментах высказано сомнение по поводу грипа, вот цитата из Фасмера:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **грип**, Ближайшая этимология: из франц. grippe, которое в свою очередь из русск. хрип; см. Шухардт, SID. 69; Гамильшег, EW 492; Фасмер, Zschr. d. Wf. 9, 20; Клюге-ГеЁтце 217 и сл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; В книге &quot;Приключения слов&quot; [утверждается](http://attic.su/articles/adventures-of-the-words/charter-4) что &quot;хрип&quot; сначала попал в немецкий:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; грипп – не что иное, как онемеченное русское хрип. Это не так странно и случайно, как может показаться. Грипп – довольно неопределенная болезнь, которая проявляется то одними, то другими признаками, и имеет очень разнообразные формы. Поэтому той разновидности, которая пришла в Германию из России, могли дать название, образованное от русского хрип.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `бЫстро` - фр. `bistro` - `бистрО`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Эхо войны&quot; с Наполеоном в 1812 году: слово `бЫстро`, которым русские солдаты подгоняли официантов в парижских кафе превратилось в `бистрО` и уже из французского языка вернулось в русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; В комментах пишут что версия эта сомнительная. У Фасмера этого слова нет, зато в английском этимологическом [словаре][1] пишут:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **bistro** &#xD;&#xA;1922, from Fr. bistro (1884), originally Parisian slang for &quot;little wineshop or restaurant,&quot; of unknown origin. Commonly said to be from Russian bee-stra &quot;quickly,&quot; picked up during the Allied occupation of Paris in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon; but this, however quaint, is unlikely. Another guess is that it is from bistraud &quot;a little shepherd,&quot; a word of the Poitou dialect, from biste &quot;goat.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Т.е. происхождение неизвестно; версия про войну с Наполеоном популярная, но маловероятная. Более вероятно что слово происходит из диалектного bistraud - &quot;маленький пастух&quot; от biste - &quot;козел&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bistro?s=t" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15734" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="845f8bf8-32e3-4c71-9b68-7ef791dd1edd" CreationDate="2014-07-13T02:38:36.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/488150473585987584" />
  <row Id="15735" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="67700b3c-d606-408e-ab91-21b645e0e311" CreationDate="2014-07-13T05:42:47.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/488196821815406592" />
  <row Id="15736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="34c834bf-5204-40a1-ab11-8f138aedbee9" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:50:19.297" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="What is the difference between ***перед Богом*** and ***пред Богом***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible the answer should also associations which are linked to both variants. Apparently ***пред Богом*** is more of an &quot;old style&quot;, biblical expression, but (if so) it's hard to imagine, what this would mean exactly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="34c834bf-5204-40a1-ab11-8f138aedbee9" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:50:19.297" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="&quot;перед Богом&quot; vs. &quot;пред Богом&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="34c834bf-5204-40a1-ab11-8f138aedbee9" CreationDate="2014-07-13T07:50:19.297" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="8ad74d1e-6583-41d1-aa15-7ca3196c48bc" CreationDate="2014-07-13T08:10:30.290" UserId="267" Text="Yes, exactly, &quot;перед Богом&quot; is a neutral expression and &quot;перед Богом&quot; is more of an &quot;old style&quot;, it is used in poetry, especially in the XIXth century. So, &quot;пред Богом&quot; is poetic and lofty style, &quot;перед Богом&quot; is neutral and modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Пе́ред** Бо́гом все равны́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ка́ждый **пред** Бо́гом  наг. &#xD;&#xA;  Жа́лок, наг и убо́г.   В ка́ждой му́зыке  Бах,   в ка́ждом из нас &#xD;&#xA;   Бог. (Иосиф Бродский)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phenomenon is called &quot;reduced vocalism&quot;, it was quite common in the Old Slavonic, in the Bible and in the Russian poetry: голос-глас, волосы-власы, город-град, etc. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="1926d65d-c33f-4d56-b14a-3cb1d78cb792" CreationDate="2014-07-13T08:16:59.000" UserId="4075" Text="Is there any difference in meaning  in the past passive voice used with or without &quot;был&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Москва основана в 1147 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Москва была основана в 1147 году." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="1926d65d-c33f-4d56-b14a-3cb1d78cb792" CreationDate="2014-07-13T08:16:59.000" UserId="4075" Text="Past passive voice, with or without &quot;был&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="1926d65d-c33f-4d56-b14a-3cb1d78cb792" CreationDate="2014-07-13T08:16:59.000" UserId="4075" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="2b348e72-808d-4c76-a35b-61e526fc9820" CreationDate="2014-07-13T08:41:07.983" UserId="2388" Text="Of course. There is no difference in your case, however, the variant without &quot;был&quot; refers to the present state. Nowadays you cannot say &quot;Советский Союз образован в 1922&quot; because Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Moscow does, so you can use both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="a1aa3480-2b5c-4dc0-aa13-237cfc282732" CreationDate="2014-07-13T10:25:39.153" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="There is [this question][1] about надо and нужно, but how do &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***следует***, &#xD;&#xA;- ***должен***, &#xD;&#xA;- ***надо*** and &#xD;&#xA;- ***нужно*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;behave towardseach other? For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует купить новую лопату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this sentence change, using the other verbs and what would be the order with respect to the strength of the order. Maybe there are also very common alternatives to these four verbs / cases. (The case ***Тебе нужна новая лопата*** can be omitted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/usage-patterns-of-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE-vs-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE/1232#1232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="a1aa3480-2b5c-4dc0-aa13-237cfc282732" CreationDate="2014-07-13T10:25:39.153" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How does &quot;следует&quot; behave towards &quot;должен&quot;, &quot;надо&quot; and &quot;нужно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="a1aa3480-2b5c-4dc0-aa13-237cfc282732" CreationDate="2014-07-13T10:25:39.153" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="43fc4fe1-ac5e-4440-b617-32fe66568e05" CreationDate="2014-07-13T10:39:56.803" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There is [this question][1] about надо and нужно, but how do &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***следует***, &#xD;&#xA;- ***должен***, &#xD;&#xA;- ***надо*** and &#xD;&#xA;- ***нужно*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;behave towards each other? For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует купить новую лопату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this sentence change, using the other verbs and what would be the order with respect to the strength of the order. Maybe there are also very common alternatives to these four verbs / cases. (The case ***Тебе нужна новая лопата*** can be omitted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/usage-patterns-of-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE-vs-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE/1232#1232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="dbecd3b4-9726-4fe3-b767-4aa92295f180" CreationDate="2014-07-13T12:58:50.460" UserId="267" Text="**&quot;Должен&quot;** (one must, one has to) is the stongest one, then comes **&quot;следует&quot;** (strongly recommended) and then **&quot;нужно&quot;** and **&quot;надо&quot;**. &quot;Нужно&quot; and &quot;надо&quot; (it is necessary) are synonyms, but I would say that &quot;нужно&quot; is slightly more formal and more used in the written speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the grammar, &quot;должен&quot; is used with the Nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты должен купить лопату&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;следует&quot;, &quot;нужно&quot; and &quot;надо&quot; are used with the Dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Тебе следует купить лопату.  &#xD;&#xA; - Тебе надо купить лопату.  &#xD;&#xA; - Тебе нужно&#xD;&#xA;   купить лопату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them can be used both with the perfective and the imperfective infinitive depending on the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты должен купить фрукты в этом супермаркете. You have to buy fruit in this supermarket now.&#xD;&#xA; - Ты должен покупать фрукты в этом супермаркете. You always have t buy fruit in this supermarket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also add **&quot;обязан&quot;** to this list. It is used with the Nominative case and means &quot;it is obligatory, compulsory). It is even stonger than &quot;должен&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ты обязан купить лопату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15749" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="937c5705-c3b3-4658-b655-b04b1831a866" CreationDate="2014-07-13T19:37:09.163" UserId="2311" Comment="43" />
  <row Id="15750" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="f5ae14b1-742c-4221-9b4b-99907f6c2976" CreationDate="2014-07-13T20:43:02.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/488423387182952448" />
  <row Id="15751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="568ebcc6-fa78-4981-9bf4-b88cb52a4fd2" CreationDate="2014-07-14T02:46:40.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/488514902647398400" />
  <row Id="15754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="f8eddaa5-dc3b-4e9b-9829-aae6de0e1e93" CreationDate="2014-07-14T13:41:06.180" UserId="3892" Text="I've noticed several times that Russians will sometimes invert the usual word order, for example as *мама твоя* instead of the expected *твоя мамa*, and today I read this caption: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...так что Марфа Игнатьевна раз навсегда давно уже поняла, что в **советах ее** он совсем не нуждается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I wonder if this construction has a different interpretation, emphasis or meaning than the unmarked word order. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="f8eddaa5-dc3b-4e9b-9829-aae6de0e1e93" CreationDate="2014-07-14T13:41:06.180" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of [NOUN] + [POSS. ADJ]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="f8eddaa5-dc3b-4e9b-9829-aae6de0e1e93" CreationDate="2014-07-14T13:41:06.180" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6957" RevisionGUID="1224f19f-1393-439c-b811-ee0877cf27e0" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:13:38.093" UserId="267" Text="Yes, it puts a strong emphasis on the word &quot;советах&quot; in your example. It is also accompanied by a corresponding intonation that puts a stree on the word &quot;советах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns are also sometimes used after nouns in literary texts (poetry and prose) and songs to make them sound more beaufitul. When used in colloquial speech, this construction is considered to be of lofty style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction is often used with body parts: глаза, руки, ноги...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А тепе́рь в святы́е мощи ве́рю ча́ще, чем живы́м, &#xD;&#xA;А **в глаза́х мои́х** все ме́ньше синевы́. (А.Розенбаум)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ездок оробе́лый не ска́чет, лети́т; Младе́нец тоску́ет, младе́нец кричи́т; Ездок погоня́ет, ездок доскака́л... **В рука́х его́** мёртвый младе́нец лежа́л. (В.Жуковский)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6957" RevisionGUID="3b37a11e-7951-4473-9648-7f88f6a39352" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:18:48.760" UserId="267" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, it puts a strong emphasis on the word &quot;советах&quot; in your example. It is also accompanied by a corresponding intonation that puts a stress on the word &quot;советах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns are also sometimes used after nouns in literary texts (poetry and prose) and songs to make them sound more beaufitul. When used in colloquial speech, this construction is considered to be of lofty style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction is often used with body parts: глаза, руки, ноги...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А тепе́рь в святы́е мощи ве́рю ча́ще, чем живы́м, &#xD;&#xA;А **в глаза́х мои́х** все ме́ньше синевы́. (А.Розенбаум)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ездок оробе́лый не ска́чет, лети́т; Младе́нец тоску́ет, младе́нец кричи́т; Ездок погоня́ет, ездок доскака́л... **В рука́х его́** мёртвый младе́нец лежа́л. (В.Жуковский)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="3f5b139f-f1db-4d1e-8851-ded9e758a951" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:38:00.483" UserId="4075" Text="What is the difference in meaning between &quot;свобода&quot; and &quot;воля&quot; and also between &quot;свободный&quot; and &quot;вольный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="3f5b139f-f1db-4d1e-8851-ded9e758a951" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:38:00.483" UserId="4075" Text="&quot;Свободный&quot; vs. &quot;вольный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="3f5b139f-f1db-4d1e-8851-ded9e758a951" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:38:00.483" UserId="4075" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6957" RevisionGUID="8a83edd6-8f6f-4391-9cf0-7af3f7aeed9c" CreationDate="2014-07-14T15:42:03.350" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Yes, it puts a strong emphasis on the word &quot;советах&quot; in your example. It is also accompanied by a corresponding intonation that puts a stress on the word &quot;советах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns are also sometimes used after nouns in literary texts (poetry and prose) and songs to make them sound more beaufitul. When used in colloquial speech, this construction is considered to be of lofty style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction is often used with body parts: глаза, руки, ноги...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А тепе́рь в святы́е мощи ве́рю ча́ще, чем живы́м,  &#xD;&#xA;А **в глаза́х мои́х** все ме́ньше синевы́. *(А.Розенбаум)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ездок оробе́лый не ска́чет, лети́т;  &#xD;&#xA;Младе́нец тоску́ет, младе́нец кричи́т;  &#xD;&#xA;Ездок погоня́ет, ездок доскака́л...  &#xD;&#xA;**В рука́х его́** мёртвый младе́нец лежа́л. *(В.Жуковский)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6958" RevisionGUID="251980c4-c104-4585-87aa-c64e6a9071b2" CreationDate="2014-07-14T20:49:53.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/488787513553977346" />
  <row Id="15764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="d8eee46c-6463-4c16-9f7a-f2f8ee3389c1" CreationDate="2014-07-15T02:53:43.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/488879049507635201" />
  <row Id="15771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="349ca354-fa07-4bcf-a80c-c018dbf9be4b" CreationDate="2014-07-15T07:16:03.983" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="formatting" Text="***Потом***, ***затем*** &amp; ***после чего*** you can use one instead another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я ответил на вопрос на форуме, потом/затем/после чего пошел спать.&#xD;&#xA;***спустя*** you use to say *after some period of time*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    After 5 minutes, I went to sleep...&#xD;&#xA;    Cпустя 5 минут я пошел спать...&#xD;&#xA;***после этого*** you use after you have explained you did something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я ответил на вопрос и после этого пошел спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15772" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4164" RevisionGUID="349ca354-fa07-4bcf-a80c-c018dbf9be4b" CreationDate="2014-07-15T07:16:03.983" Comment="Proposed by 3538 approved by 551, 267 edit id of 515" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="f0cc359a-c0b0-4c03-83f5-dfb40b053ae0" CreationDate="2014-07-15T11:53:43.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489014945477316608" />
  <row Id="15775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="92a4b6c1-a0ce-49d9-87e7-68dfa893775f" CreationDate="2014-07-15T12:12:49.890" UserId="1836" Text="Uh, that's difficult. As it was said, you can use imperative constructions to hide gender, but you can't use them always. Other option is plural forms (most of them are genderless), but again, you will need to explain why these creatures are called in plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a person with amount of LGBT friends and close to LARP community in Russia, I can say that there is always big mess with gender-specific forms words and constructions. There is no way to really avoid them...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes we use neuter, but it doesn't sound really good. Sometimes we just use masculine as &quot;default&quot; grammatical gender. By the way, in laws and contracts two workarounds are used: something like &quot;лицо, совершившее...&quot; (neuter) or things like &quot;человек должен...&quot; (masculine as default gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem with neuter is that it sounds like no gender at all, not like unknown gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you could give some examples for better understanding of question?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="32e333c6-2204-4d98-b0c0-2c311bf3e6da" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:23:02.043" UserId="104" Text="Moжно ли с чистой совестью утверждать, что слово &quot;смысл&quot; односложное? Если нет, то есть ли другие слова, в которых количество слогов больше количества писанных гласных? Что говорят по этому поводу авторитетные источники по русскому языку?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="32e333c6-2204-4d98-b0c0-2c311bf3e6da" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:23:02.043" UserId="104" Text="Сколько слогов в слове &quot;смысл&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="32e333c6-2204-4d98-b0c0-2c311bf3e6da" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:23:02.043" UserId="104" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="87de56ad-44b5-45a8-aff8-3a119079be4f" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:29:24.080" UserId="4075" Text="What is the difference between the adjectives &quot;разный&quot; and &quot;различный&quot;. Are they used in different situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="87de56ad-44b5-45a8-aff8-3a119079be4f" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:29:24.080" UserId="4075" Text="&quot;Разный&quot; vs &quot;различный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="87de56ad-44b5-45a8-aff8-3a119079be4f" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:29:24.080" UserId="4075" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6964" RevisionGUID="0a91da2c-3aaa-436f-901e-33f628c0008e" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:43:37.487" UserId="104" Text="These are synonyms, and are interchangeable in many situations. *Разный* is more like *different*, whereas *различный* is more like *various*. When you're contrasting two objects, разный is preferable. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;У нас с сестрой глаза разного цвета (My sister and I have different eye colors)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;strike&gt;У нас с сестрой глаза различного цвета&lt;/strike&gt; (&lt;strike&gt;My sister and I have various eye colors&lt;/strike&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="274b5f86-a610-47a0-b928-ce902da97e34" CreationDate="2014-07-15T14:46:13.163" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Yes, exactly, &quot;перед Богом&quot; is a neutral expression and &quot;пред Богом&quot; is more of an &quot;old style&quot;, it is used in poetry, especially in the XIXth century. So, &quot;пред Богом&quot; is poetic and lofty style, &quot;перед Богом&quot; is neutral and modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Пе́ред** Бо́гом все равны́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ка́ждый **пред** Бо́гом  наг. &#xD;&#xA;  Жа́лок, наг и убо́г.   В ка́ждой му́зыке  Бах,   в ка́ждом из нас &#xD;&#xA;   Бог. (Иосиф Бродский)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phenomenon is called &quot;reduced vocalism&quot;, it was quite common in the Old Slavonic, in the Bible and in the Russian poetry: голос-глас, волосы-власы, город-град, etc. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="61bf5690-d030-4bbe-a6c0-80521b56e185" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:28:22.580" UserId="1266" Text="Как красиво перевести &quot;firmware&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* software - программное обеспечение;&#xD;&#xA;* hardware - аппаратное обеспечение;&#xD;&#xA;* firmware - ??? обеспечение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Достаточно ли литературен термин &quot;прошивка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="61bf5690-d030-4bbe-a6c0-80521b56e185" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:28:22.580" UserId="1266" Text="How do I translate &quot;firmware&quot; to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="61bf5690-d030-4bbe-a6c0-80521b56e185" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:28:22.580" UserId="1266" Text="|перевод|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="6b8e413e-459b-4a90-83a6-0a52df633a26" CreationDate="2014-07-15T18:35:09.210" UserId="242" Text="It's funny but the official term for firmware is actually &quot;программно-аппаратное обеспечение&quot; or &quot;встроенное обеспечение&quot;. But, like all the terms you've mentioned, it is very non-typical to use such terms anywhere except may be official documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, &quot;прошивка&quot; is OK in almost all cases and currently is not limited by colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="63ddf217-5730-4b0f-95fc-4b040ac69dee" CreationDate="2014-07-15T19:23:37.737" UserId="242" Text="Смотря что считать слогом. Согласно [википедии][1] (выделение моё),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слог — это минимальная фонетико-фонологическая единица,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характеризующаяся наибольшей акустико-артикуляционной слитностью своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонентов, то есть входящих в него звуков. **Слог не имеет связи с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; формированием и выражением смысловых отношений. Это чисто&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносительная единица.** В слоге группируются звуки разной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучности, наиболее звучные — слогообразующие, остальные — неслоговые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, если проще, всё сводится к тому, по какой метрике, собственно, измерять эту звучность. &quot;Школ&quot; слогоделения существует несколько, в вышеупомянутой статье дан хороший обзор основных. Давайте попробуем провести какой-то начальный анализ в рамках каждого подхода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Экспираторная теория слога* Если совсем коротко, теория заключается в том, что сколько выдохов (&quot;сколько дрогнула свеча&quot;), столько и слогов. Поднесите ладонь к лицу и произнесите &quot;смысл&quot; - в среднем &quot;по палате&quot; получится, скажем так, полтора слога; всё зависит ещё и от личных особенностей произношения - уровень экспрессии у всех разный, у некоторых на &quot;cл&quot; тоже получается слабый, но всё таки поддающийся детектированию выдох. Эта теория неоднократно подвергалась критики, было найдено множество контпримеров, так что она устарела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Сонорная теория слога* под слогом понимает сочетание более сонорного (звучного) звука с менее сонорным. Тут мы опять попадаем в ловушку необходимости давать чёткие определения - что есть сонорность? Например, под это определение могут не попадать [звонкие шумные][2]. Тут филологи сломали немало копий вообще и в отношении русского языка в частности. Языковед Рубен Аванесов (чьи работы в рамках этой теории считаются наиболее проработанными) разработал целую теорию подъёмов и падений звучания, которую нет тут смысла излагать всю, но согласно этой теории в слове &quot;смысл&quot; два слога, но может быть и один - смотря как произносить. Кстати по иронии судьбы Аванесов большую часть своей жизни был практически глух, что нисколько не умаляет его лингвистических заслуг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Теория [мускульного] напряжения* утверждает, что границей слога является те участки речи, при которых работа мышц артикуляционного аппарата максимальна. В рамках этой теории слово &quot;смысл&quot; всё-таки двухслоговое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я завершу этот далеко не полный список упоминанием того факта, что есть теории пытающиеся в той или иной мере комбинировать подходы всех вышеупомянутых (и не упомянутых школ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;От себя я замечу, что я не филолог, поэтому споры эти мне казались всегда очень умозрительными и даже ещё более бессмысленным, чем знаменитый спор ленинградской и московской фонетических школ о существовании звука &quot;ы&quot; в русском. Потому что у звукораспознования, в отличие от слогоразделения, есть вполне понятный и &quot;осязаемый&quot; практический аспект. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается других примеров такие &quot;проблемных&quot; слов, то &quot;ау&quot; и &quot;сплав&quot;, упомянутые в той же статье в Википедии - хорошие кандидаты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.km.ru/referats/79F5998AFB324194A44AEDF78E698575#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6968" RevisionGUID="3f0a728f-b22f-411e-8f71-40a789fe1134" CreationDate="2014-07-15T19:40:23.650" UserId="62" Text="In mathematics the term различный is used more often, corresponding to &quot;distinct&quot; (not &quot;various&quot;, as Armen writes) instead of &quot;different&quot;,  e.g., Пусть p и q различные простые числа (Let p and q be distinct primes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="b40c7bac-bf39-4a24-9b38-565e7aaec803" CreationDate="2014-07-15T19:43:37.007" UserId="4090" Text="Мне кажется `прошивка` - через чур кустарно. Так говорят в шаражках КГБ между собой клерки, но не учёные. Это не литературный термин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По аналогии &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Software - Программное обеспечени&#xD;&#xA;* Hardware - Оборудование / аппаратное обеспечение&#xD;&#xA;* Malware - Вредоносное программное обеспечение &#xD;&#xA;* Firmware - Програмное обеспечение оборудования&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="16d4c49b-6a3b-4607-9657-8a591efd4095" CreationDate="2014-07-15T21:33:25.530" UserId="2442" Text="Официальный термин, зафиксированный в словарях, — «Микропрограмма» (наравне с упомянутым выше «программно-аппаратным обеспечением»). Но это слово употребляется, пожалуй, лишь в отношении микроконтроллеров и прочих устройств, где эта самая микропрограмма физически прошивается программатором.  &#xD;&#xA;Как бы ни было неприятно пуристам, «прошивка» — уже, похоже, действительно литературный термин." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="2bdf9096-64ca-4aa7-af73-22822f459cd1" CreationDate="2014-07-15T22:05:44.977" UserId="2269" Comment="few typos" Text="Смотря что считать слогом. Согласно [Википедии][1] (выделение моё),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слог — это минимальная фонетико-фонологическая единица,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характеризующаяся наибольшей акустико-артикуляционной слитностью своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонентов, то есть входящих в него звуков. **Слог не имеет связи с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; формированием и выражением смысловых отношений. Это чисто&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносительная единица.** В слоге группируются звуки разной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучности, наиболее звучные — слогообразующие, остальные — неслоговые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, если проще, всё сводится к тому, по какой метрике, собственно, измерять эту звучность. «Школ» слогоделения существует несколько, в вышеупомянутой статье дан хороший обзор основных. Давайте попробуем провести какой-то начальный анализ в рамках каждого подхода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Экспираторная теория слога* Если совсем коротко, теория заключается в том, что сколько выдохов («сколько дрогнула свеча»), столько и слогов. Поднесите ладонь к лицу и произнесите «смысл» — в среднем «по палате» получится, скажем так, полтора слога; всё зависит ещё и от личных особенностей произношения — уровень экспрессии у всех разный, у некоторых на «cл» тоже получается слабый, но всё таки поддающийся детектированию выдох. Эта теория неоднократно подвергалась критике, было найдено множество контпримеров, так что она устарела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Сонорная теория слога* под слогом понимает сочетание более сонорного (звучного) звука с менее сонорным. Тут мы опять попадаем в ловушку необходимости давать чёткие определения — что есть сонорность? Например, под это определение могут не попадать [звонкие шумные][2]. Тут филологи сломали немало копий вообще и в отношении русского языка в частности. Языковед Рубен Аванесов (чьи работы в рамках этой теории считаются наиболее проработанными) разработал целую теорию подъёмов и падений звучания, которую нет тут смысла излагать всю, но согласно этой теории в слове «смысл» два слога, но может быть и один — смотря как произносить. Кстати, по иронии судьбы Аванесов большую часть своей жизни был практически глух, что нисколько не умаляет его лингвистических заслуг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Теория [мускульного] напряжения* утверждает, что границей слога является те участки речи, при которых работа мышц артикуляционного аппарата максимальна. В рамках этой теории слово «смысл» всё-таки двухслоговое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я завершу этот далеко не полный список упоминанием того факта, что есть теории пытающиеся в той или иной мере комбинировать подходы всех вышеупомянутых (и не упомянутых) школ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;От себя я замечу, что я не филолог, поэтому споры эти мне казались всегда очень умозрительными и даже ещё более бессмысленным, чем знаменитый спор ленинградской и московской фонетических школ о существовании звука «ы» в русском. Потому что у звукораспознования, в отличие от слогоразделения, есть вполне понятный и «осязаемый» практический аспект. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается других примеров такие «проблемных» слов, то «ау» и «сплав», упомянутые в той же статье в Википедии — хорошие кандидаты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.km.ru/referats/79F5998AFB324194A44AEDF78E698575#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15797" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="6e84623e-9975-42e7-a65e-353b3d0b1586" CreationDate="2014-07-15T23:53:43.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489196140269944832" />
  <row Id="15798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="b9bf64cd-6eaa-43ab-ae48-546da8ddad9a" CreationDate="2014-07-16T02:53:43.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489241438862209025" />
  <row Id="15799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="1f95366c-6777-43b1-8eb5-dcf5cbf47ae4" CreationDate="2014-07-16T06:44:54.813" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Мне кажется `прошивка` - чересчур кустарно. Так говорят в шаражках КГБ между собой клерки, но не учёные. Это не литературный термин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По аналогии &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Software - Программное обеспечени&#xD;&#xA;* Hardware - Оборудование / аппаратное обеспечение&#xD;&#xA;* Malware - Вредоносное программное обеспечение &#xD;&#xA;* Firmware - Програмное обеспечение оборудования&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15801" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="fad444a1-d44e-4369-9599-2182203c28ad" CreationDate="2014-07-16T11:57:21.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489378247810236416" />
  <row Id="15802" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6899" RevisionGUID="990299fb-a45f-4bc6-a959-555b45df852a" CreationDate="2014-07-16T13:06:40.533" UserId="2311" Comment="43" />
  <row Id="15803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="f5664e4d-6eff-4dbf-a5d7-6325e4908d65" CreationDate="2014-07-16T14:10:02.100" UserId="242" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Смотря что считать слогом. Согласно [Википедии][1] (выделение моё),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слог — это минимальная фонетико-фонологическая единица,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характеризующаяся наибольшей акустико-артикуляционной слитностью своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонентов, то есть входящих в него звуков. **Слог не имеет связи с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; формированием и выражением смысловых отношений. Это чисто&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносительная единица.** В слоге группируются звуки разной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучности, наиболее звучные — слогообразующие, остальные — неслоговые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, если проще, всё сводится к тому, по какой метрике, собственно, измерять эту звучность. «Школ» слогоделения существует несколько, в вышеупомянутой статье дан хороший обзор основных. Давайте попробуем провести какой-то начальный анализ в рамках каждого подхода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Экспираторная теория слога* Если совсем коротко, теория заключается в том, что сколько выдохов («сколько дрогнула свеча»), столько и слогов. Поднесите ладонь к лицу и произнесите «смысл» — в среднем «по палате» получится, скажем так, полтора слога; всё зависит ещё и от личных особенностей произношения — уровень экспрессии у всех разный, у некоторых на «cл» тоже получается слабый, но всё таки поддающийся детектированию выдох. Эта теория неоднократно подвергалась критике, было найдено множество контпримеров, так что она устарела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Сонорная теория слога* под слогом понимает сочетание более сонорного (звучного) звука с менее сонорным. Тут мы опять попадаем в ловушку необходимости давать чёткие определения — что есть сонорность? Например, под это определение могут не попадать [звонкие шумные][2]. Тут филологи сломали немало копий вообще и в отношении русского языка в частности. Языковед Рубен Аванесов (чьи работы в рамках этой теории считаются наиболее проработанными) создал целую теорию о закономерностях подъёмов и падений звучания, которую нет тут смысла излагать всю, конечно, но согласно этой теории в слове «смысл» два слога, но может быть и один — смотря как произносить. Кстати, по иронии судьбы Аванесов большую часть своей жизни был практически глух, что нисколько не умаляет его лингвистических заслуг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Теория [мускульного] напряжения* утверждает, что границей слога является те участки речи, при которых работа мышц артикуляционного аппарата максимальна. В рамках этой теории слово «смысл» всё-таки двухслоговое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я завершу этот далеко не полный список упоминанием того факта, что есть теории пытающиеся в той или иной мере комбинировать подходы всех вышеупомянутых (и не упомянутых) школ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;От себя я замечу, что я не филолог, поэтому споры эти мне казались всегда очень умозрительными и даже ещё более бессмысленным, чем знаменитый спор ленинградской и московской фонетических школ о существовании звука «ы» в русском. Потому что у звукораспознования, в отличие от слогоразделения, есть вполне понятный и «осязаемый» практический аспект. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается других примеров такие «проблемных» слов, то «ау» и «сплав», упомянутые в той же статье в Википедии — хорошие кандидаты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.km.ru/referats/79F5998AFB324194A44AEDF78E698575#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="3f71404a-491d-43e5-85ac-192fd15bd020" CreationDate="2014-07-16T14:29:36.280" UserId="1836" Text="Dictionary I use knows nothing about both words, so I would translate &quot;lovable&quot; as &quot;привлекательный&quot; and make a noun from it. So it will be &quot;привлекательность&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Same with &quot;amiableness&quot; -&gt; &quot;amiable&quot; -&gt; &quot;благожелательный&quot; -&gt; &quot;благожелательность&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can trace a chain like this for &quot;courteousness&quot; (-&gt; &quot;courteous&quot; -&gt; &quot;любезный&quot; -&gt; &quot;любезность&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might not work with some words, but in main such method actually works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6903" RevisionGUID="92a68b89-8e21-4c18-964e-bddc853c471f" CreationDate="2014-07-16T17:57:16.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489468826346872832" />
  <row Id="15809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="65ad374f-dc99-44b0-9c18-63fc99c09344" CreationDate="2014-07-16T20:41:52.557" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="How to translate ***attitude***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление или поведение***, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor.  &#xD;&#xA; **What would be the russian term for it?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="65ad374f-dc99-44b0-9c18-63fc99c09344" CreationDate="2014-07-16T20:41:52.557" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Translation of &quot;attitude of a person&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="65ad374f-dc99-44b0-9c18-63fc99c09344" CreationDate="2014-07-16T20:41:52.557" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6976" RevisionGUID="c2895ab4-ab9e-457c-85f1-50bd1051a40a" CreationDate="2014-07-17T02:36:15.320" UserId="4097" Text="Если непременно необходимо использовать что-то иное от &quot;прошивка&quot;, то я бы перевёл &quot;firmware&quot; как &quot;базовое программное обеспечение&quot;, так как по сути это такой расширенный &quot;BIOS&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="1926ff7b-9c77-4f94-8b94-7905a990a1b1" CreationDate="2014-07-17T04:50:46.613" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление или поведение***, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15814" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="caf637e7-9d1d-49c0-ac81-9ba02dabde94" CreationDate="2014-07-17T06:07:51.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489652683310391296" />
  <row Id="15815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="4ea6c4ca-044c-4929-b084-1120d1a32918" CreationDate="2014-07-17T06:45:49.377" UserId="334" Text="'Поведение' refers to visible actions, however, 'Холодное поведение' is not a common expression, usually 'вести себя холодно' is used. Actually, 'обсуждать поведение' is a bit formal, 'обсуждать как себя вести' is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Настроение' generally refers to internal, non-permanent mood, so 'У нее настроение быть сволочью' may be translated 'She is in a mood to be a bitch right now'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Мышление' refers to the process of thinking or to internal view, so 'Пк attitude' would be translated as 'Циничное мышление'. However, it is not common to use the word in the second meaning, 'образ мышления' is usually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bottom up: no direct general translation, 'поведение' for visible actions, 'образ мысшления' (or more colloquial 'образ мыслей') for views and thoughts. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Он ведет себя холодно / Его поведение холодно (very awkward) / Он холоден. - He has cold attitude&#xD;&#xA; - Отставить пессиместичный образ мыслей / Отставить пессиместичное мышление - stop having pessimistic attitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, however, that both 'мышление' and 'поведение' are words, used in formal situations and are rarely used in colloquial speech, unless they are part of an idiom. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="d823ed09-50cb-4ccd-bea2-781213a50166" CreationDate="2014-07-17T07:28:21.713" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="9bd9b5de-d418-44c9-9312-c1f2197cbd44" CreationDate="2014-07-17T07:35:34.857" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it. Shouldn't me?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor. Let me also point out, that even a bad mood would not result in the latter answers if you have a good attitude (let's just assume that for now). So the attitude is more about something deeper. The attitude of one's heart. In the example, the answers may reveal whether the guy's heart clings to the newspaper (or things in it or the habit or reading it) or whether his heart is distant to it or just slightly leans to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15819" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="8aaff588-ded8-4594-9f72-3ccb94602062" CreationDate="2014-07-17T09:07:42.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/489697941633110016" />
  <row Id="15820" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6917" RevisionGUID="723c4751-846b-4ff7-ab07-aa844ab5550c" CreationDate="2014-07-17T13:53:36.897" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="15821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="996e0f66-f4d1-47bc-8e53-4f668f65f7fc" CreationDate="2014-07-17T16:38:10.043" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.  &#xD;&#xA;Other terms I've found: ***ментальность, умонастроение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it. Shouldn't me?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor. Let me also point out, that even a bad mood would not result in the latter answers if you have a good attitude (let's just assume that for now). So the attitude is more about something deeper. The attitude of one's heart. In the example, the answers may reveal whether the guy's heart clings to the newspaper (or things in it or the habit or reading it) or whether his heart is distant to it or just slightly leans to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6977" RevisionGUID="24139117-a0c2-4d59-84c5-b5b4ce7c9b98" CreationDate="2014-07-17T17:52:23.307" UserId="334" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="'Поведение' refers to visible actions, however, 'Холодное поведение' is not a common expression, usually 'вести себя холодно' is used. Actually, 'обсуждать поведение' is a bit formal, 'обсуждать как себя вести' is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Настроение' generally refers to internal, non-permanent mood, so 'У нее настроение быть сволочью' may be translated 'She is in a mood to be a bitch right now'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Мышление' refers to the process of thinking or to internal view, so 'cynical attitude' would be translated as 'Циничное мышление'. However, it is not common to use the word in the second meaning, 'образ мышления' is usually used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bottom up: no direct general translation, 'поведение' for visible actions, 'образ мысшления' (or more colloquial 'образ мыслей') for views and thoughts. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Он ведет себя холодно / Его поведение холодно (very awkward) / Он холоден. - He has cold attitude&#xD;&#xA; - Отставить пессиместичный образ мыслей / Отставить пессиместичное мышление - stop having pessimistic attitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, however, that both 'мышление' and 'поведение' are words, used in formal situations and are rarely used in colloquial speech, unless they are part of an idiom. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="281468cc-f9eb-4fa0-ae67-7da7d0bab763" CreationDate="2014-07-18T04:46:43.783" UserId="4048" Text="`Вольный` is based on `воля` root which could be translated as `will` noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Свободный` could be synonym has also another meaning `empty` related to space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Свобода` is about freedom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Воля` is rather about free will, but could be used as antonym to captivity too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="b9e0ccb8-5cb9-452a-bcac-03ac7899f6aa" CreationDate="2014-07-18T08:48:04.597" UserId="3802" Text="I would say образ мышления.&#xD;&#xA;Мышление is a bit more general term and it means thinking. The result of мышление is a thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether образ мышления determines our life priorities, purposes and its result is the way we act." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="d341bbe0-60b1-4a15-8022-e9bfea79e61d" CreationDate="2014-07-18T14:43:43.947" UserId="194" Text="Согласно традиционной системе, принятой в русском языке, количество слогов равно количеству гласных. Таким образом, в слове один слог." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="6cdb69b7-a5dc-4aa5-a928-9b4125940df8" CreationDate="2014-07-18T20:03:35.390" UserId="1688" Text="Я бы в данном случае перевел _attitude_ как _настрой_, соответственно _good attitude_ = _позитивный настрой_, _bad attitude_ = _негативный настрой_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15828" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="dff86650-a6d4-4abf-9d76-01bce4fb7ad2" CreationDate="2014-07-18T21:16:59.183" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="44" />
  <row Id="15829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="34923114-2aa5-474d-a91d-c5c5f156a9c2" CreationDate="2014-07-18T21:28:14.343" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a term which fits best, when speaking about this inner attitude of one's heart. The term should *not* refer to one's mood or things which are more related to the collective outer appearance. See also the example below. It's not so easy to explain, but I thought with some more statements it's easier to get an idea of the possibilities that Russian offers here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.  &#xD;&#xA;Other terms I've found: ***ментальность, умонастроение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it. Shouldn't me?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor. Let me also point out, that even a bad mood would not result in the latter answers if you have a good attitude (let's just assume that for now). So the attitude is more about something deeper. The attitude of one's heart. In the example, the answers may reveal whether the guy's heart clings to the newspaper (or things in it or the habit or reading it) or whether his heart is distant to it or just slightly leans to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="365b8901-747e-4547-8016-c5dceea73f0a" CreationDate="2014-07-18T21:57:00.293" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude / mind-set***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a term which fits best, when speaking about this inner attitude of one's heart. The term should *not* refer to one's mood or things which are more related to the collective outer appearance. See also the example below. It's not so easy to explain, but I thought with some more statements it's easier to get an idea of the possibilities that Russian offers here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A corresponding German term is *(Geistes-)Haltung*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.  &#xD;&#xA;Other terms I've found: ***ментальность, умонастроение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it. Shouldn't me?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor. Let me also point out, that even a bad mood would not result in the latter answers if you have a good attitude (let's just assume that for now). So the attitude is more about something deeper. The attitude of one's heart. In the example, the answers may reveal whether the guy's heart clings to the newspaper (or things in it or the habit or reading it) or whether his heart is distant to it or just slightly leans to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude / mind-set?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="0e61308b-ed3a-46ad-b3bb-4633557fc405" CreationDate="2014-07-19T00:32:24.050" UserId="4103" Text="The easiest analogy is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Moscow was founded in 1147. (w/o быть)&#xD;&#xA; - Moscow has been founded in 1147. (w быть)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="f8ea9336-5217-44db-9b54-873f8760cf72" CreationDate="2014-07-19T00:49:43.870" UserId="4103" Text="The reflexive suffix `-ся` can be described as middle or mediopassive voice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - He shaved and brushed his teeth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `to shave` is used in a way similar to middle voice. Reflexively. We don't need to specify that he shaved himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reflexive pronoun `себя` (in accusative case) represents a specified direct object which is the agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он побрился` is the same as `He shaved`. `Он увидел себя` is the same as `He saw himself`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to how to differenciate the cases in which to use the suffix or the pronoun you really just need to remember the `-ся` verbs. They generally have a completely different meaning so you'll have to learn them anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я увидел себя с ней. - I saw myself with her.&#xD;&#xA; - Я увиделся с ней. - I met her. or I saw her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="c04c369b-4bdf-4a62-ad33-fc2f4c68cbb5" CreationDate="2014-07-19T13:09:21.303" UserId="4105" Text="What is the etymology of восемь and	девять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="c04c369b-4bdf-4a62-ad33-fc2f4c68cbb5" CreationDate="2014-07-19T13:09:21.303" UserId="4105" Text="What is the etymology of восемь and	девять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="c04c369b-4bdf-4a62-ad33-fc2f4c68cbb5" CreationDate="2014-07-19T13:09:21.303" UserId="4105" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="3fb73161-6a4a-4def-bb92-4c07d705e581" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:15:24.887" UserId="170" Text="How should I go about placing the question mark in a question with a dash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И где тогда та обещанная весёлая комапния, если Серёга ещё не пришёл,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лёха уже ушёл, а Витя фактически отсутствует – его действительно не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поймать ни дома, ни на работе, ни в институте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question should be about where the весёлая комапния is, which is the first clause in the sentence, but I am a bit reluctant about placing the question in the end of this sentence as it may look then that the question is about whether it is really possible to catch Витя, which is the second clause in the sentence, i.e. the one following the dash ( – ).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="3fb73161-6a4a-4def-bb92-4c07d705e581" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:15:24.887" UserId="170" Text="Placing the question mark in a question with a dash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="3fb73161-6a4a-4def-bb92-4c07d705e581" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:15:24.887" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="a3d663d1-6a8f-43da-954d-d5d24c6940b3" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:20:28.590" UserId="170" Comment="added 340 characters in body" Text="How should I go about placing the question mark in a question with a dash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И где тогда та обещанная весёлая комапния, если Серёга ещё не пришёл,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лёха уже ушёл, а Витя фактически отсутствует – его действительно не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поймать ни дома, ни на работе, ни в институте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question should be about where the весёлая комапния is, which is the first clause in the sentence, but I am a bit reluctant to place the question in the end of this sentence as it may look then that the question is about whether it is possible to catch Витя, which is the second clause in the sentence, that is, the one following the dash ( – ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please, don't give me suggestions on how to rephrase my question. I myself know how to do that, but I need to know the rules for this particular case. Imagine that this question is part of a transcription, in which you are only allowed to change punctuation, but you are not allowed to change or omit words, or change the word order) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="c10927c3-431d-4290-89f3-cdbcebad27e4" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:29:29.157" UserId="170" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="How should I go about placing the question mark in a question with a dash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И где тогда та обещанная весёлая комапния, если Серёга ещё не пришёл,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лёха уже ушёл, а Витя фактически отсутствует – его действительно не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поймать ни дома, ни на работе, ни в институте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question should be about where the весёлая комапния is, which is the first clause in the sentence, but I am a bit reluctant to place the question mark in the end of this sentence as it may look then that the question is about whether it is possible to catch Витя, which is the second clause in the sentence, that is, the one following the dash ( – ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please, don't give me suggestions on how to rephrase my question. I myself know how to do that, but I need to know the rules for this particular case. Imagine that this question is part of a transcription, in which you are only allowed to change punctuation, but you are not allowed to change or omit words, or change the word order) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="91f1f16f-b144-4e3b-b306-17e39a994100" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:38:12.260" UserId="170" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="How should I go about placing the question mark in a question with a dash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И где тогда та обещанная весёлая комапния, если Серёга ещё не пришёл,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лёха уже ушёл, а Витя фактически отсутствует – его действительно не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поймать ни дома, ни на работе, ни в институте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question should be about where the весёлая комапния is, which is the first clause in the sentence, but I am a bit reluctant to place the question mark in the end of this sentence as it may look then that the question is about whether it is possible to catch Витя, which is the second clause in the sentence, that is, the one following the dash ( – ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please, don't give me suggestions on how to rephrase my question. I myself know how to do that, but I need to know the rules for this particular case. Imagine that this question is a part of transcription, in which you are only allowed to change punctuation, but you are not allowed to change or omit words, or change the word order. And, please, don't omit the dash) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="0407629b-1ae7-4491-9a89-13906b77b089" CreationDate="2014-07-19T14:51:09.170" UserId="267" Text="In this sentence it is quite clear that the dash introduces an explanation of why Vitia is always absent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you put a question mark in the end of the whole sentence I wouldn't interpret it as a question about whether it is possible to catch Vitia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the only solution here is to put a question mark at the end, and this question mark will refer to the question: &quot;where весёлая компания&quot; is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="5f462f17-f8b7-47b2-8012-67141eba8a52" CreationDate="2014-07-19T17:11:19.073" UserId="267" Comment="edited body" Text="In this sentence it is quite clear that the dash introduces an explanation of why Vitia is always absent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you put a question mark in the end of the whole sentence I wouldn't interpret it as a question about whether it is possible to catch Vitia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the only solution here is to put a question mark at the end, and this question mark will refer to the question: &quot;where весёлая компания is&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="95f31baa-413e-437e-8f0d-11f02065c102" CreationDate="2014-07-19T17:14:34.320" UserId="4075" Text="What is the difference between the expressions &quot;один и тот же&quot; and &quot;тот же самый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это один и тот же дом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это тот же самый дом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="95f31baa-413e-437e-8f0d-11f02065c102" CreationDate="2014-07-19T17:14:34.320" UserId="4075" Text="&quot;Один и тот же&quot; vs. &quot;тот же самый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="95f31baa-413e-437e-8f0d-11f02065c102" CreationDate="2014-07-19T17:14:34.320" UserId="4075" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="5244d655-0f3d-427f-94a4-b3fcd88a6c40" CreationDate="2014-07-19T18:09:20.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/490559025218854912" />
  <row Id="15854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="ae565df6-3289-4fe4-952c-577cabce86af" CreationDate="2014-07-19T19:47:43.860" UserDisplayName="user3538" Comment="added 566 characters in body" Text="How to translate ***attitude / mind-set***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a term which fits best, when speaking about this inner attitude of one's heart. The term should *not* refer to one's mood or things which are more related to the collective outer appearance. See also the example below. It's not so easy to explain, but I thought with some more statements it's easier to get an idea of the possibilities that Russian offers here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A corresponding German term is *(Geistes-)Haltung*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.  &#xD;&#xA;Other terms I've found: ***ментальность, умонастроение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it. Shouldn't me?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;What's that to you?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor. Let me also point out, that even a bad mood would not result in the latter answers if you have a good attitude (let's just assume that for now). So the attitude is more about something deeper. The attitude of one's heart. In the example, the answers may reveal whether the guy's heart clings to the newspaper (or things in it or the habit or reading it) or whether his heart is distant to it or just slightly leans to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude / mind-set?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible hints&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как говорит прп. Иоанн Лествичник (слово 24): «Кротость есть такое ***состояние ума***, когда он непоколебим пребывает и в чести, и в бесчестии.... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;http://azbyka.ru/tserkov/duhovnaya_zhizn/osnovy/pestov_praktika_pravoslavnogo_blagochestiya_70-all.shtml&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;meekness - a ***disposition*** to be patient and long suffering.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meekness&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Для чистых все чисто; а для оскверненных и неверныхнет ничего чистого, но осквернены и ***ум*** их и совесть. &lt;sub&gt;Титу 1:15&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="0a0de596-d459-44a1-814f-a66c73493e53" CreationDate="2014-07-19T22:17:51.160" UserId="2388" Text="There is at least the following difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **один и тот же** ~ the object that is one and the same. Right now, with all you have: some objects you are talking about are in fact one object.&#xD;&#xA; - **тот же самый** ~ the same object (as something else)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;Это один и тот же дом&quot; only makes sense when you are, for example, pointing at two pictures of houses and claim &quot;This is the same house!&quot;. There is no comparison because there is nothing to compare to: what you have now — is all that matters. Note that in such situation you cannot say &quot;This is the same house as...!&quot; because there is no &quot;...&quot; in your situation, only two photos that *match*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise (if you are referring to your previous dialogue or some visit to the house) you use &quot;Это тот же самый дом&quot; ~ &quot;It is the same house&quot; (as before). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use &quot;один и тот же&quot;, then you are forced to include the full explanation &quot;Этот дом и тот, в котором я был вчера, по-моему — один и тот же дом&quot; (This house and the one I was inside yesterday are, I think, one and the same house)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6986" RevisionGUID="87ea3a77-7ec9-41f3-add0-58f2a2c93499" CreationDate="2014-07-20T01:27:26.607" UserId="170" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="How should I go about placing the question mark in a question with a dash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И где тогда та обещанная весёлая комапния, если Серёга ещё не пришёл,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лёха уже ушёл, а Витя фактически отсутствует – его действительно не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поймать ни дома, ни на работе, ни в институте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question should be about where the весёлая комапния is, which is the first clause in the sentence, but I am a bit reluctant to place the question mark in the end of this sentence as it may look then that the question is about whether it is possible to catch Витя, which is the second clause in the sentence, that is, the one following the dash ( – ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please, don't give me suggestions on how to rephrase my question-example. I myself know how to do that, but I need to know the rules for this particular case. Imagine that this question is a part of transcription, in which you are only allowed to do your own  punctuation, but you are not allowed to change or omit words, or change the word order. And, please, don't omit the dash) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="ff4bfda7-8567-46ec-ad3a-b58873832b3e" CreationDate="2014-07-20T06:16:16.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/490741964795830272" />
  <row Id="15858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6991" RevisionGUID="8d445d87-1eeb-41f7-95ed-dc6397b686ba" CreationDate="2014-07-20T06:36:52.243" UserId="4097" Text="If the sense of whole sentence is questioning it doesn't matter if the last part is a statement or not, you should use question mark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="f922a0b3-b7b5-4195-95d9-8426ee796422" CreationDate="2014-07-20T12:06:57.840" UserId="170" Text="Do I need to place a comma after the word **бóльшая** here?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А что до &quot;геологов&quot; (уверен, что большáя, если не **бóльшая** часть из них&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никогда не были профессиональными геолагами), то я им просто не верю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="f922a0b3-b7b5-4195-95d9-8426ee796422" CreationDate="2014-07-20T12:06:57.840" UserId="170" Text="Comma in such phrases like &quot;большáя, если не бóльшая часть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="f922a0b3-b7b5-4195-95d9-8426ee796422" CreationDate="2014-07-20T12:06:57.840" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="1dccaf7e-ffc1-4b85-bd6b-43f859a0041e" CreationDate="2014-07-20T14:17:08.047" UserId="2269" Text="Yes, the comma after _бо́льшая_ would not be superfluous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (уверен, что большáя, если не бóльшая, часть из них никогда не были профессиональными геолагами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general empirical rule is that: if you can cut some clause out of sentence without losing grammatical semantic consistency, it should be enclosed by some punctuation symbol (usually commas) on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there would not be parentheses already, you can also enclose если-clause in them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уверен, что большáя (если не бóльшая) часть из них никогда не были профессиональными геолагами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="c390cf91-0d34-44f7-901e-d3c1a799f401" CreationDate="2014-07-20T15:09:19.223" UserId="170" Comment="edited body" Text="Do I need to place a comma after the word **бóльшая** here?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А что до &quot;геологов&quot; (уверен, что большáя, если не **бóльшая** часть из них&#xD;&#xA;&gt; никогда не были профессиональными геологами), то я им просто не верю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15865" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6989" RevisionGUID="7c77b51e-1faa-4615-ba78-b11ced68e859" CreationDate="2014-07-20T15:16:33.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/490877930097369088" />
  <row Id="15867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="36f4881e-a9a8-40f6-af36-4c726e9a1194" CreationDate="2014-07-20T15:32:29.567" UserId="4075" Text="Do I still have to use the particle &quot;ли&quot; if I already have &quot;или&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он не сказал, будет ли он есть или нет.&#xD;&#xA;Vs.&#xD;&#xA;Он не сказал, будет он есть или нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="36f4881e-a9a8-40f6-af36-4c726e9a1194" CreationDate="2014-07-20T15:32:29.567" UserId="4075" Text="Usage of the particle &quot;ли&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="36f4881e-a9a8-40f6-af36-4c726e9a1194" CreationDate="2014-07-20T15:32:29.567" UserId="4075" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="0a1375ef-ff6b-41b9-b5db-1b5fc30486af" CreationDate="2014-07-20T16:48:21.783" UserId="2269" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Yes, the comma after _бо́льшая_ would not be superfluous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (уверен, что большáя, если не бóльшая, часть из них никогда не были профессиональными геолагами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general empirical rule is that: if you can cut some clause out of sentence without losing grammatical and semantic consistency, it should be enclosed by some punctuation symbols (usually commas) on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there would not be parentheses already, you can also enclose если-clause in them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...уверен, что большáя (если не бóльшая) часть из них никогда не были профессиональными геолагами..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="16a9e433-63d1-4b9b-99eb-52f357ad1dc0" CreationDate="2014-07-20T17:46:09.920" UserId="2442" Text="Basically, this is considered as superfluous, so the second («Он не сказал, будет он есть или нет») will do. However, if you don't have the «или нет» part, the «ли» is to be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не сказал, будет ли он есть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="7d85d871-dd03-4515-adab-8d4b893f76dd" CreationDate="2014-07-20T18:16:32.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/490923225912971265" />
  <row Id="15873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="51210c7a-a76e-416f-8b45-b515645f0962" CreationDate="2014-07-20T20:25:10.360" UserId="4107" Text="This phrase appears in the name of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTGisg5UPSE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="51210c7a-a76e-416f-8b45-b515645f0962" CreationDate="2014-07-20T20:25:10.360" UserId="4107" Text="What does донный стрим mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="51210c7a-a76e-416f-8b45-b515645f0962" CreationDate="2014-07-20T20:25:10.360" UserId="4107" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="175f20a9-5566-4955-8db1-4f378327c5bc" CreationDate="2014-07-20T20:37:46.490" UserId="4107" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="This phrase appears in the name of this Counter Strike video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTGisg5UPSE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="f78edc9c-3524-47c5-9b72-01ebc88535e6" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:29:42.160" UserId="2269" Text="_Стрим_ is nothing more than ‘[video] stream’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_До́нный_ is regular adjective from _дно́_. And _дно_ – literal ‘bottom [of river, sea or some container]’ – is also as an epithet for something like abyss of despair / despondency / poverty / etc (cf. Russian classic novel by Maxim Gorky titled _‘На дне’_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in gamers’ slang it somehow became a word for a person who is extremely bad gamer or his style of game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some Russian version of ‘Urbandictionary’ — teenslang.su [defines _дно_][1] in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дно,  -а, ср. (геймеры)  &#xD;&#xA;значение (1): оскорбление, попытка сказать что-то более страшное, чем слово нуб.  &#xD;&#xA;значение (2): в широком смысле — низшая степень чего-либо.  &#xD;&#xA;пример текста: _Яша, ты дно, нах ты бару брал, если ты им никуя не умеешь._  &#xD;&#xA;синонимы: _нуб_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or see e. g. [this thread][2] on forum of ‘World of Tanks’ (popular MMORPG in ex-Soviet Union).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It no less common with augmentative suffix _-ищ-_ – _дни́ще_, even more strong phrase is _дни́ще ёбаное_ ‘’ (mat, yes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://teenslang.su/id/12970&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/442547-%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BB/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="3e0fc5fa-cd7d-4697-a633-fc8350ccb974" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:42:22.577" UserId="2269" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="_Стрим_ is nothing more than ‘[video] stream’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_До́нный_ is regular adjective from _дно́_. And _дно_ – literal ‘bottom [of river, sea or some container]’ – is also as an epithet for something like abyss of despair / despondency / poverty / etc (cf. Russian classic novel by Maxim Gorky titled _‘На дне’_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in gamers’ slang it somehow became a word for a person who is extremely bad gamer or his style of game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A kind of Russian version of ‘Urbandictionary’ — teenslang.su [defines _дно_][1] in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дно,  -а, ср. (геймеры)  &#xD;&#xA;значение (1): оскорбление, попытка сказать что-то более страшное, чем слово нуб.  &#xD;&#xA;значение (2): в широком смысле — низшая степень чего-либо.  &#xD;&#xA;пример текста: _Яша, ты дно, нах ты бару брал, если ты им никуя не умеешь._  &#xD;&#xA;синонимы: _нуб_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or take a look at e. g. [this thread][2] on forum of ‘World of Tanks’ (popular MMORPG in ex-Soviet Union).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It no less common with augmentative suffix _-ищ-_ – _дни́ще_, even more strong but still common phrase is _дни́ще ёбаное_ (mat, yes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Now I found an [article on Wikireality][3] which explains the origin of term and says that it went beyond gamers’ slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://teenslang.su/id/12970&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/442547-%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BB/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="5884c1bd-8377-4e1e-9d42-e000f00f0435" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:49:12.893" UserId="2269" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="_Стрим_ is nothing more than ‘[video] stream’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_До́нный_ is regular adjective from _дно́_. And _дно_ – literal ‘bottom [of river, sea or some container]’ – is also as an epithet for something like abyss of despair / despondency / poverty / etc (cf. Russian classic novel by Maxim Gorky titled _‘На дне’_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in gamers’ slang it somehow became a word for a person who is extremely bad gamer or his style of game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A kind of Russian version of ‘Urbandictionary’ – teenslang.su – [defines _дно_][1] in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дно,  -а, ср. (геймеры)  &#xD;&#xA;значение (1): оскорбление, попытка сказать что-то более страшное, чем слово нуб.  &#xD;&#xA;значение (2): в широком смысле — низшая степень чего-либо.  &#xD;&#xA;пример текста: _Яша, ты дно, нах ты бару брал, если ты им никуя не умеешь._  &#xD;&#xA;синонимы: _нуб_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or take a look at e. g. [this thread][2] on forum of ‘World of Tanks’ (popular MMORPG in ex-Soviet Union).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It no less common with augmentative suffix _-ищ-_ – _дни́ще_, even more strong but still common phrase is _дни́ще ёбаное_ (mat, yes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Now I found an [article on Wikireality][3] which explains the origin of term and says that it went beyond gamers’ slang, but it does not matter in a context of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://teenslang.su/id/12970&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/442547-%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BB/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="f677a793-85b7-4271-accb-3a626c5deeea" CreationDate="2014-07-20T21:58:06.277" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1631 characters in body" Text="Yes, the comma after _бо́льшая_ would not be superfluous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (уверен, что большáя, если не бóльшая, часть из них никогда не были профессиональными геолагами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general empirical rule is that: if you can cut some clause out of sentence without losing grammatical and semantic consistency, it should be enclosed in some punctuation symbols (usually commas) on both sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there would not be parentheses already, you can also enclose если-clause in them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...уверен, что большáя (если не бóльшая) часть из них никогда не были профессиональными геолагами...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I cannot find this very case in any grammar guide, a couple of quotes from publications, which had undoubtedly passed excellent proofreading, would be suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...в которой Бернштейн ревизовал теорию Маркса и заявлял, что значительная&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt; если не бо́льшая&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt; часть действующих в России социал-демократов якобы решительно присоединилась к его точке зрения...   &#xD;&#xA;[В. И. Ленин. ПСС, том 4 — М.:Политиздат, 1969 — С. IX]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом состоит главнейшее&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt; если не единственное&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt; средство окончательно преодолеть капитализм и привычки, созданные господством частной собственности на средства производства.   &#xD;&#xA;[В. И. Ленин. ПСС, том 38 — М.:Политиздат, 1969 — С. 119]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...такие объекты, если они вообще пригодны для обороны, могут быть приспособлены к оказанию не меньшего&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt; если не большего&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt; сопротивления, чем любое полевое укрепление, сооруженное по всем правилам военного искусства.   &#xD;&#xA;[К. Маркс и Ф. Энгельс. Сочинения, том 14 — М.:Политиздат, 1959 — С. 273]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...уже проделав в течение трех месяцев — первых самых трудных трех месяцев — работу по организации, имея неплохие шансы получить еще один &lt;b&gt;—&lt;/b&gt; если не два &lt;b&gt;—&lt;/b&gt; месяц передышки...  &#xD;&#xA;[К. Маркс и Ф. Энгельс. Сочинения, том 17 — М.:Политиздат, 1960 — С. 205]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the last – если-clause is enclosed not in commas but in dashes. Why? Most probably because grammatical number of _два_ is not matched to _месяц_. In other examples both adjectives – before and after _если не_ – are in concord with determined word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Yep, I use canonical editions of Classics of Marxism as grammar reference book :-)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="d48b8837-6886-4947-9cdb-21ba61fdc0ba" CreationDate="2014-07-20T22:08:41.670" UserId="2269" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="_Стрим_ is nothing more than ‘[video] stream’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_До́нный_ is regular adjective from _дно́_. And _дно_ – literal ‘bottom [of river, sea or some container]’ – is also as an epithet for something like abyss of despair / despondency / poverty / etc (cf. Russian classic novel by Maxim Gorky titled _‘На дне’_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in gamers’ slang it somehow became a word for a person who is extremely bad gamer or his style of game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A kind of Russian version of ‘Urbandictionary’ – teenslang.su – [defines _дно_][1] in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дно,  -а, ср. (геймеры)  &#xD;&#xA;значение (1): оскорбление, попытка сказать что-то более страшное, чем слово нуб.  &#xD;&#xA;значение (2): в широком смысле — низшая степень чего-либо.  &#xD;&#xA;пример текста: _Яша, ты дно, нах ты бару брал, если ты им никуя не умеешь._  &#xD;&#xA;синонимы: _нуб_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you may take a look at for instance [this thread][2] on forum of ‘World of Tanks’ (popular MMORPG in ex-Soviet Union).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Дно_ in that meaning is no less common with augmentative suffix _-ищ-_ – _дни́ще_. Even more strong but still common phrase is _дни́ще ёбаное_ (mat, yes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Now I found an [article on Wikireality][3] which explains the origin of term and says that it went beyond gamers’ slang, but it does not matter in a context of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://teenslang.su/id/12970&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/442547-%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BB/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="e0940808-71b2-4c9e-b10a-e726d2bc66b3" CreationDate="2014-07-20T22:17:09.840" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="_Стрим_ is nothing more than ‘[video] stream’. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_До́нный_ is regular adjective from _дно́_. And _дно_ – literal ‘bottom [of river, sea or some container]’ – is also as an epithet for something like abyss of despair / despondency / poverty / etc (cf. Russian classic play by Maxim Gorky titled _‘На дне’_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in gamers’ slang it somehow became a word for a person who is extremely bad gamer or his style of game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A kind of Russian version of ‘Urbandictionary’ – teenslang.su – [defines _дно_][1] in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дно,  -а, ср. (геймеры)  &#xD;&#xA;значение (1): оскорбление, попытка сказать что-то более страшное, чем слово нуб.  &#xD;&#xA;значение (2): в широком смысле — низшая степень чего-либо.  &#xD;&#xA;пример текста: _Яша, ты дно, нах ты бару брал, если ты им никуя не умеешь._  &#xD;&#xA;синонимы: _нуб_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you may take a look at for instance [this thread][2] on forum of ‘World of Tanks’ (popular MMORPG in ex-Soviet Union).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Дно_ in that meaning is no less common with augmentative suffix _-ищ-_ – _дни́ще_. Even more strong but still common phrase is _дни́ще ёбаное_ (mat, yes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. Now I found an [article on Wikireality][3] which explains the origin of term and says that it went beyond gamers’ slang, but it does not matter in a context of your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://teenslang.su/id/12970&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/442547-%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BB/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15883" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="7c1cf20b-565e-4f6e-86ed-4dcbcd3bc8a8" CreationDate="2014-07-21T00:16:44.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/491013873714343936" />
  <row Id="15884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="a77c7d78-f370-4483-888b-8c8482d6aef3" CreationDate="2014-07-21T06:47:10.533" UserId="4048" Text="Your both examples is acceptable, however in `Он не сказал, будет ли он есть или нет.` `или нет` is redundant. `ли` is like `whether` which implies `or not`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15886" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="26e51571-94e5-4f46-a931-d8e84aa439b2" CreationDate="2014-07-21T12:19:33.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/491195777117880321" />
  <row Id="15887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="b17a2656-8333-4021-8aa3-133a11d6b20e" CreationDate="2014-07-21T14:47:38.043" UserId="3765" Text="My textbook has the sentence, «Мы живём в гостинице, которую построили финны.»  Given that который is in feminine here, I assume they're it refers to гостиница.  What is the reasoning for который being in the accusative case in this sentence?  I don't understand what verb has гостиница, and thus который, as an object in this sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="b17a2656-8333-4021-8aa3-133a11d6b20e" CreationDate="2014-07-21T14:47:38.043" UserId="3765" Text="Why accusative case for который?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="b17a2656-8333-4021-8aa3-133a11d6b20e" CreationDate="2014-07-21T14:47:38.043" UserId="3765" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7002" RevisionGUID="00688608-a620-4b47-aead-8e6b913ca68c" CreationDate="2014-07-21T15:03:01.447" UserId="115" Text="Maybe a translation will help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We live in a hotel, which the Finns have built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to turn the subordinate clause into a stand-alone sentence, you would get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Финны построили гостиницу. (The Finns have built the hotel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence `гостиница` is the object of `построили`, and it must be in the accusative case. Hence `которую` is also in accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15893" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="e81594d1-7cdc-4837-bd3b-7b49c068c576" CreationDate="2014-07-22T06:23:21.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/491468524037357568" />
  <row Id="15894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="c02efc0b-11af-40c7-91d5-98fb82a4c1c0" CreationDate="2014-07-22T08:22:09.737" UserId="1958" Text="For me it is *отношение*. Yes, it is a multipurpose word, but we use it in this meaning in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="9ba41c02-5cfb-4f46-9c75-b7a0f1834cac" CreationDate="2014-07-22T14:17:40.997" UserId="4115" Text="In the past (18 century and earlier) Russain peoples said &quot;осемь&quot;, not &quot;восемь.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;They said &quot;Осемнадцать&quot;, не &quot;восемнадцать&quot;. Now do not speak. But retained the word &quot;осьминог&quot; ~ Octopus. &quot;Осьминог&quot;, not &quot;Восьминог&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Восемь ~ осьмь ~ octo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7007" RevisionGUID="dc52d6c3-41c1-4cc7-a537-0af092012cbd" CreationDate="2014-07-22T17:36:46.420" UserId="4064" Text="Both words come from Indo-European roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is quite easy to see it if you use Baltic/Germanic languages as proxy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Latvian/Lithuanian astoņi/aštuonì have roots in Proto-baltic aštō-, which apparently is very similar to Germanic -acht and comes down to the Indo-European oḱtṓ-. Considering things above the Old Church Slavonic osmĭ for &quot;eight&quot; fits beautifully into set. &quot;os&quot; just got &quot;в&quot; added at the front which is typical for Belarussian language and Ukrainian language (not sure if for the whole or just its dialects)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="e72dc51e-850e-4a79-9233-2c8658d04755" CreationDate="2014-07-23T07:24:52.920" UserId="551" Text="В обсуждении вопроса о [переводе firmware](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6965/551) на русский язык мнения о слове &quot;прошивка&quot; разделились. Кто-то утверждают что это слэнг, другие утверждают что это уже литературное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня возник вопрос - каким образом слово &quot;прошивка&quot; стало обозначать программу, которая управляет устройством и которую не так-то просто поменять, хотя и можно это сделать затратив дополнительные усилия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, почему &quot;прошивка&quot;, что здесь &quot;шьется&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поиск слова прошивка в Национальном корпусе показывает что слово изначально было связано с шитьем и украшением одежды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Затем это слово упоминается в смысле &quot;проделывание и обработка отверстий в металле&quot;, затем &quot;проделывание отверстий лазером в рубине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Связано ли появление слова &quot;прошивка&quot; с проделыванием каких-либо отверстий для сохранения программы? Или с выжиганием лазером &quot;лишней&quot; электроники (контактов, транзисторов и т.п.)? Или оно каким-либо образом переосмысливает другой процесс из техники?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="e72dc51e-850e-4a79-9233-2c8658d04755" CreationDate="2014-07-23T07:24:52.920" UserId="551" Text="Как возникло слово &quot;прошивка&quot; в смысле firmware (программа в телефоне, читалке, другом гаджете)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="e72dc51e-850e-4a79-9233-2c8658d04755" CreationDate="2014-07-23T07:24:52.920" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="7a9bb053-d18a-4633-98ef-5da0b08b280d" CreationDate="2014-07-23T08:19:43.743" UserId="551" Text="Действительно, для программирования компьютеров (или как их тогда называли ЭВМ) использовались методы основанные на идее пробивания отверстий (перфокарты, перфоленты) или выжигания [лишних связей](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROM). И в принципе здесь была возможна &quot;коррекция&quot; (перепрошивка) - иногда можно было изменить записанную таким образом информацию пробив дополнительные отверстия или удалив существующие связи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, как оказалось, аналогия была взята прямо из [процесса шитья](http://zhevak.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%85/), а не как термин из другой технической отрасли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дело в том, что еще до использования микросхем, один из вариантов памяти для вычислительных машин был основан на использовании &quot;ферритовых сердечников&quot;, - проще говоря, [намагниченных металлических колец](http://www.computer-museum.ru/books/ural_ferit/first.htm). Программирование постоянной памяти, основанной на этой технологии, состояло в том, что специальной иглой пропускали проволоку только в те кольца, которые должны были хранить логическую &quot;1&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чтобы монтажницам было легче находить нужные кольца, на матрицу этих колец наклеивали кальку со схемой и работницы &quot;пришивали&quot; проволокой эту кальку к основе используя иглу. Прямая ассоциация с шитьем привела к появлению слова &quot;прошивка&quot;, а затем это слово стало официальным термином. Вот например, статьи из [Русско-английского политехнического словаря](http://polytechnic_ru_en.enacademic.com/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [прошивка матрицы запоминающего устройства](http://polytechnic_ru_en.enacademic.com/46708) weaving of a wire through a matrix&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [наносить обмотку на феррит методом прошивки вчт.](http://polytechnic_ru_en.enacademic.com/46706/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0) — wind a core by a sewing technique&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что здесь возможна и &quot;перепрошивка&quot; - достаточно удалить старую проволоку и пропустить новую через другие ферритовые сердечники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Кстати в Википедии есть статья о [прошивке](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5) в которой тоже упоминаются П- и Ш-образные ферритовые сердечники (т.е. не кольца), но это уже более поздняя технология.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Судьбу этого слова после того как ферритовые сердечники вышли из употребления я не проследил, хотя на радиофоруме [нашелся пост](http://www.radioscanner.ru/forum/topic35682.html#msg532491), в котором автор рассказывает как прошивал память на ферритовых сердечниках в конце 90-х.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в 1994 году в журнале [&quot;Радиолюбитель&quot; № 2/94](http://www.gus.biysk.ru/Radiolubitel/1994/1994-02.pdf) в статье об апгрейде компьютера &quot;Спектрум-48&quot; до &quot;Спектрум-128&quot; (страницы 9 и 10) слово &quot;прошивка&quot; употребляется очень активно: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошивка 27256 в схемах рис. 3 (в,г) также должна иметь в начальных адресах &quot;нулевую&quot; страницу, но если это не так и нет возможности &quot;перешить&quot; микросхему, то сигнал A14 (ROM) необходимо проинвертировать, например, через К555ЛН1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для &quot;маленьких&quot; контроллеров лучше применить схемы рис. 3(в,г) с установкой дополнительных микросхем DD47 с прошивкой TR-DOS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В остальных случаях лучше иметь прошивку ПЗУ с функцией TAPE TESTER, которая позволит, кроме всего прочего, правильно настроить магнитофон при вводе программ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С 2002 года Национальный корпус находит слово &quot;прошивка&quot; в различных популярных журналах: для автолюбителей (&quot;Автопилот&quot;) и о дизайне интерьеров (&quot;Homes &amp; Gardens&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если только на него не установили блок управления впрыском чешского производства: потомки бравого солдата Швейка намудрили с «прошивкой» ― на Octavia c немецкими моторами он иногда «глючит». [Николай Качурин. Гей, славяне! (2002) // «Автопилот», 2002.06.15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К слову, эта прошивка неважно поддерживает и протокол GPRS. [Николай Качурин. Опыт: Воспользоваться услугой GPRS // «Автопилот», 2002] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Непременно сверьте серийный номер телефона, так называемый IMEI, в трех местах: на коробке, на самом аппарате под аккумулятором и в прошивке ― этот номер вызывается командой *#06# с клавиатуры любого мобильного телефона. [Вадим Логинов. Ищу связь, брак не предлагать (2002) // «Homes &amp; Gardens», 2002.04.15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А журнал &quot;Наука и жизнь&quot;, который славится своим консерватизмом по поводу терминологии, тем не менее использует это слово в статьях, опубликованных в 2006 и 2007 году (по-моему это признание его литературности):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В одном из окон программа может сообщить вам, что новых версий прошивки для вашего смартфона пока нет, и предложит переустановить вашу версию. [Р. Бокоев. Смартфон или телефон? // «Наука и жизнь», 2007]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во-первых, здесь имеется некоторый объем постоянной памяти (обычно от 16 до 48 Мб), где хранится изначальная «прошивка» операционной системы и стандартных приложений, и эта информация используется для загрузки системы при первом включении или при полном перезапуске КПК. [Д. Усенков. Электронный помощник в кармане // «Наука и жизнь», 2006]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="4a7a905e-36fc-4752-a700-19fbf5eb1800" CreationDate="2014-07-23T08:22:56.437" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="В обсуждении вопроса о [переводе firmware](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6965/551) на русский язык мнения о слове &quot;прошивка&quot; разделились. Кто-то утверждают что это слэнг, другие утверждают что это уже литературное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня возник вопрос - каким образом слово &quot;прошивка&quot; стало обозначать программу, которая управляет устройством и которую не так-то просто поменять, хотя и можно это сделать затратив дополнительные усилия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, почему &quot;прошивка&quot;, что здесь &quot;шьется&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поиск слова прошивка в Национальном корпусе показывает что слово изначально было связано с шитьем и украшением одежды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Затем это слово упоминается в смысле &quot;проделывание и обработка отверстий в металле&quot;, затем &quot;прожигание отверстий лазером в рубине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Связано ли появление слова &quot;прошивка&quot; с проделыванием каких-либо отверстий для сохранения программы? Или с выжиганием лазером &quot;лишней&quot; электроники (контактов, транзисторов и т.п.)? Или оно каким-либо образом переосмысливает другой процесс из техники?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="35f22096-b190-420b-bc09-3aaf68374414" CreationDate="2014-07-23T20:10:08.113" UserId="194" Text="Восемь comes from PIE ***o̯ectou***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девять comes from PIE ***e̯neun***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15909" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="dc970e8f-3770-407c-a418-9bf06ba613dd" CreationDate="2014-07-23T21:39:45.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/492061528691314688" />
  <row Id="15910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="0baebaf3-ff9e-4106-b78b-8ec818e06d33" CreationDate="2014-07-24T00:30:12.953" UserId="3745" Text="I have already learnt German as a foreign language and so have developed a good understanding of the case system [Nom, Gen, Dat, Acc] - my native language not utilising this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, of course, uses different cases for some verbs compared to German. I have two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) are there any tips, rules, generalisations people can explain in order to obtain a 'feeling' for cases in Russian? Explained in terms of indirect/direct objects, motion, position and emotions even, perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) can somebody recommend a few sources where I can look up verbs, where this information is also given? I have Big Silver Book of Russian Verbs, which does a great job, with all conjugations, examples and also the possible cases for each verb. However, there are sadly 'only' 500 verbs in the book, which is not quite enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s - I hate relying on Google Translate or other translators to translate my example sentences correctly into the correct case, as they are usually unreliable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="0baebaf3-ff9e-4106-b78b-8ec818e06d33" CreationDate="2014-07-24T00:30:12.953" UserId="3745" Text="Cases taken by verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="0baebaf3-ff9e-4106-b78b-8ec818e06d33" CreationDate="2014-07-24T00:30:12.953" UserId="3745" Text="|падежи|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="8ae032dd-5a5f-4766-93bc-74effc0c21dd" CreationDate="2014-07-24T14:35:05.680" UserId="3892" Text="Unfortunately, there's no short answer to this question. In a lot of verbs, you'll find that English and Russian agree on an accusative (direct) object, and even on a dative (indirect) object. The latter are obviously verbs of giving, sending, transferring, etc. and won't be difficult to spot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in other verbs, the case of the complement has to be learned. For instance, the verb помочь (help) takes a dative object in Russian (as in German), but an accusative one in English: **Я могу помочь тебе с этим**. *I can help you with this*. Interestingly, учить (to teach) takes an accusative student and a dative subject. Perhaps in the Russian logic, teaching is viewed as an instance of *leading* someone to(wards) something: **Я учу его русскому языку**. *I'm teaching him Russian*. Finally, the verb наслаждаться (to enjoy) takes an instrumental object: **Наслаждайся моментом!** *Enjoy the moment!* (*Carpe diem*). This all may seem random at first, but as you continue to learn verbs and read more Russian, you will develop a feel for the actions that are accomplished *by means of* (instrument) an object, for example, and it will make sense. I guess it helps to start thinking like a Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sources, the dictionaries [Яндекс][1], [Abbyy Lingvo][2] and [PONS][3] all give information on the objects and complements of verbs. Usually in the form of кого/что for accusative, кому/чему for dative, кем/чем for instrumental, etc. They also give perfective and imperfective pairs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However my favorite conjugation website by far is [Rifmovnik][4]. You have to enter the verb, then choose СЛОВОФОРМЫ from the drop-down menu. It will conjugate one aspect, and provide a link to the conjugation of the corresponding perfective or imperfective. Additionally, you can enter any form of any part of speech and it will take you to the entire paradigm of the word in question. This is helpful when you see a conjugated or declined form, but have no idea what the citation (dictionary) form is. It also indicates stress throughout, which is invaluable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a course of further study, it helps immensely to have an understanding of the function and meaning of the plethora verb prefixes used in the Russian verb system. If your Russian is advanced enough, this is an extremely informative and easy to follow PDF on the subject: [Изучение глагольных приставок][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck and enjoy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lingvo-online.ru/ru&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.pons.com/translate&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://rifmovnik.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://library.tuit.uz/knigiPDF/121.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="7378cfc8-8951-4aae-a3d1-28a2c2a58686" CreationDate="2014-07-24T16:10:44.363" UserId="1671" Text="`свобода (свободный) и воля (вольный)` have [many meanings][1]. And only few of them are synonymous. Let's take a look at those synonymous meanings by way of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `вольный/свободный народ/люди/жизнь`  &#xD;&#xA; - `вольный ветер` - I wouldn't use `свободный` here &#xD;&#xA; - `вольная/свободная продажа, по вольным/свободным ценам` &#xD;&#xA; - `волен/свободен поступать, как хочет` &#xD;&#xA; - `слишком свободное/вольное поведение` &#xD;&#xA; - `свободные движения, свободное дыхание, свободно говорить по-французски` - can't be replaced with `вольный` here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main difference to my mind is that `свобода` means that there are **barriers** and the subject is free from them. So usually we don't say `свободный ветер` because you can't possibly imagine barriers for a wind. But movements, breath, speech can be restricted and so you can be free from limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise `воля` has a hidden connotation that the subject **wants** something (that's his will and hence the freedom to do it). So a wind is free to go wherever it wants and we say `вольный` to add human features such as will, willfulness, playfulness to the wind. And we can't say `вольное дыхание` because we breath, move, speak a foreign language not [voluntarily][2] , at least not in the big sense. And will is attributable only to **humans**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing worth mentioning here in this comparison is that `воля, вольный` are less frequent words. Don't use them unless you really know what you want to say. `свободный ветер` sounds almost fine, unlike `вольное дыхание`, which is ridiculous since breathing is a process not a human being.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://xn----8sbauh0beb7ai9bh.xn--p1ai/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntarily" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="249cf4dc-c33e-4aee-a80b-e17b4cc02f7a" CreationDate="2014-07-24T16:49:26.183" UserId="1671" Text="The best way to find the difference is to try to replace them with each other in different contexts and see that happens ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `У нас разные мнения` - our views are different but most likely they do not contradict&#xD;&#xA; - `У нас различные мнения` - our views very likely contract each other&#xD;&#xA; - `Занят разными/различными делами`&#xD;&#xA; - `два различных предмета` - from an example [here][1], you can see the opposition more clearly when 2 is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclusion is that these are synonyms but you should use `различный` if you want to underline the opposition of some qualities or features. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="afeaa38d-de65-43e0-bbfa-a68e8e03d18b" CreationDate="2014-07-24T16:57:11.763" UserId="1671" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="The best way to find the difference is to try to replace them with each other in different contexts and see that happens ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `У нас разные мнения` - our views are different but most likely they do not contradict&#xD;&#xA; - `У нас различные мнения` - our views very likely contract each other&#xD;&#xA; - `Занят разными/различными делами`&#xD;&#xA; - `два различных предмета` - from an example [here][1], you can see the opposition more clearly when 2 is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclusion is that these are synonyms but you should consider `различный` if you want to underline the **opposition / contrast / contradiction / conflict** of some qualities or features. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of `различный` as of a word in the same semantic field as the words: `различаться, различие`. In Enlish it is **differ, different, difference** while `разный` is more like **various, not similar** but can also mean **different** because `разный` has a wider semantic field and is a more frequent word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="440db47b-91fd-474d-8569-7b1222115c69" CreationDate="2014-07-24T19:40:07.553" UserId="1671" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The best way to find the difference is to try to replace them with each other in different contexts and see what happens ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `У нас разные мнения` - our views are different but most likely they do not contradict&#xD;&#xA; - `У нас различные мнения` - our views very likely contradict each other&#xD;&#xA; - `Занят разными/различными делами`&#xD;&#xA; - `два различных предмета` - from an example [here][1], you can see the opposition more clearly when 2 is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my conclusion is that these are synonyms but you should consider `различный` if you want to underline the **opposition / contrast / contradiction / conflict** of some qualities or features. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of `различный` as of a word in the same semantic field as the words: `различаться, различие`. In Enlish it is **differ, different, difference** while `разный` is more like **various, not similar** but can also mean **different** because `разный` has a wider semantic field and is a more frequent word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15920" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="955d6736-ed77-4108-ade0-233a4c6f1041" CreationDate="2014-07-24T21:54:53.800" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15923" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7011" RevisionGUID="ecfcb516-9076-4000-9b7a-31cafd241a25" CreationDate="2014-07-25T03:42:50.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/492515289641549824" />
  <row Id="15924" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="2c8e7ce3-cb36-485e-8d15-02841ff582db" CreationDate="2014-07-25T15:43:59.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/492696774000533504" />
  <row Id="15925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="3d61dda3-f709-4cfd-aa57-72ecb69e9982" CreationDate="2014-07-25T15:45:43.737" UserId="4128" Text="I need a word or simple noun phrase that describes the sound made by a spring when it is suddenly released. Any help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15926" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="3d61dda3-f709-4cfd-aa57-72ecb69e9982" CreationDate="2014-07-25T15:45:43.737" UserId="4128" Text="Onomatopoeia for &quot;boing!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15927" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="3d61dda3-f709-4cfd-aa57-72ecb69e9982" CreationDate="2014-07-25T15:45:43.737" UserId="4128" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7017" RevisionGUID="850fd1e0-cc3b-4222-84f4-cd3c0c3c8d04" CreationDate="2014-07-25T18:15:27.070" UserId="3892" Text="If I'm not mistaken, I've seen the word **БЗДЫНЬ** used in reference to a gong, a bell and a spring in cartoons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let the natives confirm (I'm American :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="ecd96722-a817-4361-b836-a1a38a901cf7" CreationDate="2014-07-25T18:35:27.340" UserId="4128" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I need a word or simple noun phrase that describes the sound made by a spring when it is suddenly released. Any help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the sound: http://www.permusoft.com/spring.wav" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="08ec63f0-8e32-48a5-aec4-57a07708d968" CreationDate="2014-07-25T19:23:12.560" UserId="4128" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I need a word or simple noun phrase that describes the sound made by a spring when it is suddenly released. Any help? The word will serve as a title for the sound below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the sound: http://www.permusoft.com/spring.wav" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="fa381797-bd06-4d6e-9ebc-955801717fd9" CreationDate="2014-07-25T19:25:12.853" UserId="2269" Text="As far as I can imagine the sound of suddenly released spring, I can recall nothing  but _вжик_, which is also good for the sound of blade cutting the air, or flying arrow or bullet, or any other sharp high sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То утром, то поздним вечером ... на реке щелкала, _вжи́кала пружина_ стартера, начинал тонко трещать мотор, и на заводь выползала лодка. [Олег Куваев. Правила бегства]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рванул он, молния чиркнула, а из папки – _вжик пружина_ змейкой. Выпросталась пружинка, раскачивается, трепещет, как деликатный, европейкого стандарта фаллос... [Михаил Дайнека. Пасынки Гиппократа]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If _boing_ is low sound _вжик_ would not fit as translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15932" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="50c56dc6-a8be-4f56-bbcf-ab0a4c98cf4e" CreationDate="2014-07-25T19:27:28.650" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="de9d9b5b-f7db-492e-9984-642bdfbfc9ea" CreationDate="2014-07-25T19:29:44.163" UserId="4128" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I need a word or simple noun phrase that describes the sound made by a spring when it is suddenly released. Any help? The word will serve as a title for the sound below. The sound is more for social entertainment than technical considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the sound: http://www.permusoft.com/spring.wav&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make sense to simply transliterate 'boing'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="e0f23a05-7e76-423d-8c67-e97707c3c641" CreationDate="2014-07-25T19:43:07.763" UserId="4128" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="I need a word or simple noun phrase that describes the sound made by a spring when it is suddenly released. Any help? The word will serve as a title for the sound below. The sound is more for social entertainment than technical considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the sound: http://www.permusoft.com/spring.wav&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make sense to simply transliterate 'boing'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a screenshot of the English version. Touch the red button and the sound is played.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gMVRz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="f5079547-cc7e-4167-b5a4-0273282d2a7c" CreationDate="2014-07-25T19:58:31.810" UserId="4128" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="I need a word or simple noun phrase that describes the sound made by a spring when it is suddenly released. Any help? The word will serve as a title for the sound below. The sound is more for social entertainment than technical considerations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the sound: http://www.permusoft.com/spring.wav&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it make sense to simply transliterate 'boing'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is for an iPhone app. Here is a screenshot of the English version. In the app, if you touch the red button then the sound is played.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gMVRz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="2734f008-0710-4538-a2aa-3453c7ff3c50" CreationDate="2014-07-25T20:31:59.367" UserId="3727" Text="If I understood correctly the question, the word &quot;мировоспрятие&quot; is a good candidate for an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15937" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="05f6a547-4faf-4e55-9d80-ee9129c6534e" CreationDate="2014-07-25T21:45:25.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/492787731723202560" />
  <row Id="15938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="dcad6bac-3730-4319-a65e-1f09d53e38bf" CreationDate="2014-07-25T22:18:37.803" UserId="2269" Text="Since the only thing you need is a label for that exactly record for an app, which merely play it along with other random sounds, rather than attempting to recall some Russian onomatopoeia associated with spring (which, afaik, does not exist), I’ve listened your record fifty times in a row trying to abstract away from what I knew about it from you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I will tell you that the sound per se is no more a sound of spring than a vibration of a string or elastic band or anything else. Actually, it is most looks like [_варган_](http://youtu.be/tyJeCpSvqUA?t=10s) – the primitive folk instrument which is common all over Eurasia: from Kirghiz steppes to the Far North.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, forget about the spring. Simple _дынь_ or _дон_, which are pure sound imitation and have no any particular sense, describes that very sound quite properly. No meaning – no any possibility for misunderstanding.&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;And finally: there is nothing wrong to invent your own onomatopoeia. As far as I understand, you said that the /bɔɪŋ/ is good approximation of that sound. Perfect, let it be _боннь_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="10bfe1a1-837a-4b83-9936-282fc57d2f52" CreationDate="2014-07-26T00:07:11.030" UserId="4130" Text="Got some feedback from a linguist at Stanford. She says the spring sound people would identify with is 'дрынь' (dreen') with a rolled r. What you might find in a cartoon, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="300fa6f1-ab16-4003-be37-2f6e6c154574" CreationDate="2014-07-26T10:05:38.387" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="&gt;Она использует плед в качестве занавеса.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она использует плед как занавеса.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is this example correct and does *как* require the genitive here?&#xD;&#xA;2. Are these two expressions interchangable?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there another common way to express the same?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="300fa6f1-ab16-4003-be37-2f6e6c154574" CreationDate="2014-07-26T10:05:38.387" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="Usage of &quot;как&quot; in the sense of &quot;в качетсве&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="300fa6f1-ab16-4003-be37-2f6e6c154574" CreationDate="2014-07-26T10:05:38.387" UserDisplayName="user3538" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="2ac3296e-d83b-4ea0-ac52-85057677adce" CreationDate="2014-07-26T10:29:34.227" UserId="1236" Text=" 1. The second sentence is wrong, **как** doesn't require the genitive, it never requires any specific case. In the construction `Х как Y`, the Y noun phrase should be *in the same case* as the X noun phrase, and the case of X is defined by what precedes it, that is by the usual case rules of the sentence/phrase it is used in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In your first sentence the word **плед** is in the accusative since it is the direct object of the verb **использует**, so **занавес** should also be in the accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Она использует плед как занавес.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Yes, you can use **вместо** 'instead':&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она использует плед вместо занавеса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here **занавеса** is in the genitive, because the preposition **вместо** always needs the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15944" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="745c5873-57d6-4b79-a18c-753b38cf586d" CreationDate="2014-07-26T15:45:29.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/493059538862735361" />
  <row Id="15945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="69fa42ae-cb1b-4bfb-9bae-8c33601796e8" CreationDate="2014-07-26T15:54:11.483" UserId="3892" Text="It seems that впору has another idiomatic meaning, aside from &quot;fitting just right,&quot; as seen in this example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Речь профессора Стебль была едва слышна — дождь барабанил по крыше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; теплицы так, что граду **впору** позавидовать.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in this one: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Невилл, брось обертку в урну, она тебе их столько надавала, что **впору**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уже комнату обклеивать.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone please explain this usage and perhaps give me a few more examples in plain language? Also, is this literary or colloquial? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="69fa42ae-cb1b-4bfb-9bae-8c33601796e8" CreationDate="2014-07-26T15:54:11.483" UserId="3892" Text="Use of ВПОРУ when it doesn't mean &quot;to fit just right&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="69fa42ae-cb1b-4bfb-9bae-8c33601796e8" CreationDate="2014-07-26T15:54:11.483" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="2b106651-8c53-40b7-b994-fd8c05d624d5" CreationDate="2014-07-26T17:35:24.663" UserId="2388" Text="Means something like &quot;**might just as well**&quot;. I would describe it as &quot;flowery language&quot;: not exactly &quot;colloquial&quot; in the usual sense (often spoken in the streets) but not official too. More expected of literature or some mildly informal speech/article/interview etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Тут впору сделать заметку на полях.&quot; ~ &quot;And now one could very well make a marginal note&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Теперь лицо ее просияло так, что впору было зажмуриться.&quot; ~ &quot;Now her face was lit up to such an extent you might as well close your eyes&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used to express the idea that something happened/happens so intensively or pronounced that you have only one thing left to do or it is the most obvious thing to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15949" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="2bdc0a2c-37f7-49a2-b096-a5d86bb1862d" CreationDate="2014-07-26T20:12:16.880" UserId="2269" Comment="typo" Text="Usage of “как” in the sense of “в качестве”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15950" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="fe736508-b5e0-4da7-b6e8-f1f51c187230" CreationDate="2014-07-26T22:35:16.947" UserId="-1" Comment="44" />
  <row Id="15951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="1645c636-4c68-4f24-b779-1cc8d121a2d2" CreationDate="2014-07-27T11:21:56.550" UserId="4134" Text="I think the word `занавеска` is more natural here than `занавес`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I hear word `занавес` I imagine the curtain in the theater that is dropped at the end of performance.&#xD;&#xA;When I hear `занавеска` I imagine the thing that is used to hide something from other eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if we are really talking about the theater then the form `занавес` is correct. In other cases I would use the word `занавеска`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, both versions sound good for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она использует плед в качестве занавески - OK&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она использует плед как занавеску - OK, too&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7027" RevisionGUID="1a773cc7-3a20-42e6-bee6-45a3453013d3" CreationDate="2014-07-27T11:46:14.837" UserId="4134" Text="My suggestion, use the word `пыщь!`. LOL :D&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to me to explain in English what does it mean. Anyway, it is a funny  choice, think of it :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7028" RevisionGUID="fd352c54-598a-43f3-81b2-815b2482b540" CreationDate="2014-07-27T11:57:17.230" UserId="4134" Text="I do not think that the word `гомосекуал` even exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really depends on the context of the talk. In informal talk nobody uses the word `гомосексуалист`. Perhaps `гей`. Or, more probably, other words which have negative meaning and which, I think, are not allowed by the stackexchange rules to be posted here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="bdf5aeb1-56c1-4743-8cf5-221d123f5754" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:00:31.190" UserId="3892" Text="Looking in the dictionary, **одолеть** and **преодолеть** both share pretty much the same meanings. So is there any substantial difference between the two or are they interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="bdf5aeb1-56c1-4743-8cf5-221d123f5754" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:00:31.190" UserId="3892" Text="What is the difference between одолеть and преодолеть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="bdf5aeb1-56c1-4743-8cf5-221d123f5754" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:00:31.190" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="b9cb1275-09c7-4a29-8cd8-c256b9836489" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:18:47.777" UserId="267" Text="&quot;Преодолевать-преодолеть&quot; is more widely used than &quot;одолевать-одолеть&quot; in the sense of &quot;overcome&quot;. For example, &quot;to overcome difficulties&quot; is better translated as &quot;преодолеть трудности&quot; than &quot;одолеть трудности&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the verb &quot;одолевать-одолеть&quot; has two meanings, that the verb &quot;преодолевать-преодолеть&quot; doesn't have. The first one is **&quot;to defeat smb&quot;**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он меня одолел.&#xD;&#xA;He defeated me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is **&quot;to be possessed; overwhelmed by a feeling&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его одолела тоска.&#xD;&#xA;He was overwhelmed by melancholy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="7d6ba086-33c7-448d-a6ae-07d89d48a0d5" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:33:33.453" UserId="267" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Преодолевать-преодолеть&quot; is more widely used than &quot;одолевать-одолеть&quot; in the sense of &quot;overcome&quot;. For example, &quot;to overcome difficulties&quot; is better translated as &quot;преодолеть трудности&quot; than &quot;одолеть трудности&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the verb &quot;одолевать-одолеть&quot; has two meanings, that the verb &quot;преодолевать-преодолеть&quot; doesn't have. The first one is **&quot;to defeat smb&quot;**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он меня одолел.&#xD;&#xA;He defeated me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is **&quot;to be possessed, overwhelmed by a feeling&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его одолела тоска.&#xD;&#xA;He was overwhelmed by melancholy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15959" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="dd20ac43-f810-4c52-80f6-7da87b3763b2" CreationDate="2014-07-27T15:46:24.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/493422156374876160" />
  <row Id="15960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="25887e39-0133-4001-8ec5-2826ef3e07f7" CreationDate="2014-07-27T18:47:39.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/493467772228497408" />
  <row Id="15961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="aeb1d816-76ea-4feb-98b2-663afdee8516" CreationDate="2014-07-28T02:11:25.053" UserId="4136" Text="Hello and apologies to all Russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I´ve been given a short-term opportunity to follow a 5-week &quot;beginners&quot; (no precisions), intensive (30hours/week) Russian language course in a Russian-speaking city. I am a real beginner, who doesn't know a lot of words past привет, спасибо, до свида́нья, and a few words picked up at parties with Russian friends or during my stays in Eastern Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, I´m not completely familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet and the Russian  pronunciation (I never learned any other Slavic language). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my situation, is it a good idea to begin learning Russian this way ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="aeb1d816-76ea-4feb-98b2-663afdee8516" CreationDate="2014-07-28T02:11:25.053" UserId="4136" Text="Is a 5-week intensive course in a Russian-speaking country a good way to begin learning Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="aeb1d816-76ea-4feb-98b2-663afdee8516" CreationDate="2014-07-28T02:11:25.053" UserId="4136" Text="|существительные|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15964" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="f750a11c-92b2-4dea-954c-59efbe673633" CreationDate="2014-07-28T03:00:53.983" UserId="2269" Comment="minus irrelevant tag" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="0e4fb5bc-74a5-4a05-8d7e-5108b7bbff87" CreationDate="2014-07-28T12:57:43.723" UserDisplayName="user37" Text="It depends on the way you learn, but speaking generally, such a course would be a good way to **begin** learning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please not the bolding! It's about beginning to learn a language, not learning a language. Unless you're a language genius, or you're a fluent speaker of some other Slavic language (at best Ukrainian or Belarussian), it's unlikely you'll learn the language good enough to being able to read books or watch TV. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, when learning a language completely different that yours, it's a very good idea to start from the contact with the 'real' language, it's accent and prozody, because it can prevent you from acquiring some bad habits, which happen when you learn from the book or from the non-native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you want to really profit from such course, you must carry on learning the language afterwards. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7034" RevisionGUID="039f6278-8e74-4cd3-9659-9a9ebbf1d1b5" CreationDate="2014-07-28T12:58:08.160" UserId="194" Text="одолеть = to win over somebody, defeat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;преодолеть = to overcome (an obstacle, hurdle, etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="b9b38a41-ae1a-4b1d-9002-c00e5bb4d33b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T13:05:00.263" UserId="90" Text="Подозреваю, что https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_hair переводится на русский как &quot;андрогенное оволосение&quot;, но не могу найти ни одной словарной статьи с таким словосочетанием." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="b9b38a41-ae1a-4b1d-9002-c00e5bb4d33b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T13:05:00.263" UserId="90" Text="Androgenic hair по-русски" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="b9b38a41-ae1a-4b1d-9002-c00e5bb4d33b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T13:05:00.263" UserId="90" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="7910229d-29c9-462c-a3e4-e4138abdd7a0" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:27:49.200" UserId="267" Text="Being a Russian language teacher, I personally think that it is a good way to start learning Russian because it is an intensive language immersion, that can be very useful sometimes (it is something really individual though). After this intensive course, you will be able to continue learning Russian at your own pace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would recommend you to learn the Cyrillic alphabet, the phonetics and the basic reading rules first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="7607b15e-d1db-4ddb-88c5-bf1c899ae43b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:35:21.637" UserId="4138" Text="&gt;Собсна, vcmi пилится как реверс движка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это пост любителя Героев (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_of_Might_and_Magic)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="7607b15e-d1db-4ddb-88c5-bf1c899ae43b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:35:21.637" UserId="4138" Text="Что значит “пилится как” в этом контексте?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="7607b15e-d1db-4ddb-88c5-bf1c899ae43b" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:35:21.637" UserId="4138" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="40ac6231-24bf-472e-8ba9-1c5c54d3a3d5" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:44:13.030" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;пилить&quot;, &quot;запилить&quot; is a slang for &quot;to make, to create, to construct&quot;, usually in computer context (&quot;запилить страницу проекта&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пилить&quot;, &quot;запилить&quot; используется как сленг для &quot;сделать&quot;, &quot;создать&quot;, часто в компьютерном контексте (&quot;запилить страницу проекта&quot;). Можно заменить на &quot;сбацать&quot;, например, чтобы понять примерное значение. Впрочем, &quot;пилить&quot; имеет больше вариантов действия: например, если что-то плохо запилено, можно его перепилить (переделать как надо).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="507ff6c6-5c2a-4cd8-8dd0-288e633b4782" CreationDate="2014-07-28T14:52:20.187" UserId="4138" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="ef8184e6-440b-469f-90ed-90d040cd42bd" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:47:47.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/493784895635070976" />
  <row Id="15979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="7addea25-fcde-45f9-9475-29c3e608678d" CreationDate="2014-07-28T16:11:55.017" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="Подозреваю, что _[Androgenic hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_hair)_ переводится на русский как «андрогенное оволосение», но не могу найти ни одной словарной статьи с таким словосочетанием." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15980" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="7addea25-fcde-45f9-9475-29c3e608678d" CreationDate="2014-07-28T16:11:55.017" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="cbb17bef-92ea-47e5-ab50-18d820f6b8c1" CreationDate="2014-07-28T23:37:51.133" UserId="3687" Text="'Тс' already sounds like 'Ть' so why is there a soft sign there? Do I pronounce them both like a soft T?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="cbb17bef-92ea-47e5-ab50-18d820f6b8c1" CreationDate="2014-07-28T23:37:51.133" UserId="3687" Text="Difference between 'Ться', and 'Тся'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="cbb17bef-92ea-47e5-ab50-18d820f6b8c1" CreationDate="2014-07-28T23:37:51.133" UserId="3687" Text="|произношение|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="a4242ce1-b9c1-4a51-af4c-9e6b8eedf42c" CreationDate="2014-07-29T00:01:20.650" UserId="3892" Text="Actually **ь** is there to indicate the infinitive. However, there is no distinction in pronunciation between -**ться** and -**тся** : they're both pronounced -**тца**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;смея́ться - [**сме•я́т•ца**]    *infinitive*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;смеётся - [**сме•йо́т•ца**]  *3rd p. sing.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;смеются - [**сме•ю́т•ца**]   *3rd p. pl.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7041" RevisionGUID="91a99d8b-6421-45f9-a87b-4257b60b48eb" CreationDate="2014-07-29T02:22:16.327" UserId="2388" Text="There is no difference in pronunciation but **&quot;ь&quot;** is kept merely for the sake of consistency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, most infinitives end in &quot;**-ть**&quot;. And the 3rd person singular/plural end in **-т** :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - to love = *любить*&#xD;&#xA; - he loves = он *любит*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And now, the magic!** To form a reflexive verb form you add **'сь'** after a vowel and **'ся'** after a consonant. So....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - говорить + ***ся*** = говориться&#xD;&#xA; - говорит + ***ся*** = говорится&#xD;&#xA; - женят + **ся** = женятся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pair &quot;говориться/говорится&quot; indeed sounds exactly the same because it so happens that 3rd person singular for many &quot;-ить&quot; verbs of the И-conjugation differs from the infinitive only by the hardness of the last consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="23858d14-e293-4ed1-bd3a-2646262269ea" CreationDate="2014-07-29T04:50:35.650" UserId="4140" Text="I'm trying to figure which of the speech synthesizers is the best one for Russian. Means pronounces and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I'm successfully discover two synthesizers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ echo &quot;Привет Мир!&quot; | espeak -v russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ESpeak][1] is a Multi-lingual software speech synthesizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [Festival][2] - General multi-lingual speech synthesis system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    $ echo '(SayText &quot;Привет Мир!&quot;)'  | uniconv -encode Russian-Translit | festival --pipe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no luck with Russian language for `Festival` yet. But for the first sight(hearing) it sounds better with `Translit` than `ESpeak` with `-v russian` option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody suggest me more modern and fashionable speech synthesizer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESpeak&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_Speech_Synthesis_System" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="23858d14-e293-4ed1-bd3a-2646262269ea" CreationDate="2014-07-29T04:50:35.650" UserId="4140" Text="Which of the open source speech synthesizers is the best for Russian Language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="23858d14-e293-4ed1-bd3a-2646262269ea" CreationDate="2014-07-29T04:50:35.650" UserId="4140" Text="|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="16948ea3-7888-4849-ada6-e4e1274513ff" CreationDate="2014-07-29T06:11:41.807" UserId="2388" Text="I haven't found anything remotely as good as *RH Voice* (http://tiflo.info/rhvoice/). It was written by Olga Yakovleva (who is blind) using several publicly available voice samples. &quot;Irina&quot; is currently my favourite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link to the GitHub repository with the sources is at the bottom of the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a bit noizzzy, especially through headphones, but more than OK for everyday use. I wonder if Olga Yakovleva could have gotten better results with better sources and no downsampling. One article describes the experiment that have shown that downsamling the source audio any lower than 32kHz is detrimental to the speech quality and the TTS engine's similarity to the source speaker. The problem is, many people perform HMM training on voice database downsampled to 16 kHz, which was and is OK for *speech recognition* but no one had previously addressed the question whether it makes any sense for *speech synthesis*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No TTS engine I have ever heard, commercial or not, reads questions in Russian plausibly. Of course, sometimes the synthesizers get them right but mostly — no, the questions do not sound really like questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="b112f31d-733e-4e63-a610-8f696945784d" CreationDate="2014-07-29T06:57:17.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/494013775113379840" />
  <row Id="15991" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="4d6922b2-13b5-4b3e-adc9-210ea01bcc99" CreationDate="2014-07-29T07:08:01.450" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|software|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15992" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="4cf6469f-3f45-4b94-a5c0-46f3a9281acc" CreationDate="2014-07-29T08:05:35.370" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between '-ться', and '-тся'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="acf783e2-12e3-4087-b997-d4ea145afa77" CreationDate="2014-07-29T08:30:31.863" UserId="4142" Text="If you chose between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Spending 5 weeks in a Russian speaking country&#xD;&#xA; - Not spending 5 weeks in a Russian speaking country&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it would be a very good way to begin your studies!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH, if you chose between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Spending 5 weeks in a Russian speaking country NOW&#xD;&#xA; - Spending 5 weeks in a Russian speaking country LATER&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that you should wait a bit, and get the basics under your belt first. That way you'd be able to profit a lot more from your time abroad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15994" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="fac2d1e4-e8f9-4ad2-b5d9-12043961d784" CreationDate="2014-07-29T09:57:16.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/494059073202307072" />
  <row Id="15995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="097e419c-7593-4645-9419-f2c50a2962cb" CreationDate="2014-07-29T13:45:05.083" UserId="3892" Text="I tend to use the expression &quot;more often than not&quot; quite often in English, so naturally when I came across **сплошь да рядом**, I immediately adopted it and started using it. But I never hear other Russians use it, so I wonder if it's more of a literary expression and not commonly used in conversation. Is it better to use **очень часто** in conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="097e419c-7593-4645-9419-f2c50a2962cb" CreationDate="2014-07-29T13:45:05.083" UserId="3892" Text="use of сплошь да рядом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="097e419c-7593-4645-9419-f2c50a2962cb" CreationDate="2014-07-29T13:45:05.083" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7046" RevisionGUID="b211b3de-c9ba-46a8-9be8-c3baa592dfb8" CreationDate="2014-07-29T14:32:05.743" UserId="3892" Text="I've gone through three voices, which I installed on my computer to read me Russian. None of them were great, but they were robotic and had terrible intonations. While i was researching better Russian voices, I heard a man's voice on one of the sites - Yuri. It was spectacular: natural, great tonality, great intonation and pleasantly human. But he was quite expensive, so I didn't buy him. Then when Apple came out with the Mavericks upgrade, Yuri came with it! All you have to do in install him in preferences and he'll read anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have a Mac, I would recommend Tatyana, the new Russian voice that IVONA just put out: http://www.ivona.com/us/news/latest-news/ivona-introduces-new-russian-voice-tatyana/  She has the BrightVoice technology that makes her sound more human than human: http://www.ivona.com/us/for-individuals/voices-for-windows/ (just select Russian from the dropdown menu and listen to her demo).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7047" RevisionGUID="f7570709-56da-4d8c-b141-9b7230008b70" CreationDate="2014-07-29T15:22:48.180" UserId="185" Text="&quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; is a perfectly normal expression, but it has more common variants like &quot;постоянно&quot;, &quot;часто&quot;, &quot;зачастую&quot; (colloquial for &quot;often&quot;). In the majority of cases people prefer the most ordinary &quot;часто&quot;. I bet that most English-speaking people prefer &quot;often&quot; or &quot;frequently&quot; to &quot;more often than not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a context where &quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; is most commonly seen. It is when you speak about some particularity that is common in people, things, in the way life goes. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди сплошь да рядом судят о других по себе.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People more often than not judge others by themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may sound weird when you are talking about one particular object or person. The following sentence sounds artificial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;???Он сплошь да рядом забывает дни рождения.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He often forgets birthdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он часто (постоянно, зачастую) забывает дня рождения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="9ee65201-d9c8-498f-8e9f-84f71891faf4" CreationDate="2014-07-29T16:55:42.097" UserId="267" Text="It is also important to mention that the expression &quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; or &quot;сплошь и рядом&quot; often has a negative meaning, when the person speaking criticizes the situation that ofter happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он сплошь да рядом ошибается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He makes mistakes very often (which is really bad in the opinion of the person speaking)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="75ebec30-ee17-4a0b-b0e0-aaa60ea191ca" CreationDate="2014-07-29T18:11:55.280" UserId="4036" Text="I think &quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; is colloquial expression, I would expect to see it in journalistic genre or in informal conversation, but not in some official document or scientific article. &quot;Очень часто&quot; has neutral stylistic and can be used everywhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find plenty of good examples here: [Russian National Corpus][1] . It diffeers from just searching the word in Google, because Russian National Corpus is based on well-reputed sources, like classical boks and a selection of magazines. There is also a sepaate subcorpus of spoken langauage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;t=100&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=en&amp;req=%F1%EF%EB%EE%F8%FC+%E4%E0+%F0%FF%E4%EE%EC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="7a5f5092-c3b2-4d93-9fc4-890fec101b7c" CreationDate="2014-07-29T18:29:54.450" UserId="4036" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="I think &quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; is colloquial expression, I would expect to see it in journalistic genre or in informal conversation, but not in some official document or scientific article. &quot;Очень часто&quot; has neutral stylistic and can be used everywhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find plenty of good examples here: [Russian National Corpus][1] . It differs from just searching the word in Google, because Russian National Corpus is based on well-reputed sources, like classical books and a selection of magazines. There is also a separate subcorpus of spoken langauage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;t=100&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=en&amp;req=%F1%EF%EB%EE%F8%FC+%E4%E0+%F0%FF%E4%EE%EC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="32583fad-54ff-43ee-9509-dfc2d06a3683" CreationDate="2014-07-30T01:18:43.303" UserId="4064" Text="It's mostly grammatical and as correctly stated above &quot;ться&quot; usually indicates the infinitive. It is relatively simple to catch the rule by using the following cheat: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the word answers the &quot;что делать&quot; question use &quot;ться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If the word answers the &quot;что делает / -ют&quot; question you use &quot;тся&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if there's &quot;ь&quot; in the question word, feel free to use &quot;ться&quot;, and the opposite - if there's no &quot;ь&quot; in the question, use тся.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="c1205261-ea61-497b-831a-5cdef864d103" CreationDate="2014-07-30T01:31:40.997" UserId="4064" Text="From the comments I understand the country you are talking about is Latvia.&#xD;&#xA;First of all, it is NOT Russian speaking country although some 27% of residents there are indeed Russians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would say, that's not good idea to go to Latvia to study Russian, since you won't get enough exposure there - everything there is Latvian, not Russian. Latvian uses Latin alphabet and is not related to Russian so learning Russian alphabet there would be problematic too. Most people there indeed can speak Russian but I doubt they will be happy to help with a foreign language since it is foreign to them as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, going to a truly Russian-speaking country for 5 weeks will improve your Russian skills definitely. There are only two such countries in the world: Russia and Belarus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="4e149fab-1e1c-4a25-97c5-c48c00a3feea" CreationDate="2014-07-30T02:58:17.107" UserId="4064" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It's mostly grammatical and as correctly stated above &quot;ться&quot; usually indicates the infinitive. It is relatively simple to catch the rule by using the following cheat: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the word answers the &quot;что делать&quot; question use &quot;ться&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - If the word answers the &quot;что делает / -ют&quot; question you use &quot;тся&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if there's &quot;ь&quot; in the question word, feel free to use &quot;ться&quot;, and the opposite - if there's no &quot;ь&quot; in the question, use тся.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16006" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6965" RevisionGUID="ccafe615-03db-40bc-acf2-432488e25aab" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:35:46.217" UserId="551" Comment="Странно что заголовок написан по-английски, а пост по-русски" Text="How do I translate &quot;firmware&quot; to Russian? / Как перевести firmware на русский язык?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="1da0c65c-426b-408d-bda4-530a9b8d3066" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:41:19.303" UserId="194" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="Восемь comes from PIE ***o̯ectou***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девять comes from PIE ***e̯neun***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;en, n̥, em, m̥ -&gt; ę (and later -&gt; Russian я) change is common for Slavic, so regularly it should produce (accounting for the ti-suffix) *невять* rather than *девять*, but the influence of the word for ten, десять changed the initial consonant to d-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly the word for eight came under influence from the word for seven. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="8009a0db-319e-4fb8-a600-78b5e37e3cf7" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:56:41.223" UserId="4144" Text="негроидный - Negroid (adjective)&#xD;&#xA;негроид    - Negroid (noun)&#xD;&#xA;нигр       - Nigger (noun)&#xD;&#xA;негр       - Slang (noun) Shorter version for Negroid and should not be used based on the similarity to &quot;Nigger&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;негроидный люди is not offensive because it does not objectify people in the way that негры / нигры does. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7053" RevisionGUID="5dccef52-0397-4a35-862f-c62ddfd7f353" CreationDate="2014-07-30T09:46:49.537" UserId="4094" Text="Here is the real-world story about usage of word &quot;afro-americans&quot; to negroid peoples living in Russia. http://www.anekdot.ru/id/697460/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подруга: «вон, у афроамериканцев спросим». У противоположной стены три темнокожих студента разговаривают о чём-то на своём олбанском. Подходим. Разговор замолкает, один, с интонацией одновременно обиды и гордости, практически без акцента: «мы не афроамериканцы, мы НЕГРЫ»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="39420fb4-6093-4f5e-a6eb-70e967a91d9a" CreationDate="2014-07-30T12:50:46.813" UserId="1671" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="`свобода (свободный) и воля (вольный)` have [many meanings][1]. And only few of them are synonymous. Let's take a look at those synonymous meanings by way of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `вольный/свободный народ/люди/жизнь`  &#xD;&#xA; - `вольный ветер` - I wouldn't use `свободный` here &#xD;&#xA; - &lt;strike&gt;`вольная`&lt;/strike&gt;/`свободная продажа, по` &lt;strike&gt;`вольным`&lt;/strike&gt;/`свободным ценам`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `волен/свободен поступать, как хочет` &#xD;&#xA; - `слишком свободное/вольное поведение` &#xD;&#xA; - `свободные движения, свободное дыхание, свободно говорить по-французски` - can't be replaced with `вольный` here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main difference to my mind is that `свобода` means that there are **barriers** and the subject is free from them. So usually we don't say `свободный ветер` because you can't possibly imagine barriers for a wind. But movements, breath, speech can be restricted and so you can be free from limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise `воля` has a hidden connotation that the subject **wants** something (that's his will and hence the freedom to do it). So a wind is free to go wherever it wants and we say `вольный` to add human features such as will, willfulness, playfulness to the wind. And we can't say `вольное дыхание` because we breath, move, speak a foreign language not [voluntarily][2] , at least not in the big sense. And will is attributable only to **humans**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing worth mentioning here in this comparison is that `воля, вольный` are less frequent words. Don't use them unless you really know what you want to say. `свободный ветер` sounds almost fine, unlike `вольное дыхание`, which is ridiculous since breathing is a process not a human being.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://xn----8sbauh0beb7ai9bh.xn--p1ai/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntarily" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="7c827420-1bfa-477c-b504-1d373615e69a" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:39:56.223" UserId="3892" Text="It sounded like: имели мелия твоя неделя! I heard this line in a movie clip and everyone laughed. This guy went by his office on his day off and said it to a coworker in response to something she said that I didnt understand at all. It must be a cultural inside joke. Could someone explain? Sorry, I wrote it as I heard it - probably way off!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="7c827420-1bfa-477c-b504-1d373615e69a" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:39:56.223" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of (something like) ИМЕЛИ МЕЛИЯ ТВОЯ НЕДЕЛЯ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="7c827420-1bfa-477c-b504-1d373615e69a" CreationDate="2014-07-30T13:39:56.223" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="59841f10-fa1c-4173-bc30-e45a5b3fbf30" CreationDate="2014-07-30T14:06:46.580" UserId="1236" Text="It's an idiom, the correct form of it is &quot;[Мели́, Еме́ля, твоя́ неде́ля][1]&quot;. It's colloquial, it expresses disbelief in what another person says while being unable to stop or influence the speaker in a way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Еме́ля** is short for the name **Емелья́н**, the whole phrase can be translated as &quot;Grind, Yemelyan, it's your week.&quot; It originated in the times when in big peasant families each member did just one kind of household work, and each week the work one did changed. Grinding grain on a hand-powered grinding wheel was difficult work, so the phrase was jokingly said to someone who was lazy. In addition, **моло́ть языко́м**, 'to grind with one's tongue', or simply **моло́ть** is another idiom meaning 'to say nonsense', like here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что ты ме́лешь?&quot; - 'What nonsense you are saying!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the general idea of **Мели́, Еме́ля, твоя́ неде́ля** is something like &quot;stop saying nonsense and do some work.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8,_%D0%95%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F,_%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16015" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="ecd0aa27-97cf-4012-88ea-b30b97bc95e9" CreationDate="2014-07-30T14:16:00.340" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;Мели, Емеля, твоя неделя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16021" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="87b5d073-40ee-42dd-a37b-d025e8dbbf4b" CreationDate="2014-07-30T15:10:00.497" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7047" RevisionGUID="0fc9f0f3-03f2-4343-ab74-44fdc5466f71" CreationDate="2014-07-30T15:15:30.333" UserId="185" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; is a perfectly normal expression, but it has more common variants like &quot;постоянно&quot;, &quot;часто&quot;, &quot;зачастую&quot; (colloquial for &quot;often&quot;). In the majority of cases people prefer the most ordinary &quot;часто&quot;. I bet that most English-speaking people prefer &quot;often&quot; or &quot;frequently&quot; to &quot;more often than not&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a context where &quot;сплошь да рядом&quot; is most commonly seen. It is when you speak about some particularity that is common in people, things, in the way life goes. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди сплошь да рядом судят о других по себе.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People more often than not judge others by themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may sound weird when you are talking about one particular object or person. The following sentence sounds artificial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;???Он сплошь да рядом забывает дни рождения.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He often forgets birthdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он часто (постоянно, зачастую) забывает дни рождения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="9339c972-5497-4766-b053-5ce1c417f71c" CreationDate="2014-07-30T19:58:36.240" UserId="3892" Text="As far as I can tell, both окидывать взглядом and заглядывать have the same general meaning. Are there any nuances that they don't share? Is one more colloquial? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="9339c972-5497-4766-b053-5ce1c417f71c" CreationDate="2014-07-30T19:58:36.240" UserId="3892" Text="Are ОКИДЫВАТЬ ВЗГЛЯДОМ and ЗАГЛЯДЫВАТЬ synonymous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="9339c972-5497-4766-b053-5ce1c417f71c" CreationDate="2014-07-30T19:58:36.240" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7058" RevisionGUID="985b2f95-f413-4afd-ac29-64176a5fd286" CreationDate="2014-07-30T20:13:05.840" UserId="267" Text="I think they don't have the same general meaning. **&quot;Заглядывать-заглянуть + Accusative (куда?)&quot;** means &quot;to peep in&quot;, &quot;to look into&quot;, &quot;to have a look at&quot; or &quot;to drop in&quot;, &quot;to call in&quot;. So, normally this verb means &quot;to look inside smth&quot; or &quot;to come, enter somewhere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я заглянул в книгу.&#xD;&#xA;I looked into the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она часто заглядывала к нам.&#xD;&#xA;She used to call in often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Окидывать-окинуть взглядом + Accusative (кого? что?)&quot;** means &quot;to glance over&quot;, &quot;to rake&quot;. It has the meaning of looking attentively and having a wide space to look at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Профессор окинул взглядом всю аудиторию.&#xD;&#xA;The professor glanced over the whole audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can also see, &quot;заглядывать-заглянуть&quot; is always used with a preposition, while &quot;окидывать-окинуть взглядом&quot; is used with a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Окидывать-окинуть взглядом&quot; is a synonym of &quot;оглядывать-оглянуть + Accusative (кого? что?)&quot; which also means &quot;to take a view of&quot;, &quot;to look over (round)&quot;, but has a nuance in the meaning because it can also be &quot;to examine&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Профессор оглянул всю аудиторию.&#xD;&#xA;The professor looked over the whole audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что ты меня оглядываешь?&#xD;&#xA;Why are you examining me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7058" RevisionGUID="577ab680-11ed-4700-9935-78d457234ca7" CreationDate="2014-07-30T20:25:40.560" UserId="267" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I think they don't have the same general meaning. **&quot;Заглядывать-заглянуть + Accusative (куда?)&quot;** means &quot;to peep in&quot;, &quot;to look into&quot;, &quot;to have a look at&quot; or &quot;to drop in&quot;, &quot;to call in&quot;. So, normally this verb means &quot;to look inside smth&quot; or &quot;to come, enter somewhere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я заглянул в книгу.&#xD;&#xA;I looked into the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она часто заглядывала к нам.&#xD;&#xA;She used to call in to our place often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Окидывать-окинуть взглядом + Accusative (кого? что?)&quot;** means &quot;to glance over&quot;, &quot;to rake&quot;. It has the meaning of looking attentively and having a wide space to look at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Профессор окинул взглядом всю аудиторию.&#xD;&#xA;The professor glanced over the whole audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can also see, &quot;заглядывать-заглянуть&quot; is always used with a preposition, while &quot;окидывать-окинуть взглядом&quot; is used with a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Окидывать-окинуть взглядом&quot; is a synonym of &quot;оглядывать-оглянуть + Accusative (кого? что?)&quot; which also means &quot;to take a view of&quot;, &quot;to look over (round)&quot;, but has a nuance in the meaning because it can also be &quot;to examine&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Профессор оглянул всю аудиторию.&#xD;&#xA;The professor looked over the whole audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что ты меня оглядываешь?&#xD;&#xA;Why are you examining me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16028" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="94b77de9-7678-40e9-b1ea-633973f803cd" CreationDate="2014-07-30T21:57:21.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/494602675380834305" />
  <row Id="16029" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="82d9079a-6a4e-4e6d-b666-198094b7d007" CreationDate="2014-07-31T02:19:21.453" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;окидывать взглядом and заглядывать synonymous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="e29eb133-96a4-4ac9-aede-3f21922ace57" CreationDate="2014-07-31T02:47:01.697" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Use of &quot;впору&quot; when it doesn't mean &quot;to fit just right&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16032" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="ce1a47f7-7972-4b77-a3eb-69c96732867e" CreationDate="2014-07-31T03:57:22.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/494693276352798720" />
  <row Id="16033" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="a5b7134e-95b9-4953-b2b9-404d4fa91555" CreationDate="2014-07-31T06:57:23.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/494738577239318528" />
  <row Id="16034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="eb0c43b2-c0cd-4276-bb49-2d1855377b83" CreationDate="2014-07-31T08:18:37.310" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;окидывать взглядом&quot; and &quot;заглядывать&quot; interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="cc25ef94-b5c4-46a9-afd2-deb40c8ff469" CreationDate="2014-07-31T09:01:55.377" UserId="62" Text="Sometimes when a physicist computes an integral, they introduce what is called a &quot;cutoff&quot;, which means an infinite bound in the integral is replaced by a finite bound, calculations are made, and then the finite bound that was introduced is taken out to infinity. My question is: how do you say &quot;cutoff&quot; in Russian in this context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the answer might be some prefixed form of сечение, but I was not successful in figuring this out from a web search. (I did discover in this way that катофф has been borrowed into Russian for use in poker, which must be of more recent vintage that the need to say &quot;cutoff&quot; in physics.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="cc25ef94-b5c4-46a9-afd2-deb40c8ff469" CreationDate="2014-07-31T09:01:55.377" UserId="62" Text="&quot;cutoff&quot; in an integral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="cc25ef94-b5c4-46a9-afd2-deb40c8ff469" CreationDate="2014-07-31T09:01:55.377" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16038" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="b0f230ab-8524-4846-ab28-9abab9411242" CreationDate="2014-07-31T09:57:22.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/494783872551628800" />
  <row Id="16039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="90d617be-88e5-4ddc-a9d5-13ca6c70e1d8" CreationDate="2014-07-31T10:14:12.003" UserId="62" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Sometimes when a physicist computes an integral, they introduce what is called a &quot;cutoff&quot;, which means an infinite bound in the integral is replaced by a finite parameter, calculations are made, and then the parameter that was introduced as a bound in the integral is taken out to infinity. My question is: how do you say &quot;cutoff&quot; in Russian in this context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the answer might be some prefixed form of сечение, but I was not successful in figuring this out from a web search. (I did discover in this way that катофф has been borrowed into Russian for use in poker, which must be of more recent vintage that the need to say &quot;cutoff&quot; in physics.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="22ab08f5-f777-4122-90d9-b4e09c2349b7" CreationDate="2014-07-31T11:20:44.607" UserId="2388" Text="**&quot;отсечка&quot;** works fine, I'd say there is not a good word for this concept for everyday use but  &quot;отсечка&quot; works even if it sounds a bit like professional slang. The important thing is, you are going to be understood because this word means just that: some threshold after which you say &quot;OK, enough, stop that and don't go any further&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In audio recording context I use *&quot;обрезание&quot;*  for cutoff/clipping. When you are recording a signal that is too loud you don't actually *want* it to be cut off. Still the peaks get limited (note that I do not do this for life, just record now and then). So here rather than limiting value to a reasonable value you lose information by trimming the peaks of a signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сечение&quot; means &quot;section&quot; (eg. conical section) and is a term with a completely different meaning: something you get when dissecting something else with a surface (often planar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="7176e2aa-3458-45ed-829c-1c2f9d7b68f5" CreationDate="2014-07-31T12:31:21.370" UserId="62" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Sometimes when a physicist computes an integral, they introduce what is called a &quot;cutoff&quot;, which means an infinite bound in the integral is replaced by a finite parameter, calculations are made, and then the parameter that was introduced as a bound in the integral is taken out to infinity. My question is: how do you say &quot;cutoff&quot; in Russian in this context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the answer might be some prefixed form of сечение, but I was not successful in figuring this out from a web search. (I did discover in this way that катофф has been borrowed into Russian for use in poker, which must be of more recent vintage that the need to say &quot;cutoff&quot; in physics.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: If answers can be supported by pointing to a place where the translated term is used in a physics computational context, and which I might find without too much trouble, that would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7060" RevisionGUID="4ab474bf-8cec-4503-bb40-0049b1e3af0c" CreationDate="2014-07-31T12:46:12.257" UserId="2388" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="**&quot;отсечка&quot;** works fine, I'd say there is not a good word for this concept for everyday use but  &quot;отсечка&quot; works even if it sounds a bit like professional slang. The important thing is, you are going to be understood because this word means just that: some threshold after which you say &quot;OK, enough, stop that and don't go any further&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In audio recording context I use *&quot;обрезание&quot;*  for cutoff/clipping. When you are recording a signal that is too loud you don't actually *want* it to be cut off. Still the peaks get limited (note that I do not do this for life, just record now and then). So here rather than limiting value to a reasonable value you lose information by trimming the peaks of a signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сечение&quot; means &quot;section&quot; (eg. conical section) and is a term with a completely different meaning: something you get when dissecting something else with a surface (often planar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: from a lecture [here at page 12][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Интегрирование **обрывается** на некотором значении *x = b*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ums.physics.usu.ru/st/NUM_03.PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="aa95718e-b930-4654-9f4a-c8635ff180bf" CreationDate="2014-07-31T18:17:02.090" UserId="4148" Text="&quot;Интеграл **обрезается** на высоких частотах в связи с конечными &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Интеграл **обрезается** на дебаевской моде&quot;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="c1cbf7a7-d003-4305-a12c-2183f5a3c7db" CreationDate="2014-07-31T20:58:28.693" UserId="334" Text="The most acceptable translation for 'Cut-off point' would be 'точка отсечения'. However, in the case it is common to say &quot;пренебрегаем вкладом в интеграл значений $x &gt; y$, поскольку [proof that ignored part is indeed small enough to be ignored]&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="c7607fe4-1cdc-45f0-b01d-4044f564c2a6" CreationDate="2014-08-01T00:06:53.920" UserDisplayName="user4152" Text="Someone told me people don't actually use извините anymore. Is that true? Is there a more common alternative, nowadays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="c7607fe4-1cdc-45f0-b01d-4044f564c2a6" CreationDate="2014-08-01T00:06:53.920" UserDisplayName="user4152" Text="Is извините old-fashioned? Is there an alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="c7607fe4-1cdc-45f0-b01d-4044f564c2a6" CreationDate="2014-08-01T00:06:53.920" UserDisplayName="user4152" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="3c679471-1da9-4757-999d-f0f228c3773c" CreationDate="2014-08-01T00:11:56.170" UserId="1236" Text="**Извини́те** is not at all archaic or old-fashioned, it is neutral and most typical. There are alternatives, **прости́тие** and **прошу́ проще́ния**, they all are absolute synonyms, only the latter is just a bit more formal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="8a59dffb-1341-43ed-b007-752344a6d262" CreationDate="2014-08-01T07:23:24.373" UserId="1236" Comment="typo corrected" Text="**Извини́те** is not at all archaic or old-fashioned, it is neutral and most typical. There are alternatives, **прости́те** and **прошу́ проще́ния**, they all are absolute synonyms, only the latter is just a bit more formal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="15334284-c0a4-44e5-84d1-138b1944e1a3" CreationDate="2014-08-01T10:32:25.513" UserId="4153" Text="First, `извините` is used intensively nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can hear in spoken Russian &lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; but that is officially incorrect although almost 90 people from 100 pronounce it instead of `извините`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="5a7fa5a7-cf8a-49f3-ab2c-d982703101a8" CreationDate="2014-08-01T11:13:15.050" UserId="4153" Text="I would like to add a few meanings and use cases of `заглядывать`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Заглядывать вперёд&quot; means &quot;to look forward&quot;, but it can not be as &quot;&lt;s&gt;оглядывать вперёд&lt;/s&gt;&quot;, it's incorrect. However it **is** possible (and widely used) to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Оглядываться назад&quot; means &quot;To look back&quot;, e.g. when _someone's walking_ or in terms of _passed days_, or _time that has gone_ (look back into the history) but can not be &quot;&lt;s&gt;оглядывать назад&lt;/s&gt;&quot;, it's incorrect. However it **is** possible (and widely used) to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Заглядывать назад&quot; means also &quot;To look back&quot; is also can be said in terms of _passed days_, or _time that has gone_, can **not** be said when someone's is walking, more likely wheh is not moving -sitting or standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Он заглядывается на других девушек&quot; means &quot;He looks at other girls&quot;, it **is** possible to say &quot;Он оглядывается на др  девушек&quot; but this means that &quot;He turns his head around to watch other girls(when passing by them)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Заглядывать в душу&quot; means &quot;To look into the soul&quot; but it can not be as &quot;&lt;s&gt;оглядывать душу&quot;&lt;/s&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="a41f4bf0-6355-4aec-ae11-a09f001f5864" CreationDate="2014-08-01T12:27:55.847" UserId="4153" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="First, `извините` is used intensively nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can hear in spoken Russian &lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; but that is officially incorrect although almost 90 people from 100 pronounce it instead of `извините`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; is technically possible, but grammatically means &quot;I am being forgiven&quot; so practically that's not a use case because nobody says &quot;I forgive (myself)&quot; to somebody when acts wrongly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16054" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="eef2db21-48f8-427b-8378-28e584dc5bd9" CreationDate="2014-08-01T12:57:22.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/495191559403753472" />
  <row Id="16055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="5ab44159-7003-4d8d-9b4d-82b3da3035c3" CreationDate="2014-08-01T17:32:31.077" UserId="3892" Text="The dictionary gives the meanings *marginal* and *maximum* for предельный, which are practically opposites. Consequently I don't know how to interpret it in the following passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не утруждая себя приветствием, он с **предельной категоричностью** заявил:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;– Эй вы! Имейте в виду, я ни на секунду не считаю себя вашим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пленником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would a native interpret this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="5ab44159-7003-4d8d-9b4d-82b3da3035c3" CreationDate="2014-08-01T17:32:31.077" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of ПРЕДЕЛЬНЫЙ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="5ab44159-7003-4d8d-9b4d-82b3da3035c3" CreationDate="2014-08-01T17:32:31.077" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="d88751dc-29f7-4f3c-8fc9-7a9c55082c96" CreationDate="2014-08-01T17:41:52.930" UserId="3680" Text="I believe *utmost* more fits your example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not bothering to welcome it with the **utmost categorically** stated:  &#xD;&#xA;- Hey you! Keep in mind, I never for a moment consider myself your prisoner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="1fc2c1f3-ee7a-4e40-b714-9eae246d130a" CreationDate="2014-08-01T17:48:10.477" UserId="3680" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe *utmost* more fits your example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not bothering to welcome he with the **utmost categorically** stated:  &#xD;&#xA;- Hey you! Keep in mind, I never for a moment consider myself your prisoner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="71799f0c-711a-4e8e-81ca-d48fa3a952d4" CreationDate="2014-08-01T17:54:21.647" UserId="3680" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe *utmost* more fits your example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not bothering to greet anyone, he announced with the **utmost rigidity**:  &#xD;&#xA;- Hey you! Don't think for a second that I'm going to be your prisoner!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="388efd6e-21b5-4a7e-8c2d-8006d96fee96" CreationDate="2014-08-01T19:53:05.003" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;Предельный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="9ad5cd0f-fa21-4f72-8e26-5c2d859b6f16" CreationDate="2014-08-01T19:56:33.540" UserId="4153" Comment="Added an explanation" Text="First, `извините` is used intensively nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can hear in spoken Russian &lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; but that is officially incorrect although almost 90 people from 100 pronounce it instead of `извините`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; is technically possible, but grammatically means &quot;I am being forgiven&quot; so practically that's not a use case because nobody says &quot;I forgive (myself)&quot; to somebody when acts wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;to prove this point I quote the explanation from two Russian Language forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from hashcode.ru][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если Вы обращаетесь к тому, перед кем хотите извиниться, то это неправильно и с точки зрения этикета, и грамматически, ведь постфикс -СЯ образовался от возвратного местоимения &quot;Себя&quot; и его главное значение возвратное. Извиняюсь - извиняю себя (Ср.Умываюсь -умываю себя) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from gramota.ru][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно: извини, извините или извиняюсь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма извиняюсь - разговорно-просторечная. Вот как писал о слове извиняюсь известный русский лингвист А. Селищев: «Со времени войны (1914 г.) в России вошел в широкое употребление словеcный знак вежливости-извинения &quot;извиняюсь&quot; (извиняюс). По основе и по форме это образование употреблялось и раньше. &quot;Опять тысячу раз извиняюсь, что сбиваюсь с прямой дороги в сторону&quot; - писал Гончаров. &quot;Извиняюсь, что не ответил никому до сих пор&quot; - в &quot;Дневнике писателя&quot; Достоевского. Отличие от теперешнего извиняюсь заключалось в том, что извиняюсь в речи Гончарова, Достоевского и других находилось в сочетании с другими словами в предложении и имело обычное реальное значение, - значение выражения извинения, искреннего, иногда глубокого раскаяния, что подчеркивалось словами &quot;1000 раз&quot; и т. п. Посредством этой формы извиняется и взволнованный чеховский дядя Ваня. &quot;Ну, ну, моя радость, простите... Извиняюсь (целует руку)&quot;. Совсем не по своему реальному и формальному значению теперешнее извиняюсь: оно употребляется отрывочно, вне сочетания с другими словами, служит формальным словесным знаком, произносимым при определенных обстоятельствах, - знаком, мало соответствующим этим обстоятельствам: полного значения просьбы здесь не выражается» (А. Селищев. Язык революционной эпохи. 1928). Написано давно, а актуально до сих пор.&#xD;&#xA;В современных толковых словарях форма извиняюсь также дана с пометой разг. (разговорное).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_in modern dictionaries this word is given with the status **spoken**_&#xD;&#xA;Правильно извини, извините, слово извиняюсь полного значения просьбы не выражает. Извиняюсь – это как «товарищ коллежский асессор».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правильно**&#xD;&#xA;**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct:**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russ.hashcode.ru/questions/2798/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C-%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti/36_89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="5fcfc34e-8778-4d8b-b8ae-0442754d0022" CreationDate="2014-08-01T20:01:56.540" UserId="4153" Comment="Added an explanation" Text="First, `извините` is used intensively nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can hear in spoken Russian &lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; but that is officially incorrect although almost 90 people from 100 pronounce it instead of `извините`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; is technically possible, but grammatically means &quot;I am being forgiven&quot; so practically that's not a use case because nobody says &quot;I forgive (myself)&quot; to somebody when acts wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;to prove this point I quote the explanation from two Russian Language forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from hashcode.ru][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если Вы обращаетесь к тому, перед кем хотите извиниться, то это неправильно и с точки зрения этикета, и грамматически, ведь постфикс -СЯ образовался от возвратного местоимения &quot;Себя&quot; и его главное значение возвратное. Извиняюсь - извиняю себя (Ср.Умываюсь -умываю себя) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from gramota.ru][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно: извини, извините или извиняюсь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма извиняюсь - разговорно-просторечная. Вот как писал о слове извиняюсь известный русский лингвист А. Селищев: «Со времени войны (1914 г.) в России вошел в широкое употребление словеcный знак вежливости-извинения &quot;извиняюсь&quot; (извиняюс). По основе и по форме это образование употреблялось и раньше. &quot;Опять тысячу раз извиняюсь, что сбиваюсь с прямой дороги в сторону&quot; - писал Гончаров. &quot;Извиняюсь, что не ответил никому до сих пор&quot; - в &quot;Дневнике писателя&quot; Достоевского. Отличие от теперешнего извиняюсь заключалось в том, что извиняюсь в речи Гончарова, Достоевского и других находилось в сочетании с другими словами в предложении и имело обычное реальное значение, - значение выражения извинения, искреннего, иногда глубокого раскаяния, что подчеркивалось словами &quot;1000 раз&quot; и т. п. Посредством этой формы извиняется и взволнованный чеховский дядя Ваня. &quot;Ну, ну, моя радость, простите... Извиняюсь (целует руку)&quot;. Совсем не по своему реальному и формальному значению теперешнее извиняюсь: оно употребляется отрывочно, вне сочетания с другими словами, служит формальным словесным знаком, произносимым при определенных обстоятельствах, - знаком, мало соответствующим этим обстоятельствам: полного значения просьбы здесь не выражается» (А. Селищев. Язык революционной эпохи. 1928). Написано давно, а актуально до сих пор.&#xD;&#xA;В современных толковых словарях форма извиняюсь также дана с пометой разг. (разговорное).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_in modern dictionaries this word is given with the status **spoken**_&#xD;&#xA;Правильно извини, извините, слово извиняюсь полного значения просьбы не выражает. Извиняюсь – это как «товарищ коллежский асессор».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правильно**&#xD;&#xA;**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct:**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that it's true that this word is old fashioned but nevertheless  this word is widely used nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russ.hashcode.ru/questions/2798/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C-%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti/36_89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="1b9b5644-55d6-4d96-9a43-a4d6a7d1391f" CreationDate="2014-08-01T20:10:17.990" UserId="4153" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="I would like to add a few meanings and use cases of `заглядывать`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Заглядывать вперёд&quot; means &quot;to look forward&quot;, but it can not be as &quot;&lt;s&gt;оглядывать вперёд&lt;/s&gt;&quot;, it's incorrect. However it **is** possible (and widely used) to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Оглядываться назад&quot;(1) means &quot;To look back&quot;, e.g. when _someone's walking_ or in terms of _passed days_, or _time that has gone_ (look back into the history) but can not be &quot;&lt;s&gt;оглядывать назад&lt;/s&gt;&quot;, it's incorrect. However it **is** possible (and widely used) to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Заглядывать назад&quot; means also &quot;To look back&quot; is also can be said in terms of _passed days_, or _time that has gone_, can **not** be said when someone's is walking, more likely wheh is not moving -sitting or standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Он заглядывается на других девушек&quot; means &quot;He looks at other girls&quot;, it **is** possible to say &quot;Он оглядывается на др  девушек&quot; but this means that &quot;He turns his head around to watch other girls(when passing by them)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Заглядывать в душу&quot; means &quot;To look into the soul&quot; but it can not be as &quot;&lt;s&gt;оглядывать душу&quot;&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)&quot;я оглянулся посмотреть не оглянулась ли она чтоб посмотреть не оглянулся ли я&quot; words from a famous song, means &quot;I looked around to see if she did not look back to see if I did not look back&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="9176918d-e484-40c0-99dc-7ac6b2ef487c" CreationDate="2014-08-01T20:12:38.320" UserId="2388" Text="OK, I'll try to let you see how the word might make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start with a &quot;предел&quot;=limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **предельный** = *taken to its limit* = *extreme*. The quality pronounced as strong as it possible could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can think of it in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - limit = go as far as you can → *предельный* = **utmost**&#xD;&#xA; - matematically limit of some value when *∆x → 0*: *предельный* = **marginal** (showing how a function changes when you introduce an infinitesimal changes to its variable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I do not know why would you chose the second meaning when there is clearly no calculus or economics involved :). Probably, the dictionaries should include some examples of very specific uses like these. Sometimes it takes me ages to sift through the minor meaning I would hardly ever need (that's why I love _oxfordictionaries_, with their elegant hierarchy of meanings and ready to use examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your sentence. &quot;Категоричный&quot; means the opposite of being soft, tolerant, indirect and ready to change your opinion. So here's how the meaning would be understood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *He didn't even trouble himself with a greeting and said most adamantly: ...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="7d684359-1a97-42dc-a478-393d7b01f6e0" CreationDate="2014-08-01T20:24:51.660" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="OK, I'll try to let you see how the word might make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start with a &quot;предел&quot;=limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **предельный** = *taken to its limit* = *extreme*. The quality pronounced as strong as it possibly could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can think of it in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - limit = go as far as you can → *предельный* = **utmost**&#xD;&#xA; - matematical limit of some value when *∆x → 0*: *предельный* = **marginal** (showing how a function changes when you introduce an infinitesimal change to its variable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I do not know why would you chose the second meaning when there is clearly no calculus or economics involved :). Probably, the dictionaries should include some examples of very specific uses like these. Sometimes it takes me ages to sift through the minor meanings I would hardly ever need (that's why I love _oxfordictionaries_, with their elegant hierarchy of meanings and ready-to-use examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your sentence. &quot;Категоричный&quot; means the opposite of being soft, tolerant, indirect and ready to change your opinion. So here's how the meaning would be understood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *He didn't even trouble himself with a greeting and said most adamantly: ...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16067" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="d3b19ed9-ab9b-4468-aec5-931d929374a3" CreationDate="2014-08-01T20:25:56.187" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;Будто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="cadac560-673a-451d-bcb6-19abc63cb9e0" CreationDate="2014-08-01T20:59:21.767" UserId="4153" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="First, `извините` is used intensively nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can hear in colloquial Russian `извиняюсь` but that is officially &lt;s&gt;incorrect&lt;/s&gt; is not recommended although almost 90 people from 100 pronounce it instead of `извините`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; is technically possible, but grammatically means &quot;I am being forgiven&quot; so practically that's not a use case because nobody says &quot;I forgive (myself)&quot; to somebody when acts wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;to prove this point I quote the explanation from two Russian Language forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from hashcode.ru][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если Вы обращаетесь к тому, перед кем хотите извиниться, то это неправильно и с точки зрения этикета, и грамматически, ведь постфикс -СЯ образовался от возвратного местоимения &quot;Себя&quot; и его главное значение возвратное. Извиняюсь - извиняю себя (Ср.Умываюсь -умываю себя) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from gramota.ru][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно: извини, извините или извиняюсь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма извиняюсь - разговорно-просторечная. Вот как писал о слове извиняюсь известный русский лингвист А. Селищев: «Со времени войны (1914 г.) в России вошел в широкое употребление словеcный знак вежливости-извинения &quot;извиняюсь&quot; (извиняюс). По основе и по форме это образование употреблялось и раньше. &quot;Опять тысячу раз извиняюсь, что сбиваюсь с прямой дороги в сторону&quot; - писал Гончаров. &quot;Извиняюсь, что не ответил никому до сих пор&quot; - в &quot;Дневнике писателя&quot; Достоевского. Отличие от теперешнего извиняюсь заключалось в том, что извиняюсь в речи Гончарова, Достоевского и других находилось в сочетании с другими словами в предложении и имело обычное реальное значение, - значение выражения извинения, искреннего, иногда глубокого раскаяния, что подчеркивалось словами &quot;1000 раз&quot; и т. п. Посредством этой формы извиняется и взволнованный чеховский дядя Ваня. &quot;Ну, ну, моя радость, простите... Извиняюсь (целует руку)&quot;. Совсем не по своему реальному и формальному значению теперешнее извиняюсь: оно употребляется отрывочно, вне сочетания с другими словами, служит формальным словесным знаком, произносимым при определенных обстоятельствах, - знаком, мало соответствующим этим обстоятельствам: полного значения просьбы здесь не выражается» (А. Селищев. Язык революционной эпохи. 1928). Написано давно, а актуально до сих пор.&#xD;&#xA;В современных толковых словарях форма извиняюсь также дана с пометой разг. (разговорное).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_in modern dictionaries this word is given with the status **spoken**_&#xD;&#xA;Правильно извини, извините, слово извиняюсь полного значения просьбы не выражает. Извиняюсь – это как «товарищ коллежский асессор».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правильно**&#xD;&#xA;**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct:**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that it's true that this word is old fashioned but nevertheless  this word is widely used nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russ.hashcode.ru/questions/2798/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C-%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti/36_89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="fa5d1765-62c8-4949-a2bc-e8e8621aff81" CreationDate="2014-08-01T21:24:23.987" UserId="2388" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="OK, I'll try to let you see how the word might make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start with a &quot;предел&quot;=limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **предельный** = *taken to its limit* = *extreme*. The quality pronounced as strong as it possibly could &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _(of course, there is also a more broad adjectival meaning &quot;limit-related&quot;, extensively used in mathematics — for instance, &quot;предельное значение&quot; = limiting value/the value of a limit , &quot;предельный переход&quot; = limit transition, transition to a limit etc.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can think of it in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - limit = go as far as you can → *предельный* = **utmost**&#xD;&#xA; - matematical limit of some value when *∆x → 0*: *предельный* = **marginal** (showing how a function changes when you introduce an infinitesimal change to its variable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly, I do not know why would you chose the second meaning when there is clearly no calculus or economics involved :). Probably, the dictionaries should include some examples of very specific uses like these. Sometimes it takes me ages to sift through the minor meanings I would hardly ever need (that's why I love _oxfordictionaries_, with their elegant hierarchy of meanings and ready-to-use examples)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your sentence. &quot;Категоричный&quot; means the opposite of being soft, tolerant, indirect and ready to change your opinion. So here's how the meaning would be understood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *He didn't even trouble himself with a greeting and said most adamantly: ...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16074" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7067" RevisionGUID="a642bb41-1296-49a6-9f66-ff34dda52985" CreationDate="2014-08-02T03:57:23.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/495418053828825088" />
  <row Id="16075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="5229fa33-9c3d-4555-ba1a-9560ee22c91d" CreationDate="2014-08-02T07:07:53.987" UserId="62" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Sometimes when physicists compute an integral (EDIT: in quantum field theory), they introduce what is called a &quot;cutoff&quot;, which means an infinite bound in the integral is replaced by a finite parameter, calculations are made, and then the parameter that was introduced as a bound in the integral is taken out to infinity. My question is: how do you say &quot;cutoff&quot; in Russian in this context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the answer might be some prefixed form of сечение, but I was not successful in figuring this out from a web search. (I did discover in this way that катофф has been borrowed into Russian for use in poker, which must be of more recent vintage that the need to say &quot;cutoff&quot; in physics.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: If answers can be supported by pointing to a place where the translated term is used in a physics computational context, and which I might find without too much trouble, that would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="aed4e680-8033-483b-9b79-b54f8380530f" CreationDate="2014-08-02T09:08:07.230" UserId="4153" Text="There could be some addition to the previous answers. The words `свобода` and `воля` are pretty close to each to other and the use cases are depend, but saying generally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `свобода` is about freedom of choice, a potential state of thinking and acting freely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `воля` means `will`, it's more about a desired freedom (when someone who is not free wants to be free &quot;хочет на волю&quot; or &quot;хочет быть на воле&quot; or even &quot;вызволен&quot; - to be freed (by any means). Also it is about an inner state of mind and character of a person &quot;У него есть сила воли (у него сильная воля), поэтому он легко бросил курить&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="a74a61a9-67b0-4350-be26-385a6b051519" CreationDate="2014-08-03T04:32:52.377" UserId="4161" Text="What's the difference between these comparative adj forms? Are they all used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **более красивый**&#xD;&#xA;- **красивее**&#xD;&#xA;- **красивей**&#xD;&#xA;- **краше**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionaly: What's the difference between these superlative adj forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **самый красивый**&#xD;&#xA;- **красивейший**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="a74a61a9-67b0-4350-be26-385a6b051519" CreationDate="2014-08-03T04:32:52.377" UserId="4161" Text="В чем разница между - более красивый, красивее, красивей, краше?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="a74a61a9-67b0-4350-be26-385a6b051519" CreationDate="2014-08-03T04:32:52.377" UserId="4161" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="dfac1f24-a32a-40db-87be-2fa53fa7df41" CreationDate="2014-08-03T05:02:25.330" UserId="3680" Text="There is no difference.  &#xD;&#xA;Yes, they all are used.  &#xD;&#xA;**Краше** is pretty old style, others are used very often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="b6b410b2-e128-47f1-90b3-05b606409e77" CreationDate="2014-08-03T08:59:49.543" UserId="4161" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between these comparative adj forms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **более красивый**&#xD;&#xA;- **красивее**&#xD;&#xA;- **красивей**&#xD;&#xA;- **краше**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they all used? Some adjectives apparently do not have all these forms. For instance for ***дорогой*** I only found ***дороже***. Is that correct? Is there a way to know, which forms exist for a specific adjective and is there a general answer about the usage of these forms, or does it depend on the adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionaly: What's the difference between the two forms of superlative of adjectives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **самый красивый**&#xD;&#xA;- **красивейший**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7075" RevisionGUID="3be5679f-1fc8-4d9c-8997-55b924aa2cc9" CreationDate="2014-08-03T09:14:19.077" UserId="4153" Text="Yes these all are comparative adjectives and they mean the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    более красивый&#xD;&#xA;    красивее&#xD;&#xA;    красивей&#xD;&#xA;    краше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was considered about whether the `красивей` is officially correct. After research I have found that many articles say that this is a spoken language but the rules refer that both suffixes `ее` and `ей` are used for comparative adjectives .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;У прилагательных простая сравнительная степень образовывается с помощью суффиксов --ее,-ей. Поэтому вариантными формами сравнительной степени прилагательных &quot;красивый&quot; и &quot;белый&quot; являются красивее/красивей и белее/белей.Точно также образуются формы прилагательного &quot;интересный&quot;-- интереснее и интересней, &quot;острый&quot;-- острее и острей и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дело здесь в стилистике. Формы прилагательных простой сравнительной степени с суффиксом -ее считаются стилистически нейтральными, а с суффиксом -ей характерны для разговорной или поэтической речи.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, you will probably not find `красивей` but `красивее` in dictionaries (not in all, depends on dictionary) but it is definitely not a probleb to say `красивей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    самый красивый&#xD;&#xA;    красивейший&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kynGD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="7d5db2c7-c2fe-4d92-b0a7-bc7145bb8786" CreationDate="2014-08-03T10:21:28.597" UserId="4161" Comment="formatting" Text="The most acceptable translation for *Cut-off point* would be *точка отсечения*. However, in the case it is common to say *пренебрегаем вкладом в интеграл значений `x &gt; y`, поскольку [proof that ignored part is indeed small enough to be ignored].*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16089" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="7d5db2c7-c2fe-4d92-b0a7-bc7145bb8786" CreationDate="2014-08-03T10:21:28.597" Comment="Proposed by 4161 approved by 551, 334 edit id of 523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="87b837b4-2383-4c6f-8d83-8413e2e12aa4" CreationDate="2014-08-03T13:27:02.387" UserId="2388" Text=" - **красивее/красивей** — are the same, the short form being less neutral and used on a situational basis (depending on whether you feel you need to chop off a syllable here).&#xD;&#xA; - **краше** — old/colloquial, sometimes used for effect. Probably not in usual speech but a book, a public spech or an interview seems right. There are set expressions like &quot;одна другой краше&quot; (each even more beautiful than the other, i.e. all are very beautiful).&#xD;&#xA; - **более красивый** — if an adjective has a widely used simple comparative, a compound will sound more formal (because it is longer for no real reason) but stil grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;  - It is very important that simple comparatives like ***&quot;красивее&quot;*** can be used as an **adverb** (&quot;more beautifully&quot;) while compound forms *cannot*. You'll need &quot;более красиво&quot; for that.&#xD;&#xA;  - Not all adjectives have a comparative. Only qualitative adjectives have them. &quot;Относительные прилагательные&quot;, the adjectives that just classify an object as belonging to some type (American, governmental, wooden, almost all colors and so one) do not have them. If you want to go against the flow and still make a point about &quot;beer even more German than real German beer&quot; you are bound to use a compound comparative. For some a simple form sounds awkward but understandable (деревяннее, синее) but for adjectives like &quot;русский&quot;, &quot;английский&quot; and so on it literally does not exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about **самый красивый** vs. **красивейший**. Save for some very popular adjectives, it the SIMPLE form that sounds more bookish and stilted. Personally I feel that &quot;красивейший&quot; is closer to the stilted side of the spectrum, so I use &quot;самый красивый&quot; in my speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ЛУЧШИЙ&quot;(or наилучший), &quot;ХУДШИЙ&quot; (наихудший), малейший (about things, mostly abstract!),  are almost the best&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нежнейший&quot;, &quot;сильнейший&quot; and &quot;умнейший&quot; are OK. *Больший/самый большой*, *меньший/самый маленький* are both used with no clear advantage at either side. &#xD;&#xA; - Awkward *&quot;твердейший&quot;, &quot;крепчайший&quot;, &quot;слабейший&quot;, &quot;сладчайший&quot;, &quot;громчайший&quot;, &quot;тишайший&quot;* are possibly much better off as *&quot;самый твёрдый&quot;, &quot;самый слабый&quot;, &quot;самый сладкий&quot;, &quot;самый громкий&quot;, &quot;самый тихий&quot;* in almost any style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use expressions like ***&quot;красивее всех&quot;, &quot;сильнее всех&quot;, &quot;лучше всего&quot;*** which mean the same (the most beautiful, the best), minus the impication that you compare it to other creatures/things (so you won't use &quot;лучше всего&quot; for people)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="5e877153-8036-486a-9ea2-7030fdb2a2f1" CreationDate="2014-08-03T18:08:30.067" UserId="3892" Text="A friend of mine wrote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты скоро будешь разговаривать по-русски, как настоящий **пацан**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is a compliment, however I looked it up in several dictionaries and got a basic meaning of *boy, lad*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a idiomatic English equivalent of пацан in this context? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="5e877153-8036-486a-9ea2-7030fdb2a2f1" CreationDate="2014-08-03T18:08:30.067" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of пацан" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="5e877153-8036-486a-9ea2-7030fdb2a2f1" CreationDate="2014-08-03T18:08:30.067" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="271a73da-7f70-4ce2-bfa6-7dd75e63d938" CreationDate="2014-08-03T22:57:50.863" UserId="3892" Text="In the following, is **затрагиваемые** interchangeable with **затронутыe**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети, **затрагиваемые** вооруженными конфликтами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="271a73da-7f70-4ce2-bfa6-7dd75e63d938" CreationDate="2014-08-03T22:57:50.863" UserId="3892" Text="затрагиваемый vs затронутый" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="271a73da-7f70-4ce2-bfa6-7dd75e63d938" CreationDate="2014-08-03T22:57:50.863" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="813eb7d9-6f27-4ba7-aa66-c9cf29c50f05" CreationDate="2014-08-04T00:01:54.710" UserId="4159" Text="Neither is a good choice for this particular case.  I would say: &quot;дети, пострадавшие/страдающие в результате вооруженных конфликтов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Затронуть&quot; and &quot;затрагивать&quot; are pretty much the same word and both mean the same: &quot;to touch&quot; someone's emotions or feelings, or heart. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, assuming someone has (incorrectly) used the word &quot;затрагиваемые/затронутые&quot; in this case, the difference is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;затронутые&quot; -- some children *have been* affected by in any physical, psychological or financial way.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;затрагиваемые&quot; -- the children *are being* affected or *are being* exposed to a great chance of being affected in any possible way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="c76b822f-ebe8-41e9-91a5-3dc06ff72b45" CreationDate="2014-08-04T00:09:09.393" UserId="4159" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="Neither is a good choice for this particular case.  I would say: &quot;дети, пострадавшие/страдающие в результате вооруженных конфликтов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Затронуть&quot; and &quot;затрагивать&quot; are pretty much the same word and both mean the same: &quot;to touch&quot; someone's emotions or feelings, or heart. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;However, assuming someone has (incorrectly) used the word &quot;затрагиваемые/затронутые&quot; in this case, the difference is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;затронутые&quot; -- &quot;some children *have been* affected by&quot; in any physical, psychological or financial way. They might be implying some knowledge of such children.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;затрагиваемые&quot; -- the &quot;children *are being* affected or *are being* exposed to a great chance of being affected in any possible way. So, here they are most likely talking in general. Here, they would be implying a well known fact that children do get affected by war.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="af49e763-891c-4a27-b258-ade98c88722c" CreationDate="2014-08-04T03:08:25.197" UserId="4159" Text="The first four mean the same thing, but &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*более красивый* - I would never use. Sounds grammatically incorrect, or rather &quot;как-то не по-русски&quot;. Although, it is ok to say: *менее красивый, чем*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*красивее* - your number one choice, use this one, and you will never get it wrong&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*красивей* - good enough for informal conversations, especially if you want to sound like an ordinary Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*краше* - could be used, but usually as a matter of figurative speech or something like that. If not sure, do not use this one or you may end up sounding weird. &#xD;&#xA;Safe ways to use it:&#xD;&#xA;1)  Let's say two children look messy as if they played in mad or have chocolate all over them. You can say **with sarcasm**: Один краше другого or одна краше другой&#xD;&#xA;2) Proverb: краше в гроб кладут. Be careful, it sounds very offensive. May be used when someone looks very sick and ugly. Usually said behind someone's back or a mother may say it to a daughter if trying to make her take better care of herself.  &#xD;&#xA;3) Pay a complement when flirting with a young girl: краше тебя нет никого, but say it with a smile; mean it, but don't be too serious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following two mean very much the same; the difference is hardly noticeable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*самый красивый* -- use in every day life or to point out the best looking person/item, but say it as a matter of fact, with no emotion. Also, use when pointing out / selecting the best one in a specific group &#xD;&#xA;1) Вот тебе самое красивое яблоко (when selecting out of a box);&#xD;&#xA;2) Самый красивый цветок -- у Наташи (assuming there are more people and more flowers); &#xD;&#xA;3) Лондон -- самый красивый город из всех, где я бывала &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*красивейший* -- use with passion and when making a general statement.  &#xD;&#xA;1) If one said: Лондон -- красивейший город, it would mean that one finds this city beautiful or one fell in love with London. It does not mean that one is actually comparing it to the rest of the world&#xD;&#xA;2) Наташа нашла красивейший цветок! Means that she found an unusually beautiful or rare flower, again, this is not so much a compassing, but merely an expression of the feeling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7080" RevisionGUID="4de4c07f-38b7-4149-9ce4-30b58fcd2720" CreationDate="2014-08-04T03:19:03.827" UserId="4159" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="The first four mean the same thing, but &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*более красивый* - I would never use. Sounds grammatically incorrect, or rather &quot;как-то не по-русски&quot;. Although, it is ok to say: *менее красивый, чем*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*красивее* - your number one choice, use this one, and you will never get it wrong&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*красивей* - good enough for informal conversations, especially if you want to sound like an ordinary Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*краше* - could be used, but usually as a matter of figurative speech or something like that. If not sure, do not use this one or you may end up sounding weird. &#xD;&#xA;Safe ways to use it:&#xD;&#xA;1)  Let's say two children look messy as if they played in mad or have chocolate all over them. You can say **with sarcasm**: Один краше другого or одна краше другой&#xD;&#xA;2) Proverb: краше в гроб кладут. Be careful, it sounds very offensive. May be used when someone looks very sick and ugly. Usually said behind someone's back or a mother may say it to a daughter if trying to make her take better care of herself.  &#xD;&#xA;3) Pay a complement when flirting with a young girl: краше тебя нет никого, but say it with a smile; mean it, but don't be too serious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following two mean very much the same; the difference is hardly noticeable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*самый красивый* -- use in every day life or to point out the best looking person/item, but say it as a matter of fact, with no emotion. Also, use when pointing out / selecting the best one in a specific group &#xD;&#xA;1) Вот тебе самое красивое яблоко (when selecting out of a box);&#xD;&#xA;2) Самый красивый цветок -- у Наташи (assuming there are more people and more flowers); &#xD;&#xA;3) Лондон -- самый красивый город из всех, где я бывала &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*красивейший* -- ok to use with passion and when making a general statement, but avoid using when simply comparing things.  &#xD;&#xA;1) If one said: Лондон -- красивейший город, it would mean that one finds this city beautiful or one fell in love with London. It does not mean that one is actually comparing it to the rest of the world&#xD;&#xA;2) Наташа нашла красивейший цветок! Means that she found an unusually beautiful or rare flower, again, this is not so much to compare, but merely an expression of the feeling.&#xD;&#xA;3) If you took an apple out of a box and said seriously: Вот красивейшее яблоко, it would be like saying: &quot;how do you do?&quot; when it is more appropriate to say: &quot;hey, what's up?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7081" RevisionGUID="e428f3f1-6360-4c61-af37-9bbb7504141d" CreationDate="2014-08-04T04:14:48.177" UserId="4159" Text="They do mean the same, but watch for the indirect meaning, indicating that a person does things with insufficient consideration. &#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the only reason why торопиться and спешить seem so different is that implied indirect meaning of these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спешащий and торопящийся have the same meaning, but they are not the same as спешный and торопливый. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tоропиться and спешить -- is not the same as поторопиться and поспешить. &quot;Поспешить -- людей насмешить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="b0fd527e-943a-4a6b-9630-07b4bab14f9a" CreationDate="2014-08-04T06:59:58.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/496188779355717633" />
  <row Id="16103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="f17c7e8e-801c-45f1-83dd-5ad3425afb11" CreationDate="2014-08-04T10:00:01.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/496234089671036930" />
  <row Id="16104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="5f569872-35b5-45af-9c2f-b635baef82ea" CreationDate="2014-08-04T10:11:49.530" UserId="4075" Text="What is the difference in the meaning between the particles &quot;же&quot; and &quot;-то&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он же не пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;Vs.&#xD;&#xA;Он-то не пришёл." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="5f569872-35b5-45af-9c2f-b635baef82ea" CreationDate="2014-08-04T10:11:49.530" UserId="4075" Text="Particle же vs Particle -то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="5f569872-35b5-45af-9c2f-b635baef82ea" CreationDate="2014-08-04T10:11:49.530" UserId="4075" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7083" RevisionGUID="902825c9-c732-439f-bb39-d1d9f97c9ea6" CreationDate="2014-08-04T11:04:56.470" UserId="2388" Text="Thaaaaats a million-dollar question. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particles have some specific uses. Learn them. As to the general outline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in a converstation there is information you know and someting new. A message. There is also some background knowledge (lots of stuff) and some information _currently activated_ in you mind&#xD;&#xA; - **же** in such context points to the information you think a listener should know about your object but seems to have activated the opposite. For example, &quot;Он же не пришёл&quot; implies that the listener _knows_ that a person did not come but fails to use that in current situation (i.e. acts as though the person came). Usually when &quot;же&quot; is used, the information that _should_ be known and the information that the listener seems to use are mutually exclusive.&#xD;&#xA;  - note that &quot;же&quot; is also used in &quot;тогда же&quot; (at the same time as), &quot;те же&quot; (the same people/objects), &quot;там же&quot; (right there, at the place already mentioned) and so on. &quot;Он же&quot; can sometimes be a member of that group, though, that requires some context and syntax.&#xD;&#xA; - **то** is used when you discuss diferent statements that suit different &quot;objects&quot;. The information is (you think) known to the listener but not activated, so you draw attention to it. Here you have &quot;не пришёл&quot; as a characteristic. Using &quot;-то&quot; you can make an object to stand out as the one possessing that property or ask a question about that: &#xD;&#xA;  - *Он-то не пришёл* = &quot;Well, he, of all people, has not come&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - *А он-то пришел?* = &quot;And him, did he come?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difficult, I know. But it is hard to give a more detailed explanation when the question is THAT generic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7083" RevisionGUID="c9db40a8-9ef8-4000-a620-c7c3ac540cd4" CreationDate="2014-08-04T11:23:22.517" UserId="2388" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Thaaaaats a million-dollar question. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particles have some specific uses. Learn them. As to the general outline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in a converstation there is information you know and someting new. A message. There is also some background knowledge (lots of stuff) and some information _currently activated_ in you mind&#xD;&#xA; - **же** in such context points to the information you think a listener should know about your object but seems to have activated the opposite. For example, &quot;Он же не пришёл&quot; implies that the listener _knows_ that a person did not come but fails to use that in current situation (i.e. acts as though the person came). Usually when &quot;же&quot; is used, the information that _should_ be known and the information that the listener seems to use are mutually exclusive.&#xD;&#xA;  - note that &quot;же&quot; is also used in &quot;тогда же&quot; (at the same time as), &quot;те же&quot; (the same people/objects), &quot;там же&quot; (right there, at the place already mentioned) and so on. &quot;Он же&quot; can sometimes be a member of that group, though, that requires some context and syntax.&#xD;&#xA; - **то** is a contrasting particle used when you discuss diferent statements that suit different &quot;objects&quot;. The information *&quot;A-то has property B&quot;* is (you think) known to the listener but not activated, so you draw attention to it. That does not mean that the listener thinks elsewise! Here you have &quot;не пришёл&quot; as a characteristic. Using &quot;-то&quot; you can make an object to stand out as the one possessing that property or ask a question about that: &#xD;&#xA;  - *Он-то не пришёл* = &quot;Well, he, of all people, has not come&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - *А он-то пришел?* = &quot;And as for him, did he come?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difficult, I know. But it is hard to give a more detailed explanation when the question is THAT generic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="f923896e-7d3e-47da-9d97-0e28b3567aad" CreationDate="2014-08-04T15:41:40.890" UserId="2060" Text="I think you can boil it down to how focused the emphasis is. With *-то* it's narrowed down to a single word, while *же* acts more on the whole message. To me the both particles have contrasting feel to them, just the more focus, the more contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples (bracketed is even more contrast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was supposed to come but never did, and this makes the work impossible. Why would you ask to start working when the guy is not here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Это] он-то не пришёл?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He in fact did come. It's totally improbable a person like him wouldn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="d5be2768-ee85-4b6f-9212-e082109ea1d8" CreationDate="2014-08-04T15:47:40.910" UserId="2060" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="I think you can boil it down to how focused the emphasis is. With *-то* it's narrowed down to a single word, while *же* acts more on the whole message. To me the both particles have contrasting feel to them, just the more focus, the more contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples (bracketed is even more contrast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was supposed to come but never did, and this makes the work impossible. Why would you ask to start working when the guy is not here? (I guess this second &quot;assumed&quot; sentence is what Shady_arc meant by saying &quot;listener should know about your object but seems to have activated the opposite&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Это] он-то не пришёл?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He in fact did come. It's totally improbable a person like him wouldn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="a1e19288-3758-4f9f-9672-4ccbd0ee182a" CreationDate="2014-08-04T15:56:09.250" UserId="2060" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="I think you can boil it down to how focused the emphasis is. With *-то* it's narrowed down to a single word, while *же* acts more on the whole message. To me the both particles have contrasting feel to them, just the more focus, the more contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples (bracketed is even more contrast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - Он не пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was supposed to come but never did, and apparently this makes the work impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would you ask to start working when the guy is not here? (I guess this &quot;assumed&quot; sentence is what Shady_arc meant by saying &quot;listener should know about your object but seems to have activated the opposite&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Это] он-то не пришёл?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He in fact did come. It's totally improbable a person like him wouldn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7082" RevisionGUID="d5cbf7cd-c113-4447-89bf-4d6da2b2d575" CreationDate="2014-08-04T16:02:33.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/496325323336998912" />
  <row Id="16113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="f5f67297-8a4d-4d84-82ae-fedd500179af" CreationDate="2014-08-04T16:36:36.247" UserId="2060" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="I think you can boil it down to how focused the emphasis is. With *-то* it's narrowed down to a single word, while *же* acts more on the whole message. To me the both particles have contrasting feel to them, just the more focus, the more contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples (bracketed is even more contrast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - Он не пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was supposed to come but never did, and apparently this makes the work impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would you ask to start working when the guy is not here? (I guess this &quot;assumed&quot; sentence is what Shady_arc meant by saying &quot;listener should know about your object but seems to have activated the opposite&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Это] он-то не пришёл?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He in fact did come. It's totally improbable a person like him wouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is important but simply put *он же не пришёл* = [the reason is that] he didn't come, *он-то не пришел* = [everybody came but] he didn't come." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="580b4e5c-aa89-4d00-8326-5729d3a7c9c3" CreationDate="2014-08-04T17:18:31.090" UserId="2060" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think you can boil it down to how focused the emphasis is. With *-то* it's narrowed down to a single word, while *же* acts more on the whole message. To me the both particles have contrasting feel to them, just the more focus, the more contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples (bracketed is even more contrast):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - Он не пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was supposed to come but never did, and apparently this makes the work impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would you ask to start working when the guy is not here? (I guess this &quot;assumed&quot; sentence is what Shady_arc meant by saying &quot;listener should know about your object but seems to have activated the opposite&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - За работу!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Но] он же не пришёл!&#xD;&#xA;    - [Это] он-то не пришёл?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He in fact did come. It's totally improbable a person like him wouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is important but simply put *он же не пришёл* = [the reason is the fact] he didn't come, *он-то не пришел* = [everybody came but] he didn't come." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7085" RevisionGUID="6ac3c1e5-fb6f-49a3-8065-283449a7a7e9" CreationDate="2014-08-04T19:23:16.637" UserId="2442" Text="Although there's already a great discussion in the comments :), I'd translate this as «You'll soon speak Russian like a real Russian great guy». Here «настоящий пацан» implies not only being really a man (like, for example, if you hear «настоящий мужик», that implies your manliness), but also your «being among ours». Something like «You speak English like a true American».  &#xD;&#xA;So yes, it's a compliment indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16116" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="05e3fbd2-091b-4ad6-9877-9e0aa079742b" CreationDate="2014-08-04T22:02:32.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/496415919506485248" />
  <row Id="16117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="5e9d8db2-7674-4764-8370-abf3fd7463db" CreationDate="2014-08-05T08:27:15.683" UserId="4163" Text="В контексте статьи, чью ссылку вы предоставили, это переводится как &quot;андрогенные волосы&quot; или, в разговорном варианте, &quot;волосы на теле&quot;. Сам термин &quot;androgenic hair&quot; не зависит от пола и относится к волосам на теле как мужчин, так и женщин.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="4a1254fd-5fe6-4876-bcec-87da807895d5" CreationDate="2014-08-05T20:36:47.470" UserId="4167" Text="&gt;В раннем детстве он мало чем отличаются от остальных детей. Разве что жадностью. Своих игрушек никому не даёт, бережёт, предпочитает же играть игрушками чужими, **ещё и заиграть норовит**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: [Портрет предателя на фоне эпохи (Компьютерра)](http://www.computerra.ru/104393/portret-predatelya-na-fone-epohi/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="4a1254fd-5fe6-4876-bcec-87da807895d5" CreationDate="2014-08-05T20:36:47.470" UserId="4167" Text="Что здесь значит “ещё и заиграть норовит”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="4a1254fd-5fe6-4876-bcec-87da807895d5" CreationDate="2014-08-05T20:36:47.470" UserId="4167" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="b3b496d2-37a9-4db0-9750-ab32e369dd8a" CreationDate="2014-08-05T20:49:04.970" UserId="4166" Text="Localization process was always quite tricky because, besides of the main purpose of translating the meaning of the text, there is another problem - it's the length of the resulting text. And statistically speaking, words in Russian language are about 20 to 50% longer than in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the word *Пуск* is as short as english *Start* and shorter than the word *Старт*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is quite noticeable here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Start*&#xD;&#xA;* *Пуск*&#xD;&#xA;* *Старт*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, without italic the difference is not so big:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Start&#xD;&#xA;* Пуск&#xD;&#xA;* Старт&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7089" RevisionGUID="44690c37-bba1-4e21-8e49-571a566476e2" CreationDate="2014-08-05T21:16:17.277" UserId="3680" Text="В данном примере, **ещё и заиграть норовит** - означает, что он **стремится украсть** чужие игрушки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="a521915f-04e2-4d04-8ede-06a811d494d8" CreationDate="2014-08-05T21:48:37.273" UserId="4166" Text="The word you are looking for is **Предел**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a wiki page about integrals: [Определенный интеграл][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see there terms *нижний предел* and *верхний предел* meaning *lower cutoff* and *upper cutoff* respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="82de1847-9b89-4169-9433-d5affa8ddc86" CreationDate="2014-08-05T22:04:28.780" UserId="2269" Text="Здесь, кстати, возможны даже два значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Заигра́ть_ — не вернуть вещь, присвоить себе. Но не «украсть» (как близко, но все-таки неверно отмечает @Dmitry), ибо _украсть_ значит тайно взять чужую вещь, а _заиграть_ значит занять (взять с разрешения), а затем не отдать, как говорится, не мытьем так катаньем («да-да, конечно, дома осталась, в понедельник принесу»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  _Заиграть_ можно не только игрушку или что-то чем _играют_, но и любую другую вещь (книжку, например), т. е. _играть и заиграть_ — это здесь небольшой каламбур.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Это значение фиксирует, например Елистратов [в своем «Словаре русского арго»](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/3959/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C), но по мне оно не несет криминальных коннотаций.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;2. _Заигра́ть_ — играя, привести в не вполне годное состояние, истрепать; ср. с _носить_ → _заносить_, _гонять_ → _загонять_ (о человеке / животном). То есть вполне буквальное значение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, как видно из контекста, много более вероятно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="6835ecc2-f4e5-4204-b17f-f3d295e4deb0" CreationDate="2014-08-05T22:20:37.443" UserId="2269" Comment="added 429 characters in body" Text="Здесь, кстати, возможны даже три значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Заигра́ть_ — не вернуть вещь, присвоить себе. Но не украсть (как близко, но все-таки неверно отмечает @Dmitry), ибо _украсть_ значит тайно взять чужую вещь, а _заиграть_ значит занять (взять с разрешения), а затем не отдать, в частности (но не обязательно) при помощи метода, что народ называет «не мытьем так катаньем» («да-да, конечно, дома осталась, в понедельник принесу»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  _Заиграть_ можно не только игрушку или что-то иное, чем или что́ _играют_, но и любую другую вещь (книгу, например). Таким образом _играть и заиграть_ — это в данном случае небольшой каламбур.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Это значение фиксирует, например Елистратов [в своем «Словаре русского арго»](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/3959/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C), но по мне оно не несет коннотаций с уголовным миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Заигра́ть_ — потерять. В словарях не видел, но хорошо гуглится по запросу _заиграть куда-то_ в разных словоформах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Володька умудрился заиграть куда-то чудо-пустышку резиновую, из области привезенную. Приходилось ему в марлю кусок хлеба заворачивать и вместо соски давать... [[1]](http://morozovka.net/stihi-k-konkursu-den-pobedy)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. _Заигра́ть_ — играя, привести в не вполне годное состояние, истрепать; ср. с _носить_ → _заносить_, _гонять_ → _загонять_ (о человеке / животном).  То есть вполне буквальное значение. В эпоху винила в ходу было выражение _заиграть пластинку_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, как видно из контекста, много более вероятно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="23040c34-1ed8-4970-97f0-39c601af438b" CreationDate="2014-08-05T22:28:28.667" UserId="2269" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="Здесь, кстати, возможны даже три значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Заигра́ть_ — не вернуть вещь, присвоить себе. Но не украсть (как близко, но все-таки неверно отмечает @Dmitry), ибо _украсть_ значит тайно взять чужую вещь, а _заиграть_ значит занять (взять с разрешения), а затем не отдать, в частности (но не обязательно) при помощи метода, что в народе называется «не мытьем так катаньем» («да-да, конечно, дома осталась, в понедельник принесу»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  _Заиграть_ можно не только игрушку или что-то иное, чем или что́ _играют_, но и любую другую вещь (книгу, например). Таким образом _играть и заиграть_ — это в данном случае небольшой каламбур.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Это значение фиксирует, например Елистратов [в своем «Словаре русского арго»](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/3959/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C), но по мне оно не несет коннотаций с уголовным миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Заигра́ть_ — потерять. В словарях не видел, но хорошо гуглится по запросу _заиграть куда-то_ в разных словоформах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Володька умудрился заиграть куда-то чудо-пустышку резиновую, из области привезенную. Приходилось ему в марлю кусок хлеба заворачивать и вместо соски давать... [[1]](http://morozovka.net/stihi-k-konkursu-den-pobedy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Умудрился на морозе сломать накладку ..., кусочек отложил — думал приклею обратно..., но заиграл куда-то и найти не могу... [[2]](http://forums.drom.ru/mazda-familia-323/t1151666286-p734-print.html)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. _Заигра́ть_ — играя, привести в не вполне годное состояние, истрепать; ср. с _носить_ → _заносить_, _гонять_ → _загонять_ (о человеке / животном).  То есть вполне буквальное значение. В эпоху винила в ходу было выражение _заиграть пластинку_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, как видно из контекста, много более вероятно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="029d0d93-8f61-406e-b147-9949544de97f" CreationDate="2014-08-05T22:36:25.610" UserId="2269" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Здесь, кстати, возможны даже три значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Заигра́ть_ — не вернуть вещь, присвоить себе. Но не украсть (как близко, но все-таки неверно отмечает @Dmitry), ибо _украсть_ значит тайно взять чужую вещь, а _заиграть_ значит занять (взять с разрешения), а затем не отдать, в частности (но не обязательно) при помощи метода, что в народе называется «не мытьем так катаньем» («да-да, конечно, дома осталась, в понедельник принесу»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  _Заиграть_ можно не только игрушку или что-то иное, чем или что́ _играют_, но и любую другую вещь (книгу, например). Таким образом _играть и заиграть_ — это в данном случае небольшой каламбур.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Это значение фиксирует, например Елистратов [в своем «Словаре русского арго»](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/3959/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C), но по мне оно не несет коннотаций с уголовным миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Заигра́ть_ — потерять. В словарях не видел, но хорошо гуглится по запросу _заиграть куда-то_ в разных словоформах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Володька умудрился заиграть куда-то чудо-пустышку резиновую, из области привезенную. Приходилось ему в марлю кусок хлеба заворачивать и вместо соски давать... [[1]](http://morozovka.net/stihi-k-konkursu-den-pobedy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Умудрился на морозе сломать накладку ..., кусочек отложил — думал приклею обратно..., но заиграл куда-то и найти не могу... [[2]](http://forums.drom.ru/mazda-familia-323/t1151666286-p734-print.html)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. _Заигра́ть_ — играя, привести в не вполне годное состояние, истрепать; ср. с _носить_ → _заносить_, _гонять_ → _загонять_ (о человеке / животном).  То есть вполне буквальное значение. В эпоху винила в ходу было выражение _заиграть пластинку_.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Мои [кошки], например, любят огурцы, если спереть их со стола и заиграть до полной вялости. [[3]](http://pushkino.tv/forum/forum54/topic267/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, как видно из контекста, много более вероятно. Другие два приведены для ознакомления.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="e0a9c9cc-a44d-458d-816e-b58b48fd3260" CreationDate="2014-08-05T22:45:37.517" UserId="2269" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Здесь, кстати, возможны даже три значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Заигра́ть_ — не вернуть вещь, присвоить себе. Но не украсть (как близко, но все-таки неверно отмечает @Dmitry), ибо _украсть_ значит тайно взять чужую вещь, а _заиграть_ значит занять (взять с разрешения), а затем не отдать, в частности (но не обязательно) при помощи метода, что в народе называется «не мытьем так катаньем» («да-да, конечно, дома осталась, в понедельник принесу»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  _Заиграть_ можно не только игрушку или что-то иное, чем или что́ _играют_, но и любую другую вещь (книгу, например). Таким образом _играть и заиграть_ — это в данном случае небольшой каламбур.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Это значение фиксирует, например Елистратов [в своем «Словаре русского арго»](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/3959/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C), но по мне оно не несет коннотаций с уголовным миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Заигра́ть_ — потерять. В словарях не видел, но хорошо гуглится по запросу _заиграть куда-то_ в разных словоформах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Володька умудрился заиграть куда-то чудо-пустышку резиновую, из области привезенную. Приходилось ему в марлю кусок хлеба заворачивать и вместо соски давать... [[1]](http://morozovka.net/stihi-k-konkursu-den-pobedy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Умудрился на морозе сломать накладку ..., кусочек отложил — думал приклею обратно..., но заиграл куда-то и найти не могу... [[2]](http://forums.drom.ru/mazda-familia-323/t1151666286-p734-print.html)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. _Заигра́ть_ — играя, привести в не вполне годное состояние, истрепать; ср. с _носить_ → _заносить_, _гонять_ → _загонять_ (о человеке / животном).  То есть вполне буквальное значение. Фиксируется в большинстве толковых словарей: Ушакова, Ожегова—Шведовой и др. В эпоху винила в ходу было выражение _заиграть пластинку_.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Мои [кошки], например, любят огурцы, если спереть их со стола и заиграть до полной вялости. [[3]](http://pushkino.tv/forum/forum54/topic267/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, как видно из контекста, много более вероятно. Другие два приведены для ознакомления.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7091" RevisionGUID="344e8189-5083-4cd6-ada7-6da74b92a36b" CreationDate="2014-08-06T01:05:38.190" UserId="2269" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Здесь, кстати, возможны даже три значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. _Заигра́ть_ — не вернуть вещь, присвоить ее себе. Но не украсть (как близко, но все-таки неверно отмечает @Dmitry), ибо _украсть_ значит тайно взять чужую вещь, а _заиграть_ значит занять (взять с разрешения), а затем не отдать, в частности (но не обязательно) при помощи метода, что в народе называется «не мытьем так катаньем» («да-да, конечно, извини, дома оставил, в понедельник принесу»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  _Заиграть_ можно не только игрушку или что-то иное, чем или что́ _играют_, но и любую другую вещь (книгу, например). Таким образом _играть и заиграть_ — это в данном случае небольшой каламбур.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Это значение фиксирует, например, Елистратов [в своем «Словаре русского арго»](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/3959/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C), но по мне оно не несет коннотаций с уголовным миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Заигра́ть_ — потерять. В словарях не видел, но хорошо гуглится по запросу _заиграть куда-то_ в разных словоформах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Володька умудрился заиграть куда-то чудо-пустышку резиновую, из области привезенную. Приходилось ему в марлю кусок хлеба заворачивать и вместо соски давать... [[1]](http://morozovka.net/stihi-k-konkursu-den-pobedy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Умудрился на морозе сломать накладку ..., кусочек отложил — думал приклею обратно..., но заиграл куда-то и найти не могу... [[2]](http://forums.drom.ru/mazda-familia-323/t1151666286-p734-print.html)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. _Заигра́ть_ — играя, привести в не вполне годное состояние, истрепать. Сравните с _носить_ → _заноси́ть_, _гонять_ → _загоня́ть_ (о человеке / животном).  Это вполне буквальное значение. И оно фиксируется в большинстве толковых словарей: Ушакова, Ожегова–Шведовой и др. В эпоху винила в ходу было выражение _заиграть пластинку_.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Мои [кошки], например, любят огурцы, если спереть их со стола и заиграть до полной вялости. [[3]](http://pushkino.tv/forum/forum54/topic267/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, как видно из контекста, много более вероятно. Другие два приведены для ознакомления.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16130" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="6cd9bf57-4133-486d-86a8-06c36170f3c6" CreationDate="2014-08-06T01:06:27.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/496824588551327744" />
  <row Id="16131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="321c4495-c36d-4b48-aa5d-fafe054f7f26" CreationDate="2014-08-06T01:42:42.803" UserId="1604" Text="Don't forget that in contemporary Russian пацан also commonly means *thug*. So, разговаривать как пацан can mean &quot;use prison slang&quot;. Obviously, if this was in response to &quot;&quot;было б здорово&quot; this meaning of пацан is quite an ovekill!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="0d84d5f3-a063-4d3f-b2f5-02e37eae7e9e" CreationDate="2014-08-06T02:36:24.940" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|математика|физика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7093" RevisionGUID="5bdd49e8-4246-4e14-98e4-e9ed2802fe5d" CreationDate="2014-08-06T06:24:03.567" UserId="4153" Text="Forget about `пацан` :) In this sentence you have a popular way of using the word &quot;настоящий&quot; as a connotation for making a compliment. As you are already &quot;настоящий пацан&quot; the word &quot;настоящий&quot; should be read/understood as some adjective with positive connotation like &quot;клёвый&quot;, &quot;крутой&quot;, &quot;классный&quot;, &quot;такой же как я(мы)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The explanation about `пацан` given here generally sound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="69e6ee7e-f878-41d8-8bc3-d9dc4fdb9bf4" CreationDate="2014-08-06T11:34:20.370" UserId="4171" Text="how come that russian (русский) in context of ethnic group is adjective, but all(?) other ethic groups are called using nouns, американец, серб, эстонец, латыш, казах ...&#xD;&#xA;Are there similar examples in other languages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="69e6ee7e-f878-41d8-8bc3-d9dc4fdb9bf4" CreationDate="2014-08-06T11:34:20.370" UserId="4171" Text="Why Russians use adjective when speaking about their nation and nouns for the rest of the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="69e6ee7e-f878-41d8-8bc3-d9dc4fdb9bf4" CreationDate="2014-08-06T11:34:20.370" UserId="4171" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="3e90169a-2713-46e4-acdf-1f8506345928" CreationDate="2014-08-06T19:15:30.317" UserId="2269" Text="Пока я не вполне понимаю, как отвечать на вопрос «как так получилось», отвечу на вторую часть: есть ли аналоги в других языках, когда автоним (самоназвание) выпадает из общей схемы образования имен национальностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну, первое, что приходит в голову — это немецкий язык, где _Deutsche_ (то которое склоняется _ein Deutscher_ / _eine Deutsche_, _eines Deutschen_ / _einer Deutschen_ и т. д.) тоже субстантивированное прилагательное (ад’ективное существительное) от прилагательного _deutsche_. Большинство же названий для других наций (возможно даже, что для всех) — нет, обычные существительные, и прилагательные образуются от них: _Russe_ (прил. _russisch_), _Amerikaner_ (прил. _amerikanisch_, ж. _Amerikanerin_), _Este_ (прил. _estnisch_), _Lette_ (_lettisch_), _Kasache_ (_kasachisch_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="6790fa06-99af-42fb-99ec-a10ae734b0bc" CreationDate="2014-08-06T19:20:47.050" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Пока я не вполне понимаю, как отвечать на вопрос «как так получилось», отвечу на вторую часть: есть ли аналоги в других языках, когда автоним (самоназвание) выпадает из общей схемы образования имен национальностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну, первое, что приходит в голову — это немецкий язык, где _Deutsche_ (то которое склоняется _ein Deutscher_ / _eine Deutsche_, _eines Deutschen_ / _einer Deutschen_ и т. д.) тоже субстантивированное прилагательное (ад’ективное существительное) от прилагательного _deutsch_. Большинство же названий для других наций (возможно даже, что для всех) — нет, обычные существительные, и прилагательные образуются от них: _Russe_ (прил. _russisch_), _Amerikaner_ (прил. _amerikanisch_, ж. _Amerikanerin_), _Este_ (прил. _estnisch_), _Lette_ (_lettisch_), _Kasache_ (_kasachisch_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="fb2702ad-c8ef-4203-8b9e-7c4fd92ffccd" CreationDate="2014-08-06T19:34:30.710" UserId="2269" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Не вполне пока понимая, как отвечать на вопрос «как так получилось», отвечу на вторую часть: есть ли аналогичные ситуации в других языках, когда автоэтноним (самоназвание) выпадает из общей схемы образования имен национальностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое, что приходит в голову — это немецкий язык, где _Deutsche_ (что склоняется _ein Deutscher_ / _eine Deutsche_, _eines Deutschen_ / _einer Deutschen_ и т. д.) тоже субстантивированное прилагательное (ад’ективное существительное) от прилагательного _deutsch_. Большинство же названий для других наций (возможно даже, что для всех) — нет, обычные существительные, и прилагательные образуются от них: _Russe_ (прил. _russisch_), _Amerikaner_ (ж. _Amerikanerin_, прил. _amerikanisch_), _Este_ (прил. _estnisch_), _Lette_ (прил. _lettisch_), _Kasache_ (прил. _kasachisch_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="56a54c12-bd23-4893-8026-5e07153c0fc2" CreationDate="2014-08-06T19:43:05.513" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|прилагательные|существительные|other-languages|этнонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="92c7b5ed-3de3-453a-bf6d-93a54526ee50" CreationDate="2014-08-06T23:31:06.077" UserId="4175" Text="I did a proficiency test recently and I wanted to clarify why I got some answers wrong. In the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Летом мы **ездим** на дачу каждые выходные.&quot; -- It's &quot;ездим&quot; / ездить because it's done *usually* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Завтра мы **поедем** в Академгородок на маршрутке №15. -- It's &quot;поедем&quot; because it's *specific* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Та женщина, **которой** ты дал 100 рублей, где она сейчас? -- It's &quot;которой&quot; because it answers the question &quot;кому&quot; but the female form? (I had answered &quot;которому.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне не **поднять** этот пакет. Помогите, пожалуйста.&quot;  Why is this &quot;поднять&quot; and not &quot;поднимать&quot; ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;благодарю!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="92c7b5ed-3de3-453a-bf6d-93a54526ee50" CreationDate="2014-08-06T23:31:06.077" UserId="4175" Text="uncertainty about some uses of motion verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="92c7b5ed-3de3-453a-bf6d-93a54526ee50" CreationDate="2014-08-06T23:31:06.077" UserId="4175" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="bfcd2ad2-b75b-4090-81e7-2970cdab2c4e" CreationDate="2014-08-06T23:45:31.100" UserId="4175" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="I did a proficiency test recently and I wanted to clarify why I got some answers wrong. In the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Летом мы **ездим** на дачу каждые выходные.&quot; -- It's &quot;ездим&quot; / ездить because it's done *usually* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Завтра мы **поедем** в Академгородок на маршрутке №15. -- It's &quot;поедем&quot; because it's *specific* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Та женщина, **которой** ты дал 100 рублей, где она сейчас? -- It's &quot;которой&quot; because it answers the question &quot;кому&quot; but the female form? (I had answered &quot;которому.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне не **поднять** этот пакет. Помогите, пожалуйста.&quot;  Why is this &quot;поднять&quot; and not &quot;поднимать&quot; ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ребенок заплакал, *так как испугался*.&quot; It could also be &quot;испугавшись&quot; because it's past perfect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Приглашения удалось получить **тем**, кто подал заявки заранее.&quot; It's &quot;тем&quot; because it answers the question &quot;кому&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;благодарю!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16162" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="b9210be5-881d-48f3-bf52-5a0e383db1bc" CreationDate="2014-08-07T00:35:14.247" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|вид|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="7a884966-19a1-4632-b6fb-abeeb15b7868" CreationDate="2014-08-07T00:49:12.373" UserId="2269" Text="‘Yes’ to all of your yes/no questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Подня́ть_ (i. e. perfective aspect) rather _поднима́ть_ (imperfective) is because he can not *carry out* an action – lifting of bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be _Ребенок заплакал, испугавшись_, but in this case there would not be a semantic stress on cause. So it could not be a answer to a ‘Why?’ question ‘_Почему заплакал ребенок?_’." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="cf1d3ac5-c789-4c2f-960e-652e5e4ab5e3" CreationDate="2014-08-07T00:56:19.670" UserId="2269" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="‘Yes’ to all of your yes/no questions, with one little remark: a subordinate clause _кото́рой ты́ да́л сто́ рубле́й_ answers the question _‘како́й [же́нщине]?’_ or _‘кото́рой [же́нщине]?’_, not _‘кому́?’_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Подня́ть_ (i. e. perfective aspect) rather _поднима́ть_ (imperfective) is because he can not *carry out* an action – lifting of bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be _Ребёнок запла́кал, испуга́вшись_, but in this case there would not be a semantic stress on cause. So it could not be a answer to a ‘Why?’ question ‘_Почему́ запла́кал ребёнок?_’." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="0ffb061b-9850-471f-a51c-7107ea057f6f" CreationDate="2014-08-07T01:05:32.070" UserId="2269" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="‘Yes’ to all of your yes/no questions, with one little remark: a subordinate clause _кото́рой ты́ да́л сто́ рубле́й_ answers the question _‘како́й [же́нщине]?’_ or _‘кото́рой [же́нщине]?’_, not _‘кому́?’_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Подня́ть_ (i. e. perfective aspect) rather _поднима́ть_ (imperfective) is because he can not *carry out* an action – lifting of bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be _Ребёнок запла́кал, испуга́вшись_, but in this case there would not be a semantic stress on cause. So it would not fit well as an answer to a ‘Why?’ question ‘_Почему́ запла́кал ребёнок?_’." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="4afe5757-4cbf-40b2-800b-5d5159d964ee" CreationDate="2014-08-07T01:35:41.670" UserId="2269" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="- ‘Yes’ to all of your yes/no questions, with one little remark: a subordinate clause _кото́рой ты́ да́л сто́ рубле́й_ answers the question _‘како́й [же́нщине]?’_ or _‘кото́рой [же́нщине]?’_, not _‘кому́?’_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Подня́ть_ (i. e. perfective aspect) rather _поднима́ть_ (imperfective) is because he can not *carry out* an action – lifting a bag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Although that is not the thing, you have to know at your level of Russian, _Мне́ не поднима́ть э́тот паке́т_ is a pretentious way to say “I’m not going to lift a bag”. I doubt that anyone would say this very sentence, but something like _мне́ с ни́м не жи́ть_ “I’m not going to live with him” is somewhat common colloquial expression, which implies “I don’t care of his merits / demerits”.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It could be _Ребёнок запла́кал, испуга́вшись_, but in this case there would not be a semantic stress on cause. So it would not fit well as an answer to a ‘Why?’ question “_Почему́ запла́кал ребёнок?_”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="ed3e8e46-0bd9-4538-b821-fe67613d0569" CreationDate="2014-08-07T01:49:48.177" UserId="2269" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="- ‘Yes’ to all of your yes/no questions, with one little remark: a subordinate clause _кото́рой ты́ да́л сто́ рубле́й_ answers the question _‘како́й [же́нщине]?’_ or _‘кото́рой [же́нщине]?’_, not _‘кому́?’_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Подня́ть_ (i. e. perfective aspect) rather _поднима́ть_ (imperfective) is because he can not *carry out* an action – lifting a bag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Although that is not the thing, you have to know at your level of Russian, _Мне́ не поднима́ть э́тот паке́т_ is a pretentious way to say “I’m not going to lift the bag”. I doubt that anyone would ever say this very sentence, but something like _мне́ с ни́м не жи́ть_ “I’m not going to live with him” is somewhat common colloquial expression, which implies “I don’t care of his merits / demerits”.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It could be _Ребёнок запла́кал, испуга́вшись_, but in this case there would not be a semantic stress on cause. So it would not fit well as an answer to a ‘Why?’ question “_Почему́ запла́кал ребёнок?_”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="b706bea6-8f17-49df-abfb-84eb1975f70b" CreationDate="2014-08-07T02:44:56.823" UserId="4176" Text="I would suggest that a good English translation is &quot;Homeboy&quot; (or &quot;Homie&quot;). The term has a similar hint of criminality, but it can also be used as (carefully) as a term of affection. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="2046b801-faa4-4b33-a50e-7862f8e393ab" CreationDate="2014-08-07T06:17:15.297" UserId="2269" Text="&gt; @DmitryAlexandrov: did those links to English examples help you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they helped of course. I’ve googled around the Web and made sure that @vix2 is absolutely right: _cutoff_ as a verb would be _обрезать_, as a noun – _обрезание_, though you may think that the latter sounds a bit funny (most common meaning of _обрезание_ is _circumcision_ :-). You can found it both in books / articles, e. g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы придать смысл расходящимся фейнмановским интегралам, вводится&#xD;&#xA;некоторая промежуточная регуляризация (ультрафиолетовое обрезание Λ).   &#xD;&#xA;[[A. A. Славнов. Симметрии и перенормировка]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поэтому любое ковариантоное обрезание (такое, как в методе Фейнмана) будет автоматически гарантировать исчезновение собственного натяжения...   &#xD;&#xA;[[С. Швебер. Введение в релятивистскую квантовую теорию поля]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and at least in one dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инфракрасное обрезание (ктп) — infrared cutoff   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ультрафиолетовое обрезание (ктп) — ultraviolet cutoff   &#xD;&#xA;(‘ктп’ stands for _квантовая теория поля_)   &#xD;&#xA;[V. D. Novikov et al. The Russian-English Dictionary of Physics. — RUSSO, 2004]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am still not sure that term is used enough widely since a) there are too few occurences in google; b) somewhere it is explained in parentheses via English _cutoff_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, это соотношение показывает что величину инфракрасного обрезания (IR cutoff) нельзя выбирать независимо от величины ультрафиолетового обрезания.   &#xD;&#xA;[[Ускоренное расширение вселенной и голографический принцип]][40]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But maybe the reason is that too few Russian quantum field theorist write in Russian or publish their preprints in the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, may I ask why you need this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5]:  http://www1.jinr.ru/Archive/Pepan/2003-v34/v-34-7/pdf_obzory/v34p7_01.pdf&#xD;&#xA;[10]: http://books.google.ru/books?id=iEf5AgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA497&amp;ots=vjCcjgrFjT&amp;dq=%22%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%22%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PA497#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%22%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;[40]: http://www.modcos.com/articles.php?id=25&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="c4abb0f2-c087-40f3-8e37-48fd5e2cecf6" CreationDate="2014-08-07T16:11:26.280" UserId="4182" Text="The meaning of пацан varies depending on the context; it can denote a boy of young age (with derivatives such as пацанёнок); a slang term akin to &quot;buddy&quot; for a male of your age (used mainly by peers in a highly informal conversation, male to male, women NEVER address a man like this); third, пацан means &quot;homie, thug, con etc&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="b638ca1f-5876-47ac-9d9b-a9f4b8b7e2da" CreationDate="2014-08-07T16:14:35.493" UserId="4182" Text="I deem голос с оттяжкой is a rough approximation of &quot;drawl&quot; usually with positive connotaion, likea  voice sounding melodious &amp; serene. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="912a960c-0630-4743-af51-f2d2bdf7d42b" CreationDate="2014-08-07T19:00:04.867" UserId="4183" Text="Recently I discovered the word [склока][1] and I was very surprised that its main meaning was &quot;to squabble&quot;. For squabble, I would have felt that ссора or драка would be more appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is склока in any way, shape or form in current usage in Russian society? If two kids were squabbling, would the parents describe it as a склока? Or is this term more relevant to some book by Tolstoy or Dostoevski? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="912a960c-0630-4743-af51-f2d2bdf7d42b" CreationDate="2014-08-07T19:00:04.867" UserId="4183" Text="Is склока in current Russian usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="912a960c-0630-4743-af51-f2d2bdf7d42b" CreationDate="2014-08-07T19:00:04.867" UserId="4183" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="644f2846-c138-4f2b-b8c2-09c5cf8e3396" CreationDate="2014-08-07T20:11:48.577" UserId="3859" Text="I'd say &quot;Dude&quot; is a close parallel. Пацан is literally &quot;guy&quot;. &quot;Настоящий пацан&quot; is one who is to be admired and/or respected.&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="9a0ed329-4545-4f7b-9acd-c0ba131458af" CreationDate="2014-08-07T21:23:53.820" UserId="2060" Text="It is a passive vocabulary word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that English *fight* could mean both *ссора* and *драка*, but these two are totally different in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="d95667da-9fc4-453a-ae9b-dabe6f1b76ba" CreationDate="2014-08-07T21:49:12.963" UserId="2388" Text="Not much used in speech: I think currently it is a tword you could sometimes use in a book or a public speech but not on the everyday basis. But yup, definitely a part of native speaker's pssive vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by the Russian National Corpus &quot;склока&quot; is a primarily 20 century word, so it is unlikely Tostoy and Dostoevsky used it much in their work — the word existed before but was rarely used until the end of the 19 century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="b2819e62-403d-44cd-8e1c-a9acf9562d3f" CreationDate="2014-08-07T22:09:12.907" UserId="4184" Text="Спешить is a description of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я спешу к поезду. Мне некогда с тобой разговаривать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я спешу на встречу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я спешу сообщить тебе что-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Торопиться is a description of the circumstance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тороплюсь на поезд, поэтому у нас есть лишь 5 минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слишком тороплюсь! (и потому рискую ошибиться).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тороплюсь как могу/изо всех сил." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="da9c24b0-a7ab-463f-9aaa-3429ad37b8f7" CreationDate="2014-08-07T22:46:15.197" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|глаголы|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="2341d29d-52ab-44f6-b969-9237560aea61" CreationDate="2014-08-08T02:42:23.273" UserId="4064" Text="Adding a reference: &lt;https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=склока&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cсклока%3B%2Cc0&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was never in a major usage and mostly used in 1920~1950. After 1950 its usage dropped nearly three times and remains at the same level until now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="e441649d-821c-4c1c-8024-649363039645" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:23:34.930" UserId="3498" Text="Планируется создание сайта в рунете, целевая аудитория - спортивные болельщики&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - имя сайта: словосочетание из двух английских слов&#xD;&#xA; - домен: .zone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будут ли эти моменты иметь негативное влияние?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будут интересны любые соображения на этот счет, в том числе, Ваше субьективное мнение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="e441649d-821c-4c1c-8024-649363039645" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:23:34.930" UserId="3498" Text="Имя сайта в рунете на английском" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="e441649d-821c-4c1c-8024-649363039645" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:23:34.930" UserId="3498" Text="|информатика|психолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="99710001-eaeb-4aef-88da-42763411e0ad" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:36:46.210" UserId="194" Text="I think that it is because there are no means in Russian to produce an ethnic noun from the word Русь. In related East Slavic languages the situation is as follows: in Ukrainian they use the word Росіянин, from the modern country's name Росія (Russia). Thus they cannot distinguish between ethnic Russians and Russian citizens. In Belarusian the situation the same as in Russian, they use an adjective. Only in Rusyn language they use a noun (for their own ethnicity which also originates from Русь), by using the suffix -ин which is not productive in similar circumstances in modern Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="9fd5c47d-51b8-407f-86e4-1166b16cbf2a" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:52:35.893" UserId="194" Comment="added 547 characters in body" Text="I think that it is because there are no means in Russian to produce an ethnic noun from the word Русь. In related East Slavic languages the situation is as follows: in Ukrainian they use the word Росіянин, from the modern country's name Росія (Russia). Thus they cannot distinguish between ethnic Russians and Russian citizens. In Belarusian the situation the same as in Russian, they use an adjective. Only in Rusyn language they use a noun (for their own ethnicity which also originates from Русь), by using the suffix -ин which is not productive in similar circumstances in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Well, there **are** actually nouns for the Russians, the рус or росс and великоросс. The first two I only encountered in poetry and in scientific texts in plural form (русы) to refer to the ancient people of the Русь. This is because рус may be understood as short form of the adjective &quot;русый&quot; &quot;having blonde hair&quot;, and рос means &quot;grew&quot; or dew in genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word великоросс was widely used in 19th and early 20th century but later came out of use because of schauvinist coloring (along with the word &quot;малоросс&quot; for Ukrainians). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="1e4bdef3-2c23-4921-8058-e120ed1933e7" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:01:11.657" UserId="194" Text="Site names in Latin script, particularly in English are a de facto standard in Runet because for a long time there was no technical possibility of domain names in Cyrillic (and still there can be trobles with it in some browsers). And I strongly discourage the transliteration of Russian words for the purpose. So I think either English name or a name originating from Latin, Greek or a similar sounding invented name written in Latin script would be appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="cd08d299-3e3b-43f0-9cca-1bad4657f1a9" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:37:50.707" UserId="2269" Text="Про английский язык в имени уже сказала Anixx, мне кроме как +1 к ее словам добавить нечего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что до доменной зоны [.zone](https://www.nic.ru/cgi/na.cgi?js_on=on&amp;step=n_a.ntld&amp;zone=zone), то вы, здесь, вероятно, полагаете возможной ассоциацию с «зоной» — местом заключения. Мне сложно оценить психологию болельщика, но если намека на неприятную ассоциацию можно легко избежать, то лучше так и сделать, не правда ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня есть и более кардинальное мнение на этот счет (возможно, из-за него вы сочтете меня ретроградом :-). Я полагаю, что все эти [NewGTLD](https://www.nic.ru/dns/domain/new_gtld/list.html): .club, .vodka, .sexy и прочие вовсе не стоят того, чтоб их использовать. Имя веб-сайта должен быть узнаваем именно как имя веб-сайта *само по себе*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы пишете на постере «football.ru. Болей за любимую команду онлайн!» — и все понятно, ибо все знают, что такое «точка-ру» или «точка-ком». Никто пока не знает что такое «точка-zone» (подумайте, кстати, как это _zone_ будет *звучать*, когда его будут диктовать по телефону или по радио, например). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="a0c37bac-bfab-43af-9bc6-e1dd009e9bd7" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:39:13.510" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Про английский язык в имени уже сказала Anixx, мне кроме как +1 к ее словам добавить нечего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что до доменной зоны [.zone](https://www.nic.ru/cgi/na.cgi?js_on=on&amp;step=n_a.ntld&amp;zone=zone), то вы, здесь, вероятно, полагаете возможной ассоциацию с «зоной» — местом заключения. Мне сложно оценить психологию болельщика, но если намека на неприятную ассоциацию можно легко избежать, то лучше так и сделать, не правда ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня есть и более кардинальное мнение на этот счет (возможно, из-за него вы сочтете меня ретроградом :-). Я полагаю, что все эти [NewGTLD](https://www.nic.ru/dns/domain/new_gtld/list.html): .club, .vodka, .sexy и прочие вовсе не стоят того, чтоб их использовать. Имя веб-сайта должyj быть узнаваемj именно как имя веб-сайта *само по себе*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы пишете на постере «football.ru. Болей за любимую команду онлайн!» — и все понятно, ибо все знают, что такое «точка-ру» или «точка-ком». Никто пока не знает что такое «точка-zone» (подумайте, кстати, как это _zone_ будет *звучать*, когда его будут диктовать по телефону или по радио, например). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16189" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="fe3b9b40-453d-442a-a8b9-af6443f61c18" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:39:42.543" UserId="2269" Comment="Rollback to [cd08d299-3e3b-43f0-9cca-1bad4657f1a9]" Text="Про английский язык в имени уже сказала Anixx, мне кроме как +1 к ее словам добавить нечего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что до доменной зоны [.zone](https://www.nic.ru/cgi/na.cgi?js_on=on&amp;step=n_a.ntld&amp;zone=zone), то вы, здесь, вероятно, полагаете возможной ассоциацию с «зоной» — местом заключения. Мне сложно оценить психологию болельщика, но если намека на неприятную ассоциацию можно легко избежать, то лучше так и сделать, не правда ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня есть и более кардинальное мнение на этот счет (возможно, из-за него вы сочтете меня ретроградом :-). Я полагаю, что все эти [NewGTLD](https://www.nic.ru/dns/domain/new_gtld/list.html): .club, .vodka, .sexy и прочие вовсе не стоят того, чтоб их использовать. Имя веб-сайта должен быть узнаваем именно как имя веб-сайта *само по себе*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы пишете на постере «football.ru. Болей за любимую команду онлайн!» — и все понятно, ибо все знают, что такое «точка-ру» или «точка-ком». Никто пока не знает что такое «точка-zone» (подумайте, кстати, как это _zone_ будет *звучать*, когда его будут диктовать по телефону или по радио, например). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="789a966d-88cf-4904-965e-d93fba059033" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:40:08.560" UserId="2269" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Про английский язык в имени уже сказала Anixx, мне кроме как +1 к ее словам добавить нечего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что до доменной зоны [.zone](https://www.nic.ru/cgi/na.cgi?js_on=on&amp;step=n_a.ntld&amp;zone=zone), то вы, здесь, вероятно, полагаете возможной ассоциацию с «зоной» — местом заключения. Мне сложно оценить психологию болельщика, но если намека на неприятную ассоциацию можно легко избежать, то лучше так и сделать, не правда ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня есть и более кардинальное мнение на этот счет (возможно, из-за него вы сочтете меня ретроградом :-). Я полагаю, что все эти [NewGTLD](https://www.nic.ru/dns/domain/new_gtld/list.html): .club, .vodka, .sexy и прочие вовсе не стоят того, чтоб их использовать. Имя веб-сайта должно быть узнаваемым именно как имя веб-сайта *само по себе*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы пишете на постере «football.ru. Болей за любимую команду онлайн!» — и все понятно, ибо все знают, что такое «точка-ру» или «точка-ком». Никто пока не знает что такое «точка-zone». И я не случайно написал _ком_ кириллицей, а _zone_ — латиницей, подумайте, как это _zone_ должно *звучать*, когда его будут диктовать по телефону или рекламировать по радио, например. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="68e0eb72-772a-4720-9a8c-32eb3e1156d1" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:40:47.493" UserId="4183" Comment="format link" Text="Adding a reference: [Google Books chart][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word was never in a major usage and mostly used in 1920~1950. After 1950 its usage dropped nearly three times and remains at the same level until now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="68e0eb72-772a-4720-9a8c-32eb3e1156d1" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:40:47.493" Comment="Proposed by 4183 approved by 2269, 97 edit id of 525" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1352" RevisionGUID="83c3f2ea-302c-4995-9864-70664e7d77b6" CreationDate="2014-08-08T09:42:44.087" UserId="2269" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Actually here is a good example illustrating the difference between _ага_ and _угу_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Посетитель ресторана, старый еврей, обращается к официанту, тоже еврею, но молодому:  &#xD;&#xA;— Мойша, попробуй суп!  &#xD;&#xA;— Что такое? Это такой же суп, как всегда.  &#xD;&#xA;— Попробуй!  &#xD;&#xA;— Да я же никогда не подавал вам плохой суп!  &#xD;&#xA;— А я тебе говорю: попробуй!  &#xD;&#xA;— Ну хорошо, хорошо, попробую... А где же ложка?  &#xD;&#xA;— Ага! — говорит посетитель.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16194" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="fbf9b313-bf7d-4e15-89ef-c9b16fe13f7a" CreationDate="2014-08-08T10:19:20.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/497688504756092928" />
  <row Id="16195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7115" RevisionGUID="81eada6b-939d-4428-a047-6591aff700ce" CreationDate="2014-08-08T10:56:37.873" UserId="4171" Text="В русской википедии есть подробная статья - Этнонимы русских, там описан процесс субстантивации&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="01e6f1d6-7d2c-44c9-bba3-3211d223410d" CreationDate="2014-08-08T15:20:30.713" UserId="2269" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="**Short answer for Russian language learners**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no simple rules to detect where Russian letter _е_ should be read as _ё_ (i. e. /jo/ or /ʲo/), as well as there are no rules to detect which syllable is stressed. Use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More detailed answer for native and near-native Russian speakers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если упрощенно и вкратце, то переход /e/ → /o/, который и отмечается точками над _ё_, в русском языке происходил при следующих условиях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- переходящий гласный должен быть ударным: _сёстры_, но _сестра́_;&#xD;&#xA;- этот звук должен соответствовать букве _е_, а не _ѣ_ (ять): _всё [это]_, но _все́ [они]_ (_всѣ_), исключение — _звёзды_ (_звѣзды_);&#xD;&#xA;- до него идет мягкий, шипящий или свистящий согласный звук: _ёмкий_, но _э́то_;&#xD;&#xA;- а после — не идет мягкий согласный: _ёлка_, но _е́ль_ (шипящий может: _тёща_);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все вышеперечисленное, разумеется, относится ко времени перехода, а он окончательно завершился никак не позднее XV века. Отсюда _пе́рвый_, а не _пёрвый_ — /rʲ/ здесь тогда был мягким; _фане́ра_, а не _фанёра_ — это более позднее заимствование. Еще есть куча церковнославянизмов — заимствований достаточно древних для того, чтобы переход произошел, но старательно поддерживавшихся в исконном состоянии: _не́́бо_ (ср. _нёбо_), _ле́в_ (но _лёва_) и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Плюс, вне зависимости от твердости / мягкости последующего согласного _е́_ / _ё_ имеют свойство сохраняться при склонении: _берёза_ /z/ → _на берёзе_ /zʲ/; спряжении: _идёт_ /t/ → _идёте_ /tʲ/; иногда словообразовании: _зелёный_ /n/ → _зелёненький_ /nʲ/, _уроже́нец_ /nʲ/ → _уроже́нка_ /n/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А на самом деле все еще несколько сложнее — переход происходил в несколько этапов, в частности, на первом этапе ударение значения не имело, и это было бы важно при объяснении украинского языка (например, почему _чолові́к_), но для великорусского этим можно пренебречь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По всему видно, что носителю современного русского языка эти правила, как и многие другие окололингвистические знания, не вполне полезны — произношение большинства слов и так прекрасно ему известны, а сложные случаи проще проверить по словарю.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16197" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="39a2f8e9-0ef3-475a-ac56-dcd89477618d" CreationDate="2014-08-08T15:23:59.650" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|история-языка|фонология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="2addfac6-e03f-4b1a-8791-4bd3f4d8cc44" CreationDate="2014-08-08T17:33:45.997" UserId="4186" Text="I am very curious about the Russian word &quot;Toska.&quot; The word that is difficult to translate in English and means loosely: melancholy, longing, boredom, spiritual anguish. How is this word written and accented in Russian using Russian letters? What does it look like? Also, how do you pronounce it? thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="2addfac6-e03f-4b1a-8791-4bd3f4d8cc44" CreationDate="2014-08-08T17:33:45.997" UserId="4186" Text="How do you say and spell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="2addfac6-e03f-4b1a-8791-4bd3f4d8cc44" CreationDate="2014-08-08T17:33:45.997" UserId="4186" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7117" RevisionGUID="2728c2c8-140d-4579-ba9b-7e806dd4f8ad" CreationDate="2014-08-09T02:37:57.830" UserId="4175" Text="(If 12 months later is not too late...) Per what Pavel indicates above in his examples, the use of &quot;Вообще - generally or on the whole&quot; is also extensively used in conversational speech, often to emphasize a point, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;И **вообще**, в городе слишком много горя и переживаний.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Зачем тогда **вообще** подходить к человеку и начинать с ним говорить?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can really feel the emphasis in the statement when вообще is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16202" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="1dd4cd20-840d-4156-8829-4d58d01b49c5" CreationDate="2014-08-09T13:22:03.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/498096874759651328" />
  <row Id="16203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="f993203d-6f77-44b0-9eab-6f07bb1c0c8f" CreationDate="2014-08-09T20:45:34.520" UserId="4187" Text="Я наткнулся на него читая комменты под видео обзором игры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ВОПРОС: **Дятька** а вы нуб?﻿&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ОТВЕТ: ваще полнейший)))))﻿" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="f993203d-6f77-44b0-9eab-6f07bb1c0c8f" CreationDate="2014-08-09T20:45:34.520" UserId="4187" Text="Что означает слово &quot;дятька&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="f993203d-6f77-44b0-9eab-6f07bb1c0c8f" CreationDate="2014-08-09T20:45:34.520" UserId="4187" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="8f1b3a92-f82c-4ddc-976c-449446efcb5c" CreationDate="2014-08-09T21:50:06.757" UserId="2388" Text="Actually &quot;Дядька&quot; (дядя) which is sometimes used coloquialy for &quot;man&quot;, &quot;fellow&quot;, &quot;dude&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="bb4b7d89-a1db-45af-964d-a80d4d6e4984" CreationDate="2014-08-10T03:46:17.443" UserId="4188" Text="же - yet, after all, at last&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_то_ - that, this, the&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Он _же_ не пришёл. - _же_ puts accent at &quot;came&quot; (he didn't came after all)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Он-_то_ не пришёл. - whereas _то_ is rather a pronoun than a pointing particle, a version of the word &quot;that&quot;. and is directing thus at exactly at who we talking about. if you wish may think of it as of english particle 'the' in a way. then one of possible translations would be as follows - that he then didn't came&lt;br&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7121" RevisionGUID="d587a280-bba8-4426-bfba-5ff8a613d198" CreationDate="2014-08-10T08:10:14.093" UserId="551" Text="Хочу добавить к ответу Shady_arc что &quot;дядька&quot; или &quot;дядя&quot; имеет оттенок &quot;взрослый мужчина&quot; и даже &quot;мужчина старше (говорящего)&quot; (как &quot;дед&quot; или &quot;дедушка&quot; означает &quot;старый мужчина&quot; или &quot;мужчина гораздо старше меня&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это также подкрепляется местоимением &quot;вы&quot;, которое в неформальном общении используется для обращения к более старшим (по возрасту или статусу) людям - люди одного возраста обычно используют &quot;ты&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть скрытый смысл вопроса &quot;Ты такой большой, а играть толком не умеешь, да?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to add to Shady_arc's answer that &quot;дядька&quot; can also have a flavour of &quot;mature man&quot; or even &quot;a little bit older than me&quot; (like &quot;дед&quot; is &quot;old man&quot;, at least much older than the speaker). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also backed by using the &quot;вы&quot; pronoun that is mostly used to elder (or having the higher social status) persons in informal speech (when the persons are of the same age they would likely use &quot;ты&quot; instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the &quot;real&quot; meaning of the &quot;Дятька а вы нуб?﻿&quot; is &quot;You are so mature, but play like a baby, isn't it?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="434c9767-c858-4de7-b96f-a5c38955bec9" CreationDate="2014-08-10T14:04:39.953" UserId="3892" Text="I have recently seen both **удержать(ся)** and **сдержать(ся)** used in the sense of *holding back feelings, tears, laughter,* etc. Is there any discernible difference between the two in this usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="434c9767-c858-4de7-b96f-a5c38955bec9" CreationDate="2014-08-10T14:04:39.953" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between удержать и сдержать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="434c9767-c858-4de7-b96f-a5c38955bec9" CreationDate="2014-08-10T14:04:39.953" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7123" RevisionGUID="57ff734c-cf30-4761-9d99-4313ffb18ff6" CreationDate="2014-08-10T16:09:18.543" UserId="2388" Text="**&quot;удержаться&quot;** means more to *&quot;refrain&quot;*, to keep yourself from doing something. You may metaphorically imagine feelings being on a leash that you should keep in your hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;сдержаться&quot;** (and &quot;сдержать&quot;) is more focused on *containing* feeling, *suppressing* it. Keeping it from poping out or keeping its magnitude to a resonable level. Keeping *under control* (hence &quot;сдержанный смех&quot;=&quot;restrained laugh&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say &quot;I could not help but...&quot; then &quot;Я не удержался от&quot; / &quot;Я не удержался от того, чтобы ..&quot; are the most obvious choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why they are interchangeable. Somewhat. These meanings are sometimes pretty close. If you provided the examples I could answer in more detail what should be used when." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="32193a43-d5fd-454d-a550-9014233e3bd2" CreationDate="2014-08-10T16:51:51.303" UserId="97" Text="While both of these words can be translated into English as _keep_, there are other translations and somewhat different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Удержать_ usually means _to keep/to retain [something]_.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удержать удочку  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Keep/retain the fishing rod (e.g. when a large fish is hooked)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (However you cannot say _сдержать удочку_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Сдержать_ also means _to keep_, however it is either used in the sense of _refrain_, i.e. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сдержать себя и не съесть всю коробку конфет  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Keep yourself from eating the whole box of chocolates  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (You can also say _удержать себя и не съесть все коробку конфет_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, very often, it's used with word _word_ as in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сдержать свое слово  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Keep your word&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (You cannot say _удержать свое слово_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, as you can see, these two words are similar in meanings and can in some instances be use interchangeably.  Yet, there are are cases when you can use one but not the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also words _сдержаться_ and _удержаться_, which have somewhat different meanings from _сдержать_ and _удержать_. Those two words are mostly interchangeable (as @Shady_arc describes in his answer)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="34b98d62-5a83-4450-b3c2-5f62c1160a19" CreationDate="2014-08-10T23:22:13.053" UserId="2246" Text="You can hear the exact pronunciation here for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqJKMv09mww&amp;t=25m30s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опять **тоска**, опять любовь!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="e7650ab7-9c95-4270-8220-0bc4a7c49673" CreationDate="2014-08-11T00:33:31.993" UserId="4153" Text="`Тоска` - [tʌˈska]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стеснение духа, томление души, мучительная грусть; душевная тревога,  беспокойство, боязнь, скука, горе, печаль, нойка сердца, скорбь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;further reading a definition from the dictionary by Dal you can find [here](http://dal.sci-lib.com/word040036.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and good web formatted description and further meanings you can find [here](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. сильное душевное томление, душевная тревога в соединении с грустью и скукой, тягостное уныние&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TOL7S.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7128" RevisionGUID="bc85c656-b4fb-41f9-b4d9-f810262e008c" CreationDate="2014-08-11T00:40:31.807" UserId="4153" Text="- То же, что `дядя` ; брат отца или матери, а также муж тёти (т. е. сестры отца или матери) по отношению к своим племянникам &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но потом приехал мой дядька, брат отца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Любой взрослый мужчина &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой-то дядька сидел на стуле с гармонью в руках." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="9f6e7492-0d6a-4276-9821-ef5f3ac9775e" CreationDate="2014-08-11T01:15:22.770" UserId="2060" Text="If you confine the meaning to *hold back [tears]*, the difference is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *у-* prefix adds a hint of keeping something in the original state, and the *с-* prefix suggests the action succeeded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to [с-][1] and [у-][2] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81-&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="2fc8b9a4-222b-4268-9bfd-2e7718a5a7a8" CreationDate="2014-08-11T02:23:22.830" UserId="2060" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="If you confine the meaning to *hold back [tears]*, the difference is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *у-* prefix adds a hint of keeping something in the original state, and the *с-* prefix suggests the action succeeded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from overall meaning difference, the meaning of prefix itself becomes quite prominent in *сдерживать напор* (to successfully withstand pressure) vs. *удерживать напор* (to keep the pressure at the same level).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to [с-][1] and [у-][2] for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81-&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="1c53cfbe-f5dd-4f31-ae7d-49afb55c5e39" CreationDate="2014-08-11T02:40:05.530" UserId="3727" Text="While the noun &quot;склока&quot; is not widely used in everyday speech, the adjective &quot;склочный&quot; and, to a lesser extent, the noun &quot;склочник&quot; are quite common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16224" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="61180674-3fa6-4d09-ab4f-7bb9e18ff30b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T09:10:40.130" UserId="2246" Comment="Added the discussed word to question title" Text="How do you say and spell &quot;Тоска&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16225" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="61180674-3fa6-4d09-ab4f-7bb9e18ff30b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T09:10:40.130" Comment="Proposed by 2246 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="41c116c2-945c-4e5f-9ac6-2bf04d293f24" CreationDate="2014-08-11T10:29:37.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/498778253336006657" />
  <row Id="16232" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="4eb9b208-2aaf-4a50-adb6-e5a52f29c7cc" CreationDate="2014-08-11T13:29:21.740" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="e22ad094-911c-4713-92b0-aee68b730aed" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:08:04.323" UserId="3727" Text="Your second example for the second meaning does not seem to be very idiomatic, at least not in American English. &quot;**The elevator's broken, so we have to take the stairs. Thankfully it's only four floors. (=and not twenty!)**&quot; would sound more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Russian equivalent, most people will say:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Лифт не работает придётся идти по лестнице. Хорошо что только четыре зтажа.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;**по крайней мере**&quot;, while will be understood, is not very idiomatic in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16235" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="fdff3f49-8768-4562-a768-2810d8e10e87" CreationDate="2014-08-11T14:20:01.910" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:115,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dima&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="300e20f3-c2e4-49ff-9489-f142c3ec41af" CreationDate="2014-08-11T16:43:43.973" UserId="3892" Text="???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="300e20f3-c2e4-49ff-9489-f142c3ec41af" CreationDate="2014-08-11T16:43:43.973" UserId="3892" Text="выражение &quot;жить можно!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="300e20f3-c2e4-49ff-9489-f142c3ec41af" CreationDate="2014-08-11T16:43:43.973" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16240" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="62705746-2f5d-4627-868f-a4c410f05de5" CreationDate="2014-08-11T19:29:42.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/498914171472605184" />
  <row Id="16241" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="7cf96ff1-78ae-472c-9add-1aca51510ada" CreationDate="2014-08-12T01:29:41.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/499004764454408193" />
  <row Id="16242" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="c61c6ad0-47e4-4b3a-b39b-7a6d24f7f782" CreationDate="2014-08-12T04:29:41.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/499050064510480384" />
  <row Id="16243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="162aa20c-abab-4389-92eb-6e26464ba882" CreationDate="2014-08-12T07:28:55.640" UserId="4153" Text="“жить можно!” when alone means &quot;it's Okay&quot;. Basically it has two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The first used in a whole sentence as a part, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Мой друг сказал мне, что даже имея семью, `жить можно` и в однокомнатной квартире&quot;. &quot;My friend told me that even having a family it's possible to live in one bedroom apartment&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The second one is just verbal positive agreement signal for a situation faced, used alone, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Что ты думаешь о том, что институт изменил правила экзаменов и теперь вместо двух устных экзаменов мы должны сдавать один письменный? - `Жить можно`! &quot;What do you think about that the institute changed exam rules and now we have to sit one writing module instead of two speaking ones? - It's Okay!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="97bcd259-8102-426a-b63b-3ebfafb8283e" CreationDate="2014-08-12T07:40:44.233" UserId="551" Text="Another meaning is that &quot;This is less than I expected, but nevertheless it is still acceptable&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Устроился вчера на работу. Зарплата, конечно, небольшая, но жить можно. - I have found a job yesterday. The salary is not high, but it is acceptable.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Купил с рук компьютер. Новые игрушки на нем подтормаживают, но жить можно. - I bought a second-hand computer. New games are running slowly, but it is okay for me.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="4dd8da76-26c6-4fe8-b011-bd9157b7e582" CreationDate="2014-08-12T21:49:55.040" UserId="3892" Text="In the following dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А: Поговоришь с ним?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Б: - **Очень надо!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether this means &quot;I really need to&quot; or if it's ironic and means something else altogether, like &quot;no way!&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="4dd8da76-26c6-4fe8-b011-bd9157b7e582" CreationDate="2014-08-12T21:49:55.040" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of очень надо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="4dd8da76-26c6-4fe8-b011-bd9157b7e582" CreationDate="2014-08-12T21:49:55.040" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="167971e9-be32-44c4-8a2f-c5578d75951e" CreationDate="2014-08-12T22:13:36.370" UserId="3892" Text="I saw the following sentence in a dictionary and wondered how it makes sense to use a perfective here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коллекция подобралась постепенно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm not understanding the sentence correctly, but it looks like *The collection came together -or- was selected little by little, gradually*. Wouldn't a **process** such as this elicit the use of the imperfective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="167971e9-be32-44c4-8a2f-c5578d75951e" CreationDate="2014-08-12T22:13:36.370" UserId="3892" Text="Use of the perfective with постепенно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="167971e9-be32-44c4-8a2f-c5578d75951e" CreationDate="2014-08-12T22:13:36.370" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16263" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="7f00f403-6dfb-48ad-bf6d-204d660e0e33" CreationDate="2014-08-12T22:31:28.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/499322301792673792" />
  <row Id="16264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="63330306-099b-4c1c-a690-4f217650cdfc" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:09:37.650" UserId="3680" Text="The second option is correct, it's ironic and has an opposite meaning &quot;no way!&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Also frequently used form: `Больно надо!`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="fd737384-9a55-4f0d-a37b-5b5321df827c" CreationDate="2014-08-12T23:19:58.633" UserId="3892" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Could someone please explain how the expression жить можно is used and in what contexts? I heard someone say it in a movie, coming out of a store after buying lots of cool gadgets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="459dd11e-302c-4087-965d-34c2e23493d9" CreationDate="2014-08-13T04:23:23.437" UserId="4094" Text="I think the idea is that the collection is already exists even if you are going to continue to add things to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="30da070b-30cb-4fbe-8989-017ec99ab512" CreationDate="2014-08-13T07:57:08.087" UserId="2388" Text="I believe here &quot;постепенно&quot; serves well to substitute &quot;не сразу&quot;, i.e. the result was not achieved at first try or that a person did not initially intend to make a collection but &quot;eventually&quot; it became clear that he has a collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the verb already means there was a process, the adverb refers to how long the process leading to the occurence of an action of the verb had been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a more obvious example of such use , &quot;Он медленно подошёл к столу&quot; also works and does not sound wrong to my ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="5b4866bf-a950-403d-b52c-0ce0bcc275ba" CreationDate="2014-08-13T08:03:32.930" UserId="2388" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="I believe here &quot;постепенно&quot; serves well to substitute &quot;не сразу&quot;, i.e. the result was not achieved at first try or the person did not initially intend to make a collection but &quot;eventually&quot; it became clear that he had a collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the verb already means there was a process, the adverb refers to how long the process leading to the occurence of an action of the verb had been. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a more obvious example of such use , &quot;Он медленно подошёл к столу&quot; also works and does not sound wrong to my ear. &quot;Я быстро пришёл к этому выводу&quot;, &quot;Том встал и быстро вышел&quot;, &quot;Родители приехали весьма и весьма быстро&quot;. All of these work (admittedly, here &quot;быстро&quot; is not only about &quot;speed&quot; but also means &quot;very soon, after a short time&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7145" RevisionGUID="eee6e915-3950-43a8-8d58-939875a94c5d" CreationDate="2014-08-13T09:26:57.193" UserId="194" Text="This can be used with sarcasm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её муж содержит её детей от первого брака, и ещё она получает алименты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от первого мужа. Жить можно!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="98b0a8a9-6804-409c-a76e-29f045aac6a3" CreationDate="2014-08-13T10:06:05.770" UserId="4153" Text="The word `постепенно` indeed means `gradually` but I would also be focused here on the verb `подобралась`. Because it is not a common use case of this word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly saying this word should be used when a speaker described a situation where some collection was chosen from a variety of collections whilst (s)he needed only one specific collection fitting to his/her particular purpose.  Like in this example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Код к электронному замку `подобрался` не сразу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она была высокого роста, но, тем не менее, партнёр по танцам ей постепенно `подобрался`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, much far use case of this word can be found it this example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зверь `подобрался` к своей жертве на расстояние прыжка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's another story :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the speaker's intention was just expressing the point that the collection had been completed with time delays or just not quickly, then the word should be changed on `собралась`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коллекция собралась постепенно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time I believe that the certain sentence (as it is in the question) can be well and even equal to the latter in old fashion language, probably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point proving this statement could be the next consideration. In modern Russian language this word `подбираться` usually requires a proper context with the conditions and requirements on for which purpose the main object, like the `collection` should fit, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я собирался сдавать вступительный экзамен по литературе и, к счастью, к этому моменту у меня `подобралась` коллекция великолепных эссе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашему отделу дали новый проект, но шансов его успешно выполнить очень мало, так как коллектив у нас `подобрался` не по этому профилю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can be seen the word `постепенно` is not the one which is used normally with `подобрался`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, I would say it's definitely possible in the expressing even simple idea of time delays during collecting - native speakers will not hear a mistake  in it, but at the same time that would make them expecting you are either extending a context or being originally from a previous epoch ;) Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="20a51765-ac96-4403-9c39-c50a114ff015" CreationDate="2014-08-13T10:12:28.963" UserId="4153" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="The word `постепенно` indeed means `gradually` but I would also be focused here on the verb `подобралась`. Because it is not a common use case of this word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly saying this word should be used when a speaker described a situation where some collection was chosen from a variety of collections whilst (s)he needed only one specific collection fitting to his/her particular purpose.  Like in this example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Код к электронному замку `подобрался` не сразу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она была высокого роста, но, тем не менее, партнёр по танцам ей постепенно `подобрался`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, much far use case of this word can be found it this example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот ранненый медвеженок `подобрался` нашей группой во время экспедиции и был послан в зоопарк. Here in in the meaning of &quot;to be taken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зверь `подобрался` к своей жертве на расстояние прыжка. Here in the meaning of &quot;to get closer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's another story :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the speaker's intention was just expressing the point that the collection had been completed with time delays or just not quickly, then the word should be changed on `собралась`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коллекция собралась постепенно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time I believe that the certain sentence (as it is in the question) can be well and even equal to the latter in old fashion language, probably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point proving this statement could be the next consideration. In modern Russian language this word `подбираться` usually requires a proper context with the conditions and requirements on for which purpose the main object, like the `collection` should fit, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я собирался сдавать вступительный экзамен по литературе и, к счастью, к этому моменту у меня `подобралась` коллекция великолепных эссе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашему отделу дали новый проект, но шансов его успешно выполнить очень мало, так как коллектив у нас `подобрался` не по этому профилю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can be seen the word `постепенно` is not the one which is used normally with `подобрался`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, I would say it's definitely possible in the expressing even simple idea of time delays during collecting - native speakers will not hear a mistake  in it, but at the same time that would make them expecting you are either extending a context or being originally from a previous epoch ;) Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16276" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="e28bb4ff-f89d-42e8-a0d8-0fd7bbffde6b" CreationDate="2014-08-13T13:35:16.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/499549749742407680" />
  <row Id="16280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="1bec55ec-4a97-42a6-8aa3-cb913338fd14" CreationDate="2014-08-13T14:46:27.237" UserId="3892" Text="The dictionary defines both **угражать** and **грозить** as &quot;threaten.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;Are they interchangeable in every case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="1bec55ec-4a97-42a6-8aa3-cb913338fd14" CreationDate="2014-08-13T14:46:27.237" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between угрожать и грозить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="1bec55ec-4a97-42a6-8aa3-cb913338fd14" CreationDate="2014-08-13T14:46:27.237" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="bef6b959-3a12-4bba-b71f-8d34f64efb24" CreationDate="2014-08-13T14:59:23.273" UserId="2269" Comment="a typo + tags" Text="The dictionary defines both **угрожа́ть** and **грози́ть** as “threaten.” &#xD;&#xA;Are they interchangeable in every case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="bef6b959-3a12-4bba-b71f-8d34f64efb24" CreationDate="2014-08-13T14:59:23.273" UserId="2269" Comment="a typo + tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|значения|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7150" RevisionGUID="48621fe8-73a7-4da5-8955-f50e70dcf9ec" CreationDate="2014-08-13T16:56:11.693" UserId="3522" Text="They do have the same meaning, but quite different registers. **Угрожать** is quite common, while **грозить** is quite bookish if not outright archaic, apart from a few turns of phrase such as *это мне ничем не грозит* (*this does not hold any threats for me*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7151" RevisionGUID="8ad25129-e70b-44a8-9ff1-d74cd057f317" CreationDate="2014-08-13T16:58:11.303" UserId="4149" Text="'угрожа́ть' is more strange, for example, when some 	criminal threaten his victim. In most cases it means that this threat has more chances to happen or may happen in short period of time. Also, you better look at russian vocabulary-wiki ['угрожа́ть'][1] and ['грози́ть'][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="d67764b2-9b3e-4e7a-a729-34530516d96c" CreationDate="2014-08-14T08:11:02.273" UserId="194" Text="Грозить could mean a gesture, empathising a verbal threatening. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, грозить кулаком, грозить пальцем, грозить палкой. That is, to shake some object, which may not be dangerous actually. Compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить палкой = to shake a stick to empathise a verbal threatening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Угрожать оружием = to pose a real threat of using the weapon&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Расширение НАТО угрожает безопасности России = even if NATO does not express any threats verbally, they pose a threat by their potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to sum up, грозить - to threaten actively, usually shaking an object(may be non-dangerous one, such as finger) to empathise your threat, угрожать - to pose a real threat either actively or passively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inanimate object can only угрожать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Химический комбинат угрожает экологии региона.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Свалка отходов угрожает чистоте питьевой воды." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="c92b4438-8822-4909-b2cf-fa9f4b9b5ef6" CreationDate="2014-08-14T08:16:23.313" UserId="194" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Грозить could mean a gesture, empathising a verbal threatening. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, грозить кулаком, грозить пальцем, грозить палкой. That is, to shake some object, which may not be dangerous actually. Compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить палкой = to shake a stick to empathise a verbal threatening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Угрожать пистолетом = to pose a real threat of using the gun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить пистолетом = to shake a weapon in the hand, even if the gun is not charged, toy or without intention to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Расширение НАТО угрожает безопасности России = even if NATO does not express any threats verbally, they pose a threat by their potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to sum up, грозить - to threaten actively, usually shaking an object(may be non-dangerous one, such as finger) to empathise your threat, угрожать - to pose a real threat either actively or passively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inanimate object can only угрожать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Химический комбинат угрожает экологии региона.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Свалка отходов угрожает чистоте питьевой воды." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="00e3ecb8-aefe-4aeb-9bd9-7eabcfe8a3c0" CreationDate="2014-08-14T08:23:56.933" UserId="194" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Грозить could mean a gesture, empathising a verbal threatening. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, грозить кулаком, грозить пальцем, грозить палкой. That is, to shake some object, which may not be dangerous actually. Compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить палкой = to shake a stick to empathise a verbal threatening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Угрожать пистолетом = to pose a real threat of using the gun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить пистолетом = to shake a gun in the hand, even if the gun is not charged, toy or without intention to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Расширение НАТО угрожает безопасности России = even if NATO does not express any threats verbally, they pose a threat by their potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to sum up, грозить - to threaten actively, usually shaking an object(may be non-dangerous one, such as finger) to empathise your threat, угрожать - to pose a real threat either actively or passively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Угрожать one can only to somebody or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Химический комбинат угрожает экологии региона.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Свалка отходов угрожает чистоте питьевой воды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Биржевой индекс грозит обрушиться в любой момент.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Засуха угрожает посевам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Засуха грозит плохим урожаем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="9a514a4d-405a-4503-b58b-5f7d8d11a5c9" CreationDate="2014-08-14T08:35:34.230" UserId="2079" Text="The words are often interchangable.  According to the ruscorpora.ru, **грози́ть** has been used about 3 times more often than **угрожа́ть** since 2001.  Here are the most notable difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Threatening with something:&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Грозить пальцем&quot; is to wave a protruded index finger meaning &quot;don't do it&quot;. You cannot say &quot;угрожать пальцем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - Similarly, to show somebody your fist in a threatening way is &quot;грозить кулаком&quot;, never &quot;угрожать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - When threatening somebody with a weapon, the word &quot;угрожать&quot; is used when the weapon is dangerous (&quot;грабители угрожали кассиру пистолетом&quot;, but &quot;старушка грозила собаке палкой&quot;).  Generally, for guns and knives &quot;угрожать&quot; is used, while for sticks and stones the verb &quot;угрожать&quot; is used only if there is a real danger.&#xD;&#xA; - Verbal threats (expressed or implied) usually require the verb &quot;угрожать&quot; (&quot;не смей мне угрожать!&quot;, &quot;террористы угрожали убить заложника&quot;), &#xD;&#xA;  - unless these are empty and laughable threats (&quot;муж то грозил повеситься, если я его брошу, то в ногах валялся&quot;). For especially empty and laughable treats, &quot;грозиться&quot; is used (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA; - For expressions like &quot;компании грозит/угрожает банкротство&quot;, both verb are used, &quot;грозит&quot; is more colloquial, &quot;угрожает&quot; is more formal&#xD;&#xA; - the noun &quot;опасность&quot; governs the verb &quot;угрожает&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="ae617ff2-0bb1-414c-b503-1611c21ce6ac" CreationDate="2014-08-14T08:43:50.630" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The words are often interchangable.  According to the ruscorpora.ru, **грози́ть** has been used about 3 times more often than **угрожа́ть** since 2001.  Here are the most notable difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Threatening with something:&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Грозить пальцем&quot; is to wave a protruded index finger meaning &quot;don't do it&quot;. You cannot say &quot;угрожать пальцем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - Similarly, to show somebody your fist in a threatening way is &quot;грозить кулаком&quot;, never &quot;угрожать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - When threatening somebody with a weapon, the word &quot;угрожать&quot; is used when the weapon is dangerous (&quot;грабители угрожали кассиру пистолетом&quot;, but &quot;старушка грозила собаке палкой&quot;).  Generally, for guns and knives &quot;угрожать&quot; is used, while for sticks and stones the verb &quot;угрожать&quot; is used only if there is a real danger.&#xD;&#xA; - Verbal threats (expressed or implied) usually require the verb &quot;угрожать&quot; (&quot;не смей мне угрожать!&quot;, &quot;террористы угрожали убить заложника&quot;), &#xD;&#xA;  - unless these are empty and laughable threats (&quot;муж то грозил повеситься, если я его брошу, то в ногах валялся&quot;). For especially empty and laughable treats, &quot;грозиться&quot; is used (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA; - For expressions like &quot;компании грозит/угрожает банкротство&quot;, both verbs are used, &quot;грозит&quot; is more colloquial, &quot;угрожает&quot; is more formal&#xD;&#xA; - the noun &quot;опасность&quot; governs the verb &quot;угрожает&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7153" RevisionGUID="f181babf-20e4-40a9-938b-bc3788cb36b1" CreationDate="2014-08-14T08:49:16.650" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The words are often interchangable.  According to the ruscorpora.ru, **грози́ть** has been used about 3 times more often than **угрожа́ть** since 2001.  Here are the most notable difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Threatening with something:&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Грозить пальцем&quot; is to wave a protruded index finger meaning &quot;don't do it&quot;. You cannot say &quot;угрожать пальцем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  - Similarly, to show somebody your fist in a threatening way is &quot;грозить кулаком&quot;, never &quot;угрожать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  - When threatening somebody with a weapon, the word &quot;угрожать&quot; is used when the weapon is dangerous (&quot;грабители угрожали кассиру пистолетом&quot;, but &quot;старушка грозила собаке палкой&quot;).  Generally, for guns and knives &quot;угрожать&quot; is used, while for sticks and stones the verb &quot;угрожать&quot; is used only if there is a real danger.&#xD;&#xA; - Verbal threats (expressed or implied) usually require the verb &quot;угрожать&quot; (&quot;не смей мне угрожать!&quot;, &quot;террористы угрожали убить заложника&quot;), &#xD;&#xA;  - unless these are empty and laughable threats (&quot;муж то грозил повеситься, если я его брошу, то в ногах валялся&quot;). For especially empty and laughable treats, &quot;грозиться&quot; is used (colloquial).&#xD;&#xA; - For expressions like &quot;компании грозит/угрожает банкротство&quot;, both verbs are used, &quot;грозит&quot; is more colloquial, &quot;угрожает&quot; is more formal&#xD;&#xA; - the noun &quot;опасность&quot; governs the verb &quot;угрожает&quot;, unless the speech is colloqial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of thumb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in formal speech, &quot;угрожать&quot; should be used except for &quot;грозить пальцем/кулаком&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - in colloquial speech, &quot;угрожать&quot; should be used if somebody&#xD;&#xA;  - expresses threats which are either serious or the fact that he/she dares to threaten is serious&#xD;&#xA;  - or threatens with a dangerous weapon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="68604530-825c-4397-99ee-1d854e46f20f" CreationDate="2014-08-14T09:22:22.320" UserId="4202" Text="I think the best translation would be &quot;Soon you will be talking russian like a real fellow (real gangsta maybe? :) )&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="f6fc9f6d-0fdc-4b3f-8905-45df7b245f34" CreationDate="2014-08-14T09:33:17.973" UserId="4202" Comment="extended variants" Text="I think the best translation would be &quot;Soon you will be talking russian like a real fellow (real gangsta maybe? :) )&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Or, maybe, to highlight slang nature of the word, one could say &quot;real fellah&quot; or something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="4cf08ec2-2fa0-42c0-879f-a0d271423d64" CreationDate="2014-08-14T10:48:11.390" UserId="551" Comment="Please don't ask for Idiomatic English meaning ;)" Text="A friend of mine wrote: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты скоро будешь разговаривать по-русски, как настоящий **пацан**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is a compliment, however I looked it up in several dictionaries and got a basic meaning of *boy, lad*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a meaning of `пацан` in this context? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="75653d33-d037-463f-90fb-dbc3df733a25" CreationDate="2014-08-14T12:23:45.483" UserId="551" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][2], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][4], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][5], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][6], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA; - [Пиздец!][7] - Russian-English slang dictionary | Словарь русского мата и неформального языка&#xD;&#xA; - [Словарь молодёжного сленга](http://teenslang.ru) - explanatory slang dictionary (the idea is similar to urbandictionary.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lurkmore.to&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.russki-mat.net/e/Russian.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="a7c2ac82-b74e-4d5d-ac1d-1991f1f85a9e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T17:44:26.467" UserId="4204" Text="It is used, though, perhaps, not as often. Ссора is a synonym, but with different connotations -- it is generally more _dignified_. Friends can be said to have поссорились, for example, without their ссора becoming a склока. Склока is never dignified -- for neither of the sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And драка is not even a synonym, for it must involve _violence_. English &quot;fight&quot; may or may not imply actual violence, but драка always does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="7ce8858e-071f-4260-817e-9ef7cdb62e84" CreationDate="2014-08-14T18:40:49.820" UserId="4204" Text="&quot;Дятька&quot; is a misspelling (perhaps, _deliberate_) of &quot;дядька&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="59ecf8fe-789c-4744-b8a7-323b90e653a4" CreationDate="2014-08-14T18:48:24.673" UserId="4204" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="It is used, though, perhaps, not as often. Ссора is a synonym, but with different connotations -- it is generally more _dignified_. Friends can be said to have поссорились, for example, without their ссора becoming a склока. Склока is never dignified -- for neither of the sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, склока may be translated as &quot;squabble&quot;, while ссора is more like &quot;break-up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And драка is not even a synonym, for it must involve _violence_. English &quot;fight&quot; may or may not imply actual violence, but драка always does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="7ff36600-ecd9-45ae-ace5-d5462c6f9cd8" CreationDate="2014-08-14T19:54:16.603" UserId="4204" Text="&quot;Get&quot; is also used in English instead of &quot;buy&quot;: &quot;Wow! Where did you get such a nice purse?!&quot; Like взять/брать it means obtaining without necessarily _purchasing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That this more general term is used wider in Russian may be a left-over from Soviet times, when few things' nominal prices reflected their _value_ to the buyer. To buy something, you first had to locate where it is sold -- often by exchanging complicated favors with the would-be seller or other intermediaries. This made the actual transaction -- buying -- itself far less important in the whole process of obtaining. In other words, I tend to share texnic's &quot;well-developed&quot; theory..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="8c3279df-938c-41ac-a066-e8cdecc2a83b" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:09:48.413" UserId="3859" Text="The meaning of &quot;жить можно&quot; is &quot;tolerable&quot; or &quot;will have to do&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Могло быте и лучше, но жить можно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could have been better, but it will have to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="2bbcf49c-ce75-4825-8ecf-bd025411b429" CreationDate="2014-08-14T20:14:52.473" UserId="3859" Text="**Грозить** is transitive and **Угрожать** is intransitive. Грозишь with something and Угрожаешь something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить пистолетом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Угрожать жизнь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="8f2d7e07-ce79-49f8-9cd2-489d7da57540" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:18:27.687" UserId="3777" Comment="Added new resource." Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][7] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][1] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][2] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][3] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][4] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][5] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.babbel.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16315" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="8f2d7e07-ce79-49f8-9cd2-489d7da57540" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:18:27.687" Comment="Proposed by 3777 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 528" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="2e1660f5-c56e-4f15-ab67-62541d0d152f" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:21:42.073" UserId="3859" Text="Not just buy, but sell as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - По чем дают туалетную бумагу?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Я брал по 10 рублей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most definitely stems from Soviet economics. Supply was so inadequate to meet demand, that money did not fit into the equation when speaking about acquiring necessities of life. My mom and dad often borrowed when articles of clothing and such were being &quot;given&quot;.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="e09ac61d-d607-42c2-b816-589f460e8158" CreationDate="2014-08-14T21:26:51.917" UserId="3859" Comment="edited body" Text="**Грозить** is transitive and **Угрожать** is intransitive. Грозишь with something and Угрожаешь something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Грозить пистолетом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Угрожать жизни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7165" RevisionGUID="8c0c2fad-4e5a-4a16-a78b-2ee44b4ddeb1" CreationDate="2014-08-15T02:30:53.197" UserId="4205" Text="I know far more English than I do Russian (disclaimer;-) but I should have thought that a fairly literal translation was also good idiomatic English: &quot;I can live with it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7165" RevisionGUID="92ba24be-19e2-496c-9cfa-ee63836c0182" CreationDate="2014-08-15T02:36:19.270" UserId="4205" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="I know far more English than I do Russian (disclaimer;-) but I should have thought that a fairly literal translation was also good idiomatic English: &quot;I can live with it&quot;.  Happy to be corrected by those who understand Russian better than I do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7165" RevisionGUID="331dc27b-867a-476c-aefc-c2019f7de015" CreationDate="2014-08-15T03:48:17.647" UserId="4205" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="I know far more English than I do Russian (disclaimer;-) but I should have thought that a fairly literal translation was an accurate expression of the Russian meaning, and also good idiomatic English: &quot;I can live with it&quot;.  Happy to be corrected by those who understand Russian better than I do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="d4fe1443-0b12-4c8e-8e2b-c78f7a0ceb94" CreationDate="2014-08-15T08:12:02.980" UserId="4207" Text="In the particular scene of the movie &quot;жить можно&quot; was probably used in a [self-]ironic and a little boastful way, diminishing the overall coolness of all the gadgets bought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="ad069395-5511-4639-b0af-cb217bb4e457" CreationDate="2014-08-15T08:55:02.933" UserId="4207" Text="&gt;Besides, I'm not sure that `взять` actually had such meaning which can be understood in relatively wide context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, it has. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взял себе новую тачку недавно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Bought myself a new car recently.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Взять` (both with slang `тачка` for a car) in this example does have a hint of rather coarse or street slang speech, though may be used ironically among people on good terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16323" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="82a894e1-f89f-4439-8271-3196aba359be" CreationDate="2014-08-15T10:36:32.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/500229546910973952" />
  <row Id="16324" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="5628faa5-7e5f-46b5-8818-bd9a23aba175" CreationDate="2014-08-15T13:22:37.400" UserDisplayName="user2396" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="16325" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="603fb335-0c84-469d-92b6-d3efb5cd69d3" CreationDate="2014-08-15T13:39:37.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/500275619989831680" />
  <row Id="16326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7168" RevisionGUID="2374529a-d850-4228-aef6-38616cd61649" CreationDate="2014-08-15T17:01:10.883" UserId="4208" Text="in this context &quot;очень надо&quot; means &quot;I don't care&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sense &quot;I really need it&quot; it is used mostly in sentences like:&#xD;&#xA;eg &quot;Please help me to find this contact/film/book. Очень надо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;That is short form of &quot;Мне очень нужно найти этот контакт/фильм/книгу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression is used in spoken language and means mostly reluctance and disagreement. &#xD;&#xA;In your dialog it also shows the state of being offended.&#xD;&#xA;It means not only &quot;I don't care to talk with him&quot;, but also &quot;Talking with him kind of humiliates me&quot;, but it's not sarcastic or ironical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. this is my very first answer on stackexchange and I am sorry if I didn't comply with rules or tradition. hope it's useful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="7433ccea-e57a-4af6-a020-07ededcdf2f0" CreationDate="2014-08-15T20:48:06.300" UserId="4208" Text="I'don't know if you are still interested in this translation. It's difficult case and I also had troubles with attitude, translating philosophical texts from English (and Italian) to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Отношение` means how you relate yourself with something, relations can change over time, like relations between people. Как ты к этому относишься? Means what do you think about it now and where you place yourself in the relation to the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Состояние` means state, in your quote &quot;state of mind&quot;, something that can be changed. There is also other meaning of `состояние` - smth you've accumulated, like money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Поведение` is definitely behavior&#xD;&#xA;`Позиция` is a position.&#xD;&#xA;I would use `склонности`, literally it sounds like &quot;inclination&quot; and means that you have a kind way of thinking, doing things, living, but it's not always conscious, cannot be changed only by will without being recognized. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16328" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7099" RevisionGUID="a0e98efc-929c-4f6d-a573-e9e29ee9905d" CreationDate="2014-08-16T10:39:35.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/500592700497092609" />
  <row Id="16329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="0ec89c47-de8c-4b09-a479-faeb0389ec99" CreationDate="2014-08-16T18:03:18.960" UserId="4208" Text="I would say, that `удержать(ся)` is used mostly in direct sense, eg talking about objects and physical action of holding things.&#xD;&#xA;`сдержать(ся)` is used in figurative sense, to stop smth that is often developing very fast and without control, weaken smth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сдержать слезы - hold back tears&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сдержать натиск - stop attack&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сдержать эмоции - hold emotions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сдержать шаг - go slowly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сдержать обещание - keep a word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;придержать язык - keep mouth close, keep silence, secret (lit. keep tongue)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the rule of thumb - whatever you can keep physically use `удержать`, what is not possible to hold in hands `сдержать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about military attack - can be used both, as you can stop it physically or by negotiations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same about tears or laugh, when you try to stop laughing, you keep your hands near lips for example, so it's sometimes also physical action.&#xD;&#xA;But definitely it's difficult to hear удержать слово (keep a word)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="b44f7be6-4c0d-4db8-a3e9-812373b6414f" CreationDate="2014-08-17T07:04:42.097" UserId="4153" Text="One more attitude can be added here. If by context it's obvious that it's an irony so it's simple needed to put in in inversion: instead of &quot;I need it so much (it's very/really needed)&quot; should be read as &quot;I don't need it&quot; but, speaker at the same time have an apology because basically it would be desirable to commit an action, but due to circumstances speaker's disappointed and now doesn't like to act (is not in a good mood or even doesn't strategically see a benefit in the offered action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But technically, having these two phrases without a context we don't know for sure whether it's a direct intention like &quot;Yes, it's very needed&quot; or it's an irony &quot;I don't need it&quot;. Only context and background situation can make sense about what speaker thinks saying this.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="0c566df4-90bf-4fd7-8dcf-a1854b8fb621" CreationDate="2014-08-17T07:29:37.417" UserId="4153" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="One more attitude can be added here. If by context it's obvious that it's an irony so it's simple needed to put in in inversion: instead of `Очень надо!`, &quot;I need it so much (it's very/really needed)&quot; should be read as `Не очень надо!`,&quot;I don't need it&quot; but, speaker at the same time have an apology because basically it would be desirable to commit an action, but due to circumstances speaker's disappointed and now doesn't like to act (is not in a good mood or even doesn't strategically see a benefit in the offered action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But technically, having these two phrases without a context we don't know for sure whether it's a direct intention like &quot;Yes, it's very needed&quot; or it's an irony &quot;I don't need it&quot;. Only context and background situation can make sense about what speaker thinks saying this.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="7770289d-b234-4229-b063-103bf58ee20a" CreationDate="2014-08-17T19:14:48.887" UserId="2079" Text="**Удерживают** материальные объекты, животных, людей.  Удержать means either to physically retain something or somebody or to convince somebody not to do something (удержать кого-либо от чего-либо).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сдерживают** нематериальное: эмоции, проявления эмоций (смех, слёзы и т.п.), натиск/атаку противника, слово/обещание/клятву (сдержать слово - to keep a word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Удержаться/сдержаться** means to refrain from doing something which one wants to.  **Сдержаться** is used when one wanted to do it because of anger or hate, **удержаться** is used for all other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вася не удержался и съел конфету Пети. Увидев это, Петя не сдержался и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ударил Васю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="cfa7873f-e11f-4527-9d96-6d6fa2d4c3ce" CreationDate="2014-08-17T19:26:09.880" UserId="2079" Comment="added 361 characters in body" Text="**Удерживают** материальные объекты, животных, людей.  Удержать means either to physically retain something or somebody or to convince somebody not to do something (удержать кого-либо от чего-либо).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сдерживают** нематериальное: эмоции, проявления эмоций (смех, слёзы и т.п.), натиск/атаку противника, слово/обещание/клятву (сдержать слово - to keep a word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Удержаться/сдержаться** means to refrain from doing something which one wants to.  **Сдержаться** is used when one wanted to do it because of anger or hate, **удержаться** is used for all other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не удержаться/не сдержаться** means that one wants to do something, tries to refrain from it, but fails (the temptation is too strong).  Again, не сдержаться is used only if he/she acted from anger/hate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шарик не удержался и съел конфету Бобика. Увидев это, Бобик не сдержался и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; укусил Шарика. Собаки подрались.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sharik knew that he should not eat it, but it was too tasty.  Bobik knew that he should not bite Sharik, but he was too angry.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="f4bfc040-dc43-4af3-a36e-be45f6d42d29" CreationDate="2014-08-18T02:38:24.280" UserId="993" Text="I came across the phrase, &quot;Passing yachtsmen raised the alarm after spotting him...&quot; Could I say the following using the verb `плавать` with the prefix `про` to indicate passing in order to bypass using the participle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Яхтсмены, которые проплавали, поднимали тревогу...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I say this properly using the a participle for &quot;Passing yachtsmen?&quot; I basically don't understand how to form a participle with a prefixed verb of motion or even how to form a regular participle. I can just recognize them in text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="f4bfc040-dc43-4af3-a36e-be45f6d42d29" CreationDate="2014-08-18T02:38:24.280" UserId="993" Text="How to properly translate &quot;Passing Yachtsmen?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="f4bfc040-dc43-4af3-a36e-be45f6d42d29" CreationDate="2014-08-18T02:38:24.280" UserId="993" Text="|participle|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="d774170d-e5d4-46c2-b6d6-fcc5917dfc76" CreationDate="2014-08-18T05:03:28.447" UserId="4153" Text="`Passing yachtsmen` it's definitely `проплывающие яхтсмены`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="09b94f36-5bf8-4918-8108-1f2335aeb3d4" CreationDate="2014-08-18T05:21:11.803" UserId="4153" Comment="added 443 characters in body" Text="`Passing yachtsmen` it's definitely `проплывающие яхтсмены`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adverbial participle of static actions usually don't have a prefix `про`, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читащий, решающий, говорящий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but some statically active (dynamic action in static position) can be with `про` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проигрывающий (сидит на месте, но проигывает) , проворчивающий (сидит на месте, но проворачивает),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adverbial participle of movement  usually have, comapre:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проходящий, проплывающий, пробегающий, пролетающий, проползающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="ca7c2d13-870e-473b-a855-61956dee62b6" CreationDate="2014-08-18T05:27:15.343" UserId="2269" Text="_...кото́рые пропл&lt;b&gt;ы&lt;/b&gt;ва́ли_ (from _плы́ть_ ), not _пропла́вали_ (from _пла́вать_), cf. _езжа́ть_ → _проезжа́ющие_. I doubt that prefix can ever affect the way how a participle is formed. So it may be _Проплыва́вшие яхтсме́ны_ (past participle) or _Проплыва́ющие яхтсме́ны_ (present participle), both would be grammatically correct here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, though I do not know the context of course, most probably you want to say _подня́ли трево́гу_ / _по́дняли трево́гу_ (perfective) rather than _поднима́ли_ (imperfective)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7176" RevisionGUID="ad9edbe5-561b-43f2-a049-b919bb8e1b19" CreationDate="2014-08-18T05:32:58.213" UserId="2269" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="_...кото́рые пропл&lt;b&gt;ы&lt;/b&gt;ва́ли_ (from unidirectional motion verb _плы́ть_), not _пропла́вали_ (from multidirectional / cyclical _пла́вать_), cf. unidirectional _езжа́ть_ → _проезжа́ющие_. As for prefix, I doubt that it can ever affect the way how a participle is formed. So it may be _Проплыва́вшие яхтсме́ны_ (past participle) or _Проплыва́ющие яхтсме́ны_ (present participle), both would be grammatically correct here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, though I do not know the context of course, most probably you want to say _подня́ли трево́гу_ / _по́дняли трево́гу_ (perfective) rather than _поднима́ли_ (imperfective)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="b988a134-ca67-4c03-8299-b242d2793eea" CreationDate="2014-08-18T07:21:05.303" UserId="4210" Comment="added link to convertcyrillic.com" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16344" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="b988a134-ca67-4c03-8299-b242d2793eea" CreationDate="2014-08-18T07:21:05.303" Comment="Proposed by 4210 approved by 2269, 551 edit id of 530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16345" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7174" RevisionGUID="3b2bd03f-385e-4973-86c0-c3911181836c" CreationDate="2014-08-18T07:45:28.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/501273660272156672" />
  <row Id="16346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="cbb365c6-4c95-4de6-b255-d415cce957f3" CreationDate="2014-08-18T09:17:28.273" UserId="4207" Text="In addition to previous answers, considering nautical/sailor own professional language, probably `проходившие яхтсмены` could be better sounding than `проплывавшие`. My father was in Soviet Navy and he _still_ hates saying or hearing something like _&quot;корабль плывёт&quot;_, reasoning like _&quot;плавают люди, а корабли ходят&quot;_, hence he argues _&quot;моряки ходят на кораблях&quot;_, and _&quot;моряк плывёт&quot;_ in his opinion explicitly means _&quot;a sailor swims&quot;_, not _&quot;a seaman sails&quot;_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="ded07ce6-c894-4f00-aa05-bed29a713712" CreationDate="2014-08-18T12:55:00.440" UserId="4153" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Passing yachtsmen` it's definitely `проплывающие яхтсмены`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adverbial participle of static actions usually don't have a prefix `про`, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читащий, решающий, говорящий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but some statically active (dynamic action in static position) can be with `про` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проигрывающий (сидит на месте, но проигывает) , проворачивающий (сидит на месте, но проворачивает),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adverbial participles of motion usually have, compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проходящий, проплывающий, пробегающий, пролетающий, проползающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="07af89db-6405-42a3-8e6b-1f35cbe96830" CreationDate="2014-08-18T13:48:04.393" UserId="4207" Text="In this context to translate &quot;attitude&quot; I would start from phenomenon of `характер`, though it's pretty far from literal translation. Probably would be needing to re-phrase something in the surrounding text according to the word, but it could pay off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него бойцовый характер. _(He has a fighter's attitude / He's a figher)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой он бесхарактерный! _(He's such a sissy!)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его мягкий характер не даёт ему делать карьеру. _(He can't make a career because of facile nature of his)_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="d550dcd7-6abe-4ae2-8183-4d4ccc75af93" CreationDate="2014-08-18T15:41:31.157" UserId="4213" Text="It's ironic. &#xD;&#xA;Where it's not, it means **to want something bad**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="431910cd-6c34-468d-b386-31f2de232642" CreationDate="2014-08-19T00:23:25.153" UserId="4214" Text="When dictating stories on his deathbed some 50 years ago, my great grandfather passed along to my great aunt the idea—which he got from his grandfather, a West Prussian émigré—that our last name, *Strehlke*, means *arrow man*. Many years later, my father stumbled upon the Russian word *стрелка*, which, if we're not mistaken, means *arrow*, and sensed a connection. Though I don't speak Russian, I did a little looking online and was unable to uncover the etymology of *стрелка*. I'm wondering if one of you can help me find the origin of the word—I have no reason to believe that my family or our name is Russian, and I'd be particularly interested in any reason why the word or its root might be linked to a Germanic language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="431910cd-6c34-468d-b386-31f2de232642" CreationDate="2014-08-19T00:23:25.153" UserId="4214" Text="Etymology of стрелка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="431910cd-6c34-468d-b386-31f2de232642" CreationDate="2014-08-19T00:23:25.153" UserId="4214" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7181" RevisionGUID="fd74ad76-c46d-4aa7-8f32-9d3296b74ecf" CreationDate="2014-08-19T04:09:00.277" UserId="2269" Text="_Стре́лка_ indeed means ‘arrow’ in sense of ‘line with arrowhead’, ‘needle / pointer [of an instrument]’, ‘hand [of a watch]’ and so forth. It is a diminutive of _стрела́_, which mainly stands for ‘arrow’ as a projectile. The modern German word ascending to the same PIE root is _Strahl_ /ʃtʀaːl/ (beam, ray).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your name, it’s not Russian of course, but suffix _-ke_ in combination with place of origin (Prussia) however quite clearly hints for Slavic roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="84ac4a8b-2e89-4867-aea1-fd608479dafd" CreationDate="2014-08-19T04:09:51.690" UserId="194" Text="The Russian word &quot;strelka&quot; (I use the transliteration only because there is no trouble to translaterate this word, as all used here letters have more or less exact Latin equivalents) is a deminutive from &quot;strela&quot;. The first word is used to denote an arrow pointer, a geometric arrow, the later is used to denote the projectile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that a surname could originate from a geometric arrow or pointer, but there is also a related Russian word &quot;strelok&quot; which means a shooter (which in turn originates from &quot;strela&quot;). I suggest that your surname can originate from this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is cognate to Lithuanian strēlà &quot;arrow&quot;, Latvian &quot;strę̀la&quot; &quot;arrow&quot;, &quot;stream&quot;, &quot;strip&quot;, Old English &quot;strǟl&quot; &quot;arrow&quot;, German &quot;Strahl&quot; &quot;beam, stream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further etymology is uncertain. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7183" RevisionGUID="e9ce28cf-c5a1-459b-8ff6-791f67ac8461" CreationDate="2014-08-19T07:11:35.190" UserId="4153" Text="Even the surname `Стрелка` (&quot;arrow&quot;) exists nowadays in Russia and Ukraine. It deviates from traditionally spelled Russian surname `Стрелков` which turned into `Стрелк(о)/(а)` in Ukaraine the same way as Slavic second names deviated often in Eastern Europe, e.g. Czhech, Serbia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="b02a6232-f6b6-4140-b11a-2e2d02f4dd7a" CreationDate="2014-08-19T07:52:52.840" UserId="2246" Comment="added one more link" Text="You can hear the exact pronunciation here for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://slovari.yandex.ru/тоска/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqJKMv09mww&amp;t=25m30s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опять **тоска**, опять любовь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="1d8bbd5c-1683-44f9-96f1-c6f218d8f2d6" CreationDate="2014-08-20T04:27:07.903" UserId="4153" Text="Not in a context of the question, but related to it and helpful giving some additional, not presented yet, info. Because also the word `спешить` has another _Semantic property_ or _meaning property_ in despite the writing/spelling is the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешить - вынудить спешиться, то есть сойти или упасть с коня, велосипеда и т. п., выйти из транспортного средства — `&quot;Какой-то французской офицер объезжает передовую цепь. — Не спешить ли его? — шепнул второй часовой, взводя курок.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opposite semantics, or antonym:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посадить, усадить (например, в седло)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="94f43d7d-2de0-49df-80f7-c8fc30ba21b9" CreationDate="2014-08-20T04:34:11.747" UserId="4153" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Not in a direct context of the question, but related to it giving some additional, not presented yet, info. Because also the word `спешить` has another _Semantic property_ or _meaning property_ in despite the writing/spelling is the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешить - вынудить спешиться, то есть сойти или упасть с коня, велосипеда и т. п., выйти из транспортного средства — `&quot;Какой-то французской офицер объезжает передовую цепь. — Не спешить ли его? — шепнул второй часовой, взводя курок.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opposite semantics, or antonym:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посадить, усадить (например, в седло)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="4c900772-c7f4-4536-b424-9148d3404421" CreationDate="2014-08-21T06:33:09.747" UserDisplayName="user4217" Text="I vaguely remember discussing the phrase &lt;&lt;не за что!&gt;&gt; with my Russian teacher and I believe that he said the phrase has different meanings when spoken in different ways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do remember that one meaning is basically &quot;Hell no!&quot; What is the correct intonation/pronunciation for the phrase when its delivered with this meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another meaning when the phrase is spoken with a different intonation/pronunciation? If so, what is it and how do I say it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="4c900772-c7f4-4536-b424-9148d3404421" CreationDate="2014-08-21T06:33:09.747" UserDisplayName="user4217" Text="Does the phrase &lt;&lt;не за что!&gt;&gt; have two meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="4c900772-c7f4-4536-b424-9148d3404421" CreationDate="2014-08-21T06:33:09.747" UserDisplayName="user4217" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="38e9cba2-d4af-4c9a-9d4e-90a9ab685716" CreationDate="2014-08-21T07:03:24.053" UserId="4219" Text="I native in Russian and hard to imagine other meaning of this phrase except this one : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this phase use when somebody to say &quot;Thank you&quot; to you and you , by showing that this was very easy for you, answer like &quot;You shouldn't thank me at all &quot; but &quot;thanks me&quot; is omitted. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16368" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="8fd66712-c095-44f2-911f-81f8e26bc476" CreationDate="2014-08-21T07:25:40.260" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the phrase &quot;не за что!&quot; have two meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7189" RevisionGUID="fabc56d6-8d70-4a3d-8f70-29176aabc6d9" CreationDate="2014-08-21T07:33:08.100" UserId="4207" Text="&gt; I do remember that one meaning is basically &quot;Hell no!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase was `ни за что`, not `не за что`, and is pronounced with accent on `что`, while _glad to help_ phrase `не за что [благодарить]` is pronounced with accent on `не`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full form of `ни за что` would be _&quot;ни за что на свете&quot;_, meaning no possible reward would make the speaker to agree to something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7189" RevisionGUID="0926d97e-0a0f-4b0d-b8aa-ce24cf04ea40" CreationDate="2014-08-21T07:50:32.650" UserId="2269" Comment="И почему бы не показать ударения знаками ударения?" Text="&gt; I do remember that one meaning is basically &quot;Hell no!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase was _ни за что́_, not _не́ за что_, and is pronounced with accent on _что_, while _glad to help_ phrase _не́ за что [благодари́ть]_ is pronounced with accent on _не_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full form of _ни за что́_ would be _ни за что́ на све́те_, meaning no possible reward would make the speaker to agree to something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="3dfd71ed-cebb-4b02-8ae5-af3c0ea5af00" CreationDate="2014-08-21T09:41:03.763" UserId="4153" Text="&gt; `&quot;Не за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(stress on the first syllable) is widely used as synonym phrase to `&quot;Пожалуйста&quot;` but with the meaning closer to `&quot;Not at all&quot;` rather than to `&quot;You are welcome&quot;`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Ни за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(stress on the last syllable) means `&quot;Hell no!&quot;` or `&quot;The hell I'll do!&quot;`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="8c99c4f8-3a0a-44c4-a0a2-0dd32aa441b1" CreationDate="2014-08-21T10:33:26.660" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; `&quot;Не за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(phrase stress on the first word) is widely used as synonym phrase to `&quot;Пожалуйста&quot;` but with the meaning closer to `&quot;Not at all&quot;` rather than to `&quot;You are welcome&quot;`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Ни за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(phrase stress on the last word) means `&quot;Hell no!&quot;` or `&quot;The hell I'll do!&quot;`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="b5277ff9-8f2d-40d2-b4af-2ab953c1ca37" CreationDate="2014-08-21T10:57:38.440" UserId="4153" Comment="fixed grammar, improved formatting" Text="I am a native Russian speaker and it's hard to imagine other meaning of this phrase except this one : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not at all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this phase is used when somebody wants to say `&quot;Thank you&quot;` to you and you pronounce this phrase in order to show that this was very easy for you, as you would answer &quot;You shouldn't thank me at all &quot; but &quot;thanks me&quot; is omitted. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16379" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="b5277ff9-8f2d-40d2-b4af-2ab953c1ca37" CreationDate="2014-08-21T10:57:38.440" Comment="Proposed by 4153 approved by 267, 551 edit id of 531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7192" RevisionGUID="4da1a36f-5c56-4bf0-a89b-d381d55d3418" CreationDate="2014-08-21T11:00:47.440" UserId="3566" Text="You can say &quot;Не за что&quot; meaning &quot;Это не стоит того&quot;. For example &quot;благодарить эту страну не за что&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="15a66822-1d7f-4bc4-9fed-5eed2cea1ea8" CreationDate="2014-08-21T12:46:58.003" UserId="3892" Comment="changed to &quot;the hell I will!&quot;" Text="&gt; `&quot;Не за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(phrase stress on the first word) is widely used as synonym phrase to `&quot;Пожалуйста&quot;` but with the meaning closer to `&quot;Not at all&quot;` rather than to `&quot;You are welcome&quot;`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Ни за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(phrase stress on the last word) means `&quot;Hell no!&quot;` or `&quot;The hell I will!&quot;`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16382" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="324de9fb-beb0-4e64-b3f3-3bb849bf49b4" CreationDate="2014-08-21T21:29:55.977" UserId="-1" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:115,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dima&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="f5ede0e2-a516-4b96-910f-cb738b3de139" CreationDate="2014-08-22T03:33:01.997" UserId="4224" Text="I am learning Russian and I've stumbled upon this piece of text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't quite figure out what it says...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Однажды я гулял по лесу, вижу колодец. Подхожу к нему, захожу в лифт,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сажусь на велосипед, завожу мотоцикл, тут Бац, ко мне кондуктор&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подходит, и говорит: ''Дядя, уступи место'' А я говорю что не курю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так этот ребенок как начнет плакать! Но я не растерялся, и как дал ему&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по роже, а он хватается за коленку и кричит: ''Моя спина! Моя спина!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; '' А я думаю, может он совсем дибил? Выхожу я из этой электрички,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; смотрю, маршрутка стоит. Ну подхожу и говорю: ''винстон синий и водки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0,5'' Ну она мне и дает bond и пиво, я беру эту приму и самогон, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; убегаю от этих мусоров! Так эти пожарники меня на скорой догнали!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Догнали и говорят: ''Вы сдачу забыли! '' Ну я беру килограмм яблок, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; иду на базар торговать! Приношу, успел выложить эти бананы, тут же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бабка подбегает, и скупает у меня все персики, и говорит чтобы все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложил в кулечек! А я думаю, что она совсем дура, как я ей 20 арбузов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в сумку положу?! Взял я деньги и пошел домой! Больше я в лес не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ходил... и грибы не трогал. Лучше в компьютер пойду поиграю!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like a story of a guy, but I really can't quite understand it, and the translation software doesn't make sense as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="f5ede0e2-a516-4b96-910f-cb738b3de139" CreationDate="2014-08-22T03:33:01.997" UserId="4224" Text="Learning Russian - Can someone explain what that means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="f5ede0e2-a516-4b96-910f-cb738b3de139" CreationDate="2014-08-22T03:33:01.997" UserId="4224" Text="|значения|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="220de9d0-7c13-406c-bfe6-24ce0f145b9f" CreationDate="2014-08-22T03:39:14.690" UserId="1236" Text="The text is complete nonsense, it can serve as a good example of [schizophasia][1]. Obviously the text is intended to sound funny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophasia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="6420f821-f98e-4906-a74b-3a5935c97be2" CreationDate="2014-08-22T03:51:28.103" UserId="2273" Text="The giveaway is the sentence before the last:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Больше я в лес не ходил... и грибы не трогал&#xD;&#xA;It hints that the person describing this nonsense has eaten some mushrooms in the woods and got hallucinated a bit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16388" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7193" RevisionGUID="fccb834c-e172-40f6-8471-d503e3161ea8" CreationDate="2014-08-22T19:43:38.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/502903945866805248" />
  <row Id="16389" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="80169811-8613-4b0d-be6a-88b847f5a02d" CreationDate="2014-08-23T04:43:38.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/503039840594964480" />
  <row Id="16391" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="fa40efa7-97a2-4fbc-8f28-f86678b64796" CreationDate="2014-08-23T15:20:18.863" UserId="-1" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="16392" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="a5a003e9-351a-4f6f-9706-2f5ee5c51b4d" CreationDate="2014-08-23T16:43:38.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/503221033370144768" />
  <row Id="16393" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="eb4e8140-c034-4a43-b0a0-a178add57dcf" CreationDate="2014-08-24T13:55:33.230" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/503541120727810048" />
  <row Id="16394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="31941e4a-2b45-4202-af45-443b16dde715" CreationDate="2014-08-25T04:15:03.210" UserId="4153" Comment="added 668 characters in body" Text="&gt; `&quot;Не за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(phrase stress on the first word) is widely used as synonym phrase to `&quot;Пожалуйста&quot;` but with the meaning closer to `&quot;Not at all&quot;` rather than to `&quot;You are welcome&quot;`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Ни за что&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(phrase stress on the last word) means `&quot;Hell no!&quot;` or `&quot;The hell I will!&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: As Andrey Chernyakhovskiy correctly added in his comment,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While these phrases are often used idiomatically, they themselves are not idioms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Не за что` literally means `'there is nothing [to ... for/at/behind]'`: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `не за что благодарить` means `&quot;there is nothing to thank for&quot;`, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `его не за что винить` means `&quot;there's nothing to blame him for&quot;`,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `не за что глазу зацепиться` means `&quot;there's nothing for the eye to be caught at&quot;`, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `не за что спрятаться` means `&quot;there's nothing to hide oneself behind&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is a particular case of a generic template `не` + preposition + `кто/что` in relevant case which is quite ubiquitous.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="9a5d10c9-a6ae-440a-9a7e-e356b5fe027a" CreationDate="2014-08-25T20:26:32.840" UserId="4236" Text="&gt;Дело о миллионе программистов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: http://www.computerra.ru/105643/delo-o-millione-programmistov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="9a5d10c9-a6ae-440a-9a7e-e356b5fe027a" CreationDate="2014-08-25T20:26:32.840" UserId="4236" Text="В каком значении употреблено слово “дело ” в этом заглавии?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7196" RevisionGUID="9a5d10c9-a6ae-440a-9a7e-e356b5fe027a" CreationDate="2014-08-25T20:26:32.840" UserId="4236" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="71b94cbd-ad78-4a94-9a4e-8801a4f13d5f" CreationDate="2014-08-25T22:45:16.830" UserId="2079" Text="&quot;The Case of Million Programmers&quot;.  This is probably an allusion to Erle Stanley Gardner, whose detective stories about Perry Mason, often called &quot;The Case of ...&quot; (translated as &quot;Дело о ...&quot;), were very popular in Russia in 1990-s." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="69063daa-2db8-48d6-aee8-ad7ddd4a3909" CreationDate="2014-08-25T22:55:20.970" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="&quot;Дело о миллионе программистов&quot; means &quot;The Case of Million Programmers&quot;.  The header is only loosely connected to the contents of the article. It is fairly common in Russian journalism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="1a648057-3a5c-47af-9ba9-da940f637d36" CreationDate="2014-08-26T02:45:16.163" UserId="282" Text="Coming from english, I don't see much difference in meaning between these words because they both translate to &quot;change&quot;.  Is it just a case of knowing with what situation it's supposed to be used in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;менять:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Осенью погода часто меняется : утром холодно, днём тепло, вечером снова холодно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я никогда не меняю деньги на улице, только в банке. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;изменить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Когда я приехал в свой родной город через много лет, я с трудом его узнал: так он изменился ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Каждый хочет изменить свою жизнь к лучшему. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="1a648057-3a5c-47af-9ba9-da940f637d36" CreationDate="2014-08-26T02:45:16.163" UserId="282" Text="How do you know when to use изменить/измениться vs менять/меняться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="1a648057-3a5c-47af-9ba9-da940f637d36" CreationDate="2014-08-26T02:45:16.163" UserId="282" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="e7d3d4aa-e0bd-4a70-bf39-389274e24ea4" CreationDate="2014-08-26T04:20:09.063" UserId="2079" Text="Менять and изменить are not synonims. This pair of verbs is видовая пара. Менять is imperfective (несовершенный вид), изменить is perfective (совершенный вид). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Вчера Вася изменил свою жизнь к лучшему, разведясь со сварливой женой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - В последние годы Вася много раз менял свою жизнь к лучшему.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Вася постепенно меняет свою жизнь к лучшему.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Родной город сильно изменился за последние годы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Родной город много раз менялся за последние годы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Родной город всё время меняется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn about such grammar categories as несовершенный вид, совершенный вид, and видовая пара.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А synonim to менять is изменять.  А synonim to изменить are поменять.  They are mostly interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - to exchage (money) is always менять (деньги).  Perfective is&#xD;&#xA;   обменять, поменять, разменять. For excanging one currency to another,&#xD;&#xA;   обменять (валюту) is most common. For exchanging banknotes or coins&#xD;&#xA;   of different value (i. e. a dime for two five-cent coins), разменять&#xD;&#xA;   is used. &#xD;&#xA; - to cheat a spouse or to betray somebody or something is&#xD;&#xA;   translated as изменить (кому-либу, чему-либо). Imperfective is&#xD;&#xA;   изменять.  Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вася изменил жене. Хорошо, что он не изменил идеалам коммунизма!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="37ec29f2-8a1e-4fb5-83e5-7538d6f26609" CreationDate="2014-08-26T08:02:48.770" UserId="551" Comment="removed extra spaces" Text="Coming from english, I don't see much difference in meaning between these words because they both translate to &quot;change&quot;.  Is it just a case of knowing with what situation it's supposed to be used in?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**менять:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Осенью погода часто меняется: утром холодно, днём тепло, вечером снова холодно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я никогда не меняю деньги на улице, только в банке. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**изменить:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Когда я приехал в свой родной город через много лет, я с трудом его узнал: так он изменился! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Каждый хочет изменить свою жизнь к лучшему. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16406" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="bfba1eed-68d7-4316-bc48-4469511c7818" CreationDate="2014-08-26T10:49:05.777" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="29fd2ce4-267c-4190-abb3-d2a6e640c7b8" CreationDate="2014-08-26T10:52:00.200" UserId="2388" Text="These two even have different aspects. A more meaningful question would be, how **менять(ся)** and  **изменять(ся)** are different. Then поменять/разменять and so on naturally join the crowd :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, they are interchangeable *to an extent*, in SOME meanings. The basic difference is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - менять = to &quot;modify&quot;(be modified) OR to &quot;replace&quot; something (be replaced by something else)&#xD;&#xA; - изменять = to &quot;modify&quot; (be modified). And only that. The verb cannot mean that a thing not only changed its properties but got completely replaced by another thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that &quot;менять&quot; has a broader meaning, you can use different perfective counterparts for it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;change&quot; as in &quot;They changed their opinion&quot;. → ***изменить(ся)***, also **поменять(ся)**.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;change&quot; in the meaning of &quot;exchanging&quot; things → ***обменять/поменять***&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;change&quot; as &quot;Last year they changed the headmaster (replaced by a new one)&quot; → ***заменить/сменить***&#xD;&#xA; - exchanging cash when your money is so big that a seller cannot give you change → ***разменять***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is yet another evidence that on a more advanced level you find that the aspectual pairs are just a practical thing, not the truth central to the language. That is, you will always have an aspectual pair at hand when you need to convert an &quot;event&quot; into a &quot;process&quot; or &quot;repeated event&quot; (or vice versa). However, in reality each prefix has a cloud of meanings, and there are no prefixes that &quot;just&quot; convert a verb into a perfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason you have &quot;pairs&quot; is that for most verbs there is one prefix with a meaning that very much overlaps the verb's own meaning. For example, when you replace someone — then the &quot;away&quot;, &quot;off&quot; meaning of the prefix &quot;с-&quot; overlaps your particular meaning of &quot;менять&quot;: removing something and placing something else there. So &quot;сменить&quot; becomes a natural perfective counterpart. &quot;Переменить&quot; also works, to an extent, though I would not use it myself that often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;изменить&quot;(изменять) has a second meaning: to *betray, fail* someone. In a more specific meaning, to cheat on your wife or husband (though still used in combinations like &quot;My mind fails me&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="e7a3f2a4-9bc8-4e25-a97b-6dc86fc09285" CreationDate="2014-08-26T18:53:21.453" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There is no reason to worry that this question would be closed - it is indeed a very good question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word _Негр_ is not considered racist in Russia or Russian language.  Do note that the scientific name for the race is _Negroid_ - hence the word to describe an individual representative of that race.  This word is different in pronunciation from the N-word in America that you're referring to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally have studied and lived in the USA for over 10 years and do understand your sentiments very well.  However the reason the N-word is considered racist is historical rather than linguistic.  In the USA, the racism of the word has origins in the black slave trade of 18-19th centuries, where word _negro_ was pretty much equated to the word &quot;slave&quot;.  The N-word is simply a derogative derivative of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in Russia historically the black population has always been extremely small and Russia never really experienced the black slave trade anywhere near the level of the USA, there was no reason for the word to gain a negative connotation. Hence, again, In Russian the word is not racist and is not considered derogatory in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts, naturally, word _негр_ may be used as a derogative, but that would be a minority case.  There is also a rather rude version _ниггер_, recently borrowed from English, which corresponds directly to the N-word you are referring to - and this word _is_ racist and derogative and would not be used in normal conversations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="ef9a4b0b-969b-4591-8b90-bc7b47dd64d7" CreationDate="2014-08-27T05:37:47.917" UserId="4153" Text="Can be also translated as `&quot;A point of a million programmers&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article sheds light on perspectives of a million programmers due to changes happened. It touches a coming future for the whole branch of IT industry in the country. Of course as a standalone title it can be translated as &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;A matter of ...&quot;`, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;A case of ...&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something sort of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;An agenda is a million of programmers&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **But** would not first two titles sound as a court case and the latter as a listening to a law project to be accepted? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this perspective it can be translated simply as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;The thing of/about a million programmers&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;A point about...&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the meaning of `fate of ...`, `future (perspectives) of ...` or `comming changes for ...`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7203" RevisionGUID="d4028d1b-56a7-4906-be28-6a5ecdd73faf" CreationDate="2014-08-27T07:15:03.250" UserId="3887" Text="&gt; So why is взять or брать used instead of купить or покупать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Approximately for the same reasons that &quot;to pick up&quot; and &quot;to get&quot; are sometimes used instead of &quot;to buy&quot; in English. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="38b25165-0e1a-42b1-88f2-7aaa6d4d8c4a" CreationDate="2014-08-27T07:30:40.043" UserId="4204" Text="Possible translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The *case* of a million programmers&#xD;&#xA; - The million-programmers *affair*&#xD;&#xA; - The *matter* of a million programmers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7205" RevisionGUID="7f270dae-440d-48f2-9aea-72b41d3acd65" CreationDate="2014-08-27T10:14:16.893" UserId="1829" Text="How would I translate sentences like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the russian [Wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8) version of this phrase uses the informal you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there a literal translation without rephrasing to a you-form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7205" RevisionGUID="7f270dae-440d-48f2-9aea-72b41d3acd65" CreationDate="2014-08-27T10:14:16.893" UserId="1829" Text="How does one translate &quot;one&quot; (as in this very question)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7205" RevisionGUID="7f270dae-440d-48f2-9aea-72b41d3acd65" CreationDate="2014-08-27T10:14:16.893" UserId="1829" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7206" RevisionGUID="509d3f74-d0f3-4323-a132-d938999dd585" CreationDate="2014-08-27T10:26:03.843" UserId="97" Text="While the Russian idiom is indeed using _you_ (_вы/ты_) version, you could literally translate the English version using word _человек_ (_person, human_):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек не должен поступать с другими так, как он не хочет, чтобы поступали с ним.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (or)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек не должен относиться к другим так, как он не хочет, чтобы относились к нему.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pronoun _он_ (_he_) is only used because Russian word _человек_ is a masculine noun - the statement applies equally to men and women.  In fact, it's exactly for this reason that English word _one_ is used, rather than _man_ or _woman_.  As in English, words for _человек_ and _мужчина_ are one and the same - _man_ and hence using it in the sentence above is likely to be interpreted as addressing a male audience rather than human audience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's worth noting that Russian word-for-word literal translation may sound overcomplicated  due to double negatives.  Instead, you could turn it into a positive  version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек должен поступать с другими так, как он хочет, чтобы поступали с ним.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (or)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек должен относиться к другим так, как он хочет, чтобы относились к нему." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7207" RevisionGUID="2aac603d-4373-40c5-ae97-8250aed56dca" CreationDate="2014-08-27T10:29:25.627" UserId="2388" Text=" - you can use *generic 2nd person*, which is typical for proverbs and morals. Use Singular but WITHOUT pronoun: &quot;Не относись к другим так, как не хочешь, чтобы относились к тебе&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - You can opt for infinitive impersonal sentences: &quot;Не следует относиться к другим людям так, как не хочешь, чтобы относились к тебе &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal treatment would be &quot;Человек не должен относиться к другим так, как не хочет, чтобы люди относились к нему&quot; but it is weird and is not typical for such costructions (sounds non-native, i.e. a person knows Russian but obviously lacks experience with how people do and do not say things)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="6b17b834-d35d-495b-9e38-5666688a5039" CreationDate="2014-08-27T14:11:35.410" UserId="4242" Text="There is also an idiom &quot;Ни за *что* ни про *что*&quot;. It means &quot;for nothing&quot;, &quot;without a reason&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;Человека избили ни за что ни про что!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7207" RevisionGUID="1d34d92a-f223-4bd6-a708-c3b74dc5daea" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:08:36.547" UserId="4153" Comment="minor typo fixed, fortmatting improved" Text=" - you can use *generic 2nd person*, which is typical for proverbs and morals. Use Singular but **without** pronoun: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Не относись к другим так, как не хочешь, чтобы относились к тебе&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can opt for infinitive impersonal sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Не следует относиться к другим людям так, как не хочешь, чтобы относились к тебе &quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal treatment would be &quot;Человек не должен относиться к другим так, как не хочет, чтобы люди относились к нему&quot; but it is weird and is not typical for such constructions (sounds non-native, i.e. a person knows Russian but obviously lacks experience with how people do and do not say things)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16425" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7207" RevisionGUID="1d34d92a-f223-4bd6-a708-c3b74dc5daea" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:08:36.547" Comment="Proposed by 4153 approved by -1 edit id of 534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7207" RevisionGUID="69355609-42cd-45db-930f-e2ffdd2fff74" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:08:36.547" UserId="2269" Comment="minor typo fixed, fortmatting improved" Text=" - you can use *generic 2nd person*, which is typical for proverbs and morals. Use Singular but **without** pronoun: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Не относись к другим так, как не хочешь, чтобы относились к тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You can opt for infinitive impersonal sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Не следует относиться к другим людям так, как не хочешь, чтобы относились к тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal treatment would be _“Человек не должен относиться к другим так, как не хочет, чтобы люди относились к нему”_ but it is weird and is not typical for such constructions (sounds non-native, i.e. a person knows Russian but obviously lacks experience with how people do and do not say things)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="86a478df-e172-4f4b-8219-14e674b5ea9d" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:58:58.743" UserId="4243" Text="Is there a good bilingual Russian dictionary with IPA transcription only for the Russian section?&#xD;&#xA;Any of the following options is okay: English-Russian-English or, instead of English, Italian, French, Spanish or Portuguese.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much indeed for your help.&#xD;&#xA;Abele Cansella " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="86a478df-e172-4f4b-8219-14e674b5ea9d" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:58:58.743" UserId="4243" Text="Russian dictionary with IPA transcription" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="86a478df-e172-4f4b-8219-14e674b5ea9d" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:58:58.743" UserId="4243" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="2dc371cf-efcd-41f7-a4fe-bcb61037c2da" CreationDate="2014-08-27T17:31:45.530" UserId="194" Text="IPA is not suitable for Russian language. Most Russian dictionaries do not have transcription because the pronounciation can be easily derived from spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="beaf943e-11b5-486f-845e-224b29cc2e8b" CreationDate="2014-08-27T18:37:09.803" UserId="1236" Text="[Wiktionary][1] has IPA for most Russian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA#Pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="017c796f-67c7-4c6e-8086-a941bec2191a" CreationDate="2014-08-28T21:03:48.070" UserId="4242" Text="There is also a dictionary of words' stresses of Russian. It could be helpful at studying Russian, consider the stresses are less straightforward than transcription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Зарва М.В. Русское словесное ударение: Словарь. - Около 50 000 слов. - М.: Изд-во НЦ ЭНАС, 2001. - 600 с.**&#xD;&#xA;http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="ba228c72-a683-4816-8810-724a1f3f88b5" CreationDate="2014-08-29T18:41:44.577" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There is also a dictionary of words' stresses of Russian. It could be helpful at studying Russian, consider the stresses are less straightforward than transcription:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Зарва М.В. Русское словесное ударение: Словарь. - Около 50 000 слов. - М.: Изд-во НЦ ЭНАС, 2001. - 600 с.](http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16435" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7209" RevisionGUID="6ddf1719-93f2-4113-97b1-054af7bec47c" CreationDate="2014-08-30T05:19:39.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/505585617582174208" />
  <row Id="16436" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7205" RevisionGUID="8244ae8f-a3a0-4520-bb14-a923e0230060" CreationDate="2014-08-30T08:19:43.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/505630932712566784" />
  <row Id="16437" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="6deb0df9-04c2-434e-b21a-1ea9615cbf3d" CreationDate="2014-08-30T13:49:09.003" UserId="2269" Comment="tags" Text="|морфология|прилагательные|semantics|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="5a17dad5-eea0-4f2d-a97d-446405e118fb" CreationDate="2014-08-30T13:50:40.000" UserId="2269" Comment="significant typo" Text="It should be quite obvious for native speaker, that *-аст-* and *-ист-* are augmentative suffixes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let we take for example the word *усы* (moustache). Since not everyone has it there is a common adjective *усатый*, which stands for somebody who simply has moustache. But there is also less common word *усастый*. It’s suitable for somebody who has very large (or notable for other reason) moustaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes clear the difference between *зубатый кит* &amp; *зубастый кит*. *Зубатый кит* (toothed whale, this is a biological term) unlike other whales has teeth. *Зубастый кит* (this is an epithet) is quite toothy whale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Довольно очевидно для носителя языка, что *-аст-* и *-ист-* — это увеличительные суффиксы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возьмем для примера слово *усы*. Поскольку не каждый их носит, широко распространено прилагательное *усатый*, означающее, что некто просто носит усы. Но есть и менее распоcтраненное слово *усастый*, подходящее для человека с большими (или примечательными по иной причине) усами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда понятна разница между *зубатым* и *зубастым* китом. *Зубатые* киты (это термин), в отличие от остальных, просто имеют зубы. *Зубастый* же кит (это эпитет) зубаст весьма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="6a64e0e3-dc2c-4df3-b5b1-760af5ac3d7d" CreationDate="2014-08-30T20:41:33.117" UserId="1571" Text="In a traditional household, I'm curious.. In what sense do people talk to one another?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a father talk to his children using &quot;вы&quot;? или &quot;ты&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the same respect, does a child refer to his parents as &quot;вы&quot;, или &quot;ты&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just curious because the ты version is for informal conversations, but in most European languages, speaking in the &quot;ВЫ&quot; sense would be respectful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="6a64e0e3-dc2c-4df3-b5b1-760af5ac3d7d" CreationDate="2014-08-30T20:41:33.117" UserId="1571" Text="How does a traditional family address one another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="6a64e0e3-dc2c-4df3-b5b1-760af5ac3d7d" CreationDate="2014-08-30T20:41:33.117" UserId="1571" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="89847ba5-fca7-4079-a970-1164aeba5674" CreationDate="2014-08-30T21:01:22.633" UserId="3680" Text="Usually `ты` is used when addressing parents/children.  &#xD;&#xA;But if a child is not very familiar to the grandparent, uncle, aunt etc (for instance - see them very rarely), `вы` is used.  &#xD;&#xA;The addressing form for a particular relative is usually established in the early childhood and remains for the whole life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="4a9aed20-d15f-4f74-875f-15028e39b3a6" CreationDate="2014-08-30T21:06:59.330" UserId="3680" Comment="added 117 characters in body; added 15 characters in body" Text="Usually `ты` is used when addressing parents/children.  &#xD;&#xA;But if a child is not very close to the grandparents, uncles, aunts etc (for instance - see them very rarely), `вы` is used.  &#xD;&#xA;Practically, the addressing form for a particular relative is usually established in the early childhood and remains for the whole life.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More detailed description: [wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="4bc5df4b-44b9-4e46-ae47-e257478698d8" CreationDate="2014-08-30T22:09:06.633" UserId="194" Text="In modern language always ты is used between parents and children (unless the person who makes address wants to explicitly underline they do not recognize the other party as their relatives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing in such circumstances by вы would mean &quot;I do not know you and do not want to, I do not recognize you as my father/son, who you are to me?&quot;, this may be used in a case of formal non-recognition of the familial relationship or in a case of extreme conflict." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="41937dd0-1533-4138-ab1f-dbae82c0a67d" CreationDate="2014-08-30T22:19:08.720" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="In modern language always ты is used between parents and children (unless the person who makes address wants to explicitly underline they do not recognize the other party as their relatives).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing in such circumstances by вы would mean &quot;I do not know you and do not want to, I do not recognize you as my father/son, who are you to me?&quot;, this may be used in a case of formal non-recognition of the familial relationship or in a case of extreme conflict." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="9b9444aa-31a3-4298-9edb-4ca83f318c0d" CreationDate="2014-08-30T23:12:15.367" UserId="2284" Text="Don't know if personal experience is indicative, but my own experience corroborates Dmitry's reply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always addressed members of my family using *ты*, which included my mother, my father, one of my grandmothers who lived with us. The other grandmother which lived separately I've never felt close and never considered part of my family but on the other hand I've always respected her highly; and thus I've always used *вы* to address her. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My uncles and aunts I always addressed using *вы* except one, who was very sympathetic to me. My cousins always got *ты*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew of only one family where a child addressed his parents with *вы*, and that family was quite peculiar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="dd33c4d2-f40a-4d5c-bfde-1b8590a9f897" CreationDate="2014-08-30T23:17:24.307" UserId="4242" Text="It depends on family. But most common is to refer to parent and child as &quot;ты&quot; and to grandparent as &quot;вы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Горе от ума. А.С.Грибоедов##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ah! grand' maman, вот чудеса! вот ново!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не слыхали здешних бед?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Послушайте. Вот прелести! вот мило!..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Капитанская дочка. А.С.Пушкин##&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Матушка  твоя, узнав  о  твоем поединке  и  о том, что ты ранен,  с&#xD;&#xA;горести  занемогла  и  теперь лежит.  Что из  тебя будет? Молю бога, чтоб ты&#xD;&#xA;исправился, хоть и не смею надеяться на его великую милость.&#xD;&#xA;     Отец твой А. Г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Тарас Бульба. Н.В. Гоголь##&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Не смейся, не смейся, батьку! -- сказал наконец старший из них.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Смотри ты, какой пышный! А отчего ж бы не смеяться?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Да так, хоть ты мне и батько, а как будешь смеяться, то, ей-богу, поколочу!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ах ты, сякой-такой сын! Как, батька?.. -- сказал Тарас Бульба, отступивши с удивлением несколько шагов назад.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Да хоть и батька. За обиду не посмотрю и не уважу никого." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="3074077e-bc4e-4c47-966a-81afbcc9a5e1" CreationDate="2014-08-30T23:18:26.420" UserId="2269" Text="Random facts in addition to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Among upper class since XVIII (when _вы_ was established as formal singular) until early XX century (Socialist Revolution) children saying _вы_ to their parents (while parents said _ты_ to them) were not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Мама, вы_ seems to be one of typical addressing forms to mother-in-law nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As regards permanency addressing form established in childhood (see @Dmitry’s answer), there seems to be exceptions. In fact, that is the only case when somebody switch over from _ты_ to _вы_ which is *not* implying worsening relations, I can imagine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I in person had changed form of address for several not very close relatives from e. g. _дядя Игорь, ты_ → _Игорь Владимирович, вы_ when grew up (they still call me _Дима, ты_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="150ddb67-5055-43a2-8aea-ac2b6c831af7" CreationDate="2014-08-31T00:35:01.443" UserId="2269" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="Random facts in addition to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It’s highly unusual to address _вы_ to children, not only to your own or in family, I mean, but anywhere to any children. So, a person who knew you well in your childhood, not only relative, but, for instance, school teacher who taught you since the fifth grade (i. e. 11–12 y. o.), most probably would say you _ты_ forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Among upper class since XVIII (when _вы_ was established as formal singular) until early XX century (Socialist Revolution) children saying _вы_ to their parents (while parents said _ты_ to them) were not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Мама, вы_ seems to be one of typical addressing forms to mother-in-law nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As regards permanency addressing form established in childhood (see also @Dmitry’s answer), there seems to be exceptions. In fact, that is the only case when somebody switch over from _ты_ to _вы_ which is *not* implying worsening relations, I can imagine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I in person had changed form of address for several not very close relatives from e. g. _дядя Игорь, ты_ → _Игорь Владимирович, вы_ when grew up (they still call me _Дима, ты_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="b1a0797f-aa84-4ed7-ae40-e0c0a29cacb6" CreationDate="2014-08-31T00:42:03.817" UserId="2269" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="Random facts in addition to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Among upper class since XVIII (when _вы_ was established as formal singular) until early XX century (Socialist Revolution) children saying _вы_ to their parents (while parents said _ты_ to them) were not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Мама, вы_ seems to be one of typical addressing forms to mother-in-law nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As regards permanency addressing form established in childhood (see @Dmitry’s answer), there seems to be exceptions. In fact, that is the only case when somebody switch over from _ты_ to _вы_ which is *not* implying worsening relations, I can imagine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I in person had changed form of address for several not very close relatives from e. g. _дядя Игорь, ты_ → _Игорь Владимирович, вы_ when grew up (they still call me _Дима, ты_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- However, that are exceptions – shifting from _ты_ to _вы_ is not common. That implies, that hence it’s highly unusual to address _вы_ to children, not only to your own or in family, I mean, but anywhere to any children; a person who knew you well in your childhood, not only relative, but, for instance, school teacher who taught you since the fifth grade (i. e. 11–12 y. o.), most probably would say you _ты_ forever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7218" RevisionGUID="56c44d3e-0172-4ac9-aaae-209fc28904de" CreationDate="2014-08-31T01:01:12.510" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Random facts in addition to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Among upper class since XVIII (when _вы_ was established as formal singular) until early XX century (Socialist Revolution) children saying _вы_ to their parents (while parents said _ты_ to them) were not unusual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Мама, вы_ seems to be one of typical addressing forms to mother-in-law nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As regards permanency addressing form established in childhood (see @Dmitry’s answer), there seems to be exceptions. In fact, that is the only case when somebody switch over from _ты_ to _вы_ which is *not* implying worsening relations, I can imagine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I in person had changed form of address for several not very close relatives from e. g. _дядя Игорь, ты_ → _Игорь Владимирович, вы_ when grew up (they still call me _Дима, ты_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- However, shifting from _ты_ to _вы_ indeed is not common. That implies, that hence it’s highly unusual to address _вы_ to children, not only to your own or in family, I mean, but anywhere to any children; a person who knew you well in your childhood, not only relative, but, for instance, school teacher who taught you since the fifth grade (i. e. 11–12 y. o.), most probably would say you _ты_ forever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16452" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="3e29d56c-c695-4972-a41b-f613279c9ada" CreationDate="2014-08-31T02:23:50.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/505903759902670848" />
  <row Id="16453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="5fc3bd44-0f4b-4807-a419-f5640bff7dfd" CreationDate="2014-08-31T02:24:35.520" UserId="4255" Text="I saw a reference to an old Russian measurement called Saja, if that is the correct pronunciation. What is the modern day equivalent of that? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="5fc3bd44-0f4b-4807-a419-f5640bff7dfd" CreationDate="2014-08-31T02:24:35.520" UserId="4255" Text="Modern equivalent of saja" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="5fc3bd44-0f4b-4807-a419-f5640bff7dfd" CreationDate="2014-08-31T02:24:35.520" UserId="4255" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7220" RevisionGUID="1b44eab9-3c40-4999-87c7-b6286c0501aa" CreationDate="2014-08-31T06:00:58.433" UserId="551" Text="Looks like you are asking about **сажень**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 сажень = 7 English feet = 84 inches = 2,1336 meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not used since 1924 when metric system became mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently it is mentioned in proverbs and other sayings only, like &quot;Косая сажень в плечах&quot;, etc. (Technically &quot;косая сажень&quot; is bigger measure than &quot;сажень&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good article is on [Russian Wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16457" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="6eddbfe8-6221-41a7-98c1-20296fb0d3a2" CreationDate="2014-08-31T08:23:48.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/505994348602085376" />
  <row Id="16458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="33d2a906-8175-45f0-b7b1-2609e76e9f45" CreationDate="2014-08-31T13:11:26.540" UserId="3892" Text="The closest thing to a dictionary with transcription that I've found online is [rhymes][1], which gives full declensions for nouns and adjectives, as well as full conjugations of verbs, and can optionally display pronunciation. However, the transcription is not IPA, but rather a cyrillic based system which you can easily learn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you enter a word, you have to choose **словоформа** from the drop-down menu and then check **транскрипция** on the definition page for the transcription. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru/find" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="db45b683-3675-47f6-8c07-872d81e14892" CreationDate="2014-08-31T13:52:42.040" UserId="194" Text="I want to add to the answer by Dmitry Alexandrov some information about the origins of the suffixes. The suffix -аст-, -ист- comes from Proto-Indo-European superlative suffix -isto- while -т- comes from PIE adjectival suffix -to-. So the both retain their meanings to an extent, although the former is usually used as augmentative rather than superlative in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in PIE we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯rtos*** - fitting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯ristos*** - of the best sort &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ğra̯utos*** - heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ğra̯uistos*** - heaviest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A derived superlative suffix one can observe in English, the -est. For instance, in the word *longest* (&lt; PIE ***dlee̯ghistos***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="a54b0a13-847c-46a2-b455-0a254181689f" CreationDate="2014-08-31T14:04:03.273" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I want to add to the answer by Dmitry Alexandrov some information about the origins of the suffixes. The suffix -аст-, -ист- comes from Proto-Indo-European superlative suffix -isto- while -т- comes from PIE adjectival suffix -to-. So the both retain their meanings to an extent, although the former is usually used as augmentative rather than superlative in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in PIE we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯rtos*** - fitting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯ristos*** - of the best sort &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ğra̯utos*** - heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ğra̯u̯istos*** - heaviest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A derived superlative suffix one can observe in English, the -est. &#xD;&#xA;For instance, in the word *longest* (&lt; PIE ***dlee̯ghistos***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="e203598d-7b4b-4972-b330-4f1d4ec7563b" CreationDate="2014-08-31T14:34:10.020" UserId="1829" Text="Recently I was heckled by a fellow student of mine for saying &quot;Я вижу Лору&quot; (I see Laura). Since Laura (presumably) is not a Russian name, she insisted on &quot;Я вижу Лора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when to conjugate, when not to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learned not to conjugate coffee (e.g. &quot;торт с кофе&quot;), but obviously you should conjugate Gin (e.g. &quot;[Коктейли с джином](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any general rule at play here, or does one just have to learn it on a word-by-word basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="e203598d-7b4b-4972-b330-4f1d4ec7563b" CreationDate="2014-08-31T14:34:10.020" UserId="1829" Text="Non-Russian names: to conjugate or not to conjugate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="e203598d-7b4b-4972-b330-4f1d4ec7563b" CreationDate="2014-08-31T14:34:10.020" UserId="1829" Text="|падежи|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="78d36630-29d4-4408-9638-76fb43f81a40" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:18:17.677" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I want to add to the answer by Dmitry Alexandrov some information about the origins of the suffixes. The suffix -аст-, -ист- comes from Proto-Indo-European superlative suffix -isto- while -т- comes from PIE adjectival suffix -to-. So the both retain their meanings to an extent, although the former is usually used as augmentative rather than superlative in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in PIE we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯rtos*** - fitting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***a̯ristos*** - of the best sort &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ğra̯utos*** - heavy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ğra̯u̯istos*** - heaviest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A derived superlative suffix one can observe in English, the -est. &#xD;&#xA;For instance, in the word *longest* (&lt; PIE ***dlonghistos***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="78a6f89d-aefc-4e4f-93ae-2a05f1fcdb22" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:21:09.590" UserId="2079" Text="You are right that Лора declenses in Russian, and here are the rules (source: http://www.nazovite.ru/sklonenie/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following personal names declense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all names (masculine and feminine, Russian and non-Russian) which **end by -а or -я**. **This is your case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **masculine** names which **end by any consonant** (согласный), including -й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Feminine** names which end by **-ь** (мягкий знак).  &#xD;&#xA; - For this last rule, the may be exceptions for some non-Russian names.  For instance, the elven name Galadriel (Галадриэль) may or may not declense in Russian. Google finds that both &quot;с Галадриэлью&quot; and &quot;с Галадриэль&quot; are popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these declense as other Russian noun with the same gender and окончание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All others don't declense. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names which end by a vowel or by -ь (мягкий знак)&#xD;&#xA;- feminine names which end by anything other than -а, -я, -ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. -а, -я? Declense!&#xD;&#xA;2. Masculine and a consonant? Declense!&#xD;&#xA;3. Feminine and -ь? Russian - declense! Non-Russian - may declense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="1120ea23-88b4-499e-924d-a84ab34f6a54" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:28:41.970" UserId="2079" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="You are right that Лора declenses in Russian, and here are the rules (source: http://www.nazovite.ru/sklonenie/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following personal names declense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all names (masculine and feminine, Russian and non-Russian) which **end by -а or -я**. **This is your case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **masculine** names which **end by any consonant** (согласный), including -й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Feminine** names which end by **-ь** (мягкий знак).  &#xD;&#xA; - For this last rule, the may be exceptions for some non-Russian names.  For instance, the elven name Galadriel (Галадриэль) may or may not declense in Russian. Google finds that both &quot;с Галадриэлью&quot; and &quot;с Галадриэль&quot; are popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the source doesn't mention it, but **masculine** names which end by **-ь** declense too. Can be checked with &quot;Хорь и Калиныч&quot; by Иван Тургенев.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these declense as other Russian noun with the same gender and окончание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other personal names don't declense. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names which end by a vowel&#xD;&#xA;- feminine names which end by anything other than -а, -я, -ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. -а, -я, -ь? Declense! (With some exceptions for non-Russian feminine names which end by -ь)&#xD;&#xA;2. Masculine and a consonant? Declense!&#xD;&#xA;3. Anything else? Don't delclense!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="f12424c3-29c6-4672-8ed2-24368a9e87b5" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:33:30.010" UserId="62" Comment="swapped &quot;conjugate&quot; with &quot;decline&quot;, as this is not about verbs." Text="Recently I was heckled by a fellow student of mine for saying &quot;Я вижу Лору&quot; (I see Laura). Since Laura (presumably) is not a Russian name, she insisted on &quot;Я вижу Лора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when to decline, when not to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learned not to decline coffee (e.g. &quot;торт с кофе&quot;), but obviously you should decline Gin (e.g. &quot;[Коктейли с джином](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any general rule at play here, or does one just have to learn it on a word-by-word basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16468" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="f12424c3-29c6-4672-8ed2-24368a9e87b5" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:33:30.010" UserId="62" Comment="swapped &quot;conjugate&quot; with &quot;decline&quot;, as this is not about verbs." Text="Non-Russian names: to decline or not to decline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="39d5d464-576d-46b7-a0e2-b639b1e733e8" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:35:53.873" UserId="62" Comment="fixed &quot;declense&quot;" Text="You are right that Лора declines in Russian, and here are the rules (source: http://www.nazovite.ru/sklonenie/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following personal names decline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all names (masculine and feminine, Russian and non-Russian) which **end in -а or -я**. **This is your case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **masculine** names which **end in any consonant** (согласный), including -й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Feminine** names which end in **-ь** (мягкий знак).  &#xD;&#xA; - For this last rule, there may be exceptions for some non-Russian names.  For instance, the elven name Galadriel (Галадриэль) may or may not decline in Russian. Google finds that both &quot;с Галадриэлью&quot; and &quot;с Галадриэль&quot; are popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the source doesn't mention it, but **masculine** names which end in **-ь** decline too. This can be checked with &quot;Хорь и Калиныч&quot; by Иван Тургенев.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these decline as other Russian nouns with the same gender and ending (окончание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other personal names don't decline. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names which end in a vowel&#xD;&#xA;- feminine names which end in anything other than -а, -я, -ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. -а, -я, -ь? Decline! (With some exceptions for non-Russian feminine names which end in -ь)&#xD;&#xA;2. Masculine and a consonant? Decline!&#xD;&#xA;3. Anything else? Don't decline!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7225" RevisionGUID="e04ea6aa-13b4-4bb4-9912-e182a2f1968c" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:48:01.350" UserId="2388" Text="To add to a more elaborate answer by ***user31264***, in Russian almost all foreign nouns that happily fall under one of the usual declension patterns for masculine or feminine nouns do decline as if they were native Russian words. Namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *soft or hard consonant-ending* masculine nouns.&#xD;&#xA; - *-а/-я, -ия*-ending feminine nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works for names, too. Usually names and family names in -а/-я decline but there is an exception: when the final *-a* is stressed, foreign last names are indeclinable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="3eb0eecd-aedb-4e55-829c-b684250f0f2e" CreationDate="2014-08-31T15:49:28.350" UserId="2079" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="You are right that Лора declines in Russian, and here are the rules (source: http://www.nazovite.ru/sklonenie/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following personal names decline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all names (masculine and feminine, Russian and non-Russian) which **end in -а or -я**. **This is your case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **masculine** names which **end in any consonant** (согласный), including -й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Feminine** names which end in **-ь** (мягкий знак).  &#xD;&#xA; - For this last rule, there may be exceptions for some non-Russian names.  For instance, the elven name Galadriel (Галадриэль) may or may not decline in Russian. Google finds that both &quot;с Галадриэлью&quot; and &quot;с Галадриэль&quot; are popular.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- all of these decline as other Russian nouns with the same gender and ending (окончание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the source doesn't mention it, but **masculine** names which end in **-ь** decline too. This can be checked with &quot;Хорь и Калиныч&quot; by Иван Тургенев or with French name Поль. See [the wiktionary article][1] about how these decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other personal names don't decline. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names which end in a vowel other than -а, -я&#xD;&#xA;- feminine names which end in anything other than -а, -я, -ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. -а, -я, -ь? Decline! (With some exceptions for non-Russian feminine names which end in -ь)&#xD;&#xA;2. Masculine and a consonant? Decline!&#xD;&#xA;3. Anything else? Don't decline!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="d70b31d3-9b03-4012-b58d-631b98d8fdf4" CreationDate="2014-08-31T20:16:55.700" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="I can give you a precise anecdote about old slavic ( not exactly church slavonic but I think this should be the same language ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One day in Ukraine I was showed a old slavic book by a friend ( which was perfectly understanding Russian ). We even couldn't understand what the book was about. Not only the language was different from Russian language but also the alphabet. So anyway my Friend couldn't understand anything, or just some words that looked familiar to him, same I saw indeed some words looking the same or almost the same . We had to send scanned copies to a old slavic language specialist so that we could get an understanding of the text (which appeared to be an interesting text of rules for a monastery) . Honnestly I would say it is very hard to understand Old Russian Slavic for the normal Russian person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="f21266f8-430e-4aba-aa24-6489f064ccfe" CreationDate="2014-08-31T20:23:26.893" UserDisplayName="user4256" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="I can give you a precise anecdote about old slavic ( not exactly church slavonic but I think this should be the same language ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One day in Ukraine I was showed a old slavic book by a friend ( which was perfectly understanding Russian ). We even couldn't understand what the book was about. Not only the language was different from Russian language but also the alphabet. So anyway my Friend couldn't understand anything, or just some words that looked familiar to him, same I saw indeed some words looking the same or almost the same than in Russian but that was just maybe 1% of the worlds, the rest looking like code . We had to send scanned copies to a old slavic language specialist so that we could get an understanding of the text (which appeared to be an interesting text of rules for a monastery) . Honnestly I would say it is very hard ( and in fact practically imposible ) to understand Old Russian Slavic for the normal Russian person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="0b3ade39-9a07-4a96-a514-a42b91920516" CreationDate="2014-09-01T04:24:46.917" UserId="1236" Text="Here's a picture of what [сажень][1] is.![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bWtuZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IfQt7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16476" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="5d20e56c-5858-40f0-8300-35deba49fffd" CreationDate="2014-09-01T05:27:44.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/506312426460295168" />
  <row Id="16481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="e511c25d-6080-4cee-8542-195486cbc455" CreationDate="2014-09-01T07:47:39.397" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="(I am not a Russian native speaker so I don't intend this answer to be a reference) .&#xD;&#xA;From my experience , people here would say all the time for example взял пива to say that they bought some beers in the shop ( not just that they took them from the fridge ) , but they would use купить when buying a house , a brand new washing machine from Europe or a (decent) car or something that looks as an important and serious transaction. They could also use взять if they buy some sort of really old bad low-cost car, meaning they managed to get a car. This is how I could interpret this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="f12b3338-ca70-4eae-9f5c-cb1bb7830913" CreationDate="2014-09-01T10:53:59.240" UserId="4094" Text="The Church Slavonic is an artifical language created by orthodox missioners. It was based on southern-bulgarian dialect of slavonic language native to Saints Cyril and Methodius who created it. Its grammar is influenced by Greek language in both sentence structure and word structure. &#xD;&#xA;It looks like it is similar to Russian but it isn't so similar. And native russian speakers are making a lot of mistakes when trying to understand it. There are a lof of paronyms, words that different meanings in both languages. For example &quot;живот&quot; is  &quot;жизнь&quot; in russian. Some words can have completely opposite meaning, for example &quot;непостоянный&quot; in russian is &quot;inconstant&quot; but in CS it is &quot;The one whom nobody can withstand against&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="c50734bc-5a26-473b-a384-774a39672fba" CreationDate="2014-09-01T13:42:03.307" UserId="2079" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="You are right that Лора declines in Russian, and here are the rules (source: http://www.nazovite.ru/sklonenie/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following personal names decline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all names (masculine and feminine, Russian and non-Russian) which **end in -а or -я**. **This is your case.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **masculine** names which **end in any consonant** (согласный), including -й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Feminine** names which end in **-ь** (мягкий знак).  &#xD;&#xA; - For this last rule, there may be exceptions for some non-Russian names.  For instance, the elven name Galadriel (Галадриэль) may or may not decline in Russian. Google finds that both &quot;с Галадриэлью&quot; and &quot;с Галадриэль&quot; are popular.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- all of these decline as other Russian nouns with the same gender and ending (окончание).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the source doesn't mention it, but **masculine** names which end in **-ь** decline too. This can be checked with &quot;Хорь и Калиныч&quot; by Иван Тургенев or with French name Поль. See [the wiktionary article][1] about how these decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other personal names don't decline. These are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- masculine names which end in a vowel other than -а, -я&#xD;&#xA;- feminine names which end in anything other than -а, -я, -ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. -а, -я, -ь? Decline! (With some exceptions for non-Russian feminine names which end in -ь; see below for another exception)&#xD;&#xA;2. Masculine and a consonant? Decline!&#xD;&#xA;3. Anything else? Don't decline!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: one more exception: French names like Николя (Nicholas), which in French end in a silent consonant, do not decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="08af8be0-774b-4f29-aede-81792105091e" CreationDate="2014-09-01T15:32:31.560" UserId="417" Text="Есть ли в русском языке какой-то аналог шутки &quot;that's what she said?&quot; Если нет, то как правильно это можно перевести?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот страница на [urbandictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=that%27s%20what%20she%20said) и [примеры](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIWrFNDKQ6o) использования данной шутки в контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В одном из переводов сериала [The Office](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)) эту фразу перевели как &quot;слова моей подружки&quot;. Не уверен, что такой вариант можно назвать лучшим." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="08af8be0-774b-4f29-aede-81792105091e" CreationDate="2014-09-01T15:32:31.560" UserId="417" Text="Аналог/перевод шутки &quot;that's what she said&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="08af8be0-774b-4f29-aede-81792105091e" CreationDate="2014-09-01T15:32:31.560" UserId="417" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7235" RevisionGUID="dbe53bb4-e321-4318-8a62-e15d9a7ee885" CreationDate="2014-09-01T18:34:43.817" UserId="267" Text="I have just found this expression (that's what she said) on the Internet translated as &quot;гусары, молчать&quot;. It is also used when somebody can only think of sexual connotation of a sentence or an expression. It comes from a well-known joke: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=76781" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7235" RevisionGUID="7b68825c-3087-4989-b801-0a129c01fcfa" CreationDate="2014-09-01T18:49:24.620" UserId="267" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="I have just found this expression (that's what she said) on the Internet translated as &quot;гусары, молчать&quot;. It is also used when somebody can only think of sexual connotation of a sentence or an expression. It comes from a well-known joke: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=76781&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a popular expression &quot;каждый понимает в меру своей испорченности&quot; that can be used in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой большой шарик!&#xD;&#xA;Кхм...что ты имеешь в виду?&#xD;&#xA;Ну, каждый понимает в меру своей испорченности!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16492" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="9e9f169d-1fcb-4ee1-8c80-a58086908b70" CreationDate="2014-09-01T20:27:44.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/506538919719370752" />
  <row Id="16494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="2e9d64d2-2141-497d-90c7-b1f8d9859077" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:31:52.270" UserId="1829" Text="&quot;напугал кота сосиской&quot; seems to be an idiom. Is it? What does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="2e9d64d2-2141-497d-90c7-b1f8d9859077" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:31:52.270" UserId="1829" Text="напугал кота сосиской - Is it an idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="2e9d64d2-2141-497d-90c7-b1f8d9859077" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:31:52.270" UserId="1829" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7237" RevisionGUID="b7f1ff9a-fcf0-4907-a329-269e8df1a31c" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:40:23.337" UserId="4242" Text="Yes. It's an idiom. It means &quot;to scare a cat with a sausage&quot; - a ridiculous threat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7238" RevisionGUID="e04377e6-2dc1-4ced-b547-4ea171030f7b" CreationDate="2014-09-01T21:52:13.593" UserId="4242" Text="Literally &quot;сказала она&quot;. But this kind of joke not so popular in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;For clarity you can use ellipsis &quot;... сказала она&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example from UD:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Make sure it's long enough.&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;That's what she said!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Убедись, что он достаточно длинный.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;... сказала она!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="6520701c-a43d-4563-b322-35497394450e" CreationDate="2014-09-02T01:33:34.840" UserId="4153" Text="No for the analogue in Russian as far as I know. There is no a direct Russian analogue, but the translation is pretty direct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;That's what she said!&quot;` - `&quot;Она это сказала&quot;` can be used with the meaning `&quot;Не я это сказал&quot;` or even `&quot;Так говорят&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be also used to make an accent on a person who said it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;`Она `**`сама`**` так сказала`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or when someone doubts, as in the example below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John is on the phone with his Director of Human Resources (DHR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DHR: &quot;John, your manager Mike said you are working very slow.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John: `&quot;That's what he said.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can express here a doubt `&quot;Это `**`только`**` он так говорит!&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7240" RevisionGUID="6dd947de-9a01-4585-8338-54acd61d3630" CreationDate="2014-09-02T07:28:49.800" UserId="4153" Text="There are some variations of this, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал кота сметаной` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал кота котлетой!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means `&quot;trying to scare a cat with a piece of steak&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also some other animals are involved to in the similar pattern and meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал кобеля буханкой`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above animals do like a food mentioned, but a hedgehog just doesn't care, isn't afraid of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал ежа голой жопой` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means `&quot;[you are] scaring a hedgehog with a bare ass&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;other:&#xD;&#xA;`напугал козла капустой`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`напугал козла огородом`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`напугал барана новыми воротоами`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same attitude can be expressed by a bit different but close analogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`не так страшен черт, как его малюют`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="aa912c06-48a3-42e0-8df8-ec48a222708e" CreationDate="2014-09-02T08:31:10.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/506720980069548032" />
  <row Id="16502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7240" RevisionGUID="9be2d677-6836-493b-9ea2-a4cddf26e856" CreationDate="2014-09-02T08:54:46.910" UserId="4153" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are some variations of this, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал кота сметаной` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал кота котлетой!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means `&quot;trying to scare a cat with a piece of steak&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also some other animals are involved to in the similar pattern and meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал кобеля буханкой`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above animals do like a food mentioned, but a hedgehog just doesn't care, isn't afraid of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугал ежа голой жопой` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means `&quot;[you are] scaring a hedgehog with a bare ass&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;other:&#xD;&#xA;`напугал козла капустой`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`напугал козла огородом`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`напугал барана новыми воротами`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same attitude can be expressed by a bit different but close analogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`не так страшен черт, как его малюют`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="fbd8341e-65a9-4349-b382-b6304453f747" CreationDate="2014-09-02T11:54:31.670" UserId="4153" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="No for the analogue in Russian as far as I know. There is no a direct Russian analogue, but the translation is pretty direct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;That's what she said!&quot;` - `&quot;Она это сказала&quot;` can be used with the meaning `&quot;Не я это сказал&quot;` or even `&quot;Так говорят&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be also used to make an accent on a person who said it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;`Она `**`сама`**` так сказала`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or when someone doubts, as in the example below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John is on the phone with his Director of Human Resources (DHR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DHR: &quot;John, your manager Mike said you do your work very slowly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John: `&quot;That's what he said.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can express here a doubt `&quot;Это `**`только`**` он так говорит!&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1700" RevisionGUID="53df1f8c-d34f-448d-b19b-478e44b307c8" CreationDate="2014-09-02T12:45:35.713" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Хозяин&quot; most often means either master or host. It is rarely used for owner (&quot;владелец&quot;). At best &quot;хозяин&quot; mey mean a person who currently uses a thing whether he a legal owner or not (consider &quot;Неожиданно оказалось, что хозяин машины не является ее владельцем&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, *хозяин* is the best antonym. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also that *хозяин* and *гость* are cognates derived from the same PIE root ghest- (similarly to *guest* and *host*): for instance, ***ghostis*** meant a person in reciprocal guest-host relationship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="612a3619-20b7-4343-aceb-e33659b57ba4" CreationDate="2014-09-02T19:36:03.010" UserId="4225" Text="Many years ago, more than ten, I stopped studying Russian. Even quite understand things, I can read and understand (almost) without problems. However I would like to practice and improve my Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in my last move I lost some of the material I had, including a table of declensions which unfortunately I could not recover. I searched a similar online, without success so far. What I seek is to have something with which I could see at a glance the endings for each case, according to the gender and number. (I Remember that there is a paradigm for nouns and another for adjectives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since I found this fabulous site, I thought maybe someone might have thought of somewhere or something to help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I don't need the table as is done, I am a typographer and I can compose my own, is enough to have declension paradigms and examples, I can do the rest and share it with you later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that this question/query don't be inappropriate and don't engage in any violation of the site.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="612a3619-20b7-4343-aceb-e33659b57ba4" CreationDate="2014-09-02T19:36:03.010" UserId="4225" Text="Declension chart (off topic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="612a3619-20b7-4343-aceb-e33659b57ba4" CreationDate="2014-09-02T19:36:03.010" UserId="4225" Text="|падежи|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="ae12e9e8-036d-4118-a5da-0d345ab0fd9b" CreationDate="2014-09-02T19:50:01.697" UserId="2269" Text="As far as I understand, you are asking about declension table for printing. Actually, there are a lot of them around the Internet. For instance, on [LearnRussian.RT](http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/declension/) (check the other tables there also). It’s quite impossible to say, which exactly did you recall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also would suugest to use a dictionary, where you can look for declension / conjugation of any Russian noun, adjective / verb. That is _Грамматический словарь русского языка А. А. Зализняка_ and it is also available online [[1]](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict) [[2]](http://www.morfologija.ru/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="bd99275a-45ed-4b8a-b7d6-9726f006e08e" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:07:20.327" UserId="2269" Comment="Please, do not make excuses a priori." Text="Many years ago, more than ten, I stopped studying Russian. Even quite understand things, I can read and understand (almost) without problems. However I would like to practice and improve my Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in my last move I lost some of the material I had, including a table of declensions which unfortunately I could not recover. I searched a similar online, without success so far. What I seek is to have something with which I could see at a glance the endings for each case, according to the gender and number. (I Remember that there is a paradigm for nouns and another for adjectives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since I found this fabulous site, I thought maybe someone might have thought of somewhere or something to help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact I don't need the table as is done, I am a typographer and I can compose my own, is enough to have declension paradigms and examples, I can do the rest and share it with you later.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16511" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="bd99275a-45ed-4b8a-b7d6-9726f006e08e" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:07:20.327" UserId="2269" Comment="Please, do not make excuses a priori." Text="Declension chart" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16512" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="bd99275a-45ed-4b8a-b7d6-9726f006e08e" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:07:20.327" UserId="2269" Comment="Please, do not make excuses a priori." Text="|падежи|склонение|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7242" RevisionGUID="e683a809-052c-4b5e-bc50-70ba6c62bab8" CreationDate="2014-09-02T20:15:26.967" UserId="2269" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="As far as I understand, you are asking about declension table for printing. Actually, there are lots of them around the Internet. For instance, on [LearnRussian.RT](http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/declension/) (check the other tables there also). It’s quite impossible to say, which of them do you recall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also would suggest to use a dictionary, where you can look for declension / conjugation of any specific Russian noun, adjective / verb. That is _Грамматический словарь русского языка А. А. Зализняка_ and it is also available online: [original version](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Czaliznia%5Cdict), [with community inprovements](http://www.morfologija.ru/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="536731ef-8ed0-46c2-a108-94f83165e904" CreationDate="2014-09-02T23:26:54.493" UserId="3887" Text="&quot;Слова моей подружки&quot;, конечно, очень топорно. Вообще трудно адекватно перевести эту шутку, как и вообще многие. Я бы, может быть, перевел -- &quot;как тебе не стыдно!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему-то вспоминается фильм &quot;Борат&quot;, где какой-то американец в самом начале учит главного героя шутить, прибавляя в конце фразы слово &quot;not&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="e8c48759-168c-41fa-817c-b4e0fa3f5124" CreationDate="2014-09-03T01:25:12.950" UserId="4269" Text="For example, in the sentence &quot;Great people are not always wise.&quot; I know I could say something like Великие люди иногда не мудрые but is there a more elegant way to say this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="e8c48759-168c-41fa-817c-b4e0fa3f5124" CreationDate="2014-09-03T01:25:12.950" UserId="4269" Text="What's the best way to render &quot;not always&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="e8c48759-168c-41fa-817c-b4e0fa3f5124" CreationDate="2014-09-03T01:25:12.950" UserId="4269" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="77905a84-61fa-4cc3-b4bc-05a4a79a99e1" CreationDate="2014-09-03T02:03:28.610" UserId="3680" Text="I believe the literal translation `не всегда` better fits your needs:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Великие люди не всегда мудрые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative, in this particular case, `не обязательно` also can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Великие люди не обязательно мудрые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не все великие люди - мудрые.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="d53a3cdf-7d3b-491d-a1b9-bff91453ee8c" CreationDate="2014-09-03T02:20:55.937" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 174 characters in body" Text="I believe the literal translation `не всегда` better fits your needs:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Великие люди не всегда мудрые.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16522" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7241" RevisionGUID="8feacc31-d625-4a93-be0a-3260fdf11b89" CreationDate="2014-09-03T02:32:58.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/506993223030824960" />
  <row Id="16523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="21637a3c-e6b5-48fa-96d5-51136ce84ba5" CreationDate="2014-09-03T03:26:18.687" UserId="4153" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="No for the analogue in Russian. There is no a direct Russian analogue, but the translation is pretty direct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;That's what she said!&quot;` - `&quot;Она это сказала&quot;` can be used with the meaning `&quot;Не я это сказал&quot;` or even `&quot;Так говорят&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be also used to make an accent on a person who said it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;`Она `**`сама`**` так сказала`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or to show doubts, as in the example below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John is on the phone with his Director of Human Resources (DHR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DHR: &quot;John, your manager Mike said you do your work very slowly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John: `&quot;That's what he said.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can express here a doubt `&quot;Это `**`только`**` он так говорит!&quot;` with the meaning as `&quot;It's doubtful&quot; `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7249" RevisionGUID="4060d2c9-fc6c-4497-adfe-a70517bd0c40" CreationDate="2014-09-03T04:24:24.087" UserId="2311" Text="In addition to many examples that Ruslan Gerasimov has made there is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Только не бросай меня в терновый куст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A phrase which comes from a folk tale, where a rabbit begs a wolf who has captured him, to do whatever the wolf desires except throwing the said rabbit into a thorn bush. Once the wolf throws him there, the rabbit quickly runs away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the other variants, which signify the futility of the action, this one actually baits it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7245" RevisionGUID="816742e6-b75d-4846-a8bc-0cea014f09d0" CreationDate="2014-09-03T08:01:55.553" UserId="3887" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&quot;Слова моей подружки&quot;, конечно, очень топорно. Вообще трудно адекватно перевести эту шутку, как и вообще переводить шутки и каламбуры. Я бы, может быть, перевел -- &quot;как тебе не стыдно!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему-то вспоминается фильм &quot;Борат&quot;, где какой-то американец в самом начале учит главного героя шутить, прибавляя в конце фразы слово &quot;not&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7248" RevisionGUID="fa4314ed-ef64-48d0-8183-70a50176543a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T09:35:41.353" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I believe the literal translation `не всегда` better fits your needs:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Великие люди не всегда мудры.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="eeb12e20-7985-4e98-bbec-9262aa012da9" CreationDate="2014-09-03T12:13:59.650" UserId="4270" Text="Уважаемые знатоки, пожалуйста, посоветуйте ресурс, где можно услышать русские фразеологизмы, идиомы, сленг в концентрированном виде.&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="eeb12e20-7985-4e98-bbec-9262aa012da9" CreationDate="2014-09-03T12:13:59.650" UserId="4270" Text="Где послушать произношение русских идиом?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="eeb12e20-7985-4e98-bbec-9262aa012da9" CreationDate="2014-09-03T12:13:59.650" UserId="4270" Text="|resources|idioms|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="4f21ddee-4938-495e-adaf-0b127d02c791" CreationDate="2014-09-03T13:08:34.580" UserId="1829" Text="I found special case declinations for the following types of nouns - but yet the tables didn't give example words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I challenge you to give an example of ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * A first declination male *animate* noun ending on -ий&#xD;&#xA;   * A second declination *animate* noun ending on -ия&#xD;&#xA;   * A third declination female *animate* noun ending on -ь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are all said to deviate from the inanimate declination in accusative plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="4f21ddee-4938-495e-adaf-0b127d02c791" CreationDate="2014-09-03T13:08:34.580" UserId="1829" Text="Animate nouns: the very rare cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="4f21ddee-4938-495e-adaf-0b127d02c791" CreationDate="2014-09-03T13:08:34.580" UserId="1829" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="3268757e-abc9-4c70-887d-934f31f370bc" CreationDate="2014-09-03T13:34:07.187" UserId="1829" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I found special case declinations for the following types of nouns - but yet the tables didn't give example words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I challenge you to give an example of ... (deviating declination of accusative plural give in brackets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * A first declination male *animate* noun ending on -ий (-иев instead of -ия)&#xD;&#xA;   * A second declination *animate* noun ending on -ия (-ий instead of -ии)&#xD;&#xA;   * A third declination female *animate* noun ending on -ь (-ей instead of -и)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7252" RevisionGUID="97c08a81-fead-42d1-8a7c-2a26b3a2850a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T13:41:58.293" UserId="1829" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="I found special case declinations for the following types of nouns - but yet the tables didn't give example words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I challenge you to give an example of ... (deviating declination of accusative plural give in brackets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * A first declination male *animate* noun ending on -ий (-иев instead of -ия)&#xD;&#xA;   * A second declination *animate* noun ending on -ия (-ий instead of -ии)&#xD;&#xA;   * A third declination female *animate* noun ending on -ь (-ей instead of -и)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Inanimate* examples for the three special cases would be (in same order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   * санаторий&#xD;&#xA;   * Россия&#xD;&#xA;   * ночь&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="d952ab85-dd04-4f52-87ac-6059e42046f4" CreationDate="2014-09-03T15:45:07.060" UserId="1097" Text="If “that's what she said” close to [&quot;If you know what I mean&quot;][1], тогда по-русски можно перевести почти дословно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если вы понимаете, о чём я...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![If you know what i mean][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/if-you-know-what-i-mean&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tkGsh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7254" RevisionGUID="39089720-2cab-4a29-a0eb-d186941f6fb7" CreationDate="2014-09-03T16:01:01.637" UserId="2269" Text="Под «концентрированным видом», я так понимаю, вы имеете в виду просто-напросто «целиком, а не по словам».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В таком случае на [Forvo](http://ru.forvo.com) должны быть. Но, понятное дело, есть там не все. Однако, я попытался навскидку вспомнить пять фразеологизмов, что могут вызвать затруднения при чтении с листа — все пять я там нашел без проблем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- из-под выподверта / исподвыподверта [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B8%D0%B7-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- Держать ухо востро [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE/)&#xD;&#xA;- Пришла беда — отворяй ворота [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0_-_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- Лиха беда начало [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- Из огня — да в полымя [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B8%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%8F/#ru)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7255" RevisionGUID="48d641b6-d7af-434f-bbf0-923dccde8d92" CreationDate="2014-09-03T16:03:15.137" UserId="310" Text="Is it about great people not being wise all the time, or about not every great person being wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If latter, I would write it as `Не все великие люди мудры`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7254" RevisionGUID="7ad01f8a-635d-44ae-841c-154bfa748737" CreationDate="2014-09-03T16:26:06.077" UserId="2269" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Под «концентрированным видом», я так понимаю, вы имеете в виду просто-напросто «целиком, а не по словам».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В таком случае на [Forvo](http://ru.forvo.com) должны быть. Но, понятное дело, есть там не все. Однако, я попытался навскидку вспомнить пять фразеологизмов, что могут вызвать затруднения при чтении с листа — все пять я там нашел без проблем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- из-под выподверта / исподвыподверта [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B8%D0%B7-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- тихой сапой [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B9/)&#xD;&#xA;- Держать ухо востро [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE/)&#xD;&#xA;- Пришла беда — отворяй ворота [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0_-_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- Лиха беда начало [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, доверять Forvo, как и всякому вики-ресурсу, надо осторожно, например в виражении «Из огня — да в полымя» [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B8%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%8F/#ru) некто Милослава выбрала довольно удивительное ударение на второй слог в слове _полымя_ — _полы́мя_ — против нормального _по́лымя_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7254" RevisionGUID="fc7865b7-9223-48fa-bf26-7bb39c6f8579" CreationDate="2014-09-03T16:32:23.960" UserId="2269" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Под «концентрированным видом», я так понимаю, вы имеете в виду просто-напросто «целиком, а не по словам».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В таком случае на [Forvo](http://ru.forvo.com) должны быть. Но, понятное дело, есть там не все. Однако, я попытался навскидку вспомнить пять фразеологизмов, что могут вызвать затруднения при чтении с листа — все пять я там нашел без проблем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- из-под выподверта / исподвыподверта [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B8%D0%B7-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- тихой сапой [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B9/)&#xD;&#xA;- Держать ухо востро [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE/)&#xD;&#xA;- Пришла беда — отворяй ворота [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0_-_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;- Лиха беда начало [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, доверять Forvo, как и всякому вики-ресурсу, надо осторожно, например в виражении «Из огня — да в полымя» [[F]](http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%B8%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%8F/#ru) некто Милослава из Кемеровской области выбрала довольно удивительное ударение на второй слог в слове _полымя_ — _полы́мя_ — против нормального _по́лымя_. Возможно, это региональное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="8d8cc9f3-0e40-4328-bb7c-d997b9ad901a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T17:16:52.400" UserId="4272" Text="What is the Russian term for the emigres who returned to Russia during the Stalin years--and at his invitation? This was during the 1930s, I think, and was a specific term. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="8d8cc9f3-0e40-4328-bb7c-d997b9ad901a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T17:16:52.400" UserId="4272" Text="Russian term for returning emigres?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="8d8cc9f3-0e40-4328-bb7c-d997b9ad901a" CreationDate="2014-09-03T17:16:52.400" UserId="4272" Text="|перевод|значения|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7257" RevisionGUID="138ec3aa-3729-419a-abe8-381c9ac2b332" CreationDate="2014-09-03T18:00:16.360" UserId="267" Text="Do you mean the term &quot;возвращенцы&quot;? But as far as I know, it is used in reference to emigres who returned to Russia not only during the Stalin years, but in general referring to a person who returned to his (her) motherland from immigration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7257" RevisionGUID="434f9f31-b777-4314-b02c-03d134dedf47" CreationDate="2014-09-03T18:28:05.600" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Do you mean the term &quot;возвращенцы&quot;? But as far as I know, it is used in reference to emigres who returned to Russia not only during the Stalin years, but in general referring to a person who returned to his (her) motherland from emigration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7258" RevisionGUID="4dd3695f-f10e-4c3b-b47a-396c2ddbff22" CreationDate="2014-09-03T19:09:56.450" UserId="2269" Text="_Репатриа́нты_, maybe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, those who was forced to leave USSR during the World War II: prisoners of war, ostarbeiters (forced labourers in Germany), refugees, etc; and then returned back, when the war was ended, was officially called _репатрианты_. E. g. there was an government official _Уполномоченный СНК СССР по делам репатриации_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, in 1970–90 that word was used mostly for those who departed from USSR to Israel, but that’s another story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7259" RevisionGUID="d726cdfc-8c92-41fc-958a-e8f943f9b4dc" CreationDate="2014-09-03T23:57:36.120" UserId="209" Text="может как вариант: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; теперь это так называется" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7260" RevisionGUID="2c1c7b46-fd51-4ff7-b7ca-47be259dca7e" CreationDate="2014-09-04T05:24:05.443" UserId="4270" Text="Я нашёл программу &quot;РазгРусс&quot; (разговорный русский).&#xD;&#xA;В ней очень много идиом, записанных из песен, фильмов, теле- и радиопередач.&#xD;&#xA;Наслаждаюсь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16550" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7256" RevisionGUID="2bceb8d0-3850-4956-8795-7d5a0e5f5e4e" CreationDate="2014-09-04T11:33:00.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/507491514113855488" />
  <row Id="16551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7253" RevisionGUID="3049f68e-3b7e-4760-9b19-366da6900ac9" CreationDate="2014-09-04T12:32:25.217" UserId="1097" Comment="add examples" Text="If “that's what she said” close to [&quot;If you know what I mean&quot;][1], тогда по-русски можно перевести почти дословно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если вы понимаете, о чём я...&quot; — если вы заканчиваете свою фразу  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если вы понимаете, о чём он(она, они)...&quot; — если вы заканчиваете чужую фразу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples from topicstarter link at Urban Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Make sure it's long enough. That's what she said!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;— Убедись, что он достаточно длинный. — Если вы понимаете, о чём я... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It hurts a little but it's not too bad. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;— Немного больно, но не так, что б уж очень. — Если вы понимаете, о чём она...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(At a hotel, describing the room key)  &#xD;&#xA;Clerk &quot;Put it in, then take it out fast.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Man &quot;That's what she said!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;— Вставить и сразу вынуть. &#xD;&#xA;— Если вы понимаете, о чём он...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![If you know what i mean][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=If+you+know+what+I+mean&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tkGsh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7239" RevisionGUID="efdaa523-2ff6-44f6-9f57-975939dc3de4" CreationDate="2014-09-05T09:46:40.297" UserId="4153" Comment="edited body" Text="No for the analogue in Russian. There is no a direct Russian analogue, but the translation is pretty direct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;That's what she said!&quot;` - `&quot;Она это сказала&quot;` can be used with the meaning `&quot;Не я это сказал&quot;` or even `&quot;Так говорят&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be also used to make an accent on a person who said it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;`Она `**`сама`**` так сказала`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or to show doubts, as in the example below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John is on the phone with his Director of Human Resources (DHR).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DHR: &quot;John, your manager Mike said you do your work very slowly.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John: `&quot;That's what he said.&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can express here a doubt `&quot;Это `**`только он`**` так говорит!&quot;` with the meaning as `&quot;It's doubtful&quot; `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="f6c645fc-e5a5-4c2e-b8af-7c6a5846270c" CreationDate="2014-09-05T11:36:49.940" UserId="4277" Text="Sometimes the letter 'O' have a pronunciation like 'O', but other times have a pronunciation like 'A'. How can I know the difference? The pronunciation becomes like the letter 'A' or there is some difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="f6c645fc-e5a5-4c2e-b8af-7c6a5846270c" CreationDate="2014-09-05T11:36:49.940" UserId="4277" Text="When does the letter 'O' is pronounced as 'A'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="f6c645fc-e5a5-4c2e-b8af-7c6a5846270c" CreationDate="2014-09-05T11:36:49.940" UserId="4277" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="930d2557-e2e7-492c-9d7a-057c130553f8" CreationDate="2014-09-05T11:50:44.527" UserId="97" Text="The simple rule is whether the syllable with _o_ is stressed or not.  In stressed syllables it's pronounced as _O_ while in non-stressed syllables it's pronounced closer to _A_ (although not quite the same as stressed _A_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good summary can be [found here](http://diktory.com/bezud_a_o.html) (in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that whether or not this &quot;reduction&quot; is actually used depends on the dialect.  [This English wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okanye) has some more info, while its [Russian counterpart](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5) is more to the topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7263" RevisionGUID="086aa1da-1177-4c69-8858-d263e835262a" CreationDate="2014-09-05T11:55:55.427" UserId="97" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="The simple rule is whether the syllable with _o_ is stressed or not.  In stressed syllables it's pronounced as _O_ while in non-stressed syllables it's pronounced closer to _A_ (although not necessarily the same as stressed _A_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good summary can be [found here](http://diktory.com/bezud_a_o.html) (in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that whether or not vowel reduction is actually used in the speech, depends on the dialect. For example,  [This English wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okanye) has some more info.  Note that the pair of its Russian counterpart - [оканье](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5) and [аканье](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5) - contain better explanation than the English version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7264" RevisionGUID="ff2672e7-9f15-4509-9de1-15402d635179" CreationDate="2014-09-05T12:01:49.267" UserId="1236" Text="This is probably the most famous phenomenon of Standard Russian, it's called &quot;аканье&quot; (akanye, 'ah-ing') and it's a case of vowel reduction. Tons of materials are avaliable on the issue, [Wikipedia][1] has [lots][2], too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the letter 'o' *in an unstressed syllable* is pronounced as 'a' with phonetic realizations as [ɐ] in the syllable immediately preceding the stressed syllable, and as [ə] in other unstressed syllables. Stressed letters 'o' are always pronounced as [o]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молоко́  - [məlɐ'ko]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can well pronounce both [ɐ] and [ə] as a pure [a], it won't sound as a foreign accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian#Back_vowels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Unstressed_vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="40ce63bc-54bc-40c4-8d50-f1defd9e4054" CreationDate="2014-09-05T12:15:06.770" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected" Text="Sometimes the letter 'O' has a pronunciation like 'O', but other times has a pronunciation like 'A'. How can I know the difference? The pronunciation becomes like the letter 'A' or there is some difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="40ce63bc-54bc-40c4-8d50-f1defd9e4054" CreationDate="2014-09-05T12:15:06.770" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected" Text="When is the letter 'O' pronounced as 'A'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="9724d55f-0769-4273-970f-603c5f90d219" CreationDate="2014-09-07T01:32:15.770" UserId="4284" Text="For instance, you heard a quote from a poem or a proverb, but you don't know who exactly said it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кто сказал &quot;я к розам хочу, в тот единственный сад / Где лучшая в мире стоит из оград&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кто сказалa &quot;я к розам хочу, в тот единственный сад / Где лучшая в мире стоит из оград&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="9724d55f-0769-4273-970f-603c5f90d219" CreationDate="2014-09-07T01:32:15.770" UserId="4284" Text="Which form of past tense should be used when the gender of the speaker is unknown?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="9724d55f-0769-4273-970f-603c5f90d219" CreationDate="2014-09-07T01:32:15.770" UserId="4284" Text="|словоупотребление|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="1e276c69-c5a9-4cfa-b688-fb9a2d63c35b" CreationDate="2014-09-07T03:31:43.190" UserId="2269" Text="It does not matter whether the gender of person is known or unknown. _Кто_ as a subject requires masculine singular predicate (compare with English _who_, which requires singular predicate regardless of your assumption of actual number). _Кто сказала_ or _кто сказало_ or _кто сказали_ here would be ungrammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7268" RevisionGUID="185bace7-2d55-448b-8e27-8be9dbe871dd" CreationDate="2014-09-07T04:19:32.950" UserId="2079" Text="**Кто** (also кто-то, кто-нибудь, некто, никто etc.) governs a **masculine singular**, while **что** (also что-то, что-нибудь, нечто, ничто etc.) governs a **neutral singular**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This holds even if you know that the answer is in a different gender, i.e. asking two girls &quot;Кто из вас разлил молоко?&quot; or in a sentence &quot;Что-то звенело за дверью - то ли дверной звонок, то ли телефон.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="cb7a38c9-8786-4f19-a340-d3209051d79a" CreationDate="2014-09-07T05:31:17.930" UserId="2269" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="It does not matter whether the gender of person is known or unknown. Question word _кто_ as a subject requires masculine singular predicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто родил и жалеет что не сделал аборт?  &#xD;&#xA;[[Topic of a thread in a random web-forum]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare it with English _who_, which requires singular predicate regardless of your assumption of actual number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Кто сказала_ (f.) or _кто сказало_ (n.) or _кто сказали_ (pl.) here would be just ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://forum.forumok.ru/lofiversion/index.php?t50003.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="93bd6bb9-5458-45d1-9a4f-2d6ced87c03c" CreationDate="2014-09-07T06:42:37.337" UserId="2269" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="It does not matter whether the gender of person is known or unknown. _Кто сказала_ (f.) or _кто сказало_ (n.) or _кто сказали_ (pl.) here would be just ungrammatical. Question word (interrogative pronoun) _кто_ as a subject requires masculine singular predicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто родил и жалеет что не сделал аборт?  &#xD;&#xA;[[Topic of a thread in a random web-forum]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when subject is complex, i. e. include something besides _кто_, gender and number of predicate follows those of subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто была та девушка?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто они будут по национальности?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That’s true even if gender / number could not be identified by subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто это была?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare it with cases when English _who_ requires singular predicate regardless of most probable actual number (e. g. _Who is online?_, _Who’s coming tonight?_) – it seems to be basically the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://forum.forumok.ru/lofiversion/index.php?t50003.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7267" RevisionGUID="8575017c-1706-418d-8d8a-1c8547d7c70f" CreationDate="2014-09-07T07:08:54.213" UserId="2269" Comment="added 392 characters in body" Text="It does not matter whether the gender of person is known or unknown. _Кто сказала_ (f.) or _кто сказало_ (n.) or _кто сказали_ (pl.) here would be just ungrammatical. Question word (interrogative pronoun) _кто_ as a subject requires masculine singular predicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто родил и жалеет что не сделал аборт? [[1]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто из женщин не сталкивался с проблемой — вещей полно, а надеть нечего? [[2]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when subject is complex, i. e. includes something besides _кто_, gender and number of predicate follows those of subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто была та девушка? (fem. _была_ due to _та девушка_)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто они будут по национальности? (pl. _будут_ due to _они_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That’s true even if gender / number could not be identified by subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто это была?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_это_ may stand for male as well as for female, but one implies here there was a woman, so _была_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you can hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кто это был?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ира, моя подруга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that signify that who asked the question, did not know the actual gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare it with cases when English _who_ requires singular predicate regardless of most probable actual number (e. g. _Who is online?_, _Who’s coming tonight?_) – it seems to be basically the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://forum.forumok.ru/lofiversion/index.php?t50003.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://ratsg.ru/538-kto-iz-zhenschin-ne-stalkivalsya-s-problemoj---polno-.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16578" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7266" RevisionGUID="81048be3-b210-4f0f-8d5d-2b4489d65d2c" CreationDate="2014-09-07T11:46:56.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/508582184434012160" />
  <row Id="16580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7268" RevisionGUID="77c19e11-a1f6-4b34-8206-21e654f26d0d" CreationDate="2014-09-08T05:25:11.407" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="**Кто** (also кто-то, кто-нибудь, некто, никто etc.) governs **masculine singular**, while **что** (also что-то, что-нибудь, нечто, ничто etc.) governs **neuter singular**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This holds even if you know that the answer is in a different gender, i.e. asking two girls &quot;Кто из вас разлил молоко?&quot; or in a sentence &quot;Что-то звенело за дверью - то ли дверной звонок, то ли телефон.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7270" RevisionGUID="73a55def-44eb-4008-8add-a97d09f81040" CreationDate="2014-09-09T17:14:22.400" UserId="2079" Text="Not only &quot;по крайней мере&quot; is widely used in the second sense, but it seems that it is used mostly in the second sense.  Examples from various websites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Владимир Познер: «По крайней мере, я это попробовал…» (an interview title)&#xD;&#xA;«Мы, по крайней мере, попытались». Нобелевский лауреат Роджер Корнберг о работе в Сколково. (an interview title)&#xD;&#xA;“Могло быть и лучше, но по крайней мере чисто и недорого” (a hotel review title).&#xD;&#xA;По крайней мере, селедки хватит на всех. (an interview title)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;По крайней мере&quot; is also widely used in the first sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also other ways to translate *at least* in the first sense - по меньшей мере, как минимум, хотя бы (it has some special meanings, so should not be used in most cases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="33143b51-b712-4e83-b83c-6c1ec7648ce4" CreationDate="2014-09-10T08:33:54.080" UserId="3917" Text="How do read aloud the fraction 2/ in Russian ?    &#xD;&#xA;Do you say:   &#xD;&#xA; &gt;*два на три ?, два над три ? два по три ?два под три ?*     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;or something completely different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="33143b51-b712-4e83-b83c-6c1ec7648ce4" CreationDate="2014-09-10T08:33:54.080" UserId="3917" Text="How do you read fractions in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="33143b51-b712-4e83-b83c-6c1ec7648ce4" CreationDate="2014-09-10T08:33:54.080" UserId="3917" Text="|перевод|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7272" RevisionGUID="81ecbda6-da62-48e3-ac3a-f97ce5a1faa8" CreationDate="2014-09-10T08:54:53.510" UserId="2388" Text="**2/3 = две третьих** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerator of a fraction is always a cardinal number and the denominator is an ordinal number in Genitive (singular if the numerator ends in &quot;одна&quot; and plural if that's not the case). Always use feminine when the form exposes gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For quarters and thirds you can also use &quot;одна треть&quot; and &quot;две четверти&quot;. Russian has words *&quot;треть&quot;* and *&quot;четверть&quot;* which mean &quot;a third&quot; and &quot;a quarter&quot; respectively. Won't work for other numbers, though—there are no such words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of other fractions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 5/3 = пять третьих&#xD;&#xA;- 4/10 = четыре десятых&#xD;&#xA;- 1/8 = одна восьмая&#xD;&#xA;- 3/8 = три восьмых&#xD;&#xA;- 5/9 = пять девятых&#xD;&#xA;- 21/27 = двадцать одна двадцать седьмая&#xD;&#xA;- 49/1000 = сорок девять тысячных&#xD;&#xA;- 22/232 = двадцать две двести тридцать вторых &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ordinal &quot;третий&quot;(3rd) has a slightly deviant ending patter with &quot;ь&quot;, typical of animal-possessive adjectives (лисий, волчий, цыплячий, кошачий). That probably has much to do with the fact that other than animal-adjectives *-сий/-тий* are never encountered (at least, I could not find any such adkective) and *-чий* is pretty rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="d559e8de-6eb0-449e-b91d-656a3ed64a99" CreationDate="2014-09-10T09:51:33.873" UserId="3917" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="How do read aloud the fraction 2/3 in Russian ?    &#xD;&#xA;Do you say:   &#xD;&#xA; &gt;*два на три ?, два над три ? два по три ?два под три ?*     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;or something completely different?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**  &#xD;&#xA;My example was not very good. I am actually interested in mathematical expressions like x/y: how do Russians read that aloud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7274" RevisionGUID="fd25f5e5-c08f-4df1-8278-cd09b4ad7d8d" CreationDate="2014-09-10T12:16:18.177" UserId="62" Text="A fraction x/y is pronounced by mathematicians as икс на игрек. Moreover, a product xy is pronounced the same way if you want to include a word representing the operation (often you do not and would pronounce xy simply as икс игрек). From context it would be clear if на means multiplication or division. If you think it is crazy to pronounce x/y and xy in the same way, compare with the use of the term &quot;to scale&quot; in English, where for instance &quot;scaling an equation by two&quot; could mean multiplying both sides by two or dividing both sides by two. The context makes it clear which one is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be more explicit about the operation when pronouncing the notation, then x/y is икс разделить на игрек and xy is икс умножить на игрек. The way of pronouncing these expressions that I mentioned initially is just an abbreviation of these more precise terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7274" RevisionGUID="7b95dcb8-493f-4a23-abe5-2d5aadb5fc16" CreationDate="2014-09-10T12:32:03.323" UserId="62" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="A fraction x/y is pronounced by mathematicians as икс на игрек. Moreover, a product xy is pronounced the same way if you want to include a word representing the operation (often you do not and would pronounce xy simply as икс игрек; a case when it is natural to pronounce the operation in a product would be x*2, unlike 2x -- in fact if you tried to pronounce x*2 as икс два then people would think you mean the indexed expression x_2). From context it would be clear if на means multiplication or division. If you think it is crazy to pronounce x/y and xy in the same way, compare with the use of the term &quot;to scale&quot; in English, where for instance &quot;scaling an equation by two&quot; could mean multiplying both sides by two or dividing both sides by two. The context makes it clear which one is meant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be more explicit about the operation when pronouncing the notation, then x/y is икс разделить на игрек and xy is икс умножить на игрек. The way of pronouncing these expressions that I mentioned initially is just an abbreviation of these more precise terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7275" RevisionGUID="32ea44a3-b583-41cd-8fa9-8ce8931e1aff" CreationDate="2014-09-10T13:27:02.373" UserId="4293" Text="All above answers are correct, but without directions to use it with English language and mentality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand it deeper or imagine where you can use it it means &#xD;&#xA; -  **Liveable** (liveable conditions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you can see definitions here [The Free Dictionary][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liveable&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16595" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7271" RevisionGUID="348d71dd-424a-4941-87ed-48da5835a68f" CreationDate="2014-09-10T14:58:07.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/509717460669698048" />
  <row Id="16597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7236" RevisionGUID="3df35d77-f29e-4c09-a598-c8308f2e2f6c" CreationDate="2014-09-10T20:58:08.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/509808063256469504" />
  <row Id="16598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7276" RevisionGUID="b1c6ab7d-0094-45da-a126-df1750db0c0f" CreationDate="2014-09-10T21:44:34.750" UserId="194" Text="I would say &quot;***икс делённое на игрек***&quot; or &quot;***икс делить на игрек***&quot;. If from the context it is clear that multiplication excluded, you can say just &quot;***икс на игрек***&quot; but this also can mean multiplication.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7272" RevisionGUID="1f23ea00-68de-44f7-9843-d518f8ffedfa" CreationDate="2014-09-10T22:58:03.550" UserId="2388" Comment="added 994 characters in body" Text="**2/3 = две третьих** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerator of a fraction is always a cardinal number and the denominator is an ordinal number in Genitive (singular if the numerator ends in &quot;одна&quot; and plural if that's not the case). Always use feminine when the form exposes gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For quarters and thirds you can also use &quot;одна треть&quot; and &quot;две четверти&quot;. Russian has words *&quot;треть&quot;* and *&quot;четверть&quot;* which mean &quot;a third&quot; and &quot;a quarter&quot; respectively. Won't work for other numbers, though—there are no such words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of other fractions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 5/3 = пять третьих&#xD;&#xA;- 4/10 = четыре десятых&#xD;&#xA;- 1/8 = одна восьмая&#xD;&#xA;- 3/8 = три восьмых&#xD;&#xA;- 5/9 = пять девятых&#xD;&#xA;- 21/27 = двадцать одна двадцать седьмая&#xD;&#xA;- 49/1000 = сорок девять тысячных&#xD;&#xA;- 22/232 = двадцать две двести тридцать вторых &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ordinal &quot;третий&quot;(3rd) has a slightly deviant ending patter with &quot;ь&quot;, typical of animal-possessive adjectives (лисий, волчий, цыплячий, кошачий). That probably has much to do with the fact that other than animal-adjectives *-сий/-тий* are never encountered (at least, I could not find any such adkective) and *-чий* is pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you actually mean the *division* of *x* by *y*, use &quot;**x** поделить на **y**&quot; or just *&quot;x на y&quot;* where the context is explicit (like, you are writing out the same fraction as you pronounce it, so your viewers know that you mean division and not multiplication).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For numbers (at least, small enough) you typically treat a fraction as a whole unit.  When you read expressions, the latter method is the only way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may look like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 581/1035 * (x + 1.2) → *пятьсот восемьдесят один ... на тысячу тридцать пять... (и) умножить на икс плюс одна целая две десятых* (when spelling the expression)&#xD;&#xA; - (x²+2)/(x³ + 7x - 4) → *икс квадрат плюс два (поделить) на икс куб плюс семь икс минус четыре*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if you are writing a fraction for everyone to see or are just speaking to yourself, single &quot;на&quot; is enough. However, if a listener has no reason to assume it is division and not multiplication, it sounds ambiguous, and I would probably think of multiplication first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7272" RevisionGUID="bf009800-44da-4256-9515-7f90cc592bf0" CreationDate="2014-09-10T23:07:29.190" UserId="2388" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="###Numerical fractions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2/3 = две третьих** or **две трети**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerator of a fraction is always a cardinal number and the denominator is an ordinal number in Genitive (singular if the numerator ends in &quot;одна&quot; and plural if that's not the case). Always use feminine when the form exposes gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For quarters and thirds you can also use &quot;одна треть&quot; and &quot;две четверти&quot;. Russian has words *&quot;треть&quot;* and *&quot;четверть&quot;* which mean &quot;a third&quot; and &quot;a quarter&quot; respectively. Won't work for other numbers, though—there are no such words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of other fractions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 5/3 = пять третьих&#xD;&#xA;- 4/10 = четыре десятых&#xD;&#xA;- 1/8 = одна восьмая&#xD;&#xA;- 3/8 = три восьмых&#xD;&#xA;- 5/9 = пять девятых&#xD;&#xA;- 21/27 = двадцать одна двадцать седьмая&#xD;&#xA;- 49/1000 = сорок девять тысячных&#xD;&#xA;- 22/232 = двадцать две двести тридцать вторых &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ordinal &quot;третий&quot;(3rd) has a slightly deviant ending patter with &quot;ь&quot;, typical of animal-possessive adjectives (лисий, волчий, цыплячий, кошачий). That probably has much to do with the fact that other than animal-adjectives *-сий/-тий* are never encountered (at least, I could not find any such adkective) and *-чий* is pretty rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Mathematical expressions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When reading mathematical expressions or if you actually mean the *division* of *x* by *y* with numbers (especially large), use &quot;**x** поделить на **y**&quot;. Or just *&quot;x на y&quot;* where the context is explicit — for instance, if you are writing out the same fraction as you pronounce it, so your viewers know that you mean division and not multiplication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For numbers (at least, small enough) you typically treat a fraction as a whole unit.  When you read expressions, the latter method is the only way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may look like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 581/1035 * (x + 1.2) → *пятьсот восемьдесят один ... на тысячу тридцать пять... (и) умножить на икс плюс одна целая две десятых* (when spelling the expression)&#xD;&#xA; - (x²+2)/(x³ + 7x - 4) → *икс квадрат плюс два (поделить) на икс куб плюс семь икс минус четыре*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if you are writing a fraction for everyone to see or are just speaking to yourself, single &quot;на&quot; is enough. However, if a listener has no reason to assume it is division and not multiplication, it sounds ambiguous, and I would probably think of multiplication first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7277" RevisionGUID="f0f2a271-dfff-445d-9527-122c63684a5f" CreationDate="2014-09-11T05:38:24.037" UserId="4270" Text="I use RazgRuss (РазгРусс - разговорный русский) free software.&#xD;&#xA;There are 'Sound only', and 'Text only', and 'Text and sound' modes for a funny guessing game of phraseological units." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16602" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7261" RevisionGUID="de17ddc9-2de3-48c1-b9ab-31ee24808626" CreationDate="2014-09-11T05:58:10.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/509943966876172288" />
  <row Id="16603" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7247" RevisionGUID="6f45c173-48f7-48d4-8862-e03ef0214731" CreationDate="2014-09-11T08:58:10.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/509989266462494720" />
  <row Id="16613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="e49790c1-3131-4ece-a357-8625dbbb749b" CreationDate="2014-09-11T16:12:39.720" UserId="4295" Text="there.&#xD;&#xA;May you explain me differences between following verbs in detail?!&#xD;&#xA;(Attention: For God's sake, PLEASE, Don't match them up with English words like: study, learn , teach, etc. Just please try to define them or the action and and also look to them from grammar point, Please make for every verb at least two samples!)&#xD;&#xA;(Also please pair them based on being imperfective/perfective and explain me differences even in that aspect too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) учи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) вы́учить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) изуча́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) изучи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) учи́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) занима́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) заучи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) научи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) выу́чивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) зау́чивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) научи́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12) обучАться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13) обучи́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember any other verb which is related to this subject, please write it down here too!&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="e49790c1-3131-4ece-a357-8625dbbb749b" CreationDate="2014-09-11T16:12:39.720" UserId="4295" Text="Verbs related to learning or teaching" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="e49790c1-3131-4ece-a357-8625dbbb749b" CreationDate="2014-09-11T16:12:39.720" UserId="4295" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="dde335cf-6bdb-4f62-98e8-e75879043544" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:41:42.497" UserId="2269" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="there.&#xD;&#xA;May you explain me differences between following verbs in detail?!&#xD;&#xA;(Attention: For God's sake, PLEASE, Don't match them up with English words like: study, learn, teach, etc. Just please try to define them or the action and and also look to them from grammar point, Please make for every verb at least two samples!)&#xD;&#xA;(Also please pair them based on being imperfective/perfective and explain me differences even in that aspect too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) учи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) вы́учить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) изуча́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) изучи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) учи́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) занима́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) заучи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) научи́ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) выу́чивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) зау́чивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) научи́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12) обуча́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13) обучи́ться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remember any other verb which is related to this subject, please write it down here too!&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16617" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="dde335cf-6bdb-4f62-98e8-e75879043544" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:41:42.497" UserId="2269" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|глаголы|синонимы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="cfb1447c-8afb-4421-9fa5-86d2e986e89a" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:44:44.480" UserId="2269" Comment="retag" Text="I am very curious about the Russian word “Toska.” The word that is difficult to translate in English and means loosely: melancholy, longing, boredom, spiritual anguish. How is this word written and accented in Russian using Russian letters? What does it look like? Also, how do you pronounce it? Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16619" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="cfb1447c-8afb-4421-9fa5-86d2e986e89a" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:44:44.480" UserId="2269" Comment="retag" Text="How do you say and spell “Тоска”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16620" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="cfb1447c-8afb-4421-9fa5-86d2e986e89a" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:44:44.480" UserId="2269" Comment="retag" Text="|произношение|правописание|существительные|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7277" RevisionGUID="65182d12-6f22-4c46-8bdf-0a9b82221ac0" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:56:11.403" UserId="2269" Comment="1) link; 2) it’s non-free (proprietary), just available for download at no charge" Text="I use [RazgRuss][1] (РазгРусс — разговорный русский) software (gratis).&#xD;&#xA;There are ‘Sound only’, and ‘Text only’, and ‘Text and sound’ modes for a funny guessing game of phraseological units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.umopit.ru/RazgRuss.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16622" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6742" RevisionGUID="59a18b1d-48c7-4e6b-a374-adcb9aca2a7c" CreationDate="2014-09-11T17:58:23.080" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|resources|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7281" RevisionGUID="fb56fde2-ca0b-4707-a4da-fb35f0732d14" CreationDate="2014-09-11T18:12:17.993" UserId="4296" Text="Ещё можно сказать: **Зубрить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Вызубрить таблицу умножения.&#xD;&#xA;* Ты, зубрил что ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зубрить, означает учить что-либо тяжело запоминающееся, очень грубым, агрессивным способом. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, когда читаешь художественную литературу, Гоголя или Пушкина, можно сказать что материал пройден и ты с ним знаком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но когда &quot;зубришь&quot;, ты можешь воспроизвести материал 1 в 1. И обычно это не связано с каким-либо элегантным способом запоминания, усвоения материала. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Непрерывный, можно даже сказать &quot;тупой&quot; повтор материала. Как молитвы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вызубренный материал проходит через временную память несколько раз, оседая в постоянной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вероятно, начной основой для зубрёшки могут быть работы [Шенона][1] по временной памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Смотри также [Интервальные повторения][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7282" RevisionGUID="b54d695c-25d1-4e1d-aac2-dfa811e43e4b" CreationDate="2014-09-11T20:42:49.857" UserId="97" Text="Is there a term in Russian corresponding to English _two-factor authentication_?  If I want to search for Russian-language results for &quot;two-factor authentication&quot; what should I put into the search engine (Google or Yandex)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7282" RevisionGUID="b54d695c-25d1-4e1d-aac2-dfa811e43e4b" CreationDate="2014-09-11T20:42:49.857" UserId="97" Text="Two-factor authentication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7282" RevisionGUID="b54d695c-25d1-4e1d-aac2-dfa811e43e4b" CreationDate="2014-09-11T20:42:49.857" UserId="97" Text="|перевод|it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7283" RevisionGUID="ddbce0e4-4748-4153-b5ae-acbad9fedabd" CreationDate="2014-09-11T20:54:19.153" UserId="4297" Text="I would translate &quot;two-factor authentication&quot; as &quot;двухшаговая проверка подлинности&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7284" RevisionGUID="f7204399-42a0-4c72-bca1-b45aefccce63" CreationDate="2014-09-11T21:19:16.337" UserId="4297" Text="In the interrogative sentences like yours use the masculine form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;Кто приходил?&#xD;&#xA;Кто следующий?&#xD;&#xA;Кто говорит? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="8318c870-bb52-4341-acac-22d084150151" CreationDate="2014-09-11T22:56:09.290" UserId="4297" Text="учиться, учить, выучить, заучить or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of them is &quot;учить&quot; (to study or to learn in English), and these verbs differ only with the prefixes (вы-,за-,на-). Each different prefix slightly change the meaning of its verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;выучить&quot; and &quot;заучить&quot; show some final results you have succeeded while studying.&#xD;&#xA;*Я выучил/заучил пять новых слов.&#xD;&#xA;I have learnt/memorized five new words*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;изучить&quot; means you have obtained essential knowledge by researching some subject of your interest, not indicating the steps you have taken to achieve that. &quot;Изучить&quot; sounds more seriously than simply &quot;учить&quot; I would say, scientifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я изучил устройство кофеварки от А до Я.&#xD;&#xA;I have learnt the operation principles of a coffeemaker from A to Z. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;За два года я изучил грамматику русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;It took me two years to master Russian grammar.* (No need to say that you had to learn words and grammatical rules, you've just done it as a whole and that's all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Научить&quot; means teaching something to someone and definitely having result in that.&#xD;&#xA;*Он научил меня рисованию комиксов.&#xD;&#xA;He has taught me how to draw comics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он учил меня рисованию комиксов.&#xD;&#xA;He was teaching me how to draw comics.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заниматься&quot; is idiomatic, it says that at the moment you're busy with something. If you omit the reason of your occupation, then studying is implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня нет времени, я занимаюсь.&#xD;&#xA;I've no time, I'm studying.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Обучаться&quot; or &quot;Обучиться&quot; indicate professional training.&#xD;&#xA;*Их обучали шитью.&#xD;&#xA;They were being trained to be a dressmaker.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7286" RevisionGUID="5fc55415-03fe-4a74-b6cc-b2265049f7eb" CreationDate="2014-09-11T23:09:53.997" UserId="4297" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="учиться, учить, выучить, заучить or whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of them is &quot;учить&quot; (to study or to learn in English), and these verbs differ only with the prefixes (вы-,за-,на-). Each different prefix slightly change the meaning of its verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;выучить&quot; and &quot;заучить&quot; show some final results you have succeeded while studying.&#xD;&#xA;*Я выучил/заучил пять новых слов.&#xD;&#xA;I have learnt/memorized five new words*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;изучить&quot; means you have obtained essential knowledge by researching some subject of your interest, not indicating the steps you have taken to achieve that. &quot;Изучить&quot; sounds more seriously than simply &quot;учить&quot; I would say, scientifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я изучил устройство кофеварки от А до Я.&#xD;&#xA;I have learnt the operation principles of a coffeemaker from A to Z. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;За два года я изучил грамматику русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;It took me two years to master Russian grammar.* (No need to say that you had to learn words and grammatical rules, you've just done it as a whole and that's all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Научить&quot; means teaching something to someone and definitely having result in that.&#xD;&#xA;*Он научил меня рисованию комиксов.&#xD;&#xA;He has taught me how to draw comics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он учил меня рисованию комиксов.&#xD;&#xA;He was teaching me how to draw comics.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заниматься&quot; is idiomatic, it says that at the moment you're busy with something. If you omit the reason of your occupation, then studying is implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня нет времени, я занимаюсь.&#xD;&#xA;I've no time, I'm studying.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Обучаться&quot; or &quot;Обучиться&quot; indicate professional training.&#xD;&#xA;*Их обучали кройке и шитью.&#xD;&#xA;They were being trained to be a dressmaker.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7287" RevisionGUID="68fb900b-647c-4d22-807e-c9cd2acb7815" CreationDate="2014-09-12T06:35:50.440" UserId="2079" Text="1) учи́ть - imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) - to teach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage: учить кого-то чему-то, учить кого-то что-то делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Учить детей албанскому - to teach children Albanian language&#xD;&#xA;* Учить детей петь и танцевать - to teach children singing and dancing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &#xD;&#xA;* the student is in accusative, the topic is in dative.&#xD;&#xA;* Only in some special cases you can omit the student, the topic, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, учить means to teach somebody how to do something or just to teach somebody to do something. More examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* жизнь научила меня не поддаваться отчаянию&#xD;&#xA;* вас не учили называть незнакомых людей на вы?&#xD;&#xA;* меня учили, что пожилым надо уступать место в автобусе (note &quot;учили, что&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) - to learn (some subject, topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;* Я учу историю - I learn history.  Here the topic is in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;* Учи албанский! - learn Albanian language!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot say &#xD;&#xA;* &quot;я учу шахматы&quot; (chess playing is a skill, not a topic) - correct: я учусь играть в шахматы&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;я учу муравьёв&quot; meaning that you are study ants by observations, experiments etc. - correct: я изучаю муравьёв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Научить - perfective of учить (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Учиться - учить (1) себя:&#xD;&#xA;* я учусь петь&#xD;&#xA;* я учусь математике&#xD;&#xA;* котёнок учится ходить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Научиться - perfective of учиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5-6. изуча́ть (imperf.)/изучи́ть (perf.) - to study&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* изучить план местности - to study the map deeply&#xD;&#xA;* я изучаю собак - I study dogs (i.e. study them with observation, experiments etc., rather than from textbooks or with a teacher.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7-8. выучить/заучить (perf.) - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) to learn some topic/text. &quot;Заучить&quot; has some negative connotation, meaning just to memorize something, without understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Вася заучил доказательство теоремы Пифагора - Vasya remembers the proof word by word, but hardly understand it.&#xD;&#xA;* Вася выучил доказательство теоремы Пифагора - Vasya knows the proof.&#xD;&#xA;* Я выучил русский - ok.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я заучил русский&quot; - this sentence is wrong.  Можно заучить текст, но не язык или предмет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Also, выучить кого-либо чему-либо is to learn an animal some trick, or to learn human in the same manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Выучил собаку давать лапу&#xD;&#xA;* Выучил собаку командам &quot;голос!&quot;, &quot;сидеть!&quot; и &quot;лежать!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are other meanings of выучить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9-10. Заучивать/выучивать - imperfective of заучить/выучить (1)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7288" RevisionGUID="3d9e0e25-deb3-4d36-866f-b37098b6c807" CreationDate="2014-09-12T12:03:07.190" UserId="1558" Text="Two-factor authentication == Двухфакторная аутентификация." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7289" RevisionGUID="317231b2-46c9-43b6-8b37-2be105ca587f" CreationDate="2014-09-13T15:59:08.273" UserId="4300" Text="I'm not a Russian teacher, but as a native-speaker I can say that иметь has meaning closer to 'to own'. Я имею дом ~ I own a house. You use it when you want to emphasize the posessive element, also it sounds more official and unnatural, but grammatically it's 100% right. I would write it in official document. &#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, У меня есть дом has a neutral meaning and sounds more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;Hope this was useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="cb25460e-5511-48f6-838a-386f310705b1" CreationDate="2014-09-14T08:51:03.810" UserId="4297" Text="Nowadays only foreigners use the verb &quot;иметь&quot; (to have) to point ownership out. If you want to sound more like a native speaker, use the verb &quot;быть&quot; (to be) in the 3rd person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть леопард.*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I've got a leopard.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В детстве у меня был свой автомат Калашникова.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In childhood I had my own Kalashnikov.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other senses of &quot;иметь&quot;, it can mean having sex (roughly speaking) or cheating someone (saying that in a sarcastic way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вчера в покер я поимел всех и каждого!*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Yesterday playing poker I fucked each and every one of them!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7290" RevisionGUID="e12a7159-c6c6-4abf-96c5-747b5eff4291" CreationDate="2014-09-14T09:07:12.363" UserId="4297" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="Nowadays only foreigners use the verb &quot;иметь&quot; (to have) to point ownership out. If you want to sound more like a native speaker, use the verb &quot;быть&quot; (to be) in the 3rd person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть леопард.*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*I've got a leopard.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В детстве у меня был свой автомат Калашникова.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In childhood I had my own Kalashnikov.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for other senses of &quot;иметь&quot;, it means having sex or cheating saying that in a sarcastic way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вчера в покер я поимел всех и каждого!*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Yesterday playing poker I fucked each and every one of them!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16639" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7280" RevisionGUID="1385ecf6-c162-462a-8a7d-1e48d27d2f22" CreationDate="2014-09-15T09:08:53.320" UserId="-1" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anixx&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:81,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;default locale&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16640" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7282" RevisionGUID="92658a18-2a21-4714-a5b9-9c2395223c4d" CreationDate="2014-09-15T12:05:04.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/511485850157207554" />
  <row Id="16641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="bcadcfe5-a590-41bd-adc0-384711b679e6" CreationDate="2014-09-15T18:10:32.943" UserId="2269" Comment="Please, do not use Latin letters instead of Cyrillic ones. " Text="&quot;Стрелка́&quot; is &quot;стрело́к&quot; (&quot;shooter&quot;) in accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, &quot;стрелка&quot; is correct, because it is the object of &quot;называть&quot;, which should have the accusative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Адвокаты назвали стрелка из Колорадо душевнобольным.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Attorneys called the shooter from Colorado a madman.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how word &quot;стрелок&quot; changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom**: стрелок&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Gen**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Acc**: стрелка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Dat**: стрелку&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ins**: стрелком&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Prp**: стрелке&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel &quot;о&quot; disappears in the suffix for historical reasons. This vowel stems from a reduced vowel &quot;ъ&quot; of the Old-Russian language. There were two reduced vowels in Old-Russian, &quot;ъ&quot; and &quot;ь&quot;, and they disappeared in &quot;weak&quot; positions and changed into &quot;о&quot; and &quot;e&quot; in &quot;strong&quot; positions. One of the weak positions was the position before the stressed syllable, one of the strong positions was the position in the stressed syllable. This is exactly what we see in examples like &quot;сынок&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Nom**: сънъкъ → сыно́к (&quot;ъ&quot; under stress becomes &quot;o&quot;)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Gen**: сънъкa → сынка́ (&quot;ъ&quot; before the stressed syllable disappears)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as @Quassnoi says, this suffix appeared in the sense of profession much later, when the reduced vowels has already disappeared. But by that time it already existed in a two forms: &quot;ок&quot; in Nom Sg and &quot;к&quot; in other positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why there are disappearing vowels (called &quot;fleeting vowels&quot;, thanks to @Quassnoi for terminology) in Russian words (and not only in suffixes, but also in stems, as &quot;сон&quot;–&quot;сна&quot; (&quot;dream&quot;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there is no way you may know whether some &quot;o&quot; in some word stems from a full Old-Russian vowel &quot;o&quot; of from a reduced Old-Russian vowel &quot;ъ&quot;, that's why you have to learn two word stems for nouns where the stress can be both on the stem and not on the stem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7291" RevisionGUID="efd7ab7f-1a3d-4b6a-a01b-76aaf10c112a" CreationDate="2014-09-16T04:16:10.960" UserId="4307" Text="You can also say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не каждый великий человек мудр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="883f6afb-c5d4-4139-a27d-90eef5f5cbc9" CreationDate="2014-09-16T09:26:52.790" UserId="4270" Text="Есть пожелание &quot;Приятного аппетита&quot;, но нет словосочетания &quot;приятный аппетит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Почему так?&#xD;&#xA;Это устаревшее?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="883f6afb-c5d4-4139-a27d-90eef5f5cbc9" CreationDate="2014-09-16T09:26:52.790" UserId="4270" Text="Был ли раньше &quot;приятный аппетит&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="883f6afb-c5d4-4139-a27d-90eef5f5cbc9" CreationDate="2014-09-16T09:26:52.790" UserId="4270" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="805046d7-4154-49c9-bfc8-5bdbfca754a3" CreationDate="2014-09-16T16:24:12.127" UserId="2079" Text="Словосочетание *приятный аппетит*, хотя и редкое, находится ruscorpora.ru.   Согласно Корпусу, *приятного аппетита* встречается с 1869 года, *приятный аппетит* - с 1901, а *приятного сна* - с XVIII века.  Так что *приятного аппетита*, вероятно, возникло, когда *Bon Appétit* перевели по аналогии с *приятного сна*, а уж от него произошёл *приятный аппетит*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="9181d36f-32c5-4a47-b334-43abacf8e9c9" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:16:41.123" UserId="2269" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Есть пожелание «Приятного аппетита», но нет словосочетания «приятный аппетит».&#xD;&#xA;Почему так?&#xD;&#xA;Это устаревшее?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16659" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="9181d36f-32c5-4a47-b334-43abacf8e9c9" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:16:41.123" UserId="2269" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Был ли раньше «приятный аппетит»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="9181d36f-32c5-4a47-b334-43abacf8e9c9" CreationDate="2014-09-17T07:16:41.123" UserId="2269" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|этимология|история-языка|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16661" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7292" RevisionGUID="6c5c2bb0-2f12-410e-a21d-b11b243fefbb" CreationDate="2014-09-17T18:12:47.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/512303167275794432" />
  <row Id="16662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="b818c8cb-872f-4206-9325-c75e90050076" CreationDate="2014-09-18T05:48:19.213" UserId="4314" Text="As I understand it, ванная is a substantive adjective (just learned that googling for an answer for this) that acts as a noun, but still declines like an adjective. Shouldn't it be the genitive plural ванных following the numbers 2, 3, and 4?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="b818c8cb-872f-4206-9325-c75e90050076" CreationDate="2014-09-18T05:48:19.213" UserId="4314" Text="Why &quot;две ванные&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="b818c8cb-872f-4206-9325-c75e90050076" CreationDate="2014-09-18T05:48:19.213" UserId="4314" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="e619738e-9fd9-4746-bb5d-4187183873e7" CreationDate="2014-09-18T06:48:21.537" UserId="267" Text="With the numbers 2,3 and 4 the adjective is used in the Nominative plural if the noun is feminine. This feminine noun is used in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  1. три красивые женщины: 3 beautiful women &#xD;&#xA;  2. две известные актрисы: 2    famous actresses &#xD;&#xA;  3. четыре старые тетради: 4 old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the colloquial speech the adjective, however, is sometimes used in the Genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the noun is masculine or neutral, the adjective is used in the Genitive plural and and noun, in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. три красивых парня: 3 handsome men&#xD;&#xA;2. два известных актёра: 2 famous actors&#xD;&#xA;3. четыре старых стула: 4 old chairs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="2fc48ebb-459a-4a9e-980f-60aec78db50c" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:27:37.090" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="With the numbers 2,3 and 4 the adjective is used in the Nominative plural if the noun is feminine. This feminine noun is used in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * три красивые женщины: 3 beautiful women &#xD;&#xA;  * две известные актрисы: 2    famous actresses &#xD;&#xA;  * четыре старые тетради: 4 old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the colloquial speech the adjective, however, is sometimes used in the Genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the noun is masculine or neutral, the adjective is used in the Genitive plural and and noun, in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* три красивых парня: 3 handsome men&#xD;&#xA;* два известных актёра: 2 famous actors&#xD;&#xA;* четыре старых стула: 4 old chairs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="d09e288e-90c7-4767-911a-686ee2178fc2" CreationDate="2014-09-18T10:43:36.003" UserId="4297" Text="The formerly-used phrase &quot;ванная комната&quot; got shortened and became just &quot;ванная&quot;. The same happened to the words &quot;уборная&quot;, &quot;проходная&quot; and some others where the feminine-gender noun &quot;комната&quot; is always unspoken but meant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в доме нету двух **ванных** (комнат).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера в баре я встретил трёх **любознательных** девушек.*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="e925ca8f-993c-41d1-981f-12a497de2f64" CreationDate="2014-09-18T11:00:55.403" UserId="4297" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="The formerly-used phrase &quot;ванная комната&quot; got shortened and became just &quot;ванная&quot;. The same happened to the words &quot;уборная&quot;, &quot;проходная&quot; and some others where the feminine-gender noun &quot;комната&quot; is always unspoken but meant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в доме нету двух **ванных** (комнат).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера в баре я встретил трёх **любознательных** девушек.*&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в **диванной** стоят две новые ванны.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've got two brand-new bathtubs in my living room.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="0c3a6ba6-b9c7-4af9-b259-4d572b737c78" CreationDate="2014-09-18T11:07:00.583" UserId="4297" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="The formerly-used phrase &quot;ванная комната&quot; got shortened and became just &quot;ванная&quot;. The same happened to the words &quot;уборная&quot;, &quot;проходная&quot; and some others where the feminine-gender noun &quot;комната&quot; is always unspoken but meant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в доме нету двух **ванных** (комнат).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I ain't got no two bathrooms in my house.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера в баре я встретил трёх **любознательных** девушек.*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I met two curious girls in a bar.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в **диванной** стоят две новые ванны.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've got two brand-new bathtubs in my living room.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="2dffba74-239e-499c-b5d6-74aab4c7054b" CreationDate="2014-09-18T11:10:23.847" UserId="267" Comment="added 584 characters in body" Text="With the numbers 2,3 and 4 the adjective is used in the Nominative plural if the noun is feminine. This feminine noun is used in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * три красивые женщины: 3 beautiful women &#xD;&#xA;  * две известные актрисы: 2    famous actresses &#xD;&#xA;  * четыре старые тетради: 4 old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the colloquial speech the adjective, however, is sometimes used in the Genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the noun is masculine or neutral, the adjective is used in the Genitive plural and and noun, in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * три красивых парня: 3 handsome men&#xD;&#xA; * два известных актёра: 2 famous actors&#xD;&#xA; * четыре старых стула: 4 old chairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, note that in all the other cases, except the Nominative and the Accusative inanimate, both adjective and noun (feminine, masculine and neutral) are used in their plural form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. три красивые женщины&#xD;&#xA;G. трёх красивых женщин&#xD;&#xA;D. трём красивым женщинам&#xD;&#xA;А. трёх красивых женщин, but: четыре старые тетради (inanimate)&#xD;&#xA;I. тремя красивыми женщинами&#xD;&#xA;P. трёх красивых женщинах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. три красивых парня&#xD;&#xA;G. трёх красивых парней&#xD;&#xA;D. трём красивым парням&#xD;&#xA;A. трёх красивых парней, but четыре старых стула (inanimate)&#xD;&#xA;I. тремя красивыми парнями&#xD;&#xA;P. трёх красивых парнях." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="fb1ab60e-2ca3-4179-8290-5f4ea1621bc5" CreationDate="2014-09-18T11:13:06.087" UserId="4297" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The formerly-used phrase &quot;ванная комната&quot; got shortened and became just &quot;ванная&quot;. The same happened to the words &quot;уборная&quot;, &quot;проходная&quot; and some others where the feminine-gender noun &quot;комната&quot; is always unspoken but meant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в доме нету двух **ванных** (комнат).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I ain't got two bathrooms at home.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера в баре я встретил трёх **любознательных** девушек.*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I met two curious girls in a bar.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в **диванной** стоят две новые ванны.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've got two brand-new bathtubs in the living room.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7301" RevisionGUID="c2d5b7ee-6efc-49f4-bbdb-136d9fa4e6dd" CreationDate="2014-09-18T11:22:10.077" UserId="4297" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The formerly-used phrase &quot;ванная комната&quot; got shortened and became just &quot;ванная&quot;. The same happened to the words &quot;уборная&quot;, &quot;проходная&quot; and some others where the feminine-gender noun &quot;комната&quot; is always unspoken but meant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в доме нету двух **ванных** (комнат).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I ain't got two bathrooms at home.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера в баре я встретил трёх **любознательных** девушек.*&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I met three curious girls in a bar.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня в **диванной** стоят две новые ванны.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've got two brand-new bathtubs in the living room.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7302" RevisionGUID="9e0ddc07-ceea-41ec-ae74-441588d6b3b4" CreationDate="2014-09-18T14:50:04.580" UserId="2238" Text="When the noun (or supposed noun, as комната in ванная (комната)) is feminine, both -ые and -ых are possible with два, три и четыре in nominative and accusative. This is an exception of the rule saying that -ых should be used in such case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7303" RevisionGUID="29db03be-9101-4440-856f-f07e1dc896bb" CreationDate="2014-09-18T15:11:40.613" UserId="1671" Text="It would be `стрелок` in the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Адвокаты назвали его так: &quot;душевнобольной стрелок из Колорадо&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7299" RevisionGUID="e99fd848-c276-41f4-a77e-04c85ebf3e4d" CreationDate="2014-09-18T16:08:19.050" UserId="267" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="With the numbers 2,3 and 4 the adjective is used in the Nominative plural if the noun is feminine. This feminine noun is used in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * три красивые женщины: 3 beautiful women &#xD;&#xA;  * две известные актрисы: 2    famous actresses &#xD;&#xA;  * четыре старые тетради: 4 old notebooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the colloquial speech the adjective, however, is sometimes used in the Genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the noun is masculine or neutral, the adjective is used in the Genitive plural and and noun, in the Genitive singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * три красивых парня: 3 handsome men&#xD;&#xA; * два известных актёра: 2 famous actors&#xD;&#xA; * четыре старых стула: 4 old chairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, note that in all the other cases, except the Nominative and the Accusative inanimate, both adjective and noun (feminine, masculine and neutral) are used in their plural form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. три красивые женщины&#xD;&#xA;G. трёх красивых женщин&#xD;&#xA;D. трём красивым женщинам&#xD;&#xA;А. трёх красивых женщин, but: четыре старые тетради (inanimate)&#xD;&#xA;I. тремя красивыми женщинами&#xD;&#xA;P. трёх красивых женщинах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N. три красивых парня&#xD;&#xA;G. трёх красивых парней&#xD;&#xA;D. трём красивым парням&#xD;&#xA;A. трёх красивых парней, but четыре старых стула (inanimate)&#xD;&#xA;I. тремя красивыми парнями&#xD;&#xA;P. трёх красивых парнях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also important that if there is a group of men (only for animated nouns, masculine) you can use a collective number instead, but not for a group of women. The adjective and the noun used are used in the Genitive plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - три красивых парня = трое красивых парней&#xD;&#xA; - два известных актёра = двое известных актёров&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16681" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7298" RevisionGUID="a567fb82-6a7a-4143-8e87-f425c44a4561" CreationDate="2014-09-19T12:15:32.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/512938035676467201" />
  <row Id="16682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7305" RevisionGUID="5d60b4ca-ac3c-4494-94a0-873c207309fe" CreationDate="2014-09-19T19:42:09.533" UserId="4319" Text="&gt;How is this word written and accented in Russian using Russian letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тоска**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It accented (big character means accent):  &#xD;&#xA;**taskA**.  &#xD;&#xA;Like &quot;task&quot;+&quot;A&quot;. Where A=[a]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7251" RevisionGUID="bf7e23e9-38ca-41c2-a194-6ce3b00a64d3" CreationDate="2014-09-19T21:15:32.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/513073932204011520" />
  <row Id="16693" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="b58f8353-56a3-4d21-8701-33e9276ff30f" CreationDate="2014-09-20T11:21:12.780" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7302" RevisionGUID="b7c4027e-5238-4994-a7e5-031de0842d9f" CreationDate="2014-09-21T12:57:14.937" UserId="2238" Comment="grammar" Text="When the noun (or supposed noun, as комната in ванная (комната)) is feminine, both -ые and -ых are possible with две, три и четыре in nominative and accusative. This is an exception of the rule saying that -ых should be used in such case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="cc6d2d54-f7a0-4bcf-ba0a-b5567898b07d" CreationDate="2014-09-22T00:31:25.150" UserId="3892" Text="I found this in an online dictionary under горячий as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Горячо (в значение ск.аз.) рукам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea of what it stands for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="cc6d2d54-f7a0-4bcf-ba0a-b5567898b07d" CreationDate="2014-09-22T00:31:25.150" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of abbreviation ск.аз" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="cc6d2d54-f7a0-4bcf-ba0a-b5567898b07d" CreationDate="2014-09-22T00:31:25.150" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7311" RevisionGUID="2ca6682d-1e0a-46cf-b239-bc846e5e8cac" CreationDate="2014-09-22T00:40:53.097" UserId="3680" Text="I believe it is a misprint, `сказ.`(abbreviation for the `сказуемое`) is more probable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="45a67083-ad1e-4688-bdce-73e71ab885f0" CreationDate="2014-09-22T07:28:05.800" UserId="81" Comment="Вставил ссылку для удобства. Если что не так с поисковым запросом, можете ее поправить." Text="Словосочетание *приятный аппетит*, хотя и редкое, находится [ruscorpora.ru][1].   Согласно Корпусу, *приятного аппетита* встречается с 1869 года, *приятный аппетит* - с 1901, а *приятного сна* - с XVIII века.  Так что *приятного аппетита*, вероятно, возникло, когда *Bon Appétit* перевели по аналогии с *приятного сна*, а уж от него произошёл *приятный аппетит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EF%F0%E8%FF%F2%ED%FB%E9%20%E0%EF%EF%E5%F2%E8%F2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16703" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7294" RevisionGUID="45a67083-ad1e-4688-bdce-73e71ab885f0" CreationDate="2014-09-22T07:28:05.800" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by 2269, 2079 edit id of 544" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7313" RevisionGUID="cabd2911-bb2b-4058-877f-e4a05dfe4bd2" CreationDate="2014-09-22T17:34:07.953" UserId="4327" Text="[Google search][1] for `(в значение ск.аз.)` yelds 3 results, one of them being here, ther other two being copies of a dictionary article. On the other hand, [search][2] for `(в значение сказ.)` yealds over 800 different articles, so I'm positive the dot is just a misprint.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%BE%20(%D0%B2%20%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BA.%D0%B0%D0%B7.)%20%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC&amp;sourceid=ie7&amp;rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&amp;ie=&amp;oe=&amp;rlz=&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=CVwgVMqlN4PMwwPV3oDACA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&amp;q=%22(%D0%B2%20%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BA.%D0%B0%D0%B7.)%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%87%D0%BE%20(%D0%B2%20%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BA.%D0%B0%D0%B7.)%20%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC&amp;sourceid=ie7&amp;rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&amp;ie=&amp;oe=&amp;rlz=&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=CVwgVMqlN4PMwwPV3oDACA&amp;gws_rd=ssl#rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&amp;q=%22(%D0%B2%20%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7.)%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7310" RevisionGUID="9d9495c7-8055-4f0a-8aee-f1231785875c" CreationDate="2014-09-22T18:24:32.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/514118062102941697" />
  <row Id="16707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="1575a688-83e1-4cf3-9830-ae52bb3b4ab7" CreationDate="2014-09-23T04:17:39.527" UserId="4329" Text="My friend has &quot;КАТЯ&quot; tattooed on him. It is the name of his ex-girlfriend. He wants to change the tattoo and make it into a longer word that has &quot;КАТЯ&quot; as a part of it.  Any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="1575a688-83e1-4cf3-9830-ae52bb3b4ab7" CreationDate="2014-09-23T04:17:39.527" UserId="4329" Text="need a longer word(s) with &quot;катя&quot; in it as a syllable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="1575a688-83e1-4cf3-9830-ae52bb3b4ab7" CreationDate="2014-09-23T04:17:39.527" UserId="4329" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7315" RevisionGUID="59606325-4f25-4056-8001-c24644a0aa56" CreationDate="2014-09-23T05:24:29.163" UserId="4330" Text="Hm... This isn't an easy one. I seriously doubt it's possible to find a replacement that would content-rich enough to be used as a tattoo. The only &quot;Катящийся&quot;=&quot;Rolling&quot; comes to mind but this would be a bit weird to have exposed on your skin.. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="7ba859b3-6847-4778-a578-609edbd68a00" CreationDate="2014-09-23T06:21:01.373" UserId="4270" Text="Some rational coinage: &quot;НАКАТЯРА&quot; = booze artist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7316" RevisionGUID="f3c6b5e1-45e1-4254-aced-8da40cc62fce" CreationDate="2014-09-23T06:37:50.017" UserId="4270" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Some rational coinage: &quot;НАКАТЯРА&quot; = a booze artist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7317" RevisionGUID="cf9e147a-2182-492c-92ae-e6d08ee035ad" CreationDate="2014-09-23T10:59:01.723" UserId="2311" Text="If we are to translate it literally we'll get «неразвитые страны», but this has even more negative connotation for some russian speakers than «страны третьего мира» for which «undeveloped countries» acts almost like a euphemism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did come up with «страны не прошедшие стадию развития», which doesn't sound like an insult but is a little longish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7317" RevisionGUID="cf9e147a-2182-492c-92ae-e6d08ee035ad" CreationDate="2014-09-23T10:59:01.723" UserId="2311" Text="What's the best way to translate «undeveloped countries»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7317" RevisionGUID="cf9e147a-2182-492c-92ae-e6d08ee035ad" CreationDate="2014-09-23T10:59:01.723" UserId="2311" Text="|перевод|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7318" RevisionGUID="ff7db91e-565d-4a48-8573-d5c619d1d756" CreationDate="2014-09-23T11:10:04.490" UserId="1236" Text="I'd use `слаборазвитые страны`.&#xD;&#xA;See this article in Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Развивающиеся_страны][1]. The search for &quot;undeveloped countries&quot; in the English Wikipedia redirects to the article &quot;Developing countries&quot; which is the English counterpart of the article I gave the link to above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7319" RevisionGUID="584ac4e6-8c20-45fd-a815-530c3e1df657" CreationDate="2014-09-23T11:10:15.983" UserId="4270" Text="слаборазвитые страны&#xD;&#xA;and backward translation - south" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7320" RevisionGUID="cdd52095-e25e-4c97-b728-2de061e20417" CreationDate="2014-09-23T12:14:42.573" UserId="2269" Text="    $ aspell -l ru dump master | aspell -l ru expand | grep -o '\w*катя\w*'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;окатят&#xD;&#xA;укатят&#xD;&#xA;окатятся&#xD;&#xA;укатятся&#xD;&#xA;откатят&#xD;&#xA;откатятся&#xD;&#xA;докатят&#xD;&#xA;докатятся&#xD;&#xA;катя&#xD;&#xA;катят&#xD;&#xA;катясь&#xD;&#xA;катятся&#xD;&#xA;катящий&#xD;&#xA;катящая&#xD;&#xA;катящею&#xD;&#xA;катящее&#xD;&#xA;катящего&#xD;&#xA;катящей&#xD;&#xA;катящем&#xD;&#xA;катящему&#xD;&#xA;катящую&#xD;&#xA;катящие&#xD;&#xA;катящих&#xD;&#xA;катящим&#xD;&#xA;катящими&#xD;&#xA;катящийся&#xD;&#xA;катящаяся&#xD;&#xA;катящеюся&#xD;&#xA;катящееся&#xD;&#xA;катящегося&#xD;&#xA;катящейся&#xD;&#xA;катящемся&#xD;&#xA;катящемуся&#xD;&#xA;катящиеся&#xD;&#xA;катящихся&#xD;&#xA;катящимися&#xD;&#xA;катящимся&#xD;&#xA;катящуюся&#xD;&#xA;накатят&#xD;&#xA;накатятся&#xD;&#xA;подкатят&#xD;&#xA;подкатятся&#xD;&#xA;покатят&#xD;&#xA;покатятся&#xD;&#xA;перекатят&#xD;&#xA;прикатят&#xD;&#xA;прокатят&#xD;&#xA;перекатятся&#xD;&#xA;прикатятся&#xD;&#xA;прокатятся&#xD;&#xA;раскатят&#xD;&#xA;раскатятся&#xD;&#xA;скатят&#xD;&#xA;скатятся&#xD;&#xA;вкатят&#xD;&#xA;выкатят&#xD;&#xA;вкатятся&#xD;&#xA;выкатятся&#xD;&#xA;закатят&#xD;&#xA;закатятся" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7317" RevisionGUID="343d7d26-0b8f-4bcc-bbb6-2e0c08fec75f" CreationDate="2014-09-23T13:58:58.053" UserId="2311" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If we are to translate it literally we'll get «неразвитые страны», but this has even more negative connotation for some russian speakers than «страны третьего мира» for which «undeveloped countries» acts almost like a euphemism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did come up with «страны не прошедшие стадию развития», which doesn't sound like an insult but is a little longish. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7321" RevisionGUID="54f1a79f-2162-411e-86d2-a84c7c1c3dc0" CreationDate="2014-09-23T14:11:16.023" UserId="1671" Text="Consider making `ж` out of `к`.&#xD;&#xA;But I'm still in doubt what reasonable words can be made out of `жатя`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7321" RevisionGUID="962f4bad-4603-4961-9f93-ce9ae3e60b83" CreationDate="2014-09-23T14:17:23.920" UserId="1671" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="Consider making `ж` out of `к`.&#xD;&#xA;But I'm still in doubt what reasonable words can be made out of `жатя`&#xD;&#xA;`ржатя` - [nonce word][1] that I've just coined. It means: &quot;*something funny you want to make out of your ex-girlfriend's name*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16722" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7317" RevisionGUID="cdd75c19-5bfa-486d-8a0b-7d6b123d1116" CreationDate="2014-09-23T15:24:32.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/514435150143586304" />
  <row Id="16723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="b5d422f5-1823-4dd3-827e-267fa316f185" CreationDate="2014-09-23T18:00:30.127" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Words containing &quot;катя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="1c9c0383-7dd2-410d-ac5c-b88e5973cc20" CreationDate="2014-09-24T00:52:40.077" UserId="62" Text="I knew that J could be pronounced жи, like in French, but I was watching a lecture online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFxD6YFiLfU and the speaker calls J йот instead. See for instance 4:07 and 4:37. Are жи and йот as the name of J interchangeable in all contexts, or is one used far more than the other? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gave this question a математика tag because the video is a math lecture. I've listened to math lectures in Russian and don't recall hearing anyone use the name йот before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="1c9c0383-7dd2-410d-ac5c-b88e5973cc20" CreationDate="2014-09-24T00:52:40.077" UserId="62" Text="Pronunciation of J" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7322" RevisionGUID="1c9c0383-7dd2-410d-ac5c-b88e5973cc20" CreationDate="2014-09-24T00:52:40.077" UserId="62" Text="|произношение|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7323" RevisionGUID="51e0670b-7d5e-48cd-ad8d-ee331cfbc8a6" CreationDate="2014-09-24T01:17:54.947" UserId="1236" Text="The two names, **йот** and **жи**, are equally correct, [this table][1] lists them both under &quot;классическое русское название буквы&quot;. I don't go in for mathematics a lot so as to comment on their disrtibution, but when I studied at the mathematics school in the early 90s, we used **жи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D0.B2.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7324" RevisionGUID="8936117b-94f1-4f36-86bd-14a970af60e5" CreationDate="2014-09-24T01:31:38.587" UserId="4332" Text="The literal translation of `underdeveloped countries` would be`недоразвитые страны` which is even worse. I would use `страны динамичного развития` or `динамично-развивающиеся страны`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="a3ad6dd1-90e9-4d47-bcc9-b90fd9b8ceed" CreationDate="2014-09-24T04:25:10.363" UserId="2079" Text="I learnt physics, and I don't remember that on lectures anyone called J **йот**.  As far as I know, in mathematics and physics, J is **жи**, unless something changed in recent 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, **йот** is rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7325" RevisionGUID="8f5acd51-5e92-4367-b81e-f6bff825f1b3" CreationDate="2014-09-24T04:33:52.540" UserId="2079" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="I learnt physics, and I don't remember that on lectures anyone called J **йот**.  As far as I know, in physics, as well as in mathematical analysis lectures, J is **жи**, unless something changed in recent 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, looking at the lecture, it seems the lecturer used both J (жи) and G (же). Possibly he calls the former **йот** in order to avoid the confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7326" RevisionGUID="ce0f2073-289a-47ee-adb2-e2ae42acb222" CreationDate="2014-09-24T17:45:44.910" UserId="4336" Text="It seems that Wikipedia doesn't make a difference between terms 'undeveloped countries' and 'developing countries'. I never heard Russian equivalent of 'undeveloped countries'. So why not use the Russian equivalent of 'developing countries': **'развивающиеся страны'**? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7327" RevisionGUID="47dfccff-d369-4eec-aebf-9fa450ee0401" CreationDate="2014-09-24T18:17:04.970" UserId="4336" Text="As you see from other answers it's not easy to make something with &quot;КАТЯ&quot;. The best variant I can think of is &quot;**КАТЯРА**&quot; the misspelled form of &quot;котяра&quot; which is derivative from &quot;cat&quot;. &quot;Котяра&quot; can mean &quot;big, full-grown cat&quot; (&quot;здоровый котяра&quot;, here &quot;здоровый&quot; means &quot;big&quot;) or &quot;seasoned, experienced cat&quot; (&quot;матёрый котяра&quot;). Multitran.ru [gives other translations][1]: &quot;tomcat&quot;, &quot;moggy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Better to use it with other misspelled word(s), to clarify that it's misspelling. For example: &quot;ЗДАРОВЫЙ КАТЯРА&quot;,&quot;БАЛЬШОЙ КАТЯРА&quot;,&quot;МОТЁРЫЙ КАТЯРА&quot;,&quot;ЛЮБВЕАБИЛЬНЫЙ КАТЯРА&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It's not that good, but I don't see anything better other than to delete the tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%EA%EE%F2%FF%F0%E0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7327" RevisionGUID="9f83ce8c-5e8d-432d-8f7e-2c44081b9326" CreationDate="2014-09-24T18:43:48.983" UserId="4336" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="As you see from other answers it's not easy to make something with &quot;КАТЯ&quot;. The best variant I can think of is &quot;**КАТЯРА**&quot; the misspelled form of &quot;котяра&quot; which is derivative from &quot;cat&quot;. &quot;Котяра&quot; can mean &quot;big, full-grown cat&quot; (&quot;здоровый котяра&quot;, here &quot;здоровый&quot; means &quot;big&quot;) or &quot;seasoned, experienced cat&quot; (&quot;матёрый котяра&quot;). Multitran.ru [gives other translations][1]: &quot;tomcat&quot;, &quot;moggy&quot;. Better to use it with other misspelled word(s), to clarify that it's misspelling. For example: &quot;ЗДАРОВЫЙ КАТЯРА&quot;,&quot;БАЛЬШОЙ КАТЯРА&quot;,&quot;МОТЁРЫЙ КАТЯРА&quot;,&quot;ЛЮБВЕАБИЛЬНЫЙ КАТЯРА&quot;. Or even better to make drawing of some big cat like lion or tiger with title &quot;КАТЯРА&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It's not that good variant, but I don't see anything better other than to delete the tattoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%EA%EE%F2%FF%F0%E0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7328" RevisionGUID="7d91d70e-c6b0-48fd-89c8-18469062e4b4" CreationDate="2014-09-25T04:30:06.993" UserId="1173" Text="You can say &quot;Страны третьего мира&quot; - third world countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="b27cd084-dba1-496c-bc01-2bdb55af5e8c" CreationDate="2014-09-25T07:30:43.983" UserId="4203" Text="The word &quot;choose&quot; has an imperfective aspect (**выбира́ть**, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C) and a perfective aspect (**вы́брать**, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, I would expect that for a clearly defined action like choosing (which is done only once in the context of a website, for example if you choose a payment method, your nationality, etc.) that the perfective aspect should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words &quot;please choose&quot; should be &quot;**пожалуйста, выбирайте**&quot;. But a Russian-speaker told me (and Google agrees by giving me 8 times as many search results), that &quot;**пожалуйста, выберите**&quot; is the normal/better way to translate &quot;please choose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that, most of the time, the perfective aspect is to be used with the imperative, because normally you express a singular action with the imperative (do that, then do that, etc.) Especially if the word &quot;please&quot; is used, I woud think that always the perfective aspect is used because then it is a clear indication to do something now and not a repeated process. I thought that the imperfective aspect (for imperative) would be only be used in relatively rare constructs for example for &quot;at each election, choose the best candidate&quot; - but you normally don't use &quot;please&quot; in such a construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same Russian speaker also confirmed that for &quot;please pay&quot;, &quot;пожалуйста, заплатите&quot; is the correct translation, which is the perfective aspect. In any case I would expect that &quot;please choose&quot; and &quot;please pay&quot; would use the same aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is выбира́ть/вы́брать an exception or is there another reason why the imperfective aspect is used for &quot;please choose&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="b27cd084-dba1-496c-bc01-2bdb55af5e8c" CreationDate="2014-09-25T07:30:43.983" UserId="4203" Text="imperfective or perfective aspect for imperative (example &quot;please choose&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="b27cd084-dba1-496c-bc01-2bdb55af5e8c" CreationDate="2014-09-25T07:30:43.983" UserId="4203" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="ac23a6e2-3bb5-4358-9e8d-7b0924f310cf" CreationDate="2014-09-25T08:57:14.330" UserId="2079" Text="As for google, the initial estimate of the number of matches can be overestimated by orders of magnitude. In fact, google found [270 matches for пожалуйста, выбирайте][1] and [220 matches for пожалуйста, выберите][2] (the initial estimates were about 250,000 and 1,000,000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your question, if the action is simple and one-time, (i.e. choosing a payment method), &quot;пожалуйста, выберите&quot; should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;channel=sb&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=2dQjVNPYNc_H8gf46YDYDw#q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0,%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;safe=off&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;channel=sb&amp;start=262&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;channel=sb&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=AdUjVKmWKs_H8gf46YDYDw#q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0,%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;safe=off&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;channel=sb&amp;start=210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="b946c5e4-a61c-406a-afbb-63f52bae2d15" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:00:14.503" UserId="2269" Comment="tags + formatting" Text="The word “choose” has an imperfective aspect ([**выбира́ть**][1]) and a perfective aspect ([**вы́брать**][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, I would expect that for a clearly defined action like choosing (which is done only once in the context of a website, for example if you choose a payment method, your nationality, etc.) that the perfective aspect should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words “please choose” should be “**пожалуйста, выбирайте**”. But a Russian-speaker told me (and Google agrees by giving me 8 times as many search results), that “**пожалуйста, выберите**” is the normal/better way to translate “please choose”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that, most of the time, the perfective aspect is to be used with the imperative, because normally you express a singular action with the imperative (do that, then do that, etc.) Especially if the word &quot;please&quot; is used, I woud think that always the perfective aspect is used because then it is a clear indication to do something now and not a repeated process. I thought that the imperfective aspect (for imperative) would be only be used in relatively rare constructs for example for &quot;at each election, choose the best candidate&quot; – but you normally don’t use “please” in such a construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same Russian speaker also confirmed that for “please pay”, “пожалуйста, заплатите” is the correct translation, which is the perfective aspect. In any case I would expect that “please choose” and “please pay” would use the same aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is выбира́ть/вы́брать an exception or is there another reason why the imperfective aspect is used for “please choose”?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16740" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="b946c5e4-a61c-406a-afbb-63f52bae2d15" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:00:14.503" UserId="2269" Comment="tags + formatting" Text="Imperfective or perfective aspect for imperative (example “please choose”)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16741" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="b946c5e4-a61c-406a-afbb-63f52bae2d15" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:00:14.503" UserId="2269" Comment="tags + formatting" Text="|вид|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7331" RevisionGUID="ffe7070a-a4be-45aa-b8e5-c10811291920" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:21:09.880" UserId="134" Text="Imperfective aspect is about state and perfective aspect is about state transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you are talking about the outcome of a single action (&quot;please pay&quot;), you would use perfective (*пожалуйста, заплатите*), because what you really want is to make an incomplete payment complete (state transition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could use imperfective here as well (*пожалуйста, платите*), but this would mean that you are more interested in seeing the person paying rather than obtaining the result. For instance, if a patron is waiting for a POS terminal to get fixed and you ask them to retry their payment, *пожалуйста, платите* would be the correct form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were talking about the state of things (&quot;please pay your bills on time&quot;), you would use imperfective (*пожалуйста, платите по счетам вовремя*). This would mean &quot;be a good person and organize your life so that you never have overdue debts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you said *пожалуйста, заплатите по счетам вовремя*, this would mean &quot;there are a bunch of bills of your desk, please, at least this one single time, make them paid before they expire&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7331" RevisionGUID="fec5afbe-05dd-42cd-a0fb-83b84eb5c6df" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:28:27.920" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Imperfective aspect is about state and perfective aspect is about state transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you are talking about the outcome of a single action (&quot;please pay&quot;), you would use perfective (*пожалуйста, заплатите*), because what you really want is to make an incomplete payment complete (state transition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could use imperfective here as well (*пожалуйста, платите*), but this would mean that you are more interested in seeing the person paying rather than obtaining the result. For instance, if a patron is waiting for a POS terminal to get fixed and you ask them to retry their payment, *пожалуйста, платите* would be the correct form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were talking about the state of things (&quot;please pay your bills on time&quot;), you would use imperfective (*пожалуйста, платите по счетам вовремя*). This would mean &quot;be a good person and organize your life so that you never have overdue debts&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you said *пожалуйста, заплатите по счетам вовремя*, this would mean &quot;there are a bunch of bills on your desk, please, at least this one single time, make them paid before they expire&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7330" RevisionGUID="b5719e20-4bcc-49fb-a04f-c85aaad3e09b" CreationDate="2014-09-25T09:56:00.030" UserId="2079" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="As for google, the initial estimate of the number of matches can be overestimated by orders of magnitude. In fact, google found [270 matches for пожалуйста, выбирайте][1] and [220 matches for пожалуйста, выберите][2] (the initial estimates were about 250,000 and 1,000,000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your question, if the action is simple and one-time, (i.e. choosing a payment method), &quot;пожалуйста, выберите&quot; should be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is not an exception. Why do you think it should be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;channel=sb&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=2dQjVNPYNc_H8gf46YDYDw#q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0,%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;safe=off&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;channel=sb&amp;start=262&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;channel=sb&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=AdUjVKmWKs_H8gf46YDYDw#q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0,%20%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%22&amp;safe=off&amp;rls=org.mozilla:ru:official&amp;channel=sb&amp;start=210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="ee8fe141-4221-4cd0-8c4e-0531bf3c0452" CreationDate="2014-09-25T10:10:20.950" UserId="267" Text="It is also important to add that the perfective imperative sounds quite rude in some verbs because it is focused on obtaining a result. It normally happens to verbs related to position and motion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **&quot;сядьте&quot;** would sound rude and it could be used in court: **&quot;Подсудимый, сядьте&quot;** (Accused, sit down, please), while &quot;садитесь&quot; is the polite form used if you have guests at home or if you come to an office: **&quot;Проходите, садитесь&quot;.** (Go in and sit down, please) As you can see, the situation is the same for the verb &quot;проходить-пройти&quot;, the imperfective aspect of it is the polite one. Some other verbs that work like that are: &quot;ложиться-лечь&quot;, &quot;вставать-встать&quot;, &quot;раздеваться-рездеться&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case of **&quot;пожалуйста, выбирайте&quot;** and **&quot;пожалуйста, выберете&quot;** is similar. The first one sounds more polite because your interlocutor gives you time to choose, it is a process, while in the second one you have to choose immediately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="5ab132b6-5693-4b4e-b6d5-deccff7a24eb" CreationDate="2014-09-25T10:20:53.430" UserId="4297" Comment="выберете - you'll have chosen, выберите - choose" Text="It is also important to add that the perfective imperative sounds quite rude in some verbs because it is focused on obtaining a result. It normally happens to verbs related to position and motion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **&quot;сядьте&quot;** would sound rude and it could be used in court: **&quot;Подсудимый, сядьте&quot;** (Accused, sit down, please), while &quot;садитесь&quot; is the polite form used if you have guests at home or if you come to an office: **&quot;Проходите, садитесь&quot;.** (Come in and have a seat, please) As you can see, the situation is the same for the verb &quot;проходить-пройти&quot;, the imperfective aspect of it is the polite one. Some other verbs that work like that are: &quot;ложиться-лечь&quot;, &quot;вставать-встать&quot;, &quot;раздеваться-рездеться&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case of **&quot;пожалуйста, выбирайте&quot;** and **&quot;пожалуйста, выберите&quot;** is similar. The first one sounds more polite because your interlocutor gives you time to choose, it is a process, while in the second one you have to choose immediately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16747" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7332" RevisionGUID="5ab132b6-5693-4b4e-b6d5-deccff7a24eb" CreationDate="2014-09-25T10:20:53.430" Comment="Proposed by 4297 approved by 134 edit id of 546" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="6f08bf55-9df9-4971-a2f5-71f37acbb754" CreationDate="2014-09-25T11:40:40.037" UserId="4123" Text="What is the correct response ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спасибо? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="6f08bf55-9df9-4971-a2f5-71f37acbb754" CreationDate="2014-09-25T11:40:40.037" UserId="4123" Text="What to reply when someones says приятного аппетита" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="6f08bf55-9df9-4971-a2f5-71f37acbb754" CreationDate="2014-09-25T11:40:40.037" UserId="4123" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7334" RevisionGUID="e23b4f3e-e0d9-40d3-8616-51908e46db85" CreationDate="2014-09-25T11:45:45.310" UserId="97" Text="_Спасибо_ is indeed the right response.  I can't think of the corresponding idiom in English (strangely enough), but the response to French _bon appetit_ is the same _merci_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="214720ba-143e-4180-9758-2ed64a3fa479" CreationDate="2014-09-25T11:56:31.240" UserId="4203" Comment="Edited question to remove my mistake about выберитe being imperfective while in truth it is perfective. This removes most of the question, but I think it should stay because the answers are quite good." Text="The word “choose” has an imperfective aspect ([**выбира́ть**][1]) and a perfective aspect ([**вы́брать**][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to translate “please choose”: “**пожалуйста, выбирайте**” or “**пожалуйста, выберите**” and which aspect should be used with imperative in general?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="8ca0ae86-c701-453e-a591-2eb282e74b48" CreationDate="2014-09-25T12:40:22.660" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the correct response?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Спасибо”? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16754" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="8ca0ae86-c701-453e-a591-2eb282e74b48" CreationDate="2014-09-25T12:40:22.660" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What to reply when someones says “приятного аппетита”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16755" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7333" RevisionGUID="8ca0ae86-c701-453e-a591-2eb282e74b48" CreationDate="2014-09-25T12:40:22.660" UserId="2269" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|словоупотребление|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="c253eaa8-1586-4443-9130-c9cc84ebd3bf" CreationDate="2014-09-25T16:38:56.063" UserId="4203" Text="In the nominative case, numbers ending with 1 govern the nominative/singular in the noun, numbers ending with 2-4 govern genitive/singular and all others genitive/plural. (That is the &quot;easy&quot; part, can be found in almost any Russian grammar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a rule for accusative case: (see [grammar for numerals ending on 2-4][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the accusative case, animate nouns become genitive plural and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inanimate nouns remain in genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find any rule for the accusative after the other numerals (i.e. numerals not ending on 2-4) -  **do these follow the noun (accusative/singular after 1, genitive/plural for all others), do they follow the numeral (accusative/singular after 1, accusative/plural for the others), or is there another rule?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again from the same grammar, a little bit is explained about adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While the noun in a nominative construction is in the genitive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singular following два or две, an intervening adjective or adjectival&#xD;&#xA;&gt; participle will be in the genitive plural or nominative plural&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If два is in nominative case, the adjective will be nominative plural when the noun is feminine&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If два is in accusative case, the adjective will be nominative plural only if the noun is feminine inanimate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the same question, what happens to adjectives behind the other numbers (that don't end on 2-4). **Do they follow the noun, the numeral or is there also a similar special rule depending on gender?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="c253eaa8-1586-4443-9130-c9cc84ebd3bf" CreationDate="2014-09-25T16:38:56.063" UserId="4203" Text="Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7335" RevisionGUID="c253eaa8-1586-4443-9130-c9cc84ebd3bf" CreationDate="2014-09-25T16:38:56.063" UserId="4203" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7336" RevisionGUID="4c45dc57-8ccc-405e-bcbe-db827067f3eb" CreationDate="2014-09-25T17:43:54.310" UserId="1236" Text="**1. The Accusative case of 1 + noun and 5 or more + noun**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both **один** and the noun take the Accusative case according to their gender and animateness/inanimateness if the gender is masculine. **Один** agrees in case and gender with the noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **одного человека**. (masculine animate, acc.sg.=gen.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **один трактор**. (masculine inanimate, acc.sg.=nom.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **одну девушку**. (feminine, acc.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **одно окно**. (neutral, acc.sg.=nom.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With **пять** or more, the noun takes the Genitive plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу пять **человек/тракторов/девушек/окон**. (gen.pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**2. Intervening adjectives or adjectival participles between 1 and a noun or between 5 or more and a noun**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An intervening adjective or adjectival participle agrees in gender, case and number with the following noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With **один**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **одного** *молодого* **человека**. (masculine animate, acc.sg.=gen.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **один** *старый* **трактор**. (masculine inanimate, acc.sg.=nom.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **одну** *красивую* **девушку**. (feminine, acc.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **одно** *большое* **окно**. (neutral, acc.sg.=nom.sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With **пять** or more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу пять *спящих* **котов**. (gen.pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу пять *старых* **тракторов**. (gen.pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу пять *красивых* **девушек**. (gen.pl.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу пять *больших* **окон**. (gen.pl.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7337" RevisionGUID="3e7b6848-5833-4bf0-b4c4-a055861ca5ca" CreationDate="2014-09-25T17:54:19.887" UserId="2079" Text="Case of the noun phrase : the phrase&#xD;&#xA;Nominative : пять котов (пять котов мяукали)&#xD;&#xA;Genitive : пяти котов (у меня нет пяти котов)&#xD;&#xA;Dative: пяти котам (насыпал корм пяти котам)&#xD;&#xA;Accusative: пять котов (поймал пять котов)&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental: пятью котами (обошёлся пятью котами)&#xD;&#xA;Prepositional: о пяти котах (поэма о пяти котах)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see that the if the noun phrase is in X case, the noun is in X plural, except for the nominative case, which turns genitive/accusative (genitive plural and accusative plural is the same).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the number turns nominative plural to genitive plural (коты мяукали =&gt; пять котов мяукали) but does not change other cases (насыпал корм котам =&gt; насыпал корм пяти котам etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7338" RevisionGUID="90d741f4-d01b-4aa5-bebf-2a51fe6af38d" CreationDate="2014-09-25T19:29:50.257" UserId="98" Text="&quot;Не обязательно&quot; also will do in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Великие люди не обязательно мудры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, you're not talking about time in this sentence, but about a logical relationship, namely an absence of cause-effect relation. So using of the time-related words like `всегда` and `иногда` isn't essential, and any way to express this simple logic is OK. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из того, что человек велик, не следует, что он мудр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7337" RevisionGUID="5bf54c73-dfbe-4bf5-a9b5-81157d92f75e" CreationDate="2014-09-25T21:29:25.597" UserId="2079" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Case of the noun phrase : the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Nominative : пять котов (пять котов мяукали)&#xD;&#xA; * Genitive : пяти котов (у меня нет пяти котов)&#xD;&#xA; * Dative: пяти котам (насыпал корм пяти котам)&#xD;&#xA; * Accusative: пять котов (поймал пять котов)&#xD;&#xA; * Instrumental: пятью котами (обошёлся пятью котами)&#xD;&#xA; * Prepositional: о пяти котах (поэма о пяти котах)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see that the if the noun phrase is in X case, the noun is in X plural, except for the nominative case, which turns genitive/accusative (genitive plural and accusative plural is the same).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the number turns nominative plural to genitive plural (коты мяукали =&gt; пять котов мяукали) but does not change other cases (насыпал корм котам =&gt; насыпал корм пяти котам etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7339" RevisionGUID="1c728849-a3e1-42b1-9507-ce661c432520" CreationDate="2014-09-26T00:55:51.970" UserId="4153" Text="Besides `&quot;Спасибо!&quot;`, which is the option number one, it's also used: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`&quot;Благодарю!&quot;` is almost like `спасибо` but is more sublime, expresses genuine thankfulness &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and of course you can wish the same after all in return to a person if [s]he is also eating at the moment,  by saying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`&quot;Взаимно.&quot;` means `&quot;it's mutual.&quot;`: can be used standalone or after `спасибо` or `благодарю`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;[И] Вам также\тоже.&quot;`: can be said standalone instead of `спасибо` or `благодарю`  &#xD;&#xA; or added after like in this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;` &quot;Спасибо\Благодарю! Взаимно.&quot;` or `&quot;Спасибо\Благодарю! Вам также\тоже.&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="e98228c8-7ba6-4ed1-84ef-1bfe01fb24fe" CreationDate="2014-09-26T05:34:52.267" UserId="4270" Text="Some people look at that topic strongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only treating person should say &quot;приятного аппетита&quot; entertaining to you.&#xD;&#xA;Say &quot;спасибо&quot; in response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![An eater][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if your table companion says &quot;приятного аппетита&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer politely &quot;и Вам/тебе приятного аппетита&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or impolitely &quot;своё едим&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DI7u2.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="5f9f8ac0-eb71-411d-9e21-8aa76d8d480f" CreationDate="2014-09-26T06:08:42.817" UserId="4270" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Some people look at that topic strongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only treating person should say &quot;приятного аппетита&quot; entertaining to you.&#xD;&#xA;Say &quot;спасибо&quot; in response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![An eater][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if your table companion says &quot;приятного аппетита&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer politely &quot;и Вам/тебе приятного аппетита&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or impolitely &quot;своё едим&quot; ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DI7u2.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7341" RevisionGUID="b974cf24-a987-4cd4-b4f9-6668690e6363" CreationDate="2014-09-26T15:32:44.310" UserId="2105" Text="йот is German name of letter J, so some people that learned German in school pronounce йот instead of жи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16768" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7329" RevisionGUID="1763248f-6fe8-4e53-a391-4cd203c7a6a0" CreationDate="2014-09-27T09:38:52.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/515797712198197248" />
  <row Id="16769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7342" RevisionGUID="30291204-6545-401a-8860-588f4c8a2f30" CreationDate="2014-09-27T23:44:41.883" UserId="1604" Text="Looks like I am going against consensus, but I've *never* heard J pronounced as **жи**! My degree is in Math/Comp Sci, and in the 80s math professors had no problems making adjectives of it: *икс итое*, *игрек йотое*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's because the school was in Latvia, and in Latvian, as in German, J is pronounced as &quot;Ya&quot; (or Russian Я). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7345" RevisionGUID="eaed0c6b-272e-4984-a89b-f4a904f78988" CreationDate="2014-09-28T14:00:46.050" UserId="4350" Text="**Чпокать** — to do someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чпокаться** — to do together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чпокаются** — they do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From word &quot;**чпок**&quot;, it when pull out your finger out of your mouth pulling cheek. Distinctive sound. Sounds like when penis in vagina or &quot;fap&quot;. Funny word.&#xD;&#xA;Don't know how it sounds in english.&#xD;&#xA;Not serious, but the best thing I thought up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16778" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="c6e9cfdc-f1e2-44ac-b164-e3169bc78951" CreationDate="2014-09-28T21:40:22.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/516341672717070336" />
  <row Id="16779" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="410e6f22-d6ca-46f4-abc1-523fd26c4605" CreationDate="2014-09-29T04:12:08.817" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="767be2df-6ef8-4823-af45-7ea742c9fcd2" CreationDate="2014-09-29T07:42:58.743" UserId="47" Text="For a multilingual web-site (http://map.project-osrm.org/), I am looking for the optimal translation of the word `fastest` into Russian. They currently call it *быстрейший*, which seems to me not really fitting here. I suggest translating it as *самый быстрый* claiming that there is no proper translation of *fastest* into Russian with one word. However I am in doubt. Would you agree or prove me wrong?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="767be2df-6ef8-4823-af45-7ea742c9fcd2" CreationDate="2014-09-29T07:42:58.743" UserId="47" Text="&quot;Fastest&quot; in Russian with one word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="767be2df-6ef8-4823-af45-7ea742c9fcd2" CreationDate="2014-09-29T07:42:58.743" UserId="47" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7348" RevisionGUID="a4311a52-0286-4287-b4a5-8f11e5b5edab" CreationDate="2014-09-29T08:08:31.677" UserId="194" Text="fastest = быстрейший, наибыстрейший." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="95aec5cf-fa93-48be-86d7-af4ada9e99a0" CreationDate="2014-09-29T08:25:05.880" UserId="47" Text="Others have commented on the correctness of the name. I'll get to *why* you can hear both (and probably more) versions. In the Soviet Union (and in modern Russia still), the average knowledge of foreign languages was unfortunately very limited. Since the Russian alphabet is usually different from those used in foreign languages, a lot of people can't even read Latin letters. Those who can (probably this includes all people with higher education) will usually call the letters the same way they are called in the language they studied. Thus a person with an English &quot;background&quot; would call it /dʒeɪ/, with French /ʒi/, with German /jɔt/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only situation where I expect some standardisation would be teaching math in schools. However, to be honest, I do not remember using *j* in school math at all. It was always *a*, *b*, *c* or *x*, *y*, *z* or *m*, *n*. Note that the [classical Latin alphabet][1] doesn't contain the letter J at all, which may explain this fact. The letters *i*, *j*, *k* were introduced in programming (still in school), but since computer languages are all based on English, it was natural for our teacher to go for the English &#xD;&#xA;names of the variables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not always so though. To confirm what I am saying, my programming teacher in university obviously had a &quot;German background&quot;. So she used to pronounce FALSE (a boolean constant) as the German *falsch* /falʃ/, which has the same meaning but of course a completely different pronunciation from English *false*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#Classical_Latin_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="3ff1bb9b-0659-4e2e-98f1-16920d2fa98f" CreationDate="2014-09-29T08:36:28.677" UserId="47" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="For a multilingual web-site (http://map.project-osrm.org/), I am looking for the optimal translation of the word `fastest` into Russian. They currently call it *быстрейший*, which seems to me not really fitting here. I suggest translating it as *самый быстрый* claiming that there is no proper translation of *fastest* into Russian with one word. However I am in doubt. Would you agree or prove me wrong?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Actually, I thing the Russian word that would be more appropriate here would be based on *скорый* rather than *быстрый*, since they are probably talking about the arrival time rather than about a car going as fast as possible. I do not see the difference in English, but I do in Russian. Hope I am not the only one :) Anyway, I am afraid *скорый* is definitely not the word to be proposed to the site authors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="f80392a4-3f21-43b1-9319-bb1be47ab79a" CreationDate="2014-09-29T10:39:22.280" UserId="4153" Text="Besides '&quot;Наибыстрейший&quot;' it's also possible to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;Наискорейший&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7350" RevisionGUID="6d0c4099-bb6f-45d3-b981-86719f5a227c" CreationDate="2014-09-29T10:51:09.587" UserId="4153" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Besides `&quot;[Наи]быстрейший&quot;` it's also possible to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;[Наи]скорейший&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="819cfaa4-bd30-46e2-ae41-cc874394213c" CreationDate="2014-09-29T17:27:54.290" UserId="4359" Text="A friend of mine has asked me to translate a few phrases from English into Russian for a mobile app he's developing. Like many other mobile app developers, he wants to strike a friendly, informal tone with users, and I want this to be reflected in translation. So if I have phrases like &quot;You've received a message from X,&quot; or &quot;I've created this song for you,&quot; would вы come off as too formal, or is ты too informal? Just trying to get a better sense of this nuance within the context of mobile apps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="819cfaa4-bd30-46e2-ae41-cc874394213c" CreationDate="2014-09-29T17:27:54.290" UserId="4359" Text="Translating &quot;you&quot; into Russian for a mobile app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="819cfaa4-bd30-46e2-ae41-cc874394213c" CreationDate="2014-09-29T17:27:54.290" UserId="4359" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7352" RevisionGUID="df2aa28b-263d-4ad4-a1a9-3d5ed3a079e5" CreationDate="2014-09-29T17:38:35.213" UserId="4336" Text="&quot;Ты&quot; usually is to informal for application, not oriented to children or teens. Use &quot;вы&quot; or impersonal forms like &quot;Получено сообщение от X&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7353" RevisionGUID="a4ef133f-6b18-47b0-8f78-d814f445e363" CreationDate="2014-09-29T17:41:32.847" UserId="1159" Text="If you're afraid of [in]formalism - you can tro to translate in other way, e.g. &quot;Получено сообщение от X&quot; (You've received a message from X) or &quot;Создана новая песня&quot; (New song created)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="815f69f4-17af-48c0-8b11-1304a0ed105b" CreationDate="2014-09-29T17:46:32.317" UserId="4336" Text="&quot;Самый быстрый&quot; is the most appropriate variant. It is used much more often than other forms like &quot;(наи)быстрейший&quot; or &quot;(наи)скорейший&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7355" RevisionGUID="6010084f-74b8-44fb-bfb9-b8ca0a7f11a5" CreationDate="2014-09-29T18:26:58.107" UserId="134" Text="I would use dative constructs like *Вам письмо* or *Вам от меня песенка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They sound quite informal without being too familiar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7351" RevisionGUID="12059471-f0f1-423a-b2b1-67df6d723210" CreationDate="2014-09-29T18:40:24.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/516658770194468864" />
  <row Id="16799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7356" RevisionGUID="6ac82112-5b4e-4f57-be02-cd037933c463" CreationDate="2014-09-29T20:15:14.880" UserId="2079" Text="**Ты** is never used by computer applications (except maybe some roleplaying games where a character can be called &quot;ты&quot;, depending on circumstances). If such a system will be written by a native English speaker, users would think that he doesn't know the difference between **ты** and **вы**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So don't use &quot;ты&quot; unless the application is either designed for children, or is a hobbyist program written by a teenager for his/her peers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there is a problem with a correct gender of verbs: &quot;You've received a message from X&quot; is &quot;Tы **получил** сообщение от X&quot; for a male but &quot;Tы **получила** сообщение от X&quot; for a female. With &quot;вы&quot;, both are &quot;вы получили сообщение от Х&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7357" RevisionGUID="f5c91f73-ef3d-4fbe-b23c-719d44b69035" CreationDate="2014-09-30T02:15:09.593" UserId="2269" Text="I remember, Skype once was addressing user _на „ты“_ in dialogues, webpages and even in EULA, i. e. in official agreement, which is absolutely out of place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were few discussions over the Runet showing perplexity of users, and now it seems to be fixed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7358" RevisionGUID="84cea63b-eaf9-4d46-9bb5-c219105b917a" CreationDate="2014-09-30T05:39:55.370" UserId="4270" Text="&quot;Автомобиля (быстрейший)&quot; I'd change to &quot;Автомобилем (кратчайший)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Fastest speed = shortest time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7358" RevisionGUID="07bb977a-b944-48cb-94c0-c07615182b56" CreationDate="2014-09-30T05:48:14.167" UserId="4270" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Автомобиля (быстрейший)&quot; I'd change to &quot;Автомобилем (кратчайший)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fastest speed = shortest time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7352" RevisionGUID="e13b0123-d6d4-4e5c-a994-2a124071527a" CreationDate="2014-09-30T12:43:43.883" UserId="4336" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;Ты&quot; usually is too informal for application, not oriented to children or teens. Use &quot;вы&quot; or impersonal forms like &quot;Получено сообщение от X&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="44bb8b77-fa94-4b5a-b3d9-86c4805f0659" CreationDate="2014-09-30T13:10:21.470" UserId="47" Comment="Ruscorpora data added" Text="For a multilingual web-site (http://map.project-osrm.org/), I am looking for the optimal translation of the word `fastest` into Russian. They currently call it *быстрейший*, which seems to me not really fitting here. I suggest translating it as *самый быстрый* claiming that there is no proper translation of *fastest* into Russian with one word. However I am in doubt. Would you agree or prove me wrong?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Actually, I think the Russian word that would be more appropriate here would be based on *скорый* rather than *быстрый*, since they are probably talking about the arrival time rather than about a car going as fast as possible. I do not see the difference in English, but I do in Russian. Hope I am not the only one :) Anyway, I am afraid *скорый* is definitely not the word to be proposed to the site authors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: Data from http://ruscorpora.ru:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [быстрейший][1]: 0.5 ppm in 1840, 0.6 ppm today.&#xD;&#xA;* [скорейший][2]: 1.5 ppm in 1840, 0.25 ppm today.&#xD;&#xA;* [наискорейший][3]: 0.5 ppm around 1900, &lt;0.2 ppm today.&#xD;&#xA;* [наибыстрейший][4]: not found at all.&#xD;&#xA;* [самый быстрый][5]: 0.25 ppm in 1840, 0.75 ppm today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No clear winner, though *быстрейший* seems to be more or less as popular as *самый быстрый*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E1%FB%F1%F2%F0%E5%E9%F8%E8%E9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%ED%E0%E8%E1%FB%F1%F2%F0%E5%E9%F8%E8%E9&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F1%E0%EC%FB%E9%20%E1%FB%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="ccd616ac-8e1f-4322-98bf-1df42acf1327" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:10:50.073" UserId="4363" Text="What is a idiomatic English (US) equivalent of Russian &quot;`первый блин комом`&quot; (meaning that you cannot expect perfect results on the first try)?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="ccd616ac-8e1f-4322-98bf-1df42acf1327" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:10:50.073" UserId="4363" Text="What is English for &quot;первый блин комом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="ccd616ac-8e1f-4322-98bf-1df42acf1327" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:10:50.073" UserId="4363" Text="|перевод|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7360" RevisionGUID="da3524d5-2885-4ca1-a153-881008e23023" CreationDate="2014-10-01T04:51:24.490" UserId="4270" Text="you must spoil before you spin (well)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16810" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7359" RevisionGUID="371ac375-999a-43d5-aa8d-ddce241da5e6" CreationDate="2014-10-01T08:43:16.973" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7361" RevisionGUID="9a6c7127-64ba-49ae-8a9d-56c37ff22c4c" CreationDate="2014-10-01T10:22:12.083" UserId="4364" Text="&gt;What if your table companion says &quot;приятного аппетита&quot;?&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Answer politely &quot;и Вам/тебе приятного аппетита&quot;.&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More common answer will be &quot;Спасибо, вам также&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or impolitely &quot;своё едим&quot; ;-)&lt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm Russian, but I've never heard such sentence - it seems that it's out of use in modern Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7362" RevisionGUID="0f0c1996-1b1f-46db-bf1a-4871f3b597a2" CreationDate="2014-10-01T13:32:21.577" UserId="4365" Text="One way to translate these strings would be using **вы**, as suggested by user31264. It could be seen as informal if you put it in the right setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I've created this song for you*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Создана новая песня – neutral/formal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Хотите послушать новую песню? – informal/friendly *[хотите = **вы** хотите]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way would be to completely rephrase the strings to omit the pronoun of address altogether. This will make the tone more friendly. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*You've received a message from X*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вы получили сообщение от Х – neutral/formal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Новое сообщение от Х! – informal/friendly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For successful localization you can combine both &quot;вы&quot; and rephrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I wouldn't recommend using passive voice (e.g. &quot;Создана новая песня&quot;) because it doesn't contribute to the friendliness. The passive voice is mostly used in official papers and makes the text very cold and impersonal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7362" RevisionGUID="ccf2a4c6-40fd-43bc-8668-700dbe87b817" CreationDate="2014-10-01T13:42:05.790" UserId="4365" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="1. One way to translate these strings would be using **вы**, as suggested by user31264. It could be seen as informal if you put it in the right setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I've created this song for you*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Мы создали для вас новую песню – neutral/formal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Хотите послушать новую песню? – informal/friendly *[хотите = **вы** хотите]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The other way would be to completely rephrase the strings to omit the pronoun of address altogether. This will make the tone more friendly. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*You've received a message from X*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вы получили сообщение от Х – neutral/formal&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Новое сообщение от Х! – informal/friendly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For successful localization you can combine both &quot;вы&quot; and rephrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, I wouldn't recommend using passive voice (e.g. &quot;Создана новая песня&quot;) because it doesn't contribute to the friendliness. The passive voice is mostly used in official papers and makes the text very cold and impersonal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7363" RevisionGUID="a41ea814-aaa1-41ca-bcdc-7c34ff61ec04" CreationDate="2014-10-01T18:27:35.067" UserId="4367" Text="I would say that words &quot;наибыстрейший&quot;, &quot;быстрейший&quot;, &quot;наискорейший&quot; and &quot;скорейший&quot; are fine, It's OK to use them sometimes. Moreover, you can  use the first two words (&quot;наибыстрейший&quot; и &quot;быстрейший&quot;) if you talk about speed; as for the last two words, we use them when we want to mean time. However, if you want to sound more Russian and colloquial, you better use &quot;самый быстрый&quot;. Because &quot;(наи)скорейший&quot; and &quot;(наи)быстрейший&quot; means something like &quot;super fastest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;1) Этот путь к успеху кажется мнe наибыстрейшим. (This way to success seems to me the fastest one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Желаю Вам скорейшего выздоровления! (Wish you get well as soon as possible!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope my answer helped you! Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16815" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7347" RevisionGUID="2605cbc9-89f3-497b-b7b2-9aaf47412094" CreationDate="2014-10-02T21:50:44.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/517793830142103552" />
  <row Id="16816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="50ecdbd4-82ef-49e6-8177-b08e947f91df" CreationDate="2014-10-03T10:20:38.413" UserId="4371" Text="У тебя торт / Твой торт&#xA;У меня пирог / Мой пирог&#xA;&#xA;What is the diffrence?&#xA;&#xA;Thanks in advance..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="50ecdbd4-82ef-49e6-8177-b08e947f91df" CreationDate="2014-10-03T10:20:38.413" UserId="4371" Text="What is the diffrence beetwen У тебя and Твой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="50ecdbd4-82ef-49e6-8177-b08e947f91df" CreationDate="2014-10-03T10:20:38.413" UserId="4371" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="0afe22ff-4cc0-4e6f-aff7-40a6c021d585" CreationDate="2014-10-03T11:37:31.643" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="У тебя торт / Твой торт  &#xD;&#xA;У меня пирог / Мой пирог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16820" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="0afe22ff-4cc0-4e6f-aff7-40a6c021d585" CreationDate="2014-10-03T11:37:31.643" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the diffrence beetwen ‘у тебя’ and ‘твой’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7364" RevisionGUID="0afe22ff-4cc0-4e6f-aff7-40a6c021d585" CreationDate="2014-10-03T11:37:31.643" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7365" RevisionGUID="bc3c391c-6d79-4b2a-a5f8-558663c7dbd9" CreationDate="2014-10-03T15:29:13.703" UserId="2079" Text="У тебя торт = you have a/the cake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твой торт = your cake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="57714f61-3ea5-442c-8a20-5cba15dc9166" CreationDate="2014-10-03T19:26:48.070" UserId="4336" Comment="added stats; added 51 characters in body" Text="&quot;Самый быстрый&quot; is the most appropriate variant. It is used much more often than other forms like &quot;(наи)быстрейший&quot; or &quot;(наи)скорейший&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You stats are invalid, Ruscorpora doesn't return any results for &quot;самый быстрый маршрут&quot; or &quot;быстрейший маршрут&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Statistics from Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;самый быстрый маршрут&quot; - 432000 results;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;быстрейший маршрут&quot; - 2150 results;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;наибыстрейший маршрут&quot; - 61 results;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;скорейший маршрут&quot; - 60 results;&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;кратчайший по времени маршрут&quot; - 40 results;&#xD;&#xA; 6. &quot;наискорейший маршрут&quot; - 24 results;&#xD;&#xA; 7. &quot;самый скорый маршрут&quot; - 17 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="7e1bf815-58cb-4697-8ead-35230bb304a1" CreationDate="2014-10-03T19:37:20.473" UserId="4336" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="&quot;Самый быстрый&quot; is the most appropriate variant. It is used much more often than other forms like &quot;(наи)быстрейший&quot; or &quot;(наи)скорейший&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You stats are invalid, Ruscorpora doesn't return any results for &quot;самый быстрый маршрут&quot; or &quot;быстрейший маршрут&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Statistics from Google/Yandex:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;самый быстрый маршрут&quot; - 432000/43000 results;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;быстрейший маршрут&quot; - 2150/335 results;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;скорейший маршрут&quot; - 60/84 results;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;наибыстрейший маршрут&quot; - 61/58 results;&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;кратчайший по времени маршрут&quot; - 40/24 results;&#xD;&#xA; 6. &quot;наискорейший маршрут&quot; - 24/17 results;&#xD;&#xA; 7. &quot;самый скорый маршрут&quot; - 17/15 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="16b0a595-1832-4988-8939-79d53e1e84ab" CreationDate="2014-10-05T19:10:36.767" UserId="2079" Text="Как правильно - **в головном мозгу** или **в головном мозге**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="16b0a595-1832-4988-8939-79d53e1e84ab" CreationDate="2014-10-05T19:10:36.767" UserId="2079" Text="мозг в местном/предложном падеже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="16b0a595-1832-4988-8939-79d53e1e84ab" CreationDate="2014-10-05T19:10:36.767" UserId="2079" Text="|грамматика|падежи|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="50273bba-1d3b-4f1f-8365-315ff28b51cc" CreationDate="2014-10-05T20:02:57.353" UserId="194" Text="Это зависит от смысла того, что вы хотите сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт о мыслях, то нужно использовать местный падеж:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу крутилась мысль о сдаче в плен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу я уже раздевал любимую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование предложного падежа здесь неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт в химическом составе мозга, нейронах, либо о пользе/вреде мозга, то используется предложный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В костном мозге содержится много железа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В большом мозге много пользы для выживания биологического вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="6c24c64b-34f5-44ce-ae06-50511c749fc4" CreationDate="2014-10-05T20:23:58.710" UserId="194" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Это зависит от смысла того, что вы хотите сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт о мыслях, то нужно использовать местный падеж:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу крутилась мысль о сдаче в плен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу я уже раздевал любимую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование предложного падежа здесь неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт в химическом составе мозга, нейронах, либо о пользе/вреде мозга, то используется предложный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В костном мозге содержится много железа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В большом мозге много пользы для выживания биологического вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твоём мозге много атомов = Your brain includes a lot of atoms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твоём мозгу много атомов = You are thinking/dreaming about a lot of atoms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="8476e054-e733-447d-b930-d0c0b5252630" CreationDate="2014-10-06T06:25:54.300" UserId="3589" Text="I tried to find meaning in dictionaries,  just failed. Is that means &quot;проспать дорогу на верх&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original sentence: Chistoff has decided to sleep his way up the corporate ladder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="8476e054-e733-447d-b930-d0c0b5252630" CreationDate="2014-10-06T06:25:54.300" UserId="3589" Text="What does &quot;to sleep his way up&quot; means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="8476e054-e733-447d-b930-d0c0b5252630" CreationDate="2014-10-06T06:25:54.300" UserId="3589" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="1bd1c318-5bbb-419f-a5b0-f708e4a26a7b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T06:53:19.053" UserId="3589" Comment="added 71 characters in body; edited title" Text="I tried to find meaning or translation in dictionaries ,  just failed. Is that means &quot;проспать дорогу на верх&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the translatoion of &quot;to sleep his way up&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original sentence: Chistoff has decided to sleep his way up the corporate ladder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16836" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7369" RevisionGUID="1bd1c318-5bbb-419f-a5b0-f708e4a26a7b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T06:53:19.053" UserId="3589" Comment="added 71 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;to sleep his way up&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="33d4a9d1-8af6-4e9b-a5a9-326e96c3805b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T07:05:01.650" UserId="4153" Text="I think you made a typo and most likely that was as `&quot;Chistoff has decided to `**`slip`**` his way up the corporate ladder.&quot;` which means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;забраться вверх по карьерной лестнице&quot;`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally it's translated as `&quot;проскользнуть по карьерной лестнице наверх&quot;`. It's acceptable, but more often `&quot;проскользнуть&quot;` or `&quot;проскочить&quot;` are used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7371" RevisionGUID="d0b5577b-0e6b-4551-98ae-f7ed8ce8dd8e" CreationDate="2014-10-06T07:22:43.497" UserId="4208" Text="Lee,&#xD;&#xA;In phrase using У тебя - is important that action happen with you, so if it's question, I am interested in your situation.&#xD;&#xA;In phrase using Твой is important the fact of possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У тебя пирог сгорел - You have burned the cake (I smell smoke in your flat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я съел твой пирог, извини - I ate your cake, sorry (It was **your** cake, not mine, but I ate it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У тебя есть друг? - Do you have a friend? (You, personally, do you have relations of friendships with someone?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твой друг придет к нам на вечеринку? - Is your friend going to join our party? (It's **your** friend, so I ask you about him)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortly, you don't use У тебя пирог in sense Твой пирог. It's not the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope, it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7372" RevisionGUID="c0a4d4e8-9018-4102-bbfe-df9b477e0e5d" CreationDate="2014-10-06T07:55:24.373" UserId="4208" Text="as this article talks about sanctions to and from Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дело in this case could be possibly used with historic reference to criminal investigations/criminal cases during soviet period, for example [Дело врачей][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot&#xD;&#xA;It was widely discussed in media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite common to use strong, cemented phrases in Russian journalism. I believe article has nothing to do with criminal investigation, nor with Soviet Union, but this name is used to attract attention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7340" RevisionGUID="c8cc1845-a3b0-40e0-8554-403d3ee835c2" CreationDate="2014-10-06T09:02:29.850" UserId="4270" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Some people look at that topic strongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only treating person should say &quot;приятного аппетита&quot; entertaining to you.&#xD;&#xA;Say &quot;спасибо&quot; in response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![An eater][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if your table companion says &quot;приятного аппетита&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer politely &quot;и Вам/тебе приятного аппетита&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or impolitely &quot;своё едим&quot; ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or humorously &quot;буду стараться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DI7u2.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="9432d380-2183-4c2e-8c30-42cbbbbef662" CreationDate="2014-10-06T10:09:07.013" UserId="194" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="31e29b02-48c9-41f8-ba70-dbb9b0a00b45" CreationDate="2014-10-06T18:45:16.407" UserId="194" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="388585f6-1b13-49c3-ba2f-600e4eb01f77" CreationDate="2014-10-06T23:18:23.647" UserId="4153" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think it's probably a typo and most likely that was as `&quot;Chistoff has decided to `**`slip`**` his way up the corporate ladder.&quot;` which means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `&quot;забраться вверх по карьерной лестнице&quot;`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally it's translated as `&quot;проскользнуть по карьерной лестнице наверх&quot;`. It's acceptable, but more often `&quot;забраться&quot;` or `&quot;проскочить&quot;` are used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7370" RevisionGUID="57cadfc8-5f24-4e0b-8636-78a73c10e906" CreationDate="2014-10-07T02:13:32.170" UserId="4153" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Russian this means**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`&quot;Получить повышение (по карьерной лестнице) через постель&quot;`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previously I answered with the text below, but this was discussed with @KCd and we decided that it's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_I think it's probably a typo and most likely that was as `&quot;Chistoff has decided to `&lt;s&gt;**`slip`**&lt;/s&gt;` his way up the corporate ladder.&quot;` which means_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _&lt;s&gt;`&quot;забраться вверх по карьерной лестнице&quot;`&lt;/s&gt;._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Literally it's translated as &lt;s&gt;`&quot;проскользнуть по карьерной лестнице наверх&quot;`&lt;/s&gt;. It's acceptable, but more often &lt;s&gt;`&quot;забраться&quot;`&lt;/s&gt; or &lt;s&gt;`&quot;проскочить&quot;`&lt;/s&gt; are used._&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="baa64045-271b-4829-abc6-636f1e18a241" CreationDate="2014-10-07T06:50:49.640" UserId="194" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    хвост в хвосте о хвосте&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="7bb02b13-70eb-458e-821d-d8c3c58f9d4e" CreationDate="2014-10-07T20:08:06.783" UserId="4384" Text="&gt; Впрочем, количество компаний, принимающих биткойн, уже записывается числом почти с пятью нулями (статистика получена от сервисов, **перекрывающих** криптовалютные платежи обычными деньгами: Coinbase, BitPay и др.; они помогают принимать биткойны) и среди них есть как мелкие предприятия, так и гиганты с миллиардными оборотами вроде Dell, Overstock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: http://www.computerra.ru/108179/cheap-btc/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="7bb02b13-70eb-458e-821d-d8c3c58f9d4e" CreationDate="2014-10-07T20:08:06.783" UserId="4384" Text="Что здесь значит слово “перекрывать”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="7bb02b13-70eb-458e-821d-d8c3c58f9d4e" CreationDate="2014-10-07T20:08:06.783" UserId="4384" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7376" RevisionGUID="9cddbe09-e7e0-4bab-9f5b-72bb89231f09" CreationDate="2014-10-08T05:30:03.567" UserId="4270" Text="Or that tool came to the USSR from Bulgaria?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7376" RevisionGUID="9cddbe09-e7e0-4bab-9f5b-72bb89231f09" CreationDate="2014-10-08T05:30:03.567" UserId="4270" Text="Is &quot;болгарка&quot; a distorted transcription of burglar tool?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7376" RevisionGUID="9cddbe09-e7e0-4bab-9f5b-72bb89231f09" CreationDate="2014-10-08T05:30:03.567" UserId="4270" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7377" RevisionGUID="7d6c15b2-40e2-41e2-b5b4-aadd8faa2807" CreationDate="2014-10-08T07:10:01.493" UserId="2139" Text="Second one, &quot;tool came to the USSR from Bulgaria&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Однако слово «болгарка» в обиходе российских людей появилось лишь в 70-х годах, когда начался массовый выпуск данного инструмента на &quot;Болгарский завод &quot;Элпром-Ловеч&quot;, и дальнейшие поставки на территорию СССР.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7378" RevisionGUID="a79921bc-4a3d-453a-b74a-f8635e0e61b2" CreationDate="2014-10-08T07:12:42.393" UserId="1159" Text="Yep, first tool of such kind come to USSR from Bulgaria (Fortuna named, produced on &quot;Элпром-Ловеч&quot; plant now called Sparky)  - whey bought AEG licence in 1966. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7379" RevisionGUID="3e470ae6-f73e-4c55-b7cb-80726e1a68fe" CreationDate="2014-10-08T07:26:19.603" UserId="1159" Text="It's just an *sofisticated* definition of 'bitcoin exchange' IMO. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7380" RevisionGUID="b2e7cd9f-e8d8-4a65-a85e-3e8dc6b64865" CreationDate="2014-10-08T10:49:50.840" UserId="2269" Text="Это какой-то ad-hoc термин, образованный от довольно широко распространенного _покрывать платеж_ (что есть собственно оплачивать) заменой приставки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение его очевидно по контексту — если Алиса выставляет счет Бобу, но не напрямую, а опосредованно — через Виктора, который не просто проводит транзакцию, но делает что-то еще (в данном случае — конвертирует валюты) таким образом, что платеж от Боба к Алисе как таковой перестает существовать, ибо деньги, скорее всего, аккумулируются у Виктора и переводятся Алисе более крупными партиями; то вот это самое, чем занимается Виктор и названо здесь _перекрытием платежа_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зачем это здесь это так названо, я не знаю — я не смог нагуглить более ни одного примера употребления глагола _перекрывать_ в этом значении. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16857" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="e4324d47-3b6c-42c0-871d-9401ccfff9c5" CreationDate="2014-10-08T10:52:03.147" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Что здесь значит слово «перекрывать»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16858" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7375" RevisionGUID="e4324d47-3b6c-42c0-871d-9401ccfff9c5" CreationDate="2014-10-08T10:52:03.147" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="0ebe2d8f-c6e4-48f6-8f9e-595e6decfaab" CreationDate="2014-10-08T16:12:26.170" UserId="4388" Text="I have two ways to say it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дай свой  голос!&#xD;&#xA;    Проголосуйте!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is that there is a big voting going on and I want to invite Russian speaking people to come and vote also for the greater good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which way is the correct way to invite people to vote and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="0ebe2d8f-c6e4-48f6-8f9e-595e6decfaab" CreationDate="2014-10-08T16:12:26.170" UserId="4388" Text="How to say &quot;come and vote&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="0ebe2d8f-c6e4-48f6-8f9e-595e6decfaab" CreationDate="2014-10-08T16:12:26.170" UserId="4388" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7382" RevisionGUID="eabb333c-e098-4114-864e-47bc94da7ce5" CreationDate="2014-10-08T16:31:26.880" UserId="3680" Text="The most frequently used phrases are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Голосуй!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отдай свой голос!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are correct.  &#xD;&#xA;The plural form is also usable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Голосуйте!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отдайте свой голос!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my humble opinion, first phrase is the most informal, whenever the last one - is the most formal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="81f4d5fb-751b-4edf-90df-a5bcd16666c8" CreationDate="2014-10-08T22:04:39.777" UserId="47" Comment="Added historical aspect of naming" Text="Others have commented on the correctness of the name. I'll get to *why* you can hear both (and probably more) versions. In the Soviet Union (and in modern Russia still), the average knowledge of foreign languages was unfortunately very limited. Since the Russian alphabet is usually different from those used in foreign languages, a lot of people can't even read Latin letters. Those who can (probably this includes all people with higher education) will usually call the letters the same way they are called in the language they studied. Thus a person with an English &quot;background&quot; would call it /dʒeɪ/, with French /ʒi/, with German /jɔt/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only situation where I expect some standardisation would be teaching math in schools. However, to be honest, I do not remember using *j* in school math at all. It was always *a*, *b*, *c* or *x*, *y*, *z* or *m*, *n*. Note that the [classical Latin alphabet][1] doesn't contain the letter J at all, which may explain this fact. The letters *i*, *j*, *k* were introduced in programming (still in school), but since computer languages are all based on English, it was natural for our teacher to go for the English &#xD;&#xA;names of the variables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not always so though. To confirm what I am saying, my programming teacher in university obviously had a &quot;German background&quot;. So she used to pronounce FALSE (a boolean constant) as the German *falsch* /falʃ/, which has the same meaning but of course a completely different pronunciation from English *false*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, a small addition regarding the probable source of the two versions. Being a part of the Latin and thus also French and German alphabets (both nations dominating among foreign connections of the Russian aristocracy since the 18th century, with a relatively small addition of English and Dutch) it has however significantly different names in the two. Hence no &quot;common&quot; name could be borrowed into Russian. The same happened to G, H and Y, which also have kept two names each (the latter is called *ипсилон* in Russian rather than *юпсилон* in German, because we don't have a sound to represent the German Y=Ü; *ю* is pronounced /ju/). V and W have escaped this pattern: being called [significantly different in German and French][2], they have both taken on the French names in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#Classical_Latin_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D0.B2.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7349" RevisionGUID="4e891320-e574-4ef4-b630-e662ce3988a1" CreationDate="2014-10-08T22:10:34.853" UserId="47" Comment="Added historical aspect of naming" Text="Others have commented on the correctness of the name. I'll get to *why* you can hear both (and probably more) versions. In the Soviet Union (and in modern Russia still), the average knowledge of foreign languages was unfortunately very limited. Since the Russian alphabet is usually different from those used in foreign languages, a lot of people can't even read Latin letters. Those who can (probably this includes all people with higher education) will usually call the letters the same way they are called in the language they studied. Thus a person with an English &quot;background&quot; would call it /dʒeɪ/, with French /ʒi/, with German /jɔt/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only situation where I expect some standardisation would be teaching math in schools. However, to be honest, I do not remember using *j* in school math at all. It was always *a*, *b*, *c* or *x*, *y*, *z* or *m*, *n*. Note that the [classical Latin alphabet][1] doesn't contain the letter J at all, which may explain this fact. The letters *i*, *j*, *k* were introduced in programming (still in school), but since computer languages are all based on English, it was natural for our teacher to go for the English &#xD;&#xA;names of the variables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remark: See comment by @user58697 below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not always so though. To confirm what I am saying, my programming teacher in university obviously had a &quot;German background&quot;. So she used to pronounce FALSE (a boolean constant) as the German *falsch* /falʃ/, which has the same meaning but of course a completely different pronunciation from English *false*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness, a small addition regarding the probable source of the two versions. Being a part of the Latin and thus also French and German alphabets (both nations dominating among foreign connections of the Russian aristocracy since the 18th century, with a relatively small addition of English and Dutch) it has however significantly different names in the two. Hence no &quot;common&quot; name could be borrowed into Russian. The same happened to G, H and Y, which also have kept two names each (the latter is called *ипсилон* in Russian rather than *юпсилон* in German, because we don't have a sound to represent the German Y=Ü; *ю* is pronounced /ju/). V and W have escaped this pattern: being called [significantly different in German and French][2], they have both taken on the French names in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#Classical_Latin_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D0.B2.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16865" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7381" RevisionGUID="1cb384cc-04a8-4275-be91-9d2a49bea018" CreationDate="2014-10-09T04:16:37.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/520065270233432064" />
  <row Id="16867" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7376" RevisionGUID="1ae9ad9a-0d48-4f68-a2b9-db8879564840" CreationDate="2014-10-09T07:25:48.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/520112880684138496" />
  <row Id="16868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7384" RevisionGUID="0bcee91e-205a-4d89-b008-31150e3c38f2" CreationDate="2014-10-09T20:30:46.747" UserId="4392" Text="1. Акакий, Лаврентий, Терентий, Вий! :-)&#xD;&#xA;2. бестия, гаргулия :-)&#xD;&#xA;3. выпь :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. более правильная форма: гаргулья" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="ca5c9c8b-d597-4336-a5fe-36446318ce2b" CreationDate="2014-10-09T21:51:44.607" UserId="313" Text="How is the &quot;future in the past&quot; rendered in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Context**: A particular event was not planned for a certain evening, so I made other plans. At the last minute, however, the event wound up happening after all. My friend calls up and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Friend:* Why weren't you at the event?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Me:* I made other plans because **there wasn't going to be** an event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I can think of is ways to completely avoid the &quot;future in the past&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не приходил потому, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `не знал, что мероприятие бдует.`&#xD;&#xA; 2. `думал, что мероприятия не будет.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way to express this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="ca5c9c8b-d597-4336-a5fe-36446318ce2b" CreationDate="2014-10-09T21:51:44.607" UserId="313" Text="Future in the Past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="ca5c9c8b-d597-4336-a5fe-36446318ce2b" CreationDate="2014-10-09T21:51:44.607" UserId="313" Text="|перевод|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7386" RevisionGUID="1650528f-681e-4786-b967-46b127e3ca62" CreationDate="2014-10-09T23:37:32.780" UserId="4153" Text="You are correct, this is the best option. There is no _future in the past_ tense in Russian as a separate language mechanism but it perfectly works as a way you have done it. So all situations like this are covered by putting verbs in the past and in the future tenses all together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing should be fixed is `пришёл` (instead of &lt;s&gt;`приходил`&lt;/s&gt;) because it's _совершенный вид глагола_ must be used in such a situation (I know it's a bit of hardness for learners of Russian language)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не **пришёл** потому, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `не знал, что мероприятие бдует.`&#xD;&#xA; 2. `думал, что мероприятия не будет.` " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="e2fd2ddb-adaa-4952-97ba-1ad6fb764a18" CreationDate="2014-10-10T05:03:27.627" UserId="4270" Text="Has she only her feet loose? Or is she only good all around?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="e2fd2ddb-adaa-4952-97ba-1ad6fb764a18" CreationDate="2014-10-10T05:03:27.627" UserId="4270" Text="Is there any sexual implication in девушка хоть куда?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7387" RevisionGUID="e2fd2ddb-adaa-4952-97ba-1ad6fb764a18" CreationDate="2014-10-10T05:03:27.627" UserId="4270" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7388" RevisionGUID="b2d0e489-3cbd-4d1c-96ec-0238599c15ef" CreationDate="2014-10-10T05:42:34.893" UserId="2079" Text="The colloquial expression **хоть куда** means great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*На Лизавете Григорьевне Муромской, ― отвечал Иван Петрович; ― невеста хоть куда; не правда ли?* (Пушкин, &quot;Барышня-крестьянка&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мой Митрофанушка из-за книги не встаёт по суткам... жаль, жаль, да подумаешь: зато будет и детина хоть куда.* (Фонвизин, &quot;Недоросль&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Поглядел на карты: масть хоть куда, козыри есть.* (Н. В. Гоголь. Пропавшая грамота)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*губерния Крутогорская хоть куда* (Салтыков-Щедрин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When spoken about a girl, I'd say it means that she is great for marry her.  This expression is about marriage, not one-time sex.  (Often same about guys.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more sense in &quot;хоть куда&quot;: when spoken about relatively old people, it means he/she is perfecly able to do what young people do (work, sex, anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="373f407f-944b-4189-b5a8-116428f64fb1" CreationDate="2014-10-10T08:02:55.860" UserId="4153" Comment="minor wording improving" Text="Это зависит от смысла того, что вы хотите сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт о мыслях, то нужно использовать местный падеж:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу крутилась мысль о сдаче в плен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу я уже раздевал любимую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование предложного падежа здесь неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт в химическом составе мозга, нейронах, либо о пользе/вреде мозга, то используется предложный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В костном мозге содержится много железа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В большом мозге много пользы для выживания биологического вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твоём мозге много атомов = Your brain consists of a lot of atoms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твоём мозгу много атомов = You are thinking/dreaming about a lot of atoms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16879" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="373f407f-944b-4189-b5a8-116428f64fb1" CreationDate="2014-10-10T08:02:55.860" Comment="Proposed by 4153 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="b7c6b728-4ba6-4b1c-9ed9-f1356f3d558f" CreationDate="2014-10-10T10:11:22.120" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="I would like to know if the expression 'Молодец!' (or молодцы́!) in the context of 'good!', 'you did it right!', 'this is a great work!' ,'you accomplished a difficult work!' etc.... is always familiar or can be used for example with business partners in Russia ( and other ex-Ussr republics )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also the feeling that this term was strongly connected with the daily life in USSR, eg when a worker was well doing his(/her) job, doing his(/her) daily share of the work , when a project was done , etc....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if for example I use that term to say that some partners have done well their work and I have but informal business connections with them , could they consider that I am familiar with them? Or would it sounds natural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="b7c6b728-4ba6-4b1c-9ed9-f1356f3d558f" CreationDate="2014-10-10T10:11:22.120" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="is 'Молодец! / молодцы́!' always a familiar expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="b7c6b728-4ba6-4b1c-9ed9-f1356f3d558f" CreationDate="2014-10-10T10:11:22.120" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7390" RevisionGUID="4c6cc9c6-6080-4a4c-9936-9cbb3fa220ef" CreationDate="2014-10-10T11:35:35.937" UserId="3680" Text="The main problem is that `Молодцы!` cannot be used when addressing **one** person using respective plural `вы`. When addressing only **one** person you have to use `Молодец`, which sounds too informal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are several persons you could use `Молодцы!` even for business partners.  &#xD;&#xA;But keep in mind, that this word sounds most naturally from a teacher, imho." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7391" RevisionGUID="99577d16-c6c9-4959-ac80-54e59d0d3c96" CreationDate="2014-10-10T11:45:15.477" UserId="2079" Text="No, you cannot use it with business partners. It has patronizing obertones, for example a parent can say this to the kid, but not vice versa. Hardly even a boss can say this to an employee. The english equivalent is &quot;smart girl&quot;, &quot;smart boy&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7392" RevisionGUID="23c9b5ff-9ad0-470d-a69d-cb24e13a43a8" CreationDate="2014-10-10T11:57:01.070" UserId="1236" Text="It's pretty natural to say `Вы молоде́ц!` to one person, including one's business partner, and it won't sound informal or patronizing. If you address several people, then it is `Вы молодцы́!` There are [lots of examples of such usage](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%C2%FB+%EC%EE%EB%EE%E4%E5%F6) in the National Corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Я слышал ваш разговор с моим коллегой. Вы молодец, конечно. Они в вас многое теряют, но только я должен сказать: я с вами всё-таки никак не согласен. [Ю. О. Домбровский. Обезьяна приходит за своим черепом, часть 2 (1943-1958)](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%C2%FB%20%EC%EE%EB%EE%E4%E5%F6&amp;docid=84742)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но все хорошо, поздравляю вас с успехом! Вы молодец! Очень мне понравилось, когда вы сказали, что указ об открытии Школы-Студии МХАТ подписал товарищ Сталин. [Владлен Давыдов. Театр моей мечты (2004)](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%C2%FB%20%EC%EE%EB%EE%E4%E5%F6&amp;docid=44683)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;― Здравствуйте, здравствуйте! Вы молодец, Анатолий Карлович, что пришли! Суханов грузно поднялся из-за стола, вышел навстречу Журковскому, протягивая вперед руку для пожатия. [Андрей Белозеров. Чайка (2001)](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%C2%FB%20%EC%EE%EB%EE%E4%E5%F6&amp;p=2&amp;docid=43561)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="c52b5f29-bbb6-47c6-bb60-5b92aa50735c" CreationDate="2014-10-10T12:22:19.583" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="While  фашист and бандит should translate in English respectively to 'Fascist' and 'Bandit', I have the feeling that their real meaning is much stronger in Russian than in English, indeed &quot;you're a fascist&quot; and &quot;you're a bandit&quot; sounds relatively low in English and these expressions are rather soft or even can be funny in English ( and in other languages ) while they are - I feel - much stronger in Russian ( or is that only Ukrainian ?). Is that impression correct or is that an illusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="c52b5f29-bbb6-47c6-bb60-5b92aa50735c" CreationDate="2014-10-10T12:22:19.583" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="фашист, бандит and their real equivalent meaning in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="c52b5f29-bbb6-47c6-bb60-5b92aa50735c" CreationDate="2014-10-10T12:22:19.583" UserDisplayName="user4256" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7302" RevisionGUID="c738ca79-db16-4ee7-a522-48debb0932d2" CreationDate="2014-10-10T12:27:42.687" UserId="2238" Comment="added 1.5" Text="When the noun (or supposed noun, as комната in ванная (комната)) is feminine, both -ые and -ых are possible with полторы, две, три и четыре in nominative and accusative. This is an exception of the rule saying that -ых should be used in such case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7394" RevisionGUID="f22af860-783e-4fca-b917-370e68ec6657" CreationDate="2014-10-10T13:13:22.557" UserId="134" Text="*Фашист* in colloquial Russian means primarily a German Nazi (or, through metonimy, any supporter of Nazi or Nazi-like ideology).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term was widely used by the Soviet media in 1930's, and the German troops which invaded Soviet Union were labeled &quot;German Fascist invaders&quot; (*немецко-фашистские захватчики*) right away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In stricter sense of word, it would mean quite the same as English &quot;fascist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the cultural connotations, the term *фашист* would be deemed a very strong expression by majority of Russian speakers born or raised in the former USSR. I personally can't imagine a situation where it could be used jokingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Бандит* means a &quot;gangster&quot;, a member of an armed organized crime group. It's a legal term as well. Contrary to its English counterpart (&quot;bandit&quot;), it does not have positive connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More correct translation of &quot;bandit&quot; to Russian would be *разбойник*. For instance, &quot;good&quot; guys like Robin Hood and Hong Gildong are usually called *разбойник*, but Al Capone or Tony Soprano would rather be *бандит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not quite a strong term, though. For instance, a mother could say *он такой бандит!* about her child, meaning the child does not behave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7395" RevisionGUID="ad2600d2-8592-45b0-a732-09ce03fcceba" CreationDate="2014-10-10T15:40:57.227" UserId="194" Text="Well in Russian the term &quot;fascist&quot; is about as strong as the term &quot;sadist&quot;. It in fact would mean &quot;ethno-sadist&quot; or &quot;racial sadist&quot; that is a person who enjoys to inflict suffering to other people for pleasure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7396" RevisionGUID="19a3cfb1-8d73-4499-a41c-217521c027ce" CreationDate="2014-10-10T15:59:15.120" UserId="114" Text="&quot;there wasn't going to be an event&quot; has some connotations which are not represented by the translation &quot;не знал/думал, что мероприятия (не) будет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you want to say &quot;не знал, что мероприятие будет&quot;, you can perfectly fine say it in English &quot;I didn't know that the event will happen [after all]&quot;. It's 100% correct translation which communicates the original meaning unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the &quot;because there wasn't going to be an event&quot; there are 100% correct translation, which is &quot;потому что мероприятия не должно было быть&quot;. Do note, however, that it's valid Russian, but somewhat too pedantic, no one speaks like that usually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, yes, as @Ruslan Gerasimov noted, you don't usually speak &quot;я не приходил&quot;, because it's technically something like Past Continuous in Russian (it meant literally that you haven't come *several times a row*, *each time* you were asked to come)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="05d6c991-9648-4263-9ed1-2997d808ec60" CreationDate="2014-10-10T18:54:17.833" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="While  фашист and бандит should translate in English respectively to 'fascist' and 'bandit', I have the feeling that their real meaning is much stronger in Russian than in English, indeed &quot;you're a fascist&quot; and &quot;you're a bandit&quot; sounds relatively low in English and these expressions are rather soft or even can be funny in English ( and in other languages ) while they are - I feel - much stronger in Russian ( or is that only Ukrainian ?). Is that impression correct or is that an illusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16894" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="10f66922-556f-41fe-8afa-320f324c57ac" CreationDate="2014-10-10T21:13:58.863" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/363/typing-russian-on-an-english-keyboard" />
  <row Id="16895" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="5fb78f70-850b-4a69-85ed-4614e9b2df7c" CreationDate="2014-10-10T21:13:58.863" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/363/typing-russian-on-an-english-keyboard/364#364" />
  <row Id="16896" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="7399" RevisionGUID="dc8e6859-13cf-49c6-8539-4361feb3e917" CreationDate="2014-10-10T21:13:58.863" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/363/typing-russian-on-an-english-keyboard/365#365" />
  <row Id="16897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7398" RevisionGUID="d0ff129d-7ba7-4834-b0f0-583dcf15797e" CreationDate="2014-10-03T09:45:35.990" UserId="551" Text="There are many online tools for converting latin letters to cyrillic ones. For instance http://translit.net/ - it allows to type latin letters that are converted to cyrillic automatically. For instance &quot;kak dela&quot; becomes &quot;как дела&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7399" RevisionGUID="f6ceb708-36b8-4f5f-8889-6fa39bf2f3e9" CreationDate="2014-10-05T12:02:36.427" UserId="2269" Text="You could use so called phonetic layout, _ЯВЕРТЫ_; that is software layout where Cyrillic letters are placed to roughly correspond the legend on a physical Latin keyboard: “f” – „ф“, “u” – „у“, “i” – „и“, “a” – „а“ and so forth. If you type in Russian enough to memorize a bit illogical position of nine Cyrillic letters, which lack their counterparts in Latin: ъ, ь, ю, я, ш, щ, ч, э, ж; that would probably be the best option for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s available out of a box in X11 (`Option &quot;XkbLayout&quot; &quot;us,ru(phonetic)&quot;`), and, as for popular non-free systems, it can be easily found over the Web as installable package.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disadvantage: you would get used to it and would never switch to normal _ЙЦУКЕН_. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="732c2eb4-9b1e-436a-b70a-a04b9e3c085f" CreationDate="2014-10-03T00:44:33.067" UserId="4205" Text="I have only a standard English (qwerty) keyboard on my computer.  Can anyone recommend a convenient method (free software or something else) by which I can use my keyboard to type the Cyrillic alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="732c2eb4-9b1e-436a-b70a-a04b9e3c085f" CreationDate="2014-10-03T00:44:33.067" UserId="4205" Text="Typing Russian on an English keyboard" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="732c2eb4-9b1e-436a-b70a-a04b9e3c085f" CreationDate="2014-10-03T00:44:33.067" UserId="4205" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16902" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="c288a496-8d93-4b95-8b9f-6ecfa83fa623" CreationDate="2014-10-10T22:56:30.943" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|software|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7400" RevisionGUID="8d7216eb-7085-460d-85c3-71787c912f40" CreationDate="2014-10-10T23:26:01.433" UserId="3680" Text="If you are using [tag:Windows], you could use the builtin [On-Screen Keyboard](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/type-without-keyboard#type-without-keyboard=windows-7):  &#xD;&#xA;`Start`&amp;rarr;`All Programs`&amp;rarr;`Accessories`&amp;rarr;`Ease of Access`&amp;rarr;`On-Screen Keyboard`.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;All you need is to set up the Russian language in the `Control Panel`&amp;rarr;`Regional Settings` to be able to switch between input languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to buy stickers with the Russian letters. For instance: [here](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&amp;field-keywords=Russian%20Keyboard%20Stickers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="8637aa67-e887-4b5b-825b-3e8f426e3c20" CreationDate="2014-10-11T03:24:16.547" UserId="313" Comment="Changed приходил to пришел to avoid future confusion" Text="How is the &quot;future in the past&quot; rendered in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Context**: A particular event was not planned for a certain evening, so I made other plans. At the last minute, however, the event wound up happening after all. My friend calls up and says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Friend:* Why weren't you at the event?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Me:* I made other plans because **there wasn't going to be** an event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I can think of is ways to completely avoid the &quot;future in the past&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не пришёл потому, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `не знал, что мероприятие бдует.`&#xD;&#xA; 2. `думал, что мероприятия не будет.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way to express this situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16905" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7393" RevisionGUID="c195fd5f-d2a7-45ee-a122-1fdae9cca488" CreationDate="2014-10-11T07:25:47.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/520837653428572161" />
  <row Id="16906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7396" RevisionGUID="a3579a3a-a6cc-4726-9fca-65f382dd154f" CreationDate="2014-10-11T09:24:46.640" UserId="114" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&quot;there wasn't going to be an event&quot; has some connotations which are not represented by the translation &quot;не знал/думал, что мероприятия (не) будет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you want to say &quot;не знал, что мероприятие будет&quot;, you can perfectly fine say it in English &quot;I didn't know that the event will happen [after all]&quot;. It's 100% correct translation which communicates the original meaning unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the &quot;because there wasn't going to be an event&quot; there are 100% correct translation, which is &quot;потому что мероприятия не должно было быть&quot;. Do note, however, that it's valid Russian, but somewhat too pedantic, no one speaks like that usually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, yes, as @RuslanGerasimov noted, you don't usually speak &quot;я не приходил&quot;, because it's technically something like Past Continuous in Russian (it meant literally that you haven't come *several times a row*, *each time* you were asked to come)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7401" RevisionGUID="4e98a563-930e-4e38-a65c-8ecf9c0e96ad" CreationDate="2014-10-11T14:26:15.997" UserId="487" Text="I've seen once&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну ты ваще!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;somewhere. Is it related to &quot;вообще&quot; as the redirection to that word in Wiktionary suggests?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, what is the whole thing? Since I feel like it's missing an adjective, does it mean something by itself? I'd expected &quot;ну ты ваще дурак/умный!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7401" RevisionGUID="4e98a563-930e-4e38-a65c-8ecf9c0e96ad" CreationDate="2014-10-11T14:26:15.997" UserId="487" Text="What is &quot;ну ты ваще!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7401" RevisionGUID="4e98a563-930e-4e38-a65c-8ecf9c0e96ad" CreationDate="2014-10-11T14:26:15.997" UserId="487" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7402" RevisionGUID="2db0e515-8cb1-423d-ad96-cd54aa80f373" CreationDate="2014-10-11T17:14:46.723" UserId="3680" Text="This phrase is an emotional exclamation. You are right, it's related to `вообще` and it skips the main word. This missing word is usually known from a context and an intonation. It can has either positive or negative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Ну ты ваще дебил!` negative exclamation, noun is used.  &#xD;&#xA;* `Ну ты ваще молодец!` positive exclamation, noun is used.  &#xD;&#xA;* `Ну ты ваще красивый!` positive (humorous?) exclamation, adjective is used.&#xD;&#xA;* `Ну ты ваще герой!` positive (humorous?) exclamation, noun is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my answer is: this phrase has no self-explanatory meaning without a context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="90fa8501-c9b9-47b2-8ff7-34040e83fa4e" CreationDate="2014-10-12T03:57:02.063" UserId="62" Text="&#xD;&#xA;While the method of translating foreign words need not follow a rigid format, I was a little surprised that Russian has смартфон but умные часы rather than смартчасы. Is there a reasonable explanation for the different way these terms are translated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="90fa8501-c9b9-47b2-8ff7-34040e83fa4e" CreationDate="2014-10-12T03:57:02.063" UserId="62" Text="Смартфон, а не смартчасы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7403" RevisionGUID="90fa8501-c9b9-47b2-8ff7-34040e83fa4e" CreationDate="2014-10-12T03:57:02.063" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7404" RevisionGUID="4e2f6e07-57c0-4661-870d-110cd87f5f7f" CreationDate="2014-10-12T08:26:10.590" UserId="4336" Text="May be because `смартвоч` sounds quite strange for Russian ear. It's not clear how to pronounce it - 'смартвоч' or 'смартуоч' because Russian language has not sound `w`. By contrast, `смартфон` sounds good, similar to Russian word `телефон`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="2535bf74-e9db-46e0-845d-ddbb0eb758c0" CreationDate="2014-10-12T11:40:37.657" UserId="1097" Text="В русском языке много составных заимствованных слов с греческим корнем  φωνή (голос, звук), оканчивающихся на -фон. Часто оба корня в составном слове — заимствованные:&#xD;&#xA;домофон, патефон, грамофон, микрофон, мегафон, телефон, таксофон, шлемофон, спикерфон, ларингофон, видеофон, диктофон, магнитофон, ксилофон, металлофон, виброфон, ... Так что &quot;смартфон&quot; отлично подходит в этот список.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, я не припоминаю составных слов с корнем &quot;часы&quot;, но есть: электронные часы, наручные часы, настенные часы, напольные часы, башенные часы, ... по аналогии —  умные часы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian language has many compound loan words with Greek roots φωνή (voice, sound), ending in -фон. Often both roots in a compound word are loan:&#xD;&#xA;intercom, phonograph, gramophone, microphone, megaphone, telephone, pay phone, headset, speakerphone, throat microphone, videophone, voice recorder, recorder, xylophone, glockenspiel, vibraphone, ... So the &quot;смартфон&quot; fits perfectly into this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do not recall compound words with the root &quot;часы&quot;, but there are electronic watches, wrist watches, wall clocks, floor clocks, clock tower... by analogy - smart watches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7406" RevisionGUID="f9853b44-a1aa-4f42-88c2-8b3c606de409" CreationDate="2014-10-12T13:32:31.550" UserId="3892" Text="I saw a [comment][1] on a vacation photograph that reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чайки жирные летают просто жуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this literally mean that the fat seagulls are creepy, or is there a colloquial meaning to all this? I don't get it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g33052-d104238-i104864446-Santa_Monica_Pier-Santa_Monica_California.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7406" RevisionGUID="f9853b44-a1aa-4f42-88c2-8b3c606de409" CreationDate="2014-10-12T13:32:31.550" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of просто жуть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7406" RevisionGUID="f9853b44-a1aa-4f42-88c2-8b3c606de409" CreationDate="2014-10-12T13:32:31.550" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="e0f69983-7cde-490e-b930-3956a0089dcb" CreationDate="2014-10-12T13:40:08.020" UserId="3680" Text="In this context `просто жуть` is an equivalent for `ну очень` (very, extremely):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Чайки жирные летают, ну очень жирные." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7407" RevisionGUID="e862a434-f36e-4c5f-b84f-9122c11de134" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:04:38.253" UserId="3680" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="In this context `просто жуть` is an equivalent for `ну очень` (very, extremely):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Чайки жирные летают, ну очень жирные.&#xD;&#xA;That means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fat seagulls are flying and they are extremely fat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="9732cf4e-2084-4b72-bbdd-333eecd944b0" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:12:24.903" UserId="1097" Text="I'm not sure, maybe &quot;просто жуть&quot; ~ 'as hell', 'like hell'  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чайки жирные просто жуть!&quot; ~ 'Seagulls fat as hell'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7408" RevisionGUID="854b3ce8-fe13-4573-a406-f8fc3e1c729f" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:18:22.227" UserId="1097" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure, maybe &quot;просто жуть&quot; ~ 'as hell', 'like hell'  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чайки жирные просто жуть!&quot; ~ 'Seagulls are fat as hell'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="5a04fc70-1f44-477a-97a2-fef1d4f4fb21" CreationDate="2014-10-12T17:33:53.550" UserId="4398" Text="Is it possible to say &quot;потоп&quot; (as a verb) instead &quot;потоплен&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Его корабль потоп.&#xD;&#xA;And if so, then where can I check it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="5a04fc70-1f44-477a-97a2-fef1d4f4fb21" CreationDate="2014-10-12T17:33:53.550" UserId="4398" Text="&quot;потоп&quot; as a verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="5a04fc70-1f44-477a-97a2-fef1d4f4fb21" CreationDate="2014-10-12T17:33:53.550" UserId="4398" Text="|глаголы|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7411" RevisionGUID="95c98b7c-ec03-42cd-8a0a-9713526bbe7c" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:00:34.233" UserId="2079" Text="You can search `потопла` in [ruscorpora.ru][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It found [four documents with this word][2].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system also found one document with `он потоп`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for this site, лексико-грамматический поиск is pretty useless (usually finds nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EF%EE%F2%EE%EF%EB%E0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7412" RevisionGUID="a331e8d1-1068-42cb-8f2d-74feb1856224" CreationDate="2014-10-12T18:44:11.740" UserId="1604" Text="No, I don't think it's possible. Somewhat acceptable, although still awkward alternative is *утоп* - probably, due to phonetic similarity to утопленник, grizzly child song &quot;один из них утоп&quot; and lack of confusion with потоп as noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7414" RevisionGUID="3f1456f2-48af-4ea2-bc07-4531f6043160" CreationDate="2014-10-12T20:38:09.270" UserId="4361" Text="I used the following low tech method for my desktop computer which has a white keyboard. Install your favorite Cyrillic keyboard layout in the settings and then write the corresponding Russian letter on the front side of each key (not the top one!) with pencil. The pencil marks will be gradually disappear because of accidental touches but it is usually OK as you will learn how to type Russian without looking at the keyboard by that time. An extra benefit of this method that you will learn to type in Russian using any querty keyboard and don't need to install any programs or open a browser." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7405" RevisionGUID="c13287f0-1acb-45d6-9f9f-66eb3e0a276f" CreationDate="2014-10-13T01:49:38.913" UserId="1097" Comment="remove домофон from examples list" Text="В русском языке много составных заимствованных слов с греческим корнем  φωνή (голос, звук), оканчивающихся на -фон. Часто оба корня в составном слове — заимствованные:&#xD;&#xA;[миелофон][1], патефон, грамофон, микрофон, мегафон, телефон, таксофон, шлемофон, спикерфон, ларингофон, видеофон, диктофон, магнитофон, ксилофон, металлофон, виброфон, ... Так что &quot;смартфон&quot; отлично подходит в этот список.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, я не припоминаю составных слов с корнем &quot;часы&quot;, но есть: электронные часы, наручные часы, настенные часы, напольные часы, башенные часы, ... по аналогии —  умные часы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian language has many compound loan words with Greek roots φωνή (voice, sound), ending in -фон. Often both roots in a compound word are loan:&#xD;&#xA;thought-to-speech device(1), phonograph, gramophone, microphone, megaphone, telephone, pay phone, headset, speakerphone, throat microphone, videophone, voice recorder, recorder, xylophone, glockenspiel, vibraphone, ... So the &quot;смартфон&quot; fits perfectly into this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I do not recall compound words with the root &quot;часы&quot;, but there are electronic watches, wrist watches, wall clocks, floor clocks, clock tower... by analogy - smart watches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) From Кир Булычёв books&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7414" RevisionGUID="a66ede5f-cd42-4885-ae55-416d30d3b11d" CreationDate="2014-10-13T04:54:50.743" UserId="4361" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I used the following low tech method for my desktop computer which has a white keyboard. Install your favorite Cyrillic keyboard layout in the settings and then write the corresponding Russian letter on the front side of each key (not the top one!) with pencil. The pencil marks will gradually disappear because of accidental touches but it is usually OK as you will learn how to type Russian without looking at the keyboard by that time. An extra benefit of this method that you will learn to type in Russian using any querty keyboard and don't need to install any programs or open a browser." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="f320bbc2-49f7-4b72-826c-e4712a517863" CreationDate="2014-10-13T08:27:37.213" UserId="47" Text="The computer terms *login*/*logout* are commonly translated as *вход*/*выход* or *войти*/*выйти*. I am struggling however with the expressions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are not logged in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please login first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could translate the former as *вы не вошли*, but *вошли куда* (where)? The same with the latter: *Пожалуйста, сначала войдите* — again, enter what? In English, the verb *to log in* implies the computer environment. In Russian, the corresponding word *входить* has no such connotation. I could say *войти на сайт*, but that would be wrong again, since the user *is* already in my site, he should just log in. I am lost :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related question: [How to translate LOGIN and REGISTER?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="f320bbc2-49f7-4b72-826c-e4712a517863" CreationDate="2014-10-13T08:27:37.213" UserId="47" Text="How to translate &quot;You are not logged in&quot; into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="f320bbc2-49f7-4b72-826c-e4712a517863" CreationDate="2014-10-13T08:27:37.213" UserId="47" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7416" RevisionGUID="0b551809-f2c7-4c54-9200-92cdb0a9bb6b" CreationDate="2014-10-13T08:56:32.147" UserId="551" Text="Actually this is a synonym for &quot;Ну ты даешь!&quot;, wiktionary defines it as an exclamation when someone does [something unexpected](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неперех., разг. делать что-то неожиданное ◆ Ну ты даёшь! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, when a man in a typical businessman outfit suddenly makes a somersault a natural reaction would be &quot;Ну ты даешь!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7417" RevisionGUID="e64cee30-028e-4095-a4d2-63db01b71bcf" CreationDate="2014-10-13T09:10:00.067" UserId="551" Text="In fact this is a verse from a [song by Oleg Gazmanov](http://tekst-pesni-tut.ru/song/show/824713/gazmanov/tekst-pesni-i-perevod-a-ya-devushek-lyublyu/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На пляжу лежу и в небо я гляжу,  &#xD;&#xA;Чайки жирные летают, просто жуть,  &#xD;&#xA;А я худенький такой - унесет меня прибой,  &#xD;&#xA;Лучше я в песок зароюсь с головой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it has some &quot;deep meaning&quot; except for the seagull and the sea (and the fact that the author of the photo remembers this song)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="c8344109-fa63-4275-b18f-d029f0202105" CreationDate="2014-10-13T10:25:36.050" UserId="4403" Text="Вы неавторизованы&#xD;&#xA;Пожалуйста, авторизируйтесь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7417" RevisionGUID="60bc2664-342b-4351-b504-8c273149dd21" CreationDate="2014-10-13T11:52:10.173" UserId="551" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="In fact this is a verse from a [song by Oleg Gazmanov](http://tekst-pesni-tut.ru/song/show/824713/gazmanov/tekst-pesni-i-perevod-a-ya-devushek-lyublyu/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На пляжу лежу и в небо я гляжу,  &#xD;&#xA;Чайки жирные летают, просто жуть,  &#xD;&#xA;А я худенький такой - унесет меня прибой,  &#xD;&#xA;Лучше я в песок зароюсь с головой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it has some &quot;deep meaning&quot; except for the seagull and the sea (and the fact that the author of the photo remembers this song).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the meaning of &quot;просто жуть&quot; - the verse itself can be rephrased without any losses in meaning as &quot;летают ужасно жирные чайки&quot;: the awfully fat seagulls are flying around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="359d376a-69a1-4650-82d5-6ee76ba06ef9" CreationDate="2014-10-13T11:53:30.373" UserId="551" Comment="Перевод строки съедается парсером." Text="&gt; Вы неавторизованы  &#xD;&#xA;Пожалуйста, авторизируйтесь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7419" RevisionGUID="7eaa0ab6-caa8-43c3-8f87-6dd9e4221dcd" CreationDate="2014-10-13T12:40:16.480" UserId="2079" Text="1. Пожалуйста, войдите/зайдите на форум.&#xD;&#xA;2. Пожалуйста, введите Ваше имя (Ваш ник) и пароль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7420" RevisionGUID="40fdfdbd-4519-43bc-84c0-94e908fb1ebd" CreationDate="2014-10-13T12:44:22.183" UserId="4270" Text="Простой народ не парится, пишет &quot;вы не залогинились&quot;, &quot;сначала залогиньтесь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Народ посложнее пишет &quot;вы не вошли в систему&quot;, &quot;сначала войдите в систему&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Согласитесь, загадочная &quot;система&quot; таинственнее, чем просто сайт. Это нечто другое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Авторизация - тоже неплохо, но как-то заумно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё модно приплетать полномочия.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Подтвердите Ваши полномочия&quot;. Каждое слово по-русски!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7422" RevisionGUID="62ef4494-dcfd-490c-8b1c-5ef4762e9416" CreationDate="2014-10-13T14:24:29.347" UserId="4269" Text="I'm looking for Russian equivalents for these time-related English collocations. Perhaps someone can help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) to spend time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) to waste time on something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) to make time for something/someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) to save time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) to have time for something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) to kill or pass time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) to take one's time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) to be on time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) Just in time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) Have a hard or rough time with something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) it's about time (finally!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12) to run out about time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7422" RevisionGUID="62ef4494-dcfd-490c-8b1c-5ef4762e9416" CreationDate="2014-10-13T14:24:29.347" UserId="4269" Text="Help translating these time-related collocations into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7422" RevisionGUID="62ef4494-dcfd-490c-8b1c-5ef4762e9416" CreationDate="2014-10-13T14:24:29.347" UserId="4269" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7418" RevisionGUID="3be530f1-97fa-4def-8ec9-fce4e29a47a8" CreationDate="2014-10-13T14:48:43.530" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Вы не авторизованы  &#xD;&#xA;Пожалуйста, авторизируйтесь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="86e5a820-7314-4d62-abeb-b725d55e385f" CreationDate="2014-10-13T15:51:36.563" UserId="3615" Text="Казахоязычная или казахскоязычная и почему?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="86e5a820-7314-4d62-abeb-b725d55e385f" CreationDate="2014-10-13T15:51:36.563" UserId="3615" Text="Казахоязычная или казахскоязычная" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="86e5a820-7314-4d62-abeb-b725d55e385f" CreationDate="2014-10-13T15:51:36.563" UserId="3615" Text="|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="c3fbe709-72c0-4206-8479-53ea17dd7180" CreationDate="2014-10-13T17:47:14.853" UserId="2269" Text="Ни одно из этих слов грамматике не противоречит: _казахскоязычный_ образовано соединением основ слов _казахский_ и _язык_, _казахоязычный_ — основ _казах_ и _язык_ (_язык казахов_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если посмотреть на то, как образуются подобные составные прилагательные для других языков и семей языков, то видно, что предпочтения ожидаемо отдается преимущественно более короткому варианту без суффикса -ск-: англоязычный, арабоязычный, германоязычный, ираноязычный, испаноязычный, италоязычный, тюркоязычный, украиноязычный, финноязычный, японоязычный и т. п..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример обратного, что первым приходит в голову — _русскоязычный_ — легко об’ясним — мы могли бы сказать _*русоязычный_, если бы могли сказать _язык руси_ (_русь_ как собирательное) или _язык русов_, но так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры со _-ск-_ и об’яснения, что кажутся мне возможными:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Немецкоязычный_, а не _немоязычный_, вероятно, из-за некоторой оксюморонности последнего.&#xD;&#xA;- _Турецкоязычный_ — вероятно, для размежевания с вышеупомянутым словом _тюркоязычный_, что относится ко всей тюрской языковой семье." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="01d1469d-d54f-4f88-a6b5-a20f1918c6ac" CreationDate="2014-10-13T18:13:33.900" UserId="2269" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="Ни одно из этих слов грамматике не противоречит: _казахскоязычный_ образовано соединением основ слов _казахский_ и _язык_, _казахоязычный_ — основ _казах_ и _язык_ (_язык казахов_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если посмотреть на то, как образуются подобные составные прилагательные для других языков и семей языков, то видно, что предпочтени ожидаемо отдается более короткому варианту без суффикса _-ск-_: _англоязычный_, _арабоязычный_, _германоязычный_, _грекоязычный_, _ивритоязычный_, _ираноязычный_, _испаноязычный_, _италоязычный_, _тюркоязычный_, _украиноязычный_, _финноязычный_, _японоязычный_ и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры обратного тоже существуют. Первым приходит в голову, разумеется, _русскоязычный_; и он легко об’ясним — мы могли бы сказать _*русоязычный_ в том случае, если бы могли сказать _язык руси_ (_русь_ как собирательное) или _язык русов_, но так мы не говорим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Немецкоязычный_, а не _[немоязычный][1]_; _польскоязычный_, а не _*полеязычный_, _литовскоязычный_, а не _*литоязычный_ — вероятно, по сходной причине; нельзя также не отметить долю оксюморона в слове _немоязычный_. _Турецкоязычный_ — вероятно, для размежевания с вышеупомянутым словом _тюркоязычный_, что относится ко всей тюрской языковой семье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22&amp;hl=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="d701bce1-e3ed-4e21-b74a-8ad10f7cdb10" CreationDate="2014-10-13T18:40:13.043" UserId="2269" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Ни то, ни другое слово грамматике не противоречит: _казахскоязычный_ образовано соединением основ слов _казахский_ и _язык_, _казахоязычный_ — основ _казах_ и _язык_ (т. е. _язык казахов_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если посмотреть на то, как образуются подобные составные прилагательные для других языков и семей языков, то видно, что предпочтение ожидаемо отдается более короткому варианту без суффикса _-ск-_: _англоязычный_, _арабоязычный_, _германоязычный_, _грекоязычный_, _ивритоязычный_, _ираноязычный_, _испаноязычный_, _италоязычный_, _тюркоязычный_, _украиноязычный_, _финноязычный_, _японоязычный_ и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры обратного тоже существуют. Первым приходит в голову, разумеется, _русскоязычный_; и он легко об’ясним — мы могли бы сказать _*русоязычный_ в том случае, если бы могли сказать _язык руси_ (_русь_ как собирательное) или _язык русов_, но так мы не говорим¹.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Немецкоязычный_, а не _[немоязычный][1]_; _польскоязычный_, а не _*полеязычный_; _литовскоязычный_, а не _*литоязычный_ — вероятно, по сходной причине; нельзя также не отметить долю оксюморона в слове _немоязычный_. _Турецкоязычный_ — вероятно, для размежевания с вышеупомянутым словом _тюркоязычный_, что относится ко всей тюрской языковой семье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ См. также вопрос [«Why Russians use adjective when speaking about their nation and nouns for the rest of the world?»][2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7094/why-russians-use-adjective-when-speaking-about-their-nation-and-nouns-for-the-re" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7425" RevisionGUID="d2b379f8-fdcc-4915-9534-14abe5795898" CreationDate="2014-10-13T19:15:44.457" UserId="115" Text="Потоп is a colloquialism, like утоп. It is much better to say &quot;корабль потонул&quot; or &quot;корабль затонул&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7426" RevisionGUID="aa7a7b16-1be9-43ff-a41d-99f615f4b110" CreationDate="2014-10-13T20:23:40.603" UserId="4336" Text="Google search results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;казахоязычная&quot; - 14 000 results;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;казахскоязычная&quot; - 10 100 results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, there is no obvious preference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7427" RevisionGUID="e629f18d-474d-449e-aefd-56c57428a707" CreationDate="2014-10-13T22:21:15.053" UserId="4126" Text="1. Тратить время.&#xD;&#xA;2. Тратить время на что-либо.&#xD;&#xA;3. Найти время на что-либо.&#xD;&#xA;4. Сэкономить время.&#xD;&#xA;5. Иметь время на что либо.&#xD;&#xA;6. Убить время (to spend a lot of time).&#xD;&#xA;7. **&#xD;&#xA;8. Быть вовремя.&#xD;&#xA;9. Как раз вовремя.&#xD;&#xA;10. Иметь плохое или неприятное время с кем-то.&#xD;&#xA;11. Дело во времени.&#xD;&#xA;12. **&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation of these phrases is more about semantic meaning unlike direct translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;** I confused to translate these phrases despite that Russian is my native language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7428" RevisionGUID="4e68cd6b-8ed6-49b6-8ce6-2b55f4b7bc69" CreationDate="2014-10-13T23:26:40.850" UserId="2079" Text="Note: when I wrote this answer, I didn't look at the other people's answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) to spend time - провести время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) to waste time on something - зря потратить время на что-то&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) to make time for something/someone - найти время на что-то/для кого-то&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) to save time - сэкономить время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) to have time for something - иметь время на что-то (у него есть время на футбол)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) to kill or pass time - убить время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) to take one's time - занять чьё-то время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) to be on time - прибыть/прийти вовремя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) Just in time - точно вовремя, точно в нужное время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) Have a hard or rough time with something - don't know how to translate this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) it's about time (finally!) - (наконец, наконец-то) настало время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12) to run out about time - don't know the meaning on English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7429" RevisionGUID="4f05f2ab-77bd-4cd8-a1a1-4f8ed90f3cca" CreationDate="2014-10-14T01:37:55.467" UserId="4406" Text="Some native russian have troubles with &quot;-тся&quot;/&quot;-ться&quot; too. &#xD;&#xA;So we have special site for that: http://tsya.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7423" RevisionGUID="d590df70-e330-4740-99e6-4ce329e2658c" CreationDate="2014-10-14T04:44:46.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/521884296542306304" />
  <row Id="16969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="aa26b98b-4d1d-4b6e-9541-6e2a19ab6efa" CreationDate="2014-10-14T11:05:30.560" UserId="4208" Text="Скажите, пожалуйста, как объясняется тот факт, что при использовании количества, больше одного, подлежащее становится дополнением (если это правильно) и переходит в родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В нашей комании работают сотрудники (Именит)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В нашей компании работает один сотрудник (Именит)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В нашей компании работает сто сотрудников (Род)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственное объяснение, которое я нашла по аналогии это сходство с Genetivus partitivus в Латыни, но не знаю, правильно ли оно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(вопрос появился в связи с курсом русского языка learnrussian.rt.com)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="aa26b98b-4d1d-4b6e-9541-6e2a19ab6efa" CreationDate="2014-10-14T11:05:30.560" UserId="4208" Text="Родительный падеж + количество" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7432" RevisionGUID="aa26b98b-4d1d-4b6e-9541-6e2a19ab6efa" CreationDate="2014-10-14T11:05:30.560" UserId="4208" Text="|падежи|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7433" RevisionGUID="63862b66-ac21-4b38-ae21-d45633c96235" CreationDate="2014-10-14T13:48:16.923" UserId="2388" Text="Правило немного другое. Нужно посмотреть, на какое *слово* оканчивается ваше число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше, если вам нужно число + объект в форме именительного падежа (именительный или винительный для неодушевлённых), то&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **...один** — использовать *именительный падеж, ед.ч*&#xD;&#xA; - **... два(две)/три/четыре** — использовать *родительный падеж ед.ч*&#xD;&#xA; - **... пять/шесть/...десять/одиннадцать/...сто/тысяча/миллион...*** — использовать *родительный падеж мн.ч.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объяснение, если на пальцах, достаточно простое (я не лингвист, поэтому совершенно научно вряд ли объясню). В русском маленькие числа были прилагательными, а пять и больше — существительными. Сравните: *полная кровать **яблок**/ куча **яблок**/ пять **яблок*** — аналогия тут очевидна&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Усложняется дело тем, что когда-то в славянских языках было двойственное число. Это сейчас его не осталось почти ни в одном. Соответственно, если бы мы до сих пор так говорили, система была бы примерно такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - один стол (ИМ.п, ед.ч)&#xD;&#xA; - два стола (ИМ.п, дв.ч)&#xD;&#xA; - три/четыре столы (ИМ.п, мн.ч)&#xD;&#xA; - пять столов (РОД.п, мн.ч)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *(это ИМИТАЦИЯ из слов современного русского — уверяю вас, с точки зрения истории это 100% вранье! Помните, что в древнерусском склонения по падежам были другие, а окончание &quot;-ов&quot; — редкая диковинка, которая была лишь для одного типа существительных мужского рода; в древнерусском было правильно говорить &quot;пять конь&quot;, &quot;много стол&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше происходит любопытное: в процессе развития двойственное число пропадает почти во всех славянских языках. Встаёт вопрос, что делать с 2,3,4, которые используют разные формы, одна из которых ныне противоречит логике языка. У нас при этом двойственное число подменяется родительным падежом единственного, потому что формы у ряда мужских существительных похожи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут одни языки решают использовать &quot;три/четыре&quot; прямо как два (&quot;три стола&quot;), а другие — использовать &quot;два&quot; по аналогии с &quot;три/четыре&quot; (&quot;два столы&quot;). Мы попали в первую группу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Собственно, и вся история." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="e61a5a49-7010-4b60-ab29-40a7cd08d7a2" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:26:35.213" UserId="3892" Text="I found these two recently in different sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она уже не маленькая, если что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(talking about their daughter, who wanted to move to America)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пойду и побью его. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Он 5 лет занимался боксом, если что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reference I found for если что was with случится, i.e. if anything happens. What is the speaking trying to say in these examples? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="e61a5a49-7010-4b60-ab29-40a7cd08d7a2" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:26:35.213" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of если что" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="e61a5a49-7010-4b60-ab29-40a7cd08d7a2" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:26:35.213" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7435" RevisionGUID="718a3af7-3b49-446a-a4c3-2c51e67ceb8b" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:31:08.343" UserId="551" Text="The first can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She is not a kid, just in case you forgot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He has 5 year boxing experience, just in case you did not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is slightly non-standard, but understandable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7435" RevisionGUID="32a9fc87-bae0-43a7-8ead-ca0d7ec89af5" CreationDate="2014-10-14T15:36:42.337" UserId="551" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="The first can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She is not a kid, just in case you forgot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or depending of a context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She is not a kid, (she will manage to solve the problems) if anything happens.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He has 5 year boxing experience, just in case you did not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe &quot;if you know what I mean&quot; will better translate &quot;если что&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is slightly non-standard, but understandable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7436" RevisionGUID="4cf0a117-f745-4f3f-bf00-766562c18bd5" CreationDate="2014-10-14T23:33:57.310" UserId="3892" Text="I found this passage and can't make out the meaning and how как fits in. Perhaps it has another adverbial function I don't know about?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Он снял с тумбочки лампу: если что, он **как** стукнет! ”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7436" RevisionGUID="4cf0a117-f745-4f3f-bf00-766562c18bd5" CreationDate="2014-10-14T23:33:57.310" UserId="3892" Text="Use of как with verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7436" RevisionGUID="4cf0a117-f745-4f3f-bf00-766562c18bd5" CreationDate="2014-10-14T23:33:57.310" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7437" RevisionGUID="3c655535-080b-48a2-ae00-001c8ab26e49" CreationDate="2014-10-14T23:47:16.147" UserId="4413" Text="In this context *как* indicates suddenness of the action (hitting). So, the phrase can be translated like *&quot;He took a lamp from the drawer, in case he would suddenly hit with it&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: *Он как заорал* — *He suddenly screamed out*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="faa91df4-2d31-4f37-9cc0-9e8633219517" CreationDate="2014-10-15T02:44:00.523" UserId="4414" Text="When saying what my name is, which one should I use and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="faa91df4-2d31-4f37-9cc0-9e8633219517" CreationDate="2014-10-15T02:44:00.523" UserId="4414" Text="What is the difference between мои зовут and меня зовут?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7438" RevisionGUID="faa91df4-2d31-4f37-9cc0-9e8633219517" CreationDate="2014-10-15T02:44:00.523" UserId="4414" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="4b98e182-1114-4b8a-8159-191329c4c343" CreationDate="2014-10-15T02:44:29.693" UserId="2079" Text="`Как` means strongly, hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He took a lamp from the nightstand, if it will be neccessary, he will hit very hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does NOT mean suddenly.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как дам сейчас!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll hit you so hard!)  Obviously, this couldn't be sudden, since you cannot threat to do something suddenly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="5a9b0c1a-806c-4f5c-b311-dc544d24a240" CreationDate="2014-10-15T02:59:36.703" UserId="2079" Comment="added 820 characters in body" Text="This colloquial word does not neccessary mean suddenly.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как дам сейчас!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll hit you so hard!)  Obviously, this couldn't be sudden, since you cannot threat to do something suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` means strongly, hard, or suddenly, or both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original sentence is translated as: `He took a lamp from the nightstand, now, if  neccessary, he will be able to hit very hard`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` in this meaning is mostly about hitting, screaming and such, but occasionally used about other actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Леня Голубков вкладывал деньги на счет, а потом как разбогател.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes after such `как` the verb is in future time instead of past:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сначала он онемел, а потом как заорёт: — Убирайтесь отсюда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another colloquial meaning of `как`: sometimes it replaces `как только`.  This was of usage is since old Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Како приде ся грамота, тако пришли ми цоловек на жерепце, зане ми здесе дел много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In modern Russian: `Как получишь это письмо, сразу пришли мне слугу на коне, потому что у меня тут много дел.`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="6c7ffd1d-4814-46c9-a37a-97ee1c141ca0" CreationDate="2014-10-15T03:04:56.823" UserId="2079" Comment="added 820 characters in body" Text="This colloquial word does not neccessary mean suddenly.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как дам сейчас!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll hit you so hard!)  Obviously, this couldn't be sudden, since you are telling you may do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` means strongly, hard, or suddenly, or both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original sentence is translated as: `He took a lamp from the nightstand, now, if  neccessary, he will be able to hit very hard`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` in this meaning is mostly about hitting, screaming and such, but occasionally used about other actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Леня Голубков вкладывал деньги на счет, а потом как разбогател.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes after such `как` the verb is in future time instead of past:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сначала он онемел, а потом как заорёт: — Убирайтесь отсюда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another meaning of `как` often missed by dictionaries: sometimes it replaces `как только`.  This was in usage is since old Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Како приде ся грамота, тако пришли ми цоловек на жерепце, зане ми здесе дел много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In modern Russian: `Как получишь это письмо, сразу пришли мне слугу на коне, потому что у меня тут много дел.`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7440" RevisionGUID="7cca647f-1c19-4f9a-834c-587ed7409c88" CreationDate="2014-10-15T03:44:16.103" UserId="4336" Text="You should use `меня зовут`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`меня зовут` -&gt; `they call me`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мои зовут` -&gt; `my [who?] call` - doesn't make sense here&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7441" RevisionGUID="5913c3dc-0e34-4ca6-80d0-79abc3cd6ef1" CreationDate="2014-10-15T03:55:27.273" UserId="2079" Text="There are some exceptions, but, as a rule, in absence of prepositions, when you translate &quot;X foobars Y with Z&quot;, X is in nominative, Y is in accusative, Z is in instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;they call me&quot;, &quot;me&quot; is Y, so you need accusative of &quot;я&quot;, which is &quot;меня&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мои&quot; is plural of &quot;my&quot; or &quot;mine&quot; and I don't understand why you think it applies here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7442" RevisionGUID="16924061-674b-439e-8ae1-ac79663e040a" CreationDate="2014-10-15T05:27:33.610" UserId="4415" Text="`Меня зовут` is directly translated like `my name is`. I.e. `меня зовут Петр` -&gt; `my name is Peter`. In most cases you should use this construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мои зовут` is not a common and grammatically correct construction in Russian language. It can be used as a slang phrase like `my [friends] are calling me `. Cant find a proper example in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Of course there are so many cases where you can hear these phrases in a different meanings, but these two are the most common and correct IMO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7443" RevisionGUID="44e7013d-fb0d-42d0-9af0-110efa25c827" CreationDate="2014-10-15T05:57:57.570" UserId="4386" Text="you should use `Меня зовут` when you are introducing yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    привет, меня зовут Аарон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because меня зовут is the most common word that Russian recognize when they introducing themselves, even to foreigner who know Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7444" RevisionGUID="b3388f6c-fb96-4893-8d61-85b3506b94e1" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:03:21.853" UserId="4386" Text="    Пожалуйста, авторизируйтесь = Please, login first&#xD;&#xA;    Вы не прошли идентификацию = You are not logged in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="979e3b6a-e423-4384-90e0-6c21687771a7" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:15:51.973" UserId="4386" Text="I saw this word from my Russian friend, `&quot;учить&quot;.`  I confuse in this&#xD;&#xA;word. teach or learn?  I try to google translate it. it show &quot;teach&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What's the real meaning of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="979e3b6a-e423-4384-90e0-6c21687771a7" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:15:51.973" UserId="4386" Text="I'm confuse with this word &quot;учить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="979e3b6a-e423-4384-90e0-6c21687771a7" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:15:51.973" UserId="4386" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7446" RevisionGUID="6e5f2957-5365-4b3d-a92c-91539462dc2e" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:26:53.147" UserId="2079" Text="both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вася учит физику - Vasya learns/studies physics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вася учит студентов - Vasya teaches students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IIRC, there were questions about this word already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate gave me not one but four translations: teach, learn, instruct, train." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7447" RevisionGUID="24680d5f-1e36-4a27-a99f-51192fa173ea" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:30:27.590" UserId="4386" Text="Go to `Control Panel`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - find Language(if you set your view into Small Icon)&#xD;&#xA; - find Clock, Language and Region and you will see Add Language(if you set your view into Category)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, find Russian language and add it on your language list. Now, your good to go to pick a keyboard, appear on your lower right taskbar, near date and time bar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just Advice, you need to have Russian letters sticker or, if you can afford a keyboard with Russian Cyrillic alphabet on it because it is little bit confusing if you don't master the arrangement of alphabet on their keyboard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="80bfea8a-d971-4ac6-ac01-e9e6b4a1f14d" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:37:57.900" UserId="4386" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm very confuse with this word &quot;учить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7448" RevisionGUID="e7442d8b-cd24-411d-ab50-1fb224df565d" CreationDate="2014-10-15T07:12:21.353" UserId="4386" Text="I heard this from my Russian friend and I think &quot;да нет&quot; means I guess not because I ask her a question. &quot;Это твой первый раз, чтобы иметь филиппинских друга?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17001" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="498d17e2-ae2d-495d-be32-8944a409913b" CreationDate="2014-10-15T07:17:52.173" UserId="4386" Comment="add some detail on title" Text="How to translate &quot;You are not logged in and Please login first&quot; into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17002" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="498d17e2-ae2d-495d-be32-8944a409913b" CreationDate="2014-10-15T07:17:52.173" Comment="Proposed by 4386 approved by 47 edit id of 550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17003" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="023f23db-c474-4c00-bedb-62d0e44e75cd" CreationDate="2014-10-15T07:18:37.707" UserId="47" Comment="Title edited (minor)" Text="How to translate “You are not logged in” into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7439" RevisionGUID="2ab4c55a-0f3d-4f70-bee2-5425b59d2ea9" CreationDate="2014-10-15T08:19:17.700" UserId="2079" Comment="added 436 characters in body" Text="This colloquial word does not neccessary mean suddenly.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как дам сейчас!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll hit you so hard!)  Obviously, this couldn't be sudden, since you are telling you may do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` means strongly, hard, or suddenly, or both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original sentence is translated as: `He took a lamp from the nightstand, now, if  neccessary, he will be able to hit very hard`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` in this meaning is mostly about hitting, screaming and such, but occasionally used about other actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Леня Голубков вкладывал деньги на счет, а потом как разбогател.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes after such `как` the verb is in future tense instead of past tense to make the sentence more emotional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сначала он онемел, а потом как заорёт: — Убирайтесь отсюда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The similar seentence with paste tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сначала он онемел, а потом как заорал: — Убирайтесь отсюда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would also be correct, and have the same meaning, but would be less emotional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the original example the construct &quot;если что&quot; means that the action is going to happen in future (or not happen at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another, completely different, meaning of `как` which is often missed by dictionaries: sometimes it replaces `как только`.  This meaning of `как` already existed in old Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Како приде ся грамота, тако пришли ми цоловек на жерепце, зане ми здесе дел много.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In modern Russian: `Как получишь это письмо, сразу пришли мне слугу на коне, потому что у меня тут много дел.`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7449" RevisionGUID="73803aab-1fa8-4648-8e4b-463b7e9c3db5" CreationDate="2014-10-15T12:03:07.027" UserId="4416" Text="It technically means both &quot;to learn&quot; and &quot;to teach someone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learn Russian - Я учу русский&#xD;&#xA;I teach you Russian- Я учу тебя русскому&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But notice that when you want to say:&#xD;&#xA;I love to teach - Я люблю учить&#xD;&#xA;I love to learn - Я люблю учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7450" RevisionGUID="d5e7155e-14e2-4026-88cc-48f010cab884" CreationDate="2014-10-15T13:25:56.407" UserId="1671" Text="`да` has emphasizing function in this context. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Да пошёл ты!    &#xD;&#xA;    Да не надо мне здесь заливать!&#xD;&#xA;    Да как сказать...&#xD;&#xA;    Да ну его к чёрту!&#xD;&#xA;    Да не может быть!&#xD;&#xA;    Да как ты посмел?!&#xD;&#xA;    Да на хрена от тебе сдался?&#xD;&#xA;    Да что с тобой такое происходит в последнее время? Ходишь, как сам не свой.&#xD;&#xA;    Да много ли мне надо?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In all these cases you can throw out `да`, because it is used to increase the importance of what you are saying. &#xD;&#xA;There are a few nuances where `да нет` is appropriate (like others have mentioned above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Да нет, всё как раз наоборот` - Quite the opposite&#xD;&#xA; - `Ты уверен, что сможешь это сделать? - Да нет. Не очень то.` -   Well, no" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17007" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7436" RevisionGUID="08653ae5-5363-4c57-a42b-ed10197e76ad" CreationDate="2014-10-15T13:45:58.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/522382881402785793" />
  <row Id="17008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7451" RevisionGUID="06ab2499-63c5-4de9-b873-9cc00f2cfa3c" CreationDate="2014-10-15T17:29:51.030" UserId="4208" Text="I wouldn't say Просто жуть means very much (очень). It's more an evaluation of what is said in the phrase before.&#xD;&#xA;Seagulls are fat! That's awful, disgusting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in your second example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поехавший парень! Просто жуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's same, not that he is &quot;very crazy&quot;, but that his madness is beyond any limits, it's awful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7354" RevisionGUID="fa959cd9-d882-4878-8b62-cadac8417768" CreationDate="2014-10-15T20:28:38.033" UserId="4336" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="&quot;Самый быстрый&quot; is the most appropriate variant. It is used much more often than other forms like &quot;(наи)быстрейший&quot; or &quot;(наи)скорейший&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You stats are not applicable to your case, Ruscorpora doesn't return any results for &quot;самый быстрый маршрут&quot; or &quot;быстрейший маршрут&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Statistics from Google/Yandex:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;самый быстрый маршрут&quot; - 432000/43000 results;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;быстрейший маршрут&quot; - 2150/335 results;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;скорейший маршрут&quot; - 60/84 results;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;наибыстрейший маршрут&quot; - 61/58 results;&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;кратчайший по времени маршрут&quot; - 40/24 results;&#xD;&#xA; 6. &quot;наискорейший маршрут&quot; - 24/17 results;&#xD;&#xA; 7. &quot;самый скорый маршрут&quot; - 17/15 results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7452" RevisionGUID="49d4fa71-fc92-46bd-a199-08f7b7245278" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:18:05.610" UserId="4386" Text="For me, &quot;КАТЯ&quot; or Katya in Romanized word is a good name to put in there. It is sound unique to me but if I suggest to put it longer, I don't know if that his girl's nickname or full name. If that's a nickname, better to put her full name.  I have Russian friend have a nickname &quot;КАТЯ&quot;, her name is Katyusha. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is her name, try to put sweet word on her name like &quot;Cute Katya&quot;, &quot;Sweet Katya&quot; etc. in Russian word. As on ex- one, try to put something inspiring. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7453" RevisionGUID="50a1a09d-2792-46a0-9fd5-fecea92f1360" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:27:45.140" UserId="4386" Text="Well, as I practicing Russian writing and its languages. I just want to know if some other name can be translate into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For mine, Aaron can be translate into &quot;Аарон&quot;. Any Russian can help me do translate on this some names:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Samuel&#xD;&#xA;    Aahmes&#xD;&#xA;    Jeffrey&#xD;&#xA;    Eduard&#xD;&#xA;    Cathleen&#xD;&#xA;    Lawrence&#xD;&#xA;    Janine&#xD;&#xA;    Neil&#xD;&#xA;    Steffie&#xD;&#xA;    Simon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I just want to extend my knowledge in Russian about people names. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7453" RevisionGUID="50a1a09d-2792-46a0-9fd5-fecea92f1360" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:27:45.140" UserId="4386" Text="Some names can be translate in Russian word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7453" RevisionGUID="50a1a09d-2792-46a0-9fd5-fecea92f1360" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:27:45.140" UserId="4386" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7454" RevisionGUID="5106d3bb-a778-492a-834c-a2095eda12e7" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:35:55.907" UserId="4391" Text="Samuel - Самуэль(Сэмюэл)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Aahmes - Эмэс?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Jeffrey - Джеффри&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Eduard - Эдуард&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Cathleen - Кэтлин&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Lawrence - Лоуренс&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Janine - Джанин&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Neil - Нил&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Steffie - Стэфи?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Simon - Симон(Саймон)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7455" RevisionGUID="b94626ba-a497-414b-9201-491d6db7acbd" CreationDate="2014-10-16T06:42:19.073" UserId="2139" Text="As for me, all of this names (except Eduard) - will be looking foreign for russian reader and probably should be just transliterated. Something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Samuel - Сэмюэль,  Сэмуэл&#xD;&#xA;    Aahmes - Эймс&#xD;&#xA;    Jeffrey - Джеффри&#xD;&#xA;    Eduard - Эдуард (more russian), Эдвард (more foreign)&#xD;&#xA;    Cathleen - Кэтлин&#xD;&#xA;    Lawrence - Лоуренс&#xD;&#xA;    Janine - Джанин&#xD;&#xA;    Neil - Нил&#xD;&#xA;    Steffie - Стеффи&#xD;&#xA;    Simon - Саймон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tip: there is &quot;russian IMDB&quot; http://www.kinopoisk.ru/ - so search for famous actor/actress with desired names and take russian translation for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7456" RevisionGUID="ceeb06cc-54e8-4444-be1b-5b97a1706370" CreationDate="2014-10-16T13:47:09.150" UserId="194" Text="    Original   | Foreign variant  | Russian variant&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Samuel       Сэмьюэл            Самуил&#xD;&#xA;    Aahmes       Эймс               -&#xD;&#xA;    Jeffrey      Джеффри            -&#xD;&#xA;    Eduard       Эдвард             Эдуард&#xD;&#xA;    Cathleen     Кэтлин             -&#xD;&#xA;    Lawrence     Лоуренс            Лаврентий&#xD;&#xA;    Janine       Джанин             -&#xD;&#xA;    Neil         Нейл               -&#xD;&#xA;    Steffie      Стэфи/Штэфи        -&#xD;&#xA;    Simon        Саймон             Семён&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7456" RevisionGUID="d2c9576e-071e-4682-82e6-245adae70266" CreationDate="2014-10-16T14:46:25.033" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="    Original   | Foreign variant  | Russian variant&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Samuel       Сэмьюэл            Самуил&#xD;&#xA;    Aahmes       Эймс               -&#xD;&#xA;    Jeffrey      Джеффри/Джефри     -&#xD;&#xA;    Eduard       Эдвард             Эдуард&#xD;&#xA;    Cathleen     Кэтлин             -&#xD;&#xA;    Lawrence     Лоуренс            Лаврентий&#xD;&#xA;    Janine       Джанин             -&#xD;&#xA;    Neil         Нейл               -&#xD;&#xA;    Steffie      Стэфи/Штэфи        -&#xD;&#xA;    Simon        Саймон             Семён&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7457" RevisionGUID="b702d540-6589-4770-86a4-3d90c96cc813" CreationDate="2014-10-16T17:19:08.383" UserId="134" Text="When transcribing the names of contemporary people, you should follow the usual rules of English-Russian transcription. Thus said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Samuel    Самьюэл&#xD;&#xA;    Aahmes    Амс&#xD;&#xA;    Jeffrey   Джеффри&#xD;&#xA;    Eduard    Эдуард&#xD;&#xA;    Cathleen  Катлин&#xD;&#xA;    Lawrence  Лоренс&#xD;&#xA;    Janine    Джанин&#xD;&#xA;    Neil      Нил&#xD;&#xA;    Steffie   Стеффи&#xD;&#xA;    Simon     Саймон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that transcriptions above reflect rules codified by Gilyarevsky and Starostin, Kuznetsova and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do not necessarily reflect the actual pronunciations of the names by American or British English speakers (or in fact any variety of English) and are results of multiple compromises made when developing those rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those rules are not in any way comprehensive, nor widely known to general public. That's why, especially with the advent of the Internet, you might find name of the same person transcribed dozens of ways. You can find Samuel Jackson's name transcribed as *Самуэль*, *Самуэл*, *Самюэль*, *Сэмюэл*, etc., with pretty much every possible combination of open/close versions of all three vowels and palatalized/unpalatalized final *л*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When transcribing the names of historical persons, or European monarchs, or Christian saints, or in multiple other special cases, you should use historically accepted transcriptions of those names (or their origins):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Samuel the Prophet        Пророк Самуил&#xD;&#xA;    Queen Aahmes              Царица Яхмес&#xD;&#xA;    Jeffrey of Monmouth       Гальфред Монмутский&#xD;&#xA;    Edward Longshanks         Эдвард Длинноногий&#xD;&#xA;    Lawrence of Arabia        Лоуренс Аравийский&#xD;&#xA;    Neil of the Nine Hostages Ниалл Девять Заложников&#xD;&#xA;    Simon Peter               Симон Пётр&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7458" RevisionGUID="9d85ef15-984d-405c-9b44-6709bbe09738" CreationDate="2014-10-17T04:12:24.437" UserId="4420" Text="First of all, that is almost certainly a joke. It means something like &quot;a villainous mathematician&quot; or &quot;a mathematician gang boss&quot;. It depends on context, but usually something like that is a good-natured joke and doesn't mean disrespect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="9f304e48-41b3-4652-9b77-f51e9e489957" CreationDate="2014-10-17T05:41:48.243" UserId="4386" Text="I want to have more Russian friends from the website and I added them randomly. Some of them, commonly ask me `знакомы?`. Some are use `кто это?`. I just want to know what's the common word between this two words are very useful for Russian and what's the difference between them, because there's some Russian or even non-Russian who speak Russian are adding me on Vkontakte and I just want to use this word as to ask them who are they. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="9f304e48-41b3-4652-9b77-f51e9e489957" CreationDate="2014-10-17T05:41:48.243" UserId="4386" Text="знакомы? and кто это? What's the difference and what's the common one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="9f304e48-41b3-4652-9b77-f51e9e489957" CreationDate="2014-10-17T05:41:48.243" UserId="4386" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7461" RevisionGUID="b60951d1-a50a-4438-ae2c-ab912748befc" CreationDate="2014-10-17T07:04:51.330" UserId="4379" Text="As @Artemix has written `знакомы?` means `are we acqauainted?` and `кто это?` is `who are you?`. The first variant is more polite and can be used in everyday speech as well, e.g. if a stranger contacts to you on the street. The second one is pretty informal and is relevant for use in the Internet when you don't know the person you talk/write to. Originally, before the Internet, `кто это?` could be asked when you want to know who is knocking your door. So this question implies that you don't see the person. Basically, both phrases can be used in social networks chats with equal meaning. I'd recommend you `знакомы?`, again, as more polite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7460" RevisionGUID="c912b730-fe34-409f-afd5-9ab5f7b6bae5" CreationDate="2014-10-17T16:50:28.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/523154086489620480" />
  <row Id="17026" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7445" RevisionGUID="33907795-05de-438a-96d9-cb744e4a6b22" CreationDate="2014-10-17T19:50:28.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/523199384759316480" />
  <row Id="17027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="90fb5251-6154-480d-bd99-16a8c0c883f9" CreationDate="2014-10-18T01:32:41.240" UserId="3875" Text="I need some confirmation that I understand correctly the  2 expressions mentioned in the title&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be clear, here is the whole dialog (taken from lesson 7 in the very helpful free learning website learnrussian.rt.com). There is translation of vocabulary but none for dialogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to hear the intonation, you can listen to the dialog on the website itself (no registration needed if my memory's good).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3rd line &amp; last line&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена: Где ты был?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж: на работе ! Я был в офисе !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена: **Нет, я звонила!** Где ты был?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж: Я говорю, что я был на работе , в офисе .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена: А потом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж: Потом я был в ресторане , на встрече .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена: А потом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж: А потом я был в баре . Я и мой клиент…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена: А потом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж: А потом… я был в клубе … на дискотеке …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена: **Я так и знала!** Ты всегда отдыхаешь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate the beginning like this :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wife: Where were you ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Husband : At work ! I was at the office ! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wife : **No! I called you!**  *(i.e. you're lying, I tried to call you and you didn't answer)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;last :&#xD;&#xA;Wife : **There, I knew it !** *(i.e. There you go, you're confessing,and I knew it in my mind!)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit confused on the use and meaning of &quot;И&quot;  in the latter. Is this just an usual way to talk ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="90fb5251-6154-480d-bd99-16a8c0c883f9" CreationDate="2014-10-18T01:32:41.240" UserId="3875" Text="Expressions &quot;Нет, я звонила!&quot; and &quot;Я так и знала!&quot; in an answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="90fb5251-6154-480d-bd99-16a8c0c883f9" CreationDate="2014-10-18T01:32:41.240" UserId="3875" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="9e577e34-0bc3-453c-8e85-86465f7632f0" CreationDate="2014-10-18T01:50:28.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/523289982396428288" />
  <row Id="17034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7463" RevisionGUID="0f06165e-33c5-4796-8c9e-5d7121c8856b" CreationDate="2014-10-18T06:45:55.140" UserId="4426" Text="You were correct translating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Нет, я звонила!” - &quot;No, I called [to the office]&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Я так и знала!” - &quot;I knew it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;И&quot; in the last sentence must not be translated as &quot;and&quot; in that content.&#xD;&#xA;Pronoun + &quot;так и&quot; + verb is a sentence structure which can confuse some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я знала ...&quot; - &quot;I knew ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я так и знала!&quot; - &quot;I knew it!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the examples it finishes a particular thought without repetition and stressing it more. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7464" RevisionGUID="5c6c8683-4e20-43b4-b038-b5923437d084" CreationDate="2014-10-18T14:54:11.920" UserId="2079" Text="You translated it absolutely correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Так и&quot; has at least three meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как Х, так и Y - X as well as Y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. (possible noun/pronoun) так и (verb), i. e. `я так и знала` - there, I knew it, `я так и сказал` - I told exactly this, `так и случилось` - that indeed happened.  That is your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `так и быть` - yandex dictionary translates it as a &quot;all right, very well; so be it, right you are&quot; but it means that you'll do what you asked to, but only as a favour.  So it should be translated as &quot;as a favour&quot; or &quot;I'll do you a favour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;и&quot; has lots of meanings in Russians, some seemingly unrelated to &quot;and&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7464" RevisionGUID="72f99d0d-c99b-4d81-b88d-fdd5b7614e40" CreationDate="2014-10-18T15:09:30.620" UserId="2079" Comment="edited body" Text="You translated it absolutely correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Так и` has at least three meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как Х, так и Y - X as well as Y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. (possible noun/pronoun) так и (verb), i. e. `я так и знала` - there, I knew it, `я так и сказал` - I told exactly this, `так и случилось` - that indeed happened.  That is your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. `так и быть` - yandex dictionary translates it as a &quot;all right, very well; so be it, right you are&quot; but it means that you'll do what you asked to, but only as a favour.  So it should be translated as &quot;as a favour&quot; or &quot;I'll do you a favour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;и&quot; has lots of meanings in Russians, some seemingly unrelated to &quot;and&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="63e64aeb-0f56-4ed7-93b4-dbda89299c9c" CreationDate="2014-10-18T19:08:24.943" UserId="4384" Text="Описание [ролика][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Безнаказанно быть козлом - мечта **каждого первого**! Об игре, позволяющей воплотить эту мечту в жизнь, пусть и виртуально, сейчас и пойдет речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsXBtSlUfy8&amp;list=UUq7JZ8ATgQWeu6sDM1czjhg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="63e64aeb-0f56-4ed7-93b4-dbda89299c9c" CreationDate="2014-10-18T19:08:24.943" UserId="4384" Text="Что означает &quot;каждого первого&quot; в этом контексте?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="63e64aeb-0f56-4ed7-93b4-dbda89299c9c" CreationDate="2014-10-18T19:08:24.943" UserId="4384" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7466" RevisionGUID="16438d87-e3d2-41e4-9939-d2f4af36448a" CreationDate="2014-10-18T19:21:02.310" UserId="267" Text="This expression has an ironic meaning here and it also puts an emphasis on the expression &quot;**each** person, **absolutely** everybody&quot;. This expression can only be used in this context because it doesn't really make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual expression is &quot;каждый второй&quot;, &quot;каждый третий&quot;, &quot;каждый четвёртый&quot;, etc. which means &quot;one of two people&quot;, &quot;one of three people&quot;, &quot;one of four people&quot;, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7467" RevisionGUID="b63aa304-b310-4ce8-99e9-1fbbff2e0166" CreationDate="2014-10-18T19:21:14.723" UserId="3680" Text="Это эквивалентно просто `каждого`.  &#xD;&#xA;Дело в том, что эта фраза образована из фраз `каждого второго`, `каждого третьего` и т.д. по аналогии. Она является не совсем правильной, имеет юмористический окрас, но остается вполне понятной." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17042" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7462" RevisionGUID="a0ca4f94-5277-4033-97bb-7bb404eff23b" CreationDate="2014-10-19T10:53:30.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/523789030840737792" />
  <row Id="17043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="4a5df385-f135-44a3-b25a-f9c05dc393ed" CreationDate="2014-10-19T15:31:10.803" UserId="471" Text="An addendum to the answers already given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) to spend time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Провести время&quot; would work in some contexts, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;While in jail I've spent quite some time in isolation&quot; - _Я **провёл много времени** в изоляторе, пока сидел_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other context you're best bet is an imperfect verb, often with &quot;по-&quot; prefix: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I need to spend some time with a good book on the subject&quot; - _Мне бы не мешало **почитать** хорошую книгу по теме_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I would like to spend some time alone&quot; - _Я хотел бы **побыть** в одиночестве_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) to kill or pass time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to do something to pass time&quot; can also become &quot;со скуки&quot; or &quot;от нечего делать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Guards were playing poker to pass time&quot; - _Охранники **от нечего делать** играли в покер_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) to take one's time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actually mistranslated in the other answer, this would be &quot;не спешить, не торопиться&quot; or even &quot;без спешки&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Jack took his time to make a perfect headshot from a perfect hiding place&quot; - _Джэк исполнил не спеша идеальный выстрел в голову из идеального укрытия_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) Have a hard or rough time with something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Daria's &quot;испытывать трудности с чем-то&quot; correctly conveys the meaning, but could sound too formal. &quot;Не получаться&quot;, &quot;не выходить&quot;, &quot;не справляться&quot; work in wider range of contexts, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _**у меня не получается** решить эту головоломку_, but also: _эта головоломка **мне не даётся**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases (the activity is difficult but successful) you'd need &quot;едва справляться&quot;, &quot;едва получаться&quot; etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time hiding the pregnancy&quot; - _Мне **едва получается** скрывать, что я беременна_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another useful idiom for this one is &quot;с (большим) трудом&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I've had hard time solve this puzzle&quot; - _Эту головоломку я решил **с большим трудом**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other cases you'd just need to negate a reflexive verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time sleeping at night&quot; - _По ночам мне не спится_ (but _Мне не удаётся заснуть_ works too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) it's about time (finally!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Давно пора!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="6928f2ee-7413-4ba9-8f57-bf4f429099b7" CreationDate="2014-10-20T02:12:40.267" UserId="3911" Text="Would it be proper to say «играй(те) ещё раз»? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen many examples in Russian literature of «ещё раз» used to indicate again or another time, but my confusion lies with the conjugation of играть. It seems to make sense it be conjugated in the imperative, but I have seen similar instances where imperative would make sense but is not used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="6928f2ee-7413-4ba9-8f57-bf4f429099b7" CreationDate="2014-10-20T02:12:40.267" UserId="3911" Text="Как сказать «play again»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="6928f2ee-7413-4ba9-8f57-bf4f429099b7" CreationDate="2014-10-20T02:12:40.267" UserId="3911" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7470" RevisionGUID="81136180-e986-4c59-954e-1141f1e191cc" CreationDate="2014-10-20T02:32:55.350" UserId="194" Text="If the prevous game was unsuccessful, incomplete, for instance, a draw, or a player left, or interrupted, but it is necessary to determine a winner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Играйте ещё раз! = &quot;Play again, until the result is achieved&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the prevuous game was successful and joyful,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сыграйте ещё раз! = &quot;Play one more time, repeat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="4f24a543-3a7a-4470-866a-38aa6e3bdc84" CreationDate="2014-10-20T06:33:55.060" UserId="471" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="An addendum to the answers already given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) to spend time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Провести время&quot; would work in some contexts, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;While in jail I've spent quite some time in isolation&quot; - _Я **провёл много времени** в изоляторе, пока сидел_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other context you're best bet is an imperfect verb, often with &quot;по-&quot; prefix: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I need to spend some time with a good book on the subject&quot; - _Мне бы не мешало **почитать** хорошую книгу по теме_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I would like to spend some time alone&quot; - _Я хотел бы **побыть** в одиночестве_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) to kill or pass time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to do something to pass time&quot; can also become &quot;со скуки&quot; or &quot;от нечего делать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Guards were playing poker to pass time&quot; - _Охранники **от нечего делать** играли в покер_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) to take one's time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actually mistranslated in the other answer, this would be &quot;не спешить, не торопиться&quot; or even &quot;без спешки&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Jack took his time to make a perfect headshot from a perfect hiding place&quot; - _Джэк исполнил не спеша идеальный выстрел в голову из идеального укрытия_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) Have a hard or rough time with something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Daria's &quot;испытывать трудности с чем-то&quot; correctly conveys the meaning, but could sound too formal. &quot;Не получаться&quot;, &quot;не выходить&quot;, &quot;не справляться&quot; work in wider range of contexts, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _**у меня не получается** решить эту головоломку_, but also: _эта головоломка **мне не даётся**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases (the activity is difficult but successful) you'd need &quot;едва справляться&quot;, &quot;едва получаться&quot; etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time hiding the pregnancy&quot; - _Мне **едва удаётся** скрывать, что я беременна_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another useful idiom for this one is &quot;с (большим) трудом&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I've had hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _Эту головоломку я решил **с большим трудом**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other cases you'd just need to negate a reflexive verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time sleeping at night&quot; - _По ночам мне не спится_ (but _Мне не удаётся заснуть_ works too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) it's about time (finally!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Давно пора!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7471" RevisionGUID="6f932083-bc3b-4849-8a2e-9d3228b242ba" CreationDate="2014-10-20T06:35:05.583" UserId="1329" Text="In case you are talking about game development translation issue, and more exactly about the button &quot;Play again?&quot;, then there are several possibilities how to translate it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сыграть ещё? - (To) Play again?&#xD;&#xA; - Новая игра.  - New game.&#xD;&#xA; - Повторить попытку. - (To) Repeat the attempt.&#xD;&#xA; - Сыграть заново.(?) - (To) Play again?&#xD;&#xA; - Попробуйте ещё раз. - Try again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't met imperative like &quot;играйте ещё раз!&quot; though. Maybe I am not so well-rounded in Russian games. =) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the examples above, infinitive is used often when referring to this button. But, if it's not what you were asking about, then sorry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="7517f4dd-9b1b-43c1-b4e4-58a4922e260f" CreationDate="2014-10-20T06:40:12.803" UserId="471" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="An addendum to the answers already given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) to spend time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Провести время&quot; would work in some contexts, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;While in jail I've spent quite some time in isolation&quot; - _Я **провёл много времени** в изоляторе, пока сидел_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other context you're best bet is an imperfect verb, often with &quot;по-&quot; prefix: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I need to spend some time with a good book on the subject&quot; - _Мне бы не мешало **почитать** хорошую книгу по теме_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I would like to spend some time alone&quot; - _Я хотел бы **побыть** в одиночестве_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) to kill or pass time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to do something to pass time&quot; can also become &quot;со скуки&quot; or &quot;от нечего делать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Guards were playing poker to pass time&quot; - _Охранники **от нечего делать** играли в покер_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) to take one's time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actually mistranslated in the other answer, this would be &quot;не спешить, не торопиться&quot; or even &quot;без спешки&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Jack took his time to make a perfect headshot from a perfect hiding place&quot; - _Джэк исполнил **не спеша** идеальный выстрел в голову из идеального укрытия_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) Have a hard or rough time with something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Daria's &quot;испытывать трудности с чем-то&quot; correctly conveys the meaning, but could sound too formal. &quot;Не получаться&quot;, &quot;не выходить&quot;, &quot;не справляться&quot; work in wider range of contexts, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _**у меня не получается** решить эту головоломку_, but also: _эта головоломка **мне не даётся**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases (the activity is difficult but successful) you'd need &quot;едва справляться&quot;, &quot;едва получаться&quot; etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time hiding the pregnancy&quot; - _Мне **едва удаётся** скрывать, что я беременна_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another useful idiom for this one is &quot;с (большим) трудом&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I've had hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _Эту головоломку я решил **с большим трудом**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other cases you'd just need to negate a reflexive verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time sleeping at night&quot; - _По ночам мне не спится_ (but _Мне не удаётся заснуть_ works too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) it's about time (finally!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Давно пора!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7468" RevisionGUID="16a8dfe3-4992-4c34-952f-56a989e0ba56" CreationDate="2014-10-20T07:09:12.243" UserId="471" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="An addendum to the answers already given:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) to spend time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Провести время&quot; would work in some contexts, e.g.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;While in jail I've spent quite some time in isolation&quot; - _Я **провёл много времени** в изоляторе, пока сидел_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other contexts your best bet is an imperfect verb, often with &quot;по-&quot; prefix: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I need to spend some time with a good book on the subject&quot; - _Мне бы не мешало **почитать** хорошую книгу по теме_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I would like to spend some time alone&quot; - _Я хотел бы **побыть** в одиночестве_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) to kill or pass time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;to do something to pass time&quot; can also become &quot;со скуки&quot; or &quot;от нечего делать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Guards were playing poker to pass time&quot; - _Охранники **от нечего делать** играли в покер_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) to take one's time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actually mistranslated in the other answer, this would be &quot;не спешить, не торопиться&quot; or even &quot;без спешки&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Jack took his time to make a perfect headshot from a perfect hiding place&quot; - _Джэк исполнил **не спеша** идеальный выстрел в голову из идеального укрытия_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10) Have a hard or rough time with something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Daria's &quot;испытывать трудности с чем-то&quot; correctly conveys the meaning, but could sound too formal. &quot;Не получаться&quot;, &quot;не выходить&quot;, &quot;не справляться&quot; work in wider range of contexts, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _**у меня не получается** решить эту головоломку_, but also: _эта головоломка **мне не даётся**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases (the activity is difficult but successful) you'd need &quot;едва справляться&quot;, &quot;едва получаться&quot; etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time hiding the pregnancy&quot; - _Мне **едва удаётся** скрывать, что я беременна_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another useful idiom for this one is &quot;с (большим) трудом&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I've had hard time solving this puzzle&quot; - _Эту головоломку я решил **с большим трудом**_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other cases you'd just need to negate a reflexive verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I have hard time sleeping at night&quot; - _По ночам мне не спится_ (but _Мне не удаётся заснуть_ works too). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11) it's about time (finally!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Давно пора!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17052" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7465" RevisionGUID="22a52a07-10d7-4da2-8f95-0d807f008eef" CreationDate="2014-10-20T14:01:09.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/524198640512815104" />
  <row Id="17053" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7453" RevisionGUID="d47d8e11-1079-4b35-985f-9f4e33aaaa5f" CreationDate="2014-10-20T23:00:44.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/524334430303682561" />
  <row Id="17058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7434" RevisionGUID="88f57cb2-1748-4f10-ba05-84d0d1019c90" CreationDate="2014-10-21T02:43:21.533" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I found these two recently in different sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она уже не маленькая, если что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(talking about their daughter, who wanted to move to America)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пойду и побью его. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Он 5 лет занимался боксом, если что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reference I found for если что was with случится, i.e. if anything happens. What is the speaker trying to say in these examples? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="ad108bf7-11c7-488f-8bd0-f62914b38ef4" CreationDate="2014-10-21T07:37:54.740" UserId="4432" Text="In Moscow there is a part of the city called Хамовники. What does this word mean, and where does it come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="ad108bf7-11c7-488f-8bd0-f62914b38ef4" CreationDate="2014-10-21T07:37:54.740" UserId="4432" Text="Where does the word Хамовники come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="ad108bf7-11c7-488f-8bd0-f62914b38ef4" CreationDate="2014-10-21T07:37:54.740" UserId="4432" Text="|значения|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7474" RevisionGUID="abed7ae1-2997-4464-8697-ef063cb2133f" CreationDate="2014-10-21T09:13:48.013" UserId="4433" Text="Please look here - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Хамовники_(район_Москвы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From wikipedia (it's russian part): &quot;Слово «хамовники» — от слова «хам», которое с XIV века обозначало льняное полотно (например, просили продать «хаму три локти»).&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="2012abea-efb1-4ddd-905f-b875791a6b62" CreationDate="2014-10-21T10:05:07.240" UserId="1894" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Склоняются ли мужские иностранные фамилии, заканчивающаяся на букву &quot;а&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Например, правильно ли говорить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - фильм Эмира Кустурицы,&#xD;&#xA; - метод Рунге-Кутты,&#xD;&#xA; - творчество Акиры Куросавы,&#xD;&#xA; - алгоритм Дейкстры,&#xD;&#xA; - песня Никиты Джигурды?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли по этому поводу какое-нибудь правило в русском языке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7474" RevisionGUID="8e3eb3d2-a723-4965-b44c-510e53916ecf" CreationDate="2014-10-21T10:09:44.653" UserId="109" Comment="fixed link, capitalization; and moved quote into quote block" Text="Please look [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia (it's Russian part): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово «хамовники» — от слова «хам», которое с XIV века обозначало льняное полотно (например, просили продать «хаму три локти»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_(%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%8B)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17065" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7474" RevisionGUID="8e3eb3d2-a723-4965-b44c-510e53916ecf" CreationDate="2014-10-21T10:09:44.653" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 1236, 551 edit id of 551" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7474" RevisionGUID="bf369b68-1913-4c80-88cb-72091ae0b2b2" CreationDate="2014-10-21T10:23:01.153" UserId="2388" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Please look [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia (it's Russian part): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово «хамовники» — от слова «хам», которое с XIV века обозначало льняное полотно (например, просили продать «хаму три локти»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*«Xамовники» comes from «хам» which was used from the 14th century onward in the meaning &quot;linen fabric&quot; (for example, when someone would buy «хаму три локти»—three ells of linen cloth)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_(%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%8B)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17067" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7469" RevisionGUID="00238e9e-2b3a-4ecd-b7c3-3e4343643159" CreationDate="2014-10-21T11:00:44.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/524515625587462144" />
  <row Id="17068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="e8198985-b8b2-47c1-a773-cd8a12f5a0fe" CreationDate="2014-10-22T11:02:12.480" UserId="4188" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I've let the guys check that thing up. They told that this is sick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17069" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7473" RevisionGUID="ff063f76-dc28-4cd5-8a49-6b102f185681" CreationDate="2014-10-22T14:00:46.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/524923320685195264" />
  <row Id="17070" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1704" RevisionGUID="a591c2e6-241d-476f-9bdd-96c1922bb6f1" CreationDate="2014-10-22T14:02:52.320" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;они выпали с аппарата&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1380" RevisionGUID="43f34353-2201-4237-a9b5-bb171b33c696" CreationDate="2014-10-22T16:37:21.437" UserId="194" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The meaning here is close to second statement proposed: &quot;a political, diplomatic or military act&quot;, because it is an &quot;**action of sale**&quot;, which sounds silly in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Акция&quot;* is an abridged version of *&quot;рекламная акция&quot;*, а popular term emerged in the 90s in post-soviet territory. *&quot;Рекламная акция&quot;* could, but shouldn't be translated as &quot;**an action of advertisement**&quot;, because it sounds silly in English too. What it really means is &quot;**an action of product or service promotion**&quot;. And product promotion in Russia is a sale in 90% of cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no other meaning of *&quot;акция&quot;* I can think of, so if you see a word *&quot;акция&quot;* again in unknown context, I suggest that it is more likely an act of something, and not a stock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7475" RevisionGUID="c828e63f-5e54-45f8-82e9-a38712194eee" CreationDate="2014-10-22T18:52:53.077" UserId="2079" Text="Почему из всех американских штатов только Аляска требует предлог &quot;на&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7475" RevisionGUID="c828e63f-5e54-45f8-82e9-a38712194eee" CreationDate="2014-10-22T18:52:53.077" UserId="2079" Text="В Аризоне. В Мичигане. На Аляске" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7475" RevisionGUID="c828e63f-5e54-45f8-82e9-a38712194eee" CreationDate="2014-10-22T18:52:53.077" UserId="2079" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7476" RevisionGUID="e9211bd5-0cbd-47a9-9d97-627e37b7da87" CreationDate="2014-10-22T19:04:58.153" UserId="4208" Text="Скорее всего, потому что Аляска воспринимается не только как штат (административное деление), но и как географическая область, Розенталь говорит о &quot;горных областях&quot;: на Урале, на Балканах. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17076" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7406" RevisionGUID="ca0cd6ca-02f4-422e-9baa-618525caf35e" CreationDate="2014-10-22T23:00:53.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/525059244773490689" />
  <row Id="17077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7477" RevisionGUID="1172477e-3bb9-4bc4-b621-4d7aafcaaaa4" CreationDate="2014-10-23T03:41:25.870" UserId="2106" Text="It would be very difficult to pronounce the phrase &quot;я так и знала&quot; without &quot;и&quot; - so this vowel exists here to make this phrase more smooth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17078" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7475" RevisionGUID="7e80d42a-838d-4b93-b88d-ac980da62f0b" CreationDate="2014-10-23T05:01:26.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/525149979648618496" />
  <row Id="17079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7478" RevisionGUID="03947f10-55ce-4820-bc5f-43f61c8525cf" CreationDate="2014-10-23T10:16:59.750" UserId="3712" Text="As Daria mentioned above, it's «на Аляске» because, at first, Alaska is perceived as an area not as a state. To be more specific and refer to a state, use «в штате Аляска»)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="baa94547-e8cd-477b-b4e2-34167e9101d2" CreationDate="2014-10-23T11:40:20.630" UserId="109" Text="I have heard two different ways of pronouncing the very common word-ending *ый* (as in, e.g., *чёрный* or *кра́сный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first variant has a barely audible &quot;j&quot; sound after &quot;i&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;The second variant has a clearly audible &quot;sh&quot; sound after &quot;i&quot;, quite similar to German &quot;ch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the first variant is the 'standard' pronunciation (if that exists?!) and the second one is kind of sloppy pronunciation; but probably the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is that true?  &#xD;&#xA;* What pronunciation should a language learner pick up?&#xD;&#xA;* And would that also be applied to the ending *ий* (e.g. англи́йский)?&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I am aware that it is not really an &quot;i&quot;-sound (which would be и), but there's nothing else in English which comes closer to the proper pronunciation of ы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I haven't heard the second variant for *ий* (yet), but I guess the assumption is not too far-fetched." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="baa94547-e8cd-477b-b4e2-34167e9101d2" CreationDate="2014-10-23T11:40:20.630" UserId="109" Text="Pronunciation of word-ending &quot;ый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="baa94547-e8cd-477b-b4e2-34167e9101d2" CreationDate="2014-10-23T11:40:20.630" UserId="109" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7480" RevisionGUID="c39219a6-f3a8-412a-b4b0-224ce4eb17bc" CreationDate="2014-10-23T11:48:59.707" UserId="1236" Text="Both suffixes are always pronounced as they are written, that is `-ый` as [ɨj] and `-ий` as [ij]. No kind of sh/ch is there. In some dialects the final [j] can be barely heard or disappear altogether, but that's rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="8000ad8e-ec15-440e-ac00-df94d2107f8d" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:04:17.610" UserId="109" Comment="added 466 characters in body" Text="I have heard two different ways of pronouncing the very common word-ending *ый* (as in, e.g., *чёрный* or *кра́сный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first variant has a barely audible &quot;j&quot; sound after &quot;i&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;The second variant has a clearly audible &quot;sh&quot; sound after &quot;i&quot;, quite similar to German &quot;ch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question came up because I frequently hear the &quot;sh&quot; ending in a [&quot;Basic Russian course&quot; on Memrise][1].  &#xD;&#xA;Here's a [videos picked on Youtube][2] where you can hear both pronunciation. She pronounces, for example, *кра́сный* with that &quot;sh&quot; ending. Most of the colors, however, are neatly pronounced, i.e. with that subtle &quot;j&quot; ending only.  &#xD;&#xA;And here's [another video][3] with a mixture of both pronunciations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the first variant is the 'standard' pronunciation (if that exists?!) and the second one is kind of sloppy pronunciation; but probably the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is that true?  &#xD;&#xA;* What pronunciation should a language learner pick up?&#xD;&#xA;* And would that also be applied to the ending *ий* (e.g. англи́йский)?&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I am aware that it is not really an &quot;i&quot;-sound (which would be и), but there's nothing else in English which comes closer to the proper pronunciation of ы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I haven't heard the second variant for *ий* (yet), but I guess the assumption is not too far-fetched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.memrise.com/course/78454/learn-basic-russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIqJ5_D9zA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38z9Gv70Juo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="a17faa1d-6ed7-4ee6-b9ea-18e5adfb4c11" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:10:29.693" UserId="109" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I have heard two different ways of pronouncing the very common word-ending *ый* (as in, e.g., *чёрный* or *кра́сный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first variant has a barely audible &quot;j&quot; sound after &quot;i&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;The second variant has a clearly audible &quot;sh&quot; sound after &quot;i&quot;, quite similar to German &quot;ch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question came up because I frequently hear the &quot;sh&quot; ending in a [&quot;Basic Russian course&quot; on Memrise][1].  &#xD;&#xA;Here's a [video picked on Youtube][2] where you can hear both pronunciation. She pronounces, for example, *кра́сный* with that &quot;sh&quot; ending. Most of the colors, however, are neatly pronounced, i.e. with that subtle &quot;j&quot; ending only.  &#xD;&#xA;And here's [another video][3] with a mixture of both pronunciations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the first variant is the 'standard' pronunciation (if that exists?!) and the second one is kind of sloppy pronunciation; but probably the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is that true?  &#xD;&#xA;* Which pronunciation should a language learner pick up?&#xD;&#xA;* And would that also be applied to the ending *ий* (e.g. англи́йский)?&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I am aware that it is not really an &quot;i&quot;-sound (which would be и), but there's nothing else in English which comes closer to the proper pronunciation of ы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I haven't heard the second variant for *ий* (yet), but I guess the assumption is not too far-fetched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.memrise.com/course/78454/learn-basic-russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIqJ5_D9zA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38z9Gv70Juo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7481" RevisionGUID="82a78b42-3ec9-4827-b316-f07c46a0f43f" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:15:51.470" UserId="3680" Text="As you can see on the first video you posted, there is no transcriptions ending with anything similar to the `sh`. As a native speaker I do know - there is no `sh` endings for adjectives in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you just misheard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="8653ddc9-5a62-4778-9090-760b602e8573" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:19:00.100" UserId="2060" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="The IPA on wiktionary is correct, the ending is [ij]. You are confused because of her lack of voicing the final [j] and probably lack of recording de-essing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that the [j] sound is much stronger than English [ɪ] in words like *pay*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7480" RevisionGUID="1f7d8e4c-f87c-4424-8379-3abb63f4c49c" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:30:09.820" UserId="1236" Comment="Addition" Text="Both suffixes are always pronounced as they are written, that is `-ый` as [ɨj] and `-ий` as [ij]. No kind of sh/ch is there. In some dialects the final [j] can be barely heard or disappear altogether, but that's rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only explanation for your issue I can think of is that [ç] (the German 'ch' in 'ich') is the voiceless counterpart of the voiced [j]. You know, when speaking in whisper, all the consonants are pronounced voiceless, so one cannot pronounce [j] in whisper, one will inevitably say [ç]. The same happens in those adjectives ending in `-ый` [ɨj], at the end of a word [j] gets partially devoiced and acquires some [ç] coloring. But that happens because in your first video the girl is speaking *very* slowly, in normal speech that does not happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="256187ef-24c6-4ed0-9fba-8afe3b8ef3d9" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:33:03.720" UserId="109" Comment="amended second paragraph; added IPA" Text="I have heard two different ways of pronouncing the very common word-ending *ый* (as in, e.g., *чёрный* or *кра́сный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first variant has a barely audible [j] sound after [ɨ].    &#xD;&#xA;The second variant has a clearly audible &quot;sh&quot; sound after [ɨ], quite similar to German &quot;ch&quot; [ç] (but certainly different to the English &quot;sh&quot; and also different to a ж, ш or щ sound).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question came up because I frequently hear the [ç] ending in a [&quot;Basic Russian course&quot; on Memrise][1].  &#xD;&#xA;Here's a [video picked on Youtube][2] where you can hear both pronunciation. She pronounces, for example, *кра́сный* with that [ç] ending. Most of the colors, however, are neatly pronounced, i.e. with that subtle [j] ending only.  &#xD;&#xA;And here's [another video][3] with a mixture of both pronunciations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the first variant is the 'standard' pronunciation (if that exists?!) and the second one is kind of sloppy pronunciation; but probably the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is that true?  &#xD;&#xA;* Which pronunciation should a language learner pick up?&#xD;&#xA;* And would that also be applied to the ending *ий* (e.g. англи́йский)?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I haven't heard the second variant for *ий* (yet), but I guess the assumption is not too far-fetched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.memrise.com/course/78454/learn-basic-russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIqJ5_D9zA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38z9Gv70Juo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="8b01bbdb-cc10-44e3-92a0-15c50f2c1d0b" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:39:40.867" UserId="109" Comment="amended second paragraph; added IPA" Text="I have heard two different ways of pronouncing the very common word-ending *ый* (as in, e.g., *чёрный* or *кра́сный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first variant has a barely audible [j] sound after [ɨ].    &#xD;&#xA;The second variant has a clearly audible &quot;sh&quot; sound after [ɨ], quite similar to German &quot;ch&quot; [ç] (but certainly different to the English &quot;sh&quot; and also different to a ж, ш or щ sound).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question came up because I frequently hear the [ç] ending in a [&quot;Basic Russian course&quot; on Memrise][1].  &#xD;&#xA;Here's a [video picked on Youtube][2] where you can hear both pronunciation. She pronounces, for example, *кра́сный* with that [ç] ending. Most of the colors, however, are neatly pronounced, i.e. with that subtle [j] ending only.  &#xD;&#xA;And here's [another video][3] with a mixture of both pronunciations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the first variant is the 'standard' pronunciation (if that exists?!) and the second one is kind of sloppy pronunciation; but probably the most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is that true?  &#xD;&#xA;* Which pronunciation should a language learner pick up?&#xD;&#xA;* And would that also be applied to the ending *ий* (e.g. англи́йский)?&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is not about the standard pronunciation and difference between *и*, *ий*, *ы* and *ый*. I am aware of the other question linked in comments and there are a lot of questions about this on the Internet. However, none of these questions does address what I'm asking here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I haven't heard the second variant for *ий* (yet), but I guess the assumption is not too far-fetched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.memrise.com/course/78454/learn-basic-russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIqJ5_D9zA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38z9Gv70Juo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17091" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="8b01bbdb-cc10-44e3-92a0-15c50f2c1d0b" CreationDate="2014-10-23T12:39:40.867" UserId="109" Comment="amended second paragraph; added IPA" Text="Variation in pronunciation of &quot;й&quot; in word-ending &quot;ый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7482" RevisionGUID="b2cdc04d-a5e3-440d-a62c-0cc187f41420" CreationDate="2014-10-23T13:01:18.867" UserId="194" Text="They are pronounced exactly the same way, both with the [j] sound on the end. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7483" RevisionGUID="6d984a04-f19b-4544-a92f-aed7a932b079" CreationDate="2014-10-23T15:59:44.320" UserId="2238" Text="The sound [ç] is actually not sh, but a voiceless pair to [j]. Consonants tend to become voiceless in the end of Russian words. However, for [j] it is not correct, although it can sometimes happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7484" RevisionGUID="202809ac-48f0-450c-8ced-8486bed49d51" CreationDate="2014-10-23T17:51:44.430" UserId="4208" Text="Em1, I've looked youtube video and if I understand correctly your question - yes, she pronounces two times name of color and each time ending sounds different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's effect of emphasizing and not emphasizing accent &quot;крАААсный&quot; и &quot;красный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am native speaker and I don't really notice &quot;sh&quot; there or much difference, but I think it's totally normal for you to hear it, as for foreign ear these two endings are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no right, wrong or standard way to pronounce it, no any rule, one is just pronounced with aspiration and it depends on articulation of this concrete person and way she talks. If you listen carefully intro words you will notice that in general she produces a lot of &quot;hiss&quot;, a kind of defect of articulation and pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only advice - try to listen the course where lector has perfect diction (sorry I don't know right word in English for training to articulate words) and pronounce it as you can (anyway it will not sound immediately same as native speakers do)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7485" RevisionGUID="8bbd247d-690c-4591-acfa-ac39af0dad21" CreationDate="2014-10-23T20:01:22.627" UserId="3859" Text="Не требует, но напрашивается. Аляска, как и Гаваи не в составе континентальных штатов.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7486" RevisionGUID="945d6684-c0bb-48d5-9b8e-74eaa5ab89da" CreationDate="2014-10-23T20:46:48.707" UserId="4406" Text="If i understand you properly, the sound you interpreted as a [ç] is just an air relieved after we stop pronouncing final [j].&#xD;&#xA;Just a side effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7484" RevisionGUID="96e28b2a-b40c-4510-a57b-f89f2c79c6eb" CreationDate="2014-10-23T21:26:41.127" UserId="109" Comment="fixed some typos" Text="Em1, I've looked at the Youtube video and if I understand your question correctly – yes, she pronounces the name of the colors twice and each time the ending sounds differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an effect of emphasizing and not emphasizing accent &quot;крАААсный&quot; и &quot;красный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a native speaker and I don't really notice &quot;sh&quot; there or much difference, but I think it's totally normal for you to hear it, as for a foreign ear these two endings are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no right, wrong or standard way to pronounce it, not any rule; one is just pronounced with aspiration and it depends on articulation of this concrete person and way she talks. If you listen carefully to the words, you will notice that in general she produces a lot of &quot;hiss&quot;, a kind of defect of articulation and pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only advice – try to listen the course where a lector has perfect diction (sorry I don't know right word in English for training to articulate words) and pronounce it as best as you can (anyway it will not sound immediately the same as native speakers do)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17098" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7484" RevisionGUID="96e28b2a-b40c-4510-a57b-f89f2c79c6eb" CreationDate="2014-10-23T21:26:41.127" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 2079, 2388 edit id of 553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17099" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="355cb257-1f5f-487d-a488-09fd05cc5f2f" CreationDate="2014-10-24T05:01:27.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/525512370987098113" />
  <row Id="17100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7487" RevisionGUID="070856c9-4d2a-47b1-8dba-4f5bfe990bf4" CreationDate="2014-10-24T05:09:42.983" UserId="4077" Text="This is one of the more peculiar paradoxes of the Russian language, and something a lot of Russians question and laugh at as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В Бруклине, В Квинсе, В Бронксе - На Манхеттене, На Стэйтэн-Айланде&#xD;&#xA;    В России - На Украине&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="c3b700ca-41d3-4eda-8b41-71f0f81cf2c6" CreationDate="2014-10-24T10:59:48.810" UserId="4432" Text="Is there a website for Stirlitz jokes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="c3b700ca-41d3-4eda-8b41-71f0f81cf2c6" CreationDate="2014-10-24T10:59:48.810" UserId="4432" Text="Website for Stirlitz Jokes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="c3b700ca-41d3-4eda-8b41-71f0f81cf2c6" CreationDate="2014-10-24T10:59:48.810" UserId="4432" Text="|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7489" RevisionGUID="99b2d39c-e83c-4c52-a476-3ce75b29e45b" CreationDate="2014-10-24T11:47:26.997" UserId="2139" Text="If you want some pun jokes, try for example [this][1] or [this][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wwk.kiev.ua/182.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hum.uu.nl/medewerkers/o.m.matushansky/stirlitz.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="96523fd8-028e-4efc-93d0-9cbd389a34a8" CreationDate="2014-10-24T13:56:50.423" UserId="4447" Text="could anyone please tell me, where I can find and download a font type of Russian italics? I haven't find any on the net so far, but I have to admit to only have looked on English and German language pages. However, since there are so many people in this world whose native language is written in cyrillic letters, I really have a hard time believing that there doesn't exist at least one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for anything fancy (like a special historical handwriting type of e.g. the 17th or 18th century), just normal standard type would do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please write me back (mauel@online.ms) if you can help me out ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greetings,&#xD;&#xA;Sascha" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="96523fd8-028e-4efc-93d0-9cbd389a34a8" CreationDate="2014-10-24T13:56:50.423" UserId="4447" Text="Russian/Cyrillic italic font" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="96523fd8-028e-4efc-93d0-9cbd389a34a8" CreationDate="2014-10-24T13:56:50.423" UserId="4447" Text="|падежи|обучение|typography|алфавит|it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17108" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7385" RevisionGUID="07d01b81-f528-4165-82f1-40a8ed41fe25" CreationDate="2014-10-24T14:05:41.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/525649333035610112" />
  <row Id="17109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="bfcfe3bc-d981-4e4d-a2cb-540202154134" CreationDate="2014-10-24T22:03:48.647" UserId="194" Text="I Windows Italics is usually an attribute of a font like &quot;Bold&quot; and &quot;Underlined&quot;. So you do not have to install any new fonts, all Russian fonts already include an Italic variety. The same is in Linux, AFAIK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="0eaf5f74-f2cd-4199-9043-41a66d07b232" CreationDate="2014-10-24T23:00:32.037" UserId="3892" Text="A friend on Skype sent me the following message and I don't understand one word of it, nor can I find any of the words in my dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я поназакачивал в инете" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="0eaf5f74-f2cd-4199-9043-41a66d07b232" CreationDate="2014-10-24T23:00:32.037" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of поназакачивать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="0eaf5f74-f2cd-4199-9043-41a66d07b232" CreationDate="2014-10-24T23:00:32.037" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7493" RevisionGUID="b4f58326-54c0-46c3-8d34-6833df5a21a3" CreationDate="2014-10-24T23:05:45.560" UserId="3680" Text="`Закачать` is equal to `Скачать` what means `download`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Поназакачивал` is an equivalent of `Много чего скачал` what means `downloaded plenty of ...`.  &#xD;&#xA;In some cases it can has a meaning `downloaded too many things`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Заказал - Ordered smth&#xD;&#xA;    Поназаказывал - Ordered plenty of smth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="07791e0f-a4ac-4fc6-aaf2-1ea5ac9f30c4" CreationDate="2014-10-24T23:10:06.267" UserId="2388" Text="Think of it as ***по+на+закачать*** = *закачать очень много всего* (to download/upload lots of stuff). Kind of a made-up word (just for fun) but still undestandable since it uses a familiar base (закачать) and then a moderately popular prefixed extension — not the most popular, but not unheard of(*понаписал* = написал много всего, *понаделал* = наделал много всякого, понаготовил = приготовил много всякой всячины)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«качать»** is the verb with one of the meanings related to pumping liquid (typically water) through a pipe. Probably that's why with the spread of the internet the verbs **скачать, закачать, выкачать** appeared to express the different shades of &quot;download&quot;, &quot;upload&quot; and so on (along with &quot;загрузить&quot; which means to &quot;load something somewhere&quot; in general, be it in memory or from your HDD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *that is not to say that &quot;качать&quot; derivatives never existed before, but certainly could not have been used to express data transfer*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7494" RevisionGUID="6f12369e-595b-4f9c-b0af-90bbf06b20c4" CreationDate="2014-10-24T23:21:32.463" UserId="2388" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Think of it as ***закачивать*** → ***назакачивать***→ ***поназакачивать*** = *закачать очень много всего* (to download/upload lots of stuff). Kind of a made-up word (just for fun) but still undestandable since it uses a familiar base (закачать) and then a moderately popular prefixed extension — not the most popular, but not unheard of(*понаписал* = написал много всего, *понаделал* = наделал много всякого, понаготовил = приготовил много всякой всячины)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«качать»** is the verb with one of the meanings related to pumping liquid (typically water) through a pipe. Probably that's why with the spread of the internet the verbs **скачать, закачать, выкачать** appeared to express the different shades of &quot;download&quot;, &quot;upload&quot; and so on (along with &quot;загрузить&quot; which means to &quot;load something somewhere&quot; in general, be it in memory or from your HDD).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formation has a slightly playful/negative connotation as if you were implying that you performed an action extensively, way overdoing it, did it in lotsa different ways and without really thinking there is any point in doing so (may imply there is a lot of &quot;results&quot; of your activity left from such spike of productivity). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *that is not to say that &quot;качать&quot; derivatives never existed before, but certainly could not have been used to express data transfer*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7491" RevisionGUID="4d630228-1536-4842-b9ea-35b098ba4336" CreationDate="2014-10-25T03:49:07.063" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In Windows Italic is usually an attribute of a font like &quot;Bold&quot; and &quot;Underlined&quot;. So you do not have to install any new fonts, all Russian fonts already include an Italic variety. The same is in Linux, AFAIK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="a4b0ba09-6f0d-46c6-ab26-3af065557e18" CreationDate="2014-10-25T07:49:25.890" UserId="153" Comment="typo, article" Text="The main pattern is to place the [subject][1] to the end of the question, after the [predicate][2]. If the predicate is complex, it is most likely to be reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. Let's checkout examples provided in the article above: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - She dances - Танцует она.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben reads the book - Книгу читает Бен.&#xD;&#xA; - Ben's mother, Felicity, gave me a present - Фелисити, Бена Мать, дала подарок мне. &#xD;&#xA; - She listened to the radio - Радио слушала она.&#xD;&#xA; - She met him in the park - В парке встретила его она. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, grammar is grammar, it's not that anarchical to full extent. Though word order in sentence is something less strict in Russian compared to English, actually, there are some patterns and there are some cases when sentence will sound unnatural to native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some illustrations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/co2dU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UfYkL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17118" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="a4b0ba09-6f0d-46c6-ab26-3af065557e18" CreationDate="2014-10-25T07:49:25.890" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 2079, 242 edit id of 555" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="963d05d6-a8fb-47f7-8974-5e4a683d2c15" CreationDate="2014-10-25T12:38:30.823" UserId="2306" Text="Есть американские издания, такие как The New Yorker, которые используют &quot;высокие&quot; академические и литературные слова, которые понимают только образованные или начитанные люди. Какой русскоязычный журнал или газета публикует статьи в подобном стиле? (В таком издании можно было бы встретить такие слова как &quot;эскапизм&quot;, &quot;визави&quot; и т.д.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="963d05d6-a8fb-47f7-8974-5e4a683d2c15" CreationDate="2014-10-25T12:38:30.823" UserId="2306" Text="Русское издание, использующее &quot;высокий&quot; язык" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="963d05d6-a8fb-47f7-8974-5e4a683d2c15" CreationDate="2014-10-25T12:38:30.823" UserId="2306" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="9ab546d7-35fe-44c9-ac6e-f4ba9248c559" CreationDate="2014-10-25T12:59:39.077" UserId="2306" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Есть американские издания, такие как *The New Yorker*, которые используют &quot;высокие&quot; академические и литературные слова, которые понимают только образованные или начитанные люди. Какой русскоязычный журнал или газета публикует статьи в подобном стиле? (В таком издании можно было бы встретить такие слова как &quot;эскапизм&quot;, &quot;визави&quot; и т.д.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7496" RevisionGUID="25553943-6478-4039-a5f1-673330c81be5" CreationDate="2014-10-26T06:08:22.317" UserId="4454" Text="Как уже пояснили, есть определённые правила, основанные на географическом &quot;происхождении&quot; тех или иных регионов. На острове - значит &quot;на Гавайях&quot;, на территории - значит, &quot;на Урале&quot;, &quot;на Камчатке&quot;, &quot;на Аляске&quot;. Однако - &quot;в Сибири&quot;. Потому что есть правила, а есть традиции произношения, так же как в английском, например, неправильные формы глаголов. &quot;На Украине&quot; тоже говорят потому, что это изначально была территория, включающая в себя множество совершенно различных областей, а не одно цельное этнически и исторически образование. Исторически прижилось &quot;на&quot;, а то, что теперь это страна, никого не заставит менять привычное произношение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё про исторически прижившееся.&#xD;&#xA;Например, город Paris - это Париж, а не &quot;Пари&quot;, &quot;Парис&quot; или &quot;Пэрис&quot;. А вот Paris Hilton - это уже Пэрис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Одного принципа, по которому можно всё понять, нет, нужно просто много практики. Трудно быть иностранным шпионом в России, в общем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7497" RevisionGUID="c7c4c4b6-05d0-426c-8a0a-3b8f1f5f8cd9" CreationDate="2014-10-26T08:29:18.693" UserId="4208" Text="You can find Cyrillic script fonts on [google fonts][1], just choose it from menu on the left and manipulate with &quot;slant&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/fonts#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="191c0a6e-0714-4ee9-8f2b-89360c8ae76b" CreationDate="2014-10-26T13:49:56.533" UserId="2388" Text="Pretty much every more or less professional fontface for typing **texts** (not just fancy headers) supplies **жирный**, *курсив* and ***жирный курсив***. So chose just any respectable font, better if it is a serif-type font such as Cambria, Times New Roman or the like (Gothic fontfaces usually have only oblique option since it is against their nature to have a italic design)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean handwriting, try [this][1] and [this one, too][2]. On Windows, starting with Vista, you can also use Segoe Script since it has a pretty decent handwriting font. Not *exactly* like the handwriting taught in school but a good stylization, and looks similar to what you can really see people write. The school-taught version looks [like that][3] but few people actually follow it exactly after elementary school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fonts-online.ru/font/Katherine&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fonts-online.ru/font/Denistina&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.paratype.ru/pstore/fsample.asp?scode=PT_PRO65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7500" RevisionGUID="49fb5712-1107-4083-b431-9bb6b828972a" CreationDate="2014-10-26T17:11:40.880" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 30 characters in body" Text="Pretty much any more or less professional fontface for typing **texts** (not just fancy headers) supplies **жирный**, *курсив* and ***жирный курсив***. So choose just any respectable serif font such as Cambria, Times New Roman or the like (Gothic fontfaces usually have only oblique option since it is against their nature to have a italic design)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean handwriting, try [this][1] and [this one, too][2]. On Windows, starting with Vista, you can also use Segoe Script since it has a pretty decent handwriting font. Not *exactly* like the handwriting taught in school but a good stylization, and looks similar to what you can really see people write. The school-taught version looks [like that][3] but few people actually follow it exactly after elementary school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fonts-online.ru/font/Katherine&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fonts-online.ru/font/Denistina&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.paratype.ru/pstore/fsample.asp?scode=PT_PRO65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17129" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7492" RevisionGUID="382da535-3fe0-462e-9906-ea96c0e4d4a7" CreationDate="2014-10-26T20:09:44.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/526465727679586304" />
  <row Id="17130" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7495" RevisionGUID="b2e8dbe2-7460-4ac3-a0f5-32a7c7ee4464" CreationDate="2014-10-27T05:10:39.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/526601850359783425" />
  <row Id="17131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7501" RevisionGUID="a37e1756-2c5a-48d3-a020-05e622120979" CreationDate="2014-10-27T05:59:46.810" UserId="4458" Text="I have an Android App which converts numbers from one number system to another. I want to translate it into Russian. All I need is translation of two words-&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used Google Translation services and got some results but when I translated them back to English, they did not give &quot;From&quot; and &quot;To&quot; as results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7501" RevisionGUID="a37e1756-2c5a-48d3-a020-05e622120979" CreationDate="2014-10-27T05:59:46.810" UserId="4458" Text="Translation - &quot;From&quot; and &quot;To&quot; to Russian for a converter app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7501" RevisionGUID="a37e1756-2c5a-48d3-a020-05e622120979" CreationDate="2014-10-27T05:59:46.810" UserId="4458" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7502" RevisionGUID="fc8b27db-75d6-40dd-8cc2-cb32984f0c6c" CreationDate="2014-10-27T06:18:07.083" UserId="4208" Text="В России издается много литературных, научных и публицистических журналов, которые по своей цели похожи на The New Yorker, но ни один из них не популярен сейчас так, как NY. Многие из них были созданы в 19 или начале 20 века. Например, есть журнал Новый Мир, который мои родители выписывали и читали в 80-х и начала 90-х, есть Вестник Европы. Есть много специализированных журналов, которые используют академический язык или публикуют литературные произведения, я, например, раньше читала Полис и Вопросы философии. Эти журналы, правда, редко можно найти в обычных газетных киосках. Есть аналитические, популярные издания, вроде Итоги, Ъ-Власть, или Эксперт, но сложно сказать, что они используют &quot;высокий&quot; язык." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="ef2a8487-8891-44ab-9c82-e0bc72a24d52" CreationDate="2014-10-27T08:06:17.627" UserId="2388" Text="*(assuming you need something like HEX→Dec)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Из** + *Genitive* **в** + *Accusative*. For example, &quot;из шестнадцатеричной в двоичную&quot;. (&quot;convert from A to B&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- *Acusative* + **в** + *Accusative* (&quot;convert A to B&quot;, more suitable for colloquial conversion of units of measurement: &quot;convert feets to metres&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you not use a radio button list or a list of abbreviations, that requires oblique forms of words for &quot;base 2&quot;, &quot;base 8&quot;, &quot;base10&quot;, &quot;base 16&quot;. Though, they all will end in &quot;-ой&quot; for Genitive and &quot;-ую&quot; for Accusative (instead of &quot;ая&quot; in dictionary form). Again, this only applies if you use whole words and try to sound all natural, like writing it all in a single line or a sentence like &quot;I want to convert 511 from *decimal* to *binary*&quot;. A simple interface like &quot;511, from:Dec, to:HEX&quot; may use just abbreviations or dictionary forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7505" RevisionGUID="5711b048-3a01-4475-97ab-3c53d740e252" CreationDate="2014-10-27T08:22:47.383" UserId="2079" Text="To the Shady_arc's answer I'll add that in case of mail and similar,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From X to Y -&gt; От Х (in Genitive) Y (in Dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i. e. From Vasya To Petya -&gt; От Васи Пете&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you cannot do cases (i.e. X and Y are nicks), I'd suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    От: X&#xD;&#xA;    Кому: Y " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7501" RevisionGUID="9181e60a-b26f-455e-bd5c-4e4dfd914d75" CreationDate="2014-10-27T08:41:45.450" UserId="4458" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="![Screenshot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an Android App which converts numbers from one number system to another. I want to translate it into Russian. All I need is translation of two words-&#xD;&#xA;&quot;From&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used Google Translation services and got some results but when I translated them back to English, they did not give &quot;From&quot; and &quot;To&quot; as results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NNshr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="d50acb68-5fe6-48c0-9967-31d692223a85" CreationDate="2014-10-27T09:16:25.393" UserId="2388" Comment="added 735 characters in body" Text="*(assuming you need something like HEX→Dec)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Из** + *Genitive* **в** + *Accusative*. For example, &quot;из шестнадцатеричной в двоичную&quot;. (&quot;convert from A to B&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- *Acusative* + **в** + *Accusative* (&quot;convert A to B&quot;, more suitable for colloquial conversion of units of measurement: &quot;convert feets to metres&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you not use a radio button list or a list of abbreviations, that requires oblique forms of words for &quot;base 2&quot;, &quot;base 8&quot;, &quot;base10&quot;, &quot;base 16&quot;. Though, they all will end in &quot;-ой&quot; for Genitive and &quot;-ую&quot; for Accusative (instead of &quot;ая&quot; in dictionary form). Again, this only applies if you use whole words and try to sound all natural, like writing it all in a single line or a sentence like &quot;I want to convert 511 from *decimal* to *binary*&quot;. A simple interface like &quot;511, from:Dec, to:HEX&quot; may use just abbreviations or dictionary forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning to use Russian words for number systems (and do it grammatically) here's the way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - look up the required word in the dictionary. Since &quot;number system&quot; is feminine in Russian, you would actually use &quot;-ая&quot; ending, not &quot;-ый/-ий&quot; (bin = двоичная, oct = восьмеричная, dec = десятичная, hex = шестнадцатеричная)&#xD;&#xA; - replace **-ая** with **-ой** for the words in the first list&#xD;&#xA; - replace **-ая** with **-ую** for the words in the second list&#xD;&#xA; - DONE!&#xD;&#xA; - makes sense to keep the two lists separate for all languages. Russian is not the only one where the forms are going to be different&#xD;&#xA; - in Japanese people use postpositions, not prepositions, so you probably will need analogues like &quot;source&quot; and &quot;result&quot; rather than から and に " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7503" RevisionGUID="5fb125cd-998d-428b-bf0d-4893b4ae53d3" CreationDate="2014-10-27T11:37:09.053" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 136 characters in body" Text="*(assuming you need something like HEX→Dec)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **из** + *Genitive* **в** + *Accusative*. For example, *&quot;из шестнадцатеричной в двоичную&quot; = &quot;from hexadecimal to binary&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you do not use a radio button list or a list of abbreviations, that requires oblique forms of words for &quot;base 2&quot;, &quot;base 8&quot;, &quot;base10&quot;, &quot;base 16&quot;. Though, they all will end in &quot;-ой&quot; for Genitive and &quot;-ую&quot; for Accusative (instead of &quot;ая&quot; in dictionary form). Again, this only applies if you use whole words and try to sound all natural, like writing it all in a single line or a sentence like &quot;I want to convert 511 from *decimal* to *binary*&quot;. A simple interface like &quot;511, from:Dec, to:HEX&quot; may use just abbreviations or dictionary forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning to use Russian words for number systems (and do it grammatically) here's the way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - look up the required word in the dictionary. Since &quot;number system&quot; is feminine in Russian, you would actually use &quot;-ая&quot; ending, not &quot;-ый/-ий&quot; (bin = двоичная, oct = восьмеричная, dec = десятичная, hex = шестнадцатеричная)&#xD;&#xA; - replace **-ая** with **-ой** for the words in the first list&#xD;&#xA; - replace **-ая** with **-ую** for the words in the second list&#xD;&#xA; - DONE!&#xD;&#xA; - makes sense to keep the two lists separate for all languages. Russian is not the only one where the forms are going to be different&#xD;&#xA; - in Japanese people use postpositions, not prepositions, so you probably will need analogues like &quot;source&quot; and &quot;result&quot; rather than から and に " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17142" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7366" RevisionGUID="98038155-89d4-40e6-a9f2-8beee7b1faa3" CreationDate="2014-10-28T02:23:14.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/526922104638160897" />
  <row Id="17143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="9abf8487-0827-4694-957a-f26f91e0b4b0" CreationDate="2014-10-28T04:37:23.867" UserId="3892" Comment="corrected &quot;check out&quot; (instead of &quot;check up&quot;) and change the verb to past tense in the second sentence." Text="&quot;Я тут паре типов своих показал его. Они выпали с аппарата.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I let the guys check that thing out. They said it was sick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17144" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7488" RevisionGUID="3f8698fe-21f3-4e4b-af8a-c3f93b749e8f" CreationDate="2014-10-28T10:07:21.323" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="b34ce60b-c057-45d9-9b11-4eab85ca6c8b" CreationDate="2014-10-28T12:49:57.320" UserId="4270" Text="Я отдал маленький подарок для знакомой девушки её брату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он мне потом СМС-сообщил: &quot;Эта колотня сразу всё спорола&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Что это может значить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="b34ce60b-c057-45d9-9b11-4eab85ca6c8b" CreationDate="2014-10-28T12:49:57.320" UserId="4270" Text="&quot;Колотня спорола&quot;. Прошу объяснить, что произошло" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="b34ce60b-c057-45d9-9b11-4eab85ca6c8b" CreationDate="2014-10-28T12:49:57.320" UserId="4270" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7507" RevisionGUID="9cc76daa-30c4-463d-8051-40c12f866b7d" CreationDate="2014-10-28T13:38:35.187" UserId="1159" Text="Ваш знакомый из Украины?&#xD;&#xA;В Украине &quot;колотня&quot; - разговорное название ссоры, драки. &quot;Спорола&quot; - наверняка синоним запорола, т.е. *испортила*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем и целом скорее всего зависит от контекста: того что это был за подарок, обстоятельств в которых его передавали  и т.п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7508" RevisionGUID="58bd4bb1-7c32-4c20-8124-4620e5e6399f" CreationDate="2014-10-28T13:54:37.343" UserId="3680" Text="Если подарок съедобный, то `спорола` вполне может означать `съела`.  &#xD;&#xA;Насчет `колотня`. Полагаю, речь тут идет о значении этого слова &quot;убой на мясо&quot;. В данном контексте - персона, отъедающаяся на убой.  &#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, исходная фраза означает примерно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Это ненасытная сразу съела ваш подарок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="7baeb8ab-4a73-434a-b332-a2751d6c3e61" CreationDate="2014-10-28T13:55:09.653" UserId="4270" Text="Мой знакомый из Москвы. Подарок был вкусный.&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас он пояснил:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;колотня = колотушка = бестолковая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спорола = съела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это нормально?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7509" RevisionGUID="acae8689-8a17-4afa-8b05-242e3ae0a6b6" CreationDate="2014-10-28T14:00:23.790" UserId="4270" Comment="edited body" Text="Подарок был вкусный.&#xD;&#xA;Мой знакомый из Москвы. Сейчас он пояснил:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;колотня = колотушка = бестолковая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спорола = съела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это нормально?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="89d939a0-afd9-4b4a-990a-dfbc0d32faec" CreationDate="2014-10-28T15:48:05.773" UserId="2106" Text="Как справедливо пишет @dariamikhaylova, в России сложилась (и все еще жива) культура и традиция &quot;толстых журналов&quot;. Особенно &quot;высокого&quot; языка вы там не найдете, но это точно НЕ бульварная пресса. В основном это литература и поэзия, но есть и публицистика. Много из них (в том числе &quot;Новый Мир&quot;) выложено в интернете - please see [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такой формат, как в журнале &quot;The New Yorker&quot; (публицистические статьи + рассказ + текущая реклама и информация) можно найти в журнале [&quot;Сноб&quot;][2] (его фокус - русскоязычная диаспора). Кстати говоря, онлайн-версия этого журнал не позволяет комментировать, если у вас нет (достаточно дорогой) подписки - поэтому многие комментарии действительно добавляют к теме статьи и развивают ее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://magazines.russ.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.snob.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7510" RevisionGUID="4e0894bb-2f27-480d-9921-fb51d172c2e8" CreationDate="2014-10-28T16:02:42.790" UserId="2106" Comment="Italics added" Text="Как справедливо пишет @dariamikhaylova, в России сложилась (и все еще жива) культура и традиция &quot;толстых&quot; журналов. Особенно &quot;высокого&quot; языка вы там не найдете, но это точно НЕ бульварная пресса. В основном это литература и поэзия, но есть и публицистика. Много из них (в том числе *Новый Мир*) выложено в интернете - please see [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такой формат, как в журнале *The New Yorker* (публицистические статьи + рассказ + текущая реклама и информация) можно найти в журнале [*Сноб*][2] (его фокус - русскоязычная диаспора). Кстати говоря, онлайн-версия этого журнал не позволяет комментировать, если у вас нет (достаточно дорогой) подписки - поэтому многие комментарии действительно добавляют к теме статьи и развивают ее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://magazines.russ.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.snob.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7511" RevisionGUID="542c88c7-fe68-4f0e-a3b6-60b54d61b276" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:01:44.223" UserId="4464" Text="What is the difference between &quot;ну&quot; and &quot;значит&quot; in usage? Can they be used interchangeably? I believe they both mean something similar to &quot;so&quot; or &quot;well&quot; in English " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7511" RevisionGUID="542c88c7-fe68-4f0e-a3b6-60b54d61b276" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:01:44.223" UserId="4464" Text="Difference between &quot;ну&quot; and &quot;значит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7511" RevisionGUID="542c88c7-fe68-4f0e-a3b6-60b54d61b276" CreationDate="2014-10-28T19:01:44.223" UserId="4464" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7479" RevisionGUID="8b99da9a-4054-4ac6-b6d6-3b31743a8a7f" CreationDate="2014-10-28T20:29:07.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/527195376017629184" />
  <row Id="17158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="b4d98a6b-eb58-4e66-90de-f032fe823c32" CreationDate="2014-10-28T20:56:13.650" UserId="4465" Text="In the following explanation, translations are not at all word by word translations, and each translation relies on the context of the discussion used in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Значит&quot; translates to &quot;means&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;It is used however in some cases as a start of a told explanation, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Значит так: я пойду за детьми а ты жди мастера&quot;, which would translate roughly to:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ok, so I will pick up the kids and you wait for the repair man.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, similarly, the same word can be used to ask for a confirmation on the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Значит я пойду за детьми?&quot; - &quot;So, I will pick up the kids?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the usage of the word &quot;значит&quot; does in some cases coincide with the english &quot;so&quot;. But when you try to replace &quot;well&quot; in the same sentences, it won't work. &quot;so&quot; gives a command tone to the sentence, while &quot;well&quot; is kind of unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;well, maybe you will go to pick up the kids and I'll wait home?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;this does translate to something like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ну, может ты пойдёшь за детьми и я подожду дома?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you substitute the word, you'd have to change the tone of the sentence as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another case of &quot;ну&quot; is for answering the same kind of question:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ну ладно, поеду&quot; - &quot;well OK, I'll do it&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or answering a stupid question:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;ну, используй мозги, придёшь к ответу&quot; - &quot;well, use your brains, and you'll come to the answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, in both languages, the given examples would not support word substitution without slightly changing the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="587b946f-0e41-495b-bb54-024093802dff" CreationDate="2014-10-28T21:14:56.217" UserId="4465" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="In the following explanation, translations are not at all word by word translations, and each translation relies on the context of the discussion used in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Значит&quot;* translates to *&quot;means&quot;*.  &#xD;&#xA;It is used however in some cases as a start of a told explanation, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значит так: я пойду за детьми а ты жди мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would translate roughly to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ok, so I will pick up the kids and you wait for the repair man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, similarly, the same word can be used to ask for a confirmation on the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значит я пойду за детьми?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, I will pick up the kids?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the usage of the word *&quot;значит&quot;* does in some cases coincide with the english *&quot;so&quot;*. But when you try to replace *&quot;well&quot;* in the same sentences, it won't work. *&quot;so&quot;* gives a command tone to the sentence, while *&quot;well&quot;* is kind of unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well, maybe you will go to pick up the kids and I'll wait home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;this does translate to something like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну, может ты пойдёшь за детьми и я подожду дома?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you substitute the word, you'd have to change the tone of the sentence as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another case of *&quot;ну&quot;* is for answering the same kind of question:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну ладно, поеду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well OK, I'll do it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or answering a stupid question:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну, используй мозги, придёшь к ответу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well, use your brains, and you'll come to the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, in both languages, the given examples would not support word substitution without slightly changing the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7512" RevisionGUID="d6113d7e-ec99-4444-9e31-45fb7ecca90d" CreationDate="2014-10-28T23:24:37.487" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In the following explanation, translations are not at all word by word translations, and each translation relies on the context of the discussion used in the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Значит&quot;* translates to *&quot;means&quot;*.  &#xD;&#xA;It is used however in some cases as a start of a told explanation, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значит так: я пойду за детьми а ты жди мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would translate roughly to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ok, so I will pick up the kids and you wait for the repair man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, similarly, the same word can be used to ask for a confirmation on the explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значит я пойду за детьми?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, I will pick up the kids?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the usage of the word *&quot;значит&quot;* does in some cases coincide with the english *&quot;so&quot;*. But when you try to replace *&quot;well&quot;* in the same sentences, it won't work. *&quot;so&quot;* gives a command tone to the sentence, while *&quot;well&quot;* is kind of unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well, maybe you will go to pick up the kids and I'll wait home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;this does translate to something like this:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну может ты пойдёшь за детьми и я подожду дома?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you substitute the word, you'd have to change the tone of the sentence as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another case of *&quot;ну&quot;* is for answering the same kind of question:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну ладно, поеду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well OK, I'll do it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or answering a stupid question:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ну используй мозги, придёшь к ответу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; well, use your brains, and you'll come to the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, in both languages, the given examples would not support word substitution without slightly changing the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7513" RevisionGUID="c42131d4-4ad2-4004-9c39-81275f619720" CreationDate="2014-10-29T17:17:01.733" UserId="4468" Text="&quot;что-то&quot; and &quot;что-нибудь&quot; have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;I'm Russian man and we speak these words like &quot;something&quot; and &quot;somebody&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7514" RevisionGUID="d2434ba3-36ef-4871-a307-120e82bb61a3" CreationDate="2014-10-29T23:33:38.487" UserId="1008" Text="1. аграрий, викарий, гуманитарий, пролетарий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. валькирия, гарпия, гурия, мумия, фурия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. бездарь, бестолочь, выхухоль, дрянь, мразь, свекровь&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="fdd448e7-d95d-4647-af27-a7b435da2ca3" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:38:26.283" UserId="4384" Text="Я это слово видел на разных форумах. Ну, в словаре сленга, не могу его найти." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="fdd448e7-d95d-4647-af27-a7b435da2ca3" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:38:26.283" UserId="4384" Text="Какие значения имеет слово “фигачь”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="fdd448e7-d95d-4647-af27-a7b435da2ca3" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:38:26.283" UserId="4384" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7516" RevisionGUID="bc67fba9-b15f-4b2c-abea-7818b8e7aad2" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:44:58.380" UserId="4442" Text="Словом &quot;фигачь&quot; выделяют интенсивность действия . Само действие определяется из контекста . &#xA;&#xA;Например: Вася смотри, вот они идут , фигачь их пулеметом. (Стреляй в них )&#xA;Да фигачь ее топором, все равно придется ломать. (Бей/руби топором)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7517" RevisionGUID="0ebad4fe-dd55-4106-bc54-84078eb7f8fd" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:45:43.837" UserId="1236" Text="`Фигачь` - это 2 лицо единственного числа повелительного наклонения от глагола `фигачить`, этот глагол [есть даже в Викисловаре][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *прост.* делать что-либо с усилием, старанием ◆ Вот ты это увидел, и вдруг у тебя сложилось и начинает в голове обрастать какими-то совершенно невероятными деталями, и ты садишься и начинаешь фигачить. (*Михаил Калужский, Сергей Минаев, «Сергей Минаев: я — неудавшийся лузер» // «Русский репортер», 2008 г.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *прост.* бить, колотить ◆ Потом берёшь кирпич вон там, в загашнике, фигачишь его гантелей в порошок. *Николай Рубан, «Тельняшка для киборга» // «Боевое искусство планеты», 2003 г.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7518" RevisionGUID="dbf997bf-d5cf-4426-9ae2-675ddd6a1079" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:46:37.957" UserId="4471" Text="I would usually use it as a word to signify an action of making (completing) or filling something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я *нафигачил* 10 листов теста&quot; - &quot;I *have done/completed* 10 page of a test&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17169" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="ae095454-3e21-4606-a956-9098ec674996" CreationDate="2014-10-30T16:46:44.223" UserId="4384" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17170" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7511" RevisionGUID="1f549393-0176-4729-8c7c-5c8f8073da3b" CreationDate="2014-10-31T02:30:02.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/528010979448066048" />
  <row Id="17171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7519" RevisionGUID="5c4cac73-ab15-4368-b5b1-14e828f59c5b" CreationDate="2014-10-31T05:31:50.053" UserId="4472" Text="The grammatically correct form is only `n-й`.&#xD;&#xA;Acoording to entrenched tradition accretion suffix must be one-letter if the last letter of numeral follows by vowel: `5-й день (пятый день)`, `25-я годовщина (двадцать пятая годовщина)`, `в 14-м ряду (в четырнадцатом ряду)`. It must be two-letter if the last letter of numeral follows by consonant: `5-го дня (пятого дня)`, `к 25-му студенту (к двадцать пятому студенту)`, `из 14-го ряда (из четырнадцатого ряда)`. Spelling `n-ый` is incorrect, but widely used. Sad but true; it is common mistake. Accretion suffixes for variables also comply these rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7520" RevisionGUID="39f8dac5-73eb-4a7d-a8f0-a9fe47b60301" CreationDate="2014-11-01T13:45:47.117" UserId="4478" Text="**Фигачить** - упорно работать над чем-либо:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Фигачил с утра до позднего вечера. Всю ночь над лабой фигачил.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(На)Фигачить** - что либо готовить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Слыш, Маш, нафигачь каши!* (очень неформально)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(За)фигачить** - забросить что-либо очень далеко:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Ну ты даешь, Олег! Так далеко зафигачил наш мяч - аж на соседнюю улицу.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(От)фигачить** - избить кого-то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *&quot;Остальных предупреждаю - все будут схвачены и отфигачены&quot;, - сказал Абельцев на пленарном заседании Госдумы.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7506" RevisionGUID="8c9798cf-5727-47df-94c1-8b247c309b5c" CreationDate="2014-11-01T20:31:53.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/528645626091679744" />
  <row Id="17174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7521" RevisionGUID="0e4905ec-9c43-4ff3-842e-4860570a8559" CreationDate="2014-11-02T12:33:28.487" UserId="194" Text="Я бы сказал, что основное значение - &quot;бросать&quot;, &quot;бросать с высокой частотой&quot;, &quot;бить с высокой частотой&quot;, &quot;что-то делать, совершая поступательные движения с высокой частотой&quot;. Все остальные употребления мне кажутся не натуральными или производными. Например, &quot;нафигачить много страниц текста&quot; = &quot;набросать много страниц текста&quot;, писать так быстро, что страницы падают в стопку.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7397" RevisionGUID="8cba2be6-df15-4ccf-a940-fd179377a533" CreationDate="2014-11-02T14:40:40.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/528919625401004032" />
  <row Id="17176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="29e23936-442c-4a11-a74d-95cf56b2e113" CreationDate="2014-11-02T18:18:02.367" UserId="4448" Text="Слышал эту фразу в контексте произведения человеком ненужной суеты или глупых действий, вызванных нервозностью момента.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть еще связанное определение для человека, который &quot;колпачит&quot; - говорят, у него &quot;колпак до небес&quot; или (более сильная форма) &quot;вакуумный колпак&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="29e23936-442c-4a11-a74d-95cf56b2e113" CreationDate="2014-11-02T18:18:02.367" UserId="4448" Text="Что значит и какова этимология слова &quot;колпачить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7522" RevisionGUID="29e23936-442c-4a11-a74d-95cf56b2e113" CreationDate="2014-11-02T18:18:02.367" UserId="4448" Text="|значения|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="bae7d31a-b46a-44b3-8560-f6dc13c9788b" CreationDate="2014-11-03T02:46:24.787" UserId="2306" Text="&gt; В романе имеет место отсутствие ясно выраженной сюжетной линии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли в этом предложении лексическая ошибка? Возможно некорректно говорить что *отсутствие имеет место*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="bae7d31a-b46a-44b3-8560-f6dc13c9788b" CreationDate="2014-11-03T02:46:24.787" UserId="2306" Text="'отсутствие имеет место' -- лексическая ошибка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7524" RevisionGUID="bae7d31a-b46a-44b3-8560-f6dc13c9788b" CreationDate="2014-11-03T02:46:24.787" UserId="2306" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="93e8b6c0-c4a3-4af8-aabf-9da816f4c127" CreationDate="2014-11-03T04:05:25.657" UserId="194" Text="Рас..елина в леднике. - что надо использовать? Есть ли смысловая разница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="93e8b6c0-c4a3-4af8-aabf-9da816f4c127" CreationDate="2014-11-03T04:05:25.657" UserId="194" Text="Расселина и расщелина - в чем разница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7525" RevisionGUID="93e8b6c0-c4a3-4af8-aabf-9da816f4c127" CreationDate="2014-11-03T04:05:25.657" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7526" RevisionGUID="fb05d6d3-2153-41f6-a1cd-44a325781ac9" CreationDate="2014-11-03T06:38:35.303" UserId="1902" Text="Ошибки нет, «имеет место» — просто формальный оборот. В менее формальной речи всё это можно заменить на «нет ясно выраженной сюжетной линии», но структура формальной речи более жёсткая. Это позволяет быстрее классифицировать, например, здесь роман подпадает под «отсутствие ясно выраженной сюжетной линии». Такую формальную речь часто можно услышать от юристов, после «имеет место» у них часто следует конкретная выдержка из закона." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7527" RevisionGUID="63d4b316-5320-4f2f-8b41-7aa194cc7b17" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:19:56.010" UserId="2388" Text="Корректно, но слишком многословно. Мне кажется, сейчас это будет воспринято как тонкая пародия на чрезмерно формальный язык юристов и, в особенности, чиновников и государственных служащих. Также людей, которые пишут длинные и скучные статьи сложным языком. Явной пародией будет &quot;отсутствие присутствия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обычно в научном и публицистическом стиле речь формальная, но НЕ совпадает полностью с языком официальных документов. По своему опыту скажу, что она, как правило, более живая и носит отпечаток личности автора и его манеры речи. При этом формулировки стремятся к точности, а построение предложений — к прямому следованию за логикой автора (для чего и используются зачастую инверсия и пассивы). Поэтому &quot;имеет место отсутствие&quot;, наверное, не совсем из этого стиля." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7528" RevisionGUID="f06fec67-7b11-4d61-b615-298ec041c214" CreationDate="2014-11-03T12:37:36.607" UserId="551" Text="Что касается расселин/расщелин в горах, то большинство словарей говорят что это - слова-синонимы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время есть несколько словарных статей которые выделяют специальные значения слова &quot;расщелина&quot; именно в контексте льда и ледников:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Научно-технический энциклопедический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ntes/3985/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A9%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; РАСЩЕЛИНА, в геологии - глубокая трещина в ЛЕДНИКЕ. Такие расщелины возникают в результате внутренних напряжений в толще ледника либо при движении льда по неровному участку почвы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Морской словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/sea/7691/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A9%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Leads) — канал или проход среди льдов разного вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что Геологическая энциклопедия дает только определение слова [расселина](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_geolog/15519/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90) со ссылкой на слово &quot;трещина&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **РАССЕЛИНА** — открытая [трещина](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_geolog/18551) в скальных п., иногда расширенная денудацией или промытая водой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зато видов трещин эта энциклопедия приводит большое количество. Складывается впечатление что в этой энциклопедии именно **трещина** является базовым термином." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7528" RevisionGUID="abee9d2c-2ca2-431a-a290-54eb775d54b0" CreationDate="2014-11-03T12:42:49.573" UserId="551" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Что касается расселин/расщелин в горах, то большинство словарей говорят что это - слова-синонимы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время есть несколько словарных статей которые выделяют специальные значения слова &quot;расщелина&quot; именно в контексте льда и ледников:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Научно-технический энциклопедический словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ntes/3985/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A9%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **РАСЩЕЛИНА**, в геологии - глубокая трещина в ЛЕДНИКЕ. Такие расщелины возникают в результате внутренних напряжений в толще ледника либо при движении льда по неровному участку почвы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Морской словарь](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/sea/7691/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A9%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Расщелина** (Leads) — канал или проход среди льдов разного вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно что Геологическая энциклопедия дает только определение слова [расселина](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_geolog/15519/%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90) со ссылкой на слово &quot;трещина&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **РАССЕЛИНА** — открытая [трещина](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_geolog/18551) в скальных п., иногда расширенная денудацией или промытая водой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зато видов трещин эта энциклопедия приводит большое количество. Складывается впечатление что в этой энциклопедии именно **трещина** является базовым термином." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="ddca8dcf-b89c-4528-8a08-c13e822446fd" CreationDate="2014-11-03T17:42:16.130" UserId="4482" Text="Good evening!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small question in music domain: if, for example, you have been hearing a wonderfull concert from a russian master player, can you tell him &quot;молодец&quot; or is it too familiar? Or, in this context, is it okay? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me!  =s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Снегурочка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="ddca8dcf-b89c-4528-8a08-c13e822446fd" CreationDate="2014-11-03T17:42:16.130" UserId="4482" Text="Specific use of the world &quot;молодец&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="ddca8dcf-b89c-4528-8a08-c13e822446fd" CreationDate="2014-11-03T17:42:16.130" UserId="4482" Text="|словоупотребление|одним-словом|приветствия|connotation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7530" RevisionGUID="1473a597-792e-4004-a498-a848e7efe143" CreationDate="2014-11-03T17:53:27.503" UserId="4481" Text="&quot;Молодец&quot; will be okay almost in every situation, and here too. It is one of the most universal words. For musicians you can also use &quot;виртуоз&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7531" RevisionGUID="d7f56886-8cd3-47a1-9436-d2ede12edf41" CreationDate="2014-11-03T19:37:20.877" UserId="2388" Text="I'd say it is not the best choice. &quot;Молодец&quot; has a slightly patronizing tone: it is OK to use it to your children and friends, maybe colleagues and subordinates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, if an adult person is not your friend/colleague and/or especially if you are in no position to judge their work (if you hear a concert from a virtuoso, chance is the guy is a much better critic of their own work)... then &quot;Вы молодец&quot; may express your affection but even with polite &quot;Вы&quot; it will still sound slightly out of place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="630fbb74-6320-470b-a3a2-c8ba752a275e" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:26:58.197" UserId="4484" Text="Today I got a whisky bottle from my colleagues at work. Someone wrote something in Russian on it but unfortunately I do not speak Russian. Can anyone tell me what is written on the bottle? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend said that it begins with &quot;Thank you from&quot; but he could not read more. Google Translate is also helpless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an image of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3wZUh.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="630fbb74-6320-470b-a3a2-c8ba752a275e" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:26:58.197" UserId="4484" Text="What's written on my whisky bottle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="630fbb74-6320-470b-a3a2-c8ba752a275e" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:26:58.197" UserId="4484" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7533" RevisionGUID="cb7db3c6-6bc2-4ef9-aeec-759f4ae3c81e" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:43:24.777" UserId="3680" Text="Russian text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Спасибо от команды тестирования&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Thank you from the testing team" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="9eebabc8-3f8a-4e58-9272-0342cbf0b51e" CreationDate="2014-11-03T22:00:32.423" UserId="4484" Comment="deleted 387 characters in body" Text="Today I got a whisky bottle from my colleagues at work. Someone wrote something in Russian on it and I want to find out what. So my guess is that it means &quot;Thank you from QA team&quot;. Can someone check this, by adding a translation of this sentence in Russian here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="d3f7abc7-fdd4-44a4-b48e-6aca5efc3365" CreationDate="2014-11-03T22:05:55.120" UserId="4484" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Today I got a whisky bottle from my colleagues at work. Someone wrote something in Russian on it and I want to find out what. So my guess is that it means &quot;Thank you from QA (Quality Assurance) team&quot;. Can someone check this, by adding a translation of this sentence in Russian here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17204" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="f633b2bf-b711-490c-aaac-4024c7df3d45" CreationDate="2014-11-04T14:07:31.293" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7389],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="7d7de61d-af5f-46c9-93f3-765e26198b39" CreationDate="2014-11-04T15:27:33.197" UserId="4484" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Today I got a whisky bottle from my colleagues at work. Someone wrote something in Russian on it but unfortunately I do not speak Russian. Can anyone tell me what is written on the bottle? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend said that it begins with &quot;Thank you from&quot; but he could not read more. Google Translate is also helpless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an image of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3wZUh.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17206" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7532" RevisionGUID="279cff9f-697c-46aa-9240-527fe40ab7b1" CreationDate="2014-11-04T23:41:36.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/529780533161508864" />
  <row Id="17207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7534" RevisionGUID="81ba9572-aaa4-48b0-9111-45c5397ff6f3" CreationDate="2014-11-05T11:34:19.397" UserId="4153" Text="Действительно, как земетил @Artemix, значения слова `колпачить` - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обманывать, дурачить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Источник][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PUA6Y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6RFjX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7535" RevisionGUID="d7a29b54-4e33-4bbe-86db-b23f6ea65a20" CreationDate="2014-11-05T11:56:39.757" UserId="4432" Text="In a Russian book about Uzbek cooking I read the following phrase in a recipe for lagman:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... молотый красный жгучий перец ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the help of the Oxford Russian Dictionary I translated this as&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ground red hot pepper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this then the same as what in Indian cooking, say, is called &quot;red chili&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7535" RevisionGUID="d7a29b54-4e33-4bbe-86db-b23f6ea65a20" CreationDate="2014-11-05T11:56:39.757" UserId="4432" Text="Which kind of pepper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7535" RevisionGUID="d7a29b54-4e33-4bbe-86db-b23f6ea65a20" CreationDate="2014-11-05T11:56:39.757" UserId="4432" Text="|лексикон|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7536" RevisionGUID="ea611ada-08e5-41c4-923b-920c7b2749b6" CreationDate="2014-11-05T13:22:03.447" UserId="3848" Text="Yes in most cases. In this case &quot;красный жгучий перец&quot; can be used as a description of the pepper properties and doesn't necessarily name the pepper by name (eg. habanero, jalapeno, Mexican red chili ) since there are many kinds of red hot peppers in existence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you saw an Indian dish recipe and it's calling for 'red chili' specifically, then you'd need to know that the Indian red chili is different than the Mexican red chili, and thus the context will tell you it's different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="a2c8ea6f-acac-4e1f-a67d-cbeca3eb4f5b" CreationDate="2014-11-05T23:04:14.740" UserId="4494" Text="I've seen phrases like *Как его зовут?* in several places, but when I look up зовут, it appears to be the third person plural. Why is it being used for the singular, here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="a2c8ea6f-acac-4e1f-a67d-cbeca3eb4f5b" CreationDate="2014-11-05T23:04:14.740" UserId="4494" Text="Why do I keep seeing зову́т for third person singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="a2c8ea6f-acac-4e1f-a67d-cbeca3eb4f5b" CreationDate="2014-11-05T23:04:14.740" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7538" RevisionGUID="bdf46c5d-cfe2-43e9-9dc5-10d059f3eb2f" CreationDate="2014-11-05T23:13:49.380" UserId="1236" Text="`Зовут` is really the third person plural, &quot;[they] call&quot;, it is an impersonal verb and has no explicit subject in the sentences about names, so `Как его зовут?` can be translated word for word as &quot;How him [they] call?&quot; that is &quot;How do they call him?&quot; And the answer is &quot;Меня зовут Алексей.&quot; - &quot;Me [they] call Alexey.&quot; - &quot;They call me Alexey.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;That is how these phrases about names are built in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7539" RevisionGUID="1f5fbe9c-9749-4312-9ff7-4c84204ed4e7" CreationDate="2014-11-05T23:14:05.740" UserId="2273" Text="This is because `зовут` does not belong to `его`. In all these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как его зовут?&#xD;&#xA;    Как её зовут?&#xD;&#xA;    Как их зовут?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the verb `зовут` belongs to a missing third-party noun `people`, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как люди его зовут?&#xD;&#xA;    Как они её зовут?&#xD;&#xA;    Как люди их зовут?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare e.g. this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как мы его зовём?&#xD;&#xA;    Как я её зову?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7538" RevisionGUID="6f8f03df-0607-4f45-b80b-cec8800b34bd" CreationDate="2014-11-06T00:51:44.053" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Зовут` is really the third person plural, &quot;[they] call&quot;, it is an impersonal verb and has no explicit subject in the sentences about names, so `Как его зовут?` can be translated word for word as &quot;How him [they] call?&quot; that is &quot;How do they call him?&quot; And the answer is &quot;Его зовут Алексей.&quot; - &quot;Him [they] call Alexey.&quot; - &quot;They call him Alexey.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;That is how these phrases about names are built in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="d5913432-64f0-43b9-ad10-fd14c04c593d" CreationDate="2014-11-06T10:37:51.887" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;Его зовут X&quot; is similar to &quot;They call him X&quot;. That's why it is always 3rd person plural for everyone. And that's why it you use Accusative case for the one whose name you tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian this structure is one of the very popular ways to make a pseudo-passive. If an action is performed by assumed &quot;unstated persons&quot; — then you can express &quot;it is done&quot; by saying that &quot;(*they*) do it&quot; while omitting &quot;they&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На углу строят здание* = A building is being built on the conner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Так не говорят.* ~ People don't talk like that (= &quot;sounds unnatural/bad&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я думаю, нам помогут* = I think we'll receive help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say that &quot;Меня зовут Джон&quot; is a construction that crystallized this way and a native hardly even notices &quot;passive&quot; here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17219" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7537" RevisionGUID="e7e8016c-6caf-4531-b01e-beee5c12b4eb" CreationDate="2014-11-06T17:41:43.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/530414739361255424" />
  <row Id="17221" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7535" RevisionGUID="c7f18eef-8386-4381-be72-9484e0f1e0ad" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:41:42.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/530460037534478336" />
  <row Id="17222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7540" RevisionGUID="f69b88cf-26da-4389-bc81-6f8e9cdbff3c" CreationDate="2014-11-07T13:31:02.713" UserId="2388" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Его зовут X&quot; is similar to &quot;They call him X&quot;. That's why it is always 3rd person plural for everyone. And that's why it you use Accusative case for the one whose name you tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian this structure is one of the very popular ways to make a pseudo-passive. If an action is performed by assumed &quot;unstated persons&quot; — then you can express &quot;it is done&quot; by saying that &quot;(*they*) do it&quot; while omitting &quot;they&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На углу строят здание* = A building is being built on the corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Так не говорят.* ~ People don't talk like that (= &quot;sounds unnatural/bad&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я думаю, нам помогут* = I think we'll receive help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say that &quot;Меня зовут Джон&quot; is a construction that crystallized this way and a native hardly even notices &quot;passive&quot; here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="a1ac1f8c-40eb-44ae-8a85-34b6094cbed2" CreationDate="2014-11-08T20:38:09.797" UserId="4517" Text="Is there another way without using the word &quot;гомосексуальный&quot;? Ideally, I would like to say the following...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Are you also interested in men?&quot; &lt;-- Implying that I'm a man and am curious about this guy's sexual orientation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="a1ac1f8c-40eb-44ae-8a85-34b6094cbed2" CreationDate="2014-11-08T20:38:09.797" UserId="4517" Text="How do you ask a guy if he is gay without being offensive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="a1ac1f8c-40eb-44ae-8a85-34b6094cbed2" CreationDate="2014-11-08T20:38:09.797" UserId="4517" Text="|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7543" RevisionGUID="1974dede-5ee1-4c3a-8e55-17aaac9fa3ee" CreationDate="2014-11-08T21:02:20.053" UserId="3680" Text="In my opinion, the most simple and respectful question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы гей?&#xD;&#xA;To make a question more implicit, you could ask using the literal translation of your latter question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы тоже интересуетесь мужчинами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="e7836327-c7d1-4e1c-b3ba-63b529033209" CreationDate="2014-11-08T21:08:27.897" UserId="3680" Comment="Retag" Text="|перевод|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7544" RevisionGUID="691e7b0b-2c15-43df-890d-2ab6e03a1fe9" CreationDate="2014-11-08T21:14:52.083" UserId="4481" Text="The most neutral words are `гей` и `гомосексуалист`. But, I think, you need to know, unfortunately, there is a strong anti-gay campaign in contemporary Russia. So, will your question be taken as insulting or not, strongly depends on opinion of your interlocutor. People who don't like gays will feel insulting by fact of such question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="9167fefd-687d-45bd-870d-d9cc7c2530bc" CreationDate="2014-11-08T22:33:17.127" UserId="4518" Text="I am a Russian, living in Russia. I can tell you two things, first-hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There isn't a &quot;strong anti-gay campaign&quot; in contemporary Russia. The law that you seem to think is anti-gay forbids propaganda of homosexualism and lesbianity. I had a gay university professor; he is now a Chair of the English Language, and nobody minds he is gay, as long as he doesn't advertize that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I should say that open propaganda of any physical sexual relations, be that gay, lesbian, or straign, is not encouraged in Russia. Why this special law about homosexuals is, probably, that they have been forwarding their case somewhat aggressively lately. But when you are alone with your partner, it's your own business, whether you are two men, two women, a straight pair, or a crowd of swingers, as long as all of you are of age, and you don't make too much noise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. However, not in the contemporary Russia, but as long as I remember (I was born in 1967, in the Soviet Union), homosixuality has been considered more or less disgusting here. Nowadays, contrary to what is being said, we are more tolerant to gays. However, a straigt Russian man will strongly dislike it if you suppose he is gay. How he will react, now, is a question of his background: some, like myself, will politely say that you are mistaken; a redneck type may hit you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, you'd better ask a Russian man if he is gay either if you are pretty sure that he is (by his manner of speaking, clothes, etc.) or if he appears to be well-bred: he will not like the idea, but he will not make a fuss. In either case, euphemisms like &quot;are you interested in men&quot; will be more appropriate than a straightforward question &quot;are you gay/a homosexualist&quot;. In Russian, it will be ***«Простите, вы, случайно, не интересуетесь мужчинами?»***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7546" RevisionGUID="3b7b1af2-baa3-4c5a-9b49-2cde5f585b01" CreationDate="2014-11-08T23:02:45.773" UserId="4518" Text="«Красный перец» (*lit.* red pepper) is the name for a not so hot red pepper common in Russia. However, if a pepper is unusually hot, we say «жгучий» (hot), but that only states higher capsaicin content and is not the name of the species of the pepper family. Sometimes the word «чили» (chili) is used for the same meaning, but that is not necessaryly the actual chili; just stating that is is a hotter type. Actually, it is an incorrect but common use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the straightforward answer to your question will be, sometimes it is, and often it isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7547" RevisionGUID="dc08aa8c-fb8f-401c-b497-dca7a39b1a89" CreationDate="2014-11-08T23:51:38.473" UserId="4518" Text="If the object after the verb *учить* is something to be learned/studied/memorized, then the verb means *to study/learn/memorize.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the object of the verb is a more or less intelligent being (group of such beings) who is (are) to learn from you, then it's *to teach/train/instruct*: *учить детей решать задачи* to teach children how to solve problems, *учить собаку прыгать через барьер* to train the dog to jump the barrier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb may have a figurative meaning: «учить робота разговаривать» (*lit.* to teach the robot how to talk; actually, program it's voice software), or «учить самолеты летать» (a line from a once famous song about test pilots, to train airplanes in flying). However, in these cases, we &quot;pretend&quot; that robots and planes are intelligent beings that can be taught." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7548" RevisionGUID="e4e32061-2dca-4146-8f14-bb7fb40d4700" CreationDate="2014-11-09T01:11:12.467" UserId="4494" Text="In the phrase &quot;У меня (есть)&quot;, *I* am the one doing the having, so surely *I* should be in the nominative, but instead we use &quot;меня&quot;, which is accusative (or something else?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the literal meaning of &quot;У меня есть кот&quot; is something more like &quot;There is a cat with me&quot;. Is this accurate? If so, what exactly does the preposition *У* mean here, and why is *есть* not conjugated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7548" RevisionGUID="e4e32061-2dca-4146-8f14-bb7fb40d4700" CreationDate="2014-11-09T01:11:12.467" UserId="4494" Text="Why do we say &quot;У меня (есть)&quot; and not &quot;У я есть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7548" RevisionGUID="e4e32061-2dca-4146-8f14-bb7fb40d4700" CreationDate="2014-11-09T01:11:12.467" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="e74cc6f5-5799-4db2-97eb-25d7006f4846" CreationDate="2014-11-09T04:26:18.100" UserId="62" Text="The literal meaning is &quot;*By* me there is a cat&quot;.  The preposition У indicates something nearby, e.g., у окна  = by the window. Every preposition requires the accompanying noun to have a definite case (if more than one case is possible, it's because the preposition could change its meaning with a change in case -- this can be safely ignored at the start), and it just happens that nouns connected to У must be in the genitive case.  Don't try to reason that out. It is just the law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to change the form of есть since it means &quot;there is&quot; and that's exactly what you're saying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="f83346f1-9813-4c58-b18b-f9a5ecfd2f62" CreationDate="2014-11-09T04:36:20.990" UserId="62" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="The literal meaning is &quot;*By* me there is a cat&quot;.  The preposition у indicates something nearby, e.g., у окна  = by the window. Every preposition requires the accompanying noun to have a definite case, and it just happens that nouns following у must be in the genitive case.  Don't try to reason out &quot;why&quot; you need the genitive after у. As von Neumann would say, don't try to understand it; just get used to it. So we use меня and окна after у since they are the genitive form of я and окно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to change the form of есть in this construction since it means &quot;there is&quot; and that's exactly what you're saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction у + genitive есть may seem like a complicated way to express possession if you compare it to English, but you shouldn't expect different languages to convey the same idea in the same way. There are other means of conveying possession in Russian with a grammatical construction that is closer to the English form (e.g., я имею право... = I have the/a right...), but the у + gen. construction is the standard idiomatic  method in ordinary circumstances. The usage of я имею is rare in everyday speech. See the question at http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/881/the-usage-of-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="20d75c33-7a38-4c35-b045-eb3425a6d59c" CreationDate="2014-11-09T18:26:24.000" UserId="104" Text="В новостях прочитал фразу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 2003 году он закончил МГИМО.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопросы: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Предложение корректно?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Можно ли в нем заменить закончил на окончил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Есть ли смысловые нюансы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="20d75c33-7a38-4c35-b045-eb3425a6d59c" CreationDate="2014-11-09T18:26:24.000" UserId="104" Text="Оканчивать университет или заканчивать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="20d75c33-7a38-4c35-b045-eb3425a6d59c" CreationDate="2014-11-09T18:26:24.000" UserId="104" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7552" RevisionGUID="38dcea6f-c7bf-4de8-b147-d9dff6190441" CreationDate="2014-11-09T19:45:15.183" UserId="1736" Text="&quot;закончил&quot; is more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is rather correct – at least the word &quot;закончил&quot; is often used like this, so it wouldn't sound any &quot;wrong&quot; for 99 percent of native speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;окончил&quot; is an even more appropriate verb here as it is mostly used referring to study and would probably sound weird, yet immediately understandable, if used elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;окончил школу&quot; – perfect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;закончил школу&quot; – still OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;закончил дела&quot; – OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;окончил дела&quot; – weird" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="a199acb6-a639-4471-a6e5-d9641d8f2fe0" CreationDate="2014-11-09T23:38:55.393" UserId="194" Text="No way. No way without risking being hit badly with life-treatening injuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penza man killed a dude because he suggested sex][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Male prostitute killed client for suggestion of sex in passive role][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Archangelsk man killed a homosexualist for sex proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dagestani guys killed a man in Moscow region for sex proposal with extreme sadism][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A gay foreigner killed in Crimea for being suspected of being gay][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In Udmurtia electrician killed a client for sex proposal][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc etc, this is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vpenze.ru/news/view/75441&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://fedpost.ru/sobytiya/12978-malchik-po-vyzovu-ubil-moskovskogo-gomoseksualista-za.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.severinform.ru/?page=newsfull&amp;date=22-02-2013&amp;newsid=180066&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2010/02/04/709876.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.rosbalt.ru/federal/2014/06/25/1284234.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mk.ru/incident/crime/news/2014/01/21/973090-elektrik-ubil-molotkom-klientageya-kotoryiy-nachal-k-nemu-pristavat.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7554" RevisionGUID="f4983911-7b34-404f-8f95-f522fbdbd1be" CreationDate="2014-11-09T23:48:03.770" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="No way. No way without risking being hit badly with life-threatening injuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Penza man killed a dude in Moscow because he suggested sex][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Male prostitute killed client for suggestion of sex in passive role][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Archangelsk man killed a homosexualist for sex proposal][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dagestani guys killed a man in Moscow region for sex proposal with extreme sadism][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A gay foreigner killed in Crimea for being suspected of being gay][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In Udmurtia electrician killed a client for sex proposal][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc etc, this is common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vpenze.ru/news/view/75441&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://fedpost.ru/sobytiya/12978-malchik-po-vyzovu-ubil-moskovskogo-gomoseksualista-za.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.severinform.ru/?page=newsfull&amp;date=22-02-2013&amp;newsid=180066&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2010/02/04/709876.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.rosbalt.ru/federal/2014/06/25/1284234.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.mk.ru/incident/crime/news/2014/01/21/973090-elektrik-ubil-molotkom-klientageya-kotoryiy-nachal-k-nemu-pristavat.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="c792b486-c8b3-45d2-9a69-0ea7df0bf581" CreationDate="2014-11-10T06:02:41.780" UserId="4270" Text="Льзя ли применять слова без отрицательной приставки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="c792b486-c8b3-45d2-9a69-0ea7df0bf581" CreationDate="2014-11-10T06:02:41.780" UserId="4270" Text="Повадно ли такое словотворчество?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="c792b486-c8b3-45d2-9a69-0ea7df0bf581" CreationDate="2014-11-10T06:02:41.780" UserId="4270" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7556" RevisionGUID="3747a4e1-2374-44eb-8580-956ecd93b5a0" CreationDate="2014-11-10T07:27:32.230" UserId="1236" Text="Льзя, если таковые существуют без отрицательной приставки.&#xD;&#xA;`Повадно` существует как отдельное слово:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А нам, мечтателям, и вовсе повадно играть в эту игру. [\[Юрий Архипов. Назову себя шахматистом… (2004) // «64 — Шахматное обозрение», 2004.05.15\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Льзя` тоже существует, хотя многие о его существовании не подозревают.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потом переписал очень хорошие стишки:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Душеньки часок не видя,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Думал, год уж не видал;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Жизнь мою возненавидя,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Льзя ли жить мне, я сказал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[\[Н. В. Гоголь. Записки сумасшедшего (1835)\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существует и [`впопад`][3]. Однако надо не забывать, что такие слова при их употреблении вызывают у читателей и слушателей некоторое недоумение и поэтому являются стилистически маркированными, их употребление в стилистически нейтральном тексте не оправдано, поскольку они привносят в текст элемент поэтики и словотворчества. Ну и без &quot;не&quot; не употребляются, например, &quot;забудка&quot;, &quot;нависть&quot;, &quot;ожиданность&quot;, &quot;настье&quot;, &quot;истовство&quot;, &quot;дотёпа&quot;, &quot;дотрога&quot; и многие другие слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CF%EE%E2%E0%E4%ED%EE&amp;docid=8213&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EB%FC%E7%FF&amp;docid=85754&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E2%EF%EE%EF%E0%E4&amp;docid=46151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17255" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="eaefdcc1-d315-4e5b-887a-78b3fa7da0fd" CreationDate="2014-11-10T08:59:17.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/531732819475578880" />
  <row Id="17256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="37ebd7fc-2598-420f-b4c1-9192386ba198" CreationDate="2014-11-10T09:28:47.693" UserId="2079" Text="Как называется мужчина, чья профессия - печатать на машинке?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="37ebd7fc-2598-420f-b4c1-9192386ba198" CreationDate="2014-11-10T09:28:47.693" UserId="2079" Text="самец машинистки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="37ebd7fc-2598-420f-b4c1-9192386ba198" CreationDate="2014-11-10T09:28:47.693" UserId="2079" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7558" RevisionGUID="1ac7cd6d-7ec0-4a21-b31e-7710ed9a6278" CreationDate="2014-11-10T10:19:39.247" UserId="97" Text="Это может показаться странным, но слово, которое Вы ищите - это **машинист**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласно [Толковому Словарю Ожегова](http://www.ozhegov.com/words/15457.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; МАШИНИСТ, -а, м. 1. Механик, управляющий транспортной или другой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; самодвижущейся машиной, механическим устройством. М. горного комбайна.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; М. сцены (в театре). 2. Специалист по вождению поездов. М локомотива.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Специалист, печатающий на машинке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае, Вас интересует значение (3)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7559" RevisionGUID="f95d5970-20fa-42f3-831f-e4fc92d83a1c" CreationDate="2014-11-10T10:20:24.867" UserId="551" Text="Речь (письменная и устная), как процесс письма или говорения обычно не является самоцелью. Обычно люди хотят донести свои мысли до собеседника. Поэтому правило в словотворчестве по большому счету одно: нужно говорить и писать так, чтобы понял собеседник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Письменная и устная речь по-разному справляются с отклонениями от стандарта. Люди обладающие хорошим навыком чтения читают слова (а то и целые предложения) с одного взгляда, не прочитывая все буквы слова. Если же слово необычное - скорость чтения снижается. Пишут что нормальный темп чтения сохраняется если количество ошибок в тексте не больше определенного уровня (если я не ошибаюсь, ошибки в 10% слов). Т.е. если рассматривать слова без отрицательной приставки как ошибки - если их будет не слишком много, текст будет восприниматься без труда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Устная речь (особенно импровизированная) порождает &quot;неправильные конструкции&quot; постоянно, так как говорящий в короткое время должен решить множество задач чтобы получившаяся фраза была правильной. Обычно фраза рождается в процессе говорения и иногда получается так, что договорив до конца фразы, говорящий обнаруживает что в &quot;стандартном&quot; языке не удается подобрать слово в нужном времени, нужного рода и т.п., так как его или не существует или его никак не удается вспомнить. В этом случае появившееся вдруг слово &quot;впопад&quot; или &quot;дотрога&quot; будет нормально воспринято собеседником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть и в устной, и в письменной речи допускается определенное количество &quot;неправильных&quot; слов. Если же таких слов станет слишком много, может произойти &quot;коммуникативная неудача&quot; - вас просто не поймут." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7557" RevisionGUID="8425262e-5b72-4ed4-9fd2-0ec645c7a742" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:11:34.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/532324789558329344" />
  <row Id="17266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="abe5245a-9439-4ceb-95e7-1b36cdb30720" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:35:48.807" UserId="4494" Text="In the sentence Ножк у сту́ла сломался (the chair leg broke), why do we need the у? The genitive case on стул already lets you know that it's the *chair's* leg that's broken. More generally, when and why is у used to indicate posession in Russian rather than simply using the genitive case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm aware that сту́ла is already in the genitive, I'm asking why у is there as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="abe5245a-9439-4ceb-95e7-1b36cdb30720" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:35:48.807" UserId="4494" Text="Why do we need У in &quot;Ножк у сту́ла сломался&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="abe5245a-9439-4ceb-95e7-1b36cdb30720" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:35:48.807" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="1ef69e82-a04e-4598-8684-9ec1cd713cb9" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:44:11.557" UserId="1236" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the sentence &quot;Ножка у сту́ла сломалась&quot; (the chair leg broke), why do we need the у? The genitive case on &quot;стул&quot; already lets you know that it's the *chair's* leg that's broken. More generally, when and why is у used to indicate posession in Russian rather than simply using the genitive case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I'm aware that &quot;сту́ла&quot; is already in the genitive, I'm asking why у is there as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17270" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="1ef69e82-a04e-4598-8684-9ec1cd713cb9" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:44:11.557" UserId="1236" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why do we need У in &quot;Ножка у сту́ла сломалась&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="8c3176fa-101b-4815-898f-70f743dc0bf9" CreationDate="2014-11-12T01:18:50.197" UserId="194" Text="I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to imply that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A lag of a/the chair has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="3b4f3e8c-faf8-4c6d-90ca-b5a7d5b470d2" CreationDate="2014-11-12T01:26:04.787" UserId="194" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7563" RevisionGUID="07b43f6b-8ee3-4422-b0df-90b07722f50d" CreationDate="2014-11-12T03:35:00.867" UserId="4527" Text="You should use words &quot;Играть снова&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7564" RevisionGUID="b31f0171-0f71-4d61-bfdd-db937c01d28c" CreationDate="2014-11-12T14:42:49.160" UserId="4481" Text="I cannot give exact reference to rule, but in this case there is no difference, both are correct. Here `у` means that chair has a leg. Probably, without `у`  will be a bit more correct, I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;Russian is my native language, but I really never thought about this problem before. You can use both variants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="bd589549-59da-43cf-b485-06067230020d" CreationDate="2014-11-12T14:49:33.220" UserId="2388" Text="First, try to recall how Russian typically expresses possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У нас есть свой дом* = We have got a house of our own.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей бабушки есть машина, а у папы — нет*. = My grandmother has a car and my dad doesn't. &#xD;&#xA; - *У тебя вопросы?* = Have you got questions?&#xD;&#xA; - *У Саши насморк.* = Sasha's got a cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same **у** + ***Genitive*** can introduce a sentence about something related to a person or to an object (always without &quot;есть&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У меня не работает мышка.* = My mouse isn't working.&#xD;&#xA; - *У дома были заколочены окна.* = The house's windows were boarded up.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей жены брат — хирург.* = My wive's brother is a surgeon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret it as &quot;The mouse I have isn't working&quot;, but essentially it is understood as if you just used a possessive construction (&quot;моя мышка&quot;, &quot;окна дома&quot;, &quot;брат моей жены&quot;). To my ear, it is a tiny bit less formal, but still quite neutral in style — I am sure I would not use in a legal document and probably in a scientific article but would not hesitate if I need it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Russian has a flexible word order, you can emphasize different words using both word order an intonation. So several options are valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***У стула сломалась ножка.*** (the most neutral/boring/mater-of-fact-ly)&#xD;&#xA; - *Ножка у стула сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA; - *У стула ножка сломалась.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="9949d152-5b26-4bdb-a15c-c6e059965a5f" CreationDate="2014-11-12T14:54:29.140" UserId="194" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference exists if the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state). In this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="b843383e-6cc8-4256-bf4b-5f09787fc137" CreationDate="2014-11-12T14:57:46.907" UserId="2388" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="First, try to recall how Russian typically expresses possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У нас есть свой дом* = We have got a house of our own.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей бабушки есть машина, а у папы — нет*. = My grandmother has a car and my dad doesn't. &#xD;&#xA; - *У тебя вопросы?* = Have you got questions?&#xD;&#xA; - *У Саши насморк.* = Sasha's got a cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same **у** + ***Genitive*** can introduce a sentence about something related to a person or to an object (always without &quot;есть&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У меня не работает мышка.* = My mouse isn't working.&#xD;&#xA; - *У дома были заколочены окна.* = The house's windows were boarded up.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей жены брат — хирург.* = My wive's brother is a surgeon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret it as &quot;The mouse I have isn't working&quot;, but essentially it is understood as if you just used a possessive construction (&quot;моя мышка&quot;, &quot;окна дома&quot;, &quot;брат моей жены&quot;). To my ear, it is a tiny bit less formal, but still quite neutral in style — I am sure I would not use in a legal document and probably in a scientific article but would not hesitate if I need it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Russian has a flexible word order, you can emphasize different words using both word order an intonation. So several options are valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***У стула сломалась ножка.*** (the most neutral/boring/mater-of-fact-ly)&#xD;&#xA; - *Ножка у стула сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA; - *У стула ножка сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This device has its niche because it may be useful from a narrative point of view. Rather than stating facts about something belonging to something, you inform your listener that the sentence is about *what happened to the object in question, what is interesting about that object, what the situation is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;У меня мама заболела&quot; is a bit more personal (it means &quot;My mother is ill&quot;), since it focuses on &quot;your situation&quot; (&quot;As for me, my mother is ill&quot;). &quot;Моя мама заболела&quot; is just the most straightforward way: anyone could replace &quot;my mother&quot; in teh sentence, and it would keep the same overall tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="2d320579-159a-406f-ba30-3555063f35d8" CreationDate="2014-11-12T14:59:44.863" UserId="194" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference exists if the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state). In this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you a re speaking about legs belinging to two or more chairs, you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot;, while if you are speaking about one chair you say &quot;ножка у стула&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка стула синяя, а другая красная (legs of different chairs or the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка у стула синяя, а другая красная (legs of the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, у одного стула ножка синяя, а у другого красная (legs of different chairs)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="dda4f427-8a29-470a-911c-4dafd9e48608" CreationDate="2014-11-12T15:03:42.950" UserId="2388" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="First, try to recall how Russian typically expresses possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У нас есть свой дом* = We have got a house of our own.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей бабушки есть машина, а у папы — нет*. = My grandmother has a car and my dad doesn't. &#xD;&#xA; - *У тебя вопросы?* = Have you got questions?&#xD;&#xA; - *У Саши насморк.* = Sasha's got a cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same **у** + ***Genitive*** can introduce a sentence about something related to a person or to an object (always without &quot;есть&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У меня не работает мышка.* = My mouse isn't working.&#xD;&#xA; - *У дома были заколочены окна.* = The house's windows were boarded up.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей жены брат — хирург.* = My wive's brother is a surgeon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret it as &quot;The mouse I have isn't working&quot;, but essentially it is understood as if you just used a possessive construction (&quot;моя мышка&quot;, &quot;окна дома&quot;, &quot;брат моей жены&quot;). To my ear, it is a tiny bit less formal, but still quite neutral in style — I am sure I would not use in a legal document and probably in a scientific article but would not hesitate if I need it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Russian has a flexible word order, you can emphasize different words using both word order an intonation. So several options are valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***У стула сломалась ножка.*** (the most neutral/boring/mater-of-fact-ly)&#xD;&#xA; - *Ножка у стула сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA; - *У стула ножка сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This device has its niche because it may be useful from a narrative point of view. Rather than stating facts about something belonging to something, you inform your listener that the sentence is about *what happened to the object in question, what is interesting about that object, what the situation is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;У меня мама заболела&quot; is a bit more personal (it means &quot;My mother is ill&quot;), since it focuses on &quot;your situation&quot; (&quot;As for me, my mother is ill&quot;). &quot;Моя мама заболела&quot; is just the most straightforward way: anyone could replace &quot;my mother&quot; in teh sentence, and it would keep the same overall tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. Say, someone's dear pet died, and their friend noticed they are sad. Then &quot;У меня собака умерла&quot; is a far more natural thing to say than &quot;Моя собака умерла&quot;: after all, you are conmmenting on *your* situation, not on what your dog did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="04089e5d-9a2d-42c7-ad1f-e8a4a11571ee" CreationDate="2014-11-12T15:11:17.590" UserId="194" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference exists if the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state). In this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you a re speaking about legs belinging to two or more chairs, you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot;, while if you are speaking about one chair you say &quot;ножка у стула&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка стула синяя, а другая красная (legs of different chairs or the same chair or detached from chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка у стула синяя, а другая красная (legs of the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, у одного стула ножка синяя, а у другого красная (legs of different chairs)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17282" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7560" RevisionGUID="d104f3b1-81ca-4200-a77c-d4bc2d6eefe0" CreationDate="2014-11-12T15:13:14.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/532551702239383552" />
  <row Id="17283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="71c67b3e-0006-4290-936e-e6526be1badb" CreationDate="2014-11-12T15:25:09.410" UserId="2388" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="First, try to recall how Russian typically expresses possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У нас есть свой дом* = We have got a house of our own.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей бабушки есть машина, а у папы — нет*. = My grandmother has a car and my dad doesn't. &#xD;&#xA; - *У тебя вопросы?* = Have you got questions?&#xD;&#xA; - *У Саши насморк.* = Sasha's got a cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same **у** + ***Genitive*** can introduce a sentence about something related to or possessed by a person or an object (always without &quot;есть&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У меня не работает мышка.* = My mouse isn't working.&#xD;&#xA; - *У дома были заколочены окна.* = The house's windows were boarded up.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей жены брат — хирург.* = My wive's brother is a surgeon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret it as &quot;The mouse I have isn't working&quot;, but essentially it is understood as if you just used a possessive construction (&quot;моя мышка&quot;, &quot;окна дома&quot;, &quot;брат моей жены&quot;). To my ear, it is a tiny bit less formal, but still quite neutral in style — I am sure I would not use in a legal document and probably in a scientific article but would not hesitate if I need it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Russian has a flexible word order, you can emphasize different words using both word order an intonation. So several options are valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***У стула сломалась ножка.*** (the most neutral/boring/mater-of-fact-ly)&#xD;&#xA; - *Ножка у стула сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA; - *У стула ножка сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This device has its niche because it may be useful from a narrative point of view. Rather than stating facts about something belonging to something, you inform your listener that the sentence is about *what happened to the object in question, what is interesting about that object, what the situation is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;У меня мама заболела&quot; is a bit more personal (it means &quot;My mother is ill&quot;), since it focuses on &quot;your situation&quot; (&quot;As for me, my mother is ill&quot;). &quot;Моя мама заболела&quot; is just the most straightforward way: anyone could replace &quot;my mother&quot; in teh sentence, and it would keep the same overall tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. Say, someone's dear pet died, and their friend noticed they are sad. Then &quot;У меня собака умерла&quot; is a far more natural thing to say than &quot;Моя собака умерла&quot;: after all, you are conmmenting on *your* situation, not on what your dog did." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7566" RevisionGUID="6919c8a7-f73b-433c-a140-08549159234a" CreationDate="2014-11-12T15:32:23.920" UserId="1688" Text="To me the variant &quot;Ножка у сту́ла сломалась&quot; sounds more informal than &quot;Ножка сту́ла сломалась&quot;. It almost gives animate qualities to the стул. Compare, for example, &quot;Нога у меня болит&quot; (and other sad examples with mice and dogs given by others on this page).  You would not be able to say &quot;Нога меня болит&quot; though. The preposition &quot;У&quot;, in the sense of possession, seems to imply an animate subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7568" RevisionGUID="b6eb7658-a74c-4214-8eff-be839a5c5764" CreationDate="2014-11-12T23:35:13.673" UserId="4531" Text="Доброго времени суток.&#xD;&#xA;Моё мнение по поводу выражения &quot;Точить лыжи&quot;, это означало сделать(вырезать) лыжи." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17290" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7551" RevisionGUID="1a44b18e-1844-4efe-986d-aa1246c84aab" CreationDate="2014-11-13T06:13:18.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/532778212372135936" />
  <row Id="17291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="aacac644-ee51-46bb-abc7-005c0d2dfa34" CreationDate="2014-11-13T20:10:13.497" UserId="1349" Text="Google translate doesn't do a good job of explaining it. Could someone please give common context in which it is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="aacac644-ee51-46bb-abc7-005c0d2dfa34" CreationDate="2014-11-13T20:10:13.497" UserId="1349" Text="What does &lt;&lt;Наяву&gt;&gt; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="aacac644-ee51-46bb-abc7-005c0d2dfa34" CreationDate="2014-11-13T20:10:13.497" UserId="1349" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="3deb8448-53a1-424c-9144-8675d0dadd3f" CreationDate="2014-11-13T20:18:11.730" UserId="134" Text="This is an adverb meaning &quot;when awake&quot;, opposite to *во сне* (&quot;in one's dream&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Я часто говорю с ним во сне, но никогда наяву* / I often talk to him in my dreams, but never when awake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7570" RevisionGUID="e0ab9a93-218e-4621-ac7a-ec7081c975af" CreationDate="2014-11-14T09:08:54.633" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is an adverb meaning &quot;in reality&quot;, as opposed to *во сне* (&quot;in one's dream&quot;), *в бреду* (&quot;in one's delirium&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Я часто говорю с ним во сне, но никогда наяву* / I often talk to him in my dreams, but never in reality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17297" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="b53bb80e-e3d5-486b-b0a4-55f5914ca72b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T09:31:22.033" UserId="551" Comment="Fixed quotes" Text="What does «наяву» mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7569" RevisionGUID="87dabba7-9d84-463f-899b-682fe8a19120" CreationDate="2014-11-14T12:15:54.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/533231849821061120" />
  <row Id="17299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7571" RevisionGUID="2d0cf215-2a34-4f85-8dc8-07f30fd1c06b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T12:52:28.203" UserId="4538" Text="The most neutral seems to be &quot;гей&quot;. But be careful about who you ask and where you do it- many russians are not tolerant about the matter. Few are untolerant enough to punch you for asking, but something like that might happen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="00a4a1ea-fa5b-4021-92d1-10a842b53606" CreationDate="2014-11-14T12:55:04.393" UserId="4539" Text="I can not agree to previous old-fashioned comment (in this case it's like a difference in using of word &quot;gay&quot; in old and modern English), sorry. I think it's a spiteful and &quot;dirty&quot; joke. This means this girl suits for ANY type (хоть куда) of sex. :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="5399a1bc-be1b-4f31-b4ad-62ff7369dcc1" CreationDate="2014-11-14T13:09:06.970" UserId="4538" Text="The question made my day.&#xD;&#xA;No, there is no sexual implication in the phrase itself. But given the right intonation or context it may have one- your question is actually a good example ) Anyways, it`s out of date, I wouldn`t use it. If you want to say &quot;she`s great&quot;, you are better off with &quot;она великолепна&quot; for a formal variant or &quot;она классная/клевая&quot; for informal one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="b65b1e12-81f6-4298-8a17-dde0afefc2f1" CreationDate="2014-11-14T13:15:05.883" UserId="4539" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I can not agree to previous old-fashioned comment (in this case it's like a difference in using of word &quot;gay&quot; in old and modern English), sorry. I think it can be a spiteful and dirty joke. This means this girl suits for ANY type (хоть куда) of sex. :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7572" RevisionGUID="bb2d2f04-8bea-40bb-862d-1ddf1dae92d2" CreationDate="2014-11-14T13:32:43.823" UserId="4539" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="I can not agree to previous old-fashioned comment (in this case it's like a difference in using of word &quot;gay&quot; in old and modern English), sorry. I think it can be a spiteful and dirty joke. This means this girl suits for ANY type (хоть куда) of sex. :( &#xD;&#xA;Please, don't use this idiomatic expression in the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7575" RevisionGUID="780ed543-7440-4996-a773-6e3e00b68fc7" CreationDate="2014-11-14T14:17:10.573" UserId="4543" Text="Девушка хоть куда is a normal expression. You can use it anywhere you want. The meaning of 'хоть куда' is interpreted from the surrounding sentences  and the meaning of the passage or paragraph. Basically you can use it to praise a woman in a good or not so good way. Context is the key. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="19c48766-2a91-47d5-bce2-9c91b9d3d9b4" CreationDate="2014-11-14T14:20:39.507" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference exists if the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state). In this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are speaking about legs belonging to two or more chairs, you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot;, while if you are speaking about one chair you say &quot;ножка у стула&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка стула синяя, а другая красная (legs of different chairs or the same chair or detached from chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка у стула синяя, а другая красная (legs of the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, у одного стула ножка синяя, а у другого красная (legs of different chairs)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="24e6d756-e250-44ba-891e-3e063622150c" CreationDate="2014-11-14T14:27:22.543" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; - Ножка стула = chair leg (designed to serve as a leg in a chair, not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary currently a part of a chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка у стула = leg of a/the chair (currently serving as part of a/the chair, attached)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state), in this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are speaking about legs belonging to two or more chairs, you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot;, while if you are speaking about one chair you say &quot;ножка у стула&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка стула синяя, а другая красная = Look, one chair leg is blue, the other is red. (legs of different chairs or the same chair or detached from chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка у стула синяя, а другая красная = Look, one leg of a/the chair is blue, but the other is red, (legs of the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, у одного стула ножка синяя, а у другого красная = Looks, the leg of one chair is blue, but of the other one is red. (legs of different chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is that I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="ea4cb9c0-9000-44c8-9bbc-4c4c73a8cdc7" CreationDate="2014-11-14T14:37:52.733" UserId="194" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="&gt; - Ножка стула = chair leg (designed to serve as a leg in a chair, not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary currently a part of a chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка у стула = leg of a/the chair (currently serving as part of a/the chair, attached)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state), in this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я заказал новую ножку стула в магазине, чтобы заменить сломанную = I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have ordered a chair leg from a store so to replace the broken one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are speaking about legs belonging to two or more chairs, you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot;, while if you are speaking about one chair you say &quot;ножка у стула&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка стула синяя, а другая красная = Look, one chair leg is blue, the other is red. (legs of different chairs or the same chair or detached from chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка у стула синяя, а другая красная = Look, one leg of a/the chair is blue, but the other is red, (legs of the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, у одного стула ножка синяя, а у другого красная = Looks, the leg of one chair is blue, but of the other one is red. (legs of different chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is that I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="40ea1e7b-5760-46bd-84a7-22da81d1cd70" CreationDate="2014-11-14T15:52:11.657" UserId="62" Text="In an obituary about Grothendieck at http://lenta.ru/news/2014/11/14/grothendieck/, the last paragraph says &quot;... деятельность Института вышсих научных исследований, где работал ученый, частично финансируются военными,...&quot; and I am not sure why it uses финансируются instead of финансируется. I would have thought this verb is governed by деятельность, which grammatically is singular (&quot;the activity/work at IHES... is financed by...&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="40ea1e7b-5760-46bd-84a7-22da81d1cd70" CreationDate="2014-11-14T15:52:11.657" UserId="62" Text="Reflexive verb ending example" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="40ea1e7b-5760-46bd-84a7-22da81d1cd70" CreationDate="2014-11-14T15:52:11.657" UserId="62" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7577" RevisionGUID="309d9d02-11b7-4b56-97d5-6cd82a9d0a2b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T19:31:29.393" UserId="4545" Text="ну как русский человек, для которого русский язык является родным, попробую проанализировать фразу &quot;девушка хоть куда&quot;, тут имеется в виду видимо, что эта девушка может делать все, что угодно, то есть ткать ковер, вышивать кружева и готовить отменные борщи, этот комплимент не имеет сексуального подтекста, а имеет исключительно &quot;древнии&quot; корни, на руси ценили девушку, которую можно назвать &quot;мастерицей&quot; то есть &quot;способной делать любые дела&quot;, то есть &quot;пригодной для любого жизненного уклада&quot; то есть &quot;девушка хоть куда&quot;, вообще сексуальность того или иного человека всегда и сейчас, в некоторой степени, это некий показатель приспособленности человека к окружающему миру, &quot;девушка хоть куда&quot; это человек приспособленный к жизни, следовательно это такой человек, с которым не будет скучно и который внезапно не заболеет депрессией и не умрет от скуки. В некоторой степени это просто показатель здоровья человека. Подводя итог: можно сказать, что &quot;человек хоть куда&quot; это здоровый человек" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7578" RevisionGUID="97ad74f4-2b9b-4522-9a9d-acc037fe667b" CreationDate="2014-11-14T19:57:24.937" UserId="4547" Text="&quot;Наяву&quot; comes from old russian world &quot;Явь&quot;. &quot;Явь&quot; it's some kind of reality, for example like real world (when we speak about heaven, hell and real life).&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays &quot;Явь&quot; evolved to word &quot;наяву&quot; - &quot;in this reality&quot;, &quot;in this world&quot;, not in dreams or imagination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17314" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="150067ca-9a5a-4aa5-be73-0cb523763f29" CreationDate="2014-11-14T20:33:52.057" UserId="62" Comment="edited title" Text="Example of a reflexive verb ending in Grothendieck's obituary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17315" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="df13e433-58ce-4c38-ada6-6f91a187cf42" CreationDate="2014-11-15T06:50:25.167" UserId="62" Comment="edited title" Text="Example of a reflexive verb in Grothendieck's obituary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="1cb4b68a-e1b5-420c-9b6e-aa6e32ef063c" CreationDate="2014-11-15T07:12:13.173" UserId="2079" Text="What are main differences in punctuation marks between Russian and English?  I found the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Russian, a signature is often follwed with the period mark.  In English, no period after the signature.&#xD;&#xA; - Сложноподчинённые предложения. In Russian, the comma is required before &quot;что&quot;, &quot;как&quot; etc.  In English, usually there is no comma before &quot;that&quot;, &quot;which&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA; - In Russian, no comma before &quot;и&quot; in constructs like &quot;A, B, C и D&quot;.  In English, &quot;A, B, C, and D&quot; - the comma before &quot;and&quot; is required. Same for или/or. &#xD;&#xA;  - Similarly, in the constructs &quot;и A, и B&quot; and &quot;или А, или В&quot; the comma is required, while in the constructs &quot;both A and B&quot; and &quot;either A or B&quot; there is no comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But probably there are other differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="1cb4b68a-e1b5-420c-9b6e-aa6e32ef063c" CreationDate="2014-11-15T07:12:13.173" UserId="2079" Text="Difference in punctuation marks between Russian and English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="1cb4b68a-e1b5-420c-9b6e-aa6e32ef063c" CreationDate="2014-11-15T07:12:13.173" UserId="2079" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="2786fa66-66ba-482a-b949-bf9a1b58ae14" CreationDate="2014-11-15T08:02:17.513" UserId="194" Comment="I suspect this breaks English rules?" Text="What are main differences in punctuation marks between Russian and English?  I found the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In Russian, a signature is often follwed with the period mark.  In English, no period after the signature.&#xD;&#xA; - Сложноподчинённые предложения. In Russian, the comma is required before &quot;что&quot;, &quot;как&quot; etc.  In English usually there is no comma before &quot;that&quot;, &quot;which&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA; - In Russian, no comma before &quot;и&quot; in constructs like &quot;A, B, C и D&quot;.  In English, &quot;A, B, C, and D&quot; - the comma before &quot;and&quot; is required. Same for или/or. &#xD;&#xA;  - Similarly, in the constructs &quot;и A, и B&quot; and &quot;или А, или В&quot; the comma is required, while in the constructs &quot;both A and B&quot; and &quot;either A or B&quot; there is no comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But probably there are other differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="a106e96f-46ec-4afa-8e0b-72fadab44bb2" CreationDate="2014-11-15T08:05:37.553" UserId="194" Text="Consider вводное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он, вероятно, плохой человек.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is probably a bad man.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они, возможно, не придут.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They possibly will not come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am not sure whether a comma is allowed here in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="970fa9da-bab0-4598-ab2c-ab5db71425fb" CreationDate="2014-11-15T11:50:36.817" UserId="4555" Text="For academic reasons I am interested in machine-readable information about Russian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, nouns with attached information about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* grammatical gender&#xD;&#xA;* declension&#xD;&#xA;* alive or not&#xD;&#xA;* etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or verbs with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* conjugation&#xD;&#xA;* valency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know about any freely available corpus I could use without having to scrap the data from online sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="970fa9da-bab0-4598-ab2c-ab5db71425fb" CreationDate="2014-11-15T11:50:36.817" UserId="4555" Text="Machine-readable corpus of Russian words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="970fa9da-bab0-4598-ab2c-ab5db71425fb" CreationDate="2014-11-15T11:50:36.817" UserId="4555" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17326" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="6f9bd07e-9a1c-435f-af7c-0cea505d67f9" CreationDate="2014-11-15T17:20:38.757" UserId="2079" Comment="edited title" Text="Differences in punctuation marks between Russian and English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="b6cef8d9-0d5f-446c-a07c-d3f7ef1f5b1e" CreationDate="2014-11-15T18:56:58.420" UserId="104" Text="В разных языках программирования есть понятия &quot;expression&quot; и &quot;statement&quot;. &quot;Expression&quot; тривиально переводится на русский как &quot;выражение&quot;: Со &quot;statement&quot;-ом дела чуть посложнее, но кажется, техническая литература остановилась на термине &quot;инструкция&quot;, который неплохо подходит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В стандарте языка C++ есть еще и понятие &quot;expression statement&quot;, которое означает что-то типа &quot;инструкция, выраженная выражением&quot;. Так как я очень давно уже не читаю техническую литературу на русском, я не имею понятия, имеет ли данный термин общепринятый перевод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идеальным вариантом будет, если кто знает перевод термина &quot;expression statement&quot;. Но если нет, помогите придумать перевод этому термину. В частности, если в русском языке есть прилагательное от слова &quot;выражение&quot;, то оно, думаю, может подойти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Для технарей, кто не в курсе: &quot;a = b + c&quot; - выражение, &quot;a = b + c;&quot; - инструкция, а точнее expression statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="b6cef8d9-0d5f-446c-a07c-d3f7ef1f5b1e" CreationDate="2014-11-15T18:56:58.420" UserId="104" Text="Programming terminology: Expression statements in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="b6cef8d9-0d5f-446c-a07c-d3f7ef1f5b1e" CreationDate="2014-11-15T18:56:58.420" UserId="104" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7584" RevisionGUID="2c1c1235-fe5b-4cac-af79-fa622ff729d0" CreationDate="2014-11-15T20:36:51.667" UserId="4557" Text="You can also have a look to project OpenCorpora at http://opencorpora.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7585" RevisionGUID="4eb9739f-3572-4f29-a160-556f38e72493" CreationDate="2014-11-15T21:06:12.033" UserId="4336" Text="[Словарь][1] предлагает такие варианты:&#xD;&#xA;`оператор-выражение`, `команда-выражение`, `инструкция-выражение`, `оператор выражения`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично я склоняюсь к второму или третьему варианту. Не нравится мне перевод `statement`-&gt;`оператор` из-за путаницы с арифметическими и др. операторами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=6491843_1_2&amp;s1=expression%20statement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7586" RevisionGUID="69d48067-cb0a-4b32-a37d-c7ec3d3fa84d" CreationDate="2014-11-16T00:03:48.540" UserId="2238" Text="ruscorpora.ru - the main corpus of Russian language. Its information is in Russian, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17334" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7581" RevisionGUID="130f8e31-14b0-471c-a913-b350249b2c9a" CreationDate="2014-11-16T00:17:13.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/533775763711868929" />
  <row Id="17335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="05dd1c50-a030-443e-bdc1-596465d0eafa" CreationDate="2014-11-16T17:33:30.587" UserId="4562" Text="Maybe &quot;катящиеся камни&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, the requirement to have at least 30 characters in the Answer body is idiotic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="908a0944-f784-4f34-836e-6adf7cc0807b" CreationDate="2014-11-16T17:38:50.730" UserId="4562" Text="Maybe &quot;катящиеся камни&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the requirement to have at least 30 characters in the Answer body is idiotic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7587" RevisionGUID="90b61e71-987a-4e19-aea3-fd0f896b64ab" CreationDate="2014-11-16T17:43:42.337" UserId="551" Comment="A translation to English allows to cross the 30 characters limit." Text="Maybe &quot;катящиеся камни&quot; (rolling stones)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7589" RevisionGUID="4cfe6360-b5c0-40fc-bd24-edb2cf6e7e0f" CreationDate="2014-11-16T17:59:12.533" UserId="4570" Text="Although it does not normally contain any sexual implications it may sound suggestive in certain context meaning &quot;up for anything&quot; like in this humorous bit from a TV show (http://vk.com/video-21599370_170301829) where a porn producer asks an interviewer to consider doing porn. You can also judge from these comments http://otvet.mail.ru/question/60418286 the phrase does sound ambiguous " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7590" RevisionGUID="bba495bf-a80f-44c0-b07a-901863732c20" CreationDate="2014-11-16T18:03:45.900" UserId="4571" Text="Nearly as Vitaly Sazanovich has proposed - slight modification could be applied. 'K' letter can be changed to 'B' (russian 'v'). It is not so straightforward as modifying it into 'Ж', but still could be done, result will be styled as ancient script ![see 5th letter here][1]. Why would you make it? Because 'ВАТЯ' could be found in some cool expressions like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) based on verb caught/grabbed e.g. '[МЕНЯ] НЕ СХВАТЯТ' '[I] WON'T GET CAUGHT'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) based on verb 'be beaten' in quite a macho form e.g. 'ВРАГИ ОТХВАТЯТ'/'ВРАГИ ВЫХВАТЯТ' = 'enemies will be beaten'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) based on specific form of noun 'bed', however I don't think any girl would like such on her bf :) e.g. &quot;BED JUMPER&quot; &quot;СКАКУН ПО КРОВАТЯМ&quot; (this one may be polished further)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) something based on form of verb catch in meaning of spreading - ПОДХВАТЯТ, that can be used in some formula e.g. 'Я СКАЖУ/НАЧНУ - ДРУЗЬЯ ПОДХВАТЯТ' 'I SHALL SAY/START AND FRIENDS SHALL SPREAD (CARRY ON, HELP, follow me/my example)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2FWzE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7561" RevisionGUID="c000f529-6e70-48e3-8aeb-89ef135147ed" CreationDate="2014-11-16T18:21:54.027" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; - Ножка стула = chair leg (designed to serve as a leg in a chair, not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary currently a part of a chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка у стула = leg of a/the chair (currently serving as part of a/the chair, attached)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the legs are separated from the chair (for instance the chair in a disassembled state), in this case you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot; but not &quot;ножка у стула&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я заказал новую ножку стула в магазине, чтобы заменить сломанную = I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have ordered a chair leg from a store so to replace the broken one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are speaking about legs belonging to two or more chairs, you would use &quot;ножка стула&quot;, while if you are speaking about one chair you say &quot;ножка у стула&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка стула синяя, а другая красная = Look, one chair leg is blue, the other is red. (legs of different chairs or the same chair or detached from chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, одна ножка у стула синяя, а другая красная = Look, one leg of a/the chair is blue, but the other is red, (legs of the same chair)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Смотри, у одного стула ножка синяя, а у другого красная = Look, the leg of one chair is blue, but of the other one is red. (legs of different chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is that I would say it conveys a coloring somewhat similar to indefinite article in English.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ножка у стула сломалась&quot; largerly means you introduce a new chair, not discussed or implyed before, while &quot;ножка стула сломалась&quot; kinda implies that is is known about which chair you are speaking. If it is the chair which you are sitting in at the moment, you can use the both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the following. If you want to underline that it is the leg of the chair is broken, you should use у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что случилось? &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ***Ножка*** у стула сломалась. &quot;A ***leg*** of a/the chair has broken&quot; or &quot;A chair's ***leg*** has broken&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to underline that the leg is broken, you should not use the у:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что c ножкой стула? &quot;What happened to the chair's leg?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ножка стула ***сломалась***. &quot;The chair's leg has ***broken***&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="0510062e-b295-45f8-9111-87b667cef0ba" CreationDate="2014-11-16T18:30:36.903" UserId="2442" Text="Besides already mentioned, there is one thing that kind of drove me nuts when I was making my first steps in communication with English-speaking people: there is no comma before a grammatical address (обращение) in English!  &#xD;&#xA;Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, Ваня!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hi John!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a tiny thing but it really makes a difference. So, now when I see a comma in those cases in English, I'm almost sure that the author is a Russian-speaking person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7592" RevisionGUID="24087783-f8bd-456d-bca4-e19de00e414f" CreationDate="2014-11-16T18:32:27.953" UserId="4573" Text="I have a rather grim suggestion: he can add periods: &quot;КАТ.Я.&quot; &quot;Кат&quot; is an anachronism for &quot;executioner&quot;, so it would mean &quot;Executioner. Me.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="998ced72-8b88-48e0-af3f-c2fc9446c96c" CreationDate="2014-11-16T20:07:56.073" UserId="194" Text="Yes, there is such a word. It's [***телерадиовещание***][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7594" RevisionGUID="5827a921-532a-4b32-ae25-07975548291a" CreationDate="2014-11-16T20:21:46.750" UserId="4582" Text="I think, it's same as &quot;I am&quot; and not &quot;I is&quot; in english." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7593" RevisionGUID="bb34ab9c-0cb0-4ac4-9dec-558ad3062563" CreationDate="2014-11-16T20:34:21.410" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is such a word. It's [***телерадиовещание***][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;stable=0&amp;redirect=no" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7588" RevisionGUID="6d02c553-a0b4-4f75-9dd7-5976c53162c1" CreationDate="2014-11-16T20:39:13.583" UserId="97" Comment="Removed comment unrelated to the answer." Text="Maybe &quot;катящиеся камни&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;....." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17347" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="f13fd600-4a8a-4226-b816-9cc7a57bf9dd" CreationDate="2014-11-16T20:43:18.333" UserId="242" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17348" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7576" RevisionGUID="df1e32f9-55cc-4902-94de-792c636955c6" CreationDate="2014-11-16T21:21:55.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/534094035598585856" />
  <row Id="17350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7596" RevisionGUID="dfc3fd81-b9ac-481b-adc5-c09a8c3a5fc4" CreationDate="2014-11-16T23:09:38.437" UserId="4591" Text="У меня есть кот literraly means I have a cat. So if you looks for seamless of sense and forms the phrast &quot;The cat belongs to me&quot; is closer to understand why &quot;меня&quot; but not &quot;я&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course  there is the direct translation Я имею кота, but it is not nice and can suppose some obscene connotation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="53a2e40c-2d92-4a9c-9b22-94a0248d25dc" CreationDate="2014-11-16T23:27:22.090" UserId="194" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There is some difference in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Торопись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means drive, urge on yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спеши!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not really used. If used, I would understand it as &quot;be hurry in panic&quot;. I hardly can imagine where such meaning would be appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural it may be used in advertising of a performance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спешите посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be hurry in panic to see the new performance because it is very interesting (one can instantly imagine crowds storming the circus or the theater, which is possibly the organizers agitate for). This usage is somewhat outdated I think, at least I encountered it only in books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Торопитесь посмотреть новое представление!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means that you can be too late to see the performance because it will be ceased being shown in a few days. You are not agitated to run to the theater, losing your bags and spectacles on the way, you just reminded so that you possibly better to review your plans accordingly and postpone other deals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7597" RevisionGUID="43ea86fc-8cce-43a2-b3d0-d8159695fed6" CreationDate="2014-11-16T23:31:34.443" UserId="4592" Text="You're right, it's a typo. Деятельность is in singular, therefore, финансируется. They've fixed it already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="9fcfd842-ebbe-4b5f-ab50-4ac9c009e32d" CreationDate="2014-11-17T01:00:45.807" UserId="194" Text="&gt; In Germany, an electrician killed a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Германии электрик убил собаку." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7577" RevisionGUID="40498a60-0adc-4377-9e04-41f8d36d93a6" CreationDate="2014-11-17T01:07:03.643" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="ну как русский человек, для которого русский язык является родным, попробую проанализировать фразу &quot;девушка хоть куда&quot;, тут имеется в виду видимо, что эта девушка может делать все, что угодно, то есть ткать ковер, вышивать кружева и готовить отменные борщи, этот комплимент не имеет сексуального подтекста, а имеет исключительно &quot;древние&quot; корни, на Руси ценили девушку, которую можно назвать &quot;мастерицей&quot; то есть &quot;способной делать любые дела&quot;, то есть &quot;пригодной для любого жизненного уклада&quot; то есть &quot;девушка хоть куда&quot;, вообще сексуальность того или иного человека всегда и сейчас, в некоторой степени, это некий показатель приспособленности человека к окружающему миру, &quot;девушка хоть куда&quot; это человек приспособленный к жизни, следовательно это такой человек, с которым не будет скучно и который внезапно не заболеет депрессией и не умрет от скуки. В некоторой степени это просто показатель здоровья человека. Подводя итог: можно сказать, что &quot;человек хоть куда&quot; это здоровый человек" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="74b12362-ba4a-43fc-a85e-241c29f75124" CreationDate="2014-11-17T03:39:18.567" UserId="4595" Text="As a gay man and Russian I strongly advise you against asking that people in Russia. Russian macho culture would demand an immediate rude and sometimes violent response. Unless the circumstances permit it (like you're in a gay club or something). Also the top answer here is sad and misinformed (both regarding homophobia levels in Russia and the actual language). The correct (idiomatically) sentence would be &quot;Простите, а вас мужчины не интересуют?&quot;. Or just indeed &quot;Простите, а вы, случайно, не гей?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7599" RevisionGUID="58fcedf2-bd5e-4277-8fec-c451f2113d93" CreationDate="2014-11-17T03:51:16.013" UserId="4595" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="As a gay man and Russian I strongly advise you against asking people in Russia that question. Russian macho/semicriminal culture would demand an immediate rude and sometimes violent response. Unless the circumstances permit it (like you're in a gay club or something). Also the top answer here is sad and misinformed (both regarding homophobia levels in Russia and the actual language). The correct (idiomatically) sentence would be &quot;Простите, а вас мужчины не интересуют?&quot;. Or just indeed &quot;Простите, а вы, случайно, не гей?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7600" RevisionGUID="eb491a84-cdb2-40ce-b545-ef10dd07e95a" CreationDate="2014-11-17T06:55:31.620" UserId="4615" Text="&quot;Девушка хоть куда&quot; означает, что девушка воспитана и с ней можно выходить в высшее общество.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its means that a girl brought up and it can go into high society." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="fb118e33-75c3-4453-8b56-a42952efc214" CreationDate="2014-11-17T11:13:23.550" UserId="3498" Text="Дословный перевод &quot;Технологические партнеры&quot; и &quot;Партнеры по решениям&quot; меня не устраивает.&#xD;&#xA;Первое кажется двусмысленным, у меня ассоциация с &quot;технологический университет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Второе просто не по русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помогите пожалуйста подобрать правильные слова!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="fb118e33-75c3-4453-8b56-a42952efc214" CreationDate="2014-11-17T11:13:23.550" UserId="3498" Text="Человеческий перевод &quot;Technology Partners&quot; и &quot;Solution Partners&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="fb118e33-75c3-4453-8b56-a42952efc214" CreationDate="2014-11-17T11:13:23.550" UserId="3498" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7602" RevisionGUID="bc4021c7-f9e9-4fee-a2b1-ec6d3727174d" CreationDate="2014-11-17T11:51:23.067" UserId="4602" Text="девушка хоть куда == attagirl ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="b5411a9d-39fc-4e48-9c7c-a174f0743895" CreationDate="2014-11-17T12:06:02.383" UserId="293" Comment="fix formatting" Text="The question made my day.&#xD;&#xA;No, there is no sexual implication in the phrase itself. But given the right intonation or context it may have one - your question is actually a good example. Anyways, it's out of date, I wouldn't use it. If you want to say &quot;she's great&quot;, you are better off with &quot;она великолепна&quot; for a formal variant or &quot;она классная/клевая&quot; for informal one.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17363" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7573" RevisionGUID="b5411a9d-39fc-4e48-9c7c-a174f0743895" CreationDate="2014-11-17T12:06:02.383" Comment="Proposed by 293 approved by 551, 1329 edit id of 557" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7603" RevisionGUID="e23f795c-db3e-4f2f-b257-7d6cef85a36c" CreationDate="2014-11-17T12:41:43.330" UserId="4600" Text="In 90% of cases *partners* are in fact *providers*. So why not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Поставщики технологий&#xD;&#xA;    Поставщики решений&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="236a1f7b-bd66-4230-ad1e-ae2ac90be056" CreationDate="2014-11-17T14:58:20.370" UserId="1671" Text="Indeed it's a very delicate issue. Let me give you an example how I would ask a person I've met recently or just now if he is gay. I'm sure this will not insult him/her as you have to express politeness, prepare the ground for the question and reason with why you are asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Подготовка:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     -Я бы не хотел показаться бестактным, и на самом деле это не имеет особого значения, но могу я задать вам личный вопрос?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    (1) Да, конечно.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    (2) Я не очень люблю личные вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    (3) Смотря, что вы имеете ввиду под личным вопросом.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Далее в зависимости от ответа испытуемого:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    1) (на &quot;да, конечно&quot;) Мне показалась, что вы неравнодушны к мужчинам/женщинам, хотя и могу ошибаться, конечно.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2) Тогда оставим этот разговор. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    3) Скажите, как вы относитесь к сексуальным меньшинствам? Если дальше вас спросят: &quot;А почему вы спрашиваете?&quot; , то давайте задний ход. Иначе развивайте тему и переходите к пункту 1.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Как дать задний ход:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    -Сейчас все очень агрессивно относятся к представителям сексуальных меньшинств. Мне просто было интересно ваше мнение. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Конечно, вас будет легко раскусить, но если аккуратно зондировать территорию, то можно узнать возможную реакцию человека, так и не задав ему этот вопрос. Всё очень просто. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7604" RevisionGUID="93177b2a-1eef-4074-9c55-32ebc592be3d" CreationDate="2014-11-17T15:17:29.760" UserId="551" Comment="removed &quot;Code&quot; formatting " Text="Indeed it's a very delicate issue. Let me give you an example how I would ask a person I've met recently or just now if he is gay. I'm sure this will not insult him/her as you have to express politeness, prepare the ground for the question and reason with why you are asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Подготовка:**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я бы не хотел показаться бестактным, и на самом деле это не имеет особого значения, но могу я задать вам личный вопрос?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (1) Да, конечно.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (2) Я не очень люблю личные вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    (3) Смотря, что вы имеете ввиду под личным вопросом.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Далее в зависимости от ответа испытуемого:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1) (на &quot;да, конечно&quot;) Мне показалась, что вы неравнодушны к мужчинам/женщинам, хотя и могу ошибаться, конечно.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2) Тогда оставим этот разговор. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3) Скажите, как вы относитесь к сексуальным меньшинствам? Если дальше вас спросят: &quot;А почему вы спрашиваете?&quot; , то давайте задний ход. Иначе развивайте тему и переходите к пункту 1.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    **Как дать задний ход:**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    — Сейчас все очень агрессивно относятся к представителям сексуальных меньшинств. Мне просто было интересно ваше мнение. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Конечно, вас будет легко раскусить, но если аккуратно зондировать территорию, то можно узнать возможную реакцию человека, так и не задав ему этот вопрос. Всё очень просто. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7605" RevisionGUID="14a695dd-46ad-47ba-b709-ef2b2db73a36" CreationDate="2014-11-17T16:19:45.933" UserId="4605" Text="-ко is emphasis; -ся is contraction of 'себе', 'self'. So -ко-ся would be a colloquial emphasis, &quot;look you there&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7606" RevisionGUID="8b370fa5-25ea-4fa0-9d1e-99e306bda43f" CreationDate="2014-11-17T20:30:16.953" UserId="4608" Text="Это эмфатический прием, &quot;каждый первый&quot; эквивалентно &quot;все без исключения&quot;, &quot;абсолютно каждый&quot;. Усиление по сравнению с &quot;каждый&quot; достигается за счет &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. сильного обмана ожиданий: мы ожидаем &quot;мечта каждого второго (третьего, пятого, десятого)&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; 2. повторения: &quot;каждый&quot; -&gt; &quot;каждый первый&quot; (&quot;точно-преточно&quot;); &#xD;&#xA; 3. недопущения исключений: один (каждый) из одного (первый), при возможности исключений мы бы сказали &quot;мечта 99 из 100&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17374" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7601" RevisionGUID="45303fcc-253f-4b24-9b15-e88a5922bdb7" CreationDate="2014-11-17T21:24:48.697" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/534457148806135808" />
  <row Id="17375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7607" RevisionGUID="8ccf85fd-f953-4c36-9e48-57ce9f099b92" CreationDate="2014-11-18T00:39:37.180" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="-ко is correctly explained above, indeed it's an emphatic suffix or particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recursive -ся here is used for emphasis, similar to &quot;me comia una paella&quot; in Spanish, which literally means &quot;I was eating to me a paella&quot;, meaning &quot;There, I was eating paella&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use the English &quot;here&quot; in translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гли-ко-ся = гляди-ко-ся = &quot;but look here&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Чё-ко-ся = &quot;what that is it here&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Собирай-ко-сь = &quot;come on here, arrange the table&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7608" RevisionGUID="21345fcf-6bff-4a89-8a13-d4939dd737df" CreationDate="2014-11-18T00:51:06.320" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="Regarding this last bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why is есть not conjugated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the verb быть (to be) in 3rd person singular. The reason it's not conjugated is that other forms have been dropped in recent 500 years. They were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я есьм&#xD;&#xA;* ты еси&#xD;&#xA;* он есть - still used&#xD;&#xA;* мы есьмо&#xD;&#xA;* вы есте&#xD;&#xA;* они суть - very rarely but still used mostly in written, by educated people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If you look at other Indo-European languages, Italian has forms of &quot;essere&quot; (to be) very similar.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, являться is used where &quot;to be&quot; is explicitly needed, and surprisingly идти is used similarly to &quot;there is&quot; in English (у нас машины идут в базовой комплектации - there are cars of base options in our shop)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="0acf8721-024e-47ba-9e2d-fda6e894faa5" CreationDate="2014-11-18T03:13:56.543" UserId="4614" Text="Скажите, пожалуйста, какая словообразовательная связь между словами &quot;испытать/испытывать&quot; и &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Раньше было правило, несредственно связывающее эти два слова по грамматике? &#xD;&#xA;Или может быть было слово &quot;испытовать&quot;, от которого можно образоваться слово &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как между &quot;связывать&quot; и &quot;связующий&quot;? Еще есть такие слова, как &quot;сказуемое&quot;, &quot;наказуемый&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="0acf8721-024e-47ba-9e2d-fda6e894faa5" CreationDate="2014-11-18T03:13:56.543" UserId="4614" Text="Об образовании причастия" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="0acf8721-024e-47ba-9e2d-fda6e894faa5" CreationDate="2014-11-18T03:13:56.543" UserId="4614" Text="|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17380" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="3d95e05f-6b03-4c67-af22-d5b5c869aae8" CreationDate="2014-11-18T07:33:17.800" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Если &quot;испытать&quot; - &quot;испытуемый&quot;, то есть ли &quot;сказуемый&quot;, &quot;наказуемый&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7610" RevisionGUID="0c244c40-e16b-4d26-85bc-eea9b0f6f253" CreationDate="2014-11-18T11:19:16.770" UserId="4621" Text="Ты придерживаешься нетрадиционной сексуальной ориентации?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7611" RevisionGUID="087aa6c0-abd7-4205-8b92-b157865bbefd" CreationDate="2014-11-18T12:33:55.557" UserId="4619" Text="Я могу только сказать, что &quot;испытать/испытывать&quot; (глагол) и &quot;испытуемый&quot; (прилагательное) — однокоренные слова. В настоящее время слова &quot;испыт**о**вать&quot; нет, оно выглядит похожим на слово &quot;испыт**ы**вать&quot; с опечаткой. Испытуемый — это *тот, кто подвергается испытанию*, или *кого испытывают*.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Пожалуйста, объясните подробнее, что имеется в виду под &quot;правилом, несредственно связывающее эти два слова по грамматике&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сказуемое&quot;, &quot;наказуемый&quot; лишь звучат похоже на &quot;связывать/связующий&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сказуемое&quot; — прилагательное, имеет корень &quot;сказ&quot;, как в слове &quot;сказать&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наказуемый&quot; — прилагательное, однокоренное с &quot;наказать&quot; и &quot;дать *наказ/приказ*&quot; (дать задание)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7612" RevisionGUID="a26f341e-4b1d-4bf7-bc34-6d25c44bbdfe" CreationDate="2014-11-18T12:44:37.057" UserId="4623" Text="Я за первый вариант. Есть же &quot;информационный партнер&quot; (media partner). Оба термина являются заимствованиями из английского языка. В этом смысле изначально заимствованное слово &quot;партнер&quot; будет для русскоговорящих некоторым маркером, обохначающем характер заимствования всего выражения. &#xD;&#xA;Совет выше заменить &quot;партнеров&quot; на &quot;поставщиков&quot; также хорош. Можно посмотреть в сторону &quot;участников&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7613" RevisionGUID="08fdc791-5526-476f-9f80-545e0919dc6d" CreationDate="2014-11-18T13:06:04.523" UserId="4624" Text="Я бы аккуратно заехала со стороны: - Я не заметила, чтобы тебе осбо нравились девушки. Не нашел такую, которая бы зацепила? Или ты к женскому полу равнодушен?  &#xD;&#xA;На что человек ответил либо: - Еще не нашел девушку своей мечты&#xD;&#xA;Либо: - Я к женскому полу равнодушен (отношусь прохладно)&#xD;&#xA;Вот тогда можно спросить: - Тебе молодые люди больше нравятся? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7614" RevisionGUID="13b1be6a-ec04-494c-9167-381edd00d6c6" CreationDate="2014-11-18T13:08:33.530" UserId="4623" Text="&quot;Испытуемый&quot; - [страдательное причастие настоящего времени][1]. Они образованы от глаголов несовершенного вида, переходных с помощью суффиксов -ем- и -им-. *Тот, на кого направлено действие глагола*, or **passive** side of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Связующий&quot; - [действительное причастие настоящего времени][2]. Образованы от глаголов несовершенного вида, переходных и непереходных с помощью суффиксов -ущ- (-ющ-), и -ащ- (-ящ-). *Тот, кто направлено действие глагола*, or **active** side of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почитайте вообще про причастия и отглагольные прилагательные, думаю многие вопросы отпадут.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CF%F0%E8%F7%E0%F1%F2%E8%E5_(%EB%E8%ED%E3%E2%E8%F1%F2%E8%EA%E0)#.D0.A1.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.8F.D1.89.D0.B5.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.B2.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CF%F0%E8%F7%E0%F1%F2%E8%E5_(%EB%E8%ED%E3%E2%E8%F1%F2%E8%EA%E0)#.D0.94.D0.B5.D0.B9.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.8F.D1.89.D0.B5.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.B2.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7613" RevisionGUID="836c3e8f-b878-4d77-8029-e7b46ddaf6c0" CreationDate="2014-11-18T13:11:42.147" UserId="4624" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Я бы аккуратно заехала со стороны: - Я не заметила, чтобы тебе осбо нравились девушки. Не нашел такую, которая бы зацепила? Или ты к женскому полу равнодушен?  &#xD;&#xA;На что человек ответил либо: - Еще не нашел девушку своей мечты.&#xD;&#xA;Либо: - Я к женскому полу равнодушен (отношусь прохладно).&#xD;&#xA;Вот тогда можно спросить: - Тебе молодые люди больше нравятся? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7615" RevisionGUID="42353929-9d82-480b-90de-51cde5ce00a4" CreationDate="2014-11-18T13:20:48.460" UserId="4624" Text="Наяву - этот состояние, когда ты не спишь (бодрствуешь), не бредишь, когда ты находишься &quot;в здравом уме и твердой памяти&quot;, когда окружающая действительность реальная, и не является плодом вашего воображения.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7461" RevisionGUID="8257b9ac-2b70-4e7a-bfb0-add416b13132" CreationDate="2014-11-18T13:25:23.567" UserId="4379" Comment="edited body" Text="As @Artemix has written `знакомы?` means `are we acqauainted?` and `кто это?` is `who's there?`. The first variant is more polite and can be used in everyday speech as well, e.g. if a stranger contacts to you on the street. The second one is pretty informal and is relevant for use in the Internet when you don't know the person you talk/write to. Originally, before the Internet, `кто это?` could be asked when you want to know who is knocking your door. So this question implies that you don't see the person. Basically, both phrases can be used in social networks chats with equal meaning. I'd recommend you `знакомы?`, again, as more polite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7616" RevisionGUID="67c1c253-0f64-4547-a16d-9b76d4b721b9" CreationDate="2014-11-18T13:29:09.227" UserId="4624" Text="“накося” = на, держи, получи. -кося (или -ко+ся) уменьшительно-ласкательно-изветельское окончание. “накося выкуси” - употребляется как злорадное восклицание по поводу установленной справедливости или свершившейся маленькой мести. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7619" RevisionGUID="9db056c1-d939-44f4-8029-128945180ae1" CreationDate="2014-11-18T15:35:34.667" UserId="4605" Text="It translates perfectly into British English as &quot;Not too bad&quot; or &quot;Could be worse&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7620" RevisionGUID="36950c10-8f1b-4b60-808b-488a7b476cc8" CreationDate="2014-11-18T16:30:26.380" UserId="4608" Text="You shouldn't use &quot;потоп&quot; instead of &quot;потоплен&quot; due to different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Потоплен&quot; means &quot;sunk by somebody&quot; - we know who did that (pirates, enemies, crew, etc.) and/or that make sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Потоп&quot; (&quot;утонул&quot;) means &quot;drowned&quot; with no particular reason or we don't care the reason, the only fact of drowning does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you can use &quot;потоп&quot; to say &quot;Его корабль потоп&quot;, as a native speaker I see nothing wrong to say that (but sounds outdated/childish):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Несчастный матрос, твой корабль потоп;&#xD;&#xA;    Клопы завелись в парусах.&#xD;&#xA;    Твой боцман - любитель портвейна и сноб&#xD;&#xA;    С прокисшей капустой в усах.&#xD;&#xA;But IRL we use &quot;утонул&quot; instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    — Что случилось с атомной лодкой &quot;Курск&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    — Она утонула." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7620" RevisionGUID="bda1cff1-d737-4f38-8708-a46c7d226dd3" CreationDate="2014-11-18T16:37:59.070" UserId="4608" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="You shouldn't use &quot;потоп&quot; instead of &quot;потоплен&quot; due to different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Потоплен&quot; means &quot;sunk by somebody&quot; - we know who did that (pirates, enemies, crew, etc.) and/or that make sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Потоп&quot; (&quot;утонул&quot;) means &quot;drowned&quot; with no particular reason or we don't care the reason, the only fact of drowning does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you can use &quot;потоп&quot; (&quot;утоп&quot;) to say &quot;Его корабль потоп&quot;, as a native speaker I see nothing wrong to say that (but sounds outdated/childish):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Несчастный матрос, твой корабль **потоп**;&#xD;&#xA;    Клопы завелись в парусах.&#xD;&#xA;    Твой боцман - любитель портвейна и сноб&#xD;&#xA;    С прокисшей капустой в усах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Десять негритят пошли купаться в море,&#xD;&#xA;	Десять негритят резвились на просторе.&#xD;&#xA;	Один из них **утоп**, ему купили гроб,&#xD;&#xA;	И вот вам результат - девять негритят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But IRL we use &quot;утонул&quot; (&quot;потонул&quot;, &quot;затонул&quot;) instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    — Что случилось с атомной лодкой &quot;Курск&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;    — Она утонула." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="fb8fd126-fbfe-433f-977b-8276e77aa0ab" CreationDate="2014-11-18T17:35:39.317" UserId="4629" Text="I concur with Shady_arc's analysis but would like to elaborate on the final statement which I think summarises the quintessence of the matter, namely: *you are commenting on* ***your*** *situation,* ***not on what your dog did***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, consider a simple example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Мой дом большой* = **My house** is big.&#xD;&#xA;- *У меня &lt;есть&gt; большой дом* = **I have** a big house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us develop one of Shady_arc's examples to try and demonstrate the difference in the emphasis of each sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Моя мышка не работает*. = **My mouse** isn't working.&#xD;&#xA;- *У меня не работает мышка*. = My mouse isn't working, so I cannot use it. = **I have** a broken mouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'll give my mouse to Andrey.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- *Андрей говорит, что моя мышка не работает*. = Andrey says that **my mouse** isn't working. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is almost equivalent to the first example, it still describes the condition of **my** mouse.&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Андрей говорит, что моя мышка* ***у него*** *не работает*. = Andrey says that my mouse isn't working **for him**. = **Andrey has** my mouse which isn't working, so he cannot use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Моя собака умерла*. = **My dog** died.&#xD;&#xA;- *У меня умерла собака*. = **I lost** my dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original sentence indeed describes the chair which has been rendered unusable due to a broken leg, rather than the broken chair leg which rendered the chair unusable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, a search for &quot;My dog died&quot; returns over 3 million hits in Google, as opposed to &quot;I lost my dog&quot; - 1 million. In Russian, on the other hand, the construct &quot;У меня что-то случилось с предметом (человеком)&quot; will be by far more widespread than the construct &quot;С моим предметом (человеком) что-то случилось&quot;. I'll refrain from drawing any conclusions on possessiveness of English vs egocentricity of Russian. However, I could suggest this final illustration which might shed some additional light on the matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *I put **my** hat on* = Я надел(а) шапку [not &quot;Я надел(а) **свою** шапку&quot;].&#xD;&#xA;- *Andrey put **his** hat on* = Андрей надел шапку [not &quot;Андрей надел **свою** (or **его**) шапку&quot;].&#xD;&#xA;- *Andrey's hat is warm* = У Андрея тёплая шапка [not &quot;Шапка Андрея тёплая&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="3c501620-13d9-4064-ae9a-c946c62cc287" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:08:14.780" UserId="4629" Text="Your question has no easy answer. Put simply, Russian punctuation is VERY different from the English one. And about twenty times more complicated, too. Which is to say: where English punctuation may be flexible and forgiving, Russian punctuation is authoritarian, prescriptive and merciless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had to read a good few books on English punctuation before I was able to tell my dependent clauses from my independent ones. I suggest you do the same. Brace yourself. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  In English, &quot;A, B, C, and D&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;should read &quot;in American English&quot;. British English avoids the Oxford comma this days - one of the rare examples where Russian punctuation agrees with its (British) English counterpart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7621" RevisionGUID="1e014128-ea4f-43d1-b513-788a401c7e0e" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:12:56.297" UserId="4629" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I concur with Shady_arc's analysis but would like to elaborate on the final statement which I think summarises the quintessence of the matter, namely: *you are commenting on* ***your*** *situation,* ***not on what your dog did***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, consider a simple example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Мой дом большой* = **My house** is big.&#xD;&#xA;- *У меня &lt;есть&gt; большой дом* = **I have** a big house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us develop one of Shady_arc's examples to try and demonstrate the difference in the emphasis of each sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Моя мышка не работает*. = **My mouse** isn't working.&#xD;&#xA;- *У меня не работает мышка*. = My mouse isn't working, so I cannot use it. = **I have** a broken mouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'll give my mouse to Andrey.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- *Андрей говорит, что моя мышка не работает*. = Andrey says that **my mouse** isn't working. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is almost equivalent to the first example, it still describes the condition of **my** mouse.&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Андрей говорит, что моя мышка* ***у него*** *не работает*. = Andrey says that my mouse isn't working **for him**. = **Andrey has** my mouse which isn't working, so he cannot use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Моя собака умерла*. = **My dog** died.&#xD;&#xA;- *У меня умерла собака*. = **I lost** my dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the original sentence indeed describes the chair which has been rendered unusable due to a broken leg, rather than the broken chair leg which may or may not have rendered some chair unusable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, a search for &quot;My dog died&quot; returns over 3 million hits in Google, as opposed to &quot;I lost my dog&quot; - 1 million. In Russian, on the other hand, the construct &quot;У меня что-то случилось с предметом (человеком)&quot; will be by far more widespread than the construct &quot;С моим предметом (человеком) что-то случилось&quot;. I'll refrain from drawing any conclusions on possessiveness of English vs egocentricity of Russian. However, I could suggest this final illustration which might shed some additional light on the matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *I put **my** hat on* = Я надел(а) шапку [not &quot;Я надел(а) **свою** шапку&quot;].&#xD;&#xA;- *Andrey put **his** hat on* = Андрей надел шапку [not &quot;Андрей надел **свою** (or **его**) шапку&quot;].&#xD;&#xA;- *Andrey's hat is warm* = У Андрея тёплая шапка [not &quot;Шапка Андрея тёплая&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7623" RevisionGUID="6d12f41e-3545-40fd-be08-e70240c0e72d" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:23:36.217" UserId="4629" Text="I would add that &quot;окончил университет&quot; is perceived as a bit more formal and/or archaic whereas &quot;закончил&quot; is slowly but surely drifting from colloquial to neutral general usage. In fact, it may well have already completed the journey." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7624" RevisionGUID="49694c28-66bc-4cd3-a872-ed7e3de25a95" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:34:14.737" UserId="4629" Text="Consider &quot;What do they call your dog?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*they call* = зовут" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="bb5f7417-54da-49ca-b103-f1acb781d53c" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:47:18.113" UserId="3847" Text="I refer to the WW ii propaganda poster of the tiger shown with a bayonet thrust into its throat. 'убей немецких зерей!' reads the tag. Does the verb require genitive plural case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="bb5f7417-54da-49ca-b103-f1acb781d53c" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:47:18.113" UserId="3847" Text="Does the verb 'убирать/убить` require the genitive plural case for the object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="bb5f7417-54da-49ca-b103-f1acb781d53c" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:47:18.113" UserId="3847" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17405" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="403bb81e-f1c4-407f-b2c3-6b08559f664f" CreationDate="2014-11-18T19:40:37.503" UserId="3847" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the verb 'убивать/убить` require the genitive plural case for the object?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7626" RevisionGUID="6f9cfe17-c2e0-450a-a3d6-620feb08cff3" CreationDate="2014-11-18T19:41:05.380" UserId="4608" Text="The verb doesn't require plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural used to personification, it implies that Germans (soldiers) are beasts and you have to kill (literally) many of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular 'убей немецкого зверя!' is OK too, but different meaning: you have to kill (in a figurative) Germany (as a country) or fashism (as an ideology) or like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="ee0a461e-b247-43d1-a0e8-568f57313996" CreationDate="2014-11-18T20:08:00.667" UserId="4633" Text="I can help (Russian myself). The expression is usually used when you want to say that something is acceptable or it could be worse. It's used in colloquial speach only. I.e.:&#xD;&#xA;- Как работа? Как зарплата?&#xD;&#xA;- Жить можно! means that the salary is not that high, but average." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="17d4d95f-8965-46d9-add1-c85cc2a96937" CreationDate="2014-11-18T20:24:12.497" UserId="4633" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="I can help (Russian myself). The expression is usually used when you want to say that something is acceptable or it could be worse. It's used in colloquial speach only. I.e.:&#xD;&#xA;- Как работа? Как зарплата?&#xD;&#xA;- Жить можно! means that the salary is not that high, but average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Много работы?&#xD;&#xA;- Да, но жить можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Do you have much work to do? &#xD;&#xA;- Yes, but I'll manage it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Как жизнь?&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего, жить можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How are you?&#xD;&#xA;- Quite fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is used ironically.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7628" RevisionGUID="da44f6df-8947-4f71-b856-56e42d262554" CreationDate="2014-11-18T21:04:23.730" UserId="134" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slogan is a double entendre: &quot;beasts&quot; could mean Nazi tanks named after animals (&quot;Tiger&quot;, &quot;Panther&quot; etc., as shown on the poster) as well as Nazi themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author could use a synecdoche (&quot;one instead of many&quot;) and say *бей немецкого зверя*, but this way the first meaning would be lost: you should not just kill many beasts, but many types of beasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dypjt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7629" RevisionGUID="e57073de-506c-42a8-b4d9-d9da17821a27" CreationDate="2014-11-18T21:13:41.997" UserId="4636" Text="I can help (russian myself). Correct form is *оканчивать*, but even russians  often don't see the difference and say *заканчивать*. Only purists pay attention to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From russian-russian dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*оканчивать* 1. Приводить к концу; завершать, заканчивать. **2. Завершать обучение в каком-либо учебном заведении или на курсе, в классе.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*заканчивать* Доводить до конца; оканчивать, завершать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7625" RevisionGUID="7e0cd215-26b1-4a94-ad7b-8089c0a568e7" CreationDate="2014-11-19T06:32:29.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/534957366328832000" />
  <row Id="17412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7565" RevisionGUID="576f1ec8-a78b-4785-a33a-bcd776287799" CreationDate="2014-11-19T07:09:04.017" UserId="2388" Comment="added 812 characters in body" Text="First, try to recall how Russian typically expresses possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У нас есть свой дом* = We have got a house of our own.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей бабушки есть машина, а у папы — нет*. = My grandmother has a car and my dad doesn't. &#xD;&#xA; - *У тебя вопросы?* = Have you got questions?&#xD;&#xA; - *У Саши насморк.* = Sasha's got a cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same **у** + ***Genitive*** can introduce a sentence about something related to or possessed by a person or an object (always without &quot;есть&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *У меня не работает мышка.* = My mouse isn't working.&#xD;&#xA; - *У дома были заколочены окна.* = The house's windows were boarded up.&#xD;&#xA; - *У моей жены брат — хирург.* = My wive's brother is a surgeon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret it as &quot;The mouse I have isn't working&quot;, but essentially it is understood as if you just used a possessive construction (&quot;моя мышка&quot;, &quot;окна дома&quot;, &quot;брат моей жены&quot;). To my ear, it is a tiny bit less formal, but still quite neutral in style — I am sure I would not use in a legal document and probably in a scientific article but would not hesitate if I need it anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Russian has a flexible word order, you can emphasize different words using both word order an intonation. So several options are valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ***У стула сломалась ножка.*** (the most neutral/boring/mater-of-fact-ly)&#xD;&#xA; - *Ножка у стула сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA; - *У стула ножка сломалась.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This device has its niche because it may be useful from a narrative point of view. Rather than stating facts about something belonging to something, you inform your listener that the sentence is about *what happened to the object in question, what is interesting about that object, what the situation is*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;У меня мама заболела&quot; is a bit more personal (it means &quot;My mother is ill&quot;), since it focuses on &quot;your situation&quot; (&quot;As for me, my mother is ill&quot;). &quot;Моя мама заболела&quot; is just the most straightforward way: anyone could replace &quot;my mother&quot; in teh sentence, and it would keep the same overall tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example. Say, someone's dear pet died, and their friend noticed they are sad. Then &quot;У меня собака умерла&quot; is a far more natural thing to say than &quot;Моя собака умерла&quot;: after all, you are conmmenting on *your* situation, not on what your dog did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD**: Also, look at the first part of ***Anixx***'s answer. &quot;Ножка стула&quot; can truly mean just any leg of a chair or *chair leg*, including legs severed from the chair. Or those freshly made and not yet attached to any chair. So, it may mean the leg that is intended for use with a chair but not currently associated with any specific chair (similarly to how *bath rug* may be different from *rug in the bathroom*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;У стула ножка/Ножка у стула ....&quot; explicitly means the leg that the chair currently has — or at least had (has) at the moments you are referring to. An example of such use: «У моего кресла ролик заедает. Вот, я принёс — можешь глянуть?» (My armchair's castor gets stuck. Here, I brought it — could you please take a look? → here you mean that the castor jams when it is still attached)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7630" RevisionGUID="6ab8cf2f-bf4a-469a-bab9-7b2d03246ff1" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:13:28.117" UserId="4591" Text="Теоретически от &quot;связывать&quot;  страдательный залог (аналогичный) будет &quot;связываемый&quot;. Может быть и можно сказать &quot;связуемый&quot; (чисто грамматически) но спел-чекер подчеркивает :D &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для наказывать будет &quot;наказываемый&quot;, как я понимаю, хотя, классика жанра &quot;Не наказуемо!&quot;(с), но это из другой оперы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="58e35699-bc1c-4a3d-a8e6-70f0074bc424" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:44:49.563" UserId="4270" Text="Мне кажется, что у настоящего и будущего времени для слова &quot;обследую(т)&quot; одинаковая форма.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так ли это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно указать желаемое время?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="58e35699-bc1c-4a3d-a8e6-70f0074bc424" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:44:49.563" UserId="4270" Text="Как правильно указать время для &quot;обследую&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="58e35699-bc1c-4a3d-a8e6-70f0074bc424" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:44:49.563" UserId="4270" Text="|словоприменение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7632" RevisionGUID="527e1a7e-4070-41b3-88c7-02c7d19f2f2f" CreationDate="2014-11-19T14:13:24.217" UserId="2388" Text="Всё верно. Есть ряд глаголов (в основном, на *-овать*), которые в зависимости от контекста передают совершённый или несовершённый вид, как то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *атаковать*&#xD;&#xA;- *стартовать*&#xD;&#xA;- *даровать*&#xD;&#xA;- *образовать* (to constitute, to form)&#xD;&#xA;- *организовать* (to organize)&#xD;&#xA;- *афишировать, телеграфировать, механизировать* and some other verbs&#xD;&#xA;- *жениться* (when a man marries a woman, not when they both &quot;marry&quot; each other)&#xD;&#xA;- *казнить* (to execute a person)&#xD;&#xA;- *ранить* (to wound)&#xD;&#xA;- *исследовать* (to explore, to do research, to examine)&#xD;&#xA;- *использовать* (to use)&#xD;&#xA;- *заимствовать* (to borrow)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У таких глаголов личная форма передаёт либо настоящее, либо будущее время, в зависимости от контекста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short summary in English: yes, there is a small number of verbs in Russian that act for perfective or imperfective depending on the context (typically they end in *-овать*, but not all of them are like that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, their conjugated form can mean present or future tense depending on your situation. If it is not clear in conversation or writing which time you might refer to, use additional adverbs of time or adverbial phrases to show that. Usually it is not necessary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="932a3447-484d-417f-b2f7-08ff4dca722b" CreationDate="2014-11-19T14:18:37.720" UserId="4600" Text="You could use adverb to specify present tense explicitly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пациента **сейчас** обследуют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or use passive voice to specify future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пациент **будет обследован.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="179645cf-eb35-41c9-b05a-5dc482531409" CreationDate="2014-11-19T14:48:33.973" UserId="4600" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="You could use adverb to specify present tense explicitly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пациента **сейчас** обследуют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or use passive voice to specify future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пациент **будет обследован.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7634" RevisionGUID="e82968df-d0ac-4b81-8109-9b344e8ce09f" CreationDate="2014-11-19T15:06:39.143" UserId="4645" Text="&quot;Иди на..&quot; implies general recommendation like a kind of status within the context that provokes the curse or like an advice to keep the subject away from the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пошел на..&quot; expresses stronger imperative, more like a request for immediate action to terminate the irritating subject like &quot;do it now&quot;. Sometimes used when speaker feels that his/her previous &quot;иди на..&quot; curse is being ignored but this time in conjunction with stronger (more offensive) direction.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пошел на..&quot; is more aggressive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7632" RevisionGUID="79605d7b-38f8-4b82-8dee-7211c331431f" CreationDate="2014-11-19T16:04:51.573" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Всё верно. Есть ряд глаголов (в основном, на *-овать*), которые в зависимости от контекста передают совершенный или несовершенный вид, как то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *атаковать*&#xD;&#xA;- *стартовать*&#xD;&#xA;- *даровать*&#xD;&#xA;- *образовать* (to constitute, to form)&#xD;&#xA;- *организовать* (to organize)&#xD;&#xA;- *афишировать, телеграфировать, механизировать* and some other verbs&#xD;&#xA;- *жениться* (when a man marries a woman, not when they both &quot;marry&quot; each other)&#xD;&#xA;- *казнить* (to execute a person)&#xD;&#xA;- *ранить* (to wound)&#xD;&#xA;- *исследовать* (to explore, to do research, to examine)&#xD;&#xA;- *использовать* (to use)&#xD;&#xA;- *заимствовать* (to borrow)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У таких глаголов личная форма передаёт либо настоящее, либо будущее время, в зависимости от контекста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short summary in English: yes, there is a small number of verbs in Russian that act for perfective or imperfective depending on the context (typically they end in *-овать*, but not all of them are like that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, their conjugated form can mean present or future tense depending on your situation. If it is not clear in conversation or writing which time you might refer to, use additional adverbs of time or adverbial phrases to show that. Usually it is not necessary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="9ef64510-dde7-409d-b158-59db832755d0" CreationDate="2014-11-19T17:16:04.897" UserId="134" Text="Those words are Church Slavonic borrowings, derived from CS *сказовати*, *испытовати*, *связовати*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an opposite example: CS has *завѣдывати*, while Russian has *заведовать*. Until quite recently, the CS form and the proper Russian form were used in parallel, and the CS form and its derivatives (*заведывающий*, *заведываю* etc.) had even been prevalent for some time (early XX century)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="fb6293f8-f2a5-4d62-b050-1453d2d94341" CreationDate="2014-11-19T18:50:40.447" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Скажите, пожалуйста, какая словообразовательная связь между словами &quot;испытать/испытывать&quot; и &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Раньше было правило, непосредственно связывающее эти два слова по грамматике? &#xD;&#xA;Или может быть было слово &quot;испытывать&quot;, от которого можно образоваться слово &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как между &quot;связывать&quot; и &quot;связующий&quot;? Еще есть такие слова, как &quot;сказуемое&quot;, &quot;наказуемый&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7545" RevisionGUID="077c5c83-ed7f-4bfd-9056-a17979957a3c" CreationDate="2014-11-19T19:28:59.873" UserId="4518" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am a Russian, living in Russia. I can tell you two things, first-hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There isn't a &quot;strong anti-gay campaign&quot; in contemporary Russia. The law that you seem to think is anti-gay forbids propaganda of homosexualism and lesbianity. I had a gay university professor; he is now a Chair of the English Language, and nobody minds he is gay, as long as he doesn't advertize that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I should say that open propaganda of any physical sexual relations, be that gay, lesbian, or straign, is not encouraged in Russia. Why this special law about homosexuals is, probably, that they have been forwarding their case somewhat aggressively lately. But when you are alone with your partner, it's your own business, whether you are two men, two women, a straight pair, or a crowd of swingers, as long as all of you are of age, and you don't make too much noise.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. However, not in the contemporary Russia, but as long as I remember (I was born in 1967, in the Soviet Union), homosixuality has been considered more or less disgusting here. Nowadays, contrary to what is being said, we are more tolerant to gays. However, a straigt Russian man will strongly dislike it if you suppose *he* is gay. How he will react, now, is a question of his background: some, like myself, will politely say that you are mistaken; a redneck type may punch you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, you'd better ask a Russian man if he is gay either if you are pretty sure that he is (by his manner of speaking, clothes, etc.) or if he appears to be well-bred: he will not like the idea, but he will not make a fuss. In either case, euphemisms like &quot;are you interested in men&quot; will be more appropriate than a straightforward question &quot;are you gay/a homosexualist&quot;. In Russian, it will be ***«Простите, вы, случайно, не интересуетесь мужчинами?»***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="38d6e7e3-9d82-4779-b11d-58b1626c30c4" CreationDate="2014-11-19T19:31:15.037" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Скажите, пожалуйста, какая словообразовательная связь между словами &quot;испытать/испытывать&quot; и &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Раньше было правило, непосредственно связывающее эти два слова по грамматике? &#xD;&#xA;Или может быть было слово &quot;испытовать&quot;, от которого можно образоваться слово &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как между &quot;связывать&quot; и &quot;связующий&quot;? Еще есть такие слова, как &quot;сказуемое&quot;, &quot;наказуемый&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="4d70b425-2431-4a2b-9a37-87184eb5b679" CreationDate="2014-11-19T20:02:29.690" UserId="134" Comment="added 727 characters in body" Text="Those words are Church Slavonic borrowings, derived from CS *сказовати*, *испытовати*, *связовати*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an opposite example: CS has *завѣдывати*, while Russian has *заведовать*. Until quite recently, the CS form and the proper Russian form were used in parallel, and the CS form and its derivatives (*заведывающий*, *заведываю* etc.) had even been prevalent for some time (early XX century).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Vostokov's *Русская Грамматика*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некоторые глаголы сего отделения на *-ывать* принимают в первой отрасли двоякое окончание: *-ываю* и *-yю* или *-у&amp;#x301;ю*. Таковы суть: *испове&amp;#x301;дываю* и *испове&amp;#x301;дую*, *пропове&amp;#x301;дываю* и *пропове&amp;#x301;дую*, *испы&amp;#x301;тываю* и *испыту&amp;#x301;ю*, *ука&amp;#x301;зываю* и *указу&amp;#x301;ю*, *ска&amp;#x301;зываю* и *сказу&amp;#x301;ю*, *свя&amp;#x301;зываю* и *связу&amp;#x301;ю*, *обя&amp;#x301;зываю* и *обязу&amp;#x301;ю*. Последнее окончание принадлежит важной речи и имеет в церковном Словенском языке соответствующее ceбе окончание второй отрасли *-овал*, *-oвaть*, вместо *-ывал*, *-ывать*; напр. *пропове&amp;#x301;довати*, *испы&amp;#x301;товати*, *ска&amp;#x301;зовати*, *свя&amp;#x301;зовати* и пр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="6efcaa68-7374-47f4-ba28-94c80eec0c9b" CreationDate="2014-11-20T00:36:06.357" UserId="3847" Text="You can subscribe to ETV.net or BestRussianTV.com. They have live TV, recorded programs and movies. When listening, don't get hung up on trying to understand every word. Just try to pick up the key words. That's what we do anyway, in our own language. We fill in the gaps from knowing the context of the situation. When watching news, on e.g., Russia 24 or Kanal 5 (Севодня) start out by reading the headlines at the bottom of the screen, observing the location of a video story (usually they tell you in the upper left-hand corner where the story takes place. Finally, I find it helpful to watch Russian movies with accurate Russian subtitles (not automatic subtitles). On Youtube there are some Russian movies (usually tear-jerkers) with accurate Russian subtitles. e.g., 'Мой Грех', 'Пряники из Карточки','Водитель для Веры'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="a27fbf6c-3032-4772-93d3-3ababbe9ee42" CreationDate="2014-11-20T01:02:08.990" UserId="3847" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="You can subscribe to ETV.net or BestRussianTV.com. They have live TV, recorded programs and movies. When listening, don't get hung up on trying to understand every word. Just try to pick up the key words. That's what we do anyway, in our own language. We fill in the gaps from knowing the context of the situation. When watching news, on e.g., Russia 24 or Kanal 5 (Севодня) start out by reading the headlines at the bottom of the screen, observing the location of a video story (usually they tell you in the upper left-hand corner where the story takes place.It's a little known fact that TV and newspapers only have eight basic stories--the plane/train/ship disaster, the terrible auto accidents, etc. The same vocabulary is used repeatedly since the stories are repeated with different details. You can't help but pick up the vocabulary of auto accidents after so many video stories. Finally, I find it helpful to watch Russian movies with accurate Russian subtitles (not automatic subtitles). On Youtube there are some Russian movies (usually tear-jerkers) with accurate Russian subtitles. e.g., 'Мой Грех', 'Пряники из Карточки','Водитель для Веры'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17436" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7631" RevisionGUID="f12ed73c-6f81-4233-9e87-4f493496f57e" CreationDate="2014-11-20T03:33:19.697" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/535274664617332736" />
  <row Id="17437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7639" RevisionGUID="1858ec89-102f-4482-8a44-08c6fe847c10" CreationDate="2014-11-20T08:13:05.467" UserId="4560" Text="It's not genitive, it's animate accusative. Or, if you like, it's a historical genitive that's considered accusative for all intents and purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The animate/inanimate distinction affects all nouns in the plural, and masculine ones (other than the ones ending in -а/-я) in the singular. Humans and animals are grammatically animate. Plants and microorganisms aren't. A curious situation exists with words for dead people; мертвец and покойник are animate while труп isn't, and neither is призрак &quot;ghost&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that seems complicated, the good news is that the only expression of the animate/inanimate distinction is the one you're asking about; the accusative case of animate nouns coincides with the genitive rather than the nominative. Adjectives attached to an animate noun in the accusative also inherit the &quot;technically genitive&quot; case ending. That's all. (A number of other Slavic languages, such as Czech, have more complicated animate/inanimate distinctions, which also affect the nominative plural.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7609" RevisionGUID="4f39acb1-8ca9-4144-8061-1dbbe6a42073" CreationDate="2014-11-20T11:59:48.847" UserId="134" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Скажите, пожалуйста, какая словообразовательная связь между словами &quot;испытать/испытывать&quot; и &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раньше было правило, непосредственно связывающее эти два слова по грамматике? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или, может быть, было слово &quot;**испытовать&quot;, от которого могло бы образоваться слово &quot;испытуемый&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А как между &quot;связывать&quot; и &quot;связующий&quot;? Еще есть такие слова, как &quot;сказуемое&quot;, &quot;наказуемый&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7635" RevisionGUID="11e3ce37-7a55-4037-b7c6-ffbb0bfcfec1" CreationDate="2014-11-20T12:09:18.653" UserId="134" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Those words are Church Slavonic borrowings, derived from CS *сказовати*, *испытовати*, *связовати*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Vostokov's *Русская Грамматика*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некоторые глаголы сего отделения на *-ывать* принимают в первой отрасли двоякое окончание: *-ываю* и *-yю* или *-у&amp;#x301;ю*. Таковы суть: *испове&amp;#x301;дываю* и *испове&amp;#x301;дую*, *пропове&amp;#x301;дываю* и *пропове&amp;#x301;дую*, *испы&amp;#x301;тываю* и *испыту&amp;#x301;ю*, *ука&amp;#x301;зываю* и *указу&amp;#x301;ю*, *ска&amp;#x301;зываю* и *сказу&amp;#x301;ю*, *свя&amp;#x301;зываю* и *связу&amp;#x301;ю*, *обя&amp;#x301;зываю* и *обязу&amp;#x301;ю*. Последнее окончание принадлежит важной речи и имеет в церковном Словенском языке соответствующее ceбе окончание второй отрасли *-овал*, *-oвaть*, вместо *-ывал*, *-ывать*; напр. *пропове&amp;#x301;довати*, *испы&amp;#x301;товати*, *ска&amp;#x301;зовати*, *свя&amp;#x301;зовати* и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an opposite example: CS had *завѣдовати*, while Russian had *заведывать*. Until quite recently, the CS form and the proper Russian form were used in parallel, and the Russian form and its derivatives (*заведывающий*, *заведываю* etc.) had been prevalent for some time (early XX century).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, nowadays the CS form (*заведовать*) is used, and the Russian form is perceived as archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7633" RevisionGUID="79d6dda1-0710-4480-986b-658774a9ad09" CreationDate="2014-11-20T12:42:34.080" UserId="4600" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="You could use adverb to specify present tense explicitly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пациента **сейчас** обследуют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was stated correctly in comments, even this sentence can refer to *nearest future*. So you can specify present tense even more explicitly (this should leave no doubts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пациента обследуют **в данный момент**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or use passive voice to specify future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пациент **будет обследован.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7640" RevisionGUID="a4e912c5-aa76-4557-a4bf-317f988fb0fb" CreationDate="2014-11-20T20:12:57.760" UserId="4654" Text="Добавлю к верно сказанному выше, что следует помнить, что наличие &quot;не-&quot; в начале не всегда есть отрицательные приставка, ибо есть, скажем, &quot;недо-&quot;, которое приводит в том числе к глаголам, которые могут начинаться с &quot;не&quot;, как, например, &quot;недоедать&quot; в значении &quot;есть маловато&quot; (в противоположность &quot;не доедать&quot;, если имеется в виду &quot;не доесть что-то&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Часть слов не употребляется без &quot;не&quot; не по немного менее очевидной причине, что это не &quot;не-&quot;, а часть &quot;недо-&quot;, которое нельзя изъять из слова частично. И слова &quot;недотёпа&quot;, &quot;недотрах&quot;, &quot;недопонимание&quot; и прочие тому пример." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="784ca276-0429-48f9-90dc-6132cd54d35d" CreationDate="2014-11-21T10:07:57.650" UserId="4657" Text="What does &quot;korobchil&quot; mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfLeHdTDhUg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="784ca276-0429-48f9-90dc-6132cd54d35d" CreationDate="2014-11-21T10:07:57.650" UserId="4657" Text="What does &quot;korobchil&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="784ca276-0429-48f9-90dc-6132cd54d35d" CreationDate="2014-11-21T10:07:57.650" UserId="4657" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7642" RevisionGUID="29dd89bb-c094-4094-af3f-f2eb4ed171b0" CreationDate="2014-11-21T10:27:28.883" UserId="1236" Text="&gt; Чичен молодой в озере купался,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Русску девку коробчил, без штанов остался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a verb from a Cossack dialect, `коробчить / карабчить`, it means &quot;to steal; to deceive&quot;. There's another possible explanation, the word can be `коропчить` derived from `короп` (carp), then it means &quot;to fish, to catch carp&quot;, this fits the song in a better way, the young Chechen used his trousers as a fishing net and lost them.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7643" RevisionGUID="828bdf72-2913-4945-81c7-f5a0f1e793d8" CreationDate="2014-11-21T13:34:02.683" UserId="4658" Text="экспрешн-стэйтмент (I know C++, Russian and English, unlike the other poster)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="e2dee086-a10b-4bed-89e6-90bf069334e4" CreationDate="2014-11-21T13:54:48.730" UserId="3892" Text="I saw this use of the participle **стоящий** in the following passage and wondered it if common or even correct, since it so closely follows English syntax and somehow doesn't &quot;feel&quot; Russian to me for several reasons, least of which is the fact that I always thought participles in apposition to preceding nouns are always set off by a comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того как она сказала, что **не помнит меня стоящего** в очереди&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перед ней, я предложил решить это с помощью монеты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*When she said that she **didn't remember me being** ahead of her in the line, I suggested we toss a coin for it.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this *is* correct, how productive is the pattern? Can it be used with any verb? For example, by analogy, ¿could one say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="e2dee086-a10b-4bed-89e6-90bf069334e4" CreationDate="2014-11-21T13:54:48.730" UserId="3892" Text="Use of participles in apposition with nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="e2dee086-a10b-4bed-89e6-90bf069334e4" CreationDate="2014-11-21T13:54:48.730" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="225c7b15-d508-43df-9571-4c43a3c1ad35" CreationDate="2014-11-21T14:58:25.387" UserId="2388" Text="You will probably be understood, but, yep — just as you think, this pattern sounds funny to a modern speaker. I am not sure it was ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than say *Я не помню тебя работающего(работающим) со мной в Москве.* a native speaker would use *Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle pattern is used when you refer to perceiving **a person** who was doing some action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я увидел человека, стоящего на углу = *I saw a man (who was) standing at the corner.* (→ probably there were other people but you are talking about the one who was at the corner)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But it is not used to refer to the **action** that was being performed. That's why it sounds weird: a pronoun is understood as a reference to one and one possible object only (aka antecedent). There is no &quot;me being ahead&quot; and some other &quot;me doing homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I am not sure it is incorrect per se, but definitely not common other than when used exactly to sound funny/foreign. The most correct interpretation of &quot;не помнит меня, стоящего в очереди перед ней&quot; would be &quot;does not remeber me (who were ahead of here in the line)&quot; . However, since the past tense used in modern Russian was essentially a past participle in Old East Slavic, there is a chance such wording could have been in use (which would have been a thousand years ago anyway)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7646" RevisionGUID="04f11c04-e6c7-4c58-99f4-a17436183ac2" CreationDate="2014-11-21T14:59:14.507" UserId="4600" Text="I think this should be used with a comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того как она сказала, что не помнит меня**,** стоящего в очереди перед ней...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically correct would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того как она сказала, что не помнит меня **стоящим** в очереди перед ней...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того как она сказала, что не помнит, **чтобы я стоял** в очереди перед ней..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="6e8f88bb-8c34-4723-a1b4-d033bdc322e6" CreationDate="2014-11-21T15:03:57.173" UserId="4659" Text="Какой перевод с Англ. термина work item наиболее интуитивен и наиболее популярен среди продвинутых в IT-технологиях Русскоязычных людей? Например среди программистов и других сотрудников IT-компаний.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ближайшим переводом на мой (иностранный) взгляд является &quot;задача&quot;. К сожалению в контексте термин work items используется как обобщающий для tasks, bug reports, suggestions и т.д., где tasks уже переводится как &quot;задача&quot;. Получается конфликт например в предложении &quot;Work items that are meant for internal purposes are called tasks.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="6e8f88bb-8c34-4723-a1b4-d033bdc322e6" CreationDate="2014-11-21T15:03:57.173" UserId="4659" Text="Перевод &quot;work item&quot; в компьютерной терминологии" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="6e8f88bb-8c34-4723-a1b4-d033bdc322e6" CreationDate="2014-11-21T15:03:57.173" UserId="4659" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="bf28de95-bbcf-4896-902a-101fe0b0ce14" CreationDate="2014-11-21T15:27:48.790" UserId="194" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="f5b14eca-b9e2-4bb0-83cd-167c298b14b3" CreationDate="2014-11-21T15:51:44.387" UserId="194" Comment="added 1045 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember a moment when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you were working with me in Moscow (I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall when working).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="60f5e519-d6eb-48ea-8be0-e402906815d7" CreationDate="2014-11-21T15:58:03.597" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember a moment when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you were working with me in Moscow (I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall when working).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="ebd1db6f-374a-4190-a968-ff285d97ec37" CreationDate="2014-11-21T16:08:37.443" UserId="194" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were wiorking, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="abbb0f2d-2d5c-4404-af84-d97d539a0f94" CreationDate="2014-11-21T16:13:40.970" UserId="194" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. **Example:** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я понмню тебя сидящим работающим меня и портрет Путина на стене, и после этого я потерял сознание.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="b32cee74-2ab0-400c-9275-03f9156fdece" CreationDate="2014-11-21T16:19:33.793" UserId="194" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this underlines that you became different since then! **Example:** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающим напротив меня и портрет Путина на стене, и после этого я потерял сознание.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="1e134472-be70-4172-b1c8-3850b9fb501e" CreationDate="2014-11-21T16:24:48.540" UserId="194" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this underlines that you became different since then! **Example:** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающим напротив меня и портрет Путина на стене, и после этого я потерял сознание.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="f8fea859-11ca-4ee0-af67-054393aea600" CreationDate="2014-11-21T16:32:47.623" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this underlines that you became different since then! **Example:** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя только работающим. Ты вообще когда-нибудь отдыхал, когда был в Москве?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="f7e951f2-e34b-4cf4-809c-12915757434c" CreationDate="2014-11-21T16:47:12.587" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustraded if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this underlines that you became different since then! ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя только работающим. Ты вообще когда-нибудь отдыхал, когда был в Москве?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="1e87d0d3-9732-4d61-9650-48dbb5127265" CreationDate="2014-11-21T17:28:48.993" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustrated if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this underlines that you became different since then! ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя только работающим. Ты вообще когда-нибудь отдыхал, когда был в Москве?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="91624009-deff-40f3-9849-75f8839f758c" CreationDate="2014-11-21T17:38:03.873" UserId="194" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustrated if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember you when you were working in Moscow. I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this implyes that you became different since then! ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя только работающим. Ты вообще когда-нибудь отдыхал, когда был в Москве?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты говоришь, что ты тогда был очень веселым. Возможно, но я не помню&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя работающего в Москве. = You said you were very joyful at the time. Maybe, but I do not remember you when you were working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="f6fdfa8c-bd7d-4bb6-aa79-e9ddc808b2a8" CreationDate="2014-11-21T17:44:29.350" UserId="194" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustrated if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember you when you were working in Moscow. I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this implyes that you became different since then! ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя только работающим. Ты вообще когда-нибудь отдыхал, когда был в Москве?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember how you looked when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты говоришь, что ты тогда был очень веселым. Возможно, но я не помню&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя работающего в Москве. = You said you were very joyful at the time. Maybe, but I do not remember you when you were working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню. = I remember that you worked with me in Moscow, but I haven't meet you at workplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающим не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню. = I remember that you worked with me in Moscow, maybe I saw you at workplace, but I haven't seen you working, performing the tasks (rather than talking, joking, entertaining yourself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7645" RevisionGUID="60c01e05-8855-4ba4-bad1-2dc26c356534" CreationDate="2014-11-21T17:53:16.267" UserId="2388" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="You will probably be understood, but, yep — just as you think, this pattern sounds funny to a modern speaker. I am not sure it was ever used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than say *Я не помню тебя работающего(работающим) со мной в Москве.* a native speaker would use *Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The participle pattern is used when you refer to perceiving **a person** who was doing some action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я увидел человека, стоящего на углу = *I saw a man (who was) standing at the corner.* (→ probably there were other people but you are talking about the one who was at the corner)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But it is not used to refer to the **action** that was being performed. That's why it sounds weird: a pronoun is understood as a reference to one and one possible object only (aka antecedent). There is no &quot;me being ahead&quot; and some other &quot;me doing homework&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I am not sure it is incorrect per se, but definitely not common other than when used exactly to sound funny/foreign. The most correct interpretation of &quot;не помнит меня стоящего в очереди перед ней&quot; would be &quot;does not remeber me (who were ahead of here in the line)&quot; . However, since the past tense used in modern Russian was essentially a past participle in Old East Slavic, there is a chance such wording could have been in use (which would have been a thousand years ago anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: I looked it up. This structure is grammatical but archaic. It is found in literature (especially a century and more old). Not so much in real life. So it makes no sense to use it unless you *specifically* aim for an arhaic feel and are ready to supply you writing with appropriate vocabulary, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7649" RevisionGUID="61ac2e45-356a-41e5-a17c-2702e15d75ab" CreationDate="2014-11-21T18:04:16.010" UserId="134" Text="Microsoft and several other companies translate it as *рабочий элемент* or *элемент работы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, the most intuitive translation would be *дело* (*сделал одно дело — берись за другое*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="94423939-eeab-4b84-a41a-ac96efbd6692" CreationDate="2014-11-21T20:46:06.597" UserId="1236" Text="Apart from commas and periods, there's a great difference in the use of other punctuation signs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Собака» – это имя существительное.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Dog&quot; is a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Also note the dash used to mark a pause.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Direct speech punctuation][1], especially the colon, the dash, and the position of the comma outside of the quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он крикнул: «Беги!»&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He shouted, ‘Run!’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; «Беги!» – крикнул он.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Run!’ he shouted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; «Она не придёт», – сказал Олег. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;‘She won't come,’ said Oleg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=znapr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="2df57203-950d-4516-90c0-635e4932785a" CreationDate="2014-11-22T03:44:56.767" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma here before the word &quot;было&quot;?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Oдному Богу известно насколько подлинным, а не показным, было моё смирение&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="2df57203-950d-4516-90c0-635e4932785a" CreationDate="2014-11-22T03:44:56.767" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma after an opposite alternative presented by &quot;а не ...&quot; phrase in a complex sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="2df57203-950d-4516-90c0-635e4932785a" CreationDate="2014-11-22T03:44:56.767" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="ee550989-93f3-4a6f-b3e9-3f0414e71b7f" CreationDate="2014-11-22T10:55:27.900" UserId="170" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Do I need a comma here before the word &quot;было&quot;?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Oдному Богу известно, насколько подлинным, а не показным, было моё смирение&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7653" RevisionGUID="02ea4465-e367-4d85-9356-b57c84449916" CreationDate="2014-11-22T11:38:04.577" UserId="4654" Text="I think you do not need a comma before &quot;было&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is a сложноподчинённое предложение, where main part = &quot;Одному Богу известно&quot;, dependent part = &quot;насколько подлинным, а не показным было моё смирение&quot;. This implies that the comma before &quot;насколько&quot; is needed.&#xD;&#xA;The comma before &quot;а не&quot; is needed because words &quot;подлинным&quot; и &quot;показным&quot; are opposed by &quot;а не&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But no other commas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="97464454-0f1b-4926-8fc3-efbe58b332fa" CreationDate="2014-11-22T12:57:59.133" UserId="3892" Text="As I understand it, using the 2nd person ending already makes **скажите** polite. Is the form **подскажите** both more polite AND formal? Or do they say the same thing, in the same register, with a different choice of words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="97464454-0f1b-4926-8fc3-efbe58b332fa" CreationDate="2014-11-22T12:57:59.133" UserId="3892" Text="скажите vs подскажите" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="97464454-0f1b-4926-8fc3-efbe58b332fa" CreationDate="2014-11-22T12:57:59.133" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7655" RevisionGUID="3722006b-551e-45db-83e0-f276496b1005" CreationDate="2014-11-22T13:16:01.180" UserId="1236" Text="Those are two different verbs, sometimes they can be used interchangeably, but in most cases they cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сказать** is &quot;say, tell&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**подсказать** is &quot;prompt, suggest&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of the two verbs intersects when you ask someone to tell you some information, such as phone numbers, the way to a place, people's names, etc. In such case either verb can be used, usually with **пожалуйста** since you're asking for a favor. And, at least as for me, they are equally polite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скажите/Подскажите, как пройти в библиотеку?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will you tell me the way to the library?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the rest of situations, the two verbs are as interchangeable as their English counterparts I listed above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7656" RevisionGUID="50c00227-12d5-4023-915e-7037ee29fb44" CreationDate="2014-11-22T15:16:35.397" UserId="4336" Text="[Словарь][1] предлагает, в числе прочих, вариант `единица работы`. На мой взгляд, более внятно, чем `рабочий элемент`, который ассоциируется больше с (электро)техникой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=work%20item&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="d790e1e7-8091-49c7-bee5-2ee88d83db33" CreationDate="2014-11-22T18:36:18.610" UserId="1884" Text="Let's take two example sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара ребят. **Они** братья. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара предложений, которые я выписал в тетрадь. **Это** упражнения. Я выписал их из учебника.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why can't we say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара предложений, которые я выписал в тетрадь. **Они** упражнения. Я выписал их из учебника.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="d790e1e7-8091-49c7-bee5-2ee88d83db33" CreationDate="2014-11-22T18:36:18.610" UserId="1884" Text="&quot;Они братья&quot; but &quot;Это упражнения&quot; - why different pronouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="d790e1e7-8091-49c7-bee5-2ee88d83db33" CreationDate="2014-11-22T18:36:18.610" UserId="1884" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="0a0d39ba-98cf-4d48-9b46-98e77f40cac4" CreationDate="2014-11-22T18:54:11.207" UserId="1236" Text="In Russian like in English, you can use two kinds of constructions to name an object, &quot;He is a man&quot; and &quot;This is a man&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is a man. - Он мужщина. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a man. - Это мужщина. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is, construction [2] in Russian will always begin with **это** irrespective of the number of the objects:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is a man. - Это мужщина. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These are men. - Это мужщины. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in Russian, you cannot use construction [1] to name non-living things and most animals, too. In this case in English you will have **it/they** in construction [1], in Russian it will again be **это** irrespective of the number of the objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is a sentence. [1] - Это предложение. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are sentences. [1] - Это предложения. [2]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7658" RevisionGUID="b2bece85-e165-42fe-8c79-60beef845539" CreationDate="2014-11-22T19:00:59.927" UserId="3680" Comment="мужЧина" Text="In Russian like in English, you can use two kinds of constructions to name an object, &quot;He is a man&quot; and &quot;This is a man&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He is a man. - Он мужчина. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a man. - Это мужчина. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is, construction [2] in Russian will always begin with **это** irrespective of the number of the objects:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This is a man. - Это мужчина. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These are men. - Это мужчины. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in Russian, you cannot use construction [1] to name non-living things and most animals, too. In this case in English you will have **it/they** in construction [1], in Russian it will again be **это** irrespective of the number of the objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It is a sentence. [1] - Это предложение. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They are sentences. [1] - Это предложения. [2]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7661" RevisionGUID="f0df1e43-b423-4ad6-8811-14c1fb6bd1ce" CreationDate="2014-11-24T18:10:16.053" UserId="4629" Text="Consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара предложений, которые я выписал в тетрадь. **Это** &lt;есть&gt; упражнения. (They are exercises)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара предложений, которые я выписал в тетрадь. **Они** &lt;есть&gt; короткие. (They are short)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the personal pronoun **они** is perfectly correct in the latter case, you will predominantly encounter this usage where a quality (or an action) of the subject for which the pronoun substitutes is described. The former case, on the other hand, tends to be used where the substituted subject is (re)defined. This usage of **это** is so widespread that this demonstrative pronoun is said to not only reply to the questions **Какое?** (where it is translated as **this**) but also to the question **Что это?** (where it then means **it (is)**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in constructs like ***это*** *упражнения* the pronoun **это** serves as a personal pronoun rather than a demonstrative one. As has already been said, in its personal pronoun incarnation **это** is much more often substituted for inanimate rather than animate subjects and its plural form coincides with its singular one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Видишь этих людей? Они инженеры. - Do you see these people? They are engineers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Это инженеры* would be also perfectly correct, however!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Видишь эти предметы? Это стулья. - Do you see these objects? They are chairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Они стулья* would sound terribly weird as if someone cursed people into the shape of chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7662" RevisionGUID="69590064-31e7-4fe5-9deb-3f91fd6278a6" CreationDate="2014-11-24T18:50:55.277" UserId="4629" Text="Over the last 30-40 years *подскажите* has become widespread and almost totally replaced *скажите* in requests for help. Before that *подсказать* was used to describe a rather limited number of situations where verbal help was requested or offered: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To quietly whisper a hint in a class.&#xD;&#xA;- To remind one of something one used to (or is supposed to) know but forgets, to refresh one's memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When asking for help, saying *Скажите, пожалуйста* or *Не скажете (ли)?* sounds to my old-fashioned ear much more polite, educated and well-mannered than *Подскажите, пожалуйста* or *Не подскажете?* which bear a vague but undoubted colloquial shade. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7663" RevisionGUID="529a7665-03eb-4941-b9a7-7301f27ff665" CreationDate="2014-11-24T19:59:22.367" UserId="4629" Text="&gt; После последнего однородного члена предложения, присоединяемого противительным или подчинительным союзом и не заканчивающего собой предложения, запятая не ставится (т. е. последний однородный член не обособляется): ***Не род, а ум*** *поставлю в воеводы (П.); Каждый вечер солнце садилось* ***в море, а не в тучи*** *и было при этом клюквенного цвета (Ю. К.); Они получили* ***небольшую, но удобную*** *квартиру; Поставлена* ***трудная, зато интересная*** *задача; Слышалась* ***жалобная, если не униженная*** *просьба пощадить его самолюбие; В кинофильме рассказывается о* ***первой, пусть неразделённой*** *любви; Получены* ***важные, хотя и не итоговые*** *сведения; У девочки* ***опасная, потому что заразная*** *болезнь.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Д. Э. Розенталь&#xD;&#xA;СПРАВОЧНИК ПО РУССКОМУ ЯЗЫКУ: ОРФОГРАФИЯ И ПУНКТУАЦИЯ&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7664" RevisionGUID="336040ae-d1e4-4cbe-8500-603ed19488de" CreationDate="2014-11-24T20:11:53.587" UserId="4629" Text="*Я запомнил её сидящ**ей** у окна с чашкой чая в руке* would sound distinctly &quot;literary&quot; but entirely grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example in the question is indeed not correct. In fact, it does look like a poor quality translation from English made by someone whose Russian is wanting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7665" RevisionGUID="3d3e721b-df1d-4295-beda-10e172b6f1cf" CreationDate="2014-11-25T01:22:07.327" UserId="4674" Text="I would tend to agree with Avi Gordon's answer. Originally `подскажите` is not supposed to ask, &quot;how can I get there?&quot; for example. But some people, especially women, tend to use this word in various situations. For me it sounds a little bit gay, if I hear &quot;не подскажете, сколько сейчас время?&quot; from a man. However, I hear it from a woman quite often. So I personally would never say like that and would only use this word where it is adequate, and that means, only in rare specific situation, for example: I must tell a poem which I have learned by heart in a class and someone whispers me hints. Then the teacher says: &quot;не надо подсказывать!&quot;. Probably I would accept this word in other grammatical construction, like &quot;подскажите хороший ресторан&quot; which is a worse (kind of travestied) variant of &quot;посоветуйте хороший ресторан&quot; and it's used (not by me) rather in a situation where someone must choose from some options and can't make his mind, or just forgot something (which day is it for example) and need a quick hint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7666" RevisionGUID="94f844ba-b9fd-460c-8e04-1e8ec2268f78" CreationDate="2014-11-25T03:02:41.410" UserId="4674" Text="Well, those examples are quite strange indeed. I suppose those sentences have some connection, otherwise the first example wouldn't have much sence. Your second example is grammatically correct but it is something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I stare at the golden coins on my table. **These are** the coins. I've put them on the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds like a talk of a slightly mad man. And the third example is total nonsence, it is like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I stare at the coins on my table. **They are** the coins...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe you can say &quot;they are the coins&quot; in English. In Russian it's similar, also you don't have to distinguish between singular/plural, so in Russian it is just like if you literally could say &quot;it's a coin&quot; - &quot;это монета&quot; or &quot;it's coins&quot; - &quot;это монеты&quot;, so it is even simpler than in English. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7648" RevisionGUID="0036f45b-d637-40d1-8576-cc8963080c0f" CreationDate="2014-11-25T15:13:30.843" UserId="194" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't remember you working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you can only use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, чтобы ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Former means more negative attitude (statement that you did not work with me). The later means just that I do not remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be better illustrated if we omit the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве. = I remember you when you were working in Moscow. I remember the expression on your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; face and how you were looking then and how you looked and behaved overall and how you dressed, and what were you habits, your character and overall what a man you were at the time. Note, this implyes that you became different since then! ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве, ты тогда был очень весёлым и одевался очень стильно.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню тебя работающим со мной в Москве. = I remember the exact moment when you were working, when performing a task, doing a job exactly in the process. ***Example:*** *Я помню тебя только работающим. Ты вообще когда-нибудь отдыхал, когда был в Москве?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember the fact that you worked with me in Moscow, and nothing more. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, как ты работал со мной в Москве. = I remember you working&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with me in Moscow (I remember you day-by-day and common tasks we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; were doing and what we accomplished together)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that if you say &quot;Я не помню тебя работающего со мной в Москве.&quot; the meaning would different from what you intend. It would mean &quot;I do not remember what a person you were when you were working with me in Moscow, your face, your mood etc.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты говоришь, что ты тогда был очень веселым. Возможно, но я не помню&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя работающего в Москве. = You said you were very joyful at the time. Maybe, but I do not remember you when you were working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I remember the fact, but no your look in the process. For instance you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающего не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню. = I remember that you worked with me in Moscow, but I haven't meet you at workplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что ты работал со мной в Москве, но тебя работающим не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помню. = I remember that you worked with me in Moscow, maybe I saw you at workplace, but I haven't seen you working, performing the tasks (rather than talking, joking, entertaining yourself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you add a comma you come to a completely different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не помню тебя, работающего со мной в Москве = I do not remember you, who is working with me in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="f004a70f-b2dd-43ba-bb6c-52ccc6590f1c" CreationDate="2014-11-25T18:22:53.750" UserId="4681" Text="Это означает место где находятся «записи» (акты) или может действие, «записывание»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="f004a70f-b2dd-43ba-bb6c-52ccc6590f1c" CreationDate="2014-11-25T18:22:53.750" UserId="4681" Text="Что именно означает слово «запись» в сокращении «ЗАГС»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7667" RevisionGUID="f004a70f-b2dd-43ba-bb6c-52ccc6590f1c" CreationDate="2014-11-25T18:22:53.750" UserId="4681" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7668" RevisionGUID="6718561f-1a6b-46ec-838b-a82040385202" CreationDate="2014-11-25T18:30:05.687" UserId="4620" Text="Второе. Слово `запись` в данном случае совпадает с `записывание`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7669" RevisionGUID="5bcfaa2a-1677-493a-8aef-7dfdf318f562" CreationDate="2014-11-25T18:31:18.883" UserId="4682" Text="&quot;Запись&quot; здесь означает глагол, &quot;записывание&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сокращение произошло от названия, в котором было слово &quot;Отдел&quot;: &quot;Отдел записи актов гражданского состояния&quot;. Но аббревиатура ОЗАГС, хотя и используется, встречается реже (см.: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?&amp;text=%D0%9E%D0%97%D0%90%D0%93%D0%A1 )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще &quot;Отдел ЗАГС&quot; или просто &quot;ЗАГС&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7661" RevisionGUID="ae8fc24a-eaf7-4550-b8f9-bedc84565d52" CreationDate="2014-11-25T18:59:28.950" UserId="4629" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара предложений, которые я выписал в тетрадь. **Это** &lt;есть&gt; упражнения. (They are exercises)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот пара предложений, которые я выписал в тетрадь. **Они** &lt;есть&gt; короткие. (They are short)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the personal pronoun **они** is perfectly correct in the latter case, you will predominantly encounter this usage where a quality (or an action) of the subject for which the pronoun substitutes is described. The former case, on the other hand, tends to be used where the substituted subject is (re)defined. This usage of **это** is so widespread that this demonstrative pronoun is said to not only reply to the questions **Какое?** (where it is translated as **this**) but also to the question **Что это?** (where it then means **it (is)**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in constructs like ***это*** *упражнения* the pronoun **это** serves as a personal pronoun rather than a demonstrative one. As has already been said, in its personal pronoun incarnation **это** is much more often substituted for inanimate, rather than animate subjects and its plural form coincides with its singular one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Видишь этих людей? Они инженеры. - Do you see these people? They are engineers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Это инженеры* would be also perfectly correct, however!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Видишь эти предметы? Это стулья. - Do you see these objects? They are chairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*Они стулья* would sound terribly weird as if someone cursed people into the shape of chairs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="cc4d1958-a3d2-47fd-b5ee-1b408317324b" CreationDate="2014-11-25T20:03:12.067" UserId="4683" Text="what ıs the etımology of russian word приставка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="cc4d1958-a3d2-47fd-b5ee-1b408317324b" CreationDate="2014-11-25T20:03:12.067" UserId="4683" Text="what ıs the etımology of russian word приставка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="cc4d1958-a3d2-47fd-b5ee-1b408317324b" CreationDate="2014-11-25T20:03:12.067" UserId="4683" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="349c711a-947f-4d48-ba13-6de498e0936e" CreationDate="2014-11-25T21:22:33.720" UserId="4599" Text="Что это такое &quot;война из-за угла&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Чем она отличается от герильи или партизанской войны?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="349c711a-947f-4d48-ba13-6de498e0936e" CreationDate="2014-11-25T21:22:33.720" UserId="4599" Text="What does &quot;война из-за угла&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="349c711a-947f-4d48-ba13-6de498e0936e" CreationDate="2014-11-25T21:22:33.720" UserId="4599" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7672" RevisionGUID="ea2e8ab8-0ded-457e-b1f5-b8fc08b6cdec" CreationDate="2014-11-25T23:57:51.960" UserId="4620" Text="Никогда не слышал выражения `война из-за угла`. Мне кажется, здесь подразумевается выражение `удар из-за угла` — то есть, &quot;неожиданное нападение&quot;, с дополнительной негативной коннотацией &quot;подлое&quot;. Выражение `война из-за угла` без контекста понять трудно, но, скорее всего, имеется в виду война, начатая неожиданно, воспринимаемая говорящим как подлая." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17515" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7654" RevisionGUID="b0cb9ded-c0f3-4f77-8a62-d6e2ab1e1bba" CreationDate="2014-11-26T01:08:35.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/537412566818230272" />
  <row Id="17516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="691ee166-fd1d-457f-a354-e04d0f011c4a" CreationDate="2014-11-26T01:40:56.010" UserId="2079" Text="Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Беспилотники: война из-за угла. ... На этом фоне немецкие СМИ сообщили о возможном использовании Пентагоном своих баз в Германии для нанесения ракетных ударов с боевых беспилотных летательных аппаратов по «не афишируемым целям» в суверенных странах.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;  (http://newsradio.com.ua/rus/2013_06_07/Bespilotniki-vojna-iz-za-ugla/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Гибридная война - война из-за угла и подворотни&quot;* (http://ehorussia.com/new/node/9092)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Война ПОДЛАЯ! война ИСПОДТИШКА! война ИЗ-ЗА УГЛА!&quot;* (http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2014/5/24/99815/comments/) (по мнению автора, Россия засылает войска в/на Украину, публично заявляя о своей непричастности) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вывод: война из-за угла - это война исподтишка: страна фактически ведёт военные действия против другой страны, но или отрицает это, или жертва о военных действиях не знает." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="2f4462ac-cf1f-4c2c-b154-9a27df6f17f2" CreationDate="2014-11-26T01:49:15.980" UserId="62" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What is the etymology of the Russian word приставка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17518" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="2f4462ac-cf1f-4c2c-b154-9a27df6f17f2" CreationDate="2014-11-26T01:49:15.980" UserId="62" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What is the etymology of the Russian word приставка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7676" RevisionGUID="8afe2bbc-426a-482e-b63f-a3477da4c392" CreationDate="2014-11-26T05:28:56.960" UserId="4687" Text="In that case Рабочая деятельность seems to be the closest translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="fe6d0f38-54cb-46f5-9122-8688fcc968a4" CreationDate="2014-11-26T09:20:58.407" UserId="4599" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Что это такое &quot;война из-за угла&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Чем она отличается от герильи или партизанской войны?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;Выражение происходит от книги для детей, в переводе с французкого:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война из-за угла, это другая форма войны без больших сражений. Ее участники действуют скрытно, неожиданно атакуют или совершают покушения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="da101d51-dbc9-4e08-9190-f7f5d2671926" CreationDate="2014-11-26T09:29:41.170" UserId="4599" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Что это такое &quot;война из-за угла&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Чем она отличается от герильи или партизанской войны?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;Выражение из книги для детей, в переводе с французкого:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война из-за угла, это другая форма войны без больших сражений. Ее участники действуют скрытно, неожиданно атакуют или совершают покушения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="5a8f48f4-dfcc-4245-9de1-10ad5bda6583" CreationDate="2014-11-26T09:32:58.847" UserId="2079" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Беспилотники: война из-за угла. ... На этом фоне немецкие СМИ сообщили о возможном использовании Пентагоном своих баз в Германии для нанесения ракетных ударов с боевых беспилотных летательных аппаратов по «не афишируемым целям» в суверенных странах.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;  (http://newsradio.com.ua/rus/2013_06_07/Bespilotniki-vojna-iz-za-ugla/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Гибридная война - война из-за угла и подворотни&quot;* (http://ehorussia.com/new/node/9092)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Война ПОДЛАЯ! война ИСПОДТИШКА! война ИЗ-ЗА УГЛА!&quot;* (http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2014/5/24/99815/comments/) (по мнению автора, Россия засылает войска в/на Украину, публично заявляя о своей непричастности) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вывод: война из-за угла - это подлая война исподтишка: страна фактически ведёт военные действия против другой страны, но или отрицает это, или пострадавшая страна не знает, кто ведёт против неё военные действия, а может, и вообще не знает о военных действиях." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7673" RevisionGUID="4e4bc195-0fb5-43ea-a3be-08ab94f314b9" CreationDate="2014-11-26T10:28:25.240" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Беспилотники: война из-за угла. ... На этом фоне немецкие СМИ сообщили о возможном использовании Пентагоном своих баз в Германии для нанесения ракетных ударов с боевых беспилотных летательных аппаратов по «не афишируемым целям» в суверенных странах.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;  (http://newsradio.com.ua/rus/2013_06_07/Bespilotniki-vojna-iz-za-ugla/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Гибридная война - война из-за угла и подворотни&quot;* (http://ehorussia.com/new/node/9092)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Война ПОДЛАЯ! война ИСПОДТИШКА! война ИЗ-ЗА УГЛА!&quot;* (http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2014/5/24/99815/comments/) (по мнению автора, Россия засылает войска в/на Украину, публично заявляя о своей непричастности) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вывод: война из-за угла - это подлая война исподтишка: страна фактически ведёт военные действия против другой страны, но или отрицает это, или пострадавшая страна не знает, кто ведёт против неё военные действия, а то и вообще не знает о военных действиях." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="603fe121-006c-4d8a-af30-bdb26c3bb86d" CreationDate="2014-11-26T14:00:39.830" UserId="134" Text="This word is coined (apparently) by Vostokov in his *Русская Грамматика*, 1830.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preceding authors, including Gretsch who published *Пространная русская грамматика* just three years earlier, in 1827, did not differentiate prefixes and prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word itself is a not so good calque from Latin &quot;prefix&quot;. A more exact term would have been *представка* which had been in limited use for some time, but has not settled down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similarly formed terms, like &quot;suffix&quot;, &quot;infix&quot; etc., had been just borrowed into Russian rather than calqued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7677" RevisionGUID="86f1108b-afa5-495e-b5d4-5008ef3bb0f2" CreationDate="2014-11-26T14:23:03.313" UserId="134" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="This word is coined (apparently) by Vostokov in his *Русская Грамматика*, 1830.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preceding authors, including Gretsch who published *Пространная русская грамматика* just three years earlier, in 1827, did not differentiate prefixes and prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word itself is a not so good calque from Latin &quot;prefix&quot;. A more exact term would have been *представка* which had been in limited use for some time, but has not settled down. The word *приставка* already existed in Russian by that time with the meaning &quot;appendage, lace&quot;, that's probably why it was chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other similarly formed terms, like &quot;suffix&quot;, &quot;infix&quot; etc., had been just borrowed into Russian rather than calqued." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="ba6796a0-fede-48b5-bf1c-cff4077b117a" CreationDate="2014-11-26T14:40:19.907" UserId="4599" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Что это такое &quot;война из-за угла&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Чем она отличается от герильи или партизанской войны?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;Выражение из книги для детей, в переводе с французского:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война из-за угла, это другая форма войны без больших сражений. Ее участники действуют скрытно, неожиданно атакуют или совершают покушения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="3c64b6ed-84b3-45cf-a000-1a412d43c198" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:07:09.957" UserId="4681" Text="Мать разговаривает с дочерью:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Я скажу отцу, он назначит день, придут его родители, попросят твоей руки...  &#xD;&#xA;– Ох, **уж эта мне патриархальность**! Да пойми, мне не нужны никакие сваты, родители.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит фраза *уж эта мне [имя существительное]*? Это что в роде *вот какая [имя существительное]*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="3c64b6ed-84b3-45cf-a000-1a412d43c198" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:07:09.957" UserId="4681" Text="Фраза «уж эта мне...»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="3c64b6ed-84b3-45cf-a000-1a412d43c198" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:07:09.957" UserId="4681" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7679" RevisionGUID="16cf5cd1-ba6a-4d09-b55b-f49ef18567f4" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:22:59.673" UserId="4693" Text="«Пожалуйста, выполните вход» is widely used in this sense. «Залогиниться» is too informal, «авторизоваться» is a correct form but non-native." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7680" RevisionGUID="cea08ba8-2138-4b0e-bf30-8700f49cbb1c" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:25:04.633" UserId="4694" Text="&quot;Dislikes these patriarchal manners&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7681" RevisionGUID="c6acfcc2-525f-4e15-bada-7181917dc821" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:57:28.217" UserId="1236" Text="It's something like 'Oh, that [...] has eaten out my brains/has aroused my indignation'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, `Ох, уж эта мне [...]!` means `Damned be [...]!`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="4c61ebcb-9d15-444d-b11d-27cf8f144346" CreationDate="2014-11-26T18:31:05.973" UserId="4681" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Мать разговаривает с дочерью:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Я скажу отцу, он назначит день, придут его родители, попросят твоей руки...  &#xD;&#xA;– Ох, **уж эта мне патриархальность**! Да пойми, мне не нужны никакие сваты, родители.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит фраза *уж эта мне [имя существительное]*? Это что-то в роде *вот какая [имя существительное]*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17539" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="9e6d422b-de43-45c3-b482-922d67ce50fc" CreationDate="2014-11-27T07:10:07.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/537865938620919810" />
  <row Id="17540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7682" RevisionGUID="2e848ef0-9e25-4114-b758-b44f8a3d2482" CreationDate="2014-11-27T08:25:48.717" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Ох&quot; is part of the idiom too, while the &quot;мне&quot; bit is optional. The comma between &quot;ох&quot; and &quot;уж&quot; is unnecessary since it's a set phrase. Someone was hypercorrective about their punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its precise meaning is to point to something being repeatedly/notoriously obnoxious or frustrating. It's a little dated — more like something people would say in the 20th century or earlier — but not really obsolete; it's become (or is perhaps in the process of becoming) one of those Russian colloquialisms that are used with self-aware facetiousness, rather than truly spontaneously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7683" RevisionGUID="49ec557b-3ecf-49b5-8e0d-415a870e3f20" CreationDate="2014-11-27T09:16:48.650" UserId="3498" Text="Можно использовать просто &quot;работа&quot;. Некоторые обсуждения этого варианта можно посмотреть в комментариях к вопросу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="87a5e900-a0e8-4e02-a6d3-3d6098ab09c7" CreationDate="2014-11-27T22:55:58.903" UserId="1277" Text="Никак не могу разобраться от какого слова происходит «Заседание». Еще есть «Председатель», у которого тот же корень. Вроде бы само мероприятие подразумевает что некоторый круг лиц будет что-то обсуждать, и скорее всего сидя, так как обсуждение обычно идет продолжительное время. Чувствуется некоторая связь с английским словом &quot;Chairman&quot; в плане логики происхождения. Но мне не понятно почему в таком случае вместо корня «Сид» от слова «Сидеть» используется неизвестно откуда взявшийся «Сед». Не разъясните его происхождения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="87a5e900-a0e8-4e02-a6d3-3d6098ab09c7" CreationDate="2014-11-27T22:55:58.903" UserId="1277" Text="Корень слова «Заседание» и связь со словом «Сидеть»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="87a5e900-a0e8-4e02-a6d3-3d6098ab09c7" CreationDate="2014-11-27T22:55:58.903" UserId="1277" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7685" RevisionGUID="c6535382-6f42-44b0-8209-70a374a85c1d" CreationDate="2014-11-28T00:26:57.900" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Заседание&quot; и &quot;председатель&quot; — это кальки с &quot;sessio&quot; и &quot;praesidens&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается корня, это -сид- &quot;неизвестно откуда взявшийся&quot;, исходная форма корня как раз -сед- (точнее, -сѣд-). Про &quot;неизвестно откуда&quot; читаем у Фасмера: [Вост.-слав. *сидѣти из *sěděti, где i получено в результате ассимиляции во 2 л. ед. sědiši, 3 л. ед. sěditь и т. д.][1] Поэтому логично, что &quot;е&quot; сохраняется в глаголах первого спряжения, где никакое [i] не влияет: &quot;заседать&quot;, &quot;приседать&quot;, &quot;наседать&quot; и т.д., точно так же, как &quot;сосед&quot;, &quot;седло&quot; и &quot;село&quot;, где ровно тот же корень (в случае &quot;села&quot; — исторически). Так что тут даже индоевропейский аблаут ни при чем. (А &quot;при чем&quot; он, например, в корне -сад- — &quot;садиться&quot;, &quot;осадок&quot;, ну и собственно &quot;сад&quot;; это праиндоевропейская o-ступень *sod-.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Vasmer-term-11954.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7686" RevisionGUID="70b74e9c-ba41-40b8-878c-b68f468aa3cd" CreationDate="2014-11-28T03:47:43.817" UserId="4560" Text="I've sometimes noticed, when listening to recordings of myself speaking, that I occasionally pronounce it as [ç], and particularly in those cases when I'm paying extra attention to my articulation. That doesn't mean that there's a &quot;correct&quot; form and a &quot;sloppy&quot; one. As the answers above have shown, native Russian speakers tend not to even be aware of the difference, and some don't quite understand what &quot;German ch&quot; you're talking about (I did immediately, but that's because I'm very fond of these small phonetical observations), so we might call it free variation. I'd say go with the [j]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="316294a8-fa20-4f84-bd9a-96649049266a" CreationDate="2014-11-28T18:35:51.453" UserId="4681" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Мать разговаривает с дочерью:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Я скажу отцу, он назначит день, придут его родители, попросят твоей руки...  &#xD;&#xA;– **Ох, уж эта мне патриархальность**! Да пойми, мне не нужны никакие сваты, родители.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит фраза *Ох, уж это [имя существительное]*? Это что-то в роде *вот какая [имя существительное]*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7678" RevisionGUID="316294a8-fa20-4f84-bd9a-96649049266a" CreationDate="2014-11-28T18:35:51.453" UserId="4681" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Фраза «Ох, уж это...»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17563" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7684" RevisionGUID="07e56af4-66f1-4c95-8f64-926f433b0f1e" CreationDate="2014-11-29T04:14:21.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/538546479867371520" />
  <row Id="17565" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7670" RevisionGUID="d1451bfc-1630-4803-a5c9-ad1aa0d8ee9c" CreationDate="2014-11-29T10:14:21.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/538637076632436737" />
  <row Id="17566" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7657" RevisionGUID="c044310b-2018-4729-98a4-74c2e1a4d2ae" CreationDate="2014-11-29T16:16:20.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/538728172540674048" />
  <row Id="17567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="04b988e0-69e3-4e9c-8b65-4f509f949578" CreationDate="2014-11-30T03:00:46.933" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Восемь comes from PIE ***o̯ectou***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Девять comes from PIE ***e̯neun***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;en, n̥, em, m̥ -&gt; ę (and later -&gt; Russian я) change is common for Slavic, so regularly it should produce (accounting for the ti-suffix) *невять* rather than *девять*, but the influence of the word for ten, *десять* changed the initial consonant to d-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly the word for eight came under influence from the word for seven. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="6a62124c-a390-45ce-a1fb-27cf1f347302" CreationDate="2014-11-30T03:09:06.937" UserId="194" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="The Russian word &quot;strelka&quot; (I use the transliteration only because there is no trouble to translaterate this word, as all used here letters have more or less exact Latin equivalents) is a deminutive from &quot;strela&quot;. The first word is used to denote an arrow pointer, a geometric arrow, the later is used to denote the projectile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that a surname could originate from a geometric arrow or pointer, but there is also a related Russian word &quot;strelok&quot; which means a shooter (which in turn originates from &quot;strela&quot;). I suggest that your surname can originate from this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is cognate to Lithuanian strēlà &quot;arrow&quot;, Latvian &quot;strę̀la&quot; &quot;arrow&quot;, &quot;stream&quot;, &quot;strip&quot;, Old English &quot;strǟl&quot; &quot;arrow&quot;, German &quot;Strahl&quot; &quot;beam, stream&quot;, dialectal/archaic Modern English &quot;[streale][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further etymology is uncertain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/191399?redirectedFrom=streale#eid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17569" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7647" RevisionGUID="7689a8d3-181f-4586-ab72-259edefa75be" CreationDate="2014-11-30T16:18:44.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/539091168118988801" />
  <row Id="17570" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7644" RevisionGUID="965321a9-cd40-4f70-b491-21e69a42ea16" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:20:36.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/539136935726706688" />
  <row Id="17575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="5a809728-1764-4394-8d46-cd5abd8774dc" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:20:24.057" UserId="4270" Text="Утверждают, что фраза &quot;Один мужик решил заработать, и заработал&quot; имеет девять смыслов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне удалось найти четыре смысла:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Решил начать работать и начал работать.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Решил начать работать и заработал денег.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Решил заработать денег и начал работать.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Решил заработать денег и заработал денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где кроются ещё пять смыслов?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="5a809728-1764-4394-8d46-cd5abd8774dc" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:20:24.057" UserId="4270" Text="Девятисмысленная фраза?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="5a809728-1764-4394-8d46-cd5abd8774dc" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:20:24.057" UserId="4270" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7693" RevisionGUID="1dbe0df2-a7d5-4714-8b5a-611841031249" CreationDate="2014-12-01T06:54:21.257" UserId="4699" Text="Заработать носит еще смысл заработать что-то неприятное (болезнь, наказание и т.п.). &#xD;&#xA;Здесь можно найти еще несколько смыслов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Решил начать работать, но в результате заработал себе болезнь.&#xD;&#xA;6. Решил заработать денег, но заработал себе неприятности&#xD;&#xA;7. Решил заработать (найти) себе неприятности, но нашел работу&#xD;&#xA;8. Решил заработать (найти) себе неприятность, но получил деньги&#xD;&#xA;9. Решил заработать себе неприянтости и он именно их и заработал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="cab668dd-56ff-455b-b8a9-5eb3b1b4d928" CreationDate="2014-12-01T07:20:31.213" UserId="4676" Text="Набор значений фразы состоит из комбинации значений слова &quot;заработать&quot;. &quot;Заработать&quot; означает:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. Заработать денег&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Начать работу&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. В переносном смысле - заработать неприятности, например, удар по лицу в тёмной подворотне: &quot;Ну всё, ты заработал!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Неприятности разные бывают, заработать можно и насморк, и &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Прыщ на носу.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Получается 5 в квадрате = 25. К слову сказать, можно придумать фразу, дающую бОльшую степень, например: &quot;Решил заработать и заработал, но получилось только заработать&quot; - хотя, справедливости ради, там смыслов меньше, чем 5^3 = 125, ибо есть противопоставление." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="53514a9a-aa6d-47c2-81cf-ce3f248bec21" CreationDate="2014-12-01T07:28:43.237" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 49 characters in body" Text="The Russian word &quot;strelka&quot; (I use the transliteration only because there is no trouble to translaterate this word, as all used here letters have more or less exact Latin equivalents) is a deminutive from &quot;strela&quot;. The first word is used to denote an arrow pointer, a geometric arrow, the later is used to denote the projectile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that a surname could originate from a geometric arrow or pointer, but there is also a related Russian word &quot;strelok&quot; which means a shooter (which in turn originates from &quot;strela&quot;). I suggest that your surname can originate from this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is cognate to Lithuanian strēlà &quot;arrow&quot;, Latvian &quot;strę̀la&quot; &quot;arrow&quot;, &quot;stream&quot;, &quot;strip&quot;, Old English &quot;strǟl&quot; &quot;arrow&quot;, German &quot;Strahl&quot; &quot;beam, stream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further etymology is uncertain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/191399?redirectedFrom=streale#eid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7695" RevisionGUID="93547e68-02c1-41a5-9b76-ab5a5873f849" CreationDate="2014-12-01T07:40:44.813" UserId="4676" Text="&quot;Ох уж это мне [что-то раздражающее]&quot;, или, как вариант, &quot;Уж это мне [что-то раздражающее]&quot; (со смысловым ударением на &quot;Уж&quot;) - один из устоявшихся оборотов, произошедших из форм междометий в качестве членов предложения, стоящих в связи с другими членами: &quot;Ахти мне горемычной&quot;, &quot;Ой ли?&quot;, &quot;Увы мне, кудесник, отправляй меня назад&quot;. В данном контексте междометия &quot;ох&quot; и &quot;уж&quot; означают раздражение, неприятие, осуждение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7696" RevisionGUID="8f38350c-f788-4139-b734-6e8c5584e44b" CreationDate="2014-12-01T11:56:50.363" UserId="4691" Text="На мой взгляд, в контексте, где &quot;термин work items используется как обобщающий для tasks, bug reports, suggestions и т.д&quot;, лучше всего подойдет &quot;задание&quot;. У нас в компании &quot;элементом работы&quot; называют какую-то часть текущей задачи. Как это происходит в других компаниях - сказать не могу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7697" RevisionGUID="427796f1-b5f7-4e53-9e57-a1d77df93f35" CreationDate="2014-12-01T14:15:30.893" UserId="2383" Text="While “задача” is IMO the best translation for “work item,” the aforementioned by @YellowSky “задание” perfectly translates the term “task.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether the whole text is under your control and you are free to choose terms from the scratch, I would stuck with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * task ⇒ задание&#xD;&#xA; * work item ⇒ задача&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="46bf2e5a-c02d-4a55-9ca0-5db88499e94b" CreationDate="2014-12-02T01:22:11.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/539590319055306753" />
  <row Id="17585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="6ae14274-038d-41b7-81b3-56e2730516f1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T04:27:07.683" UserId="4714" Text="Yes, we can learn whether or not a noun is feminine, but does anyone have a break-down of the percentages? I know that the majority seem to be Feminine, but what is the exact figure? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спасибо за помощь. по-моему, просто лучше знать эту информацию, чтобы лучше угадывать, которым падежом мне надо пользоваться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="6ae14274-038d-41b7-81b3-56e2730516f1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T04:27:07.683" UserId="4714" Text="What percentage of nouns with a мягкий знак are feminine vs. masculine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="6ae14274-038d-41b7-81b3-56e2730516f1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T04:27:07.683" UserId="4714" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17588" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7698" RevisionGUID="632ca8ca-766c-465f-a93f-b26abb33a927" CreationDate="2014-12-02T10:22:12.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/539726215922601984" />
  <row Id="17589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7699" RevisionGUID="fe15fa68-8f0f-475a-a164-02a02f2ca4a4" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:18:10.583" UserId="2139" Text="Я протестировал слова из открытого корпуса [Open Corpora][1].&#xD;&#xA;Из 7784 слов-существительных, оканчивающихся на &quot;ь&quot;, 5632 были женского рода (72%). Список слов сохранил в [архиве][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tested words from open corpus [Open Corpora][1].&#xD;&#xA;There was 7784 noun words ending with &quot;мягкий знак&quot; and 5632 of them was feminine (72%). I saved results in [archive][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://opencorpora.org/?page=downloads&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/apbcbb8kzgzqib7/words.zip" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7700" RevisionGUID="fdb51300-d07f-4ad9-b378-3ade79906001" CreationDate="2014-12-02T12:50:12.283" UserId="2388" Text="It is hard to make a judgement for all entirety of the language (one should probably do a search in a large computer dictionary or a large corpus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can tackle it from the other side: which of the two you are going to encounter more often. According to frequency dictionaries, **feminine** nouns are the majority of the most used *Ь-ending* nouns (I am talking not about only the top-500, but a few thousands). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the frequency list for spoken speech about 60%** of all Ь-nouns in the first 1500 most popular words (and even 3000, 5000) are feminine. Also, 16 out of 22 in the first thousand are feminine. *День, рубль, родитель, гость, учитель* are your survival list of masculine nouns (especially *день*, which is as popular as feminine *жизнь*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, this type of nouns is not that frequent. There are a little under 200 of Ь-ending nouns in the list of the most frequent 5000 words in spoken speech (using the spoken Russian corpus of ruscorpora.ru). It makes less than 9% of all nouns in the list. You'll make your life easier using these tricks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***feminine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **жь, шь, щь, чь** ending— hushes. &#xD;&#xA; - **ость (-есть)**. &quot;ост&quot; is a very popular suffix for abstract nouns (*скорость, взаимность, новость, свежесть*)&#xD;&#xA; - **знь** at the end. For example: жизнь, болезнь&#xD;&#xA; - *треть* (1/3) and *четверть*(1/4) are feminine, same as other fractions of a whole (половина, пятая, шестая часть и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***masculine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **тель** : a popular suffix for professions and other &quot;doers&quot;: учитель (teacher), усилитель (amplifier)&#xD;&#xA;- **арь**: словарь, Also, all **month names** are masculine (though, not all of them end in -арь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remove suffixed nouns (учитель) and month names, common *masculine nouns in -Ь* go as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; день, рубль, гость, путь, парень, огонь, камень, ноль, словарь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уровень, дождь, отель, лагерь, корабль, медведь, господь, корень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царь, зверь, спектакль, стиль, монастырь, король, шампунь, ноготь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гвоздь, портфель, кашель, кошель, кисель, контроль, ремень, алкоголь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конь, руль, лось, гусь, пень, автомобиль, коктейль, гриль, госпиталь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картофель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A really comprehensive list that covers what a learner is going to encounter up to their higher-intermediate proficiency level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7700" RevisionGUID="f5a17b41-3f31-4257-96f1-52cd645f22d3" CreationDate="2014-12-02T14:59:28.023" UserId="2388" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="It is hard to make a judgement for all entirety of the language (one should probably do a search in a large computer dictionary or a large corpus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can tackle it from the other side: which of the two you are going to encounter more often. According to frequency dictionaries, **feminine** nouns are the majority of the most used *Ь-ending* nouns (I am talking not about only the top-500, but a few thousands). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the frequency list for spoken speech about 60%** of all Ь-nouns in the first 1500 most popular words (and even 3000, 5000) are feminine. It covers 62-65% of usage of such nouns (mind, though, that top-5000 list only covers about 85% of all words). Also, 16 out of 22 in the first thousand are feminine. *День, рубль, родитель, гость, учитель* are your survival list of masculine nouns (especially *день*, which is as popular as feminine *жизнь*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, this type of nouns is not that frequent. There are a little under 200 of Ь-ending nouns in the list of the most frequent 5000 words in spoken speech (using the spoken Russian corpus of ruscorpora.ru). It makes less than 9% of all nouns in the list. You'll make your life easier using these tricks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***feminine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **жь, шь, щь, чь** ending— hushes. &#xD;&#xA; - **ость (-есть)**. &quot;ост&quot; is a very popular suffix for abstract nouns (*скорость, взаимность, новость, свежесть*)&#xD;&#xA; - **знь** at the end. For example: жизнь, болезнь&#xD;&#xA; - *треть* (1/3) and *четверть*(1/4) are feminine, same as other fractions of a whole (половина, пятая, шестая часть и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***masculine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **тель** : a popular suffix for professions and other &quot;doers&quot;: учитель (teacher), усилитель (amplifier)&#xD;&#xA;- **арь**: словарь, Also, all **month names** are masculine (though, not all of them end in -арь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remove suffixed nouns (учитель) and month names, common *masculine nouns in -Ь* go as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; день, рубль, гость, путь, парень, огонь, камень, ноль, словарь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уровень, дождь, отель, лагерь, корабль, медведь, господь, корень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царь, зверь, спектакль, стиль, монастырь, король, шампунь, ноготь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гвоздь, портфель, кашель, кошель, кисель, контроль, ремень, алкоголь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конь, руль, лось, гусь, пень, автомобиль, коктейль, гриль, госпиталь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картофель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A really comprehensive list that covers what a learner is going to encounter up to their higher-intermediate proficiency level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="23a25b95-0732-4a32-b8c4-cd0d95f719a1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T17:15:04.747" UserId="2079" Text="В русском языке сочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; используется издавна. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Господин гетман, &lt;...&gt; того ради вам надлежит итти по Киева, в Украйну свою и смотреть того, о чем уже вы известны.&quot; (К Мазепе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;А ныне по всем обстоятелствам идет в Украйну [чево болше не чаю для лесов].&quot; (К Б. Шереметьеву)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Из писем императора Петра Великого, июль-декабрь 1708 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Итак, я еду в Украйну, а Вы, крокодил, остаетесь в тундре&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(из письма А. П. Чехова И. Леонтьеву).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Багратион долго не присоединяется (хотя в этом главная цель всех начальствующих лиц) потому, что ему кажется, что он на этом марше ставит в опасность свою армию и что выгоднее всего для него отступить левее и южнее, беспокоя с фланга и тыла неприятеля и комплектуя свою армию в Украине.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Л.Н.Толстой.&quot;Война и мир&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В текстах 18-19 века из Корпуса русского языка, сочетания &quot;в Украине&quot; и &quot;на Украине&quot; встречаются примерно одинаково часто (20 и 28 раз), и без всякой связи с политикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Украине&quot; употреблялось и после революции, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дошкольные учреждения охватывают детей с 3 ― 8-летнего возраста, и установленный в Украине законом прием детей в дошкольные учреждения с 4-летнего возраста обусловливается не принципиальным расхождением с РСФСР, а соображениями практического порядка.&quot; (Резолюция совещания наркомов просвещения СССР о системах народного просвещения. (1920-1925))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...участники «право-троцкистского блока» подготовляли повстанческие банды в Сибири, на Северном Кавказе, в Украине, Белоруссии, Узбекистане и других местностях Советского Союза.&quot; (Из приговора Военной Коллегии Верховного Суда СССР по делу «право-троцкистского блока», 1938)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но после 1938 года употребление &quot;в Украине&quot; прекращается до 2000 года.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как и почему &quot;в Украине&quot; вдруг перестали употреблять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="23a25b95-0732-4a32-b8c4-cd0d95f719a1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T17:15:04.747" UserId="2079" Text="Как и почему с конца 30-х перестали употреблять словосочетание &quot;в Украине&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="23a25b95-0732-4a32-b8c4-cd0d95f719a1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T17:15:04.747" UserId="2079" Text="|история-языка|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17596" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="0ef3ff8f-2239-4734-9650-21f8bb7cd628" CreationDate="2014-12-02T17:20:46.733" UserId="2079" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему с конца 30-х перестали употреблять словосочетание &quot;в Украине&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="bcf43046-85b2-4f95-b846-2d1bc569013d" CreationDate="2014-12-02T17:44:05.743" UserId="2079" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="В русском языке сочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; используется издавна. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Господин гетман, &lt;...&gt; того ради вам надлежит итти по Киева, в Украйну свою и смотреть того, о чем уже вы известны.&quot; (К Мазепе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;А ныне по всем обстоятелствам идет в Украйну [чево болше не чаю для лесов].&quot; (К Б. Шереметьеву)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Из писем императора Петра Великого, июль-декабрь 1708 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Итак, я еду в Украйну, а Вы, крокодил, остаетесь в тундре&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(из письма А. П. Чехова И. Леонтьеву).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Багратион долго не присоединяется (хотя в этом главная цель всех начальствующих лиц) потому, что ему кажется, что он на этом марше ставит в опасность свою армию и что выгоднее всего для него отступить левее и южнее, беспокоя с фланга и тыла неприятеля и комплектуя свою армию в Украине.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Л.Н.Толстой.&quot;Война и мир&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В текстах 18-19 века из Корпуса русского языка, сочетания &quot;в Украине&quot; и &quot;на Украине&quot; встречаются примерно одинаково часто (20 и 28 раз), и без всякой связи с политикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Украине&quot; продолжало употребляться и после революции, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дошкольные учреждения охватывают детей с 3 ― 8-летнего возраста, и установленный в Украине законом прием детей в дошкольные учреждения с 4-летнего возраста обусловливается не принципиальным расхождением с РСФСР, а соображениями практического порядка.&quot; (Резолюция совещания наркомов просвещения СССР о системах народного просвещения. (1920-1925))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...участники «право-троцкистского блока» подготовляли повстанческие банды в Сибири, на Северном Кавказе, в Украине, Белоруссии, Узбекистане и других местностях Советского Союза.&quot; (Из приговора Военной Коллегии Верховного Суда СССР по делу «право-троцкистского блока», 1938)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но после 1938 года употребление &quot;в Украине&quot; прекращается до 2000 года, за единственным исключением &quot;Памятных записок&quot; Кагановича (1959-1991).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как и почему словосочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; вдруг исчезло?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="f9da50dd-faae-4b0d-8aa3-2d51e50848ac" CreationDate="2014-12-02T17:49:41.667" UserId="2079" Comment="edited body" Text="В русском языке сочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; используется издавна. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Господин гетман, &lt;...&gt; того ради вам надлежит итти по Киева, в Украйну свою и смотреть того, о чем уже вы известны.&quot; (К Мазепе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;А ныне по всем обстоятелствам идет в Украйну [чево болше не чаю для лесов].&quot; (К Б. Шереметьеву)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Из писем императора Петра Великого, июль-декабрь 1708 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Итак, я еду в Украйну, а Вы, крокодил, остаетесь в тундре&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(из письма А. П. Чехова И. Леонтьеву).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Багратион долго не присоединяется (хотя в этом главная цель всех начальствующих лиц) потому, что ему кажется, что он на этом марше ставит в опасность свою армию и что выгоднее всего для него отступить левее и южнее, беспокоя с фланга и тыла неприятеля и комплектуя свою армию в Украине.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Л.Н.Толстой.&quot;Война и мир&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В текстах 18-19 века из Корпуса русского языка, сочетания &quot;в Украине&quot; и &quot;на Украине&quot; встречаются примерно одинаково часто (20 и 28 раз), и без всякой связи с политикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Украине&quot; продолжало употребляться и после революции, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дошкольные учреждения охватывают детей с 3 ― 8-летнего возраста, и установленный в Украине законом прием детей в дошкольные учреждения с 4-летнего возраста обусловливается не принципиальным расхождением с РСФСР, а соображениями практического порядка.&quot; (Резолюция совещания наркомов просвещения СССР о системах народного просвещения. (1920-1925))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...участники «право-троцкистского блока» подготовляли повстанческие банды в Сибири, на Северном Кавказе, в Украине, Белоруссии, Узбекистане и других местностях Советского Союза.&quot; (Из приговора Военной Коллегии Верховного Суда СССР по делу «право-троцкистского блока», 1938)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но после 1938 года употребление &quot;в Украине&quot; прекращается до 2000 года ([ссылка][1]), за единственным исключением &quot;Памятных записок&quot; Кагановича (1961-1991).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как и почему словосочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; вдруг исчезло?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=30552&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E2%20%F3%EA%F0%E0%E8%ED%E5&amp;p=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17599" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="2d71a788-5673-4e1f-9a90-5894c1daaeb9" CreationDate="2014-12-02T19:22:12.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/539862114610216960" />
  <row Id="17600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7702" RevisionGUID="24949651-8e74-484c-a1bd-1a7510ea564e" CreationDate="2014-12-02T20:18:38.640" UserId="2238" Text="For 20th and 21st century the &quot;на&quot; preposition is for territories, the &quot;в&quot; - for independent countries. Your information means that since 1938 it was not understood as an independent country (and it could be understood so in the early USSR according to the USSR 1st Constitution). For Tchekhov it would not mean that yet probably, but then it became so. Simiar situation is with Cuba - if you say &quot;посол на Кубе&quot;, not &quot;посол в Кубе&quot;, you insult Cuba's independence, and some people may attack you for that (whereas others don't care)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="734b9850-4846-42bd-842b-191a334fcda3" CreationDate="2014-12-02T21:10:18.177" UserId="3887" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в&quot;/&quot;на&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и сосавляет прибллизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х. Но это только предположение. Основные аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таком образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 38-м году по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало, что статистическая значимость вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![частота на миллион словоформ, национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mp9WT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="1f444375-42e0-459c-966c-33c161ac3355" CreationDate="2014-12-02T21:17:03.720" UserId="3887" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в&quot;/&quot;на&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и сосавляет прибллизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х. Но это только предположение. Основные аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таком образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 38-м году по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало, что статистическая значимость вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Частота на миллион словоформ, Национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[график на сайте корпуса][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTjJP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B2%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D0%B0%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="25e3d454-d775-476f-bc55-1c8a4f9499b3" CreationDate="2014-12-02T21:23:58.937" UserId="3887" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в&quot;/&quot;на&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и сосавляет прибллизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х (и началась борьба с буржуазным национализмом). Но это только предположение. Аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таком образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 38-м году по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало, что статистическая значимость вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Частота на миллион словоформ, Национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[график на сайте корпуса][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTjJP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B2%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D0%B0%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="2338a3fe-31af-475d-9fa1-f3e3aa6d74a1" CreationDate="2014-12-02T21:37:49.093" UserId="3887" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в&quot;/&quot;на&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и сосавляет прибллизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х (и началась борьба с буржуазным национализмом). Но это только предположение. Аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таком образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 38-м году по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало (а еще меньше &quot;в Украину&quot;, &quot;на Украину&quot;) что статистическая значимость именно 38-го года вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Частота на миллион словоформ, Национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[график на сайте корпуса][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTjJP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B2%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D0%B0%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7700" RevisionGUID="516d5b32-26d7-435a-8571-561a5c204116" CreationDate="2014-12-02T21:57:08.547" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="It is hard to make a judgement for all entirety of the language (one should probably do a search in a large computer dictionary or a large corpus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can tackle it from the other side: which of the two you are going to encounter more often. According to frequency dictionaries, **feminine** nouns are the majority of the most used *Ь-ending* nouns (I am talking not about only the top-500, but a few thousands). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the frequency list for spoken speech about 60%** of all Ь-nouns in the first 1500 most popular words (and even 3000, 5000) are feminine. It covers 62-65% of usage of such nouns (mind, though, that top-5000 list only covers about 85% of all words). Also, 16 out of 22 in the first thousand are feminine. *День, рубль, родитель, гость, учитель* are your survival list of masculine nouns (especially *день*, which is as popular as feminine *жизнь*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, this type of nouns is not that frequent. There are a little under 200 of Ь-ending nouns in the list of the most frequent 5000 words in spoken speech (using the spoken Russian corpus of ruscorpora.ru). It makes less than 9% of all nouns in the list. You'll make your life easier using these tricks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***feminine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **жь, шь, щь, чь** ending— hushes. &#xD;&#xA; - **ость (-есть)**. &quot;ост&quot; is a very popular suffix for abstract nouns (*скорость, взаимность, новость, свежесть*)&#xD;&#xA; - **знь** at the end. For example: жизнь, болезнь&#xD;&#xA; - *треть* (1/3) and *четверть*(1/4) are feminine, same as other fractions of a whole (половина, пятая, шестая часть и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***masculine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **тель** : a popular suffix for professions and other &quot;doers&quot;: учитель (teacher), усилитель (amplifier)&#xD;&#xA;- **арь**: словарь, Also, all **month names** are masculine (though, not all of them end in -арь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remove suffixed nouns (учитель) and month names, common *masculine nouns in -Ь* go as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; день, рубль, гость, путь, парень, огонь, камень, ноль,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уровень, дождь, отель, лагерь, корабль, медведь, господь, корень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царь, зверь, спектакль, стиль, монастырь, король, шампунь, ноготь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гвоздь, портфель, кашель, кошель, кисель, контроль, ремень, алкоголь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конь, руль, лось, гусь, пень, автомобиль, коктейль, гриль, госпиталь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картофель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A really comprehensive list that covers what a learner is going to encounter up to their higher-intermediate proficiency level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7700" RevisionGUID="e36d5648-d333-45b9-be4b-0cbd432fc177" CreationDate="2014-12-02T22:14:59.383" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="It is hard to make a judgement for all entirety of the language (one should probably do a search in a large computer dictionary or a large corpus). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you can tackle it from the other side: which of the two you are going to encounter more often. According to frequency dictionaries, **feminine** nouns are the majority of the most used *Ь-ending* nouns (I am talking not about only the top-500, but a few thousands). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the frequency list for spoken speech about 60%** of all Ь-nouns in the first 1500 most popular words (and even 3000, 5000) are feminine. It covers 62-65% of usage of such nouns (mind, though, that top-5000 list only covers about 85% of all words). Also, 16 out of 22 in the first thousand are feminine. *День, рубль, родитель, гость, учитель* are your survival list of masculine nouns (especially *день*, which is as popular as feminine *жизнь*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, this type of nouns is not that frequent. There are a little under 200 of Ь-ending nouns in the list of the most frequent 5000 words in spoken speech (using the spoken Russian corpus of ruscorpora.ru). It makes less than 9% of all nouns in the list. You'll make your life easier using these tricks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***feminine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **жь, шь, щь, чь** ending— hushes. &#xD;&#xA; - **ость (-есть)**. &quot;ост&quot; is a very popular suffix for abstract nouns (*скорость, взаимность, новость, свежесть*)&#xD;&#xA; - **знь** at the end. For example: жизнь, болезнь&#xD;&#xA; - *треть* (1/3) and *четверть*(1/4) are feminine, same as other fractions of a whole (половина, пятая, шестая часть и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***masculine***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **тель** : a popular suffix for professions and other &quot;doers&quot;: учитель (teacher), усилитель (amplifier)&#xD;&#xA;- **арь**: словарь, Also, all **month names** are masculine (though, not all of them end in -арь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you remove suffixed nouns (учитель, словарь) and month names, common *masculine nouns in -Ь* go as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; день, рубль, гость, путь, парень, огонь, камень, ноль,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уровень, дождь, отель, лагерь, корабль, медведь, господь, корень,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царь, зверь, спектакль, стиль, монастырь, король, шампунь, ноготь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гвоздь, портфель, кашель, кошель, кисель, контроль, ремень, алкоголь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конь, руль, лось, гусь, пень, автомобиль, коктейль, гриль, госпиталь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; картофель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A really comprehensive list that covers what a learner is going to encounter up to their higher-intermediate proficiency level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. When seeing a 'suffix', think for a few seconds whether it is really a suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;обитель&quot;(abode) is feminine: no suffix here. &#xD;&#xA; - masculine *гость*(guest) and feminine *кость*(bone), obviously, don't&#xD;&#xA;   have the -ост- suffix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you already have some good experience with&#xD;&#xA;   Russian, try the following rule of thumb. If you remove the 'suffix',&#xD;&#xA;   and rest does not really look like a stem of any word you ever learnt&#xD;&#xA;   — there is a good chance it isn't. Of course, occasionally you&#xD;&#xA;   encounter *зритель* (viewer) or *председатель* (chairman), which are&#xD;&#xA;   based on more advanced vocabulary (*зрение* 'vision' is not obscure,&#xD;&#xA;   but if you fail to spot the resemblance, only archaic *зреть/узреть*&#xD;&#xA;   'to see' may help you)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="82a4df54-081e-4f85-a2dd-c650b09db57a" CreationDate="2014-12-02T22:19:08.710" UserId="3887" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в Украине&quot;/&quot;на Украине&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и сосавляет приблизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х (и началась борьба с буржуазным национализмом). Но это только предположение. Аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таком образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 30-х годах по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало (а еще меньше &quot;в Украину&quot;, &quot;на Украину&quot;) что статистическая значимость именно 38-го года вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Частота на миллион словоформ, Национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[график на сайте корпуса][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTjJP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B2%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D0%B0%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="de32b72d-9887-47ad-9c87-22be2004fa8f" CreationDate="2014-12-03T00:54:18.267" UserId="3887" Comment="edited body" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в Украине&quot;/&quot;на Украине&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и сосавляет приблизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х (и началась борьба с буржуазным национализмом). Но это только предположение. Аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таким образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 30-х годах по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало (а еще меньше &quot;в Украину&quot;, &quot;на Украину&quot;) что статистическая значимость именно 38-го года вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Частота на миллион словоформ, Национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[график на сайте корпуса][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTjJP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B2%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D0%B0%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="0db90050-bfc8-430e-8a06-3b8c57386a50" CreationDate="2014-12-03T03:19:09.527" UserId="194" Text="Почему такие рказние значения у слов, произошедших от одного - ***du̯eiplom*** &quot;сложенное вдвое&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="0db90050-bfc8-430e-8a06-3b8c57386a50" CreationDate="2014-12-03T03:19:09.527" UserId="194" Text="Дупло и диплом, происхождение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="0db90050-bfc8-430e-8a06-3b8c57386a50" CreationDate="2014-12-03T03:19:09.527" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7704" RevisionGUID="0e865d40-8445-4665-9138-5527e97cbdae" CreationDate="2014-12-03T03:24:26.620" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Почему такие разные значения у слов, произошедших от одного - ***du̯eiplom*** &quot;сложенное вдвое&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="1ded42f0-35ab-4709-abf4-e965340b2790" CreationDate="2014-12-03T04:11:22.743" UserId="2306" Text="Мой учебник говорит что слово глубь образовано безаффиксным способом от прилагательного глубокий. Откуда они знают что произошло не наоборот? Что сначала было существительное глубь, а потом появилось прилагательное глубокий. Нужно ли залезать глубоко в историю русского языка, чтобы доказать это, или есть более общие и простые правила?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="1ded42f0-35ab-4709-abf4-e965340b2790" CreationDate="2014-12-03T04:11:22.743" UserId="2306" Text="Откуда знают что одно слово произошло от другого а не наоборот?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="1ded42f0-35ab-4709-abf4-e965340b2790" CreationDate="2014-12-03T04:11:22.743" UserId="2306" Text="|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7706" RevisionGUID="34a2cc6f-f57f-4ea5-ba78-d11c63f15172" CreationDate="2014-12-03T05:02:19.070" UserId="4153" Text="Действительно, источники утверждают, что слова глубь и глубина произошли от слова глубокий. Данное слово пришло из праславянского языка и, видимо, сначала сразу закрепилось, как прилагательное, а затем далее было образовано существительное. Узнать это можно поиском по этимологии слова. Попытки понять чисто через механизмы словообразования не всегда дают верное представление, так как образование конкретных слов зачастую действительно уходит корнями в историю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7708" RevisionGUID="5e2765ce-4e75-47cb-aed0-4cff9d7dc146" CreationDate="2014-12-03T08:11:27.997" UserId="551" Text="В словаре Макса Фасмера в [этимологии слова &quot;дупло&quot;][1] не упоминается &quot;сложенное вдвое&quot;, только &quot;пустой, полый&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дупло**   &#xD;&#xA;дупло́ укр. дупло́, ст.-слав. доупина σπήλαιον (Супр.), русск.цслав. дупль &quot;пустой, полый&quot;, болг. ду́пъл &quot;полый&quot;, сербохорв. ду́пља &quot;дупло&quot;, словен. dúpǝlj &quot;полый&quot;, dúplo &quot;дупло&quot;, чеш. doupa, doupě ж. – то же, польск. dupa &quot;задница&quot;, dupel м. &quot;дупло&quot;. Другая ступень чередования: польск. dziupɫo &quot;дупло, отверстие в дереве&quot;. Родственно лтш. duplis, dupis &quot;посуда для соли или сала&quot;, ср.-в.-н. tobel &quot;углубление, лощина&quot;. Из и.-е. *dhoup- наряду с *dhoub- : *dhub- в дебрь, дно; см. Бернекер 1, 238; Брюкнер 104; М. - Э. 1, 518; Преобр. 1, 202 и сл.; Вандриес, MSL 18, 308; Торп 202.  &#xD;&#xA;*Этимологический словарь русского языка. — М.: Прогресс. М. Р. Фасмер. 1964—1973.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/vasmer/39300/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17621" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="a38bff53-5fcc-43aa-b428-2590282e1a8c" CreationDate="2014-12-03T11:17:04.347" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Откуда знают что &quot;глубь&quot; произошло от &quot;глубокий&quot; а не наоборот?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7709" RevisionGUID="6dc6109a-d701-4342-b72f-5f01d8209915" CreationDate="2014-12-03T14:09:59.607" UserId="4718" Text="**Дупло** - это славянское слово означающее полость, или вроде того, **диплом** - произошло от греческого *diploma*. Эти слова не имеют ничего общего ни в фонетике, ни в этимологии." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7694" RevisionGUID="18275652-15f0-427e-9a27-bd0a138c06c6" CreationDate="2014-12-03T14:28:10.073" UserId="4676" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Набор значений фразы состоит из комбинации значений слова &quot;заработать&quot;. &quot;Заработать&quot; означает:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. Заработать денег&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Начать работу&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. В переносном смысле - заработать неприятности, например, удар по лицу в тёмной подворотне: &quot;Ну всё, ты заработал!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Неприятности разные бывают, заработать можно и насморк, и &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Прыщ на носу.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Получается 5 в квадрате = 25. К слову сказать, можно придумать фразу, дающую бОльшую степень, например: &quot;Решил заработать и заработал, но получилось только заработать&quot; - хотя, справедливости ради, там смыслов меньше, чем 5^3 = 125, ибо есть противопоставление.&#xD;&#xA;Обновление: Как поправил Avi Gordon, значений у слова &quot;заработать&quot; всё-таки 3, так как 3, 4 и 5 пункты равны" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7710" RevisionGUID="f61e8e97-d400-444d-8015-0a615d4ad464" CreationDate="2014-12-03T14:53:20.517" UserId="4676" Text="Если проложить аналогию с предлогами с/со, к/ко, употребление которых определяется удобством произношения, то и предлоги в/на по отношению к Украине могут сменять друг друга по той же причине. Если произносить &quot;Украина&quot; с коротким &quot;У&quot;, то предлог удобнее с гласной буквой, и наоборот. Возможно, это связано с [изменяющейся постановкой ударения][1]. Так как предлоги синонимичны, то их употребление постепенно меняется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%F3%EA%F0%E0%E8%ED%E0&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7703" RevisionGUID="19d2188a-c9fb-4d8b-8ff3-403b26b76d87" CreationDate="2014-12-04T09:29:30.830" UserId="3887" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="С начала 20-го века, по тем же данным из корпуса, предлог &quot;в&quot; почти не используется. Пик соотношения частот употребления &quot;в Украине&quot;/&quot;на Украине&quot; в первой половине 20 века приходится на 1934 год и составляет приблизительно 5%, причем частично &quot;в&quot; используется с названием гостиницы &quot;Украина&quot;, как видно из текстов, поэтому реальное соотношение еще ниже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно предположить, что частично это связано с советской украинизацией 20-х ― 30-х гг., подробно освещенной в книге Борисенок &quot;Феномен советской украинизации&quot;. Этот процесс закончился как раз в середине 30-х (и началась борьба с буржуазным национализмом). Но это только предположение. Аргументы в пользу &quot;в&quot; ― альтернативная этимология (не от &quot;окраины&quot;) и независимая территория. Я не знаю, когда появилась альтернатавная этимология, но подозреваю, что позднее. А вот относительно независимая республика (по сравнению с дореволюционным статусом) ― это подчеркивалось, возможно, и таким образом. Это, конечно, касается только советской литературы и прессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пара примеров в корпусе ― из Краснова и Трубецкого, которые вряд ли оглядывались на советское употребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была ли какая-то директива в 30-х годах по поводу употребления предлога, мне неизвестно. Но примеров настолько мало (а еще меньше &quot;в Украину&quot;, &quot;на Украину&quot;) что статистическая значимость именно 38-го года вообще сомнительна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Частота на миллион словоформ, Национальный корпус русского языка][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[график на сайте корпуса][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTjJP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B2%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;t2=%D0%BD%D0%B0%C2%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2013&amp;smoothing=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="e6fac278-3e7e-4e33-9797-d4dd600b169f" CreationDate="2014-12-04T22:24:43.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/540632818385448960" />
  <row Id="17631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="f9269105-cf1f-4afd-a63f-7c4f45e99db5" CreationDate="2014-12-04T23:26:24.730" UserId="3892" Text="I can't figure out what the speaker is trying to say in this statement with ***собрался на встречу***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу долго говорить! Я **собрался на встречу**, которая начнётся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; через пять минут. Могу я тебе перезвонить позже?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="f9269105-cf1f-4afd-a63f-7c4f45e99db5" CreationDate="2014-12-04T23:26:24.730" UserId="3892" Text="собрался на встречу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="f9269105-cf1f-4afd-a63f-7c4f45e99db5" CreationDate="2014-12-04T23:26:24.730" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="6eaae76a-b3eb-4297-abd1-3acc341c1017" CreationDate="2014-12-05T01:15:15.793" UserId="2273" Text="`собрался на встречу` does sound a bit awkward in this context. I guess the speaker omitted a verb here to signify that they do not have time even to phrase this sentence correctly. The correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Я собрался пойти на встречу&#xD;&#xA;     Я собрался поехать на встречу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where `Я собрался` is used as `I am ready to ...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     I am ready to go to a meeting&#xD;&#xA;     I am about to go to a meeting&#xD;&#xA;     I am going to a meeting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7714" RevisionGUID="988c65e0-55ad-4a63-9ec9-27475ab55493" CreationDate="2014-12-05T07:22:15.093" UserId="4676" Text="В слове &quot;фигачить&quot; имеет место использование некого абстрактного действия с упором на работу, создание чего-либо, обработку и прочее (батрачить, мастачить, колпачить), с заменой корня на корень &quot;фиг&quot; с грубым значением. Делается это для более абстрактного, неопределённого значения и, главное, для усиления эмоциональной окраски: &quot;На фига до фига нафигачили? Расфигачивайте на фиг! - А на фига расфигачивать? Нафигачили - и фиг с ним!&quot; Ещё более грубым и эмоционально усиленным будет замена на нецензурные, матерные корни. Хорошее описание русской обсценной лексики можно найти, например, [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7715" RevisionGUID="c7c33f62-5e67-4d07-80b4-16f45d51d606" CreationDate="2014-12-05T07:45:55.150" UserId="4676" Text="It's a turn of speech combining the meanings of &quot;if something (unclear, misunderstood, happens, goes wrong, etc)&quot;. Russians love to use such unspecific phrases with different meanings. See also: [Ну ты заходи, если что][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%D0%BD%D1%83%20%D1%82%D1%8B%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="e0546c5a-4ff4-4d21-ba1d-bfb9254deb56" CreationDate="2014-12-05T08:21:42.187" UserId="4722" Text="What is the meaning of держава in the first sentence of the Russian anthem, is it state or power? Wikitionary lists both words!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="e0546c5a-4ff4-4d21-ba1d-bfb9254deb56" CreationDate="2014-12-05T08:21:42.187" UserId="4722" Text="Meaning of держава in the Russian Anthem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="e0546c5a-4ff4-4d21-ba1d-bfb9254deb56" CreationDate="2014-12-05T08:21:42.187" UserId="4722" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="3d7aec72-1d11-400f-9f63-de1a5bd145e2" CreationDate="2014-12-05T08:43:11.787" UserId="551" Text="&gt; Россия — священная наша держава,  &#xD;&#xA;Россия — любимая наша страна.  &#xD;&#xA;Могучая воля, великая слава —  &#xD;&#xA;Твоё достоянье на все времена!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word **держава** is synonym of state. Usually this is the main meaning of the word. You'll rarely hear it in everyday speech however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning is &quot;the power&quot;: &quot;Конечно, царь, сильна твоя держава.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In old times one of the attributes of the Tsar was called &quot;держава&quot; as well - it looked like a golden sphere with a cross atop of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article from Ushakov's dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ДЕРЖА́ВА, державы, жен.    &#xD;&#xA;1. Независимое государство, имеющее влияние в международных делах (полит. офиц.). Великие державы. Малые державы.    &#xD;&#xA;2. Государственная власть, владычество (поэт.). «Конечно, царь, сильна твоя держава.» Пушкин.    &#xD;&#xA;3. Золотой шар с крестом наверху, служивший эмблемой власти монарха (ист.).    &#xD;&#xA;4. Приспособление для держания чего-нибудь, напр. металла при обработке (спец.).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="d070556e-c34c-4310-8721-bd120bc24828" CreationDate="2014-12-05T08:59:48.383" UserId="551" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="&gt; Россия — священная наша держава,  &#xD;&#xA;Россия — любимая наша страна.  &#xD;&#xA;Могучая воля, великая слава —  &#xD;&#xA;Твоё достоянье на все времена!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word **держава** is synonym of state. Usually this is the main meaning of the word. You'll rarely hear it in everyday speech however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning is &quot;the power&quot;: &quot;Конечно, царь, сильна твоя держава.&quot; However this meaning is used mostly in poetic texts and is even rarer that the first meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In old times one of the attributes of the Tsar was called &quot;держава&quot; as well - it looked like a golden sphere with a cross atop of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article from Ushakov's dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ДЕРЖА́ВА, державы, жен.    &#xD;&#xA;1. Независимое государство, имеющее влияние в международных делах (полит. офиц.). Великие державы. Малые державы.    &#xD;&#xA;2. Государственная власть, владычество (поэт.). «Конечно, царь, сильна твоя держава.» Пушкин.    &#xD;&#xA;3. Золотой шар с крестом наверху, служивший эмблемой власти монарха (ист.).    &#xD;&#xA;4. Приспособление для держания чего-нибудь, напр. металла при обработке (спец.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for 4th example - I have never heard or read the word держава in this meaning, so I think it is very special term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="f805a08c-d4c1-4fae-87be-c72d33b6bd21" CreationDate="2014-12-05T12:03:41.323" UserId="194" Text="The English word &quot;power&quot; has different meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;state power&quot; it means the ability to control, might.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;great power&quot; and international treaties it means a strong state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word *держава* means a strong state. I never encountered it in the meaning &quot;state control/might&quot;, I think no such meaning exists in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of держава is state regalia in form of an orb with a cros on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7717" RevisionGUID="a35dc4cb-0b5b-49a0-9fd5-5dd86afde0e1" CreationDate="2014-12-05T12:13:00.107" UserId="551" Comment="examples of power" Text="&gt; Россия — священная наша держава,  &#xD;&#xA;Россия — любимая наша страна.  &#xD;&#xA;Могучая воля, великая слава —  &#xD;&#xA;Твоё достоянье на все времена!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word **держава** is synonym of state. Usually this is the main meaning of the word. You'll rarely hear it in everyday speech however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second meaning is &quot;the power&quot;: &quot;Конечно, царь, сильна твоя держава.&quot; However this meaning is used mostly in poetic texts and is even rarer that the first meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In old times one of the attributes of the Tsar was called &quot;держава&quot; as well - it looked like a golden sphere with a cross atop of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article from Ushakov's dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ДЕРЖА́ВА, державы, жен.    &#xD;&#xA;1. Независимое государство, имеющее влияние в международных делах (полит. офиц.). Великие державы. Малые державы.    &#xD;&#xA;2. Государственная власть, владычество (поэт.). «Конечно, царь, сильна твоя держава.» Пушкин.    &#xD;&#xA;3. Золотой шар с крестом наверху, служивший эмблемой власти монарха (ист.).    &#xD;&#xA;4. Приспособление для держания чего-нибудь, напр. металла при обработке (спец.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for 4th example - I have never heard or read the word держава in this meaning, so I think it is very special term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Держава as power:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что есть всему держава? Бог, Николушка, всему держава. А бог есть любовь, ― возвещает сладчайший апостол. [А. И. Эртель. Гарденины, их дворня, приверженцы и враги (1889)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она вспомнила ту, отчасти искреннюю, хотя и много преувеличенную, роль матери, живущей для сына, которую она взяла на себя в последние годы, и с радостью почувствовала, что в том состоянии, в котором она находилась, у ней есть держава, независимая от положения, в которое она станет к мужу и к Вронскому. Эта держава ― был сын. В какое бы положение она ни стала, она не может покинуть сына. [Л. Н. Толстой. Анна Каренина (1878)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тако сии вышеозначенные древние российские провинции и городы, притом и сия Ижерская Земля, была под владением от времен державы Царя Феодора Ивановича, от 1594-го и 1609-го годов по 1703-й год, более ста лет, под владением шведским будучи находились. 8. Настает держава Петра Великаго. [А. И. Богданов. Описание Санктпетербурга (1751)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По долгом рассуждении о формах правления, коими управляются общества, как то: о демократическом [народодержавие], аристократическом [благородных держава], олигархическом [немногих нарочитых начальствование], монархическом [единоначалие царское], и о разных обязательствах и должностях гражданских, чего всего, коль ни важного, краткость предложить попускает, притом также и о так называемых смешанных державах, (...) [В.К. Тредиаковский. Слово о мудрости, благоразумии и добродетели (1752)] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7719" RevisionGUID="ca5e94fc-18df-4640-b85e-97afb361c399" CreationDate="2014-12-05T14:47:31.850" UserId="134" Text="*Держава* is a CS loanword (*дръжава* in OCS) which is a calque from Greek *κράτος* (&quot;power, rule, authority&quot;). You can find the root of this word in English &quot;democracy&quot; and &quot;bureaucracy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek word in turn derives from *κρατέω* (&quot;I hold&quot;), so the Slavonic word *дръжати* (&quot;to hold&quot;) was used to form the calque.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word in Russian is of grand style (*высокий штиль*) and as such better corresponds to &quot;power&quot; rather than &quot;state&quot;, like in *сверхдержава* (&quot;superpower&quot;), *региональная держава* (&quot;regional power&quot;) etc. Thus said, &quot;power&quot; would be the correct word to translate this word in the anthem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="1d6d228e-ca29-44f0-bed2-c114b16fbff9" CreationDate="2014-12-05T22:57:55.490" UserId="194" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="The English word &quot;power&quot; has different meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;state power&quot; it means the ability to control, might.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;great power&quot;, &quot;regianal power&quot;, &quot;superpower&quot; and international treaties it means a strong state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word *держава* means a strong state. I never encountered it in the meaning &quot;state control/might&quot;, I think no such meaning exists in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of держава is state regalia in form of an orb with a cros on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="ef5b3c7c-2825-47b8-aa7d-8a3b64bb4d76" CreationDate="2014-12-06T14:40:05.057" UserId="2480" Text="I've seen this phrase recently:&#xD;&#xA;на проводах в армию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what it means. Is it literal or an idiom, or...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Example](http://tltgorod.ru/news/theme-29/news-47620/)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="ef5b3c7c-2825-47b8-aa7d-8a3b64bb4d76" CreationDate="2014-12-06T14:40:05.057" UserId="2480" Text="What is &quot;на проводах&quot; in the context of the army?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="ef5b3c7c-2825-47b8-aa7d-8a3b64bb4d76" CreationDate="2014-12-06T14:40:05.057" UserId="2480" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7721" RevisionGUID="824164c9-17d6-4856-af3a-78866f7ac4c5" CreationDate="2014-12-06T15:16:07.517" UserId="1359" Text="It doesn't means something related to wire (провод). Проводы means party (usually with family and some friends) when a young man is going to army. So &quot;на проводах&quot; means &quot;at the party&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should read it as проводЫ with stress in last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example: student stabbed his brother at the party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7721" RevisionGUID="ef78754d-35d7-4d2b-a60d-bcb61b240371" CreationDate="2014-12-06T16:13:22.753" UserId="1359" Comment="edited body" Text="It doesn't means something related to wire (провод). Проводы means party (usually with family and some friends) when a young man is going to army. So &quot;на проводах&quot; means &quot;at the party&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should read it as проводЫ with stress on last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example: student stabbed his brother at the party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7713" RevisionGUID="3979caec-94da-4ea6-b5dd-5d0a68d6359c" CreationDate="2014-12-07T03:26:28.567" UserId="2273" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="`собрался на встречу` does sound a bit awkward in this context. I guess the speaker omitted a verb here to signify that they do not have time even to phrase this sentence correctly. The correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Я собрался пойти на встречу&#xD;&#xA;     Я собрался поехать на встречу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where `Я собрался` is used as `I am ready to ...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     I am ready to go to a meeting&#xD;&#xA;     I am about to go to a meeting&#xD;&#xA;     I am going into a meeting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="73d039c7-1348-40c0-a430-1588a7383324" CreationDate="2014-12-07T13:19:18.160" UserId="2199" Text="The word [Проводы](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/проводы) means 'going away party', 'farewell', and may be translated as 'send-off'. &#xA;As @Nikolay Ershov mentioned, Проводы is any farewell party for someone going away, not just to the army.&#xA;    &#xA;Проводы мужа в командировку.&#xA;Проводы детства.&#xA;&#xA;In your example it matches another word — Провод (a wire), so it might confuse you. This word is spelled the same, but has different meaning and sounding (homograph?). In speech you can distinguish them by accent.&#xA;прОвод, проводА (a wire, wires)&#xA;прОводы (send-off)&#xA;на проводАх (on wires)&#xA;на прОводах (at send-off party)&#xA;(The stress is on capital letters.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="341a8cf1-9398-4d01-b096-d429405e1e12" CreationDate="2014-12-07T13:26:24.103" UserId="2199" Comment="improved formatting" Text="The word [`Проводы`][1] means 'going away party', 'farewell', and may be translated as 'send-off'. &#xD;&#xA;As [@Nikolay Ershov][2] mentioned, Проводы is any farewell party for someone going away, not just to the army.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Проводы мужа в командировку.&#xD;&#xA;    Проводы детства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example it matches another word — `Провод` (a wire), so it might confuse you. This word is spelled the same, but has different meaning and sounding (homograph?). In speech you can distinguish them by accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прОвод, проводА (a wire, wires)&#xD;&#xA;    прОводы (send-off)&#xD;&#xA;    на проводАх (on wires)&#xD;&#xA;    на прОводах (at send-off party)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(The stress is on capital letters.)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/4560/nikolay-ershov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="eb476112-731c-433a-ad65-5a7b46ea69a0" CreationDate="2014-12-08T03:07:42.540" UserId="4733" Text="I'm an argentinian with a Ukranian lastname, originally written Явтушенко. My russian father and grandmother are dead (and they didn't have a clue of it's meaning, they weren't ukranian speakers). I know that the ending шенко is very common in Ukraine, but that, in addition to a song called &quot;Where do you go, Явтуше?&quot; (partially translated) is all I know.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot for anything you can tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="eb476112-731c-433a-ad65-5a7b46ea69a0" CreationDate="2014-12-08T03:07:42.540" UserId="4733" Text="I need to know the meaning of my name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="eb476112-731c-433a-ad65-5a7b46ea69a0" CreationDate="2014-12-08T03:07:42.540" UserId="4733" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="59c4c681-8950-4c98-b8f5-5f00b3b9b192" CreationDate="2014-12-08T03:55:15.483" UserId="551" Text="Явтушенко is a family name based on personal name Явтух and suffix -енко (&quot;son of&quot;), so Явтушенко is &quot;son of Явтух&quot;. There is also other family name that is more familiar to Russian ear and has the same origins - Евтушенко.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Явтух is a short form of a name Евстихий which has Greek origins and is translated to Russian as &quot;счастливый, преуспевающий&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="4c8a20a2-dff1-4bf9-90b9-dccbb5ac9879" CreationDate="2014-12-08T07:47:22.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/541861579877535745" />
  <row Id="17660" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="fdaedd36-023b-4f7a-9538-8493fdb597d8" CreationDate="2014-12-08T10:21:55.133" UserId="4735" Comment="Better title" Text="What is the meaning of my last name, Явтушенко?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17661" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="fdaedd36-023b-4f7a-9538-8493fdb597d8" CreationDate="2014-12-08T10:21:55.133" Comment="Proposed by 4735 approved by 551, 1236 edit id of 565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7725" RevisionGUID="4785bf21-6722-4fe7-a248-633365330061" CreationDate="2014-12-08T10:51:57.577" UserId="4737" Text="C учетом того что, медведи часто (в далеком прошлом, хотя случается и ныне) выходили к людям и копались в их, человеческом, мусоре в поисках пропитания, вполне основано можно предположить:&#xD;&#xA;берлога - логово коричневого-грязного-мусорного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7724" RevisionGUID="8cd23cf6-bdb9-4d67-83e5-ea6c40c80b3d" CreationDate="2014-12-08T11:07:28.010" UserId="551" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="Явтушенко is a family name based on personal name Явтух and suffix -енко (&quot;son of&quot;), so Явтушенко is &quot;son of Явтух&quot;. There is also other family name that is more familiar to Russian ear and has the same origins - Евтушенко.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Явтух is a short form of a name Евстихий which has Greek origins and is translated to Russian as &quot;счастливый, преуспевающий&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like the form Евтихий is more popular name of the same origin. Here is an [article on Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Евти́хий (греч. Εὐτυχής, Εὐτύχιος, букв. «счастливый», «великодушный», «весёлый») — мужское имя греческого происхождения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These names were given to children based on calendar of Ortodox Saints (святцы), so on the wikipedia page you can see a number of Ortodox Saints that had this name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7726" RevisionGUID="fd05a26a-f18c-4c55-ab4a-2f43a4c02db2" CreationDate="2014-12-08T11:38:42.290" UserId="4718" Text="Your guy was trying to say that he's about to leave for a meeting. **Собрался на встречу** literally means that a person prepared himself to go for a meeting and when used in a conversation means that the person is about to do something. This might not make sense for a non-native speakers at first but it totally does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of it that way: I'd bet you heard an expression **Я уже собрался уходить**, it means &quot;I'm about to be off&quot;. **Я собрался *[to do something]*** you say when you are about to start *[to do something]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this would clarify your understanding of the situation. Good day, sir!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7727" RevisionGUID="9a0895fd-a0fd-4b49-8bcf-16d9c8e0347c" CreationDate="2014-12-08T13:41:29.177" UserId="4659" Text="Кто предпочитает &quot;детали работы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Почему да/нет?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Work items that are meant for internal purposes are called tasks.&quot; -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детали работы педназначенные для внутренних целей называются задачами.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Mark 3 work items as complete.&quot; -&gt; Отметить 3 детали работы как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; завершенные." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7727" RevisionGUID="f3fb4532-d49f-4c3d-91fa-7aea823e843d" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:26:43.303" UserId="4659" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&quot;детали работы&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кто предпочитает такой вариант? Почему да/нет?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Work items that are meant for internal purposes are called tasks.&quot; -&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детали работы педназначенные для внутренних целей называются задачами.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Mark 3 work items as complete.&quot; -&gt; Отметить 3 детали работы как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; завершенные." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7728" RevisionGUID="e932c38a-30e0-4cbc-a76a-7445098ee7f7" CreationDate="2014-12-08T19:32:22.610" UserId="4629" Text="It means &quot;a strong and powerful state&quot;. Predominantly used in pompous texts and rhetoric." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17670" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="53521a7a-45d5-473e-8edf-a9d284f3abd3" CreationDate="2014-12-08T22:48:54.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/542088458916073472" />
  <row Id="17671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="dfee5080-2994-4982-96ee-c5a510600e83" CreationDate="2014-12-08T22:55:18.997" UserId="4741" Text="Privet :)&#xD;&#xA;Is there any app or webiste where I can talk with native russian speakers for free?&#xD;&#xA;With talk I mean really talk and not just write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="dfee5080-2994-4982-96ee-c5a510600e83" CreationDate="2014-12-08T22:55:18.997" UserId="4741" Text="Any website or app, where I can talk with russians?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="dfee5080-2994-4982-96ee-c5a510600e83" CreationDate="2014-12-08T22:55:18.997" UserId="4741" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7718" RevisionGUID="ed63bf0b-5056-44d0-98a4-747b45001f3d" CreationDate="2014-12-09T08:26:57.447" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The English word &quot;power&quot; has different meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;state power&quot; it means the ability to control, might, force.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;great power&quot;, &quot;regianal power&quot;, &quot;superpower&quot; and international treaties it means a strong state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian word *держава* means a strong state. I never encountered it in the meaning &quot;state control/might&quot;, I think no such meaning exists in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of держава is state regalia in form of an orb with a cros on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7730" RevisionGUID="20105be0-3a02-47e1-b15c-d37dfba0ea3a" CreationDate="2014-12-09T10:27:44.647" UserDisplayName="user4724" Text="I use [Interpals][1]. You can find people who actually learn language by using filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Interpals.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7732" RevisionGUID="e9be08c0-f5e8-4e3e-8736-232e48533a8c" CreationDate="2014-12-09T20:06:06.313" UserId="4747" Text="&quot;За что купил, за то и продаю&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17680" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="516a09e3-380b-4deb-8f2d-50546a123711" CreationDate="2014-12-10T01:56:11.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/542497977789460480" />
  <row Id="17681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="dc68b447-da8b-4d49-ae07-2410fa26f0f3" CreationDate="2014-12-10T04:31:23.333" UserId="3892" Comment="changed quiting to quoting " Text="*Ни фига&amp;#x301; себе* (or a more vulgar *ни хуя&amp;#x301; себе*) is a dysphemism of *ничего себе*, an interjection expressing amazement or astonishment. Such dysphemistic expressions are quite common (compare English *my ass!* from *my eye!*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего* itself is a meiosis, quite specific to traditional Russian culture with its cult of  humility and reticence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting [an article][1] from *Русская речь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В статье речь пойдёт, главным образом, о предикативном наречии *ничего*, которое давно привлекает к себе внимание как самих русских, так и иностранцев (См., например: *М. П. Алексеев. Русское слово ничего и его зарубежные интерпретации // Словари и лингвострановедение. М., 1982*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многозначность и идиоматичность этого слова, разнообразие его смысловых оттенков делают его одним из символов загадочной русской души. &quot;Есть на языке нашем оборот речи, — писал П. А. Вяземский, — совершенно нигилистический, хотя находившийся до изобретения нигилизма и употребляемый доныне вовсе не нигилистами. &quot;Какова погода сегодня?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, &quot;Как нравится вам эта книга?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. — &quot;Красива ли женщина, о которой вы говорите?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;, — &quot;Довольны ли вы своим губернатором?&quot; — &quot;Ничего&quot;. И так далее. В этом обороте есть какая-то русская лукавая сдержанность, боязнь проговориться, какое-то совершенно русское себе на уме&quot; *(Полн. собр. соч. СПб., 1883. Т. VIII. С. 429)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фиг*, or *фи&amp;#x301;га* is an obscene gesture in Eastern (and Slavic, in particular) cultures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the obvious meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vasmer and Chernykh, it's originated from Italian *fare la fica* (through French *faire la figue*). *Fica* literally means &quot;fig&quot;, an euphemism for vulva.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/rr/28_359&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vbU0Jm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="60b2479d-d429-4829-bb19-0c19c6e27243" CreationDate="2014-12-10T10:00:18.213" UserId="1051" Text="Recently I learned that the family name of Charles Chaplin may have Russian roots. A search [on Wiktionary][1] proved the name to be indeed of Russian origin, although the American pronunciation of the name would probably be transliterated into Cyrillic as &quot;Чеплин&quot; or &quot;Чэплин&quot;. A known contemporary bearer of the name is [Всеволод Чаплин][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the word have a meaning in its root form? What I am looking for is something along the lines of &quot;Ковалёв&quot; and &quot;Кузнецов&quot;, both deriving from words for a blacksmith, or generally any other meaning attached to it beyond a bare name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD&amp;oldid=4472787&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="60b2479d-d429-4829-bb19-0c19c6e27243" CreationDate="2014-12-10T10:00:18.213" UserId="1051" Text="Does the family name Чаплин have a meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="60b2479d-d429-4829-bb19-0c19c6e27243" CreationDate="2014-12-10T10:00:18.213" UserId="1051" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7735" RevisionGUID="9440293d-0690-46cf-865a-c561231cda00" CreationDate="2014-12-10T10:37:35.483" UserId="2269" Text="First of all, that’s very unlikely that surname of Charlie Chaplin is of Russian (and Slavic in general) origin. Afaik, it’s a form of word _chaplain_ (a kind of cleric) ←  lat. _cappellanus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Russian family name _Чаплин_, it is clearly derived from word _чапля_ ‘heron’, ‘wader’, which in modern literary Russian became _цапля_ under influence of North-East (Novgorodian) dialects (see _[цоканье][0]_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7736" RevisionGUID="15342e64-623b-4dcd-9368-de5b1ef9a199" CreationDate="2014-12-10T10:39:38.903" UserId="551" Text="It is very unlikely that Charles Chaplin has a family name derived from Russian roots, because it has meaning in English by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Russian Чаплин looks like the name is known from XIII century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this page](http://names.neolove.ru/last_names/23/cha/chaplin.html) there are three versions (almost the same with minor differences) of the family name etymology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it is derived from bird name **цапля**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. One version tolds that the family name Цаплин was later changed by dialectical &quot;чоканье&quot; which changes all &quot;ц&quot; to &quot;ч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Other version tolds that the family name was derived directly from a personal name Чапля, which also was borrowed from Polish &quot;czapla&quot; (sounds like &quot;чапля&quot;) which is also a Polish bird name that is called in Russian as &quot;цапля&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7735" RevisionGUID="4ba4587d-ee0b-4757-922b-5f0c04e41bfe" CreationDate="2014-12-10T10:57:05.037" UserId="2269" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="First of all, that’s very unlikely that surname of Charlie Chaplin is of Russian (and Slavic in general) origin. Afaik, it’s a form of word _chaplain_ (a kind of Christian cleric) ← lat. _cappellanus_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Russian family name _Чаплин_, it is clearly derived from word _чапля_ ‘heron’, ‘wader’, which in modern literary Russian became _цапля_ under influence of North-Easterns (Novgorodian, if you will) dialects; see _[цоканье][0]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="4b41421a-cde5-470e-8186-adb62849a6e8" CreationDate="2014-12-10T11:33:58.650" UserId="1051" Comment="added link, corrected spelling of Wiktionary" Text="What is the meaning of держава in the first sentence of the Russian anthem, is it state or power? [Wiktionary lists][1] both words!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17689" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7716" RevisionGUID="4b41421a-cde5-470e-8186-adb62849a6e8" CreationDate="2014-12-10T11:33:58.650" Comment="Proposed by 1051 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7737" RevisionGUID="87e55254-98d5-4498-9470-fc2a50dafa13" CreationDate="2014-12-10T22:40:44.057" UserId="194" Text="Чаплин is quite straight Slavicization of surname Kapläne of German or Kaplan of Yiddish origin which means &quot;chaplain&quot; in these languages. Having slavicized surname would be natural for a Jewish person whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, for instance, from Poland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surname Kaplan is quite wedespread among Jews. For instance the Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Lenin in 1918 was named [Fanny Kaplan][1] The priest Vsevolod Chaplin whom you refer in the question also has Jewish origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Wikipedia [calls][2] the surname Kaplan Jewish, but also indicates it could independently originate from Turkic languages where it means &quot;tiger&quot;. English Wikipedia [indicates][3] that the surname could be of French, German or Jewish origin. If Jewish, it indicates the bearer belongs to cohens (priest lineage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also suspect that Chaplin could also be an English surname derived from &quot;chaplain&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Kaplan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_%28surname%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7737" RevisionGUID="678fad67-2be5-429c-a4ba-65b5ced73aa3" CreationDate="2014-12-10T22:46:54.297" UserId="194" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Чаплин is quite straight Slavicization of surname Kapläne of German or Kaplan of Yiddish origin which means &quot;chaplain&quot; in these languages. Having slavicized surname would be natural for a Jewish person whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, for instance, from Poland. Note that Polish word kapłan just means a priest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surname Kaplan is quite wedespread among Jews. For instance the Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Lenin in 1918 was named [Fanny Kaplan][1] The priest Vsevolod Chaplin whom you refer in the question also has Jewish origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Wikipedia [calls][2] the surname Kaplan Jewish, but also indicates it could independently originate from Turkic languages where it means &quot;tiger&quot;. English Wikipedia [indicates][3] that the surname could be of French, German or Jewish origin. If Jewish, it indicates the bearer belongs to cohens (priest lineage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also suspect that Chaplin could also be an English surname derived from &quot;chaplain&quot;. The Yiddish, French, German and supposedly English surnames all ultimately derive from Latin &quot;capellanus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Kaplan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_%28surname%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7737" RevisionGUID="1b2ab58a-5f05-40d4-902d-74b4ad7dfd39" CreationDate="2014-12-10T22:52:58.127" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Чаплин is quite straight Slavicization of surname Kapläne of German or Kaplan of Yiddish origin which means &quot;chaplain&quot; in these languages. Having slavicized surname would be natural for a Jewish person whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, for instance, from Poland. Note that Polish word &quot;kapłan&quot; just means a priest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surname Kaplan is quite wedespread among Jews. For instance the Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Lenin in 1918 was named [Fanny Kaplan][1] The priest Vsevolod Chaplin whom you refer in the question also has Jewish origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Wikipedia [calls][2] the surname Kaplan Jewish, but also indicates it could independently originate from Turkic languages where it means &quot;tiger&quot;. English Wikipedia [indicates][3] that the surname could be of French, German or Jewish origin. If Jewish, it indicates the bearer belongs to cohens (priest lineage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also suspect that Chaplin could also be an English surname derived from &quot;chaplain&quot;. The Yiddish, French, German and supposedly English surnames all ultimately derive from Latin &quot;capellanus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Kaplan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_%28surname%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="34909f13-3040-44f9-8805-b6dbc3313f3b" CreationDate="2014-12-10T22:53:32.030" UserId="4681" Text="Короткие описание игры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgeon Simulator — кесаревом да по мясореву!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: http://stopgame.ru/appzor/show/36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это вроде шутка? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17695" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="34909f13-3040-44f9-8805-b6dbc3313f3b" CreationDate="2014-12-10T22:53:32.030" UserId="4681" Text="Что значит “кесаревом да по мясореву!”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17696" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="34909f13-3040-44f9-8805-b6dbc3313f3b" CreationDate="2014-12-10T22:53:32.030" UserId="4681" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7737" RevisionGUID="0f3edd3d-5520-4a27-a534-1d02f78b0e23" CreationDate="2014-12-10T23:03:25.707" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Чаплин is quite straight Slavicization of surname Kapläne of German or Kaplan of Yiddish origin which means a kind of priest in these languages. Having slavicized surname would be natural for a Jewish person whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, for instance, from Poland. Note that Polish word &quot;kapłan&quot; is just a general word for priest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surname Kaplan is quite wedespread among Jews. For instance the Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Lenin in 1918 was named [Fanny Kaplan][1] The priest Vsevolod Chaplin whom you refer in the question also has Jewish origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Wikipedia [calls][2] the surname Kaplan Jewish, but also indicates it could independently originate from Turkic languages where it means &quot;tiger&quot;. English Wikipedia [indicates][3] that the surname could be of French, German or Jewish origin. If Jewish, it indicates the bearer belongs to cohens (priest lineage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also suspect that Chaplin could also be an English surname derived from &quot;chaplain&quot;. The Yiddish, French, German and supposedly English surnames all ultimately derive from Latin &quot;capellanus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Kaplan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_%28surname%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="13e74a7f-1dc4-4798-8d54-0bcd03e1903a" CreationDate="2014-12-10T23:13:40.547" UserId="4681" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Короткие описание игры про сумасшедшего хирурга:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surgeon Simulator — кесаревом да по мясореву!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: http://stopgame.ru/appzor/show/36&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это вроде шутка? Я искал в словаре слова *кесарь* и *мясо*, но это мне не помогло." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7737" RevisionGUID="accdcb76-d98c-49f8-bdeb-a1594deeb3fd" CreationDate="2014-12-11T01:06:48.980" UserId="194" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Чаплин is quite straight Slavicization of surname Kapläne of German or Kaplan of Yiddish origin which means a kind of priest in these languages. Having slavicized surname would be natural for a Jewish person whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, for instance, from Poland. Note that Polish word &quot;kapłan&quot; is just a general word for priest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surname Kaplan is quite wedespread among Jews. For instance the Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Lenin in 1918 was named [Fanny Kaplan][1] The priest Vsevolod Chaplin whom you refer in the question also has Jewish origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Wikipedia [calls][2] the surname Kaplan Jewish, but also indicates it could independently originate from Turkic languages where it means &quot;tiger&quot;. English Wikipedia [indicates][3] that the surname could be of French, German or Jewish origin. If Jewish, it indicates the bearer belongs to cohens (priest lineage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also suspect that Chaplin could also be an English surname derived from &quot;chaplain&quot;. The Yiddish, French, German and supposedly English surnames all ultimately derive from Latin &quot;capellanus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Kaplan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_%28surname%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7739" RevisionGUID="d0e657bb-a50e-4e77-961e-27ca572242d1" CreationDate="2014-12-11T02:42:21.017" UserId="4560" Text="This is one of those random, obnoxiously fruity colloquialisms that make a lot of people cringe, which may explain the downvotes. Кесаревым (properly so spelt) means &quot;with a Caesarian [section]&quot;, мясорево is just мясо with an expressive suffix crudely plastered on. The construction &quot;[noun-instrumental] по [noun-dative]&quot; is common and versatile, &quot;да&quot; serves as an emphatic particle (you get it a lot in &quot;rustic&quot; speech and a register of vernacular that facetiously imitates it), and there's nothing wrong with using those per se, but this particular example is the true bottom of the barrel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="769ad5ed-eb5c-497b-8c98-bc95dd5dfbf6" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:51:46.307" UserId="4749" Text="The closest thing I could find out is that this means something like &quot;poor thing&quot;, used when you are taking some sort of pity on someone. Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what does the word actually translate to, and how did it get to mean that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="769ad5ed-eb5c-497b-8c98-bc95dd5dfbf6" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:51:46.307" UserId="4749" Text="Proper usage of бедолага?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="769ad5ed-eb5c-497b-8c98-bc95dd5dfbf6" CreationDate="2014-12-11T09:51:46.307" UserId="4749" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7741" RevisionGUID="aab80965-0fe5-4bbb-94cc-94742024e839" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:10:08.007" UserId="1833" Text="I'd say that the meaning is very similar to &quot;бедняга&quot;, which is &quot;poor fellow&quot;, &quot;poor devil&quot;. I'd use these words as synonims, but I personally think that &quot;бедолага&quot; makes a little bit more pity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7743" RevisionGUID="98982509-8338-42d1-9cfc-42a4cb9416ff" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:13:04.533" UserId="1833" Text="Наиболее интуитивным, на мой взгляд, будет &quot;задача&quot; или &quot;задание&quot;. Да, это пересекается с задачей-таском, но за всю свою программистскую жизнь ни разу не слышал ни про &quot;элемент работы&quot;, ни про &quot;рабочий элемент&quot;. &quot;Дело&quot; тоже режет слух. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7744" RevisionGUID="77a1cdc8-bc9a-4714-99e8-ba3500105b06" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:14:11.453" UserId="4676" Text="&quot;Бедолага&quot; means unlucky person, the poor guy who often suffers from troubles. So yes, you right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всё же, брат, трудна у нас дорога! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, бедолага! Ну, спи, Серёга!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7744" RevisionGUID="0ba78181-d3e4-46aa-a9f5-43430455458f" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:19:21.027" UserId="4676" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="&quot;Бедолага&quot; means unlucky person, the poor guy who often suffers from troubles. So yes, you right, that could be used as &quot;poor thing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И всё же, брат, трудна у нас дорога! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, бедолага! Ну, спи, Серёга!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;бедолага&quot; commonly used in context of pitying, not mocking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7745" RevisionGUID="09043ebd-828e-418a-9d12-66aab8efe816" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:56:47.533" UserId="4675" Text="Yes, &quot;собраться&quot; mean &quot;be prepared for&quot;. And, in my opinion, it come from &quot;собрать вещи (сумку)&quot; (not sure in English variant for this, think it's like &quot;put staff in a bag&quot;). For example, one of my favorite idiomatic expression &quot;нищему собраться - только подпоясаться&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17711" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="b6adaf72-4e75-4324-8dd7-94f7caeb8281" CreationDate="2014-12-11T11:06:39.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/542998895467716608" />
  <row Id="17712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="6c641147-3727-4cab-9960-32678423cf9e" CreationDate="2014-12-11T14:38:41.287" UserId="4629" Text="There is one more note that may need to be added to Nikolay Ershov's analysis. The author of the pun (which betrays, as I wholeheartedly agree, a true linguistic bottom-dweller) employs a willful modification of the fairly recent derivation method increasingly characteristic of the modern jargon. This method derives nouns from verbs by using the suffix *-лов-* followed by the inflection *-о*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such nouns is the word *кидалово*. It derives from a jargon meaning of the verb *кидать*, *кинуть* - to manipulate one out of one's money or possessions through a deceitful transaction. The noun describes an act of such manipulation or an environment where it is likely to happen or known to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These new jargon nous look and sound not unlike the large class of Russian possessive adjectives formed by the suffix *–ов*. Where such adjectives have become toponyms (e.g. *Шереметьево*) they function as nouns, rather than adjectives, particularly in the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён Ивановым талантом* - I admire Ivan's talent (although this example sounds quite archaic)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён городом Ивановом* - I admire the town of Ivanovo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the pun evidently perceives the possessive adjective *Кесарево* as a noun, hence the erroneous instrumental ending *-ом* - another sign of their regrettable illiteracy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="2a86f443-6250-4c43-83dd-0a1189837a85" CreationDate="2014-12-11T14:48:28.390" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="There is one more note that may need to be added to Nikolay Ershov's analysis. The author of the pun (which betrays, as I wholeheartedly agree, a true linguistic bottom-dweller) employs a willful modification of the fairly recent derivation method increasingly characteristic of the modern jargon. This method derives nouns from verbs by using the suffix *-лов-* followed by the inflection *-о*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such nouns is the word *кидалово*. It derives from a jargon meaning of the verb *кидать*, *кинуть* - to manipulate one out of one's money or possessions through a deceitful transaction. The noun describes an act of such manipulation or an environment where it is likely to happen or known to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These new jargon nous look and sound not unlike the large class of Russian possessive adjectives formed by the suffix *–ов*. Where such adjectives have become toponyms (e.g. *Шереметьево*) they function as nouns, rather than adjectives, particularly in the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён Ивановым талантом* - I admire Ivan's talent (although this example sounds quite archaic)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён городом Ивановом* - I admire the town of Ivanovo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the pun evidently perceives the possessive adjective *Кесарево* as a noun, hence the erroneous instrumental ending *-ом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;http://community.lingvo.ru/goroda/articles.asp?article=43982&amp;view=full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="70782e1f-22c8-4506-9ebd-2cdf57bb7d6c" CreationDate="2014-12-11T14:54:19.653" UserId="4629" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There is one more note that may need to be added to Nikolay Ershov's analysis. The author of the pun (which betrays, as I wholeheartedly agree, a true linguistic bottom-dweller) employs a willful modification of the fairly recent derivation method increasingly characteristic of the modern jargon. This method derives nouns from verbs by using the suffix *-лов-* followed by the inflection *-о*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such nouns is the word *кидалово*. It derives from a jargon meaning of the verb *кидать*, *кинуть* - to manipulate one out of one's money or possessions through a deceitful transaction. The noun describes an act of such manipulation or an environment where it is likely to happen or known to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These new jargon nous look and sound not unlike the large class of Russian possessive adjectives formed by the suffix *–ов*. Where such adjectives have become toponyms (e.g. *Шереметьево*) they function as nouns, rather than adjectives, particularly in the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён Иванов**ы**м талантом* - I admire Ivan's talent (although this example sounds quite archaic)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён городом Иванов**о**м* - I admire the town of Ivanovo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the pun evidently perceives the possessive adjective *Кесарево* as a noun, hence the erroneous instrumental ending *-ом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;http://community.lingvo.ru/goroda/articles.asp?article=43982&amp;view=full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="cd6c3d83-a5cf-4e3f-a7fa-02c1c3fc2c56" CreationDate="2014-12-11T15:20:41.410" UserId="4629" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="There is one more note that may need to be added to Nikolay Ershov's analysis. The author of the pun (which betrays, as I wholeheartedly agree, a true linguistic bottom-dweller) employs a willful modification of the fairly recent derivation method increasingly characteristic of the modern jargon. This method derives nouns from verbs by using the suffix *-лов-* followed by the inflection *-о*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such nouns is the word *кидалово*. It derives from a jargon meaning of the verb *кидать*, *кинуть* - to manipulate one out of one's money or possessions through a deceitful transaction. The noun describes an act of such manipulation or an environment where it is likely to happen or known to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These new jargon nous look and sound not unlike the large class of Russian possessive adjectives formed by the suffix *–ов*. Where such adjectives have become toponyms (e.g. *Шереметьево*) they function as nouns, rather than adjectives, particularly in the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён Иванов**ы**м талантом* - I admire Ivan's talent (although this example sounds quite archaic)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён городом Иванов**о**м* - I admire the town of Ivanovo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the pun evidently perceives the possessive adjective *Кесарево* as a noun, hence the erroneous instrumental ending *-ом*. She then applies the described derivation method to the noun *мясо* trying at the same time to rhyme the product with the word *Кесарево*. The result would undoubtedly fail the very first round of the auditions for the worst ever Christmas cracker joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;http://community.lingvo.ru/goroda/articles.asp?article=43982&amp;view=full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="8d78b631-10c3-4942-8bb7-69ad96d7ff50" CreationDate="2014-12-11T16:02:19.463" UserId="4629" Text="I daresay *бедолага* is not 100% synonymous to *бедняга*. Yes, both are used when one takes pity on someone. However, I think I can put my finger on at least two slight differences in usage. Firstly, *бедняга* is more likely to be used in a situation where the object has been unlucky in a particular isolated situation, whereas *бедолага* better describes someone who is frequently or, as it were, systemically unlucky. Secondly, *бедолага* seems to be more pertinent in an unfortunate situation which, from the speaker's point of view, is either not too serious and certainly not dramatic or may even be resolved with a certain amount of effort. Thus, it bears a shade of ironic attitude to the sufferer. *Бедняга*, on the other hand, will almost certainly be the only choice in situations of someone losing a close relative of a friend and such like. *Бедолага* is hardly acceptable in such situation and may even be perceived as insulting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt from a song by Vladimir Vysotsky offered by Dmitry Ilukhin eloquently illustrates the certain gravitation of *бедолага* to humorous contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="6216b236-dee3-4d81-8d37-6f401c4d82f3" CreationDate="2014-12-11T16:10:32.050" UserId="4629" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I daresay *бедолага* is not 100% synonymous to *бедняга*. Yes, both are used when one takes pity on someone. However, I think I can put my finger on at least two slight differences in usage. Firstly, *бедняга* is more likely to be used in a situation where the object has been unlucky in a particular isolated situation, whereas *бедолага* better describes someone who is frequently or, as it were, systemically unlucky. Secondly, *бедолага* seems to be more pertinent in an unfortunate situation which, from the speaker's point of view, is either not too serious and certainly not dramatic or may even be resolved with a certain amount of effort. Thus, it bears a shade of ironic attitude to the sufferer. *Бедняга*, on the other hand, will almost certainly be the only choice in situations of someone losing a close relative of a friend and such like. *Бедолага* is hardly acceptable in such situations and may be perceived as insensitive if not insulting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt from a song by Vladimir Vysotsky offered by Dmitry Ilukhin eloquently illustrates the certain gravitation of *бедолага* to humorous contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="a90af459-44a3-41dc-b1ad-867588e0d776" CreationDate="2014-12-11T16:23:09.243" UserId="4629" Comment="edited body" Text="There is one more note that may need to be added to Nikolay Ershov's analysis. The author of the pun (which betrays, as I wholeheartedly agree, a true linguistic bottom-dweller) employs a willful modification of the fairly recent derivation method increasingly characteristic of the modern jargon. This method derives nouns from verbs by using the suffix *-лов-* followed by the inflection *-о*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such nouns is the word *кидалово*. It derives from a jargon meaning of the verb *кидать*, *кинуть* - to manipulate one out of one's money or possessions through a deceitful transaction. The noun describes an act of such manipulation or an environment where it is likely to happen or known to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These new jargon nous look and sound not unlike the large class of Russian possessive adjectives formed by the suffix *–ов*. Where such adjectives have become toponyms (e.g. *Шереметьево*) they function as nouns, rather than adjectives, particularly in the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён Ивáнов**ы**м талантом* - I admire Ivan's talent (although this example sounds quite archaic)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён городом Ивáнов**о**м* - I admire the town of Ivanovo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the pun evidently perceives the possessive adjective *кесарево* as a noun, hence the erroneous instrumental ending *-ом*. She then applies the described derivation method to the noun *мясо* trying at the same time to rhyme the product with *кесарево*. The result would undoubtedly fail the very first round of the auditions for the worst ever Christmas cracker joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;http://community.lingvo.ru/goroda/articles.asp?article=43982&amp;view=full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="22504d8b-65b8-4dcc-83dd-e7de6022dd43" CreationDate="2014-12-11T22:51:29.310" UserId="4681" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|сленг|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="247d0ef3-338b-4bb4-a337-5ed4868a98c6" CreationDate="2014-12-12T02:39:51.313" UserId="4714" Text="я не могу разбираться в разнице меж ними.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;как эти разный, чем платить заплатить? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спасибо за что-либо помощь ))) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="247d0ef3-338b-4bb4-a337-5ed4868a98c6" CreationDate="2014-12-12T02:39:51.313" UserId="4714" Text="уплачивать—уплатить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="247d0ef3-338b-4bb4-a337-5ed4868a98c6" CreationDate="2014-12-12T02:39:51.313" UserId="4714" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="8277170f-19bd-4c8c-8bfe-6441f46a7d9f" CreationDate="2014-12-12T08:53:24.413" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Я не могу разобраться в разнице между ними.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;как эти разный, чем платить заплатить? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо за любую помощь! )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7749" RevisionGUID="3107393f-b5c9-4268-99a6-8ceb7251ac32" CreationDate="2014-12-12T09:35:36.043" UserId="4153" Text=" Глаголы **совершенного вида** указывают на **завершенность действия**, его результат, конец действия или его начало. В неопределенной форме они отвечают на вопрос **что сделать?**.&#xD;&#xA;Например: `добежать, купить, зазвенеть, построить, запеть.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Прошедшее время: **что сделали?   что сделала?   что сделал?   что сделало?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`подбежали, увидела, нашел, взошло.`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Будущее простое время: **что сделают?   что сделаю?   что сделает?и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`выйдут, куплю, доплывет, посчитаем.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обратите внимание на то, что у глаголов совершенного вида есть только две формы времени: прошедшее и будущее простое. Настоящее время отсутствует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаголы **несовершенного вида** обозначают длительные или повторяющиеся действия, **без указания на их завершенность**.&#xD;&#xA;В неопределенной форме они отвечают на вопрос **что делать?**.&#xD;&#xA;Например: `петь, кипеть, бежать, мечтать, перечитывать, подпрыгивать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошедшее время: **что делали?   что делал?   что делала?   что делало?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`бежали, прыгал, искала, заходило.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Настоящее время: **что делают?   что делаем?   что делает?и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `загорают, строим, подтягивается, покупаю.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будущее сложное время: **что будут делать?   что буду делать? и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `будут прыгать, буду смеяться, будем слушать, будет танцевать.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У глаголов несовершенного вида есть все три формы времени: **прошедшее, настоящее и будущее сложное.** &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iyKO2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7750" RevisionGUID="4ab25334-0d3f-4931-af29-70baeedb9bac" CreationDate="2014-12-12T10:33:33.087" UserId="4560" Text="Are you asking about the difference between уплачивать and уплатить (which is a simple matter of aspects, as outlined above) or how both are different from another aspectual pair, платить/заплатить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the latter: basically, уплатить refers to paying a set amount where trade is not (or not immediately) involved — usually taxes and similar fees. It's completely replaced with (за)платить in the vernacular, but уплатить is better formal style in applicable cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="1b2cef72-9943-4d44-9f42-3563688b54b3" CreationDate="2014-12-12T11:00:30.040" UserId="4629" Comment="added 885 characters in body" Text="I daresay *бедолага* is not 100% synonymous to *бедняга*. Yes, both are used when one takes pity on someone. However, I think I can put my finger on at least two slight differences in usage. Firstly, *бедняга* is more likely to be used in a situation where the object has been unlucky in a particular isolated situation, whereas *бедолага* better describes someone who is frequently or, as it were, systemically unlucky. Secondly, *бедолага* seems to be more pertinent in an unfortunate situation which, from the speaker's point of view, is either not too serious and certainly not dramatic or may even be resolved with a certain amount of effort. Thus, it bears a shade of ironic attitude to the sufferer. *Бедняга*, on the other hand, will almost certainly be the only choice in situations of someone losing a close relative of a friend and such like. *Бедолага* is hardly acceptable in such situations and may be perceived as insensitive if not insulting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt from a song by Vladimir Vysotsky offered by Dmitry Ilukhin eloquently illustrates the certain gravitation of *бедолага* to humorous contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid I missed the second part of the question.&#xD;&#xA;*Бедняга* -- the word used to express taking pity on someone -- is likely to have derived from *бедняк* (literally, *a poor man*). If I remember correctly, *бедняк* still occurs in XIX century's literature with the meaning *pitiful*. Apparently, at some point *бедняк* spawned out *бедняга* using a fairly frequent way of jargon word formation employing the suffix *-ага*/*-яга* (see *трудящийся* &gt; *трудяга*, *работящий* &gt; *работяга*, *симпатичный* &gt; *симпатяга*, *милый* &gt; *миляга*) which took over the meaning *pitiful*. &#xD;&#xA;I am not entirely sure how *бедолага* came into existence. I seem to vaguely remember coming across the word *бедован* and can imagine the transformation *бедован* &gt; *бедовага* &gt; *бедолага* but that would be an absolute speculation. I hope this question catches some proper linguist's eye." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7746" RevisionGUID="b9b81f6f-7068-4c27-945a-f1d6a7f8573e" CreationDate="2014-12-12T11:10:03.037" UserId="4629" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="There is one more note that may need to be added to Nikolay Ershov's analysis. The author of the pun (which betrays, as I wholeheartedly agree, a true linguistic bottom-dweller) employs a willful modification of the fairly recent derivation method increasingly characteristic of the modern jargon. This method derives nouns from verbs by using the suffix *-лов-* followed by the inflection *-о*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such nouns is the word *кидалово*. It derives from a jargon meaning of the verb *кидать*, *кинуть* - to manipulate one out of one's money or possessions through a deceitful transaction. The noun describes an act of such manipulation or an environment where it is likely to happen or known to have happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These new jargon nous look and sound not unlike the large class of Russian possessive adjectives formed by the suffix *–ов*. Where such adjectives have become toponyms (e.g. *Шереметьево*) they function as nouns, rather than adjectives, particularly in the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён Ивáнов**ы**м талантом* - I admire Ivan's talent (although this example sounds quite archaic)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я восхищён городом Ивáнов**о**м* - I admire the town of Ivanovo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of the pun seems to use the possessive adjective *кесарево* as a noun formed by the method described above, hence the erroneous instrumental ending *-ом*. She then applies the same method to the noun *мясо* trying at the same time to rhyme the product with *кесарево*. The result would undoubtedly fail the very first round of the auditions for the worst ever Christmas cracker joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;http://community.lingvo.ru/goroda/articles.asp?article=43982&amp;view=full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="f0258153-2d63-48bf-b6bc-59c64677a898" CreationDate="2014-12-12T11:51:38.020" UserId="4629" Text="I too am not sure I completely understand the question. If it is indeed about the difference between *заплатить* and *уплатить* then a good answer has already been given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more general note, however, I would attract your attention to the fact that Russian  prefix derivation is insanely rich and productive. One must be careful to not be deceived by the apparent similarity of any two verbs which derive from the same base using different prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where *заплатить* and *уплатить* may well be interchangeable in the majority of modern contexts (meaning *to pay up*), other verbs formed from the same base by these two prefixes may well mean very different actions. See *заплыть*/*уплыть*, *зайти*/*уйти*, *закачать*/*укачать* to name but a very few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot overestimate the importance of understanding this aspect of Russian morphology when learning Russian as a foreign language. If English is your first language (which seems to be the case) try likening the Russian prefix derivation to the phenomenon of English phrasal verbs. Consider for example *put up*, *put off* and *put down* where the same verb appended by different prepositions (which I daresay are analogous to Russian prefixes in this case) produces three completely different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="707e9ca9-5c41-438c-ab8f-ec19ee63e999" CreationDate="2014-12-12T12:21:18.570" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7751" RevisionGUID="8e5d359c-12a5-43e3-badb-a57eb2ed1505" CreationDate="2014-12-12T15:33:12.467" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I too am not sure I completely understand the question. If it is indeed about the difference between *заплатить* and *уплатить* then a good answer has already been given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a more general note, however, I would attract your attention to the fact that Russian  prefix derivation is insanely rich and productive. One must be careful to not be deceived by the apparent similarity of any two verbs which derive from the same base using different prefixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where *заплатить* and *уплатить* may well be interchangeable in the majority of modern contexts (meaning *to pay up*), verbs formed by these two prefixes from other bases may well mean very different actions. See *заплыть*/*уплыть*, *зайти*/*уйти*, *закачать*/*укачать* to name but a very few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot overestimate the importance of understanding this aspect of Russian morphology when learning Russian as a foreign language. If English is your first language (which seems to be the case) try likening the Russian prefix derivation to the phenomenon of English phrasal verbs. Consider for example *put up*, *put off* and *put down* where different prepositions (which I daresay are analogous to Russian prefixes in this case) are appended to the same verb to produces three completely different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7721" RevisionGUID="67d8ca69-f5e7-4262-8597-be8506be3f99" CreationDate="2014-12-12T17:01:59.000" UserId="1359" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It doesn't means something related to wire (провод). Проводы means party (usually with family and some friends) when a young man is going to army. So &quot;на проводах&quot; means &quot;at the party&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's WRONG: You should read it as проводЫ with stress on last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;See comments below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example: student stabbed his brother at the party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7752" RevisionGUID="6dc53e5f-ada6-44e6-bd3a-71f4e0a1c9e1" CreationDate="2014-12-12T17:35:27.887" UserId="2079" Text="This is a typical example of видовая пара.  Уплачивать is imperfective, уплатить is perfective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7753" RevisionGUID="39201374-0b35-44df-9006-bfd42cd3d5a9" CreationDate="2014-12-12T19:36:54.523" UserId="4753" Text="It literaly means &quot;I have gotten ready [to go] to a meeting.&quot; In English we would say &quot;I'm am ready to go to a meeting.&quot; or &quot;I'm all set to go to a meeting.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7754" RevisionGUID="c03a7463-770d-4822-a695-12ded53a1745" CreationDate="2014-12-12T20:44:07.113" UserId="4753" Text="These phrases are typical of American business speak. Such speach is designed to be vague, uninformative, and euphamistic while inspiring confidence in the client. &quot;Technology&quot; can mean pretty much anything. &quot;Partner&quot; can describe pretty much any relationship between two participants except that between master and servant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American business and advertising speak encourages a level of vagueness which is extremely awkward in Russian. I would suggest it is your job as translator to determine the intended meaning from context and express it. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;агенты по распространению наших товаров&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фермы одобренные установить и обслуживать наше программное обеспечение&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фермы оказывающие услуги на основании нашей технологии&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фермы вступившие с нами в договор об обмене технологами&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17737" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7734" RevisionGUID="afc1033f-349c-450e-9a9a-92eeb9bdd6ae" CreationDate="2014-12-13T02:14:24.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/543589727195369472" />
  <row Id="17738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7754" RevisionGUID="bc9e1976-3da4-4df6-85ee-4cbce7355f38" CreationDate="2014-12-13T03:10:40.397" UserId="4753" Comment="Изправел орфографические ошибки" Text="These phrases are typical of American business speak. Such speach is designed to be vague, uninformative, and euphamistic while inspiring confidence in the client. &quot;Technology&quot; can mean pretty much anything. &quot;Partner&quot; can describe pretty much any relationship between two participants except that between master and servant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American business and advertising speak encourages a level of vagueness which is extremely awkward in Russian. I would suggest it is your job as translator to determine the intended meaning from context and express it. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;агенты по распространению наших товаров&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фирмы одобренные установить и обслуживать наше программное обеспечение&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фирмы оказывающие услуги на основании нашей технологии&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фирмы вступившие с нами в договор об обмене технологами&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7755" RevisionGUID="64d8d3a8-826f-4f97-b721-c2135410f4c7" CreationDate="2014-12-13T03:40:56.627" UserId="194" Text="I would guess the original pun was that a person desired to name a big number and said &quot;100&quot; but quickly realized it is too small and desired to change it to &quot;150&quot; on the fly but in the process realized it is again too small, so changed the &quot;50&quot; part to &quot;500&quot;. So the number looks like being rising in the process of being pronounced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7720" RevisionGUID="b08ea40c-03b1-4a3e-a176-7761d376add0" CreationDate="2014-12-13T08:14:24.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/543680323935289344" />
  <row Id="17741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7756" RevisionGUID="60a7b37c-57eb-4654-aee9-f4b18e470b75" CreationDate="2014-12-13T08:36:28.293" UserId="3917" Text="In a booklet of elementary readings for foreigners I came across the expression *Ёлки-палки*.  &#xD;&#xA;This seems to translate as &quot;damn&quot; but the relation of that meaning to the literal meaning of the words baffles me.  &#xD;&#xA;My questions:   &#xD;&#xA;1) what is the etymology of the expression ?  &#xD;&#xA;2) Is it current nowadays and are there nuances relative to its usage ?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7756" RevisionGUID="60a7b37c-57eb-4654-aee9-f4b18e470b75" CreationDate="2014-12-13T08:36:28.293" UserId="3917" Text="Origin of expression &quot;Ёлки-палки&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7756" RevisionGUID="60a7b37c-57eb-4654-aee9-f4b18e470b75" CreationDate="2014-12-13T08:36:28.293" UserId="3917" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7757" RevisionGUID="08bc987c-9ca5-4c11-a958-ddce19b2ee5b" CreationDate="2014-12-13T17:07:02.830" UserId="4620" Text="There is a certain amount of euphemisms formed like this: the speaker starts to say some profanity, then, after the first sound, realizes it would be very inappropriate, and changes the rest to something more decent, even if it makes no sense. `Ёлки-палки` seems to fall into this category. It's not very common nowadays — I've heard `ё-моё` (formed in the same manner) more often. Other examples are `ёперный театр` and `епонский городовой` (in both cases first word is incorrect, it should rather be `оперный` and `японский`). There is also `ёлки зелёные`, also not something you hear often today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7749" RevisionGUID="f2125ef0-8079-4211-abb0-ff65788c375d" CreationDate="2014-12-13T18:13:19.360" UserId="4153" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="`Уплачивать` - глагол несовершенного вида, отвечает на вопрос &quot;Что делать?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`уплатить` - глагол совершенного видал, отвечает на вопрос &quot;Что сделать?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Глаголы **совершенного вида** указывают на **завершенность действия**, его результат, конец действия или его начало. В неопределенной форме они отвечают на вопрос **что сделать?**.&#xD;&#xA;Например: `добежать, купить, зазвенеть, построить, запеть.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Прошедшее время: **что сделали?   что сделала?   что сделал?   что сделало?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`подбежали, увидела, нашел, взошло.`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Будущее простое время: **что сделают?   что сделаю?   что сделает?и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`выйдут, куплю, доплывет, посчитаем.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обратите внимание на то, что у глаголов совершенного вида есть только две формы времени: прошедшее и будущее простое. Настоящее время отсутствует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаголы **несовершенного вида** обозначают длительные или повторяющиеся действия, **без указания на их завершенность**.&#xD;&#xA;В неопределенной форме они отвечают на вопрос **что делать?**.&#xD;&#xA;Например: `петь, кипеть, бежать, мечтать, перечитывать, подпрыгивать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошедшее время: **что делали?   что делал?   что делала?   что делало?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`бежали, прыгал, искала, заходило.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Настоящее время: **что делают?   что делаем?   что делает?и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `загорают, строим, подтягивается, покупаю.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будущее сложное время: **что будут делать?   что буду делать? и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `будут прыгать, буду смеяться, будем слушать, будет танцевать.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У глаголов несовершенного вида есть все три формы времени: **прошедшее, настоящее и будущее сложное.** &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iyKO2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7756" RevisionGUID="6a063357-909b-4052-b6a6-07ae9e8fa32a" CreationDate="2014-12-14T11:20:37.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/544089574298095617" />
  <row Id="17748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="37366a89-b059-4416-b88f-5732f5e41262" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:08:52.843" UserId="4758" Text="this is a pocket watch. I think it is Russian. But I am not sure, can anyboy read this?![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrQ7H.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="37366a89-b059-4416-b88f-5732f5e41262" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:08:52.843" UserId="4758" Text="what writes on this watch?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="37366a89-b059-4416-b88f-5732f5e41262" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:08:52.843" UserId="4758" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7759" RevisionGUID="b6ac47ca-4165-4375-b6ce-8c925832cf93" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:30:53.410" UserId="551" Text="It's Молния. I believe such font was very popular in 60-es in the Soviet Union. You could see it on many logos like on cars Москвич or [Чайка][1], or even on a bottle of mineral water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="14ecfdbe-56a2-4000-9ecb-6d753a8e61c0" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:35:44.853" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="This is a pocket watch. I think it is Russian. But I am not sure, can anybody read this?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WrQ7H.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17753" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="14ecfdbe-56a2-4000-9ecb-6d753a8e61c0" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:35:44.853" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What is written on this watch?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7759" RevisionGUID="4a6d0202-837c-4cf3-af9b-a2736299a216" CreationDate="2014-12-14T21:59:38.857" UserId="551" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="It's Молния (Lightning). I believe such font was very popular in 60-es in the Soviet Union. You could see it on many logos like on cars Москвич or [Чайка][1], or even on a bottle of mineral water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7759" RevisionGUID="add0cb89-9aaf-4919-a841-7b766a52edf5" CreationDate="2014-12-15T12:13:43.600" UserId="551" Comment="more logos" Text="It's Молния (Lightning). I believe such font was very popular in 60-es in the Soviet Union. You could see it on many logos like on cars Москвич, [Чайка][1], [Волга][2], or on a refrigerator [МИР](http://photo.qip.ru/users/retro321/81923/1208700/full_image/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gaz-24.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7759" RevisionGUID="0e5f401e-05bc-4e8f-bba5-f28de162de27" CreationDate="2014-12-15T12:47:54.657" UserId="551" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="It's Молния (Lightning). I believe such font was very popular in 60-es in the Soviet Union. You could see it on many logos like on cars Москвич, [Чайка][1], [Волга][2], on the [Янтарь][3] clock, or on a refrigerator [МИР](http://photo.qip.ru/users/retro321/81923/1208700/full_image/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gaz-24.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://63.img.avito.st/640x480/548282563.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17760" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="3d818dad-3430-4df4-8629-5f408ab2210c" CreationDate="2014-12-15T14:52:21.813" UserId="242" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7760" RevisionGUID="42b17da2-f1d1-41f8-b2f6-bf247a9ba3d8" CreationDate="2014-12-15T15:59:44.920" UserId="4749" Text="I lived in Belarus for some time, and my wife is from there. We spoke only Russian while in the country, but most signs, public transportation announcements (&quot;next stop&quot;, etc.) and documents were in the Belarusian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've learned *very* basic amounts of Belarusian, and I'm wondering what the linguistic similarity (language family, etc) is between it and the Russian language. It seems to me to be more mutually understandable with Polish, but it has quite a few &quot;Russian-sounding&quot; words as well as a seemingly similar grammatical structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7760" RevisionGUID="42b17da2-f1d1-41f8-b2f6-bf247a9ba3d8" CreationDate="2014-12-15T15:59:44.920" UserId="4749" Text="What are the actual linguistic similarities between Russian and Belarusian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7760" RevisionGUID="42b17da2-f1d1-41f8-b2f6-bf247a9ba3d8" CreationDate="2014-12-15T15:59:44.920" UserId="4749" Text="|грамматика|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="458176a0-a5e0-4308-b0a2-88e20e2172d8" CreationDate="2014-12-15T16:18:32.283" UserId="194" Text="I highly doubt Belorussian mutually understandable with Polish. On the other hand it is quite mutually understandable with Russian, a little more so than Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relation is following: Belorussian, Russian, Ukrainian and Rusyn belong to East Slavic branch of Slavic languages, with Belorussian, Rusyn and Ukrainian belonging to Ruthenian subbranch. So Belorussian is closer to Ukrainian than to Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three are quite far from Polish (the later being a West Slavic language), but more than that, I would say Polish is less similar to East Slavic compared to other West Slavic languaged (Chech, Slovak for example) both in phonology and spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="c1c45df3-fed9-4b4e-90ef-456480b2bb47" CreationDate="2014-12-15T16:23:38.260" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="I highly doubt Belorussian mutually understandable with Polish. On the other hand it is quite mutually understandable with Russian, a little more so than Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relation is following: Belorussian, Russian, Ukrainian and Rusyn belong to East Slavic branch of Slavic languages, with Belorussian, Rusyn and Ukrainian belonging to Ruthenian subbranch. So Belorussian is closer to Ukrainian than to Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three are quite far from Polish (the later being a West Slavic language), but more than that, I would say Polish is less similar to East Slavic compared to other West Slavic languages (Chech, Slovak for example) both in phonology and spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7761" RevisionGUID="8a0fbc5b-2cf6-4427-ba54-927bab6fcdef" CreationDate="2014-12-15T16:56:41.580" UserId="194" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I highly doubt that Belorussian mutually understandable with Polish. On the other hand it is quite mutually understandable with Russian, a little more so than Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The relation is following: Belorussian, Russian, Ukrainian and Rusyn belong to East Slavic branch of Slavic languages, with Belorussian, Rusyn and Ukrainian belonging to Ruthenian subbranch. So Belorussian is closer to Ukrainian than to Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three are quite far from Polish (the later being a West Slavic language), but more than that, I would say Polish is less similar to East Slavic compared to other West Slavic languages (Chech, Slovak for example) both in phonology and spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17767" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7712" RevisionGUID="1e1cc800-ab48-4e3f-b83c-c125c0237798" CreationDate="2014-12-15T17:23:05.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/544543180142944257" />
  <row Id="17768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7410" RevisionGUID="1b500af2-2c4c-4096-b1ce-39256b0fa918" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:02:26.677" UserId="551" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Is it possible to say &quot;потоп&quot; (as a verb) instead &quot;потоплен&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Его корабль потоп.&#xD;&#xA;And if so, then where can I check it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="3bc0a125-1185-4850-82ab-4460fadc848a" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:08:26.757" UserId="551" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Вот, например, цитата из книги Дао Дэ Цзин:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дао &amp;mdash; глубокая [основа] всех вещей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я встречал подобное обозначение и в Библии, и, кажется, в художественной литературе, но, к сожалению, не могу сейчас найти дополнительные примеры." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="fc8d359b-2433-4840-8e7c-9ffc563f23cf" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:10:17.300" UserId="551" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Когда между главным и подчинённым предложениями следует ставить тире, а когда запятую? Сама по себе конструкция &quot;Если... то...&quot; отражает причинно-следственную связь, что побуждает использовать тире. Однако также очень часто встречаются такие сложные предложения, написанные через запятую, что тоже вполне логично: одно &amp;mdash; главное, другое &amp;mdash; подчинённое, соединённое союзом если.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где правда? Возможно ли, что различные знаки препинания здесь указывают на особенность интонации, с которой следует произносить эти предложения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17771" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="fc8d359b-2433-4840-8e7c-9ffc563f23cf" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:10:17.300" UserId="551" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&quot;Если обещал — ждите.&quot; или &quot;Если обещал, ждите.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="a561e539-a38c-4cd1-b290-c1b1301832bd" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:14:00.720" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Question is about using **вы** instead of **ты**. I already know Serbian, so I know when you use one and when the other (Vi i Ti), what I'm interested in is, *how is this form of address called in Russian?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Serbian it's called &quot;Persiranje&quot; or as a verb &quot;Persirati&quot;, but despite all Serbian/Russian similarities, the only word sounding like that I found was &quot;пересирать&quot; which is one step away from meaning the complete opposite :P" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17773" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="a561e539-a38c-4cd1-b290-c1b1301832bd" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:14:00.720" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Word for &quot;Formal Address&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="a561e539-a38c-4cd1-b290-c1b1301832bd" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:14:00.720" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|одним-словом|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="0cb95154-cd57-4be4-b5c0-7875415ecbf7" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:15:10.437" UserId="551" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="When should `твоих` be used and when should `своих` be used? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the reasons for picking one over another?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="e20124fe-897c-450f-8b84-afa35f923b0b" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:17:04.320" UserId="551" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Допустимо ли в принципе в разделяемом на две части посредством тире сложносоставном предложении ставить перед тире запятую, если того требует логика первой части?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек, который ..., &amp;mdash; не человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17777" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="e20124fe-897c-450f-8b84-afa35f923b0b" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:17:04.320" UserId="551" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Запятая плюс тире как отдельный знак пунктуации" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="804512b3-2909-4123-af4a-c11fd38f0824" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:22:06.263" UserId="551" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I know `четверть часа` means 15 minutes, I suppose it figures into the answer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7762" RevisionGUID="0373ece3-b683-4e22-a348-42c225574d79" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:31:22.333" UserId="194" Text="&gt; твоих = of your ones&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; своих = of oneself's ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7763" RevisionGUID="b3dc717b-f8c1-44c0-8241-9a552c3b607b" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:33:04.080" UserId="4560" Text="Обращаться на ты/вы or быть [с кем-л.] на ты/вы are complete equivalents, not necessarily colloquial. I don't think it matters a lot whether it's a verb or a verb phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17781" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7760" RevisionGUID="bd0a85b8-52fb-4a20-9f97-4196d539445e" CreationDate="2014-12-15T18:35:49.583" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|other-languages|slavic|belorussian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7764" RevisionGUID="7e6e4bf9-3b4f-45e9-9cff-a41168dda8f2" CreationDate="2014-12-15T20:02:58.517" UserId="4767" Text="Belarusian is, in a sense, in between other slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;Its grammar is close to that of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Its vocabulary has lots of common words with all of Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish, so it's sort of mutually intelligible with all of them.&#xD;&#xA;Its spelling, however, is quite different from any of them. Also, it's probably the most phonetic of all, you can just read it as it's spelled and it will be correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="da1be393-7592-4d13-9707-9e8a2722f9f4" CreationDate="2014-12-15T21:10:13.690" UserId="4768" Text="I'm coming to this by way of Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker/Nutcracker Suite, and the piece &quot;Танец Феи Драже&quot;. This is known as &quot;Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy&quot; in English. In German, it's called &quot;Tanz der Zuckerfee&quot;, which is just &quot;Dance of the Sugar Fairy&quot;. That agrees with the Spanish title, &quot;Danza del Hada de Azúcar&quot;. French seems to have the closest-to-Russian translation: &quot;Danse de la Fée Dragée&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has the word &quot;dragée&quot;, which is a candy like a jelly bean. (That is not what I imagine a sugar plum to be. Sugar plums, to me, are more like what is pictured here: http://www.theartzoo.com/sugar-plum-recipe/.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am wondering why the name of this piece is translated in such a variety of ways. Is its Russian meaning difficult to translate? Or was it translated with a disregard for the precise meaning?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="da1be393-7592-4d13-9707-9e8a2722f9f4" CreationDate="2014-12-15T21:10:13.690" UserId="4768" Text="I'm curious about the word &quot;Драже&quot;. What are its meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="da1be393-7592-4d13-9707-9e8a2722f9f4" CreationDate="2014-12-15T21:10:13.690" UserId="4768" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7749" RevisionGUID="72996589-1cf2-4756-ac7d-caa56bff259f" CreationDate="2014-12-15T21:33:53.443" UserId="4153" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="`Уплачивать` - глагол несовершенного вида, отвечает на вопрос &quot;Что делать?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`уплатить` - глагол совершенного вида, отвечает на вопрос &quot;Что сделать?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Глаголы **совершенного вида** указывают на **завершенность действия**, его результат, конец действия или его начало. В неопределенной форме они отвечают на вопрос **что сделать?**.&#xD;&#xA;Например: `добежать, купить, зазвенеть, построить, запеть.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Прошедшее время: **что сделали?   что сделала?   что сделал?   что сделало?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`подбежали, увидела, нашел, взошло.`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Будущее простое время: **что сделают?   что сделаю?   что сделает?и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`выйдут, куплю, доплывет, посчитаем.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обратите внимание на то, что у глаголов совершенного вида есть только две формы времени: прошедшее и будущее простое. Настоящее время отсутствует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаголы **несовершенного вида** обозначают длительные или повторяющиеся действия, **без указания на их завершенность**.&#xD;&#xA;В неопределенной форме они отвечают на вопрос **что делать?**.&#xD;&#xA;Например: `петь, кипеть, бежать, мечтать, перечитывать, подпрыгивать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошедшее время: **что делали?   что делал?   что делала?   что делало?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`бежали, прыгал, искала, заходило.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Настоящее время: **что делают?   что делаем?   что делает?и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `загорают, строим, подтягивается, покупаю.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будущее сложное время: **что будут делать?   что буду делать? и т.д.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `будут прыгать, буду смеяться, будем слушать, будет танцевать.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У глаголов несовершенного вида есть все три формы времени: **прошедшее, настоящее и будущее сложное.** &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iyKO2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="8ceb1340-b41e-4770-9246-9d712b180e58" CreationDate="2014-12-15T21:41:05.760" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Я не могу разобраться в разнице между ними.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем они отличаются от *платить* и *заплатить*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо за любую помощь! )))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7766" RevisionGUID="2d258b4c-9f9c-464c-9038-73edf4ce7e19" CreationDate="2014-12-15T21:59:07.333" UserId="134" Text="*Драже* means pretty much the same as English &quot;dragee&quot;: a candy covered in solid sugar shell, like an M&amp;M or a Jordan almond. Jelly bean is not a dragee as its shell is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;The Nutcracker&quot; story is set on Christmas Eve, a candy most associated with Christmas in English-speaking cultures was used to translate the fairy's name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17790" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="445b07e0-1543-4816-a461-bb132003cc95" CreationDate="2014-12-15T23:24:07.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/544634036128595968" />
  <row Id="17791" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7760" RevisionGUID="af8c7cb0-e7e1-473c-b954-e8bc82e9418c" CreationDate="2014-12-16T02:24:15.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/544679368824750081" />
  <row Id="17793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="e6ad576f-577f-4ce4-b507-9662ccf0e66c" CreationDate="2014-12-16T08:35:44.243" UserId="551" Comment="improved formatting" Text="В русском языке сочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; используется издавна. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Господин гетман, &lt;...&gt; того ради вам надлежит итти по Киева, в Украйну свою и смотреть того, о чем уже вы известны. &#xD;&#xA;*(К Мазепе)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А ныне по всем обстоятелствам идет в Украйну [чево болше не чаю для лесов]. *(К Б. Шереметьеву)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Из писем императора Петра Великого, июль-декабрь 1708 г.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Итак, я еду в Украйну, а Вы, крокодил, остаетесь в тундре.  *(Из письма А. П. Чехова И. Леонтьеву)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Багратион долго не присоединяется (хотя в этом главная цель всех начальствующих лиц) потому, что ему кажется, что он на этом марше ставит в опасность свою армию и что выгоднее всего для него отступить левее и южнее, беспокоя с фланга и тыла неприятеля и комплектуя свою армию в Украине. *(Л.Н.Толстой.&quot;Война и мир&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В текстах 18-19 века из Корпуса русского языка, сочетания &quot;в Украине&quot; и &quot;на Украине&quot; встречаются примерно одинаково часто (20 и 28 раз), и без всякой связи с политикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Украине&quot; продолжало употребляться и после революции, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дошкольные учреждения охватывают детей с 3 ― 8-летнего возраста, и установленный в Украине законом прием детей в дошкольные учреждения с 4-летнего возраста обусловливается не принципиальным расхождением с РСФСР, а соображениями практического порядка.    *(Резолюция совещания наркомов просвещения СССР о системах народного просвещения. (1920-1925)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...участники «право-троцкистского блока» подготовляли повстанческие банды в Сибири, на Северном Кавказе, в Украине, Белоруссии, Узбекистане и других местностях Советского Союза. *(Из приговора Военной Коллегии Верховного Суда СССР по делу «право-троцкистского блока», 1938)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но после 1938 года употребление &quot;в Украине&quot; прекращается до 2000 года ([ссылка][1]), за единственным исключением &quot;Памятных записок&quot; Кагановича (1961-1991).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как и почему словосочетание &quot;в Украине&quot; вдруг исчезло?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=10&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=30552&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E2%20%F3%EA%F0%E0%E8%ED%E5&amp;p=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17795" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="9d4111a1-eaad-4e50-a562-ece07a568191" CreationDate="2014-12-16T09:33:13.480" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Interpretations of &quot;at least&quot; vis-à-vis Russian &quot;по крайней мере&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7767" RevisionGUID="1401b061-8f40-436e-95dc-75371227281e" CreationDate="2014-12-16T13:46:56.507" UserId="4770" Text="Украина происходит от &quot;окраина&quot;. В русском языке говорят: на окраину, на окраине. Например: жить на окраине села, переехать на окраину города и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17797" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7701" RevisionGUID="8964b8c8-0a4b-4db4-878b-805a9d0df78a" CreationDate="2014-12-16T13:59:47.600" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="60e39f0f-92fc-4a13-8c27-ec7d834d9505" CreationDate="2014-12-17T00:13:18.800" UserId="4773" Text="How to say in russian '' I have a quick question for you Irina''?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="60e39f0f-92fc-4a13-8c27-ec7d834d9505" CreationDate="2014-12-17T00:13:18.800" UserId="4773" Text="How to say in russian '' I have a quick question for you Irina''?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="60e39f0f-92fc-4a13-8c27-ec7d834d9505" CreationDate="2014-12-17T00:13:18.800" UserId="4773" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7748" RevisionGUID="bdea5242-ba25-4b05-bb22-d52be5e79abe" CreationDate="2014-12-17T02:25:27.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/545042057694560256" />
  <row Id="17805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7771" RevisionGUID="68425dac-5a17-4d3f-bc00-e9fadf97474b" CreationDate="2014-12-17T05:45:01.877" UserId="2199" Text="`У меня есть небольшой вопрос к Вам, Ирина.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7772" RevisionGUID="26fe7a47-585c-49ae-9077-d4e135d5f6cf" CreationDate="2014-12-17T05:46:01.867" UserId="2060" Text="To me *quick question* is *маленький вопрос*. Or not so neutral *вопросик*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7773" RevisionGUID="ac65f859-6fc4-44ac-95b0-97a26dfd6632" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:45:29.283" UserId="4776" Text="I realize that **кароч** is related to the answers given to [What does “короче” mean?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/5653/what-does-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5-mean), but what about **с др кароч**? I've seen it in the title of Youtube videos where people talk for a short time, and on &quot;image macros&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7773" RevisionGUID="ac65f859-6fc4-44ac-95b0-97a26dfd6632" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:45:29.283" UserId="4776" Text="What does &quot;с др кароч&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7773" RevisionGUID="ac65f859-6fc4-44ac-95b0-97a26dfd6632" CreationDate="2014-12-17T07:45:29.283" UserId="4776" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7774" RevisionGUID="d183d4f7-18a8-439b-8267-f054f479f69a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T08:08:24.500" UserId="4481" Text="`ДР` means `день рождения` (`birthday`)  &#xD;&#xA;`с др` (`c днём рождения`) - `happy birthday`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7775" RevisionGUID="ac1c35c2-ea48-4f62-9436-711e8783b0c1" CreationDate="2014-12-17T09:31:02.320" UserId="4769" Text="I generally agree with @naXa, but from my point of view, it would be better to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос.&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть к Вам небольшой вопрос, Ирина." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17812" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="fb6faad7-cf93-4c82-a46c-fed8cbb1cfde" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:17:31.373" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Hot to translate &quot;a quick question&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="6ecb97f3-c578-48f8-89c7-0b3c3d34bee6" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:27:09.327" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to say in Russian &quot;I have a quick question for you Irina&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17814" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7769" RevisionGUID="6ecb97f3-c578-48f8-89c7-0b3c3d34bee6" CreationDate="2014-12-17T10:27:09.327" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;a quick question&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="a99ae8e2-a65f-4c69-8286-45c5bd573230" CreationDate="2014-12-17T12:14:26.087" UserId="4779" Text="Please, could somebody tell me how to say in Russian &quot;Mechanical Draughtsman&quot;&#xD;&#xA;It is a profession, trade.&#xD;&#xA;In English means a person who draws and designs mechanical, structural or machine parts.&#xD;&#xA;The drawing might be created on a drawing board or computer [ like AutoCad ]&#xD;&#xA;Google gives &quot;рисовальщика&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="a99ae8e2-a65f-4c69-8286-45c5bd573230" CreationDate="2014-12-17T12:14:26.087" UserId="4779" Text="Mechanical Draughtsman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="a99ae8e2-a65f-4c69-8286-45c5bd573230" CreationDate="2014-12-17T12:14:26.087" UserId="4779" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7777" RevisionGUID="9fb4f852-3c1b-4bdc-b52e-a06503051c55" CreationDate="2014-12-17T12:22:53.977" UserId="3680" Text="I believe the translations could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Конструктор` or `Инженер-конструктор` (means a person who designs machine parts and draws technical images)&#xD;&#xA;* `Чертежник` (means a person who draws technical images)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17819" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="3bfa81f2-5354-4df8-9925-324fff77fffc" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:47:54.277" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Mechanical Draughtsman&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="92240d70-f053-4670-82a4-0614ed85f03a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:58:21.493" UserId="3917" Text="I had difficulties in finding a translation of *болельщик*,  and it seems to mean (sports) fan, supporter.   &#xD;&#xA;Does this word come from a transliteration as *бол* of the English word *ball* ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="92240d70-f053-4670-82a4-0614ed85f03a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:58:21.493" UserId="3917" Text="Etymology of болельщик" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="92240d70-f053-4670-82a4-0614ed85f03a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:58:21.493" UserId="3917" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7779" RevisionGUID="1ca244d8-c4e9-477a-944f-90742a8a2c9c" CreationDate="2014-12-17T14:17:34.420" UserId="4629" Text=" **Болеть душой** *о ком- чем* -- проявлять сострадание, скорбеть, заботиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one of the meanings of the word is *to care*. The meaning *to support* (e.g. a sports team) is just around the corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of similar morphology are: *курильщик*, *тральщик*, *резчик*, *верстальщик*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7779" RevisionGUID="9f182c3f-5bcb-45a0-b123-b8801b8149dd" CreationDate="2014-12-17T15:10:32.540" UserId="4629" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text=" **Болеть душой** *о ком- чем* -- проявлять сострадание, скорбеть, заботиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one of the meanings of the word is *to care*. The meaning *to support* (e.g. a sports team) is just around the corner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of similar morphology are: *плакальщик*, *курильщик*, *тральщик*, *резчик*, *верстальщик*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7780" RevisionGUID="cf6cff56-a01a-41dd-89b3-436604b65200" CreationDate="2014-12-17T16:15:36.733" UserId="2079" Text="*Болельщик* origins from the construct *болеть (душой) за* .  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - “Коли-де сам государь-батюшка с топором в своих царских руках, валит&#xD;&#xA;   лес, по пояс в воде, долбней вбивает сваи, как же нам, рабам его, не&#xD;&#xA;   терпеть? Сам-то он **болеет за нас душой**, да, видно, дело-то&#xD;&#xA;   нужное. Не трудил бы, не мучил бы себя, коли б не видал нашей пользы” (1832)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Исчез лучший и вернейший друг нашего общества. Он любил его&#xD;&#xA;   превыше всего, он жил душою в нем, он мучился, страдал и болел за&#xD;&#xA;   него. (1897)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Добросовестная работница всей душой болеет за производство, а рядом с нею ― злостная лодырница, только портит материал, форменная вредительница. (1928-1931)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today &quot;болеть за&quot; is mostly used for sport teams and sportsmen (note than in Russia(n) chess, checkers etc. are also considered sports).  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Oн «болел» за «Зубило». (1955)&#xD;&#xA; - Лет восемь назад, в Москве, я ходил на футбол часто, болел за «Спартак» (1959-1962)&#xD;&#xA; - Партийный и чиновничий аппарат активно болел за Карпова. (2009) (It's about the Karpov-Kasparov 1985 chess match.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also rather emotional expressions &quot;болеть за дело&quot;, &quot;болеть за страну&quot; etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also &quot;болеть за&quot; virtually any person, country, etc., especially in a conflict/competition between people or entities. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - когда ты будешь защищать диплом, я буду болеть за тебя&#xD;&#xA; - Я буду болеть за тебя всей душой,ты справишься! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression &quot;болеть душой за&quot; is not used since early 20th century. Sometimes &quot;болеть всей душой&quot; is used, but it is very emotional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;болельщик&quot; is only about sports (including chess etc.)  You cannot be a &quot;болельщик&quot; of a musical band etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="72764f26-f8a9-477f-91e3-d84875835dab" CreationDate="2014-12-18T06:13:08.180" UserId="4782" Text="I've noticed that when rendering the name of a person from one East Slavic language to another, it's usually changed to the native spelling of the target language. For example, the name &quot;Vladimir Putin&quot; appears as &quot;Volodimir Putin&quot; and &quot;Uladzimir Putsin&quot; on the Ukrainian and Belorussian Wikipedia pages respectively. Similar examples include &quot;Nicholas II&quot; being rendered as &quot;Mikalaj II&quot; and &quot;Mikola II&quot;, etc. I'm curious about this practice, since it appears so uniformly in East Slavic languages, and it's so rarely seen elsewhere: in English, we very seldom translate &quot;Mikhail&quot; as &quot;Michael&quot;, &quot;Lavrenti&quot; as &quot;Lawrence&quot;, &quot;Evgenij&quot; as &quot;Eugene&quot;, &quot;Olga&quot; as &quot;Helga&quot;, etc. So why do people do this, and how did this start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="72764f26-f8a9-477f-91e3-d84875835dab" CreationDate="2014-12-18T06:13:08.180" UserId="4782" Text="Rendering of names in East Slavic languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="72764f26-f8a9-477f-91e3-d84875835dab" CreationDate="2014-12-18T06:13:08.180" UserId="4782" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|slavic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7782" RevisionGUID="7d4993ef-f9f6-4637-8b9b-8820944fb07d" CreationDate="2014-12-18T06:40:13.403" UserId="194" Text="I think there are two distint phenomena here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is transliteration or re-spelling. All Slavic languages have phonetic spelling, but different reading rules. This means that to write the pronounciation of certain word they have to re-spell them in their own rules. This happens not only with names but with any borrowed words. Slavic languages do not tolerate words spelled not in accordance with reading and spelling rules, unlike English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way Владимир becomes Уладзі́мір in Belorussian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other phenomenon is translating certain familiar names from one language to another. This way Николай becomes Микола." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17831" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7778" RevisionGUID="8c08fdf8-9963-4ae3-b545-f815265a8367" CreationDate="2014-12-18T08:31:08.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/545496471169433600" />
  <row Id="17832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="f9869dcf-5df0-4dcd-9507-535a3190df11" CreationDate="2014-12-18T10:14:36.757" UserId="4783" Text="*Возможно* на выбор предлога наряду с классификацией объекта (&quot;на&quot; - на поверхности чего-либо, на острове/полуострове, &quot;в&quot; - внутри чего-либо, внутри административной единицы или государства), также влияет фонетический состав слова. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если в слове доминируют &quot;а&quot;, &quot;у&quot; -- то комфортнее говорить &quot;на&quot; (на Урале, на Аляске). Если &quot;и&quot;, &quot;е&quot; -- то комфортнее говорить &quot;в&quot; (в Сибири, в степи)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7783" RevisionGUID="0662515a-3224-42e0-9102-3321302afcd3" CreationDate="2014-12-18T10:25:07.947" UserId="4783" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="*Возможно* на выбор предлога наряду с классификацией объекта (&quot;на&quot; - на поверхности чего-либо, на острове/полуострове, &quot;в&quot; - внутри чего-либо, внутри города, административной единицы или государства), также влияет фонетический состав слова. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если в слове доминируют &quot;а&quot;, &quot;у&quot; -- то комфортнее говорить &quot;на&quot; (на Урале, на Аляске). Если &quot;и&quot;, &quot;е&quot;, &quot;о&quot; -- то комфортнее говорить &quot;в&quot; (в Сибири, в степи).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Исключение: говорят &quot;на континенте&quot;, но &quot;в Азии&quot;, &quot;в Америке&quot;, &quot;в Африке&quot;, &quot;в Антарктиде&quot;, &quot;в Европе&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7785" RevisionGUID="6c26bbe6-509e-4165-b0b5-4257805b4710" CreationDate="2014-12-18T12:21:52.510" UserId="4784" Text="Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такой вариант более предпочтительный) Хотя можно так и так спрашивать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="88ee896e-5824-4797-bd2c-fe6be33d6cff" CreationDate="2014-12-18T12:23:02.390" UserId="551" Text="Чуковский в книге &quot;Живой как жизнь&quot; перечисляет заимствованные слова и возникшие русские эквиваленты, например &quot;голкипер&quot; и &quot;вратарь&quot;. Впервые в этом списке встретил слово &quot;думпкар&quot; аналогом которого назван &quot;самосвал&quot;. Я сразу подумал о грузовиках-самосвалах, но поискав в современных словарях нашёл только железнодорожные вагоны-самосвалы. &#xA;&#xA;Означал ли когда-нибудь думпкар автомобиль-самосвал? Было ли у автомобилей своё, другое заимствованное название?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="88ee896e-5824-4797-bd2c-fe6be33d6cff" CreationDate="2014-12-18T12:23:02.390" UserId="551" Text="Думпкар и самосвал" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="88ee896e-5824-4797-bd2c-fe6be33d6cff" CreationDate="2014-12-18T12:23:02.390" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7787" RevisionGUID="7f9ab27c-30b6-449e-bcf1-ac20f01feb9e" CreationDate="2014-12-18T13:10:25.520" UserId="4785" Text="Можно утверждать, к 1935ому слово уже использовалось для вагонов: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80&amp;safe=off&amp;hl=ru&amp;biw=1142&amp;bih=653&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01.01.1900%2Ccd_max%3A31.12.1935&amp;tbm=bks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="3997ef4e-b1b5-4534-b043-5afdb97339db" CreationDate="2014-12-18T14:44:07.233" UserId="4608" Text="It's better to use 'Ирина, у меня к Вам короткий вопрос'&#xD;&#xA;'Короткий' means that we are expecting a 'короткий' (short [in time] = quick) answer as well.&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;'Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос' is closer to &quot;I have a short question for you Irina&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that in Russian 'небольшой вопрос' could be more than just a question, it could be a request to do something: 'Ирина, у меня к вам небольшой вопрос, не могли бы вы выйти на работу в воскресенье?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="73e1760d-9943-49f7-b185-b3fa230a6bb5" CreationDate="2014-12-18T14:52:21.603" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|slavic|belorussian|ukrainian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7789" RevisionGUID="eaeff8c5-b5a4-48ab-bcce-6d1abff01775" CreationDate="2014-12-18T16:18:35.223" UserId="310" Text="You see a lot of signs written in standard Belorussian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand, most of it was standardized in the early XX century, and the method was to try and pick words and word stems which sound unfamilliar to Russian ear. Otherwise written Belorussian would not be distinct enough from written Russian, and the goal was to set the language separate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That explains why written Belorussian is more like Polish and less like Russian in its dictionary (compared to what its &quot;natural speakers&quot; would use) and why its spelling capitalizes its phonetic difference with Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="ed01a586-3824-4319-ad62-5e568e1225e4" CreationDate="2014-12-18T17:27:08.577" UserId="4608" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="a quick question = короткий вопрос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better to use 'Ирина, у меня к Вам короткий вопрос, (когда вы пойдете на концерт сегодня? - Мы не пойдем.)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Короткий' means that we are expecting a 'короткий' (short [in time] = quick) answer as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос' is closer to &quot;I have a short question for you Irina&quot; (short to ask, but not necessary short to answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that in Russian 'небольшой вопрос' could be more than just a question, it could be a request to do something: 'Ирина, у меня к вам небольшой вопрос, не могли бы вы выйти на работу в воскресенье?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. If you and Irina are on different levels of a hierarchy in that case the most likely meaning of 'небольшой вопрос' is 'a small business': if Irina is on a higher level - she will expect a request to do a favor ('Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос. Я принес заявление на отпуск в июле, не могли бы вы его рассмотреть и одобрить сегодня? - Хорошо, оставьте у секретаря, и подходите после 6 за решением.)', if she is on a lower level - an errand will be expected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="6013c7a1-7ea4-4688-93cf-185f064c88d9" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:48:18.460" UserId="4608" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="a quick question = короткий вопрос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better to use 'Ирина, у меня к Вам короткий вопрос, (когда вы пойдете на концерт сегодня? - Мы не пойдем.)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Короткий' means that we are expecting a 'короткий' (short [in time] = quick) answer as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос' is closer to &quot;I have a short question for you Irina&quot; (short to ask, but not necessary short to answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that in Russian 'небольшой вопрос' could be more than just a question, it could be a request to do something: 'Ирина, у меня к вам небольшой вопрос, не могли бы вы выйти на работу в воскресенье?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. If you and Irina are on different levels of a hierarchy in that case the most likely meaning of 'небольшой вопрос' is 'a small business': if Irina is on a higher level - she will expect a request to do a favor ('Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос. Я принес заявление на отпуск в июле, не могли бы вы его рассмотреть и одобрить сегодня? - Хорошо, оставьте у секретаря, и подходите после шести, тогда мы рассмотримм ваш вопрос.)', if she is on a lower level - an errand will be expected (less common). I guess that ritual came from soviet bureaucracy (newspeak): 'Товарищи, вы по какому вопросу?' (what business brings you here?) On the same level of hierarchy (or no hierarchy) you could be straightforward &quot;I have a small business for you Irina&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7790" RevisionGUID="178537f4-eaf5-43c9-b113-074df74465d7" CreationDate="2014-12-18T20:05:26.433" UserId="4788" Text="i think that ***фиг*** can be leaf from fig-tree&#xD;&#xA; which close Adam's genitals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7791" RevisionGUID="f741dbf5-4b4b-4332-92d9-2014cf3131f1" CreationDate="2014-12-18T20:32:29.930" UserId="4788" Text="i suppose that *с др кароч* beginning from social web вконтакте. you have smb in friend-list there, so you see notice that today is др of this person. but you don't know him\her good enough to know what smb would like to see from you. or  you just wouldn't like to write and think a long wishes to him. so tengeers wrote *с др кароч*. now it's funny mem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7792" RevisionGUID="3594cab6-34ec-4d68-a068-5ccb314da245" CreationDate="2014-12-18T20:38:09.320" UserId="4788" Text="if quick question is &quot;A question that usually requires a long answer. A close relative of stupid question and rhetorical question&quot; you could just ask with *небольшой вопрос*, use ironic inflecsion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7793" RevisionGUID="857c913f-b0b9-440b-b15b-6a71a0051758" CreationDate="2014-12-18T23:02:30.157" UserId="2079" Text="&quot;Короче говоря, с днём рождения.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;др - распространённое сокращение от день рождения.&#xD;&#xA;кароч - короче говоря.  (В устной речи - распространённое слово-паразит.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не следует пользоваться сокращением &quot;кароч&quot;, потому что это разговорное слово низкоинтеллектуальных подростков. Сокращение &quot;др&quot; не особенно вежливо, им не следует пользоваться для поздравления собеседника." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="82071ca5-4ed8-43c8-9ed3-163b369576cb" CreationDate="2014-12-18T23:16:06.610" UserId="4769" Comment="example formatting improved" Text="&quot;Фиг&quot;. How I use it in Russia as a nativespeaker?&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. in a state of a shock: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Мой кот весит 20 килограмм (45 фунтов)&quot; &#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Нифига себе!&quot; or &quot;Офигеть!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. when I'm angry and don't want to give something to somebody:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Дай сюда свой мобильник!&quot; as in a robbery attempt&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Фиг тебе, а не мобильник!&quot; or &quot;Фига-с-два тебе&quot; meaning &quot;i will never give it to you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. to say &quot;do what you want. I don't care about you/it anymore&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Я все равно пойду на концерт&quot; or &quot;Я ненавижу тебя&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Фиг с тобой!&quot; or &quot;Ну и фиг с тобой!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. to say that something is weird/unclear/strange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;По тебе ползет что-то мерзкое!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Что это за фигня! Сними ее с меня!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. to say that something is unpleasant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;Ты приготовил невкусный ужин! Это просто фигня какая-то!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. to say that you don't have or can't do something: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;У меня совсем ничего нет!&quot; or &quot;У меня нифига нет!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;        - &quot;У меня нифига (ничего) не получается сделать!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS1: &quot;Фига-с-два тебе&quot; is a rare form of this word's usage. It doubles the force of the refusal. Means &quot;take my two figs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS2: &quot;фиг&quot; is often considered as a more polite everyday form of swearing exclamation. Other forms include (in the order of harshness increase) :&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фиг&quot;, &quot;хрен&quot;, &quot;хер&quot;, &quot;хуй&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;Хрен тебе, а не деньги!&quot;, &quot;Ни хуя себе!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Фиг&quot; is the most common form for kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Хрен&quot; means &quot;horseradish&quot; in russian (used because it is bitter) and it is much less common for kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;хер&quot; and &quot;хуй&quot; are the words for male genitalia. The later is the most filthy language, so try no to use it. And it is unappropriate for kids to use this forms either... but you know the kids these days...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;fig&quot; is a very common word, that is used when you want to swear a little bit, so that your friends or even parents doesn't think very badly of you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17852" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="82071ca5-4ed8-43c8-9ed3-163b369576cb" CreationDate="2014-12-18T23:16:06.610" Comment="Proposed by 4769 approved by 97, 551 edit id of 571" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17853" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7786" RevisionGUID="1a8db0d7-b68d-446c-9e48-1122cfecca39" CreationDate="2014-12-18T23:31:12.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/545722982384295936" />
  <row Id="17854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7794" RevisionGUID="3b9d8691-d2aa-40a0-bdd6-475851c436dd" CreationDate="2014-12-19T00:23:12.767" UserId="4789" Text="Всем привет) I have read a previous post about the use of нету and it's meaning. In this opportunity I would like to know which is the case that the adjacent subject must have. &#xD;&#xA;For example, how would you say: &quot;There is no dog.&quot; Which case would you use? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7794" RevisionGUID="3b9d8691-d2aa-40a0-bdd6-475851c436dd" CreationDate="2014-12-19T00:23:12.767" UserId="4789" Text="Case use with нету" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7794" RevisionGUID="3b9d8691-d2aa-40a0-bdd6-475851c436dd" CreationDate="2014-12-19T00:23:12.767" UserId="4789" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17857" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="a555adf0-c0da-4cf0-aa5b-d979b7373ece" CreationDate="2014-12-19T02:06:35.940" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17858" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7758" RevisionGUID="746c1ba2-95cc-4e52-8a4f-bed0d504946d" CreationDate="2014-12-19T02:06:46.600" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7795" RevisionGUID="7d2a93d8-2404-4c7c-b369-c0a8da171911" CreationDate="2014-12-19T05:13:58.560" UserId="4560" Text="Genitive: нету собаки; same as нет (in the &quot;there is no&quot; sense) and ни. The colloquial (and getting normative acceptance) tendency to drop the negative genitive in favour of accusative doesn't apply here; that only happens to objects of transitive verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7781" RevisionGUID="3f00ecc1-1c6a-4191-91bf-dd4f299d3821" CreationDate="2014-12-19T14:31:36.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/545949574192697344" />
  <row Id="17861" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="85e91627-c159-46e6-953e-3272af3ba7c2" CreationDate="2014-12-19T15:51:35.143" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17862" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7314" RevisionGUID="44575be2-160d-487b-84f3-c1926e3b0d2f" CreationDate="2014-12-19T15:52:16.767" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7796" RevisionGUID="2b170a18-0b56-4cd0-8824-589c7c61c191" CreationDate="2014-12-19T17:25:27.167" UserId="4560" Text="Вопрос может показаться странным, но вот его логика. В современном русском практически не употребляют *смотря* именно как деепричастие — оно прочно стало частью союзов *смотря как*, *смотря где* и т.д. С другой стороны, *глядя* постоянно встречается там, где в любой другой форме говорящий, скорее всего, употребил бы *смотреть*, а не стилистически маркированное *глядеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эта маркированность в случае *глядя* не воспринимается, и мне кажется, что мысленная операция, приводящая к употреблению *глядя* — это в большинстве случаев постановка глагола *смотреть* в форму деепричастия, примерно так же, как мы неосознанно переключаемся между *класть* и *положить*. Но видовая пара — это все-таки два разных глагола. А тут, если перефразировать подавляющее большинство фраз с *глядя* (через &quot;когда&quot;, &quot;пока&quot; и т. п.), естественными будут изъявительные формы глагола *смотреть*, а не *глядеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дает ли это основания утверждать, что *глядя*, помимо &quot;своего собственного&quot; глагола, употребляется еще и как супплетивное деепричастие от *смотреть*, или это все-таки следует считать заменой глагола как такового?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7796" RevisionGUID="2b170a18-0b56-4cd0-8824-589c7c61c191" CreationDate="2014-12-19T17:25:27.167" UserId="4560" Text="можно ли считать &quot;глядя&quot; супплетивным деепричастием от &quot;смотреть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7796" RevisionGUID="2b170a18-0b56-4cd0-8824-589c7c61c191" CreationDate="2014-12-19T17:25:27.167" UserId="4560" Text="|словоупотребление|глагол|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7797" RevisionGUID="215c9528-d51a-4ecc-b071-ceee76836b35" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:27:44.467" UserId="242" Text="Нет, всё-таки это недаёт основание утверждать, что &quot;глядя&quot; есть супплетивное деепричастие от &quot;смотреть&quot;. Равно как &quot;одолеем&quot; не является формой будущего времени глагола &quot;победить&quot; только лишь на том основании, что в современном русском языке де-факто никто не говорит &quot;победю&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, как указали в комментариях, форма &quot;смотря&quot; употребляется хоть и реже, но не настолько редко, чтобы мы могли говорить о том, что она исчезла. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7797" RevisionGUID="6f3060a8-76ae-4ae5-b042-c162611d894f" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:29:40.190" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Нет, всё-таки это не даёт основание утверждать, что &quot;глядя&quot; есть супплетивное деепричастие от &quot;смотреть&quot;. Равно как &quot;одолеем&quot; не является формой будущего времени глагола &quot;победить&quot; только лишь на том основании, что в современном русском языке де-факто никто не говорит &quot;победю&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, как указали в комментариях, форма &quot;смотря&quot; употребляется хоть и реже, но не настолько редко, чтобы мы могли говорить о том, что она исчезла. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17868" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7796" RevisionGUID="717403f0-8998-41cd-a191-47abe275269d" CreationDate="2014-12-19T22:45:04.723" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Можно ли считать &quot;глядя&quot; супплетивным деепричастием от &quot;смотреть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7797" RevisionGUID="67d6dbd5-a857-4ddb-97b9-58ce0d50d062" CreationDate="2014-12-20T02:24:30.843" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Нет, всё-таки это не даёт основание утверждать, что &quot;глядя&quot; есть супплетивное деепричастие от &quot;смотреть&quot;. Равно как &quot;одолеем&quot; не является формой будущего времени глагола &quot;победить&quot; только лишь на том основании, что в современном русском языке де-факто никто не говорит &quot;побежду&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, как указали в комментариях, форма &quot;смотря&quot; употребляется хоть и реже, но не настолько редко, чтобы мы могли говорить о том, что она исчезла. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="51dfcc8d-c952-4fc0-99d5-fb0a27e31a54" CreationDate="2014-12-20T14:19:05.620" UserId="4608" Comment="added 815 characters in body" Text="a quick question = короткий вопрос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better to use 'Ирина, у меня к Вам короткий вопрос, (когда вы пойдете на концерт сегодня? - Мы не пойдем.)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Короткий' means that we are expecting a 'короткий' (short [in time] = quick) answer as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос' is closer to &quot;I have a short question for you Irina&quot; (short to ask, but not necessary short to answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that in Russian 'небольшой вопрос' could be more than just a question, it could be a request to do something: 'Ирина, у меня к вам небольшой вопрос, не могли бы вы выйти на работу в воскресенье?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. If you and Irina are on different levels of a hierarchy in that case the most likely meaning of 'небольшой вопрос' is 'a small business': if Irina is on a higher level - she will expect a request to do a favor ('Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос. Я принес заявление на отпуск в июле, не могли бы вы его рассмотреть и одобрить сегодня? - Хорошо, оставьте у секретаря, и подходите после шести, тогда мы рассмотримм ваш вопрос.)', if she is on a lower level - an errand will be expected (less common). I guess that ritual came from soviet bureaucracy (newspeak): 'Товарищи, вы по какому вопросу?' (what business brings you here?) On the same level of hierarchy (or no hierarchy) you could be straightforward &quot;I have a small business for you Irina&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Quick question' is a colloquial English term. According to Urban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dictionary it is a question that usually requires a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm Russian native speaker, but I don't know an equivalent in Russian with the same meaning. I'm almost hundred percents sure it doesn't exist. Even more, I can't imagine how to get that meaning by a logical stress or intonation (sarcastic, ironic, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That could be a joke (or cheat): У меня к вам короткий вопрос... and here you're asking 15 minutes long ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Actually I didn't know that meaning in English too, but my English is Singaporean, could be differ form US).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it's a close relative of stupid question and rhetorical question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not. A stupid question = 'глупый вопрос', rhetorical question = 'риторический вопрос', nothing special." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7788" RevisionGUID="0e2e2054-4214-4cc9-ba32-5473d9971d30" CreationDate="2014-12-20T14:26:10.377" UserId="4608" Comment="deleted 445 characters in body" Text="a quick question = короткий вопрос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better to use 'Ирина, у меня к Вам короткий вопрос, (когда вы пойдете на концерт сегодня? - Мы не пойдем.)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Короткий' means that we are expecting a 'короткий' (short [in time] = quick) answer as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос' is closer to &quot;I have a short question for you Irina&quot; (short to ask, but not necessary short to answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And keep in mind that in Russian 'небольшой вопрос' could be more than just a question, it could be a request to do something: 'Ирина, у меня к вам небольшой вопрос, не могли бы вы выйти на работу в воскресенье?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. If you and Irina are on different levels of a hierarchy in that case the most likely meaning of 'небольшой вопрос' is 'a small business': if Irina is on a higher level - she will expect a request to do a favor ('Ирина, у меня к Вам небольшой вопрос. Я принес заявление на отпуск в июле, не могли бы вы его рассмотреть и одобрить сегодня? - Хорошо, оставьте у секретаря, и подходите после шести, тогда мы рассмотримм ваш вопрос.)', if she is on a lower level - an errand will be expected (less common). I guess that ritual came from soviet bureaucracy (newspeak): 'Товарищи, вы по какому вопросу?' (what business brings you here?) On the same level of hierarchy (or no hierarchy) you could be straightforward &quot;I have a small business for you Irina&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update 2: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Quick question' is a colloquial English term. According to Urban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dictionary it is a question that usually requires a long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@naXa: I vote for your example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I.e. using a common expression: всё хорошо, только у меня к Вам один&#xD;&#xA;&gt; маааленький вопрос: ... (with a snide; the asker knows that his&#xD;&#xA;&gt; question can't be easily answered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7796" RevisionGUID="daee0dff-b07d-406b-8d1e-ba28f819b36a" CreationDate="2014-12-20T20:31:38.640" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/546402568101191681" />
  <row Id="17873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7798" RevisionGUID="2b767918-fb0b-468b-8eb6-00fc0b879e75" CreationDate="2014-12-20T21:17:39.010" UserId="3911" Text="In Canada we have the idiom &quot;selling ice to the eskimos&quot; to illustrate someone doing something redundant. What is it in russian that illustrates redundancy? I've looked at lists of idioms but haven't seen any that illustrate redundancy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7798" RevisionGUID="2b767918-fb0b-468b-8eb6-00fc0b879e75" CreationDate="2014-12-20T21:17:39.010" UserId="3911" Text="Russian idiom for redundancy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7798" RevisionGUID="2b767918-fb0b-468b-8eb6-00fc0b879e75" CreationDate="2014-12-20T21:17:39.010" UserId="3911" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7800" RevisionGUID="99bd2982-c287-4ca0-a69a-264faa7e6ce3" CreationDate="2014-12-20T22:32:35.240" UserId="62" Text="For a native idiom, you are looking for ездить в Тулу со своим самоваром. See the &quot;Culture&quot; section of the Wikipedia page about Tula, or look at the page&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%83_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7801" RevisionGUID="5ac7224e-bfe7-4b4e-8bf6-2162163f4b98" CreationDate="2014-12-20T22:32:51.590" UserId="4620" Text="When Israel sold snow-making machines to Russia for the Winter Olympiad in Sochi, there were lots of jokes that &quot;jews sold to russians snow in winter&quot;. The expression `продать снег зимой` is quite well known. Although I don't think it's about redundancy; rather it means executing a clever con." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7800" RevisionGUID="52b95aa1-2ae2-467e-87f5-89621941596c" CreationDate="2014-12-20T23:13:51.847" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For a native idiom, you are looking for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ездить в Тулу со своим самоваром](http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%83_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the &quot;Culture&quot; section of the Wikipedia page about Tula for more info." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7800" RevisionGUID="f80136cc-9b94-4b5f-bcf3-638592af4c05" CreationDate="2014-12-21T00:02:02.977" UserId="62" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="For a native idiom, you are looking for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ездить в Тулу со своим самоваром](http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%83_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the &quot;Culture&quot; section of the Wikipedia page about Tula for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7802" RevisionGUID="c1774fa2-26d3-4b5d-85df-22e5e919a6d7" CreationDate="2014-12-21T01:34:44.103" UserId="3677" Text="There is also a phrase similar to `taking coals to Newcastle`:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дрова в лес возить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means `to carry wood back into the forest`, to do something that is not needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7803" RevisionGUID="2df60b70-5a83-4d43-ab98-8644e17e28ce" CreationDate="2014-12-21T07:57:14.577" UserId="194" Text="Actually yoou can use in Russian the literal translation, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Продавать снег эскимосам &quot;Sell snow to the eskimos&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it would be understood as a hopless enterprise, defective by design business rather than &quot;persuading people against their will&quot; as you say it means in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="07bd446f-c768-4a1d-9bfc-c05a690ce51c" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:20:15.497" UserId="3917" Text="In my cherished second-hand 1958 *Assimil* textbook *Le russe sans peine* I see the question &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это что за работа ?    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why the nominative case, where I would expect an accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="07bd446f-c768-4a1d-9bfc-c05a690ce51c" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:20:15.497" UserId="3917" Text="Nominative after &quot;что за&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="07bd446f-c768-4a1d-9bfc-c05a690ce51c" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:20:15.497" UserId="3917" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7805" RevisionGUID="9634ba8a-58ee-47d7-b7ec-de7cd84aef9a" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:46:16.157" UserId="4795" Text="as an example in the name of the diet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7805" RevisionGUID="9634ba8a-58ee-47d7-b7ec-de7cd84aef9a" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:46:16.157" UserId="4795" Text="what it means &quot;Очковая диета&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7805" RevisionGUID="9634ba8a-58ee-47d7-b7ec-de7cd84aef9a" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:46:16.157" UserId="4795" Text="|it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7806" RevisionGUID="253491ce-fcb1-4404-ba8c-b41ba5494519" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:55:30.167" UserId="194" Text="[Это] Что за работа? = What the work is (what kind)? (Nomenative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что за работу? = What [they pay] for the work? (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это что за работу ? &quot; - ungrammatical, unclear what is asked" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7807" RevisionGUID="0b8016dd-00cd-43d0-8fd2-28e7c036d368" CreationDate="2014-12-21T13:01:50.403" UserId="4769" Text="Speaking about the preposition `за`, there are many cases possible: not only accusative and nominative, but instrumental also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что [это] за работа?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the meaning `What kind is this work of?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что [мне заплатят] за работу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the meaning `How much will I be paid for this work?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не спи за работой!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the meaning `Don't sleep at work!` " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7805" RevisionGUID="d6755be8-589d-4912-9051-0bbd6fe7987a" CreationDate="2014-12-21T13:14:14.453" UserId="97" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="32b68c54-8469-4936-aaa9-2852b16f162b" CreationDate="2014-12-21T14:33:34.083" UserId="4560" Text="*Что за* + nominative means &quot;what kind of [a]...?&quot;. It's similar to the German *Was für ein[e]...?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the nominative, it seems to be a fluke example of simply losing an oblique case (accusative), perhaps by analogy with *что такое*, which was a strong influence since the accusative had only affected the *-а* paradigm and the masculine animates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Czech and Slovak have the exact same construction but still use the accusative; in Slovak, the sentence in your example would be *Čo je to za robotu?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7808" RevisionGUID="99c7f6ad-bb14-499a-9bd5-d6479ee8a601" CreationDate="2014-12-21T14:41:01.250" UserId="4560" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="*Что за* + nominative means &quot;what kind of [a]...?&quot;. It's similar to the German *Was für ein[e]...?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the nominative, it seems to be a fluke example of simply losing an oblique case (accusative), perhaps by analogy with *что такое*, which was a strong influence since the accusative had only affected the *-а* paradigm and the masculine animates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Czech and Slovak have the exact same construction but still use the accusative; in Slovak, the sentence in your example would be *Čo je to za robotu?* Polish, on the other hand, uses nominative too: *Co to za praca?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7809" RevisionGUID="9dae5618-faf5-4878-ab5a-d369c95cd8a5" CreationDate="2014-12-21T14:55:06.547" UserId="4753" Text="Ozhegov's dictionary (1986) says that фига or фиг means the same thing as кушиш which is defined as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The fist with the thumb inserted between the index and middle fingers as a mark of contempt, abuse.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ozhegov does not explain what object, if any, this gesture might represent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ozhegov dictionary also states that the expression &quot;Фига (с) два.&quot; is &quot;a rude expression of denial or diagreement&quot; and that &quot;Не фига.&quot; means the same thing as &quot;Не чёрта.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While Ozhegov describes certain expressions using the word фиг as rude, and the gesture as contemptuous, he does not in any way suggest that they are actually obscene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Quassnoi in his answer says that фиг is a euphemism for vulva and that the gesture is obscene because it represents a vulva. If so, this is obscure knowledge. I have been told that its use is not obscene but childishly rude. In contrast, the middle finger gesture is in the US universally understood to be obscene because it represents an erect penis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Artyom says that фиг is “a very common word, that is used when you want to swear a little bit, so that your friends or even parents doesn't think very badly of you“. I believe this is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@user4599 claims that showing someone the фиг gesture is the equivalent “giving someone the finger” or using a certain expression of contempt containing the F-word. Its meaning is the same, but the level of vulgarity is very, very different. As @Artyom pointed out, “фиг” is a mild swear word. But, the F-word is just about the strongest swear word available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any expression containing the F-word occupies the highest level of coarseness. It is a word which is not supposed to be used where women and children can hear. Though it has existed in English-language subcultures for centuries (Shakespeare seems to have slyly alluded to it, there is evidence it was used by soldiers during the American Civil war, and it can be found in a few 19th century court transcripts), it is considered “unprintable”. Its use in public was quite literally so unacceptable that nobody would print it even in a dictionary between about 1600 and 1950. To this day mainstream newspapers will not print it and it is covered by a “bleep” noise in radio and television broadcasts. Films containing it are labeled as unsuitable for children under 13 years old. If it is used more than three times as a meaningless exclamation or even once to refer to copulation, then children under 17 will not be admitted without an accompanying adult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have noticed some cases where Russians seem to underestimate its offensiveness. They may offer it as a translation for mildly rude Russian expressions. Also, I have heard it unbleeped when performers in Russian-language programs use it even though other coarse words they may use are bleeped out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two reasons for this misunderstanding. The first is that when American movies are dubbed into Russian, the “seven dirty words” are translated using relatively mild expressions such as &quot;Боже мой”, “ерунда”, “подлец”, and “паразит”. The second reason is that if you do not know the cultural background which explains why some Americans talk like sailors in front of women and children, you could get the mistaken impression that the F-word is a mild cuss along the lines of “damn”.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7810" RevisionGUID="903f229e-4862-4ea7-9f5e-31a740ae473d" CreationDate="2014-12-21T16:32:10.257" UserId="551" Text="Если поискать в Google Ngrams слово [самосвал][1], то слово якобы встречается еще в 1875 году, однако при просмотре детальных результатов оказывается что это ошибки автоматического распознавания (в том числе греческих слов). Есть там и книга 1975 года ошибочно индексированная как 1875, или журнал 1980 проиндексированный как 1930.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Самый первый результат когда употреблено именно слово &quot;самосвал&quot; относится к [1934 году](https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80&amp;safe=off&amp;hl=ru&amp;biw=1142&amp;bih=653&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01.01.1900%2Ccd_max%3A31.12.1935&amp;tbm=bks#safe=off&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:01.01.1900%2Ccd_max:31.12.1935&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB). Похоже это заголовок статьи:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Румяицев, Г. К. Самоопрокидывающийся кузов (самосвал) для 1,5-т грузовиков ГАЗ-АА.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если посмотреть в Википедии когда в РСФСР начали производить ГАЗ-АА, то это как раз начало 30-х. Судя по всему изначально слово &quot;самосвал&quot; к грузовику не относилось, а относилось только к его типу кузова. При этом слово дано в скобках, т.е. оно или жаргонное или узкоспециальное. Другими словами слово &quot;самосвал&quot; в значении &quot;грузовой автомобиль оборудованный особым кузовом&quot;, на этот момент еще не родилось. Собственно грузовик сам по себе был достаточно новым объектом чтобы делить его на разные специализированные категории.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другими словами, похоже что заимствованного названия грузовиков-самосвалов не было, так как их первые образцы были самостоятельно изготовлены в России и тут же получили свое название.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и соответственно замена &quot;думпкара&quot; (по ссылке George Shuklin есть пример употребления в 1930-м году) на &quot;самосвал&quot; относилась именно к вагонам-самосвалам, да и то произошла она не окончательно и бесповоротно, так как слово &quot;думпкар&quot; до сих пор используется на железнодорожном транспорте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17897" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7798" RevisionGUID="9de575a2-185e-45b2-a8a4-c057ab229915" CreationDate="2014-12-21T20:36:37.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/546766211351326720" />
  <row Id="17899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7811" RevisionGUID="7c0d0f5c-bffd-4440-8c08-f25cf147981c" CreationDate="2014-12-22T01:04:26.413" UserId="4797" Text="What is the meaning / intention / desired interpretation from the audience of the body language shown in the images and subsequently described below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: Placing this question on Russian Language stack exchange is based on my personal speculation that this particular hand / arm gesture is unique to Russians or at least that geo-social section of the world. If this is not the case and I am merely ignorant please point that out and I will promptly delete the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Gesture made by Putin while speaking at a summit recently][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Gesture often used by Sanda:ku][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ovem9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C05SF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the gesture of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- While speaking...&#xD;&#xA;- raising ones hand approximately chest height,&#xD;&#xA;- placing the hand in front of (not close to) the side of ones chest,&#xD;&#xA;- with the palm of the hand facing the chest,&#xD;&#xA;- the four fingers of the hand aligned together in the same direction,&#xD;&#xA;- with those four fingers slightly curled in the direction of the speaker&#xD;&#xA;- and the thumb at a perpendicular angle to those fingers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7811" RevisionGUID="7c0d0f5c-bffd-4440-8c08-f25cf147981c" CreationDate="2014-12-22T01:04:26.413" UserId="4797" Text="What is the meaning / intention / desired interpretation of this Russian body language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7811" RevisionGUID="7c0d0f5c-bffd-4440-8c08-f25cf147981c" CreationDate="2014-12-22T01:04:26.413" UserId="4797" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7812" RevisionGUID="8af1736e-af26-4d28-9c43-8350f1a5be4b" CreationDate="2014-12-22T05:04:17.100" UserId="2269" Text="If we would talk about the first picture, then the gesture is not so specific as you described it. You have to see it [in a motion][0]¹ to realise that it’s just a *waving hand* in accordance with rhythm of speech, marking key words by sharp movements (downward), delaying hand in pauses and so on; basically, a person directs his own speech. How high the hand is raised, where is thumb, etc, is not so important, although it might be matter of personal habit or regional peculiarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: http://youtu.be/COSOIOyecLs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;¹ I can not say exact time, when this very photo is taken, but Putin uses that kind of gesticulation quite often.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7812" RevisionGUID="4d873ab3-0750-46fe-bbd5-05d55a25bf41" CreationDate="2014-12-22T05:12:56.063" UserId="2269" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="If we would talk about the first picture, then the gesture is not so specific as you described it. You have to see it [in a motion][0]¹ to realise that it’s just *waving a hand* in accordance with a rhythm of speech, he marks key words by sharp movements (downward), delays hand in pauses and so on; basically, an orator directs his own speech. How high the hand is raised, where is thumb, etc, is not so important, although it might be matter of personal habit or regional peculiarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second picture, it hard for me to say confidently what exactly artist tried to depict, if it is from an animated movie, again, you’d better look at it in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;¹ I can not say exact time, when this very photo is taken, but Putin uses that kind of gesticulation quite often.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: http://youtu.be/COSOIOyecLs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17904" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7811" RevisionGUID="a272ee31-650a-4801-8af5-9b80b7bca10f" CreationDate="2014-12-22T05:36:53.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/546902172013957120" />
  <row Id="17905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7813" RevisionGUID="e998efbb-bf96-42ad-b3a5-0ef7ff4df6ac" CreationDate="2014-12-22T07:42:58.337" UserId="2060" Text="In addition to Dmitry Alexandrov's answer, the [repeating vertical motion][1] discussed in the [media][2] has nothing to do with karate or intimidation (this is so ridiculous), it's just like chopping the topic into a series of consecutive points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1UenANSnAA#t=216&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMhrz_7XZE#t=42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7803" RevisionGUID="2b883107-dea7-41eb-8cc6-ea8efe003085" CreationDate="2014-12-22T07:51:21.517" UserId="4799" Comment="Fixed spelling mistakes" Text="You can use in Russian the literal translation, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Продавать снег эскимосам &quot;Sell snow to the eskimos&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it would be understood as a hopeless enterprise, defective by design business rather than &quot;persuading people against their will&quot; as you say it means in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17907" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7803" RevisionGUID="2b883107-dea7-41eb-8cc6-ea8efe003085" CreationDate="2014-12-22T07:51:21.517" Comment="Proposed by 4799 approved by 194 edit id of 572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7805" RevisionGUID="4f9cd7f9-5be3-481e-bd1c-63fb6f4f7d5f" CreationDate="2014-12-22T08:27:00.353" UserId="4795" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="as an example in the name of the diet&#xD;&#xA;for example [Очковая диета][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://evehealth.ru/ochkovaya-dieta-khudeem-po-novomu/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17909" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7804" RevisionGUID="359afff4-cc7e-4531-bcf0-3504f8d7b5f0" CreationDate="2014-12-22T08:36:53.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/546947471683760128" />
  <row Id="17910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7814" RevisionGUID="19b623b0-c24d-45d0-9537-882fe9cd634d" CreationDate="2014-12-22T11:05:14.430" UserId="4676" Text="Вот, поискал про медведя и берлогу - оказалось очень интересно.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**БЕР (&quot;Бе + Ръ&quot;)** В разных словах этот корень раскрывается разными гранями своего объемного смысла. В одном из значений раньше этим словом называли &quot;медведя&quot; (отсюда в языке сохранилось слово &quot;берлога&quot; как &quot;медвежье логово&quot; или как &quot;медведя силовое основание движения&quot;). А еще это - одно из имен бога Велеса (его же именовали еще Святибором) и значит &quot;рожденный&quot;. Отсюда слово &quot;беременность&quot;. Родственные слова: БЕРег, БЕРкут, ЦерБЕР, БЕРеза и т.д. ... После утраты подлинных смыслов в обиходе остались два взаимосвязанных, но разнородных слова: &quot;берлога&quot; и &quot;медведь&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;Медведь&quot; составлено из двух основ &quot;Мёд&quot; и &quot;Ведать&quot;, таким образом, медведь - ведающий в мёде.  &#xD;&#xA;Но слово &quot;Медведь&quot; не являлось истинным именем этого животного, его использовали все: женщины, ремесленники, дети.  &#xD;&#xA;Истинное же имя не использовали из суеверия, боясь позвать страшное животное. &#xD;&#xA;Им пользовались только охотники. По всей видимости, оно звучало как &quot;бер&quot;, т.е. &quot;тот, кто берёт&quot;. В европейских языках оно и сейчас используется - &quot;bear&quot; в английском, &quot;baer&quot; в немецом. В русском же осталось слово &quot;берлога&quot; - ложе бера.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;кстати, интересное явление: английский и немецкий языки, оказывается, гораздо дальше от латыни, ибо в английском -&quot;bear&quot; , в немецком &quot;baer&quot;, а по-латински медведь: ursus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-то. А вы говорите, мусор, нечистоты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7814" RevisionGUID="91789c68-e609-4a48-96a5-442a2694ffd2" CreationDate="2014-12-22T11:14:33.450" UserId="4676" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Вот, поискал про медведя и берлогу - оказалось очень интересно.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**БЕР (&quot;Бе + Ръ&quot;)** В разных словах этот корень раскрывается разными гранями своего объемного смысла. В одном из значений раньше этим словом называли &quot;медведя&quot; (отсюда в языке сохранилось слово &quot;берлога&quot; как &quot;медвежье логово&quot; или как &quot;медведя силовое основание движения&quot;). А еще это - одно из имен бога Велеса (его же именовали еще Святибором) и значит &quot;рожденный&quot;. Отсюда слово &quot;беременность&quot;. Родственные слова: БЕРег, БЕРкут, ЦерБЕР, БЕРеза и т.д. ... После утраты подлинных смыслов в обиходе остались два взаимосвязанных, но разнородных слова: &quot;берлога&quot; и &quot;медведь&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;Медведь&quot; составлено из двух основ &quot;Мёд&quot; и &quot;Ведать&quot;, таким образом, медведь - ведающий в мёде.  &#xD;&#xA;Но слово &quot;Медведь&quot; не являлось истинным именем этого животного, его использовали все: женщины, ремесленники, дети.  &#xD;&#xA;Истинное же имя не использовали из суеверия, боясь позвать страшное животное. &#xD;&#xA;Им пользовались только охотники. По всей видимости, оно звучало как &quot;бер&quot;, т.е. &quot;тот, кто берёт&quot;. В европейских языках оно и сейчас используется - &quot;bear&quot; в английском, &quot;baer&quot; в немецом. В русском же осталось слово &quot;берлога&quot; - ложе бера.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;кстати, интересное явление: английский и немецкий языки, оказывается, гораздо дальше от латыни, ибо в английском -&quot;bear&quot; , в немецком &quot;baer&quot;, а по-латински медведь: ursus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-то. А вы говорите, мусор, нечистоты.  &#xD;&#xA;П.С Со словами цербер и беременность я лично не не согласен, они здесь не к месту и к беру не относятся" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="c4a1de26-0353-4b01-af1f-7dc4561da64a" CreationDate="2014-12-22T13:49:29.113" UserId="134" Comment="added 556 characters in body" Text="Please, could somebody tell me how to say in Russian &quot;Mechanical Draughtsman&quot;&#xD;&#xA;It is a profession, trade.&#xD;&#xA;In English means a person who draws and designs mechanical, structural or machine parts.&#xD;&#xA;The drawing might be created on a drawing board or computer [ like AutoCad ]&#xD;&#xA;Google gives &quot;рисовальщика&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English language a Draughtsman, or better to say a senior or designer draughtsman is a person who designs and thereafter draws machine parts or structural constructions.&#xD;&#xA;As his superior is a chief draughtsman, who might not be an engineer.&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible just to draw machine parts, the draughtsman must be able to create something new which is talked in meeting together with an engineer or engineers. &#xD;&#xA;Once a draugtsman gets an idea what the customer wants, he is left on his own to design and to draw or to produce a drawing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17914" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7811" RevisionGUID="7750633c-18df-482b-86ec-091467538c63" CreationDate="2014-12-22T13:54:39.433" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7815" RevisionGUID="97de6748-c827-44f8-9c70-e989d366e50f" CreationDate="2014-12-22T14:52:53.373" UserId="1688" Text="There's also a series of idioms that follow the pattern of &quot;...like [an animal] needs [an object]&quot;, e.g. &quot;Мне это нужно, как зайцу велосипед&quot; или &quot;Им это нужно, как рыбе зонтик&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="63e2b020-9bb9-4155-970e-0be700363b7e" CreationDate="2014-12-22T19:46:43.547" UserId="4808" Text="Существует ли всё-таки междометие &quot;блять&quot; или нет и уместно ли вообще говорить об ошибках в словах ненормативной лексики?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="63e2b020-9bb9-4155-970e-0be700363b7e" CreationDate="2014-12-22T19:46:43.547" UserId="4808" Text="&quot;Блять&quot; против &quot;блядь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="63e2b020-9bb9-4155-970e-0be700363b7e" CreationDate="2014-12-22T19:46:43.547" UserId="4808" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7817" RevisionGUID="19ea6708-b4a4-469d-b59d-1d0ddc9e9766" CreationDate="2014-12-22T20:13:16.863" UserId="4481" Text="Two more idioms for redundancy. Both are used to describe an action, performed with an inappropriate instrument:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стрелять из пушки по воробьям (To shoot sparrows from a cannon). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Микроскопом гвозди забивать (To hammer nails with a microscope).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7818" RevisionGUID="bd30b176-cf6e-4619-8e6f-b8bbd01bfc72" CreationDate="2014-12-23T08:03:12.047" UserId="4560" Text="Не существует. *Блять* — это визуальная рифма с *ебать!* и *твою мать*, и отсюда, наверно, возникло представление о том, будто &quot;так оно пишется, когда междометие&quot;, но нет, оно воспринималось и воспринимается как &quot;слово с ошибкой&quot;, даже когда с этой ошибкой употребляется намеренно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7819" RevisionGUID="c15627ef-9eb8-46fa-aa4a-687a3ca9fa54" CreationDate="2014-12-23T09:50:03.650" UserId="4810" Text="Полностью соглашусь с ответом Николая Ершова, но добавлю еще ответ на вторую часть вопроса. А почему, собственно, может не быть уместным говорить об ошибках в словах ненормативной лексики? Они также являются частью корпуса языка и подчиняются тем же правилам, что и все остальные слова. И, к слову, &quot;блядь&quot; до середины 19 века было литературным словом, а изначально вообще значило всего-то &quot;ошибка&quot;/&quot;ошибаться&quot; и &quot;лгать&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7820" RevisionGUID="6c0fa8ac-b96e-4d23-b5bc-9f6b7bc9e8cf" CreationDate="2014-12-23T10:12:23.200" UserId="4810" Text="Ирина, у меня к вам небольшой вопрос. - More neutral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ирина, у меня к вам вопросик. - More informal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO NOT put the name at the end of the sentence. It's not grammatically wrong, but we never, never do that, so it'll be a dead giveaway that you're not a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DO NOT use 'короткий вопрос'. Same as the previous one, we just don't use it like that. Ever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can leave out the name altogether. In Russian it's not natural to call a person by their name all the time. If you're talking to someone, just look at them, and they'll know you're talking to them and not a nearby wall. No need to call their name unnecessarily. Honestly, it's annoying and feels like you can't remember the person's name and have to repeat it all the time. If you're trying to catch a person's attention, it's fine to call their name, but, please, don't repeat it all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you're already talking to that Irina, you can say just:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня (к вам) (небольшой) вопрос. or У меня (к вам) вопросик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can easily leave out the parts in brackets. In Russian it's natural to leave out a lot of things if they can be read from context, and in this case it's:&#xD;&#xA;1) already obvious that you have a question for Irina, because you're talking to her, so there's no need to use 'к вам';&#xD;&#xA;2) it's not really necessary to specify that the question is short unless Irina is really short on time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you can also leave out 'у меня', because it's obvious that it's you who has the question. Which leaves...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос. or Вопросик.&#xD;&#xA;But these two are rather informal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7821" RevisionGUID="86b57f8d-2bfd-42ca-b5e9-7fc2a8e0599e" CreationDate="2014-12-23T10:40:53.557" UserId="4810" Text="vk.com for one. It's a Russian Facebook clone which many people use as a Tumblr substitute (yours truly included). If you find someone you want to talk to, just exchange Skypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to how to find talking partners, just browse the 'groups' (&quot;Группы&quot;) and either search for English learners (then it'll be mutually beneficial), or for groups centred around your interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't be afraid to talk to girls just because they're girls (as a certain user suggested). That's sexist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if, by any chance, you're interested in anime/manga, Doctor Who, cats, or Java/Android programming, you can talk to me ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17925" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7773" RevisionGUID="d2b9b417-4f73-4d70-a605-df68041edf31" CreationDate="2014-12-23T17:37:10.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/547445824981307392" />
  <row Id="17926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7822" RevisionGUID="4610c1fe-3043-49a8-96d2-fd81039124fe" CreationDate="2014-12-23T20:33:19.120" UserId="1860" Text="***Очковая диета*** simply means that instead of calories, you count points (*очки* or *баллы*). Counting points is presumed to be easier than counting calories, mainly because the diet is accompanied by a comprehensive list of things you can eat and their assigned points, no background in nutritional science necessary. If you want to lose weight, you need stay within the daily point limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Atkins diet is one famous example of a points diet, Weight Watchers is another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17927" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7776" RevisionGUID="19103571-3b68-4270-a9a7-43c3b34a8523" CreationDate="2014-12-23T23:37:11.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/547536425332535296" />
  <row Id="17928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7823" RevisionGUID="4f59330f-80de-461f-8ac4-7b69836e7957" CreationDate="2014-12-24T07:06:56.743" UserId="4810" Text="A comment to Avi Gordon't answer that I (unfortunately) can't post as a proper comment (yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;бедолага&quot; uses the same -ага/-яга suffix that morphed with the root over time, and the root is &quot;беда&quot; (misfortune/disaster). So, &quot;бедолага&quot; is &quot;an unfortunate man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest has already been described by Avi Gordon. Accept that answer already :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17929" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7805" RevisionGUID="79d8b7c7-476b-41bf-9ae2-573884734c62" CreationDate="2014-12-24T08:38:15.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/547672588542312448" />
  <row Id="17931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7825" RevisionGUID="04ece25b-60f4-4c76-924a-7b4e4da5a8fa" CreationDate="2014-12-24T09:37:05.083" UserId="4813" Text="Fire, Water, and Brass Pipes (Russian: Огонь, вода и… медные трубы, Ogon', voda i... mednye truby) is a Soviet fantasy film directed by Aleksandr Rou. Its story and characters are derived from Slavic folklore. 1968 starring Natalya Sedykh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17935" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="0000f700-c61d-48fe-a92e-655eab5331c8" CreationDate="2014-12-24T15:33:37.930" UserId="551" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="17936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="23429929-7de0-4c61-a38b-d3b5bbf99e38" CreationDate="2014-12-24T20:18:13.787" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="http://youtu.be/Bz7T8JrZ-eU?t=26m10s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The girl says something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наверноe я бы свободу отнесла бы к числу известных испытаний&#xD;&#xA;наряду с огнём, водой и медными трубами.&#xD;&#xA;И причём такое испытание, наверное&#xD;&#xA;более легко для отдельной личности,&#xD;&#xA;чем для народа, для государства в целом!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She's referring to an old movie, comparing the challenges or something. What does she mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7826" RevisionGUID="39e8aebc-cb26-4fa3-870e-45eecd3758a4" CreationDate="2014-12-24T21:32:28.437" UserId="2060" Text="&gt; для того чтобы установить производность слова и, следовательно, определить, какое из сравниваемых родственных слов послужило базой для образования другого, то есть какое имеет производящую основу, а какое — производную, надо изучить конкретную историю этих слов и выяснить, какое из них более раннее, а какое более позднее, какое из слов исторически образовано от другого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Словообразование синхронное и историческое][1] (В. А. Белошапкова, Е. А. Брызгунова, Е. А. Земская и др.. Современный русский язык: Учеб. для филол. спец. ун-тов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sci-book.com/russkiy-yazyik/slovoobrazovanie-sinhronnoe-istoricheskoe-72110.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="a0654f48-ce9a-49ab-bb30-f63745101807" CreationDate="2014-12-25T05:18:50.267" UserId="2306" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Мой учебник говорит что слово *глубь* образовано безаффиксным способом от прилагательного *глубокий*. Откуда они знают что произошло не наоборот? Что сначала было существительное *глубь*, а потом появилось прилагательное *глубокий*. Нужно ли залезать глубоко в историю русского языка, чтобы доказать это, или есть более общие и простые правила?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7827" RevisionGUID="73929b10-323a-4271-90e0-620b57a24fef" CreationDate="2014-12-25T10:32:22.867" UserId="4815" Text="There are basically 2 meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *На прОводах* - kinda *on farewell party* - in this context *farewell to military service*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *На проводАх* (plural) or *на прОводе* - means *on wires* or just *connected*, *on line*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="463a7cc1-e4e0-41bb-aff7-3d83bbea50e0" CreationDate="2014-12-25T12:31:36.440" UserId="551" Text="Как известно, слово &quot;медведь&quot; это слово-заменитель табуированного &quot;истинного&quot; имени зверя. Похоже что такие замены происходили неоднократно - старое &quot;истинное&quot; имя забывалось и табу переходило на новое имя и так далее. &#xA;&#xA;Но если бы это имя не было табу, как бы оно звучало сегодня?&#xA;&#xA;За прошедшие тысячелетия слова теряли окончания, менялись гласные и т.д. как бы сегодня звучало слово *r̥ḱs-os/*r̥ḱt-os ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="463a7cc1-e4e0-41bb-aff7-3d83bbea50e0" CreationDate="2014-12-25T12:31:36.440" UserId="551" Text="Как бы звучало по-русски название медведя *r̥ḱs-os/*r̥ḱt-os, доживи оно до наших дней?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="463a7cc1-e4e0-41bb-aff7-3d83bbea50e0" CreationDate="2014-12-25T12:31:36.440" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7829" RevisionGUID="3133ca42-ba09-43ed-a91c-e335de0b16e7" CreationDate="2014-12-25T16:50:43.947" UserId="194" Text="ПИЕ форма: ***a̯rtcos*** (после r идет t)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это дало бы что-то вроде ересь/ерсь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7830" RevisionGUID="9b61a517-e7b9-469a-8a00-b550715e9de2" CreationDate="2014-12-25T16:57:27.043" UserId="134" Text="We can only reconstruct the PIE word through methods of comparative linguistics (comparing the similar words in the related language and trying to figure out their common source, which, being applied the sound changes relevant for the appropriate languages, would yield the attested words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the reconstructed word for &quot;bear&quot; is derived from 5 attested words from Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Old Irish and Hittite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sound changes are not the only factor which defines the language development: metonymy, loaning, folk etymology, morphological transformations etc. all can contribute, and, unlike the sound changes, none of them can be predicted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, we can only hypothesize about &quot;what would the word look like, should it be only affected by the sound changes and nothing else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus said, we can apply the following laws:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Post-Anatolian: initial laryngeal is lost, *&amp;#42;tk* is changed to a thorn cluster: *&amp;#42;h₂ŕ̥tḱos* &gt; *&amp;#42;ŕ̥ḱtos*&#xD;&#xA;* Proto-Slavic: the second part of the thorn cluster is dropped, *&amp;#42;ŕ̥* becomes *&amp;#42;rъ*, *&amp;#42;ḱ* becomes *&amp;#42;s*, *&amp;#42;-os* becomes *&amp;#42;-ъ*: *&amp;#42;ŕ̥ḱtos* &gt; *&amp;#42;rъsъ*&#xD;&#xA;* Russian: the first *&amp;#42;ъ* (in strong position) becomes *&amp;#42;о*, the second one (in weak position) falls: *&amp;#42;rъsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;рос*, with a fleeting vowel (*&amp;#42;рос / &amp;#42;рса / &amp;#42;рсом*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This consonant cluster is very uncommon for Russian, so some kind of prosthetic sound would most probably be added at some stage, or some of the vowels changed. It might be either of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Рос / роса / росом*&#xD;&#xA;* *Рес / реcа / ресом*&#xD;&#xA;* *Рёс / рёcа / рёсом*&#xD;&#xA;* *Орс / орса / орсом*&#xD;&#xA;* *Урс / урса / урсом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, those are just wild hypotheses, as we all know the actual Russian word for &quot;bear&quot; has nothing to do with any of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7831" RevisionGUID="fcc68ea2-d21d-4042-bc67-07f396e237de" CreationDate="2014-12-25T17:03:00.650" UserId="1236" Text="Очень интересный вопрос, давайте прикинем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** Сначала рассмотрим переход индоевропейских фонем в праславянские в варианте ***r̥ḱt-os**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку славянские языки – это языки &quot;satem&quot;, то ***ḱ** &gt; ***s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Окончание ***ŏs** &gt; ***ŭs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***r̥** &gt; ***ăr** или ***ŏr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Получаем раннепраславянское ***ărstŭs** / ***ŏrstŭs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее начал действовать закон открытых слогов и возрастающей звучности слога, конечный ***s** отпал, чтобы открыть конечный слог, и тогда сразу же ***ŭ** &gt; ***ъ** (***ărstъ** / ***ŏrstъ**). Начальные сочетания гласного с плавным перед согласным перераспределились с удлинением гласного: ***ărstъ** / ***ŏrstъ** &gt; ***rāstъ** / ***rōstъ**, а долгие ***ā** и ***ō** слились в один звук **а**. Таким образом, к концу праславянской эпохи мы имеем ***rastъ**, что, в принципе, означает, что старославянская форма будет ***растъ**. Русское соответствие этой форме однозначно определить невозможно, поскольку мы не знаем, какое ударение было в этой форме. Если ударение было восходящее, то получилось бы русское ***раст** (как стсл. **рало** ~ рус. **рало**), а если нисходящее, то было бы ***рост** (как стсл. **равьнъ** ~ рус. **ровный**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, для варианта ***r̥ḱt-os** у нас получается русское ***раст** / ***рост**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** Для варианта ***r̥ḱs-os** всё происходило бы точно так же, за тем исключением, что мы бы получили раннепраславянское ***rassъ**, но закон открытых слогов и возрастающей звучности слога не допускал существования слога ***ssъ**, поскольку два равных по звучности согласных не могли стоять рядом. Два одинаковых фрикативных согласных сливались в один, этот слог упростился в ***sъ**, дав ***rasъ** ~ стсл. ***расъ** ~ рус. ***рас** / ***рос**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Выводы**: Поскольку мы не обладаем абсолютно полной информацией, и поскольку мы лишь строим предположения, то к однозначному ответу прийти невозможно, тем более что даже протоиндоевропейский архетип неоднозначен. Тем не менее, определённые выводы можно сделать. Это слово бы звучало одним из четырёх способов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***раст** / ***рост** : ***рас** / ***рос**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7831" RevisionGUID="90f11bee-8c25-4631-b6df-c98cf5204ef4" CreationDate="2014-12-25T17:48:45.163" UserId="1236" Comment="English translation added" Text="Очень интересный вопрос, давайте прикинем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** Сначала рассмотрим переход индоевропейских фонем в праславянские в варианте ***r̥ḱt-os**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку славянские языки – это языки &quot;satem&quot;, то ***ḱ** &gt; ***s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Окончание ***ŏs** &gt; ***ŭs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***r̥** &gt; ***ăr** или ***ŏr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Получаем раннепраславянское ***ărstŭs** / ***ŏrstŭs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее начал действовать закон открытых слогов и возрастающей звучности слога, конечный ***s** отпал, чтобы открыть конечный слог, и тогда сразу же ***ŭ** &gt; ***ъ** (***ărstъ** / ***ŏrstъ**). Начальные сочетания гласного с плавным перед согласным перераспределились с удлинением гласного: ***ărstъ** / ***ŏrstъ** &gt; ***rāstъ** / ***rōstъ**, а долгие ***ā** и ***ō** слились в один звук **а**. Таким образом, к концу праславянской эпохи мы имеем ***rastъ**, что, в принципе, означает, что старославянская форма будет ***растъ**. Русское соответствие этой форме однозначно определить невозможно, поскольку мы не знаем, какое ударение было в этой форме. Если ударение было восходящее, то получилось бы русское ***раст** (как стсл. **рало** ~ рус. **рало**), а если нисходящее, то было бы ***рост** (как стсл. **равьнъ** ~ рус. **ровный**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, для варианта ***r̥ḱt-os** у нас получается русское ***раст** / ***рост**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** Для варианта ***r̥ḱs-os** всё происходило бы точно так же, за тем исключением, что мы бы получили раннепраславянское ***rassъ**, но закон открытых слогов и возрастающей звучности слога не допускал существования слога ***ssъ**, поскольку два равных по звучности согласных не могли стоять рядом. Два одинаковых фрикативных согласных сливались в один, этот слог упростился в ***sъ**, дав ***rasъ** ~ стсл. ***расъ** ~ рус. ***рас** / ***рос**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Выводы**: Поскольку мы не обладаем абсолютно полной информацией, и поскольку мы лишь строим предположения, то к однозначному ответу прийти невозможно, тем более что даже протоиндоевропейский архетип неоднозначен. Тем не менее, определённые выводы можно сделать. Это слово бы звучало одним из четырёх способов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***раст** / ***рост** : ***рас** / ***рос**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**In English**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a very interesting question, let us investigate into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** First, let us consider the change of the PIE phonemes into the Protoslavic ones for the ***r̥ḱt-os** variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the Slavic languages are &quot;satem&quot; languages, then ***ḱ** &gt; ***s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ending ***ŏs** &gt; ***ŭs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***r̥** &gt; ***ăr** or ***ŏr**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we get the Early Protoslavic ***ărstŭs** / ***ŏrstŭs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the law of the open syllables and the increasing sonority of the syllable came into action, the final ***s** disappeared, and ***ŭ** &gt; ***ъ** (***ărstъ** / ***ŏrstъ**). The initial vowel plus a liquid before a consonant combinations got rearranged and the vowel lengthened: ***ărstъ** / ***ŏrstъ** &gt; ***rāstъ** / ***rōstъ**, and the long ***ā** and ***ō** merged into the single sound **а**. So, at the end of the Protoslavic epoch we have ***rastъ**, which actually means that the Old Church Slavic form would be ***растъ**. One cannot define a single Russian correspondence to this OCS form, since we do not know what tone it had. If the tone was rising, we would get Russian ***раст** (like OCS. **рало** ~ Rus. **рало**), but if it was falling, we would get ***рост** (like OCS. **равьнъ** ~ Rus. **ровный**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means that for ***r̥ḱt-os** we would have Russian ***раст** / ***рост**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** For the ***r̥ḱs-os** variant everything would be just the same way, only we would get Early Protoslavic ***rassъ**, but the law of the open syllables and the increasing sonority of the syllable did not allow such syllables as ***ssъ**, since two consonants of equal sonority could not stand together. Two fricative consonants merged, this syllable would get simplified into ***sъ**, giving ***rasъ** ~ OCS. ***расъ** ~ Rus. ***рас** / ***рос**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Summary**: Since we do not possess absolutely full information, and since we just make an assumption, we cannot come to the single correct answer. Nevertheless, we can make some conclusions. In Modern Russian this word would be one of the four:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***раст** / ***рост** : ***рас** / ***рос**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7830" RevisionGUID="50a7b41e-3a3c-46fa-b849-bc6d5fe87f77" CreationDate="2014-12-25T18:22:44.587" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="We can only reconstruct the PIE word through methods of comparative linguistics (comparing the similar words in the related language and trying to figure out their common source, which, being applied the sound changes relevant for the appropriate languages, would yield the attested words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the reconstructed word for &quot;bear&quot; is derived from 5 attested words from Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Old Irish and Hittite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sound changes are not the only factor which defines the language development: metonymy, loaning, folk etymology, morphological transformations etc. all can contribute, and, unlike the sound changes, none of them can be predicted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, we can only hypothesize about &quot;what would the word look like, should it be only affected by the sound changes and nothing else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus said, we can apply the following laws:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Post-Anatolian: initial laryngeal is lost, *&amp;#42;tk* is changed to a thorn cluster: *&amp;#42;h₂ŕ̥tḱos* &gt; *&amp;#42;ŕ̥ḱtos*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Proto-Slavic: the second part of the thorn cluster is dropped, *&amp;#42;ŕ̥* becomes *&amp;#42;ьr/ъr*, *&amp;#42;ḱ* becomes *&amp;#42;s*, *&amp;#42;-os* becomes *&amp;#42;-ъ*: *&amp;#42;ŕ̥ḱtos* &gt; *&amp;#42;ъrsъ/ьrsъ*. However, since the reduced vowel could not start a word, either a metathesis would occur or a prosthetic sound would be added to the beginning of the word: *&amp;#42;jьrsъ / &amp;#42;vъrsъ / &amp;#42;rъsъ / &amp;#42;rьsъ*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian: the first *reduced (in strong position) becomes *&amp;#42;о* or *&amp;#42;е*, the second one (in weak position) falls:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;jьrsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;ерс*&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;vъrsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;ворс*&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;rъsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;рос*&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;rьsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;рес*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, those are just wild hypotheses, as we all know the actual Russian word for &quot;bear&quot; has nothing to do with any of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7830" RevisionGUID="3c1d6639-9c51-4667-a30a-7575adcf4f35" CreationDate="2014-12-25T19:05:18.147" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="We can only reconstruct the PIE word through methods of comparative linguistics (comparing the similar words in the related language and trying to figure out their common source, which, being applied the sound changes relevant for the appropriate languages, would yield the attested words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, the reconstructed word for &quot;bear&quot; is derived from 5 attested words from Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Old Irish and Hittite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sound changes are not the only factor which defines the language development: metonymy, loaning, folk etymology, morphological transformations etc. all can contribute, and, unlike the sound changes, none of them can be predicted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, we can only hypothesize about &quot;what would the word look like, should it be only affected by the sound changes and nothing else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus said, we can apply the following laws:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Post-Anatolian: initial laryngeal is lost, *&amp;#42;tk* is changed to a thorn cluster: *&amp;#42;h₂ŕ̥tḱos* &gt; *&amp;#42;ŕ̥ḱtos*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Proto-Slavic: the second part of the thorn cluster is dropped, *&amp;#42;ŕ̥* becomes *&amp;#42;ьr/ъr*, *&amp;#42;ḱ* becomes *&amp;#42;s*, *&amp;#42;-os* becomes *&amp;#42;-ъ*: *&amp;#42;ŕ̥ḱtos* &gt; *&amp;#42;ъrsъ/ьrsъ*. However, since the reduced vowel could not start a word, either a metathesis would occur or a prosthetic sound would be added to the beginning of the word: *&amp;#42;jьrsъ / &amp;#42;vъrsъ / &amp;#42;rъsъ / &amp;#42;rьsъ*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian: the first reduced (in strong position) becomes *&amp;#42;о* or *&amp;#42;е*, the second one (in weak position) falls:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;jьrsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;ерс*&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;vъrsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;ворс*&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;rъsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;рос*&#xD;&#xA; * *&amp;#42;rьsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;рес*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, those are just wild hypotheses, as we all know the actual Russian word for &quot;bear&quot; has nothing to do with any of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7832" RevisionGUID="ad19220b-2906-49ea-adbc-3b47d22fc674" CreationDate="2014-12-26T09:34:13.887" UserId="4560" Text="In its usage as a filler word, *значит* generally signifies that the speaker is pursuing a particular train of thought, i.e. that they're on track and know what they're going to say next, even if they have a momentary difficulty. *Ну*, on the other hand, is largely the opposite, an expression of looking for a thread to follow. You can think of *значит* as reflecting the mental equivalent of consulting one's notes, whereas *ну* is like flipping through the notebook to find the right page." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7638" RevisionGUID="f7c507f5-3dc0-416c-8b8b-d8ffafc3a4ee" CreationDate="2014-12-26T11:44:08.033" UserId="3847" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You can subscribe to ETV.net or BestRussianTV.com. They have live TV, recorded programs and movies. When listening, don't get hung up on trying to understand every word. Just try to pick up the key words. That's what we do anyway, in our own language. We fill in the gaps from knowing the context of the situation. When watching news, on e.g., Russia 24 or Kanal 5 (Сейчас) start out by reading the headlines at the bottom of the screen, observing the location of a video story (usually they tell you in the upper left-hand corner where the story takes place.It's a little known fact that TV and newspapers only have eight basic stories--the plane/train/ship disaster, the terrible auto accidents, etc. The same vocabulary is used repeatedly since the stories are repeated with different details. You can't help but pick up the vocabulary of auto accidents after so many video stories. Finally, I find it helpful to watch Russian movies with accurate Russian subtitles (not automatic subtitles). On Youtube there are some Russian movies (usually tear-jerkers) with accurate Russian subtitles. e.g., 'Мой Грех', 'Пряники из Карточки','Водитель для Веры'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="46491205-9f6d-47aa-9165-93f9ced8b495" CreationDate="2014-12-26T20:00:04.103" UserId="1770" Text="In the violonchelo score of Баха Сюита номер 2, there are two notes that I don't understand, and I hope there's someone who knows about this. &#xD;&#xA;One says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; до С.С.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and later there's another:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В.П.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I want to know where to find a musical diccionary for russian terminology since there are a lot of russian scores with russian notes in them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="46491205-9f6d-47aa-9165-93f9ced8b495" CreationDate="2014-12-26T20:00:04.103" UserId="1770" Text="About the notation on a musical score (Баха Сюита номер 2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="46491205-9f6d-47aa-9165-93f9ced8b495" CreationDate="2014-12-26T20:00:04.103" UserId="1770" Text="|перевод|музыка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7834" RevisionGUID="60510cdd-4164-458c-ad9a-c30aa7b9766b" CreationDate="2014-12-26T20:00:52.753" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="539ecc8f-88a3-4443-aadb-b1f1a54c4d94" CreationDate="2014-12-26T20:00:52.753" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="22965d7b-a7ad-4f44-ba54-306cf1cccda6" CreationDate="2014-12-27T05:28:14.617" UserId="1770" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="In the violonchelo score of Баха Сюита номер 2, there are two notes that I don't understand, and I hope there's someone who knows about this. &#xD;&#xA;One says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; до С.С.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and later there's another:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В.П.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I want to know where to find a musical diccionary for russian terminology since there are a lot of russian scores with russian notes in them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;Image of the score&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZKlzA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="03259aae-a05a-4359-b79a-b66d21cd5b72" CreationDate="2014-12-27T17:07:16.580" UserId="1770" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Questions about musical terminology and notation in Russian that are not easy to answer with a dictionary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17958" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7835" RevisionGUID="03259aae-a05a-4359-b79a-b66d21cd5b72" CreationDate="2014-12-27T17:07:16.580" Comment="Proposed by 1770 approved by 97, 551 edit id of 575" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7836" RevisionGUID="9417f7da-6268-4e35-b0a3-0c38d782e1d0" CreationDate="2014-12-27T21:10:49.070" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;До С.С.&quot; is &quot;до середины смычка&quot; (till the middle of the bow), &quot;В.П.&quot; is &quot;верхняя половина&quot; (upper half [of the bow]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://otvet.mail.ru/question/173565791" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7837" RevisionGUID="9b026de7-cb1e-4e20-b978-9aa31a74dc20" CreationDate="2014-12-27T22:42:50.847" UserDisplayName="user4820" Text="Вот вам еще смысл: мужик был андроидом. Сперва не работал (не функционировал), а потом решил заработать. И заработал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="032133d7-2021-4022-bd5a-7c9b1295949f" CreationDate="2014-12-28T08:53:51.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/549126068746321921" />
  <row Id="17962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="ae22aaae-8ccc-4ba6-8f9a-b8033cbff50c" CreationDate="2014-12-28T15:10:23.807" UserId="2269" Comment="It’s not a hyphen (дефис, as in ‘ку-ку’) but dash (тире)." Text="Is there a particular significance to the use of это after a dash? For instance, I think _Москва — столица России_ or _Москва — это столица России_ mean the same thing. But I don't know the point of inserting это there. (In English it is wrong to stick &quot;this is&quot; in the middle of a sentence like that, saying &quot;Moscow this is the capital of Russia&quot;.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17963" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2093" RevisionGUID="ae22aaae-8ccc-4ba6-8f9a-b8033cbff50c" CreationDate="2014-12-28T15:10:23.807" UserId="2269" Comment="It’s not a hyphen (дефис, as in ‘ку-ку’) but dash (тире)." Text="Use of ‘это’ after a dash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2095" RevisionGUID="3e161531-27ee-483b-af68-15b457c2a7ca" CreationDate="2014-12-28T15:14:21.613" UserId="2269" Comment="It’s not a hyphen (дефис, as in ‘ку-ку’) but dash (тире)." Text="&gt;More generally, what is the distinction in meaning between А — Б, А — это Б?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@shabunc showed in his answer that not every `A — B` sentence can be used with `это`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When `это` is actually used there's, AFAIK, no practical difference in written form. But there is a difference in spoken language where `это` is a way to &quot;pronounce&quot; dash. Note, that actual verb in this sentences is omitted (in English, you would expect `is/are` somewhere) and without `это` meaning may become unclear. For example, these sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when used without context/great dramatic skills may sound unclear. Here `это` helps to clarify the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка — это радость!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кирпичный завод — это рабочие места, жилье и инвестиции&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can safely use well-known phrases and obvious statements without `это`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Время — деньги.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Знание — сила!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Волк — хищник!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Москва — столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Side note:** [wiktionary entry on это][1] mentions five different meanings. In this particular case `это` is a particle and not really equivalent to `this [is]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2094" RevisionGUID="2e666b50-8ebb-41d9-adc3-c5e76acff753" CreationDate="2014-12-28T15:15:14.683" UserId="2269" Comment="It’s not a hyphen (дефис, as in ‘ку-ку’) but dash (тире)." Text="Generally a dash is used here just as so called [copula][1] is used in English. So your guess is right, dash here is a some kind of punctuational copula, therefore can be translated as &quot;is&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though `— это` is indeed another form of such copula, there is a subtle difference between usage of these two forms. Roughly speaking, pure punctuational form is more universal, you can use it in a wider set of cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы — подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this phrase will sound definitely unnatural to native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы — это подлец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with personal pronouns usage of `это` is untypical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for me, it is very difficult to describe exact rules for choosing one these forms, but here is a rule of thumb that can give you a hint. If you can imagine the phrase used in some kind of dictionary as an article, for example:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  * Париж — столица Франции.&#xD;&#xA;  * Слон — млекопитающее. &#xD;&#xA;  * Солнце — звезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then you can use `— это` form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when you want to emphasise the second part of phrase, you can use `это`. So, when you can imagine this very phrase used with some adjective, it looks like you cane use `- это` form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр — [это] [ужасный] негодяй. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="c784a803-ffd6-48fb-8577-b3ac01716df3" CreationDate="2014-12-28T16:39:47.987" UserId="5" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="c784a803-ffd6-48fb-8577-b3ac01716df3" CreationDate="2014-12-28T16:39:47.987" UserId="5" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="c784a803-ffd6-48fb-8577-b3ac01716df3" CreationDate="2014-12-28T16:39:47.987" UserId="5" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17970" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7833" RevisionGUID="e48a8e3c-6b92-45e4-9f4c-5e07332d1a8c" CreationDate="2014-12-28T18:00:25.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/549263616973996032" />
  <row Id="17971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="32d1e06f-13bf-449e-9a77-b1f10e4fef28" CreationDate="2014-12-28T18:29:47.317" UserId="5" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I say that something is being a fair game in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17972" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="32d1e06f-13bf-449e-9a77-b1f10e4fef28" CreationDate="2014-12-28T18:29:47.317" UserId="5" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I say that something is being a fair game in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="256a4679-cddf-424a-8c4a-a54f64a23fb6" CreationDate="2014-12-28T18:58:26.727" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;Fair isn't meant to be read literally like честная игра. Fair game means something that is allowed to be hunted for by the rules of a game: *If you got your purse stolen from an unlocked car the police won't do anything, it's a fair game.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17974" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="256a4679-cddf-424a-8c4a-a54f64a23fb6" CreationDate="2014-12-28T18:58:26.727" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="66347e32-2b8f-42d2-bcf4-7d377dcb58ca" CreationDate="2014-12-28T19:04:30.060" UserId="5" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;Fair game wasn't meant to be read literally like честная игра. What it means is something that is allowed to be hunted for by the rules of a game: *If you got your purse stolen from an unlocked car the police won't do anything, it's a fair game.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="42ad511e-4fbd-4a6a-a3b8-03fe95eb94c4" CreationDate="2014-12-28T19:14:14.430" UserId="5" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;Fair game wasn't meant to be read literally like честная игра. What it means is something that is allowed to be hunted for by the rules: *If you got your purse stolen from an unlocked car the police won't do anything, it's a fair game.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;The origin of the phrase has much to do with the hunting regulations, the game (animals/wildfowl) can either be banned or allowed to hunt for. The allowed game is simply a fair game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7838" RevisionGUID="ea3e632b-819a-4723-a761-d32b998436e8" CreationDate="2014-12-29T01:06:12.517" UserId="5" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="How do I say that something being a fair game in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;Fair game wasn't meant to be read literally like честная игра. What it means is something that is allowed to be hunted for by the rules: *If you got your purse stolen from an unlocked car the police won't do anything, it's a fair game.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;The origin of the phrase has much to do with the hunting regulations, the game (animals/wildfowl) can either be banned or allowed to hunt for. The allowed game is simply a fair game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE  &#xD;&#xA;Few more examples  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *But for a small subset of women, sexist jokes against men are a fair game.*&#xD;&#xA;- *To the woman looking for a mate, he is a fair game even if he is married.*&#xD;&#xA;- *Threesomes, positions, cheating, tips on how to stay hard, cunnilingus and whatever was troubling or confusing, anything was a fair game.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7840" RevisionGUID="1786f746-326f-42ea-95a8-3b1d02383f67" CreationDate="2014-12-29T03:38:39.893" UserId="4560" Text="A close, but much less idiomatic and versatile, translation would be *законная добыча*. Here's [an example][1] from a website collecting translations of foreign news and analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы как бы говорим русским: если страна не состоит в НАТО, она законная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; добыча. Это опасный сигнал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Original][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You’re telling Russians that if you’re not a NATO member, you’re fair&#xD;&#xA;&gt; game. That’s a dangerous signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.inopressa.ru/article/27aug2014/foreignpolicy/nato2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/26/how-nato-could-confront-the-putin-doctrine/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="c68fad36-e728-42f3-9de2-05345cda5174" CreationDate="2014-12-29T04:50:22.250" UserId="170" Text="&quot;...при постройке Стены погибл**а** нe одна тысяча китайцев&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...при постройке Стены погибл**и** нe одна тысяча китайцев&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the verb be in plural or singular in such cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="c68fad36-e728-42f3-9de2-05345cda5174" CreationDate="2014-12-29T04:50:22.250" UserId="170" Text="&quot;...при постройке Стены погиблА/И нe одна тысяча китайцев&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="c68fad36-e728-42f3-9de2-05345cda5174" CreationDate="2014-12-29T04:50:22.250" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7842" RevisionGUID="42d0fb3b-8c2a-4fc6-b285-886bdbca1378" CreationDate="2014-12-29T04:56:10.613" UserId="170" Text="In the following sentence, do I need a comma before &quot;это&quot;? Or a dash? Or just a space would be all right?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё, что им нужно было **сделать, это** просто спеть эту песню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё, что им нужно было **сделать - это** просто спеть эту песню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё, что им нужно было **сделать это** просто спеть эту песню.&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7842" RevisionGUID="42d0fb3b-8c2a-4fc6-b285-886bdbca1378" CreationDate="2014-12-29T04:56:10.613" UserId="170" Text="What punctuation do I use in &quot;Всё, что ... это ...&quot; constructs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7842" RevisionGUID="42d0fb3b-8c2a-4fc6-b285-886bdbca1378" CreationDate="2014-12-29T04:56:10.613" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7843" RevisionGUID="2fee4bb7-af5c-47df-bbc9-c130176df655" CreationDate="2014-12-29T06:17:07.497" UserId="4810" Text="&quot;...при постройке Стены погибла нe одна тысяча китайцев&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The subject here is &quot;тысяча&quot;, so the rest of the grammatical structure should be built around it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, you can use the verb in plural if you want to stress &quot;the Chinese&quot;, but it sounds off and is not exactly grammatically correct. Some people would still use it like that though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7844" RevisionGUID="18cb2aef-a316-4507-9e89-894b16927804" CreationDate="2014-12-29T06:34:48.690" UserId="4810" Text="I don't think there's an idiom in Russian with the exact same meaning and usage, but there are several you can use in different contexts. Nikolay Ershov's &quot;законная добыча&quot; is a good one, but it's ruder that &quot;fair game&quot; and not as widely used, also it's possessive (&quot;fair game&quot; is for everyone, and &quot;законная добыча&quot; implies an owner). &quot;Сам виноват&quot; is another not-so-polite expression, but a lot more common. It puts blame directly on the &quot;game&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, Russian is less &quot;hunter-oriented&quot; (or &quot;carnivorous&quot;), so I'd advise to rephrase what you want to say instead of searching for an expression that just doesn't exist. Or even if it does, it's either borrowed from English, is from criminal slang, or is generally out of use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7845" RevisionGUID="837ded28-a028-4e0b-9a14-912ba66ad5df" CreationDate="2014-12-29T06:43:18.483" UserId="4810" Text="The first one. When a comma and a dash have to be used in the same place, the comma usually replaces the dash." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7843" RevisionGUID="05806180-3a08-4c7a-8350-189dae001b48" CreationDate="2014-12-29T06:51:51.853" UserId="4810" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="&quot;...при постройке Стены погибла нe одна тысяча китайцев&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The subject here is &quot;тысяча&quot;, so the rest of the grammatical structure should be built around it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, you can use the verb in plural if you want to stress &quot;the Chinese&quot;, but it sounds off and is not exactly grammatically correct. Some people would still use it like that though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;При словах тысяча, миллион, миллиард сказуемое обычно согласуется по правилам согласования с подлежащими-существительными (в роде и числе), например: Тысяча книг поступила в школьную библиотеку; Миллион демонстрантов заполнил площади и улицы столицы.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Д.Э., Джанджакова Е.В., Кабанова Н.П. Справочник по правописанию, произношению и литературному редактированию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/64.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7841" RevisionGUID="8323adb2-319c-47c5-abc6-b8d291529722" CreationDate="2014-12-29T12:00:47.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/549535501628489728" />
  <row Id="17994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7847" RevisionGUID="f56d3630-6ffc-4c02-897d-5cfa4b85bf58" CreationDate="2014-12-29T15:50:10.860" UserId="113" Text="The word «[Дозволено][1]» has a very similar meaning, except it's somewhat of a higher register and doesn't have that idiomatic ring to it. But I think that it fits well in all of the examples you've provided.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/39132/дозволено" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7848" RevisionGUID="9e2ddfb4-796a-446c-942c-ed9f5f846923" CreationDate="2014-12-29T22:40:57.457" UserId="4825" Text="&gt; Всё, что им нужно было сделать - это просто спеть эту песню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct variant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7849" RevisionGUID="a48185b8-12a7-454d-86ef-f6427680aeae" CreationDate="2014-12-30T00:29:54.973" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Москва - столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means your addressee knows Moscow, you just add something to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Москва - это столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means you introduce new term, Moscow, which was prevuously unknown to your addressee, and define it as the capital of Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7845" RevisionGUID="c74aead4-4ca2-40b0-b7b4-0b84ed8356d1" CreationDate="2014-12-30T06:25:22.390" UserId="4810" Comment="corrected my own mistake" Text="The first one. When a comma and a dash have to be used in the same place, the comma usually replaces the dash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD sorry, my bad. A comma here would be colloquial. It's so widely used that I didn't even detect it as a mistake, shame on me ^_^&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Смещение конструкции может найти свое выражена в том, что главное предложение «перебивается» находящимся внутри его придаточным, например:&#xD;&#xA;«Последнее, на чем следует остановиться, это на композиции книги» (следует: Последнее, на чем следует остановиться – это композиция книги).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Д.Э., Джанджакова Е.В., Кабанова Н.П.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;СПРАВОЧНИК ПО ПРАВОПИСАНИЮ, ПРОИЗНОШЕНИЮ, ЛИТЕРАТУРНОМУ РЕДАКТИРОВАНИЮ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="c93eed2e-14ca-4fb3-ae2c-83231f479dff" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:06:17.710" UserId="3885" Comment="edited body" Text="If you are wiling to show high level of expertise of some person, you could use quite common phrase &quot;признанный эксперт&quot;. But that is having slight accent on accepting his expertise by others. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Михайлович был признанным экспертом в области машиностроительства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, you could emphasise his high-level expertise alone with &quot;высококлассный специалист&quot;, &quot;профессионал высокого класса&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Михайлович был высококлассным специалистом по древообрабатывающим станкам" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7851" RevisionGUID="a7786603-6b52-4921-abec-91347acce156" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:58:06.217" UserId="4827" Text="- Отраслевая экспертиза&#xD;&#xA;- Промышленная экспертиза&#xD;&#xA;- Промышленная оценка&#xD;&#xA;- Экспертная промышленная оценка&#xD;&#xA;- Экспертиза промышленности&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many other variants, depending on context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7706" RevisionGUID="46adae43-8c58-4ee1-8ece-e194e0b4377b" CreationDate="2014-12-30T19:11:28.790" UserId="4153" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Действительно, [источники][1] утверждают, что слова `глубь` и `глубина` произошли от слова глубокий. Данное слово пришло из праславянского языка и, видимо, сначала сразу закрепилось, как прилагательное, а затем далее было образовано существительное. Узнать это можно поиском по этимологии слова. Попытки понять чисто через механизмы словообразования не всегда дают верное представление, так как образование конкретных слов зачастую действительно уходит корнями в историю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B1%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7852" RevisionGUID="df0ecd31-3ec6-4d5c-b6ef-63836703d520" CreationDate="2014-12-31T13:50:14.963" UserId="3892" Text="I don't understand the function of **как** in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возле окна — большая клетка Букли. Сейчас она пустая: Букля уже два&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дня как улетела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there a usage of **как** with perfective verbs that means &quot;suddenly.&quot; However I wonder if here it isn't &quot;approximating&quot; two days: ***about* two days ago.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7852" RevisionGUID="df0ecd31-3ec6-4d5c-b6ef-63836703d520" CreationDate="2014-12-31T13:50:14.963" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of как +perfective verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7852" RevisionGUID="df0ecd31-3ec6-4d5c-b6ef-63836703d520" CreationDate="2014-12-31T13:50:14.963" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7853" RevisionGUID="511fafdf-1c6e-4c6b-812f-a839912937f8" CreationDate="2014-12-31T13:59:46.970" UserId="1236" Text="This **как** refers to **уже два дня**, not to the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Вот] уже** *period of time* **как** means 'it's been already *period of time* since', and &quot;Букля уже два дня как улетела&quot; is 'it's been already two days since Buklya has flown away.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7853" RevisionGUID="978dfe5b-82a3-4b56-87df-9d5c0722b104" CreationDate="2014-12-31T14:24:47.170" UserId="3892" Comment="&quot;already been&quot; &quot;flew&quot;" Text="This **как** refers to **уже два дня**, not to the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Вот] уже** *period of time* **как** means 'it's already been *period of time* since', and &quot;Букля уже два дня как улетела&quot; means 'it's been already two days since Buklya flew away.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18010" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7852" RevisionGUID="cd716ad8-027b-4172-b5a7-d51451673b7d" CreationDate="2014-12-31T14:27:31.337" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of как + time elapsed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18011" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7705" RevisionGUID="3e10264a-682a-4b83-a2a1-0f5e831d02c4" CreationDate="2014-12-31T22:07:22.853" UserId="551" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="18012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7854" RevisionGUID="855a2d0a-fee3-4457-b4fc-cb6360c80903" CreationDate="2015-01-01T00:33:53.740" UserId="4560" Text="This is unrelated to the *как* that expresses suddenness. And approximating two days would be an entirely different construction: *Букля улетела **дня два** назад.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In phrases like this one, *как* serves to further stress that the time elapsed is the focus/&quot;rheme&quot;/new information communicated by the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7855" RevisionGUID="f08fd52c-cd09-4ebe-9030-24684833499a" CreationDate="2015-01-01T07:20:32.073" UserId="4832" Text="I heard the phrase while listening songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Я буду ждать лишь твоей улыбки,&#xD;&#xA;    И буду слушать твои пластинки ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- макsим, ветром стать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... Твои пластинки слушала я &#xD;&#xA;    И в кождой находила себя ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- винтаж, ева&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched пластинки in dictionary and found out it means plate, layer. &#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't get the meaning :(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7855" RevisionGUID="f08fd52c-cd09-4ebe-9030-24684833499a" CreationDate="2015-01-01T07:20:32.073" UserId="4832" Text="Слушать пластинки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7855" RevisionGUID="f08fd52c-cd09-4ebe-9030-24684833499a" CreationDate="2015-01-01T07:20:32.073" UserId="4832" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7856" RevisionGUID="0dff91fc-b5b6-4c73-8938-0c02605a7a7c" CreationDate="2015-01-01T08:26:32.597" UserId="1573" Text="In this context, the word refers to vinyl records." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7857" RevisionGUID="098cb2b7-2a36-41e0-bdbd-4c2715ba3fe5" CreationDate="2015-01-01T17:50:48.333" UserId="3892" Text="Several times, I've seen влезать used in connection with transportation, for getting on a bus, plane, metro, etc. In this usage, does it just mean to get on, or does it have another nuance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7857" RevisionGUID="098cb2b7-2a36-41e0-bdbd-4c2715ba3fe5" CreationDate="2015-01-01T17:50:48.333" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of влезать в/на +mode of transport" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7857" RevisionGUID="098cb2b7-2a36-41e0-bdbd-4c2715ba3fe5" CreationDate="2015-01-01T17:50:48.333" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7858" RevisionGUID="5deac00b-147a-490c-870c-58ba0147a3d6" CreationDate="2015-01-01T18:12:25.803" UserId="4834" Text="When would I use the accusative case for adjectives? I get that there are different endings for different cases but I don't understand how to use the accusative case. &#xD;&#xA;If you could use examples, that would be great! Thanks! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, isn't the accusative case like: me, him, her, you, it, us, them ? Or am I completely wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a ton! :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7858" RevisionGUID="5deac00b-147a-490c-870c-58ba0147a3d6" CreationDate="2015-01-01T18:12:25.803" UserId="4834" Text="What is the accusative case for adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7858" RevisionGUID="5deac00b-147a-490c-870c-58ba0147a3d6" CreationDate="2015-01-01T18:12:25.803" UserId="4834" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7859" RevisionGUID="65e0f830-bb1a-4c5e-ba77-5fa5b0444a12" CreationDate="2015-01-01T21:03:30.997" UserId="4620" Text="It usually means having some difficulty getting on a bus/train/etc. It doesn't matter what kind of difficulty it is — the bus being overcrowded, too much luggage, broken leg, being tired, you name it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7860" RevisionGUID="38e5e88a-0971-4497-b781-5995e24bb7b5" CreationDate="2015-01-01T22:30:15.913" UserId="4833" Text="Russian adjectives always agree with the nouns, so whenever an adjective belongs to an object, you would likely put in the accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **синяя** краска  (nominative)&#xD;&#xA; * Я взял **синюю** краску (accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the object form (me, you, him, her) often corresponds to Accusative in Russian, but it may also correspond to Nominative (&quot;you and me&quot;), Genitive (&quot;without me&quot;), Dative (&quot;tell me please&quot;) and other cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7861" RevisionGUID="28f3304a-830e-4566-bd40-854eed864441" CreationDate="2015-01-01T23:35:27.240" UserId="4836" Text="влезать (= входить) в автобус - enter the bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;влезать (= залазить) **на** автобус - climb **on** the bus (roof)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7862" RevisionGUID="e3cd3967-b1dc-43b5-b316-529ecd4d132d" CreationDate="2015-01-02T17:59:46.713" UserId="4837" Text="What is the etymology of the Russian word фум-лента (for isolating waterpipes)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7862" RevisionGUID="e3cd3967-b1dc-43b5-b316-529ecd4d132d" CreationDate="2015-01-02T17:59:46.713" UserId="4837" Text="Etymology of word фум-лента" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7862" RevisionGUID="e3cd3967-b1dc-43b5-b316-529ecd4d132d" CreationDate="2015-01-02T17:59:46.713" UserId="4837" Text="|этимология|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7863" RevisionGUID="fdd00a77-b3b4-47d9-a064-38cfceb01e74" CreationDate="2015-01-02T18:09:36.347" UserId="242" Text="It's an abbreviation of &quot;Фторопластовый уплотнительный материал&quot;, nothing less nothing more. &#xD;&#xA;So it's basically means that this is a fluoroplastic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7865" RevisionGUID="7a81b160-5daa-45b9-976c-b837877cd90f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T00:43:26.657" UserId="4834" Text="I'm a beginner to Russian and I was learning the cases for adjectives. For several of the cases there was a different ending with &quot;(anim.)&quot; after it. What does this mean? The table I saw this on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Table][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WUkmS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7865" RevisionGUID="7a81b160-5daa-45b9-976c-b837877cd90f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T00:43:26.657" UserId="4834" Text="In reference to Adjectives what does &quot;anim.&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7865" RevisionGUID="7a81b160-5daa-45b9-976c-b837877cd90f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T00:43:26.657" UserId="4834" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7866" RevisionGUID="02d11779-89df-4bf5-8556-e7b508949469" CreationDate="2015-01-03T01:09:29.883" UserId="1236" Text="That `anim.` stands for 'animate'. Russian nouns are classified into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Animate nouns** (people, animals, but also names of different kinds of dolls, the noun 'мертвец' - 'dead man', and 'робот' - 'robot'), they have **Accusative case** the same as **Genitive case**;&#xD;&#xA; - **Inanimate nouns** (the rest of the nouns), they have **Accusative case** the same as **Nominative case**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives agree with nouns in case, number, gender and animacy/inanimacy, so they get their Accusative case accordingly. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу большой дом. - I can see a big house. (The noun *дом* 'house' is inanimate, so both the noun and the adjective *большой* 'big' are in the Accusative case and it coincides with the Nominative case of those words.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу большого медведя. - I can see a big bear. (The noun *медведь* 'bear' is animate, so both the noun and the adjective *большой* 'big' are in the Accusative case and it coincides with the Genitive case of those words.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the tables, the category of animacy/inanimacy in the singular number nouns and adjectives is realised only for those of the masculine gender, but in the plural number it is realised for every noun and adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the very basic notion of the Russian grammar, every beginner textbook must definitely explain it. Read more about it here: [Animate and inanimate nouns. Animacy in Russian.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.study-languages-online.com/russian-animate-inanimate.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18036" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7865" RevisionGUID="aa2aa974-de0f-4338-aa2c-46181cb7bd02" CreationDate="2015-01-03T09:07:20.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/551303790746664961" />
  <row Id="18037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7867" RevisionGUID="20cb84ed-f1fa-4b39-a86d-713f9629944f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T11:07:46.913" UserId="4702" Text="Being near something means to have it. у него есть чемодан - by him is a suitcase.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples of Russian thinking, that can help me learn the language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7867" RevisionGUID="20cb84ed-f1fa-4b39-a86d-713f9629944f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T11:07:46.913" UserId="4702" Text="у него есть чемодан - by him is a suitcase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7867" RevisionGUID="20cb84ed-f1fa-4b39-a86d-713f9629944f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T11:07:46.913" UserId="4702" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7868" RevisionGUID="7ca90f0a-19c4-45a2-a94c-abb42b39fad7" CreationDate="2015-01-03T12:49:56.280" UserId="4560" Text="Generally, what can help you learn a language is something that's largely the opposite; not reading too much into its grammar and idiomatics. And in this particular example, &quot;being near something means to have it&quot; is not even the correct literal interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *у* of *у него есть* can only roughly be translated as &quot;by&quot;; it's not quite the same *у*  that denotes spatial proximity. What I mean is: consider *John chopped wood with his axe* vs. *John chopped wood with his father*. The latter can be rephrased as *John and his father chopped wood [together]*; with the former, you can only do that as a joke. In the same way, there are usages of *у* that can be replaced with a synonymous preposition, *возле*, and there are those that cannot. Thus *У реки есть гостиница* &quot;there is a hotel by the river&quot; and *У реки есть приток* &quot;the river has a tributary&quot; may look grammatically the same, but they're intuitively different to a Russian speaker, and the test is that you can also say *Возле реки есть гостиница* while saying *\*Возле реки есть приток* would be a case of &quot;John and his axe chopping wood together&quot;. Just like English has, as it were, a separate *with* denoting instrumentality (which is a usage of &quot;with&quot; that doesn't exist in Russian), so does Russian have a separate *у* denoting ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the verb &quot;to have&quot; is itself a late invention in Indo-European languages. PIE itself is believed to have expressed ownership in a manner more similar to modern Russian, but using the dative: thus in Schleicher's fable, we have *\*h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést* — literally &quot;a sheep, to whom wool wasn't&quot; — meaning &quot;a sheep that had no wool&quot;. The English *have* and the (surprisingly unrelated) Latin *habeō* both started out as verbs for taking; Spanish even went through this shift twice — relegating *haber* to a purely auxiliary function and adopting *tener*, originally &quot;to hold&quot;, as the verb for actual &quot;having&quot;. But, as the song goes, to have is not to hold; and in the case of Russian, to be near something is not to have it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7868" RevisionGUID="543a76b6-cde2-4aa0-abdc-fc58c2647f10" CreationDate="2015-01-03T13:13:18.043" UserId="4560" Comment="added a paragraph; two minor rewordings" Text="Generally, what can help you learn a language is something that's largely the opposite; not reading too much into its grammar and idiomatics. And in this particular example, &quot;being near something means to have it&quot; is not even the correct literal interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *у* of *у него есть* can only roughly be translated as &quot;by&quot;; it's not quite the same *у*  that denotes spatial proximity. What I mean is: consider *John chopped wood with his axe* vs. *John chopped wood with his father*. The latter can be rephrased as *John and his father chopped wood [together]*; with the former, you can only do that as a joke. In the same way, there are usages of *у* that can be replaced with a synonymous preposition, *возле*, and there are those that cannot. Thus *У реки есть гостиница* &quot;there is a hotel by the river&quot; and *У реки есть приток* &quot;the river has a tributary&quot; may look grammatically the same, but they're intuitively different to a Russian speaker, and the test is that you can also say *Возле реки есть гостиница* while saying *\*Возле реки есть приток* would be a case of &quot;John and his axe chopping wood together&quot;. Just like English has, as it were, a separate *with* denoting instrumentality (which is a usage of &quot;with&quot; that doesn't exist in Russian), so does Russian have a separate *у* denoting ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could argue, of course, that there must have been an earlier stage when this usage of *у* hadn't yet been grammaticalised, and so one *did* speak of &quot;having&quot; something in terms of &quot;being near&quot; something. But here's the tricky thing about *у*: it's slightly different from *возле* in that it can only express proximity to something that is, for all practical purposes, completely immovable; a part of the fixed scenery of life. Thus when applied to a person, it would mean something like the French *chez* — &quot;at X's place&quot;, which was presumably then generalised to mean &quot;in the domain of X's possessions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the verb &quot;to have&quot; is itself a late invention in Indo-European languages. PIE itself is believed to have expressed ownership in a manner more similar to modern Russian, but using the dative: thus in Schleicher's fable, we have *\*h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést* — literally &quot;a sheep, to whom wool was not&quot; — meaning &quot;a sheep that had no wool&quot;. The English *have* and the (surprisingly unrelated) Latin *habeō* both started out as verbs for taking; Spanish even went through this shift once more — relegating *haber* to a purely auxiliary function and adopting *tener*, originally &quot;to hold&quot;, as the verb for actual &quot;having&quot;. But, as the song goes, to have is not to hold; and in the case of Russian, to be near something is not to have it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7868" RevisionGUID="b77adac6-8af3-49dd-9f16-d1cdbf1218c1" CreationDate="2015-01-03T13:19:59.010" UserId="4560" Comment="added a paragraph; minor rewordings" Text="Generally, what can help you learn a language is something that's largely the opposite; not reading too much into its grammar and idiomatics. And in this particular example, &quot;being near something means to have it&quot; is not even the correct literal interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *у* of *у него есть* can only roughly be translated as &quot;by&quot;; it's not quite the same *у*  that denotes spatial proximity. What I mean is: consider *John chopped wood with his axe* vs. *John chopped wood with his father*. The latter can be rephrased as *John and his father chopped wood [together]*; with the former, you can only do that as a joke. In the same way, there are usages of *у* that can be replaced with a synonymous preposition, *возле*, and there are those that cannot. Thus *У реки есть гостиница* &quot;there is a hotel by the river&quot; and *У реки есть приток* &quot;the river has a tributary&quot; may look grammatically the same, but they're intuitively different to a Russian speaker, and the test is that you can also say *Возле реки есть гостиница* while saying *\*Возле реки есть приток* would be a case of &quot;John and his axe chopping wood together&quot;. Just like English has, as it were, a separate *with* denoting instrumentality (which is a usage of &quot;with&quot; that doesn't exist in Russian), so does Russian have a separate *у* denoting ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could argue, of course, that there must have been an earlier stage when this usage of *у* hadn't yet been grammaticalised, and so one *did* speak of &quot;having&quot; something in terms of &quot;being near&quot; something. But here's the tricky thing about *у*: it's slightly narrower in meaning than *возле*, in that it can only express proximity to something that is, for all practical purposes, completely immovable; a part of the fixed scenery of life. Thus when applied to a person, it would mean something like the French *chez* — &quot;at X's place&quot;, which was presumably then generalised to mean &quot;in the domain of X's possessions&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the verb &quot;to have&quot; is itself a late invention in Indo-European languages. PIE itself is believed to have expressed ownership in a manner more similar to modern Russian, but using the dative: thus in Schleicher's fable, we have *\*h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést* — literally &quot;a sheep, to whom wool was not&quot; — meaning &quot;a sheep that had no wool&quot;. The English *have* and the (surprisingly unrelated) Latin *habeō* both started out as verbs for taking; Spanish even went through this shift once more — relegating *haber* to a purely auxiliary function and adopting *tener*, originally &quot;to hold&quot;, as the verb for actual &quot;having&quot;. But, as the song goes, to have is not to hold; and in the case of Russian, to be near something is not to have it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7869" RevisionGUID="da4763be-14b1-4e04-a8cc-48715ef0154f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T14:36:48.963" UserId="3892" Text="In this passage, I don't understand why the past form прилипли is used instead of a participle, and given that the rest of the sentence talks about the general present, i.e. (теперь) весь день проводит, подбородки работают:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И теперь Дадли весь день проводит на кухне; маленькие поросячьи глазки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **прилипли** к экрану, а пять подбородков работают без остановки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7869" RevisionGUID="da4763be-14b1-4e04-a8cc-48715ef0154f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T14:36:48.963" UserId="3892" Text="Use of past form amongst present forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7869" RevisionGUID="da4763be-14b1-4e04-a8cc-48715ef0154f" CreationDate="2015-01-03T14:36:48.963" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7870" RevisionGUID="b1d43601-2cb4-402a-972c-ba7d3b842bda" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:01:06.820" UserId="4560" Text="*Прилипли* is a completed action and, as such, requires an perfective verb, and those only have a past and a future tense. If *прилипают* was used instead, the resulting impression would be either that Dudley's eyes are in the middle of becoming glued to the screen (which makes no sense as far as the metaphor goes), or of a very attention-intensive narration of a sequence of events (jokes and sports commentary use the imperfective present throughout) that would, again, be incongruous here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7870" RevisionGUID="4d3c769d-a81d-410f-8e28-973c3bef4ff7" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:06:21.897" UserId="4560" Comment="typo" Text="*Прилипли* is a completed action and, as such, requires a perfective verb, and those only have a past and a future tense. If *прилипают* was used instead, the resulting impression would be either that Dudley's eyes are in the middle of becoming glued to the screen (which makes no sense as far as the metaphor goes), or of a very attention-intensive narration of a sequence of events (jokes and sports commentary use the imperfective present throughout) that would, again, be incongruous here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7871" RevisionGUID="aac2c3d9-fae9-47ba-9a70-38392fccf94e" CreationDate="2015-01-03T15:49:47.537" UserId="1236" Text="What matters in you example is actually not the difference of Present vs. Past tense, but the difference of Imperfective vs. Perfective aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Imperfective aspect has the meaning of the English Continuous or Non-continuous aspects, depending on the context. The Perfective aspect shows an action as having either the beginning or the end, also depending on the context and on the nature of the action the verb denotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lack of the context in your example makes it impossible to define whether we should translate the two Imperfective verbs **проводит** and **работают** as Continuous or Non-continious (Simple) English verbs (or even as Perfect Continuous), this distinction is irrelevant in Russian. But it is absolutely clear that the Perfective verb **прилипли** shows the action as finished, having come to its end, 'got glued and remained like that', because the very action of getting glued to something can hardly be imagined as having its beginning, since it is a momentary action, and its consequence (got glued or not) is always more important than the way it begins (started to get glued or not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18049" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7869" RevisionGUID="b184367d-9b42-45ba-807c-a3c02cd2086e" CreationDate="2015-01-03T18:07:36.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/551439751132499968" />
  <row Id="18050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7872" RevisionGUID="781d9ea0-2e01-4c95-839d-549733d72770" CreationDate="2015-01-03T19:42:38.010" UserId="4843" Text="&quot;Примечание для себя&quot; - явно не подходит.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Напоминалка&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Или же &quot;Памятка&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Встретил вот здесь: &quot;*Note to self: Reduce length of the sessions to twenty minutes next time.*&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7872" RevisionGUID="781d9ea0-2e01-4c95-839d-549733d72770" CreationDate="2015-01-03T19:42:38.010" UserId="4843" Text="&quot;Note to self&quot; - как лучше всего перевести?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7872" RevisionGUID="781d9ea0-2e01-4c95-839d-549733d72770" CreationDate="2015-01-03T19:42:38.010" UserId="4843" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7873" RevisionGUID="09fa40a9-df43-4a80-a2f9-04993eed85df" CreationDate="2015-01-03T22:44:53.627" UserId="4620" Text="Мне кажется, адекватного перевода просто не существует. В данном случае я перевёл бы так: `На будущее: уменьшить длину сессий до двадцати минут`, запихав `next time` туда же, в `на будущее`. В других контекстах возможен перевод `Не забыть:...`, или, с переходом в третье лицо, `он сделал себе мысленную отметку...` — в общем, много вариантов для частных случаев и ни одного универсального." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7874" RevisionGUID="22229c08-bc66-49c1-8acb-34eed7bd1643" CreationDate="2015-01-04T01:21:34.207" UserId="4846" Text="Думаю, самая близкая по значению русская идиома, это &quot;не наступай на грабли&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7875" RevisionGUID="c008bd4e-3042-4407-8cb1-5b3acb73483e" CreationDate="2015-01-04T02:02:05.087" UserId="4846" Text="Глядеть и смотреть - это не синонимы и, тем более, не супплетивы, они имеют разное значение. Глядеть означает направить взгляд в сторону чего либо. Смотреть означает направить свое внимание на что-либо. Например, глядя в окно, я смотрел на дорогу. Это же относится и к деепричастиям, образованным от этих глаголов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7876" RevisionGUID="f7f6f9df-40d1-4525-b562-95079b96eace" CreationDate="2015-01-04T11:45:27.373" UserId="4849" Text="What's the closest translation of Russian &quot;что ли&quot; in a context like &#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера на выставке кое-кого встретила.&#xD;&#xA;- Марину, что ли?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7876" RevisionGUID="f7f6f9df-40d1-4525-b562-95079b96eace" CreationDate="2015-01-04T11:45:27.373" UserId="4849" Text="What does &quot;что ли&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7876" RevisionGUID="f7f6f9df-40d1-4525-b562-95079b96eace" CreationDate="2015-01-04T11:45:27.373" UserId="4849" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7877" RevisionGUID="103310da-db46-4935-9b96-5375e97b1b03" CreationDate="2015-01-04T13:06:32.247" UserId="4560" Text="*Что ли* expresses a guess. The closest general equivalent is &quot;...or what?&quot;, but here, it probably shouldn't be translated at all. &quot;Marina?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7878" RevisionGUID="500e61ef-9626-4d84-ae69-3889cbb42393" CreationDate="2015-01-04T13:06:46.503" UserId="134" Text="It's a particle, expressing a guess with some degree of uncertainty, similar to English &quot;or what&quot;, &quot;or something&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *- Я вчера на выставке кое-кого встретила. - Марину, что ли?* / &quot;Yesterday I met someone at the show&quot;. &quot;Marina, or what&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7878" RevisionGUID="dc8e5b7d-dbf2-4046-aab9-5981a56a6186" CreationDate="2015-01-04T13:11:48.423" UserId="134" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="It's a particle, expressing a guess with some degree of uncertainty, similar to English &quot;or what&quot;, &quot;or something&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *- Я вчера на выставке кое-кого встретила. - Марину, что ли?* / &quot;Yesterday I met someone at the show&quot;. &quot;Marina, or what&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *- В месяц он получал триста, что ли, рублей* / &quot;He made three hundred rubles a month, or something&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7879" RevisionGUID="c1b7e16f-d22c-4aad-b100-ae120a6a0193" CreationDate="2015-01-04T14:14:08.607" UserId="4605" Text="in colloquial Russian, comparable idioms would come from criminal lingo rather than from hunting. Thus the focus on the victim that is meaningless in hunting:  &quot;Сам виноват&quot;; &quot;сам напросился&quot;; &quot;лох&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;There is also &quot;все честно / все законно / все по закону&quot;, e.g., in your example, &quot;если бумажник украли из незапертой машины, то тут все честно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7880" RevisionGUID="f90cc81c-51bf-4b3a-bfec-256dba9324f1" CreationDate="2015-01-04T14:19:09.683" UserId="4605" Text="Not just a guess, abut also a surprise, sometimes a suspicion, or even dismissal of the other's point of view. So your example can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Like who? Marina?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;And who might that someone be? Marina perhaps?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;What, like, Marina?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7881" RevisionGUID="d6eb2574-81f8-4158-81b6-9d7f4b72b9af" CreationDate="2015-01-04T20:46:42.370" UserId="4850" Text="It can be explained comparing: &quot;Марину, наверное(perhaps)?&quot;?, &quot;Марину?&quot; and &quot;Марину, что ли?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;First means &quot;let me guess! my guess is based on context of my own information&quot;, second means: &quot;I need to update my understanding of who you are talking about&quot;, and third adds to second &quot;that is so complex or not interesting or that I always know&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I could propose &quot;Wasn't she?&quot; - it should add some &quot;cold&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7883" RevisionGUID="824d1855-b9b4-4f20-a3b5-9cb53a5a684e" CreationDate="2015-01-05T04:28:38.993" UserId="4848" Text="If you use Google Translate, you will get:&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I was at the show met someone . - Marina , or what? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct translation would be: Was it Marina? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7884" RevisionGUID="25a59166-7b0c-47df-a143-e97bb4038734" CreationDate="2015-01-05T05:44:53.350" UserId="4853" Text="American English, you would answer with something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Who, Tom?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also say, &quot;Tom? or Who?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, some might say, &quot;Not Tom!?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom/Marina, whoever. Remember, the most important part of this statement is the intonation. We wouldn't use the &quot;4to li&quot; in this case, but we would change our pitch to express the same sentiment that &quot;4to li&quot; expresses in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7885" RevisionGUID="9bdf7153-eaaa-44d6-82f9-1cf407530db1" CreationDate="2015-01-05T10:19:07.930" UserId="4810" Text="&quot;Что ли&quot; can express a guess (with high probability, when you're just making sure you're right), surprise (when you already suspect it might be so), or be used to keep the conversation flowing. So, the closest English structure would be question tags (&quot;isn't it?&quot;). It's also the same level of colloquial. Or you can make it even more colloquial, even to the point of making it technically grammatically wrong, it'd still be the same style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I met someone at the exhibition yesterday.&quot; - &quot;Marina, was it?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7886" RevisionGUID="293c219a-da06-485d-8adf-623e9ca3f877" CreationDate="2015-01-05T10:35:24.330" UserId="4810" Text="В учебнике русского для иностранцев было бы &quot;обрати внимание!&quot; с какой-нибудь картинкой. В &quot;Лестнице&quot;, кажется, так и было :) А так, скорее, &quot;заметка&quot;. Или NB (да, не по-русски, но используется часто, по крайней мере на филфаке :) )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7849" RevisionGUID="d72731ed-1a8b-4020-a440-0ffb91d0ce19" CreationDate="2015-01-05T23:22:22.807" UserId="194" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt; Москва - столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means your addressee knows Moscow, you just add something to it or underline this property.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Москва - это столица России&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means you introduce new term, Moscow, which was prevuously unknown to your addressee, and define it as the capital of Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="70020ef8-2d10-4996-a73e-c190cd926b1b" CreationDate="2015-01-05T23:43:00.577" UserId="62" Text="In English, when the two sides of a coin are described it is conventional to speak about heads before tails. For instance, we'd ask &quot;heads or tails?&quot; when flipping a coin and someone has to choose a side, and if just one side of a coin is in the background to a probability problem then it is usually heads (e.g., &quot;a biased coin has the probability of heads as 1/3&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While heads = решка and tails = орёл, is it conventional in Russian to give preference to орёл before решка in such situations, presumably for alphabetical reasons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="70020ef8-2d10-4996-a73e-c190cd926b1b" CreationDate="2015-01-05T23:43:00.577" UserId="62" Text="sides of a coin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="70020ef8-2d10-4996-a73e-c190cd926b1b" CreationDate="2015-01-05T23:43:00.577" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|выражения|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7888" RevisionGUID="1d069dce-01a0-40f8-bc04-f78e276d6e81" CreationDate="2015-01-06T00:12:02.253" UserId="4855" Text="There is book series for example for English learners and these books are contains different level books from beginner to upper intermediate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there pdf books in Russian like these ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7888" RevisionGUID="1d069dce-01a0-40f8-bc04-f78e276d6e81" CreationDate="2015-01-06T00:12:02.253" UserId="4855" Text="Is there book series for russian learners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7888" RevisionGUID="1d069dce-01a0-40f8-bc04-f78e276d6e81" CreationDate="2015-01-06T00:12:02.253" UserId="4855" Text="|словоупотребление|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7889" RevisionGUID="4a1e42e8-ca47-4665-88af-c62d221c0fab" CreationDate="2015-01-06T00:33:39.190" UserId="4560" Text="Intuitively, I do feel that there's a preference for putting *орёл* first, and a quick exact phrase search on Google confirms it: *орёл или решка* is about three times more frequent than *решка или орёл*, and the prevalence of *орёл и решка* over *решка и орёл* is astronomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't think this has to do with the alphabet. It might be the same case of a culturally &quot;preferred&quot; side of a nominally equal relationship (much like with the preference for right over left in many languages); in Russian, *орёл* would predictably be considered the more &quot;dignified&quot; side, not just because of the imagery invoked but also for euphonic reasons; *решка*, while having no meaning outside of &quot;heads on a coin&quot;, sounds harsh and almost pejorative. English possibly mirrors this situation because a head is intuitively more &quot;dignified&quot; than a tail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prosody may also be involved: the naturally rhythmic *орёл и[ли] решка* flows much better than *решка и[ли] орёл*, with its three or four consecutive unstressed syllables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="da50a416-68c2-4e33-b232-99c16b09e118" CreationDate="2015-01-06T01:13:42.137" UserId="62" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="In English, when the two sides of a coin are described it is conventional to speak about heads before tails. For instance, we'd ask &quot;heads or tails?&quot; when flipping a coin and someone has to choose a side, and if just one side of a coin is in the background to a probability problem then it is usually heads (e.g., &quot;a biased coin has the probability of heads as 1/3&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While heads = решка and tails = орёл [EDIT: Maybe I made an error in that translation], is it conventional in Russian to give preference to орёл before решка in such situations, presumably for alphabetical reasons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="4ae3a28b-dd30-4e0b-bdf8-a73075905dee" CreationDate="2015-01-06T01:35:37.087" UserId="62" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="In English, when the two sides of a coin are described it is conventional to speak about heads before tails. For instance, we'd ask &quot;heads or tails?&quot; when flipping a coin and someone has to choose a side, and if just one side of a coin is in the background to a probability problem then it is usually heads (e.g., &quot;a biased coin has the probability of heads as 1/3&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While heads = решка and tails = орёл [EDIT: I made an error, as the front side of Russian coins is is орёл, which corresponds to heads in English], is it conventional in Russian to give preference to орёл before решка in such situations, presumably for alphabetical reasons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7890" RevisionGUID="47681cec-29c1-46e3-9ea7-dc12afa3245c" CreationDate="2015-01-06T03:41:43.513" UserId="3727" Text="&quot;Взять на заметку&quot; is, in my view, a quite close translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18085" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7756" RevisionGUID="ed62296c-b8cb-46d3-9fca-4ff46d9393e3" CreationDate="2015-01-06T14:26:01.993" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="3089621c-2458-4e64-8bbd-39dcb26eef53" CreationDate="2015-01-06T14:27:17.450" UserId="109" Comment="removed the hint the translation were vice versa and gave the correct translation instead" Text="In English, when the two sides of a coin are described it is conventional to speak about heads before tails. For instance, we'd ask &quot;heads or tails?&quot; when flipping a coin and someone has to choose a side, and if just one side of a coin is in the background to a probability problem then it is usually heads (e.g., &quot;a biased coin has the probability of heads as 1/3&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *heads* = *орёл* and *tails* = *решка*, is it conventional in Russian to give preference to *орёл* before *решка* in such situations, presumably for alphabetical reasons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18087" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="3089621c-2458-4e64-8bbd-39dcb26eef53" CreationDate="2015-01-06T14:27:17.450" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 1236, 551 edit id of 576" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="b341c362-3ee8-44e3-b698-128fc0e9b875" CreationDate="2015-01-06T15:01:12.197" UserId="62" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In English, when the two sides of a coin are described it is conventional to speak about heads before tails. For instance, we'd ask &quot;heads or tails?&quot; when flipping a coin and someone has to choose a side, and if just one side of a coin is in the background to a probability problem then it is usually heads (e.g., &quot;a biased coin has the probability of heads as 1/3&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, *heads* = *орёл* and *tails* = *решка*. Is it conventional in Russian to give preference to *орёл* before *решка* in such situations, presumably for alphabetical reasons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18089" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="ed6aa5af-4a90-44dd-bbe2-2f54d105b660" CreationDate="2015-01-06T15:17:49.010" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Орел и решка&quot; or &quot;решка и орёл&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7867" RevisionGUID="3dead854-8636-4390-a8e0-1211c0d60dff" CreationDate="2015-01-07T04:45:18.143" UserId="4702" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Being near something means to have it. у него есть чемодан - by him is a suitcase.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples of Russian thinking, that can help me learn the language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples I discovered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English thinking -                                           Russian thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand I think..., on the other hand, I think... -	On the one side..., on the other side...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We go to the county-side... - 			           			We go to nature...     Мы идем к природе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion                -                              as for me&#xD;&#xA;my pleasure; you're welcome; no problem -                   please&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel great - 												I feel myself great&#xD;&#xA;do you want some more tea? -                                yes, no, maybe&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7867" RevisionGUID="d6e86d1f-29ad-4c4a-bd74-967d1554eaae" CreationDate="2015-01-07T04:51:02.320" UserId="4702" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Being near something means to have it. у него есть чемодан - by him is a suitcase.&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples of Russian thinking, that can help me learn the language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples I discovered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English thinking -                                           Russian thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: &quot;On the one hand I think..., on the other hand, I think...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Russian: &quot;On the one side..., on the other side...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: &quot;We go to the county-side...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Russian: &quot;We go to nature...&quot;     (Мы идем к природе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: &quot;in my opinion&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Russian: &quot;as for me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: &quot;my pleasure; you're welcome; no problem&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Russian: &quot;please&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: &quot;I feel great&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Russian: &quot;I feel myself great&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19092" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7887" RevisionGUID="d3a43cfd-a9a3-4fab-98ea-e8932483bc98" CreationDate="2015-01-07T09:19:30.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/552756400062201856" />
  <row Id="19093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7867" RevisionGUID="c34e7a8e-27e3-4931-bdd7-7d780b04ddf5" CreationDate="2015-01-07T12:19:29.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/552801696255340544" />
  <row Id="19094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7893" RevisionGUID="a1ced1b5-e30b-4c5e-a125-b7205a218bfa" CreationDate="2015-01-07T12:52:37.257" UserId="2306" Text="Почему глагол *увидеть* склоняется по 2-ому спряжению? *видеть* относится ко 2-ому спряжению, а *увидеть* -- это другой глагол и должен относиться к 1-ому спряжению." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7893" RevisionGUID="a1ced1b5-e30b-4c5e-a125-b7205a218bfa" CreationDate="2015-01-07T12:52:37.257" UserId="2306" Text="Почему &quot;увидеть&quot; склоняется по 2-ому спряжению?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7893" RevisionGUID="a1ced1b5-e30b-4c5e-a125-b7205a218bfa" CreationDate="2015-01-07T12:52:37.257" UserId="2306" Text="|глаголы|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7894" RevisionGUID="c975e0a5-357b-47a7-a7b0-f7d29de5bce5" CreationDate="2015-01-07T13:28:29.137" UserId="4560" Text="Почему должен? Есть глагол *увидать*, вот он действительно другой. А приставка и, соответственно, категория вида на спряжение никак не влияют." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7895" RevisionGUID="95f8c6cd-78ad-495a-a932-9fdacf434b50" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:15:49.870" UserId="4560" Text="Мне кажется, *ласочка*, *досочка* и *рясочка* — просто реэтимологизация, и никакой древности тут нет, а наоборот, сравнительно позднее явление, когда до этимологически правильных *лащечка* и *рящечка* (ср. *дощечка*) языковая интуиция уже &quot;не дотягивалась&quot;, так что формы образовывались по аналогии с теми, где *-к-* выступает как суффикс. Или, возможно, язык отмел эти правильные формы из-за их неблагозвучия, которое в &quot;дощечке&quot; смягчено положением ударения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7896" RevisionGUID="daefbf99-d5b5-4b35-88ab-9cc9e320693a" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:49:30.607" UserId="4865" Text="A teacher explained to me that for imperfective verbs of motion, the verb termed one-directional is present/past continuous in translation and should be chosen for use on that basis, not on a complicated understanding of directionalness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone provide an explanation of verbs of motion imperfectives that does not use the word multi-/single-directional? If it is so simple as she says, I wonder why all this garbage about direction and return trips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7896" RevisionGUID="daefbf99-d5b5-4b35-88ab-9cc9e320693a" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:49:30.607" UserId="4865" Text="Verbs of motion present/past continuous" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7896" RevisionGUID="daefbf99-d5b5-4b35-88ab-9cc9e320693a" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:49:30.607" UserId="4865" Text="|глаголы|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7897" RevisionGUID="8f12bc03-484d-48d3-8ef0-dc342899b24c" CreationDate="2015-01-07T16:57:11.717" UserId="4629" Text="I too find the notion of direction very confusing. I'd rather think of what is described as multidirectionalness as a property or a capability. Only the &quot;multidirectional&quot; member of each pair of verbs of motion can be used with *I can* - *я умею* (or, more generally, *to be able to* - *уметь*). The logic then goes like this: I can do it =&gt; I tend to do it sometimes (habitually) =&gt; this motion tends to occur in various ways (and directions). Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова умеет летать* =&gt; *сова летает* =&gt; *сова летает бесшумно*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(The owl can fly =&gt; the owl flies =&gt; the owl flies quietly - indefinite tense)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As opposed to:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова летит на север* (The owl is flying North - continuous tense)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are situations where this notion of property/capability/habit does not help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова летает над полем* (туда-сюда) - *the owl is flying over the field* (back and fro)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Russian uses *летать* here, English still calls for Present Continuous because the motion is happening here and now. In such situations multidirectionalness seems to be your only guide. Trying to think backwards (English to Russian) I would suggest to first think if the motion is described in English using a continuous tense. If the answer is *yes* then think if the motion is occurring in multiple directions. If the answer is still *yes* then you most certainly need the multidirectional member of the verb pair." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7897" RevisionGUID="81ad9384-f613-45ed-ade0-dca268ac0ba8" CreationDate="2015-01-07T17:07:50.500" UserId="4629" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="I too find the notion of direction very confusing. I'd rather think of what is described as multidirectionalness as a property or a capability. Only the &quot;multidirectional&quot; member of each pair of verbs of motion can be used with *I can* - *я умею* (or, more generally, *to be able to* - *уметь*). The logic then goes like this: I can do it =&gt; I tend to do it sometimes (habitually) =&gt; this motion tends to occur in various ways (and directions). Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова умеет летать* =&gt; *сова летает* =&gt; *сова летает бесшумно*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(The owl can fly =&gt; the owl flies =&gt; the owl flies quietly - indefinite tense)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As opposed to:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова летит на север* (The owl is flying North - continuous tense)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are situations where this notion of property/capability/habit does not help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова летает над полем* (туда-сюда) - *the owl is flying over the field* (back and fro)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Russian uses *летать* here, English still calls for Present Continuous because the motion is happening here and now. In such situations multidirectionalness seems to be your only guide. I would suggest to first think if the motion is described in English using a continuous tense. If the answer is *yes* then think if the motion is occurring in multiple directions. If the answer is still *yes* then you most certainly need the multidirectional member of the verb pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make matters worse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now or habitually? - Habitually. (Multidirectional verb then? - No, wait for it)&#xD;&#xA;Does the sentence explicitly mention a direction or route? - Yes!&#xD;&#xA;You need the unidirectional verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Зимой птицы летят на юг* - In winter birds fly South." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7897" RevisionGUID="b97dd6cd-bc79-415a-9d10-4a397526e691" CreationDate="2015-01-07T17:25:33.087" UserId="4629" Comment="added 227 characters in body; added 18 characters in body" Text="I too find the notion of direction very confusing. I'd rather think of what is described as multidirectionalness as a property or a capability. Only the &quot;multidirectional&quot; member of each pair of verbs of motion can be used with *I can* - *я умею* (or, more generally, *to be able to* - *уметь*). The logic then goes like this: I can do it =&gt; I tend to do it sometimes (habitually) =&gt; this motion tends to occur in various ways (and directions). Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова умеет летать* =&gt; *сова летает* =&gt; *сова летает бесшумно*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(The owl can fly =&gt; the owl flies =&gt; the owl flies quietly - indefinite tense)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As opposed to a motion which is happening here and now:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова летит на север* (The owl is flying North - continuous tense)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately there are situations where this notion of property/capability/habit does not help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сова летает над полем* (туда-сюда) - *the owl is flying over the field* (back and fro)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although Russian uses *летать* here, English still calls for Present Continuous because the motion is happening here and now. In such situations multidirectionalness seems to be your only guide. I would suggest to first think if the motion is described in English using a continuous tense. If the answer is *yes* then think if the motion is occurring in multiple directions. If the answer is still *yes* then you most certainly need the multidirectional (habitual) member of the verb pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make matters worse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now or habitually? - Habitually. (Multidirectional verb then? - No, wait for it)&#xD;&#xA;Does the sentence explicitly mention a single direction or route? - Yes!&#xD;&#xA;You need the unidirectional verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Зимой птицы летят на юг* - In winter birds fly South." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7898" RevisionGUID="3da00200-dfff-493b-9765-4a8d5d031926" CreationDate="2015-01-07T18:02:11.280" UserId="2306" Text="Как правильно: &quot;над вязаньем&quot; или &quot;над вязанием&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7898" RevisionGUID="3da00200-dfff-493b-9765-4a8d5d031926" CreationDate="2015-01-07T18:02:11.280" UserId="2306" Text="&quot;над вязаньем&quot; или &quot;над вязанием&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7898" RevisionGUID="3da00200-dfff-493b-9765-4a8d5d031926" CreationDate="2015-01-07T18:02:11.280" UserId="2306" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7900" RevisionGUID="d4d2f05f-12bc-47fa-8398-d50ce7070812" CreationDate="2015-01-07T19:06:20.233" UserId="4629" Text="По современным правилам правильно &quot;над вязанием&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чередование И // ноль звука (лить – льет, бить – бьет, Мария – Марья, собрание - собранье) связано с наличием в древнерусском языке редуцированного И, который в слабой позиции утратился. Данное чередование широко представлено в словах с односложным корнем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вить – вьет,&#xD;&#xA;шить – шьет,&#xD;&#xA;пить – пьет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Произношение -ия, -ие на конце существительных долгое время поддерживалось церковно-славянской и книжной традицией, поэтому чередование -ия // ья; -ие // -ье сохраняется и в настоящее время, при этом формы на -ье носят разговорный оттенок, формы на -ья свойственны некоторым русским именам, ср.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;житие – житьё,&#xD;&#xA;участие – участье,&#xD;&#xA;известие – известье,&#xD;&#xA;объятия – объятья,&#xD;&#xA;крещение – крещенье,&#xD;&#xA;Наталия – Наталья,&#xD;&#xA;Дария – Дарья.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.proza.ru/2013/07/24/532" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7900" RevisionGUID="a29da053-3f47-4b04-b82d-ff16ee84a8df" CreationDate="2015-01-07T19:14:41.797" UserId="4629" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="По современным правилам правильно &quot;над вязанием&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чередование И // ноль звука (лить – льет, бить – бьет, Мария – Марья, собрание - собранье) связано с наличием в древнерусском языке редуцированного И, который в слабой позиции утратился. Данное чередование широко представлено в словах с односложным корнем:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вить – вьет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;шить – шьет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пить – пьет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произношение -ия, -ие на конце существительных долгое время поддерживалось церковно-славянской и книжной традицией, поэтому чередование -ия // ья; -ие // -ье сохраняется и в настоящее время, при этом формы на -ье носят разговорный оттенок, формы на -ья свойственны некоторым русским именам, ср.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;житие – житьё,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;участие – участье,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;известие – известье,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;объятия – объятья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;крещение – крещенье,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наталия – Наталья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дария – Дарья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.proza.ru/2013/07/24/532&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ье* также распространено в поэтических текстах, когда автор стремится сохранить размер или придать тексту архаично-лирический оттенок. Возможны также замены нормативного *-ье* на *-ие*, они придают тексту архаично-возвышенную окраску и используются чаще всего в сатирических целях." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1779" RevisionGUID="f1b6f529-c522-4041-a8aa-92c48913efe6" CreationDate="2015-01-07T19:20:01.253" UserId="4629" Comment="Spelling and meaning of &quot;zonnedoek&quot;" Text="Вы как-то странно смешали несколько разных вопросов в одном, и упомянутый ряд слов слишком разнороден. Как минимум, следовало бы разделить на слова, у которых как минимум это -к- в -ка входит в основу как минимум в раннеобщеславянские времена, затем те, у которых это часть основы только в поздние времена (история русского языка после отделения), и те, у которых видно происхождение и сейчас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, &quot;полоска&quot; однозначно увязывается с &quot;полоса&quot; стандартным способом (-к- как уменьшительный суффикс) любым носителем языка. Таких примеров в языке сотни. Во всех этих случаях этимология рассказывает про уменьшительный суффикс -ък-, который дал беглый гласный (им.ед. полоска - род.мн. полосок). Для &quot;ласка&quot; этимология сложнее, но тоже можно предполагать, что -к- - суффикс, хоть и более древний. В то же время, для &quot;тоска&quot; тут -к- есть согласный корня, и иной вариант не прослеживается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее, морфемно-орфографический словарь показывает текущее состояние с точки зрения носителей языка, а не историю, которая может не согласовываться с ним и даже противоречить. Хрестоматийный пример - голландское zonnedoek (&quot;навес от солнца&quot;) превратилось в &quot;зонтик&quot;, а далее образовалось &quot;зонт&quot;. С точки зрения истории тут нелепица, а с точки зрения морфологии тут уменьшительный суффикс -ик-. Поэтому морфемно-орфографический словарь показывает те слова, которые делятся на морфемы для современного языкового сознания, так, как они делятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что за санскритское -ка, Вы не уточнили (лучше бы пару примеров), но история чётко показывает, что никакого подобного явления в этом ряду слов нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19113" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1779" RevisionGUID="f1b6f529-c522-4041-a8aa-92c48913efe6" CreationDate="2015-01-07T19:20:01.253" Comment="Proposed by 4629 approved by 827 edit id of 577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7901" RevisionGUID="45355241-9bc2-4866-a7f0-c89fcbee7939" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:15:50.707" UserId="4727" Text="нет ничего постоянного, кроме перемен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is nothing permanent, except change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7901" RevisionGUID="45355241-9bc2-4866-a7f0-c89fcbee7939" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:15:50.707" UserId="4727" Text="Is this sentence correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7901" RevisionGUID="45355241-9bc2-4866-a7f0-c89fcbee7939" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:15:50.707" UserId="4727" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7902" RevisionGUID="c532f403-2463-4b58-a654-401e17bfffa8" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:19:05.027" UserId="4629" Text="There is a certain colloquial trend where conjunction *как* replaces *когда*. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Как*** *дойдёте до перекрёстка, поверните налево*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure as to the reasons for this phenomenon but the following excerpt from Lermontov's well-known pastiche indicates that some historical process may be at work here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как сходилися, собиралися&#xD;&#xA;    Удалые бойцы московские&#xD;&#xA;    На Москву-реку, на кулачной бой,&#xD;&#xA;    Разгуляться для праздника, потешиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am tempted to hypothesize a transformation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Прошло &lt;уже&gt;* [a period of time] *с тех пор (с того момента) как (когда)* [the event happened] =&gt; &lt;уже&gt; [a period of time] *как* [the event happened] =&gt; [the event] &lt;уже&gt; [a period of time] *как* [happened].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also argue that this usage does preserve a certain shade of suddenness or rather  	instantaneousness of the event or the particular moment. One would say *Как вошёл я в ресторан, сразу увидел Сашу*, but never *Как жил я Москве, каждый день ходил в Большой*. Only *когда* will be used in the latter case. The escape of a bird lends itself very well to such suddenness. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7902" RevisionGUID="0d4e807c-3d8f-46ed-a04d-38f201c1dc74" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:27:13.550" UserId="4629" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="There is a certain colloquial trend where conjunction *как* replaces *когда*. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Как*** *дойдёте до перекрёстка, поверните налево*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I think I can see a direct analogy in English: ***When*** *you reach the junction turn left* =&gt; ***As*** *you reach the junction turn left* - is it a contraction of *as soon as*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure as to the reasons for this phenomenon but the following excerpt from Lermontov's well-known pastiche indicates that some historical process may be at work here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как сходилися, собиралися&#xD;&#xA;    Удалые бойцы московские&#xD;&#xA;    На Москву-реку, на кулачной бой,&#xD;&#xA;    Разгуляться для праздника, потешиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am tempted to hypothesize a transformation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Прошло &lt;уже&gt;* [a period of time] *с тех пор (с того момента) как (когда)* [the event happened] =&gt; &lt;уже&gt; [a period of time] *как* [the event happened] =&gt; [the event] &lt;уже&gt; [a period of time] *как* [happened].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also argue that this usage does preserve a certain shade of suddenness or rather  	instantaneousness of the event or the particular moment. One would say *Как вошёл я в ресторан, сразу увидел Сашу*, but never *Как жил я Москве, каждый день ходил в Большой*. Only *когда* will be used in the latter case. The escape of a bird lends itself very well to such suddenness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth adding that *с тех пор как* is a stable and actively used idiom.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7903" RevisionGUID="a75a7ff6-79f1-4573-95e4-b1d8abd26be1" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:27:57.887" UserId="1571" Text="As a man, how do I respectfully say &quot;Hi there, friend!&quot;  to a woman?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know to a man, I would say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    привет, мой друг&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I use the same thing for a woman?  Or can I use...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    привет, моя подруга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7903" RevisionGUID="a75a7ff6-79f1-4573-95e4-b1d8abd26be1" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:27:57.887" UserId="1571" Text="How to address a female friend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7903" RevisionGUID="a75a7ff6-79f1-4573-95e4-b1d8abd26be1" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:27:57.887" UserId="1571" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7904" RevisionGUID="9a11cb4a-3dd6-4f16-a47c-b53d305996c3" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:36:33.340" UserId="4629" Text="I prefer &quot;Ничто не постоянно, кроме перемен&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Russian sentence is grammatically correct, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7905" RevisionGUID="b0a33dc7-0398-4fc6-bdac-ff56683c2566" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:47:47.857" UserId="4629" Text="Both your variants suggest some humour and a certain degree of intimacy (the &quot;подруга&quot; much more so than the &quot;друг&quot; one). You could use either but the choice entirely depends of how close the two of you are. Bear in mind that both sound more intimate than the English &quot;Hi there, friend!&quot; The more neutral option is to just use her name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, Наташа!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7906" RevisionGUID="3dd203f0-f78c-4e07-add1-c4ffa938d37d" CreationDate="2015-01-08T10:42:19.900" UserId="194" Text="In Russian &quot;-к-&quot; is a deminutive suffix, which comes from Proto-Indo-European -ik-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, коляска and the Tocharian words couls be derived with the same suffix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7900" RevisionGUID="161edfdc-76a6-4014-886b-bfbb6ef1c4d2" CreationDate="2015-01-08T13:03:17.510" UserId="4629" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="По современным правилам правильно &quot;над вязанием&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чередование И // ноль звука (лить – льет, бить – бьет, Мария – Марья, собрание - собранье) связано с наличием в древнерусском языке редуцированного И, который в слабой позиции утратился. Данное чередование широко представлено в словах с односложным корнем:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вить – вьет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;шить – шьет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пить – пьет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произношение -ия, -ие на конце существительных долгое время поддерживалось церковно-славянской и книжной традицией, поэтому чередование -ия // ья; -ие // -ье сохраняется и в настоящее время, при этом формы на -ье носят разговорный оттенок, формы на -ья свойственны некоторым русским именам, ср.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;житие – житьё,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;участие – участье,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;известие – известье,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;объятия – объятья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;крещение – крещенье,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наталия – Наталья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дария – Дарья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.proza.ru/2013/07/24/532&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ье* также распространено в поэтических текстах, когда автор стремится сохранить размер или (в современной поэзии) придать тексту архаично-лирический оттенок. Возможны также замены нормативного *-ье* на *-ие*, они придают тексту архаично-возвышенную окраску и используются чаще всего в сатирических целях." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7907" RevisionGUID="dc8a3296-8153-48bf-bf4e-ede6e52d693b" CreationDate="2015-01-08T13:56:51.407" UserId="4394" Text="Your sentences is absolutelly corrent and sounds well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7908" RevisionGUID="2df1a4ab-3285-48ca-bd70-1495f19e19fe" CreationDate="2015-01-08T14:00:06.400" UserId="4394" Text="In our language (Russian) &quot;пластинки&quot; means vinyl records only. CDs are &quot;диски&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7671" RevisionGUID="2c71606e-3e0d-4dfb-89d3-347515405060" CreationDate="2015-01-08T15:09:46.803" UserId="4599" Comment="Update with original French expression" Text="Что это такое &quot;война из-за угла&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Чем она отличается от герильи или партизанской войны?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE #1:**&#xD;&#xA;Выражение из книги для детей, в переводе с французского:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война из-за угла, это другая форма войны без больших сражений. Ее участники действуют скрытно, неожиданно атакуют или совершают покушения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE #2:**&#xD;&#xA;I found the original edition in French, for which the word being used is *guérilla*. Obviously, *герилья* or *партизанская война* would have been less ambiguous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7907" RevisionGUID="c1e57dc4-e471-4b8e-ac66-5d244f790aed" CreationDate="2015-01-08T15:48:58.913" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="Your sentences is absolutelly corrent and sounds good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7910" RevisionGUID="15793c18-09ca-4713-9c5e-308a44a935f7" CreationDate="2015-01-08T17:54:36.860" UserId="4871" Text="«С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы, и возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Допустима ли запятая после слова «проблемы» перед союзом «и»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7910" RevisionGUID="15793c18-09ca-4713-9c5e-308a44a935f7" CreationDate="2015-01-08T17:54:36.860" UserId="4871" Text="Допустима ли запятая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7910" RevisionGUID="15793c18-09ca-4713-9c5e-308a44a935f7" CreationDate="2015-01-08T17:54:36.860" UserId="4871" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19134" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7903" RevisionGUID="c82b32b8-31ce-42d7-b47c-65359d3514aa" CreationDate="2015-01-08T18:28:35.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/553256971793870849" />
  <row Id="19135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7911" RevisionGUID="4d87aff0-6df1-49fc-95fc-1642814d10aa" CreationDate="2015-01-08T19:00:06.387" UserId="4843" Text="Да, запятая нужна, как и после этого союза." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7912" RevisionGUID="019fc82a-6da7-4395-b160-df65fa90c6ea" CreationDate="2015-01-08T19:34:24.953" UserId="2306" Text="Как объяснить, что в слове *намер**е**ваться* гласный **е**, а не **и**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7912" RevisionGUID="019fc82a-6da7-4395-b160-df65fa90c6ea" CreationDate="2015-01-08T19:34:24.953" UserId="2306" Text="Почему в &quot;намереваться&quot; гласный е?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7912" RevisionGUID="019fc82a-6da7-4395-b160-df65fa90c6ea" CreationDate="2015-01-08T19:34:24.953" UserId="2306" Text="|правописание|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7913" RevisionGUID="927e2b0b-1b33-477b-aa9b-ab75b7fb7ac3" CreationDate="2015-01-08T19:38:28.877" UserId="4629" Text="Запятая перед *и это увеличивает* нужна: она разделяет части сложносочинённого предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Запятая перед *и возможно*, мне кажется, не нужна. Хотя предложение *что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи* -- сложносочинённое, оно является подчинённым в более развернутом сложноподчинённом предложении. В этом случае простые предложения, составляющие такое сложносочинённое предложение, запятой не разделяются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово *возможно*, как вводное, должно быть выделено запятыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS Сочетание настоящего и прошедшего времени в одном предложении делает и без того негладкий синтаксис чрезвычайно неудобочитаемым. Если есть такая возможность, хорошо было бы разбить этот текст, по крайней мере, на три предложения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7913" RevisionGUID="e98268e5-033a-4a93-937a-d4e545c44f8d" CreationDate="2015-01-08T20:00:15.307" UserId="4629" Comment="added 1542 characters in body" Text="1. Запятая перед *и это увеличивает* нужна: она разделяет части сложносочинённого предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Если текст задумывается как состоящий из трех предложений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то пунктуация должнв быть такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы, и возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом возникает громооздкое сложносочинённое предложение, состоящее из трёх последовательных предложений, разделённых союзами «и».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Если текст задумывается как состоящий из двух предложений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то пунктуация должнв быть такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, -- и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь запятая перед *и возможно* не нужна. Хотя предложение *что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи* -- сложносочинённое, оно является подчинённым в более развернутом сложноподчинённом предложении. В этом случае простые предложения, составляющие такое сложносочинённое предложение, запятой не разделяются. А слово *возможно*, как вводное, должно быть выделено запятыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS Сочетание настоящего и прошедшего времени в одном предложении и нагромождение подчинений делают и без того негладкий синтаксис чрезвычайно неудобочитаемым. Если есть такая возможность, хорошо было бы разбить этот текст, по крайней мере, на три предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы рекомендовал вам обратить специальное внимание на конструкцию ***возможно***, *неразрешимы без распада, который был* ***невозможен***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7914" RevisionGUID="15056cf6-d530-4f66-a4e7-94ac6e99cbb9" CreationDate="2015-01-08T20:12:43.697" UserId="4560" Text="Объясняется &quot;книжным&quot; происхождением глагола, т.е. старославянским или псевдо-старославянским (точно не знаю). Отсюда &quot;болгарский&quot; итеративный суффикс *-ова-/-ева-* вместо исконно русского *-ыва-/-ива-*. То же самое в *повелевать*, например.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Парный глагол *вознамериться* расширяется уже &quot;по-нашему&quot;: *вознамериваться*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7907" RevisionGUID="8728c071-49c2-4c16-965c-5a40f365e09c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T20:45:08.790" UserId="4833" Comment="fixed spelling; added &quot;Yes&quot; to make the edit big enough to be accepted" Text="Yes, your sentence is absolutelly correct and sounds good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19145" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7907" RevisionGUID="8728c071-49c2-4c16-965c-5a40f365e09c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T20:45:08.790" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by -1 edit id of 578" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7907" RevisionGUID="1df0d75e-6885-48b2-bfb2-b7f777131ffa" CreationDate="2015-01-08T20:45:08.790" UserId="551" Comment="fixed spelling; added &quot;Yes&quot; to make the edit big enough to be accepted" Text="Yes, both sentences are absolutely correct and sound good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7913" RevisionGUID="9370b2c5-8291-4d3f-b1c9-a10720f86853" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:17:26.927" UserId="4629" Comment="edited body" Text="1. Запятая перед *и это увеличивает* нужна: она разделяет части сложносочинённого предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Если текст задумывается как состоящий из трех предложений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то пунктуация должна быть такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы, и возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом возникает громооздкое сложносочинённое предложение, состоящее из трёх последовательных предложений, разделённых союзами «и».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Если текст задумывается как состоящий из двух предложений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то пунктуация должна быть такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, -- и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь запятая перед *и возможно* не нужна. Хотя предложение *что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи* -- сложносочинённое, оно является подчинённым в более развернутом сложноподчинённом предложении. В этом случае простые предложения, составляющие такое сложносочинённое предложение, запятой не разделяются. А слово *возможно*, как вводное, должно быть выделено запятыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS Сочетание настоящего и прошедшего времени в одном предложении и нагромождение подчинений делают и без того негладкий синтаксис чрезвычайно неудобочитаемым. Если есть такая возможность, хорошо было бы разбить этот текст, по крайней мере, на три предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS Я бы посоветовал вам обратить специальное внимание на конструкцию ***возможно***, *неразрешимы без распада, который был* ***невозможен***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7912" RevisionGUID="5e2aa360-5d29-4e2b-a353-e155909a386e" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:28:20.650" UserId="2306" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Как объяснить, что в слове *намер**е**ваться* пишется гласный **е**, а не **и**? Каким правилом это определить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19149" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7898" RevisionGUID="ace62d9b-c0a6-4a90-9601-89f877f0e15c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:28:36.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/553302271359205377" />
  <row Id="19150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7916" RevisionGUID="bf4394fe-4dfb-4539-9e10-6511612233b4" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:59:30.197" UserId="4629" Text="I've grown to liken &quot;торопиться&quot; to &quot;to hurry&quot; and &quot;спешить&quot; to &quot;to rush&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can think of English expressions where one of them is the preferred, or indeed the only choice, we could do an interesting experiment by trying to translate them to Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="07fac268-8a39-4dd2-8908-1729986db335" CreationDate="2015-01-08T22:07:10.340" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The whole sentence would properly be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will never eat my own dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However word-for-word it's more like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will not become [such that I] eat my own dog.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will not get to be [such that I] eat my own dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verb _cтать_ (here _не стать_) in this sentence is the equivalent of _become_ in English or _get to be_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not you are talking about a specific dog in a specific situation is irrelevant to using perfective/imperfective verbs.  It's more about the situation as a whole.  As he (the prince) wouldn't eat his own dog, he won't be eating (_есть_) and thus won't have finished eating it (_съесть_). There's just the slight difference in meaning (or rather emphasis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не съем свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has the emphasis on _есть_ - (_eat_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не стану есть свою собаку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;has the emphasis on _не стану_ (_won't become_), making the point that much stronger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19152" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7876" RevisionGUID="5e337695-6c1a-453b-a7e0-1bb0190c30cb" CreationDate="2015-01-09T00:28:35.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/553347568852566017" />
  <row Id="19153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7917" RevisionGUID="cc566bac-5e78-4bf6-aca9-f5b85329d6ae" CreationDate="2015-01-09T02:09:50.203" UserId="1671" Text="Подскажите, пожалуйста, насколько правильно это предложение. &#xD;&#xA;Тут и он, и она, и множественное число и в конце ещё надо поставить прилагательное в каком-то роде.&#xD;&#xA;Может быть, у вас есть идеи, как это можно перефразировать? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7917" RevisionGUID="cc566bac-5e78-4bf6-aca9-f5b85329d6ae" CreationDate="2015-01-09T02:09:50.203" UserId="1671" Text="Ни он ни она не хотели уходить первым?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7917" RevisionGUID="cc566bac-5e78-4bf6-aca9-f5b85329d6ae" CreationDate="2015-01-09T02:09:50.203" UserId="1671" Text="|род|множественное-число|согласование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7918" RevisionGUID="ea0f165c-d329-4d45-8911-f3ccfe603cd6" CreationDate="2015-01-09T06:10:35.790" UserId="4714" Text="As far as I know становится—стать aspectual pair (at it's heart) means &quot;to stand&quot;—and basically я не стану есть свою собоку means I won't (can't) stand to eat my dog. Or I will not stand to eat my dog. We use that phrase all the time in english, with various shades of emotion of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it seems to fit all the examples above. In my opinion if you know the base physical meaning of the verb all other meanings are just extensions of that meaning—зима стала холодно—means more (Winter stood cold) than it does became. I mean of course that's a terrible translation, but the physical meaning still kind of works  in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я не стану учиться на каникулах&quot; (I won't stand to study on the holidays)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just my views)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7919" RevisionGUID="7a21888c-9a53-438b-b4fd-55c2522a4bd1" CreationDate="2015-01-09T09:22:07.210" UserId="4833" Text="_«Ни он, ни она»_ обычно согласуется с множественным числом, поэтому сочетание с _«уходить первым»_ звучит неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если имеется ввиду, что ни один не хотел уходить раньше другого, то стоит перестроить фразу.&#xD;&#xA;Например, _«Ни он  не хотел уходить первым, ни она.»_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7920" RevisionGUID="9bc9634d-20b8-4f2f-81ea-61010f67d170" CreationDate="2015-01-09T11:17:05.340" UserId="1958" Text="Yes, it means vinyl (here it may just mean any records). See why they are пластинки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Апрелевский_завод_грампластинок&#xD;&#xA; - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Грампластинка&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7921" RevisionGUID="32e03311-8905-45c8-bc14-f21e9a557f6d" CreationDate="2015-01-09T14:11:57.007" UserId="4267" Text="You might be looking for something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://shop.redkalinka.com/en/9-books-with-audio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7922" RevisionGUID="e9585b8d-3934-453b-97bd-52b0a1db1528" CreationDate="2015-01-09T23:18:35.207" UserId="2306" Text="&gt; Бумаги пожелтелые, как деньги -- ещё целые, *зацапа**нн**ые*, *маза**н**ые*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крест-накрест *перевяза**нн**ые*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему *маза**н**ые* с одной **н**? Разве это слово не является здесь причастием? *Перевязанные* точно должно быть причастием, потому что есть наречие *крест-накрест* уточняющее его. *Зацапанные*, в любом случае, должно быть с двумя **н**, потому что оно имеет приставку *за*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7922" RevisionGUID="e9585b8d-3934-453b-97bd-52b0a1db1528" CreationDate="2015-01-09T23:18:35.207" UserId="2306" Text="Почему &quot;мазаный&quot; здесь с одной &quot;н&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7922" RevisionGUID="e9585b8d-3934-453b-97bd-52b0a1db1528" CreationDate="2015-01-09T23:18:35.207" UserId="2306" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7923" RevisionGUID="71e37c95-8f3b-4113-aa3b-0002fa921984" CreationDate="2015-01-10T14:27:56.980" UserId="4833" Text="Справочная служба русского языка, [#257524][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что касается слово кофе: указание на допустимость его употребления в разговорной речи как существительного среднего рода находим еще в словарях 1970-80-х гг. (см., например, Скворцов Л. И. Правильно ли мы говорим по-русски? М.: Знание, 1980). Поэтому говорить о том, что слово кофе теперь и среднего рода, некорректно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pda.gramota.ru/?page=93&amp;action=buro&amp;s=257524" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="2d11afd3-6264-418f-8fd7-9df7d2c8b697" CreationDate="2015-01-10T14:35:57.873" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Кать&quot;, &quot;мам&quot;, &quot;пап&quot;, etc. are colloquial form of the corresponding words.  Grammatically, such form does not exist.  Hence, &quot;Кать, приходи в гости&quot; is a spoken reduction of &quot;Катя&quot;.  Unlike in Ukrainian (endings &quot;-о&quot; or &quot;-у&quot;) or Georgian (ending &quot;-ო&quot;) languages, Russian does not have a special &quot;addressing&quot; grammatical form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly this is a way to shorten a phrase to express the thought quicker, without loss or change of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кать&quot;, &quot;мам&quot;, &quot;пап&quot; и т.д - это оборот разговорной речи. Грамматически, такой оборот не является правильноый формой.  То есть, &quot;Кать, приходи в гости&quot; - это именно сокращенный вариант от &quot;Катя&quot;. В отличии от, например, украинского (окончание &quot;-о&quot; или &quot;-у&quot; ) или грузинского (оконончание &quot;-ო&quot;) языков, в русском языке т.н. звательного падежа нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, таким образом укорачивается фраза, чтобы быстрее выразить мысль без потери или изменения смысла." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7924" RevisionGUID="bb8a0fb9-1231-46d4-99b9-ad32077d612c" CreationDate="2015-01-10T14:45:19.403" UserId="4833" Text="*Мазаный* - отглагольное прилагательное либо причастие без приставки, от глагола несовершенного вида (*мазать*), без зависимых слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/tbgramota/45_106:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...Но поскольку полные страдательные причастия иногда очень похожи на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательные, чтобы избежать ошибок, полезно помнить четыре условия,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при которых пишется две буквы Н:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1)	причастие имеет приставку ( кроме НЕ-), например, ВЫ-СУШЕННЫЕ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ГРИБЫ;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2)	причастие образовалось от глагола совершенного вида, например,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; РЕШЕННАЯ ЗАДАЧА - от глагола РЕШИТЬ (что сделать? – соверш. вид);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3)	причастие имеет зависимые слова, например, ВЫСУШЕННЫЕ (где?) В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПЕЧКЕ ГРИБЫ;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4)	Причастие образовано от глагола с помощью суффиксов –ОВА- или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ЕВА-, например, ВЗВОЛН-ОВА-ННОЕ ЛИЦО.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если слово не имеет ни одного из этих признаков, то оно пишется с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одним Н." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19166" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7922" RevisionGUID="c92f3a1a-67bf-4a0b-a88b-0bd38e12246e" CreationDate="2015-01-10T15:29:28.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/553936671310618624" />
  <row Id="19167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7925" RevisionGUID="df99c1a7-6a63-46c2-ac4b-4fb9f9e23234" CreationDate="2015-01-10T16:13:24.673" UserId="194" Text="Это зависит от ударения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намéриваться*, форма глагола *намерить* пишется через и, но имеет другой смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7913" RevisionGUID="352ae6a9-5c49-4063-b538-5a53434601a4" CreationDate="2015-01-10T17:37:14.517" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="1. Запятая перед *и это увеличивает* нужна: она разделяет части сложносочинённого предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Если текст задумывается как состоящий из трех предложений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то пунктуация должна быть такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы, и возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом возникает громоздкое сложносочинённое предложение, состоящее из трёх последовательных предложений, разделённых союзами «и».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Если текст задумывается как состоящий из двух предложений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то пунктуация должна быть такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «С одной стороны, она может означать, что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи, который был невозможен в те времена, -- и это увеличивает несчастье, которое копится, пока вся эта масса проблем не приведет к трагическому исходу».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь запятая перед *и возможно* не нужна. Хотя предложение *что у каждой семьи свои определенные проблемы и, возможно, что они неразрешимы без распада семьи* -- сложносочинённое, оно является подчинённым в более развернутом сложноподчинённом предложении. В этом случае простые предложения, составляющие такое сложносочинённое предложение, запятой не разделяются. А слово *возможно*, как вводное, должно быть выделено запятыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS Сочетание настоящего и прошедшего времени в одном предложении и нагромождение подчинений делают и без того негладкий синтаксис чрезвычайно неудобочитаемым. Если есть такая возможность, хорошо было бы разбить этот текст, по крайней мере, на три предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS Я бы посоветовал вам обратить специальное внимание на конструкцию ***возможно***, *неразрешимы без распада, который был* ***невозможен***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7926" RevisionGUID="5a425f4e-7e5d-4ed9-822d-0d71f6636124" CreationDate="2015-01-10T19:18:39.443" UserId="4028" Text="I hope someone would kindly answer the following questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this song, there are the words &quot;нижины (=низины)&quot; and &quot;ужины (=узины)&quot; that are not found in ordinary dictionaries.  Why is -жи- used instead of -зи-?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The last phrase is &quot;Каравай, каравай, кого хочешь выбирай.&quot;  I understand кого is a relative pronoun.  If so, &quot;который&quot; seems much more appropriate than &quot;кого&quot;.  Why is &quot;кого&quot; used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This song is used in the movie &quot;Чебурашка&quot;, where children sing the first phrase as &quot;А на Чебурашкины именины...&quot;  Is &quot;Чебурашкины&quot; an adjective of &quot;Чебурашка&quot;?  If so, why is the word-end form not adjective-like?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7926" RevisionGUID="5a425f4e-7e5d-4ed9-822d-0d71f6636124" CreationDate="2015-01-10T19:18:39.443" UserId="4028" Text="Questions about the Russian old children's song &quot;КАРАВАЙ&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7926" RevisionGUID="5a425f4e-7e5d-4ed9-822d-0d71f6636124" CreationDate="2015-01-10T19:18:39.443" UserId="4028" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|прилагательные|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7927" RevisionGUID="b877ee96-13b6-4421-941b-fbbbb9e08082" CreationDate="2015-01-10T19:53:24.883" UserId="4876" Text="I think we have two kinds of &quot;за&quot; in Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;One of them independent preposition, and one of them part of &quot;что_за&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful when determining word case by preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;За&quot; is not the only example of two prepositions that look same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My favourite example is preposition &quot;в&quot; which can be translated as &quot;inside&quot; or &quot;into&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Мяч лежит **в** коробк**е**    -- Prepositional case &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ball is inside box) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Мяч положили **в** коробк**у** -- Accusative_case &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([They] put ball into the box) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of &quot;что_за&quot; as one preposition (wich should be followed by nominative), not as &quot;что&quot; followed by &quot;за&quot;. Using this simple trick you can determine word case by preposition (in this case). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7929" RevisionGUID="63331824-7ecf-44f6-8ab3-1a61f16f87b3" CreationDate="2015-01-10T20:38:59.253" UserId="310" Text="1. It is perhaps an older non-standard forms, or forms better fit for this particular poetic piece. However, they are readily understandable by a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Child songs often contain some weird-ish words. I assume they kind of help children to learn the norm by highlighting the issue. Same way in Lewis Carroll's Alice, &quot;curiouser and curiouser&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Который (какой) applies to inanimate beings, кто applies to animate things.&#xD;&#xA;Obviously you are expected to choose a person (not a каравай as you might expect), not an object. Otherwise it would be &quot;какой хочешь выбирай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Чебурашкины is Cheburashka's in English. Cheburashka's birthday (именины might also mean patron saint day, but this won't apply to Cheburashka I dearly hope)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7930" RevisionGUID="4df22fec-fd77-4452-a5fb-da8d6999795e" CreationDate="2015-01-10T20:39:47.430" UserId="4267" Text="I can answer questions 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `кто` can be used as a relative pronoun, just like `который`. Obviously, it is only used for animate antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The suffix `~ин` is a _possessive_ suffix in modern Russian (only attaches to &quot;feminine&quot; nouns, i.e. nominative ending in `~а` or `~я`). These possessives decline very much like `наш` and `ваш`, so the nominative and fem. accusative have noun-like endings, and the rest have adjective-like endings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7931" RevisionGUID="7b24fdc1-8e32-4479-9886-738ec9383a4c" CreationDate="2015-01-10T20:42:58.233" UserId="4876" Text="Don't say &quot;Дай свой голос&quot; - it is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;literal translation of &quot;come and vote&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Приди и проголосуй!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Приходите и голосуйте!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we can say &quot;Отдай свой голос!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Seems incorrect to me.&#xD;&#xA;But we can say &quot;Отдай свой голос **за** something&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отдай свой голос **за** партию Чебурашки !&quot; &#xD;&#xA;(Vote for Cheburashka's political party)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7932" RevisionGUID="1ab64f40-6314-4510-9e12-e64b5f8f7b01" CreationDate="2015-01-10T21:12:19.450" UserId="2079" Text=" 1. For comic effect, the song authors use &quot;childish&quot; words, that is create new words as if a child wrote the song.  They create the word &quot;вышина&quot; (highness) instead of высота akin to глубина and ширина. Then they create non-existing words &quot;нижина&quot; (lowness) and &quot;ужина&quot; (narrowness).  The words низина (low place) and узина (narrow place) (the stress in both is at the second syllable) are completely unrelated to the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Кого хочешь выбирай = select who(ever) you want, literally who you want select (they changed the order of words in order to keep a meter, which is common in Russian).  Who = кто in nominative, but here we need accusative, which is кого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cheburashka = Чебурашка.  Cheburashka's = Чебурашкин (for names which end by -a, the suffix ин is used: Natashka's = Наташкин, Alyoshka's = Алёшкин, Vasya's = Васин.) But the word именины is in plural (it is one of the nouns which have no singular. In English there are also such nouns, i. e. skissors), therefor we need plural of Чебурашкин, which is Чебурашкины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, if a noun or adjective ends by -ы, it always means it is in plural.  (The opposite is not true.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7932" RevisionGUID="6015af13-b59c-4f0c-977b-ad9c690a83dc" CreationDate="2015-01-10T22:54:51.770" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text=" 1. For comic effect, the song authors use &quot;childish&quot; words, that is create new words as if a child wrote the song.  They create the word &quot;вышина&quot; (highness) instead of высота akin to глубина and ширина. Then they create non-existing words &quot;нижина&quot; (lowness) and &quot;ужина&quot; (narrowness).  The words низина (low place) and узина (narrow place) (the stress in both is at the second syllable) are completely unrelated to the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Кого хочешь выбирай = select who(ever) you want, literally who you want select (they changed the order of words in order to keep a meter, which is common in Russian).  Who = кто in nominative, but here we need accusative, which is кого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cheburashka = Чебурашка.  Cheburashka's = Чебурашкин (for names which end by -a, the suffix ин is used: Natashka's = Наташкин, Alyoshka's = Алёшкин, Vasya's = Васин.) Since the word именины is in plural (it is one of the nouns which have no singular. In English there are also such nouns, i. e. skissors), we need plural of Чебурашкин, which is Чебурашкины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, if a noun or adjective ends by -ы, it always means it is in plural.  (The opposite is not true.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7932" RevisionGUID="546e10e1-2137-4602-8f72-f31b15885485" CreationDate="2015-01-11T03:50:23.447" UserId="2269" Comment="Try to use use stress marks instead of (or in addition to) describing stress verbally." Text=" 1. For comic effect, the song authors use “childish” words, that is create new words as if a child wrote the song.  They create the word _вышина́_ (highness) instead of _высота́_ akin to _глубина́_ and _ширина́_. Then they create non-existing words _нижина́_ (lowness) and _ужина́_ (narrowness).  The words _низи́на_ (low place) and _узи́на_ (narrow place) (the stress in both is at the second syllable) are completely unrelated to the song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. _Кого хочешь выбирай_ = select who(ever) you want, literally who you want select (they changed the order of words in order to keep a meter, which is common in Russian).  Who = _кто_ in nominative, but here we need accusative, which is _кого_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cheburashka = _Чебурашка_.  Cheburashka's = _Чебурашкин_ (for names which end by -a, the suffix _ин_ is used: Natashka's = _Наташкин_, Alyoshka's = _Алёшкин_, Vasya's = _Васин_.) Since the word _именины_ is in plural (it is one of the nouns which have no singular. In English there are also such nouns, i. e. skissors), we need plural of _Чебурашкин_, which is _Чебурашкины_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, if a noun or adjective ends by _-ы_, it always means it is in plural.  (The opposite is not true.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7934" RevisionGUID="8a5b46be-ef2f-47d6-8273-037503126a96" CreationDate="2015-01-11T06:51:03.043" UserId="4702" Text="From a song &quot;Уходи, дверь закрой&quot; by Евгения Отрадная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уходи и дверь закрой, &#xD;&#xA;У меня теперь другой, &#xD;&#xA;Мне не нужен больше твой &#xD;&#xA;номер в книжке записной,&#xD;&#xA;Натерпелась, наждалась,   &lt;--------- What's this?&#xD;&#xA;Я любовью обожглась, &#xD;&#xA;Но теперь я наконец-то &#xD;&#xA;Будто снова родилась!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please tell me what наждалась means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7934" RevisionGUID="8a5b46be-ef2f-47d6-8273-037503126a96" CreationDate="2015-01-11T06:51:03.043" UserId="4702" Text="What is наждалась?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7934" RevisionGUID="8a5b46be-ef2f-47d6-8273-037503126a96" CreationDate="2015-01-11T06:51:03.043" UserId="4702" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7935" RevisionGUID="1f3c5fae-d8ed-4a20-915a-e999bd1dbbaf" CreationDate="2015-01-11T06:59:59.363" UserId="4560" Text="*на*+verb+*ся* is a circumfix (I don't know how technically correct it is to call it that but the two elements work as a whole) that means &quot;to have had enough of [doing something]&quot;. It's probably an extrapolation from *наесться* and *напиться*, and it's productive, meaning that new words formed this way will sound natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *наждалась* means &quot;[I'm] done waiting.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7920" RevisionGUID="00ab1055-c446-494a-9a70-bc4e20d60315" CreationDate="2015-01-11T11:13:53.037" UserId="81" Comment="Fixed cyrillic links" Text="Yes, it means vinyl (here it may just mean any records). See why they are пластинки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Апрелевский_завод_грампластинок][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Грампластинка][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19188" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7920" RevisionGUID="00ab1055-c446-494a-9a70-bc4e20d60315" CreationDate="2015-01-11T11:13:53.037" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by 4560, 3680 edit id of 579" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7936" RevisionGUID="9b8e25c5-6ccf-42eb-adc1-7ee4d42964b8" CreationDate="2015-01-11T11:32:28.517" UserId="5" Text="A no brainer is something so clear and obvious that it takes little to no thinking to make a decision, it is definetely not worth the effort to be thinking harder about. How do I say it in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples: http://www.google.com/search?q=&quot;was+a+no+brainer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7936" RevisionGUID="9b8e25c5-6ccf-42eb-adc1-7ee4d42964b8" CreationDate="2015-01-11T11:32:28.517" UserId="5" Text="How do I say no brainer in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7936" RevisionGUID="9b8e25c5-6ccf-42eb-adc1-7ee4d42964b8" CreationDate="2015-01-11T11:32:28.517" UserId="5" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7937" RevisionGUID="d7b06262-2885-4a5e-bacb-99c3e399cfa4" CreationDate="2015-01-11T11:41:49.323" UserId="3680" Text="In Russian it could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Slang: `Ежу понятно` (`Коню понятно` etc).&#xD;&#xA; * `Проще простого`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7934" RevisionGUID="1437bfca-6e63-42a6-aae2-3bf0a4132ff5" CreationDate="2015-01-11T14:24:25.280" UserId="97" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="From a song &quot;Уходи, дверь закрой&quot; by Евгения Отрадная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уходи и дверь закрой,  &#xD;&#xA;У меня теперь другой,  &#xD;&#xA;Мне не нужен больше твой  &#xD;&#xA;номер в книжке записной,  &#xD;&#xA;Натерпелась, наждалась, &lt;--------- _What's this?_  &#xD;&#xA;Я любовью обожглась,  &#xD;&#xA;Но теперь я наконец-то  &#xD;&#xA;Будто снова родилась!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please tell me what наждалась means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7938" RevisionGUID="e2e8657f-0bc8-47a9-8132-50ec54d76fd2" CreationDate="2015-01-11T16:22:04.153" UserId="4884" Text="I agree with Avi Gordon. I usually explain to my students that single direction verbs are, to some degree, similar to Continuous tenses in English (something happening right away) and the so called multidirectional verbs (I don't like this term either) are for regular, recurrent actions, i.e. Indefinite tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there are some situations, like Avi Gordon said, when the motion is occurring in multiple directions. In this situations, the only option is using multidirectional verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Белка бежит по двору. A squirrel is running on my back yard (a squirrel is crossing my backyard).&#xD;&#xA;Белка бегает по двору. A squirrel is running on my back yard (back and forth, making cycles, etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, single directional verbs are for motions that are happening now and, in the absence of a better term, targeted (pointed). And multidirectional verbs are for prolonged actions where there could be more than one target or no point/ purpose/ target at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7939" RevisionGUID="bbfa76a3-db0b-4714-ae36-3fce1471790d" CreationDate="2015-01-11T16:42:09.040" UserId="3892" Text="The idiomatic equivalent of this in English is &quot;started to&quot; or &quot;was starting to:&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It's a good thing he turned up - I was starting to think they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kidnapped him too.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7936" RevisionGUID="c05342f3-e512-4469-bccb-c0334c796bf3" CreationDate="2015-01-11T19:57:25.900" UserId="4839" Comment="Fixed URL formatting by moving it behind the phrase (wasn't clickable before)." Text="A [&quot;no brainer&quot;][1] is something so clear and obvious that it takes little to no thinking to make a decision, it is definetely not worth the effort to be thinking harder about. How do I say it in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22was%20a%20no%20brainer%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19198" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7936" RevisionGUID="c05342f3-e512-4469-bccb-c0334c796bf3" CreationDate="2015-01-11T19:57:25.900" Comment="Proposed by 4839 approved by 2079, 1236 edit id of 580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7940" RevisionGUID="1a60b913-638e-429f-97f2-914379d7dcba" CreationDate="2015-01-11T20:13:40.730" UserId="4884" Text="Ежу понятно - it is correct, and colloquial.  &#xD;&#xA;Other options: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- не бином Ньютона (maybe slightly bookish)&#xD;&#xA;- не требует большого ума (stylistically neutral)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7941" RevisionGUID="94dce369-4bb6-42d7-ac3f-45894f780a97" CreationDate="2015-01-11T20:44:13.697" UserId="4886" Text="I would like to know the difference in the usage of the two words that translate &quot;famous&quot;: известный and знаменитый. Can I use them interchangeably both for famous people and famous things (museums, cities, book, quotations...). For example, if I need to translate &quot;Michelangelo was a famous sculptor&quot; I'd better choose the first, the second, or it doesn't matter? I need this info as regards a written text, not an oral context.. &#xD;&#xA;thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7941" RevisionGUID="94dce369-4bb6-42d7-ac3f-45894f780a97" CreationDate="2015-01-11T20:44:13.697" UserId="4886" Text="Difference between известный and знаменитый?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7941" RevisionGUID="94dce369-4bb6-42d7-ac3f-45894f780a97" CreationDate="2015-01-11T20:44:13.697" UserId="4886" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7942" RevisionGUID="654378f7-fdd9-4782-8ebf-ae442efa9ddb" CreationDate="2015-01-11T20:56:39.710" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Знаменитый&quot; has a greater degree of fame than &quot;известный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Знаменитый&quot; is &quot;famous, celebrated, illustrious, outstanding, superlative&quot;, &quot;известный&quot; is &quot;well-known, known&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знаменитый артист – famous actor, celebrated actor&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знаменитая книга учёного ­- famous book of the scientist&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нижний Новгород знаменит своей промышленной ярмаркой ­- Nizhny Novgorod is famous for its fair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известный художник — well-known painter&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известный учёный — noted scientist&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известный чем-либо — noted for something&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он известен своей честностью — he is known for his honesty; he has a name for honesty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Michelangelo, he was definitely &quot;знаменитый скульптор&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7943" RevisionGUID="3108fb19-6209-4824-948c-81b152016fb4" CreationDate="2015-01-11T22:06:27.773" UserId="1277" Text="You could also say «Ясен пень!» but the more appropriate phrase of all listed in the answers depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    − Смотри не пожодги газовый баллон.&#xD;&#xA;    − Ясен пень — взорвется ведь!&#xD;&#xA;    − Взорвется, это и ежу понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7944" RevisionGUID="ea33730e-9692-4749-89dd-a8f067b46e24" CreationDate="2015-01-12T00:26:32.243" UserId="4887" Text="I thought that всё referred to inanimate/abstract concepts - like in всё равно or это всё - and все was used with animate - like все студенты. But I've seen the two used in virtually the same contexts recently, and I'm confused as to the difference between them. Is все just an alternate spelling of всё for keyboards without the ё diacritic? Is there a semantic or syntactical difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7944" RevisionGUID="ea33730e-9692-4749-89dd-a8f067b46e24" CreationDate="2015-01-12T00:26:32.243" UserId="4887" Text="What is the difference between всё and все?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7944" RevisionGUID="ea33730e-9692-4749-89dd-a8f067b46e24" CreationDate="2015-01-12T00:26:32.243" UserId="4887" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7945" RevisionGUID="03bafe43-73c8-4772-80b4-1f10bffefc3d" CreationDate="2015-01-12T01:21:12.480" UserId="2148" Text="`всё` can be spelled `все`, when it's possible to distinguish two words using available context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всё` (with `Ё`) is used when referring to uncountable nouns with neutral grammatical gender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё время` (compare masculine `весь путь` and feminine `всю дорогу`)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё молоко` (compare feminine `вся вода` and masculine `весь сироп`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`все` (with `Е`) is used when referring to countable nouns: `все студенты`, `все яблоки`, `все кирпичи`, `все тарелки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some idioms, like one you mentioned — `всё равно`,&#xD;&#xA;and  unchangeable expressions, like [`всё-таки`][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Substituting Ё with Е.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*jwalker posted a link to [this question about `Ё` and `Е`][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` can be substituted for `Е` in most words. It is not a rule but [`Ё` is not used very often][1] in printed texts. Usually, it's possible to distinguish when `Е` means `Ё` from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's highly recommended to use `Ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when needed to distinguish from the similar word with `Е`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `узнаем` (future tense) and `узнаём` (present tense)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `совершённый` (participle from verb `совершить`) and `совершенный` (adjective, meaning perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In dictionaries, textbook for language learners&#xD;&#xA;* In little-known and obscure words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic)#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7945" RevisionGUID="6a5743db-d14e-453a-97bf-ed7b230d7152" CreationDate="2015-01-12T01:30:20.313" UserId="2148" Comment="сироп is actually countable" Text="`всё` can be spelled `все`, when it's possible to distinguish two words using available context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всё` (with `Ё`) is used when referring to uncountable nouns with neutral grammatical gender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё время` (compare masculine `весь путь` and feminine `всю дорогу`)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё молоко` (compare feminine `вся вода`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`все` (with `Е`) is used when referring to countable nouns: `все студенты`, `все яблоки`, `все кирпичи`, `все тарелки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some idioms, like one you mentioned — `всё равно`,&#xD;&#xA;and  unchangeable expressions, like [`всё-таки`][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Substituting Ё with Е.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*jwalker posted a link to [this question about `Ё` and `Е`][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` can be substituted for `Е` in most words. It is not a rule but [`Ё` is not used very often][1] in printed texts. Usually, it's possible to distinguish when `Е` means `Ё` from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's highly recommended to use `Ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when needed to distinguish from the similar word with `Е`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `узнаем` (future tense) and `узнаём` (present tense)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `совершённый` (participle from verb `совершить`) and `совершенный` (adjective, meaning perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In dictionaries, textbook for language learners&#xD;&#xA;* In little-known and obscure words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic)#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7945" RevisionGUID="8dbd510e-f29c-48db-9064-97ba910cad33" CreationDate="2015-01-12T02:03:24.023" UserId="2148" Comment="update from comments made by Yellow Sky" Text="`всё` can be spelled `все`, when it's possible to distinguish two words using available context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всё` (with `Ё`) is used when referring to neuter gender singular nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё время` (compare masculine `весь путь` and feminine `всю дорогу`), `забрызгал всё окно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё молоко` (compare feminine `вся вода`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`все` (with `Е`) is used when referring to plural nouns: `все студенты`, `все яблоки`, `все кирпичи`, `все тарелки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some idioms, like one you mentioned — `всё равно`,&#xD;&#xA;and  unchangeable expressions, like [`всё-таки`][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Substituting Ё with Е.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*jwalker posted a link to [this question about `Ё` and `Е`][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` can be substituted for `Е` in most words. It is not a rule but [`Ё` is not used very often][1] in printed texts. Usually, it's possible to distinguish when `Е` means `Ё` from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's highly recommended to use `Ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when needed to distinguish from the similar word with `Е`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `узнаем` (future tense) and `узнаём` (present tense)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `совершённый` (participle from verb `совершить`) and `совершенный` (adjective, meaning perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In dictionaries, textbook for language learners&#xD;&#xA;* In little-known and obscure words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic)#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7946" RevisionGUID="ffac9b78-520b-4578-a7b7-63b55459461e" CreationDate="2015-01-12T02:34:21.363" UserId="3566" Text=" &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Даже ребёнку понятно.*&#xD;&#xA; - *И дураку понятно.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7947" RevisionGUID="96457d51-e529-4d4a-805e-15208c8549cc" CreationDate="2015-01-12T06:34:45.527" UserId="4890" Text="Depends on the degree of the familiarity with the interlocutor. Clearly, ты or Вы.&#xD;&#xA;A version for a small talk between friends: &quot;А ну-ка, Ирина, ответь мне по-быстрому&quot; (coll.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7948" RevisionGUID="146566e1-91cb-4290-ade0-df7e1af160b2" CreationDate="2015-01-12T08:00:19.517" UserId="4833" Text="When you refer to the situation of an obvious decision (rather than an a reason or  explanation), a closer translation of &quot;no-brainer&quot; would be like «нечего раздумывать», «тут и думать было нечего» or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Ежу понятно» and other suggested variants can refer to any uncomplicated matter, even when &quot;no-brainer&quot; is hardly applicable («Спасибо, что объяснил. Теперь-то это и ежу понятно!»)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7929" RevisionGUID="ec2abe18-839a-4fc9-8723-ea589c2c9124" CreationDate="2015-01-12T08:09:08.033" UserId="310" Comment="added 468 characters in body" Text="1. It is perhaps an older non-standard forms, or forms better fit for this particular poetic piece. However, they are readily understandable by a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Child songs often contain some weird-ish words. I assume they kind of help children to learn the norm by highlighting the issue. Same way in Lewis Carroll's Alice, &quot;curiouser and curiouser&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Который хочешь выбирай&quot; does not sound right - slightly off-norm. &quot;Какой хочешь выбирай&quot; would mean you are choosing an inanimate thing. &quot;Какого хочешь выбирай&quot; means that you are choosing something animate (a person perhaps or an animal) but you are choosing based on their properties. &quot;Кого хочешь выбирай&quot; means you are choosing a person, and you are choosing exactly this person that you [now] know. And that's what the song seems to imply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old answer: &lt;s&gt;Который (какой) applies to inanimate beings, кто applies to animate things.&#xD;&#xA;Obviously you are expected to choose a person (not a каравай as you might expect), not an object. Otherwise it would be &quot;какой хочешь выбирай&quot;.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Чебурашкины is Cheburashka's in English. Cheburashka's birthday (именины might also mean patron saint day, but this won't apply to Cheburashka I dearly hope)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7949" RevisionGUID="b5769e1e-4bf2-4fb4-849c-bb1edfddeff3" CreationDate="2015-01-12T10:05:59.503" UserId="4886" Text="Why is the verb in the first sentence neuter? Is it because the &quot;number&quot; of children is considered a neuter word? Are there other cases when I need to use a neuter verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about the second one...would it be wrong to write &quot;У них родилось два ребёнка?&quot; insted of  &quot;двое&quot;? And why is детей in genititve plural and not in genitive singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7949" RevisionGUID="b5769e1e-4bf2-4fb4-849c-bb1edfddeff3" CreationDate="2015-01-12T10:05:59.503" UserId="4886" Text="&quot;У них родилось десять детей&quot; and &quot;У них родилось двое детей&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7949" RevisionGUID="b5769e1e-4bf2-4fb4-849c-bb1edfddeff3" CreationDate="2015-01-12T10:05:59.503" UserId="4886" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7950" RevisionGUID="ccd6ded0-3812-4765-8003-ecd45031abb7" CreationDate="2015-01-12T10:57:29.910" UserId="4886" Text="What I don't understand in this sentence &#xD;&#xA;Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми&#xD;&#xA;are two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - why the word &quot;children&quot; is in the instrumental case and not in genitve, as it normally is when preceded by a numeral?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - why is even the word  дети used, and not ребёнок in the genitive singular as would  expect after the numeral &quot;four&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian numerals make me crazy! Thank you in advance to anyone who will solve my problem!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7950" RevisionGUID="ccd6ded0-3812-4765-8003-ecd45031abb7" CreationDate="2015-01-12T10:57:29.910" UserId="4886" Text="numerals! Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7950" RevisionGUID="ccd6ded0-3812-4765-8003-ecd45031abb7" CreationDate="2015-01-12T10:57:29.910" UserId="4886" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19221" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7950" RevisionGUID="20581d3e-c70d-4ac0-b6dd-925192922447" CreationDate="2015-01-12T11:17:22.747" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7951" RevisionGUID="d31127be-1ac8-47ea-8141-2da14f29561a" CreationDate="2015-01-12T11:32:52.613" UserId="334" Text="The sentence may be loosely translated as &quot;They have xxx children&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with numerals, it is so known &quot;Безличное предложение&quot; (impersonal sentence). There is no explicit subject in the sentence. Such sentences imply that what happened, happened without consent of the objects mentioned in the sentence. For example &quot;Я не спал&quot; implies &quot;I didn't sleep because I choose so&quot; while &quot;Мне не спалось&quot; means &quot;I didn't sleep because I could not.&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal sentences must not be confused with 'truncated' sentences, when either the subject or the verb is omitted because obviously derivable in context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal sentences may be very loosely paralleled with &quot;there is/are&quot; construct: where is that there? Same here, there is no &quot;who&quot; or &quot;what&quot; that &quot;родилось&quot; in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is a case when difference in one symbol radically changes the way the sentence must be parsed (though, luckily, in this case the meaning does not differ much).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7952" RevisionGUID="8912c614-f9aa-407b-b5c7-2495e8dec60b" CreationDate="2015-01-12T11:46:01.810" UserId="310" Text="First of all, you can omit the numeral and write &quot;Мы с нашими детьми&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;or &quot;Мы с нашими двумя(двоими?),тремя,десятью детьми&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what the form &quot;двое&quot;, &quot;четверо&quot; exist for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, you can try formulating the question to determine which case is needed (and singular/plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы со сколькими нашими детьми? Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7951" RevisionGUID="d85c36bf-49a8-4628-a631-2b75b9e761a2" CreationDate="2015-01-12T11:49:15.130" UserId="334" Comment="added 828 characters in body" Text="The sentence may be loosely translated as &quot;They have xxx children&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do with numerals, it is so known &quot;Безличное предложение&quot; (impersonal sentence). There is no explicit subject in the sentence. Such sentences imply that what happened, happened without consent of the objects mentioned in the sentence. For example &quot;Я не спал&quot; implies &quot;I didn't sleep because I choose so&quot; while &quot;Мне не спалось&quot; means &quot;I didn't sleep because I could not.&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal sentences must not be confused with 'truncated' sentences, when either the subject or the verb is omitted because obviously derivable in context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal sentences may be very loosely paralleled with &quot;there is/are&quot; construct: where is that there? Same here, there is no &quot;who&quot; or &quot;what&quot; that &quot;родилось&quot; in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is a case when difference in one symbol radically changes the way the sentence must be parsed (though, luckily, in this case the meaning does not differ much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second part &#xD;&#xA;&gt;What about the second one...would it be wrong to write &quot;У них родилось два &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ребёнка?&quot; insted of &quot;двое&quot;? And why is детей in genititve plural and not in &#xD;&#xA;&gt;genitive singular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some freedom here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proper plural form of &quot;ребенок&quot; is &quot;дети&quot; (very much like forms of &quot;to be&quot; in English),so it is possible for uniformity use &quot;двое детей&quot; instead, yet it is possible to use &quot;ребенка&quot; for numerals below five . A bit more consistent example would be &quot;гусь&quot;. One can say &quot;Один гусь, два гуся, три гуся, четыре гуся, пять гусей, шесть гусей, .... двадцать гусей&quot;, but also &quot;Один гусь, двое гусей, трое гусей, четверо гусей, пять гусей, шесть гусей, .... двадцать гусей&quot; (for non-round numbers above 20 the inflection is selected on basis of the last word in the combined numberal)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19225" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7926" RevisionGUID="62ed18ab-60cd-49dc-9d49-3fc7df7a2fb2" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:47:28.330" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Questions about the Russian old children's song &quot;Каравай&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7953" RevisionGUID="20cb9e0a-adbe-4c31-b608-f25e7854c0ab" CreationDate="2015-01-12T14:51:12.637" UserId="2060" Text="What you expected is perfectly correct with *и* preposition: `мы и четыре наших ребенка`. However, normally you would use *с* preposition (&quot;with&quot;, not &quot;and&quot;) that requires instrumental." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7954" RevisionGUID="6658def7-dff0-41b8-855e-af2794f20505" CreationDate="2015-01-12T15:34:39.877" UserId="4629" Text="2. &quot;Каравай&quot; is a circle dance. &quot;Каравай-каравай&quot; sang towards the end of the song is a mere refrain. You could put a full stop after that line. The final line &quot;Кого хочешь (любишь), выбирай!&quot; is the call for the birthday boy (girl) in the center of the circle to point at anyone in the circle as their favorite person and has nothing to do with the previous line. Why should it say anything else but &quot;кого&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7955" RevisionGUID="a409e979-211b-4054-ba5c-cace6683843d" CreationDate="2015-01-12T16:40:06.837" UserId="2388" Text="See, when your subject is &quot;some number of X&quot;, choosing between the singular and the plural is complicated. On one hand &quot;A lot of&quot;, &quot;The majority&quot; etc. are singular, on the other—it obviously means many people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remembder, for numbers you've got **no** formal hint, since a number, like &quot;one&quot;, &quot;a hundred&quot;, &quot;ten&quot; is neither singular nor plural.&#xD;&#xA;- still, it's more common to use **singular** if you express the idea of an action being performed &quot;passively&quot; by the things you count, &quot;without their control&quot;, as a whole group rather than individually: «В автомобильной аварии погибло десять человек», «На лекцию пришло сто–сто пятьдесят студентов».&#xD;&#xA; - singular &quot;было N объектов&quot; (there were N objects) also has a shade of just reporting the situation, like &quot;There were 4 couches and 10 chairs&quot;~«Там было 4 дивана и 10 стульев». Another example: &quot;На диване лежало две рубашки&quot;. Plural would seem less natural here, especially awkward with objects.&#xD;&#xA;- if you have smth like &quot;these two children&quot;, &quot;All these ten women&quot; etc., use plural: &quot;Эти пять детей точно знают ответ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- Words like &quot;пара&quot;(a couple), &quot;тройка&quot; (three), &quot;куча&quot; (~a great lot) and similar words typically use singular&#xD;&#xA;- *много, мало, столько/сколько, немало* (also mostly &quot;несколько&quot;) use singular. In informal speech and writing people occasionally fall back to plural when it feels more &quot;right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since children have little control on their birth, it is much more natural to desribe it as an event than happened &quot;to them&quot; : &quot;У нас было два ребёнка&quot;, &quot;У них родилось трое детей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I believe your Genitive plural question about «два ребёнка»-«двое детей» is more about* ***collective numerals*** *than anything else. And collective «двое», «трое», «четверо», «пятеро», «шестеро», «семеро» use plural, not singular.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I feel that with children, «дети» sounds a bit more colloquial in this borderline sentence about children being born. That is not to say that «У них родилось два ребёнка» is wrong anyhow. Just sounds a bit formal and detached to my ear. Anyway, since &quot;дети&quot; is already plural, you either use a collective number for 2 or must switch to singular &quot;ребёнок&quot;→&quot;2 ребёнка&quot;.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7956" RevisionGUID="2a9d4c9c-eddc-4d97-824b-b97cebc9bb0e" CreationDate="2015-01-12T17:29:01.370" UserId="4884" Text="Let's start with the second language: There are numbers - два, три, четыре, and the so called collective words: двое, трое, четверо. &#xD;&#xA;The rules you learned (2-4 take Genitive Singular, 5 + take Genitive plural) are for numbers. Collective numeric words are different, they normally take Genitive plural: двое детей, трое детей, шестеро детей. So, it explains Plural. Please note that collective numeric words decline and usually act like adjectives (though some forms look different, because they preserve archaic endings), so the syntax here is different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about the Instrumental case: the preposition c takes Instrumental. Since четверо is technically not a number, but a numeric adjective, the word  'children', дети, should agree with the preposition, and the numeric adjective should agree with the noun:  c четырьмя детьми. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it wasn't too confusing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7957" RevisionGUID="bad74b3a-7356-4884-a67c-a8f90bc43339" CreationDate="2015-01-12T17:29:23.657" UserId="2388" Text="I must say, the example is weird. I guess it is OK to learn grammar but not something a ntive speaker would really say (at least, that would be a really rare occasion). Look at the end of the post if you want an explanation for your particular expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Один&#xD;&#xA;Look. If your number ends in &quot;один&quot;, they are used is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - noun in singular&#xD;&#xA; - case is whatever reqired by the role in the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Два/три/четыре ↔ пять, шесть... двадцать, сто..&#xD;&#xA;If your number ends in words for *2/3/4* or *5 and bigger*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For **Nominative-looking** forms &#xD;&#xA; - 2-3-4 use Genitive singular&#xD;&#xA; - 5 and more us Genitive plural&#xD;&#xA;- For other, **Oblique** forms&#xD;&#xA; - both use plural forms&#xD;&#xA; - the case is whatever required by the role in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;- awkward for animate Accusative with compound numbers like 23, 24, 44, 22, 1003, 135 and so on&#xD;&#xA; - both &quot;Научил плавать двадцать три ребёнка&quot; and &quot;Научил плавать двадцати трёх детей&quot; are possible, first being more universally accepted. &#xD;&#xA; - Both sound unnatural to my ear. &#xD;&#xA; - So in a real-life situation it's best you think your way around this complication. Like &quot;more than 20 children&quot; or &quot;Taught a lot of kids to swim. There were 23 of them, if I remember correctly&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - after all, I believe these inconsistencies exist for this exact reason: in the past, no sane person would use large precise numbers in speech. So there used to be little demand for constructions like &quot;invited 453 women&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By *Nominative-looking* I mean either Nominative or inanimate Accusative. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real Nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Тут два стола&#xD;&#xA;- Там три женщины&#xD;&#xA;- Там пять столов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу два стола&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу двух женщин/двух мужчин/двух детей&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу две реки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, oblique forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NOM: У меня два одеяла (одеяло = blanket)&#xD;&#xA; - INSTR: Я под двумя одеялами&#xD;&#xA; - INSTR: Я под пятью одеялами&#xD;&#xA; - DAT: Добавь к трём одеялам ещё одно.&#xD;&#xA; - PREP: Книга о трёх/пяти/десяти одеялах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers like тысяча, сотня, миллион, миллиард when they are singular act as nouns themselves. The real &quot;thing&quot; becomes its subordinate, not the other way round (eg. *Я под тысячей одеял*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;тысяча&quot; a rare variant form exists (*Я под тысячью одеялами*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;четыре&quot; belongs to 2-3-4 group&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;с&quot; in the meaning &quot;with&quot; requires Instrumental&#xD;&#xA; - thus you use plural of this case&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental plural of &quot;дети&quot; is &quot;детьми&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's imagine you want to say &quot;I see 4 children&quot;:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;четыре&quot; belongs to 2-3-4 group&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;дети&quot; is animate, so Accusative looks like Genitive rather than Nominative&#xD;&#xA; - use plural of the case required here (Accusative that looks the same as Genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я вижу четырёх детей&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7956" RevisionGUID="0a78a4d5-c079-40cf-bbfa-3ca63542b470" CreationDate="2015-01-12T18:46:09.903" UserId="4629" Comment="Added formating of examples" Text="Let's start with your second question: There are numbers - *два, три, четыре*, and there are so called collective words: *двое, трое, четверо*. &#xD;&#xA;The rules you learned (2-4 take Genitive Singular, 5+ take Genitive plural) are for numbers. Collective numeric words are different, they normally take Genitive plural: *двое детей, трое детей, шестеро детей*. So, that explains the Plural. Please note that collective numeric words decline and usually act like adjectives (though some forms look different, because they preserve archaic endings), so the syntax here is different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about the Instrumental case: the preposition ***c*** takes Instrumental. Since *четверо* is technically not a number, but a numeric adjective, the word  *children*, дети, should agree with the preposition, and the numeric adjective should agree with the noun:  *c четырьмя детьми*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it wasn't too confusing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19232" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7956" RevisionGUID="0a78a4d5-c079-40cf-bbfa-3ca63542b470" CreationDate="2015-01-12T18:46:09.903" Comment="Proposed by 4629 approved by -1 edit id of 582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7956" RevisionGUID="4070fc30-61d5-48a1-a3a3-229aa4a4eb3f" CreationDate="2015-01-12T18:46:09.903" UserId="4560" Comment="Added formating of examples" Text="Let's start with your second question: There are numbers - *два, три, четыре*, and there are so called collective words: *двое, трое, четверо*. &#xD;&#xA;The rules you learned (2-4 take Genitive Singular, 5+ take Genitive plural) are for numbers. Collective numeric words are different, they normally take Genitive plural: *двое детей, трое детей, шестеро детей*. So, that explains the Plural. Please note that collective numeric words decline and usually act like adjectives (though some forms look different, because they've preserved their archaic endings), so the syntax here is different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about the Instrumental case: the preposition ***c*** takes Instrumental. Since *четверо* is technically not a number, but a numeric adjective, the word for children, *дети*, should agree with the preposition, and the numeric adjective should agree with the noun:  *c четырьмя детьми*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it wasn't too confusing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7957" RevisionGUID="d2bfcac5-caaa-4603-840e-47e0c94cd1c9" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:07:14.767" UserId="2388" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I must say, the example is weird. I guess it is OK to learn grammar but not something a native speaker would really say (at least, that would be a really rare occasion). Look at the end of the post if you want an explanation for your particular expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Один&#xD;&#xA;Look. If your number ends in &quot;один&quot;, they are used is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - noun in singular&#xD;&#xA; - case is whatever reqired by the role in the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Два/три/четыре ↔ пять, шесть... двадцать, сто..&#xD;&#xA;If your number ends in words for *2/3/4* or *5 and bigger*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For **Nominative-looking** forms &#xD;&#xA; - 2-3-4 use Genitive singular&#xD;&#xA; - 5 and more use Genitive plural&#xD;&#xA;- For other, **Oblique** forms&#xD;&#xA; - both use plural forms&#xD;&#xA; - the case is whatever required by the role in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;- awkward for animate Accusative with compound numbers like 23, 24, 44, 22, 1003, 133 and so on&#xD;&#xA; - both &quot;Научил плавать двадцать три ребёнка&quot; and &quot;Научил плавать двадцати трёх детей&quot; are possible, first being more universally accepted. &#xD;&#xA; - Both sound unnatural to my ear. &#xD;&#xA; - So in a real-life situation it's best you think your way around this complication. Like &quot;more than 20 children&quot; or &quot;Taught a lot of kids to swim. There were 23 of them, if I remember correctly&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - after all, I believe these inconsistencies exist for this exact reason: in the past, no sane person would use large precise numbers in speech. So there used to be little demand for constructions like &quot;invited 453 women&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By *Nominative-looking* I mean either Nominative or inanimate Accusative for numbers ending in *два, три, четыре*. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real Nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Тут два стола&#xD;&#xA;- Там три женщины&#xD;&#xA;- Там пять столов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу два стола&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу двух женщин/двух мужчин/двух детей&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу две реки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, oblique forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NOM: У меня два одеяла (одеяло = blanket)&#xD;&#xA; - INSTR: Я под двумя одеялами&#xD;&#xA; - INSTR: Я под пятью одеялами&#xD;&#xA; - DAT: Добавь к трём одеялам ещё одно.&#xD;&#xA; - PREP: Книга о трёх/пяти/десяти одеялах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers like тысяча, сотня, миллион, миллиард when they are singular act as nouns themselves. The real &quot;thing&quot; becomes its subordinate, not the other way round (eg. *Я под тысячей одеял*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;тысяча&quot; a rare variant form exists (*Я под тысячью одеялами*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;четыре&quot; belongs to 2-3-4 group&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;с&quot; in the meaning &quot;with&quot; requires Instrumental&#xD;&#xA; - thus you use plural of this case&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental plural of &quot;дети&quot; is &quot;детьми&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's imagine you want to say &quot;I see 4 children&quot;:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;четыре&quot; belongs to 2-3-4 group&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;дети&quot; is animate, so Accusative looks like Genitive rather than Nominative&#xD;&#xA; - use plural of the case required here (Accusative that looks the same as Genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я вижу четырёх детей&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7958" RevisionGUID="de92eed8-af1f-49f1-8db7-06baa7bb689d" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:41:50.310" UserId="4629" Text="I think that your confusion resides at the cross-section of three phenomena:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @EugeniaVlasova notes, there are collective numerals - as opposed to cardinal numerals. Please see e.g. [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/collective-numerals) how they decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that, when talking about one's (multiple) children one will invariably say *У меня четверо детей* rather than *У меня четыре ребёнка*. In constructs using collective numarals (like *У меня четверо детей*), where the collective numeral itself is Nominative the dependent noun must be Genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Shady_arc mentioned, Oblique cases of cardinal 2-3-4 require Genitive **plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So where the Nominative cardinal number *четыре ребёнка* is distinctly different from the Nominative collective number *четверо детей*, they become very similar in, say, Dative: *четырём **детям*** and *четверым **детям***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Russian native speakers are notoriously illiterate when declining numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make matters worse, the speaker in your example (the one who said *Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми*) made a mistake. While s/he would undoubtedly use the correct Nominative collective numeral when referring to the children (*Наши четверо детей*), s/he neglected the correct declension when using Instrumental and said *Мы с нашими **четырьмя** детьми* instead of *Мы с нашими **четверыми** детьми*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I cannot sympathise enough - Russian numerals **are** a living nightmare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7958" RevisionGUID="ae3e8535-7874-4acc-8289-1debddf9da25" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:48:04.787" UserId="4629" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I think that your confusion resides at the cross-section of three phenomena:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @EugeniaVlasova notes, there are collective numerals - as opposed to cardinal numerals. Please see e.g. [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/collective-numerals) how they decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that, when talking about one's (multiple) children one will invariably say *У меня четверо детей* rather than *У меня четыре ребёнка*. In constructs using collective numarals (like *У меня четверо детей*), where the collective numeral itself is Nominative the dependent noun must be Genitive plural. And the plural of *ребёнок* is *дети*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Shady_arc mentioned, Oblique cases of cardinal 2-3-4 require Genitive **plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So where the Nominative cardinal number *четыре ребёнка* is distinctly different from the Nominative collective number *четверо детей*, they become very similar in, say, Dative: *четырём **детям*** and *четверым **детям***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Russian native speakers are notoriously illiterate when declining numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make matters worse, the speaker in your example (the one who said *Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми*) made a mistake. While s/he would undoubtedly use the correct Nominative collective numeral when referring to the children (*Наши четверо детей*), s/he neglected the correct declension when using Instrumental and said *Мы с нашими **четырьмя** детьми* instead of *Мы с нашими **четверыми** детьми*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I cannot sympathise enough - Russian numerals **are** a living nightmare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7958" RevisionGUID="4906897c-8f74-468b-9fb2-3657b52fb0e5" CreationDate="2015-01-12T19:58:46.980" UserId="4629" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="I think that your confusion resides at the cross-section of three phenomena:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @EugeniaVlasova notes, there are collective numerals - as opposed to cardinal numerals. Please see e.g. [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/collective-numerals) how they decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that, when talking about one's (multiple) children one will invariably say *У меня четверо детей* rather than *У меня четыре ребёнка*. In constructs using collective numarals (like *У меня четверо детей*), where the collective numeral itself is Nominative the dependent noun must be Genitive plural. And the plural of *ребёнок* is *дети*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Shady_arc mentioned, Oblique cases of cardinal 2-3-4 require Genitive **plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So where the Nominative cardinal number *четыре ребёнка* is distinctly different from the Nominative collective number *четверо детей*, they become very similar in, say, Dative: *четырём **детям*** and *четверым **детям***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Russian native speakers are notoriously illiterate when declining numerals, Instrumental happening to be **the** most difficult case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make matters worse, the speaker in your example (the one who said *Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми*) made a mistake. While s/he would undoubtedly use the correct Nominative collective numeral when referring to the children (*Наши четверо детей* - **not** *Наши четыре ребёнка*!), s/he neglected the correct declension when using Instrumental and said *Мы с нашими **четырьмя** детьми* instead of the correct *Мы с нашими **четверыми** детьми*. While ***четырьмя** детьми* is the correct Instrumental of ***четыре** ребёнка*, what the speaker definitely wanted to inflect here instead was ***четверо** детей*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I cannot sympathise enough - Russian numerals **are** a living nightmare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7959" RevisionGUID="b18bdd0f-c8ea-4e5c-bce1-4b20afff16ee" CreationDate="2015-01-12T20:32:47.707" UserId="4629" Text="Please, see [here](http://www.rusnotes.com/grammar/pronoun/determinative-pronoun-ves-opredelitelnoe-mestoimenie-ves) how the determinative pronoun *весь* declines. The difference between *вс**е*** and *вс**ё*** is obvious there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note the use of **Е** as a shorthand for **Ё**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7958" RevisionGUID="6489285c-86d3-4254-a07d-886423d0fd38" CreationDate="2015-01-12T20:51:45.747" UserId="4629" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I think that your confusion resides at the cross-section of three phenomena:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @EugeniaVlasova notes, there are collective numerals - as opposed to cardinal numerals. Please see e.g. [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/collective-numerals) how they decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that, when talking about one's (multiple) children one will invariably say *У меня четверо детей* rather than *У меня четыре ребёнка*. In constructs using collective numarals (like *У меня четверо детей*), where the collective numeral itself is Nominative the dependent noun must be Genitive plural. And the plural of *ребёнок* is *дети*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Shady_arc mentioned, Oblique cases of cardinal 2-3-4 require Genitive **plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So where the Nominative cardinal number *четыре ребёнка* is distinctly different from the Nominative collective number *четверо детей*, they become very similar in, say, Dative: *четырём **детям*** and *четверым **детям***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Russian native speakers are notoriously illiterate when declining numerals, Instrumental happening to be **the** most difficult case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make matters worse, the speaker in your example (the one who said *Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми*) is likely to have made a mistake. While s/he would almost undoubtedly use Nominative collective numeral when referring to the children (*Наши четверо детей* - **not** *Наши четыре ребёнка*!), s/he neglected the correct declension when using Instrumental and said *Мы с нашими **четырьмя** детьми* instead of the correct *Мы с нашими **четверыми** детьми*. While ***четырьмя** детьми* is the correct Instrumental of ***четыре** ребёнка*, what the speaker most likely wanted to inflect here instead was ***четверо** детей*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I cannot sympathise enough - Russian numerals **are** a living nightmare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7943" RevisionGUID="3a5a234b-6d8c-4bc4-88ae-1cbaaa46f64c" CreationDate="2015-01-13T02:09:32.690" UserId="1277" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="You could also say «Ясное дело!» или «Ясен пень!» (which is a jargon version of the first) but the more appropriate phrase of all listed in the answers depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    − Смотри не пожодги газовый баллон.&#xD;&#xA;    − Ясное дело — взорвется ведь!&#xD;&#xA;    − Взорвется, это и ежу понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7930" RevisionGUID="79f289aa-aa0a-49b8-a4e9-96b06d64f4c3" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:39:15.897" UserId="4267" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I can answer questions 2 and 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `кто` can be used as a relative pronoun, just like `который`. Obviously, it is only used for animate antecedents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The suffix `~ин` is a _possessive_ suffix in modern Russian (only attaches to &quot;feminine&quot; nouns, i.e. nominative ending in `~а` or `~я`, such as `мама`, `папа`, `земля` and `дядя`). These possessives decline very much like `наш` and `ваш`, so the nominative and fem. accusative have noun-like endings, and the rest have adjective-like endings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7960" RevisionGUID="ece1fdbd-4c09-4165-b1cd-cac997d6e109" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:42:02.023" UserId="4897" Text="Потому что у этого слова нет приставки. Так со многими прилагательными. Например стриженый и постриженный, кипячёный и вскипячённый." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7958" RevisionGUID="cb8dd845-612c-43de-a89f-b8b700ff4588" CreationDate="2015-01-13T09:49:40.087" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I think that your confusion resides at the cross-section of three phenomena:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @EugeniaVlasova notes, there are collective numerals - as opposed to cardinal numerals. Please see e.g. [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/collective-numerals) how they decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that, when talking about one's (multiple) children one will invariably say *У меня четверо детей* rather than *У меня четыре ребёнка*. In constructs using collective numarals (like *У меня четверо детей*), where the collective numeral itself is Nominative the dependent noun must be Genitive plural. And the plural of *ребёнок* is *дети*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Shady_arc mentioned, Oblique cases of cardinal 2-3-4 require Genitive **plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So where the Nominative cardinal number *четыре ребёнка* is distinctly different from the Nominative collective number *четверо детей*, they become very similar in, say, Dative: *четырём **детям*** and *четверым **детям***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Russian native speakers are notoriously illiterate when declining numerals, Instrumental happening to be **the** most difficult case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make matters worse, the speaker in your example (the one who said *Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми*) is likely to have made a mistake. While s/he would almost undoubtedly use Nominative collective numeral when referring to the children (*Наши четверо детей* - **not** *Наши четыре ребёнка*!), s/he neglected the correct declension when using Instrumental and said *Мы с нашими **четырьмя** детьми* instead of the correct *Мы с нашими **четверыми** детьми*. While ***четырьмя** детьми* is the correct Instrumental of ***четыре** ребёнка*, what the speaker most likely wanted to inflect here instead was ***четверо** детей*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I cannot sympathise enough - Russian numerals *are* a living nightmare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7961" RevisionGUID="732e4f54-bb4c-40b8-9077-e94a3d6d9225" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:50:20.173" UserId="4892" Text="In this sentence: &quot;Женщина, читающая книгу, жила в Москве&quot;, could you please tell me which is the correct interpretation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;the woman, that is now reading a book (I see her right now doing it), used to live in Moscow (some time ago).&quot; The two actions are on two different time levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The woman that was reading a book (also) lived in Moscow.&quot; It's like both actions happen at the same moment and both happen in the past. It's like I'm telling a friend about an  encounter I had with this woman, who, at the moment I met her, was reading a book and was also living in Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7961" RevisionGUID="732e4f54-bb4c-40b8-9077-e94a3d6d9225" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:50:20.173" UserId="4892" Text="Usage of participle and contemporary actions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7961" RevisionGUID="732e4f54-bb4c-40b8-9077-e94a3d6d9225" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:50:20.173" UserId="4892" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7962" RevisionGUID="10575a97-6bcf-470a-b8aa-0ee6341786d7" CreationDate="2015-01-13T10:55:25.603" UserId="4637" Text="The first one is the correct interpretation. To express the second one you would say &quot;Женщина, **читавшая** книгу, жила в Москве&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7958" RevisionGUID="d2bb9120-2f0a-487b-98f1-7430f557a79d" CreationDate="2015-01-13T11:51:05.327" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I think that your confusion resides at the cross-section of three phenomena:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Eugenia Vlasova notes, there are collective numerals - as opposed to cardinal numerals. Please see e.g. [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/collective-numerals) how they decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that, when talking about one's (multiple) children one will invariably use a collective numeral by saying *У меня четверо детей* rather than *У меня четыре ребёнка*. With Nominative collective numarals, where the collective word itself is Nominative the dependent word must be Genitive plural. And the plural of *ребёнок* is *дети*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @Shady_arc mentioned, Oblique cases of cardinal 2-3-4 require **plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So where the Nominative cardinal number *четыре ребёнка* is distinctly different from the Nominative collective number *четверо детей*, they become very similar in, say, Dative: *четырём **детям*** and *четверым **детям***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Russian native speakers are notoriously illiterate when declining numerals, Instrumental happening to be **the** most difficult case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to make matters worse, the speaker in your example (the one who said *Мы с нашими четырьмя детьми*) is likely to have made a mistake. While s/he would almost undoubtedly use Nominative **collective** numeral when referring to the children (*Наши четверо детей* - **not** *Наши четыре ребёнка*!), s/he neglected the correct declension when using Instrumental and said *Мы с нашими **четырьмя** детьми* instead of the correct *Мы с нашими **четверыми** детьми*. While ***четырьмя** детьми* is the correct Instrumental of ***четыре** ребёнка*, what the speaker most likely wanted to inflect here instead was ***четверо** детей*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I cannot sympathise enough - Russian numerals *are* a living nightmare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7963" RevisionGUID="22372a43-e191-4c4e-885d-790c6d8c7a42" CreationDate="2015-01-13T13:38:22.273" UserId="2284" Text="While generally the first interpretation is the correct one, it has to be remembered that there is such thing as 'historical present', when a narrator uses present when telling about past events. Though I may be mistaken, it seems to me that this rhetorical device tends to be used oftener in Russian than in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the case, the sentence means, 'the woman who was reading the book had lived in Moscow' (the past tense is used for what happened before the time of narration)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7963" RevisionGUID="c4d3a47b-81ce-49a4-9f92-908f17801bab" CreationDate="2015-01-13T13:48:07.650" UserId="2284" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="While generally the first interpretation is the correct one, it has to be remembered that there is such thing as 'historical present', when a narrator uses present when telling about past events. Though I may be mistaken, it seems to me that this rhetorical device tends to be used oftener in Russian than in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the case, the sentence means, 'the woman who was reading the book had lived in Moscow' (the past tense is used for what happened before the time of narration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For another thing, participles are not so extensively used in basic communications. Someone may feel confused by tenses and use them incorrectly or inconsistently. The sentence *might* be supposed to mean 'the woman who was reading the book was living in Moscow'; that's ungrammatical, of course, but not so severe an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7963" RevisionGUID="aec51479-f93c-43e3-9975-34b7096e623b" CreationDate="2015-01-13T13:55:26.040" UserId="2284" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="While generally the first interpretation is the correct one, it has to be remembered that there is such thing as 'historical present', when a narrator uses present when telling about past events. Though I may be mistaken, it seems to me that this rhetorical device tends to be used oftener in Russian than in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is the case, the sentence means, 'the woman who was reading the book had lived in Moscow' (the past tense is used for what happened before the time of narration). In my opinion, it would have its meaning clearer with 'прежде', 'раньше' or 'до того'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For another thing, participles are not so extensively used in basic communications. Someone may feel confused by tenses and use them incorrectly or inconsistently. The sentence *might* be supposed to mean 'the woman who was reading the book was living in Moscow'; that's ungrammatical, of course, but not so severe an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19253" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="80279d4c-24f0-43f0-ac37-5e3681b75e24" CreationDate="2015-01-13T14:21:23.977" UserId="551" Comment="47" />
  <row Id="19257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7926" RevisionGUID="331125e0-bf27-4512-a8b6-fb25f67e0ea0" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:16:54.717" UserId="4028" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I hope someone would kindly answer the following questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this song, there are the words &quot;нижины (=низины)&quot; and &quot;ужины (=узины)&quot; that are not found in ordinary dictionaries.  Why is -жи- used instead of -зи-?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The last phrase is &quot;Каравай, каравай, кого хочешь выбирай.&quot;  I understand кого is a relative pronoun.  If so, &quot;который&quot; seems much more appropriate than &quot;кого&quot;.  Why is &quot;кого&quot; used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This song is used in the movie &quot;Чебурашка&quot;, where children sing the first phrase as &quot;А на Чебурашкины именины...&quot;  Is &quot;Чебурашкины&quot; an adjective of &quot;Чебурашка&quot;?  If so, why is the word-end form not adjective-like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added question:&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what the difference between possessive and genitive cases is.  For example, what is the difference between _Чебурашкин_ _друг_ and _друг_ _Чебурашки_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7944" RevisionGUID="2ccb1ce2-dcb5-4dad-a792-a6c4b3850a09" CreationDate="2015-01-13T15:39:05.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/555026255947767809" />
  <row Id="19261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7967" RevisionGUID="a3fc9f3c-f253-4a1d-b86e-d5f42c712740" CreationDate="2015-01-13T16:14:46.193" UserId="4902" Text="Well, I'm agree &quot;This form is incorrect&quot;, but ... a lot of people saying this way.&#xD;&#xA;So yes, you can use it, but shouldn't, especially if don't want other think you're an ignorant man.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7968" RevisionGUID="b08ddb19-c35d-46d9-a493-5151950a53ea" CreationDate="2015-01-13T17:59:43.140" UserId="2306" Text="&gt; Он *неспециалист*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **не** *атлет*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не могу сказать *неатлет*. Нужно заранее знать с какими существительными *не* можно писать слитно, а с какими нет, или есть какие-то общие правила?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7968" RevisionGUID="b08ddb19-c35d-46d9-a493-5151950a53ea" CreationDate="2015-01-13T17:59:43.140" UserId="2306" Text="Почему нельзя написать &quot;неатлет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7968" RevisionGUID="b08ddb19-c35d-46d9-a493-5151950a53ea" CreationDate="2015-01-13T17:59:43.140" UserId="2306" Text="|морфология|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7969" RevisionGUID="7a114427-3999-49e0-ab43-3e8bf2a4e658" CreationDate="2015-01-13T19:11:13.673" UserId="4267" Text="Я не носитель языка, но мне кажется, что можно придумать ситуацию для любого такого &quot;странного&quot; слова, когда оно как раз звучит совсем нормально. Например, если гуглить &quot;неатлет&quot;, есть некоторые примеры, которые по-моему совершенно приемлемы. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7970" RevisionGUID="4d9d51ec-07cd-4d96-b8cf-5677d1ce88c9" CreationDate="2015-01-13T19:34:34.210" UserId="4903" Text="Я предполагаю что всё-же &quot;неатлет&quot; можно (и даже нужно) писать слитно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Не пишется слитно с существительными:&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;Если существительные и прилагательные в сочетании с не обозначают непринадлежность к какому-либо разряду лиц или явлений, напр.: неврачи, нефранцузы, немарксисты, нехристиане, неспециалисты, немосквичи, нерусские, недемократы, непоэты, нетермины, неметаллы, нестихи; Нерусский взглянет без любви / На эту бледную, в крови, / Кнутом иссеченную музу (Некр.); Неврач не разберётся в этом; Неспециалистам доклад понравился; Неегиптолог его не поймёт; Нематематику не решить этой задачи; Нелингвист не напишет такой диктант; неакадемические институты, непищевые добавки, невоенные отрасли.&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7970" RevisionGUID="8c60855b-1db0-46f5-8e81-effff8cb4f32" CreationDate="2015-01-13T20:02:52.153" UserId="2269" Comment="пунктуация, оформление, ссылка" Text="Я предполагаю, что все же «неатлет» можно (и даже нужно) писать слитно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 148. С существительными, прилагательными, наречиями на _-о_ отрицание _не_ пишется слитно в следующих случаях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Если существительные и прилагательные в сочетании с не обозначают непринадлежность к какому-либо разряду лиц или явлений, напр.: _неврачи, нефранцузы, немарксисты, нехристиане, неспециалисты, немосквичи, нерусские, недемократы, непоэты, нетермины, неметаллы, нестихи; Нерусский взглянет без любви / На эту бледную, в крови, / Кнутом иссеченную музу_ (Некр.); _Неврач не разберётся в этом; Неспециалистам доклад понравился; Неегиптолог его не поймёт; Нематематику не решить этой задачи; Нелингвист не напишет такой диктант; неакадемические институты, непищевые добавки, невоенные отрасли._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— [Полный академический справочник под ред. В. В. Лопатина.](http://orthographia.ru/orfograf_uk.php?oid=3883)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7926" RevisionGUID="38eb584d-b1ff-42bf-b627-2dd8ddc011bf" CreationDate="2015-01-13T22:25:56.090" UserId="4028" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="I hope someone would kindly answer the following questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In this song, there are the words &quot;нижины (=низины)&quot; and &quot;ужины (=узины)&quot; that are not found in ordinary dictionaries.  Why is -жи- used instead of -зи-?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The last phrase is &quot;Каравай, каравай, кого хочешь выбирай.&quot;  I understand кого is a relative pronoun.  If so, &quot;который&quot; seems much more appropriate than &quot;кого&quot;.  Why is &quot;кого&quot; used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This song is used in the movie &quot;Чебурашка&quot;, where children sing the first phrase as &quot;А на Чебурашкины именины...&quot;  Is &quot;Чебурашкины&quot; an adjective of &quot;Чебурашка&quot;?  If so, why is the word-end form not adjective-like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A newly added question related to item 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what the difference between possessive and genitive cases is.  For example, what is the difference between _Чебурашкин_ _друг_ and _друг_ _Чебурашки_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7971" RevisionGUID="4250350a-9c04-420a-8def-8e6d03804b4e" CreationDate="2015-01-13T23:38:46.420" UserId="4629" Text="Мне кажется, что ни *Он неспециалист*, ни *Он неатлет* писать нельзя, так как это не утверждения **непринадлежности** &quot;к какому-либо разряду лиц или явлений&quot;, а напротив, отрицания **принадлежности** к этим разрядам:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Приглашали специалистов, а он не специалист*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На Олимпиаду едут атлеты, а я не атлет*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Напротив, все примеры из правила, приведённого @Vitaly, как раз утверждают или подчёркивают именно **непринадлежность** упоминаемых людей, предметов или явлений к подразумеваемым ограниченным группам или классам или, точнее, их **принадлежность** к пространству **за пределами** этих классов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нелингвист не напишет такой диктант (а лингвист напишет). &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неакадемические институты (в отличие от академических).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неспециалист не сможет починить компьютер.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неатлет не пробежит эту дистанцию.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7971" RevisionGUID="da027d24-7226-4590-89bb-9d97c2a1b658" CreationDate="2015-01-13T23:49:47.327" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Мне кажется, что ни *Он неспециалист*, ни *Он неатлет* писать нельзя, так как это не утверждения **непринадлежности** &quot;к какому-либо разряду лиц или явлений&quot;, а напротив, отрицания **принадлежности** к этим разрядам:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Приглашали специалистов, а он не специалист*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *На Олимпиаду едут атлеты, а я не атлет*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Напротив, все примеры из правила, приведённого @Vitaly, как раз утверждают или подчёркивают именно **непринадлежность** упоминаемых людей, предметов или явлений к подразумеваемым ограниченным группам или классам или, точнее, их **принадлежность** к пространству **за пределами** этих классов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нелингвист не напишет такой диктант (а лингвист напишет). &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неакадемические институты (в отличие от академических).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неспециалист только испортит всё дело.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неатлеты первыми сошли с дистанции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я предлагаю упрощённую формулировку правила:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Утверждение **непринадлежности** — слитно; отрицание **принадлежности** — раздельно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7972" RevisionGUID="296618b9-019f-4941-98f8-fa9eaf3d6f8e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T06:42:45.577" UserId="4394" Text="We have a lot sentences with the same meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - К бабке не ходи&#xD;&#xA; - И ежу понятно&#xD;&#xA; - Естественно&#xD;&#xA; - Само собой&#xD;&#xA; - etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7973" RevisionGUID="1218af2e-e54f-4b38-a5bd-8985001890bb" CreationDate="2015-01-14T07:16:39.867" UserId="4676" Text="Предложение выглядит как результат пропуска местоимения, когда в оригинале оно звучало как &quot;Никто - ни он, ни она - не хотел уходить первым&quot;, при этом сказуемое ошибочно употреблено во множественном числе. Может быть верно как в вышеуказанном мной варианте, так и в виде &quot;Ни он, ни она не хотели уходить первыми&quot;, но не в вашей, Виталий, версии (если не вспоминать ещё и о пунктуации)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7974" RevisionGUID="fac18b04-97be-4f9a-b517-ff94dc3457cf" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:12:33.470" UserId="4069" Text="*Шекспир, «Гамлет», перевод Пастернака, акт третий, сцена вторая, ремарка:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возвращается королева, видит, что король мертв, и жестами выражает отчаяние. **Снова входит отравитель с двумя или тремя похоронными служителям и, давая понять, что разделяет ее горе.** Труп уносят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каков верный синтаксический разбор выделенного предложения? Я в этом могу видеть только два однородных обстоятельства: «с двумя или тремя похоронными служителям» и «давая понять, что разделяет ее горе». Такое употребление допустимо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Действительно ли должен в этом случае обособляться такой деепричастный оборот?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7974" RevisionGUID="fac18b04-97be-4f9a-b517-ff94dc3457cf" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:12:33.470" UserId="4069" Text="Деепричастный оборот как одно из однородных обстоятельств" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7974" RevisionGUID="fac18b04-97be-4f9a-b517-ff94dc3457cf" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:12:33.470" UserId="4069" Text="|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7975" RevisionGUID="2576e544-6d75-41ae-b392-ba9b64f255dc" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:34:21.430" UserId="4801" Text="В данном предложении, вероятно, некорректно распознан или перепечатан текст, что привело к появлению пробела между словами *служителям* и *и*. Вот [корректный вариант перевода][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Снова входит отравитель с двумя или тремя похоронными **служителями**, **давая** **понять**,что разделяет ее горе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.by/books?id=Qc_MAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT134&amp;lpg=PT134&amp;dq=%22%D0%A1%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D1%81%20%D0%B4%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC%D0%B8%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=66eeea3t_M&amp;sig=qiTNryVMY0L0HWXmB08nSdHCqvY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=ySW2VLSlOYa5ggT5uYPICA&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="44fee941-f092-4476-8ed7-2466a6d9f96e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:47:09.297" UserId="551" Text="В [недавнем вопросе](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/7816/551) о правильности написания слова &quot;блядь&quot; в комментариях разгорелась дискуссия по поводу этимологии этого слова. Были высказаны две версии заимствования. Например, что само это слово заимствовано из польского языка:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово &quot;блядь&quot; происходит от польского &quot;błąd&quot;, что означает &quot;ошибка&quot;. В свою очередь błąd происходит от старославянского корня блѫдъ, который сохранился и в русском и в польском языке, однако польский вариант ближе всего к оригиналу и по произношению, и по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или даже из иврита (בלי יד):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оно происходит от слова на иврите, означающее &quot;женщина ходящая в одиночку&quot;. Многие русские бранные слова и слова криминального арго происходят из иврита. Причиной этому является то, что в девятнадцатом веке многие бандиты были евреями *(видимо имеется в виду в Одессе, где процветала контрабанда)* и пытались скрыть смысл своих разговоров от полицейских, многие из которых понимали идиш, но не знали иврит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какая из этих версий верна?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="44fee941-f092-4476-8ed7-2466a6d9f96e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:47:09.297" UserId="551" Text="Правда ли что слово &quot;блядь&quot; происходит от польского &quot;błąd&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="44fee941-f092-4476-8ed7-2466a6d9f96e" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:47:09.297" UserId="551" Text="|этимология|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7968" RevisionGUID="0af1a09c-f900-4d49-8532-221cd3dec094" CreationDate="2015-01-14T09:46:16.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/555299850762596352" />
  <row Id="19282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7977" RevisionGUID="5bb9c52a-592d-4a73-a4ed-a2d8ab5e785d" CreationDate="2015-01-14T14:05:15.773" UserId="4560" Text="Версия об ивритском происхождении — типичная фольклорная этимология, причем даже сильнее обыкновенного притянутая за уши. Возможно, это шутка, кем-то принятая всерьез. При этом близкое по смыслу слово ивритского происхождения в криминальном арго присутствует — это слово *хуна*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С польским очевидно присутствует ровно обратная ситуация: это в современном польском есть ругательство *bladź*, фонетически заимствованное из русского и не учитывающее, что польский когнат имел бы носовой гласный. Из-за чего, собственно, слово *блядь* в принципе до этого не могло быть заимствовано в русский из польского позже X века, когда носовые исчезли в русском, иначе фонетика это бы отразила — ср. *В**ен**грия* от польского *Więgry*. Утверждение, что в такой глубине веков некое слово пришло в древнерусский именно из древнепольского, в отсутствие источников кажется весьма произвольным, тем более что никаких трудностей чисто русская этимология этого слова не представляет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И уж точно этим польским словом не могло быть *błąd* — у меня сложилось впечатление, что предложивший его весьма приблизительно себе представлял, как оно звучит, и был сбит с толку графическим подобием. *Błąd* — это *блуд*, и как когнат, и как тот вид, который приняло бы слово в гипотетическом случае заимствования из польского в X веке или ранее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резюмируя, можно в шутку (**в шутку**, подчеркиваю, наученный горьким опытом) сказать, что версия о происхождении слова *блядь*, сперва в форме мн.ч. *бляди*, от английского бранного эпитета *bloody* представляется куда убедительнее и &quot;польской&quot; гипотезы, и &quot;ивритской&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="9f5e5841-60d9-49a5-870c-2e1ccff39668" CreationDate="2015-01-14T15:00:06.587" UserId="551" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="В [недавнем вопросе](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/7816/551) о правильности написания слова &quot;блядь&quot; в комментариях разгорелась дискуссия по поводу этимологии этого слова. Были высказаны две версии заимствования. Например, что само это слово заимствовано из польского языка:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово &quot;блядь&quot; происходит от польского &quot;błąd&quot;, что означает &quot;ошибка&quot;. В свою очередь błąd происходит от старославянского корня блѫдъ, который сохранился и в русском и в польском языке, однако польский вариант ближе всего к оригиналу и по произношению, и по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или даже из иврита (בלי יד):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оно происходит от слова на иврите, означающее &quot;женщина ходящая в одиночку&quot;. Многие русские бранные слова и слова криминального арго происходят из иврита. Причиной этому является то, что в девятнадцатом веке многие бандиты были евреями *(видимо имеется в виду в Одессе, где процветала контрабанда)* и пытались скрыть смысл своих разговоров от полицейских, многие из которых понимали идиш, но не знали иврит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какая из этих версий верна?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: Google Translate переводит &quot;ивритский&quot; вариант как &quot;без рук&quot;, без каких-либо намеков на &quot;женщину&quot;, так что этот вариант происхождения вызывает большие сомнения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19284" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7828" RevisionGUID="9fd93256-7631-4b9a-8d44-3d0a7bc70cea" CreationDate="2015-01-14T15:01:14.963" UserId="551" Comment="47" />
  <row Id="19285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="d360560d-834f-455e-bd20-72bccc8c9edd" CreationDate="2015-01-14T17:21:09.303" UserId="2269" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19287" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7855" RevisionGUID="7f3e7d01-0297-40a0-97db-edb6e9f4d2ad" CreationDate="2015-01-14T21:46:16.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/555481046394101761" />
  <row Id="19288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7978" RevisionGUID="bab6132c-10e4-4d9d-b5da-1117af83aad8" CreationDate="2015-01-15T01:02:52.103" UserId="4909" Text="Can anyone explain? Is there some rule for when to use *на* and when to use *в*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7978" RevisionGUID="bab6132c-10e4-4d9d-b5da-1117af83aad8" CreationDate="2015-01-15T01:02:52.103" UserId="4909" Text="Why do some say &quot;на Украине&quot; and others &quot;в Украине&quot; and what is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7978" RevisionGUID="bab6132c-10e4-4d9d-b5da-1117af83aad8" CreationDate="2015-01-15T01:02:52.103" UserId="4909" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7979" RevisionGUID="df465aa2-24e3-4e5f-a2a7-0d83ada92af9" CreationDate="2015-01-15T01:21:26.133" UserId="4560" Text="It's political. *В Украине* is the officially preferred Ukrainian version, *на Украине* is the one that Russia sticks to, and the fur has been flying for decades at this point. In fact the reason you got downvoted was probably that someone thought you were flamebaiting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7980" RevisionGUID="2c117a4b-d589-4b79-ba5c-169bb5927691" CreationDate="2015-01-15T05:19:58.817" UserId="4912" Text="For all countries it is correct to say &quot;в&quot;. Technically using &quot;на&quot; with this context is wrong. But what about Ukraine, I think people just accustomed to use &quot;на Украине&quot;. In most cases nobody cares about this. But if you would like to be correct, you should use &quot;в&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7981" RevisionGUID="792299ec-f371-41f8-9c71-b415e00eea28" CreationDate="2015-01-15T06:56:24.450" UserId="4394" Text="It's because the word &quot;Ukraine&quot; becomes from Russian &quot;Украина&quot; which means &quot;у края&quot; (the source word is &quot;край&quot; (eng. edge)) or &quot;окраина&quot; (eng.: &quot;closed to border&quot;). And in Russian language it is correct to say &quot;я живу на окраине&quot; and the same way for &quot;я живу на Украине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowadays Ukrainian government prefers to forget that Ukraine always was a part of Russia and they say that &quot;Ukraine&quot; has another mistyficated root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So officialy, in Russia it is correct to say &quot;на Украине&quot;, but in Ukraine you have to say &quot;в Украине&quot; for political reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7982" RevisionGUID="da4a3803-67bb-4a33-8b68-8b3d661ccbe6" CreationDate="2015-01-15T10:00:32.573" UserId="4833" Text="_В Украине_ is the variant used in the Ukraine, including its Russian-speaking parts, and is considered the normative there since early 1990s. &#xD;&#xA;Approximately at the same time, the country lost &quot;the&quot; article in its official English name and become just Ukraine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, the usage with «в» has long been considered a dialectism among others, but later it received a political meaning. It became even more confusing in the recent crisis, when «в Украине» started to be identified with pro-Russian activists in the East, not only with Ukrainian nationalists. Currently one can hear both usages on both sides of political spectrum, but «на Украине» is still considered academically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7983" RevisionGUID="45328c0d-8770-49fe-8dd6-c5fcd11c6854" CreationDate="2015-01-15T10:42:40.437" UserId="3887" Text="As others have pointed out, this has become politically loaded, I would say since the breakup of the USSR and Ukraine becoming an independent country. Here is a detailed and more or less unbiased analysis of the controversy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gn.org.ua/in_ua&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, both prepositions are correct, &quot;на&quot; being much more common at least in the 20th century and supported by the &quot;окраина&quot; etymology, &quot;в&quot; emphasizing a separate country and usually implying an alternative (very contrived) etymology. The definite article was dropped in English also for that reason (compare to The Netherlands).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На Украине&quot; sounds jarring to my ear, but it is technically not wrong, there are examples of this usage from 19th century Russian classics. From that point of view it just sounds like an anachronism today. Ironically, possibly the most famous poem by the most fervently patriotic 19t-century Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko uses &quot;на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, use &quot;в Украине&quot; if you want to please Ukrainian patriots/nationalists or want to make a political statement, use &quot;на Украине&quot; if you want please the purists, or avoid the construct altogether if you want to be neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7984" RevisionGUID="05a909ee-71fc-47e2-a5a0-7f1cef798bb0" CreationDate="2015-01-15T12:35:31.373" UserId="2148" Text="As stated in other answers this issue is political.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people consider this as non-issue and bring it into absurdity by using both in writing and talking a combination of prepositions &quot;в/на Украине&quot; (pronounced as &quot;вна  Украине&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7957" RevisionGUID="4e404890-8cbf-498b-8228-8f430500fa67" CreationDate="2015-01-15T14:42:12.133" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I must say, the example is weird. I guess it is OK to learn grammar but not something a native speaker would really say (at least, that would be a really rare occasion). Look at the end of the post if you want an explanation for your particular expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Один&#xD;&#xA;Look. If your number ends in &quot;один&quot;, they are used is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - noun in singular&#xD;&#xA; - case is whatever reqired by the role in the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Два/три/четыре ↔ пять, шесть... двадцать, сто..&#xD;&#xA;If your number ends in words for *2/3/4* or *5 and bigger*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For **Nominative-looking** forms &#xD;&#xA; - 2-3-4 use Genitive singular&#xD;&#xA; - 5 and more use Genitive plural&#xD;&#xA;- For other, **Oblique** forms&#xD;&#xA; - both use plural forms&#xD;&#xA; - the case is whatever required by the role in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;- awkward for animate Accusative with compound numbers like 23, 24, 44, 22, 1003, 133 and so on&#xD;&#xA; - both &quot;Научил плавать двадцать три ребёнка&quot; and &quot;Научил плавать двадцать трёх детей&quot; are possible, first sounding more formal. &#xD;&#xA; - Both sound unnatural to my ear. &#xD;&#xA; - So in a real-life situation it's best you think your way around this complication. Like &quot;more than 20 children&quot; or &quot;Taught a lot of kids to swim. There were 23 of them, if I remember correctly&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - after all, I believe these inconsistencies exist for this exact reason: in the past, no sane person would use large precise numbers in speech. So there used to be little demand for constructions like &quot;invited 453 women&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By *Nominative-looking* I mean either Nominative or inanimate Accusative for numbers ending in *два, три, четыре*. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real Nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Тут два стола&#xD;&#xA;- Там три женщины&#xD;&#xA;- Там пять столов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу два стола&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу двух женщин/двух мужчин/двух детей&#xD;&#xA;- Я вижу две реки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, oblique forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NOM: У меня два одеяла (одеяло = blanket)&#xD;&#xA; - INSTR: Я под двумя одеялами&#xD;&#xA; - INSTR: Я под пятью одеялами&#xD;&#xA; - DAT: Добавь к трём одеялам ещё одно.&#xD;&#xA; - PREP: Книга о трёх/пяти/десяти одеялах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers like тысяча, сотня, миллион, миллиард when they are singular act as nouns themselves. The real &quot;thing&quot; becomes its subordinate, not the other way round (eg. *Я под тысячей одеял*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;тысяча&quot; a rare variant form exists (*Я под тысячью одеялами*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;четыре&quot; belongs to 2-3-4 group&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;с&quot; in the meaning &quot;with&quot; requires Instrumental&#xD;&#xA; - thus you use plural of this case&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental plural of &quot;дети&quot; is &quot;детьми&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's imagine you want to say &quot;I see 4 children&quot;:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;четыре&quot; belongs to 2-3-4 group&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;дети&quot; is animate, so Accusative looks like Genitive rather than Nominative&#xD;&#xA; - use plural of the case required here (Accusative that looks the same as Genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я вижу четырёх детей&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7978" RevisionGUID="4f0c93ac-42a4-484b-bd9d-6a8e51268ad8" CreationDate="2015-01-15T15:46:34.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/555752913549950976" />
  <row Id="19299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7985" RevisionGUID="e2ba4b20-6529-4cd8-9e07-6e1f03bea339" CreationDate="2015-01-15T16:41:46.410" UserId="4903" Text="This is an addition to @Kirill's answer. According to the orthographic reform of Russian language in 1956: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quantitative word-forms in Genitive and Accusative cases ending with _“-у&quot;, &quot;-ю&quot;_ are used less and less frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;...&gt; and forms ending with _&quot;-а&quot;, &quot;-я&quot;_ prevail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia: Russian Orthography before 1956](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BE_1956_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0#.D0.9A.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D1.84.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.BC.D1.8B_.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.B8_.D0.B2.D0.B8.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.B9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence the correct modern form is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Можно мне ещё чая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7985" RevisionGUID="783ac00c-cdf0-446d-8003-91655370fc2a" CreationDate="2015-01-15T16:53:13.273" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="This is an addition to @Kirill's answer. According to the orthographic reform of Russian language in 1956: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Quantitative word-forms in Genitive and Accusative cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;After 1956:  Nowadays, forms ending with _“-у&quot;, &quot;-ю&quot;_ are used less and less frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia: Russian Orthography before 1956](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BE_1956_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0#.D0.9A.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D1.84.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.BC.D1.8B_.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.B8_.D0.B2.D0.B8.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.B9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence the correct modern form is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Можно мне ещё чая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7986" RevisionGUID="313d68f8-765b-4aa5-bd28-14414f5d363f" CreationDate="2015-01-15T17:52:34.247" UserId="4833" Text="Основное правило: если не+что-то можно заменить на одно слово без существенной потери смысла, то _не_ пишется слитно, иначе - раздельно.&#xD;&#xA;Это относится к существительным, прилагательным и наречиям.&#xD;&#xA;[Ссылку][1] на более подробное правило дал Виталий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно также перевести фразу на английский или другой язык с похожей структурой. Слитное не чаще всего будет соответствовать &quot;non&quot;, a раздельное - &quot;not&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _я неатлет_  ~ _I am а non-athlete_.&#xD;&#xA; - _я не атлет_ ~ _I am not an athlete_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://orthographia.ru/orfograf_uk.php?oid=3883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7987" RevisionGUID="c63a3aaf-0db0-483b-9d27-714c8df97066" CreationDate="2015-01-15T21:12:37.830" UserId="170" Text="Do I need the semicolon right after the word `восклицал` and the comma right after `смысла!&quot;`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А когда Виктор **восклицал:** &quot;Здесь нету никакого **смысла!&quot;**, или &quot;Где&#xD;&#xA;&gt; здесь смысл?!&quot;, то он, конечно, не вкусы имел в виду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7987" RevisionGUID="c63a3aaf-0db0-483b-9d27-714c8df97066" CreationDate="2015-01-15T21:12:37.830" UserId="170" Text="Proper punctuation in direct speech quotations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7987" RevisionGUID="c63a3aaf-0db0-483b-9d27-714c8df97066" CreationDate="2015-01-15T21:12:37.830" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7987" RevisionGUID="57637882-53e5-47f1-9e2b-4b689244dc85" CreationDate="2015-01-15T21:18:05.667" UserId="170" Comment="edited body" Text="Do I need the semicolon right after the word `восклицал` and the comma right after `смысла!&quot;`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А когда Виктор **восклицал:** &quot;Здесь нету никакого **смысла!&quot;,** или &quot;Где&#xD;&#xA;&gt; здесь смысл?!&quot;, то он, конечно, не вкусы имел в виду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7988" RevisionGUID="1c939d97-12e6-4466-afd1-78e9f98a0917" CreationDate="2015-01-15T22:31:05.257" UserId="310" Text="I think you can safely skip both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А когда Виктор восклицал &quot;Здесь нету никакого смысла!&quot; или &quot;Где здесь смысл?!&quot;, то он, конечно, не вкусы имел в виду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks completely benign to my eyes. Provided this is supposed to be a modern text with modern punctuation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7989" RevisionGUID="5a1c950a-9dcc-485e-ba02-637f142856ec" CreationDate="2015-01-15T23:09:18.193" UserId="4629" Text="&gt;А когда Виктор восклицал: &quot;Здесь нету никакого смысла!&quot; или &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Где здесь смысл?!&quot; — то он, конечно, не вкусы имел в виду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colon (not semicolon!) is indeed needed to introduce the direct speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comma is not needed as the coordinate pieces of direct speech are linked by a single conjunction ***или***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dash instead of a comma is recommended after the second piece of direct speech because that ends in an exclamation mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/52.htm&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/43.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7989" RevisionGUID="b56bf595-2365-49b9-8c85-ed9ad6d77181" CreationDate="2015-01-15T23:15:15.393" UserId="4629" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="&gt;А когда Виктор восклицал: &quot;Здесь нету никакого смысла!&quot; или &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Где здесь смысл?!&quot; — то он, конечно, не вкусы имел в виду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colon (not semicolon!) is indeed needed to introduce the direct speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comma is not needed as the coordinate pieces of direct speech are linked by a single conjunction ***или***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/43.htm#з_04&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dash instead of a comma is recommended after the second piece of direct speech because that ends in an exclamation mark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И только когда он шептал: ***«Мама! Мама!» – ему становилось как будто легче...*** (Чехов) (прямая речь заканчивается восклицательным знаком)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/52.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7987" RevisionGUID="545ea16a-020f-4ec5-ac22-54265193b309" CreationDate="2015-01-15T23:26:14.773" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Do I need the colon right after the word `восклицал` and the comma right after `смысла!&quot;`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А когда Виктор **восклицал:** &quot;Здесь нету никакого **смысла!&quot;,** или &quot;Где&#xD;&#xA;&gt; здесь смысл?!&quot;, то он, конечно, не вкусы имел в виду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7990" RevisionGUID="fc9137b6-fae2-4812-8b22-7c5d19ba504d" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:44:42.743" UserId="2306" Text="&gt; На непросохшем песке *еще* **не** затоптанные следы крупных капель. ([Бакланов][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сизый ковыль, ещё не распустившийся, *ещё* **не** побелевший, расстилался, как волны. ([Аксаков][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...тянулись вверх по небу золотые полосы от лучей *еще* **не** взошедшего солнца. ([Куприн][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моём учебнике я не нашёл для этого правила, но выглядит будто если есть наречие *ещё*, то **не** с причастиями пишется раздельно. Что меня смущает, потому что я ведь могу сказать *ещё маленький ребёнок*, *ещё свежие овощи*, хотя понимаю что &quot;маленький&quot; и &quot;свежий&quot; являются прилагательными, а не причастиями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Действительно ли *ещё* является зависимым от причастий словом и, следовательно, заставляет частицу **не** находитя отдельно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=7Xd3wRfOgIwC&amp;pg=PT45&amp;dq=%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B%20%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=LFy4VNqWK-nMyAPfhIH4Bg&amp;ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B%20%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=ZPGxAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA37&amp;lpg=PA37&amp;dq=%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BB%D1%8C,%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%91%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%91%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9,%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FCbk7fqk_A&amp;sig=hitMVve04PGDGfK-Vk8RB0cSzT8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Y1y4VLfqMqaqywPnpYHgCQ&amp;ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BB%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%91%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8F%2C%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%91%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%2C%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F%2C%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B.&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lib.ru/LITRA/KUPRIN/nghtlodg.txt_with-big-pictures.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7990" RevisionGUID="fc9137b6-fae2-4812-8b22-7c5d19ba504d" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:44:42.743" UserId="2306" Text="При наречии &quot;ещё&quot;, &quot;не&quot; с причастиями пишется раздельно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7990" RevisionGUID="fc9137b6-fae2-4812-8b22-7c5d19ba504d" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:44:42.743" UserId="2306" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19313" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7852" RevisionGUID="71dcbedb-2b40-42d0-9675-9776504f3ba1" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:46:34.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/555888809036890112" />
  <row Id="19314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7991" RevisionGUID="955165b1-965a-4495-97e9-344de78b64bb" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:51:16.723" UserId="1632" Text="Interestingly (or not), I think there's a similarly politically loaded issue when referring to the country in English: does one say &quot;He is from THE Ukraine&quot;, or &quot;He is from Ukraine&quot;? The use of the definite article (&quot;the&quot;) suggests that the speaker is thinking of a region rather than a sovereign state, and for that reason, I think that the use of &quot;the&quot; has been disfavored (perhaps officially) since 1991. Still, dropping the article sounds unnatural to me -- though perhaps that's probably because I grew up during the Cold War." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7992" RevisionGUID="687633e0-7fab-4fc4-a069-9199aec1ca82" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:58:45.247" UserId="2306" Text="&gt; Выражение этого взора было очень **неопределённо**, но **не насмешливо**... ([Лермонтов][1], абзац со словами &quot;Хорошенькая княжна...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союз **но** здесь имеет значение союза **и** -- это не противопоставление. *Насмешливо* здесь *краткое прилагательное*, а не наречие. Да даже если и наречие, значит *неопределённо* тоже наречие, но **не** с ним написано слитно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему с первым словом **не** написано слитно, а со вторым раздельно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=aAFUVwju4csC&amp;pg=PA89&amp;lpg=PA89&amp;dq=%D0%92%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE,%20%D0%BD%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=sn1p8g_uLx&amp;sig=zIrvUeO4cTsYqR1zcG_lGZWTuns&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=F-C2VOP_L-LNygORjIG4Bg&amp;ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7992" RevisionGUID="687633e0-7fab-4fc4-a069-9199aec1ca82" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:58:45.247" UserId="2306" Text="&quot;было очень неопределённо, но **не** насмешливо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7992" RevisionGUID="687633e0-7fab-4fc4-a069-9199aec1ca82" CreationDate="2015-01-16T00:58:45.247" UserId="2306" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7993" RevisionGUID="82f8a041-f43b-489b-808d-b34efb2f47a5" CreationDate="2015-01-16T01:13:07.570" UserId="4629" Text="&gt;Действительно ли *ещё* является зависимым от причастий словом...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю, что именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ещё не затоптанные следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные ещё следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные пока следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные к утру следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные прохожими следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кажется, функция зависимого слова налицо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7993" RevisionGUID="ac7b18a3-5f5c-4ff0-8425-2101dac48213" CreationDate="2015-01-16T01:18:24.663" UserId="4629" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="&gt;Действительно ли *ещё* является зависимым от причастий словом...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю, что именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ещё не затоптанные следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные ещё следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные пока следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные к утру следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные прохожими следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кажется, функция зависимого слова налицо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры *ещё маленький ребёнок* и *ещё свежие овощи* вряд ли хороши, так как не содержат *не-*. Лучше: *ещё не большой ребёнок*, *ещё не вялые овощи*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7994" RevisionGUID="67c516c3-0966-498d-b2cb-9eef355c8e4c" CreationDate="2015-01-16T01:18:39.763" UserId="4884" Text="Оба слова (неопределённо и насмешливо) - краткие прилагательные. &#xD;&#xA;На сайте [Gramota.ru][1] приводится следующее правило: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 89. Не пишется раздельно:&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;3. При существительных, прилагательных и наречиях, если есть или подразумевается противопоставление, например: не удача привела нас к успеху, а выдержка и хладнокровие; не смерть страшна – страшна твоя немилость (Пушкин); утро настало не ясное, а туманное; поезд идет не быстро и не медленно (подразумевается: «с какой-то средней скоростью»); не завтра (здесь не может не быть противопоставления).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, выражение её взора было неопределённо (нет противопоставления), но (хотя бы) не насмешливо (противопоставляется &quot;насмешливо&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=def&amp;text=19_24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7992" RevisionGUID="5dcf2d36-fd98-422e-9644-4befa515cdba" CreationDate="2015-01-16T01:32:14.303" UserId="2306" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Выражение этого взора было очень *неопределённо*, но ***не** насмешливо*... ([Лермонтов][1], абзац со словами &quot;Хорошенькая княжна...&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союз **но** здесь имеет значение союза **и** -- это не противопоставление. *Насмешливо* здесь *краткое прилагательное*, а не наречие. Да даже если и наречие, значит *неопределённо* тоже наречие, но **не** с ним написано слитно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему с первым словом **не** написано слитно, а со вторым раздельно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=aAFUVwju4csC&amp;pg=PA89&amp;lpg=PA89&amp;dq=%D0%92%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BE%20%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE,%20%D0%BD%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=sn1p8g_uLx&amp;sig=zIrvUeO4cTsYqR1zcG_lGZWTuns&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=F-C2VOP_L-LNygORjIG4Bg&amp;ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19322" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7842" RevisionGUID="0912735a-56e0-492f-878c-ddd011c54668" CreationDate="2015-01-16T06:46:34.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/555979406058217472" />
  <row Id="19323" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7992" RevisionGUID="f89f07bb-973c-4533-ab14-c2cc10cb0e09" CreationDate="2015-01-16T09:48:10.260" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Не - слитно или раздельно: &quot;неопределённо, но не насмешливо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7993" RevisionGUID="884fc5c8-371a-48d0-8a77-129cc8c808d7" CreationDate="2015-01-16T11:24:50.980" UserId="4629" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="&gt;Действительно ли *ещё* является зависимым от причастий словом...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю, что именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ещё не затоптанные следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные ещё следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные пока следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные к утру следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*не затоптанные прохожими следы*&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кажется, функция зависимого слова налицо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры *ещё маленький ребёнок* и *ещё свежие овощи* вряд ли хороши, так как не содержат *не-*. Можно предложить более наглядные примеры: *ещё небольшой ребёнок*, *ещё неспелые овощи* -- но *ещё не выросший ребёнок* и *ещё не созревшие овощи*. Тут *небольшой* и *неспелый* -- прилагательные, легко заменяемые синонимами *маленький* и *зелёный*, поэтому они должны писаться слитно. Причастия же с *не-*, согласно правилу о зависимом слове, пишутся раздельно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="61241d4f-78db-44fd-8efc-e073e59b27a0" CreationDate="2015-01-16T12:32:55.533" UserId="-1" Comment="example added" Text="It's not as easy as it seems. In fact, it's very complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Objects that looks like rectangular cuboid** (e.g. book)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They «stand» when their long part is placed vertically and «lie» when thier long part is placed horizontally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книга стоит на полке.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книга лежит на столе. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. **Objects that can be in the proper position**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If they are in the proper position, they «stand» (e.g. an opened notebook, a flower in a vase). If they are folded or placed wrong, they «lie».  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Цветы стоят в вазе.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Цветок лежит на диване.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Objects that have only one possible position**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Mostly they always «lie». But sometimes «stand» (idk when) but there are few examples:  &#xD;&#xA;Коробка лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нож лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нож лежит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But attention:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Коробка стоит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Чашка/стакан стоит на столе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19326" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="61241d4f-78db-44fd-8efc-e073e59b27a0" CreationDate="2015-01-16T12:32:55.533" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="c27cc6c4-9da1-4eb7-a6a7-2107e91594da" CreationDate="2015-01-16T12:32:55.533" UserId="551" Comment="example added" Text="It's not as easy as it seems. In fact, it's very complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Objects that looks like rectangular cuboid** (e.g. book)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They «stand» when their long part is placed vertically and «lie» when thier long part is placed horizontally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книга стоит на полке.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Книга лежит на столе. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. **Objects that can be in the proper position**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If they are in the proper position, they «stand» (e.g. an opened notebook, a flower in a vase). If they are folded or placed wrong, they «lie».  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Цветы стоят в вазе.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Цветок лежит на диване.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Objects that have only one possible position**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Mostly they always «lie». But sometimes «stand» (idk when) but there are few examples:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Коробка лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нож лежит на полу.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Нож лежит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But attention:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Коробка стоит на столе.  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; Чашка/стакан стоит на столе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7996" RevisionGUID="5096234c-7624-4f35-9e4d-80593155356b" CreationDate="2015-01-17T00:40:30.800" UserId="4884" Text="[Николай Данилович Голев][1], у которого мне посчастливилось учиться, советовал придерживаться синхронного подхода к словообразованию и говорил, что нужно смотреть, какое из двух слов сложнее - семантически и формально. Семантически, глубь - это глубокое место. Значит, семантически, &quot;глубь&quot; = &quot;глубокий&quot; + &quot;место&quot;. Следовательно, &quot;глубокий&quot; - базовое слово, &quot;глубь&quot; образовалось от него. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Формальную словообразовательную цепочку я бы построила так: глубокий + суффикс существительного -ин + флексия = глубина. Глубина - обратный суффиксальный способ словообразования = глубь. Возможно, моя цепочка неверна, я лишь предполагаю, что это так. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7997" RevisionGUID="f843f19b-9af7-41c3-845c-59b3de0bcfc3" CreationDate="2015-01-17T01:18:22.257" UserId="1671" Text="Правильно ли звучит эта фраза? Простота и логичность относится к убеждению. Но можно понять, что простота и логичность относятся к нему? Как можно перефразировать это предложение, если это необходимо? Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7997" RevisionGUID="f843f19b-9af7-41c3-845c-59b3de0bcfc3" CreationDate="2015-01-17T01:18:22.257" UserId="1671" Text="Это очень распространённое убеждение укрепилось в нём во многом благодаря своей простоте и логичности?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7997" RevisionGUID="f843f19b-9af7-41c3-845c-59b3de0bcfc3" CreationDate="2015-01-17T01:18:22.257" UserId="1671" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7998" RevisionGUID="df18f176-9276-4507-846f-5226e0cf6bdd" CreationDate="2015-01-17T05:22:05.160" UserId="2079" Text="Dmitry прав, никакой двусмысленности в утверждении нет. Двусмысленным было бы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это очень распространённое убеждение укрепилось в нём во многом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; благодаря **его** простоте и логичности" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19338" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7542" RevisionGUID="a60159ff-f089-49d5-afbb-de592e8cae4f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T06:46:35.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/556341795807039488" />
  <row Id="19339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7999" RevisionGUID="907a479c-f1c3-435a-bc7e-e24de104b1aa" CreationDate="2015-01-17T09:28:47.953" UserId="1236" Text="Правило простое, оно звучит так: *местоимение «свой» означает «относящийся к подлежащему»*. Поскольку в вашем предложении подлежащим является «убеждение», то ничего перефразировать не надо, всё понятно однозначно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="6686a832-0a91-4b16-bc06-402de08e12a1" CreationDate="2015-01-17T11:15:54.103" UserId="4702" Text="This is one of my many attempts to get some vocabulary into my head. I was thinking if you guys have any good, interesting or funny Russian words/phrases that can replace some of the Оченьs below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very much - Очень много   &#xD;&#xA;Very loud - Очень громко  &#xD;&#xA;Very noisy - Очень шумно  &#xD;&#xA;Very soft - Очень мягкий  &#xD;&#xA;Very little - Очень мало  &#xD;&#xA;Very few - Очень мало   &#xD;&#xA;Very small - Очень мала     &#xD;&#xA;Very late - Очень поздно   &#xD;&#xA;Very big - Очень большой   &#xD;&#xA;Very cold - Очень холодно   &#xD;&#xA;Very hot - Очень жарко      &#xD;&#xA;Very long - Cлишком долго   &#xD;&#xA;Very tall - Cлишком высок   &#xD;&#xA;Very short - Очень короткий  &#xD;&#xA;Very fast - Очень быстро   &#xD;&#xA;Very slow - Очень медленно   &#xD;&#xA;Very often - Очень часто    &#xD;&#xA;Very far - Очень далеко   &#xD;&#xA;Very close - Очень близко          &#xD;&#xA;Very fat - Очень толстый   &#xD;&#xA;Very skinny - Очень худой   &#xD;&#xA;Very thin - Очень худых    &#xD;&#xA;Very thin - Очень тонкий    &#xD;&#xA;Very old - Очень стар    &#xD;&#xA;Very young - Очень молод   &#xD;&#xA;Very lazy - Очень ленив   &#xD;&#xA;Very expensive - Очень дорогой   &#xD;&#xA;Very dangerous - Очень опасна     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="6686a832-0a91-4b16-bc06-402de08e12a1" CreationDate="2015-01-17T11:15:54.103" UserId="4702" Text="Слишком Очень Много" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="6686a832-0a91-4b16-bc06-402de08e12a1" CreationDate="2015-01-17T11:15:54.103" UserId="4702" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8001" RevisionGUID="26ac7a4b-8cab-4351-9d56-3fd2c91bc36b" CreationDate="2015-01-17T11:44:57.370" UserId="170" Text="What's the right way to tell a present passive participle from an adjective? I guess if the agent is mentioned (like in &quot;Изменяемый **мною** проект&quot;), then it's for sure a participle. But what about such cases, in which the agent is not mentioned? Like the ones below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; СМИ уже больше не обращают никакого внимания на постоянно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **изменяемые** проекты городского правительства.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё это **изменяемые** величины, а не константы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В отличие от &quot;пианино&quot; и &quot;пальто&quot; такие слова как &quot;машина&quot;, &quot;ковёр&quot; и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;контракт&quot; - всё это **изменяемые** по падежам слова." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8001" RevisionGUID="26ac7a4b-8cab-4351-9d56-3fd2c91bc36b" CreationDate="2015-01-17T11:44:57.370" UserId="170" Text="How to tell a participle from an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8001" RevisionGUID="26ac7a4b-8cab-4351-9d56-3fd2c91bc36b" CreationDate="2015-01-17T11:44:57.370" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19346" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7738" RevisionGUID="602f03f2-778b-43b4-92bf-3aa9ea0059bf" CreationDate="2015-01-17T12:51:56.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/556433743393865729" />
  <row Id="19347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="03ced093-ff71-4231-86a6-2be7d644fc1b" CreationDate="2015-01-17T13:12:54.583" UserId="4702" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="This is one of my many attempts to get some vocabulary into my head. I was thinking if you guys have any good, interesting or funny Russian words/phrases that can replace some of the Оченьs below. For example, are there better Russian expressions for Очень много, Очень громко,... etc? I'm hoping to hear some amusing expressions; even slang!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very much - Очень много   &#xD;&#xA;Very loud - Очень громко  &#xD;&#xA;Very noisy - Очень шумно  &#xD;&#xA;Very soft - Очень мягкий  &#xD;&#xA;Very little - Очень мало  &#xD;&#xA;Very few - Очень мало   &#xD;&#xA;Very small - Очень мала     &#xD;&#xA;Very late - Очень поздно   &#xD;&#xA;Very big - Очень большой   &#xD;&#xA;Very cold - Очень холодно   &#xD;&#xA;Very hot - Очень жарко      &#xD;&#xA;Very long - Cлишком долго   &#xD;&#xA;Very tall - Cлишком высок   &#xD;&#xA;Very short - Очень короткий  &#xD;&#xA;Very fast - Очень быстро   &#xD;&#xA;Very slow - Очень медленно   &#xD;&#xA;Very often - Очень часто    &#xD;&#xA;Very far - Очень далеко   &#xD;&#xA;Very close - Очень близко          &#xD;&#xA;Very fat - Очень толстый   &#xD;&#xA;Very skinny - Очень худой   &#xD;&#xA;Very thin - Очень худых    &#xD;&#xA;Very thin - Очень тонкий    &#xD;&#xA;Very old - Очень стар    &#xD;&#xA;Very young - Очень молод   &#xD;&#xA;Very lazy - Очень ленив   &#xD;&#xA;Very expensive - Очень дорогой   &#xD;&#xA;Very dangerous - Очень опасна     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8002" RevisionGUID="e6bd6c56-16e9-4b3e-ac16-17d28eb8bb0a" CreationDate="2015-01-17T13:48:07.687" UserId="1236" Text="As far as I know, the participles mean &quot;the ones which _are being changed_&quot; (your example #1), and the adjectives mean &quot;the ones that _can be changed_&quot; (your examples #2 and #3).&#xD;&#xA;Anyhow, it is very difficult even for the native speakers of Russian to distinguish between the participles and the adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8003" RevisionGUID="fdd4d79d-8ced-481c-b104-a12dfe12c0e1" CreationDate="2015-01-17T13:57:27.910" UserId="1236" Text="Don't forget, &quot;very&quot; before adjectives and adverbs can often be translated with the augmentative prefix `пре-` attached to those adjectives and adverbs, so &quot;very much&quot; can well be translated as &quot;премного&quot;, &quot;very big&quot; as &quot;пребольшой&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;Still, not every adjectives or adverb has this form with `пре-`, e.g. &quot;медленно/медленный&quot; hasn't got it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8004" RevisionGUID="3505327f-1822-47a7-9dd0-31e625c8f294" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:36:07.003" UserId="4920" Text="**Очень много**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Как у дурака фантиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Да у него денег, *как у дурака фантиков*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Клондайк!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Сколько у тебя инструментов! Целый *клондайк*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень громко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как раненный зверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Чего орешь, *как раненный зверь*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень шумно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как медведь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ходил по комнате *как медведь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень мало**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как украл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Принес воды *как украл*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень мал** (рост)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Метр с кепкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Да у него рост - *метр с кепкой*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень жарко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пекло!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- В комнате было *пекло*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cлишком долго**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Только за смертью посылать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Где ты ходил? Тебя *только за смертью посылать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cлишком высок** (рост)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) дядя Степа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Каланча.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень короткий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Огрызок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- От провода остался *огрызок*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень быстро**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как пуля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Пассажир пробежал *как пуля*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень медленно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как черепаха.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Школьник плелся *как черепаха*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень часто**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как из пулемета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Как из пулемета* вылетали листы печатающей машинки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень далеко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;За горизонтом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень близко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Под носом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Книга у тебя *под носом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень толстый**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жиртрест.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ну ты и *жиртрест*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень стар**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да из него уже песок сыпется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень молод**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Зелень.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Зелень* ещё, чтобы сделать это.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Два вершка от горшка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Два вершка от горшка*, а даешь советы!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8005" RevisionGUID="07178bd6-1e63-488f-85a9-7c5f878922c6" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:45:11.877" UserId="4629" Text="Сочетание *в нём во многом* создаёт мимолётное впечатление однородных членов предложения, и возникает некоторая запинка в понимании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы переформулировал, но прежде обветил бы на вопрос: **во многом** — благодаря простоте и логичности, а **в остальном** — благодаря чему? Распространённости? Или чему-то неназванному в этом предложении? Нужно ли тут вообще это *во многом*?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8004" RevisionGUID="812d1c4d-3188-4364-90d0-f2c07c4629da" CreationDate="2015-01-17T14:45:41.683" UserId="4920" Comment="correcting" Text="**Очень много**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Как у дурака фантиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Да у него денег, *как у дурака фантиков*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Клондайк!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Сколько у тебя инструментов! Целый *клондайк*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень громко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как раненный зверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Чего орешь, *как раненный зверь*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень шумно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как медведь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ходил по комнате *как медведь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень мало**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как украл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Принес воды *как украл*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень мал** (рост)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Метр с кепкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Да у него рост - *метр с кепкой*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень жарко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пекло!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- В комнате было *пекло*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cлишком долго**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Только за смертью посылать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Где ты ходил? Тебя *только за смертью посылать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cлишком высок** (рост)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) дядя Степа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Каланча.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень короткий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Огрызок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- От провода остался *огрызок*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень быстро**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как пуля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Пассажир пробежал *как пуля*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень медленно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как черепаха.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Школьник плелся *как черепаха*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Поезд ехал *как черепаха*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень часто**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как из пулемета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Как из пулемета* вылетали листы печатающей машинки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень далеко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;За горизонтом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Муж *за горизонтом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень близко**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Под носом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Книга у тебя *под носом*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень толстый**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жиртрест.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ну ты и *жиртрест*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень стар**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да из него уже песок сыпется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень молод**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Зелень.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Зелень* ещё, чтобы сделать это.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Два вершка от горшка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Два вершка от горшка*, а даешь советы!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="c8d932ac-c286-4f23-8a40-859cb6ff95ce" CreationDate="2015-01-17T16:42:04.467" UserId="4702" Comment="added 2859 characters in body" Text="This is one of my many attempts to get some vocabulary into my head. I was thinking if you guys have any good, interesting or funny Russian words/phrases that can replace some of the Оченьs below. For example, are there better Russian expressions for Очень много, Очень громко,... etc? I'm hoping to hear some amusing expressions; even slang!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very afraid — terrified             Очень боюсь — страшно&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Very angry — furious                Очень зол — в ярости &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very bad — atrocious                Очень плохо — отвратительная &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very beautiful — exquisite          Очень красивый — изысканная &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very big — immense                  Очень большой — огромный &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very bright — dazzling              Очень яркий — ослепляет &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very capable — accomplished         Очень способный — осуществляется &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clean — spotless               Очень чистые —         &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Very clever — brilliant             Очень умный — гениальный &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very close —                        Очень близко — Под носом &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very cold — freezing                Очень холодно — замораживание &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dangerous —                    Очень опасна —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dirty — squalid                Очень грязный — убогий &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dry — parched                  Очень сухой — выжженная &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very eager — keen                   Очень хотелось — сильно &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very expensive —                    Очень дорогой — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very far —                          Очень далеко — За горизонтом &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fast — quick                   Очень быстро — Как пуля &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fat —                          Очень толстый — Жиртрест &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few —                          Очень мало — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fierce — ferocious             Очень жестокой — свирепый &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very good — superb                  Очень хорошо — превосходный &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very happy — jubilant               Очень рад — ликующая &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very hot —                          Очень жарко —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very hungry — ravenous              Очень голоден — хищный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very large — colossal               Очень большой — колоссальная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very late —                         Очень поздно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very lazy —                         Очень ленив —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little —                       Очень мало —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very lively — vivacious             Очень живой — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very long —                         Очень долго —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very loud —                         Очень громко —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very loved — adored                 Очень любил — обожаемая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very much —                         Очень много —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very neat — immaculate              Очень аккуратно — совершенные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very noisy —                        Очень шумно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very often —                        Очень часто — Как из пулемета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very old — ancient                  Очень старый — древний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very poor — destitute               Очень плохое — нищие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very pretty — beautiful             Очень красивая — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very quiet — silent                 Очень тихий — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very risky — perilous               Очень рискованно — опасно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very roomy — spacious               Очень вместительный — просторный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very serious — solemn               Очень серьезно — торжественное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very short —                        Очень короткий — огрызок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very skinny —                       Очень худой —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very slow —                         Очень медленно — Как черепаха&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very small — tiny                   Очень мало — крошечный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very soft —                         Очень мягкий —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very strong — unyielding            Очень сильный — неуступчивый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very stupid — idiotic               Очень глупо — идиотизм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tall —                         Очень высок —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tasty — delicious              Очень вкусно — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very thin — gaunt                   Очень тонкая — тощий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very thin —                         Очень худых —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tired — exhausted              Очень устал — исчерпаны&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very valuable — precious            Очень ценное — драгоценный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very weak — feeble                  Очень слабый — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very wicked — villainous            Очень злой — злодейский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very wise — sagacious               Очень мудрый — прозорливый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very worried — anxious              Очень беспокоит — тревожный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very young —                        Очень молод — Зелень&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8006" RevisionGUID="e9512465-780b-497e-8027-81ced7d9549f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T19:12:07.753" UserId="5" Text="Интересуюсь, что такое бзда. Помогите" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8006" RevisionGUID="e9512465-780b-497e-8027-81ced7d9549f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T19:12:07.753" UserId="5" Text="Что такое бзда?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8006" RevisionGUID="e9512465-780b-497e-8027-81ced7d9549f" CreationDate="2015-01-17T19:12:07.753" UserId="5" Text="|словоприменение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8007" RevisionGUID="7d063a0c-2df3-4460-8710-07e751f03850" CreationDate="2015-01-17T20:51:38.467" UserId="4924" Text="I have finally gotten through all the grammar, but I am confused with certain words. For example, I learned about должен, можно, и нужно. But, words like видно и замечательно are confusing me. Like, what does &quot;Я видно&quot; и &quot;Он замечательно&quot; mean, and why is it &quot;Мне нужно&quot;, but not &quot; Я нужно&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8007" RevisionGUID="7d063a0c-2df3-4460-8710-07e751f03850" CreationDate="2015-01-17T20:51:38.467" UserId="4924" Text="Russian Predicatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8007" RevisionGUID="7d063a0c-2df3-4460-8710-07e751f03850" CreationDate="2015-01-17T20:51:38.467" UserId="4924" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8008" RevisionGUID="20e3f1ce-d9b7-4edc-89ed-75dcf40a2c04" CreationDate="2015-01-17T21:14:42.747" UserId="310" Text="&quot;Я видно&quot; is in itself meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я, видно,..&quot; is okay and roughly neans &quot;looks like I'm...&quot; - no actual looking is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Замечательно can work both ways. &quot;Он замечательно прыгает&quot; - he jumps magnificently. &quot;Ему замечательно повезло&quot; - &quot;he got really lucky&quot;. Note how you can't say &quot;he really lucky&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне нужно сделать&quot; but &quot;Я должен сделать&quot; - I guess it's just how it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8006" RevisionGUID="8fad9e8e-5393-48b4-b11f-6e88c257987e" CreationDate="2015-01-17T21:26:12.397" UserId="5" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="Интересуюсь, что такое бзда. Помогите&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your problem people? I don't understand downvotes. There is such word, all I am asking is for some help explaining it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google ngram][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Google books][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;btnG=Search%20Books&amp;tbm=bks&amp;tbo=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8009" RevisionGUID="06462803-a139-431c-9667-7cdb4236bf68" CreationDate="2015-01-17T21:30:45.017" UserId="4884" Text="There are many impersonal constructions in Russian that take Dative. Here you can check some of the [impersonal sentences with Dative][1]. Those constructions can be literally translated as *It is needed to me* (мне нужно), *it is wanted to me* (мне хочется) or *it is liked to me* (мне нравится). In English, you have a subject 'I' and verbs that are in active voice. In Russian, it works differently: 'I' is rather passive, so things happen to &quot;I&quot;, instead of 'I' being an active subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне видно - It is visible to me. &quot;Я видно&quot; is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он живёт / чувствует себя замечательно - he is fine (alternatively, you can say, у него всё замечательно)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/175yZTwBcSukMlenZrGT5XS2szmfFax7-p9J20D2ch3w/edit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8010" RevisionGUID="4481dae4-9d13-49f1-a88f-004eadf4bb3e" CreationDate="2015-01-17T21:31:05.240" UserId="1236" Text="Unlike English, Russian can have adverbs as predicatives. I agree with [@alamar][1] about &quot;Я видно&quot; и &quot;Он замечательно&quot;, but as for &quot;Мне нужно&quot; I can explain it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нужно&quot; means &quot;needed&quot;, and it is a whole clause by itself meaning &quot;[it is] needed&quot;, both &quot;it&quot; and &quot;is&quot; are omitted in Russian. &quot;Мне&quot; is &quot;for me&quot;, so &quot;Мне нужно&quot; is translated word-for-word &quot;for me it is needed&quot;, which actually mean &quot;I need&quot;, that is how this phrase is working in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/310/alamar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8006" RevisionGUID="d24d6e70-c8ac-45ec-abb5-a301b89145a9" CreationDate="2015-01-17T21:33:48.643" UserId="5" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Интересуюсь, что такое бзда. Помогите&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's ridiculous. What is your problem people? I don't understand downvotes. There is such word, all I am asking is for some help explaining it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Google ngram][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Google books][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is wrong with it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;btnG=Search%20Books&amp;tbm=bks&amp;tbo=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8011" RevisionGUID="910f5483-5a0f-414b-8826-b3d8dfbe43cd" CreationDate="2015-01-17T21:52:30.000" UserId="4926" Text="**Очень громко** -- как потерпевший -- Что вы кричите как потерпевший?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень глупо** -- тупой, тупой как пробка -- Он тупой как пробка(про человека или животное). &#xD;&#xA;НО. Тупые мысли, тупые поступки (здесь &quot;как пробка&quot; ставить не надо)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8011" RevisionGUID="f52d8a25-5b72-406f-8cc9-ce7309586a49" CreationDate="2015-01-17T22:05:21.317" UserId="4926" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="**Очень громко** -- как потерпевший -- Что вы кричите как потерпевший?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень глупо** -- тупой, тупой как пробка -- Он тупой как пробка(про человека или животное). &#xD;&#xA;НО. Тупые мысли, тупые поступки (здесь &quot;как пробка&quot; ставить не надо).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень зол** -- как собака -- Она злая как собака." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8012" RevisionGUID="882f1bd8-4ca4-4576-822b-ac5ba7c28bbd" CreationDate="2015-01-17T22:35:25.783" UserId="4481" Text="Some comments to words that you wrote (my comments only about Russian words and phrases and their correspondence to each other, not about accuracy of translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Very beautiful — exquisite Очень красивый — изысканная*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer here `очаровательный` instead of `изысканный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Very bright — dazzling Очень яркий — ослепляет*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ослепляет` is verb in present tense, you can use `ослепляющий` (participle). Be careful with `ослепительный` - it often means `очень красивый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. *Very dirty — squalid Очень грязный — убогий*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`убогий` is incorrect. You can use `грязный как свинья`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. *Very hungry — ravenous Очень голоден — хищный*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`хищный` is incorrect. You can use `голодный как волк`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. *Very poor — destitute Очень плохое — нищие*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrect. `Нищий` (it can be noun and adjective) means `[person] without money`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. *Very roomy — spacious Очень вместительный — просторный*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not good. `вместительный` is applicable mainly to transport (cars, trucks, buses, planes) and containers (bags, backpacks, etc.), `просторный` - to rooms and buildings (But both of them could be used for cars).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. *Very strong — unyielding Очень сильный — неуступчивый*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrect. `Непобедимый` will be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. *Very thin — gaunt Очень тонкая — тощий*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrect. `Тощий` means `очень худой`, for `очень тонкий` you can use `тонюсенький`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. *Very capable — accomplished Очень способный — осуществляется  &#xD;&#xA;Very cold — freezing Очень холодно — замораживание  &#xD;&#xA;Very eager — keen Очень хотелось — сильно  &#xD;&#xA;Very neat — immaculate Очень аккуратно — совершенные  &#xD;&#xA;Very tired — exhausted Очень устал — исчерпаны*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is meaningless and looks like bad machine translation. I can recommend:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Очень способный` - `схватывает на лету` (about learning)&#xD;&#xA; - `Очень холодно` - `морозно` (adverb), also `дубак`, `холодрыга` (both are slang nouns, both are used to describe weather).&#xD;&#xA; - `Очень хотелось` - `невтерпеж` (adverb)&#xD;&#xA; - `Очень устал` - `вымотанный` (participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many of words in your pairs are different parts of speech or have different gender. For example: `Очень глупо — идиотизм`. `глупо` is adverb, `идиотизм` is noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8011" RevisionGUID="cc64a4c2-244b-4da6-86a4-1b1536097bb6" CreationDate="2015-01-17T22:39:06.513" UserId="97" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**Очень громко** -- как потерпевший -- Что вы кричите как потерпевший?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень глупо** -- тупой, тупой как пробка -- Он тупой, как пробка (про человека или животное). &#xD;&#xA;_НО:_ Тупые мысли, тупые поступки (здесь &quot;как пробка&quot; ставить не надо).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Очень зол** -- как собака -- Она злая, как собака." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8013" RevisionGUID="7bac4d84-14b5-4c9a-b710-e17936b87249" CreationDate="2015-01-17T22:48:44.443" UserId="4903" Text="A participle is a form of a verb that describes change over time.  An adjective describes a more permanent attribute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes example #1 _**постоянно изменяемые**_ different from the other two is that it describes a _**change over time**_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8014" RevisionGUID="67f96563-5780-45dd-bee2-b5989034b562" CreationDate="2015-01-18T00:19:14.067" UserId="4833" Text="Во всех примерах на Google Books - неправильно считанные слова с буквой ять: ѣзда (езда, ride), звѣзда (звезда, star), уѣзда (genitive of уезд, county)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В ссылках на форумы - иногда просторечное существительное от [бздеть][1], или эвфемизм в значении [пи***][2]. Как правило, никакой смысловой нагрузки не несет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8015" RevisionGUID="6083b0d5-e919-4eb8-9021-560a2ce80337" CreationDate="2015-01-18T05:33:32.443" UserId="4927" Text="подруга is something like female fellow. Nothing serious. This is sexism)  &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Привет, дружище. Привет, друг. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Привет, подруга. &lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="366a8f9d-003e-4e4f-9f47-d83d84325e41" CreationDate="2015-01-18T10:55:51.847" UserId="4702" Comment="deleted 954 characters in body" Text="This is one of my many attempts to get some vocabulary into my head. I was thinking if you guys have any good, interesting or funny Russian words/phrases that can replace some of the Оченьs below. For example, are there better Russian expressions for Очень много, Очень громко,... etc? I'm hoping to hear some amusing expressions; even slang!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very afraid — terrified Очень боюсь — страшно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very angry — furious. Очень зол — в ярости; как собака — Она злая, как собака.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very bad — atrocious Очень плохо — отвратительная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very beautiful — exquisite Очень красивый — очаровательный &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very big — immense Очень большой — огромный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very bright — dazzling Очень яркий — ослепляющий &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very capable — accomplished. Очень способный — схватывает на лету (about learning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clean — spotless Очень чистые —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clever — brilliant Очень умный — гениальный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very close — Очень близко — Под носом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very cold — freezing. Очень холодно - морозно (adverb), дубак, холодрыга (slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dangerous — Очень опасна —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dirty — squalid Очень грязный — грязный как свинья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dry — parched Очень сухой — выжженная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very expensive — Очень дорогой —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very far — Очень далеко — За горизонтом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fast — quick Очень быстро — Как пуля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fat — Очень толстый — Жиртрест&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few — Очень мало —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fierce — ferocious Очень жестокой — свирепый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very good — superb Очень хорошо — превосходный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very happy — jubilant Очень рад — ликующая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very hot — Очень жарко —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very hungry — ravenous Очень голоден — голодный как волк&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very large — colossal Очень большой — колоссальная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very late — Очень поздно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very lazy — Очень ленив —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little — Очень мало —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very lively — vivacious Очень живой —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very long — Очень долго —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very loud — Очень громко — ;как потерпевший — Что вы кричите как потерпевший?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very loved — adored Очень любил — обожаемая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very much — Очень много —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very neat — immaculate. Очень ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very noisy — Очень шумно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very often — Очень часто — Как из пулемета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very old — ancient Очень старый — древний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very poor — destitute Очень плохое — Нищий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very pretty — beautiful Очень красивая —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very quiet — silent Очень тихий —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very risky — perilous Очень рискованно — опасно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very roomy — spacious; Очень просторный — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very serious — solemn Очень серьезно — торжественное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very short — Очень короткий — огрызок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very skinny — Очень худой —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very slow — Очень медленно — Как черепаха&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very small — tiny Очень мало — крошечный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very soft — Очень мягкий —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very strong — unyielding; Очень сильный — Непобедимый &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very stupid — idiotic. Очень глу́пый — идиотизм; тупой, тупой как пробка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tall — Очень высок —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tasty — delicious Очень вкусно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very thin — gaunt; Очень тонкий — тонюсенький.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very thin — skinny; Очень худой — Тощий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tired — exhausted. Очень устал - вымотанный (participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very valuable — precious Очень ценное — драгоценный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very weak — feeble Очень слабый —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very wicked — villainous Очень злой — злодейский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very wise — sagacious Очень мудрый — прозорливый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very worried — anxious Очень беспокоит — тревожный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very young — Очень молод — Зелень" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8007" RevisionGUID="d23005ce-182e-4b7a-8720-00ebcc5eb76e" CreationDate="2015-01-18T11:18:34.190" UserId="4903" Comment="highlighted the words in question and samples" Text="I have finally gotten through all the grammar, but I am confused with certain words. For example, I learned about **должен**, **можно**, and **нужно**. But, words like **видно** and **замечательно** are confusing me. Like, what does **&quot;Я видно&quot;** and **&quot;Он замечательно&quot;** mean, and why is it **&quot;Мне нужно&quot;**, but not **&quot;Я нужно&quot;**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19374" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8007" RevisionGUID="d23005ce-182e-4b7a-8720-00ebcc5eb76e" CreationDate="2015-01-18T11:18:34.190" Comment="Proposed by 4903 approved by 551, 2060 edit id of 584" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8000" RevisionGUID="86a04f17-0abd-469a-9482-5b2f78ae65ec" CreationDate="2015-01-18T12:26:54.983" UserId="4702" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="This is one of my many attempts to get some vocabulary into my head. I was thinking if you guys have any good, interesting or funny Russian words/phrases that can replace some of the Оченьs below. For example, are there better Russian expressions for Очень много, Очень громко,... etc? I'm hoping to hear some amusing expressions; even slang!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very afraid — terrified Очень боюсь — страшно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very angry — furious. Очень зол — в ярости; как собака — Она злая, как собака.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very bad — atrocious Очень плохо — отвратительная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very beautiful — exquisite Очень красивый — очаровательный &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very big — immense Очень большой — огромный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very bright — dazzling Очень яркий — ослепляющий &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very capable — accomplished. Очень способный — схватывает на лету (about learning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clean — spotless Очень чистые —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very clever — brilliant Очень умный — гениальный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very close — Очень близко — Под носом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very cold — freezing. Очень холодно - морозно (adverb), дубак, холодрыга (slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dangerous — Очень опасна —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dirty — squalid Очень грязный — грязный как свинья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very dry — parched Очень сухой — выжженная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very expensive — exorbitant. Очень дорогой — непомерный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very far — Очень далеко — За горизонтом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fast — quick Очень быстро — Как пуля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fat — Очень толстый — Жиртрест&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very few — Очень мало —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very fierce — ferocious Очень жестокой — свирепый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very good — superb Очень хорошо — превосходный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very happy — jubilant Очень рад — ликующая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very hot — Очень жарко —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very hungry — ravenous Очень голоден — голодный как волк&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very large — colossal Очень большой — колоссальная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very late — Очень поздно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very lazy — Очень ленив —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little — Очень мало —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very lively — vivacious Очень живой —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very long — Очень долго —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very loud — Очень громко — ;как потерпевший — Что вы кричите как потерпевший?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very loved — adored Очень любил — обожаемая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very much — Очень много —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very neat — immaculate. Очень ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very noisy — Очень шумно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very often — Очень часто — Как из пулемета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very old — ancient Очень старый — древний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very poor — destitute Очень плохое — Нищий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very pretty — beautiful Очень красивая —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very quiet — silent Очень тихий —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very risky — perilous Очень рискованно — опасно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very roomy — spacious; Очень просторный — &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very serious — solemn Очень серьезно — торжественное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very short — Очень короткий — огрызок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very skinny — Очень худой —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very slow — Очень медленно — Как черепаха&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very small — tiny Очень мало — крошечный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very soft — Очень мягкий —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very strong — unyielding; Очень сильный — Непобедимый &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very stupid — idiotic. Очень глу́пый — идиотизм; тупой, тупой как пробка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tall — Очень высок —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tasty — delicious Очень вкусно —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very thin — gaunt; Очень тонкий — тонюсенький.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very thin — skinny; Очень худой — Тощий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tired — exhausted. Очень устал - вымотанный (participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very valuable — precious Очень ценное — драгоценный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very weak — feeble Очень слабый —&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very wicked — villainous Очень злой — злодейский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very wise — sagacious Очень мудрый — прозорливый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very worried — anxious Очень беспокоит — тревожный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very young — Очень молод — Зелень" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8016" RevisionGUID="935a7aa0-0548-436b-b567-1589e7e997a2" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:35:00.960" UserId="2079" Text="Слишком мало (обычно о ресурсах) - кот наплакал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень много (чего-то полезного или хорошего) - навалом. (У Маши денег кот наплакал, зато у Билла Гейтса их навалом.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень много денег - денег куры не клюют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень глупое замечание - не смеши мои тапочки, бред, бредятина, бред сивой кобылы, чушь собачья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень худой:&#xD;&#xA;1. Тоненькая, тонкая (seldom about males) - positive&#xD;&#xA;2. Тощий - negative, but not offensive&#xD;&#xA;3. Худющий - negative, but again not offensive, it is often told about children and animals&#xD;&#xA;4. Дистрофик - may be either offensive or a medical diagnosis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень толстый: жирный, жирдяй, жиртрест (all of these are offensive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень любить: обожать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень обидеться: смертельно обидеться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень хороший/красивый: потрясающий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19377" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7651" RevisionGUID="1ae21195-f029-4769-895b-dcb356a87ca3" CreationDate="2015-01-18T18:53:44.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/556887179327438848" />
  <row Id="19378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8014" RevisionGUID="fd724c0e-03b2-4d74-be65-17bebc22b4ab" CreationDate="2015-01-18T20:31:37.257" UserId="2269" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Во всех примерах на Google Books — неправильно считанные слова с буквой ять: ѣзда (езда, ride), звѣзда (звезда, star), уѣзда (genitive of уезд, county)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В ссылках на форумы — иногда просторечное существительное от [«бздеть»][1], или эвфемизм в значении [«пизда»][2]. Как правило, никакой смысловой нагрузки не несет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="37741713-64e4-4a7d-8dc2-62d66222c92c" CreationDate="2015-01-18T21:41:52.533" UserId="4560" Text="Мы то и дело используем в прошедшем времени несовершенный вид там, где он по базовому смыслу  вполне заменим на совершенный, однако контекст требует подчеркнуть, что было выполнено некое предписанное или необходимое действие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Номер телефона **вводил**, но никакого подтверждения не пришло.* (Говорящий, скорее всего, ввел номер один раз, а не несколько.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;У меня что-то спина уже неделю болит.&quot; &quot;К врачу **ходил**?&quot;* (Опять же несовершенный вид подчеркивает предписанность действия, а не его многократность или продолжительность.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересует меня вот что: есть ли исследования на тему того, с каких пор в русском языке отмечается такое употребление? Потому что объяснить его можно двумя разными способами: либо чисто семантическим (некая виртуальная &quot;продолжительность&quot; действия подчеркивает, что важен не столько результат, сколько процесс), либо историческим. Второй интереснее и опасно располагает к спекуляциям, но нельзя не отметить: такая функция у несовершенного вида есть только в прошедшем времени. *Даже если ты **введешь** номер, подтверждения не придет* — &quot;будешь вводить&quot; здесь неуместно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому возникает такое предположение: несовершенный вид в этом значении был еще в пору, когда прошедших времен в русском было четыре, и оттенок &quot;предписанности&quot; выражался как раз через выбор глагольного времени. Возможно, это одно из исконных употреблений несовершенного вида в перфекте, который теперь стал нашим единственным прошедшим временем, а в прочих случаях ему предпочитался аорист или имперфект. Или наоборот, там как раз требовался аорист?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="37741713-64e4-4a7d-8dc2-62d66222c92c" CreationDate="2015-01-18T21:41:52.533" UserId="4560" Text="Несовершенный вид в значении совершенного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="37741713-64e4-4a7d-8dc2-62d66222c92c" CreationDate="2015-01-18T21:41:52.533" UserId="4560" Text="|глаголы|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8001" RevisionGUID="23b345c3-e4b6-4725-ae6a-a81dddc94ffb" CreationDate="2015-01-19T00:53:32.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/556977726205480960" />
  <row Id="19384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8018" RevisionGUID="da6b6629-a888-4a57-ba01-3f3005204d28" CreationDate="2015-01-19T01:17:22.603" UserId="62" Text="In Russian, &quot;I need...&quot; is literally expressed as &quot;to me is needed...&quot; = мне нужно and &quot;I like...&quot; is literally expressed as &quot;to me is liked...&quot; = мне нравится. This is why, for instance, &quot;I need the car&quot; = Мне нужно машина with машина in the nominative case. Although in English the word car is the object, so you may think it belongs in the accusative case in Russian, the Russian construction is saying &quot;To me is needed a car&quot; or, a bit less awkwardly, &quot;To me a car is needed.&quot; Either way, car is not the object of the sentence but the subject, hence nominative. Similarly, &quot;I like geometry&quot; is мне нравится геометрия, with geometry in the nominative case since the Russian construction is &quot;To me is liked geometry&quot; or &quot;To me geometry us liked.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more direct construction can have a different meaning than you may intend. For example, &quot;he is cold&quot; is expressed as ему холодно = &quot;to him it is cold.&quot; If you instead use the adjective холодный to say someone is cold (он холодный человек or он холоден, using a short form adjective in the second version) then that means the person is cold as an emotional state.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8018" RevisionGUID="da22e864-1f7d-4b66-8365-615765861f67" CreationDate="2015-01-19T02:11:00.077" UserId="62" Comment="edited body" Text="In Russian, &quot;I need...&quot; is literally expressed as &quot;to me is needed...&quot; = мне нужно and &quot;I like...&quot; is literally expressed as &quot;to me is liked...&quot; = мне нравится. This is why, for instance, &quot;I need the car&quot; = Мне нужна машина with машина in the nominative case. Although in English the word car is the object, so you may think it belongs in the accusative case in Russian, the Russian construction is saying &quot;To me is needed a car&quot; or, a bit less awkwardly, &quot;To me a car is needed.&quot; Either way, car is not the object of the sentence but the subject, hence nominative. Similarly, &quot;I like geometry&quot; is мне нравится геометрия, with geometry in the nominative case since the Russian construction is &quot;To me is liked geometry&quot; or &quot;To me geometry us liked.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more direct construction can have a different meaning than you may intend. For example, &quot;he is cold&quot; is expressed as ему холодно = &quot;to him it is cold.&quot; If you instead use the adjective холодный to say someone is cold (он холодный человек or он холоден, using a short form adjective in the second version) then that means the person is cold as an emotional state.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8019" RevisionGUID="74dff8b2-7b68-425b-a3a8-ede96c62f5d6" CreationDate="2015-01-19T03:00:26.943" UserId="194" Text="There is a difference in the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К врачу ходил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you visited a/the doctor one or more times due to your condition (for advise, treatment, extended diagnostics, anything one can do several times)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К врачу сходил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you visited a/the doctor due to your condition (for a document, certificate, certain one-time test, anything non-repeatable)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19387" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="82805519-6785-4ac7-a139-4b691c4bd10e" CreationDate="2015-01-19T09:53:37.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/557113640697200640" />
  <row Id="19388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8020" RevisionGUID="c66ef97c-643f-43b7-bb21-60a15e1c536d" CreationDate="2015-01-19T10:28:48.963" UserId="4935" Text="If you are looking for a slang word i think &quot;пафосный&quot; will do too" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19389" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="fadd9c35-c814-4274-9669-fd0a3a9b736d" CreationDate="2015-01-19T12:55:13.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/557159343377096704" />
  <row Id="19390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8021" RevisionGUID="22b8c178-18f9-4c6a-849f-03caa667bd62" CreationDate="2015-01-19T13:59:56.497" UserId="170" Text="Do I need the period here right after the closing parenthesis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он торговал только фруктами (яблоками, грушами, апельсинами, и **т.п.).**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приближалась осень.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should I, perhaps, drop the dots in the &quot;т.п.&quot; contraction? Like here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он торговал только фруктами (яблоками, грушами, апельсинами, и **тп**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приближалась осень." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8021" RevisionGUID="22b8c178-18f9-4c6a-849f-03caa667bd62" CreationDate="2015-01-19T13:59:56.497" UserId="170" Text="Proper punctuation with contractions at the closing parnthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8021" RevisionGUID="22b8c178-18f9-4c6a-849f-03caa667bd62" CreationDate="2015-01-19T13:59:56.497" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8022" RevisionGUID="0a7a83ba-514c-4383-8519-a423151aa184" CreationDate="2015-01-19T14:32:30.183" UserId="4801" Text="Yes, in case of parentheses at the end of the sentence after contractions, the period is needed (also, you can't omit periods in contractions like you did in your second example). The period, however, is not doubled if there are no parentheses. Some examples from [this source][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В магазин поступила обувь: калоши, сапоги, валенки **и др.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В магазин поступили игрушки: неваляшки (50 шт.), машинки заводные (15 шт.), пистолеты пластмассовые **(157 шт.).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ufanabor.ru/pages/art8_mainrule.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8023" RevisionGUID="9ad042b8-22f1-4bd7-a135-2e7ca545a204" CreationDate="2015-01-19T16:47:42.130" UserId="4936" Text="Is the word Бывай! still used in contemporary Russian as a way of saying 'goodbye'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8023" RevisionGUID="9ad042b8-22f1-4bd7-a135-2e7ca545a204" CreationDate="2015-01-19T16:47:42.130" UserId="4936" Text="Бывай! still used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8023" RevisionGUID="9ad042b8-22f1-4bd7-a135-2e7ca545a204" CreationDate="2015-01-19T16:47:42.130" UserId="4936" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8024" RevisionGUID="bf2c188e-2f21-40e0-9de9-7939e58f1699" CreationDate="2015-01-19T16:55:27.067" UserId="4433" Text="Yes, this word is in use. But it is rather informal form of &quot;goodbye&quot;, for example between good friends" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8025" RevisionGUID="a6d46424-aa36-43e4-90dc-a623b146fa69" CreationDate="2015-01-19T17:17:41.343" UserId="4560" Text="It's one of those semi-obsolete expressions whose usage is either facetious or a personal mannerism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8026" RevisionGUID="f3cb32ff-0ff7-45c8-ab87-97965050a63b" CreationDate="2015-01-19T18:30:40.507" UserId="5" Text="пошлый - прекрасное слово, которое отражает многие оттенки cheesy: cheap, unpleasant, or blatantly inauthentic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19400" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8021" RevisionGUID="ed214036-9efd-4ed8-af2b-b23fc7974788" CreationDate="2015-01-19T19:04:10.493" UserId="170" Comment="edited title" Text="Proper punctuation with contractions at the closing parenthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8027" RevisionGUID="b9f9bb46-f951-4263-aa53-5f9edfc7e9f4" CreationDate="2015-01-19T19:26:34.600" UserId="4884" Text="[М.Г. Безяева][1] в книге &quot;Семантика коммуникативного уровня звучащего языка&quot; указывает на различное коммуникативное значение совершенного и несовершенного видов. Другими словами, выбор вида зависит от того, как мы оцениваем ситуацию, а не только от номинативного и грамматического значений глагольного вида.  Безяева даёт следующее определение инвариантному значению видов: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма несовершенного вида - должное, необходимое, нужное (с модификациями алгоритма развёртывания).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма совершенного вида - возможность, способность (с модификациями алгоритма развёртывания).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Безяева М.Г,Семантика коммуникативного уровня звучащего языка, Москва, Издательство Московского университета, 2002 - с. 721)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В вашем примере несовершенный вид глагола &quot;вводил&quot; как раз подчёркивает необходимость совершения действия, то есть посыл говорящего здесь &quot;я сделал всё, что должен был, всё, что было обязательно и необходимо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Коммуникативная семантика является относительно новым направлением в лингвистике, но мне данное объяснение кажется убедительным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philol.msu.ru/~ruslang/about/employee/bezyaeva.m.g/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8029" RevisionGUID="5148bfed-5403-4c20-8798-5a37860a78d7" CreationDate="2015-01-19T22:26:52.003" UserId="4926" Text="Also you can use `давай`. This word means handshake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай, увидимся!**  = Goodbye, see you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бывай, до встречи!** = same as above" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8030" RevisionGUID="1717ac1b-56bb-4bc0-afcc-fcf953c5a658" CreationDate="2015-01-20T07:19:38.933" UserId="4940" Text="&quot;From America&quot; translates to из Америки and I know that из will take the genitive case. Америка is a feminine noun (because it ends in а and is a place). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To form the genitive case of a singular feminine noun, you replace а with ы. Америка would become Америкы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this not the correct declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8030" RevisionGUID="1717ac1b-56bb-4bc0-afcc-fcf953c5a658" CreationDate="2015-01-20T07:19:38.933" UserId="4940" Text="Declension of America" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8030" RevisionGUID="1717ac1b-56bb-4bc0-afcc-fcf953c5a658" CreationDate="2015-01-20T07:19:38.933" UserId="4940" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8031" RevisionGUID="e7dff817-61ec-4ba3-812b-e470e090d07c" CreationDate="2015-01-20T07:35:39.370" UserId="2079" Text="For nouns which end by -кa,  -а is replaced by -и:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- маска - из маски&#xD;&#xA;- каска - из каски&#xD;&#xA;- рука - из руки&#xD;&#xA;- Америка - из Америки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8030" RevisionGUID="073c8af9-6557-49ec-bc1f-0f77986bc6f4" CreationDate="2015-01-20T07:54:55.987" UserId="551" Comment="highlighted russian words" Text="&quot;From America&quot; translates to `из Америки` and I know that из will take the genitive case. `Америка` is a feminine noun (because it ends in `а` and is a place). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To form the genitive case of a singular feminine noun, you replace `а` with `ы`. `Америка` would become `Америкы`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this not the correct declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="48eb2052-2c05-4f6c-aa43-af6816be971e" CreationDate="2015-01-20T08:57:06.050" UserId="4884" Comment="added new tags" Text="|глаголы|история-языка|вид|perfective|imperfective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19411" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="48eb2052-2c05-4f6c-aa43-af6816be971e" CreationDate="2015-01-20T08:57:06.050" Comment="Proposed by 4884 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19412" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8017" RevisionGUID="b008baf6-d546-4bba-bb68-83be87be6a50" CreationDate="2015-01-20T08:57:06.050" UserId="2269" Comment="added new tags" Text="|глаголы|история-языка|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19413" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7641" RevisionGUID="79a40889-185f-441e-9b6c-5f1ce370344d" CreationDate="2015-01-20T09:58:06.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/557477159879856128" />
  <row Id="19414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8032" RevisionGUID="71944c9f-5cc5-4813-a022-696e18735527" CreationDate="2015-01-20T13:37:04.577" UserId="4935" Text="Though it has a slightly retro style I guess, it can be used still in unofficial speech  like among good friends and such. Derives from wishing good health when saying goodbye ( i.e. бывай  здоров) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8033" RevisionGUID="430b4fab-2e84-4b72-bc72-26af762a24a0" CreationDate="2015-01-20T16:20:13.887" UserId="4897" Text="Есть предложение: &quot;Мне задали вопросы про ряды Тейлора и теоремы Эйлера и Кёнига.&quot; Мне кажется, что запятые здесь не нужны. Но, так как &quot;и&quot; несколько, то, возможно, их нужно поставить." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8033" RevisionGUID="430b4fab-2e84-4b72-bc72-26af762a24a0" CreationDate="2015-01-20T16:20:13.887" UserId="4897" Text="Как правильно расставить пунктуацию?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8033" RevisionGUID="430b4fab-2e84-4b72-bc72-26af762a24a0" CreationDate="2015-01-20T16:20:13.887" UserId="4897" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8034" RevisionGUID="547900fe-7e86-4dbf-a8d8-d253933dee55" CreationDate="2015-01-20T17:07:13.060" UserId="4833" Text="Вы правы, никаких запятых не нужно.&#xD;&#xA;Здесь два ряда однородных членов предложения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. _вопросы про (что?) ряды и теоремы_ &#xD;&#xA; 2. _теоремы (чьи?) Эйлера и Кёнига_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В каждом ряду - свой союз _и_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19419" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8006" RevisionGUID="ed6f3688-f1b2-4a39-9261-8a0a4ef21cac" CreationDate="2015-01-20T23:24:51.153" UserId="-1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2269,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry Alexandrov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8035" RevisionGUID="fe92d216-3716-4f95-b3f9-b09cbc6c3d50" CreationDate="2015-01-20T23:34:51.910" UserId="4560" Text="The sound shifts *кы &gt; ки*, *гы &gt; ги* and *хы &gt; хи* date back to the 12th or 13th century and were unconditional, making *кы*, *гы* and *хы* prohibited sequences in Russian phonotactics. They only occur in a handful of mostly Turkic loanwords, such as *хычин* and *акын*, some toponyms, and *гы*, a slang onomatopoeia for crass laughter. This is a different phenomenon from the purely conventional spelling preference for *жи* and *ши* despite the vowel being technically [ы].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus an older genitive form of *рука* was indeed *рукы* rather than the modern *руки*, but the form *\*Америкы* never existed because the sound shift predates Columbus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19422" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8023" RevisionGUID="f51ce237-2d1a-4fa8-87ae-dafc717afff0" CreationDate="2015-01-21T06:58:06.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/557794248863776768" />
  <row Id="19423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8036" RevisionGUID="9ed3f1cf-1550-4ffd-ac4f-19318cce94d1" CreationDate="2015-01-21T20:01:06.953" UserId="4494" Text="This morning I asked a woman in a shop `Как его завут?`, referring to some toothpaste. She replied &quot;Aquafresh&quot;. Is it perhaps that `завут` specifically connotes asking for something's *name*, rather than just the word for it? Is there a better way to say it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8036" RevisionGUID="9ed3f1cf-1550-4ffd-ac4f-19318cce94d1" CreationDate="2015-01-21T20:01:06.953" UserId="4494" Text="How to ask for what an object is called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8036" RevisionGUID="9ed3f1cf-1550-4ffd-ac4f-19318cce94d1" CreationDate="2015-01-21T20:01:06.953" UserId="4494" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8037" RevisionGUID="a7de5d3b-7c36-4e29-9d11-c236920b54d7" CreationDate="2015-01-21T20:55:42.630" UserId="4952" Text="I was wondering if there's any difference between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    на английском&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    по-английски&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(for example when asking how to say something in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8037" RevisionGUID="a7de5d3b-7c36-4e29-9d11-c236920b54d7" CreationDate="2015-01-21T20:55:42.630" UserId="4952" Text="на английском / по-английски" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8037" RevisionGUID="a7de5d3b-7c36-4e29-9d11-c236920b54d7" CreationDate="2015-01-21T20:55:42.630" UserId="4952" Text="|vocabulary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8038" RevisionGUID="0ae5322b-ee89-4e2d-8712-b80e3da8a04c" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:00:35.003" UserId="4560" Text="They are more or less interchangeable as far as verbs for speaking and writing are concerned; there's a slight idiomatic preference for *по-английски* when referring to speaking and for *на английском* for writing. However, *понимать* &quot;to understand&quot; requires *по-английски*, while you have to use *на английском* if it refers a noun rather than a verb — such as *разговор* &quot;conversation&quot; or *книга* &quot;book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *на английском* is narrower in meaning, implying as it does the word *языке*, whereas *по-английски* is not limited to language. Thus *детектив на английском* is &quot;a detective story in English&quot; whereas *детектив по-английски* is &quot;a detective story *à l'anglais*&quot;, &quot;a very English detective story&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8036" RevisionGUID="da4b49c2-b820-4d98-8ae3-d54ab6cf3fa3" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:08:23.817" UserId="4560" Comment="spelling" Text="This morning I asked a woman in a shop `Как его зовут?`, referring to some toothpaste. She replied &quot;Aquafresh&quot;. Is it perhaps that `зовут` specifically connotes asking for something's *name*, rather than just the word for it? Is there a better way to say it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8039" RevisionGUID="d4ba3e19-9608-4d03-a52d-eea9d339d65c" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:19:30.407" UserId="4560" Text="With objects, you ask ***Как это называется?*** (Note also that *это*, rather than *оно*, is the default &quot;it&quot; pronoun for objects; you use the pronoun of the object's respective grammatical gender when you've already referred to that object.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Как его/её зовут?* is even more specific than that, it's for asking about some*one*’s name, so asking it about something like toothpaste sounds whimsical. You can ask it about an animal, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8040" RevisionGUID="b12d4358-59bb-49ce-b76b-e80e7677fa14" CreationDate="2015-01-21T22:19:46.937" UserId="3680" Text="When referring some nonliving object, it's better to ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To get the name (title in the case of goods) of a particular object:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как это называется?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To get the type (class, kind) of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19433" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7515" RevisionGUID="89a00940-4458-4aa7-a2da-d2b0b4f9c866" CreationDate="2015-01-22T01:00:22.920" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558066610934915074" />
  <row Id="19434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8041" RevisionGUID="6988bcfd-ef93-424a-969e-17ecfa69c726" CreationDate="2015-01-22T02:52:19.987" UserId="2388" Text="They are almost interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, you should always remember the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **«по-английски», «по-японски»** etc. are about **action being performed** &quot;English-way&quot;, &quot;Russian-way&quot; etc. It is used for real actions and for some stuff that is &quot;like English people do&quot; (for example, &quot;сэндвичи по-английски&quot; if sandwiches in UK were somehow special).&#xD;&#xA;- **«на английском», «на русском»** are about some **content being written** (spoken) in some language. You can also use them to talk about the ability to speak a language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means that a book, subtitles, an e-mail or an inscription can only be &quot;на английском&quot; but not &quot;по-английски&quot; (unless you want to imply that they bear some English flavour, as Nikolay Ershov illustrated with «детектив по-английски»)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also means that sushi and pelmeni that English people do in some unique way can only be «пельмени по-английски», «суши по-английски» (even if I made them up, and those do not exist).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, since there is no American or Austrian language, you only have «по-американски», «по-австрийски». Things can be done &quot;American way&quot; but cannot be written or spoken in American languge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8042" RevisionGUID="f1f7c82e-9cf2-4288-80ed-1b507b690232" CreationDate="2015-01-22T06:23:14.130" UserId="4953" Text="Как можно скачать: Через Интернет или по Интернету, или оба правильные? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8042" RevisionGUID="f1f7c82e-9cf2-4288-80ed-1b507b690232" CreationDate="2015-01-22T06:23:14.130" UserId="4953" Text="Через Интернет или по Интернету" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8042" RevisionGUID="f1f7c82e-9cf2-4288-80ed-1b507b690232" CreationDate="2015-01-22T06:23:14.130" UserId="4953" Text="|выбор-слова|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8043" RevisionGUID="06f28b69-b590-4bf1-b82b-a0bccf104ce3" CreationDate="2015-01-22T06:59:57.493" UserId="194" Text="If I heard &quot;Как его зовут?&quot; referring to a thing in a supermarket, I would understand it as &quot;How the mascot of this thing is called?&quot; if there was a picture of a super-hero or an animal on the box. If there were no animated hero on the thing, I just would not parse the question (or, possibly, would guess you are asking about the name of the CEO of the company that produces the thing?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8043" RevisionGUID="4ed003d8-fd89-453a-87fc-6481d8e19b19" CreationDate="2015-01-22T07:05:10.383" UserId="194" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="If I heard &quot;Как его зовут?&quot; referring to a thing in a supermarket, I would understand it as &quot;How the mascot of this thing is called?&quot; if there was a picture of a super-hero or an animal on the box, or you were asking for the name of the advertising actor whose photo is depicted. If there were no animated hero or a photo on the thing, I just would not parse the question (or, possibly, would guess you are asking about the name of the CEO of the company that produces the thing?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19440" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="04bca8c3-7f15-4b65-8e37-d28009bf65a6" CreationDate="2015-01-22T07:06:03.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558158637773111297" />
  <row Id="19441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8044" RevisionGUID="7afa4c85-d601-41b0-bc61-3b3ad629277d" CreationDate="2015-01-22T07:47:53.597" UserId="4954" Text="Оба варианта правильные. Забронировать гостиницу, заказать что-то - через Интернет/по Интернету. А вот если, например, &quot;узнать что-то&quot;, то правильней будет &quot;из Интернета&quot; или &quot;в Интернете&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8045" RevisionGUID="b2e7ce28-868c-45e5-b8e9-711432d79384" CreationDate="2015-01-22T12:56:23.267" UserId="310" Text="The most comfortable form for the person you're asking would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как называется эта &lt;вещь&gt;?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как называется эта зубная паста? Как называется этот город? Как называется то дерево?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way you specify the thing which name you like to know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19443" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8036" RevisionGUID="0c1b461e-346f-49fe-8b74-3122e0059777" CreationDate="2015-01-22T13:06:03.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558249231472132096" />
  <row Id="19444" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7950" RevisionGUID="c3fe975b-96ac-4333-9e97-82c4e3e2249d" CreationDate="2015-01-22T16:06:03.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558294530420912128" />
  <row Id="19445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8042" RevisionGUID="2b8b1c7a-0d69-4662-a1b5-40f198bb7c3a" CreationDate="2015-01-22T19:06:03.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558339828895719424" />
  <row Id="19446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8046" RevisionGUID="01d3da66-cb2c-4c77-8f77-882d8ed3f0ec" CreationDate="2015-01-22T23:14:56.127" UserId="3892" Text="All the dictionaries say this is a perfective verb. I wonder if it's both perfective and imperfective, in other words is it possible to say (excuse any errors) something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я продержусь ради моих детей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I'm holding out for my children's sake.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8046" RevisionGUID="01d3da66-cb2c-4c77-8f77-882d8ed3f0ec" CreationDate="2015-01-22T23:14:56.127" UserId="3892" Text="aspect of продержаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8046" RevisionGUID="01d3da66-cb2c-4c77-8f77-882d8ed3f0ec" CreationDate="2015-01-22T23:14:56.127" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8047" RevisionGUID="cc05ba50-eadd-4540-91d0-773511336a9f" CreationDate="2015-01-22T23:23:34.437" UserId="4884" Text="I'm holding out for my children's sake would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я держусь ради моих детей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb продержусь is indeed perfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я продержусь ради моих детей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually the Future tense, it means &quot;I will (can?) hold out for my children's sake&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8048" RevisionGUID="8e247c50-126b-4a0b-b98b-b26b2ed992e2" CreationDate="2015-01-23T02:16:51.810" UserId="4925" Text="So, I understand what passive voice is, but how would would use it in the past. For example (this is a horrible example by the way): Книга читается женщиной. But, how would this be made past tense? Would it be &quot;Книга читалась женщиной&quot;, or is that completely wrong?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8048" RevisionGUID="8e247c50-126b-4a0b-b98b-b26b2ed992e2" CreationDate="2015-01-23T02:16:51.810" UserId="4925" Text="Reflexive Verbs and Passive Voice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8048" RevisionGUID="8e247c50-126b-4a0b-b98b-b26b2ed992e2" CreationDate="2015-01-23T02:16:51.810" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8049" RevisionGUID="a690bc8f-77ee-484c-90b7-965e7deb9662" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:45:16.997" UserId="4714" Text="что нового? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;что интересного? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read a lot about grammar this year, and nothing seems to fit with this usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it an abbreviation of some fuller phrase from the past? Many times if one can find the origins of a phrase one can understand its current usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read another post here, that talked about differences between что новое и что нового. But nobody explained why the genitive is used. In my opinion there is no good reason, based on most of the grammar rules, unless, it was part of some fuller phrase. Or unless it's saying something like what is new AROUND you, in which case there is a missing предлог or an implied one like (около или у или...) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8049" RevisionGUID="a690bc8f-77ee-484c-90b7-965e7deb9662" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:45:16.997" UserId="4714" Text="Why is the Gentive in Question—что нового? итд" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8049" RevisionGUID="a690bc8f-77ee-484c-90b7-965e7deb9662" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:45:16.997" UserId="4714" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8050" RevisionGUID="7e5e473a-956f-4fb2-a216-3e01c395cca3" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:50:36.513" UserId="4714" Text="продерживаться probably exists, but might not be formal. Almost all verbs have both perfective and imperfective, even if dictionaries say they don't exist. Just search on Google for the usual form, and 99% of the time someone has used it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19457" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8050" RevisionGUID="5974d901-0d5b-4766-a538-df313b2e8c60" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:51:30.427" UserId="4714" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4714,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Corey Roberts-Reynolds&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19458" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8050" RevisionGUID="d8f579c7-641d-4db7-b6d4-baf5ea4e0920" CreationDate="2015-01-23T03:53:51.810" UserId="4714" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4714,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Corey Roberts-Reynolds&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8051" RevisionGUID="4c1b345d-5a37-47af-b062-7e2c8ee14a26" CreationDate="2015-01-23T04:01:34.303" UserId="4560" Text="It's not an abbreviation; an adjective governed by *что* basically requires genitive, and this as far as I can tell is very old Slavic grammar; at least it also occurs in Polish and Czech, which take it even further (or should I say, preserve it even more faithfully) and have `coś dziwnego`/`něco divného` &quot;something strange&quot; where Russian has the nominative `что-то странное` (however, `Что в этом странного?` &quot;What's strange about that?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the same general construction is used in Spanish: `¿Qué hay de nuevo?` So it's basically genitive with a partitive or ablative meaning: &quot;what's there of the new?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8052" RevisionGUID="08a7bd7c-35f2-4d6f-a2cc-d08ea805c9f4" CreationDate="2015-01-23T04:39:55.067" UserId="1236" Text="The modern Cyrillic letter had the shape of H a thousand years ago, it descends from the Greek H η 'Ήτα, Ēta'. What is interesting is *when and why* this letter changed the angle of its bar from H to И." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8052" RevisionGUID="08a7bd7c-35f2-4d6f-a2cc-d08ea805c9f4" CreationDate="2015-01-23T04:39:55.067" UserId="1236" Text="Н &gt; И change in Cyrillic, when and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8052" RevisionGUID="08a7bd7c-35f2-4d6f-a2cc-d08ea805c9f4" CreationDate="2015-01-23T04:39:55.067" UserId="1236" Text="|история-языка|алфавит|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8053" RevisionGUID="3882ba94-be64-413c-8ec6-88b4785279eb" CreationDate="2015-01-23T05:11:21.293" UserId="4936" Text="That's correct (though it is an awkward sentence). The past tense of reflexive verbs is formed the same way as non-reflexive verbs. For example, consider двигать 'move sth' past tense двигал(а,о,и) and its reflexive counterpart двигаться 'move (oneself)' past tense двигался двигалась двигалось двигались." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8054" RevisionGUID="220829ae-e6bf-4de4-bcab-753425255ccd" CreationDate="2015-01-23T05:27:00.753" UserId="1236" Text="Formally, the reflexive verbs have no distinction from the non-reflexive ones in their forms when they decline in person, gender, tense, etc. You have everything correct, do not worry. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8055" RevisionGUID="c946e222-120d-4780-9fbf-2e63ef35c872" CreationDate="2015-01-23T11:12:10.877" UserId="194" Text="Using Nomenative is grammatical but has different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что новое? = Which [of the things] are new?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что нового? = Are there any of the news? (literally, &quot;What's there of the new?&quot; as Nikolay pointed out)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8043" RevisionGUID="332d23ff-149a-4af0-8720-8a84fd2a6574" CreationDate="2015-01-23T12:21:05.513" UserId="194" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Как его зовут?&quot; = &quot;What is his name?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I heard &quot;Как его зовут?&quot; referring to a thing in a supermarket, I would understand it as &quot;How the mascot of this thing is called?&quot; if there was a picture of a super-hero or an animal on the box, or you were asking for the name of the advertising actor whose photo is depicted. If there were no animated hero or a photo on the thing, I just would not parse the question (or, possibly, would guess you are asking about the name of the CEO of the company that produces the thing?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8038" RevisionGUID="7034a03a-8395-4977-b11c-f2f4f2113275" CreationDate="2015-01-23T12:29:11.557" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="They are more or less interchangeable as far as verbs for speaking and writing are concerned; there's a slight idiomatic preference for *по-английски* when referring to speaking and for *на английском* for writing. However, *понимать* &quot;to understand&quot; requires *по-английски*, while you have to use *на английском* if it refers to a noun rather than a verb — such as *разговор* &quot;conversation&quot; or *книга* &quot;book&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, *на английском* is narrower in meaning, implying as it does the word *языке*, whereas *по-английски* is not limited to language. Thus *детектив на английском* is &quot;a detective story in English&quot; whereas *детектив по-английски* is &quot;a detective story *à l'anglais*&quot;, &quot;a very English detective story&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8056" RevisionGUID="c8a82219-3bca-44ab-bee4-03d2198ede6f" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:29:42.210" UserId="551" Text="Думаю что целенаправленного изменения штриха не было. Если посмотреть на заглавные буквы печатных книг, видно что штрих в букве И сначала был ровным, потом слегка наклоненным (как бы для удобства письма), затем этот наклон стал более выраженным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается буквы Н, которая писалась как N, то ее вариации тоже в своих крайних формах меняли наклон среднего штриха практически до такого, что отдельно взятая буква становится похожа на И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю тут сыграло большую роль то что книги, в которых эти буквы претерпевали изменения были рукописными (и переписывались по многу раз), поэтому отдельные отклонения в начертании букв могли усиливаться переписчиками (точно так же как это происходит с устной речью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уже в полууставе буквы И и N имеют зеркальную форму, но сами штрихи, хоть и наклонные достаточно близки к горизонтали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мне кажется, решающим моментом в истории наклонных штрихов букв И и Н был гражданский шрифт Петра I. В [первом варианте][1] (январь 1707) буква И присутствовала только в виде десятеричного I, а буква Н была уже утверждена с горизонтальным штрихом вместо наклонного. Этим шрифтом было напечатано несколько книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на этом Петр I не остановился - в 1710 году он утверждает [новую версию][2] гражданского шрифта в котором были изменены начертания нескольких букв и добавлены ранее пропущенные, в том числе и буква И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот тут, как мне кажется и произошел решающий поворот в этой истории. С появлением гражданского (не церковного) книгопечатанья и появления утвержденного шрифта начертания букв И и Н закрепляются. А форму с прямым штрихом буква Н получила в тот момент когда буква И &quot;выпала&quot; из проекта гражданского шрифта в 1708 году. Когда же добавили букву И, начертание Н уже было утверждено и из всех возможных вариантов оставался только с наклонным штрихом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1b.htm#5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1c.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8057" RevisionGUID="18823535-1618-4b1f-8798-573bfe380df7" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:37:06.737" UserId="1475" Text="From a point of view of **grammar** it is totally fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that this particular example sounds weird to a native speaker. It is generally better to use active voice here: &quot;Женщина читала книгу&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are examples where you can use `читаться` so it would sound fine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. When you're speaking about reading data in electronic devices. Данные на флешке не читаются (не читались) на этом устройстве(этим устройством). &quot;Data on this USB-flash drive are not read/cannot be read (could not be read) on this device&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. When you say something like &quot;not feeling like&quot;. Like when you pick a book in the evening after a hard day and say: &quot;что-то мне не читается&quot;. I don't feel like reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there are more, can't remember right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8056" RevisionGUID="a588d799-f0fe-4ece-bfd6-cf6fd55e99ba" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:38:13.597" UserId="551" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Думаю что целенаправленного изменения штриха не было. Если посмотреть на заглавные буквы печатных книг, видно что штрих в букве И сначала был ровным, потом слегка наклоненным (как бы для удобства письма), затем этот наклон стал более выраженным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Начертания И][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается буквы Н, которая писалась как N, то ее вариации тоже в своих крайних формах меняли наклон среднего штриха практически до такого, что отдельно взятая буква становится похожа на И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю тут сыграло большую роль то что книги, в которых эти буквы претерпевали изменения были рукописными (и переписывались по многу раз), поэтому отдельные отклонения в начертании букв могли усиливаться переписчиками (точно так же как это происходит с устной речью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уже в полууставе буквы И и N имеют зеркальную форму, но сами штрихи, хоть и наклонные достаточно близки к горизонтали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мне кажется, решающим моментом в истории наклонных штрихов букв И и Н был гражданский шрифт Петра I. В [первом варианте][2] (январь 1707) буква И присутствовала только в виде десятеричного I, а буква Н была уже утверждена с горизонтальным штрихом вместо наклонного. Этим шрифтом было напечатано несколько книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на этом Петр I не остановился - в 1710 году он утверждает [новую версию][3] гражданского шрифта в котором были изменены начертания нескольких букв и добавлены ранее пропущенные, в том числе и буква И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот тут, как мне кажется и произошел решающий поворот в этой истории. С появлением гражданского (не церковного) книгопечатанья и появления утвержденного шрифта начертания букв И и Н закрепляются. А форму с прямым штрихом буква Н получила в тот момент когда буква И &quot;выпала&quot; из проекта гражданского шрифта в 1708 году. Когда же добавили букву И, начертание Н уже было утверждено и из всех возможных вариантов оставался только с наклонным штрихом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5AUEd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1b.htm#5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1c.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8056" RevisionGUID="a00e27e7-0021-41a6-b22f-c5efa22f1a12" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:44:53.640" UserId="551" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Думаю что целенаправленного изменения штриха не было. Если посмотреть на заглавные буквы печатных книг, видно что штрих в букве И сначала был ровным, потом слегка наклоненным (как бы для удобства письма), затем этот наклон стал более выраженным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Начертания И][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается буквы Н, которая писалась как N, то ее вариации тоже в своих крайних формах меняли наклон среднего штриха практически до такого, что отдельно взятая буква становится похожа на И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Скорописные н][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю тут сыграло большую роль то что книги, в которых эти буквы претерпевали изменения были рукописными (и переписывались по многу раз), поэтому отдельные отклонения в начертании букв могли усиливаться переписчиками (точно так же как это происходит с устной речью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уже в полууставе буквы И и N имеют зеркальную форму, но сами штрихи, хоть и наклонные достаточно близки к горизонтали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мне кажется, решающим моментом в истории наклонных штрихов букв И и Н был гражданский шрифт Петра I. В [первом варианте][3] (январь 1707) буква И присутствовала только в виде десятеричного I, а буква Н была уже утверждена с горизонтальным штрихом вместо наклонного. Этим шрифтом было напечатано несколько книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на этом Петр I не остановился - в 1710 году он утверждает [новую версию][4] гражданского шрифта в котором были изменены начертания нескольких букв и добавлены ранее пропущенные, в том числе и буква И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот тут, как мне кажется и произошел решающий поворот в этой истории. С появлением гражданского (не церковного) книгопечатанья и появления утвержденного шрифта начертания букв И и Н закрепляются. А форму с прямым штрихом буква Н получила в тот момент когда буква И &quot;выпала&quot; из проекта гражданского шрифта в 1708 году. Когда же добавили букву И, начертание Н уже было утверждено и из всех возможных вариантов оставался только с наклонным штрихом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5AUEd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WgMSo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1b.htm#5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1c.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8058" RevisionGUID="91328058-1091-457d-b528-9e39d4843754" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:53:59.370" UserId="4956" Text="I saw a picture on Facebook of a couple of people that were dressed in special suits. One person was dressed in normal clothes. A non-native speaker of Russian commented: `[Наташа], ты не в теме!` He obviously meant to say something like &quot;Why aren't you dressed as those other people?/You are not dressed the same!/You are not dressed to the occasion!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wondered if that is a correct translation. I thought that `быть в теме` == `быть в курсе (событий)`, that is, &quot;in the know&quot;. If that is so, his comment would obviously not be very fitting in that situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in my translation of `быть в теме`? If so, what would be a correct way of expressing what that person wanted to say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8058" RevisionGUID="91328058-1091-457d-b528-9e39d4843754" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:53:59.370" UserId="4956" Text="&quot;(Не) в теме&quot; for people who fall outside a group" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8058" RevisionGUID="91328058-1091-457d-b528-9e39d4843754" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:53:59.370" UserId="4956" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8056" RevisionGUID="c9230c02-20bb-45e1-a66c-d21ecc217b19" CreationDate="2015-01-23T14:56:42.977" UserId="551" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Думаю что целенаправленного изменения штриха не было. Если посмотреть на заглавные буквы печатных книг, видно что штрих в букве И сначала был ровным, потом слегка наклоненным (как бы для удобства письма), затем этот наклон стал более выраженным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Начертания И][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается буквы Н, которая писалась как N, то ее вариации тоже в своих крайних формах меняли наклон среднего штриха практически до такого, что отдельно взятая буква становится похожа на И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Скорописные н][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю тут сыграло большую роль то что книги, в которых эти буквы претерпевали изменения были рукописными (и переписывались по многу раз), поэтому отдельные отклонения в начертании букв могли усиливаться переписчиками (точно так же как это происходит с устной речью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уже в полууставе буквы И и N имеют зеркальную форму, но сами штрихи, хоть и наклонные достаточно близки к горизонтали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мне кажется, решающим моментом в истории наклонных штрихов букв И и Н был гражданский шрифт Петра I. В [первом варианте][3] (январь 1707) буква И присутствовала только в виде десятеричного I, а буква Н была уже утверждена с горизонтальным штрихом вместо наклонного. Этим шрифтом было напечатано несколько книг:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![шрифт 1707][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на этом Петр I не остановился - в 1710 году он утверждает [новую версию][5] гражданского шрифта в котором были изменены начертания нескольких букв и добавлены ранее пропущенные, в том числе и буква И:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![дополнительные буквы][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот тут, как мне кажется и произошел решающий поворот в этой истории. С появлением гражданского (не церковного) книгопечатанья и появления утвержденного шрифта начертания букв И и Н закрепляются. А форму с прямым штрихом буква Н получила в тот момент когда буква И &quot;выпала&quot; из проекта гражданского шрифта в 1708 году. Когда же добавили букву И, начертание Н уже было утверждено и из всех возможных вариантов оставался только с наклонным штрихом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5AUEd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WgMSo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1b.htm#5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gfBvD.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1c.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l2ASW.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8056" RevisionGUID="4935defd-ea4d-4a6d-b29f-d4f7e8a94114" CreationDate="2015-01-23T15:01:54.303" UserId="551" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Думаю что целенаправленного изменения штриха не было. Если посмотреть на заглавные буквы печатных книг, видно что штрих в букве И сначала был ровным, потом слегка наклоненным (как бы для удобства письма), затем этот наклон стал более выраженным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Начертания И][1]![скорописная и][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается буквы Н, которая писалась как N, то ее вариации тоже в своих крайних формах меняли наклон среднего штриха практически до такого, что отдельно взятая буква становится похожа на И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Скорописные н][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю тут сыграло большую роль то что книги, в которых эти буквы претерпевали изменения были рукописными (и переписывались по многу раз), поэтому отдельные отклонения в начертании букв могли усиливаться переписчиками (точно так же как это происходит с устной речью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уже в полууставе буквы И и N имеют зеркальную форму, но сами штрихи, хоть и наклонные достаточно близки к горизонтали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мне кажется, решающим моментом в истории наклонных штрихов букв И и Н был гражданский шрифт Петра I. В [первом варианте][4] (январь 1707) буква И присутствовала только в виде десятеричного I, а буква Н была уже утверждена с горизонтальным штрихом вместо наклонного. Этим шрифтом было напечатано несколько книг:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![шрифт 1707][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на этом Петр I не остановился - в 1710 году он утверждает [новую версию][6] гражданского шрифта в котором были изменены начертания нескольких букв и добавлены ранее пропущенные, в том числе и буква И:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![дополнительные буквы][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот тут, как мне кажется и произошел решающий поворот в этой истории. С появлением гражданского (не церковного) книгопечатанья и появления утвержденного шрифта начертания букв И и Н закрепляются. А форму с прямым штрихом буква Н получила в тот момент когда буква И &quot;выпала&quot; из проекта гражданского шрифта в 1708 году. Когда же добавили букву И, начертание Н уже было утверждено и из всех возможных вариантов оставался только с наклонным штрихом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5AUEd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lviwi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WgMSo.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1b.htm#5&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gfBvD.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.paratype.ru/e-zine/issue04/peter1/peter1c.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l2ASW.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UqyEC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8059" RevisionGUID="c3611398-6bf9-43d3-8eec-39ffc5ba4935" CreationDate="2015-01-23T15:23:21.240" UserId="310" Text="&quot;[не] в теме&quot; means &quot;быть в курсе событий&quot;, &quot;have understanding&quot;. It is being said about a person.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[не] в тему&quot; means &quot;подходить к обстоятельствам&quot;, match the occasion. It is being said about person's possessions or behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes this is a bit fuzzy, as informal slang often is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;- А разве Краснодар не рядом с Иркутском? - Ты вообще не в теме!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;- Зачем ты подарил Васе стаканы? Он не пьёт, ему совсем не в тему.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19478" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8052" RevisionGUID="347a0ff0-0729-43f5-bf9f-8c72def1b929" CreationDate="2015-01-23T19:06:04.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558702220590735361" />
  <row Id="19479" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8049" RevisionGUID="9b8a8a61-24ce-4fea-9d0f-87bec5aa9002" CreationDate="2015-01-24T10:09:33.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558929592548069376" />
  <row Id="19481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="4d387cae-a3d6-4a34-a36b-3ccdffcf791d" CreationDate="2015-01-24T13:09:33.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/558974890519560192" />
  <row Id="19482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8060" RevisionGUID="99e51869-6c21-4b6a-a95b-15afa7a09ce4" CreationDate="2015-01-24T13:35:45.537" UserDisplayName="user4964" Text="it's plain &amp; simple!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`What's up?` or `What's the news?` is `Что нового?`.&#xD;&#xA;You could also use `Что У ТЕБЯ нового?` as `Do YOU have something new?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But `Что интересного?` could be applied only to the second &quot;rule&quot; in this case: `Что У ТЕБЯ интересного?` - `Do YOU have something interesting?`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8061" RevisionGUID="eac07038-1cc7-4973-a657-b398dd5c18aa" CreationDate="2015-01-24T20:38:49.203" UserId="4956" Text="## Some theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal sentences have a so-called **logical subject**. You can interpret this as that the _actor_ undergoes some kind of action or is forced one way or another to perform the action. The suggestion is that the active free will of the actor  is absent: rather, the person undergoing the action has no choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some situations&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **forced to perform an action**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё-таки Сергею придётся рассказать всю правду. (Sergey needs to tell the whole truth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor **doesn't know or cannot decide** whether the performance of the action is **necessary or possible**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кому из нас ехать? (Who of us should drive?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне ли тебе рассказывать, как раньше жилось?! (Do I need to tell you, how we lived before?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor **doesn't feel like** performing the action:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сходи в магазин, если тебе не лень. (Go to the store, if you it's not to hard for you. [litt. &quot;if you are not too lazy&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **not capable** of performing the action, because something or somebody is absent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам некогда здесь торчать. (We don't have time to hang around here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is in **some kind of emotional or physical state**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне холодно! (I am cold!)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне весело на вечеринке. (I'm having fun at the party.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **(not) in the mood** for something:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Татьяне не спалось, не читалось. (Tatyana couldn't sleep nor read.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **undergoing some psychological activity** that is not controlled by her:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всем казалось, что ты разумнее. (Everybody thought that you were more reasonable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is in a **physical state that is hardly controllable**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему икается. (He has the hiccups.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practical matters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now you know a little about impersonal sentences. Think of them as some action that is happening _to_ a person, rather than the person actively performing the action himself. This is just a peculiarity of the language that you need to grasp, but for personal experience I know it'll become second nature eventually (`просто тебе нужно время` ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask why you can't say `я нужно` instead of `мне нужно`. Well, that's because `нужен (нужна, -о, -ы)` changes according to the _grammatical subject_ of the sentence. And since we've just seen that the _logical subject_ of the sentence takes the dative, we must conclude that (unless you are a `дерево` and want to say something like `я нужно человечеству` because you produce oxygen) this is not a correct sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the following sentences and see how the _logical subject_ is different from the _grammatical subject_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужен ты! (I need you!)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему нужна девушка (He needs a girlfriend)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам нужно работать (We need to work)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им нужны деньги (They need money)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;[1] Examples are taken from Honselaar &amp; Podgaevskaja (2007), &quot;Учебная грамматика русского языка&quot;, Pegasus, Amsterdam.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8061" RevisionGUID="a8877d44-2477-4fc6-8c9e-cf1c228bd47e" CreationDate="2015-01-24T20:49:58.090" UserId="4956" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="## Some theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal sentences have a so-called **logical subject**. You can interpret this as that the _actor_ undergoes some kind of action or is forced one way or another to perform the action. The suggestion is that the active free will of the actor  is absent: rather, the person undergoing the action has no choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some situations&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **forced to perform an action**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё-таки Сергею придётся рассказать всю правду. (Sergey needs to tell the whole truth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor **doesn't know or cannot decide** whether the performance of the action is **necessary or possible**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кому из нас ехать? (Who of us should drive?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне ли тебе рассказывать, как раньше жилось?! (Do I need to tell you, how we lived before?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor **doesn't feel like** performing the action:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сходи в магазин, если тебе не лень. (Go to the store, if you it's not to hard for you. [litt. &quot;if you are not too lazy&quot;])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **not capable** of performing the action, because something or somebody is absent:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам некогда здесь торчать. (We don't have time to hang around here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is in **some kind of emotional or physical state**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне холодно! (I am cold!)   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне весело на вечеринке. (I'm having fun at the party.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **(not) in the mood** for something:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Татьяне не спалось, не читалось. (Tatyana couldn't sleep nor read.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is **undergoing some psychological activity** that is not controlled by her:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всем казалось, что ты разумнее. (Everybody thought that you were more reasonable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The actor is in a **physical state that is hardly controllable**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему икается. (He has the hiccups.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practical matters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now you know a little about impersonal sentences. Think of them as some action that is happening _to_ a person, rather than the person actively performing the action himself. This is just a peculiarity of the language that you need to grasp, but from personal experience I know it'll become second nature eventually (`просто тебе нужно время` ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask why you can't say `я нужно` instead of `мне нужно`. Well, that's because `нужен (нужна, -о, -ы)` changes according to the _grammatical subject_ of the sentence. And since we've just seen that the _logical subject_ of the sentence takes the dative, we must conclude that (unless you are a `дерево` and want to say something like `я нужно человечеству` because you produce oxygen) this is not a correct sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the following sentences and see how the _logical subject_ is different from the _grammatical subject_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужен ты! (I need you!)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему нужна девушка (He needs a girlfriend)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам нужно работать (We need to work)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им нужны деньги (They need money)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;[1] Examples are taken from Honselaar &amp; Podgaevskaja (2007), &quot;Учебная грамматика русского языка&quot;, Pegasus, Amsterdam.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19485" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="4e98eebb-4103-4734-969f-15718cbf01cc" CreationDate="2015-01-25T01:09:33.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/559156083831619584" />
  <row Id="19486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8062" RevisionGUID="da98f331-3d38-4296-93ac-ba315cc8ed50" CreationDate="2015-01-25T06:52:59.013" UserId="4966" Text="In class we recently covered the nominative possessive pronoun, мой,твой,его, etc. modified by number and gender.  When I looked ahead I was surprised to find that these pronouns are further declined by case.  Of particular conflict is the genitive case (which I admit we haven't covered yet) whose purpose seems to be indicating possession - Моего, Твоего, etc.  What are the use cases for all of these?  To say, &quot;I met my cat today&quot;, do I use nominative possessives since I am the subject, or genitive possessives because I'm...possessing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8062" RevisionGUID="da98f331-3d38-4296-93ac-ba315cc8ed50" CreationDate="2015-01-25T06:52:59.013" UserId="4966" Text="Nominative possessive vs genitive possessive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8062" RevisionGUID="da98f331-3d38-4296-93ac-ba315cc8ed50" CreationDate="2015-01-25T06:52:59.013" UserId="4966" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8063" RevisionGUID="2430743e-8e23-4a9f-8b40-06cd66d64841" CreationDate="2015-01-25T09:10:05.930" UserId="1236" Text="There are several ways Genitive is used in Russian, here are just some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Possession. The name of the possessor must be in Genitive, so if the possessor is &quot;my friend&quot;, both &quot;my&quot; and &quot;friend&quot; take Genitive,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *мой друг* (Nom.) - my friend&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дом (Nom.) *моего друга* (Gen.) - the house of my friend&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Direct objects in negative sentences. Very often they are in Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел *твой дом*. (Acc.) - I've seen your house.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ещё не видел *твоего дома*. (Gen.) - I haven't seen your house yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- After some prepositions. Many prepositions like *от, из, для, без*, etc. need a noun in Genitive after them, if there is a possessive pronoun referring to the noun, it is also in Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от моего дома - from my home&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; для моего друга - for my friend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8064" RevisionGUID="60d1df11-ac9b-4753-8b67-2c7ac0a4f1c5" CreationDate="2015-01-25T09:12:15.010" UserId="2388" Text="There are two groups here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **мой, твой, наш, ваш** behave like adjectives, i.e. they modify the noun and take its gender (number) and case&#xD;&#xA; - **его, её, их** are derived from corresponding Genitive pronouns and do not change in any way. Also, they don't get an initial «н» regardless of the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;У кого-то есть что-то&quot; is one of the easiest example for the use of Genitive, so might as well try that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - У моего брата есть машина.&#xD;&#xA; - У твоей сестры есть машина.&#xD;&#xA; - У нашего папы есть собака.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, *мой, твой, наш* take Genitive because *брат, сестра* and *папа* have to be in Genitive in the first place, and possessives just follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example would be &quot;Я сегодня увидел свою кошку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third person possessives remain the same: *У её/его/их брата есть машина*, *Я увидел ёё кошку* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8065" RevisionGUID="8178a686-1642-4758-b206-4421739b861a" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:06:26.570" UserId="4956" Text="Well, yeah, Russian is a language with cases and also declines pronouns. A sentence like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твоего кота - I see your cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may have you thinking the genitive is used here, when in fact it is just the accusative form, that _accidentaly_ has the same form as the genitive (this particular form of the accusative is used with animate objects, like people and animals). So it would be wrong to say that the genitive case is used in this sentence, and you should not confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твой дом - I see your house.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твоего отца - I see your father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, the **accusative** is used for the direct object (`дом` and `отца`), but animate objects just take a different form of the accusative, that happens to be the same as the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8065" RevisionGUID="a0d819f7-7222-4889-8ddc-afd312ba75de" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:11:42.607" UserId="4956" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Well, yeah, Russian is a language with cases and also declines pronouns. A sentence like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твоего кота - I see your cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may have you thinking the genitive is used here, when in fact it is just the accusative form, that _accidentaly_ has the same form as the genitive (this particular form of the accusative is used with animate objects, like people and animals). So it would be wrong to say that the genitive case is used in this sentence, and you should not confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твой дом - I see your house.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твоего отца - I see your father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, the **accusative** is used for the direct object (`дом` and `отца`), but animate objects just take a different form of the accusative, that happens to _look_ the same as the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8065" RevisionGUID="84bdb425-f69f-4d10-9d67-87cd79d36305" CreationDate="2015-01-25T10:44:36.143" UserId="4956" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Well, yeah, Russian is a language with cases and also declines pronouns. A sentence like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твоего кота - I see your cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may have you thinking the genitive is used here, when in fact it is just the accusative form, that just _happens to have_ the same form as the genitive (this particular form of the accusative is used with animate objects, like people and animals). So it would be wrong to say that the genitive case is used in this sentence, and you should not confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твой дом - I see your house.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу твоего отца - I see your father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, the **accusative** is used for the direct object (`дом` and `отца`), but animate objects just take a different form of the accusative, that happens to _look_ the same as the genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8066" RevisionGUID="a7226793-25e6-40d7-b6bc-65337807a869" CreationDate="2015-01-25T15:12:18.313" UserId="4560" Text="I think you're overthinking this a little. `моего` and `твоего` simply mean &quot;of my&quot; and &quot;of your&quot; (as in &quot;the X of my/your Y&quot;, not &quot;an X of mine/yours&quot;). There are two separate possessional relations involved and the genitive form reflects both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7905" RevisionGUID="596cb0ff-acc4-4982-9904-2efabc964748" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:37:43.203" UserId="4629" Comment="edited body" Text="Both your variants suggest some humour and a certain degree of intimacy (the &quot;подруга&quot; much more so than the &quot;друг&quot; one). You could use either but the choice entirely depends on how close the two of you are. Bear in mind that both sound more intimate than the English &quot;Hi there, friend!&quot; The more neutral option is to just use her name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, Наташа!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8067" RevisionGUID="7489bf2a-fc38-45d3-b7e5-bcb60c81420d" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:48:48.780" UserId="4967" Text="&quot;я живу на окраине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Does not have anything to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative use of preposition for countries is a part of every country.&#xD;&#xA;This could be only learned by memory.&#xD;&#xA;But there is some useful tricks.&#xD;&#xA;Islands and peninsulas are typically &quot;на&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На Ямайке, на Гуадалканал, на побережье и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;При этом &quot;в Англии&quot;, &quot;в Казахстане&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но при этом &quot;на Каракумы&quot;, &quot;на Ладожском озере&quot; и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, relative choice between в/на does not relates nor to size, nor continuity, nor closedness of object, nor relative placement.&#xD;&#xA;Equivalence of &quot;окраина&quot; and &quot;Украина&quot; is used by idiots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8067" RevisionGUID="628d4889-992b-497e-ad48-ce1b4c4d979a" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:56:04.083" UserId="4967" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="**Does not have anything to do with окраина.&#xD;&#xA;Does not have anything to do with &quot;politics&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;окраина&quot;=&quot;Украина&quot;, then it is the same as Ямайка, Гаити, Байкал, Дальний Восток, Сахалин, Кавказ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see many geographical places have absolutely no relation with &quot;окраина&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative use of preposition for countries is a part of every country.&#xD;&#xA;This could be only learned by memory.&#xD;&#xA;But there is some useful tricks.&#xD;&#xA;Islands and peninsulas are typically &quot;на&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На Ямайке, на Гуадалканал, на побережье и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;При этом &quot;в Англии&quot;, &quot;в Казахстане&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но при этом &quot;на Каракумы&quot;, &quot;на Ладожском озере&quot; и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, relative choice between в/на does not relates nor to size, nor continuity, nor closedness of object, nor relative placement.&#xD;&#xA;Equivalence of &quot;окраина&quot; and &quot;Украина&quot; is used by idiots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8067" RevisionGUID="7fc79aaa-a6c0-49cd-9da6-052fa3d165bf" CreationDate="2015-01-25T17:52:49.040" UserId="4967" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="**Does not have anything to do with окраина.&#xD;&#xA;Does not have anything to do with &quot;politics&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;окраина&quot;=&quot;Украина&quot;, then it is the same as Ямайка, Гаити, Байкал, Дальний Восток, Сахалин, Кавказ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see many geographical places have absolutely no relation with &quot;окраина&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative use of preposition for countries is a part of every country.&#xD;&#xA;This could be only learned by memory.&#xD;&#xA;But there is some useful tricks.&#xD;&#xA;Islands and peninsulas are typically &quot;на&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На Ямайке, на Гуадалканал, на побережье и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;При этом &quot;в Англии&quot;, &quot;в Казахстане&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но при этом &quot;на Каракумы&quot;, &quot;на Ладожском озере&quot; и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you suppose that all islands and closed/non-central regions are used with &quot;на&quot; - you are **wrong**. Examples: в Японии, в Исландии, в Гренландии, в Голландии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, relative choice between в/на does not relates nor to size, nor continuity, nor closedness of object, nor relative placement.&#xD;&#xA;Equivalence of &quot;окраина&quot; and &quot;Украина&quot; is used by idiots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="62b413c5-9323-47e4-8aff-5293e9634a42" CreationDate="2015-01-25T18:43:25.307" UserId="4629" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular. So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the father owns the house. Here's that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* is unrelated to the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who in a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs require their dependent nouns to take specific forms. You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, you may find this old post helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="24bb5442-0122-4d87-9b77-18b7c6d3e352" CreationDate="2015-01-25T18:50:46.603" UserId="4629" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular. So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the father owns the house. Here's that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs require their dependent nouns to take specific forms. You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, you may find this old post helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="d2a10877-9657-4bcf-9d4a-41785cedc86a" CreationDate="2015-01-25T18:55:59.793" UserId="4629" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular. So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the father owns the house. Here's that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs require their dependent nouns to take specific forms. You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="0b966f21-4e30-4910-9f35-c61963566583" CreationDate="2015-01-25T19:23:42.623" UserId="4629" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular. So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the father owns the house. Here's that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="050d3888-0c17-4731-b226-84b2e6f2279a" CreationDate="2015-01-25T19:59:48.203" UserId="4629" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular (and, incidentally, Nominative). So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the house belongs to the father. That's what they mean when they talk about that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8069" RevisionGUID="3709a4f4-d8f4-4f45-9c86-198480795600" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:17:25.753" UserId="4925" Text="This topic has always confused me. When I describe someone, do I use adjectives? For example:&#xA;Дети забавные. &#xA;Or, would I use &quot;смешно&quot;:&#xA;Дети смешно.&#xA;As you can see, I am confused about describing people, because I don't know if I should be using adjectives, or predicative. Also, if I were describing someones personality, wouldnt the person need to be in the dative case? I just need a big explanation on describing someones look/personality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8069" RevisionGUID="3709a4f4-d8f4-4f45-9c86-198480795600" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:17:25.753" UserId="4925" Text="Emotions/Appearance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8069" RevisionGUID="3709a4f4-d8f4-4f45-9c86-198480795600" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:17:25.753" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="7653eeaa-edc1-49e0-97dd-1ace2f9c94d8" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:17:54.243" UserId="4629" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular (and, incidentally, Nominative). So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the house belongs to the father. That's what they mean when they talk about that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. To make life a lot easier, you'll only need to learn how to decline *мой, твой, свой, наш* and *ваш*. *Его, её* and *их* look the same in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Possessive pronouns may be said to describe quality (well, sort of), so the ones which do decline do so very much like adjectives. Just wait till you know how to decline adjectives and you will see how similarly the possessive pronouns decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="98dba55b-da96-4f9a-b48b-14754f1ce074" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:26:03.813" UserId="4629" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular (and, incidentally, Nominative). So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the house belongs to the father. That's what they mean when they talk about that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. To make life a lot easier, you'll only need to learn how to decline *мой, твой, свой, наш* and *ваш*. *Его, её* and *их* look the same in all cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Possessive pronouns may be said to describe quality (well, sort of), so the ones which do decline do so very much like adjectives. Just wait till you know how to decline adjectives and you will see how similarly the possessive pronouns decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. In your *I met my cat* example the reflexive possessive pronoun *свой* must replace the normal possessive pronoun because it refers to the subject pronoun *я*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="ec6c8b26-2d96-4230-acdf-fa1988de9b1b" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:35:22.137" UserId="4629" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular (and, incidentally, Nominative). So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the house belongs to the father. That's what they mean when they talk about that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this relieves the confusion of *possessive* pronouns in Genitive (&quot;possessive&quot;) case. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. To make life a lot easier, you'll only need to learn how to decline *мой, твой, свой, наш* and *ваш*. *Его, её* and *их* look the same in all cases, genders and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Possessive pronouns may be said to describe quality (well, sort of), so the ones which do decline do so very much like adjectives. Just wait till you know how to decline adjectives and you will see how similarly the possessive pronouns decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. In your *I met my cat* example the reflexive possessive pronoun *свой* must replace the normal possessive pronoun because it refers to the subject pronoun *я*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="437ad66d-c061-4dc6-8c83-486d82626afb" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:44:30.793" UserId="4629" Text="You wouldn't use the predicative *смешно* here but rather the adjective *смешные* —the plural of *смешной*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19511" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="82e5bda8-3398-45e5-98cb-d2aa2eb2c172" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:08:23.933" UserId="4629" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4629,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Avi Gordon&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="936c3c12-9885-4162-8a8a-c50aaecff1af" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:44:02.730" UserId="4629" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="I am not sure if juxtaposing adjectives and predicatives is the correct move here. One is a part of speech and the other is a part of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am not mistaken, in impersonal sentences the function of predicative may be exercised by adverbs, passive participles and nouns. In personal sentences, which your sentence appears to be, long or short form adjectives may, too, serve as predicatives. They just have to agree with the subject in number and gender. Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дети *смешны* or *дети смешные* (not *дети смешно*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19513" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="8e265f29-b8be-4dae-a5ec-cc9de0e251dd" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:44:07.370" UserId="4629" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4629,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Avi Gordon&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="6f12eb19-6c97-42b5-8610-76722b61e73d" CreationDate="2015-01-25T21:54:01.363" UserId="4629" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="I am not sure if juxtaposing adjectives and predicatives is the correct move here. One is a part of speech and the other is a part of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am not mistaken, in impersonal sentences the function of predicative may be exercised by adverbs, passive participles and nouns. In personal sentences, which your sentence appears to be, long or short form adjectives may, too, serve as predicatives. They just have to agree with the subject in number and gender. Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Дети смешн**ы*** or *Дети смешн**ые*** (not *Дети смешн**о***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Их упрямство смешн**о*** (short neuter adjective)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8071" RevisionGUID="e73725e5-aa7b-4ef1-97d2-675159e6a955" CreationDate="2015-01-25T22:19:04.943" UserId="2388" Text="I thinks you are confusing describing someone's properties and describing their *state* or *feelings* (plus some special expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you describe someone or something as being big, old, short, funny, blue, shabby, you do it the same as in English, using a subject in Nominative and an adjective (which is usually NOT short):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Его дети умные.&#xD;&#xA;- Эта машина жёлтая.&#xD;&#xA;- Дом очень старый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you need a state instead, or a contextually-appropriate quality, there is often a typical Dative + predicate construction (with a verb or an predicate adjective). Here, can find adjectives that aren't used in the same meaning when in the full form (or at all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Детям смешно = Kids are laughing/ It makes kids laugh&#xD;&#xA; - Машине нужен ремонт = The car needs some repairs.&#xD;&#xA; - Мне холодно = I am cold (or 'feel cold', to be more exact, unless I am a corpse in the morgue)&#xD;&#xA; - Дому пришлось несладко. = The house has had it rough.&#xD;&#xA; - Нам кажется, белые стены лучше смотрятся. = We think (lit. &quot;it seems to us&quot;) that the white wall look better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more adjectives and verbs that takes Dative to express something very vaguely classified as &quot;state&quot;/&quot;feeling&quot;/&quot;experience&quot;. Also, Dative is used when telling age:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ей 30 лет. = She is 30 years old.&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;A bit more about predicative adjectives in Russian. Actually, sometimes you CAN use a short form adjective but it only works for adjective describing qualities (not classifying something as &quot;wooden&quot; or &quot;American&quot;) and must be learnt on a per-word basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Его дети умны → Sounds bookish&#xD;&#xA;- Дом очень стар → a bit old-fashioned&#xD;&#xA;- Моя мама красива. → a bit pompous&#xD;&#xA;- Сопротивление на этом участке бесконечно (Resistance is infinite in this span of a circuit) → just right!&#xD;&#xA;- Мой брат очень силён → Okayish, long form still better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will also find some adjectives that are only used here, or at least have a distinct meaning here (*рад, уверен, похож, мал, велик, должен* etc.). Long story short, with a random adjective it is best you reword your sentence so that the adjective is no longer a predicate. That will actually better than both options in the majority of the general-use cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Это старый дом.&#xD;&#xA;- Это жёлтая машина.&#xD;&#xA;- У него умные дети.&#xD;&#xA;- Это прочный, добротный стол.&#xD;&#xA;- В нашем доме стоят новые лифты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8071" RevisionGUID="989ea4ff-a00c-4927-8dd9-b666b612f38f" CreationDate="2015-01-25T22:28:46.730" UserId="2388" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="I thinks you are confusing describing someone's properties and describing their *state* or *feelings* (plus some special expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you describe someone or something as being big, old, short, funny, blue, shabby, you do it the same as in English, using a subject in Nominative and an adjective (which is usually NOT short):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Его дети умные.&#xD;&#xA;- Эта машина жёлтая.&#xD;&#xA;- Дом очень старый.&#xD;&#xA;- Твои ученики очень смешные = Your pupils are very funny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you need a state instead, there is often a typical Dative + predicate construction (with a verb or an predicate adjective). Here, can find adjectives that aren't used in the same meaning when in the full form (or at all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Детям смешно = Kids are laughing/ It makes kids laugh (hard to translate exactly , but basically, children &quot;feel that the situation makes them laugh )&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Машине нужен ремонт = The car needs some repairs.&#xD;&#xA; - Мне холодно = I am cold (or 'feel cold', to be more exact, unless I am a corpse in the morgue)&#xD;&#xA; - Дому пришлось несладко. = The house has had it rough.&#xD;&#xA; - Нам кажется, белые стены лучше смотрятся. = We think (lit. &quot;it seems to us&quot;) that the white wall look better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more adjectives and verbs that takes Dative to express something very vaguely classified as &quot;state&quot;/&quot;feeling&quot;/&quot;experience&quot;. Also, Dative is used when telling age:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ей 30 лет. = She is 30 years old.&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;A bit more about predicative adjectives in Russian. Actually, sometimes you CAN use a short form adjective but it only works for adjective describing qualities (not classifying something as &quot;wooden&quot; or &quot;American&quot;) and must be learnt on a per-word basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Его дети умны → Sounds bookish&#xD;&#xA;- Дом очень стар → a bit old-fashioned&#xD;&#xA;- Моя мама красива. → a bit pompous&#xD;&#xA;- Сопротивление на этом участке бесконечно (Resistance is infinite in this span of a circuit) → just right!&#xD;&#xA;- Мой брат очень силён → Okayish, long form still better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will also find some adjectives that are only used here, or at least have a distinct meaning here (*рад, уверен, похож, мал, велик, должен* etc.). It may mean a contextually-appropriate quality, like a piece of cloth being too tight/too big (for a person who is currentyl trying it on). Then it is easy for you because you can memorize a particular adjective having this distinct meaning in short form, and not only changing a shade of meaning or style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short, with a random adjective it is best you reword your sentence so that the adjective is no longer a predicate. That will actually better than both options in the majority of the general-use cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Это старый дом.&#xD;&#xA;- Это жёлтая машина.&#xD;&#xA;- У него умные дети.&#xD;&#xA;- У него смешные ученики.&#xD;&#xA;- Это прочный, добротный стол.&#xD;&#xA;- В нашем доме стоят новые лифты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8071" RevisionGUID="bd58a326-4246-43ae-813c-3f19d45d8d45" CreationDate="2015-01-25T22:41:06.700" UserId="2388" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="I thinks you are confusing describing someone's properties and describing their *state* or *feelings* (plus some special expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you describe someone or something as being big, old, short, funny, blue, shabby, you do it the same as in English, using a subject in Nominative and an adjective (which is usually NOT short):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Его дети умные.&#xD;&#xA;- Эта машина жёлтая.&#xD;&#xA;- Дом очень старый.&#xD;&#xA;- Твои ученики очень смешные = Your pupils are very funny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you need a state instead, there is often a typical Dative + predicate construction (with a verb or an predicate adjective). Here, can find adjectives that aren't used in the same meaning when in the full form (or at all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Детям смешно = Kids are laughing/ It makes kids laugh (hard to translate exactly , but basically, children &quot;feel that the situation makes them laugh )&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Машине нужен ремонт = The car needs some repairs.&#xD;&#xA; - Мне холодно = I am cold (or 'feel cold', to be more exact, unless I am a corpse in the morgue)&#xD;&#xA; - Дому пришлось несладко. = The house has had it rough.&#xD;&#xA; - Нам кажется, белые стены лучше смотрятся. = We think (lit. &quot;it seems to us&quot;) that the white wall look better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more adjectives and verbs that takes Dative to express something very vaguely classified as &quot;state&quot;/&quot;feeling&quot;/&quot;experience&quot;. Also, Dative is used when telling age:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ей 30 лет. = She is 30 years old.&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;A bit more about predicative adjectives in Russian. Actually, sometimes you CAN use a short form adjective but it only works for adjective describing qualities (not classifying something as &quot;wooden&quot; or &quot;American&quot;) and must be learnt on a per-word basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Его дети умны → Sounds bookish&#xD;&#xA;- Дом очень стар → a bit old-fashioned&#xD;&#xA;- Моя мама красива. → a bit pompous&#xD;&#xA;- Сопротивление на этом участке бесконечно (Resistance is infinite in this span of a circuit) → just right!&#xD;&#xA;- Мой брат очень силён → Okayish, long form still better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will also find some adjectives that are only used here, or at least have a distinct meaning here (*рад, уверен, похож, мал, велик, должен* etc.). It may mean a contextually-appropriate quality, like a piece of cloth being too tight/too big (for a person who is currentyl trying it on). Then it is easy for you because you can memorize a particular adjective having this distinct meaning in short form, and not only changing a shade of meaning or style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short, with a random adjective it is best you reword your sentence so that the adjective is no longer a predicate. That will actually better than both options in the majority of the general-use cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Это старый дом.&#xD;&#xA;- Это жёлтая машина.&#xD;&#xA;- У него умные дети.&#xD;&#xA;- У него смешные ученики.&#xD;&#xA;- Это прочный, добротный стол.&#xD;&#xA;- В нашем доме стоят новые лифты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the example by **Avi Gordon** shows how important it is to know the stylistic choices on a word-by-word basis when you are dealing with popular adjectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Их упрямство смешно.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use a long adjective here, as it would mean that their stubbornness is &quot;a ridiculous one&quot; (compared to other stubbornnesses, probably?) Full-form adjective typically has this connotation. Namely, you place an object in the class of other objects that have the same quality (objective or as compared to some &quot;standard&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really easier for you with adjectives that are only used in one form for a particular meaning. For instance, when you are meaning a straight line or a right angle, they are always &quot;прямая&quot; and &quot;прямой угол&quot; (these are mathematical concepts; there are no &quot;more right angles&quot; or &quot;less straight lines&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="664f0924-ee18-438a-8246-9ca0adab653c" CreationDate="2015-01-25T22:55:49.427" UserId="4629" Comment="added 1196 characters in body" Text="1. I am not sure if juxtaposing adjectives and predicatives is the correct move here. One is a part of speech and the other is a part of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If I am not mistaken, in impersonal sentences the function of predicative may be exercised by adverbs, passive participles and nouns. In personal sentences, which your sentence appears to be, long or short form adjectives may too serve as predicatives. They just have to agree with the subject in number and gender. Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Дети смешн**ы*** or *Дети смешн**ые*** (not *Дети смешн**о***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Их упрямство смешн**о*** (short neuter adjective).&#xD;&#xA;ему приятно и уверенно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. With regard to the example from your comment: *ему приятно и уверенно*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This appears to be an impossible mixture of a personal and impersonal sentences. ***Ему приятно*** is impersonal but ***Он уверен*** must be personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As theory goes, non-verbal predicates in **impersonal** sentences describe **a condition**. In your example, ***pleasure*** (being or feeling ***pleased***) is the condition the ***He*** is in. In the **personal** fragment of your sentence, however, the non-verbal predicate must describe a **quality** of the subject. Although one may indeed be put in the condition of being assured, I am struggling to think of a Russian word to convey that meaning. Confidence, on the other hand, is a quality of the subject, not the condition the subject is put in. Hence ***Он уверен(ный)***. So we deal with an adverb and an adjective here. Each of them must agree with its own subject and they cannot agree with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, you chose to describe tranquility instead of confidence, that can be expressed as both a condition and a quality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ему приятно и спокойно* vs *Ему приятно, и он спокоен*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8070" RevisionGUID="51a53eed-bc3f-4dc1-a7a6-0b94007744e2" CreationDate="2015-01-25T23:04:35.310" UserId="4629" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="1. I am not sure if juxtaposing adjectives and predicatives is the correct move here. One is a part of speech and the other is a part of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If I am not mistaken, in impersonal sentences the function of predicative may be exercised by adverbs, passive participles and nouns. In personal sentences, which your sentence appears to be, long or short form adjectives may too serve as predicatives. They just have to agree with the subject in number and gender. Hence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Дети смешн**ы*** or *Дети смешн**ые*** (not *Дети смешн**о***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Их упрямство смешн**о*** (short neuter adjective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. With regard to the example from your comment: *ему приятно и уверенно*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This appears to be an impossible mixture of a personal and impersonal sentences. ***Ему приятно*** is impersonal but ***Он уверен*** must be personal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; As theory goes, non-verbal predicates in **impersonal** sentences describe **a condition** or **state**. In your example, ***pleasure*** (being or feeling ***pleased***) is the state the ***He*** is in. In the **personal** fragment of your sentence, however, the non-verbal predicate must describe a **quality** of the subject. Although one may indeed be put in the state of being assured, I am struggling to think of a Russian word to convey that meaning. Confidence, on the other hand, is a quality of the subject, not the state the subject is put in. Hence ***Он уверен(ный)***. So we deal with an adverb and an adjective here. Each of them must agree with its own subject and they cannot agree with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If, however, you chose to describe tranquility instead of confidence, that can be expressed as both a state and a quality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Ему приятно и спокойно* vs *Ему приятно, и он спокоен*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="0b36a9db-e163-4550-ad41-4bae716cac91" CreationDate="2015-01-25T23:10:48.917" UserId="4629" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular (and, incidentally, Nominative). So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the house belongs to the father. That's what they mean when they talk about that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I hope this relieves the confusion of *possessive* pronouns in Genitive (&quot;possessive&quot;) case. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. To make life a lot easier, you'll only need to learn how to decline *мой, твой, свой, наш* and *ваш*. *Его, её* and *их* look the same in all cases, genders and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Possessive pronouns may be said to describe quality (well, sort of), so the ones which do decline do so very much like adjectives. Just wait till you know how to decline adjectives and you will see how similarly the possessive pronouns decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. In your *I met my cat* example the reflexive possessive pronoun *свой* must replace the normal possessive pronoun because it refers to the subject pronoun *я*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8055" RevisionGUID="833104bf-b4e5-4521-b731-7aa4763de514" CreationDate="2015-01-25T23:47:37.360" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Using Nomenative is grammatical but has different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что новое? = Which [things] are new?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что нового? = Are there any of the news? (literally, &quot;What's there of the new?&quot; as Nikolay pointed out)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8072" RevisionGUID="93fcfbbd-5dd4-4453-a902-2b982d15c09f" CreationDate="2015-01-26T02:20:23.713" UserId="190" Text="You're right that the most widespread usage of «быть в теме» is to mean “to be up on”. But words tend to stretch meanings through time, they tend to drift away further and further to tangential meanings. So people started to use «быть в теме» at some point as a euphemism or slang for “to belong to group X” or “to a have an interest in X”, especially in subcultures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it makes sense, because to be up on something quite often means to know something exclusive that other people don't know, which in turns quite often entails to be part of some exclusive group, or at least be related to that group somehow. That would explain how gradually the meaning generalized to mean from knowing latest news to belonging to a group in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In LGBT slang «быть в теме» is widely used to mean “to be a lesbian”, “to be part of lesbian subculture”. As people tend to flex words grammatically for slang purposes, the noun «тема» at some point started to mean the lesbian subculture itself. On Russian social network [VKontakte](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_%28social_networking_website%29) there are plenty of groups and pages catered for lesbians with various variations of the word «тема», sometimes capitalized. Quick googling shows that people use the phrase «быть в теме» to denote members of BDSM, tickling, and even hipster community. I'd say it would be used even wider by various subcultures, if it weren't associated with lesbians so much. (It seems intuitively correct that in a society with heavily entrenched homophobia people would tend to not use slang or even behavior that is associated with LGBT, for some psychological reasons I don't really understand, but I never read such studies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be grateful to any linguist that can explain and elaborate this phenomenon of drifting and widening of meanings of words, which produces slang and euphemisms, so that this answer could be improved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8073" RevisionGUID="65ccc6ca-b7cb-4275-900d-104b926d7863" CreationDate="2015-01-26T05:59:29.423" UserId="87" Text="Let's suppose that you're pulled over by a traffic police (or caught doing something unpleasant by patrol cop). What is the best way to address the officer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard people using &quot;командир&quot; or &quot;начальник&quot; a lot, but it looks a bit subservient to me (which I'd prefer to avoid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, would you suggest to use &quot;ты&quot; or &quot;вы&quot;? Most of &quot;traffic cop trolling&quot; videos show that cops don't like when people sound *too* official." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8073" RevisionGUID="65ccc6ca-b7cb-4275-900d-104b926d7863" CreationDate="2015-01-26T05:59:29.423" UserId="87" Text="What is the universal best way to address a Russian policeman?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8073" RevisionGUID="65ccc6ca-b7cb-4275-900d-104b926d7863" CreationDate="2015-01-26T05:59:29.423" UserId="87" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8075" RevisionGUID="8f297502-ae7a-4e0b-a247-6564e099152e" CreationDate="2015-01-26T12:22:42.387" UserId="4637" Text="I'd agree with RNM here on the first item. This would be my list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Гражданин/товарищ полицейский.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Товарищ military rank, e.g. товарищ сержант. (Of course, this implies you know military ranks, we learned them at school)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7983" RevisionGUID="5d33d4d5-f37a-43da-b68c-14b1f0983e0e" CreationDate="2015-01-26T12:29:39.480" UserId="3887" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="As others have pointed out, this has become politically loaded, I would say since the breakup of the USSR and Ukraine becoming an independent country. Here is a detailed and more or less unbiased analysis of the controversy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gn.org.ua/in_ua&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, both prepositions are technically correct, &quot;на&quot; being much more common at least in the 20th century and supported by the &quot;окраина&quot; etymology, &quot;в&quot; emphasizing a separate country and usually implying an alternative (very contrived) etymology. The definite article was dropped in English also for that reason (compare to The Netherlands).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На Украине&quot; sounds jarring to my ear, but it is technically not wrong, there are examples of this usage from 19th century Russian classics. From that point of view it just sounds like an anachronism today. Ironically, possibly the most famous poem by the most fervently patriotic 19t-century Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko uses &quot;на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, use &quot;в Украине&quot; if you want to please Ukrainian patriots/nationalists or want to make a political statement, use &quot;на Украине&quot; if you want please the purists, or avoid the construct altogether if you want to be neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8073" RevisionGUID="4671ad13-606a-49d1-a160-0e2a126f3245" CreationDate="2015-01-26T13:15:47.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/559701234647846912" />
  <row Id="19531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8076" RevisionGUID="b30382f8-b5a7-4991-b7c8-41bdcaa352a4" CreationDate="2015-01-26T15:23:06.903" UserId="4974" Text="I have a Russian coworker whose last day at work is today. I would like to essentially say the equivalent of &quot;It has been a pleasure working with you.&quot;.&#xA;However, I've heard that is sometimes rude unless you have worked with them directly for an extended period of time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8076" RevisionGUID="b30382f8-b5a7-4991-b7c8-41bdcaa352a4" CreationDate="2015-01-26T15:23:06.903" UserId="4974" Text="Russian Business Etiquette" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8076" RevisionGUID="b30382f8-b5a7-4991-b7c8-41bdcaa352a4" CreationDate="2015-01-26T15:23:06.903" UserId="4974" Text="|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8076" RevisionGUID="5d5760da-8490-4c38-bb5e-d35ad05e664f" CreationDate="2015-01-26T15:45:18.707" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I have a Russian coworker whose last day at work is today. I would like to essentially say the equivalent of &quot;It has been a pleasure working with you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've heard that is sometimes rude unless you have worked with them directly for an extended period of time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8076" RevisionGUID="5d5760da-8490-4c38-bb5e-d35ad05e664f" CreationDate="2015-01-26T15:45:18.707" UserId="551" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;It has been a pleasure working with you&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8077" RevisionGUID="55db7fee-4055-48ab-82c7-f09cee895874" CreationDate="2015-01-26T17:39:37.867" UserId="2269" Text="As for *traffic* policeman, you could also address him _товарищ **инспектор**_. That’s how his position is officially named in most Russian-speaking countries: _инспектор ГАИ_ (Ukraine, Bielorussia) or _инспектор ДПС_ (Russia) or _инспектор ДПП_ (Kazakhstan)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19537" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8062" RevisionGUID="b4e32dc5-0836-4cc3-a074-423954a155ac" CreationDate="2015-01-26T19:16:08.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/559791920743190529" />
  <row Id="19538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8078" RevisionGUID="6b9a01c7-f4f1-4904-a151-d62ed92759c9" CreationDate="2015-01-26T19:57:03.757" UserId="3887" Text="Literal and perfectly acceptable translation: &quot;Было приятно с вами работать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Да свидания, этот судаволствем&quot; (from your comment) means something like &quot;Goodbie, this withpleasur&quot;, if it means anything :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8078" RevisionGUID="2d5901de-67f2-4bb1-9784-70abc4afb7c5" CreationDate="2015-01-26T20:05:04.353" UserId="3887" Comment="added 326 characters in body" Text="Literal and perfectly acceptable translation: &quot;Было приятно с вами работать&quot; (bYlo pr'iyAtna s vAmi rabOtat'). The last &quot;t&quot; is soft, as in the word tea. The soft &quot;r&quot; in &quot;pr'iyAtna&quot; has no analogue in English. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is nothing rude about it. I can't think of a situation when it would be appropriate in English and rude in Russian. It does sound a little like a loan phrase, so to speak. Which it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Да свидания, этот судаволствем&quot; (from your comment) means something like &quot;Good-bi, this withpleasur&quot;, if it means anything :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8079" RevisionGUID="eec24022-2bb4-4463-8bfc-e8fae1b2f464" CreationDate="2015-01-26T21:54:57.913" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma here before ***говоря*** ?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То же самое он делал **и говоря** со студентами пятого курса." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8079" RevisionGUID="eec24022-2bb4-4463-8bfc-e8fae1b2f464" CreationDate="2015-01-26T21:54:57.913" UserId="170" Text="Proper punctuation with a verbal adverb phrase (деепричастный оборот) following the particle &quot;и&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8079" RevisionGUID="eec24022-2bb4-4463-8bfc-e8fae1b2f464" CreationDate="2015-01-26T21:54:57.913" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8078" RevisionGUID="885db9e4-984a-442a-a049-791c89d77167" CreationDate="2015-01-26T23:22:35.187" UserId="3887" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Literal and perfectly acceptable translation: &quot;Было приятно с вами работать&quot; (bYlo pr'iyAtna s vAmi rabOtat'). The last &quot;t&quot; is soft, as in the word tea. The soft &quot;r&quot; in &quot;pr'iyAtna&quot; has no analogue in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say &quot;сотрудничать&quot; (satrUdnichat') instead of &quot;работать&quot;, which to some degree would imply collaboration and partnership more than being employees of the same company and working alongside each other.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is nothing rude about it. I can't think of a situation when it would be appropriate in English and rude in Russian. It does sound a little like a loan phrase, so to speak. Which it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Да свидания, этот судаволствем&quot; (from your comment) means something like &quot;Good-bi, this one withpleasur&quot;, if it means anything :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8080" RevisionGUID="af35a5e1-583c-41bf-adfe-d92326d7ad0c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:28:52.983" UserId="4976" Text="How to roll/trill the letter R in a russian accent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8080" RevisionGUID="af35a5e1-583c-41bf-adfe-d92326d7ad0c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:28:52.983" UserId="4976" Text="How to roll R's in russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8080" RevisionGUID="af35a5e1-583c-41bf-adfe-d92326d7ad0c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:28:52.983" UserId="4976" Text="|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8081" RevisionGUID="86c5e180-4045-4449-a95d-020bdb3d37d3" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:33:09.857" UserId="4629" Text="The verbal adverb phrase here immediately follows the predicate and functions as an adverbial modifier of manner (or maybe time). Comma is not required in such cases, whether or not conjunction ***и*** is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То же самое он делал говоря со студентами пятого курса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar examples are provided [here](http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=196)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8081" RevisionGUID="0ffd3f81-44f5-46a9-a4c6-c824f19762de" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:39:24.260" UserId="4629" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The verbal adverb phrase here immediately follows the predicate and functions as an adverbial modifier of manner (or maybe, of time). Comma is not required in such cases, whether or not conjunction ***и*** is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То же самое он делал говоря со студентами пятого курса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar examples are provided [here](http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=196)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8082" RevisionGUID="66a4f874-51de-40c6-b402-9a2476099fc9" CreationDate="2015-01-27T01:43:52.940" UserId="4629" Text="This [manual](http://www.wikihow.com/Roll-Your-%22R%22s) looks pretty elaborate. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't do it, by the way...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8083" RevisionGUID="7d54a3f5-01c6-4200-a306-efa762692a8e" CreationDate="2015-01-27T02:09:38.413" UserId="4936" Text="Russian r's are formed by flapping the tip of your tongue against the back of your teeth--you only need to flap once or twice. A good way to learn how to do this is to say the word рука only give a really strong puff of air as you say the р. In your question you mention a Russian accent. That normally implies the way some other language is pronounced as a Russian might pronounce it, for example, as a Russian might pronounce English words (with a Russian accent). The trilling of the r in this case would be the same if you want to pronounce English words with a Russian accent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8083" RevisionGUID="ffb7c372-0f02-4f82-971e-f97e095dc716" CreationDate="2015-01-27T03:13:20.980" UserId="4936" Comment="improved description" Text="Russian r's are formed by flapping the tip of your tongue against the alveolar ridge (behind  your upper teeth)--you only need to flap once or twice. A good way to learn how to do this is to say the word рука only give a really strong puff of air as you say the р. In your question you mention a Russian accent. That normally implies the way some other language is pronounced as a Russian might pronounce it, for example, as a Russian might pronounce English words (with a Russian accent). The trilling of the r in this case would be the same if you want to pronounce English words with a Russian accent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8084" RevisionGUID="7f3d3972-4d9e-40c4-bed3-0cb4cfc2281c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T07:38:28.500" UserId="4977" Text="I need the spellings of two words &quot;NEHA&quot; and &quot;RAJNI&quot; as per Russian alphabets. I am residing in India, and these two words are Indian Names so I am also giving the sound details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. NEHA: &quot;N&quot; sounds Like &quot;N&quot; in &quot;NAME&quot;, &quot;E&quot; sounds Like &quot;E&quot; in &quot;NET&quot; and &quot;HA&quot; sounds Like   &quot;HA&quot; in &quot;HARD&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. RAJNI: &quot;R&quot; sounds Like &quot;R&quot; in &quot;RUB&quot;, &quot;A&quot; sounds Like &quot;O&quot; in &quot;LOVE&quot;, &quot;J&quot; sounds Like &quot;J&quot; in &quot;Jacket&quot;, &quot;NI&quot; sounds Like &quot;NEE&quot; in &quot;NEED&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please Help ASAP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8084" RevisionGUID="7f3d3972-4d9e-40c4-bed3-0cb4cfc2281c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T07:38:28.500" UserId="4977" Text="Need to Get Russian spellings with english sound" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8084" RevisionGUID="7f3d3972-4d9e-40c4-bed3-0cb4cfc2281c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T07:38:28.500" UserId="4977" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8077" RevisionGUID="d8a42038-5a31-41d6-804d-ebbeaabacee1" CreationDate="2015-01-27T08:53:03.650" UserId="4801" Comment="Corrected country name" Text="As for *traffic* policeman, you could also address him _товарищ **инспектор**_. That’s how his position is officially named in most Russian-speaking countries: _инспектор ГАИ_ (Ukraine, Belarus) or _инспектор ДПС_ (Russia) or _инспектор ДПП_ (Kazakhstan)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19556" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8077" RevisionGUID="d8a42038-5a31-41d6-804d-ebbeaabacee1" CreationDate="2015-01-27T08:53:03.650" Comment="Proposed by 4801 approved by 551, 4629 edit id of 589" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8085" RevisionGUID="3b037c94-b553-4e6f-be34-880887d65d5c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:09:12.023" UserId="4629" Text="Neha = Неха&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Rajni = Раджни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8086" RevisionGUID="2a23491c-c522-41fe-aba7-ce049eea259c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:59:04.703" UserId="4494" Text="In English you can say &quot;good day&quot; as either a greeting or a goodbye. Can добра диень and its morning/evening variants be used in the same way, or only as a greeting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8086" RevisionGUID="2a23491c-c522-41fe-aba7-ce049eea259c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:59:04.703" UserId="4494" Text="Can you say добра диень as a goodbye?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8086" RevisionGUID="2a23491c-c522-41fe-aba7-ce049eea259c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:59:04.703" UserId="4494" Text="|словоупотребление|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8087" RevisionGUID="de18d3a1-273c-4167-8dfb-5e1c5fddd4f0" CreationDate="2015-01-27T10:34:55.410" UserId="1475" Text="Добрый день cannot be used as a goodbye, only as a greeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you can use `доброго/хорошего дня` which is basically &quot;(I wish you a) good day&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8087" RevisionGUID="2c9125ff-6bf5-4044-81e2-61f1ea97118c" CreationDate="2015-01-27T11:17:50.550" UserId="1475" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="`Добрый день` cannot be used as a goodbye, only as a greeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you can use `доброго/хорошего дня` which is basically &quot;(I wish you a) good day&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8088" RevisionGUID="18eec090-2818-4c20-9e53-80584c9fbc88" CreationDate="2015-01-27T12:32:14.653" UserId="4833" Text="If you need a general goodbye phrase, say _«Всего хорошего!»_.&#xD;&#xA;It probably would work in any situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_«Приятного вечера»_ is sometimes used, but it actually means having a nice time; so I would not say it to a person in the middle of boring work.&#xD;&#xA;_«Хорошего дня!»_ is not very usual, but correct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8087" RevisionGUID="63d6ce34-1a1f-4ccd-a208-ef0e6a2afa22" CreationDate="2015-01-27T13:21:50.953" UserId="1475" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="`Добрый день` cannot be used as a goodbye, only as a greeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you can use `доброго/хорошего/приятного дня/вечера` which is basically &quot;(I wish you a) good day&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8086" RevisionGUID="4cb75c9d-549f-497c-99ad-08f4f34c5999" CreationDate="2015-01-27T13:38:55.367" UserId="551" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="In English you can say &quot;good day&quot; as either a greeting or a goodbye. Can `добрый день` and its morning/evening variants be used in the same way, or only as a greeting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19566" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8086" RevisionGUID="4cb75c9d-549f-497c-99ad-08f4f34c5999" CreationDate="2015-01-27T13:38:55.367" UserId="551" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can you say &quot;добрый день&quot; as a goodbye?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8089" RevisionGUID="8e565de2-f81b-4b6c-b3b4-4f61284245e3" CreationDate="2015-01-27T14:55:23.397" UserId="4978" Text="First of all I'd recommend addressing all officials in a polite way, so you use &quot;вы&quot;, but not &quot;ты&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Most of the times just that polite addressing is totally fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're pulled by a cop than he is supposed to introduce himself. That include his rank and surname. &quot;Сержант Козлов&quot; for example, or &quot;Старший инспектор Иванов&quot;. Traffic cops are usually some kind of &quot;инспектор&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You could use his rank preceding it with &quot;товарищ&quot;. That'll be &quot;товарищ инспектор&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Using just &quot;инспектор&quot; looks kinda rude. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Surname without rank (&quot;товарищ Иванов&quot;) makes it look like you're addressing regular citizen not official. Would not recommend it since reaction is unpredictable. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Using full introduction as it was &quot;Старший инспектор&#xD;&#xA;        Иванов&quot; on the other hand is too official. Sometimes you'd like&#xD;&#xA;        that, at least could be useful in case of an argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;командир&quot; or &quot;начальник&quot; - naturally used by truck drivers, old school taxi drivers, ex-cons. Others might use it to make situation more friendly in case of asking officer of some favour (not writing a ticket and letting go with warning for example). In that case those addressing is usually done with open smile as if you're friends and prolonged vowels &quot;командииир&quot;, &quot;начаааальник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: if used with &quot;товарищ&quot; or &quot;гражданин&quot; it is &quot;товарищ командир&quot;. No proof but &quot;гражданин командир&quot; sounds really strange. I presume that's because it's militaristic addressing, there are no citizens in army only comrades.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand &quot;товарищ начальник&quot; and &quot;гражданин начальник&quot; both ok. Later is more commonly used as more friendlier.&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb &quot;comrade&quot; is a step towards some friendly talk, and &quot;citizen&quot; is a huge leap towards official style communication. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8090" RevisionGUID="8374d9a2-2a37-46d5-8fde-4e30d93c43cc" CreationDate="2015-01-27T17:27:53.947" UserId="4979" Text="- Так, нам надо убедиться, что мы защищены.&#xD;&#xA;- Так она и сказала!&#xD;&#xA;Не могу перенести интонацию. Посмотри вот [это видео][1]  на 1:20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/Qx_aco31gW4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8090" RevisionGUID="df869aaf-2725-48c0-8c31-275d4389b64a" CreationDate="2015-01-27T19:39:26.423" UserId="2269" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="&gt; — Так, нам надо убедиться, что мы защищены.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так она и сказала!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не могу передать интонацию. Посмотрите [вот это видео][1] на 1:20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/Qx_aco31gW4?t=1m20s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8078" RevisionGUID="1a502fd8-9d97-4362-b8ef-4c25ec6dc127" CreationDate="2015-01-28T00:06:20.177" UserId="3887" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Literal and perfectly acceptable translation: &quot;Было приятно с вами работать&quot; (bYlo pr'iyAtna s vAm'i rabOtat'). The last &quot;t&quot; is soft, as in the word tea. The &quot;m&quot; is soft as in the word me. The soft &quot;r&quot; in &quot;pr'iyAtna&quot; has no analogue in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say &quot;сотрудничать&quot; (satrUdnichat') instead of &quot;работать&quot;, which to some degree would imply collaboration and partnership more than being employees of the same company and working alongside each other.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There is nothing rude about it. I can't think of a situation when it would be appropriate in English and rude in Russian. It does sound a little like a loan phrase, so to speak. Which it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Да свидания, этот судаволствем&quot; (from your comment) means something like &quot;Good-bi, this one withpleasur&quot;, if it means anything :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="b4ceae9a-8f44-460c-9664-1cd1beb6f15a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T00:09:59.583" UserId="4981" Text="My belarussian friend said a such phrase : &quot;хуйбудешь&quot;, he said that it was a joke, but could you plz explain what he meant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="b4ceae9a-8f44-460c-9664-1cd1beb6f15a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T00:09:59.583" UserId="4981" Text="i haven't understood friends phase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="b4ceae9a-8f44-460c-9664-1cd1beb6f15a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T00:09:59.583" UserId="4981" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8093" RevisionGUID="afc61380-9e59-45f0-9834-adacd95a5fec" CreationDate="2015-01-28T00:25:53.750" UserId="4560" Text="On its own with no context, it sounds like a reaction to an earlier statement: &quot;The hell you'll be!&quot; (or possibly &quot;The hell you will!&quot;), but it could be something entirely different. For example, there's a phenomenon similar to [shm-reduplication][1] whereby a word's entire sequence of sounds before its stressed vowel is changed to *хуй-*, to express annoyed or even aggressive dismissal. It can also be used on its own with a word said by another speaker, e.g. `«Бинго!» — «Хуинго!»` If that's the case here, though, it's rather hard to figure out what the original word was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shm-reduplication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19576" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8079" RevisionGUID="14ad411b-e847-4328-9984-9499190f9e8d" CreationDate="2015-01-28T01:15:48.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/560244818727956480" />
  <row Id="19577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8094" RevisionGUID="4e195bad-ee62-453e-a9ae-9f43c1a441ad" CreationDate="2015-01-28T07:18:27.080" UserId="4560" Text="Пейоративное *житёнка* не могло быть образовано от слова *жизнь*; от *житьё* — тоже крайне сомнительно. Вдобавок есть еще *житуха*, что наводит на мысль о существительном женского рода наподобие *жита*, *житка* или, может быть, *жить* (3-го склонения). Есть ли где-то следы такого слова?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8094" RevisionGUID="4e195bad-ee62-453e-a9ae-9f43c1a441ad" CreationDate="2015-01-28T07:18:27.080" UserId="4560" Text="«Житёнка» — уменьшительное от чего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8094" RevisionGUID="4e195bad-ee62-453e-a9ae-9f43c1a441ad" CreationDate="2015-01-28T07:18:27.080" UserId="4560" Text="|этимология|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19580" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="9735b064-57e1-4789-a4f1-7178bb31e90c" CreationDate="2015-01-28T08:05:05.477" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="I haven't understood friends phase: &quot;хуйбудешь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19581" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="9735b064-57e1-4789-a4f1-7178bb31e90c" CreationDate="2015-01-28T08:05:05.477" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|phrase|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8095" RevisionGUID="f1ac8dbe-13af-4456-aba6-fa1a3104ce08" CreationDate="2015-01-28T09:57:27.947" UserId="194" Text="This means that he suggests you to suck his penis. In full it would be &quot;хуй будешь [сосать]?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="1fefd59f-9632-414b-b2cb-1365c7170e0a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T10:01:22.567" UserId="109" Comment="edited title; fixed typos" Text="My Belarusian friend said a such phrase: *хуйбудешь*, He said that it was a joke, but could you please explain what he meant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19584" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="1fefd59f-9632-414b-b2cb-1365c7170e0a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T10:01:22.567" UserId="109" Comment="edited title; fixed typos" Text="Meaning of &quot;хуйбудешь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19585" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="1fefd59f-9632-414b-b2cb-1365c7170e0a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T10:01:22.567" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 4560, 551 edit id of 590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8096" RevisionGUID="e52d2688-8018-4ea5-8c42-45b6ce6c9984" CreationDate="2015-01-28T15:37:17.943" UserId="4605" Text="In addition to посмотреть and рассмотреть I'd like to mention an informal, idiomatic, but still commonly used провентилировать (lit. to ventilate as in freshen the air).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы тут хотел с тобой одну идейку провентилировать...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't go with a director though.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8097" RevisionGUID="c4b9f4c4-0f08-4119-b47d-a04db217f083" CreationDate="2015-01-28T15:43:20.730" UserId="4605" Text="I wouldn't say &quot;привет, **мой** друг&quot; to a male, but rather &quot;привет, дружище&quot;, and  similarly &quot;привет, подруга&quot; to a female. Also what Avi Gordon said. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8098" RevisionGUID="59aef01d-8efa-4a7d-8cef-77a21213d6a7" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:28:38.483" UserId="4936" Text="The Russian National Corpus gives numerous examples of both заслуживать внимание and заслуживать внимания (without negation). Is this an instance when either case can be used with this verb? I understand that one means more or less &quot;deserves&quot; or &quot;earn&quot; while the other means more or less &quot;is worthy of&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8098" RevisionGUID="59aef01d-8efa-4a7d-8cef-77a21213d6a7" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:28:38.483" UserId="4936" Text="Are заслуживать + acc and заслуживать + gen synonymous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8098" RevisionGUID="59aef01d-8efa-4a7d-8cef-77a21213d6a7" CreationDate="2015-01-28T17:28:38.483" UserId="4936" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19593" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="a73e4b7a-8add-4d01-9125-66b02ca814ef" CreationDate="2015-01-28T19:29:16.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/560519994543702017" />
  <row Id="19594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8100" RevisionGUID="9cb30ada-ecdf-4d5d-9ab4-b26be218aed1" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:27:20.157" UserId="4629" Text="I would say the two are definitely not synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Почему он так внимательно слушает эту женщину?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Мне кажется, он заслуживает её внимани**е**. (He is earning [seeking] her attention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Почему эта женщина так внимательно его слушает?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Мне кажется, он заслуживает её внимани**я**. (He deserves [is worthy of] her attention)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8101" RevisionGUID="ff26e873-5d2d-4796-8951-ae90aef81df8" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:32:44.977" UserId="4494" Text="The phrase &quot;Ты кто такой&quot; supposedly means &quot;Who are you?&quot;. I have a few questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does the phrase &quot;Ты кто?&quot; have a meaning? If so, how does it differ from &quot;Ты кто такой&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Are there other question forms with &quot;такой&quot; on the end? Is the &quot;такой&quot; necessary to be grammatically correct, and if not, what extra meaning does in convey?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How can we explain the meaning of this phrase, given that &quot;такой&quot; means &quot;such&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8101" RevisionGUID="ff26e873-5d2d-4796-8951-ae90aef81df8" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:32:44.977" UserId="4494" Text="Why does &quot;Ты кто такой&quot; have the word &quot;такой&quot; in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8101" RevisionGUID="ff26e873-5d2d-4796-8951-ae90aef81df8" CreationDate="2015-01-28T21:32:44.977" UserId="4494" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8102" RevisionGUID="c0ad8f5e-3439-4641-80a6-400cf7d7e10a" CreationDate="2015-01-28T22:54:11.590" UserId="2388" Text="The very basic meanin stays the same as «Ты кто?»/ «Кто ты?»; «такой» is not required grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;такой&quot; adds an emotional flavour of &quot;What on earth is ...?&quot;, &quot;What kind of ... is that?&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also used in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Что это такое? = *What is this?*, also when scolding a child who did something wrong&#xD;&#xA; - Что такое? = What's the matter? → here just &quot;что?&quot; would sound more vague and may be used in a wider range of situations.&#xD;&#xA; - Кто они такие? = Who are these people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since &quot;такой&quot; means &quot;this kind of&quot;, all of these questions add more emphasis on how you totally don't know the exact and even approximate identity of the thing in question. I do not know the origin of such phrasing, since it is has crystallized in these constructions and is not used freely in more complicated sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8103" RevisionGUID="e988a7c1-5492-4e45-92a7-309ea61b2813" CreationDate="2015-01-28T23:00:13.063" UserId="4833" Text="The direct translation of &quot;Who are you?&quot; will be &quot;Kто вы?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both _Ты кто?_  and _ты кто такой?_ do not sound very politely.&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;Tы кто такой?&quot;_, said with a certain intonation, would approximately &quot;who on earth are you&quot; or &quot;what are you thinking you are?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;_&quot;Tы кто?&quot;_ maybe ok on a student party, but not in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. _&quot;Ты кто?&quot;_  is grammatically correct and means &quot;who are thou?&quot;. It is not very common to say &quot;ты&quot; to people you do not know, so its use is a bit restricted.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not very many, but you can ask&#xD;&#xA;   _&quot;Интересно, кто он такой?&quot;_   (I wonder, what is he?)&#xD;&#xA;   _&quot;Почему он такой?&quot;_   (why is he like that?)&#xD;&#xA; 3. [&quot;такой&quot;][1] can also mean  &quot;like that&quot;, &quot;sort of&quot;, so you can interpret _&quot;Tы кто такой?&quot;_ approximately as &quot;what sort of human are you&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://slovari.yandex.ru/%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8103" RevisionGUID="fb771ae6-4b91-4966-80a5-b0480584e2b1" CreationDate="2015-01-29T00:31:57.643" UserId="4833" Comment="avoid &quot;thou&quot;; formatting" Text="The direct translation of &quot;Who are you?&quot; will be &quot;Kто вы?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both _Ты кто?_  and _ты кто такой?_ do not sound very politely. &#xD;&#xA;_&quot;Tы кто такой?&quot;_, said with a certain intonation, would approximately &quot;who on earth are you?&quot; or &quot;what are you thinking you are?&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;_&quot;Tы кто?&quot;_ maybe ok on a student party, but not in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. _&quot;Ты кто?&quot;_  is grammatically correct and means &quot;who are you?&quot; (singular). It is not very common to say &quot;ты&quot; to people you do not know, so its use is a bit restricted.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Not very many, but you can ask&#xD;&#xA; *  _&quot;Интересно, кто он такой?&quot;_   (I wonder, what is he?)&#xD;&#xA; *  _&quot;Почему он такой?&quot;_   (why is he like that?)&#xD;&#xA; 3. [&quot;такой&quot;][1] can also mean  &quot;like that&quot;, &quot;sort of&quot;, so you can interpret _&quot;Tы кто такой?&quot;_ approximately as &quot;what sort of human are you&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://slovari.yandex.ru/%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="8c40e2b7-8263-41af-9c5a-45dc4a29259a" CreationDate="2015-01-29T01:29:26.883" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Much more idiomatic would be: &quot;хочу с тобой посоветоваться по вопросу...&quot; or &quot;нужен твой совет насчет...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8104" RevisionGUID="d264b55b-a8a5-4ab8-8535-543eb6388008" CreationDate="2015-01-29T05:36:04.690" UserId="4986" Text="The words for marriage are clearly gender-linked in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that for two women, you'd say &quot;Она женился на ней / Она женат.&quot; Correspondingly, I'd think that for two men it would be &quot;Он вышел замуж за него / Он замужем&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what would correspond to &quot;Они поженились&quot; and &quot;Они женаты&quot; for two men? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? Is it idiomatic? What is a better way to say this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8104" RevisionGUID="d264b55b-a8a5-4ab8-8535-543eb6388008" CreationDate="2015-01-29T05:36:04.690" UserId="4986" Text="How do you describe homosexual marriages in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8104" RevisionGUID="d264b55b-a8a5-4ab8-8535-543eb6388008" CreationDate="2015-01-29T05:36:04.690" UserId="4986" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19606" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8098" RevisionGUID="ab0a9378-4ecf-4fb7-896b-b37ffddf7a5a" CreationDate="2015-01-29T07:29:37.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/560701279052509184" />
  <row Id="19607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8105" RevisionGUID="50e6bc35-5d72-4cbd-ade5-ce4ce08a88b7" CreationDate="2015-01-29T12:15:01.827" UserId="4560" Text="First of all, it's somewhat pointless to ask what are correct and idiomatic ways to speak of same-sex marriage in Russian. There are none.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, while you definitely cannot `жениться на` someone who's male, I don't think the expressions `они поженились` and `они женаты`, where both spouses are the subject, are necessarily precluded by their etymology from applying to two men — there's never been a problem with the word `девственник` for a male virgin. Still, that's just theorising. One way or another, when you discuss the subject in Russian you'll have to improvise.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8106" RevisionGUID="604bd9bf-4d66-4d6b-9386-915cbd977da2" CreationDate="2015-01-29T13:06:33.217" UserId="194" Text="Она женилась на ней - sounds ok&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она вышла замуж за неё - hmm well, still ok&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он женился на нем - ok&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он вышел замуж за него - weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a man cannot выйти замуж. And жениться is a general word &quot;to marry&quot; often applied to the both sexes (&quot;они поженились&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8107" RevisionGUID="c1d88424-583a-4f64-ba62-fba1ae1c9ff0" CreationDate="2015-01-29T13:49:41.673" UserId="4854" Text="Usually it's said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    они заключили брак/брачный союз/связали себя узами брака&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the way used by News Sites, Agencies and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last two variants sound strange and therefore are not used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8108" RevisionGUID="d04fb72f-5034-487c-94a0-239bb84a9e7b" CreationDate="2015-01-29T13:58:05.037" UserId="4854" Text="You can't use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Добрый день!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, yes, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Доброго дня!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is perfectly ok. Genitiv here indicates, that you are it is a perting wish. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8081" RevisionGUID="154b7a22-709e-423d-9ba7-730cd4d833a4" CreationDate="2015-01-29T14:27:13.230" UserId="4629" Comment="added 1408 characters in body" Text="The verbal adverb phrase here immediately follows the predicate and functions as an adverbial modifier of manner (or maybe, of time). Comma is not required in such cases, whether or not conjunction ***и*** is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То же самое он делал говоря со студентами пятого курса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar examples are provided [here](http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=196).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;I have to thank @J-mster for doubting the above. My analysis may have been misattributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the verbal adverb phrase in question appears to be a part of the predicate and to fall under the rule I quoted, it most likely conforms to another, much more straightforward, rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A verbal adverb phrase preceded by the enhancing particle ***и*** is not separated by the comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Можете уйти* ***и не дожидаясь ответа***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он оставался скромным* ***и победив сильного противника***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Source](http://orfogrammka.ru/%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of your sentence is exactly the same. The verbal adverb phrase is preceded by the particle (not conjunction!) ***и***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not entirely sure what should happen if the sentence lacks the particle ***и***. Much as the verbal adverb phrase appears to be closely connected with the predicate, I suspect that my intuition may be misleading me here and that such sentence would indeed need the comma to separate the perfectly normal verbal adverb phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this time the analysis is correct and apologise for misinforming you earlier!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8081" RevisionGUID="cfd61a55-5842-451e-a857-bfdea2e9692c" CreationDate="2015-01-29T15:41:49.717" UserId="4629" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The verbal adverb phrase here immediately follows the predicate and functions as an adverbial modifier of manner (or maybe, of time). Comma is not required in such cases, whether or not &lt;s&gt;conjunction&lt;/s&gt; ***и*** is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То же самое он делал говоря со студентами пятого курса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar examples are provided [here](http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=196).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;I have to thank @J-mster for doubting the above. My analysis may have been misattributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the verbal adverb phrase in question appears to be a part of the predicate and to fall under the rule I quoted, it most likely conforms to another, much more straightforward, rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A verbal adverb phrase preceded by the enhancing particle ***и*** is not separated by the comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Можете уйти* ***и не дожидаясь ответа***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он оставался скромным* ***и победив сильного противника***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Source](http://orfogrammka.ru/%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of your sentence is exactly the same. The verbal adverb phrase is preceded by the particle (not conjunction!) ***и***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not entirely sure what should happen if the sentence lacks the particle ***и***. Much as the verbal adverb phrase appears to be closely connected with the predicate, I suspect that my intuition may be misleading me here and that such sentence would indeed need the comma to separate the perfectly normal verbal adverb phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this time the analysis is correct and apologise for misinforming you earlier!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8100" RevisionGUID="69e92c50-3529-4abd-9a2c-d13d06e3b2c4" CreationDate="2015-01-29T16:37:58.240" UserId="4629" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I would say the two are definitely not synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Почему он так внимательно слушает эту женщину?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Мне кажется, он заслуживает её внимани**е**. (He is earning [seeking] her attention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Почему эта женщина так внимательно его слушает?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Мне кажется, он заслуживает её внимани**я**. (He deserves [is worthy of] her attention)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is *заслуживать* = *зарабатывать* and there is *заслуживать* = *быть достойным*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8081" RevisionGUID="58689b6a-957f-42af-a023-bf72f5704aaa" CreationDate="2015-01-29T16:43:30.883" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="The verbal adverb phrase here immediately follows the predicate and functions as an adverbial modifier of manner (or maybe, of time). Comma is not required in such cases, whether or not &lt;s&gt;conjunction&lt;/s&gt; ***и*** is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То же самое он делал говоря со студентами пятого курса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some similar examples are provided [here](http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=196).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to thank @J-mster for doubting the above. My analysis may have been misattributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the verbal adverb phrase in question appears to be a part of the predicate and to fall under the rule I quoted, it most likely conforms to another, much more straightforward, rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A verbal adverb phrase preceded by the enhancing particle ***и*** is not separated by the comma:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Можете уйти* ***и не дожидаясь ответа***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он оставался скромным* ***и победив сильного противника***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Source](http://orfogrammka.ru/%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of your sentence is exactly the same. The verbal adverb phrase is preceded by the particle (not conjunction!) ***и***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still not entirely sure what should happen if the sentence lacks the particle ***и***. Much as the verbal adverb phrase appears to be closely connected with the predicate, I suspect that my intuition may be misleading me here and that such sentence would indeed need the comma to separate the perfectly normal verbal adverb phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this time the analysis is correct and apologise for misinforming you earlier!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8109" RevisionGUID="eb67a38e-83ca-43b3-bb46-b2d25375e6df" CreationDate="2015-01-29T17:00:09.773" UserId="4884" Text="Avi Gordon is correct saying that the verb заслуживать can be translated as to seek as well as to deserve, but in the phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он заслуживает внимания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is the Genitive partitive, i.e. he deserves (some, not all) attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8110" RevisionGUID="8c0b880c-b9cf-4ee0-a91c-4a3dbb781af9" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:23:48.740" UserId="4513" Text="I am just beginning to learn Russian and I've started translating an online book after memorizing the sounds of the Russian alphabet. I'm a tactile learner who is really fond of mathematics, so memorizing symbols is no problem as I frequently use Greek letters and others in equations etc. What is really difficult, however, is learning the rules of how these &quot;symbols&quot; fit together to create a language. I do not know any second spoken languages and obviously my first and only fluent such language is English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, how do I translate the following phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кир, сир.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be found in the very beginning on [this web page][1]. I believe I can translate the first line,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что там, Бертран?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as &quot;You there, Bertrand?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrections and suggestions would be most helpful. And also, I apologize if this might be viewed as too broad a post, so hopefully I do not receive too many down votes. As I said, I am a beginner and while I have a good sense of what is acceptable on the Stack Exchange forum for mathematics, I have little idea what might be here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fan.lib.ru/a/alkin_j_l/yuri_alkin_the_awakening_chapters.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8110" RevisionGUID="8c0b880c-b9cf-4ee0-a91c-4a3dbb781af9" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:23:48.740" UserId="4513" Text="Translation of &quot;Кир, сир&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8110" RevisionGUID="8c0b880c-b9cf-4ee0-a91c-4a3dbb781af9" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:23:48.740" UserId="4513" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8111" RevisionGUID="8a5f35c2-3b63-4381-ba27-593689616a5a" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:36:23.373" UserId="4903" Text="&gt;  -- Что там, Бертран?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -- Кит, сир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- What's there, Bertrand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- A whale, sir.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that you might have mistyped &quot;Кир&quot;, instead of &quot;Кит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8112" RevisionGUID="e504dd70-506e-4082-b83f-90c31d7a691e" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:38:41.613" UserId="1236" Text="It is not &quot;Кир, сир.&quot;, but &quot;Ки**т**, сир.&quot; &quot;Что&quot; is &quot;what&quot;, not &quot;where&quot; as you have it. The whole dialog is like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Что там, Бертран? (What [is] there, Bertran?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кит, сир. ([A] whale, sire.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian omits the present forms of the word &quot;to be&quot; (am, is, are), and have no articles, you have to insert them yourself when you translate from Russian into English, based on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8111" RevisionGUID="cdacdfb3-2a41-4a7f-ac73-1707271907c2" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:46:01.967" UserId="4903" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;  -- Что там, Бертран?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -- Кит, сир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- What's there, Bertrand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- A whale, sire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that you might have mistyped &quot;Кир&quot;, instead of &quot;Кит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8112" RevisionGUID="4dc94a98-ceec-47c1-9cce-2550d6a38530" CreationDate="2015-01-29T18:57:09.757" UserId="1236" Comment="typos corrected" Text="It is not &quot;Кир, сир.&quot;, but &quot;Ки**т**, сир.&quot; &quot;Что&quot; is &quot;what&quot;, not &quot;where&quot; as you have it. The whole dialog is like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Что там, Бертран? (What [is] there, Bertran?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кит, сир. ([A] whale, sire.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian omits the present forms of the verb &quot;to be&quot; (am, is, are), and has no articles, you have to insert them yourself when you translate from Russian into English, based on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8113" RevisionGUID="3ced9c58-d4d4-444e-bc82-12d683e4c7ac" CreationDate="2015-01-29T19:43:12.603" UserId="4989" Text="You can say `доброй ночи` and this will be only as a goodbye (good night)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8114" RevisionGUID="a3e3987d-53d6-400e-9c13-a36f50898551" CreationDate="2015-01-29T23:29:12.740" UserId="1632" Text="I always struggle with declining numerals in ordinary speech. For example, how should one read aloud the (declining) dates in bold in the sentence below?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В 1958—1972 годах** Басов являлся заместителем директора ФИАН, а **с 1973 по 1989 годы** был директором этого института.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing this is wrong, but I'd say something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят седьмом по тысяча девятьсот семьдесят втором годах** Басов являлся заместителем директора ФИАН, а **с тысяча девятьсот семьдесят третьего по тысяча девятьсот восемьдесят девятый годы** был директором этого института.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that mixes singular and plural declensions (&quot;**втором годах**&quot;, etc.), so seems strange/incorrect. [Also, having to repeat **тысяча девятьсот** each time seems cumbersome.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8114" RevisionGUID="a3e3987d-53d6-400e-9c13-a36f50898551" CreationDate="2015-01-29T23:29:12.740" UserId="1632" Text="Reading (Saying) Declining Dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8114" RevisionGUID="a3e3987d-53d6-400e-9c13-a36f50898551" CreationDate="2015-01-29T23:29:12.740" UserId="1632" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8115" RevisionGUID="fdc61998-e6d8-4012-8f8b-c1bba11de733" CreationDate="2015-01-30T00:06:16.110" UserId="4629" Text="Much as this manner of writing date ranges feels awkward, according to [Розенталь](http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/ac339r/ac339r00.pdf) it is correct. The way people tend to read such ranges is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят седьмом — тысяча девятьсот семьдесят втором годах**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;or just&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят седьмом — семьдесят втором годах**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singular and plural declensions are not perceived as mixed, as **годах** refers to both flanking years of the range and indeed implies the entire range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other date range in your sentence looks perfectly correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8116" RevisionGUID="7f9b6068-090b-47ac-8ec9-691e88101543" CreationDate="2015-01-30T00:07:48.573" UserId="2388" Text="I say it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят восьмом — тысяча девятьсот семьдесят втором годах Басов являлся заместителем директора ФИАН, а с тысяча девятьсот семьдесят третьего по тысяча девятьсот восемьдесят девятый год был директором этого института.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing wrong with plural «годы» in the first case since it refers to two numbers instead of one. The expression «с ... по ...», on the other hand, require singular (though, officials may occasionally insert plural there, which is still considered substandard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken speech &quot;тысяча девятьсот&quot;, &quot;тысяча восемьсот&quot; are often omitted when it is clear what century you are talking about (i.e. almost always). However, the excerpt you provided is most definitely written in formal style and is hardly supposed to be read aloud. So it does not matter whether pronunciation is cumbersome or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if  read aloud, probably some sound merging will happen at high speed. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- «тысяча девятьсот» → тысьчадевицот&#xD;&#xA;- пятьдесят седьмом → писят седьмом → пьсят седьмом&#xD;&#xA;- семьдесят → семьсят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8112" RevisionGUID="21fbcfe0-ccc0-4460-b555-070a607df6f6" CreationDate="2015-01-30T00:13:36.603" UserId="4629" Comment="typo" Text="It is not &quot;Кир, сир.&quot;, but &quot;Ки**т**, сир.&quot; &quot;Что&quot; is &quot;what&quot;, not &quot;you&quot; as you have it. The whole dialog is like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Что там, Бертран? (What [is] there, Bertran?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кит, сир. ([A] whale, sire.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian omits the present forms of the verb &quot;to be&quot; (am, is, are), and has no articles, you have to insert them yourself when you translate from Russian into English, based on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8116" RevisionGUID="f11c75d9-405d-44ad-9ee0-9e3694b844bd" CreationDate="2015-01-30T00:18:20.187" UserId="2388" Comment="added 792 characters in body" Text="I say it as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят *восьмом* — тысяча девятьсот семьдесят *втором* **годах** Басов являлся заместителем директора ФИАН, а с тысяча девятьсот семьдесят *третьего* по тысяча девятьсот восемьдесят *девятый* **год** был директором этого института.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing wrong with plural «годы» in the first case since it refers to two numbers instead of one. The expression «с ... по ...», on the other hand, require singular (though, officials may occasionally insert plural there, which is still considered substandard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken speech &quot;тысяча девятьсот&quot;, &quot;тысяча восемьсот&quot; are often omitted when it is clear what century you are talking about (i.e. almost always). However, the excerpt you provided is most definitely written in formal style and is hardly supposed to be read aloud. So it does not matter whether pronunciation is cumbersome or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if  read aloud, probably some sound merging will happen at high speed. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **тысяча девятьсот** → тысьча девицот / тыща девицот&#xD;&#xA; - **пятьдесят восьмом** → писят восьмом → пьсят восьмом&#xD;&#xA; - **семьдесят** → семьсят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordinal numbers aren't that hard, actually, because only THE LAST word changes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a cardinal number, though, you are supposed to put everything in the case required by the sentence. In reality native speakers are often having trouble doing that correctly (*перед восемьюстами пятьюдесятью восемью слушателями?*). For you it means, firstly, that a native mumbling a uncomfrtably long number is a bad role model here. Secondly, the system is probably going to become more solid and logical in a century or so (not that I hope to live long enough to see that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *right now natives sometimes do not decline the beginning (which is considered a mistake) or just talk their way around such a cumbersome number, using some construction that uses Nominative forms instead*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8112" RevisionGUID="d5c07f9a-1ca5-4011-99bf-793ec1dac6df" CreationDate="2015-01-30T10:18:55.577" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It is not &quot;Кир, сир.&quot;, but &quot;Ки**т**, сир.&quot; &quot;Что&quot; is &quot;what&quot;, not &quot;where&quot; as you have it. The whole dialog is like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Что там, Бертран? (What [is] there, Bertran?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кит, сир. ([A] whale, sire.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian omits the present forms of the verb &quot;to be&quot; (am, is, are), and has no articles, you have to insert them yourself when you translate from Russian into English, based on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8117" RevisionGUID="1117ba32-27f5-4eac-80d8-d045f5f665e6" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:57:10.563" UserId="3892" Text="I'm quite familiar with the use and meaning of the aspects in an affirmative past scenario. However I've noticed that they don't always correspond in a negative past scenario - where you'd expect a perfective form, you find **не + imperfective**. My reasoning is that there must be something beyond the concept of completion that determines the choice of aspect in past negation, i.e. the speakers volition, a general vs categorical negation, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following dialogue, ¿what would be the interpretation of B's answers, i.e. how do they differ from one another (if at all) semantically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А: Где Андрей хочет провести отпуск?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не спросил его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не спрашивал его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не стал его спрашивать (спросить?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8117" RevisionGUID="1117ba32-27f5-4eac-80d8-d045f5f665e6" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:57:10.563" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of past negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8117" RevisionGUID="1117ba32-27f5-4eac-80d8-d045f5f665e6" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:57:10.563" UserId="3892" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8118" RevisionGUID="651e7667-20e8-4711-a63b-5f0ed34a1ba2" CreationDate="2015-01-30T14:12:31.983" UserId="1688" Text="&quot;_Я не спросил его._&quot; I didn't ask (and won't have a chance to ask any more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Я не спрашивал его._&quot; I didn't ask (but may still ask).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Я не стал его спрашивать._&quot; I chose not to ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8119" RevisionGUID="6fcb24ae-91f5-4ade-af5d-e2dacf91d733" CreationDate="2015-01-30T14:49:27.540" UserId="4903" Text="Both affirmative and negative scenarios for the first two cases seem to use the same aspect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я спросил его.&quot; - &quot;I have asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спросил его.&quot; - &quot;I have not asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Imperfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спрашивал его.&quot; - &quot;I didn't ask him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спрашивал его.&quot; - &quot;I didn't ask him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases above are described here: http://masterrussian.com/verbs/sprashivat_sprosit.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using complex predicate &quot;стал&quot; + infinitive verb. There is a difference between affirmative and negative cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я стал его спрашивать.&quot;  - &quot;I started asking him.&quot; [beginning of a phase]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не стал его спрашивать.&quot;  - &quot;I didn't try asking him.&quot; [didn't happen at all]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8117" RevisionGUID="646b1b73-78c7-4830-9b1d-41320a0e3167" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:26:19.753" UserId="1688" Comment="removing incorrect option" Text="I'm quite familiar with the use and meaning of the aspects in an affirmative past scenario. However I've noticed that they don't always correspond in a negative past scenario - where you'd expect a perfective form, you find **не + imperfective**. My reasoning is that there must be something beyond the concept of completion that determines the choice of aspect in past negation, i.e. the speakers volition, a general vs categorical negation, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following dialogue, ¿what would be the interpretation of B's answers, i.e. how do they differ from one another (if at all) semantically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А: Где Андрей хочет провести отпуск?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не спросил его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не спрашивал его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не стал его спрашивать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19639" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8117" RevisionGUID="646b1b73-78c7-4830-9b1d-41320a0e3167" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:26:19.753" Comment="Proposed by 1688 approved by 1329, 1236 edit id of 592" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8119" RevisionGUID="cf2bcd29-7683-448b-9af8-b57a23a06499" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:32:23.867" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Both affirmative and negative scenarios for the first two cases seem to use the same aspect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я спросил его.&quot; - &quot;I have asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спросил его.&quot; - &quot;I have not asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Imperfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я спрашивал его.&quot; - &quot;I was asking him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спрашивал его.&quot; - &quot;I didn't ask him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases above are described here: http://masterrussian.com/verbs/sprashivat_sprosit.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using complex predicate &quot;стал&quot; + infinitive verb. There is a difference between affirmative and negative cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я стал его спрашивать.&quot;  - &quot;I started asking him.&quot; [beginning of a phase]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не стал его спрашивать.&quot;  - &quot;I didn't try asking him.&quot; [didn't happen at all]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8121" RevisionGUID="c3e77de3-ba5f-4ec4-b177-2b3433400ba3" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:59:37.130" UserId="4903" Text="Как перевести на русский разговорное восклицание &quot;beat that!&quot;  Это сокращение от &quot;Can you beat that?&quot; Выражение может быть использовано в процессе игры или неформального соревнования. Вот пара ситуаций:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The teenager scored 15 points on a basketball court. Exclaimed &quot;beat that!&quot; and passed the ball to his friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- I got 95% on math test. Beat that!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перевод &quot;попробуй перебей!&quot; звучит искуственно притянуто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8121" RevisionGUID="c3e77de3-ba5f-4ec4-b177-2b3433400ba3" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:59:37.130" UserId="4903" Text="Как перевести &quot;beat that&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8121" RevisionGUID="c3e77de3-ba5f-4ec4-b177-2b3433400ba3" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:59:37.130" UserId="4903" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|сленг|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8119" RevisionGUID="3930d010-284b-4a53-97c2-48757e014f8f" CreationDate="2015-01-30T16:01:09.640" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Both affirmative and negative scenarios for the first two cases seem to use the same aspect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я спросил его.&quot; - &quot;I have asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спросил его.&quot; - &quot;I have not asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Imperfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я спрашивал его.&quot; - &quot;I asked him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не спрашивал его.&quot; - &quot;I didn't ask him&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two cases above are described here: http://masterrussian.com/verbs/sprashivat_sprosit.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using complex predicate &quot;стал&quot; + infinitive verb. There is a difference between affirmative and negative cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я стал его спрашивать.&quot;  - &quot;I started asking him.&quot; [beginning of a phase]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я не стал его спрашивать.&quot;  - &quot;I didn't try asking him.&quot; [didn't happen at all]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8122" RevisionGUID="7e17ab91-ff49-4063-9d04-c5213c689735" CreationDate="2015-01-30T16:11:00.240" UserId="4629" Text="Выражение &quot;побить рекорд&quot; используется до сих пор. Понятно, что смысл -- &quot;сделать лучше&quot;. Конкретный перевод зависит от вкусов переводчика. Один из вариантов: &quot;Можешь так?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8123" RevisionGUID="bb0ca759-b59c-4903-9ce9-947b3708450d" CreationDate="2015-01-30T17:40:19.347" UserId="2388" Text="One very important use of the imperfective aspect is expressing the **fact** that took or did not take place, while the time of its occurence is irrelevant (even if technically it did happen at some specific point in time). Typically called &quot;общефактическое значение&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When answering questions or introducing statements, this use of imperfective contrasts to the perfective answer, which may imply that the situation was supposed to take place. Then, you are describing how it went on. In your case the contrast is even more noticeable: &quot;спрашивать/спросить&quot; is, in principle, an action that can hardly end in failure. Thus, the difference in result is negligible (if you engaged in &quot;asking&quot;, you are pretty sure to have finished your question). The context, however, will force you choose one or the other aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*А: Где Андрей хочет провести отпуск?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не **спросил** его. → Didn't ask when I was supposed to/had a chance etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не **спрашивал** его. → Never asked (maybe didn't even think until you mentioned it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я **не стал** его спрашивать. → Didn't ask him (decided not to, even though I considered the possibility)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8123" RevisionGUID="53a04bdd-6275-4e11-b0db-7c60ed1e6028" CreationDate="2015-01-30T18:18:29.777" UserId="2388" Comment="added 452 characters in body" Text="One very important use of the imperfective aspect is expressing the **fact** that took or did not take place, while the time of its occurence is irrelevant (even if technically it did happen at some specific point in time). Typically called &quot;общефактическое значение&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When answering questions or introducing statements, this use of imperfective contrasts to the perfective answer, which may imply that the situation was supposed to take place. Then, you are describing how it went on. In your case the contrast is even more noticeable: &quot;спрашивать/спросить&quot; is, in principle, an action that can hardly end in failure. Thus, the difference in result is negligible (if you engaged in &quot;asking&quot;, you are pretty sure to have finished your question). The context, however, will force you choose one or the other aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*А: Где Андрей хочет провести отпуск?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не **спросил** его. → Didn't ask when I was supposed to/had a chance etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я не **спрашивал** его. → Never asked (maybe didn't even think until you mentioned it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Б: Я **не стал** его спрашивать. → Didn't ask him (decided not to, even though I considered the possibility).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of &quot;completion&quot; or &quot;result&quot; is not a particularly good explanation of perfective aspect since it only works well for native speakers (who do not need much explanation anyway). The difference is more along the lines of perfective being a &quot;limited&quot; action that is perceived as a point in time without much inner structure, a &quot;simple&quot; action that is characterized by some point in time, with some &quot;change of state&quot; linked to that point. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8124" RevisionGUID="d2142dc4-89ad-4a1f-974d-be6b1df4a870" CreationDate="2015-01-30T19:11:33.370" UserId="2281" Text="Using genitive/partitive as a subject is a perfectly normal thing in a lot of languages: Czech language's *co* &quot;what&quot; in nominative stems from an ancient genitive case as well (from *čьso*). Even Proto-Indoeuropean's *kwid* suspiciously looks like an ablative form (~ partitive-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, чё does stem from чего, but it can be thought of as a variation of что in the modern language (with its own quirks)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8124" RevisionGUID="f0ff825b-fa7d-4abb-bbbc-f32794a716dd" CreationDate="2015-01-30T19:18:13.463" UserId="2281" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Using genitive/partitive as a subject is a perfectly normal thing in a lot of languages: Czech language's *co* &quot;what&quot; in nominative stems from an ancient genitive case as well (from *čьso*). Even Proto-Indoeuropean's *kwid* suspiciously looks like an ablative form (~ partitive-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, чё does stem from чего, but it can be thought of as a rightful variation of что in the modern language (with its own quirks)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8125" RevisionGUID="5c719fe0-718f-4369-bc47-59b2625370a1" CreationDate="2015-01-30T20:42:20.313" UserId="4999" Text="Это может быть как чего, так и что. В зависимости от контекста. Вариант &quot;Чего тебе надо?&quot; для меня, как носителя языка звучит как более вежливый вариант, а никак не разговорным. Оба грамматически корректные. Вообще сама по себе конструкция, что с чё или с полным вариантом звучит грубо и невежливо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8126" RevisionGUID="d394e6bc-86b9-4214-a2d2-f3c14cf088ca" CreationDate="2015-01-30T23:47:38.890" UserId="5000" Text="I think, `Интеллектуальная работа` can also be used in such context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8128" RevisionGUID="e8ef8d99-ff6c-4566-a46c-29eada852a63" CreationDate="2015-01-31T03:55:31.843" UserId="4714" Text="Many grammar books state that, if no action occurs, use the imperfective, and if one uses the perfective it means Failure to do X, (when it was expected).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не звонил няшке моей. (I didn't phone her; nothing happened; i wasn't even thinking about her).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не позвонил няшке моей. (I didn't phone her; but I should have; she's at the gym; she wanted a ride home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8129" RevisionGUID="59bfa10b-b24f-488d-a4e1-e1eba81fd333" CreationDate="2015-01-31T15:57:39.210" UserId="4600" Text="Я бы перевёл &quot;Слабо?&quot; или &quot;Выкуси!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8130" RevisionGUID="3de65892-011c-4f8b-975c-f9caf30b5ece" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:08:34.577" UserId="4834" Text="Does the verb &quot;любить&quot; mean to love or to like? I know it can be used for both, but which is more common and acceptable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8130" RevisionGUID="3de65892-011c-4f8b-975c-f9caf30b5ece" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:08:34.577" UserId="4834" Text="Я люблю - I love or I like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8130" RevisionGUID="3de65892-011c-4f8b-975c-f9caf30b5ece" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:08:34.577" UserId="4834" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8131" RevisionGUID="8df8caa9-4e3e-4bcc-8f82-ad1a8a1cb19f" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:17:50.377" UserId="4560" Text="With people: `любить` is to love; &quot;I like&quot; is `мне нравится` (for both romantic and &quot;as a person&quot; liking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With things, activities, etc.: `любить` is the general equivalent of &quot;to like&quot;, and it's more or less interchangeable with `мне нравится`; occasionally the latter is preferable (with books and works of art, for example). As for &quot;to love&quot; as in &quot;I love skiing&quot; (gummy bears, Tolkien, etc.), I usually translate it as `обожать`, but there are options, down to the most basic `очень люблю`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8132" RevisionGUID="1d3e2b0e-7cf5-4307-bf87-4316a50d9d0e" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:18:16.150" UserId="2388" Text="It depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used for a specific person, it means &quot;love&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - used with generic groups of people, it means &quot;like&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - used with generic things or activities, it means &quot;like&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не любить&quot; is extremely common to express &quot;not liking&quot; some type of activity/ things/ people&#xD;&#xA; - perfective *полюбить* is not used (commonly) to talk about specific activities and things (use &quot;понравиться&quot; instead)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8133" RevisionGUID="9266fb5c-61c8-42b7-a4ef-0394e883923c" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:21:52.157" UserId="1236" Text="Both. When it refers to the people who are dear to you, e. g. your girl, wife, you parents, then it means 'love'. This can even be said about your pet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю тебя! - I love you!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю своего кота. - I love my cat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it refers to different animals, which are not your pets, or to non-living things, then it means 'like', but can also be translated as 'love' if you like that very much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю кошек. - I like cats. (I love cats.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я люблю шоколад. - I like chocolate. (I love chocolate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another common verb, `нравиться`, which is used in this second meaning, but it can also refer to the people you like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравится шоколад. - I like chocolate.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравится Сергей. - I like Sergej." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8132" RevisionGUID="b8a70078-13d6-4417-953a-9d2595958d5a" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:24:55.677" UserId="2388" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="It depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used for a specific person (animal), it means &quot;love&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - used with generic groups of people (animals), it means &quot;like&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - used with generic things or activities, it means &quot;like&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не любить&quot; is extremely common to express &quot;not liking&quot; some type of activity/ things/ people&#xD;&#xA; - perfective *полюбить* is not used (commonly) to talk about liking specific or generic activities and things (use &quot;понравиться&quot; instead). Only use &quot;полюбить&quot; for stronger emotions in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8132" RevisionGUID="35b999b5-e3c2-4305-b2d3-a2c1f2ccfd69" CreationDate="2015-02-01T01:31:50.460" UserId="2388" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="It depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - used for a specific person (animal), it means &quot;love&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - used with generic groups of people (animals), it means &quot;like&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - used with generic things or activities, it means &quot;like&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не любить&quot; is extremely common to express &quot;not liking&quot; some type of activity/ things/ people&#xD;&#xA; - to express you opinion (*&quot;I was in the Cafe 67 last night, quite liked the coffee&quot;*), do not use perfective *полюбить* with these things, no matter generic or specific. Use &quot;понравиться&quot; instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8135" RevisionGUID="4ed9125a-89f1-4644-a4c4-d1701fbc1b03" CreationDate="2015-02-01T18:02:29.943" UserId="4884" Text="http://italki.com - there you can find Russians willing to have a language exchange speaking practice (normally it is 30 min in Russian and 30 min in your language, but not necessary). &#xD;&#xA;Also you can find a community tutor there (informal teaching) and teachers of Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with learning Russian!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8136" RevisionGUID="c52bba96-ef53-441d-970d-66c4331467cb" CreationDate="2015-02-02T07:34:26.937" UserId="4982" Text="My feeling is that it's just a difference between languages: in Russian it's correct to say НА Украине while in Ukrainian it is В. But the two languages are similar enough so that the two forms get mixed up, and nowadays this difference is political, too" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="8738d114-52a5-4923-a556-224f9f86e1c8" CreationDate="2015-02-02T09:41:46.053" UserId="2191" Text="Someone I know is making a computer game set in pre-revolutionary Russia. The game itself is not in Russian, but she would like the buttons to have Russian words attached to increase the atmosphere of the user interface. We are wondering how the command buttons would be translated in a standard Russian game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buttons in her game are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game (which I understand is usually translated by &quot;Играть&quot; or &quot;Игра”) &#xD;&#xA;- Read file&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures - leads to a page with special pictures from the game&#xD;&#xA;- Music (&quot;Музыка&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Settings (&quot;Настройки&quot; or &quot;Опции&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Exit (&quot;Выход&quot; or &quot;Выйти&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu (&quot;Меню&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Save game&#xD;&#xA;- Recap - shows a screen with the last few blocks of text shown to the player&#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress - the standard setting is that the player needs to click before the next block of text is shown; activating this setting would let blocks of text automatically appear one after another&#xD;&#xA;- Properties - numbers that control character progress&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen&#xD;&#xA;- In window&#xD;&#xA;- Back (on menu, recap or properties page, which would lead the player back to the game)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was able to find some screenshots of the main page of some games, but not all the terms we are interested in could be found in this way. (Apologies if some of the English terms above are non-standard in a game; the game is not in English either and I have little experience playing computer games.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="8738d114-52a5-4923-a556-224f9f86e1c8" CreationDate="2015-02-02T09:41:46.053" UserId="2191" Text="Translation of buttons in a computer game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="8738d114-52a5-4923-a556-224f9f86e1c8" CreationDate="2015-02-02T09:41:46.053" UserId="2191" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19676" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="51605441-11f5-4554-8058-2c9b155145d1" CreationDate="2015-02-02T09:52:56.893" UserId="2191" Comment="Edited title and tags; deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Vocabulary in a computer game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19677" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="51605441-11f5-4554-8058-2c9b155145d1" CreationDate="2015-02-02T09:52:56.893" UserId="2191" Comment="Edited title and tags; deleted 8 characters in body" Text="|перевод|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="51605441-11f5-4554-8058-2c9b155145d1" CreationDate="2015-02-02T09:52:56.893" UserId="2191" Comment="Edited title and tags; deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Someone I know is making a computer game set in pre-revolutionary Russia. The game itself is not in Russian, but she would like the buttons to have Russian words attached to increase the atmosphere of the user interface. We are wondering what the command buttons are called in a standard Russian game.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buttons in her game are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game (which I understand is usually translated by &quot;Играть&quot; or &quot;Игра”) &#xD;&#xA;- Read file&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures - leads to a page with special pictures from the game&#xD;&#xA;- Music (&quot;Музыка&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Settings (&quot;Настройки&quot; or &quot;Опции&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Exit (&quot;Выход&quot; or &quot;Выйти&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu (&quot;Меню&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Save game&#xD;&#xA;- Recap - shows a screen with the last few blocks of text shown to the player&#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress - the standard setting is that the player needs to click before the next block of text is shown; activating this setting would let blocks of text automatically appear one after another&#xD;&#xA;- Properties - numbers that control character progress&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen&#xD;&#xA;- In window&#xD;&#xA;- Back (on menu, recap or properties page, which would lead the player back to the game)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was able to find some screenshots of the main page of some games, but not all the terms we are interested in could be found in this way. (Apologies if some of the English terms above are non-standard in a game; the game is not in English either and I have little experience playing computer games.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="880ed7df-0fc0-4ef9-a8db-57df149b0a87" CreationDate="2015-02-02T10:00:16.107" UserId="2388" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide a sort-of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = &quot;Новая игра&quot; (New game), sometimes &quot;Начать новую игру&quot; (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better &quot;Загрузить&quot; (Load) or &quot;Загрузить игру&quot; (Load game). &quot;File&quot; is not usually use in that meaning but if you really mean reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = Картинки (Images, Pictures) or Галерея (Gallery)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = &quot;Музыка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = &quot;Настройки&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = &quot;Выход&quot;/&quot;Выйти&quot;/&quot;Выйти из игры&quot;. Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are &quot;Выйти в главное меню&quot; and &quot;Выйти игры игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = &quot;Меню&quot;, Main menu = &quot;Главное меню&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = &quot;Сохранить игру&quot; (Save the game), &quot;Сохранить&quot; (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course. You could use &quot;История&quot; (History), &quot;Предыдущие&quot; (previous ones). For going further back into the old info, maybe &quot;Записи&quot;, &quot;Записки&quot; (Notes), &quot;Блокнот&quot; (Notepad), &quot;Журнал&quot; (Journal, Notes), &quot;Дневник&quot; (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = &quot;Автопромотка&quot;, &quot;Проматывать текст автоматически&quot;. In a more modern setting &quot;Автоскролл&quot; would be just about right but &quot;скролл&quot; isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use &quot;Персонаж&quot; (Character), &quot;Навыки&quot; (Skills), &quot;Параметры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = &quot;Полноэкранный режим&quot;, &quot;На полный экран&quot; &#xD;&#xA;- In window = &quot;Оконный режим&quot;, &quot;В окне&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Back = &quot;Назад&quot; (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), &quot;Вернуться&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = &quot;Продолжить&quot;, &quot;Продолжить игру&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="cecb279e-4c85-4a09-8989-96623d4c401b" CreationDate="2015-02-02T10:07:48.387" UserId="2388" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide a sort-of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = &quot;**Новая игра**&quot; (New game), sometimes &quot;**Начать новую игру**&quot; (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better &quot;**Загрузить**&quot; (Load) or &quot;**Загрузить игру**&quot; (Load game). &quot;File&quot; is not usually use in that meaning but if you really mean reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = **Картинки** (Images, Pictures) or **Галерея** (Gallery)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = &quot;**Музыка**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = &quot;**Настройки**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = &quot;**Выход**&quot;/&quot;**Выйти**&quot;/&quot;**Выйти из игры**&quot;. Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are &quot;Выйти в главное меню&quot; and &quot;Выйти игры игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = &quot;**Меню**&quot;, Main menu = &quot;**Главное меню**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = &quot;**Сохранить игру**&quot; (Save game), &quot;**Сохранить**&quot; (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course, so getting creative here. You could use &quot;**История**&quot; (History), &quot;Предыдущие&quot; (previous ones). For going further back into the old info, maybe &quot;**Записи**&quot;, &quot;Записки&quot; (Notes), &quot;**Блокнот**&quot; (Notepad), &quot;**Журнал**&quot; (Journal, Notes), &quot;Дневник&quot; (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = &quot;*Автопромотка**&quot;, &quot;**Проматывать текст автоматически**&quot;. In a more modern setting &quot;Автоскролл&quot; would be just about right but &quot;скролл&quot; isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use &quot;**Персонаж**&quot; (Character), &quot;Навыки&quot; (Skills), &quot;Параметры&quot;. More literal &quot;свойства&quot; is really bad here: first, it kinda sounds like &quot;settings&quot; or &quot;options&quot;, and second, you'd rather expect &quot;свойства&quot; to describe properties of some object or substance than living being. Not really used for character stats screen in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = &quot;**Полноэкранный режим**&quot;, &quot;**На полный экран**&quot; &#xD;&#xA;- In window = &quot;**Оконный режим**&quot;, &quot;**В окне**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Back = &quot;**Назад**&quot; (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), &quot;Вернуться&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = &quot;**Продолжить**&quot;, &quot;Продолжить игру&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="34a2d1eb-3e7b-462d-af62-2fad020c7a06" CreationDate="2015-02-02T10:19:23.653" UserId="2388" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide sort of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = «**Новая игра**» (New game), sometimes «**Начать новую игру**» (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better «**Загрузить**» (Load) or «**Загрузить игру**» (Load game). &quot;File&quot; is not usually use in that meaning but if you really mean reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = «**Картинки**» (Images, Pictures) or «**Галерея**» (Gallery). «Альбом»(Album) is you want to be really fancy (not a typical word for images gallery inside the game)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = «**Музыка**»&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = «**Настройки**»&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = «**Выход**»/«**Выйти**»/«**Выйти из игры**». Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are «Выйти в главное меню» and «Выйти игры игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = «**Меню**», Main menu = «**Главное меню**»&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = «**Сохранить игру**» (Save game), «**Сохранить**» (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course, so getting creative here. You could use «**История**» (History), «Предыдущие» (previous ones; non-standard), «Ранее» /«Раньше» (Earlier). For going further back into the old info, maybe «**Записи**», «Записки» (Notes), «**Блокнот**» (Notepad), «**Журнал**» (Journal, Notes), «Дневник» (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = «*Автопромотка**», «**Проматывать текст автоматически**», «Проматывать текст» or &quot;реплики&quot;(lines, cues) instead of &quot;текст&quot;. In a modern setting «Автоскролл» would be just about right but «скролл» isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use «**Персонаж**» (Character), «Навыки» (Skills), «Параметры». More literal &quot;свойства&quot; is really bad here: first, it kinda sounds like &quot;settings&quot; or &quot;options&quot;, and second, you'd rather expect &quot;свойства&quot; to describe properties of some object or substance than living being. Not really used for character stats screen in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = «**Полноэкранный режим**», «**На полный экран**» &#xD;&#xA;- In window = «**Оконный режим**», «**В окне**»&#xD;&#xA;- Back = «**Назад**» (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), «Вернуться»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = «**Продолжить**», «Продолжить игру»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="48416ebb-7250-471d-8ac2-eaf091acddb9" CreationDate="2015-02-02T10:25:20.983" UserId="2388" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide sort of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = «**Новая игра**» (New game), sometimes «**Начать новую игру**» (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better «**Загрузить**» (Load) or «**Загрузить игру**» (Load game). &quot;Файл&quot; is not the word you'd use here... but if you *really* mean (literally) reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = «**Картинки**» (Images, Pictures) or «**Галерея**» (Gallery). «Альбом»(Album), if you want to be really fancy (not a typical word for images gallery inside the game, but there isn't anything wrong about using this methaphor)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = «**Музыка**»&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = «**Настройки**»&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = «**Выход**»/«**Выйти**»/«**Выйти из игры**». Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are «Выйти в главное меню» and «Выйти игры игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = «**Меню**», Main menu = «**Главное меню**»&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = «**Сохранить игру**» (Save game), «**Сохранить**» (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course, so getting creative here. You could use «**История**» (History), «Предыдущие» (previous ones; non-standard), «Ранее» /«Раньше» (Earlier). For going further back into the old info, maybe «**Записи**», «Записки» (Notes), «**Блокнот**» (Notepad), «**Журнал**» (Journal, Notes), «Дневник» (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = «*Автопромотка**», «**Проматывать текст автоматически**», «Проматывать текст» or &quot;реплики&quot;(lines, cues) instead of &quot;текст&quot;. In a modern setting «Автоскролл» would be just about right but «скролл» isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use «**Персонаж**» (Character), «Навыки» (Skills), «Параметры». More literal &quot;свойства&quot; is really bad here: first, it kinda sounds like &quot;settings&quot; or &quot;options&quot;, and second, you'd rather expect &quot;свойства&quot; to describe properties of some object or substance than living being. Not really used for character stats screen in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = «**Полноэкранный режим**», «**На полный экран**» &#xD;&#xA;- In window = «**Оконный режим**», «**В окне**»&#xD;&#xA;- Back = «**Назад**» (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), «Вернуться»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = «**Продолжить**», «Продолжить игру»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8139" RevisionGUID="bd4d8863-756b-441a-a626-ed15beeac700" CreationDate="2015-02-02T12:30:22.223" UserId="4815" Text="Anyway *товарищ инспектор* is most neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you try to use common word like *командир* that would mean that you're trying to be friendly or showing yourself as a simple driver (I'd even say non-educated person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd try to address as *товарищ лейтенант/товарищ сержант* - it's too official and if you're not aware of russian ranks it could be risky, since *лейтенант* or *старший лейтенант* makes big difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for sure always *вы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8140" RevisionGUID="2f81c040-d6bf-4b95-bee5-92697084c218" CreationDate="2015-02-02T18:32:35.383" UserId="5012" Text="For my sins, I'm a huge fan of the TV-show &quot;The Americans&quot; - a show about two deep-cover KGB-agents living as a family in the USA with their children, set in the beginning of the 1980s.  [The Americans (Wikipedia)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agents goes under the names Elizabeth and Philip Jennings (not their real Russian names obviously), while their daughter is Paige and their son Henry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be suitable &quot;Russianated&quot; names from these English names (eg. like Peter=Pjoter)?  I guess &quot;Paige&quot; would be a bit of a challenge...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any good ideas (or a good source for English-names to Russian-names)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+++&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative, would perhaps find a Russian name with similar meaning to the English ones...  According to http://www.behindthename.com/ :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paige: (feminine) From an English surname meaning &quot;servant, page&quot; in Middle English. It is ultimately derived (via Old French and Italian) from Greek παιδιον (paidion) meaning &quot;little boy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jennings: From the given name Jenyn, a medieval diminutive of Jen, itself a Middle English form of JOHN.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(2013_TV_series) &quot;The Americans&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8140" RevisionGUID="2f81c040-d6bf-4b95-bee5-92697084c218" CreationDate="2015-02-02T18:32:35.383" UserId="5012" Text="Russian &quot;version&quot; of Elizabeth, Philip, Henry and Paige?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8140" RevisionGUID="2f81c040-d6bf-4b95-bee5-92697084c218" CreationDate="2015-02-02T18:32:35.383" UserId="5012" Text="|перевод|значения|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8104" RevisionGUID="36bbdc0c-1da9-4880-8bb5-cf42467a8edd" CreationDate="2015-02-02T22:00:01.143" UserId="4986" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The words for marriage are clearly gender-linked in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that for two women, you'd say &quot;Она женилась на ней / Она женат.&quot; Correspondingly, I'd think that for two men it would be &quot;Он вышел замуж за него / Он замужем&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what would correspond to &quot;Они поженились&quot; and &quot;Они женаты&quot; for two men? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? Is it idiomatic? What is a better way to say this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="22dea2c4-fc2b-471e-bd54-d50ed4c11cb5" CreationDate="2015-02-02T22:30:43.383" UserId="2388" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide sort of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = «**Новая игра**» (New game), sometimes «**Начать новую игру**» (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better «**Загрузить**» (Load) or «**Загрузить игру**» (Load game). &quot;Файл&quot; is not the word you'd use here... but if you *really* mean (literally) reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = «**Картинки**» (Images, Pictures) or «**Галерея**» (Gallery). «Альбом»(Album), if you want to be really fancy (not a typical word for images gallery inside the game, but there isn't anything wrong about using this methaphor)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = «**Музыка**»&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = «**Настройки**»&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = «**Выход**»/«**Выйти**»/«**Выйти из игры**». Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are «Выйти в главное меню» and «Выйти игры игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = «**Меню**», Main menu = «**Главное меню**»&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = «**Сохранить игру**» (Save game), «**Сохранить**» (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course, so getting creative here. You could use «**История**» (History), «Предыдущие» (previous ones; non-standard), «Ранее» /«Раньше» (Earlier). For going further back into the old info, maybe «**Записи**», «Записки» (Notes), «**Блокнот**» (Notepad), «**Журнал**» (Journal, Notes), «Дневник» (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = «*Автопромотка**», «**Проматывать текст автоматически**», «Проматывать текст» or &quot;реплики&quot;(lines, cues) instead of &quot;текст&quot;. In a modern setting «Автоскролл» would be just about right but «скролл» isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use «**Персонаж**» (Character), «Навыки» (Skills), «Параметры». More literal &quot;свойства&quot; is really bad here: first, it kinda sounds like &quot;settings&quot; or &quot;options&quot;, and second, you'd rather expect &quot;свойства&quot; to describe properties of some object or substance than living being. Not really used for character stats screen in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = «**Полноэкранный режим**», «**Во весь экран**»/«**На весь экран**»/«**На полный экран**» &#xD;&#xA;- In window = «**Оконный режим**», «**В окне**»&#xD;&#xA;- Back = «**Назад**» (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), «Вернуться»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = «**Продолжить**», «Продолжить игру»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8141" RevisionGUID="8948302c-a57d-482e-9b19-982c39144b06" CreationDate="2015-02-03T05:57:13.427" UserId="4815" Text=" - Elizabeth - Елизавета &#xD;&#xA; - Philip - Филипп or Филип &#xD;&#xA; - Henry - Генри, probably Геннадий (Гена)&#xD;&#xA; - Paige - прямой русский перевод `паж`, but there's no such russian name, so closest by pronunciation and also by meaning is `Полина` - Paulina originated from Pavel/Paul - small/little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8142" RevisionGUID="6bcc1cef-0dd7-48e0-a5f3-d9720379cd26" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:10:29.380" UserId="4815" Text="I think your friend would like to say: `you can't repeat`. Meaning unbelievable or unrepeatable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="599544c1-eb95-4cf8-a4b7-addbdfbebfb6" CreationDate="2015-02-03T07:30:03.123" UserId="2388" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide sort of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = «**Новая игра**» (New game), sometimes «**Начать новую игру**» (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better «**Загрузить**» (Load) or «**Загрузить игру**» (Load game). &quot;Файл&quot; is not the word you'd use here... but if you *really* mean (literally) reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = «**Картинки**» (Images, Pictures) or «**Галерея**» (Gallery). «Альбом»(Album), if you want to be really fancy (not a typical word for images gallery inside the game, but there isn't anything wrong about using this methaphor)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = «**Музыка**»&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = «**Настройки**»&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = «**Выход**»/«**Выйти**»/«**Выйти из игры**». Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are «Выйти в главное меню» and «Выйти игры игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = «**Меню**», Main menu = «**Главное меню**»&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = «**Сохранить игру**» (Save game), «**Сохранить**» (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course, so getting creative here. You could use «**История**» (History), «Предыдущие» (previous ones; non-standard), «Ранее» /«Раньше» (Earlier). For going further back into the old info, maybe «**Записи**», «Записки» (Notes), «**Блокнот**» (Notepad), «**Журнал**» (Journal, Notes), «Дневник» (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = «*Автопромотка**», «**Проматывать текст автоматически**», «Проматывать текст» or &quot;реплики&quot;(lines, cues) instead of &quot;текст&quot;. In a modern setting «Автоскролл» would be just about right but «скролл» isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use «**Персонаж**» (Character), «Навыки» (Skills), «Параметры» or **«Характеристики»**. More literal &quot;свойства&quot; is really bad here: first, it kinda sounds like &quot;settings&quot; or &quot;options&quot;, and second, you'd rather expect &quot;свойства&quot; to describe properties of some object or substance than living being. Not really used for character stats screen in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = «**Полноэкранный режим**», «**Во весь экран**»/«**На весь экран**»/«**На полный экран**» &#xD;&#xA;- In window = «**Оконный режим**», «**В окне**»&#xD;&#xA;- Back = «**Назад**» (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), «Вернуться»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = «**Продолжить**», «Продолжить игру»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8143" RevisionGUID="3a8d1eb3-4dcf-4eba-82f9-b7ace5f6d77f" CreationDate="2015-02-03T10:14:57.923" UserId="4833" Text=" - _Jennings_ can be translated to any of the Russian surnames derived from rare or colloquial forms of Иван/Иоанн, for instance «Ванюшкин», «Вашутин», «Жанов», «Ивасин», «Ивашов».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Henry - a child should be better be called «Гера» or «Геша» (both may be familiar forms of Генри)&#xD;&#xA; - Paige - sounds a bit like «Паша», which is familiar form of a long series of names, among them Полина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, one should note that most Russians have both formal and familiar forms of their names, that are used in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;It is very likely that _Елизавета_ would be always called «Лиза» by her husband and friends, and always with a patronyme (like «Елизавета Васильевна») by some others. So you probably need more than one name for each character if want to disguise them as native Russians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw,  [Kurufin.ru][1]  is a good database of Russian names and their European counterparts. It does not list Paige, but you can check [Elisabeth][2], [Philip][3] and [Henry][4] there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kurufin.ru/search_translate_yandex.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/elizaveta.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/filipp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/genrich.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8143" RevisionGUID="d83107a0-14db-4d35-8e0b-2c827e14449a" CreationDate="2015-02-03T10:38:27.723" UserId="4833" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text=" - _Jennings_ can be translated to any of the Russian surnames derived from rare or colloquial forms of Иван/Иоанн, for instance «Ванюшкин», «Вашутин», «Жанов», «Ивасин», «Ивашов».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Henry_ - a child should better be called «Гера» or «Геша» (both may be familiar forms of Генри).&#xD;&#xA; - _Paige_ - sounds a bit like «Паша», which is a familiar form of a long series of names, both masculine and feminine, «Полина» is among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, one should note that most Russians have both formal and familiar forms of their names, that are used in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;It is very likely that _Елизавета_ would be always called «Лиза» by her husband and friends, and always with a patronyme (like «Елизавета Васильевна») by some others. So you probably need more than one name for each character if want to disguise them as native Russians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw,  [Kurufin.ru][1] has a good database of Russian names and their European counterparts. It does not list Paige, but you can check [Elisabeth][2], [Philip][3] and [Henry][4] there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kurufin.ru/search_translate_yandex.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/elizaveta.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/filipp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://kurufin.ru/html/Translate/genrich.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="bf0b10c7-dea6-4bcd-ad1f-540cc8909826" CreationDate="2015-02-03T11:46:10.800" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The very structure of the sentence, the syntax, the intonation are different in English, at least this is a reason that punctuation rules are not 100% equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Alenanno, this topic is too broad. &#xD;&#xA;But shortest answer is no. No, you cannot just rely on your knowledge of English punctuation while writing texts in Russian (after all, this is Russian SE, why should we discuss English at all). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the head, here are main aspects, specific to Russian punctuation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Direct speech.** &#xD;&#xA;In English we can write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘I'm awesome’.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian we should insert dash (—) as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А ты прав.&quot; — сказал он, — &quot;Я великолепен!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of semicolon.** &#xD;&#xA;While semicolon exists in English as well, in Russian its usage is more common. This is because complex sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) are typical Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of dash**. &#xD;&#xA;As well as semicolons, dashes are used for logical division of complex sentences. &#xD;&#xA;As with semicolons, the reason is that one can encounter complex sentences  far more often in Russian compared to English. But there's  yet another reason. In modern Russian we don't have so called [copula verbs][1], so sometimes dash is used instead of such linking verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я — царь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am a king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of specific form of quotation marks**&#xD;&#xA;So-called French quotation marks (a.k.a &quot;[кавычки ёлочкой][2]&quot;, a.k.a [guillemet][3]) are still typographical standard in Russia. And in English, though such quotes are known, they are practically not used. But in web typography this gradually is becoming deprecated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules of usage of quotation marks nested in other quotation marks differ as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage of comma in complex sentences** is way more liberal in English. &#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, что Ольга очень строгий модератор,  поэтому я постараюсь быть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; максимально убедителен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know that Olga is a strict moderator, so I'll try to be convincing :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ellipsis.** If you are a purist, in English you should type ellipsis with spaces. In Russian omitting spaces in ellipsis is standard. There is a difference in usage as well. In Russian it's quite often used to add ... a pause (intonational and logical) between words. In English it is, to my knowledge, less typical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillemet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8144" RevisionGUID="430d0f56-a18b-4123-8231-e50ad3d43bf1" CreationDate="2015-02-03T14:14:19.610" UserId="3892" Text="The dictionary lists **испугать** and **напугать** (and one gives **пугнуть**) for the perfectives of **пугать**. Is there any difference in meaning? Is one more frequent than the other(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8144" RevisionGUID="430d0f56-a18b-4123-8231-e50ad3d43bf1" CreationDate="2015-02-03T14:14:19.610" UserId="3892" Text="Difference in meaning between the perfectives напугать and испугать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8144" RevisionGUID="430d0f56-a18b-4123-8231-e50ad3d43bf1" CreationDate="2015-02-03T14:14:19.610" UserId="3892" Text="|вид|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8145" RevisionGUID="de5c7e56-abf1-40b1-b55c-cf2c2a1e5133" CreationDate="2015-02-03T15:02:01.207" UserId="4815" Text="Difference is in time/duration of frightening effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугать` - brief sudden effect. E.g: *меня напугала ваша собака*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Испугать` - kinda instant effect. E.g. *меня испугала перспектива остаться без работы*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="e75656f2-7c24-4a16-909a-7e9980b3d788" CreationDate="2015-02-03T15:05:00.093" UserId="194" Text="Испугать and напугать are synonyms. They are mostly interchangeable. The differnce if exists is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difference is when using the wiords with reflexives. It is possible to испугаться за something but not напугаться за something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда сына призвали в армию, я испугался за его жизнь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using напугался would be incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle difference is that напугать can more often than испугать be used sarcastically in the sense &quot;to make surprised, shocked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень заний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge shocked me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the knowledge was either very good or very bad. Conversely испугать more used to mean &quot;to make concerned&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень заний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge made me concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I am possibly seriously concerned where he got all this knowledge (may be he is a foreign spy?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугнуть has a different meaning, it means making a gesture to frighten somebody or (by implication) any other short-term action with that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="a4dbc178-ee8e-48c6-b4ee-6609e02cd18f" CreationDate="2015-02-03T15:12:02.340" UserId="194" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Испугать and напугать are synonyms. They are mostly interchangeable. The differnce if exists is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; напугать = to make shoked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; испугать = to make concerned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difference is when using the words with reflexives. It is possible to испугаться *за* (for) something but not напугаться *за* (for) something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда сына призвали в армию, я испугался за его жизнь = When my son was conscripted to the military, I bacame concerned for his life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using напугался would be incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle difference is that напугать can more often than испугать be used sarcastically in the sense &quot;to make shocked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень заний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge shocked me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the knowledge was either very good or very bad. Conversely испугать more used to mean &quot;to make concerned&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень заний меня испугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge made me concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I am possibly seriously concerned where he got all this knowledge (may be he is a foreign spy?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугнуть has a different meaning, it means making a gesture to frighten somebody or (by implication) any other short-term action with that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="cd570e18-226a-426a-b5a5-e633fd2d0244" CreationDate="2015-02-03T15:37:10.857" UserId="194" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Испугать and напугать are synonyms. They are mostly interchangeable. The differnce if exists is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; напугать = to make shoked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; испугать = to make concerned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difference is when using the words with reflexives. It is possible to испугаться *за* (for) something but not напугаться *за* (for) something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда сына призвали в армию, я испугался за его жизнь = When my son was conscripted to the military, I bacame concerned for his life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using напугался would be incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle difference is that напугать can more often than испугать be used sarcastically in the sense &quot;to make shocked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень заний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge shocked me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the knowledge was either very good or very bad. Conversely испугать more used to mean &quot;to make concerned&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень заний меня испугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge made me concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I am possibly seriously concerned where he got all this knowledge (may be he is a foreign spy?) or may be I became concerned for the education system that makes such bad graduates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугнуть has a different meaning, it means making a gesture to frighten somebody or (by implication) any other short-term action with that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8145" RevisionGUID="c3a6ac5d-36de-4251-a823-edde919924fe" CreationDate="2015-02-03T15:45:33.640" UserId="3892" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Difference is in time/duration of frightening effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напугать` - brief sudden effect. E.g: *меня напугала ваша собака*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Испугать` - kind of an instant effect. E.g. *меня испугала перспектива остаться без работы*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="12e33a0d-5520-456f-99e2-821a83976de5" CreationDate="2015-02-03T16:56:07.567" UserId="4833" Comment="spelling, grammar" Text="Испугать and напугать are synonyms. They are mostly interchangeable. The difference if exists is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; напугать = to make shocked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; испугать = to make concerned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difference is when using the words with reflexives. It is possible to испугаться *за* (for) something but not напугаться *за* (for) something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда сына призвали в армию, я испугался за его жизнь = When my son was conscripted to the military, I became concerned for his life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using напугался would be incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle difference is that напугать can more often than испугать be used sarcastically in the sense &quot;to make shocked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень знаний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge shocked me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the knowledge was either very good or very bad. Conversely испугать is more used to mean &quot;to make concerned&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень знаний меня испугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge made me concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I am possibly seriously concerned where he got all this knowledge (may be he is a foreign spy?) or may be I became concerned for the education system that makes such bad graduates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугнуть has a different meaning, it means making a gesture to frighten somebody or (by implication) any other short-term action with that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19704" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="12e33a0d-5520-456f-99e2-821a83976de5" CreationDate="2015-02-03T16:56:07.567" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by 194 edit id of 593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="915b5c65-a64e-4520-af82-617631e07cb8" CreationDate="2015-02-03T17:02:51.880" UserId="194" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Испугать and напугать are synonyms. They are mostly interchangeable. The difference if exists is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; напугать = to make shocked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; испугать = to make concerned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difference is when using the words with reflexives. It is possible to испугаться *за* (for) something but not напугаться *за* (for) something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда сына призвали в армию, я испугался за его жизнь = When my son was conscripted to the military, I became concerned for his life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using напугался would be incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle difference is that напугать can more often than испугать be used sarcastically in the sense &quot;to make shocked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень знаний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge shocked me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the knowledge was either very good or very bad. Conversely испугать is more used to mean &quot;to make concerned&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень знаний меня испугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge made me concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I possibly have serious questions on where he got all this knowledge (may be he is a foreign spy?) or may be I became concerned for the education system that makes such bad graduates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугнуть has a different meaning, it means making a gesture to frighten somebody or (by implication) any other short-term action with that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8146" RevisionGUID="aa05b429-669a-4134-8728-f496fdb76546" CreationDate="2015-02-03T18:18:44.330" UserId="194" Comment="added 776 characters in body" Text="Испугать and напугать are synonyms. They are mostly interchangeable. The difference if exists is very subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; напугать = to make shocked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; испугать = to make concerned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difference is when using the words with reflexives. It is possible to испугаться *за* (for) something but not напугаться *за* (for) something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда сына призвали в армию, я испугался за его жизнь = When my son was conscripted to the military, I became concerned for his life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using напугался would be incorrect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More subtle difference is that напугать can more often than испугать be used sarcastically in the sense &quot;to make shocked&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень знаний меня напугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge shocked me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the knowledge was either very good or very bad. Conversely испугать is more used to mean &quot;to make concerned&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я его брал на работу, его уровень знаний меня испугал. = When I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was considering him for a position, his level of knowledge made me concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I possibly have serious questions on where he got all this knowledge (may be he is a foreign spy?) or may be I became concerned for the education system that makes such bad graduates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугнуть has a different meaning, it means making a gesture to frighten somebody or (by implication) any other short-term action with that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you can infer the meaning from the very prefixes themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefix на- means &quot;to do plenty, a lot of something&quot;, as in words настрогать, наложить, напилить, наделать, навонять, напустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So напугать means &quot;to frighten a lot&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefix ис- means &quot;to do something completely, make permanent change to its logical end, to the final target, reaching the aim&quot;, as in words изрубить, испепелить, измотать, изжить, исправить, исписать, изрисовать (compare English words extinguish, exterminate, explain with Latin prefix ex- which is cognate with Russian iz-/is-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the word испугать means &quot;to frighten completely&quot;, &quot;to frighten so much that the object changes their behavior, becomes concerned, more cautious&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8147" RevisionGUID="da21a192-70cf-4467-a53e-d69ca8d0cb36" CreationDate="2015-02-04T00:29:34.460" UserId="194" Text="Does Jarkov mean Ярков or Жарков?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8147" RevisionGUID="da21a192-70cf-4467-a53e-d69ca8d0cb36" CreationDate="2015-02-04T00:29:34.460" UserId="194" Text="What Jarkov stands for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8147" RevisionGUID="da21a192-70cf-4467-a53e-d69ca8d0cb36" CreationDate="2015-02-04T00:29:34.460" UserId="194" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8148" RevisionGUID="281e45d1-f02d-401f-b723-b664716a9e6f" CreationDate="2015-02-04T01:26:06.783" UserId="4560" Text="Probably Жарков, being the more common surname; &quot;French&quot; transliteration was used in Soviet and Russian travel passports until about the late 90s. If, however, the presumed language of the transliteration is a Nordic one, or Italian, or any other one where *j* is iotic and *v* is not [f], then Ярков is more likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19711" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8140" RevisionGUID="cc3275e1-8717-45e2-8390-26a33f86315b" CreationDate="2015-02-04T01:41:18.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/562787952146010114" />
  <row Id="19712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8149" RevisionGUID="9f207a27-eae1-4646-9dcb-4da3b8ccf72b" CreationDate="2015-02-04T01:57:22.857" UserId="4714" Text="It's often useful to do a Google image search to help with differences between closely related verbs. Doing so won't help with grammar, but for meaning it's helpful. Search for нагугать и испугать and see...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на** also means **up, onto, to,**—so one could say нагугать means &quot;putting a sudden fear on someone&quot;—its' not correct in grammar, but so what :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;натроить can mean to build a lot, or a certain amount of X, but one can also think of it as building (tuning, etc) something **up (onto, to**) a certain point. To tune a Tv to a channel, a person against (towards a state that is against) me etc.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8150" RevisionGUID="1cbd0d61-a052-461e-af85-e78b16df03d9" CreationDate="2015-02-04T07:45:07.407" UserId="1773" Text="I want to make sure if that is an exception or rather a rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;between:&#xD;&#xA;в следующую весну&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в следующем году&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that we shifted from the use of the accusative to the prepositional case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is that possible? and what is the hidden rule behind it? (if there is one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;большое спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8150" RevisionGUID="1cbd0d61-a052-461e-af85-e78b16df03d9" CreationDate="2015-02-04T07:45:07.407" UserId="1773" Text="accusative versus prepositional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8150" RevisionGUID="1cbd0d61-a052-461e-af85-e78b16df03d9" CreationDate="2015-02-04T07:45:07.407" UserId="1773" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8151" RevisionGUID="f4ef50fb-ea4b-461a-9d0a-95995dbc4ee8" CreationDate="2015-02-04T08:07:46.547" UserId="5008" Text="Это один из нестандартных падежей. Их названия и классификация могут различаться в разных источниках. Например, &quot;местно-временной падеж&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8152" RevisionGUID="5a8b6a7a-703e-47c4-81dd-547bfd3e4ea1" CreationDate="2015-02-04T08:09:13.250" UserId="2388" Text="Probably..? Use of &quot;в&quot; with seasons is not as &quot;standard&quot; as with years. The most obvious variants are *весной, летом, осенью, зимой*, *на следующей неделе*, *в следующем месяце*. Here, you a threading into the usage people are accustomed,too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main principle is, which prepositions and cases you'd **usually** choose for that time period. &quot;В 2000 году&quot; is typical. However, you'd not use &quot;в весне&quot; or &quot;в неделе&quot; except in literal meaning (&quot;There are 7 days in the week&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly to English, different prepositions are used with different time periods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common usage of &quot;следующий&quot; goes as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в следующий раз&#xD;&#xA; - в следующую минуту/секунду&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем часу&#xD;&#xA; - на следующий день&#xD;&#xA; - на следующей неделе&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем месяце&#xD;&#xA; - следующей весной (в следующую весну?)&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем семестре&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем году&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем десятилетии/веке/тысячелетии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, the reasons are not completely clear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8151" RevisionGUID="f83a9a75-8d25-4311-ad2b-136cfa60a3db" CreationDate="2015-02-04T08:13:13.953" UserId="5008" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Это один из нестандартных падежей. Их названия и классификация могут различаться в разных источниках. Например, &quot;местно-временной падеж&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8152" RevisionGUID="19bd9757-56cf-42b7-bf3d-5905428578db" CreationDate="2015-02-04T08:14:45.747" UserId="2388" Comment="edited body" Text="Probably..? Use of &quot;в&quot; with seasons is not as &quot;standard&quot; as with years. The most obvious variants are *весной, летом, осенью, зимой*, *на следующей неделе*, *в следующем месяце*. Here, you are treading into the usage people are accustomed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main principle is, which prepositions and cases you'd **usually** choose for that time period. &quot;В 2000 году&quot; is typical. However, you'd not use &quot;в весне&quot; or &quot;в неделе&quot; except in literal meaning (&quot;There are 7 days in the week&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly to English, different prepositions are used with different time periods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common usage of &quot;следующий&quot; goes as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в следующий раз&#xD;&#xA; - в следующую минуту/секунду&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем часу&#xD;&#xA; - на следующий день&#xD;&#xA; - на следующей неделе&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем месяце&#xD;&#xA; - следующей весной (в следующую весну?)&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем семестре&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем году&#xD;&#xA; - в следующем десятилетии/веке/тысячелетии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, the reasons are not completely clear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8153" RevisionGUID="6b1f1c45-cdc4-4adb-b708-417042082407" CreationDate="2015-02-04T09:49:47.683" UserId="5008" Text="The nice real-life example is the (in-)famous conversation between S.Lavrov and D.Milliband in 2008. Supposedly, english sentence was: 'Who are you to f... lecture me?' And russian translation is 'Кто ты такой…, чтобы мне лекции читать?!' See, for example, russian wiki at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8155" RevisionGUID="9d6b3821-45c3-4d30-977f-1326c37bd4fa" CreationDate="2015-02-05T00:42:16.463" UserId="4681" Text="Фрагмент статьи:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Февраль 2015 года. Из витринок, щедро расставленных в тучные годы вдоль городских улиц, исчезла реклама коммерческая; мутные пустующие стекла перемежаются рекламой социальной: **детский тренер до пояса**, да текст, что, мол, за десять лет детская смертность от наркотиков возросла в 42 раза (хм, еще один из вариантов вопроса на известный ответ…). В тон этому и прогнозы Минэкономразвития – там рассчитывают на «сокращение физического импорта на 33,9% при среднегодовом курсе более 60 руб. за $1, падении инвестиций на 13,7% (отток капитала составит $115 млрд) и реальных зарплат на 9,6%».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: [Компьютерра, *Солнце живое начинает бить солнце консервированное!*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я обычно слова *тренер* и *пояс* понимаю, ну здесь не знаю о чем идет речь. Ответы пожалуйста по-русски (английскую версию ответа можете конечно добавить если что).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.computerra.ru/114349/solntse-zhivoe-nachinaet-bit-solntse-konservirovannoe/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8155" RevisionGUID="9d6b3821-45c3-4d30-977f-1326c37bd4fa" CreationDate="2015-02-05T00:42:16.463" UserId="4681" Text="Что в этом контексте значит “детский тренер до пояса”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8155" RevisionGUID="9d6b3821-45c3-4d30-977f-1326c37bd4fa" CreationDate="2015-02-05T00:42:16.463" UserId="4681" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8156" RevisionGUID="0846ccdb-a195-4c76-b519-67354f256b69" CreationDate="2015-02-05T00:49:21.213" UserId="4560" Text="Так как ему противопоставляется «да текст», имеется в виду явно фото детского тренера по пояс (waist-up)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8149" RevisionGUID="bed333ae-3302-46a3-aa05-2e21e83a115f" CreationDate="2015-02-05T12:21:34.720" UserId="4833" Comment="spelling, formatting" Text="It's often useful to do a Google image search to help with differences between closely related verbs. Doing so won't help with grammar, but for meaning it's helpful. Search for **напугать** и **испугать** and see...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на** also means **up, onto, to,**—so one could say **напугать** means &quot;putting a sudden fear on someone&quot;—it's not correct in grammar, but so what :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**настроить** can mean to build a lot or a certain amount of X, but one can also think of it as building (tuning, etc) something **up (onto, to**) a certain point. To tune a TV to a channel, a person against (towards a state that is against) me etc.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19729" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8149" RevisionGUID="bed333ae-3302-46a3-aa05-2e21e83a115f" CreationDate="2015-02-05T12:21:34.720" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by 4560, 4629 edit id of 595" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8157" RevisionGUID="de67de88-7b4a-475c-87a1-071ff51ebb67" CreationDate="2015-02-05T13:01:39.307" UserId="5023" Text="Proposing dick (хуй) often means negation or condemnation. But you friend wrote two words &quot;хуй&quot; (dick) and &quot;будешь&quot; (will) concatenated. So this he probably constructed new word in joke. Russian language is inflectional, i.e. we can construct and modify words from parts. So we can add profanity parts to other words to sound more brutal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8158" RevisionGUID="4ae3654d-0a04-4a2a-84f5-5024a53f67d7" CreationDate="2015-02-05T13:05:16.567" UserId="5023" Text="Masculine words have prevalence when generalizing. This is true, for example, for professions. &quot;Врач&quot; (masculine) is both male and female, while &quot;врачиха&quot; (feminine) is vulgarism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;поженились&quot; for two men is correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8158" RevisionGUID="9fb83608-0541-482e-bedb-93299ba9584a" CreationDate="2015-02-05T13:13:42.590" UserId="5023" Comment="added 664 characters in body" Text="Masculine words have prevalence when generalizing. This is true, for example, for professions. &quot;Врач&quot; (masculine) is both male and female, while &quot;врачиха&quot; (feminine) is vulgarism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;поженились&quot; is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Выйти замуж&quot; is also correct, but has stronger meaning of a &quot;role&quot; in a pair, which may be not adequate if partners are &quot;universal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any term is expressing role, but &quot;поженились&quot; does this lesser, so it is more correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оля женилась на Кате (slightly expressing Olya is active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оля жената (clear that she is lesbian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вася женился на Пете (slightly expressing Vasya is active).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вася женат (not evident if homosexual or not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они поженились -- correct for men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они женаты -- correct for men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вася вышел замуж за Колю (strong expressing Kolya is active)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вася вышел замуж (clear that he is gay and expressing is passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8159" RevisionGUID="1f0e5c90-c934-49e7-ae29-0bc064de83f5" CreationDate="2015-02-05T13:20:34.043" UserId="5023" Text="I think there is no actual difference. Also there are no language rules stating that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before USSR decay if was most often said &quot;на Украине&quot;. Nowadays some Ukrainians wish we say &quot;в Украине&quot; to respect their independence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this is political question. If you wish to respect Ukrainian independence you can say &quot;в&quot;. If you wish to respect denial of Ukrainian independence, you can say &quot;на&quot;. If you are in politically neutral topic, you can say &quot;на&quot; as it was common many years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8160" RevisionGUID="d90f4da5-6ee0-452e-b5b0-4e6bced654c9" CreationDate="2015-02-05T13:23:52.537" UserId="5023" Text="&quot;Люблю&quot; means &quot;like&quot; more often, because true love is rare in nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;любить&quot; any time you say &quot;like&quot; in English, you are not required to say &quot;нравиться&quot;. The only exception is personal relationships: if you say &quot;люблю&quot; to potential partner, it will mean &quot;love&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8161" RevisionGUID="97e709a4-f5d5-4ce3-8bd3-e0e01f011cca" CreationDate="2015-02-05T17:34:31.420" UserId="1671" Text="В таком предложении: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Левой рукой она придерживала тонкий ремешок сумочки со стразами, которая всё время болталась на боку и стремилась свалиться с плеча.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос про расстояние между сумочкой и которая. В идеале оно должно быть минимальным. Тут желательно без &quot;со стразами&quot;? Где предел этому расстоянию? Какое есть правило на эту тему?&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8161" RevisionGUID="97e709a4-f5d5-4ce3-8bd3-e0e01f011cca" CreationDate="2015-02-05T17:34:31.420" UserId="1671" Text="Расстояние между существительным и словом &quot;который&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8161" RevisionGUID="97e709a4-f5d5-4ce3-8bd3-e0e01f011cca" CreationDate="2015-02-05T17:34:31.420" UserId="1671" Text="|грамматика|сложно-подчинённое|который|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8162" RevisionGUID="f52a8689-ae73-4071-af02-6f4b0a41ca24" CreationDate="2015-02-05T21:52:15.683" UserId="4944" Text="Could it actually be Kharkiv?&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8162" RevisionGUID="a8c0a778-e4a3-49bf-89cc-bdbe818bfa3e" CreationDate="2015-02-05T22:27:14.553" UserId="4944" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="It would seem to be the Spanish name for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv&#xD;&#xA;http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1rkov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8163" RevisionGUID="ea6f5f31-604a-47f1-892b-d3cc80d2be5a" CreationDate="2015-02-05T22:40:02.330" UserId="5026" Text="Transliteration into Latin characters - for passports of the Russian Federation (since 16.03.2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жарков -  ZHARKOV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ярков -   IARKOV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Джарков - DZHARKOV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://mishka.travel/default/index/passport/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8162" RevisionGUID="f5bac284-c18c-4204-8e48-19c80cdb2b29" CreationDate="2015-02-06T00:29:32.663" UserId="4833" Comment="formatting the hyperlinks" Text="It would seem to be the Spanish name for [Kharkiv][1]: &#xD;&#xA;[Járkov][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1rkov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19742" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8162" RevisionGUID="f5bac284-c18c-4204-8e48-19c80cdb2b29" CreationDate="2015-02-06T00:29:32.663" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by -1 edit id of 596" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8162" RevisionGUID="619536e6-83a3-49ba-8011-ef0f7cfb4c4a" CreationDate="2015-02-06T00:29:32.663" UserId="2269" Comment="formatting the hyperlinks" Text="It would seem to be the Spanish name for [Харьков][1]: &#xD;&#xA;_[Járkov][2]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1rkov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8164" RevisionGUID="eb3b0ab8-a109-4e1c-bd8a-b48e5c86c36a" CreationDate="2015-02-06T01:40:14.063" UserId="4629" Text="&quot;Ведро с картошкой, которое стояло с сенях&quot;. По-моему, ничего страшного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тэг &quot;грамматика&quot; тут вряд ли годится. Скорее, &quot;стилистика&quot;, которая, пожалуй, почти не формализуется. Всё на слух и на вкус. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Левой рукой она придерживала сумочку. Сумочка была утыкана стразами и болталась на боку, тонкий ремешок норовил соскользнуть с плеча.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8161" RevisionGUID="50548bce-d283-4f22-9aaf-f50ed85431e2" CreationDate="2015-02-06T02:46:09.603" UserId="2269" Comment="+[стилистика] −[который] (не слишком специфично для метки?) −[сложно-подчиненное] (во-первых, «сложноподчиненный» пишется слитно; во-вторых, здесь должно быть существительное во множествнном числе; в-третьих, не считаю, что метка [сложноподчиненные предложения] вовсе нужна, но если хотите, добавьте)" Text="|грамматика|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8161" RevisionGUID="50548bce-d283-4f22-9aaf-f50ed85431e2" CreationDate="2015-02-06T02:46:09.603" UserId="2269" Comment="+[стилистика] −[который] (не слишком специфично для метки?) −[сложно-подчиненное] (во-первых, «сложноподчиненный» пишется слитно; во-вторых, здесь должно быть существительное во множествнном числе; в-третьих, не считаю, что метка [сложноподчиненные предложения] вовсе нужна, но если хотите, добавьте)" Text="В таком предложении: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Левой рукой она придерживала тонкий ремешок сумочки со стразами, которая всё время болталась на боку и стремилась свалиться с плеча.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос про расстояние между «сумочкой» и «которая». В идеале оно должно быть минимальным. Тут желательно без «со стразами»? Где предел этому расстоянию? Какое есть правило на эту тему?&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19747" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8161" RevisionGUID="50548bce-d283-4f22-9aaf-f50ed85431e2" CreationDate="2015-02-06T02:46:09.603" UserId="2269" Comment="+[стилистика] −[который] (не слишком специфично для метки?) −[сложно-подчиненное] (во-первых, «сложноподчиненный» пишется слитно; во-вторых, здесь должно быть существительное во множествнном числе; в-третьих, не считаю, что метка [сложноподчиненные предложения] вовсе нужна, но если хотите, добавьте)" Text="Расстояние между существительным и словом «который»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8165" RevisionGUID="eb4b6cf6-447c-433d-b3e6-54e79198d585" CreationDate="2015-02-06T07:19:09.913" UserId="5008" Text="По-моему мнению, правило только одно: если возможна амфиболия, расстояние должно быть нулевое, а если амфиболии нет - любое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8166" RevisionGUID="a3bc7074-537a-46e9-b956-e98339b217ea" CreationDate="2015-02-06T12:59:27.443" UserId="4815" Text="Как перевести на русский сленговый возглас: **hey, doodz!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Желательно, чтобы перевод максимально сохранил не только собственно само значение, но также и искаженное написание, ну типа: **эй, пацаки!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Desirable translation should keep not only meaning of phrase but also distorted spelling :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8166" RevisionGUID="a3bc7074-537a-46e9-b956-e98339b217ea" CreationDate="2015-02-06T12:59:27.443" UserId="4815" Text="Best translation to russian: &quot;hey, doodz!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8166" RevisionGUID="a3bc7074-537a-46e9-b956-e98339b217ea" CreationDate="2015-02-06T12:59:27.443" UserId="4815" Text="|перевод|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8167" RevisionGUID="f72d1946-b221-4dba-b9d8-e6b5765f8e5c" CreationDate="2015-02-06T17:50:55.577" UserId="5008" Text="С литературной точки зрения, искажение написания в русском тексте - не нормально.&#xD;&#xA;Если это необходимо для указания на принадлежность к очень специфической социальной группе с определенным жаргоном - это одно. В противном случае, лучше обойтись обычной фразой: &quot;Эй, пацаны&quot; или &quot;Эй, братва&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="ac395d2b-4fb2-40a8-85e6-f3fd27d1dc19" CreationDate="2015-02-06T18:01:08.647" UserId="5020" Comment="added website [18] - russian-15steps.com" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian-15steps.com][18], 15 simple lessons for beginners and also quizes, articles and own dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-15steps.com&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19755" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="ac395d2b-4fb2-40a8-85e6-f3fd27d1dc19" CreationDate="2015-02-06T18:01:08.647" Comment="Proposed by 5020 approved by 4629, 97 edit id of 594" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8168" RevisionGUID="ca7287db-2a7e-4625-89d1-4ff402eae8cd" CreationDate="2015-02-07T02:37:50.137" UserId="5033" Text="Здесь может быть несколько вариантов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начнём с doodz (dudes?).&#xD;&#xA;Можно использовать слово &quot;пацаны&quot;, и можно использовать &quot;чуваки&quot;. Зависит от круга общения. Если происхождение парней скорее относится к работчему классу (if you know what I mean :) ), то скорее подойдёт &quot;пацаны&quot;. Если публика более хипповая, то лучше использовать чуваки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт hey. Опять же зависит от конеткста. Если просто окликнуть, то так &quot;хей&quot; и будет. Если это приветсвтвие, то можно сказать &quot;здарова&quot; или производные &quot;даров&quot;, &quot;дарофф&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и желательно конечно не обращаться так к незнакомым пацанам и чувакам. Можно больно получить по голове." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8168" RevisionGUID="735baf19-c4f9-413d-969a-6e487480e5b7" CreationDate="2015-02-07T11:01:32.940" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Здесь может быть несколько вариантов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начнём с doodz (dudes?).&#xD;&#xA;Можно использовать слово &quot;пацаны&quot;, и можно использовать &quot;чуваки&quot;. Зависит от круга общения. Если происхождение парней скорее относится к рабочему классу (if you know what I mean :) ), то скорее подойдёт &quot;пацаны&quot;. Если публика более хипповая, то лучше использовать чуваки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт hey. Опять же зависит от конеткста. Если просто окликнуть, то так &quot;хей&quot; и будет. Если это приветсвтвие, то можно сказать &quot;здорово&quot; или производные &quot;даров&quot;, &quot;дарофф&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и желательно конечно не обращаться так к незнакомым пацанам и чувакам. Можно больно получить по голове." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="229c2a48-37dd-44b4-a903-78ae050b5d70" CreationDate="2015-02-07T11:30:07.753" UserId="4482" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Good evening!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small question in music domain: if, for example, you have been hearing a wonderfull concert from a russian master player, can you tell him &quot;молодец&quot; or is it too familiar? Or, in this context, is it okay? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help me!  =s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Снегурочка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***EDIT: INFO: I finally asked a russian friend. She said it was informal, and used for someone well-known, or if not for someone hierarchically inferior... So molodets is obviously not a neutral expression! Thanks a lot to all for your help! A.A.-S.***&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7529" RevisionGUID="c8dd1eb9-5a5f-46bb-9e47-9d660902893e" CreationDate="2015-02-08T17:15:26.393" UserId="551" Comment="Removed signatures" Text="Small question in music domain: if, for example, you have been hearing a wonderfull concert from a russian master player, can you tell him &quot;молодец&quot; or is it too familiar? Or, in this context, is it okay? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***EDIT: INFO:*** I finally asked a russian friend. She said it was informal, and used for someone well-known, or if not for someone hierarchically inferior... So &quot;молодец&quot; is obviously not a neutral expression! Thanks a lot to all for your help!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8169" RevisionGUID="28491124-719d-4dac-94c0-4a869ddfff6a" CreationDate="2015-02-09T00:34:51.057" UserId="4817" Text="Option 1: use &quot;[активные причастия](http://www.interword.se/Syntax/Lektionsmaterial/GVOZDEV/m/stil529.htm) (прошедшего времени)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Левой рукой она придерживала тонкий ремешок сумочки со стразами, всё время `болтавшейся` на боку и `стремившейся` свалиться с плеча.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, they can be considered bookish by many, and, they rarely used in International Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2: split up the long sentence. See [Avi Gordon's answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8164/4817)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8170" RevisionGUID="fd480b7a-c97e-4e91-bb1a-31d7030367ff" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:01:34.860" UserId="4028" Text="It seems to me that &quot;теперь ещё&quot; and &quot;пока ещё&quot; have very similar meaning.  But I am not sure whether they can always be replaced each other.  For example, does it make any difference if &quot;пока ещё&quot; is replaced by &quot;теперь ещё&quot; in the following second sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уже не трудно читать русский текст.  Но *пока ещё* трудно говорить правильно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8170" RevisionGUID="fd480b7a-c97e-4e91-bb1a-31d7030367ff" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:01:34.860" UserId="4028" Text="What is the difference between “теперь ещё” and “пока ещё”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8170" RevisionGUID="fd480b7a-c97e-4e91-bb1a-31d7030367ff" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:01:34.860" UserId="4028" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8171" RevisionGUID="e6b27ba3-bc12-4ca0-ab39-d9fc81cafefc" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:21:09.700" UserId="194" Text="пока ещё = still&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;теперь ещё = some more now" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8172" RevisionGUID="389528fa-0270-4a12-b7e4-a3636fd31eaf" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:30:30.497" UserId="4121" Text="Возможно, что слово происходит не от жизнь, а от диалектное *житка* в значении *жила*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ЖИТКА** — Тянуть (вытягивать) [всю] житку из кого. Брян. То же, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянуть жилы (ЖИЛА).  *Большой словарь русских поговорок  — М: Олма Медиа Групп В. М. Мокиенко, Т. Г. Никитина 2007*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ТЯНУТЬ ЖИЛЫ** из кого. ВЫТЯНУТЬ ЖИЛЫ из кого. Разг. Предосуд. Изнурять,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изматывать кого-либо тяжёлой, непосильной работой, непомерными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; требованиями, придирками. [Краснов:] Пожалейте вы меня: ведь вы из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меня жилы тянете (А. Островский. Грех да беда на кого не живёт).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка. — М.: Астрель, АСТ. А. И. Фёдоров. 2008.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Видимо диалектный вариант *тянуть житку* переосмыслился как *жить тяжёлой жизнью* из-за схожести слов *житка* и *жизнь*. От *житка* легко образуется - *житуха*, *житёнка* и т.д. В пользу этого говорят и словосочетания типа *тянуть житуху* довольно распространённые в разговорной речи." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8172" RevisionGUID="8a2899a2-32f8-48ab-90ce-c5e74acea30b" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:37:17.747" UserId="4121" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Возможно, что слово происходит не от *жизнь*, а от диалектного *житка* в значении *жила*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ЖИТКА** — Тянуть (вытягивать) [всю] житку из кого. Брян. То же, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянуть жилы (ЖИЛА).  *Большой словарь русских поговорок  — М: Олма Медиа Групп В. М. Мокиенко, Т. Г. Никитина 2007*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ТЯНУТЬ ЖИЛЫ** из кого. ВЫТЯНУТЬ ЖИЛЫ из кого. Разг. Предосуд. Изнурять,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изматывать кого-либо тяжёлой, непосильной работой, непомерными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; требованиями, придирками. [Краснов:] Пожалейте вы меня: ведь вы из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меня жилы тянете (А. Островский. Грех да беда на кого не живёт).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка. — М.: Астрель, АСТ. А. И. Фёдоров. 2008.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Видимо диалектный вариант *тянуть житку* переосмыслился как *жить тяжёлой жизнью* из-за схожести слов *житка* и *жизнь*. От *житка* легко образуется - *житуха*, *житёнка* и т.д. В пользу этого говорят и словосочетания типа *тянуть житуху*, довольно распространённые в разговорной речи." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8173" RevisionGUID="4d16a6ae-13aa-4ddf-958b-1a8a6d851900" CreationDate="2015-02-09T07:47:12.737" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, &quot;еще&quot; may mean &quot;more&quot;, which is the different story.&#xD;&#xA;The second, when referring to time, &quot;пока еще&quot; means &quot;smth. was like this and still is&quot; and &quot;теперь еще&quot; means &quot;now smth. is like this (but earlier it wasn't)&quot;. For example, &quot;Я - мужчина, а теперь еще и отец&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8174" RevisionGUID="a44dd90f-443d-4b48-bad8-c944d207fe99" CreationDate="2015-02-09T09:24:06.680" UserId="4630" Text="*Пока ещё* = &quot;still&quot; (*пока ещё мы только увеличиваем наши долги*) or &quot;yet&quot; (*пока ещё рано об этом говорить*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Теперь ещё* = &quot;now even&quot; (*теперь ещё и со вкусом борща* or *теперь еще быстрее*). As two separate words *теперь ещё* = &quot;now&quot; + &quot;more&quot; (*расскажите теперь еще о цене на колбасу*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence you can't replace one with another. *Но теперь ещё трудно говорить правильно* would roughly mean &quot;but now it's even difficult to speak correctly&quot; and you wouldn't here such a construction from a native speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8172" RevisionGUID="f071a7cb-344b-4b9c-9bc8-f6a275b845dd" CreationDate="2015-02-09T12:17:51.180" UserId="4833" Comment="added a link to one of the dictionary entries" Text="Возможно, что слово происходит не от *жизнь*, а от диалектного *житка* в значении *жила*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[ЖИТКА][1]** — Тянуть (вытягивать) [всю] житку из кого. Брян. То же, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянуть жилы (ЖИЛА).  *Большой словарь русских поговорок  — М: Олма Медиа Групп В. М. Мокиенко, Т. Г. Никитина 2007*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ТЯНУТЬ ЖИЛЫ** из кого. ВЫТЯНУТЬ ЖИЛЫ из кого. Разг. Предосуд. Изнурять,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изматывать кого-либо тяжёлой, непосильной работой, непомерными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; требованиями, придирками. [Краснов:] Пожалейте вы меня: ведь вы из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меня жилы тянете (А. Островский. Грех да беда на кого не живёт).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка. — М.: Астрель, АСТ. А. И. Фёдоров. 2008.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Видимо, диалектный вариант *тянуть житку* переосмыслился как *жить тяжёлой жизнью* из-за схожести слов *житка* и *жизнь*. От *житка* легко образуется - *житуха*, *житёнка* и т.д. В пользу этого говорят и словосочетания типа *тянуть житуху*, довольно распространённые в разговорной речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/2822/%D0%96%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%9A%D0%90" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19770" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8172" RevisionGUID="f071a7cb-344b-4b9c-9bc8-f6a275b845dd" CreationDate="2015-02-09T12:17:51.180" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by 4121 edit id of 597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19772" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8155" RevisionGUID="5125dbcc-5887-4dec-be4b-e8d48127a561" CreationDate="2015-02-09T14:04:12.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/564786848627949568" />
  <row Id="19773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8176" RevisionGUID="ef5a5d0b-c6ad-4e0c-bee0-9fb073dd4a52" CreationDate="2015-02-09T16:46:54.527" UserId="2281" Text="По крайней мере в интернетах наиболее популярным будет, пожалуй, &quot;поцоны&quot;, или даже &quot;посоны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Я бы перевёл как &quot;чё как, поцоны?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8177" RevisionGUID="48401427-6bb2-428e-8415-3154744106f7" CreationDate="2015-02-09T17:00:42.133" UserId="2281" Text="I'd like to take a more historical approach to explain it. The real difference is in the fact that one word is more colloquial, day-to-day, and the other is higher register: the word испугать features the Old Church Slavonic prefix ис- and therefore has a higher register connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers people gave here are pretty correct to some extent, however what they're doing is trying to generalize random consequences of the real cause: low vs. high register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like an example above:&#xD;&#xA;Меня напугала собака -- a dog scaring someone in the streets, is a more down-to-the-earth situation, so the low register East Slavic на- is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня испугала перспектива провала -- &quot;the prospect of failure scared me&quot; -- this situation is more metaphorical, more abstract, therefore the higher-register ис- from Church Slavonic is used. A dog can испугать as well, but that would mean, in this context, something more serious, than the less serious напугать (more serious vs. less serious stems from high vs. low register as well)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19775" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8094" RevisionGUID="49c5722e-f084-4270-807c-7dd3fce6caee" CreationDate="2015-02-09T20:04:14.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/564877451554455553" />
  <row Id="19777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8178" RevisionGUID="b983e18e-d792-41ef-b8e8-44800d1b9639" CreationDate="2015-02-10T10:47:01.140" UserId="310" Text="[МАМОНТ ЖАРКОВА](http://library.ua/modules/boonex/blogs/blogs.php?action=show_member_post&amp;post_id=48)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found it in English wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarkov_Mammoth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8174" RevisionGUID="60512266-e8ad-4022-936c-97f77bfef841" CreationDate="2015-02-10T10:57:24.753" UserId="4944" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="*Пока ещё* = &quot;still&quot; (*пока ещё мы только увеличиваем наши долги*) or &quot;yet&quot; (*пока ещё рано об этом говорить*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Теперь ещё* = &quot;now even&quot; (*теперь ещё и со вкусом борща* or *теперь ещё быстрее*). As two separate words *теперь ещё* = &quot;now&quot; + &quot;more&quot; (*расскажите теперь ещё о цене на колбасу*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence you can't replace one with another. *Но теперь ещё трудно говорить правильно* would roughly mean &quot;but now it's even difficult to speak correctly&quot; and you wouldn't hear such a construction from a native speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19779" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8174" RevisionGUID="60512266-e8ad-4022-936c-97f77bfef841" CreationDate="2015-02-10T10:57:24.753" Comment="Proposed by 4944 approved by 4630 edit id of 598" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8179" RevisionGUID="4d57840f-aef4-4230-88d4-25dae2dce22e" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:31:17.513" UserId="4482" Text="A russian friend told me &quot;Molodets&quot; wasn't a neutral expression: it is quite familiar, you can use it with a person you know well. Otherwise, it has a slightly patronizing connotation (ex: teacher talking to a pupil)... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8180" RevisionGUID="72cb0c3f-911e-4e6d-a4cd-75dd024e5a4b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:54:51.493" UserId="5041" Text="Подскажите, пожалуйста, литературный вариант сленгового слова &quot;зажрался&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю его значение как &quot;пресыщен успехами и слишком хорошим уровнем жизни&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли вариант короче?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8180" RevisionGUID="72cb0c3f-911e-4e6d-a4cd-75dd024e5a4b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:54:51.493" UserId="5041" Text="Литературный вариант слова &quot;зажрался&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8180" RevisionGUID="72cb0c3f-911e-4e6d-a4cd-75dd024e5a4b" CreationDate="2015-02-11T09:54:51.493" UserId="5041" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8181" RevisionGUID="ec91971f-49c2-4d8e-8132-1671b04ae351" CreationDate="2015-02-11T11:12:40.167" UserId="4629" Text="В зависимости от контекста похожий смысл может иметь *избаловáлся*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8181" RevisionGUID="58e6d9c8-f857-48be-b4ed-ed4419728ffc" CreationDate="2015-02-11T11:19:42.780" UserId="4629" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="В зависимости от контекста похожий смысл может иметь *избаловáлся*. Можно ещё написать *засибарúтствовался*, но это слово акцентирует &quot;хороший уровень жизни&quot; и почти не имеет коннотации &quot;успех&quot; (я не уверен, что эта коннотация так уж сильна в исходном *зажрался*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8182" RevisionGUID="004c79a7-809d-4e19-aad5-e6c9c0d4e96c" CreationDate="2015-02-11T11:20:19.700" UserId="4630" Text="Помимо *избаловался* - *заелся*, *пресытился*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В зависимости от контекста: *обнаглел*, *потерял стыд*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19801" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="021f9e5b-1987-4886-b676-e2e1bf3da7f9" CreationDate="2015-02-12T02:11:27.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/565694642944229376" />
  <row Id="19805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8188" RevisionGUID="970ee336-4bc3-4da8-9483-59ac810eeb2c" CreationDate="2015-02-12T16:29:03.623" UserId="5047" Text="Я хоть и русский, но значения этого выражения не понимаю, да и сам текст очень тяжел для восприятия. Возможно, имеется ввиду, что изображение тренера на плакате по высоте от земли до пояса." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19806" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7389" RevisionGUID="ca4db229-68d3-4c2a-bef0-8a2976d6e061" CreationDate="2015-02-12T20:11:27.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/565966434074132481" />
  <row Id="19808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8189" RevisionGUID="4dc34a60-4bdf-42db-8b3b-1f763562dd47" CreationDate="2015-02-13T13:11:00.323" UserId="47" Text="This question is not Russian language-related strictly speaking, but I think it's useful for a lot of people using the language. I wonder if it is possible to use the [ruscorpora.ru][1] website to build the comparative word usage frequency distribution by year for two (or more) words. I have found the [user manual][2], but couldn't find the answer there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I'd like to compare the words скакалка and прыгалки, i.e. have these two plots — [first][3] and [second][4] — plotted in the common axes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ruscorpora.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ruscorpora.ru/instruction-main.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EF%F0%FB%E3%E0%EB%EA%E8&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F1%EA%E0%EA%E0%EB%EA%E0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8189" RevisionGUID="4dc34a60-4bdf-42db-8b3b-1f763562dd47" CreationDate="2015-02-13T13:11:00.323" UserId="47" Text="How can I compare two words in the Russian corpus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8189" RevisionGUID="4dc34a60-4bdf-42db-8b3b-1f763562dd47" CreationDate="2015-02-13T13:11:00.323" UserId="47" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8191" RevisionGUID="acc86fe9-ae86-4b3c-80c8-21a45ae9f097" CreationDate="2015-02-13T13:36:23.023" UserId="1769" Text="There's little joke rhyme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`У меня к тебе дело есть:&#xD;&#xA;Хуй сварился, будешь есть`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes people make pause when speaking first line to joke when someone replies. Probably it's simplified/similar version. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8192" RevisionGUID="6f86834c-951c-4da7-9d66-65a654583bea" CreationDate="2015-02-13T14:00:25.790" UserId="5041" Text="Человек, живущий в городе, может быть назван специальным существительным, которое обозначает его принадлежность к этому городу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например житель:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Москвы -- москвич,  &#xD;&#xA; - Омска -- омич,  &#xD;&#xA; - Ленинграда -- ленинградец,&#xD;&#xA; - города Химки -- химчанин, но не Химец или Химич,&#xD;&#xA; - Уфы -- Уфимец, но не Уфич или Уфец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существует ли правило образования этих существительны на основе названия города?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8192" RevisionGUID="6f86834c-951c-4da7-9d66-65a654583bea" CreationDate="2015-02-13T14:00:25.790" UserId="5041" Text="Именование жителей городов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8192" RevisionGUID="6f86834c-951c-4da7-9d66-65a654583bea" CreationDate="2015-02-13T14:00:25.790" UserId="5041" Text="|существительные|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8192" RevisionGUID="8b404a9c-e439-435b-92db-6ca319de826a" CreationDate="2015-02-13T14:21:54.000" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Человек, живущий в городе, может быть назван специальным существительным, которое обозначает его принадлежность к этому городу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например житель:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Москвы — москвич,  &#xD;&#xA; - Омска — омич,  &#xD;&#xA; - Ленинграда — ленинградец,&#xD;&#xA; - города Химки — химчанин, но не химец или химич,&#xD;&#xA; - Уфы — уфимец, но не уфич или уфец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существует ли правило образования этих существительны на основе названия города?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8192" RevisionGUID="8b404a9c-e439-435b-92db-6ca319de826a" CreationDate="2015-02-13T14:21:54.000" UserId="2269" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|существительные|словообразование|этнонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8194" RevisionGUID="09c41034-23ae-486f-ba56-c107ae7ae6b3" CreationDate="2015-02-13T15:01:18.730" UserId="4903" Text="If you are looking for juxtaposition-ed plots, you can do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;t2=%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can start by clicking &quot;графики&quot; on the home page of ruscorpora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8194" RevisionGUID="4458d016-92ef-45d1-9e69-2be05821bd2b" CreationDate="2015-02-13T15:07:41.083" UserId="4903" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="If you are looking for juxtaposition-ed plots, you can do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=скакалка&amp;t2=прыгалки&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?mode=main&amp;t1=%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;t2=%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can start by clicking &quot;графики&quot; on the home page of ruscorpora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8195" RevisionGUID="4e19911e-83d1-4ae7-81eb-dd0c230ea70e" CreationDate="2015-02-13T17:23:21.593" UserId="62" Text="In English the word &quot;knowledge&quot; is always singular. For instance, you can't say someone has &quot;a lot of knowledges&quot; about something. It must be &quot;a lot of knowledge.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, I have seen &quot;level of knowledge&quot; as both уровень знания and уровень знаний on various websites. What are some reasons, *other than* purely grammatical ones, to use one choice instead of the other? I am not interested in purely grammatical reasons such as много знаний, where много requires the plural form of the noun it modifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8195" RevisionGUID="4e19911e-83d1-4ae7-81eb-dd0c230ea70e" CreationDate="2015-02-13T17:23:21.593" UserId="62" Text="уровень знания vs. уровень знаний" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8195" RevisionGUID="4e19911e-83d1-4ae7-81eb-dd0c230ea70e" CreationDate="2015-02-13T17:23:21.593" UserId="62" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8196" RevisionGUID="c67d969d-258e-4c88-be43-5c65578643a0" CreationDate="2015-02-13T17:51:36.757" UserId="194" Text="Knowledge of a person or knowledge in a sphere, field are usually plural in Russian. Knowledge of something is singular. So check whether you use the &quot;of&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знания в области английского языка огромны = His knowledge in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sphere of English language is great.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знание английского языка огромно = His knowledge of English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language is great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case you can substitute &quot;how does he know&quot;/&quot;how he knows&quot; for &quot;his knowledge of&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, знание can be used in singular as abstract noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научное знание борется с религиозным невежеством = Scientific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge is struggling with religious ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8196" RevisionGUID="fe898f96-1b6e-4fa3-9d94-954a0b737a94" CreationDate="2015-02-13T17:57:18.880" UserId="194" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Knowledge of a person or knowledge in a sphere, field are usually plural in Russian. Knowledge of something is singular. So check whether you use the &quot;of&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знания в области английского языка огромны = His knowledge in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sphere of English language is great.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знание английского языка огромно = His knowledge of English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language is great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case you can substitute &quot;how does he know&quot;/&quot;how he knows&quot; for &quot;his knowledge of&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to put it simple,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знания = knowledge &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знание = knowing (how he knows)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, знание can be used in singular as abstract noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научное знание борется с религиозным невежеством = Scientific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge is struggling with religious ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we refer to knowledge as to a method, paradigm rather than real data.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8196" RevisionGUID="64c38a22-5e91-4e05-8b4a-494ea13a3c4a" CreationDate="2015-02-13T18:19:50.220" UserId="194" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Knowledge of a person (who has the knowledge) or knowledge in a sphere, field are usually plural in Russian. Knowledge of something (about which is the knowledge) is singular. So check whether you use the &quot;of&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знания в области английского языка огромны = His knowledge in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sphere of English language is great.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его знание английского языка огромно = His knowledge of English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; language is great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case you can substitute &quot;how does he know&quot;/&quot;how he knows&quot; for &quot;his knowledge of&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to put it simple,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знания = knowledge &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; знание = knowing (how he knows)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, знание can be used in singular as abstract noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научное знание борется с религиозным невежеством = Scientific&#xD;&#xA;&gt; knowledge is struggling with religious ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we refer to knowledge as to a method, paradigm rather than collected data.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8197" RevisionGUID="9a9d59ab-104a-4483-a3e6-2fde41da6349" CreationDate="2015-02-13T23:07:41.287" UserId="4833" Text="«_Уровень знаний_» is much more common and can be used as the default translation of &quot;the level of knowledge&quot;. It is almost idiomatic, and is used even when talking about specific or abstract knowledge (where the singular form «знание» would be appropriate as suggested by Anixx'answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«_Уровень знания_» is sometimes used to define a gradation of some specific knowledge&#xD;&#xA;(_уровень знания английского, необходимый для работы_), but even in that cases it can be  replaced by the plural (_уровень знаний английского_) without any loss.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8198" RevisionGUID="1bbc5456-abec-4753-8661-ad601c2ac081" CreationDate="2015-02-13T23:57:31.463" UserId="5054" Text="[Russian wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82) claim that the work крест is loanword from Old High German krist. Is it traditional and valid etymology? Do russian have any trace of proper (not borrowed) protoslavic word with meaning of крест?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8198" RevisionGUID="1bbc5456-abec-4753-8661-ad601c2ac081" CreationDate="2015-02-13T23:57:31.463" UserId="5054" Text="Etymology of крест" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8198" RevisionGUID="1bbc5456-abec-4753-8661-ad601c2ac081" CreationDate="2015-02-13T23:57:31.463" UserId="5054" Text="|этимология|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8198" RevisionGUID="a3a7d275-f13b-4520-9102-cfa1c8d36f23" CreationDate="2015-02-14T00:03:03.930" UserId="5054" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="[Russian wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82) claim that the word крест is loanword from Old High German krist. Is it traditional and valid etymology? Do Russian have any trace of proper (not borrowed) Protoslavic word with meaning of крест?&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of meaning cited in wiktionary is very &quot;strange&quot; for me also: Jesus Christ &gt; crucifixion &gt; cross. Russian language (Protoslavic) have had no word for very simple &quot;cross&quot;?!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8199" RevisionGUID="e06b4cd5-7612-49c5-b104-d73531f66b59" CreationDate="2015-02-14T01:40:43.450" UserId="4903" Text="The same etymology of word &quot;крест&quot; is supported by etymological dictionary by [Fasmer](http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Vasmer-term-6126.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Крест_ was borrowed from Church Slavic.  Old Russian _крьстъ_ was used in a treaty between Prince Igor and Byzantian Greece in 911 (that was before Kievan Rus adopted Christianity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally _*krьstъ_ meant Christ and it was derived Old German krist, christ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of another word with the meaning of _cross_ that would indicate/suggest Protoslavic origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8200" RevisionGUID="da389a8a-7cb5-4eac-a358-4886c5bae3ee" CreationDate="2015-02-14T05:36:21.367" UserId="194" Text="Non-borrowed Slavic word is ***пересечение***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In PIE a crossover apparently was called ***pertus***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8201" RevisionGUID="389ee66f-3628-4aa5-a5e6-a100360a2da9" CreationDate="2015-02-14T08:15:35.873" UserId="5008" Text="Native Russian words similar to **cross** are **поперёк** (adv., prep.) and **поперечный** (adj.). But the corresponding verb is rarely used in everyday speech: **перечить** - **to cross/contradict someone**. And the nouns **поперечина** and **поперечник** also have limited usage. Thus, in everyday speech we usually choose verbs and nouns starting with `пере-` or `против-`, if we need to say something 'cross-related'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="530a4259-fd5c-44b0-92e8-7b851ce6a607" CreationDate="2015-02-14T23:31:14.213" UserId="4925" Text="I read a page on Russian Impersonal constructions a few days ago by the RLM. It was all about impersonal constructions. But, its just not clicking for me. For example:  &quot;Пашу тошнило всю дорогу&quot;. Why does this sentence govern the neuter form of the verb? Another question I have is with this example: &quot;Едва самолёт взлетл, как один из моторов заело.&quot; Why does this also govern neuter form of the verb? I was taught earlier that impersonal construction use dative case, and these use accusative case? Please explain how to form impersonal constructions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="530a4259-fd5c-44b0-92e8-7b851ce6a607" CreationDate="2015-02-14T23:31:14.213" UserId="4925" Text="Impersonal Construction w/ Dative or Accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="530a4259-fd5c-44b0-92e8-7b851ce6a607" CreationDate="2015-02-14T23:31:14.213" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8198" RevisionGUID="7ea36e77-04b0-4649-a834-9a6c7165ab90" CreationDate="2015-02-15T00:05:09.973" UserId="5054" Comment="evolution of this word seems to be very &quot;strange&quot;" Text="[Russian wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82) claim that the word крест is loanword from Old High German krist. Is it traditional and valid etymology? Do Russian have any trace of proper (not borrowed) Protoslavic word with meaning of крест?&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of meaning cited in wiktionary is very &quot;strange&quot; for me also: Jesus Christ &gt; crucifixion &gt; cross. Russian language (Proto-Slavic) have had no word for very simple &quot;cross&quot;?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I asked the question not clear enough actually:&#xD;&#xA;1) Why the evolution of semantics of Proto-Slavic(sic!) word **krьstъ* start by meaning Jesus Christ, clearly Proto-Slavic (circa 7th to 8th centuries AD) was far before history of Christianity. How this meaning could be in Proto-Slavic?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8198" RevisionGUID="0097e97e-bdc7-40f4-b0e6-eccd5ce781c2" CreationDate="2015-02-15T00:42:02.563" UserId="5054" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[Russian wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82) claim that the word крест is loanword from Old High German krist. Is it traditional and valid etymology? Do Russian have any trace of proper (not borrowed) Protoslavic word with meaning of крест?&#xD;&#xA;The evolution of meaning cited in wiktionary is very &quot;strange&quot; for me also: Jesus Christ &gt; crucifixion &gt; cross. Russian language (Proto-Slavic) have had no word for very simple &quot;cross&quot;?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I asked the question not clear enough actually:&#xD;&#xA;1) Why the evolution of semantics of Proto-Slavic(sic!) word *krьstъ start by meaning Jesus Christ, clearly Proto-Slavic (circa 7th to 8th centuries AD) was far before history of Christianity. How this meaning could be in Proto-Slavic?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8203" RevisionGUID="25dd0fef-1f3f-4000-ae36-13a92cfda395" CreationDate="2015-02-15T00:55:59.647" UserId="4884" Text="&gt; Пашу тошнило всю дорогу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impersonal neuter verbs + Accusative case in the constructions like this are often used to show conditions or feelings. The typical dummy subject 'it' is omitted here, but still the verb agrees with 'it', this is why it is neuter: тошнило (a verb describing one's condition - being sick)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Едва самолёт взлетел, как один из моторов заело.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you have the dummy subject 'it' omitted again. It is an impersonal construction describing the condition of the engine (broken).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of the impersonal construction rather than normal active voice sentences can be explained by the topical analysis. Since Russian is a topic-prominent language, i.e. syntax follows the topic (what's **new** is in your message), not the straight S-V-O logic, those impersonal sentences shows what exactly you wanted to say, highlighted the new part of the message. You can read more about [topic-prominent languages here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic-prominent_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8199" RevisionGUID="6734e2ce-886a-4767-a527-44120391f1c1" CreationDate="2015-02-15T04:02:33.323" UserId="4903" Comment="edited body" Text="The same etymology of word &quot;крест&quot; is supported by etymological dictionary by [Vasmer](http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Vasmer-term-6126.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Крест_ was borrowed from Church Slavic.  Old Russian _крьстъ_ was used in a treaty between Prince Igor and Byzantian Greece in 911 (that was before Kievan Rus adopted Christianity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Originally _*krьstъ_ meant Christ and it was derived Old German krist, christ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of another word with the meaning of _cross_ that would indicate/suggest Protoslavic origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8204" RevisionGUID="c425c812-1a99-4034-9f0a-b0603b7c768f" CreationDate="2015-02-15T10:36:05.747" UserId="5056" Text="&quot;зарвался&quot; - грубо вышел за рамки дозволенного." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8205" RevisionGUID="7a61d2f0-4312-4f75-9ec4-65805d8d9da8" CreationDate="2015-02-15T23:08:26.343" UserId="4721" Text="I am currently a college student and taking Ukrainian (elementary/intermediate). This is my first time learning any Slavic language, and I'm often asked why I chose to learn Ukrainian rather than Russian. It's a variety of things, but really I intend on gaining proficiency in both. However, I do want to start beginning my path on learning Russian as well. However, I wanted to ask those of you here that may understand both or are bilingual in other Slavic languages whether or not it would be wise to learn Russian concurrently with Ukrainian, or if I should wait till after this course in Ukrainian and then take Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was considering doing my &quot;introduction&quot; to Russian via self-study, rather than enrolling in a formal course. And then probably taking Intermediate Russian as an actual course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, I hear many different opinions on how different the two languages are. Granted, I know grammatical rules differ a decent amount. But for me the hardest thing going into Ukrainian was learning to write and the logical structure of sentences. So I feel like those would be similar in Russian, and that I wouldn't be nearly as lost going into that language. Anyways, for someone that is familiar with Ukrainian (in your opinion) what would a prospective timeline be to also gain a beginner proficiency in Russian, as compared to someone taking Russian for their first Slavic language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8205" RevisionGUID="7a61d2f0-4312-4f75-9ec4-65805d8d9da8" CreationDate="2015-02-15T23:08:26.343" UserId="4721" Text="As a student learning Ukrainian, should I also concurrently learn Russian? Or wait and tackle them separately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8205" RevisionGUID="7a61d2f0-4312-4f75-9ec4-65805d8d9da8" CreationDate="2015-02-15T23:08:26.343" UserId="4721" Text="|обучение|ukrainian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8206" RevisionGUID="1cdb336d-1fb5-4a1a-b9e6-fff63409b32c" CreationDate="2015-02-16T02:14:45.173" UserId="4560" Text="I'd say it depends on how you would react to a large number of minor differences. The way dative case endings change the preceding consonants in Ukrainian but not in Russian, the `-тся`/`-ться` distinction that Russian has and Ukrainian doesn't, and lots more like that. You might find it intellectually pleasurable to stay alert and always remember which is which, or you might be overwhelmed and annoyed by them. I personally prefer to stick to the one I'm learning, and take any incidental progress in neighbouring languages as a bonus, without trying to rush it. I won't insist it's the best approach but I feel that every language requires a significant period of undivided attention." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8207" RevisionGUID="6681c688-deec-4b2f-ac36-07179e8df02e" CreationDate="2015-02-16T08:31:53.297" UserId="4833" Text="It depends on your goal. If you need the two languages for doing business, you can take them at once. You would learn them faster; the languages will probably be mixed up a bit, but that is pretty common so no one would care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the point is to speak and write correctly in at least one of the languages, then wait a little before starting the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the languages are similar, have similar scripts, and many speakers are bilingual, it makes a really hard task for your brain to separate them into two separate structures if you are learning them at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="40b7302d-ef9a-4b2b-ba0b-308b0b1ac96e" CreationDate="2015-02-16T09:45:59.043" UserId="4833" Comment="corrected spelling " Text="I read a page on Russian Impersonal constructions a few days ago by the RLM. It was all about impersonal constructions. But, it's just not clicking for me. For example:  _&quot;Пашу тошнило всю дорогу&quot;_. Why does this sentence govern the neuter form of the verb? Another question I have is with this example: _&quot;Едва самолёт взлетел, как один из моторов заело.&quot;_ Why does this also govern neuter form of the verb? I was taught earlier that impersonal construction use dative case, and these use accusative case? Please explain how to form impersonal constructions. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19852" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="40b7302d-ef9a-4b2b-ba0b-308b0b1ac96e" CreationDate="2015-02-16T09:45:59.043" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by 134 edit id of 600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="1a886c54-dd5b-4bdd-b46c-ab4347d8d2cd" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:07:13.323" UserId="4702" Text="Слава has this song Спелый мой, but I can't find any translation that makes any sense to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не хочу с тобой быть равной — &#xD;&#xA;Любовь согласна быть бесправной. &#xD;&#xA;С тобой слова мои беспрежны, &#xD;&#xA;Любимый мой. &#xD;&#xA;Тебе, любимый, губы ночью, &#xD;&#xA;Тебе до крови сердце в клочья, &#xD;&#xA;С тобой глаза мои бесстыдны, &#xD;&#xA;Желанный мой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу, &#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью, &#xD;&#xA;Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку. &#xD;&#xA;Дорогой, слезы любви подспорье. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу, &#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, я не могу иначе. &#xD;&#xA;Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи, &#xD;&#xA;Мой родной. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тебе готова быть подвластной, &#xD;&#xA;По-разному согласна разной. &#xD;&#xA;С тобой глаза мои беспрежны, &#xD;&#xA;Любимый мой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хочу дышать губами страсти, &#xD;&#xA;Хочу любви твоей причастья, &#xD;&#xA;С тобой все годы высокосны, &#xD;&#xA;Желанный мой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу, &#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью, &#xD;&#xA;Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку. &#xD;&#xA;Дорогой, слезы любви подспорье. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу, &#xD;&#xA;Спелый мой, я не могу иначе. &#xD;&#xA;Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи, &#xD;&#xA;Мой родной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this, but it does not make sense in the context of the song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1спелый &#xD;&#xA;1. mature&#xD;&#xA;спелый лес — mature forest&#xD;&#xA;спелый шлак — matured slag&#xD;&#xA;спелый ячмень — mature barley&#xD;&#xA;спелое лесонасаждение — mature forest stand&#xD;&#xA;2. mellow&#xD;&#xA;спелый солод — mellow malt&#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — mellow grain&#xD;&#xA;3. ripe&#xD;&#xA;спелое яблоко — ripe apple&#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — ripe grain&#xD;&#xA;спелая древесина — ripe wood&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="1a886c54-dd5b-4bdd-b46c-ab4347d8d2cd" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:07:13.323" UserId="4702" Text="Спелый мой - What does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="1a886c54-dd5b-4bdd-b46c-ab4347d8d2cd" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:07:13.323" UserId="4702" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8209" RevisionGUID="3f571cee-73a1-43d2-a972-1015133cd9fc" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:38:55.370" UserId="134" Text="The meaning of the word is &quot;ripe&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The narrator compares her beloved one to a ripe fruit and calls him *спелый* (&quot;ripe&quot;), *зрелый* (&quot;mature&quot;, meaning both &quot;adult&quot; and &quot;fully developed&quot;, just like the English term); and *вкусный* (&quot;tasty&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The song is full of masochistic innuendos and the author hints at her being blind (probably because of being blindfolded), so apparently she wants to state the fact that sense of taste is the only way she could feel her partner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="f125919e-696d-4fa3-ad60-a62b084a0d5a" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:45:43.250" UserId="134" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Слава has this song Спелый мой, but I can't find any translation that makes any sense to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не хочу с тобой быть равной —   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любовь согласна быть бесправной.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой слова мои мятежны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любимый мой.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе, любимый, губы ночью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе до крови сердце в клочья,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой глаза мои бесстыдны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желанный мой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой, слезы — любви подспорье.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, я не могу иначе.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой родной.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе готова быть подвластной,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; По-разному согласна разной.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой глаза мои безбрежны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любимый мой.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу дышать губами страсти,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу любви твоей причастья,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой все годы високосны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желанный мой.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой, слезы — любви подспорье.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не могу иначе.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой родной.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this, but it does not make sense in the context of the song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1спелый &#xD;&#xA;1. mature&#xD;&#xA;спелый лес — mature forest&#xD;&#xA;спелый шлак — matured slag&#xD;&#xA;спелый ячмень — mature barley&#xD;&#xA;спелое лесонасаждение — mature forest stand&#xD;&#xA;2. mellow&#xD;&#xA;спелый солод — mellow malt&#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — mellow grain&#xD;&#xA;3. ripe&#xD;&#xA;спелое яблоко — ripe apple&#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — ripe grain&#xD;&#xA;спелая древесина — ripe wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8210" RevisionGUID="049fc4e2-4fad-4b5d-9d77-4845fe66c0e4" CreationDate="2015-02-16T15:21:37.297" UserId="4629" Text="You are right in that the word *спелый* does not make a lot of sense here. It's pretty much dragged in by the heels in line with the lamentable pretentiousness and cheesiness of these lyrics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the undoubted sexual whiff of the lyrics, one could argue that *спелый* here is borrowed from the colloquial expression *спелая девушка* or *спелая женщина* -- a very low-key term for a sexually attractive and presumably available young female. The lyrics is a good example of cheap-night-club Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8210" RevisionGUID="49f9531b-ac5e-4661-ab67-b1414997dc6e" CreationDate="2015-02-16T15:43:17.667" UserId="4629" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You are right in that the word *спелый* does not make a lot of sense here. It's pretty much dragged in by the heels in line with the lamentable pretentiousness and cheesiness of these lyrics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the undoubted sexual whiff of the lyrics, one could argue that *спелый* here is borrowed from the colloquial expression *спелая девушка* or *спелая женщина* -- a very low-key term for a sexually attractive and presumably available young female. The lyrics is a good example of a cheap-night-club Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="ac1cf122-e0af-4eb7-b809-40afea10fa38" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:52:56.600" UserId="2269" Comment="added 70 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Слава has [this song Спелый мой](https://youtu.be/tqhVCmc_sic), but I can't find any translation that makes any sense to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не хочу с тобой быть равной —   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любовь согласна быть бесправной.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой слова мои мятежны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любимый мой.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе, любимый, губы ночью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе до крови сердце в клочья,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой глаза мои бесстыдны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желанный мой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой, слезы — любви подспорье.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, я не могу иначе.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой родной.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе готова быть подвластной,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; По-разному согласна разной.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой глаза мои безбрежны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любимый мой.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу дышать губами страсти,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу любви твоей причастья,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой все годы високосны,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желанный мой.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой, слезы — любви подспорье.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не могу иначе.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой родной.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this, but it does not make sense in the context of the song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; спелый   &#xD;&#xA;1. mature   &#xD;&#xA;спелый лес — mature forest   &#xD;&#xA;спелый шлак — matured slag   &#xD;&#xA;спелый ячмень — mature barley   &#xD;&#xA;спелое лесонасаждение — mature forest stand   &#xD;&#xA;2. mellow   &#xD;&#xA;спелый солод — mellow malt   &#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — mellow grain   &#xD;&#xA;3. ripe  &#xD;&#xA;спелое яблоко — ripe apple   &#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — ripe grain   &#xD;&#xA;спелая древесина — ripe wood   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="ac1cf122-e0af-4eb7-b809-40afea10fa38" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:52:56.600" UserId="2269" Comment="added 70 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="“Спелый мой” – what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="ac1cf122-e0af-4eb7-b809-40afea10fa38" CreationDate="2015-02-16T20:52:56.600" UserId="2269" Comment="added 70 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19863" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8205" RevisionGUID="a1765d0d-758b-4197-8b80-cde7d153f164" CreationDate="2015-02-17T02:22:13.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/567509289880014849" />
  <row Id="19864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8211" RevisionGUID="a55323d4-3e40-49e3-8e93-71531ca75576" CreationDate="2015-02-17T20:34:00.807" UserId="4921" Text="Both languages are pretty similar. In my opinion, they have almost equal grammar. The main difference is everyday life  vocabulary. &#xA;&#xA;Russians and Ukrainians very often can understand each other without any training. There also a lot of people in Russia and Ukraine, who speak surzhyk, which is mix from both languages. In real, there is no very hard border between the languages. &#xA;&#xA;So, if you interested in Ukrainian an Russian languages,  learning one of them would very help you to learn another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8212" RevisionGUID="53088e23-4f34-4d52-be33-9782a26e8a8d" CreationDate="2015-02-17T23:47:59.850" UserId="5065" Text="I am Ukrainian and yes I am bilingual. From what language start learning — it's dependent from your goal. If you need it for business or trip — you don't need to learn it both, just learn Russian language and anybody could understand you in any Slavic country.&#xA;If you want be professional in both — it's don't matter from which to start. They have similar logic. Of course every day vocabulary is different. But the Ukrainian language grammar is more simple.&#xA;In any case you need learn one language and then move to other. Because they have very close word set and partially different grammar — when learn it both in one time it would be very hard remember what rule or word from what language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8213" RevisionGUID="7239b3eb-e327-4e13-a209-53885c9d72b9" CreationDate="2015-02-18T00:05:08.977" UserId="5065" Text="«уровень знания» — it mean level/gradation knowledge about some concrete well known skill (it similar for rule of using &quot;the&quot; article in English language)&#xA;&#xA;«уровень знаний» — it mean level/gradation for all/genetic scope of skills, knowledge (it similar for rule of using &quot;a&quot; article in English language)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8214" RevisionGUID="4b40db57-027f-44e1-b51a-509620fbf1d6" CreationDate="2015-02-18T01:28:45.933" UserId="5066" Text="Ukrainian pronunciation is easier for an English speaker to grasp, so in that way I have always thought it would be an easier language to pick up in respect to Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is you would be wise to get on your feet with Slavic grammar and sentence structure through the Ukrainian course, and focus on Russian separately. Self-study should be sufficient given the significant amount of transferrable knowledge (sentence structure included), but the softer sounds—not to mention new vocabulary—will add a new level of complexity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19868" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8192" RevisionGUID="ad4c69a2-59bf-4fc0-a9d1-0203bc8f05f5" CreationDate="2015-02-18T02:09:20.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/567868434672939008" />
  <row Id="19869" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8180" RevisionGUID="94de7f7b-b456-40ed-85b7-df93c796c527" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:09:47.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/568095043883573248" />
  <row Id="19870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="737af976-6b1f-45dd-a046-1574dace6463" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:13:34.047" UserId="2086" Text="&quot;But then you find yourself unchallenged by divine an secular par&quot; - what would be the best contextual translation for &quot;unchallenged&quot; in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="737af976-6b1f-45dd-a046-1574dace6463" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:13:34.047" UserId="2086" Text="&quot;Unchallenged&quot; equivalent in context of &quot;not challenging enough&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="737af976-6b1f-45dd-a046-1574dace6463" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:13:34.047" UserId="2086" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|одним-словом|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8216" RevisionGUID="39f88d5e-28c7-485c-a403-3c79f23b6406" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:32:07.160" UserId="5070" Text="As far as I know, when conjugating the verb for the I pronoun you will use ю or у. I was wondering if there was a trick to knowing when to use which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я читаю -- I read&#xD;&#xA;я живу -- I live" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8216" RevisionGUID="39f88d5e-28c7-485c-a403-3c79f23b6406" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:32:07.160" UserId="5070" Text="Verb conjugation with Pronoun-I" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8216" RevisionGUID="39f88d5e-28c7-485c-a403-3c79f23b6406" CreationDate="2015-02-18T17:32:07.160" UserId="5070" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8216" RevisionGUID="fd22edbc-b059-49b7-b4bc-956af5d807d7" CreationDate="2015-02-18T18:19:24.087" UserId="2269" Comment="That is not a matter of orthography, in that case spelling just follows pronunciation." Text="As far as I know, when conjugating the verb for the I pronoun you will use ю or у. I was wondering if there was a trick to knowing when to use which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я читаю — I read   &#xD;&#xA;я живу — I live" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19877" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8216" RevisionGUID="fd22edbc-b059-49b7-b4bc-956af5d807d7" CreationDate="2015-02-18T18:19:24.087" UserId="2269" Comment="That is not a matter of orthography, in that case spelling just follows pronunciation." Text="Verb conjugation with Pronoun ‘я’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19878" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8216" RevisionGUID="fd22edbc-b059-49b7-b4bc-956af5d807d7" CreationDate="2015-02-18T18:19:24.087" UserId="2269" Comment="That is not a matter of orthography, in that case spelling just follows pronunciation." Text="|глаголы|спряжение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8217" RevisionGUID="3917fe9a-047f-4d55-bb22-963baaf32258" CreationDate="2015-02-18T20:46:15.537" UserId="4884" Text="-ю normally indicates a verb stem ending with a soft consonant (in case of читаю it is читаj-). &#xD;&#xA;-у indicates a verb stem ending with a hard consonant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now here is a trick how to figure out how to form a 1st person singular form: it is usually identical to the 3d person, plural - minus т: читать - они чита**ют** - я чита**ю**. It implies, of course, that you are familiar with the 3d person plural forms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check all personal verbal forms at [Wiktionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8218" RevisionGUID="81a0a20d-b700-4bbc-838a-857fc82235c9" CreationDate="2015-02-18T21:12:15.780" UserId="1417" Text="I live in Ukraine and speak both languages. *Russian* and *Ukrainian* languages are very close. It sometimes is advantage when you want to learn one of these languages while knowing the other, but in some cases it is actually disadvantage. Similarity actually is confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general learning multiple languages at the same time is a bad idea. (I can't put a link, I can't find it, but I read scientific paper suggestion that you should learn one language at a time, but you can practice languages you already know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to learn Ukrainian and when you are in a phase that you can have a small talk, you can start Russian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="fe67182a-9e75-4196-85b9-85ac7eb3490e" CreationDate="2015-02-19T02:51:18.990" UserId="2086" Comment="added 496 characters in body" Text="&quot;But then you find yourself unchallenged by divine and secular power&quot; - what would be the best contextual translation for &quot;unchallenged&quot; in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full text:&#xD;&#xA;-Tell me about the first time.&#xD;&#xA;What was it like? &#xD;&#xA;-It made me sick.&#xD;&#xA;The smell disgusted me.&#xD;&#xA;The first was the worst and hardest to get over.&#xD;&#xA;But a switch had been flicked, a line crossed.&#xD;&#xA;Something was done that couldn't be undone.&#xD;&#xA;Something that separates you from the common herd.&#xD;&#xA;I was ill for four days after.&#xD;&#xA;You're in a state of existential shock.&#xD;&#xA;But then you find yourself unchallenged by divine and secular power.&#xD;&#xA;-OK So why not do it again? But better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8219" RevisionGUID="b6af2c3b-5574-45a3-92fe-1574b0964745" CreationDate="2015-02-19T02:54:04.617" UserId="4936" Text="Another way to know is to first identify if the verb is 1st or 2nd conjugation. 1st conj verbs have -ешь, ет, -ем, etc. 2nd conj verbs have -ишь, -ит, -им, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For most 1st conj verbs remove the -ть -ти of the infinitive. If the resulting (present tense) stem ends in a vowel add -ю -ют: чита**ю**, дела**ют**, теря**ю**, теря**ют**, старе**ю**, старе**ют**. There are some high frequency 1st conj verbs that require altering the present tense stem, but once the alteration is made the same rule applies: советовать - совету**ю**, жевать - жу**ю**, петь - по**ю**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the present tense stem (of 1st conj verbs) ends in a consonant, then add -у, -ут: ид**у**, пиш**у**, бер**у**. There are a handful of mostly low frequency exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all 2nd conj verbs remove the ть of the infinitive and whatever vowel precedes to find the present tense stem. For 2nd conj verbs the endings are -ю, -ят (говор**ю**, сто**ю**, говор**ят**, сто**ят** unless the stem ends in a husher, then the spelling rule applies:&#xD;&#xA;получить - получ**у**, получ**ат**, спешить - спеш**у**, спеш**ат**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8217" RevisionGUID="347100fb-dd23-4077-9045-fe5e828991c0" CreationDate="2015-02-19T03:10:25.973" UserId="4884" Comment="added 873 characters in body" Text="-ю normally indicates a verb stem ending with a soft consonant (in case of читаю it is читаj-). &#xD;&#xA;-у indicates a verb stem ending with a hard consonant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it not always works this way. Zaliznyak grammatical dictionary ([online version][1]) identifies some regular patterns that may help you to figure out how to form 1st person singular: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Verbs ending with -ать, -ять, -еть, similar to читать, гулять, жалеть - end with -ю (читаю, гуляю, жалею)&#xD;&#xA;2. Verbs ending with -овать/-евать, like требовать, танцевать - end with -ю (требую, танцую)&#xD;&#xA;3. Verbs ending with -нуть - end with -у (тонуть - тону)&#xD;&#xA;4. Verbs ending with -ить - if a stem ends with a sibilant (ж, ш, с, з, ч, щ) or т/д, then the first person, singular would end with -у; otherwise -ю. Please note consonants in a stem may change. &#xD;&#xA;5. If verbs ending with -ать and the stem ending with a  sibilant - 1st singular ends with -у; some verbs with a stem ending with т/д and the ending -еть, like вертеть,  change the stem to ч/ж and -у (верчу)&#xD;&#xA;6. Verbs ending with -сть, -зть, -сти, -зти, -чь - end with -у in 1st singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some irregular verbs and small groups of verbs that follow some specific conjugation patterns, so the best way is to check all personal verbal forms for each particular verb at [Wiktionary][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.morfologija.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8220" RevisionGUID="57cfd775-50a6-43e4-a850-9938108fc156" CreationDate="2015-02-19T04:49:50.303" UserId="5072" Text="What does the text on this poster say? Is it grammatical at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l7RZT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8220" RevisionGUID="57cfd775-50a6-43e4-a850-9938108fc156" CreationDate="2015-02-19T04:49:50.303" UserId="5072" Text="What does the text on this picture mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8220" RevisionGUID="57cfd775-50a6-43e4-a850-9938108fc156" CreationDate="2015-02-19T04:49:50.303" UserId="5072" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8221" RevisionGUID="b607460d-799a-4748-9f9a-80ebff2547dc" CreationDate="2015-02-19T06:57:52.977" UserId="5008" Text="The text is written in old (pre-1917) grammar (though I'm not sure, if it's free of errors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is: [This is] my face, when someone files a lawsuit against the electrical telegraph, being the well-known [Internet] meme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="1d469117-fa48-42cf-99c7-76f85dc88f2a" CreationDate="2015-02-19T07:53:59.143" UserId="97" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="&quot;But then you find yourself unchallenged by divine and secular power&quot; - what would be the best contextual translation for &quot;unchallenged&quot; in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;mdash; Tell me about the first time. What was it like?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;mdash; It made me sick. The smell disgusted me. The first was the worst and hardest to get over. But a switch had been flicked, a line crossed. Something was done that couldn't be undone. Something that separates you from the common herd. I was ill for four days after. You're in a state of existential shock. But then you find yourself unchallenged by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; divine and secular power.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;mdash; OK So why not do it again? But better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8222" RevisionGUID="e2f57274-3ccc-4f25-9c5f-0caaabc8a8e6" CreationDate="2015-02-19T08:03:10.477" UserId="97" Text="With the full context, I still believe that _unchallenged_ here is used in the meaning of _not confronted_ or even _not stopped_.  Normally, the &quot;divine and secular power&quot; will stop a person from committing a murder, however here the narrator says that after he's done it once, the divine and secular powers are not stopping him any more.  Hence I would translate the sentence as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Сначала] ты жишешь в состоянии шока. Но после этого ни божья сила, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; людские законы тебя уже не останавливают.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8223" RevisionGUID="68cfbf96-f799-41e4-9488-67bcc65bb429" CreationDate="2015-02-19T08:09:14.287" UserId="4600" Text="I would translate this as something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут вдруг ты оказываешься вне власти богов и людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни боги, ни люди над тобой уже не властны.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19891" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8195" RevisionGUID="3df9696b-907c-4191-94bd-4af5a677ba42" CreationDate="2015-02-19T11:09:48.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/568366837077049344" />
  <row Id="19892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8224" RevisionGUID="d7b37769-91a6-4967-9ee7-723585e6267b" CreationDate="2015-02-19T14:53:45.583" UserId="1236" Text="The translation by @[user4419802][1] is absolutely correct, still it is practically impossible to understand what it means without knowing what are the lawsuit and the meme mentioned in it. Let me tell the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2005 a Russian band made a [video][2] that contained the phrase “бей бабу по ебалу” (‘hit women into their faces’ expressed in obscene words). Later, in 2008, in a Russian social network a meme appeared, it was [the portrait][3] of a stylish Russian rock’n’roll singer [Valeri Syutkin][4] in the Obama election campaign altered colors with the abbreviation ’BBPE’ which is the abbreviation of the above rude phrase transliterated into the Latin alphabet. The image was used in the social networks to troll [camwhores][5]. And later, in December 2014, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media of the Russian Federation applied to the court with a lawsuit against the Internet encyclopedia Lurkmore to make the encyclopedia delete [the article][5] about that BBPE meme, explaining that Syutkin cannot bear his mom's distress when she learned what her son's portrait is used for. However, the court rejected the claim, and another meme appeared, the one you are asking about. The image shows the [Дореволюцiонный Совѣтчикъ][6] – The Pre-Revolution Adviser – also a meme, an aristocratic-looking guy speaking the pre-1917 aristocratic archaic language using the old spelling. ‘The electrical telegraph’ obviously means ‘the Internet’, and the meme mentioned there is the BBPE image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can see that to understand the text the understanding of at least four other Internet memes is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWubYiNhluc&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lurkmore.so/images/b/b8/BBPE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Syutkin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://lurkmore.to/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%94%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%86i%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%A3%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%8A&amp;es_sm=93&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=OuzlVMvfBOL7ywPc9oK4DQ&amp;ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8224" RevisionGUID="43a7a8f6-f367-4bae-a5c9-4737b3bb4b38" CreationDate="2015-02-19T15:09:47.927" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="The translation by @[user4419802][1] is absolutely correct, still it is practically impossible to understand what it means without knowing what the lawsuit and the meme mentioned in it are. Let me tell the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2005 a Russian band made a [video][2] that contained the phrase “бей бабу по ебалу” (‘hit women into their faces’ expressed in obscene words). Later, in 2008, in a Russian social network a meme appeared, it was [the portrait][3] of a stylish Russian rock’n’roll singer [Valeri Syutkin][4] in the Obama election campaign altered colors with the abbreviation ’BBPE’ which is the abbreviation of the above rude phrase transliterated into the Latin alphabet. The image was used in the social networks to troll [camwhores][5]. And later, in December 2014, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media of the Russian Federation applied to the court with a lawsuit against the Internet encyclopedia Lurkmore to make the encyclopedia delete [the article][5] about that BBPE meme, explaining that Syutkin cannot bear his mom's distress when she learned what her son's portrait is used for. However, the court rejected the claim, and another meme appeared, the one you are asking about. The image shows the [Дореволюцiонный Совѣтчикъ][6] – The Pre-Revolution Adviser – also a meme, an aristocratic-looking guy speaking the pre-1917 aristocratic archaic language using the old spelling. ‘The electrical telegraph’ obviously means ‘the Internet’, and the meme mentioned there is the BBPE image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can see that to understand the text the understanding of at least four other Internet memes is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWubYiNhluc&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lurkmore.so/images/b/b8/BBPE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Syutkin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://lurkmore.to/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%94%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%86i%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%A3%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%8A&amp;es_sm=93&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=OuzlVMvfBOL7ywPc9oK4DQ&amp;ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8225" RevisionGUID="2256683a-5e33-40b7-bbbc-a0d3678de8ae" CreationDate="2015-02-20T00:57:41.330" UserId="5076" Text="I found the original text and this is what the speaker, a murderer, says a few sentences before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'The outside world means nothing, only the interior world is real. It is utterly compelling, compulsive. Nothing can pull you back from the edge. Not laws or threats of punishment, morality, religion, fear of death. All of those things are as meaningless as the life that you're about to extinguish.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to confirm the idea that this is about not being challenged in the sense of something requiring your best abilities and being a potential respectable achievement, but in the sense of having the challenge to you from those who object (or have the potential to object) to your actions. In my dictionary it gives a good and concise definition of the verb 'challenge' in this sense as 'to invite to prove or justify something' and of the noun 'challenge' as 'a summons to prove or justify something'. That nuance, 'summons' is good in pushing it beyond 'invite' to something more authoritative, cooercive or just dictated by circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has crossed that line of murdering someone and now feels unrestrained by any appeal to him from any law, morality, religion, fear, whatever, i.e. 'unchallenged by divine or secular power'. So something with the idea of 'unlimited' or 'unrestrained' might be reasonable, but loses some hue of meaning. Creating a phrase to convey the idea seems necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но тогда найдёшь, что больше не сдерживают тебя никакие божественные или светские силы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're really just looking for the other meaning of 'challenging' or 'unchallenging' as I mentioned above, then in all my time in Russia I've never encountered a complete translation of it without some kind of explanation seeming necessary to be absolutely precise. Like 'unchallenging work' would just perhaps be 'нетрудная и неинтересная работа' maybe too you could say that such work 'не соответствует моим способностям', i.e. 'is not in accordance with my capabilities'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's clear to me, as a native English speaker with a lot of experience in making precise sense of texts, that in this text it really isn't that meaning, but the one of no longer being asked to justify himself, no longer being called to account by, being held back by, any divine or secular power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe in fact those concepts could be used, i.e. to no longer have to answer for or account for yourself before any divine or secular power; like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но тогда найдёшь, что уже не приходиться отчитываться перед какими-нибудь божественными или светскими силами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8225" RevisionGUID="35a328de-e8df-4568-9fa3-e5993726378a" CreationDate="2015-02-20T01:06:46.333" UserId="5076" Comment="I realised I hadn't quite correctly remembered the original sentence, making the 'powers' plural and adding 'any'. Changed this. Though it's not really key to the focus of the question about 'unchallenged' here." Text="I found the original text and this is what the speaker, a murderer, says a few sentences before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'The outside world means nothing, only the interior world is real. It is utterly compelling, compulsive. Nothing can pull you back from the edge. Not laws or threats of punishment, morality, religion, fear of death. All of those things are as meaningless as the life that you're about to extinguish.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to confirm the idea that this is about not being challenged in the sense of something requiring your best abilities and being a potential respectable achievement, but in the sense of having the challenge to you from those who object (or have the potential to object) to your actions. In my dictionary it gives a good and concise definition of the verb 'challenge' in this sense as 'to invite to prove or justify something' and of the noun 'challenge' as 'a summons to prove or justify something'. That nuance, 'summons' is good in pushing it beyond 'invite' to something more authoritative, cooercive or just dictated by circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He has crossed that line of murdering someone and now feels unrestrained by any appeal to him from any law, morality, religion, fear, whatever, i.e. 'unchallenged by divine or secular power'. So something with the idea of 'unlimited' or 'unrestrained' might be reasonable, but loses some hue of meaning. Creating a phrase to convey the idea seems necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но тогда найдёшь, что больше не сдерживает тебя божественная или светская сила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're really just looking for the other meaning of 'challenging' or 'unchallenging' as I mentioned above, then in all my time in Russia I've never encountered a complete translation of it without some kind of explanation seeming necessary to be absolutely precise. Like 'unchallenging work' would just perhaps be 'нетрудная и неинтересная работа' maybe too you could say that such work 'не соответствует моим способностям', i.e. 'is not in accordance with my capabilities'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's clear to me, as a native English speaker with a lot of experience in making precise sense of texts, that in this text it really isn't that meaning, but the one of no longer being asked to justify himself, no longer being called to account by, being held back by, any divine or secular power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe in fact those concepts could be used, i.e. to no longer have to answer for or account for yourself before any divine or secular power; like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но тогда найдёшь, что уже не приходиться отчитываться перед божественной или светской силой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19896" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="3236cea8-eb1b-4d67-bc7e-03a5495a8e35" CreationDate="2015-02-20T01:11:59.663" UserId="2086" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Unchallenged&quot; equivalent in context of &quot;not challenging enough&quot; (as in not exciting)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8226" RevisionGUID="14190b05-c475-42e1-8fb4-2fab2213f28b" CreationDate="2015-02-20T08:17:27.337" UserId="4833" Text="I guess, _неподсуден_ is a closest you can get with a single adjective in this context. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; и вдруг чувствуешь, что уже неподсуден ни небесной, ни земной власти. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8215" RevisionGUID="8fdced9a-74ed-45d6-8fce-950006007ded" CreationDate="2015-02-20T16:27:14.750" UserId="2086" Comment="Clarified the aim of this question; previously confused meaning" Text="&quot;But then you find yourself unchallenged by...&quot; - what would be the best, possibly one-word, translation for &quot;unchallenged&quot; in the context of &quot;nothing else challenges/excites/arouses my senses, other than killing&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The &quot;unchallenged&quot; I need is a bit out of the actual context of the text below, I apologize for the confusion.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;mdash; Tell me about the first time. What was it like?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;mdash; It made me sick. The smell disgusted me. The first was the worst and hardest to get over. But a switch had been flicked, a line crossed. Something was done that couldn't be undone. Something that separates you from the common herd. I was ill for four days after. You're in a state of existential shock. But then you find yourself unchallenged by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; divine and secular power.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;mdash; OK So why not do it again? But better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8227" RevisionGUID="c180eda8-ca84-4734-884a-70c89a948809" CreationDate="2015-02-20T17:07:39.390" UserId="4482" Text="How do we have to accord the adjectives with the polite form &quot;вы&quot;? Plural or singular? &#xD;&#xA;Should we, for example, tell a man &quot;вы красивый&quot;, or &quot;вы красивые&quot;? (logically I would use singular, but I want to be sure!!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8227" RevisionGUID="c180eda8-ca84-4734-884a-70c89a948809" CreationDate="2015-02-20T17:07:39.390" UserId="4482" Text="Accordance of the adjectives with the polite form &quot;вы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8227" RevisionGUID="c180eda8-ca84-4734-884a-70c89a948809" CreationDate="2015-02-20T17:07:39.390" UserId="4482" Text="|formality|согласование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8228" RevisionGUID="369c9cdf-7ab3-444d-9157-c8d9afb0593b" CreationDate="2015-02-20T17:11:08.933" UserId="4560" Text="The predicate (short) form is mandatorily plural: `вы красивы`. However, when full-form adjectives are used colloquially as predicates, singular sounds more natural: `вы такая красивая`, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8229" RevisionGUID="599ce98c-deaa-4711-b532-e3a8cbdf35fa" CreationDate="2015-02-21T00:02:45.733" UserId="5081" Text="Changing pronoun &quot;ты&quot; to polite form &quot;вы&quot; doesn't affect adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вы красивый мужчина&quot; - singular form, masculine gender.&#xD;&#xA;“Вы красивая женщина” - singular form, feminine gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8230" RevisionGUID="2a7b1a1f-b495-4ace-9e3c-7297a10c6ab7" CreationDate="2015-02-21T01:49:59.900" UserId="5082" Text="In colloquial speech both variants can be used. However, I would prefer to use the first one, especially in formal written language " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8231" RevisionGUID="88af5a8d-6a3d-4a47-9b84-b1cd5a1768b3" CreationDate="2015-02-21T09:30:50.283" UserId="5083" Text="&quot;Тренер до пояса&quot; может означать, что он даёт начальную подготовку до получения спортивного разряда - &quot;пояса&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8227" RevisionGUID="e72c62c9-e9e8-4295-a725-5305092f64a4" CreationDate="2015-02-21T17:22:45.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/569185469621248000" />
  <row Id="19907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8232" RevisionGUID="928b52da-4fa1-4c71-89a7-064f29088a73" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:30:37.580" UserId="5088" Text="What is the sentence spoken in this video at 9:58, and what does it mean in English? (It will probably be about painting.) I like the way it sounds. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKC_D4DLTlI&amp;t=9m57s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19908" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8232" RevisionGUID="928b52da-4fa1-4c71-89a7-064f29088a73" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:30:37.580" UserId="5088" Text="What is the Russian sentence spoken here, and what is the English translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19909" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8232" RevisionGUID="928b52da-4fa1-4c71-89a7-064f29088a73" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:30:37.580" UserId="5088" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="45c871c2-3b7f-4dbf-a6e8-7228e5b9cb0d" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:48:47.753" UserId="5089" Text="She say: &quot;Немножко краска смешивается.&quot; - &quot;A little paint mixed&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8234" RevisionGUID="833155f4-d60d-4060-935e-d91fd81f7650" CreationDate="2015-02-22T08:54:35.793" UserId="2388" Text="It is «Немножко краска смешивается.» ~ Paint is getting mixed a little, the paints are mixed a bit. She is talking about colours on the canvas, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="fc29f02c-88bf-4453-9de8-8ee0b1c92086" CreationDate="2015-02-22T11:33:34.957" UserId="5090" Text="When I was young, I learned that saying _&quot;I don't speak Russian.&quot;_ is as simple as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не говорю по-русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is this polite? Would it be more polite to say something along the lines of _&quot;I don't know how to speak Russian.&quot;_? The difference being that the first could be interpreted as not wanting to speak Russian (even when able to do so) while the latter makes it clear that it's about being unable to speak it. Is this a difference that matters in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="fc29f02c-88bf-4453-9de8-8ee0b1c92086" CreationDate="2015-02-22T11:33:34.957" UserId="5090" Text="Polite way to say I don't speak Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="fc29f02c-88bf-4453-9de8-8ee0b1c92086" CreationDate="2015-02-22T11:33:34.957" UserId="5090" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8236" RevisionGUID="62433eea-3687-43f0-bed7-473928a9a9b6" CreationDate="2015-02-22T11:50:08.843" UserId="1236" Text="The sentence, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is neutral as for politeness. If you want to make it explicitely polite, the best way to do so is to add `извините` (I'm sorry) either as the very first or the last word of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one does not want to speak Russian for some (e. g. political) reasons, it is unlikely that one will inform you about it in Russian, but if one will, it is more likely that the sentence will be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не хочу говорить по-русски. or&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не желаю говорить по-русски. (both meaning “I don't want to speak Russian”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“I don't know how to speak Russian.” is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Я не умею говорить по-русски.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there is need to say that so as to look polite, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is not offenseive in any way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8236" RevisionGUID="0556d06e-5fe7-4c64-ac2e-b9f90639aa72" CreationDate="2015-02-22T11:57:15.450" UserId="1236" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The sentence, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is neutral as for politeness. If you want to make it explicitely polite, the best way to do so is to add `извините` (I'm sorry) either as the very first or the last word of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one does not want to speak Russian for some (e. g. political) reasons, it is unlikely that one will inform you about it in Russian, but if one will, it is more likely that the sentence will be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не хочу говорить по-русски. or&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не желаю говорить по-русски. (both meaning “I don't want to speak Russian”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“I don't know how to speak Russian.” is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Я не умею говорить по-русски.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there is no need to say that so as to look polite, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is not offenseive in any way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8236" RevisionGUID="337a57e4-0285-4e1f-89ed-ba1a96913e84" CreationDate="2015-02-22T12:12:27.417" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The sentence, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is neutral as for politeness. If you want to make it explicitely polite, the best way to do so is to add `извините` (“I'm sorry”) either as the very first or the last word of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one does not want to speak Russian for some (e. g. political) reasons, it is unlikely that one will inform you about it in Russian, but if one will, it is more likely that the sentence will be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не хочу говорить по-русски. or&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не желаю говорить по-русски. (both meaning “I don't want to speak Russian”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“I don't know how to speak Russian.” is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Я не умею говорить по-русски.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there is no need to say that so as to look polite, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is not offensive in any way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8237" RevisionGUID="cc4e1796-8e0b-428a-83d6-f1222944163f" CreationDate="2015-02-22T15:07:46.400" UserId="5092" Text="As Yellow Sky pointed out, the original phrase would probably not be considered as being impolite. However, you could rephrase your statement, to make clear that you simply don't know enough Russian, and say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Извините), я не (хорошо) знаю русский язык&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means &quot;*(Sorry), I don't know the Russian language (very well)*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, it can not even be interpreted as not *wanting* to speak Russian, but clearly says that you are not *able* to speak Russian, which is what you actually wanted to say according to your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8238" RevisionGUID="22659a79-2a30-4667-956a-2fa882b59bc3" CreationDate="2015-02-22T15:42:58.293" UserId="5094" Text="The best way to go in case you're unsure is to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извините, я не говорю по-русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can assure you that it will be obvious from your accent that you honestly cannot speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd strongly advise against saying:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Извините), я не (хорошо) знаю русский язык&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase is incorrect as in it is a word-per-word translation and it won't sound like this in Russian. Although it sure will show that you don't know the language. In case you do speak a little Russian, even if not well, you should say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извините, я плохо говорю по-русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, don't be afraid that somebody might think that you could speak, but just won't. Your accent will give you right away, and the person you will be communicating with will understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8236" RevisionGUID="6ba35e1f-a45e-45b5-a947-ffbdbc705917" CreationDate="2015-02-23T00:15:25.810" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="The sentence, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is neutral as for politeness. If you want to make it explicitely polite, the best way to do so is to add `извините` (“I'm sorry”) either as the very first or the last word of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one does not want to speak Russian for some (e. g. political) reasons, it is unlikely that one will inform you about it in Russian, but if one does, it is more likely that the sentence will be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не хочу говорить по-русски. or&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не желаю говорить по-русски. (both meaning “I don't want to speak Russian”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“I don't know how to speak Russian.” is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;“Я не умею говорить по-русски.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there is no need to say that so as to look polite, “Я не говорю по-русски.” is not offensive in any way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="8639e891-bfda-416f-a3e7-2004e36bc09f" CreationDate="2015-02-23T10:52:39.297" UserId="5102" Text="I'm wondering if there is really any difference between &quot;чай долго остывал&quot; and &quot;чай долго не остывал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд, в первом случае идет просто констатация факта, а во втором случае делается акцент на том, что нам хочется, чтобы чай быстрее остыл. Поправьте меня, если это не так." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="8639e891-bfda-416f-a3e7-2004e36bc09f" CreationDate="2015-02-23T10:52:39.297" UserId="5102" Text="Is there really any difference between &quot;чай долго остывал&quot; and &quot;чай долго не остывал&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="8639e891-bfda-416f-a3e7-2004e36bc09f" CreationDate="2015-02-23T10:52:39.297" UserId="5102" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19925" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="38ece7d9-b9ed-48b3-96e2-d6540e8e4548" CreationDate="2015-02-23T11:41:59.103" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[934],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19926" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="f610bd9f-c2bc-4915-b646-7463a919956d" CreationDate="2015-02-23T20:35:59.530" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/569958873215459328" />
  <row Id="19927" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="9cfc5257-7120-499e-b467-6cce2f698c14" CreationDate="2015-02-23T22:13:07.323" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="e0a2d2c4-b23f-4fb6-95fd-1091bdd98868" CreationDate="2015-02-23T22:57:58.630" UserId="4560" Text="Разница в общих чертах именно эта — «нам хочется» — но, как мне представляется, она и чуть более формальна. Тут дело в том, какое высказывание в каждом случае противоположно по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чай долго остывал` x `Чай остывал недолго`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чай долго не остывал` x `Чай быстро остыл`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть во втором случае мы имеем тот чисто отрицательный несовершенный вид, который на самом деле указывает на отсутствие завершенного действия, сродни `«ты сломал?» — «я не ломал!»`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="a24ecd43-4381-413e-8c31-9bd69ef73ccd" CreationDate="2015-02-24T01:04:10.557" UserId="1236" Text="Your versions, colleagues, are based on the assumption that `недолго` and `быстро` are different enough to radically change the meaning of the sentence. What is a way to formalize that «нам хочется»? Do you mean, there is modality in these sentences? Or conjunctivity? Russian hardly operates with such categories, especially when there is no explicit modal or conjunctive words or forms of the words. It is all much more simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference here is between what the theme and the rheme in each sentence is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Чай долго остывал:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theme — `чай`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rheme — `долго остывал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Чай долго не остывал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theme — `чай долго`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rheme — `не остывал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation (1) looks like this (**theme**, *rheme*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— What was wrong with **the tea**? Why didn't you drink **the tea** at once?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— **The tea?** **It** was *hot for a long time*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Situation (2) looks like this (**theme**, *rheme*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— You're late. Were you drinking **the tea for so long**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Yes, **for a long time the tea** was *hot*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, (1) says that cooling was not fast, it was slow, while (2) says that for a long time not cold, not tepid, not warm, but hot was the temperature of the tea. So the opposites are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чай долго остывал` × `Чай быстро остывал/остыл`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чай долго не остывал` × `Чай долго горячим не был`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="17a08711-ceff-4945-98a0-81fcb89e1734" CreationDate="2015-02-24T10:09:37.037" UserId="5106" Text="It seems to me, that within the Russian aspect system there appears  to be a clear morphological distinction between past and non-past formations. A perfective action can only be referenced as completed in the past or expected to have been completed in the future.  Verb formations for both imperfective and perfective aspects have similar constructions.  When first learning Russian, this formation process did not make any sense to me within my understanding of the English tense system. While working on a computer project based on a &quot;single-stem&quot; approach to the Russian verb system (ala Roman Jacobson, i.e., how to generate the forms брать and беру from a single idealized stem бЕрА with a set of ordered rules), I puzzled over the problem of the same formations (conjugations) for both present reference and future reference and decided, for the purposes of my project, to coalesce the perfective and imperfective formations under the terms &quot;past&quot; and &quot;non-past.&quot;  While this tactic does not resolve the issues presented in this discussion, pedagogically it might provide a more comprehensive insight into understanding the Russian verbal system from an English speakers perspective.  After all, remember that the issue of aspect and tense might have some origins with the loss of the Common Slavic aorist tense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8243" RevisionGUID="cf1a9635-a0c5-4980-b44d-afdc817b2f1d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T10:54:59.323" UserId="4432" Text="Does the sentence on the T-shirt, *После 40° жизнь только начинается!* ![see photo][1], refer to the temperature, i e does it mean *Beyond 40 degrees life just starts!* or is there another meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VQUJE.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8243" RevisionGUID="cf1a9635-a0c5-4980-b44d-afdc817b2f1d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T10:54:59.323" UserId="4432" Text="Is it temperature or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8243" RevisionGUID="cf1a9635-a0c5-4980-b44d-afdc817b2f1d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T10:54:59.323" UserId="4432" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8244" RevisionGUID="39dfff1b-f881-45d8-bc67-86df90f9821f" CreationDate="2015-02-24T11:05:39.837" UserId="2079" Text="No, it is about vodka.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, there is a well known sentence &quot;после сорока жизнь только начинается&quot; (it is about age).  They humorously changed it to &quot;после сорока градусов&quot;, referring to the percentage of alcohol in vodka.  The volume percent of alcohol is called градус (i.e. крепость водки 40 градусов)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8245" RevisionGUID="89c08d0c-d0bb-4c2c-9e6d-e1a95cc28620" CreationDate="2015-02-24T11:24:40.717" UserId="194" Text="No, this is not aspect, this is future tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb forms приду, буду etc cannot be used for present. They are just future forms. The present forms would be прихожу and есть respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings might look similar for foreighners, but native speckers clearly distinguish the future forms of the verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8246" RevisionGUID="97a0dc37-959e-4d03-8abd-f2fc012eb154" CreationDate="2015-02-24T11:44:10.337" UserId="134" Text="In this context the degree (*градус*) means volume fraction of ethanol (alcohol) in a beverage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One percent of ethanol by volume corresponds to one degree on Tralles hydrometer, so historically alcohol proof was measured in degrees rather than in percent in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minimum proof of 40% ABV (or 40°) had been a standard for Russian vodka since late XIX century, and &quot;40°&quot; (*сорок градусов*) is popular metaphor for vodka.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The t-shirt quote is actually a pun on the famous quote from the 1979 Soviet film &quot;Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears&quot; (*&quot;Москва слезам не верит&quot;*), told by the protagonist, a woman in her early forties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *После сорока жизнь только начинается. Это я уже теперь точно знаю.* // Life just begins after 40. Now I know this for a fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8247" RevisionGUID="b5cfaf0d-f62e-4f3c-95c7-3a0cded737b7" CreationDate="2015-02-24T12:33:23.903" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Expedition&quot;(logo seen on T-shirt) is a trade mark. They sell goods for travellers, fishermen etc. So their slogan &quot;После 40 жизнь только начинается&quot; is a bit of wordplay, but not just &quot;vodka&quot;. See, for example, the flask with less ambiguous text directly mentioning those &quot;40 degrees/percent&quot; - http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/5023509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="34a05af1-a359-4998-8815-9b8df97ff4bd" CreationDate="2015-02-24T15:10:49.847" UserId="134" Text="Reading today's news feed from rbc.ru:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Минфин допустил отказ от услуг рейтинговых агентств&#xD;&#xA;* «Газпром» допустил прекращение поставок Киеву через два дня&#xD;&#xA;* Правозащитники допустили возвращение Януковичу замороженных активов&#xD;&#xA;* ОПЕК допустила проведение внеочередного заседания из-за дешевеющей нефти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something or the authors confuse *допустить* and *допустить возможность*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such usage of *допустить* justified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="34a05af1-a359-4998-8815-9b8df97ff4bd" CreationDate="2015-02-24T15:10:49.847" UserId="134" Text="Is допустить used correctly here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="34a05af1-a359-4998-8815-9b8df97ff4bd" CreationDate="2015-02-24T15:10:49.847" UserId="134" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8249" RevisionGUID="cd81535c-5cac-420d-b21a-c8afd1326caa" CreationDate="2015-02-24T15:21:37.843" UserId="310" Text="I think it is not justified but they (press) are going to do it anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When press does not like current events, they tend to try and write about the future, where more interesting things can be imagined. But naturally language doesn't give them enough freedom so they bend it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;«Газпром» допустил прекращение поставок Киеву&quot; means that Газпром has already errorneously stopped deliveries to Киев and should take blame for that - Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;«Газпром» допустил прекращение поставок Киеву через два дня&quot; means Газпром contemplates stopping deliveries in two days for which it doesn't expect blame - Newsspeak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct Russian form is, of course, &quot;«Газпром» допустил возможность прекращения поставок Киеву через два дня&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8250" RevisionGUID="7122cc21-84ce-4978-86fc-c17e34f93c78" CreationDate="2015-02-24T15:24:41.730" UserId="310" Text="I would actually use the form &quot;Извините, не понимаю&quot; - &quot;Sorry, I don't understand&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, it's relatively easy to pronounce and short. Second, it doesn't imply that you may still understand what is told to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="2540bb25-44a0-4a79-b8ee-85f342dd4edd" CreationDate="2015-02-24T16:33:35.457" UserId="2388" Text="It would only be justified if they meant &quot;a certain entity let something undesired happen&quot;. From what I've read on their site, it does not seem to be the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they mean &quot;they cosider the possibility of ...&quot;, the usage is poor to say the least. With their command of Russian it would be safer going for &quot;Минфин может отказаться от услуг рейтинговых агентств&quot;, which does not leave a reader wondering what's going on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8252" RevisionGUID="075b3b07-ad31-41d7-be59-bba6bf74e41e" CreationDate="2015-02-24T19:10:01.740" UserId="4833" Text="This usage of _допустить_ as a synonym of _допускать возможность_ is quite new, but it is becoming widespread in some media, so it may become the norm at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search on [lenta.ru][1] shows the dynamics:  before 2013 it only the traditional usage (to allow), but since 2014 only the new one (consider the possibility). It is roughly the same picture in  [Коммерсантъ][2],  but not in [Независимая][3] which still follows the stricter rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alenta.ru%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3kommersant.ru%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ang.ru%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8252" RevisionGUID="effc9842-24c3-4f59-8ba4-1cba2f04e5d1" CreationDate="2015-02-24T21:05:05.590" UserId="4833" Comment="Adding the direct links to the cited media" Text="This usage of _допустить_ as a synonym of _допускать возможность_ is quite new, but it is becoming widespread in some media, especially in headlines, so it may become the norm at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search on [lenta.ru][1] shows the dynamics:  before 2013 there is only the traditional usage _(to allow)_, but since 2014 only the new one _(to consider the possibility)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Jan 31, 2014 - [МВД Украины допустило причастность «Беркута» к гибели людей][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Aug 14, 2014 - [Правительство допустило использование продуктов из госрезерва][3] - Правительство РФ не исключает привлечения товаров из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; государственного материального резерва....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Коммерсантъ][4] seems to be more conservative, but nevertheless:     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Feb 9, 2015 - [Министр финансов США допустил смягчение санкций против&#xD;&#xA;&gt; России](http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2664025)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Jan 29, 2015 - [Алексей Улюкаев допустил повышение пенсионного возраста][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other media like [Независимая][6] still follow the stricter rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alenta.ru%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lenta.ru/news/2014/01/31/mvd/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lenta.ru/news/2014/08/14/reserve&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:kommersant.ru%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2656384&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ang.ru%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8253" RevisionGUID="2b69171e-c72d-43bc-b4a0-30b4d8201f94" CreationDate="2015-02-25T06:29:47.170" UserId="5008" Text="Your examples are what is called &quot;канцелярит&quot;. Absolutely horrible. If I were the Head of Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications, I would have already fired all those &quot;knights of the pen&quot; without any dismission pay :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8254" RevisionGUID="cc346e96-d8e6-4673-813f-238b47a40f8c" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:29:55.973" UserId="5113" Text="Вперёд, болты! (Ноль) Федор Чистяков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.falshivim-vmeste.ru/songs/1177891200.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не попадись под ключ,&#xD;&#xA;     Сегодня нервы сдвинуты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значит ли это некий вирусный штамм?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8254" RevisionGUID="cc346e96-d8e6-4673-813f-238b47a40f8c" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:29:55.973" UserId="5113" Text="Что значит выражение &quot;Не попадись под ключ,&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8254" RevisionGUID="cc346e96-d8e6-4673-813f-238b47a40f8c" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:29:55.973" UserId="5113" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8255" RevisionGUID="1a2791ec-f889-41a9-9ceb-b0f43ec14338" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:47:43.030" UserId="5112" Text="Can someone recommend a Windows program runnable offline that allows Russian characters to be typed and then cut-and-pasted into other programs, such as for example a text editor or browser?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like, for example, to take part in a chat room where some of the conversation is in Russian and some is in English, and to be able to contribute in both languages more or less on the fly without having to have a second browser window open to run a keyboard program that's online and therefore dependent on its website's accessibility. I'd also like to be able to compose text documents using both languages - again, switching back and forth fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A program that allows you to type on an onscreen keyboard using a mouse will be fine. One that lets you use your hardware keyboard will also be fine - in fact even better - so long as switching back to English-language keyboard use is quick and unfiddly - for example, if the Russian language facility only works if the program's window is active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found a few programs that run online, such as [this](http://www.apronus.com/internet/ruskey.htm), [this](http://winrus.com/keyboard.htm) and [this](http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/russian.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also looked at [this question](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7397/typing-russian-on-an-english-keyboard) and the answers to it, but my question is different because I do not want to change my operating system settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help with this! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8255" RevisionGUID="1a2791ec-f889-41a9-9ceb-b0f43ec14338" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:47:43.030" UserId="5112" Text="Offline keyboard program for typing Russian and then cut-and-pasting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8255" RevisionGUID="1a2791ec-f889-41a9-9ceb-b0f43ec14338" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:47:43.030" UserId="5112" Text="|resources|software|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8256" RevisionGUID="16bf1e4e-f982-447a-b313-db65751d1075" CreationDate="2015-02-25T13:09:14.397" UserId="2079" Text="I never heard or read such expression in Russian, probably there is no such expression.  But `гeрлы` is colloqual for girls. Therefore, `закручивать болты` (to screw bolts) refers to sex. `Ключ` is probably an allusion to a famous poem &quot;Дебют&quot; by Joseph Brodsky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сдав все свои экзамены, она&#xD;&#xA;    к себе в субботу пригласила друга,&#xD;&#xA;    был вечер, и закупорена туго&#xD;&#xA;    была бутылка красного вина.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А воскресенье началось с дождя,&#xD;&#xA;    и гость, на цыпочках прокравшись между&#xD;&#xA;    скрипучих стульев, снял свою одежду&#xD;&#xA;    с непрочно в стену вбитого гвоздя.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Она достала чашку со стола&#xD;&#xA;    и выплеснула в рот остатки чая.&#xD;&#xA;    Квартира в этот час еще спала.&#xD;&#xA;    Она лежала в ванне, ощущая&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    всей кожей облупившееся дно,&#xD;&#xA;    и пустота, благоухая мылом,&#xD;&#xA;    ползла в нее через еще одно&#xD;&#xA;    отверстие, знакомящее с миром.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Дверь тихо притворившая рука&#xD;&#xA;    была -- он вздрогнул -- выпачкана; пряча&#xD;&#xA;    ее в карман, он услыхал, как сдача&#xD;&#xA;    с вина плеснула в недрах пиджака.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Проспект был пуст. Из водосточных труб&#xD;&#xA;    лилась вода, сметавшая окурки.&#xD;&#xA;    Он вспомнил гвоздь и струйку штукатурки,&#xD;&#xA;    и почему-то вдруг с набрякших губ&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    сорвалось слово (Боже упаси&#xD;&#xA;    от всякого его запечатленья),&#xD;&#xA;    и если б тут не подошло такси,&#xD;&#xA;    остолбенел бы он от изумленья.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он раздевался в комнате своей,&#xD;&#xA;    не глядя на припахивавший потом&#xD;&#xA;    ключ, подходящий к множеству дверей,&#xD;&#xA;    ошеломленный первым оборотом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8257" RevisionGUID="1b3b63b7-6130-4fe4-bc8f-82f5ac40e83a" CreationDate="2015-02-25T13:14:09.057" UserId="2079" Text="I use LetterZu since I am already used to it, but installing Russian language would be better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8256" RevisionGUID="5f4712fb-11fe-4211-8916-dd6b2bf0dcc8" CreationDate="2015-02-25T13:15:24.340" UserId="2079" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I never heard or read such expression in Russian, probably there is no such expression.  But `гeрлы` is colloqual for girls. Therefore, `закручивать болты` (to screw bolts) refers to sex. `Ключ` is probably an allusion to the famous poem &quot;Дебют&quot; by Joseph Brodsky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сдав все свои экзамены, она&#xD;&#xA;    к себе в субботу пригласила друга,&#xD;&#xA;    был вечер, и закупорена туго&#xD;&#xA;    была бутылка красного вина.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А воскресенье началось с дождя,&#xD;&#xA;    и гость, на цыпочках прокравшись между&#xD;&#xA;    скрипучих стульев, снял свою одежду&#xD;&#xA;    с непрочно в стену вбитого гвоздя.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Она достала чашку со стола&#xD;&#xA;    и выплеснула в рот остатки чая.&#xD;&#xA;    Квартира в этот час еще спала.&#xD;&#xA;    Она лежала в ванне, ощущая&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    всей кожей облупившееся дно,&#xD;&#xA;    и пустота, благоухая мылом,&#xD;&#xA;    ползла в нее через еще одно&#xD;&#xA;    отверстие, знакомящее с миром.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Дверь тихо притворившая рука&#xD;&#xA;    была -- он вздрогнул -- выпачкана; пряча&#xD;&#xA;    ее в карман, он услыхал, как сдача&#xD;&#xA;    с вина плеснула в недрах пиджака.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Проспект был пуст. Из водосточных труб&#xD;&#xA;    лилась вода, сметавшая окурки.&#xD;&#xA;    Он вспомнил гвоздь и струйку штукатурки,&#xD;&#xA;    и почему-то вдруг с набрякших губ&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    сорвалось слово (Боже упаси&#xD;&#xA;    от всякого его запечатленья),&#xD;&#xA;    и если б тут не подошло такси,&#xD;&#xA;    остолбенел бы он от изумленья.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он раздевался в комнате своей,&#xD;&#xA;    не глядя на припахивавший потом&#xD;&#xA;    ключ, подходящий к множеству дверей,&#xD;&#xA;    ошеломленный первым оборотом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="77db68b7-e451-4c2f-a460-542167589f70" CreationDate="2015-02-25T13:29:14.363" UserId="4560" Text="`Под ключ` is an [idiom][1] that gets a lot of &quot;commercialese&quot; usage (in real estate ads, etc.); `закручивать болты` — or more commonly, `закручивать гайки` — has, in its turn, been a political buzzphrase since about the mid-2000s, so the whole thing sounds like vague and obviously innuendo-tinged attempts at puns based on two common and somewhat annoyingly hackneyed expressions. They weren't meant to make a terrible amount of literal sense, or have any particularly nuanced subtexts. Just contemporary Russian songwriting being the glorified madlibs it so often is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="ab7901d1-b7ca-4d1b-8864-8457fe8c0e20" CreationDate="2015-02-25T13:37:00.993" UserId="4560" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="`Под ключ` is an [idiom][1] that gets a lot of &quot;commercialese&quot; usage (in real estate ads, etc.); `закручивать болты` — or more commonly, `закручивать гайки` — has, in its turn, been a political buzzphrase since about the mid-2000s, so the whole thing sounds like vague and obviously innuendo-tinged attempts at puns based on two common and somewhat annoyingly hackneyed expressions. They weren't meant to make a terrible amount of literal sense, or have any particularly nuanced subtexts. Just contemporary Russian songwriting being the glorified madlibs it so often is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: sorry, my conjectures are completely anachronistic, it's a 1989 song, and that band is *all about* unsubtle innuendo. Let this be a lesson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="73271491-f6aa-405c-b314-8de1fb9ea9a9" CreationDate="2015-02-25T14:09:42.280" UserId="2060" Text="See [попасть под горячую руку][1]. So here it means *watch out to not get hit by the wrench*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text seems to have a sexual implication, but I'm not sure if the wrench has something to do with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%87%D1%83%D1%8E_%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8260" RevisionGUID="e7f49ca1-3ac7-4788-9224-910cb28aa204" CreationDate="2015-02-25T14:29:07.720" UserId="4801" Text="If you are ok with using only a hardware keyboard (you memorized russian keys' positions, or have stickers on it) - then you can simply activate a keyboard layout natively in Windows. Go to Control Panel --&gt; Region and Language. Click on Keyboards and Languages tab, then click Change Keyboards. On General tab press Add, find Russian here and tick it. From now on you can switch between keyboard layouts easily (by default Ctrl+Alt or Ctrl+Shift)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8261" RevisionGUID="71a2cc84-156d-4a06-a630-7310d29edc57" CreationDate="2015-02-25T17:20:15.813" UserId="5115" Text="what case is &quot;Дурака&quot; in &quot;Дурака ему&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8261" RevisionGUID="71a2cc84-156d-4a06-a630-7310d29edc57" CreationDate="2015-02-25T17:20:15.813" UserId="5115" Text="what case is &quot;Дурака&quot; in &quot;Дурака ему&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8261" RevisionGUID="71a2cc84-156d-4a06-a630-7310d29edc57" CreationDate="2015-02-25T17:20:15.813" UserId="5115" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19963" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8243" RevisionGUID="71f6ef38-d3f4-4b3a-95ac-38b30f6c4ca2" CreationDate="2015-02-25T17:42:42.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/570640042093371392" />
  <row Id="19964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8262" RevisionGUID="5396d9fe-a868-49a6-8ae6-dad0856106bd" CreationDate="2015-02-25T18:10:25.157" UserId="5106" Text="Verbs with infinitive forms which are similar can have non-past endings for 1st person singular and 3rd person plural forms which are not the same; note verbs such as бросать (бросают), сосать (сосут), писать (пишут). Most grammars approach this difference by explaining that many Russian verbs have two underlying stems, a past stem and a non-past (which includes the perfective future forms) stem which must be learned for each verb. This disparity results from underlying historical processes.&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to postulate that verbs have a single underlying stem (single-stem approach introduced by Roman Jacobson) whereby the final form is produced using a series of rules which alter the initial state of the stem and ending. Structurally, the latter approach is the most interesting with respect to understanding better the nature of the Russian verb system; however, there are pedagogical issues associated with this approach.  (http://www.lesbaileyev.com/Project/cssRFindex.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19965" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="422a9b14-e466-40c7-bc16-d2e10bc1663e" CreationDate="2015-02-25T20:42:43.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/570685344594698240" />
  <row Id="19966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8260" RevisionGUID="552fe4a4-7684-4935-bedd-156003960ae5" CreationDate="2015-02-26T08:58:53.533" UserId="4801" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If you are ok with using only a hardware keyboard (you memorized russian keys' positions, or have stickers on it) - then you can simply activate a keyboard layout natively in Windows. Go to Control Panel --&gt; Region and Language. Click on Keyboards and Languages tab, then click Change Keyboards. On General tab press Add, find Russian here and tick it. From now on you can switch between keyboard layouts easily (by default Alt+Shift or Ctrl+Shift)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8263" RevisionGUID="925022e2-c765-43cc-b2e6-1d550f99b885" CreationDate="2015-02-26T13:54:19.583" UserId="1368" Text="I guess in the above-mentioned quote from Гоголь there's actually an ellipsis from &quot;сказать дурака&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; ...все смотрите, как одурачен городничий! (Скажите) дурака ему, дурака, старому подлецу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сказать дурака кому-л.&quot; (lit. to say fool to someone) is an obsolete form of &quot;назвать кого-л. дураком&quot; (to call someone a fool), so it's accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8264" RevisionGUID="f6e09de0-1d5d-4c35-bedc-e0d7029ec484" CreationDate="2015-02-26T14:36:42.223" UserId="4815" Text="In this context it's clearly sexual:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сегодня мы ждем:&#xD;&#xA;    К нам придут герлы.&#xD;&#xA;    Сегодня мы не спим:&#xD;&#xA;    К нам придут герлы.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы будем вместе с ними закручивать болты,&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Не попадись под ключ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough translation (not poetic) looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Today we're waiting&#xD;&#xA;    Girls coming&#xD;&#xA;    Today we don't sleep:&#xD;&#xA;    Girls coming&#xD;&#xA;    Together we'll twist bolts&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Don't be caught by wrench&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think with this translation everything is clear enough :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="5cf11207-183b-40fb-ba30-b15f0bb5f903" CreationDate="2015-02-27T16:32:03.383" UserId="1306" Text="how to differentiate in English the verb &quot;to ask&quot; when &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. asking a question (спрашивать) &#xD;&#xA; 2. and asking a favor (просить)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="5cf11207-183b-40fb-ba30-b15f0bb5f903" CreationDate="2015-02-27T16:32:03.383" UserId="1306" Text="the two meanings of the verb &quot;to ask&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="5cf11207-183b-40fb-ba30-b15f0bb5f903" CreationDate="2015-02-27T16:32:03.383" UserId="1306" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8266" RevisionGUID="2ffb6d3e-4765-4487-8fd4-7f58bc954424" CreationDate="2015-02-27T22:05:45.840" UserId="115" Text="Спрашивать is to ask **about** something. Просить is to ask **for** something, or to ask somebody to do something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it gets worse, because it would be wrong to translate &quot;to ask a question&quot; as &quot;спрашивать вопрос&quot;. The correct form is &quot;задавать вопрос&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I asked you a question. - Я **задал** тебе вопрос.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I asked you about your work. - Я **спросил** тебя о твоей работе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19976" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="fdddd06c-df4b-4a46-af0b-fc17685594fc" CreationDate="2015-02-28T10:47:02.820" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1329,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;petajamaja&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="19977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="c6f21cf3-0260-460f-b3b9-69820faea163" CreationDate="2015-02-28T17:21:36.907" UserId="5125" Text="I can't find the meaning of the word 'эмалер' and the verb 'полистывать'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Виталий Петров (Праски ВИТТИ) обременен званиями, международными премиями и известностью среди многочисленных западных и немногочисленных российских **эмалеров**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think эмалер is derived from the German word Maler = painter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выпускник Мухинского училища никогда не был диссидентом, но журналы соцсодружества и происхождения далее Берлинской стены, как всякий уважающий себя артстудент, начал **полистывать** еще во время учебы в Чебоксарском художественном училище.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for your help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kind regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="c6f21cf3-0260-460f-b3b9-69820faea163" CreationDate="2015-02-28T17:21:36.907" UserId="5125" Text="Meaning of эмалер and полистывать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="c6f21cf3-0260-460f-b3b9-69820faea163" CreationDate="2015-02-28T17:21:36.907" UserId="5125" Text="|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="4c27d653-989c-41e3-80f4-573926bc93cc" CreationDate="2015-02-28T18:42:24.590" UserId="2388" Text="There is a typo here, it should be &quot;среди немногочисленных... **эмальеров**&quot; from &quot;эмальер&quot;. It somes from *эмаль*, which is &quot;enamel&quot;. So the work mentioned here is actually about making enameled objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**полистывать** — from &quot;листать&quot; (to flip through pages). Such a construction sometimes makes a more cozy coloquial verb &quot;to leisurely do the action once in a while, occasionally and without much work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for German &quot;Maler&quot;, Russian «маляр» comes from it. But it means a construction worker who does painting (like, painting walls of a builiding)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8272" RevisionGUID="9af1fe06-4349-419d-9dc6-3dd43b43f42b" CreationDate="2015-02-28T18:43:44.053" UserId="4560" Text="No, `эмальер` (a word I wasn't aware of, and hence missed the typo; see Shady_arc's answer) is from `эмаль`, [enamel][1]. &lt;i&gt;Maler&lt;/i&gt; has entered Russian via Polish as `маляр`, and only means a non-artistic painter (one that paints fences, walls, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To `полистывать` is to occasionally `листать`. `По-`+root+`-ыва-` expresses irregularly repeated action, often with a suggestion of a leisurely attitude: `поглядывать` &quot;to glance from time to time&quot;; `помахивать хвостом` better describes the slow, one-wag-at-a-time action of a cat's tail as opposed to a dog’s more enthusiastic `махать хвостом`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitreous_enamel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8273" RevisionGUID="29ee4eaf-2313-4c32-aaaa-7224fc8474e6" CreationDate="2015-02-28T19:25:31.830" UserId="4560" Text="Известны ли, помимо `господарь`&gt;`государь`, еще случаи (до распространения аканья, разумеется), когда [о] сужалось в [у]? Может быть, также связанные с выпадением согласного?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8273" RevisionGUID="29ee4eaf-2313-4c32-aaaa-7224fc8474e6" CreationDate="2015-02-28T19:25:31.830" UserId="4560" Text="[о]&gt;[у] в &quot;господарь&quot;&gt;&quot;государь&quot; — единичный случай?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8273" RevisionGUID="29ee4eaf-2313-4c32-aaaa-7224fc8474e6" CreationDate="2015-02-28T19:25:31.830" UserId="4560" Text="|история-языка|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8274" RevisionGUID="bb40a47e-e1d7-48af-ac72-12188b65174c" CreationDate="2015-03-01T01:22:10.007" UserId="5127" Text="The easiest thing is to use on screen keyboard. It is located in Accessibility in Windows XP. But first you need to add a Russian keyboard via Regional and Languages and also add a shortcut to switch between languages. Then go to Accessibility &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/accessibility_options_installs.mspx?mfr=true&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And choose on screen keyboard. It will show you Russian characters, so its easy to type. No need to stick labels on your actual keyboard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8266" RevisionGUID="642d57d1-cbf0-4ba4-9d49-f79fa85a17e6" CreationDate="2015-03-01T03:26:43.943" UserId="115" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Спрашивать is to ask **about** something, or to inquire. Просить is to ask **for** something, or to ask somebody to do something, or to request. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it gets worse, because it would be wrong to translate &quot;to ask a question&quot; as &quot;спрашивать вопрос&quot;. The correct form is &quot;задавать вопрос&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I asked you a question. - Я **задал** тебе вопрос.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I asked you about your work. - Я **спросил** тебя о твоей работе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="2b879a03-d646-4f7f-8de9-535d6534ce18" CreationDate="2015-03-01T05:45:05.353" UserId="62" Text="In English, one way to respond to a question where the answer is obviously yes is to ask back &quot;Is the Pope Catholic?&quot; Is there a Russian analogue, i.e., a conventional question-as-reply for which the answer is clearly affirmative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="2b879a03-d646-4f7f-8de9-535d6534ce18" CreationDate="2015-03-01T05:45:05.353" UserId="62" Text="Analogue of &quot;Is the Pope Catholic?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="2b879a03-d646-4f7f-8de9-535d6534ce18" CreationDate="2015-03-01T05:45:05.353" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="27c887bc-31fc-428e-9d60-1956a51d2484" CreationDate="2015-03-01T07:21:11.087" UserId="5008" Text="Usually something like &quot;А как ты думаешь?&quot; (And how do you think?) with a slight accent pointing that the speaking person actually wonders how _else_ one can think on such simple question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you mean, if there are more mocking ways to answer some stupid questions, I should say, it depends. Yet not in a question-as-reply form. For example, teenager-like &quot;Ясен пень!&quot; (Clear stump!) or Odessa-like &quot;Или&quot; (Or)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="edc5d1b0-b0b5-4c16-bfca-0ac30f1fd74d" CreationDate="2015-03-01T07:26:11.467" UserId="5008" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Usually something like &quot;А как ты думаешь?&quot; (And how do you think?) with a slight accent pointing that the speaking person actually wonders how _else_ one can think on such simple question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you mean, if there are more mocking ways to answer some stupid questions, I should say, it depends. But, anyway, in a strictly affirmative form, not in a question-as-reply one. For example, teenager-like slang &quot;Ясен пень!&quot; (Clear stump!) or Odessa-like &quot;Или&quot; (Or)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8278" RevisionGUID="58e40768-a36f-4f40-9868-0262048c268a" CreationDate="2015-03-01T07:34:33.463" UserId="2372" Text="В домашнем задании попросили привести примеры идиом, свзяанных с едой. Вспомнилось следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ест так, что за ушами свистит&#xD;&#xA; - Ну ты и фрукт&#xD;&#xA; - Съесть вместе пуд соли&#xD;&#xA; - Он на этом собаку съел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) являются ли эти примеры идиомами и б) какие еще могут быть примеры подобных идиом?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8278" RevisionGUID="58e40768-a36f-4f40-9868-0262048c268a" CreationDate="2015-03-01T07:34:33.463" UserId="2372" Text="Идиомы, связанные с едой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8278" RevisionGUID="58e40768-a36f-4f40-9868-0262048c268a" CreationDate="2015-03-01T07:34:33.463" UserId="2372" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="77a2ba8b-d084-47b3-bfdc-cebc43c53747" CreationDate="2015-03-01T08:44:57.333" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;За ушами _трещит_&quot;, а не &quot;_свистит_&quot; (во всяком случае, лично я вторую форму никогда не встречал).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идиомами вроде бы называются только неделимые сочетания, т.е. &quot;собаку съесть&quot;, а не &quot;он на этом собаку съел&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры навскидку: птичье молоко; молочные реки и кисельные берега." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="d729c93c-f2c0-43e7-841d-e71ec8cf9d23" CreationDate="2015-03-01T08:50:00.203" UserId="5008" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="&quot;За ушами _трещит_&quot;, а не &quot;_свистит_&quot; (во всяком случае, лично я вторую форму никогда не встречал).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идиомами вроде бы называются только неделимые сочетания, т.е. &quot;собаку съесть&quot;, а не &quot;он на этом собаку съел&quot;. Соответственно, в предыдущем примере &quot;фрукт&quot; - это не идиома, а другое (переносное) значение слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры навскидку: птичье молоко; молочные реки и кисельные берега." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8280" RevisionGUID="edef3eec-e911-45d2-9c9d-6943dd36f487" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:17:19.137" UserId="4482" Text="I can't find wether the word &quot;нежно&quot; is used for feelings/behaviour (: for ex. _she's tender with her children_, or _he's a tender husband_) or for materials (: for ex. _some tender butter_)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8280" RevisionGUID="edef3eec-e911-45d2-9c9d-6943dd36f487" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:17:19.137" UserId="4482" Text="Is &quot;нежно&quot; used for feelings/behaviour, or for materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8280" RevisionGUID="edef3eec-e911-45d2-9c9d-6943dd36f487" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:17:19.137" UserId="4482" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8281" RevisionGUID="aa6c96a2-4620-4d71-95e9-995d9340da08" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:18:20.753" UserId="2079" Text="Ещё как!  (Ещё какой, ещё какие etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Твой кот - хулиган?&#xD;&#xA;    - Ещё какой!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8282" RevisionGUID="fa78aab2-8a5e-4f08-beaf-c0828e7fe4c1" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:19:27.610" UserId="4833" Text="Идиома - это фраза, чье значение не сводится напрямую к значениям её составных частей. &#xA;Соответственно, вопрос можно понимать двояко. С едой может быть связано &quot;новое&quot; значение идиомы:&#xA;&#xA;* заморить червячка&#xA;&#xA;Или исходное значение составляющих идиому слов:&#xA;&#xA;* искать клубничку&#xA;* испить чашу&#xA;* не солона хлебавши&#xA;* не по зубам&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8283" RevisionGUID="e2d83c30-a9ec-4f91-85de-d376afffafcd" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:23:52.167" UserId="2079" Text="* иметь свой кусок хлеба (с маслом)&#xD;&#xA;* кусок в горло не лезет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8282" RevisionGUID="e85a5d70-684e-43c1-85a2-53d20c9800ce" CreationDate="2015-03-01T11:24:52.127" UserId="2079" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Идиома - это фраза, чье значение не сводится напрямую к значениям её составных частей. &#xD;&#xA;Соответственно, вопрос можно понимать двояко. С едой может быть связано &quot;новое&quot; значение идиомы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* заморить червячка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или исходное значение составляющих идиому слов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* искать клубничку&#xD;&#xA;* испить чашу&#xD;&#xA;* не солоно хлебавши (несолоно хлебавши)&#xD;&#xA;* не по зубам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8285" RevisionGUID="602376ef-6f2d-4215-b13c-f54b14d4c16d" CreationDate="2015-03-01T12:14:54.293" UserId="5" Text="Искусство - это часть культуры. Культура - более общее понятие. Говорить &quot;культура и искусство&quot; тоже самое что &quot;человек и ноги&quot;. Является ли это нормой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8285" RevisionGUID="602376ef-6f2d-4215-b13c-f54b14d4c16d" CreationDate="2015-03-01T12:14:54.293" UserId="5" Text="Почему &quot;культура и искусство&quot; в одной фразе как равные?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8285" RevisionGUID="602376ef-6f2d-4215-b13c-f54b14d4c16d" CreationDate="2015-03-01T12:14:54.293" UserId="5" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="a84668ef-570e-4c31-bc49-6d21ab0cf5d7" CreationDate="2015-03-01T13:14:01.383" UserId="5" Text="One could also say: &quot;Вы знаете, я ничего не понял из того что вы сказали, наверное потому что я не в совершенстве знаю русского языка.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8288" RevisionGUID="f349b8e2-cf88-4574-9d04-3ab190d6275b" CreationDate="2015-03-01T13:37:28.863" UserId="4481" Text="Yes, `нежно` is for behavior and feelings. Also you can use it for describing food: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нежный вкус (delicate flavour)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For materials use words `мягкий` (adjective) and `мягко` (adverb).  &#xD;&#xA;Rarely the word `нежно` could be used for materials in advertising." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="70a514e9-3680-4374-9870-6064f3b951a9" CreationDate="2015-03-01T13:55:55.903" UserId="5008" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="&quot;За ушами _трещит_&quot;, а не &quot;_свистит_&quot; (во всяком случае, лично я вторую форму никогда не встречал).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идиомами вроде бы называются только неделимые сочетания, т.е. &quot;собаку съесть&quot;, а не &quot;он на этом собаку съел&quot;. Соответственно, в предыдущем примере &quot;фрукт&quot; - это не идиома, а другое (переносное) значение слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры навскидку: птичье молоко; молочные реки и кисельные берега.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Как мёдом намазано, как сыр в масле кататься." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8289" RevisionGUID="32f9a3e7-0049-4321-8a2d-cece54e1ce20" CreationDate="2015-03-01T14:20:14.203" UserId="5008" Text="Лично я воспринимаю это (неуклюжее) выражение, как антитезу понятию &quot;наука&quot; (и, прежде всего, естественным наукам), так как употребляют его обыкновенно в крайне широком, неопределённом смысле, но именно естественные науки (часть культуры!) не входят в него никогда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А что поделать? Некоторые люди прямо-таки бравируют своей невежественностью в математике, физике, химии и пр., но при этом категорически не желают признавать себя малокультурными. Будто бы не про них сказано: негеометр да не войдёт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8290" RevisionGUID="52955834-daac-460d-adc1-78716a9cbed7" CreationDate="2015-03-01T15:09:01.527" UserId="5130" Text="I agree with the Alexandra Soroca's answer, this is a standard polite form. To make any ordinaly sentence polite you would usually just add polite words as in извините, простите, будьте любезны, пожалуйста и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But never use Я не умею говорить по русски in modern Russia, many people think it's wrong and will try to correct you. It's a living language and what was a norm 40 years ago may not be true today. The thing is that in the past 20 years or so the form - Я не умею говорить на каком то языке became archaic. There is a trend in separating Уметь and Знать. Уметь is mostly applied to manual, skilled labour fields whereas Знать is becoming more associated with intellectual fields. Я не уметь готовить; Я не умею строить дома и т.д. Even though it is perfectly ok to say Я не умею решать задачи по физике more common form is becoming Я не знаю как решать задачи по физике. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you are interested in different forms of politeness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A super polite form, which is almost unheard of in Russia for the exception may be St Petersburg would be Простите меня пожалуйста, но я не говорю по русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A standard polite form - Извините, я не говорю по русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A regular, neutral form - Я не говорю по русски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. A neutral, somewhat rude form - Shrug your shoulders. As a foreigner you will be excused, if you don't speak the language how can you say I don't speak the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rude forms - Отстань от меня, я не говорю по русски. Что ты ко мне пристал(а), я не говорю по русски, неужели по мне не видно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Super rude, offensive forms - Катись-ка ты к чертовой матери, не говорю я по русски. Иди на ***, не говорю я по русски, в пятый раз повторяю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:) Add your own versions of polite and rude forms in comments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8291" RevisionGUID="2ff9dc7f-c123-440c-a34a-396df3989a86" CreationDate="2015-03-01T16:28:08.003" UserId="5127" Text="Да, является нормой. Это устоявшееся выражение. Если сказать искусство, то это относителльно узкое понятие, а если культура, то это слово очень общее, к тому же имеет не один смысл. Мне кажется когда говорят &quot;культура и искусство&quot;, то этим хотят объять не только искусство, но и другие понятия и ценности близкие к искусству, это выражение очень близко к понятию &quot;культурное наследие&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8293" RevisionGUID="d4a5f3c4-f324-4da5-bbe6-490f5b27cc4c" CreationDate="2015-03-01T16:38:58.653" UserId="5130" Text="Если сравнивать с английским, то мне кажется....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;чай долго остывал - it took long for tea to cool down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;чай долго не остывал - tea stayed hot for a long time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8294" RevisionGUID="38881c5b-9423-4a16-8265-302f1d6825f9" CreationDate="2015-03-01T16:47:25.253" UserId="5130" Text="I agree with the previous answer, it is used primarily to describe an attitude and personal traits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rarely you would use it for materials things, but not uncommon e.g. нежная одежда, нежная еда, but in these cases нежный is used primarily to say that these are lightweight clothes and delicacy although it can also denote soft clothes, but they still have to be lightweight and pretty like for example lace. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8296" RevisionGUID="9dd655a4-9e06-4688-b0d8-bc77de52dfe2" CreationDate="2015-03-01T21:04:24.283" UserId="134" Text="One I can think of right away is *муравей &lt; моровей &lt; &amp;#42;морвии*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chernykh considers both words (*муравей* and *государь*) to be results of folk etymology rather than phonetic development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="ab9fbc26-184e-4dc8-8bb2-5670f08b66dc" CreationDate="2015-03-01T22:03:43.497" UserId="62" Comment="added 336 characters in body" Text="In English, one way to respond to a question where the answer is obviously yes is to ask back &quot;Is the Pope Catholic?&quot; What is a Russian analogue, i.e., a *conventional* question-as-reply for which the answer is clearly affirmative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good answer to this question should work, for instance, in both of the following situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Replying to &quot;I saw Ivan on the bus to the airport. Is he traveling somewhere?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You are a chemist and someone says to you &quot;There is a username on chemistry.stackexchange that is your first initial and last name. Is that you?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20032" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8261" RevisionGUID="d03797cd-5c44-4980-b2a7-e0c5a6a622c8" CreationDate="2015-03-02T00:19:04.147" UserId="242" Comment="48" />
  <row Id="20034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8297" RevisionGUID="76bd9d21-927d-450c-b4a1-cf50e7a56177" CreationDate="2015-03-02T02:31:36.820" UserId="3566" Text="A good answer to your both cases could also be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что за вопрос?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can mean &quot;Absolutely! You shoudn't have been asked&quot; or that the answer to a question you have just been asked is obviously 'yes'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8298" RevisionGUID="fcf2ae37-4917-4d06-847a-548ddfa7d619" CreationDate="2015-03-02T11:05:12.987" UserId="4600" Text="More or less neutral way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сам[а]-то как думаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're irritated by blatantly banal or unpleasant question, you could reply with a statement having opposite meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Как думаешь, в этом месяце опять задержат зарплату?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, блять, премию дадут! И ещё в жопу поцелуют! Ты продажи-то видел?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8299" RevisionGUID="ac4e919e-9bc2-43e3-b9d7-96b3fab3d802" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:34:27.707" UserId="4925" Text="This is fairly simple question, I know....but what exactly does бывать mean? Some say it means &quot;to be at&quot;, some say it means &quot; to happen&quot;???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8299" RevisionGUID="ac4e919e-9bc2-43e3-b9d7-96b3fab3d802" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:34:27.707" UserId="4925" Text="Бывать/побывать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8299" RevisionGUID="ac4e919e-9bc2-43e3-b9d7-96b3fab3d802" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:34:27.707" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8300" RevisionGUID="3f341490-2a26-4c70-8c9c-cb11cd8123cc" CreationDate="2015-03-02T13:59:36.463" UserId="4600" Text="I'd say `бывать` means `to happen` or `to happen to be at`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Летом здесь часто **бывают** дожди. - It rains often here in summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я никогда раньше **не бывал** в Москве. - I have never been to Moscow before.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="f19c8b82-93ea-4bc0-aceb-a017ace1e148" CreationDate="2015-03-02T16:24:53.973" UserId="4833" Text="The word «*бывать*» itself, without a preposition, cannot mean &quot;*to be **at***&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It usually means *&quot;to happen&quot;*, *&quot;to occur*&quot; or *&quot;to be (occasionally)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;However, it can be used with modifiers of place, so that the resulting phrase is translated as *&quot;to be at smth&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *«он бывает просто невыносим»*  - *&quot;sometimes he is just impossible&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *«этот праздник бывает нечасто»* - *&quot;this holiday does not occur often&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *«он бывает дома только ночью»* - *&quot;he is at home only by night&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="6aca6965-110d-4d8b-aad1-8eae85c02110" CreationDate="2015-03-02T22:27:05.040" UserId="5127" Comment="русского языка -&gt; русский язык" Text="One could also say: &quot;Вы знаете, я ничего не понял из того что вы сказали, наверное потому что я не в совершенстве знаю русский язык.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20042" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="6aca6965-110d-4d8b-aad1-8eae85c02110" CreationDate="2015-03-02T22:27:05.040" Comment="Proposed by 5127 approved by 2060, 4629 edit id of 601" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8302" RevisionGUID="54b6d110-b3ed-4654-9eef-8afa5eea39f0" CreationDate="2015-03-02T22:32:50.143" UserId="5139" Text="Or you can say &quot;Бывает&quot; by one word, what means &quot;It can happened&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8302" RevisionGUID="d5570b49-28f2-4017-9d6a-a87e7892cc6c" CreationDate="2015-03-03T01:57:27.857" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Or you can say &quot;Бывает&quot; by one word, what means &quot;It can happen&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="b25aa19c-bcc7-4147-90e6-84fb7c6e2db4" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:18:39.320" UserId="4630" Comment="it means &quot;be at&quot; without any preposition in your last example" Text="«*Бывать*»  usually means *&quot;to happen&quot;*, *&quot;to occur*&quot; or *&quot;to be (occasionally)&quot;*. However, it can be used with modifiers of place, so that the resulting phrase is translated as *&quot;to be at somewhere&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *«он бывает просто невыносим»*  - *&quot;sometimes he is just impossible&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *«этот праздник бывает нечасто»* - *&quot;this holiday does not occur often&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* *«он бывает дома только ночью»* - *&quot;he is at home only by night&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20047" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="b25aa19c-bcc7-4147-90e6-84fb7c6e2db4" CreationDate="2015-03-03T11:18:39.320" Comment="Proposed by 4630 approved by 4833 edit id of 603" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="9e64bb4a-9aa1-4fc7-a5f9-0438b136d568" CreationDate="2015-03-03T13:01:57.060" UserId="551" Comment="It was unclear that author wants to translate to Russian (not to English)." Text="When to translate the word &quot;ask&quot; to Russian as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Спрашивать** (like in &quot;asking a question&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Просить** (like in &quot;asking a favor&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to differentiate these cases? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20049" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="9e64bb4a-9aa1-4fc7-a5f9-0438b136d568" CreationDate="2015-03-03T13:01:57.060" UserId="551" Comment="It was unclear that author wants to translate to Russian (not to English)." Text="When should I use спрашивать and when просить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8291" RevisionGUID="1cb8838d-4058-4952-9d4d-05c1fee64ee0" CreationDate="2015-03-03T18:06:18.630" UserId="551" Comment="prettified link to be human-friendly" Text="Да, является нормой. Это устоявшееся выражение. Если сказать искусство, то это относителльно узкое понятие, а если культура, то это слово очень общее, к тому же имеет не один смысл. Мне кажется когда говорят &quot;культура и искусство&quot;, то этим хотят объять не только искусство, но и другие понятия и ценности близкие к искусству, это выражение очень близко к понятию [&quot;культурное наследие&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="ceebeb36-19b2-416b-a9b5-10aa4c649bae" CreationDate="2015-03-03T18:11:06.600" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I can't find the meaning of the word 'эмалер' and the verb 'полистывать'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Виталий Петров (Праски ВИТТИ) обременен званиями, международными премиями и известностью среди многочисленных западных и немногочисленных российских **эмалеров**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think эмалер is derived from the German word Maler = painter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпускник Мухинского училища никогда не был диссидентом, но журналы соцсодружества и происхождения далее Берлинской стены, как всякий уважающий себя артстудент, начал **полистывать** еще во время учебы в Чебоксарском художественном училище.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8245" RevisionGUID="5dd8a5ff-62ee-4d49-a5c1-3fb6e7217608" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:54:04.580" UserId="5142" Comment="correct spelling" Text="No, this is not an aspect, this is future tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb forms приду, буду etc cannot be used for present. They are just future forms. The present forms would be прихожу and есть respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The endings might look similar for foreigners, but native speakers clearly distinguish the future forms of the verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20055" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8245" RevisionGUID="5dd8a5ff-62ee-4d49-a5c1-3fb6e7217608" CreationDate="2015-03-03T19:54:04.580" Comment="Proposed by 5142 approved by 551, 2060 edit id of 604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20057" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8299" RevisionGUID="396a313b-12b1-4d5d-b343-3749c35f74e2" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:58:54.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/573180833290428416" />
  <row Id="20058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8303" RevisionGUID="926dce30-c9e5-4b1b-aaae-5148a4942d2f" CreationDate="2015-03-04T22:07:54.380" UserId="487" Text="An acquaintance told me that when I say *кроме того* she think she's hearing the news. Is there an alternative other than  [сверх того](http://www.lingvo-online.ru/en/Translate/en-ru/moreover)? Or is the latter cool enough? I suppose not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8303" RevisionGUID="926dce30-c9e5-4b1b-aaae-5148a4942d2f" CreationDate="2015-03-04T22:07:54.380" UserId="487" Text="How to say an informal &quot;кроме того&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8303" RevisionGUID="926dce30-c9e5-4b1b-aaae-5148a4942d2f" CreationDate="2015-03-04T22:07:54.380" UserId="487" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8304" RevisionGUID="7ddc25ce-09b0-434d-992b-ade87afb5760" CreationDate="2015-03-04T22:33:38.670" UserId="1236" Text="The most colloquial substitution for `кроме того` meaning 'and also' is `[а] ещё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ел пиццу, **кроме того** я пил пиво. = Я ел пиццу, **а ещё** я пил пиво.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравятся детективы, **кроме того** я люблю фантастику. = Мне нравятся детективы, **ещё** я люблю фантастику.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `[а] ещё` in this meaning can easily be substituted with a mere `и`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ел пиццу, **кроме того** я пил пиво. = Я ел пиццу **и** пил пиво.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кроме того` can also mean 'apart from' in the construction `Кроме того, что … , [так] … .`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кроме того**, что ты дурак, **[так]** ты ещё и лжец! – Apart from being a fool, you're also a lier!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be substituted by the colloquial construction `не только … , но и … .`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кроме того, что** ты дурак, **[так]** ты ещё и лжец! = Ты **не только** дурак, **но и** лжец!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20062" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8303" RevisionGUID="43f854e4-9020-424f-81ad-07c667e040ad" CreationDate="2015-03-04T22:44:58.970" UserId="1236" Comment="Tags added" Text="|выбор-слова|сленг|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8305" RevisionGUID="eb89c2d0-8fb6-47c9-abd8-78a8653cbff6" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:40:58.473" UserId="2372" Text="Тему прилагательных описывающих запахи и звуки в русском языке можно обсуждать бесконечно. Я сужу вопрос до трёх прилагательных:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сильный (запах)&#xD;&#xA; - Острый (запах)&#xD;&#xA; - Резкий (запах)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Одно ли это и тоже, или есть различия? Скажем, может запах быть острым, но не сильным? Или сильным но не острым? Также мы можем рассмотреть другие возможные пары (острый - резкий) и  (резкий - сильный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Словари русского языка в этом вопросе помогают слабо. Например, у Ожегова мы находим под заголовком &quot;острый&quot;: &quot;5. Сильно действующий на вкус или обоняние&quot;. Искать там слово &quot;сильный&quot; - просто бесполезно. Оно там есть, но категория запаха отдельно не выделена. Похожая ситуация и с другими словарями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С лингвистической точки зрения, слова описывающие запахи и звуки заметно различаются в разных языках и вызывают трудности при переводе. И тем не менее, давайте разберёмся в этом частном случае: три слова, один язык." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8305" RevisionGUID="eb89c2d0-8fb6-47c9-abd8-78a8653cbff6" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:40:58.473" UserId="2372" Text="Прилагательные, описывающие запахи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8305" RevisionGUID="eb89c2d0-8fb6-47c9-abd8-78a8653cbff6" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:40:58.473" UserId="2372" Text="|прилагательные|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8304" RevisionGUID="f944a6c6-df38-40f8-be34-030597712e9e" CreationDate="2015-03-05T10:39:14.740" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="The most colloquial substitution for `кроме того` meaning 'and also' is `[а] ещё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ел пиццу, **кроме того** я пил пиво. = Я ел пиццу, **а ещё** я пил пиво.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нравятся детективы, **кроме того** я люблю фантастику. = Мне нравятся детективы, **ещё** я люблю фантастику.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `[а] ещё` in this meaning can easily be substituted with a mere `и`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ел пиццу, **кроме того** я пил пиво. = Я ел пиццу **и** пил пиво.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кроме того` can also mean 'apart from' in the construction `Кроме того, что … , [так] … .`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кроме того**, что ты дурак, **[так]** ты ещё и лжец! – Apart from being a fool, you're also a liar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be substituted by the colloquial construction `не только … , но и … .`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кроме того, что** ты дурак, **[так]** ты ещё и лжец! = Ты **не только** дурак, **но и** лжец!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8306" RevisionGUID="4034763a-8704-4bd6-95fd-fd1aa10e89a6" CreationDate="2015-03-05T10:40:33.787" UserId="194" Text="Сильный запах - количественная характеристика, запах, отличающийся силой, амплитудой. Причем, относительно среднего, нормального, ожидаемого уровня того же запаха. Например, &quot;в квартире стоял сильный запах газа&quot;. При этом сам запах мог быть едва уловимым, но поскольку запах газа в квартире вообще не ожидается, его можно назвать &quot;сильным&quot;. При этом подчеркивается именно уровень запаха, а не его качественные особенности. Сильный запах может быть приятным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резкий запах - качественная характеристика. Запах, отличающийся от других запахов, привлекающий внимание, выделяющийся, часто неприятный. Например, у фекалий, у чеснока резкий запах, всегда. Можно сказать &quot;у моей кошки резкий запах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Острый запах - я бы сказал, то же самое, что и резкий, но связанный с опасностью, настораживающий. Например, нельзя сказать, что у кошки острый запах. А вот острый запах гари вполне может быть.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8306" RevisionGUID="16e1b3a3-5108-4d55-a8eb-57ffda351abb" CreationDate="2015-03-05T10:45:42.633" UserId="194" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Сильный запах - количественная характеристика, запах, отличающийся силой, амплитудой. Причем, относительно среднего, нормального, ожидаемого уровня того же запаха. Например, &quot;в квартире стоял сильный запах газа&quot;. При этом сам запах мог быть едва уловимым, но поскольку запах газа в квартире вообще не ожидается, его можно назвать &quot;сильным&quot;, так как запах газа свидетельствует о его большой концентрации. При этом подчеркивается именно уровень запаха, а не его качественные особенности. Сильный запах может быть приятным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резкий запах - качественная характеристика. Запах, отличающийся от других запахов, привлекающий внимание, выделяющийся, часто неприятный. Например, у фекалий, у чеснока резкий запах, всегда. Можно сказать &quot;у моей кошки резкий запах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Острый запах - я бы сказал, то же самое, что и резкий, но связанный с опасностью, настораживающий. Например, нельзя сказать, что у кошки острый запах. А вот острый запах гари вполне может быть.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8307" RevisionGUID="46409005-29a1-4aaf-bb19-41d178412e68" CreationDate="2015-03-05T13:45:05.107" UserId="1236" Text="Перефразируя известное высказывание Фрэнка Заппы о разговорах про музыку, можно сказать, что и говорить о запахах — это всё равно что танцевать об архитектуре. Запахи называются по объекту или веществу их издающему, а все прилагательные, описывающие запахи, являются сугубо субъективными, один и тот же запах может одному человеку казаться родным и вызывающим тёплые воспоминания о детстве, другому же он может казаться неприятным и настораживающим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт сильного запаха я согласен с [Anixx][1], но вот что резкий запах часто неприятный, с этим можно поспорить, не говоря уже о том, что кошки вообще-то не пахнут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из лесу струёй бил **резкий запах** тающего снега, прелых листьев. [Юрий Коваль. Лесник Булыга (1985)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, это какой-то особый, более **резкий запах**, но он настолько приятный и раздражающий, что возле булочной слюна наполняет рот. [Полина Барскова. Черный свет: проблема темноты в блокадном Ленинграде // «Неприкосновенный запас», 2010][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночью **резкий запах моря** добивал далеко вглубь земли, утром я нырял в маске, летал над песочными полями… [Александр Терехов. Каменный мост (1997-2008)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Странный **резкий запах** идет от него ― смолистый, густой, веселый, ошеломительный запах-дурман. [Дина Рубина. На солнечной стороне улицы (1980-2006)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резкий – это такой, который режет, вызывает сильные чувства, а уж какими эти чувства могут быть, тут всё зависит от того, кто этот запах воспринимает (слышит? чует?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Острый запах не обязательно связан с опасностью, не всегда настораживающий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В доме поселился непривычный **острый запах младенца**. [Михаил Шишкин. Всех ожидает одна ночь (1993-2003)][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или: «Иду лесом к речке ― **острый запах земляники**: метрах в десяти (свидетельство вашего звериного обоняния) за кочкой поляна ― вот такие ягоды, как лаком облитые, ослепительные. [Анатолий Найман, Галина Наринская. Процесс еды и беседы. 100 кулинарных и интеллектуальных рецептов // «Октябрь», 2003][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, в большинстве случаев (не буду приводить [цитаты][8]) острым называют запах ассоциирующийся с кислым или солёным вкусом – запах пота, дыма, сгоревшего пороха, летучих веществ – лаков, красок, аммиака, бензина, лекарств.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И ещё раз хотел бы сказать, всё, связанное с запахами, глубоко субъективно. Возможно, у дегустаторов есть специальная терминология для описания запахов, но в обычной речи и в художественной литературе один и тот же запах могут описывать совершенно разными прилагательными, часто диаметрально противоположными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/194/anixx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=84598&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=45210&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=20985&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;p=1&amp;docid=20743&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CE%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;p=1&amp;docid=20822&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CE%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=46366&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CE%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="84b8901b-7e39-4548-af69-cf60ad60e044" CreationDate="2015-03-05T16:22:24.040" UserId="4702" Text="What might be the best or easiest constructed language to learn to help me learning Russian, and why? I have this suspicion that learning another related language can help me understand the Russian mindset better. Also, the cases are a major thing for my Western mind to get used to. What are your thoughts on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="84b8901b-7e39-4548-af69-cf60ad60e044" CreationDate="2015-03-05T16:22:24.040" UserId="4702" Text="Best Conlang for helping with Russian learning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="84b8901b-7e39-4548-af69-cf60ad60e044" CreationDate="2015-03-05T16:22:24.040" UserId="4702" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="a6a4585b-f7b8-48e0-92f9-61c490e4c7f7" CreationDate="2015-03-05T17:22:40.483" UserId="4702" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="What might be the best or easiest constructed language to learn to help me learn Russian, and why? I have this suspicion that learning another related language can help me understand the Russian mindset better. Also, the cases are a major thing for me to get used to. What are your thoughts on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8310" RevisionGUID="4b8ce70f-4f2c-4549-aa4e-9414802a1710" CreationDate="2015-03-05T19:24:35.163" UserId="4884" Text="I would suggest Bulgarian. First, it is another Slavic language and it uses Cyrillic script. Second, the Old (Church) Slavonic language influenced Russian a lot, and it is very close to Bulgarian, since they both are South Slavic languages. It would be very helpful (in terms of vocabulary, morphology and spelling) to learn the similarities and differences between Russian and Bulgarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about cases. In Russian, cases do the job that prepositions in English do. Cases indicate relations between words. For example, Genitive case establishes, among some others, possessive relations, similar to the English preposition &quot;of&quot;. Dative indicates direction of an action (not only, but mainly this): to. Accusative is for direct object (I saw her, her in English is in Accusative as well). Instrumental is basically for by/with relations. And prepositional for &quot;about/of&quot;. This is a very simplified version of the Russian case system, but I hope it may help you to grasp the idea. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8311" RevisionGUID="9fdf44d4-2fe1-4597-8ed2-422b517f8cbe" CreationDate="2015-03-05T21:23:40.443" UserId="1632" Text="I think I've heard people sometimes use the expression &quot;сарафанное радио&quot; as a synonym for viral marketing -- though I think the expression predates viral marketing (and originally meant something closer to &quot;hearsay&quot; or &quot;word of mouth&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8312" RevisionGUID="2b859f96-c292-49ee-873b-a8dca6ad8664" CreationDate="2015-03-06T04:30:56.820" UserId="5151" Text="тока = is translating as = just, (right now), for the record guys, I'm russian )) = middle type smile)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="b60818f4-1e85-46e9-85f9-677210cfd918" CreationDate="2015-03-06T05:02:29.170" UserId="4702" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="What might be the best or easiest constructed language to learn to help me learn Russian, and why? I have this suspicion that learning another related language can help me understand the Russian mindset better. Also, the cases are a major thing for me to get used to. What are your thoughts on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a night's sleep, I think what's going to help me a lot is if I can construct a language that's a cross between my native language and Russian, or even an English-Russian pidgin that uses the English vocabulary with &quot;latinized&quot; Russian conjugations and declensions. That could also be a lot of fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8313" RevisionGUID="6b63501e-c98b-4866-afeb-1db5f8e6e817" CreationDate="2015-03-06T08:31:37.060" UserId="5153" Text="When to use one or the other, and in wich context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8313" RevisionGUID="6b63501e-c98b-4866-afeb-1db5f8e6e817" CreationDate="2015-03-06T08:31:37.060" UserId="5153" Text="Difference between грусть, печаль, тоска?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8313" RevisionGUID="6b63501e-c98b-4866-afeb-1db5f8e6e817" CreationDate="2015-03-06T08:31:37.060" UserId="5153" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8314" RevisionGUID="2f1c59c3-cf72-4a1f-aeb4-07e014e1c4bd" CreationDate="2015-03-06T09:33:32.373" UserId="5008" Text="Although the dictionaries can write about some minor differencies, all these words are very close synonyms. Consider the following excerpts from Pushkin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Князь печально отвечает:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Грусть-тоска меня съедает...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне грустно и легко; печаль моя светла;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Печаль моя полна тобою&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion грусть is indefinite, печаль - some bad feeling implied by objective circumstances (from печа = care), and тоска - feeling lonely, missing for smth. Although the dictionaries seem to insist on another meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8315" RevisionGUID="4200e872-dca9-4de8-af0c-2c6c4bde187a" CreationDate="2015-03-06T09:39:55.207" UserId="4630" Text="Let's broaden your set of dark and depressive feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Грусть** ≈ sadness. The shortest and the lightest of all the three. May be caused by gray sky or a sad film/song/book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне грустно от этой книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Серое осеннее небо навеяло на него грусть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тоска** ≈ melancholy, depression. May be caused by a separation with close person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тоскую по любимой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его съедала тоска по родине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уныние** ≈ despondency, dejection, melancholy. Can be result of *грусть*,*тоска*,*печаль*. Characterized by ultimate lack of motivation. May be caused or result in apathy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не впадай в уныние - все еще можно исправить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Печаль** ≈ grief, sorrow. Somewhere between *грусть*,*тоска*,*уныние*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Печально видеть результаты ваших ссор. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Скорбь** ≈ sorrow, grief. Can only be caused by a loss of a close person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он был удивительно светлым человеком, я скорблю вместе с вами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8315" RevisionGUID="3862b0fd-09b1-4606-abf1-6f43516ba758" CreationDate="2015-03-06T10:21:52.277" UserId="4630" Comment="small correction, added hyperlinks" Text="Let's broaden your set of dark and depressive feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Грусть][1]** ≈ sadness. The shortest and the lightest. May be caused by bad weather or a sad film/song/book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне грустно от этой книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Серое осеннее небо навеяло на него грусть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Тоска][2]** ≈ melancholy, depression. May be caused by a separation with someone or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тоскую по любимой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его съедала тоска по родине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Уныние][3]** ≈ despondency, dejection, melancholy. Can be result of *грусть*,*тоска*,*печаль*. Characterized by ultimate lack of motivation. May be caused or result in apathy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не впадай в уныние - все еще можно исправить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хватит унывать - начни что-нибудь менять!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Печаль][4]** ≈ grief, sorrow. Somewhere between *грусть*,*тоска*,*уныние*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Печально видеть результаты ваших ссор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он бы опечален грустной вестью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Скорбь][5]** ≈ sorrow, grief. Can only be caused by a loss of a close person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он был удивительно светлым человеком, я скорблю вместе с вами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8315" RevisionGUID="e118f8fa-ecf1-4a01-8e32-c33fb2978688" CreationDate="2015-03-06T10:40:01.610" UserId="4630" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Let's broaden your set of dark and depressive feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Грусть][1]** ≈ sadness. The shortest and the lightest. May be caused by bad weather or a sad film/song/book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне грустно от этой книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Серое осеннее небо навеяло на него грусть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Тоска][2]** ≈ melancholy, depression. May be caused by a separation with someone or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тоскую по любимой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его съедала тоска по родине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Уныние][3]** ≈ despondency, dejection, melancholy. Can be result of *грусть*,*тоска*,*печаль*. Characterized by ultimate lack of motivation. May be caused or result in apathy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не впадай в уныние - все еще можно исправить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хватит унывать - начни что-нибудь менять!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Печаль][4]** ≈ grief, sorrow. Somewhere between *грусть*,*тоска*,*уныние*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Печально видеть результаты ваших ссор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он бы опечален грустной вестью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Скорбь][5]** ≈ sorrow, grief. In most cases is caused by a loss of a close person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он был удивительно светлым человеком, я скорблю вместе с вами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20086" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="8c2f0b73-5442-42b0-8bd4-94a89f9fd63c" CreationDate="2015-03-06T15:11:38.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/573863514831482880" />
  <row Id="20087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8316" RevisionGUID="b81d1d38-046c-4e86-bb3e-b4d487cb2e60" CreationDate="2015-03-06T21:27:39.900" UserId="4785" Text="* на хлеб (в контексте &quot;зарабатывать на хлеб&quot;, иногда чуть иронично - &quot;на хлеб с маслом&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* как не в себя (ест как не в себя)&#xD;&#xA;* чёрным по красному (подразумевается чёрной икрой по красной - означает высшую степень достатка)&#xD;&#xA;* порубить в капусту (мелко нарезать, чаще всего оппонентов)&#xD;&#xA;* сытый голодного не разумеет (не понимает)&#xD;&#xA;* кашу маслом не испортишь&#xD;&#xA;* каши просит (прохудилось, разорвалось - в отношении обуви)&#xD;&#xA;* нажраться в хлам (сильное алкогольное опьянение)&#xD;&#xA;* хлеб с солью (встречать с хлебом-солью)&#xD;&#xA;* когда я ем я глух и нем (не говорить во время еды)&#xD;&#xA;* чепуха на постном масле&#xD;&#xA;* кормить завтраками &#xD;&#xA;* на убой (кормить как на убой - то есть до объедения)&#xD;&#xA;* пальчики оближешь (вкусно)&#xD;&#xA;* масло масленное (повтор, тавтология)&#xD;&#xA;* горе луковое (не настоящая проблема)&#xD;&#xA;* как мёдом намазано (очень сильно кого-то притягивает - обычно неодобрительно)&#xD;&#xA;* не первой свежести (протухшее)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20089" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8313" RevisionGUID="b8ce3a14-2a70-469a-b5ac-1a011d0b5477" CreationDate="2015-03-07T12:11:52.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/574180661059325952" />
  <row Id="20093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8318" RevisionGUID="ef4514d8-7ac4-437c-a9ef-26c47bcc1b20" CreationDate="2015-03-09T19:37:50.913" UserId="348" Text="For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Cannot add comments to this post; site is read-only&quot; &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;This post has been deleted; deleted posts can't be voted on&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    «Сайт в режиме только для чтения — добавление комментариев невозможно»&#xD;&#xA;    «Сообщение удалено — голосование за удалённые сообщения невозможно»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it look right to you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8318" RevisionGUID="ef4514d8-7ac4-437c-a9ef-26c47bcc1b20" CreationDate="2015-03-09T19:37:50.913" UserId="348" Text="Is it common to use em-dash to translate English sentences with a semicolon to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8318" RevisionGUID="ef4514d8-7ac4-437c-a9ef-26c47bcc1b20" CreationDate="2015-03-09T19:37:50.913" UserId="348" Text="|перевод|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8319" RevisionGUID="a469ff75-65cb-49aa-b263-e5b6004be7f0" CreationDate="2015-03-09T20:51:07.357" UserId="1958" Text="Yes, here it looks correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тире ставится между предложениями, не соединёнными посредством союзов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; если второе предложение заключает в себе результат или вывод из того,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о чём говорится в первом, например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Хвалы приманчивы — как их не пожелать? (Крылов).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Солнце взошло — начинается день (Некрасов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semicolon is not very popular mark in Russian, avoiding it is generally a right way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="0d087b8d-062e-468e-8778-008ce5f852cf" CreationDate="2015-03-09T21:20:51.660" UserId="1958" Text="Rules for semicolon in Russian language are quite complicated, but generally are: use semicolon instead of comma when you have too many commas in your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case there are no commas, so no need to use semicolon (from Russian point of view)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="82d359ad-b646-4e7a-bf35-1d5c2ca7ae72" CreationDate="2015-03-10T04:39:29.400" UserId="179" Text="as far as I know, one need to use a colon in the first sentence instead of a dash, because a colon is used if the second part of a complex sentence has some explanation or reason for what is said in the first part. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cannot add comments to this post (some fact)&#xD;&#xA;    site is read-only (reason for the fact from the first part)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Добавление комментариев невозможно: сайт в режиме только для чтения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example you swapped parts in the translation, so it is correct to use a dash there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сайт в режиме только для чтения — добавление комментариев невозможно&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used this reference [4-5plus.ru][1], (clause 3.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2. Если вторая часть указывает на основание, причину того, о чем говорится в первой части (между частями можно вставить потому что):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всю дорогу до хутора молчали: говорить мешала тряская езда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://4-5plus.ru/teorija/189-tirebdvoetochie.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="f4a989c1-5fee-46d0-9f5e-7c485b1c8726" CreationDate="2015-03-10T04:50:17.700" UserId="179" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="as far as I know, one need to use a colon in the first sentence instead of a dash, because a colon is used if the second part of a complex sentence has some explanation or reason for what is said in the first part. So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cannot add comments to this post (some fact)&#xD;&#xA;    site is read-only (reason for the fact from the first part)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Добавление комментариев невозможно: сайт в режиме только для чтения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example you swapped parts in the translation, so it is correct to use a dash there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сайт в режиме только для чтения — добавление комментариев невозможно&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used this reference [4-5plus.ru][1], (clause 3.2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.2. Если вторая часть указывает на основание, причину того, о чем говорится в первой части (между частями можно вставить потому что):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всю дорогу до хутора молчали: говорить мешала тряская езда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*3.2. if the second part points to basement, foundation, reason for what is said in the first part*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Всю дорогу до хутора молчали: говорить мешала тряская езда.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*All the way to a hamlet was silent: a bumpy way prevented a talk*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://4-5plus.ru/teorija/189-tirebdvoetochie.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8324" RevisionGUID="1e909eec-d606-44f4-a316-73194d474085" CreationDate="2015-03-10T05:02:30.413" UserId="194" Text="For your examples, especially the second one I definitely would use just a comma. Dash does not look correct here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8298" RevisionGUID="18be05b1-777c-4f6e-8484-c610ed08b4e4" CreationDate="2015-03-10T09:13:01.483" UserId="4600" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="More or less neutral way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сам[а]-то как думаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're irritated by blatantly banal or unpleasant question, you could reply with a statement having opposite meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Как думаешь, в этом месяце опять задержат зарплату?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, блять, премию дадут! Ты продажи-то видел?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Will the salary get delayed again this month, what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Delayed?! No, you'll get a fucking bonus! Have you seen the sales?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course, nobody expects the salary to be paid in time, let alone the bonus)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20108" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="e9b92844-36d1-4619-a8bc-749c7be1351b" CreationDate="2015-03-10T19:23:11.677" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1211],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="20109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="55ac60e3-8ebe-4183-b02d-e5208ea18b22" CreationDate="2015-03-10T21:19:55.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/575405749519695872" />
  <row Id="20110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1605" RevisionGUID="8e72f2db-b6c4-4a89-8d75-7243dd5309de" CreationDate="2015-03-11T09:20:31.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/575587093772156929" />
  <row Id="20111" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="619ee206-7468-4d0a-b9a1-dca65a5823f7" CreationDate="2015-03-11T09:53:33.623" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8326" RevisionGUID="95bee90e-3ec1-4181-af0e-cee7f42b3753" CreationDate="2015-03-12T12:30:48.467" UserId="1836" Text="I'm not sure, but I think, neuter form of verb in cases like this are used for something like passive voice. Compare following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пашу всю дорогу тошнило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Паша всю дорогу читал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один из моторов заело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один из моторов сломался&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="0a502549-e613-4425-b605-ce532a142226" CreationDate="2015-03-12T16:51:27.243" UserId="4481" Text="В Викисловаре [пишут][1], что слово происходит от древнерусского `обитати`. Я недавно начал учить французский, там есть похожее слово - `habiter`, которое, в свою очередь, происходит от [латинского][2] слова `habitō`. Имеют ли эти слова какие-то более древние общие корни?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habiter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="0a502549-e613-4425-b605-ce532a142226" CreationDate="2015-03-12T16:51:27.243" UserId="4481" Text="Этимология слова &quot;обитать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="0a502549-e613-4425-b605-ce532a142226" CreationDate="2015-03-12T16:51:27.243" UserId="4481" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="64c373e0-5339-49b8-bc00-2a3f06a9c0b0" CreationDate="2015-03-12T17:00:48.410" UserId="4481" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="В Викисловаре [пишут][1], что слово происходит от древнерусского `обитати`. Я недавно начал учить французский, там есть похожее слово с таким же значением - `habiter` (жить, обитать), которое, в свою очередь, происходит от [латинского][2] слова `habitō`. Имеют ли эти слова какие-то более древние общие корни?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habiter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8328" RevisionGUID="aa0c737d-e025-4180-96be-28f44425a8e4" CreationDate="2015-03-12T18:05:19.587" UserId="134" Text="No, the French and the Russian words are not etymologically connected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French word derives from Latin *habito* (&quot;I have repeatedly&quot;) which in its turn derives from *habeo* (&quot;I have&quot;) and ultimately from PIE *&amp;#042;gʰabʰ/gʰebʰ-* (&quot;to give&quot;). This word is akin to English &quot;to give&quot; and OCS *гобина* (&quot;vast harvest&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;t&quot; inside the word is a sign of frequentative, a Latin innovation. Compare *canto* (&quot;I sing repeatedly&quot;) &lt; *cano* (&quot;I sing&quot;), *dicto* (&quot;I say repeatedly&quot;) &lt; *dico* (&quot;I say&quot;) etc. These words are related to English &quot;cantata&quot;, &quot;hen&quot;, &quot;dictator&quot; and &quot;teach&quot;, respectively, but &quot;cantata&quot; and &quot;dictator&quot; have their ancestors originated in Latin and were borrowed with the Latin-originated *t*, while &quot;hen&quot; and &quot;teach&quot; were developed from the same PIE roots independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian word can be traced to its Proto-Slavic ancestor *&amp;#042;vitati* (&quot;to dwell&quot;) which is akin to Baltic words meaning &quot;place&quot;, but no further to PIE." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20120" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="77eca544-6b51-45fc-b0f3-b78ec44253d4" CreationDate="2015-03-13T00:24:20.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/576176932720631808" />
  <row Id="20124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8331" RevisionGUID="dbb31e5a-dd19-4553-87f5-9c1b74ed28e8" CreationDate="2015-03-14T08:14:22.930" UserId="5191" Text="I can't find any good translations of the following sentence. Please, help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8331" RevisionGUID="dbb31e5a-dd19-4553-87f5-9c1b74ed28e8" CreationDate="2015-03-14T08:14:22.930" UserId="5191" Text="What does я нажигаю через водный mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8331" RevisionGUID="dbb31e5a-dd19-4553-87f5-9c1b74ed28e8" CreationDate="2015-03-14T08:14:22.930" UserId="5191" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8332" RevisionGUID="25a12ed0-a8db-4e29-accd-eff516966b3e" CreationDate="2015-03-14T08:56:16.710" UserId="4560" Text="Highly slangy; new to me too. Apparently it refers to smoking a bong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="0c5f68fd-09dc-4bd6-a16c-8b4417da2efe" CreationDate="2015-03-14T10:48:32.760" UserId="1715" Text="*Водный* is homemade smoking device. Usually refers to smoking marijuana.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я нажигаю через водный&quot; = I smoke through the '*Водный*' (approximately, machine translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Au6CL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mAMRg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrOOG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="a026acad-a531-47f6-81e7-4f585b06c0de" CreationDate="2015-03-14T10:55:56.690" UserId="1715" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="*Водный* [vˈodnᵻj] is homemade smoking device. Usually refers to smoking marijuana. I do not know how it is properly called in English and attach a photos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я нажигаю через водный&quot; = I smoke through the '*Водный*' (approximately, machine translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Au6CL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mAMRg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrOOG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="355c7eba-5fc8-4246-baa1-8d63eb171afe" CreationDate="2015-03-14T11:08:03.467" UserId="1715" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="A slang. *Водный* [vˈodnᵻj] (also *водник, водяной, бульбулятор, булик, буль*) is homemade smoking device. Usually refers to smoking marijuana. I do not know how it is properly called in English and attach a photos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я нажигаю через водный&quot; = I smoke through the '*Водный*' (approximately, machine translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Au6CL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mAMRg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrOOG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="f74a2326-781a-44fd-a496-2d8cb30fd1a2" CreationDate="2015-03-14T11:16:23.993" UserId="1715" Comment="edited body" Text="A slang. *Водный* [vˈodnᵻj] (also *водник, водяной, бульбулятор, булик, буль*) is homemade smoking device. Usually refers to smoking marijuana. I do not know how it is properly called in English and attach a photos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я нажигаю через водный&quot; = I smoke through the '*Водный*' (approximately, machine translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Au6CL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtGdN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/khUVG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="57b94319-9715-4008-a615-998e62bb58e8" CreationDate="2015-03-14T11:26:35.990" UserId="1715" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="A slang. *Водный* [vˈodnᵻj] (also: *водник, водяной, мокрый*, in a broader sense: *бульбулятор, булик, бульб, буль*) is homemade smoking device. Usually refers to smoking marijuana. I do not know how it is properly called in English and attach a photos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я нажигаю через водный&quot; = I smoke through the '*Водный*'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Au6CL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZtGdN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/khUVG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8334" RevisionGUID="a3a864ad-42f2-40d3-ae93-2a7d5ecd77ad" CreationDate="2015-03-15T19:48:42.343" UserId="1715" Text="Better not. If you want to learn how to ride a bike - just ride a bike. The only thing that I can recommend - is Russian for children. It is easier to Russian. There are a lot of [here](http://lib.ru/TALES/). If you will have difficulties, *russian.stackexchange.com* always at your service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="2db2c2b4-59d4-4537-b5b2-21da73ed7bf8" CreationDate="2015-03-16T21:57:02.860" UserId="5200" Text="I'm doing a little project comparing Russian hard and soft sounds.  A source tells me that сок means juice, which I believe is correct.  This source also tells me that  there's a word that sounds like &quot;syok&quot; that means, &quot;he lashed&quot;.  I can't seem to find it in the dictionary.  Is there a word like this?  Or does it mean something else?  Do you know how it's spelled in Russian?  Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="2db2c2b4-59d4-4537-b5b2-21da73ed7bf8" CreationDate="2015-03-16T21:57:02.860" UserId="5200" Text="Is there a word that sound like сёк?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="2db2c2b4-59d4-4537-b5b2-21da73ed7bf8" CreationDate="2015-03-16T21:57:02.860" UserId="5200" Text="|одним-словом|правописание|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8336" RevisionGUID="23737345-7276-4de2-9b02-70889beb602a" CreationDate="2015-03-16T22:29:24.093" UserId="5150" Text="Yes, there is verb &quot;сечь&quot;, which means &quot;to lash&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Syok&quot; or &quot;сёк&quot; is past tense and masculine-gendered form of it and, therefore, means &quot;He lashed&quot; (formally speaking, &quot;he lashed&quot; will be &quot;он сёк&quot; in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8336" RevisionGUID="d72ceca1-e159-4cbd-8076-c715b4e49892" CreationDate="2015-03-17T03:48:14.690" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is verb &quot;сечь&quot;, which means &quot;to lash&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cёк&quot; is past tense and masculine-gendered form of it and, therefore, means &quot;He lashed&quot; (formally speaking, &quot;he lashed&quot; will be &quot;он сёк&quot; in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="e68ff45e-3819-4828-bae5-6e9dd834ef09" CreationDate="2015-03-17T07:55:57.570" UserId="5202" Text="Сёк (or sometimes сек - if author of the text do not use ё) - is a verb, means that somebody striked something (or somewho) with a scourge. он сек = he striked (with a scourge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20146" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="25b7a4de-df08-4801-a067-bc3aed353a8f" CreationDate="2015-03-17T09:32:54.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/577764537849495552" />
  <row Id="20149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="df54fa10-fc96-47d9-9c4e-8f29554682b9" CreationDate="2015-03-17T13:28:19.917" UserId="3892" Text="Etymologically speaking, **сёк** (&gt;**сечь**) comes from the Indo-European root *sek- *cutting*, from which English derives words such as **sock** (in the sense of hitting), **saw** (both the tool and the use of it), derived forms with -**sect(ion)** (as in surgical removal, *dissect*, etc.), **sect** (as in a cutoff group or offshoot) and yes **sex** (as in the division between the genders). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20154" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7729" RevisionGUID="8eebeb64-18ab-49d1-b8af-92400fe8c09d" CreationDate="2015-03-18T16:08:04.923" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="463404f8-3250-4e90-8867-66b82c8e322d" CreationDate="2015-03-18T18:20:52.400" UserId="5211" Text="It can absolutely be applied to both material and interpersonal things. It is more common/proper to be used for the interpersonal. But it could just as well be used playfully/in jest towards something material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="32b5e397-e7c7-45d8-b20c-f1120a9a3305" CreationDate="2015-03-18T21:30:59.640" UserId="4801" Comment="corrected english" Text="Сёк (or sometimes сек - if the author of a text does not use ё) - is a verb which means that somebody was striking something (or somebody) with a scourge. Он сек = he was striking (with a scourge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="32b5e397-e7c7-45d8-b20c-f1120a9a3305" CreationDate="2015-03-18T21:30:59.640" Comment="Proposed by 4801 approved by 3680, 97 edit id of 606" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8343" RevisionGUID="c3b3c02c-8620-4389-9cb1-cee2990e333f" CreationDate="2015-03-19T11:36:49.150" UserId="4630" Text="*Someone* is right in his comment to the question.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common uses of **нежный**/**нежно** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Feeling itself (your suggested &quot;feelings/behaviour&quot; case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...Во тьме твои глаза блистают предо мною,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне улыбаются, и звуки слышу я:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мой друг, мой **нежный** друг... люблю... твоя... твоя!.. ([link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...Любовь **нежна**?! Она груба, порочна,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Остра, как шип, и, словно тень, притворна... ([link][2]) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Something expressing such feeling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...Готов принять разлуку, смерть, отчаянье  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;За **нежный** взгляд, за свежесть милых уст... ([link][3]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...Звучал мне долго голос **нежный**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;И снились милые черты... ([link][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Physical characteristic (your suggested &quot;tender butter&quot; case, literally):&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже используемое для омаров **нежное** сливочное масло облагорожено травками с кислинкой. ([link][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Shade of color:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тогда в ней, как в гигантском зеркале, отражается далёкое **нежно**-голубое небо... ([link][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more meanings for **нежный** in Russian descriptive dictionaries: [link 1][7], [link 2][8], [link 3][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stihi-rus.ru/Pushkin/stihi/155.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BE_%D0%B8_%D0%94%D0%B6%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BE_%D0%B8_%D0%94%D0%B6%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://rupoem.ru/pushkin/ya-pomnyu-chudnoe.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/711254&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dmitriev/2742&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://popular.academic.ru/2269/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/mas/33397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8344" RevisionGUID="516d099f-7cf9-40d4-a6be-5ea554687a51" CreationDate="2015-03-19T20:36:18.527" UserId="4482" Text="Can we use &quot;ещë&quot; for repetition, as to say &quot;*he came once again today*&quot;, or &quot;*they once again received as strange letter*&quot;, or only for continuity? (= for ex: &quot;*It's 10 in the night, but she's still working*&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8344" RevisionGUID="516d099f-7cf9-40d4-a6be-5ea554687a51" CreationDate="2015-03-19T20:36:18.527" UserId="4482" Text="Can &quot; ещë &quot; be used for repetition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8344" RevisionGUID="516d099f-7cf9-40d4-a6be-5ea554687a51" CreationDate="2015-03-19T20:36:18.527" UserId="4482" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8345" RevisionGUID="cadff4bf-0dd7-4b65-a5d1-e559173e0ddf" CreationDate="2015-03-19T20:56:18.910" UserId="4481" Text="Yes. For example, your phrase &quot;he came once again today&quot; can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня он приходил ещё раз." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8346" RevisionGUID="c70ff31e-6cbe-4fad-8333-f2ae35b8419c" CreationDate="2015-03-19T21:24:10.900" UserId="487" Text="I have a multiple question on the following verses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дружба**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что дружба? Лeгкий пыл похмелья,  &#xD;&#xA;Обиды вольный разговор,  &#xD;&#xA;Обмен тщеславия, безделья  &#xD;&#xA;Иль покровительства позор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*А. С. Пушкин*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this translation faithful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's friendship? The hangover's faction,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The gratis talk of outrage,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exchange by vanity, inaction   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or bitter shame of patronage. ([Source of the translation][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be more specific, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found no traces of *легкий* (slight)  there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the word *похмелья* really meaning hangover (like that the day after drinking)? &#xD;&#xA;- I find like the noun in genitive before the noun in nominative. Is the meaning of the second line the same as the inverted order, i.e. *вольный разговор oбиды*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/friendship/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8346" RevisionGUID="c70ff31e-6cbe-4fad-8333-f2ae35b8419c" CreationDate="2015-03-19T21:24:10.900" UserId="487" Text="Дружба by Pushkin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8346" RevisionGUID="c70ff31e-6cbe-4fad-8333-f2ae35b8419c" CreationDate="2015-03-19T21:24:10.900" UserId="487" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8347" RevisionGUID="6168d66a-950f-4613-bc6a-c4318b6597c0" CreationDate="2015-03-19T21:35:47.053" UserId="5217" Text="Yes, &quot;ещë&quot; can be used for repetition, but usually in form of &quot;ещë раз&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;he came once again today&quot;** can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня он пришел еще раз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is better translation though: &quot;Сегодня он снова приходил&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;they once again received a strange letter&quot;** can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они получили странное письмо еще раз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better translation is &quot;Они опять получили странное письмо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="9bbeb898-564b-4175-8632-90c76c5362f5" CreationDate="2015-03-19T23:15:34.043" UserId="194" Text="&gt; I found no traces of легкий (slight) there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, apparently it was omitted for the rhyme. I should be &quot;The slight hangover's faction&quot; meaning apparently slight conflict between the friends the day after drinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the word похмелья really meaning hangover (like that the day after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drinking)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find like the noun in genitive before the noun in nominative. Is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning of the second line the same as the inverted order, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вольный разговор oбиды?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the literal translation should be &quot;the wild talk of resentment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="9d62054f-d588-4ab4-9497-181dbd75632c" CreationDate="2015-03-19T23:37:58.233" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; I found no traces of легкий (slight) there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, apparently it was omitted for the rhyme. I should be &quot;slight hangover's faction&quot; meaning apparently slight conflict between the friends the day after drinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the word похмелья really meaning hangover (like that the day after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drinking)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find like the noun in genitive before the noun in nominative. Is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning of the second line the same as the inverted order, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вольный разговор oбиды?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the literal translation should be &quot;the wild talk of resentment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20172" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8331" RevisionGUID="cdfee537-308c-4772-8e50-d0fb04dafbe2" CreationDate="2015-03-20T03:40:14.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/578762949709438977" />
  <row Id="20173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="a448ac88-e40f-4553-8e8b-707a700b3297" CreationDate="2015-03-20T09:19:22.190" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; I found no traces of легкий (slight) there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, apparently it was omitted for the rhyme. Ie should be &quot;slight hangover's faction&quot; meaning apparently slight conflict between the friends the day after drinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the word похмелья really meaning hangover (like that the day after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drinking)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find like the noun in genitive before the noun in nominative. Is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning of the second line the same as the inverted order, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вольный разговор oбиды?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the literal translation should be &quot;the wild talk of resentment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8280" RevisionGUID="3d8686f1-8c88-4df9-8d4e-11dfe00e5dae" CreationDate="2015-03-20T09:41:24.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/578853836904886272" />
  <row Id="20178" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="43f5e5b4-2b41-411e-8180-7ae54569dbd7" CreationDate="2015-03-20T17:47:55.580" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8080" RevisionGUID="53187d07-1f59-4c07-9803-cdf4f5775110" CreationDate="2015-03-21T00:41:39.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/579080395926302720" />
  <row Id="20180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8350" RevisionGUID="7e3b50b7-8ce3-400f-b8b2-3475dddbd904" CreationDate="2015-03-21T12:20:02.680" UserId="2079" Text="`Спрашивать` is to ask a question.&#xD;&#xA;`Просить` is to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Спросил, который час.&#xD;&#xA;- Попросил сказать, который час.&#xD;&#xA;- Попросил воды.&#xD;&#xA;- Спросил, где можно попить воды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a word `запрашивать` which is about information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `спросил информацию` - WRONG&#xD;&#xA;- `попросил информацию` - WRONG&#xD;&#xA;- `запросил информацию` - RIGHT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also use `запрашивать` instead of `просить` in bueracratic contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Металлургический комбинат запросил пять тысяч тонн металлолома`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To confise you even more, in Russian cant language (fenya) the word `спрашивать` has entirely different meaning.  Use the word `поинтересоваться` instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8350" RevisionGUID="875ed0be-4600-40ed-af10-61da1a9b48d3" CreationDate="2015-03-21T12:27:03.423" UserId="2079" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="`Спрашивать` is to ask a question.&#xD;&#xA;`Просить` is to ask anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Спросил, который час.&#xD;&#xA;- Попросил сказать, который час.&#xD;&#xA;- Попросил воды.&#xD;&#xA;- Спросил, где можно попить воды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a word `запрашивать` which is about information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `спросил информацию` - WRONG&#xD;&#xA;- `попросил информацию` - WRONG&#xD;&#xA;- `запросил информацию` - RIGHT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also use `запрашивать` instead of `просить` in bueracratic contexts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Металлургический комбинат запросил пять тысяч тонн металлолома`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To confise you even more, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in Russian cant language (fenya) the word `спрашивать` has entirely different meaning.  Use the word `поинтересоваться` instead.&#xD;&#xA;- in 19 century, the word `спросил` oftenly meant `попросил`, i. e.&#xD;&#xA;  -  `Он медлил — он спросил огня.` (А. С. Пушкин &quot;Выстрел&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="8d64ac27-9cef-4947-bae6-4ddfa2f8f52b" CreationDate="2015-03-21T17:45:38.527" UserId="5224" Text="In english it is common for me to add a term of endearment to the end of a greeting or goodbye.  What are some common ones for people you casually know or are close to in these situations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hey man&quot; to a guy I know well.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hi baby&quot; (and others) to a girl very close to me.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hello sir&quot; to a man I met.&#xD;&#xA;Simply &quot;Ma'am (Madam)&quot; to a woman I just met." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="8d64ac27-9cef-4947-bae6-4ddfa2f8f52b" CreationDate="2015-03-21T17:45:38.527" UserId="5224" Text="Casual Terms of Endearment in Greetings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="8d64ac27-9cef-4947-bae6-4ddfa2f8f52b" CreationDate="2015-03-21T17:45:38.527" UserId="5224" Text="|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8352" RevisionGUID="767af054-0d8d-45da-b5da-446158b30ff7" CreationDate="2015-03-21T19:12:50.853" UserId="5225" Text="You may use &quot;Здравствуйте&quot; (Hello) or &quot;Доброе утро/Добрый день/Добрый вечер&quot; (Good morning/Good afternoon/Good evening) to greet any person you know or do not know, this is more of respectful greeting than an informal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use &quot;Привет&quot; (Hi) or &quot;Приветствую&quot; (Greetings) as an informal greeting to the person you know quite well, but never to the person of older age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you know a person you are greeting, you may use his/her name after the greeting, like &quot;Привет, Саша&quot; (Hi Alex), or &quot;Александр Петрович, здравствуйте&quot;. The order of words does not matter much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In written form, a comma is required between the name and the greeting phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="746f947c-0d14-462c-9574-e8f0ccd55b22" CreationDate="2015-03-22T07:44:51.357" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Adding a term of endearment&quot; to a greeting is not much common in Russian except for the close relations. Usually you may choose between several forms of greeting (like 'Добрый день', 'Здравствуйте', 'Привет', 'ЗдорОва' etc.) and (last but not least) accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there exist several &quot;slanguish&quot; forms: &quot;ЗдорОва, пацаны&quot; (Hi, pals); &quot;Привет, братан&quot; (Hi bro); &quot;Привет, дружище&quot; (Hi fellow) &quot;Привет, мужики&quot; (Hi buddies); &quot;Эй, зёма&quot; (Hey, man (literally &quot;Hey fellow contryman&quot;)); &quot;Эй, братишка&quot; (Hey bro) and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="0126dc69-7b8a-49f3-9e07-52e32b9e5c12" CreationDate="2015-03-22T08:18:57.377" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; I found no traces of легкий (slight) there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, apparently it was omitted for the rhyme. It should be &quot;slight hangover's faction&quot; meaning apparently slight conflict between the friends the day after drinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the word похмелья really meaning hangover (like that the day after&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drinking)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find like the noun in genitive before the noun in nominative. Is the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meaning of the second line the same as the inverted order, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вольный разговор oбиды?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the literal translation should be &quot;the wild talk of resentment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="778a6411-b1bf-4669-acbb-63566f3d5a53" CreationDate="2015-03-23T06:25:42.963" UserId="1755" Comment="fixed spelling error" Text="&quot;Adding a term of endearment&quot; to a greeting is not much common in Russian except for the close relations. Usually you may choose between several forms of greeting (like 'Добрый день', 'Здравствуйте', 'Привет', 'Здоро́во' etc.) and (last but not least) accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there exist several &quot;slanguish&quot; forms: &quot;Здоро́во, пацаны&quot; (Hi, pals); &quot;Привет, братан&quot; (Hi bro); &quot;Привет, дружище&quot; (Hi fellow) &quot;Привет, мужики&quot; (Hi buddies); &quot;Эй, зёма&quot; (Hey, man (literally &quot;Hey fellow contryman&quot;)); &quot;Эй, братишка&quot; (Hey bro) and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20190" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="778a6411-b1bf-4669-acbb-63566f3d5a53" CreationDate="2015-03-23T06:25:42.963" Comment="Proposed by 1755 approved by 3680, 5008 edit id of 607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="54e05952-24da-49fd-a576-68357f9d4242" CreationDate="2015-03-23T13:00:16.887" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Adding a term of endearment&quot; to a greeting is not much common in Russian except for the close relations. Usually you may choose between several forms of greeting (like 'Добрый день', 'Здравствуйте', 'Привет', 'Здоро́во' etc.) and (last but not least) accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there exist several &quot;slanguish&quot; forms: &quot;Здоро́во, пацаны&quot; (Hi, pals); &quot;Привет, братан&quot; (Hi bro); &quot;Привет, дружище&quot; (Hi fellow) &quot;Привет, мужики&quot; (Hi buddies); &quot;Эй, земляк&quot; (Hey, man (literally &quot;Hey fellow contryman&quot;)); &quot;Эй, братишка&quot; (Hey bro) and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8042" RevisionGUID="f9675fdc-c7cb-4463-b4b8-3f35835ee7be" CreationDate="2015-03-23T13:28:12.530" UserId="551" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Как правильно сказать: &quot;Через Интернет&quot; или &quot;по Интернету&quot;, или оба варианта правильные? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8356" RevisionGUID="f3091b3a-615f-4e6c-9cee-b4731a0343b0" CreationDate="2015-03-23T18:02:05.423" UserId="1368" Text="&gt; Is the word похмелья really meaning hangover (like that the day after drinking)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the modern meaning. In Pushkin's times it was rather &quot;drinking, drunkenness&quot;, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Когда для шумного похмелья // Вы соберетесь в праздный час (Боратынский, 1820)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- А ты, вино, осенней стужи друг, // Пролей мне в грудь отрадное похмелье (Пушкин, 1825).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Лeгкий пыл похмелья&quot; simply means &quot;being slightly drunk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I find like the noun in genitive before the noun in nominative. Is the meaning of the second line the same as the inverted order, i.e. вольный разговор oбиды?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is correct. It's customary in poetic speech to move the genitive object forward, e.g. &quot;Европы баловень Орфей&quot;. &quot;вольный&quot; means &quot;open, frank&quot; in this context (guessing here, the whole piece is not clear at all)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="3c3f2781-36ad-4823-8d9e-9f969e503ec9" CreationDate="2015-03-23T21:29:14.183" UserId="4560" Text="У Фасмера это предположение никак не озвучивается, и вообще этимология слова `дразнить` [представляется довольно туманной][1], а у меня возникло предположение по аналогии с `мерзкий` и `мразь`, что это могут быть ступени одного корня с `дерзкий`. С другой стороны, тогда слово `дразнить` должно было бы быть старославянским, что как-то трудно предположить; также нет никаких следов восточнославянской формы `*дорознить`. Понимаю, что это спекуляция, у которой мало шансов оказаться истинной, но не могу найти конкретного опровержения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://enc-dic.com/fasmer/Draznit-3964.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="3c3f2781-36ad-4823-8d9e-9f969e503ec9" CreationDate="2015-03-23T21:29:14.183" UserId="4560" Text="Родственны ли слова &quot;дразнить&quot; и &quot;дерзкий&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="3c3f2781-36ad-4823-8d9e-9f969e503ec9" CreationDate="2015-03-23T21:29:14.183" UserId="4560" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8358" RevisionGUID="a21aa31d-53e4-416a-a7be-c8ebc40d5a98" CreationDate="2015-03-23T22:31:53.290" UserId="1236" Text="`Дразнить` — ст. сл. раздражити &lt; протосл. *razdraziti, *razdražati (&lt; *razdrzjati) возможно связано с ие. корнем *der- «драть, деру» в его нулевой степени чередования *draz-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Дерзкий` — ст. сл. дрьзати &lt; протосл. *dʲr̥zati &lt; ие. *dhr̥su- «смелый, наглый, гордый, сильный», имеющее соответствие в разных ие. языках.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому кажется маловероятным этимологическое родство этих слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А восточнославянской формы *дорознить нет из-за того же, из-за чего нет и формы *дороть вместо «драть»: восточнославянское полногласие возникло из древних звукосочетаний типа _tort_, _tolt_ при перестройке слогов под действием закона открытых слогов, в нашем же случае имеем древнее звукосочетание dra, которое закону открытых слогов не противоречило и в перестройке не нуждалось, поэтому оно и осталось неизменным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8358" RevisionGUID="90df8cc4-6104-43b7-80e4-159dc5d680c4" CreationDate="2015-03-23T22:47:28.593" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Дразнить` — ст. сл. раздражити &lt; протосл. *razdraziti, *razdražati (&lt; *razdrazjati) возможно связано с ие. корнем *der- «драть, деру» в его нулевой степени чередования *draz-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Дерзкий` — ст. сл. дрьзати &lt; протосл. *dʲr̥zati &lt; ие. *dhr̥su- «смелый, наглый, гордый, сильный», имеющее соответствие в разных ие. языках.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому кажется маловероятным этимологическое родство этих слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А восточнославянской формы *дорознить нет из-за того же, из-за чего нет и формы *дороть вместо «драть»: восточнославянское полногласие возникло из древних звукосочетаний типа _tort_, _tolt_ при перестройке слогов под действием закона открытых слогов, в нашем же случае имеем древнее звукосочетание dra, которое закону открытых слогов не противоречило и в перестройке не нуждалось, поэтому оно и осталось неизменным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="6de066f3-1161-4ac8-83cc-b0e2e9479ff5" CreationDate="2015-03-24T01:53:12.927" UserId="15" Text="Is it correct and usual to use the instrumental case with adjectives when speaking in the past tense? Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я был на конференции, котороя была очень **нитенсивной**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not нитенсивная?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="6de066f3-1161-4ac8-83cc-b0e2e9479ff5" CreationDate="2015-03-24T01:53:12.927" UserId="15" Text="Use of the instrumental case with adjectives in the past tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="6de066f3-1161-4ac8-83cc-b0e2e9479ff5" CreationDate="2015-03-24T01:53:12.927" UserId="15" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="3c52473a-9086-4d8a-b9a8-b38a702e42fe" CreationDate="2015-03-24T03:47:31.517" UserId="3680" Comment="typo" Text="Is it correct and usual to use the instrumental case with adjectives when speaking in the past tense? Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я был на конференции, которая была очень **нитенсивной**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not нитенсивная?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8360" RevisionGUID="b70634c3-a1e4-4435-b7b7-dade78bbf758" CreationDate="2015-03-24T06:49:11.277" UserId="5008" Text="Interlinear translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is friendship? A slight fire of the carousal,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The insult's unrestrained talk,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; An interchange of vanity and idleness,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or favour's stain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8361" RevisionGUID="6269600b-78bb-4934-b9f9-1efd900e24a5" CreationDate="2015-03-24T07:24:08.037" UserId="4848" Text="1. Лёгкий = light (light hangover as opposite to hard hangover)&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes&#xD;&#xA;3. Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. that Pushkin dude is known for changing normal words sequence in order to rhythm his poems :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People don't talk like that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8361" RevisionGUID="d82e9638-f348-42d5-9de3-a1b3af4829fe" CreationDate="2015-03-24T07:33:59.063" UserId="4848" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="1. Лёгкий = slight. Was omitted in translation&#xA;&#xA;2. Yes&#xD;&#xA;3. Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.s. that Pushkin dude is known for changing normal words sequence in order to rhythm his poems :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People don't talk like that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8362" RevisionGUID="702428d2-0bce-4aa8-8698-c43f137c4cb0" CreationDate="2015-03-24T08:29:11.980" UserId="4600" Text="While this construction is grammatically correct, it sounds awkward and unusual to me because of unnecessary complication. In 95% of cases Russian would rather say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я был на очень интенсивной конференции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to describe where have you been (at the conference). If you want to emphasize that this conference was very intensive, you'd say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конференция, на которой я был, была очень интенсивной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конференция, на которой я был, была очень интенсивна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я съел пиццу, которая была очень вкусной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is unusual. You'd rather say simply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я съел очень вкусную пиццу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пицца, которую я съел, была очень вкусной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пицца, которую я съел, была очень вкусна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="c545ef92-691e-4d28-b07f-da1ccaee623f" CreationDate="2015-03-24T11:51:27.867" UserId="4592" Text="Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка says, that &quot;стоять над душой&quot; means &quot;мешать, надоедать своим долгим присутствием&quot;. I'm not quite sure what &quot;над душой&quot; (above one's soul?) means literally, or what historical meaning it could have had before becoming an idiom. How did this phrase come to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="c545ef92-691e-4d28-b07f-da1ccaee623f" CreationDate="2015-03-24T11:51:27.867" UserId="4592" Text="Origin of &quot;стоять над душой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="c545ef92-691e-4d28-b07f-da1ccaee623f" CreationDate="2015-03-24T11:51:27.867" UserId="4592" Text="|этимология|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8364" RevisionGUID="3e0de234-40fb-4f43-82ad-6b602b2f0d22" CreationDate="2015-03-24T12:14:40.040" UserId="1368" Text="Formally, быть (to be) requires the instrumental when used in the past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Работа тяжелая (&quot;the job is hard&quot;). The linking &quot;to be&quot; is omitted in the present tense, the adjective is in the nominative).&#xD;&#xA;- Работа была тяжелой (&quot;the job was hard&quot;). The linking &quot;to be&quot; is in the past tense, the adjective is in the instrumental).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, colloquially, many people are fine with nominative in the past as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Работа у меня была тяжелая (my job was hard)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your example, &quot;интенсивный&quot; doesn't make much sense when applied to a &quot;conference&quot;, but it's perfectly fine to say/write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;конференция была интересная&quot; in a colloquial context, i.e. talking to a colleague&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;конференция была интересной&quot; in a formal context, i.e. writing a report. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8365" RevisionGUID="be8bb524-7cb6-413e-80c2-1c548a075df8" CreationDate="2015-03-24T12:32:22.283" UserId="4801" Text="I think it derived from [&quot;Не стой надо мной, какъ чортъ надъ душой&quot;][1], meaning that someone sticks around a person with a persistence that can be compared to a devil longing for a human soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_old/19418/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4_%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B9%28%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%29_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8366" RevisionGUID="8745de3b-eb63-4f34-a31c-764f2918ee4f" CreationDate="2015-03-24T12:32:38.613" UserId="5008" Text="In Russian there are quite a few idioms mentioning &quot;soul&quot;. E.g. &quot;Души не чаять&quot;, &quot;Душа в пятки ушла&quot; etc. So it doesn't seem strange to mention it one more time ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The origin is probably due to the following more complete form: &quot;Не стой надо мной, как чёрт над душой&quot; (Don't stand above me like the devil about the soul).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (old) meaning of the word &quot;душа&quot; is &quot;serf&quot; like in Gogol's novel &quot;Dead Souls&quot; (which also means &quot;Dead Serfs&quot;). But it doesn't seem to have any connection with idiom you are asking about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8367" RevisionGUID="8ca3efb4-79b8-4c58-bd71-4c5418687b76" CreationDate="2015-03-24T12:45:07.927" UserId="551" Text="In fact, &quot;soul&quot; is not the only meaning of the word &quot;душа&quot;. In classical Russian literature you can often encounter other meanings like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Human (a man, a woman or a child) - &quot;2 души мужеского полу&quot; (and in official documents it is used to describe population of the area), &quot;на улице ни души&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* Someone's emotional state - &quot;Ах! сударь, вы душу мне возвращаете!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For more meanings you can check [this article](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/797350#%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%A8%D0%900)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that &quot;стоять над душой&quot; may mean something like &quot;to make a pressure on someones emotional state&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20224" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="fd9ced38-6a7b-4079-9c8d-4dfbb4e12c10" CreationDate="2015-03-24T19:09:52.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/580446451894976512" />
  <row Id="20225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8369" RevisionGUID="7cb5fdda-39d9-4be6-90b4-02d2bfac1308" CreationDate="2015-03-24T19:30:34.747" UserId="2079" Text="No one yet mentioned that `душа` is also a slang/colloquial name of some body part/place on the stomach (not sure exactly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB+%D0%B2+%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%88%D1%83%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="196c5589-f9b1-4e1a-9907-c71494f1f303" CreationDate="2015-03-25T01:09:52.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/580537045220794369" />
  <row Id="20227" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="3b272a32-e026-498d-a696-8a666baf9249" CreationDate="2015-03-25T04:09:53.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/580582347550121984" />
  <row Id="20229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="a8f11b87-e878-4c26-bec3-9720413cd9a2" CreationDate="2015-03-25T17:22:24.443" UserId="15" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="Is it correct and usual to use the instrumental case with adjectives when speaking in the past tense? Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я был на конференции, которая была очень **интенсивной**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not интенсивная?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8370" RevisionGUID="8515f5ad-fe55-4d1c-8779-999816526191" CreationDate="2015-03-26T21:11:18.450" UserId="5243" Text="I think user4419802 gave the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыл&quot; - heat/fire;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;легкий&quot; - light/slight;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;похмелья&quot; - being drunk/tipsy (older style), or hangover;&#xD;&#xA;example: &quot;C похмелья&quot; - after drinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Обиды&quot; &quot;вольный&quot; &quot;разговор&quot; - &quot;grievance&quot; &quot;frankly&quot; &quot;talk&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8370" RevisionGUID="62a3549d-bac6-48d1-9f95-5b076eab930f" CreationDate="2015-03-26T21:24:38.573" UserId="5243" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="I think user4419802 gave the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыл&quot; - heat/fire;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;легкий&quot; - light/slight;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;похмелья&quot; - being drunk/tipsy (older style), or hangover;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;example: &quot;C похмелья&quot; - after drinking.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't think he would use &quot;heat&quot; and &quot;hangover&quot; in the same sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Обиды&quot; - &quot;grievances&quot; (i think the closest)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;вольный&quot; - free of constrains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8370" RevisionGUID="952f86a3-dcde-4285-94c0-a54c299d1bad" CreationDate="2015-03-26T21:45:05.777" UserId="5243" Comment="clarified the word &quot;вольный&quot;" Text="I think user4419802 gave the best translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыл&quot; - heat/fire;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;легкий&quot; - light/slight;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;похмелья&quot; - being drunk/tipsy (older style), or hangover;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;example: &quot;C похмелья&quot; - after drinking.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't think he would use &quot;heat&quot; and &quot;hangover&quot; in the same sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Обиды&quot; - &quot;grievances&quot; (i think the closest)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;вольный&quot; - free of constrains (could imply rude, but not in this context)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8372" RevisionGUID="1c6c0ce1-41e1-4dca-8049-693eed3f3550" CreationDate="2015-03-27T14:59:49.147" UserId="5250" Text="Так же можно попробовать такие варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- техническое подспорье&#xD;&#xA;- техническое сопровождение&#xD;&#xA;- техническая поддержка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но изначальные предложения придется перестраивать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20243" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8202" RevisionGUID="4c698c9e-580f-4ff9-ba4e-ac901f60ea12" CreationDate="2015-03-27T16:04:21.103" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Impersonal Construction: Dative or Accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8208" RevisionGUID="f70f9de8-a893-439f-a16e-96e2c24530cf" CreationDate="2015-03-27T16:05:44.110" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 786 characters in body" Text="Слава has [this song Спелый мой](https://youtu.be/tqhVCmc_sic), but I can't find any translation that makes any sense to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, нежно целуй подолгу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, плечи ласкай ладонью,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, в сердце оставь наколку.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой, слезы — любви подспорье.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спелый мой, я не живу — я плачу,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зрелый мой, я не могу иначе.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вкусный мой, чувства мои незрячи,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой родной.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this, but it does not make sense in the context of the song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; спелый   &#xD;&#xA;1. mature   &#xD;&#xA;спелый лес — mature forest   &#xD;&#xA;спелый шлак — matured slag   &#xD;&#xA;спелый ячмень — mature barley   &#xD;&#xA;спелое лесонасаждение — mature forest stand   &#xD;&#xA;2. mellow   &#xD;&#xA;спелый солод — mellow malt   &#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — mellow grain   &#xD;&#xA;3. ripe  &#xD;&#xA;спелое яблоко — ripe apple   &#xD;&#xA;спелое зерно — ripe grain   &#xD;&#xA;спелая древесина — ripe wood   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8372" RevisionGUID="22884b71-048c-46ad-84d6-311f250e45c2" CreationDate="2015-03-27T20:04:43.437" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Также можно попробовать такие варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- техническое подспорье&#xD;&#xA;- техническое сопровождение&#xD;&#xA;- техническая поддержка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но изначальные предложения придется перестраивать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8373" RevisionGUID="3c1e57e7-bbd0-4939-8974-1270f3d2a3f6" CreationDate="2015-03-28T10:40:44.130" UserId="5253" Text="I'm looking for russian words that throughout the course of history acquired a negative connotation, because they were linked, for exemple,to the politics of Soviet Unione, and during the last years they were replaced by english positively connoted or neutralterms. An exemple are the words предприниматель, капиталист and промышленник that had a socio-political negative connotation linked to the soviet ideology and for this reason to talk about a businessman they introduced the term businessman from english. i hope you can give me good answers and they will help me to write my thesis " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8373" RevisionGUID="3c1e57e7-bbd0-4939-8974-1270f3d2a3f6" CreationDate="2015-03-28T10:40:44.130" UserId="5253" Text="Russian words with negative connotation substituted by english ones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8373" RevisionGUID="3c1e57e7-bbd0-4939-8974-1270f3d2a3f6" CreationDate="2015-03-28T10:40:44.130" UserId="5253" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="7df7d028-9163-4d31-bd38-b09336a31b0e" CreationDate="2015-03-28T11:05:19.270" UserId="4560" Text="`Офис` replacing `контора`, and I would maintain that this is *the* only example of what you're describing; anything else would be crossing into really heavy jargon (such as `эйчар` for `кадровик`) and/or trying to squeeze things in to fit a highly specific research topic — as with your 'businessman' example which, I'm afraid, does a rather poor job of describing both linguistic reality (`предприниматель` is actually more common than `бизнесмен`) and the processes that formed it (with `промышленник` and `капиталист`, it wasn't the connotations but the obsolescence; both sounded extremely Industrial Age)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="ed53527e-9603-4703-a09b-1ae5fbd48fba" CreationDate="2015-03-28T12:37:16.733" UserId="5255" Text="Как можно видеть из графика в [Google Ngram Viewer], все числительные использовались с примерно постоянной частотой с 1800 года. Но слово *один* до 1910 года практически не встречается в литературе. В то же время слова *одна*, *одно* и *одного* использовались достаточно широко. При этом начало роста частоты использования слова *один* совпадает с ростом частоты использования слова *раз*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне это кажется довольно странным. С чем это может быть связано?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google Ngram Viewer]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%2C%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%2C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%2C%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B5%2C%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%2C%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="ed53527e-9603-4703-a09b-1ae5fbd48fba" CreationDate="2015-03-28T12:37:16.733" UserId="5255" Text="Использование слова &quot;один&quot; до 1910-ых годов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="ed53527e-9603-4703-a09b-1ae5fbd48fba" CreationDate="2015-03-28T12:37:16.733" UserId="5255" Text="|история-языка|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8377" RevisionGUID="d2f5eba5-84e2-4f6e-88aa-4534343cea86" CreationDate="2015-03-28T15:50:21.443" UserId="170" Text="Is it correct to say in Russian something like &quot;как **следствует** из его отчёта&quot; instead of &quot;как **следует** из его отчёта&quot;? What's the base form for &quot;следствует&quot;? Is it &quot;следствовать&quot;? I can't find it in any available dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8377" RevisionGUID="d2f5eba5-84e2-4f6e-88aa-4534343cea86" CreationDate="2015-03-28T15:50:21.443" UserId="170" Text="Is it correct to say &quot;как следствует из (его отчёта, его выступления и т.д.)&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8377" RevisionGUID="d2f5eba5-84e2-4f6e-88aa-4534343cea86" CreationDate="2015-03-28T15:50:21.443" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8378" RevisionGUID="11941709-5f35-45c5-9db6-b2ae465fa206" CreationDate="2015-03-28T16:34:24.257" UserId="5008" Text="Must be an error, as no dictionary mentions it. I seem I heard that word, yet it only to prove that it's a relatively frequent error.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The infinitive should be &quot;следствовать&quot;, but only if existed at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8379" RevisionGUID="f8651d69-4a1e-487a-9d03-73b9cc74f3f8" CreationDate="2015-03-28T17:14:14.697" UserId="4833" Text="It seems that Lomonosov used the word [следствовать][1] in 1749 in a different meaning &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;о том следствовать начинает автор ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;_(the author starts to  investigate that)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In XIX century, &quot;[следствует][2]&quot; was used instead of &quot;следовать&quot; in the meaning &quot;ought to&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;я отдам там, кому следствует&quot;&#xD;&#xA;_(I will return it to whom I ought to)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but never in the meaning of &quot;to follow&quot;. In modern times, this word disappears from literary language, but as you see sometimes people use it. Maybe in error, maybe because it still exists in some dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F1%EB%E5%E4%F1%F2%E2%EE%E2%E0%F2%FC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%B5%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8380" RevisionGUID="1217c8ad-fd65-49aa-9c6a-c0dbb087bb9c" CreationDate="2015-03-28T20:24:35.250" UserId="2079" Text="С [дореволюционной орфографией][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%2C%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8A%2C%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8A&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8A%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8A%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%AA%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%AA%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8A%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%AA%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8A%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8382" RevisionGUID="23b4ad65-c696-4df7-b1d0-19ccde6ea24c" CreationDate="2015-03-29T01:28:43.927" UserId="5258" Text="Слово &quot;мерчендайзейзер&quot; какое-то время вызывало некое, словно, почтение, своей претендующей величиной. Но спустя время, он превратился в простого &quot;мерчика&quot; с которым мы стали уже &quot;на короткой&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8384" RevisionGUID="d3fc6220-44d8-4bba-8092-1b39ff82ecff" CreationDate="2015-03-29T04:37:38.233" UserId="5201" Text="Is there any website that exists where I can have sentences or passages in Russian recorded for me? I like practicing my spoken Russian with translated sentences in spaced repetition programs such as Anki or Memrise, but I want to add audio to these sentences that I've selected to study (from Tatoeba.com, Anki decks and other sources). I am aware of forvo.com, though it is for words, and rhinospike.com, but are there any other resources available for getting recordings in Russian? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8384" RevisionGUID="d3fc6220-44d8-4bba-8092-1b39ff82ecff" CreationDate="2015-03-29T04:37:38.233" UserId="5201" Text="Websites to Have Sentences/Passages Recorded in Russian by Native Speakers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8384" RevisionGUID="d3fc6220-44d8-4bba-8092-1b39ff82ecff" CreationDate="2015-03-29T04:37:38.233" UserId="5201" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="08d5815f-7d09-4224-8cc1-8883e8fd25dd" CreationDate="2015-03-29T14:38:05.187" UserId="5260" Text="In the song Подмосковные вечера there's a **&quot;б&quot;** letter standing alone:&#xD;&#xA;Если ***б*** знали вы, как мне дороги&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="08d5815f-7d09-4224-8cc1-8883e8fd25dd" CreationDate="2015-03-29T14:38:05.187" UserId="5260" Text="Подмосковные вечера" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="08d5815f-7d09-4224-8cc1-8883e8fd25dd" CreationDate="2015-03-29T14:38:05.187" UserId="5260" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8386" RevisionGUID="e814f896-dafb-4cb1-a9e4-7dac3a730eba" CreationDate="2015-03-29T16:39:11.737" UserId="62" Text="Are маркерная доска and белая доска both standard terms for a whiteboard, or is one of these more widely used (in speech)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8386" RevisionGUID="e814f896-dafb-4cb1-a9e4-7dac3a730eba" CreationDate="2015-03-29T16:39:11.737" UserId="62" Text="Whiteboard term" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8386" RevisionGUID="e814f896-dafb-4cb1-a9e4-7dac3a730eba" CreationDate="2015-03-29T16:39:11.737" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8388" RevisionGUID="0869c6e1-3c08-46e2-b4c3-a92453b88c5a" CreationDate="2015-03-29T20:24:53.297" UserId="4560" Text="`б` is a variant of `бы` that can be used (entirely optionally) if the preceding word ends with a vowel. `Чтобы`, being `что`+`бы`, always has the variant `чтоб`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly (with the same after-a-vowel rule), `ли` has `ль`. The full and shortened forms are not entirely interchangeable; the shortened ones are stylistically non-neutral in most contexts, so when in doubt, use the full ones. You'll come across the short ones a lot in songs and poems, though, because they're a convenient way to lose an extra syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8389" RevisionGUID="fc065b5c-07e4-478d-9585-8b454e3196e0" CreationDate="2015-03-29T21:34:24.737" UserId="4592" Text="As a native speaker, I would probably go with the former one. One never refers to the color of the board, you just say &quot;доска&quot; as in &quot;в аудитории есть доска&quot;, and you could further specify it as &quot;доска для маркеров (или маркера)&quot; or &quot;доска для мела&quot;. The term &quot;белая доска&quot; requires some explicit thinking before I remember that this seems to be the color you use a marker on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8388" RevisionGUID="c7d8eca2-c8e5-4027-a202-bc556ee26225" CreationDate="2015-03-30T02:47:24.313" UserId="4560" Comment="forgot about же/ж" Text="`б` is a variant of `бы` that can be used (entirely optionally) if the preceding word ends with a vowel. `Чтобы`, being `что`+`бы`, always has the variant `чтоб`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly (with the same after-a-vowel rule), `ли` has `ль` and `же` has `ж`. The full and shortened forms are not entirely interchangeable; the shortened ones are stylistically non-neutral in most contexts, so when in doubt, use the full ones. You'll come across the short ones a lot in songs and poems, though, because they're a convenient way to lose an extra syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20290" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="97d34a30-7f9c-44ff-8c53-10e80212018b" CreationDate="2015-03-30T19:35:25.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/582627208646254594" />
  <row Id="20291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="b408223e-29ff-40df-bd88-9da1c47100c2" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:11:17.187" UserId="5243" Text="sorry cannot comment yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;б&quot; is a short form for &quot;бы&quot; - &quot;conditional construction&quot;(CocoPop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если **б** знали вы&quot; means &quot;If you **would** know&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's just the way it sounds:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если **б** знали вы&quot; = &quot;Если **бы** вы знали&quot; ~ &quot;Если **б** вы знали&quot;(less common)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="368bbb2e-da4c-45b4-b0c3-be4e9baa2857" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:22:49.623" UserId="5243" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="sorry cannot comment yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;б&quot; is a short form for &quot;бы&quot; - &quot;conditional construction&quot;(CocoPop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если **б** знали вы&quot; means &quot;If you **would** know&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's just the way it sounds. The tension goes on &quot;бы&quot; and brakes the rhythm.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;б&quot; there is no tension in the middle of the sentence:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если **б** знали вы&quot; = &quot;Если **бы** вы знали&quot; = &quot;Если **б** вы знали&quot; (less common)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="71344c97-bb74-49ea-a2ff-548c699ccb80" CreationDate="2015-03-30T20:33:00.190" UserId="5243" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="sorry cannot comment yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;б&quot; is a short form for &quot;бы&quot; - &quot;conditional construction&quot;(CocoPop)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если **б** знали вы&quot; means &quot;If you **would** know&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's just the way it sounds. The tension goes on &quot;бы&quot; and brakes the rhythm.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;б&quot; there is no tension in the middle of the sentence:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Если **б** знали вы&quot; = &quot;Если **бы** вы знали&quot; = &quot;Если **б** вы знали&quot; (less common)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would compare it to &quot;if you would know&quot; &amp; &quot;If you would **only** know&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8392" RevisionGUID="d5045f37-487c-44d0-99bb-f13ef6589aae" CreationDate="2015-03-31T03:45:11.237" UserId="5270" Text="Здравствуйте! &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently learning the Russian language via Rosetta Stone, and am currently very confused as I cannot tell the difference between девочек and девочки. I have no idea what the first form means (I know both mean girl), and I previously thought that the second form meant girls. Can anyone tell me what the specific differences are between девочка, девочек, and девочки (and possibly any other forms that I could come across in the future). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8392" RevisionGUID="d5045f37-487c-44d0-99bb-f13ef6589aae" CreationDate="2015-03-31T03:45:11.237" UserId="5270" Text="Plural Form Help? (What are the forms of девочка)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8392" RevisionGUID="d5045f37-487c-44d0-99bb-f13ef6589aae" CreationDate="2015-03-31T03:45:11.237" UserId="5270" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8393" RevisionGUID="13dc8f49-6d59-4ace-8966-da8c899a8bba" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:23:00.577" UserId="1665" Text="How does one officially and accurately translate the job title of &quot;Systems Software Engineer&quot;, for example, [bls.gov's &quot;15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software&quot;](http://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes151133.htm), into Russian Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a bit more context, let me quote how US Bureau of Labor Statistics describes this job title:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Research, design, develop, and test operating systems-level software, compilers, and network distribution software for medical, industrial, military, communications, aerospace, business, scientific, and general computing applications. Set operational specifications and formulate and analyze software requirements. May design embedded systems software. Apply principles and techniques of computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8393" RevisionGUID="13dc8f49-6d59-4ace-8966-da8c899a8bba" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:23:00.577" UserId="1665" Text="How to translate &quot;Systems Software Engineer&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8393" RevisionGUID="13dc8f49-6d59-4ace-8966-da8c899a8bba" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:23:00.577" UserId="1665" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8394" RevisionGUID="6f2c04d6-18cf-48d7-b6d2-223c5b53b945" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:35:02.840" UserId="4600" Text="There are six grammatical cases in Russian. Simply put:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Case           Singular     Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative     девочка      девочки&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       девочки      девочек&#xD;&#xA;    Dative         девочке      девочкам&#xD;&#xA;    Accusative     девочку      девочек&#xD;&#xA;    Instrumental   девочкой     девочками&#xD;&#xA;    Prepositional  [о] девочке  [о] девочках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the words for singular genitive and plural nominative coincide and have the same pronunciation (not always, but for the word `девочка` this is the case) so usually the context should determine which form is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8395" RevisionGUID="88a4d48f-62a6-4916-acbb-3a0b4e7dcd17" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:36:04.230" UserId="487" Text="If I'm not mistaken some character in Ilf-Petrov's wonderful novel **Двенадцать стульев** wants to damn something. I don't quite remember the situation, but he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – гангрена (проклатая)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is any of these words still in modern Russian in use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8395" RevisionGUID="88a4d48f-62a6-4916-acbb-3a0b4e7dcd17" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:36:04.230" UserId="487" Text="Does one use (still) / did one really used once гангрена (проклатая)! as curse word, as it appears in Двенадцать стульев?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8395" RevisionGUID="88a4d48f-62a6-4916-acbb-3a0b4e7dcd17" CreationDate="2015-03-31T05:36:04.230" UserId="487" Text="|сленг|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8396" RevisionGUID="099b7cb1-0f39-47e2-a8f2-c453f5798259" CreationDate="2015-03-31T06:57:43.430" UserId="4637" Text="System Software Engineer - Системный инженер-программист&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software Developers, Systems Software - Разработчики (программисты), системное ПО (программное обеспечение)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8396" RevisionGUID="8462048f-453d-4b29-a14f-70894d45ac07" CreationDate="2015-03-31T07:29:19.033" UserId="4637" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="System Software Engineer - Системный инженер-программист / системный программист&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software Developers, Systems Software - Разработчики (программисты), системное ПО (программное обеспечение)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8397" RevisionGUID="ed8039f8-f412-4d92-bbfc-256ed76b0a0a" CreationDate="2015-03-31T07:56:18.313" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Гангрена&quot; is almost never used. It seems that Ilf (Feinsielberg) &amp; Petrov (Kataev) have chosen quite rare idioms to make their texts really expressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet mentioned above &quot;холера&quot; is used surprisingly often. Probably due to Polish, though I must also remember quite popular Lavrenev's &quot;Сорок первый&quot; where the heroine extensively used the expression &quot;рыбья холера&quot; (&quot;fish cholera&quot;), which still in use (especially by older generation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of non-standard usage: &quot;чума&quot; (&quot;plague&quot;; quite different menanings from cursing upto admiration); &quot;язва&quot; (&quot;ulcer&quot;; usually about waspish person) - though here the word &quot;язва&quot; is used perhaps due to the older meaning &quot;wound&quot; rather than modern &quot;sore/ulcer&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8396" RevisionGUID="826abddf-3816-49cc-8a19-6d0d17b49c17" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:28:50.330" UserId="4637" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="System Software Engineer - Системный инженер-программист / системный программист&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software Developers, Systems Software - Разработчики (программисты), системное ПО (программное обеспечение).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look for some official title from the government, you could refer [this document][1] or [this one][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://professions.org.ru/?okz=2132&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.etks.info/okpdtr/office/search?q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8395" RevisionGUID="9354c3d1-afbc-4939-864f-e82a41ec0312" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:34:48.773" UserId="487" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="If I'm not mistaken some character in Ilf-Petrov's wonderful novel **Двенадцать стульев** wants to damn something. I don't quite remember the situation, but he says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – гангрена (проклятая)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is any of these words still in modern Russian in use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8395" RevisionGUID="9354c3d1-afbc-4939-864f-e82a41ec0312" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:34:48.773" UserId="487" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Does one use (still) / did one really used once гангрена (проклятая)! as curse word, as it appears in Двенадцать стульев?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8398" RevisionGUID="423b1422-028c-4c01-833c-b5386b3cb992" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:52:38.807" UserId="487" Text="Rather than displaying for you the forms of *девочка*, let me tell you how to look for the forms of many words, say, you are interested now in *человек*. Then you go to, say, Wiktionary and do the direct search or type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/человек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8397" RevisionGUID="0fd08f60-1a41-4f77-b56c-86793a78890d" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:55:20.393" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&quot;Гангрена&quot; is almost never used. It seems that Ilf (Feinsielberg) &amp; Petrov (Kataev) have chosen quite rare idioms to make their texts really expressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet mentioned above &quot;холера&quot; is used surprisingly often. Probably due to Polish, though I must also remember quite popular Lavrenev's &quot;Сорок первый&quot; where the heroine extensively used the expression &quot;рыбья холера&quot; (&quot;fish cholera&quot;), which still in use (especially by older generation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of non-standard usage: &quot;чума&quot; (&quot;plague&quot;; quite different meanings from cursing upto admiration); &quot;язва&quot; (&quot;ulcer&quot;; usually about waspish person) - though here the word &quot;язва&quot; is used perhaps due to the older meaning &quot;wound&quot; rather than modern &quot;sore/ulcer&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8397" RevisionGUID="482b056b-72a4-4c6a-861e-e30914dd8c28" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:56:12.373" UserId="487" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="&quot;Гангрена&quot; is almost never used. It seems that Ilf (Feinsielberg) &amp; Petrov (Kataev) have chosen quite rare idioms to make their texts really expressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet mentioned above &quot;холера&quot; is used surprisingly often. Probably due to Polish, though I must also remember quite popular Lavrenev's &quot;Сорок первый&quot; where the heroine extensively used the expression &quot;рыбья холера&quot; (&quot;fish cholera&quot;), which still in use (especially by older generation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of non-standard usage: &quot;чума&quot; (&quot;plague&quot;; quite different meanings from cursing upto admiration); &quot;язва&quot; (&quot;ulcer&quot;; usually about waspish person) - though here the word &quot;язва&quot; is used perhaps due to the older meaning &quot;wound&quot; rather than modern &quot;sore/ulcer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Проклятье&quot; is clearly out of fashion (if only not to count Ukrainian cliche &quot;клятi москалi&quot; which Russians sometimes ironically use). In everyday speech people rather choose &quot;чёрт&quot; (although literary means &quot;devil&quot; even google-translate correctly shows &quot;damn&quot; as the first translation option), or &quot;твою мать&quot; (&quot;.. your mother&quot; - with the verb omitted, so it sounds a little less rude), or really obcene &quot;блядь&quot; (bitch)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8397" RevisionGUID="081ff30f-1013-4625-9c91-c95cc1185873" CreationDate="2015-03-31T08:57:53.680" UserId="5008" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Гангрена&quot; is almost never used. It seems that Ilf (Feinsielberg) &amp; Petrov (Kataev) have chosen quite rare idioms to make their texts really expressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet mentioned above &quot;холера&quot; is used surprisingly often. Probably due to Polish, though I must also remember quite popular Lavrenev's &quot;Сорок первый&quot; where the heroine extensively used the expression &quot;рыбья холера&quot; (&quot;fish cholera&quot;), which still in use (especially by older generation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples of non-standard usage: &quot;чума&quot; (&quot;plague&quot;; quite different meanings from cursing upto admiration); &quot;язва&quot; (&quot;ulcer&quot;; usually about waspish person) - though here the word &quot;язва&quot; is used perhaps due to the older meaning &quot;wound&quot; rather than modern &quot;sore/ulcer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Проклятье&quot; is clearly out of fashion (if only not to count Ukrainian cliche &quot;клятi москалi&quot; which Russians sometimes ironically use). In everyday speech people rather choose &quot;чёрт&quot; (although literary means &quot;devil&quot; even google-translate correctly shows &quot;damn&quot; as the first translation option), or &quot;твою мать&quot; (&quot;.. your mother&quot; - with the verb omitted, so it sounds a little less rude), or really obscene &quot;блядь&quot; (&quot;bitch&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8399" RevisionGUID="6a258b74-2903-4ad4-aa29-df6506c6484a" CreationDate="2015-03-31T12:57:32.613" UserId="5243" Text="sorry cannot comment yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st you have to remember this is a comedy from 1920th;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2nd keep in mind the censorship and PC speech in Soviet Russia when it was written.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russia is big. And keep in mind, people often use expressions from the movies. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7754" RevisionGUID="324fc861-9640-4a16-8683-b299745c1e14" CreationDate="2015-03-31T15:11:53.437" UserId="4753" Comment="fixed spelling errors and replaced Runglish example" Text="These phrases are typical of American business speak. Such speech is designed to be vague, uninformative, and euphemistic while inspiring confidence in the client. &quot;Technology&quot; can mean pretty much anything. &quot;Partner&quot; can describe pretty much any relationship between two participants except that between master and servant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American business and advertising speak encourages a level of vagueness which is extremely awkward in Russian. I would suggest it is your job as translator to determine the intended meaning from context and express it. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;агенты по распространению наших товаров&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фирмы сотрудничающие с нами чтобы представлять Вам эту технологию&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фирмы оказывающие услуги на основании нашей технологии&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;фирмы вступившие с нами в договор об обмене технологами&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="5dc66f2f-7e14-47fe-b443-d010a81b20b5" CreationDate="2015-03-31T15:57:58.800" UserId="5276" Text="Блин,в заголовке минимум 15 символов, тут минимум 30.. А что мне делать если мой вопрос всего в 13 символов укладывается?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="5dc66f2f-7e14-47fe-b443-d010a81b20b5" CreationDate="2015-03-31T15:57:58.800" UserId="5276" Text="Кич или китч? 15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="5dc66f2f-7e14-47fe-b443-d010a81b20b5" CreationDate="2015-03-31T15:57:58.800" UserId="5276" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20319" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="eebdbfa2-e915-4550-aed9-46f7ad4ee56c" CreationDate="2015-03-31T16:36:10.950" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8396" RevisionGUID="ba20a03e-a13c-4a75-954b-b54b74eb1848" CreationDate="2015-04-01T09:26:45.193" UserId="4637" Comment="added 1892 characters in body" Text="System Software Engineer - Системный инженер-программист / системный программист&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software Developers, Systems Software - Разработчики (программисты), системное ПО (программное обеспечение).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look for some official title from the government, you could refer [this document][1] or [this one][2]. I found also one more [link][3], which looks more complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [etks.info][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Программисты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Программисты разрабатывают записывают проверяют программы, реализующие решение различных технических, экономических и других задач с помощью компьютерной техники, а также осуществляют их сопровождение и обслуживание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Их обязанности включают:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    изучение целей решаемых задач требований к результатам, определение объемов структуры источников информации подлежащей обработке на вычислительных машинах макетов и схем ее ввода, обработки, хранения, выдачи и контроля;&#xD;&#xA;    описание задач с помощью математических моделей и алгоритмов, составление и запись программ на языках программирования высокого уровня и машинно-ориентированных языках;&#xD;&#xA;    отладку разработанных программ и их корректировку в процессе доработки;&#xD;&#xA;    определение возможности использования в решении задач готовых программ разработанных другими разработчиками (учреждениями, организациями, предприятиями);&#xD;&#xA;    разработку и внедрение методов автоматизированного программирования типовых и стандартных программ управляющих, обрабатывающих сервисных программ инструкций по их использованию, входных алгоритмических языков;&#xD;&#xA;    участие в работах по унификации и типизации вычислительных процессов, расширению области применения вычислительной техники;&#xD;&#xA;    обслуживание компьютерных программ и соответствующей документации заключающееся в их обновлении и корректировке в соответствии с изменением входных и выходных данных, спецификаций или состава оборудования, вычислительных средств;&#xD;&#xA;    выполнение родственных по содержанию обязанностей;&#xD;&#xA;    руководство другими работниками.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of professions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Программист&#xD;&#xA; - Инженер-программист&#xD;&#xA; - Инженер - системный программист (amendment #5 from 2004)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://professions.org.ru/?okz=2132&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.etks.info/okpdtr/office/search?q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://base.garant.ru/1548770/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.etks.info/okz/group-2132.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8401" RevisionGUID="a34404dc-8b74-4b99-ba8f-b7164715aaa7" CreationDate="2015-04-01T11:06:38.117" UserId="4848" Text="Is there an equivalent expression in Russian (not a direct translation) of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups&quot; quote?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8401" RevisionGUID="a34404dc-8b74-4b99-ba8f-b7164715aaa7" CreationDate="2015-04-01T11:06:38.117" UserId="4848" Text="Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups... in Russian (sorry:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8401" RevisionGUID="a34404dc-8b74-4b99-ba8f-b7164715aaa7" CreationDate="2015-04-01T11:06:38.117" UserId="4848" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8402" RevisionGUID="bd18ed39-498f-4190-bcc8-d1d0640320c2" CreationDate="2015-04-01T12:40:04.610" UserId="134" Text="A common Russian response to *я думал...* (&quot;I thought that...&quot;) is *индюк тоже думал, да в суп попал* (&quot;A turkey was a thinker too but ended up in a dish of stew&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8402" RevisionGUID="133d69d6-212a-4a10-8d85-ae860cfdad86" CreationDate="2015-04-01T12:48:33.723" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A common Russian response to *я думал...* (&quot;I thought that...&quot;) is *индюк тоже думал, да в суп попал* (&quot;A gobbler was a thinker too but ended up in a dish of stew&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8403" RevisionGUID="e5bb7530-314e-4b09-be45-469b989c8019" CreationDate="2015-04-01T13:10:44.500" UserId="5008" Text="Some variants on the subject (not sure which suits better):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наперёд не загадывай&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наперёд не узнаешь, где найдёшь, где потеряешь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек предполагает, а Бог - располагает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гладко было на бумаге, да забыли про овраги" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8404" RevisionGUID="f9b637d0-80f2-40b9-bf4e-0869cdefafc9" CreationDate="2015-04-02T00:05:43.577" UserId="2079" Text="Словари говорят, что &quot;ляг&quot;, но в устной речи (а также в форумах и т.д.) мне встречалось чаще всего &quot;ляжь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не устарели ли словари (капитан Очевидность напоминает, что любой язык эволюционирует), или по каким правилам нужно именно &quot;ляг&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8404" RevisionGUID="f9b637d0-80f2-40b9-bf4e-0869cdefafc9" CreationDate="2015-04-02T00:05:43.577" UserId="2079" Text="Повелительное от &quot;лечь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8404" RevisionGUID="f9b637d0-80f2-40b9-bf4e-0869cdefafc9" CreationDate="2015-04-02T00:05:43.577" UserId="2079" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8405" RevisionGUID="fb138806-1089-41c3-b212-f86d3e67c373" CreationDate="2015-04-02T00:11:55.270" UserId="4560" Text="Никогда не встречал &quot;ляжь&quot;, вот даже как образчик ne plus ultra бескультурной речи, каким он бесспорно являлся бы. Просто не встречал и всё тут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="41f44de7-c379-4d8c-be86-24e57781907f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T09:41:03.123" UserId="551" Comment="Changed the question text according to author comments, my intuition and telepathy" Text="В статье [Китч](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%E8%F2%F7) на википедии, например, это слово употребляется то как &quot;китч&quot;, то как &quot;кич&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какое написание правильное (или предпочтительное)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="41f44de7-c379-4d8c-be86-24e57781907f" CreationDate="2015-04-02T09:41:03.123" UserId="551" Comment="Changed the question text according to author comments, my intuition and telepathy" Text="Как правильно: кич или китч?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8406" RevisionGUID="ed3a7264-247f-4bf3-a5fa-14c236ee062c" CreationDate="2015-04-02T09:47:58.843" UserId="5286" Text="Первое же впечатление, что &quot;ляжь&quot; - просто форма разговорная просторечная по образу &quot;лОжить&quot;. Хотя и &quot;ляг&quot; для меня звучит неудобно, если можно так выразиться. Мысленно я могу представить, что я скажу, например, ребёнку &quot;Ляг уже&quot;. Но скорее я бы использовал &quot;ложись&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но, отвечая на сам вопрос, моё мнение, что ляжь - неграмотно. Если бы надо было выбрать из двух вариантов - однозначно выбрал бы &quot;ляг&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8407" RevisionGUID="8eba74f3-f0e4-49fd-abb2-25775c9dfa42" CreationDate="2015-04-02T10:16:52.463" UserId="5286" Text="As a native office citizen I would go with &quot;доска&quot; or &quot;доска для рисования&quot; or just translate as &quot;белая доска&quot;. Never have used &quot;маркерная доска&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand I mostly work with foreigners and I used to say whiteboard without translation even if I speak in Russian. Like &quot;Там есть вайтбоард?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But this can only be true in office environment since you do not expect to meet any other board in the meeting room. Maybe in some educational rooms you will need to define if you need markers or chalk.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8408" RevisionGUID="c41ed407-0629-42c8-adee-34eb94fa9285" CreationDate="2015-04-02T10:21:45.577" UserId="5287" Text="Вроде как &quot;ляг&quot;. Ляг на спину." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8409" RevisionGUID="b4b2bd0f-f317-400a-8205-21c064b1249a" CreationDate="2015-04-02T10:23:24.367" UserId="5286" Text="The latest information about official description of occupations and positions you can find (in Russian) here http://profstandart.rosmintrud.ru/&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of different documents but not much of direct pages so I extract for you description for the Engineer-Software developer (software developer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ИНЖЕНЕР-ПРОГРАММИСТ (ПРОГРАММИСТ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должностные обязанности. На основе анализа математических моделей и алгоритмов решения экономических и других задач разрабатывает программы, обеспечивающие возможность выполнения алгоритма и соответственно поставленной задачи средствами вычислительной техники, проводит их тестирование и отладку. Разрабатывает технологию решения задачи по всем этапам обработки информации. Осуществляет выбор языка программирования для описания алгоритмов и структур данных. Определяет информацию, подлежащую обработке средствами вычислительной техники, ее объемы, структуру, макеты и схемы ввода, обработки, хранения и вывода, методы ее контроля. Выполняет работу по подготовке программ к отладке и проводит отладку. Определяет объем и содержание данных контрольных примеров, обеспечивающих наиболее полную проверку соответствия программ их функциональному назначению. Осуществляет запуск отлаженных программ и ввод исходных данных, определяемых условиями поставленных задач. Проводит корректировку разработанной программы на основе анализа выходных данных. Разрабатывает инструкции по работе с программами, оформляет необходимую техническую документацию. Определяет возможность использования готовых программных продуктов. Осуществляет сопровождение внедренных программ и программных средств. Разрабатывает и внедряет системы автоматической проверки правильности программ, типовые и стандартные программные средства, составляет технологию обработки информации. Выполняет работу по унификации и типизации вычислительных процессов. Принимает участие в создании каталогов и картотек стандартных программ, в разработке форм документов, подлежащих машинной обработке, в проектировании программ, позволяющих расширить область применения вычислительной техники.&#xD;&#xA;Должен знать: руководящие и нормативные материалы, регламентирующие методы разработки алгоритмов и программ и использования вычислительной техники при обработке информации; основные принципы структурного программирования; виды программного обеспечения; технико-эксплуатационные характеристики, конструктивные особенности, назначение и режимы работы ЭВМ, правила ее технической эксплуатации; технологию автоматической обработки информации; виды технических носителей информации; методы классификации и кодирования информации; формализованные языки программирования; действующие стандарты, системы счислений, шифров и кодов; порядок оформления технической документации; передовой отечественный и зарубежный опыт программирования и использования вычислительной техники; основы экономики, организации производства, труда и управления; основы трудового законодательства; правила и нормы охраны труда.&#xD;&#xA;Требования к квалификации.&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист I категории: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и стаж работы в должности инженера-программиста II категории не менее 3 лет.&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист II категории: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и стаж работы в должности инженера-программиста III категории или других инженерно-технических должностях, замещаемых специалистами с высшим профессиональным образованием, не менее 3 лет.&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист III категории: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и опыт работы по специальности, приобретенный в период обучения, или стаж работы на инженерно-технических должностях без квалификационной категории.&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование без предъявления требований к стажу работы или среднее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и стаж работы в должности техника I категории не менее 3 лет либо других должностях, замещаемых специалистами со средним профессиональным образованием, не менее 5 лет.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8406" RevisionGUID="4f363d48-b87b-4ab6-a38b-fba3daf50638" CreationDate="2015-04-02T10:33:23.077" UserId="5286" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="Первое же впечатление, что &quot;ляжь&quot; - просто форма разговорная просторечная по образу &quot;лОжить&quot;. Хотя и &quot;ляг&quot; для меня звучит неудобно, если можно так выразиться. Мысленно я могу представить, что я скажу, например, ребёнку &quot;Ляг уже&quot;. Но скорее я бы использовал &quot;ложись&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Но, отвечая на сам вопрос, моё мнение, что ляжь - неграмотно. Если бы надо было выбрать из двух вариантов - однозначно выбрал бы &quot;ляг&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Да вот хотя бы представить себе ситуацию - во время войны при звуке подлетающей бомбы - какое слово хочется употребить - &quot;Ляг&quot;, &quot;ляжь&quot; или &quot;ложись&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="2fdd8398-7f8d-4dfb-b0d1-5bbd4c5b4928" CreationDate="2015-04-02T10:51:20.390" UserId="3498" Text="ИМХО в данном случае словари не устарели, слова `ляг` и `лягте` употребляются не на столько реже, чем `ляжь` и `ляжьте`.&#xD;&#xA;Думаю, что во мн.ч. правильная форма даже преобладает" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8412" RevisionGUID="ee0526fd-ab35-44ca-8052-e0adcc9cbfba" CreationDate="2015-04-02T18:45:29.957" UserId="5288" Text="The best way to see for itself the validity of the all arguments for /not using the words and sentence constructions is to try Yandex search engine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`я не умею говорить по-`](http://yandex.ua/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8E%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D0%BE-%22&amp;clid=1836587&amp;lr=144&amp;p=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for different nuances in different contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8412" RevisionGUID="f1084ede-e518-4d5b-8e8d-848d0467a473" CreationDate="2015-04-02T18:56:31.260" UserId="5288" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="The best way to see for itself the validity of the all arguments for /not using the words and sentence constructions is to try Yandex search engine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`я не умею говорить по-`](http://yandex.ua/yandsearch?text=%22%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8E%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D0%BE-%22&amp;clid=1836587&amp;lr=144&amp;p=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`я не говорю по-`](http://yandex.ua/yandsearch?text=%22%D0%AF%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8E%20%D0%BF%D0%BE-%22&amp;clid=1836587&amp;lr=144)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for different nuances in different contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8413" RevisionGUID="29092f10-7ae6-4562-b162-9051a040eb3e" CreationDate="2015-04-02T19:41:59.703" UserId="5289" Text="Are there any Russian adjectives, whether they end in -ый, -ий, or -ой, whose final consonant is ф? (I.e. -фый, -фий, -фой)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8413" RevisionGUID="29092f10-7ae6-4562-b162-9051a040eb3e" CreationDate="2015-04-02T19:41:59.703" UserId="5289" Text="Are there any adjectives ending in -фый/-фий/-фой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8413" RevisionGUID="29092f10-7ae6-4562-b162-9051a040eb3e" CreationDate="2015-04-02T19:41:59.703" UserId="5289" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="9bb51e5d-6559-4542-89af-785ed5bb7fe9" CreationDate="2015-04-02T20:14:35.147" UserId="4560" Text="-фой — no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-фий — theoretically, a possessive one such as *графий* (&quot;the count’s&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-фый — theoretically again, and definitely crossing into occasionalisms, something of the [adjective]-[noun]ed type (as in &quot;dark-haired&quot;) where the noun would end in -ф or -фа. I can't think of anything less whimsical and unlikely than *многошкафая комната* or *длиннострофые стихи*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="d5a225de-d3da-4764-9eae-2581fb9245cb" CreationDate="2015-04-02T20:21:52.230" UserId="4560" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="-фой — no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-фий — theoretically, a possessive one such as *графий* (&quot;the count’s&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-фый — theoretically again, and definitely crossing into occasionalisms, something of the [adjective]-[noun]ed type (as in &quot;dark-haired&quot;) where the noun would end in -ф or -фа. I can't think of anything less whimsical and unlikely than *многошкафая комната* (&quot;many-closeted room&quot;) or *длиннострофые стихи* (&quot;long-stanzaed verse&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="8673f258-f577-4253-a766-389b362e76f5" CreationDate="2015-04-02T21:07:34.883" UserId="5288" Text="`Барыга` (pusher, profiteer, illicit **dealer**) — now `дилер` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`нажива, барыш` [usage example](http://yandex.ua/yandsearch?text=%22%D0%B2%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%22&amp;clid=1836587&amp;lr=144) (**margin**, spread) — now `маржа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`торговец` (**trader**) — now `трейдер`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`бульварная пресса` (**tabloid**) — now `таблоид`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`хахаль` (**boyfriend**, suitor) — now `бойфренд`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дешевый перевозчик` (**low cost**) — now `лоукостер`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for the sake of any other advantage I suggest searching the web for terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`заимствованные слова`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`иностранные слова`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`модные иностранные словечки`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="273fa163-f0dd-453d-aba4-c5ed87baa4ed" CreationDate="2015-04-02T22:04:08.867" UserId="5288" Text="I have seen the mention of Native Speakers. &#xD;&#xA;And nobody could give You an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried some tests at [translate.yandex.ru](https://translate.yandex.ua/?text=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) .&#xD;&#xA;Speech engine wouldn't admit any critical error during the tests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `сегодня` по-русски читается как `севодня`; `часы` по-русски читаются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как `чисы`,  в слове `дядя` слышится легкое `з` — `дзядя`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For rapid control* I dare to say that it's suitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="d93fe695-7a17-49ee-8414-854ecc6c490a" CreationDate="2015-04-02T22:23:12.473" UserId="5288" Comment="edited body" Text="I have seen the mention of Native Speakers. &#xD;&#xA;And nobody could give You an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried some tests at [translate.yandex.ru](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) .&#xD;&#xA;Speech engine wouldn't admit any critical error during the tests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `сегодня` по-русски читается как `севодня`; `часы` по-русски читаются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как `чисы`,  в слове `дядя` слышится легкое `з` — `дзядя`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For rapid control* I dare to say that it's suitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8420" RevisionGUID="ab6df65b-c57d-4090-ae3d-029e38eb710c" CreationDate="2015-04-03T05:37:13.897" UserId="1475" Text="http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/849810 в толковом словаре Ушакова - действительно &quot;ляг&quot;&#xA;&#xA;В разговорной речи редко употребляется повелительное от &quot;лечь&quot;. Чаще говорят &quot;ложи(те)сь&quot;, но это уже глагол &quot;ложиться&quot;. 8)&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Ляг&quot; иногда слышу, но нечасто.&#xA;&#xA;Всю жизнь в Москве, &quot;Ляжь&quot; я не слышал **никогда**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8420" RevisionGUID="fd2e1a87-761c-4144-b670-c4d1cc85063a" CreationDate="2015-04-03T05:44:07.663" UserId="1475" Comment="additions" Text="http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/849810 в толковом словаре Ушакова - действительно &quot;ляг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В разговорной речи редко употребляется повелительное от &quot;лечь&quot;. Чаще говорят &quot;ложи(те)сь&quot;, но это уже глагол &quot;ложиться&quot;. 8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ляг&quot; иногда слышу, но нечасто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всю жизнь в Москве, &quot;Ляжь&quot; я не слышал **никогда**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Касаемо &quot;словари устарели - не устарели&quot;: разговорная речь вообще имеет не так много общего с классическим языком, причём любым: и русским, и иностранным. 15 лет учил английский только для того, чтобы понять, что там никто не говорит по классическим канонам грамматики. Учил, чтобы потом принудительно разучиваться 8) . В русском языке аналогичная ситуация, и это нормально до некоторых пределов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8421" RevisionGUID="0ed4d2c2-1628-40f2-8d15-2136c62d3dee" CreationDate="2015-04-03T05:45:00.730" UserId="5027" Text="What are the most significant changes in Russian language in 20th-21st centuries other than orthography rules and lexicon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8421" RevisionGUID="0ed4d2c2-1628-40f2-8d15-2136c62d3dee" CreationDate="2015-04-03T05:45:00.730" UserId="5027" Text="Recent Russian language changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8421" RevisionGUID="0ed4d2c2-1628-40f2-8d15-2136c62d3dee" CreationDate="2015-04-03T05:45:00.730" UserId="5027" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8409" RevisionGUID="8a9fb230-0fa3-40cf-bede-a4d401fb8aa9" CreationDate="2015-04-03T10:29:16.243" UserId="5286" Comment="improved" Text="The latest information about official description of occupations and positions you can find (in Russian) here http://profstandart.rosmintrud.ru/&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of different documents but not much of direct pages so I extract for you description for the Engineer-Software developer (software developer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ИНЖЕНЕР-ПРОГРАММИСТ (ПРОГРАММИСТ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должностные обязанности. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На основе анализа математических моделей и алгоритмов решения экономических и других задач разрабатывает программы, обеспечивающие возможность выполнения алгоритма и соответственно поставленной задачи средствами вычислительной техники, проводит их тестирование и отладку. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разрабатывает технологию решения задачи по всем этапам обработки информации. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Осуществляет выбор языка программирования для описания алгоритмов и структур данных. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Определяет информацию, подлежащую обработке средствами вычислительной техники, ее объемы, структуру, макеты и схемы ввода, обработки, хранения и вывода, методы ее контроля. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выполняет работу по подготовке программ к отладке и проводит отладку. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Определяет объем и содержание данных контрольных примеров, обеспечивающих наиболее полную проверку соответствия программ их функциональному назначению. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Осуществляет запуск отлаженных программ и ввод исходных данных, определяемых условиями поставленных задач. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проводит корректировку разработанной программы на основе анализа выходных данных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разрабатывает инструкции по работе с программами, оформляет необходимую техническую документацию. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Определяет возможность использования готовых программных продуктов. Осуществляет сопровождение внедренных программ и программных средств. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разрабатывает и внедряет системы автоматической проверки правильности программ, типовые и стандартные программные средства, составляет технологию обработки информации. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выполняет работу по унификации и типизации вычислительных процессов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Принимает участие в создании каталогов и картотек стандартных программ, в разработке форм документов, подлежащих машинной обработке, в проектировании программ, позволяющих расширить область применения вычислительной техники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должен знать: &#xD;&#xA;руководящие и нормативные материалы, регламентирующие методы разработки алгоритмов и программ и использования вычислительной техники при обработке информации; &#xD;&#xA;основные принципы структурного программирования; &#xD;&#xA;виды программного обеспечения; &#xD;&#xA;технико-эксплуатационные характеристики, конструктивные особенности, назначение и режимы работы ЭВМ, правила ее технической эксплуатации; &#xD;&#xA;технологию автоматической обработки информации; &#xD;&#xA;виды технических носителей информации;&#xD;&#xA;методы классификации и кодирования информации; &#xD;&#xA;формализованные языки программирования; &#xD;&#xA;действующие стандарты, системы счислений, шифров и кодов; &#xD;&#xA;порядок оформления технической документации; &#xD;&#xA;передовой отечественный и зарубежный опыт программирования и использования вычислительной техники; &#xD;&#xA;основы экономики, организации производства, труда и управления; &#xD;&#xA;основы трудового законодательства; &#xD;&#xA;правила и нормы охраны труда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Требования к квалификации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист I категории: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и стаж работы в должности инженера-программиста II категории не менее 3 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист II категории: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и стаж работы в должности инженера-программиста III категории или других инженерно-технических должностях, замещаемых специалистами с высшим профессиональным образованием, не менее 3 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист III категории: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и опыт работы по специальности, приобретенный в период обучения, или стаж работы на инженерно-технических должностях без квалификационной категории.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Инженер-программист: высшее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование без предъявления требований к стажу работы или среднее профессиональное (техническое или инженерно-экономическое) образование и стаж работы в должности техника I категории не менее 3 лет либо других должностях, замещаемых специалистами со средним профессиональным образованием, не менее 5 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="86a9fde2-6c34-4699-a9b2-87b05956d74d" CreationDate="2015-04-03T10:38:46.267" UserId="4560" Text="The heavily artificial, but apparently catching, trend towards indeclinable brand names and titles (driven by marketers trying to preserve what they call &quot;brand integrity&quot;). They're using a grammatical loophole of a sort, the implicit qualifier: `работа в &quot;Макдоналдс&quot;` rather than `в &quot;Макдоналдсе&quot;` implying `в ресторанах &quot;Макдоналдс&quot;`, etc. This has led to occasional examples of people not declining anything that goes in quotes, including film and periodical titles. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="daa5ecb4-5ca9-4647-8c25-edfb9ffe55aa" CreationDate="2015-04-03T10:47:49.210" UserId="4560" Comment="added 540 characters in body" Text="The heavily artificial, but apparently catching, trend towards indeclinable brand names and titles (driven by marketers trying to preserve what they call &quot;brand integrity&quot;). They're using a grammatical loophole of a sort, the implicit qualifier: `работа в &quot;Макдоналдс&quot;` rather than `в &quot;Макдоналдсе&quot;` implying `в ресторанах &quot;Макдоналдс&quot;`, etc. This has led to occasional examples of people not declining anything that goes in quotes, including film and periodical titles. Personally I'm worried/grumpy about the younger generation picking up this lack of declension as intuitively &quot;correct&quot;, but it's not such a big deal in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other &quot;kids these days&quot; developments, the malapropist substitution of `неприкасаемый` for `неприкосновенный` seems to be unstoppable; it's all over the media and no one cares. The latter word may go obsolete, and the former officially take on a meaning (untouchable as in immune or inviolable) antonymous to its original and strictly correct one (untouchable as in pariah)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="1f37fbd1-9cca-46cf-b1bc-bcbd5d202a35" CreationDate="2015-04-03T10:56:54.827" UserId="4560" Comment="added 540 characters in body" Text="The heavily artificial, but apparently catching, trend towards indeclinable brand names and titles (driven by marketers trying to preserve what they call &quot;brand integrity&quot;). They're using a grammatical loophole of a sort, the implicit qualifier: `работа в &quot;Макдоналдс&quot;` rather than `в &quot;Макдоналдсе&quot;` implying `в ресторанах &quot;Макдоналдс&quot;`, etc. This has led to occasional examples of people not declining anything that goes in quotes, including film and periodical titles. Personally I'm worried/grumpy about the younger generation picking up this lack of declension as intuitively &quot;correct&quot;, but it's not such a big deal in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other &quot;kids these days&quot; developments, the malapropist substitution of `неприкасаемый` for `неприкосновенный` seems to be unstoppable; it's all over the media and no one cares. The latter word may go obsolete, and the former officially take on a meaning (untouchable as in immune or inviolable) antonymous to its original and strictly correct one (untouchable as in pariah).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A minor but very curious example of English borrowings influencing the Russian phonetic inventory, further than the already semi-accepted /w/, is what seems to be a palatalised glottal stop: at least one video game streamer on Twitch rendered &quot;early drops&quot; (a Hearthstone term) as `[ʔʲо]рли-дропы` (there's currently no way to even spell it standardly); this may become bigger in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8423" RevisionGUID="48610f24-207c-4d3e-9518-4602751fab17" CreationDate="2015-04-03T13:44:51.627" UserId="310" Text="&quot;ложи[те]сь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гораздо более частотная форма без грамматической неопределённости." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8424" RevisionGUID="2fe00e1b-c21a-4c07-a8f4-7f18a2b33ca2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T16:03:04.720" UserId="2238" Text="&quot;Ляг(те)&quot; является единственной нормативной формой.&#xD;&#xA;Распространение некорректного &quot;*ляжь(те)&quot; связано с тем, что &quot;ляг(те)&quot; - единственное исключение из правила, по которому для образования повелительного наклонения без суффикса &quot;-и&quot; окончание отсекается от формы второго лица: &quot;встань(те)&quot; от &quot;встанешь&quot; (не &quot;встан(те)&quot; от &quot;встану&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, словари не устарели, и &quot;ляг&quot; остаётся достаточно частотным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8426" RevisionGUID="e56e9e03-8a34-4ce7-a544-fedcdbcd30e2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:28:11.773" UserId="3892" Text="I'm familiar with the meaning of **ну да**, but I recently came across **да ну** and don't quite know what to make of it. I first heard it in a movie, where a man tries to help a girl carry some boxes, and she says (something that sounds like):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да ну что вы. Не нужно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She was nice about it, but I couldn't tell if she wanted him to leave her alone or was just being coy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, I would love to know how да ну is used. Also is it pronounced **да́ ну** or **да ну́** ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8426" RevisionGUID="e56e9e03-8a34-4ce7-a544-fedcdbcd30e2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:28:11.773" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of да ну" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8426" RevisionGUID="e56e9e03-8a34-4ce7-a544-fedcdbcd30e2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:28:11.773" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="2350f54a-5387-4e3a-aa7f-8c0da17a40b2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:29:25.427" UserId="3892" Text="At first sight, it looks like &quot;none other than,&quot; but in this context that can't be correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то у меня голова болит – **не иначе как** простудился." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="2350f54a-5387-4e3a-aa7f-8c0da17a40b2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:29:25.427" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of не иначе как" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="2350f54a-5387-4e3a-aa7f-8c0da17a40b2" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:29:25.427" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8428" RevisionGUID="ea03d93f-2c66-40d7-9762-85345c4736e0" CreationDate="2015-04-03T21:57:17.913" UserId="4560" Text="`да ну́`, or both unstressed if something like `что вы` follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She was possibly being coy, or at any rate wasn't particularly insistent on being left alone. `Да ну` is a kind of laid-back expression of the needlessness of some action, either by the speaker or by the listener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more emphatic `да ну!` is used to express incredulity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be used with pronouns in the accusative — `да ну тебя`, `да ну его`, `да ну её`, as an all-purpose expression of dismissal, ranging anywhere from benignly apathetic to annoyed. It can, again, mean incredulity, or &quot;enough of you and your being difficult&quot;, or &quot;who cares about him/her anyway&quot;. Note that it has to be a personal pronoun. If you have to name the object, you say something like `да ну его, этого Иванова`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8429" RevisionGUID="84aa3693-3bf7-4031-b198-e82ed6cce34f" CreationDate="2015-04-03T22:03:21.023" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;I must have caught a chill&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much like the English expression, it's a colloquial overstatement — using a categorical claim (*must*, *не иначе*) to express what's really just a high likelihood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8430" RevisionGUID="d8df3538-0670-4bdb-9e4d-ae73ede20b1b" CreationDate="2015-04-04T00:01:53.437" UserId="194" Text="ну да = yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;да ну = doubt, soft no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8431" RevisionGUID="a271c19b-a27b-4937-9401-e249ab962c23" CreationDate="2015-04-04T00:12:30.307" UserId="194" Text="One trend driven by English influence is shortening some verbs and their derivatives by removing some suffixes in colloquial speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    программировать -&gt; программить &#xD;&#xA;    терраформировать -&gt; терраформить&#xD;&#xA;    трансформировать -&gt; трансформить&#xD;&#xA;    информировать -&gt; информить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="ccc115e9-e5f9-4c54-8bff-900c376f456d" CreationDate="2015-04-04T01:05:16.403" UserId="4560" Comment="re discussion" Text="-фой — no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-фий — theoretically, a possessive one such as *графий* (&quot;the count’s&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-фый — theoretically again, and definitely crossing into occasionalisms, something of the [adjective]-[noun]ed type (as in &quot;dark-haired&quot;) where the noun would end in -ф or -фа. I can't think of anything less whimsical and unlikely than *многошкафая комната* (&quot;many-closeted room&quot;) or *длиннострофые стихи* (&quot;long-stanzaed verse&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** Before anyone else flames me about *многошкафая комната*, a recap:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We shouldn't even be discussing the merits of the word. It's correctly formed; it *could* exist; that answers the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- But if we're discussing it anyway: *многошкафая комната* is a witticism; *многошкафная комната* is a solecism. There exists a combination of meaning and intended effect (facetious, perhaps referencing the Futurists) for which *многошкафая* would be the best fit. Good luck finding a use for *многошкафная* or *многошкафовая* that doesn't end up being just a really awkward way to say *комната со множеством шкафов* or *комната, где много шкафов*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8432" RevisionGUID="17de4b4c-0bad-4c96-90f8-a7ca9057b1b5" CreationDate="2015-04-04T05:58:12.447" UserId="4848" Text="The right one would be - Come on&#xA;&#xA;Oh, come on, you are not serious!&#xA;Да ну, ты не серьезно!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="d2374358-6bfb-46da-9468-281676aa2dd3" CreationDate="2015-04-04T10:41:03.840" UserId="5069" Text="Russian names have several variants depending on the nature of the relationship between two parties involved in a conversation, formality of the setting, etc. A lady officially named Ekaterina may be called Katya among her friends but Katenka by, say, colleagues. I understand shorter names may prove useful in case of children since they are easier to pronounce/recognize for them, but this is not always necessarily the case either. For instance, an Ivan is frequently referred to as Vanya in a sympathetic manner, which is in fact longer than the original name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm wondering, why bother? Why do such variants exist and how did they come to existence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="d2374358-6bfb-46da-9468-281676aa2dd3" CreationDate="2015-04-04T10:41:03.840" UserId="5069" Text="Why are there so many variants for Russian names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="d2374358-6bfb-46da-9468-281676aa2dd3" CreationDate="2015-04-04T10:41:03.840" UserId="5069" Text="|выражения|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8434" RevisionGUID="dc9a4f8f-452f-4a3c-bfbb-33334523bd1c" CreationDate="2015-04-04T16:09:55.450" UserId="4884" Text="The term for those names is not &quot;a short name&quot;, it is diminutives. Diminutives are for addressing somebody affectionately; they do the job of  pet names like sweetie, dear, sweetheart etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diminutives are not necessarily shorter or easier to pronounce. They are used differently. Full names are for formal conversations, while diminutives are for conversation between people who are close to each other. It would be strange to call a little boy or girl by their full names - we use &quot;cute&quot; names for that, i.e. diminutives. Sometimes there can be more than one diminutive for the very same name, for example, Павел is a full name (Russian version of Paul), his parents would call him Павлик, and his friends would call him Паша, because Павлик is too childish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, finally, longer words are not necessarily harder to pronounce. Russian  children have no problems with pronouncing long words as long as those words constitutes of &quot;perfect syllables&quot;: one consonant - one vowel. It's piles of consonants that is hard to pronounce." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8435" RevisionGUID="6fd1e5ba-6d9b-4da5-901d-4cbb7dfe883f" CreationDate="2015-04-04T16:42:47.453" UserId="170" Text="Do I need to place commas right before and right after **в то же время**?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, всё правильно, но здесь кроется очень опасная и **в то же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время** весьма популярная сегодня мысль о том, что..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8435" RevisionGUID="6fd1e5ba-6d9b-4da5-901d-4cbb7dfe883f" CreationDate="2015-04-04T16:42:47.453" UserId="170" Text="Does &quot;в то же время&quot; need to have commas here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8435" RevisionGUID="6fd1e5ba-6d9b-4da5-901d-4cbb7dfe883f" CreationDate="2015-04-04T16:42:47.453" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8436" RevisionGUID="7cad899d-6683-4fae-a549-96ae5384d69e" CreationDate="2015-04-04T17:12:00.953" UserId="4560" Text="No, never. Generally, when in doubt, don't. Hypercorrected extra commas produce a worse impression than omitted ones. You can't pin them down on carelessness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="e21a298d-f180-4613-b0f0-6062c822f42e" CreationDate="2015-04-04T18:23:21.240" UserId="4592" Text="I would probably go with &quot;[жирафий][1]&quot;. Not so sure about the ones ending with &quot;-фый&quot; or &quot;-фой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%E6%E8%F0%E0%F4%E8%E9&amp;all=x " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8439" RevisionGUID="78e4093f-3664-4939-8cbb-8dae82d05cb8" CreationDate="2015-04-04T18:40:01.340" UserId="4592" Text="Short answer: no, you don't, see [this article on Грамота.ру][1].  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Long answer: Грамота.ру doesn't carry a lot of authority in the eyes of professional editors, but it can be used as a reference source with about as much trust as Wikipedia on neutral themes: you shouldn't quote it, and occasionally it can be mistaken, but generally it's an alright starting point.  &#xD;&#xA;I can't seem to find this in Справочник Розенталя fast enough, but the general sense is that &quot;by default&quot; you don't put any commas anywhere, unless stated otherwise. In this case we know that &quot;в то же время&quot; is not вводное сочетание, and therefore, there is no reason to surround it with commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/58_128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="60e1f529-a834-4959-85cc-540a6b13475e" CreationDate="2015-04-05T06:26:03.943" UserId="5270" Text="Здравствуйте!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently learning the Russian language, and was quite intrigued by how they treat articles (they basically disregard/imply them). However the word &quot;is&quot; is not stated to be an article, yet seems to be implied. The only potential word for &quot;is&quot; I can find is when I ask Google Translate and it returns 'является'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is strange, for example: to say &quot;the ball is red&quot; we would say 'мяч красный'. Notice how this does not have 'является', it actually directly translates to &quot;ball red&quot; yet is (or can be?) translated &quot;the ball is red&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;I would like to know the exact usage rules regarding &quot;is&quot;, when (or if) 'является' is (or should be) used, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="60e1f529-a834-4959-85cc-540a6b13475e" CreationDate="2015-04-05T06:26:03.943" UserId="5270" Text="Does the word &quot;is&quot; have an actual form in Russian? (Usage rules?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="60e1f529-a834-4959-85cc-540a6b13475e" CreationDate="2015-04-05T06:26:03.943" UserId="5270" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8441" RevisionGUID="f46d99a1-1e19-47f2-953a-b3bf087bda3b" CreationDate="2015-04-05T07:34:49.983" UserId="4379" Text="In fact, there's no such phenomenon as English articles in Russian at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue, opposite to yours, is also faced by Russian people who start learning English, since a complete sentence always must contain a verb in English. But verbs aren't necessary in Russian, especially if they mean &quot;to be&quot;. However, I think verbs with other meanings can't be skipped. You can use &quot;явлется&quot; in your phrases to replace &quot;is&quot; and it's fairly understandable, but it would seem unnaturally complicated for a native speaker. For example, &quot;ball is red&quot; should be translated as &quot;мяч красный&quot; instead of &quot;мяч является красным&quot;. From my point of view, in your speech you can always omit the verb translating a sentence from English into Russian if it's &quot;to be&quot;. Possible exceptions are scientific and juristic topics which use more formal language, for example &quot;this law is of great importance for the country&quot; can be translated as &quot;этот закон является очень важным для страны&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8442" RevisionGUID="4008408f-8852-482d-8c33-7bb911ff1422" CreationDate="2015-04-05T12:30:37.770" UserId="194" Text="The word &quot;to be&quot; in Russian in &quot;есть&quot;, not &quot;является&quot;. &quot;Является&quot; is better translated as &quot;constitutes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb есть is the cognate to English verb &quot;is&quot;. In some cases it has the form быть/буду/будет/был etc, all cognates to English &quot;be&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8443" RevisionGUID="27dab89b-0ca7-48bf-8710-b1fe2443f471" CreationDate="2015-04-05T12:49:04.890" UserId="134" Text="Russian does have an imperfective verb meaning &quot;to be&quot; (*быть*) and it even can be conjugated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я есмь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты еси&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он, она, оно есть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы есьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы есьте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; они суть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, though personal forms are Church Slavonic loanwords and are almost never used in Russian proper (except for the 3-rd person forms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, like Hebrew and some other languages, uses a so called zero copula in present. This means that no words are used to link a subject with predicate in present: phrases like *я русский* (&quot;I am Russian&quot;), *она красивая* (&quot;she is pretty&quot;) etc. only have the subject and the predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for the past and future actual copulas are used, also forms of *быть*: *я был молодым* (&quot;I was young&quot;), *вы будете старыми* (&quot;you will be old&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of *быть* might be used as a copula in present for emphatic puproses: *они и есть победители* (&quot;it's them who are the winners&quot;). In spoken language, 3-rd person singular form (*есть*) is used for all persons and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since Russian has proximal possession (i.e. &quot;to have&quot; in Russian is expressed as &quot;to be at someone/something&quot;), 3rd sg. of *быть* (*есть*) can also be used to translate &quot;to have&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть собака* / I have a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Есть ли жизнь на Марсе?* / Is there life on Mars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8442" RevisionGUID="0e7a2b06-2a4f-4fa1-ac03-9ec59a73c050" CreationDate="2015-04-05T16:41:59.973" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="The word &quot;to be&quot; in Russian is &quot;есть&quot;, not &quot;является&quot;. &quot;Является&quot; is better translated as &quot;constitutes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb есть is the cognate to English verb &quot;is&quot;. In some cases it has the form быть/буду/будет/был etc, all cognates to English &quot;be&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8444" RevisionGUID="7b369ef1-1e76-48b4-9d67-969e1c374fe1" CreationDate="2015-04-05T18:49:38.207" UserId="5298" Text="Сколько будет seмHадцaTь оTняTь двa (oTвет цифpами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this say in russian and what is de answer in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8444" RevisionGUID="7b369ef1-1e76-48b4-9d67-969e1c374fe1" CreationDate="2015-04-05T18:49:38.207" UserId="5298" Text="Сколько будет seмHадцaTь оTняTь двa (oTвет цифpами) What does this say in russian and what is de answer in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8444" RevisionGUID="7b369ef1-1e76-48b4-9d67-969e1c374fe1" CreationDate="2015-04-05T18:49:38.207" UserId="5298" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="54836fdb-5db5-43d0-ad8b-c82fa0f07c35" CreationDate="2015-04-05T19:15:51.150" UserId="1236" Text="It means &quot;How much is seventeen minus two? (the answer in digits [please]).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Since it asks for the answer in digits, the answer is the same as in English, &quot;15&quot;. In Russian, &quot;15&quot; is &quot;пятнадцать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Still, your capitals inside the Russian words and the &quot;s&quot; are unusual. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8443" RevisionGUID="686992ed-6606-46e9-ae9d-8c7ba42a93be" CreationDate="2015-04-05T20:41:16.687" UserId="134" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Russian does have an imperfective verb meaning &quot;to be&quot; (*быть*) and it even can be conjugated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я есмь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты еси&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он, она, оно есть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы есьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы есьте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; они суть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, though in modern language personal forms (except for the 3rd sg.) are only used  in grand style rhetoric (which in Russian heavily utilizes Church Slavonic constructs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, like Hebrew and some other languages, uses a so called zero copula in present. This means that no words are used to link a subject with predicate in present: phrases like *я русский* (&quot;I am Russian&quot;), *она красивая* (&quot;she is pretty&quot;) etc. only have the subject and the predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for the past and future actual copulas are used, also forms of *быть*: *я был молодым* (&quot;I was young&quot;), *вы будете старыми* (&quot;you will be old&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of *быть* might be used as a copula in present for emphatic puproses: *они и есть победители* (&quot;it's them who are the winners&quot;). In spoken language, 3-rd person singular form (*есть*) is used for all persons and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since Russian has proximal possession (i.e. &quot;to have&quot; in Russian is expressed as &quot;to be at someone/something&quot;), 3rd sg. of *быть* (*есть*) can also be used to translate &quot;to have&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть собака* / I have a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Есть ли жизнь на Марсе?* / Is there life on Mars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8443" RevisionGUID="bd5a3f04-b0ed-4326-a6bb-ac79e71068e5" CreationDate="2015-04-05T21:11:48.663" UserId="134" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Russian does have an imperfective verb meaning &quot;to be&quot; (*быть*) and it even can be conjugated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я есмь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты еси&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он, она, оно есть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы есьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы есьте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; они суть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, though in modern language personal forms (except for the 3rd sg., and, more rarely, 3rd pl.) are only used  in grand style rhetoric (which in Russian heavily utilizes Church Slavonic constructs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that an average Russian speaker does not even perceive the personal forms, except for 3rd persons', as verbs at all, but rather as parts of several idioms (*ой ты гой еси, добрый молодец*; *аз есмь царь* etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, like Hebrew and some other languages, uses a so called zero copula in present. This means that no words are used to link a subject with predicate in present: phrases like *я русский* (&quot;I am Russian&quot;), *она красивая* (&quot;she is pretty&quot;) etc. only have the subject and the predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for the past and future actual copulas are used, also forms of *быть*: *я был молодым* (&quot;I was young&quot;), *вы будете старыми* (&quot;you will be old&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of *быть* might be used as a copula in present for emphatic puproses: *они и есть победители* (&quot;it's them who are the winners&quot;). In spoken language, 3-rd person singular form (*есть*) is used for all persons and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since Russian has proximal possession (i.e. &quot;to have&quot; in Russian is expressed as &quot;to be at someone/something&quot;), 3rd sg. of *быть* (*есть*) can also be used to translate &quot;to have&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть собака* / I have a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Есть ли жизнь на Марсе?* / Is there life on Mars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8447" RevisionGUID="b2a59958-fd90-44da-9303-f47775fa5106" CreationDate="2015-04-05T23:17:12.613" UserId="5288" Text="&gt; Что-то у меня голова болит – не иначе как простудился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is broadly equivalent to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то у меня голова болит – должно быть, простудился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то у меня голова болит – вероятнее всего, простудился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то у меня голова болит – кажется, простудился." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8448" RevisionGUID="bb3d1651-b68b-4074-baf1-5e934fb90477" CreationDate="2015-04-06T04:37:39.903" UserId="5288" Text="`икс квадрат равно единице` is incorrect and illiterate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to translate `ObjectA = 1` into Russian**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are three genders in Russian:    &#xD;&#xA;`masculine, feminine, neuter` == `мужской, женский и средний`.    &#xD;&#xA;You will have to know the genders of an ObjectA or either singular or plural form.     &#xD;&#xA;`Plural` == `множественное число`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алгоритм (algorithm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равен единице                // интеграл равен единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA is `средний род` Then       &#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равно единице                // число равно единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA is `женский род` Then       &#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равна единице                // функция равна единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равны единице                // неизвестные равны единице&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, правильно будет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Квадрат, интеграл, момент, факториал, коэффициент == `мужской род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`икс квадрат равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`интеграл    равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`момент      равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`факториал   равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`коэффициент равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сумма, разность, сторона, площадь, функция  == `женский род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сумма    равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`разность равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`сторона  равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`площадь  равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`функция  равна единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ребро, число, ускорение, расстояние, произведение  == `средний род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ребро        равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`число        равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`ускорение    равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`расстояние   равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`произведение равно единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дополнительные примеры (additional examples):   &#xD;&#xA;*Желтое, красное, одно, первое, третье == `средний род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Желтое  равно красному`    &#xD;&#xA;`красное равно единице `    &#xD;&#xA;`одно    равно другому `    &#xD;&#xA;`первое  равно второму `    &#xD;&#xA;`третье  равно пятому  `    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Неизвестные, коэффициенты, ребра, стороны, первые == `множественное число`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Неизвестные  равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`Коэффициенты равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`ребра        равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`стороны      равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`первые       равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to translate `ObjectA = 1 ObjectB` into Russian, for ex.: `a value equal to one meter`?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одному ObjectB       // мегабит равен одному мегабиту&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одному ObjectB       // мегабит равен одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одной ObjectB        // мегабит равен одной части  &#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одним ObjectB        // показатель равен одним суткам    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одному ObjectB       // ребро равно одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одному ObjectB      // ребро равно одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одной ObjectB       // ребро равно одной сажени  &#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            None &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одному ObjectB       // длина равна одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одному ObjectB       // длина равна одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одной ObjectB       // длина равна одной сажени&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одним ObjectB       // Норма равна одним суткам&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одному ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одному ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одной ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одной сажени&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одним ObjectB       // периоды равны одним суткам&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;additional examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Икс квадрат *равен* одному метру. Чему равен икс?   &#xD;&#xA;Расстояние *равно* одному дюйму.    &#xD;&#xA;Неизвестное *равно* одной сажени.    &#xD;&#xA;Сумма двух чисел *равна* одному из них. Чему равно это число?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8448" RevisionGUID="b075d2ce-4eb9-48d4-a31d-8f1e988a2fe9" CreationDate="2015-04-06T12:45:50.913" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="`икс квадрат равно единице` is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to translate `ObjectA = 1` into Russian**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are three genders in Russian:    &#xD;&#xA;`masculine, feminine, neuter` == `мужской, женский и средний`.    &#xD;&#xA;You will have to know the genders of an ObjectA or either singular or plural form.     &#xD;&#xA;`Plural` == `множественное число`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алгоритм (algorithm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равен единице                // интеграл равен единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA is `средний род` Then       &#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равно единице                // число равно единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA is `женский род` Then       &#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равна единице                // функция равна единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равны единице                // неизвестные равны единице&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, правильно будет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Квадрат, интеграл, момент, факториал, коэффициент == `мужской род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`икс квадрат равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`интеграл    равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`момент      равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`факториал   равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`коэффициент равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сумма, разность, сторона, площадь, функция  == `женский род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сумма    равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`разность равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`сторона  равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`площадь  равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`функция  равна единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ребро, число, ускорение, расстояние, произведение  == `средний род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ребро        равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`число        равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`ускорение    равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`расстояние   равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`произведение равно единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дополнительные примеры (additional examples):   &#xD;&#xA;*Желтое, красное, одно, первое, третье == `средний род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Желтое  равно красному`    &#xD;&#xA;`красное равно единице `    &#xD;&#xA;`одно    равно другому `    &#xD;&#xA;`первое  равно второму `    &#xD;&#xA;`третье  равно пятому  `    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Неизвестные, коэффициенты, ребра, стороны, первые == `множественное число`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Неизвестные  равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`Коэффициенты равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`ребра        равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`стороны      равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`первые       равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to translate `ObjectA = 1 ObjectB` into Russian, for ex.: `a value equal to one meter`?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одному ObjectB       // мегабит равен одному мегабиту&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одному ObjectB       // мегабит равен одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одной ObjectB        // мегабит равен одной части  &#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одним ObjectB        // показатель равен одним суткам    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одному ObjectB       // ребро равно одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одному ObjectB      // ребро равно одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одной ObjectB       // ребро равно одной сажени  &#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            None &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одному ObjectB       // длина равна одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одному ObjectB       // длина равна одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одной ObjectB       // длина равна одной сажени&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одним ObjectB       // Норма равна одним суткам&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одному ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одному ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одной ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одной сажени&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одним ObjectB       // периоды равны одним суткам&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;additional examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Икс квадрат *равен* одному метру. Чему равен икс?   &#xD;&#xA;Расстояние *равно* одному дюйму.    &#xD;&#xA;Неизвестное *равно* одной сажени.    &#xD;&#xA;Сумма двух чисел *равна* одному из них. Чему равно это число?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="8b82143b-ebe2-4ea7-bee1-1574be33038d" CreationDate="2015-04-06T14:24:10.880" UserId="5299" Text="I have been learning Russian for a year now. I took a trip to somewhere where there are many Russian speaking peoples. I realized that I use мойи моя incorrectly. Can someone please help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="8b82143b-ebe2-4ea7-bee1-1574be33038d" CreationDate="2015-04-06T14:24:10.880" UserId="5299" Text="when do I use мой и моя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="8b82143b-ebe2-4ea7-bee1-1574be33038d" CreationDate="2015-04-06T14:24:10.880" UserId="5299" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8450" RevisionGUID="55b1d79c-0a84-4223-abf4-6d501e52b602" CreationDate="2015-04-06T14:48:19.147" UserId="4630" Text="The difference is in [grammatical gender][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мой** is used for **masculine** objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мой дом, мой планшет, мой любимый (мужчина).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Моя** is used for **feminine** objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моя машина, моя сеть, моя любимая (женщина).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't mentioned but as there are three genders in Russian language there is also **моё** that is used for **neuter gender** objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; моё окно, моё видение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: As you may have noticed all of them are used for animate and inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8451" RevisionGUID="21f04bd6-13bb-4f2d-a7c8-86c371077820" CreationDate="2015-04-06T16:40:42.347" UserId="115" Text="These variants are there to indicate the degree of familiarity or the degree of respect accorded to the person. In your example, Ekaterina is a full name, and it would typically be used in a very formal context together with a patronymic, e. g. Ekaterina Ivanovna, if her father's name happens to be Ivan. This is the most respectful form of address that you would use to speak to your teacher, your boss, or any person much older than you. I may be old fashioned, but this is how I address my in-laws. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Friends and colleagues would probably use Katya. Katen'ka or Katyusha are the diminutive forms of the name Ekaterina reserved for closest friends and family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very similar to Johnny vs. John vs. Mr. Smith, although a bit more nuanced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8452" RevisionGUID="5f350392-99d2-4418-a2a5-ec50a6fcaf64" CreationDate="2015-04-06T19:04:09.160" UserId="4848" Text="Dont bother with different forms, as the Dima said, they are used to indicate the degree of familiarity or the degree of respect, or cuteness :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it is very simple, same as in any other language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a standard normal communication **you need only two forms** - the formal and informal (but you really can use them interchangeably): Elena-Lena, Aleksander-Alex (or Sasha), Maria-Masha, Natalia-Natasha, Vladimir-Vlad, Vyacheslav-Slava, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second form (informal) is more for your friends, buddies, kids, etc...&#xD;&#xA;First form (more formal) - everyone who is not from the previous group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20418" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="6f6bc4b1-20ec-49f4-b770-e8777e51aecc" CreationDate="2015-04-06T20:29:23.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/585177501195993088" />
  <row Id="20419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8448" RevisionGUID="53845324-a4a5-4396-b7a1-09c3bd518b19" CreationDate="2015-04-06T20:49:06.960" UserId="5288" Comment="added 874 characters in body" Text="`икс квадрат равно единице` is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to translate `ObjectA = 1` into Russian**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;There are three genders in Russian:    &#xD;&#xA;`masculine, feminine, neuter` == `мужской, женский и средний`.    &#xD;&#xA;You will have to know the genders of an ObjectA or either singular or plural form.     &#xD;&#xA;`Plural` == `множественное число`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алгоритм (algorithm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равен единице                // интеграл равен единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA is `средний род` Then       &#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равно единице                // число равно единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA is `женский род` Then       &#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равна единице                // функция равна единице&#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;    else If ObjectA are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;        ObjectA равны единице                // неизвестные равны единице&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, правильно будет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Квадрат, интеграл, момент, факториал, коэффициент == `мужской род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`икс квадрат равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`интеграл    равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`момент      равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`факториал   равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`коэффициент равен единице`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сумма, разность, сторона, площадь, функция  == `женский род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сумма    равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`разность равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`сторона  равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`площадь  равна единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`функция  равна единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ребро, число, ускорение, расстояние, произведение  == `средний род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ребро        равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`число        равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`ускорение    равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`расстояние   равно единице`   &#xD;&#xA;`произведение равно единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дополнительные примеры (additional examples):   &#xD;&#xA;*Желтое, красное, одно, первое, третье == `средний род`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Желтое  равно красному`    &#xD;&#xA;`красное равно единице `    &#xD;&#xA;`одно    равно другому `    &#xD;&#xA;`первое  равно второму `    &#xD;&#xA;`третье  равно пятому  `    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Неизвестные, коэффициенты, ребра, стороны, первые == `множественное число`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Неизвестные  равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`Коэффициенты равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`ребра        равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`стороны      равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;`первые       равны единице`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to translate `ObjectA = 1 ObjectB` into Russian, for ex.: `a value equal to one meter`?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одному ObjectB       // мегабит равен одному мегабиту&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одному ObjectB       // мегабит равен одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одной ObjectB        // мегабит равен одной части  &#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равен одним ObjectB        // показатель равен одним суткам    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одному ObjectB       // ребро равно одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одному ObjectB      // ребро равно одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равно одной ObjectB       // ребро равно одной сажени  &#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            None &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одному ObjectB       // длина равна одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одному ObjectB       // длина равна одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одной ObjectB       // длина равна одной сажени&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одним ObjectB       // Норма равна одним суткам&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If ObjectA are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        If ObjectB is `мужской род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одному ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одному метру&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `средний род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одному ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одному числу&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB is `женский род` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равна одной ObjectB       // неизвестные равны одной сажени&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;        else If ObjectB are `множественное число` Then&#xD;&#xA;            ObjectA равны одним ObjectB       // периоды равны одним суткам&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        EndIf    &#xD;&#xA;    EndIf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;additional examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Икс квадрат *равен* одному метру. Чему равен икс?   &#xD;&#xA;Расстояние *равно* одному дюйму.    &#xD;&#xA;Неизвестное *равно* одной сажени.    &#xD;&#xA;Сумма двух чисел *равна* одному из них. Чему равно это число?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----  &#xD;&#xA;The `равен/равна/равно/равны` are setted by genders or plural forms of operations or functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Результат возведения в квадрат -- квадрат [числа];       мужской род`    &#xD;&#xA;`Результат вычисления синуса    -- синус [числа];         мужской род`    &#xD;&#xA;`Результат произведения         -- произведение [чисел];  средний род`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы полностью последовательны и логичны (there is a full consistency):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`i^2 = 4       и квадрат       равен четырем`    &#xD;&#xA;`i^2 = 5       квадрат и       равен четырем`    &#xD;&#xA;`sin(i) = 1/2  синус и         равен одной второй`   &#xD;&#xA;`Div E = 0     дивергенция йэ  равна нулю`    &#xD;&#xA;`Div X = 0     дивергенция икс равна нулю`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Результат сложения -- сумма [чисел]; женский род`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`a+b = 2   ` `а плюс бэ    равно двум` ( Plus was read aloud as a letter or glyph )    &#xD;&#xA;`a+b = 2   ` `сумма а и бэ равна двум` ( setted by genders )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="36c34940-3836-4c86-9035-18f71897b2bb" CreationDate="2015-04-07T03:45:07.463" UserId="5270" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Здравствуйте!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently learning the Russian language, and was quite intrigued by how they treat articles (they basically disregard/imply them). However, the word &quot;is&quot; is not stated to be an article, yet seems to be implied. The only potential word for &quot;is&quot; I can find is when I ask Google Translate and it returns 'является'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is strange, for example: to say &quot;the ball is red&quot; we would say 'мяч красный'. Notice how this does not have 'является', it actually directly translates to &quot;ball red&quot; yet is (or can be?) translated &quot;the ball is red&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;I would like to know the exact usage rules regarding &quot;is&quot;, when (or if) 'является' is (or should be) used, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8441" RevisionGUID="06050cdc-8a82-4beb-822b-fcd241e6b891" CreationDate="2015-04-07T16:12:14.617" UserId="4379" Comment="Extended the answer" Text="In fact, there's no such phenomenon as English articles in Russian at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue, opposite to yours, is also faced by Russian people who start learning English, since a complete sentence always must contain a verb in English. But verbs aren't necessary in Russian, especially if they mean &quot;to be&quot;. However, I think verbs with other meanings can't be skipped. You can use &quot;явлется&quot; in your phrases to replace &quot;is&quot; and it's fairly understandable, but it would seem unnaturally complicated for a native speaker. For example, &quot;ball is red&quot; should be translated as &quot;мяч красный&quot; instead of &quot;мяч является красным&quot;. From my point of view, in your speech you can always omit the verb translating a sentence from English into Russian if it's &quot;to be&quot;. Possible exceptions are scientific and juristic topics which use more formal language, for example &quot;this law is of great importance for the country&quot; can be translated as &quot;этот закон является очень важным для страны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @CocoPop remarked, actually there are phrases that contain &quot;есть&quot; meaning &quot;to be&quot; which cannot be skipped. They are rather idiomatic constructions, therefore they don't conform common rules. For example, &quot;работа есть работа&quot;, where &quot;работа&quot; can be replaced with another noun depending on context. I.e. &quot;друзья есть друзья&quot; or &quot;семья есть семья&quot; are also possible. These phrases can be used as a justification of some actions you wouldn't want to commit, but you have to do. Say, you have a choice between watching a match with your friends and going on a picnic with your relatives. If you want to spend time with your friends, but you're a family man, you can say &quot;семья есть семья&quot; and go on the picnic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another phrase is &quot;как есть&quot; which means &quot;as it is&quot;. Examples: &quot;прими меня таким какой я есть&quot; means &quot;take me as I am&quot;; &quot;Оставь как есть&quot; means &quot;Leave it as it is&quot;, i.e. &quot;don't alter it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8453" RevisionGUID="7045c092-bd72-4709-bab8-917ea45130fe" CreationDate="2015-04-07T17:01:27.750" UserId="4848" Text="Nice question! Really :)&#xD;&#xA;Lots of misconceptions derived from assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;Think about it - why do you guys have to use &quot;is&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;Why cant you just say - &quot;my sister dumb&quot;, or &quot;this car red&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;That's how it is said in Russian, no need to use extra words :)&#xD;&#xA;No such thing as &quot;is&quot; in Russian (actually there is, its called &quot;есть&quot;, but it's never used in present tense).&#xD;&#xA;Past tense you should say &quot;был/была...&quot; as &quot;was/were&quot; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;Remember, verb's ending changes according to who you are talking about (male/female) and the tense you are referring to (past/present/future).&#xD;&#xA;I know lol, it complicates things a bit, but same rules apply to all Latin group languages (French, Spanish, etc...).&#xD;&#xA;Get used to it :) the world bigger than it seems. Cheers.&#xD;&#xA;(p.s. see how I just missed &quot;is&quot; ?) habit :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8457" RevisionGUID="52351520-3760-4193-ba2f-61ce90284947" CreationDate="2015-04-08T09:27:34.460" UserId="5158" Text="In those two phrases: `да ну` and `ну да`, the key point for understanding their meaning is that `ну` means uncertainty _applied on the following thing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover `да` in the beginning of a phrase (e.g. `да ну`) means not agreement but rather emotional emphasis: `да что же это!` = `what the hell is going on!?`, `да отстань ты` = `get off me!`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So `да ну ..` = `I have a very strong emotional concerns\uncertainty about ...` (may be strongly negative concerns):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `_да_ *ну* тебя` = `I have _huge negative_ *concerns* about you` = `get off`&#xD;&#xA;- `_да_ *ну* что вы` = `I'm _very_ *uncertain* about if you should or should not help me` = very polite form of saying `thank you` (typical of 'upper class', even little bit obsolete)&#xD;&#xA;- or just `-Пошли в кино! \ -Да ну!` meaning `-Let's go to cinema! \ -No I really don't want to! I think that's not goin' worth it!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in `ну да`, `да` means just `yes`, so `ну` is applied on `yes`: `ну да` = `yes, but I'm not 100% sure about it` (in some cases even meaning that person says `yes` meaning `no`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for some strange reason `ну` might also be an emphasis word :) (usually coupled with `уж` emphasis) meaning more like `100% this time!`, while `да`-emphasis means more like just `I am very emotional`. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `ну уж нет!` = `No!` (with a very slight `not now` meaning)&#xD;&#xA;- `ну уж теперь ты попался` = `уж теперь ты попался` = `ну теперь ты попался` = `now you're caught!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact there are _plenty of emphasis-words_ and they also might combine giving totally opposite meaning, so use them wisely :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most complicated probably is `да нет наверное` that is translated word-by-word as `yes no maybe`, but actually means `I'm very uncertain, but I guess the answer is no`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8458" RevisionGUID="a8fe83b8-ce85-4dc1-8ad9-ed7238f58037" CreationDate="2015-04-08T18:46:01.873" UserId="3892" Text="I've noticed this inverted (by English standards) pattern where можно follows an infinitive several times and have often wondered what the force of this inversion is. I may be wrong, but I would consider можно + inf the unmarked order. Then I saw this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Антон, пожалуйста скинь ссылочку на Анки. Я так понимаю там слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учить можно**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¿How does this differ from theoretical **там можно учить слова**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this order somehow reinforce the potential result along the lines of English *you can really...* or *it's really good for...* Otherwise it seems to me that it would just be stating the obvious: *I understand you can learn words there.* (duh!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and what of **обалдеть можно**, **охуеть можно**, **повеситься можно**, and other such exclamations? My guess is again increased potential to the effect of *it's enough to make you...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8458" RevisionGUID="a8fe83b8-ce85-4dc1-8ad9-ed7238f58037" CreationDate="2015-04-08T18:46:01.873" UserId="3892" Text="phrases with infinitive + можно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8458" RevisionGUID="a8fe83b8-ce85-4dc1-8ad9-ed7238f58037" CreationDate="2015-04-08T18:46:01.873" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8459" RevisionGUID="7bb00a1c-e8de-4527-b47e-167646b414a9" CreationDate="2015-04-08T19:20:23.953" UserId="2079" Text="The Russian language has, in many case, a free order of words. **It does not mean that when you speak Russian, you can randomly/arbitrarily reorder words.** Usually, changing the order from the &quot;default&quot; one conveys some additional meaning, i. e. emphasis on some word.  But when **reading** Russian texts, you should first and foremost look at the grammar forms of words, not on their order. You will often see unusual order of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Антон, пожалуйста скинь ссылочку на Анки. Я так понимаю там **слова учить можно**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis here is on the word **можно**, thats why the different order of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing is, the punctuation is horrible. The correct punctuation would be `Антон, пожалуйста, скинь ссылочку на Анки. Я так понимаю, там слова учить можно.`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and what of обалдеть можно, охуеть можно, повеситься можно, and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such exclamations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That different from the previous case. Here verb+можно makes a highly emotional expression. Note that such expressions are highly colloquial and &quot;silly&quot;, don't use them in intelligent conversation or formal talk. In some of such expressions you can omit можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Обалдеть!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Охуеть!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Офигеть!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(But not &quot;повеситься!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes people intentionally write the word with silly speller error: the letter &quot;а&quot; instead of &quot;о&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Абалдеть.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Афигеть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a similar expression &quot;Убиться веником!&quot; (or sometimes &quot;убиццо веником&quot;, &quot;убиццо веникам&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8459" RevisionGUID="064c7430-60b7-4b3c-9b8a-c37291d63c6b" CreationDate="2015-04-08T19:29:28.937" UserId="2079" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="The Russian language has, in many cases, a free order of words. **It does not mean that when you speak Russian, you can randomly/arbitrarily reorder words.** Usually, changing the order from the &quot;default&quot; one conveys some additional meaning, i. e. emphasis on some word.  But when **reading** Russian texts, you should first and foremost look at the grammar forms of words, not on their order. You will often see unusual order of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let us return to the text you saw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Антон, пожалуйста скинь ссылочку на Анки. Я так понимаю там **слова учить можно**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the order of words is unusual, the emphasis is often on the last word. Here, the emphasis is on the word **можно**, thats why the unusual order of words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Another thing is, the punctuation is horrible. The correct punctuation would be `Антон, пожалуйста, скинь ссылочку на Анки. Я так понимаю, там слова учить можно.`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and what of обалдеть можно, охуеть можно, повеситься можно, and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such exclamations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is different from the previous case. Here verb+можно makes a highly emotional expression. Note that such expressions are highly colloquial and &quot;silly&quot;, don't use them in intelligent conversation or formal talk. In some of such expressions you can omit можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Обалдеть!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Охуеть!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Офигеть!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(But not &quot;повеситься!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes people intentionally write the word with silly speller error: the letter &quot;а&quot; instead of &quot;о&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Абалдеть.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Афигеть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a similar expression &quot;Убиться веником!&quot; (or sometimes &quot;убиццо веником&quot;, &quot;убиццо веникам&quot;).  Again, such expressions are emotional, very colloquial, and foolish, never ever use them in business letters, for example.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8460" RevisionGUID="83e50e7c-c6b7-4bac-882d-2ff8e6fbe818" CreationDate="2015-04-08T22:24:43.807" UserId="4560" Text="I'd say it's not so much to do with *можно* as with the general tendency of colloquial Russian towards SOV rather than SVO; *можно*, being the effective &quot;verb&quot; of the sentence, gets the last place. Note also how *слова* precedes *учить*, again reversing the standard word order in favour of a more casual-sounding one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="7be4433b-707c-4600-87fa-a582f0827596" CreationDate="2015-04-09T00:37:12.663" UserId="5288" Text="**Порядок слов (words order):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` Простая идея                  Идея простая`   &#xD;&#xA;`A simple idea               The idea is simple`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` Антон идет в школу           В школу идет Антон`   &#xD;&#xA;`Anton goes to school     It is Anton who goes to school`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Икс стремится к нулю        К нулю стремится икс`   &#xD;&#xA;`   x goes to 0             It is x who/which goes to 0`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вектор определяется этими условиями`    &#xD;&#xA;`A vector is said to be defined by the conditions`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Этими условиями определяется вектор`   &#xD;&#xA;`The conditions is said to be defined a vector`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`о**еть можно`&quot; — ultimate insult in front of a woman or in a decorous place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8463" RevisionGUID="825a0d29-0044-474a-9dc8-ea2464aea7a4" CreationDate="2015-04-09T12:30:38.083" UserId="5232" Text="In russian language word &quot;is&quot; is often optional.&#xD;&#xA;I can say: Я Олег (I am Oleg) and Я есть Олег (I am Oleg).&#xD;&#xA;But second form is very rarely used. And &quot;есть&quot; in second sentences sounds redundantly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="e9c5eebd-a1a8-410b-bb95-00a124025a4e" CreationDate="2015-04-09T17:03:04.883" UserId="5288" Text="A children's riddle asks `А и Б сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало - что осталось на трубе?` &#xD;&#xA; [Правописание(Spelling)](http://folklor.academic.ru/12/%D0%90_%D0%B8_%D0%91_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5._%D0%90_%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE,_%D0%91_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_-_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5). The answer is **`И!`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you search the web you will find an approximately equal number of   &#xD;&#xA;**А упал**_а_**, Б пропал**_а_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Qestion is:   &#xD;&#xA;`И осталось на трубе!` или `И осталась на трубе!`?   &#xD;&#xA;`А упало` или `А упала`?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Let us say:   &#xD;&#xA;`А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, все сидели на трубе`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then:  &#xD;&#xA;`А упало, Б пропал, Икс упал, Бета упала и пропала`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?  &#xD;&#xA;Какое здесь правило?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="e9c5eebd-a1a8-410b-bb95-00a124025a4e" CreationDate="2015-04-09T17:03:04.883" UserId="5288" Text="A children's riddle asks: 'А и Б сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало — что осталось на трубе?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="e9c5eebd-a1a8-410b-bb95-00a124025a4e" CreationDate="2015-04-09T17:03:04.883" UserId="5288" Text="|грамматика|род|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="aaac0a76-c027-49a8-9570-b86813c60e8e" CreationDate="2015-04-09T17:31:02.473" UserId="4592" Text="Well, there are two ways of looking at it. Strictly and formally speaking, the riddle would be about the **letters** (буквы, in singular, буква), which are of **feminine gender** and should be used with the ending -а in this case.  &#xD;&#xA;But then, informally and in oral speech, what is А, exactly? It's not a letter, because letters aren't something that belongs to the world of the verbal. They are *something*, and something (что-то, an **indefinite pronoun**) has a **neuter gender**, and calls for the ending -о in this case.  &#xD;&#xA;And since a children's riddle is something of informal and oral speech, the second version is much more appealing, although there's a way to substantiate the first one, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8466" RevisionGUID="2fa3ab98-7ba7-4b76-ba0f-085d2ed326d7" CreationDate="2015-04-09T17:45:14.497" UserId="4379" Text="The trick of this riddle is that a person who hears it thinks there are two objects on a pipe `А` and `Б`. Then after `А упало, Б пропало` (A fell down, B disappeared) it seems that nothing is on the pipe. But there is also another way of treating the phrase `А и Б`. It's `А, И, Б` which is pronounced alike. And in this case after `А` and `Б` have left the pipe, `И` remains on it. That's why it's the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your example `А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, все сидели на трубе`, you should say `А упало, Б пропало, Икс пропало, Бета пропало, Гамма пропало. Что осталось на трубе?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the gender of `А` and `Б`, I agree with @Francis Drake. It's neuter because `А` and `Б` are some abstract undefined terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8460" RevisionGUID="a7ea84a1-69c6-49e1-95b8-3cd2d43ecc53" CreationDate="2015-04-09T18:01:54.993" UserId="4560" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="I'd say it's not so much to do with *можно* as with the general tendency of colloquial Russian towards SOV rather than SVO; *можно*, being the effective &quot;verb&quot; of the sentence, gets the last place. Note also how *слова* precedes *учить*, again reversing the standard word order in favour of a more casual-sounding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and regarding *я так понимаю*: it's not really &quot;I understand&quot; here, but a &quot;correct me if I'm wrong&quot;-type expression which *usually* presumes that the listener actually has more information. It stops just short of being a question: &quot;you can learn words there, right?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20455" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8458" RevisionGUID="5169da25-7713-4e1e-941e-f17565b2f0b2" CreationDate="2015-04-09T20:33:12.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/586265628136321025" />
  <row Id="20456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8467" RevisionGUID="ff1da620-2630-45b4-9056-8d0cbcbc218d" CreationDate="2015-04-09T21:24:39.463" UserId="5324" Text="I believe this A i Б reffer to the word  &quot;буква&quot; (letter). And буква is femin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8467" RevisionGUID="1c1f46e5-bf35-4d73-a4a2-1b609e682309" CreationDate="2015-04-09T22:40:49.323" UserId="97" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I believe this A and Б reffer to word _буква_ (letter). And _буква_ is feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="a185c6cd-9e01-4b8e-b414-7e174557287a" CreationDate="2015-04-09T23:22:25.740" UserId="5185" Comment="fix grammatical error: The conditions are said to define a vector" Text="**Порядок слов (words order):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` Простая идея                  Идея простая`   &#xD;&#xA;`A simple idea               The idea is simple`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` Антон идет в школу           В школу идет Антон`   &#xD;&#xA;`Anton goes to school     It is Anton who goes to school`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Икс стремится к нулю        К нулю стремится икс`   &#xD;&#xA;`   x goes to 0             It is x who/which goes to 0`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вектор определяется этими условиями`    &#xD;&#xA;`A vector is said to be defined by the conditions`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Этими условиями определяется вектор`   &#xD;&#xA;`The conditions are said to define a vector`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`о**еть можно`&quot; — ultimate insult in front of a woman or in a decorous place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="a185c6cd-9e01-4b8e-b414-7e174557287a" CreationDate="2015-04-09T23:22:25.740" Comment="Proposed by 5185 approved by 97, 3680 edit id of 617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8468" RevisionGUID="ad342f8e-8b8e-41c7-a6ed-2dc05c252d49" CreationDate="2015-04-10T05:11:00.607" UserId="1236" Text="The [Ushakov's dictionary][1] [says][2] that the names of the Russian letters are all neuter (except for ь and ъ that end in знак which is masculine). The riddle is about the letters, so the correct answer is:&#xD;&#xA;`упало, пропало, осталось`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ushakovdictionary.ru/word.php?wordid=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ushakovdictionary.ru/word.php?wordid=3843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8458" RevisionGUID="aadfa7f2-4494-4a9a-a904-89278a61a333" CreationDate="2015-04-10T07:16:30.827" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I've noticed this inverted (by English standards) pattern where можно follows an infinitive several times and have often wondered what the force of this inversion is. I may be wrong, but I would consider можно + inf the unmarked order. Then I saw this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Антон, пожалуйста скинь ссылочку на Анки. Я так понимаю, там слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учить можно**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¿How does this differ from theoretical **там можно учить слова**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this order somehow reinforce the potential result along the lines of English *you can really...* or *it's really good for...* Otherwise it seems to me that it would just be stating the obvious: *I understand you can learn words there.* (duh!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and what of **обалдеть можно**, **охуеть можно**, **повеситься можно**, and other such exclamations? My guess is again increased potential to the effect of *it's enough to make you...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20463" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="79347052-f487-418b-a0a2-21433b1d02a9" CreationDate="2015-04-10T08:36:23.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/586447623726333953" />
  <row Id="20467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8471" RevisionGUID="659532dd-ae50-4b49-adde-0f38ac424fe4" CreationDate="2015-04-10T14:46:41.607" UserId="5243" Text="Sorry cannot comment yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think @Nikolay Ershov is absolutely correct saying that &quot;Я так понимаю&quot; is equivalent to &quot;correct me if I'm wrong&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я так понимаю, там слова учить можно.&quot; - sounds very much as a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я так понимаю&quot; seems takes the emphasis away from &quot;там&quot;. And therefore, &quot;можно&quot; has more weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, in the sentence &quot;Tам слова учить можно.&quot;, &quot;Tам&quot; takes the priority (unless you intentionally vocalize the emphasis on &quot;можно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="b7ca164e-2abd-493a-9d6e-473c8b1b54aa" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:10:01.087" UserId="5288" Comment="added 3192 characters in body" Text="A children's riddle asks `А и Б сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало - что осталось на трубе?` &#xD;&#xA; [Правописание(Spelling)](http://folklor.academic.ru/12/%D0%90_%D0%B8_%D0%91_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5._%D0%90_%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE,_%D0%91_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_-_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5). The answer is **`И!`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you search the web you will find an approximately equal number of   &#xD;&#xA;**А упал**_а_**, Б пропал**_а_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Qestion is:   &#xD;&#xA;`И осталось на трубе!` или `И осталась на трубе!`?   &#xD;&#xA;`А упало` или `А упала`?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Let us say:   &#xD;&#xA;`А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, все сидели на трубе`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then:  &#xD;&#xA;`А упало, Б пропал, Икс упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?  &#xD;&#xA;Какое здесь правило?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;----- UPDATE -----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Суммируя сказанное из ответов, и ставя новые вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Буквы.** Согласно словарю Ушакова и словарю фразеологизмов, буквы русского алфавита есть среднего рода. Действительно. В школе учитель русского языка, тщательно проговаривая, поясняет:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    здесь &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; — долгое, &lt;i&gt;к&lt;/i&gt; здесь глухое, &lt;i&gt;й&lt;/i&gt; краткое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако в логическом или математическом смысле пояснения на примерах нельзя назвать правилом, поскольку есть контрпримеры: `Ъ, Ь`. Полностью логичное правило не может заключать в себе противоречащие ему примеры. Думаю, именно поэтому никто правило в явном виде не сформулировал. Плохо то, что мы оказываемся в ситуации, когда вынуждены каждый раз извлекать это правило индивидуально и учитывать контрпримеры. Здесь можно посочувствовать иностранцу, изучающему русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Звуки.** Посмотрим еще раз на наш пример, подразумевая его звучащим:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    А и Б сидели на трубе.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Читая отдельно стоящие буквы, мы озвучиваем звуки, им соответствующие.&#xD;&#xA;В нашей детской загадке трудная ее часть состоит в том, чтобы звук &lt;code&gt;&lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/code&gt; объективировался в сознании слушателя в один однородный ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Звук &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; Или в ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Буква &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Но в первом предложении загадки наше подсознание машинально выдает подсказку: здесь две буквы, соединенные союзом `и`.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**3. Имена.** Однако, у каждой буквы есть еще ее имя, мнемоническое. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;а — Аз, б — Буки, в — Веди, ъ — твёрдый знак, ...&#xD;&#xA;α — Альфа, β — Бета, γ — Гамма, ...&#xD;&#xA;x — Игрек, y — Икс, h — Эйч, ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С этих позиций модифицируем загадку и рассмотрим в качестве нового примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt; A new riddle:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, с твердым знаком, все сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало, Икс упал и твердый знак упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала. Что осталось на трубе?&lt;br&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Answer is: И! &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мы видим, в чем была проблема. В этом предложении смешаны: звуки и имена букв. Правила для звуков, букв и имен разные.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;4. Правило.&lt;/b&gt; Поэтому, правило должно звучать так:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;а)&lt;/b&gt; минимально возможное краткое звучание буквы (вообще, глифа) относят к среднему роду. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; долгое.&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt; звонкое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/code&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не все глифы (начертания знаков) имеют соответствующий краткий звук. Например, следующие глифы имеют только имена:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Ъ, (, $, %, §, ... .   &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Буквы из иностранного алфавита будем считать начертаниями с неизвестным звучанием. Указывать (ссылаться) на них следует по имени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** если указывают на букву (глиф) по её имени, которое дано для глифа как мнемоника, а не как краткое звучание, например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Эйч, Альфа, Игрек, твердый знак, левая скобка, ... ,  &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то имя буквы (глифа) определяет род, и в соответствие этому роду ставят в нужной форме подчиненные слова. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    х равен пяти.&#xD;&#xA;    гамма равна трём.&#xD;&#xA;    напечатана левая скобка.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласны ли вы с таким правилом?   &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли обоснованные возражения (контрпримеры-исключения)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="0933766c-1380-4e52-90c3-c6b5dcc68768" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:17:55.560" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="A children's riddle asks `А и Б сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало - что осталось на трубе?` &#xD;&#xA; [Правописание(Spelling)](http://folklor.academic.ru/12/%D0%90_%D0%B8_%D0%91_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5._%D0%90_%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE,_%D0%91_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_-_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5). The answer is **`И!`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you search the web you will find an approximately equal number of   &#xD;&#xA;**А упал**_а_**, Б пропал**_а_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Qestion is:   &#xD;&#xA;`И осталось на трубе!` или `И осталась на трубе!`?   &#xD;&#xA;`А упало` или `А упала`?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Let us say:   &#xD;&#xA;`А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, все сидели на трубе`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then:  &#xD;&#xA;`А упало, Б пропал, Икс упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?  &#xD;&#xA;Какое здесь правило?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;----- UPDATE -----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Суммируя сказанное из ответов, и ставя новые вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Буквы.** Согласно словарю Ушакова и словарю фразеологизмов, буквы русского алфавита есть среднего рода. Действительно. В школе учитель русского языка, тщательно проговаривая, поясняет:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    здесь &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; — долгое, &lt;i&gt;к&lt;/i&gt; здесь глухое, &lt;i&gt;й&lt;/i&gt; краткое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако в логическом или математическом смысле пояснения на примерах нельзя назвать правилом, поскольку есть контрпримеры: `Ъ, Ь`. Полностью логичное правило не может заключать в себе противоречащие ему примеры. Думаю, именно поэтому никто правило в явном виде не сформулировал. Плохо то, что мы оказываемся в ситуации, когда вынуждены каждый раз извлекать это правило индивидуально и учитывать контрпримеры. Здесь можно посочувствовать иностранцу, изучающему русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Звуки.** Посмотрим еще раз на наш пример, подразумевая его звучащим:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    А и Б сидели на трубе.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Читая отдельно стоящие буквы, мы озвучиваем звуки, им соответствующие.&#xD;&#xA;В нашей детской загадке трудная ее часть состоит в том, чтобы звук &lt;code&gt;&lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/code&gt; объективировался в сознании слушателя в один однородный ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Звук &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; Или в ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Буква &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Но в первом предложении загадки наше подсознание машинально выдает подсказку: здесь две буквы, соединенные союзом `и`.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**3. Имена.** Однако, у каждой буквы есть еще ее имя, мнемоническое. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;а — Аз, б — Буки, в — Веди, ъ — твёрдый знак, ...&#xD;&#xA;α — Альфа, β — Бета, γ — Гамма, ...&#xD;&#xA;x — Игрек, y — Икс, h — Эйч, ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С этих позиций модифицируем загадку и рассмотрим в качестве нового примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt; A new riddle:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, с твердым знаком, все сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало, Икс упал и твердый знак упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала. Что осталось на трубе?&lt;br&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Answer is: И! &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мы видим, в чем была проблема. В этом предложении смешаны: звуки и имена букв. Правила для звуков, букв и имен разные.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;4. Правило.&lt;/b&gt; Поэтому, правило должно звучать так:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;а)&lt;/b&gt; минимально возможное краткое звучание буквы (вообще, глифа) относят к среднему роду. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; долгое.&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt; звонкое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не все глифы (начертания знаков) имеют соответствующий краткий звук. Например, следующие глифы имеют только имена:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Ъ, (, $, %, §, ... .   &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Буквы из иностранного алфавита будем считать начертаниями с неизвестным звучанием. Указывать (ссылаться) на них следует по имени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** если указывают на букву (глиф) по её имени, которое дано для глифа как мнемоника, а не как краткое звучание, например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Эйч, Альфа, Игрек, твердый знак, левая скобка, ... ,  &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то имя буквы (глифа) определяет род, и в соответствие этому роду ставят в нужной форме подчиненные слова. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    х равен пяти.&#xD;&#xA;    гамма равна трём.&#xD;&#xA;    напечатана левая скобка.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласны ли вы с таким правилом?   &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли обоснованные возражения (контрпримеры-исключения)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="6331fab3-a863-4398-a5b7-8fa6a7431ea2" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:26:55.363" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A children's riddle asks `А и Б сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало - что осталось на трубе?` &#xD;&#xA; [Правописание(Spelling)](http://folklor.academic.ru/12/%D0%90_%D0%B8_%D0%91_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5._%D0%90_%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE,_%D0%91_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_-_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5). The answer is **`И!`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you search the web you will find an approximately equal number of   &#xD;&#xA;**А упал**_а_**, Б пропал**_а_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Qestion is:   &#xD;&#xA;`И осталось на трубе!` или `И осталась на трубе!`?   &#xD;&#xA;`А упало` или `А упала`?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Let us say:   &#xD;&#xA;`А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, все сидели на трубе`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then:  &#xD;&#xA;`А упало, Б пропало, Икс упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?  &#xD;&#xA;Какое здесь правило?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;----- UPDATE -----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Суммируя сказанное из ответов, и ставя новые вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Буквы.** Согласно словарю Ушакова и словарю фразеологизмов, буквы русского алфавита есть среднего рода. Действительно. В школе учитель русского языка, тщательно проговаривая, поясняет:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    здесь &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; — долгое, &lt;i&gt;к&lt;/i&gt; здесь глухое, &lt;i&gt;й&lt;/i&gt; краткое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако в логическом или математическом смысле пояснения на примерах нельзя назвать правилом, поскольку есть контрпримеры: `Ъ, Ь`. Полностью логичное правило не может заключать в себе противоречащие ему примеры. Думаю, именно поэтому никто правило в явном виде не сформулировал. Плохо то, что мы оказываемся в ситуации, когда вынуждены каждый раз извлекать это правило индивидуально и учитывать контрпримеры. Здесь можно посочувствовать иностранцу, изучающему русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Звуки.** Посмотрим еще раз на наш пример, подразумевая его звучащим:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    А и Б сидели на трубе.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Читая отдельно стоящие буквы, мы озвучиваем звуки, им соответствующие.&#xD;&#xA;В нашей детской загадке трудная ее часть состоит в том, чтобы звук &lt;code&gt;&lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/code&gt; объективировался в сознании слушателя в один однородный ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Звук &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; Или в ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Буква &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Но в первом предложении загадки наше подсознание машинально выдает подсказку: здесь две буквы, соединенные союзом `и`.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**3. Имена.** Однако, у каждой буквы есть еще ее имя, мнемоническое. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;а — Аз, б — Буки, в — Веди, ъ — твёрдый знак, ...&#xD;&#xA;α — Альфа, β — Бета, γ — Гамма, ...&#xD;&#xA;x — Игрек, y — Икс, h — Эйч, ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С этих позиций модифицируем загадку и рассмотрим в качестве нового примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt; A new riddle:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, с твердым знаком, все сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало, Икс упал и твердый знак упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала. Что осталось на трубе?&lt;br&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Answer is: И! &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мы видим, в чем была проблема. В этом предложении смешаны: звуки и имена букв. Правила для звуков, букв и имен разные.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;4. Правило.&lt;/b&gt; Поэтому, правило должно звучать так:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;а)&lt;/b&gt; минимально возможное краткое звучание буквы (вообще, глифа) относят к среднему роду. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; долгое.&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt; звонкое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не все глифы (начертания знаков) имеют соответствующий краткий звук. Например, следующие глифы имеют только имена:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Ъ, (, $, %, §, ... .   &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Буквы из иностранного алфавита будем считать начертаниями с неизвестным звучанием. Указывать (ссылаться) на них следует по имени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** если указывают на букву (глиф) по её имени, которое дано для глифа как мнемоника, а не как краткое звучание, например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Эйч, Альфа, Игрек, твердый знак, левая скобка, ... ,  &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то имя буквы (глифа) определяет род, и в соответствие этому роду ставят в нужной форме подчиненные слова. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    х равен пяти.&#xD;&#xA;    гамма равна трём.&#xD;&#xA;    напечатана левая скобка.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласны ли вы с таким правилом?   &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли обоснованные возражения (контрпримеры-исключения)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="60290a2e-e933-418e-8092-2ca93bcfd80f" CreationDate="2015-04-10T15:42:29.463" UserId="5288" Comment="edited body" Text="A children's riddle asks `А и Б сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало - что осталось на трубе?` &#xD;&#xA; [Правописание(Spelling)](http://folklor.academic.ru/12/%D0%90_%D0%B8_%D0%91_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5._%D0%90_%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE,_%D0%91_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_-_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5). The answer is **`И!`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you search the web you will find an approximately equal number of   &#xD;&#xA;**А упал**_а_**, Б пропал**_а_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Qestion is:   &#xD;&#xA;`И осталось на трубе!` или `И осталась на трубе!`?   &#xD;&#xA;`А упало` или `А упала`?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Let us say:   &#xD;&#xA;`А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, все сидели на трубе`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then:  &#xD;&#xA;`А упало, Б пропало, Икс упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?  &#xD;&#xA;Какое здесь правило?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;----- UPDATE -----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Суммируя сказанное из ответов, и ставя новые вопросы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Буквы.** Согласно словарю Ушакова и словарю фразеологизмов, буквы русского алфавита есть среднего рода. Действительно. В школе учитель русского языка, тщательно проговаривая, поясняет:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    здесь &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; — долгое, &lt;i&gt;к&lt;/i&gt; здесь глухое, &lt;i&gt;й&lt;/i&gt; краткое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако в логическом или математическом смысле пояснения на примерах нельзя назвать правилом, поскольку есть контрпримеры: `Ъ, Ь`. Полностью логичное правило не может заключать в себе противоречащие ему примеры. Думаю, именно поэтому никто правило в явном виде не сформулировал. Плохо то, что мы оказываемся в ситуации, когда вынуждены каждый раз извлекать это правило индивидуально и учитывать контрпримеры. Здесь можно посочувствовать иностранцу, изучающему русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Звуки.** Посмотрим еще раз на наш пример, подразумевая его звучащим:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    А и Б сидели на трубе.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Читая отдельно стоящие буквы, мы озвучиваем звуки, им соответствующие.&#xD;&#xA;В нашей детской загадке трудная ее часть состоит в том, чтобы звук &lt;code&gt;&lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/code&gt; объективировался в сознании слушателя в один однородный ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Звук &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, звук &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; Или в ряд: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Буква &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;и&lt;/i&gt;, буква &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Но в первом предложении загадки наше подсознание машинально выдает подсказку: здесь две буквы, соединенные союзом `и`.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**3. Имена.** Однако, у каждой буквы есть еще ее имя, мнемоническое. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;а — Аз, б — Буки, в — Веди, ъ — твёрдый знак, ...&#xD;&#xA;α — Альфа, β — Бета, γ — Гамма, ...&#xD;&#xA;y — Игрек, x — Икс, h — Эйч, ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С этих позиций модифицируем загадку и рассмотрим в качестве нового примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt; A new riddle:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;А, Б, Икс, и Бета, Гамма, с твердым знаком, все сидели на трубе. А упало, Б пропало, Икс упал и твердый знак упал, Бета упала и Гамма пропала. Что осталось на трубе?&lt;br&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;Answer is: И! &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мы видим, в чем была проблема. В этом предложении смешаны: звуки и имена букв. Правила для звуков, букв и имен разные.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;4. Правило.&lt;/b&gt; Поэтому, правило должно звучать так:&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;а)&lt;/b&gt; минимально возможное краткое звучание буквы (вообще, глифа) относят к среднему роду. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &lt;i&gt;а&lt;/i&gt; долгое.&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;i&gt;б&lt;/i&gt; звонкое.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не все глифы (начертания знаков) имеют соответствующий краткий звук. Например, следующие глифы имеют только имена:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Ъ, (, $, %, §, ... .   &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Буквы из иностранного алфавита будем считать начертаниями с неизвестным звучанием. Указывать (ссылаться) на них следует по имени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** если указывают на букву (глиф) по её имени, которое дано для глифа как мнемоника, а не как краткое звучание, например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    Эйч, Альфа, Игрек, твердый знак, левая скобка, ... ,  &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;то имя буквы (глифа) определяет род, и в соответствие этому роду ставят в нужной форме подчиненные слова. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    х равен пяти.&#xD;&#xA;    гамма равна трём.&#xD;&#xA;    напечатана левая скобка.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласны ли вы с таким правилом?   &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли обоснованные возражения (контрпримеры-исключения)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8472" RevisionGUID="7e9f28fd-cfcf-4002-a571-07df57ba2353" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:13:04.687" UserId="455" Text="I can't explain difference for english native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure there are some differences, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он выглядит более уверенным чем кажется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне кажется мы потеряем деньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't expain it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8472" RevisionGUID="7e9f28fd-cfcf-4002-a571-07df57ba2353" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:13:04.687" UserId="455" Text="Difference between Кажется и Выглядит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8472" RevisionGUID="7e9f28fd-cfcf-4002-a571-07df57ba2353" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:13:04.687" UserId="455" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8473" RevisionGUID="8ccee85c-a5cc-44fb-bef1-689f3777a441" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:43:05.943" UserId="5008" Text="The difference is just like one between &quot;looks like&quot; and &quot;seem&quot;. I believe there's nothing hard for english speakers here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20476" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8473" RevisionGUID="b2f064fb-fb15-4a7c-8e61-b918972cfa52" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:44:46.490" UserId="5008" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8473" RevisionGUID="7fb9e545-2cc2-4463-a393-eeeca20920af" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:48:46.300" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="&quot;Выглядит&quot; could mean either &quot;is like&quot; or &quot;looks like&quot; depending on context. &quot;Кажется&quot; always means just &quot;seem&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20478" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8473" RevisionGUID="93a2792a-7cb0-43cb-a082-f4168b5de7c4" CreationDate="2015-04-11T16:48:51.097" UserId="5008" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="d30cbbad-ef3e-4221-8a93-715e0efcdfa3" CreationDate="2015-04-11T18:38:03.207" UserId="5232" Text="If person says &quot;Кажется&quot;, he doubts! &quot;Кажется&quot; has a bit of doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="b01b2bc1-7f45-4c52-b189-b8954a5f19c8" CreationDate="2015-04-11T18:54:44.667" UserId="5288" Text="`Кажется` имеет возвратную частицу &lt;i&gt;-ся&lt;/i&gt; `на себя`. Это грамматически сохранилось в польском языке, а в русском языке ушло в морфологическую форму:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  mi się wydaje      (Polish)&#xD;&#xA;       \&#xD;&#xA;        \&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;мне кажет ся         (Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Из этого мы находим, что здесь разные отношения объект-субъект:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Он выглядит &lt;b&gt;для всех&lt;/b&gt; как ..., но &lt;b&gt;мне&lt;/b&gt; кажется, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="50f519ac-ff68-4e4d-a62c-b3be5f2d544d" CreationDate="2015-04-11T20:07:58.667" UserId="5288" Comment="added 908 characters in body" Text="`Кажется` имеет возвратную частицу &lt;i&gt;-ся&lt;/i&gt; `на себя`. Это грамматически сохранилось в польском языке, а в русском языке ушло в морфологическую форму:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  mi się wydaje      (Polish)&#xD;&#xA;       \&#xD;&#xA;        \&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;мне кажет ся         (Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Из этого мы находим, что здесь разные отношения объект-субъект:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Он выглядит &lt;b&gt;для всех&lt;/b&gt; как ..., но &lt;b&gt;мне&lt;/b&gt; кажется, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для большей ясности, мы должны представить примеры в одной форме. &#xD;&#xA;(For the sake of clarity, we must present a set of examples in a single form.)&#xD;&#xA;И мы видим, что морфологически корректные формы не используются:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;     Кажется-кажет    /   выглядится-выглядит &#xD;&#xA;               |                |&#xD;&#xA;not used ______|                |&#xD;&#xA;not used _______________________|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples for reflexive &lt;i&gt;ourselves,  itself,  themselves:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      Мне кажется, что проще объяснять это в терминах морфологии.&#xD;&#xA;      I think that easier to explain it in terms of morphology. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But not:&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;!*    Мне выглядит, что проще объяснять это ...&#xD;&#xA;      It seems to me, that ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not fully unacceptable: &lt;pre&gt;?*   Мне видится, что проще объяснять это тем, что ...&#xD;&#xA;     It seems to me ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But one can say:&lt;pre&gt;     Мне видится это как более простое объяснение.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8476" RevisionGUID="d8fde9a7-606c-4fa3-b369-7d40915800d8" CreationDate="2015-04-11T21:20:21.947" UserId="1665" Text="Price-match, frankly, appears to almost be a single word in English, however, it is surprisingly missing from the dictionary, and translate tools don't seem to do the justice, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/search?q=price+match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also at https://archive.today/wTksp, but results aren't as relevant as what you get in .us.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Walmart Ad Match Guarantee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We're committed to providing low prices every day. On everything. So if you find a lower advertised price on an identical product, tell us and we'll match it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Price Match Guarantee - Best Buy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Best Buy Price Match Guarantee ensures we won't be beat on price. We'll match the product prices of key online and local competitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Shop with Confidence | Target Corporate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Price match may be requested prior to your purchase. Simply bring in proof of the current lower price, your original receipt and we'll match the price at the Guest ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Amazon.com Help: About Price Matching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Amazon.com consistently works toward maintaining competitive prices on everything we carry and will match the price of other retailers for some items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Price Match Guarantee - Staples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Get answers to your questions about Staples' price match guarantee, how to find deals and offers, and the process for buying and redeeming gift cards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Price Match Guarantee, We Match Competitors - Toys&quot;R&quot;Us, Babies ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Toys&quot;R&quot;Us is the ultimate destination for matching competitive pricing ads. To prove it, we're matching competitors' in-store pricing on ALL products in our store!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* RPromise | Price Match | RadioShack www.radioshack.com/rpromise&#xD;&#xA;‎&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The RadioShack RPromise eliminated the need to shop around because we will match the price so you get the best deal! RadioShack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Price Match Policy - Office Supplies, Furniture, Technology at Office ...  www.officedepot.com/a/customerservice/lowprice/&#xD;&#xA;‎&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Office Depot/OfficeMax stores and Officedepot.com/OfficeMax.com will gladly match the price on a new identical item sold by any retailer who sells products in  ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 5 Price-Match Policies You Should Read Closely - US News&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dec 15, 2014 ... But price matching isn't always as easy as it sounds. Due to long lists of exclusions, it's often hard to tell when your purchase qualifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8476" RevisionGUID="d8fde9a7-606c-4fa3-b369-7d40915800d8" CreationDate="2015-04-11T21:20:21.947" UserId="1665" Text="Как перевести &quot;price match&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8476" RevisionGUID="d8fde9a7-606c-4fa3-b369-7d40915800d8" CreationDate="2015-04-11T21:20:21.947" UserId="1665" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="48aa8a90-3024-40f5-99e1-201c9d764316" CreationDate="2015-04-11T23:24:59.080" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 116 characters in body" Text="`Кажется` имеет возвратную частицу &lt;i&gt;-ся&lt;/i&gt; `на себя`. Это грамматически сохранилось в польском языке, а в русском языке ушло в морфологическую форму:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  mi się wydaje      (Polish)&#xD;&#xA;       \&#xD;&#xA;        \&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;мне кажет ся         (Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Возвратная частица -ся обозначает &quot;действия на себя, внутрь себя, между собой&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Они целуются.           Действие между собой.&#xD;&#xA;    Болт вворачивается.     Сам, магически-автоматически :)&#xD;&#xA;    Ему кажется.            Видит свои мысленные образы. Бредит, галлюцинирует.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, я бы акцентировал, что приставка `вы-`, как правило, обозначает выдать наружу (вне, из себя).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     вы-дать          -- initial --&#xD;&#xA;     вы-глядеть       выдать свой образ для всех&#xD;&#xA;     вы-бросить       выдать быстро наружу&#xD;&#xA;     вы-лить          выдать что-то жидкое, что льется&#xD;&#xA;     вы-ставить       выдать, оставить там&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, один выдает, второй принимает.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Он выглядит &lt;b&gt;для всех&lt;/b&gt; как ..., но &lt;b&gt;мне&lt;/b&gt; кажется, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В конкретном примере из вопроса `Он выглядит более уверенным чем кажется.` логика требует разделить в пространстве (или во времени), кто передатчик, а кто приемник." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="dc5f9e27-ff89-4d0a-a6bc-e446d645bc62" CreationDate="2015-04-11T23:30:19.563" UserId="5331" Text="You have to carefully note an intonation of people spelling &quot;да ну&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As previous people had mentioned, meaning depends on intonation and could mean &quot;yes&quot;, and could mean &quot;I am not sure&quot; and could mean &quot;no&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often &quot;да ну&quot; is used as a sound to express feeling with the intonation rather than raw meaning of a words spelled.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Imagining the actual scene that conversation happenned, I think it was used by the girl more like just some sound to express her intention to a man." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="38a5cb3c-dde1-426e-9d25-8498424ebc74" CreationDate="2015-04-11T23:31:29.137" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 116 characters in body" Text="`Кажется` имеет возвратную частицу &lt;i&gt;-ся&lt;/i&gt; `на себя`. Это грамматически сохранилось в польском языке, а в русском языке ушло в морфологическую форму:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  mi się wydaje      (Polish)&#xD;&#xA;       \&#xD;&#xA;        \&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;мне кажет ся         (Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Возвратная частица &lt;i&gt;-ся&lt;/i&gt; обозначает &quot;действия на себя, внутрь себя, между собой&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Они целуются.           Действие между собой.&#xD;&#xA;    Болт вворачивается.     Сам, магически-автоматически :)&#xD;&#xA;    Ему кажется.            Видит свои мысленные образы. Бредит, галлюцинирует.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, я бы акцентировал, что приставка `вы-`, как правило, обозначает выдать наружу (вне, из себя).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     вы-дать          -- initial --&#xD;&#xA;     вы-глядеть       выдать свой образ для всех&#xD;&#xA;     вы-бросить       выдать быстро наружу&#xD;&#xA;     вы-лить          выдать что-то жидкое, что льется&#xD;&#xA;     вы-ставить       выдать, оставить там&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, один выдает, второй принимает.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Он выглядит &lt;b&gt;для всех&lt;/b&gt; как ..., но &lt;b&gt;мне&lt;/b&gt; кажется, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В конкретном примере из вопроса `Он выглядит более уверенным чем кажется.` логика требует разделить в пространстве (или во времени), кто передатчик, а кто приемник." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8478" RevisionGUID="1f1de57f-6621-41bd-9c13-16487e6fee4b" CreationDate="2015-04-12T00:17:04.840" UserId="1665" Text="Traditionally, the capital letter is very rarely used in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the language itself, русский, traditionally starts with a lower case letter itself, in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, what is the reason that a lot of official documents appear to capitalise the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fms.gov.ru/programs/fmsuds/legal/details/39591/7/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (в ред. Указа Президента РФ от 31.12.2003 N 1545)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (абзац введен Указом Президента РФ от 03.11.2006 N 1226)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(May I point out that, perhaps, the number sign itself is not entirely correct, too -- shouldn't it be № as well?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8478" RevisionGUID="1f1de57f-6621-41bd-9c13-16487e6fee4b" CreationDate="2015-04-12T00:17:04.840" UserId="1665" Text="Нужно ли писать слово Указ с заглавной буквы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8478" RevisionGUID="1f1de57f-6621-41bd-9c13-16487e6fee4b" CreationDate="2015-04-12T00:17:04.840" UserId="1665" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8479" RevisionGUID="4bad0715-5999-4086-98d6-6eb64dc2bef3" CreationDate="2015-04-12T00:43:40.883" UserId="5331" Text="Иногда &quot;фантазия&quot; произносится как &quot;хвантазия&quot;, &quot;ф&quot; -&amp;gt; &quot;хв&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;первая буква расщепляется на два звука." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8480" RevisionGUID="33525d97-4bdb-48ac-ae28-5d9d345906bb" CreationDate="2015-04-12T02:28:26.953" UserId="5332" Text="М.Видео использует понятие *продажа товара по цене конкурента*:http://www.mvideo.ru/ppc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20493" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1893" RevisionGUID="2af5595b-5208-4c46-ac0e-416171c6db0b" CreationDate="2015-04-12T02:45:59.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/587084214702583808" />
  <row Id="20494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8481" RevisionGUID="933c774f-54e8-452b-a7b6-83dd4dddabfb" CreationDate="2015-04-12T02:58:45.510" UserId="5008" Text="1. In Russian the first word of the title of the legislative act is always capitalized (e.g. &quot;Указ Президента&quot;, &quot;Трудовой кодекс&quot;). Exceptions are subordinate legislations (&quot;постановление Правительства&quot;) and projects (&quot;проект указа&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using Latin &quot;N&quot; instead of &quot;№&quot; was allowed since typewriting. I believe it's not just site's fault and it's still legal to use &quot;N&quot; in law docs. (BTW. Russian banks insist on exclusive usage of &quot;N&quot; in domestic payment orders).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8482" RevisionGUID="aec84d2d-1e69-4bc7-93db-266732344457" CreationDate="2015-04-12T03:18:27.823" UserId="5008" Text="Another example is &quot;Защита цены&quot; by &quot;Эльдорадо&quot; (another big Russian retailer): http://www.eldorado.com.ua/low_price (it's an ukrainian site but the page is in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also sometimes &quot;гарантия низких цен&quot; can be used in the meaning of the &quot;price matching&quot; too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, Russian market still has no common term for &quot;price matching&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8472" RevisionGUID="86c82800-0fc4-4996-83e5-d17e790f900b" CreationDate="2015-04-12T05:54:53.760" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I can't explain difference for english native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure there are some differences, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он выглядит более уверенным чем кажется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне кажется, мы потеряем деньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't expain it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8483" RevisionGUID="16274c80-5592-4a46-a1d2-c7070d75203b" CreationDate="2015-04-12T08:18:46.503" UserId="4833" Text="*Гарантия низкой цены* is also used in the marketing (google finds it on [ozon.ru][1] and on several hotel booking sites) , although *лучшая цена* is still more popular. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/20290569/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20502" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="0cd2513b-cc03-4ead-a24e-1ea76a049729" CreationDate="2015-04-12T12:28:47.780" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8483" RevisionGUID="7c0414ca-df67-4406-a71e-417f839e9542" CreationDate="2015-04-12T19:50:32.677" UserId="4833" Comment="expanded the answer after OP's comment" Text="&quot;Price match guarantee&quot; in advertising campaigns is usually translated as *Гарантия лучшей цены* or sometimes *Гарантия наилучшей цены*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Гарантия наилучшей цены распространяется на самые низкие доступные тарифы эконом-классе и бизнес-классе KLM и Northwest Airlines.   ([KLM][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Гарантия низкой цены* is also used in the marketing (google finds it on [ozon.ru][4] and on several hotel booking sites), although *лучшая цена* seems to be more more popular. &#xD;&#xA;For a native speaker all these variants are pretty much equivalent: they reasonable ok and convey their meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Price match&quot; as the process of checking the competitors' prices does not have a coined term in Russian. I would say «сверить цены»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цены можно сверить на сайте pricerunner.co.uk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.klm.com/travel/ru_ru/plan_and_book/ticket_information/best_price_guarantee/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/20290569/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8487" RevisionGUID="3a88f99a-9ca1-40a5-9c0d-a3102410fcf9" CreationDate="2015-04-13T00:11:28.617" UserId="6300" Text="If I wanted to ask a professor if he would write a letter of recommendation for me and wanted to convey the same feeling as &quot;I was wondering..(if you could write a letter of recommendation for me)&quot; what verb would I use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I say, Я размышлял, можете ли Вы написать...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8487" RevisionGUID="3a88f99a-9ca1-40a5-9c0d-a3102410fcf9" CreationDate="2015-04-13T00:11:28.617" UserId="6300" Text="How to say &quot;I was wondering&quot; when asking a question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8487" RevisionGUID="3a88f99a-9ca1-40a5-9c0d-a3102410fcf9" CreationDate="2015-04-13T00:11:28.617" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8488" RevisionGUID="61b6c449-9f79-4d37-bf98-47d3ad4f9f6b" CreationDate="2015-04-13T00:18:14.210" UserId="6300" Text="What is the difference between всякий and любой? It seems that they both mean &quot;any, every&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8488" RevisionGUID="61b6c449-9f79-4d37-bf98-47d3ad4f9f6b" CreationDate="2015-04-13T00:18:14.210" UserId="6300" Text="What is the difference between всякий and любой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8488" RevisionGUID="61b6c449-9f79-4d37-bf98-47d3ad4f9f6b" CreationDate="2015-04-13T00:18:14.210" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8489" RevisionGUID="0e180bd3-19c8-42ae-be7a-f22e06a7d5ba" CreationDate="2015-04-13T01:26:15.417" UserId="2273" Text="In Russian there are several conversation starters (which is what `I was wondering` is) that can be used in informal conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я тут подумал, а не сходить ли нам на рыбалку&#xD;&#xA;    Мне тут пришла мысль, не создать ли нам рок-группу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see in the example above I have used them in the context of an informal request. The examples above in my opinion have slightly different &quot;feeling&quot; as to `I was wondering` even if they literally mean the same. In English the phrase implies a polite request, in Russian the phrases above have more informal meaning. They will not be applicable to request a professor to write a recommendation letter. In such cases I would start a conversation with a description of my current situation and then used something like `не затруднит ли Вас...`, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Здравствуйте Александр Николаевич. &#xD;&#xA;    Через неделю у меня интервью на работу. &#xD;&#xA;    Не затруднит ли Вас написать рекомендательное письмо..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8490" RevisionGUID="23f1dcd9-7d5f-45f5-8fce-410c32805b00" CreationDate="2015-04-13T03:09:56.047" UserId="4560" Text="*любой* straight-up means &quot;any&quot;; *всякий* is more along the lines of &quot;every kind of&quot;, &quot;all manner of&quot;, etc. *всякий* sees a lot more colloquial usage, but when it's occasionally used directly instead of *любой* it actually sounds more bookish and antiquated (*Всякий, кто осмелится войти, понесёт наказание*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8491" RevisionGUID="7eb8f246-e8fa-470c-94ec-79b7f91e4526" CreationDate="2015-04-13T03:47:22.140" UserId="5008" Text="Another option is &quot;не могли бы Вы&quot; or &quot;не можете ли Вы&quot;. This sounds &quot;polite&quot; enough. Note the negative part &quot;не&quot; in all variants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8492" RevisionGUID="d6f03f07-36e5-4eeb-a249-6faf633480b9" CreationDate="2015-04-13T06:25:18.330" UserId="5288" Text="As Nikolay Ershov noted before, differences do occur. As an added illustration: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     в любое время              всякий раз            каждый раз&#xD;&#xA;      at any time               every time            each time&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;     любой человек             всякий человек        каждый человек&#xD;&#xA;        anyone                   everyone              everyone&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;      любой день                всякий день           каждый день&#xD;&#xA;    a day, any day               every day         day by day, daily&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;I think this is self-explanatory." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8493" RevisionGUID="a210277d-3573-4c18-962a-152cd60d66a0" CreationDate="2015-04-13T06:40:09.553" UserId="1640" Text="Another starter sentence is *Я хотел тебя спросить...* (if you are male) or *Я хотела тебя спросить...* (if you are a woman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Я хотел тебя спросить, можешь ли ты написать для меня рекомендательное письмо?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8493" RevisionGUID="cbe7f00c-964d-46be-a096-18810a38274e" CreationDate="2015-04-13T06:53:50.890" UserId="1640" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Another starter sentence is *Я хотел Вас спросить...* (if you are male) or *Я хотела Вас спросить...* (if you are a woman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *Я хотел Вас спросить, могли ли Вы написать для меня рекомендательное письмо?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8494" RevisionGUID="9921fff7-c4e2-40fd-a61e-b333987fba3c" CreationDate="2015-04-13T14:54:07.300" UserId="5243" Text="&quot;Could I say, Я размышлял, можете ли Вы написать...?&quot; - sounds wrong. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;размышлять&quot;, I would translate as &quot;to contemplate/reflect&quot;.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я (по)думал(a)&quot; - &quot;I've been thinking&quot;, is more common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, I would probably use: &quot;Я хотел(а) &lt;бы y&gt; Вас попросить/спросить&quot; - &quot;I would like to ask you&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="9add6e54-cfb3-473d-8bd9-7c3008e15231" CreationDate="2015-04-13T16:28:18.000" UserId="5337" Text="Does the word `Бог` (Nom. Sg.) end in a sound like `г` or `х`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="9add6e54-cfb3-473d-8bd9-7c3008e15231" CreationDate="2015-04-13T16:28:18.000" UserId="5337" Text="Pronounciation of Бог" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="9add6e54-cfb3-473d-8bd9-7c3008e15231" CreationDate="2015-04-13T16:28:18.000" UserId="5337" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8496" RevisionGUID="bc180f93-cab4-4c12-8d8b-82fc205e10d5" CreationDate="2015-04-13T16:36:57.553" UserId="5008" Text="The spelling &quot;г&quot; is due to Church Slavonian. So in a Church service they say &quot;Бог&quot;. Yet in spoken Russian we pronounce &quot;Бох&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8496" RevisionGUID="42f999bb-bced-4c43-aab7-0d4dc65e2a7b" CreationDate="2015-04-13T17:11:00.713" UserId="5008" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="The spelling &quot;г&quot; is due to old pronounce. But in modern Russian we usually say &quot;Бох&quot; due to Church Slavonian (although in Church Slavonian spelling the word still ends in &quot;гъ&quot;). Also sometimes people say &quot;Бок&quot; but this is thought to be an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20534" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="ee47f786-4705-4a2e-91e3-89403a4b8491" CreationDate="2015-04-13T20:20:53.390" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8498" RevisionGUID="a5a495e1-0009-491e-9c7e-da01a49e9d44" CreationDate="2015-04-14T04:49:18.870" UserId="194" Text="The pronounciation is [бог] in standard Russian in general context (out of idioms). This follows the general Russian rules of devoicing at the end in certain circumstances so it can become [бок] before voiceless consonants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8500" RevisionGUID="a7032c26-bf4d-4bbc-8611-e4b24edfb5ca" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:02:19.307" UserId="3892" Text="I know that **лишний раз** means *once more* in the sense of being reminded of something once again, or something serving as *just another* example of something. However I'm at a complete loss to understand it's meaning in the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **лишний раз** дома я не останусь.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лишний раз** выходить не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лишний раз** помогать ему не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8500" RevisionGUID="a7032c26-bf4d-4bbc-8611-e4b24edfb5ca" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:02:19.307" UserId="3892" Text="meaning of лишний раз" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8500" RevisionGUID="a7032c26-bf4d-4bbc-8611-e4b24edfb5ca" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:02:19.307" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8501" RevisionGUID="8bdde26c-bc0d-496d-b2c0-a5b733b8c918" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:04:18.417" UserId="4962" Text="Is there a word such as `женат` and `замужем` for homosexuals? Which would they use (in case they married in another country and came to Russia afterwards)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8501" RevisionGUID="8bdde26c-bc0d-496d-b2c0-a5b733b8c918" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:04:18.417" UserId="4962" Text="Is there a word such as женат and замужем for homosexuals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8501" RevisionGUID="8bdde26c-bc0d-496d-b2c0-a5b733b8c918" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:04:18.417" UserId="4962" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8502" RevisionGUID="772fc63a-287c-4b72-8382-fae77300a062" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:22:13.410" UserId="4560" Text="Idiomatically, the best equivalent is probably &quot;...if I don't have to&quot;. If that doesn't explain the literal choice of words, you can think of it this way: &quot;I could *spare* myself an act of staying at home / going outside / helping him&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8503" RevisionGUID="26c0ea51-77ff-4ada-957c-7c3e38a46734" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:23:55.747" UserId="3680" Text="It means `avoid if I don't have to`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **лишний раз** дома я не останусь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I avoid stay at home if I don't have to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лишний раз** выходить не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to go out if I don't have to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лишний раз** помогать ему не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to help him if I don't have to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8503" RevisionGUID="5e27ed84-f38d-4634-aed0-50856927912f" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:36:26.867" UserId="3680" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="It means `avoid if I don't have to`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **лишний раз** дома я не останусь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I avoid staying at home if I don't have to.`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лишний раз** выходить не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I don't want to go out if I don't have to.`  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;`I avoid going out if I don't have to.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лишний раз** помогать ему не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I don't want to help him if I don't have to.`  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;`I avoid helping him if I don't have to.`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8504" RevisionGUID="7e8ea63d-f3e2-4804-b17f-5b7a8d40bdfe" CreationDate="2015-04-14T14:58:45.100" UserId="4630" Text="It's hard to imagine exact replacement for *женат* or *замужем* in homosexual case. I think most neutral construction (for both men and women) would use a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы поженились. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More elaborated answer: [http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8158/4630][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8158/4630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8505" RevisionGUID="b6cf9342-cc21-49c0-868f-609ed37f1dd0" CreationDate="2015-04-14T16:03:04.833" UserId="5288" Text="The focus is on the `лишний`, which has the principal meaning: spare, extra. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a memory cell has a storage capacity of 2 bits, then 3-rd bit is `лишний` (cell overflow). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Лишний &lt;b&gt;X&lt;/b&gt; causes &lt;b&gt;X&lt;/b&gt; to overflow something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Лишний &lt;b&gt;раз&lt;/b&gt; causes ...&#xD;&#xA;          |&#xD;&#xA;      once more &#xD;&#xA;          |&#xD;&#xA;          be not relevant, serve no useful end.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20549" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8501" RevisionGUID="4b9b0014-8236-4627-a9e9-aaaf12e0f7bf" CreationDate="2015-04-14T17:08:07.013" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8104],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8500" RevisionGUID="61002494-63cf-4bd6-8383-f711235469fe" CreationDate="2015-04-14T18:53:09.730" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I know that **лишний раз** means *once more* in the sense of being reminded of something once again, or something serving as *just another* example of something. However I'm at a complete loss to understand it's meaning in the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **лишний раз** дома не останусь.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лишний раз** выходить не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лишний раз** помогать ему не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8503" RevisionGUID="76cde38d-9525-4549-97e6-922f3443efd4" CreationDate="2015-04-14T18:53:47.580" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It means `avoid if I don't have to`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **лишний раз** дома не останусь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I avoid staying at home if I don't have to.`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лишний раз** выходить не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I don't want to go out if I don't have to.`  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;`I avoid going out if I don't have to.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лишний раз** помогать ему не хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I don't want to help him if I don't have to.`  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;`I avoid helping him if I don't have to.`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20552" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8487" RevisionGUID="abcb319a-51b2-4da8-a570-fae7ea350a6f" CreationDate="2015-04-14T20:50:46.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/588081987581321216" />
  <row Id="20553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8506" RevisionGUID="37f23c05-dd20-49e5-a880-97c04e3aa96c" CreationDate="2015-04-14T21:35:44.907" UserId="5232" Text="If person speaks &quot;Я лишний раз дома не останусь.&quot;, it means that he doesn't want to be at home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8506" RevisionGUID="516dc7ed-a392-41cc-9505-1f7aefd9e36e" CreationDate="2015-04-14T21:47:08.697" UserId="5232" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="If person speaks &quot;Я лишний раз дома не останусь.&quot;, it means that he doesn't want to be at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that some person was two days at home because he needed, but he didn't want to stay at home.&#xD;&#xA;But on 3rd day he doesn't need to be at home, so this person quickly go away from his home. He doesn't want to be at home once more time (лишний раз). Он не хочет быть дома **лишний раз**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7939" RevisionGUID="2ab35b62-002b-4c60-beed-127e11dbde79" CreationDate="2015-04-15T00:22:49.690" UserId="3892" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="**Было** here is a PARTICLE with a force similar to English &quot;started to&quot; or &quot;was starting to:&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It's a good thing he turned up - I was **starting to** think they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kidnapped him too.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8508" RevisionGUID="92059ed9-906e-45f6-9343-22c585a101f5" CreationDate="2015-04-15T03:27:32.847" UserId="5343" Text="teachers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     please tell me how to translate **No ads edition** to Russian. Thank you very mush.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8508" RevisionGUID="92059ed9-906e-45f6-9343-22c585a101f5" CreationDate="2015-04-15T03:27:32.847" UserId="5343" Text="How to translate &quot;No ads edition&quot; to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8508" RevisionGUID="92059ed9-906e-45f6-9343-22c585a101f5" CreationDate="2015-04-15T03:27:32.847" UserId="5343" Text="|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8509" RevisionGUID="52838b39-aa84-4ed9-a0de-80453ab56a05" CreationDate="2015-04-15T07:29:23.627" UserId="4630" Text="Proper translation will be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Версия без рекламы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google proof][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I've just copied Avtokod's answer following the logic &quot;Answers should be answers&quot; (from [Answer or comment: what's the etiquette?][2]).   &#xD;&#xA;**Let's agree on answering in answers even if they are simple and short.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%22%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17447/answer-or-comment-whats-the-etiquette" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8509" RevisionGUID="d8f51685-3257-499d-a065-8f3f4ecaec29" CreationDate="2015-04-15T20:01:11.927" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 226 characters in body" Text="Proper translation will be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Версия без рекламы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google proof][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%22%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="28baa4f5-54ac-4473-a8b4-260dc50e8a9e" CreationDate="2015-04-15T23:25:26.457" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1215 characters in body" Text="I have seen the mention of Native Speakers. &#xD;&#xA;And nobody could give You an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried some tests at [translate.yandex.ru](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) .&#xD;&#xA;Speech engine wouldn't admit any critical error during the tests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `сегодня` по-русски читается как `севодня`; `часы` по-русски читаются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как `чисы`,  в слове `дядя` слышится легкое `з` — `дзядя`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For rapid control* I dare to say that it's suitable.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [more finer-grained analysis](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%2C%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BD%2C%20%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%88%2C%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) is also possible. &#xD;&#xA;The consonant sounds of Russian fall into two classes: hard and soft. Russian spelling, unlike English, is almost phonetic, spelling by a small number of definite rules. Certain Russian words show a consonant variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;                            A fail labeled by X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hard cons. _____________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;                 |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA;                 X                          X          |&#xD;&#xA;                 |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA;             филателист    фен    шинель    демарш     тест     агрессия.&#xD;&#xA;                           |        |                             |&#xD;&#xA;                           |        X                             |&#xD;&#xA;soft cons. ________________|________|_____________________________|&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The test is failed, but it's utterly negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="87ce6014-151c-4e86-b885-2bed27cc3520" CreationDate="2015-04-16T13:47:17.570" UserId="5288" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="I have seen the mention of Native Speakers. &#xD;&#xA;And nobody could give You an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried some tests at [translate.yandex.ru](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) .&#xD;&#xA;Speech engine wouldn't admit any critical error during the tests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `сегодня` по-русски читается как `севодня`; `часы` по-русски читаются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как `чисы`,  в слове `дядя` слышится легкое `з` — `дзядя`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For rapid control* I dare to say that it's suitable.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [more finer-grained analysis](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%2C%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BD%2C%20%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%88%2C%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) is also possible. &#xD;&#xA;The consonant sounds of Russian fall into two classes: hard and soft. Russian spelling, unlike English, is almost phonetic, spelling by a small number of definite rules. Certain Russian words show a consonant variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;should be&#xD;&#xA;pronounced&#xD;&#xA; |&#xD;&#xA; |                An engine failure designated as X&#xD;&#xA;hard __________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA; .               |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA; .               X                          X          |&#xD;&#xA; .               |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA; .           филателист    фен    шинель    демарш     тест     агрессия.&#xD;&#xA; .                         |        |                             |&#xD;&#xA; .                         |        |                             |&#xD;&#xA;soft ______________________|________|_____________________________|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The test is failed, but it's utterly negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="eb99325c-de72-43ae-b4a6-0421e5a3b07d" CreationDate="2015-04-16T13:57:02.843" UserId="5288" Comment="edited body" Text="I have seen the mention of Native Speakers. &#xD;&#xA;And nobody could give You an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried some tests at [translate.yandex.ru](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) .&#xD;&#xA;Speech engine wouldn't admit any critical error during the tests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `сегодня` по-русски читается как `севодня`; `часы` по-русски читаются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как `чисы`,  в слове `дядя` слышится легкое `з` — `дзядя`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For rapid control* I dare to say that it's suitable.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [more finer-grained analysis](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%2C%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BD%2C%20%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%88%2C%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) is also possible. &#xD;&#xA;The consonant sounds of Russian fall into two classes: hard and soft. Russian spelling, unlike English, is almost phonetic, spelling by a small number of definite rules. Certain Russian words show a consonant variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;should be&#xD;&#xA;pronounced&#xD;&#xA; |&#xD;&#xA; |                An engine failure designated as X&#xD;&#xA;hard __________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA; .               |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA; .               X                          X          |&#xD;&#xA; .               |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA; .           филателист    фен    шинель    демарш     тест     агрессия.&#xD;&#xA; .                         |        |                             |&#xD;&#xA; .                         |        X                             |&#xD;&#xA;soft ______________________|________|_____________________________|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The test is failed, but it's utterly negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="ece59dd5-38b1-4f91-b63b-b56ee0338313" CreationDate="2015-04-16T14:03:57.437" UserId="5288" Comment="edited body" Text="I have seen the mention of Native Speakers. &#xD;&#xA;And nobody could give You an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I tried some tests at [translate.yandex.ru](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) .&#xD;&#xA;Speech engine wouldn't admit any critical error during the tests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `сегодня` по-русски читается как `севодня`; `часы` по-русски читаются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как `чисы`,  в слове `дядя` слышится легкое `з` — `дзядя`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For rapid control* I dare to say that it's suitable.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [more finer-grained analysis](https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%2C%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BD%2C%20%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%88%2C%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F.&amp;lang=ru-en) is also possible. &#xD;&#xA;The consonant sounds of Russian fall into two classes: hard and soft. Russian spelling, unlike English, is almost phonetic, spelling by a small number of definite rules. Certain Russian words show a consonant variation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;should be&#xD;&#xA;pronounced&#xD;&#xA; |&#xD;&#xA; |                An engine failure designated by X&#xD;&#xA;hard __________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA; .               |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA; .               X                          X          |&#xD;&#xA; .               |                          |          |&#xD;&#xA; .           филателист    фен    шинель    демарш     тест     агрессия.&#xD;&#xA; .                         |        |                             |&#xD;&#xA; .                         |        X                             |&#xD;&#xA;soft ______________________|________|_____________________________|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The test is failed, but it's utterly negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8510" RevisionGUID="3386a53a-9b74-4af2-8342-71bcbebf9fd0" CreationDate="2015-04-17T10:33:21.307" UserId="5281" Text="I think [OpenLanguage RusPod][1] is a good one.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openlanguage.com/library/learn-russian/13/complimentary-russian-course/28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8511" RevisionGUID="f863c34a-0b3b-4210-8fcd-8c8b86a77dc5" CreationDate="2015-04-17T10:50:52.090" UserId="5354" Text="Согласно, например, Словарю иностранных слов Комлева Н.Г 2006 года, допустимы оба варианта.&#xD;&#xA;Поискать по словарям можно тут: http://dic.academic.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8508" RevisionGUID="73cbd57a-0f07-4261-a397-68a123408fec" CreationDate="2015-04-17T11:46:16.067" UserId="551" Comment="fixed formatting, changed tag" Text="Please tell me how to translate **No ads edition** to Russian. Thank you very much.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20572" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8508" RevisionGUID="73cbd57a-0f07-4261-a397-68a123408fec" CreationDate="2015-04-17T11:46:16.067" UserId="551" Comment="fixed formatting, changed tag" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8512" RevisionGUID="d728da60-2fda-44dc-bb22-1735d78a392f" CreationDate="2015-04-17T15:11:31.237" UserId="551" Text="В русском языке есть слово, оканчивающееся на три &quot;е&quot; подряд: &quot;длинношеее&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По поводу еще одного слова с тремя &quot;е&quot; подряд - &quot;змееед&quot; в интернете ведутся споры. Некоторые утверждают что слова &quot;змее**Е**д&quot; не существует, правильно писать &quot;змее**Я**д&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И все-таки является ли правильным словом &quot;змееед&quot;? Или все-таки правильно &quot;змееяд&quot;? Есть ли разница в значении этих слов?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8512" RevisionGUID="d728da60-2fda-44dc-bb22-1735d78a392f" CreationDate="2015-04-17T15:11:31.237" UserId="551" Text="Как правильно: змееед или змееяд?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8512" RevisionGUID="d728da60-2fda-44dc-bb22-1735d78a392f" CreationDate="2015-04-17T15:11:31.237" UserId="551" Text="|правописание|словообразование|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8513" RevisionGUID="551ff3dd-fbbc-4d6c-8088-b5e6ffea6288" CreationDate="2015-04-17T17:46:46.673" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Змееяда&quot; встречал один раз, в довольно старом переводе Майн Рида. И помню, если не ошибаюсь, более поздний перевод, где был уже &quot;змееед&quot;. Не знаю, с чего бы считать &quot;змеееда&quot; неправильным. Похоже на новую находку наивных сетевых прескриптивистов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8514" RevisionGUID="c6d4cb5e-7c32-4888-a839-322021a9c37c" CreationDate="2015-04-17T18:53:36.937" UserId="134" Text="The bird of prey is definitely called *змееяд* or *орёл-змееяд* in Russian. I've never seen it called *змееед*, and it's not mentioned in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It uses the OCS rendition of the second root, similar to *травоядное*, *тунеядец* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're talking about a constructed word meaning &quot;snake eater&quot; in general, then it would make sense to render it *змееед* in Russian, as the pattern is productive and the corpus mentions words like *кошкоед*, *говноед*, *кармоед*, *бананоед* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8514" RevisionGUID="f1ed2299-04a1-4735-9a25-be6ab65f838d" CreationDate="2015-04-17T19:07:06.780" UserId="134" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="The bird of prey is definitely called *змееяд* or *орёл-змееяд* in Russian. I've never seen it called *змееед*, and it's not mentioned in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It uses the OCS rendition of the second root, similar to *травоядное*, *тунеядец* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're talking about a constructed word meaning &quot;snake eater&quot; in general, then it would make sense to render it *змееед* in Russian, as the pattern is productive and the corpus mentions words like *кошкоед*, *говноед*, *кармоед*, *бананоед* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the same pattern, you could use construct more words with three *е* in them, like *швееед* (&quot;sempstress eater&quot;), *фееед* (&quot;fairy eater&quot;) etc. Some of them, like *орхидееед* or *сельдерееед*, would even make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8514" RevisionGUID="173be517-a4c7-4507-aa18-f684f1f11838" CreationDate="2015-04-18T16:54:30.687" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The bird of prey is definitely called *змееяд* or *орёл-змееяд* in Russian. I've never seen it called *змееед*, and it's not mentioned in the dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It uses the OCS rendition of the second root, similar to *травоядное*, *тунеядец* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're talking about a constructed word meaning &quot;snake eater&quot; in general, then it would make sense to render it *змееед* in Russian, as the pattern is productive and the corpus mentions words like *кошкоед*, *говноед*, *кармоед*, *бананоед* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the same pattern, you could construct more words with three *е* in them, like *швееед* (&quot;sempstress eater&quot;), *фееед* (&quot;fairy eater&quot;) etc. Some of them, like *орхидееед* or *сельдерееед*, would even make sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8515" RevisionGUID="f1a51cad-cef8-45a9-89ac-9ad964dbaba6" CreationDate="2015-04-19T20:28:48.617" UserId="5362" Text="В большинстве случаев образование этнохоронима обусловлено не правилами, а местным обычием или &quot;сложилось исторически&quot;. Во многих случаях сами жители города называют себя и своих земляков по-разному, например в городах, чьи названия менялись со временем, жители именуют себя более привычным образом.&#xD;&#xA;Ещё сложнее с городами, чьё название длинно или необычно, как, например Екатеринбург (ранее - Свердловск) или Яя (посёлок в Кемеровской области).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще всего, ответить однозначно на вопрос об используемом этнохорониме помогает только опрос местных жителей. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8516" RevisionGUID="a20fc442-c1bb-4c9c-823f-85704100d09a" CreationDate="2015-04-20T00:14:54.797" UserId="5364" Text="I have a Russian artist friend who speaks terrible English and I speak terrible Russian. He's sending me this amulet that he made which is small enough to fit in an envelope. How do I explain to him to send it to me using regular mail in an envelope instead of courier mail (ups, fedex, dhl). I'm not able to receive packages I have to sign for here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8516" RevisionGUID="a20fc442-c1bb-4c9c-823f-85704100d09a" CreationDate="2015-04-20T00:14:54.797" UserId="5364" Text="How to ask someone to send me a shipment using regular mail instead of courier mail?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8516" RevisionGUID="a20fc442-c1bb-4c9c-823f-85704100d09a" CreationDate="2015-04-20T00:14:54.797" UserId="5364" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20586" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8512" RevisionGUID="2f32a9ff-00a3-44a2-8ea9-34188a22228b" CreationDate="2015-04-20T09:01:52.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/590077913606840320" />
  <row Id="20589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8518" RevisionGUID="65d4d9d5-7dc6-42ff-b18d-2ddf3d178134" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:13:06.577" UserId="5337" Text="What is the exact difference bewteen `явно` and `ясно`? Can they be used totally equivalent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Явно, что холодно в Антарктику.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ясно, что холодно в Антарктику." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8518" RevisionGUID="65d4d9d5-7dc6-42ff-b18d-2ddf3d178134" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:13:06.577" UserId="5337" Text="&quot;явно&quot; vs &quot;ясно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8518" RevisionGUID="65d4d9d5-7dc6-42ff-b18d-2ddf3d178134" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:13:06.577" UserId="5337" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8518" RevisionGUID="f2bc2971-e731-44f4-94a5-e0186a25722c" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:17:53.367" UserId="551" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the exact difference bewteen `явно` and `ясно`? Can they be used totally equivalent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Явно, что холодно в Антарктике.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ясно, что холодно в Антарктике." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8519" RevisionGUID="d65ea820-82dc-4a5d-870d-c75c20158da4" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:28:12.920" UserId="551" Text="No, they are not equivalent. Though both words mean &quot;It's clear that...&quot; the usage is different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can say: Он явно этого ожидал, but not Он ясно этого ожидал (you may however say &quot;Ясно, что он этого ожидал&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can say: Я ясно выразился? but not Я явно выразился?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example the better way to write is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Антарктике явно холодно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (это) Ясно, что холодно в Антарктике. (your example is correct here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8520" RevisionGUID="090726b6-7024-4193-b914-5b0bf0fc083e" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:28:46.830" UserId="5370" Text="&quot;явно&quot; - it's the synonym for word &quot;obvious&quot; &quot;очевидно&quot; and &quot;ясно&quot; - it's like &quot;can be understood&quot;, but it may be not obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your question it's better to use &quot;ясно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;явно&quot; is rare used in the beginning of a phrase. It usually goes together with the statement. &quot;В Антарктике явно холодно&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8521" RevisionGUID="9d5f5e70-1a51-4c1e-a8d6-44f918452d60" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:37:04.857" UserId="5370" Text="Courier mail is &quot;курьерская доставка&quot;, regular mail - &quot;обычная почта&quot;. In envelope -&quot;в конверте&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;I'm not able to receive packages I have to sign for here&quot; can be said like &quot;Я не могу у себя получать посылки, за которые нужно ставить подпись&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8519" RevisionGUID="aa9c80f8-e4dc-4d57-b8d1-32eaa3f934e0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:41:26.120" UserId="551" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="No, they are not equivalent. Though both words mean &quot;It's clear that...&quot; the usage is different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can say: *Он явно этого ожидал*, but not *Он ясно этого ожидал* (however it's possible to say *Ясно, что он этого ожидал*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Это явное нарушение* - is correct, *Это ясное нарушение* - is not (the correct usage is *Ясно, что это нарушение*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can say: *Я ясно выразился?* but not *Я явно выразился?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example the better way to write is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Антарктике явно холодно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ясно, что холодно в Антарктике. (your example is correct here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** @botichelli's answer gives a good hint on явно/ясно placement in the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8522" RevisionGUID="4aba4b2f-e9df-4171-aad4-eb3be92a1980" CreationDate="2015-04-20T12:28:06.920" UserId="194" Text="Явно cannort be used with что. The phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Явно, что холодно в Антарктике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without что it is grammatical,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Явно холодно в Антарктике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the meaning is quite strange, it looks like sarcasm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8523" RevisionGUID="f9b46062-477d-43fd-a413-99db3db8a404" CreationDate="2015-04-20T12:46:12.113" UserId="6300" Text="I've had many people use this with me but I haven't been able to get a good translation on it. Is it the same as вообще?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8523" RevisionGUID="f9b46062-477d-43fd-a413-99db3db8a404" CreationDate="2015-04-20T12:46:12.113" UserId="6300" Text="What exactly does вопще mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8523" RevisionGUID="f9b46062-477d-43fd-a413-99db3db8a404" CreationDate="2015-04-20T12:46:12.113" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8524" RevisionGUID="39ec32e5-3f03-4703-b77b-d9377c1776ba" CreationDate="2015-04-20T13:00:03.490" UserId="5008" Text="The closest equivalent to &quot;ясно&quot; is &quot;clear&quot;. Usually any sentence with &quot;ясно&quot; can be directly translated with &quot;clear&quot; while keeping word order (and vice versa, except the Russian sentence often lacks equivalents to &quot;that&quot;, &quot;it's&quot; and so on). So nothing really special here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;явно&quot; originates from the word &quot;явь&quot; which roughly means &quot;reality&quot;. So it badly suits your example as you are probably talking about the place where you have never been. But if you have just stepped upon the frosty ground and beaten in your icy hands, saying &quot;Явно, что в Антарктике холодно&quot; would be perfectly OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8524" RevisionGUID="f9f4ed16-13e3-48d3-b8e4-8080914fb47a" CreationDate="2015-04-20T13:19:01.483" UserId="5008" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="The closest equivalent to &quot;ясно&quot; is &quot;clear&quot;. Usually any sentence with &quot;ясно&quot; can be directly translated with &quot;clear&quot; while keeping word order (and vice versa, except the Russian sentence often lacks equivalents to &quot;that&quot;, &quot;it's&quot; and so on). So nothing really special here. BTW, if you really mean &quot;it's obvious&quot;, rather than &quot;it's clear&quot;, the better translation would be &quot;очевидно&quot;, not &quot;ясно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;явно&quot; originates from the word &quot;явь&quot; which roughly means &quot;reality&quot;. So it badly suits your example as you are probably talking about the place where you have never been. But if you have just stepped upon the frosty ground and beaten in your icy hands, saying &quot;Явно, что в Антарктике холодно&quot; would be perfectly OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Considering word order in &quot;В Антарктике явно холодно&quot; vs &quot;Явно, что в Антарктике холодно&quot;. The first construction roughly means &quot;in Antarctica it's a reality that...&quot; while the second &quot;it's a reality (here and now) that in Antartcica...&quot; This is why the second one usually sounds as mistake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8524" RevisionGUID="f0831c91-a77f-4471-a49e-d8feb9c131a1" CreationDate="2015-04-20T13:25:52.273" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="The closest equivalent to &quot;ясно&quot; is &quot;clear&quot;. Usually any sentence with &quot;ясно&quot; can be directly translated with &quot;clear&quot; while keeping word order (and vice versa, except the Russian sentence often lacks equivalents to &quot;that's&quot;, &quot;it's&quot; and so on). So nothing really special here. BTW, if you really mean &quot;it's obvious&quot;, rather than &quot;it's clear&quot;, the better translation would be &quot;очевидно&quot;, not &quot;ясно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;явно&quot; originates from the word &quot;явь&quot; which roughly means &quot;reality&quot;. So it badly suits your example as you are probably talking about the place where you have never been. But if you have just stepped upon the frosty ground and beaten in your icy hands, saying &quot;Явно, что в Антарктике холодно&quot; would be perfectly OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Considering word order in &quot;В Антарктике явно холодно&quot; vs &quot;Явно, что в Антарктике холодно&quot;. The first construction roughly means &quot;in Antarctica it's a reality that...&quot; while the second &quot;it's a reality (here and now) that in Antarctica...&quot; This is why the second one usually sounds as mistake." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8525" RevisionGUID="d18247bc-d710-489b-abe6-07a2ca468e26" CreationDate="2015-04-20T14:45:25.257" UserId="4630" Text="Yes, you're right. Variations in modern Russian slang:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вообще**: вобще, вопще, вапще  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вообще-то**: вапщета, ващета, [тащемта][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://teenslang.su/content/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8526" RevisionGUID="af206523-a700-4be6-9bf5-fe89ad26e61f" CreationDate="2015-04-20T14:56:03.547" UserId="4560" Text="I'd say the closest equivalent of `явно` is &quot;evidently&quot;. Thus it's different from `ясно` in that `явно` points to an inference of a fact that isn't observed directly, or even necessarily known with certainty to the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus it's hard to imagine someone saying `В Антарктике явно холодно` precisely because it's an established fact. A more likely example (paradoxical as it sounds) would be `В Атлантиде явно холодно` — something you'd say if the continent of Atlantis were to re-emerge overnight and turn out to be really far north. And, as people have pointed out, you can't say `*явно, что`. There's a (very bookish/formal) verb `явствовать` &quot;to be evident&quot; which is used in this sense (always impersonally, and never on its own without any references): `Из этого явствует, что...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ясно` is &quot;clearly&quot; and, as such, doesn't need explaining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8526" RevisionGUID="ea7524c7-7201-4541-bca5-2523c32e72e0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:02:17.610" UserId="4560" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="I'd say the closest equivalent of `явно` is &quot;evidently&quot;. Thus it's different from `ясно` in that `явно` points to an inference of a fact that isn't observed directly, or even necessarily known with certainty to the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus it's hard to imagine someone saying `В Антарктике явно холодно` precisely because it's an established fact. A more likely example (paradoxical as it sounds) would be `В Атлантиде явно холодно` — something you'd say if the continent of Atlantis were to re-emerge overnight and turn out to be really far north. And, as people have pointed out, you can't say `*явно, что`. There's a (very bookish/formal) verb `явствовать` &quot;to be evident&quot; which is used in this sense (always impersonally, and never on its own without any references): `Из этого явствует, что...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ясно` is &quot;clearly&quot; and, as such, doesn't need explaining. Just a note on word order: it's `Ясно, что в Антарктике холодно` rather than `что холодно в Антарктике`, unless you specifically want to say &quot;It's clear that Antarctica is the place where it's cold&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8527" RevisionGUID="5504861c-7e9c-4698-9302-9c15b2c61e5b" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:21:15.887" UserId="4560" Text="`Вообще` has several intentional misspellings that reflect its colloquial pronunciations; `вопще` is just one of them, not in any way preferred to `вапще` or even `ваще`. All of them are more likely to reflect the, again, colloquial function of `вообще` as an emotionally laden &quot;completely&quot; or &quot;totally&quot;, rather than its other meanings (&quot;in general&quot; or &quot;as a matter of fact&quot;); however, nothing stops the &quot;emotional&quot; `вообще` from being spelt regularly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8528" RevisionGUID="c837ece2-a6e6-40e3-8ebc-c234fbb82b8d" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:52:57.860" UserId="4560" Text="У глаголов с основой на согласный формы аориста 1 л. ед. ч. (*несъ*, *везъ* и т.п.) совпадают с их прошедшим временем ед. ч. м. р. в современном русском. (Которое, разумеется, возникло гораздо позже с утратой конечного *-л*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ввиду этого возникает любопытный вопрос о возрасте выражения `еб твою мать`: может ли это быть сохранившийся аорист? В сущности, нельзя даже сказать, что сейчас глагольная форма однозначно интерпретируется как прошедшее — а не, скажем, междометный глагол типа *хлоп* или *прыг*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Искать что-то на эту тему — дело неблагодарное, учитывая, сколько придется продираться через спекуляции и апокрифы (вроде малоубедительного &quot;пса&quot;, который там якобы изначально был субъектом)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8528" RevisionGUID="c837ece2-a6e6-40e3-8ebc-c234fbb82b8d" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:52:57.860" UserId="4560" Text="Может ли &quot;ёб твою мать&quot; быть сохранившимся аористом 1 л. ед. ч.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8528" RevisionGUID="c837ece2-a6e6-40e3-8ebc-c234fbb82b8d" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:52:57.860" UserId="4560" Text="|история-языка|мат|глагол|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8529" RevisionGUID="988853c3-1da2-45c5-8d41-e3f8553dda39" CreationDate="2015-04-21T09:54:20.917" UserId="5372" Text="How would one translate smartphone-specific words like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Back-Button&#xD;&#xA; - Home-Button&#xD;&#xA; - App-Menu&#xD;&#xA; - App-Update&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In a way that they are correctly understood in a smartphone-app context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. &quot;The Back-Button has been deactivated. Please use the Home-Button to leave the App.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8529" RevisionGUID="988853c3-1da2-45c5-8d41-e3f8553dda39" CreationDate="2015-04-21T09:54:20.917" UserId="5372" Text="Smartphone-specific words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8529" RevisionGUID="988853c3-1da2-45c5-8d41-e3f8553dda39" CreationDate="2015-04-21T09:54:20.917" UserId="5372" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8530" RevisionGUID="fded3baf-260c-4563-aaf8-c6c3ef463293" CreationDate="2015-04-21T11:01:14.400" UserId="310" Text="Кнопка &quot;Назад&quot; (or just &quot;Назад&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кнопка &quot;Вперёд&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обновление (or Обновление приложения)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8531" RevisionGUID="d695c59e-adc3-4ee3-b6ac-0e8c41e1c43d" CreationDate="2015-04-21T12:44:09.107" UserId="4379" Text="Traditionally, such buttons have the following names in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Назад`&#xD;&#xA; - `Домой`&#xD;&#xA; - `Главное меню`&#xD;&#xA; - `Обновить приложение`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your example would be translated as follows: `Кнопка &quot;Назад&quot; не активна. Используйте кнопку &quot;Домой&quot;, чтобы выйти из приложения.` It might be questionable, but I suppose &quot;please&quot; isn't obligatory in Russian when it comes to regular messages shown by an application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8532" RevisionGUID="189d8b1e-e618-4779-829f-3dd7955460d2" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:10:30.137" UserId="134" Text="Old aorist from *&amp;#42;ѣбти* (should we acknowledge its existence) would give *&amp;#42;ѣсъ*: *&amp;#42;jěbsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;jěpsъ* &gt; *&amp;#42;jēsъ*, through devocalization and stop-sibilant merge due to the law of rising sonority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8533" RevisionGUID="49e2e7db-04b1-42fb-9338-50b0a6430493" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:23:20.137" UserId="5337" Text="Could anybody give a precise info on when to use &quot;`cвященный`&quot; and when &quot;`святой`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it similar to sainted/sacred and holy? I mean, is it just a different root, these words come from? Or is it actually the same root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8533" RevisionGUID="49e2e7db-04b1-42fb-9338-50b0a6430493" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:23:20.137" UserId="5337" Text="&quot;cвященный&quot; vs &quot;святой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8533" RevisionGUID="49e2e7db-04b1-42fb-9338-50b0a6430493" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:23:20.137" UserId="5337" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8534" RevisionGUID="33ade32e-4b5b-4a5d-9375-5c400b46ee0a" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:29:29.777" UserId="5373" Text="To make it a polite request, you can write something like this: &quot;Пожалуйста, вышлите мне товар обычной почтой в обычном конверте. Заказное письмо или курьерская почта предполагает подпись получателя, а это невозможно в моем случае. Спасибо!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which translates as: &quot;Please, send shipment using regular mail in regular envelope. Registered mail or Courier mail service would require a signature of the recipient which is impossible in my case. Thank you!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8535" RevisionGUID="85678d0e-7726-4cc0-b737-f5ad86ae8b9d" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:37:44.170" UserId="5373" Text="Both &quot;Cвященный&quot; (adjective) and &quot;святой&quot; (adjective) mean &quot;holy&quot;. For example:  &quot;святая вода&quot; = holy water and &quot;святой дух&quot; = holy spirit, &quot;священный огонь&quot; = holy fire (or sacred fire). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While &quot;святой&quot; (noun) is &quot;saint&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words (as far as I understand) come from the same root.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8536" RevisionGUID="bcbb64f9-bdc7-433f-9f86-47dc6e44b128" CreationDate="2015-04-21T17:57:20.647" UserId="5373" Text="There is also slang meaning of this word &quot;Cёк&quot; = quickly understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8537" RevisionGUID="6c48ff9b-babd-46a5-9d70-2265bc72c473" CreationDate="2015-04-21T19:34:21.390" UserId="5375" Text="Many languages have an impersonal pronoun (&quot;man&quot; in German, &quot;on&quot; in French). In slightly old-fashioned English, the word &quot;one&quot; is used; as in &quot;Where can one get one's hair cut?&quot; Otherwise, &quot;you&quot; is normally used in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been taught that in Russian, the common way to express this is to use the second person singular verb without the word *ты*, as in: &quot;If one knows many people...&quot; = &quot;Если знаешь много людей...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have two problems with this. First, is it proper to use this form with people you would normally address as *Вы*? Second, how do you handle the word in other cases than the nominative? For example, genitive &quot;get one's hair cut&quot; or accusative &quot;if someone sees you&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8537" RevisionGUID="6c48ff9b-babd-46a5-9d70-2265bc72c473" CreationDate="2015-04-21T19:34:21.390" UserId="5375" Text="Impersonal pronoun (English one/you)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8537" RevisionGUID="6c48ff9b-babd-46a5-9d70-2265bc72c473" CreationDate="2015-04-21T19:34:21.390" UserId="5375" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8538" RevisionGUID="5c03ae9a-6ff8-4cef-8174-f2cac85dc659" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:10:32.873" UserId="5376" Text="I have to translate some texts from russian and I cannot find anything about ”поджег бороду”. I mean, I have found out that the basic translation is to burn one's beard, but I think that there is something more, like an expression/ idiom. The context is: &quot;Я закричал, поджег бороду редактора и направился к выходу.&#xD;&#xA;Вслед донеслось:.. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8538" RevisionGUID="5c03ae9a-6ff8-4cef-8174-f2cac85dc659" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:10:32.873" UserId="5376" Text="What does поджег бороду mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8538" RevisionGUID="5c03ae9a-6ff8-4cef-8174-f2cac85dc659" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:10:32.873" UserId="5376" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8530" RevisionGUID="56ea704c-30ce-4829-a2a4-37d8fa593b3b" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:10:52.370" UserId="4630" Comment="layout and home=домой" Text="* Back-Button - *Кнопка &quot;Назад&quot; (or just &quot;Назад&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;* Home-Button - *Кнопка &quot;Домой&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;* App-Menu -  *Меню приложений*&#xD;&#xA;* App-Update - *Обновление (or Обновление приложения)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8530" RevisionGUID="56ea704c-30ce-4829-a2a4-37d8fa593b3b" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:10:52.370" Comment="Proposed by 4630 approved by 551, 3680 edit id of 618" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8539" RevisionGUID="ee835a9e-2fb1-40f4-b15c-5deab40f0cbe" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:16:03.817" UserId="5373" Text="In case of &quot;if someone sees you&quot; - you should use &quot;Вы&quot; with people you would normally address this way instead of &quot;ты&quot;: &quot;Если Вас увидели&quot; vs. &quot;Если тебя увидели&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in case of &quot;one's hair cut&quot; impersonal pronoun is most commonly skipped altogether: &quot;Где бы постричь волосы?&quot; = &quot;Where would one get hair cut?&quot;. It's the same in your very good example:  &quot;If one knows many people...&quot; = &quot;Если знаешь много людей...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8540" RevisionGUID="3e6d521c-74f1-4830-8f6f-90b858238d33" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:43:20.733" UserId="4714" Text="I really like learning from lists—-it's efficient and effective in my opinion. I have recently finished going through Nicholas J., Brown's frequency list of the top 10,000 words in the Russian Language (took about 13 months). And i have decided that I would like to continue using a list. However, the question is: &quot;which list?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course I am aware that frequency is a foggy subject, and that beyond 10,000, the order of words no longer has meaning. Nonetheless, the fact that someone took a large sample size and then recorded the most common words still has value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am searching for a list that has the following features:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Largest sample size (it's obvious why this is important)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Has the &quot;best&quot; methodology for ordering words by frequency...&#xD;&#xA; 3. Is the most recent (compiled within the last century &#xD;&#xA; 4. is the longest (i.e., contains the most words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;of course I doubt it will be possible to meet all of these requests, but give it a shot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8540" RevisionGUID="3e6d521c-74f1-4830-8f6f-90b858238d33" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:43:20.733" UserId="4714" Text="&quot;Best&quot; and most &quot;comprehensive&quot; frequency list of the Russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8540" RevisionGUID="3e6d521c-74f1-4830-8f6f-90b858238d33" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:43:20.733" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8541" RevisionGUID="9a4814ab-98e0-44f0-8233-2ffb5e8c378e" CreationDate="2015-04-21T20:55:30.383" UserId="4560" Text="It's not to &quot;burn smb.'s beard&quot; but to &quot;set smb.'s beard on fire&quot;, a distinction that means rather a lot in practical terms. It's not an idiom, it's a comedic gag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8541" RevisionGUID="9b39795a-8298-4b6a-bd18-c4714b2f0bf6" CreationDate="2015-04-21T21:00:30.727" UserId="4560" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="It's not to &quot;burn smb.'s beard&quot; but to &quot;set smb.'s beard on fire&quot;, a distinction that means rather a lot in practical terms. It's not an idiom, it's a comedic gag, with a touch of deadpan in juxtaposing it with the staid-sounding verb *направился*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8542" RevisionGUID="0dbf46b2-6b0e-4f1e-b475-8546fa92b828" CreationDate="2015-04-21T21:02:44.333" UserId="5288" Text="[О. Н. Ляшевская, С. А. Шаров, Частотный словарь современного русского языка](http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php) — 50,000 words on the ground of 0,3 bln. words in [Russian National Corpus](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/index.html).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8543" RevisionGUID="de87088a-2331-4fd1-9e20-ea5710c9ed29" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:08:30.963" UserId="2030" Text="What's the correct ending in this situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я хочу пиво vs я хочу пива&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О or А? I think it should be А because it's genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8543" RevisionGUID="de87088a-2331-4fd1-9e20-ea5710c9ed29" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:08:30.963" UserId="2030" Text="What's the correct way хочу пиво vs хочу пива" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8543" RevisionGUID="de87088a-2331-4fd1-9e20-ea5710c9ed29" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:08:30.963" UserId="2030" Text="|правописание|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8544" RevisionGUID="59117cab-7ac7-4c32-a543-f2cb19e5d705" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:45:05.803" UserId="242" Text="Both are correct. It's just that two different cases are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just like &quot;хочу чай&quot; and &quot;хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;хочу сок&quot; и &quot;хочу соку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Это называется количественно-отделительный падеж, он же партитив. &#xD;&#xA;Его можно спутать с родительным, но тем не менее это отдельный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всё дело в том, что есть как бы такие падежи, которые не универсальны, а используются только в каком-то ограниченном наборе конструкций. Подробнее  - [What are the lesser known Russian cases?][1] и [тут][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О партитиве можно почитать [тут][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/all/cases/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8545" RevisionGUID="08ab92d6-5f94-4402-99ec-ad082d4ac24c" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:49:27.457" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Хочу пиво = I want the beer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу пива = I want some beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want the definite cup of beer, you cannot use the second variant. If you just want some bear you can use the both. If you want to specify that you want a little beer, you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу немного пива. = I want a little beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу немного пивo. = I want beer a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8545" RevisionGUID="9efd3b05-4f74-49fc-a3ef-b730201733e8" CreationDate="2015-04-21T22:54:47.000" UserId="194" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="&gt; Хочу пиво = I want the beer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу пива = I want some beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want the definite cup of beer, you cannot use the second variant. If you just want some beer you can use the both. If you want to specify that you want a little beer, you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу немного пива. = I want a little beer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want a small quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу немного пивo. = I want beer a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want slightly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8546" RevisionGUID="7f14e428-d3bc-4f83-adc8-05883ba4e9ec" CreationDate="2015-04-22T00:55:28.113" UserId="62" Text="I was talking with a child who, I was told, has learned some basic multiplication that he can do in his head, so I asked him Сколько будет восемь на семь? I'm not a native speaker, but I've given lectures in Russian on higher math and I say just на in place of умножить на and разделить на; the context makes it obvious which one is meant. With the child also it was obvious (to me) that I meant multiplication, since division, square roots, etc. are not yet part of the child's lexicon. Anyway, the parent corrected me by repeating the task but said восемь умножить на семь. That made me realize that perhaps when children learn multiplication this operation is always given in the form умножить на instead of на. When does the transition usually take place to abbreviate multiplication (and division) to на when the choice is clear from context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8546" RevisionGUID="7f14e428-d3bc-4f83-adc8-05883ba4e9ec" CreationDate="2015-04-22T00:55:28.113" UserId="62" Text="умножить на vs. на" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8546" RevisionGUID="7f14e428-d3bc-4f83-adc8-05883ba4e9ec" CreationDate="2015-04-22T00:55:28.113" UserId="62" Text="|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8547" RevisionGUID="0adab129-bca2-4b39-903b-0d17bdb1dafc" CreationDate="2015-04-22T05:03:43.107" UserId="5377" Text="I think most people will realize this form if listener knows that you talking about math. Also, a little bit more precise, you can say &quot;восемью семь&quot; or &quot;трижды семь&quot; for 3 * 7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8548" RevisionGUID="1fbf0fc1-39fb-478a-a8e5-fe9a6a23061b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T06:57:07.673" UserId="5008" Text="AFAIR the teachers in school insisted on saying &quot;умножить на&quot; but everyone just says &quot;на&quot; as it's more convenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8549" RevisionGUID="60b03d9a-f9b6-4c0d-a4cc-70786d368b20" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:04:17.100" UserId="5375" Text="Most verbs distinguish between the imperfect and perfect aspect (писать/написать), but with verbs of motion the imperfect verbs distinguish between undirected and directed motion (плавать/плыть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With писать I can distinguish between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я писал письма (каждый день)&#xD;&#xA; - Я написал письма (вчера)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I make a similar distinction between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я плавал в реке (каждый день)&#xD;&#xA; - Я плавал(?) в реке (вчера)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8549" RevisionGUID="60b03d9a-f9b6-4c0d-a4cc-70786d368b20" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:04:17.100" UserId="5375" Text="Aspect vs. direction of verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8549" RevisionGUID="60b03d9a-f9b6-4c0d-a4cc-70786d368b20" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:04:17.100" UserId="5375" Text="|вид|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8550" RevisionGUID="b6085c9a-b579-4af0-a200-1384e5051124" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:09:40.780" UserId="1236" Text="A prefix, usually **по-**, should be added to the undirected motion verb to make it perfective: плавать - поплавать, летатать - полетать, кататься - покататься, etc. So, your last sentence should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поплавал в реке вчера." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8556" RevisionGUID="ebaa45fd-63db-4acf-9a7e-6526a904138c" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:38:52.420" UserId="5288" Text="Imagine the teacher stands in front of the class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the audience the teacher will never say `Сколько будет восемь на семь?` but always `Сколько будет восемь умножить на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher examines complex expression `100 + 8 × 7 - (5 + 12)` standing at the blackboard and points at `(5 + 12)` he will say `сколько будет пять плюс двенадцать`, but highly unlikely `Чему равна сумма пяти и двенадцати` or `Чему равно пять прибавить двенадцать`. Further pointing at `8 × 7` he most likely will say `Сколько будет восемь на семь?`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teacher say that because the symbols of a multiplication operation `×,*,·` dosn't have his own name, while the symbol `+` on the contrary, has the name `плюс`. So, he just replaces nameless with something neutral, namely, `на`. The same is true for division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parent are not going to correct you, but perhaps trying to be extremely pedantic in the role of the teacher who standing in front of the class ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8556" RevisionGUID="2a4c0218-d562-4913-95aa-60355e88e14e" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:49:36.333" UserId="5288" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Imagine the teacher stands in front of the class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the audience the teacher will never say `Сколько будет восемь на семь?` but always `Сколько будет восемь умножить на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher examines complex expression `100 + 8 × 7 - (5 + 12)` standing at the blackboard and points at `(5 + 12)` he will say `сколько будет пять плюс двенадцать`, but highly unlikely `Чему равна сумма пяти и двенадцати` or `Чему равно пять прибавить двенадцать`. Further pointing at `8 × 7` he most likely will say `а восемь на семь?` and a bit less likely `Сколько будет восемь на семь?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teacher say that because the symbols of a multiplication operation `×,*,·` dosn't have his own name, while the symbol `+` on the contrary, has the name `плюс`. So, he just replaces nameless with something neutral, namely, `на`. The same is true for division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parent are not going to correct you, but perhaps trying to be extremely pedantic in the role of the teacher who standing in front of the class ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8556" RevisionGUID="d8bb0ccf-0046-4d33-a056-99bd654ffc8c" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:55:18.313" UserId="5288" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Imagine the teacher stands in front of the class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the audience the teacher will never say `Сколько будет восемь на семь?` but always `Сколько будет восемь умножить на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher examines complex expression `100 + 8 × 7 - (5 + 12)` standing at the blackboard and points at `(5 + 12)` he will say `сколько будет пять плюс двенадцать?`, but highly unlikely `Чему равна сумма пяти и двенадцати?` or `Чему равно пять прибавить двенадцать?`. Further pointing at `8 × 7` he most likely will say `а восемь на семь?` and a bit less likely `Сколько будет восемь на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teacher say that because the symbols of a multiplication operation `×,*,·` dosn't have his own name, while the symbol `+` on the contrary, has the name `плюс`. So, he just replaces nameless with something neutral, namely, `на`. The same is true for division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parent are not going to correct you, but perhaps trying to be extremely pedantic in the role of the teacher who standing in front of the class ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8560" RevisionGUID="f56d99a8-8d14-4026-811f-4ade1315d1ec" CreationDate="2015-04-22T07:56:59.017" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Вы&quot; can be both singular and plural. If you really want plural (can be also impersonative as referring to some &quot;universal&quot; knowledge), you say &quot;если вы знаете&quot; (note the small letter). Yet impersonal construction allows using &quot;ты&quot; as mentioned earlier even if you normally say to the person &quot;Вы&quot;. With a capital letter &quot;Если Вы знаете&quot; surely is a _personal_ construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point that in a spoken language impersonal vs personal &quot;если знаешь&quot; (likewise &quot;если знаете&quot;) differs by pronunciation and context only. So it's often not about the choice of words yet _how_ to say them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Where can one get one's hair cut?&quot; - Где (здесь) можно постричься? (note that you _almost never_ say &quot;где здесь меня постригут&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;If someone sees you...&quot; - &quot;Если тебя кто-нибудь видит...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8556" RevisionGUID="fa2921e1-c53c-4ec6-a0f9-e848a061900b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:26:44.953" UserId="5288" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Imagine the teacher stands in front of the class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the audience the teacher will never say `Сколько будет восемь на семь?` but always `Сколько будет восемь умножить на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher examines complex expression `100 + 8 × 7 - (5 + 12)` standing at the blackboard and points at `(5 + 12)` he will say `сколько будет пять плюс двенадцать?`, but highly unlikely `Чему равна сумма пяти и двенадцати?` or `Чему равно пять прибавить двенадцать?`. Further pointing at `8 × 7` he most likely will say `а восемь на семь?` and a bit less likely `Сколько будет восемь на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teacher say that because the symbols of a multiplication operation `×,*,·` dosn't have his own name, while the symbol `+` on the contrary, has the name `плюс`. Let us remark here that `Умножить` is relate to the name of operation, not to the name of conventional sign `×`, which is assigned to this operation. So, he just replaces nameless with something neutral, namely, `на`. The same is true for division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parent are not going to correct you, but perhaps trying to be extremely pedantic in the role of the teacher who standing in front of the class ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8556" RevisionGUID="4139fdc4-3cf6-4769-a264-9bd9e6eb28ca" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:32:58.867" UserId="5288" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Imagine the teacher stands in front of the class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the audience the teacher will never say `Сколько будет восемь на семь?` but always `Сколько будет восемь умножить на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher examines complex expression `100 + 8 × 7 - (5 + 12)` standing at the blackboard and points at `(5 + 12)` he will say `сколько будет пять плюс двенадцать?`, but highly unlikely `Чему равна сумма пяти и двенадцати?` or `Чему равно пять прибавить двенадцать?`. Further pointing at `8 × 7` he most likely will say `а восемь на семь?` and a bit less likely `Сколько будет восемь на семь?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teacher say that because the symbols of a multiplication operation `×,*,·` dosn't have his own name, while the symbol `+` on the contrary, has the name `плюс`. Let us remark here that `Умножить` is related to the name of operation, not to the name of conventional sign `×`, which is assigned to this operation. So, he just replaces nameless with something neutral, namely, `на`. The same is true for division.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parent are not going to correct you, but perhaps trying to be extremely pedantic in the role of the teacher who standing in front of the class ))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8561" RevisionGUID="aa86b4c7-fffb-4800-ac82-95d3256c95d8" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:41:27.310" UserId="2060" Text="There is no impersonal pronoun in Russian; impersonality is conveyed with the sentence structure. This is more flexible, and there are three types of such constructs with a common attribute of pronoun missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indefinite-personal** is used when the action is carried out by specific person(s), but this is irrelevant. *В магазине мне продали водки.* (You don't need to mention salespeople did.) Note **3rd personal plural** is used for this type of construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generic-personal** is more abstract and is used to refer to generalized cases like proverbs. *С утра выпил - весь день свободен.* (A &quot;wisdom&quot; that suits any alcoholic.) This one goes with **2nd person singular or, occasionally, 3rd person plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Impersonal** specifies an action or a state without any definite actor. *Бутылку водки занесло снегом.* (Abstract natural force did this.) With verbs, it is **3rd person singular**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **strictly**, with the pronoun omitted, the only impersonal/generic construct you can get with 2nd person **requires singular**, and the use must be abstract as per above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Colloquially**, though, 2nd p. sg. use is not limited to abstract cases. For example, it is very common with directions *(идешь квартал прямо, поворачиваешь направо, там парикмахерская)*. I'd say it's used this way to avoid an imperative that may sound too formal or impolite. Since such use is only marginally impersonal (the directions would work for anyone, but they are given in a particular case), you further go with 2nd p. pl. for politeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is a colloquial use that further mixes up impersonal and personal by actually getting the pronoun (sg. or even pl.) back into sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8561" RevisionGUID="6d9dffd6-64c1-4f24-ab34-c8ff04eeb597" CreationDate="2015-04-22T12:19:42.843" UserId="2060" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="There is no impersonal pronoun in Russian; impersonality is conveyed with the sentence structure. This is more flexible, and there are three types of such constructs with a common attribute of pronoun missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indefinite-personal** is used when the action is carried out by specific person(s), but this is irrelevant. *В магазине мне продали водки.* (You don't need to mention salespeople did.) Note **3rd personal plural** is used for this type of construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generic-personal** is more abstract and is used to refer to generalized cases like proverbs. *С утра выпил - весь день свободен.* (A &quot;wisdom&quot; that suits any alcoholic.) This one goes with **2nd person singular or, occasionally, 3rd person plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Impersonal** specifies an action or a state without any definite actor. *Бутылку водки занесло снегом.* (Abstract natural force did this.) With verbs, it is **3rd person singular**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **strictly**, with the pronoun omitted, the only impersonal/generic construct you can get with 2nd person **requires singular**, and the use must be abstract as per above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Colloquially**, though, 2nd p. sg. use is not limited to abstract cases. For example, it is very common with directions *(идешь квартал прямо, поворачиваешь направо, там парикмахерская)*. I'd say it's used this way to avoid an imperative that may sound too formal or impolite. Since such use is only marginally impersonal (the directions would work for anyone, but they are given in a particular case), you further go with 2nd p. pl. for politeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is a colloquial use that further mixes up impersonal and personal by actually getting the pronoun (sg. or even pl.) back into sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum it up: the less impersonal (generic, abstract) the sentence is, the more you tend to use plural for politeness." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8561" RevisionGUID="233d98e0-ffde-4e71-8e94-72a33897c889" CreationDate="2015-04-22T12:25:16.783" UserId="2060" Comment="moved sum to top tldr" Text="**TL;DR:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The less impersonal (generic, abstract) the sentence is, the more you tend to use plural for politeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no impersonal pronoun in Russian; impersonality is conveyed with the sentence structure. This is more flexible, and there are three types of such constructs with a common attribute of pronoun missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Indefinite-personal** is used when the action is carried out by specific person(s), but this is irrelevant. *В магазине мне продали водки.* (You don't need to mention salespeople did.) Note **3rd personal plural** is used for this type of construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generic-personal** is more abstract and is used to refer to generalized cases like proverbs. *С утра выпил - весь день свободен.* (A &quot;wisdom&quot; that suits any alcoholic.) This one goes with **2nd person singular or, occasionally, 3rd person plural**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Impersonal** specifies an action or a state without any definite actor. *Бутылку водки занесло снегом.* (Abstract natural force did this.) With verbs, it is **3rd person singular**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **strictly**, with the pronoun omitted, the only impersonal/generic construct you can get with 2nd person **requires singular**, and the use must be abstract as per above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Colloquially**, though, 2nd p. sg. use is not limited to abstract cases. For example, it is very common with directions *(идешь квартал прямо, поворачиваешь направо, там парикмахерская)*. I'd say it's used this way to avoid an imperative that may sound too formal or impolite. Since such use is only marginally impersonal (the directions would work for anyone, but they are given in a particular case), you further go with 2nd p. pl. for politeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is a colloquial use that further mixes up impersonal and personal by actually getting the pronoun (sg. or even pl.) back into sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8562" RevisionGUID="63938312-35a2-45cb-9071-885076565d91" CreationDate="2015-04-22T12:45:58.603" UserId="4481" Text="`Умножить на` is formal and &quot;official&quot; name of operation, `на` is colloquial abbreviation. Also, `на` could be abbreviation of division (`разделить на` or `делить на`), that's why it can be unclear, when you say just `восемь на семь`. But with context, there is no problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Таблицу умножения выучил? Сколько будет семь на восемь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is obviously multiplication. And here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько будет десять разделить на пять? А шестнадцать на четыре?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is obviously division, but usually `на` means multiplication by default, if no context provided.  &#xD;&#xA;In your case problem was more educational then translational. Parents of the child could think that he didn't understand question (for example, because of he didn't answered for a long time). When children had just learned multiplication, it can be a bit hard for them to understand question fast when question is unclear or ambiguous.  &#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of confusing abbreviation in Russian. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * people often say `теория относительности` (just &quot;relativity&quot;, which is incorrect) instead of `общая теория относительности` (general relativity) or `специальная теория относительности` (special relativity)&#xD;&#xA; * there is a term in photography `глубина резко изображаемого пространства` (Depth of field), but ususally people use term `глубина резкости`, which is a bit incorrect, because it has another meaning in optics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8563" RevisionGUID="fc6ea65a-cefe-4b9b-a62e-0804e21aaf9c" CreationDate="2015-04-22T15:57:13.773" UserId="5381" Text="They actually come from same root and very similar to holy and sainted. The only difference is that &quot;священный&quot; applicable to inanimate things while &quot;святой&quot; can be used for both animate and inanimate objects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8564" RevisionGUID="1e7f81ba-0f91-4380-acba-4f09d5054b7b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T18:33:31.227" UserId="5374" Text="My teacher told me about prepositional cases for nouns and pronouns, and that if a pronoun is preceded by a preposition, then it takes prepositional case. However, in cases such as `у тебя есть...` why is `тебя` not taking the prepositional case of `тебе`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do want to point out that I am very new to this language so please do try to explain it in as simple words as possible. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8564" RevisionGUID="1e7f81ba-0f91-4380-acba-4f09d5054b7b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T18:33:31.227" UserId="5374" Text="Question about the preposition 'у' and the usage of pronouns following it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8564" RevisionGUID="1e7f81ba-0f91-4380-acba-4f09d5054b7b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T18:33:31.227" UserId="5374" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="67b2847a-b689-4453-9424-d7bb8bd0e28b" CreationDate="2015-04-22T18:55:23.207" UserId="194" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="This is a preposition that governs the Egressive semantical case, meaning &quot;by the time of&quot; (while the morphological case is Dative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Egressive is not morphologically independent case in Russian, its forms are always the same as of Dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я готовился к встрече&#xD;&#xA;    ко встрече я уже был осведомлен о новостях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many respects the preposition ко is similar to the preposition во, which is used with Locative. If the word is monosyllabic and has a flying vowel in root, then in Locative case the preposition becomes во, while in Prepositional case it remains в:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    во сне я летал&#xD;&#xA;    в сне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    лежать во льну &#xD;&#xA;    в льне много пользы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    бежать во ржи&#xD;&#xA;    в ржи много белка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    болячка во рту &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    под насыпью во рву&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other words also require the во for Locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я разочаровался во главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;    (= I became disappointed while being the head of government)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Я разочаровался в главе правительства &#xD;&#xA;    (= I became disappointed with the head of government)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8566" RevisionGUID="a7ccffad-29d9-47c3-ada2-135857e659e8" CreationDate="2015-04-22T20:50:18.660" UserId="1236" Text="In Russian there are only 6 prepositions that need the prepositional case after them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в (во) 'in'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на 'on'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;о (об, обо) 'about'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;по 'along, (moving) on the surface of'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при 'at'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first 2 when used with the prepositional case mean the place, and when used with the accusative case mean the direction to the place: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;в воде (prep.) 'in the water' — в воду (acc.) 'into the water'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на земле (prep.) 'on the ground' — на землю (acc.) 'onto the ground'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all, all the rest of the prepositions are to be followed by the other cases. My guess is, since you're just a beginner, your teacher meant only **в** and **на**, the 2 most widely used prepositions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="4ef8a926-683b-4902-a52d-f86bf4eeeea3" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:02:10.417" UserId="194" Text="святой = very good, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="6957ad65-b989-4295-885b-d1ba4a2f556f" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:19:41.910" UserId="194" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="святой = very good, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely священный implyes certain rites or ritual importance of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, one can apply священный to such things as sword, war, crown, staff, sceptre, monument, book, word etc, while святой is applied to things and people of especial purity: man, woman, martyr, virginity, good character, water, blessing, baptism, deed, life etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="445b7fbd-fbfd-4268-8bd8-e7580fa924a1" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:24:43.967" UserId="194" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="святой = very good, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely священный implyes certain rites or ritual importance of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can apply священный to such things as sword, war, crown, staff, sceptre, monument, book, word, oath, flag, symbol etc, while святой is applied to things and people of especial purity: man, woman, martyr, virginity, good character, water, blessing, baptism, deed, life etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, holy war = *священная война*. War cannot be *святая* unless it is a war without sin :-). A holy sword is *священный меч*. A *святой меч* possibly heals instead of killing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="06e6b7ce-d761-47a5-a1d7-7413c23a9ac7" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:31:09.200" UserId="194" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="святой = very good, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely священный implyes certain rites or ritual importance of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can apply священный to such things as sword, war, crown, staff, sceptre, monument, book, word, oath, flag, symbol etc, while святой is applied to things and people of especial purity: man, woman, martyr, virginity, good character, water, blessing, baptism, deed, life, nature etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, holy war = *священная война*. War cannot be *святая* unless it is a war without sin with only good words :-). A holy sword is *священный меч*. A *святой меч* possibly heals instead of killing. Note though that holy inquisition is translated святая инквизиция, that is &quot;sinless/pure inquisition&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="725dfe0e-3566-477b-aba6-870eda3a7918" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:43:51.277" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="святой = very good, innocent, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely священный implyes certain rites or ritual importance of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can apply священный to such things as sword, war, crown, staff, sceptre, monument, book, word, oath, flag, symbol, event etc, while святой is applied to things and people of especial purity: man, woman, martyr, virginity, good character, water, blessing, baptism, deed, life, nature etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, holy war = *священная война*. War cannot be *святая* unless it is a war without sin with only good words :-). A holy sword is *священный меч*. A *святой меч* possibly heals instead of killing. Note though that holy inquisition is translated святая инквизиция, that is &quot;sinless/pure inquisition&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="86a63f1e-bccb-480a-8e20-41f2e6f89698" CreationDate="2015-04-23T01:49:16.960" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="святой = very good, innocent, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely священный implyes certain rites or ritual importance of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can apply священный to such things as sword, war, crown, staff, sceptre, monument, book, word, oath, flag, symbol, event etc, while святой is applied to things and people of especial purity: man, woman, martyr, virginity, good character, water, blessing, baptism, deed, life, nature etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, holy war = *священная война*. War cannot be *святая* unless it is a war without sin with only good words :-). A holy sword is *священный меч*. A *святой меч* possibly heals instead of killing. Note though that holy inquisition is translated *святая инквизиция*, that is &quot;sinless/pure inquisition&quot;. You can use *священный* as a synonym for &quot;very important&quot;: *эта инструкция для меня священна* &quot;this manual is very important for me, I will not deviate from it under any circumstances&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8568" RevisionGUID="14c49f6b-051d-4851-8c85-54932711d229" CreationDate="2015-04-23T02:46:06.863" UserId="5288" Text="You can solve the problem by yourself, try the [ruscorpora.ru](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us suppose that our aim is to find something across all Russian morphological forms for the verb `плавать`. For  many verbs, the  perfective is inflected exactly like its  imperfective  partner, but with a prepositional prefix  `про-, по-, -раз`, etc. So we put in the *Lexico-grammatical search form* `*плавать`. From the '*Gramm. features*' we shall select 'past, perfective'. ([help](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/corpora-morph.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The response to the query](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=20108&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=en&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*%EF%EB%E0%E2%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=praet%2Cpf&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2) contains the following:  &#xD;&#xA;`Поплавав`   &#xD;&#xA;`проплавала`  &#xD;&#xA;`поплавал`  &#xD;&#xA;`сплавал`   &#xD;&#xA;`отплавала`  &#xD;&#xA;`...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By specifying our query with the second word `Я`, we build the construction   &#xD;&#xA;`WORD1 [distance between words] WORD2`, where `WORD1=Я, WORD2=*плавать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Response to the query](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=en&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=*%EF%EB%E0%E2%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=praet&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8569" RevisionGUID="2b72444f-3151-4015-9738-564c5176b949" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:05:28.117" UserId="5008" Text="A little more about &quot;по&quot; with prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По прошествии времени (some time later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По ком звонит колокол (For whom the bell tolls)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скучаю по Вас (instead of &quot;Я скучаю по Вам&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st is normal, 3rd is a little outdated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8570" RevisionGUID="2d8c1c21-0d57-4131-97c8-20669f3c8487" CreationDate="2015-04-23T04:19:49.910" UserId="5008" Text="Note that the language doesn't require you to specify perfect or imperfect by some reason. You may leave this distinction unexplained until it would be clear from context. &quot;Я плавал на другой берег. Несколько раз&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8571" RevisionGUID="b0ee3b32-bb9f-4d89-88f4-bc61a35dad61" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:10:01.643" UserId="4714" Text="How would these tenses and aspects translate into Russian? I realize that the two languages use a different system, but it seems to me that if I knew how each of these aspects translated than I would have a much easier time with picking aspects of Russian verbs. And English–Russian translators deal with this reality every day, so there must be some answer to the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(or no?)—anyway, i didn't see a post like this, so i thought it might be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Aspect and Tense][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ESGIH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8571" RevisionGUID="b0ee3b32-bb9f-4d89-88f4-bc61a35dad61" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:10:01.643" UserId="4714" Text="Is it possible to translate English tenses into Russian tenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8571" RevisionGUID="b0ee3b32-bb9f-4d89-88f4-bc61a35dad61" CreationDate="2015-04-23T05:10:01.643" UserId="4714" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8572" RevisionGUID="0dcbca12-4957-4edc-9c00-2ac3827e794b" CreationDate="2015-04-23T06:06:54.427" UserId="4379" Text="Actually, there is no such a sophisticated tense system in Russian. Basically, there are only three tenses - Past, Present and Future. In Russian it doesn't matter whether an action is being committed at the moment of speech or has been committed just before this moment. So, you should usually pay attention to the time of action and translate your statements to Russian according to this. The only exception is the Present Perfect Tense - it's translated into Russian as a past form. Again, it's because the action has been done by the moment of speech and it's considered to happen in the Past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing is that in Perfect tenses, unlike others, verbs should be translated into Russian in perfective forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8570" RevisionGUID="7748faad-606f-40c2-81af-39350072af0b" CreationDate="2015-04-23T06:20:35.653" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Note that here Russian is very much like English. &quot;Я плавал&quot; - &quot;I swam&quot;; &quot;Я поплавал&quot; - &quot;I have swum&quot;. And as in English people tend to say &quot;Я плавал&quot;/&quot;I swam&quot; more often even when &quot;I have swum&quot; is OK too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8567" RevisionGUID="f7488044-46ab-42f8-8d7c-6b4cbfb4066a" CreationDate="2015-04-23T06:36:07.587" UserId="194" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="святой = very good, innocent, without sin, without any dirtyness, pure in spuritual sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;священный = very important, venerated, sacred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely священный implyes certain rites or ritual importance of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can apply священный to such things as sword, war, crown, staff, sceptre, monument, book, word, oath, flag, symbol, event etc, while святой is applied to things and people of especial purity: man, woman, martyr, virginity, good character, water, blessing, baptism, sacrament, deed, life, nature etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, holy war = *священная война*. War cannot be *святая* unless it is a war without sin with only good words :-). A holy sword is *священный меч*. A *святой меч* possibly heals instead of killing. Note though that holy inquisition is translated *святая инквизиция*, that is &quot;sinless/pure inquisition&quot;. You can use *священный* as a synonym for &quot;very important&quot;: *эта инструкция для меня священна* &quot;this manual is very important for me, I will not deviate from it under any circumstances&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="f1d9b5ff-5f17-4e22-a3d3-68509dac1606" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:05:12.800" UserId="5376" Text="Can you, please, help me translate this into english? ”Я знаю, – сказала Фрида, – что вы пишете новеллы. Могу я их прочесть? Они у вас при себе?&#xD;&#xA;– При себе, – говорю, – у меня лишь те, которых еще нет.”&#xD;&#xA;Thanks! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="f1d9b5ff-5f17-4e22-a3d3-68509dac1606" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:05:12.800" UserId="5376" Text="How to translate this text" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="f1d9b5ff-5f17-4e22-a3d3-68509dac1606" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:05:12.800" UserId="5376" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8568" RevisionGUID="c32caa47-4744-4432-a43e-74e642d9635b" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:10:35.533" UserId="5288" Comment="edited body" Text="You can solve the problem by yourself, try the [ruscorpora.ru](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us suppose that our aim is to find something across all Russian morphological forms for the verb `плавать`. For  many verbs, the  perfective is inflected exactly like its  imperfective  partner, but with a prepositional prefix  `про-, по-, раз-`, etc. So we put in the *Lexico-grammatical search form* `*плавать`. From the '*Gramm. features*' we shall select 'past, perfective'. ([help](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/corpora-morph.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The response to the query](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=20108&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=en&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*%EF%EB%E0%E2%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=praet%2Cpf&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2) contains the following:  &#xD;&#xA;`Поплавав`   &#xD;&#xA;`проплавала`  &#xD;&#xA;`поплавал`  &#xD;&#xA;`сплавал`   &#xD;&#xA;`отплавала`  &#xD;&#xA;`...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By specifying our query with the second word `Я`, we build the construction   &#xD;&#xA;`WORD1 [distance between words] WORD2`, where `WORD1=Я, WORD2=*плавать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Response to the query](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;dpp=10&amp;spp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=en&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=*%EF%EB%E0%E2%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=praet&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8572" RevisionGUID="4ca334d6-b0cc-4f31-98d0-6b6a146fdfb5" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:35:07.990" UserId="4379" Comment="updated the answer according to another user's suggestion" Text="Actually, there is no such a sophisticated tense system in Russian. Basically, there are only three tenses - Past, Present and Future. In Russian it doesn't matter whether an action is being committed at the moment of speech or has been committed just before this moment. So, you should usually pay attention to the time of action and translate your statements to Russian according to this. The only exception is the Present Perfect Tense - it can be translated into Russian both as a past or present form, depending on context. If an action has been done by the moment of speech, it's considered to happen in the Past. If an action started some time ago and is lasting in the moment of speech, it's expressed using the Present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing is that in Perfect tenses, unlike others, verbs can be translated into Russian in perfective forms. For example, the sentense from your tenses table &quot;I have eaten all the pizza&quot; is translated as `Я съел всю пиццу`. However, the example given by @Nikolay Ershov &quot;I've worked here for five years&quot; is translated as `Я работаю здесь [уже] пять лет`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8574" RevisionGUID="1243befd-f81b-4550-ba38-2bfb5b91ec0e" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:43:22.383" UserId="4379" Text="Frida said: I know that you write short stories. Can I read them? Do you have them with you?&#xD;&#xA;I answered: Only those are with me that haven't existed yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The narrator means that he doesn't carry hard copies of his stories, instead he has some ideas for future stories to be written." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8566" RevisionGUID="3896a707-fcfd-478f-84ac-758c95520178" CreationDate="2015-04-23T07:54:18.127" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="In Russian there are only 5 prepositions that need the prepositional case after them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в (во) 'in'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на 'on'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;о (об, обо) 'about'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;по 'along, (moving) on the surface of'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при 'at'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first 2 when used with the prepositional case mean the place, and when used with the accusative case mean the direction to the place: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;в воде (prep.) 'in the water' — в воду (acc.) 'into the water'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на земле (prep.) 'on the ground' — на землю (acc.) 'onto the ground'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all, all the rest of the prepositions are to be followed by the other cases. My guess is, since you're just a beginner, your teacher meant only **в** and **на**, the 2 most widely used prepositions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20711" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="7ba1a320-bbf6-4c9e-87ae-05b052d888ac" CreationDate="2015-04-23T10:33:30.820" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4630,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nordik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8575" RevisionGUID="e468a59c-2cbe-4d98-8cc2-9f71fa9603af" CreationDate="2015-04-23T20:50:23.630" UserId="5070" Text="Google Translate identifies, находимся, as the English word, are. Is this true? If it is, then when are you supposed to use it? I thought Russians don't have words such as: is, are, and am." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8575" RevisionGUID="e468a59c-2cbe-4d98-8cc2-9f71fa9603af" CreationDate="2015-04-23T20:50:23.630" UserId="5070" Text="When do you use находимся?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8575" RevisionGUID="e468a59c-2cbe-4d98-8cc2-9f71fa9603af" CreationDate="2015-04-23T20:50:23.630" UserId="5070" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8576" RevisionGUID="166be6b3-c3c6-43cd-89ea-93afafda28a0" CreationDate="2015-04-23T21:35:48.017" UserId="5385" Text="`Находиться` - to be located somewhere. As I see, it really have to be translated as `are`, but it can also be skipped in Russian in such sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы [находимся] на улице.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We are [located] on the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас он находится в Москве. / Он сейчас в Москве.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He is in Moscow now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful with `находить` = `find` and `находиться` = `to be somewhere`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он куда-то пропал и нашёлся только через 2 дня.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He disappeared somewhere and had been found after 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact there is a case when `находиться` is about mind, not about location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он был запутан, но быстро нашёлся. / Он был запутан, но быстро сориентировался.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He was confused, but quickly dealt with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last 2 cases are used with past time and seems that they are never used in present. At least I can't remember any such example now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8576" RevisionGUID="5552ed81-81ec-44ee-bd3f-272cc47f8489" CreationDate="2015-04-23T21:43:01.410" UserId="5385" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="`Находиться` - to be located somewhere. As I see, it really have to be translated as `are`, but it can also be skipped in Russian in such sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы [находимся] на улице.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We are [located] on the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас он находится в Москве. / Он сейчас в Москве.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He is in Moscow now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful with `находить` = `find` and `находиться` = `to be somewhere`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он куда-то пропал и нашёлся только через 2 дня.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He disappeared somewhere and had been found after 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case is used with past time and seems that they are never used in present. At least I can't remember any such example now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact there is a case when `находиться` is about mind, not about location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он был запутан, но быстро нашёлся. / Он был запутан, но быстро сориентировался.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He was confused, but quickly dealt with it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8578" RevisionGUID="6d0bea2a-a90c-4a08-acc2-0705b7304781" CreationDate="2015-04-23T22:38:50.280" UserId="5385" Text="Yes, `на` can mean both division and multiplication depending of context. But if there is no any context, I would interpret it as multiplication by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of defaults in math, for example operation priorities with standard functions:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sin 2 x = sin(2*x)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sin x cos x = (sin(x)) * (cos(x))&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You are not only saying in in a same way (without any operation), but you are also writing it in a same way - without brackets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8579" RevisionGUID="a3fcf61e-c09f-4fbe-8a4c-02524e2f3cb3" CreationDate="2015-04-23T22:46:49.853" UserId="5385" Text="`looks` and `seems` - isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He looks more confident then he seemed to be.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It seems, we'll lose the money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've changed the first sentence to &quot;Он выглядит более уверенным, чем казалось&quot; = &quot;Он выглядит более уверенным, чем мы ожидали&quot; = &quot;He looks more confident then we expected&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8580" RevisionGUID="202f354a-1814-48d4-bf08-2dfb83480ba4" CreationDate="2015-04-24T05:52:59.180" UserId="170" Text="In the text below, do I need a comma right after the word &quot;неправильно&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И здесь я вовсе не спрашиваю о том, правильно ли это или **неправильно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отчитывать детей при всех, я просто хочу узнать, как у вас обходятся с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; детьми." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8580" RevisionGUID="202f354a-1814-48d4-bf08-2dfb83480ba4" CreationDate="2015-04-24T05:52:59.180" UserId="170" Text="Proper punctuation with two alternatives related to an infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8580" RevisionGUID="202f354a-1814-48d4-bf08-2dfb83480ba4" CreationDate="2015-04-24T05:52:59.180" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8581" RevisionGUID="4c60e59a-9052-439a-b4ca-56747e018753" CreationDate="2015-04-24T06:17:37.097" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;h3&gt;Let us consider only one single cell:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the unique top-left cell of the table, the cell are further subdivided into header and data cells in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;                         +-------+&#xD;&#xA;                         | I ate |&#xD;&#xA;                         |       |&#xD;&#xA;                         +-------+&#xD;&#xA;                             |&#xD;&#xA;                             |&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;               Imperfective  &amp;   Perfective       &#xD;&#xA;                       \  partners  /     &#xD;&#xA;                    +--------+--------+        &#xD;&#xA;                    |  есть  | съесть |    infinitive &#xD;&#xA;                    +-----------------+      &#xD;&#xA;   -- Singular --   |        |        |     &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |     &#xD;&#xA;  Masculine Past    |  ел    | съел   |    I, you, he    &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Feminine  Past    |  ела   | съела  |    I, you, she    &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Neuter    Past    |  ело   | съело  |    I, you, it&#xD;&#xA;  - - - - - - - - - + - - -  + - - -  +    - - - - - - -   &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Plural &amp; Polite   |  ели   | съели  |    we, you, they    &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  - - - - - - - - - +--------+--------+        &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This lets us to say more by writing less in Russian. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  еcт     it eats           съест     it will eat&#xD;&#xA;  едим    we eat            съедим    we shall eat&#xD;&#xA;  едят    they eat          съедят    they will eat&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; What the aspect actually is &lt;/h3&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                           &lt;b&gt;A dog greedily ate her meat.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                                           .&#xD;&#xA;                                                           .&#xD;&#xA;                             NO · · · · · ·  Собака жадно ела мясо.&#xD;&#xA;  are you sure she          /                              .&#xD;&#xA;  swallowed it whole? _____/                               .&#xD;&#xA;                           \                               .&#xD;&#xA;                            \YES · · · · · · Собака жадно съела мясо.&#xD;&#xA;                                                          =====&#xD;&#xA;                                                            |&#xD;&#xA;                         She has already eaten her meat ____|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                          &#xD;&#xA;                          &#xD;&#xA;      &lt;b&gt;She ate in quick gulps, and never got enough.&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;          ===&#xD;&#xA;           |&#xD;&#xA;   Imperf ?|? Perf&#xD;&#xA;           |&#xD;&#xA;       (ела/съела) торопливо, и никогда не бывала сыта.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it look so simple? In my opinion, for beginning Russian, think of that no more. Before we can quickly and easily applying those aspects, we must first improve our knowledge of the process on compound words — the graphic first-level elements in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall consider an application how to combining a prefix (or sometimes two prefixes) with the root and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Two points coincide.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:    co-in-cid-e&#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |&#xD;&#xA;           with |  fall   ·········  unfamiliar Latin form -cide (fall)&#xD;&#xA;            |  into |&#xD;&#xA;            со  |  пад    ·········  everyday Russian stem, ex: in падать &#xD;&#xA;            |   в   |     &#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |     .········  they, unknown as long and now continues&#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |    /&#xD;&#xA;Russian:    со- в- пад -ают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Две точки совпадают.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the process on compound words is used very wide and extensively: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;                push to the limit,               &#xD;&#xA;                    finally                      &#xD;&#xA;                  (и наконец)                    &#xD;&#xA; Imperfective          |             Perfective       &#xD;&#xA;         \             |              /          &#xD;&#xA;      переписывал   (----&gt;)     переписал        | недописывал, недописавший, недописывая, недописаться, недонадписывал ...+ -ший, -ся ..., пописывал  ...+ -ший, -ся ...,  записывал ..., записывался, недозаписывал, расписывал, расписывался, отписывал, вписывал, надписывал, пописывал,  &#xD;&#xA;      читал         (----&gt;)     прочитал         | дочитал, дочитался, дочитавшись, дочитывая, недочитал, ...+ -ший, -ся ..., считал, вчитался, почитал, начитал, отчитался, дочитал, ...&#xD;&#xA;      делил         (----&gt;)     разделил         | разделил, недоразделил, переделил, недопеределил, обделил, выделил, уделил, наделил, отделил, поделил, + ... + -ший, -ся ...,&#xD;&#xA;      таял          (----&gt;)     растаял          | растаял, дотаял, утаял, оттаял, стаял, протаял, потаял, надтаял, недорастаял, ...&#xD;&#xA;      белил         (----&gt;)     побелил          | ...&#xD;&#xA;      пахал         (----&gt;)     вспахал          | ... &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the process on compound words remain much more clearly visible than in English, so focus on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8578" RevisionGUID="f3da5168-0c00-4dad-ab2a-bcd2819eee77" CreationDate="2015-04-24T06:55:57.817" UserId="5385" Comment="added 335 characters in body" Text="Yes, `на` can mean both division and multiplication depending of context. But if there is no any context, I would interpret it as multiplication by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of defaults in math, for example operation priorities with standard functions:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sin 2 x = sin(2*x)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;sin x cos x = (sin(x)) * (cos(x))&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You are not only saying in in a same way (without any operation), but you are also writing it in a same way - without brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which was about the time when children start to know that на is a common abbreviation in speech for умножить на (or разделить на)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they know as soon as they start to multiply numbers, at least numbers more than ten. As for smaller numbers we usually use &quot;дважды два&quot;, &quot;пятью три&quot; instead of &quot;два на два&quot;, &quot;пять на три&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8576" RevisionGUID="a122f9d6-8cfc-4eb4-9a74-502dc473f803" CreationDate="2015-04-24T07:00:08.177" UserId="5385" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="`Находиться` - to be located somewhere. As I see, it really have to be translated as `are`, but it can also be skipped in Russian in such sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы [находимся] на улице.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We are [located] on the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы находились/были на улице.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We were [located] on the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас он находится в Москве. / Он сейчас в Москве.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He is in Moscow now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful with `находить` = `find` and `находиться` = `to be somewhere`.&#xD;&#xA;Also there is a verb `найтись`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он куда-то пропал и нашёлся только через 2 дня.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He disappeared somewhere and had been found after 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case is used with past time and seems that they are never used in present. At least I can't remember any such example now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact there is a case when `найтись` is about mind, not about location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он был запутан, но быстро нашёлся. / Он был запутан, но быстро сориентировался.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;He was confused, but quickly dealt with it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8582" RevisionGUID="a3b15ff2-66ec-47e0-b9b2-c01322f5b9c3" CreationDate="2015-04-24T08:36:53.673" UserId="5288" Text="Russian verb can be made reflexive by suffixing `-ся` (возвратная частица),  a short form of the reflexive `себя`.&#xD;&#xA; This verb form will often be translated by a passive in English, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;pre&gt;читает&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt;     it is being read (literally: it is reading itself)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  находим следующий результат &#xD;&#xA;  we find the following result    &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  среди действительных чисел находит&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt; число, которое ... &#xD;&#xA;  among the real numbers there is (finds itself) a number which ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  if you know whereabouts in it we are now&#xD;&#xA;  если бы вы хоть приблизительно представляли, в каком месте мы находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  just above where we are standing&#xD;&#xA;  чуть повыше того места, где находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt; мы&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  he and I have been on strained relations&#xD;&#xA;  мы с ним находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt; в натянутых отношениях&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  We had been so busy satisfying our hunger that &#xD;&#xA;  hitherto we had not found time to look about us.&#xD;&#xA;  Поглощенные едой, мы не обратили внимания на то, где находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8583" RevisionGUID="42cc2b75-d688-4bb6-baf0-9bc2678f2f96" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:25:15.303" UserId="4630" Text="You don't need this comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule applied here is this: if you can withdraw the part of sentence between commas and the sentence will be still meaningful then commas are needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check - the sentence without the part at question loses any sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И здесь я вовсе не спрашиваю о том, отчитывать детей при всех, я просто хочу узнать, как у вас обходятся с детьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar example where commas are needed (from [here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Случайно появляется газ или нет, связан ли он с циклонами, а значит, можно ли по этому признаку прогнозировать – вопрос требует выяснения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/punctum_attach2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8583" RevisionGUID="e70d09af-34b5-4ca2-9c08-4f19950330c9" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:33:29.933" UserId="4630" Comment="added generalization to parenthetical clause or word" Text="You don't need this comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule applied here (useful with any parenthetical clause or word): if you can withdraw the part of sentence between commas and the sentence will be still meaningful then commas are needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check - the sentence without the part at question loses any sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И здесь я вовсе не спрашиваю о том, отчитывать детей при всех, я просто хочу узнать, как у вас обходятся с детьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar example where commas are needed (from [here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Случайно появляется газ или нет, связан ли он с циклонами, а значит, можно ли по этому признаку прогнозировать – вопрос требует выяснения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum/punctum_attach2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8584" RevisionGUID="d90275eb-a98b-481f-b26e-8a79d7e7a4ee" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:34:00.803" UserId="4560" Text="The crux is *это*. With it, you have a complete clause in `правильно ли это или неправильно`, and you need punctuation where it ends. I'd say, though, that a dash would fit much better than a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you lose *это*, and possibly *ли* along with it, and are left with `правильно или неправильно отчитывать детей при всех`, no punctuation is needed, since the verb phrase about telling children off becomes the subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="71b6bee9-0b80-4903-a393-41676ea6ed79" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:45:51.927" UserId="170" Text="&gt; Можно я попью чая?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of speech here is &quot;можно&quot;? Also, if possible, can you parse this sentence for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="71b6bee9-0b80-4903-a393-41676ea6ed79" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:45:51.927" UserId="170" Text="What part of speech is можно here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="71b6bee9-0b80-4903-a393-41676ea6ed79" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:45:51.927" UserId="170" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="9353d4d0-0c50-4dac-af0d-6e3706fa8058" CreationDate="2015-04-24T11:57:49.180" UserId="170" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Можно я попью чая?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of speech here is &quot;можно&quot;? Also, if possible, can you parse this sentence, please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8586" RevisionGUID="8ccb0f39-846b-4d46-a24e-3e284a72e632" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:23:55.170" UserId="5387" Text="&quot;Можно&quot; is наречие, i.e. adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Можно я попью чая?&quot; may be translated as &quot;Let me have some tea.&quot; or &quot;May I have some tea?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8586" RevisionGUID="0e3e4c52-e91f-4e9b-9c59-7e6adf7778de" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:29:06.877" UserId="5387" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="&quot;Можно&quot; is наречие, i.e. adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Можно я попью чая?&quot; may be translated as &quot;Let me have some tea.&quot; or &quot;May I have some tea?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Можно&quot; is derived from &quot;мочь&quot; (to be able to), &quot;могу&quot; (I am able to, I can) and generally stands for posessing some permission or ability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8586" RevisionGUID="5a4a6666-5f98-4473-a6d5-ada26b062791" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:36:51.587" UserId="5387" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&quot;Можно&quot; is наречие, i.e. adverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Можно я попью чая?&quot; may be translated as &quot;Let me have some tea.&quot; or &quot;May I have some tea?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Можно&quot; is derived from &quot;мочь&quot; (to be able to), &quot;могу&quot; (I am able to, I can) and generally stands for posessing some permission, or ability, or affordance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8587" RevisionGUID="afa65393-d450-47c2-a1da-ac20aaa90a10" CreationDate="2015-04-24T12:41:30.243" UserId="3680" Text="Существует несколько вариантов названия для слов `можно` и `нельзя` как частей речи.  &#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * наречия состояния,&#xD;&#xA; * предикативные наречия,&#xD;&#xA; * наречия в роли сказуемого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае, я считаю наиболее подходящим вариантом *наречие в роли сказуемого*.  &#xD;&#xA;Таком образом, исходное предложение может быть разобрано как:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;я - подлежащее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;можно попью - сказуемое&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;чай - дополнение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English my answer is much shorter.&#xD;&#xA;This is an *adverb as predicate*. In this sentence it is a part of complex predicate `можно попью`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8546" RevisionGUID="a2589bc2-9c99-4563-bcde-dd29616b6df9" CreationDate="2015-04-24T15:39:18.380" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="I was talking with a child who, I was told, has learned some basic multiplication that he can do in his head, so I asked him `Сколько будет восемь на семь`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a native speaker, but I've given lectures in Russian on higher math and I say just `на` in place of `умножить на` and `разделить на`; the context makes it obvious which one is meant. With the child also it was obvious (to me) that I meant multiplication, since division, square roots, etc. are not yet part of the child's lexicon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the parent corrected me by repeating the task but said `восемь умножить на семь`. That made me realize that perhaps when children learn multiplication this operation is always given in the form `умножить на` instead of `на`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When does the transition usually take place to abbreviate multiplication (and division) to `на` when the choice is clear from context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8587" RevisionGUID="6b3eb137-cc95-4b98-98ca-c855e784df3d" CreationDate="2015-04-24T16:16:41.110" UserId="3680" Comment="misprint" Text="Существует несколько вариантов названия для слов `можно` и `нельзя` как частей речи.  &#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * наречия состояния,&#xD;&#xA; * предикативные наречия,&#xD;&#xA; * наречия в роли сказуемого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае, я считаю наиболее подходящим вариантом *наречие в роли сказуемого*.  &#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, исходное предложение может быть разобрано как:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;я - подлежащее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;можно попью - сказуемое&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;чай - дополнение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English my answer is much shorter.&#xD;&#xA;This is an *adverb as predicate*. In this sentence it is a part of complex predicate `можно попью`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8588" RevisionGUID="9af4d3a8-6c71-4269-8af9-f7c1c8e95d63" CreationDate="2015-04-24T16:44:55.213" UserId="5224" Text="In Spanish you add &quot;-ito/a&quot; as in hermanita, meaning little sister.  In English we mostly do this with modifier words like that (&quot;little&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;What is the common construct in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8588" RevisionGUID="9af4d3a8-6c71-4269-8af9-f7c1c8e95d63" CreationDate="2015-04-24T16:44:55.213" UserId="5224" Text="What do you add to a word to make it cute?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8588" RevisionGUID="9af4d3a8-6c71-4269-8af9-f7c1c8e95d63" CreationDate="2015-04-24T16:44:55.213" UserId="5224" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8582" RevisionGUID="b1df3876-7cc7-4d1d-89f6-83b93923c019" CreationDate="2015-04-24T17:15:22.113" UserId="5288" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Russian verb can be made reflexive by suffixing `-ся` (возвратная частица),  a short form of the reflexive `себя`.&#xD;&#xA; This verb form will often be translated by a passive in English, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;pre&gt;читает&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt;     it is being read (literally: it is reading itself)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  находим следующий результат &#xD;&#xA;  we find the following result    &#xD;&#xA;    └────┘&#xD;&#xA;  среди действительных чисел находит&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt; число, которое ... &#xD;&#xA;  among the real numbers there is (finds itself) a number which ... &#xD;&#xA;                                  └────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;  if you know whereabouts in it we are now&#xD;&#xA;  если бы вы хоть приблизительно представляли, в каком месте мы находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  just above where we are standing&#xD;&#xA;  чуть повыше того места, где находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt; мы&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  he and I have been on strained relations&#xD;&#xA;  мы с ним находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt; в натянутых отношениях&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  We had been so busy satisfying our hunger that &#xD;&#xA;  hitherto we had not found time to look about us.&#xD;&#xA;  Поглощенные едой, мы не обратили внимания на то, где находим&lt;kbd&gt;ся&lt;/kbd&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8589" RevisionGUID="74adbf82-bd4c-42c3-b0d8-149af60d24ce" CreationDate="2015-04-24T17:44:15.740" UserId="5392" Text="чка and ик/чок, depending on gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сестра -&gt; сестричка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Брат -&gt; братик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кот -&gt; котик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8590" RevisionGUID="3c66b924-e604-4b55-9399-bcb0a07a629b" CreationDate="2015-04-24T17:49:32.340" UserId="4379" Text="In Russian this effect is achieved mainly by adding so-called diminutive suffixes to nouns. &quot;Little sister&quot; is Russian will be `сестричка` whereas `сестра` is a normal form. Here the `ичк` suffix is used, but in fact there are plenty of them. Seems difficult to remember them all for Russian learners. You can check out the whole list [here][1]. There's a table with different suffixes on the page. See those which are below the title `Уменьшительно-ласкательные`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tutrus.com/morfemika/suffiksy-imen-sushhestvitelnyx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8591" RevisionGUID="a3014783-f8b7-4698-b965-0d8a832d6c15" CreationDate="2015-04-24T21:03:18.440" UserId="4481" Text="В русском языке у слова `находить` есть три значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - собственно `находить` в смысле &quot;находить то, что потерял/искал&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;считать, полагать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; Я нахожу это странным - Я считаю это странным&#xD;&#xA; - с суффиксом `ся` (`находиться`) - это указание на положение в пространстве&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во французском языке есть глагол `trouver`, который используется точно в таких же значениях: два значения - это `находить` и `считать, полагать`, и третье - с возвратной частицей (`se trouver`) - в значении `находиться, располагаться`.  &#xD;&#xA;Является ли это простым совпадением или такое употребление слова `находить` пришло в русский язык из французского в эпоху, когда тот был популярен в России?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8591" RevisionGUID="a3014783-f8b7-4698-b965-0d8a832d6c15" CreationDate="2015-04-24T21:03:18.440" UserId="4481" Text="Значения слова &quot;находить(ся)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8591" RevisionGUID="a3014783-f8b7-4698-b965-0d8a832d6c15" CreationDate="2015-04-24T21:03:18.440" UserId="4481" Text="|значения|этимология|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8592" RevisionGUID="f9640130-9298-4d9e-b46e-39e2e6a3ed03" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:51:01.867" UserId="5299" Text="http://www.zazzle.com/very_good_russian_words_t_shirts-235728850835258030 I think it says good! all is well when the wind blows, but can someone write this in print! (like: хорошо! всё)  thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8592" RevisionGUID="f9640130-9298-4d9e-b46e-39e2e6a3ed03" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:51:01.867" UserId="5299" Text="Can someone translate this shirt for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8592" RevisionGUID="f9640130-9298-4d9e-b46e-39e2e6a3ed03" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:51:01.867" UserId="5299" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8593" RevisionGUID="a3e50792-f31f-47e9-b589-eb862809eac0" CreationDate="2015-04-25T11:59:15.833" UserId="4379" Text="The printed phrase is `Хорошо! Всё будет хорошо!`. It means &quot;Okey! It will be okey!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8593" RevisionGUID="16ab39bb-8c54-4eb6-9c44-a6c3d6ce5267" CreationDate="2015-04-25T12:01:29.337" UserId="4379" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="The printed phrase is `Хорошо! Всё будет хорошо!`. It means &quot;Okey! It will be okey!&quot;. Probably, this phrase is a quotation from lyrics of the famous Ukrainian songer Andrey Danilko. He has a eponymous song." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8594" RevisionGUID="6101b18a-e5e3-4034-ae4d-1a220a27f0dd" CreationDate="2015-04-25T14:11:33.933" UserId="4366" Text="Is there a kind of thesaurus that teaches words based on kinship? An example will make it clear to you what I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    суд - судья́, суди́ть, ...&#xD;&#xA;    коне́ц - наконе́ц, зака́нчивать/зако́нчить, конча́ть/ко́нчить, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a Latin example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    rex - regere, regio, rectio, directio, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got it? Take a simple base lexeme or &quot;atom of meaning&quot; and then list the words stemming from that atom that are among the most commonly used 10,000 or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not like [WordNet](http://wordnet.princeton.edu/), which is a semantic organization, not a lexical-etymological one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be useful for learning native Russian words that are mostly unfamiliar to learners from non-Slavic language countries. The purpose would be to learn more quickly and efficiently by benefitting from word similarity and etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there such a thesaurus, with URL? Or an established name for such an organizational structure of a thesaurus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8594" RevisionGUID="6101b18a-e5e3-4034-ae4d-1a220a27f0dd" CreationDate="2015-04-25T14:11:33.933" UserId="4366" Text="Thesaurus organization by lexical kinship and etymology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8594" RevisionGUID="6101b18a-e5e3-4034-ae4d-1a220a27f0dd" CreationDate="2015-04-25T14:11:33.933" UserId="4366" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8595" RevisionGUID="ee85b754-37a6-4d45-86d2-c9f037c3e53f" CreationDate="2015-04-25T15:06:14.540" UserId="2388" Text="I think, a lot of confusion might arise depending on the context of such sentences, because you also need to know WHY you use perfective or imperfective for a particular statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core difference is that &quot;writing&quot; is often perceived as an action leading to a natural result of something being written. Do &quot;walking&quot;, &quot;swimming&quot;, &quot;carrying&quot; have any natural result? They don't—at least, there are many important situations where they do not seem to. On the other hand, such activities may have a beginning and an ending, which serves as a suitable &quot;limitation&quot; that a perfective verb needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the action has a particular result, of course, use a perfective that states the desired outcome. The major problem is, you have to choose aspect even when it is not that easy to find a measurable result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###regular action / name of action&#xD;&#xA;Use imperfective verbs. For verbs of motion, use imperfective multidirectional verbs. If one repeated link of a repeated trip is specifically decribed, one-way verb can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я часто писал письма.&#xD;&#xA;- Я часто плавал.&#xD;&#xA;- Я не умею писать/плавать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###action in progress; simultaneous actions&#xD;&#xA;Use imperfectives. For verbs of motion, use one-way verb for motion with a goal and multi-directional verb for a complicated motion that is not directed anywhere in particular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я пишу письмо.&#xD;&#xA;- Я писал письмо, поэтому не заметил, как она пришла. = I was writing a letter, that's why I didn't notice her coming.&#xD;&#xA;- Я шёл домой. = I was going home.&#xD;&#xA;- Я ходил по офису. = I was walking around the office.&#xD;&#xA;- Я плавал в озере. = I was swimming in the lake.&#xD;&#xA;- Я плыл к лесу. = I was swimming towards the forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###sequence of actions in the past&#xD;&#xA;Use perfectives. If your action reaches some &quot;result&quot;, you should obviously use the perfective you need. However, some activities (&quot;sleep&quot;, &quot;have a walk&quot;) do not have any particular result. Russian often has **по**-prefixed perfective verbs for them, so that you can describe &quot;doing that action for some time&quot; and arrange them in a sequence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по**-prefixed perfectives formed from one-way verbs of motion mean the onset of an action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по**-prefixed perfectives formed from multidirectional verbs of motion mean doing action for some time. Note that &quot;походить&quot; is not the default &quot;walking around&quot; verb—you may use it, but you can use &quot;погулять&quot; just as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера написал письмо.&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера поплавал, а потом приготовил обед.&#xD;&#xA;- Мы погуляли до вечера и пошли домой. →note, that &quot;пошли&quot;, being formed from a one-way verb, means just going back (&quot;heading&quot;) home after a walk. And not walking for some time.&#xD;&#xA;- Ты уже побегала?&#xD;&#xA;- Мама вчера уехала в Петербург. → a result of action is &quot;departing&quot;, hence the more specific &quot;у-&quot; prefix.&#xD;&#xA;- Куда поехал директор? = Where did the director go? → again, note how one-way perfective is different &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###reference to a fact&#xD;&#xA;Now, rather than recalling &quot;stories&quot; from the past you make a random reference to a past action. It is important that it happened at all, but the exact moment is irrelevant to your message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use imperfective verbs. For verbs of motion, use multidirectional verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ты когда-нибудь писал статьи? = Have you ever written acrticles?&#xD;&#xA;- Я там уже плавал. = I already swam there. (i.e. I'm familiar with that experience)&#xD;&#xA;- Я ещё не бегал. = I haven't run yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that imperfective verbs may have a logical consequence that overlaps with the &quot;result&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Он уже читал эту книгу. = He already read that book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easier with verbs of motion. At least, after visiting some place you always have to return &quot;home&quot;, so you'd want a multidirectional verb. With other verbs it remains an important point of confusion for learners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;What did you do yesterday?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty obvious, but still: use imperfectives and multidirectional verbs (for round trips or aimless motion) to describe actions that &quot;fill&quot; some time frame in question. This is the case when you answer the questions about what you were busy with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера бегал.&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера писал письма.&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера плавал в реке.&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера ходил в кино.&#xD;&#xA;- Я вчера только спал и ел." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8596" RevisionGUID="99d09d6c-bc81-4cfb-80aa-628024516c5b" CreationDate="2015-04-25T15:21:35.427" UserId="5394" Text="As far as I learned the lesson about voiced and voiceless consonants and consonant clusters, voiced consonants voice the preceding voiceless consonant and voiceless consonants devoice the preceding voiced consonant. But why is the voiced consonant 'в' an exception to this rule? (for example: свобода stays pronounced as **с**вобода instead of **з**вобода, but автобус is pronounced as а**ф**тобус)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when a word ends with a voiced consonant and the following word starts with 'в', does the preceding voiced consonant stay voiced, or does it go voiceless, as if 'в' has no effect? (example: меж вами; is it ме**ж** **в**ами or ме**ш** **в**ами?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8596" RevisionGUID="99d09d6c-bc81-4cfb-80aa-628024516c5b" CreationDate="2015-04-25T15:21:35.427" UserId="5394" Text="Why does 'в' have a special case in consonant voicing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8596" RevisionGUID="99d09d6c-bc81-4cfb-80aa-628024516c5b" CreationDate="2015-04-25T15:21:35.427" UserId="5394" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8597" RevisionGUID="c490d433-6c24-4f0f-bcdc-e3d628402ad5" CreationDate="2015-04-25T16:47:03.737" UserId="4366" Text="I'm going to answer in English since my Russian isn't good enough yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a coincidence, it's a conspiracy. ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's even larger than just French and Russian. We must assume it is at least transeuropean, if not paneuropean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;trouver (fr) = trovare (it) = finden (de) = находить (ru) = βρίσκω (gr)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same two meanings in all the above languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;se trouver (fr) = trovarsi (it) = sich befinden (de) = находиться (ru) = βρίσκομαι (gr)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same meaning for all five languages (and probably others I don't know about).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages were and are developed by copying or cloning words and meaning from other languages, typically more advanced in one way or another. For example, English doesn't have a native word for *progress*, which is simply the Latin word, meaning *&quot;step forth&quot;*, which was copied into English, like zillions of others. In Latin languages, it's simply a natural evolution of the original Latin word (*progrès*, *progresso*, etc). In Greek, it's *πρόοδος* (*&quot;forth-way&quot;*). In German, *progressus*/*progrès* was translated as *Fortschritt* (*&quot;forth-step&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, in your *trouver/находить* example, the spectrum of meaning could have been cloned from or influenced by French, both in German and Russian. From French, not the other way round, because French was culturally dominant in Europe during the 17th and 18th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more important than French are, obviously, Latin and Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people who evolved the German language were, of course, very literate and knew the classic Greek and Latin literature, from which they took inspiration. One might argue, tongue in cheek, and to echo back to the beginning of my answer, that if many European savants took inspiration from others, this is indeed conspiration (a conspiracy ;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it definitely *is* a conspiracy in that, as a result of so much mutual inspiration across the centuries, there *is* a common spirit in our languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want the historico-philological view (rather than my guess, based on having learnt some languages), you have to consult an etymological dictionary of the Russian language, which I don't have at my disposal, neither in paper form nor online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8598" RevisionGUID="237e35bc-6289-48ad-a671-9b787fb116dc" CreationDate="2015-04-25T17:04:12.593" UserId="2388" Text="First, &quot;в&quot; is a bit similar to sonorants like м, р, й and others. The second reason that might have played part in the peculiarity of this consonant's behaviour is that [ф] appeared pretty late comparing to other consonants. So, essentially, **В** was a consonant that existed in one variant only: Russian used to not draw any distinction based on voicing there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the beginning, Old East Slavic only had [в]. There was no devoicing back then because two consonants in a row of final consonants weren't possible: every consonant had a following vowel. Then, the short vowels disappeared, which changed the phonetic system significantly. It is here that [ф] should have appeared as a devoice version of [в]. Then, Greek influence eventually introduced [ф] as a separate sound, which is what we have now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **devoiced** consonants are not voiced before **В**&#xD;&#xA; - *voiced* consonants stay voiced (both inside the word and at word boundaries)&#xD;&#xA; - Щ, Х, Ч, Ц behave as usual devoiced consonants, and they also have voiced counterparts [ʑʑ], [ɣ], [d͡ʑ], [d̪͡z̪] that are obvious at word boundaries (помо**щь** **б**ы, и**х** **д**аже, оте**ц Б**ори, ме**ч б**рата). Russian has no letters for these sounds, but the sounds do exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8599" RevisionGUID="4e84de2c-dd5b-443f-a413-94707b03fcf7" CreationDate="2015-04-25T18:03:44.093" UserId="134" Text="Russian *в* originates from Proto-Slavic non-syllabic vowel *&amp;#42;w*, as in English &quot;well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound was sonorant enough for the law of the rising sonority to put it after obstruents in a single syllable, as well as another semivowel *й* and the sonorants (liquids *р* and *л* and nasals *м* and *н*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why the modern Russian *в*, being an obstruent, does not vocalize preceding voiceless obstruents either: *съезжать, сватать, слать, смотреть, снимать* and *срубать* are all pronounced with initial *[s]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8599" RevisionGUID="fc515087-49cd-4c02-aa0e-c516d0833672" CreationDate="2015-04-25T18:13:17.900" UserId="134" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="Russian *в* originates from Proto-Slavic non-syllabic vowel *&amp;#42;w*, as in English &quot;well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sound was sonorant enough for the law of the rising sonority to put it after obstruents in a single syllable, as well as another semivowel *й* and the sonorants (liquids *р* and *л* and nasals *м* and *н*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why the modern Russian *в*, being an obstruent, does not vocalize preceding voiceless obstruents either: *съезжать, сватать, слать, смотреть, снимать* and *срубать* are all pronounced with initial *[s]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Devocalization of *в* itself is a relatively recent Russian innovation. Ukrainian and Belorussian, as well as most southern Russian dialects, don't do that but rather replace it with the semivowel *[w]* in positions where it would have been devocalized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8600" RevisionGUID="b8b824f2-fac7-4743-ad3e-e6fbbd95b721" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:24:20.190" UserId="3892" Text="I saw this on a website, and although I understand the meaning of the sentence, and I know that it would have the same meaning without вот, I'm curious as to what nuance it brings, or perhaps some insight into the speakers impetus to include it and under what conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я равнодушен к холоду, но **вот** жары не переношу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8600" RevisionGUID="b8b824f2-fac7-4743-ad3e-e6fbbd95b721" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:24:20.190" UserId="3892" Text="What does вот bring to this clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8600" RevisionGUID="b8b824f2-fac7-4743-ad3e-e6fbbd95b721" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:24:20.190" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8601" RevisionGUID="cbf82584-392d-4100-a5fa-9808813d5d46" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:45:49.180" UserId="5397" Text="Alright! Everything gonna be alright! (Bob Marley)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8593" RevisionGUID="5d3f137d-9b79-4404-bbd2-c3910e6932c3" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:47:39.000" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The printed phrase is &quot;Хорошо! Всё будет хорошо!&quot;. It means &quot;Okay! It will be okay!&quot;. Probably, this phrase is a quotation from lyrics of the famous Ukrainian songer Andrey Danilko. He has an eponymous song." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8601" RevisionGUID="3036dee5-ae1e-4eef-9d64-73113136bf50" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:48:34.107" UserId="3892" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Alright! Everything's gonna be alright! (Bob Marley)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8592" RevisionGUID="96f1cf95-1f09-42dd-a764-851cddfb002e" CreationDate="2015-04-26T13:52:19.010" UserId="97" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I think it says good! all is well when the wind blows, but can someone write this in print! (like: хорошо! всё)  thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bhw1V.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8602" RevisionGUID="628234da-8d09-4b49-abce-0f87b4773cad" CreationDate="2015-04-26T14:32:11.000" UserId="134" Text="That's emphasis on something being the new topic of the established discussion. It's used similarly to English &quot;here's&quot; or &quot;that's&quot; or &quot;it's&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase could be translated this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't mind cold, but here's something I can't stand: heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't mind cold, it's heat I can't stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use the second part of this phrase without *вот*, this could be the first phrase in a conversation to bring up the topic of weather tolerance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you use *вот*, your party would be curious why would you mention heat or cold all of a sudden, if it had not been the topic already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8603" RevisionGUID="131bad89-f66b-4259-a3f5-a20cdb4d52f2" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:39:01.150" UserId="4702" Text="Can someone, somehow please explain what the differences are between the suffixes -то and -нибудь? They tend to decorate words like как, кто, где, что, когда́ as in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;как-то, как-нибудь (somehow)  &#xD;&#xA;кто-то, кто́-нибудь (someone, somebody)  &#xD;&#xA;где-то, где-нибудь (somewhere, someplace)  &#xD;&#xA;куда́-то, куда́-нибудь (somewhere)  &#xD;&#xA;что-то, что-нибудь (something)  &#xD;&#xA;когда́-то (sometime in the past?)  &#xD;&#xA;когда́-нибудь (some time in the future?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8603" RevisionGUID="131bad89-f66b-4259-a3f5-a20cdb4d52f2" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:39:01.150" UserId="4702" Text="What's the difference between the two suffixes -то and -нибудь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8603" RevisionGUID="131bad89-f66b-4259-a3f5-a20cdb4d52f2" CreationDate="2015-04-26T18:39:01.150" UserId="4702" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8604" RevisionGUID="d972a396-95cf-4a0e-aa29-f67ad428e879" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:37:22.203" UserId="5373" Text="I'm not a linguist or a teacher, but this is how I understand it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;как-то is somehow, как-нибудь is also somehow, but it also can mean anyhow, in any way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the similar manner: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-то = someone, кто́-нибудь = anyone or whoever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;где-то = somewhere, где-нибудь = somewhere, but not important where, someplace or wherever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;куда́-то = somewhere, куда́-нибудь = anywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;что-то = something, что-нибудь = anything&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;когда́-то = sometime, когда́-нибудь = some not specific (anytime) time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8605" RevisionGUID="cc7f318a-838f-4673-9478-82ce76f7b677" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:37:40.803" UserId="5008" Text="Russian &quot;-нибудь&quot; is like English &quot;-ever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь - whoever, где-нибудь - wherever, когда-нибудь - whenever etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20782" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8605" RevisionGUID="fc4c4d8a-2274-4cde-b0e7-55366fe63471" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:38:14.617" UserId="5008" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20783" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8605" RevisionGUID="eba68e69-e38d-405d-98c6-6cb657769e9a" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:38:52.873" UserId="5008" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8606" RevisionGUID="3aafe3f7-9c3d-4398-8ec1-29345ec6753b" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:39:47.957" UserId="97" Text="The way I used to describe the difference to an English speak is to draw a parallel with prefixes _some-_ and _any-_, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кто-то / кто́-нибудь  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; somebody / anybody&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; где-то / где-нибудь  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; somewhere / anywhere&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; что-то / что-нибудь  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; something / anything&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's slightly different with _как-то / как-нибудь_, and _когда-нибдь / когда-то_ but the meaning stays the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он как-то это сделал  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He did it somehow&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как-нибудь сделаем  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We'll do it somehow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You correctly identified that _-то_ would normally be used with passed actions and _-нибудь_ with the future ones.  In English this would also alter the meaning of the same _-how_ word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8607" RevisionGUID="9997e4f0-20f9-40ab-8dee-7f5199f96524" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:41:21.623" UserId="2388" Text="That's a really complicated question if you want every single of these discussed with examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short, **-нибудь** refers to a hypothetical object: you have an idea that something might fit your description, but maybe such object does not exist at all. If it exists, it does not quite matter, which one. *Кто-нибудь* and *что-нибудь* may also refer to a choice from a set of *known* objects when it *does not matter* which one is chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**-то** refers to a real but **unidentified** object. It is a certain object, but you do not know what it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes them not interchangeable in some contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In questions, assumptions and suggestions about the past it is OK to use *кто-нибудь* and *что-нибудь*. In statements, you cannot use them in the past. After all, if you are sure the event happened, then its participants are real—even if you do not know them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Question*: Кто-нибудь из вас раньше здесь был?&#xD;&#xA; - *Assumption*: Если бы кто-нибудь тут был, он бы тебя увидел. = If anyone were here, they would see you.&#xD;&#xA; - *Assumption*: Тебя мог кто-нибудь увидеть.= Someone might have seen you (кто-то is also possible)&#xD;&#xA; - *Statement*: Тут кто-то был. = Someone was here.&#xD;&#xA; - *Statement*: Начальник что-то тебе принёс. = The boss brought something for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future&#xD;&#xA;In the future &quot;кто-нибудь&quot; is used more freely that &quot;кто-то&quot;, because most &quot;something/someone&quot; sentences about future are suggestions, anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Кто-нибудь всё узнает и расскажет остальным. = Someone will find out everything and will tell the others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###&quot;Some time&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Когда&quot; is time-related by itself, so its suffixed versions are quite different in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **когда-то** is typically used in the past to refer to some distant times in the past, &quot;once&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **когда-нибудь** is either used for the past (&quot;*ever*&quot;) or for indefinite future (&quot;*some day*&quot;). If you are absolutely sure an event is bounf to happen, you can use &quot;когда-то&quot;, too:&#xD;&#xA;   - Он точно *когда-то/когда-нибудь* попадётся. = He is sure to get caught some day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exist a few additional meanings for a few of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **как-нибудь** may be used colloquially to refer to &quot;someday, when you have time&quot; etc.—for example, when inviting someone to hang out with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **где-то** is often used colloquially as &quot;about, approximately&quot;, even though such usage is not acceptable for formal writing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8605" RevisionGUID="01710da1-ca41-4845-b332-2b9b0423f150" CreationDate="2015-04-26T20:52:33.217" UserId="5008" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="Russian &quot;-нибудь&quot; is like English &quot;-ever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь - whoever, где-нибудь - wherever, когда-нибудь - whenever etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;кто-нибудь&quot; is derived from &quot;кто ни будь&quot; i.e. &quot;кто (бы) ни был&quot; - which means &quot;whoever (was)&quot;. The others have similar origin and meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8575" RevisionGUID="72802845-80af-4f61-a0fb-0a72ed1c01e5" CreationDate="2015-04-27T00:20:57.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/592483537682563072" />
  <row Id="20788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8608" RevisionGUID="3852db57-6268-4dcd-bc79-92f6a8c9c207" CreationDate="2015-04-27T01:37:18.570" UserId="4205" Text="In Bulgakov's &quot;Master and Margarita&quot; there is the famous sentence: Рукописи не горят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually translated into English as &quot;Manuscripts don't burn&quot;.  However it seems to me (a native English and non-native Russian speaker) that it could also be read as an impersonal construction, &quot;People don't burn manuscripts&quot; (Рукописи here being accusative rather than nominative).  So my questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are both translations in fact correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If so, is either to be preferred?  In context, both seem sensible to me - the latter perhaps even the more poignant, being so clearly contrary to the facts of life in Bulgakov's society." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8608" RevisionGUID="3852db57-6268-4dcd-bc79-92f6a8c9c207" CreationDate="2015-04-27T01:37:18.570" UserId="4205" Text="Рукописи не горят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8608" RevisionGUID="3852db57-6268-4dcd-bc79-92f6a8c9c207" CreationDate="2015-04-27T01:37:18.570" UserId="4205" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8610" RevisionGUID="51bba989-87e6-4b28-a343-ee16a5780363" CreationDate="2015-04-27T02:59:39.420" UserId="134" Text="&quot;To burn something&quot; in Russian would be *жечь*. *Гореть* is an intransitive verb, it does not accept an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase *рукописи не жгут* could indeed grammatically mean both &quot;one doesn't burn manuscripts&quot; and &quot;manuscripts don't burn (something)&quot;, though the latter meaning is unrealistic of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8611" RevisionGUID="48210e6d-5e75-4b23-ade0-4bad067e8c41" CreationDate="2015-04-27T04:38:42.233" UserId="5288" Text="As noted Shady_arc: '*I think, your &quot;а вот&quot; - question is sure related ( [this one](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4619/what-is-the-function-of-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-in-this-sentence) )*'&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Я равнодушен к холоду,`&lt;kbd&gt;а вот&lt;/kbd&gt;`жары не переношу.` — **exactly the same**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере, кроме частицы `вот`, еще один интересный случай. Для слова `жара` будет предпочтительнее старая книжная норма, которая требовала родительный падеж перед глаголом с отрицанием `Я равнодушен к холоду, а вот жар́у не переношу.` Однако доводом против здесь будет омонимия, связанная с другим ударением, `ж́ару не переношу`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8611" RevisionGUID="02e0eef1-0663-4c97-8bb4-f09a22cc5295" CreationDate="2015-04-27T04:48:07.963" UserId="5288" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="As noted Shady_arc: '*I think, your &quot;а вот&quot; - question is sure related ( [this one](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4619/what-is-the-function-of-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-in-this-sentence) )*'&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Я равнодушен к холоду,`&lt;kbd&gt;а вот&lt;/kbd&gt;`жары не переношу.` — **exactly the same**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере, кроме частицы `вот`, еще один интересный случай. Для слова `жара` будет предпочтительнее старая книжная норма, которая требовала родительный падеж перед глаголом с отрицанием `Я равнодушен к холоду, а вот жар́у не переношу.` Однако доводом против здесь будет омонимия, связанная с другим ударением, `ж́ару не переношу`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вариативность родительного и винительного падежей: &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаша.        (I did not take the pencil.)&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаш.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8611" RevisionGUID="d0984228-0c8f-4399-978a-6a967e576e03" CreationDate="2015-04-27T06:11:13.203" UserId="5288" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="As noted Shady_arc: '*I think, your &quot;а вот&quot; - question is sure related ( [this one](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4619/what-is-the-function-of-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-in-this-sentence) )*'&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Я равнодушен к холоду,`&lt;kbd&gt;а вот&lt;/kbd&gt;`жары не переношу.` — **exactly the same**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере, кроме частицы `вот`, еще один интересный случай. Для слова `жара` будет предпочтительнее старая книжная норма, которая требовала родительный падеж перед глаголом с отрицанием: [`Зато смородина жару не любит`](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=100&amp;spd=20&amp;seed=16914&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E6%E0%F0%F3%20%ED%E5&amp;docid=32131) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; В данном примере, `Я равнодушен к холоду, а вот жар́у не переношу.` Однако доводом против здесь будет омонимия, связанная с иным ударением, `ж́ару не переношу`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вариативность родительного и винительного падежей: &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаша.        (I did not take the pencil.)&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаш.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8611" RevisionGUID="dcd4359f-74fc-4836-aae8-2a9f344ddf92" CreationDate="2015-04-27T06:20:55.223" UserId="5288" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="As noted Shady_arc: '*I think, your &quot;а вот&quot; - question is sure related ( [this one](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4619/what-is-the-function-of-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-in-this-sentence) )*'&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Я равнодушен к холоду,`&lt;kbd&gt;а вот&lt;/kbd&gt;`жары не переношу.` — **exactly the same**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере, кроме частицы `вот`, еще один интересный случай. Для слова `жара` будет предпочтительнее старая книжная норма, которая требовала родительный падеж перед глаголом с отрицанием. Однако возможна и вариация : [`Зато смородина жару не любит`](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=100&amp;spd=20&amp;seed=16914&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E6%E0%F0%F3%20%ED%E5&amp;docid=32131) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; В данном примере, `Я равнодушен к холоду, а вот жар́у не переношу.` Однако доводом против здесь будет омонимия, связанная с иным ударением, `ж́ару не переношу`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вариативность родительного и винительного падежей: &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаша.        (I did not take the pencil.)&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаш.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20798" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="8583" RevisionGUID="6bdf7601-53cc-4365-a5e1-3b42f11d9b23" CreationDate="2015-04-27T07:00:25.127" UserId="4630" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4630,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nordik&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20799" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="8583" RevisionGUID="f0cf2ed9-cf8e-43fd-88fd-36e83ae6eed5" CreationDate="2015-04-27T07:00:38.130" UserId="4630" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4630,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nordik&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20800" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8528" RevisionGUID="6b37a66f-4fcf-4de0-aa33-1c48b15ca9cb" CreationDate="2015-04-27T09:27:48.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/592621156101955584" />
  <row Id="20802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8612" RevisionGUID="607b5f64-5c4f-4505-8c70-3ecdd1f34187" CreationDate="2015-04-27T10:15:33.227" UserId="5288" Text="&gt; ― Простите, не поверю, ― ответил Воланд, ― этого быть не может. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Рукописи не горят.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Forgive me, but I don't believe you,&quot; Woland replied, &quot;that cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be:  **manuscripts don't bum.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise meaning `Рукописи не горят` is &lt;b&gt;`Рукописи is non-flammable, non-combustible.`&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;How can we say the same thing using poetic phraseology in English?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question will be answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8612" RevisionGUID="615b0c21-3019-4e42-8a1c-37c493e1414c" CreationDate="2015-04-27T10:22:02.450" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; ― Простите, не поверю, ― ответил Воланд, ― этого быть не может. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Рукописи не горят.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Forgive me, but I don't believe you,&quot; Woland replied, &quot;that cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be:  **manuscripts don't burn.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise meaning `Рукописи не горят` is &lt;b&gt;`Рукописи is non-flammable, non-combustible.`&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;How can we say the same thing using poetic phraseology in English?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question will be answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8613" RevisionGUID="b2b429cd-b389-4f38-9569-fd6e34ce1971" CreationDate="2015-04-27T17:19:52.073" UserId="2306" Text="В этих примерах тире ставится после слова *это*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боже мой, я секретарь земской управы, той управы, где председательствует Протопопов, я секретарь, и самое большее, на что я могу надеяться, это — быть членом земской управы! (Чехов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- По-моему, самое лучшее,  что вы можете теперь сделать, это — совсем&#xD;&#xA;оставить медицинский  факультет. (Чехов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этих — после:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мои совесть и ум говорят мне, что самое лучшее, что я могу теперь сделать, — это прочесть мальчикам прощальную лекцию... (Чехов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Откуда этот разнобой и как предпочтительнее писать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8613" RevisionGUID="b2b429cd-b389-4f38-9569-fd6e34ce1971" CreationDate="2015-04-27T17:19:52.073" UserId="2306" Text="Тире перед или после &quot;это&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8613" RevisionGUID="b2b429cd-b389-4f38-9569-fd6e34ce1971" CreationDate="2015-04-27T17:19:52.073" UserId="2306" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8614" RevisionGUID="094eb636-f71d-4d9e-afcb-34e8e81cf4d0" CreationDate="2015-04-27T17:44:28.260" UserId="2388" Text="Тире обычно ставится перед «это». Тем не менее, так как тире — популярный знак авторской пунктуации для подчёркивания интонации и противопоставлений, оно часто появляется там, где оно не обязательно (а в старых произведениях — и там, где по современным нормам его вряд ли бы поставили)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8608" RevisionGUID="716d659c-d36a-46f8-8215-416c02cb5019" CreationDate="2015-04-27T18:28:26.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/592757209928495104" />
  <row Id="20809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8615" RevisionGUID="0f697da2-010f-412f-b859-9e9b14a2fd13" CreationDate="2015-04-27T18:45:47.190" UserId="2306" Text="В этом [учебнике][1] читаю такое правило:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Определения, стоящие после определяемого слова, но тесно связанные по смыслу с ним или с другими членами предложения, не обособляются. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; таких случаях, если изъять определение из состава предложения, фраза&#xD;&#xA;&gt; теряет смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Он мог услышать вещи для себя довольно неприятные* (Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Море у его ног лежало безмолвное и белое* (Паустовский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Потом делаю упражнения и совершаю ошибки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, *равной пяти сантиметрам*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но ведь если удалить определение *равной пяти сантиметрам*, предложение не имеет смысла: *Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 28. Страннее всего происшествия, *случающиеся на Невском проспекте*! (Гоголь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь я также не поставил запятую, по той же причине. Если удалить определение -- смысл теряется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/coach/punct/45_174" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8615" RevisionGUID="0f697da2-010f-412f-b859-9e9b14a2fd13" CreationDate="2015-04-27T18:45:47.190" UserId="2306" Text="Определения, тесно связанные по смымлу с опр. словом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8615" RevisionGUID="0f697da2-010f-412f-b859-9e9b14a2fd13" CreationDate="2015-04-27T18:45:47.190" UserId="2306" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8616" RevisionGUID="7ab476ba-0334-414d-be92-4569762c9c9d" CreationDate="2015-04-27T21:55:52.230" UserId="2079" Text="Со вторым примером всё просто: причастный оборот после определяемого существительного всегда выделяется запятыми." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8616" RevisionGUID="da015247-e1b5-4908-8f52-45aee91ff983" CreationDate="2015-04-27T22:06:23.280" UserId="2079" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="Со вторым примером всё просто: причастный оборот после определяемого существительного **всегда** выделяется запятыми. Это правило имеет более высокий приоритет, чем другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С первым сложнее. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи для себя довольно неприятные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, довольно неприятные его жене." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8616" RevisionGUID="0cc43800-8f83-4aff-9314-8f4c7c101c40" CreationDate="2015-04-27T22:12:29.767" UserId="2079" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Со вторым примером всё просто: причастный оборот после определяемого существительного **всегда** выделяется запятыми. Это правило имеет более высокий приоритет, чем другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С первым сложнее. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи для себя довольно неприятные. (М. Ю. Лермонтов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, довольно неприятные его жене." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8612" RevisionGUID="646fcaed-717c-45e5-a5d2-2fd685d863bc" CreationDate="2015-04-28T00:51:47.043" UserId="4884" Comment="рукописи is plural, manuscripts, so it should be are here. " Text="&gt; ― Простите, не поверю, ― ответил Воланд, ― этого быть не может. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Рукописи не горят.**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Forgive me, but I don't believe you,&quot; Woland replied, &quot;that cannot&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be:  **manuscripts don't burn.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise meaning `Рукописи не горят` is &lt;b&gt;`Рукописи are non-inflammable, incombustible.`&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;How can we say the same thing using poetic phraseology in English?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question will be answered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20816" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8612" RevisionGUID="646fcaed-717c-45e5-a5d2-2fd685d863bc" CreationDate="2015-04-28T00:51:47.043" Comment="Proposed by 4884 approved by 1329, 5288 edit id of 620" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8617" RevisionGUID="3ca1329b-c0bf-4676-a364-3f9af5749af3" CreationDate="2015-04-28T03:29:04.807" UserId="5401" Text="Ie words like COP or HAM which have a similar spelling but a totally different meaning in russian or in english. Can you provide the back translation of the russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8617" RevisionGUID="3ca1329b-c0bf-4676-a364-3f9af5749af3" CreationDate="2015-04-28T03:29:04.807" UserId="5401" Text="Russian words in cyrillic that look like english words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8617" RevisionGUID="3ca1329b-c0bf-4676-a364-3f9af5749af3" CreationDate="2015-04-28T03:29:04.807" UserId="5401" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8618" RevisionGUID="5500149b-79ed-4cff-ad5d-114f127f0500" CreationDate="2015-04-28T03:47:08.913" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt; 12. Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, равной пяти сантиметрам.&#xD;&#xA;                                                      └───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                           причастный оборот&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;см. [Обособление причастных оборотов](https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вашей вины в непонимании нет, поскольку в объяснении к правилам перед упражнением ничего не говорилось о причастных оборотах." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8618" RevisionGUID="b292e392-d2ea-4762-8dd3-e95f1006074b" CreationDate="2015-04-28T04:00:37.640" UserId="5288" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt; 12. Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, равной пяти сантиметрам.&#xD;&#xA;                                                      └───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                           причастный оборот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 28. Страннее всего происшествия, случающиеся на Невском проспекте!&#xD;&#xA;                                 └────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                        причастный оборот&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;см. [Обособление причастных оборотов](https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вашей вины в непонимании нет, поскольку в объяснении к правилам перед упражнением ничего не говорилось о причастных оборотах." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8618" RevisionGUID="0e7c742a-5fd2-4547-82c0-7c68d77fe4ad" CreationDate="2015-04-28T04:19:13.213" UserId="5288" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt; 12. Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, равной пяти сантиметрам.&#xD;&#xA;                                                      └───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                           причастный оборот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 28. Страннее всего происшествия, случающиеся на Невском проспекте!&#xD;&#xA;                                 └────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                        причастный оборот&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;см. [Обособление причастных оборотов](https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вашей вины в непонимании нет, поскольку в объяснении к правилам перед упражнением ничего не говорилось о причастных оборотах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть исключение для личных местоимений:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Я сидел погруженный в глубокую задумчивость, как вдруг ...   [Пушкин]&#xD;&#xA;  │      └───────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;  │                      |&#xD;&#xA;  └─────────────────── какой?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  До шалаша мы добежали промокшие насквозь.    [Паустовский]&#xD;&#xA;            │          └──────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;            │                      |&#xD;&#xA;            └─────────────────── какие?&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8618" RevisionGUID="5585e0c7-011c-4bb9-9982-af7c6619d850" CreationDate="2015-04-28T04:30:33.500" UserId="5288" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt; 12. Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, равной пяти сантиметрам.&#xD;&#xA;                                                      └───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                           причастный оборот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 28. Страннее всего происшествия, случающиеся на Невском проспекте!&#xD;&#xA;                                 └────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                        причастный оборот&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;см. [Обособление причастных оборотов](https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вашей вины в непонимании нет, поскольку в объяснении к правилам перед упражнением ничего не говорилось о причастных оборотах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть исключение для личных местоимениий, когда есть еще одна связь, со сказуемым:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ┌───связь──┐                                                     &#xD;&#xA;  Я сидел погруженный в глубокую задумчивость, как вдруг ...   [Пушкин]&#xD;&#xA;  │      └───────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;  │                      |&#xD;&#xA;  └──────связь──────── какой?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                  ┌───связь──┐&#xD;&#xA;  До шалаша мы добежали промокшие насквозь.    [Паустовский]&#xD;&#xA;            │          └──────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;            │                      |&#xD;&#xA;            └──────связь──────── какие?&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8618" RevisionGUID="4a03bf51-4d92-4293-9821-406054b40558" CreationDate="2015-04-28T04:36:03.617" UserId="5288" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt; 12. Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, равной пяти сантиметрам.&#xD;&#xA;                                                      └───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                           причастный оборот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 28. Страннее всего происшествия, случающиеся на Невском проспекте!&#xD;&#xA;                                 └────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                        причастный оборот&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;см. [Обособление причастных оборотов](https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вашей вины в непонимании нет, поскольку в объяснении к правилам перед упражнением ничего не говорилось о причастных оборотах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть исключение для личных местоимений. Когда запятая должна быть, но разрывает еще одну связь, со сказуемым, то запятая не ставится:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ┌───связь──┐                                                     &#xD;&#xA;  Я сидел погруженный в глубокую задумчивость, как вдруг ...   [Пушкин]&#xD;&#xA;  │      └───────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;  │                      |&#xD;&#xA;  └──────связь──────── какой?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;                  ┌───связь──┐&#xD;&#xA;  До шалаша мы добежали промокшие насквозь.    [Паустовский]&#xD;&#xA;            │          └──────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;            │                      |&#xD;&#xA;            └──────связь──────── какие?&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8616" RevisionGUID="b9888ab6-4716-4277-8a3b-93b549cbb809" CreationDate="2015-04-28T04:54:50.480" UserId="2079" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Со вторым примером всё просто: причастный оборот после определяемого существительного **всегда** выделяется запятыми. Это правило имеет более высокий приоритет, чем другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(UPD: не совсем всегда. В соседнем ответе приведено исключение.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С первым сложнее. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи для себя довольно неприятные. (М. Ю. Лермонтов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, довольно неприятные его жене." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8619" RevisionGUID="63aadfe0-9533-4482-ac04-82f5de27740d" CreationDate="2015-04-28T06:14:07.390" UserId="4379" Text="`сор` is the obsolete word for garbage or litter. It's used quite rarely. Pronounced like [s o r]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`нам` is the pronoun meaning &quot;us&quot;. Its transcription is [n ʌ m]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8620" RevisionGUID="20988785-d063-4b55-bfa5-8ac405de8df7" CreationDate="2015-04-28T06:57:15.130" UserId="5329" Text="When you pronounce `автобус` like `[афтобус]` the voiceless consonant `т` devoice the preceding voiced consonant `в` like you said in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `меж вами` there is no need to devoice `ж` when the next word starts with voiced consonant `в` (see the difference: `меж собой` will be `[меш сабой]`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8621" RevisionGUID="4c8c450c-1f77-4c93-ba41-da95048d5f61" CreationDate="2015-04-28T09:00:45.317" UserId="4560" Text="***ВОР*** — thief.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***MAX*** — a swing or stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ОН*** — the pronoun &quot;he&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Italicised lowercase (in most though not all typefaces) has a lot more, as **т** and **и** become part of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***роет*** — &quot;[he/she/it] digs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сир*** — &quot;sire&quot; (not &quot;sir&quot;, which is *сэр*), or obsoletely &quot;is orphaned&quot; (predicate form of *сирый*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***соте*** — &quot;to a cell&quot; (in a beehive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***тор*** — &quot;torus&quot;. (The same word capitalised: ***Тор*** — Thor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Times New Roman, lowercase italic *п* is identical to *n*, giving you ***nар*** &quot;steam&quot;, ***nо*** &quot;on, over&quot;, ***реn*** &quot;of turnips&quot;, ***саn*** &quot;glanders&quot;. (I'm replacing *п* with the Latin letter here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be many more and it's hard to come up with an exhaustive list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8622" RevisionGUID="43014be3-a9fe-4ee9-bd82-796192a63e04" CreationDate="2015-04-28T10:56:43.377" UserId="134" Text="This guide mixes two different cases, and does not explain them very well either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи для себя довольно неприятные (Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no comma here not because the modifier is tightly linked to a subject (as the guide suggests), but for two reasons which must play together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The extended modifier (*распространённое определение*) as a whole is a comment (*рема*) and as such has to be put towards the end of the sentence, which is not how Russian concord modifiers (*согласованные определения*) normally behave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The modifier itself (adjective or participle) is the last word within the clause, so that all other words, dependent on it, should precede it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason 2 was what the guide was really about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main idea is that sentence, as it goes, keeps putting the words so that the topic does not have to be separated using intonation, hence no need for isolating it with a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a closer look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author has put the sentence in this order because *неприятные* is the ultimate comment of the sentence, and he wanted to put it into the very end to give it the right intonation. To do that, he has to violate normal Russian word order. Normally, the sentence would read *он мог услышать довольно неприятные для себя вещи*, but this would make *вещи* the comment and *неприятные* the topic. Hence, the word order reversal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what would have happened if the comment would have been *для себя*? It would have gone into the end of the sentence, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, довольно неприятные для себя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Довольно неприятные для себя* is a normal Russian word order. So as the sentence goes, we have a topic (*вещи*) followed by another topic (*неприятные*), and, hence, we have to intonate the main topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same happens if we are to make *довольно* the comment. We can't just put it to the end of the sentence, but we can replace it with an adverbial clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, неприятные для себя в достаточной степени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same rules apply and we have to separate it with a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Море у его ног лежало безмолвное и белое (Паустовский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example uses a notional copula (*знаменательная связка*). It's a verb which plays both a grammatical role, connecting the subject (*море*) with a predicate (*безмолвное и белое*); and a semantic role, that is can be a predicate on itself (*море лежало* is a valid sentence). The adjectives are predicates here, not the modifiers, hence we don't need a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare it to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Море было белое и безмолвное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8623" RevisionGUID="664b52a3-b8e2-4031-9977-631630e178d6" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:36:56.283" UserId="310" Text="`НАТЕ`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a rock band with that name in 80's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8623" RevisionGUID="2342d2fb-1933-4813-9ed0-38c8cb1634c7" CreationDate="2015-04-28T11:43:01.980" UserId="310" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="`НАТЕ` - take it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a rock band with that name in 80's." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8624" RevisionGUID="c427d6de-6b94-4ddf-af2a-c4f63a4ee529" CreationDate="2015-04-28T12:33:53.247" UserId="5008" Text="Besides mentioned word &quot;Сор&quot; there is also the word from the same root &quot;Mycop&quot; which normally means &quot;Trash&quot; but in the jargon - &quot;the Policeman&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8624" RevisionGUID="50dc1b90-fec6-4d45-8e71-6f1f4a2c32a2" CreationDate="2015-04-28T13:10:44.147" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Besides mentioned word &quot;Сор&quot; there is also the word &quot;Mycop&quot; which normally means &quot;Trash&quot; but in the jargon - &quot;the Policeman&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8626" RevisionGUID="a14787b9-a368-4f29-ad28-c0ec40c2a0f4" CreationDate="2015-04-28T14:46:57.610" UserId="134" Text="I've created two word lists from aspell's databases. I used the standard rules for Latin-Cyrillic symbol correspondence which defines symbols usable on Russian vehicle license plates: `ABEKMHOPCTYX`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English word list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    aspell --lang=en dump master | egrep -i &quot;^[ABEKMHOPCTYX]+$&quot; | sed 's/.*/\U&amp;/' | tr 'ABEKMHOPCTYX' `echo 'АВЕКМНОРСТУХ' | iconv -f utf-8 -t koi8-r` | iconv -f koi8-r -t utf-8 | sort &gt; en-sorted.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian word list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    aspell --lang=ru dump master | sed 's/\/.*//;s/.*/\U&amp;/' | egrep -i '^[АВЕКМНОРСТУХ]+$' | sort &gt; ru-sorted.txt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparison:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    comm -12 en-sorted.txt ru-sorted.txt | awk '{print length, $0}' | sort -n | cut -d&quot; &quot; -f2-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This yields quite a long list with two five-letter matches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; МЕССА  &#xD;&#xA;ТОТЕМ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a handful of four-letter matches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; АТОМ  &#xD;&#xA;ВАКЕ  &#xD;&#xA;ВЕЕР  &#xD;&#xA;ВЕЕТ  &#xD;&#xA;ВОСК  &#xD;&#xA;КАМА  &#xD;&#xA;МАМА  &#xD;&#xA;МЕТА  &#xD;&#xA;МОРЕ  &#xD;&#xA;МОСК  &#xD;&#xA;НАТЕ  &#xD;&#xA;РАСТ  &#xD;&#xA;СНОС  &#xD;&#xA;СОТЕ  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ВАКе* is apparently *ВАК (Высшая аттестационная комиссия)* in prepositional, and I don't have a slightest idea about what *моск* is, but otherwise the list looks legit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8622" RevisionGUID="cb6300b2-d755-4151-9688-548752e60f1f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T14:51:31.420" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This guide mixes two different cases, and does not explain them very well either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи для себя довольно неприятные (Лермонтов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no comma here not because the modifier is tightly linked to a subject (as the guide suggests), but for two reasons which must play together:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The extended modifier (*распространённое определение*) as a whole is a comment (*рема*) and as such has to be put towards the end of the sentence, which is not how Russian concording modifiers (*согласованные определения*) normally behave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The modifier itself (adjective or participle) is the last word within the clause, so that all other words, dependent on it, should precede it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason 2 was what the guide was really about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main idea is that sentence, as it goes, keeps putting the words so that the topic does not have to be separated using intonation, hence no need for isolating it with a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's have a closer look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author has put the sentence in this order because *неприятные* is the ultimate comment of the sentence, and he wanted to put it into the very end to give it the right intonation. To do that, he has to violate normal Russian word order. Normally, the sentence would read *он мог услышать довольно неприятные для себя вещи*, but this would make *вещи* the comment and *неприятные* the topic. Hence, the word order reversal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what would have happened if the comment would have been *для себя*? It would have gone into the end of the sentence, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, довольно неприятные для себя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Довольно неприятные для себя* is a normal Russian word order. So as the sentence goes, we have a topic (*вещи*) followed by another topic (*неприятные*), and, hence, we have to intonate the main topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same happens if we are to make *довольно* the comment. We can't just put it to the end of the sentence, but we can replace it with an adverbial clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он мог услышать вещи, неприятные для себя в достаточной степени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same rules apply and we have to separate it with a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Море у его ног лежало безмолвное и белое (Паустовский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example uses a notional copula (*знаменательная связка*). It's a verb which plays both a grammatical role, connecting the subject (*море*) with a predicate (*безмолвное и белое*); and a semantic role, that is can be a predicate on itself (*море лежало* is a valid sentence). The adjectives are predicates here, not the modifiers, hence we don't need a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare it to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Море было белое и безмолвное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20838" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8615" RevisionGUID="3a2e274e-f970-4cb6-a90f-944f53c91e2f" CreationDate="2015-04-28T19:18:22.097" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Определения, тесно связанные по смыслу с определяемым словом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8627" RevisionGUID="e28fd48e-a6ba-42f3-bdde-93dc8221fef2" CreationDate="2015-04-28T20:00:12.260" UserId="5405" Text="Эта фраза по сути является урезанием от &quot;бытовая культура и высокое искусство&quot;. В русском языке эти понятия достаточно сильно разведены. Картины да Винчи носители языка назовут лишь искусством, но не культурой. Правда в словосочетании &quot;наука и культура&quot; под &quot;культурой&quot; уже будет пониматься и живопись, и музыка, и пр искусства)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается науки, что физико-математической, что гуманитарной, то она в русском языке не является частью культуры." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8628" RevisionGUID="51913fdd-6c5f-4a6a-a7ac-c8f13faf4c22" CreationDate="2015-04-28T20:31:39.137" UserId="5405" Text="Между определяемым словом и обособление, начинающимся словом &quot;который&quot; допускаются слова, если они не в том же роде и/или числе, что и определяемое слово. Если бы вместо &quot;страз&quot; (множественное число) была бы, например, &quot;застёжка&quot;, то фраза была бы неправильной, так как оборот относился к последнему слову." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8629" RevisionGUID="cecdae72-4b76-4e00-98d6-d3af0a211651" CreationDate="2015-04-29T07:12:54.720" UserId="5403" Text="В примере ***&quot;Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной, равной пяти сантиметрам&quot;*** запятой выделяется причастный оборот, а не прилагательное с зависимыми словами. Оно образовано от глагола &quot;равняться&quot;, в этом случае ***причастие можно заменить оборотом с глаголом, от которого оно образовано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Начертите равносторонний треугольник со стороной,***которая равняется пяти сантиметрам.***  &#xD;&#xA;Причастия указывают на признаки, развивающиеся во времени. Здесь именно такой признак. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8630" RevisionGUID="4a6b4739-2f57-47ee-b50d-35ca80796228" CreationDate="2015-04-29T08:03:19.540" UserId="5403" Text=" При подлежащем, выраженном словом это, между главными членами предложения тире ставится в зависимости от логического выделения подлежащего и наличия паузы после него; ср.: Это — начало всех начал.  Это неплохое начало; Это — одиночество (Ч.). — Это дом Зверкова (Г.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же в вашем примере.   ***См.: Справочник по пунктуации. Розенталь, Д. Э.Полный академический справочник.*** [Тире между членами предложения](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=91#pp91) [ ТИРЕ МЕЖДУ ЧЛЕНАМИ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ  »»   Тире между подлежащим и сказуемым](http://orthographia.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=106#pp106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8630" RevisionGUID="7d134812-a888-444a-8d66-82a947d3ce7f" CreationDate="2015-04-29T08:38:48.503" UserId="551" Comment="reorganized links" Text="При подлежащем, выраженном словом это, между главными членами предложения тире ставится в зависимости от логического выделения подлежащего и наличия паузы после него; ср.: Это — начало всех начал.  Это неплохое начало; Это — одиночество (Ч.). — Это дом Зверкова (Г.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же в вашем примере.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;См.: Справочник по пунктуации. Розенталь, Д. Э. [Тире между членами предложения](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=91#pp91), &#xD;&#xA;Полный академический справочник. [Тире между подлежащим и сказуемым](http://orthographia.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=106#pp106)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="6734a665-fb86-4927-b1b4-888f4b43e3ea" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:11:30.027" UserId="4299" Text="Извините, как перевести выражение &quot;Кому не слабó&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="6734a665-fb86-4927-b1b4-888f4b43e3ea" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:11:30.027" UserId="4299" Text="Как переводится &quot;Кому не слабо&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="6734a665-fb86-4927-b1b4-888f4b43e3ea" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:11:30.027" UserId="4299" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20847" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8615" RevisionGUID="8417a9b9-0f93-4c2b-99b6-24a3a4e8c10b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:43:42.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/593349933987713024" />
  <row Id="20848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="ddcaf651-dbe6-443f-a5ae-c451af1d56d5" CreationDate="2015-04-29T10:13:41.960" UserId="4299" Comment="Корекция вопроса, чтобы был более понятен" Text="Извините, каково значение выражения &quot;Кому не слабó&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="1a848deb-c1cb-45d1-922f-8bf8ed2b45c6" CreationDate="2015-04-29T12:37:46.197" UserId="551" Comment="заменил &quot;перевод&quot; на &quot;значение&quot;" Text="Каково значение выражения &quot;Кому не слабó&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20850" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="1a848deb-c1cb-45d1-922f-8bf8ed2b45c6" CreationDate="2015-04-29T12:37:46.197" UserId="551" Comment="заменил &quot;перевод&quot; на &quot;значение&quot;" Text="Что означает выражение &quot;Кому не слабо&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8631" RevisionGUID="1a848deb-c1cb-45d1-922f-8bf8ed2b45c6" CreationDate="2015-04-29T12:37:46.197" UserId="551" Comment="заменил &quot;перевод&quot; на &quot;значение&quot;" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8632" RevisionGUID="7768b86f-e95a-4f7d-8220-1b4e2e404fb5" CreationDate="2015-04-29T13:34:26.600" UserId="5288" Text="`Слаб́о` это предикат, то есть, выступает как сказуемое, отвечает на вопросы `кому? что?`. &#xD;&#xA;`Сл́або` это краткое прилагательное от `слабый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точное значение вопроса `Слаб́о?`: `Можешь?`  &#xD;&#xA;К этому значению необходимо добавить подтекст: *давай, покажи нам, что ты не слабак, не трус, не размазня.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Слаб́о` is a word in the short predicative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise meaning the question `Слаб́о?` is `you can make it?`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then in any language we must add a connotation value for it: *lets show us that you are not a creampuff, worrier or not a weakling one.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8632" RevisionGUID="0c7d90bc-849a-4899-a899-2ad6f9a40ad5" CreationDate="2015-04-29T13:40:48.337" UserId="5288" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="`Слаб́о` это предикат, то есть, выступает как сказуемое, отвечает на вопросы `кому? что?`. &#xD;&#xA;`Сл́або` это краткое прилагательное от `слабый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точное значение вопроса `Слаб́о?`: `Можешь?`  &#xD;&#xA;К этому значению необходимо добавить подтекст: *давай, покажи нам, что ты не слабак, не трус, не размазня.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Слаб́о` is a word in the short predicative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise meaning of the question `Слаб́о?` is `you can make it?`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then in any language we must add a connotation value for it: *lets show us that you are not a creampuff, worrier or not a weakling one.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8633" RevisionGUID="0c4cbcfa-75bc-411e-8483-4dcec565016b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T16:45:57.597" UserId="6300" Text="Я не мог найти перевод на веб &quot;не издевайся на домной&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8633" RevisionGUID="0c4cbcfa-75bc-411e-8483-4dcec565016b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T16:45:57.597" UserId="6300" Text="Что значит фраз &quot;не издевайся на домной&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8633" RevisionGUID="0c4cbcfa-75bc-411e-8483-4dcec565016b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T16:45:57.597" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8634" RevisionGUID="147fe917-003d-4813-ade1-ed91e8064c67" CreationDate="2015-04-29T16:50:53.923" UserId="1236" Text="You have the last two words divided in a wrong way. Actually, it is &quot;не издевайся надо мной&quot; meaning &quot;don't mock at me&quot;, &quot;don't humiliate me.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8635" RevisionGUID="e15b0e61-3c8d-461d-9b1e-88419adda5b4" CreationDate="2015-04-29T17:38:36.403" UserId="5405" Text="Если вы хотите, чтобы вас понял любой носитель русского языка, то лучше писать &quot;псевдоискусство&quot;. Слово &quot;кич&quot; (я как носитель русского языка написал бы так, потому что сочетание &quot;тч&quot; в русском непроизносимо) в России малоупотребительно, но людям, увлекающиеся английским языком или искусством о нём известно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8594" RevisionGUID="eb63d066-86d0-49d5-aea6-6a653552960a" CreationDate="2015-04-29T19:04:07.183" UserId="4366" Comment="added след example, etymology tag" Text="Is there a kind of thesaurus that teaches words based on kinship? An example will make it clear to you what I have in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    суд - судья́, суди́ть, ...&#xD;&#xA;    коне́ц - наконе́ц, зака́нчивать/зако́нчить, конча́ть/ко́нчить, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a Latin example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    rex - regere, regio, rectio, directio, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got it? Take a simple base lexeme or &quot;atom of meaning&quot; and then list the words stemming from that atom that are among the most commonly used 10,000 or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not like [WordNet](http://wordnet.princeton.edu/), which is a semantic organization, not a lexical-etymological one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be useful for learning native Russian words that are mostly unfamiliar to learners from non-Slavic language countries. The purpose would be to learn more quickly and efficiently by benefitting from word similarity and etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an example, it's much easier to learn words such as *рассле́дование* (*investigation* (cf. Latin *vestigium* = *trace*)) or *слеже́ние* (*tracing*, *persecution*) if you know they derive from the word *след*, which simply means *trace*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there such a thesaurus, with URL? Or an established name for such an organizational structure of a thesaurus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8594" RevisionGUID="eb63d066-86d0-49d5-aea6-6a653552960a" CreationDate="2015-04-29T19:04:07.183" UserId="4366" Comment="added след example, etymology tag" Text="|этимология|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8636" RevisionGUID="333cc738-bf4b-44a7-9d22-d06bf47061fd" CreationDate="2015-04-29T21:05:40.660" UserId="4366" Text="I've found precisely the book I've been looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George Z. Patrick, *Roots of the Russian Language. An Elementary Guide to Wordbuilding*, New York, 1938 (republished various times in following decades)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt from the foreword:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based on the supposition that familiarity and practice with the com-&#xD;&#xA;ponent elements of Russian words will facilitate student comprehension&#xD;&#xA;and learning, *Roots of the Russian Language* includes four hundred and&#xD;&#xA;fifty of the most commonly used roots of the Russian language in a&#xD;&#xA;convenient, reference format. Mastery of these roots should enable&#xD;&#xA;students to form many more derivatives, increasing their Russian vocab-&#xD;&#xA;ularies, as well as enhancing their enjoyment and satisfaction in learning&#xD;&#xA;the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These *roots* are what I was looking for. Most words are derived from roots and are more easily memorized when seen in context of the root and fellow derivatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info in the [reviews on Amazon.com](http://amzn.com/0844242675)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8632" RevisionGUID="76c34b0f-d081-4171-bd84-93731b7eee78" CreationDate="2015-04-29T22:09:25.023" UserId="5373" Comment="English grammar" Text="`Слаб́о` это предикат, то есть, выступает как сказуемое, отвечает на вопросы `кому? что?`. &#xD;&#xA;`Сл́або` это краткое прилагательное от `слабый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точное значение вопроса `Слаб́о?`: `Можешь?`  &#xD;&#xA;К этому значению необходимо добавить подтекст: *давай, покажи нам, что ты не слабак, не трус, не размазня.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Слаб́о` is a word in the short predicative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The precise meaning of the question `Слаб́о?` is `Can you do it?`.   &#xD;&#xA;Then in any language we must add a connotation value for it: *Show us that you are not a cream puff, worrier or not a weakling one.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20866" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8632" RevisionGUID="76c34b0f-d081-4171-bd84-93731b7eee78" CreationDate="2015-04-29T22:09:25.023" Comment="Proposed by 5373 approved by 2060, 1329 edit id of 621" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8639" RevisionGUID="513e77c9-5c54-4f4e-a2d2-55fc4bfa415d" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:53:00.400" UserId="2439" Text="У пользователя в англоязычной системе есть роль &quot;Approver&quot;. Он подтверждает заказы обычных пользователей. Как перевести Approver кратко на русский одним словом. Ну, или не слишком пространно, не &quot;пользователь, утверждающий заказы&quot;. Так, чтобы помещалось нормально на кнопке. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8639" RevisionGUID="513e77c9-5c54-4f4e-a2d2-55fc4bfa415d" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:53:00.400" UserId="2439" Text="Как перевести &quot;Approver&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8639" RevisionGUID="513e77c9-5c54-4f4e-a2d2-55fc4bfa415d" CreationDate="2015-04-30T14:53:00.400" UserId="2439" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8640" RevisionGUID="5e0c26ad-3b77-4a5b-9f41-909c9b60e2af" CreationDate="2015-04-30T17:01:10.177" UserId="2079" Text="В ЖЖ пользователь, который одобряет или не одобряет пост в сообщество, называется модератор. Чтобы было понятнее, можно назвать апрувера `модератор заказов`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В организациях человек, который имеет право что-то одобрять или не одобрять, называется куратор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Viewer можно перевести как смотритель (если у него не только доступ, но и власть) или наблюдатель." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8640" RevisionGUID="cfe6eab5-6275-4ed4-a36a-dcb4963eba55" CreationDate="2015-04-30T17:06:34.450" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 105 characters in body" Text="В ЖЖ пользователь, который одобряет или не одобряет пост в сообщество, называется модератор. Можно назвать апрувера `модератор` или `модератор заказов`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Viewer можно перевести как смотритель (если у него не только доступ, но и власть) или наблюдатель." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8641" RevisionGUID="189a6fe3-81a7-44d4-9528-5f672915485e" CreationDate="2015-04-30T17:14:06.387" UserId="5288" Text="Perhaps it would be of some interest to you. Each of these examples consists of the one and only word, the rest is a mix of forms derived from that word and prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`С` through `Я`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Натисни не стесняясь на притесняемых, стиснутых в тисках тесноты. &#xD;&#xA;Утешала в утехах — тише!&#xD;&#xA;В толкучке толкового толкнули в толкотне.&#xD;&#xA;Треснула и затрещала с треском трещотка.&#xD;&#xA;Трудно трудиться не утруждаясь трудом.&#xD;&#xA;За тягу тянули тяжело, но не тужили.&#xD;&#xA;Узник в узкой вязнице завязывал узел.&#xD;&#xA;В схватке хваткий захватом похитил хищника.&#xD;&#xA;Холод охладит прохладой.&#xD;&#xA;Ходок на восходе расходовал приход и оприходовал расход.&#xD;&#xA;Процветающая цветочница с цветом от зацветшего цветка. &#xD;&#xA;Поцелуй исцеляет при целовании.&#xD;&#xA;У оценщика драгоценности с уценкой обесценились.&#xD;&#xA;В черновике зачеркнутое черными чернилами почернело.&#xD;&#xA;Чертежник начертился до чёртиков в чертежной.&#xD;&#xA;Чиновник по причине подчинения чинит зачинщикам причины для сочинений.&#xD;&#xA;Чистый расчищает до чистоты.&#xD;&#xA;Предчувствие чувствовалось в сочувствии.&#xD;&#xA;Соучастие — к части участи для участвовавших.&#xD;&#xA;У чудака чудовище чудно отчуждалось на чужбине.&#xD;&#xA;Беспощадный щедро пощадил.&#xD;&#xA;Явившийся с заявлением объявил явью явно отъявленным.&#xD;&#xA;Яснее ясного, пояснение выяснять у поясняющего.   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A native speaker have little to no difficulty making a new. It didn't take me long to make up my examples, max. 2-3 min on each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if this is something special for other languages. But I strongly believe, that morphism plays the key role in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8642" RevisionGUID="53b061a3-a94f-44a9-9b19-b41f8bf18605" CreationDate="2015-04-30T18:59:41.840" UserId="348" Text="&quot;Рукописи не горят&quot; idiom means  &quot;you can't kill an idea&quot; or (sometimes)  &quot;art is immortal.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;It has nothing to do with &quot;рукописи не жгут&quot; -- master says that *he burned it* only a couple of paragraphs above in the original text.&#xA;Therefore the second translation is wrong.&#xA;&#xA;The mere fact that it is an idiom means that the phrase should not be interpreted literally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8642" RevisionGUID="77b4e992-ea9d-4ad4-bb97-71bdd9e7efdd" CreationDate="2015-04-30T19:06:49.100" UserId="348" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;Рукописи не горят&quot; idiom means  &quot;you can't kill an idea&quot; or (sometimes)  &quot;art is immortal.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;It has nothing to do with &quot;рукописи не жгут&quot; -- the Master says that *he burned it* only a couple of paragraphs above in the original text.&#xA;Therefore the second translation is wrong.&#xA;&#xA;The mere fact that it is an idiom means that the phrase should not be interpreted literally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8633" RevisionGUID="8dc6e766-c7bb-48f4-b08b-c62bffd5e0a4" CreationDate="2015-04-30T21:47:13.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/593894399597219840" />
  <row Id="20878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8643" RevisionGUID="bd2fde23-f275-494f-ac07-998092f15da5" CreationDate="2015-04-30T22:17:47.433" UserId="5413" Text="If I write &quot;Кому надо послать деньги?&quot; does that mean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) To whom must the money be sent? - or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Who must send the money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the sentence ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8643" RevisionGUID="bd2fde23-f275-494f-ac07-998092f15da5" CreationDate="2015-04-30T22:17:47.433" UserId="5413" Text="A sentence starting with &quot;кому надо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8643" RevisionGUID="bd2fde23-f275-494f-ac07-998092f15da5" CreationDate="2015-04-30T22:17:47.433" UserId="5413" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8644" RevisionGUID="a0bf4d9c-d609-4b1b-9b3c-0cd0d09bcf13" CreationDate="2015-05-01T00:38:21.147" UserId="2388" Text="It is a bit ambiguous, and may indeed mean both (theoretically), depending on context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To whom should I send the money?&#xD;&#xA;- Who *has to/want to* send the money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the latter is rather unlikely in normal situations, but might come useful if these is somethin unusual about the transfer, i.e. it matters who exactly sends the money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if you asked a friend a rather general question about transferring money, so they are interested who exactly needs their money to be sent (&quot;Кому надо послать деньги&quot; sounds rather informal for a question from the official support).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a pragmatic point of view, I'd avoid using the phrase in the 2nd meaning if a person answering it is not particularly familiar with situation. Or if they answer similar questions ten times a day. The reason is exactly the &quot;most likely&quot; interpretation: if a person hears something like that out of the blue, they will probably analyze it according to *&quot;send - something - to someone&quot;* scheme. For the second meaning to activate, a person has to know that the addressee is already known (so you would not ask that again)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20882" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="8437f045-982b-46a2-a654-457a91805d4d" CreationDate="2015-05-01T00:47:11.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/593939689951858688" />
  <row Id="20886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8633" RevisionGUID="b9b82c0f-941f-478c-9e41-3988303d9b38" CreationDate="2015-05-01T05:58:03.660" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Я не смог найти перевод в интернете &quot;не издевайся на домной&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20887" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8633" RevisionGUID="b9b82c0f-941f-478c-9e41-3988303d9b38" CreationDate="2015-05-01T05:58:03.660" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Что значит фраза &quot;не издевайся на домной&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8647" RevisionGUID="bb105c0f-f12d-4c7d-85ca-46d867d3286b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T07:38:28.457" UserId="5008" Text="This sentence is ambiguous. In a written text usually only (1) is acceptable. But in everyday talk (or in a book if the author tries to imitate the spoken language) you may encounter both variants differing in intonation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8635" RevisionGUID="e04c5013-fd07-4ad1-a939-1da830929398" CreationDate="2015-05-01T09:04:07.983" UserId="5405" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Если вы хотите, чтобы вас понял любой носитель русского языка, то лучше писать &quot;псевдоискусство&quot; или &quot;ширпотреб&quot; (*товары широкого потребления*). Слово &quot;кич&quot; (я как носитель русского языка написал бы так, потому что сочетание &quot;тч&quot; в русском непроизносимо и есть влияние русского корня -кич-, *ср. кичливый, кичиться*) в России малоупотребительно, но людям, увлекающиеся английским языком или искусством о нём известно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8635" RevisionGUID="2a71225e-d3d9-441c-9875-5496fdb5534e" CreationDate="2015-05-01T09:14:11.483" UserId="5405" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Если вы хотите, чтобы вас понял любой носитель русского языка, то лучше писать &quot;псевдоискусство&quot; или &quot;ширпотреб&quot; (*товары широкого потребления*). Слово &quot;кич&quot; (я как носитель русского языка написал бы так, потому что сочетание &quot;тч&quot; в русском непроизносимо и есть влияние русского корня -кич-, *ср. кичливый, кичиться*) в России малоупотребительно, но людям, увлекающиеся английским языком или искусством о нём известно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посмотрел этимологию, первоначально слово появилось из немецкого языка, где никакого &quot;т&quot; нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8648" RevisionGUID="ebd08c45-11ce-4887-9c7d-d130cd54197b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:09:13.310" UserId="5288" Text="OP case is not special:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;Вы автор книги «Анна Каренина»?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You're the author of the book «Анна Каренина», aren't you? &#xD;&#xA;    I said, no, the author is Tolstoy.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are you an author, if I am not mistaken, of the book «Анна Каренина» or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Диаметр круга пять сантиметров?&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the diameter of the circle? &#xD;&#xA;    They asked me how big. I said, 5 cm in diameter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The diameter of what of? Of a circle, or possible, a ring?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is evident that OP case is not special, but a very ordinary case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poetry is famous for its haziness. But for most writing, &lt;b&gt;*Ambiguity is a weakness.*&lt;/b&gt; There is a plently cases also in English. Try searching for Ambiguity in the Web. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;They were entertaining guests.&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  This sentence is ambiguous because the reader &#xD;&#xA;  does not know if the guests were amusing or &#xD;&#xA;  if people were giving hospitality to guests.&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8643" RevisionGUID="5233f8d5-fc29-4a33-b503-58018b18486c" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:11:08.713" UserId="5413" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="If I write &quot;Кому надо послать деньги?&quot; does that mean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) To whom must the money be sent? - or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Who must send the money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the sentence ambiguous?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** Let me clarify that answers in Russian are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8648" RevisionGUID="7a36fcce-2ba1-4e21-b736-7a5da5de8c4b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:26:11.530" UserId="5288" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="Предложенный Вами случай не специфичен.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;Вы автор книги «Анна Каренина»?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Вы — автор?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Этой книги, или другой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Диаметр круга пять сантиметров?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Пять, a не шесть сантиметров?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Именно круга? А может, кольца?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Мы пишем для того, чтобы нас *правильно* поняли. **Двусмысленность является ошибкой** в передаче сообщения. Исключением будет поэзия, где мы наоборот, желаем, чтобы фантазия читателя улетела далеко-далеко :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;OP case is not special:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;Вы автор книги «Анна Каренина»?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You're the author of the book «Анна Каренина», aren't you? &#xD;&#xA;    I said, no, the author is Tolstoy.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are you an author, if I am not mistaken, of the book «Анна Каренина» or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Диаметр круга пять сантиметров?&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the diameter of the circle? &#xD;&#xA;    They asked me how big. I said, 5 cm in diameter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The diameter of what of? Of a circle, or possible, a ring?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is evident that OP case is not special, but a very ordinary case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poetry is famous for its haziness. But for most writing, &lt;b&gt;*Ambiguity is a weakness.*&lt;/b&gt; There is a plently cases also in English. Try searching for Ambiguity in the Web. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;They were entertaining guests.&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  This sentence is ambiguous because the reader &#xD;&#xA;  does not know if the guests were amusing or &#xD;&#xA;  if people were giving hospitality to guests.&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8649" RevisionGUID="c08c7e00-4a78-4b19-9320-a43df0eb060d" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:27:31.420" UserId="4238" Text="While it would seem logically that the popular expression &quot;ни рыба ни мяса&quot;--meaning roughly &quot;neither here nor there&quot;--should be spelled as such; that is, with both nouns in genitive, a quick Google search reveals that the more serious sources--including [A Dictionary of Russian Idioms and Colloquialisms][1]--spell it &quot;Ни рыба ни мясо.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? Is there any reason that the first noun should be in genitive but the second should not? ....Or is this some sort of fixed form? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or are all these sources wrong? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=pLl3OxDrw6UC&amp;pg=PA65&amp;dq=%22%D0%9D%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B8%20%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BE%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=qrZDVafVJYrWas2pgbAK&amp;ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D0%9D%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B8%20%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BE%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8649" RevisionGUID="c08c7e00-4a78-4b19-9320-a43df0eb060d" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:27:31.420" UserId="4238" Text="Correct form of the expression &quot;Ни рыба ни мяса&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8649" RevisionGUID="c08c7e00-4a78-4b19-9320-a43df0eb060d" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:27:31.420" UserId="4238" Text="|падежи|выражения|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8648" RevisionGUID="85b96385-d749-43fa-b93e-a0aace1cd57b" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:31:33.750" UserId="5288" Comment="added 472 characters in body" Text="Ответ: да, двусмысленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предложенный Вами случай не специфичен.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;Вы автор книги «Анна Каренина»?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Вы — автор?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Этой книги, или другой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Диаметр круга пять сантиметров?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Пять, a не шесть сантиметров?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Именно круга? А может, кольца?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Мы пишем для того, чтобы нас *правильно* поняли. **Двусмысленность является ошибкой** в передаче сообщения. Исключением будет поэзия, где мы наоборот, желаем, чтобы фантазия читателя улетела далеко-далеко :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;OP case is not special:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;Вы автор книги «Анна Каренина»?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You're the author of the book «Анна Каренина», aren't you? &#xD;&#xA;    I said, no, the author is Tolstoy.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are you an author, if I am not mistaken, of the book «Анна Каренина» or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Диаметр круга пять сантиметров?&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA; 1. What is the diameter of the circle? &#xD;&#xA;    They asked me how big. I said, 5 cm in diameter.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The diameter of what of? Of a circle, or possible, a ring?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is evident that OP case is not special, but a very ordinary case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poetry is famous for its haziness. But for most writing, &lt;b&gt;*Ambiguity is a weakness.*&lt;/b&gt; There is a plently cases also in English. Try searching for Ambiguity in the Web. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;They were entertaining guests.&lt;/b&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  This sentence is ambiguous because the reader &#xD;&#xA;  does not know if the guests were amusing or &#xD;&#xA;  if people were giving hospitality to guests.&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8650" RevisionGUID="07f0a049-b7d6-4d7b-aea5-fc85273ca2a4" CreationDate="2015-05-01T17:40:42.123" UserId="1236" Text="In this idiom, both nouns should be in the Nominative case, `ни рыба, ни мясо`, no other way. The way you thought it was right, &quot;ни рыба ни мяса&quot;, only &quot;мяса&quot; is in the Genitive case, &quot;рыба&quot; is Nominative. Anyway, it is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the rough meaning of that idiom is 'something senseless, useless; a person without any established point of view; an inactive, passive person'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8649" RevisionGUID="01c8c0f0-08bc-46dc-a3c2-9840afe698a1" CreationDate="2015-05-01T18:41:33.707" UserId="4238" Comment="deleted 109 characters in body" Text="While it would seem logically that the popular expression &quot;ни рыба ни мясо&quot;&lt;s&gt;--meaning roughly &quot;neither here nor there&quot;--&lt;/s&gt;should have both nouns in genitive, a quick Google search reveals that the more serious sources--including [A Dictionary of Russian Idioms and Colloquialisms][1]--spell it as such, with both nouns in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? Is there any reason that the nouns are in nominative? Is this standard following &quot;ни&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=pLl3OxDrw6UC&amp;pg=PA65&amp;dq=%22%D0%9D%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B8%20%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BE%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=qrZDVafVJYrWas2pgbAK&amp;ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D0%9D%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%B0%20%D0%BD%D0%B8%20%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BE%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8652" RevisionGUID="5f3f9c55-45c6-4b5b-8f5d-a924d828eb44" CreationDate="2015-05-01T19:55:55.723" UserId="194" Text="Ни рыба ни мясо = It is neither fish nor meat. This is a borderline thing, impossible to classify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ни рыбы ни мяса = There is neither fish nor meat. Well, we do not have the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8653" RevisionGUID="5a6563f5-22df-489b-80fc-4a876336d9c4" CreationDate="2015-05-01T19:56:53.047" UserId="5288" Text="A part of the question is still unanswered, so...   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; give us negative meaning:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ни одной ошибки.&#xD;&#xA;        no mistakes      (had been made)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double conjunction &lt;kbd&gt;ни ... ни&lt;/kbd&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                       ни ... ни       &#xD;&#xA;                    neither ... nor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       число 1 не считается ни простым, ни составным &#xD;&#xA;  the number 1 is not considered either prime or composite &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Note: In the sentence where the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt; renders negative meaning of the verb, words with the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; should be followed by the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt;:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  One thing he did make his mind up about was not to bother to get up&#xD;&#xA;  very early and cook everybody else's wretched breakfast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Единственное, что он твёрдо решил, — ни в коем случае не вставать &#xD;&#xA;  ни свет ни заря, чтобы накормить всех этих дармоедов. 	 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                         [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Hobbit] &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8650" RevisionGUID="22f8e518-349a-41dc-8ede-46e3f7ddbba3" CreationDate="2015-05-01T20:03:41.460" UserId="1236" Comment="Examples of usage and more information added" Text="In this idiom, both nouns should be in the Nominative case, `ни рыба, ни мясо`, no other way. The way you thought it was right, &quot;ни рыба ни мяса&quot;, only &quot;мяса&quot; is in the Genitive case, &quot;рыба&quot; is Nominative. Anyway, it is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the rough meaning of that idiom is 'something senseless, useless; a person without any established point of view; an inactive, passive person'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Here are some examples of how this expression is used. The best English translation is 'neither fish nor fowl', it is usually used as a predicatve or as an apposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ни мужик, ни барин, ни рыба, ни мясо... [А. П. Чехов. Неприятность, (1888)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;He is neither a peasant nor gentleman, neither fish nor fowl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потому что я ни рыба ни мясо. [Геннадий Алексеев. Зеленые берега (1983-1984)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Because I am neither fish nor fowl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Генерала Веймарна мы увольняем, он ни рыба ни мясо. [В. Я. Шишков. Емельян Пугачев. Книга первая. Ч. 3 (1934-1939)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;We shall discharge General Veymarn, he is neither fish nor fowl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression is the first part of a longer idiom, `ни рыба ни мясо, ни кафтан ни ряса`, literary &quot;neither fish nor meat, neither [caftan][4] nor cassock.&quot; There is also a synonymic expression `ни то ни сё`, literary &quot;neither that nor this&quot;, it is used in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%20%ED%E8%20%F0%FB%E1%E0%2C%20%ED%E8%20%EC%FF%F1%EE&amp;p=3&amp;docid=48225&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%20%ED%E8%20%F0%FB%E1%E0%2C%20%ED%E8%20%EC%FF%F1%EE&amp;p=1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%20%ED%E8%20%F0%FB%E1%E0%2C%20%ED%E8%20%EC%FF%F1%EE&amp;p=2&amp;docid=83543&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaftan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8654" RevisionGUID="c5cee8cd-6690-4737-a43b-1147d9f48ba3" CreationDate="2015-05-01T23:54:56.140" UserId="5385" Text="&gt; Кому надо послать деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В разговоре смысл этой фразы может зависеть от контекста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее вероятный вариант - вопрос о человеке-получателе.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_Я иду в банк, напомни, кому надо послать дельги (кто получатель)._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие возможные варианты:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_Кому(-то) надо послать деньги? Проходите без очереди._ - про отправителя.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_Кому(-нибудь) надо послать деньги? Я иду в банк, пойдёмте вместе._ - про отправителя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В любом случае, перевод _Who must send the money?_ мне кажется неправильным. Для этого варианта скорее должно быть _is going to_ или _wants to_. Вариант _Who must send the money?_ я понимаю как _Чья обязанность послать деньги?_ _Кто должен послать деньги?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8656" RevisionGUID="28a5853c-0620-476b-9141-35357b4512f1" CreationDate="2015-05-02T10:03:22.970" UserId="5423" Text="[ОМОН][1], a system of special police units, looks like a mirror image of &quot;HOMO&quot;, which in English is a [derogatory short form][2] of &quot;homosexual&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Boing boing][3] has a photo of the police, with their name visible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMON&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homo#Etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://boingboing.net/2013/08/15/look-at-the-interesting-badges.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8657" RevisionGUID="ead4cc1f-9db2-4186-a09f-70e398e64266" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:13:04.813" UserId="5424" Text="What is the russian term for &quot;verbal inspiration&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the teaching, that God basically gave each an every word of the original text of the bible to its authors, which wrote them down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ukrainian I found `Богонатхнення` on Wikipedia, but I could not find a russian term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8657" RevisionGUID="ead4cc1f-9db2-4186-a09f-70e398e64266" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:13:04.813" UserId="5424" Text="Russian term for &quot;verbal inspiration&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8657" RevisionGUID="ead4cc1f-9db2-4186-a09f-70e398e64266" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:13:04.813" UserId="5424" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8657" RevisionGUID="2a638f58-9afb-4cca-8239-1bf5a071805d" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:29:57.497" UserId="5424" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="What is the russian term for &quot;verbal inspiration&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the teaching, that God basically gave each an every word of the original text of the bible to its authors, which wrote them down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For ukrainian I found `Богонатхнення` on Wikipedia, but I could not find a russian term. It seems `вербальное вдохновение` is not the correct translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8658" RevisionGUID="4e36fb8c-abdd-47ec-826c-b45236931034" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:35:22.243" UserId="134" Text="I believe it's *богодухновение* (*боговдохновение, богодухновенность, боговдохновенность*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Russian Synodal Bible reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все Писание богодухновенно и полезно для научения, для обличения, для исправления, для наставления в праведности&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, same verse in Elizabeth Bible (Church Slavonic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всяко писанiе богодухновенно и полезно есть ко оученiю, ко ωбличенiю, ко исправленiю, къ наказанiю еже въ правдѣ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8658" RevisionGUID="2a29301c-d7d1-4b28-9d09-10335aa9d7ad" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:55:45.887" UserId="134" Comment="added 349 characters in body" Text="I believe it's *богодухновение* (*боговдохновение, богодухновенность, боговдохновенность*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Russian Synodal Bible reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все Писание богодухновенно и полезно для научения, для обличения, для исправления, для наставления в праведности&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, same verse in Elizabeth Bible (Church Slavonic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всяко писанiе богодухновенно и полезно есть ко оученiю, ко ωбличенiю, ко исправленiю, къ наказанiю еже въ правдѣ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alexander Men's &quot;Bible Dictionary&quot; mentions [this][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВЕРБАЛИ́ЗМ (от лат. verbum — слово), теория, согласно к-рой Писание полностью было продиктовано Духом Святым и поэтому каждое его слово (и даже каждую его букву) как исходящее от Бога следует понимать в буквальном смысле как слово Бога. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goo.gl/hifNgP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8659" RevisionGUID="83d3ec50-d8d5-4d2d-afcd-3f50fc9821c7" CreationDate="2015-05-02T17:24:54.337" UserId="5008" Text="It seems that the theory of &quot;verbal inspiration&quot; in Russian Orthodoxy is usually referred as &quot;Вербальная теория богодухновенности&quot; or simply &quot;Вербализм&quot;. Needless to say it's not considered as canonical one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8661" RevisionGUID="cfa44b53-de96-410a-9a1e-d5fb13a9372a" CreationDate="2015-05-03T04:50:01.747" UserId="1097" Text="These words are similar in pronunciation and meaning. Do they have a common root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8661" RevisionGUID="cfa44b53-de96-410a-9a1e-d5fb13a9372a" CreationDate="2015-05-03T04:50:01.747" UserId="1097" Text="Do &quot;шильдик&quot; and &quot;shield&quot; have a common root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8661" RevisionGUID="cfa44b53-de96-410a-9a1e-d5fb13a9372a" CreationDate="2015-05-03T04:50:01.747" UserId="1097" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8662" RevisionGUID="164e6c1f-da74-442e-895e-ad8f7a2aac71" CreationDate="2015-05-03T06:02:01.603" UserId="4379" Text="According to [wikipedia][1], `шильдик` originated from German &quot;Schild&quot; that's likely to have common descent with English &quot;Shield&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8663" RevisionGUID="1dd806a9-9f6f-48d7-aa93-67989c7cb537" CreationDate="2015-05-03T06:33:31.807" UserId="5008" Text="Surely both are from German &quot;Schild&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8666" RevisionGUID="c37ebd99-4699-4ade-b40c-782614504e4f" CreationDate="2015-05-03T10:51:57.393" UserId="5401" Text="I've seen take it, take that, get and catch? Are all valid or are there other ways?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8666" RevisionGUID="c37ebd99-4699-4ade-b40c-782614504e4f" CreationDate="2015-05-03T10:51:57.393" UserId="5401" Text="How can one translate the word HATE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8666" RevisionGUID="c37ebd99-4699-4ade-b40c-782614504e4f" CreationDate="2015-05-03T10:51:57.393" UserId="5401" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8667" RevisionGUID="b322c583-52aa-4eb1-b7af-4953b418af43" CreationDate="2015-05-03T11:38:14.150" UserId="5428" Text="Yes, there are all that three meanings in this word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8668" RevisionGUID="0ac095f3-ecca-400f-a67b-bf4f4c0c66d2" CreationDate="2015-05-03T12:18:19.647" UserId="5403" Text="Translate into what language? And  how the phrases you bring are connected with the word ***hate***?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20949" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8617" RevisionGUID="747abdd9-c4ed-47d1-8275-bbf4dd8f4e5c" CreationDate="2015-05-04T00:58:55.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/595029805596278786" />
  <row Id="20950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8670" RevisionGUID="dbcb6862-6b74-4d6a-b2fe-4fc84fce8878" CreationDate="2015-05-04T01:32:46.407" UserId="2388" Text="These are all valid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**На** is a particle you sometimes use in speech when &quot;giving&quot; something to a person, verbally encouraging them to &quot;take, get&quot; it. Often used in the beginning of a sentence, or as a one-word sentence. Its plural/polite form is *&quot;нате&quot;*, though, strictly speaking, their usage differs a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;take it&quot; meaning gives rise to a few metaphorical uses in set expressions. In such expressions *на* and *нате* are not, as a rule, interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8671" RevisionGUID="b7844ba1-887e-45c1-a91d-58e4f083e767" CreationDate="2015-05-04T02:15:46.820" UserId="5423" Text="I'm considering learning [Mongolian Cyrillic][1]. One thing I'd like to know is whether learning Mongolian Cyrillic will help me understand Russian Cyrillic. If I learn Mongolian Cyrillic, will I be able to identify Russian Cyrillic letters, and be able to (somewhat) correctly pronounce Russian words composed of them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [mentions][2] that  Өө and Үү exist in Mongolian Cyrillic but not Russian Cyrillic, but I couldn't notice any other differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just to be clear: I wouldn't plan on learning Russian without learning Russian Cyrillic first, but currently I don't anticipate learning Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'd also be curious as to whether learning Mongolian Cyrillic would help being able to read and pronounce words in Bulgarian, but presumably that's off topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Cyrillic_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Cyrillic_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8671" RevisionGUID="b7844ba1-887e-45c1-a91d-58e4f083e767" CreationDate="2015-05-04T02:15:46.820" UserId="5423" Text="How similar are Mongolian Cyrillic and Russian Cyrillic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8671" RevisionGUID="b7844ba1-887e-45c1-a91d-58e4f083e767" CreationDate="2015-05-04T02:15:46.820" UserId="5423" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8671" RevisionGUID="09335780-f814-48d0-8265-13c50a51861c" CreationDate="2015-05-04T02:40:04.473" UserId="5423" Comment="edited tags" Text="|other-languages|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8672" RevisionGUID="173561db-301c-452a-8df6-16838e9c77d2" CreationDate="2015-05-04T03:32:21.687" UserId="194" Text="It is interjection на in plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8673" RevisionGUID="4382db39-e130-42be-870c-280ebe2ce276" CreationDate="2015-05-04T07:21:15.877" UserId="1236" Text="Russian and Khalkha Mongolian have _extremely_ different phonetics and phonotactics, so different that _half_ of the Cyrillic letters are pronounced differently in the two languages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Letter       Mongolian IPA     Russian IPA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бб           p, pʲ              b, bʲ (p, pʲ)*&#xD;&#xA;Вв           w̜, w̜ʲ              v, vʲ (f, fʲ)*&#xD;&#xA;Дд           t, tʲ              d, dʲ (t, tʲ)*&#xD;&#xA;Жж           tʃ                 ʐ (ʂ)*&#xD;&#xA;Зз           ts                z (s)*&#xD;&#xA;Йй           i                 j&#xD;&#xA;Кк           kʰ, kʲʰ, x, xʲ       k, kʲ&#xD;&#xA;Лл           ɮ, ɮʲ              l, lʲ&#xD;&#xA;Нн           n, nʲ, ŋ           n, nʲ&#xD;&#xA;Пп           pʰ, pʰʲ             p, pʲ&#xD;&#xA;Тт           tʰ, tʰʲ             t, tʲ&#xD;&#xA;Фф           f, pʰ              f&#xD;&#xA;Цц           tsʰ                ts&#xD;&#xA;Чч           tʃʰ                 t͡ɕ&#xD;&#xA;Шш           ʃ                  ʂ&#xD;&#xA;Ыы           i                  ɨ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* - at the end of a word and/or before a voiceless consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a teacher, I should tell you, it is not the best idea to learn the Mongolian Cyrillic to be able to understand Russian Cyrillic. Why not learning Russian Cyrillic at once? What you want to do is like learning the English spelling to be able to read Latin, it is almost the same situation: the letters are the same, but half of the letters are pronounced differently in English and Latin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8674" RevisionGUID="39d619de-e526-4d87-8a3e-3a24a1de0f45" CreationDate="2015-05-04T07:41:08.933" UserId="134" Text="Mongolian is phonetically very different from Russian, so, while you will still have a general idea about which sound corresponds to which letter, mechanical transliteration of Mongolian word into Russian and vise versa will work no better than doing it with say French and English: &quot;au revoir&quot; is not aw-ree-voy-er, not even close, though the alphabet is the same, and some sounds do correspond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mongolian does not contrast voiced and unvoiced consonants but rather aspirated and non-aspirated, so pairs *т/д*, *б/п* etc. differ in aspiration, not vocalization; *ж* and *з* correspond to Russian *ш* and *ц*; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The probably most known Mongolian word, *төгрөг* (the name of Mongolian currency), in Russian is rendered as *тугрик*; *монгол шуудан* is normally transliterated (as in the band's name) but, if transcribed, should rather be *монгл шутн*, with the nasal final *н*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would do no harm, though, to learn a foreign alphabet, as long as you don't apply it mechanically to a language other than the one you learned it for originally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8674" RevisionGUID="5a24b4dd-fc87-4855-b66e-c3fd3b979d0b" CreationDate="2015-05-04T08:40:05.757" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Mongolian is phonetically very different from Russian, so, while you will still have a general idea about which sound corresponds to which letter, mechanical transliteration of Mongolian word into Russian and vise versa will work no better than doing it with say French and English: &quot;au revoir&quot; is not aw-ree-voy-er, not even close, though the alphabet is the same, and some sounds do correspond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mongolian does not contrast voiced and unvoiced consonants but rather aspirated and non-aspirated, so pairs *т/д*, *б/п* etc. differ in aspiration, not vocalization; *ж* and *з* correspond to Russian *ч* and *ц*; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The probably most known Mongolian word, *төгрөг* (the name of Mongolian currency), in Russian is rendered as *тугрик*; *монгол шуудан* is normally transliterated (as in the band's name) but, if transcribed, should rather be *монгл шутн*, with the nasal final *н*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would do no harm, though, to learn a foreign alphabet, as long as you don't apply it mechanically to a language other than the one you learned it for originally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8676" RevisionGUID="257606ae-cae9-4d30-bd91-e9fd841740c3" CreationDate="2015-05-04T12:48:07.243" UserId="5418" Text="Trying to answer the last part of your question, the Bulgarian alphabet is very similar to the Russian one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я (Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а б в г д е ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ь ю я (Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I've omitted the capital letters here)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bulgarian has fewer letters (ё, ы, э are missing) and Bulgarian e, щ and ъ are pronounced (slightly) differently. Apart from those differences, I think learning the *Russian* version of the Cyrillic alphabet would definitely help you learning Bulgarian Cyrillic - but starting with Mongolian might just be confusing... &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8678" RevisionGUID="dce9879b-3c8d-4899-801a-374d3e4b9576" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:28:05.313" UserId="2220" Text="I ran across two sentences: Марина вышла замуж за Павла and then Марина замужем недавно.  What is the difference between using вышла замуж as opposed to замужем?  Are they basically synonyms or are there specific contexts in which one is used over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8678" RevisionGUID="dce9879b-3c8d-4899-801a-374d3e4b9576" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:28:05.313" UserId="2220" Text="выходить замуж as opposed to быть замужем" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8678" RevisionGUID="dce9879b-3c8d-4899-801a-374d3e4b9576" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:28:05.313" UserId="2220" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8679" RevisionGUID="62f0d3b8-a7dd-4b7d-a2cc-ef912405b66a" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:45:25.717" UserId="5427" Text="Act vs state. &quot;To get married&quot; vs &quot;to be married&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8680" RevisionGUID="cc8d9a1c-9dfa-438c-8b29-22241ab1bdc1" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:51:37.830" UserId="1236" Text="Generally speaking, `выйти замуж` is  'to marry (about women)', and `быть замужем` is 'to be married (about women).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Марина вышла замуж за Павла.&quot; means 'Marina [has] married Pavel.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence tells us that Marina is (or was) married, and her husband is (or was) Pavel. Note, this sentence is in the past tense, it tells about the fact of Marina's marriage and about her husband, but it gives no information as for whether she is still married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Марина замужем недавно.&quot; means 'Marina has been married recently.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence tells us that Marina *is* married *now*, and it also tells about how long ago the marriage happened. This sentence is in the present tense. You can also specify the name of the husband in this sentence, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Марина замужем за Павлом недавно.&quot; means 'Marina has been married to Pavel recently.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, that in the first sentence it is `за` + Accusative case, but in the second one it is `за` + Instrumental case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8681" RevisionGUID="bc720217-d5de-4b3b-b4ea-0688979f7333" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:51:50.893" UserId="6300" Text="I'm a little confused on this phrase. Are the cases nominative + идти в ущерб + dative? Спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8681" RevisionGUID="bc720217-d5de-4b3b-b4ea-0688979f7333" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:51:50.893" UserId="6300" Text="Фраз идти в ущерб" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8681" RevisionGUID="bc720217-d5de-4b3b-b4ea-0688979f7333" CreationDate="2015-05-05T14:51:50.893" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8682" RevisionGUID="f41cd9d7-73e3-4c79-ae87-01b7312dd136" CreationDate="2015-05-05T15:25:53.530" UserId="2079" Text="Yes, they are. Usually it is used as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    X не должен (не может, не будет) идти в ущерб Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;X is in nominative, Y is in dative. The verb `должен` (`может`, `будет`) matches the gender and number of X." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20973" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8681" RevisionGUID="d29a32bb-9269-450c-af39-2e785bb05dec" CreationDate="2015-05-05T17:20:55.370" UserId="6300" Comment="edited title" Text="Словосочетание идти в ущерб" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8683" RevisionGUID="325916db-c77e-43b1-9caa-9a8cb6b17cca" CreationDate="2015-05-06T02:28:42.567" UserId="3892" Text="I pride myself on not bringing stupid questions here, and I feel silly because I know what all the words in this question mean. I just can't make any sense of them. Is there a productive pattern here that I should know?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В кого он такой пошёл?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8683" RevisionGUID="325916db-c77e-43b1-9caa-9a8cb6b17cca" CreationDate="2015-05-06T02:28:42.567" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of: &quot;В кого он такой пошёл?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8683" RevisionGUID="325916db-c77e-43b1-9caa-9a8cb6b17cca" CreationDate="2015-05-06T02:28:42.567" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8684" RevisionGUID="2be03837-832b-4022-b890-23e7ac93f475" CreationDate="2015-05-06T03:01:49.960" UserId="4379" Text="`Пойти в кого-то` is an idiom that means inheriting some personal traits from ancestors. For me it's difficult to translate your phrase without a context, namely, what qualities are implied. I can imagine something like `Он очень умный. В кого он такой пошёл?`. This is translated as &quot;He's very smart. Whom did he inherit this from?&quot;. However, it sounds quite formal, whereas `пойти в кого-то` is informal in Russian. Probably, there's some similar idiom in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8683" RevisionGUID="88d67fbd-46f4-404d-8f89-314c9e102712" CreationDate="2015-05-06T03:10:02.110" UserId="3892" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="I pride myself on not bringing stupid questions here, and I feel silly because I know what all the words in this question mean. I just can't make any sense of them. Is there a productive pattern here that I should know?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В кого он такой пошёл?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I saw this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну и гнилой народ теперь пошёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it similar in meaning? The pattern looks the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8685" RevisionGUID="c8ee5aad-bba7-4376-a257-f31302578323" CreationDate="2015-05-06T09:05:31.047" UserId="5288" Text="There is so many meanings for Russian idioms with the word `выйти`, for example    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти замуж`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти в деда/отца`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти на пенсию`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти во вред`    &#xD;&#xA;`не выйти лицом`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти по-твоему`   &#xD;&#xA;` ...`    &#xD;&#xA;that it is worth looking into a page where they were collected in block — [frazeologiya.ru](http://www.frazeologiya.ru/fraza/vyiyti.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a questions may arise about words in past/future tense, participle, and so on, but in the dictionary frazeologiya.ru you should searhing for Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infinitive then used again, in the [ruscorpora.ru](http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html), filling forms, word by word, in the each firsts text filds in the form. The example from OP&#xD;&#xA;`В кого он такой пошёл?`&#xD;&#xA;should be set as shown below:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ka9PbHpbQAM/VUnT0-RSMwI/AAAAAAAAE2I/ohc-7w9qPlE/s1600/ru-SE-01.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remembering that an order of words in Russian phrase may be changed, it is easily understood that we can try searching  &#xD;&#xA;`в`   &#xD;&#xA;`кто`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти`     &#xD;&#xA;For the word `кто` we can add the property *accusative* that tightens search criteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8685" RevisionGUID="364c9dba-c394-46a1-96f3-6f0b85fd3284" CreationDate="2015-05-06T09:16:15.947" UserId="5288" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="There is so many meanings for Russian idioms with the word `выйти`, for example    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти замуж`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти в деда/отца`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти на пенсию`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти во вред`    &#xD;&#xA;`не выйти лицом`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти по-твоему`   &#xD;&#xA;` ...`    &#xD;&#xA;that it is worth looking into a page where they were collected in block — [frazeologiya.ru](http://www.frazeologiya.ru/fraza/vyiyti.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a questions may arise about words in past/future tense, participle, and so on, but in the dictionary frazeologiya.ru you should searhing for Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infinitive then used again, in the [ruscorpora.ru](http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html), filling forms, word by word, in the each firsts text filds in the form. The example from OP&#xD;&#xA;`В кого он такой пошёл?`&#xD;&#xA;should be set as shown below:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ka9PbHpbQAM/VUnT0-RSMwI/AAAAAAAAE2I/ohc-7w9qPlE/s1600/ru-SE-01.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remembering that an order of words in Russian phrase may be changed, it is easily understood that we can try searching  &#xD;&#xA;`в`   &#xD;&#xA;`кто`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти`     &#xD;&#xA;For the word `кто` we can add the property *accusative* that tightens search criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;For the verb `выйти` there is also a perfective aspect that point out at the start of the act: `пойти`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8685" RevisionGUID="c2ab43a0-3e7e-4d0f-8d2b-03de94e899b5" CreationDate="2015-05-06T09:49:52.343" UserId="5288" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="There is so many meanings for Russian idioms with the word `выйти`, for example    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти замуж`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти в деда/отца`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти на пенсию`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти во вред`    &#xD;&#xA;`не выйти лицом`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти по-твоему`   &#xD;&#xA;` ...`    &#xD;&#xA;that it is worth looking into a page where they were collected in block — [frazeologiya.ru](http://www.frazeologiya.ru/fraza/vyiyti.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a questions may arise about words in past/future tense, participle, and so on, but in the dictionary frazeologiya.ru you should searhing for Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infinitive then can be used again, in the [ruscorpora.ru](http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html), filling forms, word by word, in the each firsts text filds in the form. The example from OP&#xD;&#xA;`В кого он такой пошёл?`&#xD;&#xA;should be set as shown below:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ka9PbHpbQAM/VUnT0-RSMwI/AAAAAAAAE2I/ohc-7w9qPlE/s1600/ru-SE-01.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remembering that an order of words in Russian phrase may be changed, it is easily understood that we can try searching  &#xD;&#xA;`в`   &#xD;&#xA;`кто`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти`     &#xD;&#xA;For the word `кто` we can add the property *accusative* that tightens search criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;For the verb `выйти` there is also a perfective aspect that point out at the start of the act: `пойти`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8685" RevisionGUID="69a7431b-e700-4505-aa9b-5506fde34497" CreationDate="2015-05-06T09:56:17.987" UserId="5288" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There is so many meanings for Russian idioms with the word `выйти`, for example    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти замуж`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти в деда/отца`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти на пенсию`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти во вред/ущерб`    &#xD;&#xA;`не выйти лицом`    &#xD;&#xA;`выйти по-твоему`   &#xD;&#xA;` ...`    &#xD;&#xA;that it is worth looking into a page where they were collected in block — [frazeologiya.ru](http://www.frazeologiya.ru/fraza/vyiyti.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a questions may arise about words in past/future tense, participle, and so on, but in the dictionary frazeologiya.ru you should searhing for Infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An infinitive then can be used again, in the [ruscorpora.ru](http://ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html), filling forms, word by word, in the each firsts text filds in the form. The example from OP&#xD;&#xA;`В кого он такой пошёл?`&#xD;&#xA;should be set as shown below:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ka9PbHpbQAM/VUnT0-RSMwI/AAAAAAAAE2I/ohc-7w9qPlE/s1600/ru-SE-01.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remembering that an order of words in Russian phrase may be changed, it is easily understood that we can try searching  &#xD;&#xA;`в`   &#xD;&#xA;`кто`   &#xD;&#xA;`выйти`     &#xD;&#xA;For the word `кто` we can add the property *accusative* that tightens search criteria.   &#xD;&#xA;For the verb `выйти` there is also a perfective aspect that point out at the start of the act: `пойти`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8686" RevisionGUID="0ff3601d-bf41-4c00-9774-10f2f5c627b7" CreationDate="2015-05-06T10:01:58.930" UserId="3887" Text="Как лучше всего перевести собирательный термин &quot;public locale&quot;? В данном случае подразумеваются магазины и театр. Приходит в голову &quot;общественное место&quot; -- кроме этого можно как-то сказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8686" RevisionGUID="0ff3601d-bf41-4c00-9774-10f2f5c627b7" CreationDate="2015-05-06T10:01:58.930" UserId="3887" Text="&quot;public locale&quot; по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8686" RevisionGUID="0ff3601d-bf41-4c00-9774-10f2f5c627b7" CreationDate="2015-05-06T10:01:58.930" UserId="3887" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8687" RevisionGUID="bf0c4d95-3638-4f09-8bdf-35209a6d95d6" CreationDate="2015-05-06T10:15:39.220" UserId="2079" Text="Ещё говорят `публичное место`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[И есть в словарях][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://baldatop.com/dictionary/dmitriev/%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8688" RevisionGUID="515e3c48-1f9d-49bd-b644-8100921c239f" CreationDate="2015-05-06T11:04:06.430" UserId="5288" Text="Очевидно, в голову приходит `общественное место, публичное место`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно самому оценить, и затем принять решение, какой оборот речи использовать. Для этого удобно использовать *Google Ngram Viewer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вариант 1, единственное число](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%2C+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0)   &#xD;&#xA;[Вариант 2, множественное число](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имеет смысл использовать тот оборот, частотность которого в наше время выше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8688" RevisionGUID="314d7640-00cd-48fb-91db-ed55a78f3837" CreationDate="2015-05-06T11:09:23.723" UserId="5288" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Очевидно, в голову приходит `общественное место, публичное место`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно самому оценить, и затем принять решение, какой оборот речи использовать. Для этого удобно использовать *Google Ngram Viewer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вариант 1, единственное число](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%2C+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0)   &#xD;&#xA;[Вариант 2, множественное число](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0)   &#xD;&#xA;Попробуйте еще поставить/снять флажок *case-insensitive*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имеет смысл использовать тот оборот, частотность которого в наше время выше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8689" RevisionGUID="4adada75-3ba9-461b-adc5-4eba9e0f6ba5" CreationDate="2015-05-06T12:22:59.547" UserId="4481" Text="Just to add to other answers. Phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну и гнилой народ теперь пошёл!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is another idiom: `&lt;someone&gt; &lt;characteristics&gt; теперь пошел` (is usually used to describe group of people or things) means changing its characteristics. This one means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People became bad (literally &quot;rotten&quot;, it could mean many negative characteristics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idiom means changing, not inheritance. Also it often use singular instead of plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент теперь ленивый пошел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have to be translated as `students became lazy` or even `all students became lazy`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8690" RevisionGUID="e453bebd-83db-448f-9f7f-eaa4601dd306" CreationDate="2015-05-07T03:51:57.887" UserId="6300" Text="Я не мог найти ответ на интернете. И когда можно употреблять это слово?&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8690" RevisionGUID="e453bebd-83db-448f-9f7f-eaa4601dd306" CreationDate="2015-05-07T03:51:57.887" UserId="6300" Text="Что значит &quot;пуся&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8690" RevisionGUID="e453bebd-83db-448f-9f7f-eaa4601dd306" CreationDate="2015-05-07T03:51:57.887" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="6b13ef2e-1044-45ee-ad81-3e4b3c07bc6e" CreationDate="2015-05-07T04:24:27.657" UserId="242" Text="So, recently I've found out that my wife does not know word &quot;тачизла&quot; which I used in some casual context. Then I've realized that, indeed, postfix &quot;-изла&quot; is pretty untypical to Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than I've found this question on English SE: [What is the meaning of joke “may it plizzle the cozizzle” in Futurama?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an excerpt from accepted answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snoop Dogg popularized the slang (in black culture in the US) of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adding the -izzle suffix (and sometimes infix) to various words. He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does it in many songs, including Drop It Like It's Hot and Tha&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Shiznit. He also does it as a guest in other rappers' songs, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the intro to Dr. Dre's The Chronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is - what is the origin of word &quot;тачизла&quot;? Is &quot;-изла&quot; related somehow to English &quot;-izzle&quot; postfix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/242490/what-is-the-meaning-of-joke-may-it-plizzle-the-cozizzle-in-futurama?newsletter=1&amp;nlcode=31107%7C209c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="6b13ef2e-1044-45ee-ad81-3e4b3c07bc6e" CreationDate="2015-05-07T04:24:27.657" UserId="242" Text="Has word &quot;тачизла&quot; anything to do hip-hop culture in general and to Dr. Dre in particular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="6b13ef2e-1044-45ee-ad81-3e4b3c07bc6e" CreationDate="2015-05-07T04:24:27.657" UserId="242" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="37125898-d108-4f01-b455-4db7d93cd227" CreationDate="2015-05-07T04:32:41.837" UserId="242" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="So, recently I've found out that my wife does not know word &quot;тачизла&quot; which I used in some casual context. This is a word from my childhood, I've heard it on the streets of my youth pretty often. Then I've realized that, indeed, postfix &quot;-изла&quot; is pretty untypical to Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than I've found this question on English SE: [What is the meaning of joke “may it plizzle the cozizzle” in Futurama?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an excerpt from accepted answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snoop Dogg popularized the slang (in black culture in the US) of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adding the -izzle suffix (and sometimes infix) to various words. He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does it in many songs, including Drop It Like It's Hot and Tha&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Shiznit. He also does it as a guest in other rappers' songs, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the intro to Dr. Dre's The Chronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is - what is the origin of word &quot;тачизла&quot;? Is &quot;-изла&quot; related somehow to English &quot;-izzle&quot; postfix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/242490/what-is-the-meaning-of-joke-may-it-plizzle-the-cozizzle-in-futurama?newsletter=1&amp;nlcode=31107%7C209c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="37125898-d108-4f01-b455-4db7d93cd227" CreationDate="2015-05-07T04:32:41.837" UserId="242" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="Has word &quot;тачизла&quot; anything to do hip-hop culture in general and to Snoop Dog in particular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="779952f7-0b9f-4c0b-bd57-a35bfa55fa1c" CreationDate="2015-05-07T06:45:37.577" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="So, recently I've found out that my friends do not know word &quot;тачизла&quot; which I used in some casual context. This is a word from my childhood, I've heard it on the streets of my youth pretty often. Then I've realized that, indeed, postfix &quot;-изла&quot; is pretty untypical to Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than I've found this question on English SE: [What is the meaning of joke “may it plizzle the cozizzle” in Futurama?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an excerpt from accepted answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snoop Dogg popularized the slang (in black culture in the US) of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adding the -izzle suffix (and sometimes infix) to various words. He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does it in many songs, including Drop It Like It's Hot and Tha&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Shiznit. He also does it as a guest in other rappers' songs, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the intro to Dr. Dre's The Chronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is - what is the origin of word &quot;тачизла&quot;? Is &quot;-изла&quot; related somehow to English &quot;-izzle&quot; postfix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/242490/what-is-the-meaning-of-joke-may-it-plizzle-the-cozizzle-in-futurama?newsletter=1&amp;nlcode=31107%7C209c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8693" RevisionGUID="6a294b85-36b5-489a-957d-3b2e165bee2c" CreationDate="2015-05-07T07:16:16.980" UserId="4777" Text="I think (and I met it online several times) that the word is a derogatory term for anyone taking part/supporting Pussy Riot. - at least that is the most recent meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the word can also mean &quot;something/somebody nice and fluffy&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8695" RevisionGUID="9e874e93-b952-4109-9acb-dda3d3ac17e6" CreationDate="2015-05-07T08:09:14.563" UserId="1075" Text="I think it is close to such English words as &quot;Bae&quot; (baby) and &quot;cutie&quot;. You can use it addressing your wife/girlfriend, your child or pet. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8696" RevisionGUID="bf5885d8-4d60-4d75-9d64-9ab2aceafd8d" CreationDate="2015-05-07T08:38:54.713" UserId="194" Text="It can be different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A transliteration of English word &quot;pussy&quot;, when referring to Pussy Riot for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A contraction of &quot;лапуся&quot;, which in turn is a deminutive of &quot;лапа&quot;. It means an animal's leg but also used very often to call babies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It also can be a deminutive of an animal name Пушок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the second meaning the most widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8697" RevisionGUID="0d642a21-aa95-4632-998c-753f87e5e50c" CreationDate="2015-05-07T09:26:34.320" UserId="551" Text="One of the possible meanings - a diminutive form of girl name like Полина, Пелагея:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пуся**: ПЕЛАГЕЯ, ПОЛИНА; [Указатель производных (уменьшительных) имен](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/info/petr/imsm/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This name is not modern, [Russian National Corpus](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EF%F3%F1%FF) has entry dated 1915:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Числа 16-го **Пуся** с Сашей едут в Смоленск, по-видимому, до середины августа, затем Саша поступит в Павловское училище на четыре месяца, к Рождеству будет офицером. [Н. Н. Пунин. Письма А. Е. Аренс (1915)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this can be a diminutive for pet name, that starts from letter П (like Пушок from @Anixx example), or has a syllable ПУ (лапа-лапуся-пуся).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such short word can be reinvented (for instance, derived from *пупсик*, etc.), rethinked as borrowed from English &quot;pussy&quot; and so on, and so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8698" RevisionGUID="b4de4e40-4416-4c75-81cc-db4aa991ee8d" CreationDate="2015-05-07T13:25:31.593" UserId="5438" Text="The meaning is the same as `тачила (car)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And suffix `-изла` is totally related to Snoop Dogg&#xD;&#xA;This suffux is not common for russians, honestly, i've never heard it from anybody in person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in tv series Scrubs(which is popular in Russia) this suffix was used lots of time to stress afroamerican slang. And in dubbing it was kept the same, for example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Братизл, садись в мой тачизл, поезем в клубизл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is the same as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брат, садись в мою тачку, поедем в клуб&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8699" RevisionGUID="9f1adff5-b5c7-4360-9891-a140f80c3535" CreationDate="2015-05-07T14:58:37.363" UserId="5288" Text="Мне уже под 50, а слышал я это еще в детстве, а потому смею всех уверить, что никакой связи с &quot;Пусси Р.&quot; здесь нет. Попробуйте в любимом поисковике `муси-пуси` или `пуси-муси`, поразглядывайте картинки, употребления, и пр., но с учетом того, что это очень [старый оборот речи](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/6860/%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8), который сегодня, возможно, играет иными красками и созвучиями.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm near 50 years old native Russian speaker, so I can assure you that there is no link with &quot;P u s s y R.&quot; at any rate ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard it in childhood as [`пуси-муси, муси-пуси`](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/6860/%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8699" RevisionGUID="e741fbe0-41d0-47c7-8371-91e0f2b346a2" CreationDate="2015-05-07T15:04:51.737" UserId="5288" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Мне уже под 50, а слышал я это еще в детстве, а потому смею всех уверить, что никакой связи с &quot;Пусси Р.&quot; здесь нет. Попробуйте в любимом поисковике `муси-пуси` или `пуси-муси`, поразглядывайте картинки, употребления, и пр., но с учетом того, что это очень [старый оборот речи](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/6860/%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8), который сегодня, возможно, играет иными красками и созвучиями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну а сокращенно это превращалось в звательное пуся. А кошек называли Муся ))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm near 50 years old native Russian speaker, so I can assure you that there is no link with &quot;P u s s y R.&quot; at any rate ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard it in childhood as [`пуси-муси, муси-пуси`](http://russian_argo.academic.ru/6860/%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8688" RevisionGUID="79900dcb-b251-4c44-bc93-521bbce4080d" CreationDate="2015-05-07T15:12:01.990" UserId="5288" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Очевидно, в голову приходит `общественное место, публичное место`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно самому оценить, и затем принять решение, какой оборот речи использовать. Для этого удобно использовать *Google Ngram Viewer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вариант 1, единственное число](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%2C+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%3B%2Cc0)   &#xD;&#xA;[Вариант 2, множественное число](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0)   &#xD;&#xA;Попробуйте еще поставить/снять флажок *case-insensitive*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имеет смысл использовать тот оборот, частотность которого в наше время выше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уточнений от автора OP не последовало, возможен еще один вариант из какого-н. английского контекста:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`a public locale` = `публично посещаемое место`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8700" RevisionGUID="f57d61bb-2fe2-43ae-845f-ab1e10355e67" CreationDate="2015-05-07T16:58:17.090" UserId="335" Text="One of the options is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Х *(именительный падеж, кто? что?)* идёт в ущерб Y *(дательный падеж, кому? чему?)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Излишний контроль *(что?)* идёт в ущерб развитию *(чему?)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Excessive control comes at the expense of development.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, don't forgot to put the verb `идти` and the noun `развитие` in the correct form, according to the gender and number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8701" RevisionGUID="a4621813-fdcc-41d6-aaa8-fcf8e0e65dd0" CreationDate="2015-05-07T17:44:22.453" UserId="5438" Text="Общественное место имеет какие-то не очень хорошие коннотации в русском, я бы старалась избежать его употребления в значении театры)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лучше публичное место&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя интуиция подсказывает мне, что можно лучше.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8702" RevisionGUID="7df0a2ab-1e7e-4e0b-b158-e71c810c3b32" CreationDate="2015-05-07T18:07:34.420" UserId="5440" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8U3BX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello there!  Would someone be so kind as to translate the words on the tombstone?  It would really help in finding answers to my family tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8702" RevisionGUID="7df0a2ab-1e7e-4e0b-b158-e71c810c3b32" CreationDate="2015-05-07T18:07:34.420" UserId="5440" Text="Hello....can someone translate this for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8702" RevisionGUID="7df0a2ab-1e7e-4e0b-b158-e71c810c3b32" CreationDate="2015-05-07T18:07:34.420" UserId="5440" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8703" RevisionGUID="cfb81650-bcc0-49b7-b4bc-8540ac643b91" CreationDate="2015-05-07T18:30:37.530" UserId="179" Text="`Zlotnikova` is the last name. `Sofia` is the first one and `Lvovna` is the second. Then there are dates of birth and death. The text is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Dear &#xD;&#xA;    mummy!&#xD;&#xA;    You will always live &#xD;&#xA;    in our hearts.&#xD;&#xA;    From the husband,&#xD;&#xA;    children,&#xD;&#xA;    nephews &#xD;&#xA;    and relatives.&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21018" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8702" RevisionGUID="24d17042-c1db-4675-8f85-530a44bce2d8" CreationDate="2015-05-07T18:53:47.993" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What does this tombstone say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8705" RevisionGUID="21521012-a305-48c4-962c-881738b0685a" CreationDate="2015-05-07T21:58:20.340" UserId="249" Text="It's can be short form of russian girl name &quot;Наталья&quot;, short form is &quot;Ната&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;take it&quot;, how answer Shady_arc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8703" RevisionGUID="4251ca92-435d-4768-be27-a3dc7b310f95" CreationDate="2015-05-07T23:43:26.160" UserId="2079" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="`Злотникова` (Zlotnikova) is the family name, a feminine form of `Злотников` (Zlotnikov). `Софья` (Sofia) is the first name, which is a common Russian feminine name. `Львовна` (Lvovna) is the patronym, meaning that her father's name was `Лев` (Lev), or, before the 1917 orthographic reform, `Левъ`. Then there are dates of birth and death.  As common in Russian, the month is written in Roman numerals, while the day is in Hindu-Arabic numerals, so 8.III means March 8.  In Russian, the day should precede the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Dear &#xD;&#xA;    mummy!&#xD;&#xA;    You will&#xD;&#xA;    always live in&#xD;&#xA;    our hearts.&#xD;&#xA;    From (your) husband,&#xD;&#xA;    children,&#xD;&#xA;    nephews &#xD;&#xA;    and relatives.&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8706" RevisionGUID="4916d5f2-24b7-4c1f-b85f-b5defce14816" CreationDate="2015-05-08T07:52:58.913" UserId="4366" Text="If you're not a touch-typist on your native keyboard, that is the first thing to do, before attempting to type on a different keyboard layout. It's not so hard to become a touch typist and it'll benefit you all your life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've become a touch-typist (i.e. you can type quickly, correctly, and without looking at the keyboard), you start training on the secondary keyboard layout. For Russian, just use the standard layout. It can be done, your fingers will remember the location of each letter even though your eyes might not know where that letter is hiding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Optionally, use a keyboard layout editor (such as [`MSKLC.exe`, Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator, for Windows](https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/goglobal/bb964665.aspx)) to adapt the keyboard to your needs and habits. I wouldn't use it to shift letters around (standard Russsian layout works fine for those), but I did use it to remap quotes and slashes and plus and minus and so on. Entirely up to your preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then (if on Windows, see image), add a keyboard shortcut (like Ctrl-4 for native, Ctrl-7 for Russian) to switch between keyboard layouts. Works perfectly. You can access these settings by, for example, right-clicking on the keyboard layout icon in the taskbar and then picking &quot;Settings&quot; (or whatever it is called in your language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![switching between keyboard layouts using `Ctrl` key combinations in Windows][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mtzKh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8666" RevisionGUID="63153637-9bd1-43c4-9521-f68f0e6d1648" CreationDate="2015-05-08T16:23:37.483" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How can one translate the word &quot;Нате&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8707" RevisionGUID="a63f2cee-b29d-4b61-b8f8-f678ea437f0d" CreationDate="2015-05-08T19:30:25.650" UserId="5442" Text="You can translate it as &quot;Here you are&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8708" RevisionGUID="2d888ea1-e1c8-47f6-8678-d0792314f8af" CreationDate="2015-05-09T00:47:28.977" UserId="6300" Text="Я думал долго и не мог думать как сказать &quot;I had fun/I'm having fun/It's fun&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли это в русском языке?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8708" RevisionGUID="2d888ea1-e1c8-47f6-8678-d0792314f8af" CreationDate="2015-05-09T00:47:28.977" UserId="6300" Text="Как сказать &quot;I had fun/I'm having fun/It's fun&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8708" RevisionGUID="2d888ea1-e1c8-47f6-8678-d0792314f8af" CreationDate="2015-05-09T00:47:28.977" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8683" RevisionGUID="d885c078-6dfe-41c4-8dd8-20c738d02a81" CreationDate="2015-05-09T01:16:07.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/596846073295011840" />
  <row Id="21031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8709" RevisionGUID="5e47472b-53eb-4201-9dcc-919155546b35" CreationDate="2015-05-09T02:31:25.907" UserId="5288" Text="`1  = I had fun.`    &#xD;&#xA;`2! = Have fun!`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite &amp; ceremonious&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Я имел удовольствие (... doing what one has). / Я хорошо провел время. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю вам весело/хорошо провести время! / Желаю вам приятно отдохнуть!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite, modestly  &amp; ever-so-slight informal&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Было очень даже ничего. / Доставило удовольствие. / Приятно отдохнул. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Приятно провести время! / Приятно отдохнуть! / Веселого дня&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечера&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /дискотеки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечеринки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /праздника/...!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Informal &amp; slight familiarly &amp; the party is going wild&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Классно было. / Отличненько было. / Давно я не получал такого удовольствия.&#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю развлечься по-полной! / Давай, удачи, поразвлекайся! &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;When you don't really care &amp; emotions started to go off-scale&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Обалденно было. / Оторвался на славу. / Повеселились как надо. / Это было одуренно.&#xD;&#xA;2!   The text on a button: Приколись!&#xD;&#xA;     Отожги там по-полной!&#xD;&#xA;     Давай, оторвись там!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8686" RevisionGUID="7f9b41ae-a00f-491d-8a72-7153a05e1bfd" CreationDate="2015-05-09T09:43:21.847" UserId="134" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Как лучше всего перевести собирательный термин &quot;public locale&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three actual public locales on Nevsky Prospect are mentioned in Petersburg: the shop Tait Diamonds, confectionary Ballet, and Farce Theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае подразумеваются магазины и театр. Приходит в голову &quot;общественное место&quot; -- кроме этого можно как-то сказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8710" RevisionGUID="7c28a20b-e2f1-413c-8f4b-054bce541d4e" CreationDate="2015-05-09T10:19:44.003" UserId="5443" Text="I'd say there might be some limitations for what is used in the place of the 'nominative' before the &quot;не должно идти в ущерб&quot; expression. Typically, that nominative tends to mean some continuing action (like doing something) or occupation (like a hobby) rather than some static object or thing. For example, &quot;не должно идти в ущерб&quot; can be used in a situation like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your hobby shouldn't get in the way of your working on PhD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твоё хобби не должно идти в ущерб работе над диссертацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonyms for &quot;идти в ущерб&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- вредить, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- идти во вред, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мешать &#xD;&#xA;(чему либо)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8711" RevisionGUID="95c169f4-a4fa-4e85-b538-449a786c7b7d" CreationDate="2015-05-09T10:23:32.453" UserId="134" Text="I think *заведение* is the word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В &quot;Петербурге&quot; упомянуты три заведения, в действительности существовавшие на Невском: магазин &quot;Бриллианты Тэта&quot;, кондитерская Балле и театр &quot;Фарс&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8710" RevisionGUID="c36a39a9-00ea-4f1f-bb48-707032c9e43a" CreationDate="2015-05-09T10:47:01.217" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I'd say there might be some limitations for what is used in the place of the 'nominative' before the &quot;не должно идти в ущерб&quot; expression. Typically, the subject tends to mean some continuing action (like doing something) or occupation (like a hobby) rather than some static object or thing. For example, &quot;не должно идти в ущерб&quot; can be used in a situation like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your hobby shouldn't get in the way of your working on PhD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твоё хобби не должно идти в ущерб работе над диссертацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonyms for &quot;идти в ущерб&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- вредить, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- идти во вред, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мешать &#xD;&#xA;(чему либо)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8710" RevisionGUID="9b6de246-8670-4865-b930-bbdfbc39d595" CreationDate="2015-05-09T10:52:43.303" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, they are. In addition, I'd say there might be some limitations for what is used as the subject in the place before the &quot;не должно идти в ущерб&quot; expression. Typically, the subject tends to mean some continuing action (like doing something) or occupation (like a hobby) rather than some static object or thing. For example, &quot;не должно идти в ущерб&quot; can be used in a situation like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your hobby shouldn't get in the way of your working on PhD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твоё хобби не должно идти в ущерб работе над диссертацией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonyms for &quot;идти в ущерб&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- вредить, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- идти во вред, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- мешать &#xD;&#xA;(чему либо)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8703" RevisionGUID="826ccd5a-20df-41c2-bc5b-247cb7a1dbd3" CreationDate="2015-05-09T12:30:13.500" UserId="179" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="`Злотникова` (Zlotnikova) is the family name, a feminine form of `Злотников` (Zlotnikov). `Софья` (Sofia) is the first name, which is a common Russian feminine name. `Львовна` (Lvovna) is the patronym, meaning that her father's name was `Лев` (Lev), or, before the 1917 orthographic reform, `Левъ`. Then there are dates of birth and death.  As common in Russian, the month is written in Roman numerals, while the day is in Hindu-Arabic numerals, so 8.III means March 8.  In Russian, the day should precede the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Dear &#xD;&#xA;    Mommy!&#xD;&#xA;    You will&#xD;&#xA;    always live in&#xD;&#xA;    our hearts.&#xD;&#xA;    From the husband,&#xD;&#xA;    children,&#xD;&#xA;    nephews &#xD;&#xA;    and relatives.&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21038" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8702" RevisionGUID="e6ad646e-bbd0-4e63-8668-b6c15f8c269a" CreationDate="2015-05-09T16:20:16.767" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:109,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Em1&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8712" RevisionGUID="c00e13b2-ee17-49c4-9785-d57e8182676a" CreationDate="2015-05-10T07:02:49.570" UserId="5423" Text="I started typing in Cyrillic a week ago, using Google Translate's keyboard option (so I've got a different question from [this one][1]). However, I've been downgraded from a touch-typist in English and Japanese to a hunt and peck typist for Cyrillic. When using Google Translate's keyboard, I'm especially confused by the fact that the keyboard contains more columns of letters than an English alphabet keyboard has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I learn to touch-type in Cyrillic? Solutions which are flexible in which language's Cyrillic is being taught would be useful, because I've discovered different languages [have different layouts][2] - Russian Cyrillic has &quot;йцукен&quot; for qwerty, while Mongolian Cyrillic has &quot;фцужэн&quot; for qwerty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/7397/5423&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JCUKEN" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8712" RevisionGUID="c00e13b2-ee17-49c4-9785-d57e8182676a" CreationDate="2015-05-10T07:02:49.570" UserId="5423" Text="Learning to touch-type in Cyrillic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8712" RevisionGUID="c00e13b2-ee17-49c4-9785-d57e8182676a" CreationDate="2015-05-10T07:02:49.570" UserId="5423" Text="|resources|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8714" RevisionGUID="c65af03b-2781-4093-8fa1-6f3ce76c0be2" CreationDate="2015-05-10T11:49:16.997" UserId="487" Text="I have some Russian acquaintances who use мат. They sort of explained me that information, that I can find in the dictionaries. That it's obscene language. I wonder if мат rather means playing with double sense words. Like adding hidden meanings to non-vulgar terms (similar but strictly different from the French *contrepetrie*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody explain if *мат* conveys a deep meaning I couldn't find in a dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8714" RevisionGUID="c65af03b-2781-4093-8fa1-6f3ce76c0be2" CreationDate="2015-05-10T11:49:16.997" UserId="487" Text="What does мат mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8714" RevisionGUID="c65af03b-2781-4093-8fa1-6f3ce76c0be2" CreationDate="2015-05-10T11:49:16.997" UserId="487" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8714" RevisionGUID="9ea01044-52bb-4f87-bff3-0d6ce5dcf139" CreationDate="2015-05-10T11:58:18.020" UserId="487" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I have some Russian acquaintances who use мат. They sort of explained me that information, that I can find in the dictionaries; Namely, that it's obscene language. I wonder if мат rather means playing with double sense words using tons of ingenious paranomasia. Like adding hidden meanings to non-vulgar terms (similar but strictly different from the French *contrepetrie*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody explain if *мат* conveys a deep meaning I couldn't find in a dictionary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8690" RevisionGUID="524e487b-d1f6-46f6-a30a-5ec60cf0efef" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:41:23.677" UserId="71" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Я не мог найти ответ на интернете. И когда можно употреблять это слово?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8715" RevisionGUID="70083efb-a0a7-4763-8aba-7b4c8c7f5300" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:49:27.280" UserId="5443" Text="No, there's no deeper meaning behind it, мат only means using special rude words which typically mean private parts, sexual activity, etc. Some people never use мат, others sometimes use it unintentionally (like having suddenly fallen down); generally, whether someone users it or not depends on their personal culture of speech, education, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8716" RevisionGUID="1dbff187-d736-473d-a36d-ca23b251402a" CreationDate="2015-05-10T14:20:57.670" UserId="5448" Text="Спорный вопрос. В таких случаях, когда нет прямых оснований предпочесть один вариант другому, норма написания заимствованных слов обычно определяется по факту, а традиция пока не сложилась. Мне нравится вариант &quot;китч&quot; чисто зрительно, он передаёт ощущение заимствования, чего-то иностранного. Но это, конечно, субъективно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну, подождем - увидим." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8717" RevisionGUID="bb19eaba-694d-49f0-9cac-c65dbaeb3cd2" CreationDate="2015-05-11T00:02:39.973" UserId="2079" Text="Скорее китч, по аналогии со словами &quot;матч&quot;, &quot;скотч&quot;, &quot;патч&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8718" RevisionGUID="06e7847d-49a2-48b8-a25e-bb7f3061c52b" CreationDate="2015-05-11T00:26:27.457" UserId="4560" Text="The term `мат` originates with the verb `материться`, originally &quot;to insult smb.'s mother&quot;, but the meaning has been generalised and somewhat shifted to denote using any of the taboo-grade, sexual obscenities (for the purposes of clarity, these are: `хуй`, `пизда`, `ебать`, and the relatively recently &quot;promoted&quot;, formerly not-that-obscene `блядь`, whereas `муде` is considered &quot;just barely not *мат*&quot;) or any of their morphological derivatives. There's no deeper meaning, it points specifically to the use of those words, or rather those roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8717" RevisionGUID="ad4ab674-8f98-4761-8c59-f10c14e53e8e" CreationDate="2015-05-11T00:28:22.567" UserId="2079" Comment="added 785 characters in body" Text="1. С одной стороны, `китч`, по аналогии со словами `матч`, `скотч`, `патч`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. С другой стороны, все перечисленные слова заимствованны из английского, `китч` же - из немецкого.  В немецком языке tsch - отдельный тетраграф: `Kitsch` без t (`Kisch`) читалось бы как &quot;киш&quot;.  В английском триграфа tch, имхо, нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. С третьей стороны, англичане, тоже заимствовавшие `Kitsch`, не стали менять его написание (за исключением того, что в английском языке это слово пишется со строчной буквы, а в немецком, как и другие существительные, с заглавной).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. По частотности в Корпусе примерное равенство, если смотреть по количеству документов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резюме: если нет других слов, заимствованных из немецкого с тетраграфом tsch, нет решающих доводов в ту или иную пользу. Лично мне больше нравится вариант с `т`.  Скорее всего, оба варианта правильные." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8718" RevisionGUID="67b776d9-7776-4ca0-b985-e8fe3f14a184" CreationDate="2015-05-11T00:39:52.047" UserId="4560" Comment="added paragraph on благим матом" Text="The term `мат` originates with the verb `материться`, originally &quot;to insult smb.'s mother&quot;, but the meaning has been generalised and somewhat shifted to denote using any of the taboo-grade, sexual obscenities (for the purposes of clarity, these are: `хуй`, `пизда`, `ебать`, and the relatively recently &quot;promoted&quot;, formerly not-that-obscene `блядь`, whereas `муде` is considered &quot;just barely not *мат*&quot;) or any of their morphological derivatives. There's no deeper meaning, it points specifically to the use of those words, or rather those roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In older texts, you may come across the idiom `орать благим матом`; this translates as something like &quot;to scream blue murder&quot; and **not**, as one might be tempted to assume, the quaintly oxymoronic &quot;to yell virtuous obscenities&quot;. The origin of its idiom and its relation, if any, to *мат* in the abovementioned sense are obscure; for practical purposes it's best to think of them as unrelated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8717" RevisionGUID="c42de368-d3dd-40c3-bfac-87446bd16ea1" CreationDate="2015-05-11T00:45:06.203" UserId="2079" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="1. С одной стороны, `китч`, по аналогии со словами `матч`, `скотч`, `патч`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. С другой стороны, все перечисленные слова заимствованны из английского, `китч` же - из немецкого.  В немецком языке tsch - отдельный тетраграф: `Kitsch` без t (`Kisch`) читалось бы как &quot;киш&quot;.  В английском не так: и tch, и ch читаются как &quot;ч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. С третьей стороны, англичане, тоже заимствовавшие `Kitsch`, не стали менять его написание (за исключением того, что пишут его со строчной буквы).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. По частотности в Корпусе примерное равенство, если смотреть по количеству документов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резюме: пока не найдены другие слова, заимствованные из немецкого с тетраграфом tsch, нет и решающих доводов в ту или иную пользу. **Лично мне** больше нравится вариант с `т`.  Скорее всего, оба варианта правильные." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8719" RevisionGUID="7e83e317-a9f9-4489-aa72-498fca52544f" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:10:45.463" UserId="5453" Text="I would like to suggest you to learn to touch type Cyrillic in http://www.typingstudy.com &#xD;&#xA;First you have to put a Cyrillic keyboard layout in settings and then use http://www.typingstudy.com/en-russian-3/ this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8720" RevisionGUID="c79bbc68-cd9f-4fcf-b896-6615a0f7b9e6" CreationDate="2015-05-11T16:54:59.817" UserId="115" Text="I would recommend trying a &quot;phonetic&quot; Russian keyboard layout. If you google &quot;russian phonetic keyboard&quot;, you will find a number of links explaining how to set it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you get as a result is a layout that tries to map a standard QWERTY layout phonetically to Cyrillic. So A maps to А, B maps to Б, L maps to Л, N maps to Н, etc. Of course, since there are more letters in the Russian alphabet, some of the mappings are arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can touch-type in English using the QWERTY keyboard, but I never learned the standard Russian йцукен layout. However, using the Russian phonetic layout I was able to touch-type in Russian almost immediately. I am also a native Russian speaker, so that may have a been a factor here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8653" RevisionGUID="3466ed7b-0e17-4f4d-9a04-77f696257f93" CreationDate="2015-05-11T19:33:38.710" UserId="5288" Comment="briefly explain your changes (corrected spelling, fixed grammar, improved formatting)" Text="A part of the question is still unanswered, so...   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; give us negative meaning:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ни одной ошибки.&#xD;&#xA;        no mistakes      (had been made)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double conjunction &lt;kbd&gt;ни ... ни&lt;/kbd&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                       ни ... ни       &#xD;&#xA;                    neither ... nor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       число 1 не считается ни простым, ни составным &#xD;&#xA;  the number 1 is not considered either prime or composite &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Note: In the sentence where the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt; renders negative meaning of the verb, words with the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; should be followed by the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt;:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  One thing he did make his mind up about was not to bother to get up&#xD;&#xA;  very early and cook everybody else's wretched breakfast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Единственное, что он твёрдо решил, — ни в коем случае не вставать &#xD;&#xA;  ни свет ни заря, чтобы накормить всех этих дармоедов. 	 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                         [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Hobbit] &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Should we have both nouns in genitive?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`Ни рыба ни мясо` is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=30&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=12973&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E8&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F0%FB%E1%E0&amp;gramm2=nom&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%ED%E8&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m2=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=1&amp;lex4=%EC%FF%F1%EE&amp;gramm4=nom&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&quot; title=&quot;Ни рыба ни мясо&quot;&gt;fixed phrase&lt;/a&gt;. It may used as a non breaking unit in a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  они   ни то ни сё,  ни рыба ни мясо. &#xD;&#xA; └───┘ └───────────┘ └───────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                            [Ростопчин. (1812)]&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;  что мы такое? ни рыба ни мясо,  ни Европа ни Азия. &#xD;&#xA;               └───────────────┘ └─────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                  [Бестужев-Марлинский. (1833)]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The structure `Он (is) ни рыба ни мясо` will require nominative case between the two units (that means no link with inflection). Note: A comma is omitted.&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;In contrast, there is an ordinary sentence with its ordinary units:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;  Там вообще жизнь духовная, там не нужны ни рыба, ни мясо, ни хлеб, ни вода.&#xD;&#xA;                                         └───────┘└───────┘└───────┘└───────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                            [Протоиерей Д.Смирнов. (1984-1989)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Он не ел ни рыбы, ни мяса. &#xD;&#xA;          └───────┘└───────┘                                &#xD;&#xA;                In &quot;ни мяса&quot; we have literally &quot;(there is) no (of a) meat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  В городе нет (кого?чего?) ни хлеба, ни рыбы, ни мяса.     Родительный/Gen&#xD;&#xA;                           └────────┘└───────┘└───────┘     &#xD;&#xA;  Он не любил (кого?что?) ни рыбу, ни мясо                  Винительный/Accu&#xD;&#xA;                         └───────┘└───────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;  Он не был рад (кому?чему?) ни рыбе, ни мясу.              Дательный/Dat   &#xD;&#xA;                            └───────┘└───────┘              &#xD;&#xA;  Это животное не кормят (кем?чем?) ни рыбой, ни мясом.     Творительный/Instr&#xD;&#xA;                                   └────────┘└────────┘ &#xD;&#xA;                         &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is mere coincidence that a fixed phrase appear very similar to a sequence of objects of an action (direct objects)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8653" RevisionGUID="d39df9d5-fef8-4ab3-9e1e-c55fcf6e09c5" CreationDate="2015-05-11T19:48:25.390" UserId="5288" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="A part of the question is still unanswered, so...   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; give us negative meaning:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ни одной ошибки.&#xD;&#xA;        no mistakes      (had been made)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double conjunction &lt;kbd&gt;ни ... ни&lt;/kbd&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                       ни ... ни       &#xD;&#xA;                    neither ... nor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       число 1 не считается ни простым, ни составным &#xD;&#xA;  the number 1 is not considered either prime or composite &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Note: In the sentence where the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt; renders negative meaning of the verb, words with the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; should be followed by the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt;:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  One thing he did make his mind up about was not to bother to get up&#xD;&#xA;  very early and cook everybody else's wretched breakfast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Единственное, что он твёрдо решил, — ни в коем случае не вставать &#xD;&#xA;  ни свет ни заря, чтобы накормить всех этих дармоедов. 	 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                         [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Hobbit] &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Should we have both nouns in genitive?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`Ни рыба ни мясо` is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=30&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=12973&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E8&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F0%FB%E1%E0&amp;gramm2=nom&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%ED%E8&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m2=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=1&amp;lex4=%EC%FF%F1%EE&amp;gramm4=nom&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&quot; title=&quot;Ни рыба ни мясо&quot;&gt;fixed phrase&lt;/a&gt;. It may used as a non breaking unit in a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  они   ни то ни сё,  ни рыба ни мясо. &#xD;&#xA; └───┘ └───────────┘ └───────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                            [Ростопчин. (1812)]&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;  что мы такое? ни рыба ни мясо,  ни Европа ни Азия. &#xD;&#xA;               └───────────────┘ └─────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                  [Бестужев-Марлинский. (1833)]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The structure `Он (is) ни рыба ни мясо` will require nominative case between the two units (that means no link with inflection). Note: A comma is omitted.&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;In contrast, there is an ordinary sentence with its ordinary units:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;  Там вообще жизнь духовная, там не нужны ни рыба, ни мясо, ни хлеб, ни вода.&#xD;&#xA;                                         └───────┘└───────┘└───────┘└───────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                   [Протоиерей Д.Смирнов. (1984-1989)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Он не ел ни рыбы, ни мяса. &#xD;&#xA;          └───────┘└───────┘                                &#xD;&#xA;                In &quot;ни мяса&quot; we have literally &quot;(there is) no (of a) meat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  В городе нет (кого?чего?) ни хлеба, ни рыбы, ни мяса.              Родительный/Gen&#xD;&#xA;                           └────────┘└───────┘└───────┘     &#xD;&#xA;  Он не любил (кого?что?) ни хлеб, ни рыбу, ни мясо.                 Винительный/Accu&#xD;&#xA;                         └───────┘└───────┘└───────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;  Он не был рад (кому?чему?) ни хлебу, ни рыбе, ни мясу.             Дательный/Dat   &#xD;&#xA;                            └────────┘└───────┘└───────┘              &#xD;&#xA;  Это животное не кормят (кем?чем?) ни хлебом, ни рыбой, ни мясом.   Творит./Instr&#xD;&#xA;                                   └─────────┘└────────┘└────────┘  &#xD;&#xA;                         &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is mere coincidence that a fixed phrase appear very similar to a sequence of objects of an action (direct objects)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8653" RevisionGUID="cc838f31-a8a3-4271-9a0b-9798c114850b" CreationDate="2015-05-11T20:17:14.967" UserId="5288" Comment="added 823 characters in body" Text="A part of the question is still unanswered, so...   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; give us negative meaning:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      ни одной ошибки.&#xD;&#xA;        no mistakes      (had been made)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The double conjunction &lt;kbd&gt;ни ... ни&lt;/kbd&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                       ни ... ни       &#xD;&#xA;                    neither ... nor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       число 1 не считается ни простым, ни составным &#xD;&#xA;  the number 1 is not considered either prime or composite &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Note: In the sentence where the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt; renders negative meaning of the verb, words with the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;ни&lt;/kbd&gt; should be followed by the particle  &lt;kbd&gt;не&lt;/kbd&gt;:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  One thing he did make his mind up about was not to bother to get up&#xD;&#xA;  very early and cook everybody else's wretched breakfast. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Единственное, что он твёрдо решил, — ни в коем случае не вставать &#xD;&#xA;  ни свет ни заря, чтобы накормить всех этих дармоедов. 	 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                         [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Hobbit] &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Should we have both nouns in genitive?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`Ни рыба ни мясо` is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=30&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=12973&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E8&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F0%FB%E1%E0&amp;gramm2=nom&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%ED%E8&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m2=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=1&amp;lex4=%EC%FF%F1%EE&amp;gramm4=nom&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&quot; title=&quot;Ни рыба ни мясо&quot;&gt;fixed phrase&lt;/a&gt;. It may used as a non breaking unit in a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  они   ни то ни сё,  ни рыба ни мясо. &#xD;&#xA; └───┘ └───────────┘ └───────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                            [Ростопчин. (1812)]&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;  что мы такое? ни рыба ни мясо,  ни Европа ни Азия. &#xD;&#xA;               └───────────────┘ └─────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                  [Бестужев-Марлинский. (1833)]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The structure `Он (is) ни рыба ни мясо` will require nominative case between the two units (that means no link with inflection). Note: A comma is omitted.&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;In contrast, there is an ordinary sentence with its ordinary units:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;  Там вообще жизнь духовная, там не нужны ни рыба, ни мясо, ни хлеб, ни вода.&#xD;&#xA;                                         └───────┘└───────┘└───────┘└───────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                   [Протоиерей Д.Смирнов. (1984-1989)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Он не ел ни рыбы, ни мяса. &#xD;&#xA;          └───────┘└───────┘                                &#xD;&#xA;                In &quot;ни мяса&quot; we have literally &quot;(there is) no (of a) meat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  В городе нет (кого?чего?) ни хлеба, ни рыбы, ни мяса.              Родительный/Gen&#xD;&#xA;                           └────────┘└───────┘└───────┘     &#xD;&#xA;  Он не любил (кого?что?) ни хлеб, ни рыбу, ни мясо.                 Винительный/Accu&#xD;&#xA;                         └───────┘└───────┘└───────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;  Он не был рад (кому?чему?) ни хлебу, ни рыбе, ни мясу.             Дательный/Dat   &#xD;&#xA;                            └────────┘└───────┘└───────┘              &#xD;&#xA;  Это животное не кормят (кем?чем?) ни хлебом, ни рыбой, ни мясом.   Творит./Instr&#xD;&#xA;                                   └─────────┘└────────┘└────────┘  &#xD;&#xA;                         &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is mere coincidence that a fixed phrase appear very similar to a sequence of objects of an action (direct objects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you may be interested to know    &#xD;&#xA;[Usage example 1](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=18834&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E8&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=bcomma&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=12&amp;lex2=%ED%E8&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)   &#xD;&#xA;[Usage example 2](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=random&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=5012&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E8&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=18&amp;lex2=%ED%E8&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8721" RevisionGUID="299cc00e-4481-46fa-ab76-c28111ba8a36" CreationDate="2015-05-11T20:33:45.460" UserId="5455" Text="Which one is correct, or are they both? Is there a difference in meaning between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8721" RevisionGUID="299cc00e-4481-46fa-ab76-c28111ba8a36" CreationDate="2015-05-11T20:33:45.460" UserId="5455" Text="&quot;он или она сделает&quot; vs &quot;он или она сделают&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8721" RevisionGUID="299cc00e-4481-46fa-ab76-c28111ba8a36" CreationDate="2015-05-11T20:33:45.460" UserId="5455" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8709" RevisionGUID="51f4050d-b910-4368-9f8d-663cb3615b95" CreationDate="2015-05-11T20:39:38.943" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1433 characters in body" Text="`1  = I had fun.`    &#xD;&#xA;`2! = Have fun!`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite &amp; ceremonious&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Я имел удовольствие (... doing what one has). / Я хорошо провел время. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю вам весело/хорошо провести время! / Желаю вам приятно отдохнуть!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Usage example with a context:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=4129&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%E8%EC%E5%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%F3%E4%EE%E2%EE%EB%FC%F1%F2%E2%E8%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;я/ты/они/мы/те ... имел(и/а) удовольствие ...&quot;&gt;я/ты/они/мы/те ... имел(и/а) удовольствие ...&lt;/a&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;min5=1&amp;max5=4&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m2=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%F5%EE%F0%EE%F8%EE&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod5=sem&amp;sem-mod5=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m5=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=4&amp;lex3=%EF%F0%EE%E2%E5%F1%F2%E8&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=4&amp;lex4=%E2%F0%E5%EC%FF&amp;gramm4=&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&quot; title=&quot;я/ты/они/мы/те ... хорошо провел(а/и) ... время&quot;&gt;я/ты/они/мы/те ... хорошо провел(а/и) ... время&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite, modestly  &amp; ever-so-slight informal&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Было очень даже ничего. / Доставило удовольствие. / Приятно отдохнул. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Приятно провести время! / Приятно отдохнуть! / Веселого дня&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечера&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /дискотеки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечеринки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /праздника/...!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Informal &amp; slight familiarly &amp; the party is going wild&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Классно было. / Отличненько было. / Давно я не получал такого удовольствия.&#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю развлечься по-полной! / Давай, удачи, поразвлекайся! &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;When you don't really care &amp; emotions started to go off-scale&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Обалденно было. / Оторвался на славу. / Повеселились как надо. / Это было одуренно.&#xD;&#xA;2!   The text on a button: Приколись!&#xD;&#xA;     Отожги там по-полной!&#xD;&#xA;     Давай, оторвись там!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8722" RevisionGUID="d4cc48a5-f79d-4ed4-8a63-e2275e434d87" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:02:19.367" UserId="2148" Text="1. &quot;или&quot; means &quot;or&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;сделает&quot; is a singular form of verb &quot;сделать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;сделают&quot; is a plural verb of verb &quot;сделать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He or she will make &lt;...&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that a single person out of two will make it, therefore, it needs a singular verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он или она сделает &lt;...&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8709" RevisionGUID="1f778a6a-02cf-40d3-9772-e6d6cbb65633" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:02:45.870" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1546 characters in body" Text="`1  = I had fun.`    &#xD;&#xA;`2! = Have fun!`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite &amp; ceremonious&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Я имел удовольствие (... doing what one has). / Я хорошо провел время. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю вам весело/хорошо провести время! / Желаю вам приятно отдохнуть!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Usage example with a context:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=4129&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%E8%EC%E5%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%F3%E4%EE%E2%EE%EB%FC%F1%F2%E2%E8%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;я/ты/они/мы/те ... имел(и/а) удовольствие ...&quot;&gt;я/ты/они/мы/те ... имел(и/а) удовольствие ...&lt;/a&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;min5=1&amp;max5=4&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m2=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%F5%EE%F0%EE%F8%EE&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod5=sem&amp;sem-mod5=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m5=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=4&amp;lex3=%EF%F0%EE%E2%E5%F1%F2%E8&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=4&amp;lex4=%E2%F0%E5%EC%FF&amp;gramm4=&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&quot; title=&quot;я/ты/они/мы/те ... хорошо провел(а/и) ... время&quot;&gt;я/ты/они/мы/те ... хорошо провел(а/и) ... время&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite, modestly  &amp; ever-so-slight informal&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Было очень даже ничего. / Доставило удовольствие. / Приятно отдохнул. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Приятно провести время! / Приятно отдохнуть! / Веселого дня&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечера&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /дискотеки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечеринки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /праздника/...!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Usage example with a context:     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=28058&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%EE%F7%E5%ED%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%E4%E0%E6%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=1&amp;lex4=&amp;gramm4=%28ADV%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;было очень даже неплохо/хорошо/приятно ...&quot;&gt;нам/вам/тем было ... я/ты/они/мы/те/ваши ... очень даже неплохо/хорошо/приятно ... &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(some filtration of results is required)     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=12887&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%E4%EE%F1%F2%E0%E2%EB%FF%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=praet&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=3&amp;lex3=%F3%E4%EE%E2%EE%EB%FC%F1%F2%E2%E8%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;мне/нам/вам/тем ... доставляло ... удовольствие ..&quot;&gt;мне/нам/вам/тем ... доставляло ... удовольствие ... &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Informal &amp; slight familiarly &amp; the party is going wild&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Классно было. / Отличненько было. / Давно я не получал такого удовольствия.&#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю развлечься по-полной! / Давай, удачи, поразвлекайся! &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;When you don't really care &amp; emotions started to go off-scale&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Обалденно было. / Оторвался на славу. / Повеселились как надо. / Это было одуренно.&#xD;&#xA;2!   The text on a button: Приколись!&#xD;&#xA;     Отожги там по-полной!&#xD;&#xA;     Давай, оторвись там!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8723" RevisionGUID="f4a9f6b5-d4c1-42c4-8e42-a342a095b427" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:08:16.387" UserId="5448" Text="Contextlу possible:  &#xD;&#xA;Хороших (приятных) впечатлений (if smbd makes a trip)  &#xD;&#xA;удачи (=good luck!)  &#xD;&#xA;всего хорошего (наилучшего)! (=be well!)  &#xD;&#xA;etc  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8709" RevisionGUID="223a8cf5-ae22-498f-bbf8-ff2473f6b409" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:15:51.377" UserId="5288" Comment="added 745 characters in body" Text="`1  = I had fun.`    &#xD;&#xA;`2! = Have fun!`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite &amp; ceremonious&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Я имел удовольствие (... doing what one has). / Я хорошо провел время. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю вам весело/хорошо провести время! / Желаю вам приятно отдохнуть!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Usage example with a context:    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=4129&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%E8%EC%E5%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%F3%E4%EE%E2%EE%EB%FC%F1%F2%E2%E8%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;я/ты/они/мы/те ... имел(и/а) удовольствие ...&quot;&gt;я/ты/они/мы/те ... имел(и/а) удовольствие ...&lt;/a&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;min5=1&amp;max5=4&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m2=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%F5%EE%F0%EE%F8%EE&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod5=sem&amp;sem-mod5=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m5=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=4&amp;lex3=%EF%F0%EE%E2%E5%F1%F2%E8&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=4&amp;lex4=%E2%F0%E5%EC%FF&amp;gramm4=&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&quot; title=&quot;я/ты/они/мы/те ... хорошо провел(а/и) ... время&quot;&gt;я/ты/они/мы/те ... хорошо провел(а/и) ... время&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polite, modestly  &amp; ever-so-slight informal&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Было очень даже ничего. / Доставило удовольствие. / Приятно отдохнул. &#xD;&#xA;2!   Приятно провести время! / Приятно отдохнуть! / Веселого дня&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечера&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /дискотеки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /вечеринки&#xD;&#xA;                                                             /праздника/...!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Usage example with a context:     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=28058&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%EE%F7%E5%ED%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%E4%E0%E6%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;parent4=0&amp;level4=0&amp;min4=1&amp;max4=1&amp;lex4=&amp;gramm4=%28ADV%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem4=&amp;sem-mod4=sem&amp;sem-mod4=sem2&amp;flags4=&amp;m4=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;было очень даже неплохо/хорошо/приятно ...&quot;&gt;нам/вам/тем было ... я/ты/они/мы/те/ваши ... очень даже неплохо/хорошо/приятно ... &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(some filtration of results is required)     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_created&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=12887&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%E4%EE%F1%F2%E0%E2%EB%FF%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=praet&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=3&amp;lex3=%F3%E4%EE%E2%EE%EB%FC%F1%F2%E2%E8%E5&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;мне/нам/вам/тем ... доставляло ... удовольствие ..&quot;&gt;мне/нам/вам/тем ... доставляло ... удовольствие ... &lt;/a&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=random&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=6858&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=%28SPRO%7CAPRO%7CPRAEDICPRO%7CADVPRO%29&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=%28ADV%7CPRAEDIC%7CADVPRO%29+%26+ADV&amp;sem2=ev%3Aposit&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=6&amp;lex3=%EE%F2%E4%EE%F5%ED%F3%F2%FC&amp;gramm3=praet&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en&quot; title=&quot;мы/я/они/те/ваши ... приятно/хорошо/отлично/удивительно/ ... отдохнули ... &quot;&gt;мы/я/они/те/ваши ... приятно/хорошо/отлично/удивительно/ ... отдохнули ... &lt;/a&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Informal &amp; slight familiarly &amp; the party is going wild&lt;/h3&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;1    Классно было. / Отличненько было. / Давно я не получал такого удовольствия.&#xD;&#xA;2!   Желаю развлечься по-полной! / Давай, удачи, поразвлекайся! &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;When you don't really care &amp; emotions started to go off-scale&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    Обалденно было. / Оторвался на славу. / Повеселились как надо. / Это было одуренно.&#xD;&#xA;2!   The text on a button: Приколись!&#xD;&#xA;     Отожги там по-полной!&#xD;&#xA;     Давай, оторвись там!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8708" RevisionGUID="881d1c95-d9df-4d07-be02-091bf30ba61d" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:24:33.520" UserId="4097" Comment="grammar fixes " Text="Я долго думал, но так и не смог придумать, как перевести &quot;I had fun/I'm having fun/It's fun&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли подобные выражения в русском языке?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21070" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8708" RevisionGUID="881d1c95-d9df-4d07-be02-091bf30ba61d" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:24:33.520" Comment="Proposed by 4097 approved by 487, 3680 edit id of 625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8724" RevisionGUID="ec8b0361-b08c-45fe-940c-c7502c28fa74" CreationDate="2015-05-11T21:42:55.857" UserId="5443" Text="Much depends on context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Typically, in cases without an emphasis on 'who of them' (he, she or both) &quot;сделают&quot; is suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они это сделают - он или она. (They will do it - either he or she. &lt;at least one of them&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он или она сделают это. (Be it he or she - they will do it. &lt;word order emphathizes &quot;сделают&quot;&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If definied 'just one of them will do it', then more likely &quot;сделает&quot; is the choice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не так важно, он или она это сделает. (It's not so important, who of them will do it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кто-то из них - он или она - сделает это. (similar meaning: one of them, either he or she)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8661" RevisionGUID="3733a0aa-f599-41f7-b022-c768d9941db8" CreationDate="2015-05-12T01:17:47.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/597933655604989953" />
  <row Id="21073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8725" RevisionGUID="89681bc4-6074-4f32-8144-9437eb8b529f" CreationDate="2015-05-12T03:11:56.390" UserId="4966" Text="I've seen both used for both people and things.  So are they interchangeable?  What's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8725" RevisionGUID="89681bc4-6074-4f32-8144-9437eb8b529f" CreationDate="2015-05-12T03:11:56.390" UserId="4966" Text="Имя vs название" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8725" RevisionGUID="89681bc4-6074-4f32-8144-9437eb8b529f" CreationDate="2015-05-12T03:11:56.390" UserId="4966" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8726" RevisionGUID="841ee811-f705-40c8-9445-a6c8a5d088e4" CreationDate="2015-05-12T03:50:50.450" UserId="4379" Text="Basically, `имя` is used for people, and `название` is for inanimate things. However, `имя` can also be used for pet nicknames (`собака по имени Шарик`), names of ships and aircrafts (e.g. `крейсер с именем Аврора`), geographical locations such as cities, mountains, rivers and so on, (in programming) variable names (`имена переменных`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8727" RevisionGUID="5f11a054-8df5-4e6b-94dc-ed099abb7584" CreationDate="2015-05-12T06:37:04.637" UserId="5443" Text="In contemporary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**имя**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- first name of a person (Василий, Вася; second name = фамилия)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- file name (computer engineering), names of variables in mathematics, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- things in some idiomatic expressions (называть вещи своими *именами* = to call a spade a spade)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- used for naming something in someone's honour: Kirov (now Mariinsky) Theatre = Театр *имени* Кирова, and despite using the word &quot;имя&quot; that is &quot;название театра&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammar terms (*имя* существительное = noun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most other cases words **наименование** or **название** are used. Животные - *наименование* биологического вида. Тигр и лев - *названия* диких кошачьих. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is sometimes possible to use имя for ships or pets, that would be rather informal usage. Much more typical is *название* корабля and *кличка* собаки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8728" RevisionGUID="e2182a18-64d5-4e64-9224-76dc4edf3868" CreationDate="2015-05-12T10:53:03.073" UserId="5457" Text="&gt; - И еще один вопрос интересующий больше русских верующих —  правда ли, что  в День Света на плите Гроба  лежит вата? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Нет. В  день Света на плите Святого Гроба  нет ваты. Там стоят лампады.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://armenianchurch.do.am/publ/paskhalnoe_palomnichestvo_v_ierusalim/2-1-0-44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translates this as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Another issue of interest to many Russian believers - is it true that on the Day of Light at the plate Holy Sepulchre is wool?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - No. On the day of the World at the plate Holy Sepulchre is not wool. There are lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more accurate translation would be appreciated, but I am especially bewildered by the translation of &quot;вата&quot; or &quot;ваты&quot; as &quot;wool&quot;, which makes no sense, when something quite different (perhaps &quot;miraculous&quot;?) would be expected. Every online dictionary I can find fails to provide any meaning of &quot;вата&quot; or &quot;ваты&quot; as anything but &quot;wool&quot; or the like. Is this some sort of idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8728" RevisionGUID="e2182a18-64d5-4e64-9224-76dc4edf3868" CreationDate="2015-05-12T10:53:03.073" UserId="5457" Text="&quot;вата&quot; meaning something other than &quot;wool&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8728" RevisionGUID="e2182a18-64d5-4e64-9224-76dc4edf3868" CreationDate="2015-05-12T10:53:03.073" UserId="5457" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8729" RevisionGUID="46cd2d96-3697-471d-b058-36eda3de8ea2" CreationDate="2015-05-12T11:08:39.273" UserId="4801" Text="I'm not a religious person, but from the source it seems there were debates on how the candles on the slab are lit. People ask if they are lit from cotton wool. A quick google search shows that there might be implications that the cotton wool (if placed on the slab) can be lit by some miraculous act:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После солнца - тотчас облако, потом роса и вследствие росы - Огонь. Роса падает на вату, которая лежит на Гробе Господнем, - и мокрая вата вдруг загорается голубым Огнём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the father answers that there is no wool on the slab, just oil lamps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8729" RevisionGUID="82e06080-cc4d-411c-a5e7-7d970bc688a0" CreationDate="2015-05-12T11:23:00.047" UserId="4801" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="I'm not a religious person, but from the source it seems there were debates on how the candles on the slab are lit. People ask if they are lit from cotton wool. A quick google search shows that there might be implications that the cotton wool (if placed on the slab) can be lit by some miraculous act:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После солнца - тотчас облако, потом роса и вследствие росы - Огонь. Роса падает на вату, которая лежит на Гробе Господнем, - и мокрая вата вдруг загорается голубым Огнём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the father answers that there is no wool on the slab, just oil lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the question is about cotton wool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And another question that interests mainly Russian believers: is it true that on the Day of Light [not sure how it is called in English, it is the Saturday of the Holy Week] there is cotton wool on the slab of the Holy Sepulcher?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No, there is no wool on the slab of the Holy Sepulcher on the Day of Light. There are only oil lamps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8730" RevisionGUID="1f04394c-edcc-493b-bd8e-683609891bec" CreationDate="2015-05-13T14:35:51.887" UserId="194" Text="Название = designation. If you cannot call a thing &quot;designation&quot;, then use имя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21085" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8725" RevisionGUID="2af6e7e6-09d4-4e73-a760-a7cb4d96a0d7" CreationDate="2015-05-14T01:22:12.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/598659543598497793" />
  <row Id="21087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8731" RevisionGUID="0422c8f3-1de5-4b1d-a58a-7cdf8ac0e34a" CreationDate="2015-05-15T06:58:20.707" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma after the word **Другая** here?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...эта история и по сей день тревожит их умы. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Другая**, тоже весьма&#xD;&#xA;&gt; популярная история в наших кругах – о том, как в деревню приходили&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медведи – также не даёт им покоя...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8731" RevisionGUID="0422c8f3-1de5-4b1d-a58a-7cdf8ac0e34a" CreationDate="2015-05-15T06:58:20.707" UserId="170" Text="Comma before &quot;тоже&quot; between two modifiers modifying the same noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8731" RevisionGUID="0422c8f3-1de5-4b1d-a58a-7cdf8ac0e34a" CreationDate="2015-05-15T06:58:20.707" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8732" RevisionGUID="d117d1c2-42d4-4e40-b6c5-ad2f8beefdfd" CreationDate="2015-05-15T09:48:02.433" UserId="134" Text="From Lopatin's *Полный академический справочник*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 84. Присоединительные члены предложения имеют характер сведений добавочных, сообщаемых попутно, в дополнение к содержанию основного высказывания. Такие члены предложения выделяются запятыми и обычно вводятся словами и сочетаниями слов (частицами, союзами или их сочетанием) *даже, в особенности, особенно, главным &#xD;&#xA;образом, в том числе, в частности, например, и притом, и потому, да и, да и только, да и вообще, и, тоже, и тоже, причем* и др.: …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  * Большое, тоже квадратное, окно выходило в садик (Зал.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to isolate the whole clause with commas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другая, тоже весьма популярная, история в наших кругах…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should mention that the way this sentence is built makes the modifier dangling: *в наших кругах* comments *история* rather than *популярная* which it apparently should." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8733" RevisionGUID="acd7b3cb-53b2-41fe-865f-eae686d1360c" CreationDate="2015-05-15T13:45:36.537" UserId="5288" Text="**Definitions**   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;       act of mentioning by word is &lt;b&gt;Называть,&lt;/b&gt;               &#xD;&#xA;              and give us in result&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                   (nouns)&#xD;&#xA;                  &lt;b&gt;Названия&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;                    /  \&#xD;&#xA;                   /    \&#xD;&#xA;                  /      \&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;имена собственные   &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;имена нарицательные&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      (proper name)       (common name)&#xD;&#xA;               /            \&#xD;&#xA;              /              \&#xD;&#xA;      ┌───────────┐       ┌───────────┐     &#xD;&#xA;         read.me             file      &#xD;&#xA;         system              folder    &#xD;&#xA;         Владимир            human     *&#xD;&#xA;         Tokio               city      &#xD;&#xA;         Рекс                dog       *   &#xD;&#xA;         Победа              chip      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * see special usage below&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Атомные подводные лодки называются именами городов. &lt;sub&gt;[«Известия»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2002.03.21]&lt;/sub&gt;    Стали вырастать один за другим поселки, и их справедливо называли именами первооткрывателей. &lt;sub&gt;[В. Писигин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Письма с Чукотки // «Октябрь», 2001]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;   &lt;b&gt;human, pet&lt;/b&gt;                                            &#xD;&#xA;   ──┬───────&#xD;&#xA;     │                   ┌ физрук         - Андрей Андреевич              &#xD;&#xA;     │       ┌  учитель ─┤ химичка        - Алла Андреевна              &#xD;&#xA;     │       │           └ трудовик       - Борис Борисович&#xD;&#xA;     └ human ┤                            &#xD;&#xA;             │           ┌ первоклассник  - Геннадий&#xD;&#xA;             └  ученик  ─┤ второклассник  - Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                         └ выпускник      - Евгений&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;      └─────┘ └───────┘   └─────────────┘  └─────────────────┘                   &#xD;&#xA;      └─────────────────────────────────┘          имена          &#xD;&#xA;                названия        &#xD;&#xA;                        &#xD;&#xA;   &lt;b&gt;A thing or place (in time or space).&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;   ─┬───────                         &#xD;&#xA;    │                ┌ сухогруз        -  Севастополь               &#xD;&#xA;    │ ┌   корабль    ┤ лайнер          -  Стрела&#xD;&#xA;    │ │              └ фрегат          -  Победа &#xD;&#xA;    │ │                               &#xD;&#xA;    └─┤              ┌ село            -  Дубравино&#xD;&#xA;      │              │ районный центр  -  Купавино&#xD;&#xA;      │  Населенный  ┤ станица         -  Луганская&#xD;&#xA;      └    пункт     │ город           -  Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                     └ столица         -  Токио&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;          └─────┘      └───────┘         └────────────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;                названия                     имена   &#xD;&#xA;          └───────────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                            названия&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не говорим:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название учителя Андрей Борисович&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название ребенка Кирилл&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название собаки Рекс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы говорим:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название города Томск&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название яхты Победа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Название придумывают или составляют, и затем дают как для целого класса предметов или явлений, так и для отдельных предметов. Когда мы произносим нарицательные имена вещей, мы фактически утверждаем, что этот предмет относится к данному классу.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каждый элемент данного, названного класса, в свою очередь, может быть или поименован, или пронумерован уже существующими именами. Таким образом получают имена индивидуальные элементы Андрей, Борис, Владимир, ... и Первый, Второй, Третий ... .   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8733" RevisionGUID="e8378dfe-d5f8-409f-96ae-168909a02b0b" CreationDate="2015-05-15T14:16:40.167" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1183 characters in body" Text="**Definitions**   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;       act of mentioning by word is &lt;b&gt;Называть,&lt;/b&gt;               &#xD;&#xA;              and give us in result&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                   (nouns)&#xD;&#xA;                  &lt;b&gt;Названия&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;                    /  \&#xD;&#xA;                   /    \&#xD;&#xA;                  /      \&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;имена собственные   &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;имена нарицательные&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      (proper name)       (common name)&#xD;&#xA;               /            \&#xD;&#xA;              /              \&#xD;&#xA;      ┌───────────┐       ┌───────────┐     &#xD;&#xA;         read.me             file      &#xD;&#xA;         system              folder    &#xD;&#xA;         Владимир            human     *&#xD;&#xA;         Tokio               city      &#xD;&#xA;         Рекс                dog       *   &#xD;&#xA;         Победа              chip      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * see special usage below&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Атомные подводные лодки называются именами городов. &lt;sub&gt;[«Известия»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2002.03.21]&lt;/sub&gt;    Стали вырастать один за другим поселки, и их справедливо называли именами первооткрывателей. &lt;sub&gt;[В. Писигин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Письма с Чукотки // «Октябрь», 2001]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;   &lt;b&gt;human, pet&lt;/b&gt;                                            &#xD;&#xA;   ──┬───────&#xD;&#xA;     │                   ┌ физрук         - Андрей Андреевич              &#xD;&#xA;     │       ┌  учитель ─┤ химичка        - Алла Андреевна              &#xD;&#xA;     │       │           └ трудовик       - Борис Борисович&#xD;&#xA;     └ human ┤                            &#xD;&#xA;             │           ┌ первоклассник  - Геннадий&#xD;&#xA;             └  ученик  ─┤ второклассник  - Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                         └ выпускник      - Евгений&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;      └─────┘ └───────┘   └─────────────┘  └─────────────────┘                   &#xD;&#xA;      └─────────────────────────────────┘          имена          &#xD;&#xA;                названия        &#xD;&#xA;                        &#xD;&#xA;   &lt;b&gt;A thing or place (in time or space).&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;   ─┬───────                         &#xD;&#xA;    │                ┌ сухогруз        -  Севастополь               &#xD;&#xA;    │ ┌   корабль    ┤ лайнер          -  Стрела&#xD;&#xA;    │ │              └ фрегат          -  Победа &#xD;&#xA;    │ │                               &#xD;&#xA;    └─┤              ┌ село            -  Дубравино&#xD;&#xA;      │              │ районный центр  -  Купавино&#xD;&#xA;      │  Населенный  ┤ станица         -  Луганская&#xD;&#xA;      └    пункт     │ город           -  Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                     └ столица         -  Токио&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;          └─────┘      └───────┘         └────────────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;                названия                     имена   &#xD;&#xA;          └───────────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                            названия&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не говорим:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название учителя Андрей Борисович&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название ребенка Кирилл&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название собаки Рекс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы говорим:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название города Томск | имя старинного русского города Тверь&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название яхты Победа  | имя корабля ― «Восток»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples with a context    &#xD;&#xA;(1) [населенные пункты](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=random&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=1254&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E8%EC%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%E3%EE%F0%EE%E4&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Apropn+%26+t%3Atopon&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en), (2) [корабль](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E8%EC%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%EA%EE%F0%E0%E1%EB%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Aconcr%20%7C%20%28t%3Ahum%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Aetn%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Akin%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Asupernat%29&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Название придумывают или составляют, и затем дают как для целого класса предметов или явлений, так и для отдельных предметов. Когда мы произносим нарицательные имена вещей, мы фактически утверждаем, что этот предмет относится к данному классу.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каждый элемент данного, названного класса, в свою очередь, может быть или поименован, или пронумерован уже существующими именами. Таким образом получают имена индивидуальные элементы Андрей, Борис, Владимир, ... и Первый, Второй, Третий ... .   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8733" RevisionGUID="5dafc824-18e4-416f-b215-812765fd99bd" CreationDate="2015-05-15T14:27:39.287" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1183 characters in body" Text="**Definitions**   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;       act of mentioning by word is &lt;b&gt;Называть,&lt;/b&gt;               &#xD;&#xA;              and give us in result&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                   (nouns)&#xD;&#xA;                  &lt;b&gt;Названия&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;                    /  \&#xD;&#xA;                   /    \&#xD;&#xA;                  /      \&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;имена собственные   &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;имена нарицательные&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      (proper name)       (common name)&#xD;&#xA;               /            \&#xD;&#xA;              /              \&#xD;&#xA;      ┌───────────┐       ┌───────────┐     &#xD;&#xA;         read.me             file      &#xD;&#xA;         system              folder    &#xD;&#xA;         Владимир            human     *&#xD;&#xA;         Tokio               city      &#xD;&#xA;         Рекс                dog       *   &#xD;&#xA;         Победа              chip      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * see special usage below&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Атомные подводные лодки называются именами городов. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                                           [«Известия»,2002.03.21]    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Стали вырастать один за другим поселки, и их справедливо называли &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     именами первооткрывателей.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                 [В. Писигин. Письма с Чукотки // «Октябрь», 2001]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Карданус предлагал, «чтобы не было стыдно», славное имя «Ермака»&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     отменить и кораблю присвоить название «Ледокол Э 2».&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                   [Б. Г. Островский. Адмирал Макаров (1949-1955)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;   &lt;b&gt;human, pet&lt;/b&gt;                                            &#xD;&#xA;   ──┬───────&#xD;&#xA;     │                   ┌ физрук         - Андрей Андреевич              &#xD;&#xA;     │       ┌  учитель ─┤ химичка        - Алла Андреевна              &#xD;&#xA;     │       │           └ трудовик       - Борис Борисович&#xD;&#xA;     └ human ┤                            &#xD;&#xA;             │           ┌ первоклассник  - Геннадий&#xD;&#xA;             └  ученик  ─┤ второклассник  - Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                         └ выпускник      - Евгений&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;      └─────┘ └───────┘   └─────────────┘  └─────────────────┘                   &#xD;&#xA;      └─────────────────────────────────┘          имена          &#xD;&#xA;                названия        &#xD;&#xA;                        &#xD;&#xA;   &lt;b&gt;A thing or place (in time or space).&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;   ─┬───────                         &#xD;&#xA;    │                ┌ сухогруз        -  Севастополь               &#xD;&#xA;    │ ┌   корабль    ┤ лайнер          -  Стрела&#xD;&#xA;    │ │              └ фрегат          -  Победа &#xD;&#xA;    │ │                               &#xD;&#xA;    └─┤              ┌ село            -  Дубравино&#xD;&#xA;      │              │ районный центр  -  Купавино&#xD;&#xA;      │  Населенный  ┤ станица         -  Луганская&#xD;&#xA;      └    пункт     │ город           -  Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                     └ столица         -  Токио&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;          └─────┘      └───────┘         └────────────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;                названия                     имена   &#xD;&#xA;          └───────────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                            названия&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не говорим:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название учителя Андрей Борисович&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название ребенка Кирилл&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название собаки Рекс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы говорим:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название города Томск | имя старинного русского города Тверь&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название яхты Победа  | имя корабля ― «Восток»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples with a context    &#xD;&#xA;(1) [населенные пункты](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=random&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=1254&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E8%EC%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%E3%EE%F0%EE%E4&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Apropn+%26+t%3Atopon&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en), (2) [корабль](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E8%EC%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%EA%EE%F0%E0%E1%EB%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Aconcr%20%7C%20%28t%3Ahum%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Aetn%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Akin%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Asupernat%29&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Название придумывают или составляют, и затем дают как для целого класса предметов или явлений, так и для отдельных предметов. Когда мы произносим нарицательные имена вещей, мы фактически утверждаем, что этот предмет относится к данному классу.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каждый элемент данного, названного класса, в свою очередь, может быть или поименован, или пронумерован уже существующими именами. Таким образом получают имена индивидуальные элементы Андрей, Борис, Владимир, ... и Первый, Второй, Третий ... .   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8733" RevisionGUID="6bf913c4-f17a-409c-9b26-deff62d54d4c" CreationDate="2015-05-15T14:36:25.717" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1183 characters in body" Text="**Definitions**   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;       act of mentioning by word is &lt;b&gt;Называть,&lt;/b&gt;               &#xD;&#xA;              and give us in result&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                   (nouns)&#xD;&#xA;                  &lt;b&gt;Названия&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;                    /  \&#xD;&#xA;                   /    \&#xD;&#xA;                  /      \&#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;имена собственные   &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;имена нарицательные&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;      (proper name)       (common name)&#xD;&#xA;               /            \&#xD;&#xA;              /              \&#xD;&#xA;      ┌───────────┐       ┌───────────┐     &#xD;&#xA;         read.me             file      &#xD;&#xA;         system              folder    &#xD;&#xA;         Владимир            human     *&#xD;&#xA;         Tokio               city      &#xD;&#xA;         Рекс                dog       *   &#xD;&#xA;         Победа              chip      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * see special usage below&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Атомные подводные лодки называются именами городов. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                                           [«Известия»,2002.03.21]    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Стали вырастать один за другим поселки, и их справедливо называли &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     именами первооткрывателей.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                 [В. Писигин. Письма с Чукотки // «Октябрь», 2001]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Карданус предлагал, «чтобы не было стыдно», славное имя «Ермака»&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     отменить и кораблю присвоить название «Ледокол Э 2».&#xD;&#xA;&gt;                                   [Б. Г. Островский. Адмирал Макаров (1949-1955)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;   &lt;b&gt;human, pet&lt;/b&gt;                                            &#xD;&#xA;   ──┬───────&#xD;&#xA;     │                   ┌ физрук         - Андрей Андреевич              &#xD;&#xA;     │       ┌  учитель ─┤ химичка        - Алла Андреевна              &#xD;&#xA;     │       │           └ трудовик       - Борис Борисович&#xD;&#xA;     └ human ┤                            &#xD;&#xA;             │           ┌ первоклассник  - Геннадий&#xD;&#xA;             └  ученик  ─┤ второклассник  - Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                         └ выпускник      - Евгений&#xD;&#xA;                                        &#xD;&#xA;      └─────┘ └───────┘   └─────────────┘  └─────────────────┘                   &#xD;&#xA;      └─────────────────────────────────┘          имена          &#xD;&#xA;                названия        &#xD;&#xA;                        &#xD;&#xA;   &lt;b&gt;A thing or place (in time or space).&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;   ─┬───────                         &#xD;&#xA;    │                ┌ сухогруз        -  Севастополь               &#xD;&#xA;    │ ┌   корабль    ┤ ледокол         -  Ленин&#xD;&#xA;    │ │              └ фрегат          -  Победа &#xD;&#xA;    │ │                               &#xD;&#xA;    └─┤              ┌ село            -  Дубравино&#xD;&#xA;      │              │ районный центр  -  Купавино&#xD;&#xA;      │  Населенный  ┤ станица         -  Луганская&#xD;&#xA;      └    пункт     │ город           -  Владимир&#xD;&#xA;                     └ столица         -  Токио&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;          └─────┘      └───────┘         └────────────┘                 &#xD;&#xA;                названия                     имена   &#xD;&#xA;          └───────────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                            названия&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не говорим:   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название учителя Андрей Борисович&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название ребенка Кирилл&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Название собаки Рекс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы говорим:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название города Томск | имя старинного русского города Тверь&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     Название яхты Победа  | имя корабля ― «Восток»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examples with a context    &#xD;&#xA;(1) [название, корабли](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=7028&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E0%E7%E2%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%EA%EE%F0%E0%E1%EB%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=3&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Aconcr+%7C+%28t%3Ahum+%7C+t%3Ahum%3Aetn+%7C+t%3Ahum%3Akin+%7C+t%3Ahum%3Asupernat%29&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en) (2) [название, нас. пункты](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E0%E7%E2%E0%ED%E8%E5&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%E3%EE%F0%EE%E4&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=3&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Aconcr%20%7C%20%28t%3Ahum%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Aetn%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Akin%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Asupernat%29&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en) | (3) [имена, нас. пункты](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=random&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=50&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=1254&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E8%EC%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%E3%EE%F0%EE%E4&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Apropn+%26+t%3Atopon&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en), (4) [имена, корабли](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E8%EC%FF&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=3&amp;lex2=%EA%EE%F0%E0%E1%EB%FC&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=S&amp;sem3=r%3Aconcr%20%7C%20%28t%3Ahum%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Aetn%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Akin%20%7C%20t%3Ahum%3Asupernat%29&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=&amp;lang=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Название придумывают или составляют, и затем дают как для целого класса предметов или явлений, так и для отдельных предметов. Когда мы произносим нарицательные имена вещей, мы фактически утверждаем, что этот предмет относится к данному классу.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каждый элемент данного, названного класса, в свою очередь, может быть или поименован, или пронумерован уже существующими именами. Таким образом получают имена индивидуальные элементы Андрей, Борис, Владимир, ... и Первый, Второй, Третий ... .   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8734" RevisionGUID="acd94790-d13b-4a80-8fc5-f520dc59feab" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:17:40.497" UserId="5468" Text="What's the difference between помнить and запомнить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are translated as &quot;remember&quot; in Google Translate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I know there's another question already on the difference between помнить and вспомнить. I understand those now.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8734" RevisionGUID="acd94790-d13b-4a80-8fc5-f520dc59feab" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:17:40.497" UserId="5468" Text="Difference between помнить and запомнить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8734" RevisionGUID="acd94790-d13b-4a80-8fc5-f520dc59feab" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:17:40.497" UserId="5468" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8735" RevisionGUID="79788e6f-3541-4475-89de-ba65b0b40d57" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:27:16.333" UserId="134" Text="They differ in [aspect][1]: *помнить* is imperfective (state), *запомнить* is perfective (state transition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я помнил / я запомнил* roughly corresponds to English &quot;I remembered (while doing something other) / I've remembered (made a note in my head)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other perfective / imperfective pairs, same ending puts the imperfective verb in present and the perfective one in future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я помню / я запомню* is &quot;I remember / I'll remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect_in_Slavic_languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8735" RevisionGUID="f850ea88-90f6-4037-aebf-9cf10020dbfd" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:33:48.483" UserId="134" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="They differ in [aspect][1]: *помнить* is imperfective (state), *запомнить* is perfective (state transition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Запомнить* is better translated as &quot;memorize&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я помнил / я запомнил* roughly corresponds to English &quot;I remembered (while doing something other) / I've memorized (made a note in my head)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other perfective / imperfective pairs, same ending puts the imperfective verb in present and the perfective one in future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я помню* &quot;I remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Я запомню* &quot;I'll memorize&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that those pairs are not necessarily the only ones possible. *Запоминать* is also an imperfective verb which could be paired with *запомнить*, it (again, roughly) corresponds to English continuous forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я запоминал* &quot;I was memorizing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я запоминаю* &quot;I am memorizing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect_in_Slavic_languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8735" RevisionGUID="56a8eff9-6364-46f5-8634-40fbd9350258" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:39:27.480" UserId="134" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="They differ in [aspect][1]: *помнить* is imperfective (state), *запомнить* is perfective (state transition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Запомнить* is better translated as &quot;memorize&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я помнил / я запомнил* roughly corresponds to English &quot;I remembered (all along) / I've memorized (changed my state from non-remembering to remembering)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with other perfective / imperfective pairs, same ending puts the imperfective verb in present and the perfective one in future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я помню* &quot;I remember&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *Я запомню* &quot;I'll memorize&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that those pairs are not necessarily the only ones possible. *Запоминать* is also an imperfective verb which could be paired with *запомнить*, it (again, roughly) corresponds to English continuous forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я запоминал* &quot;I was memorizing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я запоминаю* &quot;I am memorizing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect_in_Slavic_languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="c353a70e-0faa-402c-a5ca-69a1c6feaa0e" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:41:07.470" UserId="1665" Text="When filling up the work history on a passport application, it says that &quot;F&quot; is &quot;недопустимый символ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can FreeBSD be translated into Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried Russian Wikipedia, but somehow it thinks that Latin is acceptable in Russian, and no Cyrillic translation is required." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="c353a70e-0faa-402c-a5ca-69a1c6feaa0e" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:41:07.470" UserId="1665" Text="How do you translate FreeBSD into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8736" RevisionGUID="c353a70e-0faa-402c-a5ca-69a1c6feaa0e" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:41:07.470" UserId="1665" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8737" RevisionGUID="0b92105d-d3ea-4d22-a140-cfabff791598" CreationDate="2015-05-15T15:43:17.643" UserId="1665" Text="Perhaps Фри-Би-Эс-Ди?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, stuff like New York is written as Нью-Йорк, and writing ФриБиЭсДи is weird, since if it'll be converted to all-capital or all-lowercase then it'll be quite difficult to read.  So, Фри-Би-Эс-Ди seems like about the only possible option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8738" RevisionGUID="3f660045-ace3-4c8b-b301-58c8b4d82baa" CreationDate="2015-05-15T18:20:03.210" UserId="5288" Text="**за-** used to make imperfective verbs perfective:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; помнить&#xD;&#xA;     An act of remembering. I can handle the act, with no wait of results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;за&lt;/b&gt;помнить&#xD;&#xA;     I can handle the act that has/had been (shall be) finally completed (accomplished).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;           &#xD;&#xA;Most Russian verbs occur in pairs, one of the pair being an imperfective verb and the other a perfective verb. For perfective verbs a prepositional prefix  **про-, по-, раз-, за-, ...** *etc.* is added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As opposite to the OP, there is a perfective verb formed with the same prepositional prefix **за-,** wich means the start of some action:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  говорить         заговорить     &#xD;&#xA;  to talk       to start talking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  играть           заиграть       &#xD;&#xA;  to play        to begin to play&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   петь            запеть         &#xD;&#xA;  to sing       to start singing&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8739" RevisionGUID="097e5ba1-3f1e-4789-94ef-ecca3f20882c" CreationDate="2015-05-15T18:47:57.067" UserId="134" Text="Before universal acceptance of Latin characters into Russian texts during the last 30 years, English abbreviations were usually rendered using phonetic transcriptions of English letter names, separated by hyphens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Би-Би-Си* &quot;BBC&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Си-Эн-Эн* &quot;CNN&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ай-Би-Эм* &quot;IBM&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Camelcase English words (like &quot;UnitedHealth&quot;) were usually separated in Russian (&quot;Юнайтед Хелс&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you should transliterate FreeBSD into Russian, I think *Фри Би-Эс-Ди* would do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8740" RevisionGUID="75b171b1-407c-43ba-9d4e-9e9bb42035e1" CreationDate="2015-05-16T03:43:01.573" UserId="1665" Text="I was curious whether common brands like Apple or Google are considered to be part of the Russian language or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is said to complete something in Russian, is Google, Apple и FreeBSD a fair game, or is it Гугл, Эппл и [Фри-Би-Эс-Ди](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8736/how-do-you-translate-freebsd-into-russian)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8740" RevisionGUID="75b171b1-407c-43ba-9d4e-9e9bb42035e1" CreationDate="2015-05-16T03:43:01.573" UserId="1665" Text="Are words like &quot;Apple&quot; / &quot;Google&quot; -- Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8740" RevisionGUID="75b171b1-407c-43ba-9d4e-9e9bb42035e1" CreationDate="2015-05-16T03:43:01.573" UserId="1665" Text="|перевод|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8741" RevisionGUID="d1352cd1-1220-42b5-bbf6-b6cf3e3757a0" CreationDate="2015-05-16T06:16:20.860" UserDisplayName="user5469" Text="Sure they're, but could depends. Russia has a vaste territory, in the larger cities closely everyone (except older people), know what are Apple and Google, and both are translated &quot;directly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say Apple as a fruit, you say : Яблоко . Apple as a brand is like you said Эппл, but that word doesn't exists in russian vocabolary. As well, гугл is just used to refer a brand. (they both are translated like it sounds).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google -&gt; Gugl&#xD;&#xA;Apple -&gt; Eppl " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8742" RevisionGUID="27f6f263-11bd-4944-84e8-15bbfe0fd9a4" CreationDate="2015-05-16T07:19:47.583" UserId="134" Text="The words *гуглить* and *эппловский* are used widely in Russian nowadays, so I'd say yes, they are Russian alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should they be transliterated or not is completely unrelated question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin alphabet is well understood in Russia nowadays, so some authors, especially in IT-related press, don't bother with transliteration. They still, however, use Cyrillic for derived words like those above. Other authors always transliterate the brand names. And of course when transliteration is legally required, like in *ООО «Гугл»* or in your question above, well, one has to transliterate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8743" RevisionGUID="0cde41c2-b9fc-48c8-97b2-9841e67a317a" CreationDate="2015-05-16T07:34:46.583" UserId="5443" Text="There are two proper ways of using company (or software) names in a Russian text:&#xD;&#xA;in Latin (without quotes) or in Cyrillic (with quotes) characters. The first way is preferred for widely recognized names like Apple, Windows, Google etc. while the second one might be better for introducing a new brand, particularly for the reason its pronunciation might be not obvious to most Russian speakers. For example, FreeBSD in *proper* transcription becomes &quot;Фри Би-Эс-Ди&quot; (in quotes). It originally comprises two parts: a word (which **must** be separated in Russian version - we never use capital letters inside a word) and an acronym, which is typically transcribed as above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8744" RevisionGUID="489228d6-614c-4244-b27f-3e77ffce56af" CreationDate="2015-05-16T13:06:01.647" UserId="104" Text="Как называется одна отдельно взятая плоская штуковина, фишка, в домино? Т.е. как правильно назвать одну доминошку? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8744" RevisionGUID="489228d6-614c-4244-b27f-3e77ffce56af" CreationDate="2015-05-16T13:06:01.647" UserId="104" Text="Как называется &quot;фигура&quot; в домино?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8744" RevisionGUID="489228d6-614c-4244-b27f-3e77ffce56af" CreationDate="2015-05-16T13:06:01.647" UserId="104" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8745" RevisionGUID="f1e5d56c-37da-40ad-8eaa-efe19079cfe2" CreationDate="2015-05-16T13:16:00.340" UserId="5405" Text="Она называется &quot;костяшка&quot; (см. второе значение на сайте [gramota.ru][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%EA%EE%F1%F2%FF%F8%EA%E0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8746" RevisionGUID="f239b681-86ba-4543-b5b6-c5f99a76212c" CreationDate="2015-05-16T13:43:30.823" UserId="47" Text="If you ask about modern company names, they would mostly be well known in their original spelling (except perhaps for the Asian ones for which we all know their Latin names). And indeed, as Quassnoi already commented, the Russians tend to &quot;absorb&quot; the words and &quot;Russianalize&quot; them by assigning gender and deriving verbs and adjectives from them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Эппл выпустил...&#xD;&#xA;    Погугли это сам&#xD;&#xA;    Гугловский телефон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets more complex with acronyms, that are rarely transliterated: LG, IBM, BBC. **However**, it used to be very different in the Soviet time, when the vast majority of people had very limited knowledge of foreign languages and even foreign letters. For all companies well known in Russian for decades, the Russian name was in use. Compare the distributions of *BBC* and its Russian form *Би-Би-Си* found in the corpora:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**bbc**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**би-би-си**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty self-explanatory. Similar results—predominantly Cyrillic spelling throughout the soviet time and the growing Latin spelling after 1990—can be found for *Форд*, *Сименс*, *Зингер*, *Филипс*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/09CsO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mb7RK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8747" RevisionGUID="c88c8cbe-6ebc-4a56-b4ed-294aacaf699e" CreationDate="2015-05-16T20:55:13.983" UserId="4481" Text="Just to add to other answers.  &#xD;&#xA;Interaction of English and Russian is very complicated. Latin alphabet is used in school math, so most of people know Latin pronunciation of letter's names and don't know **correct** English pronunciation. As consequence, many of words changed pronunciation after they had come to Russian. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `key` should be read as `ки`, but if you say this, no one understand you. All people say `кей`, and you can even find a name of a profession - `эникейщик` (&quot;tech support&quot;, derived from `any key`)&#xD;&#xA; - `FreeBSD` should be `фри би эс ди`, but more often you will hear `фри бэ эс дэ`&#xD;&#xA; - sometimes you can meet words with completely wrong pronunciation, like `ZyXEL`. Its official Russian name is `Зайксел` (accordingly to Wikipedia), but often people say `зухель`, because Latin `y` and `x` looks like Russian `у` and `х` (also - `линух` instead of `линукс`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, all written above is about colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8750" RevisionGUID="4c11043e-75ac-4725-a63e-31320090d255" CreationDate="2015-05-17T05:04:51.333" UserId="1665" Text="A follow-up question from http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8736/how-do-you-translate-freebsd-into-russian, what is the rule that makes New York have a hyphen when written in proper Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8750" RevisionGUID="4c11043e-75ac-4725-a63e-31320090d255" CreationDate="2015-05-17T05:04:51.333" UserId="1665" Text="Почему Нью-Йорк (New York) по-русски пишется через дефис?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8750" RevisionGUID="4c11043e-75ac-4725-a63e-31320090d255" CreationDate="2015-05-17T05:04:51.333" UserId="1665" Text="|перевод|этимология|транслитерация|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8751" RevisionGUID="9d6ee17d-c2ab-4b7a-b7fa-53e353e142ff" CreationDate="2015-05-17T08:23:50.250" UserId="5443" Text="From a reference book by Rozenthal, much trusted author:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/24.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*§17. Географические и административно-территориальные названия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*4.Части сложных географических названий пишутся с прописной буквы, причем соединяются дефисом, если они образованы:&#xD;&#xA;д)  сочетанием иноязычных элементов, например: Алма-Ата («отец яблок»), Норд-Кап («северный мыс»), Нью-Йорк («новый Йорк»).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    'Parts of geographical names begin with a capital letter &#xD;&#xA;     and are linked using hyphens in case they... combine foreign &#xD;&#xA;     language elements, for example: Нью-Йорк ('New York', &quot;новый Йорк&quot;).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that rule is true **for cities** as opposed to e.g. country names (usually no hyphen) or street names (the 'street' element, &quot;стрит&quot; doesn't use a capital letter). One more typical transcribed name with hyphens:  Солт-Лейк-Сити.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8751" RevisionGUID="60422230-0638-465f-b75d-78ab0df81c97" CreationDate="2015-05-17T08:29:07.113" UserId="5443" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="From a reference book by Rozenthal, much trusted author:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/24.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*§17. Географические и административно-территориальные названия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*4.Части сложных географических названий пишутся с прописной буквы, причем соединяются дефисом, если они образованы:&#xD;&#xA;д)  сочетанием иноязычных элементов, например: Алма-Ата («отец яблок»), Норд-Кап («северный мыс»), Нью-Йорк («новый Йорк»).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    'Parts of geographical names begin with a capital letter &#xD;&#xA;     and are linked using hyphens in case they... combine foreign &#xD;&#xA;     language elements, for example: Нью-Йорк ('New York', &quot;новый Йорк&quot;).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="d00bf932-661b-4e7a-8fbb-ae042fd80099" CreationDate="2015-05-17T08:44:41.927" UserId="5477" Text="I would mostly use `из-за`, but actually I do not know the difference, nor when to go for `ради`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anybody give me a hint, please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="d00bf932-661b-4e7a-8fbb-ae042fd80099" CreationDate="2015-05-17T08:44:41.927" UserId="5477" Text="&quot;из-за&quot; vs. &quot;ради&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="d00bf932-661b-4e7a-8fbb-ae042fd80099" CreationDate="2015-05-17T08:44:41.927" UserId="5477" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8751" RevisionGUID="9998d015-918d-4f7d-bf3f-3ee6f3a3c52f" CreationDate="2015-05-17T08:46:07.560" UserId="5443" Comment="added 365 characters in body" Text="From a reference book by Rozenthal, much trusted author:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/24.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*§17. Географические и административно-территориальные названия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*4.Части сложных географических названий пишутся с прописной буквы, причем соединяются дефисом, если они образованы:&#xD;&#xA;д)  сочетанием иноязычных элементов, например: Алма-Ата («отец яблок»), Норд-Кап («северный мыс»), Нью-Йорк («новый Йорк»).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    'Parts of geographical names begin with a capital letter &#xD;&#xA;     and are linked using hyphens in case they... combine foreign &#xD;&#xA;     language elements, for example: Нью-Йорк ('New York', &quot;новый Йорк&quot;).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that rule is true **for cities** as opposed to e.g. country names (words may get translation, then no hyphens: Новая Гвинея, Новая Зеландия) or street names (the 'Street' element, &quot;-стрит&quot; doesn't use a capital letter). One more typical transcribed name with hyphens:  Солт-Лейк-Сити. An exception (for some traditional reason): Новый Орлеан (New Orleans)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8753" RevisionGUID="198fd1bd-82c9-4c43-a7fa-1fa7a63fae98" CreationDate="2015-05-17T09:57:07.140" UserId="5443" Text="&quot;**Из-за**&quot; (due to some condition, limitation, for the reason of) usually explains the reason for something what happened, or is about a possible consequence in nearest future as a reason for taking some preventive measure. &quot;Из-за кого-то&quot; sometimes means someone is to blame or is the reason for something unpleasant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из-за автомобильных пробок он опоздал. Из-за прогнозируемого падения курса рубля он перенес свою поездку на более ранний срок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Ради**&quot; - for getting a desired result, sometimes 'for the sake of'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он согласился на эту команировку только ради того, чтобы увидеть Китай. Ради своей девушки он был готов на многое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main difference is **'for the reason'** vs. **'for a result'**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8754" RevisionGUID="825cc059-bd4a-4f94-9768-864dc096d227" CreationDate="2015-05-17T12:15:35.977" UserId="5158" Text="For all I know, everybody just use Latin version: FreeBSD. In programming and related fields, most of the time people use Latin versions of terms, like SQL, Linux, C++, FFT, malware, PC - you would expect to see their Cyrillic transliterations or translations (ЭсКюЭль, Линукс, Си-Плюс-Плюс, ДПФ, Вредоносное ПО, ПК) only in old books and public official documents (were everything must be written in Cyrillic by law)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8751" RevisionGUID="81cc2687-e1c3-48dc-a02a-0a0eab0e097b" CreationDate="2015-05-17T12:39:55.887" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="From a reference book by Rozenthal, much trusted author:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/24.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*§17. Географические и административно-территориальные названия*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*4.Части сложных географических названий пишутся с прописной буквы, причем соединяются дефисом, если они образованы:&#xD;&#xA;д)  сочетанием иноязычных элементов, например: Алма-Ата («отец яблок»), Норд-Кап («северный мыс»), Нью-Йорк («новый Йорк»).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    'Parts of geographical names are capitalized and hyphenated &#xD;&#xA;     in cases where they... combine foreign &#xD;&#xA;     language elements, for example: Нью-Йорк ('New York', &quot;новый Йорк&quot;).'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, that rule is true **for cities** as opposed to e.g. country names (words may get translation, then no hyphens: Новая Гвинея, Новая Зеландия) or street names (the 'Street' element, &quot;-стрит&quot; doesn't use a capital letter). One more typical transcribed name with hyphens:  Солт-Лейк-Сити. An exception (for some traditional reason): Новый Орлеан (New Orleans)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8746" RevisionGUID="c521756f-4f41-4130-b196-df7c0cb41bcf" CreationDate="2015-05-17T14:11:28.010" UserId="47" Comment="Added hyperlinks to the distribution plots" Text="If you ask about modern company names, they would mostly be well known in their original spelling (except perhaps for the Asian ones for which we all know their Latin names). And indeed, as Quassnoi already commented, the Russians tend to &quot;absorb&quot; the words and &quot;Russianalize&quot; them by assigning gender and deriving verbs and adjectives from them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Эппл выпустил...&#xD;&#xA;    Погугли это сам&#xD;&#xA;    Гугловский телефон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets more complex with acronyms, that are rarely transliterated: LG, IBM, BBC. **However**, it used to be very different in the Soviet time, when the vast majority of people had very limited knowledge of foreign languages and even foreign letters. For all companies well known in Russian for decades, the Russian name was in use. Compare the distributions of *[BBC][1]* and its Russian form *[Би-Би-Си][2]* found in the corpora:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[bbc][3]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[би-би-си][5]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty self-explanatory. Similar results—predominantly Cyrillic spelling throughout the soviet time and the growing Latin spelling after 1990—can be found for *Форд*, *Сименс*, *Зингер*, *Филипс*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=bbc&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E1%E8-%E1%E8-%F1%E8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=bbc&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/09CsO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E1%E8-%E1%E8-%F1%E8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mb7RK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8753" RevisionGUID="280afa58-f562-456c-897e-9678174e5283" CreationDate="2015-05-17T18:53:59.923" UserId="47" Comment="Typography and readability" Text="***Из-за*** (due to some condition, limitation, for the reason of) usually explains the reason for something what happened, or is about a possible consequence in nearest future as a reason for taking some preventive measure. *Из-за кого-то* sometimes means someone is to blame or is the reason for something unpleasant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за автомобильных пробок он опоздал. Из-за прогнозируемого падения курса рубля он перенес свою поездку на более ранний срок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ради*** — for getting a desired result, sometimes 'for the sake of'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он согласился на эту команировку только ради того, чтобы увидеть Китай. Ради своей девушки он был готов на многое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main difference is **'for the reason'** vs. **'for a result'**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="57365d27-11fb-4fae-8efc-1add73f168e7" CreationDate="2015-05-17T19:17:30.137" UserId="5477" Comment="дополнил пример" Text="I would mostly use `из-за`, but actually I do not know the difference, nor when to go for `ради`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anybody give me a hint, please.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты здесь из-за меня?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты здесь ради меня?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both variants possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8753" RevisionGUID="bfb4dd8b-b3df-4bfd-aa5f-4e9b4b92eeb4" CreationDate="2015-05-17T21:30:30.633" UserId="47" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="***Из-за*** (due to some condition, limitation, for the reason of) usually explains the reason for something what happened, or is about a possible consequence in nearest future as a reason for taking some preventive measure. *Из-за кого-то* sometimes means someone is to blame or is the reason for something unpleasant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за автомобильных пробок он опоздал. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за прогнозируемого падения курса рубля он перенес свою поездку на более ранний срок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ради*** — for getting a desired result, sometimes 'for the sake of'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он согласился на эту команировку только ради того, чтобы увидеть Китай. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ради своей девушки он был готов на многое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main difference is **'for the reason'** vs. **'for a result'**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21147" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8533" RevisionGUID="d996fc0a-5023-486a-b314-d4bf15420158" CreationDate="2015-05-18T04:34:02.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/600157373328687104" />
  <row Id="21148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8757" RevisionGUID="c194539d-4ff3-48af-b050-4ce0186c80ef" CreationDate="2015-05-18T07:10:50.620" UserId="5480" Text="Is there a website (or a book) to find conjugation tables (at present, past, future, ...) of most common russian verbs (be, can, want, speak, do, learn, hear, ...) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8757" RevisionGUID="c194539d-4ff3-48af-b050-4ce0186c80ef" CreationDate="2015-05-18T07:10:50.620" UserId="5480" Text="Tables of verbs conjugation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8757" RevisionGUID="c194539d-4ff3-48af-b050-4ce0186c80ef" CreationDate="2015-05-18T07:10:50.620" UserId="5480" Text="|грамматика|обучение|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8759" RevisionGUID="1be061f6-c16f-4c03-b5eb-b74d85741ab3" CreationDate="2015-05-18T08:03:05.177" UserId="5478" Text="All of the given answers are correct.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes in Russian &quot;название&quot; is an &quot;official form&quot; of name.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;имя&quot; - is a &quot;speaking form&quot; of name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8760" RevisionGUID="626a0034-a657-41db-aeb4-8d38cdeb2e86" CreationDate="2015-05-18T08:27:35.050" UserId="5454" Text="Here is a nice site: [learningrussian.net][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://learningrussian.net/russian_verbs.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="1b6256e1-4e82-4906-bba0-9596a8217db1" CreationDate="2015-05-18T08:28:09.623" UserId="5478" Text="An awesome site for verbs conjugation is Wiktionary, here's the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type is search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;быть&quot; — for verb &quot;to be&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мочь&quot; — for verb &quot;can&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;хотеть&quot; — for verb &quot;want&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;говорить&quot; — for verb &quot;to speak&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;делать&quot; — for verb &quot;to do&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;учиться&quot; — for verbs &quot;to learn&quot; &quot;to study&quot; (in russian &quot;to learn&quot; and &quot;to study&quot; are equal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;слышать&quot; — for verb &quot;to hear&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;смотреть&quot; — for verb &quot;to look&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;видеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to see&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;любить&quot; — for verb &quot;to love&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;идти&quot; — for verb &quot;to walk&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;бежать&quot; — for verb &quot;to run&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;лежать&quot; — for verb &quot;to lie&quot; (The book lies on the table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;врать&quot; &quot;лгать&quot; — for verb &quot;to lie&quot; (When Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сидеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to sit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;думать&quot; — for verb &quot;to think&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;прыгать&quot; — for verbs &quot;to jump&quot; &quot;to spring&quot; &quot;to leap&quot; (in russian &quot;to jump&quot; &quot;to spring&quot; &quot;to leap&quot; are equal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кушать&quot; &quot;есть&quot; — for verb &quot;to eat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пить&quot; — for verb &quot;to drink&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;писать&quot; — for verb &quot;to write&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;читать&quot; — for verb &quot;to read&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;нравиться&quot; — for verb &quot;to like&quot; (Он мне нра́вится. ― I like him)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ненавидеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to hate&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to ask any other verbs (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8763" RevisionGUID="fe6449d3-ce19-453c-90eb-6e5d018c544a" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:00:53.640" UserId="5482" Text="How to ask and which are the best ways to say &quot;How do I get to Red Square?&quot; using verbs of motion and respective prepositions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8763" RevisionGUID="fe6449d3-ce19-453c-90eb-6e5d018c544a" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:00:53.640" UserId="5482" Text="Using verbs of motion, how to ask &quot;How do I get to Red Square?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8763" RevisionGUID="fe6449d3-ce19-453c-90eb-6e5d018c544a" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:00:53.640" UserId="5482" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21163" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8649" RevisionGUID="79bc4589-5048-4bb1-8998-6ce14326f6e3" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:08:12.477" UserId="185" Comment="edited title" Text="Correct form of the expression &quot;Ни рыба ни мясо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8764" RevisionGUID="fbeb8908-ba0d-4ae1-8136-53d2bd8f31de" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:18:23.143" UserId="3680" Text="If you are on foot:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как пройти на Красную площадь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are driving a car:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как проехать на Красную площадь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Universal way:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как попасть на Красную площадь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see the pattern is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как (мне/нам) *verb_of_motion* на Красную площадь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8760" RevisionGUID="7497d307-4a7e-4e33-8523-322b142c8526" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:34:41.000" UserId="551" Comment="replaced plain link with page title" Text="Here is a nice site: [Russian Verb Conjugations][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://learningrussian.net/russian_verbs.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="2236d3b3-a193-472e-a758-ccac0beb68b0" CreationDate="2015-05-18T10:37:15.943" UserId="551" Comment="It's better to hide non-human-readable links." Text="An awesome site for verbs conjugation is [Wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type is search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;быть&quot; — for verb &quot;to be&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мочь&quot; — for verb &quot;can&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;хотеть&quot; — for verb &quot;want&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;говорить&quot; — for verb &quot;to speak&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;делать&quot; — for verb &quot;to do&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;учиться&quot; — for verbs &quot;to learn&quot; &quot;to study&quot; (in russian &quot;to learn&quot; and &quot;to study&quot; are equal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;слышать&quot; — for verb &quot;to hear&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;смотреть&quot; — for verb &quot;to look&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;видеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to see&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;любить&quot; — for verb &quot;to love&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;идти&quot; — for verb &quot;to walk&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;бежать&quot; — for verb &quot;to run&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;лежать&quot; — for verb &quot;to lie&quot; (The book lies on the table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;врать&quot; &quot;лгать&quot; — for verb &quot;to lie&quot; (When Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сидеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to sit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;думать&quot; — for verb &quot;to think&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;прыгать&quot; — for verbs &quot;to jump&quot; &quot;to spring&quot; &quot;to leap&quot; (in russian &quot;to jump&quot; &quot;to spring&quot; &quot;to leap&quot; are equal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кушать&quot; &quot;есть&quot; — for verb &quot;to eat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пить&quot; — for verb &quot;to drink&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;писать&quot; — for verb &quot;to write&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;читать&quot; — for verb &quot;to read&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;нравиться&quot; — for verb &quot;to like&quot; (Он мне нра́вится. ― I like him)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ненавидеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to hate&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to ask any other verbs (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8765" RevisionGUID="e5ae2f6b-9986-42a8-a9c5-1fc07e957755" CreationDate="2015-05-18T11:24:09.603" UserId="5483" Text="You can also try, &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как мне добраться до Красной площади?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;It is closer to the word 'get'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8766" RevisionGUID="4f5a43cb-43fa-453c-95f8-5ce884bbcc3d" CreationDate="2015-05-18T11:58:45.493" UserId="5288" Text="For example, `to learn studying - учиться учиться`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8766" RevisionGUID="4f5a43cb-43fa-453c-95f8-5ce884bbcc3d" CreationDate="2015-05-18T11:58:45.493" UserId="5288" Text="How the difference between “to study” and “to learn” might be rendered in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8766" RevisionGUID="4f5a43cb-43fa-453c-95f8-5ce884bbcc3d" CreationDate="2015-05-18T11:58:45.493" UserId="5288" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8767" RevisionGUID="cb33a100-3d93-443f-a514-190d406f6618" CreationDate="2015-05-18T11:58:45.493" UserId="5288" Text="The difference in English is discussed here:   &#xD;&#xA;[Is there any subtle difference between “to study” and “to learn”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19533/is-there-any-subtle-difference-between-to-study-and-to-learn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are easily influenced by an opinion, that there is practically no difference in Russian. It would be untrue to say that. The best way to improve our solid knowledge is to treat yourself as a teacher. The best practice in teaching &quot;how to&quot;, IMHO, is to show by examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;to learn studying                                учиться учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm learning to study                            я учусь учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you learn studying                               ́учитесь учиться / учишься учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how psychologists study learning and studying    как психологи изучают обучение и изучение&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to study the learning process                    изучать учебный процесс&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;you will learn studying                          нау́читесь изучая&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;learn studying!                                  учи́тесь учиться!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to study learning                                изучать обучение&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What do students learn studying these words?     Чему научатся студенты, изучая эти слова?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as you can see above, in Russian we have one root for both. We build a new verb with a prepositional prefix. e.g., `из-` prefix give us the new meaning `out of`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; учить -  изучать        to learn     - to study&#xD;&#xA; влечь -  извлечь        to draw (to) - draw out; extract&#xD;&#xA; дать  -  издать         to give      - give forth, give out&#xD;&#xA; ложить - изложить       to lay       - to lay open (to lay the case)&#xD;&#xA; брать  - избрать        to take      - to take up (What one thing to take up and master?)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I hope you see the pattern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="a06879cb-3b97-4fc0-9782-85fc20e5a3a7" CreationDate="2015-05-18T12:32:40.433" UserId="5484" Text="Is that отойти? We have examples like that but I'm not sure about it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="a06879cb-3b97-4fc0-9782-85fc20e5a3a7" CreationDate="2015-05-18T12:32:40.433" UserId="5484" Text="How to say the bus left the stop in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8768" RevisionGUID="a06879cb-3b97-4fc0-9782-85fc20e5a3a7" CreationDate="2015-05-18T12:32:40.433" UserId="5484" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8769" RevisionGUID="4d76605b-9ed0-4e2d-a14b-1f61510f593e" CreationDate="2015-05-18T12:48:12.207" UserId="3680" Text="A better option is `отъехал`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автобус отъехал от остановки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Отошел` is suitable also, but it is not the best option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8761" RevisionGUID="14b38118-d4d1-4b2b-89d3-daac0832b550" CreationDate="2015-05-18T13:53:49.977" UserId="5478" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="An awesome site for verbs conjugation is [Wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type is search:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;быть&quot; — for verb &quot;to be&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мочь&quot; — for verb &quot;can&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;хотеть&quot; — for verb &quot;want&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;говорить&quot; — for verb &quot;to speak&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;делать&quot; — for verb &quot;to do&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;учиться&quot; — for verbs &quot;to learn&quot; &quot;to study&quot; (in russian &quot;to learn&quot; and &quot;to study&quot; are equal in some senses, but not always)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;слышать&quot; — for verb &quot;to hear&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;смотреть&quot; — for verb &quot;to look&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;видеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to see&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;любить&quot; — for verb &quot;to love&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;идти&quot; — for verb &quot;to walk&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;бежать&quot; — for verb &quot;to run&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;лежать&quot; — for verb &quot;to lie&quot; (The book lies on the table)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;врать&quot; &quot;лгать&quot; — for verb &quot;to lie&quot; (When Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сидеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to sit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;думать&quot; — for verb &quot;to think&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;прыгать&quot; — for verbs &quot;to jump&quot; &quot;to spring&quot; &quot;to leap&quot; (in russian &quot;to jump&quot; &quot;to spring&quot; &quot;to leap&quot; are equal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кушать&quot; &quot;есть&quot; — for verb &quot;to eat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пить&quot; — for verb &quot;to drink&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;писать&quot; — for verb &quot;to write&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;читать&quot; — for verb &quot;to read&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;нравиться&quot; — for verb &quot;to like&quot; (Он мне нра́вится. ― I like him)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ненавидеть&quot; — for verb &quot;to hate&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to ask any other verbs (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8770" RevisionGUID="10fe99bf-6764-4be9-b00b-9d0d6df0e3e7" CreationDate="2015-05-18T14:25:22.157" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Отойти&quot; - for ships or vessels (everyday talk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отвалить&quot; - for ships or vessels (marine jargon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Тронуться&quot; - for trains&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отъехать&quot; - for buses, autos etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8771" RevisionGUID="c8afaa45-733c-47aa-b81c-549a8b0d71eb" CreationDate="2015-05-18T14:30:01.050" UserId="5443" Text="If your example **'to learn studying**' doesn't suggest overlapping English meanings of the two words, let's suppose their most typical meanings: ( http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-learn-and-vs-study/ )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**to learn**: to get knowledge in the process of studying something - *учиться результативно, научиться*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**to study**: to be in the process of getting knowledge - *учиться, проходить обучение;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**studying**: the process for getting knowledge - *учёба, процесс изучения*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal translation (while a correct phrase, it sounds like a slogan): *(На)учиться  учёбе.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More naturally sounding Russian version: *Научиться рациональным методам учёбы.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8770" RevisionGUID="3d191168-503b-4466-b84b-12624df59f85" CreationDate="2015-05-18T14:30:25.047" UserId="5008" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&quot;Отойти от&quot; - for ships or vessels (everyday talk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отвалить от&quot; - for ships or vessels (marine jargon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отправиться из&quot; - for trains&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вылететь из&quot; - for planes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Отъехать от&quot; - for buses, autos etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8753" RevisionGUID="88578d8b-0c68-4563-a40f-2c0ffb30ded0" CreationDate="2015-05-18T14:59:25.827" UserId="5443" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="***Из-за*** (due to some condition, limitation, for the reason of) usually explains the reason for something what happened, or is about a possible consequence in nearest future as a reason for taking some preventive measure. *Из-за кого-то* sometimes means someone is to blame or is the reason for something unpleasant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за автомобильных пробок он опоздал. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за прогнозируемого падения курса рубля он перенес свою поездку на более ранний срок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ради*** — for getting a desired result, sometimes 'for the sake of'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он согласился на эту командировку только ради того, чтобы увидеть Китай. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ради своей девушки он был готов на многое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the main difference is **'for the reason'** vs. **'for a result'**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8772" RevisionGUID="990e4d02-0995-460f-ae89-7568d2a14f56" CreationDate="2015-05-18T14:59:38.670" UserId="1671" Text="`study` in the meaning '*devote time and attention to gaining knowledge of (an academic subject), especially by means of books*' (the Oxford English dictionary) can be translated as `изучать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; study mathematics - изучать математику&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`он изучает математику` - this is one of his main subjects, his major. That usually means he attends some school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way when we say in a colloquial speech: `он учит математику` in some context that could mean that some pupil is preparing for his math class tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**learn studying** - `учиться изучать` sounds more or less legal but of course if you mean by that `учиться рациональным методам учёбы` better use the latter variant because in Russian `изучать` is a transitive verb and you kind of ask '**learn studying what?**' when you hear this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8773" RevisionGUID="894ad7d4-54d4-44e8-a99f-a458965d2a12" CreationDate="2015-05-18T15:08:22.860" UserId="1671" Text="And do not forget `благодаря` , which can also be a tricky synonym of `из-за` sometimes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Из-за** автомобильных пробок он опоздал. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Благодаря** автомобильным пробкам он не попал в аварию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The difference between “благодаря” and “из-за”][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/difference-between-blagodarya-and-iz-za/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8766" RevisionGUID="c7a4291b-8979-47d8-bf8a-f5402d52de78" CreationDate="2015-05-18T16:46:09.183" UserId="5288" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="For example, `to learn studying - учиться учиться`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;note: in Russian sounds pretty obvious and precise   &#xD;&#xA; `Попросить сходить купить поесть`, i.e.   &#xD;&#xA;`verb + verb + verb + verb + ...`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="d2c6907e-7b9c-4077-bd0f-4806eec52cda" CreationDate="2015-05-18T17:12:11.863" UserId="5288" Text="The best teacher in English is the English one. The same for Chinese. And for Russian. Here is what and how Russians **[write about it](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E0%E2%F2%EE%E1%F3%F1&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=%EE%F1%F2%E0%ED%EE%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)** in terms of verbs-of-motion — one of the most confusing topics in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="b3da3bcb-ba7f-437f-a2d3-7fe56b363e57" CreationDate="2015-05-18T19:07:52.217" UserId="2220" Text="I was reading a paragraph about the activities that happen in a typical work day.  One sentence reads, &quot;Во время обеденного перерыва, с двенадцати до часу, я успеваю пообедать в столовой и немного отдохнуть.&quot;  My question is why use the perfective form пообедать when the piece is talking about typical days - in other words things that happen over and over again, not just a one time deal. It's also confusing because isn't успеваю imperfective?     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="b3da3bcb-ba7f-437f-a2d3-7fe56b363e57" CreationDate="2015-05-18T19:07:52.217" UserId="2220" Text="The use of the perfective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8775" RevisionGUID="b3da3bcb-ba7f-437f-a2d3-7fe56b363e57" CreationDate="2015-05-18T19:07:52.217" UserId="2220" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="5f5b694f-caff-438b-80a8-1b503594c1ba" CreationDate="2015-05-18T19:42:44.447" UserId="5288" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="The best teacher in English is the English one. The same for Chinese. And for Russian. Here is what and how Russians **[write about it](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E0%E2%F2%EE%E1%F3%F1&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=%EE%F1%F2%E0%ED%EE%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)** in terms of verbs-of-motion — one of the most confusing topics in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Отошел, отъехал` is good, if you want to preserve the **colloquial context**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the question should have been appeared in official tests, or in the testing how one be able to recognize things in urban and cultural contexts **in the city, with its official language,** then I had admitted that `Автобус отправился от остановки.`*(по расписанию)*, is more accurate. Because exactly this phrase we are listening (and waiting to receive and recognize) to automated announcement systems for subway, bus and train stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="8fb98ff9-e625-44af-8229-7c5595f868d9" CreationDate="2015-05-18T19:54:50.423" UserId="5288" Comment="added 359 characters in body" Text="The best teacher in English is the English one. The same for Chinese. And for Russian. Here is what and how Russians **[write about it](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E0%E2%F2%EE%E1%F3%F1&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=%EE%F1%F2%E0%ED%EE%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)** in terms of verbs-of-motion — one of the most confusing topics in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Отошел, отъехал` is good, if you want to preserve the **colloquial context**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the question should have been appeared in official tests, or in the testing how one be able to recognize things in urban and cultural contexts **in the city, with its official language,** then I had admitted that `Автобус отправился от остановки.`*(по расписанию)*, is more accurate. Because exactly this phrase we are listening (and waiting to receive and recognize) to automated announcement systems for subway, bus and train stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Usage example with a context](https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=706&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8776" RevisionGUID="8444e6b4-391c-4f24-b6ea-c9fe37ba206d" CreationDate="2015-05-18T20:16:19.427" UserId="134" Text="Usually, perfective is about state transition, imperfective is about state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Успеваю пообедать* means &quot;I have time to have a lunch and get some rest&quot;, meaning that by the end of the break both lunch and rest are completed, not just begun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you used imperfective, this would mean that during your breaks you have the ability to make time for lunch and rest (but possibly somehow lose that ability once the break is over). The sentence would be grammatical but sound really weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я успеваю писать* &quot;I have time to write (and keep up with my writing pace)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я успеваю написать* &quot;I have time to have it written (by some moment)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вечером я успеваю мыть машину* &quot;In the evenings I have time to wash my car (but in the mornings I probably don't)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вечером я успеваю помыть машину* &quot;In the evening I have time to wash my car (so that it's clean by the time I go to bed)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *успевать* itself, it's imperfective because you can't use perfective verbs in present. Using the same endings on corresponding perfective verbs will put them in future. *Я успею…* means &quot;I will have time to…&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8776" RevisionGUID="c3d18c57-4440-435c-a290-290f31309166" CreationDate="2015-05-18T20:24:20.820" UserId="134" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Usually, perfective is about state transition, imperfective is about state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Успеваю пообедать* means &quot;I have time to have a lunch and get some rest&quot;, meaning that by the end of the break both lunch and rest are completed, not just begun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you used imperfective, this would mean that during your breaks you have the ability to make time for lunch and rest (but possibly somehow lose that ability once the break is over). The sentence would be grammatical but sound really weird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я успеваю писать* &quot;I have time to write (and keep up with my writing pace)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я успеваю написать* &quot;I have time to have it written (by some moment)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вечером я успеваю мыть машину* &quot;In the evenings I have time to wash my car (I wash the car fast enough in the evenings, but probably not at the mornings)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вечером я успеваю помыть машину* &quot;In the evening I have time to wash my car (so that it's clean by the time I go to bed)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *успевать* itself, it's imperfective because you can't use perfective verbs in present. Using the same endings on corresponding perfective verbs will put them in future. *Я успею…* means &quot;I will have time to…&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8777" RevisionGUID="508771b9-3757-4fcf-a6bb-54970a4b889d" CreationDate="2015-05-19T03:35:27.850" UserId="4560" Text="`Успеваю` deals exhaustively with the repeated nature of the action, which is itself, in any given instance, a single and completed one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="5e12071c-4727-4c64-ab15-5a9e27fcff2a" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:08:20.443" UserId="5488" Text="Mistaken (adj) = ошибочный,  Can someone **PLEASE** explain how the endings in the following came about?? They don't seem to be following the normal rules for adjectives and conjugation that I've studied!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am mistaken = я ошибаюсь;&#xD;&#xA;I was mistaken = я ошибался;&#xD;&#xA;he is mistaken = он ошибается;&#xD;&#xA;he was mistaken = он ошибся;&#xD;&#xA;she is mistaken = она ошибается;&#xD;&#xA;she was mistaken = она ошиблась;&#xD;&#xA;you are mistaken = вы ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;you were mistaken = Вы ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;They are mistaken = они ошибаются;&#xD;&#xA;they were mistaken = они ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="5e12071c-4727-4c64-ab15-5a9e27fcff2a" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:08:20.443" UserId="5488" Text="Doubt involves reflexive verbs &amp; adjectives and tense. PLEASE HELP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="5e12071c-4727-4c64-ab15-5a9e27fcff2a" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:08:20.443" UserId="5488" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8779" RevisionGUID="72094e9d-eea5-44fe-8a9b-666127595f86" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:42:30.957" UserId="5460" Text="It's from verb *ошибаться*. Adjective *ошибочный* is used to describe something, not someone.&#xD;&#xA;For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ошибается - He is mistaken&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ошибочное мнение - Mistaken opinion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But be aware that you can translate 'mistaken' as *неправильно понятый* (misunderstood)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="bb7b4607-8ef0-4962-b906-0fbe7fbbe9ca" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:42:53.100" UserId="551" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Mistaken (adj) = ошибочный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone **PLEASE** explain how the endings in the following came about? They don't seem to be following the normal rules for adjectives and conjugation that I've studied!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I am mistaken = я ошибаюсь;&#xD;&#xA;    I was mistaken = я ошибался;&#xD;&#xA;    he is mistaken = он ошибается;&#xD;&#xA;    he was mistaken = он ошибся;&#xD;&#xA;    she is mistaken = она ошибается;&#xD;&#xA;    she was mistaken = она ошиблась;&#xD;&#xA;    you are mistaken = вы ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;    you were mistaken = Вы ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;    They are mistaken = они ошибаются;&#xD;&#xA;    they were mistaken = они ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21198" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="bb7b4607-8ef0-4962-b906-0fbe7fbbe9ca" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:42:53.100" UserId="551" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Doubt involves reflexive verbs &amp; adjectives and tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="72045959-062f-491b-854e-aadabcb3d2e5" CreationDate="2015-05-19T07:53:26.280" UserId="62" Comment="edited title" Text="Question about reflexive verbs &amp; adjectives and tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8780" RevisionGUID="f3eefebf-ceeb-4475-b22b-d109708374c5" CreationDate="2015-05-19T08:20:34.810" UserId="5008" Text="Well, you may use imperfective here as well: &quot;Во время обеденного перерыва, с двенадцати до часу, я успеваю обедать в столовой и немного отдыхать&quot;. Both variants are OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21201" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8752" RevisionGUID="d952f649-25f2-4467-834d-24addac5618b" CreationDate="2015-05-19T10:35:31.820" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/600610730711392256" />
  <row Id="21202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="688198cd-345b-437f-861b-9601afc23ef7" CreationDate="2015-05-19T12:21:49.667" UserId="5288" Text="Some bluring arise because you are blending two verbs that being structurally parallel in its aspect pair `ошибаться и ошибиться`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open in parallel [ошибаться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F)|[ошибиться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F) and take a look at its tables. 90% of native speakers are at all certain that the two verbs is blend into the one. So, at 90% you have a right )) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="853acb75-643d-47ae-beab-a94430bda56e" CreationDate="2015-05-19T12:36:08.287" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Some blurring arise because you are blending two verbs that being structurally parallel in its aspect pair `ошибаться и ошибиться`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open in parallel [ошибаться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F)|[ошибиться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F) and take a look at its tables. 90% of native speakers are at all certain that the two verbs is blend into the one. So, at 90% you have a right )) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="3a5df45c-e559-4256-aa7f-da4bf98c2cc3" CreationDate="2015-05-19T12:49:53.657" UserId="5288" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Some blurring arise because you are blending two verbs that being structurally parallel in its aspect pair `ошибаться и ошибиться`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open in parallel [ошибаться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F)|[ошибиться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F) and take a look at its tables. 90% of native speakers are at all certain that the two verbs is blending into the one. So, at 90% you have a right )) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8781" RevisionGUID="0d32f45b-808b-447d-b254-93f6275aa5a6" CreationDate="2015-05-19T14:23:22.603" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1122 characters in body" Text="Where the endings had come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some blurring arise because you are blending two verbs (blending endings) that being structurally parallel in its aspect pair `ошибаться и ошибиться`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open in parallel [ошибаться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F)|[ошибиться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F) and take a look at its tables. 90% of native speakers are at all certain that the two verbs is blending into the one. So, at 90% you have a right )) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and incidentally,  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Я ушибла лоб.                       I have hurt my forehead. (I said: she)&#xD;&#xA;Она ушиблась прямо о [...] .        She bumped straight into a [...].&#xD;&#xA;Набила шишку на голове.             Get a bump on her head. (and paint the bump with iodine)&#xD;&#xA;Оставив на ee голове хорошенькую шишку.       Giving her head a nasty bump.&#xD;&#xA;Она сделала много ошибок.           She has made many errors.&#xD;&#xA;Да, я ошиблась.                     Yes, I am mistaken. / I am wrong. (I said: she)&#xD;&#xA;Да, я набила шишек в этой теме (ошиблась).  — an idiom&#xD;&#xA;Нет, это ошибочное мнение.          No, It is a mistaken opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Idiom, usage with a context: [набить шишек = have made errors](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E0%E1%E8%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=%F8%E8%F8%EA%E0&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8782" RevisionGUID="8be68c8c-7282-4711-a16a-e54481be2b0f" CreationDate="2015-05-19T18:39:29.370" UserId="5392" Text="You may call it &quot;ФриБСД&quot; while it looks funny. Russian IT guys usually call it &quot;фряха&quot; or &quot;фря&quot;, but it is very unofficial name. They rarely translate technical terms except very, very old terms (or seniors who worked in USSR where everything was translated). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: there is a word &quot;отладчик&quot;, which means &quot;debugger&quot;, but everyone calls it &quot;дебаггер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian system administrators sometimes make fun of localized versions of Microsoft products: Microsoft translates terms like &quot;website&quot; or even &quot;DNS&quot; and it sounds funny in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="650336b1-743b-4d59-904b-d24a8951ff6a" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:26:20.333" UserId="5288" Comment="added 2773 characters in body" Text="The best teacher in English is the English one. The same for Chinese. And for Russian. Here is what and how Russians **[write about it](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E0%E2%F2%EE%E1%F3%F1&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=%EE%F1%F2%E0%ED%EE%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)** in terms of verbs-of-motion — one of the most confusing topics in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Отошел, отъехал` is good, if you want to preserve the **colloquial context**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the question should have been appeared in official tests, or in the testing how one be able to recognize things in urban and cultural contexts **in the city, with its official language,** then I had admitted that `Автобус отправился от остановки.`*(по расписанию)*, is more accurate. Because exactly this phrase we are listening (and waiting to receive and recognize) to automated announcement systems for subway, bus and train stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Usage example with a context](https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=706&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*CoreyRoberts-Reynolds* asked a question that is truly interesting:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как сказать правильно:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  автобус  &lt;b&gt;уехал от&lt;/b&gt;  остановки&#xD;&#xA;             или                  ?&#xD;&#xA;  автобус &lt;b&gt;отъехал&lt;/b&gt; от остановки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;b&gt;отъехал&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    или      ?&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;b&gt;уехал от&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A research into this issue shows that no rule had previously existed. That is normal. We must [[ask the Russian](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%E5%F5%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=praet&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=PR&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=1&amp;lang=en)] to help us.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Я, ты, он ... (either &#xD;&#xA; all the pronouns ... ,&#xD;&#xA; or an adjective, predicative, adverbial pronoun, &#xD;&#xA; or an animate person)                               &lt;b&gt;уехал&lt;/b&gt;,   NOT отъехал&#xD;&#xA;└────────────────subject─1───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of `автобус` which is an inanimate thing, we do not use &lt;b&gt;`уехал`&lt;/b&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;subject─2 &lt;b&gt;отъехал&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[is widely used](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=r%3Aabstr%20%7C%20(pt%3Apart%20%7C%20pt%3Aqtm%20%7C%20pt%3Aset)&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EE%F2%FA%E5%F5%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=praet&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=PR&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en),&#xD;&#xA;where `subject─2 = inanimate things`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;`уехал от`&lt;/b&gt;  [кого?чего?]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In 99% was used the `[subject─1]`. [Proof](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%E5%F5%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EE%F2&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=2&amp;lang=en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the rest of the cases are &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; уехал от семейных неприятностей [Толстой]             | which may be classified as&#xD;&#xA; уехал от чудес: в тропиках их нет [Гончаров. (1855)]  | something, that causes of &#xD;&#xA; уехал от назойливых вопросов                          | mood swings. Something in&#xD;&#xA; уехал от предстоящих платежей                         | our mind, that can act as &#xD;&#xA; уехал от скуки                                        | it is animated and have&#xD;&#xA;                                                       | intent towards to us.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8774" RevisionGUID="03a6a7ea-a99a-4fc2-b042-de83ea8352f1" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:36:58.460" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The best teacher in English is the English one. The same for Chinese. And for Russian. Here is what and how Russians **[write about it](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E0%E2%F2%EE%E1%F3%F1&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=6&amp;lex2=%EE%F1%F2%E0%ED%EE%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)** in terms of verbs-of-motion — one of the most confusing topics in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Отошел, отъехал` is good, if you want to preserve the **colloquial context**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the question should have been appeared in official tests, or in the testing how one be able to recognize things in urban and cultural contexts **in the city, with its official language,** then I had admitted that `Автобус отправился от остановки.`*(по расписанию)*, is more accurate. Because exactly this phrase we are listening (and waiting to receive and recognize) to automated announcement systems for subway, bus and train stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Usage example with a context](https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=706&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*CoreyRoberts-Reynolds* asked a question that is truly interesting:    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как сказать правильно:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  автобус  &lt;b&gt;уехал от&lt;/b&gt;  остановки&#xD;&#xA;             или                  ?&#xD;&#xA;  автобус &lt;b&gt;отъехал&lt;/b&gt; от остановки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;b&gt;отъехал&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    или      ?&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;b&gt;уехал от&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A research into this issue shows that no rule had previously existed. That is normal. We must [[ask the Russian](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%E5%F5%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=praet&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=PR&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=1&amp;lang=en)] to help us.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Я, ты, он ... (either &#xD;&#xA; all the pronouns ... ,&#xD;&#xA; or an adjective, predicative, adverbial pronoun, &#xD;&#xA; or an animate person)                               &lt;b&gt;уехал&lt;/b&gt;,   NOT отъехал&#xD;&#xA;└────────────────subject─1───────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of `автобус` which is an inanimate thing, we do not use &lt;b&gt;`уехал`&lt;/b&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;subject─2 &lt;b&gt;отъехал&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[is widely used](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=r%3Aabstr%20%7C%20(pt%3Apart%20%7C%20pt%3Aqtm%20%7C%20pt%3Aset)&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EE%F2%FA%E5%F5%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm2=praet&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m3=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=PR&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en),&#xD;&#xA;where `subject─2 = inanimate things`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;`уехал от`&lt;/b&gt;  [кого?чего?]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In ≈90% was used the `[subject─1]`. [Proof](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%E5%F5%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EE%F2&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=2&amp;lang=en).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the rest of the cases are &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; уехал от семейных неприятностей [Толстой]             | which may be classified as&#xD;&#xA; уехал от чудес: в тропиках их нет [Гончаров. (1855)]  | something, that causes of &#xD;&#xA; уехал от назойливых вопросов                          | mood swings. Something in&#xD;&#xA; уехал от предстоящих платежей                         | our mind, that can act as &#xD;&#xA; уехал от скуки                                        | it is animated and have&#xD;&#xA;                                                       | intent towards to us.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8750" RevisionGUID="2f88ad71-de82-4ad4-9a70-72696495a5ca" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:46:28.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/601021172256477184" />
  <row Id="21213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8784" RevisionGUID="1e514431-a5f4-4666-9286-5a98ae95713b" CreationDate="2015-05-20T14:40:34.230" UserId="5496" Text="learn - учиться&#xD;&#xA;study - заниматься" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8767" RevisionGUID="6dc2518d-54c2-4c71-adb2-23fb952e8f89" CreationDate="2015-05-21T12:23:46.933" UserId="5288" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="The difference in English is discussed here:   &#xD;&#xA;[Is there any subtle difference between “to study” and “to learn”?](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19533/is-there-any-subtle-difference-between-to-study-and-to-learn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are easily influenced by an opinion, that there is practically no difference in Russian. It would be untrue to say that. The best way to improve our solid knowledge is to treat yourself as a teacher. The best practice in teaching &quot;how to&quot;, IMHO, is to show by examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;to learn studying                                учиться учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm learning to study                            я учусь учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you learn studying                               ́учитесь учиться / учишься учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how psychologists study learning and studying    как психологи изучают обучение и изучение&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to study the learning process                    изучать учебный процесс&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;you will learn studying                          нау́читесь изучая&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;learn studying!                                  учи́тесь учиться!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to study learning                                изучать обучение&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What do students learn studying these words?     Чему научатся студенты, изучая эти слова?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as you can see above, in Russian we have one root (or stem, if you prefer) &lt;b&gt;`уч`&lt;/b&gt; for both. We build a new verb with a prepositional prefix. E.g., &lt;b&gt;`из-`&lt;/b&gt; is a prefix that give us the new meaning &lt;b&gt;`out of`&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; учить -  &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;учать        to learn     - to study&#xD;&#xA; влечь -  &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;влечь        to draw (to) - draw out; extract&#xD;&#xA; дать  -  &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;дать         to give      - give forth, give out&#xD;&#xA; ложить - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;ложить       to lay       - to lay open (to lay the case)&#xD;&#xA; брать  - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;брать        to take      - to take up (What one thing to take up and master?)&#xD;&#xA; гнать  - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;гнать        to drive     - to drive out (drive a herd - drive out of doors) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----- not so furthered and linearly -----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; менять - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;менять      to change -&#xD;&#xA;                      - to exchange; to vary; to modify; + to betray, break one's oath &#xD;&#xA; бежать - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;бежать      to run -&#xD;&#xA;                      - to escape (officers had a narrow escape their car) &#xD;&#xA;                                + (had narrowly escaped arrest)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I humbly hope you see the pattern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8785" RevisionGUID="9730a299-927d-46f3-8921-99fc9738e1fe" CreationDate="2015-05-21T16:32:04.517" UserId="5503" Text="IMHO, &quot;**to study**&quot; refers to some **academic** work. While studying you do different researches, go through some specific literature, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**To learn**&quot; is to gain rather some **skill** than some knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;*For instance*, toddlers, they learn how to walk. They are NOT doing any researches about how gravitation affect them or how many calories is necessary for making a single step. They just practice some movements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you can study literature(history, writer bio, modernism or realism etc.) but you **learn** **how to** read.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8786" RevisionGUID="adb4a828-313f-48cc-80e1-0335c369df9e" CreationDate="2015-05-21T16:52:53.440" UserId="5503" Text="If you witness people arguing in comments(on the Web) it's also may be considered as срач. the synonym would be &quot;butthurt&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;in other situations(if they refer to something physical) the euphemism  would be &quot;a mess&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8787" RevisionGUID="1b2fe05c-f759-468e-b392-e68a294b7d06" CreationDate="2015-05-22T03:55:28.417" UserId="5505" Text="[Больше ада][1] seems to be a meme on the Russian internet, but what does it mean in practice?  The literal translation of &quot;More/better hell&quot; does not seem to explain the context, and the [random comment][2] that leads me to ask this likens this Richard Gabriel's famous (in IT circles, anyway) &quot;[Worse is Better][3]&quot; essay, which also doesn't explain much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9585763&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8787" RevisionGUID="1b2fe05c-f759-468e-b392-e68a294b7d06" CreationDate="2015-05-22T03:55:28.417" UserId="5505" Text="What does &quot;Больше ада&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8787" RevisionGUID="1b2fe05c-f759-468e-b392-e68a294b7d06" CreationDate="2015-05-22T03:55:28.417" UserId="5505" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8788" RevisionGUID="6601d6c2-31f6-40b0-a107-197b81562cbf" CreationDate="2015-05-22T04:34:45.610" UserId="5506" Text="I'm not an expert, but as I understand,  it can be literally translated as (a little ) 'more  OF hell' (on this earth). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="e2bde7d4-b117-4245-9991-1135fa435b98" CreationDate="2015-05-22T05:13:51.233" UserId="487" Text="It doesn't appear in a dictionary, however it seems to be a used word (like a vulgar version of cooler/better/funnier is what I can guess from the context?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ебовее &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also might be derived from *ебать* but it's hard to guess the actual meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="e2bde7d4-b117-4245-9991-1135fa435b98" CreationDate="2015-05-22T05:13:51.233" UserId="487" Text="How to translate ебовее?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="e2bde7d4-b117-4245-9991-1135fa435b98" CreationDate="2015-05-22T05:13:51.233" UserId="487" Text="|одним-словом|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8790" RevisionGUID="8f212c1e-b402-4c6b-85c5-7ac783db718e" CreationDate="2015-05-22T05:30:16.923" UserId="4379" Text="You're right, it's a rude word for &quot;cooler&quot;, &quot;better&quot;. `ебовее` is a comparative form of the adjective `ебовый` that, in turn, is derived from the verb `ебать`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8791" RevisionGUID="364b160e-355b-4c24-9b2e-1a82b6180a2f" CreationDate="2015-05-22T06:16:19.563" UserId="4481" Text="As I understand context in most of cases, usually it is a sort of sarcasm. When you see something very strange and stupid, that can be considered as &quot;ад&quot; (hell), you can say &quot;больше ада&quot; in meaning &quot;Did anyone see something more stupid? Show it to me!&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Also, it can mean sequel of a story. For example, you saw something strange and wrote a news article about that. Next day you saw something worse and wrote another article with header &quot;Больше ада!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="a50536b4-6f4c-443c-9588-58e6eac06214" CreationDate="2015-05-22T08:07:16.803" UserId="487" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="It doesn't appear in a dictionary, however it seems to be a used word (like a vulgar version of cooler/better/funnier is what I can guess from the context?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А звучит **ебовее** чем Б&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also might be derived from *ебать* but it's hard to guess the actual meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="1f416650-4bbf-40e2-9721-f786b7f67b57" CreationDate="2015-05-22T09:32:18.253" UserId="551" Text="I beleive it is a shortened version of a meme known as &quot;[Адъ и Израиль][1]&quot; which means &quot;total mess&quot;. Linked Lurkmore page states that Jesus used this phrase in the same meaning, though [this article][2] states that the phrase is taken from some less known church document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in the following manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комментах к статье - просто Ад и Израиль!  &#xD;&#xA;(The comments to an article are total mess!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which indicates that many people were offended by an article or the post, or a flame war began there, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when a person sees that the comments (or an article, or a post) can be described as a &quot;total mess&quot; then they can add a comment &quot;Больше ада!&quot; which means &quot;Add more insanity! I want more!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact if you google the &quot;ад и израиль&quot; phrase you'll find that it is rather popular (500k search results).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%8A_%D0%B8_%D0%98%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newsru.co.il/world/14dec2005/grek.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="48dd40e5-7cd5-4828-98d0-b8a13d736b0f" CreationDate="2015-05-22T09:42:48.890" UserId="551" Comment="It was not Jesus after all" Text="I beleive it is a shortened version of a meme known as &quot;[Адъ и Израиль][1]&quot; which means &quot;total mess&quot;. Linked Lurkmore page states that some [network character](https://lurkmore.to/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) used this phrase in the same meaning. However [this article][2] states that synonymity of Israel and Hell could be taken from some less known church document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in the following manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комментах к статье - просто Ад и Израиль!  &#xD;&#xA;(The comments to an article are total mess!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which indicates that many people were offended by an article or the post, or a flame war began there, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when a person sees that the comments (or an article, or a post) can be described as a &quot;total mess&quot; then they can add a comment &quot;Больше ада!&quot; which means &quot;Add more insanity! I want more!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact if you google the &quot;ад и израиль&quot; phrase you'll find that it is rather popular (500k search results).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%8A_%D0%B8_%D0%98%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newsru.co.il/world/14dec2005/grek.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8793" RevisionGUID="c72a2af4-d3f2-4d0d-bae8-6d877f643340" CreationDate="2015-05-22T15:11:49.220" UserId="5512" Text="This words actually can be translated literally as &quot;More of hell&quot; or better &quot;It's crazy&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;It's nature comes from idiom &quot;Ад&quot; (&quot;Hell&quot;) - something not from this world, an action from a man or a group of people, which is beyond any logic.  &#xD;&#xA;Typically it starts from post &quot;Просто ад&quot; (&quot;Just a hell&quot; or &quot;It's crazy&quot;) with description of something or someone crazy behavior, if author or someone from a comments find analogue or a continuation for a post it's adding a comment or a second post &quot;Больше ада&quot; (&quot;More of hell&quot; or &quot;Even crazier&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;Example: Post #1 from someone 'It is crazy, I just saw a man fall from the upper floor', then Post #2 'It is even crazier, he had not a scratch, returned to upper floor and FALL AGAIN!'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21231" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8787" RevisionGUID="01ff5173-32b8-4238-900a-9927b953c7ab" CreationDate="2015-05-22T16:49:55.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/601792114108825600" />
  <row Id="21232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8794" RevisionGUID="287746bf-d578-4304-ab59-97af383c23bd" CreationDate="2015-05-23T04:54:11.600" UserId="5517" Text="Well, as a russian, I would understand it as &quot;add more insanity!&quot; or &#xD;&#xA;&quot;more trash!&quot;. I saw some usages, often it is a sarcasm. Like I googled and a saw some blog post, a person complains about bullshit in the news, and at the end he asks to add even more bullshit, more dead people, more hell :D &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="3f2f0dbc-6c1a-450c-afb8-05a9f256ba71" CreationDate="2015-05-23T10:16:28.227" UserId="5520" Text="I just used, without thinking, the word &quot;забывало&quot; to mean &quot;a person who forgets things all the time&quot;. When I started to think about it, I couldn't remember having heard the word, nor could I find such usage in dictionaries or on the internet. Somehow it still sounds good to me - what do you people think? Is it correctly formed, understandable and idiomatic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="3f2f0dbc-6c1a-450c-afb8-05a9f256ba71" CreationDate="2015-05-23T10:16:28.227" UserId="5520" Text="Существительное &quot;забывало&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8795" RevisionGUID="3f2f0dbc-6c1a-450c-afb8-05a9f256ba71" CreationDate="2015-05-23T10:16:28.227" UserId="5520" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8789" RevisionGUID="beda04e7-13b0-41db-94d4-57d5f808436e" CreationDate="2015-05-23T10:28:42.680" UserId="487" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="It doesn't appear in a dictionary, however it seems to be a used word (like a vulgar version of cooler/better/funnier is what I can guess from the context?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А звучит **ебовее** чем Б&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also might be derived from *ебать* but it's hard to guess the actual meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked this guy who wrote something like in the example, and he told me it was **мат**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8796" RevisionGUID="feef2606-0341-4544-ad56-309e2e6d921d" CreationDate="2015-05-23T11:40:43.853" UserId="5443" Text="It sounds like a nonce word, but is quite understandable in that meaning. Maybe something like &quot;забывал**а**&quot; (запевала, заводила), &quot;забывальщик&quot; or &quot;забывальщица&quot; when used between friends would sound less offensive since &quot;забывало&quot; reminds of such typical words as &quot;быдло&quot;, &quot;хамло&quot;, &quot;мурло&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;However, the difference between &quot;забывал**о**&quot; and &quot;забывал**а**&quot; is only noticeable in written form.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8792" RevisionGUID="ef337021-d88c-4e15-87b2-175e038935d9" CreationDate="2015-05-23T12:01:28.460" UserId="551" Comment="The comment is sarcastic, of course." Text="I beleive it is a shortened version of a meme known as &quot;[Адъ и Израиль][1]&quot; which means &quot;total mess&quot;. Linked Lurkmore page states that some [network character](https://lurkmore.to/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) used this phrase in the same meaning. However [this article][2] states that synonymity of Israel and Hell could be taken from some less known church document. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in the following manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комментах к статье - просто Ад и Израиль!  &#xD;&#xA;(The comments to an article are total mess!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which indicates that many people were offended by an article or the post, or a flame war began there, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when a person sees that the comments (or an article, or a post) can be described as a &quot;total mess&quot; then they can add a sarcastic comment &quot;Больше ада!&quot; which means &quot;Add more insanity! I want more!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact if you google the &quot;ад и израиль&quot; phrase you'll find that it is rather popular (500k search results).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lurkmore.to/%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%8A_%D0%B8_%D0%98%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.newsru.co.il/world/14dec2005/grek.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8796" RevisionGUID="2522c570-9d54-43d7-85f7-8ced96f99ae9" CreationDate="2015-05-23T12:16:43.270" UserId="5443" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="It sounds like a nonce word, but is quite understandable in that meaning. Maybe something like &quot;забывал**а**&quot; (запевала, заводила, зазывала, вышибала), &quot;забывальщик&quot; or &quot;забывальщица&quot; when used between friends would sound less offensive since &quot;забывало&quot; reminds of such typical words as &quot;быдло&quot;, &quot;хамло&quot;, &quot;мурло&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;However, the difference between &quot;забывал**о**&quot; and &quot;забывал**а**&quot; is only noticeable in written form.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8798" RevisionGUID="9b8d7377-cc5d-4873-aa71-30199a838d6e" CreationDate="2015-05-24T05:05:56.467" UserId="5288" Text="The suffix **`-ло`** holds its own basic meaning when it is added to the verb root: *tool for doing; instrument, or agent.* For example,   &#xD;&#xA;`мыть - мыло, шить - шило, сидеть - седло, править - прав́ило.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever you may wish to write as an author, who intented by that suffix `-ло` to make a new word, you should bear in mind that `мыло, шило, забывало` are the past tense of a verb in the neuter gender of a doer, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we are faced with a case of homonymy with two previous well-known meanings, we shall solve the problem with ambiguity, but in the case of just the newborn word the case of homonymy exists only in our mind, and we should clearly tell the reader what it is. Most certainly a reader will take a meaning by operating unconsciously, thus will stick by the well-known form of a verb. On this course you will not achieve the goal, but reader would be forced to read again the same phrase in attempts at getting to know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an author don't have a willingness to run the risk to be a pioneer with that new word, he/she may use in Russian    &#xD;&#xA;**a)** a capital letter to denote a proper Name `Ты такой Забывало.` (mood: informal, familiar; not agressive);      &#xD;&#xA;**b)** doublling for a letter, when there is a need for a temporary &quot;common name&quot;  `забывалло`;       &#xD;&#xA;**c)** make similar with surnames `Тебя звать не Забывайло, часом?` (mood: sarcasm, familiar; in a &quot;correcting&quot; or &quot;accusatory&quot; way)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8801" RevisionGUID="2f7a7861-e0d4-4e5f-8cbe-e08880663473" CreationDate="2015-05-25T20:24:15.263" UserId="5530" Text="I often see it in opposition communities, when someone posts news about madness in the Russian leadership, like Mezulina's initiatives or Astakhov's comments about women, people often reply &quot;Больше ада!&quot; = &quot;(Let's have) more hell!&quot; meaning the more insane the Russian authorities become, the sooner their rule will be over." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8803" RevisionGUID="97b13cfc-a5b6-4c35-a019-5eed578b4445" CreationDate="2015-05-25T21:02:00.707" UserId="5530" Text="There are two big thesauruses for the Russian language &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Russian Thesaurus&quot; by O.S. Baranov (100 000 words and expressions in 7 800 articles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thesaurus1.narod.ru/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a bit too scientific and not so easy to use as Roget's thesaurus for English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. RuThes (45 000 notions, 107 000 words and expressions, 177 000 relationships).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.labinform.ru/pub/ruthes/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8804" RevisionGUID="a191a68a-98ab-4734-9e95-d83e46eb6f04" CreationDate="2015-05-26T09:20:31.127" UserId="5532" Text="Colloquially, you would say just &quot;автобус ушёл&quot;, omitting the whole bus stop from the context. &#xD;&#xA;Exactly as in the idiom &quot;your bus has left the stop&quot; meaning &quot;you've missed your opportunity&quot;, &quot;it's too late&quot; - but a &quot;train&quot; is used: &quot;твой поезд ушёл&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8798" RevisionGUID="13c6dabc-f29f-45bf-8f52-4c1387fcf0a3" CreationDate="2015-05-26T15:31:24.147" UserId="5288" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="The suffix **`-ло`** holds its own basic meaning when it is added to the verb root: *tool for doing; instrument, or agent.* For example,   &#xD;&#xA;`мыть - мыло, шить - шило, сидеть - седло, править - прав́ило, &#xD;&#xA; хлебать - хлебало, крыть - крыл́о, покрывать - покрывало, ... `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever you may wish to write as an author, who intented by that suffix `-ло` to make a new word, you should bear in mind that `мыло, шило, забывало` are the past tense of a verb in the neuter gender of a doer, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we are faced with a case of homonymy with two previous well-known meanings, we shall solve the problem with ambiguity, but in the case of just the newborn word the case of homonymy exists only in our mind, and we should clearly tell the reader what it is. Most certainly a reader will take a meaning by operating unconsciously, thus will stick by the well-known form of a verb. On this course you will not achieve the goal, but reader would be forced to read again the same phrase in attempts at getting to know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an author don't have a willingness to run the risk to be a pioneer with that new word, he/she may use in Russian    &#xD;&#xA;**a)** a capital letter to denote a proper Name `Ты такой Забывало.` (mood: informal, familiar; not agressive);      &#xD;&#xA;**b)** doublling for a letter, when there is a need for a temporary &quot;common name&quot;  `забывалло`;       &#xD;&#xA;**c)** make similar with surnames `Тебя звать не Забывайло, часом?` (mood: sarcasm, familiar; in a &quot;correcting&quot; or &quot;accusatory&quot; way)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8798" RevisionGUID="98c20b07-e2f3-4e78-9985-d3ae27f0f941" CreationDate="2015-05-26T15:54:49.270" UserId="5288" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="The suffix **`-ло`** holds its own basic meaning when it is added to the verb root: *tool for doing; instrument, or agent.* For example,   &#xD;&#xA;`мыть - мыло, шить - шило, сидеть - седло, править - прав́ило, &#xD;&#xA; хлебать - хлебало, крыть - крыл́о, покрывать - покрывало, ... `&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever you may wish to write as an author, who intented by that suffix `-ло` to make a new word, you should bear in mind that `мыло забывало покрывало (word play)`  are the past tense of a verb in the neuter gender of a doer, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we are faced with a case of homonymy with two previous well-known meanings, we shall solve the problem with ambiguity, but in the case of just the newborn word the case of homonymy exists only in our mind, and we should clearly tell the reader what it is. Most certainly a reader will take a meaning by operating unconsciously, thus will stick by the well-known form of a verb. On this course you will not achieve the goal, but reader would be forced to read again the same phrase in attempts at getting to know. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When an author don't have a willingness to run the risk to be a pioneer with that new word, he/she may use in Russian    &#xD;&#xA;**a)** a capital letter to denote a proper Name `Ты такой Забывало.` (mood: informal, familiar; not agressive);      &#xD;&#xA;**b)** doublling for a letter, when there is a need for a temporary &quot;common name&quot;  `забывалло`;       &#xD;&#xA;**c)** make similar with surnames `Тебя звать не Забывайло, часом?` (mood: sarcasm, familiar; in a &quot;correcting&quot; or &quot;accusatory&quot; way)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="d18134a3-d270-45fc-92c9-fbb944c81e71" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:16:30.543" UserId="4028" Text="Some textbooks on Russian grammar say that the partitive genitive of a noun appears only as the object of a verb, never as the subject.  It appears to me that _воды_ in the above expression would be the subject. If so, it should be replaced by _вода_ grammatically. But _воды_ seems more frequently used. Why? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="d18134a3-d270-45fc-92c9-fbb944c81e71" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:16:30.543" UserId="4028" Text="&quot;Воды&quot; in the expression &quot;мне хочется воды&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="d18134a3-d270-45fc-92c9-fbb944c81e71" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:16:30.543" UserId="4028" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8806" RevisionGUID="7b662b91-b95c-4d99-8423-2e3d63764866" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:29:17.260" UserId="4379" Text="The phrase `мне хочется воды` doesn't contain any subject. It's an impersonal sentence where `мне` and `воды` are objects. Therefore, the rule you mentioned isn't broken in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the sentence, there's no direct analog of such construction in English. You may consider `мне хочется` as a synonym of `я хочу`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8754" RevisionGUID="9539d796-9e6c-4fb8-b859-62adbdab560c" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:42:49.613" UserId="5158" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="For all I know, everybody just use Latin version: FreeBSD. In programming and related fields, most of the time people use Latin versions of terms, like SQL, Linux, C++, FFT, malware, PC - you would expect to see their Cyrillic transliterations or translations (ЭсКюЭль, Линукс, Си-Плюс-Плюс, ДПФ, Вредоносное ПО, ПК) only in old books and public official documents (were everything must be written in Cyrillic by law)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8807" RevisionGUID="aa3eec42-46e5-4282-89a5-50d3bea79833" CreationDate="2015-05-26T17:49:57.687" UserId="134" Text="In the phrase *мне хочется воды*, grammatically, there is a zero subject, one verb and two objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an impersonal phrase, which is similar to English impersonal constructs like &quot;it seems to me&quot;, &quot;it occurs to me&quot; etc, except that phrases like that have a zero subject in Russian (as opposed to English, which has an actual subject, &quot;it&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatically, both *мне* and *воды* are objects to *хочется*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that object, subject and verb are purely grammatical terms, which are not to be confused with thematic roles of agent, patient and instrument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="fbdf9525-ade3-440b-af0c-e16134f1c827" CreationDate="2015-05-28T13:10:25.303" UserId="5288" Text="**`Мне хочется воды`** is exactly `*I am in a state of*`  thirstyness, a physiological state corresponding to a strong need of water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right from the English phrase we can see why there is genetive, because &quot;of smth&quot; has direct corresponding with Russian Gen.                                                 &#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;The `хочется` is very special verb. It sets a person in a certain complex state in virtue of his perceiving.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;мне чудится сон                  Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне делается операция            Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется танцев                  Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне видится образ                Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется моря, песка, солнца     Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне слышится песня               Nom&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a certain sense in `мне хочется воды` there *is* a subject, a psychological state only I know I am in. This subject you may consider (in English, like weather verbs) as included, &quot;It's needing; (my state of the need of ...)&quot;, where in the place of &quot;need&quot; can be placed smth with 25+ meanings in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу воды` vs `мне хочется воды` is an inappropriate analogous. When we say `Я хочу ...` we mean, first, &quot;I am needing smth&quot;, but `мне хочется ...` is &quot;I am feeling ... (state of “being” in the present)&quot; and &quot;I am aware of this state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу` is an analogous `Я делаю`. Thus in `мне делается операция` the noun `операция` is a word in Nominative, and there is huge number of examples with such verbs. It's something that we consciously try to do, whereas a psychological state is something else. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="54f61861-40ba-4eb6-8865-71bc09411946" CreationDate="2015-05-28T13:16:20.300" UserId="5288" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="**`Мне хочется воды`** is exactly `*I am in a state of*`  thirstyness, a physiological state corresponding to a strong need of water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right from the English phrase we can see why there is genetive, because &quot;of smth&quot; has direct corresponding with Russian Gen.                                                 &#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;The `хочется` is very special verb. It sets a person in a certain complex state in virtue of his perceiving.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;мне чудится сон                  Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне делается операция            Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется танцев                  Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне видится образ                Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется моря, песка, солнца     Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне слышится песня               Nom&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a certain sense in `мне хочется воды` there *is* a subject, a psychological state only I know I am in. This subject you may consider (in English, like weather verbs) as included, &quot;It's needing; (my state of the need of ...)&quot;, where in the place of &quot;need&quot; can be placed smth with &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.academic.ru/хотеть/ru/en/&quot; title=&quot;хотеть&quot;&gt;25+ meanings in English&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу воды` vs `мне хочется воды` is an inappropriate analogous. When we say `Я хочу ...` we mean, first, &quot;I am needing smth&quot;, but `мне хочется ...` is &quot;I am feeling ... (state of “being” in the present)&quot; and &quot;I am aware of this state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу` is an analogous `Я делаю`. Thus in `мне делается операция` the noun `операция` is a word in Nominative, and there is huge number of examples with such verbs. It's something that we consciously try to do, whereas a psychological state is something else. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="18cad378-08e9-4650-926f-524f1c946c6c" CreationDate="2015-05-28T13:21:23.813" UserId="5288" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="**`Мне хочется воды`** is exactly `*I am in a state of*`  thirstyness, a physiological state corresponding to a strong need of water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right from the English phrase we can see why there is genetive, because &quot;of smth&quot; has direct corresponding with Russian Gen.                                                 &#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;The `хочется` is very special verb. It sets a person in a certain complex state in virtue of his perceiving.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;мне чудится сон                  Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне делается операция            Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется танцев                  Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне видится образ                Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется моря, песка, солнца     Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне слышится песня               Nom&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a certain sense in `мне хочется воды` there *is* a subject, a psychological state only I know I am in. This subject you may consider (in English, like weather verbs) as included, &quot;It's needing; (my state of the need of ...)&quot;, where in the place of &quot;need&quot; can be placed smth with &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.academic.ru/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/ru/en/&quot; title=&quot;хотеть&quot;&gt;25+ meanings in English&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу воды` vs `мне хочется воды` is an inappropriate analogous. When we say `Я хочу ...` we mean, first, &quot;I am needing smth&quot;, but `мне хочется ...` is &quot;I am feeling ... (state of “being” in the present)&quot; and &quot;I am aware of this state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу` is an analogous `Я делаю`. Thus in `мне делается операция` the noun `операция` is a word in Nominative, and there is huge number of examples with such verbs. It's something that we consciously try to do, whereas a psychological state is something else. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="3398ea8b-b933-44ef-9fdd-45929d92e832" CreationDate="2015-05-28T13:57:28.567" UserId="5288" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="**`Мне хочется воды`** is exactly `*I am in a state of*`  thirstyness, a physiological state (that implies a psychological) corresponding to a strong need of water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right from the English phrase we can see why there is genetive, because &quot;of smth&quot; has direct corresponding with Russian Gen.                                                 &#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;The `хочется` is very special verb. It sets a person in a certain complex state in virtue of his perceiving.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;мне чудится сон                  Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне делается операция            Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется танцев                  Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне видится образ                Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется моря, песка, солнца     Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне слышится песня               Nom&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a certain sense in `мне хочется воды` there *is* a subject, a psychological state only I know I am in. This subject you may consider (in English, like weather verbs) as included, &quot;It's needing; (my state of the need of ...)&quot;, where in the place of &quot;need&quot; can be placed smth with &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.academic.ru/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/ru/en/&quot; title=&quot;хотеть&quot;&gt;25+ meanings in English&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу воды` vs `мне хочется воды` is an inappropriate analogous. When we say `Я хочу ...` we mean, first, &quot;I am needing smth&quot;, but `мне хочется ...` is &quot;I am feeling ... (state of “being” in the present)&quot; and &quot;I am aware of this state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу` is an analogous `Я делаю`. Thus in `мне делается операция` the noun `операция` is a word in Nominative, and there is huge number of examples with such verbs. It's something that we consciously try to do, whereas a psychological state is something else. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="bee69234-be59-41d6-b4ca-e4f0ade4f519" CreationDate="2015-05-28T19:24:08.867" UserId="5540" Text="I often heard &quot;Я жду с не терпением&quot; (wait without patience) to say that &quot;I'm anxious in a good way&quot; or &quot;looking forward to&quot; an event. You could say &quot;Я жду с не терпением начать новую работу&quot; and that would communicate the American equivalent of &quot;I'm excited about my new job.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8810" RevisionGUID="f17882ea-5ccc-42f7-9737-a642341f8c97" CreationDate="2015-05-28T20:11:17.240" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I often heard &quot;Я жду с нетерпением&quot; (wait without patience) to say that &quot;I'm anxious in a good way&quot; or &quot;looking forward to&quot; an event. You could say &quot;Я жду с нетерпением начать новую работу&quot; and that would communicate the American equivalent of &quot;I'm excited about my new job.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8805" RevisionGUID="4a6acbe5-3079-4cb1-aa16-ce4e10c69b7b" CreationDate="2015-05-29T11:29:41.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/604248236610699264" />
  <row Id="21275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="94d224ec-2a29-4e16-97d5-f4f0a3b3997a" CreationDate="2015-05-29T18:48:47.507" UserId="5543" Text="I had a long break (~6 months) from learning Russian and now I'm a little confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне (не) прочитать эту книгу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I must (mustn't) read this book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I (don't) want to read this book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="94d224ec-2a29-4e16-97d5-f4f0a3b3997a" CreationDate="2015-05-29T18:48:47.507" UserId="5543" Text="The usage of dative case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="94d224ec-2a29-4e16-97d5-f4f0a3b3997a" CreationDate="2015-05-29T18:48:47.507" UserId="5543" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8812" RevisionGUID="6e72c71e-5a03-47ce-a4d0-ec39451478bf" CreationDate="2015-05-29T18:53:12.793" UserId="5544" Text="Actually, &quot;мне не прочитать эту книгу&quot; means &quot;I can't read (finish reading) this book&quot;. For example, because it is difficult or long etc. You cannot finish it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне прочитать эту книгу&quot; sounds wrong and nobody will ever say or understand this. It has no meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8813" RevisionGUID="e54adb11-a0ab-4b36-9e71-7cd1bdb3d48f" CreationDate="2015-05-30T00:10:52.950" UserId="5545" Text="&quot;Из-за&quot; is normally used as &quot;because of&quot; and in the sense of laying a blame. To ask &quot;Ты здесь из-за меня?&quot; is to mean &quot;Is it my fault that you're here?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Ради&quot; is normally used as &quot;for&quot; and in the sense of providing assistance. To say &quot;Ты здесь ради меня?&quot; is synonymous to &quot;Are you here for me?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="2810ddbc-b7cd-4f4b-8a1a-895f4c5447b0" CreationDate="2015-05-30T03:49:12.253" UserId="5288" Text="Рассмотрим минимально законченный синтаксический образец, включающий предложенную фразу, **где есть и подлежащее, и сказуемое**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мне  прочитать   эту книгу — хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;  Мне не прочитать эту книгу — плохо.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Сказуемое здесь выражено наречием, отвечающим на вопрос &quot;каково?&quot;. Подлежащее — глагол в инфинитиве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Малая грамматическая обусловленность в предложенном примере оставляет **неопределенности**, которые и вызывают трудности у изучающего русский язык. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**а)** Отсутствующее сказуемое (один из двух главных членов предложения заключающий в себе высказывание, делающий выражение мысли законченным - [сл.Ушакова]) оставляет неопределенность в отношении представленного действия `прочитать` и его предикативным признаком: *это хорошо? плохо? весело? вовремя? ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** Неопределенность во времени:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать — хорошо.            Настоящее&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать было хорошо.         Прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать будет хорошо.        Будущее&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**в)** Неопределенность в наклонении (как иллюстрация):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать было бы хорошо.                        Сослагательное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Если бы прочитать было хорошо ... /                &#xD;&#xA;     (было бы прочитать хорошо, если ...)          Условное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Было бы прочитать хорошо!                        Желательное&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall consider an auxiliary sentence. For that we have to finish the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мне  прочитать  эту книгу —  хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;      └── subj ─┘            └─ praed ─┘&#xD;&#xA;          V_inf                 Adv&#xD;&#xA;          └──── How? Каково? ────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When we say     &#xD;&#xA;`Мне не прочитать эту книгу — плохо.`   &#xD;&#xA;we mean,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  I will not be able to read this book, it's bad.&#xD;&#xA;  I wouldn't be able to ...&#xD;&#xA;  I couldn't be able to ... &#xD;&#xA;     + probably&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not going to read this book, it's bad. &#xD;&#xA;  I was not going to read this book, it's bad.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  He won't be able to come in time, it's bad. &#xD;&#xA;  Ему не приехать вовремя, плохо.&#xD;&#xA;         └─ V_inf + Adv ─┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They now appeared; she had made each promise to come early.&#xD;&#xA;  Они появились, она имела от каждого обещание прибыть вовремя.&#xD;&#xA;                                              └─ V_inf + Adv ─┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It won't hurt you to stand.&#xD;&#xA;  Тебе постоять не вредно.&#xD;&#xA;       └── V_inf + Adv ──┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They never go far.&#xD;&#xA;  Им не уйти далеко.&#xD;&#xA;     └ V_inf + Adv ┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="288f2af9-3983-4e15-91f0-b90ba470936e" CreationDate="2015-05-30T16:29:46.317" UserId="5288" Comment="added 2185 characters in body" Text="**`Мне хочется воды`** is exactly `*I am in a state of*`  thirstyness, a physiological state (that implies a psychological) corresponding to a strong need of water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right from the English phrase we can see why there is genetive, because &quot;of smth&quot; has direct corresponding with Russian Gen.                                                 &#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;The `хочется` is very special verb. It sets a person in a certain complex state in virtue of his perceiving.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;мне чудится сон                  Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне делается операция            Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется танцев                  Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне видится образ                Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется моря, песка, солнца     Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне слышится песня               Nom&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a certain sense in `мне хочется воды` there *is* a subject, a psychological state only I know I am in. This subject you may consider (in English, like weather verbs) as included, &quot;It's needing; (my state of the need of ...)&quot;, where in the place of &quot;need&quot; can be placed smth with &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.academic.ru/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/ru/en/&quot; title=&quot;хотеть&quot;&gt;25+ meanings in English&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу воды` vs `мне хочется воды` is an inappropriate analogous. When we say `Я хочу ...` we mean, first, &quot;I am needing smth&quot;, but `мне хочется ...` is &quot;I am feeling ... (state of “being” in the present)&quot; and &quot;I am aware of this state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу` is an analogous `Я делаю`. Thus in `мне делается операция` the noun `операция` is a word in Nominative, and there is huge number of examples with such verbs. It's something that we consciously try to do, whereas a psychological state is something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[As you say](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8805/%d0%92%d0%be%d0%b4%d1%8b-in-the-expression-%d0%bc%d0%bd%d0%b5-%d1%85%d0%be%d1%87%d0%b5%d1%82%d1%81%d1%8f-%d0%b2%d0%be%d0%b4%d1%8b#comment19581_8807), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are ... reflexive verbs accepting objects in accusative and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `хотеться`, one of them, takes an object in animate accusative or in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inanimate genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more examples `хотеться_praes + N_accu` without the connection with in/animate, so it is fully literate.  [Proof](https://www.google.com.ua/search?num=30&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%8E%22&amp;oq=%22%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%8E%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to show that there are `хотеться_praes + Noun_instr`. Examples with a context [the first](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=uVonAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BC%22&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BC%22 &quot;обстреливают нас всех вместе, а умираем мы все же врозь, и никому не хочется первым.&quot;) , [the second](https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D1%81+%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE+%E2%80%95+%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5.+%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83.&amp;num=20&amp;safe=off&amp;tbm=bks&amp;oq=%D1%81+%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE+%E2%80%95+%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5.+%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83. &quot;с любым животным необходимо ― терпение. Иногда хочется багром по дыхалу.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8815" RevisionGUID="4a0d4d2a-9665-4cc5-b574-57d808987e5b" CreationDate="2015-05-30T19:58:04.400" UserId="4560" Text="*Мне прочитать эту книгу* and *Мне **не** прочитать эту книгу* are quite different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former only makes sense as a question: `Мне прочитать эту книгу?` &quot;Am I to read this book?&quot; (Implying a rather weak degree of obligation/prescription, not &quot;must&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter, negative one is a somewhat high-sounding &quot;Never will I read this book!&quot; (Implying intervening circumstances, *not* the speaker's defiance.) It's a little difficult to imagine the circumstances in which one would use this construction to talk about not getting to read a book. An alternative, and rarer, meaning could be &quot;I don't have what it takes to read this book&quot; (i.e. it's too difficult or cryptic)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="fa32cce8-8836-4f7e-b4b4-ff4f05470a8a" CreationDate="2015-05-30T22:50:13.233" UserId="5288" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим минимально законченный синтаксический образец, включающий предложенную фразу, **где есть и подлежащее, и сказуемое**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мне  прочитать   эту книгу — хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;  Мне не прочитать эту книгу — плохо.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Сказуемое здесь выражено наречием, отвечающим на вопрос &quot;каково?&quot;. Подлежащее — глагол в инфинитиве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Малая грамматическая обусловленность в предложенном примере оставляет **неопределенности**, которые и вызывают трудности у изучающего русский язык. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**а)** Отсутствующее сказуемое (один из двух главных членов предложения заключающий в себе высказывание, делающий выражение мысли законченным - [сл.Ушакова]) оставляет неопределенность в отношении представленного действия `прочитать` и его предикативным признаком: *это хорошо? плохо? весело? вовремя? ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** Неопределенность во времени:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать — хорошо.            Настоящее&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать было хорошо.         Прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать будет хорошо.        Будущее&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**в)** Неопределенность в наклонении (как иллюстрация):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать было бы хорошо.                        Сослагательное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Если бы прочитать было хорошо ... /                &#xD;&#xA;     (было бы прочитать хорошо, если ...)          Условное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Было бы прочитать хорошо!                        Желательное&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;**(1)** There is no dot after the last word, in the OP, so it is not a sentence; **(2)** there had been a variation as shown by the braces, which make no sense in ordinary texts, but are found widely as available cases from textbooks. Thus, **(3)** it is `phrases | сочетания слов`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall consider an auxiliary sentence. For that **we have to finish the sentence.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мне  прочитать  эту книгу —  хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;      └── subj ─┘            └─ praed ─┘&#xD;&#xA;          V_inf                 Adv&#xD;&#xA;          └──── How? Каково? ────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When we say     &#xD;&#xA;`Мне не прочитать эту книгу — плохо.`   &#xD;&#xA;we mean,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  I will not be able to read this book, it's bad.&#xD;&#xA;  I wouldn't be able to ...&#xD;&#xA;  I couldn't be able to ... &#xD;&#xA;     + probably&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not going to read this book, it's bad. &#xD;&#xA;  I was not going to read this book, it's bad.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  He won't be able to come in time, it's bad. &#xD;&#xA;  Ему не приехать вовремя, плохо.&#xD;&#xA;         └─ V_inf + Adv ─┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They now appeared; she had made each promise to come early.&#xD;&#xA;  Они появились, она имела от каждого обещание прибыть вовремя.&#xD;&#xA;                                              └─ V_inf + Adv ─┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It won't hurt you to stand.&#xD;&#xA;  Тебе постоять не вредно.&#xD;&#xA;       └── V_inf + Adv ──┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They never go far.&#xD;&#xA;  Им не уйти далеко.&#xD;&#xA;     └ V_inf + Adv ┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="77f0f8be-234f-4b01-a3fc-47578ff96888" CreationDate="2015-05-31T12:44:43.597" UserId="5550" Text="**ru wiktionary org** - most popular and easy&#xD;&#xA;(sorry for links, i have no enough points to post a lot of links)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**gramota ru** - Russian for Russians) Here russians check russian words. Very hard)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frequency dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.artint.ru/projects/frqlist.php&#xD;&#xA;here you can download **lemma al zip** it is text file with words that used more than 1 time per million.&#xD;&#xA;You can convert it to Excel (replace spaces by &quot;;&quot;) and open as CSV.&#xD;&#xA;Then use order-by and filter on speech parts.&#xD;&#xA;If you have problems with converting, write me - I'll try to help you and share this info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, try combo: Frequency Dictionary + Wiktionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8816" RevisionGUID="2b219fcd-9005-4cdc-a0f3-94adc25945ae" CreationDate="2015-05-31T13:05:25.210" UserId="5550" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="**ru wiktionary org** - most popular and easy&#xD;&#xA;(sorry for links, i have no enough points to post a lot of links)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**gramota ru** - Russian for Russians) Here russians check russian words. Very hard)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frequency dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.artint.ru/projects/frqlist.php&#xD;&#xA;here you can download **lemma al zip** it is text file with words that used more than 1 time per million.&#xD;&#xA;You can convert it to Excel (replace spaces by &quot;;&quot;) and open as CSV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can download converted:&#xD;&#xA;http://file.qip.ru/file/XhZKX9_m/Russian_Frequency_Dictionary.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, try combo: Frequency Dictionary + Wiktionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8817" RevisionGUID="6dd367a5-607f-4e43-94c9-f36a370e59ed" CreationDate="2015-05-31T13:50:48.313" UserId="5550" Text="Thesaurus will be too hard to learn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it will be better to learn word parts: prefix, root, suffix, ending;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?word=on - then click [MOC]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and speak more)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**суд - судья́, суди́ть, ...**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;same root words: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;root: суд;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;suffix: -и-, ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;infinitive end: -ть, ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;noun ending: -(ь)я, ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**коне́ц - наконе́ц, зака́нчивать/зако́нчить, конча́ть/ко́нчить, ...**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;root: кон(ч,ец);&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;prefix: на-, за-, о-, при-, об-, ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;suffix: -и-, -а-, -ива-, -ик- (кончик), ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;verb ending: -ть, ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;noun: -ние, ...;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8690" RevisionGUID="c4cb17a5-2839-4c4c-a483-212191aadfdb" CreationDate="2015-05-31T15:41:56.037" UserId="6300" Comment="edited body" Text="Я не смог найти ответ в интернете. И когда можно употреблять это слово?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="e1128e03-9046-4b6b-b6cd-b4399740b42a" CreationDate="2015-05-31T15:44:07.860" UserId="6300" Text="Я видел, что ‹‹ибо›› значит ‹‹потому что›› или ‹‹так как››. Как можно употреблять это слово?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="e1128e03-9046-4b6b-b6cd-b4399740b42a" CreationDate="2015-05-31T15:44:07.860" UserId="6300" Text="Что значит ‹‹ибо››" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="e1128e03-9046-4b6b-b6cd-b4399740b42a" CreationDate="2015-05-31T15:44:07.860" UserId="6300" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8819" RevisionGUID="1db26d47-2d6d-4adb-9299-aa97a165e719" CreationDate="2015-05-31T16:30:28.950" UserId="5551" Text="Из толкового словаря Даля (1866):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ибо - причинный союз, малоупотребительный.&#xD;&#xA;Синонимы - потому что, а потому и, так.&#xD;&#xA;Вместо: не дам, ибо ты не заслужил, говорят: не дам, потому что ты не заслужил; не заслужил, а потому и не дам; не заслужил, так и не дам. Нередко частица эта только подразумевается: Не ходи, [ибо] убьют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из толкового словаря под редакцией Д.Н. Ушакова (2009):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ибо, союз (книжное, устарелое). Потому что, так как (но создает меньшую, чем эти союзы зависимость причинного предложения от главного, скорее присоединяет логическое обоснование, причину, чем подчиняет одно предложение другому; поэтому перед ним часто возможна постановка точки вместо запятой). «Переезжая быстрые речки, не должно смотреть на воду, ибо тотчас голова закружится.» Лермонтов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По моему опыту в современной речи это слово почти не используется, вместо него используют ‹‹потому что›› или ‹‹так как››" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="68e3c0fe-72e6-4275-bb71-cbc5de828f0e" CreationDate="2015-05-31T16:36:06.657" UserId="5543" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="I had a long break (~6 months) from learning Russian and now I'm a little confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне (не) прочитать эту книгу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I must (mustn't) read this book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I (don't) want to read this book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/edit: the Russian examples I know about include dative + infinitive with out &quot;не&quot;, for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же мне делать, один против всех&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Эпидемия - Рождённый для битвы)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне ещё ребёнка забирать: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8820" RevisionGUID="0dd4ca72-5c04-4ee6-b765-de5b42e59532" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:07:44.063" UserId="1097" Text="По своему прямому значению &quot;ибо&quot; сейчас практически не используется, но применятся для придания тексту/речи ироничного стиля «под старину».  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также есть устойчивое выражение &quot;[ибо нехуй][1]&quot; и интернет-мем &quot;[ибо ваистену][2]&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эти примеры являются грубыми и/или малопонятными, употреблять их в разговоре с малознакомыми людьми не сто́ит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lurkmore.co/%D0%98%D0%B1%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lurkmore.co/%D0%98%D0%B1%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="6520628e-4ee2-4758-9b03-0f5366d63cfd" CreationDate="2015-06-01T09:43:51.600" UserId="134" Text="It's a Church Slavonic loanword, meaning &quot;because&quot;, &quot;due to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use it whenever you want to give your text or speech a medieval or ecclesiastical feel, in the same way you would use &quot;hath&quot;, &quot;ye olde&quot; or similar in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8822" RevisionGUID="2ee9d9df-e44a-489d-a9df-eccf63f57589" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:29:55.550" UserId="5405" Text="Слово &quot;ибо&quot; относится почти исключительно к книжной речи и в разговорном стиле, если и употребляют, то, как правило, в ироничном ключе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжной речи, особенно религиозного характера, предлог ибо по прежнему встречается и воспринимается вполне органично. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Прости им, **ибо** не ведают что творят&quot; - [Лука 23;34]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И брата он убил ради ее спасенья, ибо ему казалось нетерпимым, чтобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нежнейшая, без злобы, женщина страдала от тяжелейшей надменности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; супруга. [Т. Тархов. Меж двух времен. Хроники Уильяма Шекспира //&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Наука и жизнь», 2006]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры употребления предлога &quot;ибо&quot; можно посмотреть на сайте [&quot;Нацкорпус&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом, в непосредственном общении, не являясь носителем языка, слово лучше не употреблять, так как она вряд ли будет уместным. При написании научного или публицистического текста предлог употреблять можно, но в меру. Если текст религиозного характера, то можно смело заменять на &quot;ибо&quot; все &quot;так как&quot; и &quot;потому что&quot;, следя только за отсутствием тавтологии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E8%E1%EE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="94fe35f1-451d-41be-b167-5021cc946d39" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:44:59.490" UserId="134" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="It's a Church Slavonic loanword, meaning &quot;because&quot;, &quot;due to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use it whenever you want to give your speech grand style, in the same way you would use &quot;for&quot; in the sense of &quot;because&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Блаженны нищие духом, ибо их есть Царствие Небесное // Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8822" RevisionGUID="93ba6fb1-c9b5-4c0b-90d5-e46de1bf9b64" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:45:42.010" UserId="5405" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Слово &quot;ибо&quot; относится почти исключительно к книжной речи и в разговорном стиле, если и употребляют, то, как правило, в ироничном ключе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжной речи, особенно религиозного характера, предлог ибо по прежнему встречается и воспринимается вполне органично. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Прости им, **ибо** не ведают что творят&quot; - [Лука 23;34]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И брата он убил ради ее спасенья, **ибо** ему казалось нетерпимым, чтобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нежнейшая, без злобы, женщина страдала от тяжелейшей надменности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; супруга. [Т. Тархов. Меж двух времен. Хроники Уильяма Шекспира //&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Наука и жизнь», 2006]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры употребления предлога &quot;ибо&quot; можно посмотреть на сайте [&quot;Нацкорпус&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом, в непосредственном общении, не являясь носителем языка, слово лучше не употреблять, так как она вряд ли будет уместным. При написании научного или публицистического текста предлог употреблять можно, но в меру. Если текст религиозного характера, то можно смело заменять на &quot;ибо&quot; все &quot;так как&quot; и &quot;потому что&quot;, следя только за отсутствием тавтологии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E8%E1%EE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8821" RevisionGUID="206c7d02-d928-4d9f-b0d0-99165acae2fc" CreationDate="2015-06-01T15:54:42.577" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's a Church Slavonic loanword, meaning &quot;because&quot;, &quot;due to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use it whenever you want to give your speech grand style, in the same way you would use &quot;for&quot; in the sense of &quot;because&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Блаженны нищие духом, ибо их есть Царство Небесное // Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="17fc8037-7bfd-4491-a1c7-2d672ba2d843" CreationDate="2015-06-01T19:49:23.413" UserId="277" Text="We are developing app that uses weather data from http://wunderground.com/ website&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, I'm a little bit confused with translating of these terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Mostly Sunny**&#xD;&#xA; - **Partly Cloudy**&#xD;&#xA; - **Partly Sunny**&#xD;&#xA; - **Mostly Cloudy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, with the help of [weather.gov][1] glossary service I found these descriptions of corresponding weather states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mostly Sunny**&#xD;&#xA;When the 1/8th to 2/8ths of the sky is covered by with opaque (not transparent) clouds Same as Mostly Clear, except only applicable during daylight hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Partly Cloudy** Between 3/8 and 5/8 of the sky is covered by clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Partly Sunny** Between 3/8 and 5/8 of the sky is covered by clouds. The term &quot;Partly Sunny&quot; is used only during daylight hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mostly Cloudy** When the 6/8th to 7/8ths of the sky is covered by with opaque (not transparent) clouds. Same as Considerable Cloudiness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please help to translate these terms into Russian, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="17fc8037-7bfd-4491-a1c7-2d672ba2d843" CreationDate="2015-06-01T19:49:23.413" UserId="277" Text="Translating weather forecest terms into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="17fc8037-7bfd-4491-a1c7-2d672ba2d843" CreationDate="2015-06-01T19:49:23.413" UserId="277" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8824" RevisionGUID="36746b13-652d-4aa9-a081-d0b1a4901305" CreationDate="2015-06-01T20:43:30.417" UserId="5427" Text="- Mostly Sunny - малооблачно&#xD;&#xA;- Partly Cloudly - переменная облачность, облачно с прояснениями&#xD;&#xA;- Mostly Cloudly - пасмурно&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8825" RevisionGUID="be49403d-8bf7-4355-8f9a-e2e6d3041413" CreationDate="2015-06-01T20:45:30.200" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Mostly Sunny / *Преимущественно солнечно* (daylight) or *преимущественно ясно* (any time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Partly cloudy (sunny) / *Переменная облачность* or *облачно с прояснениями*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mostly cloudy / *Пасмурно*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no phrase (used in weather forecasts) which would apply &quot;partly cloudy&quot; to daylight only, so just assign any of them for daylight and another one for the night time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21304" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="6713dd0e-d105-4714-9db7-9d5ff88edd9b" CreationDate="2015-06-01T21:12:48.213" UserId="3680" Comment="typo in title" Text="Translating weather forecast terms into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8814" RevisionGUID="bfacd5fb-3749-4fd2-98cb-81af685deb13" CreationDate="2015-06-01T22:16:53.903" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1369 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим минимально законченный синтаксический образец, включающий предложенную фразу, **где есть и подлежащее, и сказуемое**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мне  прочитать   эту книгу — хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;  Мне не прочитать эту книгу — плохо.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Сказуемое здесь выражено наречием, отвечающим на вопрос &quot;каково?&quot;. Подлежащее — глагол в инфинитиве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Малая грамматическая обусловленность в предложенном примере оставляет **неопределенности**, которые и вызывают трудности у изучающего русский язык. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**а)** Отсутствующее сказуемое (один из двух главных членов предложения заключающий в себе высказывание, делающий выражение мысли законченным - [сл.Ушакова]) оставляет неопределенность в отношении представленного действия `прочитать` и его предикативным признаком: *это хорошо? плохо? весело? вовремя? ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**б)** Неопределенность во времени:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать — хорошо.            Настоящее&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать было хорошо.         Прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать будет хорошо.        Будущее&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**в)** Неопределенность в наклонении (как иллюстрация):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Прочитать было бы хорошо.                        Сослагательное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Если бы прочитать было хорошо ... /                &#xD;&#xA;     (было бы прочитать хорошо, если ...)          Условное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Было бы прочитать хорошо!                        Желательное&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;**(1)** There is no dot after the last word, in the OP, so it is not a sentence; **(2)** there had been a variation as shown by the braces, which make no sense in ordinary texts, but are found widely as available cases from textbooks. Thus, **(3)** it is `phrases | сочетания слов`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall consider an auxiliary sentence. For that **we have to finish the sentence.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мне  прочитать  эту книгу —  хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;      └── subj ─┘            └─ praed ─┘&#xD;&#xA;          V_inf                 Adv&#xD;&#xA;          └──── How? Каково? ────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When we say     &#xD;&#xA;`Мне не прочитать эту книгу — плохо.`   &#xD;&#xA;we mean,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  I will not be able to read this book, it's bad.&#xD;&#xA;  I wouldn't be able to ...&#xD;&#xA;  I couldn't be able to ... &#xD;&#xA;     + probably&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not going to read this book, it's bad. &#xD;&#xA;  I was not going to read this book, it's bad.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  He won't be able to come in time, it's bad. &#xD;&#xA;  Ему не приехать вовремя, плохо.&#xD;&#xA;         └─ V_inf + Adv ─┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They now appeared; she had made each promise to come early.&#xD;&#xA;  Они появились, она имела от каждого обещание прибыть вовремя.&#xD;&#xA;                                              └─ V_inf + Adv ─┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  It won't hurt you to stand.&#xD;&#xA;  Тебе постоять не вредно.&#xD;&#xA;       └── V_inf + Adv ──┘&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They never go far.&#xD;&#xA;  Им не уйти далеко.&#xD;&#xA;     └ V_inf + Adv ┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About {personal_PROnoun}_dat + VERB_inf&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the example below:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     Для того чтобы уйти из этого мира, ему нужно было бы изжить карму.&#xD;&#xA;  In order for him to leave this world, he needed to put an end to his karma.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is talk about the same person, normally (even preferably) is &#xD;&#xA;to drop the first pronoun. But the second isn't (although the sentence would be&#xD;&#xA;fully literate) to avoid confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  ему   &lt;b&gt;(A)&lt;/b&gt;: omission of personal pronoun, but &#xD;&#xA;               └──┬──┘       only PRO_dat does apply here.&#xD;&#xA;                  │&#xD;&#xA;                  │&#xD;&#xA;  Для того чтобы (_) уйти из этого мира, ему нужно было бы изжить карму. &#xD;&#xA;                  ▲    │                  ▲                 │&#xD;&#xA;                  └────┘                  └─────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                     \                           /&#xD;&#xA;                      \                         /&#xD;&#xA;                       \                       /&#xD;&#xA;                         ── PRO_dat + V_inf ──&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why **(A)**? How can we deduce without the context that to the verb `уйти` there corresponds a uniquely determined case of a pronoun? We can't, without a context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have supposition that `PRO_{case:any} + {VERB:any}_inf` is true for Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8826" RevisionGUID="730034eb-9d5b-49b6-b009-f5fce569c0e1" CreationDate="2015-06-02T05:57:07.243" UserId="5008" Text="Russian Гидрометцентр has its own set of terms. Here is the authoritative link - http://meteoinfo.ru/forecasts/forcterminology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approximate correspondence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly Clear (Sunny) - Малооблачно; Небольшая облачность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partly Cloudy (Sunny) - Переменная облачность; Облачно с прояснениями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly Cloudy (Considerable cloudiness) - Облачно; Пасмурно; Значительная облачность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8828" RevisionGUID="bf8cedf5-23b4-4f44-b5ce-01d858ac982a" CreationDate="2015-06-03T03:08:47.080" UserId="5560" Text="&lt;code&gt;приказчик&lt;/code&gt; (mostly a pre-1917 reality) can be (to a degree) related with post-1991 &lt;code&gt;менеджер&lt;/code&gt; (but, not to miss it from notice:  &#xD;&#xA; a. &lt;code&gt;приказчик&lt;/code&gt; is obsolete,  &#xD;&#xA; b. there are other words of nowadays Russia to name old „приказчик“ in modern circumstances, and those words are NOT (based on) new loan-words, e. g.: *управляющий*, *продавец-консультант*, *ассистент*)  &#xD;&#xA;And, yes, an image of &lt;code&gt;приказчик&lt;/code&gt; was, as a rule, definitely negative in Soviet books and movies I could see in the late USSR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="6a56f7f5-78da-4f98-ae7a-e60511a36a81" CreationDate="2015-06-03T03:21:58.627" UserId="4028" Text="The former is a personal sentence and the latter an impersonal one, though both the sentences seem semantically (almost) equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning personal and impersonal sentences, I have some idea how different between them in the light of speaker's consciousness, for example, in the case of &quot;я хочу спать&quot; vs &quot;мне хочется спать&quot;.  But, in the case of the above two sentences, I cannot have an idea how different...  Please let me know the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="6a56f7f5-78da-4f98-ae7a-e60511a36a81" CreationDate="2015-06-03T03:21:58.627" UserId="4028" Text="&quot;Деревья свалил ветер&quot; vs &quot;Деревья свалило ветером&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="6a56f7f5-78da-4f98-ae7a-e60511a36a81" CreationDate="2015-06-03T03:21:58.627" UserId="4028" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="ddaa8876-8b5c-4694-98a1-3e4e7861dce9" CreationDate="2015-06-03T04:17:09.563" UserId="3892" Text="In my experience, the very best verb conjugation site is [http://rifmovnik.ru][1] because it not only fully conjugates verbs, it also gives aspect pairs (or more), it shows the stress for all forms, it also shows noun and adjective declinations and has phonetic transcriptions throughout (optional - cyrillic-based). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you have to do is enter an infinitive or any word, in any form, with any ending, and it will show you what headword it belongs to. So, for instance, if you enter the form **перевёл**, it will take you to the entry for **перевести**, with a link to **переводить**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if you come across the form **лвы** and don't know what to make of it, just enter it in the search field, choose the option **словоформы** from the dropdown menu below, then click on **найти** and you will be taken to the entry for the noun **лев**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8831" RevisionGUID="0a268136-603b-4915-8791-6ec50f656675" CreationDate="2015-06-03T04:33:11.273" UserId="5557" Text="IMHO, the difference is logical emphasis.  &#xD;&#xA;In &quot;_Деревья свалил ветер_&quot; the wind is emphasized in order to show that it was not done by other force e.g. flood or human. The sentence base (основа предложения) is &quot;ветер свалил&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;In &quot;_Деревья свалило ветром_&quot; it is emphasized that the trees are *fallen*. The sentence base is &quot;свалило&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="cb24fae8-0a16-4c56-b8fa-16437296cd10" CreationDate="2015-06-03T06:46:26.797" UserId="5288" Comment="corrected spelling: ветeров-&gt;ветров" Text="&quot;Деревья свалил ветер&quot; vs &quot;Деревья свалило ветром&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21317" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="cb24fae8-0a16-4c56-b8fa-16437296cd10" CreationDate="2015-06-03T06:46:26.797" Comment="Proposed by 5288 approved by 2079, 551 edit id of 628" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8832" RevisionGUID="19dba460-eddd-4cbe-9cf1-d6eb8070ea6b" CreationDate="2015-06-03T08:33:40.047" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Деревья свалило ветром&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is unmarked, default variant without emphasis or with emphasis on ветром. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Деревья свалил ветер&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is most likely used to empathise *ветер*, otherwise it sounds awkward.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8833" RevisionGUID="0ac86404-e936-4a43-ad3e-2734f343dc44" CreationDate="2015-06-03T08:44:21.587" UserId="194" Text="*Subject infinitive* structure looks like a prophecy. So it is difficult to imagine a setting where this can be used with self with a verb that is dependent on whether you want it be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8834" RevisionGUID="444a42f8-667a-4211-a25e-dc7f88926778" CreationDate="2015-06-03T08:48:12.837" UserId="134" Text="You use impersonal forms when the *agent* of the sentence is also the *instrument* (see [thematic relations][1] in grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of corpus entries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ирину обдало жаром&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Помпеи засыпало пеплом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Голову стянуло обручем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of those sentences can be rephrased two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жар обдал Ирину / Печь обдала Ирину жаром&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пепел засыпал Помпеи / Везувий засыпал Помпеи пеплом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обруч стянул голову / Кто-то стянул голову обручем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, the first sentence using the agent as the subject, the second one using an implied agent and the instrument as the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When those conditions are met, the impersonal form is the preferred one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several idioms like *ударило током*, *пахнуло гарью* which cannot be rephrased using active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others, like those above, could be, but this would emphasize the agent's role as an established topic in the conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Везувий выбросил тучу пепла. Пепел засыпал Помпеи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8835" RevisionGUID="db086f20-93a1-4a89-ba48-c13b1b9c0e10" CreationDate="2015-06-03T09:41:02.023" UserId="4560" Text="Roughly, I'd say it's a case of an implicit definite/indefinite distinction, similar to `Я не видел её револьвер` vs. `Я не видел у неё револьвера`. I feel that `Деревья свалил ветер` doesn't necessarily logically emphasise the wind as some suggested above; rather, it implies the action of what, in English, would be referred to as &quot;the wind&quot; rather than just &quot;wind&quot;; a particular instance of wind that was discussed before or is common knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="dc4c904e-590a-48e2-b36e-859371f6f7d7" CreationDate="2015-06-03T12:43:04.743" UserId="3892" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="In my experience, the very best verb conjugation site is [http://rifmovnik.ru][1] because it not only fully conjugates verbs, it also gives aspect pairs (or more), it shows the stress for all forms, it also shows noun and adjective declinations and has phonetic transcriptions throughout (optional - cyrillic-based). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you have to do is enter an infinitive or any word, in any form, with any ending, and it will show you what headword it belongs to. So, for instance, if you enter the form **перевёл**, it will take you to the entry for **перевести**, with a link to **переводить**. You have to choose **словоформы** from the dropdown menu below the search field, otherwise you just get a list of words that rhyme with **перевёл**, since this is also a rhyming dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if you come across the form **лвы** and don't know what to make of it, just enter it in the search field, choose the option **словоформы** from the dropdown menu below, then click on **найти** and you will be taken to the entry for the noun **лев**, along with its full declension. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8811" RevisionGUID="f362621a-87a2-4027-802d-0938c255a426" CreationDate="2015-06-03T14:09:57.367" UserId="5543" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="I had a long break (~6 months) from learning Russian and now I'm a little confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {personal_pronoun}_dative + (не) + infinitve + что, for example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне (не) прочитать эту книгу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I must (mustn't) read this book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I (don't) want to read this book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/edit: the Russian examples I know about include dative + infinitive with out &quot;не&quot;, for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же мне делать, один против всех&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Эпидемия - Рождённый для битвы)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне ещё ребёнка забирать: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="9dc892d8-5cfb-4479-8ac0-2fd2106a47d5" CreationDate="2015-06-03T19:29:21.443" UserId="5550" Text="“Деревья свалил ветер” - active. more frequetly used: Ветер свалил деревья.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: Wind dropped the trees. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;“Деревья свалило ветром” - frequently used correct form. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;For best understanding: here is missed subject [Что-то/Нечто].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[Что-то] свалило деревья ветром.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: [One/It/Something] dropped the trees by the wind (using wind). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;“Деревья были свалены ветром” - passive, grammatically correct but unused))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: Trees were dropped by the wind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="bd5c20a6-6a43-4ebc-8851-4bdad187043f" CreationDate="2015-06-03T19:39:52.720" UserId="5550" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="“Деревья свалил ветер” - active. more frequetly used: Ветер свалил деревья.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: Wind dropped the trees. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;“Деревья свалило ветром” - frequently used correct form. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;For best understanding: here is missed subject [Что-то/Нечто].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[Что-то] свалило деревья ветром.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: [One/It/Something] dropped the trees by the wind (using wind). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;“Деревья были свалены ветром” - passive, grammatically correct but unused))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: Trees were dropped by the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Деревья свалились из-за ветра&quot; - correct, used.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Trees have fallen (fell) due to wind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="65b35e55-f5db-4de6-9dd8-ce090c35d6c9" CreationDate="2015-06-03T20:33:06.187" UserId="5288" Text="Answering how looks like an idea what the difference is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in geometry, we are able to build the diagonal in the given square when trying to solve a puzzle, the rebuilded &quot;figure of speech&quot; shall be allowed to us too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, we reorder the first sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Subject-Verb Agreement = SVA&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;             SVA                          SVA  &#xD;&#xA;          ┌──◄─►──┐                    ┌──◄─►─────────┐&#xD;&#xA;       Ветер   свалил   деревья.      (Он), ветер,  свалил  деревья.&#xD;&#xA;      └─subj─┘    │     └──obj─┘      └───subj────┘&#xD;&#xA;                  │        ▲&#xD;&#xA;                  └────────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;then the second:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;where is&#xD;&#xA;subject?    SVA                            SVA &#xD;&#xA; ?? ────────◄─►──┐                      ┌──◄─►─────────┐&#xD;&#xA;       Ветром  свалило  деревья.      (Оно) ветром свалило деревья.&#xD;&#xA;                  │    └──obj──┘        │&#xD;&#xA;                  │        ▲            │&#xD;&#xA;                  └────────┘         virtual&#xD;&#xA;                                       subj&#xD;&#xA;                            ╒═══════════════════════╕&#xD;&#xA;                               omission of personal &#xD;&#xA;                             pronoun, but only `Оно`&#xD;&#xA;                                 does apply here.&#xD;&#xA;                            ╘═══════════════════════╛&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot go into the inquiry whether here `Оно` belong to mystics or metaphisics, but **semantically**, and this is allowed by grammar, **there is always be a virtual subject.** Let us be &quot;unphilosophical&quot; but practical, it just work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And finally, there is a vivid difference in terms of process.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;     (Оно)   ветром   свалило   деревья.&#xD;&#xA;    └──┬──┘ └───┬──┘ └───┬───┘ └───┬───┘&#xD;&#xA;       │   instrument    │       object&#xD;&#xA;    subject           process&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ветер   свалил   деревья.&#xD;&#xA;   └──┬──┘ └───┬──┘ └───┬──┘&#xD;&#xA;    subject process   object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth looking at [Vasil's answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8836/5288), the direction it gives could be used as an additional explanation of the meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8830" RevisionGUID="a3cd404f-b038-41bd-99c5-3a9d60c86c0d" CreationDate="2015-06-03T22:55:36.927" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In my experience, the very best verb conjugation site is [http://rifmovnik.ru][1] because it not only fully conjugates verbs, it also gives aspect pairs (or more), it shows the stress for all forms, it also shows noun and adjective declinations and has phonetic transcriptions throughout (optional - cyrillic-based). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you have to do is enter an infinitive or any word, in any form, with any ending, and it will show you what headword it belongs to. So, for instance, if you enter the form **перевёл**, it will take you to the entry for **перевести**, with a link to **переводить**. You have to choose **словоформы** from the dropdown menu below the search field, otherwise you just get a list of words that rhyme with **перевёл**, since this is also a rhyming dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if you come across the form **львы** and don't know what to make of it, just enter it in the search field, choose the option **словоформы** from the dropdown menu below, then click on **найти** and you will be taken to the entry for the noun **лев**, along with its full declension. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8838" RevisionGUID="093a85d1-80c2-435b-b66a-b1157ebccaf2" CreationDate="2015-06-04T00:13:03.227" UserId="1815" Text="If I had to type FreeBSD in Cyrillic, I would use `ФриБСД`.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, `ФриБСД` is very rare word in Russian IT world. Usually, it is `фряха`, or `фря`, or original `FreeBSD (freebsd)`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8828" RevisionGUID="76cd52f9-2064-4b8a-af95-350d05b6e07f" CreationDate="2015-06-04T02:32:55.580" UserId="5560" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="&lt;code&gt;приказчик&lt;/code&gt; (mostly a pre-1917 reality) can be (to a degree) related with post-1991 &lt;code&gt;менеджер&lt;/code&gt; (but, not to miss it from notice:  &#xD;&#xA; a. &lt;code&gt;приказчик&lt;/code&gt; is obsolete,  &#xD;&#xA; b. there are other words of nowadays Russia to name old „приказчик“ in modern circumstances, and those words are NOT (based on) new loan-words, e. g.: *управляющий*, *продавец-консультант*, *ассистент*)  &#xD;&#xA;And, yes, the image of &lt;code&gt;приказчик&lt;/code&gt; was, as a rule, definitely negative in Soviet books and movies I could see in the late USSR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="6a4adbfd-cd68-427e-ab26-63f2a0bb2045" CreationDate="2015-06-04T05:59:36.513" UserId="5560" Text="‘Genuine’ Russian ‘yes’ spells and is pronounced *&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;*.  &#xD;&#xA;As for &lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt; in your question, which is many times described in previous answers, in oral speech there are variants of this word which hardly can be heard (interpreted by ear) as *‘yes’-&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;* pronunciational variant. It can be pronounced with a final vowel varying around and resembling something like *ы/а/schwa/and-their-shortened-varaints*. (Form “&lt;code&gt;ды нет&lt;/code&gt;” can be found on the Internet.)  &#xD;&#xA;The phrase in question is really oral and that Russian &lt;code&gt;да нет&lt;/code&gt; does not tend to sound like English &lt;code&gt;yes no&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;yeah no&lt;/code&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8836" RevisionGUID="d7cc9a0a-05b3-42ef-9504-2ed6830107e2" CreationDate="2015-06-04T06:32:36.503" UserId="5550" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="“Деревья свалил ветер” - active. more frequetly used: Ветер свалил деревья.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: Wind dropped the trees. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;“Деревья свалило ветром” - frequently used correct form. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;For better understanding: here is missed subject [Что-то/Нечто].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[Что-то] свалило деревья ветром.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: [One/It/Something] dropped the trees by the wind (using wind). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;“Деревья были свалены ветром” - passive, grammatically correct but unused))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;English sentence order: Trees were dropped by the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Деревья свалились из-за ветра&quot; - correct, used.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Trees have fallen (fell) due to wind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21332" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8823" RevisionGUID="e5f6b9a9-9033-4baf-90d1-bdf7d79be5f5" CreationDate="2015-06-04T23:42:22.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/606606954249785344" />
  <row Id="21333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1600" RevisionGUID="e95cbd16-967f-4112-9e7c-1c5aca5d892e" CreationDate="2015-06-05T03:39:17.780" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="This is a [particle][1], or, to be more precise, a verbal particle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This very particle is mostly used with perfect verbs in past tense, since, as it already has been mentioned here, it is used to describe an action which someone had an intention to take, but this action didn't happen (for some reasons, for example, one had changed is mind) to the full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is related participle `чуть было не`, which is also can be used mostly with perfect verbs in past tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be warned, besides those two forms there exists yet another participle derived from `быть` -  `бывало`, and this one should not be confused with `было` - it gives to a phrase a tone of periodicity, frequency: &quot;В молодости я, бывало, выпивал порядочно&quot; (I used to drink a lot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="61a8b957-7321-472d-902d-a2b8df5a2ac8" CreationDate="2015-06-05T04:22:25.190" UserId="5560" Text="There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern &lt;code&gt;голодать&lt;/code&gt; / &lt;code&gt;жаждать&lt;/code&gt; — &lt;code&gt;not to eat (*physiologically*)&lt;/code&gt; / &lt;code&gt;to crave (*not for water as a rule*)&lt;/code&gt;. That could be *why so*.  &#xD;&#xA;That could be a question how-why ‘real’ Russian word &lt;code&gt;жажа&lt;/code&gt; disappeared.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB. It is just my 'insight', a note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="0767006f-6fbd-49de-a87e-b9bd1132b1a1" CreationDate="2015-06-05T05:06:54.960" UserId="5560" Comment="wording cut" Text="There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern &lt;code&gt;голодать&lt;/code&gt; / &lt;code&gt;жаждать&lt;/code&gt; — &lt;code&gt;not to eat (*physiologically*)&lt;/code&gt; / &lt;code&gt;to crave (*not for water as a rule*)&lt;/code&gt;. That could be *why so*.  &#xD;&#xA;That could be a question how-why ‘real’ Russian word &lt;code&gt;жажа&lt;/code&gt; disappeared.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB. It is just my note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8841" RevisionGUID="9fefdd22-e9f8-423a-b4f8-1d36778b864a" CreationDate="2015-06-05T09:55:33.000" UserId="5443" Text="Both &quot;Деревья свалил ветер&quot; and &quot;Деревья свалило ветром&quot; point at the reason why those trees don't stand anymore. I find no special emphasis on *the wind vs. the trees* here: the agent &quot;ветер&quot; takes emphasis in both versions. And without any additional context (like an opposed opinion about that 'reason') neither version expresses a stronger sense like 'It was the wind that kicked the trees down' (Именно ветер свалил деревья). So the difference between those two looks not too sufficient. But still, one can imagine a usage situation where some native speakers would prefer a particular version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;situation one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Why are those trees lying? &#xD;&#xA;    - It was windy last night, so the wind kicked the trees down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both Russian versions are possible here, the first one might slightly hint at the rescent windy weather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;situation 2 (phone talk, letter, etc.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Are those remarkable trees still alive?&#xD;&#xA;    - Not anymore. The trees were kicked down by the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the second Russian version is more natural here since some time has passed and there is no reason for mentioning the wind in more realistic manner, as the subject; however the first version wouldn't be a mistake here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7939" RevisionGUID="28522f84-7da8-47a4-b76b-99a46ac74169" CreationDate="2015-06-05T11:31:54.757" UserId="3892" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**Было** here is a PARTICLE with a force similar to English &quot;started to&quot; or &quot;was starting to:&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It's a good thing *he* turned up - I was **starting to** think they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kidnapped him too.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7450" RevisionGUID="09414f91-1972-4da3-80c9-8ec975669f14" CreationDate="2015-06-05T12:17:41.033" UserId="1671" Comment="edited body" Text="`да` has emphasizing function in this context. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Да пошёл ты!    &#xD;&#xA;    Да не надо мне здесь заливать!&#xD;&#xA;    Да как сказать...&#xD;&#xA;    Да ну его к чёрту!&#xD;&#xA;    Да не может быть!&#xD;&#xA;    Да как ты посмел?!&#xD;&#xA;    Да на хрена он тебе сдался?&#xD;&#xA;    Да что с тобой такое происходит в последнее время? Ходишь, как сам не свой.&#xD;&#xA;    Да много ли мне надо?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In all these cases you can throw out `да`, because it is used to increase the importance of what you are saying. &#xD;&#xA;There are a few nuances where `да нет` is appropriate (like others have mentioned above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Да нет, всё как раз наоборот` - Quite the opposite&#xD;&#xA; - `Ты уверен, что сможешь это сделать? - Да нет. Не очень то.` -   Well, no" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="a22e4a5f-9b5b-491f-adc8-0312d0c2a7b9" CreationDate="2015-06-05T12:35:07.723" UserId="5560" Text="There’s one more way — none, that is without any special word. Works for me.  &#xD;&#xA;Just make your speech self-attractive and addressive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А не подскажите…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though initial &lt;code&gt;А&lt;/code&gt; above is also an addressing word, it can be omitted.  &#xD;&#xA;Seems not very polite maybe? Universal.  &#xD;&#xA;(Вам шашечки или ехать?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21340" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="88ff7d91-9212-44a8-93ab-840e209da9ea" CreationDate="2015-06-05T12:35:07.723" UserId="5560" />
  <row Id="21341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8841" RevisionGUID="2543f63f-fae0-4f24-b522-f1c836df6e50" CreationDate="2015-06-05T12:40:54.987" UserId="5443" Comment="added 344 characters in body" Text="Both &quot;Деревья свалил ветер&quot; and &quot;Деревья свалило ветром&quot; point at the reason why those trees don't stand anymore. I find no special emphasis on *the wind vs. the trees* here: the agent &quot;ветер&quot; takes emphasis in both versions. And without any additional context (like an opposed opinion about that 'reason') neither version expresses a stronger sense like 'It was the wind that kicked the trees down' (Именно ветер свалил деревья). So the difference between those two looks not too sufficient. But still, one can imagine a usage situation where some native speakers would prefer a particular version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;situation one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Why are those trees lying? &#xD;&#xA;    - It was windy last night, so the wind kicked the trees down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both Russian versions are possible here, the first one might slightly hint at the rescent windy weather)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;situation 2 (phone talk, letter, etc.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Are those remarkable trees still alive?&#xD;&#xA;    - Not anymore. The trees were kicked down by the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the second Russian version is more natural here since some time has passed and there is no reason for mentioning the wind in more realistic manner, as the subject; however the first version wouldn't be a mistake here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P. S.** Considerations on usage of different prefixes in that verb: свалило vs. повалило. In both sentences in question I'd prefer &quot;повалил(о)&quot;, probably because the action here is undefined directionally as opposed to сases like &quot;свалило в кучу&quot;, &quot;свалило с ног&quot; (about a person; maybe due to some correlation with the preposition &quot;с&quot; here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="0c801241-5824-4d0e-831a-39316a2680eb" CreationDate="2015-06-05T13:55:20.367" UserId="5560" Text="Is there any Russian word to denote the subject?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;Стрелец&lt;/code&gt; in any its meaning. But female one, pls.  &#xD;&#xA;Potential (correct but not witnessed) words are also welcome.  &#xD;&#xA;If no single word is possible… more than a word will do.  &#xD;&#xA;Truly, I was sure there was such a word. But where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;small&gt;ps. English-correction is welcome.  &#xD;&#xA;pps. a tag proposal: *феминитив*&lt;/small&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="0c801241-5824-4d0e-831a-39316a2680eb" CreationDate="2015-06-05T13:55:20.367" UserId="5560" Text="female “стрелец”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="0c801241-5824-4d0e-831a-39316a2680eb" CreationDate="2015-06-05T13:55:20.367" UserId="5560" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="e7eeea0a-5c49-48b9-9ac7-799c05759d37" CreationDate="2015-06-05T14:10:34.070" UserId="134" Text="I'm not sure it's attested, but I believe it would be *&amp;#42;стрелица*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is attested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но что за красоты сияют  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С гремящих верха колесниц,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что рук искусством превышают  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Диану и ее стрелиц?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *В. П. Петров, &quot;На карусель&quot;, 1766*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8845" RevisionGUID="5d738069-12ef-475b-b446-505075409e1a" CreationDate="2015-06-05T14:13:33.307" UserId="4801" Text="There is *стрельчиха* meaning &quot;the wife of *стрелец* [rifleman]&quot;. A woman born as Sagittarius will say that she is *стрелец*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8846" RevisionGUID="31699322-4198-4974-b589-5c262c91845f" CreationDate="2015-06-05T14:14:42.220" UserId="3680" Text="Despite the fact that this is not a single word, I believe that `женщина-стрелец` meets your needs (in any meaning of `стрелец`).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="916591a1-319b-40e6-b783-794cd8d72c12" CreationDate="2015-06-05T15:50:03.237" UserId="5560" Comment="update - extending" Text="Is there any Russian word to denote the subject?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;Стрелец&lt;/code&gt; in any its meaning. But female one, pls.  &#xD;&#xA;Potential (correct but not witnessed) words are also welcome.  &#xD;&#xA;If no single word is possible… more than a word will do.  &#xD;&#xA;Truly, I was sure there was such a word. But where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**  &#xD;&#xA;Almost sure the asked word works for &lt;code&gt;стрелок&lt;/code&gt; also, doesn’t it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="31081cb4-98c1-482c-8b42-1c9b2f784f7a" CreationDate="2015-06-06T10:41:24.563" UserId="5560" Comment="minor reformulating" Text="Is there any Russian word to denote the subject?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;Стрелец&lt;/code&gt; in any its meaning. But female one, pls.  &#xD;&#xA;Potential (correct but not witnessed) words are also welcome.  &#xD;&#xA;If no single word is possible… more than a word will do.  &#xD;&#xA;Truly, I was sure there was such a word. But where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**  &#xD;&#xA;What if the asked word works for &lt;code&gt;стрелок&lt;/code&gt; also?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="2523671f-9da6-4eb7-8a5a-117f07127181" CreationDate="2015-06-06T11:14:51.990" UserId="5560" Comment="reformatting" Text="There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голодать` — not to eat (*physiologically*),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жаждать`  —  to crave (*for something unmaterial as a rule*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That could be *why so*.  &#xD;&#xA;That could be a question how-why ‘real’ Russian word &lt;code&gt;жажа&lt;/code&gt; disappeared.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;small&gt;NB. It is just my note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion.&lt;/small&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="3cf8a4d7-4552-4cd0-ad52-43f9c4f93a8f" CreationDate="2015-06-06T12:17:12.587" UserId="5560" Text="I remember such series for `дурак` (a fool):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*дурачок, дурашечка, дурашка*.  &#xD;&#xA;There’s even *дурачочек*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here one can see that combining such suffixes with a word root may involve mutations of a pre-suffix consonant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8848" RevisionGUID="b9f6e671-b902-4e03-a6cc-2f29d9e11403" CreationDate="2015-06-06T12:50:36.363" UserId="4920" Text="Я обезвожен.&#xD;&#xA;i.e. My body has lost a lot of water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21354" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="f0493c63-c2b3-4348-8c53-649967d30cad" CreationDate="2015-06-06T17:55:31.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/607244441284407296" />
  <row Id="21355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="ded76604-9d9c-4010-9560-85bcd23e5509" CreationDate="2015-06-07T05:46:22.403" UserId="5550" Text="female-стрелец, it is like female-fireman. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other variants that were given — &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;, &quot;Стрелица&quot; — are literally correct but outdated, and aren't used. Use &quot;Она — стрелец&quot;, &quot;Она — стрелок&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="2f5a9565-d03d-4478-baaa-3e848879b98e" CreationDate="2015-06-07T06:03:01.327" UserId="5550" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="female-стрелец, it is like female-fireman. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other variants that were given — &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;, &quot;Стрелица&quot; — are literally correct but **outdated, and aren't used**. Use &quot;Она — стрелец&quot;, &quot;Она — стрелок&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;. It can be used as a some specific kind of humor, when you speak less literate than you can. For example to say Sagittarius)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стрелец — now used only for &quot;Sagittarius&quot;. No other use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стрелок — any shooting human. &#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Врач (male) — врачиха (female, incorrect but used, correct: врач). &quot;Врачиха&quot; also may be used to say that a doctor (female) is rather rude and bad manners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="774587f4-e8f4-45de-a131-67afc1035250" CreationDate="2015-06-07T06:12:21.280" UserId="5550" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="female-стрелец, it is like female-fireman. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other variants that were given — &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;, &quot;Стрелица&quot; — are literally correct but **outdated, and aren't used**. Use &quot;Она — стрелец&quot;, &quot;Она — стрелок&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;. It can be used as a some specific kind of humor, when you speak less literate than you can. For example to say Sagittarius about female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стрелец — now used only for &quot;Sagittarius&quot;. No other use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стрелок — any human shooting from a hand weapon. No female form.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;about &quot;-иха&quot;: врачиха (врач), ткачиха (ткач)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Врач (male) — врачиха (female, incorrect but used, correct: врач). &quot;Врачиха&quot; also may be used to say that a doctor (female) is rather rude and bad manners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8849" RevisionGUID="6202ee03-bfad-4e71-b293-a53ad1e9f747" CreationDate="2015-06-07T06:24:46.843" UserId="5550" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="female-стрелец, it is like female-fireman. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other variants that were given — &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;, &quot;Стрелица&quot; — are literally correct but **outdated, and aren't used**. Use &quot;Она — стрелец&quot;, &quot;Она — стрелок&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about &quot;Стрельчиха&quot;. It can be used as a some specific kind of humor, when you speak less literate than you can. For example to say Sagittarius about female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стрелец — now used only for &quot;Sagittarius&quot;. No other use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стрелок — any human shooting of a hand weapon (gun, bow, crossbow). No female form.&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;about &quot;-иха&quot;: врачиха (врач), ткачиха (ткач)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Врач (male) — врачиха (female, incorrect but used, correct: врач). &quot;Врачиха&quot; also may be used to say that a doctor (female) is rather rude and bad manners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8850" RevisionGUID="0da19553-75be-4cfb-b3d8-e1f11092ed68" CreationDate="2015-06-07T07:11:49.820" UserId="5288" Text="Без разбора морфологии мы рискуем получить, ну, скажем так, приличное количество вопросов-калек, подобных этому. Давайте их сгенерируем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как будет женский род:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;   Косец, дудец, игрец, гребец, братец, мудрец, горец ...?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, заданный в OP вопрос лишь частный, а отвечать следует с позиций более общего случая. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оказывается, что в русском языке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;pre&gt;суффикс &lt;kbd&gt;-ец&lt;/kbd&gt; характеризует мужской род  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; суффикц &lt;kbd&gt;-иц&lt;/kbd&gt; характеризует женский род&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Словообразующая продуктивная функция выдает такие результаты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  Красавец - красавица, молодец - молодица, ленивец - ленивица, ...&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В некоторых случаях продуктивная функция `-ец/-иц` генерирует такие слова-пары, которые хотя и правильные синтаксически, но какая-то комплиментарная часть, мужская/женская, не приживается в языке. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  армеец, партиец, японец, газпромовец ... не получили пару с суффиксом  &quot;-иц&quot;.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Если возникает необходимость именовать компактно, то есть, образовать слово нужно непременно, то включается в работу следующая словообразовательная функция, например, с суффиксом `-к`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; японец-японка, немец-немка, ариец-арийка, ... &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Если и эта функция не срабатывает, например, по критерию благозвучия, берется следующая словообразовательная функция, с продуктивным суффиксом `-чих`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; пловец-пловчиха ...&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Некоторые слова имеют только синтаксис женского рода, напр. `умница.`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Какая ты умница` по отношению к мальчику — употребимо.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Само слово `умница`, в контексте, потребует синтаксис женского рода для других согласованных с ним определяющих слов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, ответ заключается в выборе синтаксической функции словообразования, которые в русском языке хорошо известны. Прижилось ли слово `стрелица` в русском? -- очевидно, нет. Вопрос, почему, это наверное, целое исследование." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="c7854f09-06a4-43b9-936f-8cd3fb82e823" CreationDate="2015-06-07T13:18:19.983" UserId="5560" Comment="grammar corr." Text="Is there any Russian word to denote the subject?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;Стрелец&lt;/code&gt; in any its meaning. But a female one, pls.  &#xD;&#xA;Potential (correct but not witnessed) words are also welcome.  &#xD;&#xA;If no single word is possible… more than a word will do.  &#xD;&#xA;Truly, I was sure there was such a word. But where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**  &#xD;&#xA;What if the asked word works for &lt;code&gt;стрелок&lt;/code&gt; also?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="7dc7dd24-f929-441f-86d7-e0ad5e2b506a" CreationDate="2015-06-08T06:50:45.237" UserId="5577" Text="Медведь - бурый. Так   его называли. Отсюда бер в значении бурый. В мировой науке, культуре и т.д. давно поставлена цель избавиться от всего русского... Ведь как неприятно им чувствовать себя частью русской, славянской культурой. Они же Европа, а не какая-нибудь лаплтная Россия..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21365" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1917" RevisionGUID="e15501e2-2636-4038-8e82-e39ea32a9d16" CreationDate="2015-06-08T07:40:24.060" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8852" RevisionGUID="abd7dc85-aa4a-43bc-ac75-c7df96a7059e" CreationDate="2015-06-08T07:42:25.423" UserId="551" Comment="Убрал причитания о &quot;Мировой науке&quot;, &quot;европе&quot; и т.д. " Text="Медведь - бурый. Так   его называли. Отсюда бер в значении бурый." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8844" RevisionGUID="5aa590e0-c80e-4783-8da6-6543b8ccd855" CreationDate="2015-06-08T07:58:28.983" UserId="134" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="According to paradigm for words in *-ец* (when used to form an agent noun), it's replaced with *-ица* in feminine: *певец/певица, красавец/красавица, ленивец/ленивица* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So feminine for *стрелец* would be *стрелица*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is attested in this XVIII century's poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но что за красоты сияют  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С гремящих верха колесниц,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что рук искусством превышают  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Диану и ее стрелиц?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *В. П. Петров, &quot;На карусель&quot;, 1766*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl's dictionary also mentions *стрелица* as an alternative name for arrowhead (Sagittariа sagittaefoliа, *стрелолист*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="0e6c5182-6d8a-485c-9e28-8c7004f4d5c5" CreationDate="2015-06-08T11:40:47.627" UserId="5560" Comment="minor formal corr." Text="‘Genuine’ Russian ‘yes’ spells and is pronounced *&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;*.  &#xD;&#xA;As for &lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt; in your question, which is many times described in previous answers, in oral speech there are variants of this word which hardly can be heard (interpreted by ear) as *‘yes’-&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;* pronunciational variant. It can be pronounced with a final vowel varying around and resembling something like *ы/а/schwa/and-their-shortened-varaints*. (A form “&lt;code&gt;ды нет&lt;/code&gt;” can be met on the Internet.)  &#xD;&#xA;The phrase in question is really oral and that Russian &lt;code&gt;да нет&lt;/code&gt; does not tend to sound like English &lt;code&gt;*yes no&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;*yeah no&lt;/code&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="c0efd84c-6057-4ffb-b999-6bebda83139f" CreationDate="2015-06-08T11:56:33.890" UserId="5560" Comment="tiny clarification" Text="There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic passages in Russian speech had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голодать` — not to eat (*physiologically*),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жаждать`  —  to crave (*for something unmaterial as a rule*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That could be *why so*.  &#xD;&#xA;That could be a question how-why ‘real’ Russian word &lt;code&gt;жажа&lt;/code&gt; disappeared.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;small&gt;NB. It is just my note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion.&lt;/small&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8847" RevisionGUID="75a5f60c-b3fc-4f1a-a6d6-01e19576670d" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:00:26.647" UserId="5560" Comment="accentuating things" Text="&lt;small&gt;*it is not an answer to the question asked, just an illustration related to*&lt;/small&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember such a series for `дурак` (a fool):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*дурачок, дурашечка, дурашка*.  &#xD;&#xA;There’s even *дурачочек*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more important fact illustrated here is that combining such suffixes with a word may involve mutations of a pre-suffix consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="d99fc122-96b6-4aaa-a046-d9a65eee8d0c" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:56:11.300" UserId="5560" Comment="lessening philosophy" Text="There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic passages in Russian speech had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голодать` — not to eat (*physiologically*),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жаждать`  —  to crave (*for something unmaterial as a rule*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, both Church Slavonic `жажден` and Russian `жадный` discontinued to be actual as denoting *‘thirsty’* by now. (See Quassnoi’s comment below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;small&gt;NB. It is just my note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion.&lt;/small&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="45f9528b-e57e-4daf-9809-67cc90eb8829" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:59:39.290" UserId="5560" Comment="grammar corr." Text="Is there any Russian word to denote the subject?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;code&gt;Стрелец&lt;/code&gt; in any of its meaning. But a female one, pls.  &#xD;&#xA;Potential (correct but not witnessed) words are also welcome.  &#xD;&#xA;If no single word is possible… more than a word will do.  &#xD;&#xA;Truly, I was sure there was such a word. But where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**  &#xD;&#xA;What if the asked word works for &lt;code&gt;стрелок&lt;/code&gt; also?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21373" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="f3bba1b3-d2c9-4502-b8a2-800f9b13c1b3" CreationDate="2015-06-08T13:01:16.587" UserId="5560" />
  <row Id="21374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8853" RevisionGUID="91bf93c1-5b99-40c3-81b9-6d093b60f658" CreationDate="2015-06-08T22:56:06.070" UserId="3892" Text="According to the dictionaries, all three of these verbs mean **to come to terms with a situation or fact** or **to resign oneself to something inevitable**. Are they interchangeable or are there any important nuances to be aware of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8853" RevisionGUID="91bf93c1-5b99-40c3-81b9-6d093b60f658" CreationDate="2015-06-08T22:56:06.070" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between мириться, смириться и примириться с чем-либо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8853" RevisionGUID="91bf93c1-5b99-40c3-81b9-6d093b60f658" CreationDate="2015-06-08T22:56:06.070" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="34e6ce06-2e19-40e3-972f-96f8f8b75c7a" CreationDate="2015-06-08T23:59:51.520" UserId="5572" Text="There is a lyric that goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;ты подели небо поровну&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of **подели** in this context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I use **дели** and would it change the meaning? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use this form with **я**, **мы**, **он**, etc? And can I use other verbs in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="34e6ce06-2e19-40e3-972f-96f8f8b75c7a" CreationDate="2015-06-08T23:59:51.520" UserId="5572" Text="Use of the imperative form подели" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="34e6ce06-2e19-40e3-972f-96f8f8b75c7a" CreationDate="2015-06-08T23:59:51.520" UserId="5572" Text="|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="55590dc9-6ea7-4b81-81af-7655353fda91" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:04:18.030" UserId="5288" Comment="+ tags &quot;aspect, verbs&quot;" Text="|глаголы|повелительное-наклонение|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="55590dc9-6ea7-4b81-81af-7655353fda91" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:04:18.030" Comment="Proposed by 5288 approved by 5572 edit id of 629" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8855" RevisionGUID="09f6b63e-f811-45cb-baee-c9d038bc6095" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:21:30.053" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дели небо поровну  &#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;    время:          сейчас/завтра;          &#xD;&#xA;    как:            как обычно / как всегда / как прежде, не один раз;           &#xD;&#xA;    совершенность:  кто говорит, не знает, завершится процесс &quot;делить&quot; или нет;&#xD;&#xA;    длительность:   от мгновения до бесконечности;    &#xD;&#xA;    результат:      никто не заботится о результате процесса &quot;делить&quot;;          &#xD;&#xA;                  &#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;= начинай!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;подели небо поровну &#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;    время:          сейчас/завтра;&#xD;&#xA;    как:            предполагают, ты знаешь/умеешь &quot;делить&quot; вообще, и &quot;поровну&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    совершенность:  предполагают, что процесс &quot;делить&quot; завершится (удачей/неудачей);&#xD;&#xA;    длительность:   от мгновения до конечного интервала;&#xD;&#xA;    результат:      нужен; =&gt; процесс &quot;делить&quot; должен/обязан завершиться; &#xD;&#xA;                            &#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;= начни, и закончи!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8855" RevisionGUID="87fff377-0f91-4202-9a3b-4a79e49e34b2" CreationDate="2015-06-09T04:40:31.807" UserId="5288" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дели небо поровну  &#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;    время:          сейчас/завтра;          &#xD;&#xA;    как:            как обычно / как всегда / как прежде, не один раз;           &#xD;&#xA;    совершенность:  кто говорит, не знает, завершится процесс &quot;делить&quot; или нет;&#xD;&#xA;    длительность:   от мгновения до бесконечности;    &#xD;&#xA;    результат:      никто не заботится о результате процесса &quot;делить&quot;;          &#xD;&#xA;                  &#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;= начинай!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;подели небо поровну &#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;    время:          сейчас/завтра;&#xD;&#xA;    как:            предполагают, ты знаешь/умеешь &quot;делить&quot; вообще, и &quot;поровну&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    совершенность:  предполагают, что процесс &quot;делить&quot; завершится (удачей/неудачей);&#xD;&#xA;    длительность:   от мгновения до конечного интервала;&#xD;&#xA;    результат:      нужен; =&gt; процесс &quot;делить&quot; должен/обязан завершиться; &#xD;&#xA;                            &#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;= начни, и закончи!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use `я, мы, он + делить:`    &#xD;&#xA;http://rifmovnik.ru/find &gt; словоформы &gt; &quot;делить&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;credit: @CocoPop&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;пвл,2л&#xD;&#xA;ед	дели&#xD;&#xA;мн	делите&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;You can't use `я, он + поделить:`    &#xD;&#xA;http://rifmovnik.ru/find &gt; словоформы &gt; &quot;поделить&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;пвл&#xD;&#xA;2л,ед	подели&#xD;&#xA;2л,мн	поделите&#xD;&#xA;1л,мн	поделим&#xD;&#xA;1л,мн	поделимте&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="f5408aec-0200-4d12-9188-fa40969a4564" CreationDate="2015-06-09T06:47:21.230" UserId="4920" Text="&quot;мириться с чем-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;временно быть согласным на существование чего-либо, но иметь надежду на изменение ситуации в будущем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;смириться с чем-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;признать существование чего-либо как неизбежный факт без надежды на изменение в будущем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;примириться с чем-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;полностью признать что-либо, принять другую точку зрения, быть согласным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="374305f6-250b-4c28-8c88-892a8566230a" CreationDate="2015-06-09T12:15:34.343" UserId="5560" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="&quot;мириться с чем-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;временно быть согласным на существование чего-либо, но иметь надежду на изменение ситуации в будущем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;смириться с чем-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;признать существование чего-либо как неизбежного факта без надежды на изменение в будущем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;примириться с чем-либо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;полностью признать что-либо, принять другую точку зрения, быть согласным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8856" RevisionGUID="374305f6-250b-4c28-8c88-892a8566230a" CreationDate="2015-06-09T12:15:34.343" Comment="Proposed by 5560 approved by 2060, 134 edit id of 630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="f4b02587-959d-4391-8da0-09165590368c" CreationDate="2015-06-09T12:52:36.913" UserId="134" Text="*Смиряться* (meaning &quot;come to terms with&quot;) is a Slavonicism which started to replace *примиряться* after 1940's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was occasionally used in Russian before 1940's (18 entries in the corpus against 669 for *примиряться*) but almost completely replaced *примиряться* by now in this meaning. Right now, *примиряться* mostly used in the meaning of &quot;reconcile&quot;, with animate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before 1940's, *смиряться* was used mostly as an intransitive verb meaning to &quot;to humble oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Church Slavonic, on the other hand, used transitive *смиряться* extensively, meaning both &quot;to come in terms with&quot; and &quot;to reconcile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage from Elizabeth Bible in Church Slavonic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аще ли же разлучится, да пребываетъ безбрачна, или да смирится съ мужемъ своимъ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reads in Synodal Russian translation as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если же разведётся, то должна оставаться безбрачною, или примириться с мужем своим" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8858" RevisionGUID="38a2ab3e-727e-4e3c-ba37-beeb079d8435" CreationDate="2015-06-09T12:58:59.253" UserId="134" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="*Смиряться* (meaning &quot;come to terms with&quot;) is a Slavonicism which started to replace *примиряться* after 1940's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was occasionally used in Russian before 1940's (18 entries in the corpus against 669 for *примиряться*) but almost completely replaced *примиряться* by now in this meaning. Right now, *примиряться* mostly used in the meaning of &quot;reconcile&quot;, with animate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before 1940's, *смиряться* was used mostly as an intransitive verb meaning to &quot;to humble oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Church Slavonic, on the other hand, used transitive *смиряться* extensively, meaning both &quot;to come in terms with&quot; and &quot;to reconcile&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage from Elizabeth Bible in Church Slavonic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аще ли же разлучится, да пребываетъ безбрачна, или да смирится съ мужемъ своимъ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reads in Synodal Russian translation as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если же разведётся, то должна оставаться безбрачною, или примириться с мужем своим&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qpHPx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8859" RevisionGUID="e7689ef0-e057-435b-9eff-9d7d04da7dc1" CreationDate="2015-06-09T14:19:09.783" UserId="5560" Text="[**`мириться`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/мириться), *imperfective*, (1) to get to peace or (2) to suffer, tolerate something that one does not have an opportunity to change/meliorate  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;for the latter meaning: `*Он мирился с отсутствием горячей воды, но не с хамством уборщицы.` You can use `терпеть + Accusative` instead of `мириться с + Instrumental` here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`смириться`**, *perfective*, to stop fighting or resisting something, to refuse trying to change something, to get conformed&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	`смириться со своим положением`,  &#xD;&#xA;	`смириться со своим поражением`,  &#xD;&#xA;	BTW, `смирение` (humility)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`примириться`**, *perfective*, to get to reconciliation, on more equal terms with an opposing part than as with `смириться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`смириться` / `примириться` may be opposed (with some exaggeration) as *to surrender / to find the way to deal with*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see also Quassnoi’s answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="5e238cb1-0b44-41fa-801c-582738b1a5eb" CreationDate="2015-06-09T15:28:43.353" UserId="5539" Comment="highlighting, grammer" Text="The former is a personal sentence and the latter an impersonal one, though both the sentences seem semantically (almost) equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning personal and impersonal sentences, I have some idea how different they are in the light of the speaker's consciousness, for example:&lt;br/&gt; In the case of &quot;`я хочу спать`&quot; vs &quot;`мне хочется спать`&quot;. &lt;br/&gt;But, in the case of the above two sentences, I don't have an idea how different. Please let me know what the difference is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21392" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="5e238cb1-0b44-41fa-801c-582738b1a5eb" CreationDate="2015-06-09T15:28:43.353" Comment="Proposed by 5539 approved by -1 edit id of 631" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="05eec58e-8103-4695-9426-9d7a30d7f2a7" CreationDate="2015-06-09T15:28:43.353" UserId="134" Comment="highlighting, grammer" Text="The former is a personal sentence and the latter an impersonal one, though both the sentences seem semantically (almost) equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning personal and impersonal sentences, I have some idea how different they are in the light of the speaker's consciousness, for example: In the case of &quot;*я хочу спать*&quot; vs &quot;*мне хочется спать*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in the case of the above two sentences, I don't have an idea how different. Please let me know what the difference is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="9e99e452-45d0-4e04-8678-471691734944" CreationDate="2015-06-09T15:28:52.440" UserId="5539" Comment="Capitalization and removal of exclamation mark (no screaming)" Text="Mistaken (adj) = ошибочный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone **PLEASE** explain how the endings in the following came about? They don't seem to be following the normal rules for adjectives and conjugation that I've studied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I am mistaken = я ошибаюсь;&#xD;&#xA;    I was mistaken = я ошибался;&#xD;&#xA;    He is mistaken = он ошибается;&#xD;&#xA;    He was mistaken = он ошибся;&#xD;&#xA;    She is mistaken = она ошибается;&#xD;&#xA;    She was mistaken = она ошиблась;&#xD;&#xA;    You are mistaken = вы ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;    You were mistaken = Вы ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;    They are mistaken = они ошибаются;&#xD;&#xA;    They were mistaken = они ошиблись;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21395" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8778" RevisionGUID="9e99e452-45d0-4e04-8678-471691734944" CreationDate="2015-06-09T15:28:52.440" Comment="Proposed by 5539 approved by 134 edit id of 632" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21396" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8829" RevisionGUID="1c8004ed-f6b7-4a19-b00c-eb07452edcaa" CreationDate="2015-06-09T17:58:44.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/608332414469980162" />
  <row Id="21397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="de6989e5-9e22-4b04-99e2-edb55b7df845" CreationDate="2015-06-10T05:50:49.800" UserId="5584" Text="At least according to some native speakers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(since **время** is neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is **&quot;в современное время&quot;** considered to be the prepositional case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="de6989e5-9e22-4b04-99e2-edb55b7df845" CreationDate="2015-06-10T05:50:49.800" UserId="5584" Text="Why &quot;в современное время&quot; and not &quot;в современном времени&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="de6989e5-9e22-4b04-99e2-edb55b7df845" CreationDate="2015-06-10T05:50:49.800" UserId="5584" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8855" RevisionGUID="160f95e1-57fd-41f7-8c9e-9a7514d0815e" CreationDate="2015-06-10T06:42:14.617" UserId="5288" Comment="added 966 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дели небо поровну  &#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;    время:          сейчас/завтра;          &#xD;&#xA;    как:            как обычно / как всегда / как прежде, не один раз;           &#xD;&#xA;    совершенность:  кто говорит, не знает, завершится процесс &quot;делить&quot; или нет;&#xD;&#xA;    длительность:   от мгновения до бесконечности;    &#xD;&#xA;    результат:      никто не заботится о результате процесса &quot;делить&quot;;          &#xD;&#xA;                  &#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;= начинай!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;          &#xD;&#xA;подели небо поровну &#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;    время:          сейчас/завтра;&#xD;&#xA;    как:            предполагают, ты знаешь/умеешь &quot;делить&quot; вообще, и &quot;поровну&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;    совершенность:  предполагают, что процесс &quot;делить&quot; завершится (удачей/неудачей);&#xD;&#xA;    длительность:   от мгновения до конечного интервала;&#xD;&#xA;    результат:      нужен; =&gt; процесс &quot;делить&quot; должен/обязан завершиться; &#xD;&#xA;                            &#xD;&#xA;    &lt;b&gt;= начни, и закончи!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be seen in other verbs as well, examples with a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**`VERB_imperative + ... + поровну`**](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=random&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=30&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=27131&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=V%2C(imper%7Cimper2)&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=5&amp;lex2=%EF%EE%F0%EE%E2%ED%F3&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**`noun/pronoun + ... + verb + ... + поровну`**](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=30&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=22537&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=&amp;gramm1=V&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=8&amp;lex2=%EF%EE%F0%EE%E2%ED%F3&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;lang=en)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use `я, мы, он + делить_imper:`    &#xD;&#xA;http://rifmovnik.ru/find &gt; словоформы &gt; &quot;делить&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;credit: @CocoPop&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;пвл,2л&#xD;&#xA;ед	дели&#xD;&#xA;мн	делите&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;You can't use `я, он + поделить_imper:`    &#xD;&#xA;http://rifmovnik.ru/find &gt; словоформы &gt; &quot;поделить&quot;     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;пвл&#xD;&#xA;2л,ед	подели&#xD;&#xA;2л,мн	поделите&#xD;&#xA;1л,мн	поделим&#xD;&#xA;1л,мн	поделимте&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="f09475c0-a291-497d-aa44-1746f7a2b736" CreationDate="2015-06-10T08:59:17.010" UserId="134" Text="No, it's accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В + acc.* means &quot;at a certain time period&quot;: *в войну, в перестройку* &quot;during the war, during the perestroika&quot;, or &quot;once in a certain time period&quot;: *три раза в час* &quot;three times per hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language the first construct is often replaced with *в +  prep.*, *на + prep.* or *inst.*: *в году, на неделе, осенью*. Those are idioms you have to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В год, в неделю, в осень* are still valid, though they sound archaic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="41951c3e-8f11-4ff8-8e7c-0eeb15b1b9fa" CreationDate="2015-06-10T10:26:26.357" UserId="5288" Text="we shall consider examples&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ... потому что, потеряв веру в современное общество, ...&#xD;&#xA;            ...  потеряв себя в современном обществе, ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;Here we have a direct object (i.e. in the accusative case):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;потеряв веру, в кого? / во что? &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Acc.&lt;/b&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And here we have the place where the action is performed, for which reason it is prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; потеряв себя, в ком?  / в чем?  &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Prep.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is: both cases are completely compatible with the Russian grammar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="fa0f5cb4-54a2-4599-a5d8-30c5b6e1287d" CreationDate="2015-06-10T12:15:11.677" UserId="5560" Text="There is a standard pattern for time attribution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`в/во ... время`**, accusative,  &#xD;&#xA;where `...` can be: `то, его, своё, всякое, военное, тёплое,..` (i. e. 'determiners': possessives, adjectives)  &#xD;&#xA;Also in plural: `в/во ... времена`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems obvious (though I cannot know really 'why', it should be questioned those who speak so) this pattern is awkwardly used with `современный`. (It looks unRussian really to me.) If one wants to use `современный` for time attribution it’d be better to say `в современную эпоху`, `в современности`, `в современный исторический момент`, `в современном мире` what is generally not colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the prepositional case.  &#xD;&#xA;I can remember now just two cases of using `&quot;в/во 'determiner' времени&quot;` construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammatical: `в настоящем/прошлом/будущем времени`,  &#xD;&#xA;- epochal: `В каком времени ты живёшь?` *(What is a time realm you are dwelling in?)*,  &#xD;&#xA; `в том времени` referring to, e. g., `во времена ГУЛАГа` *(in the era of the GULAG)*…  &#xD;&#xA; (i. e. ‘time’ conceived as the time of a different world)&#xD;&#xA;  - seemingly alike usage in the sci[-fi]: `в пространстве-времени` *(in space-time)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed I don’t have an opportunity to investigate the question and can miss something here. Though hopefully it’s enough for your 'why'.  &#xD;&#xA;(also see Quassnoi’s answer about modern tendencies)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="b353bf9e-6f59-4d5c-8f88-ad3bb85532a0" CreationDate="2015-06-10T12:25:50.993" UserId="5560" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="There is a standard pattern for time attribution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`в/во ... время`**, accusative,  &#xD;&#xA;where `...` can be: `то, его, своё, всякое, военное, тёплое,..` (i. e. 'determiners': possessives, adjectives)  &#xD;&#xA;Also in plural: `в/во ... времена`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems obvious (though I cannot know really 'why', it should be questioned those who speak so) this pattern is awkwardly used with `современный`. (It looks unRussian really to me.) If one wants to use `современный` for time attribution it’d be better to say `в современную эпоху`, `в современности`, `в современный исторический момент`, `в современном мире` what is generally not colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the prepositional case.  &#xD;&#xA;I can remember now just two cases of using `&quot;в/во 'determiner' времени&quot;` construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammatical: `в настоящем/прошлом/будущем времени`,  &#xD;&#xA;- epochal: `‘В каком времени ты живёшь?’` *(What is a time realm you are dwelling in?)* where `‘В `&lt;del&gt;`современном`&lt;/del&gt;` настоящем [времени]’` could be an answer,  &#xD;&#xA; `в том времени` referring to, e. g., `во времена ГУЛАГа` *(in the era of the GULAG)*…  &#xD;&#xA; (i. e. ‘time’ conceived as the time of a different world)&#xD;&#xA;  - seemingly alike usage in the sci[-fi]: `в пространстве-времени` *(in space-time)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed I don’t have an opportunity to investigate the question and can miss something here. Though hopefully it’s enough for your 'why'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="8a73dd38-5288-4a36-8b1b-5731ef929301" CreationDate="2015-06-10T12:33:03.367" UserId="5560" Comment="misterming" Text="There is a standard pattern for time attribution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`в/во ... время`**, accusative,  &#xD;&#xA;where `...` can be: `то, его, своё, всякое, военное, тёплое,..` (i. e. 'determiners' (possessives), adjectives)  &#xD;&#xA;Also in plural: `в/во ... времена`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems obvious (though I cannot know really 'why', it should be questioned those who speak so) this pattern is awkwardly used with `современный`. (It looks unRussian really to me.) If one wants to use `современный` for time attribution it’d be better to say `в современную эпоху`, `в современности`, `в современный исторический момент`, `в современном мире` what is generally not colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the prepositional case.  &#xD;&#xA;I can remember now just two cases of using `&quot;в/во ... времени&quot;` construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammatical: `в настоящем/прошлом/будущем времени`,  &#xD;&#xA;- epochal: `‘В каком времени ты живёшь?’` *(What is a time realm you are dwelling in?)* where `‘В `&lt;del&gt;`современном`&lt;/del&gt;` настоящем [времени]’` could be an answer,  &#xD;&#xA; `в том времени` referring to, e. g., `во времена ГУЛАГа` *(in the era of the GULAG)*…  &#xD;&#xA; (i. e. ‘time’ conceived as the time of a different world)&#xD;&#xA;  - seemingly alike usage in the sci[-fi]: `в пространстве-времени` *(in space-time)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed I don’t have an opportunity to investigate the question and can miss something here. Though hopefully it’s enough for your 'why'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="26319116-4102-4163-b432-3bb1665ffb3b" CreationDate="2015-06-10T13:00:09.113" UserId="5550" Text="Both variants are incorrect: со**врем**енное **врем**я :tautology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;correctly: &quot;в современности&quot;, &quot;в н**ы**нешнее время&quot;, &quot;н**ы**не&quot; (outdated), &quot;сейч**а**с&quot; (&quot;nowdays&quot;), &quot;в тек**у**щее время&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в [неком] времени - means some not real time period, not applicable to your actual environment (do ya need some philosophy?). some abstracted period, out of this time, may be parallel time. not current period, even you say &quot;в этом времени&quot; means &quot;this time line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в настоящем времени, в будущем времени, в прошедшем времени - grammar (not real, abstraction)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;в мое время - means some period from my past (when the speaker was as young as listener is).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**в** моем **времени** - points to my time line (to my life period when it is actual), when two men from a different time met each other, and of them said this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wonderful question))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8864" RevisionGUID="20f3a203-1970-4274-affd-d82a5302ccba" CreationDate="2015-06-10T13:06:46.193" UserId="5550" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Both variants are incorrect: со**врем**енное **врем**я :tautology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;correctly: &quot;в современности&quot;, &quot;в н**ы**нешнее время&quot;, &quot;н**ы**не&quot; (outdated), &quot;сейч**а**с&quot; (&quot;nowdays&quot;), &quot;в тек**у**щее время&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в [неком] времени - means some not real time period, not applicable to your actual environment (do ya need some philosophy?). some abstracted period, out of this time, may be parallel time. not current period, even you say &quot;в этом времени&quot; means &quot;this time line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в настоящем времени, в будущем времени, в прошедшем времени - grammar (not real, abstraction)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;в мое время - means some period from my past (when the speaker was as young as listener is).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**в** моем **времени** - points to my time line (to my life period when it is actual), when two men from a different time met each other, and one of them say this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wonderful question))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="647121b0-c11d-4c5a-b333-76ff7b75f7ca" CreationDate="2015-06-10T13:15:49.967" UserId="194" Text="While people has pointed you that *современное время* is a tautology, I will avoid this issue and concentrate on the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*в современное время* : currently, nowadays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*в современном времени* : inside the current time. Well, maybe it is from a sci-fi fiction about a time machine and time branches?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="ff77a31f-1772-4501-88c3-0d4b467451c9" CreationDate="2015-06-10T13:32:34.203" UserId="5288" Comment="added 835 characters in body" Text="we shall consider examples&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ... потому что, потеряв веру в современное общество, ...&#xD;&#xA;            ...  потеряв себя в современном обществе, ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;Here we have a direct object (i.e. in the accusative case):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;потеряв веру, в кого? / во что? &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Acc.&lt;/b&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And here we have the place where the action is performed, for which reason it is prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; потеряв себя, в ком?  / в чем?  &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Prep.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is: both cases are completely compatible with the Russian grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't hard to find examples of how to use this interesting word `время` )) in the prepositional case, just look at phrases   &#xD;&#xA;[`в античном времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22),&#xD;&#xA;[`в прошлом времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22#newwindow=1&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8865" RevisionGUID="b9e944a8-6141-4dac-a1e9-e52a99d29aac" CreationDate="2015-06-10T13:35:32.213" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="While people have pointed you that *современное время* is a tautology, I will avoid this issue and concentrate on the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*в современное время* : currently, nowadays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*в современном времени* : inside the current time. Well, maybe it is from a sci-fi fiction about a time machine and time branches?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="f216d99d-178b-486f-9821-eac288e2fa95" CreationDate="2015-06-10T13:51:04.313" UserId="5288" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="we shall consider examples&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ... потому что, потеряв веру в современное общество, ...&#xD;&#xA;            ...  потеряв себя в современном обществе, ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;Here we have a direct object (i.e. in the accusative case):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;потеряв веру, в кого? / во что? &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Acc.&lt;/b&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And here we have the place where the action is performed, for which reason it is prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; потеряв себя, в ком?  / в чем?  &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Prep.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is: both cases are completely compatible with the Russian grammar. *Общество, время, эпоха, интервал, мгновение ...*, it doesn't matter, what a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't hard to find examples of how to use this interesting word `время` )) in the prepositional case, just look at phrases   &#xD;&#xA;[`в античном времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22),&#xD;&#xA;[`в прошлом времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22#newwindow=1&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="c069488a-f4a2-4fd7-86c8-b36e029df561" CreationDate="2015-06-10T15:04:35.640" UserId="5288" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="we shall consider examples&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ... потому что, потеряв веру в современное общество, ...&#xD;&#xA;            ...  потеряв себя в современном обществе, ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have to get rid of these examples: *временное время, общественное общество, столичная столица, водочная водка, ...* **.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a direct object (i.e. in the accusative case):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;потеряв веру, в кого? / во что? &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Acc.&lt;/b&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And here we have the place where the action is performed, for which reason it is prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; потеряв себя, в ком?  / в чем?  &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Prep.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is:    &#xD;&#xA;both cases are completely compatible with the Russian grammar. *Общество, время, эпоха, интервал, мгновение ...*, it doesn't matter, what a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't hard to find examples of how to use this interesting word `время` )) in the prepositional case, just look at phrases   &#xD;&#xA;[`в античном времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22),&#xD;&#xA;[`в прошлом времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22#newwindow=1&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8866" RevisionGUID="d7f6c521-e9d1-4542-ab84-7bcbed1b9e2b" CreationDate="2015-06-10T17:56:12.670" UserId="5585" Text="Ukrainian is very close to Russian, and here, we say [ko'rova] and [molo'ko] without any problems. We don't unstress at least o-syllables in any way. You can also find such pronunciation in a lot of Russian dialects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="c57bd7c9-8d87-44c5-838b-0dddb47231d8" CreationDate="2015-06-10T19:26:05.443" UserId="5543" Text="У меня нет хороших словарей. Поэтому ищу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- русско-польского и польско русского&#xD;&#xA;- альтернативно русско-английского и английско-русского&#xD;&#xA;- русско-русского (толкового)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словаря. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Могли ли бы вы мне что-то подсказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="c57bd7c9-8d87-44c5-838b-0dddb47231d8" CreationDate="2015-06-10T19:26:05.443" UserId="5543" Text="Словари русского языка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="c57bd7c9-8d87-44c5-838b-0dddb47231d8" CreationDate="2015-06-10T19:26:05.443" UserId="5543" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="03e19ac3-f613-4806-bf35-6b2e52e7995d" CreationDate="2015-06-10T19:39:42.237" UserId="5557" Comment="слегка подправил грамматику. &quot;словарь&quot; неодушевлённое." Text="У меня нет хороших словарей. Поэтому ищу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- русско-польский и польско-русский&#xD;&#xA;- альтернативно русско-английский и англо-русский&#xD;&#xA;- русско-русский (толковый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словари. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не могли ли бы вы мне что-то подсказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21419" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="03e19ac3-f613-4806-bf35-6b2e52e7995d" CreationDate="2015-06-10T19:39:42.237" Comment="Proposed by 5557 approved by -1 edit id of 634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="01aac789-9649-46ec-a8d3-4c966ea4192a" CreationDate="2015-06-10T19:39:42.237" UserId="134" Comment="слегка подправил грамматику. &quot;словарь&quot; неодушевлённое." Text="У меня нет хороших словарей. Поэтому ищу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- русско-польский и польско-русский&#xD;&#xA;- альтернативный русско-английский и англо-русский&#xD;&#xA;- русско-русский (толковый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словари. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не могли бы вы мне что-нибудь подсказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="d98691f3-fb86-48a9-93f7-1b17424d6d79" CreationDate="2015-06-11T00:03:59.507" UserId="5560" Comment="more precise about the prepositional" Text="There is a standard pattern for time attribution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`в/во ... время`**, accusative,  &#xD;&#xA;where `...` can be: `то, его, своё, всякое, военное, тёплое,..` (i. e. 'determiners' (possessives), adjectives)  &#xD;&#xA;Also in plural: `в/во ... времена`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems obvious (though I cannot know really 'why', it should be questioned those who speak so) this pattern is awkwardly used with `современный`. (It looks unRussian really to me.) If one wants to use `современный` for time attribution it’d be better to say `в современную эпоху`, `в современности`, `в современный исторический момент`, `в современном мире` what is generally not colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the prepositional case.  &#xD;&#xA;I can remember now just two cases when I could expect the use of `&quot;в/во ... времени&quot;` construction *for indicating 'when'*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammatical: `в настоящем/прошлом/будущем времени`,  &#xD;&#xA;- epochal: `‘В каком времени ты живёшь?’` *(What is a time realm you are dwelling in?)* where `‘В `&lt;del&gt;`современном`&lt;/del&gt;` настоящем [времени]’` could be an answer,  &#xD;&#xA; `в том времени` referring to, e. g., `во времена ГУЛАГа` *(in the era of the GULAG)*…  &#xD;&#xA; (i. e. ‘time’ conceived as the time of a different world)&#xD;&#xA;  - seemingly alike usage in the sci[-fi]: `в пространстве-времени` *(in space-time)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed I don’t have an opportunity to investigate the question and can miss something here. Though hopefully it’s enough for your 'why'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8868" RevisionGUID="55674549-d6f5-4c71-9a66-8e9424e7ef39" CreationDate="2015-06-11T01:47:40.050" UserId="5576" Text="What expression do you use to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not inflict any serious injury to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be the same as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't hurt me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what I would like to say is not &#xD;&#xA;some thing like,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stop poking me. It hurts. Stop hurting me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But rather, in situations like I am being mugged in the corner of the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see you have got a barbed club and a knife. You are mugging me. &#xD;&#xA;I will give you my money but&#xD;&#xA;Don't hurt me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8868" RevisionGUID="55674549-d6f5-4c71-9a66-8e9424e7ef39" CreationDate="2015-06-11T01:47:40.050" UserId="5576" Text="Do not inflict any serious injury to me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8868" RevisionGUID="55674549-d6f5-4c71-9a66-8e9424e7ef39" CreationDate="2015-06-11T01:47:40.050" UserId="5576" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="019ab14c-679a-49b5-9a9a-441d35448f0a" CreationDate="2015-06-11T04:17:12.563" UserId="5572" Comment="Elaborated on my initial question" Text="There is a lyric that goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;ты подели небо поровну&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of **подели** in this context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I use **дели** and would it change the meaning? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I use this form with **я**, **мы**, **он**, etc? And can I use other verbs in this way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love to know the English equivalent of this sentence so I can properly understand the use of the imperative in this context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that people use the imperative form as a command like &quot;listen&quot; or &quot;take off your coat&quot;, and as far as I understand &quot;подели&quot; on its own could be used as a command to say &quot;divide&quot; (correct me if I'm mistaken here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when used with &quot;ты&quot; like in &quot;ты подели небо поровну&quot;, I'm not sure of the English equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8869" RevisionGUID="904e600e-c595-4bd0-9f79-2056c53cd03b" CreationDate="2015-06-11T04:58:12.133" UserId="134" Text="I think the closest translation would be *не причиняй мне вреда* or *не делай мне вреда*, though it sounds kinda too legalese for a situation like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One would rather use *не бей меня* &quot;don't hit me&quot;, *не режь меня* &quot;don't stab me&quot;, *не трогай меня* &quot;don't touch me&quot; or *ничего мне не делай* &quot;don't do anything (bad) to me&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8870" RevisionGUID="cb8e1155-3a2f-43e1-a8bf-6e669fbb114a" CreationDate="2015-06-11T05:57:02.437" UserId="5550" Text="**Mugging**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Не бейте меня.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Не бейте меня, я отдам вам деньги. / Я отдам вам деньги, [только] не бейте меня.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Не бейте меня, я отдам вам то, что вам нужно.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Не бейте меня, я отдам вам то, что вы хотите.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Не бейте меня, я отдам вам куртку (камеру, фотоаппарат).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is all, other is redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the school**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Хватит тыкать меня. Больно же!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Хватит тыкать меня ручкой (линейкой, циркулем)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="303699f0-52d0-4c3e-ab83-c3b0c1cae9dc" CreationDate="2015-06-11T07:05:58.153" UserId="5560" Comment="re-conception for the prepositional case" Text="There is a standard pattern for time attribution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`в/во ... время`**, accusative,  &#xD;&#xA;where `...` can be: `то, его, своё, всякое, военное, тёплое,..` (i. e. 'determiners' (possessives), adjectives)  &#xD;&#xA;Also in plural: `в/во ... времена`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems obvious (though I cannot know really 'why', it should be questioned those who speak so) this pattern is awkwardly used with `современный`. (It looks unRussian really to me.) If one wants to use `современный` for time attribution it’d be better to say `в современную эпоху`, `в современности`, `в современный исторический момент`, `в современном мире` what is generally not colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the prepositional case.  &#xD;&#xA;I can remember now just two cases when I could expect the use of `&quot;в/во ... времени&quot;` construction *for indicating 'when'*. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(But, *I suppose*, in that construction 'time' is better interpreted as a medium, that is really ***'where in time'***: `в пространстве-времени` *(in space-time)*.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammatical: `в настоящем/прошлом/будущем времени`,  &#xD;&#xA;- epochal: `‘В каком времени ты живёшь?’` *(What is a time realm you are dwelling in?)* where `‘В `&lt;del&gt;`современном`&lt;/del&gt;` настоящем [времени]’` could be an answer,  &#xD;&#xA; `в том времени` referring to, e. g., `во времена ГУЛАГа` *(in the era of the GULAG)*…  &#xD;&#xA; (i. e. ‘time’ conceived as the time of a different world)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed I don’t have an opportunity to investigate the question and can miss something here. Though hopefully it’s enough for your 'why'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="00486dc3-f3fd-4021-a460-6413c96054a0" CreationDate="2015-06-11T07:11:07.523" UserId="5288" Comment="added 3279 characters in body" Text="Вопрос содержит ложную дихотомию. Ответ должен это учитывать. &#xD;&#xA;Как вообще такой вопрос  мог возникнуть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Дано три слова &lt;kbd&gt;в&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;современный&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;время&lt;/kbd&gt;. Необходимо построить согласованное сочетание слов в предложном падеже. Некто получил два варианта, **Z** и **Y**. Естественно, у него возникли два правомерных вопроса:    &#xD;&#xA;а) они взаимозаменяемы? и    &#xD;&#xA;б) тот вопрос-дихотомия, который и оказался в OP: *Why **Z** and not **Y**?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Далее еще хуже. Наш Некто не увидел, что он получил сочетания слов в двух разных падежах **Z**=acc и **Y**=prep, и он заключает, основываясь на ложном положении о существовании одновременно **Z** и **Y**, как различных форм в одном падеже (т.е. основываясь на противоречии), что между **Z** и **Y** можно произвольно выбирать. Скажем, только **Y**. Или наоборот. Причина для такого произвола? Ну, возможно, такая: это не звучит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Анализируя далeе, как такая ошибка вообще могла возникнуть, в самом начале, в пункте **1.**, можно прийти к выводу, что и для генерации грамматики, и для проверки эквивалентности ее результатов, а именно **Z** и **Y**, был использован неподходящий метод, например, постановка какого-то вопроса. Скорее всего, `В ком?/в чем?`, или, что намного хуже, `когда?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Чтобы избежать тавтологии,  мы далее заменим прилагательное в условии пункта **1**: &lt;kbd&gt;в&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;прошлый&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;время&lt;/kbd&gt;. Итак, наш Некто получил два варианта: **Z**=&quot;в прошлое время&quot; и **Y**=&quot;в прошлом времени&quot;. Далее, наш Некто не сумел различить их вопросом `в ком?/в чем?`, заключив, что оба стоят в одном предложном падеже. А если их нельзя различить, то их можно заменять. Очевидно, что наш Некто полагался на свой собственный слух или чутьё, вместо знания жёсткой грамматики. У взрослых людей это бывает среди эмигрантов, лет через пять у них притупляется чувство родного языка, это заметно при разговоре с ними. У них появляются ошибки в речи и на письме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. В ответах [эту дихотомию даже поддержали](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8861/5288), что дескать, `в + Noun_acc.` можно заменить(!) на `в + Noun_prep`. Это сопровождается примером, что такой заменой стали бы сочетания слов `&quot;в прошлый год&quot; &lt;=&gt; &quot;в прошлом году&quot;`, `&quot;в прошлую неделю&quot; &lt;=&gt; &quot;на прошлой неделе&quot;.` Основанием для выбора было предложено взять категории архаичности, или устарелости. Правда, там не приводилось содержательных примеров полных предложений, с заменой винительного падежа на предложный, так что это утверждение осталось бессодержательным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я утверждаю, в русском языке такая замена невозможна. Поэтому здесь ложная дихотомия. Трудно представить, что такой язык вообще существует, в котором возможно в предложении грамматически выделенный &quot;объект&quot; заменить на грамматически выделенное &quot;место действия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для желающих попробовать заменить  Винительный на Предложный в предложении, вот пример:    &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Я капнул три капли в стеклянный стакан.&quot;*    &#xD;&#xA;Сочетание слов в предложном падеже: *&quot;в стеклянном стакане&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ниже, на простом примере показано, как работает грамматическая связь в русском языке. И почему вопрос *&quot;Why **Z** and not **Y**?&quot;* является ложной дихотомией. Оба, **Z** и **Y**, правильны, сочетаются в разных падежах, и не взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we shall consider examples&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ... потому что, потеряв веру в современное общество, ...&#xD;&#xA;            ...  потеряв себя в современном обществе, ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have to get rid of these examples: *временное время, общественное общество, столичная столица, водочная водка, ...* **.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a direct object (i.e. in the accusative case):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;потеряв веру, в кого? / во что? &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Acc.&lt;/b&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And here we have the place where the action is performed, for which reason it is prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; потеряв себя, в ком?  / в чем?  &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Prep.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is:    &#xD;&#xA;both cases are completely compatible with the Russian grammar. *Общество, время, эпоха, интервал, мгновение ...*, it doesn't matter, what a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't hard to find examples of how to use this interesting word `время` )) in the prepositional case, just look at phrases   &#xD;&#xA;[`в античном времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22),&#xD;&#xA;[`в прошлом времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22#newwindow=1&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8863" RevisionGUID="c06ddff4-cf96-4199-bbad-ae04adb2c7a7" CreationDate="2015-06-11T07:17:27.010" UserId="5560" Comment="minor 'more precise'" Text="There is a standard pattern for time attribution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`в/во ... время`**, **accusative**,  &#xD;&#xA;where `...` can be: `то, его, своё, всякое, военное, тёплое,..` (i. e. 'determiners' (possessives), adjectives)  &#xD;&#xA;Also in plural: `в/во ... времена`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems obvious (though I cannot know really 'why', it should be questioned those who speak so) this pattern is awkwardly used with `современный`. (It looks unRussian really to me.) If one wants to use `современный` for time attribution it’d be better to say `в современную эпоху`, `в современности`, `в современный исторический момент`, `в современном мире` what is generally not colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning **the prepositional case**.  &#xD;&#xA;I can remember now just two cases when I could expect the use of `&quot;в/во ... времени&quot;` construction *for indicating 'when'*. &lt;kbd&gt;(But, *I suppose*, in that construction 'time' is better interpreted as a medium, space, that is really *'**where** in time'*: `в пространстве-времени` *(in space-time)*.)&lt;/kbd&gt; The cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- grammatical: `в настоящем/прошлом/будущем времени`,  &#xD;&#xA;- epochal: `‘В каком времени ты живёшь?’` *(What is a time realm you are dwelling in?)* where `‘В `&lt;del&gt;`современном`&lt;/del&gt;` настоящем [времени]’` could be an answer,  &#xD;&#xA; `в том времени` referring to, e. g., `во времена ГУЛАГа` *(in the era of the GULAG)*…  &#xD;&#xA; (i. e. ‘time’ conceived as the time of a different world)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed I don’t have an opportunity to investigate the question and can miss something here. Though hopefully it’s enough for your 'why'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="7546587a-344d-4a66-b1f5-07c411498d13" CreationDate="2015-06-11T07:41:17.950" UserId="5543" Comment="more details" Text="У меня нет хороших словарей. Поэтому ищу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- русско-польский и польско-русский (или, если не найдутся такие, тогда по крайней мере русско-английский и англо-русский)&#xD;&#xA;- русско-русский (толковый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словари. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю, что существуют многие такие словари. Но их так много, что мне очень сложно выбрать один или два из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, для польского языка есть словарь PWN, он самый популярный и другие едва ли используются. Для немецкого зато два словари, которыми обычно пользуются - Duden (основный источник) i LDaF (толковый словарь для иностранцев). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я учу русский язык 2 года, а мой родной язык - это польский.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Который такой словарь по-вашему был бы лучший всех? Не могли бы вы мне что-нибудь подсказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8859" RevisionGUID="72760421-a18a-4c01-b58b-954f63cbbea4" CreationDate="2015-06-11T08:12:08.223" UserId="5560" Comment="markdown correction" Text="[**`мириться`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F), *imperfective*, (1) to get to peace or (2) to suffer, tolerate something that one does not have an opportunity to change/meliorate  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;for the latter meaning: `*Он мирился с отсутствием горячей воды, но не с хамством уборщицы.` You can use `терпеть + Accusative` instead of `мириться с + Instrumental` here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`смириться`**, *perfective*, to stop fighting or resisting something, to refuse trying to change something, to get conformed&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	`смириться со своим положением`,  &#xD;&#xA;	`смириться со своим поражением`,  &#xD;&#xA;	BTW, `смирение` (humility)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`примириться`**, *perfective*, to get to reconciliation, on more equal terms with an opposing part than as with `смириться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`смириться` / `примириться` may be opposed (with some exaggeration) as *to surrender / to find the way to deal with*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see also Quassnoi’s answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="f31b0d5a-e37e-4d99-8395-68833ad00faa" CreationDate="2015-06-11T09:01:17.563" UserId="134" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="No, it's accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В + acc.* means &quot;at a certain time period&quot;: *в войну, в перестройку* &quot;during the war, during the perestroika&quot;, or &quot;once in a certain time period&quot;: *три раза в час* &quot;three times per hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language the first construct is often replaced with *в +  prep.*, *на + prep.* or *inst.*: *в году, на неделе, осенью*. Those are idioms you have to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В год, в неделю, в осень* are still valid, though they sound archaic, unless they have a non-agreeing modifier: *в прошлом году* but *в год Дракона*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="772377eb-b6cf-4aea-974c-b697f54cd073" CreationDate="2015-06-11T09:16:25.160" UserId="5288" Comment="some spelling" Text="У меня нет хороших словарей. Поэтому ищу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- русско-польский и польско-русский (или, если не найдутся такие, тогда по крайней мере русско-английский и англо-русский)&#xD;&#xA;- русско-русский (толковый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словари. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю, что существуют многие такие словари. Но их так много, что мне очень сложно выбрать один или два из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, для польского языка есть словарь PWN, он самый популярный и другие едва ли используются. Для немецкого зато есть два словаря, которыми обычно пользуются - Duden (основный источник) и LDaF (толковый словарь для иностранцев). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я учу русский язык 2 года, а мой родной язык - это польский.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой именно словарь по-вашему был бы лучший из всех? Не могли бы вы мне что-нибудь подсказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="772377eb-b6cf-4aea-974c-b697f54cd073" CreationDate="2015-06-11T09:16:25.160" Comment="Proposed by 5288 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="4736335c-0616-456e-a510-ba5ae0e9a549" CreationDate="2015-06-11T09:16:25.160" UserId="134" Comment="some spelling" Text="У меня нет хороших словарей. Поэтому ищу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- русско-польский и польско-русский (или, если не найдутся такие, тогда по крайней мере русско-английский и англо-русский)&#xD;&#xA;- русско-русский (толковый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;словари. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю, что существует много таких словарей. Но их так много, что мне очень сложно выбрать один или два из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, для польского языка есть словарь PWN, он самый популярный и другие едва ли используются. Для немецкого зато есть два словаря, которыми обычно пользуются - Duden (основный источник) и LDaF (толковый словарь для иностранцев). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я учу русский язык 2 года, а мой родной язык - польский.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой именно словарь, по-вашему, был бы лучшим из всех? Не могли бы вы мне что-нибудь подсказать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8871" RevisionGUID="e7dd1dc6-fb81-4780-80f1-f032f991c0b6" CreationDate="2015-06-11T10:03:00.827" UserId="5560" Text="Someone should mention it.  &#xD;&#xA;There is a kind of a standard dictionary:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&quot;&gt;А. А. Зализняк, «Грамматический словарь русского языка»&lt;/a&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;(A Dictionary of Russian Grammar by &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Zaliznyak&quot;&gt;Zaliznyak&lt;/a&gt;)  &#xD;&#xA;**&lt;a href=&quot;http://rifmovnik.ru/&quot;&gt;rifmovnik.ru&lt;/a&gt;** definitely has it as a base and is much more convenient to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Briefly: assumably a full formalised paradigm of the Russian conjugation and declension put in template tables and the system of labels. Every word in the Dictionary has such labels as a pointer to the necessary template(s) and to special notes needed to yield the resulting table of conjugation/declension for the word.  &#xD;&#xA;It is seemingly a basis of all on/off-line grammar tools and tables but in its 'raw' paper format this great dict can be a challenge and takes time to get an answer for a single word. Though for groups of words it can be of better help…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="05a9193e-8ed2-46a6-9293-8a91b410bdfa" CreationDate="2015-06-11T11:09:32.393" UserId="5560" Text="*(словари, которые мне когда-то понравились)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русско-русские**  &#xD;&#xA;*Ефремова, Т. Ф.* Новый словарь русского языка. Толково-словообразовательный.  &#xD;&#xA;В интернете также фигурируют названия: «Новый толково-словообразовательный словарь [русского-языка]» *под редакцией (п/р) Ефремовой*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Англо-русские**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Новый большой англо-русский словарь (НБАРС), *под редакцией Ю. Д. Aпpeсяна*.  &#xD;&#xA; В бумажном виде — трёхтомник. Как я догадываюсь, был использован для некоторых словарей LINGVO, но вот эти &quot;дериваты&quot; я ни в коем случае не рекомендую.&#xD;&#xA;- Англо-русский словарь *Мюллера*  &#xD;&#xA; Куда меньше по объёму (однотомник), но просто замечательный. Я пользовался, кажется, 22-м изданием (~1989 г.) и о качестве изданий последующих десятилетий судить не могу, но &lt;a href=&quot;https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D1%8E%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.9F.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.B4.D0.BE-.D0.BC.D1.8E.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B5.D1.80&quot;&gt;Википедия предупреждает&lt;/a&gt;, что с ними не все ОК." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="6a1fcb24-8abf-4fab-ab6d-94508358a8bd" CreationDate="2015-06-11T11:37:54.017" UserId="5560" Text="*А. Ю. Кудрявцев, Г. Д. Куропаткин*  &#xD;&#xA;Англо-русский словарь-справочник табуизированной лексики и эвфемизмов / ABC of Dirty English.  &#xD;&#xA;Москва, «КОМПТ», 1993&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть более новое издание с похожим названием." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8874" RevisionGUID="db111e25-f4be-407c-ab7a-088b0330c148" CreationDate="2015-06-11T11:46:43.147" UserId="1722" Text="Someone commented on a song I put on the internet with the Russian phrase `биточки ваще кайф`, which to me looks like she's telling me that at this point in the (may I point out, instrumental) track there's some sort of Russian meat [cutlet/chops/meatballs][1] that finally kicks in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, what could this phrase possibly mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://marinaskitchen.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dsc00711-copy1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8874" RevisionGUID="db111e25-f4be-407c-ab7a-088b0330c148" CreationDate="2015-06-11T11:46:43.147" UserId="1722" Text="&quot;биточки ваще кайф&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8874" RevisionGUID="db111e25-f4be-407c-ab7a-088b0330c148" CreationDate="2015-06-11T11:46:43.147" UserId="1722" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8873" RevisionGUID="5d85225a-9223-4a7d-8d73-3f2733b866ee" CreationDate="2015-06-11T11:55:12.750" UserId="5560" Comment="adding info" Text="*А. Ю. Кудрявцев, Г. Д. Куропаткин*  &#xD;&#xA;Англо-русский словарь-справочник табуизированной лексики и эвфемизмов / ABC of Dirty English.  &#xD;&#xA;Москва, «КОМПТ», 1993  &#xD;&#xA;It includes lists of words related to some general 'topic', e. g. ‘DAMN(ED)’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a newer edition with a title which differs a little." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8875" RevisionGUID="fc864366-4be0-4018-9b2d-af756993ecfb" CreationDate="2015-06-11T12:55:46.967" UserId="551" Text="I guess that this &quot;биточки&quot; here is musical slang word, derived from English &quot;beat&quot; (it can be written in Russian as &quot;бит&quot; - compare &quot;Beatles&quot; and &quot;Битлз&quot; for instance). Here's how a [site][1] dedicated to musical samples defines the word бит:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Биты - это ударные партии задающие ритм вашему треку или композиции. Вы можете скачать уже готовые сэмплы битов или сделать их при помощи драм машины или на виртуальном синтезаторе (VST). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the phrase is actually praises the beat(s) of your song: &quot;The beats are cool!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sample-create.ru/semply/bity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21445" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8874" RevisionGUID="be5b7f8f-0c04-4419-b9e8-88c7c9e244a5" CreationDate="2015-06-11T12:56:53.023" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выражения|музыка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8876" RevisionGUID="abb6441a-bfd5-4edf-a428-5d9a237edbd7" CreationDate="2015-06-11T14:23:01.370" UserId="5543" Text="Викисловарь говорит:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **бунтарь**: 1. подстрекатель или участник бунта&#xD;&#xA;2. *перен.* тот, кто протестует, борется против чего-либо; непокорный человек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **бунтовщик**: подстрекатель или участник бунта&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мятежник**: участник мятежа, бунтовщик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли разница между этими словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8876" RevisionGUID="abb6441a-bfd5-4edf-a428-5d9a237edbd7" CreationDate="2015-06-11T14:23:01.370" UserId="5543" Text="Разница между словами &quot;вунтарь&quot;, &quot;мятежник&quot; и &quot;бунтовщик&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8876" RevisionGUID="abb6441a-bfd5-4edf-a428-5d9a237edbd7" CreationDate="2015-06-11T14:23:01.370" UserId="5543" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21449" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8876" RevisionGUID="5bb88d35-32da-42bc-b519-fd0179b74cbe" CreationDate="2015-06-11T14:28:49.037" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Разница между словами &quot;бунтарь&quot;, &quot;мятежник&quot; и &quot;бунтовщик&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="12e0af6a-53f9-479f-9e11-d5614f1dc6b1" CreationDate="2015-06-11T14:45:13.877" UserId="5560" Comment="a typo" Text="*(словари, которые мне когда-то понравились)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русско-русские**  &#xD;&#xA;*Ефремова, Т. Ф.* Новый словарь русского языка. Толково-словообразовательный.  &#xD;&#xA;В интернете также фигурируют названия: «Новый толково-словообразовательный словарь [русского языка]» *под редакцией (п/р) Ефремовой*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Всё-таки не могу не упомянуть словарь Даля («Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка»), но я не считаю его хорошим подспорьем для тех, кто учит современный, недиалектный русский язык.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Англо-русские**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Новый большой англо-русский словарь (НБАРС), *под редакцией Ю. Д. Aпpeсяна*.  &#xD;&#xA; В бумажном виде — трёхтомник. Как я догадываюсь, был использован для некоторых словарей LINGVO, но вот эти &quot;дериваты&quot; я ни в коем случае не рекомендую.&#xD;&#xA;- Англо-русский словарь *Мюллера*  &#xD;&#xA; Куда меньше по объёму (однотомник), но просто замечательный. Я пользовался, кажется, 22-м изданием (~1989 г.) и о качестве изданий последующих десятилетий судить не могу, но &lt;a href=&quot;https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D1%8E%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.9F.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.B4.D0.BE-.D0.BC.D1.8E.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B5.D1.80&quot;&gt;Википедия предупреждает&lt;/a&gt;, что с ними не все ОК." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8877" RevisionGUID="2421895f-3fbd-4052-bd02-22a344417031" CreationDate="2015-06-11T14:51:32.217" UserId="134" Text="They are roughly the same, the differences are very vague if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мятеж* is more focused on the goal (overthrowing the authority) and as such is used in legalese, *бунт* is more about the process itself. The difference is roughly the same as that between &quot;rebellion&quot; and &quot;riot&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Star Wars' rebels are *мятежники* (or *повстанцы*), &quot;Rebel without a Cause&quot; is *Бунтарь без цели*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Бунтарь*, as your dictionary mentions, can be used figuratively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно быть великим бунтарем для всего мира, как Ибсен, а жить в мещанской обстановке, так что никто из ближайших соседей и не узнает, что жил тут великий бунтарь. // *М. М. Пришвин. Дневники (1918)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, *бунтовщик* would be less appropriate here (though still could be used)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8878" RevisionGUID="c88c6858-56e1-45ca-915d-b25aa6307009" CreationDate="2015-06-11T15:01:29.907" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Бунтарь&quot; обычно употребляется только в переносном смысле. &quot;Бунтовщик&quot; - только в прямом (участник бунта).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разница между &quot;мятеж/мятежник&quot; и &quot;бунт/бунтовщик&quot; довольно условная, т.к. эти слова употребляются чаще всего в историческом контексте, и соответственно, мы просто следуем традиции: &quot;медный бунт&quot;, &quot;мятеж чехословацкого корпуса&quot; и пр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="ce7c7972-63dc-4bf8-86bd-1ecae184089e" CreationDate="2015-06-11T17:12:49.220" UserId="5405" Text="Бунт - это стихийное востание, акция неповиновения. Как правило, при бунте нет явных лидеров и чётких целей. Люди участвующие в бунте - **бунтовщики**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мятеж - это **вооружённое** восстание против властей. Чаще всего у мятяжа есть лидеры какая-то программа действий. Люди участвующие в мятеже - **мятежники**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бунтарь** - это человек склонный к бунту, но не обязательно в нём участвовавший, участвующий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="324a4b5d-deae-4bda-8914-2ea8e219a294" CreationDate="2015-06-11T17:44:59.830" UserId="5405" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Бунт - это стихийное восстание, акция неповиновения. Как правило, при бунте нет явных лидеров и чётких целей. Люди участвующие в бунте - **бунтовщики**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мятеж - это **вооружённое** восстание против властей. Чаще всего у мятяжа есть лидеры и какая-то программа действий. Люди участвующие в мятеже - **мятежники**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бунтарь** - это человек, склонный к бунту, но не обязательно в нём участвовавший, участвующий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="5a3bf0da-8a37-4eb0-ac28-4a4913466c33" CreationDate="2015-06-11T18:16:13.733" UserId="5560" Comment="specifying" Text="*(словари, которые мне когда-то понравились; неспецифические, общей лексики)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Русско-русские**  &#xD;&#xA;*Ефремова, Т. Ф.* Новый словарь русского языка. Толково-словообразовательный.  &#xD;&#xA;В интернете также фигурируют названия: «Новый толково-словообразовательный словарь [русского языка]» *под редакцией (п/р) Ефремовой*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(Всё-таки не могу не упомянуть словарь Даля («Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка»), но я не считаю его хорошим подспорьем для тех, кто учит современный, недиалектный русский язык.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Англо-русские**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Новый большой англо-русский словарь (НБАРС), *под редакцией Ю. Д. Aпpeсяна*.  &#xD;&#xA; В бумажном виде — трёхтомник. Как я догадываюсь, был использован для некоторых словарей LINGVO, но вот эти &quot;дериваты&quot; я ни в коем случае не рекомендую.&#xD;&#xA;- Англо-русский словарь *Мюллера*  &#xD;&#xA; Куда меньше по объёму (однотомник), но просто замечательный. Я пользовался, кажется, 22-м изданием (~1989 г.) и о качестве изданий последующих десятилетий судить не могу, но &lt;a href=&quot;https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D1%8E%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.9F.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.B4.D0.BE-.D0.BC.D1.8E.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B5.D1.80&quot;&gt;Википедия предупреждает&lt;/a&gt;, что с ними не все ОК." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8880" RevisionGUID="4e96b2ab-7cbf-4cc0-af39-9951ea4c425a" CreationDate="2015-06-11T19:34:02.763" UserId="5405" Text="Наиболее популярным в России толковым словарём сейчас является **Большой толковый словарь** под ред. Кузнецова. Связано это прежде всего с тем, что именно он представлен на портале [Грамота.ру][1], который является самым авторитетным порталом по проверке орфографии и чаще всего обновляется. Также хороши словари под редакций **Ефремовой** и **Ожегова, Шведовой**. Словари Ушакова и тем более Даля лучше не использовать, так как они подустарели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается словарей, то ничего конкретного подсказать не могу, потому что польским особо не увлекался (смысл текста и без словаря понятен, а большее мне было не нужно). Единственное, что могу подсказать, что английский не очень удачный язык посредник между польским и русским, так граматика очень несхожа. Посредниками могли бы быть украинский или белорусский (по сути они и возникли как смесь древнерусского и польского). Польско-русские словари с аннотациями можно посмотреть по [ссылке][2]. Не сочтите за рекламу, этим сайтом не пользовался, ни рекомендовать ни ругать его не могу, но словари там приведены.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.orange-books.net/polskii_jazyk_slovari/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8879" RevisionGUID="6be1daf5-14bb-462a-bd56-375c254b417a" CreationDate="2015-06-11T19:37:35.543" UserId="5405" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Бунт - это стихийное восстание, акция неповиновения. Как правило, при бунте нет явных лидеров и чётких целей. Люди участвующие в бунте - **бунтовщики**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мятеж - это **вооружённое** восстание против властей. Чаще всего у мятежа есть лидеры и какая-то программа действий. Люди, участвующие в мятеже - **мятежники**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бунтарь** - это человек, склонный к бунту, но не обязательно в нём участвовавший, участвующий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8881" RevisionGUID="45c279ae-28cd-4e22-84df-f06af890ac3d" CreationDate="2015-06-11T20:38:39.187" UserId="5589" Text="`Бунтарь` часто употребляется для описания характера человека, как синоним `спонтанный`, `не признающий условностей или правил`, `провокатор`. `Бунтовщики` больше подходит для описания группы действительно бунтующих людей, нежели `бунтари`: второе отражает больше их нрав, нежели конкретную деятельность в некоторый период времени." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8882" RevisionGUID="f6e5f0d1-9f1e-45f1-95d2-3690da9aff3d" CreationDate="2015-06-11T21:24:42.700" UserId="5589" Text="&gt;Is there an adjective in Russian that means thirsty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are phrase depending on context and style. But the adjective in one word I can't find out.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Когда обыватель сообщает кому-то свою потребность в воде в обычной речи: (с акцентом или метафорой) `Жажда одолела.`, `Жажда замучила.`, `Пить хочу.`, `Сушняк замучал.` или `Сушняк!`; (когда что-то препятствует) `Попить бы.`, `Пить хочется.` или `Сейчас бы воды.`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Описание  от третьего лица чьего-то желания напиться воды: (лит.) `Он жаждал воды.`, `Томимый жаждой, он ...`(склонился над ручьём, напр.), `Замученный жаждой, он...` (не мог отказать кому-то, напр.), `Он испытывал сильную жажду.`; (в обычном разговоре) `Он пить хочет.` (воды); (с акцентом и/или метафорой) `Его жажда замучила.`.&#xD;&#xA;3. При описании состояния организма от третьего лица в экстремальной ситуации: `Он сильно обезвожен.` (потому что долго не пил). Не путать это `обезвожен` с `dehydrated`, описывающее результат воздействия на материал (в научном контексте), хотя в обоих случаях речь о сильно пониженном содержании воды по сравнению с нормой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8883" RevisionGUID="891d0cc2-ef63-4f52-ab64-642c6784d8c7" CreationDate="2015-06-12T00:49:59.220" UserId="4560" Text="`дели` instead of `подели` would certainly change the meaning — from a single, completed action to either a repeated one, or prolonged and not necessarily completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `ты` with an imperative form is poetic licence, mostly used in songs and generally shunned by &quot;serious&quot; poets and songwriters. Which particular verb it's used with is of no real significance. It also works with `вы` (the plural one, not the formal one; that is to say, a formal `Вы поделите небо поровну` is theoretically possible but a kind of stylistic oxymoron.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two other, one might say unrelated, usages `ты` or `вы` (*both* plural and formal this time) with imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: for the purposes of this comment, I won't dwell on those technical imperatives that aren't imperative at all, and can be used with any pronoun, or noun for that matter — such as `знай я заранее` &quot;had I known beforehand&quot; or the surprise-conveying `а он и упади`. To keep this from getting too long, let's just note that they also exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as I said, there are two more &quot;shades&quot; of imperative that take a second-person pronoun. Both are colloquial. The first one has the tone of a suggestion that's either mildly insistent or novel within the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ты не думай, я не шпион.` &quot;Now, don't think I'm a spy or something.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вы расскажите всё как было, вас там привлечь не за что.` &quot;Tell everything as it happened, there's nothing there to prosecute you for.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ты ему лучше зёрен насыпь, у хомяков от печенья диабет бывает.` &quot;Perhaps you should better give it some cereals; cookies can give hamsters diabetes.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second usage, the pronoun is placed strictly *after* the imperative, almost as if it were an emphatic particle such as `же`. It conveys impatience or annoyance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Оставьте вы меня в покое!` &quot;Leave me alone already!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the iconic `Иди ты [...]!` &quot;Go to [*one of a wide choice of established destinations of various degrees of profanity*]!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21463" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8876" RevisionGUID="40bdb54d-f2ef-4374-a6ae-ceb37be71e1c" CreationDate="2015-06-12T09:03:35.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/609284903683911681" />
  <row Id="21464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="559f28c6-cac2-43f8-b14c-95b1e6577304" CreationDate="2015-06-12T11:26:37.410" UserId="5560" Comment="update" Text="There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic passages in Russian speech had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голодать` — not to eat (*physiologically*),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жаждать`  —  to crave (*for something unmaterial as a rule*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, both Church Slavonic `жажден` and Russian `жаден` discontinued to be actual as denoting *‘thirsty’* by now. (See Quassnoi’s comment below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;small&gt;NB. It is just my note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion.&lt;/small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**undate**  &#xD;&#xA;There’s another difference between `голод` and `жажда` (and their derivatives).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голод` is about *deprivation* of something, 'outer' objective situation,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жажда` is to mean a (strong) *want* for something,  'inner' subjective situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, I have no idea if this difference is related somehow with the previous one and how it could (if could) result in the situation in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8885" RevisionGUID="b0fee434-383f-4fff-ba7d-23bd0a24429a" CreationDate="2015-06-13T08:01:07.510" UserId="5288" Text="This answer will be given to the second part of the OP question, specifically for the English native speakers, as opposite to the languages Latin, Russian, etc., with &lt;i&gt;D&lt;/i&gt;eclension and &lt;i&gt;C&lt;/i&gt;onjugation including all forms of the reflexive and personal pronoun (let's call it the &lt;i&gt;DC-&lt;/i&gt;language).  This is the standard and often repeating confusion regards of the question &quot;**why is no subject-pronoun used in that sentence?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is not always the case when two subjects does correspond to given two pronouns and one verb.    &#xD;&#xA;**&lt;sub&gt;Quick Example 1:&lt;/sub&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  And... um... he, he was standing there. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have we two subjects for given verb &quot;be&quot; there, or have we none? Have we any subject at all? Yes, we have. Is it the first or second one? If the second pronoun is the subject, what is the precise role and functions of the remaining one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the DC-language, there is no grammatical need for a related subject pronoun, if a form of a given verb has such grammatical properties reflected in the morphology of the verb, that it unambiguously pointed out at the unique pronoun. Hence the two examples were given by me: `&quot;Подели небо поровну&quot;`, instead of `&quot;Ты подели небо поровну&quot;.` The pronoun &quot;Ты&quot; is completely unnecessary, from the grammatically point of view.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;sub&gt;Quick Example 2:&lt;/sub&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  I am not going to give myself up.&#xD;&#xA;             Не дамся.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the DC-language, &quot;where is it&quot; and &quot;who is the subject&quot;, what tense, perfectiveness, and other grammatical values can be packed tightly, fulfilled, literally, in one word.  So, in the DC-language, when reader has received this information expressed in an extra word, this word is to become for him the amplification particle. In English, it is &quot;um... he, ...&quot; from the example 1. As a vivid example in Russian, look at the phrase [&quot;да нет&quot;, where  'да' is not 'yes' but an unstressed particle emphasizing 'нет'](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1734/what-does-the-phrase-%d0%94%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b5%d1%82-mean). What a meaning speaker is amplifying, depends on the context. `&quot;Я не дамся&quot;` is emphasizing, in the DC-language, that it is namely Me, not You. `&quot;Ты подели небо&quot;` give us the same additional point, namely You, not Me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing specifically related to the lyrics domain. It's everyday usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="d6b1580e-df7f-41de-a707-8686111f6121" CreationDate="2015-06-13T08:23:55.393" UserId="5560" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="‘Genuine’ Russian ‘yes’ spells and is pronounced *&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;*.  &#xD;&#xA;As for &lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt; in your question, which is many times described in previous answers, in oral speech there are variants of this word which hardly can be heard (interpreted by ear) as *‘yes’-&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;* pronunciational variant. It can be pronounced with a final vowel varying around and resembling something like *ы/а/schwa/and-their-shortened-varaints*. (A form “&lt;code&gt;ды нет&lt;/code&gt;” can be found on the Internet.) Some more info is in Andrey Chernyakhovskiy’s comment below.  &#xD;&#xA;The phrase in question is really oral and that Russian &lt;code&gt;да нет&lt;/code&gt; does not tend to sound like English &lt;code&gt;*yes no&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;*yeah no&lt;/code&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="5392b6b1-0541-4f6a-847d-f4d892946836" CreationDate="2015-06-13T10:47:05.833" UserId="5576" Text="I was searching for the ways to use this expression in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any Russian expression so I had to use Google translate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know if these sound natural or if these are what Russians would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let it ruin your day.  &#xD;&#xA;Не позволяйте испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let her ruin your day.  &#xD;&#xA;Не давайте ей испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they sound natural ?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is it a general rule to use the perfective aspect after **позволяйте** ? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="5392b6b1-0541-4f6a-847d-f4d892946836" CreationDate="2015-06-13T10:47:05.833" UserId="5576" Text="Don't let it/her ruin your day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="5392b6b1-0541-4f6a-847d-f4d892946836" CreationDate="2015-06-13T10:47:05.833" UserId="5576" Text="|одним-словом|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8887" RevisionGUID="0c28acac-f37e-4651-90b3-d9bc3452e220" CreationDate="2015-06-13T11:07:14.103" UserId="4560" Text="The dative *вам* is nicely idiomatic, but it's more common to say `испортить вам настроение`. I'm not saying what you have isn't natural enough, but somehow things like `испортить вечер` or `испортить праздник` register as authentic while `испортить день`, at least when you know it's a translation of an English idiom, feels like just that, a translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="ff557fa1-5ef1-4e8e-bdaf-03045104fdee" CreationDate="2015-06-13T11:41:10.370" UserId="5576" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I was searching for the ways to use this expression in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any Russian expression so I had to use Google translate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know if these sound natural or if these are what Russians would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let it ruin your day.  &#xD;&#xA;Не позволяйте испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let her ruin your day.  &#xD;&#xA;Не давайте ей испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they sound natural ?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is it a general rule to use the perfective aspect after **позволяйте** ? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="8ad899bd-94b5-4a7e-8410-7052394d298d" CreationDate="2015-06-13T12:27:04.123" UserId="5560" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’a answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;Another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the imperfectiveness a verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не дайте…` makes phrases more natural. Though the meaning differs (according to the difference of aspects usage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Russian variants could use also `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте этому/ей отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible Russian variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though literal meaning differs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="07c97039-80eb-4cd5-8bce-4f8fec60ca0d" CreationDate="2015-06-13T12:27:20.350" UserId="5576" Text="I remember from a Russian expression book that it was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С днём рождения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen my friends from Russia write that on each others facebook on birthdays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these days I've seen &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с днем рождения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and no one wrote **С днём рождения**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my memory just inaccurate or is there some other reason ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="07c97039-80eb-4cd5-8bce-4f8fec60ca0d" CreationDate="2015-06-13T12:27:20.350" UserId="5576" Text="С днём рождения или с днем рождения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="07c97039-80eb-4cd5-8bce-4f8fec60ca0d" CreationDate="2015-06-13T12:27:20.350" UserId="5576" Text="|выбор-слова|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="d0791036-190b-4c1f-b25c-99db09dfe60a" CreationDate="2015-06-13T12:30:03.093" UserId="5576" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="I was searching for the ways to use this expression in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any Russian expression so I had to use Google translate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know if these sound natural or if these are what Russians would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let it ruin your day.  &#xD;&#xA;Не позволяйте испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let her ruin your day.  &#xD;&#xA;Не давайте ей испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they sound natural ?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей испортить вам день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if none of the above expressions is natural, what expression can I use ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is it a general rule to use the perfective aspect after **позволяйте** ? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8890" RevisionGUID="7b9cfec6-0c5f-49a7-901c-41b6eb467ec3" CreationDate="2015-06-13T12:46:10.777" UserId="3892" Text="They are both the same, except that in most cases, Russians write &quot;e&quot; instead of &quot;ë&quot;, because they instinctively know when to pronounce it which way. So even though one is spelled **днём** and the other is spelled **днем**, they're both pronounced [дньом]. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="94733de9-4e44-4d2c-840f-04e4ae998fa6" CreationDate="2015-06-13T13:11:21.093" UserId="5560" Comment="correcrion about aspects" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’a answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel that another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the non-unity of aspects of verbs. I would rather expect:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте этому испортить…`  &#xD;&#xA;`Не давайте этому портить…`  &#xD;&#xA;Though any combination of aspects is possible depending on the *meaning* aspects a sayer wants to express. (I will not discuss the difference between aspects here; it is another topic — answered.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Russian variants could use `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте этому/ей отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A possible Russian variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though a literal meaning differs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="48451246-dfb0-4e9f-89ab-baa3104ae969" CreationDate="2015-06-13T13:25:30.780" UserId="5560" Comment="correcrion about aspects" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’a answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel that another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the non-unity of aspects of verbs. I would rather expect:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте этому испортить…`  &#xD;&#xA;`Не давайте этому портить…` *(Though `позволяйте` in the last clause seems more probable for me I cannot see why; possibly because `дайте` (compared with `позволяйте`) is a more sharp word more appropriate for more definite ‘perfective’ situations.)*  &#xD;&#xA;But any combination of aspects is possible depending on the *meaning* aspects a sayer wants to express. (I will not discuss the difference between aspects here; it is another topic — answered.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Russian variants could use `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте этому/ей отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A possible Russian variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though a literal meaning differs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="2a887afa-ba8b-4b09-bad4-4558a29243f9" CreationDate="2015-06-13T13:37:54.607" UserId="5560" Comment="formulation" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’a answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel that another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the non-unity of aspects of verbs. I would rather expect:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте … испортить…`  &#xD;&#xA;`Не давайте … портить…` *(Though `позволяйте` in the last clause seems more probable for me I cannot see why; possibly because `дайте` (compared with `позволяйте`) is a more sharp word which is more appropriate for more definite ‘perfective’ situations (compared with ‘imperfective’ situations).)*  &#xD;&#xA;But any combination of aspects is possible depending on the *meaning* aspects a sayer wants to express. (I will not discuss the difference between aspects here; it is another topic — answered.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Russian variants could use `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте [ей] отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A possible Russian variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though a literal meaning differs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="d5e3ecb0-47a5-475b-b07a-878b3bfac909" CreationDate="2015-06-13T13:57:37.300" UserId="5560" Comment="formulation" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’a answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel that another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the non-unity of aspects of verbs. I would rather expect:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте … испортить…`  &#xD;&#xA;`Не давайте … портить…` *(Though `позволяйте` in the last clause seems more probable for me I cannot see why; possibly because `дайте` (compared with `позволяйте`) is a more sharp word which is more appropriate for more definite ‘perfective’ situations (compared with ‘imperfective’ situations).)*  &#xD;&#xA;But any combination of aspects is possible depending on the *meaning* aspects a sayer wants to express. (I will not discuss the difference between aspects here; it is another topic — answered.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Russian variants could use `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте [ей] отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A possible Russian variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though a literal meaning differs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slang has more phrases for it. *(But all of them, and non-slang variants too, are not about 'day-not-to-be-ruined')*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="794858ae-c416-401f-92d4-5731b9241754" CreationDate="2015-06-13T14:46:17.297" UserId="5543" Text="(Мне не приходит на ум лучшее заглавие. Если у вас какая-то идея, поправите её, пожалуйста)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжке В. Березина &quot;Путевые знаки&quot; я прочитал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **выбираюсь** наружу, и воздушный поток тут же срывает у меня с головы пилотку. Это отцовская пилотка (...) Пилотка мне вилка, но я **берегу её пуще коллекции вкладышей от жвачки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проблема у меня прежде всего в словах отмеченных жирным шрифтом.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не уверен в том, или я хорошо понимаю смысл этого отрывка. По-моему можно бы это так перевести:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm getting out to the edge and the stream of the air takes my pilot cap from my head at this very place. It's my father's cap (...) The cap is too big for me but I protect it worse than my collection of chewing gums&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особенно второе жирное предложение звучит странно. Перевёл ли я правильно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, почему в первом предложении чистой дательный падеж *(наружу)* а не с предлогом *(к наружу)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="794858ae-c416-401f-92d4-5731b9241754" CreationDate="2015-06-13T14:46:17.297" UserId="5543" Text="Перевод выражения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="794858ae-c416-401f-92d4-5731b9241754" CreationDate="2015-06-13T14:46:17.297" UserId="5543" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="d460ddef-f8a3-482e-834d-6426eaf8d487" CreationDate="2015-06-13T15:14:22.607" UserId="5560" Text="Вкратце.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я выбираюсь наружу` = Я выхожу на улицу, I am getting out  &#xD;&#xA;`выбираюсь` здесь может означать, что выход на улицу чем-то затруднён, требует усилий, или автор провёл много времени в помещении (или ещё где-то, где можно быть «внутри»).  &#xD;&#xA;`наружу` (*out*) — наречие, у него нет падежей.  &#xD;&#xA;`пуще` = сильнее  &#xD;&#xA;`вкладыши` — небольшие листочки бумаги с картинками, например, из комиксов, которые могли быть в упаковке жвачки. Яркие и привлекательные могли быть ценным объектом собирания/коллекционирования (детьми), а также атрибутом недоступного Запада в советские времена." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8893" RevisionGUID="4651de6c-ede8-4216-a2cb-b538a8ff4eff" CreationDate="2015-06-13T15:20:14.037" UserId="5595" Text="В зависимости от того, точные ли или приблизительные данные имеются в виду, в словосочетаниях `число` + `единица измерения` единица измерения ставится либо в конце (&quot;сто грамм&quot;), либо в начале (&quot;грамм сто&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Среди прочего это правило распространяется и на временые промежутки: &quot;три дня&quot; / &quot;дня три&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Каким образом видоизменяется словосочетание в связи с добавлением предлога &quot;через&quot;?** С точным значением все понятно (&quot;через три дня&quot;), а с приблизительным не совсем. Есть два варианта: &quot;дня через три&quot; и &quot;через дня три&quot;. Первый кажется мне единственным стилистически правильным, второй сильно режет ухо. **Есть ли правило, регулирующее этот случай?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8893" RevisionGUID="4651de6c-ede8-4216-a2cb-b538a8ff4eff" CreationDate="2015-06-13T15:20:14.037" UserId="5595" Text="&quot;Через&quot; с приблизительными данными о времени" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8893" RevisionGUID="4651de6c-ede8-4216-a2cb-b538a8ff4eff" CreationDate="2015-06-13T15:20:14.037" UserId="5595" Text="|предлоги|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="ba9ae59b-55e1-4e72-849c-6f59bebf6506" CreationDate="2015-06-13T15:24:25.013" UserId="5560" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Вкратце.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я выбираюсь наружу` = Я выхожу на улицу, I am getting out  &#xD;&#xA;`выбираюсь` здесь может означать, что выход на улицу чем-то затруднён, требует усилий, или автор провёл много времени в помещении (или ещё где-то, где можно быть «внутри»).  &#xD;&#xA;`наружу` (*out*) — наречие, у него нет падежей.  &#xD;&#xA;`пуще` = сильнее  &#xD;&#xA;`вкладыши` — небольшие листочки бумаги с картинками, например, из комиксов или мультиков, которые могли быть в упаковке жвачки. Яркие и привлекательные могли быть ценным объектом собирания/коллекционирования (детьми), а также атрибутом недоступного Запада в советские времена." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="94175d7f-5462-4c91-af8b-05d98d015b61" CreationDate="2015-06-13T15:31:58.227" UserId="5560" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Вкратце.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я выбираюсь наружу` = Я выхожу на улицу, I am getting out  &#xD;&#xA;`выбираюсь` здесь может означать, что выход на улицу чем-то затруднён, требует усилий, или автор провёл много времени в помещении (или ещё где-то, где можно быть «внутри»).  &#xD;&#xA;`наружу` (*out*) — наречие, у него нет падежей.  &#xD;&#xA;`пуще` = сильнее, сильнее, *more than*  &#xD;&#xA;`вкладыши` — небольшие листочки бумаги с картинками, например, из комиксов или мультиков, которые могли быть в упаковке жвачки. Яркие и привлекательные могли быть ценным объектом собирания/коллекционирования (детьми), а также атрибутом недоступного Запада в советские времена." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8894" RevisionGUID="2bd3f28a-0cbf-4941-b109-65b73e37f0cf" CreationDate="2015-06-13T16:40:29.240" UserId="4379" Text="Оба варианта правильные. Когда Вы ставите единицу измерения перед числом, это означает, что вы говорите о какой-то приблизительной, оценочной величине. Например, &quot;переезд займёт у нас дня два&quot; означает, что скорее всего переезд займёт два дня, но Вы не уверены в этом. Может быть и три, и четыре.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так же когда Вы употребляете число + единицу измерения с предлогом &quot;через&quot;. Например, &quot;я приеду через дня три&quot; означает, что скорее всего Вы приедете через три дня, а может через два или четыре. Кстати, чаще говорят &quot;через + единица измерения + число&quot;, т.е. меняют порядок слов. Например, &quot;дня через три&quot;, а не &quot;через дня три&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8895" RevisionGUID="affa6153-6d0c-4dc4-a19a-a76588646a3a" CreationDate="2015-06-13T16:51:38.557" UserId="4833" Text="«наружу» was historically the Accusative of an obsolete noun «[ружь][1]» with the preposition _на_&#xD;&#xA;(«на ружу»), not the Dative. &#xD;&#xA;Nowadays it is used only as an adverb and written in one word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=%2Fusr%2Flocal%2Fshare%2Fstarling%2Fmorpho&amp;morpho=1&amp;basename=morpho%5Cvasmer%5Cvasmer&amp;first=1&amp;off=&amp;text_word=%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D1%8C&amp;method_word=substring&amp;ic_word=on&amp;text_general=&amp;method_general=substring&amp;ic_general=on&amp;text_origin=&amp;method_origin=substring&amp;ic_origin=on&amp;text_trubachev=&amp;method_trubachev=substring&amp;ic_trubachev=on&amp;text_editorial=&amp;method_editorial=substring&amp;ic_editorial=on&amp;text_pages=&amp;method_pages=substring&amp;ic_pages=on&amp;text_any=&amp;method_any=substring&amp;sort=word&amp;ic_any=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="9667270d-d63e-416c-ac39-340c3c235bc2" CreationDate="2015-06-13T17:22:37.767" UserId="5405" Text="Приблизительность и точность к вашему вопросу относятся лишь косвенно. Вопрос скорее о месте предлога в словосочетании. Предлог - это по сути отделённая часть слова, которая стоит перед ним. Если слово с предлогом является главным в словосочетании, то зависимые от него слова могут стоять перед предлогом: *он шёл через* **большой лиственный лес**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Главным в словосочетании *три дня* является числительное, поэтому предлог стремится к нему. Чаще всего, если зависимое слово не выражено прилагательным, то его перед предлогом стараются не ставить (отсюда резь в ухе), но правилами это не запрещено, поэтому возможны оба сочетания, но более благозвучное *дня через три*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда когда подобный вопрос обсуждался на русскоязычном форуме, со мной были согласны не все. Аргументы обеих сторон можно посмотреть по [ссылке][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/34484/%D0%9D%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0/34491#34491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8892" RevisionGUID="e641bae7-3a43-47f0-805a-d8e1d914a370" CreationDate="2015-06-13T17:32:59.847" UserId="5560" Comment="tiny corrections" Text="Вкратце.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я выбираюсь наружу` = Я выхожу на улицу, I am getting out [into the open]  &#xD;&#xA;`выбираюсь` здесь может означать, что выход на улицу чем-то затруднён, требует усилий, или автор провёл много времени в помещении (или ещё где-то, где можно быть «внутри»).  &#xD;&#xA;`наружу` (*out*) — наречие, у него нет падежей.  &#xD;&#xA;`пуще` = сильнее, больше, *more than*  &#xD;&#xA;`вкладыши` — небольшие листочки бумаги с картинками, например, из комиксов или мультиков, которые могли быть в упаковке жвачки. Яркие и привлекательные, могли быть ценным объектом собирания/коллекционирования (детьми), а также атрибутом недоступного Запада в советские времена." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8898" RevisionGUID="21169848-0b20-4489-a14d-12db0c56da57" CreationDate="2015-06-13T19:11:43.247" UserId="5443" Text="I get outside, and the air stream sweeps the field cap off my head at that very moment. That field cap once belonged to my dad... The field cap is too big for me, but I keep it with even more care than I do with my collected inlay pics from chewing gum packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;велика&quot;, not &quot;вилка&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8898" RevisionGUID="a2ffcaa3-794b-4834-83fd-d164213d244d" CreationDate="2015-06-13T19:38:30.737" UserId="5443" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I get outside, and the air stream sweeps the field cap off my head at that very moment. That field cap once belonged to my dad... The field cap is too big for me, but I keep it with even more care than I do with my collected inlay pics from chewing gum packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;велика&quot;, not &quot;вилка&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For title: Signs On My Way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8899" RevisionGUID="7f336f50-9a0a-4cb4-bce4-94da8cf1335b" CreationDate="2015-06-13T23:54:56.827" UserId="5597" Text="It's generally the same, however it's best to always write &quot;ё&quot; no matter which word includes it. &#xA;Also, remember to have capital letters: С Днём Рождения " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="7823eb14-24df-43dc-bca5-06fe5f7d45ff" CreationDate="2015-06-14T02:01:28.033" UserId="4560" Text="They're the same. Capitalising the `с` and dotting the `ё` are unrelated. The most &quot;cultured&quot; way to write it is, in fact, `С днем рождения`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Don't listen to *anyone* who says dotting your ё's is mandatory or &quot;better&quot;. It almost looks like these people have never opened a book.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8900" RevisionGUID="9f18dc7f-f9f4-45df-9fba-c72b4cff8097" CreationDate="2015-06-14T02:07:15.410" UserId="4560" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="They're the same. Capitalising the `с` and dotting the `ё` are unrelated. The most &quot;cultured&quot; way to write it is, in fact, `С днем рождения`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Don't listen to *anyone* who says dotting your Ёs is mandatory or &quot;better&quot;. It almost looks like these people have never opened a book. It's a personal choice with many people to consistently dot their Ёs, and that's fine, but the modern-day publishing/media standard has always been to only use it for avoiding ambiguity.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8902" RevisionGUID="61b10d63-1ac7-4ea5-8342-ea7aee9c64d2" CreationDate="2015-06-14T05:55:57.363" UserId="5550" Text="1. Я выбираюсь наружу = I am going out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Пилотка мне вилка, но я берегу её пуще коллекции вкладышей от жвачки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) I think not &quot;вилка&quot;, but &quot;велик**а**&quot; - It has a size larger than I needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) берегу - беречь = to save, to keep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) жвачка = жевательная резинка = chewing gum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;жвачка = short slang form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) вкладыш, коллекция вкладышей = pic: http://vk.cc/3Tymh2&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;about collecting:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In 90-th, when USSR was crashed, import of goods started. There was a lot of chewing gum. Every boy tried to collect full collection of these pictures. Turbo - cars (first set was of 120, second set of 450 pictures), Bombibom - also cars, TipTip - comix, Love Is - one picture comix, and so on. There was a kind of school gambling when you put two pictures facedown one on another on the table or floor or windowsill and try to turn them faceup by beating them by open hand. If you turn both you get them (yours and the other's). It was very respectful to have full collection of &quot;Turbo&quot; pics.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;* excuse my English)))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e) So, character saves this cap more than this collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8902" RevisionGUID="d257f7b1-1b92-4b7b-a7a0-4961f8abf3fd" CreationDate="2015-06-14T06:03:45.213" UserId="5550" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="1. Я выбираюсь наружу = I am going out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наружу - it is a direction &quot;(kind of moving) out&quot;, not place or point or zone.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Снаружи - it is zone &quot;out of&quot;, &quot;outside&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word &quot;наружи&quot;, so you couldn't say &quot;к наружи&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Пилотка мне вилка, но я берегу её пуще коллекции вкладышей от жвачки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) I think not &quot;вилка&quot;, but &quot;велик**а**&quot; - It has a size larger than I needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) берегу - беречь = to save, to keep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) жвачка = жевательная резинка = chewing gum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;жвачка = short slang form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) вкладыш, коллекция вкладышей = pic: http://vk.cc/3Tymh2&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;about collecting:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In 90-th, when USSR was crashed, wide import of goods started. There was a lot of chewing gum. Every boy tried to collect full collection of these pictures. Turbo - cars (first set was of 120, second set of 450 pictures), Bombibom - also cars, TipTip - comix, Love Is - one picture comix, and so on. There was a kind of school gambling when you put two pictures facedown one on another on the table or floor or windowsill and try to turn them faceup by beating them by open hand. If you turn both you get them (yours and the other's). It was very respectful to have full collection of &quot;Turbo&quot; pics.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;* excuse my English)))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e) So, character saves this cap more than this collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8902" RevisionGUID="10c7183d-ba3a-4ea2-9188-ccc50f53caf6" CreationDate="2015-06-14T06:09:46.107" UserId="5550" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="1. Я выбираюсь наружу = I am going out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наружу - it is a direction &quot;(kind of moving) out&quot;, not place or point or zone.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Снаружи - it is zone &quot;out of&quot;, &quot;outside&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word &quot;наружи&quot;, so you couldn't say &quot;к наружи&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Пилотка мне вилка, но я берегу её пуще коллекции вкладышей от жвачки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) I think not &quot;вилка&quot;, but &quot;велик**а**&quot; - It has a size larger than I needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) берегу - беречь = to save, to keep&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) жвачка = жевательная резинка = chewing gum&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;жвачка = short slang form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) вкладыш, коллекция вкладышей = pic: http://vk.cc/3Tymh2&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;about collecting:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In 90-th, when USSR was crashed, wide import of goods started. There was a lot of chewing gum. Every boy tried to collect full set of these pictures. Turbo - cars (first set was of 120, second set of 450 pictures), Bombibom - also cars, TipTip - comix, Love Is - one picture comix, and so on. There was a kind of school gambling when you put two pictures facedown one on another on the table or floor or windowsill and try to turn them faceup by beating them by open hand. If you turn both you get them (yours and the other's). It was very respectful to have full collection of &quot;Turbo&quot; pics.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;* excuse my English)))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e) So, character saves this cap more than this collection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8903" RevisionGUID="51545024-d192-4bc1-9981-bb829fd9089f" CreationDate="2015-06-14T06:19:38.487" UserId="5008" Text="The main problem is that any exact Russian translation would sound a bit awkward here. Whether it would be &quot;не позволяйте&quot; or &quot;не дайте&quot; but in a true spoken language people try to avoid such lengthy and dull sentences. So a native Russian speaker would choose here something like &quot;Да плюнь ты на это&quot; or &quot;Да не бери в голову&quot; etc.etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="269793b0-17d3-4bbe-b119-e8437b05930e" CreationDate="2015-06-14T07:48:14.610" UserId="5550" Text="About &quot;Е&quot; and &quot;Ё&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all: there is a law that equalizes using of these letters in documents, contracts and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But... There is some difference between these letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to native speakers to differ were is it pronounced like &quot;Е&quot; and where is like &quot;Ё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**So we often write Е, just for speed. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;It may be because of &quot;Ё&quot;-key is situated on the left of &quot;1&quot;, below of &quot;Esc&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even here we can get some difficulties:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Все** еще спят. - Everybody is sleeping yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sic! ВСЕ (subject) - is plural. Everybody - singular, for best understanding exact translation - Каждый (singular). But nobody says &quot;Где каждый?&quot; - correct, but unused.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Всё** еще спят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is missed subject ВСЕ, and ВСЁ is used as a part of &quot;всё еще&quot; = forced &quot;still&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: Все] всё ещё спят.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: They] are still sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где **всё**? - Where is everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Украли. - [missed: They] have stolen [missed: everything].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ps: еще = ещё. Always :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="45cbb0d5-6f17-4b3b-a3e5-53742ee89f12" CreationDate="2015-06-14T07:58:08.830" UserId="5550" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="About &quot;Е&quot; and &quot;Ё&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all: there is a law that equalizes using of these letters in documents, contracts and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But... There is some difference between these letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to native speakers to differ were is it pronounced like &quot;Е&quot; and where is like &quot;Ё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**So we often write Е, just for speed. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;It may be because of &quot;Ё&quot;-key is situated on the left of &quot;1&quot;, below of &quot;Esc&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Е&quot; is situated on &quot;t&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even here we can get some difficulties:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Все** еще спят. - Everybody is sleeping yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sic! ВСЕ (subject) - is plural. Everybody - singular, for best understanding exact translation - Каждый (singular). But nobody says &quot;Где каждый?&quot; - correct, but unused.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Всё** еще спят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is missed subject ВСЕ, and ВСЁ is used as a part of &quot;всё еще&quot; = forced &quot;still&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: Все] всё ещё спят.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: They] are still sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где **всё**? - Where is everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Украли. - [missed: They] have stolen [missed: everything].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ps: еще = ещё. Always :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="c71cb684-d585-4c0f-be88-70ff4fb227cf" CreationDate="2015-06-14T08:03:19.137" UserId="5550" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="About &quot;Е&quot; and &quot;Ё&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to native speakers to differ were is it pronounced like &quot;Е&quot; and where is like &quot;Ё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**So we often write Е, just for speed. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;It may be because of &quot;Ё&quot;-key is situated on the left of &quot;1&quot;, below of &quot;Esc&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Е&quot; is situated on &quot;t&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some difficulties:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Все** еще спят. - Everybody is sleeping yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sic! ВСЕ (subject) - is plural. Everybody - singular, for best understanding exact translation - Каждый (singular). But nobody says &quot;Где каждый?&quot; - correct, but unused.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Всё** еще спят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is missed subject ВСЕ, and ВСЁ is used as a part of &quot;всё еще&quot; = forced &quot;still&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: Все] всё ещё спят.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: They] are still sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где **всё**? - Where is everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Украли. - [missed: They] have stolen [missed: everything].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ps: еще = ещё. Always :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;pps: difficulties in law: http://www.rg.ru/2012/09/21/bukvi-anons.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8904" RevisionGUID="3770a3f0-39e3-4a32-b9bc-b0e83290dc0b" CreationDate="2015-06-14T08:08:44.537" UserId="5550" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="About &quot;Е&quot; and &quot;Ё&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to native speakers to differ were is it pronounced like &quot;Е&quot; and where is like &quot;Ё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;**So we often write Е, just for speed. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;It may be because of &quot;Ё&quot;-key is situated on the left of &quot;1&quot;, below of &quot;Esc&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Е&quot; is situated on &quot;t&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some difficulties:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Все** еще спят. - Everybody is sleeping yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sic! ВСЕ (subject) - is plural. Everybody - singular, for best understanding exact translation - Каждый (singular). But nobody says &quot;Где каждый?&quot; - correct, but unused.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где все? - Where is everybody?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- **Всё** еще спят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is missed subject ВСЕ, and ВСЁ is used as a part of &quot;всё еще&quot; = forced &quot;still&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: Все] всё ещё спят.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[missed: They] are still sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Где **всё**? - Where is everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;- Украли. - [missed: They] have stolen [missed: everything].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ps: еще = ещё [yescho]. Always :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;pps: difficulties in law: http://www.rg.ru/2012/09/21/bukvi-anons.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8861" RevisionGUID="9123aba2-3eb0-4d7f-9270-df352206f436" CreationDate="2015-06-14T09:49:58.400" UserId="134" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="No, it's accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В + acc.* means &quot;at a certain time period&quot;: *в войну, в перестройку* &quot;during the war, during the perestroika&quot;, or &quot;once in a certain time period&quot;: *три раза в час* &quot;three times per hour&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language the first construct is replaced with *в +  prep.*, *на + prep.* or *inst.* with several words: *в году, на неделе, осенью*. You have to learn the usage for each word, same as you have learn to use different prepositions for &quot;in the summer, on Friday, at seven o'clock&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В год, в неделю, в осень* are still valid, though they sound archaic, unless they have a non-agreeing modifier: *в прошлом году* but *в год Дракона*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8891" RevisionGUID="d976736f-f912-407d-a26b-21e0b0171e95" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:07:37.570" UserId="5543" Comment="fix typo" Text="(Мне не приходит на ум лучшее заглавие. Если у вас какая-то идея, поправите её, пожалуйста)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжке В. Березина &quot;Путевые знаки&quot; я прочитал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **выбираюсь** наружу, и воздушный поток тут же срывает у меня с головы пилотку. Это отцовская пилотка (...) Пилотка мне велика, но я **берегу её пуще коллекции вкладышей от жвачки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проблема у меня прежде всего в словах отмеченных жирным шрифтом.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не уверен в том, или я хорошо понимаю смысл этого отрывка. По-моему можно бы это так перевести:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm getting out to the edge and the stream of the air takes my pilot cap from my head at this very place. It's my father's cap (...) The cap is too big for me but I protect it worse than my collection of chewing gums&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особенно второе жирное предложение звучит странно. Перевёл ли я правильно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, почему в первом предложении чистой дательный падеж *(наружу)* а не с предлогом *(к наружу)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="15614dd7-1ada-4ea7-941c-765a25b41e41" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:21:00.457" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Я читал одну книгу, повесть **про** лётниках времён войны... И там, в этой повести, один из наших пилотов всегда уходил в сторону солнца после атаки, поэтому его никто не мог сбить. Он потом садился на аэродром, где базировались американские лётники, тогда мы воевали вместе. И вот американцы пили своё виски, а он всегда просил в столовой **немного солнца с газировкой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Два вопроса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему говорится *повесть **про** лётниках*, а нет *повесть **о** лётниках*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. В чём дело с этим *солнцем с газировкой*? Это ли какой-то дринк или напиток?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="15614dd7-1ada-4ea7-941c-765a25b41e41" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:21:00.457" UserId="5543" Text="Солнце с газировкой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="15614dd7-1ada-4ea7-941c-765a25b41e41" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:21:00.457" UserId="5543" Text="|контекст|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="55152345-1e33-4efc-bbcd-737a56b6e6f7" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:31:12.430" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Поэтому когда отец пьёт с друзьями, они поднимают тост за то, чтобы количество взлётов совпадало **бы** с количеством посадок. У них было ещё много тостов, и ещё было правило не говорить **&quot;последний&quot;**, а говорить **&quot;крайний&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему здесь добавочное *бы*? (я бы сказал *чтобы количество взлётов совпадало с количеством посадок*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. В чём разница между *последний* а *крайний*? В чём здесь дело?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="55152345-1e33-4efc-bbcd-737a56b6e6f7" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:31:12.430" UserId="5543" Text="Крайний и последний" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="55152345-1e33-4efc-bbcd-737a56b6e6f7" CreationDate="2015-06-14T10:31:12.430" UserId="5543" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8907" RevisionGUID="766cd7de-69dc-44ed-82d7-866e144ac0ce" CreationDate="2015-06-14T11:23:37.387" UserId="5405" Text="1. Можно и без &quot;бы&quot;. Сослагательное наклонение здесь подчёркивает, то, что это пожелание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. В России, среди людей занятие которых связано с риском, не принято говорить &quot;последний&quot; (полёт), так как точно таким же образом скажут о  смерти. Стандартный эвфемизм на смерть кого-либо - *&quot;отправился в последний путь&quot;*. В итоге, у людей, связанных с опасной для жизни деятельностью (в данном тексте лётчики) стали говорить &quot;крайний&quot;, хотя это и не литературная норма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="4389aa42-162d-4c55-ba46-8bf237f1173b" CreationDate="2015-06-14T12:10:31.960" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я читал одну книгу, повесть **про** лётниках времён войны... И там, в этой повести, один из наших пилотов всегда уходил в сторону солнца после атаки, поэтому его никто не мог сбить. Он потом садился на аэродром, где базировались американские лётники, тогда мы воевали вместе. И вот американцы пили своё виски, а он всегда просил в столовой **немного солнца с газировкой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Два вопроса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему говорится *повесть **про** лётниках*, а не *повесть **о** лётниках*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Что это за *солнце с газировкой*? Это какой-то коктейль или напиток?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="d37f32fc-6e08-4d02-9a2c-2620e232b571" CreationDate="2015-06-14T12:11:55.497" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; Поэтому когда отец пьёт с друзьями, они поднимают тост за то, чтобы количество взлётов совпадало **бы** с количеством посадок. У них было ещё много тостов, и ещё было правило не говорить **&quot;последний&quot;**, а говорить **&quot;крайний&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему здесь добавочное *бы*? (я бы сказал *чтобы количество взлётов совпадало с количеством посадок*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. В чём разница между *последний* и *крайний*? Что здесь имеется в виду?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8908" RevisionGUID="59f65461-6450-45e8-81b9-73f1ccdb55f4" CreationDate="2015-06-14T12:19:29.103" UserId="134" Text="I believe the author talks about &quot;Sun-Soda&quot; (*Сода-солнце*), a short story  by Mikhail Ancharov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Его звали &quot;Сода-солнце&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Американские лётчики, участники челночного полета, которые отбомбились над Берлином и теперь пили у стойки на нашей базе, встретили его невнятным весёлым лаем. Он прикрыл их от &quot;мессершмиттов&quot;, когда они подходили к базе. Он один спустил в море двух &quot;мессеров&quot;, третий задымил к горизонту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сода-виски, — предложили они ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сода-солнце, — сказал он и стал губами ловить капли грибного дождя, залетавшие в открытую фрамугу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Американцам перевели — &quot;сода-солнце&quot;, — они опять засмеялись и напились на радостях. Его стали звать &quot;Сода-солнце&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А романов у него вовсе не было, и кто его &quot;безоглядная любовь&quot;, никто не знал, и вина он не пил, только хватал губами капли дождя, когда возвращался с полёта без единой пробоины. И уходил он от &quot;мессеров&quot; всегда в сторону солнца. Блеснёт крылышками и растворится в слепящем диске." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8909" RevisionGUID="f4b9cc8e-2d34-4164-96c3-10798e2d0749" CreationDate="2015-06-14T12:44:10.827" UserId="5602" Text="There's no such thing in Russian as `ruin the day` (портить день), but there's a good phrase `пропал день` (the day is lost)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Or use `ruin the evening` (портить вечер). But it means `entertainment`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="de2d5f89-0a58-4c0f-ae65-968d6f40a461" CreationDate="2015-06-14T13:28:09.407" UserId="5543" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Я читал одну книгу, повесть **про** лётчиках времён войны... И там, в этой повести, один из наших пилотов всегда уходил в сторону солнца после атаки, поэтому его никто не мог сбить. Он потом садился на аэродром, где базировались американские лётчики, тогда мы воевали вместе. И вот американцы пили своё виски, а он всегда просил в столовой **немного солнца с газировкой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Два вопроса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему говорится *повесть **про** лётчиках*, а не *повесть **о** лётчиках*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Что это за *солнце с газировкой*? Это какой-то коктейль или напиток?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8910" RevisionGUID="35653865-307c-408c-ba73-c99979b87e89" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:17:44.060" UserId="170" Text="Are there any Russian inanimate masculine nouns ending on -a?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of many feminine ones (машина, ангина, книга, панорама, перспектива, etc.), but are there any masculine ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8910" RevisionGUID="35653865-307c-408c-ba73-c99979b87e89" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:17:44.060" UserId="170" Text="Are there in Russian any inanimate masculine nouns ending on -a?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8910" RevisionGUID="35653865-307c-408c-ba73-c99979b87e89" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:17:44.060" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8911" RevisionGUID="8c45305e-7a48-499c-86e9-1128c3023be7" CreationDate="2015-06-14T16:44:34.840" UserId="134" Text="Only marked ones, formed with suffixes _-ина_ and similar: _домина_, _голосина_, _дождина_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8912" RevisionGUID="46c951cb-6a1e-449f-aae3-781126b7280e" CreationDate="2015-06-14T17:38:15.110" UserId="5605" Text="&quot;Последний полёт&quot; (лётчики), &quot;последний прыжок&quot; (парашютисты, прыгуны с трамплина) , &quot;последний рейс&quot; (моряки), &quot;последнее погружение&quot; (дайверы, водолазы), &quot;последнее восхождение&quot; (альпинисты) и так далее. Люди названных профессий, видов спорта или увлечений НЕ говорят так из суеверия, боясь сглазить и вследствие этого погибнуть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8908" RevisionGUID="81a5d128-b49d-4bc7-a402-d5e53afc0be6" CreationDate="2015-06-14T17:51:55.270" UserId="134" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="I believe the author talks about &quot;Sun-Soda&quot; (*Сода-солнце*), a short story  by Mikhail Ancharov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Его звали &quot;Сода-солнце&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Американские лётчики, участники челночного полета, которые отбомбились над Берлином и теперь пили у стойки на нашей базе, встретили его невнятным весёлым лаем. Он прикрыл их от &quot;мессершмиттов&quot;, когда они подходили к базе. Он один спустил в море двух &quot;мессеров&quot;, третий задымил к горизонту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сода-виски, — предложили они ему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сода-солнце, — сказал он и стал губами ловить капли грибного дождя, залетавшие в открытую фрамугу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Американцам перевели — &quot;сода-солнце&quot;, — они опять засмеялись и напились на радостях. Его стали звать &quot;Сода-солнце&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А романов у него вовсе не было, и кто его &quot;безоглядная любовь&quot;, никто не знал, и вина он не пил, только хватал губами капли дождя, когда возвращался с полёта без единой пробоины. И уходил он от &quot;мессеров&quot; всегда в сторону солнца. Блеснёт крылышками и растворится в слепящем диске.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Грибной дождь* (literally &quot;mushroom rain&quot;) is a phenomenon observed when it rains and the sun shines through openings in clouds at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the protagonist jokingly calls &quot;sun-soda&quot; the sun-lit raindrops which he catches with his lips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21534" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8860" RevisionGUID="8f207da8-8ec2-4359-a5f3-782d2d8e169f" CreationDate="2015-06-14T18:15:12.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/610148499506757633" />
  <row Id="21535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8913" RevisionGUID="842cd93a-209f-415b-831b-dc078c33e8a5" CreationDate="2015-06-14T18:51:41.160" UserId="5606" Text="&quot;karoche&quot; means long story short in russian, but it is slang and therefore not grammatically correct. When your friend said &quot;I don't want to teach you bad russian&quot; she didn't mean curse words, or vulgar language. She just knows that it's not correct russian and it's not traditional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="c1c4a78e-e827-43b7-9a0b-dadd2d8e388f" CreationDate="2015-06-14T18:51:55.557" UserId="5543" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Я читал одну книгу, повесть **про** лётчиков времён войны... И там, в этой повести, один из наших пилотов всегда уходил в сторону солнца после атаки, поэтому его никто не мог сбить. Он потом садился на аэродром, где базировались американские лётчики, тогда мы воевали вместе. И вот американцы пили своё виски, а он всегда просил в столовой **немного солнца с газировкой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Два вопроса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему говорится *повесть **про** лётчиках*, а не *повесть **о** лётчиках*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Что это за *солнце с газировкой*? Это какой-то коктейль или напиток?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="31de4411-cc0e-455e-8235-1448f5c0993b" CreationDate="2015-06-14T19:01:28.177" UserId="5543" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Я читал одну книгу, повесть **про** лётчиков времён войны... И там, в этой повести, один из наших пилотов всегда уходил в сторону солнца после атаки, поэтому его никто не мог сбить. Он потом садился на аэродром, где базировались американские лётчики, тогда мы воевали вместе. И вот американцы пили своё виски, а он всегда просил в столовой **немного солнца с газировкой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Березин - Путевые знаки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Два вопроса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Почему говорится *повесть **про** лётчиков*, а не *повесть **о** лётчиках*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Что это за *солнце с газировкой*? Это какой-то коктейль или напиток?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8914" RevisionGUID="4086100f-7f51-493d-9952-f7dbdfb123be" CreationDate="2015-06-14T19:35:15.963" UserId="5582" Text="пуще = сильнее, больше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    пуще прежнего - more than before  &#xD;&#xA;    он боится его пуще смерти — he fears him more than death&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a traditional (folklore) rhyme. I think, it originated long ago as a rain-calling spell. Such rhymes are called &quot;[закличка][1]&quot;, from &quot;кликать&quot; - to call for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дождик, дождик, пуще!&#xD;&#xA;    Чтоб росла пшеница гуще,&#xD;&#xA;    Чтоб овёс рос и ячмень -&#xD;&#xA;    Поливай весь день!&#xD;&#xA;    А на просо, на рожь&#xD;&#xA;    Поливай сколько хошь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;пуще&quot; means &quot;rain more, spill more water&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;пуще&quot; is quite obsolete, so I recommend not to use it in speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sadikshkola.ru/zaklichki-dozhdyu" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="5d7920a6-5699-4ccb-bfb3-174b9c19e333" CreationDate="2015-06-14T21:18:16.173" UserId="5560" Comment="as if some edit lost or not updated" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’a answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel that another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the non-unity of aspects of verbs. I would rather expect:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте … испортить…`  &#xD;&#xA;`Не давайте … портить…` *(Though `позволяйте` in the last clause seems more probable for me I cannot see why; possibly because `дайте` (compared with `позволяйте`) is a more sharp word which is more appropriate for more definite ‘perfective’ situations (compared with ‘imperfective’ situations).)*  &#xD;&#xA;But any combination of aspects is possible depending on the *meaning* aspects a sayer wants to express. (I will not discuss the difference between aspects here; it is another topic — answered.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible Russian variants could use `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте [ей] отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A possible Russian variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though a literal meaning differs (*it’s not worth being upset*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is idiomatic `выбить из колеи` (literally *‘to knock out of a rut’* i. e. out of one’s life course) but  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дай себя выбить из колеи` is not a usual oral Russian phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slang has more phrases for it. *(But all of them, and non-slang variants too, are not about 'day-not-to-be-ruined')*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="fe5834aa-0165-4b7d-be6a-d1086dc0bf14" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:11:26.763" UserId="5609" Text="For quotation purposes, I would like to find the original (Russian) version of the following passage from the novel *Dead souls* by Nikolaj Gogol' which in English looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In all the world, you will find no joys like these, for herein man imitates the God who projected creation as the supreme happiness, and now demands of man that he, too, should act as the creator of prosperity. Yet there are folk who call such functions tedious!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a passage should be found in Chapter III of the second part of the book. I would be interested in a translitterated version from Cyrillic, if possible (for LaTex issues). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an aside remark, in case you may be wondering or it may be needed: I have no knowledge of Russian language at all (and this is also the reason why I find it difficult to look for the original passage).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="fe5834aa-0165-4b7d-be6a-d1086dc0bf14" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:11:26.763" UserId="5609" Text="Original version of a passage by Gogol'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8916" RevisionGUID="fe5834aa-0165-4b7d-be6a-d1086dc0bf14" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:11:26.763" UserId="5609" Text="|перевод|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8917" RevisionGUID="7939ef3e-e531-4717-beed-f78a0c3c2261" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:18:09.850" UserId="134" Text="Cyrillic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да в целом мире не отыщете вы подобного наслажденья! Здесь, именно здесь подражает Богу человек. Бог предоставил себе дело творенья, как высшее всех наслажденье, и требует от человека также, чтобы он был подобным творцом благоденствия вокруг себя. И это называют скучным делом!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paste it here: http://translit.net/ for transliteration in any standard you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21546" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8893" RevisionGUID="641b0410-409d-4a24-94a6-238d89a2c9fd" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:22:53.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/610376922481225728" />
  <row Id="21548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="1f498092-5bc0-4e82-a6e3-fed68cb61314" CreationDate="2015-06-16T16:24:39.140" UserId="170" Text="Are there any Russian inanimate masculine nouns ending on -я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of many feminine ones (торговля, трескотня, болтовня, мастерская, спальня, келья, etc.), but are there any masculine ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="1f498092-5bc0-4e82-a6e3-fed68cb61314" CreationDate="2015-06-16T16:24:39.140" UserId="170" Text="Are there in Russian any inanimate masculine nouns ending on -я?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="1f498092-5bc0-4e82-a6e3-fed68cb61314" CreationDate="2015-06-16T16:24:39.140" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="a4e78cac-fa93-4aa0-972b-b5c324516e50" CreationDate="2015-06-16T19:13:28.210" UserId="5550" Text="I remember only animated: Суд**и**я, Месс**и**я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may be something else, but i couldn't remember" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="3ee6ac20-9af3-4867-b206-00d0c7d2197e" CreationDate="2015-06-16T19:23:06.727" UserId="5550" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I remember only animate: Суд**и**я, Месс**и**я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may be something else, but i couldn't remember" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="30cc3332-2035-4799-93c7-596fa23d12a4" CreationDate="2015-06-16T19:34:16.707" UserId="5550" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="I remember only animate: Суд**и**я, Месс**и**я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may be something else, but i couldn't remember&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ровня. this is common: он ровня, она ровня. also animate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="14d67b23-e559-4843-8976-07dd6e56d74f" CreationDate="2015-06-16T19:51:18.673" UserId="5550" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;only animate: суд**и**я, месс**и**я, дядя, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;may be something else, but i couldn't remember&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ровня. this is common: он ровня, она ровня. also animate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="458227c6-8db9-491d-a57e-c9d375498bcd" CreationDate="2015-06-16T20:00:28.850" UserId="5550" Comment="deleted 50 characters in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;only animate: суд**и**я, месс**и**я, дядя, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ровня. this is common: он ровня, она ровня. also animate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8919" RevisionGUID="6edda41d-c11e-4b57-a25c-6e78f6962afc" CreationDate="2015-06-16T20:13:09.943" UserId="5550" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;only animate: суд**и**я, месс**и**я, дядя, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ровня. this is common: он ровня, она ровня. also animate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition: http://lit.lib.ru/m/martinowich_g_a/2rod_s.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8920" RevisionGUID="67d36692-f804-48ba-a7b3-6251b4e3cc42" CreationDate="2015-06-17T05:02:06.773" UserId="170" Text="Possibly, some names of some cities would fit the bill:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В древности **Антакья**, именовавшийся как Антиохия-на-Оронте, был важным&#xD;&#xA;&gt; политическим и культурным центром, столицей империи Селевкидов. Сейчас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он является центром турецкого района Хатай&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вея** (араб. وع‎‎) — небольшой город на востоке Джибути, в регионе Арта.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Расположен на дороге N1, которая соединяет город со столицей страны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="aad2e3f3-ade8-4d37-bf72-314fb4ec533a" CreationDate="2015-06-17T06:48:17.030" UserId="5617" Text="In short: as a native Russian speaker I can say that all three variants provided by you will do. They all sound natural to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="e1967125-bef7-444f-be2e-3f20637b7d7f" CreationDate="2015-06-17T13:19:16.450" UserId="5617" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="In short: as a native Russian speaker I can say that all three variants provided by you will do. They all sound natural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, is it a general rule to use the perfective aspect after **позволяйте** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. The diffrernce is in details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей испортить Вам день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: &quot;Don't let her make your day ruined&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей портить Вам день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: &quot;Don't let her [constantly] ruining your day&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="3c72d41c-05e4-4d6f-a6e0-fdaa56984cd7" CreationDate="2015-06-17T13:24:37.130" UserId="5617" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="In short: as a native Russian speaker I can say that all three variants provided by you will do. They all sound natural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, is it a general rule to use the perfective aspect after **позволяйте** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. The diffrernce is in details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей испортить Вам день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: &quot;Don't let her make your day ruined&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей портить Вам день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: &quot;Don't let her [constantly] ruining your day&quot; (assumed that she will be making constant attempts to ruin your day again and again)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8921" RevisionGUID="d0e570b8-4be5-4084-ad9b-92922f5a39d4" CreationDate="2015-06-17T13:30:23.337" UserId="5617" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="In short: as a native Russian speaker I can say that all three variants provided by you will do. They all sound natural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, is it a general rule to use the perfective aspect after **позволяйте** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. The diffrernce is in details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей испортить Вам день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: &quot;Don't let her make your day ruined&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не позволяйте ей портить Вам день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: &quot;Don't let her [constantly] ruining your day&quot; (assumed that she will be making constant attempts to ruin your day again and again)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that the sentence &quot;to ruin one's day&quot; might be borrowed from American culture, but nowadays using it is Ok." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8922" RevisionGUID="8e6f26a9-618c-49f5-954c-6759e2b6d593" CreationDate="2015-06-17T16:21:41.693" UserId="134" Text="There is a number of indeclinable masculine loanwords ending in *-а, -я*:  *квенья*, *фула*, *гёдза* etc. which accepted the gender of their respective generic terms: *язык* (&quot;language&quot;), *пельмень* (&quot;dumpling&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8888" RevisionGUID="4ec4ce27-fad0-46e8-a36e-6d8b17ea0543" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:22:13.247" UserId="5560" Comment="more accurate and update" Text="Not *quite* natural to me, just because quite unusual. Right as Nikolay Ershov’s answer says.  &#xD;&#xA;I feel that another thing which has a tint of uncommonness is the non-unity of aspects of verbs. I would rather expect:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте … испортить…`  &#xD;&#xA;`Не давайте … портить…` *(Though `позволяйте` in the last clause seems more probable to me I cannot see why; possibly because `дайте` (compared with `позволяйте`) is a more sharp word which is more appropriate for more definite ‘perfective’ situations (compared with ‘imperfective’ situations).)*  &#xD;&#xA;But any combination of aspects is possible depending on the *meaning* aspects a sayer wants to express. (I will not discuss the difference between aspects here; it is another topic — answered.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible translations could use `отравить` instead of `испортить`:  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дайте [ей] отравить вам день.`  &#xD;&#xA;And again, I don’t claim it’s an everyday Russian expression.  &#xD;&#xA;Another possible verb: `изгадить`, though it’s somewhat rough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;A *Russian* variant could be:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Не стоит огорчаться.` Though a literal meaning differs (*it’s not worth being upset*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an idiomatic `выбить из колеи` (literally *‘to knock out of a rut’* i. e. out of one’s life course) but  &#xD;&#xA;`Не дай себя выбить из колеи` is not a usual Russian oral phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slang has more phrases for it. *(But all of them, and non-slang variants too, are not about 'day-not-to-be-ruined')*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**upd:**&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the claims that phrases of the type `позволить … испортить день` are pretty Russian: I have never, not once, said/written/heard those phrases in Russian for 40 years of my life before this post, with the only *possible* (not that I really remember the cases) exception: movies unperfect translations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="59168d5b-1cc9-4f9a-9934-8fd0986ffdcd" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:45:26.780" UserId="5560" Text="*`‘ховать - хуй’` &quot;etymology&quot; has driven my question here:*  &#xD;&#xA;is it possible, attested in Russian – **imperative nominalization (substantivation)?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could recall `перекати-поле`, `вырви-глаз`, but I consider them as something like *‘forget-me-not’*, not real imperative nominalization. Am I right? Are there good one-word examples of nominalized imperatives?  &#xD;&#xA;Or is it absolutely unknown/impossible phenomenon in Russian and other languages too? (Googling gave me *&quot;nominalized imperative&quot;* in Tibetan languages only, where, as I can see, it is not much about nominalization, but rather about a verbal system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** Pan-linguistic situation with imperative nominalization or `хуй` etymologies are not the points of this question, they are just 'btw'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="59168d5b-1cc9-4f9a-9934-8fd0986ffdcd" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:45:26.780" UserId="5560" Text="Imperative nominalization in Russian? (‘ховать’ - ‘хуй’)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="59168d5b-1cc9-4f9a-9934-8fd0986ffdcd" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:45:26.780" UserId="5560" Text="|словообразование|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8924" RevisionGUID="1e716d57-c0a2-4ed7-bbd3-f276ba92d577" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:56:14.663" UserId="4560" Text="I can't think of any one-word examples, or of compounds not containing a noun, except two: *тяни-толкай* (which seems to be a literary coinage) and *уйди-уйди* (or *уди-уди*), which is the name of a squeaky toy and so is perhaps better thought of as onomatopoeic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8415cf30-f2ed-4b03-a58f-ec10e57f6ee8" CreationDate="2015-06-18T08:27:09.297" UserId="5619" Text="DevOps is a clipped compound of &quot;development&quot; and &quot;operations&quot;.(Explantion from Wikipedia) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not found an equivalent term in russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it used without translation as &quot;DevOps&quot;  or without abbreviation as &quot;Операции Развития&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there any abbreviation for this term in Russian as well.If there is, can you share it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8415cf30-f2ed-4b03-a58f-ec10e57f6ee8" CreationDate="2015-06-18T08:27:09.297" UserId="5619" Text="what is the equivalent in Russia of abbreviation &quot;devops&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8925" RevisionGUID="8415cf30-f2ed-4b03-a58f-ec10e57f6ee8" CreationDate="2015-06-18T08:27:09.297" UserId="5619" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8926" RevisionGUID="17ca5fad-d857-4791-87bc-7df14a704f9a" CreationDate="2015-06-18T10:02:08.217" UserId="2284" Text="The names of some programming methodologies such as DevOps, Scrum, Agile are essentially proper nouns and accordingly they are treated in Russian. In written texts they are often referred to in original script, though sometimes transliterated into Cyrillic: дево́пс, скрам, эджа́йл. In oral speech they are quite freely inflected just as if they were foreign city names or alike." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="02295811-b011-4e81-beb5-d136adac6d67" CreationDate="2015-06-18T10:26:56.413" UserId="134" Text="*Упокой* (like in *начал за здравие, кончил за упокой*) is imperative of Church Slavonic *упокоити* which was loaned into Russian as a noun meaning &quot;eternal peace&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8927" RevisionGUID="754f2db2-2f5b-4dcc-95f0-114418eaeb23" CreationDate="2015-06-18T10:55:23.940" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="*Упокой* (as in *начал за здравие, кончил за упокой*) is imperative of Church Slavonic *упокоити* which was loaned into Russian as a noun meaning &quot;eternal peace&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8928" RevisionGUID="2ea33cdc-f6bf-45d8-bdb1-b108b4bd8d7e" CreationDate="2015-06-18T12:07:42.607" UserId="5621" Text="Спустя столько лет внезапный ответ. Это мат. Правильно будет &quot;охуеть&quot;. Это искажение слов и вообще русского языка имеет место в интернет-сленге, так называемом ольбанском языке (это просто сленг, который наши использует, чтобы показать свою крутость. сейчас его использование сходит на нет). Разницы между &quot;охуеть&quot; и &quot;ахуеть&quot; нет. Означают практически все: удивление, сожаление и пр.&#xD;&#xA;Это просто восклицание типа &quot;Ох, вот это да!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21575" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="4f7d6766-504a-4f42-9f1d-468a9b730f32" CreationDate="2015-06-18T12:14:59.107" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Imperative nominalization in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8929" RevisionGUID="170bb621-78bc-4eef-b4a2-c9a974a62ed4" CreationDate="2015-06-18T12:24:12.947" UserId="5621" Text="Yes, but we should see the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8930" RevisionGUID="1c47c8ea-0e8b-41e6-a5c8-8bd5bec77932" CreationDate="2015-06-18T12:30:16.613" UserId="5621" Text="It means in short. &quot;I will say u in short&quot;. &quot;In short, we should do it&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8929" RevisionGUID="6e7468f0-d72b-42c9-b9e0-3fd2f75eeb32" CreationDate="2015-06-18T14:43:56.877" UserId="5621" Comment="added 495 characters in body" Text="Yes, but we should see the context. &quot;Испортить день&quot; - фраза, которая чаще использовалась в переводах иностранных фильмов на русский язык. Используется в обычной речи, но не так часто. Использование &quot;Не дайте испортить ваш день&quot; или &quot;Не позволяйте испортить ваш день&quot;, или &quot;Не давайте испортить ваш день&quot; зависит исключительно от общего текста, т.е. от стилистики, динамики речи. В общем, берется то, что будет в данном тексте выглядеть лучше. &#xD;&#xA;  	 	&#xD;&#xA;Хотя вот &quot;не давайте испортить&quot; по-русски все-таки немного некрасиво звучит. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8932" RevisionGUID="2a4713b0-d163-4cb4-bc50-8b12e809b154" CreationDate="2015-06-18T20:59:28.513" UserId="5560" Text="`поцелуй` (a kiss)  &#xD;&#xA;Vasmer: *«Произошло из формы 2 л. повел. накл. от поцелова́ть»*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8910" RevisionGUID="b735242e-83d5-4e3d-8d4c-76dd3f26be7b" CreationDate="2015-06-19T06:30:05.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/611782986443423744" />
  <row Id="21585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8923" RevisionGUID="77498eae-a715-44b4-a8db-d18225e877f7" CreationDate="2015-06-19T12:18:49.317" UserId="5560" Comment="topics separation" Text="Is it possible, attested in Russian – **imperative nominalization (substantivation)?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could recall `перекати-поле`, `вырви-глаз`, but I consider them as something like *‘forget-me-not’*, not real imperative nominalization. Am I right? Are there good one-word examples of nominalized imperatives?  &#xD;&#xA;Or is it absolutely unknown/impossible phenomenon in Russian and other languages too? (Googling gave me *&quot;nominalized imperative&quot;* in Tibetan languages only, where, as I can see, it is not much about nominalization, but rather about a verbal system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**NOTE:** Pan-linguistic situation with imperative nominalization is not the point of this question, just 'btw'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="d6b3f2e1-4603-4550-908d-3848921e75db" CreationDate="2015-06-19T12:35:15.163" UserId="5560" Text="**Can it be a worthy version? Or why not?**  &#xD;&#xA;To my surprise I’ve found [a discussion](http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=7470.0)&#xD;&#xA;where this version does not look like something absolutely groundless (to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just one solid argument will be enough if `ховать` (proto)forms/roots cannot be a source of `хуй`.  &#xD;&#xA;Particularly I wonder if the questioned hypothesis is inconsistent with some language paradigm(s) and/or needs to be a unique case of something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A question apparently for experts, please. The Internet is already full of popular (quasi/pseudo)argumentation that gives me nothing.*  &#xD;&#xA;*(I understand that answering it can be a labour and discussing the discussed (already somewhere else) can be impolitely off-communitic, so deleting the question is OK.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="d6b3f2e1-4603-4550-908d-3848921e75db" CreationDate="2015-06-19T12:35:15.163" UserId="5560" Text="‘ховать’ - ‘хуй’ etymology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="d6b3f2e1-4603-4550-908d-3848921e75db" CreationDate="2015-06-19T12:35:15.163" UserId="5560" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8843" RevisionGUID="c44a861e-d4c4-45d4-943b-f07a6258115a" CreationDate="2015-06-19T12:36:11.090" UserId="5560" Comment="one more tag" Text="|одним-словом|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8934" RevisionGUID="21dfb13f-092a-40f1-9664-9665a5b39fa9" CreationDate="2015-06-19T13:02:12.247" UserId="5288" Text="Возможно, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Привой**. Часть сортового растения, которая будет привита на **подвой**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8935" RevisionGUID="8ec4334b-eea5-45fd-8e3e-77fcbaf2ada9" CreationDate="2015-06-19T15:20:12.720" UserId="115" Text="As one of comments in the discussion points out, this &quot;explanation&quot; comes from an old joke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="afd24f90-df52-412f-b893-4ad3011df9e8" CreationDate="2015-06-19T16:34:19.193" UserId="134" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm talking about suggested etymology of *хуй &lt; ховать*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can it be a worthy version? Or why not?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise I’ve found [a discussion](http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=7470.0)&#xD;&#xA;where this version does not look like something absolutely groundless (to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just one solid argument will be enough if `ховать` (proto)forms/roots cannot be a source of `хуй`.  &#xD;&#xA;Particularly I wonder if the questioned hypothesis is inconsistent with some language paradigm(s) and/or needs to be a unique case of something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A question apparently for experts, please. The Internet is already full of popular (quasi/pseudo)argumentation that gives me nothing.*  &#xD;&#xA;*(I understand that answering it can be a labour and discussing the discussed (already somewhere else) can be impolitely off-communitic, so deleting the question is OK.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="afd24f90-df52-412f-b893-4ad3011df9e8" CreationDate="2015-06-19T16:34:19.193" UserId="134" Comment="added 61 characters in body; edited title" Text="Etymology of Russian profanity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21594" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="377fa247-67bf-4372-858a-b322e2cd28b5" CreationDate="2015-06-19T21:30:50.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/612009667716382720" />
  <row Id="21595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8936" RevisionGUID="63077043-4e06-4ed3-a956-e3158f341c8d" CreationDate="2015-06-20T02:41:23.450" UserId="5329" Text="As you wrote about `forget-me-not`, I immediately thought of `незабудка`. It's a flower which name is formed from the verb `забывать`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="89f87767-0928-475d-b64a-616c159f44f1" CreationDate="2015-06-20T05:05:23.357" UserId="5423" Text="[Gadling teaches you to read the Cyrillic alphabet in 5 minutes][1] mentions that there's some letters in Cyrillic that look like letters in the English alphabet, but their pronunciation in Russian is different to the similar looking letter in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3. Some letters ... look familiar but don’t sound like their English counterparts.** The Russian letter “H” makes the “N” sound, “y” makes the English “oo” sound, and “B” sounds like the English “V.” This letter, И, which looks like a backwards “N”, makes the “short i” sound, as in the English word “pin.” The Russian letter “Я” sounds nothing like [its] mirror image in English. Instead, it makes a “ya” sound, as in “yacht.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking it up, but only found sites with user generated content discussing the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gadling.com/2009/03/30/gadling-teaches-you-to-read-the-cyrillic-alphabet-in-5-minutes/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="89f87767-0928-475d-b64a-616c159f44f1" CreationDate="2015-06-20T05:05:23.357" UserId="5423" Text="Why are there letters which look similar but are pronounced differently between the English alphabet and Russian Cyrillic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="89f87767-0928-475d-b64a-616c159f44f1" CreationDate="2015-06-20T05:05:23.357" UserId="5423" Text="|произношение|other-languages|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="52275c11-b895-4bcc-9fef-d1a8287ab190" CreationDate="2015-06-20T07:21:23.020" UserId="134" Text="Cyrillic alphabet was developed in what is modern Bulgaria based on Greek alphabet, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В was modeled after Greek Β (beta), pronounced &quot;v&quot; in contemporary Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Н, which originally looked N, was modeled after Greek Ν (nu)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* И, which originally looked Н, was modeled after Greek Η (eta), pronounced &quot;i&quot; in contemporary Greek&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У was originally part of a digraph ОУ, which was modeled after Greek digraph ΟΥ (omicron ypsilon) which the Greek used to denote sound &quot;u&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я was originally written Ѧ and denoted a nasal sound similar to final sound in French *fin* which later changed to modern sound [ja] in Russian and Russian recension of Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="0181c3e6-2583-4e02-9e00-918bd1c397a1" CreationDate="2015-06-20T12:43:14.853" UserId="5560" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="Namely, a conjecture: `хуй &lt; ховать`.  &#xD;&#xA;**Can it be a worthy version? Or why not?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my surprise I’ve found [a discussion](http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=7470.0)&#xD;&#xA;where this version does not look like something absolutely groundless (to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just one solid argument will be enough if `ховать` (proto)forms/roots cannot be a source of `хуй`.  &#xD;&#xA;Particularly I wonder if the questioned hypothesis is inconsistent with some language paradigm(s) and/or needs to be a unique case of something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A question apparently for experts, please. The Internet is already full of popular (quasi/pseudo)argumentation that gives me nothing.*  &#xD;&#xA;*(I understand that answering it can be a labour and discussing the discussed (already somewhere else) can be impolitely off-communitic, so deleting the question is OK.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21601" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8933" RevisionGUID="0181c3e6-2583-4e02-9e00-918bd1c397a1" CreationDate="2015-06-20T12:43:14.853" UserId="5560" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="A problematic etymology of a 'three-letter' Russian profanity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8840" RevisionGUID="08084959-f8aa-4557-a6ae-ecf3a13515bc" CreationDate="2015-06-20T12:47:13.583" UserId="5560" Comment="regarding rules" Text="*Sorry – it’s not really an on-topic answer, but about-topic notes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There’s one thing about &lt;code&gt;голод/голодный&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;жажда/?&lt;/code&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The former are ‘real’ Russian words, i. e. of East Slavic origin. The latter are of Church Slavonic origin. In the depths of language history Church Slavonic passages in Russian speech had been used (strictly) for ‘high style’ texts, i. e. in texts about divine, spiritual things, never about ‘low’ earthly subjects. The difference can be seen in modern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голодать` — not to eat (*physiologically*),  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жаждать`  —  to crave (*for something unmaterial as a rule*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, both Church Slavonic `жажден` and Russian `жаден` discontinued to be actual as denoting *‘thirsty’* by now. (See Quassnoi’s comment below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;small&gt;NB. It is just my note concerning… Not a 'warranted' scientific conclusion.&lt;/small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**undate**  &#xD;&#xA;There’s another difference between `голод` and `жажда` (and their derivatives).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `голод` is about *deprivation* of something, 'outer' objective situation,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `жажда` is to mean a (strong) *want* for something,  'inner' subjective situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, I have no idea if this difference is related somehow with the previous one and how it could (if could) result in the situation in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8839" RevisionGUID="8d8d0fe1-9dc0-4c0b-99c2-55ec7684815d" CreationDate="2015-06-20T12:57:33.067" UserId="5560" Comment="respecting the rules" Text="*Just surplus info.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘Genuine’ Russian ‘yes’ spells and is pronounced *&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;*.  &#xD;&#xA;As for &lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt; in your question, which is many times described in previous answers, in oral speech there are variants of this word which hardly can be heard (interpreted by ear) as *‘yes’-&lt;code&gt;да&lt;/code&gt;* pronunciational variant. It can be pronounced with a final vowel varying around and resembling something like *ы/а/schwa/and-their-shortened-varaints*. (A form “&lt;code&gt;ды нет&lt;/code&gt;” can be found on the Internet.) Some more info is in Andrey Chernyakhovskiy’s comment below.  &#xD;&#xA;The phrase in question is really oral and that Russian &lt;code&gt;да нет&lt;/code&gt; does not tend to sound like English &lt;code&gt;*yes no&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;*yeah no&lt;/code&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="c94cc1b0-a605-4f2e-8576-f06f1d8bfbc6" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:25:32.043" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Just a filler word. Associated with being cool and kinda redneck nowadays. A colloquial contraction from an already colloquial **&quot;короче говоря&quot;** (in a nutshell, to make a long story short)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some people are just too used to inserting it at the beginning of a sentence, which is grammatically correct but still looks like a verbal tic if you love it too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Короче, я вот что хочу сказать = 'kay, here's what I want to say &#xD;&#xA; - Короче, она пришла ко мне и расплакалась. = Long story short, she came to me and burst into tears." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="6de7d2a7-c618-4b73-b2c0-982d72426816" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:27:09.357" UserId="5543" Text="Мне школе учили, что с помощью части -то создается неопределённые местоимения, например&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где - where; где-то - somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но недавно я в книжке увидел такие использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Внешне баба Тома была похожа на классическую русскую бабушку, но **я-то** знал, что была у неё за плечами какая-то непростая судьба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У **нас-то** мир и спокойствие, мы нужны всем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ничего-то** нам было не известно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаза наши давно привыкли к подземельям, где света не то что не было, а просто он был так же редок, как чистая вода: **вообще-то** вроде бы и есть, но поди найди хороший источник, подземный ручей, наладь от него трубу, обеспечь стоки… Хорошего специалиста по канализации могли выменять на десяток снайперов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В жадным из примеров я не знаю, как бы перевести это *-то*. Что значит оно в тех примерах и с какой целью оно используется?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="6de7d2a7-c618-4b73-b2c0-982d72426816" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:27:09.357" UserId="5543" Text="Странное использование части -то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="6de7d2a7-c618-4b73-b2c0-982d72426816" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:27:09.357" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8918" RevisionGUID="2d6ad8b0-5290-4c53-979b-fcd71e2a44cb" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:31:59.983" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="Are there any Russian inanimate masculine nouns ending in -я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of many feminine ones (торговля, трескотня, болтовня, мастерская, спальня, келья, etc.), but are there any masculine ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="741def93-25ed-456c-8de7-53da0d8a6f51" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:53:20.487" UserId="5543" Text="Я в книге нашёл формулировку &quot;худой мир&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И в какой-то момент (я был тогда совсем маленьким и знал всё это только в пересказе) вспыхнула даже маленькая война, окончившаяся худым миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понял я ли это хорошо, что здесь *худой* значит *невыгодный; такой, который нам не нравится*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="741def93-25ed-456c-8de7-53da0d8a6f51" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:53:20.487" UserId="5543" Text="Худой мир - значение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="741def93-25ed-456c-8de7-53da0d8a6f51" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:53:20.487" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8941" RevisionGUID="d6933bba-17aa-4676-94a8-498f00e3179e" CreationDate="2015-06-20T13:55:19.403" UserId="5427" Text="Частица `то` может использоваться не только для указания неопределённости, но и для придания большей эмоциональности. В ваших примерах - для подчёркивания и усиления (`я-то` == `именно я`, `у нас-то` == `именно у нас / или, например, у нас` и так далее.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8942" RevisionGUID="b85eb1d5-4446-44f0-bc89-1acc2157ca79" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:02:59.073" UserId="5582" Text="Важно: я не профессиональный лингвист и объясняю простыми словами. Возможны ошибки. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь &quot;-то&quot; вносит оттенок смысла &quot;в отличие от кого-то&quot;, &quot;несмотря на что-то&quot; :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Внешне баба Тома была похожа на классическую русскую бабушку, но я-то знал, что была у неё за плечами какая-то непростая судьба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой человек, посмотрев на бабушку, воспринял бы ее как простую русскую бабушку. Но я знал, что ее жизнь была очень непростой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; У нас-то мир и спокойствие, мы нужны всем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отличие от кого-то еще, у нас - мир и спокойствие. Кто эти &quot;кто-то еще&quot;, должно быть понятно из контекста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничего-то нам было не известно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь &quot;-то&quot; добавляет смысл &quot;совсем ничего&quot;. Сравните &quot;nothing&quot; и &quot;nothing at all&quot;. А еще, как мне кажется, этим выражается эмоциональное отношение говорящего - а именно, сожаление или досада. Просто &quot;ничего нам не было известно&quot; такой эмоциоанльной окраски не имеет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8943" RevisionGUID="9dfe00ce-8bff-487f-bcbf-5b8e79aae403" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:06:30.433" UserId="134" Text="*Худой* has archaic meaning &quot;bad&quot;, which persists in comparative _хуже_ &quot;worse&quot; and superlative _худший_ &quot;worst&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Худой мир* means &quot;bad peace&quot;. It's a part of a proverb _худой мир лучше доброй ссоры_ &quot;a bad peace is better than a good quarrel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better translated into English as &quot;a lean settlement is better than a fat lawsuit&quot; which has exactly same wordplay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8944" RevisionGUID="ca8944c9-7a01-4f2d-964d-587553c87619" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:08:05.837" UserId="5582" Text="&quot;Худой мир лучше доброй ссоры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Думаю, автор имеет в виду эту пословицу. Здесь &quot;худой мир&quot; - непрочный, ненадежный, плохой. &quot;Добрая ссора&quot; - не &quot;kind&quot;, а &quot;сильная, серьезная&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8940" RevisionGUID="8cdbf363-870e-4b2e-8325-43433ea7e9a9" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:21:15.547" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Я в книге нашёл формулировку &quot;худой мир&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И в какой-то момент (я был тогда совсем маленьким и знал всё это только в пересказе) вспыхнула даже маленькая война, окончившаяся худым миром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильно ли я понял, что здесь *худой* значит *невыгодный; такой, который нам не нравится*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="40a5312f-aaf3-406a-8928-94292b6b8019" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:23:46.717" UserId="5288" Text="Russian.SE is filling with the user's contents too, I don’t see anything wrong with it. But such a content has to be effectively verifiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question closely related to the OP question: Why does the Cyrillic alphabet has the order A,B,V,G and pronounced like А, В, V, G(goo) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read/search/verify following keywords:&#xD;&#xA; &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;         Egyptian         --&gt;  pictograms&#xD;&#xA;        hieroglyphs&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;         Phoenicia             http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html&#xD;&#xA;     (about 1700 B.C.)    --&gt;  pictures for syllables&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;            ...&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;     (about 1300 B.C.)    --&gt;  pictures for the initial consonants&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;         Phoenicia &#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;         spread to&#xD;&#xA;          /       \&#xD;&#xA;         /         \&#xD;&#xA;  across Asia    Greece   --&gt;  + pictures for vowels&#xD;&#xA;        \         / |  \&#xD;&#xA;         \       /  |   \&#xD;&#xA;           Russia   |   Rom  --&gt; Latin&#xD;&#xA;             |      |    |&#xD;&#xA;             |      |  some&#xD;&#xA;             |      |  changes ------ France, England, America, ... &#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;             А      А                            А&#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;             |   (200 A.D.)                      |&#xD;&#xA;             Б  B-sound dropped,                 B&#xD;&#xA;             |   ┌ Beta sounded as V             |&#xD;&#xA;             |  ┌┘                               |&#xD;&#xA;             В ┘                                 V&#xD;&#xA;             Г      Γ                      C (sounded as K) replaced G&#xD;&#xA;             Д      Δ                            D&#xD;&#xA;             Н      Η(eta) sounded as i in pin   I&#xD;&#xA;             |                                   |&#xD;&#xA;     (replaced at XII c.)                        |&#xD;&#xA;             И      |                            I&#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;            ...    ...                          ...&#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;             П      Π                            P&#xD;&#xA;             Р      Ρ                            R&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;       new consonants&#xD;&#xA;       to represent &#xD;&#xA;       sounds (ж,ч,ш,щ,ц)&#xD;&#xA;              |&#xD;&#xA;             ...&#xD;&#xA;              |&#xD;&#xA;              Я is a modification of the Alpha. &#xD;&#xA;                The right line is made vertical&#xD;&#xA;                and the left line is curved.&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt;             &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8945" RevisionGUID="f1625cb9-1e2a-43ed-a822-41b87cd5fc91" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:29:24.900" UserId="5288" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Russian.SE is filling with the user's contents too, I don’t see anything wrong with it. But such a content has to be effectively verifiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question closely related to the OP question: Why does the Cyrillic alphabet has the order A,B,V,G and pronounced like А, В, V, G(goo) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please read/search/verify following keywords:&#xD;&#xA; &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;         Egyptian         --&gt;  pictograms&#xD;&#xA;        hieroglyphs&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;         Phoenicia             http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html&#xD;&#xA;     (about 1700 B.C.)    --&gt;  pictures for syllables&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;            ...&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;     (about 1300 B.C.)    --&gt;  pictures for the initial consonants&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;         Phoenicia &#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;         spread to&#xD;&#xA;          /       \&#xD;&#xA;         /         \&#xD;&#xA;  across Asia    Greece   --&gt;  + pictures for vowels&#xD;&#xA;        \         / |  \&#xD;&#xA;         \       /  |   \&#xD;&#xA;           Russia   |   Rom  --&gt; Latin&#xD;&#xA;             |      |    |&#xD;&#xA;             |      |  some&#xD;&#xA;             |      |  changes ------ France, England, America, ... &#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;             А      А                            А&#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;             |   (200 A.D.)                      |&#xD;&#xA;             Б  B-sound dropped,                 B&#xD;&#xA;             |   ┌ Beta sounded as V             |&#xD;&#xA;             |  ┌┘                               |&#xD;&#xA;             В ┘                                 V&#xD;&#xA;             Г      Γ                      C (sounded as K) replaced G&#xD;&#xA;             Д      Δ                            D&#xD;&#xA;            ...    ...                          ...&#xD;&#xA;             Н      Η(eta) sounded as i in pin   I&#xD;&#xA;             |                                   |&#xD;&#xA;     (replaced at XII c.)                        |&#xD;&#xA;             И      |                            I&#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;            ...    ...                          ...&#xD;&#xA;             |      |                            |&#xD;&#xA;             П      Π                            P&#xD;&#xA;             Р      Ρ                            R&#xD;&#xA;             |&#xD;&#xA;       new consonants&#xD;&#xA;       to represent &#xD;&#xA;       sounds (ж,ч,ш,щ,ц)&#xD;&#xA;              |&#xD;&#xA;             ...&#xD;&#xA;              |&#xD;&#xA;              Я is a modification of the Alpha. &#xD;&#xA;                The right line is made vertical&#xD;&#xA;                and the left line is curved.&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt;             &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="95165a0b-8185-4e18-9914-15078d80693e" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:40:07.220" UserId="-1" Comment="i added more details about *why* b was repurposed for a v sound, and why h was repurposed for a i." Text="Cyrillic alphabet was developed in what is modern Bulgaria based on Greek alphabet, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В was modeled after Greek Β (beta). This was was originally pronounced [b] in ancient Greek but in contemporary Greek it weakened to [v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Н, which originally looked N, was modeled after Greek Ν (nu)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* И, which originally looked Н, was modeled after Greek Η (eta). In ancient Greek this was pronounced similarly to English [h], but the sound was lost by the 6th century BCE and character was then repurposed for an [i] sound, as in contemporary Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У was originally part of a digraph ОУ, which was modeled after Greek digraph ΟΥ (omicron ypsilon) which the Greek used to denote [u]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я was originally written Ѧ and denoted a nasal sound similar to final sound in French *fin* which later changed to modern [ja] in Russian and Russian recension of Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21620" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="95165a0b-8185-4e18-9914-15078d80693e" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:40:07.220" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 636" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="96943388-6fcf-4ffa-911e-1cfa93839210" CreationDate="2015-06-20T14:40:07.220" UserId="134" Comment="i added more details about *why* b was repurposed for a v sound, and why h was repurposed for a i." Text="Cyrillic alphabet was developed in what is modern Bulgaria based on Greek alphabet, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В was modeled after Greek Β (beta). This was originally pronounced [b] in ancient Greek but in contemporary Greek it weakened to [v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Н, which originally looked N, was modeled after Greek Ν (nu)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* И, which originally looked Н, was modeled after Greek Η (eta). In ancient Greek this was pronounced similarly to English [h], but the sound was lost by the 6th century BCE and character was then repurposed for an [i] sound, as in contemporary Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У was originally part of a digraph ОУ, which was modeled after Greek digraph ΟΥ (omicron ypsilon) which the Greek used to denote [u]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я was originally written Ѧ and denoted a nasal sound similar to final sound in French *fin* which later changed to modern [ja] in Russian and Russian recension of Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="0cd9527e-55c0-433b-b7ec-7b09d9c41331" CreationDate="2015-06-20T15:20:32.573" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="В школе меня учили, что с помощью частицы -то образуются неопределённые местоимения, например&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где - where; где-то - somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но недавно я в книжке увидел такие примеры использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Внешне баба Тома была похожа на классическую русскую бабушку, но **я-то** знал, что была у неё за плечами какая-то непростая судьба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У **нас-то** мир и спокойствие, мы нужны всем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ничего-то** нам было не известно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаза наши давно привыкли к подземельям, где света не то что не было, а просто он был так же редок, как чистая вода: **вообще-то** вроде бы и есть, но поди найди хороший источник, подземный ручей, наладь от него трубу, обеспечь стоки… Хорошего специалиста по канализации могли выменять на десяток снайперов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ни в одном из примеров я не знаю, как перевести это *-то*. Что значит оно в этих примерах и с какой целью оно используется?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8946" RevisionGUID="e21630ce-06d5-4b2e-99c6-67d053e1da30" CreationDate="2015-06-20T15:20:32.850" UserId="4833" Text="More examples that you would probably classify as not-a-real-nominalisation:&#xA;&#xA;* *угадайка*&#xA;* *ванька-встанька*&#xA;&#xA;Both are likely derived from the imperatives + the particle _-ка_ (*встань-ка*) that has been grammaticalised as the suffix *к* + ending *а*, although I cannot find any good evidence either for or against this thesis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21624" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="6e775560-a3af-4df8-884c-f2d7c6a703ea" CreationDate="2015-06-20T15:36:25.380" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Странное использование частицы -то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="e665ba99-c066-4416-98a1-ae9cd04dd5ec" CreationDate="2015-06-20T16:58:06.790" UserId="5288" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Есть две такие точняющие частицы, &lt;kbd&gt;то&lt;/kbd&gt; и &lt;kbd&gt;же&lt;/kbd&gt;. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зная, что автор имеет родным языком польский, я приведу примеры из польского:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;kbd&gt;Właśnie&lt;/kbd&gt; na to   należy położyć nacisk.&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;kbd&gt;Именно&lt;/kbd&gt; на это  нужно  сделать упор.&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;      исключив &quot;именно&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;      то же самое скажем&#xD;&#xA;      по-русски:&#xD;&#xA;             \&#xD;&#xA;  Вот на это-&lt;kbd&gt;то&lt;/kbd&gt; и нужно сделать упор.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Прямые аналогии в польском:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   a dalej to już ...&#xD;&#xA;   а дальше-то, уже ...&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   jako to ...&#xD;&#xA;   как-то ...&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   A na wozach cóż to wieziecie, jeśli wolno spytać?&#xD;&#xA;                   /&#xD;&#xA;                  /&#xD;&#xA;   А на телегах-то что везете, позвольте спросить?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В английском параллели еще проще. Это артикли `the` и `a/an`.    &#xD;&#xA;Пусть мы имеем предложение (1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Оно звучит так, как будто мы рассказываем сказку, или анекдот:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  В &lt;kbd&gt;одном&lt;/kbd&gt; парке стоит дом ...&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;kbd&gt;A&lt;/kbd&gt; house stands in &lt;kbd&gt;a&lt;/kbd&gt; park ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мы хотим сказать следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Мы видели или слышали &lt;kbd&gt;об этом&lt;/kbd&gt; доме раньше, и тут&#xD;&#xA;  мы видим, что &lt;kbd&gt;этот (именно этот)&lt;/kbd&gt; дом по-прежнему &#xD;&#xA;  стоит, в том же парке, и тогда мы говорим, используя частицу `то`=`the`:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  Дом-&lt;kbd&gt;то&lt;/kbd&gt; стоит в парке!&#xD;&#xA;      /&#xD;&#xA;     /&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;kbd&gt;The&lt;/kbd&gt; house stands inside &lt;kbd&gt;the&lt;/kbd&gt; park.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**или,** Нам сообщили, что дома (уже) в парке нет. Конечно, мы видели или слышали о доме раньше. И тут мы видим, что &lt;kbd&gt;этот (именно этот)&lt;/kbd&gt; дом &#xD;&#xA;по-прежнему стоит, в том же парке, и тогда мы удивленно говорим, используя частицу `же`=`the` :&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Дом &lt;kbd&gt;же&lt;/kbd&gt; стоит в парке!&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;kbd&gt;The&lt;/kbd&gt; house stands inside &lt;kbd&gt;the&lt;/kbd&gt; park!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8948" RevisionGUID="26e9e122-ec67-4a8c-b5f3-42b534a90098" CreationDate="2015-06-20T17:32:48.697" UserId="194" Text="Худой мир here means unfriendly peace. Cold peace. No war, but no friendship either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8947" RevisionGUID="5351c86b-a9ef-494e-969b-646de281535c" CreationDate="2015-06-20T18:33:45.737" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;## Есть две такие уточняющие частицы, &lt;kbd&gt;то&lt;/kbd&gt; и &lt;kbd&gt;же&lt;/kbd&gt;. ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зная, что автор имеет родным языком польский, я приведу примеры из польского:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;kbd&gt;Właśnie&lt;/kbd&gt; na to   należy położyć nacisk.&#xD;&#xA;     &lt;kbd&gt;Именно&lt;/kbd&gt; на это  нужно  сделать упор.&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;      исключив &quot;именно&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;      то же самое скажем&#xD;&#xA;      по-русски:&#xD;&#xA;             \&#xD;&#xA;  Вот на это-&lt;kbd&gt;то&lt;/kbd&gt; и нужно сделать упор.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Прямые аналогии в польском:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   a dalej to już ...&#xD;&#xA;   а дальше-то, уже ...&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   jako to ...&#xD;&#xA;   как-то ...&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   A na wozach cóż to wieziecie, jeśli wolno spytać?&#xD;&#xA;                   /&#xD;&#xA;                  /&#xD;&#xA;   А на телегах-то что везете, позвольте спросить?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В английском параллели еще проще. Это артикли `the` и `a/an`.    &#xD;&#xA;Пусть мы имеем предложение (1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Оно звучит так, как будто мы рассказываем сказку, или анекдот:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  В &lt;kbd&gt;одном&lt;/kbd&gt; парке стоит дом ...&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;kbd&gt;A&lt;/kbd&gt; house stands in &lt;kbd&gt;a&lt;/kbd&gt; park ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мы хотим сказать следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Мы видели или слышали &lt;kbd&gt;об этом&lt;/kbd&gt; доме раньше, и тут&#xD;&#xA;  мы видим, что &lt;kbd&gt;этот (именно этот)&lt;/kbd&gt; дом по-прежнему &#xD;&#xA;  стоит, в том же парке, и тогда мы говорим, используя частицу `то`=`the`:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  Дом-&lt;kbd&gt;то&lt;/kbd&gt; стоит в парке!&#xD;&#xA;      /&#xD;&#xA;     /&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;kbd&gt;The&lt;/kbd&gt; house stands inside &lt;kbd&gt;the&lt;/kbd&gt; park.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**или,** Нам сообщили, что дома (уже) в парке нет. Конечно, мы видели или слышали о доме раньше. И тут мы видим, что &lt;kbd&gt;этот (именно этот)&lt;/kbd&gt; дом &#xD;&#xA;по-прежнему стоит, в том же парке, и тогда мы удивленно говорим, используя частицу `же`=`the` :&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Дом &lt;kbd&gt;же&lt;/kbd&gt; стоит в парке!&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;kbd&gt;The&lt;/kbd&gt; house stands inside &lt;kbd&gt;the&lt;/kbd&gt; park!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8938" RevisionGUID="d9974320-f91d-461a-bd12-ee39c197ee99" CreationDate="2015-06-20T20:08:22.790" UserId="194" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Cyrillic alphabet was developed in what is modern Bulgaria based on Greek alphabet, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В was modeled after Greek Β (beta). This was originally pronounced [b] in ancient Greek but in modern (and medieval) Greek it is weakened to [v]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Н, which originally looked N, was modeled after Greek Ν (nu)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* И, which originally looked Н, was modeled after Greek Η (eta). In ancient Greek this was pronounced similarly to English [h], but the sound was lost by the 6th century BCE and character was then repurposed for an [i] sound, as in contemporary Greek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У was originally part of a digraph ОУ, which was modeled after Greek digraph ΟΥ (omicron ypsilon) which the Greek used to denote [u]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я was originally written Ѧ and denoted a nasal sound similar to final sound in French *fin* which later changed to modern [ja] in Russian and Russian recension of Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21629" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8937" RevisionGUID="0bea7a2c-489a-47a2-918f-f17a60ded721" CreationDate="2015-06-20T21:31:02.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/612372107595489280" />
  <row Id="21630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8905" RevisionGUID="23f958f9-ec65-423f-9bde-554261959a4a" CreationDate="2015-06-21T00:31:03.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/612417408901496836" />
  <row Id="21631" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8886" RevisionGUID="f61841d2-1f23-4634-99f3-f982c80aa3cd" CreationDate="2015-06-21T06:31:01.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/612507999098249216" />
  <row Id="21633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8949" RevisionGUID="d87f9be4-c263-425f-8572-1b8765b685b8" CreationDate="2015-06-21T12:19:59.763" UserId="5288" Text="The precise meaning &quot;худой&quot; in `маленькая война, окончившаяся худым миром` must be found in the adverb (or predicative) `худо`, not in the adjective `худой`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the scattered meanings of `худой`, and the word `худо`, that has precise, exactly one meaning -- `ill, badly`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same scattered meanings will be exists for other words (not for all, of course), which can be narrowed down to its underlying definition by look up its adverb or predicative with the same root in a dictionary:   &#xD;&#xA;`крепкий -&gt; крепко`    &#xD;&#xA;`вольный -&gt; вольно`   &#xD;&#xA;`любимый -&gt; любо`    &#xD;&#xA;`сухой   -&gt; сухо`   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rule of thumb: try to find a word as close (short) to the stem (root) as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8950" RevisionGUID="722f5ce0-3282-4d5f-a7d7-edbadb139acf" CreationDate="2015-06-21T13:28:15.947" UserId="3892" Text="Are **мускул** and **мышца** synonymous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8950" RevisionGUID="722f5ce0-3282-4d5f-a7d7-edbadb139acf" CreationDate="2015-06-21T13:28:15.947" UserId="3892" Text="Are мускул and мышца synonymous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8950" RevisionGUID="722f5ce0-3282-4d5f-a7d7-edbadb139acf" CreationDate="2015-06-21T13:28:15.947" UserId="3892" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="beba347a-3248-4692-a767-924653602ad1" CreationDate="2015-06-21T16:41:50.720" UserId="134" Text="Yes they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мышца* is a CS calque of Latin *musculus* &quot;little mouse&quot;. They can be used interchangeably in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some derived terms like *внутримышечно* &quot;intramuscularly&quot; or *мускулистый* &quot;having big muscles&quot; use only one of the roots, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="57be88fa-7168-48bd-9aa5-7b3b3648fb66" CreationDate="2015-06-21T16:47:47.123" UserId="134" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Yes they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мышца* is a CS calque of Latin *musculus* &quot;little mouse&quot;. They can be used interchangeably in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some derived terms like *внутримышечно* &quot;intramuscularly&quot; or *мускулистый* &quot;muscular, having big muscles&quot; use only one of the roots, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8951" RevisionGUID="8b0cc7e8-3c6d-4095-9d18-0222553b57b9" CreationDate="2015-06-21T17:16:10.470" UserId="134" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="Yes they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мышца* is a CS calque of Latin *musculus* &quot;little mouse&quot;. They can be used interchangeably in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some derived terms like *внутримышечно* &quot;intramuscularly&quot; or *мускулистый* &quot;muscular, having big muscles&quot; use only one of the roots, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, _мышца_ is used in established compound names of separate muscles: _широчайшая мышца спины_ &quot;lat&quot;, _икроножные мышцы_ &quot;calves&quot; etc. In non idiomatic descriptions like _мышцы пресса_ &quot;abs&quot; _мускул_ can be used as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8952" RevisionGUID="b441fa32-1b76-4e1d-afb4-de4a8e2b06ba" CreationDate="2015-06-21T20:54:09.363" UserId="1212" Text="The citation is obviously based on the proverb &quot;Худой мир лучше доброй ссоры&quot;, already mentioned by Nick. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mentioned proverb the word худой has every meaning of the word худой. That means both already mentioned 'unfriendly' and 'unprofitable', but also 'dishonest', or 'ugly' etc. The same about the high quality of the quarrel. The thought is that **any** peace is better than **any** quarrel. And because of this mute **any**, you can use really absolutely any description. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;худой&quot; is used there instead of &quot;любой&quot; for exaggeration of universality of the rule. It could be &quot;даже худой&quot;, but the shortening of the sentence usually makes it to sound more strong. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8953" RevisionGUID="3ea9bf88-84b7-4dc1-8456-d38c256f6520" CreationDate="2015-06-21T22:29:14.583" UserId="1671" Text="These words are often interchangeable. But in general the difference is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `мышцы` is what everyone has from birth, biologically. If you go to [Wiki][1], you can see that all 640 muscles are called `мышцы`, because it's the preferred word for tiny muscles unlike biceps e.g. When we say `мышцы` we often mean *flesh*. &#xD;&#xA; - `мускулы` is associated with physical power often acquired through training. Biceps, triceps, **but not abs**! Abs are called: `мышцы пресса, мышцы живота` (although Google found ~4K matches for `мускулы пресса`, but check out 386К for `мышцы пресса`). So another criterium: `мускул` is a muscle which is visibly big/long and expands/contracts by a wide amplitude.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%86%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8954" RevisionGUID="09f34151-b33c-496d-8019-da800e04bf74" CreationDate="2015-06-21T23:11:10.067" UserId="5560" Text="**Non-interchangeable use of `мышца/ы`** in (about) medical situations with verbs:  &#xD;&#xA;`болеть` – to ache, *мышцы болели* (after training)  &#xD;&#xA;`сводить` – to get cramp, *свело мышцу [судорогой]*  &#xD;&#xA;`потянуть` – to pull/strain, *потянул мышцу*  &#xD;&#xA;`порвать` – to tear, *порвал мышцу*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other:**  &#xD;&#xA;`мышечная масса` – muscle(s) mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-interchangeable use of `мускул`** with verbs:  &#xD;&#xA;`дрогнуть` – to move, *ни один мускул не дрогнул*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t think it’s practical to learn cases when the two words are interchangeable but maybe have some secondary and tertiary shades of difference. I’m sure it’s a matter of serious linguistic research, evidently not done. Unconscious remembering of use cases can be of more help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless: **one more guess about trends of `мышца` / `мускул` usage**.  &#xD;&#xA;  **`мышца`** appears to be a base word of traditional medical/anatomical terminology about muscles,  &#xD;&#xA;  **`мускул`** seems to be a newer word which is more active in contexts/styles perceived as more modern and progressive, e. g. concerning ‘культура тела’ which is not limited to body-building. (These contexts arose in Russia a century ago, I suppose.)  &#xD;&#xA;*In Russia, if I’m not mistaken, a physical force was traditionally attributed to sinews, not to muscles. I think that for some time `мускул` was used to reflect new (not of 'common' people of the past) views about it and marked the adeptness to 'new world' of reason and so on (I perceive it so in some texts).*  &#xD;&#xA;*Мышца* is 'deeper' Russian than *мускул*, a child probably first learns a word *мышца*, then – *мускул* (true for me)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8954" RevisionGUID="241c633a-a9dc-495e-a193-f0774484128e" CreationDate="2015-06-21T23:20:02.743" UserId="5560" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="**Non-interchangeable use of `мышца/ы`** in (about) medical situations with verbs:  &#xD;&#xA;`болеть` – to ache, *мышцы болели* (after training)  &#xD;&#xA;`сводить` – to get cramp, *свело мышцу [судорогой]*  &#xD;&#xA;`потянуть` – to pull/strain, *потянул мышцу*  &#xD;&#xA;`порвать` – to tear, *порвал мышцу*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other:**  &#xD;&#xA;`мышечная масса` – muscle(s) mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-interchangeable use of `мускул`** with verbs:  &#xD;&#xA;`дрогнуть` – to move, *ни один мускул не дрогнул*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t think it’s practical to learn cases when the two words are interchangeable but maybe have some secondary and tertiary shades of difference. I’m sure it’s a matter of serious linguistic research, evidently not done. Unconscious remembering of use cases can be of more help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless: **one more guess about trends of `мышца` / `мускул` usage**.  &#xD;&#xA;  **`мышца`** appears to be a base word of traditional medical/anatomical terminology about muscles,  &#xD;&#xA;  **`мускул`** seems to be a newer word which is more active in contexts/styles perceived as more modern and progressive, e. g. concerning ‘культура тела’ which is not limited to body-building. (These contexts arose in Russia a century ago, I suppose.)  &#xD;&#xA;*In Russia, if I’m not mistaken, a physical force was traditionally attributed to sinews, not to muscles. I think that for some time `мускул` was used to reflect new (not of 'common' people of the past) views about it and marked the adeptness to 'new world' of reason and so on (I perceive it so in some texts).*  &#xD;&#xA;*Мышца* is 'deeper' Russian than *мускул*, a child probably first learns a word *мышца*, then – *мускул* (true for me).  &#xD;&#xA;Making the difference jocular: a countryman has *мышцы*, a townsman builds *мускулы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="841e7621-3609-41d1-99ff-96ce179aacaa" CreationDate="2015-06-22T01:21:29.570" UserId="5288" Text="No.  &#xD;&#xA;Compare: [мускул][1] / [мышца][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мускул` is geometric in form, the external form of things, has no internal structure, while `мышца` has their essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%86%D0%B0&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8954" RevisionGUID="b0ef673e-7582-4af1-8785-ef778ff4ec0e" CreationDate="2015-06-22T02:25:25.673" UserId="5560" Comment="correcting inaccuracy" Text="**Non-interchangeable use of `мышца/ы`** in (about) medical situations with verbs:  &#xD;&#xA;`болеть` – to ache, *мышцы болели* (after training)  &#xD;&#xA;`сводить` – to get cramp, *свело мышцу [судорогой]*  &#xD;&#xA;`потянуть` – to pull/strain, *потянул мышцу*  &#xD;&#xA;`порвать` – to tear, *порвал мышцу*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other:**  &#xD;&#xA;`мышечная масса` – muscle(s) mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-interchangeable use of `мускул`** with verbs:  &#xD;&#xA;`дрогнуть` – to move/jerk, *ни один мускул не дрогнул на его лице* – his face stayed still, without moving a muscle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t think it’s practical to learn cases when the two words are interchangeable but maybe have some secondary and tertiary shades of difference. I’m sure it’s a matter of serious linguistic research, evidently not done. Unconscious remembering of use cases can be of more help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless: **one more guess about trends of `мышца` / `мускул` usage**.  &#xD;&#xA;  **`мышца`** appears to be a base word of traditional medical/anatomical terminology about muscles,  &#xD;&#xA;  **`мускул`** seems to be a newer word which is more active in contexts/styles perceived as more modern and progressive, e. g. concerning ‘культура тела’ which is not limited to body-building. (These contexts arose in Russia a century ago, I suppose.)  &#xD;&#xA;*In Russia, if I’m not mistaken, a physical force was traditionally attributed to sinews, not to muscles. I think that for some time `мускул` was used to reflect new (not of 'common' people of the past) views about it and marked the adeptness to 'new world' of reason and so on (I perceive it so in some texts).*  &#xD;&#xA;*Мышца* is 'deeper' Russian than *мускул*, a child probably first learns a word *мышца*, then – *мускул* (true for me).  &#xD;&#xA;Making the difference farcical: a simple country guy has *мышцы*, a towny builds *мускулы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="f2b9694d-79a0-454a-b71d-9eb2c2156a8b" CreationDate="2015-06-22T09:08:43.723" UserId="6497" Text="У меня есть друг, который имеет четырех сыновей и двух собак. Твоему другу повезло, мой брат имеет четырех сыновей и двух жен! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;after имеет all the numbers and words are in genitive plural, can you tell me why?&#xD;&#xA;with У меня есть I use nominative case, but why with имеет is in genitive?&#xD;&#xA;thank you very much" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="f2b9694d-79a0-454a-b71d-9eb2c2156a8b" CreationDate="2015-06-22T09:08:43.723" UserId="6497" Text="why in this sentence is used genitive case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="f2b9694d-79a0-454a-b71d-9eb2c2156a8b" CreationDate="2015-06-22T09:08:43.723" UserId="6497" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="1ecd49c6-e5ce-4950-bc06-c3cf606a6f77" CreationDate="2015-06-22T11:16:24.923" UserId="5543" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="В школе меня учили, что с помощью суффикса -то образуются неопределённые местоимения, например&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где - where; где-то - somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но недавно я в книжке увидел такие примеры использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Внешне баба Тома была похожа на классическую русскую бабушку, но **я-то** знал, что была у неё за плечами какая-то непростая судьба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У **нас-то** мир и спокойствие, мы нужны всем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ничего-то** нам было не известно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаза наши давно привыкли к подземельям, где света не то что не было, а просто он был так же редок, как чистая вода: **вообще-то** вроде бы и есть, но поди найди хороший источник, подземный ручей, наладь от него трубу, обеспечь стоки… Хорошего специалиста по канализации могли выменять на десяток снайперов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ни в одном из примеров я не знаю, как перевести это *-то*. Что значит оно в этих примерах и с какой целью оно используется?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21650" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8939" RevisionGUID="1ecd49c6-e5ce-4950-bc06-c3cf606a6f77" CreationDate="2015-06-22T11:16:24.923" UserId="5543" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Странное использование суффикса -то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8957" RevisionGUID="2d48b7ef-3c35-4aeb-9c8d-9a56f07b9ab4" CreationDate="2015-06-22T12:34:46.063" UserId="5605" Text="Это винительный падеж (кого, что?): имеет (кого?) четырех сыновей и двух собак,   имеет (кого?) четырех сыновей и двух жен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8958" RevisionGUID="195dfb4b-9fcc-44fb-a3e1-c05615f00581" CreationDate="2015-06-22T13:45:01.363" UserId="1212" Text="The form &quot;который имеет...&quot; is not Russian. The correct form is: &quot;У которого есть...&quot;, that implies Nominative case. For not repeating the same form twice in the same sentence, that is ugly, in one of them you should omit &quot;есть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit. You can use the form &quot;который имеет...&quot; in the technical description." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="85274354-14d7-4156-a10d-1d0e4857d92f" CreationDate="2015-06-22T13:48:54.533" UserId="3892" Text="On a website for practicing languages, I composed a story with the following line about a café in Indonesia that serves an exotic coffee: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там варят самый вкусный и крепкий кофе в мире - Копи Лувак. —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошептал он медленно и загадочно, причём у Наташи слюнки потекли уже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от одного названия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intention was to intimate that the name of the coffee was so exotic, that Natasha's mouth watered at the mere sound of it. In other words, the name of the coffee sounded so delicious that her mouth watered even before tasting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the &quot;redactors&quot; on the site, corrected it as follows: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — прошептал он загадочно, растягивая каждое слово, отчего у Наташи тут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же потекли слюнки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answered that his sentence is good, but that it doesn't express the notion that the name of the coffee sounded so seductive to Natasha that it made her mouth water, and that furthermore, I refused to believe that in a language as rich as Russian, such a thing isn't possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He went on to wrote the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Задал ты мне задачку!:) Сказать по-честному, я не могу уместить всю полноту замысла в рамках одного короткого предложения... Возможно, что будет хорошо звучать следующим образом: &quot;...прошептал он загадочно, растягивая каждое слово; тембр его голоса помноженный на выразительность звучания самого названия тут же захватили воображение Наташи, не оставив и нотки уныния в её душе и наполнив всё вокруг неё ароматом обжариваемых на открытом огне тёмных, как южная ночь, пухленьких кофейных зёрен....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, хочу заметить (это лично моё мнение), когда мы употребляем выражение &quot;потекли слюнки&quot;, то, наверное, мы говорим про самого себя, а не про кого-то ещё. Например, &quot; - Слушай, я даже не знаю, что тебе предложить... Ну давай возьмём свиной шейки полкилограмма, пожарим её на мангале с лучком, красным перцем и соевым соусом, запьём всё это армянским коньячком... Как думаешь? - Да у меня уже слюнки потекли, блин! Давай бери уже, наконец, и поехали к тебе на дачу!&quot; Может быть, допустимо будет сказать так: &quot;Ну что, потянуло дымком-то, а? Потекли слюнки?&quot;. Однако, как мне кажется, когда мы ведём повествование от третьего лица, как в твоём случае, то говорить о ком-то, &quot;у неё потекли слюнки&quot;, звучит несколько неестественно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there no way to translate this into Russian more succinctly? &#xD;&#xA;Here is the original sentence in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There they brew the most delicious and richest coffee in the world -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kopi Luwak.&quot; he whispered slowly and mysteriously, while Natasha's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mouth watered at the mere sound of the name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="85274354-14d7-4156-a10d-1d0e4857d92f" CreationDate="2015-06-22T13:48:54.533" UserId="3892" Text="A seemingly untranslatable sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8959" RevisionGUID="85274354-14d7-4156-a10d-1d0e4857d92f" CreationDate="2015-06-22T13:48:54.533" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="66afd5b5-f767-496c-a55a-c265cd645109" CreationDate="2015-06-22T13:52:09.510" UserId="1212" Text="Мышца is what we have inside. Мускул is what we see or show out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8960" RevisionGUID="10aef155-2588-4c3d-96aa-2def3fe57ac9" CreationDate="2015-06-22T13:58:37.817" UserId="1212" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Мышца is what we have inside. Мускул is what we see or show out. But in 90% cases they are interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8957" RevisionGUID="39cc07cf-8c73-40c7-82d4-8b6231c122e2" CreationDate="2015-06-22T14:14:43.993" UserId="5605" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Это винительный падеж (кого, что?): имеет (кого?) четырех сыновей и двух собак,   имеет (кого?) четырех сыновей и двух жен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но правильно по-русски это пишется так: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;У меня есть друг, у которого четыре сына и две собаки. Твоему другу повезло, у моего брата четыре сына и две жены!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8961" RevisionGUID="9009e8f3-73c6-4833-bd91-b03646bc2178" CreationDate="2015-06-22T14:21:35.073" UserId="4560" Text="Your version is fine (I'd just replace `причём` with `так, что`, note the comma), and the *redaktor* has no idea what they're talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кроме того, хочу заметить (это лично моё мнение), когда мы употребляем&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражение &quot;потекли слюнки&quot;, то, наверное, мы говорим про самого себя,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а не про кого-то ещё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's plainly and simply a false impression. And the tongue-in-cheek presentation of that patch of purple prose they go on to produce doesn't make it any less horrible. A parody can't afford to be clumsy, and *тембр его голоса помноженный на выразительность звучания самого названия тут же захватили воображение Наташи* is clumsy as heck on top of its dodgy syntax and punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to watch out for people overcomplicating things to create an illusion of competence. As a professional translator I can admit that I, too, have my moments of questionably pedantic judgement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8962" RevisionGUID="5059a57d-cce3-42b9-90cd-cc3cb1a46e23" CreationDate="2015-06-22T14:26:31.323" UserId="134" Text="Out of context I can't say if you want to translate &quot;her mouth watered&quot; literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do, you don't use *потекли слюнки*, it is a figure of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Там варят самый вкусный и ароматный кофе в мире — *копи лювак*&quot;, — шептал он ей протяжно и загадочно. От одной лишь мелодии названия Наташин рот наполнился слюной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally it would be *звуки названия* but this makes a parasitic alliteration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say the sound of name made her crave a cup of coffee, your version is ok, though I would still drop that *причём* and made it two sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8961" RevisionGUID="91109746-fea4-425a-9281-d0ea47f2dd7a" CreationDate="2015-06-22T14:27:48.253" UserId="4560" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Your version is fine (I'd just replace `причём` with `так, что`, note the comma), and the *redaktor* has no idea what they're talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кроме того, хочу заметить (это лично моё мнение), когда мы употребляем&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражение &quot;потекли слюнки&quot;, то, наверное, мы говорим про самого себя,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а не про кого-то ещё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's plainly and simply a false impression. It *could* be a little on the colloquial side, but that's got nothing to do with who it's said about. And the tongue-in-cheek presentation of that patch of purple prose they go on to produce doesn't make it any less horrible. A parody can't afford to be clumsy, and *тембр его голоса помноженный на выразительность звучания самого названия тут же захватили воображение Наташи* is clumsy as heck on top of its dodgy syntax and punctuation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to watch out for people overcomplicating things to create an illusion of competence. As a professional translator I can admit that I, too, have my moments of questionably pedantic judgement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8963" RevisionGUID="b419441d-eac5-4095-8a3d-202649b1bc10" CreationDate="2015-06-22T14:30:56.400" UserId="1236" Text="The verb `имеет` is transitive just like in English, German, etc., that is why what follows it are its direct objects and, naturally, they are in the Accusative case. In your example all the nouns are animate, and in Russian all the animate plural nouns (сыновей, собак, жен are plural and animate) have their Accusative case the same as their Genitive case, that is why you had mistaken it for the Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `У меня есть`, what follows this expression is the subject of the expression, that is why it is in the Nominative case, you can easily see that in the past of future tense where the predicate verb быть (Present есть, Past был, Future буду) agrees in number with the subject:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Past Singular: У меня **был друг**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Past Plural: У меня **были друзья**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="4938a748-064a-424e-a794-8c72bb16bb86" CreationDate="2015-06-22T16:19:46.520" UserId="5288" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="No.  &#xD;&#xA;Compare: [мускул][1] / [мышца][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мускул` is geometric in form, the external form of things, has no internal structure, while `мышца` has their essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, in biology, there is no concept of `мускул` at all, see for ex.:   &#xD;&#xA;*Гиляров М.С. (под ред.) - Биологический энциклопедический словарь - 1986 г.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be the same, as to suppose that pairs&#xD;&#xA;`eggshell / egg`, `sphere / ball`&#xD;&#xA;are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%86%D0%B0&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="08fd26d4-1800-41df-a385-def627f68a58" CreationDate="2015-06-22T17:48:35.743" UserId="5288" Comment="added 536 characters in body" Text="No.  &#xD;&#xA;Compare: [мускул][1] / [мышца][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мускул` is geometric in form, the external form of things, has no internal structure, while `мышца` has their essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, in biology, there is no concept of `мускул` at all, see for ex.:   &#xD;&#xA;*Гиляров М.С. (под ред.) - Биологический энциклопедический словарь - 1986 г.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be the same, as to suppose that pairs&#xD;&#xA;`eggshell / egg`, `sphere / ball`&#xD;&#xA;are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some may found in this dictionary the word `мускул` referenced the `мышца` in the *key Index*, which had led to the claim the words are synonymous. But in traditio of the Russian book printing, in dictionary, *synonymous* printed right after a keyword in the style named `в   р а з р я д к у`. Students, who read primary documents in Russian, know this well ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that `Concept = Term + Description` and if there is NO entry in the dictionary, there is No term, which implies that there is NO concept.   &#xD;&#xA;Q.E.D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%86%D0%B0&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="8df47ebc-b9f3-4aa2-bf52-0ad1c0f5176b" CreationDate="2015-06-22T18:06:01.737" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 518 characters in body" Text="No.  &#xD;&#xA;Compare: [мускул][1] / [мышца][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мускул` is geometric in form, the external form of things, has no internal structure, while `мышца` has their essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, in biology, there is no concept of `мускул` at all, see for ex.:   &#xD;&#xA;*Гиляров М.С. (под ред.) - Биологический энциклопедический словарь - 1986 г.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be the same, as to suppose that pairs&#xD;&#xA;`eggshell / egg`, `sphere / ball`&#xD;&#xA;are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%86%D0%B0&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8955" RevisionGUID="253887b6-1e1c-4b6a-b4bd-89de8deb9203" CreationDate="2015-06-22T18:09:55.923" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 151 characters in body" Text="No.  &#xD;&#xA;Compare: [мускул][1] / [мышца][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`мускул` is geometric in form, the external form of things, has no internal structure, while `мышца` has their essence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be the same, as to suppose that pairs&#xD;&#xA;`eggshell / egg`, `sphere / ball`&#xD;&#xA;are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%86%D0%B0&amp;num=30&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="1db3bf42-835f-4d30-b727-83fdac92ad06" CreationDate="2015-06-22T19:33:04.830" UserId="3892" Text="I have a habit of using **всё ещё** in situations that call for &quot;still&quot; or &quot;yet&quot; in English. Apparently in my mind they're interchangeable, with a leaning towards **всё ещё** as the default in all cases. Natives are continuously correcting this back to bare **ещё**. I've tried to find rules for the usage of these terms and wasn't successful. Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="1db3bf42-835f-4d30-b727-83fdac92ad06" CreationDate="2015-06-22T19:33:04.830" UserId="3892" Text="всё -vs- всё ещё" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="1db3bf42-835f-4d30-b727-83fdac92ad06" CreationDate="2015-06-22T19:33:04.830" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8965" RevisionGUID="14aa9370-cfc1-4e24-8cc1-bbc7cfb66307" CreationDate="2015-06-22T20:00:36.047" UserId="5639" Text="I had fun - Я веселился/повеселился/развлекался / Мне было весело&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having fun - Я веселюсь/развлекаюсь&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It's fun - Это весело&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Have fun - Повеселись" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8966" RevisionGUID="68b21d40-44ce-4ae4-b372-7fa780afdef8" CreationDate="2015-06-22T20:26:42.263" UserId="5443" Text="The &quot;ещё&quot; version tends to be used in a situation when something doesn't happen for the reason it's a bit early for it to happen. The &quot;всё ещё&quot; version has a slight hint in it that the time has come for something to happen but it still doesn't happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Она ещё не замужем. (probably she's a young girl)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Она всё ещё не замужем. (sounds like she's not too young at that)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="b29d6d63-984e-4890-9bbe-a5b6be3765f1" CreationDate="2015-06-22T20:57:34.130" UserId="5641" Text="I really want to become fluent in Russian. And I've been trying for so many years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a risk that this question will be closed, I can't think of a better place to ask this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife is of Russian origin (we don't speak Russian at home, I've been trying to ask her but she always gets back to my native language) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been over every single russian learning resource on the web. 99% of the &quot;advanced russian&quot; apps and audiobooks I've tried are already too easy for me and teach me nothing new. But I still can't get past this barrier, I'm trying to get my Russian to a level where I can &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Understand movies (e.g. Служебный роман)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Understanding our friends / her when they talk in social settings (lot's of slang and coltural references)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Understand the news &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Be able to read classic books (even classic childrens book use &quot;high&quot; words for me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I tried: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have a russian radio station on whenever I can, I can most of the time understand what the topic is, and if I try I can figure out individual words, but they talk so fast that I can't get it all connected (still not past the &quot;translating it word by word&quot; phase) &#xD;&#xA;* Using Memrize to get the top 5,000 Russian words. I'm so far flashing through it (got to 500) and haven't found a single word I don't know. But I'm sure I'll get to new words soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I tried to ask my wife to speak Russian to me, the kids will also benefit (they don't speak Russian!) but it's too hard, she always forgets and goes back to my native language (or English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For my car - something like Memrize but with audio, just saying a word and it's translation. There are probably many of these, but I can't find the one that fits my vocabulary level. Most of the ones I tried simply repeat the same old &quot;how to get from the bus to the train station and get a hotel room&quot; vocabulary that is not really helping me move to the next level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How I wish there was a website for russian learning where they record real people speak and then play it slowly and explain word by word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Same for movies - I wonder if there is some program that takes a famous Russian movie and plays it slowly and explains all words that are not &quot;common&quot; (e.g. not top 1000). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if this is a duplicate of violating the FAQ, but I really can't think of a more relevant place to ask that question (I'm a programmer, so was secretly wishing that there is a russian stack exchange while driving to work, and so happy it exists, please don't close me as off topic / non constructive! :))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="b29d6d63-984e-4890-9bbe-a5b6be3765f1" CreationDate="2015-06-22T20:57:34.130" UserId="5641" Text="Been learning russian for 10 years, still can't understand my wife when she talks with her friends, what to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="b29d6d63-984e-4890-9bbe-a5b6be3765f1" CreationDate="2015-06-22T20:57:34.130" UserId="5641" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="52ebc38e-57f0-4231-b22e-c25b5ddc2ec3" CreationDate="2015-06-22T21:03:04.870" UserId="5641" Comment="added 398 characters in body" Text="I really want to become fluent in Russian. And I've been trying for so many years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a risk that this question will be closed, I can't think of a better place to ask this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife is of Russian origin (we don't speak Russian at home, I've been trying to ask her but she always gets back to my native language) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been over every single russian learning resource on the web. 99% of the &quot;advanced russian&quot; apps and audiobooks I've tried are already too easy for me and teach me nothing new. But I still can't get past this barrier, I'm trying to get my Russian to a level where I can &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Understand movies (e.g. Служебный роман)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Understanding our friends / her when they talk in social settings (lot's of slang and coltural references)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Understand the news &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Be able to read classic books (even classic childrens book use &quot;high&quot; words for me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What I tried:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have a russian radio station on whenever I can, I can most of the time understand what the topic is, and if I try I can figure out individual words, but they talk so fast that I can't get it all connected (still not past the &quot;translating it word by word&quot; phase) &#xD;&#xA;* Using Memrize to get the top 5,000 Russian words. I'm so far flashing through it (got to 500) and haven't found a single word I don't know. But I'm sure I'll get to new words soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I tried to ask my wife to speak Russian to me, the kids will also benefit (they don't speak Russian!) but it's too hard, she always forgets and goes back to my native language (or English). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What I'm looking for:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For my car - something like Memrize but with audio, just saying a word and it's translation. There are probably many of these, but I can't find the one that fits my vocabulary level. Most of the ones I tried simply repeat the same old &quot;how to get from the bus to the train station and get a hotel room&quot; vocabulary that is not really helping me move to the next level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How I wish there was a website for russian learning where they record real people speak and then play it slowly and explain word by word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Same for movies - I wonder if there is some program that takes a famous Russian movie and plays it slowly and explains all words that are not &quot;common&quot; (e.g. not top 1000). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if this is a duplicate or violating the FAQ, but I really can't think of a more relevant place to ask that question (I'm a programmer, so on my drive to work I asked myself, why isn't there a &quot;stackoverflow&quot; for Russian learning?and then I realized, that it might already exist, so happy it does, please don't close me as off topic / non constructive, you are my only hope)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried almost everything and I can't get to the &quot;advanced&quot; level in Russian for the past 10 years or so. What are some recommended action items to move to the next level? (Except moving to Russia for a few years, I asked my wife and she refuses at the moment, although I would love to personally) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="b5422088-505d-491e-98b8-09d22ab5f8a9" CreationDate="2015-06-22T22:28:22.643" UserId="5560" Text="### A Sum-up ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`упокой`** (*idiomatic*: eternal peace), from Church Slavonic *упокоити*  &#xD;&#xA;**`поцелуй`** (a kiss), from *поцелова́ть* (*to give a kiss*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Guessed words:*  &#xD;&#xA;`нагоняй` (scolding), …" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21677" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8968" RevisionGUID="0aef0a44-e330-4e33-b267-268b6e343f06" CreationDate="2015-06-22T22:28:22.643" UserId="5560" />
  <row Id="21678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="8fdba4de-81fb-419a-874f-576208f71b40" CreationDate="2015-06-23T00:24:49.907" UserId="5576" Text="From the Alchemist by Paulo Coelho,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Путь к сокровищу стал на два часа короче.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand this sentence correctly, it means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The path to the treasure stood 2 hours closer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why is **на** used here ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="8fdba4de-81fb-419a-874f-576208f71b40" CreationDate="2015-06-23T00:24:49.907" UserId="5576" Text="Путь к сокровищу стал на два часа короче" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8969" RevisionGUID="8fdba4de-81fb-419a-874f-576208f71b40" CreationDate="2015-06-23T00:24:49.907" UserId="5576" Text="|перевод|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8970" RevisionGUID="059f185a-00cc-4088-96f2-083d06f4226b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T00:35:58.567" UserId="5288" Text="&gt; There they brew the most delicious and richest coffee in the world -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kopi Luwak.&quot; he whispered slowly and mysteriously, while Natasha's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mouth watered at the mere sound of the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там заваривают кофе, вкуснейший и богатейший в мире — копи-лувак, — произнес он так таинственно и медленно, что Наташа почти почувствовала его привкус от одного только звучания этого имени." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="faea9f60-8d56-4dcf-ab81-1e8f26fb2c45" CreationDate="2015-06-23T01:01:38.100" UserId="5576" Text="I feel I can relate to where you come from a little.   &#xD;&#xA;I am a programmer who has a wife who came from a foreign country and speaks a foreign language. She is from the U.S. and we speak English at home.   &#xD;&#xA;Soon we will have our first born and the common tongue will be English. Plus, I will teach him some Korean (my native language) so he can talk to his grandpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been watching a lot of TV shows from English speaking countires (mostly U.K. and U.S.) to get all the cultural references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Simpsons(U.S.) and My Family (U.K.) did a good job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get some DVDs of famous Russian TV shows and watch it over and over.   &#xD;&#xA;They will probably have Russian subtitles too for the disabled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, go to a broadcast station website.  &#xD;&#xA;When I was learning, I went to BBC.   &#xD;&#xA;They usually have news articles and the video or audio streaming that you can watch or listen to. That way you can listen and have the scripts for you to analyse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used to go to vesti.ru but these days I can't make some time for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently reading the Alchemist by Paulo Coelho in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;I have read this book 5 times in English.  &#xD;&#xA;Repetetion is my friend.  &#xD;&#xA;Find your favourite books in Russian and read them.&#xD;&#xA;If books like these (for adults) are too difficult, read childrens books too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8972" RevisionGUID="3e33545b-5a86-4eb5-9f34-56dae4fe47f8" CreationDate="2015-06-23T01:07:31.680" UserId="4560" Text="*Стал* is the past tense of *стать*, no longer related in modern Russian to any of *стоять*'s prefixed perfective pairs. It's &quot;the path to the treasure *became* shorter by two hours&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*На* is always used when specifying the amount with comparatives; an exception is *раз* (&quot;times&quot;) which uses *в*, as in **в два раза быстрее** &quot;twice as fast&quot;. This &quot;*в* for multiplication&quot; is also reflected in adverbialised compounds such as *вдвое* or *втрое*. Other than that, even fractions, percentages and logarithmics use *на*: **на две третьих меньше** &quot;less by two thirds&quot;, **на порядок дороже** &quot;more expensive by an order of magnitude&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="c8c0409d-c93a-43b1-9e03-a95bd13d3546" CreationDate="2015-06-23T01:08:58.797" UserId="5576" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I feel I can relate to where you come from a little.   &#xD;&#xA;I am a programmer who has a wife who came from a foreign country and speaks a foreign language. She is from the U.S. and we speak English at home.   &#xD;&#xA;Soon we will have our first born and the common tongue will be English. Plus, I will teach him some Korean (my native language) so he can talk to his grandpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been watching a lot of TV shows from English speaking countires (mostly U.K. and U.S.) to get all the cultural references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Simpsons(U.S.) and My Family (U.K.) did a good job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get some DVDs of famous Russian TV shows and watch it over and over.   &#xD;&#xA;They will probably have Russian subtitles too for the disabled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, go to a broadcast station website.  &#xD;&#xA;When I was learning, I went to BBC.   &#xD;&#xA;They usually have news articles and the video or audio streaming that you can watch or listen to. That way you can listen and have the scripts for you to analyse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used to go to vesti.ru but these days I can't make some time for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am currently reading the Alchemist by Paulo Coelho in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;I have read this book 5 times in English.  &#xD;&#xA;Repetetion is my friend.  &#xD;&#xA;Find your favourite books in Russian and read them.&#xD;&#xA;If books like these (for adults) are too difficult, read childrens books too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not understand something, **study again until you understand**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find any other way than **repeat until you get it**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21685" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8964" RevisionGUID="17553626-f4b0-4352-8b9c-b15197b4ea31" CreationDate="2015-06-23T01:42:04.263" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="ещё -vs- всё ещё" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6750" RevisionGUID="8f7cf7cc-4536-41ce-81af-8305b8513a21" CreationDate="2015-06-23T01:50:58.213" UserId="3892" Comment="added 593 characters in body" Text="I can tell you as an American in your predicament not long ago, that I really benefitted from the tons of dialogs on the (free) site, learnrussian.rt.com for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. they speak at a very normal and natural conversational speed. Slow, word-for-word, unnatural Russian never got me anywhere;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the conversations aren't translated into English - so you won't be distracted by looking at English text while listening to good Russian;&#xD;&#xA; 3. the conversations are only partly written out in Russian and you have to listen carefully and supply the missing words - GREAT TRAINING! This is the part that really helped me start to pick out individual words in actual speech;&#xD;&#xA; 4. There are a bunch of other exercises that are both fun and reinforce grammar, vocabulary, etc. and you can get a free account and track your progress, which is a great boost as you work through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend that you start from Lesson 1 (there are actually 100 audio-packed lessons!) to let your ear get accustomed to the three or four speakers. By the time you get to Lesson 5, you won't believe how much you understand, not only on the site, but in movies, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an added reinforcement to your study, once you're familiar with a conversation, go back and shadow the speakers with a slight delay. &quot;shadowing&quot; is best done with earphones, walking around, and really works. (Find out about shadowing [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another resource which has proved invaluable to me, especially for listening comprehension, is the podcast [&quot;Native Speaker - Russian Language&quot;][2] in which the host, Ilya, presents expressions that have a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. However, the best thing about the podcast is that he uses a very understandable language and speaks at a normal conversational speed, since he records the podcasts in his car on the way to work, unscripted :) His is also a great resource to shadow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mezzoguild.com/language-shadowing-a-superior-learning-method/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/native-speaker-russian-language/id840066142?mt=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8973" RevisionGUID="62dbd8e8-dacc-411a-961b-e696bad1951d" CreationDate="2015-06-23T01:56:22.440" UserId="5582" Text="I will answer in Russian because it seems that you know it well enough. I've translated some phrases which seem most difficult to me. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My wife is of Russian origin (we don't speak Russian at home, I've been trying to ask her but she always gets back to my native language) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас рядом есть носитель языка (native speaker). Простое общение — это лучший способ учить язык, по крайней мере улучшать навыки устной речи. Почему она предпочитает говорить по-английски? Возможно, это просто удобно, а особого смысла говорить по-русски нет. Попробуйте поговорить об этом с такой позиции (in the following manner/way) : вы хотите изучать русский и вам нужна ее помощь. Вы можете договориться о том, чтобы говорить по-русски пару часов в день или в какие-то определенные дни. Попробуйте поставить общую задачу и вместе ее выполнять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один ресурс - фильмы с субтитрами (на том же языке, что и фильм, а не перевод). Я сам два года назад решил, что хочу совершенствовать понимание английского на слух. Абсолютно все фильмы, которые я просмотрел за эти два года, были на английском. Поначалу я использовал субтитры, но совсем недавно заметил, что они мне уже не нужны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аудиокниги прекрасны тем, что их (обычно) читают профессиональные дикторы. У них правильное произношение (correct pronunciation) и они никуда не спешат, в отличие от радиоведущих (radio DJs). Снова из личного опыта: прослушал первую книгу о Гарри Поттере в исполнении Стивена Фрая, у которого идеальный британский акцент. Кстати, можете спросить у жены о ее любимых произведениях русской литературы и послушать их.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То, что вы упорно идете к своей цели уже 10 лет, вызывает уважение. Продолжайте в том же духе, успех придёт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8973" RevisionGUID="0eabfd3f-43e6-4074-b866-655c7cb17793" CreationDate="2015-06-23T02:16:23.423" UserId="5582" Comment="emphasized using subtitles in the same language" Text="I will answer in Russian because it seems that you know it well enough. I've translated some phrases which seem most difficult to me. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My wife is of Russian origin (we don't speak Russian at home, I've been trying to ask her but she always gets back to my native language) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас рядом есть носитель языка (native speaker). Простое общение — это лучший способ учить язык, по крайней мере улучшать навыки устной речи. Почему она предпочитает говорить по-английски? Возможно, это просто удобно, а особого смысла говорить по-русски нет. Попробуйте поговорить об этом с такой позиции (in the following manner/way) : вы хотите изучать русский и вам нужна ее помощь. Вы можете договориться о том, чтобы говорить по-русски пару часов в день или в какие-то определенные дни. Попробуйте поставить общую задачу и вместе ее выполнять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один ресурс - фильмы с субтитрами (*на русском языке*, просто чтобы лучше понимать речь). Если вы не поймете какие-то слова - ничего страшного (not a trouble), попробуйте понять по контексту. Я сам два года назад решил, что хочу совершенствовать понимание английского на слух. Абсолютно все фильмы, которые я просмотрел за эти два года, были на английском. Поначалу я использовал английские субтитры, но совсем недавно заметил, что они мне уже не нужны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аудиокниги прекрасны тем, что их (обычно) читают профессиональные дикторы. У них правильное произношение (correct pronunciation) и они никуда не спешат, в отличие от радиоведущих (radio DJs). Снова из личного опыта: прослушал первую книгу о Гарри Поттере в исполнении Стивена Фрая, у которого идеальный британский акцент. Кстати, можете спросить у жены о ее любимых произведениях русской литературы и послушать их.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То, что вы упорно идете к своей цели уже 10 лет, вызывает уважение. Продолжайте в том же духе, успех придёт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="82fe246d-83c2-48cc-96ab-e88da609a1e0" CreationDate="2015-06-23T04:09:17.670" UserId="5576" Text="Both seem to be perfective and mean &quot;to return&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw more verbs that have -ться counter parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference ?   &#xD;&#xA;What meaning does &quot;-ться“ carry ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="82fe246d-83c2-48cc-96ab-e88da609a1e0" CreationDate="2015-06-23T04:09:17.670" UserId="5576" Text="вернуть and вернуться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8974" RevisionGUID="82fe246d-83c2-48cc-96ab-e88da609a1e0" CreationDate="2015-06-23T04:09:17.670" UserId="5576" Text="|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8975" RevisionGUID="6840a81a-4f37-4295-9963-71644691aed4" CreationDate="2015-06-23T05:04:51.193" UserId="4560" Text="*Вернуть* is to return as in give something back. *Вернуться* is to return as in come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ся* (which becomes *-сь* after a vowel, except in an adjectival participles) is simply the reflexive particle. *Вернуться* is literally &quot;to return oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ться* is, grammatically, just the the sum of its parts (infinitive *-ть* + reflexive *-ся*); phonetically, though, it's notable for its irregular pronunciation — identical to the third-person present *-тся*, resulting in perhaps the most commonplace of spelling mistakes made by Russians, a sort of cultural equivalent of &quot;your&quot;/&quot;you're&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8976" RevisionGUID="51ea4da9-96c5-47f4-a61a-af6ff0f61f42" CreationDate="2015-06-23T05:08:38.833" UserId="5008" Text="Consider &quot;I return&quot; (or &quot;I'll be back&quot;) = &quot;Я вернусь&quot; vs &quot;Return it to sender&quot; = &quot;Вернуть отправителю&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;-ся&quot; is the reflexive particle much like one in German/Italian/Spanish etc. You may treat &quot;вернуться&quot; as &quot;return oneself&quot; although hardly anyone says so in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8975" RevisionGUID="29fefb64-961b-47b1-bb98-4a22f7f88bc4" CreationDate="2015-06-23T05:23:59.850" UserId="4560" Comment="added 93 characters in body; edited body" Text="*Вернуть* is to return as in give something back. *Вернуться* is to return as in come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ся* (which becomes *-сь* after a vowel, except in adjectival participles) is simply the reflexive particle. *Вернуться* is literally &quot;to return oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-ться* is, grammatically, just the sum of its parts (infinitive *-ть* + reflexive *-ся*); phonetically, though, it's notable for its irregular non-palatalised pronunciation, e.g. *напиться* rhymes perfectly with *пицца*. Moreover, *-ться* is identical in pronunciation to the third-person present *-тся*, resulting in perhaps the most commonplace of spelling mistakes made by Russians, a sort of cultural equivalent of &quot;your&quot;/&quot;you're&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="0a70d2ba-2e12-426b-b1e4-753568bac462" CreationDate="2015-06-23T06:15:45.633" UserId="5008" Text="I believe that the main problem is the lack of self-confidence. That's not really a problem if your wife is speaking English to you. Just answer her in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's great that you can mostly understand the posts written in Russian but it would be much better if you asked your question in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to make yourself to believe you can talk Russian well, well, it's a different story. Personally I found that &quot;hardways&quot; really help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to be able to read classic books in Russian? Then start reading them. It's OK if you can't understand a word - more frequently you'd use a dictionary. Afraid of &quot;high words&quot;? Read poetry every day before the breakfast. Even if you'll never use these words in everyday life simply knowing them is the evidence you know Russian well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, if you want to go forward then do move forward. You have everything for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8978" RevisionGUID="52e2c584-5255-4d3e-b796-ba73d3283f81" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:10:14.893" UserId="4920" Text="Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я должен вернуть долг. Скоро заканчивается его срок.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я хочу вернуть книгу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она хотела вернуть любовь.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я должен вернуться домой. Забыл ключи от гаража.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы можем вернуться к первому вопросу из списка.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Они собрались вернуться на корабль.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8973" RevisionGUID="d5b44de9-6579-4e7f-bc79-8a7425f19f92" CreationDate="2015-06-23T08:38:18.737" UserId="5582" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I will answer in Russian because it seems that you know it well enough. I've translated some phrases which seem the most difficult to me. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My wife is of Russian origin (we don't speak Russian at home, I've been trying to ask her but she always gets back to my native language) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас рядом есть носитель языка (native speaker). Простое общение — это лучший способ учить язык, по крайней мере улучшать навыки устной речи. Почему она предпочитает говорить по-английски? Возможно, это просто удобно, а особого смысла говорить по-русски нет. Попробуйте поговорить об этом с такой позиции (in the following manner/way) : вы хотите изучать русский и вам нужна ее помощь. Вы можете договориться о том, чтобы говорить по-русски пару часов в день или в какие-то определенные дни. Попробуйте поставить общую задачу и вместе ее выполнять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один ресурс - фильмы с субтитрами (*на русском языке*, просто чтобы лучше понимать речь). Если вы не поймете какие-то слова - ничего страшного (not a trouble), попробуйте понять по контексту. Я сам два года назад решил, что хочу совершенствовать понимание английского на слух. Абсолютно все фильмы, которые я просмотрел за эти два года, были на английском. Поначалу я использовал английские субтитры, но совсем недавно заметил, что они мне уже не нужны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аудиокниги прекрасны тем, что их (обычно) читают профессиональные дикторы. У них правильное произношение (correct pronunciation) и они никуда не спешат, в отличие от радиоведущих (radio DJs). Снова из личного опыта: прослушал первую книгу о Гарри Поттере в исполнении Стивена Фрая, у которого идеальный британский акцент. Кстати, можете спросить у жены о ее любимых произведениях русской литературы и послушать их.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То, что вы упорно идете к своей цели уже 10 лет, вызывает уважение. Продолжайте в том же духе, успех придёт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8958" RevisionGUID="95eb78b8-a776-4286-9fac-9285549474b1" CreationDate="2015-06-23T09:32:06.977" UserId="1212" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="The form &quot;который имеет...&quot; is not Russian. The correct form is: &quot;У которого есть...&quot;, that implies Nominative case. For not repeating the same form twice in the same sentence, that is ugly, in one of them you should omit &quot;есть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit. You can use the form &quot;который имеет...&quot; in the technical description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;имеет...&quot;, especially used with living object could and would be understood as slangish &quot;has a sexual intercourse with...&quot;. So, your anecdote as you put it in Russian, is much more funny than you expected. But very improper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="04458c96-b8fa-4613-9e41-1bd3482d76bc" CreationDate="2015-06-23T10:14:40.327" UserId="4270" Text="Увы, кино, телепередачи и даже живая речь очень слабо насыщены фразеологизмами. Фразеологизмы (idioms) составляют главную трудность в понимании языка.&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, что лучше изучать идиомы в их концентрированном виде.&#xD;&#xA;Найдите компьютерную программу &quot;РазгРусс&quot; (разговорный русский). В ней более тысячи труднопонимаемых разговорных фраз, как наговоренных дикторами, так и взятых из песен, радиопередач, фильмов, телешоу. Тренинг заключается в выборе подходящего толкования фразы из предлагаемого списка. Сами фразы можно либо просто читать, либо читать и слушать, либо только слушать.&#xD;&#xA;Наверное, такая программа понравится и Вашей жене." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="d225bd10-6a6d-4e54-a142-798db2898867" CreationDate="2015-06-23T10:26:41.087" UserId="4270" Comment="refinements" Text="Увы, кино, телепередачи и даже живая речь очень слабо насыщены фразеологизмами. Фразеологизмы (idioms) составляют главную трудность в понимании языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, что лучше изучать идиомы в их концентрированном виде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Найдите бесплатную компьютерную программу &quot;РазгРусс&quot; (разговорный русский). В ней более тысячи труднопонимаемых разговорных фраз, как наговоренных дикторами, так и взятых из песен, радиопередач, фильмов, телешоу. Тренинг заключается в выборе подходящего толкования фразы из предлагаемого списка. Сами фразы можно либо просто читать, либо читать и слушать, либо только слушать.&#xD;&#xA;Наверное, такая программа понравится и Вашей жене." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="686beed9-8eb2-45aa-a9d8-30038f8cad49" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:46:55.787" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Гости остановились у нас в совершенно блатном углу в специальном кубрике для вип-гостей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что это значит *блатной угол*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="686beed9-8eb2-45aa-a9d8-30038f8cad49" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:46:55.787" UserId="5543" Text="Блатной угол - что это значит?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="686beed9-8eb2-45aa-a9d8-30038f8cad49" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:46:55.787" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="47f1bda2-0ab1-4ea6-a3eb-81a669324856" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:48:39.540" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Я первый раз в жизни удивил Бутова и это бы я запомнил навсегда. Это стало бы главным событием моей жизни, про меня рассказывали бы легенды, но последующие события были **куда круче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит *куда круче*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="47f1bda2-0ab1-4ea6-a3eb-81a669324856" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:48:39.540" UserId="5543" Text="Куда круче - значение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="47f1bda2-0ab1-4ea6-a3eb-81a669324856" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:48:39.540" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="49fff5ed-c600-4358-82d3-28d31611885b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:54:34.083" UserId="5543" Text="Оба слова переводятся на польский или английский язык как &quot;równy&quot; или &quot;equal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли между ними какая-то разницач?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="49fff5ed-c600-4358-82d3-28d31611885b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:54:34.083" UserId="5543" Text="Ровно или равно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="49fff5ed-c600-4358-82d3-28d31611885b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:54:34.083" UserId="5543" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8983" RevisionGUID="c8f4128e-e21f-4c70-af2d-1ab8f17a08ee" CreationDate="2015-06-23T12:57:13.253" UserId="4637" Text="It means that events later were much more colorful and exciting (to be remembered) than before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="72db975b-dd59-4ce7-9b57-fef31428c444" CreationDate="2015-06-23T13:04:53.450" UserId="4560" Text="Это довольно разные слова, причем их тут не два, а три.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`рáвно` (adverb): &quot;equally&quot;, &quot;in equal measure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`равнó` (predicate): &quot;equals&quot;, &quot;is equal to&quot;, &quot;is tantamount to&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`рóвно` (adverb): &quot;precisely&quot;, &quot;straight&quot;, &quot;in a level way&quot;, &quot;smoothly&quot;, &quot;uniformly&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8985" RevisionGUID="dcd7c510-790a-4a41-a2b3-5323b15254bd" CreationDate="2015-06-23T13:09:07.737" UserId="5008" Text="Здесь &quot;угол&quot; в смысле &quot;комната&quot;, &quot;место&quot; (для постоя). &quot;Блатной&quot; может также иметь разные значения, здесь - &quot;особенно хорошее&quot;, &quot;доступное только для особых персон&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;блатной&quot; имеет сниженную стилистику. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8980" RevisionGUID="51e050fc-4066-47dc-a8ae-a7b292417370" CreationDate="2015-06-23T13:12:27.667" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Гости остановились у нас в совершенно блатном углу в специальном кубрике для вип-гостей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит *блатной угол*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8984" RevisionGUID="838f8596-3ba6-45c9-91d0-29f91dca8374" CreationDate="2015-06-23T13:13:07.190" UserId="4560" Comment="examples" Text="Это довольно разные слова, причем их тут не два, а три.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**рáвно** (adverb): &quot;equally&quot;, &quot;in equal measure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *равно влияет на них* &quot;affects them equally&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**равнó** (predicate): &quot;equals&quot;, &quot;is equal to&quot;, &quot;is tantamount to&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *равно нулю* &quot;is equal to zero&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**рóвно** (adverb): &quot;exactly&quot;, &quot;straight&quot;, &quot;in a level way&quot;, &quot;smoothly&quot;, &quot;uniformly&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. *ровно в два* &quot;at two [o'clock] sharp&quot;, *стоять ровно* &quot;to stand straight&quot;, *ровно сто* &quot;exactly a hundred&quot;, *дорога тянулась ровно* &quot;the road stretched smoothly&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="c65daca2-23e8-458a-991e-d35ad0493822" CreationDate="2015-06-23T13:41:25.927" UserId="134" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Оба слова переводятся на польский и английский языки как &quot;równy&quot; и &quot;equal&quot;, соответственно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли между ними какая-то разница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="c3321d86-98b6-4273-ba5f-eb3b54f1598b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T16:22:44.593" UserId="5543" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я первый раз в жизни удивил Бутова и это бы я запомнил навсегда. Это стало бы главным событием моей жизни, про меня рассказывали бы легенды, но последующие события были **куда круче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит *куда круче*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/edit: Как это стало, что у слова *куда* такое странное значение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="e1aaa9d2-4415-49d0-a9d9-3e243c44c41d" CreationDate="2015-06-23T16:23:28.720" UserId="134" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я первый раз в жизни удивил Бутова и это бы я запомнил навсегда. Это стало бы главным событием моей жизни, про меня рассказывали бы легенды, но последующие события были **куда круче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит *куда круче*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/edit: Как получилось, что у слова *куда* появилось такое странное значение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="888c7d4b-7372-436c-888d-400ef84b9925" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:05:11.870" UserId="4714" Text="Words, Words, and more words—in my experience I needed to know 7–8,000 words before things became much easier. Maybe this isn't a problem for you, sorry :), but I think a lot of people can't understand a language simply because they don't know enough words. That doesn't mean one should just learn words—you have to listen and read too—but it's impossible to understand something if you're lacking the vocabulary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Vocabulary is not a problem, than I would suggest listening to things that are just a little above your level—start with kids shows, then move up; don't start with movies or difficult books. I started with shows for 5 year olds then 12 then 15 then etc etc—it's way more motivating than starting with the hardest materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with everything :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS—Route memorization and repetition the old fashioned way works just as well as the fancy programs in my opinion)))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="59ee5ea4-0c99-48a9-a40c-68ae709f714a" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:13:47.217" UserId="5543" Text="Нормально страдательный залог несовершенного вида образуется с помощью частницы **-ся**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но я думаю: имеет в таком случае конструкция быть + ст. пр. наст. другое значение? Или может такая конструкция вообще не используется? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например: *экзамен (есть) сдаваем(ый) учеником*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="59ee5ea4-0c99-48a9-a40c-68ae709f714a" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:13:47.217" UserId="5543" Text="Быть и страдательное причастие настоящего времени" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="59ee5ea4-0c99-48a9-a40c-68ae709f714a" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:13:47.217" UserId="5543" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="157e3282-1e19-4dc6-ad6f-85eeb5cca4a9" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:22:27.813" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Обычно страдательный залог несовершенного вида образуется с помощью частицы **-ся**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но я вот думаю: имеет ли в таком случае конструкция *быть + ст. пр. наст.* другое значение? Или, может, такая конструкция вообще не используется? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например: *экзамен (есть) сдаваем(ый) учеником*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8988" RevisionGUID="8abe7369-c105-4962-9111-67679d64a676" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:36:54.943" UserId="134" Text="It's a widely used construct in Church Slavonic but is not normally used in modern Russian, except with some verbs which can't form reflexive or change their meaning in reflexive form: *любить, судить* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был любим богами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был неоднократно судим федеральным судом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find it in some older texts though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вот почему ребёнок благодаря своей необычной впечатлительности **должен быть оберегаем** от всего, что так или иначе может пагубно отразиться на его детской природе. // *[В. М. Бехтерев. Внушение и воспитание (1911)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * У славянофилов оно выражалось только в более резкой форме и **эпигонами их было доводимо** до крайности; например, К. Н. Леонтьев чуть не прославлял русского человека за то, что ему чужда «вексельная честность» западноевропейского буржуа. // *[Б. А. Кистяковский. В защиту права (1909)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, one would say *должен оберегаться* (or even better *ребёнка нужно оберегать*); *эпигонами доводилось*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8988" RevisionGUID="7d371b91-b666-452f-b1e3-86ced29a7ceb" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:43:28.233" UserId="134" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="It's a widely used construct in Church Slavonic but is not normally used in modern Russian, except with some verbs which can't form reflexive or change their meaning in reflexive form: *любить, судить* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был любим богами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был неоднократно судим федеральным судом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find it in some older texts though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вот почему ребёнок благодаря своей необычной впечатлительности **должен быть оберегаем** от всего, что так или иначе может пагубно отразиться на его детской природе. // *[В. М. Бехтерев. Внушение и воспитание (1911)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * У славянофилов оно выражалось только в более резкой форме и **эпигонами их было доводимо** до крайности; например, К. Н. Леонтьев чуть не прославлял русского человека за то, что ему чужда «вексельная честность» западноевропейского буржуа. // *[Б. А. Кистяковский. В защиту права (1909)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, one would say *должен оберегаться* (or even better *ребёнка нужно оберегать*); *эпигонами доводилось*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abusing this construct is a sign of poor style. From Nora Gal's *Слово живое и мёртвое*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И никто не увидит нас вернувшимися обратно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он... почувствовал себя преследуемым" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8988" RevisionGUID="3c4b4297-1573-4c8b-8698-e6ec8801f9e2" CreationDate="2015-06-23T17:50:37.287" UserId="134" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="It's a widely used construct in Church Slavonic but is not normally used in modern Russian, except with some verbs which can't form reflexive or change their meaning in reflexive form: *любить, судить* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был любим богами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был неоднократно судим федеральным судом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find it in some older texts though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вот почему ребёнок благодаря своей необычной впечатлительности **должен быть оберегаем** от всего, что так или иначе может пагубно отразиться на его детской природе. // *[В. М. Бехтерев. Внушение и воспитание (1911)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * У славянофилов оно выражалось только в более резкой форме и **эпигонами их было доводимо** до крайности; например, К. Н. Леонтьев чуть не прославлял русского человека за то, что ему чужда «вексельная честность» западноевропейского буржуа. // *[Б. А. Кистяковский. В защиту права (1909)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, one would say *должен оберегаться* (or even better *ребёнка нужно оберегать*); *эпигонами доводилось*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abusing this construct is a sign of poor style. From Nora Gal's *Слово живое и мёртвое*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И никто не увидит нас вернувшимися обратно (correct: *очевидно, мы не вернёмся*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он... почувствовал себя преследуемым (correct: *ему чудилось, будто его преследуют*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="9c4eaa68-9e1b-407a-b17f-943bba6aebbe" CreationDate="2015-06-23T19:07:31.463" UserId="5646" Text="Остудил воду (?) называется...&#xD;&#xA;Пошел купаться (?) называется...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужно ли здесь тире или, возможно, другой знак?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="9c4eaa68-9e1b-407a-b17f-943bba6aebbe" CreationDate="2015-06-23T19:07:31.463" UserId="5646" Text="Ставится ли тире?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="9c4eaa68-9e1b-407a-b17f-943bba6aebbe" CreationDate="2015-06-23T19:07:31.463" UserId="5646" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8990" RevisionGUID="b06abc26-7c6b-4476-831a-18d01a328d73" CreationDate="2015-06-23T19:17:00.660" UserId="134" Text="You need a comma here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 99:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запятыми выделяются вводные слова и словосочетания. Различается несколько основных групп вводных слов по их значению:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) вводные слова, выражающие отношение к стилю речи, к характеру и способу изложения: *словом, одним словом, иными словами, другими словами, иначе говоря, коротко говоря, попросту сказать, мягко выражаясь, если можно так сказать, если можно так выразиться, с позволения сказать, лучше сказать, так сказать, что называется* и др.: слова *собственно, вообще, вернее, точнее, скорее* и т.п. являются вводными, если после них можно добавить слово *говоря*. Например: *...Правление уполномочило его ускорить работы, то есть, иными словами, он сам себя уполномочил к этому (Куприн); А Клавдия ушла, вернее, убежала, смущенно укрыв шалью лицо (Ю. Лаптев)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8991" RevisionGUID="42368a23-6c88-440b-b299-3bd8ac971197" CreationDate="2015-06-23T19:17:22.837" UserId="4379" Text="В приведённых примерах, `называется` является междометием, поэтому его нужно отделить запятой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8992" RevisionGUID="aaef90fa-945e-45b6-922e-a2586b7b046b" CreationDate="2015-06-23T19:48:13.180" UserId="5288" Text="Вопрос, собственно, сводится к следующим:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему мы землю р&lt;kbd&gt;о&lt;/kbd&gt;вняли, а получили р&lt;kbd&gt;а&lt;/kbd&gt;внину?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   równina                            &lt;b&gt;Polish&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   равнина                            &lt;b&gt;Russian&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Почему два человека р&lt;kbd&gt;а&lt;/kbd&gt;вного возраста р&lt;kbd&gt;о&lt;/kbd&gt;весники?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   rówieśnik                          &lt;b&gt;Polish&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   ровесник                           &lt;b&gt;Russian&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Рассмотрим такую диаграмму:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Polish&lt;/b&gt;             &lt;b&gt;English&lt;/b&gt;      &lt;b&gt;Russian&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;                        &#xD;&#xA;                          flatten  --&gt; ровнять      &#xD;&#xA;  one root ┐_ równać __ /               |___________ one root = р&lt;kbd&gt;о/а&lt;/kbd&gt;в  &#xD;&#xA;  one word ┘            \               |&#xD;&#xA;                          equal    --&gt; равнять&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;В английском две лексемы. В русском и польском одна, но в русском с изменяемой гласной в корне. В русском безударные гласные произносятся в зависимости от погоды, времени суток, места проживания и количества выпитых спиртных напитков )) Видимо, эта вариативность и позволила не брать новую лексему, а закрепить в письменном языке два различных значения, сохранив основу в корневой морфеме. На слух, если гласные без ударения, нельзя с уверенностью сказать, какое слово сказано." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8988" RevisionGUID="365fb767-37bd-4f8e-9a67-cc1a1875569e" CreationDate="2015-06-23T20:07:53.073" UserId="134" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="It's a widely used construct in Church Slavonic but is not normally used in modern Russian, except with some verbs which can't form reflexive or change their meaning in reflexive form: *любить, судить* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был любим богами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был неоднократно судим федеральным судом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find it in some older texts though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вот почему ребёнок благодаря своей необычной впечатлительности **должен быть оберегаем** от всего, что так или иначе может пагубно отразиться на его детской природе. // *[В. М. Бехтерев. Внушение и воспитание (1911)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * У славянофилов оно выражалось только в более резкой форме и **эпигонами их было доводимо** до крайности; например, К. Н. Леонтьев чуть не прославлял русского человека за то, что ему чужда «вексельная честность» западноевропейского буржуа. // *[Б. А. Кистяковский. В защиту права (1909)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, one would say *должен оберегаться* (or even better *ребёнка нужно оберегать*); *эпигонами доводилось*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abusing participle constructs is a sign of poor style. From Nora Gal's *Слово живое и мёртвое*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живой, тем более современной русской речи деепричастия не очень свойственны, и причастными оборотами люди тоже говорят редко, разве что в официальных и торжественных случаях, обычно – читая по бумажке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also provides several examples of poor style participle constructs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И никто не увидит нас вернувшимися обратно (correct: *очевидно, мы не вернёмся*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он... почувствовал себя преследуемым (correct: *ему чудилось, будто его преследуют*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="e7ac4d2c-ddb3-4c40-8918-98ea9fb1f336" CreationDate="2015-06-23T20:47:57.337" UserId="5560" Text="One more 'tip' from the one not in the situation of Russian learners, rather an English learner. Personal experience, as usual.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Subtitles** help to understand words but they can draw away from oral *speech* recognition. It can be a torture to try to listen to dialogues and follow the subtitles for speech fragments I can’t make out. Once I started to read subtitles I can’t stop and get back to hear actual speaking. Even worse if it trains to hear through the written text.  &#xD;&#xA;Vocabulary is not your biggest problem, as I can see. But mostly you are in the abyss of **passive/written** language learning. (Aren’t you?) Logic says: strive to make it *active*; use your Russian whenever possible (don’t care how good it is — someone’s life depends on it?). First let is start 'running'.  &#xD;&#xA;One more thing: comprehending in a slow and/or word-by-word way can be a false strategy. Put it aside for cases when nothing else helps.  &#xD;&#xA;At last, I mention *my* double mistake: (1) trying to understand everything at once in oral speech (a gimme-all-’n-now mistake), (2) trying it hard with all my *intellectual* abilities when hearing — the system gets overloaded quickly. Certain things can be skipped to be keeping in touch with what is being spoken. (When you just start catching the speech.) Sometimes lazy, non-mind-struggling hearing can open the gates closed for conscious efforts. Though repeating the unhearable seem to be the principal way.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, you asked what to do, I sang mostly about what not to.  &#xD;&#xA;Sorry if too much of imperative here…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="45bb5ea9-9294-48c3-89d8-dbbfbc3e7431" CreationDate="2015-06-24T00:52:00.980" UserId="5576" Text="In Russian, we use **нравиться** to express likes.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я им нравлюсь.&#xD;&#xA;They like me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate, however, gave me this for the translation of &#xD;&#xA;&gt;He doesn't like chatting on the Internet.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;ему не нравится **в** чате в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чат в интернете ему не нравится  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему не нравится чат в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="45bb5ea9-9294-48c3-89d8-dbbfbc3e7431" CreationDate="2015-06-24T00:52:00.980" UserId="5576" Text="He doesn't like chatting on the Internet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="45bb5ea9-9294-48c3-89d8-dbbfbc3e7431" CreationDate="2015-06-24T00:52:00.980" UserId="5576" Text="|перевод|быражение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="d4840a1f-86ce-4292-b5fe-00659ef8e076" CreationDate="2015-06-24T11:07:35.013" UserId="5550" Text="    He doesn't like chatting on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится в чате в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;    Чат в интернете ему не нравится&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится чат в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He doesn't like **chatting** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Он не любит **чатиться** в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Ему не нравится **чатиться** в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;verb, process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Чат в интернете ему не нравится / Ему не нравится **чат** в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;He doesn't like **a chat** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;noun, place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Чат в интернете = a chat (each or any), not &quot;the chat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Тот(этот) чат в интернете = the chat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;%имя_чата% ему не нравится = he doesn't like %chat_name%&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;В кроватке&quot; ему не нравится = he doesn't like In-The-Bed-Chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="e1f297c1-b869-4b05-83d4-3edd6b7beac5" CreationDate="2015-06-24T11:17:28.773" UserId="5550" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="    He doesn't like chatting on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится в чате в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;    Чат в интернете ему не нравится&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится чат в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He doesn't like **chatting** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Он не любит **чатиться** в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Ему не нравится **чатиться** в интернете. (&quot;в интернете&quot; is redundant)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;verb, process&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;чатиться = &quot;to chat&quot;, Russified, wide used&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;общаться, болтать в интернете = any communication. including any multimedia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Чат в интернете ему не нравится / Ему не нравится **чат** в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;He doesn't like **a chat** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;noun, place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Чат в интернете = a chat (each or any), not &quot;the chat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Тот(этот) чат в интернете = the chat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;%имя_чата% ему не нравится = he doesn't like %chat_name%&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;В кроватке&quot; ему не нравится = he doesn't like In-The-Bed-Chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="5a548f4e-1b90-40c7-a2a9-5c1944dfc242" CreationDate="2015-06-24T11:23:30.613" UserId="5550" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="    He doesn't like chatting on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится в чате в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;    Чат в интернете ему не нравится&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится чат в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He doesn't like **chatting** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Он не любит **чатиться** в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Ему не нравится **чатиться** в интернете. (when &quot;чатиться&quot; used, &quot;в интернете&quot; is redundant)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;verb, process&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;чатиться = &quot;to chat&quot;, Russified, wide used&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;общаться, болтать в интернете = any communication. including any multimedia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Чат в интернете ему не нравится / Ему не нравится **чат** в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;He doesn't like **a chat** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;noun, place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Чат в интернете = a chat (each or any), not &quot;the chat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Тот(этот) чат в интернете = the chat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;%имя_чата% ему не нравится = he doesn't like %chat_name%&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;В кроватке&quot; ему не нравится = he doesn't like In-The-Bed-Chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8995" RevisionGUID="a89d0e35-1ed3-49f7-b77f-a45d2274bc4b" CreationDate="2015-06-24T11:37:39.853" UserId="5550" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="    He doesn't like chatting on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится в чате в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;    Чат в интернете ему не нравится&#xD;&#xA;    Ему не нравится чат в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. He doesn't like **chatting** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Он не любит **чатиться** в интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Ему не нравится **чатиться** в интернете. (when &quot;чатиться&quot; used, &quot;в интернете&quot; is redundant)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;verb, process&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;чатиться = &quot;to chat&quot;, Russified, wide used&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;общаться, болтать в интернете = any communication. including any multimedia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Чат в интернете ему не нравится / Ему не нравится **чат** в Интернете.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;He doesn't like **a chat** on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;noun, place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Чат в интернете = a chat (each or any), not &quot;the chat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Тот(этот) чат в интернете = the chat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;%имя_чата% ему не нравится = he doesn't like %chat_name%&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;В кроватке&quot; ему не нравится = he doesn't like In-The-Bed-Chat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. some Russified words :))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;— чатиться = to chat&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;— скайпиться = to skype&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;— сёрфить (редко используется) = &quot;сидеть в интернете&quot; (часто используется) = to surf&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;— смситься, эсемеситься, эсэмэситься = to SMS&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;— аська, васька = icq. Here is a wordplay. Ася — это женское имя, Аська — уменьшительно-ласкательное Ася. &quot;Я **в аське**&quot; means &quot;I'm **in the ICQ**&quot;, &quot;I'm **online in the ICQ**&quot;. Васька = Вася = Василий — мужское имя.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8996" RevisionGUID="467c2ec7-a785-4df5-ae3f-30f6fef950d1" CreationDate="2015-06-24T11:47:47.747" UserId="5550" Text="Here is a sarcasm. One wanted to have a bath, but he had only hot water in the pipes, so he decided to cool, and put a bucket of water to fridge, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;1. but electricity was turned off, because of line disconnect. So one didn't has a bath.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;or&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;2. but fridge was very powerful, or one forgot to remove the bucket from the fridge and got the ice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And he says:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;— Остудил воду, называется... Пошел купаться, называется..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="fd31d7af-e526-4577-aed2-56a7784eaa0f" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:08:58.977" UserId="5605" Text="Личностная характеристика «крутой» подразумевает «жёсткий», «волевой». «Он крут, на него не залезешь».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Круто забирает» в характеристике поступка означает «действует жёстко, даже черезчур жёстко», но не «действует глупо, некрасиво, неадекватно, не по-понятиям» и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отношении предмета прилагательное «крутой» является положительной характеристикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В типовых инвективах, характеристика «крутой» всегда даётся в искажении, отрицании или противопоставлении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, возглас «Ты чо, типа крутой!?» аналогичен «Ты что, типа умный!?», а не «Ты что, совсем дурак!?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично, в словах «Ишь, крутой выискался!» содержится намёк на то, что претензии характеризуемого на крутизну вовсе не обоснованы. Говорят «Крутым себя возомнил?!», но не говорят «Козлом себя возомнил!?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Распространено выражение «крутой, круче только яйца!». Юмористический эффект этого высказывания является следствием «внезапного» перехода от положительной характеристики «крутой» к уничижительному сравнению с яйцами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эпитетом «крутой» традиционно переводится английское (а также немецкое и французское) «cool» (досл. «прохладный»), означающее «спокойный», «уравновешенный», «хладнокровный», «бесстрастный». Английское «Cool!» — практически полный аналог нашего «Круто!» и так же, imho, не имеет ни малейшего негативного подтекста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="a9a68a3f-76db-45a7-a923-edae47dbba82" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:19:52.907" UserId="5605" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="Личностная характеристика «крутой» подразумевает «жёсткий», «волевой». «Он крут, на него не залезешь».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Круто забирает» в характеристике поступка означает «действует жёстко, даже черезчур жёстко», но не «действует глупо, некрасиво, неадекватно, не по-понятиям» и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отношении предмета прилагательное «крутой» является положительной характеристикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В типовых инвективах, характеристика «крутой» всегда даётся в искажении, отрицании или противопоставлении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, возглас «Ты чо, типа крутой!?» аналогичен «Ты что, типа умный!?», а не «Ты что, совсем дурак!?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично, в словах «Ишь, крутой выискался!» содержится намёк на то, что претензии характеризуемого на крутизну вовсе не обоснованы. Говорят «Крутым себя возомнил?!», но не говорят «Козлом себя возомнил!?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Распространено выражение «крутой, круче только яйца!». Юмористический эффект этого высказывания является следствием «внезапного» перехода от положительной характеристики «крутой» к уничижительному сравнению с яйцами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эпитетом «крутой» традиционно переводится английское (а также немецкое и французское) «cool» (досл. «прохладный»), означающее «спокойный», «уравновешенный», «хладнокровный», «бесстрастный». Английское «Cool!» — практически полный аналог нашего «Круто!» и так же, imho, не имеет ни малейшего негативного подтекста.&#xD;&#xA;Крутой, -ые, -ых, -ыми          &#xD;&#xA;значение (1):&#xD;&#xA;(о предмете) — хороший, качественный, нередко с оттенком «дорогой».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;значение (2):&#xD;&#xA;(о человеке) — высококвалифицированный, добившийся успеха, богатый, важный, занимающий высокую должность." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8999" RevisionGUID="a194cef0-76d3-482c-9d03-cb78f218be92" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:41:21.597" UserId="5008" Text="Во-первых, в русском языке глагол &quot;быть&quot; в настоящем времени почти всегда опускается. В том числе и при использовании страдательных причастий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во-вторых, только краткое страдательное причастие может быть сказуемым. Т.е. слова &quot;Экзамен сдаваемый учеником&quot; звучат как часть предложения, но не как целое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В-третьих, в разговорной речи использование распространенных причастных оборотов имеет ограниченный характер. То есть, во многих случаях будет более уместно использовать какую-нибудь равносильную конструкцию, например придаточное предложение: &quot;Экзамен, который сдаёт ученик, ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8998" RevisionGUID="749eef54-fa98-4567-9273-7e36f21fb967" CreationDate="2015-06-24T13:52:32.347" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эпитетом «крутой» традиционно переводится английское (а также немецкое и&#xD;&#xA;французское) «cool» (досл. «прохладный»), означающее «спокойный», «уравновешенный», «хладнокровный», «бесстрастный». Английское «Cool!» — практически полный аналог нашего «Круто!» и так же, imho, не имеет ни малейшего негативного подтекста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. В разговорной речи крутым называют человека, который многого добился в жизни, имеет хороший заработок, престижную работу, большие связи, власть и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;Крутые парни. |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сущ.&#xD;&#xA;В этой тихой камерной обстановке отдыхают крутые — те, у которых на лице написано: «Жизнь удалась».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Действия, решения и т. п. называют крутыми, если они строгие, решительные.&#xD;&#xA;Предпринять крутые меры. |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нар.&#xD;&#xA;С незаконными эмигрантами в этой стране обходятся весьма круто: их немедленно высылают за пределы государства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Крутым в разговоре вы называете что-либо очень модное, привлекательное, то, что вызывает у вас восхищение, одобрение.&#xD;&#xA;У него крутой мобильник. | На ней был надет крутой костюм из красной кожи. |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нар.&#xD;&#xA;Музыканты очень круто играли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. Рестораны, клубы и т. п. в разговорной речи называют крутыми, если они достаточно дорогие и там собираются известные люди, например певцы, музыканты и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;Её часто видят в крутом ресторане в гостинице «Рэдиссон-Славянская».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. Вы используете в разговорной речи восклицание Круто!, когда одобряете что-либо, выражаете своё удовольствие или восхищение этим.&#xD;&#xA;Каникулы в Англии — это круто!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9000" RevisionGUID="e63eacf8-35ea-4350-81ac-fe84a8768447" CreationDate="2015-06-24T14:35:23.817" UserId="5650" Text="It means in Russian language something like 'much cooler'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9002" RevisionGUID="37ee6316-a48d-4cc4-8aec-eed19d249cc3" CreationDate="2015-06-24T14:40:10.807" UserId="5650" Text="In russian language there is no need to translate 'be'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9003" RevisionGUID="b07a37b0-163f-45b0-9252-82fceba6ab82" CreationDate="2015-06-24T14:43:50.147" UserId="5650" Text="It depends on the value. If you would like to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;У меня на это ушло рОвно две недели&quot;, use &quot;ровно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In another case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Два минус один рАвно один&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мне все рАвно, когда это произойдет&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you should use 'A'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21751" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8989" RevisionGUID="b269b01c-b6fa-4a54-99d1-541a46ef5879" CreationDate="2015-06-24T14:59:42.013" UserId="551" Comment="Made title more specific" Text="Ставится ли тире: &quot;Остудил воду (?) называется...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9004" RevisionGUID="3c42b8e6-c48c-4e02-9cd0-f2ca81310183" CreationDate="2015-06-24T15:14:41.970" UserId="310" Text="In present days &quot;круто&quot; mostly means &quot;great&quot;. It should not be translated as &quot;cool&quot; except in places where both &quot;great&quot; and &quot;cool&quot; are appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the original meaning goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;крутой&quot; - &quot;tough guy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;крутые меры&quot; - &quot;strong measures&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;куда круче&quot; ~ more harsh than expected/previously was.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="3a167cb1-d41a-4625-b618-043ab46c779e" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:30:30.890" UserId="5652" Text="I was asked about one (or two ?) Russian verse(s) by a colleague of mine asking if I could find their exact reference. He had in memory a rough translation (in French) and remembered only that Pushkin was their author :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The hurricane has passed away / very few survived /&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French translation my colleague gave me :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L'ouragan a passé / bien peu ont survécu /&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find these words in the few Pushkin's poems I already know; Google didn't return any relevant results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="3a167cb1-d41a-4625-b618-043ab46c779e" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:30:30.890" UserId="5652" Text="exact reference of some Pushkin's verses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9006" RevisionGUID="3a167cb1-d41a-4625-b618-043ab46c779e" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:30:30.890" UserId="5652" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="6b693224-cccd-4ff5-9ae8-5e441c869b35" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:40:30.473" UserId="97" Text="I'm not 100% sure this is what you're after, but there's a poem by Sergei Yesenin, written in 1924, [Русь Советская (Soviet Russia)](http://feb-web.ru/feb/esenin/texts/es2/es2-094-.htm), which starts with this text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Тот ураган прошел. Нас мало уцелело.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На перекличке дружбы многих нет.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вновь вернулся в край осиротелый,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В котором не был восемь лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line can be translated in English, roughly, as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That hurricane has passed.  Very few of us survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any reference to a similar text by Pushkin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9007" RevisionGUID="0af5f803-d835-4020-aff9-a110fe607925" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:48:30.057" UserId="97" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm not 100% sure this is what you're after, but there's a poem by Sergei Yesenin, written in 1924, [Русь Советская (Soviet Russia)](http://feb-web.ru/feb/esenin/texts/es2/es2-094-.htm), which starts with this text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Тот ураган прошел. Нас мало уцелело.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На перекличке дружбы многих нет.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вновь вернулся в край осиротелый,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В котором не был восемь лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first line can be translated into English, roughly, as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That hurricane has passed.  Very few of us survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any reference to a similar text by Pushkin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21760" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="6dd31698-778a-4f50-8474-d7a8fc14d7da" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:51:14.623" UserId="4637" Comment="tags correction" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21761" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8994" RevisionGUID="6dd31698-778a-4f50-8474-d7a8fc14d7da" CreationDate="2015-06-24T20:51:14.623" Comment="Proposed by 4637 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="65af28db-8481-40c3-8641-a36c93358c3c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T08:55:34.100" UserId="6497" Text="First of all: can I use Eсли without бы or бы without Eсли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I see here, the first and the second start with Eсли бы but in the second part of the sentence just бы remains:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eсли бы я был богат, я бы не работал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если бы я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so, the difference is: &#xD;&#xA;in the first sentence: бы я был &#xD;&#xA;and in the second one: я был бы&#xD;&#xA;why there is another structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third I can not understand why there is a genitive or accusative case for &quot;me&quot; instead of я: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also in the first part there is no бы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can you help me?&#xD;&#xA;sorry for all these questions,&#xD;&#xA;thanks, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best Regards&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="65af28db-8481-40c3-8641-a36c93358c3c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T08:55:34.100" UserId="6497" Text="Eсли and бы - Can you tell me why these sentences are all different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="65af28db-8481-40c3-8641-a36c93358c3c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T08:55:34.100" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="5cd6d9cf-c46c-41f5-b3bd-6654507aa203" CreationDate="2015-06-25T09:19:52.807" UserId="5288" Text="Мы говорим: меня сушит.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Голос Паклина беспрестанно обрывался, как у человека, которого сушит и мучит жажда.&#xD;&#xA;                                                            [Тургенев. Новь (1877)]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В литературном языке глагол [&quot;сушит&quot; употребляется в значении][1]:   &#xD;&#xA;а) субъект имеет желание, и это желание его сушит; или   &#xD;&#xA;б) нечто действует на субъект как причина, и субъект сушится от причины.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F+%D1%81%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%82%22&amp;tbm=bks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Желание у субъекта есть активное действие, направленное на объект, мы говорим: субъекту хочется иметь объект. Объектом может быть не только вещь, но и процесс. Например: *пить, уехать, курить...* При этом в литературной речи соотношение желаний    &#xD;&#xA;[пить/делать что-то др.] = 10/90.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для тургеневского &quot;Человека сушит жажда&quot; мы рассмотрим три примера:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Человека сушит жажда денег.         (1)&#xD;&#xA;Человека сушит жажда пить.          (2)&#xD;&#xA;Человека сушит жажда.               (3)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И (1), и (2) допустимы, но в (3) не указан объект. Следовательно, Тургенев предлагает читателю взять объект из контекста. Из контекста понятно, что слово &quot;жажда&quot; нужно понимать как желание пить. Следовательно, **Тургенев применяет не тавтологию, усиление или уточнение, а наоборот, экономное сокращение слов, не называя объект, который понятен из контекста.** (всё правильно?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ниже я представлю заготовку(unfinished scheme), и было бы интересно разобрать это всё в английском. Во что превращается слово &quot;жажда&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;thirst (n.) — Old English thyrre, root *ters- &quot;dry&quot; (see terrain)&#xD;&#xA;                                              сушить       суша&#xD;&#xA;                                              &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thirst (n.)&#xD;&#xA;  |         in desire (?)&#xD;&#xA;  |       /&#xD;&#xA; ters --- &#xD;&#xA;          \  in need of a drink (?)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  сухой, сушеный хлеб = черствый хлеб &#xD;&#xA;            ┌──same sounds──┘      &#xD;&#xA;         thirsty&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="5cd6d9cf-c46c-41f5-b3bd-6654507aa203" CreationDate="2015-06-25T09:19:52.807" UserId="5288" Text="Меня сушит жажда. (I'm thirsty, I have a thirst for smth to drink.) Это тавтология, усиление или уточняющее определение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9009" RevisionGUID="5cd6d9cf-c46c-41f5-b3bd-6654507aa203" CreationDate="2015-06-25T09:19:52.807" UserId="5288" Text="|перевод|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="c0ee89b1-94a6-452c-a879-c18d49d40006" CreationDate="2015-06-25T09:28:34.577" UserId="1671" Text="&gt; First of all: can I use Eсли without бы or бы without Eсли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`бы` is a way to express [Subjunctive mood][1] in Russian. Verb forms are translated into English with *would / could* when `бы` is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question: yes, you can but that changes the meaning. Everything with `бы` is not real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why there is another structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a word order question. Why `если бы я был` and not `если я был бы`? First of all there are things you have to take for granted when learning a language. But the explanation can be like this: the sooner you introduce `бы` the better because it changes everything: real to unreal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not correct (grammatically and stylistically). To fix grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it means: If I were not here I wouldn't want to learn Russian. To fix both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я сюда не приехал, я бы не стал изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="52426083-bef1-4170-964c-db2b8046b826" CreationDate="2015-06-25T09:33:58.313" UserId="1671" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="&gt; First of all: can I use Eсли without бы or бы without Eсли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`бы` is a way to express [Subjunctive mood][1] in Russian. Verb forms are translated into English with *would / could* when `бы` is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question: yes, you can but that changes the meaning. Everything with `бы` is not real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why there is another structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a word order question. Why `если бы я был` and not `если я был бы`? First of all there are things you have to take for granted when learning a language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the explanation can be like this: the sooner you introduce `бы` the better because it changes everything: real to unreal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus `бы` is so flexible that it can be practically anywhere in a sentence not to mention that it can be repeated many times in one sentence (in colloquial speech): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я бы хотел бы ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not correct (grammatically and stylistically). To fix grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it means: If I were not here I wouldn't want to learn Russian. To fix both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я сюда не приехал, я бы не стал изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9010" RevisionGUID="41737a2a-f214-4033-b057-e67a081a4491" CreationDate="2015-06-25T09:43:42.953" UserId="1671" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="&gt; First of all: can I use Eсли without бы or бы without Eсли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`бы` is a way to express [Subjunctive mood][1] in Russian. Verb forms are translated into English with *would / could* when `бы` is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question: yes, you can but that changes the meaning. Everything with `бы` is not real.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why there is another structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like a word order question. Why `если бы я был` and not `если я был бы`? First of all there are things you have to take for granted when learning a language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the explanation can be like this: the sooner you introduce `бы` the better because it changes everything: real to unreal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus `бы` is so flexible that it can be practically anywhere in a sentence not to mention that it can be repeated many times in one sentence (in colloquial speech): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я бы хотел бы ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not correct (grammatically and stylistically). To fix grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it means: If I were not here I wouldn't want to learn Russian. To fix both:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я сюда не приехал, я бы не стал изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why there is a genitive or accusative case for &quot;me&quot; instead of я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a difference between personal and [impersonal][2] verbs. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я не здесь. Я не был здесь.` - personal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Меня здесь нет. Меня здесь не было.` - impersonal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So `I` is not in *Nominative* (`я`) but in *Genitive* (`меня`) because `I` is not a *subject* but an *object* in these sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9008" RevisionGUID="64c975d2-74e0-4ff3-8c9f-e818bbcedaa6" CreationDate="2015-06-25T10:19:11.797" UserId="551" Comment="improved formatting" Text="First of all: can I use `Eсли` without `бы` or `бы` without `Eсли`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I see here, the first and the second start with `Eсли бы` but in the second part of the sentence just `бы` remains:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eсли бы я был богат, я бы не работал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the difference is:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* in the first sentence: бы я был  &#xD;&#xA;* and in the second one: я был бы  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why there is another structure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third I can not understand why there is a genitive or accusative case for &quot;me&quot; instead of `я`: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the first part there is no `бы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can you help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="abd3ac73-04e2-43ed-be88-890449672bfa" CreationDate="2015-06-25T11:11:58.973" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Бы&quot; в современном языке считается частицей, но восходит она к аористу (форме прошедшего времени) глагола &quot;быти&quot;, так что употреблять &quot;бы&quot; можно только с глаголом прошедшего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом условное наклонение с &quot;бы&quot; всегда относится к прошедшему времени и означает ситуацию, которая _не имела места быть в прошлом_ по какой-либо причине. Следует также упомянуть, что кроме того существует несколько особых случаев употребления &quot;бы&quot;, например, вежливое пожелание аналогично &quot;would&quot;: &quot;Не хотели бы Вы...?&quot; - &quot;Would you like...?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответственно, конструкция только с &quot;если&quot; без &quot;бы&quot; означает действие или ситуацию, которые в принципе могли произойти в прошлом или могут произойти в настоящем или будущем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9011" RevisionGUID="a2062636-89a2-47e1-89ff-293d9c454b20" CreationDate="2015-06-25T11:17:39.420" UserId="5008" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="&quot;Бы&quot; в современном языке считается частицей, но восходит она к аористу (форме прошедшего времени) глагола &quot;быти&quot;, так что употреблять &quot;бы&quot; можно только с глаголом прошедшего времени (т.е. условное наклонение изначально было составным глагольным временем).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом условное наклонение с &quot;бы&quot; всегда относится к прошедшему времени и означает ситуацию, которая _не имела места быть в прошлом_ по какой-либо причине. Следует также упомянуть, что кроме того существует несколько особых случаев употребления &quot;бы&quot;, например, вежливое пожелание аналогично &quot;would&quot;: &quot;Не хотели бы Вы...?&quot; - &quot;Would you like...?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответственно, конструкция только с &quot;если&quot; без &quot;бы&quot; означает действие или ситуацию, которые в принципе могли произойти в прошлом или могут произойти в настоящем или будущем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9012" RevisionGUID="af66a78f-72a3-4df4-ad04-2fe05ed850a8" CreationDate="2015-06-25T11:40:34.283" UserId="5288" Text="How the particle &lt;kbd&gt;бы&lt;/kbd&gt; logically works.&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           they told about pure logical condition&#xD;&#xA;           irrespective of the time&#xD;&#xA;   ┌────────┴──────────┐&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я был богат, я бы не работал. &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я был богат, я бы не работал. &#xD;&#xA;   └────────┬──────────┘&#xD;&#xA;          they told narrowed, about logical condition&#xD;&#xA;          on scene in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;               (1)                 (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌─────┴───────┐&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1), it hardly implies the (2), &#xD;&#xA;    irrespective of the time,&#xD;&#xA;    and scenes (1),(2) may be different.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;               (1)                 (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌─────┴───────┐    &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1) on scene in the past, the (2) arises logically from the (1),  &#xD;&#xA;    and the (2) is irrespective of the time,&#xD;&#xA;    and scenes (1),(2) may be different.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;               (1)                   (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌───────┴───────┐     &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я изучал медицину, я был    врачом.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1) on scene in the past, &#xD;&#xA;    the fact is that the (2) is the fact &#xD;&#xA;    in the same scene.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="de585b30-2554-4ffa-a851-576574936f5e" CreationDate="2015-06-25T13:25:45.543" UserId="5654" Text="How would April 17, 2015 be written in Russian, or 4.17.2015 ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="de585b30-2554-4ffa-a851-576574936f5e" CreationDate="2015-06-25T13:25:45.543" UserId="5654" Text="How to write the date in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="de585b30-2554-4ffa-a851-576574936f5e" CreationDate="2015-06-25T13:25:45.543" UserId="5654" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9015" RevisionGUID="37b34c82-ddb4-45e8-8e51-308ae496ac43" CreationDate="2015-06-25T13:30:55.807" UserId="5655" Text="April 17, 2015 =&gt; 17 апреля 2015 г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.17.2015 =&gt; 17.04.2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/?rub=data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9016" RevisionGUID="524770f7-4814-4506-b1e7-096b73f50baf" CreationDate="2015-06-26T02:35:41.213" UserId="5656" Text="The British music group [Clean Bandit][1] take their name from the Russian ['чистый бандитка'][2]. Grace Chatto, one of the band's members, [says][3] that a Russian lady used it to mean 'total rascal'. She mentions that it's not common slang, however:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;It is not actually a common phrase that Russians use,&quot; Grace explains. &quot;There was a lady who was quite inventive with language who said it. And she described my sister as a 'clean bandit,' like, a 'total rascal.'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only mentions of 'чистый бандит' I can find are in relation to the band. Would an average Russian speaker understand 'чистый бандит(ка)' to mean something like 'total rascal'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Bandit &quot;Wikipedia: Clean Bandit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2014/11/19/clean-bandit-re-releases-album-announces-new-tour-explains-t.html &quot;ABC News Radio: Clean Bandit Re-Releases Album, Announces New Tour &amp; Explains Their Strange Name&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uptotempo.com/2015/03/chatting-with-grace-chatto-of-clean.html &quot;Up To Tempo: Chatting with Grace Chatto of Clean Bandit&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9016" RevisionGUID="524770f7-4814-4506-b1e7-096b73f50baf" CreationDate="2015-06-26T02:35:41.213" UserId="5656" Text="'Clean bandit' (чистый бандитка) - would a normal Russian speaker understand this to mean 'total rascal'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9016" RevisionGUID="524770f7-4814-4506-b1e7-096b73f50baf" CreationDate="2015-06-26T02:35:41.213" UserId="5656" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9012" RevisionGUID="9bb2f5d8-fd6d-406b-a3fa-933a688a094e" CreationDate="2015-06-26T13:42:44.823" UserId="5288" Comment="added 692 characters in body" Text="How the particle &lt;kbd&gt;бы&lt;/kbd&gt; logically works.&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           they told about pure logical condition&#xD;&#xA;           irrespective of the time&#xD;&#xA;   ┌────────┴──────────┐&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я был богат, я бы не работал. &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я был богат, я бы не работал. &#xD;&#xA;   └────────┬──────────┘&#xD;&#xA;          they told narrowed, about logical condition&#xD;&#xA;          on scene in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;               (1)                 (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌─────┴───────┐&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1), it hardly implies the (2), &#xD;&#xA;    irrespective of the time,&#xD;&#xA;    and scenes (1),(2) may be different.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;               (1)                 (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌─────┴───────┐    &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1) on scene in the past, the (2) arises logically from the (1),  &#xD;&#xA;    and the (2) is irrespective of the time,&#xD;&#xA;    and scenes (1),(2) may be different.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;               (1)                   (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌───────┴───────┐     &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я изучал медицину, я был    врачом.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1) on scene in the past, &#xD;&#xA;    the fact is that the (2) is the fact &#xD;&#xA;    in the same scene.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The sentence given in the OP  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;is logically equivalent to &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Если [object] здесь [verb], then ... .   &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the sentence is, in particular, equivalent to &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Если деревья свалило ветром, then ... .&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;we need only take a look at my [answer here][1], to illustrate a point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80-vs-%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC/8837#8837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9018" RevisionGUID="c762c7ce-307c-4c10-8e5f-137123e5340d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T14:26:01.090" UserId="5288" Text="There are two variants of what they say. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Чисто бандитка.&#xD;&#xA;  Чистая бандитка.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`чистый` it's not something that we talking about the feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чистый [sounds very similar][1] to чисто, people seem to have confused the words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%BD%D1%83%20%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0!%20%20%0A%D0%BD%D1%83%20%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0!&amp;lang=ru-en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it is `чисто бандитка.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чисто` is adverb. A full sentence is abbreviated as `Чисто бандитка`. The full sentence is:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;          Она есть чисто бандитка. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  She is clearly a harum-scarum child, wanton.&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21789" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="cb615c46-27e2-44d7-ad95-b5107b263de9" CreationDate="2015-06-26T15:46:41.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/614459775137513472" />
  <row Id="21790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9019" RevisionGUID="c6d1caea-5ceb-4a30-befc-e0cc40715c6c" CreationDate="2015-06-26T17:36:55.820" UserId="3727" Text="&quot;More impressive&quot;, in perhaps a controversial way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21791" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8982" RevisionGUID="b8550c01-bc73-4813-9d9b-bfc5dad83632" CreationDate="2015-06-26T21:47:55.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/614550684155969537" />
  <row Id="21793" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8987" RevisionGUID="0f369b3f-a7dd-43e0-830b-267c23dbfbf1" CreationDate="2015-06-27T12:47:54.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/614777173531062272" />
  <row Id="21794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="9590405d-31e8-4f32-9215-fde024d78ba3" CreationDate="2015-06-27T13:26:02.727" UserId="5660" Text="lerv - what month is that in English? Also the months of Pros - unora - cerv - kvei &#xD;&#xA;The people on the tombstones were born in Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="9590405d-31e8-4f32-9215-fde024d78ba3" CreationDate="2015-06-27T13:26:02.727" UserId="5660" Text="lerv - what month is that in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="9590405d-31e8-4f32-9215-fde024d78ba3" CreationDate="2015-06-27T13:26:02.727" UserId="5660" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9021" RevisionGUID="636851b4-e330-46f3-bf96-45b5054c539d" CreationDate="2015-06-27T14:05:39.817" UserId="4560" Text="This is Czech. `prosinec` is December, `únor` is February and `květen` is May; *červ-* is tricky as it could be either `červen` &quot;June&quot; or `červenec` &quot;July&quot;. What you see as &quot;lerv&quot; could be a corruption of *červ-* (there will be two of these in any case, and I'm not aware of any consistent system in Czech for disambiguating the two); alternatively though much less likely, it's `leden`, January." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8950" RevisionGUID="907654c6-62dc-4162-8099-ea4bbe6f1353" CreationDate="2015-06-28T00:48:08.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/614958424909082626" />
  <row Id="21799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="3e972c8f-1f74-4cc1-8e5e-b5fd11e3931c" CreationDate="2015-06-28T01:32:32.973" UserId="5663" Text="Hi I'm looking for a tattoo and am of Russian heritage but have no family around me to help me with translations. I have a few ideas about a script tattoo and was wondering if anyone could give me the English equivalent or tell me if something is wrong and maybe correct it. My ideas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Беда́ не прихо́дит одна́ (Trouble Never Comes Alone)&#xD;&#xA;-На ловца́ и зверь бежи́т (Prey Runs into a Trapper)&#xD;&#xA;- У страха глаза велики (Fear Has Large Eyes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could help, that would be life-saving!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="3e972c8f-1f74-4cc1-8e5e-b5fd11e3931c" CreationDate="2015-06-28T01:32:32.973" UserId="5663" Text="What is the Russian Translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="3e972c8f-1f74-4cc1-8e5e-b5fd11e3931c" CreationDate="2015-06-28T01:32:32.973" UserId="5663" Text="|перевод|грамматика|одним-словом|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9023" RevisionGUID="f405f6f1-2f98-4938-9900-a778958b0631" CreationDate="2015-06-28T09:41:12.007" UserId="5664" Text="Well, these are okay, but mind two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ( **`** ) symbols above letters are not commonly used in Russia&#xD;&#xA; - all three statements you've given are old proverbs. It's like tattooing &quot;East or west, home is best&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9024" RevisionGUID="39bc7300-3e98-45d3-9eee-b8e4e02ca753" CreationDate="2015-06-28T09:41:19.643" UserId="5443" Text="When it rains, it pours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The game walks into the bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fear has magnifying eyes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9025" RevisionGUID="0567689a-d473-41e5-a1f7-6a341c97e5bb" CreationDate="2015-06-28T09:43:03.983" UserId="5550" Text="Во первых это не очень хорошая идея - использовать поговорки))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;What about English?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Death pays all debts.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Divide and rule.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Dog eats dog.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Live and learn.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;No flying from fate.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;No wisdom like silence.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Time and tide wait for no man.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, you understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, конечно, вы можете себе подобрать что-нибудь, что не будет звучать слишком архаично и просторечно, но это будет не просто. Попробуйте поискать среди тех пословиц, которые употребляли известные русские люди - цари, полководцы, ученые. Либо их цитаты. Или часть цитаты. Мне кажется это будет наиболее адекватное решение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9026" RevisionGUID="523d217a-af18-4a6d-b88e-bd105393027a" CreationDate="2015-06-28T09:58:13.960" UserId="5664" Text="&quot;Куда круче&quot; означает &quot;way more awesome&quot;. &quot;Круче&quot; - это сравнительная форма от &quot;крутой&quot;, то есть &quot;awesome&quot;. &quot;Куда&quot;, как и &quot;way&quot;, используется для усиления значения. Как у слова &quot;way&quot; могло появиться такое странное значение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К слову, выражение разговорное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9027" RevisionGUID="409800cb-2c15-4f26-b1d6-5c0d99f807f3" CreationDate="2015-06-28T10:01:46.600" UserId="5664" Text="This time Google was wrong. All your suggestions are correct. Feel free to use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9028" RevisionGUID="7280a18f-3c73-4d73-aa73-8faaf9307065" CreationDate="2015-06-28T10:23:56.803" UserId="5664" Text="Устоявшееся уточняющее определение. Слово &quot;сушит&quot; без слова &quot;жажда&quot; по отношению к человеку часто означает похмелье (hangover). В литературном языке выражение &quot;человека сушит&quot; обычно не употребляется без слова &quot;жажда&quot;, чтобы не быть вульгарным, просторечным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все это справедливо только к одушевленным (людям, животным) объектам. Для всего остального слово &quot;сушить&quot; употребляется в буквальном значении." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21809" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9020" RevisionGUID="34ddd767-fffd-4eac-83d8-ac1a56532df7" CreationDate="2015-06-28T11:30:38.673" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anixx&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21810" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="296a9477-1af0-4699-9fa9-ae88d5dc900a" CreationDate="2015-06-28T15:52:04.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/615185908787216384" />
  <row Id="21811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="9b444190-56a9-46e0-800b-5ba3da11cad6" CreationDate="2015-06-28T21:53:49.473" UserId="5668" Text="Can you explain the phrase below, why is the dative used, what is the meaning, what is the grammatical principle at play here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну, где ему быть..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="9b444190-56a9-46e0-800b-5ba3da11cad6" CreationDate="2015-06-28T21:53:49.473" UserId="5668" Text="What does dative + быть mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="9b444190-56a9-46e0-800b-5ba3da11cad6" CreationDate="2015-06-28T21:53:49.473" UserId="5668" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="25445b11-2df4-4a26-af3e-e782dc8ccb0a" CreationDate="2015-06-29T01:15:48.663" UserId="5576" Text="&gt;хотя сам он при зтом и потерял целный год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need a little help witn this clause.&#xD;&#xA;I kinda know what each word means but I dont know how they fit together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this clause mean,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although(even if) he had to waste the entire year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is from The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.  &#xD;&#xA;The English version is  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fact that the two hours had stretched into an entire year didn't matter  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="25445b11-2df4-4a26-af3e-e782dc8ccb0a" CreationDate="2015-06-29T01:15:48.663" UserId="5576" Text="Translation of хотя сам он при зтом и потерял целный год" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="25445b11-2df4-4a26-af3e-e782dc8ccb0a" CreationDate="2015-06-29T01:15:48.663" UserId="5576" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="ae14a283-35c5-4c76-a6d1-1f22fcc990b4" CreationDate="2015-06-29T01:20:07.850" UserId="5288" Text="The dative case (по-русски дательный падеж, от слова `дать, давать`) is a grammatical case generally used to indicate the noun to which something is given, i.e. to *addressee, destination*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  One of the scheme is `Noun + to + Noun`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  a gift to one's friend &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  or, addressee/destination expressed by lexical meaning&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    we got to like it&#xD;&#xA; это должно нам нравиться&#xD;&#xA;             \&#xD;&#xA;              \__ Dative&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might rewrite the sentence             &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;        Ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;       Где ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где это ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;  Где это оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning here is practically the same, but the full sentences with a subject abbreviated to subjectless    &#xD;&#xA; `Где ему быть`.   &#xD;&#xA;See also [my answer][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80-vs-%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC/8837#8837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="4ea2ee4e-5dfe-480e-a859-4d3ce2d3deab" CreationDate="2015-06-29T01:26:17.220" UserId="5288" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The dative case (по-русски дательный падеж, от слова `дать, давать`) is a grammatical case generally used to indicate the noun to which something is given, i.e. to *addressee, destination*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  One of the scheme is `Noun + to + Noun`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  a gift to one's friend &#xD;&#xA;     подарок другу&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  or, addressee/destination expressed by lexical meaning&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    we have got to like it&#xD;&#xA;   это должно нам нравиться&#xD;&#xA;               \&#xD;&#xA;                \__ Dative&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might rewrite the sentence             &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;        Ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;       Где ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где это ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;  Где это оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning here is practically the same, but the full sentences with a subject abbreviated to subjectless    &#xD;&#xA; `Где ему быть`.   &#xD;&#xA;See also [my answer][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80-vs-%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC/8837#8837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9032" RevisionGUID="8673cdef-5c37-4296-894e-58bb720b2032" CreationDate="2015-06-29T02:14:03.323" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt;          &lt;b&gt;[хотя]&lt;/b&gt; сам он при этом и потерял целый год&#xD;&#xA;             \\&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;[хотя это и не имеет значения&lt;/b&gt;] = it didn't matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          хотя сам он &lt;b&gt;[при этом]&lt;/b&gt; и потерял целый год&#xD;&#xA;                          \\&#xD;&#xA;               &lt;b&gt;[о том, что сказано ранее]&lt;/b&gt; = as he had said before&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9032" RevisionGUID="076b7506-9053-48e1-9646-eef31e52d371" CreationDate="2015-06-29T02:31:56.950" UserId="5288" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="&lt;pre&gt;          &lt;b&gt;[хотя]&lt;/b&gt; сам он при этом и потерял целый год&#xD;&#xA;             \\&#xD;&#xA; &lt;b&gt;[хотя это и не имеет значения&lt;/b&gt;] = although it didn't matter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          хотя сам он &lt;b&gt;[при этом]&lt;/b&gt; и потерял целый год&#xD;&#xA;                          \\&#xD;&#xA;               &lt;b&gt;[о том, что сказано ранее]&lt;/b&gt; = as he had said before&#xD;&#xA;               &lt;b&gt;[учитывая сказанное ранее]&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Хотя это и не имеет значения, что) сам он, (учитывая сказанное про то, что  &#xD;&#xA;путь стал короче) и потерял целый год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;=&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя сам он при этом и потерял целый год&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9033" RevisionGUID="d42a0757-a7ca-42c5-b701-db6406d2eb99" CreationDate="2015-06-29T05:25:03.997" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Ну где ему быть...&quot; = &quot;Ну где он может быть...&quot; При чем и одно, и другое предложение может быть как вопросительным, так и повествовательным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сама фраза звучит достаточно обыденно, ну а как так получается, что мы употребляем дательный падеж таким специфическим образом - так сразу и не ответишь ;-) Скорее всего, это остатки от старой языковой конструкции &quot;дательный самостоятельный&quot; (dativus absolutus). Например, &quot;Идущу же ему въспять, размыслив рече дружине своей...&quot; (&quot;Повесть временных лет&quot;) (As he was going back, having thought, he said to his men...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="226840ba-1ea0-42b2-84f1-c1633166965a" CreationDate="2015-06-29T07:14:09.427" UserId="5443" Text="The Russian version translates like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... хотя сам он при зтом и потерял целый год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... despite he actually wasted/lost a whole year at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is different from what the English version literally means (which expresses how much time it took for him to do something mentioned earlier rather than 'wasting his time' as in Russian version):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...the fact that the two hours had stretched into an entire year didn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... то, что те два часа растянулись на целый год, не имело значения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9034" RevisionGUID="3e753197-070e-455c-be81-07b61049228b" CreationDate="2015-06-29T08:47:45.037" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The Russian version translates like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... хотя сам он при зтом и потерял целый год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... despite he actually wasted/lost a whole year at that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is different from what the English version literally means (which expresses how much time it took him to do something mentioned earlier rather than 'wasting his time' as in Russian version):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ...the fact that the two hours had stretched into an entire year didn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... то, что те два часа растянулись на целый год, не имело значения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="12f86465-c28e-4ba1-898c-c83ee51cbd6d" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:45:32.163" UserId="5288" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="&gt;хотя сам он при этом и потерял целый год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need a little help witn this clause.&#xD;&#xA;I kinda know what each word means but I dont know how they fit together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this clause mean,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Although(even if) he had to waste the entire year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is from The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.  &#xD;&#xA;The English version is  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the fact that the two hours had stretched into an entire year didn't matter  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21825" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="12f86465-c28e-4ba1-898c-c83ee51cbd6d" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:45:32.163" UserId="5288" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Translation of &quot;хотя сам он при этом и потерял целый год&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21826" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9030" RevisionGUID="12f86465-c28e-4ba1-898c-c83ee51cbd6d" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:45:32.163" Comment="Proposed by 5288 approved by 134 edit id of 638" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9035" RevisionGUID="eaa2408e-4987-40d5-8702-78a4ffd6867e" CreationDate="2015-06-29T10:37:07.260" UserId="5443" Text="Something like this happens at transformation into brief impersonal form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Где он может быть -&gt; Где ему можно быть -&gt; Где ему быть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you might think of 'dativeness' here literally as of something given to him, with 'given' omitted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну где ему (дано, положено, возможно, суждено) быть? (Там он и находится - сам подумай.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well, where is he supposed to be? You could guess where he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="779f923e-d6dc-480f-9215-fc0610255f5e" CreationDate="2015-06-29T13:47:40.843" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Can you explain the phrase below, why is the dative used, what is the meaning, what is the grammatical principle at play here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну где ему быть..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9035" RevisionGUID="513ead1e-cac5-4dea-9d2e-c3bc933bc84d" CreationDate="2015-06-29T13:50:09.683" UserId="487" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Something like this happens at transformation into brief impersonal form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где он может быть → Где ему можно быть → Где ему быть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you might think of 'dativeness' here literally as of something given to him, with 'given' omitted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ему (дано, положено, возможно, суждено) быть? (Там он и находится - сам подумай.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, where is he supposed to be? You could guess where he is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9036" RevisionGUID="de0d3d0d-9336-4193-82a7-b68c203720a6" CreationDate="2015-06-29T14:40:07.843" UserId="114" Text="Just to be absolutely strict and specific, here is the direct link to CLDR, which specifies the date/time format for Russian locale: http://st.unicode.org/cldr-apps/v#/ru/Generic/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="8a31c7fe-56b8-4b7e-bbb5-2b2e706562b1" CreationDate="2015-06-29T15:24:11.390" UserId="5288" Comment="added 620 characters in body" Text="The dative case (по-русски дательный падеж, от слова `дать, давать`) is a grammatical case generally used to indicate the noun to which something is given, i.e. to *addressee, destination*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  One of the scheme is `Noun + to + Noun`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  a gift to one's friend &#xD;&#xA;     подарок другу&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  or, addressee/destination expressed by lexical meaning&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    we have got to like it&#xD;&#xA;   это должно нам нравиться&#xD;&#xA;               \&#xD;&#xA;                \__ Dative&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might rewrite the sentence             &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;        Ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;       Где ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где это ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;  Где это оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning here is practically the same, but the full sentences with a subject abbreviated to subjectless    &#xD;&#xA; `Где ему быть`.   &#xD;&#xA;See also [my answer][1] for subjectless sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80-vs-%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC/8837#8837&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot think about the whole sentence as `Where can it/she/he be? or Where is //he?` because its short form. Actually, it has two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a) где ему быть               -- unsure, where is //he; in some place.&#xD;&#xA;                                 You have supposed the scene to be there, where is //he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;б) где ему быть (кем-то, чем-то, каким-то)   -- to be someone,  to come from,  &#xD;&#xA;          └───────────────┬───────────────┘     be a match (for), to think they are like.&#xD;&#xA;                      = стать&#xD;&#xA;                        несов.: становиться&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="da89f167-faf2-4ef2-8094-d11ab725346b" CreationDate="2015-06-29T15:58:14.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/615549847215673344" />
  <row Id="21833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9037" RevisionGUID="db482a55-5b86-45ad-a5aa-ce9f46f36d60" CreationDate="2015-06-29T16:18:11.713" UserId="1475" Text="That's not a very widely used construction, and I can think of only one more or less proper use of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally used as an answer to a question, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -А он в тюрьме? (Is he in jail?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну где ему быть...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means something like &quot;where else?&quot;. It's kinda &quot;yes&quot;, plus you stress the obviousness of that, like in: &quot;Of course he is! Where else is he supposed to be?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9037" RevisionGUID="2760e461-bc0c-4775-8234-977337a4888e" CreationDate="2015-06-29T16:23:53.280" UserId="1475" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="That's not a very widely used construction, and I can think of only one more or less proper use of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally used as an answer to a question, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -А он в тюрьме? (Is he in jail?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну где ему быть...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means something like &quot;where else?&quot;. It's kinda &quot;yes&quot;, plus you stress the obviousness of that, like in: &quot;Of course he is! Where else is he supposed to be?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same way you can put it with other verbs, like &quot;работать&quot;(work), &quot;жить&quot;(live) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about grammar of dative case here. To me it's just a common expression, sometimes they are not entirely grammatically accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="05e25b9e-77fc-4615-bb65-a3ac61b127a2" CreationDate="2015-06-29T20:54:44.673" UserId="5582" Text="Based on the by Highstaker's example: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ему быть? &#xA;&#xA;Can be expanded to: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ему ещё быть, как не в тюрьме? &#xA;&#xA;Which is equal in meaning to this, with more common grammar. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ещё он может быть, как не в тюрьме? &#xA;&#xA;With all non-verbal implications this means:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Since he went to prison, there's no chance for him to be anywhere else. Where else could he be? And I'm disappointed by him being in prison or/and by you, asking that question.&#xA;&#xA;The form `dative + verb` means that the subject is obliged, predicted, destined or doomed to the verb-described action. E. g.:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Чему быть - того не миновать.&#xA;&#xA;This proverb means `What should happen, cannot be avoided`. It expresses accepting or giving up to destiny, be it good or bad. &#xA;&#xA;One more example, from the song &quot;Двери Тамерлана&quot; by &quot;Мельница&quot;, a folk-rock band, telling about a woman's destiny:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; А **мне вышивать**  &#xA;&gt; Оливковый лён,  &#xA;&gt; Слезами **ронять**  &#xA;&gt; Монистовый звон.  &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9029" RevisionGUID="bbe2cc3d-eff9-42d2-be33-90eacc5c3f7b" CreationDate="2015-06-29T22:09:16.957" UserId="5668" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Can you explain the phrase below, why is the dative used, what is the meaning, what is the grammatical principle at play here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну где ему быть...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For clarification the next line is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...вон, в котельной" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9039" RevisionGUID="cb959096-55eb-47ee-a434-81f303008608" CreationDate="2015-06-29T22:10:52.707" UserId="5664" Text="Nope, this version doesn't make any sense.The real source of the word *хуй* is an ancient Slavic root *ху-*, which means *sprout* or *outgrowth*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9037" RevisionGUID="f8d2f565-22ca-4ed6-9d45-cab63a47c0fc" CreationDate="2015-06-30T03:52:09.947" UserId="1475" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="That's not a very widely used construction, and I can think of only one more or less proper use of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is generally used as an answer to a question, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -А он в тюрьме? (Is he in jail?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну где ему быть...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means something like &quot;where else?&quot;. It's kinda &quot;yes&quot;, plus you stress the obviousness of that, like in: &quot;Of course he is! Where else is he supposed to be?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same way you can put it with other verbs, like &quot;работать&quot;(work), &quot;жить&quot;(live) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about grammar of dative case here. To me it's just a common expression, sometimes they are not entirely grammatically accurate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT1**: You've appended your phrase. Yeah, pretty much, it sounds like an answer: &quot;Where else? He's there, in the boiler-house.&quot;. And yes, this particular expression is constructed as `где + subject in dative + infinitive`. You can put a pronoun, a name, a noun etc. there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9038" RevisionGUID="09c2a9b3-e256-49db-ab32-8b13e895e1bb" CreationDate="2015-06-30T12:06:22.027" UserId="5582" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Based on the by Highstaker's example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ему быть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be expanded to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ему ещё быть, как не в тюрьме? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is equal in meaning to this, with more common grammar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну где ещё он может быть, как не в тюрьме? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all non-verbal implications this means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since he went to prison, there's no chance for him to be anywhere else. Where else could he be? And I'm disappointed by him being in prison and/or by yourself asking that question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form `dative + verb` means that the subject is obliged, predicted, destined or doomed to the verb-described action. E. g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чему быть - того не миновать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb means `What should happen, cannot be avoided`. It expresses accepting or giving up to destiny, be it good or bad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more example, from the song &quot;Двери Тамерлана&quot; by &quot;Мельница&quot;, a folk-rock band, telling about a woman's destiny:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А **мне вышивать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оливковый лён,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слезами **ронять**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Монистовый звон.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9040" RevisionGUID="028b7cb2-2241-423a-8e36-4d9e85ce1c2c" CreationDate="2015-06-30T12:38:24.110" UserId="5582" Text="&quot;Чисто&quot; is an anverb, as had been said already. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чисто&quot; doesn't mean &quot;clear&quot; (without stains or flaws) here.  It is quite specific to the slang of bandits from 1990s. So it's meaning and connotations are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. 50% &quot;truly, absolutely, definitely&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. and other 50% &quot;I'm a bandit from Russia's 1990s, yo, moth****cker!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чистый&quot; is not a slang word, but it belongs to spoken language too. It also means &quot;true, total&quot;. Possible alternatives to this word are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Форменный бандит&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящий бандит&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9041" RevisionGUID="3c40ff04-e22c-49a5-b1a5-35b8db362c5c" CreationDate="2015-06-30T16:05:03.457" UserId="551" Text="As for me those proverbs look great in English (where they have no background), but in Russian they look rather strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;На ловца и зверь бежит&quot; is used in a situation like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Hi Sergei, do you know where Vasia is? Can't reach him by the phone. We have to move our meeting to a different place. Oh, I see him, &quot;на ловца и зверь бежит&quot;, I'll tell him about it myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's used when you suddenly see a person that you need to talk to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;у страха глаза велики&quot; - this is also a simple proverb, telling that you are scared of something not really scary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9042" RevisionGUID="3c051e16-7656-4eb9-be49-a5ab4a526a3c" CreationDate="2015-06-30T16:35:54.867" UserId="5560" Text="`Ну[,] где ему быть` is a kinda rhetorical question introducing the answer `вон, в котельной`.  &#xD;&#xA;The first comma, if present, detaches the initial `Ну` up to the level of a separate clause — very similar to the English `Well,..`. Without that comma `Ну` is a particle with the meaning of *‘Hmm’* or just an extra place to bear an emotional charge of the clause.  &#xD;&#xA;Possible translations:  &#xD;&#xA;  *W[ell, w]here can he be?*  &#xD;&#xA;  *Where can he be anyway?*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the main part of your question: **a construction ‘dative + infinitive’**.  &#xD;&#xA;It can be a part of a larger pattern *‘dative + infinitive + modal adverbial’* which is probably more 'parsable' for a learner:  &#xD;&#xA;`Мне(2) нужно(1) позвонить(3).` (dat. mod.-adv. inf.)  &#xD;&#xA;`It is necessary(1) for me(2) to make a phone call(3).` ('parsing' in English)  &#xD;&#xA;  *I need to make a phone call.* (a translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In certain cases a modal adverb(ial) can be implied making the above parsing possible:  &#xD;&#xA;`Мне работать?!` &gt;&gt; `Мне [надо] работать?!`  &#xD;&#xA;`[Is it needful for] me to work?!` (a 'parsing')  &#xD;&#xA; *Am I to work?!* or *Need I work?!* (You’re crazy supposing that! Don’t even try…) — a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here’s the general and simple way to retell that construction in English, I believe:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ru: **dative** + *infinitive*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; en: **Subject** + ***‘be’ conjugational form + ‘to’*** + *infinitive*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `где `&lt;b&gt;`ему`&lt;/b&gt;&lt;i&gt;` быть`&lt;/i&gt;`?` :: `where `&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;`is`&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;` he`&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;` to`&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;i&gt;` be`&lt;/i&gt;`?`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the scheme above is just a clue to grasp that pattern. The modalities can differ: of a Russian phrase and of its English 'analogue' deduced through that scheme.  &#xD;&#xA;If there is just *‘dative + infinitive’* in the clause, without a modal adverbial expressing the modality explicitly, &#xD;&#xA;the general impact on the meaning of a clause seems to be the following: &#xD;&#xA;it makes a message extra-personal, as if actions (denoted by *inf.*) do not depend on actors (denoted by *dat.*) and are determined by something else. &#xD;&#xA;In case of *non-interrogative clauses* it can be formulated as the modality of a destined fact (action).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**examples**  &#xD;&#xA;`Саду цвесть` — *The garden to blow*  &#xD;&#xA;`Чему быть, того не миновать.` — *What is to be can’t be escaped.*  &#xD;&#xA;`Четвёртому Риму не бывать!` — *(I spell) The Forth Rome not to come into being!* or *The Forth Rome shall not come into being!*  &#xD;&#xA;`Кому идти за пивом?` — *Who is/will be 'the chosen' to go to buy some beer?*  &#xD;&#xA;`Зачем ему приходить сюда?` — *Why is he to come here?* *What’s the need of/for his coming here?*  &#xD;&#xA;`Откуда мне знать?` — *How do I know?* *Who/What could make me informed?* — Obviously none!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*BTW*  &#xD;&#xA;`было` makes all in the past tense:  &#xD;&#xA;`Мне(2) нужно `*`было`*`(1) позвонить(3).`  &#xD;&#xA;`It `*`was`*` necessary(1) for me(2) to make a phone call(3).` ('parsing' in English)  &#xD;&#xA; *I had to make a phone call.* (a translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;*I suspect the construction could be theorized as some non-indicative mood. But I answered without knowing the (historical/theoretical) backgrounds for ‘dative+infinitive’ in Russian — I’m sure that background is interesting and helpful, should someone provide it…  &#xD;&#xA;[see also (in Ruusian)](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6#2311)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="eeaadaae-4503-40e1-b647-ce7ac094ae68" CreationDate="2015-06-30T16:43:10.453" UserId="5582" Text="Yet another option for a tattooed proverb: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Со щитом или на щите.&#xA;&#xA;I believe it originates from a wish or a mandate to warriors to come home with a shield or on a shield. Losing a shield in battle was a dishonour. Dead warriors were carried on their shield. &#xA;&#xA;So it means coming home either alive, victorious and honored, or dead. And the idea behind is that honor and some principles are above all, including life. Dropping ones shield and fleeing from challenges of life is worse than death. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="946dc82f-52a7-4722-aabb-a7b41b947b22" CreationDate="2015-06-30T16:50:42.943" UserId="5582" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Yet another option for a tattooed proverb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Со щитом или на щите.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it originates from a wish or a mandate to warriors to come home with a shield or on a shield. Losing a shield in battle was a dishonour, because it usually meant fleeing from the battlefield. Dead warriors were carried on their shield. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means coming home either alive, victorious and honored, or dead. The more general idea behind is that honor and some principles are above all, including life. Dropping ones shield and fleeing from challenges of life is worse than death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb expresses an intention to struggle and never give up to the upcoming troubles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9043" RevisionGUID="24d9d9e0-7114-4eb3-aa58-8a3861c981c6" CreationDate="2015-06-30T17:00:11.563" UserId="5582" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Yet another option for a tattooed proverb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Со щитом или на щите (Russian)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it originates from a wish or a mandate to warriors to come home with a shield or on a shield. Losing a shield in battle was a dishonour, because it usually meant fleeing from the battlefield. Dead warriors were carried on their shield. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means coming home either alive, victorious and honored, or dead. The more general idea behind is that honor and some principles are above all, including life. Dropping ones shield and fleeing from challenges of life is worse than death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proverb expresses an intention to struggle and never give up to the upcoming troubles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: wow, this has an [ancient origin][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aut cum scuta, ant in scuta (Latin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_wingwords/2563/%D0%A1%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21850" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="622f026f-d9f0-4600-a28d-2691292e7ff4" CreationDate="2015-06-30T21:04:01.883" UserId="5582" Comment="более детальный заголовок, прошлые метки не соответствовали вопросу" Text="What is the Russian translation for these proverbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21851" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="622f026f-d9f0-4600-a28d-2691292e7ff4" CreationDate="2015-06-30T21:04:01.883" UserId="5582" Comment="более детальный заголовок, прошлые метки не соответствовали вопросу" Text="|перевод|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21852" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="622f026f-d9f0-4600-a28d-2691292e7ff4" CreationDate="2015-06-30T21:04:01.883" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 3680, 97 edit id of 640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="c219dd41-2dde-47ba-bb2e-55f608b7c1ed" CreationDate="2015-07-01T10:36:52.050" UserId="5675" Text="Imagine an instance where you have at least three people - for example, a teacher, and two students who share the same first name. The teacher wishes to speak to one student and calls them by the short form of their name. However, since both students respond to this name, is it acceptable for the teacher to use the student's short name + patronymic to identify them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing a novel set in Russia and would like to get the name use correct. However, there are just too many Sashas. Being able to use Sasha Ivanovich and Sasha Fedorovich would be very useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="c219dd41-2dde-47ba-bb2e-55f608b7c1ed" CreationDate="2015-07-01T10:36:52.050" UserId="5675" Text="Can Russian diminutive names be used in combination with the patronymic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="c219dd41-2dde-47ba-bb2e-55f608b7c1ed" CreationDate="2015-07-01T10:36:52.050" UserId="5675" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9046" RevisionGUID="82e3066b-bd64-4ec9-9c6c-d4ad931e5ad7" CreationDate="2015-07-01T10:51:29.360" UserId="4801" Text="No, this would be really uncommon. In your scenario a teacher will generally use a pupil's last name - *Sasha Petrov*, *Sasha Ivanov*. Patronyms are very rare at schools and uncommon in higher education institutions when someone refers to students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="fdc1e1e0-87a6-48ef-8057-631fd16b437f" CreationDate="2015-07-01T10:54:54.670" UserId="4379" Text="Generally, no. It sounds weird to use Russian diminutive names with the patronymic. However, they can be used just well with last names. And to my experience, this is what teachers usually do when there're namesakes in the classroom. For example, `Саша Иванов и Саша Сидоров`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9048" RevisionGUID="211abe68-85da-4240-82bc-a83d96948922" CreationDate="2015-07-01T12:16:50.780" UserId="5008" Text="Name + Patronymic = polite form (not suitable for children anyway). Diminutive name cannot be used with a (partially) polite form except as a (stupid) joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diminutive name + last name is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. If you feel you have too many &quot;Sashas&quot; you could choose some other Russian name for your story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.P.S. I remember a real life story told by a well-known Russian actor Alexander Pankratov-Cherniy. He was studying acting course together with his full namesake  another Sasha Pankratov. So their profs used to call them &quot;Sasha Cherniy&quot; (Sasha Black) and &quot;Sasha Beliy&quot; (Sasha White) because one was brunette while the other was blond. So later he even changed his last name from &quot;Pankratov&quot; to &quot;Pankratov-Cherniy&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="c7cc91a8-180a-4f24-a076-9ac493f4c648" CreationDate="2015-07-01T12:27:18.670" UserId="551" Comment="Made the title more explicit" Text="How would April 17, 2015 be written in Russian, or 4.17.2015?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21861" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="c7cc91a8-180a-4f24-a076-9ac493f4c648" CreationDate="2015-07-01T12:27:18.670" UserId="551" Comment="Made the title more explicit" Text="How to write the date (April 17, 2015) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="0367019d-de67-4a68-8ab4-0f2bc376d267" CreationDate="2015-07-01T13:23:07.897" UserId="5560" Text="During a decade and a half of my regular education the usual way to call students was by their last names. First names can be used in 'chamber' classes: trainings, courses, in-corporative education… When there are 'too many Sashas' several ways exist to resolve the collision: using last names, (full) first names with either patronymics or last names, different forms of the same (first) name — diminutives (which can be many) and a full form. In such cases it’s a matter of a mutual agreement (an explicit one, as a rule) — which form is applied to which person. E. g. a young person can be called `Саша`, an older one — `Александр` or `Александр Иванович`.  &#xD;&#xA;*BTW* using diminutives requires special conditions. Unlike for English *Mike*, calling a person `Миша` instead of full `Михаил` or `Михаил Иванович` should be sanctioned either by common social practices/conventions or by that `Михаил`; in the last case one should be 'granted' to use `Миша` for `Михаил [Иванович]` explicitly, no matter the rest of the world uses but `Миша` for him. (Perhaps, in this para, I idealized the real world a little to make explanations short.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sasha* can be used in school but in higher education it would be a special case for me.  &#xD;&#xA;NB. I was a student in the previous century. Modern practices can differ, i. e. I admit that now there can exist institutes/universities where *Sasha* is pretty OK in general but not that old practices disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;As for your question proper, *diminutive+patronymic* can be used — exceptionally, like exotica, probably with a tint of humour, for such combinations can sound like a joke in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="6b6dc65b-a3fa-4ac9-9606-f4d4d1e6d095" CreationDate="2015-07-01T14:38:32.430" UserId="5605" Text="В России короткие имена в сочетании с отчеством ни в школе, ни в высших учебных заведениях, ни на работе не используются. Называть персонажей романа Саша Иванович или Саша Федорович было бы не реалистично и смешно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9049" RevisionGUID="40de7e33-9ceb-4a3e-8162-512c94414e65" CreationDate="2015-07-01T15:25:35.427" UserId="5560" Comment="upd" Text="During a decade and a half of my regular education the usual way to call students was by their last names. First names can be used in 'chamber' classes: trainings, courses, in-corporative education… When there are 'too many Sashas' several ways exist to resolve the collision: using last names, (full) first names with either patronymics or last names, different forms of the same (first) name — diminutives (which can be many) and a full form. In such cases it’s a matter of a mutual agreement (an explicit one, as a rule) — which form is applied to which person. E. g. a young person can be called `Саша`, an older one — `Александр` or `Александр Иванович`.  &#xD;&#xA;*BTW* using diminutives requires special conditions. Unlike for English *Mike*, calling a person `Миша` instead of full `Михаил` or `Михаил Иванович` should be sanctioned either by common social practices/conventions or by that `Михаил`; in the last case one should be 'granted' to use `Миша` for `Михаил [Иванович]` explicitly, no matter the rest of the world uses but `Миша` for him. (Perhaps, in this para, I idealized the real world a little to make explanations short.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sasha* can be used in school but in higher education it would be a special case for me.  &#xD;&#xA;NB. I was a student in the previous century. Modern practices can differ, i. e. I admit that now there can exist institutes/universities where *Sasha* is pretty OK in general but not that old practices disappear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;As for your question proper, *diminutive+patronymic* can be used — exceptionally, like exotica, probably with a tint of humour, for such combinations can sound like a joke in Russian. [upd] Also it can be used in a pleading manner to seek someone’s assistance, rarely as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="4c538f86-f7f7-4049-a065-cd0e7f287f5f" CreationDate="2015-07-01T19:03:00.727" UserId="5678" Comment="added english translation" Text="В России короткие имена в сочетании с отчеством ни в школе, ни в высших учебных заведениях, ни на работе не используются. Называть персонажей романа Саша Иванович или Саша Федорович было бы не реалистично и смешно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, short names are not used in conjunction with patronymics, neither in school, nor in the more advanced educational institutions, nor at work. Calling the characters in the novel Sasha Ivanovich or Sasha Fedorowich would be unrealistic and funny." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21867" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9050" RevisionGUID="4c538f86-f7f7-4049-a065-cd0e7f287f5f" CreationDate="2015-07-01T19:03:00.727" Comment="Proposed by 5678 approved by 2060, 487 edit id of 641" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="7b0dc30a-5e1d-49ae-a5b9-c24811a910d9" CreationDate="2015-07-01T20:16:18.527" UserId="4905" Text="I'm native Russian speaker who left the motherland for good about 15 years ago. I'm slowly losing the feel of the language and oftentimes can't determine whether what I see is a mistake or not. For example, in the quote below, is comma before the first 'ни' correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждому из нас природой бесплатно дается некоторое количество дури, которой можно пользоваться, но которую нельзя, ни продать, ни скурить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="7b0dc30a-5e1d-49ae-a5b9-c24811a910d9" CreationDate="2015-07-01T20:16:18.527" UserId="4905" Text="Excessive punctuation in modern Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9051" RevisionGUID="7b0dc30a-5e1d-49ae-a5b9-c24811a910d9" CreationDate="2015-07-01T20:16:18.527" UserId="4905" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9052" RevisionGUID="b7e87ea3-bbc0-4a6f-89a4-cea0a548f1a6" CreationDate="2015-07-01T20:45:21.750" UserId="134" Text="No, you don't need a comma before the first *ни*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9045" RevisionGUID="cdec15c8-e2d5-4803-a8a1-a2741fd9450f" CreationDate="2015-07-01T22:05:41.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/616367095975165952" />
  <row Id="21873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="433e6441-d77a-4b02-bfbf-298fab3cad1a" CreationDate="2015-07-01T23:21:04.323" UserId="5518" Text="I'm looking at some example sentences with reflexive verbs and I've seen the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я часто встречаюсь с друзьями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you also say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я часто встречаю друзей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how would this change the meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="433e6441-d77a-4b02-bfbf-298fab3cad1a" CreationDate="2015-07-01T23:21:04.323" UserId="5518" Text="встречается vs. встречать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="433e6441-d77a-4b02-bfbf-298fab3cad1a" CreationDate="2015-07-01T23:21:04.323" UserId="5518" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="bfc05bdd-22a8-4201-8960-12846a20b75c" CreationDate="2015-07-02T01:49:19.923" UserId="5560" Text="Those sentences are not equal in meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я часто встречаюсь с друзьями.`** The usual interpretation is about frequent meetings with existing friends. Potentially it can also mean *I often run across my [existing] friends.*  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я часто встречаю друзей.`** I feel the lack of context to interpret this definitely. But now the first my interpretation is *I often run across my [existing] friends.* Also I can understand it as *I often meet/run across people who becomes my new friends.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`встречать` can also mean *to go to an airport or station to meet, welcome and assist someone with their arrival*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21877" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="b336acbb-1e0e-4cd7-a9a1-5c03be9fc088" CreationDate="2015-07-02T01:52:33.813" UserId="5560" Comment="header formal correction (infinitives for both verbs)" Text="встречаться vs. встречать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21878" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9053" RevisionGUID="b336acbb-1e0e-4cd7-a9a1-5c03be9fc088" CreationDate="2015-07-02T01:52:33.813" Comment="Proposed by 5560 approved by 5518 edit id of 642" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="b0aba19c-0f5f-421f-ac38-cc6940ba5d25" CreationDate="2015-07-02T03:25:14.820" UserId="5560" Comment="grammar impr. and update" Text="Those sentences are not equal in meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я часто встречаюсь с друзьями.`** The usual interpretation is about frequent meetings with existing friends. Potentially it can also mean *I often run across my [existing] friends.*  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я часто встречаю друзей.`** I feel the lack of context to interpret this definitely. But now my first interpretation is *I often run across my [existing] friends.* Also I can understand it as *I often meet/run across people who becomes my new friends.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`встречать` can also mean *to go to an airport or station to meet, welcome and assist someone with their arrival*.  &#xD;&#xA;[upd] However, with this meaning I’d rather say `Я часто езжу встречать друзей`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9055" RevisionGUID="4ddf65f6-28ab-4ac5-84d0-19b548bd614e" CreationDate="2015-07-02T14:19:19.417" UserId="3595" Text="I would stay away from the proverbs. A quote from an iconic song is not as bad as a proverb. For instance, in line with the mood of your choices, consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If it wasn't for bad luck, &#xD;&#xA;    I wouldn't have no luck at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from Albert King's song called Born Under a Bad Sign. It's not a very famous song, so when someone reads it for the first time it strikes with its interesting word play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, you could go for a Russian song with meaning or a significance, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пожелай мне удачи в бою, пожелай мне &#xD;&#xA;    Не остаться в этой траве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a slightly modified quote from an important song by a band Kino, called Группа Крови. There's something gritty and visceral in the line &quot;Не остаться в этой траве&quot;. It resonates even with people who didn't hear the song at all. You could think of something along these lines and find a good quote matching your mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the significance of a tattoo is exactly that: capture your state of mind now. Later on when looking at it you'll remember how you felt that day when you inked it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9054" RevisionGUID="6b0663b9-240a-4da4-a543-c7e6e95c4d99" CreationDate="2015-07-02T16:48:38.773" UserId="5560" Comment="deeper dig" Text="Those sentences are not equal in meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я часто встречаюсь с друзьями.`** The usual interpretation is about frequent meetings with existing friends. Potentially it can also mean *I often run across my [existing] friends.*  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я часто встречаю друзей.`** I feel the lack of context to interpret this definitely. But now my first interpretation is *I often run across my [existing] friends.* Also I can understand it as *I often meet/run across people who becomes my [new] friends.*  &#xD;&#xA;[**upd**] There’s one trick with the last interpretation: in it *‘friends’* can be *‘friends in the actual situation’*, not *permanent friends* as in other interpretations. *Friends* as opposed to *enemies* and synonymous to *allies*. [**/upd**]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`встречать` can also mean *to go to an airport or station to meet, welcome and assist someone with their arrival*.  &#xD;&#xA;[upd] However, with this meaning I’d rather say `Я часто езжу встречать друзей`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9056" RevisionGUID="73d2b214-5159-4f7c-9c32-d36f3cd55ca8" CreationDate="2015-07-02T17:31:57.877" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Я часто встречаюсь с друзьями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often make planned upon meetings with my friends. The friends also make effort to meet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я часто встречаю друзей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often run across my friends. The meetings are not planned before. Alternatively it can mean that you often wait friends from plane/train/other trips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Встретить means either run across or wait for arrival (from plane, train etc). Встречаться means to meet at a planned before meeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a finger rule, встречаться means effort from the both sides, встретить means a random event or effort from only one side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9047" RevisionGUID="a125178a-7c0d-4060-aeb7-0b503a4dbe66" CreationDate="2015-07-03T04:40:48.853" UserId="4379" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Generally, no. It sounds weird to use Russian diminutive names with the patronymic. However, they can be used just well with last names. And in my experience, this is what teachers usually do when there're namesakes in the classroom. For example, `Саша Иванов и Саша Сидоров`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="e6f1c98b-32cd-459e-bd83-e2e2cc67f194" CreationDate="2015-07-03T23:40:38.270" UserId="5691" Text="Let me start with some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leningrad / Ленинград (today Saint Petersburg / Санкт-Петербург)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leninsk / Ленинск&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stalingrad / Сталингрaд​ (today Volgograd / Волгогрaд)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gorky / Горький (today Nizhniy Novgorod / Нижний Новгород)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So apparently, if we are to name a city after a person, we have three choices: add the suffix -grad, add the suffix -insk (possibly with truncating a few letters of the original name, such as Leninsk instead of Lenininsk), or not modifying the name at all, such as Gorky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, **what are the rules for this, if any?** Does it depend on what letter the person's name ends with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="e6f1c98b-32cd-459e-bd83-e2e2cc67f194" CreationDate="2015-07-03T23:40:38.270" UserId="5691" Text="What are the rules, if any, for naming a city after a person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9064" RevisionGUID="e6f1c98b-32cd-459e-bd83-e2e2cc67f194" CreationDate="2015-07-03T23:40:38.270" UserId="5691" Text="|существительные|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9065" RevisionGUID="37485ca5-364b-4e59-b1b7-73f00a26a35a" CreationDate="2015-07-04T05:53:57.307" UserId="5008" Text="In the times of Soviet Union they sometimes follow local rules. Consider the following cities: Stalingrad (Russia), Stalino (Ukraine), Stalinabad (Tajikistan), Leningrad (Russia), Leninvaros (Hungary), Leninabad (Azerbaijan, Tajikistan), Leninakan (Armenia) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also standard suffixes like -sk for cities, e.g. Leninsk, Sverdlovsk, or -o for villages, e.g. Lenino, which one could encounter many times on the map. Yet I don't think there are truly strict rules for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About Gorkiy vs Gorkovsk. Well, I can't imagine why they chose the first variant  except for the better sounding. For example, I know the village (station) which everyone calls simply Maximka (after Maxim Gorkiy) despite of its official name Gorkovskiy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="c583a51c-78cb-4f3a-a82f-dd3bf25fdaac" CreationDate="2015-07-04T08:35:14.200" UserId="134" Text="The rules have changed with time: *Ярославль, Борисов, Сталино, Ильичёвск, Ерофей Павлович* etc. all named after people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main idea is mostly to attach a possessive suffix to the person's name to form an adjective, and make it agree with assumed generic name (*деревня, город, село*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms of adjectives in *-ск* are now the most productive pattern for toponyms in Russian, despite the fact they are not perceived as adjectives at all anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_-Ин-, -ов-, -ев-_ are still used as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_-Ь, -ль_ are not productive anymore, either as possessive suffixes in general or as toponymic suffixes in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In XX century the tendency was to leave the person's name as is: *Романов-на-Мурмане, Фрунзе, Орджоникидзе, Молотов, Черненко, Брежнев, Устинов*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9066" RevisionGUID="04abcc50-fd7e-455e-aa98-f932f425055b" CreationDate="2015-07-04T11:47:34.643" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The rules have been changing with time: *Ярославль, Борисов, Сталино, Ильичёвск, Ерофей Павлович* etc. all named after people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main idea is to attach a possessive suffix to the person's name to form an adjective, and make it agree with assumed generic name (*деревня, город, село* etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms of adjectives in *-ск* are nowadays the most productive pattern for toponyms in Russian, despite the fact they are not perceived as adjectives at all anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_-Ин-, -ов-, -ев-_ are still used as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_-Ь, -ль_ are not productive anymore, either as possessive suffixes in general or as toponymic suffixes in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the XX century the tendency was to leave the person's name as is: *Романов-на-Мурмане, Фрунзе, Орджоникидзе, Молотов, Черненко, Брежнев, Устинов*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="ca3778b5-60ba-43be-95de-81e636a79b16" CreationDate="2015-07-04T12:36:18.657" UserId="5693" Text="I want to improve my Russian language skills (esp. speaking). Could you please post any useful online sources (for example: language chats, poscasts, videos..)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="ca3778b5-60ba-43be-95de-81e636a79b16" CreationDate="2015-07-04T12:36:18.657" UserId="5693" Text="where can I learn everyday Russian for free?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="ca3778b5-60ba-43be-95de-81e636a79b16" CreationDate="2015-07-04T12:36:18.657" UserId="5693" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="21b7d459-7070-49e0-9aa2-04ab418b1027" CreationDate="2015-07-05T09:40:22.837" UserId="5652" Text="I was very pleased to discover Pushkin's Дружба on [Russian StackExchange][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что дружба? Лeгкий пыл похмелья,  What is friendship? A slight fire of the carousal,&#xD;&#xA;    Обиды вольный разговор,           The insult's unrestrained talk,&#xD;&#xA;    Обмен тщеславия, безделья         An interchange of vanity and idleness,&#xD;&#xA;    Иль покровительства позор.        Or favour's stain.&#xD;&#xA;(translation from [user4419802][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help to improve the way I read the poem. Specifically :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) is there any record available online ? I only found [this one][3] but the music bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Are the following accents correctly placed ? What's the accentuation of безделья ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что дру́жба? Ле́гкий пыл похме́лья,&#xD;&#xA;    Оби́ды во́льный разгово́р,&#xD;&#xA;    Обме́н тщесла́вия, безделья&#xD;&#xA;    Иль покрови́тельства позо́р.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) What's the rythmic pattern of the poem ? Is there a law explaining how each verse has to be cut in several parts ? Where are the [caesurae][4] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8346/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-by-pushkin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHV9pkCyR0Q&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesura" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="21b7d459-7070-49e0-9aa2-04ab418b1027" CreationDate="2015-07-05T09:40:22.837" UserId="5652" Text="about Pushkin's Дружба : how to read it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="21b7d459-7070-49e0-9aa2-04ab418b1027" CreationDate="2015-07-05T09:40:22.837" UserId="5652" Text="|произношение|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9069" RevisionGUID="898d1dc6-6693-4e03-936d-e4ff7145dfcb" CreationDate="2015-07-05T10:15:15.820" UserId="4560" Text="`безде́лья`, as the rhyming scheme suggests. The pattern is iambic tetrameter. Caesurae aren't integral to Russian syllabotonic verse; other than the one after `дружба`, they're largely a matter of individual interpretation by the reciter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding that recording, it's not only music that ought to bother you. It's an example of this sometimes-serendipitous, mostly-cringeworthy modern Russian trend of trying to make everything pop-culture-y. [Here's][1] my take — my vocal expression and the audio quality are what they are, but I've at least tried to emulate the classical Russian manner of reading poetry aloud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3KRVVWg0ftuNTd0alFQTDJfdWc/view?usp=sharing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9070" RevisionGUID="2b76f5da-6701-41a6-9846-a034f0141f9b" CreationDate="2015-07-05T11:53:52.110" UserId="5008" Text="Considering metrics, here Pushkin uses 4-iambus as he usually did (actually, he nearly always sticked to 4-iambus or 4-trochee). So at his home field he's absolutely brilliant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main scheme is iamb-iamb-pyrrhic-iamb yet the first line starts with the spondee while the last one mirrors it with the long anacrusis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9070" RevisionGUID="c13b5d7b-fc8e-4aad-b39c-c1d863c95e93" CreationDate="2015-07-05T12:14:26.683" UserId="5008" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="Considering metrics, here Pushkin uses 4-iambus as he usually did (actually, he nearly always sticked to 4-iambus or 4-trochee). So at his home field he's absolutely brilliant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main scheme is iamb-iamb-pyrrhic-iamb yet the first line starts with the spondee while the last one mirrors it with the long anacrusis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caesurae is not a mandatory tool in Russian poetry. Usually each line is read at once except sentence's border (here the first line has a strict caesurae due to the question sign) with a full stop right after it. To save reader's breath Russian poets widely use pyrrhic so the voice goes low allowing one to breathe while the tempo never slows down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9071" RevisionGUID="f73e261f-7a47-4a36-be4e-b913bdb62718" CreationDate="2015-07-05T12:31:28.380" UserId="4925" Text="So, this has been bothering me for a long time, but what case should you use when dealing with two nouns in a row. Like if you were to say &quot;x is y&quot; (Джон актер). But, if the direct object is animate, like an actor is, wouldn't it be &quot;Джон актерa&quot;? Same with &quot;Я твой друг&quot;. Since friend is an animate thing, why isn't it &quot;Я твойего друга&quot;? What is the correct way to say that &quot;x is y&quot;, even if the y is animate!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9071" RevisionGUID="f73e261f-7a47-4a36-be4e-b913bdb62718" CreationDate="2015-07-05T12:31:28.380" UserId="4925" Text="Accusative or Nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9071" RevisionGUID="f73e261f-7a47-4a36-be4e-b913bdb62718" CreationDate="2015-07-05T12:31:28.380" UserId="4925" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9072" RevisionGUID="d8e2e20d-edb9-4b7f-aabf-243d86dbe72f" CreationDate="2015-07-05T12:38:43.360" UserId="1236" Text="There are no direct objects in your examples, `актер` and `твой друг` are actually predicates or, to be more exact, nominal parts of the compound nominal predicate. The verb 'to be' which is usually omitted in Russian when it is in the present tense is intransitive, so it cannot have direct objects. The nominal part of the compound nominal predicate is usually in the Nominative case, never in Accusative, so `Джон актер.` and `Я твой друг.` are absolutely correct sentences and that's the only way you can say it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="cfcd9139-0a52-4ced-9d39-585a6becaa9c" CreationDate="2015-07-05T13:11:10.040" UserId="194" Text="***Джон актер***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John is actor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Джон актера*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John did something to the actor (saw? beated? fucked?)&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, fucked if you add some mimics - because you likely do not want to pronounce the f..-word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="886b3505-40b7-48e2-aa4f-14a66ededa97" CreationDate="2015-07-05T13:18:04.443" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="***Джон актёр***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John is actor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Джон актёра*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John did something to the actor (saw? beated? fucked?)&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, fucked if you add some mimics - because you likely do not want to pronounce the f..-word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="fdb92af1-5c99-4d73-ab25-6b4347aec729" CreationDate="2015-07-05T14:48:51.760" UserId="1236" Text="Недавно один мой знакомый поляк, увидев русское предложение «У тебя в ванной сидит ящерица», очень удивился: «Как же так, почему „сидит“? Она ведь лежит, и по-польски тоже говорится „лежит“». Меня такой вопрос застал врасплох, и я ответил ему, что если она живая, то по-русски надо говорить, что она сидит. Позже я стал вспоминать, какие животные в русском всегда «сидят» – живые насекомые всегда сидят, а вот крокодилы? Наверно, если греются на солнышке, то лежат, в засаде сидят все, даже люди, ну а на берегу, в речке крокодилы сидят или лежат? А змеи? Сколько я не вспоминал, я не вспомнил ни одного случая, когда бы я слышал, чтобы кто-то хоть как-то называл то, что делает змея, скажем, в траве, обычно глагол просто опускается: «Там под кустом змея!» или «Осторожно, тут змея!» Так что же делает змея, сидит или лежит? Ну, и про крокодилов тоже было бы интересно ваше мнение услышать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="fdb92af1-5c99-4d73-ab25-6b4347aec729" CreationDate="2015-07-05T14:48:51.760" UserId="1236" Text="Что делает змея?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9074" RevisionGUID="fdb92af1-5c99-4d73-ab25-6b4347aec729" CreationDate="2015-07-05T14:48:51.760" UserId="1236" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="27be7b70-326b-4e10-9a4e-43202dd1d09c" CreationDate="2015-07-05T15:24:16.623" UserId="5652" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I was very pleased to discover Pushkin's *Дружба* on [Russian StackExchange][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что дружба? Лeгкий пыл похмелья,  What is friendship? A slight fire of the carousal,&#xD;&#xA;    Обиды вольный разговор,           The insult's unrestrained talk,&#xD;&#xA;    Обмен тщеславия, безделья         An interchange of vanity and idleness,&#xD;&#xA;    Иль покровительства позор.        Or favour's stain.&#xD;&#xA;(translation from [user4419802][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help to improve the way I read the poem. Specifically :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) is there any record available online ? I only found [this one][3] but the music bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Are the following accents correctly placed ? What's the accentuation of безделья ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что дру́жба? Ле́гкий пыл похме́лья,&#xD;&#xA;    Оби́ды во́льный разгово́р,&#xD;&#xA;    Обме́н тщесла́вия, безделья&#xD;&#xA;    Иль покрови́тельства позо́р.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) What's the rythmic pattern of the poem ? Is there a law explaining how each verse has to be cut in several parts ? Where are the [caesurae][4] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8346/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-by-pushkin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHV9pkCyR0Q&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesura" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="6a1ebdec-160e-4ded-bdc0-d452f0ebd7f1" CreationDate="2015-07-05T16:17:17.127" UserId="4925" Text="At first, I wash taught that ещё means &quot;yet&quot;. However, as I get deeper in grammar, I am seeing that sometimes it means &quot; more&quot; or even &quot;else&quot;! What is the actual meaning, and how can I differentiate between the meanings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="6a1ebdec-160e-4ded-bdc0-d452f0ebd7f1" CreationDate="2015-07-05T16:17:17.127" UserId="4925" Text="The Meaning of &quot;Ещё&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="6a1ebdec-160e-4ded-bdc0-d452f0ebd7f1" CreationDate="2015-07-05T16:17:17.127" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="cdfaeb9b-f707-42dc-8a4e-99481ef2b55c" CreationDate="2015-07-05T17:45:24.997" UserId="5288" Text="Змея — однозначно **лежит**.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот на камне, пригревшись на солнышке, лежит змея.&quot; — так сказал бы я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...он уже достиг раздавив змею в пути лежащую...&quot;  [Радищев. Письмо к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; другу, жительствующему в Тобольске, по долгу звания своего (1790)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь еще интересно вспомнить мультфильм, Песня Львенка и Черепашки:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я на солнышко гляжу,\ \ Всё лежу и лежу,\ \ И на солнышко гляжу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="e8a3d4b6-08d0-4727-a332-7bbee68bff01" CreationDate="2015-07-05T17:50:57.017" UserId="5696" Text="**Ещё** means delaying something in terms of time or in terms of material things. If you familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like also to add ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить ...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="49ab9161-e996-4afc-99d0-da630937528b" CreationDate="2015-07-05T17:51:15.090" UserId="5288" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Змея — однозначно **лежит**.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот на камне, пригревшись на солнышке, лежит змея.&quot; — так сказал бы я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...он уже достиг раздавив змею в пути **лежащую**...&quot;  [Радищев. Письмо к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; другу, жительствующему в Тобольске, по долгу звания своего (1790)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;К самому корню древа кесарева **прилег** ядовитый змей, на пагубу юных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отраслей.&quot; [Ф. В. Булгарин. Димитрий Самозванец (1830)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь еще интересно вспомнить мультфильм, Песня Львенка и Черепашки:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я на солнышко гляжу,\ \ Всё лежу и лежу,\ \ И на солнышко гляжу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="e6ad5cd3-9dca-478c-aad9-b9233042d6ea" CreationDate="2015-07-05T17:56:04.747" UserId="5696" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Ещё** means delaying something in terms of time or in terms of material things. If you familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="14891cb0-1ad9-44a3-98a5-5c4de45769a5" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:04:34.740" UserId="5696" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="**Ещё** grants the next word the meaning of delaying in terms of time or in terms of material things. If you familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="11362c09-7b40-4a5d-940d-8732d60de0fb" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:12:47.673" UserId="5696" Comment="tag 'meanings' added" Text="|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21939" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9075" RevisionGUID="11362c09-7b40-4a5d-940d-8732d60de0fb" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:12:47.673" Comment="Proposed by 5696 approved by 1329, 5008 edit id of 643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="d71c757e-d0dc-4afd-a3fa-67d8db1fe65e" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:18:07.970" UserId="5288" Comment="added 604 characters in body" Text="Змея — однозначно **лежит**.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот на камне, пригревшись на солнышке, лежит змея.&quot; — так сказал бы я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...он уже достиг раздавив змею в пути **лежащую**...&quot;  [Радищев. Письмо к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; другу, жительствующему в Тобольске, по долгу звания своего (1790)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;К самому корню древа кесарева **прилег** ядовитый змей, на пагубу юных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отраслей.&quot; [Ф. В. Булгарин. Димитрий Самозванец (1830)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В сербских загадках огонь представляется в виде змия: «змея **лежит**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где змея лежит, там трава не растет».&quot; [Ф.И. Буслаев. Эпическая поэзия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1851)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь еще интересно вспомнить мультфильм, Песня Львенка и Черепашки:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я на солнышко гляжу,\ \ Всё лежу и лежу,\ \ И на солнышко гляжу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если ящерица на спине, то она &quot;лежит на спине&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черепаха, ящерица, змея есть пресмыкающиеся. То есть при(с)мыкают себя к земле, к тому, по чему ползут. Так что логика в польском сказать про ящерицу, что &quot;она лежит&quot; в траве, есть. В русском в определенном контексте такое тоже есть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Под этот луч то **прилегла ящерица**, зеленая, как ярь&quot; [И. И.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лажечников. Басурман (1838)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черепаха лежит на брюхе. Может ли она сидеть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="7a9a82e4-6c15-4adb-a515-436470253935" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:20:39.580" UserId="5696" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="The explanation of word **Ещё** cannot be simply expressed.&#xD;&#xA;In short it grants the next word the meaning of delaying in terms of time or in terms of material things. If you familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also take a note, sentences *Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого* and *Я хотел(а) бы добавить ещё этого* having different meanings. The last one means that in addition to what there is already present I would like to add also this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9073" RevisionGUID="520cb389-1831-4088-82ab-1d4b00311b40" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:24:13.657" UserId="194" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="***Джон актёр***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John is an actor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Джон актёра*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;John did something to the actor (saw? beated? fucked?)&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, fucked if you add some mimics - because you likely do not want to pronounce the f..-word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="b0e716cf-da49-4630-af1d-12c8e44f7a19" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:26:43.347" UserId="5696" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="The explanation of word **ещё** cannot be simply expressed.&#xD;&#xA;In short it grants the next word the meaning of delaying in terms of time or in terms of material things. It is like when the instance of something was already mentioned, and the word **ещё** represents another instance of something in point of view of saying person. If you are familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also take a note, sentences *Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого* and *Я хотел(а) бы добавить ещё этого* having different meanings. The last one means that in addition to what there is already present I would like to add also this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9076" RevisionGUID="5fe74223-1fa9-42ff-8299-a79413e4987b" CreationDate="2015-07-05T18:43:39.307" UserId="5288" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="Змея — однозначно **лежит**.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот на камне, пригревшись на солнышке, лежит змея.&quot; — так сказал бы я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...он уже достиг раздавив змею в пути **лежащую**...&quot;  [Радищев. Письмо к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; другу, жительствующему в Тобольске, по долгу звания своего (1790)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;К самому корню древа кесарева **прилег** ядовитый змей, на пагубу юных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отраслей.&quot; [Ф. В. Булгарин. Димитрий Самозванец (1830)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В сербских загадках огонь представляется в виде змия: «змея **лежит**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где змея лежит, там трава не растет».&quot; [Ф.И. Буслаев. Эпическая поэзия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1851)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь еще интересно вспомнить мультфильм, Песня Львенка и Черепашки:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я на солнышко гляжу,\ \ Всё лежу и лежу,\ \ И на солнышко гляжу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если ящерица на спине, то она &quot;лежит на спине&quot;.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черепаха, ящерица, змея есть пресмыкающиеся. То есть при(с)мыкают себя к земле, к тому, по чему ползут. Так что логика в польском сказать про ящерицу, что &quot;она лежит&quot; в траве, есть. В русском в определенном контексте такое тоже есть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Под этот луч то **прилегла ящерица**, зеленая, как ярь&quot; [И. И.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лажечников. Басурман (1838)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черепаха лежит на брюхе. Может ли она сидеть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сидеть, внутри объема (другой смысл, чем в OP):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Человек издали замечал змею, которая обычно сидела в норе, высунув&#xD;&#xA;&gt; голову&quot; [Юрий Трифонов. Утоление жажды (1959-1962)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... ежели ему доведется вместо незлобного голубя посадить в пазуху&#xD;&#xA;&gt; блистательную змею.&quot; [Я.П. Козельский. Философические предложения,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1768 года]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9078" RevisionGUID="b979a8d4-7693-47d9-ab69-02a916e99174" CreationDate="2015-07-05T19:48:42.483" UserId="5605" Text="На берегу и в реке крокодил однозначно лежит. Змея тоже лежит (в то время, когда не ползёт). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="c3cadba0-7c30-4a0d-9659-cc7523a69b86" CreationDate="2015-07-05T23:54:06.867" UserId="62" Text="In the trailer for the latest Terminator film at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui81ZjE-oQQ, at 0:59 Sarah Connor says &quot;если хочешь жить&quot; to a character she's never met before, then at 1:04 when she says his name he replies &quot;ты знаешь кто я?&quot; She then says &quot;Мы ждем тебя...&quot; I'd have thought &quot;если хотите жить,&quot; &quot;Вы знаете кто я,&quot; and &quot;Мы ждем Вас&quot; would be more appropriate on a first meeting between adults. Can someone explain why ты would be okay? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="c3cadba0-7c30-4a0d-9659-cc7523a69b86" CreationDate="2015-07-05T23:54:06.867" UserId="62" Text="Usage of ты instead of вы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9079" RevisionGUID="c3cadba0-7c30-4a0d-9659-cc7523a69b86" CreationDate="2015-07-05T23:54:06.867" UserId="62" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9080" RevisionGUID="18dd579e-e6c2-4774-9ea9-d2398d7c6881" CreationDate="2015-07-06T01:14:17.147" UserId="5698" Text="In a firefight, respecting formalities such as &quot;Вы&quot; would connotate a degree of &quot;hyperfomality&quot; that would be either humorous or imply that the speaker is socially awkward nerdy or overly polite individual. Generally russian language drops into &quot;terse mode&quot; when in combat. The more dangerous the terser it gets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, tho its not the case here, using &quot;Ты&quot; in translated american-set movies is homage to english language lack of ты/вы distinction. It falls on the translator to exercise creative license to figure out where ты or вы is more appropriate based on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9081" RevisionGUID="f8cd51f2-a96d-4580-ae3d-d83283e8d40a" CreationDate="2015-07-06T01:23:19.720" UserId="5698" Text="A lot of the time communicating in street russian is about whats unsaid. It takes many forms. It flavors communication in ways that only can be compared to syncopation in music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The missing bits get derived from the context and/or from non-verbal communication. Facial expression. Tone. Vocalization. Even wider cultural context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Джон актёра&quot; literally means &quot;John did the [male] actor&quot;. Same as in english it might mean intercourse, it just as well might mean homicide, as well as many other things :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9082" RevisionGUID="3e0e455a-71fa-4620-8a55-1f5398b72daa" CreationDate="2015-07-06T01:39:12.673" UserId="5698" Text="Using patronymic name on students isn't all that uncommon. In some short first names it would work too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're writing a novel, you need to be sensitive to the connotation that comes with such use of names. For example it might be appropriate for a high end school. Or a gymnasium of tzar russia. Or at a high end military academy. Probably not in a today middle school :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9083" RevisionGUID="23b7857f-30f3-41c4-baa2-88d8a1182453" CreationDate="2015-07-06T01:46:39.047" UserId="5698" Text="&quot;курто&quot; until it recently became widely used as counterpart to &quot;cool&quot; was used as &quot;very rough&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMP3qQR4EFA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9085" RevisionGUID="4ac81e47-19d8-47d5-bc8b-48d139adc179" CreationDate="2015-07-06T03:58:26.253" UserId="194" Text="They are young people, of the same age, and it is totally possible to address by &quot;ты&quot; among such people. Especially if the one who starts such address is a girl. I often get addressed such a way by girls I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, addressing by вы would likely show she *does not want* to do anything with the person except purely official duties (that is speaking as an official person on duty, ex officio, like a police officer, rescuer etc) or that she thinks that he is too old/unattracting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think if he was handicapped or his face not visible she is more likely to use вы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9085" RevisionGUID="d5f60cd4-3b0a-447a-ac8f-fb32ed93bce3" CreationDate="2015-07-06T04:05:42.867" UserId="194" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="They are young people, of the same age, and it is totally possible to address by &quot;ты&quot; among such people. Especially if the one who starts such address is a girl. I often get addressed such a way by girls I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, addressing by вы would likely show she *does not want* to do anything with the person except purely official duties (that is speaking as an official person on duty, ex officio, like a police officer, rescuer etc) or that she thinks that he is too old/unattracting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think if he was handicapped or his face not visible she would be more likely to use вы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9085" RevisionGUID="0241a604-2a6e-4b30-8bdb-fadfdb337614" CreationDate="2015-07-06T04:13:36.463" UserId="194" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="They are young people, of the same age, and it is totally possible to address by &quot;ты&quot; among such people. Especially if the one who starts such address is a girl. I often get addressed such a way by girls I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, addressing by вы would likely show she *does not want* to do anything with the person except purely official duties (that is speaking as an official person on duty, ex officio, like a police officer, rescuer etc) or that she thinks that he is too old/unattracting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think if he was handicapped or his face not visible (such as being in a bike helm or in mask) she would be more likely to use вы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9085" RevisionGUID="437ae74a-6aae-4071-9a4f-4b01bc9de154" CreationDate="2015-07-06T05:04:26.683" UserId="62" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="They are young people, of the same age, and it is totally possible to use &quot;ты&quot; among such people. Especially if the one who starts such an address is a girl. I often get addressed this way by girls I do not know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, addressing by вы would likely show she *does not want* to do anything with the person except purely official duties (that is speaking as an official person on duty, ex officio, like a police officer, rescuer, etc) or that she thinks that he is too old/unattractive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think if he was handicapped or his face was not visible (such as being in a bike helmet or in a mask) she would be more likely to use вы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="b9d6a2dc-bd82-4953-8916-c057bec5cbde" CreationDate="2015-07-06T05:36:20.167" UserId="194" Text="* **Осень** - from PIE ***e̯eson*** - &quot;harvest&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Зима*** - from PIE ***ĝhi̯om*** - &quot;frost, snowy weather&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Весна*** - from PIE ***u̯esr*** - &quot;spring&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Лето*** - etymology is unknown.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9086" RevisionGUID="2f630817-1e10-43fc-81d4-a856348511c2" CreationDate="2015-07-06T05:41:26.977" UserId="194" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="* **Осень** - from PIE ***e̯eson*** - &quot;harvest&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Зима*** - from PIE ***ĝhi̯om*** - &quot;frost, snowy weather&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Весна*** - from PIE ***u̯esr*** - &quot;spring&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Лето*** - etymology is unknown (there is a lot of conjectures).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="ca013077-8935-4168-a159-b059a0880a3d" CreationDate="2015-07-06T07:47:25.290" UserId="5669" Text="`Змея лежит в коробке` - я бы это понял как мертвая змея в коробке или недееспособная на данный момент змея.&#xA;&#xA;`Змея сидит в коробке` - однозначно живя змея в коробке.&#xA;&#xA;По аналогии - `Змея сидит в комнате`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9088" RevisionGUID="db8bbc68-dfd7-4e25-8784-a98d468ca8b8" CreationDate="2015-07-06T07:51:46.150" UserId="551" Text="&quot;Ты&quot; is intrusion in a private space. If people are friends or relatives such intrusion is usually permitted (and &quot;ты&quot; is used), otherwise &quot;вы&quot; is preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of &quot;ты&quot; in &quot;если хочешь жить&quot; implies that there is no time for formalities: concept of &quot;your private space&quot; is now useless, either you die or you allow someone else to tell what you have to do in order to survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically this is what happens to Bilbo when he joins the Dwarves in their quest: he has to forget about handkerchieves and other necessities  of his prior life (including his private space), because now they tread a dangerous road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="1ce8def1-123d-493f-8479-2c1ed24976b6" CreationDate="2015-07-06T07:55:51.580" UserId="5669" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="`Змея лежит в коробке` - я бы это понял как мертвая змея в коробке или недееспособная на данный момент змея.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Змея сидит в коробке` - однозначно живя змея в коробке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По аналогии - `Змея сидит в комнате`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также `Змея сидит в норе`, но при этом `Змея лежит на тропинке` и `У тебя в комнате змея на полу лежит`. Видимо когда речь идет о объемном пространстве живая змея сидит, а мертвая - лежит. А в случае с плоской поверхностью - змея всегда лежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9087" RevisionGUID="a2f59719-9ee4-42ef-ac50-3711514372a8" CreationDate="2015-07-06T08:06:29.867" UserId="5669" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Змея лежит в коробке` - я бы это понял как мертвая змея в коробке или недееспособная на данный момент змея.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Змея сидит в коробке` - однозначно живая змея в коробке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По аналогии - `Змея сидит в комнате`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также `Змея сидит в норе`, но при этом `Змея лежит на тропинке` и `У тебя в комнате змея на полу лежит`. Видимо когда речь идет о объемном пространстве живая змея сидит, а мертвая - лежит. А в случае с плоской поверхностью - змея всегда лежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21965" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9067" RevisionGUID="3748b99b-e0be-4e72-b4b7-7048569dc7f7" CreationDate="2015-07-06T14:10:14.763" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8967],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="214755e6-fa9f-4375-a65c-b99af1f2704b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T16:20:15.210" UserId="5288" Text="Думаю, что фильмы это не лучшее средство для тренировки на слух каждодневного разговорного русского. В фильмах искусственный разговорный язык. Фильмы озвучивают по фразам, эти фразы начитывают с текста. Даже если в фразы вставляют междометия, вводные, просторечные слова, это всё равно читается с текста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фильмы, действительно, помогут вам узнать, **как говорить правильно**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это слабо поможет вам тренировать на слух ежедневный русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я предлагаю слушать радио. Попробуйте. Найдите знакомые фразы в тексте, и послушайте, **как они звучат в непринужденной речи**. Я потратил своё время, написал субтитры, чтобы дать почувствовать, как мы говорим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=911     &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, мы так говорим! :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Понедельник, 6 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.46=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Эльвира Хасаншина -- ведущая этой программы. Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;        Эльвира (И Сергей Доренко. Доброе утро)&#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Чили - чемпионы Южной Америки, поздравляю&#xD;&#xA;=1.18=  Чилийских слушателей, чилийкослушателей... не пониманию, &#xD;&#xA;=1.22=  'Тор', 'Тор' у вас опечатка &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Не каждый может иметь миллионы, но каждый может стремиться &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  пишет 'Кличко и В' 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.28=  были в субботу в Новосибирском зоопарке &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Там больше нет слонов и жирафов &#xD;&#xA;=1.33=  детям понравилось, а я расстроился &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Сообщает Денис Гудков, спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;=1.37=  Пишите нам на Говорит-Москва-точка-ру,&#xD;&#xA;=1.39=  Говорит-Москва-точка-ру, написать в эфир&#xD;&#xA;=1.41=  а также на sms +7 925 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8, 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8&#xD;&#xA;=1.50=  и лента в Твитере &quot;Говорит МСК&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=1.53=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию&#xD;&#xA;=1.56=  о смерти певца&#xD;&#xA;=1.58=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию о смерти.&#xD;&#xA;=2.02=  (и об этом он сказал нам) Да, он сообщил об этом&#xD;&#xA;=2.05=   радиостанции &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  Константин Петров нам пишет &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  ссылаясь на нас же&#xD;&#xA;=2.10=  а, так вот же, значит, вы уже знаете что&#xD;&#xA;=2.14=  был взломан, вероятно, взломан&#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  эээ... сайт, э фестиваля э, эт, Грушинского&#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  (Грушинского) Грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  взломан и на заглавной странице&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  провисело довольно долго сообщение о&#xD;&#xA;=2.25=  том, что убит Макаревич&#xD;&#xA;=2.27=  значит, представитель певца только что&#xD;&#xA;=2.29=  врл... в интервью радиостанции &quot;Говорит-Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  опроверг, опроверг это м... сообщение&#xD;&#xA;=2.34=  вероятно, с... сайт грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  был взломан, ну или кто-то пошутил [? с самолетом ?]&#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  какой-то пьяный админ, что-то такое... &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и так далее. Понимаете, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ээ... скажите, пожалуйста,&#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  Макара похоронил... нет, нет, именно грушинский фестиваль&#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  ээ... похоронил Макара&#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  вероятно, хакер.&#xD;&#xA;=2.53=  Но теперь мы знаем, что...&#xD;&#xA;=2.55=  и вообще говоря, это было похоже на... ..&#xD;&#xA;=2.59=  на хакерскую выходку, несмотря на то, что они&#xD;&#xA;=3.01=  и, в, они проникли на заглавную  страницу,&#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  это было похоже, потому что&#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  если бы это произошло в действительности,&#xD;&#xA;=3.09=  то конечно, МВД бы рапортовало, &#xD;&#xA;=3.11=  и так далее, и так далее,&#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  понимаешь, так что, так что... &#xD;&#xA;=3.13=  (да, и информационные агенства)&#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  конечно-конечно-конечно, но ничего не было.&#xD;&#xA;=3.16=  скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры -- ЗНАЧИТ -- или нет?&#xD;&#xA;=3.20=  Вот у меня вопрос. Простой. &#xD;&#xA;=3.22=  Вообще говоря, слова -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.24=  Дела  -- значат? Символы -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  (Значат.) Значат? (Конечно.) &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  (Они потому наверное, и символы)&#xD;&#xA;=3.30=  Вообще, всё значат. Всё -- значат.&#xD;&#xA;=3.34=  (Да) ну правда...&#xD;&#xA;=3.35=  (я считаю, что да)&#xD;&#xA;=3.37=  Давайте, давайте проголосуем.&#xD;&#xA;=3.38=  Скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры,&#xD;&#xA;=3.39=  я понимаю, что это пятничное, но в субботу&#xD;&#xA;=3.41=  она взорвала нам мозг, и&#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  э, я для себя думал,&#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  поступок Земфиры -- значит?&#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  вообще говоря,&#xD;&#xA;=3.50=  следует ли, поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;=3.51=  с флагом Украины придавать значение?&#xD;&#xA;=3.54=  Да -- 134 21 35&#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  Нет -- 134 21 36&#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  следует ли поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=905    &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-03 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Пятница, 3 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.45=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Анастасия Оношко -- ведущая этой программы. (И Сергей &#xD;&#xA;        Доренко. Доброе утро, Сергей.) Здравствуйте, Анастасия. &#xD;&#xA;        Доброе утро. &#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Говорит 'ДерзкийЮрец'... Доброе утро, говорит 96-ой   &#xD;&#xA;=1.20=  А... это Степан &#xD;&#xA;=1.21=  а я люблю 'Шнура' придаёт... признаётся &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Алексей &#xD;&#xA;=1.25=  так говорит 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.26=  а... м... ещё... &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  хорошее ли у вас настроение спрашивает 'дабл ю вай джей' &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Да! всегда хорошее! Всг... конечно... &#xD;&#xA;=1.34=  всегда хорошее... &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Что написано у вас на майке? &#xD;&#xA;=1.36=  На моей майке написано, что я мусор. &#xD;&#xA;=1.38=  (Да) прочитай (под... под прикрытием полиции, наппп...)&#xD;&#xA;=1.40=  написано, что я мусор под прикрытием.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.42=  Для резиденции свердловского губернатора&#xD;&#xA;=1.45=  заказали шторы за 700 тысяч рублей&#xD;&#xA;=1.47=  (там кабинет такой) &#xD;&#xA;=1.48=  (на два с половиной метра) ну видите, он видимо &#xD;&#xA;=1.49=  большой очень &#xD;&#xA;=1.51=  активисты движения 'За Честные Закупки' обнаружили &#xD;&#xA;=1.52=  на сайте госзакупок заказ на шторы &#xD;&#xA;=1.55=  для резиденции губернатора &#xD;&#xA;=1.57=  Свердловской области. Общая сумма которого &#xD;&#xA;=1.59=  составила 700 тысяч рублей &#xD;&#xA;=2.01=  согласно документации к аукциону&#xD;&#xA;=2.03=  шторы в кабинет руководителя размером &#xD;&#xA;=2.04=  три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.06=  ах, подожди-ка, (я говорю) ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.07=  мамочка! (так мы проводим секвестор бюджета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  так это всего... &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  так это всего одни шторы, это на одно окно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.13=  это на одно окно, одно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  (я думаю, это площадь кабинета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.16=   да нет же, три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  всего &#xD;&#xA;=2.20=  (площадь шторы) шторы, &#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  и за них 700 тысяч рублей. Они должны быть&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  изготовлены из 100% полиэстера &#xD;&#xA;=2.26=  с бархатными портьерами &#xD;&#xA;=2.28=  и с карнизом из декоративного багета&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  ах, как это прелестно! (да) закуплено на 700 тысяч рублей (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.35=  (да) мда &#xD;&#xA;=2.36=  а, подожди, ээээ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  на одно окно 136... &#xD;&#xA;=2.38=  не понимаю, не понимаю,  &#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  да, но это историческое здание &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и это исторические шторы &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ты подумай об этом сейчас &#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  когда ты говоришь а просвещении, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.48=  не э, э... (о сокращении количества) а ты говоришь &#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  о просвещении, &#xD;&#xA;=2.51=  о музеях, &#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  ведь ты радеешь за просвещение (да)&#xD;&#xA;=2.54=  за музеи, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.56=  а когда здание губернатора... &#xD;&#xA;=2.57=  это в Свердловской области? (в Свердловской области) &#xD;&#xA;=2.58=  я был у него, я был у Росселя&#xD;&#xA;=3.00=  еще в гостях, ты помнишь эту историю? Я тебе&#xD;&#xA;=3.02=  рассказывал, когда Газманов... &#xD;&#xA;=3.03=  (что-то такое...) Газманова &#xD;&#xA;=3.04=  Газманова не пустили (рассказывали) Газманова не &#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  пустили завтракать в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.06=  из-за того что там ел я &#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  (нет) я тебе рассказывал, &#xD;&#xA;=3.10=  (я уже забыла, расскажите ещё раз, пожалуйста) &#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  я был в гостях у Росселя &#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  у него был какой то юбилей, &#xD;&#xA;=3.15=  может, может быть, может быть сто лет, &#xD;&#xA;=3.17=  или сто пятьдесят ему было лет... &#xD;&#xA;=3.19=  ээ, и, в этот момент, в этот момент &#xD;&#xA;=3.21=  меня поселили в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.23=  и, когда я явился к завтраку (да) &#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  ээ, то, &#xD;&#xA;=3.27=   мм, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  вдруг я услышал, когда за спиною за моей,  &#xD;&#xA;=3.31=  когда я съедал салатик, &#xD;&#xA;=3.32=  из помидорчиков, &#xD;&#xA;=3.33=  за спиною за моей, я услышал скандал (возник) &#xD;&#xA;=3.36=  мне стало теперь ясно, да, как она возня, скандал, пфф, &#xD;&#xA;=3.40=  и, ээ, ээ, злобное шипение: 'нет нельзя! нет нельзя!', &#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  'не велено пускать', &#xD;&#xA;=3.44=  ии, наконец, &#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  ээ, когда я &#xD;&#xA;=3.47=  спросил, спросил официанта: &#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  'скажите пожалуйста, &#xD;&#xA;=3.49=  что за глупая возня, какая-то, которая мне портит аппетит?'&#xD;&#xA;=3.53=  Они сказали: ээ&#xD;&#xA;=3.55=  Это Газманов, певец Газманов, рвётся &#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  позавтракать. Я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  'Какая грязь!' &#xD;&#xA;=4.00=  А что, а почему, он не такой же? &#xD;&#xA;=4.02=  (а утренний голод, он такой) Я тебе хочу сказать, &#xD;&#xA;         нет, я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=4.04=  &quot;хорошо, а почему? &#xD;&#xA;=4.05=  А что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;=4.07=  А что, вот же столы, столы, столы...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.08=  там был большой зал (да, да) &#xD;&#xA;=4.10=  они сказали: &#xD;&#xA;=4.11=  'дело в том, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.12=  принято решение, что пока вы не &#xD;&#xA;=4.14=  позавтракали, чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.15=  чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.17=  эээ... (они думали, что Газманов бросится у вас брать...) &#xD;&#xA;=4.18=  никого не пускать, &#xD;&#xA;=4.20=  никого не... они думали что &#xD;&#xA;=4.22=  (бросится у Вас брать интервью) &#xD;&#xA;=4.23=  нет, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.24=  Газманов ворвётся в, в зал завтрака, с криком: &#xD;&#xA;=4.27=  'Москва!!! Гремят колокола!!!' (понятно) что-нибудь такое...&#xD;&#xA;=4.29=  а я тут ку[шать] изволил...    &#xD;&#xA;=4.31=  (эскадрон моих мыслей шальных)&#xD;&#xA;=4.34=  абсолютно верно...&#xD;&#xA;=4.36=  я подошел лично к дверце, к этой, которая пускала в зал&#xD;&#xA;=4.39=  (Вы открыли, Вы впустили его?) &#xD;&#xA;=4.40=  я сказал администратору, этой пылкой женщине, лет 45-ти &#xD;&#xA;=4.44=  (как к тореодору, впускают быка)&#xD;&#xA;=4.45=  я сказал, я оказал: &quot;прошу вас, пожалуйста&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.48=  я считаю это неправильным &#xD;&#xA;=4.51=  я считаю это неправильно, [? помиловались ?] &#xD;&#xA;=4.53=  что за элитарность? &#xD;&#xA;=4.54=  я готов... &#xD;&#xA;=4.56=  я готов с этим пая... ну я готов... (тем более это Газманов...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="125d9bc7-abc0-4238-bcd5-acad6617cd2d" CreationDate="2015-07-06T16:28:37.227" UserId="5288" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Думаю, что фильмы это не лучшее средство для тренировки на слух каждодневного разговорного русского. В фильмах искусственный разговорный язык. Фильмы озвучивают по фразам, эти фразы начитывают с текста. Даже если в фразы вставляют междометия, вводные, просторечные слова, это всё равно читается с текста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фильмы, действительно, помогут вам узнать, **как говорить правильно**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это слабо поможет вам тренировать на слух ежедневный русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я предлагаю слушать радио. Попробуйте. Найдите знакомые фразы в тексте, и послушайте, **как они звучат в непринужденной речи**. Я потратил своё время, написал субтитры, чтобы дать почувствовать, как мы говорим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=911     &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, мы так говорим! :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Понедельник, 6 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.46=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Эльвира Хасаншина -- ведущая этой программы. Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;        Эльвира (И Сергей Доренко. Доброе утро)&#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Чили - чемпионы Южной Америки, поздравляю&#xD;&#xA;=1.18=  Чилийских слушателей, чилийкослушателей... не пониманию, &#xD;&#xA;=1.22=  'Тор', 'Тор' у вас опечатка &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Не каждый может иметь миллионы, но каждый может стремиться &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  пишет 'Кличко и В' 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.28=  были в субботу в Новосибирском зоопарке &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Там больше нет слонов и жирафов &#xD;&#xA;=1.33=  детям понравилось, а я расстроился &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Сообщает Денис Гудков, спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;=1.37=  Пишите нам на Говорит-Москва-точка-ру,&#xD;&#xA;=1.39=  Говорит-Москва-точка-ру, написать в эфир&#xD;&#xA;=1.41=  а также на sms +7 925 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8, 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8&#xD;&#xA;=1.50=  и лента в Твитере &quot;Говорит МСК&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=1.53=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию&#xD;&#xA;=1.56=  о смерти певца&#xD;&#xA;=1.58=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию о смерти.&#xD;&#xA;=2.02=  (и об этом он сказал нам) Да, он сообщил об этом&#xD;&#xA;=2.05=   радиостанции &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  Константин Петров нам пишет &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  ссылаясь на нас же&#xD;&#xA;=2.10=  а, так вот же, значит, вы уже знаете что&#xD;&#xA;=2.14=  был взломан, вероятно, взломан&#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  эээ... сайт, э фестиваля э, эт, Грушинского&#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  (Грушинского) Грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  взломан и на заглавной странице&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  провисело довольно долго сообщение о&#xD;&#xA;=2.25=  том, что убит Макаревич&#xD;&#xA;=2.27=  значит, представитель певца только что&#xD;&#xA;=2.29=  врл... в интервью радиостанции &quot;Говорит-Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  опроверг, опроверг это м... сообщение&#xD;&#xA;=2.34=  вероятно, с... сайт грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  был взломан, ну или кто-то пошутил [? с самолетом ?]&#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  какой-то пьяный админ, что-то такое... &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и так далее. Понимаете, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ээ... скажите, пожалуйста,&#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  Макара похоронил... нет, нет, именно грушинский фестиваль&#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  ээ... похоронил Макара&#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  вероятно, хакер.&#xD;&#xA;=2.53=  Но теперь мы знаем, что...&#xD;&#xA;=2.55=  и вообще говоря, это было похоже на... ..&#xD;&#xA;=2.59=  на хакерскую выходку, несмотря на то, что они&#xD;&#xA;=3.01=  и, в, они проникли на заглавную  страницу,&#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  это было похоже, потому что&#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  если бы это произошло в действительности,&#xD;&#xA;=3.09=  то конечно, МВД бы рапортовало, &#xD;&#xA;=3.11=  и так далее, и так далее,&#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  понимаешь, так что, так что... &#xD;&#xA;=3.13=  (да, и информационные агенства)&#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  конечно-конечно-конечно, но ничего не было.&#xD;&#xA;=3.16=  скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры -- ЗНАЧИТ -- или нет?&#xD;&#xA;=3.20=  Вот у меня вопрос. Простой. &#xD;&#xA;=3.22=  Вообще говоря, слова -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.24=  Дела  -- значат? Символы -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  (Значат.) Значат? (Конечно.) &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  (Они потому наверное, и символы)&#xD;&#xA;=3.30=  Вообще, всё значат. Всё -- значат.&#xD;&#xA;=3.34=  (Да) ну правда...&#xD;&#xA;=3.35=  (я считаю, что да)&#xD;&#xA;=3.37=  Давайте, давайте проголосуем.&#xD;&#xA;=3.38=  Скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры,&#xD;&#xA;=3.39=  я понимаю, что это пятничное, но в субботу, как вы знаете,&#xD;&#xA;=3.41=  она взорвала нам мозг, и&#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  э, я для себя думал,&#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  поступок Земфиры -- значит?&#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  вообще говоря,&#xD;&#xA;=3.50=  следует ли, поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;=3.51=  с флагом Украины придавать значение?&#xD;&#xA;=3.54=  Да -- 134 21 35&#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  Нет -- 134 21 36&#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  следует ли поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=905    &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-03 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Пятница, 3 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.45=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Анастасия Оношко -- ведущая этой программы. (И Сергей &#xD;&#xA;        Доренко. Доброе утро, Сергей.) Здравствуйте, Анастасия. &#xD;&#xA;        Доброе утро. &#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Говорит 'ДерзкийЮрец'... Доброе утро, говорит 96-ой   &#xD;&#xA;=1.20=  А... это Степан &#xD;&#xA;=1.21=  а я люблю 'Шнура' придаёт... признаётся &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Алексей &#xD;&#xA;=1.25=  так говорит 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.26=  а... м... ещё... &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  хорошее ли у вас настроение спрашивает 'дабл ю вай джей' &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Да! всегда хорошее! Всг... конечно... &#xD;&#xA;=1.34=  всегда хорошее... &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Что написано у вас на майке? &#xD;&#xA;=1.36=  На моей майке написано, что я мусор. &#xD;&#xA;=1.38=  (Да) прочитай (под... под прикрытием полиции, наппп...)&#xD;&#xA;=1.40=  написано, что я мусор под прикрытием.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.42=  Для резиденции свердловского губернатора&#xD;&#xA;=1.45=  заказали шторы за 700 тысяч рублей&#xD;&#xA;=1.47=  (там кабинет такой) &#xD;&#xA;=1.48=  (на два с половиной метра) ну видите, он видимо &#xD;&#xA;=1.49=  большой очень &#xD;&#xA;=1.51=  активисты движения 'За Честные Закупки' обнаружили &#xD;&#xA;=1.52=  на сайте госзакупок заказ на шторы &#xD;&#xA;=1.55=  для резиденции губернатора &#xD;&#xA;=1.57=  Свердловской области. Общая сумма которого &#xD;&#xA;=1.59=  составила 700 тысяч рублей &#xD;&#xA;=2.01=  согласно документации к аукциону&#xD;&#xA;=2.03=  шторы в кабинет руководителя размером &#xD;&#xA;=2.04=  три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.06=  ах, подожди-ка, (я говорю) ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.07=  мамочка! (так мы проводим секвестор бюджета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  так это всего... &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  так это всего одни шторы, это на одно окно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.13=  это на одно окно, одно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  (я думаю, это площадь кабинета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.16=   да нет же, три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  всего &#xD;&#xA;=2.20=  (площадь шторы) шторы, &#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  и за них 700 тысяч рублей. Они должны быть&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  изготовлены из 100% полиэстера &#xD;&#xA;=2.26=  с бархатными портьерами &#xD;&#xA;=2.28=  и с карнизом из декоративного багета&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  ах, как это прелестно! (да) закуплено на 700 тысяч рублей (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.35=  (да) мда &#xD;&#xA;=2.36=  а, подожди, ээээ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  на одно окно 136... &#xD;&#xA;=2.38=  не понимаю, не понимаю,  &#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  да, но это историческое здание &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и это исторические шторы &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ты подумай об этом сейчас &#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  когда ты говоришь а просвещении, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.48=  не э, э... (о сокращении количества) а ты говоришь &#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  о просвещении, &#xD;&#xA;=2.51=  о музеях, &#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  ведь ты радеешь за просвещение (да)&#xD;&#xA;=2.54=  за музеи, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.56=  а когда здание губернатора... &#xD;&#xA;=2.57=  это в Свердловской области? (в Свердловской области) &#xD;&#xA;=2.58=  я был у него, я был у Росселя&#xD;&#xA;=3.00=  еще в гостях, ты помнишь эту историю? Я тебе&#xD;&#xA;=3.02=  рассказывал, когда Газманов... &#xD;&#xA;=3.03=  (что-то такое...) Газманова &#xD;&#xA;=3.04=  Газманова не пустили (рассказывали) Газманова не &#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  пустили завтракать в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.06=  из-за того что там ел я &#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  (нет) я тебе рассказывал, &#xD;&#xA;=3.10=  (я уже забыла, расскажите ещё раз, пожалуйста) &#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  я был в гостях у Росселя &#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  у него был какой то юбилей, &#xD;&#xA;=3.15=  может, может быть, может быть сто лет, &#xD;&#xA;=3.17=  или сто пятьдесят ему было лет... &#xD;&#xA;=3.19=  ээ, и, в этот момент, в этот момент &#xD;&#xA;=3.21=  меня поселили в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.23=  и, когда я явился к завтраку (да) &#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  ээ, то, &#xD;&#xA;=3.27=   мм, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  вдруг я услышал, когда за спиною за моей,  &#xD;&#xA;=3.31=  когда я съедал салатик, &#xD;&#xA;=3.32=  из помидорчиков, &#xD;&#xA;=3.33=  за спиною за моей, я услышал скандал (возник) &#xD;&#xA;=3.36=  мне стало теперь ясно, да, как она возня, скандал, пфф, &#xD;&#xA;=3.40=  и, ээ, ээ, злобное шипение: 'нет нельзя! нет нельзя!', &#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  'не велено пускать', &#xD;&#xA;=3.44=  ии, наконец, &#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  ээ, когда я &#xD;&#xA;=3.47=  спросил, спросил официанта: &#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  'скажите пожалуйста, &#xD;&#xA;=3.49=  что за глупая возня, какая-то, которая мне портит аппетит?'&#xD;&#xA;=3.53=  Они сказали: ээ&#xD;&#xA;=3.55=  Это Газманов, певец Газманов, рвётся &#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  позавтракать. Я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  'Какая грязь!' &#xD;&#xA;=4.00=  А что, а почему, он не такой же? &#xD;&#xA;=4.02=  (а утренний голод, он такой) Я тебе хочу сказать, &#xD;&#xA;         нет, я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=4.04=  &quot;хорошо, а почему? &#xD;&#xA;=4.05=  А что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;=4.07=  А что, вот же столы, столы, столы...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.08=  там был большой зал (да, да) &#xD;&#xA;=4.10=  они сказали: &#xD;&#xA;=4.11=  'дело в том, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.12=  принято решение, что пока вы не &#xD;&#xA;=4.14=  позавтракали, чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.15=  чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.17=  эээ... (они думали, что Газманов бросится у вас брать...) &#xD;&#xA;=4.18=  никого не пускать, &#xD;&#xA;=4.20=  никого не... они думали что &#xD;&#xA;=4.22=  (бросится у Вас брать интервью) &#xD;&#xA;=4.23=  нет, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.24=  Газманов ворвётся в, в зал завтрака, с криком: &#xD;&#xA;=4.27=  'Москва!!! Гремят колокола!!!' (понятно) что-нибудь такое...&#xD;&#xA;=4.29=  а я тут ку[шать] изволил...    &#xD;&#xA;=4.31=  (эскадрон моих мыслей шальных)&#xD;&#xA;=4.34=  абсолютно верно...&#xD;&#xA;=4.36=  я подошел лично к дверце, к этой, которая пускала в зал&#xD;&#xA;=4.39=  (Вы открыли, Вы впустили его?) &#xD;&#xA;=4.40=  я сказал администратору, этой пылкой женщине, лет 45-ти &#xD;&#xA;=4.44=  (как к тореодору, впускают быка)&#xD;&#xA;=4.45=  я сказал, я оказал: &quot;прошу вас, пожалуйста&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.48=  я считаю это неправильным &#xD;&#xA;=4.51=  я считаю это неправильно, [? помиловались ?] &#xD;&#xA;=4.53=  что за элитарность? &#xD;&#xA;=4.54=  я готов... &#xD;&#xA;=4.56=  я готов с этим пая... ну я готов... (тем более это Газманов...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="fe3205be-5973-4668-92be-2c04dc8b2036" CreationDate="2015-07-06T16:38:58.810" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Думаю, что фильмы это не лучшее средство для тренировки на слух каждодневного разговорного русского. В фильмах искусственный разговорный язык. Фильмы озвучивают по фразам, эти фразы начитывают с текста. Даже если в фразы вставляют междометия, вводные, просторечные слова, это всё равно читается с текста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фильмы, действительно, помогут вам узнать, **как говорить правильно**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это слабо поможет вам тренировать на слух ежедневный русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я предлагаю слушать радио. Попробуйте. Найдите знакомые фразы в тексте, и послушайте, **как они звучат в непринужденной речи**. Я потратил своё время, написал субтитры, чтобы дать почувствовать, как мы говорим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=911     &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, мы так говорим! :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Понедельник, 6 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.46=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Эльвира Хасаншина -- ведущая этой программы. Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;        Эльвира (И Сергей Доренко. Доброе утро)&#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Чили - чемпионы Южной Америки, поздравляю&#xD;&#xA;=1.18=  Чилийских слушателей, чилийкослушателей... не пониманию, &#xD;&#xA;=1.22=  'Тор', 'Тор' у вас опечатка &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Не каждый может иметь миллионы, но каждый может стремиться &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  пишет 'Кличко и В'.&#xD;&#xA;=1.28=  Были в субботу в Новосибирском зоопарке &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Там больше нет слонов и жирафов &#xD;&#xA;=1.33=  детям понравилось, а я расстроился &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Сообщает Денис Гудков, спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;=1.37=  Пишите нам на Говорит-Москва-точка-ру,&#xD;&#xA;=1.39=  Говорит-Москва-точка-ру, написать в эфир&#xD;&#xA;=1.41=  а также на sms +7 925 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8, 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8&#xD;&#xA;=1.50=  и лента в Твитере &quot;Говорит МСК&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=1.53=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию&#xD;&#xA;=1.56=  о смерти певца&#xD;&#xA;=1.58=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию о смерти.&#xD;&#xA;=2.02=  (и об этом он сказал нам) Да, он сообщил об этом&#xD;&#xA;=2.05=   радиостанции &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  Константин Петров нам пишет &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  ссылаясь на нас же&#xD;&#xA;=2.10=  а, так вот же, значит, вы уже знаете что&#xD;&#xA;=2.14=  был взломан, вероятно, взломан&#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  эээ... сайт, э фестиваля э, эт, Грушинского&#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  (Грушинского) Грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  взломан и на заглавной странице&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  провисело довольно долго сообщение о&#xD;&#xA;=2.25=  том, что убит Макаревич&#xD;&#xA;=2.27=  значит, представитель певца только что&#xD;&#xA;=2.29=  врл... в интервью радиостанции &quot;Говорит-Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  опроверг, опроверг это м... сообщение&#xD;&#xA;=2.34=  вероятно, с... сайт грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  был взломан, ну или кто-то пошутил [? с самолетом ?]&#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  какой-то пьяный админ, что-то такое... &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и так далее. Понимаете, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ээ... скажите, пожалуйста,&#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  Макара похоронил... нет, нет, именно грушинский фестиваль&#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  ээ... похоронил Макара&#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  вероятно, хакер.&#xD;&#xA;=2.53=  Но теперь мы знаем, что...&#xD;&#xA;=2.55=  и вообще говоря, это было похоже на... ..&#xD;&#xA;=2.59=  на хакерскую выходку, несмотря на то, что они&#xD;&#xA;=3.01=  и, в, они проникли на заглавную  страницу,&#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  это было похоже, потому что&#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  если бы это произошло в действительности,&#xD;&#xA;=3.09=  то конечно, МВД бы рапортовало, &#xD;&#xA;=3.11=  и так далее, и так далее,&#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  понимаешь, так что, так что... &#xD;&#xA;=3.13=  (да, и информационные агенства)&#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  конечно-конечно-конечно, но ничего не было.&#xD;&#xA;=3.16=  скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры -- ЗНАЧИТ -- или нет?&#xD;&#xA;=3.20=  Вот у меня вопрос. Простой. &#xD;&#xA;=3.22=  Вообще говоря, слова -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.24=  Дела  -- значат? Символы -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  (Значат.) Значат? (Конечно.) &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  (Они потому наверное, и символы)&#xD;&#xA;=3.30=  Вообще, всё значат. Всё -- значат.&#xD;&#xA;=3.34=  (Да) ну правда...&#xD;&#xA;=3.35=  (я считаю, что да)&#xD;&#xA;=3.37=  Давайте, давайте проголосуем.&#xD;&#xA;=3.38=  Скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры,&#xD;&#xA;=3.39=  я понимаю, что это пятничное, но в субботу, как вы знаете,&#xD;&#xA;=3.41=  она взорвала нам мозг, и&#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  э, я для себя думал,&#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  поступок Земфиры -- значит?&#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  вообще говоря,&#xD;&#xA;=3.50=  следует ли, поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;=3.51=  с флагом Украины придавать значение?&#xD;&#xA;=3.54=  Да -- 134 21 35&#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  Нет -- 134 21 36&#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  следует ли поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=905    &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-03 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Пятница, 3 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.45=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Анастасия Оношко -- ведущая этой программы. (И Сергей &#xD;&#xA;        Доренко. Доброе утро, Сергей.) Здравствуйте, Анастасия. &#xD;&#xA;        Доброе утро. &#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Говорит 'ДерзкийЮрец'... Доброе утро, говорит 96-ой   &#xD;&#xA;=1.20=  А... это Степан &#xD;&#xA;=1.21=  а я люблю 'Шнура' придаёт... признаётся &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Алексей &#xD;&#xA;=1.25=  так говорит 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.26=  а... м... ещё... &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  хорошее ли у вас настроение спрашивает 'дабл ю вай джей' &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Да! всегда хорошее! Всг... конечно... &#xD;&#xA;=1.34=  всегда хорошее... &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Что написано у вас на майке? &#xD;&#xA;=1.36=  На моей майке написано, что я мусор. &#xD;&#xA;=1.38=  (Да) прочитай (под... под прикрытием полиции, наппп...)&#xD;&#xA;=1.40=  написано, что я мусор под прикрытием.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.42=  Для резиденции свердловского губернатора&#xD;&#xA;=1.45=  заказали шторы за 700 тысяч рублей&#xD;&#xA;=1.47=  (там кабинет такой) &#xD;&#xA;=1.48=  (на два с половиной метра) ну видите, он видимо &#xD;&#xA;=1.49=  большой очень &#xD;&#xA;=1.51=  активисты движения 'За Честные Закупки' обнаружили &#xD;&#xA;=1.52=  на сайте госзакупок заказ на шторы &#xD;&#xA;=1.55=  для резиденции губернатора &#xD;&#xA;=1.57=  Свердловской области. Общая сумма которого &#xD;&#xA;=1.59=  составила 700 тысяч рублей &#xD;&#xA;=2.01=  согласно документации к аукциону&#xD;&#xA;=2.03=  шторы в кабинет руководителя размером &#xD;&#xA;=2.04=  три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.06=  ах, подожди-ка, (я говорю) ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.07=  мамочка! (так мы проводим секвестор бюджета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  так это всего... &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  так это всего одни шторы, это на одно окно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.13=  это на одно окно, одно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  (я думаю, это площадь кабинета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.16=   да нет же, три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  всего &#xD;&#xA;=2.20=  (площадь шторы) шторы, &#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  и за них 700 тысяч рублей. Они должны быть&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  изготовлены из 100% полиэстера &#xD;&#xA;=2.26=  с бархатными портьерами &#xD;&#xA;=2.28=  и с карнизом из декоративного багета&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  ах, как это прелестно! (да) закуплено на 700 тысяч рублей (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.35=  (да) мда &#xD;&#xA;=2.36=  а, подожди, ээээ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  на одно окно 136... &#xD;&#xA;=2.38=  не понимаю, не понимаю,  &#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  да, но это историческое здание &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и это исторические шторы &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ты подумай об этом сейчас &#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  когда ты говоришь а просвещении, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.48=  не э, э... (о сокращении количества) а ты говоришь &#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  о просвещении, &#xD;&#xA;=2.51=  о музеях, &#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  ведь ты радеешь за просвещение (да)&#xD;&#xA;=2.54=  за музеи, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.56=  а когда здание губернатора... &#xD;&#xA;=2.57=  это в Свердловской области? (в Свердловской области) &#xD;&#xA;=2.58=  я был у него, я был у Росселя&#xD;&#xA;=3.00=  еще в гостях, ты помнишь эту историю? Я тебе&#xD;&#xA;=3.02=  рассказывал, когда Газманов... &#xD;&#xA;=3.03=  (что-то такое...) Газманова &#xD;&#xA;=3.04=  Газманова не пустили (рассказывали) Газманова не &#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  пустили завтракать в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.06=  из-за того что там ел я &#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  (нет) я тебе рассказывал, &#xD;&#xA;=3.10=  (я уже забыла, расскажите ещё раз, пожалуйста) &#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  я был в гостях у Росселя &#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  у него был какой то юбилей, &#xD;&#xA;=3.15=  может, может быть, может быть сто лет, &#xD;&#xA;=3.17=  или сто пятьдесят ему было лет... &#xD;&#xA;=3.19=  ээ, и, в этот момент, в этот момент &#xD;&#xA;=3.21=  меня поселили в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.23=  и, когда я явился к завтраку (да) &#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  ээ, то, &#xD;&#xA;=3.27=   мм, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  вдруг я услышал, когда за спиною за моей,  &#xD;&#xA;=3.31=  когда я съедал салатик, &#xD;&#xA;=3.32=  из помидорчиков, &#xD;&#xA;=3.33=  за спиною за моей, я услышал скандал (возник) &#xD;&#xA;=3.36=  мне стало теперь ясно, да, как она возня, скандал, пфф, &#xD;&#xA;=3.40=  и, ээ, ээ, злобное шипение: 'нет нельзя! нет нельзя!', &#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  'не велено пускать', &#xD;&#xA;=3.44=  ии, наконец, &#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  ээ, когда я &#xD;&#xA;=3.47=  спросил, спросил официанта: &#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  'скажите пожалуйста, &#xD;&#xA;=3.49=  что за глупая возня, какая-то, которая мне портит аппетит?'&#xD;&#xA;=3.53=  Они сказали: ээ&#xD;&#xA;=3.55=  Это Газманов, певец Газманов, рвётся &#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  позавтракать. Я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  'Какая грязь!' &#xD;&#xA;=4.00=  А что, а почему, он не такой же? &#xD;&#xA;=4.02=  (а утренний голод, он такой) Я тебе хочу сказать, &#xD;&#xA;         нет, я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=4.04=  &quot;хорошо, а почему? &#xD;&#xA;=4.05=  А что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;=4.07=  А что, вот же столы, столы, столы...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.08=  там был большой зал (да, да) &#xD;&#xA;=4.10=  они сказали: &#xD;&#xA;=4.11=  'дело в том, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.12=  принято решение, что пока вы не &#xD;&#xA;=4.14=  позавтракали, чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.15=  чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.17=  эээ... (они думали, что Газманов бросится у вас брать...) &#xD;&#xA;=4.18=  никого не пускать, &#xD;&#xA;=4.20=  никого не... они думали что &#xD;&#xA;=4.22=  (бросится у Вас брать интервью) &#xD;&#xA;=4.23=  нет, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.24=  Газманов ворвётся в, в зал завтрака, с криком: &#xD;&#xA;=4.27=  'Москва!!! Гремят колокола!!!' (понятно) что-нибудь такое...&#xD;&#xA;=4.29=  а я тут ку[шать] изволил...    &#xD;&#xA;=4.31=  (эскадрон моих мыслей шальных)&#xD;&#xA;=4.34=  абсолютно верно...&#xD;&#xA;=4.36=  я подошел лично к дверце, к этой, которая пускала в зал&#xD;&#xA;=4.39=  (Вы открыли, Вы впустили его?) &#xD;&#xA;=4.40=  я сказал администратору, этой пылкой женщине, лет 45-ти &#xD;&#xA;=4.44=  (как к тореодору, впускают быка)&#xD;&#xA;=4.45=  я сказал, я оказал: &quot;прошу вас, пожалуйста&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.48=  я считаю это неправильным &#xD;&#xA;=4.51=  я считаю это неправильно, [? помиловались ?] &#xD;&#xA;=4.53=  что за элитарность? &#xD;&#xA;=4.54=  я готов... &#xD;&#xA;=4.56=  я готов с этим пая... ну я готов... (тем более это Газманов...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="64b8d077-9028-499f-83b1-5d9588f5ca54" CreationDate="2015-07-06T19:41:58.010" UserId="5543" Text="В словаре Ефремова слово *схожий* определяется таким образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **схожий:** Похожий на кого-л., что-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли затем какая-нибудь разница между словами *похожий* и *схожий*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="64b8d077-9028-499f-83b1-5d9588f5ca54" CreationDate="2015-07-06T19:41:58.010" UserId="5543" Text="Схожий или похожий?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="64b8d077-9028-499f-83b1-5d9588f5ca54" CreationDate="2015-07-06T19:41:58.010" UserId="5543" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="8f6da31d-5d24-49b4-9d21-9fbc97a8b33b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T20:16:15.390" UserId="5654" Text="How to write April seventeenth two thousand fifteen in Russian, im trying to figure out a interesting way to get a tattoo of the date my grandmother died" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="8f6da31d-5d24-49b4-9d21-9fbc97a8b33b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T20:16:15.390" UserId="5654" Text="How to write out the date in russian for a tattoo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="8f6da31d-5d24-49b4-9d21-9fbc97a8b33b" CreationDate="2015-07-06T20:16:15.390" UserId="5654" Text="|выбор-слова|числительные|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9092" RevisionGUID="20cfb60f-6390-4ddb-bd9d-bc7d5bd8975f" CreationDate="2015-07-06T21:18:57.477" UserId="5605" Text="Цифрами можно написать 17.04.2015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9093" RevisionGUID="63a9fbdd-a29e-45a5-be7d-164241d35cd9" CreationDate="2015-07-06T21:26:20.700" UserId="5605" Text="Схожий с Петром (с кем-чем? - дательный падеж).&#xD;&#xA;Похожий на Петра (на кого-что? - Винительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA;Схожий с кем-то.&#xD;&#xA;Похожий на кого-то." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9090" RevisionGUID="c967cf3c-76bc-4c8c-ba28-f61adc674803" CreationDate="2015-07-06T21:40:19.920" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="В словаре Ефремова слово *схожий* определяется таким образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **схожий:** Похожий на кого-л., что-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какая-нибудь разница между словами *похожий* и *схожий*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9094" RevisionGUID="3813c479-feb6-4d17-aa93-188600c99ab0" CreationDate="2015-07-06T22:29:48.177" UserId="5702" Text="In Russian, the date is usually written in the DD.MM.YYYY format, separated by the point, for example 07.07.2015 or 09.05.1945 (the latter means May 9th, not September 5th - day is written first)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9095" RevisionGUID="6f6fccf7-c39a-41ef-a24b-8f197bfe2548" CreationDate="2015-07-06T22:39:42.567" UserId="5702" Text="In the sentences like &quot;X is Y&quot; Y is *never* used in accusative. So, the right form is &quot;Джон - актер&quot; (long dash is usually required if the subject is a noun). But, however, you can (and must in non-present tenses) explicitly specify the &quot;to be&quot; verb, then the predicate will be in *instrumental* case:   Джон является *актером* (John is an actor), Джон был актером (John was an actor)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21982" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9091" RevisionGUID="8424211f-405f-4ad8-9120-b65966afe15c" CreationDate="2015-07-06T23:14:21.513" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9013],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="21983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="835b4b4e-14de-4ffc-99aa-e6202288a55c" CreationDate="2015-07-07T01:32:15.073" UserId="5703" Text="In this [https://youtu.be/H22fZWySJ50?t=2m9s][1] video, which I believe is a new arrangement of famous Russian folksong, someone speaks in Russian for 2 seconds. Can someone translate this saying to English please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaking happens at 2:09 in the video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/H22fZWySJ50?t=2m9s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="835b4b4e-14de-4ffc-99aa-e6202288a55c" CreationDate="2015-07-07T01:32:15.073" UserId="5703" Text="Russian speaking at the ending credits track from &quot;Grand Budapest Hotel&quot; (2014)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="835b4b4e-14de-4ffc-99aa-e6202288a55c" CreationDate="2015-07-07T01:32:15.073" UserId="5703" Text="|значения|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9097" RevisionGUID="712acf34-3c9d-46d6-bf83-86d2f3b0eedf" CreationDate="2015-07-07T01:39:55.420" UserId="1236" Text="It is &quot;Раз, два, три, четыре!&quot; which means &quot;One, two, three, four!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="869cf687-cb6f-497c-a9cf-f03cbc8279e0" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:46:07.350" UserId="170" Text="Do I need comma right after the word недопустима in the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Опять же, всё это не является оценкой насчёт того, правильна ли или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неправильна, допустима ли или **недопустима,** та или иная тактика со стороны игрока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="869cf687-cb6f-497c-a9cf-f03cbc8279e0" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:46:07.350" UserId="170" Text="Comma in the end of list of pairs of some alternatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="869cf687-cb6f-497c-a9cf-f03cbc8279e0" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:46:07.350" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9099" RevisionGUID="9749c061-1f85-4fa3-9743-e0482ef4c0cd" CreationDate="2015-07-07T04:54:51.600" UserId="4379" Text="You don't need to put the comma after the list of pairs of alternatives. Commas are only needed to separate such pairs, which is done correctly in your example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="957b6d73-bbd0-4d1b-8f8c-8cd4da584482" CreationDate="2015-07-07T05:09:43.077" UserId="170" Text="Is there any way to refine the definition of the word &quot;приняться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Большой толковый словарь Кузнецова][1] gives the following definition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПРИНЯТЬСЯ, примусь, примешься; принялся, -лась, -лось; принявшийся;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; св. 1. за что и с инф. **Начать какое-л. дело, приступить к чему-л.** П.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за работу, за дело, за уроки. П. за уборку, за стирку. П. за еду, за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обед. П. читать, делать уроки, шить. П. кричать, плакать, смеяться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while *приняться* seems to go along well with a wide range of verbs, for example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся бежать изо всех сил&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся орать во всё горло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся ходить взад-вперёд&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it still doesn't fit in well - at least to me (I may be wrong, of course) - in some other cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся идти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся спать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся стоять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся означать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; принялся принадлежать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it possible to come up with some rule or a principle as to what kind of words would naturally follow the verb *приняться* in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%EF%F0%E8%ED%FF%F2%FC%F1%FF&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="957b6d73-bbd0-4d1b-8f8c-8cd4da584482" CreationDate="2015-07-07T05:09:43.077" UserId="170" Text="Words that usually would follow the verb &quot;приняться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="957b6d73-bbd0-4d1b-8f8c-8cd4da584482" CreationDate="2015-07-07T05:09:43.077" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9101" RevisionGUID="763ee0b7-1f4a-4f3b-9c8a-6e9d1d7c840b" CreationDate="2015-07-07T06:38:33.617" UserId="5288" Text="Есть вот такое объяснение:   &#xD;&#xA;М. Панов. Труды по общему языкознанию и русскому языку, Volume 2, О скрытых грамматических значениях, [**стр. 262**](https://books.google.com/books?id=kabSAAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA262&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F%20%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;pg=PA262#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... конструкции с инфинитивом — эллиптичны и представляют собой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сокращенные трансформы оборотов: *Он (начал, стал) орать* — с фазовыми&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголами начала действия. При фазовом глаголе возможен только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инфинитив несов. вида. Однако весь оборот (с эллиптическим устраненным&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глаголом типа *Он — орать*) приобретает значение сов. вида: *А что они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сделали в ответ? — Они — кричать.* Вопрос: что делали? — не подходит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такого вопроса требует глагол сов. вида: *начали, принялись, стали,* и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вся конструкция имеет состав: *(начать) + кричать.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С глаголами однонаправленного движения: *ползти, лететь, идти, нестись,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плыть, ехать* и пр. не сочетаются фазовые глаголы со значением начала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или конца движения. Невозможно: *Он принялся идти, он начал ехать, он*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *стал лететь.* Поэтому и невозможны конструкции: *Он — идти. Он — лететь* и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; т. д. Исключение составляет глагол *бежать*: *Я ему: стой! — а он бежать!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причина в том, что для этого глагола есть специализированный фазовый&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начинательный глагол: *пустился (припустился) бежать.* Ср. еще: *Он давай*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *бежать,* при невозможности: *Он давай лететь; Он давай плыть.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно добавить еще один фазовый глагол: *взялся.* А вот тезис о невозможности конструкции *принялся идти, начал ехать, ...* здесь очень слаб, нетрудно найти контрпримеры в литературном языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ценное здесь то, что подмечен **принцип:** *принялся, взялся, стал, начал, припустился* — это фазовые глаголы, которые всю конструкцию *Vфаз + Vinf* превращают в составное глагольное сказуемое совершенного вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, некоторую необычность и странность в звучании с фазовыми глаголами будут давать такие глаголы в инфинитиве, для которых &quot;что-то не так&quot; с заменой на совершенный вид.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Принялся бежать (сов.)→ побежал, отбежал, сбежал...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Принялся идти (сов.)→ пошел   &#xD;&#xA;Принялся спать (сов.)→ уснул    &#xD;&#xA;Принялся принадлежать (сов.)→ ??*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно заметить закономерность, что совершенный вид &quot;странных&quot; глаголов имеет другую корневую морфему, то есть, имеется разрыв в цепи морфологических изменений.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9102" RevisionGUID="5ee4d1e9-feea-438b-831d-87814cae9ea2" CreationDate="2015-07-07T07:03:55.620" UserId="5443" Text="The usage of this verb is limited to some specific situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Принялся **за дело, за работу** (started working eagerly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Реставратору принесли инструменты, и он *принялся за дело*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Принялся **за (что-то другое)** (started doing some action towards smth. after doing it to another thing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Доев бифштекс, он *принялся за десерт*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Принялся **делать что-либо** - as a rule, in the presence of the teller (started doing something taking his time):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Увидев выброшенный кем-то компьютер, он попросил меня подождать и *принялся* его *разбирать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Когда мы подошли к реке, он вдруг остановился и *принялся дразнить* уток." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9103" RevisionGUID="80aa0631-640d-4c61-b081-d44783097d0e" CreationDate="2015-07-07T07:47:37.540" UserId="5008" Text="Слово &quot;схожий&quot; обычно употребляется в более узком значении. Например, &quot;Иван схож с Петром&quot; чаще всего означает, что у них есть какие-то общие черты характера, в то время как &quot;Иван похож на Петра&quot; в зависимости от контекста может значить и наличие общих черт характера, и сходство внешности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, употребление слова &quot;похожий&quot; в смысле отличном от физического сходства имеет оттенок неточности, разговорного стиля. Поэтому в качестве &quot;книжного&quot; (а также математического) термина в таких случаях употребляется слово &quot;подобный&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="734ddf88-09f8-42b1-8782-f0ef7f9d8175" CreationDate="2015-07-07T08:34:26.887" UserId="5694" Text="***we don't speak Russian at home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот и объяснение вашего языкового барьера. Сайты и аудио вам не помогут, нужна интенсивная практика с носителями языка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="64fcfb3b-fd16-4561-b5b2-e6d92e2e0651" CreationDate="2015-07-07T12:30:29.103" UserId="551" Text="Based on your additional question, there is a special way of writting dates [on a tombstones][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![May, 4 2006](https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/a/b/5abba376587f0c922887165abd20acc6.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of April 17, 2015 it will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;    17 &#xD;&#xA; 20 -- 15 &#xD;&#xA;    IV &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="11745b07-614b-43b1-8276-35c2698bdc2b" CreationDate="2015-07-07T12:36:47.300" UserId="551" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Based on your [additional question][1], there is a special way of writting dates [on a tombstones][2]. For instance, here's how May, 4 2006 will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![May, 4 2006](https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/a/b/5abba376587f0c922887165abd20acc6.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of April 17, 2015 it will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;    17 &#xD;&#xA; 20 -- 15 &#xD;&#xA;    IV &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/9091/551&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9106" RevisionGUID="622bfbd1-f52f-40e4-b93a-a02c53d666d0" CreationDate="2015-07-07T12:41:13.317" UserId="194" Text="Похожий - имеет внешнее сходство&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Схожий - имеет любое сходство, внешнее, внутреннее, по принципу действия и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9107" RevisionGUID="513f6340-961a-4ee1-a9d4-9a4d00a3be73" CreationDate="2015-07-07T13:14:38.290" UserId="5605" Text="Опять же, всё это не является оценкой того, правильна или неправильна, допустима или недопустима та или иная тактика со стороны игрока.&#xD;&#xA;Частица &quot;ли&quot; в обоих случаях НЕ нужна.&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;насчёт&quot; НЕ нужно.&#xD;&#xA;Запятая после слова &quot;неправильна&quot; нужна, запятая после слова &quot;недопустима&quot; НЕ нужна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8981" RevisionGUID="a92ddbae-5182-4b22-ae6e-de547dc33b7b" CreationDate="2015-07-07T13:24:44.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/618410321032650753" />
  <row Id="22003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="5b72e7a0-c871-447d-96d1-53dc4e631d4b" CreationDate="2015-07-07T13:26:27.217" UserId="5605" Text="Это инструментальный вариант (без слов) русской народной песни &quot;Светит месяц, светит ясный&quot;. Фольклорная певица Надежда Бабкина произносит слова &quot;Раз, два, три, четыре!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9107" RevisionGUID="1c5dcce1-febd-4587-9b6e-922c071e0006" CreationDate="2015-07-07T13:41:58.317" UserId="551" Comment="Added formatting" Text="&gt; Опять же, всё это не является оценкой того, правильна или неправильна, допустима или недопустима та или иная тактика со стороны игрока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частица &quot;ли&quot; в обоих случаях НЕ нужна.  &#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;насчёт&quot; НЕ нужно.  &#xD;&#xA;Запятая после слова &quot;неправильна&quot; нужна, запятая после слова &quot;недопустима&quot; НЕ нужна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9098" RevisionGUID="4de2967c-7f5a-4d4d-85ed-2508bbfdb325" CreationDate="2015-07-07T14:10:59.017" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Do I need comma right after the word недопустима in the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Опять же, всё это не является оценкой того, правильна или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неправильна, допустима или **недопустима** та или иная тактика со стороны игрока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9109" RevisionGUID="83a0da1c-38d0-46bc-829c-a671c2fcde1a" CreationDate="2015-07-07T15:14:29.807" UserId="5694" Text="Принялся означать, принялся спать и принялся принадлежать - по-русски будет звучать неграмотно. В данном случае выработка общего правила вам лишь повредит. Просто запоминайте наиболее ходовые варианты с этим словом и пользуйтесь ими. А если вам нужно более универсальное слово, используйте не &quot;принялся&quot;, а &quot;начал&quot;. С ним можно гораздо безопаснее создавать сочетания." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9110" RevisionGUID="4ad25789-1d72-48f5-8d36-6ad8b3adf8d5" CreationDate="2015-07-07T15:24:38.010" UserId="5694" Text="I want to add that teachers will very rarely use patronymics to address students. They will address a student as Sasha, or Alexander, or Ivanov. But very rarely (maybe as a joke or a very formal cold way) Alexander Ivanovich. And NEVER Sasha Ivanovich cause it's just incorrect usage. If there are several Sashas, a teacher will use a last name to tell one from another, not a patronymic. So use a last name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9111" RevisionGUID="3146368b-6824-49a4-b966-870c5b84b19e" CreationDate="2015-07-07T23:58:42.933" UserId="5694" Text="Встречаюсь с друзьями - it was planned.&#xD;&#xA;Встречаю друзей - it happens by chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW keep in mind that if you say &quot;Я встречаюсь с этой девушкой&quot;, it often means you date her. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9112" RevisionGUID="2b38814f-65f1-4475-8b6f-16d932be276b" CreationDate="2015-07-08T03:30:11.750" UserId="5698" Text="This is a &quot;one-two=three-four&quot; count-off for the next segment of the performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superb performance, BTW." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="ac765464-60c5-4fe1-9471-65a61d4daa57" CreationDate="2015-07-08T06:13:26.360" UserId="5652" Text="I read in [Pushkin][1]'s *[Дружба][2]* the word **&quot;легкий&quot;**, an adjective meaning &quot;slight&quot;. There's even [an interesting thread][3] on Russian S.E. about the modern pronouciation of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed two ways to write it : either **легкий** (as Puskin did) either **лёгкий** as [modern dictionaries do][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) which phonological/orthographic shift explains both spellings ? I can't see anything helpfull in [the Wikipedia article dedicated to the reforms of Russian orthography][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) how was the word pronouced at Pushkin's times ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9068/about-pushkins-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-how-to-read-it&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4103/how-to-pronounce-%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="ac765464-60c5-4fe1-9471-65a61d4daa57" CreationDate="2015-07-08T06:13:26.360" UserId="5652" Text="about лёгкий/легкий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="ac765464-60c5-4fe1-9471-65a61d4daa57" CreationDate="2015-07-08T06:13:26.360" UserId="5652" Text="|произношение|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="23ee9a05-b078-4da9-bb10-fe05e5cf39b7" CreationDate="2015-07-08T07:36:05.520" UserId="5652" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I read in [Pushkin][1]'s *[Дружба][2]* the word **&quot;легкий&quot;**, an adjective meaning &quot;slight&quot;. There's even [an interesting thread][3] on Russian S.E. about the modern pronouciation of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed two ways to write it : either **легкий** (as Puskin did) either **лёгкий** as [modern dictionaries do][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) which phonological/orthographic shift explains both spellings ? I can't see anything helpfull in [the Wikipedia article dedicated to the reforms of Russian orthography][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) how was the word was pronouced at Pushkin's times ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9068/about-pushkins-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-how-to-read-it&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4103/how-to-pronounce-%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="e09a5a6c-3a41-4bb5-90dd-46178f2a8b59" CreationDate="2015-07-08T07:37:44.673" UserId="551" Text="For modern reader it is definetely лёгкий. As for Pushkin times - I'm not sure what was the pronounciation at those times. Usually you notice the difference when two words stand at the end of the verse and should be rhymed (like Ольга/фольга pair which currently have different stresses, but at the beginning of the XX century both words had a stress on a first syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even when two words happen at the end of a poem's line, it is hard to tell should those words be pronounced with ё or with е. A [long article about letter ё][1] has the following example of Pushkin's Poltava by academic Vinogradov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тесним мы шведов рать за ратью;  &#xD;&#xA;Темнеет слава их **знамен**,  &#xD;&#xA;И бога брани благодатью  &#xD;&#xA;Наш каждый шаг **запечатлен**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov here both words are likely using &quot;е&quot; (знамен/запечатлен), but we cannot tell for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/istiny/istiny_7_jo/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="03fb181e-998d-4f92-83ec-29aa556372b5" CreationDate="2015-07-08T07:43:59.427" UserId="551" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="Letter ё is optional, it is usially replaced by е. We have a number of questions about this letter on this site, for example: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6770/551,&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1465/551,  http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4304/551.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern reader it is definetely лёгкий. As for Pushkin times - I'm not sure what was the pronounciation at those times. Usually you notice the difference when two words stand at the end of the verse and should be rhymed (like Ольга/фольга pair which currently have different stresses, but at the beginning of the XX century both words had a stress on a first syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even when two words happen at the end of a poem's line, it is hard to tell should those words be pronounced with ё or with е. A [long article about letter ё][1] has the following example (by academic Vinogradov) of Pushkin's Poltava:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тесним мы шведов рать за ратью;  &#xD;&#xA;Темнеет слава их **знамен**,  &#xD;&#xA;И бога брани благодатью  &#xD;&#xA;Наш каждый шаг **запечатлен**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov here both words are likely using &quot;е&quot; (знамен/запечатлен), but we cannot tell for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/istiny/istiny_7_jo/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="1e41d97c-01b3-4621-9562-2e66da3c7017" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:12:08.010" UserId="551" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="Letter ё is optional, it is usially replaced by е. We have a number of questions about this letter on this site, for example: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6770/551,&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1465/551,  http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4304/551. In short, letter ё is always used only in dictionaries, text for beginners and children, uncommon foreign words (like geographical names) and in cases when difference between word with ё and е is not obvious from the context (like небо (sky) and нёбо (roof of mouth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern reader it is definetely лёгкий. As for Pushkin times - I'm not sure what was the pronounciation at those times. Usually you notice the difference when two words stand at the end of the verse and should be rhymed (like Ольга/фольга pair which currently have different stresses, but at the beginning of the XX century both words had a stress on a first syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even when two words happen at the end of a poem's line, it is hard to tell should those words be pronounced with ё or with е. A [long article about letter ё][1] has the following example (by academic Vinogradov) of Pushkin's Poltava:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тесним мы шведов рать за ратью;  &#xD;&#xA;Темнеет слава их **знамен**,  &#xD;&#xA;И бога брани благодатью  &#xD;&#xA;Наш каждый шаг **запечатлен**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov here both words are likely using &quot;е&quot; (знам**е**н/запечатл**е**н), but we cannot tell for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/istiny/istiny_7_jo/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="e6d84789-a4e2-462b-8c53-04150025e840" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:24:24.793" UserId="551" Comment="added 574 characters in body" Text="Letter ё is optional, it is usially replaced by е. We have a number of questions about this letter on this site, for example: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6770/551,&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1465/551,  http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4304/551. In short, letter ё is always used only in dictionaries, text for beginners and children, uncommon foreign words (like geographical names) and in cases when difference between word with ё and е is not obvious from the context (like небо (sky) and нёбо (roof of mouth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern reader it is definetely лёгкий. As for Pushkin times - I'm not sure what was the pronounciation at those times. Usually you notice the difference when two words stand at the end of the verse and should be rhymed (like Ольга/фольга pair which currently have different stresses, but at the beginning of the XX century both words had a stress on a first syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even when two words happen at the end of a poem's line, it is hard to tell should those words be pronounced with ё or with е. A [long article about letter ё][1] has the following example (by academic Vinogradov) of Pushkin's Poltava:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тесним мы шведов рать за ратью;  &#xD;&#xA;Темнеет слава их **знамен**,  &#xD;&#xA;И бога брани благодатью  &#xD;&#xA;Наш каждый шаг **запечатлен**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov here both words are likely using &quot;е&quot; (знам**е**н/запечатл**е**н), but we cannot tell for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example where there is е and not ё is verses from Krylov's fable &quot;Лебедь, Щука и Рак&quot; (example from [Wikipedia article][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в товарищах согласья нет —  &#xD;&#xA;На лад их дело не пойдет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, in Krylov's times пойдет was pronounced as е as can be seen from the rhymed нет/пойдет. Interestingly, in modern textbook for pupils пойдет in this verse is written using ё: пойд**ё**т.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/istiny/istiny_7_jo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81#.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.B4.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2_XVII.E2.80.94XIX_.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4304" RevisionGUID="566b5afc-28bf-428b-8626-3c37cfab317e" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:25:25.670" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|история-языка|фонология|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1465" RevisionGUID="b066eee0-83b9-4b2e-be35-03e0bcef7410" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:25:54.207" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|орфография|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6770" RevisionGUID="19272fd5-75e7-465f-86e7-6c55c1cacf4b" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:26:04.813" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22021" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="a0deeebf-ccc4-49e6-96f2-1714188dd8d8" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:26:18.910" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|правописание|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22022" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="d2cf144d-c6e7-446f-b41f-faf7089c65eb" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:28:23.567" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22023" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="de0830ca-6158-4029-a1a4-3660f2bf405d" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:28:48.687" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|правописание|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22024" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8889" RevisionGUID="be2dd7de-082c-40e9-a48f-1ffa315e317d" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:31:24.720" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|выражения|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22025" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="444131f4-c123-4d9e-9c5b-2e0f54a25372" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:32:12.003" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7944" RevisionGUID="71e50e42-69a6-4310-8bb2-b3ad5dcc695d" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:33:20.397" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22027" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="1381da73-6b79-4f19-9611-6d74d83ef846" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:35:51.427" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|пунктуация|орфография|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9115" RevisionGUID="362f259a-6c2f-4bd3-aadc-67fe7ca570b5" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:48:51.693" UserId="551" Text="Ё, ё — 7-я буква русского алфавита. В словах исконно русского происхождения (кроме слов с приставками трёх- и четырёх-) всегда несёт ударение. В редких случаях безударного использования (что возможно только в заимствованиях: кёнигсбе́ргский, сёрфинги́ст, сложных словах: лёссови́дный, словах с приставками трёх- и четырёх-: четырёхча́стный, или в словах, образованных от названия самой буквы «ё»: ёфика́ция) фонетически тождественна безударным «и», «е», «я» либо имеет побочное ударение, но может отражать особенности написания в языке-источнике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском письме простановка точек над «ё» в большинстве случаев факультативна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласно справочнику «Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации» (М., 2006), употребление буквы ё может быть последовательным и выборочным. Последовательное употребление обязательно в следующих разновидностях печатных текстов: а) в текстах с последовательно поставленными знаками ударения (к ним относятся в том числе заголовочные слова в словарях и энциклопедиях); б) в книгах, адресованных детям младшего возраста; в) в учебных текстах для школьников младших классов и иностранцев, изучающих русский язык. При этом сделана важнейшая оговорка: по желанию автора или редактора любая книга может быть напечатана последовательно с буквой ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В обычных печатных текстах, согласно справочнику, буква ё употребляется выборочно. Рекомендуется употреблять ее в следующих случаях: 1) для предупреждения неправильного опознания слова, напр.: всё, нёбо, лётом, совершённый (в отличие соответственно от слов все, небо, летом, совершенный), в том числе для указания на место ударения в слове, напр.: вёдро, узнаём (в отличие от ведро́, узна́ем); 2) для указания правильного произношения слова – либо редкого, недостаточно хорошо известного, либо имеющего распространенное неправильное произношение, напр.: гёзы, сёрфинг, флёр, твёрже, щёлочка, в том числе для указания правильного ударения, напр.: побасёнка, приведённый, унесённый, осуждённый, новорождённый, филёр; 3) в собственных именах – фамилиях, географических названиях, напр.: Конёнков, Неёлова, Катрин Денёв, Шрёдингер, Дежнёв, Кошелёв, Чебышёв, Вёшенская, Олёкма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9116" RevisionGUID="c60b008b-8f18-4b0d-85e4-60c996ff1a17" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:48:51.693" UserId="551" Text="Questions about usage of letter ё and it's replacement by letter е." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="84ff0579-6d35-4dc5-9a25-503f4b20f6f6" CreationDate="2015-07-08T08:50:32.900" UserId="551" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Based on your [additional question][1], there is a special (old-fashioned) way of writting dates that is currently used [on a tombstones and railroad equipment][2]. For instance, here's how May, 4 2006 will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![May, 4 2006](https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/a/b/5abba376587f0c922887165abd20acc6.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of April 17, 2015 it will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;    17 &#xD;&#xA; 20 -- 15 &#xD;&#xA;    IV &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/9091/551&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22031" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9100" RevisionGUID="7fdc3d25-9ab9-481d-8d9a-2cad89d004ea" CreationDate="2015-07-08T10:24:50.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/618727435144699904" />
  <row Id="22032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="9a779e07-c68a-4a16-b08e-b3a0b2895026" CreationDate="2015-07-08T13:52:01.687" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1409 characters in body" Text="&gt; If I try I can figure out individual words, but they talk so fast that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't get it all connected (still not past the &quot;translating it word&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by word&quot; phase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher didn’t tell you about the fact that there are 2 classes of languages, one take **a predominantly consonants approach** (*русский*), and at the other end is the vowels approach (*English*), that's the problem. *Русский, польский, болгарский, сербский...* these languages belong to the consonants approach. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure **You cannot hear/understand up to 60% of the consonants spoken.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Факты:   &#xD;&#xA;В русском (и современном греческом) гласных фонем всего 6. Согласных фонем 34. В русском гласные не различаются по долготе/краткости. Согласные -- главная сигнальная система.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Английский: 21 фонема гласных, 25 согласных. Гласные -- главная сигнальная система.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вторая сигнальная система в русском это ударение. К примеру, поставим неверное ударение на последний открытый слог в слове `рыба`. Мы получим два почти не различимых на слух звуковых ряда:&#xD;&#xA;[(confusing &quot;как гриб́ы?&quot; for &quot;как рыб́ы?&quot;, and saying they are good when I clearly have no mushrooms on my plate)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь рекомендовали фильмы, не думаю, что фильмы это хорошее средство для тренировки на слух каждодневного разговорного русского. В фильмах разговорный язык — искусственный. Пишут сценарий, далее фильмы озвучивают по фразам, эти фразы начитывают с текста, и любую фразу произносят заново, если что-то не так. Даже если в фразы вставляют междометия, вводные, просторечные слова, это всё равно читается с текста. Это имитация разговорного. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фильмы, действительно, помогут вам узнать, **как говорить правильно**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это едва ли поможет вам тренировать на слух ежедневный русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я предлагаю слушать радио. Попробуйте. Найдите знакомые фразы в тексте, и послушайте, **как они звучат в непринужденной речи**. Я потратил своё время, написал субтитры, чтобы дать почувствовать, как мы говорим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=911     &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, мы так говорим! :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Понедельник, 6 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.46=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Эльвира Хасаншина -- ведущая этой программы. Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;        Эльвира (И Сергей Доренко. Доброе утро)&#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Чили - чемпионы Южной Америки, поздравляю&#xD;&#xA;=1.18=  Чилийских слушателей, чилийкослушателей... не пониманию, &#xD;&#xA;=1.22=  'Тор', 'Тор' у вас опечатка &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Не каждый может иметь миллионы, но каждый может стремиться &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  пишет 'Кличко и В'.&#xD;&#xA;=1.28=  Были в субботу в Новосибирском зоопарке &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Там больше нет слонов и жирафов &#xD;&#xA;=1.33=  детям понравилось, а я расстроился &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Сообщает Денис Гудков, спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;=1.37=  Пишите нам на Говорит-Москва-точка-ру,&#xD;&#xA;=1.39=  Говорит-Москва-точка-ру, написать в эфир&#xD;&#xA;=1.41=  а также на sms +7 925 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8, 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8&#xD;&#xA;=1.50=  и лента в Твитере &quot;Говорит МСК&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=1.53=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию&#xD;&#xA;=1.56=  о смерти певца&#xD;&#xA;=1.58=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию о смерти.&#xD;&#xA;=2.02=  (и об этом он сказал нам) Да, он сообщил об этом&#xD;&#xA;=2.05=   радиостанции &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  Константин Петров нам пишет &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  ссылаясь на нас же&#xD;&#xA;=2.10=  а, так вот же, значит, вы уже знаете что&#xD;&#xA;=2.14=  был взломан, вероятно, взломан&#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  эээ... сайт, э фестиваля э, эт, Грушинского&#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  (Грушинского) Грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  взломан и на заглавной странице&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  провисело довольно долго сообщение о&#xD;&#xA;=2.25=  том, что убит Макаревич&#xD;&#xA;=2.27=  значит, представитель певца только что&#xD;&#xA;=2.29=  врл... в интервью радиостанции &quot;Говорит-Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  опроверг, опроверг это м... сообщение&#xD;&#xA;=2.34=  вероятно, с... сайт грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  был взломан, ну или кто-то пошутил [? с самолетом ?]&#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  какой-то пьяный админ, что-то такое... &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и так далее. Понимаете, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ээ... скажите, пожалуйста,&#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  Макара похоронил... нет, нет, именно грушинский фестиваль&#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  ээ... похоронил Макара&#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  вероятно, хакер.&#xD;&#xA;=2.53=  Но теперь мы знаем, что...&#xD;&#xA;=2.55=  и вообще говоря, это было похоже на... ..&#xD;&#xA;=2.59=  на хакерскую выходку, несмотря на то, что они&#xD;&#xA;=3.01=  и, в, они проникли на заглавную  страницу,&#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  это было похоже, потому что&#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  если бы это произошло в действительности,&#xD;&#xA;=3.09=  то конечно, МВД бы рапортовало, &#xD;&#xA;=3.11=  и так далее, и так далее,&#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  понимаешь, так что, так что... &#xD;&#xA;=3.13=  (да, и информационные агенства)&#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  конечно-конечно-конечно, но ничего не было.&#xD;&#xA;=3.16=  скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры -- ЗНАЧИТ -- или нет?&#xD;&#xA;=3.20=  Вот у меня вопрос. Простой. &#xD;&#xA;=3.22=  Вообще говоря, слова -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.24=  Дела  -- значат? Символы -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  (Значат.) Значат? (Конечно.) &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  (Они потому наверное, и символы)&#xD;&#xA;=3.30=  Вообще, всё значат. Всё -- значат.&#xD;&#xA;=3.34=  (Да) ну правда...&#xD;&#xA;=3.35=  (я считаю, что да)&#xD;&#xA;=3.37=  Давайте, давайте проголосуем.&#xD;&#xA;=3.38=  Скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры,&#xD;&#xA;=3.39=  я понимаю, что это пятничное, но в субботу, как вы знаете,&#xD;&#xA;=3.41=  она взорвала нам мозг, и&#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  э, я для себя думал,&#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  поступок Земфиры -- значит?&#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  вообще говоря,&#xD;&#xA;=3.50=  следует ли, поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;=3.51=  с флагом Украины придавать значение?&#xD;&#xA;=3.54=  Да -- 134 21 35&#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  Нет -- 134 21 36&#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  следует ли поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=905    &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-03 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Пятница, 3 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.45=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Анастасия Оношко -- ведущая этой программы. (И Сергей &#xD;&#xA;        Доренко. Доброе утро, Сергей.) Здравствуйте, Анастасия. &#xD;&#xA;        Доброе утро. &#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Говорит 'ДерзкийЮрец'... Доброе утро, говорит 96-ой   &#xD;&#xA;=1.20=  А... это Степан &#xD;&#xA;=1.21=  а я люблю 'Шнура' придаёт... признаётся &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Алексей &#xD;&#xA;=1.25=  так говорит 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.26=  а... м... ещё... &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  хорошее ли у вас настроение спрашивает 'дабл ю вай джей' &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Да! всегда хорошее! Всг... конечно... &#xD;&#xA;=1.34=  всегда хорошее... &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Что написано у вас на майке? &#xD;&#xA;=1.36=  На моей майке написано, что я мусор. &#xD;&#xA;=1.38=  (Да) прочитай (под... под прикрытием полиции, наппп...)&#xD;&#xA;=1.40=  написано, что я мусор под прикрытием.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.42=  Для резиденции свердловского губернатора&#xD;&#xA;=1.45=  заказали шторы за 700 тысяч рублей&#xD;&#xA;=1.47=  (там кабинет такой) &#xD;&#xA;=1.48=  (на два с половиной метра) ну видите, он видимо &#xD;&#xA;=1.49=  большой очень &#xD;&#xA;=1.51=  активисты движения 'За Честные Закупки' обнаружили &#xD;&#xA;=1.52=  на сайте госзакупок заказ на шторы &#xD;&#xA;=1.55=  для резиденции губернатора &#xD;&#xA;=1.57=  Свердловской области. Общая сумма которого &#xD;&#xA;=1.59=  составила 700 тысяч рублей &#xD;&#xA;=2.01=  согласно документации к аукциону&#xD;&#xA;=2.03=  шторы в кабинет руководителя размером &#xD;&#xA;=2.04=  три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.06=  ах, подожди-ка, (я говорю) ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.07=  мамочка! (так мы проводим секвестор бюджета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  так это всего... &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  так это всего одни шторы, это на одно окно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.13=  это на одно окно, одно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  (я думаю, это площадь кабинета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.16=   да нет же, три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  всего &#xD;&#xA;=2.20=  (площадь шторы) шторы, &#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  и за них 700 тысяч рублей. Они должны быть&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  изготовлены из 100% полиэстера &#xD;&#xA;=2.26=  с бархатными портьерами &#xD;&#xA;=2.28=  и с карнизом из декоративного багета&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  ах, как это прелестно! (да) закуплено на 700 тысяч рублей (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.35=  (да) мда &#xD;&#xA;=2.36=  а, подожди, ээээ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  на одно окно 136... &#xD;&#xA;=2.38=  не понимаю, не понимаю,  &#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  да, но это историческое здание &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и это исторические шторы &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ты подумай об этом сейчас &#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  когда ты говоришь а просвещении, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.48=  не э, э... (о сокращении количества) а ты говоришь &#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  о просвещении, &#xD;&#xA;=2.51=  о музеях, &#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  ведь ты радеешь за просвещение (да)&#xD;&#xA;=2.54=  за музеи, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.56=  а когда здание губернатора... &#xD;&#xA;=2.57=  это в Свердловской области? (в Свердловской области) &#xD;&#xA;=2.58=  я был у него, я был у Росселя&#xD;&#xA;=3.00=  еще в гостях, ты помнишь эту историю? Я тебе&#xD;&#xA;=3.02=  рассказывал, когда Газманов... &#xD;&#xA;=3.03=  (что-то такое...) Газманова &#xD;&#xA;=3.04=  Газманова не пустили (рассказывали) Газманова не &#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  пустили завтракать в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.06=  из-за того что там ел я &#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  (нет) я тебе рассказывал, &#xD;&#xA;=3.10=  (я уже забыла, расскажите ещё раз, пожалуйста) &#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  я был в гостях у Росселя &#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  у него был какой то юбилей, &#xD;&#xA;=3.15=  может, может быть, может быть сто лет, &#xD;&#xA;=3.17=  или сто пятьдесят ему было лет... &#xD;&#xA;=3.19=  ээ, и, в этот момент, в этот момент &#xD;&#xA;=3.21=  меня поселили в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.23=  и, когда я явился к завтраку (да) &#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  ээ, то, &#xD;&#xA;=3.27=   мм, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  вдруг я услышал, когда за спиною за моей,  &#xD;&#xA;=3.31=  когда я съедал салатик, &#xD;&#xA;=3.32=  из помидорчиков, &#xD;&#xA;=3.33=  за спиною за моей, я услышал скандал (возник) &#xD;&#xA;=3.36=  мне стало теперь ясно, да, как она возня, скандал, пфф, &#xD;&#xA;=3.40=  и, ээ, ээ, злобное шипение: 'нет нельзя! нет нельзя!', &#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  'не велено пускать', &#xD;&#xA;=3.44=  ии, наконец, &#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  ээ, когда я &#xD;&#xA;=3.47=  спросил, спросил официанта: &#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  'скажите пожалуйста, &#xD;&#xA;=3.49=  что за глупая возня, какая-то, которая мне портит аппетит?'&#xD;&#xA;=3.53=  Они сказали: ээ&#xD;&#xA;=3.55=  Это Газманов, певец Газманов, рвётся &#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  позавтракать. Я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  'Какая грязь!' &#xD;&#xA;=4.00=  А что, а почему, он не такой же? &#xD;&#xA;=4.02=  (а утренний голод, он такой) Я тебе хочу сказать, &#xD;&#xA;         нет, я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=4.04=  &quot;хорошо, а почему? &#xD;&#xA;=4.05=  А что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;=4.07=  А что, вот же столы, столы, столы...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.08=  там был большой зал (да, да) &#xD;&#xA;=4.10=  они сказали: &#xD;&#xA;=4.11=  'дело в том, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.12=  принято решение, что пока вы не &#xD;&#xA;=4.14=  позавтракали, чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.15=  чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.17=  эээ... (они думали, что Газманов бросится у вас брать...) &#xD;&#xA;=4.18=  никого не пускать, &#xD;&#xA;=4.20=  никого не... они думали что &#xD;&#xA;=4.22=  (бросится у Вас брать интервью) &#xD;&#xA;=4.23=  нет, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.24=  Газманов ворвётся в, в зал завтрака, с криком: &#xD;&#xA;=4.27=  'Москва!!! Гремят колокола!!!' (понятно) что-нибудь такое...&#xD;&#xA;=4.29=  а я тут ку[шать] изволил...    &#xD;&#xA;=4.31=  (эскадрон моих мыслей шальных)&#xD;&#xA;=4.34=  абсолютно верно...&#xD;&#xA;=4.36=  я подошел лично к дверце, к этой, которая пускала в зал&#xD;&#xA;=4.39=  (Вы открыли, Вы впустили его?) &#xD;&#xA;=4.40=  я сказал администратору, этой пылкой женщине, лет 45-ти &#xD;&#xA;=4.44=  (как к тореодору, впускают быка)&#xD;&#xA;=4.45=  я сказал, я оказал: &quot;прошу вас, пожалуйста&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.48=  я считаю это неправильным &#xD;&#xA;=4.51=  я считаю это неправильно, [? помиловались ?] &#xD;&#xA;=4.53=  что за элитарность? &#xD;&#xA;=4.54=  я готов... &#xD;&#xA;=4.56=  я готов с этим пая... ну я готов... (тем более это Газманов...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6742/how-can-i-improve-my-listening-comprehension/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9108" RevisionGUID="c648895d-aec7-466e-9e0c-8867ff605e89" CreationDate="2015-07-08T14:01:14.233" UserId="5605" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Это инструментальный вариант (без слов) русской народной песни &quot;Светит месяц, светит ясный&quot;. Фольклорная певица Надежда Бабкина произносит слова &quot;Раз, два, три, четыре!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This is the instrumental version (without words) russian folk song &quot;The moon shines, it shines clear.&quot; Folk singer Nadezhda Babkina utters the words &quot;One, two, three, four!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22047" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9096" RevisionGUID="eb26f58e-2fe6-4c11-ac0a-c8fa56aabee4" CreationDate="2015-07-09T00:30:30.070" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="111d32e2-553f-485a-8625-3a7979f4981c" CreationDate="2015-07-09T11:40:15.077" UserId="551" Comment="added 677 characters in body" Text="Letter ё is optional, it is usially replaced by е. We have a number of questions about this letter on this site, for example: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6770/551,&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1465/551,  http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4304/551. In short, letter ё is always used only in dictionaries, text for beginners and children, uncommon foreign words (like geographical names) and in cases when difference between word with ё and е is not obvious from the context (like небо (sky) and нёбо (roof of mouth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern reader it is definetely лёгкий. As for Pushkin times - I'm not sure what was the pronounciation at those times. Usually you notice the difference when two words stand at the end of the verse and should be rhymed (like Ольга/фольга pair which currently have different stresses, but at the beginning of the XX century both words had a stress on a first syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even when two words happen at the end of a poem's line, it is hard to tell should those words be pronounced with ё or with е. A [long article about letter ё][1] has the following example (by academic Vinogradov) of Pushkin's Poltava:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тесним мы шведов рать за ратью;  &#xD;&#xA;Темнеет слава их **знамен**,  &#xD;&#xA;И бога брани благодатью  &#xD;&#xA;Наш каждый шаг **запечатлен**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov here both words are likely using &quot;е&quot; (знам**е**н/запечатл**е**н), but we cannot tell for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example where there is е and not ё is verses from Krylov's fable &quot;Лебедь, Щука и Рак&quot; (example from [Wikipedia article][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в товарищах согласья нет —  &#xD;&#xA;На лад их дело не пойдет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, in Krylov's times пойдет was pronounced as е as can be seen from the rhymed нет/пойдет. Interestingly, in modern textbook for pupils пойдет in this verse is written using ё: пойд**ё**т.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Looks like it was pronounced as л**е**гкий in Pushkin times. According to [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81#.D0.98.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.8F) the letter **ё**'s was printed for a first time in 1795. Before that time a number of letter combinations served to resemble this sound (о, ьо, їô, ió, ио). However Google Books has a book printed in 1792, which is entitled [&quot;Новый **легкий** и самый безопасый способ лѣчения чесотки&quot;][3]. If it has to be pronounced as ё there should be one of this combinations used: о, ьо, їô, ió, ио. Since it is not so, it has to be read as &quot;е&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/istiny/istiny_7_jo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81#.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.B4.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2_XVII.E2.80.94XIX_.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Xa9iAAAAcAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9121" RevisionGUID="3906b9f5-3664-4428-bff7-804e3a595b9d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T12:32:46.450" UserId="5543" Text="Лингво переводит слова *пытаться* и *пробовать* как *try, attempt*. С другой стороны, словарь Ефремова толкует, что пытаться значит то же, что *стараться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какая-то разница между этими словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9121" RevisionGUID="3906b9f5-3664-4428-bff7-804e3a595b9d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T12:32:46.450" UserId="5543" Text="Пытаться, стараться и пробовать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9121" RevisionGUID="3906b9f5-3664-4428-bff7-804e3a595b9d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T12:32:46.450" UserId="5543" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9122" RevisionGUID="47dbde4e-bd7f-484e-97e6-e5397e7ef190" CreationDate="2015-07-09T13:07:55.167" UserId="5605" Text="Словарь Ожегова&#xD;&#xA;ПРО́БОВАТЬ, -бую, -буешь; -анный; несовер.&#xD;&#xA;1. кого (что). Испытывать, проверять. Пробовать свои силы. Пробовать артиста на какую-нибудь роль.&#xD;&#xA;2. что. Есть для пробы, чтобы определить вкус, готовность чего-нибудь. Пробовать кушанье.&#xD;&#xA;3. с неопред. Пытаться, стараться что-н. сделать. Пробовал объясниться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="91b1a1d2-a9b6-4545-8abb-106fd0f92aa8" CreationDate="2015-07-09T13:08:54.213" UserId="5008" Text="Если коротко, то это синонимы, так же как и try и attempt. И так же как и try и attempt **оба** эти слова могут значить и &quot;делать попытку&quot;, и &quot;стараться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если подлиннее, то &quot;пробовать&quot; - это позднее заимствование из латыни (probare) через польский (proba, probowac) или же немецкий (Probe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А &quot;пытать(ся)&quot; - славянское слово означающее &quot;спрашивать&quot;. Однако же в современном русском языке &quot;пытать&quot; обыкновенно означает &quot;допрос с пристрастием&quot; (torture), а &quot;пытаться&quot; - как раз синоним &quot;пробовать&quot;. &quot;Пытать&quot; в значении &quot;спрашивать&quot; встречается довольно редко." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9122" RevisionGUID="ddcb3e33-f1b2-4077-b0e5-20a651c07238" CreationDate="2015-07-09T13:16:45.263" UserId="5605" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="Словарь Ожегова&#xD;&#xA;ПРО́БОВАТЬ, -бую, -буешь; -анный; несовер.&#xD;&#xA;1. кого (что). Испытывать, проверять. Пробовать свои силы. Пробовать артиста на какую-нибудь роль.&#xD;&#xA;2. что. Есть для пробы, чтобы определить вкус, готовность чего-нибудь. Пробовать кушанье.&#xD;&#xA;3. с неопред. Пытаться, стараться что-н. сделать. Пробовал объясниться.&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь Ушакова&#xD;&#xA;ПЫТАТЬСЯ, пытаюсь, пытаешься, несовер. 1. (совер. попытаться). Делать попытку, стараться, пробовать что нибудь сделать. «Он напрасно пытается закурить: отсырелый табак не принимает огня.»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9121" RevisionGUID="8d109079-c2a0-45c5-a452-b86c9bb7a1ec" CreationDate="2015-07-09T13:19:42.023" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Лингво переводит слова *пытаться* и *пробовать* как *try, attempt*. С другой стороны, словарь Ефремова говорит, что *пытаться* значит то же, что и *стараться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какая-то разница между этими словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9124" RevisionGUID="235968ce-0bb7-4a3b-94f8-692ed0bc71be" CreationDate="2015-07-09T16:38:37.570" UserId="4560" Text="Они во многих случаях взаимозаменимы, но у каждого свой оттенок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно представляется так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стараться** — ясный метод достижения цели, более или менее вероятный успех;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пытаться** — ясный метод, но успех далеко не гарантирован;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пробовать** — успех не гарантирован, и даже метод может быть неверным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="5468cfa7-2460-433f-aa55-f18a73ee5d10" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:28:48.717" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; А наверху ещё посмотрим, чья возьмёт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значит ли это предложение то же, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А наверху ещё посмотрим, кто победит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="5468cfa7-2460-433f-aa55-f18a73ee5d10" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:28:48.717" UserId="5543" Text="&quot;Чья возьмёт&quot; - значение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="5468cfa7-2460-433f-aa55-f18a73ee5d10" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:28:48.717" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="5d88d3f5-6b8a-4cb0-8af1-a2a56336cb0c" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:31:50.107" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; У неё была одна странность: она дружила с крысой. Крыса была **примечательная**, жила неизвестно где и приходила на зов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему здесь нет краткой формы прилагательного, т.е. **примечательна**? Это ведь сказуемое. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="5d88d3f5-6b8a-4cb0-8af1-a2a56336cb0c" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:31:50.107" UserId="5543" Text="Отсутсвующая краткая форма прилагательного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="5d88d3f5-6b8a-4cb0-8af1-a2a56336cb0c" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:31:50.107" UserId="5543" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="d5badb6a-a382-4ceb-a450-ac72047cba84" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:34:28.363" UserId="5008" Text="Сказуемое - &quot;была примечательная&quot;. Это составное именное сказуемое. В данном случае - быть + прилагательное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22067" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="128cc07d-8651-469a-b5ee-2ded098f8a41" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:38:02.627" UserId="5008" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22068" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="29a8fa0f-9aa8-4c55-8080-ad640294449b" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:38:28.053" UserId="5008" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="392b9ce0-529b-47ac-97b6-5a4a33e2d48b" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:38:34.960" UserId="5543" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="&gt; У неё была одна странность: она дружила с крысой. Крыса была **примечательная**, жила неизвестно где и приходила на зов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему здесь нет краткой формы прилагательного, т.е. **примечательна**? Это ведь (пожалуй составное) сказуемое. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="c715cbf7-304b-4c75-ba5b-73ab6119548e" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:39:49.743" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Но **ничего такого** всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но я бы сказал вместо этого предложения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но **ничто такое** всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли разница между такими предложениями? Или может моё совсем неправильно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="c715cbf7-304b-4c75-ba5b-73ab6119548e" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:39:49.743" UserId="5543" Text="Сличаться и родительный падеж" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="c715cbf7-304b-4c75-ba5b-73ab6119548e" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:39:49.743" UserId="5543" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="64ba15a1-6f89-42ff-8596-b33aa88575bd" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:41:09.307" UserId="5008" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Сказуемое - &quot;была примечательная&quot;. Это составное именное сказуемое. Именная часть сказуемого может выражаться разными частями речи - и существительным, и кратким прилагательным, и полным прилагательным (как в данном случае)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="22472cf2-baab-4766-ab04-4627ba66ba8d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:44:11.010" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Прямо готовая реклама по технике безопасности - **что-что**, а череп у него остался совершенно цел, и зубы были просто идеальные - ровные, аккуратные, я такими похвастаться не мог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наши пальцы сцепились сами, и я обнял её **крепко-крепко**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какая в этих примерах функция повторения? Я понимаю первый пример как *чуть-чуть*, а второй как *всё крепче*. Прав ли я?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="22472cf2-baab-4766-ab04-4627ba66ba8d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:44:11.010" UserId="5543" Text="Повторение слова - какая функция в этих примерах?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9129" RevisionGUID="22472cf2-baab-4766-ab04-4627ba66ba8d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:44:11.010" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="6c766bd3-62eb-42d8-abfb-bf481a232b65" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:46:24.163" UserId="5008" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Сказуемое - &quot;была примечательная&quot;. Это составное именное сказуемое. Именная часть сказуемого в принципе может выражаться разными частями речи - и существительным, и кратким прилагательным, и полным прилагательным (как в данном случае).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Крыса была примечательна - жила неизвестно где...&quot; - это значит, что крыса была примечательна именно тем, что жила неизвестно где.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Крыса была примечательная, жила неизвестно где...&quot; - это два более-менее независимых утверждения (в том смысле, что крыса, вероятно, была примечательна не только тем, что она жила неизвестно где)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="826086f2-c2f6-476e-8696-b5c3b5fc73b5" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:53:27.270" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; — Хочешь, я буду звать тебя Кэтрин, как в старых романах. В старых романах герой всегда прощался перед путешествием и обещал привезти что-нибудь. Аленький цветочек, например.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;— Аленький цветочек это уже **инцест**. Ты всё-таки не мой папа. — Она улыбнулась в темноте, но я, хоть и ничего не видел, знал, что она улыбается. К счастью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чём здесь дело? Я не вижу жадной связи кровосмешения с алыми цветками." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="826086f2-c2f6-476e-8696-b5c3b5fc73b5" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:53:27.270" UserId="5543" Text="Странное испольнование слова инцест" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="826086f2-c2f6-476e-8696-b5c3b5fc73b5" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:53:27.270" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9131" RevisionGUID="c8e1503c-5cf5-4b46-9887-14d5cd7f557f" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:56:35.640" UserId="115" Text="Вы не совсем правы. В первом примере имеется в ввиду что череп остался цел, а остальные части тела нет. Во втором примере повторение используется для усиления: &quot;крепко-крепко&quot; означает &quot;очень крепко&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9132" RevisionGUID="4731a5e5-cd76-40c1-a709-44d2b33348bd" CreationDate="2015-07-09T17:56:45.207" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Что-что, а&quot; служит для выделения объекта речи http://translate.academic.ru/%D0%A7%D1%82%D0%BE-%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE,%20%D0%90/ru/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Крепко-крепко&quot; = очень крепко." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22083" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="7cdc78a2-bf61-4f26-a000-17a40646bc2d" CreationDate="2015-07-09T18:00:44.353" UserId="5008" Comment="Опечатка - &quot;&quot;отсутсТвующая&quot;" Text="Отсутствующая краткая форма прилагательного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="deb1f4c1-c659-49c6-80cf-a89f7d8c8781" CreationDate="2015-07-09T18:05:04.957" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="&gt; — Хочешь, я буду звать тебя Кэтрин, как в старых романах. В старых романах герой всегда прощался перед путешествием и обещал привезти что-нибудь. Аленький цветочек, например.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;— Аленький цветочек это уже **инцест**. Ты всё-таки не мой папа. — Она улыбнулась в темноте, но я, хоть и ничего не видел, знал, что она улыбается. К счастью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чём здесь дело? Я не вижу никакой связи кровосмешения с алыми цветками." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22085" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9130" RevisionGUID="deb1f4c1-c659-49c6-80cf-a89f7d8c8781" CreationDate="2015-07-09T18:05:04.957" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Странное использование слова инцест" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9133" RevisionGUID="b35a099e-c7eb-4457-a404-cd2f3e7e8f4b" CreationDate="2015-07-09T18:06:41.490" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Аленький цветочек&quot; - это название сказки Аксакова. Сюжет - вариация на тему &quot;Красавица и чудовище&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аленький цветочек, упоминаемый в заглавии, обещал привезти девушке отец (но сорвав его, он прогневал чудовище, что и является завязкой сюжета). Отсюда в общем-то и ассоциация." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="69316443-1550-4be2-90fb-adf78875dc4b" CreationDate="2015-07-09T18:10:38.187" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="&gt; Но **ничего такого** всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В. Березин, *Путевые знаки*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но я бы сказал вместо этого предложения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но **ничто такое** всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли разница между этими предложениями? Или, может, моё совсем неправильно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9128" RevisionGUID="69316443-1550-4be2-90fb-adf78875dc4b" CreationDate="2015-07-09T18:10:38.187" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Случаться и родительный падеж" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="c1eaa312-0893-479f-b2cf-4e0d0f687fa4" CreationDate="2015-07-09T20:59:24.403" UserId="5605" Text="Чья возьмёт&#xD;&#xA;(разгоговорное, экспрессивное) - кто выиграет в каком-либо деле; кто победит, одолеет. Мне казалось, что России нет и уже никогда не будет, что всё потеряно и жить дальше не к чему. «Посмотрим, чья возьмёт, — подумал я. — Посмотрим» (Паустовский. Повесть о жизни)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="70a49aa1-0aa1-43fe-96ac-c840c52f6ce0" CreationDate="2015-07-09T21:04:24.993" UserId="5605" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Чья возьмёт&#xD;&#xA;(разгоговорное, экспрессивное) - кто выиграет в каком-либо деле; кто победит, одолеет. Мне казалось, что России нет и уже никогда не будет, что всё потеряно и жить дальше не к чему. «Посмотрим, чья возьмёт, — подумал я. — Посмотрим»        (Паустовский. Повесть о жизни)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9136" RevisionGUID="7aca96a4-ed89-484c-bbc2-eab1e4d359d4" CreationDate="2015-07-09T21:08:00.270" UserId="5694" Text="В книге, из которой вы цитируете отрывок, герои занимались сексом, а цветок в сказке привозил папа. Отсюда и намек на инцест. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22094" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9013" RevisionGUID="6dd23076-d3e7-409a-8e70-ffb2f88dab45" CreationDate="2015-07-09T22:24:54.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/619271032201977857" />
  <row Id="22095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="280cd12e-c0b9-43b4-a468-834459c936b2" CreationDate="2015-07-09T22:32:41.350" UserId="5696" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="The explanation of word **ещё** cannot be simply expressed.&#xD;&#xA;In short it grants the next word the meaning of delaying in terms of time or in terms of material things. It is like when the instance of something was already mentioned, and the word **ещё** represents another instance of something in point of view of saying person. If you are familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on a context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня есть эта вещь. -- А у меня ещё одна***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I've got this thing. -- And I have another one/one more*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also take a note, sentences *Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого* and *Я хотел(а) бы добавить ещё этого* having different meanings. The last one means that in addition to what there is already present I would like to add also this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9138" RevisionGUID="25b8eaa9-0b70-4341-9eb5-95f20a69e762" CreationDate="2015-07-10T03:19:45.093" UserId="5448" Text="Вообще-то именно она, эта ***костяшка***, &quot;домино&quot; и называется. А название игры исходно было множественное число от этого &quot;домино&quot;. Но поскольку домино несклоняемо (множественное число по форме совпадает с единственным), саму игру стали называть домино - а единственном числе, а &quot;доминошки&quot; - костями, костяшками, пластинками и проч. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в других языках этот принцип сохранился. В английском - игра domino, коcтяшки - domino, множественное - domonos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9138" RevisionGUID="106532d8-30a4-4049-bc8d-0e1617ee2988" CreationDate="2015-07-10T03:26:09.560" UserId="5448" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Вообще-то именно она, эта ***костяшка***, &quot;домино&quot; и называется. А название игры исходно было множественное число от этого &quot;домино&quot;. Но поскольку домино несклоняемо (множественное число по форме совпадает с единственным), саму игру стали называть домино - а единственном числе, а &quot;доминошки&quot; - костями, костяшками, пластинками и проч. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в других языках этот принцип сохранился. В английском - игра dominos (также - dominoes), коcтяшки - domino, множественное - domonos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9139" RevisionGUID="0a53a879-e722-4331-bbbd-1a1cd7f40d0e" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:56:39.033" UserId="5443" Text="(в рамках близких значений)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пытаться** - совершать целенаправленные действия в надежде на получение результата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пробовать** - пытаться, будучи неуверенным в пригодности выбранного способа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стараться** - в рамках выбранного метода действий прикладывать усилия к получению наилучшего результата" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22100" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1734" RevisionGUID="b4c9480a-306d-4de2-871e-fac07ceb09b7" CreationDate="2015-07-10T07:20:37.610" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9135" RevisionGUID="9253351b-1173-4705-b3b5-a09aad7cd277" CreationDate="2015-07-10T07:32:29.257" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Чья возьмёт&#xD;&#xA;(разгоговорное, экспрессивное) - кто выиграет в каком-либо деле; кто победит, одолеет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне казалось, что России нет и уже никогда не будет, что всё потеряно и жить дальше не к чему. «Посмотрим, чья возьмёт, — подумал я. — Посмотрим»        (Паустовский. Повесть о жизни)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="ab9c8ec6-08ae-4ccd-ac6f-a6d5986cfbc7" CreationDate="2015-07-10T10:37:04.980" UserId="5288" Text="Рассмотрим Ваш пример.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничего такого всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;    └─────┬───────┘      └─────┬──────┘&#xD;&#xA;        Родительный          глагол &#xD;&#xA;         падеж             с отрицанием&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`Ничто` называют местоименным словом. Буквально, слово/термин *&quot;местоимение&quot;* можно прочитать *(вместо)имени.* Или — *на месте имени.* То есть, вместо конкретного &quot;наименования/имени&quot; используют обобщающий термин-слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если `ничто` это (в)местоимение, грамматически не отличимое от имени, а имена у нас существительные, то есть, неотличимое от существительного, то это *обобщающий-термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;существительного&quot;. Тогда (в)местоимение `ничего` можно считать местоименным словом `ничто`, стоящим в родительном падеже. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существительное, относящееся к глаголу с отрицанием, может иметь форму родительного или винительного падежа. Вот как объясняет родительный падеж при глаголе с отрицанием Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Д.Э. Розенталь. Русский язык. 2005&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма родительного падежа подчеркивает отрицание: *Угрюмых и серьёзных фигур их не терплю (Л.); Он не любил этого города (М.Г.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это общее положение конкретизируется рядом условий, наличие которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приводит к явному преобладанию формы родительного падежа дополнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при переходном глаголе с отрицанием: &#xD;&#xA;2. отрицание усиливается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частицей `ни` или местоимением либо местоимением или наречием, в состав&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого входит указанная частица: *Ни подкупы, ни запугивания, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; насилия, к которым прибегали судовладельцы, не сломили боевого духа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; итальянских моряков (Газ.); Никогда никому не доверял своей тайны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ч.); Никто не видел такого тяжелого и скверного сна (М.Г.);*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующий Ваш пример.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто такое всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;мы перепишем так, чтобы местоимение можно было использовать с именем одушевленным:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто(никого) такое всё же не нашлось.&#xD;&#xA;     └─────┬─────┘    \   &#xD;&#xA;      Винительный      \___ не согласуется с винительным падежом&#xD;&#xA;         падеж              для местоимения `никого`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Это сделано для того, чтобы показать проблему: в винительном падеже местоимение `ничто/никто` будет `ничто/никого.` Следующее местоимение, `такой`, будет стоять в падеже, которое зависит от использования одушевленное/неодушевленное местоимения.    &#xD;&#xA;`ничто/никого → такое/такого.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И хотя `ничто` в винительном падеже совпадает, и согласуется с Вашим примером `ничто такое`, мы найдем крайне мало примеров с таким употреблением для глагола с отрицанием в литературе. Потому что автоматизм у носителей языка требует(ожидает) для местоимения `такой` форму `такого`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="56718cb8-c721-4103-a547-ab76fb35d265" CreationDate="2015-07-10T10:42:43.130" UserId="5288" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим Ваш пример.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничего такого всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;    └─────┬───────┘      └─────┬──────┘&#xD;&#xA;        Родительный          глагол &#xD;&#xA;         падеж             с отрицанием&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`Ничто` называют местоименным словом. Буквально, слово/термин *&quot;местоимение&quot;* можно прочитать *(вместо)имени.* Или — *на месте имени.* То есть, вместо конкретного &quot;наименования/имени&quot; используют обобщающий термин-слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если `ничто` это (в)местоимение, грамматически не отличимое от имени, а имена у нас существительные, то есть, неотличимое от существительного, то это *обобщающий-термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;существительного&quot;. Тогда (в)местоимение `ничего` можно считать местоименным словом `ничто`, стоящим в родительном падеже. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существительное, относящееся к глаголу с отрицанием, может иметь форму родительного или винительного падежа. Вот как объясняет родительный падеж при глаголе с отрицанием Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Д.Э. Розенталь. Русский язык. 2005&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма родительного падежа подчеркивает отрицание: *Угрюмых и серьёзных фигур их не терплю (Л.); Он не любил этого города (М.Г.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это общее положение конкретизируется рядом условий, наличие которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приводит к явному преобладанию формы родительного падежа дополнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при переходном глаголе с отрицанием: &#xD;&#xA;2. отрицание усиливается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частицей `ни` или местоимением либо местоимением или наречием, в состав&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого входит указанная частица: *Ни подкупы, ни запугивания, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; насилия, к которым прибегали судовладельцы, не сломили боевого духа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; итальянских моряков (Газ.); Никогда никому не доверял своей тайны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ч.); Никто не видел такого тяжелого и скверного сна (М.Г.);*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующий Ваш пример.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто такое всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;мы перепишем так, чтобы местоимение можно было использовать с именем одушевленным:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто(никого) такое всё же не нашлось.&#xD;&#xA;     └─────┬─────┘    \   &#xD;&#xA;      Винительный      \___ не согласуется с винительным падежом&#xD;&#xA;         падеж              для местоимения `никого`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Это сделано для того, чтобы показать проблему: в винительном падеже местоимение `ничто/никто` будет `ничто/никого.` Следующее местоимение, `такой`, будет стоять в падеже, которое зависит от использования одушевленное/неодушевленное местоимения.    &#xD;&#xA;`ничто/никого → такое/такого.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И хотя `ничто` в винительном падеже совпадает, и согласуется с Вашим примером `ничто такое`, мы найдем крайне мало примеров с таким употреблением для глагола с отрицанием в литературе. Потому что автоматизм у носителей языка требует(ожидает) для местоимения `такой` форму `такого`, а потому абсолютное большинство использует оборот `ничего такого`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="e2e01337-4d07-4141-b13f-60ffeb7cc591" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:49:30.407" UserId="3892" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The explanation of word **ещё** cannot be simply expressed.&#xD;&#xA;In short it grants the next word the meaning of delaying in terms of time or in terms of material things. It is like when the instance of something was already mentioned, and the word **ещё** represents another instance of something in point of view of the speaker. If you are familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quiet big, but I saw one that is even bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня есть эта вещь. -- А у меня ещё одна***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I've got this thing. -- And I have another one/one more*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also take note, the sentences *Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого* and *Я хотел(а) бы добавить ещё этого* have different meanings. The last one means that in addition to what there is already present, I would also like to add this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9077" RevisionGUID="b984b45f-c850-4958-8055-9bfc64f9a2f2" CreationDate="2015-07-10T14:20:57.917" UserId="5008" Comment="corrected spelling - quite" Text="The explanation of word **ещё** cannot be simply expressed.&#xD;&#xA;In short it grants the next word the meaning of delaying in terms of time or in terms of material things. It is like when the instance of something was already mentioned, and the word **ещё** represents another instance of something in point of view of the speaker. If you are familiar with German, **noch** carries the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be translated into English in many ways depending on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я ещё не сделал(а) это. / Я всё ещё не сделал это***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have not done it yet. / I still haven't done it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что ещё?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What else?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Смотри, какое огромное здание. -- О-о, достаточно большое, но я видел здание ещё больше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*See, how large that building is. -- Oh, that one is quite big, but I saw one that is even bigger (more + adjective).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня есть эта вещь. -- А у меня ещё одна***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I've got this thing. -- And I have another one/one more*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I would like to add more of this*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also take note, the sentences *Я хотел(а) бы ещё добавить этого* and *Я хотел(а) бы добавить ещё этого* have different meanings. The last one means that in addition to what there is already present, I would also like to add this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="3cee2e3a-d769-440e-84fc-94c62ce92ed6" CreationDate="2015-07-10T16:33:25.613" UserId="5717" Text="Could anybody explain this to me please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you can say &quot;What?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why don't they use the nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanking you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="3cee2e3a-d769-440e-84fc-94c62ce92ed6" CreationDate="2015-07-10T16:33:25.613" UserId="5717" Text="Why do Russians say &quot;Чего?&quot; and not &quot;Что?&quot; when they didn't understand something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="3cee2e3a-d769-440e-84fc-94c62ce92ed6" CreationDate="2015-07-10T16:33:25.613" UserId="5717" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="a0e70109-aa15-4a7c-b08a-d63c2c367b27" CreationDate="2015-07-10T16:50:23.490" UserId="134" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="&gt; Иди, дело есть. ― Чего? ― спросил Карусельщик с подозрением, но из тумана все же показался. // *[Елена Хаецкая. Синие стрекозы Вавилона/ Семеро праведных в раю господина (2004)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anybody explain why *чего* is used in genitive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you can say &quot;What?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why don't they use the nominative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanking you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9142" RevisionGUID="ea746dec-3326-436e-b333-a629ca946d25" CreationDate="2015-07-10T16:57:20.597" UserId="5288" Text="For the  familiar-colloquial/low-colloquial word `чего?`  there is equivalent in English `A what?`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="22e59b63-27da-40e5-9466-5c67c1684705" CreationDate="2015-07-10T17:30:35.357" UserId="5605" Text="Не все россияне говорят &quot;чего?&quot;, культурная часть россиян говорит &quot;что?&quot;. Кроме разговорного варианта &quot;чего?&quot; есть ещё совсем просторечный вариант &quot;Чё?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="81098ccc-cece-4a2a-b6b0-dd5a6c285914" CreationDate="2015-07-10T17:36:56.570" UserId="5605" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="Не все россияне говорят &quot;чего?&quot;, культурная часть россиян говорит &quot;что?&quot;. Кроме разговорного варианта &quot;чего?&quot; есть ещё совсем просторечный вариант &quot;Чё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; Not all the Russians say &quot;чего?&quot;, the cultural part of the Russians said &quot;что?&quot;. In addition to the spoken version of &quot;чего?&quot; is quite colloquial variant of &quot;Чё?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9144" RevisionGUID="fb9f1fe0-bf41-4e9f-8a3b-c78d9ed400a5" CreationDate="2015-07-10T17:47:59.940" UserId="4833" Text="Why should it be in Nominative? For me *что?* is a shortening of *Что вы сказали?, Что вы хотите?* or a similar question. In most such questions *что* is the object, so it must be Accusative. &#xA;&#xA;In colloquial speech, the Accusative is in some cases replaced with Genitive/Partitive.  People say *Чего ты хочешь?* and sometimes even *Чего ты спросил?*. &#xA;And the short form of such questions would be just *Чего?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9145" RevisionGUID="e478d297-5d3c-4843-9d6a-4765bd53b91d" CreationDate="2015-07-10T17:51:59.540" UserId="5008" Text="I should note that in this particular case &quot;Что/чего?&quot; does not stand for &quot;What do you say? I didn't understand&quot; but rather for &quot;What do you want?&quot; Although that depends upon the pronunciation yet more often people say &quot;Чего?&quot; when they really mean the latter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="6c4c6936-c715-44b3-a12c-ec627c283451" CreationDate="2015-07-10T18:44:48.990" UserId="5288" Comment="added 775 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим Ваш пример.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничего такого всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;    └─────┬───────┘      └─────┬──────┘&#xD;&#xA;        Родительный          глагол &#xD;&#xA;         падеж             с отрицанием&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`Ничто` называют местоименным словом. Буквально, слово/термин *&quot;местоимение&quot;* можно прочитать *(вместо)имени.* Или — *на месте имени.* То есть, вместо конкретного &quot;наименования/имени&quot; используют обобщающий термин-слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если `ничто` это (в)местоимение, грамматически не отличимое от имени, а имена у нас существительные, то есть, неотличимое от существительного, то это *обобщающий-термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;существительного&quot;. Тогда (в)местоимение `ничего` можно считать местоименным словом `ничто`, стоящим в родительном падеже. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существительное, относящееся к глаголу с отрицанием, может иметь форму родительного или винительного падежа. Вот как объясняет родительный падеж при глаголе с отрицанием Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Д.Э. Розенталь. Русский язык. 2005&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма родительного падежа подчеркивает отрицание: *Угрюмых и серьёзных фигур их не терплю (Л.); Он не любил этого города (М.Г.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это общее положение конкретизируется рядом условий, наличие которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приводит к явному преобладанию формы родительного падежа дополнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при переходном глаголе с отрицанием: &#xD;&#xA;2. отрицание усиливается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частицей `ни` или местоимением либо местоимением или наречием, в состав&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого входит указанная частица: *Ни подкупы, ни запугивания, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; насилия, к которым прибегали судовладельцы, не сломили боевого духа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; итальянских моряков (Газ.); Никогда никому не доверял своей тайны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ч.); Никто не видел такого тяжелого и скверного сна (М.Г.);*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующий Ваш пример.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто такое всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;мы перепишем так, чтобы местоимение можно было использовать с именем одушевленным:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто(никого) такое всё же не нашлось.&#xD;&#xA;     └─────┬─────┘    \   &#xD;&#xA;      Винительный      \___ не согласуется с винительным падежом&#xD;&#xA;         падеж              для местоимения `никого`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Мы видим ещё одно (в)местоимение — `такой.` Это *термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;прилагательного&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы переписали для того, чтобы показать проблему: в винительном падеже местоимение `ничто/никто` будет `ничто/никого.` Следующее местоимение, `такой`, будет стоять в падеже, которое зависит от использования одушевленное/неодушевленное местоимения.    &#xD;&#xA;`ничто/никого → такое/такого.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И хотя `ничто` в винительном падеже совпадает, и согласуется с Вашим примером `ничто такое`, мы найдем крайне мало примеров с таким употреблением для глагола с отрицанием в литературе: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... и сказал, что ничто такое не нужно и ничего беспокойного нет. [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=739&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22+%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&quot; title=&quot;Google Book Search&quot;&gt;Н.Лесков&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... ничто не поддерживало въ нихъ такихъ воспоминаний,&#xD;&#xA;     ничто такое не бросалось имъ въ глаза, ... [&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=8BV4BAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PT27&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22&amp;pg=PT27#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&quot; title=&quot;Исторические монографии и исследования, стр. 26&quot;&gt;Н.Костомаров&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Видимо, автоматизм у носителей языка требует(ожидает) для местоимения `такой` форму `такого`, а потому абсолютное большинство использует оборот `ничего такого`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="de406879-3ec4-4afa-8f19-0a269837fcb8" CreationDate="2015-07-10T19:27:28.113" UserId="194" Text="These phrases should be understood as contractions. I wrote the full forms to the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что? = Что [ты говоришь]? or Что [ты сказал]? (What do/did you say?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего? = Чего [ты хочешь]? or Чего [тебе надо]? (What do you want/need?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later variant suggests that the bad-hearing party thinks the speaker wants/asks something from them. As such it is usually considered less polite/more aggressive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="1aee115b-d02c-4f9b-bd7e-1698f69df6b3" CreationDate="2015-07-10T19:32:28.377" UserId="194" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="These phrases should be understood as contractions. I wrote the full forms to the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что? = Что [ты говоришь]? or Что [ты сказал]? (What do/did you say?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего? = Чего [ты хочешь]? or Чего [тебе надо]? (What do you want/need?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later variant suggests that the bad-hearing party thinks the speaker wants/asks something from them, possibly something the listening party does not have or does not want to give or to do. As such it is usually considered less polite or more rude/reluctant/unentusiastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9106" RevisionGUID="108162fc-e20f-4260-9cf0-bb3559082f37" CreationDate="2015-07-10T19:55:47.530" UserId="194" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Похожий - имеет внешнее сходство&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Схожий - имеет любое сходство, внешнее, внутреннее, по принципу действия и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Похожий = can be taken/mistaken for, reminds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Схожий = similar in essence or in certain features&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="26cbfd63-847c-4c9d-b126-9056e7e2d93a" CreationDate="2015-07-10T20:44:11.410" UserId="194" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="These phrases should be understood as contractions. I wrote the full forms to the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что? = Что [ты говоришь]? or Что [ты сказал]? (What do/did you say?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего? = Чего [ты хочешь]? or Чего [тебе надо]? (What do you want/need?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later variant suggests that the bad-hearing party thinks the speaker wants/asks something from them, possibly something the listening party does not have or does not want to give or to do. As such it is usually considered less polite or more unfriendly/reluctant/unentusiastic/skeptical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9147" RevisionGUID="14ab8da7-7b06-4df0-9afd-7c5cefc8bcdf" CreationDate="2015-07-10T20:46:23.130" UserId="194" Text="Usially ut is called камень by the players." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9148" RevisionGUID="ca645519-291e-4c9d-bab4-c1d378160214" CreationDate="2015-07-10T20:49:06.107" UserId="5448" Text="&gt;Could anybody explain why чего is used in genitive here?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not at all, that is not Genitive, just vulgar form for Nominative/Accusative &quot;Что&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;From other hand, it may be short form for &quot;Чего ты хочешь?&quot; (what do you need?) or something similar. At the last sentantion the Genetive &quot;Что&quot; is fully correct as by as The Accusative &quot;Что?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9138" RevisionGUID="30189b1b-695c-4942-96c7-c50396c0ef88" CreationDate="2015-07-10T20:52:19.487" UserId="5448" Comment="edited body" Text="Вообще-то именно она, эта ***костяшка***, &quot;домино&quot; и называется. А название игры исходно было множественное число от этого &quot;домино&quot;. Но поскольку домино несклоняемо (множественное число по форме совпадает с единственным), саму игру стали называть домино - в единственном числе, а &quot;доминошки&quot; - костями, костяшками, пластинками и проч. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в других языках этот принцип сохранился. В английском - игра dominos (также - dominoes), коcтяшки - domino, множественное - domonos" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="f99b5bae-b5c7-426e-a070-1f7b8b24392a" CreationDate="2015-07-11T00:19:38.397" UserId="4751" Comment="add tag to question" Text="I've been living in Georgia for half a year and most of my friends are fluent in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been focused on learning Georgian rather than Russian so far. But when I want to learn some Russian too, am I likely to pick up some bad habits by learning from Georgian speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a native English speaker, I know the kinds of mistakes otherwise-fluent German native speakers make in their English. What are some Russian equivalents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22135" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="f99b5bae-b5c7-426e-a070-1f7b8b24392a" CreationDate="2015-07-11T00:19:38.397" UserId="4751" Comment="add tag to question" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22136" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="f99b5bae-b5c7-426e-a070-1f7b8b24392a" CreationDate="2015-07-11T00:19:38.397" Comment="Proposed by 4751 approved by 2060, 3680 edit id of 644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="5bae7c10-7972-4ab6-b38e-c7edbf8d877e" CreationDate="2015-07-11T04:49:13.283" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1324 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим Ваш пример. Он не является частным, то есть, связанным с лексическими особенностями глагола *случаться*(несов.)-*случиться*(сов.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример сводится к схеме: `N_obj + не + V`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически, вопрос сводится к следующему. В каком падеже ставить прямой объект при глаголе с отрицанием? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничего такого всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;    └─────┬───────┘      └─────┬──────┘&#xD;&#xA;       object,               глагол &#xD;&#xA;      Род.падеж            с отрицанием&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**История вопроса.**    &#xD;&#xA;Она довольно давняя, вот например, [обсуждение его А.Пушкиным][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ краткий.**    &#xD;&#xA;[**§ 2667.**][1] *При переходных глаголах с отрицанием сильноуправляемое имя со знач. объекта может иметь форму род. или вин. п.*    &#xD;&#xA;§ 2668 гласит: Родительный падеж обязателен в следующих случаях ...; пункт (4): ...когда позицию имени со знач. объекта занимает местоимение `ничто`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ развернутый.**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, есть примеры с винительным падежом в литературе: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... но тогда ничто такое ему не будет опасно. [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=739&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22+%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&quot; title=&quot;Google Book Search&quot;&gt;Н.Лесков&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... ничто не поддерживало въ нихъ такихъ воспоминаний,&#xD;&#xA;     ничто такое не бросалось имъ въ глаза, ... [&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=8BV4BAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PT27&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22&amp;pg=PT27#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&quot; title=&quot;Исторические монографии и исследования, стр. 26&quot;&gt;Н.Костомаров&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, законом или правилом это назвать нельзя. Можно поступить как в физике, там, если нет логически безупречного объяснения, то класс явлений объявляют физическим эффектом :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ничто` называют местоименным словом. Буквально, слово/термин *&quot;местоимение&quot;* можно прочитать *(вместо)имени.* Или — *на месте имени.* То есть, вместо конкретного &quot;наименования/имени&quot; используют обобщающий термин-слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если `ничто` это (в)местоимение, грамматически не отличимое от имени, а имена у нас существительные, то есть, неотличимое от существительного, то это *обобщающий-термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;существительного&quot;. Тогда (в)местоимение `ничего` можно считать местоименным словом `ничто`, стоящим в родительном падеже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы видим ещё одно (в)местоимение — `такой.` Это *термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;прилагательного&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему предпочитают родительный падеж? Вот как объясняет родительный падеж при глаголе с отрицанием Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Д.Э. Розенталь. Русский язык. 2005&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма родительного падежа подчеркивает отрицание: *Угрюмых и серьёзных фигур их не терплю (Л.); Он не любил этого города (М.Г.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это общее положение конкретизируется рядом условий, наличие которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приводит к явному преобладанию формы родительного падежа дополнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при переходном глаголе с отрицанием: &#xD;&#xA;2. отрицание усиливается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частицей `ни` или местоимением либо местоимением или наречием, в состав&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого входит указанная частица: *Ни подкупы, ни запугивания, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; насилия, к которым прибегали судовладельцы, не сломили боевого духа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; итальянских моряков (Газ.); Никогда никому не доверял своей тайны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ч.); Никто не видел такого тяжелого и скверного сна (М.Г.);*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующий Ваш пример. Попробуем разобраться, почему предпочитают родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто такое всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;мы перепишем так, чтобы местоимение можно было использовать с именем одушевленным:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто(никого) такое всё же не нашлось.&#xD;&#xA;     └─────┬─────┘    \   &#xD;&#xA;      Винительный      \___ не согласуется с винительным падежом&#xD;&#xA;         падеж              для местоимения `никого`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Мы переписали для того, чтобы показать проблему: в винительном падеже местоимение `ничто/никто` примет форму `ничто/никого.` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выбором *одушевленное/неодушевленное* вносится дополнительная дифференциация для винительного падежа в словосочетание `ничто(никого) такое(такого).` Родительный падеж одной формой передает более общее значение. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для говорящего легче формулировать более общие утверждения. А поскольку русский язык относится к классу синтетических языков (на другой стороне аналитические, например, английский/китайский), тот, кто говорит/пишет, совершает больше работы, чем тот, кто читает написанное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идя по пути наименьшего сопротивления, у носителей языка, видимо, и сложился навык использовать форму родительного падежа, `ничего/никого такого + не + глагол`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://rusgram.narod.ru/2661-2673.html#2667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=UuN6AgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA348&amp;ots=R576YiqjJS&amp;pg=PA348#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false &quot;Элементы антропоцентрической грамматики русского языка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22138" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="574765e7-88c0-4b2e-9cbc-8073c04e83e3" CreationDate="2015-07-11T07:35:25.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/619771961250611200" />
  <row Id="22140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="814aaf20-059b-4509-9e94-933ac907e45e" CreationDate="2015-07-11T08:47:22.327" UserId="4028" Text="I have learned that verbs *говорить*, *читать* and *писать* are used with an adverbial form of the language (e.g., “я говорю по-японски”).  On the other hand, it seems to me that the verb *слушать* is rarely used with the adverbial one.  But I wonder whether *слушать* may be used with the adverbial one in a few situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in a situation where I am listening to the radio news by selecting the Japanese language in sound multiplex broadcasting, is it possible to say “я слушаю новости радио по-японски”?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="814aaf20-059b-4509-9e94-933ac907e45e" CreationDate="2015-07-11T08:47:22.327" UserId="4028" Text="Is &quot;слушать&quot; used with an adverbial form of the language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="814aaf20-059b-4509-9e94-933ac907e45e" CreationDate="2015-07-11T08:47:22.327" UserId="4028" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9152" RevisionGUID="6d702c87-848c-4383-af83-5a8db3d87373" CreationDate="2015-07-11T09:00:30.910" UserId="194" Text="You can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слушаю по радио новости по-японски.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слушаю радионовости по-японски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences по-японски refers to новости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слушаю новости радио по-японски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means actually &quot;I am listening the news about radio in Japanese&quot;, possibly not something you wanted to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9146" RevisionGUID="655ce0ae-7d25-4310-8d44-67540de664dc" CreationDate="2015-07-11T09:33:24.087" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="These phrases should be understood as contractions. I wrote the full forms to the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что? = Что [ты говоришь]? or Что [ты сказал]? (What do/did you say?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего? = Чего [ты хочешь]? or Чего [тебе надо]? (What do you want/need?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later variant suggests that the listening party thinks the speaker wants/asks something from them, possibly something the listening party does not have or does not want to give or to do. As such it is usually considered less polite or more unfriendly/reluctant/unentusiastic/skeptical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example if the Карусельщик asked &quot;что?&quot; it would mean he requests the call to be repeated because he failed to hear it clearly. Asking &quot;чего?&quot; does not imply he wants a repeat. It rather requests for clarification as in &quot;What do you want from me?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="b08bd528-6939-436d-b536-91b30de51426" CreationDate="2015-07-11T09:36:14.743" UserId="2380" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="Не все россияне говорят &quot;чего?&quot;, культурная часть россиян говорит &quot;что?&quot;. Кроме разговорного варианта &quot;чего?&quot; есть ещё совсем просторечный вариант &quot;Чё?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all the Russians say &quot;чего?&quot;, the educated Russian people rather use &quot;что?&quot;. In addition to the spoken version &quot;чего?&quot;, there is quite low colloquial variant of &quot;Чё?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22146" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9143" RevisionGUID="b08bd528-6939-436d-b536-91b30de51426" CreationDate="2015-07-11T09:36:14.743" Comment="Proposed by 2380 approved by 104, 2060 edit id of 645" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="beee30b6-c3f4-4521-b263-d5667e1838c9" CreationDate="2015-07-11T10:10:44.990" UserId="2380" Comment="common for нарицательный" Text="Actually you may see both variants of writing: `Майами` and `Маями`. `Майами` - is official name, however, some people may also use `Маями`. It's just a problems of transliteration names from one language to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no special rules about transliteration names. &#xD;&#xA;For example, in common Miami is used to write like `Майами`. However, Myanmar is used to write like `Мьянма`, with using `я`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are talking about common words, like `йогурт` or `майор` or `ёж` and so on, there is no difference in the sound of `йо` and `ё` or `йа` and `я`. The reason why whe use one or another - is a traditional writing. For foreign words we usually use `йа` and `йо`. For russian words `я` and `ё`. But it's not a strong rule. You should just remember how to write one or another word. Like in english you will write `photo` and not `foto`, even if it's sounds the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As addition: Russians never use `йу` only `ю`. Mystery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22148" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="beee30b6-c3f4-4521-b263-d5667e1838c9" CreationDate="2015-07-11T10:10:44.990" Comment="Proposed by 2380 approved by 2060, 3680 edit id of 646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9153" RevisionGUID="be2403a4-8915-4484-880b-8e4c80aefc17" CreationDate="2015-07-11T10:29:33.000" UserId="5008" Text="Although the spelling suggests that &quot;по-русски&quot; is a whole word yet it still sounds for us like two words that is &quot;like Russian&quot;, &quot;Russian way&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when I say &quot;Я говорю по-русски&quot; deeply in my mind I think both &quot;I **do** speak Russian&quot; and &quot;I can speak **like** Russians&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus saying &quot;Я слушаю по-русски&quot; seems to be a nonsense as there's no way to listen &quot;like Russians do&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="01827a89-63ee-44cc-8d8d-60608c7c06c6" CreationDate="2015-07-11T11:01:37.130" UserId="5721" Text="Is there any app where you would give in a date (for exmaple July 11th, 2015) and it would write out the correct way to say it in russain (i.e.  Одиннадцатого Июля две тысячи пятнадцатого года)? I want to practice this, but I am never sure I got it right - so such a tool would be cool to check for mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="01827a89-63ee-44cc-8d8d-60608c7c06c6" CreationDate="2015-07-11T11:01:37.130" UserId="5721" Text="App to print out fully expanded name of dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9154" RevisionGUID="01827a89-63ee-44cc-8d8d-60608c7c06c6" CreationDate="2015-07-11T11:01:37.130" UserId="5721" Text="|грамматика|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9155" RevisionGUID="3567d9df-f27a-41ee-ac8f-476d17f3c0e4" CreationDate="2015-07-11T12:26:45.113" UserId="5694" Text="Actually &quot;чего&quot; isn't necessarily vulgar. A lot depends on intonation of the speaker and the context. But it tends to sound ruder and more colloquial than &quot;что&quot;. Still people who are in very good relations can use &quot;чего&quot; as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9156" RevisionGUID="5235ea69-9f93-4214-b384-321cfd454889" CreationDate="2015-07-11T12:57:45.300" UserId="5605" Text="Нельзя сказать &quot;я слушаю новости радио по-японски&quot;. Это неправильно. Нужно сказать &quot;я слушаю по радио новости на японском языке&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You cannot say &quot;я слушаю новости радио по-японски&quot;. This is wrong. You can say &quot;я слушаю по радио новости на японском языке&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="bdd68cec-fcad-410d-a919-11a46cdd7cfd" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:25:41.057" UserId="5723" Text="I have read [the anecdote][1] in Russian  that reads literally as &quot;to get more milk from a cow and spend less food, you should feed your cow less and milk it more&quot;. Is that a common anecdote in Russia? Do you say that in everyday speech in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you react if someone said it without an explanation of what he/she meant by a cow and milk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="bdd68cec-fcad-410d-a919-11a46cdd7cfd" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:25:41.057" UserId="5723" Text="to get more milk from a cow and spend less food, you should feed your cow less and milk it more" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="bdd68cec-fcad-410d-a919-11a46cdd7cfd" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:25:41.057" UserId="5723" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="4b53d205-2d61-4919-b3e4-dd94ad69ffdd" CreationDate="2015-07-11T14:50:51.007" UserId="2079" Text="I read that joke, but I don't say or hear it in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I respond to it, depends entirely on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9157" RevisionGUID="d762dbed-6d0e-4f65-8c2f-7c0849aa778b" CreationDate="2015-07-11T15:15:50.867" UserId="5723" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="I have read [the anecdote][1] in Russian  that reads literally as &quot;to get more milk from a cow and spend less food, you should feed your cow less and milk it more&quot;. Is that a common anecdote in Russia? Do you say that in everyday speech in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you react if someone said it without an explanation of what he/she meant by a cow and milk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context:&#xD;&#xA;I come to my colleagues at work and say, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ruble is falling, and we are drowning in the crisis. I want to get more milk from a cow and spend less food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="9dd60303-227c-4cf6-843d-5754460ba0a0" CreationDate="2015-07-11T17:17:00.143" UserId="2380" Text="Как я понимаю, глагол **отправлять** имеет следующие формы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я отправлял - я отправляю - я буду отправлять,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тогда как глагол **отправить** как будто бы не имеет формы настоящего времени:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я отправил - ??? - я отправлю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я выстроил их в соответствии с совершенным/несовершенным родом и не понимаю этой системы - можно ли считать совершенный род аналогом английского *perfect*'а, а его как будто бы прошедшее время - *present perfect*? Тогда как обстоит дело с *past perfect*? И есть ли примеры пар глаголов, у которых есть все шесть форм? Я придумал только глаголы вроде **пить/выпить/выпивать** с формами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я пил - я пью - я буду пить,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я выпил - ??? - я выпью,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я выпивал - я выпиваю - я буду выпивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;соответственно, у которых совершенный вид всё равно не имеет одного из времен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="9dd60303-227c-4cf6-843d-5754460ba0a0" CreationDate="2015-07-11T17:17:00.143" UserId="2380" Text="Есть ли настоящее время у глагола отправить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9159" RevisionGUID="9dd60303-227c-4cf6-843d-5754460ba0a0" CreationDate="2015-07-11T17:17:00.143" UserId="2380" Text="|глаголы|спряжение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9160" RevisionGUID="9f0cb446-2f67-429b-85d2-00f5bf871652" CreationDate="2015-07-11T17:27:51.230" UserId="5605" Text="Во времена СССР анекдоты можно было услышать только от друзей и коллег, а сейчас много анекдотов публикуется в &quot;жёлтой прессе&quot; и в Интернете. Этот анекдот (о корове) - мало известен, в повседневной речи в России его не употребляют. Совершенно понятно, что анекдот о корове и молоке - иносказательный и речь в нём идёт на самом деле о экономическом кризисе.&#xD;&#xA;During Soviet times, the jokes could be heard only from friends and colleagues, and now a lot of anecdotes is published in the tabloids and on the Internet. This anecdote (of a cow) is little known, in everyday speech in Russia it is not consumed. It is clear that the story about the cow and the milk is allegorical and it is actually about the economic crisis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="af5314d5-1858-469b-a77d-c9862a45533f" CreationDate="2015-07-11T18:30:14.137" UserId="5574" Text="У совершенных глаголов просто нет настоящего времени. Можно сказать, что они обозначают бесконечно короткие события. Они не ответствуют роду perfect, ражде simple, но не всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present perfect continous переводят как несовершенный род прошлого (если событие окончено) времени, на пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы смотрели фильм &quot;Белая собака&quot;. - You have been watching the film &quot;White Dog&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказал, что род simple обозначает короткие и очень долгие события, итак он ответствует несовершенному роду, если обозначает кончено короткие (Present Simple не может обозначать бесконечно коротких, ротому что теперь бесконечно короткое, а по логике руского* языка две беск. короткие вещи не могут случиться в одно время) или очень долгие (Present Simple как gnomic tense или нр. когда можно дать used to в месте Past Simple) вещи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* и польского - я поляк" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9162" RevisionGUID="a9a780e1-b94a-466b-b86d-fc0f7719f65e" CreationDate="2015-07-11T19:09:35.243" UserId="5008" Text="Категория времени в русском языке существенно отличается от западноевропейских языков, так что не нужно искать аналогию там где её нет. В частности, *ничего* соответствующего ни давнопрошедшему, ни ближайшему прошедшему времени у русских глаголов нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предложение &quot;Я отправил письмо&quot; может соответствовать как &quot;I have sent the letter&quot;, так и &quot;I had sent the letter&quot;, а иногда даже и &quot;I sent the letter&quot;, потому что форма &quot;отправил&quot; говорит об однократном завершении действия, но не о порядке следования событий во времени. Если же нужно подчеркнуть этот самый порядок, то приходится использовать дополнительные слова: до того, ранее, перед тем и т.д. и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналоги Past/Present Perfect можно отыскать разве что в церковнославянском: ты любилъ еси = you have loved, ты любилъ бяше = you had loved и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="72d5d2fa-74e7-4554-b44f-eaded5ffa583" CreationDate="2015-07-11T19:17:18.733" UserId="5288" Comment="corrected spelling, improved formatting" Text="У совершенных глаголов просто нет настоящего времени. Можно сказать, что они обозначают бесконечно короткие события. Зачастую они не соответствуют виду perfect, paste simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present perfect continous переводят как несовершенный вид прошлого (если событие окончено) времени, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы смотрели фильм &quot;Белая собака&quot;. - You have been watching the film &quot;White Dog&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказал, что вид simple обозначает короткие и очень долгие события, так что он соответствует несовершенному виду, если обозначает конечные короткие (Present Simple не может обозначать бесконечно коротких, потому что &quot;теперь&quot; бесконечно короткое, а по логике русского* языка две беск. короткие вещи не могут случиться в одно время) или очень долгие вещи (Present Simple как gnomic tense или др., когда можно поставить used to на место Past Simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;\* и польского, - я поляк&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="9609be8e-13c6-4715-b62b-dae1fde8c8a7" CreationDate="2015-07-11T19:53:25.133" UserId="5574" Comment="извените, я зделал много ошивок и ч" Text="У совершенных глаголов просто нет настоящего времени. Можно сказать, что они обозначают бесконечно короткие события. Они не соответствуют виду perfect, скорее simple (не точно, но вид continous всегда, пожалуй, переводят как несовершенные глаголы, а совершенные глаголы - как вид simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present perfect continous переводят как несовершенный вид прошлого (если событие окончено) времени, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы смотрели фильм &quot;Белая собака&quot;. - You have been watching the film &quot;White Dog&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказал, что вид simple обозначает короткие и очень долгие события, так что он соответствует несовершенному виду, если обозначает конечные короткие (Present Simple не может обозначать бесконечно коротких, потому что &quot;теперь&quot; бесконечно короткое, а по логике русского* языка две беск. короткие вещи не могут случиться в одно время) или очень долгие вещи (Present Simple как gnomic tense или напр., когда можно поставить used to на место Past Simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;\* и польского, - я поляк&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9163" RevisionGUID="d525a44e-7044-4371-b964-a760680cd217" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:11:45.177" UserId="4929" Text="Глаголы совершенного вида не имеют настоящего времени.&#xD;&#xA;Другими словами, когда мы хотим использовать настоящее время, мы всегда используем ближайший по значению глагол несовершенного вида" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="44b30234-10c3-478e-acb1-ca57a77f210a" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:20:17.063" UserId="4929" Text="I think when it comes to comprehension and adverbial form, the verb *понимать (по-японски)* makes most sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="e8431c9f-3d09-4c1c-a2f1-85691f0c9656" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:27:18.523" UserId="4929" Text="Как ни странно, с такими глаголами частица *ни* меняет падеж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что-то такое случилось.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего такого не случилось.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. ваш вариант (именной падеж) используется, когда нет отрицания" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9164" RevisionGUID="6f52d148-e8ec-43cb-b9cc-b10f7bedfe63" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:31:37.140" UserId="4929" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think the adverbial form implies some kind of ability. It makes little sense to be used with *слушать*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="22881211-e37c-4217-8c18-14fb99c07f52" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:34:31.347" UserId="2079" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="I read that joke, but I don't say or hear it in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I respond to it, depends entirely on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATED:  In my opinion, the joke is about silly and trivial suggestions by stupid &quot;experts&quot;, so it is not to be used in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="7f5e1f8f-5297-48a1-a1c8-2e1131885426" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:37:29.680" UserId="4929" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="В данном случае частица *ни* меняет падеж. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что-то такое случилось.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего такого не случилось.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. ваш вариант (именительный падеж) используется, когда нет отрицания. Ещё пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Есть деньги. Нет денег.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9163" RevisionGUID="d36eb263-e827-4dad-855c-8e88265391d0" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:44:32.000" UserId="4929" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Глаголы совершенного вида не имеют настоящего времени.&#xD;&#xA;Другими словами, когда мы хотим использовать настоящее время, мы всегда используем ближайший по значению глагол несовершенного вида&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*я отправил - я отправляю - я отправлю.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="a165bdff-d583-4359-a4a3-a63acf36fba0" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:49:08.460" UserId="2079" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="I read that joke, but I don't say or hear it in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I respond to it, depends entirely on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATED:  In my opinion, the joke is about silly and trivial suggestions by stupid &quot;experts&quot;, so it is not to be used in this context. If applied to Russia, the joke is about authorities, which, according to the joke author, in hard times increase the burden of taxation instead of trying to help people/small businesses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9158" RevisionGUID="aa1110f9-07f4-44b0-9f29-8fbaea3e2cb1" CreationDate="2015-07-11T21:57:28.663" UserId="2079" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="I read that joke, but I don't say or hear it in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I respond to it, depends entirely on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATED:  In my opinion, the joke is about silly and trivial suggestions by stupid &quot;experts&quot;, so it is not to be used in this context. If applied to Russia, the joke is about authorities, which, according to the joke author, in hard times increase the burden of taxation instead of trying to help people/small businesses. For your context, I don't even understand what is the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="731b875c-a0e7-48d4-a79c-857dfbae09a0" CreationDate="2015-07-12T07:10:28.013" UserId="5692" Text="The word даваться is translated in my flash card app as &quot;to let oneself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if someone could provide some examples of how to use this word. Are there any stable phrases using даваться, such as &quot;let yourself go&quot; in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="731b875c-a0e7-48d4-a79c-857dfbae09a0" CreationDate="2015-07-12T07:10:28.013" UserId="5692" Text="Are there any common phrases that use даваться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9166" RevisionGUID="731b875c-a0e7-48d4-a79c-857dfbae09a0" CreationDate="2015-07-12T07:10:28.013" UserId="5692" Text="|значения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9167" RevisionGUID="91cd0943-e07c-4905-8a8b-5e565de9dd13" CreationDate="2015-07-12T07:54:22.717" UserId="134" Text="I believe your flash card app means something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она в глаза глядит из-под воды, не даётся. // *[А. Н. Толстой. На рыбной ловле (1923)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She (mermaid) looked him in the eye from underwater, but would not let herself be caught.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the main meaning, though. More common meanings would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A reflexive form of *давать*, used in passive voice: *Школьникам даётся задание* // A task is assigned to the students&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;To come naturally, easily&quot;. *Математика мне не даётся* // Math does not come naturally to me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9168" RevisionGUID="cd702517-7947-4493-a423-50852aa314f3" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:04:45.127" UserId="5692" Text="Is one passive voice and the other reflexive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9168" RevisionGUID="cd702517-7947-4493-a423-50852aa314f3" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:04:45.127" UserId="5692" Text="What's the difference between говориться and они говорять to indicate something that people often say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9168" RevisionGUID="cd702517-7947-4493-a423-50852aa314f3" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:04:45.127" UserId="5692" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22184" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9168" RevisionGUID="5bc655e7-43c6-4e7d-b58a-20dbe24b2e29" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:07:42.370" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between говориться and они говорят to indicate something that people often say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9169" RevisionGUID="207a79e9-a2e0-4719-aea0-2f784dc6a28b" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:25:32.430" UserId="134" Text="To convey the meaning of English &quot;they say&quot;, two constructs are used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Как говорится: с глаз долой ― из сердца вон!* // &quot;Out of sight, out of mind, as the saying goes&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (passive voice and reflexive) construct is used when citing an old proverb or saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Говорят, если каждый день съедать по яблоку, будешь потом когда-нибудь очень здоров. [Юрий Коваль. Сиротская зима (1980-1993)]* // &quot;They say if you have an apple a day, you'll be very healthy, one day, someday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (indicative and impersonal) construct is used to convey hearsay evidentiality, that you are telling something you learned from the others rather than seeing or deducting yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="8f57731d-128c-4757-8b4d-d4e87fc74edb" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:29:05.927" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, not &quot;Говориться&quot; but &quot;Как говорится&quot; (without soft sign) that is it's not an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, &quot;Они говорят&quot; is a **personal** form in Russian. To indicate that &quot;people often say smth.&quot; we say simply &quot;Говорят...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So correct forms are &quot;Как говорится&quot; = It is said that... and &quot;Говорят&quot; - they say..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9170" RevisionGUID="67810ca3-db7d-4e1f-b7bd-be670a5a0d18" CreationDate="2015-07-12T08:35:38.823" UserId="5008" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="First of all, not &quot;Говориться&quot; but &quot;Как говорится&quot; (without soft sign) that is it's not an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, &quot;Они говорят&quot; is a **personal** form in Russian. To indicate that &quot;people often say smth.&quot; we say simply &quot;Говорят...&quot; (BTW. some indefinite pronouns can be used to achieve a desired level of impersonation as well, i.e. &quot;Некоторые говорят&quot; = Some people say, &quot;Люди говорят&quot; = People say etc. But &quot;Они говорят&quot; is always(!) personal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So correct forms are &quot;Как говорится&quot; = It is said that... and &quot;Говорят&quot; - they say..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9125" RevisionGUID="8addf00b-9e55-4cc1-8842-3c4264499a65" CreationDate="2015-07-12T10:35:29.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/620179667371302912" />
  <row Id="22189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9171" RevisionGUID="121a9250-ed30-4e92-acad-3c50edc92976" CreationDate="2015-07-12T12:49:52.393" UserId="4442" Text="There is another phrase &quot;Это дается с трудом&quot; &quot;Не даваться легко&quot; - &quot;It is achieved by hard work&quot; &quot;it's not easy to achieve &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9172" RevisionGUID="826a3a64-6832-4781-8ba3-981b83f9a053" CreationDate="2015-07-12T13:33:37.363" UserId="5729" Text="Одиннадцатого Июля 2015 года я поехал в Москву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сегодня одиннадцатое июля 2015 года и я поехал в Москву." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9173" RevisionGUID="ed9f8866-d763-4ea5-b240-7203114c6033" CreationDate="2015-07-12T15:22:22.280" UserId="5694" Text="Я эту шутку слышал, причем несколько раз. Я не скажу, что она сильно ходовая, но вполне известная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand it better insert this &quot;чтобы корова меньше ела и давала больше молока&quot; into google search and read how this joke is used in different contexts. That will allow you to feel it better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9174" RevisionGUID="9a5ba73a-a065-4e76-b34b-bac2d6d913e4" CreationDate="2015-07-12T19:39:15.967" UserId="5288" Text="Склонение порядковых и количественных числительных по падежам   &#xD;&#xA;http://numeralonline.ru/&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;              11    апреля  1945   года &#xD;&#xA;              │              │&#xD;&#xA;         ┌────┴───────┐  ┌───┴────────────────────────┐&#xD;&#xA;          одиннадцатое   тысяча девятьсот сорок пятого  &#xD;&#xA;         └─────┬──────┘  └─────────┬──────────┘└──┬───┘ &#xD;&#xA;             Имен.п.             Имен.п.         Род.п. &#xD;&#xA;             средн.р. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9175" RevisionGUID="4c23da87-e765-4609-926a-824c40c40463" CreationDate="2015-07-12T21:55:50.957" UserId="4481" Text="This is a quite famous joke. Usually it is used as a sarcastic and/or ironic comment of someone's management style. It is obvious, that if you feed your cow less, you can't get more milk. But if someone doesn't understand, how things work, he can try to &quot;feed cow less&quot; and &quot;milk it more&quot; at the same time.  &#xD;&#xA;For example, your boss gathered you and all your colleagues and said, that from now all of you will work harder and get less salary. After that you can comment his words with this joke.  &#xD;&#xA;Your example is completely incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="c8e6055f-060c-47f7-aebf-dbe4f6126a0b" CreationDate="2015-07-12T22:26:29.610" UserId="5733" Text="I am confused; don't both of these words mean &quot;more&quot;? What is the literal meaning and context of each? Sample sentences would be helpful! спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="c8e6055f-060c-47f7-aebf-dbe4f6126a0b" CreationDate="2015-07-12T22:26:29.610" UserId="5733" Text="What is the difference between Больше and ещё" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="c8e6055f-060c-47f7-aebf-dbe4f6126a0b" CreationDate="2015-07-12T22:26:29.610" UserId="5733" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="d80814f9-eac4-4d66-9dca-af56e289c042" CreationDate="2015-07-12T22:40:03.450" UserId="5288" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим Ваш пример. Он не является частным, то есть, связанным с лексическими особенностями глагола *случаться*(несов.)-*случиться*(сов.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример сводится к схеме: `N_obj + не + V`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически, вопрос сводится к следующему. В каком падеже ставить прямой объект при глаголе с отрицанием? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничего такого всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;    └─────┬───────┘      └─────┬──────┘&#xD;&#xA;       object,               глагол &#xD;&#xA;      Род.падеж            с отрицанием&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**История вопроса.**    &#xD;&#xA;Она довольно давняя, вот например, [обсуждение его А.Пушкиным][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ краткий.**    &#xD;&#xA;[**§ 2667.**][1] *При переходных глаголах с отрицанием сильноуправляемое имя со знач. объекта может иметь форму род. или вин. п.*    &#xD;&#xA;§ 2668 гласит: Родительный падеж обязателен в следующих случаях ...; пункт (4): ...когда позицию имени со знач. объекта занимает местоимение `ничто`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ развернутый.**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, есть примеры с винительным падежом в литературе: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... но тогда ничто такое ему не будет опасно. [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=739&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22+%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&quot; title=&quot;Google Book Search&quot;&gt;Н.Лесков&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... ничто не поддерживало въ нихъ такихъ воспоминаний,&#xD;&#xA;     ничто такое не бросалось имъ въ глаза, ... [&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=8BV4BAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PT27&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22&amp;pg=PT27#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&quot; title=&quot;Исторические монографии и исследования, стр. 26&quot;&gt;Н.Костомаров&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, законом или правилом это назвать нельзя. Можно поступить как в физике, там, если нет логически безупречного объяснения, то класс явлений объявляют физическим эффектом :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ничто` называют местоименным словом. Буквально, слово/термин *&quot;местоимение&quot;* можно прочитать *вместо-имени. (a word used instead of a name.)* Или — *на месте имени. (a substitute word or proxy.)* То есть, вместо конкретного &quot;наименования/имени&quot; используют обобщающий термин-слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если `ничто` это (в)местоимение, грамматически не отличимое от имени, а имена у нас существительные, то есть, неотличимое от существительного, то это *обобщающий-термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;существительного&quot;. Тогда (в)местоимение `ничего` можно считать местоименным словом `ничто`, стоящим в родительном падеже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы видим ещё одно (в)местоимение — `такой.` Это *термин-вместо-имени* конкретного *&quot;прилагательного (lit.: a word used for adding on)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему предпочитают родительный падеж? Вот как объясняет родительный падеж при глаголе с отрицанием Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Д.Э. Розенталь. Русский язык. 2005&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма родительного падежа подчеркивает отрицание: *Угрюмых и серьёзных фигур их не терплю (Л.); Он не любил этого города (М.Г.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это общее положение конкретизируется рядом условий, наличие которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приводит к явному преобладанию формы родительного падежа дополнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при переходном глаголе с отрицанием: &#xD;&#xA;2. отрицание усиливается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частицей `ни` или местоимением либо местоимением или наречием, в состав&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого входит указанная частица: *Ни подкупы, ни запугивания, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; насилия, к которым прибегали судовладельцы, не сломили боевого духа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; итальянских моряков (Газ.); Никогда никому не доверял своей тайны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ч.); Никто не видел такого тяжелого и скверного сна (М.Г.);*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И следующий Ваш пример. Попробуем разобраться, почему предпочитают родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто такое всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Этот пример мы перепишем так, чтобы местоимение можно было использовать с именем одушевленным:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто(никого) такое всё же не нашлось.&#xD;&#xA;     └─────┬─────┘    \   &#xD;&#xA;      Винительный      \___ не согласуется с винительным падежом&#xD;&#xA;         падеж              для местоимения `никого`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Мы переписали для того, чтобы показать проблему: в винительном падеже местоимение `ничто/никто` примет форму `ничто/никого.` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выбором *одушевленное/неодушевленное* вносится дополнительная дифференциация для винительного падежа, необходимы два словосочетания `ничто такое / никого такого.` Родительный же падеж, одной формой, а значит, более экономно, передает более общее значение. Одно слово `такого` и для одушевл., и для неодушевл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для говорящего легче формулировать более общие утверждения. А поскольку русский язык относится к классу синтетических языков (на другой стороне аналитические, например, английский/китайский), тот, кто говорит/пишет, совершает больше работы, чем тот, кто читает написанное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идя по пути наименьшего сопротивления, у носителей языка, видимо, и сложился навык использовать форму родительного падежа, `ничего/никого такого + не + глагол`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://rusgram.narod.ru/2661-2673.html#2667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=UuN6AgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA348&amp;ots=R576YiqjJS&amp;pg=PA348#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false &quot;Элементы антропоцентрической грамматики русского языка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9177" RevisionGUID="49603220-4097-44f8-aa14-6341d4eeeb7b" CreationDate="2015-07-13T01:08:55.350" UserId="4929" Text="I'd say *ещё* implies a continuing process, like putting food on a dish or enumerating objects, in positive sentences, while *больше* is used in negative sentences and when discussing sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё мне добавь - Give me more (money, food)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Больше не надо - Don't need more (goes with anything)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ещё больше есть? - Do you have an even bigger one (shirt, car)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9165" RevisionGUID="fe8aa158-3fc7-4ba7-9d68-e1870cdb7225" CreationDate="2015-07-13T01:21:07.127" UserId="4929" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="В данном случае частица *ни* меняет падеж (и тип предложения с обычного на безличное). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что-то такое случилось.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего такого не случилось.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. ваш вариант (именительный падеж) используется, когда нет отрицания. Ещё пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Есть деньги. Нет денег.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="bb6dc8b6-c565-4cc1-ae1f-e538991b5558" CreationDate="2015-07-13T07:11:25.967" UserId="5543" Text="У меня в голове хаос и уже не знаю, что и как.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня в школе учили, что всегда в составном сказуемом используется краткая форма прилагательного. И я всегда использовал краткую форму. В другом месте, я прочитал, что краткая форма означает временное свойство чего-то, но это для меня неясно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А недавно мне [здесь][1] ответили, что могут быть ещё другие разницы, несовмещенные в том, что я выше написал. Я примеры понимаю, но общего принципа нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас это всё же неясно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как есть по сути? Когда должен я использовать краткую форму, а когда полную?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE/9127#9127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="bb6dc8b6-c565-4cc1-ae1f-e538991b5558" CreationDate="2015-07-13T07:11:25.967" UserId="5543" Text="Краткая и полная форма прилагательного в сказуемом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="bb6dc8b6-c565-4cc1-ae1f-e538991b5558" CreationDate="2015-07-13T07:11:25.967" UserId="5543" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="75be5a69-56ab-4933-943c-d9950a6592d2" CreationDate="2015-07-13T08:08:46.010" UserId="5008" Text="Если нет разницы, то в качестве именной части сказуемого следует использовать краткую форму прилагательного (кстати, её иногда называют также предикативной).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но дело в том, что зачастую краткие и полные формы прилагательных существенно отличаются друг от друга. Самый очевидный пример - это временные и постоянные признаки. Например, &quot;Он был зол&quot; - he was angry; &quot;Он был злым&quot; - he was evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немного подробнее можно почитать, например, здесь - http://www.goldrussian.ru/polnye-i-kratkie-prilagatelnye.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9140" RevisionGUID="29fbe029-07df-4f9d-b88b-db982999bad4" CreationDate="2015-07-13T08:58:22.040" UserId="5288" Comment="added 922 characters in body" Text="Рассмотрим Ваш пример. Он не является частным, то есть, связанным с лексическими особенностями глагола *случаться*(несов.)-*случиться*(сов.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример сводится к схеме: `N_obj + не + V`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически, вопрос сводится к следующему. В каком падеже ставить прямой объект при глаголе с отрицанием? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничего такого всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;    └─────┬───────┘      └─────┬──────┘&#xD;&#xA;       object,               глагол &#xD;&#xA;      Род.падеж            с отрицанием&#xD;&#xA;         &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**История вопроса.**    &#xD;&#xA;Она довольно давняя, вот например, [обсуждение его А.Пушкиным][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ краткий.**    &#xD;&#xA;[**§ 2667.**][1] *При переходных глаголах с отрицанием сильноуправляемое имя со знач. объекта может иметь форму род. или вин. п.*    &#xD;&#xA;§ 2668 гласит: Родительный падеж обязателен в следующих случаях ...; пункт (4): ...когда позицию имени со знач. объекта занимает местоимение `ничто`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ развернутый.**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, есть примеры с винительным падежом в литературе: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... но тогда ничто такое ему не будет опасно. [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;es_sm=93&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=739&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22+%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&quot; title=&quot;Google Book Search&quot;&gt;Н.Лесков&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... ничто не поддерживало въ нихъ такихъ воспоминаний,&#xD;&#xA;     ничто такое не бросалось имъ въ глаза, ... [&lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=8BV4BAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PT27&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%22&amp;pg=PT27#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&quot; title=&quot;Исторические монографии и исследования, стр. 26&quot;&gt;Н.Костомаров&lt;/a&gt;]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, законом или правилом это назвать нельзя. Можно поступить как в физике, там, если нет логически безупречного объяснения, то класс явлений объявляют физическим эффектом :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ничто` называют местоименным словом. Буквально, слово/термин *&quot;местоимение&quot;* можно прочитать *вместо-имени. (a word used instead of a name.)* Или — *на месте имени. (a substitute word or proxy.)* То есть, вместо конкретного &quot;наименования/имени&quot; используют обобщающий термин-слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если `ничто` это (в)местоимение, грамматически не отличимое от имени, а имена у нас существительные, то есть, неотличимое от существительного, то это *обобщающий-термин-вместо-имени* конкретного &quot;существительного&quot;. Тогда (в)местоимение `ничего` можно считать местоименным словом `ничто`, стоящим в родительном падеже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы видим ещё одно (в)местоимение — `такой.` Это *термин-вместо-имени* конкретного *&quot;прилагательного (lit.: a word used for adding on)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему предпочитают родительный падеж? Вот как объясняет родительный падеж при глаголе с отрицанием Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Д.Э. Розенталь. Русский язык. 2005&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма родительного падежа подчеркивает отрицание: *Угрюмых и серьёзных фигур их не терплю (Л.); Он не любил этого города (М.Г.).*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это общее положение конкретизируется рядом условий, наличие которых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приводит к явному преобладанию формы родительного падежа дополнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при переходном глаголе с отрицанием: &#xD;&#xA;2. отрицание усиливается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частицей `ни` или местоимением либо местоимением или наречием, в состав&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого входит указанная частица: *Ни подкупы, ни запугивания, ни&#xD;&#xA;&gt; насилия, к которым прибегали судовладельцы, не сломили боевого духа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; итальянских моряков (Газ.); Никогда никому не доверял своей тайны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ч.); Никто не видел такого тяжелого и скверного сна (М.Г.);*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И следующий Ваш пример. Попробуем разобраться, почему предпочитают родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто такое всё же не случилось.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Этот пример мы перепишем так, чтобы местоимение можно было использовать с именем одушевленным:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Но ничто(никого) такое всё же не нашлось.&#xD;&#xA;     └─────┬─────┘    \   &#xD;&#xA;      Винительный      \___ не согласуется с винительным падежом&#xD;&#xA;         падеж              для местоимения `никого`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Мы переписали для того, чтобы показать проблему: в винительном падеже местоимение `ничто/никто` примет форму `ничто/никого.` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выбором *одушевленное/неодушевленное* вносится дополнительная дифференциация для винительного падежа, необходимы два словосочетания `ничто такое / никого такого.` Родительный же падеж, одной формой, а значит, более экономно, передает более общее значение. Одно слово `такого` и для одушевл., и для неодушевл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для говорящего легче формулировать более общие утверждения. А поскольку русский язык относится к классу синтетических языков (на другой стороне аналитические, например, английский/китайский), тот, кто говорит/пишет, совершает больше работы, чем тот, кто читает написанное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идя по пути наименьшего сопротивления, у носителей языка, видимо, и сложился навык использовать форму родительного падежа, `ничего/никого такого + не + глагол`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему существует два падежа?** Выбором падежа мы устраняем омонимию (двусмысленность):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    Винительный       |       Родительный&#xD;&#xA;----------------------+-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;  Ты вилку не взял.   |   Ты вилки не взял.  &#xD;&#xA;                      |        \&#xD;&#xA;                      |         ед.ч. или мн.ч. ?&#xD;&#xA;                      |         &#xD;&#xA;  Мы не споем песню.  |   Мы не споем песни. &#xD;&#xA;                      |                  \&#xD;&#xA;                      |            ед.ч. или мн.ч. ?  &#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;  Не построили дом.   |   Не построили дома.  &#xD;&#xA;                      |                  \&#xD;&#xA;                      |                внутри дома?&#xD;&#xA;                      |                этого дома?&#xD;&#xA;                      |     на письме: много домов?&#xD;&#xA;                      |       На письме необходимо &#xD;&#xA;                      |        обозначить ударение.&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://rusgram.narod.ru/2661-2673.html#2667&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=UuN6AgAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA348&amp;ots=R576YiqjJS&amp;pg=PA348#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false &quot;Элементы антропоцентрической грамматики русского языка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="eefdfe36-4fbb-469c-bf55-1c182a7c45b8" CreationDate="2015-07-13T09:55:17.867" UserId="5543" Comment="примеры" Text="У меня в голове хаос и уже не знаю, что и как.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня в школе учили, что всегда в составном сказуемом используется краткая форма прилагательного. И я всегда использовал краткую форму. В другом месте, я прочитал, что краткая форма означает временное свойство чего-то, но это для меня неясно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А недавно мне [здесь][1] ответили, что могут быть ещё другие разницы, несовмещенные в том, что я выше написал. Я примеры понимаю, но общего принципа нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас это всё же неясно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как есть по сути? Когда должен я использовать краткую форму, а когда полную?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры: краткая форма:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крыса была примечательна. Она была для меня хороша. Решение было очень просто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Полная:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крыса была примечательная/примечательной. Она была для меня хорошая/хорошой. Решение было очень простое/простым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE/9127#9127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="26144da7-b648-4bc5-8298-985c9aaa03fd" CreationDate="2015-07-13T10:08:46.813" UserId="5008" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Если нет разницы, то в качестве именной части сказуемого следует использовать краткую форму прилагательного (кстати, её иногда называют также предикативной).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но дело в том, что зачастую краткие и полные формы прилагательных существенно отличаются друг от друга. Самый очевидный пример - это временные и постоянные признаки. Например, &quot;Он был зол&quot; - he was angry; &quot;Он был злым&quot; - he was evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немного подробнее можно почитать, например, [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.goldrussian.ru/polnye-i-kratkie-prilagatelnye.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="2490bd62-7a45-47b1-93b6-aadea2388355" CreationDate="2015-07-13T10:42:11.763" UserId="5008" Comment="Сделал несколько исправлений, чтобы текст звучал более правильно. Надеюсь, что смысл пострадал не сильно, а сами исправления могут быть полезны для человека углублённо изучающего русский язык." Text="У меня в голове хаос, и я уже не знаю, что и как.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня в школе учили, что в составном сказуемом всегда используется краткая форма прилагательного, и я всегда использовал краткую форму. В другом месте я прочитал, что краткая форма означает временное свойство чего-то, но это так и осталось для меня неясным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А недавно мне [здесь][1] ответили, что могут быть ещё и другие отличия, не совпадающие с тем, о чём я выше писал. Примеры я понимаю, а общий принцип - нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь для меня всё это кажется совсем непонятным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что по существу? Когда я должен использовать краткую форму, а когда полную?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая форма:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крыса была примечательна. Она была для меня хороша. Решение было очень просто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Полная:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крыса была примечательная/примечательной. Она была для меня хорошая/хорошей. Решение было очень простое/простым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE/9127#9127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="ad4eed99-cf14-4f39-9de0-f4598c8e993c" CreationDate="2015-07-13T12:16:41.567" UserId="5008" Comment="added 546 characters in body" Text="Если нет разницы, то в качестве именной части сказуемого следует использовать краткую форму прилагательного (кстати, её иногда называют также предикативной).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но дело в том, что зачастую краткие и полные формы прилагательных существенно отличаются друг от друга. Самый очевидный пример - это временные и постоянные признаки. Например, &quot;Он был зол&quot; - he was angry; &quot;Он был злым&quot; - he was evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немного подробнее можно почитать, например, [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается приведённых примеров, то тут допустимы обе формы. Происходит это очевидно потому, что они несколько отличаются по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она хороша&quot; = She's great (either she's pretty or she's a professional); &quot;Она хорошая&quot; = She's a good person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Решение было просто&quot; для русского уха это звучит практически как &quot;Принять решение/решить было просто&quot; (Easy to decide/solve), т.е. наречие, а не прилагательное. Вероятно поэтому можно встретить обе формы: &quot;решение было просто&quot; и &quot;решение было простым&quot; (The decision/solution was simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.goldrussian.ru/polnye-i-kratkie-prilagatelnye.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9180" RevisionGUID="f5e498a6-bcc1-4db4-bd7f-c5b3c6b26e66" CreationDate="2015-07-13T12:20:21.213" UserId="5736" Text="Can you provide context of usage of word &quot;more&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Больше can has meaning &quot;Bigger&quot;, but &quot;Ещё&quot; can`t&#xD;&#xA;Ex:&#xD;&#xA;Красная чашка больше зеленой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose it`s better to use &quot;ещё&quot; as translation for word &quot;more&quot;, but it can be context-dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9181" RevisionGUID="b58333ce-b3bc-4908-a5a5-0c44711264ca" CreationDate="2015-07-13T12:26:30.477" UserId="194" Text="&quot;Девушка хоть куда&quot; means she can do many types of work. She is good not only in one sphere, but is capable of doing many things good, such as cooking, weaving, sewing, dancing, singing, foreign languages etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is often used to mean she is good to marry her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9182" RevisionGUID="805f91b1-5826-4c22-a0ab-ad9b726bfef1" CreationDate="2015-07-13T12:35:10.330" UserId="5736" Text="Samovojska is croatian surname." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="28b43533-aa64-42ca-9411-9f003c20d837" CreationDate="2015-07-13T16:44:29.017" UserId="5543" Text="Мне когда-то кое-кто сказал, что писать &quot;Вы&quot; с большой буквы - это подобострастное. Но я увидел несколько раз, что пользователи этого сайта пишут это слово именно с большой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как есть по существу? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="28b43533-aa64-42ca-9411-9f003c20d837" CreationDate="2015-07-13T16:44:29.017" UserId="5543" Text="Писать местоимение &quot;вы&quot; с малой или большой буквы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="28b43533-aa64-42ca-9411-9f003c20d837" CreationDate="2015-07-13T16:44:29.017" UserId="5543" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="5c0140c4-ce3b-4d4a-b5c5-d254f9f04805" CreationDate="2015-07-13T17:56:48.233" UserId="5692" Text="It sounds like стихотворение has something to do with творческий, so I'd guess it's more like epic poetry, but I was taught поэм/поэзия is used for epic poems. Is стихи just short for стихотворение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="5c0140c4-ce3b-4d4a-b5c5-d254f9f04805" CreationDate="2015-07-13T17:56:48.233" UserId="5692" Text="What's the difference between стихи and стихотворение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="5c0140c4-ce3b-4d4a-b5c5-d254f9f04805" CreationDate="2015-07-13T17:56:48.233" UserId="5692" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9185" RevisionGUID="d56c6622-4780-41e2-921f-bd65e22c3302" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:07:14.297" UserId="5739" Text="С большой буквы пишут, если уважают собеседника (например, старше по возрасту или незнакомый человек). С маленькой буквы пишут, если это группа людей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9186" RevisionGUID="1934588a-b2d7-4bf9-a602-21e12ff2714b" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:10:10.533" UserId="5739" Text="Sure, **стихи** is just short **стихотворения** (about 4 strings)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="a7d32441-d3ac-4745-abc8-26c41b4bdc35" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:24:11.507" UserId="5732" Text="I have decided to begin to learn Russian and came across a sentence that translates as *I'm going home *. However the literal translation in Russian is *I'm going homeward*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises the question would *Я пойду дом* be grammatically incorrect as opposed to the sentence written in the question? If the sentence is grammatically incorrect why ? Does the verb *to go* modify the noun in some way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="a7d32441-d3ac-4745-abc8-26c41b4bdc35" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:24:11.507" UserId="5732" Text="Why is домой used as opposed to дом in the scentance &quot;Я пойду домой&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="a7d32441-d3ac-4745-abc8-26c41b4bdc35" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:24:11.507" UserId="5732" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9190" RevisionGUID="84aad1e5-3b97-483e-b76d-5e8428baba6c" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:34:57.013" UserId="5740" Text="*Я пойду дом* is ungrammatical in exactly the same way &quot;I will go house&quot; is ungrammatical in English. The verb пойти is intransitive and cannot take a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the confusion is that &quot;home&quot; is both a noun and adverb in English. As a noun, it means &quot;place of residence&quot; (equivalent to &quot;дом&quot; in Russian), while as an adverb, it means &quot;towards a place of residence&quot; (equivalent to &quot;домой&quot;). In the sentence &quot;I am going home&quot;, it is serving as an adverb, so you need to use the adverb домой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="35a81212-7cf7-42e5-9635-993b69a548c7" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:44:26.523" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Мне когда-то кое-кто сказал, что писать &quot;Вы&quot; с большой буквы - подобострастно. Но я видел несколько раз, что пользователи этого сайта пишут это слово именно с большой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как на самом деле? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9191" RevisionGUID="4f4c9d8e-35ee-4456-aef2-62cf5c8bc49a" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:53:41.393" UserId="5008" Text="Стих = stanza&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стихи = verse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стихотворение = short poem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэма = long poem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet the word &quot;стих&quot; can also be used as shortened form of &quot;стихотворение&quot; i.e. short poem. However it's a bad habit to mention plural &quot;стихи&quot; when you mean just a single poem (alas, it's a common mistake as almost every poem consists of several stanzas)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="271a8d23-27d2-481c-bb20-2094fab56394" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:58:27.380" UserId="5732" Text="I know that nouns that end in certain letters become by default male ,but if a noun does not end in any of these letters (i.e. Бостон) what gender does it take by default?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="271a8d23-27d2-481c-bb20-2094fab56394" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:58:27.380" UserId="5732" Text="What gender do place names nouns take if they do not end in letters that mean that a gender is assigned to a noun by default?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="271a8d23-27d2-481c-bb20-2094fab56394" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:58:27.380" UserId="5732" Text="|существительные|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9193" RevisionGUID="7039243b-8a03-4d60-bd60-2d28498d1978" CreationDate="2015-07-13T18:59:27.720" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal, 28:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С прописной буквы пишутся местоимения *Вы* и *Ваш* для выражения вежливого обращения к одному лицу, например: *Прошу Вас, уважаемый Сергей Петрович…*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; При обращении к нескольким лицам эти местоимения пишутся со строчной буквы, например: *Прошу вас, уважаемые Сергей Петрович и Павел Иванович…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this rule is only applied to *вы* used towards the addressee in a personal letter, not any any writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that in a direct speech lowercase *вы* is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Г. Зеленко: ― К какой глубине вы относите сино-тибетские языки? // *Сергей Старостин, Григорий Зеленко. У человечества был один праязык // «Знание -- сила», 2003*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many people, myself included, choose to perceive Internet forum communication as a transcript of live conversation rather than a series or letters. Thus, those people (and I) use uppercase *Вы* in emails but lowercase on forums and instant messengers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22239" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9176" RevisionGUID="ae1242e1-79f0-4bc3-8644-cc2dd4ea35c4" CreationDate="2015-07-13T19:22:11.573" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9075],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9194" RevisionGUID="1340dbf8-d67d-46d9-ade5-cc0a18c07afa" CreationDate="2015-07-13T19:46:48.277" UserId="5692" Text="Just as English speakers say &quot;I'm going home&quot;, but I'm going to the store, to work, to church, to school, etc. (English speakers don't use &quot;to with home&quot; - домой is an exception like this. Just remember that it is special. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9193" RevisionGUID="66cbd9dd-9a71-4006-89a9-752b9d3094ac" CreationDate="2015-07-13T21:49:39.127" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Rosenthal, 28:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С прописной буквы пишутся местоимения *Вы* и *Ваш* для выражения вежливого обращения к одному лицу, например: *Прошу Вас, уважаемый Сергей Петрович…*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; При обращении к нескольким лицам эти местоимения пишутся со строчной буквы, например: *Прошу вас, уважаемые Сергей Петрович и Павел Иванович…*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this rule is only applied to *вы* used towards the addressee in a personal letter, not in any writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that in a direct speech lowercase *вы* is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Г. Зеленко: ― К какой глубине вы относите сино-тибетские языки? // *Сергей Старостин, Григорий Зеленко. У человечества был один праязык // «Знание -- сила», 2003*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many people, myself included, choose to perceive Internet forum communication as a transcript of live conversation rather than a series or letters. Thus, those people (and I) use uppercase *Вы* in emails but lowercase on forums and instant messengers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="4fe75c77-ca2b-4247-bf9c-894b2c3f3985" CreationDate="2015-07-13T22:38:16.987" UserId="134" Text="*Стихи* (in its main meaning) is a mass noun (&quot;poetry&quot;), *стихотворения* is a count noun (&quot;poems&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, стихи… Ему — тридцать два года!  В самом деле, что же дальше? — И дальше он будет сочинять по нескольку стихотворений в год. — До старости? // *М. А. Булгаков. Мастер и Маргарита*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, his poetry… He was thirty-two! And what were his prospects?&#xD;&#xA;To go on writing a few poems every year. How long — until he was an old man? // *Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *стихотворения* can be used to translate &quot;poetry&quot; as well, just like English &quot;poems&quot; can mean &quot;poetry&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *стих* also has several secondary meanings, most of them corresponding to English &quot;verse&quot; (as in the Bible, or a part of a poem). In those meanings, *стихи* is just plural for &quot;verses&quot;. *Стих* can also mean &quot;mood&quot;, like in *на него нашёл грустый стих* &quot;he's feeling blue&quot;. *Стихотворения* can be used in neither of those meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *стих* is a colloquial synonym for *стихотворение*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочли ему за услуги два или три стиха. // *Василий Аксенов. Таинственная страсть (2007)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but it's not recommended to use it as a countable noun except in colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="c4118fac-6946-4ba1-945f-7d012377f930" CreationDate="2015-07-13T22:44:10.443" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Стихи* (in its main meaning) is a mass noun (&quot;poetry&quot;), *стихотворения* is a count noun (&quot;poems&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, стихи… Ему — тридцать два года!  В самом деле, что же дальше? — И дальше он будет сочинять по нескольку стихотворений в год. — До старости? // *М. А. Булгаков. Мастер и Маргарита*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, his poetry… He was thirty-two! And what were his prospects?&#xD;&#xA;To go on writing a few poems every year. How long — until he was an old man? // *Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *стихотворения* can be used to translate &quot;poetry&quot; as well, just like English &quot;poems&quot; can mean &quot;poetry&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *стих* also has several secondary meanings, most of them corresponding to English &quot;verse&quot; (as in the Bible, or a part of a poem). In those meanings, *стихи* is just plural for &quot;verses&quot;. *Стих* can also mean &quot;mood&quot;, like in *на него нашёл грустный стих* &quot;he's feeling blue&quot;. *Стихотворения* can be used in neither of those meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *стих* is a colloquial synonym for *стихотворение*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочли ему за услуги два или три стиха. // *Василий Аксенов. Таинственная страсть (2007)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but it's not recommended to use it as a countable noun except in colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9195" RevisionGUID="27d9612a-4531-4b99-980c-4b21c57f2328" CreationDate="2015-07-14T12:38:57.717" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="*Стихи* (in its main meaning) is a mass noun (&quot;poetry&quot;), *стихотворения* is a count noun (&quot;poems&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, стихи… Ему — тридцать два года!  В самом деле, что же дальше? — И дальше он будет сочинять по нескольку стихотворений в год. — До старости? // *М. А. Булгаков. Мастер и Маргарита*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, his poetry… He was thirty-two! And what were his prospects?&#xD;&#xA;To go on writing a few poems every year. How long — until he was an old man? // *Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *стихотворения* can be used to translate &quot;poetry&quot; as well, just like English &quot;poems&quot; can mean &quot;poetry&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *стих* also has several secondary meanings, most of them corresponding to English &quot;verse&quot; (as in the Bible, or a part of a poem). In those meanings, *стихи* simply mean &quot;verses&quot;. *Стих* can also mean &quot;mood&quot;, like in *на него нашёл грустный стих* &quot;he's feeling blue&quot;. *Стихотворения* can be used in neither of those meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *стих* is a colloquial synonym for *стихотворение*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочли ему за услуги два или три стиха. // *Василий Аксенов. Таинственная страсть (2007)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but it's not recommended to use it as a countable noun except in colloquial speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9197" RevisionGUID="44321422-4be5-4f1d-ba1f-232b36de40b3" CreationDate="2015-07-14T13:54:07.973" UserId="5392" Text="I believe you should use Вы when you speak to one person, and вы when you speak to group of people. &quot;Люди, что вы делаете?&quot; but &quot;Иван Петрович, Вы забыли Вашу шляпу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="4a1326c8-ece2-495f-8f87-f7d5bc9d23f6" CreationDate="2015-07-14T15:55:15.750" UserId="5543" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="Мне когда-то кое-кто сказал, что писать &quot;Вы&quot; с большой буквы - подобострастно. Но я видел несколько раз, что пользователи этого сайта пишут это слово именно с большой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как на самом деле? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/edit: В вопросе дело в местоимении &quot;вы&quot; в функции 2. особы единственного числа, например, когда обращаемся к одному человеку. Это совсем ясно, что обращаясь к группе людей, используется &quot;вы&quot; с малой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример: корреспонденция майлом/личными сообщениями с пользователем форума, которого я не знаю в реальной жизни. Должен я писать &quot;Вы&quot;, &quot;вы&quot; или просто &quot;ты&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="17831905-4938-4c20-88ae-7bb20724d352" CreationDate="2015-07-14T17:22:20.123" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Мне когда-то кое-кто сказал, что писать &quot;Вы&quot; с большой буквы - подобострастно. Но я видел несколько раз, что пользователи этого сайта пишут это слово именно с большой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как на самом деле? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/edit: В вопросе речь о местоимении &quot;вы&quot; в функции 2. лица единственного числа, например, когда обращаемся к одному человеку. Это и так ясно, что, обращаясь к группе людей, необходимо использовать &quot;вы&quot; с малой буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример: корреспонденция майлом/личными сообщениями с пользователем форума, которого я не знаю в реальной жизни. Должен ли я писать &quot;Вы&quot;, &quot;вы&quot; или просто &quot;ты&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="8291f123-5526-495c-bf9b-d8b35c658566" CreationDate="2015-07-14T19:23:24.207" UserId="957" Comment="Space before comma. Incorrect use of i.e." Text="I know that nouns that end in certain letters become by default male, but if a noun does not end in any of these letters (e.g., Бостон) what gender does it take by default?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22254" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="8291f123-5526-495c-bf9b-d8b35c658566" CreationDate="2015-07-14T19:23:24.207" UserId="957" Comment="Space before comma. Incorrect use of i.e." Text="What gender do place names take if they do not end in letters that mean that a gender is assigned to a noun by default?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22255" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9192" RevisionGUID="8291f123-5526-495c-bf9b-d8b35c658566" CreationDate="2015-07-14T19:23:24.207" Comment="Proposed by 957 approved by 134 edit id of 649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="d931cb15-07ac-44da-8944-1af08b925468" CreationDate="2015-07-14T21:18:46.153" UserId="5415" Text="I'm not sure if it's you pass by, or you will pass x..x can someone give me a certain answer please? &#xD;&#xA;this is the phfase,   &#xD;&#xA;вы пройдете мимо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="d931cb15-07ac-44da-8944-1af08b925468" CreationDate="2015-07-14T21:18:46.153" UserId="5415" Text="what does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="d931cb15-07ac-44da-8944-1af08b925468" CreationDate="2015-07-14T21:18:46.153" UserId="5415" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22259" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="60434b0e-5d9e-4c8d-825f-84b9de3856e7" CreationDate="2015-07-14T21:21:27.113" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="091a3794-4d87-4227-9d19-44a59f526939" CreationDate="2015-07-14T21:56:20.980" UserId="5415" Comment="edited title" Text="can someone help me with this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9200" RevisionGUID="c8515532-b53b-4676-900c-bb61ca24ac71" CreationDate="2015-07-14T23:04:18.160" UserId="2079" Text="При обращении к одному человеку &quot;Вы&quot; с заглавной буквы пишется в трёх случаях:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* в начале предложения&#xD;&#xA;* в официальных письмах&#xD;&#xA;* в знак особого уважения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В остальных случаях пишите &quot;вы&quot; со строчной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Тыкать&quot; (обращаться на ты) в форуме можно только если человек на это согласился. Например, в профайле может стоять &quot;предпочитаю обращение на ты&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну или если он называет вас на &quot;ты&quot;, вы можете или предложить обращаться на &quot;вы&quot;, или тоже начать ему тыкать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="760d78cb-cdb2-4528-93f6-a972af19004d" CreationDate="2015-07-15T02:11:02.927" UserId="5288" Text="Try be thinking in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't place a (*grammatical*) gender in a person or a thing. The question that would be surprising to people, is what are supposed to be masculineness or feminineness associated with seasons `зима, осень`? Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She lived as a woman but presented us by her title as being a man&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... она дала такой ответ: «Я вас оставлю директором, &#xD;&#xA;  а сама буду генеральным».       &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Андреев. Золотая рыбка областного образования,&#xD;&#xA;                              «Воронежские вести», 2003]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She told about herself (or men told about she) expressed it by masculine forms of words and this is norm&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Будучи его учителем, тетка была и товарищем его игр. &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Горький. Фома Гордеев (1899)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... свободное обращение детей с учителем, &#xD;&#xA;  которым в тот день была Прозорова. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И.В.Омулевский. Шаг за шагом (1870)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Нина Ивановна, наш директор, была генералом. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И на Мальте будут русские расти (2002),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Домовой», 2002.03.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... наш Директор всегда была на посту. &#xD;&#xA;                             [Евгения Пищикова. Пятиэтажная Россия (2007),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Русская Жизнь», 2008]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have a couple of words&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  метро    метрополитен&#xD;&#xA;  фото     фотография     фотка&#xD;&#xA;  ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that denoting the same thing, but this words has different *grammatical* gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For us it like a colour,** that highlighting words in our text or speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are denoting a gender of nouns, not things. We hear it like a musical rhythm that goes: *bit-bum-boom-boom-bit-boom-bum-bum...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have it allready, we using it. `Директор была строгая.` We mean *she*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing a scene to be &quot;house,&quot; and an author(speaker) had described it previously. The speaker might wish to point out some particular thing. He(or she?) would then have to say &quot;a red apple,&quot; or &quot;a red tomato&quot;, or &quot;a red ball-pen&quot;.  One might wish to allude to the quantity, *one tomato,* or *two pen.* Or to describe the kind of thing, as &quot;a litlle tomato.&quot;; or to the serial order, as &quot;the first thing,' or &quot;the second thing.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without ambiguity he can say *give me a red litlle-thing.* In Russian, every name of things has gender. *Apple* is neuter, *tomato* is masculine, *ball-pen* is feminine. So, we additionally can say: *give me the red-masculine.* Without any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occurring in many inflected languages, in Russian too, Adjective, Noun, Verb, Pronoun has its own characteristic such as *time, gender, case, persons* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imagine how we seeing and hearing highlighted text or speech.** Yes, the writer/speaker has to do much more work than reader/listener. Because Russian belongs to group [**synthetic languages**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="168dceb1-5e1b-4b03-975f-df2392dff729" CreationDate="2015-07-15T02:16:40.777" UserId="5288" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Try be thinking in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't place a (*grammatical*) gender in a person or a thing. The question that would be surprising to people, is what are supposed to be masculineness or feminineness associated with seasons `зима, осень`? Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She lived as a woman but presented us by her title as being a man&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... она дала такой ответ: «Я вас оставлю директором, &#xD;&#xA;  а сама буду генеральным».       &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Андреев. Золотая рыбка областного образования,&#xD;&#xA;                              «Воронежские вести», 2003]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She told about herself (or men told about she) expressed it by masculine forms of words and this is norm&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Будучи его учителем, тетка была и товарищем его игр. &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Горький. Фома Гордеев (1899)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... свободное обращение детей с учителем, &#xD;&#xA;  которым в тот день была Прозорова. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И.В.Омулевский. Шаг за шагом (1870)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Нина Ивановна, наш директор, была генералом. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И на Мальте будут русские расти (2002),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Домовой», 2002.03.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... наш Директор всегда была на посту. &#xD;&#xA;                             [Евгения Пищикова. Пятиэтажная Россия (2007),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Русская Жизнь», 2008]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have a couple of words&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  метро    метрополитен&#xD;&#xA;  фото     фотография     фотка&#xD;&#xA;  ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that denoting the same thing, but this words has different *grammatical* gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For us it is like a colour,** that highlighting words in our text or speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are denoting a gender of nouns, not things. We hear it like a musical rhythm that goes: *bit-bum-boom-boom-bit-boom-bum-bum...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have it allready, we using it. `Директор была строгая.` We mean *she*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing a scene to be &quot;house,&quot; and an author(speaker) had described it previously. The speaker might wish to point out some particular thing. He(or she?) would then have to say &quot;a red apple,&quot; or &quot;a red tomato&quot;, or &quot;a red ball-pen&quot;.  One might wish to allude to the quantity, *one tomato,* or *two pen.* Or to describe the kind of thing, as &quot;a litlle tomato.&quot;; or to the serial order, as &quot;the first thing,' or &quot;the second thing.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without ambiguity he can say *give me a red litlle-thing.* In Russian, every name of things has gender. *Apple* is neuter, *tomato* is masculine, *ball-pen* is feminine. So, we additionally can say: *give me the red-masculine.* Without any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occurring in many inflected languages, in Russian too, Adjective, Noun, Verb, Pronoun has its own characteristic such as *time, gender, case, persons* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imagine how we seeing and hearing highlighted text or speech.** Yes, the writer/speaker has to do much more work than reader/listener. Because Russian belongs to group [**synthetic languages**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="822707b7-ce7f-405f-a6d3-20f391862080" CreationDate="2015-07-15T02:57:51.057" UserId="5288" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Try be thinking in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't place a (*grammatical*) gender in a person or a thing. The question that would be surprising to people, is what are supposed to be masculineness or feminineness associated with seasons `зима, осень`? Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She lived as a woman but presented us by her title as being a man&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... она дала такой ответ: «Я вас оставлю директором, &#xD;&#xA;  а сама буду генеральным».       &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Андреев. Золотая рыбка областного образования,&#xD;&#xA;                              «Воронежские вести», 2003]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She told about herself (or men told about she) expressed it by masculine forms of words and this is norm&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Будучи его учителем, тетка была и товарищем его игр. &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Горький. Фома Гордеев (1899)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... свободное обращение детей с учителем, &#xD;&#xA;  которым в тот день была Прозорова. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И.В.Омулевский. Шаг за шагом (1870)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Нина Ивановна, наш директор, была генералом. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И на Мальте будут русские расти (2002),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Домовой», 2002.03.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... наш Директор всегда была на посту. &#xD;&#xA;                             [Евгения Пищикова. Пятиэтажная Россия (2007),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Русская Жизнь», 2008]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have a couple of words&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  метро    метрополитен&#xD;&#xA;  фото     фотография     фотка&#xD;&#xA;  ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that denoting the same thing, but this words has different *grammatical* gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For us it is like a colour,** that highlighting words in our text or speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are denoting a gender of nouns, not things. We hear it like a musical rhythm that goes: *bit-bum-boom-boom-bit-boom-bum-bum...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have it allready, we using it. `Директор была строгая.` We mean *she*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing a scene to be &quot;house,&quot; and an author(speaker) had described it previously. The speaker might wish to point out some particular thing. He(or she?) would then have to say &quot;a red apple,&quot; or &quot;a red tomato&quot;, or &quot;a red ball-pen&quot;.  One might wish to allude to the quantity, *one tomato,* or *two pen.* Or to describe the kind of thing, as &quot;a litlle tomato.&quot;; or to the serial order, as &quot;the first thing,' or &quot;the second thing.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without ambiguity he can say *give me a red litlle-thing.* In Russian, every name of things has gender. *Apple* is neuter, *tomato* is masculine, *ball-pen* is feminine. So, we additionally can say: *give me the red-masculine.* Without any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occurring in many inflected languages, in Russian too, Adjective, Noun, Verb, Pronoun has its own characteristic such as *time, gender, case, persons* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imagine how we seeing and hearing highlighted text or speech.** Yes, the writer/speaker has to do much more work than reader/listener. Because Russian belongs to group [**synthetic languages**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the default gender of a particular (even if it's a man-made word     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воркалось, хливкие шорьки    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пырялись по мове      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И хрюкотали зелюки,     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как мюмзики в мове.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;) word, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is answered in every Russian textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="4ff17fb9-5b53-470e-b6f5-04e5efed4581" CreationDate="2015-07-15T03:13:28.490" UserId="5288" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Try be thinking in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't place a (*grammatical*) gender in a person or a thing. The question that would be surprising to people, is what are supposed to be masculineness or feminineness associated with seasons `зима, осень`? Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She lived as a woman but presented us by her title as being a man&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... она дала такой ответ: «Я вас оставлю директором, &#xD;&#xA;  а сама буду генеральным».       &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Андреев. Золотая рыбка областного образования,&#xD;&#xA;                              «Воронежские вести», 2003]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She told about herself (or men told about she) expressed it by masculine forms of words and this is norm&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Будучи его учителем, тетка была и товарищем его игр. &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Горький. Фома Гордеев (1899)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... свободное обращение детей с учителем, &#xD;&#xA;  которым в тот день была Прозорова. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И.В.Омулевский. Шаг за шагом (1870)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Нина Ивановна, наш директор, была генералом. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И на Мальте будут русские расти (2002),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Домовой», 2002.03.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... наш Директор всегда была на посту. &#xD;&#xA;                             [Евгения Пищикова. Пятиэтажная Россия (2007),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Русская Жизнь», 2008]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have a couple of words&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  метро    метрополитен&#xD;&#xA;  фото     фотография     фотка&#xD;&#xA;  ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that denoting the same thing, but this words has different *grammatical* gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For us it is like a colour,** that highlighting words in our text or speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are denoting a gender of nouns, not things. We hear it like a musical rhythm that goes: *bit-bum-boom-boom-bit-boom-bum-bum...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have it allready, we using it. `Директор была строгая.` We mean *she*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say `&quot;Можга красивое,&quot;` if you means it is `село`, knowing that, I quote: [Село Можга было возведено в ранг города.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing a scene to be &quot;house,&quot; and an author(speaker) had described it previously. The speaker might wish to point out some particular thing. He(or she?) would then have to say &quot;a red apple,&quot; or &quot;a red tomato&quot;, or &quot;a red ball-pen&quot;.  One might wish to allude to the quantity, *one tomato,* or *two pen.* Or to describe the kind of thing, as &quot;a litlle tomato.&quot;; or to the serial order, as &quot;the first thing,' or &quot;the second thing.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without ambiguity he can say *give me a red litlle-thing.* In Russian, every name of things has gender. *Apple* is neuter, *tomato* is masculine, *ball-pen* is feminine. So, we additionally can say: *give me the red-masculine.* Without any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occurring in many inflected languages, in Russian too, Adjective, Noun, Verb, Pronoun has its own characteristic such as *time, gender, case, persons* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imagine how we seeing and hearing highlighted text or speech.** Yes, the writer/speaker has to do much more work than reader/listener. Because Russian belongs to group [**synthetic languages**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the default gender of a particular (even if it's a man-made word     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воркалось, хливкие шорьки    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пырялись по мове      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И хрюкотали зелюки,     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как мюмзики в мове.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;) word, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is answered in every Russian textbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.mozhga-gov.ru/city/history.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9201" RevisionGUID="14ff3242-6cf0-450a-b9ad-f7ec0b0e7715" CreationDate="2015-07-15T03:31:49.900" UserId="5288" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Try be thinking in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't place a (*grammatical*) gender in a person or a thing. The question that would be surprising to people, is what are supposed to be masculineness or feminineness associated with seasons `зима, осень`? Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She lived as a woman but presented us by her title as being a man&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  ... она дала такой ответ: «Я вас оставлю директором, &#xD;&#xA;  а сама буду генеральным».       &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Андреев. Золотая рыбка областного образования,&#xD;&#xA;                              «Воронежские вести», 2003]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She told about herself (or men told about she) expressed it by masculine forms of words and this is norm&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Будучи его учителем, тетка была и товарищем его игр. &#xD;&#xA;                             [М.Горький. Фома Гордеев (1899)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... свободное обращение детей с учителем, &#xD;&#xA;  которым в тот день была Прозорова. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И.В.Омулевский. Шаг за шагом (1870)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Нина Ивановна, наш директор, была генералом. &#xD;&#xA;                             [И на Мальте будут русские расти (2002),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Домовой», 2002.03.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  ... наш Директор всегда была на посту. &#xD;&#xA;                             [Евгения Пищикова. Пятиэтажная Россия (2007),&#xD;&#xA;                              «Русская Жизнь», 2008]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have a couple of words&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  метро    метрополитен&#xD;&#xA;  фото     фотография     фотка&#xD;&#xA;  ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;that denoting the same thing, but this words has different *grammatical* gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For us it is like a colour,** that highlighting words in our text or speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are denoting a gender of nouns, not things. We hear it like a musical rhythm that goes: *bit-bum-boom-boom-bit-boom-bum-bum...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have it allready, we using it. `Директор была строгая.` We mean *she*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say `&quot;Можга красивое,&quot;` if you means it is `село`, knowing that, I quote: [Село Можга было возведено в ранг города.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Бостон* may to be understood as the name of a circus troupe, ballet company, and so on. So we can say `Бостон выступала.` We mean *she*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing a scene to be &quot;house,&quot; and an author(speaker) had described it previously. The speaker might wish to point out some particular thing. He(or she?) would then have to say &quot;a red apple,&quot; or &quot;a red tomato&quot;, or &quot;a red ball-pen&quot;.  One might wish to allude to the quantity, *one tomato,* or *two pen.* Or to describe the kind of thing, as &quot;a litlle tomato.&quot;; or to the serial order, as &quot;the first thing,' or &quot;the second thing.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without ambiguity he can say *give me a red litlle-thing.* In Russian, every name of things has gender. *Apple* is neuter, *tomato* is masculine, *ball-pen* is feminine. So, we additionally can say: *give me the red-masculine.* Without any ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occurring in many inflected languages, in Russian too, Adjective, Noun, Verb, Pronoun has its own characteristic such as *time, gender, case, persons* and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imagine how we seeing and hearing highlighted text or speech.** Yes, the writer/speaker has to do much more work than reader/listener. Because Russian belongs to group [**synthetic languages**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the default gender of a particular (even if it's a man-made word     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воркалось, хливкие шорьки    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пырялись по мове      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И хрюкотали зелюки,     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как мюмзики в мове.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;) word, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is answered in every Russian textbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.mozhga-gov.ru/city/history.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="46e11dae-38a7-40a8-99aa-e8038f9ebf15" CreationDate="2015-07-15T07:08:29.633" UserId="4751" Comment="dummy edit to force markdown re-rendering (so intra-word bolding works right); minor cleanup" Text="Yes, both **йа** and **йо** are used in russian writing. They are used mostly in loaned words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Йа** (and its counterpart **ьа**) are used when transcribing foreign proper names only:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брайан, Гайана, Майами, Яньань&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Though I have found a neologism граб**ьа**рмия which is pronounced as &quot;грабь'армия&quot; without **я** in the middle of the word.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Йо** is used in such nouns as &#xD;&#xA;&gt; йог, йод, йота, майор, район, йогурт, майонез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them have foreign origin, though some of them have appeared in Russian vocabulary for many years. For instance, *йота* is a name of a greek letter and is mentioned in phraseologism &quot;Ни на йоту&quot; which has been used for at least 200 years. Many proper nouns (like Майорка) use **йо** because of transcription rules (see [Stepan Stepanov's answer][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, sometimes **йо** can be a result of concatenating two words into one single word. Such words (like *самолёт*) have a structure **word1 + о + word2** (*самолёт = сам + о + лёт* - &quot;сам летает&quot;). If the first word ends on **й**, the resulting word will have a **йо**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _стро**йо**тряд = строй + отряд_ - строительный отряд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting case of **ё** being written in some other way is words like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бульон, почтальон, каньон, лосьон, сеньор, батальон, медальон, павильон, шампиньон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance it may seem that this is a case when **ё** after consonant softens the preceding consonant and from **йо** becomes **ьо**. But in fact that is not the case. **Йо** is still there, but is not written. In all these words **ьо** are pronounced as if it is written as **ьйо** or **ьё**: бул**ьйо**н, почтал**ьйо**н, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, Russian language has no &quot;write as you hear&quot; concept. Though the orthography rules exist, they have many exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4317/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22268" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="46e11dae-38a7-40a8-99aa-e8038f9ebf15" CreationDate="2015-07-15T07:08:29.633" Comment="Proposed by 4751 approved by 5008, 551 edit id of 650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="78c5bb92-f4e9-4122-a06c-cb3ae548db91" CreationDate="2015-07-15T07:18:49.643" UserId="551" Comment="Reordered, improved formatting" Text="I'm not sure if `вы пройдете мимо` is `you pass by` or `you will pass`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone give me a certain answer please? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22270" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="9e9a18e9-c95d-4b53-8426-1653bb74502b" CreationDate="2015-07-15T07:41:13.020" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Вы пройдете мимо&quot; is &quot;you pass by&quot; or &quot;you will pass&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9202" RevisionGUID="f01ac07a-edcd-4da7-85c6-b8526a4ba9da" CreationDate="2015-07-15T13:13:59.010" UserId="5694" Text="Как ни забавно, в русский язык уже вошло слово &quot;гик&quot; по кальке с английского. И молодежь очень часто пользуется именно им." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="dfb57fc2-2ef5-4ff2-bac6-459b45293768" CreationDate="2015-07-15T14:41:03.883" UserId="3777" Text="14-го июля спустя более чем пятьдесят лет был опубликован [второй роман][1] Харпер Ли, являющийся продолжением книги &quot;Убить пересмешника&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повсеместно название переводят как &quot;Пойди поставь сторожа&quot;, что, на мой взгляд, слишком буквально. &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какое-нибудь выражение или название, которое бы более точно передавало заглавие книги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Go-Set-Watchman-A-Novel/dp/0062409859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="dfb57fc2-2ef5-4ff2-bac6-459b45293768" CreationDate="2015-07-15T14:41:03.883" UserId="3777" Text="&quot;Go set a watchman&quot; (&quot;Пойди поставь сторожа&quot;) by Harper Lee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="dfb57fc2-2ef5-4ff2-bac6-459b45293768" CreationDate="2015-07-15T14:41:03.883" UserId="3777" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="0eb1f9af-e349-4a76-9806-a13a25c83885" CreationDate="2015-07-15T14:53:43.990" UserId="3777" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="14-го июля спустя более чем пятьдесят лет был опубликован [второй роман][1] Харпер Ли, являющийся продолжением книги &quot;Убить пересмешника&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повсеместно название переводят как &quot;Пойди поставь сторожа&quot;, что, на мой взгляд, слишком буквально. &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какое-нибудь выражение или название, которое бы более красиво передавало заглавие книги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Go-Set-Watchman-A-Novel/dp/0062409859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22276" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="9199" RevisionGUID="004bca98-8d4a-4892-a802-415cdccca71d" CreationDate="2015-07-15T15:40:34.303" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9204" RevisionGUID="b222f154-a49e-4b32-af1f-60c9a1617fbc" CreationDate="2015-07-15T16:11:17.173" UserId="4929" Text="You will pass by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Совершенный вид, будущее время" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9205" RevisionGUID="68d6da7d-adc3-4133-b352-baf48b1e8500" CreationDate="2015-07-15T16:12:01.120" UserId="4560" Text="Это фраза из Библии, Исаия 21:6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Синодальный перевод][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ибо так сказал мне Господь: пойди, поставь сторожа; пусть он сказывает, что увидит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [церковнославянском][2] варианте — *«шед постави себе стража»*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://allbible.info/bible/sinodal/isa/21/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bible-center.ru/ru/bibletext/slavonic_ru/isa/21:6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="dd4b34f8-f8b3-4cf9-ba8d-efdd386f5831" CreationDate="2015-07-15T17:38:42.687" UserId="5584" Text="&gt; «Когда русскому человеку особенно плохо живется, он обвиняет в этом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жену, соседа, погоду, Бога - всех, кроме самого себя.»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Этом - prepositional,&#xD;&#xA;Жену - accusative.&#xD;&#xA;Why don't they match?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Этом - masculine,&#xD;&#xA;Жена - feminine.&#xD;&#xA;Why not Этой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="dd4b34f8-f8b3-4cf9-ba8d-efdd386f5831" CreationDate="2015-07-15T17:38:42.687" UserId="5584" Text="Он обвиняет в этом жену?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9206" RevisionGUID="dd4b34f8-f8b3-4cf9-ba8d-efdd386f5831" CreationDate="2015-07-15T17:38:42.687" UserId="5584" Text="|падежи|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9207" RevisionGUID="6c4d676e-b870-4a91-b97b-47f9bf5d37ed" CreationDate="2015-07-15T17:54:30.397" UserId="134" Text="The relevant part of the phrase translates as &quot;he accuses his wife of this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Обвинять* is a polyvalent verb which accepts up to two objects (one direct and one prepositional): *обвинять кого (acc.)? в чём (prep.)?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare English verb &quot;to accuse someone of something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So those are two different objects and they don't have to agree with each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9207" RevisionGUID="83895e48-7d94-4dc9-9708-420ba68daf93" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:02:13.600" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="The relevant part of the phrase translates as &quot;he accuses his wife of this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Обвинять* is a polyvalent verb which accepts up to two objects (one direct and one prepositional): *обвинять кого? (acc.) в чём? (prep.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare English verb &quot;to accuse someone of something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So those are two different objects and they don't have to agree with each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9208" RevisionGUID="40faf45b-4bab-4069-82ad-c8939c495fdc" CreationDate="2015-07-15T18:07:42.783" UserId="5694" Text="В этом =&gt; в том, что ему плохо живется. It has nothing to do with the word &quot;жена&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9209" RevisionGUID="408d2e03-228c-4357-9939-96518800cb61" CreationDate="2015-07-15T20:55:13.683" UserId="3892" Text="In verbs of motion, prefixed forms of -**идти** are perfective and prefixed forms of -**ходить** are imperfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore **пройдёте** means &quot;you will pass by&quot; whereas **проходите** means &quot;you (generally) pass by,&quot; or &quot;are passing by.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9209" RevisionGUID="96b9ea64-ca27-4ab5-b5d9-10e09d0d6532" CreationDate="2015-07-15T21:44:51.050" UserId="5288" Comment="проходи́те!  (They have a proposition to move) Pass! or Move along! or Go on!; Come on! or Come in!" Text="In verbs of motion, prefixed forms of -**идти** are perfective and prefixed forms of -**ходить** are imperfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore **пройдёте** means &quot;you will pass by&quot; whereas **прохо́дите** means &quot;you (generally) pass by,&quot; or &quot;are passing by.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9211" RevisionGUID="af0f521f-2703-48f0-9489-5552d3a4d299" CreationDate="2015-07-16T00:48:05.920" UserId="5694" Text="Я вам могу подать идею, как можно сгенерировать другие варианты перевода.&#xD;&#xA;Идете сюда - https://www.biblegateway.com/&#xD;&#xA;Набираете там Isaiah 21:6-12. Вы получите все основные варианты перевода Библии на английский язык. Один из которых Go set a watchman. Но там есть и другие варианты - post a lookout, set a looker и прочие. После чего вы можете создать собственные другие переводы этой фразы с имеющихся переводов на английский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один вариант http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=watchman Смотрите тут варианты перевода слова watchman и делаете другой перевод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Недостаток всех этих методов - при переводе, который будет отличаться от синодального, потеряется аллюзия на известный стих Библии. А церковнославянский перевод архаичен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="1ca1b537-5cd6-486d-b94e-99755b9f14d7" CreationDate="2015-07-16T12:40:48.783" UserId="3777" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="14-го июля спустя более чем пятьдесят лет был опубликован [второй роман][1] Харпер Ли, являющийся продолжением книги &quot;Убить пересмешника&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повсеместно название переводят как &quot;Пойди, поставь сторожа&quot;, что, на мой взгляд, слишком буквально. &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какое-нибудь выражение или название, которое бы более красиво передавало заглавие книги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Go-Set-Watchman-A-Novel/dp/0062409859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22296" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="1ca1b537-5cd6-486d-b94e-99755b9f14d7" CreationDate="2015-07-16T12:40:48.783" UserId="3777" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Go set a watchman&quot; (&quot;Пойди, поставь сторожа&quot;) by Harper Lee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9213" RevisionGUID="414f611d-e639-458a-a678-6782e5c19653" CreationDate="2015-07-16T16:32:28.880" UserId="5753" Text="This also means `let's see which side will win` where `чья` - means `чья сторона`.&#xD;&#xA;There is also a phrase `наша (сторона) взяла` that we use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="7537ea09-6760-4fa0-baa3-7754c751f2d9" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:09:01.017" UserId="5448" Text="I'll write in Russian, ОК?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Общеизвестно, что Вы (с заглавной) пишется при вежливом обращении к одному лицу. Но есть одна тонкость, про которую обычно забывают. &#xD;&#xA;Её по-разному формулируют - и это приводит к разночтениям. Я своими словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В основном правиле речь идет только о **личном** обращении к **конкретному** лицу. &#xD;&#xA;Поэтому со строчной (маленькой) буквы вы пишется:&#xD;&#xA;1. при передаче **устной речи** (в т.ч. в художественных текстах), а также в интернете, если стиль общения соответствуют устному (почти всегда на форумах, в скайпе и т. л., и часто во всякого рода социальных сетях), &#xD;&#xA;2. при неконкретном обращении, предполагающем массового читателя - типа памяток в памяток в гостинице или рекламы,&#xD;&#xA;3. в рассылках.&#xD;&#xA;Отдельным пунктом раньше стояли анкеты, сейчас, вроде, пришли к выводу, что там следует использовать заглавную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, эти правила нигде в одном месте явно не сформулированы, вынужден лично ликвидировать этот недочет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При написании e-мэйла одному человеку, коли уж Вы используете &quot;вы&quot;, писать стоит с заглавной. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9216" RevisionGUID="7476c575-75b4-4cea-9ec9-a40e41413084" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:25:12.853" UserId="5757" Text="I see this phrase below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет это нельзя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it is used in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может Лучика побреем ? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет это нельзя. Хватает того что я согласился&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation of it is either &quot;There is no impossible&quot; or &quot;No it cannot be&quot;. The first one makes more sense than the second one. What is the exact translation of this to English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9216" RevisionGUID="7476c575-75b4-4cea-9ec9-a40e41413084" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:25:12.853" UserId="5757" Text="Нет это нельзя - what does it really mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9216" RevisionGUID="7476c575-75b4-4cea-9ec9-a40e41413084" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:25:12.853" UserId="5757" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9217" RevisionGUID="b6313c07-c5d9-4265-bcf4-6a5b3e92f194" CreationDate="2015-07-17T00:31:39.553" UserId="5448" Text="Ваш вариант необычен, но не является неверным. &#xD;&#xA;Он передает более категоричное отрицание и конкретное.&#xD;&#xA;Сравните с одушевленным вариантом. Никто не заходил - никого не заходило.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Грамматику не буду сейчас разбирать. Скорее всего это действительно винительный падеж. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9218" RevisionGUID="7581d375-90e5-460f-a092-21e85d4c6a14" CreationDate="2015-07-17T01:09:45.397" UserId="5448" Text="Yes, your are right. The correct translation 'not impossible', 'not allowed', 'you/we can't do it' - depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Cannot be' is also occasionally possible, but only if about something physically impossible. - &quot;Он выпил 10 бутылок вина&quot; (He drank 10 bottles of wine at a time) - &quot;Это невозможно!&quot;/&quot;Этого не может быть!&quot; (it can't be!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your quote 'There is no impossible'/'not allowed' etc. is only exact translation, not 'cannot be'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="3af32880-7df5-4e2e-91a3-89b869685381" CreationDate="2015-07-17T01:25:36.597" UserId="5295" Text="Does anyone know of any nouns like путь that are declined in a mixed masc./fem. way? What I mean is путь follows a typical feminine pattern for the dat./gen./prep. cases (пути), but its instrumental case follows the masculine one (путём)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="3af32880-7df5-4e2e-91a3-89b869685381" CreationDate="2015-07-17T01:25:36.597" UserId="5295" Text="Nouns with mixed masc./fem. declensions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="3af32880-7df5-4e2e-91a3-89b869685381" CreationDate="2015-07-17T01:25:36.597" UserId="5295" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="7d2e2148-e6f0-4eb1-8d31-9817638a2420" CreationDate="2015-07-17T01:42:26.900" UserId="134" Text="It means &quot;you cannot do this&quot; or &quot;we cannot do this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Нельзя_ is a modal predicative meaning &quot;not allowed&quot;, &quot;not possible&quot; or &quot;not supposed to&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Сюда нельзя_ // One cannot go in here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Нельзя двигаться быстрее света_ // It's impossible to move faster than light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Мне нельзя поднимать тяжелое_ // I'm not supposed to lift heavy things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's exact shade of modality is vague and you cannot tell it definitely out of context (and often even within the context). That's why this word (along with its equally vague antonym _можно_) is frowned upon in the military: one would be scolded for using these words instead of more definite _разрешается_, _возможно_, _допускается_ etc. when talking to a senior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="8608cc47-4bd2-41c5-a6f1-447b1f22eefb" CreationDate="2015-07-17T03:46:52.760" UserId="912" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. In general terms, I would like to understand if this correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementatioin details, it seems to me that placement of quotation marks in Russian follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="8608cc47-4bd2-41c5-a6f1-447b1f22eefb" CreationDate="2015-07-17T03:46:52.760" UserId="912" Text="Unbalanced quotation marks in proper names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="8608cc47-4bd2-41c5-a6f1-447b1f22eefb" CreationDate="2015-07-17T03:46:52.760" UserId="912" Text="|пунктуация|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="17a809a6-66d9-40c6-8cbe-85300d442655" CreationDate="2015-07-17T03:57:16.503" UserId="912" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. In general terms, I would like to understand if this correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementatioin details, it seems that the placement of quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22316" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9203" RevisionGUID="c1686470-6830-420d-9c0f-6e85ceb698eb" CreationDate="2015-07-17T04:57:34.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/621906564186800128" />
  <row Id="22317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="3cb7b445-fb8d-4ea6-9478-28924565dc22" CreationDate="2015-07-17T05:21:09.323" UserId="912" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»`. Two opening quotes followed by one only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. In general terms, I would like to understand if this makes correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementatioin details, it seems that the placement of quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9222" RevisionGUID="05ec08c5-66e6-4320-975e-d7317b5b8941" CreationDate="2015-07-17T06:24:07.863" UserId="5288" Text="It means exactly&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;  No. That is not possible  [...]&#xD;&#xA;                              |&#xD;&#xA;       [to do smth; or being/doing; or to be smbd/smhw]   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The translation *&quot;There is no impossible&quot;* is a google style, that is, incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof:   &#xD;&#xA;`impossible = not possible`,   &#xD;&#xA;therefor:    &#xD;&#xA;`There is no impossible = There is no not possible     *(!)`   &#xD;&#xA;and being translated back into Russian:  &#xD;&#xA;`Нет, это не невозможно.`   &#xD;&#xA;-- that is wrong, because it means `Это возможно.`= `It's possible.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Нет, это нельзя.&quot;* is short for **&quot;Нет, это нельзя + Verb**(*or Pred*)**.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are avoiding that short form in formal texts. The **Verb** is picking up from context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  There's no denying it(that).         Это(го) нельзя отрицать.&#xD;&#xA;  I ought not to have said about it.   Мне нельзя говорить об этом.&#xD;&#xA;  It can't be denied.                  Это(го) нельзя отрицать.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  There is no saying what ...          нельзя сказать, что ...&#xD;&#xA;  There is no denying that ...         нельзя отрицать, что ...&#xD;&#xA;                                       &#xD;&#xA;  I can't leave things as they are.    Мне нельзя это так оставить.&#xD;&#xA;  It was impossible to say.            Нельзя это(го) было сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9223" RevisionGUID="a8aa2940-43ed-4c8f-99a7-e41152bc88b8" CreationDate="2015-07-17T06:29:50.647" UserId="5008" Text="That's a well-known school question. These nouns are called &quot;разносклоняемые&quot;. There are ten neuter gender nouns ending in &quot;-мя&quot; and one masculine &quot;путь&quot; which you mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full list is бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, пламя, племя, семя, стремя, темя and, of course, путь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9223" RevisionGUID="b850cd6e-3b36-4bdc-bb96-5cbf5abe47f8" CreationDate="2015-07-17T06:35:50.870" UserId="5008" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="That's a well-known school question. These nouns are called &quot;разносклоняемые&quot;. There are eleven neuter gender nouns ending in &quot;-мя&quot; and one masculine &quot;путь&quot; which you mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full list is бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, пламя, племя, семя, стремя, темя, голомя and, of course, путь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW. That's not a &quot;mixed masc./fem. way&quot; as declining Russian nouns depends upon their type (I, II, III) not (generally) upon their gender. Here they behave like both II and III types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="aea40fb1-af66-4257-8765-cee30a39d5f1" CreationDate="2015-07-17T07:15:16.577" UserId="912" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»`. Two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. In general terms, I would like to understand if this makes correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementatioin details, it seems that the placement of quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="be35da46-6187-45a2-8e1f-12e9655365ed" CreationDate="2015-07-17T07:29:38.673" UserId="912" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»` - two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. In general terms, I would like to understand if this makes correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementatioin details, it seems that the placement of quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9224" RevisionGUID="af2e559d-ba99-430b-88db-51684d5f84a6" CreationDate="2015-07-17T07:48:02.253" UserId="5008" Text="There are two types of qoutes in Russian: «french-style» - considered to be the main punctuation tool and „german-style“ - an additional one. Note that usual &quot;english-style&quot; is not officially allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use both &quot;french&quot; and &quot;german&quot; qoutation marks they must be both balanced and nested as «xxx „yyy «zzz „ttt“»“» etc. But if you use only &quot;french&quot; qoutes then several closing qoutes must be absorbed into one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering commas and dots, there's no &quot;simple&quot; rule. If, say, dots or exclamation mark are a natural part of qouted text then they go inside qoutes; otherwise outside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="4001c216-1d60-4508-9838-e8f7d2975a0a" CreationDate="2015-07-17T08:34:21.077" UserId="912" Comment="clarified the question" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»` - two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. In general terms, I would like to understand if this makes correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementation details, it seems that the choice of opening and closing quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="ce360bf7-b5ae-4e66-85c6-253fae385ac9" CreationDate="2015-07-17T09:13:44.700" UserId="912" Comment="Added an example" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»` - two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. For instance, given a sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Газета &quot;Правда&quot; сообщила, что Иванов, &#xD;&#xA;     возглавлявший ОАО &quot;Коропорация &quot;Ромашка&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;     уходит в отставку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have five quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the quotation marks 1,3, and 4 are opening and the marks 2, and 5, are closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general terms, I would like to understand if unbalanced quotation marks make correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementation details, it seems that the choice of opening and closing quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Sy7g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="b211e89c-5d99-480c-9361-cc8ff327cb15" CreationDate="2015-07-17T09:18:38.250" UserId="912" Comment="Added an example" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»` - two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to understand this phenomenon to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. For instance, given a sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Газета &quot;Правда&quot; сообщила, что Иванов, &#xD;&#xA;     возглавлявший ОАО &quot;Корпорация &quot;Ромашка&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;     уходит в отставку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have five quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the quotation marks 1,3, and 4 are opening and the marks 2, and 5, are closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general terms, I would like to understand if unbalanced quotation marks make correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementation details, it seems that the choice of opening and closing quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kU1Yn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="4ee7d66b-808b-4807-833d-8236af80ad58" CreationDate="2015-07-17T09:42:13.097" UserId="1557" Text="Фраза &quot;Повезло выучить второй язык, не прикладывая усилий&quot; режет мне слух. Я бы написал &quot;Повезло выучить второй язык, не прилагая усилий&quot;. Я прав? Это стилистика? Или действительно ошибка? Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="4ee7d66b-808b-4807-833d-8236af80ad58" CreationDate="2015-07-17T09:42:13.097" UserId="1557" Text="Прикладывать или прилагать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="4ee7d66b-808b-4807-833d-8236af80ad58" CreationDate="2015-07-17T09:42:13.097" UserId="1557" Text="|стиль|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="7ffb329d-223e-43ad-b73b-fa387e038d18" CreationDate="2015-07-17T10:13:21.053" UserId="912" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see proper names typed with unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»` - two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to automate correct placement of quotation marks in a piece of software. For instance, given a sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Газета &quot;Правда&quot; сообщила, что Иванов, &#xD;&#xA;     возглавлявший ОАО &quot;Корпорация &quot;Ромашка&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;     уходит в отставку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has five quotation marks:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the quotation marks 1,3, and 4 are opening and the marks 2, and 5, are closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general terms, I would like to understand if unbalanced quotation marks make correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementation details, it seems that the choice of opening and closing quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kU1Yn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9226" RevisionGUID="cfa52c71-79d3-4263-a7e6-5bd2c1322e94" CreationDate="2015-07-17T10:14:12.723" UserId="5008" Text="Ну стилистически сочетание &quot;прилагать усилия&quot; выглядит, конечно, лучше, так как глагол &quot;прикладывать&quot; ассоциируется с физическим действием. Однако &quot;прикладывать усилия&quot; также весьма распространённый оборот, и, если и есть какое-то правило, которое запрещает его использовать, лучше на него не ссылаться, а то прослывёшь пуристом, а то и, не дай Бог, граммар-наци ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9227" RevisionGUID="10790d2d-a7f9-4317-83a1-25adbbdde041" CreationDate="2015-07-17T10:14:20.637" UserId="551" Text="Подобный вопрос был задан на [грамоте.ру][1]. Ответ такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: **прилагать усилия**. С глаголом совершенного вида приложить в значении 'направить действие чего-л. на что-л., применить' соотносится глагол несовершенного вида прилагать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_474400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22333" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9225" RevisionGUID="f0fed522-826d-4405-aa2c-3dc524e9f309" CreationDate="2015-07-17T10:29:47.190" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|вид|стиль|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9220" RevisionGUID="e87cfa97-a64a-4b44-b2ec-ade025cd96d2" CreationDate="2015-07-17T10:38:46.807" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It means &quot;you cannot do this&quot; or &quot;we cannot do this&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Нельзя_ is a modal predicative meaning &quot;not allowed&quot;, &quot;not possible&quot; or &quot;not supposed to&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Сюда нельзя_ // One cannot go in here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Нельзя двигаться быстрее света_ // It's impossible to move faster than light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Мне нельзя поднимать тяжелое_ // I'm not supposed to lift heavy things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its exact shade of modality is vague and you cannot tell it definitely out of context (and often even within the context). That's why this word (along with its equally vague antonym _можно_) is frowned upon in the military: one would be scolded for using these words instead of more definite _разрешается_, _возможно_, _допускается_ etc. when talking to a senior." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22335" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8117" RevisionGUID="a7544047-ab09-4bcf-a321-e0a51104fbf9" CreationDate="2015-07-17T11:19:41.437" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22336" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8528" RevisionGUID="67e2f5ae-7409-4352-b084-8247e8d57524" CreationDate="2015-07-17T11:19:58.943" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|история-языка|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22337" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7796" RevisionGUID="267ef896-9a5b-4103-af8c-11ea9926a03c" CreationDate="2015-07-17T11:20:44.827" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22338" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="1c865255-9fa1-41d2-abc3-ce7852d17d4d" CreationDate="2015-07-17T11:21:49.623" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|повелительное-наклонение|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22339" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8571" RevisionGUID="8190f02d-8098-4fca-b0d8-a9f3365ca6bd" CreationDate="2015-07-17T11:22:20.420" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8144" RevisionGUID="15cffa36-9c7f-4f29-9315-05346da1a3bf" CreationDate="2015-07-17T11:22:40.423" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="0a8263a6-19fd-46ff-8e1a-a14e0d8a4c9a" CreationDate="2015-07-17T12:33:41.670" UserId="5448" Text="Не думаю.&#xD;&#xA;В принципе можно сделать любые предположения. Но зачем здесь аорист? Грамматика непонятна совершенно. &#xD;&#xA;Что модет значить аорит вообще? Законченное однократное действие в прошлом. В прошлом - понятно. А вот почему законченное, да еще однократное. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну или вот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иначе аорист можно определить как абсолютное прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повествовательное время, специфика которого заключается в передаче&#xD;&#xA;&gt; динамичных, активных событий прошлого, не связанных с настоящим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; временем.&#xD;&#xA;Тоже не кактит как-то...&#xD;&#xA;Ну это помимо того, что реконструкция формы, как верно пишет Quassnoi в таком виде весьма сомнительна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="69941509-ecf0-40d7-a469-226b9174d62c" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:00:54.180" UserId="5758" Text="Подскажите, будет ли стилистически верным дословный перевод 'life story' в данном контексте:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They had their life story turned into a movie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;перевод: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По их истории жизни был снят фильм." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="69941509-ecf0-40d7-a469-226b9174d62c" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:00:54.180" UserId="5758" Text="Перевести 'life story' в контексте" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9229" RevisionGUID="69941509-ecf0-40d7-a469-226b9174d62c" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:00:54.180" UserId="5758" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="1023ff3d-6ee9-4f60-ae6a-ae5a75d23583" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:08:26.577" UserId="5448" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Не думаю.&#xD;&#xA;В принципе можно сделать любые предположения. Но зачем здесь аорист? Грамматика непонятна совершенно. &#xD;&#xA;Что модет значить аорит вообще? Законченное однократное действие в прошлом. В прошлом - понятно. А вот почему законченное, да еще однократное. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну или вот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иначе аорист можно определить как абсолютное прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повествовательное время, специфика которого заключается в передаче&#xD;&#xA;&gt; динамичных, активных событий прошлого, не связанных с настоящим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; временем.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Тоже не катит как-то...&#xD;&#xA;Ну это помимо того, что реконструкция формы, как верно пишет Quassnoi в таком виде весьма сомнительна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9230" RevisionGUID="d0c236ac-a75a-4c1e-b632-2ec303de57ae" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:48:34.813" UserId="5448" Text="'Засрать' (from 'срать') is а rude Russian verb means just about 'to dirty off' (literally: to grime smth with feces). What is the correct form of its imperfect: 'засирать' or 'засерать'? And why so?      &#xD;&#xA;//---------  &#xD;&#xA;Как будет несовершенный вид к засрать?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9230" RevisionGUID="d0c236ac-a75a-4c1e-b632-2ec303de57ae" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:48:34.813" UserId="5448" Text="'Засирать' or 'засерать'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9230" RevisionGUID="d0c236ac-a75a-4c1e-b632-2ec303de57ae" CreationDate="2015-07-17T13:48:34.813" UserId="5448" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9231" RevisionGUID="e267c952-6232-443d-bd91-b425f1675837" CreationDate="2015-07-17T14:11:16.590" UserId="4560" Text="*Засирать* should be correct; compare *забрать/забирать* and *задрать/задирать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9231" RevisionGUID="b4b4c9a1-ed19-48ea-ac28-899f79b9a92e" CreationDate="2015-07-17T14:16:33.133" UserId="4560" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="*Засирать* should be correct; compare *забрать/забирать* and *задрать/задирать*, as well as a few verbs with a differently patterned infinitive but the same present-tense stem: *запереть (запру) — запирать, замереть (замру) — замирать*, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9232" RevisionGUID="8ba2989c-5cd1-4b1c-b427-cd681d42a908" CreationDate="2015-07-17T15:41:03.177" UserId="5753" Text="Be careful, you can find this use `йа, йо, йу` in the slang forms! &#xD;&#xA;At the same time all the &quot;right&quot; forms are listed in the ansveres above: `Йод, Нью-Йорк, йогурт, йога, майор, майонез...`, it is also may be a &quot;spelled&quot; form of &quot;yo!&quot; - `йоу!`, all other forms are slang and they are very popular on the forums and communities: `йож, йад, йа`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8528" RevisionGUID="e0ae5a67-22fe-4abb-b719-8897d72da679" CreationDate="2015-07-17T17:45:22.587" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Может ли известное ругательство с упоминанием матери быть сохранившимся аористом 1 л. ед. ч.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="194e6991-9608-4934-9a91-86b556560156" CreationDate="2015-07-17T20:45:43.290" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="Надёжнее использовать полную форму. Потому что краткая чаще всего звучит абсурдно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У нашего генподрядчика газон зелен.&#xD;&#xA;    Наш апельсиновый смузи всегда сочен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Неологизмы 21 века + прилагательные из эпохи Пушкина или сказки &quot;Конёк-горбунок&quot;, 19 век, потому что в 19 веке литература больше, чем сегодня, ориентировалась на стандарты церковнославянского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая форма прилагательного пришла из церковнославянского (древнеболгарского) и поэтому в русском используется в основном на письме и довольно узко. В устную речь они проникли мало, либо в виде устойчивых слов (&quot;буду краток&quot;), либо терминов из литературы (&quot;этот тренд устойчив&quot;) и дополняя смысл (хорóшая-хорошá).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Остальные прилагательные в краткой форме звучат старомодно и вносят в стиль немного абсурда:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском полная форма сложилась собственно из исконной славянской старой формы и формы личного местоимения (бѣлъ + ый =&gt; белый (гласные выпали в другие гласные или исчезли вообще)). В южнославянских краткая форма как была, так и осталась (белый самолёт - &quot;бели авион&quot;, и -и на конце - это не &quot;ий&quot;, а &quot;ъ&quot;, выпавшая в &quot;и&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем, это по сути две части речи (хотя родственные, идущие от одного предка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке укоренились некоторые вещи из церковнославянского (письменного), но во многих отношениях побеждает устная речь (точнее, письменная всё больше копирует грамматику из устной, которая нам роднее и устойчивее), поэтому надёжнее придерживаться устной (кроме редких случаев, где краткие формы прижились, которые я упомянул выше).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается полной формы прилагательного, есть небольшое различие в употреблении про людей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    он был жизнерадостный/жизнерадостным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если нет уточнений на время или длительность, то &quot;-ый&quot; значит &quot;в тот момент&quot; (как в описании: &quot;заходит он жизнерадостный такой&quot;), а &quot;-ым&quot; - что он был таким всегда, и что человека уже нет или он поменялся кардинально.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="70495ae2-a601-4fd2-a49d-121cdd124b96" CreationDate="2015-07-17T20:50:58.910" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Надёжнее использовать полную форму. Потому что краткая чаще всего звучит абсурдно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У нашего генподрядчика газон зелен.&#xD;&#xA;    Наш чизкейк всегда сочен.&#xD;&#xA;    Ваш коворкинг безлюден.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Неологизмы 21 века + прилагательные из эпохи Пушкина или сказки &quot;Конёк-горбунок&quot;, 19 век, потому что в 19 веке литература больше, чем сегодня, ориентировалась на стандарты церковнославянского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая форма прилагательного пришла из церковнославянского (древнеболгарского) и поэтому в русском используется в основном на письме и довольно узко. В устную речь они проникли мало, либо в виде устойчивых слов, либо терминов из литературного мира:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    этот тренд устойчив&#xD;&#xA;    мой твиттер популярен&#xD;&#xA;    этот блоггер известен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(все эти прилагательные широко использовались в окололитературной тематике или в технической литературе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или краткая форма несёт другой смысл: хорóшая-хорошá.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Остальные прилагательные в краткой форме звучат старомодно и привносят в стиль абсурд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском полная форма сложилась собственно из исконной славянской старой формы и формы личного местоимения (бѣлъ + ый =&gt; белый (гласные выпали в другие гласные или исчезли вообще)). В южнославянских краткая форма как была, так и осталась (белый самолёт - &quot;бели авион&quot;, и -и на конце - это не &quot;ий&quot;, а &quot;ъ&quot;, выпавшая в &quot;и&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем, это по сути две части речи (хотя родственные, идущие от одного предка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке укоренились некоторые вещи из церковнославянского (письменного), но во многих отношениях побеждает устная речь (точнее, письменная всё больше копирует грамматику из устной, которая нам роднее и устойчивее), поэтому надёжнее придерживаться устной (кроме редких случаев, где краткие формы прижились, которые я упомянул выше).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается полной формы прилагательного, есть небольшое различие в употреблении про людей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    он был жизнерадостный/жизнерадостным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если нет уточнений на время или длительность, то &quot;-ый&quot; значит &quot;в тот момент&quot; (как в описании: &quot;заходит он жизнерадостный такой&quot;), а &quot;-ым&quot; - что он был таким всегда, и что человека уже нет или он поменялся кардинально.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="31e3871f-0754-45fc-a743-d5c2f83a6fab" CreationDate="2015-07-17T21:11:04.837" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="*домой* is one of noun cases that once existed in Russian, but disappeared, except some stable phrases like this one. Other examples similar to this (but I'm not sure it's the same historical grammar case):&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    ехал то лесом, то полем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*rode a bit in woods, a bit in fields*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the destination, домой is the only correct form for &quot;go home&quot; in general. But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я пойду в парк&#xD;&#xA;    я пойду на море&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since домой means go home in general, the word with preposition means more specific: *я пойду в дом* = *I'll go inside the house*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22356" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8854" RevisionGUID="3f2e1e2f-c4eb-4e87-a454-a7150c0af574" CreationDate="2015-07-17T23:00:25.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/622179072140050432" />
  <row Id="22357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="2085364c-5ec9-451d-84ef-eac9e1514c20" CreationDate="2015-07-17T23:45:34.097" UserId="5448" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Не думаю.&#xD;&#xA;В принципе можно сделать любые предположения. Но зачем здесь аорист? Грамматика непонятна совершенно. &#xD;&#xA;Что может значить аорит вообще? Законченное однократное действие в прошлом. В прошлом - понятно. А вот почему законченное, да еще однократное. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну или вот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иначе аорист можно определить как абсолютное прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повествовательное время, специфика которого заключается в передаче&#xD;&#xA;&gt; динамичных, активных событий прошлого, не связанных с настоящим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; временем.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Тоже не катит как-то...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уточняю, вопросы не &quot;риторические&quot;. Это рассуждения. Я не вижу грамматической и/или контектной причины употреблять такое выражение в форме аориста. *Аорист здесь не по ситуации*. Может, конечно я и не прав. Но мне такой довод кажется достаточно весомым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну это помимо того, что реконструкция формы, как верно пишет Quassnoi в таком виде весьма сомнительна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="733532a7-5c89-471b-b96f-d9eb642f3ddf" CreationDate="2015-07-18T00:58:30.340" UserId="4494" Text="The phrase &quot;У меня машина&quot; is interpreted as &quot;I have a car&quot;. Here is my understanding of the &quot;layers&quot; of that translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The phrase &quot;У меня машина&quot; literally means &quot;Car near me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2. In Russian, we leave the verb &quot;to be&quot; implicit. Thus a possible interpretation of this sentence is &quot;*There is* a car near me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;3. The concept of something being &quot;near&quot; someone, indicated by the word &quot;У&quot;, is a common idiom to indicate that the thing *belongs* to that person. Thus &quot;There is a car near me&quot; is interpreted here as &quot;I have a car&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is the interpretation in point 2 the only possible interpretation? Couldn't we also not take there to be an implicit verb &quot;to be&quot;, and take the phrase as just meaning &quot;my car&quot;? For instance, if A and B walk into a garage, and A sees a strange machine and asks what it is, could the following exchange occur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Что это?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B: У меня машина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B: Это у меня машина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which we could literally translate as &quot;That (is) the car which is near me&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="733532a7-5c89-471b-b96f-d9eb642f3ddf" CreationDate="2015-07-18T00:58:30.340" UserId="4494" Text="Can &quot;У меня машина&quot; just mean &quot;My car&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="733532a7-5c89-471b-b96f-d9eb642f3ddf" CreationDate="2015-07-18T00:58:30.340" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="668b1afa-9a15-4bd6-b492-249b45fd92a7" CreationDate="2015-07-18T01:59:55.970" UserId="4560" Text="First of all, the literal translation is not really &quot;the car near me&quot;; a better match would be the French *la voiture chez moi*. (Shameless plug for [my long answer about the semantics of the possessive *у*][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, and more to the point, the simple answer is &quot;no&quot; and the complicated one is *very* complicated. As a basic phrase, **моя машина** is decidedly *not* interchangeable with **у меня машина**. However, the line starts to get blurred when more information is added to the message; thus it's much more idiomatically correct to express &quot;my car is old&quot; as **машина у меня старая** rather than **моя машина старая**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather hard (though not impossible) to imagine a context in which someone would say **Это у меня машина** instead of **Это моя машина**. Perhaps if the *машина* in question was some kind of a steampunk monstrosity not immediately recognisable as a car, or if it was a &quot;pretend&quot; car of some sort that a child has made out of, I don't know, sofa pillows. Yes, there are some super-subtle rules involved in such seemingly simple word choices. Stick with **это моя машина** if you want to err on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vernacular Russian taken to the extreme sometimes flaunts such constructions as **у меня у сестры свадьба через две недели** &quot;my sister's getting married in two weeks&quot;. That kind of syntax is generally frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7867/%D1%83-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD-by-him-is-a-suitcase/7868#7868" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="4d4f31a9-938a-4ed3-bee6-15b34eb1faf1" CreationDate="2015-07-18T02:14:59.720" UserId="4560" Comment="added 336 characters in body" Text="First of all, the literal translation is not really &quot;the car near me&quot;; a better match would be the French *la voiture chez moi*. (Shameless plug for [my long answer about the semantics of the possessive *у*][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, and more to the point, the simple answer is &quot;no&quot; and the complicated one is *very* complicated. As a basic phrase, **моя машина** is decidedly *not* interchangeable with **у меня машина**. However, the line starts to get blurred when more information is added to the message; thus it's much more idiomatically correct to express &quot;my car is old&quot; as **машина у меня старая** than as **моя машина старая**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather hard (though not impossible) to imagine a context in which someone would say **Это у меня машина** instead of **Это моя машина**. Perhaps if the *машина* in question was some kind of a steampunk monstrosity not immediately recognisable as a car, or if it was a &quot;pretend&quot; car that a child has made out of, I don't know, sofa pillows. Yes, there are some super-subtle rules involved in such seemingly simple word choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic goes something like this: **у меня** can (in fact, must) replace the possessive pronoun when the sentence is about what the thing I own is *like*, rather than what it *is*. Which is why for **Это у меня машина**, I had to come up with such outlandish examples: they had to involve the &quot;carness&quot; of something that fundamentally isn't a car. Stick with **это моя машина** if you want to err on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vernacular Russian taken to the extreme sometimes flaunts such constructions as **у меня у сестры свадьба через две недели** &quot;my sister's getting married in two weeks&quot;. That kind of syntax is generally frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7867/%D1%83-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD-by-him-is-a-suitcase/7868#7868" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="1de9b453-76aa-447f-b50f-f58897ccf675" CreationDate="2015-07-18T05:01:13.540" UserId="5288" Text="just to illustrate the answer of Nikolay Ershov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        Phrases      ----      Сочетания слов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a father's car                  папина машина&#xD;&#xA;a cat's tail                    кошачий хвост&#xD;&#xA;a day's journey                 дневная прогулка &#xD;&#xA;a [I]'s car                     моя машина&#xD;&#xA;   \&#xD;&#xA;    a Russian way to think&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----          предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + noun]&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Father has a car.                     У папы есть машина.&#xD;&#xA;Cat has tail.                         У кота есть хвост.&#xD;&#xA;A day has 28 hours.                   У дня 28 часов.&#xD;&#xA;The library has the long history.     У библиотеки (есть) длинная история.&#xD;&#xA;The library has over 1 million books. В библиотеке (есть) более миллиона книг.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----              предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + verb]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day has gone.                         День прошёл.&#xD;&#xA;Father has come.                          Отец пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;The library has been closed for 10 years. Библиотека закрыта уже 10 лет.&#xD;&#xA;The library has acquired a new books.     Библиотека получила новые книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----              предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + verb]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ----------- English way to think -----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day has gone.                         День есть прошедший.&#xD;&#xA;Father has come.                          Отец есть пришедший.&#xD;&#xA;The library has been closed for 10 years. Библиотека имеет быть закрытой 10 лет.&#xD;&#xA;The library has acquired a new books.     Библиотека есть получившая новые книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                          └──────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                              understandable, but very strange&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="d5bd6a2c-4dbb-41fb-96bc-54deab261e13" CreationDate="2015-07-18T05:31:36.787" UserId="5288" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="just to illustrate the answer of Nikolay Ershov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        Phrases      ----      Сочетания слов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a father's car                  папина машина&#xD;&#xA;a cat's tail                    кошачий хвост&#xD;&#xA;a day's journey                 дневная прогулка &#xD;&#xA;a [I]'s car                     моя машина&#xD;&#xA;   \&#xD;&#xA;    a Russian way to think&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----          предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + noun]&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Father has a car.                     У папы есть машина.&#xD;&#xA;Cat has tail.                         У кота есть хвост.&#xD;&#xA;A day has 28 hours.                   У дня 28 часов.&#xD;&#xA;The library has the long history.     У библиотеки (есть) длинная история.&#xD;&#xA;The library has over 1 million books. В библиотеке (есть) более миллиона книг.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----              предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + verb]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day has gone.                         День прошёл.&#xD;&#xA;Father has come.                          Отец пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;The library has been closed for 10 years. Библиотека закрыта уже 10 лет.&#xD;&#xA;The library has acquired a new books.     Библиотека получила новые книги.&#xD;&#xA;He has being as a student.                Он является учащимся.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----              предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + verb]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ----------- English way to think -----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day has gone.                         День есть прошедший.&#xD;&#xA;Father has come.                          Отец есть пришедший.&#xD;&#xA;The library has been closed for 10 years. Библиотека имеет быть закрытой 10 лет.&#xD;&#xA;The library has acquired a new books.     Библиотека есть получившая новые книги.&#xD;&#xA;He has being as a student.                Он есть являющийся учеником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                          └──────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                              understandable, but very strange&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9238" RevisionGUID="5df6836e-5bda-416b-a732-ab40f0f228a3" CreationDate="2015-07-18T07:58:08.887" UserId="5008" Text="Speaking about posessive &quot;У&quot; in Russian I'd like to cite the well-known nursery rhyme by S. Mikhalkov which shows the flexibility of this construction. Hope it could be of some fun for those learning Russian too. Yet be warned that it imitates the childish talk so it contains a couple of intended errors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    С. Михалков&#xD;&#xA;    А ЧТО У ВАС?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кто на лавочке сидел,&#xD;&#xA;    Кто на улицу глядел,&#xD;&#xA;    Толя пел,&#xD;&#xA;    Борис молчал,&#xD;&#xA;    Николай ногой качал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дело было вечером,&#xD;&#xA;    Делать было нечего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Галка села на заборе,&#xD;&#xA;    Кот забрался на чердак.&#xD;&#xA;    Тут сказал ребятам Боря&#xD;&#xA;    Просто так:&#xD;&#xA;    - А у меня в кармане гвоздь!&#xD;&#xA;    А у вас?&#xD;&#xA;    - А у нас сегодня гость!&#xD;&#xA;    А у вас?&#xD;&#xA;    - А у нас сегодня кошка&#xD;&#xA;    Родила вчера котят.&#xD;&#xA;    Котята выросли немножко,&#xD;&#xA;    А есть из блюдца не хотят!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - А у нас в квартире газ!&#xD;&#xA;    А у вас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - А у нас водопровод!&#xD;&#xA;    Вот!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - А из нашего окна&#xD;&#xA;    Площадь Красная видна!&#xD;&#xA;    А из вашего окошка&#xD;&#xA;    Только улица немножко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Мы гуляли по Неглинной,&#xD;&#xA;    Заходили на бульвар,&#xD;&#xA;    Нам купили синий-синий&#xD;&#xA;    Презеленый красный шар!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - А у нас огонь погас -&#xD;&#xA;    Это раз!&#xD;&#xA;    Грузовик привез дрова -&#xD;&#xA;    Это два!&#xD;&#xA;    А в-четвертых - наша мама&#xD;&#xA;    Отправляется в полет,&#xD;&#xA;    Потому что наша мама&#xD;&#xA;    Называется - пилот!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    С лесенки ответил Вова:&#xD;&#xA;    - Мама - летчик?&#xD;&#xA;    Что ж такого?&#xD;&#xA;    Вот у Коли, например,&#xD;&#xA;    Мама - милиционер!&#xD;&#xA;    А у Толи и у Веры&#xD;&#xA;    Обе мамы - инженеры!&#xD;&#xA;    А у Левы мама - повар!&#xD;&#xA;    Мама-летчик?&#xD;&#xA;    Что ж такого!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Всех важней,- сказала Ната,-&#xD;&#xA;    Мама - вагоновожатый,&#xD;&#xA;    Потому что до Зацепы&#xD;&#xA;    Водит мама два прицепа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И спросила Нина тихо:&#xD;&#xA;    - Разве плохо быть портнихой?&#xD;&#xA;    Кто трусы ребятам шьет?&#xD;&#xA;    Ну, конечно, не пилот!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Летчик водит самолеты -&#xD;&#xA;    Это очень хорошо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Повар делает компоты -&#xD;&#xA;    Это тоже хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Доктор лечит нас от кори,&#xD;&#xA;    Есть учительница в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мамы разные нужны,&#xD;&#xA;    Мамы разные важны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дело было вечером,&#xD;&#xA;    Спорить было нечего.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9237" RevisionGUID="17895f49-9b09-47b4-82bc-d1b0c4c3717d" CreationDate="2015-07-18T11:20:03.707" UserId="5288" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="just to illustrate the answer of Nikolay Ershov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;        Phrases      ----      Сочетания слов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a father's car                  папина машина&#xD;&#xA;a cat's tail                    кошачий хвост&#xD;&#xA;a day's journey                 дневная прогулка &#xD;&#xA;a [I]'s car                     моя машина&#xD;&#xA;   \&#xD;&#xA;    a Russian way to think&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----          предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + noun]&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Father has a car.                     У папы есть машина.&#xD;&#xA;Cat has tail.                         У кота есть хвост.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;A day has 28 hours.                   У дня 28 часов.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Each day has his own angel.           У каждого дня (есть) свой ангел.&#xD;&#xA;The library has the long history.     У библиотеки (есть) длинная история.&#xD;&#xA;The library has over 1 million books. В библиотеке (есть) более миллиона книг.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;—————   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;words in braces ( ) can be omitted&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----              предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + verb]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day has gone.                         День прошёл.&#xD;&#xA;Father has come.                          Отец пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;The library has been closed for 10 years. Библиотека закрыта уже 10 лет.&#xD;&#xA;The library has acquired a new books.     Библиотека получила новые книги.&#xD;&#xA;He has being as a student.                Он является учащимся.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    sentences           ----              предложения&#xD;&#xA;                [Noun + has + verb]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     ----------- English way to think -----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day has gone.                         День есть прошедший.&#xD;&#xA;Father has come.                          Отец есть пришедший.&#xD;&#xA;The library has been closed for 10 years. Библиотека имеет быть закрытой 10 лет.&#xD;&#xA;The library has acquired a new books.     Библиотека есть получившая новые книги.&#xD;&#xA;He has being as a student.                Он есть являющийся учеником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                          └──────────────────────────────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                              understandable, but very strange&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9239" RevisionGUID="b061422c-566f-4901-a4de-61c610057be2" CreationDate="2015-07-18T11:51:54.477" UserId="5758" Text="Наиболее подходящим вариантом для меня оказался:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (В 2003 году) был снят фильм, основанный на их жизни." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="b37f5dd7-3373-40c7-b425-68ba36c787c6" CreationDate="2015-07-18T11:57:15.410" UserId="5762" Text="Hello I would like to know what is the meaning of the following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А попросту говоря, эта твоя бравура меня заебала&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both Google and Yandex give meaningless translations in regards to the second part of the phrase, and looking for it with Google images does not help much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="b37f5dd7-3373-40c7-b425-68ba36c787c6" CreationDate="2015-07-18T11:57:15.410" UserId="5762" Text="А попросту говоря, эта твоя бравура меня заебала" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="b37f5dd7-3373-40c7-b425-68ba36c787c6" CreationDate="2015-07-18T11:57:15.410" UserId="5762" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9224" RevisionGUID="6dd9ca6b-9590-4d3f-9e92-ebd6e8a2cb4d" CreationDate="2015-07-18T12:08:56.073" UserId="1993" Comment="qoute -&gt; quote" Text="There are two types of quotes in Russian: «French-style» - considered to be the main punctuation tool and „German-style“ - an additional one. Note that usual &quot;English-style&quot; is not officially allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use both &quot;French&quot; and &quot;German&quot; quotation marks they must be both balanced and nested as «xxx „yyy «zzz „ttt“»“» etc. But if you use only &quot;french&quot; quotes then several closing quotes must be absorbed into one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering commas and dots, there's no &quot;simple&quot; rule. If, say, dots or exclamation mark are a natural part of quoted text then they go inside quotes; otherwise outside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22372" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9224" RevisionGUID="6dd9ca6b-9590-4d3f-9e92-ebd6e8a2cb4d" CreationDate="2015-07-18T12:08:56.073" Comment="Proposed by 1993 approved by 5008 edit id of 651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9224" RevisionGUID="7340db1c-a836-4b5e-8a9d-fb636d086c79" CreationDate="2015-07-18T12:09:44.160" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="There are two types of quotes in Russian: «French-style» - considered to be the main punctuation tool and „German-style“ - an additional one. Note that usual &quot;English-style&quot; is not officially allowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use both &quot;French&quot; and &quot;German&quot; quotation marks they must be both balanced and nested as «xxx „yyy «zzz „ttt“»“» etc. But if you use only &quot;French&quot; quotes then several closing quotes must be absorbed into one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering commas and dots, there's no &quot;simple&quot; rule. If, say, dots or exclamation mark are a natural part of quoted text then they go inside quotes; otherwise outside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9241" RevisionGUID="92b75f67-984c-42cc-bdeb-7b5ba49ebb1d" CreationDate="2015-07-18T12:28:19.890" UserId="5008" Text="The word &quot;бравура&quot; seems not to be used nowadays except in the expression &quot;бравурная музыка&quot; (bravura music). Otherwise people use the word &quot;бравада&quot; (bravado). Both words (French or Italian origin) also present in English (bravado, bravura) and are quite understandable due to the word &quot;brave&quot;. It's not clear from the context either that's about some kind of bragging or (bravura) music. The last word is obscene. It means &quot;pisses me off&quot; though a bit ruder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the approximate translation is &quot;To say it simple, those your bravura pisses me off&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22375" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="c636cf4c-352a-480d-9132-b29dcaa74f35" CreationDate="2015-07-18T12:34:54.737" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I translate &quot;А попросту говоря, эта твоя бравура&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="c4783cb6-37c5-4d03-9131-e7f3677245ed" CreationDate="2015-07-18T14:13:35.217" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="бравура/бравада is a French borrowing, means showing off or bragging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put, I'm freaking tired of your bragging.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9235" RevisionGUID="117b2c5f-11a0-4a9b-a5fd-712e8f8eabaf" CreationDate="2015-07-18T17:00:26.690" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/622450869628444672" />
  <row Id="22384" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="1636f764-d276-4eb1-ae45-454b10a7f09d" CreationDate="2015-07-18T18:38:59.703" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9242" RevisionGUID="38b0912a-91dc-4caf-a1db-6ba62cbcd030" CreationDate="2015-07-18T20:27:49.037" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="бравура/бравада is a French borrowing, means showing off or bragging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simply put, I'm freaking sick of your bragging.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9234" RevisionGUID="1dff8c5d-ab4a-47f3-abb5-3ac64110fde3" CreationDate="2015-07-18T20:34:09.867" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="*домой* is a noun in an old form of dative case, as @Quassnoi pointed out. Dative is now changed in sound and is not used for target anymore, but this one word persists in this stable expression. Other examples similar to this (but I'm not sure it's the same historical grammar case):&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    ехал то лесом, то полем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*rode a bit in woods, a bit in fields*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the destination, домой is the only correct form for &quot;go home&quot; in general. But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я пойду в парк&#xD;&#xA;    я пойду на море&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since домой means go home in general, the word with preposition means more specific: *я пойду в дом* = *I'll go inside the house*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="e3b17a70-abf4-4375-955f-9446423a5c40" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:42:55.940" UserId="62" Text="The complementary concepts &quot;in theory&quot; and &quot;in practice&quot; are expressed in Russian with different prepositions: в теории and на практике. Perhaps there is no good explanation of that, but if someone could provide any reason why the same preposition is not used in both phrases I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="e3b17a70-abf4-4375-955f-9446423a5c40" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:42:55.940" UserId="62" Text="в теории против на практике" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="e3b17a70-abf4-4375-955f-9446423a5c40" CreationDate="2015-07-18T21:42:55.940" UserId="62" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9245" RevisionGUID="157b4f3f-9dac-4404-ae33-2060e1bd9303" CreationDate="2015-07-19T00:31:22.247" UserId="5694" Text="Я хочу отметить, что &quot;Вы&quot; в интернете часто пишут, чтоб подчеркнуть дистанцию и некое превосходство. Тон при этом может быть весьма агрессивным/высокомерным и совсем неуважительным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из серии: &quot;А Вы, батенька, обычным дурачком оказались. Я Вас больше не задерживаю.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда как в обычной беседе этот же человек будет использовать просто &quot;вы&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="303cf145-9211-4d12-b543-9ce530f737a1" CreationDate="2015-07-19T05:26:10.473" UserId="912" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="In official letters, registration documents and common usage one can often see unbalanced quotation marks, e.g. `«Операция «Багратион»`, `ОАО «Корпорация «Комета»` - two opening quotes followed by only one closing quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to automate correct placement of quotation marks. For instance, given a sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Газета &quot;Правда&quot; сообщила, что Иванов, &#xD;&#xA;     возглавлявший ОАО &quot;Корпорация &quot;Ромашка&quot;, &#xD;&#xA;     уходит в отставку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that has five quotation marks&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the quotation marks 1,3, and 4 are opening and the marks 2, and 5, are closing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general terms, I would like to understand if unbalanced quotation marks make correct usage? Is this specific to the Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the implementation details, it seems that the choice of opening and closing quotation marks in the Russian language follows a simple rule: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a quotation mark follows a space or a punctuation mark, then it must be a closing quote, otherwise it is an opening quote.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this rule correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kU1Yn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22392" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9221" RevisionGUID="303cf145-9211-4d12-b543-9ce530f737a1" CreationDate="2015-07-19T05:26:10.473" UserId="912" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="Unbalanced quotation marks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="c33c2411-9907-48c6-b7dc-98913a9cc7e8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T11:00:23.447" UserId="170" Text="How are these three sentences different?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы уже **открывали** это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы уже **пооткрывали** это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы уже **открыли** это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any slight differences in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="c33c2411-9907-48c6-b7dc-98913a9cc7e8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T11:00:23.447" UserId="170" Text="Difference between &quot;открывали&quot;, &quot;пооткрывали&quot; and &quot;открыли&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9246" RevisionGUID="c33c2411-9907-48c6-b7dc-98913a9cc7e8" CreationDate="2015-07-19T11:00:23.447" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="4618e541-be1d-4b3f-80da-45f8eb3fd02d" CreationDate="2015-07-19T12:08:37.547" UserId="5605" Text="В квартире очень душно. Мы уже несколько раз открывали окно, чтобы её проветрить. Мы пооткрывали все окна в квартире, чтобы её проветрить.&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз&quot; вы сказать не можете, это неграмотно. Для выражения &quot;Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз&quot; очень сложно найти реальный пример использования. Так не говорят." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9247" RevisionGUID="830fff08-a01a-4410-831f-a0bfd64cf79b" CreationDate="2015-07-19T12:18:50.197" UserId="5605" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="В квартире очень душно. Мы уже несколько раз открывали окно, чтобы её проветрить. Мы пооткрывали все окна в квартире, чтобы её проветрить.&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз&quot; вы сказать не можете, это неграмотно. Для выражения &quot;Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз&quot; очень сложно найти реальный пример использования. Так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apartment is very stuffy. We have several times opened the window to ventilate. We opened all the Windows in the apartment to be ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз,&quot; you can't tell, it's illiterate. For the expression &quot;Мы уже открыли окно несколько раз,&quot; it is very difficult to find a real use-case. You don't say. Правильный, используемый вариант &quot;Мы уже открывали окно несколько раз.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="c05fd140-f4e5-42bf-a9e9-6a0fe9d9c6fd" CreationDate="2015-07-19T15:20:55.763" UserId="170" Text="What way is correct?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже один раз рисовали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже один раз **по**рисовали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both are correct, then what are the different shades in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Is it like &quot;Мы уже один раз порисовали&quot; can have ironical sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="c05fd140-f4e5-42bf-a9e9-6a0fe9d9c6fd" CreationDate="2015-07-19T15:20:55.763" UserId="170" Text="&quot;один раз рисовали&quot; or &quot;один раз порисовали&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="c05fd140-f4e5-42bf-a9e9-6a0fe9d9c6fd" CreationDate="2015-07-19T15:20:55.763" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="1fef6963-de6c-4f37-a1d5-8e203ca7c131" CreationDate="2015-07-19T15:50:46.873" UserId="5605" Text="&quot;Мы уже один раз порисовали&quot; может иметь ироническую смысл. Похожие конструкции с ироническим смыслом: 1.&quot;Идите погуляйте в лесу. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз  погуляли&quot;. 2. &quot;Поплавайте в пруду. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз поплавали.&quot; (Во во время прогулки и купания случилось что-то неприятное.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="45831905-f09f-4b89-a78b-71cc475329d4" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:19:15.453" UserId="5605" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="&quot;Мы уже один раз порисовали&quot; может иметь ироническую смысл. Похожие конструкции с ироническим смыслом: 1.&quot;Идите погуляйте в лесу. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз  погуляли&quot;. 2. &quot;Поплавайте в пруду. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз поплавали.&quot; (Во во время прогулки и купания случилось что-то неприятное.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы уже один раз рисовали.&quot; Ребёнка, который только-только начал учиться в студии рисования, дедушка спрашивает, как у него идут дела с обучением рисованию. Внук отвечает: &quot;Дела идут хорошо. Мы уже один раз рисовали натюрморт&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="fab4fea5-cfe0-4f16-9975-d8dfdd621650" CreationDate="2015-07-19T16:32:02.113" UserId="5605" Comment="added 484 characters in body" Text="&quot;Мы уже один раз порисовали&quot; может иметь ироническую смысл. Похожие конструкции с ироническим смыслом: 1.&quot;Идите погуляйте в лесу. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз  погуляли&quot;. 2. &quot;Поплавайте в пруду. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз поплавали.&quot; (Во во время прогулки и купания случилось что-то неприятное.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы уже один раз рисовали.&quot; Ребёнка, который только-только начал учиться в студии рисования, дедушка спрашивает, как у него идут дела с обучением рисованию. Внук отвечает: &quot;Дела идут хорошо. Мы уже один раз рисовали натюрморт&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Once we were showing off&quot; can have the ironic sense. Similar design with an ironic sense: 1.&quot;Go take a walk in the woods. Thanks, we once walked.&quot; 2. &quot;Take a swim in the pond. Thank you, we once had a swim.&quot; (While walking and swimming happened something unpleasant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We once drew.&quot; A child who has only just started to learn in the Studio of drawing, grandpa asks how's he doing teaching of drawing. The grandson replies: &quot;Things are going well. We once painted still life&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="b368ce4c-6a20-4a7b-9dfa-dabc68212603" CreationDate="2015-07-19T17:04:10.097" UserId="4560" Text="**На практике** is probably modelled after **на деле**, and is a more abstract use of the *на* that is more or less grammaticalised as the &quot;at&quot; preposition for organised activities: *на работе*, *на уборке урожая*, *на вечеринке*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for not using the same preposition — Russian essentially shrugs it off. Remember that the Russian multi-paradigm declension means that a speaker gets used to forming sequences of entirely different morphemes meaning exactly the same thing, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В лесу мы видели еж**ей**, куниц[-Ø]  и барсук**ов**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and that sense of equivalence in difference may carry over to prepositions. Speculatively, I even sometimes feel that **в** and **на** used with the prepositional case in a locative sense have come, subjectively, to be perceived as the front part of a circumfix, rather than a &quot;detachable&quot; preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That may also be a subtle yet powerful influence the **на Украине/в Украине** controversy, since for many people, using a different preposition would *feel* like an intervention into the deepest workings of grammar itself, rather than word choice.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9250" RevisionGUID="a2011af3-2135-45ae-81d9-9fea6b79251a" CreationDate="2015-07-19T19:02:27.407" UserId="4560" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="**На практике** is probably modelled after **на деле**, and is a more abstract use of the *на* that is more or less grammaticalised as the &quot;at&quot; preposition for organised activities: *на работе*, *на уборке урожая*, *на вечеринке*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Edit: or, now that I think of it, it may be something else: Russian may implicitly regard &quot;unreal&quot;/mental spaces as enclosed, and &quot;real&quot;/physical ones as open. Best illustrated by **во сне** vs. **наяву**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for not using the same preposition — Russian essentially shrugs it off. Remember that the Russian multi-paradigm declension means that a speaker gets used to forming sequences of entirely different morphemes meaning exactly the same thing, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В лесу мы видели еж**ей**, куниц[-Ø]  и барсук**ов**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and that sense of equivalence in difference may carry over to prepositions. Speculatively, I even sometimes feel that **в** and **на** used with the prepositional case in a locative sense have come, subjectively, to be perceived as the front part of a circumfix, rather than a &quot;detachable&quot; preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That may also be a subtle yet powerful influence the **на Украине/в Украине** controversy, since for many people, using a different preposition would *feel* like an intervention into the deepest workings of grammar itself, rather than word choice.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9228" RevisionGUID="edf1e3a2-e32c-410d-a680-ab679b76169f" CreationDate="2015-07-19T19:08:04.197" UserId="5448" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Не думаю.&#xD;&#xA;В принципе можно сделать любые предположения. Но зачем здесь аорист? Грамматика непонятна совершенно. &#xD;&#xA;Что может значить аорист вообще? Законченное однократное действие в прошлом. В прошлом - понятно. А вот почему законченное, да еще однократное. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну или вот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иначе аорист можно определить как абсолютное прошедшее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повествовательное время, специфика которого заключается в передаче&#xD;&#xA;&gt; динамичных, активных событий прошлого, не связанных с настоящим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; временем.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Тоже не катит как-то...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уточняю, вопросы не &quot;риторические&quot;. Это рассуждения. Я не вижу грамматической и/или контекстной причины употреблять такое выражение в форме аориста. *Аорист здесь не по ситуации*. Может, конечно я и не прав. Но мне такой довод кажется достаточно весомым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну это помимо того, что реконструкция формы, как верно пишет Quassnoi в таком виде весьма сомнительна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22407" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9187" RevisionGUID="f5fc3fef-f87d-4197-814b-aa9b2feace09" CreationDate="2015-07-19T20:02:21.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/622859038183817216" />
  <row Id="22408" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="d8892c11-17dc-48b6-b182-9cf9c705ef10" CreationDate="2015-07-20T02:03:45.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/622949988214157312" />
  <row Id="22411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="24438e3c-72f3-46c8-8940-778fcb6a3fae" CreationDate="2015-07-20T04:22:53.313" UserId="5295" Text="Can anyone shed some light onto the process by which (masculine) personal names of the Ancient Greek world were Russianized? With some notable exceptions (Homer, Aristotle, Hadrian, et al.), English tends to Anglicize them using a fairly straightforward transcription of the Greek name in the nominative case, whereas I've noticed a trend in Russian whereby the -us/-es/-as/-is endings are elided. Here are some examples where English kept these nominative endings and Russian didn't:  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Κόρινθος – Corinthus — Коринф  &#xD;&#xA;Περσεύς – Perseus – Персей  &#xD;&#xA;Ἡρακλῆς – Heracles – Геракл  &#xD;&#xA;Ὀρφεύς – Orpheus – Орфей  &#xD;&#xA;Αἰνείας — Aeneas — Эней  &#xD;&#xA;Ὀδυσσεύς — Odysseus — Одиссей  &#xD;&#xA;Οἰδίπους — Oedipus – Эдип  &#xD;&#xA;Νάρκισσος — Narcissus – Нарцисс  &#xD;&#xA;Ἀπολλώνιος – Apollonius – Аполлоний  &#xD;&#xA;Ἱπποκράτης — Hippocrates – Гиппократ  &#xD;&#xA;Ἀρχιμήδης — Archimedes – Архимед  &#xD;&#xA;Ἀσκληπιός – Asclepius – Асклепий  &#xD;&#xA;Πρωτεύς – Proteus - Протей  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;This may be a difficult question to answer, but does anyone know why Russian has (for the most part, from what I've observed) elided the nominative endings? Why Персей, Эдип, and Аполлоний and not *Персеус, *Эдипус, and *Аполлониус, for example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, am I perhaps asking this of the wrong language? Specifically should I be asking instead why Old Church Slavonic/Old Bulgarian used this process? Meaning, did Russian import the OCS versions of Greek names, and therefore this represents an Old Bulgarianization moreso than a Russianization, or were these imported from Greek directly into Russian without the OCS middleman? I have noticed quite a few similarities between Ancient Greek names in Modern Bulgarian and Russian, but I don't know if this represents a common origin or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance / Заранее спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="24438e3c-72f3-46c8-8940-778fcb6a3fae" CreationDate="2015-07-20T04:22:53.313" UserId="5295" Text="Russianization of Ancient Greek personal names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="24438e3c-72f3-46c8-8940-778fcb6a3fae" CreationDate="2015-07-20T04:22:53.313" UserId="5295" Text="|этимология|правописание|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22414" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9219" RevisionGUID="e173c74c-253f-4078-8f13-3b6b61382e92" CreationDate="2015-07-20T05:03:45.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/622995285069983744" />
  <row Id="22415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="d01f47cb-fef4-4877-b8f4-1225638c0522" CreationDate="2015-07-20T07:31:32.733" UserId="551" Comment="highlighted words in question" Text="The complementary concepts &quot;in theory&quot; and &quot;in practice&quot; are expressed in Russian with different prepositions: **в** теории and **на** практике. Perhaps there is no good explanation of that, but if someone could provide any reason why the same preposition is not used in both phrases I would appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22416" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9244" RevisionGUID="d01f47cb-fef4-4877-b8f4-1225638c0522" CreationDate="2015-07-20T07:31:32.733" UserId="551" Comment="highlighted words in question" Text="&quot;в теории&quot; против &quot;на практике&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9252" RevisionGUID="fff0e03a-bf4b-47b2-876e-41369eb1a19c" CreationDate="2015-07-20T08:01:04.790" UserId="5443" Text="You can find a detailed rule (5 steps) for endings in the end of this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.astromyth.ru/Additional/GreekNames.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22418" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9183" RevisionGUID="180cb207-49e5-4f11-b041-d43f5bdd4be8" CreationDate="2015-07-20T08:03:44.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/623040581363761152" />
  <row Id="22419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9253" RevisionGUID="f15cd4b1-b35f-4067-b596-685905df10b8" CreationDate="2015-07-20T08:12:42.553" UserId="5288" Text="Specifically for the English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can think:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have been [рисовать]-ing smth.&#xD;&#xA;                  \&#xD;&#xA;                    несоверш. вид любого глагола&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But do not&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           | порисовали   |&#xD;&#xA;           | нарисовали   |&#xD;&#xA;           | разрисовали  |-ing&#xD;&#xA;           | дорисовали   |&#xD;&#xA;           | пририсовали  |&#xD;&#xA;               [...]&#xD;&#xA;                 \&#xD;&#xA;                  соверш. виды&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Мы уже один раз&#xD;&#xA; └───────────────┘&#xD;&#xA;   /&#xD;&#xA;  ... нарисовали    | We had to paint out. &#xD;&#xA;                    | We once painted out.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                          We had to&#xD;&#xA;                         └─────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                        /&#xD;&#xA;  ... порисовали    | ...  paint a little, paint for a while&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  ... разрисовали   | ...  paint with new hatches, &#xD;&#xA;                           to made a painting excessively large,&#xD;&#xA;                           or mess the painting up&#xD;&#xA;                           &#xD;&#xA;  ... дорисовали    | ...  paint until p. is done,&#xD;&#xA;                           have made the final stroke&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  ... пририсовали   | ...  paint-in some more, that not had intented before  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="b29f566b-eb85-4758-9387-5ea0f6f34cdd" CreationDate="2015-07-20T10:53:12.593" UserId="134" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic, were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict &quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ&quot;, &quot;видя видехъ&quot; etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilates' given name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="34d861bf-9158-468c-9d31-2dc0ab2d241a" CreationDate="2015-07-20T11:22:54.097" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ&quot;, &quot;видя видехъ&quot; etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilates' given name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="cbe1d820-aed8-4411-b93e-8b9e69ed408b" CreationDate="2015-07-20T11:32:44.260" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Надёжнее использовать полную форму. Потому что краткая чаще всего звучит абсурдно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У нашего генподрядчика газон зелен.&#xD;&#xA;    Наш чизкейк всегда сочен.&#xD;&#xA;    Ваш коворкинг безлюден.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с неологизмами из 21 века, краткие прилагательные здесь звучат как пережиток эпохи Пушкина (как из сказки &quot;Конёк-горбунок&quot;). Потому что в 19 веке в литературе было гораздо больше кратких прилагательных, т.к. она больше, чем сегодня, ориентировалась на стандарты церковнославянского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая форма прилагательного пришла из церковнославянского (древнеболгарского) и поэтому в русском используется в основном на письме и довольно узко. В устную речь они проникли мало, либо в виде устойчивых слов, либо терминов из литературного мира:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    этот тренд устойчив&#xD;&#xA;    мой твиттер популярен&#xD;&#xA;    этот блоггер известен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(все эти прилагательные широко использовались в окололитературной тематике или в технической литературе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или краткая форма несёт другой смысл: хорóшая-хорошá.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Остальные прилагательные в краткой форме звучат старомодно и привносят в стиль абсурд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском полная форма сложилась собственно из исконной славянской старой формы и формы личного местоимения (бѣлъ + ый =&gt; белый (гласные выпали в другие гласные или исчезли вообще)). В южнославянских краткая форма как была, так и осталась (белый самолёт - &quot;бели авион&quot;, и -и на конце - это не &quot;ий&quot;, а &quot;ъ&quot;, выпавшая в &quot;и&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем, это по сути две части речи (хотя родственные, идущие от одного предка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке укоренились некоторые вещи из церковнославянского (письменного), но во многих отношениях побеждает устная речь (точнее, письменная всё больше копирует грамматику из устной, которая нам роднее и устойчивее), поэтому надёжнее придерживаться устной (кроме редких случаев, где краткие формы прижились, которые я упомянул выше).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается полной формы прилагательного, есть небольшое различие в употреблении про людей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    он был жизнерадостный/жизнерадостным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если нет уточнений на время или длительность, то &quot;-ый&quot; значит &quot;в тот момент&quot; (как в описании: &quot;заходит он жизнерадостный такой&quot;), а &quot;-ым&quot; - что он был таким всегда, и что человека уже нет или он поменялся кардинально.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="9e125381-ea2c-44ac-8e38-15a95b9b6fe3" CreationDate="2015-07-20T11:37:43.927" UserId="134" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ&quot;, &quot;видя видехъ&quot; etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilates' given name (praenomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;eliding&quot; is not exactly the word to describe the process. Unlike Russian, Old Church Slavonic had no zero inflectional morphemes. What we now perceive as a zero morpheme in words like _Ахилл-Ø_, used to be a reduced vowel *ъ*: *Ахилл-ъ*. It is not pronounced in Russian and modern recensions of Church Slavonic but used to be pronounced alright in Old Church Slavonic. So it is better to used the term &quot;replacement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="a6744734-c45d-428c-8db2-1e685f59a265" CreationDate="2015-07-20T11:44:28.930" UserId="134" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ&quot;, &quot;видя видехъ&quot; etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilate's name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;eliding&quot; is not exactly the word to describe the process. Unlike Russian, Old Church Slavonic had no zero inflectional morphemes. What we now perceive as a zero morpheme in words like _Ахилл-Ø_, used to be a reduced vowel *ъ*: *Ахилл-ъ*. It is not pronounced in Russian and modern recensions of Church Slavonic but used to be pronounced alright in Old Church Slavonic. So it is better to used the term &quot;replacement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="3ce05acf-8cb7-404a-8a5c-ffee1d9d6c64" CreationDate="2015-07-20T11:57:10.890" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ*, *видя видехъ* etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilate's name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;eliding&quot; is not exactly the word to describe the process. Unlike Russian, Old Church Slavonic had no zero inflectional morphemes. What we now perceive as a zero morpheme in words like _Ахилл-Ø_, used to be a reduced vowel *ъ*: *Ахилл-ъ*. It is not pronounced in Russian and modern recensions of Church Slavonic but used to be pronounced alright in Old Church Slavonic. So it is better to used the term &quot;replacement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="a6af8c37-ccff-4510-beb3-7978882d6c34" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:06:06.720" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ*, *видя видехъ* etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilate's name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;elision&quot; is not exactly the word to describe the process. Unlike Russian, Old Church Slavonic had no zero inflectional morphemes. What we now perceive as a zero morpheme in words like _Ахилл-Ø_, used to be a reduced vowel *ъ*: *Ахилл-ъ*. It is not pronounced in Russian and modern recensions of Church Slavonic but used to be pronounced alright in Old Church Slavonic. So it is better to used the term &quot;replacement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9233" RevisionGUID="d16612c2-369c-462a-88c6-a856c93c0cb2" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:12:24.313" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Надёжнее использовать полную форму. Потому что краткая чаще всего звучит абсурдно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У нашего генподрядчика газон зелен.&#xD;&#xA;    Наш чизкейк всегда сочен.&#xD;&#xA;    Ваш коворкинг безлюден.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вместе с неологизмами из 21 века, краткие прилагательные здесь звучат как пережиток эпохи Пушкина (как из сказки &quot;Конёк-горбунок&quot;). Потому что в 19 веке в литературе было гораздо больше кратких прилагательных, т.к. она больше, чем сегодня, ориентировалась на стандарты церковнославянского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая форма прилагательного пришла из церковнославянского (древнеболгарского) и поэтому в русском используется в основном на письме и довольно узко. В устную речь они проникли мало, либо в виде устойчивых слов, либо терминов из литературного мира:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    буду краток&#xD;&#xA;    этот тренд устойчив&#xD;&#xA;    мой твиттер популярен&#xD;&#xA;    этот блоггер известен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(все эти прилагательные широко использовались в окололитературной тематике или в технической литературе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или краткая форма несёт другой смысл: хорóшая-хорошá.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Остальные прилагательные в краткой форме звучат старомодно и привносят в стиль абсурд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском полная форма сложилась собственно из исконной славянской старой формы и формы личного местоимения (бѣлъ + ый =&gt; белый (гласные выпали в другие гласные или исчезли вообще)). В южнославянских краткая форма как была, так и осталась (белый самолёт - &quot;бели авион&quot;, и -и на конце - это не &quot;ий&quot;, а &quot;ъ&quot;, выпавшая в &quot;и&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем, это по сути две части речи (хотя родственные, идущие от одного предка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке укоренились некоторые вещи из церковнославянского (письменного), но во многих отношениях побеждает устная речь (точнее, письменная всё больше копирует грамматику из устной, которая нам роднее и устойчивее), поэтому надёжнее придерживаться устной (кроме редких случаев, где краткие формы прижились, которые я упомянул выше).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается полной формы прилагательного, есть небольшое различие в употреблении про людей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    он был жизнерадостный/жизнерадостным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если нет уточнений на время или длительность, то &quot;-ый&quot; значит &quot;в тот момент&quot; (как в описании: &quot;заходит он жизнерадостный такой&quot;), а &quot;-ым&quot; - что он был таким всегда, и что человека уже нет или он поменялся кардинально.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="9d9e486c-4172-4625-977f-673a8b4f11cb" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:21:37.957" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text=" #1 and #3 have almost the same meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference it may have, is like if it was on a space station, where opening a window is not guaranteed, the former would mean they were trying (but not necessarily succeeded), the latter would then mean they managed to open it (most of or all times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; #2 is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct way of using this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Было так душно, что] Мы пооткрывали все окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сквозняк закрывал окно, мы пооткрывали его несколько раз, а потом бросили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The draught kept closing the window. So we were opening it for a while, then gave up.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="1182fdd9-a56e-4387-b42d-dff077586108" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:27:25.413" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text=" #1 and #3 have almost the same meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference it may have, is like if it was on a space station, where opening a window is not guaranteed, the former would mean they were trying (but not necessarily succeeded), the latter would then mean they managed to open it (most of or all times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; #2 is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct way of using this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Было так душно, что] Мы пооткрывали все окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сквозняк закрывал окно, мы пооткрывали его несколько раз, а потом бросили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The draught kept closing the window. So we were opening it for a while, then gave up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, one could occasionally use #2 in speech, meaning this but changing the sentence structure on the fly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9249" RevisionGUID="f85eaf8c-0b64-408e-a5d9-9b8f470d7e63" CreationDate="2015-07-20T12:43:41.563" UserId="5605" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Мы уже один раз порисовали&quot; может иметь иронический смысл. Похожие конструкции с ироническим смыслом: 1.&quot;Идите погуляйте в лесу. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз  погуляли&quot;. 2. &quot;Поплавайте в пруду. - Спасибо, мы уже один раз поплавали.&quot; (Во во время прогулки и купания случилось что-то неприятное.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы уже один раз рисовали.&quot; Ребёнка, который только-только начал учиться в студии рисования, дедушка спрашивает, как у него идут дела с обучением рисованию. Внук отвечает: &quot;Дела идут хорошо. Мы уже один раз рисовали натюрморт&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Once we were showing off&quot; can have the ironic sense. Similar design with an ironic sense: 1.&quot;Go take a walk in the woods. Thanks, we once walked.&quot; 2. &quot;Take a swim in the pond. Thank you, we once had a swim.&quot; (While walking and swimming happened something unpleasant.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We once drew.&quot; A child who has only just started to learn in the Studio of drawing, grandpa asks how's he doing teaching of drawing. The grandson replies: &quot;Things are going well. We once painted still life&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="f00fb092-26ac-4896-ae88-83ef3cffd5a1" CreationDate="2015-07-20T13:43:42.760" UserDisplayName="user5770" Text="I am familiar with the word заеб*ть [zə(j)ɪˈbatʲ], but I do not understand where does the word &quot;как&quot; come in picture. This surely doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, but a little explanation would be in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I'd figure out this is; the sentence &quot;Да ты заеб*л&quot; is translated &quot;I'm sick of you/You sicken me/I'm tired of your sh**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And logically, my quess here would be &quot;You really piss me of/You make me mad&quot;. Is this close?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do know and appreciate the speed limits in Russia. Let's take it easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="f00fb092-26ac-4896-ae88-83ef3cffd5a1" CreationDate="2015-07-20T13:43:42.760" UserDisplayName="user5770" Text="Can you provide translation to &quot;Как ты меня заеб*л&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="f00fb092-26ac-4896-ae88-83ef3cffd5a1" CreationDate="2015-07-20T13:43:42.760" UserDisplayName="user5770" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="feb1655a-6d11-4e48-bf50-eec43b32b9f5" CreationDate="2015-07-20T13:56:43.490" UserId="134" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;, compare English &quot;fulfill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ*, *видя видехъ* etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilate's name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстемъ Пилатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;elision&quot; is not exactly the word to describe the process. Unlike Russian, Old Church Slavonic had no zero inflectional morphemes. What we now perceive as a zero morpheme in words like _Ахилл-Ø_, used to be a reduced vowel *ъ*: *Ахилл-ъ*. It is not pronounced in Russian and modern recensions of Church Slavonic but used to be pronounced alright in Old Church Slavonic. So it is better to used the term &quot;replacement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9257" RevisionGUID="836893bf-eead-4f93-946f-5f8d609fdd2b" CreationDate="2015-07-20T14:15:33.407" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="*Как* in this context means *so* in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm sick of you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm so sick of you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this sentence is quite rude, not sure the question will survive long enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22436" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="972c49c0-642b-4717-a697-13f0f3be6c65" CreationDate="2015-07-20T14:19:11.487" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|phrase|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9258" RevisionGUID="d2934169-c3bb-46a4-9ee2-7e8b39a9510b" CreationDate="2015-07-20T14:27:44.500" UserId="5694" Text="&quot;I am sick of you&quot; - is kinda mild translation for this because &quot;заебал&quot; is really rude in Russian. I'd choose something along these lines - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are pissing me the fuck off!&#xD;&#xA;You are fucking pissing me off!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(or &quot;pissed off&quot; depending on situation and context)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="5bcff235-e36a-48c5-b7a5-89fec7c6b758" CreationDate="2015-07-20T14:41:44.557" UserDisplayName="user5770" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="I am familiar with the word **заеб*ть** _[zə(j)ɪˈbatʲ]_, but I do not understand where does the word **как** come in picture. This surely doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, but a little explanation could be in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I'd figure out this is; the sentence **Да ты заеб*л** is translated 'Im sick of you/You sicken me/I'm tired of your sh**'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And logically, my guess here would be 'You really piss me off/You make me mad'. Is this close?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In comparison:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да ты заеб*л - You piss me off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты меня заеб*л - You (really/truly) piss me off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do know and appreciate the speed limits in Russia. Let's take it easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="920106d7-e739-473b-9310-8ef2f9a43619" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:38:07.347" UserId="134" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I am familiar with the word **заебать** _[zə(j)ɪˈbatʲ]_, but I do not understand where does the word **как** come in picture. This surely doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, but a little explanation could be in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I'd figure out this is; the sentence **Да ты заебал** is translated 'Im sick of you/You sicken me/I'm tired of your shit'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And logically, my guess here would be 'You really piss me off/You make me mad'. Is this close?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In comparison:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да ты заебал - You piss me off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты меня заебал - You (really/truly) piss me off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, I do know and appreciate the speed limits in Russia. Let's take it easy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22440" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="920106d7-e739-473b-9310-8ef2f9a43619" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:38:07.347" UserId="134" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Can you provide translation to this Russian profanity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22441" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="6b2f007a-2c53-4d17-84a3-9209760e0794" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:55:05.050" UserId="5582" Comment="grammatically correct, but still without the expletive." Text="How do I translate &quot;А попросту говоря, эта твоя бравура меня ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22442" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9240" RevisionGUID="6b2f007a-2c53-4d17-84a3-9209760e0794" CreationDate="2015-07-20T15:55:05.050" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 5008, 134 edit id of 652" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9255" RevisionGUID="e70dea89-c4a9-4227-a1a7-ad4598308eae" CreationDate="2015-07-20T17:34:44.773" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="deleted 188 characters in body" Text=" #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were opening the window many times. (but they not necessarily managed to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; #3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same, but they managed to open it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; #2 is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct way of using this form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Было так душно, что] Мы пооткрывали все окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сквозняк закрывал окно, мы пооткрывали его несколько раз, а потом бросили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The draught kept closing the window. So we were opening it for a while, then gave up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, one could occasionally use #2 in speech, meaning this but changing the sentence structure on the fly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9254" RevisionGUID="20b44c39-ef42-4b2f-adff-9297f73e2837" CreationDate="2015-07-20T19:07:05.553" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="This tradition comes way back from Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OCS was conceived as a literary language for translation of the Scripture. As such, though it was based on the Slavic dialect spoken in vicinity of what is now Thessaloniki, Greece, it had several features which made it a little bit different from the live spoken language. Mainly it was wide usage of calquing, both lexical and grammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greek words which had no established correspondence in Slavic were translated morpheme by morpheme. Thus we have numerous words like *иносказание*, *совесть*, etc. Sometimes existing words were given new meanings: *судьба* (&quot;fate&quot;, originally &quot;ruling&quot;, &quot;verdict&quot;), _слава_ (&quot;fame&quot;, originally &quot;naming&quot;), etc. Sometimes whole phrases were calqued: *исполнить приговор* (literally &quot;to fill&quot;, compare English &quot;fulfill&quot;), *нанести ущерб* (literally &quot;to bring in&quot;) etc. Finally, even grammatic constructs like *вкушая вкусихъ*, *видя видехъ* etc. were translated word for word and form for form from Greek (which in turn had it calqued the same way from Bible Hebrew).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same principle was of course used for nouns. Since Greek had inflexion and Slavic had inflexion, and words were calqued morpheme by morpheme, and inflexional suffix was a morpheme, it made sense when translating a proper name to leave the word stem (everything but the inflexional suffix) as is and use the native suffixes to translate Greek suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the proper names were analyzed for calquing. For instance, Pontius Pilate's name (nomen) is etymologically an adjective, and it had been translated as such into Church Slavonic (_при Понтiйстѣмъ Пiлатѣ_ in the Symbol of Creed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;elision&quot; is not exactly the word to describe the process. Unlike Russian, Old Church Slavonic had no zero inflectional morphemes. What we now perceive as a zero morpheme in words like _Ахилл-Ø_, used to be a reduced vowel *ъ*: *Ахилл-ъ*. It is not pronounced in Russian and modern recensions of Church Slavonic but used to be pronounced alright in Old Church Slavonic. So it is better to used the term &quot;replacement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9251" RevisionGUID="10688ee0-54ea-4a8d-a020-5c1d76c9d4ea" CreationDate="2015-07-20T23:03:46.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/623267080759066624" />
  <row Id="22446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="ea0180ac-f6a2-4d80-b056-5191f8a481bb" CreationDate="2015-07-21T00:50:25.310" UserId="134" Text="As @user4419802 mentioned above, Russian declension system is not that much about masculine and feminine as it is about etymology of the word, or, in particular, the ending of its stem in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Путь &lt; *pont-i&amp;#774;-s_ (along with _гость &lt; *gost-i&amp;#774;-s, ночь &lt; *nokt-i&amp;#774;-s_ and several other nouns) had the stem ending in *-i&amp;#774;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Proto-Slavic those words could be both masculine and feminine, but were declined in the same way, regardless of gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, on some stages of language development (different stages for different dialects of Proto-Slavic, which had later become different Slavic languages), gender started to matter, and masculine nouns accepted paradigm of words with stem in _-o&amp;#774;_ (which were only masculine and neuter). Those were words like _конь &lt; *ko&amp;#774;nj-o&amp;#774;-s, нож &lt; *no&amp;#774;zj-o&amp;#774;-s_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Church Slavonic masculine words in *-i&amp;#774;* (_гость_-like) differed from feminine words only in inst. sg. (_гостьмъ / нощью_) and nom. pl. (_гостiе / нощи_). Other cases were the same: _гости / нощи_ (sg. loc. and dat.), _гость / нощь_ (sg. acc.) etc. Similar situation was in Old Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Modern Russian, masculine words originally in *-i&amp;#774;* (_гость_-like) completely changed their inflection by analogy with declensions of words with stems originally in *-o&amp;#774;* (_конь_-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since nothing left there to tell the gender of a word in *-ь*, the gender of such words became very mobile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words *тополь* and *шинель* are masculine and feminine, accordingly, in Modern Russian, but it's the other way around in Modern Belorussian. Pushkin used feminine _лебедь_ less than 200 years ago in his poetry. As @YellowSky mentioned above, *путь* is feminine in Modern Ukrainian. And even native Russian speakers sometimes confuse the gender of words like _тюль, шампунь, лосось_ and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *путь* apparently had swerved into feminine and back to masculine on its way from Proto-Slavic to Russian, but the constructs like *к пути* and *на пути* were probably considered idiomatic and had not been changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it's time to actually answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words in *-i&amp;#774;* were the most common examples of mixed-gender declension, but not the only ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Око* and *ухо* had stems in *-s* (*чудо*-like, *чудес-* in oblique cases) but accepted declension pattern of *-i&amp;#774;* in dual. So while dual is not productive in Russian anymore, we can still find it fossilized in the adverb *воочию* (compare *ночью*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Дитя* originally had stem in *-nt* (*телёнок*-like, *телят-* in plural cases), but accepted declension pattern of *-i&amp;#774;* in plural. We can used it only in nom. and acc. in singular, but all cases in plural, including *-ьми* in pl. inst., which is otherwise used only with feminine nouns (with two else exceptions below). This is the only neuter noun which does not end in *-о*, *-е* or *-мя*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Зверь* and *люди* are the male nouns (originally in *-i&amp;#774;*) which can use *-ьми* in pl. inst. *Люди* does not have a singular form in Modern Russian, however, it's etymologically masculine. This is something people like Dostoevsky had to know by heart before the orthographic reform of 1918, so that &quot;Poor Folk&quot; would have been correctly named *Бедные люди* (and not *бедныя* if *люди* were feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Сын* on one hand, and *дочь* and *мать* on the other hand, had stems in *-u&amp;#774;* (short u) and *-r*, accordingly. Words of those declensions had an extra syllable in oblique cases. Thus we see those words have the similar declensions in oblique plural cases: *сыновей, дочерей, матерей*. Other masculine words with the same declension pattern were most probably modeled after *сын*: *кумовья, шурья* (plural of _кум_ and _шурин &lt; *шурь_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22447" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9248" RevisionGUID="2d1a8794-4d0c-4df5-8c12-20eae0f2d4c8" CreationDate="2015-07-21T03:31:35.277" UserId="5288" Comment="added the tag ASPECT" Text="|значения|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22450" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="19c3f2c6-4d77-4a3c-866e-661e7bb3a0d3" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:33:34.460" UserId="5582" Comment="removed swearing from the header" Text="what does this obscene word mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22451" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="19c3f2c6-4d77-4a3c-866e-661e7bb3a0d3" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:33:34.460" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 134 edit id of 653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9259" RevisionGUID="c0b48129-a1f9-4e55-858b-adfd46e99ab6" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:39:50.637" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="As @user4419802 mentioned above, Russian declension system is not that much about masculine and feminine as it is about etymology of the word, or, in particular, the ending of its stem in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Путь &lt; *pont-i&amp;#774;-s_ (along with _гость &lt; *gost-i&amp;#774;-s, ночь &lt; *nokt-i&amp;#774;-s_ and several other nouns) had the stem ending in *-i&amp;#774;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Proto-Slavic those words could be both masculine and feminine, but were declined in the same way, regardless of gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, on some stages of language development (different stages for different dialects of Proto-Slavic, which had later become different Slavic languages), gender started to matter, and masculine nouns accepted paradigm of words with stem in _-o&amp;#774;_ (which were only masculine and neuter). Those were words like _конь &lt; *ko&amp;#774;nj-o&amp;#774;-s, нож &lt; *no&amp;#774;zj-o&amp;#774;-s_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Old Church Slavonic masculine words in *-i&amp;#774;* (_гость_-like) differed from feminine words only in inst. sg. (_гостьмъ / нощью_) and nom. pl. (_гостiе / нощи_). Other cases were the same: _гости / нощи_ (sg. loc. and dat.), _гость / нощь_ (sg. acc.) etc. Similar situation was in Old Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Modern Russian, masculine words originally in *-i&amp;#774;* (_гость_-like) completely changed their inflection by analogy with declensions of words with stems originally in *-o&amp;#774;* (_конь_-like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since nothing left there to tell the gender of a word in *-ь*, the gender of such words became very mobile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words *тополь* and *шинель* are masculine and feminine, accordingly, in Modern Russian, but it's the other way around in Modern Belorussian. Pushkin used feminine _лебедь_ less than 200 years ago in his poetry. As @YellowSky mentioned above, *путь* is feminine in Modern Ukrainian. And even native Russian speakers sometimes confuse the gender of words like _тюль, шампунь, лосось_ and similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *путь* apparently had swerved into feminine and back to masculine on its way from Proto-Slavic to Russian, but the constructs like *к пути* and *на пути* were probably considered idiomatic and had not been changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it's time to actually answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words in *-i&amp;#774;* were the most common examples of mixed-gender declension, but not the only ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Око* and *ухо* had stems in *-s* (*чудо*-like, *чудес-* in oblique cases) but accepted declension pattern of *-i&amp;#774;* in dual. So while dual is not productive in Russian anymore, we can still find it fossilized in the adverb *воочию* (compare *ночью*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Дитя* originally had stem in *-nt* (*телёнок*-like, *телят-* in plural cases), but accepted declension pattern of *-i&amp;#774;* in plural. We can use it only in nom. and acc. in singular, but in all cases in plural, including *-ьми* in pl. inst., which is otherwise used only with feminine nouns (with two else exceptions below). This is the only neuter noun which does not end in *-о*, *-е* or *-мя*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Зверь* and *люди* are the male nouns (originally in *-i&amp;#774;*) which can use *-ьми* in pl. inst. *Люди* does not have a singular form in Modern Russian, however, it's etymologically masculine. This is something people like Dostoevsky had to know by heart before the orthographic reform of 1918, so that &quot;Poor Folk&quot; would have been correctly named *Бедные люди* (and not *бедныя* as it would if *люди* were feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Сын* on one hand, and *дочь* and *мать* on the other hand, had stems in *-u&amp;#774;* (short u) and *-r*, accordingly. Words of those declensions had an extra syllable in oblique cases. Thus we see those words have the similar declensions in oblique plural cases: *сыновей, дочерей, матерей*. Other masculine words with the same declension pattern were most probably modeled after *сын*: *кумовья, шурья* (plural of _кум_ and _шурин &lt; *шурь_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="828feea8-6923-4d5a-905a-cbda43e07816" CreationDate="2015-07-21T14:45:17.377" UserId="115" Text="`Как` in this case can be literally translated into English as `how` or maybe `Oh, how...` used for emphasis, rather than a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как ты меня заебал! - Oh, how you've pissed me off!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also works in other exclamations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как я устал! - Oh, how tired I am!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9261" RevisionGUID="a9c441da-94bd-4345-86d4-cdd1f330b5aa" CreationDate="2015-07-21T17:54:02.303" UserId="115" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Как` in this case can be literally translated into English as `how`, or maybe `Oh, how...`, used for emphasis, rather than a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как ты меня заебал! - Oh, how you've pissed me off!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also works in other exclamations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как я устал! - Oh, how tired I am!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="d5d52d5f-6dc5-43ac-a085-132514237e76" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:08:07.173" UserId="5777" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="be77417b-154f-4852-b32c-4b1c84b17dcf" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:25:20.553" UserId="5777" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример (вопрос и ответ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Есть что?) - Да (есть ручка).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Нету чего?) - Да (нету ручки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение вопросов одно и тоже в обоих случаях, но ответ имеет разное значение.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="71cba6cd-1bd6-4b30-9ce9-6a65562cbbdb" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:38:33.357" UserId="5777" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример (вопрос и ответ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Есть что?) - Да (есть ручка).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Нету чего?) - Да (нету ручки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом вопросе интересует присутствие ручки, а во втором отсутствие. Отсюда и значение ответа будет разное хотя одно и то же слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оружие (нет)? (Спрашивает милиция) - Чего? (может иметь значение &quot;Да конечно есть, что за дурацкий вопрос&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="8a003ed3-76ce-4d53-81d0-a5ef18c966f7" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:43:49.903" UserId="5777" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример (вопрос и ответ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Есть что?) - Да (есть ручка).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Нету чего?) - Да (нету ручки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом вопросе интересует присутствие ручки, а во втором отсутствие. Отсюда и значение ответа будет разное хотя одно и то же слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Оружие (по смыслу нет)? (Спрашивает милиция) - Чего? (может иметь значение &quot;Да конечно есть, что за дурацкий вопрос&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="051a57d3-f5f0-480e-a233-68e5c9246b75" CreationDate="2015-07-21T21:45:03.133" UserId="5777" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример (вопрос и ответ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Есть что?) - Да (есть ручка).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Нету чего?) - Да (нету ручки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом вопросе интересует присутствие ручки, а во втором отсутствие. Отсюда и значение ответа будет разное хотя одно и то же слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Оружие? (Спрашивает милиция) - Чего? (ответ, может иметь значение &quot;Да конечно есть, что за дурацкий вопрос&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="96c11ab3-d61d-4320-86ae-7e0ac8c7ca19" CreationDate="2015-07-21T22:16:09.627" UserId="5777" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример (вопрос и ответ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Есть что?) - Да (есть ручка).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Нету чего?) - Да (нету ручки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом вопросе интересует присутствие ручки, а во втором отсутствие. Отсюда и значение ответа будет разное хотя одно и то же слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Оружие? (Спрашивает милиция) - Чего? (ответ, может иметь значение &quot;Да конечно есть, что за дурацкий вопрос&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my English. These are different [forms of words][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     купить танкИ (buy TANKS) - Именительный падеж (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;     мир танкОВ (world OF TANKS) - Родительный падеж (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Example (question and answer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Do you have a pen?) - Yes (I have).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Don't you have a pen?) - Yes (I don't have). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first question it is important to `have`. In the second question it is important to `don't have`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Weapons? (said a policeman) - Чего? (I mean: &quot;Yes, of course there are, what a stupid question&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9262" RevisionGUID="1b6b4d08-f962-414a-a981-0940c80f0746" CreationDate="2015-07-21T22:21:38.960" UserId="5777" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Это разные [падежи][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    доска (доски), папа (папы) - И.п. (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доски (досок), папы (пап) - Р.п. (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доске (доскам), папе (папам)- Д.п. (Кому? Чему?)	&#xD;&#xA;    доску (доски), папу (пап) - В.п. (Кого? Что?	)&#xD;&#xA;    доской/доскою (досками), папой/папою (папами) - Т.п.(Кем? Чем?)&#xD;&#xA;    доске (досках), папе (папах) -П.п.(О ком? О чём? В ком? В чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример (вопрос и ответ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка? (Есть что?) - Да (есть ручка).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки? (Нету чего?) - Да (нету ручки). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом вопросе интересует присутствие ручки, а во втором отсутствие. Отсюда и значение ответа будет разное хотя одно и то же слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Оружие? (Спрашивает милиция) - Чего? (ответ, может иметь значение &quot;Да конечно есть, что за дурацкий вопрос&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my English. These are different [forms of words][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     купить танкИ (buy TANKS) - Именительный падеж (Кто? Что?)	&#xD;&#xA;     мир танкОВ (world OF TANKS) - Родительный падеж (Кого? Чего?)	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Example (question and answer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя есть ручка(Что)? (Do you have a pen?) - Yes (I have).&#xD;&#xA;    У тебя нету ручки(Чего)? (Don't you have a pen? or Do you not have a pen?) - Yes (I don't have). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first question it is important to `have`. In the second question it is important to `don't have`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Weapons? (said a policeman) - Чего? (I mean: &quot;Yes, of course there are, what a stupid question&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9263" RevisionGUID="cf869c56-8b3f-44d7-98b0-c2c38be57c2c" CreationDate="2015-07-22T01:57:32.843" UserId="5778" Text="&quot;To be&quot; is indeed implicit, but you put it into a wrong position. It's &quot;у меня (есть) машина&quot;. This &quot;у меня есть (something)&quot; is the standard translation for &quot;I have (smth)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="0629af28-7701-4997-b778-6935f502b95f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T03:21:41.437" UserId="5295" Text="What I got from reading [this](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/392/what-is-the-understanding-of-church-slavonic-among-russian-native-speakers) is that the Russian recension of Church Slavonic (церковнославянский язык) is probably not terribly difficult to understand, at least generally, for an educated Russian. However, it is most certainly not modern Russian and thus would require dedicated study to understand completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, then, is this: How are Russian Orthodox priests educated with regards to the Russian recension of Church Slavonic? Do they learn it in the same way one might learn Latin or Ancient Greek (though with more attention to pronunciation than those languages typically receive)--i.e., rigorously studying the grammar and vocabulary? Or are they mainly just taught how to correctly pronounce it, with comprehension being merely an afterthought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if the (majority of) priests are essentially just reciting these texts without necessarily comprehending them, or if they're actually fluent in the language and could, at least theoretically, read or compose religious new texts in it that they haven't memorized through repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By extension, when they study scripture, do they read in Church Slavonic or modern Russian? Since services are in CS, I suppose one should assume the priests understand the language they're speaking, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe that they are simply reciting the prayers in CS but actually do all their Bible study in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they actually do study the language's grammar and vocabulary and such in a rigorous manner, does anyone know what textbook(s) they use to do so? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="0629af28-7701-4997-b778-6935f502b95f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T03:21:41.437" UserId="5295" Text="Orthodox priests' facility with the Church Slavonic language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="0629af28-7701-4997-b778-6935f502b95f" CreationDate="2015-07-22T03:21:41.437" UserId="5295" Text="|история-языка|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9265" RevisionGUID="543d163c-8160-4982-a99f-1a1d038f21d4" CreationDate="2015-07-22T05:12:54.980" UserId="5008" Text="Well, unless there are some Russian priests actually here, I doubt anyone else can provide you a full answer on such a detailed question. But yes, the grammars of CS and modern Russian differ much, so they must learn it more or less like Englishmen learn Latin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I read book by Pletneva and Kravetskiy which, as the title says, was recommended for the church schools. You may find it along with other materials here - http://azbyka.ru/tserkov/tserkovno-slavyanskiy/uchebnye_posobiya/rukovodstvo_po_tserkovnoslavyanskomu.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9266" RevisionGUID="62bee71c-06a6-47e7-8f5b-4c0bde6f9456" CreationDate="2015-07-22T09:50:07.873" UserId="5779" Text="The one thing the other answers do not mention is that &quot;как&quot; adds a flavor of impersonality to the expression. Here is what I mean: &quot;да ты заебал&quot; is directed towards the listener, while &quot;как же ты меня заебал&quot; is more of a general remark, if I you will. The first expression delivers information (in a rather crude way) to the person one's speaking with, while the second expression is more about reflecting on the fact that the person is pissing you off. So by using the second expression you're basically saying that communication with the person who's pissing you off is impossible and pointless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, let's say you're in prison and you want to rest, but there is another prisoner in the cell who's trying to start a dialogue with you in a rather intrusive manner. Then the following conversation might take place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -- Хочешь, я на одной ноге постою, как цапля?&#xD;&#xA;    -- Нет.&#xD;&#xA;    -- Нет, ну хочешь, я цаплей постою?&#xD;&#xA;    -- Да ты заебал! (= please, do stop it)&#xD;&#xA;    -- Ну давай я цаплей постою, хочешь?&#xD;&#xA;    -- Как же ты меня заебал!.. (= he's crazy, it's impossible to communicate with him)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="a7f720f5-350a-4f09-85ab-8277798028c0" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:14:45.320" UserId="2380" Text="Можно ли сказать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужен/нужны нож или ножницы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вариант&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужны ножницы или нож&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кажется лучше, поскольку глагол и согласуется с ближайшим словом, и стоит во множественном числе, но какое или какие из правил применяется или применяются в русском языке? ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="a7f720f5-350a-4f09-85ab-8277798028c0" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:14:45.320" UserId="2380" Text="Согласование числа с &quot;или&quot;: &quot;мне нужен/нужны нож или ножницы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9268" RevisionGUID="a7f720f5-350a-4f09-85ab-8277798028c0" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:14:45.320" UserId="2380" Text="|грамматика|множественное-число|стилистика|согласование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9269" RevisionGUID="af9ba372-fd01-451b-a3f9-2adcd06a21ba" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:38:37.710" UserId="5779" Text="&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one means that we have opened the window several times, but each time someone or something has closed it. Also, it implies that we refuse to open the window once more, or at least we think that it is impractical or pointless. For example, consider the following situation: mother enters children's playroom, and sees the window is wide open (I've replaced &quot;открывали&quot; with &quot;закрывали&quot;, but the point remains the same).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -- Ах, какой тут сквозняк! Дети, ну-ка быстро закройте окно!&#xD;&#xA;    -- Мы его уже закрывали несколько раз! Там шпингалет сломался...&#xD;&#xA;    -- Тогда бегом одеваться, а то еще простудитесь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use this word with other meanings, like in &quot;Мы несколько раз открывали на этой улице магазин, но шпана постоянно выбивала стекла и распугивала покупателей&quot;. It has the same connotation of a completed action which does not achieved its goal. Does it makes sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is definitely incorrect in this particular context. You can't open the already opened window. I guess it *might* be correct in some very special case, something along these lines: &quot;Мы открыли магазин, но на открытие пришло мало людей, так что мы открыли его еще раз&quot;, but it still has somewhat ironic sense to it. In general, this sentence is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thise one sounds kind of colloquial and even childish. The example in the comments to the YellowSky's post perfectly demonstrates the context in which in can be used. Or, continuing with our example, mom could ask the children why the windows is broken:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -- Так, а что со шпингалетом случилось?&#xD;&#xA;    -- Ну, мы пооткрывали окно... Вот он и сломался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noticing that the same verb used with a plural form of the same word gives completely different meaning to the phrase. For example, if instead of a mom we'd have an old grumbling grandma, she could say: &quot;Пооткрывали тут окон! Весь дом продуло!&quot;, or even &quot;Понаоткрывали тут окон!&quot;. Here, she complains about the fact that the windows are open and thus it's cold (depending on the level of grumbliness, it could or could not imply that there is actually more than one window). Also, note that you can't &quot;пооткрывать магазин&quot;, but you can &quot;пооткрывать магазинов по всей улице&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9270" RevisionGUID="ce1ab741-740a-4ee0-bd8b-f8b0626df04c" CreationDate="2015-07-22T11:41:14.970" UserDisplayName="user5773" Text="Использование твоего варианта будет правильней,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужны ножницы или нож&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но использование варианта ниже тоже не будет ошибкой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужен нож или ножницы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="dbd00190-35dd-4161-b939-f017b305563d" CreationDate="2015-07-22T12:54:42.043" UserId="134" Text="&gt; My question, then, is this: How are Russian Orthodox priests educated with regards to the Russian recension of Church Slavonic? Do they learn it in the same way one might learn Latin or Ancient Greek (though with more attention to pronunciation than those languages typically receive)--i.e., rigorously studying the grammar and vocabulary? Or are they mainly just taught how to correctly pronounce it, with comprehension being merely an afterthought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been studying Old Church Slavonic in a secular school, but from what I've heard it's pretty much the same in religious institutions as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have courses in Church Slavonic (and probably Old Church Slavonic), learn the things and pass the tests, as usual. A native Russian speaker does have to study CS grammar pretty much as rigorously as they would that of Latin or Greek, because it has much less in common with Russian than one might think. Vocabulary is of lesser concern but there are lots of &quot;false friends&quot; because of large numbers of loanwords which had since shifted their meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing a priest has to learn is pronounce Church Slavonic properly: get rid of vowel reduction (*аканье*), use fricative *г* in all positions, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm curious if the (majority of) priests are essentially just reciting these texts without necessarily comprehending them, or if they're actually fluent in the language and could, at least theoretically, read or compose religious new texts in it that they haven't memorized through repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read those texts much as a Russian speaker, you'll inevitably reach a decent degree of comprehension. Composing the texts is a little bit harder, but this ultimately depends on how devoted you are. Bedřich Hrozný, who deciphered Hittite, claimed he was so familiar with the structure and spirit of the Ancient Eastern documents that he could easily make a career of a scribe in any of those ancient empires. So as with any language, the more you use it, the more fluent with the language you get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By extension, when they study scripture, do they read in Church Slavonic or modern Russian? Since services are in CS, I suppose one should assume the priests understand the language they're speaking, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe that they are simply reciting the prayers in CS but actually do all their Bible study in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a priest you would probably have to do the Bible study in both languages, because the authorized Russian translation (Synodal), which is from Bible Hebrew, and the authorized Church Slavonic translation (Elizabeth), which is from Greek, in fact differ in quite a few aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If they actually do study the language's grammar and vocabulary and such in a rigorous manner, does anyone know what textbook(s) they use to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about Church Slavonic (I didn't take it), but the classic Old Church Slavonic textbook is Khaburgaev's *Старославянский язык*. It won't teach you the modern Church Slavonic subtleties, though, like when to use *ѧ* vs. *ꙗ*, how to put accents on words etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9272" RevisionGUID="f5081128-c8a7-488c-8c52-92e04c04fb8d" CreationDate="2015-07-22T14:11:21.903" UserId="5405" Text="Если нужны несколько предметов, то должно употребляться множественное число - *Мне нужны нож и вилка (ножницы)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В разговорной, особенно спонтанной, речи иногда используют вариант с единственным числом глагола, но нормативность подобного согласования крайне сомнительна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9273" RevisionGUID="700fe78b-75ea-47d1-aa47-9cec0f3711a2" CreationDate="2015-07-22T14:56:38.843" UserId="4727" Text="In the context of programming code (as a noun, not a verb.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;plus: what about development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry I'm a beginner.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9273" RevisionGUID="700fe78b-75ea-47d1-aa47-9cec0f3711a2" CreationDate="2015-07-22T14:56:38.843" UserId="4727" Text="Is код the best way to translate &quot;code&quot; (noun)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9273" RevisionGUID="700fe78b-75ea-47d1-aa47-9cec0f3711a2" CreationDate="2015-07-22T14:56:38.843" UserId="4727" Text="|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9274" RevisionGUID="43b1e790-c7f8-416b-98c8-a0fda85875a1" CreationDate="2015-07-22T15:32:18.720" UserId="5008" Text="Purely in the programming context: code = код, (software) development = разработка (программного обеспечения)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9275" RevisionGUID="cbc1ec95-aab7-4a9b-abaf-a578c470f59d" CreationDate="2015-07-22T16:48:53.873" UserId="4620" Text="Вариант `Мне нужны нож или ножницы` неправилен (хотя это довольно простительная ошибка), два других — вполне корректны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, при обратном построении фразы, скажем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    — Кому следует передать всё это барахло?&#xD;&#xA;    — Про всё барахло не знаю, но нож или ножницы нужны мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;множественное число должно употребляться всегда, когда упоминаемые предметы различаются по числам или родам: `нож или вилка нужны мне`, но `вилка или ложка нужна мне`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предупреждение: это лишь чувство носителя языка, я не специалист.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9276" RevisionGUID="6150be9d-720f-4a7b-8ed9-c488bab22217" CreationDate="2015-07-22T17:00:09.580" UserId="5288" Text="Set of technical standards GOST (Russian: ГОСТ) contain articles &quot;Terms and definitions&quot;, where you'll find examples to illustrate the use of the word `код` as a single term:    &#xD;&#xA;[ГОСТ 19781-90][1] , [ГОСТ 19.101-77][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Исходный код` has become most likely an idiom instead of `исходный текст`. It can be found in [ГОСТ Р 54593-2011][3] in the domain of Open Source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In text in a book you will likely come across   &#xD;&#xA;`исходный текст --&gt; объектный код` = `source code --&gt; object code`   &#xD;&#xA;rather than   &#xD;&#xA;`исходный код --&gt; объектный код.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *informal* correspondences, reports, etc. in the domain of programming, the common term used is `код` for `source code.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.opengost.ru/iso/01_gosty/01040_gost_iso/0104035_gost_iso/1186-gost-19781-90-obespechenie-sistem-obrabotki-informacii-programmnoe.-terminy-i-opredeleniya.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://protect.gost.ru/v.aspx?control=8&amp;baseC=-1&amp;page=0&amp;month=-1&amp;year=-1&amp;search=&amp;RegNum=1&amp;DocOnPageCount=15&amp;id=150791&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://dlib.rsl.ru/loader/view/01005405118?get=pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9271" RevisionGUID="ccfda4c2-4d94-4fd6-8768-edbe7e96bb16" CreationDate="2015-07-22T21:19:01.387" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; My question, then, is this: How are Russian Orthodox priests educated with regards to the Russian recension of Church Slavonic? Do they learn it in the same way one might learn Latin or Ancient Greek (though with more attention to pronunciation than those languages typically receive)--i.e., rigorously studying the grammar and vocabulary? Or are they mainly just taught how to correctly pronounce it, with comprehension being merely an afterthought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been studying Old Church Slavonic in a secular school, but from what I've heard it's pretty much the same in religious institutions as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have courses in Church Slavonic (and probably Old Church Slavonic), learn the things and pass the tests, as usual. A native Russian speaker does have to study CS grammar pretty much as rigorously as they would that of Latin or Greek, because it has much less in common with Russian than one might think. Vocabulary is of less concern but there are lots of &quot;false friends&quot; because of large numbers of loanwords which had since shifted their meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing a priest has to learn is pronounce Church Slavonic properly: get rid of vowel reduction (*аканье*), use fricative *г* in all positions, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm curious if the (majority of) priests are essentially just reciting these texts without necessarily comprehending them, or if they're actually fluent in the language and could, at least theoretically, read or compose religious new texts in it that they haven't memorized through repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you read those texts much as a Russian speaker, you'll inevitably reach a decent degree of comprehension. Composing the texts is a little bit harder, but this ultimately depends on how devoted you are. Bedřich Hrozný, who deciphered Hittite, claimed he was so familiar with the structure and spirit of the Ancient Eastern documents that he could easily make a career of a scribe in any of those ancient empires. So as with any language, the more you use it, the more fluent with the language you get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By extension, when they study scripture, do they read in Church Slavonic or modern Russian? Since services are in CS, I suppose one should assume the priests understand the language they're speaking, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe that they are simply reciting the prayers in CS but actually do all their Bible study in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a priest you would probably have to do the Bible study in both languages, because the authorized Russian translation (Synodal), which is from Bible Hebrew, and the authorized Church Slavonic translation (Elizabeth), which is from Greek, in fact differ in quite a few aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If they actually do study the language's grammar and vocabulary and such in a rigorous manner, does anyone know what textbook(s) they use to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about Church Slavonic (I didn't take it), but the classic Old Church Slavonic textbook is Khaburgaev's *Старославянский язык*. It won't teach you the modern Church Slavonic subtleties, though, like when to use *ѧ* vs. *ꙗ*, how to put accents on words etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22488" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9022" RevisionGUID="e216fd48-a1cb-469a-8e47-7966c4257a12" CreationDate="2015-07-22T21:33:55.737" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4108" RevisionGUID="1bfb291d-7fb0-4bd5-ac9f-82dae7e9eca0" CreationDate="2015-07-22T23:19:29.003" UserId="2238" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="The transcription is [l'oxk'ij'], where x is for fricative guttural sound and apostrophee is for palatalisation of the previous consonant. [o] is under stress. Palatalisation of x is facultative. [j] is quite frequently omitted, as in all the forms with [ij] at the end, but it is not the most correct way of pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;The word is tricky, because it has *[γk']-&gt;[xk'] where *[gk']-&gt; *[kk']-&gt; [k'] is expected. It is a trace of the ancient state of the language where г was pronounced as fricative sound, [γ]. &quot;-&gt;&quot; is for &quot;became&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Dissimilation could also happen - plosive-plosive became fricative-plosive for distinction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9277" RevisionGUID="d3579df1-eefa-4c7e-a04a-2f372d327e90" CreationDate="2015-07-23T00:56:05.903" UserId="5295" Text="Have you ever used Forvo? It's a site where you can listen to native speakers pronouncing various words in their languages. Here's лёгкий:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/&#xD;&#xA;http://forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I feel your pain. As a learner of Russian I, too, have mispronounced this word a few times myself! Specifically, I pronounced г as /g/ instead of /x/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="66ae271f-c920-4c76-92ec-15b27798f288" CreationDate="2015-07-23T04:04:34.930" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it means that you had opened the window several times. Without несколько раз it may mean you opened it once, but now it is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had opened the window several times over a continuous time period, but now you stopped this activity and possibly do not want to repeat. Несколько раз is redunant here, пооткрывали implyes it was your activity over some time period to open the window (so you did it several times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impossible unless the window permits being opened more than once without closing it. This can be OK in other context when you can open something several times without closing it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закон сохранения импульса открыли несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закон сохранения импульса открывали несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later implyes you do not know all cases where it was discovered, you just say it was several times. The former implyes you know all the instances well and there are a few of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="76e1e5d3-5547-4b53-929b-b3689085aa0a" CreationDate="2015-07-23T04:11:56.110" UserId="194" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it means that you had opened the window several times. Without несколько раз it may mean you opened it once, but now it is closed (or at leat it became closed after you opened it, even if now it is opened).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had opened the window several times over a continuous time period, but now you stopped this activity and possibly do not want to repeat. Несколько раз is redunant here, пооткрывали implyes it was your activity over some time period to open the window (so you did it several times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impossible unless the window permits being opened more than once without closing it. This can be OK in other context when you can open something several times without closing it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закон сохранения импульса открыли несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закон сохранения импульса открывали несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later implyes you do not know all cases where it was discovered, you just say it was several times. Maybe some cases are forgotten and lost to history. The former implyes you know all the instances well and there are a few of them, all of them are remembered till now, even if they were unknown to each other's researchers at the time when they were doing the discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="a213781f-2905-4f38-a49d-8834896599a8" CreationDate="2015-07-23T05:57:14.750" UserId="5782" Text="Well, that's a real puzzler for me and I still can't decode the meaning even through the help of my Russian friends (and my Russian instructor, too!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complete sentence &quot;Хотя казалось бы&quot; was preceded by congratulations on going very well in my exams. I suspect some joke or even disparaging comment... Too much food for my imagination, can't bear it anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="a213781f-2905-4f38-a49d-8834896599a8" CreationDate="2015-07-23T05:57:14.750" UserId="5782" Text="&quot;Хотя казалось бы.&quot; Unable to parse the meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9279" RevisionGUID="a213781f-2905-4f38-a49d-8834896599a8" CreationDate="2015-07-23T05:57:14.750" UserId="5782" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="ae639e1f-b588-4b68-a70c-326da587f84f" CreationDate="2015-07-23T06:36:45.683" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Хотя казалось бы&quot; literally means &quot;Though it seemed&quot;. Yet often that means also &quot;Though I seem&quot; or &quot;Though it looked like&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think that there should be some omitted word at the end of the sentence then it stands for: &quot;Though it looked like [it should be the other way round]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9280" RevisionGUID="d97581d7-09cf-4d43-8b2a-028d11411ecd" CreationDate="2015-07-23T06:43:47.520" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="&quot;Хотя казалось бы&quot; literally means &quot;Though it seemed&quot;. Yet often that means also &quot;Though I seem&quot; or &quot;Though it looked like&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;Хотя казалось бы...&quot; has no continuation then it typically stands for: &quot;Though it looked like [it would be the other way round]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="0fc500cc-c07f-45a4-80ca-e6891d1b76e6" CreationDate="2015-07-23T10:39:05.383" UserId="5784" Text="I'm a beginner and have a question regarding `bus stop` and `tram stop`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say: `&quot;I'm going to the bus stop/tram stop.&quot;` And I would like to use `остановке`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that `остановка` is feminine and I have to form `авто́бусный` to feminine. So far so good for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Я иду на авто́бусная остановка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I do this with &quot;tram stop&quot;? It is masculine `трамва́й` and therefor I can not use it with `остановка` or can I?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Я иду на трамва́й остановка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thanking you in advance for your help!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="0fc500cc-c07f-45a4-80ca-e6891d1b76e6" CreationDate="2015-07-23T10:39:05.383" UserId="5784" Text="Little questions regarding &quot;tram stop&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="0fc500cc-c07f-45a4-80ca-e6891d1b76e6" CreationDate="2015-07-23T10:39:05.383" UserId="5784" Text="|прилагательные|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9282" RevisionGUID="aa6d9e83-8b76-4e2c-a600-bc0b74f8b008" CreationDate="2015-07-23T11:07:15.090" UserId="1236" Text="Apart from putting the adjective into the feminine gender to adjust it to the feminine noun `остановка`, you also have to put the resulting word combination into the Accusative case, because the preposition `на` needs the following noun phrase to be in the Accusative case, if it is about the direction to the place. That is why the correct way to say it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Я иду на авто́бусн**ую** остановк**у**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the tram stop, the corresponding adjective is formed the same way as with the bus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; авто́бус → авто́бусная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трамва́й → трамва́йная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And naturally, be it a bus or tram stop, the Accusative case is needed after `на`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Я иду на трамва́йн**ую** остановк**у**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9283" RevisionGUID="09900d78-e190-4736-8f38-4ee03b7cf2f9" CreationDate="2015-07-23T11:17:53.247" UserId="551" Text="If you really want to use the form `остановке` you need to use preposition `к` and use Dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду к останов**ке**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case `автобусная остановка` becomes `к автобусной остановке`, and `трамвайная остановка` becomes `к трамвайной остановке`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я иду к автобусн**ой** останов**ке**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я иду к трамвайн**ой** останов**ке**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22503" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9281" RevisionGUID="1b1d2b69-7ae7-45e0-8508-afa5a7d8bbdd" CreationDate="2015-07-23T17:13:05.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/624265992609394694" />
  <row Id="22504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9278" RevisionGUID="2a8b52d5-26ab-45ad-ad00-d8862546f5dc" CreationDate="2015-07-24T04:54:37.210" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Мы уже открывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it means that you had opened the window several times. Without несколько раз it may mean you opened it once, but now it is closed (or at least it became closed after you opened it, even if now it is opened).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже пооткрывали это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You had opened the window several times over a continuous time period, but now you stopped this activity and possibly do not want to repeat. Несколько раз is redunant here, пооткрывали implyes it was your activity over some time period to open the window (so you did it several times).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы уже открыли это окно несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impossible unless the window permits being opened more than once without closing it. This can be OK in other context when you can open something several times without closing it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закон сохранения импульса открыли несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закон сохранения импульса открывали несколько раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later implyes you do not know all cases where it was discovered, you just say it was several times. Maybe some cases are forgotten and lost to history. The former implyes you know all the instances well and there are a few of them, all of them are remembered till now, even if they were unknown to each other's researchers at the time when they were doing the discoveries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="96662e52-1b0a-42c7-bdda-08942af19b78" CreationDate="2015-07-24T06:44:13.810" UserId="4714" Text="I've come across these two set expressions, but I don't understand the cases that are used here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;во хмелю — why is the preposition &quot;в&quot; being used with the ending &quot;ю&quot;—is this a partitive of some kind ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с похмелья — is this the genitive case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the literal translations of these phrases? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit: Ok, so I just found out that there's a verb хмелить, but what's the purpose of the &quot;в&quot; here?** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="96662e52-1b0a-42c7-bdda-08942af19b78" CreationDate="2015-07-24T06:44:13.810" UserId="4714" Text="Case usage with хмель, похмелье?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="96662e52-1b0a-42c7-bdda-08942af19b78" CreationDate="2015-07-24T06:44:13.810" UserId="4714" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="5ea58553-d269-4654-9ad1-6aa8c19d2be2" CreationDate="2015-07-24T06:54:38.500" UserId="4637" Text="This would be [discussion about в/во prepositions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`во хмелю`, `хмель` is not a verb here but a noun meaning `hop`. The whole phrase `во хмелю` means `he is drunk`.&#xD;&#xA;It is hardly used in big cities, most likely only in a country side. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`с похмелья` means `he has a hang-over`.&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this:&#xD;&#xA;`У тебя похмелье?` / `Ты с похмелья?` - `У него похмелье` / `Он с похмелья`. Which basically have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/986/prepositions-%D0%B2-and-%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9286" RevisionGUID="606fb680-494d-4ba0-b3aa-af17302e4cf4" CreationDate="2015-07-24T07:52:01.710" UserId="4560" Text="**Хмель** &quot;hop, *Humulus lupulus*&quot; is a widely used if partially obsolete synecdoche for inebriation. I've never come across the verb *хмелить* but you might mean **хмелеть** &quot;to become drunk&quot;. **Похмелье**, literally &quot;after-*хмель*&quot;, is hangover. There is a similar idiomatic use of **с** in the adverbialised **спросонья** &quot;freshly awake, groggy&quot;. Yes, it's genitive; the literal meaning of **с**+genitive is ablative — it's a reverse **на**+accusative in the same way as the elative **из** complements the illative **в**+accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the ending on **во хмелю** (a somewhat obsolete way to say &quot;drunk&quot;): not partitive, but locative. There's a limited set of almost exclusively monosyllabic masculine nouns that have two forms of the prepositional case; a regular *-е* one and an *-у/-ю* one. The latter is always accented, and used with **в** and **на** (never **о**) when these prepositions refer literally to a location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;literally&quot; may not make a lot of sense here, considering **хмель** is inherently an abstraction, but here's a classic illustration of the distinction that may make it a little clearer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вороны что-то ищут в снегу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;the crows are searching for something in the snow&quot; vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Художники что-то ищут в снеге&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;artists search for something in snow&quot; (i.e. some aesthetic *je ne sais quoi* in snow that they're trying to capture.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="339db289-a75a-41ae-92b5-00df32b31469" CreationDate="2015-07-24T07:54:35.393" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Хмель&quot; is just a plant (Humulus) which is used in brewing. So this word has yet another meaning (быть во хмелю = &quot;to be in Humulus&quot; = to be drunk; although this phrase sounds a little archaic - probably you've encountered it in a book; people rarely say so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Похмелье&quot; has the same root as &quot;хмель&quot; yet in modern language (due to the part &quot;по-&quot; = &quot;после&quot; = &quot;after&quot;) it usually means &quot;hangover&quot; (i.e. &quot;after Humulus&quot;). Yet a couple of hundreds years ago it meant something else, actually - &quot;carousal&quot;. Read this topic on a subject - http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8346/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-by-pushkin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about a grammar. &quot;С похмелья&quot; is a genitive case. &quot;Во хмелю&quot; is a (rare) locative case (like &quot;в лесу&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9288" RevisionGUID="ef56f400-9bb1-4c78-8af0-c5812b4fa637" CreationDate="2015-07-24T10:15:39.153" UserId="194" Text="*Во хмелю* is [Locative case][1]. I never encountered it being used with хмель. Possibly it means the person is drunk. The standard meaning would be the person is in the brushwood of хмель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1630/what-are-some-examples-of-nouns-that-end-in-%D1%83-in-prepositional-case/7373#7373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="a1452586-4b5d-4cf2-8b1f-6e51a4f0556d" CreationDate="2015-07-24T10:40:21.260" UserId="194" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    хвост в хвосте о хвосте&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;    плот на плоту о плоте&#xD;&#xA;    хмель во хмелю о хмеле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="a353a101-1fca-4523-87e9-12ca3dd88077" CreationDate="2015-07-24T10:50:32.403" UserId="194" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    хвост в хвосте о хвосте&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;    плот на плоту о плоте&#xD;&#xA;    хмель во хмелю о хмеле&#xD;&#xA;    верх на верху о верхе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="e211de1f-1c7c-47a5-ba2a-541c0b62b87c" CreationDate="2015-07-24T10:58:54.710" UserId="194" Text="According to [this source][1] one should write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На верху блаженства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this source][2] (from the same site) one should write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наверху блаженства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, what is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hypothesis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Быть наверху блаженства = be in a highly joyful state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Быть на верху блаженства = be in at the maximum of joy (better than before and after).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phraseology.academic.ru/1031/%D0%9D%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%85%D1%83_%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pravopisanie_i_stilistika.academic.ru/57/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="e211de1f-1c7c-47a5-ba2a-541c0b62b87c" CreationDate="2015-07-24T10:58:54.710" UserId="194" Text="Быть на верху блаженства vs быть наверху блаженства" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="e211de1f-1c7c-47a5-ba2a-541c0b62b87c" CreationDate="2015-07-24T10:58:54.710" UserId="194" Text="|правописание|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9290" RevisionGUID="7d062d04-7120-4354-8c06-e1b353b92b54" CreationDate="2015-07-24T12:08:45.063" UserId="5008" Text="Поскольку словосочетание &quot;верх блаженства&quot; вполне устойчиво, то и раздельное написание в случае &quot;на верху блаженства&quot; представляется вполне верным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А что значит &quot;наверху блаженства&quot; - мне не понятно. Выше чем само блаженство, что ли? По-моему, это ошибка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="c611fa88-f073-4e06-82de-da1bf0b5f9b0" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:12:05.197" UserId="5792" Text="How can I parse пройдитеськаде?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please tell me what conjugation it is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="c611fa88-f073-4e06-82de-da1bf0b5f9b0" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:12:05.197" UserId="5792" Text="What is пройдитеськаде?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9292" RevisionGUID="c611fa88-f073-4e06-82de-da1bf0b5f9b0" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:12:05.197" UserId="5792" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="7393d7ef-a358-4312-af4d-bd9fd96c291d" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:35:48.507" UserId="5605" Text="1. Частица -де (разг.) употребляется при передаче чужой речи, а также в значении глагола говорит (говорят) и в значении частиц дескать, мол: А коль увижу-де, что казнь ему мала, повешу тут же всех судей вокруг стола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Частица дескать (разг.) образовалась путем слияния  слов де и сказать: Мой земляк обратился на привале к командиру: так и так, — отлучиться разрешите, дескать, случай дорогой, мол, поскольку местный житель, до двора подать рукой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="3154c343-3384-4a22-85b0-961cacbaef0a" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:52:43.327" UserId="5605" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="1. Частица -де (разг.) употребляется при передаче чужой речи, а также в значении глагола говорит (говорят) и в значении частиц дескать, мол: А коль увижу-де, что казнь ему мала, повешу тут же всех судей вокруг стола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Частица дескать (разг.) образовалась путем слияния слов де и сказать: Мой земляк обратился на привале к командиру: так и так, — отлучиться разрешите, дескать, случай дорогой, мол, поскольку местный житель, до двора подать рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если частица, которая пишется через дефис, стоит после другой частицы, то дефис опускается, например: всё же таки, мы бы де так не поступили. Ср.: Такой-то де старик … и зол и подл (Пушкин); Кому же нибудь я должен это сказать! (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильное написание &quot;пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="0d95c693-3e81-4ed0-8646-fef08b76f0e4" CreationDate="2015-07-24T14:58:30.293" UserId="5605" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="1. Частица -де (разг.) употребляется при передаче чужой речи, а также в значении глагола говорит (говорят) и в значении частиц дескать, мол: А коль увижу-де, что казнь ему мала, повешу тут же всех судей вокруг стола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Частица дескать (разг.) образовалась путем слияния слов де и сказать: Мой земляк обратился на привале к командиру: так и так, — отлучиться разрешите, дескать, случай дорогой, мол, поскольку местный житель, до двора подать рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Через дефис пишутся частицы  -де, -ка, кое- (кой-), -либо, -нибудь, -с, -тка, -тко, -то: вы-де, она-де, на-ка, нате-ка, посмотрите-ка, кое-кто, кой-что, кто-либо, какой-нибудь, откуда-нибудь, да-с, ну-тка, гляди-тко, где-то, когда-то, что-то. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если частица, которая пишется через дефис, стоит после другой частицы, то дефис опускается, например: всё же таки, мы бы де так не поступили. Ср.: Такой-то де старик … и зол и подл (Пушкин); Кому же нибудь я должен это сказать! (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильное написание &quot;пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="934fd6cf-445d-49cc-950b-853f040be0dc" CreationDate="2015-07-24T15:03:43.980" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Пройдитесь&quot; is an imperative for &quot;пройти(сь)&quot; (to walk). (plural 2nd person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &quot;-ка&quot; is used with the imperative to soften it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Де&quot; is somewhat archaic particle used to denote indirect speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is &quot;[Он сказал вы] пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="6a35b4fd-5654-41ca-9ac0-f100dcfa4261" CreationDate="2015-07-24T15:03:45.383" UserId="5605" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="1. Частица -де (разг.) употребляется при передаче чужой речи, а также в значении глагола говорит (говорят) и в значении частиц &quot;дескать, мол&quot;: А коль увижу-де, что казнь ему мала, повешу тут же всех судей вокруг стола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Частица дескать (разг.) образовалась путем слияния слов де и сказать: Мой земляк обратился на привале к командиру: так и так, — отлучиться разрешите, дескать, случай дорогой, мол, поскольку местный житель, до двора подать рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Через дефис пишутся частицы  -де, -ка, кое- (кой-), -либо, -нибудь, -с, -тка, -тко, -то: вы-де, она-де, на-ка, нате-ка, посмотрите-ка, кое-кто, кой-что, кто-либо, какой-нибудь, откуда-нибудь, да-с, ну-тка, гляди-тко, где-то, когда-то, что-то. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если частица, которая пишется через дефис, стоит после другой частицы, то дефис опускается, например: всё же таки, мы бы де так не поступили. Ср.: Такой-то де старик … и зол и подл (Пушкин); Кому же нибудь я должен это сказать! (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильное написание &quot;пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="5da12915-b60b-4160-bde5-9157ec562c6a" CreationDate="2015-07-24T15:12:23.177" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="1. Частица -де (разг.) употребляется при передаче чужой речи, а также в значении глагола говорит (говорят) и в значении частиц &quot;дескать, мол&quot;: А коль увижу-де, что казнь ему мала, повешу тут же всех судей вокруг стола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Частица дескать (разг.) образовалась путем слияния слов де и сказать: Мой земляк обратился на привале к командиру: так и так, — отлучиться разрешите, дескать, случай дорогой, мол, поскольку местный житель, до двора подать рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частица &quot;ка&quot;разг. выражает смягчение или неформальность просьбы, приказа либо требование ускоренного выполнения ◆ Поезжай-ка ты в деревню!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если частица, которая пишется через дефис, стоит после другой частицы, то дефис опускается, например: всё же таки, мы бы де так не поступили. Ср.: Такой-то де старик … и зол и подл (Пушкин); Кому же нибудь я должен это сказать! (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильное написание &quot;пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9294" RevisionGUID="7ae3c11b-84ce-473b-8219-2d34a3e488d6" CreationDate="2015-07-24T15:19:44.910" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Пройдитесь&quot; is an imperative for &quot;пройти(сь)&quot; (to walk). (plural 2nd person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &quot;-ка&quot; is used with the imperative to soften it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Де&quot; is somewhat archaic particle used to denote direct speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is &quot;[Он сказал вы] пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="1cff7a1d-5dda-42a2-8292-f434d39fb516" CreationDate="2015-07-24T16:46:43.027" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 271 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;ДЕ, частица. Разг.-сниж. Употр. для указания на то, что приводимые слова являются передачей чужой речи; дескать, мол. Да скажите: князь Гвидон шлёт царю-де свой поклон (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частица КА разг. выражает смягчение или неформальность просьбы, приказа либо требование ускоренного выполнения ◆ Поезжай-ка ты в деревню!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если частица, которая пишется через дефис, стоит после другой частицы, то дефис опускается, например: всё же таки, мы бы де так не поступили. Ср.: Такой-то де старик … и зол и подл (Пушкин); Кому же нибудь я должен это сказать! (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильное написание &quot;пройдитесь-ка де&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9293" RevisionGUID="eb7e5bf9-f87d-4602-a9a5-90dc9c2eda18" CreationDate="2015-07-24T17:02:06.597" UserId="5605" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="ДЕ, частица. Разг.-сниж. Употр. для указания на то, что приводимые слова являются передачей чужой речи; дескать, мол. Да скажите: князь Гвидон шлёт царю-де свой поклон (Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частица КА разг. выражает смягчение или неформальность просьбы, приказа либо требование ускоренного выполнения ◆ Поезжай-ка ты в деревню!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если частица, которая пишется через дефис, стоит после другой частицы, то дефис опускается, например: всё же таки, мы бы де так не поступили. Ср.: Такой-то де старик … и зол и подл (Пушкин); Кому же нибудь я должен это сказать! (Тургенев).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильное написание &quot;пройдитесь-ка де&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример употребления: Простая, необразованная женщина рассказывает подруге о том, как водила своего 10-летнего сына на кастинг, где выбирали маьчика на роль в фильме: &quot;И вот главный говорит моему Володе - пройдитесь-ка де от двери до окна, покажите нам себя.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="31d1acb0-d641-4e3a-91c0-91b63c1d7f08" CreationDate="2015-07-25T00:35:09.560" UserId="134" Text="The others have given good answers, I'll just elaborate a little on *в хмеле / во хмелю*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary prepositional forms in *-у, -ю* (and stressed *-ы, -и* for some declension I nouns), while technically being prepositional, in fact mean locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use these forms when you add *будучи* (&quot;being&quot;) to *в* (&quot;in&quot;) or *на* (&quot;on&quot;) without changing the meaning of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Предки Грегори Пека видели в лесе препятствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Предки Грегори Пека видели в лесу препятствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both phrases translate verbatim as &quot;saw in forest (prep.) hindrance (acc.)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase means that Gregory Peck's ancestors, the first white settlers in America, treated the forest like a hindrance and burned it to create a patch of arable land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one (constructed by me) means that they were, probably, walking down the forest and saw a hindrance or an obstacle of some kind, maybe a stump or a fallen tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can reword the second phrase as &quot;Gregory Peck's ancestors saw a hindrance *while being* in the forest&quot;, but not the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we use prepositional proper in the first (*лесе*, not &quot;being&quot;-like), and locative (_лесу_, &quot;being&quot;-like) in the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В «Мосте Ватерлоо» с Вивьен Ли (Успенская) сыграла русскую преподавательницу балетной школы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ouspenskaya) has played a Russian ballet teacher in &quot;Waterloo Bridge&quot; starring Vivien Leigh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you add &quot;while being&quot; here: the actress played in the film &quot;Waterloo Bridge&quot;, but not &quot;while being&quot; on the actual Waterloo bridge. Hence, prepositional proper (_мосте_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9296" RevisionGUID="0fc8345a-13f8-452e-919b-b16c71cc7a22" CreationDate="2015-07-25T02:44:46.170" UserId="5694" Text="The guy who told you this probably suspected worse results. So his &quot;Хотя казалось бы&quot; shows he is a bit surprised or relieved. I can't say that this phrase means some bad attitude towards you. It totally depends on the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="1e7d7c72-3cc7-4578-b2fb-bc5a2a3b90dd" CreationDate="2015-07-25T08:24:07.627" UserId="5692" Text="In a Memrise course В чем проблема? is translated as &quot;what's the problem?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain which case `В чем` in in? Проблема looks like Genetive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="1e7d7c72-3cc7-4578-b2fb-bc5a2a3b90dd" CreationDate="2015-07-25T08:24:07.627" UserId="5692" Text="Can you explain the grammar of В чем проблема? to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9297" RevisionGUID="1e7d7c72-3cc7-4578-b2fb-bc5a2a3b90dd" CreationDate="2015-07-25T08:24:07.627" UserId="5692" Text="|падежи|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="ad73dd5e-72e8-41f1-aed6-a2f027531dd2" CreationDate="2015-07-25T08:54:56.733" UserId="5008" Text="В чём проблема? -&gt; В чём есть проблема? -&gt; In what the problem is? -&gt; Where's the problem? That is Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even &quot;Что есть проблема&quot; is not Genetive anyway. It is Accusative or Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Of course, for the purpose of translation, &quot;В чём проблема&quot; = What's the problem; &quot;Что есть проблема&quot; = either &quot;which is the problem&quot; or &quot;what thing is the problem?&quot; depending on sentence structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9298" RevisionGUID="c196fb3d-ab70-43ac-bfd7-af299c3846ce" CreationDate="2015-07-25T09:01:53.097" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 143 characters in body" Text="В чём проблема? -&gt; В чём есть проблема? -&gt; In what the problem is? That is Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В чём&quot; marks the Prepositional case yet the object is missing here because it's a question. Consider &quot;В чём проблема?&quot; (What's the problem?) - &quot;Проблема в тебе&quot; (You're the problem)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="b4d76108-9f42-4a7e-99b0-adaef5414400" CreationDate="2015-07-25T18:07:30.573" UserId="4925" Text="So, this word has caused many problems for me. I just can't find any good explanation of this very vague word. Some same that it means moving across the surface of an objects, others say it's like a &quot;distributive&quot; property preposition????? If someone could just provide a detailed explanation on this would, that would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="b4d76108-9f42-4a7e-99b0-adaef5414400" CreationDate="2015-07-25T18:07:30.573" UserId="4925" Text="По??? How many meanings does this word have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="b4d76108-9f42-4a7e-99b0-adaef5414400" CreationDate="2015-07-25T18:07:30.573" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="fc2b7a51-7979-4de5-8d3f-3a60a427f9ec" CreationDate="2015-07-25T19:45:39.927" UserId="5448" Text="@Anixx, **&quot;наверху блаженства&quot;** is correct,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this expression &quot;наверху&quot; is the so-called &quot;непревообразный предлог&quot; (non-primitive? preposition). It is not divided into two semantic parts, so there it is stored joint-spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;read more here (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pravopisanie_i_stilistika.academic.ru/57/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;Пункт 7. &quot;Примечание 2&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="249411ab-c9f7-4bd5-a148-560f87df0124" CreationDate="2015-07-25T19:52:22.377" UserId="5448" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="@Anixx, **&quot;наверху блаженства&quot;** is correct,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this expression &quot;наверху&quot; is the so-called &quot;непревообразный предлог&quot; (non-primitive? preposition). It is not divided into two semantic parts, so there it is stored joint-spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;read more here (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pravopisanie_i_stilistika.academic.ru/57/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;Пункт 7. &quot;Примечание 2&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть наверху блаженства = be in a highly joyful state.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть на верху блаженства = be in at the maximum of joy (better than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before and after).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;These expressions are very closed in russian, the same mean practically.  &#xD;&#xA;Both cases need joint spell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9302" RevisionGUID="1f584064-48fa-43ff-b5ee-b68236778d45" CreationDate="2015-07-25T20:17:52.813" UserId="5008" Text="It's hard to give a short answer concerning meaning of any common preposition. For example, my dictionary states that there are 28 specific usage cases of &quot;по&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet quite often &quot;по&quot; is used along with the Dative case to denote that some action takes place on the surface of an object. &quot;По&quot; has no direct counterpart in English since it means both &quot;on&quot; and &quot;over&quot; (like bread and butter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also: &quot;Я мажу масло на хлеб&quot; - &quot;I make bread and a butter&quot;; &quot;Я мажу масло по хлебу&quot; - &quot;I spread butter over bread&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9300" RevisionGUID="63d25bdb-2460-40a8-a21e-88318d783517" CreationDate="2015-07-25T21:07:25.977" UserId="5448" Comment="edited body" Text="@Anixx, **&quot;наверху блаженства&quot;** is correct,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this expression &quot;наверху&quot; is the so-called &quot;непревообразный предлог&quot; (non-primitive? preposition). It is not divided into two semantic parts, so there it is stored joint-spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;read more here (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pravopisanie_i_stilistika.academic.ru/57/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;Пункт 7. &quot;Примечание 2&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть наверху блаженства = be in a highly joyful state.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть на верху блаженства = be in at the maximum of joy (better than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before and after).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;These expressions are very closed in Russian, the same mean practically.  &#xD;&#xA;Both cases need joint spell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="f1de6b05-6593-41bc-aa58-8b735a38d60a" CreationDate="2015-07-25T23:45:20.750" UserId="4560" Text="&gt; Some same that it means moving across the surface of an objects, others say it's like a &quot;distributive&quot; property preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means both of these things, and a number of others. What's more, depending on the meaning, it can agree with dative, accusative, or (very rarely) prepositional. The other meanings include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;as far as&quot;/&quot;all the way up to&quot; (accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**с пятого по восьмое апреля** &quot;from 5th till 8th April&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вода была по колено** &quot;the water stood knee-high&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;in&quot; (of disciplines and areas of expertise) (dative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**специалист по сумчатым** &quot;an expert in marsupials&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чемпионат по хоккею** &quot;ice hockey championship&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;after&quot; (residually; this meaning is more pronounced in several other Slavic languages), and hence &quot;based on&quot; (mostly dative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по роману М. А. Булгакова** &quot;based on the novel by M. A. Bulgakov&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**оговорка по Фрейду** &quot;Freudian slip&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по зрелом размышлении** &quot;on serious ('mature') reflection&quot; — this is one of those rare prepositional usages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **по** of **потом** reflects this older meaning of &quot;after&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions generally tend to stray far from their original and literal meanings and develop quite a number of secondary ones, but **по** probably holds the record as Russian prepositions go. It's okay to be baffled by it. And I'm afraid there's really no single meaning of **по** that could give you an &quot;aha!&quot; moment about all the others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9303" RevisionGUID="3b2877f6-7c5d-4360-ba17-4385f77a8abb" CreationDate="2015-07-25T23:54:09.107" UserId="4560" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="&gt; Some same that it means moving across the surface of an objects, others say it's like a &quot;distributive&quot; property preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means both of these things, and a number of others. What's more, depending on the meaning, it can agree with dative, accusative, or (very rarely) prepositional. The other meanings include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;as far as&quot;/&quot;all the way up to&quot; (accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**с пятого по восьмое апреля** &quot;from 5th till 8th April&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вода была по колено** &quot;the water stood knee-high&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;in&quot; (of disciplines and areas of expertise) (dative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**специалист по сумчатым** &quot;an expert in marsupials&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чемпионат по хоккею** &quot;ice hockey championship&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;after&quot; (residually; this meaning is more pronounced in several other Slavic languages), and hence &quot;based on&quot; (mostly dative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по роману М. А. Булгакова** &quot;based on the novel by M. A. Bulgakov&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**оговорка по Фрейду** &quot;Freudian slip&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по зрелом размышлении** &quot;on serious ('mature') reflection&quot; — this is one of those rare prepositional usages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **по** of **потом** reflects this older meaning of &quot;after&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list goes on — you also get highly idiomatic things like **ночевать по друзьям** or **ходить по грибы** — but the ones above are the most common, in addition to the two you mentioned (which I presume you've already got the hang of.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositions generally tend to stray far from their original and literal meanings and develop quite a number of secondary ones, but **по** probably holds the record as Russian prepositions go. It's okay to be baffled by it. And I'm afraid there's really no single meaning of **по** that could give you an &quot;aha!&quot; moment about all the others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="616ece78-6410-44be-9bbe-021c2caf251f" CreationDate="2015-07-26T06:09:49.707" UserId="4714" Text="I'm curious about the word/ending &quot;бо&quot;. For example in the word, ибо, which is basically и + бо with бо meaning потому что, так как итд, а ещё слово &quot;либо&quot; имеет это окончание, но что оно значит? This form seems to match with nothing else in the modern language. In other words its seems completely foreign to me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="616ece78-6410-44be-9bbe-021c2caf251f" CreationDate="2015-07-26T06:09:49.707" UserId="4714" Text="What is the origin of &quot;бо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="616ece78-6410-44be-9bbe-021c2caf251f" CreationDate="2015-07-26T06:09:49.707" UserId="4714" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="f4773f9a-51d6-42d0-aab8-da910fd0b57a" CreationDate="2015-07-26T07:23:04.747" UserId="5008" Text="Quite obvious Либо = ли + бо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бо itself is a (old) preposition which means... well, &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Боянъ бо вещий,&#xD;&#xA;    аще кому хотяше песнь творити,&#xD;&#xA;    то растекашется мыслию по древу,&#xD;&#xA;    серымъ вълкомъ по земли,&#xD;&#xA;    шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all there's to it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="536a6c5c-07c2-4999-9933-59264c001089" CreationDate="2015-07-26T07:41:07.163" UserId="5008" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Quite obvious Либо = ли + бо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бо itself is an old preposition which means... well, &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Боянъ бо вещий,&#xD;&#xA;    аще кому хотяше песнь творити,&#xD;&#xA;    то растекашется мыслию по древу,&#xD;&#xA;    серымъ вълкомъ по земли,&#xD;&#xA;    шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Because wise Boyan,&#xD;&#xA;    If he wanted to praise someone by a song,&#xD;&#xA;    Then with his thoughts he flew by the tree,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey wolf by the land,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey-blue eagle in the clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (&quot;The Tale of Igor's Campaign&quot;, end of the 12th century, author is unknown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all there's to it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9306" RevisionGUID="c7a7ddc2-c162-483c-bca3-8cc923a100bb" CreationDate="2015-07-26T07:48:43.420" UserId="5288" Text="The word `бо` retains its own meaning in Polish [\[bo&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;\]][1] [\[bo&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;\]][2], as a single word:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Бо = потому что = because&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ... не для выигрыша, а так, чтоб только не играть даром, что, по его словам,&#xD;&#xA;                                                           └────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                                            /&#xD;&#xA;                                                           /&#xD;&#xA;     ... nie dla wygranej, byle tylko nie grać za darmo, bo to, jego zdaniem, &#xD;&#xA;                                                    [Пушкин. Капитанская дочка]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  — А потому, что ветер оттоле потянул, ― отвечал дорожный,&#xD;&#xA;     └───────────┘&#xD;&#xA;       /&#xD;&#xA;  — A bo wiatr pociągnął stamtąd — odparł podróżny,&#xD;&#xA;                                                    [там же]&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Polish is interesting at look at in that it retains dozen words, for example, `ся = się` as a single disconnect-able word for its counterpart in Russian [\[3\]][3], in place of Russian suffix `-сь, -ся` in verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Jeśli więc w którymś z późniejszych słowników PWN-owskich łada się znalazła,&#xD;&#xA;                                                                   \&#xD;&#xA;  Даже если в котором в нижеуказанных PWN-овских словарей łada нашлась, &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;At the other side, it has concatenation `мы` in the place of verb, where Russian dropped it [\[4\]][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  znaleźliśmy byli&#xD;&#xA;    _______/&#xD;&#xA;   /&#xD;&#xA;  мы бы нашлись&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, the claim in the beginning is motivated.&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/bo&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/szukaj/bo.html&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/;1816&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/znale%C5%BA%C4%87 &quot; take a look at the table by clicking on [pokaż▼] pozostałe formy &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="586cbf11-c002-41b9-afb2-97bcad63cf06" CreationDate="2015-07-26T07:52:18.130" UserId="5008" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Quite obvious Либо = ли + бо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бо itself is an old preposition which means... well, &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Боянъ бо вѣщий,&#xD;&#xA;    аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити,&#xD;&#xA;    то растѣкашется мысию по древу,&#xD;&#xA;    сѣрымъ вълкомъ по земли,&#xD;&#xA;    шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Because wise Boyan,&#xD;&#xA;    If he wanted to praise someone by a song,&#xD;&#xA;    Then he flew as a squirrel on the tree,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey wolf on the land,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey-blue eagle in the clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (&quot;The Tale of Igor's Campaign&quot;, end of the 12th century, author is unknown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all there's to it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="6bfc2b20-069a-4aff-b599-fa01555f77ae" CreationDate="2015-07-26T07:59:06.847" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="Quite obvious либо = ли + бо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бо itself is an old preposition which means... well, &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Боянъ бо вѣщий,&#xD;&#xA;    аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити,&#xD;&#xA;    то растѣкашется мысию по древу,&#xD;&#xA;    сѣрымъ вълкомъ по земли,&#xD;&#xA;    шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Because wise Boyan,&#xD;&#xA;    If he wanted to praise someone by a song,&#xD;&#xA;    Then he flew as a squirrel on the tree,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey wolf on the land,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey-blue eagle in the clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (&quot;The Tale of Igor's Campaign&quot;, end of the 12th century, author is unknown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all there's to it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="af0324e7-a6a7-4f3d-90ff-12ecca7f4966" CreationDate="2015-07-26T08:13:19.937" UserId="5288" Comment="improved formatting; + the tag [Этимология]" Text="I'm curious about the word/ending &quot;бо&quot;. For example in the word, *ибо,* which is basically *и + бо* with *бо* meaning *потому что, так как итд,* а ещё слово &quot;либо&quot; имеет это окончание, но что оно значит? This form seems to match with nothing else in the modern language. In other words its seems completely foreign to me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="af0324e7-a6a7-4f3d-90ff-12ecca7f4966" CreationDate="2015-07-26T08:13:19.937" UserId="5288" Comment="improved formatting; + the tag [Этимология]" Text="|значения|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="c0083688-b389-4245-888a-f3eafa3525f5" CreationDate="2015-07-26T08:24:14.240" UserId="4560" Text="**Бо** is one of a set of particles that go all the way back to Proto-Slavic, and whose ultimate etymology is obscure; most conjunctions in Slavic languages are made of such particles variously spliced together, and many continue to be used on their own as clitics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting, if a bit vague and meandering, book that specifically addresses the somewhat enigmatic origin of such particles (**бо**, **же**, **ли**, etc.), is *Непарадигматическая лингвистика: История «блуждающих частиц»* by Т.М.Николаева." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9305" RevisionGUID="7cde9c0e-faa5-4110-962c-f87f8502784a" CreationDate="2015-07-26T08:44:46.990" UserId="5008" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Quite obvious либо = ли + бо = or because.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бо itself is an old preposition which means... well, &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Боянъ бо вѣщий,&#xD;&#xA;    аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити,&#xD;&#xA;    то растѣкашется мысию по древу,&#xD;&#xA;    сѣрымъ вълкомъ по земли,&#xD;&#xA;    шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Because wise Boyan,&#xD;&#xA;    If he wanted to praise someone by a song,&#xD;&#xA;    Then he flew as a squirrel on the tree,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey wolf on the land,&#xD;&#xA;    As a grey-blue eagle in the clouds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (&quot;The Tale of Igor's Campaign&quot;, end of the 12th century, author is unknown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all there's to it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="498c8f04-6b6c-443a-9b51-f11e8321c5f6" CreationDate="2015-07-26T08:49:56.527" UserId="4560" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="**Бо** is one of a set of particles that go all the way back to Proto-Slavic, and whose ultimate etymology is obscure; most conjunctions in Slavic languages are made of such particles variously spliced together, and many continue to be used on their own as clitics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about other Slavic languages: curiously, while **бо** universally means &quot;because&quot;/&quot;for&quot; where it occurs on its own, it's also the common denominator of the words for &quot;or&quot; in Ukrainian (**або**), Slovak (**alebo**), and Czech (**nebo**). And, of course, the Russian **либо**. How the two meanings are related is anyone's guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting, if a bit vague and meandering, book that specifically addresses the somewhat enigmatic origin of such particles (**бо**, **же**, **ли**, etc.), is *Непарадигматическая лингвистика: История «блуждающих частиц»* by Т.М.Николаева." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="513307d8-341b-42f1-914d-1ec8eb9ebb7c" CreationDate="2015-07-26T09:05:28.287" UserId="4560" Comment="added 360 characters in body" Text="**Бо** is one of a set of particles that go all the way back to Proto-Slavic, and whose ultimate etymology is obscure; most conjunctions in Slavic languages are made of such particles variously spliced together, and many continue to be used on their own as clitics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about other Slavic languages: curiously, while **бо** universally means &quot;because&quot;/&quot;for&quot; where it occurs on its own, it's also the common denominator of the words for &quot;or&quot; in Ukrainian (**або**), Slovak (**alebo**), and Czech (**nebo**). And, of course, the Russian **либо**. How the two meanings are related is anyone's guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine it possibly starting out as a discoursive particle similar in meaning to the modern colloquial English &quot;you know&quot;, which might explain the divergence into &quot;because&quot; and &quot;or&quot; (think of *Don't start trouble with these guys: they don't mess around, you know* vs. *a car, a truck or, you know, a go-kart*), but that's entirely my own speculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting, if a bit vague and meandering, book that specifically addresses the somewhat enigmatic origin of such particles (**бо**, **же**, **ли**, etc.), is *Непарадигматическая лингвистика: История «блуждающих частиц»* by Т.М.Николаева." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9307" RevisionGUID="b408c327-500e-4a8e-a8f1-093a7a7f3db9" CreationDate="2015-07-26T09:12:29.777" UserId="4560" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**Бо** is one of a set of particles that go all the way back to Proto-Slavic, and whose ultimate etymology is obscure; most conjunctions in Slavic languages are made of such particles variously spliced together, and many continue to be used on their own as clitics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about other Slavic languages: curiously, while **бо** universally means &quot;because&quot;/&quot;for&quot; where it occurs on its own, it's also the common denominator of the words for &quot;or&quot; in Ukrainian (**або**), Slovak (**alebo**), and Czech (**nebo**). And, of course, the Russian **либо**. How the two meanings are related is anyone's guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine it possibly starting out as a discourse particle similar in meaning to the modern colloquial English &quot;you know&quot;, which might explain the divergence into &quot;because&quot; and &quot;or&quot; (think of *Don't start trouble with these guys: they don't mess around, you know* vs. *a car, a truck or, you know, a go-kart*), but that's entirely my own speculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting, if a bit vague and meandering, book that specifically addresses the somewhat enigmatic origin of such particles (**бо**, **же**, **ли**, etc.), is *Непарадигматическая лингвистика: История «блуждающих частиц»* by Т.М.Николаева." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="debaa444-5896-467c-992e-39f588364237" CreationDate="2015-07-26T13:31:09.890" UserId="194" Text="The origin ois the PIE root bhea̯- &quot;to say&quot; (***bhea̯ti*** = &quot;says&quot;). From the same origin are Russian байка, баять, English fate, fame, fabula etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9308" RevisionGUID="7673fa01-d3f9-47f3-ad97-97671f3400ab" CreationDate="2015-07-26T13:36:35.213" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The origin is the PIE root bhea̯- &quot;to say&quot; (***bhea̯ti*** = &quot;says&quot;). From the same origin are Russian байка, баять, English fate, fame, fabula etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="6e6f38ac-b849-4122-815c-272122873115" CreationDate="2015-07-26T23:17:18.877" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm curious about the word/ending &quot;бо&quot;. For example in the word, *ибо,* which is basically *и + бо* with *бо* meaning *потому что, так как итд,* а ещё слово &quot;либо&quot; имеет это окончание, но что оно значит? This form seems to match with nothing else in the modern language. In other words it seems completely foreign to me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9309" RevisionGUID="4b51ecbc-3d79-4eb1-8500-17a9b54596a9" CreationDate="2015-07-26T23:36:19.150" UserId="3892" Text="The best way to look at this pattern is literally (albeit not too idiomatic) &quot;Wherein lies the problem?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in what** (is) (the) **problem**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём ра́зница?** - what's the difference? Lit: In what does the difference lie?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём де́ло?** - What's the matter? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём бе́да?** - What's the harm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём я был непра́в?** - What was I wrong about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="71be150e-e52e-4ed1-a1af-2159679f4eb0" CreationDate="2015-07-27T03:10:17.807" UserId="5801" Text="I still have trouble understanding how I'm supposed to reduce vowels in long words. Because in some words like cвидания, the unstressed &quot;я&quot; becomes /jə/; while in others like языкб, it sounds more like /jɪ/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same happens with &quot;e&quot;, or at least that's what it seems to me. I feel the ones in &quot;телефон&quot; sound more markedly like /jɪ/ than the one in &quot;очень&quot;, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be I'm just wrong? If so, can anybody point out to me what the right pronunciation is for these vowels? спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="71be150e-e52e-4ed1-a1af-2159679f4eb0" CreationDate="2015-07-27T03:10:17.807" UserId="5801" Text="To what vowel are unstressed &quot;е&quot;, &quot;и&quot; and &quot;я&quot; reduced to? Is it an /ɪ/ or an /ə/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="71be150e-e52e-4ed1-a1af-2159679f4eb0" CreationDate="2015-07-27T03:10:17.807" UserId="5801" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9311" RevisionGUID="744f6369-1558-4e43-b474-9005ef486935" CreationDate="2015-07-27T04:47:28.117" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, &quot;я&quot; = &quot;ja&quot; (or &quot;softsign+a&quot;) and it is &quot;A&quot; what we reduce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual reduction of vowels may change from word to word and from speaker to speaker. Much like English-speaking persons have a dozen of different pronunciations for &quot;E&quot;. You may even do not reduce vowels at all, though it's quite an unusual way of talking. That is both &quot;jezyk&quot; and &quot;jizyk&quot; are OK, while &quot;jazyk&quot; sounds like you've just come from some tiny village in Siberian wilderness where the people are as slow as the seasons of the year ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But never ever confuse ja/je/ji with its &quot;simply-soft&quot;-counterpart. That is &quot;t'el'ifon&quot; or &quot;t'il'ifon&quot; are both OK, yet &quot;t'eljifon&quot; is just an epic fail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9310" RevisionGUID="24474447-5555-4db3-9744-b521a55ccede" CreationDate="2015-07-27T09:28:46.927" UserId="551" Comment="Fixed typo, removed spasibo" Text="I still have trouble understanding how I'm supposed to reduce vowels in long words. Because in some words like cвидания, the unstressed &quot;я&quot; becomes /jə/; while in others like язык, it sounds more like /jɪ/. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same happens with &quot;e&quot;, or at least that's what it seems to me. I feel the ones in &quot;телефон&quot; sound more markedly like /jɪ/ than the one in &quot;очень&quot;, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be I'm just wrong? If so, can anybody point out to me what the right pronunciation is for these vowels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9309" RevisionGUID="e6f358e2-28ee-4f8e-9ab4-778acfa7693e" CreationDate="2015-07-27T14:13:19.033" UserId="134" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The best way to look at this pattern is literally (albeit not too idiomatic) &quot;Wherein lies the problem?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **in what** (is) (the) **problem**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём ра́зница?** - what's the difference? Lit: In what does the difference lie?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём де́ло?** - What's the matter? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём беда&amp;#769;?** - What's the harm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В чём я был непра́в?** - What was I wrong about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9295" RevisionGUID="512295c1-404e-4b2a-ac53-aa15dab9bfa5" CreationDate="2015-07-27T14:17:42.573" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body" Text="The others have given good answers, I'll just elaborate a little on *в хмеле / во хмелю*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary prepositional forms in *-у, -ю* (and stressed *-ы, -и* for some declension I nouns), while technically being prepositional, in fact mean locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use these forms when *в* (&quot;in&quot;) or *на* (&quot;on&quot;) means &quot;being there&quot;, literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Предки Грегори Пека видели в лесе препятствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Предки Грегори Пека видели в лесу препятствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both phrases translate verbatim as &quot;saw in forest (prep.) hindrance (acc.)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase means that Gregory Peck's ancestors, the first white settlers in America, treated the forest like a hindrance and burned it to create a patch of arable land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one (constructed by me) means that they were, probably, walking down the forest and saw a hindrance or an obstacle of some kind, maybe a stump or a fallen tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can reword the second phrase as &quot;Gregory Peck's ancestors saw a hindrance *while being* in the forest&quot;, but not the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, we use prepositional proper in the first (*лесе*, not &quot;being&quot;-like), and locative (_лесу_, &quot;being&quot;-like) in the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В «Мосте Ватерлоо» с Вивьен Ли (Успенская) сыграла русскую преподавательницу балетной школы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translates as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ouspenskaya) has played a Russian ballet teacher in &quot;Waterloo Bridge&quot; starring Vivien Leigh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you add &quot;while being&quot; here: the actress played in the film &quot;Waterloo Bridge&quot;, but not &quot;while being&quot; on the actual Waterloo bridge. Hence, prepositional proper (_мосте_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22577" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9304" RevisionGUID="02f022df-3cfd-4b03-b4c7-6c4767861715" CreationDate="2015-07-27T14:36:47.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/625676209276456960" />
  <row Id="22578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="c64803f4-0214-468e-8f91-d4a8fad713fc" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:38:13.103" UserDisplayName="user5802" Text="Good morning,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could somebody please explain me the meaning of the word “подучить”; I studied that the prefix “под” has different meanings; among these,  an action with weak effect (for example  “подправить”, that means correct slightly) or adding something to something (for example “подлить”, that means adding liquid to liquid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked in the dictionaries and I found that “подучить” means studying a little and also the opposite,i.e. improving his own knowledge about some subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, for example, I plan to spend holidays in Spain and I want to learn some Spanish (language that I don’t’ know and never studied before), is correct to use “подучить” or ““подучить” means the opposite, i.e. that I want to study more Spanish in order to improve my knowledge of this language?&#xD;&#xA;I Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="c64803f4-0214-468e-8f91-d4a8fad713fc" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:38:13.103" UserDisplayName="user5802" Text="Meaning of the word &quot;подучить”;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="c64803f4-0214-468e-8f91-d4a8fad713fc" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:38:13.103" UserDisplayName="user5802" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9313" RevisionGUID="77d8d145-f9ba-4b5d-a962-0a33c494cc06" CreationDate="2015-07-27T15:49:07.793" UserId="134" Text="&gt; I checked in the dictionaries and I found that “подучить” means studying a little and also the opposite,i.e. improving his own knowledge about some subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я хочу подучить испанский* implies you already have some knowledge of Spanish __and__ intend to improve it a little bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be wrong to use it if you had no prior knowledge of Spanish whatsoever, you would use *выучить* instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="9fadf3be-c5b8-4b82-8b20-28e11e8fd164" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:20:47.963" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="@Antonio you're right, it is correct to say like that.  It does not necessarily imply adding to something that existed. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подлить масла в огонь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means pour oil onto fire, whether it has been done before or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я еду в Испанию и хочу подучить язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is absolutely correct. This form does not require adding something to something. Natvie speakers won't see any problem in this usage, unless they're interested in languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another user suggested &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; немного поучить испанский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is 100% correct but sounds a bit unambitious, like if one seriously plans not achieving anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9314" RevisionGUID="8ffd0c20-600a-4018-b356-9a19c588f70b" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:28:15.447" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="@Antonio you're right, it is correct to say like that.  It does not necessarily imply adding to something that existed. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подлить масла в огонь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means pour oil onto fire, whether it has been done before or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я еду в Испанию и хочу подучить язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is absolutely correct. This form does not require adding something to something. Natvie speakers won't see any problem in this usage, unless they're interested in languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100% is to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вижу, он работал в поле - подзагорел заметно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I see he worked in the field: he's got a bit of sunburn.* This does not at all mean he had or had not any sunburn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another user suggested &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; немного поучить испанский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is 100% correct but sounds a bit unambitious, like if one seriously plans not achieving anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9299" RevisionGUID="0b18259d-3f72-4733-9c6f-e48cd3553fa1" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:36:49.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/625721514588024832" />
  <row Id="22585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9315" RevisionGUID="81ca8a49-0016-4bf7-b3c5-753ce2abeb97" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:37:26.590" UserId="5605" Text="Значение слова ПОДУЧИТЬ&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь русского языка. Д.Н. Ушаков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подучить&#xD;&#xA;подучу, подучишь, сов. (к подучивать), кого-что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Научить, ОБУЧИТЬ НЕМНОГО чему-нибудь. (разг.). 1. Подучить мальчика столярному делу. Его еще надо подучить, тогда будет хорошим мастером.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заучить, УСВОИТЬ ПОЛУЧШЕ (разг.). Подучить формулу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(несов. также подучать). Научить сделать что-нибудь, подговорить. Он меня подучил сказать дерзость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь русского языка. С.И.Ожегов, Н.Ю.Шведова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подучить&#xD;&#xA;-учу, -учишь; -ученный; сов. (разг.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кого-что. Научить немного чему-нибудь или выучить несколько лучше. Подучить практиканта. Подучить урок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кого (что), с неопр. Подговорить сделать что-нибудь плохое, предосудительное. Подучить солгать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;несов. подучивать, -аю, -аешь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="15d97b7d-2f71-4c1f-8f84-aaf49f18db4f" CreationDate="2015-07-27T18:41:07.720" UserDisplayName="user5802" Comment="Examples of translations " Text="&#xD;&#xA;I thank everybody for the explanations; the question remains, for me, a little complicated.&#xD;&#xA;My doubts were originated by some translations, that follow, I found in an on-line dictionary (I translated the Italian translation into English) &#xD;&#xA;1)она подучила его немецкому языку — gli insegnò un po' di tedesco (he taught him a little German);in this case подучить is translated as learning a little, only the basics of German.&#xD;&#xA;2)Её подучили, она стала медицинской сестрой&quot; (В. Панова) — &quot;Imparò a fare l'infermiera&quot; (V. Panova) (she learned how to work as a nurse); in this case, not knowing all the Russian text, in my opinion the translations could be the following two:&#xD;&#xA;A) somebody taught her the basics in order to allow her to work as a nurse, may be in order to face an emergency situation;&#xD;&#xA;B) she had acquired before a professional experience as a nurse and this experience has been improved by adding something; &#xD;&#xA;3) перед отъездом в Германию он подучился немецкому — prima di andare in Germania imparò un po' di tedesco (before leaving to Germany he learned some German); in this case, as the first, подучить has been translated as learning a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank for every clarification.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="79c0b928-97af-421e-83b8-287a8a1a0e6b" CreationDate="2015-07-27T23:21:36.590" UserId="4560" Text="A claim has [turned up on the Linguistics SE][1] that **двумястами** and other such forms have two stressed syllables. I disagree; `-мя-` seems pre-emphatic to me here, and Wiktionary [is with me on this][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one thing the two-stresses theory may have going for it is that there are no other (standard) examples of pre-emphatic `/a/` failing to reduce to `[ɪ]` after a soft consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I can think of a test, but I'm not sure its result for me would be the same for most people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the test. With words that have a true secondary stress, the following cadence is possible at the end of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;...вагòноремóнтный завóд.&#xD;&#xA;   ___&#xD;&#xA;      \_____&#xD;&#xA;            \_________&#xD;&#xA;                      \_          &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I can only imagine saying something like **двумястами годами** with two pitch drops: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;...двумястами годами.&#xD;&#xA;   _______&#xD;&#xA;          \______&#xD;&#xA;                 \__&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I'm not entirely positive that *no-one ever* would say it with three drops:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;...двумястами годами.&#xD;&#xA;   ____&#xD;&#xA;       \__&#xD;&#xA;          \______&#xD;&#xA;                 \__&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— which would indicate that for this speaker, there is a secondary stress on `-мя-`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this occur? Are there any more arguments for either side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12502/do-any-languages-use-suffixes-to-represent-place-value-in-numbers/12903?noredirect=1#comment34392_12903&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="79c0b928-97af-421e-83b8-287a8a1a0e6b" CreationDate="2015-07-27T23:21:36.590" UserId="4560" Text="Do instrumental forms of numerals like двумястами have secondary stress?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="79c0b928-97af-421e-83b8-287a8a1a0e6b" CreationDate="2015-07-27T23:21:36.590" UserId="4560" Text="|числительные|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="93902535-7bda-41ff-b374-2f87beffa1f3" CreationDate="2015-07-28T01:41:57.113" UserId="134" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I thank everybody for the explanations; the question remains, for me, a little complicated.&#xD;&#xA;My doubts were originated by some translations, that follow, I found in an on-line dictionary (I translated the Italian translation into English) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. она подучила его немецкому языку — gli insegnò un po' di tedesco (he taught him a little German); in this case подучить is translated as learning a little, only the basics of German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Её подучили, она стала медицинской сестрой&quot; (В. Панова) — &quot;Imparò a fare l'infermiera&quot; (V. Panova) (she learned how to work as a nurse); in this case, not knowing all the Russian text, in my opinion the translations could be the following two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  a. somebody taught her the basics in order to allow her to work as a nurse, may be in order to face an emergency situation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; b. she had acquired before a professional experience as a nurse and this experience has been improved by adding something; &#xD;&#xA;3. перед отъездом в Германию он подучился немецкому — prima di andare in Germania imparò un po' di tedesco (before leaving to Germany he learned some German); in this case, as the first, подучить has been translated as learning a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thank for every clarification.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22595" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9312" RevisionGUID="6f33b1b3-e9ec-4f5a-b7f8-108a55bf15d8" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:36:52.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/625948019712786432" />
  <row Id="22598" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9256" RevisionGUID="0138f369-467a-41bc-8b7f-dc74b19f8474" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:38:16.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/625993673591947264" />
  <row Id="22599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="41aebd65-cca6-4bb7-8e68-9013c5ac71be" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:31:28.787" UserId="4903" Text="Согласно толкового словаря [Ушакова](http://www.onlinedics.ru/slovar/ushakov/s/sledujuschij.html) смысл слова &quot;следующий&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ближайший по очереди, первый из долженствующих появиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее если мы говорим о днях недели то мы скорее используем прилагательные &quot;этот&quot; и &quot;следующий&quot; в зависимости от того если мы подразумеваем день на этой неделе или на следующей. Например, если обсуждение происходит 21-го июля (во вторник):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Встретимся в следующий понедельник (имеется в виду 27-е июля, на следующей неделе)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Концерт будет в следующий четверг (имеется в виду 30-е  июля, на следующей неделе)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Приходи вечером, в этот четверг (имеется в виду 23-е июля, на этой неделе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнем примере &quot;четверг&quot;, как раз таки ближайший по очереди.  Это подходит под описание толкового словаря.  Но назвать его &quot;следующим&quot; кажется неестественным. Существует ли правило об использовании слова &quot;следущий&quot; применительно к дням недели?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="41aebd65-cca6-4bb7-8e68-9013c5ac71be" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:31:28.787" UserId="4903" Text="&quot;Следующий понедельник&quot;, &quot;следующий четверг&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="41aebd65-cca6-4bb7-8e68-9013c5ac71be" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:31:28.787" UserId="4903" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|словоприменение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="1c90e4b5-b6c4-4f1f-bba7-51cd0d128caa" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:37:21.803" UserId="3892" Text="In standard Russian pronunciation based on the Moscow dialect, **я** or a consonant ending in -**я**, or one of the soft syllables **ча** or **ща** have the vowel reduced to [ɪ] when they occur directly before the stressed syllable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ча** or **ща**  theoretically represent the sound combinations **чя** and **щя**, yet since **ч** and **щ** are considered inherently soft consonants by their own right, the spelling with -a- is orthographically correct and logical in order to avoid a &quot;double softness&quot; in the spelling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**язы́к** [jɪˈzɨk] **яйцо́**  [jɪjˈʦo] **я́йца** [ˈjajʦɐ] **яи́ц** [jɪˈiʦ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**час** [tʃas] *but* **часо́в** [tʃɪˈsof]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**я́сно** [ˈjasnɐ] *but* **объясни́**  [ɐbjɪsˈɲi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, you can go to [this][1] site and enter any word or word form, and it will indicate the pronunciation with all the correct vowel reductions using the cyrillic phonetic transcription, which is easy enough to understand. Just be sure to choose словоформы in the dropdown next to the search field. Otherwise, you'll just get a list of words that rhyme with your entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru/find" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9321" RevisionGUID="50490c0b-16af-40ef-9751-a53b41de87c4" CreationDate="2015-07-28T14:38:44.187" UserId="5288" Text="The claim of the word being a one-stress-syllable word can be proven/disproved through a process of elimination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In four examples below we will use the leading word, which is familiar to the native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have to pronounce two polysyllabic words exactly in one style making emphatic stress on the accented syllable. Those on the left have one only.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of them sounds pretty understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;бр́омистыми   --&gt;   дв́умястами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пухн́ястыми   --&gt;   двум́ястами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;мест́ами      --&gt;   двумяст́ами        #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;переназов́и   --&gt;   двумястам́и&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the case (#) `дву` starts to be audible as a non-recognized prefix. The `дву` tend to reduce to a something as `ду`, and `мя` to `ми`, in rapid speech contracting upto `дма`.  If we try make it sound more clear and sharp in consonants, we have got clearly two stresses, without going `мя -&gt; ми`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tonally, the most closest pronunciation for `двумястами` will be `двумя перстами`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="9e72668c-2441-4b3d-b3ce-5ebd55745806" CreationDate="2015-07-28T16:07:52.953" UserId="5605" Text="Формального  правила об использовании слова &quot;следующий&quot; применительно к дням недели я не знаю, и не знаю, существует ли оно. Но мы говорим о днях недели так, как Вы написали. Ближайший четверг мы называем &quot;этот четверг&quot;; четверг, который будет через четверг, мы называем &quot;следующий четверг&quot;. А составители словарей и своими формулировками меня тоже иногда сбивают с толку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formal rules about the use of the word &quot;next&quot; in relation to the days of the week I don't know and don't know it is there. But we're talking about days of the week as You wrote. Next Thursday we called &quot;this Thursday&quot;; Thursday, which will be after Thursday, we call &quot;next Thursday&quot;. But the compilers of dictionaries and their wording me too sometimes confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9322" RevisionGUID="9015bb83-7545-41ea-a314-de400ea91531" CreationDate="2015-07-28T16:43:15.890" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Формального  правила об использовании слова &quot;следующий&quot; применительно к дням недели я не знаю, и не знаю, существует ли оно. Но мы говорим о днях недели так, как Вы написали. Ближайший четверг мы называем &quot;этот четверг&quot;; четверг, который будет через четверг, мы называем &quot;следующий четверг&quot;. А составители словарей своими формулировками меня тоже иногда сбивают с толку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formal rules about the use of the word &quot;next&quot; in relation to the days of the week I don't know and don't know it is there. But we're talking about days of the week as You wrote. Next Thursday we called &quot;this Thursday&quot;; Thursday, which will be after Thursday, we call &quot;next Thursday&quot;. But the compilers of dictionaries and their wording me too sometimes confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="2c7c2b90-025f-4fa7-98b9-ea0496b73991" CreationDate="2015-07-28T17:36:08.950" UserId="4379" Comment="Grammar correction" Text="Согласно толковому словарю [Ушакова](http://www.onlinedics.ru/slovar/ushakov/s/sledujuschij.html), смысл слова &quot;следующий&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ближайший по очереди, первый из долженствующих появиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, если мы говорим о днях недели, то мы скорее используем прилагательные &quot;этот&quot; и &quot;следующий&quot; в зависимости от того, подразумеваем ли мы день на этой неделе или на следующей. Например, если обсуждение происходит 21-го июля (во вторник):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Встретимся в следующий понедельник (имеется в виду 27-е июля, на следующей неделе)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Концерт будет в следующий четверг (имеется в виду 30-е  июля, на следующей неделе)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Приходи вечером, в этот четверг (имеется в виду 23-е июля, на этой неделе)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнем примере &quot;четверг&quot; как раз таки ближайший по очереди.  Это подходит под описание толкового словаря.  Но назвать его &quot;следующим&quot; кажется неестественным. Существует ли правило об использовании слова &quot;следущий&quot; применительно к дням недели?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22608" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="2c7c2b90-025f-4fa7-98b9-ea0496b73991" CreationDate="2015-07-28T17:36:08.950" Comment="Proposed by 4379 approved by 5008, 4560 edit id of 655" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="06380b57-eda9-4ea1-9696-e3f7a1840e5f" CreationDate="2015-07-28T17:36:44.013" UserId="5669" Text="I think the closer translation to Italian of (2) will be something between `lei era imparata...` and `lei è stata imparata...`, for me the second looks more natural, but both are acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case `под-` means little effort, doing something easily and usually having some background on the subject. When there is no background experience I'd certainly tell `поучить` or `выучить`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="d74ce9e7-c17b-4fc3-a98c-75ba0949c460" CreationDate="2015-07-28T17:42:50.390" UserId="5669" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I think the closer translation to Italian of (2) will be something between `lei era imparata...` and `lei è stata imparata...`, for me the second looks more natural, but both are acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case `под-` means little effort, doing something easily or slightly and usually having some background on the subject. When there is no background experience I'd certainly tell `поучить` or `выучить`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9323" RevisionGUID="28d005f1-0103-4a5c-9a40-f7dc9e302dce" CreationDate="2015-07-28T19:55:34.200" UserId="5669" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think the closer translation to Italian of (2) will be something between `lei era imparata...` and `lei è stata imparata...`, for me the second looks more natural, but both are acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case `под-` means little effort, doing something easily or slightly and usually having some background on the subject. When there is no background experience I'd certainly use `поучить` or `выучить`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9324" RevisionGUID="d014e9d7-2375-4a1d-acdf-f8ced78b73ad" CreationDate="2015-07-28T21:24:26.230" UserId="5806" Text="I am a Native Russian speaker, and to me Ukrainian is like country to me. And Serbian is as American English is to Jamaican English. The words are there, but not the same. So it really depends on where you live in Russia, and that is what ultimately defines whether or not you can comprehend other Slavic Languages. But, put it this way: there's a lot more people who can understand Ukrainian west of Novgorod." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9325" RevisionGUID="153b6c0a-c135-4bec-9855-a96a50e8dc9e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T23:01:27.170" UserId="5027" Text="There exists a language continuum in Ukraine and Russia, so a person from the Russian South-West (Kuban, Voronezh, etc.) will have general understanding in Eastern Ukraine, but they will definitely understand nothing in Lviv or Uzhgorod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;average Russian&quot; and &quot;average Ukrainian&quot; the communication will be definitely impaired, but still possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9326" RevisionGUID="d606c418-3a51-46b6-aad9-dbbb7a762b09" CreationDate="2015-07-29T00:20:29.497" UserId="4785" Text="Если нужно сказать &quot;новости на японском языке, я их слушаю и понимаю&quot;, то это будет примерно так: &quot;я слушаю новости на японском&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9327" RevisionGUID="6e70ba87-4f68-45c6-a660-93e084bd107e" CreationDate="2015-07-29T01:57:08.547" UserId="1688" Text="To me it seems that the adverbial form a language attaches itself to a verb that represents active use of a language: говорить / читать / писать is equivalent to [I can] speak / read / write по-японски. Слушать (to listen) has a passive connotation: you wouldn't say &quot;I can listen Japanese&quot;, but you could say &quot;I can listen someone speak Japanese&quot; (Я слушаю, как некто говорит по-японски).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could look at it this way: &quot;по-японски&quot; means &quot;in a Japanese manner&quot;, so you could speak or write &quot;in a Japanese manner&quot;, but you would not listen &quot;in a Japanese manner&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9328" RevisionGUID="7802686d-727b-4ca5-ac76-1cb70335a78d" CreationDate="2015-07-29T10:57:24.223" UserId="194" Text="подучить meant to improve knowledge of something to a certain pre-determined level from a lesser level (but not completely learn). I.e. to approach the pre-determined level from below (thus the preposition под).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. ------ perfect level&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. ------ planned level&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    3. ------ current level&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    4. ------ no knowlwdge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to approach 2 from 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="77b7b7b9-65f5-4f86-9d19-e7e4a5224ed5" CreationDate="2015-07-29T11:45:59.523" UserId="5443" Text="Думаю, что &quot;следующий&quot; по отношению к дням недели мы применяем к наименованию дня не напрямую, а косвенно - через понятие &quot;**следующая неделя**&quot;, которой этот день всецело принадлежит. Это связано с тем, что подсознательно мы и в прочих случаях не отмеряем время количеством четвергов или понедельников (в отличие от &quot;количества недель&quot;), а ориентируемся с помощью этих наименований только внутри недели. Строго говоря, для однозначности сначала нужно обозначить, на какой это неделе и только после этого - в какой день обозначенной недели. Выражение &quot;следующий четверг&quot; сокращённо выполняет именно эту функцию. Поэтому &quot;**следующий четверг**&quot; - это **четверг следущей недели** (той, которая начнётся по окончании текущей). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;этот&quot; - необязательное уточнение: если мы говорим &quot;в четверг&quot; в явном контексте будущего (состоится то-то и пр.), то упомянутый четверг относится к текущей неделе. Контекст будущего делает иногда уместным и указание на день следующей недели без уточнения &quot;следующий&quot;: в конце недели мы можем сказать, например, что &quot;в понедельник я пойду к врачу&quot;, и это будет однозначно понято собеседником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понятие &quot;ближайший четверг (понедельник)&quot; характерно для ссылки на мероприятия, происходящие по расписанию в определённый день недели. Такая ссылка может косвенно указывать на &quot;следующее&quot; по очерёдности мероприятие, которое состоится на текущей, либо на следующей неделе - в зависимости от того, до или после четверга текущей недели это говорится (если в четверг, то нужно говорить &quot;в следующий&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="05cee34a-1cdb-4476-82d8-c90b0baba114" CreationDate="2015-07-29T11:56:16.920" UserId="5443" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="Думаю, что &quot;следующий&quot; по отношению к дням недели мы применяем к наименованию дня не напрямую, а косвенно - через понятие &quot;**следующая неделя**&quot;, которой этот день всецело принадлежит. Это связано с тем, что подсознательно мы и в прочих случаях не отмеряем время количеством четвергов или понедельников (в отличие от &quot;количества недель&quot;), а ориентируемся с помощью этих наименований только внутри недели. Строго говоря, для однозначности сначала нужно обозначить, на какой это неделе и только после этого - в какой день обозначенной недели. Выражение &quot;следующий четверг&quot; сокращённо выполняет именно эту функцию. Поэтому &quot;**следующий четверг**&quot; - это **четверг следущей недели** (той, которая начнётся по окончании текущей). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;этот&quot; - необязательное уточнение: если мы говорим &quot;в четверг&quot; в явном контексте будущего (состоится то-то и пр.), то упомянутый четверг относится к текущей неделе. Контекст будущего делает иногда уместным и указание на день следующей недели без уточнения &quot;следующий&quot;: в конце недели мы можем сказать, например, что &quot;в понедельник я пойду к врачу&quot;, и это будет однозначно понято собеседником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понятие &quot;ближайший четверг (понедельник)&quot; характерно для ссылки на мероприятия, происходящие по расписанию в определённый день недели. Такая ссылка может косвенно указывать на &quot;следующее&quot; по очерёдности мероприятие, которое состоится на текущей, либо на следующей неделе - в зависимости от того, до или после четверга текущей недели это говорится (если в четверг, то нужно говорить &quot;в следующий&quot;). Кроме того, &quot;ближайшим&quot; четверг можно указать относительно какой-либо даты или события в будущем - в соотв. контексте (напр. &quot;в ближайший к дате его приезда четверг он сможет попасть к этому врачу&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9320" RevisionGUID="a1910039-86d8-4e0a-ae51-d29e08978ddc" CreationDate="2015-07-29T12:04:20.853" UserId="3892" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In standard Russian pronunciation based on the Moscow dialect, **я** or a consonant ending in -**я**, or one of the soft syllables **ча** or **ща** have the vowel reduced to [ɪ] when they occur **directly before the stressed syllable**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ча** or **ща**  theoretically represent the sound combinations **чя** and **щя**, yet since **ч** and **щ** are considered inherently soft consonants by their own right, the spelling with -a- is orthographically correct and logical in order to avoid a &quot;double softness&quot; in the spelling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**язы́к** [jɪˈzɨk] **яйцо́**  [jɪjˈʦo] **я́йца** [ˈjajʦɐ] **яи́ц** [jɪˈiʦ] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**час** [tʃas] *but* **часо́в** [tʃɪˈsof]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**я́сно** [ˈjasnɐ] *but* **объясни́**  [ɐbjɪsˈɲi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, you can go to [this][1] site and enter any word or word form, and it will indicate the pronunciation with all the correct vowel reductions using the cyrillic phonetic transcription, which is easy enough to understand. Just be sure to choose словоформы in the dropdown next to the search field. Otherwise, you'll just get a list of words that rhyme with your entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru/find" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9329" RevisionGUID="a5ed946e-19b8-4f07-8f05-be58a586c4be" CreationDate="2015-07-29T12:12:25.843" UserId="5443" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Думаю, что &quot;следующий&quot; по отношению к дням недели мы применяем к наименованию дня не напрямую, а косвенно - через понятие &quot;**следующая неделя**&quot;, которой этот день всецело принадлежит. Это связано с тем, что подсознательно мы и в прочих случаях не отмеряем время количеством четвергов или понедельников (в отличие от &quot;количества недель&quot;), а ориентируемся с помощью этих наименований только внутри недели. Строго говоря, для однозначности сначала нужно обозначить, на какой это неделе и только после этого - в какой день обозначенной недели. Выражение &quot;следующий четверг&quot; сокращённо выполняет именно эту функцию. Поэтому &quot;**следующий четверг**&quot; - это **четверг следущей недели** (той, которая начнётся по окончании текущей). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;этот&quot;, однозначно относящее названный день к текущей неделе - необязательное уточнение: если мы говорим &quot;в четверг&quot; в явном контексте будущего (состоится то-то и пр.), то упомянутый четверг относится к текущей неделе. Можно сказать аналогично и о прошедшем событии текущей недели (&quot;в четверг был дождь&quot;). Контекст будущего делает иногда уместным и указание на день следующей недели без уточнения &quot;следующий&quot;: в конце недели мы можем сказать, например, что &quot;в понедельник я пойду к врачу&quot;, и это будет однозначно понято собеседником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понятие &quot;ближайший четверг (понедельник)&quot; характерно для ссылки на мероприятия, происходящие по расписанию в определённый день недели. Такая ссылка может косвенно указывать на &quot;следующее&quot; по очерёдности мероприятие, которое состоится на текущей, либо на следующей неделе - в зависимости от того, до или после четверга текущей недели это говорится (если в четверг, то нужно говорить &quot;в следующий&quot;). Кроме того, &quot;ближайшим&quot; четверг можно указать относительно какой-либо даты или события в будущем - в соотв. контексте (напр. &quot;в ближайший к дате его приезда четверг он сможет попасть к этому врачу&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9330" RevisionGUID="e14bdc58-f9d8-43a8-81cd-4074b1fce957" CreationDate="2015-07-29T12:55:38.447" UserId="185" Text="Мне кажется, что у глаголов &quot;глядеть&quot; и &quot;смотреть&quot; есть общее значение, но каждый из них обладает еще и другими значениями. Например, можно сказать &quot;смотреть кино&quot;, но нельзя &quot;глядеть кино&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я часто, смотря кино, отмечаю про себя несоответствия между характерами персонажей и их поведением.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой стороны, можно сказать &quot;дерево (луч солнца) глядит в окошко&quot;, но нельзя - &quot;дерево смотрит в окошко&quot;. Наверняка есть пример с деепричастием у какого-нибудь Пастернака, там у него постоянно намокшие воробушком сиреневые ветви куда-нибудь глядят. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для супплетивов, насколько я понимаю, необходима идентичность лексических значений, они могут отличаться только грамматически. В случае с &quot;глядеть&quot; и &quot;смотреть&quot; есть разница в лексическом значении. Значит, не получается считать деепричастие &quot;глядя&quot; супплетивной формой глагола &quot;смотреть&quot;. Хотя, конечно, идея увлекательная." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="be836cb2-03f2-4d3e-bf7f-ce2a35e084fe" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:02:55.657" UserId="5810" Text="I am attempting to translate the sentance *is but an image* from Fausts Chorus Mysticus. So far I have *это но кония* but I am wondering if it should be just *но копия* as the literal translation of the first sentance is *it is but an image*. How should the sentance be written? Does the meaning of *ето* change depending on the context in which it is used so as to effectivey be a Russian equivalent of *is*? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="be836cb2-03f2-4d3e-bf7f-ce2a35e084fe" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:02:55.657" UserId="5810" Text="Is there no direct translation for IS in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="be836cb2-03f2-4d3e-bf7f-ce2a35e084fe" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:02:55.657" UserId="5810" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9331" RevisionGUID="65f97a81-19f1-4ec6-b298-a7992f288229" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:16:46.997" UserId="4560" Comment="edited body" Text="I am attempting to translate the sentance *is but an image* from Fausts Chorus Mysticus. So far I have *это но копия* but I am wondering if it should be just *но копия* as the literal translation of the first sentance is *it is but an image*. How should the sentance be written? Does the meaning of *это* change depending on the context in which it is used so as to effectivey be a Russian equivalent of *is*? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9332" RevisionGUID="76907b25-2799-4f42-926a-e199199051ed" CreationDate="2015-07-29T21:32:56.693" UserId="4560" Text="First of all, **но** is just the &quot;but&quot; as in &quot;however&quot;. &quot;But&quot; as in &quot;only&quot; is **лишь** (and &quot;but&quot; as in &quot;not X but Y&quot; is **а**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the exact phrase, you may not even need the **это**. Or even the dash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact equivalent of *is* is **есть**, but it's mostly used to say &quot;*there* is&quot;. It's the same for all persons and numbers in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, just in case, beware of **суть**; most Russian speakers nowadays use it incorrectly, mistaking it for some super-bookish equivalent of **есть**; in fact, it's merely its obsolete plural form (&quot;they are&quot;), and a sad case of a bastardised archaism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="592b3c44-23e1-4148-aeed-a0775078c945" CreationDate="2015-07-30T05:12:21.253" UserId="5008" Text="This is quite strange to translate English translation(!) into Russian, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Deutsch this excerpt sounds like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Alles Vergängliche&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ist nur ein Gleichnis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is &quot;All the transient is only similitude&quot;. And in Russian: &quot;Всё преходящее есть только иносказание&quot;. In Pasternak's translation: &quot;Всё быстротечное - символ, сравненье&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the use to translate &quot;is but an image&quot;? If it stood completely without context I'd translate it as: &quot;есть только образ&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="57a6416a-2194-45f4-8ba3-bc6fc9136c57" CreationDate="2015-07-30T21:10:46.657" UserId="1556" Text="I'm not sure that this is exactly a Russian language question as technology and languages, but...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for the Cyrillic spelling of &quot;Vladyka&quot;, and the Google Translate iPhone app doesn't offer the full web translate.google.com app option of typing something in Latin characters and get help spelling it in Cyrillic. So I tried &quot;English to Russian&quot; in the app, which seems much less rich than the desktop translate.google.com, and then completely failed to find a preimage that would render as &quot;Владыка.&quot; &quot;Bishop&quot; was translated as &quot;епископ&quot;, and I was pretty sure &quot;lord&quot; was going to translate as &quot;господин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of general strategies, what can / should I be doing to identify correct spelling when I only have a smartphone, not a desktop? (Type it in a Google search?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="57a6416a-2194-45f4-8ba3-bc6fc9136c57" CreationDate="2015-07-30T21:10:46.657" UserId="1556" Text="How could I have gotten the Cyrillic spelling of Vladyka?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9335" RevisionGUID="57a6416a-2194-45f4-8ba3-bc6fc9136c57" CreationDate="2015-07-30T21:10:46.657" UserId="1556" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22636" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9319" RevisionGUID="f639d697-d9d7-460b-86a2-d5d1a099246d" CreationDate="2015-07-31T02:43:43.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/626946313209389057" />
  <row Id="22638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9289" RevisionGUID="39da2f8f-7e43-4944-9fb4-d7f85f21986a" CreationDate="2015-07-31T14:43:40.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/627127494039224320" />
  <row Id="22639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9337" RevisionGUID="62c02ff6-f1e9-4efd-8e5b-a05db7e5165f" CreationDate="2015-07-31T20:47:51.327" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="First, you can install a Russian dictionary in keyboard apps (at least in Android there's plenty of them), and it contains most of the language, except neologisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a transliterated Russian word, there are Russian&lt;-&gt;Translit (транслит) services:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* live translation (write in translit, see in Russian): http://translit.cc/ **(with spellchecking)**&#xD;&#xA;* another useful site: http://pereklad.online.ua/translit-russkiy/&#xD;&#xA;* quite old and ugly one: http://www.russpain.ru/translit-avtomat.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="876f2ac8-dc4b-4537-a7e1-ac4e904aa01c" CreationDate="2015-08-01T04:55:55.607" UserId="4714" Text="Here are a few sentences, for which I do not understand why &quot;его&quot; и &quot;ее&quot; do not have the letter &quot;Н&quot; before them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;... для этого нам надо играть по ее правилам.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;На его месте должен был быть я.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why don't these take the letter &quot;н&quot;—нём, ней? and why aren't they in the same case as the next word? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thanks)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="876f2ac8-dc4b-4537-a7e1-ac4e904aa01c" CreationDate="2015-08-01T04:55:55.607" UserId="4714" Text="Correct use of &quot;его, ее&quot; after preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9338" RevisionGUID="876f2ac8-dc4b-4537-a7e1-ac4e904aa01c" CreationDate="2015-08-01T04:55:55.607" UserId="4714" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="e0f00892-9dbb-43d5-9e72-b0fd48d6c54d" CreationDate="2015-08-01T06:37:50.403" UserId="2388" Text="Fairly easy here. **Его** and **её** only take initial «н» as pronouns in Genitive case. When you have possessive adjective pronouns «его» and «её», no «н» is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, of course, these possessive adjectives (его, её, их) originate from the Genitive case of the corresponding pronouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, you can consider the initial «н» a sure sign that the preposition really refers to the pronoun (remember that not all preposition require it!) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я от неё писем не получал. → «от» refers to some «она» (&quot;I haven't received any letters from her&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Я от её писем уже устал. → «от» is a preposition before «писем», and «её» is a possessive adjective that got between them (&quot;I am tired of her letters already&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="c378813b-3c68-4c1a-a076-9f375ec5b90a" CreationDate="2015-08-01T06:39:09.227" UserId="5288" Text="Нём (себе/мне/ней/них/нас) -- is pronoun in place of a noun. Hence, it has the meanings of the noun in  lexical and grammatical sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его (свой/моё/её/их/наше) -- is purely possessive pronoun, as the attribute to the marking who else's.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  для   этого   нам    надо  играть  по  ее  правилам&#xD;&#xA;  for   this  we_have  must  to_play by  her  rules &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;that is what we must play by her rules&quot;&#xD;&#xA;                   or &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;for that we must play by her rules&quot;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;   На  его  месте  должен  был  быть  я   &#xD;&#xA;   On  his  place   must   was  to_be I&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;I ought myself to be on his place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Our   teacher   is   teach-ing   Russian     to  us.&#xD;&#xA;   Наш   учитель    •   учить-щий  русский-ому  •   нам.&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;Наш учитель учит нас русскому (языку)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9340" RevisionGUID="7e2dbb8b-8589-4416-8cd5-7ae8afa1eba1" CreationDate="2015-08-01T06:44:29.650" UserId="5288" Comment="edited body" Text="Нём (себе/мне/ней/них/нас) -- is pronoun in place of a noun. Hence, it has the meanings of the noun in  lexical and grammatical sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его (свой/моё/её/их/наше) -- is purely possessive pronoun, as the attribute to the marking who else's.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  для   этого   нам    надо  играть  по  ее  правилам&#xD;&#xA;  for   this  we_have  must  to_play by  her  rules &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;that is what we must play by her rules&quot;&#xD;&#xA;                   or &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;for that we must play by her rules&quot;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;   На  его  месте  должен  был  быть  я   &#xD;&#xA;   On  his  place   must   was  to_be I&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;I ought myself to be on his place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Our   teacher   is   teach-ing   Russian     to  us.&#xD;&#xA;   Наш   учитель    •   учить-щий  русский-ому  •   наc.&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;Наш учитель учит нас русскому (языку)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9341" RevisionGUID="ebe9b0f0-7e9f-480e-8307-0ebfeca4ff12" CreationDate="2015-08-01T08:17:25.767" UserId="5008" Text="Well, that's quite an interesting question. But to say how the tenses correspond to each other we must first know what they really mean in both languages. And this is where we may fail as everyone knows well at most only one language. But let's try anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English __Continuous__ tense means: &quot;I'd like to point out that some action is still in progress&quot;. It is always to be translated into Russian __Imperfective__... but _not vice versa_! Because Russian Imperfective really means: &quot;Action is not completed&quot;. Sure, if something &quot;is in progress&quot; it is not completed, but it _may_ be uncompleted and no progressing at all. (And even worse, English speakers use Continuous tense only when they _wish_ to say that the action is in progress, so Continuous tense is used relatively rare compared to Indefinite one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus we have so far&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was eating pizza when you arrived ---&gt; Когда ты пришёл, я ел пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am eating pizza right now ---&gt; Прямо сейчас я ем пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be eating pizza when you arrive ---&gt; Когда ты придёшь, я буду есть пиццу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I put &quot;when&quot; and &quot;right now&quot; in the start of Russian sentences as these words are now the only &quot;containers&quot; of that &quot;continuous&quot; meaning - so usually it's a good idea to say them early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to __Perfect__ tense. It's like a &quot;mirror&quot; for Continuous tense: &quot;I'd like to point out that some action is completed&quot;. It nicely fits into Russian __Perfective__, yet, again, _not vice versa_ as there's no &quot;I'd like to&quot; in Russian Perfective: it means &quot;simply finished&quot; and nothing more. (Now you should understand why Russians use English Present Perfect tense so often: they think in terms of Russian Perfective, and everything which is &quot;simply finished&quot; sadly becomes &quot;has been finished&quot; in that &quot;Russian&quot; English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had eaten all of the pizza when you arrived ---&gt; Когда ты пришёл, я уже съел всю пиццу (or maybe Я съел всю пиццу, пока ты шёл)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have eaten all of the pizza ---&gt; Я съел всю пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have eaten all of the pizza by the time you arrive ---&gt; Я съем всю пиццу, пока ты придёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes again. Translating English Perfect into Russian Perfective is a pain. The sentence &quot;Я съел всю пиццу, когда ты пришёл&quot; has no sense as it may mean both(!) &quot;before&quot; and &quot;together&quot;. That's quite natural because both &quot;съел&quot; and &quot;пришёл&quot; are Perfective and there's no magic default rule of the verb agreement. So we desperately need some extra mark such as &quot;уже&quot; (already) or &quot;пока&quot; (while).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, __Perfect Continuous__ tense. For my Russian mind it looks like &quot;помесь ежа и ужа&quot; (the hybrid of hedgehog and natrix). It means &quot;the action is partially completed yet still in progress&quot;. What's more important here? Of course, the progress is (and thence the fact the action is not yet completed). So Russians use __Imperfective__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been eating pizza for two hours when you arrived ---&gt; Я уже два часа ел пиццу, когда ты пришёл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have been eating pizza for two hours ---&gt; Я ем пиццу уже два часа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have been eating pizza for two hours when you arrive -&gt; Я уже два часа буду есть пиццу, когда ты придёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize that &quot;Perfect tense&quot; I have to use the word &quot;уже&quot; (already). The &quot;Continuous&quot; tense is expressed by Imperfective itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now we finally arrive to __Simple__ tense. What does it mean in English? There are two main cases when people use Simple tense: either it's the gap between Continuous and Perfect, i.e. the action is neither completed nor is progressing, or simply they don't care to have all the setup with words &quot;after&quot;, &quot;before&quot;, &quot;as&quot;, &quot;while&quot; etc. etc. Yet those cases may be totally different! Consider &quot;Yesterday I ate some pizza at McDonald's&quot; vs the following dramatic dialogue: &quot;Hey, man! Where's my pizza?&quot; - &quot;Sorry, dude. I ate the pizza yesterday&quot;. In the first example you can't use either Continuous or Perfect as you're not eating the pizza right now nor you mean you've finished all that big yummy pizza a whole. That's a job for Russian __Imperfective__ as it doesn't require the actual progress in eating pizzas. Only the uncompleteness is enough (if you really mean you finished it you may use Perfective, and probably along with the word &quot;piece&quot;, unless you're a true gourmand: &quot;Вчера я съел кусок пиццы&quot;). Yet in the second example, surely, that terrible crime was fully committed and the poor pizza now is in your inside. And there's nothing left in the refrigerator for the hungry friend of yours. Just you're too lazy to explain to him whether you've finished it by yesterday breakfast or by yesterday lunch. And that's a job for Russian __Perfective__ as it's not interested in the fine timings but only in the final results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ate pizza yesterday ---&gt; either &quot;Я ел пиццу вчера&quot; or &quot;Я съел пиццу вчера&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I eat pizza everyday ---&gt; Я ем пиццу каждый день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will eat pizza tomorrow ---&gt; either &quot;Завтра я буду есть пиццу&quot; or &quot;Я съем пиццу завтра&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that unlike Past or Future the Simple Present tense translates only into Imperfective as there can't be a completed result in the Present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this correspondence is no way complete, I hope even in this state it could be of some use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9341" RevisionGUID="033ba9dd-60ca-4fcd-b3ba-17ced1a090f6" CreationDate="2015-08-01T08:34:30.267" UserId="5008" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Well, that's quite an interesting question. But to say how the tenses correspond to each other we must first know what they really mean in both languages. And this is where we may fail as everyone knows well at most only one language. But let's try anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English __Continuous__ tense means: &quot;I'd like to point out that some action is still in progress&quot;. It is always to be translated into Russian __Imperfective__... but _not vice versa_! Because Russian Imperfective really means: &quot;Action is not completed&quot;. Sure, if something &quot;is in progress&quot; it is not completed, but it _may_ be uncompleted and no progressing at all. (And even worse, English speakers use Continuous tense only when they _wish_ to say that the action is in progress, so Continuous tense is used relatively rare compared to Indefinite one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus we have so far&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was eating pizza when you arrived ---&gt; Когда ты пришёл, я ел пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am eating pizza right now ---&gt; Прямо сейчас я ем пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be eating pizza when you arrive ---&gt; Когда ты придёшь, я буду есть пиццу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I put &quot;when&quot; and &quot;right now&quot; in the start of Russian sentences as these words are now the only &quot;containers&quot; of that &quot;continuous&quot; meaning - so usually it's a good idea to say them early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to __Perfect__ tense. It's like a &quot;mirror&quot; for Continuous tense: &quot;I'd like to point out that some action is completed&quot;. It nicely fits into Russian __Perfective__, yet, again, _not vice versa_ as there's no &quot;I'd like to&quot; in Russian Perfective: it means &quot;simply finished&quot; and nothing more. (Now you should understand why Russians use English Present Perfect tense so often: they think in terms of Russian Perfective, and everything which is &quot;simply finished&quot; sadly becomes &quot;has been finished&quot; in that &quot;Russian&quot; English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had eaten all of the pizza when you arrived ---&gt; Когда ты пришёл, я уже съел всю пиццу (or maybe Я съел всю пиццу, пока ты шёл)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have eaten all of the pizza ---&gt; Я съел всю пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have eaten all of the pizza by the time you arrive ---&gt; Я съем всю пиццу, пока ты придёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes again. Translating English Perfect into Russian Perfective is a pain. The sentence &quot;Я съел всю пиццу, когда ты пришёл&quot; has no sense as it may mean both(!) &quot;before&quot; and &quot;together&quot;. That's quite natural because both &quot;съел&quot; and &quot;пришёл&quot; are Perfective and there's no magic default rule of the verb agreement. So we desperately need some extra mark such as &quot;уже&quot; (already) or &quot;пока&quot; (while).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, __Perfect Continuous__ tense. For my Russian mind it looks like &quot;помесь ежа и ужа&quot; (the hybrid of hedgehog and natrix). It means &quot;the action is partially completed yet still in progress&quot;. What's more important here? Of course, the progress is (and thence the fact the action is not yet completed). So Russians use __Imperfective__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been eating pizza for two hours when you arrived ---&gt; Я уже два часа ел пиццу, когда ты пришёл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have been eating pizza for two hours ---&gt; Я ем пиццу уже два часа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have been eating pizza for two hours when you arrive -&gt; Я уже два часа буду есть пиццу, когда ты придёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize that &quot;Perfect tense&quot; I have to use the word &quot;уже&quot; (already). The &quot;Continuous&quot; tense is expressed by Imperfective itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now we finally arrive to __Simple__ tense. What does it mean in English? There are two main cases when people use Simple tense: either it's the gap between Continuous and Perfect, i.e. the action is neither completed nor is progressing, or simply they don't care to have all the setup with words &quot;after&quot;, &quot;before&quot;, &quot;as&quot;, &quot;while&quot; etc. etc. Yet those cases may be totally different! Consider &quot;Yesterday I ate some pizza at McDonald's&quot; vs the following dramatic dialogue: &quot;Hey, man! Where's my pizza?&quot; - &quot;Sorry, dude. I ate the pizza yesterday&quot;. In the first example you can't use either Continuous or Perfect as you're not eating the pizza right now nor you mean you've finished all that big yummy pizza a whole. That's a job for Russian __Imperfective__ as it doesn't require the actual progress in eating pizzas. Only the uncompleteness is enough (if you really mean you finished it you may use Perfective, and probably along with the word &quot;piece&quot;, unless you're a true gourmand: &quot;Вчера я съел кусок пиццы&quot;). Yet in the second example, surely, that terrible crime was fully committed and the poor pizza now is in your inside. And there's nothing left in the refrigerator for the hungry friend of yours. Just you're too lazy to explain to him whether you'd finished it by yesterday breakfast or by yesterday lunch. And that's a job for Russian __Perfective__ as it's not interested in the fine timings but only in the final results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ate pizza yesterday ---&gt; either &quot;Я ел пиццу вчера&quot; (just to inform of my menu) or &quot;Я съел пиццу вчера&quot; (and nothing left of it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I eat pizza everyday ---&gt; Я ем пиццу каждый день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will eat pizza tomorrow ---&gt; either &quot;Завтра я буду есть пиццу&quot; (just planning my menu) or &quot;Я съем пиццу завтра&quot; (gonna eat this pizza tomorrow)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that unlike Past or Future the Simple Present tense translates only into Imperfective as there can't be a completed result in the Present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this correspondence is no way complete, I hope even in this state it could be of some use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9341" RevisionGUID="69259184-a009-4e96-9aa9-250fe019148a" CreationDate="2015-08-01T08:43:48.807" UserId="5008" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Well, that's quite an interesting question. But to say how the tenses correspond to each other we must first know what they really mean in both languages. And this is where we may fail as everyone knows well at most only one language. But let's try anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English __Continuous__ tense means: &quot;I'd like to point out that some action is still in progress&quot;. It is always to be translated into Russian __Imperfective__... but _not vice versa_! Because Russian Imperfective really means: &quot;Action is not completed&quot;. Sure, if something &quot;is in progress&quot; it is not completed, but it _may_ be uncompleted and no progressing at all. (And even worse, English speakers use Continuous tense only when they _wish_ to say that the action is in progress, so Continuous tense is used relatively rare compared to Indefinite one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus we have so far&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was eating pizza when you arrived ---&gt; Когда ты пришёл, я ел пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am eating pizza right now ---&gt; Прямо сейчас я ем пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will be eating pizza when you arrive ---&gt; Когда ты придёшь, я буду есть пиццу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I put &quot;when&quot; and &quot;right now&quot; in the start of Russian sentences as these words are now the only &quot;containers&quot; of that &quot;continuous&quot; meaning, so usually it's a good idea to say them early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to __Perfect__ tense. It's like a &quot;mirror&quot; for Continuous tense: &quot;I'd like to point out that some action is completed&quot;. It nicely fits into Russian __Perfective__, yet, again, _not vice versa_ as there's no &quot;I'd like to&quot; in Russian Perfective: it means &quot;simply finished&quot; and nothing more. (Now you should understand why Russians use English Present Perfect tense so often: they think in terms of Russian Perfective, and everything which is &quot;simply finished&quot; sadly becomes &quot;has been finished&quot; in that &quot;Russian&quot; English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had eaten all of the pizza when you arrived ---&gt; Когда ты пришёл, я уже съел всю пиццу (or maybe Я съел всю пиццу, пока ты шёл)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have eaten all of the pizza ---&gt; Я съел всю пиццу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have eaten all of the pizza by the time you arrive ---&gt; Я съем всю пиццу, пока ты придёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes again. Translating English Perfect into Russian Perfective is a pain. The sentence &quot;Я съел всю пиццу, когда ты пришёл&quot; has no sense as it may mean both(!) &quot;before&quot; and &quot;together&quot;. That's quite natural because both &quot;съел&quot; and &quot;пришёл&quot; are Perfective and there's no magic default rule of the verb agreement. So we desperately need some extra mark such as &quot;уже&quot; (already) or &quot;пока&quot; (while).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, __Perfect Continuous__ tense. For my Russian mind it looks like &quot;помесь ежа и ужа&quot; (the hybrid of hedgehog and natrix). It means &quot;the action is partially completed yet still in progress&quot;. What's more important here? Of course, the progress is (and thence the fact the action is not yet completed). So Russians use __Imperfective__.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I had been eating pizza for two hours when you arrived ---&gt; Я уже два часа ел пиццу, когда ты пришёл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have been eating pizza for two hours ---&gt; Я ем пиццу уже два часа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will have been eating pizza for two hours when you arrive -&gt; Я уже два часа буду есть пиццу, когда ты придёшь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To emphasize that &quot;Perfect tense&quot; I have to use the word &quot;уже&quot; (already). The &quot;Continuous&quot; tense is expressed by Imperfective itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now we finally got to __Simple__ tense. What does it mean in English? There are two main cases when people use Simple tense: either it's the gap between Continuous and Perfect, i.e. the action is neither completed nor is progressing, or simply they don't care to have all the setup with words &quot;after&quot;, &quot;before&quot;, &quot;as&quot;, &quot;while&quot; etc. etc. Yet those cases may be totally different! Consider &quot;Yesterday I ate some pizza at McDonald's&quot; vs the following dramatic dialogue: &quot;Hey, man! Where's my pizza?&quot; - &quot;Sorry, dude. I ate the pizza yesterday&quot;. In the first example you can't use either Continuous or Perfect as you're not eating the pizza right now nor you mean you've finished all that big yummy pizza a whole. That's a job for Russian __Imperfective__ as it doesn't require the actual progress in eating pizzas. Only the uncompleteness is enough for it (but if you really mean you finished your pizza you may use Perfective, and probably along with the word &quot;piece&quot;, unless you're a true gourmand: &quot;Вчера я съел кусок пиццы&quot;). Yet in the second example, surely, that terrible crime was fully committed and the poor pizza now is in your inside. And there's nothing left in the refrigerator for the hungry friend of yours. Just you're too lazy to explain to him whether you'd finished it by yesterday breakfast or by yesterday lunch. And that's a job for Russian __Perfective__ as it's not interested in the fine timings but only in the final results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I ate pizza yesterday ---&gt; either &quot;Я ел пиццу вчера&quot; (just to inform of my menu) or &quot;Я съел пиццу вчера&quot; (and nothing left of it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I eat pizza everyday ---&gt; Я ем пиццу каждый день&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will eat pizza tomorrow ---&gt; either &quot;Завтра я буду есть пиццу&quot; (just planning my menu) or &quot;Я съем пиццу завтра&quot; (gonna finish this pizza tomorrow)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that unlike Past or Future the Simple Present tense translates only into Imperfective as there can't be a completed result in the Present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this correspondence is no way complete, I hope even in this state it could be of some use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9334" RevisionGUID="ef3273fb-b9e8-4fcc-aa83-aca7ab8bcc42" CreationDate="2015-08-01T10:27:41.840" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="This is quite strange to translate English translation(!) into Russian, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Deutsch this excerpt sounds like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Alles Vergängliche&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ist nur ein Gleichnis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is &quot;All the transient is only similitude&quot;. And in Russian: &quot;Всё преходящее есть только подобие&quot;. In Pasternak's translation: &quot;Всё быстротечное - символ, сравненье&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the use to translate &quot;is but an image&quot;? If it stood completely without context I'd translate it as: &quot;есть только образ&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="e4a546f5-f9ff-43ee-a356-70c4c9cd6bf3" CreationDate="2015-08-01T16:01:04.527" UserId="1556" Text="&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Basic_English_word_list&quot;&gt;Basic English&lt;/a&gt; and its kin are artificial dialects which represent, among other features, a carefully-pared-down vocabulary intended to be fairly comprehensive and expressive for its thrift. The vocabulary holds somewhere around 1000 words, give or take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge &lt;a href=&quot;http://russianaccelerator.com&quot;&gt;Russian Accelerator&lt;/a&gt; claims a 750 word Russian vocabulary that's meant to go pretty far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any freely available lists of a comparable length Russian vocabulary intended to give similar expressive power for its parsimony?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="e4a546f5-f9ff-43ee-a356-70c4c9cd6bf3" CreationDate="2015-08-01T16:01:04.527" UserId="1556" Text="Is there a vocabulary list comparable to Basic English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9342" RevisionGUID="e4a546f5-f9ff-43ee-a356-70c4c9cd6bf3" CreationDate="2015-08-01T16:01:04.527" UserId="1556" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9339" RevisionGUID="e4ad7bfc-9160-44c8-a133-30cbfae41ba2" CreationDate="2015-08-01T19:39:26.060" UserId="2388" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Fairly easy here. **Его** and **её** only take initial «н» as pronouns in Genitive case (and, well, Accusative, because it's the same). When you have possessive adjective pronouns «его» and «её», no «н» is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, of course, these possessive adjectives (его, её, их) originate from the Genitive case of the corresponding pronouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, you can consider the initial «н» a sure sign that the preposition really refers to the pronoun (remember that not all preposition require it!) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я от неё писем не получал. → «от» refers to some «она» (&quot;I haven't received any letters from her&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Я от её писем уже устал. → «от» is a preposition before «писем», and «её» is a possessive adjective that got between them (&quot;I am tired of her letters already&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9343" RevisionGUID="120a387d-95ce-4aaa-a969-938904393ea3" CreationDate="2015-08-01T22:12:29.813" UserId="5027" Text="I would consider засерать as pretty archaic, coming from the form засерить. In modern language, засирать is more natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="94121467-ee56-4616-a32e-c9b7ea67ee47" CreationDate="2015-08-02T02:22:13.277" UserId="5818" Text="I'm reading Tolstoy's *War and Peace* (in English) and am baffled by what the joke is in the following passage in Volume I, Part III, Chapter 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассказывал дамам с шутливой улыбкой на губах последнее — в середу — заседание государственного совета, на котором был получен и читался Сергеем Кузьмичом Вязмитиновым, новым петербургским военным генерал-губернатором, знаменитый тогда рескрипт государя Александра Павловича из армии, в котором государь, обращаясь к Сергею Кузьмичу, говорил, что со всех сторон получает он заявления о преданности народа и что заявление Петербурга особенно приятно ему, что он гордится честью быть главою такой нации и постарается быть ее достойным. Рескрипт этот начинался словами: Сергей Кузьмич! Со всех сторон доходят до меня слухи и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Так-таки и не пошло дальше, чем «Сергей Кузьмич»? — спрашивала одна дама.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;— Да, да, ни на волос, — отвечал, смеясь князь Василий. — **«Сергей Кузьмич... со всех сторон... Со всех сторон, Сергей Кузьмич...»** Бедный Вязмитинов никак не мог пойти далее. Несколько раз он принимался снова за письмо, но только что скажет Сергей... всхлипывания... Ку...зьми...ч — слезы... и со всех сторон заглушаются рыданиями, и дальше он не мог. И опять платок, и опять **«Сергей Кузьмич, со всех сторон»**, и слезы... так что уже попросили прочесть другого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried all kinds of Google queries and come up with no explanation of this passage. I've asked two Russian speakers (one a native and one with a M.A. in Russian) and neither understood what the joke was, although they did tell me that Кузьмич can mean blacksmith.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's possible that there is no joke, and the point is that one can make society people laugh merely by signaling that one is supposedly telling a joke, even if they don't understand it (similar to how the Emperor's New Clothes worked for everyone except the child at the end). I'd like to first eliminate the possibility that there really is some kind of wordplay going on here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please explain in English, as I took one year of Russian over 20 years ago, and forgot much of it, although I can still read Cyrillic.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="94121467-ee56-4616-a32e-c9b7ea67ee47" CreationDate="2015-08-02T02:22:13.277" UserId="5818" Text="Wordplay between Кузьмич and со всех сторон" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="94121467-ee56-4616-a32e-c9b7ea67ee47" CreationDate="2015-08-02T02:22:13.277" UserId="5818" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9345" RevisionGUID="6e17dec3-a707-4a3a-81ba-3664c64e4eaa" CreationDate="2015-08-02T02:53:26.510" UserId="5288" Text="If the &quot;Basic Russian&quot; hasn't been generated yet then only reason is it's unpractical and likely to yield little.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Vocabulary for English is essential, in comparison with Russian. In Russian, the words, that very closely by intuitive comprehending, forms a bush (cluster), derived from one simple word, or, more accurately, from stem or root. In English things seemed more simpler, because a word, as teachers are saying to us, has no inflection, no agreement in morphology, and far from the amounts of words derived by prefixing, affixing, suffixing than in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what they say did not take into account the simple fact, that explains the lack of &quot;Basic Russian&quot;. Every Russian (Turkish, Polish, ...) words has the princip of the color-coded component used in electronic industry. Every colored strip marks given word, that it is listed as the member of a class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a rapid introduction to this topic: [suffixing-meaning][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation by Quick Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           prefixes-root-affixing+suffixing+flexia&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                    -да-&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р           gift, present&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р-ован-ие   gift, talent, endowment&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р-ом        nothing, gratis&#xD;&#xA;                     да-нь          tribute, contribution&#xD;&#xA;                     да-тель-н-ый   dative&#xD;&#xA;                     да-нн-ые       datum, data&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-р-ок        present&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-р-ить       make a present&#xD;&#xA;                 про-да-ть          to sell&#xD;&#xA;             рас-про-да-жа          sale&#xD;&#xA;              пре-по-да-вать        to teach&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-вать        to present, serve&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-тель        bearer&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-яние        charity, alms&#xD;&#xA;                 под-да-нный        subject, citizen&#xD;&#xA;  да-ть           за-да-ча          problemm, question&#xD;&#xA; to give           с-да-ча          change&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-ча          success&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-л-ось       had done&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-ст-ся       (s/he) might be able to&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-лить        push away, zoom out&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-ли-сь       echoed                  &#xD;&#xA;                 раз-да-вать        to distribute, pass out&#xD;&#xA;                 раз-да-ча          handing out&#xD;&#xA;                 воз-да-вать        to reward, render, return &#xD;&#xA;                  вы-да-ча          istribution, giving out&#xD;&#xA;                  из-да-вать        to publish,  to emit smth (began to hum)&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-нность      loyalty, devotion&#xD;&#xA;                 при-да-ное         dowry&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-вать        give away&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-ть (чему-то) ...&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-ть (кого-то) ...&#xD;&#xA;                     ...&#xD;&#xA;                 &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дать задачу отдать сдачу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;Class про- collected the members that have common characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;  |&#xD;&#xA;  |   to get past smth; bypass smth; to go in; &#xD;&#xA;  |   to pass inside;  to move along smth; &#xD;&#xA;  |         &#xD;&#xA;  |         &#xD;&#xA;  |          про-делать&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-ходить&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-писать &#xD;&#xA;  |          про-дать&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-плыть&#xD;&#xA; про-        про-говорить     &#xD;&#xA;             про-греть&#xD;&#xA;             про-плавить&#xD;&#xA;             про-...    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once students achieve an understanding and mastery of the basic &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian suffixes and prefixes, they will be able to recognize,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identify,  and decipher words into their component parts. With this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skill established,  they should also develop an ability to construct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many words and terms  from a given Russian root, facilitating both the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation of Russian  literature and student conversation and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Roots of the Russian Language by G. Patrick][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.quia.com/jg/1669650list.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=727&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22understanding+and+mastery+of+the+basic++Russian+suffixes+and+prefixes%2C+they+will+be+able+to%22&amp;oq=%22understanding+and+mastery+of+the+basic++Russian+suffixes+and+prefixes%2C+they+will+be+able+to%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9345" RevisionGUID="f750fc3e-e093-4fc4-8a96-f8c559ccb2fe" CreationDate="2015-08-02T03:01:05.350" UserId="5288" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="If the &quot;Basic Russian&quot; hasn't been generated yet then only reason is it's unpractical and likely to yield little.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Vocabulary for English is essential, in comparison with Russian. In Russian, the words, that very closely by intuitive comprehending, forms a bush (cluster), derived from one simple word, or, more accurately, from stem or root. In English things seemed more simpler, because a word, as teachers are saying to us, has no inflection, no agreement in morphology, and far from the amounts of words derived by prefixing, affixing, suffixing than in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what they say did not take into account the simple fact, that explains the lack of &quot;Basic Russian&quot;. Every Russian (Turkish, Polish, ...) words has the princip|le of the color-coded component used in electronic industry. Every colored strip marks given word, that it is listed as the member of a class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a rapid introduction to this topic: [suffixing-meaning][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation by Quick Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           prefixes-root-affixing+suffixing+flexia&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                    -да-&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р           gift, present&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р-ован-ие   gift, talent, endowment&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р-ом        nothing, gratis&#xD;&#xA;                     да-нь          tribute, contribution&#xD;&#xA;                     да-тель-н-ый   dative&#xD;&#xA;                     да-нн-ые       datum, data&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-р-ок        present&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-р-ить       make a present&#xD;&#xA;                 про-да-ть          to sell&#xD;&#xA;             рас-про-да-жа          sale&#xD;&#xA;              пре-по-да-вать        to teach&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-вать        to present, serve&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-тель        bearer&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-яние        charity, alms&#xD;&#xA;                 под-да-нный        subject, citizen&#xD;&#xA;  да-ть           за-да-ча          problemm, question&#xD;&#xA; to give           с-да-ча          change&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-ча          success&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-л-ось       had done&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-ст-ся       (s/he) might be able to&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-лить        push away, zoom out&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-ли-сь       echoed                  &#xD;&#xA;                 раз-да-вать        to distribute, pass out&#xD;&#xA;                 раз-да-ча          handing out&#xD;&#xA;                 воз-да-вать        to reward, render, return &#xD;&#xA;                  вы-да-ча          istribution, giving out&#xD;&#xA;                  из-да-вать        to publish,  to emit smth (began to hum)&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-нность      loyalty, devotion&#xD;&#xA;                 при-да-ное         dowry&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-вать        give away&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-ть (чему-то) ...&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-ть (кого-то) ...&#xD;&#xA;                     ...&#xD;&#xA;                 &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дать задачу отдать сдачу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;Class про- collected the members that have common characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;  |&#xD;&#xA;  |   to get past smth; bypass smth; to go in; &#xD;&#xA;  |   to pass inside;  to move along smth; &#xD;&#xA;  |         &#xD;&#xA;  |         &#xD;&#xA;  |          про-делать&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-ходить&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-писать &#xD;&#xA;  |          про-дать&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-плыть&#xD;&#xA; про-        про-говорить     &#xD;&#xA;             про-греть&#xD;&#xA;             про-плавить&#xD;&#xA;             про-...    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once students achieve an understanding and mastery of the basic &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian suffixes and prefixes, they will be able to recognize,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identify,  and decipher words into their component parts. With this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skill established,  they should also develop an ability to construct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many words and terms  from a given Russian root, facilitating both the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation of Russian  literature and student conversation and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Roots of the Russian Language by G. Patrick][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.quia.com/jg/1669650list.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=727&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22understanding+and+mastery+of+the+basic++Russian+suffixes+and+prefixes%2C+they+will+be+able+to%22&amp;oq=%22understanding+and+mastery+of+the+basic++Russian+suffixes+and+prefixes%2C+they+will+be+able+to%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9345" RevisionGUID="24488b7a-f324-4550-92ef-c2e699e07a30" CreationDate="2015-08-02T03:14:16.780" UserId="5288" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="If the &quot;Basic Russian&quot; hasn't been generated yet then only reason is it's unpractical and likely to yield little.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Vocabulary for English is essential, in comparison with Russian. In Russian, the words, that very closely by intuitive comprehending, forms a bush (cluster), derived from one simple word, or, more accurately, from stem or root. In English things seemed more simpler, because a word, as teachers are saying to us, has no inflection, no agreement in morphology, and far from the amounts of words derived by prefixing, affixing, suffixing than in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what they say did not take into account the simple fact, that explains the lack of &quot;Basic Russian&quot;. Every Russian (Turkish, Polish, ...) words has the princip|le of the color-coded component used in electronic industry. Every colored strip marks given word, that it is listed as the member of a class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a rapid introduction to this topic: [suffixing-meaning][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Explanation by Quick Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           prefixes-root-affixing+suffixing+flexia&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                    -да-&#xD;&#xA;                      |&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р           gift, present&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р-ован-ие   gift, talent, endowment&#xD;&#xA;                     да-р-ом        nothing, gratis&#xD;&#xA;                     да-нь          tribute, contribution&#xD;&#xA;                     да-тель-н-ый   dative&#xD;&#xA;                     да-нн-ые       datum, data&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-р-ок        present&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-р-ить       make a present&#xD;&#xA;                 про-да-ть          to sell&#xD;&#xA;             рас-про-да-жа          sale&#xD;&#xA;              пре-по-да-вать        to teach&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-вать        to present, serve&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-тель        bearer&#xD;&#xA;                  по-да-яние        charity, alms&#xD;&#xA;                 под-да-нный        subject, citizen&#xD;&#xA;  да-ть           за-да-ча          problemm, question&#xD;&#xA; to give           с-да-ча          change&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-ча          success&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-л-ось       had done&#xD;&#xA;                   у-да-ст-ся       (s/he) might be able to&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-лить        push away, zoom out&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-ли-сь       echoed                  &#xD;&#xA;                 раз-да-вать        to distribute, pass out&#xD;&#xA;                 раз-да-ча          handing out&#xD;&#xA;                 воз-да-вать        to reward, render, return &#xD;&#xA;                  вы-да-ча          distribution, giving out&#xD;&#xA;                  из-да-вать        to publish,  to emit smth (began to hum)&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-нность      loyalty, devotion&#xD;&#xA;                 при-да-ное         dowry&#xD;&#xA;                  от-да-вать        give away&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-ть (чему-то) ...&#xD;&#xA;                 пре-да-ть (кого-то) ...&#xD;&#xA;                     ...&#xD;&#xA;                 &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дать задачу отдать сдачу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;Class про- collected the members that have common characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;  |&#xD;&#xA;  |   get past smth; bypass smth; to go in; to go through;&#xD;&#xA;  |   to pass inside;  to move along smth; &#xD;&#xA;  |         &#xD;&#xA;  |         &#xD;&#xA;  |          про-делать&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-ходить&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-писать &#xD;&#xA;  |          про-дать&#xD;&#xA;  |          про-плыть&#xD;&#xA; про-        про-говорить     &#xD;&#xA;             про-греть&#xD;&#xA;             про-плавить&#xD;&#xA;             про-...    &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once students achieve an understanding and mastery of the basic &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian suffixes and prefixes, they will be able to recognize,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identify,  and decipher words into their component parts. With this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skill established,  they should also develop an ability to construct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many words and terms  from a given Russian root, facilitating both the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; translation of Russian  literature and student conversation and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Roots of the Russian Language by G. Patrick][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.quia.com/jg/1669650list.html&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.google.com/search?num=30&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=727&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22understanding+and+mastery+of+the+basic++Russian+suffixes+and+prefixes%2C+they+will+be+able+to%22&amp;oq=%22understanding+and+mastery+of+the+basic++Russian+suffixes+and+prefixes%2C+they+will+be+able+to%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="7bb0efab-8432-46cf-ab95-b16401724754" CreationDate="2015-08-02T03:18:45.060" UserId="1236" Text="Actually, there is no joke there, on the contrary, it is supposed to be a highly serious and patriotic passage. It goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prince Vassily was telling how Sergey Kuzmich, the governor of St. Petersburg, was reading aloud a letter he received from the Emperor, in which the Emperor wrote how he was moved by the statements of patriotism, loyalty, and devotion to the Emperor he received from all the parts of the country. The letter began &quot;Sergei Kuzmich, from all the parts ...&quot;, but Sergei Kuzmich could not read it further, because each time he tried to, he choked with tears and sobbing, so moved he was by what the Emperor wrote to him, by that degree of patriotism which was in the society at that moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Prince Vassily, who was telling this story, did it with a joking smile, perhaps an ironic smile, or maybe Sergei Kuzmich' crying because of his feeling too patriotic and loyal looked compunctionate to Prince Vassily. I cannot explain the reason of his smile exhaustively, I am not a great specialist on _War and Peace_, but definitely there is no pun or joke based on  **Сергей Кузьмич** and **со всех сторон**, Prince Vassily smiled at the very fact that Sergei Kuzmich cried while reading a patriotic text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, **Кузьмич** cannot mean 'smith'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9346" RevisionGUID="a89c80c1-b85b-4d2e-8d76-3f99fbaa0127" CreationDate="2015-08-02T03:29:19.377" UserId="1236" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Actually, there is no joke there, on the contrary, it is supposed to be a highly serious and patriotic passage. It goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prince Vassily was telling how Sergey Kuzmich, the governor of St. Petersburg, was reading aloud a letter he received from the Emperor, in which the Emperor wrote how he was moved by the statements of patriotism, loyalty, and devotion to the Emperor he received from all the parts of the country. The letter began &quot;Sergei Kuzmich, from all the parts ...&quot;, but Sergei Kuzmich could not read it further, because each time he tried to, he choked with tears and sobbing, so moved he was by what the Emperor wrote to him, by that degree of patriotism which was in the society at that moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Prince Vassily, who was telling this story, did it with a joking smile, perhaps an ironic smile, or maybe Sergei Kuzmich' crying because of his feeling too patriotic and loyal looked compunctionate to Prince Vassily. I cannot explain the reason of his smile exhaustively, I am not a great specialist on _War and Peace_, but definitely there is no pun, or wordplay, or joke based on  **Сергей Кузьмич** and **со всех сторон**, Prince Vassily smiled at the very fact that Sergei Kuzmich cried while reading a patriotic text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, **Кузьмич** cannot mean 'blacksmith'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9347" RevisionGUID="1dfa189b-fff5-4346-bc79-bef5fe77b143" CreationDate="2015-08-02T05:44:03.570" UserId="5008" Text="The joke is about no gap between sentences. Remember that in Russian the verb &quot;to be&quot; is usually omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;Sergei Kuzmich! From all sides...&quot;, saying it fast, may also mean: &quot;Sergei Kuzmich _is_ from all sides...&quot; that is &quot;Sergei Kuzmich is everywhere&quot; ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9347" RevisionGUID="ddc20b10-3756-4d3d-829f-25faa40ec492" CreationDate="2015-08-02T05:52:35.847" UserId="5008" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="The joke is about no gap between sentences. Remember that in Russian the verb &quot;to be&quot; is usually omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;Sergei Kuzmich! From all sides...&quot;, saying it fast, may also mean: &quot;Sergei Kuzmich _is_ from all sides...&quot; that is &quot;Sergei Kuzmich is everywhere&quot; ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. &quot;Blacksmith&quot; = &quot;Кузнец&quot;. While &quot;Кузьмич&quot; is a patronimic of &quot;Кузьма&quot; which originates from greek &quot;Κοσμάς&quot; (consider also Italian &quot;Cosimo&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="6d6fdf57-82e3-42ad-a609-67d6b489d707" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:16:45.720" UserId="4560" Text="Mechanical repetition of a word or a part of a phrase is one of Tolstoy's personal tropes. Also in *War and Peace*, you have Pierre's dream about *сопрягать*; in *Дьявол*, there are the words *фосфориты оправдают* stuck in the protagonist's head at the very beginning; and this is another one of those examples. While there may be some humour in it sounding like &quot;Sergey Kuzmich is everywhere&quot; as @user4419802 suggested, this was probably the kind of humour that was more like a little theatrical performance than the retelling of something witty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The name **Кузьма** is entirely unrelated to **кузнец** — while it is, technically, related to **космонавт**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9348" RevisionGUID="71bbed88-af46-48ea-a2a7-cb53ce1885b2" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:24:49.260" UserId="4560" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Mechanical repetition of a word or a part of a phrase is one of Tolstoy's personal tropes. Also in *War and Peace*, you have Pierre's dream about *сопрягать*; in *Дьявол*, there are the words *фосфориты оправдают* stuck in the protagonist's head at the very beginning; and this is another one of those examples. While there may be some humour in it sounding like &quot;Sergey Kuzmich is everywhere&quot; as @user4419802 suggested, this was probably the kind of humour that was more like a little theatrical performance than the retelling of something witty. What's more, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Кузьмич, со всех сторон,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; со всех сторон, Сергей Кузьмич&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— is accidentally iambic, which adds some vague effect to repeating and recombining this barely meaningful line (one is reminded of Joyce's *&quot;apologise, pull out his eyes, pull out his eyes, apologise&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кузьмич* is the patronymic formed from **Кузьма**, a name entirely unrelated to **кузнец** — while it is, technically, related to **космонавт**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9349" RevisionGUID="db204e1f-3216-48f5-8df9-a1061e9a17f0" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:49:38.620" UserId="5692" Text="The Memrise course &quot;Russian grammar through sentences translates &quot;This is my car&quot; as &quot;Это моя машина.&quot;  I don't understand why we don't use the feminine Эта in this sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translate.Ru translates  Эта моя машина as &quot;this my car.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which version is correct? Is there a difference in meaning and usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9349" RevisionGUID="db204e1f-3216-48f5-8df9-a1061e9a17f0" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:49:38.620" UserId="5692" Text="What is the difference in meaning between &quot;Это моя машина&quot; and &quot;Эта моя машина&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9349" RevisionGUID="db204e1f-3216-48f5-8df9-a1061e9a17f0" CreationDate="2015-08-02T06:49:38.620" UserId="5692" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="13be0b5c-5039-4592-87a6-bf3d3df16df1" CreationDate="2015-08-02T07:45:10.683" UserId="5008" Text="Think of &quot;_Это_&quot; in &quot;Это моя машина&quot; like being &quot;_This is_&quot; in &quot;This is my car&quot;. That is a &quot;pure pointer&quot;. There's no need to change the gender here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet consider &quot;This car is mine&quot; --&gt; &quot;Эта машина - моя&quot;. Here &quot;This&quot; applies to &quot;Car&quot; not to &quot;Is&quot; and so in Russian you need &quot;Эта&quot; not &quot;Это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your phrase &quot;Эта моя машина&quot;. It seems to have a little meaning since &quot;эта&quot; must match some feminine noun. Thus the sentence may mean either &quot;Эта [хреновина] - моя машина&quot; (This [piece of shit] is my car) or &quot;Эта моя машина - [что-то с чем-то]&quot; (That my car is [really something]). In any case you missed something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9350" RevisionGUID="2690072a-2669-4deb-b599-212d35cd3463" CreationDate="2015-08-02T07:56:08.403" UserId="5008" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Think of &quot;_Это_&quot; in &quot;Это моя машина&quot; like being &quot;_This is_&quot; in &quot;This is my car&quot;. That is a &quot;pure pointer&quot;. There's no need to change the gender here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet consider &quot;This car is mine&quot; --&gt; &quot;Эта машина - моя&quot;. Here &quot;This&quot; applies to &quot;Car&quot; not to &quot;Is&quot; and so in Russian you need &quot;Эта&quot; not &quot;Это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your phrase &quot;Эта моя машина&quot;. It seems to have a little meaning since &quot;эта&quot; must match some feminine noun. Thus the sentence may mean either &quot;Эта [хреновина] - моя машина&quot; (This [piece of shit] is my car) or &quot;Эта моя машина - [что-то с чем-то]&quot; (That my car is [really something]). In any case you missed something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize: &quot;Это машина&quot; --&gt; &quot;This is a car&quot;; &quot;Эта машина&quot; --&gt; &quot;This car is&quot;. The gender shows which object the word &quot;Это&quot; applies to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9161" RevisionGUID="f7fe1889-1063-4036-9cd7-21f7ffea2c50" CreationDate="2015-08-02T10:07:15.843" UserId="5574" Comment="gnomic aspect!" Text="У совершенных глаголов просто нет настоящего времени. Можно сказать, что они обозначают бесконечно короткие события. Они не соответствуют виду perfect, скорее simple (не точно, но вид continous всегда, пожалуй, переводят как несовершенные глаголы, а совершенные глаголы - как вид simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present perfect continous переводят как несовершенный вид прошлого (если событие окончено) времени, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы смотрели фильм &quot;Белая собака&quot;. - You have been watching the film &quot;White Dog&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказал, что вид simple обозначает короткие и очень долгие события, так что он соответствует несовершенному виду, если обозначает конечные короткие (Present Simple не может обозначать бесконечно коротких, потому что &quot;теперь&quot; бесконечно короткое, а по логике русского* языка две беск. короткие вещи не могут случиться в одно время) или очень долгие вещи (Present Simple как gnomic aspect или напр., когда можно поставить used to на место Past Simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;\* и польского, - я поляк&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9351" RevisionGUID="0a0ea435-7e8c-49d7-87ef-9757fb078f2e" CreationDate="2015-08-02T10:38:03.413" UserId="194" Text="&quot;Эта моя машина&quot; = &quot;This my car&quot; is ungrammatical or incomplete sentence, both in Russian and English. It requires a continuation (what is with your car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="b1137901-5186-41e3-99b9-f16035f57b71" CreationDate="2015-08-02T13:27:31.300" UserId="1236" Text="There is a related question here, [“Они братья” but “Это упражнения” - why different pronouns?][1], see my answer there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, the English construction `this is / these are` are always rendered as `это` irrespective of the gender and number of the thing named, the same goes about `it is / they are`, if the thing named is non-living:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is my car. – Это моя машина. (Feminine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is my house. – Это мой дом. (Masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is my window. – Это моё окно. (Neuter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are my cars / houses / windows. – Это мои машины / дома / окна. (Plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Это` inflects according to the gender, number, and case of the following noun only when it is an _attribute_ to that following noun and forms a noun phrase with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car – Эта машина (Feminine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This house – Этот дом (Masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This window – Это окно. (Neuter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These cars / houses / windows – Эти машины / дома / окна. (Plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note, these latter are noun _phrases_, they can function only as elliptical sentences or as parts of a longer complete sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7657/%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F-but-%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-why-different-pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9353" RevisionGUID="db8f0f80-e46d-4e59-8804-a9f39a8a0186" CreationDate="2015-08-02T14:06:05.973" UserId="5819" Text="There are a variety of lists around which are comparable. You can google &quot;most common russian words&quot; or something similar. It is harder to shrink Russian down to basic words. Given the nature of the Russian language means the most simple words are complicated by conjugations, declensions and other grammatical changes. &#xA;&#xA;I found a series called Book2 which are books for language vocabulary. There is one for Russian. The book covers words for the most common situations. As you learn more common words it is easier to then master all the grammatical issues and the wide array of prefixes and suffixes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9354" RevisionGUID="8d812744-64ad-4925-b9f7-7531d9d7c89b" CreationDate="2015-08-02T15:21:16.853" UserId="5694" Text="You can find something like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/vocabulary/most_common_words.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.learnrussianfree.com/vocabulary/word&#xD;&#xA;http://www.101languages.net/russian/most-common-russian-words/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's much more useful to get a good modern textbook of Russian. Then the vocabulary in this textbook will represent such a list automatically. Especially if it's for beginners. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="c04502d2-bd41-4180-b374-925887032b68" CreationDate="2015-08-02T18:39:26.270" UserId="5448" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'll write in Russian, ОК?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Общеизвестно, что Вы (с заглавной) пишется при вежливом обращении к одному лицу. Но есть одна тонкость, про которую обычно забывают. &#xD;&#xA;Её по-разному формулируют - и это приводит к разночтениям. Я своими словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В основном правиле речь идет только о **личном** обращении к **конкретному** лицу. &#xD;&#xA;Поэтому со строчной (маленькой) буквы вы пишется:&#xD;&#xA;1. при передаче **устной речи** (в т.ч. в художественных текстах), а также в интернете, если стиль общения соответствуют устному (почти всегда на форумах, в скайпе и т. л., и часто во всякого рода социальных сетях),   &#xD;&#xA;2. при неконкретном обращении, предполагающем массового читателя, - типа памяток в гостинице или рекламы,  &#xD;&#xA;3. в рассылках.    &#xD;&#xA;Отдельным пунктом раньше стояли анкеты, сейчас, вроде, пришли к выводу, что там следует использовать заглавную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, эти правила нигде в одном месте явно не сформулированы, вынужден лично ликвидировать этот недочет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При написании e-мэйла одному человеку, коли уж Вы используете &quot;вы&quot;, писать стоит с заглавной. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="16efb66f-36ef-4f93-b861-8574948479c3" CreationDate="2015-08-02T20:45:58.593" UserId="1556" Text="I asked an earlier question, http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9342/is-there-a-vocabulary-list-comparable-to-basic-english, and one person gave a gem of an answer saying basically, &quot;You don't want the most common 1000 Russian words; you want a grasp of how suffixes and prefixes create clusters of words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm making a separate base question for the obvious followup question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where on the web can I best research the suffixes, prefixes, and other important things I did not know to ask for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="16efb66f-36ef-4f93-b861-8574948479c3" CreationDate="2015-08-02T20:45:58.593" UserId="1556" Text="How can I learn the basic Russian suffixes and prefixes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="16efb66f-36ef-4f93-b861-8574948479c3" CreationDate="2015-08-02T20:45:58.593" UserId="1556" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="7e62d382-0be5-4fc8-b253-2eb682665e5c" CreationDate="2015-08-02T21:16:37.563" UserId="1556" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I asked an earlier question, http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9342/is-there-a-vocabulary-list-comparable-to-basic-english, and @Avtokod gave a gem of an answer saying basically, &quot;You don't want the most common 1000 Russian words; you want a grasp of how suffixes and prefixes create clusters of words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm making a separate base question for the obvious followup question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where on the web can I best research the suffixes, prefixes, and other important things I did not know to ask for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9356" RevisionGUID="9ba98948-b45e-458a-84c7-778a4aa5778c" CreationDate="2015-08-02T21:59:50.333" UserId="5288" Text="I looked the Memrise course. There's the biggest problem with **idiomatic translation.** While appreciating the efforts, I think it is not the best way of reducing the pressure of work during language learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With idiomatic translation only, we lost the **morphological patterns** of a language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to the question. Let's us take the past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  this    was          my       home       | - original phrase&#xD;&#xA;  это.N   быть.N.PST   мой.INS  дом.INS    | - vocab. forms with grammatical labels&#xD;&#xA;  это     было         моим     домом      | - morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;вот здесь был мой дом&quot;                  | - idiomatic translation&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   this  was    my    case       &#xD;&#xA;   это   было   моим  случаем &#xD;&#xA;   &quot;так было и со мной&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   this    was          my         fault &#xD;&#xA;   это.N   быть.N.PST   мой.F.INS  ошибка.INS    &#xD;&#xA;   это     было         моей       ошибкой&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;это было моей ошибкой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   this  was   my    car       (after an accident)&#xD;&#xA;   это   было  моей  машиной&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;это было моей машиной&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;see [The Leipzig Glossing Rules][1] for List of standard abbreviations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us move the switch of tenses to the position &quot;Now&quot;. The rest grammatical rockers-levers we keep as they were. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   this  is    my    car&#xD;&#xA;   это   есть  моей  машиной&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;вот это моя машина&quot; or &quot;вот моя машина&quot; or &quot;это — моя машина&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   it    is    my    car&#xD;&#xA;   оно   есть  моей  машиной&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;это моя машина&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What you are trying to say is&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   эта  моя  машина&#xD;&#xA;   the  my   car&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;this car&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="4f06675d-ea18-4890-8f9e-7fb9e7b27d24" CreationDate="2015-08-02T22:07:50.133" UserId="1671" Text="В таком предложении:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он заходит справа и, поравнявшись, даёт ей немного привыкнуть к себе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;как правильно: к нему или к себе? Меня смущает &quot;себе&quot;, потому что можно подумать, что он даёт ей время привыкнуть к себе же самой. Хоть это и нелогично. Какое грамматическое правило существует?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="4f06675d-ea18-4890-8f9e-7fb9e7b27d24" CreationDate="2015-08-02T22:07:50.133" UserId="1671" Text="Он даёт привыкнуть к нему или себе?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="4f06675d-ea18-4890-8f9e-7fb9e7b27d24" CreationDate="2015-08-02T22:07:50.133" UserId="1671" Text="|возвратное|местоимение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="e5a85249-1f67-4b1a-a5c7-b140f14e4c13" CreationDate="2015-08-03T01:10:59.643" UserId="1236" Text="Грамматическое правило простое: местоимения ` себя, себе, собой`, не имеющее именительного падежа, а также `свой` означают того же, кто является _подлежащим_ в передложении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он увидел себя. - Значит «Х увидел Х», т. е. субъект и объект тождественны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он увидел его. - Значит «Х увидел Y», т. е. субъект и объект различныны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он взял свою сумку. - Значит «Он взял сумку, принадлежащую ему же».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он взял его сумку. - Значит «Он взял сумку, принадлежащую другому мужчине, чужую сумку».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку в вашем предложении «Он даёт ей привыкнуть к себе» подлежащим является «он», то «себе» тут может означать только то же, что и «он»: «он даёт ей привыкнуть к нему же самому». Если бы мы сказали «Он даёт ей привыкнуть к нему», то это бы означало «Он даёт ей привыкнуть к другому [мужчине]», как, например в такой ситуации: «Светлана не любит собак, а Олег купил щенка, поэтому пока что они [Светлана и Олег] выгуливают его [щенка] вместе, он [Олег] даёт ей [Светлане] привыкнуть к нему [к щенку]»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9358" RevisionGUID="c82d6953-ff4a-47fb-ad3f-9fa06e6ea203" CreationDate="2015-08-03T01:17:54.260" UserId="1236" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="Грамматическое правило простое: местоимения ` себя, себе, собой`, не имеющее именительного падежа, а также `свой` означают того же, кто является _подлежащим_ в передложении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он увидел себя. - Значит «Х увидел Х», т. е. субъект и объект тождественны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он увидел его. - Значит «Х увидел Y», т. е. субъект и объект различныны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он взял свою сумку. - Значит «Он взял сумку, принадлежащую ему же».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он взял его сумку. - Значит «Он взял сумку, принадлежащую другому мужчине, чужую сумку».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку в вашем предложении «Он даёт ей привыкнуть к себе» подлежащим является «он», то «себе» тут может означать только то же, что и «он»: «он даёт ей привыкнуть к нему же самому». Если бы мы сказали «Он даёт ей привыкнуть к нему», то это бы означало «Он даёт ей привыкнуть к другому [мужчине]», как, например в такой ситуации: «Светлана не любит собак, а Олег купил щенка, поэтому пока что они [Светлана и Олег] выгуливают его [щенка] вместе, он [Олег] даёт ей [Светлане] привыкнуть к нему [к щенку]».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё лучше эту разницу видно в творительном падеже:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он разговаривал с собой. — Он разговаривал с ним.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя в первом предложении перед «собой» ещё можно было бы добавить слово «самим», но и без него разница очень хорошо видна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="5ad061f9-636a-49b5-a79b-725713a696bc" CreationDate="2015-08-03T03:00:57.547" UserId="5692" Text="оно моё имя just doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Is it correct to use оно in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="5ad061f9-636a-49b5-a79b-725713a696bc" CreationDate="2015-08-03T03:00:57.547" UserId="5692" Text="Why do we say оно моё имя for &quot;it's my name&quot; instead of это моё имя?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="5ad061f9-636a-49b5-a79b-725713a696bc" CreationDate="2015-08-03T03:00:57.547" UserId="5692" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9360" RevisionGUID="905baaa4-a3e7-4b38-82fd-0db38d433594" CreationDate="2015-08-03T07:45:30.210" UserId="4432" Text="There is a good list with explanations in Derek Offord's book *Using Russian*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="cdbb66b3-c54e-46dc-ba63-2dc40f87e377" CreationDate="2015-08-03T08:22:15.523" UserId="5008" Text="English prepositions can do two jobs: 1) changing the noun like &quot;on the floor&quot;, and 2) changing the verb like &quot;to get out&quot;. Unlike'em Russian prepositions do only 1). For the 2) we use verb prefixes exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This concept presents in many languages and even in English you sometimes say &quot;bypass&quot; or &quot;foresee&quot; etc. What makes English special is that in 80% cases you still may use separate prepositions like &quot;go in, go out, go on, go by&quot; so there's one monstrously large vocabulary entry on &quot;to go&quot; yet it's only one and you know what letter it starts with. But in a Russian vocabulary there are a dozen of entries on those &quot;to go&quot;-variants and they all start (the prefixes!) with different letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with it? Well, think of it like an extra set of &quot;prepositions&quot; which you have to learn. In fact, they sometimes coincide. Let's take an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Под_&quot; means &quot;_Under_&quot; yet it's a verb prefix too. Let's add it to a verb &quot;_Держать_&quot; (to keep, to hold). Now we have &quot;_Поддержать_&quot; (note that double D: there's also both preposition and prefix &quot;по&quot;, so &quot;подержать&quot; is an absolutely different word). What &quot;_Поддержать_&quot; means? Literally &quot;_to hold (from) under_&quot;. Then applying some mind work gives &quot;_to support_&quot; which is the right answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that the prepositions (both true and &quot;prefix-like&quot; ones) have too many meanings so you can't deal with only a simple one-to-one correspondence. Or at least it wouldn't help you to get it. As an example, &quot;_Подделать_&quot; is &quot;_Under_&quot; + &quot;_Do_&quot;. But what it means? Really, &quot;_To Forge_&quot;. Having known that beforehand, perhaps, I can speculate that it was due to forging signatures or stamps  which are _under_ the text, yet no chance I could figure this just without any context. Sadly, this means you still need the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about listing all those prefixes? Well, I don't know the comprehensive source to provide it here. But there shouldn't be too many of them (or else Russian people can't remember them all). So let's try to deal with it just by another example. How many verbs can we form out of &quot;_Держать_&quot; by adding different prefixes? Now let's do it: starting from the literal meaning we go to true one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выдержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from inside to outside&quot; ---&gt; to withstand, to survive, to keep self-control, to make vintage wine or cheese etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Додержать ---&gt; to keep upto/until smth. (rarely used in prefix-form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Задержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold after&quot; ---&gt; to delay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Издержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from&quot; ---&gt; &quot;to hold completely&quot; ---&gt; to spend, to waste (a little bookish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одержать [победу] ---&gt; &quot;to hold [a victory] all round&quot; ---&gt; to win&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Передержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold throughout&quot; ---&gt; to hold too much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Придержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold near&quot; ---&gt; to delay a little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подержать ---&gt; to keep a little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поддержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold under&quot; ---&gt; to support&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сдержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from top down to bottom&quot; ---&gt; to hold back, to fight off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удержать ---&gt; &quot;to fulfill the process of holding&quot; ---&gt; to keep despite of smth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is no way complete but it could serve as a starting point. Try to apply these same prefixes, say, to verb &quot;_Идти_&quot; (to go) - can you now understand all the verbs? Выйти, дойти, зайти, изойти, обойти, перейти, прийти, пойти, подойти, сойти, уйти? (The life is hard and making the couple of errors here seems to be unavoidable, yet there always is the vocabulary to fix them)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9362" RevisionGUID="02455f71-99d2-4cc8-b913-6435f12dd161" CreationDate="2015-08-03T09:08:09.697" UserId="4560" Text="No, it's not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you probably got this from (at least it's the only possible source I can think of) is the way the concept of noun gender is introduced early on at Russian schools. Before schoolchildren know their way around the formal designations of &quot;masculine&quot;, &quot;feminine&quot;, and &quot;neuter&quot;, they're taught to check which form of **он** and **мой** they would intuitively use with the noun in question. **Он, мой дядя**, **она, моя соль** or **оно, моё такси** is a formula most people remember from school, and might occasionally still use as a quick colloquial way to refer to a noun's gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a bit of predictable randomness in that you've (presumably) heard it used with **имя**, it being one of the ten surviving neuter nouns with that complicated paradigm that don't even look neuter. **Оно, моё имя** doesn't mean &quot;it's my name&quot;; in fact, it barely means anything, much like &quot;I, me, mine&quot; or &quot;go, went, gone&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9363" RevisionGUID="ed432f99-bce4-4151-a56c-18a1a646385b" CreationDate="2015-08-03T09:27:07.010" UserId="5443" Text="&quot;**Эта моя машина**&quot; literally translates as 'this/that car of mine' (like in the song title by Beach Boys) and doesn't make a complete sentence. In Russian it is mainly possible to say so in a situation of resuming an interrupted narrative with the teller's car already mentioned before. Then &quot;эта&quot; functions as a reminder of that car (эта ~ упомянутая мной) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- На чём я остановился - о машине своей говорил? Я вот что хотел рассказать. **Эта моя машина** стояла тогда во дворе..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="e54bcca3-53e4-42a9-bdb0-3596dffe2735" CreationDate="2015-08-03T10:47:21.730" UserId="5008" Comment="added 1420 characters in body" Text="English prepositions can do two jobs: 1) changing the noun like &quot;on the floor&quot;, and 2) changing the verb like &quot;to get out&quot;. Unlike'em Russian prepositions do only 1). For the 2) we use verb prefixes exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This concept presents in many languages and even in English you sometimes say &quot;bypass&quot; or &quot;foresee&quot; etc. What makes English special is that in 80% cases you still may use separate prepositions like &quot;go in, go out, go on, go by&quot; so there's one monstrously large vocabulary entry on &quot;to go&quot; yet it's only one and you know what letter it starts with. But in a Russian vocabulary there are a dozen of entries on those &quot;to go&quot;-variants and they all start (the prefixes!) with different letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with it? Well, think of it like an extra set of &quot;prepositions&quot; which you have to learn. In fact, they sometimes coincide. Let's take an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Под_&quot; means &quot;_Under_&quot; yet it's a verb prefix too. Let's add it to a verb &quot;_Держать_&quot; (to keep, to hold). Now we have &quot;_Поддержать_&quot; (note that double D: there's also both preposition and prefix &quot;по&quot;, so &quot;подержать&quot; is an absolutely different word). What &quot;_Поддержать_&quot; means? Literally &quot;_to hold (from) under_&quot;. Then applying some mind work gives &quot;_to support_&quot; which is the right answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that the prepositions (both true and &quot;prefix-like&quot; ones) have too many meanings so you can't deal with only a simple one-to-one correspondence. Or at least it wouldn't help you to get it. As an example, &quot;_Подделать_&quot; is &quot;_Under_&quot; + &quot;_Do_&quot;. But what it means? Really, &quot;_To Forge_&quot;. Having known that beforehand, perhaps, I can speculate that it was due to forging signatures or stamps  which are _under_ the text, yet no chance I could figure this just without any context. Sadly, this means you still need the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about listing all those prefixes? Well, I don't know the comprehensive source to provide it here. But there shouldn't be too many of them (or else Russian people can't remember them all). So let's try to deal with it just by another example. How many verbs can we form out of &quot;_Держать_&quot; by adding different prefixes? Now let's do it: starting from the literal meaning we go to true one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выдержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from inside to outside&quot; ---&gt; to withstand, to survive, to keep self-control, to make vintage wine or cheese etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Додержать ---&gt; to keep upto/until smth. (rarely used in prefix-form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Задержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold after&quot; ---&gt; to delay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Издержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from&quot; ---&gt; &quot;to hold completely&quot; ---&gt; to spend, to waste (a little bookish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одержать [победу] ---&gt; &quot;to hold [a victory] all round&quot; ---&gt; to win&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Передержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold throughout&quot; ---&gt; to hold too much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Придержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold near&quot; ---&gt; to delay a little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подержать ---&gt; to keep a little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поддержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold under&quot; ---&gt; to support&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сдержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from top down to bottom&quot; ---&gt; to hold back, to fight off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удержать ---&gt; &quot;to fulfill the process of holding&quot; ---&gt; to keep despite of smth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is no way complete but it could serve as a starting point. Try to apply these same prefixes, say, to verb &quot;_Идти_&quot; (to go) - can you now understand all the verbs? Выйти, дойти, зайти, изойти, обойти, перейти, прийти, пойти, подойти, сойти, уйти? (The life is hard and making the couple of errors here seems to be unavoidable, yet there always is the vocabulary to fix them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. As I was pointed out any &quot;preposition&quot; matching only the verb is considered to be an adverb not a preposition anymore. That makes much sense and yet raises one more question: if Russian language has adverbs too (and it really has) why Russian verbs need prefixes at all? The answer is _productivity_. Naturally, some adverbs make a bigger meaning shift than others. Say, &quot;Go forward&quot; still means &quot;Go&quot; plus a direction. While &quot;Go nuts&quot; isn't about &quot;going&quot; at all. So sometimes it makes sense (at least for Russians) to merge two words into one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take another example. &quot;_Я повернул налево_&quot; (I turned left). Here &quot;_налево_&quot; (left) is a regular adverb. Yet the verb &quot;_Повернуть_&quot; is still uses a prefix: &quot;По&quot; + &quot;Вернуть&quot;. That is &quot;an incomplete action&quot; + &quot;one turnover&quot; which gives just one regular turn in a grand total. It's fun that in English there's a prefix too although the other way round: &quot;_To Return_&quot; (_Вернуть_ in Russian) is formed like _Re_ + _Turn_ that is turning twice gives coming back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus there's nothing truly new in the concept of prefixes, and once you've got it, it helps much just like common prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions do. Though the flexibility is always a danger. Not all the couplings really make sense and combining them blindly is a way to play a fool. The most well-known joke about prefixed verbs is the word &quot;_Недоперепить_&quot;. Could anyone translate it? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9364" RevisionGUID="bf6e8cd5-3cd7-44d9-bf8e-36dfdd73e092" CreationDate="2015-08-03T14:49:24.790" UserId="5824" Text="Actually, we never use &quot;It's my name&quot; neither in English, nor Russian when we are introducing ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;To introduce yourself, you should say &quot;Меня зовут ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;Меня зовут Иван&quot; - &quot;I'm called Ivan&quot;(Means actually &quot;My name is Ivan&quot;, but we never use such in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="e798dade-3b9d-485c-8f97-94b6376db571" CreationDate="2015-08-03T22:20:45.540" UserId="4714" Text="So, often if one digs deep enough one will find that every perfective verb in fact has an imperfective. Except, the problem is these imperfectness seem to be very old or don't exists at all anymore. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, will speakers of russian understand them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example let's take the verb жарить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;изжаривать—изжарить&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;зажаривать—зажарить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the imperfectives used at all?—I've found them in dictionaries, but Russians tell me that they don't know of them. Why is this? Are they just very old? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every perfective verb I've ever learned has one of these imperfective if you look hard enough, which is logical, they should have one. How should I deal with this when I'm learning words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="e798dade-3b9d-485c-8f97-94b6376db571" CreationDate="2015-08-03T22:20:45.540" UserId="4714" Text="Old, dead, or nonexistent?—imperfectives of some verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9367" RevisionGUID="e798dade-3b9d-485c-8f97-94b6376db571" CreationDate="2015-08-03T22:20:45.540" UserId="4714" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="92ef1ada-d557-4e6d-a7d1-f3c3524f5184" CreationDate="2015-08-03T23:14:47.453" UserId="242" Text="Let's talks specifically about examples you've provide. Both of this pairs are perfectly valid on Russian and the difference between them is pretty transparent for native speaker. The other thing is that &quot;изжаривать&quot; is used in practice in it reflexive form - &quot;изжариваться&quot; - and indeed is used more rarely (but still used) than other three forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here are examples of word usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сколько же можно бесцельно изжариваться на солнце?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Чего ж ты так баклажаны-то изжарил, прямо до угля?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Надо зажарить баклажаны, вот что!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сначала ты зажариваешь баклажаны на огне, а потом уже, на углях, готовишь мясо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest analogy will be phrasal verbs in English. Some of them are using pretty often, some sound valid but are used rarely. Some are obsolete, some are just wrong. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="0e07d710-0e44-42a4-be1a-a4c23f7085af" CreationDate="2015-08-03T23:24:08.810" UserId="242" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="Let's talk specifically about examples you've provided. Both of these pairs are perfectly valid on Russian and the difference between them is pretty transparent for native speaker. The other thing is that &quot;изжаривать&quot; is used in practice in it reflexive form - &quot;изжариваться&quot; - and indeed is used more rarely (but still used) than other three forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here are examples of word usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сколько же можно бесцельно изжариваться на солнце?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Чего ж ты так баклажаны-то изжарил, прямо до угля?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Надо зажарить баклажаны, вот что!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сначала ты зажариваешь баклажаны на огне, а потом уже, на углях, готовишь мясо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest analogy will be phrasal verbs in English. Some of them are using pretty often, some sound valid but are used rarely. Some are obsolete, some are just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, a friendly hint, you can just google all these words. It will give you some ideas on their usage. Also, there's a Google's Russian competitor, [Yandex][1], which quite often is a better option for searching Russian words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://yandex.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="89464738-ead9-440a-994b-ef20110dbe6a" CreationDate="2015-08-04T04:52:07.363" UserId="5826" Text="There is a word &quot;исполнитель&quot; for &quot;a doer&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We say &quot;a don'ter&quot; if the person moans about what he wants but never actually does anything to achieve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is an expression &quot;не исполнитель&quot; for &quot;a don'ter&quot; correct to say? Or is there a regular word in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="89464738-ead9-440a-994b-ef20110dbe6a" CreationDate="2015-08-04T04:52:07.363" UserId="5826" Text="How to say &quot;a don'ter&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="89464738-ead9-440a-994b-ef20110dbe6a" CreationDate="2015-08-04T04:52:07.363" UserId="5826" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="e2f71c83-1c82-4453-b748-83e30ec88722" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:15:19.243" UserId="242" Text="There's no word which is a good fit in 100% of cases. Though &quot;нытик&quot; is pretty close. &quot;Да он только ноет&quot; is telled about somebody who complains a lot but does not make any real attempt to change the situation. So, from the verb &quot;ныть&quot; (to whine) there colloquial noun &quot;нытик&quot; is derived." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9371" RevisionGUID="1af86124-9569-4cbf-8783-b7e4691c4415" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:19:13.453" UserId="2238" Text="The question is not that simple. The &quot;Introduction to Common Syntax&quot; of Tyestyelec has half of the fifth (or maybe sixth, I'm not sure) chapter about such things. &quot;Себя&quot; and &quot;свой&quot; inside the infinitive clause correspond to the zero-subject of the infinitive clause, which doesn't have to correspond to the subject but can also correspond to other objects of the main verb in certain situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence &quot;даёт ей немного привыкнуть к себе&quot; can therefore mean &quot;к ней же&quot;, and it is semantics not syntax that stops us from such an understanding in usual situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9372" RevisionGUID="493f66bd-5918-428c-87e9-51daa28abee9" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:19:34.127" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Неисполнитель&quot; doesn't mean anything interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd choose the word &quot;__Пустомеля__&quot; here. It's composed of the words &quot;Void&quot; and &quot;Grind&quot;. &quot;To grind with a tongue&quot; is a Russian idiom for stupid chatting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="a9bb1818-0044-4d29-85d6-5d2368fc95a8" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:24:21.717" UserId="242" Comment="added 531 characters in body" Text="There's no word which is a good fit in 100% of cases. Though &quot;нытик&quot; is pretty close. &quot;Да он только ноет&quot; is said about somebody who complains a lot but does not make any real attempt to change the situation. So, from the verb &quot;ныть&quot; (to whine) there colloquial noun &quot;нытик&quot; is derived.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Here's quote from article about нытик's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он – нытик! Это почти приговор. Дело в том, что мужчина-нытик вызывает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; куда большее отторжение, чем постоянно причитающая женщина. У кого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вызывает? Да у любого встречного, не говоря уже о близких.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some context word &quot;тряпка&quot; will be relevant. &quot;Тряпка&quot; (literally a &quot;rag&quot;) is person who is to weak and coward to act like a &quot;real man&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere close but definitely not a sinonym is a word (with a subtle tint of criminal slang) &quot;терпила&quot;. &quot;Терпила&quot; is somebody who can not stand for himself. In real criminal slang it was a word to call some special sort of victims but now it is used in a more general way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9372" RevisionGUID="a6c463e4-7864-4b18-95ab-4604e94a51da" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:28:10.117" UserId="5008" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="&quot;Неисполнитель&quot; doesn't mean anything interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd choose the word &quot;__Пустомеля__&quot; here. It's composed of the words &quot;Void&quot; and &quot;Grind&quot;. &quot;To grind with a tongue&quot; is a Russian idiom for stupid chatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Unlike &quot;Don'ter&quot; which seems to be quite modern, &quot;Пустомеля&quot; looks like a comer from &quot;Good Ol' Times&quot;. There are other variants: &quot;Пустослов&quot; (Void + Word); &quot;Пустобрёх&quot; (Void + Bark, Lie; sounds a bit ruder); and even &quot;Фуфло&quot; (criminal jargon, very rude)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9370" RevisionGUID="365c4dd8-9037-4e80-9835-55d800398bad" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:32:47.617" UserId="242" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="There's no word which is a good fit in 100% of cases. Though &quot;**нытик**&quot; is pretty close. &quot;Да он только ноет&quot; is said about somebody who complains a lot but does not make any real attempt to change the situation. So, from the verb &quot;ныть&quot; (to whine) there colloquial noun &quot;нытик&quot; is derived.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Here's quote from article about нытик's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он – нытик! Это почти приговор. Дело в том, что мужчина-нытик вызывает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; куда большее отторжение, чем постоянно причитающая женщина. У кого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вызывает? Да у любого встречного, не говоря уже о близких.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some context word &quot;**тряпка**&quot; will be relevant. &quot;Тряпка&quot; (literally a &quot;rag&quot;) is person who is to weak and coward to act like a &quot;real man&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere close but definitely not a sinonym is a word (with a subtle tint of criminal slang) &quot;терпила&quot;. &quot;**Терпила**&quot; is somebody who can not stand for himself. In real criminal slang it was a word to call some special sort of victims but now it is used in a more general way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9372" RevisionGUID="435303e7-d302-4c4f-8347-69ddfeeeaeeb" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:34:37.680" UserId="5008" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="&quot;Неисполнитель&quot; doesn't mean anything interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd choose the word &quot;__Пустомеля__&quot; here. It's composed of the words &quot;Void&quot; and &quot;Grind&quot;. &quot;To grind with a tongue&quot; is a Russian idiom for stupid chatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Unlike &quot;Don'ter&quot; which seems to be quite modern, &quot;_Пустомеля_&quot; looks like a comer from &quot;Good Ol' Times&quot; (although the word is really nice). There are other variants: &quot;_Пустослов_&quot; (Void + Word; more neutral like &quot;Babbler&quot;); &quot;_Пустобрёх_&quot; (Void + Bark, Lie; sounds a bit ruder); and even &quot;_Фуфло_&quot; (criminal jargon, very rude)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22719" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9369" RevisionGUID="32a0bb74-2f0b-4b49-b188-04a09ce104d7" CreationDate="2015-08-04T05:56:56.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/628444489464586244" />
  <row Id="22720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9351" RevisionGUID="8582d86d-4624-4d58-af9c-3116c4871805" CreationDate="2015-08-04T08:33:23.523" UserId="194" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="&quot;Эта моя машина&quot; = &quot;This my car&quot; is ungrammatical or incomplete sentence, both in Russian and English. It requires a continuation (what is with your car). Also it means you have several cars and want to speak about one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9373" RevisionGUID="26bd752f-b619-4d3e-a22d-26c3c4497941" CreationDate="2015-08-04T08:58:06.627" UserId="5454" Text="For the &quot;исполнитель&quot;, it is a kind of doer that does something that someone else (manager) tell him to do.  &#xD;&#xA;Person, that does what _he/she_ wants would be called &quot;деятельный человек (деятельная женщина)&quot; or &quot;созидатель(созидательница)&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;There is also word &quot;деятель&quot;, but it mostly used for political/art/science/whatever figures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9374" RevisionGUID="c0fc4ac7-a959-44f2-883d-d3fa7aad78c9" CreationDate="2015-08-04T09:05:40.503" UserId="551" Text="According to [Urban Dictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Don%27t-er):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Don't-er**&#xD;&#xA;A person that always says *I don't... I can't... Maybe...* contradict, hesitate. A person that's going against his will not doing of what he is capable to do! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is NOT a &quot;пустомеля&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ПУСТОМЕ́ЛЯ**, пустомели, мн. и, пустомелей, муж. и жен. (разг. фам.). Болтун, человек, любящий говорить, болтать, молоть пустое, вздор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пустомеля is a person that likes to talk a lot, and not a person that says &quot;I don't, I can't...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Слабак** is a good translation for &quot;don't-er&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слабый физически или слабовольный, малодушный человек. Выглядеть слабаком. Казаться слабаком. Парень оказался слабаком. Приятель твой с. Ты с. по сравнению с братом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a person that is physically weak or has weak will, etc. So he possibly often uses &quot;I don't, I can't...&quot; in his speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a bunch of synonyms for such person: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **НЫ́ТИК**, -а, муж. (разг.). Ноющий, всегда чем-н. недовольный человек. Словарь Ожегова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Нюня**. Плаксивый, бесхарактерный человек. «Все оттого, что я слишком их избаловал, что я нюня, тряпка, баба.» Чехов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also others: размазня, мямля, рохля, недотепа, слюнтяй" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9375" RevisionGUID="91204976-3b3f-4a19-b7c5-8992648627a0" CreationDate="2015-08-04T12:47:52.173" UserId="5830" Text="You can use the word бездельник (don'ter who is actually okay with himself doing nothing) or even дармоед (literally a person, who &quot;eats his food&quot; with the rest of collective without a contribution to the collective's work), depending on a context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="119b451e-4797-4721-88be-7189bfdc16aa" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:20:49.853" UserId="5832" Text="specifically if we were negotiating a deal and it was almost completed &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then one side started demanding one detail in the deal and the other side was refusing   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;than the first side said in writing **если да то да, а если нет то нет** what did they mean " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="119b451e-4797-4721-88be-7189bfdc16aa" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:20:49.853" UserId="5832" Text="meaning of the saying &quot;если да то да, а если нет то нет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="119b451e-4797-4721-88be-7189bfdc16aa" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:20:49.853" UserId="5832" Text="|словоупотребление|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="32ad3cde-bc3e-4f20-a246-1ec2fe4c80e7" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:31:34.793" UserId="5832" Comment="grammar " Text="Specifically if 2 people were negotiating a deal and it was almost agreed upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then side 1 started demanding to add a detail in the deal and side 2 was refusing this addition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than the side 1 said in writing **если да то да, а если нет то нет** and that they do not understand why side 2 was refusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did side 2 mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If side 2 does not agree to the detail then side 1 will not make the deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If side 2 will not agree then side 1 will still make the deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22733" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="32ad3cde-bc3e-4f20-a246-1ec2fe4c80e7" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:31:34.793" UserId="5832" Comment="grammar " Text="Meaning of the saying &quot;если да то да, а если нет то нет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9378" RevisionGUID="61ce1b07-5704-4d64-ae3a-ff4cec08ecbe" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:51:28.150" UserId="242" Text="So, &quot;если да - то да, если не нет - то нет&quot; means basically that all negotiations are done and no more bargaining is accepted. All the sides of negotiations should stick with what they currently have agreement upon. If somebody still believes that something should be changed, then no deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is #1 in your classification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a high style official business slang though. It sound like somebody was pretty fed up with negotiations ;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9378" RevisionGUID="293a34ec-c60f-411e-ac09-a7e7593a9fcf" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:58:49.410" UserId="242" Comment="added 313 characters in body" Text="So, &quot;если да - то да, если не нет - то нет&quot; means basically that all negotiations are done and no more bargaining is accepted. All the sides of negotiations should stick with what they currently have agreement upon. If somebody still believes that something should be changed, then no deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is #1 in your classification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a high style official business slang though. It sound like somebody was pretty fed up with negotiations ;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that the phrase &quot;да - да, нет - нет&quot; is actually Biblical, though is used in different context. It is from the Gospel of Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Но да будет слово ваше: «да, да», «нет, нет»; а чту сверх этого, ту&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от лукавого»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what Jesus encouraged people to do - instead of making lenghty promises and obligations. Here's the English version of that excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no';&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anything beyond these is of evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9379" RevisionGUID="45378bf3-dcdb-439f-836c-9f2682bbbac3" CreationDate="2015-08-05T04:36:30.347" UserId="5008" Text="I should only add that some kind of bargaining in business is always acceptable. And although this phrase, while being highly emotional, strictly means that no further negotiations are accepted and the deal is only possible under the current conditions, in practice, it may rather mean that one side believes that the other side is seeking to change the _essential_ conditions which is inappropriate. Anyway, the further negotiations are put under risk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9378" RevisionGUID="41df3c1f-586e-4892-b01e-325be1cd6dad" CreationDate="2015-08-05T08:10:00.477" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="So, &quot;если да - то да, если не нет - то нет&quot; means basically that all negotiations are done and no more bargaining is accepted. All the sides of negotiations should stick with what they currently have agreement upon. If somebody still believes that something should be changed, then no deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is #1 in your classification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a high style official business slang though. It sound like somebody was pretty fed up with negotiations ;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it worth to mention that the phrase &quot;да - да, нет - нет&quot; is actually Biblical, though is used in different context. It is from the Gospel of Matthew:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Но да будет слово ваше: «да, да», «нет, нет»; а что сверх этого, то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от лукавого»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what Jesus encouraged people to do - instead of making lenghty promises and obligations. Here's the English version of that excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair&#xD;&#xA;&gt; white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no';&#xD;&#xA;&gt; anything beyond these is of evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="30d06911-9bff-4c45-969b-4488a08566c8" CreationDate="2015-08-05T09:19:41.093" UserId="2060" Comment="edited body" Text="Specifically if 2 people were negotiating a deal and it was almost agreed upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then side 1 started demanding to add a detail in the deal and side 2 was refusing this addition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the side 1 said in writing **если да то да, а если нет то нет** and that they do not understand why side 2 was refusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did side 1 mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If side 2 does not agree to the detail then side 1 will not make the deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If side 2 will not agree then side 1 will still make the deal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9380" RevisionGUID="c8fa3a59-08bf-4756-81a2-905012656e92" CreationDate="2015-08-05T09:55:43.383" UserId="5448" Text="Most Russian-spesker understand Ukranian. I do. &#xD;&#xA;But just a small part can write.&#xD;&#xA;It's about classic Ukrainian, western one.&#xD;&#xA;So-calles &quot;суржик&quot; (surzhik, eastern ukrainian coine) is much closer to Russian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="94144290-75fd-4dbc-8a8a-ba7fd90f9823" CreationDate="2015-08-05T10:58:15.643" UserId="185" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="0c056094-6326-4925-ba56-2bf177801913" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:23:18.493" UserId="5543" Comment="Поправил польские знаки (ó, ć)" Text="Если коротко, то это синонимы, так же как и try и attempt. И так же как и try и attempt **оба** эти слова могут значить и &quot;делать попытку&quot;, и &quot;стараться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если подлиннее, то &quot;пробовать&quot; - это позднее заимствование из латыни (probare) через польский (próba, próbować) или же немецкий (Probe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А &quot;пытать(ся)&quot; - славянское слово означающее &quot;спрашивать&quot;. Однако же в современном русском языке &quot;пытать&quot; обыкновенно означает &quot;допрос с пристрастием&quot; (torture), а &quot;пытаться&quot; - как раз синоним &quot;пробовать&quot;. &quot;Пытать&quot; в значении &quot;спрашивать&quot; встречается довольно редко." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22742" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9123" RevisionGUID="0c056094-6326-4925-ba56-2bf177801913" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:23:18.493" Comment="Proposed by 5543 approved by 5008 edit id of 656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9381" RevisionGUID="b77182d5-6206-4ffc-9b9d-7cd8259486d8" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:27:21.210" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Я начал молиться – не вслух, а так, про себя, будто разговаривая с непонятным мне существом, что смотрит за всеми нами и определяет жизнь каждого – от **самых лучших**, вроде Кати и моего отца, до свинарей, которых я ненавидел, но теперь, уже в кабине самолёта готовясь покинуть их, почти любил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как понимать сформулирование **самый лучший**? Может &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... from the **very best** ones, such as ... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9381" RevisionGUID="b77182d5-6206-4ffc-9b9d-7cd8259486d8" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:27:21.210" UserId="5543" Text="Двойная превосходная степень" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9381" RevisionGUID="b77182d5-6206-4ffc-9b9d-7cd8259486d8" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:27:21.210" UserId="5543" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="662b3c23-9468-4854-868a-6755b8677b85" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:40:36.467" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Станция &quot;Площадь Победы&quot; лежала перед нами, и я чувствовал себя Колумбом, достигшим Америки. Ну ладно, сбавил я, одним из членов Колумбова экипажа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что это за слово *Колумбова*? Это не прилагательное, потому что оно кончалось бы тогда на -ого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="662b3c23-9468-4854-868a-6755b8677b85" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:40:36.467" UserId="5543" Text="Странное слова исходящие от слова Колумб" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="662b3c23-9468-4854-868a-6755b8677b85" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:40:36.467" UserId="5543" Text="|слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9383" RevisionGUID="8f99c69a-403e-449d-aeda-90da077bf074" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:41:39.697" UserId="1236" Text="Грамота.ру [пишет][1] о двойной превосходной степени: «Это допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше избегать».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И, конечно же, **the very best** – это правильная интерпретация выражения **самый лучший**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="39896005-169c-4537-986b-6bc49567e812" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:48:14.513" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; На «Автово» сумасшедший дом. Или был сумасшедший дом но с этой станцией вовсе ничего до конца не поймёшь. Только перед «Автово» ещё и «Кировский завод», а там есть «Кировская бригада», с которой не шути. Они безо всяких псов порвут, как Тузик **грелку**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы это перевел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will catch you without any dogs, just as (a dog's name) would catch a hot bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но этот перевод не имеет смысла. Как это правильно перевести?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22751" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="39896005-169c-4537-986b-6bc49567e812" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:48:14.513" UserId="5543" Text="Как Тузик грелку - как это перевести" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22752" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="39896005-169c-4537-986b-6bc49567e812" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:48:14.513" UserId="5543" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="19d3a6a7-1041-42b4-99fb-69decfd4065f" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:59:37.380" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Но как-то разбрасываться таким знакомством нам не приходилось. Живой человек, к нам расположенный, и не мутант – это **дорогого** стоит в чужом городе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему здесь используется родительный падеж? Я не вижу ничего, к чему он мог бы относиться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="19d3a6a7-1041-42b4-99fb-69decfd4065f" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:59:37.380" UserId="5543" Text="Странная форма прилагательного &quot;дорогой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="19d3a6a7-1041-42b4-99fb-69decfd4065f" CreationDate="2015-08-05T12:59:37.380" UserId="5543" Text="|падежи|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9386" RevisionGUID="5a5ffed2-7209-4751-b4ae-080cdd115024" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:01:46.513" UserId="1236" Text="**Колумбов** – это, конечно же, прилагательное, [_притяжательное прилагательное_][1] – разряд прилагательных, выражающих принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья нора), образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий. О значении и употреблении притяжательных прилагательных можно [почитать у Розенталя][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/58.htm#%D0%B7_04" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="346269be-f75d-4825-8117-fede1d4d9611" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:06:38.490" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Семецкий, чуя, что дело пахнет **жареным**, сказал, что будет спать в дальней комнате, потому что оттуда лучше вид. Вид, как же! Поверил я в этот вид, наверняка он просто рассчитывал удрать, спрыгнув вниз, на ржавые крыши пристроек. Будь моя воля, я посоветовал бы ему это сделать, не дожидаясь оказии, просто так, профилактически. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значит ли в этом контексте слово **жареный** то же, что **опасный**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="346269be-f75d-4825-8117-fede1d4d9611" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:06:38.490" UserId="5543" Text="Значение прилагательного в этом контексте" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="346269be-f75d-4825-8117-fede1d4d9611" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:06:38.490" UserId="5543" Text="|перевод|контекст|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9388" RevisionGUID="0834cacb-62f3-4aff-896b-35b7f4c85ef7" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:20:04.127" UserId="1236" Text="**Стоить** может управлять винительным падежом, «стоит **одну копейку**», но может управлять и родительным, когда речь идёт не о денежной стоимости, а о ценности, важности, т. е. в переносном значении: «Это стоило ему **многих усилий**». В выражении `дорогого стоит` «дорогое» значит «что-то дорогое», и может, в принципе, относиться к чему угодно, в зависимости от контекста, но вообще-то это цельная фразеологическая единица, которая значит «**имеет большую ценность**»:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но материнское сердце дорогого стоит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Красивая улыбка дорогого стоит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало слово, но дорогого стоит! (пословица)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9389" RevisionGUID="a4d5f16b-3c8a-400e-8fbd-8cb0b228a7dd" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:26:41.180" UserId="1236" Text="**[Дело] пахнет/запахло жареным** – это фразеологизм, который означает «опасно, рискованно», синонимы: *пахнет порохом*, *пахнет керосином*, *пахнет палёным*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="86963d4a-0d26-4a25-b6ee-5adba458965e" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:29:05.863" UserId="5454" Text="&quot;как Тузик грелку&quot; — значит &quot;на мелкие клочки&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Возможное переводы:  &#xD;&#xA;They will made mincemeat of you,  &#xD;&#xA;tear you apart,  &#xD;&#xA;wipe the floor with you,    &#xD;&#xA;shred you into pieces." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22763" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="7fecdd9e-e9f0-4cbf-b08b-681c3499b2c8" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:34:08.833" UserId="1236" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|выражения|idioms|контекст|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22764" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9385" RevisionGUID="dd520e14-a2ba-4b40-83e7-3653ae31b409" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:34:43.590" UserId="1236" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|выражения|idioms|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22765" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="e22cdc9f-9724-4e5e-84ba-cec2a3501a47" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:35:06.360" UserId="1236" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|выражения|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="d45ba155-e23a-4cc9-ae0d-2d11baee059b" CreationDate="2015-08-05T13:48:00.840" UserId="5454" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="&quot;как Тузик грелку&quot; — значит &quot;на мелкие клочки&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Возможное переводы:  &#xD;&#xA;They will  &#xD;&#xA;make mincemeat of you/  &#xD;&#xA;tear you apart/  &#xD;&#xA;wipe the floor with you/    &#xD;&#xA;shred you into pieces  &#xD;&#xA;without any dogs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="485f5608-919c-4716-b753-c48f9951567e" CreationDate="2015-08-05T14:12:35.207" UserId="5008" Comment="added 2351 characters in body" Text="Если нет разницы, то в качестве именной части сказуемого следует использовать краткую форму прилагательного (кстати, её иногда называют также предикативной).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но дело в том, что зачастую краткие и полные формы прилагательных существенно отличаются друг от друга. Самый очевидный пример - это временные и постоянные признаки. Например, &quot;Он был зол&quot; - he was angry; &quot;Он был злым&quot; - he was evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немного подробнее можно почитать, например, [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается приведённых примеров, то тут допустимы обе формы. Происходит это очевидно потому, что они несколько отличаются по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она хороша&quot; = She's great (either she's pretty or she's a professional); &quot;Она хорошая&quot; = She's a good person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Решение было просто&quot; для русского уха это звучит практически как &quot;Принять решение/решить было просто&quot; (Easy to decide/solve), т.е. наречие, а не прилагательное. Вероятно поэтому можно встретить обе формы: &quot;решение было просто&quot; и &quot;решение было простым&quot; (The decision/solution was simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Даже если между краткой и полной формой нет смысловой разницы, то, по крайней мере, стилистическое различие присутствует обязательно: краткая форма звучит резче, чётче, определённее; а полное прилагательное как будто бы намекает на присутствие ещё одного (определяемого) существительного, что даёт какую-то недосказанность, привлекает внимание слушателя. Не удивительно, что в курсах русского языка для иностранцев эту особенность могут опускать, но в художественной литературе такой приём встречается весьма часто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь к примерам. &quot;_Я был верен это книге_&quot; и &quot;_Я был верным этой книге_&quot;. В принципе, допустимо и одно, и другое, но &quot;_Я был верен_&quot; звучит намного лучше: более чётко, более однозначно, с акцентом на действие - &quot;Я верил этой книге&quot;, &quot;Я следовал этой книге&quot; и т.п. &quot;_Я был верным этой книге_&quot; звучит как-то более &quot;размазанно&quot;, вяло - ближе к &quot;Я был верным последователем этой книги&quot;, &quot;Я был по натуре верным человеком и следовал этой книге&quot; и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_И я успел обнаружить, что станция эта огромная_.&quot; Если заглянуть в оригинал, то окажется, что, на самом деле, предложение на этом не заканчивается: &quot;_И я успел обнаружить, что станция эта огромная, с рационально использованными тупиками и помещениями, с аккуратными надписями и названиями, написанными под трафарет тем самым шрифтом, который бывает только у военных_&quot;. То есть здесь идёт подряд несколько определений к слову &quot;станция&quot;, разделённых запятыми. В этом случае разумнее использовать полное прилагательное. Но обратите внимание, что при другой _пунктуации_ уместнее была бы краткая форма: &quot;И я успел обнаружить, что станция эта огромна: с аккуратными надписями и названиями...&quot; При чтении первый вариант должен звучать плавно (одна большая мысль - &quot;станция и огромная, и с надписями и т.д.&quot;), а второй - с заметной паузой в середине предложения (две мысли - &quot;станция была огромна&quot; и &quot;как именно огромна была станция&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Разгадка была проста - станцией управляли не просто военные, а военные медики_&quot;. Здесь сразу после прилагательного мы видим знак &quot;тире&quot;, который недвусмысленно отделяет утверждение (&quot;Разгадка была проста&quot;) от последующего пояснения (&quot;Станцией управляли не просто военные...&quot;). То есть опять пауза, которая лучше сочетается с кратким прилагательным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем-то тут нет какого-то чёткого правила, но сама тенденция, я надеюсь, понятна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.goldrussian.ru/polnye-i-kratkie-prilagatelnye.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9179" RevisionGUID="ae2483f8-bb4a-4df7-a27c-19b22f77b3d2" CreationDate="2015-08-05T14:23:26.493" UserId="5008" Comment="added 2351 characters in body" Text="Если нет разницы, то в качестве именной части сказуемого следует использовать краткую форму прилагательного (кстати, её иногда называют также предикативной).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но дело в том, что зачастую краткие и полные формы прилагательных существенно отличаются друг от друга. Самый очевидный пример - это временные и постоянные признаки. Например, &quot;Он был зол&quot; - he was angry; &quot;Он был злым&quot; - he was evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немного подробнее можно почитать, например, [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается приведённых примеров, то тут допустимы обе формы. Происходит это очевидно потому, что они несколько отличаются по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она хороша&quot; = She's great (either she's pretty or she's a professional); &quot;Она хорошая&quot; = She's a good person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Решение было просто&quot; для русского уха это звучит практически как &quot;Принять решение/решить было просто&quot; (Easy to decide/solve), т.е. наречие, а не прилагательное. Вероятно поэтому можно встретить обе формы: &quot;решение было просто&quot; и &quot;решение было простым&quot; (The decision/solution was simple).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Даже если между краткой и полной формой нет смысловой разницы, то, по крайней мере, стилистическое различие присутствует обязательно: краткая форма звучит резче, чётче, определённее; а полное прилагательное как будто бы намекает на присутствие ещё одного (определяемого) существительного, что даёт какую-то недосказанность, привлекает внимание слушателя. Не удивительно, что в курсах русского языка для иностранцев эту особенность могут опускать, но в художественной литературе такой приём встречается весьма часто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь к примерам. &quot;_Я был верен этой книге_&quot; и &quot;_Я был верным этой книге_&quot;. В принципе, допустимо и одно, и другое, но &quot;_Я был верен_&quot; звучит намного лучше: более чётко, более однозначно, с акцентом на действие - &quot;Я верил этой книге&quot;, &quot;Я следовал этой книге&quot; и т.п. &quot;_Я был верным этой книге_&quot; звучит как-то более &quot;размазанно&quot;, вяло - ближе к &quot;Я был верным последователем этой книги&quot;, &quot;Я был по натуре верным человеком и следовал этой книге&quot; и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_И я успел обнаружить, что станция эта огромная_.&quot; Если заглянуть в оригинал, то окажется, что, на самом деле, предложение на этом не заканчивается: &quot;_И я успел обнаружить, что станция эта огромная, с рационально использованными тупиками и помещениями, с аккуратными надписями и названиями, написанными под трафарет тем самым шрифтом, который бывает только у военных_&quot;. То есть здесь идёт подряд несколько определений к слову &quot;станция&quot;, разделённых запятыми. В этом случае разумнее использовать полное прилагательное. Но обратите внимание, что при другой _пунктуации_ уместнее была бы краткая форма: &quot;И я успел обнаружить, что станция эта огромна: с аккуратными надписями и названиями...&quot; При чтении первый вариант должен звучать плавно (одна большая мысль - &quot;станция и огромная, и с надписями и т.д.&quot;), а второй - с заметной паузой в середине предложения (две мысли - &quot;станция была огромна&quot; и &quot;как именно огромна была станция&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Разгадка была проста - станцией управляли не просто военные, а военные медики_&quot;. Здесь сразу после прилагательного мы видим знак &quot;тире&quot;, который недвусмысленно отделяет утверждение (&quot;Разгадка была проста&quot;) от последующего пояснения (&quot;Станцией управляли не просто военные...&quot;). Здесь лучшим выбором будет краткая форма &quot;проста&quot;, которая удачнее разделяет мысли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем-то тут нет какого-то чёткого правила, но сама тенденция, я надеюсь, понятна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.goldrussian.ru/polnye-i-kratkie-prilagatelnye.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9391" RevisionGUID="de181087-948e-462c-98db-3349f173f435" CreationDate="2015-08-05T14:41:01.670" UserId="5605" Text="запахло жареным&#xD;&#xA;• ПАХНЕТ/ЗАПАХЛО ЖАРЕНЫМ highly coll&#xD;&#xA;[VP; impers]&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;1. sth. promises profit:&#xD;&#xA;- it (sth.) smells of money;&#xD;&#xA;- there's money to be made.&#xD;&#xA;     ♦ У этого спекулянта большие связи, он всегда знает, где пахнет жареным. This speculator has good connections and always knows where there's money to be made.&#xD;&#xA;2. Also: ПАХНЕТ/ЗАПАХЛО ПАЛЕНЫМ highly coll danger from or punishment for some wrongdoing, illegal actions etc is imminent:&#xD;&#xA;- one smells trouble (coming);&#xD;&#xA;- there's danger in the air;&#xD;&#xA;- it looks like they've got me (you etc );&#xD;&#xA;- it looks like the jig is up.&#xD;&#xA;     ♦ &quot;Так, - сказал Губошлёп, не утрачивая своей загадочной весёлости. - Что-то палёным пахнет&quot; (Шукшин 1). &quot;Damn,&quot; said Fat Lip, without losing his enigmatic gaiety. &quot;It looks like they've got us&quot; (1a)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22770" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="c7e46a1c-13ce-4fae-8f04-856f287c42b5" CreationDate="2015-08-05T14:42:27.177" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9391" RevisionGUID="9797ef58-6310-44ca-b875-55c1a673a2d2" CreationDate="2015-08-05T14:52:46.147" UserId="5605" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="запахло жареным&#xD;&#xA;• ПАХНЕТ/ЗАПАХЛО ЖАРЕНЫМ highly coll&#xD;&#xA;[VP; impers]&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;1. sth. promises profit:&#xD;&#xA;- it (sth.) smells of money;&#xD;&#xA;- there's money to be made.&#xD;&#xA;     ♦ У этого спекулянта большие связи, он всегда знает, где пахнет жареным. This speculator has good connections and always knows where there's money to be made.&#xD;&#xA;2. Also: ПАХНЕТ/ЗАПАХЛО ПАЛЕНЫМ highly coll danger from or punishment for some wrongdoing, illegal actions etc is imminent:&#xD;&#xA;- one smells trouble (coming);&#xD;&#xA;- there's danger in the air;&#xD;&#xA;- it looks like they've got me (you etc );&#xD;&#xA;- it looks like the jig is up.&#xD;&#xA;     ♦ &quot;Так, - сказал Губошлёп, не утрачивая своей загадочной весёлости. - Что-то палёным пахнет&quot; (Шукшин 1). &quot;Damn,&quot; said Fat Lip, without losing his enigmatic gaiety. &quot;It looks like they've got us&quot; (1a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном контексте речь идёт о грозящей Семецкому ОПАСНОСТИ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context we are talking about DANGER." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="efef9def-89a6-49a2-8932-e0e0d86152aa" CreationDate="2015-08-05T15:08:12.883" UserId="5543" Comment="понять, не перевести" Text="&gt; На «Автово» сумасшедший дом. Или был сумасшедший дом но с этой станцией вовсе ничего до конца не поймёшь. Только перед «Автово» ещё и «Кировский завод», а там есть «Кировская бригада», с которой не шути. Они безо всяких псов порвут, как Тузик **грелку**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы это перевел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will catch you without any dogs, just as (a dog's name) would catch a hot bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но этот перевод не имеет смысла. Как это правильно понять?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22773" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="efef9def-89a6-49a2-8932-e0e0d86152aa" CreationDate="2015-08-05T15:08:12.883" UserId="5543" Comment="понять, не перевести" Text="Как Тузик грелку - как это понять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22774" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="35a2e928-bf11-4a61-a0be-b58fe3b9c08e" CreationDate="2015-08-05T15:09:13.060" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5543,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;marmistrz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9381" RevisionGUID="b7f11752-ff42-4c3e-8e81-1113e170fecc" CreationDate="2015-08-05T15:14:00.487" UserId="5008" Comment="Minor correction" Text="&gt; Я начал молиться – не вслух, а так, про себя, будто разговаривая с непонятным мне существом, что смотрит за всеми нами и определяет жизнь каждого – от **самых лучших**, вроде Кати и моего отца, до свинарей, которых я ненавидел, но теперь, уже в кабине самолёта готовясь покинуть их, почти любил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как понимать сочетание **самый лучший**? Может &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... from the **very best** ones, such as ... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9392" RevisionGUID="e8f38921-16c8-43c6-ac0a-0e5c1f12c67e" CreationDate="2015-08-05T16:03:13.993" UserId="5605" Text="Это образное выражение означает, что кто-то (они, он, она) очень легко и быстро с кем-то ( с ними, с ним, с ней) совершит расправу, уничтожит. И сделает это так же легко и быстро, как собака порвёт на части медицинскую резиновую ёмкость для горячей воды, которую в России называют &quot;грелка&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9392" RevisionGUID="267cc25c-962c-4cb2-a6aa-d14b2a24c0b6" CreationDate="2015-08-05T16:18:19.367" UserId="5605" Comment="added 459 characters in body" Text="Это образное выражение означает, что кто-то (они, он, она) очень легко и быстро с кем-то ( с ними, с ним, с ней) совершит расправу, уничтожит. И сделает это так же легко и быстро, как собака порвёт на части медицинскую резиновую ёмкость для горячей воды, которую в России называют &quot;грелка&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эти слова не всегда являются грубой угрозой, довольно часто они имеют грубовато-иронический смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This figurative expression means that someone (they, he, she) is very easy and fast with someone (them, him, her) to commit to kill, to destroy. And to make it as easy and fast as a dog will tear to pieces medical rubber hot water tank, which in Russia are called &quot;грелка&quot;.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are not always rude threat, they are often crudely ironic sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9393" RevisionGUID="54db3a31-4768-4d03-af5e-c20e67fb3fdc" CreationDate="2015-08-05T16:22:39.960" UserId="5008" Text="Вообще, выражение выглядит неоднозначным, так как грелки обычно делаются из довольно плотной резины, так что далеко не всякий &quot;тузик&quot; их способен порвать. Так что иногда употребляется вариант: &quot;__Порвать как тузик тряпку__&quot;, что должно быть несколько более понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примерно то же самое означает и &quot;Порвать на британский флаг&quot; (to tear in pieces like Union Jack). Просто современный жаргон." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9394" RevisionGUID="ab0f5e78-aa42-463d-8058-f6460936afc8" CreationDate="2015-08-05T16:34:53.437" UserId="5605" Text="Русско-английский перевод ДОРОГОГО СТОИТ.&#xD;&#xA;ДОРОГОГО СТОИТ&#xD;&#xA;употребляется в том числе в ироническом и даже саркастическом контексте it's worth a lot/a great deal; it's worth its weight in gold ( более вычурно ) Подарок Лужкова дорогого стоит («Новые Известия»). - Luzhkov's gift comes at a price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Русско-Английский словарь общей тематики.     	Russian-English dictionary of general subjects. 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22780" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9357" RevisionGUID="571e9243-651b-439c-9920-e1dd66b5415c" CreationDate="2015-08-05T18:05:45.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/628990288061710336" />
  <row Id="22781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="183a5a14-32a3-46db-9d53-372bcc29520f" CreationDate="2015-08-05T19:03:30.063" UserId="4560" Text="Это все-таки прилагательное, просто родительный и дательный падеж в мужском и среднем роде у него **Колумбова** и **Колумбову**, соответственно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время притяжательные на **-ин** склоняются вполне «прилагательно»: **маминого**, **маминому**, а не *\*мамина*, *\*мамину*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объясняется это, видимо, тем, что с притяжательными прилагательными *-jь* в праславянском не сочеталось (что видно по исходным формам), поэтому склонение по образцу прилагательных возникло позже, по аналогии, которая осталась неполной. По тому, как ведут себя притяжательные прилагательные в польском, сложно об этом догадаться — однако же, например, в чешском «существительных» окончаний гораздо больше, чем в русском: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kolumbov**a** mořsk**á** výprav**a**  *(экспедиция)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kolumbov**y** mořsk**é** výprav**y**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kolumbov**ě** mořsk**é** výprav**ě**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;o Kolumbov**ě** slavn**ém** objev**u** *(открытии)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9396" RevisionGUID="5e788ae5-42cf-46b6-8ba7-3fb548911d42" CreationDate="2015-08-05T19:08:02.290" UserId="5443" Text="В данном случае употреблён распространённый, но вызывающий некоторые споры словесный штамп (&quot;дорогого стоит&quot;), который не нарушает падежных правил (родительный падеж уместен), но которому говорящие не придают буквального смысла. Его используют как идиому, обозначающую, что упомянутое перед этим событие (чей-то благородный поступок, похвала со стороны известного человека, чья-то оговорка с саморазоблачением и т.п.) о многом говорит или имеет особое значение. Буквальный же смысл предложения состоит в сопоставлении названного (здесь - того, что нашёлся благожелательно настроенный человек) с тем, что за это можно было бы без сожаления отдать в тех условиях (здесь - &quot;нечто дорогое&quot;) - настолько наличие такого человека полезно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример аналогичного использования родительного падежа в простейшей ситуации: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;купленный предмет (не) стоит заплаченных за него денег&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример классической поговорки с родительным падежом: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Игра не стоит свеч&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(буквальный смысл: на свечи потратиться придётся, а выигрыш в карты этого не окупит; переносный смысл - &quot;за это дело браться невыгодно&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9395" RevisionGUID="f7d3210d-12a3-4e84-9165-fa3ac70e9ce3" CreationDate="2015-08-05T19:09:43.907" UserId="4560" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Это все-таки прилагательное, просто родительный и дательный падеж в мужском и среднем роде у него **Колумбова** и **Колумбову**, соответственно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время притяжательные на **-ин** склоняются вполне «прилагательно»: **маминого**, **маминому**, а не *\*мамина*, *\*мамину*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объясняется это, видимо, тем, что с притяжательными прилагательными *-jь* в праславянском не сочеталось (что видно по исходным формам), поэтому склонение по образцу прилагательных возникло позже, по аналогии, которая осталась неполной. По тому, как ведут себя притяжательные прилагательные в польском, сложно об этом догадаться — однако же, например, в чешском (где склонение очень консервативно) «существительных» окончаний гораздо больше, чем в русском: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kolumbov**a** mořsk**á** výprav**a**  *(экспедиция)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kolumbov**y** mořsk**é** výprav**y**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Kolumbov**ě** mořsk**é** výprav**ě**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;o Kolumbov**ě** slavn**ém** objev**u** *(открытии)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9390" RevisionGUID="153f42af-1d41-4561-91ea-495fcbf2a385" CreationDate="2015-08-05T19:42:54.490" UserId="5454" Comment="Improved answer" Text="&quot;как Тузик грелку&quot; — значит &quot;на мелкие клочки&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Возможное переводы:  &#xD;&#xA;They will  &#xD;&#xA;make mincemeat of you/  &#xD;&#xA;tear you apart/  &#xD;&#xA;wipe the floor with you/    &#xD;&#xA;shred you into pieces  &#xD;&#xA;without any dogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Upd_. Меня сейчас озарило. Собаки здесь не причем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will make mincemeat of you without any mincer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They will shred you into pieces without any shredder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22785" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9349" RevisionGUID="699f4328-8540-469c-bc6d-9fc9f2650db0" CreationDate="2015-08-05T21:05:46.197" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/629035589875159040" />
  <row Id="22786" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9382" RevisionGUID="8fc8bd36-b93e-4fbd-8a1a-4b0eb82eece3" CreationDate="2015-08-05T22:27:36.867" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Колумбова&quot; как производная от слова &quot;Колумб&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9384" RevisionGUID="b228de01-9f16-42fd-a3b5-091d589af526" CreationDate="2015-08-05T22:28:11.750" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Значение выражения &quot;как Тузик грелку&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22788" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9381" RevisionGUID="84ae4e57-dc5f-4fcb-af0c-8d4ff6d55cb2" CreationDate="2015-08-05T22:28:40.790" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Двойная превосходная степень - можно ли сказать &quot;самый лучший&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="a99720b6-64e9-4f98-a9e4-7ff8d86be1d1" CreationDate="2015-08-05T22:29:32.097" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Синонимичны ли контекстуально слова &quot;жареный&quot; и &quot;опасный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9394" RevisionGUID="131b0a91-0ddd-4578-a4d9-58c5837b828c" CreationDate="2015-08-05T23:22:08.423" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Русско-английский перевод `дорогого стоит`.&#xD;&#xA;`Дорого стоит` употребляется в том числе в ироническом и даже саркастическом контексте it's worth a lot/a great deal; it's worth its weight in gold ( более вычурно ) Подарок Лужкова дорогого стоит («Новые Известия»). - Luzhkov's gift comes at a price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Русско-Английский словарь общей тематики.     	Russian-English dictionary of general subjects. 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22791" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9359" RevisionGUID="696a644d-58f7-44f2-92db-68627ba2bc08" CreationDate="2015-08-06T05:26:54.887" UserId="242" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user4419802&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anixx&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9397" RevisionGUID="c8857ad2-717f-42ff-98bd-be1c76bd8984" CreationDate="2015-08-06T16:45:38.157" UserId="5443" Text="Как правило, такие конструкции тавтологичны, например, нельзя без иронии сказать &quot;самый прекрасный&quot; (прилагательное и без того выражает предельную степень). Но выражение &quot;самый лучший&quot; употребляется широко и не только в разговорной речи. В пользу его допустимости говорит и то, что в другом контексте &quot;лучший&quot; может означать сравнительную степень (лучше названного перед этим, напр. &quot;есть лучший способ&quot;) или подразумевать относительность (лучший в ограниченном кругу сопоставляемого), а &quot;самый лучший&quot; такое понимание сразу исключает, добавляя ясности. Однако было бы бессмысленно рассуждать о том, что одно &quot;прекрасно&quot;, но другое &quot;прекраснее&quot; его или что оно &quot;самое прекрасное&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="47472d27-e5da-44bf-81f0-925721a79cae" CreationDate="2015-08-06T23:15:23.780" UserId="5691" Text="In the west, it's called World War 2. For Russians, this is called the Great Patriotic War...but does this **only** refer to the Eastern European Front 1941 Jun 22 to 1945 May 9?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is [the Battle of Britain][1], for example, considered part of the Great Patriotic War? What about the Japanese Pacific theater? Do Russians have a term for WW2 that encompasses the greater global conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, even closer, what about [the Winter War][2] (first war with Finland in 1939)? Or something like [the Battle of Lake Khasan][3] that was at the Far East fighting the Japanese in 1938? Are these considered part of the Great Patriotic War?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry I have no idea what tag to use so I just used &quot;nouns&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="47472d27-e5da-44bf-81f0-925721a79cae" CreationDate="2015-08-06T23:15:23.780" UserId="5691" Text="Is the &quot;Great Patriotic War&quot; used only for the Eastern European Theater 1941 - 1945?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9398" RevisionGUID="47472d27-e5da-44bf-81f0-925721a79cae" CreationDate="2015-08-06T23:15:23.780" UserId="5691" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="04dff3b1-9381-4baa-96c1-67345a45a26f" CreationDate="2015-08-06T23:53:27.493" UserId="2079" Text="The term &quot;Великая Отечественная Война&quot; (Great Patriotic War) refers to the war between USSR and the Nazi Germany only.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answers are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the west, it's called World War 2. For Russians, this is called the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War...but does this only refer to the Eastern European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Front 1941 Jun 22 to 1945 May 9?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the Battle of Britain, for example, considered part of the Great&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patriotic War? What about the Japanese Pacific theater? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or, even closer, what about the Winter War (first war with Finland in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1939)? Or something like the Battle of Lake Khasan that was at the Far&#xD;&#xA;&gt; East fighting the Japanese in 1938? Are these considered part of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are not considered parts of the Great Patriotic War.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do Russians have a term for WW2 that encompasses the greater global conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term is Вторая Мировая Война (Word War II).  Why would somebody invent another term, if there is an internationally accepted one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="dbb7728e-50af-4480-a487-8a969370e9dd" CreationDate="2015-08-07T02:33:18.827" UserId="2079" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="The term &quot;Великая Отечественная Война&quot; (Great Patriotic War) refers only to the war between USSR and the Nazi Germany, together with it's European allies (fascist Italy, Romania etc.)  It started at June 22, 1941 and finished at May 9, 1945.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answers are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the west, it's called World War 2. For Russians, this is called the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War...but does this only refer to the Eastern European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Front 1941 Jun 22 to 1945 May 9?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the Battle of Britain, for example, considered part of the Great&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patriotic War? What about the Japanese Pacific theater? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or, even closer, what about the Winter War (first war with Finland in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1939)? Or something like the Battle of Lake Khasan that was at the Far&#xD;&#xA;&gt; East fighting the Japanese in 1938? Are these considered part of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are not considered parts of the Great Patriotic War.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do Russians have a term for WW2 that encompasses the greater global conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term is Вторая Мировая Война (Word War II).  Why would somebody invent another term, if there is an internationally accepted one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="b1abb0fe-3e7a-4caa-852b-468a0fa6ceb2" CreationDate="2015-08-07T05:46:02.580" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma in these sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Несмотря на** факт абсолютной незаконности присоединения Крыма **Россией, факт** наличия неоднократных нарушений международного права со стороны Запада – ещё задолго до присоединения Крыма – по-прежнему остаётся фактом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Факт наличия неоднократных нарушений международного права со стороны Запада – ещё задолго до присоединения Крыма – по-прежнему остаётся **фактом, несмотря на** факт абсолютной незаконности присоединения Крыма Россией.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, then is it possible to explain why? After all, we don't seem to need commas with other prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**На** вершине горы он казался ещё выше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сквозь** бурю мы не пойдём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он взял больничный **в связи с** плохим самочувствием. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="b1abb0fe-3e7a-4caa-852b-468a0fa6ceb2" CreationDate="2015-08-07T05:46:02.580" UserId="170" Text="Do I need a comma with the preposition 'не смотря на'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="b1abb0fe-3e7a-4caa-852b-468a0fa6ceb2" CreationDate="2015-08-07T05:46:02.580" UserId="170" Text="|предлоги|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9401" RevisionGUID="d9a650b2-3fd5-4613-89e9-ca45e86667ce" CreationDate="2015-08-07T06:04:19.483" UserId="1236" Text="Gramota.ru [says][1]: «Обороты «**несмотря на** + существительное» обычно выделяются знаками препинания: *Как удвоить продажи, несмотря на кризис?*»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Phrases '**несмотря на** + noun' are usually separated with commas.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only explanation I can think of is that the preposition **несмотря на** is formed from the verb смотреть, and the whole phrase **несмотря на** + a noun looks very much like an adverbial participial phrase, деепричастный оборот, which is always singled out with commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22802" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9387" RevisionGUID="d63e34ed-807c-4ee5-a426-aefb046e7eca" CreationDate="2015-08-07T06:09:43.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/629534866732937216" />
  <row Id="22803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9402" RevisionGUID="82cc948b-47b1-44d8-a385-629cbf13a4bf" CreationDate="2015-08-07T06:25:29.350" UserId="5008" Text="Besides &quot;Great Patriotic War 1941-1945&quot; there is also &quot;Отечественная война 1812&quot; (i.e. &quot;Patriotic War 1812&quot;) which refers to the Frensch invasion of Russia (part of the Napoleonic Wars). Clearly, that is not a mere coincidence. And as the term &quot;Great Patriotic War 1941-1945&quot; doesn't include, say, Soviet-Japan war in August-Septemper 1945 (Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalin, Kuriles - part of WWII), likewise the term &quot;Patriotic War 1812&quot; doesn't include the Russian Campaign of 1813-1814 in Germany and France (part of the Napoleonic Wars) which directly followed the Napoleon's defeat in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the word &quot;Отечественная&quot; (Patriotic) here specifically mentions the general mobilization and a large-scale involvement of irregular guerilla troops in Russia. Hope that makes clear why the Battle of Britain can not be considered the part of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="ee1d6e74-fb5c-4144-9a52-ff1d8adcd9d6" CreationDate="2015-08-07T09:56:09.307" UserId="2079" Comment="edited body" Text="The term &quot;Великая Отечественная война&quot; (Great Patriotic War) refers only to the war between USSR and the Nazi Germany, together with it's European allies (fascist Italy, Romania etc.)  It started at June 22, 1941 and finished at May 9, 1945.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answers are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the west, it's called World War 2. For Russians, this is called the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War...but does this only refer to the Eastern European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Front 1941 Jun 22 to 1945 May 9?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the Battle of Britain, for example, considered part of the Great&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patriotic War? What about the Japanese Pacific theater? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or, even closer, what about the Winter War (first war with Finland in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1939)? Or something like the Battle of Lake Khasan that was at the Far&#xD;&#xA;&gt; East fighting the Japanese in 1938? Are these considered part of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are not considered parts of the Great Patriotic War.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do Russians have a term for WW2 that encompasses the greater global conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term is Вторая мировая война (Word War II).  Why would somebody invent another term, if there is an internationally accepted one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9403" RevisionGUID="17be37fb-5b3b-4f77-974f-4a12277d0bcd" CreationDate="2015-08-07T15:08:00.120" UserId="5843" Text="Следует улавливать тонкую грань в использовании вариантов «нахуй» и «на хуй». Существует наречие «нахуй». Оно имеет смысл «зачем»/«прочь». Также есть одноимённое междометие, которое используется просто в качестве связки слов в предложении.&#xD;&#xA;Надень шапку, нахуй, а то простудишься&#xD;&#xA;В отличие от наречия, «на хуй» надо понимать буквально. В любом случае, существует проверочное слово «в жопу». Если сомневаетесь, как грамотно написать деловое письмо, замените «на хуй» на «в жопу». Если смысл не изменился, то надо писать раздельно. А если «нахуй» можно безболезненно удалить из текста, то пишется слитно и выделяется, нахуй, запятыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://lurkmore.to/%D0%9F%D0%9D%D0%A5&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22806" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9184" RevisionGUID="3d37db85-8005-431e-b05a-fd8b7de7a828" CreationDate="2015-08-07T15:13:38.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/629671751069384705" />
  <row Id="22812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="4149c65f-d50d-4e58-b6d8-951796f26a33" CreationDate="2015-08-08T00:51:20.973" UserId="5288" Comment="direct insults and pejorative phrases should not take a place in the Title" Text="I've seen many Russians write *&quot;на хуй или нахуй&quot;* altogether, although I'm 99 % sure it should be written separately. Why is it so often written altogether (because of the stress on на confusing them?) and is the spelling with a space the correct version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22813" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="4149c65f-d50d-4e58-b6d8-951796f26a33" CreationDate="2015-08-08T00:51:20.973" UserId="5288" Comment="direct insults and pejorative phrases should not take a place in the Title" Text="in this Russian profanity the words are connected or space-delimited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22814" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="abe087c7-93af-4434-ab58-be35e19615a8" CreationDate="2015-08-08T01:12:08.993" UserId="5288" Comment="edited title" Text="Are these two words (Russian profanity) connected or space-delimited?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="abe087c7-93af-4434-ab58-be35e19615a8" CreationDate="2015-08-08T01:12:08.993" UserId="5288" Comment="edited title" Text="I've seen many Russians write *&quot;на хуй&quot;*, или *&quot;нахуй&quot;* altogether, although I'm 99 % sure it should be written separately. Why is it so often written altogether (because of the stress on на confusing them?) and is the spelling with a space the correct version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="4a34664e-b03d-4222-866e-55703f98a9a1" CreationDate="2015-08-08T04:20:43.523" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Which is correct &quot;нахуй&quot; or &quot;на хуй&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="df4fe194-9f0d-444f-9314-ff447dd2f083" CreationDate="2015-08-08T05:17:48.000" UserId="348" Comment="typo (filler to satisfy the stupid rule for edit descriptions)" Text="The term &quot;Великая Отечественная война&quot; (Great Patriotic War) refers only to the war between USSR and the Nazi Germany, together with it's European allies (fascist Italy, Romania etc.)  It started at June 22, 1941 and finished at May 9, 1945.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answers are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the west, it's called World War 2. For Russians, this is called the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War...but does this only refer to the Eastern European&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Front 1941 Jun 22 to 1945 May 9?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the Battle of Britain, for example, considered part of the Great&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Patriotic War? What about the Japanese Pacific theater? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or, even closer, what about the Winter War (first war with Finland in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1939)? Or something like the Battle of Lake Khasan that was at the Far&#xD;&#xA;&gt; East fighting the Japanese in 1938? Are these considered part of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Great Patriotic War?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are not considered parts of the Great Patriotic War.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do Russians have a term for WW2 that encompasses the greater global conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term is Вторая мировая война (World War II).  Why would somebody invent another term, if there is an internationally accepted one?&#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- ignore: filler to work around another stupid rule for edits) --&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22818" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9399" RevisionGUID="df4fe194-9f0d-444f-9314-ff447dd2f083" CreationDate="2015-08-08T05:17:48.000" Comment="Proposed by 348 approved by 5288, 5008 edit id of 657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9405" RevisionGUID="63df8c94-ccc2-4477-82aa-0d171c9f3e7a" CreationDate="2015-08-09T02:57:59.127" UserId="5848" Text="I'm trying to learn russian, I would like to know what &quot;светло мне&quot; means. The complete phrase is: &quot;Даже тёмной ночью светло мне&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9405" RevisionGUID="63df8c94-ccc2-4477-82aa-0d171c9f3e7a" CreationDate="2015-08-09T02:57:59.127" UserId="5848" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;Светло мне&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9405" RevisionGUID="63df8c94-ccc2-4477-82aa-0d171c9f3e7a" CreationDate="2015-08-09T02:57:59.127" UserId="5848" Text="|музыка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22823" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="2a99b462-e70a-4a57-a490-6e0e1ac3625d" CreationDate="2015-08-09T06:11:10.403" UserId="5600" Comment="title correction from 'не смотря на' to 'несмотря на'" Text="Do I need a comma with the preposition 'несмотря на'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22824" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9400" RevisionGUID="2a99b462-e70a-4a57-a490-6e0e1ac3625d" CreationDate="2015-08-09T06:11:10.403" Comment="Proposed by 5600 approved by 170 edit id of 659" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="da41a6bc-ada7-406a-97c5-876393fe8daf" CreationDate="2015-08-09T07:58:50.257" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Светло&quot; itself is an impersonal construction in the line with &quot;Холодно&quot;, &quot;Сыро&quot;, &quot;Грязно&quot;, &quot;Жарко&quot; etc. Yet together with an instrumental case it means rather than _a particular person feels_ that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Плохо&quot; - It is bad&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ему плохо&quot; - He feels bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;_Мне светло_&quot; is a kind of common poetical trope which even if may be read straight (Even in the dark night it's light to me) anyway sounds like &quot;_I feel peaceful_&quot; or something like that. And one more &quot;musical&quot; example to show that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Отчего, отчего, отчего мне так светло,&#xD;&#xA;    Оттого, что ты идёшь по переулку.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Отчего, отчего, отчего так хорошо,&#xD;&#xA;    Оттого, что ты мне просто улыбнулась." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="88d11324-b0b3-4e5d-b2cf-a20eb1406a71" CreationDate="2015-08-09T08:08:40.207" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="&quot;Светло&quot; itself is an impersonal construction in the line with &quot;Холодно&quot;, &quot;Сыро&quot;, &quot;Грязно&quot;, &quot;Жарко&quot; etc. Yet together with dative case it means rather than _a particular person feels_ that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Плохо&quot; - It is bad&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ему плохо&quot; - He feels bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;_Мне светло_&quot; is a kind of common poetical trope which even if may be read straight (Even in the dark night it's light to me) anyway sounds like &quot;_I feel peaceful_&quot; or something like that. And one more &quot;musical&quot; example to show that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Отчего, отчего, отчего мне так светло,&#xD;&#xA;    Оттого, что ты идёшь по переулку.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Отчего, отчего, отчего так хорошо,&#xD;&#xA;    Оттого, что ты мне просто улыбнулась." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9407" RevisionGUID="7b2c2863-89fb-4bed-bd79-dd8657113230" CreationDate="2015-08-09T09:10:55.157" UserId="5850" Text="The difference is in stress:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**This is my car** - &quot;*Это моя машина*&quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**This car is mine** - &quot;*Эта моя машина*&quot;. Usually we say: &quot;*эта машина - моя*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9406" RevisionGUID="fd0cb735-5aaa-4301-a364-08a423aab5fe" CreationDate="2015-08-09T09:36:15.803" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="&quot;Светло&quot; itself is an impersonal construction in the line with &quot;Холодно&quot;, &quot;Сыро&quot;, &quot;Грязно&quot;, &quot;Жарко&quot; etc. Yet together with dative case it rather means _a particular person feels_ that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Плохо&quot; - It is bad&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ему плохо&quot; - He feels bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;_Мне светло_&quot; is a kind of common poetical trope which even if may be read straight (Even in the dark night it's light to me) anyway sounds like &quot;_I feel peaceful_&quot; or something like that. And one more &quot;musical&quot; example to show that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Отчего, отчего, отчего мне так светло,&#xD;&#xA;    Оттого, что ты идёшь по переулку.&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    Отчего, отчего, отчего так хорошо,&#xD;&#xA;    Оттого, что ты мне просто улыбнулась." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9408" RevisionGUID="e3d0f77f-a6ae-4025-9b4c-b7a268043373" CreationDate="2015-08-09T09:38:29.553" UserId="5849" Text="*Я говорю/пишу по-японски* is literally translated as &quot;I speak/write in Japanese manner&quot;. This is historical phrase building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wouldn't say &quot;I listen/read in Japanese manner&quot;, and likewise you wouldn't say &quot;Я слушаю/читаю по-японски&quot;. Although this isn't a rude mistake. Most people wouldn't even notice if you said that in everyday life or interview. This is only important for books, publications etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfectly correct way is: *Я слушаю/читаю (what?) новости/журналы/передачи на японском языке.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also correct: *Я читаю сидя/лежа.* *Я слушаю [музыку/плеер/радио] находу.* Why - because again, this describes in which manner you are doing things. You read (in which manner?) while you are running.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9409" RevisionGUID="98ec6bd4-0370-4d2e-88fd-d2fa8cb1fbe2" CreationDate="2015-08-09T13:08:42.350" UserId="649" Text="The meaning may depend on the formality level of the conversation, though the very usage of it is quite informal already. While what @shabunc says may be true, this may also be a way to give a _carte blanche_, so to speak. Even less formal form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; да - так да, нет - так нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the full version of the phrase in this case is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be nice if you agree, but if you don't, it's fine too (though I don't see why).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9409" RevisionGUID="81786da7-e978-4381-b901-5e40e6167038" CreationDate="2015-08-09T13:25:34.800" UserId="649" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="The meaning may depend on the formality level of the conversation, though the very usage of it is quite informal already. While what @shabunc says may be true, this may also be a way to give a _carte blanche_, so to speak. Even less formal form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; да - так да, нет - так нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the full version of the phrase in this case is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It would be nice if you agree, but if you don't, it's fine too (though I don't see why).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, since even native speakers seem to  be giving different interpretations, it won't hurt to ask for clarifications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9410" RevisionGUID="efa00983-1672-4c12-a436-a536201a22c4" CreationDate="2015-08-09T13:27:56.297" UserId="5605" Text="&quot;Светло мне&quot; означает, что у этого человека &quot;светло на душе&quot;, то есть он испытывает чувство радости и душевный подъём даже тёмной ночью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9410" RevisionGUID="5a6797b5-53eb-499e-8f57-fabebe8bdf50" CreationDate="2015-08-09T13:33:15.950" UserId="5605" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="&quot;Светло мне&quot; означает, что у этого человека &quot;светло на душе&quot;, то есть он испытывает чувство радости и душевный подъём даже тёмной ночью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Light me&quot; means that this person &quot;light on the soul&quot;, that is, he feels a sense of joy and elation in the darkest of nights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22838" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="3afeb24c-7642-4791-be6d-a5ffe1b683ed" CreationDate="2015-08-09T20:15:53.313" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="ed5489bc-27c9-4bbc-83b2-12dd32218260" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:15:11.447" UserId="5852" Text="right not I try to make the Russian course from RT and I guess they have some mistakes in there tasks and I ask you kindly if you could take a look at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 4 - Number 1** &#xD;&#xA;*http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/genitive-case-plural-quantity/*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У вас есть визы? у нас нет виз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think &quot;ы&quot; is wrong because it is about more than one visa right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8** &#xD;&#xA;*http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/genitive-case-plural-quantity/*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы купила 5 машин. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding they forgot to add the &quot;ы&quot; because the case is accusativ plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8** &#xD;&#xA;*/lessons/nouns-adjectives-possessive-pronouns-plural/*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В России много красивых девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I look into the dictionary the plural prepositional case of &quot;girl&quot; is девуш**ках** so why did they девуш**ек**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your answers! Thanking you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="ed5489bc-27c9-4bbc-83b2-12dd32218260" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:15:11.447" UserId="5852" Text="Possible mistakes in an russian online course. Could you proof-read it please?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="ed5489bc-27c9-4bbc-83b2-12dd32218260" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:15:11.447" UserId="5852" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="1d5268d5-9c27-4717-a6fc-dc22f7387e11" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:29:01.960" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="right not I try to make the Russian course from RT and I guess they have some mistakes in there tasks and I ask you kindly if you could take a look at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 4 - Number 1** &#xD;&#xA;*http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/genitive-case-plural-quantity/*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У вас есть визы? у нас нет виз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think &quot;ы&quot; is wrong because it is about more than one visa right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8** &#xD;&#xA;*http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/genitive-case-plural-quantity/*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы купили 5 машин. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding they forgot to add the &quot;ы&quot; because the case is accusativ plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8** &#xD;&#xA;*/lessons/nouns-adjectives-possessive-pronouns-plural/*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В России много красивых девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I look into the dictionary the plural prepositional case of &quot;girl&quot; is девуш**ках** so why did they девуш**ек**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your answers! Thanking you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="908a8d33-3490-43d7-8299-863c629f9dd1" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:37:32.647" UserId="4481" Text="**Task 4 - Number 1**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У вас есть визы? у нас нет виз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. It is about more than one visa, so plural is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы купили 5 машин. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. Russian plurals are bit more complicated, than in english. Nouns have two plural forms, correct form depends on amount of items (two last digits in number):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Last digits                     form&#xD;&#xA;    01, 21, 31, ... 91              машина&#xD;&#xA;    02 - 05, 22 - 24, 32 - 34, ...  машины&#xD;&#xA;    06 - 20, 25 - 29, 35 - 39, ...  машин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? It's very long story...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В России много красивых девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is genitive case, not prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9413" RevisionGUID="df80f22c-082b-4f85-a240-058e28364f6e" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:37:58.880" UserId="5008" Text="All is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4-1. &quot;Визы&quot; is accusative plural (same as nominative plural); &quot;Виз&quot; is genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-8. This is due to dual vs plural historical difference. &quot;Две (три, четыре) машины&quot; but &quot;пять (шесть, семь etc.) машин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-8. This is genitive not a prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9413" RevisionGUID="94af04f4-b39a-48fe-a898-3a19a76e5723" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:46:20.217" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="All is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4-1. &quot;Визы&quot; is nominative plural here (coincides with both accusative plural and genitive singular); &quot;Виз&quot; is genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-8. This is due to dual vs plural historical difference. &quot;Две (три, четыре) машины&quot; but &quot;пять (шесть, семь etc.) машин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-8. This is genitive not a prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9413" RevisionGUID="e1fb60ea-d7c7-4b14-99e1-108e025470e7" CreationDate="2015-08-09T21:54:36.013" UserId="5008" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="All is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4-1. &quot;Визы&quot; is nominative plural here (coincides with both accusative plural and genitive singular); &quot;Виз&quot; is genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-8. This is due to dual vs plural historical difference. &quot;Две (три, четыре) машины&quot; but &quot;пять (шесть, семь, ..., двадцать) машин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3-8. This is genitive not a prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22847" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="98c50b3b-428d-4541-8ef0-bd73fb2aa1ca" CreationDate="2015-08-09T23:13:38.523" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22848" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9377" RevisionGUID="a1a6bff1-7e70-4b0c-91f5-496f7555bf76" CreationDate="2015-08-10T03:20:19.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/630579398966644736" />
  <row Id="22849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="add08d6d-342d-4277-9457-8e78f8e2992b" CreationDate="2015-08-10T04:22:51.653" UserId="5415" Text="can someone give me a certain question? please?&#xD;&#xA;I believe it's something like '' but he is not love back by nobidy''&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure? please help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="add08d6d-342d-4277-9457-8e78f8e2992b" CreationDate="2015-08-10T04:22:51.653" UserId="5415" Text="''Но не любил в ответ его никто'' what does this exactly mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="add08d6d-342d-4277-9457-8e78f8e2992b" CreationDate="2015-08-10T04:22:51.653" UserId="5415" Text="|перевод|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="1b35586f-4a43-4bc5-8135-e0c30a6f98bf" CreationDate="2015-08-10T06:06:50.930" UserId="5454" Text="First, lets try to change this sentence to &quot;default&quot; order of words.&#xD;&#xA;(Current order is correct, it is just emphasizing one of words) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is &quot;никто&quot; - _nobody_. Subject must be in nominative case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is &quot;не любил&quot; - _did not loved_. It is active case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb has direct object &quot;его&quot; - _him_ (_did not loved him_)  &#xD;&#xA;And there is adverbial phrase &quot;в ответ&quot; - _back_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We receive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но никто не любил его в ответ.  &#xD;&#xA;_Nobody loved him back._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has one more negation then English in sentences with  negative pronouns, such as _nobody, nowhere, nothing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing order of words in Russian emphasizing some of them. It also can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но не любил в ответ его _никто_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (He loved and carried for a lot of people, but _nobody_ loved him back)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9411" RevisionGUID="b64861c2-056d-4d97-8dc8-540daf96112f" CreationDate="2015-08-10T06:42:19.067" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="right not I try to make the Russian course from RT and I guess they have some mistakes in there tasks and I ask you kindly if you could take a look at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 4 - Number 1** &#xD;&#xA;*http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/genitive-case-plural-quantity/*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У вас есть визы? У нас нет виз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think &quot;ы&quot; is wrong because it is about more than one visa right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8** &#xD;&#xA;*http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/genitive-case-plural-quantity/*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы купили 5 машин. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding they forgot to add the &quot;ы&quot; because the case is accusativ plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8** &#xD;&#xA;*/lessons/nouns-adjectives-possessive-pronouns-plural/*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В России много красивых девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I look into the dictionary the plural prepositional case of &quot;girl&quot; is девуш**ках** so why did they девуш**ек**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate your answers! Thanking you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9412" RevisionGUID="5429468d-ecf2-49e2-88a9-bc16be6acf47" CreationDate="2015-08-10T08:17:20.640" UserId="4481" Comment="edited body" Text="**Task 4 - Number 1**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У вас есть визы? у нас нет виз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. It is about more than one visa, so plural is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы купили 5 машин. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. Russian plurals are bit more complicated, than in english. Nouns have two plural forms, correct form depends on amount of items (two last digits in number):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Last digits                     form&#xD;&#xA;    01, 21, 31, ... 91              машина&#xD;&#xA;    02 - 04, 22 - 24, 32 - 34, ...  машины&#xD;&#xA;    05 - 20, 25 - 29, 35 - 39, ...  машин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? It's very long story...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Task 3 - Number 8**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В России много красивых девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is genitive case, not prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="68a269b6-3ae9-41cb-a88f-660c585d6d5c" CreationDate="2015-08-10T08:18:24.730" UserId="5454" Comment="Better English" Text="First, lets try to change this sentence to &quot;default&quot; order of words.&#xD;&#xA;(Current order is correct, it is just emphasizing one of words) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is &quot;никто&quot; - _nobody_. Subject should be in nominative case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is &quot;не любил&quot; - _did not loved_. It is active case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb has direct object &quot;его&quot; - _him_ (_did not loved him_)  &#xD;&#xA;And there is adverbial phrase &quot;в ответ&quot; - _back_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We receive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но никто не любил его в ответ.  &#xD;&#xA;_Nobody loved him back._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has one more negation then English in sentences with  negative pronouns, such as _nobody, nowhere, nothing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing order of words in Russian emphasizing some of them. It also can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но не любил в ответ его _никто_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (He loved and carried for a lot of people, but _nobody_ loved him back)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="47f31960-88fa-4b5e-adeb-b4bb065c9c9a" CreationDate="2015-08-10T10:17:39.000" UserId="4865" Text="I have been hearing often the phrase &quot;после сытного обеда по закону архимеда полагается поспать&quot;. I take that it is quite a familiar saying to most Russians. I wanted to find out more about this saying - where it is written by Archimedes, and why/how this saying became popular in Russia (if that is known). If anyone knows or can find, I would appreciate it. Google searches in Russian turn up blogs about food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="47f31960-88fa-4b5e-adeb-b4bb065c9c9a" CreationDate="2015-08-10T10:17:39.000" UserId="4865" Text="после сытного обеда полагается поспать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="47f31960-88fa-4b5e-adeb-b4bb065c9c9a" CreationDate="2015-08-10T10:17:39.000" UserId="4865" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9417" RevisionGUID="b1e400bb-7f64-4643-9309-eafeb0604aad" CreationDate="2015-08-10T10:39:46.200" UserId="5008" Text="That's just a childish rhyme. Yet another variant &quot;_После сытного обеда вытри руки об соседа_&quot; doesn't mention Archimedes at all. Both are quite old and it seems that no one remembers when they first appear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="3cb59536-3fd4-4ccf-a06e-d6a69b50132e" CreationDate="2015-08-10T11:09:48.263" UserId="5605" Text="Это шутка. Архимед об обеде ничего не писал, такого &quot;закона Архимеда&quot; не существует.:) Просто имя Архимед хорошо рифмуется со словом &quot;обед&quot;. Это старый стишок, который довольно популярен в среде тинэйджеров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a joke. Archimedes about a lunch wrote nothing, such &quot;Archimedes's law&quot; doesn't exist. :) Simply the name Archimedes in Russian is well rhymed with the word &quot;lunch&quot;. It is an old rhyme which is quite popular among teenagers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9418" RevisionGUID="003a9bbd-bec7-443f-9e39-f76d211e837a" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:15:45.093" UserId="5605" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Это шутка. Архимед об обеде ничего не писал, такого &quot;закона Архимеда&quot; не существует.:) Просто имя Архимед хорошо рифмуется со словом &quot;обед&quot;. Это старый стишок, который довольно популярен в среде тинэйджеров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a joke. Archimedes about a lunch wrote nothing, such &quot;Archimedes's law&quot; doesn't exist. :) Simply the name Archimedes in Russian is well rhymed with the word &quot;lunch&quot;. It is an old rhyme which is quite popular among teenagers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ещё один похожий стишок: &quot;После сытного обеда, по закону Архимеда, чтобы жиром не заплыть, полагается курить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="784ea0aa-1785-4ae4-afff-4d42bff70f1e" CreationDate="2015-08-10T14:29:31.790" UserId="115" Comment="spelling, word usage" Text="First, lets try to change this sentence to &quot;default&quot; order of words.&#xD;&#xA;(Current order is correct, it is just emphasizing one of words) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is &quot;никто&quot; - _nobody_. Subject should be in nominative case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is &quot;не любил&quot; - _did not loved_. It is active case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb has direct object &quot;его&quot; - _him_ (_did not loved him_)  &#xD;&#xA;And there is adverbial phrase &quot;в ответ&quot; - _back_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но никто не любил его в ответ.  &#xD;&#xA;_Nobody loved him back._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has one more negation then English in sentences with  negative pronouns, such as _nobody, nowhere, nothing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing order of words in Russian emphasizing some of them. It also can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но не любил в ответ его _никто_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (He loved and cared for a lot of people, but _nobody_ loved him back)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="ee2127c9-c579-453b-a387-4692b966cf28" CreationDate="2015-08-11T01:40:25.107" UserId="5691" Text="I was surprised to find another city with the -gorsk ending: Железногoрск (Zheleznogorsk), formerly known as Krasnoyarsk-26.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounded familiar, and I immediately looked up Iron (the metal), which is Железо. **Notice there is no &quot;н&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does it inflect this way when a city gets named after a metal? Are there special rules for naming cities like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW I also looked up &quot;Железно&quot; on Google Translate, and it said it means &quot;irons&quot;. This only confused me even more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="ee2127c9-c579-453b-a387-4692b966cf28" CreationDate="2015-08-11T01:40:25.107" UserId="5691" Text="Why is there an &quot;н&quot; in &quot;Железногoрск&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="ee2127c9-c579-453b-a387-4692b966cf28" CreationDate="2015-08-11T01:40:25.107" UserId="5691" Text="|падежи|существительные|proper-names|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22867" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9419" RevisionGUID="59b3c3e2-079c-4c65-9590-6f7508a9ecff" CreationDate="2015-08-11T01:52:19.733" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="04bdc1c8-9bdb-44a3-a271-2de6a7d817df" CreationDate="2015-08-11T01:58:27.303" UserId="242" Text="It is derived not from noun `железо` but from adjective `железный`, so it's basically short form of &quot;Железная Гора&quot; - Iron Mountain. So, no mystery at all ;)&#xD;&#xA;There's also such city as [Медногорск][1] - &quot;Медная гора&quot;, which name follows the same pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Железно&quot; has nothing to do with this, google translate just get it wrong. It is an interjection, colloquial and pretty rarely used synonym of &quot;exactly, precicesely, that's for sure&quot;. Sort of &quot;Ты уверен?&quot; - &quot;Железно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9416" RevisionGUID="41f7adf6-9085-45e7-8d1f-afa6d9de3fd1" CreationDate="2015-08-11T01:59:03.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning and origin of &quot;после сытного обеда полагается поспать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="a01fe75d-8e8a-4646-8e77-211a3892d3fc" CreationDate="2015-08-11T02:03:57.670" UserId="242" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="It is derived not from noun `железо` but from adjective `железный`, so it's basically short form of &quot;Железная Гора&quot; - Iron Mountain. So, no mystery at all ;)&#xD;&#xA;There's also such city as [Медногорск][1] - &quot;Медная гора&quot;, which name follows the same pattern. Also it worth to know that in some toponyms &quot;-горск&quot; comes from &quot;гора&quot; and in some from &quot;город&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Железно&quot; has nothing to do with this, google translate just get it wrong. It is an interjection, colloquial and pretty rarely used synonym of &quot;exactly, precicesely, that's for sure&quot;. Sort of &quot;Ты уверен?&quot; - &quot;Железно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9420" RevisionGUID="64341875-93f9-4262-bae8-3c29de9a35d7" CreationDate="2015-08-11T02:11:38.630" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It is derived not from noun `железо` but from adjective `железный`, so it's basically short form of &quot;Железная Гора&quot; - Iron Mountain. So, no mystery at all ;)&#xD;&#xA;There's also such city as [Медногорск][1] - &quot;Медная гора&quot;, which name follows the same pattern. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to know that in some toponyms &quot;-горск&quot; comes from &quot;гора&quot; and in some from &quot;город&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Железно&quot; has nothing to do with this, google translate just get it wrong. It is an interjection, colloquial and pretty rarely used synonym of &quot;exactly, precicesely, that's for sure&quot;. Sort of &quot;Ты уверен?&quot; - &quot;Железно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22872" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="5583cefd-f784-4e2d-98d9-d9a49e16aac7" CreationDate="2015-08-11T02:13:29.443" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Но не любил в ответ его никто&quot; what does this exactly mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="5583cefd-f784-4e2d-98d9-d9a49e16aac7" CreationDate="2015-08-11T02:13:29.443" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Can someone give me a certain question? please?&#xD;&#xA;I believe it's something like &quot;but he is not love back by nobody&quot;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22874" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="9122701c-df9a-467a-ae1b-8bc521fdaee8" CreationDate="2015-08-11T02:22:04.460" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="3d782739-5789-447c-a82d-ab2a07c4918a" CreationDate="2015-08-11T02:40:39.267" UserId="3847" Text="&quot;Железно&quot; is the form used in forming compound nouns and adjectives. e.g, железнодорожник (n. railway worker); железнодорожный (adj. railway), as in  железнодорожный вогзал (railway station). Горск means 'settlement'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9415" RevisionGUID="b5e8f8b8-a192-494a-8589-1bed607fc738" CreationDate="2015-08-11T13:15:35.193" UserId="3892" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="First, lets try to change this sentence to &quot;default&quot; order of words.&#xD;&#xA;(Current order is correct, it is just emphasizing one of words) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is &quot;никто&quot; - _nobody_. Subject should be in the nominative case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb is &quot;не любил&quot; - _did not love_. It is active case.  &#xD;&#xA;The verb has the direct object &quot;его&quot; - _him_ (_did not love him_)  &#xD;&#xA;And there is the adverbial phrase &quot;в ответ&quot; - _back_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We get&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но никто не любил его в ответ.  &#xD;&#xA;_Nobody loved him back._ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has one more negation then English in sentences with negative pronouns, such as _nobody, nowhere, nothing_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing the order of words in Russian emphasizes some of them. It also can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но не любил в ответ его _никто_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (He loved and cared for a lot of people, but _nobody_ loved him back)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9422" RevisionGUID="c66b9450-335e-429f-bb3a-3b634a60ee93" CreationDate="2015-08-11T13:51:48.747" UserId="4903" Text="In the provided example the imperfective forms of the verbs do exist, as confirmed by the dictionary entries. Those words are understood by the people in this forum.  Hence the only question is how often they are used.  One of the useful tools is [Corpus of Russian Language - Charts][1].  You can type a word in a form and look at how usage frequency changed over the last two hundred years.  This would be a more objective measure of how the word is used, rather then a personal opinion of an individual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruscorpora shows that the verb &quot;изжаривать&quot; (as oppose to &quot;изжарил&quot;) is not referenced by its database.  So even though this particular combination of prefix and root is possible and is understood, people do not find much use for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example &quot;зажаривать&quot; has been used infrequently.  By using this form [Corpus of Russian Language - Search][2] you can see the snippets of text with examples of how this verb was used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="a1f781bd-1119-429d-8f4f-8cdc28556e9b" CreationDate="2015-08-11T16:24:21.370" UserId="4903" Comment="Corrected typos in English" Text="Let's talk specifically about examples you've provided. Both of these pairs are perfectly valid in Russian and the difference between them is pretty transparent for native speaker. The other thing is that &quot;изжаривать&quot; is used in practice in it reflexive form - &quot;изжариваться&quot; - and indeed is used more rarely (but still used) than other three forms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here are examples of word usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сколько же можно бесцельно изжариваться на солнце?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Чего ж ты так баклажаны-то изжарил, прямо до угля?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Надо зажарить баклажаны, вот что!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сначала ты зажариваешь баклажаны на огне, а потом уже, на углях, готовишь мясо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest analogy will be phrasal verbs in English. Some of them are used pretty often, some sound valid but are used rarely. Some are obsolete, some are just wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, a friendly hint, you can just google all these words. It will give you some ideas on their usage. Also, there's a Google's Russian competitor, [Yandex][1], which quite often is a better option for searching Russian words.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://yandex.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22879" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9368" RevisionGUID="a1f781bd-1119-429d-8f4f-8cdc28556e9b" CreationDate="2015-08-11T16:24:21.370" Comment="Proposed by 4903 approved by 5008, 242 edit id of 660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9405" RevisionGUID="e958b991-aff2-4e27-924f-8b64a00e04a3" CreationDate="2015-08-11T16:57:54.920" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9414" RevisionGUID="026c622c-a131-4f49-8aed-95a68f7d15c1" CreationDate="2015-08-12T14:33:43.017" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="00deb769-ef06-44e7-b924-b1720fdfcc69" CreationDate="2015-08-12T20:21:05.163" UserId="5" Text="Вы можете найти в интернете: https://www.google.com/search?q=машу+каслом+не+испортишь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что это значит?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="00deb769-ef06-44e7-b924-b1720fdfcc69" CreationDate="2015-08-12T20:21:05.163" UserId="5" Text="Что значит &quot;машу каслом не испортишь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9423" RevisionGUID="00deb769-ef06-44e7-b924-b1720fdfcc69" CreationDate="2015-08-12T20:21:05.163" UserId="5" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9424" RevisionGUID="3ad3d1d7-1f76-4b4b-aafd-6f57e92e8013" CreationDate="2015-08-12T21:27:19.683" UserId="5605" Text="кашу маслом не испортишь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Толкование Перевод&#xD;&#xA;1кашу маслом не испортишь &#xD;&#xA;кашу (каши) маслом не испортишь&#xD;&#xA;посл.&#xD;&#xA;cf. never too much of a good thing; plenty is no plague; good counsel does no harm&#xD;&#xA;Глумов. Я, кажется, в разговоре с ним пересолил немного... Ещё молод, увлекаюсь... Ну, да это не мешает, кашу маслом не испортишь. (А. Островский, На всякого мудреца довольно простоты) — Glumoy. Talking to him I laid it too thick, I reckon... Well, I am still young and easily carried away... No harm done, though. Never too much of a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;Русско-английский фразеологический словарь&#xD;&#xA;2кашу маслом не испортишь &#xD;&#xA;• КАШУ &lt;-и&gt; МАСЛОМ НЕ ИСПОРТИШЬ{{}}&#xD;&#xA;[saying]&#xD;&#xA;=====&#xD;&#xA;⇒ sth. good or useful cannot be harmful, even in large amounts:&#xD;&#xA;- - butter never spoils the porridge;&#xD;&#xA;- you can't spoil porridge with butter;&#xD;&#xA;- you can't have too much of a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;     ♦ ...Товарищ Коба провозгласил первый тост: &quot;Дорогие друзья, - сказал он, - я пригласил вас сюда для того, чтобы... отметить самую короткую ночь...&quot; - &quot;Ура!&quot; - крикнул Вершилов. &quot;Не спеши, - поморщился Коба. - ...Я также хочу провозгласить тост за самого мудрого нашего деятеля...&quot; Вершилов на всякий случай хотел ещё раз крикнуть &quot;ура&quot;, зная, что каши маслом не испортишь, но товарищ Коба на этот раз успел плюнуть прямо в открытый для выкрика рот (Войнович 5). Comrade Koba proposed the first toast. &quot;Dear friends,&quot; he said, &quot;I invited you here to celebrate...the shortest night of the year. ...&quot; &quot;Hurrah!&quot; cried Vershilov. &quot;Not so fast,&quot; said Comrade Koba, knitting his brows... .I also want to propose a toast to our wisest statesman. ...&quot; Vershilov was about to shout &quot;Hurrah!&quot; just to be on the safe side, realizing that butter never spoils the porridge, but this time Comrade Koba managed to spit directly into Vershilov's open mouth (5a).&#xD;&#xA;Большой русско-английский фразеологический словарь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="80f074d4-2fb7-48a3-a654-d2d0d541281e" CreationDate="2015-08-13T05:09:52.530" UserId="194" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="In Russian &quot;чёрные&quot; (&quot;blacks&quot;) is a racist slur for Caucasians. It is not associated with people of African descent at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрные люди&quot; (&quot;black people&quot;) sounds not connected to race at all, it looks as if you were speaking about their soul being &quot;black&quot; and evil and the persons were immoral, so it is derogatory but not racist. In archaic meaning it may mean servants who do the &quot;black work&quot;, i.e. dirty work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use just &quot;чёрные&quot;, this is very much derogatory and racist, although implies the people are Caucasians rather than blacks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="6fd17703-47bd-4317-9537-9b62fe054c6d" CreationDate="2015-08-13T06:45:39.963" UserId="179" Text="I don't know why the answer of @Матвей Дёмин has gotten a downvote, but it is in essence right. There is an adage &quot;кашу маслом не испортишь&quot;, which means that something would be very useful in some situation, meal, product or whatever. It is usually used with a bit of humor. (Literally it says that you cannot make any harm to porridge with oil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, recently a neighbor of mine asked me to print one text for him. As he is a retiree and has bad sight he needed a font to be large, but he had  not specified the size. So I printed with a size of 30, which is enormously large, and I could say in this case &quot;кашу маслом не испортишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you have provided slightly another words &quot;машу каслом не испортишь&quot;. This can be either an error, messing the first letters in the first two words, or (more likely) a deliberate pun. I see nothing funny in it without a context, but I can suppose that it is somehow related to some Masha (Маша), which is a female name. So it might be some situation where these word were used toward some girl, and they were supposed to be funny. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word &quot;касло&quot;, so this phrase has no serious meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9425" RevisionGUID="77388100-78d8-4bec-82c7-5e3877ded79b" CreationDate="2015-08-13T06:54:30.280" UserId="179" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I don't know why the answer of @Матвей Дёмин has gotten a downvote, but it is in essence right. There is an adage &quot;кашу маслом не испортишь&quot;, which means that something would be very useful (at least not harmful) in some situation, meal, product or whatever. It is usually used with a bit of humor. (Literally it says that you cannot make any harm to porridge with oil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, recently a neighbor of mine asked me to print one text for him. As he is a retiree and has bad sight he needed a font to be large, but he had  not specified the size. So I printed with a size of 30, which is enormously large, and I could say in this case &quot;кашу маслом не испортишь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you have provided slightly another words &quot;машу каслом не испортишь&quot;. This can be either an error, messing the first letters in the first two words, or (more likely) a deliberate pun. I see nothing funny in it without a context, but I can suppose that it is somehow related to some Masha (Маша), which is a female name. So it might be some situation where these word were used toward some girl, and they were supposed to be funny. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no word &quot;касло&quot;, so this phrase has no serious meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="4572d5be-4c96-433d-a377-433e63e33f87" CreationDate="2015-08-13T09:00:23.650" UserId="5443" Text="The origin. This is a slip-of-the-tongue expression from an anecdote. The reply to it was &quot;смотря каким каслом!&quot; (= depends on how good that &quot;касл&quot; is), as if the first phrase (which is a distorted version of the well-known proverb) had literally meant 'You can't make a woman of Masha using some non-existent &quot;касл&quot; thing'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="c07001b4-1338-44f4-ade5-9458d863356a" CreationDate="2015-08-13T09:06:13.303" UserId="5443" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="The origin. This is a slip-of-the-tongue expression from an anecdote. The reply to it was &quot;смотря каким каслом!&quot; (= depends on how good that &quot;касл&quot; is), as if the first phrase (which is a distorted version of the well-known proverb) had literally meant 'You can't make a woman of Masha using some non-existent &quot;касл&quot; thing'. The other person in their reply definitely meant something at a real man's disposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="8c8e1782-f99b-4f06-9089-f0295cf8039f" CreationDate="2015-08-13T09:17:23.950" UserId="5443" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="The origin. This is a slip-of-the-tongue expression from an anecdote. The reply to it was &quot;смотря каким каслом!&quot; (= depends on how good that &quot;касл&quot; is), as if the first phrase (which is a distorted version of the well-known proverb) had literally meant 'You can't make a woman of Masha using some non-existent &quot;касл&quot; thing'. The other person in their reply definitely meant something at a real man's disposal. Also, for proper understanding one needs to know the expression &quot;испортить девушку&quot; (to make a woman of a girl)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="6b7c55e2-5c63-4978-a429-0b13ac9ef0cd" CreationDate="2015-08-13T09:24:54.817" UserId="5443" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="The origin. This is a slip-of-the-tongue expression from an anecdote. The reply to it was &quot;смотря каким каслом!&quot; (= depends on how good that &quot;касл&quot; is), as if the first phrase (which is a distorted version of the well-known proverb) had literally meant 'You can't make a woman of Masha using some non-existent &quot;касл&quot; thing'. The other person in their reply definitely meant something at a real man's disposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for proper understanding one needs to know the expression &quot;испортить девушку&quot; (to make a woman of a girl): the literal meaning of 'spoiling' here is that a girl would be a virgin no more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9426" RevisionGUID="9fd42215-9e96-47ca-8fba-ac1bce885d7b" CreationDate="2015-08-13T09:38:04.760" UserId="5443" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="The origin. This is a slip-of-the-tongue expression from an anecdote. The reply to it was &quot;смотря каким каслом!&quot; (= depends on how good that &quot;касл&quot; is), as if the first phrase (which is a distorted version of the well-known proverb &quot;Кашу маслом не испортишь&quot; ~ 'It's never too much butter in porridge') had literally meant 'You can't make a woman of Masha using some non-existent &quot;касл&quot; thing'. The other person in their reply definitely meant something at a real man's disposal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for proper understanding one needs to know the expression &quot;испортить девушку&quot; (to make a woman of a girl): the literal meaning of 'spoiling' here is that a girl would be a virgin no more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="6abfc4fe-918b-463e-8451-45af5940f8f6" CreationDate="2015-08-13T16:19:52.197" UserId="5543" Text="Особый:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) а) Необычный, исключительный в каком-л. отношении.&#xD;&#xA;б) Не похожий на других; своеобразный.&#xD;&#xA;в) Отличный от других по степени проявления; значительный.&#xD;&#xA;2) Отдельный, особый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особенный:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) а) Необычный, исключительный. б) Не похожий на других; своеобразный. в) Отличный от других по степени проявления; заметный, значительный. 2) а) Отдельный, отличный от других. б) Специально для кого-л., для какой-л. цели предназначенный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: словарь Ефремова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это почти идентичные дефиниции. Есть ли какая-то разница между этими словами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="6abfc4fe-918b-463e-8451-45af5940f8f6" CreationDate="2015-08-13T16:19:52.197" UserId="5543" Text="Особый или особенный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9427" RevisionGUID="6abfc4fe-918b-463e-8451-45af5940f8f6" CreationDate="2015-08-13T16:19:52.197" UserId="5543" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9428" RevisionGUID="79e378e8-76d7-4843-b1b5-b01c6cdc6eee" CreationDate="2015-08-13T16:21:01.770" UserId="5873" Text="&quot;Быть на верху блаженства&quot; - корявая фраза. &quot;Наверху блаженства&quot; не &quot;бывают&quot;, а пребывают. :) Типа &quot;Пребывал на верху блаженства&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9428" RevisionGUID="5a6a7e8e-dd18-4a51-8330-548a1bd76438" CreationDate="2015-08-13T16:34:18.850" UserId="5873" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="&quot;Быть на верху блаженства&quot; - корявая фраза. &quot;Наверху блаженства&quot; не &quot;бывают&quot;, а пребывают. :) Типа &quot;Пребывал на верху блаженства&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; В литературном произведениии, &quot;пребывание на верху блаженства&quot; обычно продолжается не долго, после чего следует &quot;холодный душ&quot; и низвержение в адский холод бренного существования." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9429" RevisionGUID="d0fbc041-b661-44c8-86ab-007744a083fc" CreationDate="2015-08-13T16:41:42.873" UserId="5873" Text=" Разница есть.&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Особый&quot; - отдельный. Например: Особый отдел в оранизации, как правило секретный, с ограниченным доступом.&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Особенный&quot; - отличающийся от других. Например: &quot;У ней особенная стать&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9430" RevisionGUID="80e93873-4f97-4751-a31c-ae3e28147955" CreationDate="2015-08-13T17:04:16.060" UserId="5443" Text="Эти слова сильно различаются по области употребления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Особенный&quot; относят, как правило, к индивидуальным сущностям (конкретный человек, предмет и т.п.) и это слово имеет субъективный, оценочный или эмоциональный оттенок. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Этот артист в театре особенный, он мне интереснее прочих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Особый&quot; чаще всего указывает не на индивидуальные свойства предмета или явления, а на его классификационную принадлежность, отличающую его от предмета (явления) другой группы по каким-то признакам. Используется (в отличие от слова &quot;особенный&quot;) для образования формальных понятий (включая связанные с организационным &quot;обособлением&quot;) : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    особый класс млекопитающих, особый вид сварки, особый отдел, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    особый случай, особо тяжкие преступления, особые полномочия и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="43f810fc-7b32-40b5-aa55-00e16dd11d4d" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:49:03.993" UserId="5874" Text="Этот отрывок Гумилев написал.  Находится рано в первом главе &quot;От Руси к России&quot;, в части &quot;Готы&quot;.  Эта часть первого предложения в последнем абзаце.  Полное предложение так,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Могучее государство готов погибло, как это нередко бывало, из-за измены подданных и жестокости правителя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не понимаю, почему так построено.  То есть, словосочетание &quot;могучее государство&quot; - среднего рода, а &quot;готов&quot; - мужского.  Я написал бы &quot;могучее государство готово погибать...&quot;, а может быть, я не понимаю смысл.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объясните, пожалуйста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="43f810fc-7b32-40b5-aa55-00e16dd11d4d" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:49:03.993" UserId="5874" Text="Могучее государство готов погибло" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="43f810fc-7b32-40b5-aa55-00e16dd11d4d" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:49:03.993" UserId="5874" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="06089ed8-98ee-426d-abe6-47f7640585c4" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:55:57.810" UserId="5874" Text="Мы прочитали эту пословицу вчера.  Дочка хотела узнать значение.  Я сказал, что первый язык то, с которым вкусить.  Есть ли второе значение, нечто более глубоко?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всем с способностью, я хотел бы предложить вам вводить тэг &quot;пословицу&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="06089ed8-98ee-426d-abe6-47f7640585c4" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:55:57.810" UserId="5874" Text="Пословица &quot;Речь - второй язык&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="06089ed8-98ee-426d-abe6-47f7640585c4" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:55:57.810" UserId="5874" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="7e2428eb-4ea2-4613-bfda-8e64aabd1c59" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:59:03.223" UserId="4379" Text="Дело в том, что &quot;готов&quot; в данном случае - это существительное во множественном числе родительном падеже, ударение падает на первый слог. &quot;[Готы][1]&quot; это название древнего германского народа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22910" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="8aac1280-047f-4882-a5c3-31b97be86a03" CreationDate="2015-08-13T20:08:57.607" UserId="5874" Comment="edited title" Text="Пословица &quot;Грамота - второй язык&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9434" RevisionGUID="d00e2d1f-de38-4924-a08e-0c26a464c4bc" CreationDate="2015-08-13T20:16:42.423" UserId="4379" Text="Я думаю, что эта пословица о том, что иногда бывает сложно понять неграмотного человека. С одной стороны мы говорим на одном и том же языке, но его неграмотность равносильна тому, как если бы мы говорили на разных языках. В этом смысле овладевание грамотностью сравнимо с изучением нового &quot;второго&quot; языка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="a4af976f-fcdc-4213-8119-3b0b81c42805" CreationDate="2015-08-13T20:16:55.573" UserId="194" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="In Russian &quot;чёрные&quot; (&quot;blacks&quot;) is a racist slur for Caucasians. It is not associated with people of African descent at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрные люди&quot; (&quot;black people&quot;) sounds not connected to race at all, it looks as if you were speaking about their soul being &quot;black&quot; and evil and the persons were immoral, so it is derogatory but not racist. In archaic meaning it may mean servants who do the &quot;black work&quot;, i.e. dirty work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also can mean optically black-colored people but not in racial sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some black-colored aliens or people who contracted some fantastic desease which makes people black&#xD;&#xA;* People appearing black due to the position of light source, sihluettes.&#xD;&#xA;* People painted black for some reason&#xD;&#xA;* People wearing totlly black clothing, including black helm, like Darth Veider. Wearing a Batman's costume would not qualify due to non-black face!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts about black race just excluded so you cannot use it for race. Confusingly, &quot;Black people&quot; would more likely mean black-skinned aliens than people of African descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use just &quot;чёрные&quot;, this is very much derogatory and racist, although implies the people are Caucasians rather than blacks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="9e6001e4-6130-4a7e-9525-adaaa201876d" CreationDate="2015-08-13T20:22:03.797" UserId="194" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="In Russian &quot;чёрные&quot; (&quot;blacks&quot;) is a racist slur for Caucasians. It is not associated with people of African descent at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрные люди&quot; (&quot;black people&quot;) sounds not connected to race at all, it looks as if you were speaking about their soul being &quot;black&quot; and evil and the persons were immoral, so it is derogatory but not racist. In archaic meaning it may mean servants who do the &quot;black work&quot;, i.e. dirty work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also can mean optically black-colored people but not in racial sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some black-colored aliens or people who contracted some fantastic desease which makes people black&#xD;&#xA;* People appearing black due to the position of light source, sihluettes.&#xD;&#xA;* People painted black for some reason&#xD;&#xA;* People wearing totlly black clothing, including black helm, like Darth Veider. Wearing a Batman's costume would not qualify due to non-black face!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts about black race just excluded so you cannot use it for race. Confusingly, &quot;black people&quot; would more likely mean black-skinned aliens than people of African descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use just &quot;чёрные&quot;, this is very much derogatory and racist, although implies the people are Caucasians rather than blacks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9435" RevisionGUID="3333870a-d137-40ff-9e0b-f92511a04b4e" CreationDate="2015-08-14T00:05:36.273" UserId="5288" Text="Есть две вещи: (1) устная речь; и (2) письменная словесность.&#xD;&#xA;Грамота, это умение создать вторую вещь, письменную словесность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Грамотей есть тот, кто грамотно *пишет.* Учиться грамоте значит изучать, как можно устную речь (1) записать в письменном виде (2). Способ письма определён через различные начертания букв, например, через прописные, заглавные, строчные, печатные и т.д. Буква в ее конкретном начертании называется по-русски литера (from Latin *littera* (also *`litera`*) &quot;graphic symbol, alphabetic sign of the alphabet&quot;). Отсюда, очень легко запомнить перевод: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Грамота = literacy&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*Устная речь* есть понятие более общее, чем понятие *язык.*  Можно знать свой родной язык (the mother tongue), **это первый язык,** и еще иностранные языки (foreign languages), и говорить на разных языках в нашей устной речи. Тот первый из иностранных языков, который по счёту станет **вторым языком,** изучать всегда трудно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если мы теперь приравняем по трудности, по полезности, по затратам времени изучение нашего первого иностранного языка **(второго языка)** к изучению письменной словесности на своём родном языке, то есть, **приравняем к грамоте,** то мы и получим предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  “Грамота — второй язык”&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Можно заметить, что латинский язык остался только в виде одной своей половины, письменного языка, письменной словесности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В пословице смысл слова *грамота* переносится на словосочетание *&quot;словесная письменность&quot;*, а  смысл *&quot;равный в изучении с иностранным языком&quot;* — на словосочетание *&quot;второй язык,&quot;* и они успешно приравниваются в записи пословицы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы говорим: оба слова, *грамота* и *язык,* использованы в переносном смысле. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Первые значения для слов пословицы, взятые из словаря, не годятся для выяснения смысла пословицы, как говорят в математике, здесь термины с разными объемами понятия (с разными смыслами), поэтому просто так их приравнять нельзя. Это не тождество, выраженное через тире &quot;—&quot;, а уравнение, в котором нужно найти решение.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="9cda5b19-39e0-4a0a-8a1e-cef5de95da7b" CreationDate="2015-08-14T03:47:06.977" UserId="5582" Text="I'm translating this into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let us continue this discussion in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and considering two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This one seems more logical to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Предлагаю вам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This one emphasizes that I will also participate. But it sounds more like commercialese speech (канцелярит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Предлагаю нам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other nuances? What should I use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is StackExchange site interface, as you may have guessed already. Here's the original question: http://meta.ru.stackoverflow.com/q/1021/181472 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="9cda5b19-39e0-4a0a-8a1e-cef5de95da7b" CreationDate="2015-08-14T03:47:06.977" UserId="5582" Text="Предлагаю нам или вам?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="9cda5b19-39e0-4a0a-8a1e-cef5de95da7b" CreationDate="2015-08-14T03:47:06.977" UserId="5582" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|стиль|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="d744670e-ec61-4d2d-83b1-64db1a5bd287" CreationDate="2015-08-14T05:08:26.987" UserId="5443" Text="Your first version sounds more natural than the second one: it's better to avoid expressions literally offering something to yourself (нам -&gt; 'both of you' includes yourself). But a more exact translation is possible here (it also sounds slightly less formal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Давайте продолжим обсуждение в чате." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9438" RevisionGUID="1808cdb9-f044-44a2-8b3d-43105c5caf73" CreationDate="2015-08-14T05:13:55.190" UserId="242" Text="This is pretty similar to difference between English &quot;Let's move this discusssion to chat&quot; (~&quot;нам&quot; form) and &quot;I'd like to suggest you...&quot; (~&quot;вам&quot; form). I'd rather disagree with @Alex_ander. To me &quot;предлагаю нам&quot; in this context sounds slightly more friendly and definitely less official than &quot;предлагаю вам&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this is definitely very personal and I can imagine a lot of native speakers who will tend to agree with Alex_ander and equally - with me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9437" RevisionGUID="2bb73f6b-a02d-42b3-affe-7615ea7ac73e" CreationDate="2015-08-14T05:53:46.793" UserId="5443" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Your first version sounds more natural than the second one: it's better to avoid expressions literally offering something to yourself (нам -&gt; 'both of you' includes yourself). However, it is possible to use &quot;нам с вами&quot; instead of &quot;нам&quot;, then it would sound more like 'I suggest that you and I continue...' But a more exact translation is possible here (it also sounds slightly less formal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Давайте продолжим обсуждение в чате." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9440" RevisionGUID="a7599969-4050-405b-9a70-d659cf4f608f" CreationDate="2015-08-14T07:51:54.147" UserId="5873" Text="&quot;Предлагаю вам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&quot; Так может сказать модератор форума, заставляя юзеров покинуть форум и продолжить обсуждать оффтопик в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Предлагаю нам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&quot; - если собираетесь принять участие в этом обсуждении." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="8c33bb56-6590-4a2f-a242-af76c3af754d" CreationDate="2015-08-14T15:07:49.410" UserId="242" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="I'm translating this into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let us continue this discussion in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and considering three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This one seems more logical to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Предлагаю вам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This one emphasizes that I will also participate. But it sounds more like commercialese speech (канцелярит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Предлагаю нам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Same friendliness, plus a clue about site mechanics, which allows copying all the comments into the newly created chat. What do you think of this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Давайте перенесём обсуждение в чат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other nuances? What should I use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is StackExchange site interface, as you may have guessed already. Here's the original question: http://meta.ru.stackoverflow.com/q/1021/181472 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9441" RevisionGUID="72c1f1b3-9494-424f-b3c5-605ea537e93f" CreationDate="2015-08-14T17:09:14.920" UserId="5877" Text="Ну изначально, &quot;кашу маслом не испортишь&quot;, ну а смысл прост..... Кашу не возможно испортить маслом, это знают все:-) но есть другие примеры, когда добавление компонента или действия не повредит. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="bc82e8bb-2fb6-4774-bb27-6d1271ce5e5b" CreationDate="2015-08-14T19:59:42.757" UserId="5454" Comment="added accents" Text="Дело в том, что &quot;го́тов&quot; в данном случае - это существительное во множественном числе родительном падеже, ударение падает на первый слог. &quot;[Го́ты][1]&quot; это название древнего германского народа.                               &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22930" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9433" RevisionGUID="bc82e8bb-2fb6-4774-bb27-6d1271ce5e5b" CreationDate="2015-08-14T19:59:42.757" Comment="Proposed by 5454 approved by 3680, 5288 edit id of 662" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9421" RevisionGUID="32449f8d-fb27-4d28-a24a-5f430a75681c" CreationDate="2015-08-15T03:20:31.043" UserId="3847" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="&quot;Железно&quot; is the form used in forming compound nouns and adjectives. e.g, железнодорожник (n. railway worker); железнодорожный (adj. railway), as in  железнодорожный вокзал (railway station). Горск means 'settlement'. Many nouns have an adjectival form with 'н'. e.g., компьютер becomes компьютерный as in комрьютерная выставка; открытие компьютерную выставку." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="cebfb0b8-e044-4885-b87f-48074dc60bdd" CreationDate="2015-08-15T03:21:10.557" UserId="5878" Text="Can anyone clarify the uses of these cases in Russian? (Sorry if this area is for more advanced questions, I am new here!). Also I have studied Latin and have knowledge of its case system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is genitive always used after &quot;из&quot; ? (ex &quot;я из америки&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the genitive used in &quot;Мне бы хотелось чая&quot; ? If I understand properly this means &quot;I would like some tea&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also are instrumental and prepositional analogous to ablative in Latin? (I know accusative is also used after certain prepositions in Latin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="cebfb0b8-e044-4885-b87f-48074dc60bdd" CreationDate="2015-08-15T03:21:10.557" UserId="5878" Text="Use of genitive, prepositional, and instrumental cases in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="cebfb0b8-e044-4885-b87f-48074dc60bdd" CreationDate="2015-08-15T03:21:10.557" UserId="5878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22936" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9443" RevisionGUID="94666024-a79f-4630-b29d-9946adc836b4" CreationDate="2015-08-15T04:06:42.953" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9410" RevisionGUID="25acfe0b-bed7-4232-81ba-7856188a14a5" CreationDate="2015-08-15T13:24:48.403" UserId="5582" Comment="&quot;Light me&quot; means a totally different thing." Text="&quot;Светло мне&quot; означает, что у этого человека &quot;светло на душе&quot;, то есть он испытывает чувство радости и душевный подъём даже тёмной ночью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Светло мне&quot; means that this person &quot;is light on the soul&quot;, that is, he feels a sense of joy and elation in the darkest of nights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22938" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9410" RevisionGUID="25acfe0b-bed7-4232-81ba-7856188a14a5" CreationDate="2015-08-15T13:24:48.403" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 5288, 5008 edit id of 661" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9444" RevisionGUID="012dfc0e-6bb9-405f-98e3-7253234342c6" CreationDate="2015-08-15T13:44:29.523" UserId="4560" Text="A proverb (**кашу маслом не испортишь**) spoonerised, yielding *Маша* and the non-word *касло*; however, given the presence of a female name and the verb *испортить*, the whole thing defaults to innuendo so that all manner of frivolous meanings could be read into *касло* (which, I should stress, doesn't &quot;sound like anything&quot; per se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a terribly intelligent piece of humour, I'm afraid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="20dad233-dc1b-4558-aeff-9e7c5ff55393" CreationDate="2015-08-15T15:40:23.420" UserId="81" Comment="Небольшие грамматические правки" Text="Это отрывок из Гумилева.  Находится в начале первой главы &quot;От Руси к России&quot;, в части &quot;Готы&quot;, в первом предложении, в последнем абзаце.  Полное предложение выглядит так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Могучее государство готов погибло, как это нередко бывало, из-за измены подданных и жестокости правителя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не понимаю, почему предложение так построено.  То есть, словосочетание &quot;могучее государство&quot; - среднего рода, а &quot;готов&quot; - мужского.  Я написал бы &quot;могучее государство готово погибать...&quot;. Возможно, я не понимаю смысл.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объясните, пожалуйста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22941" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="20dad233-dc1b-4558-aeff-9e7c5ff55393" CreationDate="2015-08-15T15:40:23.420" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by -1 edit id of 663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9431" RevisionGUID="51f32ecc-9710-4c21-b4c8-f8fe01ec1dcc" CreationDate="2015-08-15T15:40:23.420" UserId="97" Comment="Небольшие грамматические правки" Text="Это - отрывок из Гумилева.  Он находится в начале первой главы &quot;От Руси к России&quot;, в части &quot;Готы&quot;, в первом предложении, в последнем абзаце.  Полное предложение выглядит так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Могучее государство готов погибло, как это нередко бывало, из-за измены подданных и жестокости правителя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не понимаю, почему предложение построено таким образом.  То есть, словосочетание &quot;могучее государство&quot; - среднего рода, а &quot;готов&quot; - мужского.  Я написал бы &quot;могучее государство готово погибать...&quot;. Возможно, я не понимаю смысл.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объясните, пожалуйста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="8931f947-a27f-4988-bac5-2560c279fd99" CreationDate="2015-08-15T21:38:48.813" UserId="5415" Text="I believe, где is where? and куда is like, to where? or something like that&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure D:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="8931f947-a27f-4988-bac5-2560c279fd99" CreationDate="2015-08-15T21:38:48.813" UserId="5415" Text="difference between, где and куда?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="8931f947-a27f-4988-bac5-2560c279fd99" CreationDate="2015-08-15T21:38:48.813" UserId="5415" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="e7f3c273-fdef-4162-946f-f42a2faff1ea" CreationDate="2015-08-15T21:45:50.620" UserId="4925" Text="So, I like to watch the Easy Languages videos whenever they get uploaded, and a new one came out yesturday. I can understand almost all the video, except the very beginning. This guy is explaining his most crazy thing that he has ever done, and he says this to start, &quot;И самым безумным моим поступком является то, что...&quot; This phrase makes no sense to me because a) Why the instrumental case? b) why use &quot;является&quot;? and c) Why &quot;то, что&quot; instead of just simply &quot;что&quot;? If someone could just explain this to me, that would be great!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="e7f3c273-fdef-4162-946f-f42a2faff1ea" CreationDate="2015-08-15T21:45:50.620" UserId="4925" Text="Help with this sentence!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="e7f3c273-fdef-4162-946f-f42a2faff1ea" CreationDate="2015-08-15T21:45:50.620" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9447" RevisionGUID="2bbecaee-9a29-4ed8-8d44-1c457cbb8ba5" CreationDate="2015-08-16T00:05:35.517" UserId="4560" Text="a) Because *является*. If this is your first encounter with instrumental being used to describe thing A being thing B, take my word for it that it won't be your last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) **Является** is basically &quot;is&quot;. But yes, it's a little surprising in such an informal context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) It gets worse, I would've used **то, как**. Just *что* would definitely be wrong here, because the whole clause that follows is technically the subject of the one with *является*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9448" RevisionGUID="f8a49d26-7c5d-4cbb-a712-d987fc8153a8" CreationDate="2015-08-16T00:09:56.083" UserId="4714" Text="ГДЕ = &quot;Where&quot; (the location) Где яблоко? (where is the apple?—in what location&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;КУДА = &quot;To where&quot; Куда ты положил яблоко? —where (to where) did you put the apple?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English we have only &quot;where&quot;, which can mean (to where (the action)) and (where(the location)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9449" RevisionGUID="3319eccb-8c3a-4f96-b891-11878484b10c" CreationDate="2015-08-16T01:24:26.183" UserId="4714" Text="являться — can mean something close to &quot;to appear as&quot; —&quot;was as x&quot; &quot;appeared in the image of x&quot;. Remember that the verb pair &quot;появляться-появиться&quot; does actually mean that something appeared. But with &quot;являться&quot; **in this case** we are saying that some object &quot;x&quot; appeared as &quot;y&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that as a native speaker the word **&quot;as&quot;** helps one to understand the instrumental case better. We can say &quot;he was as his sister&quot; meaning he was like his sister, but the word &quot;as&quot; adds more a flavor of existing and taking on all the properties of the other thing (the sister).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever we say that something exists, will exist, or existed as something, the instrumental is used. But in short, just remember that the instrumental is always used after this verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22952" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9446" RevisionGUID="4be1e5e9-3013-4417-9bd0-376dc16f360e" CreationDate="2015-08-16T04:40:39.227" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;И самым безумным моим поступком&quot; - why instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="1a53dcfd-528c-463b-a6b6-60cff8e0eb88" CreationDate="2015-08-16T06:22:14.910" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, this sentence is not an example of &quot;good&quot; Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instrumental case is used properly. This is &quot;составное именное сказуемое&quot; i.e. _noun as predicate_. In Russian if noun is a predicate then it becomes instrumental case, except present tense with the verb &quot;to be&quot; (which is usually omitted). Consider &quot;_This is a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это ошибка_&quot; vs &quot;_That was a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это было ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_That will be a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это будет ошибкой_&quot; (present in nominative, past and future are in instrumental). And using the verb &quot;являться&quot; both &quot;_Это является ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_Это являлось ошибкой_&quot; are in instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Являться&quot; is a kind of &quot;formal style&quot;. And I should say, it's a bad style. Just &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком _было_&quot; would sound far more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. English &quot;_that_&quot; is both _pronoun_ and _conjunction_, so it's natural to say &quot;My craziest thing was that...&quot; Yet in Russian there are two different words: &quot;_то_&quot; = that (pronoun) and &quot;_что_&quot; = &quot;that (conjunction)&quot;. And quite often we use them both at once: &quot;_то, что_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9451" RevisionGUID="947690cd-84d9-469c-920f-8438ce563c59" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:20:28.873" UserId="5385" Text="`Где` means the place itself without action, and `куда` means direction or aim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure, I'm right, but it seems like you have to manipulate time to male this difference between `где` and `куда` in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Где` maps simple time, and `куда` maps continuous and perfect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Где эта улица? - Where is this street?&#xD;&#xA;- Где было молоко? - Where was the milk?&#xD;&#xA;- Куда ты идёшь? - Where are you going?&#xD;&#xA;- Куда ты положил молоко? - Where have you put the milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: There can be the other meanings of this words, I was answering only about specific case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9452" RevisionGUID="15f66504-94be-4a1e-a029-3e84cd38f520" CreationDate="2015-08-16T11:32:05.460" UserId="5385" Text="I think, the previous context assumes he was making some good things. But he has not get recognition (love) from anybody for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the translation can be &quot;But he haven't get any regards in return&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="077380fd-c5e6-41c9-8ea1-a8d63992591e" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:05:46.220" UserId="5008" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="First of all, this sentence is not an example of &quot;good&quot; Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instrumental case is used properly. This is &quot;составное именное сказуемое&quot; i.e. _noun as predicate_. In Russian if noun is a predicate then it becomes instrumental case, except present tense with the verb &quot;to be&quot; (which is usually omitted). Consider &quot;_This is a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это ошибка_&quot; vs &quot;_That was a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это было ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_That will be a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это будет ошибкой_&quot; (present in nominative, past and future are in instrumental). And using the verb &quot;являться&quot; both &quot;_Это является ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_Это являлось ошибкой_&quot; are in instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Являться&quot; is a kind of &quot;formal style&quot;. And I should say, it's a bad style. Just &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком _было_&quot; would sound far more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. English &quot;_that_&quot; is both _pronoun_ and _conjunction_, so it's natural to say &quot;My craziest thing was that...&quot; Yet in Russian there are two different words: &quot;_то_&quot; = that (pronoun) and &quot;_что_&quot; = &quot;that (conjunction)&quot;. And quite often we use them both at once: &quot;_то, что_&quot;. Considering this, you may think the sentence structure as &quot;Моим самым безумным поступком было _то, что_...&quot; --&gt; &quot;_То_ было моим самым безумным поступком, _что_...&quot; --&gt; &quot;_That_ was my craziest thing _that_...&quot; although no one would ever say so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="5949312d-a2e9-4bf0-a0d9-3e6820e868cc" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:38:57.547" UserId="5605" Text="Вы можете привести полную цитату из из этого видео, kingkola36 ? &quot;И самым безумным моим поступком является то, что ...&quot; Что этот парень сказал дальше?&#xD;&#xA;Это действительно не очень хорошо построенная фраза. Правильнее было бы сказать, например: &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком был прыжок с пятнадцатиметровой высоты в воду&quot; или &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком было восхождение на Эверест&quot;. Если попытаться продолжить эту фразу, не меняя конструкцию, которую предложили Вы (вернее, тот парень из видео), то получится: &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком является то, что я прыгнул с пятнадцатиметровой высоты в воду&quot; или &quot;является то, что я совершил восхождение на Эверест.&quot; Это действительно плохой стиль, плохой русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give the full quote from this video, kingkola36 ? &quot;And the most insane of my deed is that ...&quot; What did this guy say next?&#xD;&#xA;It's really not very well constructed phrase. It would be more correct to say, for example: &quot;And my very crazy thing to do was jump from a five-metre height into the water&quot; or &quot;And my most insane thing was climbing mount Everest&quot;. If you try to continue this sentence without changing the design suggested by You (or rather, the guy from the video) it says: &quot;And my most insane thing is that I jumped from a five-metre height into the water&quot; or &quot;is that I climbed mount Everest.&quot; This is really bad style, bad Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9453" RevisionGUID="8dc3d3e8-d2f4-4d6a-9939-e7b01588f4c4" CreationDate="2015-08-16T12:45:00.423" UserId="5605" Comment="edited body" Text="Вы можете привести полную цитату из из этого видео, kingkola36 ? &quot;И самым безумным моим поступком является то, что ...&quot; Что этот парень сказал дальше?&#xD;&#xA;Это действительно не очень хорошо построенная фраза. Правильнее было бы сказать, например: &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком был прыжок с десятиметровой высоты в воду&quot; или &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком было восхождение на Эверест&quot;. Если попытаться продолжить эту фразу, не меняя конструкцию, которую предложили Вы (вернее, тот парень из видео), то получится: &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком является то, что я прыгнул с десятиметровой высоты в воду&quot; или &quot;является то, что я совершил восхождение на Эверест.&quot; Это действительно плохой стиль, плохой русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give the full quote from this video, kingkola36 ? &quot;And the most insane of my deed is that ...&quot; What did this guy say next?&#xD;&#xA;It's really not very well constructed phrase. It would be more correct to say, for example: &quot;And my very crazy thing to do was jump from a десятиметровой height into the water&quot; or &quot;And my most insane thing was climbing mount Everest&quot;. If you try to continue this sentence without changing the design suggested by You (or rather, the guy from the video) it says: &quot;And my most insane thing is that I jumped from a десятиметровой height into the water&quot; or &quot;is that I climbed mount Everest.&quot; This is really bad style, bad Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22963" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9445" RevisionGUID="8d0b1db0-1f61-4326-af24-18b2a8b189f7" CreationDate="2015-08-17T01:43:52.057" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;где&quot; and &quot;куда&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="9e701142-f1e6-4149-8e85-c01d760263d9" CreationDate="2015-08-17T01:55:19.820" UserId="831" Text="Согласно информации о правописании бесприставочных прилагательных и причастий с `-н-` и `-нн-`, которую я нашел в Интернете, прилагательные должны писаться с `-н-`, а причастия - с `-нн-`. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    чищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    чищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(в частности [здесь][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, появление приставки приводит к тому, что и прилагательное пишется с `-нн-`, за исключением приставки `не-`, которая, согласно найденным мною правилам, на правописание `-н-`/`-нн-` не влияет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда я делаю вывод, что орфографически правильными должны являются обе формы с приставкой `не-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    нечищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    нечищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прав ли я? Я замечаю, в частности, что программа проверки правописания в Google Chrome принимает слова `чищеный`, `чищенный` и `нечищеный`, но отвергает слово `нечищенный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если поведение Chrome верно, то какие правила я упустил в своих рассуждениях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/48622/%D0%92-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5-%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="9e701142-f1e6-4149-8e85-c01d760263d9" CreationDate="2015-08-17T01:55:19.820" UserId="831" Text="&quot;нечищенный&quot; или &quot;нечищенный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="9e701142-f1e6-4149-8e85-c01d760263d9" CreationDate="2015-08-17T01:55:19.820" UserId="831" Text="|правописание|прилагательные|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22967" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="1f208ca9-3886-4701-85f4-e2cae73b542c" CreationDate="2015-08-17T02:42:47.400" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Нечищеный&quot; или &quot;нечищенный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="169cc6f4-e843-40ba-ba98-276eee4fa716" CreationDate="2015-08-17T03:46:06.680" UserId="4714" Text="Is there a difference in meaning between theses two?—I assume that there is. What is the difference? When should one structure be used and not the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я и мой друг встретились перед обедом.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;мы с моим другом встретились перед обедом.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="169cc6f4-e843-40ba-ba98-276eee4fa716" CreationDate="2015-08-17T03:46:06.680" UserId="4714" Text="&quot;кто с кем&quot; or &quot;кто и кто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="169cc6f4-e843-40ba-ba98-276eee4fa716" CreationDate="2015-08-17T03:46:06.680" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="affad2e2-d8d3-4b7f-9d5a-e630802da096" CreationDate="2015-08-17T03:48:44.417" UserId="831" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Согласно информации о правописании бесприставочных прилагательных и причастий с `-н-` и `-нн-`, которую я нашел в Интернете, прилагательные должны писаться с `-н-`, а причастия - с `-нн-`. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    чищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    чищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(например, [здесь][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, появление приставки приводит к тому, что и прилагательное пишется с `-нн-`, за исключением приставки `не-`, которая, согласно найденным мною правилам, на правописание `-н-`/`-нн-` не влияет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда я делаю вывод, что орфографически правильными должны являться обе формы с приставкой `не-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    нечищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    нечищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прав ли я? Я замечаю, в частности, что программа проверки правописания в Google Chrome принимает слова `чищеный`, `чищенный` и `нечищеный`, но отвергает слово `нечищенный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если поведение Chrome верно, то какие правила я упустил в своих рассуждениях?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/48622/%D0%92-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5-%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="96eb093e-a1e3-4b6e-8449-c402344a8a90" CreationDate="2015-08-17T05:39:56.143" UserId="5403" Text="Вы правы: приставка &quot;не&quot; и с причастиями в определенных случаях пишется слитно. ***По ссылке - правило.*** &#xD;&#xA;[Справочник по правописанию и стилистике. — М.: Комплект. Д. Э. Розенталь. 1997.](http://yandex.ru/clck/jsredir?from=yandex.ru%3Bsearch%2F%3Bweb%3B%3B&amp;text=&amp;etext=783.U3KU0_y7VORo3G9k58l1w6PA271ER8UFSRF98EdnnjLC_gZ5VZASm7wiQJVZBEqUBlHrrt-pbsznkgeRJE53JQ.b1ee9913f0c1f0e858dbe839f2caa60409943540&amp;uuid=&amp;state=PEtFfuTeVD5kpHnK9lio9WCnKp0DidhEr16RFjt_h9kMwOKhK2Pw7RlTkiUNpvm1IbsdiJHd8tA&amp;data=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&amp;b64e=2&amp;sign=52842d2c0dd675f6f81c5e87dc182617&amp;keyno=0&amp;cst=AiuY0DBWFJ5Hyx_fyvalFPA9KI5rmKu0WS7bRgCElMxpwHW8czAf5ulH3IZ7RVvKGzB-CgOG2SS104jLVxcYhkg4RSAWpRJM9c1uQBhvUjhwh6MeROfwYRzmchUM0eeGaGybDaqMLyIVMxjyp08VTx3Iv1YZTSdAQ9kWyDJontMHcNlRvq2AA6lD9mXtou-DbGjc_hlhuFXlnKMwn_RoXQ&amp;ref=cM777e4sMOAycdZhdUbYHpMQ80108_UCTdwuV_bvPyfSQ3Wu39WHEQuhu8kJcY3-9D4MQJ-e8QNvkrwukeYpWfV0JCzuRcrfz3Tmc42Ir9bmCUNSkL00EaxxfO6-OloLccIpjBOYYVoTex0S4rzMKTlIQjhjC6pCSCwx4WlZYw0jXY0B0qy1l6q71PEfrl250VTEfjxxQ2KbTNyihh-hLeuzOUlq1cWS&amp;l10n=ru&amp;cts=1439789880664&amp;mc=4.324625008845896)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9458" RevisionGUID="10aaba6e-aa2b-493e-8f95-9f0537b6ac75" CreationDate="2015-08-17T05:45:54.107" UserId="3566" Text="Both are grammatically correct. Both *&quot;Я и мой друг&quot;* and *&quot;Мы с моим другом&quot;* mean same thing. Try to give us a context where these two are not the same in your opinion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="86842eff-55c4-4b9a-b097-d5dcab99dacc" CreationDate="2015-08-17T05:53:48.453" UserId="831" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Согласно информации о правописании бесприставочных прилагательных и причастий с `-н-` и `-нн-`, которую я нашел в Интернете, прилагательные должны писаться с `-н-`, а причастия - с `-нн-`. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    чищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    чищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(например, [здесь][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, появление приставки приводит к тому, что и прилагательное пишется с `-нн-`, за исключением приставки `не-`, которая, согласно найденным мною правилам, на правописание `-н-`/`-нн-` не влияет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда я делаю вывод, что орфографически правильными должны являться обе формы с приставкой `не-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    нечищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    нечищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прав ли я? Я замечаю, в частности, что программа проверки правописания в Google Chrome принимает слова `чищеный`, `чищенный` и `нечищеный`, но отвергает слово `нечищенный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если поведение Chrome верно, то какие правила я упустил в своих рассуждениях? Существует ли в русском языке слово `нечищенный`? И если нет, то почему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/48622/%D0%92-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5-%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="11658bba-b306-4ad1-8bc9-613cbfe6f6c1" CreationDate="2015-08-17T05:54:44.650" UserId="5008" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First of all, this sentence is not an example of &quot;good&quot; Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Instrumental case is used properly. This is &quot;составное именное сказуемое&quot; i.e. _noun as predicative_. In Russian if noun is a predicative then it becomes instrumental case, except present tense with the verb &quot;to be&quot; (which is usually omitted). Consider &quot;_This is a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это ошибка_&quot; vs &quot;_That was a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это было ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_That will be a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это будет ошибкой_&quot; (present in nominative, past and future are in instrumental). And using the verb &quot;являться&quot; both &quot;_Это является ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_Это являлось ошибкой_&quot; are in instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Являться&quot; is a kind of &quot;formal style&quot;. And I should say, it's a bad style. Just &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком _было_&quot; would sound far more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. English &quot;_that_&quot; is both _pronoun_ and _conjunction_, so it's natural to say &quot;My craziest thing was that...&quot; Yet in Russian there are two different words: &quot;_то_&quot; = that (pronoun) and &quot;_что_&quot; = &quot;that (conjunction)&quot;. And quite often we use them both at once: &quot;_то, что_&quot;. Considering this, you may think the sentence structure as &quot;Моим самым безумным поступком было _то, что_...&quot; --&gt; &quot;_То_ было моим самым безумным поступком, _что_...&quot; --&gt; &quot;_That_ was my craziest thing _that_...&quot; although no one would ever say so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9450" RevisionGUID="f40b606a-aa2b-49b3-82bd-e2ba867d51dd" CreationDate="2015-08-17T06:05:27.567" UserId="5008" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="First of all, this sentence is not an example of &quot;good&quot; Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The instrumental case is used properly. Here we have a compound nominal predicate (&quot;является моим самым безумным поступком&quot;). In Russian when the noun is a predicative then it becomes the instrumental case, except only the present tense with the verb &quot;to be&quot; (as you know, the latter is usually omitted). Consider &quot;_This is a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это ошибка_&quot; vs &quot;_That was a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это было ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_That will be a mistake_&quot; - &quot;_Это будет ошибкой_&quot; (present in nominative, past and future are in instrumental). And if using another copula such as &quot;являться&quot; then both &quot;_Это является ошибкой_&quot; and &quot;_Это являлось ошибкой_&quot; must be in the instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Являться&quot; is a kind of &quot;formal style&quot;. And I should say, it's a bad style. Just &quot;И самым моим безумным поступком _было_&quot; would be far more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. English &quot;_that_&quot; is both _a pronoun_ and _a conjunction_, so it's natural to say: &quot;My craziest thing was that...&quot; Yet in Russian there are two different words: &quot;_то_&quot; = that (pronoun) and &quot;_что_&quot; = &quot;that (conjunction)&quot;. And quite often we use them both at once: &quot;_то, что_&quot;. Considering this, you may think the sentence's structure as &quot;Моим самым безумным поступком было _то, что_...&quot; --&gt; &quot;_То_ было моим самым безумным поступком, _что_...&quot; --&gt; &quot;_That_ was my craziest thing _that_...&quot; although no one would ever say so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9459" RevisionGUID="fc520f9a-6db4-424c-8ab6-e40fc8da11e0" CreationDate="2015-08-17T06:22:20.437" UserId="5008" Text="Both forms are correct. Yet &quot;Я и мой друг&quot; seems to have a little accent on the previous separation, while &quot;Мы с моим другом&quot; sounds just neutral. You may think it as being somewhat close (at least in the specific context) to simple past vs present perfect tense in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы с моим другом встретились --&gt; We met&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я и мой друг встретились --&gt; We have met&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="95cd0c1b-b143-427a-8f61-177615f80e48" CreationDate="2015-08-17T06:24:56.670" UserId="5403" Comment="added 549 characters in body" Text="Вы правы: приставка &quot;не&quot; и с причастиями в определенных случаях пишется слитно. ***По ссылке - правило.*** &#xD;&#xA;[Справочник по правописанию и стилистике. — М.: Комплект. Д. Э. Розенталь. 1997.](http://yandex.ru/clck/jsredir?from=yandex.ru%3Bsearch%2F%3Bweb%3B%3B&amp;text=&amp;etext=783.U3KU0_y7VORo3G9k58l1w6PA271ER8UFSRF98EdnnjLC_gZ5VZASm7wiQJVZBEqUBlHrrt-pbsznkgeRJE53JQ.b1ee9913f0c1f0e858dbe839f2caa60409943540&amp;uuid=&amp;state=PEtFfuTeVD5kpHnK9lio9WCnKp0DidhEr16RFjt_h9kMwOKhK2Pw7RlTkiUNpvm1IbsdiJHd8tA&amp;data=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&amp;b64e=2&amp;sign=52842d2c0dd675f6f81c5e87dc182617&amp;keyno=0&amp;cst=AiuY0DBWFJ5Hyx_fyvalFPA9KI5rmKu0WS7bRgCElMxpwHW8czAf5ulH3IZ7RVvKGzB-CgOG2SS104jLVxcYhkg4RSAWpRJM9c1uQBhvUjhwh6MeROfwYRzmchUM0eeGaGybDaqMLyIVMxjyp08VTx3Iv1YZTSdAQ9kWyDJontMHcNlRvq2AA6lD9mXtou-DbGjc_hlhuFXlnKMwn_RoXQ&amp;ref=cM777e4sMOAycdZhdUbYHpMQ80108_UCTdwuV_bvPyfSQ3Wu39WHEQuhu8kJcY3-9D4MQJ-e8QNvkrwukeYpWfV0JCzuRcrfz3Tmc42Ir9bmCUNSkL00EaxxfO6-OloLccIpjBOYYVoTex0S4rzMKTlIQjhjC6pCSCwx4WlZYw0jXY0B0qy1l6q71PEfrl250VTEfjxxQ2KbTNyihh-hLeuzOUlq1cWS&amp;l10n=ru&amp;cts=1439789880664&amp;mc=4.324625008845896)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дополнение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае перед нами глагол несовершенного вида. Причастия этих глаголов и прилагательные пишутся по-разному: если есть зависимые слова - причастие, нет зависимых слов - прилагательное. &#xD;&#xA;Ср.: жареная рыба ( прилагательное), жаренная на сковородке рыба (причастие). &#xD;&#xA;Чищеные туфли, чищенные ваксом туфли (причастие). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пишется раздельно ***не*** с причастиями, имеющими ***при себе пояснительные слова,*** например: ***не возвращённая автору рукопись***, не замеченные корректором опечатки, не сданные в срок гранки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9460" RevisionGUID="0e68c9cd-43c2-428b-a45a-730e7e0624a4" CreationDate="2015-08-17T07:41:34.053" UserId="5288" Text="The difference is pure logical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us   &#xD;&#xA;` We = my sister and I`   &#xD;&#xA;Then&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я и мой друг встретились перед обедом.&quot;       is incorrect for this situation&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы с моим другом встретились перед обедом.&quot;      OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы с моими друзьями встретились перед обедом.&quot;   OK&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let us   &#xD;&#xA;`  We = my friend and I`   &#xD;&#xA;Then&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я и мой друг встретились перед обедом.&quot;          OK&#xD;&#xA; \___мы_____/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы с моим другом встретились перед обедом.&quot;      OK&#xD;&#xA;    \___________/&#xD;&#xA;         |&#xD;&#xA;          limiting attribute&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мы с моими друзьями встретились перед обедом.&quot;   incorrect&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22980" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9456" RevisionGUID="09869331-3d55-49b1-8fe0-df74eaa7e3e5" CreationDate="2015-08-17T08:09:50.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я и мой друг&quot; or &quot;мы с моим другом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9457" RevisionGUID="c0e39cea-141c-412d-afa4-487674ab4e8f" CreationDate="2015-08-17T15:43:46.747" UserId="5403" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы правы: приставка &quot;не&quot; и с причастиями в определенных случаях пишется слитно. ***По ссылке - правило.*** &#xD;&#xA;[Справочник по правописанию и стилистике. — М.: Комплект. Д. Э. Розенталь. 1997.](http://yandex.ru/clck/jsredir?from=yandex.ru%3Bsearch%2F%3Bweb%3B%3B&amp;text=&amp;etext=783.U3KU0_y7VORo3G9k58l1w6PA271ER8UFSRF98EdnnjLC_gZ5VZASm7wiQJVZBEqUBlHrrt-pbsznkgeRJE53JQ.b1ee9913f0c1f0e858dbe839f2caa60409943540&amp;uuid=&amp;state=PEtFfuTeVD5kpHnK9lio9WCnKp0DidhEr16RFjt_h9kMwOKhK2Pw7RlTkiUNpvm1IbsdiJHd8tA&amp;data=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&amp;b64e=2&amp;sign=52842d2c0dd675f6f81c5e87dc182617&amp;keyno=0&amp;cst=AiuY0DBWFJ5Hyx_fyvalFPA9KI5rmKu0WS7bRgCElMxpwHW8czAf5ulH3IZ7RVvKGzB-CgOG2SS104jLVxcYhkg4RSAWpRJM9c1uQBhvUjhwh6MeROfwYRzmchUM0eeGaGybDaqMLyIVMxjyp08VTx3Iv1YZTSdAQ9kWyDJontMHcNlRvq2AA6lD9mXtou-DbGjc_hlhuFXlnKMwn_RoXQ&amp;ref=cM777e4sMOAycdZhdUbYHpMQ80108_UCTdwuV_bvPyfSQ3Wu39WHEQuhu8kJcY3-9D4MQJ-e8QNvkrwukeYpWfV0JCzuRcrfz3Tmc42Ir9bmCUNSkL00EaxxfO6-OloLccIpjBOYYVoTex0S4rzMKTlIQjhjC6pCSCwx4WlZYw0jXY0B0qy1l6q71PEfrl250VTEfjxxQ2KbTNyihh-hLeuzOUlq1cWS&amp;l10n=ru&amp;cts=1439789880664&amp;mc=4.324625008845896)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дополнение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае перед нами глагол несовершенного вида. Причастия этих глаголов и прилагательные пишутся по-разному: если есть зависимые слова - причастие, нет зависимых слов - прилагательное. &#xD;&#xA;Ср.: жареная рыба ( прилагательное), жаренная на сковородке рыба (причастие). &#xD;&#xA;Чищеные туфли, чищенные ваксом туфли (причастие). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пишется раздельно ***не*** с причастиями, имеющими ***при себе пояснительные слова,*** например: ***не возвращённая автору рукопись***, не замеченные корректором опечатки, не сданные в срок гранки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tdqaC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="c02f230d-5d40-4e1e-80d4-2dd1a10d3fe0" CreationDate="2015-08-17T19:08:59.073" UserId="5874" Text="Чем отличаются слова смельчак и храбрец?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="c02f230d-5d40-4e1e-80d4-2dd1a10d3fe0" CreationDate="2015-08-17T19:08:59.073" UserId="5874" Text="Смельчак - храбрец" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="c02f230d-5d40-4e1e-80d4-2dd1a10d3fe0" CreationDate="2015-08-17T19:08:59.073" UserId="5874" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="272c52ca-4f5c-4364-8126-7beccf0caccd" CreationDate="2015-08-17T19:47:25.010" UserId="5874" Text="Через две буквы &quot;т&quot; или одну?  То есть, на наших колоколах в соборе пишется через две, а в momondo.ru лишь через одну.  В Сиэттле живу, и постоянно вижу эти разные способы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="272c52ca-4f5c-4364-8126-7beccf0caccd" CreationDate="2015-08-17T19:47:25.010" UserId="5874" Text="Как правильно пишется &quot;Сиэттл?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9462" RevisionGUID="272c52ca-4f5c-4364-8126-7beccf0caccd" CreationDate="2015-08-17T19:47:25.010" UserId="5874" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9463" RevisionGUID="5dbb139e-2ba8-4490-ad8b-a9a6e693d778" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:01:59.377" UserId="1236" Text="Возможны несколько вариантов написания, `Сиэтл`, `Сиэттл`, `Сиетл` и даже `Сиатл` ([как утверждает Вики][1]). Судя по [данным гугловского Ngram Viewer&#xD;&#xA;'a][2], вариант `Сиэтл` сейчас самый распространённый, за ним с большим отрывом по частоте употребления в литературе идёт `Сиэттл`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%8D%D1%82%D1%82%D0%BB%2C%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BB%2C%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BB&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%8D%D1%82%D1%82%D0%BB%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BB%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BB%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="90f24e36-7e28-418e-88a4-0140948ee715" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:06:10.647" UserId="4714" Text="In some cases one can write either в тазе/в тазу...на мысе/на мысу...в снегу/в снеге... и.т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning between the old locative case (у,ю endings) and the prepositional case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="90f24e36-7e28-418e-88a4-0140948ee715" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:06:10.647" UserId="4714" Text="Difference in meaning between locative and prepositional cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9464" RevisionGUID="90f24e36-7e28-418e-88a4-0140948ee715" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:06:10.647" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9465" RevisionGUID="95d40ace-7283-458d-b8ec-f57c545eb4ab" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:29:34.817" UserId="1236" Text="The short answer is no, in some constructions/phrases you use the former, in the others you use the latter form, also many nouns don't have a separate locative form. Here's [an article][1] that argues that the usage of the locative case signifies the fact of a full, intensive contact when the position of the object is strictly determined, or its freedom of movement is limited, or its nature is partially or fully changed, still this is of little practical value, in every Preposition + Noun phrase you have to know exacty which form of the noun is to be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/plungyan-02.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="152bc2c1-faf9-45ff-ab8b-73eea84e4426" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:54:40.530" UserId="5870" Text="I just saw the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У мальчиков есть вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У мальчиков нет воды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the meaning is something like *The children have aqua.* and *The children don't have aqua.*. However, why do the two sentences use different forms of `вода` or `воды`? (I don't know the proper form of those words, but maybe `вода` is the proper and `воды` is the plural form of it?) But then I'm not sure why the latter uses plural form...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes these two words different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*By the way is there any good dictionary to list all the conjugated forms of a noun? I searched both `вода` and `воды` and then got results in both times, but I even can't see which is the proper form!*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="152bc2c1-faf9-45ff-ab8b-73eea84e4426" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:54:40.530" UserId="5870" Text="Why do you use &quot;воды&quot; in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="152bc2c1-faf9-45ff-ab8b-73eea84e4426" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:54:40.530" UserId="5870" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9467" RevisionGUID="34bf9a79-1390-4695-8516-5d1b29da5c40" CreationDate="2015-08-17T21:04:17.160" UserId="1236" Text="After the predicate word `есть`, 'there is', the noun is used in the Nominative case, that is in the dictionary form, but after the predicate word `нет`, 'there's no', the noun is used in the Genitive case, like the objects after other negative predicates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best dictionary to list all the conjugated forms of a noun is ABBYY Lingvo, but it cost some money, if you don't want to buy it, use Wiktionary, it lists all the case forms of most Russian words, [here they are][1] for `вода`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0#.D0.A0.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9468" RevisionGUID="11a44a14-a258-42b5-a063-4980fd898f23" CreationDate="2015-08-17T21:28:22.323" UserId="5443" Text="В разное время методы практической транскрипции с английского тяготели то к формальной транслитерации (в интересах обратного восстановления), то к близости по произношению. &quot;Сиэттл&quot; соответствует идеям транслитерации, но поскольку в английском произношении tt и t не различаются (в отличие от русского произношения сдвоенных в написании согласных), то написание &quot;Сиэтл&quot; в настоящее время вытеснило первый вариант. Для прочих же вариантов написания оснований явно меньше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9469" RevisionGUID="1de90782-4615-4f74-a0ac-9e358d303abb" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:11:11.397" UserId="5443" Text="Эти понятия во многом пересекаются, но есть ситуации, для которых одно из этих слов уместнее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Смельчак - человек, готовый пойти на риск в расчёте на удачу и свои силы (готовность ввязаться в борьбу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Храбрец - человек, действующий бесстрашно, попав в сложную ситуацию (готовность бороться).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иными словами, можно &quot;смело в бой пойти&quot; (как в песне поётся) и затем &quot;храбро сражаться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9470" RevisionGUID="f93cdad8-b37b-4a35-b518-f36a7bcbb601" CreationDate="2015-08-17T23:36:22.453" UserId="2281" Text="Я не считаю, что здесь есть какая-то существенная разница. Однако слово &quot;смельчак&quot;, засчёт суффикса -ак, звучит как чуть более эмоционально окрашенное (приземлённое) слово, чем &quot;храбрец&quot;, с вытекающими отсюда коннотациями, у каждого своими (см. ответ Alex_ander). Толковый словарь под редакцией Кузнецова, например, не даёт никакой разницы: &quot;СМЕЛЬЧАК, -а; м. Смелый человек; храбрец&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Храбрец - заимствование из церковнославянского, смельчак - исконно русское слово. Это просто дублеты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="0854adc4-4424-4ffe-bb10-01a3b04bb8be" CreationDate="2015-08-18T04:09:27.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/633490866955546624" />
  <row Id="23001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9471" RevisionGUID="1367b385-325f-4860-8279-a6ae47a96c33" CreationDate="2015-08-18T06:55:27.510" UserId="5008" Text="В настоящее время оба слова употребляются взаимозаменяемо. Тем не менее, некая разница между ними должна была иметь место, так как оба слова являются общими для всех славян.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Смельчак&quot; очевидно связан со &quot;сметь&quot;, &quot;осмелиться&quot;, то есть &quot;смелость&quot; - это изначально духовная черта, ближе всего к &quot;решимости&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Со словом &quot;храбрец&quot; всё сложнее. Но даже если оно и не связано с &quot;быстрый&quot;, &quot;острый&quot; и пр., всё-таки некая связь именно с &quot;храбростью в сражении&quot; кажется здесь более выраженной." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9472" RevisionGUID="69433a64-3a45-4652-a7a5-1e39d3ecbd9d" CreationDate="2015-08-18T07:18:09.997" UserId="5008" Text="It's quite hard to argue here. But I can say that my personal preference is to use locative as much as possible reverting to prepositional only if the sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the &quot;physical location&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there are nouns which I never use in locative case. For example, I never say &quot;на мысу&quot; but only &quot;на мысе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems what you are used to say is more important here than some bookish rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9459" RevisionGUID="1f96b853-3740-49b0-be1d-5b1d3f88317e" CreationDate="2015-08-18T07:33:35.703" UserId="5008" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Both forms are correct. Yet &quot;Я и мой друг&quot; seems to have a little accent on the previous separation, while &quot;Мы с моим другом&quot; sounds just neutral. You may think it as being somewhat close (at least in the specific context) to simple past vs present perfect tense in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы с моим другом встретились --&gt; We met&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я и мой друг встретились --&gt; We have met&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. As an example of usage. _После долгих лет разлуки я и мой друг наконец-то встретились_. That's mostly stylistical difference &quot;_we_&quot; vs &quot;_me and him_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9473" RevisionGUID="d2e8ac9e-ba71-4c2f-9126-85c2b0468eff" CreationDate="2015-08-18T07:43:49.697" UserId="2079" Text="The most common is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед обедом я встретился с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с другом встретились перед обедом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;моим&quot; is unnecessary here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9472" RevisionGUID="5d66dfb8-691e-4c48-ba42-57a80b879ae4" CreationDate="2015-08-18T13:07:01.997" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It's quite hard to argue on this. But I can say that my personal preference is to use locative as much as possible reverting to prepositional only if the sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the &quot;physical location&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there are some nouns which I never use in locative case. For example, I never say &quot;на мысу&quot; but only &quot;на мысе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, what one is used to say is more important here than some bookish rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23007" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="bdbf7c2a-f42c-4f25-977d-05fef6f1dca1" CreationDate="2015-08-18T16:04:40.440" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23008" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9461" RevisionGUID="a6fe9da1-620e-4abf-bb41-9221bf6d56b0" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:11:15.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/633763111707803648" />
  <row Id="23009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="98a019a0-ebd8-4160-873a-d4262ff0cf92" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:20:13.893" UserId="170" Text="Do I need comma in the following sentence?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...об этом там почему-то умолчано. **Не сказано также и что именно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеется в виду под словом &quot;объект&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like a complex sentence with two clauses and naturally there should be a comma here, but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23010" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="98a019a0-ebd8-4160-873a-d4262ff0cf92" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:20:13.893" UserId="170" Text="Comma before a clause starting with the participle 'и'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23011" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="98a019a0-ebd8-4160-873a-d4262ff0cf92" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:20:13.893" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="d99bcd45-3962-4872-8311-4f44d707ed2c" CreationDate="2015-08-18T22:50:56.600" UserId="170" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Do I need а comma in the following sentence?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...об этом там почему-то умолчано. **Не сказано также и что именно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеется в виду под словом &quot;объект&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like a complex sentence with two clauses and naturally there should be a comma here, but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="08f81bb3-6dc9-4a36-b09d-068c998cbfd8" CreationDate="2015-08-19T00:31:03.540" UserId="2388" Text="You don't. If you need a rule, the following might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 142.** При двух рядом стоящих союзах (подчинительный союз или относительное слово и другой подчинительный союз; сочинительный союз и подчинительный союз или относительное слово) запятая между союзами ставится только в том случае, когда опущение придаточного предложения не требует перестройки главного предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если перед подчинительным союзом или относительным словом стоит отрицание **не** или сочинительный союз (**и**, **или** и т. д.), тесно сливающийся с придаточным предложением, то последнее не отделяется от главного запятой, например: Я хочу знать не как это делается, a зачем это делается. Он раздражителен и когда болен, и когда здоров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, if two conjunctions collide like that, you need to watch carefully if &quot;excluding&quot; the dependent clause from the sentence makes any sense. In your sentence &quot;что&quot; is directly connected to &quot;и&quot; (doubling as an object placeholder), so separating them would seem weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23014" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9405" RevisionGUID="b1331eee-e588-4c0f-9b97-fe07fe855def" CreationDate="2015-08-19T01:11:15.500" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/633808410811723777" />
  <row Id="23015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9344" RevisionGUID="1af4e37f-92d0-4bed-b5ef-4f771abdb791" CreationDate="2015-08-19T04:11:21.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/633853733215051776" />
  <row Id="23016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9475" RevisionGUID="76fc63b0-aaac-4955-9e01-54ab7cda1688" CreationDate="2015-08-19T06:30:46.397" UserId="2388" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="You don't. If you need a rule, the following might help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§ 142.** При двух рядом стоящих союзах (подчинительный союз или относительное слово и другой подчинительный союз; сочинительный союз и подчинительный союз или относительное слово) запятая между союзами ставится только в том случае, когда опущение придаточного предложения не требует перестройки главного предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если перед подчинительным союзом или относительным словом стоит отрицание **не** или сочинительный союз (**и**, **или** и т. д.), тесно сливающийся с придаточным предложением, то последнее не отделяется от главного запятой, например: Я хочу знать не как это делается, a зачем это делается. Он раздражителен и когда болен, и когда здоров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, if two conjunctions collide like that, you need to watch carefully if &quot;excluding&quot; the dependent clause from the sentence makes any sense. In your sentence &quot;что&quot; is directly connected to &quot;и&quot;, so separating them would seem weird (it would suggest that &quot;Не сказано также и.&quot; is a perfectly OK sentence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="13e5d117-ed71-4072-ae34-2b2d80d39167" CreationDate="2015-08-19T06:37:04.527" UserId="5403" Text="In your example before the conjunctions что there is another conjunctions и. in this case we don't need comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: Не вернул он мне книгу ***и когда*** прочитал ее; Скоро станет известно ***и кто*** приедет на праздник;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="45266d95-fa15-4391-9e78-30139de13f14" CreationDate="2015-08-19T06:50:17.110" UserId="170" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Do I need а comma in the following sentence?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...об этом там почему-то умолчано. **Не сказано также и что именно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеется в виду под словом &quot;объект&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like a complex sentence with two clauses and naturally there should be a comma here, but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="45266d95-fa15-4391-9e78-30139de13f14" CreationDate="2015-08-19T06:50:17.110" UserId="170" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Comma before a clause starting with the particle 'и'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9476" RevisionGUID="0ff5fce5-0ab5-44eb-87a1-29a064a3706b" CreationDate="2015-08-19T08:18:24.887" UserId="5403" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="In your example before the conjunctions что there is another conjunctions и. in this case we don't need comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: Не вернул он мне книгу ***и когда*** прочитал ее; Скоро станет известно ***и кто*** приедет на праздник;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: [Знаки препинания в сложноподчиненном предложении](http://orthographia.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=134#pp134)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23021" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9474" RevisionGUID="1a1068e7-6d4f-44e4-9915-c80429906bb6" CreationDate="2015-08-19T09:54:54.230" UserId="170" Comment="edited title" Text="Comma before a clause starting with particle 'и'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9477" RevisionGUID="c1df8289-0a78-4423-98f4-91f649767c4e" CreationDate="2015-08-19T16:30:29.490" UserId="114" Text="There's a perfectly valid phrase in Russian: &quot;Косил косой косой косой&quot;. It contains three completely identically-looking words at the end and the first one is a different declension of others. I am native Russian so I understand what this phrase means and my question is not about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any problem for non-russian speaking teacher to explain to curious pupil the meaning of the above?&#xD;&#xA;What topics of Russian language are a must for comprehending the above?&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you're that teacher; how you'll approach in explaining the above?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9477" RevisionGUID="c1df8289-0a78-4423-98f4-91f649767c4e" CreationDate="2015-08-19T16:30:29.490" UserId="114" Text="How non-native Russian language course will approach to deciphering the phrase &quot;Косил косой косой косой&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9477" RevisionGUID="c1df8289-0a78-4423-98f4-91f649767c4e" CreationDate="2015-08-19T16:30:29.490" UserId="114" Text="|перевод|падежи|склонение|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9466" RevisionGUID="c47d802d-e1ad-4cee-9473-700d8bb7d9fc" CreationDate="2015-08-19T17:15:20.953" UserId="5870" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I just saw the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У мальчиков есть вода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У мальчиков нет воды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the meaning is something like *The children have water.* and *The children don't have water.*. However, why do the two sentences use different forms of `вода` or `воды`? (I don't know the proper form of those words, but maybe `вода` is the proper and `воды` is the plural form of it?) But then I'm not sure why the latter uses plural form...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes these two words different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*By the way is there any good dictionary to list all the conjugated forms of a noun? I searched both `вода` and `воды` and then got results in both times, but I even can't see which is the proper form!*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="bbb57e0b-33b4-4a70-ad19-4f77d636d6d8" CreationDate="2015-08-19T21:04:29.377" UserId="4714" Text="Prefixes &quot;раз, пере, до и.т.д.&quot; are easily understood when attached to other verbs. Or at least, there is some form of logic to them, but with &quot;быть&quot; they make no sense whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the literal meaning of &quot;раздобыть&quot; &quot;выбыть&quot;  &quot;добыть&quot; итд&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefixes don't seem to add any physical or abstract meaning. I mean, I know what these words mean, but what would they translate to directly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;добыть— &quot;to be to&quot; &quot;to be up to&quot; ??&#xD;&#xA;выбыть— &quot;be out&quot; ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looking for someone that knows english really well and can translate these words into something that captures the essence of the words—it doesn't have to be a real english verb; i know the real translations already. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="bbb57e0b-33b4-4a70-ad19-4f77d636d6d8" CreationDate="2015-08-19T21:04:29.377" UserId="4714" Text="How to understand the meanings of prefixes with &quot;быть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="bbb57e0b-33b4-4a70-ad19-4f77d636d6d8" CreationDate="2015-08-19T21:04:29.377" UserId="4714" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9479" RevisionGUID="5bbc60f2-775a-4a8d-9e59-d5d7f3809487" CreationDate="2015-08-19T21:39:45.570" UserId="1236" Text="The situation is very like to that with the [prefixes added to the Latin verb *sum, fui, esse* 'to be'][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absum, abfui, abesse — be away, be absent [away + be]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; praesum, praefui, praeesse — be at the head of; be present [before + be]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us have a look at the Russian verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • **до**быть 'to get, to procure': до- 'to, up to, till' - &quot;[make smth] be to [smb], be to [smth], get to [smth]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • **вы**быть 'to retire, to drop out': вы- 'out, away' - &quot;be away, be out&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • **у**быть 'to depart, to decrease': y- 'away' - &quot;be away&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • **при**быть 'to arrive, to increase': при- 'up to, near' - &quot;be near, be up&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; • **за**быть 'to forget': за- 'behind' - &quot;be behind i.e. leave behind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, in Russian many verbs with prefixes are highly idiomatic, and you cannot get their meaning by summing up the meaning of the prefix and the meaning of the verb, besides, most prefixes have many meanings, and some of their meanings can be present only in just a couple of words. All the forms of **быть** with prefixes are non-productive, you cannot add any prefix you like to that verb to construct the meaning you like, you have just to learn those verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Verbs/esse.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="e1f1ec4a-db7b-4d19-8b02-bf29723280ed" CreationDate="2015-08-19T22:06:08.277" UserId="5288" Text="**&quot;Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.&quot;** is a grammatically correct sentence in American English, used as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The approach will be [**same**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="3c1d4218-50f9-4f91-995f-ab15c85909a9" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:51:39.980" UserId="5893" Text="I'm trying to translate Okudzhava's song &quot;Я вновь повстречался с Надеждой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question refers to the very end of this verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Когда бы любовь и надежду связать воедино,&#xD;&#xA;    какая бы, трудно поверить, возникла картина!&#xD;&#xA;    Какие бы нас миновали напрасные муки,&#xD;&#xA;    и только прекрасные муки глядели б с чела...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research on &quot;гладеть с чела&quot; but it does not seem to be a common expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could imagine something like &quot;frown at smt.&quot; or &quot;look seriously at smt. (with knitted brow)&quot; maybe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure it's obvious for a native, but that's certainly beyond my modest Russian. Any help would be apreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="3c1d4218-50f9-4f91-995f-ab15c85909a9" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:51:39.980" UserId="5893" Text="Is there an idiomatic meaning to &quot;гладеть с чела&quot; (or else, what does that mean?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="3c1d4218-50f9-4f91-995f-ab15c85909a9" CreationDate="2015-08-20T02:51:39.980" UserId="5893" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="649f2494-2e9a-4cf8-ba0d-996076f11e50" CreationDate="2015-08-20T03:07:12.710" UserId="5893" Text="It's deeply rooted in Russian grammar. Location without movement governs the locative, while location with movement uses the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Где -&gt; no movement, locative&#xD;&#xA;    Куда -&gt; movement, accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar goes, for instance, in German:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    wo -&gt; no movement, dative&#xD;&#xA;    wohin -&gt; movement, accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English movement can be expressed directly with &quot;where to&quot;, but often is indicated by other parts of the sentence, or not at all if that's implicitely clear. In Russian you simply must know whether there is movement or not, or else you won't be able to form a proper sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beside the need to use the proper case, &quot;where&quot; is not the only word that has two variants. For instance, &quot;here&quot; (&quot;from here&quot; / &quot;to here&quot;) will also be said differently according to movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="e48223b6-f26b-4009-9617-41aa6683f050" CreationDate="2015-08-20T03:21:42.820" UserId="1236" Text="First of all, it is _гл**я**деть с чела_, **я**, not **a** as you have.&#xD;&#xA;*Чело* means 'brow, forehead', _глядеть_ means 'to look', so _глядеть с чела_ means 'to look from the forehead, from the face', it is a metaphor which means 'to be depicted on the face', it can be said about emotions, facial expressions, fear, happiness, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general idea in those lines is 'if love and hope could be combined, an unbelievable thing would happen [lit. a beautiful picture would appear], vain sufferings would abandon us, and only sweet suffering would be in our faces [lit. would look from our faces].'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, this, as always in Okudzhava's songs, is highly poetic language full of metaphors, you don't use that in everyday speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="39edaa2b-8b20-4ccb-9ffa-cb1207d4a501" CreationDate="2015-08-20T09:37:42.760" UserId="5893" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I'm trying to translate Okudzhava's song &quot;Я вновь повстречался с Надеждой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question refers to the very end of this verse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Когда бы любовь и надежду связать воедино,&#xD;&#xA;    какая бы, трудно поверить, возникла картина!&#xD;&#xA;    Какие бы нас миновали напрасные муки,&#xD;&#xA;    и только прекрасные муки глядели б с чела...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research on &quot;глядеть с чела&quot; but it does not seem to be a common expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could imagine something like &quot;frown at smt.&quot; or &quot;look seriously at smt. (with knitted brow)&quot; maybe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure it's obvious for a native, but that's certainly beyond my modest Russian. Any help would be apreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23037" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="39edaa2b-8b20-4ccb-9ffa-cb1207d4a501" CreationDate="2015-08-20T09:37:42.760" UserId="5893" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Is there an idiomatic meaning to &quot;глядеть с чела&quot; (or else, what does that mean?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="ff97213b-fbc1-4ceb-825b-c045fc6e2f69" CreationDate="2015-08-20T09:39:39.170" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 73 characters in body" Text="*Чело* means 'brow, forehead', _глядеть_ means 'to look', so _глядеть с чела_ means 'to look from the forehead, from the face', it is a metaphor which means 'to be depicted on the face', it can be said about emotions, facial expressions, fear, happiness, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general idea in those lines is 'if love and hope could be combined, an unbelievable thing would happen [lit. a beautiful picture would appear], vain sufferings would abandon us, and only sweet suffering would be in our faces [lit. would look from our faces].'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, this, as always in Okudzhava's songs, is highly poetic language full of metaphors, you don't use that in everyday speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="0bdd0279-a7a9-4ace-a611-9540cee5be10" CreationDate="2015-08-20T18:25:36.240" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="I've seen неделю, but I don't know of when the transformation occurs. Could somebody explain it to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="0bdd0279-a7a9-4ace-a611-9540cee5be10" CreationDate="2015-08-20T18:25:36.240" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="When does неделя become неделю?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="0bdd0279-a7a9-4ace-a611-9540cee5be10" CreationDate="2015-08-20T18:25:36.240" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9485" RevisionGUID="0a379eee-9b0a-43a8-96f7-b3000985aade" CreationDate="2015-08-20T18:37:19.380" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;Неделю&quot; is simply the accusative case of &quot;неделя&quot; (week), unless you mean &quot;не делю&quot; which stands for &quot;[I] don't divide&quot;. The accusative case itself has too many applications to list it here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="ff6702e6-43bc-4421-b939-aab9a03f4df9" CreationDate="2015-08-20T21:05:20.873" UserId="5777" Text="`Откуда` ты идешь? (from) - I am going from my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Куда`ты идешь? (to) - I am going to school. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Где` эта школа? (location) - The school near your home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="bb53c2c0-dbae-4da5-bea7-5d83e3f816f4" CreationDate="2015-08-20T21:42:32.223" UserId="5777" Text="Слово `смелость` скорее всего пошло от `суметь` (он сумел). Прилагательное `сумелый`. То есть оказаться в состоянии сделать что-либо. И это от глагола. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как ты смеешь мне дерзить? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имеется ввиду что он осмелился высказать то что он думает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово `храбрость` имеет значение не жалея себя.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он смело пошел в бой и храбро сражался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут имеется ввиду что он решился вступить в бой и сражался не жалея своей жизни. Значения у слов разные. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="9b8b5a6f-fb48-40a7-a375-5f452e0dbae1" CreationDate="2015-08-20T22:19:32.237" UserId="4903" Text="The original phrase can be extended/modified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лопоухий косой за песчаной косой пал под острой косой косой бабы с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updated phrase uses the word &quot;косой&quot; with 5 different meanings. Extra words in the phrase help a non-native speaker to identify the meaning of each &quot;косой&quot; instance. Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - лопоухий косой - lop-eared hare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - за песчаной косой - beyond a sandbank&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - пал под острой косой - fell under a sharp scythe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой бабы - of a cross-eyed woman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - с косой - with a braid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that &quot;explained&quot; phrase is picked apart and understood by a student, then student would need to know at least one more meaning of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой - skewed; crooked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then a student can try to make sense of the original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Косил косой косой косой&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="809a180b-81c2-4ee3-9674-0775b95a3065" CreationDate="2015-08-20T22:27:20.167" UserId="4903" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="The original phrase can be extended/modified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лопоухий косой за песчаной косой пал под острой косой косой бабы с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updated phrase uses the word &quot;косой&quot; with 5 different meanings. Extra words in the phrase help a non-native speaker to identify the meaning of each &quot;косой&quot; instance. Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - лопоухий косой - lop-eared hare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - за песчаной косой - beyond a sandbank&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - пал под острой косой - fell under a sharp scythe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой бабы - of a cross-eyed woman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - с косой - with a braid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that &quot;explained&quot; phrase is picked apart and understood by a student, then student would need to know at least two more meanings of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой - skewed; crooked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой - cross-eyed man (as a noun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then a student can try to make sense of the original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Косил косой косой косой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a possibility of a double meaning here. The subject in this sentence could be a man, but in a context of a fairy-tale it could be a hare.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="a90b1fed-9c9e-40cc-a512-99ffa53b1550" CreationDate="2015-08-21T01:21:53.483" UserId="4560" Text="**Неделю** is the accusative singular. The ending comes from a Proto-Slavic nasal — *\*nedělj**ǫ*** — which is a cognate of the accusative ending **-am** of the Latin first declension, e. g. *agricol**am** vidi* &quot;I saw a farmer [*agricola*]&quot;. And that's the basic usage of accusative — it's the direct object case. E. g. *Вот как я провёл эту неделю* &quot;That's how I've spent this week.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative is also the case used with certain prepositions; the logic of which prepositions take which cases is old and often unclear, so no examples, to keep this simple. You'll come to that eventually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, since *неделя* is a word for a period of time, its accusative has another important usage — it means &quot;for [the duration of] a week&quot;. Just like **минуту** can mean &quot;for a minute&quot;, and **год** means &quot;year&quot; but can also mean &quot;for a year&quot; (since its accusative happens to have the same form as its nominative.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="50d97071-1324-4ae4-8ec6-7487eb021f2c" CreationDate="2015-08-21T01:59:07.610" UserId="4560" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="**Неделю** is the accusative singular. The ending comes from a Proto-Slavic nasal — *\*nedělj**ǫ*** — which is a cognate of the accusative ending **-am** of the Latin first declension, e. g. *agricol**am** vidi* &quot;I saw a farmer [*agricola*]&quot;. The ancient Slavs kind of Frenchified that *[am]* to a twangy *[oⁿ]*, which then lost its twang and became a clear *[u]* in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that Latin example shows you the basic usage of accusative: it's the direct object case. E. g. *Вот как я провёл эту неделю* &quot;That's how I've spent this week.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative is also the case used with certain prepositions; the logic of which prepositions take which cases is old and often unclear, so no examples, to keep this simple. You'll come to that eventually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, since *неделя* is a word for a period of time, its accusative has another important usage — it means &quot;for [the duration of] a week&quot;. Just like **минуту** can mean &quot;for a minute&quot;, and **год** means &quot;year&quot; but can also mean &quot;for a year&quot; (since its accusative happens to have the same form as its nominative.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="87408392-da5e-4f66-9b84-4ee98476f6f7" CreationDate="2015-08-21T15:40:07.280" UserId="4903" Comment="added 853 characters in body" Text="The original phrase can be extended/modified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лопоухий косой за песчаной косой пал под острой косой косой бабы с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updated phrase uses the word &quot;косой&quot; with 5 different meanings. Extra words in the phrase help a non-native speaker to identify the meaning of each &quot;косой&quot; instance. Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - лопоухий косой - lop-eared hare&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - за песчаной косой - beyond a sandbank&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - пал под острой косой - fell under a sharp scythe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой бабы - of a cross-eyed woman&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - с косой - with a braid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that &quot;explained&quot; phrase is picked apart and understood by a student, then student would need to know at least two more meanings of the word:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой - skewed; crooked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - косой - cross-eyed man (as a noun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then a student can try to make sense of the original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Косил косой косой косой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a possibility of a double meaning here. The subject in this sentence could be a man, but in a context of a fairy-tale it could be a hare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect of the problem, in addition to the many meanings of word &quot;косой&quot;, is the exact meaning of each word. Russian grammar is flexible and allows words to be moved around in a sentence. A teacher may list the following three (possibly more) word-order sequences:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Verb / subject / adjective modifying object / object - Cut / cross-eyed man / with a crooked / scythe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Verb / adjective modifying object / object / subject - Cut / with a crooked / scythe / cross-eyed man&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Verb / object / adjective modifying subject / subject - Cut / with scythe / cross-eyed / cross-eyed man&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last example adjective and the subject restate the obvious (repeat themselves).  That usage is unlikely in practice.  The first two examples  deliver the exact same idea in spite of individual &quot;косой&quot; words taking different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="2e12e38e-a0d0-4646-b20b-baad86d48a9f" CreationDate="2015-08-21T22:11:35.617" UserId="5777" Text="Выскажу иную точку зрения. C английского very переводится как очень. В то время как самый это указательное местоимение. Произошло от сам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Тот самый человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут же не имеется ввиду в значении очень. Имеется ввиду что это он сам и есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Тот самый день в который мы познакомились. Или тот самый лучший день... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вдумайтесь в эти 2 предложения. Имеется ввиду что это он и есть. Или это он и есть лучший. Эта не превосходная степень а указание. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Тот очень хороший поступок. Тот самый хороший поступок. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вдумайтесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="5e98e9c6-5cc4-419e-b2a3-a785a2c055b2" CreationDate="2015-08-21T22:23:43.310" UserId="5777" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Выскажу иную точку зрения. C английского very переводится как очень. В то время как самый это указательное местоимение. Произошло от сам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Тот самый человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут же не имеется ввиду в значении очень. Имеется ввиду что это он сам и есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Тот самый день в который мы познакомились. Или тот самый лучший день... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вдумайтесь в эти 2 предложения. Имеется ввиду что это он и есть. Или это он и есть лучший. Эта не превосходная степень а указание. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Тот очень хороший поступок. Тот самый хороший поступок. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вдумайтесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Самый лучший переводится просто как The best." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="fc93e5dc-b057-45dd-8476-13f17ca40580" CreationDate="2015-08-21T22:38:17.037" UserId="5777" Text="Что то вы запутали. Грамота - это письменность. Язык - средство общения. Смысл пословицы - письменность второе средство общения. А краткость сестра таланта." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="ec96d1b1-fe5c-411e-b6ef-3bc103f1597c" CreationDate="2015-08-22T04:30:21.157" UserId="5893" Comment="added 264 characters in body" Text="It's deeply rooted in Russian grammar. Location without movement governs the locative, while location with movement uses the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Где -&gt; no movement, locative&#xD;&#xA;    Куда -&gt; movement, accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something similar goes, for instance, in German:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    wo -&gt; no movement, dative&#xD;&#xA;    wohin -&gt; movement, accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English movement can be expressed directly with &quot;where to&quot;, but often is indicated by other parts of the sentence, or not at all if that's implicitely clear. In Russian you simply must know whether there is movement or not, or else you won't be able to form a proper sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beside the need to use the proper case, &quot;where&quot; is not the only word that has two variants. For instance, &quot;here&quot; (&quot;from here&quot; / &quot;to here&quot;) will also be said differently according to movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To show how strong a meaning these adverbs carry, these two sentences are common in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Где ты? -&gt; where are you?&#xD;&#xA;    Куда Ты? -&gt; where are you going?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in English the meaning is carried by the verb, in Russian the adverb is sufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="c187be5a-0e24-47d1-8e7a-dc3f8d95ac63" CreationDate="2015-08-22T17:11:24.760" UserId="5008" Text="As the verb &quot;_быть_&quot; retains the meaning of &quot;_being somewhere_&quot;, just like &quot;_to be_&quot; does, it seems obvious how the variants &quot;_выбыть_&quot;, &quot;_убыть_&quot;, &quot;_прибыть_&quot; etc. are made. Yet the verbs &quot;_забыть_&quot; and &quot;_добыть_&quot; are more interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was said &quot;_забыть_&quot; is not only &quot;_to forget_&quot; but also &quot;_to leave behind_&quot; and just &quot;_to leave_&quot; sometimes. E.g. &quot;_I left my umbrella at home_&quot; -&gt; &quot;_Я забыл свой зонт дома_&quot; (unlike in English you are not obliged to say only &quot;_Я забыл взять свой зонт из дому_&quot; as Russian &quot;_забыть_&quot; fits for both &quot;_forget_&quot; and &quot;_leave_&quot;). Even more, &quot;_забыть_&quot; may also mean &quot;_to neglect_&quot;. And from neglecting the things you need only one step more to forget them at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Добыть_&quot; seems vague at first sight. Yet consider the synonym verb &quot;_достать_&quot; which is made just the same way: prefix &quot;_до_&quot; + another copula &quot;_стать_&quot;. Unlike &quot;_добыть_&quot; the verb &quot;_достать_&quot; retains also the purely physical meaning: _to take_ / _to touch_. So now we have the full chain: _to touch_ -&gt; _to reach_ -&gt; _to get smth_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="09269e7b-b227-44e8-b4f1-03edf6b556f0" CreationDate="2015-08-23T01:22:29.260" UserId="5870" Text="I encountered a sentence: `Я был дома.`. However, the sentence uses `дома`, the genitive form of a noun `лом`. But I cannot understand why the genitive is used in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, why not say `Я быд дом.`? Isn't it that the genitive is used in a sentence in which a negation occurs? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="09269e7b-b227-44e8-b4f1-03edf6b556f0" CreationDate="2015-08-23T01:22:29.260" UserId="5870" Text="Why use genitive case in &quot;Я был дама&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="09269e7b-b227-44e8-b4f1-03edf6b556f0" CreationDate="2015-08-23T01:22:29.260" UserId="5870" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="cd81d60d-af2e-41dd-a315-ed19bdc51bdd" CreationDate="2015-08-23T02:09:38.383" UserId="179" Comment="some typos with cyrillic letters have been corrected" Text="I encountered a sentence: `Я был дома.`. However, the sentence uses `дома`, the genitive form of a noun `дом`. But I cannot understand why the genitive is used in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, why not say `Я был дом.`? Isn't it that the genitive is used in a sentence in which a negation occurs? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23060" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="cd81d60d-af2e-41dd-a315-ed19bdc51bdd" CreationDate="2015-08-23T02:09:38.383" UserId="179" Comment="some typos with cyrillic letters have been corrected" Text="Why use genitive case in &quot;Я был дома&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23061" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="cd81d60d-af2e-41dd-a315-ed19bdc51bdd" CreationDate="2015-08-23T02:09:38.383" Comment="Proposed by 179 approved by 5870 edit id of 665" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23062" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="ac98c43d-0e24-4bf3-95c7-d7ab35ac56c3" CreationDate="2015-08-23T04:44:52.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/635311718357442561" />
  <row Id="23063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="3f8a9a35-dc46-4fee-b940-1d9917e4f4d2" CreationDate="2015-08-23T04:53:33.223" UserId="5008" Comment="added 843 characters in body" Text="As the verb &quot;_быть_&quot; retains the meaning of &quot;_being somewhere_&quot;, just like &quot;_to be_&quot; does, it seems obvious how the variants &quot;_выбыть_&quot;, &quot;_убыть_&quot;, &quot;_прибыть_&quot; etc. are made. Yet the verbs &quot;_забыть_&quot; and &quot;_добыть_&quot; are more interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was said &quot;_забыть_&quot; is not only &quot;_to forget_&quot; but also &quot;_to leave behind_&quot; and just &quot;_to leave_&quot; sometimes. E.g. &quot;_I left my umbrella at home_&quot; -&gt; &quot;_Я забыл свой зонт дома_&quot; (unlike in English you are not obliged to say only &quot;_Я забыл взять свой зонт из дому_&quot; as Russian &quot;_забыть_&quot; fits for both &quot;_forget_&quot; and &quot;_leave_&quot;). Even more, &quot;_забыть_&quot; may also mean &quot;_to neglect_&quot;. And from neglecting the things you need only one step more to forget them at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Добыть_&quot; seems vague at first sight. Yet consider the synonym verb &quot;_достать_&quot; which is made just the same way: prefix &quot;_до_&quot; + another copula &quot;_стать_&quot;. Unlike &quot;_добыть_&quot; the verb &quot;_достать_&quot; retains also the purely physical meaning: _to take_ / _to touch_. So now we have the full chain: _to touch_ -&gt; _to reach_ -&gt; _to get smth_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Now on &quot;_убыть_&quot;. Here the prefix &quot;_у-_&quot; goes further than simply &quot;moving away&quot;. Let's take the imperfective form &quot;_убывать_&quot;. What does it mean? Well, both _diminishing_ (like &quot;_вода убывает_&quot;, i.e. some part of water flows away, so now we have slightly less water) and, yes, imperfective for &quot;_убыть_&quot; (like &quot;_я убываю в отпуск_&quot;) (BTW. In the normal speech people may avoid saying those &quot;я убываю&quot; due to the former meaning of diminishing yet it doesn't make the phrase incorrect). And now what about to diminish &quot;completely&quot;? Isn't it &quot;to disappear&quot;? And, indeed, the books say that prefix &quot;_У-_&quot; is also about both diminishing and disappearing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how about such explanation of the verb &quot;_убыть_&quot;: I was diminishing (Я убывал) until I disappeared completely (Я убыл). Maybe it's too playful yet shows how far prefix &quot;у-&quot; goes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="24343ae1-7dbb-43f4-8093-72ab6f865081" CreationDate="2015-08-23T04:54:02.887" UserId="5288" Text="There is no apllied case for any grammatical case at all. It is adverb, at least, from our Grammarian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главным формальным признаком *наречия* как части речи является&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отсутствие словоизменения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дома, там, вчера, вместе, вдвоем, ... ` — are all adverbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;b&gt;noun    adv&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  встреча вечером&#xD;&#xA;  дорога  домой&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see more: http://rusgram.narod.ru/1645-1668.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="8036d360-1845-497e-82ed-4e4476c3a908" CreationDate="2015-08-23T05:03:21.037" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 614 characters in body" Text="As the verb &quot;_быть_&quot; retains the meaning of &quot;_being somewhere_&quot;, just like &quot;_to be_&quot; does, it seems obvious how the variants &quot;_выбыть_&quot;, &quot;_убыть_&quot;, &quot;_прибыть_&quot; etc. are made. Yet the verbs &quot;_забыть_&quot; and &quot;_добыть_&quot; are more interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was said &quot;_забыть_&quot; is not only &quot;_to forget_&quot; but also &quot;_to leave behind_&quot; and just &quot;_to leave_&quot; sometimes. E.g. &quot;_I left my umbrella at home_&quot; -&gt; &quot;_Я забыл свой зонт дома_&quot; (unlike in English you are not obliged to say only &quot;_Я забыл взять свой зонт из дому_&quot; as Russian &quot;_забыть_&quot; fits for both &quot;_forget_&quot; and &quot;_leave_&quot;). Even more, &quot;_забыть_&quot; may also mean &quot;_to neglect_&quot;. And from neglecting the things you need only one step more to forget them at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Добыть_&quot; seems vague at first sight. Yet consider the synonym verb &quot;_достать_&quot; which is made just the same way: prefix &quot;_до_&quot; + another copula &quot;_стать_&quot;. Unlike &quot;_добыть_&quot; the verb &quot;_достать_&quot; retains also the purely physical meaning: _to take_ / _to touch_. So now we have the full chain: _to touch_ -&gt; _to reach_ -&gt; _to get smth_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Now on &quot;_убыть_&quot;. Let's take the imperfective form &quot;_убывать_&quot;. What does it mean? Well, it's about _diminishing_ (like &quot;_вода убывала и, наконец, убыла_&quot;, i.e. some part of water flows away, so now we have less water). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9494" RevisionGUID="06b8f2b4-3573-4d73-a64f-b56d09a97aff" CreationDate="2015-08-23T05:08:43.143" UserId="5288" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There is no applied case for any grammatical case at all. It is adverb, at least, from our Grammarians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главным формальным признаком *наречия* как части речи является&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отсутствие словоизменения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дома, там, вчера, вместе, вдвоем, ... ` — are all adverbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   &lt;b&gt;noun    adv&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  встреча вечером&#xD;&#xA;  дорога  домой&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see more: http://rusgram.narod.ru/1645-1668.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="036ff0ce-bc2b-4d55-910c-87a254498a88" CreationDate="2015-08-23T05:36:06.083" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 614 characters in body" Text="As the verb &quot;_быть_&quot; retains the meaning of &quot;_being somewhere_&quot;, just like &quot;_to be_&quot; does, it seems obvious how the variants &quot;_выбыть_&quot;, &quot;_убыть_&quot;, &quot;_прибыть_&quot; etc. are made. Yet the verbs &quot;_забыть_&quot; and &quot;_добыть_&quot; are more interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was said &quot;_забыть_&quot; is not only &quot;_to forget_&quot; but also &quot;_to leave behind_&quot; and just &quot;_to leave_&quot; sometimes. E.g. &quot;_I left my umbrella at home_&quot; -&gt; &quot;_Я забыл свой зонт дома_&quot; (unlike in English you are not obliged to say only &quot;_Я забыл взять свой зонт из дому_&quot; as Russian &quot;_забыть_&quot; fits for both &quot;_forget_&quot; and &quot;_leave_&quot;). Even more, &quot;_забыть_&quot; may also mean &quot;_to neglect_&quot;. And from neglecting the things you need only one step more to forget them at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Добыть_&quot; seems vague at first sight. Yet consider the synonym verb &quot;_достать_&quot; which is made just the same way: prefix &quot;_до_&quot; + another copula &quot;_стать_&quot;. Unlike &quot;_добыть_&quot; the verb &quot;_достать_&quot; retains also the purely physical meaning: _to take_ / _to touch_. So now we have the full chain: _to touch_ -&gt; _to reach_ -&gt; _to get smth_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Now on &quot;_убыть_&quot;. Let's take the imperfective form &quot;_убывать_&quot;. What does it mean? Well, it's about _diminishing_ (like &quot;_вода убывала и, наконец, убыла_&quot;, i.e. some part of water flows away, so now we have less water or, maybe, no water at all). Consider also the phrase &quot;_Тебя не убудет_&quot; (i.e. you will not diminish; you won't lose the part of yourself -&gt; it doesn't hurt you). So &quot;true&quot; meaning of &quot;_убыть_&quot; is to diminish or to descend (like _убывающая луна_) until disappearing completely (or until it's enough)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="dafac1e8-fe1d-48f1-923b-f649d35a6eba" CreationDate="2015-08-23T07:21:11.230" UserId="5403" Text="***Дома*** - is the remnant form of the old Russian Local case(местный падеж)  which has not been retained in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian such forms are considered to be adverbs. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="69d61593-c725-4c4f-a08e-381558dd9383" CreationDate="2015-08-23T07:32:46.403" UserId="5908" Text="What does the word Тлетворный mean in this sentence? Is it an idiom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одно время Тлетворный игрался в тибетскую карту." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="69d61593-c725-4c4f-a08e-381558dd9383" CreationDate="2015-08-23T07:32:46.403" UserId="5908" Text="Тлетворный - what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="69d61593-c725-4c4f-a08e-381558dd9383" CreationDate="2015-08-23T07:32:46.403" UserId="5908" Text="|значения|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="a7e020b9-9a29-4fb4-92fc-62b7f937f7cf" CreationDate="2015-08-23T07:38:37.487" UserId="5244" Text="In this sentence it looks like surname.&#xD;&#xA;In general - &quot;Тлетворный&quot; - similar to &quot;putrescent&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="b8d63f8a-446b-4b30-9c03-b7af3580307e" CreationDate="2015-08-23T11:02:32.973" UserId="5777" Text="Значение приставок в русском языке:&#xD;&#xA;http://wordsland.ru/magiclanguage/prist.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9498" RevisionGUID="1ad40807-1d07-40b7-a359-fdd18b9a620f" CreationDate="2015-08-23T11:11:13.287" UserId="5777" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Значение слова `Быть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - существовать, иметься &#xD;&#xA; - находиться, присутствовать, состоять, иметь место &#xD;&#xA; - являться&#xD;&#xA; - поступать, вести себя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение приставок в русском языке:&#xD;&#xA;http://wordsland.ru/magiclanguage/prist.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="7b8390ef-b81e-4f0d-87ac-6df1ddcf9c4c" CreationDate="2015-08-23T11:38:53.753" UserId="-1" Comment="Added a new Russian textbook " Text="## Textbooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - German: MOCT - Modernes Russisch - Aktualisierte Ausgabe: Modernes Russisch. Moct 1. Arbeitsbuch mit 2 Audio-CDs: Niveau A1-A2. ISBN: 978-3125275669&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The online library of the Russian as Foreign Language Faculty site of the Lomonosov Moscow State University](http://www.mgu-russian.com/elibrary/ru/online:4). You can find references to many good textbooks there. However, the access is only open to those who visit their courses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Sputnik: An Introductory Russian Language Course](http://www.sputniktextbook.org).  Designed to develop basic reading, writing, listening and communication skills. A free complementary website comes with a lot of sounds and quizzes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23076" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="7b8390ef-b81e-4f0d-87ac-6df1ddcf9c4c" CreationDate="2015-08-23T11:38:53.753" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 97, 5008 edit id of 664" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="523869d0-473e-43e4-a3ba-b7f2c5057c14" CreationDate="2015-08-23T14:06:20.967" UserId="5403" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="***Дома*** - is the remnant form of the old Russian Local case(местный падеж)  which has not been retained in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian such forms are considered to be adverbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &quot;Морфология русского литературного языка. Наречие. Форма и значение наречий&quot; (№ 36/2004 газеты &quot;Русский язык&quot; издательского дома &quot;Первое сентября&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="572682f9-13a6-451e-b6de-133c6c7c8c63" CreationDate="2015-08-23T15:21:19.233" UserId="5403" Text="ТЛЕТВОРНЫЙ, -ая, -ое; -рен, -рна, -рно. Книжн. 1. Порождающий тление или порождённый тлением. Т. запах, воздух. Т. яд. 2. Оказывающий пагубное, разлагающее воздействие на кого-, что-л.; вредоносный. Т-ая атмосфера. Т-ая пропаганда. Оказывать т-ое влияние на кого-л. &lt;Тлетворность, -и; ж. Т. духа. Т. воздействия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on meaning this word has the following translations. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **pestilential** **|ˌpestɪˈlenʃəl|**  — чумной, пагубный, тлетворный, вредный, отвратительный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **pestilent |ˈpestɪlənt|**  — ядовитый, тлетворный, смертоносный, вредный, надоедливый, назойливый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **harmful |ˈhɑːrmfəl|**  — вредный, пагубный, губительный, тлетворный, разлагающий&#xD;&#xA;Смотрите также&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тлетворный дух коррупции — the stench of corruption&#xD;&#xA;Родственные слова, либо редко употребляемые в данном значении&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-  **putrid |ˈpjuːtrəd|**  — гнилой, вонючий, испорченный, мерзкий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **noxious |ˈnɑːkʃəs|**  — вредный, ядовитый, пагубный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- **pernicious |pərˈnɪʃəs|**  — пагубный, вредный, гибельный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="c236fab6-870a-419b-af77-491a5a7a40de" CreationDate="2015-08-24T10:37:32.920" UserId="1236" Text="Есть глаголы с суффиксом *-ну-*, которые образуют прошедшее время c утратой суффикса *-ну-* и без добавления суффикса *-л*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; замёрзнуть – замёрз, погибнуть – погиб,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в то время как другие сохраняют суффикс *-ну* и добавляют суффикс *-л*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глотнуть – глотнул, махнуть – махнул. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот есть статья об этом: [Н. А. Еськова, Устройство парадигм глаголов&#xD;&#xA;непродуктивного класса с инфинитивом на -нуть][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всего глаголы типа «погибнуть – погиб» образуются от 60 корней, и в этой статье дается список тех из них, которые могут употребляться без приставки, но есть и такие, типа «привыкнуть – привык», которые без приставки не употребляются. Где можно найти список этих последних глаголов, глаголов, которые всегда употребляются с приставками, но образуют прошедшее время c утратой суффикса *-ну-* и без добавления суффикса *-л*? Работы Еськовой, которые она упоминает в библиографии к своей статье, мне найти не удалось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.1september.ru/article.php?ID=200101507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="c236fab6-870a-419b-af77-491a5a7a40de" CreationDate="2015-08-24T10:37:32.920" UserId="1236" Text="Список глаголов типа «привыкнуть – привык»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9500" RevisionGUID="c236fab6-870a-419b-af77-491a5a7a40de" CreationDate="2015-08-24T10:37:32.920" UserId="1236" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23082" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9477" RevisionGUID="4e1bdaa2-4f42-427a-ad9f-20fb6ca7d8ef" CreationDate="2015-08-24T10:52:10.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/635766542832148480" />
  <row Id="23083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9478" RevisionGUID="f80de741-24bd-44de-a3ba-1baf7f4b5b71" CreationDate="2015-08-24T13:57:03.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/635813069520830468" />
  <row Id="23084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="ac8f8291-ae08-4c30-93bf-2536e8759351" CreationDate="2015-08-24T15:36:20.387" UserId="4833" Text="Гугл по запросу _«бегнуть вергнуть двигнуть»_ находит статью [Н.Слюсарь 2012][1] co списком всех 60 известных корней этого класса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (НУ)-класс&#xD;&#xA;60 глаголов: *–бегнуть*, крепнуть, блёкнуть, липнуть, брюзгнуть, мёрзнуть, бухнуть, меркнуть, *–вергнуть*, мокнуть, виснуть, молкнуть, волгнуть, мякнуть, воскреснуть, набрякнуть, *–выкнуть,* никнуть, вязнуть, обрыднуть, вянуть, пахнуть, гаснуть, промозгнуть, гибнуть, пухнуть, глохнуть, разверзнуть, горкнуть, сипнуть, грузнуть, склизнуть, грязнуть, слабнуть, *–двигнуть*, слепнуть, дохнуть, слизнуть, дрогнуть, сохнуть, дрыхнуть, *–стигнуть*, дрябнуть, стынуть, дряхнуть, сякнуть, жолкнуть, терпнуть, жухнуть, тихнуть, заскорузнуть, *–торгнуть*, захряснуть, тускнуть, зябнуть, тухнуть, исчезнуть, хрипнуть, киснуть, чахнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Корней требующих приставки в списке всего 6. Зато есть несколько бесприставочных глаголов, отсутствующих в таблице у Еськовой, например, «брюзгнуть».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slioussar.ru/resources/VerbDatabase/SlioussarVerbs.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="5f81cec5-4e0d-4f4f-a333-8783e5ec2022" CreationDate="2015-08-24T15:45:26.193" UserId="4833" Comment="Заново посчитал глаголы с приставками " Text="Гугл по запросу _«бегнуть вергнуть двигнуть»_ находит статью [Н.Слюсарь 2012][1] co списком всех 60 известных корней этого класса:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (НУ)-класс&#xD;&#xA;60 глаголов: *–бегнуть*, крепнуть, блёкнуть, липнуть, брюзгнуть, мёрзнуть, бухнуть, меркнуть, *–вергнуть*, мокнуть, виснуть, молкнуть, волгнуть, мякнуть, _воскреснуть_, _набрякнуть_, *–выкнуть,* никнуть, вязнуть, _обрыднуть_, вянуть, пахнуть, гаснуть, _промозгнуть_, гибнуть, пухнуть, глохнуть, _разверзнуть_, горкнуть, сипнуть, грузнуть, склизнуть, грязнуть, слабнуть, *–двигнуть*, слепнуть, дохнуть, слизнуть, дрогнуть, сохнуть, дрыхнуть, *–стигнуть*, дрябнуть, стынуть, дряхнуть, сякнуть, жолкнуть, терпнуть, жухнуть, тихнуть, _заскорузнуть_, *–торгнуть*, _захряснуть_, тускнуть, зябнуть, тухнуть, _исчезнуть_, хрипнуть, киснуть, чахнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Корней, требующих приставки, в списке всего 14. Еще несколько бесприставочных глаголов, отсутствующих в таблице у Еськовой, например «брюзгнуть».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slioussar.ru/resources/VerbDatabase/SlioussarVerbs.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="1e34b75b-7545-4d73-9e98-9a8988e8f6b2" CreationDate="2015-08-25T08:55:52.003" UserId="5870" Text="In the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you use `тебе`, the dative form of `ты`? I think this sentence means *&quot;How old are you?&quot;*  but why not say it with genitive, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько тебя лет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or nominative? I'm not sure why you have to use dative here..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="1e34b75b-7545-4d73-9e98-9a8988e8f6b2" CreationDate="2015-08-25T08:55:52.003" UserId="5870" Text="Why use dative in &quot;Сколько тебе лет&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="1e34b75b-7545-4d73-9e98-9a8988e8f6b2" CreationDate="2015-08-25T08:55:52.003" UserId="5870" Text="|местоимения|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="1c60de63-a261-4f0e-b137-9ec49188cc15" CreationDate="2015-08-25T10:10:48.363" UserId="5288" Text="The dative case marks the indirect object of a verb, but your example does not have a verb.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;You may think it is a shortened form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look at this examples, with a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           &lt;b&gt;verb&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            |&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько исполнилось тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько дают        тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько было        тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько стукнуло    тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько осталось    тебе лет до пенсии?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The examples given are not in the literary forms, but still in a valid form, for the sake of explanation. Their literary forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько лет тебе исполнилось?  или, Сколько тебе лет исполнилось?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе лет дают?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько лет тебе было?         или, Сколько тебе было лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе стукнуло лет?     или, Сколько тебе стукнуло?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе осталось лет до пенсии?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="4d60f34f-2148-4faa-8cbe-16835672745f" CreationDate="2015-08-25T19:12:57.943" UserId="5415" Text="I guess is не знаю, я ничего не сделал никому or am I wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="4d60f34f-2148-4faa-8cbe-16835672745f" CreationDate="2015-08-25T19:12:57.943" UserId="5415" Text="how do I say ''I do not know, I did not do anything to anyone'' in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="4d60f34f-2148-4faa-8cbe-16835672745f" CreationDate="2015-08-25T19:12:57.943" UserId="5415" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="83f46849-6c7f-49c3-88d8-730814bfa9ef" CreationDate="2015-08-25T19:41:02.153" UserId="5915" Text="Something like &quot;*Не знаю, я ничего никому не делал.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the word order is relatively liberal in Russian, for emphasis it's a bit better to put the verb last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of the verb (*сделал* vs *делал*) depends on whether you need Perfective aspect vs Imperfective one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="6ea99ce2-3199-4bba-9359-257290b96bfa" CreationDate="2015-08-25T19:57:28.117" UserId="5915" Comment="added 533 characters in body" Text="Something like &quot;*Не знаю, я ничего никому не делал.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the word order is relatively liberal in Russian, for emphasis it's a bit better to put the verb last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of the verb (*сделал* vs *делал*) depends on whether you need Perfective aspect vs Imperfective one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Imperfective aspect can be (roughly) translated back into English using Continuous Tense, as in &quot;I wasn't doing anything&quot;, whereas Perfective aspect can be translated using Perfect Tense (Present or Past, depending on context), although such distinction is not direct.  So your choice should really depend on whether you consider the action complete and its result observable (and in case of a negative sense, *would be* observable, *had it taken place*), or it's an action without a specific outcome (or *supposed outcome*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="391f5d8f-edb8-4887-b559-241bacc6732c" CreationDate="2015-08-25T22:55:29.903" UserId="4714" Text="Does anyone want to try to translate this table into Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English there are 4 conditionals (Type 0, 1, 2, 3, 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a good idea of how these translate, but I would like to see what the great members on this stack will come up with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P0Dof.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="391f5d8f-edb8-4887-b559-241bacc6732c" CreationDate="2015-08-25T22:55:29.903" UserId="4714" Text="English Conditionals to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="391f5d8f-edb8-4887-b559-241bacc6732c" CreationDate="2015-08-25T22:55:29.903" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="e034bbae-5017-4dbd-b6d8-00881ddad53b" CreationDate="2015-08-26T00:02:47.837" UserId="179" Text="I'm not a professional linguist, so I can't provide any reference to the textbooks on this matter, but as a native speaker, my translation is below (the cells in the table correspond to the table from the question):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  0 | если я пью кофе вечером               |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    |    | если я выпью кофе вечером             |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    |    | если я выпиваю кофе вечером           |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  1 | если я выпью кофе сегодня вечером     |  я буду плохо спать  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  2 | если я бы выпил кофе сегодня вечером  |  я бы плохо спал     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  3 | если я бы выпил кофе в прошлый вечер  |  я бы плохо спал     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see from this table, with imaginary situations one always uses the particle &quot;бы&quot; with a verb in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also imaginary situations in the future and present differ from ones in the past only by a verb in the if clause, that is only by the tense of a verb in this clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="5fd5030a-679b-4f0d-b90b-2613bbfc9971" CreationDate="2015-08-26T08:06:00.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/636449502107406336" />
  <row Id="23101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="df4968a3-b922-4380-8a88-dbff0c8cc0ae" CreationDate="2015-08-26T10:48:03.837" UserId="5008" Text="This is a (very) rough correspondence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _If I drink coffee at night, I don't sleep well_ -&gt; _Если я пью (выпью) кофе на ночь, то сплю плохо_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _If I drink coffee tonight, I won't sleep well_ -&gt; _Если сегодня вечером я выпью кофе, то буду плохо спать_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _If I drank coffee tonight, I wouldn't sleep well_ -&gt; _Если я буду пить кофе сегодня вечером, то не высплюсь_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _If I had drunk coffee last night, I wouldn't have slept well_ -&gt; _Если бы я вечером пил (выпил) кофе, я бы плохо спал (не уснул)_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes. First, in (1) you must use Present (Imperfective, of course) on &quot;the right side&quot;. Yet on &quot;the left side&quot; you have a choice between Present Imperfective and Future Perfective. Not much difference though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there's no real difference between (2) and (3) in Russian. Anyway you have to intone what's still possible and what you believe to be unreal (or stick to (4) maybe). I put them in order which would be preferable for me personally. But the only requirement is that both parts must be in future tense (no matter of Perfective vs Imperfective here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On (4), only past tense is allowed but both Perfective and Imperfective are OK. Next, &quot;бы&quot; was a form of the verb &quot;быть&quot; long time ago but in modern Russian it's just a particle, so it tends to stay next to the conjunction: &quot;_если бы_&quot;, &quot;_когда бы_&quot;, &quot;_вот бы_&quot; etc. Moreover, there's a &quot;unite&quot; conjunction &quot;_кабы_&quot; mentioned in Russian analogue of &quot;ifs and ans&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы, да кабы, да во рту росли грибы (...тогда бы был не рот, а целый огород)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last but not least, (4) may also be the pure imaginary setting similar to that &quot;If I were the King&quot; (or the former &quot;ifs and ans&quot;) which makes it really close to English Second Conditional too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Если б я был султан, я б имел трёх жён,&#xD;&#xA;    И тройной красотой был бы окружён.&#xD;&#xA;    Но с другой стороны, при таких делах&#xD;&#xA;    Столько бед и забот, ах, спаси аллах!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (the well-known song from the well-known movie ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet another &quot;monarchic&quot; example, now from the classics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Кабы я была царица,-&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит одна девица,-&#xD;&#xA;    То на весь крещёный мир&#xD;&#xA;    Приготовила б я пир&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    - &quot;Кабы я была царица,-&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит её сестрица,-&#xD;&#xA;    То на весь бы мир одна&#xD;&#xA;    Наткала я полотна&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    - &quot;Кабы я была царица,-&#xD;&#xA;    Третья молвила сестрица,-&#xD;&#xA;    Я б для батюшки-царя&#xD;&#xA;    Родила богатыря&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (from the tale by Pushkin)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="f8144b7c-6b2b-4bcb-a58f-7bb248f20128" CreationDate="2015-08-26T10:49:23.870" UserId="5924" Text="the difference in these two words is something I don't understand, is it just me or do those words actually mean the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example: if I want to say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I don't Know yet!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;do I say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пока не знаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ещё не знаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="f8144b7c-6b2b-4bcb-a58f-7bb248f20128" CreationDate="2015-08-26T10:49:23.870" UserId="5924" Text="What is the difference between пока and ещё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="f8144b7c-6b2b-4bcb-a58f-7bb248f20128" CreationDate="2015-08-26T10:49:23.870" UserId="5924" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="b1a95bc2-1765-4b40-92ea-012c1c395313" CreationDate="2015-08-26T10:54:22.460" UserId="4801" Text="In the context you are using it, the words indeed have a similar meaning - &quot;yet&quot;. Fun fact, you can also say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока еще не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пока* in the meaning of *yet* is actually the short of *пока еще*. From Ushakov's dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПОКА́&#xD;&#xA;нареч.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*со словом* “еще” или *без него*. До сего времени, до этих пор, всё еще. *Сведений пока нет. Пока еще ждем. Пока еще не уехали.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="c660929f-5ac6-4e8f-b260-483a3198472e" CreationDate="2015-08-26T11:00:37.913" UserId="4801" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="In the context you are using it, the words indeed have a similar meaning - &quot;yet&quot;. Fun fact, you can also say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пока еще не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пока* in the meaning of *yet* is actually the short of *пока еще*. From [Ushakov's dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПОКА́&#xD;&#xA;нареч.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*со словом* “еще” или *без него*. До сего времени, до этих пор, всё еще. *Сведений пока нет. Пока еще ждем. Пока еще не уехали.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1101150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="8a7d92ea-5af0-4364-8a2b-c33b7cd4cc67" CreationDate="2015-08-26T13:39:03.173" UserId="4560" Text="They're really similar (and can be used together as the previous poster suggested), but intuitively, I'd say **Я ещё не знаю** implies a greater degree of confidence, imminence, and/or proximity in time, compared to **Я пока не знаю**, of your knowing eventually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="b85c55cb-3f26-4651-9cad-04fa1d96816e" CreationDate="2015-08-26T13:45:46.267" UserId="4560" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="They're really similar (and can be used together as the previous poster suggested), but intuitively, I'd say **Я ещё не знаю** implies a greater degree of confidence, imminence, and/or proximity in time, compared to **Я пока не знаю**, of your knowing eventually. You could say that **пока** is neutral expectation-wise, while **ещё** is somewhat on the optimistic side. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Come to think of it, the latter is a better way to describe it, because with *undesirable* eventualities, the confidence/imminence factor is reversed: **Я ещё не умер** is definitely upbeat compared to the resigned-ish **Я пока не умер.**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="88a53e71-1e10-4d0f-b19d-5a86477bd346" CreationDate="2015-08-26T14:00:43.493" UserId="4560" Comment="added 575 characters in body" Text="They're really similar (and can be used together as the previous poster suggested), but intuitively, I'd say **Я ещё не знаю** implies a greater degree of confidence, imminence, and/or proximity in time, compared to **Я пока не знаю**, of your knowing eventually. You could say that **пока** is neutral expectation-wise, while **ещё** is somewhat on the optimistic side. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Come to think of it, the latter is a better way to describe it, because with *undesirable* eventualities, the confidence factor is reversed: **Я ещё не умер** is definitely upbeat compared to the resigned-ish **Я пока не умер.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On *third* thoughts (sorry but I'm really making these little discoveries as I go along, it's fascinating), the very neutrality of **пока** can, with these undesirable outcomes, give it a &quot;so far so good&quot; touch that doesn't quite work with **ещё**. E.g. **Съел-таки** *(=я всё-таки съел)* **эти просроченные консервы. Пока не умер.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the end, what I could definitely say is that **ещё** is about a more likely, or temporally nearer, outcome — which is consistent with its being more &quot;optimistic&quot; because when it's not about being &quot;almost there&quot;, it's about defying the odds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="fa4dbe10-4080-48a9-9a48-680cb030743b" CreationDate="2015-08-26T14:07:47.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/636540548678057985" />
  <row Id="23111" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9509" RevisionGUID="b5d2f0cd-7553-473b-8a06-9e638b2550cf" CreationDate="2015-08-26T20:07:50.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/636631155085836288" />
  <row Id="23113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="38d25e26-1312-4458-b091-4b1372371c8c" CreationDate="2015-08-27T06:48:32.830" UserId="5870" Text="I have found the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девочка сидит на мосту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when I looked up `мост` in my dictionary, I found that it listed two declined forms on the prepositional, which is `мосте` and `мосту`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For my tiny knowledge of Russian, you usually add `е` to the end of the masculine word for a prepositional form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does it use `мосту`? And how can you differentiate two forms? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="38d25e26-1312-4458-b091-4b1372371c8c" CreationDate="2015-08-27T06:48:32.830" UserId="5870" Text="What is the difference between &quot;мосте&quot; and &quot;мосту&quot; for a prepositional form of &quot;мост&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="38d25e26-1312-4458-b091-4b1372371c8c" CreationDate="2015-08-27T06:48:32.830" UserId="5870" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="f6bed5c5-7a28-4f36-9102-15c2de2fa748" CreationDate="2015-08-27T09:03:53.837" UserId="5008" Text="Well, the problem as usual goes deep into the history of the language. I try to recollect as much as I remember, and if I fail let's other will improve my story. So let's begin in the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once Russian nouns had 4 types of declension, but nowadays there are only 3 remaining. As the consequence of this shift some nouns got 2 forms of prepositional case - a new one along with an older one. BTW. Prepositional case is the new acquisition in Russian language too. In the old times there was Locative case which was (almost) fully absorbed by newcomer Prepositional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest part of nouns has now no trace of old Locative. Say, &quot;_Я в деле_&quot; (_I'm in_)   and &quot;_Поговорим о деле_&quot; (_Let's talk about business_) - both are the very same case. But some nouns got two forms which are now used differently (as the old joke says, there's no use of having many clocks if they all show the same time). So consider, &quot;_Я в лесу_&quot; (_I'm in the forest_) vs &quot;_Что мы знаем об этом лесе?_&quot; (_What do we know about this forest?_). Different forms, different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to treat this situation, whether it's a brand new locative case or the special second form of prepositional case, is the matter of agreement. Anyway, one has to know and use it properly. In example sentence, &quot;_Девочка сидит на мосту_&quot; the bridge surely is a location of a girl, so one should say &quot;_на мосту_&quot; not &quot;_на мосте_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="db7107e2-bc7d-4a75-880d-4f1ffa8876f5" CreationDate="2015-08-27T09:39:57.927" UserId="5288" Comment="added 2965 characters in body" Text="The dative case marks the indirect object of a verb, but your example does not have a verb.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;You may think it is a shortened form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look at this examples, with a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           &lt;b&gt;verb&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            |&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько исполнилось тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько дают        тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько было        тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько стукнуло    тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько осталось    тебе лет до пенсии?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The examples given are not in the literary forms, but still in a valid form, for the sake of explanation. Their literary forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько лет тебе исполнилось?  или, Сколько тебе лет исполнилось?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе лет дают?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько лет тебе было?         или, Сколько тебе было лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе стукнуло лет?     или, Сколько тебе стукнуло?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе осталось лет до пенсии?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;__ Update __&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let us consider more interengaged examples for both langs.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How        young   were   you?         | original phrase&#xD;&#xA;  Как        молоды  были   вы?          | morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;Насколько молоды вы были?&quot;            | literary, idiomatic translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  how young were you (when it happened)?&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;Насколько вы были молоды (когда это случилось)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Now, we're switching from &quot;young&quot; to &quot;old&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How         old     were  you?         | original phrase&#xD;&#xA;  как         старый  быть  ты           | vocab. forms&#xD;&#xA;  Насколько   стар    был   ты?          | morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;Сколько тебе было лет?&quot;               | literary, idiomatic translation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;                                        &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;All three together:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How old were    you?              Сколько тебе было  лет?&#xD;&#xA;  How old are     you?              Сколько тебе       лет?      &lt;b&gt;(*)&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How old will you be?              Сколько тебе будет лет?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian, by default, if a scenario would need to be written for the Reality, usually we do not use the verb `есть` &lt;b&gt;(*)&lt;/b&gt;, but it is sometimes also used for stylistic amplification. Such a redundancy used to bringing a hints, and not in line with standard usage patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, returning to the Q: **Why there is Dative for `ты.`** A life is the gift from God/Nuture to humans, which measured in a year. The Dative case (по-русски дательный падеж, от глагола дать) is a grammatical case **generally used to indicate** the noun to which something is given, i.e. to **addressee**, destination. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;he gave the girl a gift&quot; = &quot;he gave a gift to the girl&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;                                              └────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                         the girl is addressee. &#xD;&#xA;                                         &#xD;&#xA; He gave   me  his  heart,  so  I gave      him     mine    | original phrase&#xD;&#xA; Он дать|P я   его  сердце, так я дать|P.F он|DAT  мой|N    | vocab. forms with grammatical labels&#xD;&#xA; Он дал    мне его  сердце, так я дала      ему     своё    | morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA; Он отдал мне своё сердце, а я отдал(а) ему своё.&quot;            | literary, idiomatic translation &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;         Here me=мне and him=ему are addressee.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;see [The Leipzig Glossing Rules][1] for list of standard abbreviations&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; I     just received a call&#xD;&#xA; я|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Мне только что звонили.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I     am very sorry to hear&#xD;&#xA; я|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Мне очень жаль это слышать.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Let       me    stay here, and be a servant&#xD;&#xA;           я|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Позвольте мне   остаться здесь и быть вашим слугой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; He      ought     now    to have been at school&#xD;&#xA; он|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Ему     следовало сейчас быть в школе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How  old  are  you?&#xD;&#xA;                ты|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Сколько тебе лет?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="e0b49b22-658c-49fc-a4e0-e12cadbcd35b" CreationDate="2015-08-27T09:56:40.687" UserId="5288" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="The dative case marks the indirect object of a verb, but your example does not have a verb.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;You may think it is a shortened form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look at this examples, with a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           &lt;b&gt;verb&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            |&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько исполнилось тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько дают        тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько было        тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько стукнуло    тебе лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько осталось    тебе лет до пенсии?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The examples given are not in the literary forms, but still in a valid form, for the sake of explanation. Their literary forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько лет тебе исполнилось?  или, Сколько тебе лет исполнилось?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе лет дают?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько лет тебе было?         или, Сколько тебе было лет?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе стукнуло лет?     или, Сколько тебе стукнуло?&#xD;&#xA;  Сколько тебе осталось лет до пенсии?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;__ Update __&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let us consider more interengaged examples for both langs.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How        young   were   you?         | original phrase&#xD;&#xA;  Как        молоды  были   вы?          | morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;Насколько молоды вы были?&quot;            | literary, idiomatic translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  how young were you (when it happened)?&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;Насколько вы были молоды (когда это случилось)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Now, we're switching from &quot;young&quot; to &quot;old&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How         old     were  you?         | original phrase&#xD;&#xA;  как         старый  быть  ты           | vocab. forms&#xD;&#xA;  Насколько   стар    был   ты?          | morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;Сколько тебе было лет?&quot;               | literary, idiomatic translation&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;                                        &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;All three together:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How old were    you?              Сколько тебе было  лет?&#xD;&#xA;  How old are     you?              Сколько тебе       лет?      &lt;b&gt;(*)&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  How old will you be?              Сколько тебе будет лет?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;In Russian, by default, if a scenario would need to be written for the Reality, usually we do not use the verb `есть` &lt;b&gt;(*)&lt;/b&gt;, but it is sometimes also used for stylistic amplification. Such a redundancy used to bringing a hints, and not in line with standard usage patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, returning to the Q: **Why there is Dative for `ты.`** A life is the gift from God/Nuture to humans, which measured in a year. The Dative case (по-русски дательный падеж, от глагола дать) is a grammatical case **generally used to indicate** the noun to which something is given, i.e. to **addressee**, destination. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;he gave the girl a gift&quot; = &quot;he gave a gift to the girl&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;                                              └────────┘&#xD;&#xA;                                         the girl is addressee. &#xD;&#xA;                                         &#xD;&#xA; He gave   me  his  heart,  so  I gave      him     mine    | original phrase&#xD;&#xA; Он дать|P я   его  сердце, так я дать|P.F он|DAT  мой|N    | vocab. forms with grammatical labels&#xD;&#xA; Он дал    мне его  сердце, так я дала      ему     своё    | morpheme-by-morpheme glosses&#xD;&#xA; Он отдал мне своё сердце, а я отдал(а) ему своё.&quot;            | literary, idiomatic translation &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;         Here me=мне and him=ему are addressee.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;see [The Leipzig Glossing Rules][1] for list of standard abbreviations&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; I     just received a call&#xD;&#xA; я|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Мне только что звонили.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I     am very sorry to hear&#xD;&#xA; я|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Мне очень жаль это слышать.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Let       me    stay here, and be a servant&#xD;&#xA;           я|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Позвольте мне   остаться здесь и быть вашим слугой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; He      ought     now    to have been at school&#xD;&#xA; он|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Ему     следовало сейчас быть в школе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How  old  are  you?&#xD;&#xA;                ты|DAT&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Сколько тебе лет?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If we have the Dative, this marks **addressee**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9514" RevisionGUID="2a801a69-a2af-4a92-9e60-075281524ec4" CreationDate="2015-08-27T15:57:37.317" UserId="5777" Text="**Сколько** (Чего?) **лет** (Кому?) **тебе?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько тебя лет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сколько** (Чего?) **лет** (У кого?) **у тебя?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так как `лето` это пора года, то `у тебя` его быть не может. По этому в таком контексте не употребляется. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сколько** (Чего?) **лет опыта** (У кого?) **у тебя?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот так можно сказать поскольку `опыт` у тебя может быть (измеренный летами)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="16e0d1fc-07c2-4835-92f8-1ab24cfe862e" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:23:15.477" UserId="5777" Text="Склонения слова `Мост`:&#xD;&#xA;http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?doc=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дательный: Мосту&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный (внутри): Мосте&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный 2 (на поверхности): Мосту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У слова 2 варианта написания в предложной падеже. В зависимости от смысла (внутри или на поверхности). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мосту дали имя `Бруклинский мост`. (Дательный падеж, Кому?)&#xD;&#xA; - Стук в заднем мосте. (Предложный, В чём?)&#xD;&#xA; - По мосту едут автомобили. (Предложный, По/На чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вы напишите: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девочка сидит в мосте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это имеет значение что девочка сидит внутри моста, а не на его поверхности.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="d6da61b8-91d8-49d7-aa9d-881e855e2b11" CreationDate="2015-08-27T16:43:26.653" UserId="5777" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="Склонения слова `Мост`:&#xD;&#xA;http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?doc=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дательный: Мосту&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный (внутри): Мосте&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный 2 (на поверхности): Мосту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У слова 2 варианта написания в предложной падеже. В зависимости от смысла (внутри или на поверхности). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мосту дали имя `Бруклинский мост`. (Дательный падеж, Кому?)&#xD;&#xA; - Стук в заднем мосте. (Предложный, В чём?)&#xD;&#xA; - По мосту едут автомобили. (Предложный, По/На чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вы скажите: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девочка сидит на мосте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То никто не заметит разницы. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="7dc2903f-b23f-44e0-b590-aa112ea9f819" CreationDate="2015-08-27T17:02:15.203" UserId="5777" Comment="edited body" Text="Склонения слова `Мост`:&#xD;&#xA;http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?doc=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дательный: Мосту&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный (внутри): Мосте&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный 2 (на поверхности): Мосту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У слова 2 варианта написания в предложной падеже. В зависимости от смысла (внутри или на поверхности). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мосту дали имя `Бруклинский мост`. (Дательный падеж, Чему?)&#xD;&#xA; - Стук в заднем мосте. (Предложный, В чём?)&#xD;&#xA; - По мосту едут автомобили. (Предложный, По/На чём?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вы скажите: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девочка сидит на мосте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То никто не заметит разницы. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="77a337d4-9cf4-49b4-b34a-dde01d31513a" CreationDate="2015-08-27T18:50:13.573" UserId="5777" Comment="deleted 287 characters in body" Text="Склонения слова `Мост`:&#xD;&#xA;http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?doc=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дательный: Мосту&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный: Мосте&#xD;&#xA; - Предложный 2: Мосту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У слова 2 варианта написания в предложной падеже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пушкин:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Златая цепь на дУбе том&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23124" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9284" RevisionGUID="4a327dcb-b60e-45a2-8bb5-22e8f3c410f0" CreationDate="2015-08-27T23:07:57.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/637038872149389312" />
  <row Id="23125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="a50e9b80-ce78-49d8-af3a-6e52ec292b71" CreationDate="2015-08-28T08:06:57.563" UserId="5927" Text="Does anybody know what the word пахтярь means? It appears to refer to a profession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it means &quot;ploughman&quot; but I can't find it in any dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers in Russian are welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="a50e9b80-ce78-49d8-af3a-6e52ec292b71" CreationDate="2015-08-28T08:06:57.563" UserId="5927" Text="The word пахтярь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="a50e9b80-ce78-49d8-af3a-6e52ec292b71" CreationDate="2015-08-28T08:06:57.563" UserId="5927" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23128" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="af9f00cb-53d9-4846-929c-98de72e85fe7" CreationDate="2015-08-28T08:16:36.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/637176946405806080" />
  <row Id="23129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="ee0680ed-c46f-4035-8490-fc9229f2a5c1" CreationDate="2015-08-28T08:54:16.577" UserId="4637" Text="`ploughman` would be `пахарь` as any dictionary says. I've never heard `пахтярь` in Russian; perhaps it exists in some other Slavic language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="ddae42ae-af30-4a2d-aa93-2893aa31bc99" CreationDate="2015-08-28T09:30:27.140" UserId="5008" Text="Либо искажённое &quot;_пахарь_&quot; (ploughman), либо украинское &quot;[_пахтяр_][1]&quot; - некий тип арендатора в сельском молочном хозяйстве - ср. глагол &quot;_пахтать_&quot; (_to churn_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://explain_words_uk.academic.ru/4686/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%82%D1%8F%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="4f05cdef-d443-45e0-b2fb-5ba4d6a2993f" CreationDate="2015-08-28T09:43:40.583" UserId="5008" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="В литературном русском языке слова &quot;_пахтярь_&quot; нет, но, в принципе, оно может быть диалектным производным от глагола &quot;_пахтать_&quot; (_to churn_), т.е. &quot;_пахтярь_&quot; = &quot;_тот, кто пахтает_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также это может быть либо искажённым &quot;_пахарь_&quot; (ploughman), либо украинским &quot;[_пахтяр_][1]&quot; - некий тип арендатора в сельском молочном хозяйстве (опять же, явно родственно глаголу &quot;_пахтать_&quot; - &quot;_to churn_&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://explain_words_uk.academic.ru/4686/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%82%D1%8F%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9519" RevisionGUID="ee7e8b91-c041-43bb-9e2d-e882003c763e" CreationDate="2015-08-28T14:40:36.403" UserId="4560" Text="**Пахтяр** (sic) is apparently Ukrainian for someone who rents farmland or cattle. Judging by the search results I get, it's probably obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;http://explain_words_uk.academic.ru/4686/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%82%D1%8F%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="ab22339a-421b-4991-a05f-5123edb33304" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:02:25.980" UserId="170" Text="Which one is correct?:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все монахи были одеты в **кэсу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все монахи были одеты в **кэса**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And which syllable must be stressed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="ab22339a-421b-4991-a05f-5123edb33304" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:02:25.980" UserId="170" Text="Does &quot;кэса&quot; decline in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9520" RevisionGUID="ab22339a-421b-4991-a05f-5123edb33304" CreationDate="2015-08-28T15:02:25.980" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="d48c680c-1145-4f9a-a518-0cf9a69f23eb" CreationDate="2015-08-28T18:24:24.317" UserId="5929" Text="I am trying to understand the difference between the words &quot;пытаться&quot; and &quot;стараться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the dictionaries that are available both mean &quot;try&quot; or &quot;attempt&quot; something, but in slightly different senses, which I am unable to work out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer][1] to a related question claims that the words are synonymous. But it doesn't seem like that according to my dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][2] seem to be a duplicate of mine, but it is in Russian and I am yet not proficient enough to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/6711/5929&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/9121/5929&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="d48c680c-1145-4f9a-a518-0cf9a69f23eb" CreationDate="2015-08-28T18:24:24.317" UserId="5929" Text="What is the difference between пытаться and стараться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="d48c680c-1145-4f9a-a518-0cf9a69f23eb" CreationDate="2015-08-28T18:24:24.317" UserId="5929" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="69e5b0d0-a35a-4b12-91e1-1bb858d10ca0" CreationDate="2015-08-28T19:11:54.667" UserId="5915" Text="Here is my attempt at translation of the accepted answer to the duplicate (your second link):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (limiting the scope to similar meanings only)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**пытаться** - (*try*) to perform directed actions in hopes to obtain result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**пробовать** - to try, while being unsure in usefulness of the chosen approach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**стараться** - while sticking to the chosen approach, expend the efforts to obtain the best result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between your words is the same as between the nouns **попытка** and **старание**.  A more suitable translation for the latter that I could find is '*assiduity*' (the former is, of course, '*attempt*').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence you can translate &quot;**пытаться**&quot; as &quot;*to try, to attempt*&quot; and &quot;**стараться**&quot; as &quot;*to apply oneself, to strive, to exert oneself*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.glosbe.com/ru/en/ seems to have those.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9523" RevisionGUID="c019087c-6ad0-4004-a4e5-b76fe31770cc" CreationDate="2015-08-29T05:54:21.033" UserId="5691" Text="родина means motherland, but I'm looking for the translation to a related word, &quot;motherworld&quot;. This is similar to mother earth or mother nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate does not even attempt a translation of it, but if I separate the two words, it gives me &quot;Мать мир&quot;. Should I just put them together like &quot;Матьмир&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9523" RevisionGUID="c019087c-6ad0-4004-a4e5-b76fe31770cc" CreationDate="2015-08-29T05:54:21.033" UserId="5691" Text="Is there a word for Motherworld, similar to Motherland (Родина)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9523" RevisionGUID="c019087c-6ad0-4004-a4e5-b76fe31770cc" CreationDate="2015-08-29T05:54:21.033" UserId="5691" Text="|перевод|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="a7addf8b-4a81-4dad-92fa-9bd72a44baab" CreationDate="2015-08-29T08:45:56.763" UserId="5931" Text="Какая разница между словами: &quot;оплата&quot;, &quot;уплата&quot;, &quot;платеж&quot;, &quot;платежка&quot;? Спасибо!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="a7addf8b-4a81-4dad-92fa-9bd72a44baab" CreationDate="2015-08-29T08:45:56.763" UserId="5931" Text="Привет, я не уверенна, что здесь писать надо - в титле." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="a7addf8b-4a81-4dad-92fa-9bd72a44baab" CreationDate="2015-08-29T08:45:56.763" UserId="5931" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="5751f4d2-7701-4fa6-a2df-9430cba8b714" CreationDate="2015-08-29T09:46:16.087" UserId="5443" Text="**оплата** - употребляется с указанием того, за что платятся деньги (оплата товара, оплата проезда), и - в отличие от слова &quot;**плата**&quot; - всегда без предлога (типичная ошибка: *&quot;оплата за проезд&quot;* вместо выражений *&quot;плата за проезд&quot;* или *&quot;оплата проезда&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**уплата** (форм.) - употребляется без предлога и с упоминанием денежной формы (уплата суммы денег за что-то, пошлины, штрафа, взносов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**платёж** - действие по перечислению денег за услуги (осуществить, произвести платёж)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**платёжка** (неформ.) - документ, подтверждающий факт и размер оплаты чего-либо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="a6735453-7d8c-42e3-8843-cf25b90387f8" CreationDate="2015-08-29T09:49:56.830" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;**Платёжка**&quot; - это разговорное сокращение для &quot;_платёжное поручение_&quot;, то есть &quot;_платёжка_&quot; - это **документ** (_order_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оплата**, **уплата**, **платёж** обозначают _действия_ по соответствующим глаголам (_оплатить_, _уплатить_, _платить_). Поскольку данные глаголы синонимичны (разница только в видах: совершенный-несовершенный), то и существительные, в целом, почти взаимозаменяемы. **Уплата** - менее употребительное слово, **Оплата** - более, **Платёж** может обозначать как само действие (_payment_), так и сумму платежа (_total_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="76df7443-f615-49be-91fe-b9e9e21c5f0a" CreationDate="2015-08-29T09:57:06.647" UserId="5008" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Платёжка**&quot; - это разговорное сокращение для &quot;_платёжное поручение_&quot;, то есть &quot;_платёжка_&quot; - это **документ** (_order_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оплата**, **уплата**, **платёж** обозначают _действия_ по соответствующим глаголам (_оплатить_, _уплатить_, _платить_). Поскольку данные глаголы синонимичны (разница только в видах: совершенный-несовершенный), то и существительные, в целом, почти взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уплата** - редко встречается в современной &quot;обычной&quot; речи, в основном в формальных выражениях, типа &quot;_уплата налогов_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оплата** - более нейтральное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Платёж** может обозначать как само действие (_payment_), так и сумму платежа (_total_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9526" RevisionGUID="8ff65169-fb92-4dc7-9191-5cfbbd0108ab" CreationDate="2015-08-29T10:17:19.420" UserId="5008" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Платёжка**&quot; - это разговорное сокращение для &quot;_платёжное поручение_&quot; (или &quot;_платёжный документ_&quot;), то есть &quot;_платёжка_&quot; - это **документ** (_order_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оплата**, **уплата**, **платёж** обозначают _действия_ по соответствующим глаголам (_оплатить_, _уплатить_, _платить_). Поскольку данные глаголы синонимичны (разница только в видах: совершенный-несовершенный), то и существительные, в целом, почти взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уплата** - редко встречается в современной &quot;обычной&quot; речи, в основном в формальных выражениях, типа &quot;_уплата налогов_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оплата** - более нейтральное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Платёж** может обозначать как само действие (_payment_), так и сумму платежа (_total_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9527" RevisionGUID="91680520-6000-45ab-ada5-0acaa0f009a3" CreationDate="2015-08-29T21:17:17.077" UserId="4336" Text="`Родина` means &quot;place of birth&quot;. So it's valid word for both `Motherland` and `Motherworld`. Other valid translation of `Motherworld` is `родной мир`. If `Motherworld` is planet than `родная планета` is valid too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="570beccb-c384-4c79-a23d-6e744c7c6a00" CreationDate="2015-08-30T05:36:11.080" UserId="5870" Text="In the [Stack Overflow for Russian (beta)](http://ru.stackoverflow.com/), you can see the phrase *на русском* in the title, which I'm sure means *in Russian*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure why the site expresses the phrase as `на русском`. Specifically, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It seems that `русском` looks like instrumental (not sure but just I guess), but why does `на` not take either prepositional or accusative, which I learned `на` should take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you mean *I speak Russian.*, you say *Я говорю по-русски.*. Is there any difference between the two word (`по-русски` and `на русском`)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="570beccb-c384-4c79-a23d-6e744c7c6a00" CreationDate="2015-08-30T05:36:11.080" UserId="5870" Text="What does &quot;на русском&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="570beccb-c384-4c79-a23d-6e744c7c6a00" CreationDate="2015-08-30T05:36:11.080" UserId="5870" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="b52d468b-8aff-4370-b6b6-0ed2703d4818" CreationDate="2015-08-30T05:48:51.507" UserId="4560" Text="`Русском` is prepositional. Masculine adjective prepositionals look like noun instrumentals. The instrumental here would be `русским`. The difference between *на* and *по-* with languages [has been asked about here][1]. In this particular case, `по-русски` would have been, at least theoretically, ambiguous — with an alternative reading of &quot;Stack Exchange, Russian-style&quot; — while `на русском` can only refer to the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8037/%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/8038" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="fd27a8f7-e348-4fe0-b538-d150a45dc578" CreationDate="2015-08-30T10:38:30.967" UserId="5619" Text="I have came across a sentence which contains following words in prepositional case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;вашей компании&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not figure out why компания transformed into компании. ( why double **и** at the end, My expectation is single **и**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a specific rule that if there is a **&quot;ия&quot;** at the end of the word, it would transform as **&quot;ии&quot;**. Or, is it an exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="fd27a8f7-e348-4fe0-b538-d150a45dc578" CreationDate="2015-08-30T10:38:30.967" UserId="5619" Text="unexpected suffix at prepositional case of &quot;компания&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="fd27a8f7-e348-4fe0-b538-d150a45dc578" CreationDate="2015-08-30T10:38:30.967" UserId="5619" Text="|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="ea43ec7f-f62c-4655-97f7-0551c668a051" CreationDate="2015-08-30T11:01:40.163" UserId="5454" Text="As [wiktionary][1] tells as, word &quot;компания&quot; splits into root -компани- and inflection -я:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Корень: -компани-; окончание: -я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases only inflection changes ([same source][1]):  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    падеж  ед. ч. 	мн. ч.&#xD;&#xA;    Им.  компа́ния 	компа́нии&#xD;&#xA;    Р. 	 компа́нии 	компа́ний&#xD;&#xA;    Д. 	 компа́нии 	компа́ниям&#xD;&#xA;    В. 	 компа́нию 	компа́нии&#xD;&#xA;    Тв.  компа́нией компа́ниями&#xD;&#xA;         компа́ниею 	&#xD;&#xA;    Пр.  компа́нии 	компа́ниях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a general rule. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="dc1a843a-de5c-4ee3-96bd-f85fd4e2ab31" CreationDate="2015-08-30T11:20:39.403" UserId="5605" Text="В родительном и предложном падежах у имён существительных &quot;компания&quot;, &quot;мания&quot;, &quot;талия&quot;, &quot;версия&quot; и т.п. окончание **ии**. Нет кого-чего? - компании, мании, талии, версии. Думаю о ком-о чём? - о компании, о мании, о талии, о версии." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9534" RevisionGUID="0ae20101-863b-41ab-b4db-24fcd3a9fe26" CreationDate="2015-08-30T12:41:40.443" UserId="5008" Text="Yes, always like this. The ending is only one letter, so last but one letter remains as is. This is true not only for **-ия** but also for several other similar endings: **-ие**, **-ея** etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="7b974d51-1d41-4887-b50a-0f1b81a63968" CreationDate="2015-08-30T13:02:10.490" UserId="5454" Comment="Added prononciation info" Text="As [wiktionary][1] tells as, word &quot;компания&quot; splits into root -компани- and inflection -я:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Корень: -компани-; окончание: -я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases only inflection changes ([same source][1]):  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    падеж  ед. ч. 	мн. ч.&#xD;&#xA;    Им.  компáния 	компáнии&#xD;&#xA;    Р. 	 компáнии 	компáний&#xD;&#xA;    Д. 	 компáнии 	компáниям&#xD;&#xA;    В. 	 компáнию 	компáнии&#xD;&#xA;    Тв.  компáнией  компáниями&#xD;&#xA;         компáниею 	&#xD;&#xA;    Пр.  компáнии 	компáниях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a general rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Upd:__ I think I have understood why you were expecting a single __и__ here.  &#xD;&#xA;If you have double consonant, like __нн__, it usually pronounced in the same way as single one. But there is no such case double vowel, all vowel sounds are pronounced _independently_. Listen [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://forvo.com/word/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8/#ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9535" RevisionGUID="8f773e1f-93d0-4634-a5d3-8b9e650014c3" CreationDate="2015-08-30T16:06:13.900" UserId="2079" Text="Ответ на последний вопрос: слово &quot;кэса&quot; было заимствовано, скорее всего, из японского языка (хирагана: けさ, ромадзи: kesa, иероглифическую запись сервер почему-то не пропускает.) **В русском языке слова, заимствованные из японского, как правило, произносятся с ударением на предпоследний слог** (http://miuki.info/2010/09/udarenie-v-yaponskom-yazyke/).  По ссылке приведён список исключений. Единственное неочевидное в списке - слова с долгим слогом в японском языке, всё остальное к слову &quot;кэса&quot; явно не имеет отношения. Но в хирагане долгие слоги записываются двумя символами (http://lingust.ru/japanese/japanese-lessons/lesson4), а в слове кэсу, написанном хираганой, символов столько же, сколько и слогов (http://www.behindthename.com/name/kesa/submitted).  Поэтому слово &quot;кэса&quot; скорее всего произносится с ударением на первый слог, хотя можно ещё спросить знающих японский язык и/или русскоязычных дзен-буддистов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По вопросам склонения вам на форум японистов. По крайней мере в отношении имён и топонимов у них нет единого мнения, хотя в академической литературе японские имена и топонимы обычно не склоняются. (http://info-japan.ru/forum/yaponskiy-yazyk/nuzhno-li-sklonyat-yaponskie-imena-i-toponimy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="67e813df-1b1f-4861-8220-bec63629a0ab" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:18:01.833" UserId="4500" Comment="Copy edited." Text="I have came across a sentence which contains the following words in the prepositional case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;вашей компании&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not figure out why компания transformed into компании (why double **и** at the end; my expectation is single **и**?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a specific rule that if there is a **&quot;ия&quot;** at the end of the word, it would transform as **&quot;ии&quot;**. Or, is it an exception?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23167" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="67e813df-1b1f-4861-8220-bec63629a0ab" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:18:01.833" UserId="4500" Comment="Copy edited." Text="Unexpected suffix at prepositional case of &quot;компания&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23168" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="67e813df-1b1f-4861-8220-bec63629a0ab" CreationDate="2015-08-30T17:18:01.833" Comment="Proposed by 4500 approved by 5619 edit id of 666" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23169" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="baaa6e8c-a512-4d74-854c-72efc419b141" CreationDate="2015-08-30T20:23:16.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/638084590935113729" />
  <row Id="23170" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="de56105f-d309-43c0-aafa-f3a45971b187" CreationDate="2015-08-30T21:51:06.260" UserId="5619" Comment="change title;  &quot;ии&quot; is an ending not a suffix." Text="Unexpected ending at prepositional case of &quot;компания&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="bb244d8f-48fc-4f7e-94f3-b93c432ffde5" CreationDate="2015-08-31T15:18:19.910" UserId="5937" Text="I've recently figured out how my last name is spelled in russian. When my ancestors came to Argentina (and transliterated their last name) they wrote Mellibovsky (&quot;ll&quot; is a phoneme that in rioplatense spanish is quite similar to ж) and after two generations someone substracted the &quot;v&quot;. That kind of stuff make it harder for me to find the equivalent in russian. Now that I've found it, does anybody knows where does the stress mark go in Межибовский?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="bb244d8f-48fc-4f7e-94f3-b93c432ffde5" CreationDate="2015-08-31T15:18:19.910" UserId="5937" Text="Where does the stress mark go in Межибовский?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9536" RevisionGUID="bb244d8f-48fc-4f7e-94f3-b93c432ffde5" CreationDate="2015-08-31T15:18:19.910" UserId="5937" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="f0699f1c-2d1c-4222-a6e9-ea246690a6a7" CreationDate="2015-08-31T15:45:44.017" UserId="5008" Text="This is certainly Polish name. There is town Меджибож (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B6) in Ukraine. Меджибож is stressed on the second syllable, but name Меджибовский probably has stress on the 3rd syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="b10fbf23-1a9b-4047-bb51-3af70dbf333a" CreationDate="2015-08-31T15:50:51.783" UserId="5008" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="This name is certainly of Polish origin. Also, there is a town in Ukraine, Khmelnitsky region - [Меджибож][1] (ukr. Меджибіж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Меджибож_ is stressed on the second syllable, but name _Меджибовский_ should have stress on the 3rd syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="c719d74a-da5b-44b1-93b4-7139206a0266" CreationDate="2015-08-31T21:00:57.010" UserId="5454" Comment="added stress signs" Text="This name is certainly of Polish origin. Also, there is a town in Ukraine, Khmelnitsky region - [Меджибож][1] (ukr. Меджибіж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Меджи́бож_ is stressed on the second syllable, but name _Меджибо́вский_ should have stress on the 3rd syllable.              &#xD;&#xA;                                       &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B6       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23177" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="c719d74a-da5b-44b1-93b4-7139206a0266" CreationDate="2015-08-31T21:00:57.010" Comment="Proposed by 5454 approved by 134 edit id of 668" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="e533dfd1-1bba-4845-a0aa-56ac9019a026" CreationDate="2015-08-31T21:50:42.187" UserId="2079" Text="The family names which end by -овский have Polish origin.  In Polish, the stress is almost always on the next-to-last syllable (it is called penultimate stress).  Therefore, the stress in family names which end by -овский is on -о (...о́вский)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9539" RevisionGUID="52291aec-cb65-4cba-aeed-8007a84801f1" CreationDate="2015-09-01T01:02:12.473" UserId="5927" Text="Как передавали в царские времена польское буквосочетание « lo »?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Транскипция « ліо » была тогда возможной? Кажется, сегодня пишут « лё », даже в безударных слогах: [Википедия][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чему могло бы соответствовать « ліо »? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9539" RevisionGUID="52291aec-cb65-4cba-aeed-8007a84801f1" CreationDate="2015-09-01T01:02:12.473" UserId="5927" Text="Транскрипция польского слога « lo » до революции" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9539" RevisionGUID="52291aec-cb65-4cba-aeed-8007a84801f1" CreationDate="2015-09-01T01:02:12.473" UserId="5927" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="178700d1-63e1-4b78-8cf5-21f79e16245b" CreationDate="2015-09-01T04:12:25.713" UserId="4500" Comment="Copy edited (e.g. ref. &lt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary&gt;)." Text="As [Wiktionary tells us][1], the word &quot;компания&quot; splits into root -компани- and inflection -я:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Корень: -компани-; окончание: -я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases, only inflection changes ([same source][1]):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    падеж  ед. ч. 	мн. ч.&#xD;&#xA;    Им.  компáния 	компáнии&#xD;&#xA;    Р. 	 компáнии 	компáний&#xD;&#xA;    Д. 	 компáнии 	компáниям&#xD;&#xA;    В. 	 компáнию 	компáнии&#xD;&#xA;    Тв.  компáнией  компáниями&#xD;&#xA;         компáниею&#xD;&#xA;    Пр.  компáнии 	компáниях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a general rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Update:__ I think I have understood why you were expecting a single __и__ here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a double consonant, like __нн__, it usually pronounced in the same way as a single one. But there is no such case double vowel; all vowel sounds are pronounced _independently_. Listen [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://forvo.com/word/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8/#ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23183" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="178700d1-63e1-4b78-8cf5-21f79e16245b" CreationDate="2015-09-01T04:12:25.713" Comment="Proposed by 4500 approved by 551, 5008 edit id of 667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9537" RevisionGUID="73c76662-c172-42bd-86ab-d1ac968bb4e1" CreationDate="2015-09-01T04:14:15.353" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This name is certainly of Polish origin. Also, there is a town in Ukraine, Khmelnitsky region - [Меджибож][1] (ukr. Меджибіж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Меджи́бож_ is stressed on the second syllable, but name _Межибо́вский_ should have stress on the 3rd syllable.              &#xD;&#xA;                                       &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B6       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9540" RevisionGUID="301dbb17-dbba-4738-b791-ae717cd25a53" CreationDate="2015-09-01T13:30:20.193" UserId="5405" Text="Я не знаток русско-польской транскрипции, но основным методом передачи иностранных слов до революции была транслитерация. В этом случае, &quot;lo&quot; должно было передаваться как &quot;ло&quot;. Подтверждение этому можно найти если в &quot;Яндексе&quot; ввести запрос &quot;Лорентовичъ&quot;, первая ссылка будет на книгу 1910 г., где есть следующий текст:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С о т р у д н и к и— въ Польшѣ: Ст. Жеромскiй (Stefan Zeromski), И. **Ло**рентовичъ (Jan **Lo**rentowicz)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В принципе, несмотря на рекомендации, приведённые в Википедии и ряде других изданий, передача польского &quot;lo&quot; как &quot;ло&quot; по прежнему популярна, связано это прежде всего с тем, что безударная &quot;Ё&quot; нехарактерна для русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается дореволюционного &quot;iо&quot;, то до XIX века эта было обычное сочетание, например у князей Потёмкиных фамилия до конца XVIII века писалась как &quot;Потiомкинъ&quot;, впоследствии во всех подобных случаях стали писать через &quot;ё&quot;. Единственного иностранца, из тех, что я могу вспомнить, у которого в русском языке появилось &quot;ё&quot;, это немецкий поэт Гёте. Во всех остальных случаях как правило используются раздичные сочетания и буквы для замены (*йо, эй, о, е*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9541" RevisionGUID="bdb80ed6-ed57-41e3-a6d6-3b7ea7ace18b" CreationDate="2015-09-01T13:54:41.917" UserId="5405" Text="Possible translation - folk phraseologism **мать сыра земля** (mother earth) and Soviet idiom **Родина-мать** (homeland-mother)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="22dc6f00-6c3b-460e-8af3-a2931a433df0" CreationDate="2015-09-01T21:58:21.803" UserId="5915" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text="Here is my attempt at translation of the accepted answer to the duplicate (your second link):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (limiting the scope to similar meanings only)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**пытаться** - (*try*) to perform directed actions in hopes to obtain result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**пробовать** - to try, while being unsure in usefulness of the chosen approach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**стараться** - while sticking to the chosen approach, expend the efforts to obtain the best result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between your words is the same as between the nouns **попытка** and **старание**.  A more suitable translation for the latter that I could find is '*assiduity*' (the former is, of course, '*attempt*').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence you can translate &quot;**пытаться**&quot; as &quot;*to try, to attempt*&quot; and &quot;**стараться**&quot; as &quot;*to apply oneself, to strive, to exert oneself*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.glosbe.com/ru/en/ seems to have those.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **пытаюсь** придумать примеры. - I am *trying* to come up with examples.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он **старается** выглядеть счастливым. - He *strives* to look happy.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она всячески **старалась** не показать вида. - She *endeavored* at all cost not to show it.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вчера мы **пытались** доказать это. - Yesterday we *attempted* to prove it.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **стараюсь** не подводить друзей. - I *take pains* not to fail my friends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="2bfaa12b-daea-4b7a-8795-ced1fd0eacf7" CreationDate="2015-09-02T06:28:58.073" UserId="179" Comment="one more possible translation of the conditional clause has been added" Text="I'm not a professional linguist, so I can't provide any reference to the textbooks on this matter, but as a native speaker, my translation is below (the cells in the table correspond to the table from the question):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  0 | если я пью кофе вечером               |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    |    | если я выпью кофе вечером             |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    |    | если я выпиваю кофе вечером           |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    |    | если я выпил кофе вечером             |  я плохо сплю        |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  1 | если я выпью кофе сегодня вечером     |  я буду плохо спать  |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  2 | если я бы выпил кофе сегодня вечером  |  я бы плохо спал     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;    |  3 | если я бы выпил кофе в прошлый вечер  |  я бы плохо спал     |&#xD;&#xA;    +----+---------------------------------------+----------------------+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can see from this table, with imaginary situations one always uses the particle &quot;бы&quot; with a verb in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also imaginary situations in the future and present differ from ones in the past only by a verb in the if clause, that is only by the tense of a verb in this clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="405d2f97-4105-4c3b-b2fe-0fdc5f71cdba" CreationDate="2015-09-02T19:07:16.207" UserId="5874" Text="То есть, почему один завод называется &quot;нефтеперерабатывающим&quot;, а другой- &quot;деревообрабатывающим&quot;.  Может быть, просто от благозвучности?  Есть ли конкретная разница между &quot;перерабатывать&quot; и &quot;обрабатывать&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честно говоря, я знаю, что процессы на таких заводах отличаются.  На нефтеперерабатывающем заводе, любую внутримолекулярную связь можно ломать, а на деревообрабатывающем заводе, цель разрывать несколько связей, чтобы разделить виды вещества. Итак, я хочу узнать, что эти разные основания слов действительно описывают процессы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="405d2f97-4105-4c3b-b2fe-0fdc5f71cdba" CreationDate="2015-09-02T19:07:16.207" UserId="5874" Text="Чем отличаются &quot;пере-&quot; и &quot;об-&quot; &quot;рабатывающий&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="405d2f97-4105-4c3b-b2fe-0fdc5f71cdba" CreationDate="2015-09-02T19:07:16.207" UserId="5874" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9544" RevisionGUID="ff5dfb49-3861-4bd4-a86d-f02faf24d995" CreationDate="2015-09-02T19:33:19.513" UserId="4920" Text="Наверно разница в степени сохранения исходного сырья. Нефть полностью разделяется на составляющие, т.е. идет переработка сырья. А вот древесина приобретает необходимую форму и обрабатывается дополнительными веществами. Получается, что дерево, проходя завод, сохраняется как материал. Оно обрабатывается." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="12e1aeee-072d-4865-9706-b4008fce856b" CreationDate="2015-09-03T03:25:39.553" UserId="4714" Text="I've always had trouble figuring out why the dative is used in such constructions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я учу драконов русскому языку каждый день—вот беда моя!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is the verb учить followed by an accusative object then the dative? Is the literal meaning something like, &quot;I'm teaching dragons FOR the Russian language&quot;, with FOR meaning &quot;after, in the way of, for the purposes of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The base meaning of Dative is &quot; to, for&quot;. Most people translate Dative always as &quot;to&quot; but &quot;for&quot; works way better in my opinion. мне холондо—is more &quot;it's cold for me&quot; that it is &quot;it's cold to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's not what I suggested, wtf is going on with these teaching/ learning verbs выучивать, приучивать итд..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="12e1aeee-072d-4865-9706-b4008fce856b" CreationDate="2015-09-03T03:25:39.553" UserId="4714" Text="Use of Dative after учить etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="12e1aeee-072d-4865-9706-b4008fce856b" CreationDate="2015-09-03T03:25:39.553" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9547" RevisionGUID="d45ae34a-45fa-4c83-983d-a7dc03b6ec07" CreationDate="2015-09-03T07:05:07.687" UserId="5550" Text="учить что-либо&#xD;&#xA;- получать знания самостоятельно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;учить &#xD;&#xA;кого-либо/что-либо (винительный = кого, что)&#xD;&#xA;чему-либо (дательный  = кому, чему)&#xD;&#xA;- давать знания другому (человеку)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;too hard to explain&#xD;&#xA;may be it will be better to say that the study is THE WAY.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;двигаться **к**&quot;, &quot;двигать свой мозг и сознание **к**&quot; - к кому? к чему? - к знаниям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К - means the direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;per aspera ad astra = через тернии **К** звездам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9547" RevisionGUID="4cac7935-0c63-42c8-ae1a-0c25ef930628" CreationDate="2015-09-03T07:15:26.687" UserId="5550" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="**учить** что-либо = получать знания самостоятельно (учить = получать знания)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**учить** &#xD;&#xA;кого-либо/что-либо (винительный = кого, что)&#xD;&#xA;чему-либо (дательный  = кому, чему)&#xD;&#xA;= давать знания другому (человеку) (учить = давать знания)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**учусь** чему-либо (дательный  = кому, чему) = учить себя, давать знания себе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;too hard to explain&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;may be it will be better to say that the study is THE ENDLESS WAY.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;двигаться **к**&quot;, &quot;двигать свой(чужой) мозг и сознание **к**&quot; - к кому? к чему? - к знаниям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К - means the direction (may be to unattainable point)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;you can't say **В** because ЗНАНИЯ (ПРИВЫЧКА) is not a geo-zone - it is some abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;per aspera ad astra = через тернии **К** звездам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9547" RevisionGUID="8341b263-8d59-4c3a-b22d-3344c6230853" CreationDate="2015-09-03T07:23:55.770" UserId="5550" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="**учить** что-либо = получать знания самостоятельно (учить = получать знания)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**учить** &#xD;&#xA;кого-либо/что-либо (винительный = кого, что)&#xD;&#xA;чему-либо (дательный  = кому, чему)&#xD;&#xA;= давать знания другому (человеку) (учить = давать знания)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;notice that что-либо &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;in the first case - knowledge&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;in the second - knowledge-receiver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**учусь** чему-либо (дательный  = кому, чему) = учить себя, давать знания себе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;too hard to explain&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;may be it will be better to say that the study is THE ENDLESS WAY.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&quot;двигаться **к**&quot;, &quot;двигать свой(чужой) мозг и сознание **к**&quot; - к кому? к чему? - к знаниям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К - means the direction (may be to unattainable point)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;you can't say **В** because ЗНАНИЯ (ПРИВЫЧКА) is not a geo-zone - it is some abstraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;per aspera ad astra = через тернии **К** звездам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="36d963e2-14bd-4bf5-b9d1-077fc9573e01" CreationDate="2015-09-03T11:12:58.577" UserId="194" Text="The word evidently comes from PIE ***e̯dentsnea̯*** from ***e̯donts*** &quot;tooth&quot; from root ***e̯ed-*** &quot;to bite&quot;. This should give &quot;дясна&quot; in Russian. Why &quot;десна&quot; then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="36d963e2-14bd-4bf5-b9d1-077fc9573e01" CreationDate="2015-09-03T11:12:58.577" UserId="194" Text="How word дясна became десна?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9548" RevisionGUID="36d963e2-14bd-4bf5-b9d1-077fc9573e01" CreationDate="2015-09-03T11:12:58.577" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="2215461c-26b3-45a7-8325-c56576439ab1" CreationDate="2015-09-03T11:45:15.243" UserId="242" Text="Well, is should and it was - in Old Russian it was &quot;дясна&quot; up to XV century. In Ukrainian it is [still][1] &quot;ясна&quot; which is the remnant of that form. In Belarusian it is &quot;дзясна&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge in almost all other Slavic languages, except Polish and including Church Slavonic, the form was with -e. My guess is that something similar to &quot;aгнец&quot;/&quot;ягнёнок&quot; had happend, it's just that in this particular case, the church slavonic form won. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="47211b70-5123-4a2e-a3d7-4c6a933f8078" CreationDate="2015-09-03T11:52:46.593" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Well, it should and it was - in Old Russian it was &quot;дясна&quot; up to XV century. In Ukrainian it is [still][1] &quot;ясна&quot; which is the remnant of that form. In Belarusian it is &quot;дзясна&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge in almost all other Slavic languages, except Polish and including Church Slavonic, the form was with -e. My guess is that something similar to &quot;aгнец&quot;/&quot;ягнёнок&quot; had happend, it's just that in this particular case, the church slavonic form won. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="8f509252-1c2d-4472-aafb-0660f4ee76ff" CreationDate="2015-09-03T13:56:46.703" UserId="1671" Text=" - Historically the meaning of Dative is [giving][1]. So it makes sense to give knowledge to someone using Dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In this particular example it would be wrong grammatically to put 2 objects either in Accusative or in Dative because it would be confusing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `я учу драконов русский язык (all Acc wrong) -&gt; я преподаю драконам русский язык&#xD;&#xA;  я учу/преподаю драконам русскому языку (all Dat wrong) -&gt; я учу драконов русскому языку`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One more observation: `учить` has at least 2 meanings which can be gramatically deducted from the case used for the object: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    `я учу русский язык - I learn Russian&#xD;&#xA;    я учу русскому языку - I teach Russian`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="46cb0c4b-8ccd-4ad8-aa6f-0497173f9a16" CreationDate="2015-09-03T14:08:17.333" UserId="1671" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text=" - Historically the meaning of Dative is [giving][1]. So it makes sense to give knowledge to someone using Dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In this particular example it would be wrong grammatically to put 2 objects either in Accusative or in Dative because it would be confusing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `я учу драконов русский язык (all Acc wrong) -&gt; я преподаю драконам русский язык&#xD;&#xA;  я учу/преподаю драконам русскому языку (all Dat wrong) -&gt; я учу драконов русскому языку`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Of course there are other cases left (at least Genitive, Instrumental and Prepositional), so why Dative? Again as mentioned above Dative [designates that something is given or addressed to the person (object)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One more observation: `учить` has at least 2 meanings which can be gramatically deducted from the case used for the object: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    `я учу русский язык - I learn Russian&#xD;&#xA;    я учу русскому языку - I teach Russian`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://masterrussian.com/aa071600a.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="0aa2cfda-5e09-4923-81e8-849b730b1c3a" CreationDate="2015-09-03T14:41:01.770" UserId="194" Text="You can think of it as of an omitted verb. While does not work well with &quot;language&quot; (I cannot think of a suitable verb), it works with other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научить [подражать] плохому примеру.= To teach [to be similar] to bad example&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научить [следовать] плохому примеру. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научить [следовать] плохому.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Научить [следовать] хорошему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="3848f9fc-5e12-4bc3-affd-f21bedb50557" CreationDate="2015-09-03T15:49:44.530" UserId="4560" Text="It's a hard question. Intuition draws a blank here; &quot;it's just how you say it&quot;. It's possible that the naming of cases by grammarians (dative, instrumental, etc.) has made them appear more meaningful, in and of themselves, than they really are, and what we call the dative case is really a semantically-unbound grammatical meme with a cloud of usages some of which are more frequent than others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since people are happily offering their speculations, here's mine: it might have started back when the *-ti* infinitives of Proto-Slavic verbs were still perceived as datives of now-extinct verbal nouns. Which would make *\*učiti sę slověnьskujemu ęzyku* have the same basic syntax as, say, *\*učiti sę lětati*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9553" RevisionGUID="faf2bddc-d36e-4ac2-a4a6-4fcc894ac21b" CreationDate="2015-09-03T17:04:59.500" UserId="5946" Text="Это разные процессы, разные значения, дело не в благозвучии. Даже дерево может перерабатываться и обрабатываться. Например, когда из него делают бумагу, то это переработка (перерабатывается). А когда дерево, например, сушится, пропитывается чем-то, когда его шлифуют, строгают, обрабатывают паром и т.п. - это обработка (обрабатывается)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23216" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9546" RevisionGUID="f1383e8d-e757-46c8-bbb5-25d803df5d82" CreationDate="2015-09-03T20:28:27.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/639535449342648320" />
  <row Id="23217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="8b9a177c-53ff-4450-8dc1-ee670a37f8e2" CreationDate="2015-09-03T23:28:41.657" UserId="5295" Text="I've seen a few places in Russia with the ending -ово. For example Иваново, Кемерово, and Домодедово. Does anyone know the origin of this ending? For example, is it related to the adjectival ending -ого, or perhaps a modified version of the -ов ending that we see in Russian surnames? Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="8b9a177c-53ff-4450-8dc1-ee670a37f8e2" CreationDate="2015-09-03T23:28:41.657" UserId="5295" Text="Etymology of toponymic ending -ово" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="8b9a177c-53ff-4450-8dc1-ee670a37f8e2" CreationDate="2015-09-03T23:28:41.657" UserId="5295" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="c01e0cdd-f6e3-4ddd-a444-4f3f63f27d1d" CreationDate="2015-09-04T06:06:18.307" UserId="4450" Text="By intuition, *whaterver*ово in the names of different places means &quot;a place with a lot of *whatever*&quot; of &quot;a place that belongs to *whatever*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Иваново is a typical name for a village that accommodated quite a lot of people with surname Иванов (which in turn means потомок ивана, иванов сын) at the point of time when that village was given the name.&#xD;&#xA; - Домодедово means roughly the same, I suppose. However, Шереметьево is a place that was somehow related to the [Sheremetev][1] family (an example again by intuition: земля графа Шереметьева =&gt; шереметьево место =&gt; Шереметьево).&#xD;&#xA; - Кемерово is a place that possesses kemers (&quot;кемер&quot; is a Turkic word for *hill*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the explanations are quite different, there is still a common idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Sheremetev" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="5fe148dc-05b7-4947-b2df-6fbb0403740f" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:40:21.570" UserId="5201" Text="В Мастере и Маргарите (в главе девятнадцати): 'Она сделала все, чтобы разузнать что-нибудь о нем, и, конечно, не разузнала ровно ничего.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чем разница между этими двумя словами? Спасибо! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И еще один вопрос: в моем первым предложением, можно ли сказать 'я случайно натолкнулся следующую фразу' (I ran across the following phrase), если я хочу говорить просто фигурально, а не физически? Надеюсь, что оба моих вопросов понятные. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="5fe148dc-05b7-4947-b2df-6fbb0403740f" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:40:21.570" UserId="5201" Text="Разница между 'разузнать' и 'узнать'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="5fe148dc-05b7-4947-b2df-6fbb0403740f" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:40:21.570" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="0a09d752-68eb-4ae9-8864-38e720251118" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:48:58.557" UserId="3680" Text="*Разузнать* - это произвести какие-либо активные действия с целью узнать.  &#xD;&#xA;*Узнать* - это просто узнать. Например, случайно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О приставках *раз-*, *рас-* и *разо-* на [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7-):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при добавлении к глаголам образует глаголы со значением усиления интенсивности&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И да, предложение *я случайно натолкнулся на следующую фразу* вполне употребимо в фигуральном смысле." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="c4ad7360-03b8-4cee-ac61-db72fda79052" CreationDate="2015-09-04T18:54:13.967" UserId="3680" Comment="исправлены ошибки" Text="В Мастере и Маргарите (в девятнадцатой главе): `Она сделала все, чтобы разузнать что-нибудь о нем, и, конечно, не разузнала ровно ничего.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В чем разница между этими двумя словами? Спасибо! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И еще один вопрос: в моем первым предложении, можно ли сказать `я случайно натолкнулся на следующую фразу` (I ran across the following phrase), если я хочу говорить просто фигурально, а не физически? Надеюсь, что оба моих вопросов понятные. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="4ea15397-33ef-4ddd-a0e2-fc6932ee001d" CreationDate="2015-09-04T20:29:17.660" UserId="5201" Text="Еще одно вопрос относительно значения--в чем разница между 'обещать' и 'сулить'? Сулить--более литературное слово? Это когда-нибудь сказано в неформальным общении, но более редко чем 'обещать'? Спасибо! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="4ea15397-33ef-4ddd-a0e2-fc6932ee001d" CreationDate="2015-09-04T20:29:17.660" UserId="5201" Text="'Обещать'/'сулить'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="4ea15397-33ef-4ddd-a0e2-fc6932ee001d" CreationDate="2015-09-04T20:29:17.660" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="49a98e80-16c1-4eef-80b3-6b576ad743f5" CreationDate="2015-09-04T20:44:56.847" UserId="4920" Text="Мне кажется, что 'раз-' придает действию некий успешный ход совершения. И возможно, в фразе из книги, автор хотел отгородиться от распространенного использования слова &quot;узнать&quot; как действия идентификации кого-то в встретившемся человеке. Например, &quot;Я узнал в прохожем своего знакомого.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="09346f51-8747-45cd-8017-4f0e25a1a69f" CreationDate="2015-09-04T20:54:45.573" UserId="3680" Comment="edited body" Text="Еще один вопрос относительно значения -- в чем разница между `обещать` и `сулить`? Сулить -- более литературное слово? Оно когда-нибудь употребляется в неформальном общении, но более редко чем 'обещать'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="b3fe6082-81fb-42f9-a8b0-c1c3d3102a7c" CreationDate="2015-09-04T20:56:31.757" UserId="3680" Text="Оба слова имеют примерно одно и то же значение, однако слово `сулить` в повседневной жизни употребляется значительно реже и, на мой взгляд, его даже можно считать устаревающим." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="a2093e96-2c3d-4f09-836c-5efc3c32911c" CreationDate="2015-09-04T21:18:03.573" UserId="5915" Text="Они взаимозаменяемы в значении &quot;*предвещать*&quot;, &quot;*предсказывать*&quot;, &quot;*вселять надежду на*&quot;.  У &quot;*обещать*&quot; есть ещё другое значение - &quot;*давать обязательство*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В неформальном общении слово &quot;*сулить*&quot; осталось только в составе идиоматических сочетаний: сулить победу, сулить удачу, что сулит нам 2016 год?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="8a91befa-ca71-451b-814b-9d17693a7bf6" CreationDate="2015-09-04T21:20:21.213" UserId="4560" Text="**Сулить** можно только вещи или явления (тогда как **обещать** можно и совершение обещающим неких действий) — и само употребление слова **сулить** обычно означает, что эти вещи или явления однозначно желательны для того, кому сулят, вплоть до соблазнительности и/или нереалистичности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Упрощая, можно сказать, что сулить — это искушать обещанием." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="6f8459b2-1d0c-4300-bcf8-fedb7530dbbd" CreationDate="2015-09-04T21:22:38.587" UserId="4560" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Оба слова имеют примерно одно и то же значение, однако слово `сулить` в повседневной жизни употребляется значительно реже и, на мой взгляд, его даже можно считать устаревающим." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="f8a7f440-818b-4a35-bcaa-26a0066f07f9" CreationDate="2015-09-04T22:36:59.197" UserId="5201" Text="Кажется, понимаю значение 'вспомнить.' Я бы охарактеризовать это как мгновенное воспоминание или &quot;to recall&quot; на английском. Но я не знаю как отличать это от глагола 'припомнить.' Они кажутся очень похожими. Как они отличаются друг от друга в определении и исполнении?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="f8a7f440-818b-4a35-bcaa-26a0066f07f9" CreationDate="2015-09-04T22:36:59.197" UserId="5201" Text="'Вспомнить' и 'припомнить'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="f8a7f440-818b-4a35-bcaa-26a0066f07f9" CreationDate="2015-09-04T22:36:59.197" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="b2e7486a-b129-4a94-8158-1f6c39f98d26" CreationDate="2015-09-04T22:51:59.200" UserId="5405" Text="Здесь приставка &quot;при-&quot; имеет значение неполноты действия (чуть-чуть). То есть &quot;вспомнить&quot; - это чёткий образ в памяти, а &quot;припомнить&quot; - смутный, неуверенный, на грани забывания." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="a6c8f3e4-3d50-4313-97d2-24b8750771cd" CreationDate="2015-09-05T01:46:27.070" UserId="5201" Text="Есть ли значительная разница в исполнении между этими тремя словами--'порой', 'изредка' и 'время от времени?' По сути дела, можно употреблять их как синонимы, или мне надо относится к каждому по-другому? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="a6c8f3e4-3d50-4313-97d2-24b8750771cd" CreationDate="2015-09-05T01:46:27.070" UserId="5201" Text="порой/изредка/время от времени" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="a6c8f3e4-3d50-4313-97d2-24b8750771cd" CreationDate="2015-09-05T01:46:27.070" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="ec23fd05-2b3e-4a17-b607-e4973f353d6c" CreationDate="2015-09-05T02:16:20.663" UserId="5951" Text="Русский использует другой алфавит, чем я, так что если я хочу знать, написание привеt, например, как я помню, оригинал письма на букву написания, а не произношение английской.&#xD;&#xA;Translation: Russian uses a different alphabet than I do, so if I want to know the spelling of привеt for example , as I recall, the original letter to letter writing rather than pronunciation of English ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="ec23fd05-2b3e-4a17-b607-e4973f353d6c" CreationDate="2015-09-05T02:16:20.663" UserId="5951" Text="Как вы запомните букву за буквой правописания слов Translation: How do you remember the letter by letter spelling of words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="ec23fd05-2b3e-4a17-b607-e4973f353d6c" CreationDate="2015-09-05T02:16:20.663" UserId="5951" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="f5f10a3d-7b6b-4313-b194-b090e5baaea5" CreationDate="2015-09-05T02:23:25.543" UserId="5951" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Русский использует другой алфавит , чем я , так что если я хочу знать, написание привеt например , письмо писать письма его , а не произношение на английском, что я должен делать?&#xD;&#xA;Translation: Russian uses a different alphabet than I do, so if I want to know the spelling of привеt for example, the letter to letter writing of it rather than the pronunciation in English, what should I do? ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="0f546185-ede3-45cf-8bf2-685575d1dca2" CreationDate="2015-09-05T06:40:51.073" UserId="5008" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Есть ли значительная разница в употрбелении следующих слов и выражений -- '_порой_', '_изредка_' и '_время от времени_'? То есть, можно ли употреблять их как синонимы, или мне надо относиться к каждому по-разному?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="036017b6-9d6b-462c-bb42-eddbf8e02475" CreationDate="2015-09-05T06:47:24.810" UserId="5008" Text="Все эти слова означают то же, что и **иногда** (sometimes), но при этом у каждого из них есть свои особенности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _изредка_ = иногда + (очень) редко&#xD;&#xA;- _время от времени_ = иногда + (до некоторой степени) регулярно&#xD;&#xA;- _порой_ = иногда + неожиданно, нерегулярно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="fae0b997-f970-41cb-935e-bdc59d502650" CreationDate="2015-09-05T06:49:14.753" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="Есть ли существенная разница в употреблении следующих слов и выражений -- '_порой_', '_изредка_' и '_время от времени_'? То есть, можно ли употреблять их как синонимы, или мне надо относиться к каждому по-разному?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="33026d7e-835a-41f1-adf9-c07b65ef7c40" CreationDate="2015-09-05T07:18:24.707" UserId="1236" Comment="Spelling edited" Text="Русский использует другой алфавит, чем я, так что если я хочу знать написание _привет_, например, правописание этого слова, а не произношение на английском, что я должен делать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: Russian uses a different alphabet than I do, so if I want to know the spelling of привеt for example, the letter to letter writing of it rather than the pronunciation in English, what should I do? ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="1f85a44a-8abe-403f-bc34-73b1da6fd9ff" CreationDate="2015-09-05T10:50:25.537" UserId="5405" Text="Русская орфография основывается на морфологическом принципе. Если вы хотите грамотно писать на русском языке, то надо выучить основные морфемы из которых образуются русские слова. Например, слово &quot;cделать&quot; произносится как [zdel٨t'], но зная, что есть приставка &quot;с-&quot; и суффиксы &quot;-а&quot; и &quot;-ть&quot; пишем именно так. В целом русская графика гораздо ближе к произношению, чем таже английская. Есть несколько несложных законов редукции и ассимиляции, плюс сравнительно небольшое колличество слов с историческим написанием, в остальном же можно написание соответствует произношению.&#xD;&#xA;Во взятом вами слове &quot;привет&quot; можно допустить две ошибки: &quot;пр(и/е)ве(т/д). Согласная на конце слова проявляется если слово просклонять &quot;с приве**т**ом&quot;, здесь &quot;т&quot; уже в сильной позиции перед глассной, значит и в слабой позиции пишем &quot;т&quot;. Гласные звуки проверяются ударением, но в данном случае это невозможно, значит нужно запомнить, или свериться со словарём." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10568" RevisionGUID="dadd8aef-b571-4483-b15d-61d3e468f9b7" CreationDate="2015-09-05T11:41:25.253" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="TL/DR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Use a spellchecker, which is very simple, use an orthographic dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;2. If you learn, try writing dictations.&#xD;&#xA;3. Remember the written form, decompose the word into phonemes and distinct them (see an example below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written Russian language keeps the writing of words above pronunciation and mostly keeps the written forms the same across transformations. There are several reasons: a) vowel reduction made every minor dialect have different pronunciation of the same vowel, b) written Russian came not from Russian, but from Church Slavonic. I assume that the scholars tried to keep the sacred texts unchanged. Later it became a written tradition and a common denominator for dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way functionally literate native Russians do is remember the graphical image of a word. Plus we have in mind its sources, like the base and the prefixes/suffixes. E.g. `прибрежный` = `при-` (at) `-брег-` (shore) `-н-` (adjective suffix) `-ый` (masculine adjective termination). Now, `при-` is similar to `пре-` and often both pronounced with `и`, but we know that `пре-` means &quot;over&quot; and not suitable here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are false friends like similar words that have different vowels in them, that natives confuse for related and use to check one another, like шп**а**ргалка/шп**о**ра. But that's part of the deal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="6b9762e5-db6e-41c5-b043-a428d049d095" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:42:25.567" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Русская орфография основывается на морфологическом принципе. Если вы хотите грамотно писать на русском языке, то надо выучить основные морфемы из которых образуются русские слова. Например, слово &quot;cделать&quot; произносится как [zdel٨t'], но зная, что есть приставка &quot;с-&quot; и суффиксы &quot;-а&quot; и &quot;-ть&quot; пишем именно так. В целом русская графика гораздо ближе к произношению, чем та же английская. Есть несколько несложных законов редукции и ассимиляции, плюс сравнительно небольшое количество слов с историческим написанием, в остальном же написание соответствует произношению.&#xD;&#xA;Во взятом Вами слове &quot;привет&quot; можно допустить две ошибки: &quot;пр(и/е)ве(т/д). Согласная на конце слова проявляется если слово просклонять &quot;с приве**т**ом&quot;, здесь &quot;т&quot; уже в сильной позиции перед гласной, значит и в слабой позиции пишем &quot;т&quot;. Гласные звуки проверяются ударением, но в данном случае это невозможно, значит, нужно запомнить, или свериться со словарём." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24250" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="8b793b2a-1564-4dac-957f-5fc8018b1c4c" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:48:27.667" UserId="5288" Comment="some stylistic changes" Text="Как вы запоминаете побуквенное правописание слов | How do you remember the letter by letter spelling of words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="d2853e10-fc71-484c-b8f3-c2eee78b1787" CreationDate="2015-09-05T12:51:48.070" UserId="3680" Text="Есть еще такое значение у *припомнить*:  &#xD;&#xA;*Припомнить кому-либо что-либо* - означает угрозу/предупреждение в адрес *кого-либо*, что его поступок не будет забыт.  &#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебе это еще припомню!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она ему это еще припомнит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="93e42343-edad-4612-a226-9003f2397bd9" CreationDate="2015-09-05T14:26:47.303" UserId="5405" Comment="edited body" Text="Русская орфография основывается на морфологическом принципе. Если вы хотите грамотно писать на русском языке, то надо выучить основные морфемы из которых образуются русские слова. Например, слово &quot;cделать&quot; произносится как [zdel٨t'], но зная, что есть приставка &quot;с-&quot; и суффиксы &quot;-а&quot; и &quot;-ть&quot; пишем именно так. В целом русская графика гораздо ближе к произношению, чем та же английская. Есть несколько несложных законов редукции и ассимиляции, плюс сравнительно небольшое количество слов с историческим написанием, в остальном же написание соответствует произношению.&#xD;&#xA;Во взятом вами слове &quot;привет&quot; можно допустить две ошибки: &quot;пр(и/е)ве(т/д). Согласная на конце слова проявляется если слово просклонять &quot;с приве**т**ом&quot;, здесь &quot;т&quot; уже в сильной позиции перед гласной, значит и в слабой позиции пишем &quot;т&quot;. Гласные звуки проверяются ударением, но в данном случае это невозможно, значит, нужно запомнить, или свериться со словарём." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="2a8db20e-150c-4a08-b2c2-75a1d194d2cb" CreationDate="2015-09-05T18:23:47.373" UserId="5008" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="Все эти слова означают то же, что и **иногда** (sometimes), но при этом у каждого из них есть свои особенности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _изредка_ = иногда + (очень) редко&#xD;&#xA;- _время от времени_ = иногда + (до некоторой степени) регулярно&#xD;&#xA;- _порой_ = иногда + неожиданно, нерегулярно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как взор его был быстр и нежен,  &#xD;&#xA;Стыдлив и дерзок, а _порой_  &#xD;&#xA;Блистал послушною слезой!  &#xD;&#xA;(А.С. Пушкин &quot;Евгений Онегин&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рогожин _изредка_ и _вдруг_ начинал _иногда_ бормотать, громко, резко и бессвязно; начинал вскрикивать и смеяться...  &#xD;&#xA;(Ф.М. Достоевский &quot;Идиот&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="4fec3eec-bd89-47e3-be0f-df366c88d9f8" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:14:59.340" UserId="5956" Text="I have encountered &quot;всевеликое войско донское&quot;, but what exactly does it mean in Russian? Perhaps it is dialectal? Can it be seen in other context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="4fec3eec-bd89-47e3-be0f-df366c88d9f8" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:14:59.340" UserId="5956" Text="What does всевеликий mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="4fec3eec-bd89-47e3-be0f-df366c88d9f8" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:14:59.340" UserId="5956" Text="|лексикон|диалект|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="f18f4659-ec61-4447-b56b-a0a1bd7664de" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:26:33.850" UserId="1236" Text="**Всевеликий** [means][1] 'great to the utmost extent', it is often used in religious contexts and refers to the Lord, **Всевеликий Господь**, 'God the Almighty'. In the name of the **Всевеликое Войско Донское** this word is [also translated][2] into English as 'almighty', 'the Almighty Don Host'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Republic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10574" RevisionGUID="0f033897-08b6-4f4d-a6bc-927939ae5108" CreationDate="2015-09-07T18:20:12.837" UserId="134" Text="It's a Church Slavonic calque from Greek *παμμέγιστοσ* (&quot;the greatest of all&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Greek word had been used as a title of several Christian saints in medieval Greek literature and was calqued by Slavonic translators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tradition of using a positive Slavic adjective and the prefix *все-* to form a superlative form can be also observed in words like *всеблагий* (&quot;the kindest of all&quot;), *всемилостивый* (&quot;the most merciful of all&quot;), *всепетая* (&quot;the most praised of all&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pattern might be somewhat confusing because words like *всемогущий* (&quot;omnipotent&quot;) and *всеведущий* (&quot;omniscient&quot;) don't mean &quot;the most knowledgeable / potent of all&quot;, but rather &quot;the one who knows / can do everything&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="d8bb6b9f-f36f-48e1-a276-75c1ecab8ae7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:17:33.167" UserId="81" Comment="Добавил заголовок по смыслу." Text="Какая разница между словами: &quot;оплата&quot;, &quot;уплата&quot;, &quot;платеж&quot; и &quot;платежка&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24265" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="d8bb6b9f-f36f-48e1-a276-75c1ecab8ae7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:17:33.167" UserId="81" Comment="Добавил заголовок по смыслу." Text="Оплата, уплата, платеж, платежка - в чем разница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="d8bb6b9f-f36f-48e1-a276-75c1ecab8ae7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:17:33.167" UserId="81" Comment="Добавил заголовок по смыслу." Text="|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24267" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="d8bb6b9f-f36f-48e1-a276-75c1ecab8ae7" CreationDate="2015-09-07T19:17:33.167" Comment="Proposed by 81 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="78f6cadf-d894-4afc-acad-cfe673252bd6" CreationDate="2015-09-08T14:03:54.620" UserId="5963" Text="**Пере-рабатывать** - превращать во что-то другое, что либо совсем не имеет никаких намёков на изначальный ресурс, либо эта связь неважна и неакцентируется. Из нефти делают, например, пластмассу. То, что она сделана из нефти, для потребителя совершенно не важно. Поэтому нефть **пере**рабатывают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Об-рабатывать** - производить какие-то операции, которые не приведут к потери какой-то (пусть визуальной) связи с первоначальным материалом. Дерево **об**рабатывают и делают из него мебель, при этом то, что мебель из дерева - делает её дороже, изначальный ресурс подчёркивается, он остаётся одним из основных элементов. В тоже время дерево **пере**рабатывают в бумагу - её связь с деревом не важна для потребителя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24270" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="a3caacc2-5888-4d34-bced-617104bd96b9" CreationDate="2015-09-08T14:41:08.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/641259981824770049" />
  <row Id="24271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="2d49d0b7-3e71-4dc8-a49c-e18918cd8cfb" CreationDate="2015-09-08T20:44:10.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/641351344012455936" />
  <row Id="24272" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="5e1d0e68-5208-44b1-a9ca-9e0bc4d83cea" CreationDate="2015-09-09T02:44:11.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/641441941855555585" />
  <row Id="24273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="e4a62a14-dcbf-4ace-ac65-ad92fffaf295" CreationDate="2015-09-09T14:27:37.037" UserId="5967" Text="I was wondering about the word &quot;perestroika,&quot; its translation and its meaning.  I understand that capital-P &quot;Perestroika&quot; is a post-Communist movement, and I believe small-p &quot;perestroika&quot; may translate to mean &quot;restructuring.&quot; I am curious if the word is only used in reference to a specific political context (capital P), or if it is a word that has other significance (small p) and/or can be used conversationally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="e4a62a14-dcbf-4ace-ac65-ad92fffaf295" CreationDate="2015-09-09T14:27:37.037" UserId="5967" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;perestroika&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="e4a62a14-dcbf-4ace-ac65-ad92fffaf295" CreationDate="2015-09-09T14:27:37.037" UserId="5967" Text="|перевод|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="3f9e323d-ebc5-4516-9832-dfc826bbffa0" CreationDate="2015-09-09T14:54:10.927" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;_Перестройка_&quot; is a &quot;normal&quot; word meaning _reconstruction_, _rebuilding_, _changeover_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10578" RevisionGUID="ec8b281f-3f7f-4389-a0e1-b5f7f45559e7" CreationDate="2015-09-09T16:01:53.617" UserId="5915" Text="I believe the term was introduced in 1985 upon election of Mikhail Gorbachev as the Secretary General of the Central Committee of CPSU (the position he continued to hold for more than six years).  So, it's not really &quot;post-Communist movement&quot;, it started by them in an attempt to modernize the regime.  &quot;**Restructuring**&quot; is the most accepted translation, as far as I could judge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used in English texts, it always refers to that process of restructuring of the economy, administration, and often along with &quot;*glasnost'* &quot; (&quot;openness&quot;).  I don't believe there is any particular reason to capitalize the word in English text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian language the word did, as the result of the events of the second half of 1980s and beginning of 1990s, gain some special meaning, which probably still lingers and will do as long as people who remember it.  Eventually it's hopefully going to regain its general meaning.  Compare with &quot;The Prohibition&quot; or &quot;The Depression&quot; in the US.  Since Russian language lacks articles, capitalization is a way to make the word special, but only in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody living now in Russia should shed some light on possible negative connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="d16db5e9-6db1-4dae-8fd7-1e3b396cdde3" CreationDate="2015-09-10T08:21:19.910" UserId="5870" Text="I found the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это мой ребёнок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up for the word and it returned &quot;a child&quot; or &quot;a baby&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that &quot;ребенок&quot; (`е`, not `ё`) also returned &quot;a child&quot; or &quot;a baby&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between the two words? How can I differentiate one from the other?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="d16db5e9-6db1-4dae-8fd7-1e3b396cdde3" CreationDate="2015-09-10T08:21:19.910" UserId="5870" Text="What is the difference between &quot;ребенок&quot; and &quot;ребёнок&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="d16db5e9-6db1-4dae-8fd7-1e3b396cdde3" CreationDate="2015-09-10T08:21:19.910" UserId="5870" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="5a7e4b63-fb62-4d1a-b127-870d3e4bef3a" CreationDate="2015-09-10T08:40:25.770" UserId="4801" Text="The only difference is the way of writing the word. In modern written Russian it is quite often acceptable to write **е** instead of **ё**, especially when there is no confusion in meaning, and **ребенок** is unambiguous. Read more in related questions: &quot;[Using written е instead of ë][1]&quot;, &quot;[Is 'ё' a distinct letter, or is it just 'е' with a diaeresis][2]?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1465/is-%D1%91-a-distinct-letter-or-is-it-just-%D0%B5-with-a-diaeresis?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="baf5fc26-31f6-43c2-a48a-3d3d62116b2c" CreationDate="2015-09-10T09:02:24.750" UserId="4342" Text="**е** and **ё** is a equal in most times, but in official documents, passports and other this difference have big value (and make big problems, if in password **ё** and in other documents - **е**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ё** used as ligature for **йо**: ёлка, ёж, тяжёлый (but *йогурт*, not *ёгурт*). Also **ё** used in handwriting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In books and press uses **е** for replace **ё** (simple tipesettings) without losing values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article in Wikipedia about **ё** (RUS).][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81_%28%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24291" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="ed8806e2-6638-4c79-9daa-34617da4a928" CreationDate="2015-09-10T09:04:22.990" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="5573cb5f-29e0-41be-972e-294ddccb956c" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:48:37.053" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Русская орфография основывается на морфологическом принципе. Если вы хотите грамотно писать на русском языке, то надо выучить основные морфемы из которых образуются русские слова. Например, слово &quot;cделать&quot; произносится как [zd'el٨t'], но зная, что есть приставка &quot;с-&quot; и суффиксы &quot;-а&quot; и &quot;-ть&quot; пишем именно так. В целом русская графика гораздо ближе к произношению, чем та же английская. Есть несколько несложных законов редукции и ассимиляции, плюс сравнительно небольшое количество слов с историческим написанием, в остальном же написание соответствует произношению.&#xD;&#xA;Во взятом вами слове &quot;привет&quot; можно допустить две ошибки: &quot;пр(и/е)ве(т/д). Согласная на конце слова проявляется если слово просклонять &quot;с приве**т**ом&quot;, здесь &quot;т&quot; уже в сильной позиции перед гласной, значит и в слабой позиции пишем &quot;т&quot;. Гласные звуки проверяются ударением, но в данном случае это невозможно, значит, нужно запомнить, или свериться со словарём." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="43866b15-33e8-4b97-96b4-c10259300155" CreationDate="2015-09-10T18:44:51.660" UserId="1860" Text="&quot;Motherworld&quot; is not an actual word in English - it is missing not just from Google Translate but from all major dictionaries. It is not possible to provide an accurate translation because there can be no consensus on the meaning of a made-up word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen &quot;mother world&quot; (two separate words) used in science fiction. If that was indeed the context you were looking for, I would say *планета происхождения*, or *планета-мать*, or *мать-планета*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="6960fba3-0d52-4f85-b3e4-3daf18ba90d7" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:06:01.230" UserId="5977" Text="I'm newbie in both English and Russian, so sorry.&#xD;&#xA;But Russian is pretty much more difficult for me... Trying to translate few sentences for about a hour... :) I'm especially confused by two words and their usage in conjunction with other ones. Can't understand at all!&#xD;&#xA;К тому же, *по деньгами у них - не **ахти***. Но вот за что я ручаюсь - я не был у них в голове, не телепат, но выглядят и ведут себя они намного веселее и раскованнее, чем у нас. *Нету у людей **напряга***.&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe this sentences are wrongly composed and there are no meaning at all?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="6960fba3-0d52-4f85-b3e4-3daf18ba90d7" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:06:01.230" UserId="5977" Text="What is the meaning of these specific words? (text below)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="6960fba3-0d52-4f85-b3e4-3daf18ba90d7" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:06:01.230" UserId="5977" Text="|перевод|значения|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="71dc7003-4c03-4caa-9a92-2a3dc28600e2" CreationDate="2015-09-11T05:40:57.843" UserId="5008" Text="_Не ахти_ means _not too well_. _Напряг_ is a slanguish word meaning _trouble_. I hope that would be sufficent to catch the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is you're trying to understand a &quot;spoken&quot; language which is not a good place to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="e64af9ae-2b6d-40df-bf11-707ef3e7d611" CreationDate="2015-09-11T06:04:03.443" UserId="5008" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="_Не ахти_ means _not too well_. _Напряг_ is a slanguish word meaning _trouble_. I hope that would be sufficient to catch the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is you're trying to understand a &quot;spoken&quot; language which is not a good place to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24306" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="345d78ff-87e9-49a3-88a3-018fe5eecc02" CreationDate="2015-09-11T07:54:23.860" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the meaning of these specific words: &quot;не ахти&quot;, &quot;напряг&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10592" RevisionGUID="14656dbb-ba8f-4dd9-ae5b-aee1d79fc847" CreationDate="2015-09-11T08:16:36.343" UserId="5978" Text="Learn one language at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk of mistaking which language something you learned belongs to is less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the real advantage is you will learn the first language, or the second language much, MUCH, better than if you mix the two.  If you mix the two, you are likely to not have a preferred language.  You might feel that as a polyglot that is okay, but the listener you are speaking with will probably be a diglot, not a polyglot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monolinguals, diglots, and polyglots all think differently from each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, while you might feel you are the same as a diglot in Ukraine, the truth would be your third (fourth) etc language structure could interfere with your being understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, you would probably not notice it .... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2 cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS - move to Ukraine, it is a WONDERFUL place to live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wayne&#xD;&#xA;Luvsiesous " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="9d430f5a-8042-4a1c-8b42-0aa67fabab7c" CreationDate="2015-09-11T08:36:10.237" UserId="905" Text="Ребёнок = Ребенок, there is no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian vowels are paired this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - а - я [а - йа] &#xD;&#xA; - о - ё [о - йо] &#xD;&#xA; - у - ю [у - йу] &#xD;&#xA; - э - е [э - йэ] &#xD;&#xA; - ы - и [ы - и]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Letter ё sounds differently from e, they even are not paired. But letter ё just became unlicky for it's look, people are lasy &quot;put dots on the i's&quot;. There were modern attempts to exclude this letter from alphabet, and were movements to protect letter ё." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="46a9d3d9-d1f2-4f12-a2d7-9b7b34f303ee" CreationDate="2015-09-11T21:44:33.817" UserId="5201" Text="How does the meaning of 'столь' differ from 'так'? Based on the context of some sentences, I am inclined to view 'столь' as close to the meaning of 'настолько'. Am I correct in this thinking? For example: 'Кроме того, Берлиоза охватил необоснованный, но столь сильный страх, что ему захотелось тотчас же бежать с Патриарших без оглядки.'&#xA;&#xA;Also, is 'столь' useful to know by itself (that is, unique in meaning) or just a secondary synonym?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="46a9d3d9-d1f2-4f12-a2d7-9b7b34f303ee" CreationDate="2015-09-11T21:44:33.817" UserId="5201" Text="'Столь' versus 'так'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="46a9d3d9-d1f2-4f12-a2d7-9b7b34f303ee" CreationDate="2015-09-11T21:44:33.817" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="561d9858-1ab8-4bf7-bb7b-eb8d087fdca5" CreationDate="2015-09-11T22:11:02.997" UserId="5915" Text="Interesting to note that '**столь**' in the quote you give cannot be replaced with '**так**', but would require '**такой**' instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference in meaning between '**столь**' and '**так**' does not really exist.  Both are adverbs in the use where they are synonyms, but keep in mind that '**столь**' (or its full prototype '**настолько**') can be used to modify adverbs as well as adjectives, but '**так**' turns into '**такой**' (такая, такое) with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples.  Italics designate adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я Вас люблю **так** искренно, **так** нежно...  &#xD;&#xA;Не **столь** *страшен* грипп, как его осложнения.  &#xD;&#xA;Вы **столь** *забывчивы*, сколь незабвенны.  &#xD;&#xA;Голос у нее ***такой*** *тихий*, ***такой*** *нежный*, ***такой*** *невинный*...  &#xD;&#xA;Опять выглянуло солнышко, да ***такое*** *весёлое*, яркое!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="517bf1fd-5c7f-4433-af4f-731891324b56" CreationDate="2015-09-11T22:26:45.817" UserId="5201" Text="I wish I could find a more directly way to phrase this question, but as an English speaker learning Russian, I rarely use the word 'ведь'. I am interested in two things from native speakers: 1) In your view, is 'ведь' necessary to use in order to express some thoughts/types of sentences (examples are very welcome), 2) If so, how do I incorporate it more into my speech? How would you recommend conceptualizing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="517bf1fd-5c7f-4433-af4f-731891324b56" CreationDate="2015-09-11T22:26:45.817" UserId="5201" Text="Usage of 'ведь'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="517bf1fd-5c7f-4433-af4f-731891324b56" CreationDate="2015-09-11T22:26:45.817" UserId="5201" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="549322cc-bc59-4d61-b5a7-4e5f3f5a7cdb" CreationDate="2015-09-11T22:30:45.567" UserId="134" Text="*Столь* (or *настолько*) means quantitative &quot;so&quot; (meaning &quot;so much&quot;), and can be replaced with *так* or *такой* anywhere it cannot be confused with qualitative or classifying &quot;so&quot; (meaning &quot;in the same way&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means you should avoid using *так* when quantitative meaning is not the only possible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не настолько накрашена, чтобы принимать гостей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не так накрашена, чтобы принимать гостей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence unequivocally means &quot;I'm not wearing enough makeup to welcome my guests&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is dubious: it might mean both &quot;I'm not wearing the right makeup&quot; or &quot;I'm not wearing enough makeup&quot;. Though this sentence is a little bit ungrammatical if parsed according to the first meaning, this first meaning is what most people would perceive from this sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="2b5fd374-929f-44f0-876c-5cc4eee95ba7" CreationDate="2015-09-11T22:36:09.493" UserId="134" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="*Столь* (or *настолько*) means quantitative &quot;so&quot; (meaning &quot;so much&quot;), and can be replaced with *так* or *такой* anywhere it cannot be confused with qualitative or classifying &quot;so&quot; (meaning &quot;in the same way&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means you should avoid using *так* when quantitative meaning is not the only possible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не настолько накрашена, чтобы принимать гостей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не так накрашена, чтобы принимать гостей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence unequivocally means &quot;I'm not wearing enough makeup to welcome my guests&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is dubious: it might mean both &quot;I'm not wearing the right makeup&quot; or &quot;I'm not wearing enough makeup&quot;. Though this sentence is a little bit ungrammatical if parsed according to the first meaning, this first meaning is what most people would perceive from this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering you second question, yes, *столь* and *настолько* are complete synonyms, *столь* being the grand style form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="1fa52ae0-cc3d-4ec9-ac04-22689a8bb4e9" CreationDate="2015-09-11T23:16:43.110" UserId="134" Text="By using *ведь* in a question, you make it sound confirming something you already know (*ведь* is etymologically related to &quot;I know&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это ты разбил чашку? // Was it you who broke the cup? (I'm genuinely interested)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ведь это ты разбил чашку? // It was you who broke the cup, wasn't it? (I'd be surprised if it wasn't you)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="298702ca-f386-40ad-a8d3-0192ea8e8fb8" CreationDate="2015-09-12T09:24:00.743" UserId="5443" Text="Typically, *ведь* is a part of a phrase explaining the reason for something, most often it's a reminder that the reason is known (or easily understandable) to those addressed. It sounds like '*as you know*', '*as we both know*', '*as everybody knows*','*as I already knew*' , '*since*', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мыть посуду придётся тебе, ведь это ты оставил тарелки после еды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's your turn to wash the dishes since it was you who left those plates on the table after dinner.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я поспешил скрыться, ведь он собирался меня убить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I made a quick escape: I knew he was going to kill me.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10599" RevisionGUID="e328e02a-48c4-4e4a-ab7b-5fbfce210c82" CreationDate="2015-09-12T10:19:40.677" UserId="5443" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="Typically, *ведь* is a part of a phrase explaining the reason for something, most often it's a reminder that the reason is known (or easily understandable) to those addressed. It sounds like '*as you know*', '*as we both know*', '*as everybody knows*','*as I already knew*' , '*since*', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мыть посуду придётся тебе, ведь это ты оставил тарелки после еды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It's your turn to wash the dishes since it was you who left those plates on the table after dinner.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я поспешил скрыться, ведь он собирался меня убить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I made a quick escape: I knew he was going to kill me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** Where to use or not to use it. As with the equivalent expressions above: in official documents, something like *потому что* (because) should be used instead. In case of a dialogue or some interactive writing *ведь* implies the listener or reader would definitely agree with what is said or written just after that word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="5bd1b3d1-826f-4715-9afd-b62496f70dd7" CreationDate="2015-09-12T11:46:46.860" UserId="5915" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Interesting to note that '**столь**' in the quote you give cannot be replaced with '**так**', but would require '**такой**' instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference in meaning between '**столь**' and '**так**' does not really exist.  Both are adverbs in the use where they are synonyms, but keep in mind that '**столь**' (or its full prototype '**настолько**') can be used to modify adverbs as well as adjectives, but '**так**' turns into '**такой**' (такая, такое) with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples.  Italics designate adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я Вас любил **так** искренно, **так** нежно...  &#xD;&#xA;Не **столь** *страшен* грипп, как его осложнения.  &#xD;&#xA;Вы **столь** *забывчивы*, сколь незабвенны.  &#xD;&#xA;Голос у нее ***такой*** *тихий*, ***такой*** *нежный*, ***такой*** *невинный*...  &#xD;&#xA;Опять выглянуло солнышко, да ***такое*** *весёлое*, яркое!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As [Quassnoi][1] points out (thank you!), with shortened adjectives the shortened form of '**такой**' ('*такая*', '*такое*') -- '**так**' -- is used:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Начался штурм города, и **так** силён был натиск армии семерых вождей...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/134/quassnoi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10600" RevisionGUID="a60c4267-7551-4204-9e60-0772c1ec11e7" CreationDate="2015-09-13T19:09:25.637" UserId="5988" Text="Мы не говорим так! Можно так сказать только ради шутки и только лишь! Надо просто найти подходящий эквивалент этому выражению i'll win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я выиграю битву.&#xD;&#xA;Я смогу победить в этой битве.&#xD;&#xA;Я сделаю тебя сегодня! (в матче, в игре).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="890e07cc-1404-45e1-a877-0f464d725f16" CreationDate="2015-09-13T20:13:07.410" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="I have referenced a few Russian lesson pages, but I have not come up with an answer for why the ending changes in this particular manner. Could somebody explain this to me? I had thought that the change was from “е” to “я”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="890e07cc-1404-45e1-a877-0f464d725f16" CreationDate="2015-09-13T20:13:07.410" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why does &quot;животное&quot; become &quot;животные&quot; when &quot;animal&quot; becomes &quot;animals&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10601" RevisionGUID="890e07cc-1404-45e1-a877-0f464d725f16" CreationDate="2015-09-13T20:13:07.410" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10603" RevisionGUID="8681dbeb-1851-4a4b-a256-678c9771e9f9" CreationDate="2015-09-13T20:44:45.680" UserId="5443" Text="The ending changes similar to those of adjectives (зелёное, зелёные и т.п.) since this word was originally an adjective. You can think of it as short form of &quot;животное существо&quot; (animal creature)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4138" RevisionGUID="f54749d4-3e5c-4a93-8254-cf13c850b412" CreationDate="2015-09-13T20:44:57.693" UserId="194" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;    слух на слуху о слухе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="ec9598d7-6837-417a-b8c7-7d1ee88e85fd" CreationDate="2015-09-13T21:14:19.110" UserId="5989" Text="What is difference between the terms гроссмейстер-многоходовщик and simply гроссмейстер?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="ec9598d7-6837-417a-b8c7-7d1ee88e85fd" CreationDate="2015-09-13T21:14:19.110" UserId="5989" Text="What is difference between гроссмейстер-многоходовщик and simply гроссмейстер?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="ec9598d7-6837-417a-b8c7-7d1ee88e85fd" CreationDate="2015-09-13T21:14:19.110" UserId="5989" Text="|значения|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="d124bd4d-4b90-4f92-86f2-144b3c4fb142" CreationDate="2015-09-13T21:49:01.973" UserId="5605" Text="Гроссмейстер (нем. Großmeister «большой мастер») - высшее шахматное звание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80_(%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Официального звания &quot;гроссмейстер-многоходовщик&quot; не существует. **Многоходовщик** - это слово не из официального, а из разговорного стиля речи. Так называют человека со стратегическим складом ума, умеющего просчитывать свои действия на много &quot;ходов&quot; вперёд. И это качество совсем не обязательно имеет отношение к шахматам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="99689acc-fd7a-4fc2-ad12-c57970436c90" CreationDate="2015-09-13T21:57:52.797" UserId="5605" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Гроссмейстер (нем. Großmeister «большой мастер») - высшее шахматное звание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80_(%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Официального звания &quot;гроссмейстер-многоходовщик&quot; не существует. **Многоходовщик** - это слово не из официального, а из разговорного стиля речи. Так называют человека со стратегическим складом ума, умеющего просчитывать свои действия на много &quot;ходов&quot; вперёд. И это качество совсем не обязательно имеет отношение к шахматам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="99bf03b7-85af-45c9-b932-c0d6654ce4a6" CreationDate="2015-09-13T22:15:01.190" UserId="5605" Comment="added 308 characters in body" Text="Гроссмейстер (нем. Großmeister «большой мастер») - высшее шахматное звание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80_(%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Официального звания &quot;гроссмейстер-многоходовщик&quot; не существует. **Многоходовщик** - это слово не из официального, а из разговорного стиля речи. Так называют человека со стратегическим складом ума, умеющего просчитывать свои действия на много &quot;ходов&quot; вперёд. И это качество совсем не обязательно имеет отношение к шахматам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The official title of &quot;grandmaster-многоходовщик&quot; does not exist. **Многоходовщик**  - the word is not official and colloquial style of speech. So call a person with a strategic mind, able to recognize their actions on a lot of &quot;moves&quot; forward. And this quality does not necessarily has to do with chess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="01025eab-8088-4bb2-91c8-98dc6b3877f3" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:19:53.450" UserId="5543" Text="Из моего чувства, утвержденного словарем Academic.ru, я уже знаю, что это сочетание означает: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Народн. Ирон.* Быстро, не сомневаясь и не раздумывая, справиться с чем-л.  Выражение возникло под влиянием оборота одним ударом семерых из сказки братьев Гримм «Храбрый портняжка» (1814 г.). Форма (аористная) убивахом (побивахом) стилизована под старославянский. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значить *семерый*? Существует ли вообще ещё аорист на русском языке? Есть ли у него такое же значение, как у древнегреческого аориста?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="01025eab-8088-4bb2-91c8-98dc6b3877f3" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:19:53.450" UserId="5543" Text="Одним махом семерых погибахом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="01025eab-8088-4bb2-91c8-98dc6b3877f3" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:19:53.450" UserId="5543" Text="|пословицы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="546fb0c7-c5f9-4e92-8bcb-4ebda99cc81f" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:23:39.547" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Не было никаких примет, по которым можно было предсказать появление Кондуктора, ни одной, кроме того, что ты вылез на поверхность. Ты вылез на поверхность, а стало быть, живёшь без билета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как лучше понять это сочетание *стало быть* в этим контексте? Никакие из предложений моего словаря не подходят мне к контексту. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="546fb0c7-c5f9-4e92-8bcb-4ebda99cc81f" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:23:39.547" UserId="5543" Text="Стало быть - значение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="546fb0c7-c5f9-4e92-8bcb-4ebda99cc81f" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:23:39.547" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="627f4deb-a971-4e22-a619-ea5216050c2b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:28:58.637" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Значит, они стали переходить через мост. Дайте, мы вам объясним. Видите ли, товарищ, это так называемые павловские собаки. Была легенда, мы полагаем, что это только легенда, которая рассказывает о том, что в Институте физиологии имени Павлова жили экспериментальные собаки…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня всегда учили, что как соответствие *let's* используется слово *давай/давайте*. Здесь я встретил вместо этого *дай/дайте*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какое-то различие между этими глаголами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="627f4deb-a971-4e22-a619-ea5216050c2b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:28:58.637" UserId="5543" Text="Дайте или давайте" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="627f4deb-a971-4e22-a619-ea5216050c2b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:28:58.637" UserId="5543" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="5de94846-b6e9-44c1-83ef-78f32fdb8672" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:31:43.117" UserId="5008" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Из моего чувства, подтвержденного словарем Academic.ru, я уже знаю, что это сочетание означает: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Народн. Ирон.* Быстро, не сомневаясь и не раздумывая, справиться с чем-л.  Выражение возникло под влиянием оборота одним ударом семерых из сказки братьев Гримм «Храбрый портняжка» (1814 г.). Форма (аористная) убивахом (побивахом) стилизована под старославянский. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значить *семерых*? Существует ли вообще ещё аорист на русском языке? Есть ли у него такое же значение, как у древнегреческого аориста?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="5de94846-b6e9-44c1-83ef-78f32fdb8672" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:31:43.117" UserId="5008" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Одним махом семерых побивахом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="e1080afa-04d6-4e67-9b51-34d11c1acad5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:33:08.493" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Можно, конечно, **мокрыми печальными птицами** сидеть тут, ожидая момента, пока вода спадёт, но, во-первых, она реально фонила, а во-вторых, неизвестно ещё, кто к нам приплывет снизу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понял бы это как *Можно, конечно, сидеть тут, как мокрые печальные птицы (...)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно ли всегда использовать творительный падеж в таком смысле, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он дрался за выживание львом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он дрался за выживание как лев." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="e1080afa-04d6-4e67-9b51-34d11c1acad5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:33:08.493" UserId="5543" Text="Мокрыми печальными птицами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="e1080afa-04d6-4e67-9b51-34d11c1acad5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:33:08.493" UserId="5543" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="d66efb96-9f54-4e9d-a67a-e8ec3fe8a7f2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:38:21.983" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Я всё больше держался Кролика. **Кролик был вор** с мистическим уклоном. Жулик и вор он был, впрочем, вполне нормальный. А вот его дружок по грибной тематике был человек особенный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему здесь автор не написал *Кролик был вором*, и вместо этого использовался именительный падеж? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="d66efb96-9f54-4e9d-a67a-e8ec3fe8a7f2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:38:21.983" UserId="5543" Text="Быть с именительным падежом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="d66efb96-9f54-4e9d-a67a-e8ec3fe8a7f2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:38:21.983" UserId="5543" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="8dc8fb39-e3b5-4b9d-8d94-6001d4a62c4a" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:42:37.860" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; — Ему Пушкин лиру передал, а мы отдувайся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы - это 1. особа мн. ч., отдувайся - 2. особа ед. ч. Почему-то так смешано? Нужно бы ведь грамматическую форму соответствующую местоимении *мы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="8dc8fb39-e3b5-4b9d-8d94-6001d4a62c4a" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:42:37.860" UserId="5543" Text="Несхождение особы и числа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="8dc8fb39-e3b5-4b9d-8d94-6001d4a62c4a" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:42:37.860" UserId="5543" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="35f8508d-e19a-446d-99f9-da3b8f464e12" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:45:14.797" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Надобны для этого любовь и в человецех благоволение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я нашёл, что это фрагмент Евангелии. Но есть слово *человецех* вообще русское, или может это слово из церковнославянского?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="35f8508d-e19a-446d-99f9-da3b8f464e12" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:45:14.797" UserId="5543" Text="Слово человецех" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="35f8508d-e19a-446d-99f9-da3b8f464e12" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:45:14.797" UserId="5543" Text="|слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="1e122b65-a25b-4b43-b221-36223073998a" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:47:32.020" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Что значит *семерых*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Семерых* is acc. of *семеро*, which is the collective form of the numeral *семь* (&quot;seven&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used with animate masculine or neuter nouns denoting sentient beings to describe sets of such beings: *двое рабочих, пятеро строителей, семеро богов*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is similar to English &quot;pair&quot; or &quot;dozen&quot; (but extends to all numbers from 2 to 10), and directly corresponds to Polish *troje*, *siedmioro* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существует ли вообще ещё аорист в русском языке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No it does not. All past forms had been replaced with a single past form originating from perfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть ли у него такое же значение, как у древнегреческого аориста?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Church Slavonic uses aorist in pretty much the same way Modern English uses past simple: to describe one-off, integral events in past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this form (*убивахом*) is plural and imperfect (&quot;we used to kill&quot;) and is here only for styling purposes. It's ungrammatical if parsed according to Church Slavonic rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="1e77010a-a03f-4cc3-87bc-0b89b5dcae33" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:48:22.027" UserId="5008" Text="_Семерых_ - это винительный падеж от _семеро_. Это форма числительного, именуемая _собирательная_. Например, _семеро одного не ждут_; _трое в лодке, не считая собаки_; _двое - это компания, а трое - уже толпа_ и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Аорист_ в современном русском языке не используется, хотя попадаются вот такие отдельные реликты. Насчёт истории, вопрос довольно сложный, так как аорист присутствует и в церковнославянском, и в древнерусском языках. Церковнославянский же язык, как известно, был создан &quot;с оглядкой&quot; на древнегреческий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="114252ff-7deb-43e6-bd24-a94d1ec6dee5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:50:42.427" UserId="134" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Благодаря моей догадке, подтвержденной словарем Academic.ru, я уже выяснил, что это словосочетание означает: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Народн. Ирон.* Быстро, не сомневаясь и не раздумывая, справиться с чем-л.  Выражение возникло под влиянием оборота одним ударом семерых из сказки братьев Гримм «Храбрый портняжка» (1814 г.). Форма (аористная) убивахом (побивахом) стилизована под старославянский. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит *семерых*? Существует ли вообще ещё аорист в русском языке? Есть ли у него такое же значение, как у древнегреческого аориста?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="aee61913-4577-4c7f-b380-2ed18411d181" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:50:53.967" UserId="5543" Text="&gt; Из-за тебя я ухаживала за твоим товарищем, и вот он встал на ноги. А мне никто ничего не должен. Я, значит, всем должна?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всегда меня учили, что должен значит то же, что *should*. Видимо, это не такая ситуация. Как бы лучше всего понять значение слова *должен* в этим контексте? Может *у меня обязательности для кого-либо*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="aee61913-4577-4c7f-b380-2ed18411d181" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:50:53.967" UserId="5543" Text="Слово должен в значении другом чем &quot;should&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="aee61913-4577-4c7f-b380-2ed18411d181" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:50:53.967" UserId="5543" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="aa246d88-6ffb-4368-ae8c-3e6c1fa5daf2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T10:57:00.597" UserId="5008" Text="_Стало быть_ = _значит_, _следовательно_. Само сочетание когда-то являлось формой прошедшего времени (перфект) от глагола _стать_, но в современном русском языке перфекта больше нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="1086326c-8a51-4aaf-8157-5a8377b57ab3" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:00:58.010" UserId="5605" Text="СТАЛО БЫТЬ, вводное выражение и союз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Вводное выражение. То же, что «следовательно, значит, выходит». Выделяется знаками препинания, обычно запятыми. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но, на беду, это все был народ, с которым было трудно ладить, народ торопливый, занятой или же принадлежащий свету, – стало быть, еще более занятой, нежели всякий другой, и потому нетерпеливый до крайности. Н. Гоголь, Портрет. Ты, стало быть, уже уезжаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Союз. Синтаксические конструкции с союзом «стало быть» обособляются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорю, выходи, стало быть и выходи! А. Чехов, Маска. Яков не искал реальных, осязательных последствий от своего стучания для того дела, за которое он «стоял» столь неуклонно среди глухих стен и не менее глухих к его обличениям людей; он видел «пользу» уже в самом факте «стояния» за Бога и за великого государя, стало быть поступал так «для души». В. Короленко, Яшка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В Вашем предложении &quot;стало быть&quot; - вводное выражение.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10618" RevisionGUID="a9410f12-318f-4345-97dc-04b50029edd2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:02:42.267" UserId="134" Text="Yes, it's a Church Slavonic word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern Russian does not use plural of *человек* at all (it would be *в людях*), and even if it would do, it would revert the second palatalization on the morpheme boundary (that is, it would be _*в человеках_)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="b446cd4a-37d2-442a-883d-b8c5e8acda5f" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:03:37.557" UserId="134" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; Надобны для этого любовь и в человецех благоволение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я выяснил, что это фрагмент из Евангелия. Но русское ли вообще слово *человецех*, или, может, это слово из церковнославянского?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="f7b57c35-c55a-4e8d-a7d0-4e69727ab916" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:05:46.640" UserId="5008" Text="_Дай_ - это императив от глагола _дать_ (совершенный вид), а _давай_ - императив от _давать_ (несовершенный вид).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Грубо говоря, _дай_ = дай сделать **мне**, а _давай_ = давай сделаем **вместе** (иногда также, сделай **сам**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="cdd1277f-2fef-47a4-ab84-3e50689c04e9" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:06:40.463" UserId="5605" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="СТАЛО БЫТЬ, вводное выражение и союз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Вводное выражение. **То же, что «следовательно, значит, выходит».** Выделяется знаками препинания, обычно запятыми. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но, на беду, это все был народ, с которым было трудно ладить, народ торопливый, занятой или же принадлежащий свету, – стало быть, еще более занятой, нежели всякий другой, и потому нетерпеливый до крайности. Н. Гоголь, Портрет. Ты, стало быть, уже уезжаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Союз. Синтаксические конструкции с союзом «стало быть» обособляются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорю, выходи, стало быть и выходи! А. Чехов, Маска. Яков не искал реальных, осязательных последствий от своего стучания для того дела, за которое он «стоял» столь неуклонно среди глухих стен и не менее глухих к его обличениям людей; он видел «пользу» уже в самом факте «стояния» за Бога и за великого государя, стало быть поступал так «для души». В. Короленко, Яшка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В Вашем предложении &quot;стало быть&quot; - вводное выражение.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10620" RevisionGUID="9b3cf7c8-2fb2-431d-82d8-6f5baaa3a19d" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:13:19.617" UserId="134" Text="This passage might mean something like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've been taking care of your friend, and look at him now, back on his feet. But none owes me anything. So what, was it me who owed everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian modal *должен* (that without nominal object) does not really distinguish between &quot;can&quot;, &quot;ought&quot; (= &quot;owed&quot;), &quot;should&quot; or &quot;must&quot;, it requires context to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when used with the nominal subject in dative (*быть должным кому-то*), it means &quot;to owe someone&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="53bca534-7b97-4555-a5c1-cdd774effb03" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:14:33.043" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Из-за тебя я ухаживала за твоим товарищем, и вот он встал на ноги. А мне никто ничего не должен. Я, значит, всем должна?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня всегда учили, что *должен* значит то же, что и *should*. Видимо, здесь это не так. Как бы лучше всего понять значение слова *должен* в этом контексте? Может, *у меня обязанности перед кем-либо*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10621" RevisionGUID="7c175d39-c783-4618-839a-28b4d1b0b341" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:16:10.800" UserId="5008" Text="Даже затрудняюсь объяснить какое тут правило действует, но почему-то всегда говорят _дрался как лев_, а вот, например, _юркнул ужом_ - вполне нормально. В общем, тут всё зависит от глагола." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f864a396-077b-4a51-a071-be2e46c67af0" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:18:25.610" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; — Ему Пушкин лиру передал, а мы отдувайся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы - это 1 лицо мн. ч., отдувайся - 2 лицо ед. ч. Почему так смешано? Здесь ведь нужно бы использовать грамматическую форму, соответствующую местоимению *мы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f864a396-077b-4a51-a071-be2e46c67af0" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:18:25.610" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Несхождение лица и числа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="e8b5d670-8399-4846-af83-378d15715364" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:19:41.370" UserId="5443" Text="It's like this (the literal meaning of *должен* here is 'to be in debt'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been taking care of your mate, now he's on his own feet again. Looks like no one owes me anything. Does that all mean I'm the only one who always owes everyone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="3990ec63-06a1-4752-b673-b5527769065e" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:20:41.817" UserId="5605" Text="В данном случае можно сказать, что **&quot;должен&quot;, &quot;должна&quot; означает наличие обязательств перед кем-то.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; А мне никто ничего не должен. Я, значит, всем должна? - **А передо мной ни у кого нет никаких обязательств. А у меня, значит, есть обязательства перед всеми.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="c23b1bb1-553a-4c38-a559-5c57480a0c6c" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:21:16.653" UserId="5008" Text="_Был вором_ = занимался воровством; _был вор_ = являлся вором по своей сути.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это примерно как в английском _What he was_ vs _Who he was_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="b962607b-3bec-485b-86fe-2604298ee901" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:26:26.963" UserId="5605" Comment="edited body" Text="В данном случае можно сказать, что **&quot;должен&quot;, &quot;должна&quot; означает наличие обязательств перед кем-то.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; А мне никто ничего не должен. Я, значит, всем должна? - **А передо мной ни у кого нет никаких обязательств. А у меня, значит, есть обязательства перед всеми?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="660296eb-524d-48d0-a700-55167431c614" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:35:00.187" UserId="5605" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="В данном случае можно сказать, что **&quot;должен&quot;, &quot;должна&quot; означает наличие обязательств перед кем-то.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; А мне никто ничего не должен. Я, значит, всем должна? - **А передо мной ни у кого нет никаких обязательств. А у меня, значит, есть обязательства перед всеми?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we can say that &quot;must&quot;, &quot;must&quot; means that there are commitments in front of someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I don't have to. I mean, everyone needs? - In front of me and no one has any obligations. And I have, therefore, has obligations to all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="fa5323eb-ba16-4c5d-9bcd-bfc0e4bf371d" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:53:23.987" UserId="2388" Text="&quot;Отдувайся&quot; is the imperative form. One of a number of indirect uses of imperative is *the imperative of obligation* ([here](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2#482)). It is typically used in the folowing structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Situation], а [obligation]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One part of such a sentence describes the situation that leads to the necessity of performing an action the speaker considers unpleasant (which is described in the second part). The action one is forced to perform is in imperative then. It usually should be performed  by the first person, and this person would rather avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Он даже будильник не поставил, а мы теперь жди его. ~ He did not even set his alarm clock, and now we should wait for him (which we are not happy about)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10626" RevisionGUID="82c3b2f5-4712-4f9d-89a3-d51b102e7f96" CreationDate="2015-09-14T11:55:15.253" UserId="5008" Text="Это повелительное наклонение, а в русском императиве нет формы для первого лица (за исключением _побудительной_ у некоторых глаголов, типа _идёмте_, _умрёмте_ и т.п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае _мы - отдувайся_ то же, что _нам отдуваться_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="080a6ea7-9ba3-498f-86fa-756a7f19a84d" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:06:05.070" UserId="5443" Text="Не существует глагольный формы повелительного наклонения, согласованной с первым лицом (себе не приказывают; здесь &quot;мы&quot;), поэтому применяется вариант без попытки согласования и с множественным числом - это не привело бы к упорядочиванию. Домысливается, будто каждому из &quot;нас&quot; приказали: отдувайся.&#xD;&#xA;Альтернативной формой мог бы быть отказ от повелительного наклонения: &quot;а нам (приходится) отдуваться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** Похожий случай сочетания повелительного наклонения с третьим лицом мн.ч.: &quot;а они возьми, да и умри оба&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="094785dc-7524-4616-8b3f-3ec52965984a" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:27:17.020" UserId="5405" Text="Категорического запрета нет, но при использовании творительного падежа возможна двусмысленность. Например, в вашем примере &quot;Он дрался за выживание львом&quot;, у меня первое впечатление от фразы было будто он использовал льва как оружие в драке. В меньшей степени двуссмысленность проявляется при изменении порядка слов, *Он львом дрался за выживание*, поэтому в таких конструкциях слово в творительном падеже **всегда** должно стоять перед сказуемым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я волком бы выгрыз** бюрократизм.  &#xD;&#xA;К мандатам почтения нету.   &#xD;&#xA;К любым чертям с матерями катись  &#xD;&#xA;любая бумажка. Но эту...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В. В. Маяковский &quot;Стихи о советском паспорте&quot; 1929 г." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="b0b42331-346e-42aa-a6bd-4d3bb21890c2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:36:07.853" UserId="5008" Comment="added 384 characters in body" Text="_Дай_ - это императив от глагола _дать_ (совершенный вид), а _давай_ - императив от _давать_ (несовершенный вид).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Грубо говоря, _дай_ = дай сделать **мне**, а _давай_ = давай сделаем **вместе** (иногда также, сделай **сам**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Да, вместо _дайте мы вам объясним_, нужно говорить _давайте мы вам объясним_, но это одна из тех &quot;разговорных&quot; ошибок на грани просторечия, которые время от времени допускают почти все носители языка. В данном случае, возможно, текст был стилизован под разговорную речь, возможно также, что там велось повествование от имени некоего не слишком интеллигентного субъекта и т.п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="0119d74e-954b-4a02-a360-36107b249ce2" CreationDate="2015-09-14T12:49:45.873" UserId="5443" Text="Судя по внешним признакам, *обстоятельство образа действия* с использованием существительных в тв. падеже должно однозначно *связываться с глаголом* - от этого зависит сама возможность построения фразы. В предложении &quot;Он дрался за выживание львом&quot; связь с глаголом не просматривается и смысл &quot;дрался (как?) подобно льву&quot; утерян полностью (возникает вопрос: что за &quot;выживание львом&quot; - превратился во льва и выжил?). В то же время, при другом порядке слов смысл можно поправить, хотя по стилю выражение останется не совсем удачным: &quot;он львом дрался за выживание&quot; - это уже понятно (дрался храбро как лев), хотя изящества этому выражению сам приём не даёт. Возможно, для стилистических ограничений имеет значение сочетаемость (или даже идиоматическая связь) глагола с используемыми существительными: птицы сидят, волки грызут добычу...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я волком бы выгрыз бюрократизм... (В. Маяковский)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вывод такой: фразу таким способом можно построить практически всегда, но не всегда она будет выглядеть естественной. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="11631ee5-3667-4fd9-af31-02be64f25711" CreationDate="2015-09-14T13:08:52.583" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;Дайте&lt;/kbd&gt; мы объясним (выполним, сделаем, ...)&#xD;&#xA; Give us the function of explanation (execution, doing, ...)&#xD;&#xA; Hand over the function of (...) to us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;Давайте&lt;/kbd&gt; мы объясним (выполним, сделаем, ...)&#xD;&#xA; Let us explain (execute, do, ...) that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Give me a chance to explain...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;Дайте&lt;/kbd&gt; мне шанс объясниться... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Let me explain...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;Давайте&lt;/kbd&gt; я поясню... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В приведенных выше примерах Вы не можете заменить &lt;kbd&gt;Давайте&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;≠&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;Дайте&lt;/kbd&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May I &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;explain&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; that?&#xD;&#xA;             \ ____________with emphasis on&#xD;&#xA;              \&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;Давайте&lt;/kbd&gt; я &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;объясню&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; May &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;I&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; explain that?&#xD;&#xA;      \ __________________with emphasis on&#xD;&#xA;       \&#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;Дайте&lt;/kbd&gt; &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;я&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; это объясню.&#xD;&#xA;         \&#xD;&#xA;Позвольте &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;мне&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; это объяснить?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В этих примерах возможна замена &lt;kbd&gt;Давайте&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;=&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;Дайте&lt;/kbd&gt; , если смысловой [акцент, усиление, ударение] сделан типографически." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10620" RevisionGUID="79195867-e178-49aa-875e-41c47667de73" CreationDate="2015-09-14T13:13:57.253" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This passage might mean something like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've been taking care of your friend, and look at him now, back on his feet. But none owes me anything. So what, was it me who owed everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian modal *должен* (that without nominal object) does not really distinguish between &quot;can&quot;, &quot;ought&quot; (= &quot;owed&quot;), &quot;should&quot; or &quot;must&quot;, it requires context to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when used with the nominal object in dative (*быть должным кому-то*), it means &quot;to owe someone&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10631" RevisionGUID="32fbc2bb-c8ff-4875-8c62-c91d20f43b52" CreationDate="2015-09-14T13:14:43.237" UserId="4560" Text="**Животное** is a nominalised adjective. These retain their adjectival declension in Russian but are otherwise treated as nouns for all intents and purposes. So for example there's **столовая** the adjective, meaning &quot;table&quot; (as in &quot;table spoon&quot;), and there's **столовая** the noun, meaning &quot;canteen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's worth noting that **животное** and other taxonomical terms were (I think) 18th-century scholarly coinages calqued (with some liberties) from Latin and given a Church Slavonic-esque sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**животные** *Animalia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**млекопитающие** *Mammalia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**земноводные** *Amphibia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**насекомые** *Insecta*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пресмыкающиеся** *Reptilia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— and with the exception of the latter, they were these nominalised adjectives right from the start, and hadn't really had a prior history as adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where **животный** does get used as an adjective in modern Russian (as in **животная притягательность** &quot;animal magnetism&quot;), it's actually a *back*-transition into an adjective meaning &quot;of or pertaining to animals&quot;, from the noun &quot;animal&quot;, from a theoretical Church Slavonic adjective meaning &quot;endowed with life&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="e7d742cc-b68d-4103-ad20-25f7127423be" CreationDate="2015-09-14T14:09:17.223" UserId="2269" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Чего это «we can’t»? Я вот могу: «_Я побежу́_». :-) Это абсолютно корректная грамматически форма (ср. с _доложу́_, _остужу́_, _подтвержу́_ и пр.), которая однако по некоторым причинам широко не употребляется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом стоит заметить, что это не единственная глагольная форма на _-жу_ , которой русскоговорящие избегают: из того же единственного числа первого лица будущего времени можно вспомнить, например, _убежу́_ (от _убеди́ть_), _отчужу́_ (от _отчуди́ть_), из настоящего времени: _держу́_ и _бужу́_ от _дерзи́ть_ и _бузи́ть_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее правдоподобное об’яснение этому в том, что, как вы уже могли заметить, эти слова в точности совпадают с теми же грамматическими формами других, причем более распространенных, слов, а именно: _побежу́_ от _побежа́ть_, _убежу́_ от _убежа́ть_ (формы не литературные, но существующие или по меньшей мере существовавшие), _отчужу́_ от _отчужда́ть_, _держу́_ от _держа́ть_ и _бужу́_ от _буди́ть_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из неправдоподобных гипотез мне на просторах Сети встречалось утверждение, что «я побежу» было табуировано, чтоб не сглазить. Неправдоподобна она во-первых потому, что никак не об’ясняет трудностей c тем же _убедить_ и другими словами. А во-вторых потому, что в родственных языках, где смешения _побежу_ / _побегу_ не было, никакого «табу» не возникло: по-белорусски будет _я перамагу́_, по-украински _я перемо́жу_.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Форма _победю́_ грамматически некорректна и, как справедливо заметил @alex, употребляются только в юмористическом контексте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А стрелок: — Да это что за награда?   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне бы выкатить портвейна бадью!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мол, принцессу мне и даром не надо —   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чу́ду-ю́ду я и так победю.   &#xD;&#xA;[В. Высоцкий. Про дикого вепря]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Побежду́_ же, насколько я могу понять, — это корректная церковнославянская форма.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;24 И ссѣку ѿ лица єгѡ враги єгѡ, и нєнавидѧщыѧ єго побѣжду:&#xD;&#xA;[Псалом 88, Елизаветинская библия]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Откуда она проникла в русский, где эпизодически использовалась в текстах высокаго штиля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Коль любишь ты меня, пусть твой отец стремится   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Взнесенный на меня низринуть свой удар;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ко дщери я его храня во сердце жар,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Несправедливости его опровергая,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умру иль побежду, Рамиду обожая.   &#xD;&#xA;[Я. Б. Княжнин. Вадим Новгородский, 1789]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я теку на брань и побежду; хощу, да по прибытии моем в Киев, когда сердца народные упоеваться будут радостию, — хощу, да первый, кто поздравит меня с победой, — будет прелестная София.   &#xD;&#xA;[В. Т. Нарежный. Славенские вечера, 1809]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, сегодня Атрид победил с ясноокой Афиной;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;После и я побежду: покровители боги и с нами.   &#xD;&#xA;[Илиада в переводе Н. И. Гнедича, 1809–1829]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А возможно и более широко, по крайней мере именно ее дают как единственно возможную Н. И. Греч в своей «Пространной русской грамматике» (1827) и Я. К. Грот в «Русском правописании» (1902).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из однословных синонимов можно отметить _вы́играю [в чем-либо]_ и _одоле́ю [кого-либо]_, последнее относится к несколько возвышенному стилю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. После всего вышесказанного мне, кстати, перестают казаться иронией  строки из «Фортуны» М. И. Цветаевой (1919):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В который раз дивлюсь   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Убожеству мужского лексикона!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое нищенство! Люблю, убью —   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Убью — люблю… Нет, наш словарь — богаче!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Взойду, взгляну и побежду… Взгляну —  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;И не возьму...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, действительно: здесь «побежду» употреблено серьезно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. P. S. Гуглопереводчик понимает _Я побежу_ таки как _I will run_, _Я победю_ — как прошедшее _I won_, _Я побежду_ — корректно определяя стилистическую разницу, но все равно как прошедшее _I defeated_.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10620" RevisionGUID="00eff5aa-ea11-4786-a8de-42d93011f5ea" CreationDate="2015-09-14T14:14:05.583" UserId="134" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="This passage might mean something like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've been taking care of your friend, and look at him now, back on his feet. But none owes me anything. So what, was it me who owed everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian modal *должен* (that without nominal object) does not really distinguish between &quot;be&quot; (as in &quot;you are to do smth.&quot;), &quot;ought&quot; (= &quot;owed&quot;), &quot;should&quot; or &quot;must&quot;, it requires context to understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when used with the nominal object in dative (*быть должным кому-то*), it means &quot;to owe someone&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10632" RevisionGUID="eb41d2d5-8c96-44f3-85d4-e7c1bfc685e6" CreationDate="2015-09-14T15:01:31.797" UserId="5915" Text="I think that what you have here is the **complex predicate** consisting of the helping verb &quot;be&quot; (&quot;есть&quot; : &quot;был&quot; 3rd person Past Tense) *and the noun phrase*.  That is similar to the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я - пользователь на сайте StackExchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sentence '**я**' - subject and '**пользователь**' - predicate.  The verb 'есть' is omitted and replaced with a dash.  With the verb omitted the noun has nominative case.  With the verb, like in your sentence, it can be in Instrumental case or in Nominative case.  See more [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.licey.net/russian/syntax/r1_1_5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="1fd13dd5-15f3-4f6c-bd0f-f4a191a1cc21" CreationDate="2015-09-15T08:41:33.170" UserId="5269" Text="В подтверждение версии, высказанной @user4419802:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В позиции именной части сказуемого именительный падеж конкурирует с творительным падежом. Форма **именительного** падежа употребляется тогда, когда речь идет о *постоянном* признаке, присущем носителю на протяжении длительного промежутка времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Именительный падеж в позиции именной части сказуемого](http://rusgram.ru/Именительный_падеж)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Имя существительное в роли именной части употребляется обычно в формах именительного или творительного падежа. **Именительный** обозначает признак *постоянный*, *устойчивый*. При отнесенности к плану прошлого, такой именительный может восприниматься как архаичный. Признак *временный*, *непостоянный* передается чаще при помощи формы **творительного** падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Именная часть сказуемого](http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook089/01/part-015.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. в данном случае возможно такое противопоставление:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (В то время) он был **вором** (но потом прекратил заниматься воровством).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был **вор** *со стажем* (т.е. это являлось его основным занятием).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или даже оба падежа вместе:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был **вор вором** (т.е. отъявленным вором)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="03ae2b1d-01cb-4cda-9458-28b887dbb83c" CreationDate="2015-09-15T11:33:44.820" UserId="5403" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="***Дома*** - is the remnant form of the old Russian Local case(местный падеж)  which has not been retained in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian such forms are considered to be adverbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See: &quot;Морфология русского литературного языка. Наречие. Форма и значение наречий&quot; (№ 36/2004 газеты &quot;Русский язык&quot; издательского дома &quot;Первое сентября&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;UPD ***По мнению Макса Фасмера, форма &quot;дома&quot; (&quot;Я дома&quot;) является древней формой местного падежа. Реже эту форму определяют как форму Р.п., однако это маловероятно, так как историческим окончанием Р.п. слов склонения на -у, в которое входило слово &quot;дом&quot;, было окончание -у (например, &quot;из дому&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;См.: Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка: в 4 т. Изд. 3-е. Т. 1 (А - Д). СПб., 1996. С. 526-527.***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="cfc5d11d-fc8b-4850-b301-14e1ebea4589" CreationDate="2015-09-15T11:59:42.123" UserId="5991" Text="&quot;Неподавшие&quot; пишется слитно или раздельно?&#xA;Предложение:&#xA;Сделать что-то с лицами, неподавшими документы на оформление пропуска&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="cfc5d11d-fc8b-4850-b301-14e1ebea4589" CreationDate="2015-09-15T11:59:42.123" UserId="5991" Text="Как пишется &quot;неподавшие документы лица&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="cfc5d11d-fc8b-4850-b301-14e1ebea4589" CreationDate="2015-09-15T11:59:42.123" UserId="5991" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="25bfe413-4e9d-4993-b05f-3f010c611e2c" CreationDate="2015-09-15T12:10:26.703" UserId="134" Text="You should write it separately: *не подавшими*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 70.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пишется раздельно *не* с причастиями, имеющими при себе пояснительные слова, например: *не возвращенная автору рукопись, не замеченные корректором опечатки, не сданные в срок гранки, не изданные при жизни писателя варианты отдельных глав романа*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="82d4c460-0664-45f3-b018-d5a3a84a1658" CreationDate="2015-09-15T12:46:48.153" UserId="134" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="You should write it separately: *не подавшими*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 70.2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пишется раздельно *не* с причастиями, имеющими при себе пояснительные слова, например: *не возвращенная автору рукопись, не замеченные корректором опечатки, не сданные в срок гранки, не изданные при жизни писателя варианты отдельных глав романа*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечание 1. Данное правило распространяется и на те случаи, когда причастие с пояснительными словами образует часть составного сказуемого, например: *Многие письма писателя остались не опубликованными при его жизни; Бездарность сойдет со сцены не замеченной в искусстве*. Ср. в другой синтаксической конструкции: *Трудно представить себе его не участвующим активно в общественной жизни.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="64060710-95ab-4053-87ba-05b03f1b569b" CreationDate="2015-09-15T13:41:32.617" UserId="5405" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Категорического запрета нет, но при использовании творительного падежа возможна двусмысленность. Например, в вашем примере &quot;Он дрался за выживание львом&quot;, у меня первое впечатление от фразы было будто он использовал льва как оружие в драке. В меньшей степени двуссмысленность проявляется при изменении порядка слов, *Он львом дрался за выживание*, поэтому в таких конструкциях слово в творительном падеже **всегда** должно стоять рядом со сказуемым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я волком бы выгрыз** бюрократизм.  &#xD;&#xA;К мандатам почтения нету.   &#xD;&#xA;К любым чертям с матерями катись  &#xD;&#xA;любая бумажка. Но эту...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В. В. Маяковский &quot;Стихи о советском паспорте&quot; 1929 г." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="c6207325-daa0-4b09-a127-a78d0142036d" CreationDate="2015-09-15T20:10:27.693" UserId="1640" Text="A hustler is a person, who does something useful and talks a lot about it, as shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Charlatan, Martyr and Hustler][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good expression for that in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested only in those expressions, which regard hustling as something positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fqy7E.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="c6207325-daa0-4b09-a127-a78d0142036d" CreationDate="2015-09-15T20:10:27.693" UserId="1640" Text="What do you call a hustler in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="c6207325-daa0-4b09-a127-a78d0142036d" CreationDate="2015-09-15T20:10:27.693" UserId="1640" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10637" RevisionGUID="a5a89458-b76c-4c28-a268-154aaea96e36" CreationDate="2015-09-15T20:46:10.223" UserId="134" Text="It's not exactly what are you looking for, but if we take Webster's definition of &quot;hustler&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an ambitious person who eagerly goes after what is desired &lt;the ad for the sales job claims that for someone who's a real hustler, the sky's the limit&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, the best Russian correspondence I believe would be *хват*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *ХВАТ, -а; м. Нар.-разг.* Бойкий, ловкий, удалой человек. Держаться, выглядеть хватом. Х. парень, детина, баба. Ай да хваты ребята! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10638" RevisionGUID="e5631fdb-fce3-4ef6-badd-1237f7d80095" CreationDate="2015-09-15T21:32:15.323" UserId="5008" Text="I think the best variant is the adjective _бойкий_ which stands for both _determined_ and _lively_. Quite often that implies that one likes talking too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If only one noun is needed then it can be formed by prefix &quot;_бой-_&quot; as the following: _бой-парень_ (guy), _бой-девка_ (girl), _бой-баба_ (woman)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="25226c40-71b2-479d-ab52-a2ce216167f7" CreationDate="2015-09-15T22:56:36.950" UserId="194" Text="I agree with the answer by Avtokod. I do not think it is ungrammatical besides the excessive comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some difference in meaning. As Avtokod says дайте is more used when hand over of a function is requested. It impyes the action will be done by the speaker without participation of the addressee. In this context I would understand it as the speaker requests the addressee to mute and keep quiet until he finishes the explanation rather than actively participate, ask questions etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте я вам объясню = Let me explain this to you with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; participation (you can ask questions in the process etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дайте я вам объясню = Allow me to explain this, to not interrupt me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="d9773885-08d7-4c6c-88e7-18c315cccf48" CreationDate="2015-09-15T23:01:52.767" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="I agree with the answer by Avtokod. I do not think it is ungrammatical besides the excessive comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some difference in meaning. As Avtokod says дайте is more used when hand over of a function is requested. It impyes the action will be done by the speaker without participation of the addressee. In this context I would understand it as the speaker requests the addressee to mute and keep quiet until he finishes the explanation rather than actively participate, ask questions etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте я вам объясню = Let me explain this to you with your&#xD;&#xA;&gt; participation (you can ask questions in the process etc).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дайте я вам объясню = Allow me to explain this, do not interrupt me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; please. Please keep quiet, allow me to talk. You will understand everything after I finished so please do not ask questions until I stopped." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24413" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10615" RevisionGUID="4f8fac3d-70e9-4748-b1f4-eb6dde732add" CreationDate="2015-09-16T03:19:21.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/643987508070641664" />
  <row Id="24414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="435c3fd4-70a7-42ff-b527-f221717c8947" CreationDate="2015-09-16T04:49:49.300" UserId="5550" Text="&quot;увлеченный человек&quot; - это, кажется, наиболее близкое" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="1061b9d9-2373-4068-9982-305bb88ace7b" CreationDate="2015-09-16T16:55:20.847" UserId="4494" Text="In this song lyric:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой парень снова влип в дурные дела&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;влип&quot; appears (I checked two lyrics sites), but I can't find it in any online dictionaries. What does it mean? And would the sentence still be grammatically correct without it? (ie. &quot;Мой парень снова в дурные дела&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="1061b9d9-2373-4068-9982-305bb88ace7b" CreationDate="2015-09-16T16:55:20.847" UserId="4494" Text="What does &quot;влип&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="1061b9d9-2373-4068-9982-305bb88ace7b" CreationDate="2015-09-16T16:55:20.847" UserId="4494" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="7857c6a0-6c98-4357-9153-5d07ad17be7e" CreationDate="2015-09-16T17:43:05.947" UserId="5008" Text="_Влип_ is the past tense of the verb _влипнуть_ which literally means _get into something sticky_. Here this word is used in colloquial meaning much close to English **get into a mess**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="50e5c78f-2e69-4206-8b7b-ad7d80801a5a" CreationDate="2015-09-16T18:01:03.830" UserId="5443" Text="This widely used informal expression means someone's got into an unpleasant situation with inevitable consequences. There's also a famous saying &quot;влип, очкарик!&quot; (you got stuck, foureyes!) from a very popular Soviet movie, where those words were said to the main character wearing glasses who'd literally got stuck in a pool of tar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="b6012b9d-6f3e-40ce-b20e-24b3153c90ff" CreationDate="2015-09-16T20:27:14.780" UserId="5997" Text="may I ask you to help me regarding the word **memorable** / **unforgettable**? In specific I would like to know when (in which scenario) a real russian person uses **незабвенный** and/or **незабываемый**. I ask because my dictionaries give me the same translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thank you very much in advance!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="b6012b9d-6f3e-40ce-b20e-24b3153c90ff" CreationDate="2015-09-16T20:27:14.780" UserId="5997" Text="When to use незабвенный / незабываемый?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="b6012b9d-6f3e-40ce-b20e-24b3153c90ff" CreationDate="2015-09-16T20:27:14.780" UserId="5997" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="78ddc0e1-af33-40fd-9e9a-591b23bfe598" CreationDate="2015-09-16T20:50:59.343" UserId="5008" Text="Actually both _незабвенный_ and _незабываемый_ mean the very same thing. Yet the word _незабвенный_ is of Church Slavonic origin, and thus it belongs exclusively to a &quot;high-style&quot; (or a parody on it). In everyday speech one should stick to _незабываемый_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="60f4208b-3a28-4baa-909b-133faa8996dc" CreationDate="2015-09-16T21:30:34.633" UserId="5915" Text="To my ear &quot;**незабвенный**&quot; actually means the same as &quot;**незабытый**&quot; and not the same as &quot;**незабываемый**&quot;.  I'll try to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both English words you have contain the part &quot;able&quot; in them which suggests that their meaning has to do with the &quot;ability to remember/recall&quot; or &quot;ability to forget&quot; (negated with the prefix &quot;un-&quot;), rather than the actual fact of ever-presence in memory/mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express similar attribute of something (event, object, notion) in Russian, &quot;**незабываемый**&quot; would be used.  It has the passive voice form (the active voice form would be &quot;**незабыва*ющий***&quot;).  The adjective &quot;**забытый**&quot; (and &quot;**незабытый**&quot; as well) is formed from the *perfect* verb &quot;забыть&quot;, whereas &quot;[**не**-]**забываемый**&quot; is formed from the ***im**perfect* verb &quot;**забывать**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Незабытый**&quot; (rarely used, I think) means &quot;*one that **wasn't** forgotten*&quot;, and &quot;**незабвенный**&quot; has the same meaning, while &quot;**незабываемый**&quot; means &quot;*one that **can't** be forgotten*&quot;, &quot;*not able to be forgotten*&quot;, &quot;*unforgettable*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="60e3430f-8553-4c80-a1a3-000da4848924" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:09:31.630" UserId="5201" Text="What is an alternative way to say 'тотчас же?' Maybe it is not really in use anymore, but it keeps popping up in Russian literature I'm reading, and it's a bit hard to get out sometimes. What is a more modern way to say 'at once/immediately'? Сразу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="60e3430f-8553-4c80-a1a3-000da4848924" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:09:31.630" UserId="5201" Text="Alternative to 'тотчас же'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="60e3430f-8553-4c80-a1a3-000da4848924" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:09:31.630" UserId="5201" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10649" RevisionGUID="c9509a29-e88d-4fef-a420-dde1e06d9371" CreationDate="2015-09-17T01:45:46.930" UserId="5915" Text="You can also say &quot;**сейчас же**&quot;, &quot;**немедленно**&quot;, &quot;**в мгновение ока**&quot;, and, as you suggested, &quot;**сразу [же]**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;**тотчас**&quot; and, say, &quot;**сейчас**&quot;, is that &quot;**тотчас**&quot; refers to &quot;**тот**&quot; &quot;**час**&quot;, that is, &quot;**that hour**&quot; (&quot;**that time**&quot;), where as &quot;**сейчас**&quot; refers to &quot;**сей час**&quot;, or &quot;**this hour**&quot; (&quot;**this time**&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24431" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="b29059e3-b7fd-458e-ae3a-87da913e7b0d" CreationDate="2015-09-17T03:20:25.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/644350164044521473" />
  <row Id="24432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="f10729ce-db1a-418e-b2fc-7dff2a72f756" CreationDate="2015-09-17T06:15:50.213" UserId="5443" Text="That expression is mainly used in literature; probably &quot;**тут же**&quot; is its closest version in everyday speech. While it literally means '*right here*' it marks the immediate point in both space and time. Other expressions for specific cases of action include: &quot;сразу же&quot;, &quot;сходу&quot;, &quot;не мешкая&quot;, &quot;не долго думая&quot;, &quot;спешно&quot;, &quot;в ту же минуту&quot;, &quot;через мгновение&quot;и т. п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="de1ac90c-f668-4d2f-b02a-d53d35ee6e20" CreationDate="2015-09-17T09:29:17.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="ee8c53aa-e816-421b-909e-8e08cdbe7d5e" CreationDate="2015-09-17T09:29:17.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="71983220-3819-4fb0-a7ff-e08b85ab42d3" CreationDate="2015-09-17T09:41:00.927" UserId="5443" Text="The difference in usage is really dramatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&quot;Незабываемый&quot; (*something* unforgettable, memorable) is mainly said **of events** including recent ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Это был незабываемый вечер` `(зрелище, театральная постановка,` `свидание - в таком-то году, вчера или даже сегодня).`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, it's not typical to use words like &quot;(ты/он) незабываемый&quot; when expressing the idea that you won't forget the person you met or still remember them - you'd rather say directly *&quot;я буду тебя (его, её) помнить* *(помню, не забуду, не могу забыть)&quot;, &quot;мне не забыть тебя&quot;,* *&quot;его невозможно забыть&quot;*, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&quot;Незабвенный&quot; (*someone* out of oblivion - &quot;не преданный забвению&quot;, &quot;до сих пор не забытый&quot;) is said **of a person** not seen for some time by those present or even of someone who'd passed. This word is only mentioned in addition to that persons name: as with the example above, it's not typical to say &quot;он (имя) незабвенный&quot;. As mentioned in other answers, the word mainly belongs to refined style of speech and sometimes is used ironically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `Незабвенный профессор Преображенский` `в таких случаях начинал чертыхаться.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10653" RevisionGUID="297d57a5-7f28-47bd-949a-a9e4371c29b9" CreationDate="2015-09-17T09:48:58.113" UserId="5443" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The difference in usage is really dramatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&quot;Незабываемый&quot; (*something* unforgettable, memorable) is mainly said **of events** including recent ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Это был незабываемый вечер` `(зрелище, театральная постановка,` `свидание - в таком-то году, вчера или даже сегодня).`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, it's not typical to use words like &quot;(ты/он) незабываемый&quot; when expressing the idea that you won't forget the person you met or still remember them - you'd rather say directly *&quot;я буду тебя (его, её) помнить* *(помню, не забуду, не могу забыть)&quot;, &quot;мне не забыть тебя&quot;,* *&quot;его невозможно забыть&quot;*, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&quot;Незабвенный&quot; (*someone* out of oblivion - &quot;не преданный забвению&quot;, &quot;до сих пор не забытый&quot;) is said **of a person** not seen for some time by those present or even of someone who'd passed. This word is only mentioned in addition to that persons name: as with the example above, it's not typical to say &quot;он (имя) незабвенный&quot;. As mentioned in other answers, the word mainly belongs to refined style of speech and sometimes is used ironically. In poetry it may also be used to point at some memorable day in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `Незабвенный профессор Преображенский` `в таких случаях начинал чертыхаться.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="84bbb8b4-fcde-4541-8c03-de84abd3c3f6" CreationDate="2015-09-17T10:38:07.283" UserId="5605" Text="Не заглядывая в словари, могу сказать, что **тотчас же**это абсолютно книжное выражение и в разговорной речи практически не употребляется. В разговорной речи употребляются чаще всего такие &quot;аналоги&quot; этого выражения, как **сейчас же**и **сразу же.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="7caa1414-bf4a-48c1-8a82-62b9ae93634d" CreationDate="2015-09-17T10:44:45.203" UserId="5605" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Не заглядывая в словари, могу сказать, что **тотчас же**это абсолютно книжное выражение и в разговорной речи практически не употребляется. В разговорной речи употребляются чаще всего такие &quot;аналоги&quot; этого выражения, как **сейчас же**и **сразу же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not looking in dictionaries, I can say that **тотчас же** this brand book expression in colloquial speech is not used practically. In colloquial speech used most often such &quot;analogues&quot; of this expression, **сейчас же** and **сразу же**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24439" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="bb4482f8-a11a-4ab7-ab56-35e2c4250738" CreationDate="2015-09-17T11:09:12.873" UserId="5999" Comment="добавлен таг" Text="|синонимы|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24440" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="bb4482f8-a11a-4ab7-ab56-35e2c4250738" CreationDate="2015-09-17T11:09:12.873" Comment="Proposed by 5999 approved by 5008, 551 edit id of 673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="c3c84333-e314-41f1-8fa9-2c607707ce98" CreationDate="2015-09-17T11:43:26.487" UserId="5605" Text="Слово &quot;незабвенный&quot; в многих словарях дано с пометой (книжн.) - книжное, (высок.) - высокое, (торж.) - торжественное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://xn--b1algemdcsb.xn--p1ai/term/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Слово же &quot;незабываемый&quot; стилистичекски нейтрально и может употребляться и в книгах и в разговорной речи. В разговорной речи слово &quot;незабвенный&quot; употребляется очень редко, а слово &quot;незабываемый&quot; употребляется в разговорной речи часто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10655" RevisionGUID="20a4037c-60a0-4177-814b-6ea0b0415c55" CreationDate="2015-09-17T11:50:36.263" UserId="5605" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Слово &quot;незабвенный&quot; в многих словарях дано с пометой (книжн.) - книжное, (высок.) - высокое, (торж.) - торжественное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://xn--b1algemdcsb.xn--p1ai/term/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Слово же &quot;незабываемый&quot; стилистичекски нейтрально и может употребляться и в книгах и в разговорной речи. В разговорной речи слово &quot;незабвенный&quot; употребляется очень редко, а слово &quot;незабываемый&quot; употребляется в разговорной речи часто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word **&quot;незабываемый&quot;** neutral style and can be used and in books and in colloquial speech. In colloquial speech a word **&quot;незабвенный&quot;** is used very rarely, and a word **&quot;незабываемый&quot;** is used in colloquial speech often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="45f118e0-b02c-4261-9fad-85b8e2d488a4" CreationDate="2015-09-17T12:15:08.483" UserId="5605" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Не заглядывая в словари, могу сказать, что **тотчас же** это абсолютно книжное выражение и в разговорной речи практически не употребляется. В разговорной речи употребляются чаще всего такие &quot;аналоги&quot; этого выражения, как **сейчас же**и **сразу же.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not looking in dictionaries, I can say that **тотчас же** this brand book expression in colloquial speech is not used practically. In colloquial speech used most often such &quot;analogues&quot; of this expression, **сейчас же** and **сразу же**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="9b82e312-8a96-4775-9883-2dd26c2e976f" CreationDate="2015-09-17T18:40:30.153" UserId="2079" Text="http://www.ufolog.ru/names/order/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фамилия Тальский указывает на имя основателя рода. Фамилия Тальский образована от еврейского мужского имени Таль (טל), которое в переводе на русский язык означает «роса».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласно другой гипотезе, фамилия Тальский имеет славянское происхождение и восходит к названию поселка в Хасынском районе Магаданской области, расположенного в долине реки Талой – Талая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое упоминание о поселке Талая обнаружено в документах церковного архива поселка Ямска за 190-1906 годы. В них говорится, что купец Афанасий Бушуев в 1868 году открыл целебные свойства тальской воды, замораживал воду и продавал населению лед, как лечебное средство.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://toldot.ru/urava/lnames/lnames_21068.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фамилия Тальский произошла от названия деревни Таль в Бобруйской области, деревни Талька в Игуменской области или городка Тальное в Уманьской области. (Эта информация взята из книги «A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire» Александра Бейдера, см. http://www.avotaynu.com/books/DJSRE2.htm). Очевидно, предок носителя этой фамилии был выходцем из одного из этих мест." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="9cbbb97c-706d-43a2-8ac4-a6d62a975fee" CreationDate="2015-09-17T20:10:18.043" UserId="3892" Text="I've recently come across this expression in two sentences and the dictionaries are no help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, **по ходу**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; озверел из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **По ходу**, нам кинули!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="9cbbb97c-706d-43a2-8ac4-a6d62a975fee" CreationDate="2015-09-17T20:10:18.043" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of по ходу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="9cbbb97c-706d-43a2-8ac4-a6d62a975fee" CreationDate="2015-09-17T20:10:18.043" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="f67cef7f-0daf-4787-a143-d8bebe83b389" CreationDate="2015-09-17T20:34:04.317" UserId="5915" Text="Phrase &quot;*по ходу*&quot; here is a **parasite word**, similar to &quot;***like***&quot; or &quot;***I mean***&quot; in modern times.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Listen, today you better hide from the boss' eyes: he, **like**, went berserk because of something there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**I mean**, we're thrown!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(not sure about this one, &quot;**нас [про]кинули**&quot; used to be more common, I've not heard &quot;***нам* кинули**&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In language proper, those two words are a part of &quot;по х**о**ду д**е**ла&quot;, which literally means &quot;*along the way of business/lawsuit*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10659" RevisionGUID="146c68a9-5556-4a8a-b711-5bc5436e3ff1" CreationDate="2015-09-17T21:03:50.580" UserId="134" Text="It's a filler word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its meaning is &quot;along the way&quot;, but it's used as a variation of *похоже* which means &quot;like&quot; or &quot;it seems&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, по ходу, озверел из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yo, don't let the boss get his eye on you today, he's kinda freaking out because of some shit&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24450" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="9e40fc5a-b857-4259-8d72-5a1b1e78959d" CreationDate="2015-09-17T21:26:00.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/644623359863586816" />
  <row Id="24451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="56386935-44fc-4e5f-9c69-63458d3e4cd6" CreationDate="2015-09-17T21:29:16.333" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="I've recently come across this expression in two sentences and the dictionaries are no help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, **по ходу**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; озверел из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **По ходу**, нас кинули!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="077e4efe-9f95-44a2-8154-f15513b0fc0f" CreationDate="2015-09-17T23:22:07.860" UserId="2079" Text="В современном разговорном русском &quot;по ходу&quot; используется вместо &quot;похоже&quot; в значении &quot;вероятно&quot;.  Это явление новое и, по-моему, уродливое.  &quot;По ходу&quot; вместо &quot;похоже&quot; говорят в основном школьники или студенты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На правильном разговорном русском (если считать &quot;слышь&quot; правильным) выражения звучат так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, похоже, озверел из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Похоже, нас кинули!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="959bf164-06c6-4a55-af4a-38442eac3fc0" CreationDate="2015-09-17T23:44:57.887" UserId="2079" Comment="added 811 characters in body" Text="В современном разговорном русском &quot;`по ходу`&quot; используется вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; в значении &quot;`вероятно`&quot;.  Это явление новое и, по-моему, уродливое.  &quot;`По ходу`&quot; вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; говорят в основном школьники или студенты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На более правильном разговорном русском (если считать &quot;`слышь`&quot; правильным :) ) вышеприведённые предложения звучат так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, похоже, озверел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, нас кинули!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ещё &quot;по ходу&quot; означает on the course. Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И рвутся аорты,&#xD;&#xA;    Но наверх - не сметь!&#xD;&#xA;    Там слева по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там справа по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там прямо по ходу&#xD;&#xA;    Мешает проходу&#xD;&#xA;    Рогатая смерть!&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Высоцкий)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Речь идёт о гибнущей подводной лодке, которая не может всплыть, потому что на поверхности слишком много мин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец, &quot;`по ходу`&quot; может означать &quot;в процессе, во время осуществления чего-либо&quot; (https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83) Чаще всего употребляется &quot;`по ходу дела`&quot;.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Райкин стал повсюду искать духи с этим запахом, по ходу дела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приобретая другие понравившиеся ароматы или просто изысканные флаконы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В общем, я решил, что сориентируюсь по ходу дела ― и был прав." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="abc997bb-c7f0-46db-91c4-7ccc64500701" CreationDate="2015-09-18T00:15:04.033" UserId="2079" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="1. В современном разговорном русском &quot;`по ходу`&quot; используется вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; в значении &quot;`вероятно`&quot;.  Это явление новое и, по-моему, уродливое.  &quot;`По ходу`&quot; вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; говорят в основном школьники или студенты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На более правильном разговорном русском (если считать &quot;`слышь`&quot; правильным :) ) вышеприведённые предложения звучат так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, похоже, озверел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, нас кинули!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ещё &quot;по ходу&quot; означает on the course. Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И рвутся аорты,&#xD;&#xA;    Но наверх - не сметь!&#xD;&#xA;    Там слева по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там справа по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там прямо по ходу&#xD;&#xA;    Мешает проходу&#xD;&#xA;    Рогатая смерть!&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Высоцкий)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Речь идёт о гибнущей подводной лодке, которая не может всплыть, потому что на поверхности слишком много мин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец, &quot;`по ходу`&quot; может означать &quot;в процессе, во время осуществления чего-либо&quot; (https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83) Чаще всего употребляется &quot;`по ходу дела`&quot;.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Райкин стал повсюду искать духи с этим запахом, по ходу дела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приобретая другие понравившиеся ароматы или просто изысканные флаконы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В общем, я решил, что сориентируюсь по ходу дела ― и был прав." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="ccc04fdf-5ac4-42b9-b8e8-0ada8c966267" CreationDate="2015-09-18T00:33:57.257" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. It can be applied only to actors or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism,  popularity, recognition etc.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="77e42d96-e592-4342-bc2e-7f981a22b2a0" CreationDate="2015-09-18T00:39:58.863" UserId="194" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. It can be applied only to actors or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="5b9ddaa6-138d-4279-97b5-bc8dbce96708" CreationDate="2015-09-18T00:45:24.263" UserId="194" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. It can be applied only to actors or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="53474c8e-97a0-4cfe-b804-deaa000f6cf7" CreationDate="2015-09-18T00:50:30.670" UserId="194" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. It can be applied only to actors or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply it to people of the past who are very well known, like presidents or national leaders of the recent past. It is applicable only to relatively half-forgotten people. It has a taste of sore and pittyness, maybe mlancholy and a lot of internal strength." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="c35de29d-c6ba-4fcc-9239-1518f4b81d46" CreationDate="2015-09-18T00:55:44.090" UserId="194" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things and events. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. It can be applied only to actors or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known, they just sparked in the past. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply it to people of the past who are very well known, like presidents or national leaders of the recent past. It is applicable only to relatively half-forgotten people. It has a taste of sore and pittyness, maybe melancholy and a lot of internal strength." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="e99f5bc8-aafc-4f3f-9a04-8d47b4d53b4a" CreationDate="2015-09-18T01:01:05.760" UserId="194" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things and events. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. Roughly translates as &quot;exceptional&quot;, &quot;blazing&quot;, &quot;outstanding&quot;. It can be applied only to actors, poets or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known, they just sparked in the past. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply it to people of the past who are very well known, like presidents or national leaders of the recent past. It is applicable only to relatively half-forgotten yet exceptional people. It has a taste of sore and pittyness, maybe melancholy and a lot of internal strength." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="c9128117-67ee-4749-b9dd-811eca83329b" CreationDate="2015-09-18T05:07:10.037" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="В современном разговорном русском &quot;`по ходу`&quot; используется вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; в значении &quot;`вероятно`&quot;.  Это явление новое и, по-моему, уродливое.  &quot;`По ходу`&quot; вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; говорят в основном школьники или студенты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На более правильном разговорном русском (если считать &quot;`слышь`&quot; правильным :) ) вышеприведённые предложения звучат так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, похоже, озверел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, нас кинули!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ещё &quot;по ходу&quot; означает on the course. Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И рвутся аорты,&#xD;&#xA;    Но наверх - не сметь!&#xD;&#xA;    Там слева по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там справа по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там прямо по ходу&#xD;&#xA;    Мешает проходу&#xD;&#xA;    Рогатая смерть!&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Высоцкий)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Речь идёт о гибнущей подводной лодке, которая не может всплыть, потому что на поверхности слишком много мин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец, &quot;`по ходу`&quot; может означать &quot;в процессе, во время осуществления чего-либо&quot; (https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83) Чаще всего употребляется &quot;`по ходу дела`&quot;.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Райкин стал повсюду искать духи с этим запахом, по ходу дела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приобретая другие понравившиеся ароматы или просто изысканные флаконы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В общем, я решил, что сориентируюсь по ходу дела ― и был прав." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="2ddfa0c3-22e8-4f25-9393-4dd71ff3e4f6" CreationDate="2015-09-18T08:50:20.630" UserId="66" Text="What is the difference between распродажа and акция? When should one be used rather than the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="2ddfa0c3-22e8-4f25-9393-4dd71ff3e4f6" CreationDate="2015-09-18T08:50:20.630" UserId="66" Text="Translating &quot;Sale&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="2ddfa0c3-22e8-4f25-9393-4dd71ff3e4f6" CreationDate="2015-09-18T08:50:20.630" UserId="66" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="3902afef-f2cf-4198-be95-a6a5329291d6" CreationDate="2015-09-18T09:05:49.250" UserId="5605" Text=" **Распродажа**- это продажа товаров по сниженным ценам, которая продолжается до тех пор, пока весь товар не будет продан. **Акция**может продолжаться даже всего один день с таким **рекламным слоганом** &quot;У нас сегодня акция: покупаете две бутылки вина, третья бутылка - бесплатно!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sale is a sale of goods at reduced prices, Which continue until such time as all Goods will not be sold. The action Can continue even just one day with THIS advertising slogan &quot;we share today: buy two bottles of wine, the third bottle free&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="c3310255-d6d3-4f7b-a730-10e964bf0967" CreationDate="2015-09-18T10:06:24.560" UserId="551" Text="I think that распродажа is not necessarily requires that &quot;all goods are to be sold&quot;. For example &quot;рождественская распродажа&quot; just means that during some period of time before Christmas the prices are lower than usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Распродажа usually have a simple rule: &quot;all prices are 50% off&quot; or &quot;these items are 50% off and those only 30% off&quot;, or &quot;old collection items have their prices 50% off (and new ones have their regular price)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for акция (which is a short form of рекламная акция) it have more complex rules like &quot;3rd item in a check is sold at 50% of regular price&quot; or &quot;When you buy a toothpaste you got toothbrush free&quot;, etc. So, it is more targeted or focused. And, of course &quot;акция&quot; may also end when all the goods that participate in it are sold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="c347b182-61d1-44f2-9f92-aebc796e892e" CreationDate="2015-09-18T10:16:14.437" UserId="4833" Comment="improving English" Text=" **Распродажа**- это продажа товаров по сниженным ценам, которая продолжается до тех пор, пока весь товар не будет продан. **Акция**может продолжаться даже всего один день с таким **рекламным слоганом** &quot;У нас сегодня акция: покупаете две бутылки вина, третья бутылка - бесплатно!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Распродажа** is a sale of goods at reduced prices, which continues until all goods are sold out. **Акция** can continue even for just one day with an advertising slogan like &quot;Just today: buy two bottles of wine, the third bottle for free&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24468" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="c347b182-61d1-44f2-9f92-aebc796e892e" CreationDate="2015-09-18T10:16:14.437" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by 5605 edit id of 675" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="0f8b45d2-f3fd-4837-9fc2-b8f43f9afa51" CreationDate="2015-09-18T11:27:13.877" UserId="5443" Text="The difference, according to Russia's practice in recent years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Акция&quot; is a type of sale announced for a very short period of time. It is aimed either at promotion of some new goods or at fast partial selling of goods exceeding available room for storage (just after getting a big party of goods like food). In both cases the goods are usually of proper quality but at lower prices (+ sometimes tricks with prices are used to persuade buyers into buying more items).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The word &quot;распродажа&quot; usually means to a potential buyer, that the seller has problems with selling those goods and has decided to get rid of their supplies or even to finish with that business. The buyers expect they'd get something not of top quality but attractively cheaper than usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="ca25214d-79b0-4039-942c-dbe359b0f298" CreationDate="2015-09-18T12:27:17.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/644850177501712384" />
  <row Id="24471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="d6cd8338-e1db-41b2-bb48-e737c84c0f27" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:24:08.117" UserId="6006" Text="В русском языке есть слово мир, слово дом, а еще слово слово.&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке есть слово &quot;мир&quot;, слово &quot;дом&quot;, а еще слово &quot;слово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="d6cd8338-e1db-41b2-bb48-e737c84c0f27" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:24:08.117" UserId="6006" Text="Слово слово или слово &quot;слово&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="d6cd8338-e1db-41b2-bb48-e737c84c0f27" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:24:08.117" UserId="6006" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="7a0d3ad7-9f99-47e1-be9c-61a6d7e8bbaa" CreationDate="2015-09-18T20:37:37.297" UserId="97" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; В русском языке есть слово мир, слово дом, а еще слово слово.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть слово &quot;мир&quot;, слово &quot;дом&quot;, а еще слово &quot;слово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="1e70c723-d990-4ef9-a9ae-a202990dcf43" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:03:12.720" UserId="115" Text="Правильно с кавычками:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть слово &quot;мир&quot;, слово &quot;дом&quot;, а еще слово &quot;слово&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10663" RevisionGUID="b0ceb820-38a3-4f1f-a4f1-55dea84d7d83" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:06:20.733" UserId="97" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text=" **Распродажа**- это продажа товаров по сниженным ценам, которая продолжается до тех пор, пока весь товар не будет продан. **Акция** может продолжаться даже всего один день с таким **рекламным слоганом** &quot;У нас сегодня акция: покупаете две бутылки вина, третья бутылка - бесплатно!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Распродажа** is a sale of goods at reduced prices, which continues until all goods are sold out. **Акция** can continue even for just one day with an advertising slogan like &quot;Just today: buy two bottles of wine, the third bottle for free&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="2ea52b1a-1c98-436f-a1b8-c78d6ac55030" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:13:40.960" UserId="115" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Правильно с кавычками:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть слово &quot;мир&quot;, слово &quot;дом&quot;, а еще слово &quot;слово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кавычки используются [при переводе значения иноязычного слова, при описании значения слова, и т. п.][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiyyazik.ru/370/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="3c99d493-8241-43cf-9579-4bf6d0859c0f" CreationDate="2015-09-18T21:25:50.317" UserId="4833" Text="[правило][1]: кавычками выделяются слова, употребленные не в своем обычном значении,  или на которые надо обратить внимание.&#xA;&#xA; В вашем предложении «дом» и «мир» точно употреблены не в своем значении, насчет «слова» пусть разбираются специалисты по рекурсии, но внимание на него обратить надо. &#xA;Поэтому кавычки нужны. &#xA;&#xA;В крайнем случае, например, если кавычек получается слишком много, можно использовать шрифт: «слово **слово**». &#xA;Но совсем никак не выделять, конечно, нельзя. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=170#pp170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24479" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="6997c964-f639-4935-af7e-25ca9c488ef0" CreationDate="2015-09-19T09:37:28.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/645169827527659521" />
  <row Id="24480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="de3bf3d1-0730-496f-b1f6-e776ed1ff627" CreationDate="2015-09-19T14:54:48.673" UserId="3892" Text="I came across this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разве это единственный &quot;паразит&quot;? **Вы гляньте**, как теперь все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повадились &quot;дакать&quot;. Каждое второе слово - &quot;да&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that гляньте is an imperative, but I don't understand the use of the pronoun вы with it, and additionally it seems like some sort of lead-in to what she says next. Is this correct? Is this comparable to any English usage? My guess from the context is something like **&quot;Have you noticed...&quot;**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="de3bf3d1-0730-496f-b1f6-e776ed1ff627" CreationDate="2015-09-19T14:54:48.673" UserId="3892" Text="usage of вы гляньте" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="de3bf3d1-0730-496f-b1f6-e776ed1ff627" CreationDate="2015-09-19T14:54:48.673" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="a678a611-638a-4f94-af12-83f65d140632" CreationDate="2015-09-19T15:23:42.840" UserId="5605" Text="**Гляньте** - слово из просторечной лексики. Его литературным синонимом является слово **посмотрите**.  *Вы посмотрите, как теперь все повадились &quot;дакать&quot;. Каждое второе слово - &quot;да&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="732045ca-b879-4f83-b4b6-3a90b7a8a387" CreationDate="2015-09-19T16:08:32.320" UserId="5605" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="**Гляньте** - слово из просторечной лексики. Его литературным синонимом является слово **посмотрите**.  *Вы посмотрите, как теперь все повадились &quot;дакать&quot;. Каждое второе слово - &quot;да&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гляньте** is the word of the vernacular stail. Literary synonym: His word is **посмотрите**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="13f1f0c1-a80e-405e-9d71-b688519acd32" CreationDate="2015-09-19T17:47:35.983" UserId="5008" Text="Speaking about the usage of the pronoun together with the imperative, yes, usually it's omitted, but there are some exceptions. And the most common reason to keep the pronoun is a high expressivity, and (sometimes quite aggressive) attempt to persuade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also want to consult this (quite lengthy) article on [Russian Imperative](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2#321). The relevant chapter is 3.2.1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10672" RevisionGUID="a76fca47-05f5-4728-86c6-c9e014935b2c" CreationDate="2015-09-19T18:32:54.543" UserId="134" Text="*Вы* makes this imperative rhetoric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not an actual call to go and look at something, it's a figure of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat similar to English &quot;oh&quot; added to the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погляди, как он играет // Go look at him playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты погляди, как он играет! // Oh look at him playing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты, погляди как он играет // You, go and look at him playing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10672" RevisionGUID="08fdfe45-8c31-4984-a93a-b270efe66848" CreationDate="2015-09-19T20:20:34.787" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Вы* makes this imperative rhetoric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not an actual call to go and look at something, it's a figure of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat similar to English &quot;oh&quot; added to the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погляди, как он играет // Go look at him playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты погляди, как он играет! // Oh look at him playing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты, погляди, как он играет // You, go and look at him playing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="cb0a0d67-e3f4-4720-ad87-db52039a7120" CreationDate="2015-09-20T06:41:55.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/645488036361453569" />
  <row Id="24490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="269a6c8b-cfef-43b0-b0fe-c852a67a1f74" CreationDate="2015-09-20T10:38:27.487" UserId="5977" Text="The first example appears to be not flective at all, like in analytical languages. The second is sound more correctly to me, because it's using grammatical case... Am I right? The second is right and first is wrong?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="269a6c8b-cfef-43b0-b0fe-c852a67a1f74" CreationDate="2015-09-20T10:38:27.487" UserId="5977" Text="Are there any differences between &quot;купи дорогой сыр&quot; and &quot;купи дорогого сыру&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10673" RevisionGUID="269a6c8b-cfef-43b0-b0fe-c852a67a1f74" CreationDate="2015-09-20T10:38:27.487" UserId="5977" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|падежи|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="2e00f1dd-3d34-421a-9fe7-4e4e0aa77b9a" CreationDate="2015-09-20T10:40:23.903" UserId="5977" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm newbie in both English and Russian, so sorry.&#xD;&#xA;But Russian is pretty much more difficult for me... Trying to translate few sentences for about a hour... :) I'm especially confused by two words and their usage in conjunction with other ones. Can't understand at all!&#xD;&#xA;К тому же, *по деньгам у них - не **ахти***. Но вот за что я ручаюсь - я не был у них в голове, не телепат, но выглядят и ведут себя они намного веселее и раскованнее, чем у нас. *Нету у людей **напряга***.&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe this sentences are wrongly composed and there are no meaning at all?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="40df7bd6-5208-458a-925c-775c29f312e2" CreationDate="2015-09-20T10:52:42.427" UserId="134" Text="The first one is &quot;buy *the* expensive cheese&quot;, the second one &quot;buy *some* expensive cheese&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As its English counterpart, the first one can only be used in context, since &quot;the&quot;  implies we know what cheese exactly are we talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be used in a conversation like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Купи сыру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Какой сыр покупать? Есть дорогой и дешёвый, но дешёвый невкусный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У нас сегодня гости. Купи дорогой сыр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10674" RevisionGUID="1382c78a-4de6-4f1d-abcd-11ca901029f2" CreationDate="2015-09-20T10:59:19.480" UserId="134" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="The first one is &quot;buy *the* expensive cheese&quot;, the second one &quot;buy *some* expensive cheese&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As its English counterpart, the first one can only be used in context, since &quot;the&quot;  implies we know what cheese exactly are we talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be used in a conversation like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Купи сыру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Какой сыр покупать? Есть дорогой и дешёвый, но дешёвый невкусный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — У нас сегодня гости. Купи дорогой сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This distinction, though, only works for uncountable nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first example appears to be not flective at all, like in analytical languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used in accusative, which is an oblique case. It's more obvious if we use a 1st desclension noun with different forms in accusative and nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вода (nom.) / купи воду (acc.) / купи воды (gen.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="691e89bd-09a7-4846-8c62-81870cb23dd7" CreationDate="2015-09-20T11:26:38.513" UserId="5008" Text="Technically we may use three cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative _Купи сыр_&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive I _Купи сыра_&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive II (or Partitive) _Купи сыру_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between Acc. and Gen. here is referring to definite vs indefinite subject. That is _купи сыр_ translates into _buy cheese_, while _купи сыру_ into _buy some cheese_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choosing Gen. II over Gen. I is somewhat optional. Personally, I'd say &quot;_купи сыра_&quot; but it's probably the matter of dialect etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10675" RevisionGUID="a9432703-7091-42ed-9412-a7618fe98178" CreationDate="2015-09-20T12:01:26.833" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Technically we may use three cases here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Accusative _Купи сыр_&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive I _Купи сыра_&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive II (or Partitive) _Купи сыру_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the difference between Acc. and Gen. is referring to definite vs indefinite subject. That is _купи сыр_ translates into _buy cheese_, while _купи сыру_ into _buy some cheese_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choosing Gen. II over Gen. I is rather optional. Personally, I'd say &quot;_купи сыра_&quot; but it's probably the matter of dialect etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="f92813ae-4ed6-46d7-a4ea-5990e259fd5c" CreationDate="2015-09-20T14:53:43.497" UserId="6013" Text="In «Так Что Же Нам Делать?», Lev Nikolaevich wrote &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я сижу на шее у человека, задавил его и требую, чтобы он вез меня, и, не слезая с него, уверяю себя и других, что я очень жалею и хочу облегчить его положение всеми возможными средствами, но только не тем, чтобы слезть с него.»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally Russian and English grammars agree completely, such that it's possible to translate using the same construction.  But here I'm baffled.  He switches from simple present to simple past and then back again (сижу...задавил...уверяю).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating directly into English, the construction doesn't work:  &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushed him and demand, that he carry me...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expect him to have written «сижу на шее у человекa, задавая его, и требую...», which of course in English would be &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushing him, and demand that he carry me...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain?  If we were ever taught how to deal with such constructions, the intervening 50+ years have wiped out the memory. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="f92813ae-4ed6-46d7-a4ea-5990e259fd5c" CreationDate="2015-09-20T14:53:43.497" UserId="6013" Text="A strange-seeming construction in Tolstoj" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="f92813ae-4ed6-46d7-a4ea-5990e259fd5c" CreationDate="2015-09-20T14:53:43.497" UserId="6013" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="0584d6fb-24f4-41f9-ae97-e3f9d6c072d2" CreationDate="2015-09-20T15:06:38.867" UserId="5008" Text="Russian language is not so strict about mixing past and present tense. In this particular case, you may think it like simple present + present perfect, that is _I sit, I have crushed, I demand_ etc. For the sake of better translation, it's also possible to use just participle _crushing_, if you'd like to. There's no big difference here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="fefc604a-5182-4ad9-bd4b-2aa2ab3619b9" CreationDate="2015-09-20T15:18:45.587" UserId="5008" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Russian language is not so strict about mixing past and present tense. Consider that Russian Past tense plays both English Simple Past and Present Perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may think this sentence as _I sit, I have crushed, I demand_ etc. For the sake of better translation, it's also possible to use just participle _crushing_, if you'd like to. There's no big difference here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24503" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4150" RevisionGUID="d1d31045-36ce-4d56-8982-9147915d0b00" CreationDate="2015-09-20T15:41:55.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/645623932129832960" />
  <row Id="24504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="9061e4ef-ff87-48e3-801d-12159975d6a9" CreationDate="2015-09-20T16:05:30.737" UserId="-1" Comment="tried to fix the deeprichastie or participle (I can't remember which it is because I haven't spoken Russian on a daily basis in 48 years, so please be kind)" Text="In «Так Что Же Нам Делать?», Lev Nikolaevich wrote &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я сижу на шее у человека, задавил его и требую, чтобы он вез меня, и, не слезая с него, уверяю себя и других, что я очень жалею и хочу облегчить его положение всеми возможными средствами, но только не тем, чтобы слезть с него.»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally Russian and English grammars agree completely, such that it's possible to translate using the same construction.  But here I'm baffled.  He switches from simple present to simple past and then back again (сижу...задавил...уверяю).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating directly into English, the construction doesn't work:  &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushed him and demand, that he carry me...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expect him to have written «сижу на шее у человекa, задавивая [or whatever the imperfective is] его, и требую...», which of course in English would be &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushing him, and demand that he carry me...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain?  If we were ever taught how to deal with such constructions, the intervening 50+ years have wiped out the memory. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24505" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="9061e4ef-ff87-48e3-801d-12159975d6a9" CreationDate="2015-09-20T16:05:30.737" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 676" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="30d75594-547a-43a8-af08-7535fa623c33" CreationDate="2015-09-20T16:05:30.737" UserId="5008" Comment="tried to fix the deeprichastie or participle (I can't remember which it is because I haven't spoken Russian on a daily basis in 48 years, so please be kind)" Text="In «Так Что Же Нам Делать?», Lev Nikolaevich wrote &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я сижу на шее у человека, задавил его и требую, чтобы он вез меня, и, не слезая с него, уверяю себя и других, что я очень жалею и хочу облегчить его положение всеми возможными средствами, но только не тем, чтобы слезть с него.»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally Russian and English grammars agree completely, such that it's possible to translate using the same construction.  But here I'm baffled.  He switches from simple present to simple past and then back again (сижу...задавил...уверяю).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating directly into English, the construction doesn't work:  &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushed him and demand, that he carry me...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expect him to have written «сижу на шее у человекa, давя его, и требую...», which of course in English would be &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushing him, and demand that he carry me...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain?  If we were ever taught how to deal with such constructions, the intervening 50+ years have wiped out the memory. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="15af738d-42c9-464b-9fa2-a53f3593c818" CreationDate="2015-09-21T02:51:25.813" UserId="5201" Text="В чем разница между этими словами? Кажется, что все имеют одно и то же значение, но отличаются в том, как они используются. К тому же, можно приводить несколько примеров?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between these words? It seems that all of them have the same meaning but differ from one another in how they are used. Also, could a few examples be provided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="15af738d-42c9-464b-9fa2-a53f3593c818" CreationDate="2015-09-21T02:51:25.813" UserId="5201" Text="Значение слов 'при этом,' 'заодно,' 'одновременно'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="15af738d-42c9-464b-9fa2-a53f3593c818" CreationDate="2015-09-21T02:51:25.813" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10680" RevisionGUID="437c596e-0e5d-4b72-8f82-a0620bfbf6ab" CreationDate="2015-09-21T03:04:13.450" UserId="5201" Text="I am having a hard time sometimes conceptualizing 'по' when I come across it in my reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example a sentence from Bulgakov: 'Трудно сказать, что именно подвело Ивана Николаевича – изобразительная ли сила его таланта или полное незнакомство с вопросом, по которому он писал...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I read this sentence, I view the 'по' as 'along' or 'according to,' but doesn't seem to feel right in this context (writing along or according to a question). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to construct a sentence like this myself (from English into Russian)-- 'whether it was the descriptive power of his talent or complete unfamiliarity with the question he was writing about...' I would maybe write it as 'незнакомство с вопросом, над котором он писал' или 'о том, что он писал', but not using 'по.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reiterate, what should I know about 'по' so I am in a better position to understand what I am reading or hearing and how can I personally better incorporate it in my speech and writing? I know this is a broad and more theoretical question, but comments and insights are very much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10680" RevisionGUID="437c596e-0e5d-4b72-8f82-a0620bfbf6ab" CreationDate="2015-09-21T03:04:13.450" UserId="5201" Text="Conceptualization of 'по'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10680" RevisionGUID="437c596e-0e5d-4b72-8f82-a0620bfbf6ab" CreationDate="2015-09-21T03:04:13.450" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="649d399b-2e43-4b15-b388-6fe24c2c953e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T03:21:33.843" UserId="5201" Text="I am very interested to know from Russian speakers about their attitude towards Tolstoy's language. When I read any of his work whether it is incredibly long work or short stories, the words he use strike me as being still contemporary and commonplace. Certainly the elevated, aristocratic nature of his works could not be considered reflective of contemporary discourse, but the vocabulary and extent of it seems to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about this, because it has an influence on what I'm inclined to read. To some extent it is pleasure and I read what I like, I don't really want to be inundated with too much outdated vocabulary. I think it's good to read eclectically to a certain extent, but I want to know what classic Russian writer's vocabulary is closest to the lexicon of the most Russian speakers today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="649d399b-2e43-4b15-b388-6fe24c2c953e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T03:21:33.843" UserId="5201" Text="How Contemporary Is Tolstoy's Language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="649d399b-2e43-4b15-b388-6fe24c2c953e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T03:21:33.843" UserId="5201" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="d0ad5bb6-c6d6-42ff-b98b-09d3965b28a9" CreationDate="2015-09-21T04:37:44.553" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="В чем разница между этими словами? Кажется, что все они имеют одно и то же значение, но отличаются в том, как они используются. К тому же, можно ли привести несколько примеров?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between these words? It seems that all of them have the same meaning but differ from one another in how they are used. Also, could a few examples be provided?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="5d43fc3a-8bac-40cd-8d62-c9db8b896c5b" CreationDate="2015-09-21T07:02:50.950" UserId="5201" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I am very interested to know from Russian speakers about their attitude towards Tolstoy's language. When I read any of his work whether it is his extended writing or short stories, the words he use strike me as being still contemporary and commonplace, as if it could have been written today. Certainly the elevated, aristocratic nature of his works could not be considered reflective of contemporary discourse, but the vocabulary and extent of it seems to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about this, because it has an influence on what I'm inclined to read. To some extent my choice of literature is based on pleasure and I read what I like, however, I don't want to be inundated with too much outdated vocabulary. I want what I'm reading to bear a resemblance to what a Russian speaker might speak today. I think it's good to read eclectically to a certain extent, but I want to know what classic Russian writer's vocabulary is closest to the lexicon of most Russian speakers in the present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="56dd8fd8-ddd2-4354-96d3-7ffe94af229c" CreationDate="2015-09-21T07:10:05.287" UserId="5201" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I am very interested to know from Russian speakers about their attitude towards Tolstoy's language. When I read any of his work, whether it is his extended writing or short stories, the words he use strike me as being still contemporary and commonplace, as if it could have been written today. Certainly the elevated, aristocratic theme of his works could not be considered reflective of contemporary discourse, but the vocabulary by which he expresses them seems to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about this, because it has an influence on what I'm inclined to read. To some extent my choice of literature is based on pleasure and I read what I like, however, I don't want to be inundated with too much outdated vocabulary. I want what I'm reading to bear a resemblance to what a Russian speaker might speak today. I think it's good to read eclectically to a certain extent, but I want to know what classic Russian writer's vocabulary is closest to the lexicon of most Russian speakers in the present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="ad1f400b-2e80-4958-9a8c-05f618cc37fb" CreationDate="2015-09-21T07:31:53.807" UserId="5008" Text="- **Одновременно** simply means **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Честь имею предупредить, что копию с сего _одновременно_ посылаю к барону Бьорингу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Заодно** literally means _for an altogether_ and is used in the sense of either **on the same side** or **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьют горькое вино  &#xD;&#xA;На помин души...  &#xD;&#xA;Жди. И с ними _заодно_  &#xD;&#xA;Выпить не спеши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **При этом** literally means _near to this_ and denotes the same as **additionally**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _При этом_ было сказано как-то даже несколько обидно насчет тоненького мужчины: что он больше ничего, как что-то вроде зубочистки, а не человек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10683" RevisionGUID="3822108c-9d0d-46ef-809f-22cac6ee13a8" CreationDate="2015-09-21T07:43:30.087" UserId="4843" Text="Язык Толстого немного устарел - все-таки он умер больше ста лет назад, в 1910 году и с тех пор многое изменилось. Но его читать трудно только по этой причине. Его трудно читать еще и потому, что он пишет плохо. Если же коснуться его &quot;философских&quot; рассуждений - с глубочайшей многозначительностью и бесподобным занудством рассусоливание об элементарнейших предметах, которые постигаются в полной к пятнадцати годам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С. Логинов в статье &quot;О графах и графоманах или Почему я не люблю Льва Толстого&quot; приводит пример: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делаю вторую попытку. Палец сходу упирается в нечто монструазное: &quot;Пятое то, что в нашем обществе, где влюбление между молодым мужчиной и женщиной, имеющее в основе все-таки плотскую любовь, возведено в высшую поэтическую цель стремлений людей, свидетельством чего служит все искусство и поэзия нашего общества, молодые люди лучшее время своей жизни посвящают: мужчины на выглядывание, приискивание и овладевание наилучшими предметами любви в форме любовной связи или брака, а женщины и девушки – на заманиванье и вовлечение мужчин в связь или брак&quot;. Комментарии излишни. Более густую смесь канцелярита с псевдонаучной терминологией трудно себе представить.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из современных писателей я бы посоветовал Пелевина, какого-нибудь Юрия Бригадира, братьев Стругацких (в их случае необходимо будет сделать скидку на то, что им приходилось писать свои произведения при СССР), Андрея Щербакова, Владимира Георгиевича Сорокина. Я бы еще советовал читать блоги в ЖЖ, к примеру (скажем, блог Артемия Лебедева, очень рекомендую его книгу &quot;Ководство&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Константин Михайлов в статье &quot;Язык, который мы потеряли&quot; предлагает черпать знания не у писателей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Понятно, что изменения в языке, происшедшие за XX век, можно проследить, как уже говорилось, не только на анализе газетных объявлений, но и сравнивая язык писателей, скажем, язык Бунина и Пелевина. Но это будет прежде всего сравнение языка литераторов, на котором ни тогда, ни сейчас никто из обычных людей не писал и не пишет. Иное дело – газетные объявления. Для понимания особенностей языка той уже далекой от нас эпохи эти короткие сообщения ценны прежде всего тем, что язык объявлений – это массовый, так сказать, «шаблонный» язык того времени: язык средних городских слоев – учителей, врачей, студентов, гимназистов, гувернанток, выпускниц разного рода женских курсов (типа Бестужевских), священнослужителей, части купцов и предпринимателей и т.п. Давая объявления в газету (о продаже дома, о найме на работу, о репетиторстве и прочем), эти люди, конечно же, не думали о красотах стиля. Они сообщали свою информацию, пользуясь речевыми штампами, которые были присущи тому времени. Именно поэтому в них – дух эпохи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надеюсь, мой ответ вам поможет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="2403257f-dfd8-40ff-83fc-7a7d0da458a2" CreationDate="2015-09-21T08:19:26.663" UserId="4560" Text="**По** is a very versatile preposition with a lot of abstract meanings that one doesn't intuitively associate with its perceived &quot;literal&quot; meaning of moving over a surface. It may perhaps be easier to consider its individual usages separately, almost as if it were different prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have sources for this but from what I can tell by looking at the bigger picture of Slavic languages, the original literal meaning of **по** was most likely &quot;after&quot;, or something similar ultimately referring to the action of *following*. In the particular case of Russian, what I think happened was that its meaning of &quot;following&quot; a path, trail, etc. branched off into a more general meaning of moving over any surface, not necessarily one that suggests a direction; that meaning eventually superseded the original one, but many of the more abstract usages of **по** still have &quot;following&quot;, rather than &quot;surface&quot;, as their underlying metaphor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10683" RevisionGUID="97e62ddc-eb2b-49a7-b712-41f5d7e7fb6a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T09:25:24.377" UserId="4843" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Язык Толстого немного устарел - все-таки он умер больше ста лет назад, в 1910 году и с тех пор многое изменилось. Но его читать трудно не только по этой причине. Его трудно читать еще и потому, что он пишет плохо. Если же коснуться его &quot;философских&quot; рассуждений - с глубочайшей многозначительностью и бесподобным занудством рассусоливание об элементарнейших предметах, которые постигаются в полной мере к пятнадцати годам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С. Логинов в статье &quot;О графах и графоманах или Почему я не люблю Льва Толстого&quot; приводит пример: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делаю вторую попытку. Палец сходу упирается в нечто монструазное: &quot;Пятое то, что в нашем обществе, где влюбление между молодым мужчиной и женщиной, имеющее в основе все-таки плотскую любовь, возведено в высшую поэтическую цель стремлений людей, свидетельством чего служит все искусство и поэзия нашего общества, молодые люди лучшее время своей жизни посвящают: мужчины на выглядывание, приискивание и овладевание наилучшими предметами любви в форме любовной связи или брака, а женщины и девушки – на заманиванье и вовлечение мужчин в связь или брак&quot;. Комментарии излишни. Более густую смесь канцелярита с псевдонаучной терминологией трудно себе представить.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из современных писателей я бы посоветовал Пелевина^W Лукьяненко, какого-нибудь Юрия Бригадира, братьев Стругацких (в их случае необходимо будет сделать скидку на то, что им приходилось писать свои произведения при СССР), Андрея Щербакова, Владимира Георгиевича Сорокина. Я бы еще советовал читать блоги в ЖЖ, к примеру (скажем, блог Артемия Лебедева, очень рекомендую его книгу &quot;Ководство&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Константин Михайлов в статье &quot;Язык, который мы потеряли&quot; предлагает черпать знания не у писателей:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Понятно, что изменения в языке, происшедшие за XX век, можно проследить, как уже говорилось, не только на анализе газетных объявлений, но и сравнивая язык писателей, скажем, язык Бунина и Пелевина. Но это будет прежде всего сравнение языка литераторов, на котором ни тогда, ни сейчас никто из обычных людей не писал и не пишет. Иное дело – газетные объявления. Для понимания особенностей языка той уже далекой от нас эпохи эти короткие сообщения ценны прежде всего тем, что язык объявлений – это массовый, так сказать, «шаблонный» язык того времени: язык средних городских слоев – учителей, врачей, студентов, гимназистов, гувернанток, выпускниц разного рода женских курсов (типа Бестужевских), священнослужителей, части купцов и предпринимателей и т.п. Давая объявления в газету (о продаже дома, о найме на работу, о репетиторстве и прочем), эти люди, конечно же, не думали о красотах стиля. Они сообщали свою информацию, пользуясь речевыми штампами, которые были присущи тому времени. Именно поэтому в них – дух эпохи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надеюсь, мой ответ вам поможет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="6155e4a2-ae22-4a53-afff-a776e3b8319c" CreationDate="2015-09-21T09:29:50.413" UserId="5008" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="- **Одновременно** simply means **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Честь имею предупредить, что копию с сего _одновременно_ посылаю к барону Бьорингу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Заодно** literally means _for an altogether_ and is used in the sense of either **on the same side, teamwise** or **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьют горькое вино  &#xD;&#xA;На помин души...  &#xD;&#xA;Жди. И с ними _заодно_  &#xD;&#xA;Выпить не спеши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **При этом** literally means _near to this_ and denotes the same as **additionally**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _При этом_ было сказано как-то даже несколько обидно насчет тоненького мужчины: что он больше ничего, как что-то вроде зубочистки, а не человек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="319c07df-2856-4ca7-a9c9-6b0e27063ec8" CreationDate="2015-09-21T10:00:10.603" UserId="551" Comment="Only first word of the title is capitalized in Russian" Text="In «Так что же нам делать?», Lev Nikolaevich wrote &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я сижу на шее у человека, задавил его и требую, чтобы он вез меня, и, не слезая с него, уверяю себя и других, что я очень жалею и хочу облегчить его положение всеми возможными средствами, но только не тем, чтобы слезть с него.»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally Russian and English grammars agree completely, such that it's possible to translate using the same construction.  But here I'm baffled.  He switches from simple present to simple past and then back again (сижу...задавил...уверяю).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translating directly into English, the construction doesn't work:  &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushed him and demand, that he carry me...&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expect him to have written «сижу на шее у человекa, давя его, и требую...», which of course in English would be &quot;I sit on a person's neck, crushing him, and demand that he carry me...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain?  If we were ever taught how to deal with such constructions, the intervening 50+ years have wiped out the memory. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="82271641-8757-4422-86ca-fc6e74f0dc55" CreationDate="2015-09-21T11:06:59.827" UserId="5443" Text="The meaning of the preposition &quot;**по** (вопросу)&quot; in your example is close to that of '**on**' in the expression 'on that subject' ('lack of knowledge about the subject he was writing **on**')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="53df303b-3d24-48cc-ac57-4d9090847c57" CreationDate="2015-09-21T12:19:38.697" UserId="-1" Comment="добавила Викиновости" Text="## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Викиновости][5], online free news anyone can edit - Russian section of the site&#xD;&#xA; - [Газета.ру][2], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Известия.ру][1], Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Лента.ру][4], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][3], Russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://izvestia.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gazeta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.pravda.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lenta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://ru.wikinews.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24529" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="53df303b-3d24-48cc-ac57-4d9090847c57" CreationDate="2015-09-21T12:19:38.697" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 551, 3892 edit id of 671" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="f99b9deb-79a3-428a-aa6c-d22c7caed81f" CreationDate="2015-09-21T12:39:19.873" UserId="6020" Text="Скорее всего это происходит от следующей конструкции:&#xD;&#xA;Село **чьё?** *Иваново*, где *Иванов* - это фамилия. Таким образом слово *село* придаёт средний род географическому названию, по средством ответа на вопрос о принадлежности.&#xD;&#xA;Для сравнения:&#xD;&#xA;Деревня **чья?** *Ивановская*. Слово *деревня* придаёт женский род и формирует другое название." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="7dce4e6a-eca2-4642-8cf7-5cf35a96b4f9" CreationDate="2015-09-21T14:27:18.520" UserId="6022" Text="Depends on context. Might mean &quot;Feels like...&quot; or &quot;Way of things&quot;(expression that means &quot;we'll see how it will be going&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, russian language can be tricky with every expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10688" RevisionGUID="a45119ca-215a-4965-89a9-68fe8c4dafeb" CreationDate="2015-09-21T14:28:19.320" UserId="179" Text="Your question is a bit ambiguous, at least I doubt that it can receive some definite answer here, not based on one's preferences, opinion etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one thing, it is not clear `what a Russian speaker might speak today`. It highly depends on situation, habits, customs, culture, education, surrounding audience etc. of a speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read, I'm pretty sure, more than a half of Tolstoy's works and the only examples of obsolete words I can remember are those related to some vehicles not used today (like экипаж etc.), some rural stuff and regional stuff (like one related to the Cossacks of the Don river and the Caucasus). But all these (in my opinion) are not rife in his works if the work is not completely devoted to such regional matters like his story the Cossacks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Tolstoy never (at least I cannot remember) touches sexual content, even something which might be considered as erotics is almost skipped in his works if it cannot be avoided (like the medical examination of Kitty Shcherbatskaya at the beginning of Anna Karenina).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure one can express his thoughts in a civil way using the Tolstoy's language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the other hand, if you read only Tolstoy and remember only his language, then sure, you will have problems to understand `what a Russian speaker might speak today` for instance in a garage with other men (in Russia, at least until recently, the garage was considered a place where men gather together, drink some alcohol drinks and speak about various matters, usually not about Tolsoy's heritage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in essence I do not think that there exists any writer, by reading the books of whom, you will be able to understand `what a Russian speaker might speak today`. You need to shuffle information, language from many sources like classical literature, modern newspapers, some forums, preferably without compulsory registration, in order to read foul words too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as for civil, cultural language Tolstoy is not obsolete by any means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="f59542e6-e532-4345-9b27-04e1a7c6586e" CreationDate="2015-09-21T14:33:32.540" UserId="6022" Text="Depending on context might mean &quot;Oh really!&quot;, &quot;No, I don't want it&quot;. In phrase &quot;да ну их на фиг&quot; it means &quot;oh, leave them alone&quot;(when you want to say that you don't want to see/hear someone or something)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="1c8cb601-5426-4317-bc28-c7e36a3f638d" CreationDate="2015-09-21T14:58:04.750" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="- **Одновременно** simply means **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Честь имею предупредить, что копию с сего _одновременно_ посылаю к барону Бьорингу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Заодно** literally means _for one thing_ and is used in the sense of either **on the same side, teamwise** or **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьют горькое вино  &#xD;&#xA;На помин души...  &#xD;&#xA;Жди. И с ними _заодно_  &#xD;&#xA;Выпить не спеши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **При этом** literally means _near to this_ and denotes the same as **additionally**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _При этом_ было сказано как-то даже несколько обидно насчет тоненького мужчины: что он больше ничего, как что-то вроде зубочистки, а не человек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="c1bf9bc2-ef94-4306-9bb1-66b106a5324f" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:08:54.577" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="- **Одновременно** simply means **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Честь имею предупредить, что копию с сего _одновременно_ посылаю к барону Бьорингу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Заодно** literally means _as one thing_ and is used in the sense of either **on the same side, teamwise** or **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьют горькое вино  &#xD;&#xA;На помин души...  &#xD;&#xA;Жди. И с ними _заодно_  &#xD;&#xA;Выпить не спеши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **При этом** literally means _near to this_ and denotes the same as **additionally**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _При этом_ было сказано как-то даже несколько обидно насчет тоненького мужчины: что он больше ничего, как что-то вроде зубочистки, а не человек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="b1e2ef38-10d5-4be5-b08b-3f3666dbb4f5" CreationDate="2015-09-21T15:17:28.403" UserId="5008" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="- **Одновременно** simply means **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Честь имею предупредить, что копию с сего _одновременно_ посылаю к барону Бьорингу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Заодно** literally means _for one thing_ and is used in the sense of either **on the same side, teamwise** or **at the same time**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьют горькое вино  &#xD;&#xA;На помин души...  &#xD;&#xA;Жди. И с ними _заодно_  &#xD;&#xA;Выпить не спеши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **При этом** literally means _near to this_ and denotes the same as **additionally**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _При этом_ было сказано как-то даже несколько обидно насчет тоненького мужчины: что он больше ничего, как что-то вроде зубочистки, а не человек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10690" RevisionGUID="424c374c-130c-4a7a-b28e-ffae060ee109" CreationDate="2015-09-21T17:09:28.020" UserId="115" Text="If you are asking whether Tolstoy's language is easily understood by present-day Russian speakers, then the answer is definitely &quot;yes&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you wonder whether present-day Russian talk the same way as Tolstoy's characters in their daily life, then the answer is probably &quot;no&quot;, simply because life in Russia has changed drastically (several times) over the past 100 years. I would expect that few people in Russia today speak the same way as a mid-19th century Russian aristocrat or a mid-19th century Russian surf." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="16c71bba-0c47-44b9-b983-16bf3fa03e8a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T17:13:42.253" UserId="6022" Text="Word &quot;заодно&quot; doesn't always suit the sentence with &quot;при этом&quot;(which might mean &quot;Including (the fact)&quot;) and &quot;одновременно&quot; means &quot;at the same time&quot;, but can't be used in the beginning of sentence(like &quot;At the same time, I loved another girl&quot;). Here you'd better use &quot;При этом&quot;(&quot;При этом я любил другую девушку&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language can be worse than chinese sometimes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="4d5b2c24-6a19-4347-8b5a-540090b878f0" CreationDate="2015-09-21T18:59:20.107" UserId="2079" Text="While Tolstoy's works are easily understandable by a modern Russian speaker, his language is a bit different from how Russians speak now.  Examples from &quot;Война и мир&quot;, first paragraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так говорила в июле 1805 года известная Анна Павловна Шерер, фрейлина и&#xD;&#xA;приближенная  императрицы  Марии  Феодоровны,  встречая важного и чиновного князя  Василия,  первого  приехавшего  на  ее вечер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern Russian, they don't speak &quot;известная Анна Павловна Шерер&quot;.  Either &quot;знаменитая/прославленная/великая Анна Павловна Шерер&quot; or &quot;известная писательница/поэтесса etc. Анна Павловна Шерер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no expression &quot;чиновный князь&quot;.  In this sentence the word &quot;чиновный&quot; is understandable only from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Анна  Павловна  кашляла несколько  дней, у нее был *грипп*, как она&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорила (*грипп*  был тогда  новое слово, употреблявшееся только &#xD;&#xA;&gt; редкими).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Грипп* было тогда новым словом, or слово *грипп* было тогда новым.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;употреблявшееся только редкими&quot; sounds very unusual in modern Russian.  Should be &quot;*Грипп* было тогда новым словом, употреблявшимся лишь немногими.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В записочках, разосланных  утром с красным лакеем, было написано без&#xD;&#xA;&gt; различия во всех:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. В записках.  Diminutives are less used now.  (For example, Nabokov calls male briefs &quot;трусики&quot;, while today they are called &quot;трусы&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;без различия во всех&quot; is another obsolete expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, many of his expressions (1-2 per sentence) would not be used today, albeit they are still easily understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a theory that Tolstoy was a poor writer, the vast majority of Russian think tha Tolstoy was a great writer and a genius.  The sentence which Loginov calls &quot;monstrouos&quot; is, in my opinion, well written and easily understandable, in spite of its great length.  Note that Loginov is not a renowned literary critique or literary scientist.  He is an author of science fiction books, chemist by education.  Why his judgements about Tolstoy are important, is a mistery for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="4774e9b7-793e-4b65-a95b-f15c001ec532" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:56:29.133" UserId="4494" Text="I've seen several instances of phrases in which всё precedes a comparative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я бегу **всё выше**&#xD;&#xA;- **всё бо́льше** и бо́льше&#xD;&#xA;- Я **всё ещё** не сделал это&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read &quot;всё&quot; as meaning something like &quot;still&quot; in English, in these sentences. &quot;Higher still&quot;, &quot;more still&quot;, etc. Is this accurate? Does &quot;всё&quot; simply emphasize a comparative, or does it carry more subtle connotations? Can &quot;всё&quot; be used with any comparatives in this way, and could you give one or two more examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="4774e9b7-793e-4b65-a95b-f15c001ec532" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:56:29.133" UserId="4494" Text="What is the meaning of всё + comparative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="4774e9b7-793e-4b65-a95b-f15c001ec532" CreationDate="2015-09-21T19:56:29.133" UserId="4494" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="ac6279ff-1972-4c26-a876-be9550683a58" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:26:57.520" UserId="134" Text="I think this is closer to English &quot;yet&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бегу всё выше // I'm running yet higher up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё больше и больше // Yet more and more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я всё ещё не сделал это // I haven't done it yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last sentence, *всё* does not modify a comparative, though. It's a part of *всё ещё* which is a little bit more emphatic than mere *ещё*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сделал? — Ещё не сделал. — А теперь? — Всё ещё не сделал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Higher still&quot; (like in &quot;gas prices are high, but they were higher two years ago, and higher still three years ago&quot;) would correspond to Russian *ещё*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бензин нынче дорог, но два года назад он был дороже, а три года назад — ещё дороже." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="a004512d-2941-4a44-ac85-abe124805d6a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:46:54.327" UserId="5201" Text="What is the proper way to use the phrase 'стало быть'? It seems to be used most often when asking for clarification about the result or outcome of something, meaning maybe something like 'it follows that' or 'that means.' But I see 'значит' used as well in the same context. Are they complete synonyms and can be used interchangeably, or do they differ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="a004512d-2941-4a44-ac85-abe124805d6a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:46:54.327" UserId="5201" Text="Usage of 'стало быть' versus 'значит'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="a004512d-2941-4a44-ac85-abe124805d6a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T20:46:54.327" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="436214a2-584e-47cc-ae55-f3e73d5c046b" CreationDate="2015-09-21T21:30:13.030" UserId="1688" Text="&quot;Стало быть&quot; and &quot;значит&quot; are indeed synonyms, so generally speaking you could use them in the same context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это синонимы, значит, они могут заменять друг друга.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это синонимы, стало быть, они могут заменять друг друга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;стало быть&quot; is less formal and to me sounds even a bit archaic; in formal context I would prefer use &quot;значит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you mention &quot;asking for clarification&quot;, there is another difference. &quot;Значит&quot; can be used to form a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значит ли это, что они могут заменять друг друга?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot use &quot;стало быть&quot; in this manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="d3a6cb89-7d91-460e-9df5-3a1f292a8244" CreationDate="2015-09-21T21:32:25.687" UserId="5915" Text="You would be hard-pressed to find phrases so close in meaning used in perfect accordance to their minute differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [original] meaning of &quot;**значит**&quot; (which grew from the present tense third-person singular form of the verb &quot;*значить*&quot;, which means &quot;*designate*&quot; or &quot;*show*&quot;, from the word &quot;*знак*&quot; = &quot;*sign*&quot;) was &quot;**shows**&quot; or &quot;**means**&quot; ('*has the meaning of*').  That meaning is very close to the verb &quot;*означает*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [original] meaning of &quot;**стало быть**&quot; can probably be deduced from the words of which it consists, &quot;*стало*&quot; and &quot;*быть*&quot;, literally, &quot;*has become to be*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, the difference is that &quot;**значит**&quot; establishes the indirect connection between events or concepts:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*concept1* **значит** *concept2*&quot; =  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .. &quot;*concept1 shows concept2*&quot;, or &quot;*concept1 denotes concept2*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;whereas &quot;**стало быть**&quot; establishes a more direct connection, transitional or transformational relationship:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*concept1* **стало быть** *concept2*&quot; =  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; .. &quot;*concept1 becomes concept2*&quot; or &quot;*concept1 flows into concept2*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in modern speech (and writing) those are freely interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10698" RevisionGUID="779db0e2-97f5-4c04-a989-e498e292231c" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:00:58.193" UserId="5201" Text="I translated a sentence of mine into Russian, which originally read: &quot;I want to hear all about your news and what took place today! Once I have my coffee, of course.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my translation: &quot;Я хочу услышать все о твоих новостях и сегодняшних происшествиях! Раз уж у меня есть кофе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, I translated the last sentence quite directly as 'Раз у меня есть кофе,' but was changed to 'раз уж...'  Could you provide a brief explanation of 'раз уж' (though I can intuit from context, I want to be sure) and an example or two of how it is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10698" RevisionGUID="779db0e2-97f5-4c04-a989-e498e292231c" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:00:58.193" UserId="5201" Text="Meaning and Usage of 'Раз уж'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10698" RevisionGUID="779db0e2-97f5-4c04-a989-e498e292231c" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:00:58.193" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="dd41deda-4f81-42ed-99fc-ee1a5c06c573" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:12:58.217" UserId="4494" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][5] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][6] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][7].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][8] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="9f696efc-71b7-4b64-bc4e-d4be8ec30a75" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:26:20.070" UserId="5201" Text="Very simply, what is the difference between the phrases 'вот оно что' or 'вон оно что?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="9f696efc-71b7-4b64-bc4e-d4be8ec30a75" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:26:20.070" UserId="5201" Text="'Вот оно что' versus 'вон оно что'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10699" RevisionGUID="9f696efc-71b7-4b64-bc4e-d4be8ec30a75" CreationDate="2015-09-21T22:26:20.070" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="b86c8171-cff1-4e1d-98da-baa08406b4de" CreationDate="2015-09-22T02:55:45.337" UserId="1688" Text="&quot;Раз уж у меня есть кофе&quot; translates into something like &quot;...since I already have my coffee&quot;, or, to put it another way, &quot;Now that I have got my coffee [I'm ready to listen to you]&quot; -- it implies that you have a cup of coffee in your hand and are ready to listen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is not much difference here between &quot;раз&quot; and &quot;раз уж&quot; -- the particle &quot;уж&quot; (reduced &quot;уже&quot;) simply reinforces completeness of what follows (&quot;у меня есть чашка кофе&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your English phrase sounds more like you haven't had your coffee yet and are not ready to listen until you have, so it would be better translated as &quot;Расскажи мне, что у тебя нового и что происходило сегодня, но только после того, как я выпью кофе, конечно&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="8fbbc068-256d-436b-8480-b6108bea7223" CreationDate="2015-09-22T05:44:16.363" UserId="5443" Text="Both are colloquial expressions of understanding something told by someone else. While &quot;вот оно что&quot; из emotionally neutral, &quot;вон оно что&quot; carries a bit of surprise or even sympathy for the other part in the conversation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10692" RevisionGUID="a5ea3e39-b9e1-45f3-8e22-b1f82c5a9bd1" CreationDate="2015-09-22T05:55:09.253" UserId="2079" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="While Tolstoy's works are easily understandable by a modern Russian speaker, his language is a bit different from how Russians speak now.  Examples from &quot;Война и мир&quot;, first paragraphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так говорила в июле 1805 года известная Анна Павловна Шерер, фрейлина и&#xD;&#xA;приближенная  императрицы  Марии  Феодоровны,  встречая важного и чиновного князя  Василия,  первого  приехавшего  на  ее вечер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern Russian, they don't speak &quot;известная Анна Павловна Шерер&quot;.  Either &quot;знаменитая/прославленная/великая Анна Павловна Шерер&quot; or &quot;известная писательница/поэтесса etc. Анна Павловна Шерер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no expression &quot;чиновный князь&quot;.  In this sentence the word &quot;чиновный&quot; is understandable only from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Анна  Павловна  кашляла несколько  дней, у нее был *грипп*, как она&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорила (*грипп*  был тогда  новое слово, употреблявшееся только &#xD;&#xA;&gt; редкими).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Грипп* было тогда новым словом, or слово *грипп* было тогда новым.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;употреблявшееся только редкими&quot; sounds very unusual in modern Russian.  Should be &quot;*Грипп* было тогда новым словом, употреблявшимся лишь немногими.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В записочках, разосланных  утром с красным лакеем, было написано без&#xD;&#xA;&gt; различия во всех:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. В записках.  Diminutives are less used now.  (For example, Nabokov calls male briefs &quot;трусики&quot;, while today they are called &quot;трусы&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;без различия во всех&quot; is another obsolete expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, many of his expressions (1-2 per sentence) would not be used today, albeit they are still easily understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the theory that Tolstoy was a poor writer, the vast majority of Russians think that Tolstoy was a great writer and a genius.  The sentence which Loginov calls &quot;monstrouos&quot; is, in my opinion, well written and easily understandable, in spite of its great length.  Note that Loginov is not a renowned literary critique or literary scientist.  He is an author of science fiction books, a chemist by education.  Why his judgements about Tolstoy are important, is a mistery for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="875d9454-a6b3-4044-828a-3cafe546c3ec" CreationDate="2015-09-22T05:55:21.360" UserId="5008" Text="No real difference. You may think it like _This is it_ vs _That is it_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="97138afc-ba30-4fa8-93a1-66fc87544ae3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T06:01:05.340" UserId="5443" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Both are colloquial expressions of understanding something told by someone else. While &quot;вот оно что&quot; из emotionally neutral, &quot;вон оно что&quot; carries a bit of surprise or even sympathy for the other party in the conversation. The latter version is unlikely to be used in formal speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="f1b7b780-b3be-45d6-b9af-552811c0a675" CreationDate="2015-09-22T06:15:22.513" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="No real difference. You may think it like _This is it_ vs _That's it_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="e81e624e-c9f7-4d46-a3d1-9e2434595a9d" CreationDate="2015-09-22T06:37:42.430" UserId="5008" Text="Since you translate _from_ English &quot;_Once I have my coffee, of course_&quot; then this sentence should become &quot;_Как только выпью кофе, конечно_&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About conjunction &quot;_Раз уж_&quot;. It's just a spoken alternative to &quot;_Если уж_&quot;. Although direct translation to &quot;_If already_&quot; has a little sense in English, yet the meaning should now be clear: it's a conditional clause similar to _as_ or _since_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing &quot;_Раз уж_&quot; to &quot;_Раз_&quot; is okay too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="903b257d-c07e-41ad-ba0f-d642d19aebde" CreationDate="2015-09-22T07:23:55.983" UserId="5008" Text="There are quite a few Russian variants for _then_ / _that means_. Be it _значит_ (it signifies), _стало быть_ (it becomes), _следовательно_ (it follows), _таким образом_ (in such a way) etc. all these &quot;nails&quot; are interchangeable until they become their &quot;original&quot; meaning, like verb &quot;значить&quot;, noun &quot;образ&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only point is, in the spoken language people usually choose short words over long ones, so, say, &quot;_следовательно_&quot; sounds quite bookish. In normal conversation the word &quot;_значит_&quot; is preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="4e6b1d36-f30c-4e78-98bf-fcc1fc0171ef" CreationDate="2015-09-22T09:53:15.337" UserId="5443" Text="The **difference in usage** doesn't come from literal meaning of the words here. While both expressions have about the same meaning in modern speech, the usage of &quot;стало быть&quot; из much more limited to colloquial cases (still being used not as often as *значит*) or to refined style in literature. It is also possible to hear it e.g. as a part of some professor's eхplanation for audience at a lecture on a scientific subject, but you'd never find &quot;стало быть&quot; in a scientific writing (&quot;/a, это/ значит&quot; or &quot;следовательно/поэтому&quot; are used instead). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="aa99b840-e547-4dbc-86de-ff718ffe7c6a" CreationDate="2015-09-22T11:52:44.403" UserId="4494" Text="What does the phrase &quot;вот уже&quot; mean? For example, &quot;Вот уже я знаю&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="aa99b840-e547-4dbc-86de-ff718ffe7c6a" CreationDate="2015-09-22T11:52:44.403" UserId="4494" Text="What does &quot;вот уже&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="aa99b840-e547-4dbc-86de-ff718ffe7c6a" CreationDate="2015-09-22T11:52:44.403" UserId="4494" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="54b264c6-0c49-43b7-aa62-d25dc10561f4" CreationDate="2015-09-22T12:01:32.423" UserId="5008" Comment="added 841 characters in body" Text="No real difference. You may think it like _This is it_ vs _That's it_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Вот_&quot; is a &quot;pointer&quot;-word for any object near to the speaker. &quot;_Вон_&quot; is its counterpart for any distant object. (BTW. There are several other meanings insignificant for this topic, e.g. _Вон!_ = _Get out!_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is _Вот_ is a _Here_-pointer as in _Here you are_, and _Вон_ is a _There_-pointer as in _There you are_ (but note that _here_-location as in &quot;You are here&quot; would become _здесь_ in Russian, and &quot;You are there&quot; will be _там_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet in this particular case the whole expression is rather another way of saying: &quot;Oh, I see&quot;. So both &quot;Вот оно что&quot; and &quot;Вон оно что&quot; have absolutely same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still there's one more point to note. The dictionaries mark the word &quot;_Вон_&quot; as &quot;colloquial&quot;. My guess, this is due to the &quot;point-with-a-finger&quot; effect: saying &quot;вон&quot; often implies pointing with a finger, which is improper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10707" RevisionGUID="95fcbd67-b50a-4d9c-a54f-d88936b894df" CreationDate="2015-09-22T12:22:03.133" UserId="5443" Text="It's like an invitation to have a look at the way the things have changed by the moment: '**as you can see now**', etc. In your example: *It came to the fact even I know that*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вот уже и пенсионера от смартфона не оттащишь - настолько они стали доступны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="57478c06-f48e-499c-ae34-8192222dd000" CreationDate="2015-09-22T12:56:38.147" UserId="5008" Text="**Уже** = already; **вот** is some analogue to _here_, but it may be omitted in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Вот уже_ means that _something has already happened_ or _approaching_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И _вот уже_ трещат морозы  &#xD;&#xA;И серебрятся средь полей...  &#xD;&#xA;(Читатель ждёт уж рифмы розы;  &#xD;&#xA;На, вот возьми её скорей!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="5ed5e734-d1e8-4018-b839-47561e1dda63" CreationDate="2015-09-22T13:14:22.077" UserId="5008" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="**Уже** = already; **вот** is some analogue to _here_, but it may be omitted in the translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Вот уже_ means that _something has already happened_ or _approaching_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И _вот уже_ трещат морозы  &#xD;&#xA;И серебрятся средь полей...  &#xD;&#xA;(Читатель ждёт уж рифмы розы;  &#xD;&#xA;На, вот возьми её скорей!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Вот уж_ снег последний в поле тает,  &#xD;&#xA;Теплый пар восходит от земли,  &#xD;&#xA;И кувшинчик синий расцветает,  &#xD;&#xA;И зовут друг друга журавли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus _Вот уже я знаю_ is simply another way (albeit, a little mannered one) of saying _Now I know_, unless said in a purely sarcastic tone meaning _Damned if I know_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="d8cc33e2-9f57-48f5-8aa1-63f812e51cbe" CreationDate="2015-09-22T13:36:12.480" UserId="6029" Text="In an informal context, I've always treated this as &quot;more and more&quot;, or perhaps &quot;increasingly&quot; in a more formal context. With your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; I'm running higher and higher. &lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; More and more&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last example is slightly different, but I certainly agree with Quassnoi♦'s translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example from Brodsky: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь все чаще чувствую усталость,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;все реже говорю о ней теперь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am feeling exhausted more and more (frequently),&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I am now speaking of her more and more rarely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that my translation above is hideously literal for a poem, but I kept it this way just to keep focus on все [comparative].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poem for reference: http://pishi-stihi.ru/teper-vse-chashhe-chuvstvuyu-ustalost-brodskij.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10672" RevisionGUID="3dfa9b4e-7ddd-416e-8415-589188c0d665" CreationDate="2015-09-22T15:41:38.380" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="*Вы* makes this imperative rhetoric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not an actual call to go and look at something, it's a figure of speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat similar to English &quot;oh&quot; added to the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погляди, как он играет // Look at him playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты погляди, как он играет! // Oh look at him playing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты, погляди, как он играет // You, look at him playing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="b46c1a36-5ed3-49f3-8578-169dfa8b8f37" CreationDate="2015-09-22T16:02:31.747" UserId="5008" Text="The question of this topic already includes a full answer. Yes, if &quot;всё&quot; precedes a comparative then it means emphasizing like _still_ or _yet_. This construction is quite common. Let's take a couple of examples from Russian poetry. (BTW. All poems are of &quot;The Silver Age&quot;: much sophisticated, more fun to translate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Blok (The Twelve):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Всё быстрее и быстрее_  &#xD;&#xA;Уторапливает шаг.  &#xD;&#xA;Замотал платок на шее —  &#xD;&#xA;Не оправится никак...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Mayakovsky (The conversation with the tax inspector about poetry):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Всё меньше_ любится, _всё меньше_ дерзается,  &#xD;&#xA;и лоб мой время с разбега крушит.  &#xD;&#xA;Приходит страшнейшая из амортизаций —  &#xD;&#xA;амортизация сердца и души.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Mayakovsky (The flute-backbone):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Всё чаще_ думаю -  &#xD;&#xA;не поставить ли лучше  &#xD;&#xA;точку пули в своем конце.  &#xD;&#xA;Сегодня я  &#xD;&#xA;на всякий случай  &#xD;&#xA;даю прощальный концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Esenin (I don't regret, don't call, don't cry):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дух бродяжий! ты _всё реже, реже_  &#xD;&#xA;Расшевеливаешь пламень уст.  &#xD;&#xA;О моя утраченная свежесть,  &#xD;&#xA;Буйство глаз и половодье чувств.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Gumilev (Sahara):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так и будут бродить до скончанья веков,  &#xD;&#xA;Каждый час _всё грозней и грознее_,  &#xD;&#xA;Головой пропадая среди облаков,  &#xD;&#xA;Эти страшные серые змеи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Balmont (The Swan):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И когда блеснули звёзды дальние,  &#xD;&#xA;И когда туман вставал в глуши,  &#xD;&#xA;Лебедь пел _всё тише_, _всё печальнее_,  &#xD;&#xA;И шептались камыши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Bryusov:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё чаще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё чаще по улицам Вильно  &#xD;&#xA;Мелькает траурный креп.  &#xD;&#xA;Жатва войны обильна,  &#xD;&#xA;Широк разверзнутый склеп.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё чаще в темных костёлах,  &#xD;&#xA;В углу, без сил склонена,  &#xD;&#xA;Сидит, в мечтах невесёлых  &#xD;&#xA;Мать, сестра иль жена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война, словно гром небесный,  &#xD;&#xA;Потрясает испуганный мир...  &#xD;&#xA;Но всё дремлет ребенок чудесный,  &#xD;&#xA;Вильно патрон - Казимир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё тот же, как сон несказанный,  &#xD;&#xA;Как сон далеких веков,  &#xD;&#xA;Подымет собор святой Анны  &#xD;&#xA;Красоту точёных венцов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И море всё той же печали,  &#xD;&#xA;Всё тех же маленьких бед,  &#xD;&#xA;Шумит в еврейском квартале  &#xD;&#xA;Под гулы русских побед." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="58e1f69f-8fe9-498e-a7e3-459fe028dbf2" CreationDate="2015-09-22T16:08:07.510" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="The question of this topic already includes a full answer. Yes, if &quot;всё&quot; precedes a comparative then it means emphasizing like _still_ or _yet_. This construction is quite common. Let's take a couple of examples from Russian poetry. (BTW. All poems are of &quot;The Silver Age&quot;: much sophisticated, more fun to translate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Blok (The Twelve):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Всё быстрее и быстрее_  &#xD;&#xA;Уторапливает шаг.  &#xD;&#xA;Замотал платок на шее —  &#xD;&#xA;Не оправится никак...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Mayakovsky (The conversation with the tax inspector about poetry):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Всё меньше_ любится, _всё меньше_ дерзается,  &#xD;&#xA;и лоб мой время с разбега крушит.  &#xD;&#xA;Приходит страшнейшая из амортизаций —  &#xD;&#xA;амортизация сердца и души.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Mayakovsky (The flute-backbone):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Всё чаще_ думаю -  &#xD;&#xA;не поставить ли лучше  &#xD;&#xA;точку пули в своем конце.  &#xD;&#xA;Сегодня я  &#xD;&#xA;на всякий случай  &#xD;&#xA;даю прощальный концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Esenin (I don't regret, don't call, don't cry):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дух бродяжий! ты _всё реже, реже_  &#xD;&#xA;Расшевеливаешь пламень уст.  &#xD;&#xA;О моя утраченная свежесть,  &#xD;&#xA;Буйство глаз и половодье чувств.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Gumilev (Sahara):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так и будут бродить до скончанья веков,  &#xD;&#xA;Каждый час _всё грозней и грознее_,  &#xD;&#xA;Головой пропадая среди облаков,  &#xD;&#xA;Эти страшные серые змеи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Balmont (The Swan):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И когда блеснули звёзды дальние,  &#xD;&#xA;И когда туман вставал в глуши,  &#xD;&#xA;Лебедь пел _всё тише_, _всё печальнее_,  &#xD;&#xA;И шептались камыши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Bryusov:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё чаще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё чаще по улицам Вильно  &#xD;&#xA;Мелькает траурный креп.  &#xD;&#xA;Жатва войны обильна,  &#xD;&#xA;Широк разверзнутый склеп.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё чаще в темных костёлах,  &#xD;&#xA;В углу, без сил склонена,  &#xD;&#xA;Сидит, в мечтах невесёлых  &#xD;&#xA;Мать, сестра иль жена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Война, словно гром небесный,  &#xD;&#xA;Потрясает испуганный мир...  &#xD;&#xA;Но всё дремлет ребёнок чудесный,  &#xD;&#xA;Вильно патрон - Казимир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё тот же, как сон несказанный,  &#xD;&#xA;Как сон далеких веков,  &#xD;&#xA;Подымет собор святой Анны  &#xD;&#xA;Красоту точёных венцов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И море всё той же печали,  &#xD;&#xA;Всё тех же маленьких бед,  &#xD;&#xA;Шумит в еврейском квартале  &#xD;&#xA;Под гулы русских побед." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="104bd226-7677-4f9c-81b1-15535c5b99dd" CreationDate="2015-09-22T16:59:46.043" UserId="6029" Comment="Thank you @user4419802 for pointing out a careless translation mistake on my part!" Text="In an informal context, I've always treated this as &quot;more and more&quot;, or perhaps &quot;increasingly&quot; in a more formal context. With your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; I'm running higher and higher. &lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt; More and more&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last example is slightly different, but I certainly agree with Quassnoi♦'s translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example from Brodsky: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь все чаще чувствую усталость,&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;все реже говорю о ней теперь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am feeling exhausted more and more (frequently),&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I am now speaking of it (the exhaustion) more and more rarely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Please note that my translation above is hideously literal for a poem, but I kept it this way just to keep focus on все [comparative].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poem for reference: http://pishi-stihi.ru/teper-vse-chashhe-chuvstvuyu-ustalost-brodskij.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="3a14e61f-f6c3-47cc-8aa0-02a32b8b99dd" CreationDate="2015-09-22T17:59:22.933" UserId="5288" Text="&quot;Вы гляньте, ...&quot; это риторическое выражение, и на это указал *Quassnoi*.   &#xD;&#xA;Но не каждая конструкция &quot;местоимение + императив&quot; — риторическая.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Вы послушайте, вы подумайте, вы вообразите, вы гляньте, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Вы сходите, вы ударьте, вы сьешьте, вы напишите, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) послушайте, подумайте, вообразите, гляньте, сходите, ударьте, сьешьте, ...&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(1) -- риторическая, &quot;вы&quot; воспринимается скорее во множественном числе;    &#xD;&#xA;(2) -- персонифицированный императив, &quot;вы&quot; воспринимается скорее в единственном числе;    &#xD;&#xA;(3) -- императив ко второму лицу (лицам) диалога.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Императив везде сохраняется, но **различие заключено в степени направленности,** *узкая-широкая,*  **императива.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Под *риторической конструкцией* я понимаю широкое обращение, одновременно ко всем и ни к кому в частности. Если это вопрос, то ответ на него не ожидается, потому что ни к кому конкретно в данный момент не обращались. Риторический вопрос действителен перед полной пустотой, обычно, в надежде, что кто-то услышит.    &#xD;&#xA;*Императив*, в отличие от риторики, подразумевает лицо, к которому обращаются, и чью реакцию желают вызвать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Сценка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Человек. Один в комнате. Читает газету. Удивляется. Произносит вслух:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Гляньте, как теперь все повадились &quot;дакать&quot;. Каждое второе слово - &quot;да&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Эта сценка оставляет впечатление чего-то странного, с кем человек там разговаривает? К кому направлен его императив &quot;гляньте&quot;? Для русскоязычного, он говорит сам с собой, возможно, человек не совсем психически здоров.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Та же сценка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вы гляньте, как теперь все повадились &quot;дакать&quot;. Каждое второе слово - &quot;да&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь русскоязычному ясно, что это риторическое восклицание человека. Всю эту окраску дает местоимение `&quot;вы&quot;` перед &quot;гляньте&quot;, сценка в пустой комнате воспринимается нормально, так, как если человек не ждет ничьей реакции на своё восклицание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще более сильные риторические восклицания:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, вы гляньте, ...&#xD;&#xA;Нет, вы только погляньте, ...&#xD;&#xA;Нет, вы только послушайте, что он говорит!&#xD;&#xA;Нет, ну вы подумайте, что он говорит!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24579" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10681" RevisionGUID="45886199-52b6-42d7-a080-9bc1c6e7ad18" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:47:27.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/646395398039465984" />
  <row Id="24580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="56b808f8-0d1a-4ac0-82b2-20f60ea95a7b" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:15:59.400" UserId="4494" Text="The song lyric &quot;Страхам дней минувших меня уж не догнать&quot; translates to something like &quot;The fears of days past don't reach me anymore&quot;. I understand why &quot;дней минувших&quot; is in the genitive, because they &quot;own&quot; the fears, I understand why &quot;меня&quot; is in the accusative, because it's the object that's (not) being &quot;reached&quot;, but I have no idea why the &quot;стра́хи&quot; aren't in the nominative. After all, they're the ones performing the verb (догнать). Why are they instead in the dative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="56b808f8-0d1a-4ac0-82b2-20f60ea95a7b" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:15:59.400" UserId="4494" Text="Why is &quot;страхам&quot; in the dative in &quot;Страхам дней минувших меня уж не догнать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="56b808f8-0d1a-4ac0-82b2-20f60ea95a7b" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:15:59.400" UserId="4494" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24583" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="0c3c81d2-ef9d-480d-a9ca-90f15e4e5678" CreationDate="2015-09-23T14:19:32.153" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8811],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="6517bb66-682d-4c22-bd86-70200c7cd9d8" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:24:04.113" UserId="5897" Text="It *is* the neuter equivalent of the masculine *-ов* seen in some Russian family names.  *-ов-* itself is just a way of turning a noun into an adjective.  Neuter is the default (and also agrees with *место* and *село*).  In turn it is again treated as a noun.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not especially related to *-ого*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are equivalents in many other Slavic languages, for example the city of Велико Търново or the village of Aleksandrovo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not so different from the process for creating names like *Новосибирск*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="07fc4616-7900-433d-9fad-d40317ace5f6" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:25:20.810" UserId="6036" Text="Since most feminine conjugations of Russian names, as well as nouns and adjectives either end with **a**, or **я**, I find it weird that Никита is a typical masculine name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if it is just an &quot;exception&quot; on the rule, or whether there is a logical explanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="07fc4616-7900-433d-9fad-d40317ace5f6" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:25:20.810" UserId="6036" Text="Why is &quot;Никита&quot; a typical masculine name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="07fc4616-7900-433d-9fad-d40317ace5f6" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:25:20.810" UserId="6036" Text="|грамматика|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="4e663f12-34a7-4d9f-bdde-e1c5597843c2" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:36:06.233" UserId="242" Text="Well, your assumption is just wrong. There are some word which are masculine though are ending at -a or -я. Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Парнишка (or братишка or мишка, plus some other words ending on -ишка)&#xD;&#xA; - Дядя&#xD;&#xA; - Деда&#xD;&#xA; - Мужчина&#xD;&#xA; - Судья&#xD;&#xA; - Юноша&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="efb0df60-2de7-4ecb-b492-a563ec155755" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:36:57.130" UserId="1236" Text="Russian nouns ending in **-а** or **-я** are _either_ feminine or masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Feminine: мама, тётя, Наташа, Ольга, Светлана &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Masculine: папа, дядя, воевода, Никита, Данила, Серёжа, Саша, Коля, Петя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="4669ed94-9788-429c-8fa2-899db3c72262" CreationDate="2015-09-23T20:37:43.763" UserId="3680" Text="Typically *short* from of masculine first names also end in `-а` or `-я`.  &#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Дима&#xD;&#xA; * Петя&#xD;&#xA; * Вова, Володя&#xD;&#xA; * *etc*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following *full* form of masculine first names also end in `-а` or `-я`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Илья&#xD;&#xA; * Добрыня&#xD;&#xA; * Кузьма&#xD;&#xA; * *etc*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your assumption is wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24591" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="8cfc8839-c590-47c8-bd6b-2caa06428999" CreationDate="2015-09-23T21:31:42.507" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="a3133507-1b97-442e-a7f8-1bb26b3d35db" CreationDate="2015-09-24T07:39:08.267" UserId="4903" Comment="Fixed spelling typo.  &quot;Normalized&quot; English grammar" Text="**Гляньте** - слово из просторечной лексики. Его литературным синонимом является слово **посмотрите**.  *Вы посмотрите, как теперь все повадились &quot;дакать&quot;. Каждое второе слово - &quot;да&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гляньте** is the word of the vernacular style. Its literary synonym is the word **посмотрите**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24593" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10670" RevisionGUID="a3133507-1b97-442e-a7f8-1bb26b3d35db" CreationDate="2015-09-24T07:39:08.267" Comment="Proposed by 4903 approved by 3680, 551 edit id of 677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="4b49d587-558e-489a-ae50-2fad614d28dd" CreationDate="2015-09-24T08:42:50.160" UserId="5201" Text="Could I have some explanation about the word 'симпатичный'? In some contexts it seems to mean attractive and others it seems to be sympathetic. For example: “Цилиндр тихо прозвенел в ответ, остановился, потух, и в комнату вошла полная симпатичная женщина в белом чистом халате и сказала Ивану...&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Also, how does 'симпатичный' compare to 'привлекательный' in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="4b49d587-558e-489a-ae50-2fad614d28dd" CreationDate="2015-09-24T08:42:50.160" UserId="5201" Text="Definition of 'симпатичный'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="4b49d587-558e-489a-ae50-2fad614d28dd" CreationDate="2015-09-24T08:42:50.160" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="d9fe1bde-fb4a-4032-a75c-7e5c7cc6e538" CreationDate="2015-09-24T10:01:12.580" UserId="5443" Text="The meaning is 'good looking' (if 'sympathetic', then not in meanings close to &quot;сочувствующий&quot;). The difference with &quot;привлекательный&quot; is that it might be just personal *impression*, not necessarily based on general attractiveness of the mentioned one. &quot;Привлекательный&quot; expresses the idea that the person is definitely attractive to the others as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="0f9b8f97-6057-47fa-9f71-f2aa06f9c858" CreationDate="2015-09-24T10:02:26.487" UserId="134" Text="*Симпатия* is a false friend of English &quot;sympathy&quot;: it means &quot;liking, fondness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, *симпатичный* means &quot;lovely, likeable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian for &quot;sympathy&quot; would be *сочувствие, сострадание, взаимопонимание*, the first word being the Slavic calque of the Greek original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can hardly imagine any context where &quot;sympathy&quot; could be translated as *симпатия* (or &quot;sympathetic&quot; as *симпатичный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, how does 'симпатичный' compare to 'привлекательный' in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Привлекательный* is a calque of some cognate of &quot;attractive&quot; and means the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two words are quite close in meaning, but *привлекательный* has more sexual connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Симпатичная бабуля* would mean &quot;lovely old lady&quot;; *привлекательная бабуля* would mean &quot;attractive old lady&quot;. It would be weird to call an old lady attractive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10721" RevisionGUID="d9a58242-9a1b-4cca-aa73-607aa525e2c7" CreationDate="2015-09-24T10:03:57.217" UserId="6034" Text="&gt; For example: “Цилиндр тихо прозвенел в ответ, остановился, потух, и в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; комнату вошла полная симпатичная женщина в белом чистом халате и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сказала Ивану...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Симпатичный&quot; -- at least in this case -- means that the narrator liked the way this woman looked, but didn't find her an *extremely* beautiful woman. There is, however, nothing bad about this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, how does 'симпатичный' compare to 'привлекательный' in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that &quot;привлекательный&quot; would be the word to describe a person that is beautiful according to the standard views on beauty. The word is made the same way as the English &quot;attractive&quot; &lt;- &quot;attract&quot;: &quot;привлекательный&quot; &lt;- &quot;привлекать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If someone is &quot;cимпатичный/ая&quot;, you like their looks, but perhaps they don't look like people in fashion magazine.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="4a3b36bf-5a17-4b25-ad7d-a2c7e3c8edf9" CreationDate="2015-09-24T14:51:49.497" UserId="5201" Text="Can 'попустись' be translated as 'forget it?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="4a3b36bf-5a17-4b25-ad7d-a2c7e3c8edf9" CreationDate="2015-09-24T14:51:49.497" UserId="5201" Text="Translation of 'Попустись'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="4a3b36bf-5a17-4b25-ad7d-a2c7e3c8edf9" CreationDate="2015-09-24T14:51:49.497" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="6a1f5f8b-e876-4695-93a6-83ff0e17e797" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:10:15.813" UserId="5201" Text="Is there an alternative way to order someone if you don't know how to form the imperative out of a certain word? For example, I might want to say, &quot;Don't smoke!&quot; but I can't come up with &quot;Не кури!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="6a1f5f8b-e876-4695-93a6-83ff0e17e797" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:10:15.813" UserId="5201" Text="Expressing an Imperative Without Knowing the Imperative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10723" RevisionGUID="6a1f5f8b-e876-4695-93a6-83ff0e17e797" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:10:15.813" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="106449f7-1830-45d5-aa86-657c10adab90" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:28:30.977" UserId="5008" Text="It seems you're digging into some kind of slang. _Попустить_ is quite outdated verb which means _to tolerate_, _not to prevent_. And there's no reflexive counterpart &quot;_попуститься_&quot; at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching on the web shows that there's &quot;teenage slang&quot; word &quot;_попустись_&quot; which means _relax_, _take it easy_. But I must say I never heard this expression myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="4705aad9-e756-4f99-b35b-21041807dcbd" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:33:49.163" UserId="3680" Text="You could say `Не курить!`. It sounds more like an order than `Не кури!`.  &#xD;&#xA;Another example: `Don't make noise!` =&gt; `Не шуметь!` instead of `Не шуми!`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="e58e9620-3db0-4290-ad4c-f1aa1be09bab" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:34:16.310" UserId="5008" Text="I'd say &quot;_Не нужно_&quot; + any infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other similar constructs differing in the strength. E.g. _Не смейте курить!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="d0c48bed-8fc2-4e19-bbd9-30e359c01f3a" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:46:47.997" UserId="5008" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Colloquially either _Здесь не курят_ or _Здесь курить нельзя_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about formal (written) prohibition then &quot;_Курение запрещено_&quot; or &quot;_Курить запрещено_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As generic construction, one may also use _не нужно_ + _any infinitive_ to avoid the imperative at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="9b07aed1-90f6-4b62-988e-d0f035344ac2" CreationDate="2015-09-24T15:49:34.243" UserId="5443" Text="There's a lot of possible expressions without imperative, unfortunately those are also unlikely to help in that particular case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не надо здесь курить! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `Не могли бы вы в сторонке покурить?` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Здесь нельзя курить. По новому закону - 15 метров от остановки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10727" RevisionGUID="4df3f2a7-2ea8-426a-a55a-6220efac6922" CreationDate="2015-09-24T16:01:14.170" UserId="5443" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="There's a lot of possible expressions without imperative, unfortunately those are also unlikely to help in that particular case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не надо здесь курить! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `Не могли бы вы в сторонке покурить?` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Здесь нельзя курить. По новому закону - 15 метров от остановки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Может, перестанешь курить (при детях)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="3130532b-ed7f-40fd-8a4f-f94473fa4ff8" CreationDate="2015-09-24T16:48:22.727" UserId="5008" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="It seems you're digging into some kind of slang. _Попустить_ is quite outdated verb which means _to tolerate_, _not to prevent_. &lt;strike&gt;And there's no reflexive counterpart &quot;_попуститься_&quot; at all&lt;/strike&gt;. And reflexive form &quot;_попуститься_&quot; is found on truly rare occasions only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching on the web shows that there's &quot;teenage slang&quot; word &quot;_попустись_&quot; which means _relax_, _take it easy_. But I must say I never heard this expression myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="f30d5dc4-2ef2-4fb7-a737-d1bf20256973" CreationDate="2015-09-24T17:38:28.270" UserId="134" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="*Симпатия* is a false friend of English &quot;sympathy&quot;: it means &quot;liking, fondness&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, *симпатичный* means &quot;lovely, likeable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian for &quot;sympathy&quot; would be *сочувствие, сострадание, взаимопонимание*, the first word being the Slavic calque of the Greek ancestor to the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can hardly imagine any context where &quot;sympathy&quot; could be translated as *симпатия* (or &quot;sympathetic&quot; as *симпатичный*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, how does 'симпатичный' compare to 'привлекательный' in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Привлекательный* is a calque of some cognate of &quot;attractive&quot; and means the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two words are quite close in meaning, but *привлекательный* has more sexual connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Симпатичная бабуля* would mean &quot;lovely old lady&quot;; *привлекательная бабуля* would mean &quot;attractive old lady&quot;. It would be weird to call an old lady attractive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10730" RevisionGUID="8a89208f-7f80-4971-b5a2-bd3098f3c5c5" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:22:06.500" UserId="4494" Text="I've encountered phrases such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорит о том, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems to mean something like &quot;He says that...&quot;, ie &quot;He says that the store is closed&quot; or something (&quot;Он говорит о том, что магазин закрытый&quot;?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What precisely does this sentence mean, and how does it compare to other (if there are other) sentence structures for saying &quot;He says that...&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is &quot;Он говорит что...&quot; on its own not correct? This would be closer to the English &quot;He says that...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10730" RevisionGUID="8a89208f-7f80-4971-b5a2-bd3098f3c5c5" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:22:06.500" UserId="4494" Text="Говорить о том, что" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10730" RevisionGUID="8a89208f-7f80-4971-b5a2-bd3098f3c5c5" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:22:06.500" UserId="4494" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10731" RevisionGUID="bc69d74b-5c7b-4aa2-8b8e-ee246acbc8f0" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:38:09.183" UserId="3680" Text="Both `Он говорит о том, что` and `Он говорит, что` are translations of the `He says that` and are completely interchangable if used for animate nouns (`he`, `she` etc).  &#xD;&#xA;For inanimate nouns, it's better to use the long form. And its meaning is `.. tells that`. For example: `Это говорит о том, что...` &amp;rarr; `It tells that`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10730" RevisionGUID="66a49d0d-a2d1-4dd8-a3b1-2668f7a2afb1" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:41:54.733" UserId="3680" Comment="typo fixed" Text="I've encountered phrases such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорит о том, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which seems to mean something like &quot;He says that...&quot;, ie &quot;He says that the store is closed&quot; or something (&quot;Он говорит о том, что магазин закрыт&quot;?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What precisely does this sentence mean, and how does it compare to other (if there are other) sentence structures for saying &quot;He says that...&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is &quot;Он говорит что...&quot; on its own not correct? This would be closer to the English &quot;He says that...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10731" RevisionGUID="cc710192-9d99-4151-a703-fc7f5f7ba4da" CreationDate="2015-09-24T18:53:59.743" UserId="3680" Comment="fixed animate/inanimate" Text="Both `Он говорит о том, что` and `Он говорит, что` are translations of the `He says that` and are completely interchangable if used for nouns that can *produce sound* (`he`, `she`, `radio`, `tv` etc).  &#xD;&#xA;For other nouns, it's better to use the long form. And its meaning is `.. tells that`. For example: `Это говорит о том, что...` &amp;rarr; `It tells that`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10732" RevisionGUID="5df69d3c-17f1-42bd-a8a3-add537d4167c" CreationDate="2015-09-24T20:21:16.780" UserId="194" Text="It comes from Greek masculine name Νικήτας meaning &quot;victor&quot;. The Greek ending -ς is usually dropped in Russian so the word ends up with -α. This is similar to French masculine name Nicolas (which was also borrowed from Greek) where the final -s is not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="2395f067-9a87-4e01-95a2-f2b66a6ef013" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:16:35.773" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Typically *short* from of masculine first names also end in `-а` or `-я`.  &#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Дима&#xD;&#xA; * Петя&#xD;&#xA; * Вова, Володя&#xD;&#xA; * *etc*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following *full* form of masculine first names also end in `-а` or `-я`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Илья&#xD;&#xA; * Добрыня&#xD;&#xA; * Кузьма&#xD;&#xA; * *etc*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="a953490c-61b7-4aeb-84e2-fb8c3cf7d93b" CreationDate="2015-09-24T21:19:38.677" UserId="4560" Text="**Он говорит о том, что** =&gt; &quot;he's talking about how...&quot;, &quot;he's talking about the fact that...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он говорит, что** (note the comma) =&gt; &quot;he says that...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, the former refers to the subordinate clause being the topic someone is speaking on (or the message they're trying to get across), while the latter is your basic reported speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24628" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10706" RevisionGUID="f1039534-6c13-4264-af37-c779696649a0" CreationDate="2015-09-25T00:55:17.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/647212742189936640" />
  <row Id="24630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="f4fea657-e845-4d41-a5e3-86450fb84520" CreationDate="2015-09-25T04:27:13.950" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   это говорит о том, что нечто делает то-то&#xD;&#xA;              -------&#xD;&#xA;      __________/      &#xD;&#xA;     /         &#xD;&#xA;   what it says, that it's doing smth on that&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;   это говорит, что нечто делает то-то&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   it says that it's doing smth on that&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="a6b1a108-9eb9-49a1-af0c-9860ff516d4d" CreationDate="2015-09-25T09:59:46.503" UserId="5897" Text="In fact this is an English issue as much as a Russian one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main Russian use of *симпатичный* (*&quot;good looking&quot;*) *and* the main  main English use (*&quot;compassion&quot;*) are both different than the main European ones like *sympathisch*/*simpático*/*sympathique* etc,  (*&quot;friendly&quot;*, *&quot;pleasant&quot;* or *&quot;nice&quot;*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian meaning comes from the common European one, probably all from French.  The English meaning is really the most correct, etymologically.  (The literal component parts of *sympathy*, *compassion*, *сочувствие* are the same (*&quot;with&quot;* + *&quot;feeling&quot;*).)  But both are false friends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="64aad22b-24d2-4fbd-97fa-a98ea2f1c34c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:26:59.247" UserId="3892" Text="Recently, I came across this statement in a blog about the use of a Russian expression: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обычно подро́стки (практически **поголовно**) используют это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... which I translated to mean: *Usually teenagers (almost **entirely**) use this expression*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However someone told me that (1) this expression is considered somewhat dated and not very common in Modern Russian; and (2) that when used, it expresses a tinge of scorn or disapproval, like *the whole (damn) lot of them.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="64aad22b-24d2-4fbd-97fa-a98ea2f1c34c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:26:59.247" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of все поголовно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="64aad22b-24d2-4fbd-97fa-a98ea2f1c34c" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:26:59.247" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="73779031-5988-47a5-89c5-8a693d88c4b0" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:34:33.290" UserId="3892" Text="In the following sentence and in general, does вся подноготная refer to the **truth** or to the **totality of information**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Статья рассказывает обо **всей подноготной**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was informed that this expression means basically **everything**, including all the sordid details you didn't want to know (TMI). Is that accurate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24636" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="73779031-5988-47a5-89c5-8a693d88c4b0" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:34:33.290" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of вся подноготная" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24637" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="73779031-5988-47a5-89c5-8a693d88c4b0" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:34:33.290" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10739" RevisionGUID="f9adde18-0a0a-452a-9769-e0d7fe2e004b" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:44:04.700" UserId="5008" Text="Oh! That's a nice question. _Подноготный_ means _под_ (under) + _ноготь_ (nail). So originally it meant a true **torture**. Thus _basically everything_ is a good translation :-))) But talking seriously, of course, it's _a hidden truth_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="1b0e4312-9c5d-43c0-a95a-55cdd494f213" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:44:22.840" UserId="179" Text="From my dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    подноготная&#xD;&#xA;    ж. (female)&#xD;&#xA;    Правда, истина, тщательно скрываемые обстоятельства, подробности чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can translate it like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All (this stands for вся) truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="63bc7837-05f9-480a-a202-37f7fe6381d9" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:53:48.397" UserId="179" Comment="the ethymology of the word has been added" Text="From my dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    подноготная&#xD;&#xA;    ж. (female)&#xD;&#xA;    Правда, истина, тщательно скрываемые обстоятельства, подробности чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can translate it like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All (this stands for вся) truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] explains its etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Происходит от ноготь. В старину выпытывали правду путём выдирания ногтей &#xD;&#xA;    или засовывания под них маленьких опилок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It derives from &quot;a nail&quot;, because long time ago the truth was extorted via nails extirpation or shoving sawdust under the nails&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="31049c0c-7c8a-489d-afe2-5d1efd1dc249" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:59:00.247" UserId="5443" Text="It's about getting to know of all the skeletons in someone's closet. The literal meaning of &quot;*подноготная (правда)*&quot; (smth. like 'undernail truth') is related to medieval torture by driving nails under nails." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="365b11bc-226a-46f7-ab4e-e6edd6a921ce" CreationDate="2015-09-25T12:59:37.370" UserId="179" Comment="the ethymology of the word has been added" Text="Answering directly to your question `this expression means basically everything, including all the sordid details you didn't want to know (TMI). Is that accurate?` I would say &quot;no&quot;, it means the truth, but with one important exception, that it is the one you would like to hide, conceal from others. Not the one you don't want to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    подноготная&#xD;&#xA;    ж. (female)&#xD;&#xA;    Правда, истина, тщательно скрываемые обстоятельства, подробности чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can translate it like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All (this stands for вся) truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] explains its etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Происходит от ноготь. В старину выпытывали правду путём выдирания ногтей &#xD;&#xA;    или засовывания под них маленьких опилок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It derives from &quot;a nail&quot;, because long time ago the truth was extorted via nails extirpation or shoving sawdust under the nails&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="6132b2dc-b123-421b-927e-10d15a95b784" CreationDate="2015-09-25T13:01:50.343" UserId="5008" Text="1. No, it's still in use.&#xD;&#xA;2. Usually not. Consider also Latin &quot;_per capita_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression of some &quot;scorn or disapproval&quot; may originate from the meaning of this word in farming: _livestock capita_ = _поголовье скота_. Nevertheless, applying either adjective _поголовный_ or adverb _поголовно_ to human-beings are OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="ed555eb8-2717-4247-8fca-99e5ff00b02d" CreationDate="2015-09-25T13:18:28.403" UserId="5443" Text="Both things that person told you are true. The word &quot;поголовно&quot; is related to &quot;поголовье скота&quot; (cattle count)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="e2d8bebc-1f31-4952-93d4-9b1e5feb8273" CreationDate="2015-09-25T13:40:41.720" UserId="3892" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Answering directly to your question `this expression means basically everything, including all the sordid details you didn't want to know (TMI). Is that accurate?` I would say &quot;no&quot;, it means the truth, but with one important exception, that it is the one you would like to hide, conceal from others. Not the one you don't want to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    подноготная&#xD;&#xA;    ж. (feminine)&#xD;&#xA;    Правда, истина, тщательно скрываемые обстоятельства, подробности чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can translate it like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All (this stands for вся) truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] explains its etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Происходит от ноготь. В старину выпытывали правду путём выдирания ногтей &#xD;&#xA;    или засовывания под них маленьких опилок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It derives from &quot;a nail&quot;, because long time ago the truth was extorted via nails extirpation or shoving sawdust under the nails&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24648" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="dc5897d8-deb2-4b97-8ffd-7150bbbe9f9d" CreationDate="2015-09-25T16:02:23.407" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/647441022797127680" />
  <row Id="24649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="af4d2192-2db7-49b4-96c9-d6ed40c829cc" CreationDate="2015-09-25T17:51:19.183" UserId="6047" Text="«Поголовно» simply implies that something is happening on a large scale, be it something negative or something positive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наверное, они чуть ли не поголовно все наркоманы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тогда мальчишки все поголовно увлекались футболом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see there is nothing bad in being interested in footbal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="a5a0cb7d-0b88-4414-9a55-99cb3fa633ba" CreationDate="2015-09-25T18:14:28.780" UserId="179" Comment="added the note about the colloquial character of the word" Text="Answering directly to your question `this expression means basically everything, including all the sordid details you didn't want to know (TMI). Is that accurate?` I would say &quot;no&quot;, it means the truth, but with one important exception, that it is the one you would like to hide, conceal from others. Not the one you don't want to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    подноготная&#xD;&#xA;    ж. (feminine)&#xD;&#xA;    Правда, истина, тщательно скрываемые обстоятельства, подробности чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can translate it like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All (this stands for вся) truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] explains its etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Происходит от ноготь. В старину выпытывали правду путём выдирания ногтей &#xD;&#xA;    или засовывания под них маленьких опилок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It derives from &quot;a nail&quot;, because long time ago the truth was extorted via nails extirpation or shoving sawdust under the nails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would like to add one important note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard this word in any serious situation. What do I mean with 'serious'? Consider a situation: counterintelligence officers were interrogating some spy in order to gain some data, sort of truth from him. Even if they were torturing him, it would be very strange for me, as a native speaker, to hear something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    офицеры контрразведки допрашивали одного шпиона, чтоб узнать его&#xD;&#xA;    подноготную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is usually present in colloquial language, in situations like: my representative is a substance abuser, driver under the influence, adulterer and whatever. And someone is telling me, that he is a very good man, so I can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    да я же знаю всю его подноготную&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="78fbc7b4-e58c-418a-84db-2d139fb40d48" CreationDate="2015-09-25T18:39:09.673" UserId="179" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Answering directly to your question `this expression means basically everything, including all the sordid details you didn't want to know (TMI). Is that accurate?` I would say &quot;no&quot;, it means the truth, but with one important exception, that it is the one you would like to hide, conceal from others. Not the one you don't want to know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    подноготная&#xD;&#xA;    ж. (feminine)&#xD;&#xA;    Правда, истина, тщательно скрываемые обстоятельства, подробности чего-либо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can translate it like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All (this stands for вся) truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [article][1] explains its etymology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Происходит от ноготь. В старину выпытывали правду путём выдирания ногтей &#xD;&#xA;    или засовывания под них маленьких опилок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It derives from &quot;a nail&quot;, because long time ago the truth was extorted via nails extirpation or shoving sawdust under the nails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I would like to add one important note**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard this word in any serious situation. What do I mean with 'serious'? Consider a situation: counterintelligence officers were interrogating some spy in order to gain some data, sort of truth from him. Even if they were torturing him, it would be very strange for me, as a native speaker, to hear something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    офицеры контрразведки допрашивали одного шпиона, чтоб узнать его&#xD;&#xA;    подноготную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word is usually present in colloquial language, in situations like: my representative is a substance abuser, driver under the influence, adulterer and whatever. And someone is telling me, that he is a very good man, so I can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    да я же знаю всю его подноготную&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more proper definition of the meaning would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The truth, verity, thoroughly concealed circumstances, detail of &#xD;&#xA;    someone's life, behavior, morals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10742" RevisionGUID="528f3c70-1050-4d61-9eb5-94661df2b81d" CreationDate="2015-09-25T19:52:53.773" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="1. No, it's still in use.&#xD;&#xA;2. Usually not. Consider also Latin &quot;_per capita_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The impression of some &quot;scorn or disapproval&quot; may originate from the meaning of this word in farming: _livestock capita_ = _поголовье скота_. Nevertheless, applying either adjective _поголовный_ or adverb _поголовно_ to human-beings is OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="24681623-d6fe-46f2-aa51-43219b9d90e4" CreationDate="2015-09-25T20:43:55.077" UserId="6047" Comment="added 267 characters in body; deleted 152 characters in body" Text="«Поголовно» simply implies that something is happening on a large scale, be it something negative or something positive.&#xD;&#xA;Compare &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наверное, они чуть ли не поголовно все наркоманы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тогда мальчишки все поголовно увлекались футболом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see there is nothing bad in being interested in footbal.&#xA;&#xA;However, it may still be used with a relatively small group of people, e.g. a class, meaning &quot;without exception&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="d01e709f-d5a7-4855-991f-336c1969012c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T04:48:04.830" UserId="5201" Text="What is the difference in meaning between the various ways to say 'stop?' Namely, 'стой,' 'хватит,' 'перестань,' and 'прекрати?' Also, can they be used interchangeably and in all cases when one wants to say 'stop?' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="d01e709f-d5a7-4855-991f-336c1969012c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T04:48:04.830" UserId="5201" Text="Difference in Meaning between Стой, Хватит, Перестань, and Прекрати?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="d01e709f-d5a7-4855-991f-336c1969012c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T04:48:04.830" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="edaa4177-b225-4595-86d7-cc81074ce367" CreationDate="2015-09-26T05:09:36.307" UserId="5201" Text="Что означает фразу 'почем знать?' Ее значение нечто вроде 'who knows?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="edaa4177-b225-4595-86d7-cc81074ce367" CreationDate="2015-09-26T05:09:36.307" UserId="5201" Text="Meaning of 'Почем Знать?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="edaa4177-b225-4595-86d7-cc81074ce367" CreationDate="2015-09-26T05:09:36.307" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10748" RevisionGUID="5f90afd2-9d2d-4e58-9d51-9d4212a7aa32" CreationDate="2015-09-26T07:14:16.230" UserId="4833" Text="*«почем»* is a colloquial word, literally meaning &quot;what for?&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The phrase «*а мне почем знать?*» means *what way can I know it?*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10748" RevisionGUID="65e51efb-8758-4fb0-8273-3ef0d674169c" CreationDate="2015-09-26T07:20:23.633" UserId="4833" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="*«почем»* is a colloquial word, literally meaning &quot;what for?&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The phrase «*а мне почем знать?*» means &quot;*why would I know?*&quot; or &quot;*how can I know it?*&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="689acf06-73f1-443c-b637-c84ea17efaea" CreationDate="2015-09-26T08:06:31.557" UserId="5008" Text="**Стой** means _stay still_, _stop going_. It could be either an order like &quot;_Stop! Don't move_&quot; or just asking similar to &quot;_Hey, stop! Wait for me_&quot; or even &quot;_Hey, stop. Let me think_&quot;. The latter two especially in soft forms like &quot;_постой_&quot;, &quot;_постой-ка_&quot;. But you cannot translate, say, &quot;_Stop kidding me_&quot; with &quot;_Стой_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хватит** = _enough_. It could be an order similar to _stop_ just the way _Enough!_ in English is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Перестань**, **прекрати** are essentially the same in imperative. You may think that _перестать_ = _leave off_, and _прекратить_ = _cease_, _put an end_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="c67ad677-c9d5-40ed-a9a5-5c93dd2a0509" CreationDate="2015-09-26T08:10:35.753" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Что означает 'почем знать?' Это нечто вроде 'who knows?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="9d61a26c-452b-43e2-bed6-e5980eb626e5" CreationDate="2015-09-26T08:15:50.857" UserId="6051" Text="## Стой ##&#xD;&#xA;It literally means you should stop. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Freeze! Freeze or I'll shoot! -- Стой! Стой, стрелять буду!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hold on, we need to get back and lock the door. -- Стой, нам надо вернуться и запереть дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Хватит ##&#xD;&#xA;It is closest in meaning to &quot;that's enough&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. -Would you like more whisky? - No, thanks, that's enough for me. -- Не хотите ли еще виски? - Нет, спасибо, мне хватит.&#xD;&#xA; 2. That's enough fooling around! -- Хватит дурачиться!&#xD;&#xA; 3. That's enough lies! -- Хватит лгать! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Перестань и Прекрати ##&#xD;&#xA;These two are interchangeable, in my opinion. Moreover, these are sometimes interchangeable with &quot;хватит&quot;, but not always:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Stop fooling around! -- Перестань (прекрати) дурачиться!&#xD;&#xA; 2. Stop lying! -- Перестань (прекрати) лгать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't come up with a situation when you cannot substitute &quot;перестань&quot; or &quot;прекрати&quot; with &quot;хватит&quot; (looks like you always can). However, like with the whisky example, you can't always substitute &quot;хватит&quot; with &quot;перестань&quot; or &quot;прекрати&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that I am translating &quot;перестань&quot; and &quot;прекрати&quot; with an actual verb &quot;stop&quot;, while &quot;хватит&quot; with a full sentence &quot;that's enough&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="515793c2-6f59-46c1-9f15-f7886012f0dc" CreationDate="2015-09-26T12:00:13.893" UserId="5915" Text="When asking somebody to cease some activity, those do have slightly different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;***Стой***&quot; is an *imperative* (a command) to [temporarily] halt any advancement, supposedly to evaluate the situation and decide whether it's worth continuing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;***Хватит***&quot; is *not* an imperative, it's an advice, a statement of fact, &quot;*what you've done up until now should suffice, you'd be wise to cease at this point*&quot;.  It is *softer* than &quot;**стой**&quot;.  Of course, it can be said with much force to sound like a command, yet grammatically it's *indicative mood*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both &quot;***перестань***&quot; and &quot;***прекрати***&quot; are *imperatives*.  Both are commands, both mean &quot;*put an end to it*&quot;, &quot;*cease*&quot;.  Between those two, &quot;**прекрати**&quot; is stronger, to my ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="073cdaae-7576-4128-bc20-fc7bef4bb039" CreationDate="2015-09-26T13:41:58.800" UserId="4494" Text="This is from the Russian translation of [Papers, Please][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вашей семье будет предоставлена квартира в Востошом Грештине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt at a translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your family will provided аn apartment in Eastern Grestin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm really struggling to understand the structure of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Why is Вашей семье in the prepositional and not the nominative? It's the one performing the action in his case (будет).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The construction &quot;будет предоставлена квартира&quot; bothers me because of the combination of the adjective &quot;предоставлена&quot; with the noun &quot;квартира&quot;. What bothers me is that the adjective in this case is applied to &quot;семье&quot;, and yet it's almost as if it has &quot;квартира&quot; as a direct object, as if it's being treated as a verb. But it's an adjective. I would have expected &quot;...будет предоставлять квартиру&quot;, with квартира in the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way this is written, it sounds almost as if they're trying to say &quot;Your family will be an apartment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone provide other examples of these kinds of constructions? That is, of the type &quot;subject + быть + adjective object&quot; to express &quot;subject will be adjectived an object&quot; rather than &quot;subject will be an adjective object&quot;, if you see what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, why not just say &quot;Ваша семья будет предоставлять квартиру&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papers,_Please" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="073cdaae-7576-4128-bc20-fc7bef4bb039" CreationDate="2015-09-26T13:41:58.800" UserId="4494" Text="An adjective being used as if it's a verb - &quot;Вашей семье будет предоставлена квартира&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10752" RevisionGUID="073cdaae-7576-4128-bc20-fc7bef4bb039" CreationDate="2015-09-26T13:41:58.800" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="70722134-fdb1-4eb0-b817-5854959da563" CreationDate="2015-09-26T13:54:07.440" UserId="5740" Text="You've got it backwards. The subject is *квартира*, and *вашей семье* is an indirect object. The sentence is passive, meaning &quot;An apartment will be provided to your family&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a bit clearer if you rearrange the words to a more typical English word order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Квартира будет предоставлена вашей семье.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Apartment-NOM will_be provided-FEM your-DAT.FEM family-DAT&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;An apartment will be provided to your family&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="61d82f12-1aa6-4b47-a300-0d58aea170e3" CreationDate="2015-09-26T14:08:57.380" UserId="1236" Text="You sentence is in the Passive voice. &quot;Вашей семье&quot; is not Prepositional, it is Dative, 'to your family'. &quot;Предоставлена&quot; is 'given, provided to', so the word-for-word translation of the Russian sentence is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Вашей семье] [будет] [предоставлена] [квартира].&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [To your family] [will be] [given] [an apartment].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal English translation is 'An apartment will be given to your family.' or 'Your family will be provided with an apartment.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence 'квартира' is the subject, and 'вашей семье' is an indirect (dative) object. That is why 'предоставлена' agrees with 'квартира', adjectives and participles used as a part of the predicate must agree in gender *with the subject*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ваша семья будет предоставлять квартиру&quot; is in Active voice, that is why it means quite an opposite thing, 'Your family will provide an apartment (for someone else).' In this sentence 'ваша семья' is the subject, and 'квартиру' is the direct object. Remember, only nouns in the Nominative case can be subjects in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Победителю будет вручён приз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The winner will be given a prize. / A prize will be given to the winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждому будут даны указания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Everybody will be provided with instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Божеству были принесены жертвы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sacrifices were made to the deity. / The deity was made sacrifices to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, that in Russian, using the Passive voice is not recommended, it sounds too bookish and formal, sometimes even bureaucratic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10755" RevisionGUID="23f2aee4-3de6-4335-a345-b843c42d7316" CreationDate="2015-09-26T14:20:38.263" UserId="5443" Text="*Предоставлена* is a participle in short form, not an adjective. The translation can have a similar form (the subject: *apartment* in passive voice) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    An apartment in Eastern Grestin will be provided for (given to) your family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other opportunity of translation (the subject: *family* in passive voice):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Your family will be provided with аn apartment in Eastern Grestin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="7c1a54bb-8330-401c-8ed5-cd7e3d7786f0" CreationDate="2015-09-26T17:17:43.897" UserId="6055" Text="In a conversation, the answers would probably be   &#xD;&#xA;- Я не знаю, я ничего никому не делал.  &#xD;&#xA;- Я не знаю, я ничего никому не сделал.  &#xD;&#xA;- Я не знаю, я никому не причинил зла.  &#xD;&#xA;- Я не знаю, я никому не причинял зла.  &#xD;&#xA;They all have same meaning &quot; I don't know, I did not do anything to anyone.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10701" RevisionGUID="afcc6850-822c-4078-9a09-916785d854ff" CreationDate="2015-09-27T08:43:25.887" UserId="5443" Comment="added 446 characters in body" Text="Both are colloquial expressions of understanding something told by someone else. While &quot;вот оно что&quot; из emotionally neutral, &quot;вон оно что&quot; carries a bit of surprise or even sympathy for the other party in the conversation. The latter version is unlikely to be used in formal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** Examples of formal and personal usage, where proper choice is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(business negotiations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Извините за задержку с платежом, забастовка банковских служащих продлится ещё два дня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Вот оно что. Теперь понятно, давайте обсудим ситуацию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(informal situation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Жена не смогла поехать (к вам в гости) вместе со мной, она приболела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Вон оно что... Ну передавайте ей привет, пусть поправляется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="027a9fcc-4e8f-40a4-87fc-835ecaac6f8f" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:31:58.740" UserId="4494" Text="In the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дом Ивана&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Иван&quot; is in the genitive, which means that the above translates to &quot;Ivan's house&quot;. Following this pattern, if I wanted to say &quot;my house&quot;, I should logically be able to do that by using я in the genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дом меня&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in practice I always hear it as &quot;мой дом&quot;. Is it *ever* possible to use &quot;дом меня&quot; to mean &quot;my house&quot;? If so, how is it different to &quot;мой дом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="027a9fcc-4e8f-40a4-87fc-835ecaac6f8f" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:31:58.740" UserId="4494" Text="When should I use genitive personal pronouns versus possessive pronouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="027a9fcc-4e8f-40a4-87fc-835ecaac6f8f" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:31:58.740" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="fd0df6d5-f9f5-4cf0-a446-7b2048576737" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:44:23.050" UserId="6057" Text="To cut a short story long, I've been trying to learn Russian for some time, and having had little success with the normal courses (I have a memory like a sieve), I thought I'd try to learn by translating and speaking poems.  I've chosen Shakespeare's Hamlet Soliloquy (Monolog) in the Pasternak translation, and I'm using the Smoktunovsky and Vysotsky performances for pronunciation.  I've discovered that Messrs Google, Babel and co may be fine for a rough translation, but they can fall very short of the mark in translating the actual sense and meaning of Russian.  I particularly hate it when they are smart enough to recognize that it's Hamlet but dumb enough to spout the English version (not the original Klingon), which differs significantly from the Pasternak translation (at least, as far as I can make out!).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I've managed (I think) to make sense of most of the Pasternak, but there are a few phrases that I just can't find a reasonable interpretation for.  The first of these is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скончаться. Сном забыться.  Уснуть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got Уснуть (sleep), but &quot;To fade away, a forgotten dream&quot;, as my best guess for  Скончаться. Сном забыться, just doesn't seem right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be grateful if somebody could provide me with an idea of what they actually *mean* in context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;большое спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="fd0df6d5-f9f5-4cf0-a446-7b2048576737" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:44:23.050" UserId="6057" Text="Best English meaning of &quot;Скончаться. Сном забыться. Уснуть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="fd0df6d5-f9f5-4cf0-a446-7b2048576737" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:44:23.050" UserId="6057" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="0d3ed1f3-e9c3-4ddd-b8d4-30a1f2bf9575" CreationDate="2015-09-27T12:53:37.367" UserId="1236" Text="The English possessive pronouns are _always_ rendered into Russian as the Russian possessive pronouns, _never_ as the Russian personal pronouns in the Genitive case, just the same way as you would not say it in English '*the house of me'.&#xD;&#xA;The function of the Russian personal pronouns in the Genitive case is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - to follow the prepositions that govern the Genitive case: **от меня**, **для тебя**, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - to follow the verbs that govern the Genitive case: **Он боится меня**, **Я избегаю его**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that the Genitive case forms of all the Russian personal pronouns coincides with their the Accusative case forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="63d4cb07-af70-40f1-99be-f7f8ffda034b" CreationDate="2015-09-27T13:03:16.733" UserId="1236" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10760" RevisionGUID="7d1d16d2-bf6c-4d9a-975e-73e35bb1dfe0" CreationDate="2015-09-27T13:18:52.560" UserId="1236" Text="The original phrase is &quot;To die, to sleep – To sleep – perchance to dream&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скончаться — this is a formal way to say 'to die'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сном забыться — 'to doze off, to lose contact with reality', lit. &quot;to forget oneself in a dream, in sleep&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Уснуть — 'to fall asleep'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="c4e2f265-d8d8-4cfe-a2c9-8c6c1ad9b6e3" CreationDate="2015-09-27T14:12:54.830" UserId="5008" Text="_Скончаться_ is yet another word for _to die_. It's of the same root as _конец_, i.e. _end_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Забытьё_ is either _a half-sleep_, _a nap_ or _a fainting_, _a loss of conciousness_. BTW. Sometimes _забыться_ may also mean _to lose self-control_ (literally, to forget oneself), yet in Pasternak's text on both occasions _забыться / забыться сном_ surely is _to fall into a doze_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="82701cbf-8056-464a-8420-5ddf573025cc" CreationDate="2015-09-27T14:40:35.803" UserId="5008" Text="No, it could be said only as a joke. You may think it like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Possessive: Иванов дом = Ivan's house (OK); мой дом = my house (OK)&#xD;&#xA;- Genitive: дом Ивана = house of Ivan (OK); дом меня = house of me (WRONG)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="b8d1e26d-1216-4ea1-bd3a-cace8b3d5a8b" CreationDate="2015-09-27T17:43:28.297" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="I don't understand why the plural version of дом is дома instead of домы. I had thought that the common rule was to add ы at the end of masculine words in the nominative form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="b8d1e26d-1216-4ea1-bd3a-cace8b3d5a8b" CreationDate="2015-09-27T17:43:28.297" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why does дом become дома instead of домы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="b8d1e26d-1216-4ea1-bd3a-cace8b3d5a8b" CreationDate="2015-09-27T17:43:28.297" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10765" RevisionGUID="a4dfb092-8607-4eac-8804-cd261cb9980c" CreationDate="2015-09-27T18:30:24.227" UserId="5008" Text="There is always a problem with &quot;common rules&quot; in Russian. As in Vysotsky's song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы говорим не &quot;штормы&quot;, а &quot;шторма&quot; -  &#xD;&#xA;Слова выходят коротки и смачны:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ветра&quot; - не &quot;ветры&quot; - сводят нас с ума,  &#xD;&#xA;Из палуб выкорчевывая мачты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many nouns have plural ending in -_ы_/-_и_, yet some only -_а_ (e.g. _sleeves_ = _рукава_), some both (_storms_ = _штормы_/_шторма_; _winds_ = _ветры_/_ветра_), and some even have different meanings (_хлебы_ = _loafs of bread_; _хлеба_ = _cereals_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples are easily understandable, e.g &quot;_глаза_&quot; (eyes) ends in -_а_, because the old dual form won over plural. But why it is &quot;_мастера_&quot; (masters, craftsmen), and not &quot;мастеры&quot; - I can't say for sure. Just take it as is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="0fb3d089-f5f6-4d25-8dad-ed61669edfd8" CreationDate="2015-09-27T19:10:29.663" UserId="5897" Comment="edited q to include 'и', better bolding/italics" Text="I don't understand why the plural version of *дом* is *дом**а*** instead of *дом**ы***. I had thought that the common rule was to add ***-и*** / ***-ы*** at the end of masculine words in the nominative form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24694" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="0fb3d089-f5f6-4d25-8dad-ed61669edfd8" CreationDate="2015-09-27T19:10:29.663" Comment="Proposed by 5897 approved by 5008, 2060 edit id of 678" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="d60050f4-3a0d-4c82-a664-4a412c54b870" CreationDate="2015-09-27T19:10:52.183" UserId="1236" Text="This masculine nouns plural ending **-á**, as opposed to the  traditional **-и/-ы**, is a comparatively recent innovation. Even in the 19th century it was correct to say and write `учители` (now it is &quot;учител**я**&quot;), `домы`, etc. Look at the [Ngram Viewer graph of the usage of `домы`][1], it practically had stopped to be used by the 1920s, [the same thing and the same years with `учители`][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural ending **-á** first appeared in the low colloquial speech (&quot;просторечие&quot;) and in the professional argots (шоферá 'drivers', слесаря́ 'turners' as opposed to the correct standard шофёры, слéсари) and later, as the graphs show, after the 1917 revolution, this ending started to infiltrate the written speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The masculine nouns with the plural ending **-á** are too many for all of them to be listed here, you just need to consult the dictionary, but I am sure, Russian textbooks will always point out the nouns that have the plural ending **-á**. Take such nouns as irregular, that's all I can recommend, there are no rule that can help you tell such nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, that some nouns can have both endings, with different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тон 'tone'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тонá (about color) and тóны (about sound)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хлеб 'bread'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хлебá (field(s) of wheat, rye) and хлéбы (loafs of bread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes both endings are correct: штормá and штóрмы 'storms', годá and гóды 'years' (but only гóды in годы юности 'the years of youth', девяностые годы 'the nineties').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again: dictionaries rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2015&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="960609df-376e-4d3d-b8ce-d769f3e1b98a" CreationDate="2015-09-27T22:02:10.677" UserId="5201" Text="I am aware that one way to express 'as much [X] as' between one quantity and another is by 'столько, сколько...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &quot;В течение недели пес сожрал столько же, сколько в полтора последних голодных месяца на улице.&quot; (In the course of a week, the dog devoured as much [food] as in his last, hungry month-and-a-half on the street.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some other ways to express this comparison?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="960609df-376e-4d3d-b8ce-d769f3e1b98a" CreationDate="2015-09-27T22:02:10.677" UserId="5201" Text="Ways to translate/say, &quot;as much as&quot;/&quot;to the same extent as&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="960609df-376e-4d3d-b8ce-d769f3e1b98a" CreationDate="2015-09-27T22:02:10.677" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="ef88e941-4a5d-4b9d-a38f-664fe11ef6cb" CreationDate="2015-09-27T22:18:13.590" UserId="5915" Text="Perhaps in some cases you can use &quot;так же, как и&quot;, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was **as much** scared **as** intrigued.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был **так же** напуган, **как и** заинтригован. =  Я был **настолько же** напуган, **насколько** заинтригован.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts, the construct &quot;**и ..., и ... в равной мере**&quot; could be used (with variations like &quot;**в равной мере и ..., и ...**&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That depends on the context, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24705" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="8fe4194c-f56b-42f8-b618-c23d998f3a85" CreationDate="2015-09-28T07:16:37.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/648395873358061569" />
  <row Id="24707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="9fbfe3e3-2334-4dd4-81b0-1cc360faa5fb" CreationDate="2015-09-28T10:40:16.390" UserId="310" Text="As Зализняк noted, Russian language currently has conflicting rules: old ones and new ones. They fight over words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new rule is that in plural form, the stress (ударение) should fall on a different syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And indeed it does in the pair д**о**м - дом**а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could not do that when plural was домы since the stress on ы is uncommon and very colloquial (кр**а**н - кран**ы** as some people say).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not pretending this to be universal because it doesn't readily explain пр**о**вод - провод**а**. Where also exists an omonym пр**о**воды." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="76d38dd1-5385-4a09-90aa-fcccba82f6cd" CreationDate="2015-09-28T12:57:39.600" UserId="6065" Text="The original meaning of the word &quot;попускать&quot; is to allow something to happen. In my lifetime I have not heard it used that way.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning you are referring to seems to come from Ukrainian Russian speakers and has a darker meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;попускать кого-то&quot;** means to humiliate someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, when you tell that annoying guy at the nightclub **&quot;Попустись!&quot; - &quot;Piss off!&quot;** would be a much more accurate translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are telling your annoyed and agitated friend **&quot;Попустись немного&quot;**, you can translate that as **&quot;Chillax/Let it go/Forget it&quot;**. How your friend will take it depends of your tome of voice and how close you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="ab2e9822-b940-4016-ba2b-b6d66566b6a1" CreationDate="2015-09-28T13:08:24.173" UserId="6066" Text="I'd say it depends on context - it can be anything from gentle &quot;let it go&quot; to mild &quot;chill out&quot; or &quot;relax&quot; to harsh &quot;stand down&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10773" RevisionGUID="0d50e1ee-2053-42ad-abcd-c99873b4d62a" CreationDate="2015-09-28T14:22:27.983" UserId="6065" Text="Some great answers here! Having read them, I was reassured that the words *excited* and *exciting* are not in use in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you need to translate your emotions from English, try to express them without using excited or exciting in the first place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm very excited about my new job. -&gt; I can't wait to start my new job! -&gt; Я не могу дождаться начала своей новой работы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My trip to Europe was so exciting. -&gt; My trip to Europe left me impressed. -&gt; Я был впечатлён своей поездкой по Европе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are you excited about going to the party? -&gt; Are you ready to party? -&gt; Ну что, ты готова к вечеринке?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="cf9f3f84-5244-428b-9f56-1e7ce554a202" CreationDate="2015-09-28T15:52:35.260" UserId="5932" Text="В контексте ‹‹Жаловать есмя своих холопов вольны, а и казнити вольны же››&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="cf9f3f84-5244-428b-9f56-1e7ce554a202" CreationDate="2015-09-28T15:52:35.260" UserId="5932" Text="Что значит слово ‹‹есмя››?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="cf9f3f84-5244-428b-9f56-1e7ce554a202" CreationDate="2015-09-28T15:52:35.260" UserId="5932" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="231ef984-5dda-415c-80ad-bdae7d2c54d7" CreationDate="2015-09-28T16:28:30.560" UserId="1236" Text="Как правильно заметил @[Victor Bazarov][1], это древнерусская форма глагола «быть» в первом лице множественного числа настоящего времени, совр. рус. «мы есть». На самом деле, правильно было бы сказать _есмы́_, ст.сл. _ѥсмъ_, в _есмы́_ окончание -мы под воздействием местоимения «мы», но и форма «есмя» была широко распространена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваша цитата не совсем точна и не полна, вот её [правильный вид][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А жаловати есмя своих холопей волны, а и казнити волны же есми были.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как можно заметить, второй раз написано уже не «есмя», а «есми», что, в принципе, характерно для уровня грамотности московских писцов XV века. Оба эти слова являются вспомогательными глаголами и относятся к причастию «были» (в др.-рус. языке формы глагола на -л были причастиями), т. е. «есмя были», что является формой одного из прошедших времён, перфекта, от глагола «быти», как в современном английском «have been», и на современный русский переводится «были», современное русское прошедшее время происходит от древнерусского перфекта, формы настоящего времени глагола «быть» в современном русском перестали употребляться, а старые причастия на -л начали восприниматься как формы глагола прошедшего времени, хотя они до сих пор изменяются по родам, что характерно для причастия, а не глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, перевод этого предложения такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А жаловать своих холопов мы всегда были вольны, вольны были и казнить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5915/victor-bazarov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Hx58WrRwnhgC&amp;pg=PT151&amp;lpg=PT151&amp;dq=%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B,%20%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=v-8mvsTWaB&amp;sig=BnjMSBhMNosxOog-4dpBtrfv_vE&amp;hl=uk&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CDoQ6AEwBWoVChMI-YPUm4uayAIVgxIsCh0JHwaa#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%2C%20%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="5dc43190-6eca-40be-9c54-d9a306c04db9" CreationDate="2015-09-28T16:34:06.503" UserId="5443" Text="*About meanings in the context.* The original monologue is about possible suicide (**suffering or death**), however many of Russian translations incl. the one by Pasternak (especially in its version for Taganka Theatre and Visotsky) intentionally disguise that idea by transforming the famous '**to be or not to be**' dilemma into '**struggle or inaction**', to glorify the idea of struggle.  So most Russian readers are quite sure of the latter main idea. After expression of it in the very beginning of translation, the words &quot;*Скончаться. Сном забыться. Уснуть.*&quot; sound like 3 options of inaction: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    to die; to forget yourself in sleep /in a dream/; to fall asleep, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while in the author's concept they are a part of Hamlet's understanding what death is like: it's like to fall asleep but the problem is you'd most likely have dreams you wouldn't like. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="6fa67378-9b30-4d13-a907-5680372bec82" CreationDate="2015-09-28T20:16:46.227" UserId="1236" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Как правильно заметил @[Victor Bazarov][1], это древнерусская форма глагола «быть» в первом лице множественного числа настоящего времени, совр. рус. «мы есть». На самом деле, правильно было бы сказать _есмы́_, ст.сл. _ѥсмъ_, в _есмы́_ окончание -мы под воздействием местоимения «мы», но и форма «есмя» была широко распространена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваша цитата не совсем точна и не полна, вот её [правильный вид][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А жаловати есмя своих холопей волны, а и казнити волны же есми были.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как можно заметить, второй раз написано уже не «есмя», а «есми», что, в принципе, характерно для уровня грамотности московских писцов XV века. Оба эти слова являются вспомогательными глаголами и относятся к причастию «были» (в др.-рус. языке формы глагола на -л были причастиями), т. е. «есмя были», что является формой одного из прошедших времён, перфекта, от глагола «быти», как в современном английском «have been», и на современный русский переводится «[мы] были», современное русское прошедшее время происходит от древнерусского перфекта, формы настоящего времени глагола «быть» в современном русском перестали употребляться, а старые причастия на -л начали восприниматься как формы глагола прошедшего времени, хотя они до сих пор изменяются по родам, что характерно для причастия, а не глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, перевод этого предложения такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А жаловать своих холопов мы всегда были вольны, вольны были и казнить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5915/victor-bazarov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Hx58WrRwnhgC&amp;pg=PT151&amp;lpg=PT151&amp;dq=%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B,%20%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=v-8mvsTWaB&amp;sig=BnjMSBhMNosxOog-4dpBtrfv_vE&amp;hl=uk&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CDoQ6AEwBWoVChMI-YPUm4uayAIVgxIsCh0JHwaa#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%2C%20%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="56b50721-3335-4765-8c03-1f196de5f341" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:49:24.203" UserId="6069" Text="Whilst learning the Russian language I stumbled upon this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хорошо, когда будете в аэропорту в Лондоне, позвони ещё раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Good, when you are at the airport in London, call me again.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'm wondering why it is аэропорт**у** (dativ / masculine)? During my classes I learned that the preposition **в** 99% with the prepositional case. So what do I miss here at this point? I would appreciate any kind of hint, thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="56b50721-3335-4765-8c03-1f196de5f341" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:49:24.203" UserId="6069" Text="Can I use the dativ case as a statement of place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="56b50721-3335-4765-8c03-1f196de5f341" CreationDate="2015-09-28T21:49:24.203" UserId="6069" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="5eb3f5cd-146b-4058-8dda-f56e9fcfaac1" CreationDate="2015-09-28T22:19:42.590" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I use the dative case as a statement of place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="21ca098e-10af-48bb-8b35-3e911b7c7929" CreationDate="2015-09-29T01:50:51.557" UserId="5201" Text="What are some phrases to express that it is hard to think because you are very tired. In English, saying your 'brain is fried' can be due to external reasons such as taking drugs, but I'm talking very simply about how to say you're tired and that is has become hard to think clearly and/or at a normal pace." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="21ca098e-10af-48bb-8b35-3e911b7c7929" CreationDate="2015-09-29T01:50:51.557" UserId="5201" Text="How to translate 'My brain is fried?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="21ca098e-10af-48bb-8b35-3e911b7c7929" CreationDate="2015-09-29T01:50:51.557" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="acb5358e-38c4-4c75-82c5-7798a18c4e11" CreationDate="2015-09-29T05:37:27.153" UserId="5008" Text="I'd say _У меня мозги кипят_ (i.e. &quot;the brain boils&quot;). This could also mean an external reason, as an extreme heat, but usually is stands for &quot;I'm stuck&quot;, &quot;I'm tired of thinking&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="44b8cad5-d33a-400c-b382-4fccbc8c6de8" CreationDate="2015-09-29T06:39:14.997" UserId="5008" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="I'd say _У меня мозги кипят_ (i.e. &quot;the brain boils&quot;). This could also mean an external reason, as an extreme heat, but usually is stands for &quot;I'm stuck&quot;, &quot;I'm tired of thinking&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW. This is probably due to driver slang: if the engine overheats and starts smoking then one says: _Мотор закипел_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="21ae95a1-0d93-4e79-b679-f4d3cb759e48" CreationDate="2015-09-29T12:01:57.333" UserId="4494" Text="I've noticed twice now that in situations where someone is reporting past events, they suddenly switch to the present tense for no apparent reason. The first example is from [this](http://hyaenidae.narod.ru/story1/013.html) fairy tale. The second paragraph starts out in the past tense and then turns into the present tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кот ходил, ходил и набрел на избушку. Залез на чердак и полеживает себе. А захочет есть — пойдет в лес, птичек, мышей наловит, наестся досыта — опять на чердак, и горя ему мало!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence in particular seems to read &quot;He *climbed* up to the attic, and *lies* down&quot;! This kind of change in tense is completely inconceivable in English. What motivates it in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other example I noticed was in some song lyrics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы встретились в маршрутке  *(past tense)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Под номером один, едем и молчим. *(present tense)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорит - доброе утро, *(present tense)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А я не слышу будто. *(present tense)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сжал мне руку сильно... *(past tense)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="21ae95a1-0d93-4e79-b679-f4d3cb759e48" CreationDate="2015-09-29T12:01:57.333" UserId="4494" Text="The present tense in Russian storytelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="21ae95a1-0d93-4e79-b679-f4d3cb759e48" CreationDate="2015-09-29T12:01:57.333" UserId="4494" Text="|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10781" RevisionGUID="13ac0a7e-55d0-46e3-80b3-ecce65508053" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:12:29.120" UserId="1671" Text="So you see, it's always the *transition* from past to present and conditional future. That makes sense if you imagine that the story is happening now. This brings more reality and hence suspence. Now, what happened in the past is exposition, it's not very important for our narrative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes this flow of the present tense can be interspersed with some past to mark a time gap. Your second example skips to the next exposition: he squeezed my hand. So what is my reaction now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this is very intuitive for native speakers. Creative writing allows many forms. Take imperative mood in Russian (my favorite example). All of these are correct: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Упасть, отжаться! &#xD;&#xA; - Упал, отжался! &#xD;&#xA; - Упади, отожмись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I guess you only learn the third variant as correct imperative (first two are not so polite).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24731" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="080f3e42-f86a-46e8-a912-dda56f476009" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:19:58.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/648849701475889152" />
  <row Id="24732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="a4fdbd96-e3d4-4820-a1e1-02ad7a894c5a" CreationDate="2015-09-29T13:44:57.370" UserId="5008" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'd say _&quot;У меня мозги кипят&quot;_ (i.e. &quot;my brain boils&quot;). This could also mean an external reason, as an extreme heat, but usually it stands for &quot;I'm stuck&quot;, &quot;I'm tired of thinking&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW. This is probably due to driver's slang: if the engine overheats and starts smoking then one says _&quot;Мотор закипел&quot;_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="027378d2-9d2a-442e-884d-f07e740d8880" CreationDate="2015-09-29T14:39:05.370" UserId="5201" Comment="edited body" Text="What are some phrases to express that it is hard to think because you are very tired. In English, saying your 'brain is fried' can be due to external reasons such as taking drugs, but I'm talking very simply about how to say you're tired and that it has become hard to think clearly and/or at a normal pace." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="f5944661-f79b-4f82-bbda-d0e692b89375" CreationDate="2015-09-29T16:11:30.230" UserId="1860" Text="Let's say that I want to have a night out on the town with someone that I know is strapped financially, and I want to make it clear that I plan to pay for everything. What can I say that's better than &quot;Я заплачу за всё&quot;, which is rude and potentially demeaning? The goal is to make it clear ahead of time that you are offering to take them out all expenses paid, without making them feel uncomfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase would probably be &quot;my treat&quot; but alternatives are welcome. Google Translate shows &quot;я угощаю&quot; for &quot;my treat&quot; but that just sounds obnoxious, plus it wouldn't seem right if there were no food involved, such as going out to a bar or a movie for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, my question is not about dating etiquette, just a nice, casual way to tell someone - anyone - that you have it covered. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="f5944661-f79b-4f82-bbda-d0e692b89375" CreationDate="2015-09-29T16:11:30.230" UserId="1860" Text="My treat (general context)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="f5944661-f79b-4f82-bbda-d0e692b89375" CreationDate="2015-09-29T16:11:30.230" UserId="1860" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10783" RevisionGUID="196cf502-e08d-44de-acc1-92171ec7ba11" CreationDate="2015-09-29T16:26:42.620" UserId="1860" Text="This is not unique to the Russian language. Frequently, the past tense is used to create context while the present tense is used to relate events. For example, an English speaker may say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The craziest thing happened on my way to work yesterday! This guy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comes up to me and says...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is context, and the second sentence is the main event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="4875ea73-32cc-456c-8946-c5ed346216e9" CreationDate="2015-09-29T16:27:54.933" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="*Я угощаю* is quite correct and elegant form to mean that you pay for everything. If you invite to something that involves tickets (theater, cinema) it will still be clear, but you may also say *я приглашаю*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я плачу за всё* in this situation is too straightforward. Another straightforward way is *всё за мой счёт*. But both require that the other side not be sensitive to this, nor take it as an offence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A humorous way would be to say *контора платит* (*[my] company pays*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="679569a0-c3ab-4bb5-bf2a-83c1c4f4a3f3" CreationDate="2015-09-29T16:33:35.593" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="edited body" Text="`Я угощаю` is quite correct and elegant form to mean that you pay for everything. If you invite to something that involves tickets (theater, cinema) it will still be clear, but you may also say `я приглашаю`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я плачу за всё` in this situation is too straightforward. Another straightforward way is `всё за мой счёт`. But both require that the other side not be sensitive to this, nor take it as an offence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A humorous way would be to say `контора платит` (*[my] company pays*, that person understanding that you mean it's you who pays)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="1aede8ac-4b9c-4d9e-a57e-927bc75124aa" CreationDate="2015-09-29T19:42:54.867" UserId="6073" Text="I would say &quot;Я учу драконов русскому языку&quot; is like &quot;I'm driving/getting them to knowing it&quot;. Generally, &quot;учить *smb. (Acc) smth. (Dat)*&quot; is &quot;bring *smb.* to knowlidge of *smth.*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10787" RevisionGUID="6ed6cf35-7c6f-478e-aa5a-333030014267" CreationDate="2015-09-29T21:32:21.203" UserId="4714" Text="Ok, so I answered my own question. The definition of Учить as **&quot;To learn&quot;** is bad gloss in my opinion. That is, it's too simplistic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, a better translation is &quot;To train&quot;. In English is perfectly valid to say **&quot;I'm training the students to/for Russian (the Russian language)&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's more natural to say &quot;I'm trying them in Russian&quot;. But &quot;for&quot; is ok too. It's just a matter of oblique cases here that don't add much meaning at all to the sentence—they are just required for no good reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But to my English ears **&quot;To train&quot;** is better followed by the Dative meaning **&quot;TO,For&quot;** than **&quot;To learn&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Учиться is effectively &quot;To train oneself for X&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said &quot;To train&quot; matches all the other forms much better. &quot;Выучить&quot;, обучиь итд; they all have a sense of training. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="ad1266ea-ca6c-49b5-b0eb-f2d60a0ab088" CreationDate="2015-09-30T11:16:35.583" UserId="6075" Text="I know the russian word 'пока' has a number of meanings, the most prevalent one being the informal 'bye'.&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts, however, I have come across 'пока-пока', but couldn't find much info about the use of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just a &quot;cutesy&quot; way of saying bye?&#xD;&#xA;In which situations would this be used (over пока)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="ad1266ea-ca6c-49b5-b0eb-f2d60a0ab088" CreationDate="2015-09-30T11:16:35.583" UserId="6075" Text="Usage of пока-пока" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="ad1266ea-ca6c-49b5-b0eb-f2d60a0ab088" CreationDate="2015-09-30T11:16:35.583" UserId="6075" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="78869157-545e-4f49-a028-420a391a1b2b" CreationDate="2015-09-30T11:39:17.553" UserId="134" Text="Yes, it's a babyish way to say bye, similar to English &quot;bye-bye&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used whenever English &quot;bye-bye&quot; would be used, and I believe is a Russian calque therefrom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10789" RevisionGUID="7b594c0c-9f9d-4661-a830-2f150fc63463" CreationDate="2015-09-30T19:57:57.200" UserId="134" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's a babyish way to say bye, similar to English &quot;bye-bye&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used whenever English &quot;bye-bye&quot; would be used, and I believe is a Russian calque of the English word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10788" RevisionGUID="030bc900-9899-41a4-825d-afe3713d3885" CreationDate="2015-10-02T01:38:10.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackRussian/status/649760250107662336" />
  <row Id="24752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10790" RevisionGUID="c57dc2f8-8d20-4d5d-9204-f61142dd2947" CreationDate="2015-10-02T03:29:22.650" UserId="310" Text="You can say &quot;Расходы на мне&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's explicit enough without being rude." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="21a41606-cbca-451a-b509-5c7e6e071a49" CreationDate="2015-10-02T15:55:53.480" UserId="6084" Text="I am new in this forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I spell (and pronounce) the twenty third of October in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aнa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="21a41606-cbca-451a-b509-5c7e6e071a49" CreationDate="2015-10-02T15:55:53.480" UserId="6084" Text="Numeral: Date. Confused when last digit is three" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="21a41606-cbca-451a-b509-5c7e6e071a49" CreationDate="2015-10-02T15:55:53.480" UserId="6084" Text="|перевод|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="5ff68fe1-c6ea-4c41-a0bf-c7bd2f60ace6" CreationDate="2015-10-02T16:28:54.873" UserId="134" Text="&quot;October 23&quot; would be *двадцать третье октября* ([dvɐt͡sɨ#'trʲetʲjɪ əktʲɪbrʲä])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use neuter gender for the ordinal here because it agrees with assumed noun *число* (&quot;number&quot;) which is neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="7317d952-0e53-4344-b68d-fbf2fe6b6ee8" CreationDate="2015-10-02T16:42:04.927" UserId="5443" Text="The 6 cases for it in their usual order (only &quot;третье&quot; changes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Двадцать третье октября` (what day it is)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(От) двадцать третьего октября` (when, letter /of/ what date, on what date)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(К) двадцать третьему октября` (/by what date/, to what day devoted)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Двадцать третье октября` (the day one might remember)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   `Двадцать третьим октября` (smth. begins with that day or marked with that date written)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`На двадцать третьем октября` (we've finally come to agreement on that day for our next meeting)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10791" RevisionGUID="2aa8cfe3-5f0b-4afa-b383-a79226e42797" CreationDate="2015-10-02T19:15:48.013" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="How do I spell (and pronounce) the twenty third of October in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="7a364bf9-00aa-4a1a-8a97-5bfdbec44ac6" CreationDate="2015-10-02T20:14:15.397" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The 6 cases for it in their usual order (only &quot;третье&quot; changes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Двадцать третье октября` (what day it is)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(От) двадцать третьего октября` (when, letter /of/ what date, on what date)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(К) двадцать третьему октября` (/by what date/, to what day devoted)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Двадцать третье октября` (the day one might remember)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   `Двадцать третьим октября` (smth. ends with that day or marked with that date written)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`На двадцать третьем октября` (we've finally come to agreement on that day for our next meeting)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="c61bdda4-bca0-4e29-92c8-099961e07e8e" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:23:01.890" UserId="6085" Text="I have been told that the correct and preferred syntax is 11-oго while I have seen syntax written as 11-го. which of these two is most correct and most common?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this spelling correct: У меня день рождéния 11-го/11-oго июня?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="c61bdda4-bca0-4e29-92c8-099961e07e8e" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:23:01.890" UserId="6085" Text="Date and syntax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="c61bdda4-bca0-4e29-92c8-099961e07e8e" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:23:01.890" UserId="6085" Text="|грамматика|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="fc8e8cdf-c7d4-43d3-8159-b573b1b0517c" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:33:09.210" UserId="487" Text="Was блин's development independent of блядь? Does anybody have something to say to whether it is an euphemism of блядь this statement? (or against it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="fc8e8cdf-c7d4-43d3-8159-b573b1b0517c" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:33:09.210" UserId="487" Text="Is блин an euphemism for блядь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="fc8e8cdf-c7d4-43d3-8159-b573b1b0517c" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:33:09.210" UserId="487" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="72f480e2-1ee8-48dd-a9bc-24eedf56d935" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:38:52.720" UserId="6085" Text="I am curious how I write correctly that I exercise the sport тхэквондо (russian spelling for: &quot;taekwondo&quot;?)?&#xD;&#xA;Which verb is most correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also curious how Hebrew is spelled correctly (еврейский?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="72f480e2-1ee8-48dd-a9bc-24eedf56d935" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:38:52.720" UserId="6085" Text="Language and exercise a sport?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10796" RevisionGUID="72f480e2-1ee8-48dd-a9bc-24eedf56d935" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:38:52.720" UserId="6085" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24769" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10794" RevisionGUID="e7461511-af9e-4313-bf86-cbfc8db529cb" CreationDate="2015-10-02T22:42:20.560" UserId="6085" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="57a998fb-23be-4ef7-9f8e-f512eb9fa103" CreationDate="2015-10-02T23:25:20.813" UserId="5443" Text=" Я **занимаюсь** тхэквондо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of other kinds of sports (like ball games as opposed to wrestling) it is also possible to use the verb &quot;играть&quot; (я играю в футбол, в шахматы).&#xD;&#xA;The spelling &quot;*тхэквондо*&quot; comes from strict rules of Korean-to-Russian *practical transcription system*, not from English version of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;еврейский (adjective)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;еврей (noun; nationality)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="71a7d599-d3a2-45ea-a998-5c29737ecc68" CreationDate="2015-10-02T23:30:07.813" UserId="6085" Text="I am curious what the difference is between yчите and изучaете?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="71a7d599-d3a2-45ea-a998-5c29737ecc68" CreationDate="2015-10-02T23:30:07.813" UserId="6085" Text="Difference between ýчите and изучáете?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="71a7d599-d3a2-45ea-a998-5c29737ecc68" CreationDate="2015-10-02T23:30:07.813" UserId="6085" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="ece585a7-ed30-446f-bc5b-f4cf19b260b9" CreationDate="2015-10-03T00:11:26.067" UserId="6086" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I translated Tel-Aviv, Israel into тель-авив, Израиль but I am not sure if there should be a &quot;-&quot; between the two words or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="ece585a7-ed30-446f-bc5b-f4cf19b260b9" CreationDate="2015-10-03T00:11:26.067" UserId="6086" Text="Question: How do you spell Tel-Aviv in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="ece585a7-ed30-446f-bc5b-f4cf19b260b9" CreationDate="2015-10-03T00:11:26.067" UserId="6086" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="1d5c0215-724f-405b-af52-9192e43e4de0" CreationDate="2015-10-03T00:35:31.557" UserId="194" Text="учить = learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;изучать = study, research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24778" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="ea01eaee-ebee-405b-9900-a3402b19eeca" CreationDate="2015-10-03T01:43:22.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/650123947401478144" />
  <row Id="24779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10801" RevisionGUID="ec37f231-ffd0-4ed0-a764-b1c59061b696" CreationDate="2015-10-03T03:00:05.683" UserId="1097" Text="&quot;У меня день рождéния 11 июня.&quot; or &quot;У меня день рождéния 11-го июня.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;У меня день рождéния 11-oго июня.&quot; — understandable but wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10802" RevisionGUID="12f992dd-5691-4ed2-ae21-440499ed171d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T03:13:39.833" UserId="1097" Text="Yes, &quot;блин&quot; is one of several an euphemism of блядь.  &#xD;&#xA;More examples: млин, плин, млять, плять, бляха-муха, ... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="09c6bc48-dc5a-4818-b0e3-90de28cb41ab" CreationDate="2015-10-03T07:09:38.263" UserId="5403" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как объяснить иностранцам и всем тем, кто со слуху не различает ударные личные окончания глаголов, в каких случаях глагольное личное окончание ударное? Есть ли какие-нибудь способы?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="09c6bc48-dc5a-4818-b0e3-90de28cb41ab" CreationDate="2015-10-03T07:09:38.263" UserId="5403" Text="Спряжение глаголов с ударными личными окончаниями" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="09c6bc48-dc5a-4818-b0e3-90de28cb41ab" CreationDate="2015-10-03T07:09:38.263" UserId="5403" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="ba103392-a0ad-4d54-8094-5a86e9b89e61" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:27:49.980" UserId="6089" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I undestand that it is correct to write: &quot;Я былa в Москве&quot; but if a name ends with &quot;ё&quot; would it still be correct to end the sentence with an &quot;e&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я былa в мальмe (мальмё), Швеция&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="ba103392-a0ad-4d54-8094-5a86e9b89e61" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:27:49.980" UserId="6089" Text="Я былa в Москве but if a town name ends in ё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="ba103392-a0ad-4d54-8094-5a86e9b89e61" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:27:49.980" UserId="6089" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10808" RevisionGUID="426619bf-1fc9-4819-ba46-5b172a0a5742" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:37:53.553" UserId="5008" Text="_Мальмё_ is a foreign word which has no declension. In every case you should say just _Мальмё_ and nothing else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is &quot;_Я была в Мальмё, Швеция_&quot; or maybe &quot;_Я была в Мальмё, в Швеции_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="e21845f8-c9a0-4a96-9ea3-539d064e9c9b" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:42:32.263" UserId="6089" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If I want to say that someone has a lot of money and be specific about it (See below). Why is the -om terminatation added on the F form and what is the rule for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он миллионер. Она миллионером." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="e21845f8-c9a0-4a96-9ea3-539d064e9c9b" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:42:32.263" UserId="6089" Text="он/Она and the -OM termination?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10809" RevisionGUID="e21845f8-c9a0-4a96-9ea3-539d064e9c9b" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:42:32.263" UserId="6089" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10810" RevisionGUID="44603be4-5148-4437-b24c-aa28dd7f5885" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:49:23.340" UserId="97" Text="This is incorrect.  -ом ending is not added in the female form.  In both cases you would use nominative case. You would also use a dash (тире) before the noun in such construct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он - миллионер.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она - миллионер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use был/была verb in place of dash - and in this case you would add the -ом ending, as the noun is then used in instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был миллионером.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она была миллионером." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="adc00388-558f-4845-bcfc-26ac5e9781e1" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:51:59.117" UserId="6089" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am struggling with the word &quot;рождéния&quot;. I have used Google Translate but I want to run this by you. You are smarter than the Google machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the prounaciation &quot;rozdenja&quot; or &quot;razdenja&quot;. I assume that with the &quot;я&quot; I shoukd in this case end the word with an &quot;-ja&quot;. Let me know what you think about this. I am using that word together in a sentence with: &quot;день рождéния&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="adc00388-558f-4845-bcfc-26ac5e9781e1" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:51:59.117" UserId="6089" Text="How to pronounce the word &quot;рождéния&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10811" RevisionGUID="adc00388-558f-4845-bcfc-26ac5e9781e1" CreationDate="2015-10-03T13:51:59.117" UserId="6089" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10812" RevisionGUID="5a933bd8-511e-4434-a20b-8fafb1a7da8f" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:06:23.540" UserId="5915" Text="(Using English pronunciation shorthand)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can pronounce it as &quot;**rƏzh- D'EH- knee- yah**&quot; ('k' in 'knee' is silent of course).  The third syllable is different in the word &quot;*рожденья*&quot;, note the soft sign where in the other '*и*' is.  *That* word is pronounced as &quot;**rƏzh- D'EN'- yah**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, in both the letter 'я' stands by itself and hence needs to contain the fricative(?) 'j' sound (English 'y')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="13263336-c0ad-4ef1-b16c-6b12fbdffac9" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:38:34.943" UserId="6089" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am struggling with a pronunciation of a date (birthday). The very end. So if I would like to pronounce &quot;16-oг&quot;. Would the following be correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Шестнáдцaть-**eva**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am struggling a little with how to transform the -oг into a correct termination and pronunciation. Would appreciate some input. I have struggled with this part during longer period of time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="13263336-c0ad-4ef1-b16c-6b12fbdffac9" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:38:34.943" UserId="6089" Text="Question: Prounounciation of a date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10813" RevisionGUID="13263336-c0ad-4ef1-b16c-6b12fbdffac9" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:38:34.943" UserId="6089" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="43df39ab-7d91-433f-b8cc-b7a4c7c86f9d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:48:39.050" UserId="6089" Text="&#xD;&#xA;About the sentence: &quot;Я живy с семьёй.&quot; --&gt; Phonetic: [Yah zhivu s sem'yoy.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When pronouncing the &quot;independent c&quot;. Would you pronounce both the &quot;s:es&quot; in one go or would you make a short pause before pronouncing &quot;sem'yoy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="43df39ab-7d91-433f-b8cc-b7a4c7c86f9d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:48:39.050" UserId="6089" Text="Pronounciation of &quot;I live with my family&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10814" RevisionGUID="43df39ab-7d91-433f-b8cc-b7a4c7c86f9d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T14:48:39.050" UserId="6089" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="47376d27-87a5-4933-93cc-98b649a45fd0" CreationDate="2015-10-03T15:06:59.787" UserId="5915" Text="I think you meant &quot;16-го&quot; (not &quot;16-ог&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the last two syllables is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -тәвә&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both letters '**о**' are without emphasis, but the second of them is even less stressed, more &quot;*lost*&quot;, so to speak) and the entire word is something like&#xD;&#xA;&gt;шәсн**А**тцәтәвә&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the first '**т**' disappears in the pronunciation and the '**д**' before '**ц**' becomes non-vocal, '**т**'.  (sorry, I'm not good at writing in IPA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the ending of the word in genitive case loses its soft sign, the sound '**т**' is hard (compared to the *cardinal number 16*, for instance).  The nominative case of the ordinal number (&quot;*шестнадцатое*&quot;) also has the hard '**т**' in the postfix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10816" RevisionGUID="b84bdd7f-0b69-4a75-ba42-507f412c8ce4" CreationDate="2015-10-03T15:07:42.150" UserId="5008" Text="No, it usually goes like &quot;double S&quot;. Actually, you may/should even omit a pause after &quot;_живу_&quot;, and say &quot;SS&quot; by using the exhalation of &quot;_У_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10817" RevisionGUID="fdf3ad4f-76bc-490d-9a1e-9d36e2d5b628" CreationDate="2015-10-03T15:08:31.077" UserId="5915" Text="No pause, just make it doubled, as it is.  Pronounce it as if imitating a snake's hissing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10818" RevisionGUID="373d14c1-0b4d-4ce4-8ca4-5b1106c67591" CreationDate="2015-10-03T17:58:05.663" UserId="2238" Text="Окончание ударно, когда на него падает ударение. Боюсь, схема ударений окончаний - это словарное свойство глагола. Глаголы на -аю, -ею обычно имеют безударные окончания, но не более того, да и их инфинитивы совпадают с инфинитивами глаголов вроде &quot;писать&quot;, &quot;петь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Было бы удобно предложить иностранцам пользоваться для определения этого &quot;Грамматическим словарём русского языка&quot; А. А. Зализняка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="ef6a534b-0b44-484f-9648-5c72664b048a" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:03:43.897" UserId="4560" Text="You would pronounce them in one go. Think of *give u**s s**ome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that in this case, you've got two phonemically different consonants; the first [s] is hard and the second one is soft ([sʲ]). Some people assimilate, though, making them both soft; it's subject to free variation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10819" RevisionGUID="bd746975-e9e4-4264-90a9-cf4835094f3b" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:11:36.470" UserId="4560" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="You would pronounce them in one go. Think of *give u**s s**ome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that in this case, you've got two phonemically different consonants; the first [s] is hard and the second one is soft ([sʲ]). Some people assimilate, though, making them both soft; it's subject to free variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian generally doesn't do pauses. The only Russian word that contains a &quot;pause&quot; of sorts (glottal stop) is the colloquial **не-а** &quot;nope&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="67250451-e118-401e-9814-e4e7bdb28187" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:14:12.483" UserId="6091" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have hear several different pronunciations on &quot;сотовые телефоны&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;satavyye telefone&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;satovyye telefone&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;sotovyye telefone&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="67250451-e118-401e-9814-e4e7bdb28187" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:14:12.483" UserId="6091" Text="Pronounciation: сотовые телефоны" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10820" RevisionGUID="67250451-e118-401e-9814-e4e7bdb28187" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:14:12.483" UserId="6091" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10821" RevisionGUID="26be5157-4b69-4b91-b5df-dfd95560c38e" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:20:12.630" UserId="4560" Text="None of the above; &quot;sotavyye telefony&quot;, to use your notation. I doubt you heard those from native speakers; there are words with ambiguous emphasis in Russian but **сотовые** certainly isn't one of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="f26714e2-fbc8-41de-9142-a210861b463e" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:24:55.733" UserId="6091" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Ran into the two words &quot;bce&quot; and &quot;bcё&quot;. The teacher I have pronounces the words exactly the same even though the last letter is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also ran the word through the Google Translate and some other fifth class software and got what appears to me as the same pronunciation for both of them or garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the words pronounced the same? Do you guys have an opinion and expertise about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="f26714e2-fbc8-41de-9142-a210861b463e" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:24:55.733" UserId="6091" Text="Difference in pronounciation between bce and bcё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="f26714e2-fbc8-41de-9142-a210861b463e" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:24:55.733" UserId="6091" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="4576fd8d-754f-473b-91a9-c7d1dbce0f1c" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:33:28.227" UserId="6091" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I ran into two words that ends with the same letter in plural. My book sometimes marks if a word is M or F and sometimes they just omit it. Can you please help out?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;рубль     (M or F)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;трамвай   (M or F)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="4576fd8d-754f-473b-91a9-c7d1dbce0f1c" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:33:28.227" UserId="6091" Text="Are these two words M or F?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="4576fd8d-754f-473b-91a9-c7d1dbce0f1c" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:33:28.227" UserId="6091" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="de8123c3-b887-47c0-9a23-b817ca1f3844" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:34:03.070" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Ran into the two words &quot;вce&quot; and &quot;вcё&quot;. The teacher I have pronounces the words exactly the same even though the last letter is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also ran the word through the Google Translate and some other fifth class software and got what appears to me as the same pronunciation for both of them or garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the words pronounced the same? Do you guys have an opinion and expertise about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24824" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="de8123c3-b887-47c0-9a23-b817ca1f3844" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:34:03.070" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Difference in pronounciation between &quot;вce&quot; and &quot;вcё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10824" RevisionGUID="2dea52d5-3c69-4564-a652-37a22699f098" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:35:36.853" UserId="4379" Text="These words actually have both different meanings and different pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;Transcriptions are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все - [в с' э]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всё - [в с' о]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10825" RevisionGUID="beb0fd70-f7ab-4164-82fd-18d8040c2686" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:39:27.783" UserId="5915" Text="Both are masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any online dictionary (wiktionary.org, for instance) should be able to tell you most of what you need to know.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24827" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="ba7d2b1a-d57d-48de-8efa-7e5991023430" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:44:41.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/650396069193510913" />
  <row Id="24828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10824" RevisionGUID="79e4ec15-b9ba-4d7a-8aba-44a289348700" CreationDate="2015-10-03T19:52:00.003" UserId="4379" Comment="edited body" Text="These words actually have both different meanings and different pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;Transcriptions are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все - [ф с' э]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всё - [ф с' о]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10815" RevisionGUID="f91c34eb-000a-4aa2-af01-634a60297bcf" CreationDate="2015-10-03T20:11:17.483" UserId="5915" Comment="made 'т' in the pronunciation smaller to indicate that it merges with 'ц'" Text="I think you meant &quot;16-го&quot; (not &quot;16-ог&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of the last two syllables is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -тәвә&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(both letters '**о**' are without emphasis, but the second of them is even less stressed, more &quot;*lost*&quot;, so to speak) and the entire word is something like&#xD;&#xA;&gt;шәсн**А**&lt;sub&gt;т&lt;/sub&gt;цәтәвә&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the first '**т**' is omitted in the pronunciation and the '**д**' before '**ц**' becomes non-vocal, '**т**', which BTW, almost disappears  (sorry, I'm not good at writing in IPA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the ending of the word in genitive case loses its soft sign, the sound '**т**' is hard (compared to the *cardinal number 16*, for instance).  The nominative case of the ordinal number (&quot;*шестнадцатое*&quot;) also has the hard '**т**' in the postfix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10822" RevisionGUID="48b47c9f-986d-4410-a7a7-ac2c4be8b01d" CreationDate="2015-10-03T21:15:08.267" UserId="2060" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10826" RevisionGUID="5d9515a3-ace9-4f68-82d0-327587d24939" CreationDate="2015-10-03T21:56:58.120" UserId="2079" Text="Listen to audios, or read IPA transcriptions, at the wiktionary article for [все][1].  The first one is the pronuncation of `все`, the secons one is pronuncation of `всё`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in Russian ё is oftenly written as е, so the word written as `все` may actually mean `всё`.  Such ё-&gt;е replacement is most common in printed books, newspapers and journals (almost 100% cases), common in Internet (50% cases), and less common, but still ocasionally happens, in handwritten texts.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="e2a15baf-6f52-42b2-802d-694e7ff77e66" CreationDate="2015-10-04T04:44:43.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/650531973514051584" />
  <row Id="24833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="9b76ab36-d644-49c3-944c-ab5a8d4e62fa" CreationDate="2015-10-04T05:54:20.473" UserId="5201" Text="If I am not mistaken, 'по-настоящему' and 'как следует' generally mean 'properly' or 'in the right way.' Is there a difference in usage and meaning between these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="9b76ab36-d644-49c3-944c-ab5a8d4e62fa" CreationDate="2015-10-04T05:54:20.473" UserId="5201" Text="Difference between 'по-настоящему' and 'как следует'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10827" RevisionGUID="9b76ab36-d644-49c3-944c-ab5a8d4e62fa" CreationDate="2015-10-04T05:54:20.473" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10828" RevisionGUID="ebccc603-720c-4f75-a4f4-9da5f24296f6" CreationDate="2015-10-04T07:28:21.983" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, _Как следует_ may be not just an idiom for &quot;_properly_&quot;, but also a construction similar to either &quot;_as it follows from_&quot; or &quot;_as it ought to_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, _По-настоящему_ literally means &quot;_for real_&quot;, &quot;_really_&quot;. So these words are not always interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Подумай _как следует_ --&gt; do _proper_ thinking; think twice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Подумай _по-настоящему_ --&gt; do _real_ thinking (mostly unmeaningful)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="d99ff1a4-593d-43e7-a52e-186d5fa6fbe1" CreationDate="2015-10-04T07:39:58.810" UserId="5443" Text="&quot;**По настоящему**&quot; typically means doing something **at full strength**, without simplification or imitation some action for some reason, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    боксировать по-настоящему,  без скидок на неопытность соперника&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Как следует**&quot; means doing something *properly or thoroughly*, **as** one is **supposed to do** it. The expression is usually opposed to someone's possible revealing their laziness or is based on a precedent of not doing their best. &quot;**По настоящему**&quot; can be used in similar meaning without a hint at a person's imperfection (it's a bit 'politically correct').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На этот раз вымой пол как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (more friendly) Вымой сегодня пол, только по-настоящему (= как ты это умеешь)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="56af37d9-d5c3-4063-aa7c-507398a9ccef" CreationDate="2015-10-04T07:57:09.373" UserId="5443" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="&quot;**По-настоящему**&quot; typically means doing something **at full strength**, without simplification or imitation some action for some reason, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    боксировать по-настоящему,  без скидок на неопытность соперника&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Как следует**&quot; (*the way it should be done*) means doing something *properly or thoroughly*, **as** one is **supposed to do** it. The expression is usually opposed to someone's possible revealing their laziness or is based on a precedent of not doing their best. &quot;**По-настоящему**&quot; can be used in similar meaning without a hint at a person's imperfection (it's a bit 'politically correct').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На этот раз вымой пол как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (more friendly) Вымой сегодня пол, только по-настоящему (= как ты это умеешь)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10829" RevisionGUID="afbdc1b5-e749-4a06-a78f-0cb8a2485bac" CreationDate="2015-10-04T08:25:21.213" UserId="5443" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;**По-настоящему**&quot; typically means doing something **at full strength**, without simplification or imitation of some action for some reason, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    боксировать по-настоящему,  без скидок на неопытность соперника&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Как следует**&quot; (*the way it should be done*) means doing something *properly or thoroughly*, **as** one is **supposed to do** it. The expression is usually opposed to someone's possible revealing their laziness or is based on a precedent of not doing their best. &quot;**По-настоящему**&quot; can be used in similar meaning without a hint at a person's imperfection (it's a bit 'politically correct').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На этот раз вымой пол как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (more friendly) Вымой сегодня пол, только по-настоящему (= как ты это умеешь)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="edccf696-b801-4402-b0ca-250dc3187310" CreationDate="2015-10-04T17:23:26.677" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="`Блин` was an euphemism, works in a similar way, but long ago has become a separate word and is almost 100% acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian linguist [Maxim Krongauz mentions][1] it being used on stage at award ceremonies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older generation (50 and older) hear it as rude and often told us off and demanded &quot;Без блинов!&quot; Krongauz mentions that he (born in 1950s) strongly dislikes it, meanwhile his father strongly opposed to the word `фиг` which was also an euphemism to a strong obscenity. But nowadays its byproducts (`фиг вам`, `фиговина`) are 99% inoffencive (although definitely not acceptable in high style).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/101730/45/Krongauz_-_Russkiii_yazyk_na_grani_nervnogo_sryva.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="fcb3a214-c9ee-4012-a3fa-1f7dc1bc33c4" CreationDate="2015-10-04T17:31:56.260" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="edited body" Text="`Блин` is only a filler word and is an euphemism only in that position, you can't use it as a noun. And is almost acceptable. Russian linguist [Maxim Krongauz mentions][1] it being used on stage at award ceremonies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В начале книги я назвал актера Евгения Миронова, использовавшего *блин* в благодарственном слове при вручении ему премии. Прошло несколько лет, и уже писатель Дмитрий Быков, вручая ту же премию, зачитывает поэтическое послание, в котором есть такие строки: «Вот вы сидите – номинанты, блин, – инфанты, дебютанты, неофиты, – а через пять минут из вас один пойдет под эти хищные софиты».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older generation (50 and older) hear it as rude and often told us off and demanded &quot;Без блинов!&quot; Krongauz writes that he (born in 1950s) strongly dislikes it, meanwhile his father strongly opposed to the word `фиг` which was also an euphemism to a strong obscenity. But nowadays its byproducts (`фиг вам`, `фиговина`) are 99% inoffencive, although definitely not acceptable in high style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/101730/45/Krongauz_-_Russkiii_yazyk_na_grani_nervnogo_sryva.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="595c395a-8d83-4310-828a-cfe4db9e480b" CreationDate="2015-10-04T23:25:04.760" UserId="6096" Text="I am trying to translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Do you have time to read?&quot; and end up with: &quot;у вас есть время, чтобы прочитать?&quot;. Is there any other way to re-phrase the second part of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;у вас есть время, читать?&quot; work? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="595c395a-8d83-4310-828a-cfe4db9e480b" CreationDate="2015-10-04T23:25:04.760" UserId="6096" Text="Translation: Some parts missing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10831" RevisionGUID="595c395a-8d83-4310-828a-cfe4db9e480b" CreationDate="2015-10-04T23:25:04.760" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10832" RevisionGUID="ff64b010-70d6-4085-bd49-740da0d19494" CreationDate="2015-10-04T23:33:04.933" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;У вас есть время, чтобы прочитать?&quot; means 'Do you have time to finish reading it?' since &quot;прочитать&quot; is a perfective verb meaning 'to begin and finish reading something'.&#xD;&#xA;Your variant &quot;У вас есть время читать?&quot; is OK, only the comma is not needed there. Also you can say it as &quot;У вас есть время на чтение?&quot; that is 'Do you have time for reading?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="e9130958-9189-4b0b-84a6-010c52b8f68b" CreationDate="2015-10-05T01:54:57.020" UserId="4966" Text="My textbook mentions short adjectives like болен which decline by gender - больна, больно, больны.  But it also mentions short adverbs like хорошо and сложно which can be used as neuter short adjectives -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adj: Это очень интересно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adv: Он очень интересно говорил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these decline when used as adjectives?  Например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мария Николаевна совсем хороша?  Я совсем хорош?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found declension charts for these, so I suspect not.  So then, are these words just super-simple-short-adjectives that never decline like болен?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="e9130958-9189-4b0b-84a6-010c52b8f68b" CreationDate="2015-10-05T01:54:57.020" UserId="4966" Text="Short adverbs used as adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10833" RevisionGUID="e9130958-9189-4b0b-84a6-010c52b8f68b" CreationDate="2015-10-05T01:54:57.020" UserId="4966" Text="|прилагательные|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="e79016c5-1f3c-43f2-8181-8e32130f83b7" CreationDate="2015-10-05T02:26:38.407" UserId="170" Text="Is it okay to say &quot;два мужчины&quot; or I should always say &quot;двое мужчин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="e79016c5-1f3c-43f2-8181-8e32130f83b7" CreationDate="2015-10-05T02:26:38.407" UserId="170" Text="&quot;два мужчины&quot; or &quot;двое мужчин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="e79016c5-1f3c-43f2-8181-8e32130f83b7" CreationDate="2015-10-05T02:26:38.407" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="41d6a444-7945-4239-9ae7-9e7edb6ec291" CreationDate="2015-10-05T04:44:45.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/650894370489692160" />
  <row Id="24853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="7ee94ced-7aa8-4ba6-b674-b56fb715ac59" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:24:28.163" UserId="5443" Text="You usually say &quot;двое мужчин&quot; if you consider them 'a group' (e.g. they came together, do something together, do the same thing, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Из-за угла вышли двое мужчин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example, where &quot;два мужчины&quot; is more correct (how many; different times or places).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В моей жизни было два мужчины." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="5edd2d7e-309c-4660-8ade-3544f542dfaa" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:26:57.373" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;If I want to ask what concert/opera/ballet is playing would:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Который спектакль идёт?&quot; be correct or is there a better phrase that is used more commonly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="5edd2d7e-309c-4660-8ade-3544f542dfaa" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:26:57.373" UserId="6096" Text="What concert/opera/ballet is playing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="5edd2d7e-309c-4660-8ade-3544f542dfaa" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:26:57.373" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="9e6f4eb7-26e0-4965-bf01-2cffc5607dac" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:55:53.477" UserId="6096" Text="I am curious if the following is the correct grammatically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кто играет роль Лары?&quot; (Lara's role)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a more common expression tha would fit better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="9e6f4eb7-26e0-4965-bf01-2cffc5607dac" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:55:53.477" UserId="6096" Text="Who plays the role?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10837" RevisionGUID="9e6f4eb7-26e0-4965-bf01-2cffc5607dac" CreationDate="2015-10-05T05:55:53.477" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="2b818024-e138-4a69-a633-af722d08cfff" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:20:44.453" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Could the word: &quot;пойдёмте&quot; be used to tell someone to hurry up?&#xD;&#xA;I get a lot of hits on a lot of other words on &quot;hurry up&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="2b818024-e138-4a69-a633-af722d08cfff" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:20:44.453" UserId="6096" Text="Looking for a &quot;hurry up&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="2b818024-e138-4a69-a633-af722d08cfff" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:20:44.453" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="fd98a382-48d0-43e0-8fc2-22d8a1c4262f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:37:17.483" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;When meeting someone and you are glad to see them I have learned that one phrase that can be used is:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я радa видеть вас&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you want to respond to that and tell that you are also happy to see them would: &quot;Я также рад видеть вас&quot; be a approprite response?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="fd98a382-48d0-43e0-8fc2-22d8a1c4262f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:37:17.483" UserId="6096" Text="When meeting someone and you are glad to see them" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="fd98a382-48d0-43e0-8fc2-22d8a1c4262f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:37:17.483" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="dd3d3caf-aff2-4dcb-b103-ecbdd033a897" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:45:12.347" UserId="242" Text="There's a single word used quite often in such cases: &quot;взаимно&quot;. That words is used when you want toexpress that you share the same feelings with person after he or she expressed that feelings. It could be used both for positive and negative sentiments. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр: Как же я тебя ненавижу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Василий: Знаешь, взаимно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of your phrase &quot;я так же рад видеть вас&quot; (notice that &quot;так же&quot; in this case is written separately) - it is a valid but slightly non-colloquial form. It sounds a bit pathetic. Somthing like &quot;и я тоже очень рад&quot; sounds more natural.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10838" RevisionGUID="a67dbe66-fb05-48de-a6ae-1c44ae6f2315" CreationDate="2015-10-05T06:56:06.303" UserId="6096" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Could the word: &quot;пойдёмте&quot; be used to tell someone to hurry up?&#xD;&#xA;I get a lot of hits on a lot of other words on &quot;hurry up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;Скорее&quot; a better word in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="ad1b7277-c53f-488f-92ed-219617d145e2" CreationDate="2015-10-05T07:10:45.040" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Мария Николаевна совсем хороша? Я совсем хорош?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, these are valid sentences. Though I guess, you dont't understand what they mean )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Совсем хорош_&quot; = _dead drunk_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10842" RevisionGUID="8e417aa6-3353-43ba-adb6-36362f05dc7c" CreationDate="2015-10-05T07:32:19.860" UserId="5427" Text="`Cкорее` is definitely better and more universal, but I can imagine a periodically repeated `пойдёмте` that is used as an incentive to move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10843" RevisionGUID="0971ff19-1cdc-4775-96b4-6a594611349c" CreationDate="2015-10-05T07:41:44.290" UserId="5008" Text="That depends upon what you're trying to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_У Вас есть время, чтобы прочитать?_ --&gt; Do you have time to read [this book]?; i.e. you ask if the person minds reading some text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_У Вас есть время, чтобы читать?_ --&gt; Do you have time to read? [Really?]; i.e. you believe that the person is too busy to read anything at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_У Вас есть время, чтобы почитать?_ --&gt; Do you have time to read [a little]; this is mostly neuter, as it may mean both above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10844" RevisionGUID="e995d208-0062-41e6-883f-cb2f4aae9e6f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T07:46:41.910" UserId="5008" Text="No, no one says &quot;_два мужчины_&quot;. Can't really remember any setting where this could be right. Though you may say &quot;_два мужика_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10845" RevisionGUID="71651149-2847-4bbf-bd42-77d6c9085f29" CreationDate="2015-10-05T07:57:33.747" UserId="5008" Text="_Который_ is wrong in this case. You may only say _Какой_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also talking about &quot;classical shows&quot;, like classical music concert, opera or ballet, there's a tradition to use the verb &quot;_давать_&quot; instead of &quot;_идти_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. _What ballet is playing in Bolshoi_ = _Какой балет дают в Большом_? Although nowadays many people say &quot;идёт&quot; too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10846" RevisionGUID="b65e4368-4759-4bde-a32c-eb50d82887ae" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:06:13.833" UserId="6097" Text="This is correct. You can also say &quot;Кто играет Лару / Гамлета / короля?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10847" RevisionGUID="e8106dc3-9b73-4d06-a36c-dfa75a2d52d9" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:06:35.253" UserId="5008" Text="Yes, that's correct. You may also shorten this like: &quot;_Кто играет Лару?_&quot;, or maybe even &quot;_Кто Лара?_&quot;, if the context allows to do this without any ambiguity. But these are just colloquial &quot;shortcuts&quot; for the above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10848" RevisionGUID="38345130-3279-414b-a829-0067f2a16d86" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:15:15.473" UserId="5288" Text="&gt; &quot;hurry (sb/sth) up&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate the phrase into Russian, you will convert the `up` to prefix `по-`/`под-`, then insert that (sb/sth):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;to ​move or do things more ​quickly than ​normal or to make someone do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;по-спеши&#xD;&#xA;по-торопись&#xD;&#xA;по-торопливайся&#xD;&#xA;по-шевеливайся&#xD;&#xA;по-живее&#xD;&#xA;по-скорее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &quot;We shan't get there till tomorrow going on like this. Hurry up!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  The sledge-driver cranes his neck again, rises in his seat, &#xD;&#xA;  and with heavy grace swings his whip. &#xD;&#xA;                                        [Anton Chekhov. Misery]&#xD;&#xA;  ― Этак мы и до завтра не доедем. Подгони-ка! Извозчик опять &#xD;&#xA;  вытягивает шею, приподнимается и с тяжелой грацией взмахивает кнутом.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no (sb/sth), or not meant for inclusion that (sb/sth) from the context, then you used to insert words generally without `по-`&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;== скорее, скорей:&#xD;&#xA;  Папа смеялся и кричал мне вслед: — Скорей, скорей, а то опоздаешь. &#xD;&#xA;                                                        [Leo Tolstoy. Childhood]&#xD;&#xA;  Papa laughing as he shouted after me, &quot;Hurry up, hurry up or you'll be late!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Hurry up! What news?&#xD;&#xA;  Скорей, что нового?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;== живо, живее:&#xD;&#xA;  Now then, hurry up!&#xD;&#xA;  Ну, живо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10849" RevisionGUID="1251dd10-eaaa-4439-b9f0-1e5e3f70aca4" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:17:53.253" UserId="5008" Text="_Пойдёмте_ and _Идёмте_ are the same as _Let's go_. Sure, you may say &quot;Let's go&quot; instead of &quot;Hurry up&quot; under some circumstances, but technically these are not the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a direct translation for &quot;_Hurry up_&quot; into Russian, I'd choose either _Быстрее_ or _Поторапливайтесь_ depending on whether you mean a stronger or weaker order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="265cf433-7f9a-4d90-ac80-8941f3bbbd9b" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:20:07.013" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Мария Николаевна совсем хороша? Я совсем хорош?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, these are valid sentences. Though I guess, you don't understand what they mean )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Совсем хорош_&quot; = _dead drunk_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10841" RevisionGUID="28f6077c-7f26-4af7-bfac-770428ccb364" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:28:05.930" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Мария Николаевна совсем хороша? Я совсем хорош?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, these are valid sentences. Though I guess, you don't understand what they mean )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Совсем хорош_&quot; = _dead drunk_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, yes, this one declines (by gender), because it **is** an adjective. When it's an adverb it has no declension, e.g. _&quot;Кому на Руси жить хорошо&quot;_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="6d063a96-5db1-403e-bbf0-a5838700a2c6" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:45:23.667" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="If I want to ask what concert/opera/ballet is playing would:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Который спектакль идёт?&quot; be correct or is there a better phrase that is used more commonly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24880" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10836" RevisionGUID="6d063a96-5db1-403e-bbf0-a5838700a2c6" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:45:23.667" UserId="5288" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What concert/opera/ballet is playing? the difference between &quot;который / какой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="95eaebe9-d2d5-459e-bf99-170c0df94107" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:50:07.337" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I want to run this by you since sometimes the various language AI:s on internet comes back with various answers and I have seen different spelling variants in a few books depending on where the books are written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would Copenhagen be equivalent to: &quot;Kопенгаген&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="95eaebe9-d2d5-459e-bf99-170c0df94107" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:50:07.337" UserId="6096" Text="Denmark's capital in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10850" RevisionGUID="95eaebe9-d2d5-459e-bf99-170c0df94107" CreationDate="2015-10-05T08:50:07.337" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="e5a523ed-6382-4666-9589-684a420ac6f6" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:17:52.423" UserId="3511" Comment="Clarified m or f" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I ran into two words that ends with the same letter in plural. My book sometimes marks if a word is masculine or feminine sometimes they just omit it. Can you please help out?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;рубль     (M or F)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;трамвай   (M or F)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24885" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="e5a523ed-6382-4666-9589-684a420ac6f6" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:17:52.423" UserId="3511" Comment="Clarified m or f" Text="Are these two words masculine or feminine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24886" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10823" RevisionGUID="e5a523ed-6382-4666-9589-684a420ac6f6" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:17:52.423" Comment="Proposed by 3511 approved by 5008, 551 edit id of 679" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10851" RevisionGUID="d98e0061-ee09-40f8-b861-0a645dd5ff55" CreationDate="2015-10-05T09:29:44.023" UserId="5269" Text="A couple of sources to clear the topic:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Два, две или двое?][1] (edited)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По правилам русского языка, если речь о *женщинах*, *девушках* и *девочках*, употребляются количественные числительные *две*, *три*, *четыре* и т.д.: две женщины, три девушки, четыре девочки. Если же речь о *мужчинах*, *юношах* и *мальчиках*, их уже будет *двое*, *трое*, *четверо*. Сказать: «Иду я по парку, а навстречу мне *два мужчины*» абсолютно невозможно. Хоть слово мужчина (как и юноша) по форме напоминает слово женщина, оно – мужского рода – значит, навстречу идут *двое мужчин*. Итак, мужчин и юношей не может быть два, три, четыре. А вот мальчиков может быть и два, и двое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Собирательные числительные идут в ход и тогда, когда имеются в виду вообще люди или дети: вот по улице, например, идут *двое* или *двое прохожих* (двое мужчин, две женщины или мужчина и женщина – не суть важно), а за ними – четверо ребят (опять-таки, это могут быть и мальчишки, и девчонки, или и те, и другие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если мы имеем дело с сочетанием *трое сирот*, нельзя сразу сказать, кто имеется в виду: мальчики или девочки (могут быть и те, и другие, или, например, двое мальчиков и одна девочка), если же упомянуты *три сироты* – речь однозначно о девочках, лишившихся родителей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть случаи, когда можно сказать и так, и этак: *два друга* и *двое друзей*. В первом словосочетании смысловой акцент – на личностях, это два конкретных человека, которые дружат, во втором – скорее на том, что их объединяет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не рекомендуется употреблять собирательные числительные, если речь идет о людях, занимающих высокое положение. Например, на кафедре может быть *два профессора* (но не *двое профессоров*), а в воинском подразделении – *три генерала* (но не *трое генералов*). Количественные числительные и в этом случае позволяют сделать акцент на личности, на ее достижениях, а собирательные – «понижают статус» соответствующего лица (ср. двое преподавателей, трое военных – здесь акцент скорее на социальной группе).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To go deeper:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Русский язык в научном освещении, №1 (3), 2002][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Многие информанты весьма настороженно относятся к форме *два мужчины*, избегая ее и предпочитая ей в тех случаях, когда отсутствуют семантические запреты на сочетаемость с собирательным числительным, форму с двое: *двое мужчин*. Частотность сочетаний типа *два мужчины* действительно невелика. Идиолекту автора статьи формы *два мужчины* и *два юноши* не чужды. Однако мы не можем не считаться с тем, что статистика говорит не в пользу сочетания *два мужчины*. [...] такие формы, как *три/четыре мужчины*, а также в некоторых&#xD;&#xA;идиолектах и *два мужчины*, оказываются на периферии нормы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.1september.ru/article.php?ID=200801009&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ruslang.ru/doc/rjano03.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="5b935356-32a4-4e9a-847b-b2d8a112401a" CreationDate="2015-10-05T10:14:53.597" UserId="170" Comment="edited body" Text="Is it okay to say &quot;два мужчины&quot; or should I always say &quot;двое мужчин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10852" RevisionGUID="6344fa32-eafe-49d3-87f9-54514da5abc9" CreationDate="2015-10-05T11:29:23.853" UserId="5132" Text="As the one who's first language is Russian and who lives in Copenhagen, I can confirm that Копенгаген is correct. It is also common to name it Копен as short informal name in chat or small talk but not in email conversations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10853" RevisionGUID="60bb5371-7e36-4439-9075-cecfc42a3849" CreationDate="2015-10-05T13:28:56.477" UserId="5373" Text="I think it's better to say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кто исполняет роль Лары?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="c3c921a6-374c-4d69-a19f-68f17bfb67dc" CreationDate="2015-10-05T17:28:40.420" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="When meeting someone and you are glad to see them I have learned that one phrase that can be used is:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я радa видеть вас&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you want to respond to that and tell that you are also happy to see them would: &quot;Я также рад видеть вас&quot; be a appropriate response?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="93056d07-898a-4030-9beb-709e358c97ea" CreationDate="2015-10-05T17:30:01.887" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There's a single word used quite often in such cases: &quot;взаимно&quot;. That words is used when you want toexpress that you share the same feelings with person after he or she expressed that feelings. It could be used both for positive and negative sentiments. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр: Как же я тебя ненавижу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Василий: Знаешь, взаимно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of your phrase &quot;я так же рад видеть вас&quot; (notice that &quot;так же&quot; in this case is written separately) - it is a valid but slightly non-colloquial form. It sounds a bit pathetic. Something like &quot;и я тоже очень рад&quot; sounds more natural.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10840" RevisionGUID="042d6454-eee4-48c4-b2dd-535d73ed72ca" CreationDate="2015-10-05T20:00:36.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There's a single word used quite often in such cases: &quot;взаимно&quot;. That words is used when you want to express that you share the same feelings with person after he or she expressed that feelings. It could be used both for positive and negative sentiments. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пётр: Как же я тебя ненавижу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Василий: Знаешь, взаимно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of your phrase &quot;я так же рад видеть вас&quot; (notice that &quot;так же&quot; in this case is written separately) - it is a valid but slightly non-colloquial form. It sounds a bit pathetic. Something like &quot;и я тоже очень рад&quot; sounds more natural.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="aaf8131d-1973-4407-9705-0f8beefecd8f" CreationDate="2015-10-05T21:29:13.933" UserId="5443" Comment="added 788 characters in body" Text="You usually say &quot;двое мужчин&quot; if you consider them 'a group' (e.g. they came together, do something together, do the same thing, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Из-за угла вышли двое мужчин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example, where &quot;два мужчины&quot; is more correct (how many; different times or places).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В моей жизни было два мужчины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** A reference, by request and as opposed to the quoted web source where &quot;два мужчины&quot; was called *impossible* expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Жилина О.А., Романова Н.Н. - Русский язык и культура речи. ч.1. Основы культуры речи - 2008*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://psyera.ru/upotreblenie-sobiratelnyh-chislitelnyh_8716.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. Числительные собирательные и количественные употребляются **как синонимы**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) с субстантивированными прилагательными и причастиями мужского рода: двое прохожих - два прохожих, трое больных -три больных, двое отдыхающих - два отдыхающих (предпочтительнее собирательные числительные);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) с существительными мужского и общего рода, имеющими окончание -а: **двое мужчин - два мужчины**, трое старост - три старосты, трое сирот - три сироты (предпочтительнее собирательные числительные);" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10835" RevisionGUID="40bbedf6-cb22-4422-988b-73b4c2eae0e2" CreationDate="2015-10-05T21:39:38.157" UserId="5443" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="You usually say &quot;двое мужчин&quot; if you consider them 'a group' (e.g. they came together, do something together, do the same thing, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Из-за угла вышли двое мужчин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example, where &quot;два мужчины&quot; is more correct (how many; different times or places).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В моей жизни было два мужчины.&#xD;&#xA;A real example:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;       Анастасия Вертинская: &quot;У меня в жизни только два мужчины, &#xD;&#xA;        которых я по-настоящему люблю. Это мой отец и сын Степан...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** A reference, by request and as opposed to the quoted web source where &quot;два мужчины&quot; was called *impossible* expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Жилина О.А., Романова Н.Н. - Русский язык и культура речи. ч.1. Основы культуры речи - 2008*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://psyera.ru/upotreblenie-sobiratelnyh-chislitelnyh_8716.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. Числительные собирательные и количественные употребляются **как синонимы**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) с субстантивированными прилагательными и причастиями мужского рода: двое прохожих - два прохожих, трое больных -три больных, двое отдыхающих - два отдыхающих (предпочтительнее собирательные числительные);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) с существительными мужского и общего рода, имеющими окончание -а: **двое мужчин - два мужчины**, трое старост - три старосты, трое сирот - три сироты (предпочтительнее собирательные числительные);" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="aae78865-7819-43ce-be57-3e849128324e" CreationDate="2015-10-05T23:59:48.777" UserId="4714" Text="I can't understand the difference between the these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there one? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="aae78865-7819-43ce-be57-3e849128324e" CreationDate="2015-10-05T23:59:48.777" UserId="4714" Text="плескать / плескаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="aae78865-7819-43ce-be57-3e849128324e" CreationDate="2015-10-05T23:59:48.777" UserId="4714" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10855" RevisionGUID="53c57173-e1e5-47d6-83d8-2218d7513b13" CreationDate="2015-10-06T00:35:57.587" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Плескать&quot; (perfective &quot;плеснуть&quot;) means 'to splash some liquid somewhere or at someone', like in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он плеснул ей в лицо водой. - He splashed water into her face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vxC1K.jpg&quot; width=&quot;330&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;плескаться&quot; is something one can do alone, to bathe and splash water around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнок плещется в ванне. - A baby is splashing in the tub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/q2Rbf.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or it can mean two people bathing and splashing at each other or more people bathing and splashing at one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Школьники плескались в фонтане. - Pupils were splashing in the fountain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMcO8.jpg&quot; height=&quot;300&quot;&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10856" RevisionGUID="4d3b71a0-9e78-4990-89d3-fd8244b17118" CreationDate="2015-10-06T00:38:03.647" UserId="5915" Text="In short, yes, there is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former is *transitive* (can have a direct object), whereas the latter is *intransitive* (used without a direct object).  In fact you can say that the latter is the same as the former with &quot;self&quot; as the object (the postfix '-ся' called &quot;reflexive&quot; postfix, formed from &quot;себя&quot; = &quot;oneself&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the verb &quot;плескать&quot; with a direct object:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Днепр сердито **плескал** *волнами*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;плескаться&quot; can be used in different shades of meaning.  From the recent news:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бегемот-малыш с удовольствием **плескался** в бассейне зоопарка.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;На северном полюсе Марса когда-то **плескался** океан.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence, the baby hippo *splashed* with pleasure in a zoo pool.  In the second, an ocean *splashed* on Mars' Nothern pole some eons ago.  Both mean (in Russian) that the subject &quot;splashed **itself**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="acf5162e-58f9-4a40-8311-10cc510660e2" CreationDate="2015-10-06T01:14:45.367" UserId="4714" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="I can't understand the difference between the these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit: &#xD;&#xA;I know all about intransitive and transitive verbs, but my dictionaries say that плескать can be intransitive too. &quot;Волны плещут о борт корабля**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's were the confusion is for me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10854" RevisionGUID="35e92476-4d69-4dca-8d69-176e19c5dd8e" CreationDate="2015-10-06T01:20:55.377" UserId="4714" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I can't understand the difference between the these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit: &#xD;&#xA;I know all about intransitive and transitive verbs, but my dictionaries say that плескать can be intransitive too. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Волны плещут о борт корабля&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;вода плеснула&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's were the confusion is for me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24907" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10839" RevisionGUID="8aef9d4c-1dc1-4cf6-a84a-f6159922383e" CreationDate="2015-10-06T01:49:32.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/651212661137379328" />
  <row Id="24911" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10834" RevisionGUID="405b919b-8f17-4597-a185-9dc2ff9d5004" CreationDate="2015-10-06T10:49:32.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/651348559426678784" />
  <row Id="24912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="f0182509-8e9d-4849-9ee6-24e46400a804" CreationDate="2015-10-06T14:37:19.467" UserId="2199" Text="Can you, please, help me translate the adjective `вырвиглазный` into English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage: `вырвиглазный баннер`, `вырвиглазный перевод`. Synonyms:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `аляповатый`&#xD;&#xA;* `дебильный`&#xD;&#xA;* `запредельный`&#xD;&#xA;* `мозговыносящий`&#xD;&#xA;* `мозговырывающий`&#xD;&#xA;* `мозгоразрывающий`&#xD;&#xA;* `стрёмный`&#xD;&#xA;* `ужасный`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="f0182509-8e9d-4849-9ee6-24e46400a804" CreationDate="2015-10-06T14:37:19.467" UserId="2199" Text="How to translate Вырвиглазный into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="f0182509-8e9d-4849-9ee6-24e46400a804" CreationDate="2015-10-06T14:37:19.467" UserId="2199" Text="|перевод|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="f76c76c7-06f7-4bc6-9d2e-d428c398d178" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:12:08.240" UserId="6065" Text="How about &quot;**eye-popping**&quot;? Not exactly the same meaning, but it has the right visual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you could call those banners **ugly**, **unsightly** or **hideous**. **Fugly**, if you choose to be explicit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations can be **abhorring**, **baffling** or **unfathomable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's the shortlist! I used a thesaurus for this answer. I'm sure you can find something that speaks to your particular case there. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10861" RevisionGUID="307fd899-0c53-4648-a5b8-b3fda93af1fc" CreationDate="2015-10-06T15:16:36.623" UserId="1236" Text="Urban Dictionary has some variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**eye-hurt**][1] - A visible object that hurts your brain when viewed. This could be an ugly-ass girl/guy, or a crappy piece of art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Damn website font is eye-hurt!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**eyesore**][2] - Ugly, hard on the eyes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Since you painted your house electric pink it has become the eyesore of the neighborhood.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**eye trash**][3] - anything that is a visually offensive; i.e. a waste of good scenery; worse than an **eye sore**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *All the &quot;cookie cutter&quot; urban sprawl is eye trash for nature.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Eye-hurt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eyesore&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eye%20trash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10863" RevisionGUID="1dd55954-893b-451d-a25a-27af9743b14a" CreationDate="2015-10-06T19:27:09.150" UserId="4379" Text="I'd add &quot;gaudy&quot; to a list of possible translations.&#xD;&#xA;According to the google dictionary it means: extravagantly bright or showy, typically so as to be tasteless. Seems to be pretty close to `вырвиглазный` in my impression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24924" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10858" RevisionGUID="e47a10cb-bec5-4ad4-87a0-6fb89ef5b9c7" CreationDate="2015-10-06T21:26:28.253" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="24928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="dd146823-81b3-4341-bb11-9b9fc0073871" CreationDate="2015-10-07T06:55:06.613" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I undestand that it is correct to write: &quot;Я былa в Москве&quot; but if a name ends with &quot;ё&quot; would it still be correct to end the sentence with an &quot;e&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я былa в Мальмe (Мальмё), Швеция&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="48cc704c-54fe-4b4f-853b-c6047e2c953a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:34:46.530" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In my textbook the word надо is translated into: &quot;It is needed&quot; and нужен: &quot;needed&quot;. As russian speaker. When do you use these two words, are there any nuances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="48cc704c-54fe-4b4f-853b-c6047e2c953a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:34:46.530" UserId="6096" Text="Difference between надо and нужен" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10865" RevisionGUID="48cc704c-54fe-4b4f-853b-c6047e2c953a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:34:46.530" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="3394fca2-96c7-41d8-85c5-2a16486b69f2" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:50:43.520" UserId="6096" Text="My russian teacher, claims that when pronouncing &quot;часa&quot; it should be pronounced as: &quot;чi-сa&quot; with an &quot;i&quot; instead of an &quot;a&quot;. I have looked around and it appears that the pronounciation hinges around: &quot;cha-sa&quot;. You are native russian speakers and could perhaps tell me what is correct and what is a mythbuilding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-tell-time-in-russian.html&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/httelltime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="3394fca2-96c7-41d8-85c5-2a16486b69f2" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:50:43.520" UserId="6096" Text="Pronounciation of часa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="3394fca2-96c7-41d8-85c5-2a16486b69f2" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:50:43.520" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="c737111b-346e-45cb-bf34-af3533966a1c" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:57:58.867" UserId="6104" Text="As a native speaker, I can assure you it definitely is pronounced as &quot;cha-sa&quot;. And I really can't pinpoint the myth origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="c976e3ae-cc69-4f1c-9f34-9ea9b0527787" CreationDate="2015-10-07T08:58:04.290" UserId="6096" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My russian teacher, claims that when pronouncing &quot;часa&quot; it should be pronounced as: &quot;чi-сa&quot; with an &quot;i&quot; instead of an &quot;a&quot;. I have looked around and it appears that the pronounciation hinges around: &quot;cha-sa&quot;. You are native russian speakers and could perhaps tell me what is correct and what is a myth building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-tell-time-in-russian.html&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/httelltime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10868" RevisionGUID="c1aed8cd-5610-44c5-a4d7-e09ed8cbbec8" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:09:48.090" UserId="1236" Text="Your teacher is absolutely right. According to the rules of pronunciation of the Russian unstressed vowels, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the letter `a` after `ч` and `щ` in an unstressed syllable is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pronounced as the letter `и`, that is as [ɪ].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [часы́][1]  - [t͡ɕɪˈsɨ] 'clock'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [часовóй][2] - [t͡ɕɪsɐˈvoj] 'sentry'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [щавéль][3] - [ɕːɪˈvʲelʲ] 'sorrel, dock (plant)'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [счастли́вый][4] - [ɕːɪˈslʲivɨj] 'happy'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is why the word `часá` is pronounced as [t͡ɕɪˈsa].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="266368e2-d647-4317-87c0-b0c9c95edada" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:18:36.650" UserId="6096" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="My russian teacher, claims that when pronouncing &quot;часa&quot; it should be pronounced as: &quot;чi-сa&quot; with an &quot;i&quot; instead of an &quot;a&quot;. I have looked around and it appears that the pronounciation hinges around: &quot;cha-sa&quot;. You are native russian speakers and could perhaps tell me what is correct and what is a myth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-tell-time-in-russian.html&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/httelltime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10867" RevisionGUID="111603d7-c76f-4e6c-b0b8-878e1ce4f8eb" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:26:27.400" UserId="6104" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="As a native speaker, I can assure you it definitely is pronounced as &quot;cha-sa&quot;. And I really can't pinpoint the myth origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that a in ча can be both stressed and unstressed, it really is pronounced differently depending on stress. But it's still is pronounced as a, not as I. It's just less opened and bright. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10869" RevisionGUID="fee727a1-4a0b-4bd0-a30e-d6cbb798ab53" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:37:20.177" UserId="5008" Text="Do not think of a vowel reduction as simply a vowel &quot;replace&quot;. Honestly, every time when I see a phonetic transcription, I can't believe that it's the same what I speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, the rule of reduction is really simple: speak neither `чi-са`, nor `ча-са`, nor `че-са`, but `ч-са`, where the dash stands for &quot;some noise&quot; left between spelling `ч` and `с`. No speaker really cares if it's closer to one vowel or another. Just do it quick and never stress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10870" RevisionGUID="79b7afa4-12cb-41cf-9088-5eeee87048a1" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:41:19.927" UserId="5132" Text="The same like &quot;we need&quot; vs &quot;he is needed (for something)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10871" RevisionGUID="87818541-7e70-4ec0-8e25-d050812adf51" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:51:04.873" UserId="1236" Text="Generally speaking, `надо` is more colloquial than `нужен`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say **[somebody] needs [something]** you use the two words in such a way: **[somebody in the Dat. case] надо/нужен [something in the Nom. case]**. Note, `надо` never changes its form, but `нужен` must agree in number and gender with the subject of the sentence, that is the part which is in the Nominative case. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need a pencil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо карандаш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужен карандаш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oleg needs a pen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олегу надо ручка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олегу нужна ручка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, in sentences like **[somebody] needs [something]**, `нужен` is used more often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another way to use the two words, it is when you want to say **[somebody] needs [to do something]**. In this case, `нужен` is used in the neuter gender, `нужно`, and both words are absolutely interchangeable. The construction is like this: **[somebody in the Dat. case] надо/нужно [infinitive phrase]**. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо/нужно уходить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You need to see that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вам надо/нужно это увидеть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10872" RevisionGUID="cef5b9d4-1f50-4a98-a122-746106d86f4a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T09:56:55.337" UserId="5443" Text="&quot;**Надо**&quot; (нужно) mainly combines with **verbs** (infinitives): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    это надо/нужно сделать - it needs to be done, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while **&quot;нужен&quot;** (м.р.) combines with (masculine) **nouns**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     нужен нож - a knife is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="5ed71d66-fc85-49e7-8703-f9b75542999e" CreationDate="2015-10-07T10:07:51.383" UserId="5008" Text="_Нужный_ is an _adjective_ meaning &quot;needed&quot;, &quot;required&quot;, &quot;necessary&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Нужен / Нужна_ is a _short adjective_ made of the full form _нужный_. Short adjectives often are the part of predicative (e.g. &quot;Я им нужен&quot;) but they are still _adjectives_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Нужно / Надо_ are purely impersonate constructions like, say, Spanish _hay que_. The closest English equivalent would be &quot;It is needed&quot;. The difference between _надо_ and _нужно_ is very, very slight. You may simply ignore it for a moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10873" RevisionGUID="b998942b-b3a4-49f5-bd1f-55b4632f26c9" CreationDate="2015-10-07T10:16:13.540" UserId="5008" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="_Нужный_ is an _adjective_ meaning &quot;needed&quot;, &quot;required&quot;, &quot;necessary&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Нужен / Нужна_ is a _short adjective_ made of the full form _нужный_. Short adjectives often are the part of predicative (e.g. &quot;Я им нужен&quot;) but they are still _adjectives_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Нужно / Надо_ are purely impersonate constructions like, say, Spanish _hay que_. The closest English equivalent would be &quot;It is needed&quot;. The difference between _надо_ and _нужно_ is very, very slight. You may simply ignore it for a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Technically, _нужно_ is the neuter gender of the short adjective _нужен / нужна_ but in the vast majority of cases _нужно_ stands for an impersonate, not for an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="58a90645-1be3-4cf0-b1ac-f933b3d34530" CreationDate="2015-10-07T10:20:23.150" UserId="5288" Comment="put an accent, added two cases" Text="My russian teacher, claims that when pronouncing &quot;часá&quot; it should be pronounced as: &quot;чi-сa&quot; with an &quot;i&quot; instead of an &quot;a&quot;. I have looked around and it appears that the pronounciation hinges around: &quot;cha-sa&quot;. You are native russian speakers and could perhaps tell me what is correct and what is a myth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-tell-time-in-russian.html&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/httelltime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24947" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="58a90645-1be3-4cf0-b1ac-f933b3d34530" CreationDate="2015-10-07T10:20:23.150" UserId="5288" Comment="put an accent, added two cases" Text="Pronounciation of часá (часы, часов)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24948" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="58a90645-1be3-4cf0-b1ac-f933b3d34530" CreationDate="2015-10-07T10:20:23.150" UserId="5288" Comment="put an accent, added two cases" Text="|перевод|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="f9af9f43-8629-421f-be55-89529ba5437a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:50:20.480" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The word, to smile: улыбаться. I have tried a new speech engine and it is much better than the ones I used so far but this one is a little tricky in my opinion. The verbs with -ся can be a challenge. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help with the first few words (see markings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is more correct and how do you pronounce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;улыбаться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*uvi*-bat-tsa&quot;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*uli*-bat-tsa&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="f9af9f43-8629-421f-be55-89529ba5437a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:50:20.480" UserId="6096" Text="Pronounciation: улыбаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="f9af9f43-8629-421f-be55-89529ba5437a" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:50:20.480" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10876" RevisionGUID="a7492189-72cb-4e53-ab2a-a80d762ed157" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:55:57.920" UserId="1836" Text="You might better use &quot;мобильные телефоны&quot;, or even just &quot;мобильные&quot;. &quot;сотовые телефоны&quot; is mostly used in formal writing/speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you really need to use &quot;сотовые телефоны&quot;, first 'o' is pronounced like first 'o' in &quot;follow&quot; and second 'o' is like first 'o' in &quot;pronounce&quot; (not stressed and something between [o] and [a], but closer to [o])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you'd like to know the pronounciation of &quot;мобильные&quot;, it is &quot;Ma-bIl'-nы-ye&quot;. I hope you know how to pronounce 'ы'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="8943d42a-6117-4d0b-81da-f909c1714102" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:56:24.790" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am curious when it is approprite to use the expression: &quot;всё в порядке&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I use it if someone ask me: &quot;как дела&quot;? or could I use the expression in other situations like if someone asks me how the progress is in a projekt (work related issues)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you use this sentence and how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="8943d42a-6117-4d0b-81da-f909c1714102" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:56:24.790" UserId="6096" Text="When would you use &quot;всё в порядке&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10877" RevisionGUID="8943d42a-6117-4d0b-81da-f909c1714102" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:56:24.790" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10878" RevisionGUID="434f987e-5454-4ea9-8e91-02921487bb41" CreationDate="2015-10-07T11:57:04.427" UserId="5915" Text="Using English transcription (not IPA, at which I'm no good):  &#xD;&#xA;**oo-ly-BUT-tsa**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second syllable is without stress, so the '***ы***' can really be pronounces as a *schwa*, so can the last '***а***'.  The sounds 't' and 'ts' are really combined into a single '***ц***', so in Russian you can write the pronunciation as ***у-лы-БА-ца***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10879" RevisionGUID="ac26cac0-7d03-428a-9cbb-dea9d7018799" CreationDate="2015-10-07T12:02:30.317" UserId="5915" Text="The answer &quot;***всё в порядке***&quot; is usually given in response to an inquiry about the status of things (project, activity, whatnot), especially if the question is expressed with some concern about the success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to &quot;*как дела?*&quot; one would usually say &quot;*спасибо, ничего*&quot; or any variation of &quot;*хорошо*&quot;, for example, &quot;*замечательно*&quot; or even &quot;*лучше всех*&quot;.  That is, unless one really wants to share the troubles and talk about a possible solution to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10860" RevisionGUID="6ee90dee-85cb-4abd-bd74-613000494bb7" CreationDate="2015-10-07T12:50:50.000" UserId="6065" Comment="I added link to thesaurus as asked in the comment " Text="How about &quot;**eye-popping**&quot;? Not exactly the same meaning, but it has the right visual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you could call those banners **ugly**, **unsightly** or **hideous**. **Fugly**, if you choose to be explicit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations can be **abhorring**, **baffling** or **unfathomable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's the shortlist! I used a http://www.thesaurus.com for this answer. I'm sure you can find something that speaks to your particular case there. Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="e1313bac-943c-433e-b4fa-47ccca08447f" CreationDate="2015-10-07T16:45:03.917" UserId="313" Text="Does the rule that &quot;ш&quot; cannot be soft (unpalatalized) apply when it is followed by a soft sign &quot;шь&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the famous song &quot;Никого не Будет в Доме&quot; from &quot;Ирнония Судьбы&quot;, there's a line&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...из которых хлопья шьют.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Beautiful imagery, but how do you pronounce &quot;шьют&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the movie, I distinctly hear &quot;шълют&quot; (unpalatalized ш, then л):&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n24BCHXB9V0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also always wondered how the 2nd person verb endings are supposed to be pronounced: представлае**шь**, говори**шь**, etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="e1313bac-943c-433e-b4fa-47ccca08447f" CreationDate="2015-10-07T16:45:03.917" UserId="313" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;шь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="e1313bac-943c-433e-b4fa-47ccca08447f" CreationDate="2015-10-07T16:45:03.917" UserId="313" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10881" RevisionGUID="a8138cc3-a24f-4ffe-ad16-8ee446172783" CreationDate="2015-10-07T17:05:15.963" UserId="5008" Text="There's only one 'Ш' in Russian (except rare dialects), and it's _hard_. It doesn't matter if it's followed by 'Ь' or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the word &quot;_шьют_&quot;, it is said like 'ШЙУТ'. 'Ь' here denotes that 'Ю' is iotized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singers sometimes intetntionally make phonetic errors but I don't seem it's true in this particular case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10882" RevisionGUID="5e0f1836-5991-4df1-b7a6-6277b144056b" CreationDate="2015-10-07T17:05:23.047" UserId="1836" Text="I'm not sure about rules, but usually 'ь' after, uh, hissing consonants (not sure if it's a proper name, but hope you understand) does not alter their pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of &quot;шьют&quot; 'ь' denotes that 'ю' should be pronounced as 'йу', not as just 'у' (English 'u'). Actually, I can't hear any 'л' in the song, it's 'й'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of &quot;представляешь&quot; and other verbs... I actually don't remember why we need soft sign, but there should be some grammatical rule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, in case of nouns (мышь, ночь...), as far as I remember, soft sign after hissing consonants indicates the word is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10881" RevisionGUID="7f89b569-d505-461e-aa69-4e9e1049d26b" CreationDate="2015-10-07T17:10:35.067" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There's only one 'Ш' in Russian (except rare dialects), and it's _hard_. It doesn't matter if it's followed by 'Ь' or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the word &quot;_шьют_&quot;, it is said like 'ШЙУТ'. 'Ь' here denotes that 'Ю' is iotized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singers sometimes intentionally make phonetic errors but I don't seem it's true in this particular case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10881" RevisionGUID="6293a6db-a80f-48a4-b01f-36e7082947ea" CreationDate="2015-10-07T17:16:36.950" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There's only one 'Ш' in Russian (except rare dialects), and it's _hard_. It doesn't matter if it's followed by 'Ь' or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the word &quot;_шьют_&quot;, it is said like 'ШЙУТ'. 'Ь' here denotes that 'Ю' is iotized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singers sometimes intentionally make phonetic errors but I don't seem it's true in this particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Having listened this song one more time, I should say, the pronounce is very clear from the beginning to the end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10883" RevisionGUID="4acfff7d-b9b5-4db7-b7ae-697993c6a575" CreationDate="2015-10-07T21:05:57.027" UserId="4828" Text="In English we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Would you like do x? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Should we do x? &#xD;&#xA;* Let's do x &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would the idiomatic equivalent(s) in Russian be? &#xD;&#xA;For instance a literal translation of &quot;should we go to work?&quot; might be мы должны встретиться после работы ? (I used a translator here, my Russian isn't so good and Google is failing me on this issue.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if this is *literally* correct, I doubt that it is idiomatic Russian, as in my experience, Russian phrases tend to be a little more direct/to the point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A language learning site suggested:&#xD;&#xA;Я хотела бы пригласить тебя к себе на ужин.&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;I would like to invite you to dinner at my place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that the same level of politeness as it sounds like it is in English?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10883" RevisionGUID="4acfff7d-b9b5-4db7-b7ae-697993c6a575" CreationDate="2015-10-07T21:05:57.027" UserId="4828" Text="What's the idiomatic way to politely propose an activity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10883" RevisionGUID="4acfff7d-b9b5-4db7-b7ae-697993c6a575" CreationDate="2015-10-07T21:05:57.027" UserId="4828" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10883" RevisionGUID="ea30b61f-d0dd-4d8d-9204-6fd5d1513c6d" CreationDate="2015-10-07T21:10:31.823" UserId="3680" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In English we have: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Would you like do x? &#xD;&#xA;* Should we do x? &#xD;&#xA;* Let's do x &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would the idiomatic equivalent(s) in Russian be? &#xD;&#xA;For instance a literal translation of `should we go to work?` might be `мы должны встретиться после работы ?` (I used a translator here, my Russian isn't so good and Google is failing me on this issue.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if this is *literally* correct, I doubt that it is idiomatic Russian, as in my experience, Russian phrases tend to be a little more direct/to the point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A language learning site suggested:  &#xD;&#xA;`Я хотела бы пригласить тебя к себе на ужин.`  &#xD;&#xA;For `I would like to invite you to dinner at my place.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that the same level of politeness as it sounds like it is in English?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="6fd501c0-8179-421b-a41f-d421da4057d7" CreationDate="2015-10-07T21:45:00.703" UserId="3680" Text="The common patterns for translation of such questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* [*Pronoun*] *verb* ... ?  &#xD;&#xA;* [Не] *verb* [ли] *pronoun* ... ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Where optional parts are enclosed in brackets.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the following questions have the same meaning `Would you like to drink?`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьем?  &#xD;&#xA;Хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Вы хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Не хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Вы не хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Не хотите ли выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Не хотите ли вы выпить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first form is the most direct. The last one is the most politeness.  &#xD;&#xA;More words - more politeness. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;So the Russian equivalents are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Would you like do x?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Не] хотите [ли] x?  &#xD;&#xA;[Вы] хотите x?&#xD;&#xA;* Should we do x?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Не] должны [ли] мы x?  &#xD;&#xA;Мы должны X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Не] следует [ли] нам x?  &#xD;&#xA;Нам следует x?&#xD;&#xA;* Let's do x&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте сделаем х?  &#xD;&#xA;Сделаем x?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The translations of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should we go to work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы должны идти на работу?  &#xD;&#xA;Не должны ли мы идти на работу?  &#xD;&#xA;*etc*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="448b779a-ae1c-4b3b-ab94-5849d6b40c0d" CreationDate="2015-10-07T23:22:44.073" UserId="6096" Text="Which one of these two is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) &quot;У меня есть пять комнат.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) &quot;У меня есть пять комнаты&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also noticed that if using номер. I get a slightly different answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько у вас номер?&#xD;&#xA;&quot;У меня есть пять номеров.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the HOMEP świtch over to -OB?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="448b779a-ae1c-4b3b-ab94-5849d6b40c0d" CreationDate="2015-10-07T23:22:44.073" UserId="6096" Text="Сколько у вас комнат?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="448b779a-ae1c-4b3b-ab94-5849d6b40c0d" CreationDate="2015-10-07T23:22:44.073" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="7ab386c2-fb85-43bc-a9cd-5194a133a66e" CreationDate="2015-10-07T23:29:53.233" UserId="5915" Text="The rules are pretty well known and hard-set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* any number ending on &quot;**один**&quot; (like &quot;сто тридцать тысяч двести пятьдесят ***один***&quot;) requires the noun to be **singular** in *nominative case*.&#xD;&#xA;* any number ending on &quot;**два**&quot;, &quot;**три**&quot; или &quot;**четыре**&quot; requires the noun to be *singular* in *genitive case*.&#xD;&#xA;* any other number (including &quot;teens&quot;) requires the noun to be *plural* in *genitive case*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to that rule,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть пять ***комнат***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Комнат**&quot; - genitive of &quot;**комнаты**&quot;, which is plural of &quot;**комната**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10885" RevisionGUID="3ad2b12b-189c-4b65-8581-22c4305fe0d0" CreationDate="2015-10-07T23:34:21.707" UserId="6096" Comment="edited body" Text="Which one of these two is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) &quot;У меня есть пять комнат.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) &quot;У меня есть пять комнаты&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also noticed that if using номер. I get a slightly different answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько у вас номер?&#xD;&#xA;&quot;У меня есть пять номеров.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the номер switch over to -OB?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="c4a79094-79f5-4cc2-b0b2-b9872c932361" CreationDate="2015-10-08T06:59:22.520" UserId="2199" Comment="added a tag" Text="|перевод|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24980" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10722" RevisionGUID="c4a79094-79f5-4cc2-b0b2-b9872c932361" CreationDate="2015-10-08T06:59:22.520" Comment="Proposed by 2199 approved by 5008, 551 edit id of 681" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="eeda7c4d-95c6-45a5-9cbf-c9d1b96440d4" CreationDate="2015-10-08T11:37:42.500" UserId="5605" Text="***У меня пять комнат*** (глагол ***есть*** в данном случае не нужен).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***В моём номере пять комнат*** (если речь идёт о номере в отеле)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10887" RevisionGUID="ef40ff7c-bfa0-49d1-838b-e2d4972d119b" CreationDate="2015-10-08T11:43:09.800" UserId="5605" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="***У меня пять комнат*** или ***В моём номере пять комнат*** (если речь идёт о номере в отеле). Глагол ***есть*** в этих конструкциях не нужен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="aa739b54-7255-46d2-9254-4db868432ba4" CreationDate="2015-10-08T11:57:42.757" UserId="6097" Comment="added example with &quot;номеров&quot;" Text="The rules are pretty well known and hard-set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* any number ending on &quot;**один**&quot; (like &quot;сто тридцать тысяч двести пятьдесят ***один***&quot;) requires the noun to be **singular** in *nominative case*.&#xD;&#xA;* any number ending on &quot;**два**&quot;, &quot;**три**&quot; или &quot;**четыре**&quot; requires the noun to be *singular* in *genitive case*.&#xD;&#xA;* any other number (including &quot;teens&quot;) requires the noun to be *plural* in *genitive case*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to that rule,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть пять ***комнат***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Комнат**&quot; – genitive of &quot;**комнаты**&quot;, which is plural of &quot;**комната**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть пять ***номеров***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Номеров**&quot; – genitive of &quot;**номера**&quot;, which is plural of &quot;**номер**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24984" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="aa739b54-7255-46d2-9254-4db868432ba4" CreationDate="2015-10-08T11:57:42.757" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 2060, 5915 edit id of 684" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="0a5a5565-a9ec-4f6d-9f1b-3e0df8c3a525" CreationDate="2015-10-08T16:23:31.963" UserId="4028" Text="In the text by A. Tolstoy, some dashes are used.  For example, the story ends with &quot;Мышка за кошку,/ Кошка за Жучку,/ ... / Дедка за репку / -– Тянут потянут -– и вытянули репку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the second dash is used to draw attention to their unexpected success (contrary to their former unsuccessful tries).  But I have no idea what the first dash is used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope someone could give an explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="0a5a5565-a9ec-4f6d-9f1b-3e0df8c3a525" CreationDate="2015-10-08T16:23:31.963" UserId="4028" Text="The usage of dashes in the Russian fairy tale &quot;Репка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="0a5a5565-a9ec-4f6d-9f1b-3e0df8c3a525" CreationDate="2015-10-08T16:23:31.963" UserId="4028" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="8d7a172e-f075-4095-8a9a-e8a996df5398" CreationDate="2015-10-08T18:16:39.963" UserId="1688" Comment="English usage" Text="The common patterns for translation of such questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* [*Pronoun*] *verb* ... ?  &#xD;&#xA;* [Не] *verb* [ли] *pronoun* ... ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Where optional parts are enclosed in brackets.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the following questions have the same meaning `Would you like to have a drink?`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпьем?  &#xD;&#xA;Хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Вы хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Не хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Вы не хотите выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Не хотите ли выпить?  &#xD;&#xA;Не хотите ли вы выпить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first form is the most direct. The last one is the most politeness.  &#xD;&#xA;More words - more politeness. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;So the Russian equivalents are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Would you like do x?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Не] хотите [ли] x?  &#xD;&#xA;[Вы] хотите x?&#xD;&#xA;* Should we do x?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Не] должны [ли] мы x?  &#xD;&#xA;Мы должны X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Не] следует [ли] нам x?  &#xD;&#xA;Нам следует x?&#xD;&#xA;* Let's do x&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте сделаем х?  &#xD;&#xA;Сделаем x?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The translations of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should we go to work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы должны идти на работу?  &#xD;&#xA;Не должны ли мы идти на работу?  &#xD;&#xA;*etc*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24989" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10884" RevisionGUID="8d7a172e-f075-4095-8a9a-e8a996df5398" CreationDate="2015-10-08T18:16:39.963" Comment="Proposed by 1688 approved by 3680 edit id of 685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="20a6c9f1-a732-497f-bc3c-1002e35a263f" CreationDate="2015-10-09T06:55:53.980" UserId="6108" Text="I think both dashes are just intonational (интонационное тире). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They need to impart a rhythm to the text. When one read the sentence he makes little pauses on commas, and big pauses on dashes. It is a nursery tale and it have its own rhythm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal describes two cases of an intonational dashe usage (in §81), but an intonational dashe can be located in any place in sentence, where the author feel in necessary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="3317c1c4-b860-461a-8562-03c1ea546e2e" CreationDate="2015-10-09T06:59:19.523" UserId="5454" Text="Question (about status in some specific area):  &#xD;&#xA;— Как (у тебя) дела в школе / на работе/ на личном фронте/ с проектом ХХ?  &#xD;&#xA;Answer:  &#xD;&#xA;— Все в порядке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question (general):  &#xD;&#xA;— Как (у тебя) дела?  &#xD;&#xA;Answers:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *very good:*   &#xD;&#xA; — Хорошо! / Замечательно!/ Отлично! / В шоколаде (*colloquial*)&#xD;&#xA; - *OK*:   &#xD;&#xA;— Хорошо. / Нормально.  &#xD;&#xA; - *not good:*   &#xD;&#xA;— Хорошо… /  Как сажа бела (*colloquial*)   &#xD;&#xA; - *joke instead of answer:*   &#xD;&#xA;—  Как у зебры. / Не дождетесь! / Пока не родила *(only female, not necessary pregnant)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10890" RevisionGUID="0d587f10-5b26-46ca-8c5b-e262c23ab04f" CreationDate="2015-10-09T07:07:13.420" UserId="5454" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Question (about status in some specific area):  &#xD;&#xA;— Как (у тебя) дела в школе / на работе/ на личном фронте/ с проектом ХХ?  &#xD;&#xA;Answer:  &#xD;&#xA;— Все в порядке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question (general):  &#xD;&#xA;— Как (у тебя) дела?  &#xD;&#xA;Answers:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *very good:*   &#xD;&#xA; — Хорошо! / Замечательно!/ Отлично! / В шоколаде (*colloquial*)&#xD;&#xA; - *OK*:   &#xD;&#xA;— Хорошо. / Нормально.  &#xD;&#xA; - *not good:*   &#xD;&#xA;— Хорошо… /  Как сажа бела́ (*colloquial*)   &#xD;&#xA; - *joke instead of answer:*        &#xD;&#xA;—  Как у зебры. / Не дождетесь! / Пока не родила́ *(only female, not necessary pregnant)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="4b27278a-25c3-4cbc-8172-316d9a3a6bc1" CreationDate="2015-10-09T07:39:36.577" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please explain what &quot;нет, что ты&quot; could be translated into?&#xD;&#xA;I have tried the speech machines but they do not pick it up. Is this phase used a lot in the russian language? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="4b27278a-25c3-4cbc-8172-316d9a3a6bc1" CreationDate="2015-10-09T07:39:36.577" UserId="6096" Text="Please explain что ты?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10891" RevisionGUID="4b27278a-25c3-4cbc-8172-316d9a3a6bc1" CreationDate="2015-10-09T07:39:36.577" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="1b92fb0e-8b02-4ec3-9f52-8aba95c2a10d" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:07:04.997" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The wording: &quot;другой наверну&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not been able to do some research on this and I was hoping for someone to help me out a little. I need input on the &quot;grammatika&quot;. What type of word &quot;другой&quot; is. Is it adaped to наверну?. Is наверну dativ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="1b92fb0e-8b02-4ec3-9f52-8aba95c2a10d" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:07:04.997" UserId="6096" Text="On the second floor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="1b92fb0e-8b02-4ec3-9f52-8aba95c2a10d" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:07:04.997" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10893" RevisionGUID="c95b49d9-6ae0-4e9d-a456-bd23327e9539" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:16:55.087" UserId="5454" Text="Here expression &quot;что ты!&quot; is a short version of «что ты такое говоришь/предлагаешь!»  &#xD;&#xA;It means that previously expressed ideas absolutely unacceptable by answerer.  &#xD;&#xA;This expression normally used in speech.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;Example:  &#xD;&#xA;— Слышь, программист, а ты умеешь писать вирусы?  &#xD;&#xA;— Нет, что ты! *(испуганно)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10894" RevisionGUID="ad020b77-94ed-4f6a-a058-c7c2b74ca45b" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:27:38.843" UserId="5008" Text="If it's spelled exactly _наверну_, then it's 1st person singular of &quot;_навернуть_&quot;, i.e. &quot;[I] will screw another one&quot;. This seems to be a sort of jargon speech, but note, unlike in English, &quot;screw&quot; in Russian colloquial speech usually means simply &quot;eat&quot;. That is, &quot;I'm gonna eat another one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But without any context, it's only a guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="d03e5818-6b3a-40da-9c78-98164ee264e8" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:38:25.793" UserId="4801" Text="If there are no typos, **наверну** is a verb (1st person future tense) which can have different meanings (technical - ***to screw on*** or slang - ***to eat***, ***to dig in***). Другой could mean ***a different / another one / one more***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the question title makes me think there is a typo, and the phrase is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другой, наверно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наверно** is *вводное слово* gramatically, meaning ***probably*** in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10896" RevisionGUID="8813fef3-e902-4dd4-be67-f780bc44263d" CreationDate="2015-10-09T08:50:07.413" UserId="1097" Text="Другой (adjective) — other, another, different  &#xD;&#xA;Наверну (verb, singular first person, future tense) — to screw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not sentence, not a phrase, just two separate words. It needs a context to answer correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:  &#xD;&#xA;— Этот колпачок не от этого тюбика. — This cap is not of this tube.  &#xD;&#xA;— Хорошо, я **другой наверну**. — Okay, I'm screw another one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably a typo, not `наверну` but `наверное` ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10895" RevisionGUID="1c91128f-0a5c-498b-9713-a85212a96aab" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:07:43.877" UserId="4801" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="If there are no typos, **наверну** is a verb (1st person future tense) which can have different meanings (technical - ***to screw on*** or slang - ***to eat***, ***to dig in***). Другой could mean ***a different / another one / one more***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the question title makes me think there is a typo, and the phrase is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Другой, наверно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наверно** is *вводное слово* gramatically, meaning ***probably*** in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the full sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него два туалета - один внизу, другой наверху.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Другой** is an adjective, nominative case. The noun is omitted to avoid repetition, but you could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него два туалета - один туалет находится внизу, другой туалет наверху.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наверху** is an adverb, meaning ***upstairs***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="180d597b-e785-4e97-924a-48e41899f233" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:51:33.360" UserId="6096" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a fe questions. I am struggeling with these ones and I need some help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these locative, dativ or genitiv pluralis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в нём dativ?&#xD;&#xA;в саду dativ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;много цетов --&gt; genitiv pluralis? due to the много?&#xD;&#xA;много овощей --&gt; genitiv pluralis? Is the -ей added in this case because it is a feminium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="180d597b-e785-4e97-924a-48e41899f233" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:51:33.360" UserId="6096" Text="Russian grammar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="180d597b-e785-4e97-924a-48e41899f233" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:51:33.360" UserId="6096" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="2ab1b882-c2be-4570-996c-484f3c35725c" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:59:38.973" UserId="5269" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="The wording: &lt;strike&gt;&quot;другой наверну&quot;&lt;/strike&gt; &quot;другой наверху&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not been able to do some research on this and I was hoping for someone to help me out a little. I need input on the &quot;grammatika&quot;. What type of word &quot;другой&quot; is. Is it adaped to наверну?. Is наверну dativ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25008" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10892" RevisionGUID="2ab1b882-c2be-4570-996c-484f3c35725c" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:59:38.973" Comment="Proposed by 5269 approved by 551, 2060 edit id of 687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="f76b0f5b-371a-4214-bb45-ae62e1524bf8" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:59:56.080" UserId="5454" Comment="added stress signs" Text="The rules are pretty well known and hard-set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* any number ending on &quot;**один**&quot; (like &quot;сто тридцать тысяч двести пятьдесят ***один***&quot;) requires the noun to be **singular** in *nominative case*.&#xD;&#xA;* any number ending on &quot;**два**&quot;, &quot;**три**&quot; или &quot;**четыре**&quot; requires the noun to be *singular* in *genitive case*.&#xD;&#xA;* any other number (including &quot;teens&quot;) requires the noun to be *plural* in *genitive case*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to that rule,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть пять ***ко́мнат***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Ко́мнат**&quot; – genitive of &quot;**ко́мнаты**&quot;, which is plural of &quot;**ко́мната**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть пять ***номеро́в***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Номеро́в**&quot; – genitive of &quot;**номера́**&quot;, which is plural of &quot;**но́мер**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25010" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10886" RevisionGUID="f76b0f5b-371a-4214-bb45-ae62e1524bf8" CreationDate="2015-10-09T09:59:56.080" Comment="Proposed by 5454 approved by 551, 2060 edit id of 686" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10899" RevisionGUID="1252cdb5-c349-4d73-b132-95464f70f73b" CreationDate="2015-10-09T10:12:24.080" UserId="6110" Text="Шлют and шьют are two different words.&#xD;&#xA;As it has been noted before, ь in the middle of a word means that the consonant before it and the vowel after it are pronounced separately. &#xD;&#xA;Compare: шут and шьют " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10900" RevisionGUID="8eea4076-8a6d-450a-a0e6-cf99642e4550" CreationDate="2015-10-09T12:08:45.947" UserId="5915" Text="Since you already know about genitive, locative and dative from the comments, this is to answer your last question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;много овощей&quot; --&gt; genitive plural? Is the -ей added in this case because it is a feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.  Plural of &quot;**овощ**&quot; = &quot;**овощи**&quot;.  *Regardless of gender*, plurals that end on &quot;-**и**&quot; often have in genitive the postfix &quot;-**ей**&quot;.  It is ruled by the declension, not gender.  By the way, the gender of &quot;**овощ**&quot; is *masculine*.  Other examles:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Щи** (cabbage soup, masculine, no singular) - genitive **щ*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вещи** (from &quot;*вещь*&quot; &quot;thing&quot;, feminine, 3rd declension) - genitive **вещ*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Родичи** (from &quot;*родич*&quot; &quot;kin&quot;, masculine, 2nd declension) - genitive **родич*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Москвичи** (from &quot;*москвич*&quot; &quot;Muscovite&quot;, masculine, 2nd declension) - genitive &quot;**москвич*ей***&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.  But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Тысячи** (from &quot;*тысяча*&quot; &quot;thousand&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive **тысяч**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дачи** (from &quot;*дача*&quot; &quot;cottage&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive &quot;**дач**&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *2nd and 3rd declension nouns* have in *genitive plural* the &quot;-***ей***&quot;, but *1st declension ones* in *genitive plural* have ***no postfix***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10900" RevisionGUID="795cd02c-d4d1-4d83-b0a7-fe58768faef6" CreationDate="2015-10-09T14:03:29.663" UserId="5915" Comment="added declension of &quot;щи&quot;" Text="Since you already know about genitive, locative and dative from the comments, this is to answer your last question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;много овощей&quot; --&gt; genitive plural? Is the -ей added in this case because it is a feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.  Plural of &quot;**овощ**&quot; = &quot;**овощи**&quot;.  *Regardless of gender*, plurals that end on &quot;-**и**&quot; often have in genitive the postfix &quot;-**ей**&quot;.  It is ruled by the declension, not gender.  By the way, the gender of &quot;**овощ**&quot; is *masculine*.  Other examles:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Щи** (cabbage soup, masculine, no singular, 2nd declension) - genitive **щ*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вещи** (from &quot;*вещь*&quot; &quot;thing&quot;, feminine, 3rd declension) - genitive **вещ*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Родичи** (from &quot;*родич*&quot; &quot;kin&quot;, masculine, 2nd declension) - genitive **родич*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Москвичи** (from &quot;*москвич*&quot; &quot;Muscovite&quot;, masculine, 2nd declension) - genitive &quot;**москвич*ей***&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.  But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Тысячи** (from &quot;*тысяча*&quot; &quot;thousand&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive **тысяч**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дачи** (from &quot;*дача*&quot; &quot;cottage&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive &quot;**дач**&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чащи** (from &quot;*чаща*&quot;, &quot;jungle, thicket&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive &quot;**чащ**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *2nd and 3rd declension nouns* have in *genitive plural* the &quot;-***ей***&quot;, but *1st declension ones* in *genitive plural* have ***no postfix***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10897" RevisionGUID="98ffbf49-0699-4860-b17c-f9bd72c656d1" CreationDate="2015-10-09T14:42:01.953" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I have a few questions. I am struggling with these ones and I need some help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these locative, dative or genitive pluralis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в нём (dative)?&#xD;&#xA;в саду (dative)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;много цетов --&gt; genitive pluralis? due to the много?&#xD;&#xA;много овощей --&gt; genitive pluralis? Is the -ей added in this case because it is feminine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10900" RevisionGUID="1bd02ab5-17c1-4bec-91e0-3d2e85c6819b" CreationDate="2015-10-09T15:05:16.647" UserId="5915" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Since you already know about genitive, locative and dative from the comments, this is to answer your last question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;много овощей&quot; --&gt; genitive plural? Is the -ей added in this case because it is a feminine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.  Plural of &quot;**овощ**&quot; = &quot;**овощи**&quot;.  *Regardless of gender*, plurals that end on &quot;-**и**&quot; often have in genitive the postfix &quot;-**ей**&quot;.  It is ruled by the declension, not gender.  By the way, the gender of &quot;**овощ**&quot; is *masculine*.  Other examles:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Щи** (cabbage soup, masculine, no singular, 2nd declension) - genitive **щ*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вещи** (from &quot;*вещь*&quot; &quot;thing&quot;, feminine, 3rd declension) - genitive **вещ*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Родичи** (from &quot;*родич*&quot; &quot;kin&quot;, masculine, 2nd declension) - genitive **родич*ей***  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Москвичи** (from &quot;*москвич*&quot; &quot;Muscovite&quot;, masculine, 2nd declension) - genitive &quot;**москвич*ей***&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.  But&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Тысячи** (from &quot;*тысяча*&quot; &quot;thousand&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive **тысяч**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дачи** (from &quot;*дача*&quot; &quot;cottage&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive &quot;**дач**&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чащи** (from &quot;*чаща*&quot;, &quot;jungle, thicket&quot;, feminine, 1st declension) - genitive &quot;**чащ**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that some *2nd and 3rd declension nouns* have in *genitive plural* the &quot;-***ей***&quot;, but *1st declension ones* in *genitive plural* have ***no postfix***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10901" RevisionGUID="cb48cb55-0c41-47dd-8d89-beea0bb6e640" CreationDate="2015-10-09T16:53:07.573" UserId="2079" Text="**В нём** - prepositional case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В саду** - locative case.  Some nouns require a locative case instead of prepositional after **в** and **на**, when location is described. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дети гуляли **в лесу** - locative &#xD;&#xA; - Поэт написал стихи **о лесе** -&#xD;&#xA;   prepositional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Много цветов**, **много овощей** - genitive pluralis.  When the quantity is given, no matter exact or inexact (одиннадцать, пять много, несколько etc.), nominative pluralis and accusative pluralis are replaced by genitive pluralis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Зачем ты купил **овощи**? (accusative p.)&#xD;&#xA; - Зачем ты купил так **много овощей**? (genitive p.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that other cases are not replaced:&#xD;&#xA; - На столе лежит мешок с **овощами** (instrumental p.)&#xD;&#xA; - На столе лежит мешок с **несколькими овощами** (also instrumental p.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exeption is when the quantity ends by один (одна, одно), два (две), три, or четыре.  Then the rules are more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the quantity ends by один (одна, одно), the noun keeps it case but becomes singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the quantity ends by  два (две), три, or четыре, n.p. and a.p. are replaced by genitive **singularis**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Билл Гейтс купил четыре реактивных самолёта. (genitive singularis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the noun is animate, and the original case is accusative rather than nominative, the number is plural!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Вася Пупкин купил четырёх помойных котов (genitive pluralis or accusative pluralis - they are the same in this case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if the quantity ends by один (одно, одна), the case is not changed, but the number becomes singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Салман ибн Абдул-Азиз купил двадцать одну межконтинентальную баллистическую ракету (accusative singularis)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="2973acf6-b70b-485a-960a-22df4405a5bd" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:20.553" UserId="2199" Comment="improved formatting + removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Can you, please, help me translate this into english?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    – Я знаю, – сказала Фрида, – что вы пишете новеллы. Могу я их прочесть? Они у вас при себе?&#xD;&#xA;    – При себе, – говорю, – у меня лишь те, которых ещё нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25020" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="2973acf6-b70b-485a-960a-22df4405a5bd" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:20.553" Comment="Proposed by 2199 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8573" RevisionGUID="41f80f59-bfb9-472d-aec3-c5ac272a6b3d" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:20.553" UserId="97" Comment="improved formatting + removed &quot;thanks&quot;" Text="Can you, please, help me translate this into english?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Я знаю, – сказала Фрида, – что вы пишете новеллы. Могу я их прочесть? Они у вас при себе?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – При себе, – говорю, – у меня лишь те, которых ещё нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="3cb680e5-b46c-4a21-a74c-d60a5e363c84" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:31.673" UserId="6065" Comment="added Russian Morpheem" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][5] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][9] - spaced repetition using complete sentences (rather than single words). Covers the entire language and tracks your vocabulary size. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][6] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][7].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][8] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://ru.morpheem.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="3cb680e5-b46c-4a21-a74c-d60a5e363c84" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:31.673" Comment="Proposed by 6065 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 682" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="994131c4-d48c-4474-8d7a-ca333236b8f4" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:36.357" UserId="6065" Comment="added russianlessons.net" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian-15steps.com][18], 15 simple lessons for beginners and also quizes, articles and own dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-15steps.com&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25025" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="994131c4-d48c-4474-8d7a-ca333236b8f4" CreationDate="2015-10-09T20:26:36.357" Comment="Proposed by 6065 approved by 551, 97 edit id of 683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10889" RevisionGUID="7545d8be-20b3-418c-a72d-13034b0d960a" CreationDate="2015-10-10T03:30:34.623" UserId="6108" Comment="misprint fix" Text="I think both dashes are just intonational (интонационное тире). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They need to impart a rhythm to the text. When one read the sentence he makes little pauses on commas, and big pauses on dashes. It is a nursery tale and it have its own rhythm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal describes two cases of an intonational dashe usage (in §81), but an intonational dashe can be located in any place in sentence, where the author feel it is necessary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="3c4a9c61-13f4-406b-a659-ca284526fecf" CreationDate="2015-10-10T03:40:51.013" UserId="3892" Text="&gt; Самодельные суши? Ебаторно очень... проще заказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this word order express anything different than **очень ебаторно**? Is it perhaps more &quot;too&quot; than &quot;very&quot; in this order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="3c4a9c61-13f4-406b-a659-ca284526fecf" CreationDate="2015-10-10T03:40:51.013" UserId="3892" Text="прилагательное + ОЧЕНЬ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="3c4a9c61-13f4-406b-a659-ca284526fecf" CreationDate="2015-10-10T03:40:51.013" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10903" RevisionGUID="50712f30-cbd7-4a53-a5b7-66b0cde590b1" CreationDate="2015-10-10T08:46:27.663" UserId="97" Text="The two phrases (with _очень_ before and after the _ебаторно_) mean pretty much the same thing.  There may be a slight difference based on the emphasis in the spoken voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right to say that it's perhaps more &quot;too&quot; then &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally there may be a very slight difference in the emphasis, based on whether _очень_ is used before or after.  When it's used after the adverb, the emphasis is on the adverb and _очень_ is closer in meaning to &quot;too&quot;.  If it's used before the adverb, then the actual tone of voice would determine the emphasis.  If it is on _очень_, than it's closer to &quot;very&quot;, if it's on the adverb, then it's closer to &quot;too&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10904" RevisionGUID="8f7e4628-a3c1-410e-9b2c-a213219ed142" CreationDate="2015-10-10T08:53:09.777" UserId="6114" Text="This word order puts focus on **Ебаторно** (means &quot;I think this is hard. Let's do do it simpler&quot;). Actually **очень** here does not mean anything. It just make the speech smoother. Otherwise the speaker should make a long pause before **проще заказать**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**очень ебаторно** puts focus on **очень**. It may mean &quot;I have such an experience and never do it again&quot;). However to keep the style of the conversation **очень** should be replaced with some offensive synonymy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW is very offensive. However it's ok to say this to your friend if your friend uses to say &quot;fuck&quot; all the time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="1b115111-f347-4124-af0e-cf26034f4ac7" CreationDate="2015-10-10T09:33:01.443" UserId="5443" Text="No, such a word order here adds **neither extra meaning nor emphasis**, but in some context it may be used for better rhythmic organization of speech (as in poetry, not using such an adverb, of course). Such word order (*очень* after an adjective or an adverb) is mainly possible in a simple phrase defining something and it's likely to become unnatural or even ungrammatical in a complicated sentence where those 2 words would be of less importance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10906" RevisionGUID="be696aee-932e-44a2-bd9a-ccb78354e4be" CreationDate="2015-10-10T09:36:01.550" UserId="6096" Text="I am trying to learn the grammar and adjectives. I am not sure that I got it all right so please correct me if I am wrong. I think that there is a distinction between if the noun &quot;has a heart beat&quot; or not. If it is a thing then nominativ and ackusative cases are the same like in this example. What happens in ackusative case if the noun is of a kind (what do you call it in English/russian?) that forces acusative to change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjective: чёрный&#xD;&#xA;Noun: дом (Masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normal Adjectives - Hard (“-ый”, “-ой”, “-ий” (but not “-ний”))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative Case: чёрный дом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative Case: чёрный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive Case: чёрного&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dative Case: чёрному&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental Case: чёрным&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositional Case: чёрном&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/adjectives.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9#Adjective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10906" RevisionGUID="be696aee-932e-44a2-bd9a-ccb78354e4be" CreationDate="2015-10-10T09:36:01.550" UserId="6096" Text="How to adapt &quot;normal&quot; adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10906" RevisionGUID="be696aee-932e-44a2-bd9a-ccb78354e4be" CreationDate="2015-10-10T09:36:01.550" UserId="6096" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10905" RevisionGUID="1fc262b3-d76b-41b9-bdec-4505af4e9178" CreationDate="2015-10-10T09:40:44.693" UserId="5443" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="No, the reverse word order here adds **neither extra meaning nor emphasis**, but in some context it may be used for better rhythmic organization of speech (as in poetry, not using such an adverb, of course). Such word order (*очень* after an adjective or an adverb) is mainly possible in a simple phrase defining something and it's likely to become unnatural or even ungrammatical in a complicated sentence where those 2 words would be of less importance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="90c53dde-a8f5-4a8b-aaf3-6eeb78030fc5" CreationDate="2015-10-10T11:02:54.497" UserId="6116" Text="I am very new in Russian language. I would like to know the meaning of the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот 89603408610 билайн наличные мне кинь на баланс. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="90c53dde-a8f5-4a8b-aaf3-6eeb78030fc5" CreationDate="2015-10-10T11:02:54.497" UserId="6116" Text="Вот 89603408610 билайн наличные мне кинь на баланс - What is the meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10907" RevisionGUID="90c53dde-a8f5-4a8b-aaf3-6eeb78030fc5" CreationDate="2015-10-10T11:02:54.497" UserId="6116" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="caad064e-a4ec-4d48-aed4-8dec765ef81a" CreationDate="2015-10-10T11:12:49.973" UserId="5915" Text="I can only interpret is as an order or command (due to absence of any terms of politeness) to add funds to a particular phone (identified by the number) on a particular cellular carrier (&quot;билайн&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally translated it would be&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Here it is: NNNNN on &quot;*билайн*&quot;, drop some cash for me on that account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation is probably omitted for brevity (&quot;*txtspk*&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10909" RevisionGUID="5443ef4a-b1e8-4f39-9a01-586cade99744" CreationDate="2015-10-10T11:31:27.960" UserId="5915" Text="The accusative case forms differ for ***animate*** versus ***inanimate*** objects.  *In the 2nd declension* the accusative or an ***animate*** noun coincides with the *genitive case*, and the accusative for an ***inanimate*** object coincides with the *nominative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nominative: ***Человек*** .  ***Дом***   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Genitive: ***Человека*** .  ***Дома***   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accusative: ***Человека*** . ***Дом***   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives change their form to match the noun they define.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more [here][1], for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10910" RevisionGUID="c4b9a063-ddc5-423e-b6ed-7a4cd4593b37" CreationDate="2015-10-10T18:15:46.003" UserId="2079" Text="It is improper, broken Russian, probably because it is an SMS text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Билайн is a Russian mobile phone company.&#xD;&#xA;89603408610 is probably a phone number.&#xD;&#xA;One asks or requests to add money to his phone account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="f6a7dd04-95a7-47d1-be05-9b3806992109" CreationDate="2015-10-10T19:38:11.263" UserId="5897" Text="There are many [Russian words that are indeclinable](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_indeclinable_nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For foreign city names specifically, you can take some of the wisdom on&#xD;&#xA; [this question on the declension of foreign person names](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7223/non-russian-names-to-decline-or-not-to-decline).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fairly exact rules on the intonation and final ending combinations that make a word indeclinable, and some exceptions, and some disagreement in some edge cases if we actually look at the data descriptively.  But for a language learner I think it does not make sense to focus more than minimal effort on learning the rules explicitly - just see the examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="afdfdf67-fe49-4147-8b20-559228a8063d" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:03:03.307" UserId="5619" Text="&gt; в нашей компании работает 25 сотрудников &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come accross this sentence and I have two question about this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;first, I think the subject of the sentence is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25 сотрудников &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;since, it is plural 3rd person, the verb sould be `рабо́тают` instead of  `работает `. Isn't it right ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;second, If we change the order of the word in this sentence, would the form of the verb change or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for instance: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25 сотрудников рабо́тают в нашей компании " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="afdfdf67-fe49-4147-8b20-559228a8063d" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:03:03.307" UserId="5619" Text="which form of the verb should be used in this particular case 'работает' or 'рабо́тают'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="afdfdf67-fe49-4147-8b20-559228a8063d" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:03:03.307" UserId="5619" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10913" RevisionGUID="50c1eacd-a8bb-4997-8c01-2c63e865d241" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:12:58.213" UserId="5897" Text="To answer the question exactly: the only country outside of the former Soviet Union where you can simply ask almost anybody a question in Russian is Bulgaria.  (The answer, however, will probably not be in perfect Russian.)  In Serbia, Montenegro, Republika Srpska and Macedonia there is also some hope.  (This is because the language and alphabet are similar, and politically the connotations are not too negative.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the other cases outside of the former Soviet Union, we cannot speak of general knowledge across the country, and certainly it will be less than in those cases.  In terms of similarity of language, the other Slavic countries can compete, but there, as in Hungary or Romania, there is also non-nil risk of a negative reaction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10908" RevisionGUID="94c4a275-a1f2-4775-920c-3b2232d9de20" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:28:50.167" UserId="5915" Comment="typo" Text="I can only interpret it as an order or command (due to absence of any terms of politeness) to add funds to a particular phone (identified by the number) on a particular cellular carrier (&quot;билайн&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally translated it would be&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Here it is: NNNNN on &quot;*билайн*&quot;, drop some cash for me on that account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The punctuation is probably omitted for brevity (&quot;*txtspk*&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25049" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="9ab85a42-8d1b-4527-803f-9a1f1e1cd697" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:49:45.413" UserId="5619" Comment="edited title" Text="which form of the verb should be used in this particular case: 'работает' or 'рабо́тают'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10914" RevisionGUID="7d6d600e-7013-4dcc-8f62-6eda47b2817b" CreationDate="2015-10-10T20:57:03.193" UserId="5915" Text="Both&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В нашей компании работа**ет** 25 сотрудников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В нашей компании работа**ют** 25 сотрудников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are acceptable.  In the former case the verb takes the 3rd person singular because you're talking of the **entire working force** as of *a single entity*.  The subject of the sentence then is thus perceived as singular and the verb agrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar expression: &quot;На по́лке сто**яло** пять кружек&quot;.  More examples can be found on the Web, I am sure.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's not necessarily dependent on the word order.  You can say&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Двадцать человек сто**яло** в стороне. (example from [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramma.ru/RUS/?id=5.2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10915" RevisionGUID="59136f39-0fc9-4e21-8f46-49f4e101304b" CreationDate="2015-10-10T21:02:15.687" UserId="5008" Text="This is singular vs plural predicative question, and it's a bit tricky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [gramota.ru](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/22-spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На постановку сказуемого в форму единственного числа влияет стремление автора текста обратить внимание читателей на _пассивность_ подлежащего, _совместность_ действия действующих лиц, а также на _количество_, названное в подлежащем. Пассивность подлежащего может подчеркиваться употреблением в качестве сказуемых глаголов со значением бытия, наличия: быть существовать, иметься и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, you _may_ use singular to emphasize that you think all these people as a whole. So here we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;25 сотрудников работают в нашей компании --&gt; 25 persons work in our company  &#xD;&#xA;В нашей компании работает 25 сотрудников --&gt; _A total of_ 25 persons work in our company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that English verb is still plural in the 2nd example, but Russian one is singular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10916" RevisionGUID="d0a23729-f1d7-4ac3-92a9-08dffd33f730" CreationDate="2015-10-10T23:08:39.420" UserId="5443" Text="Both versions are possible, but the optimal word choice may depend on context (accent on personal details or on abstract quantity). *Plural/singular* verb versions focus on *noun/numeral* here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;('there **are** 25 employees, namely:')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В нашей компании работают 25 сотрудников: (1) Иван Петров... (25) Елена Сазонова. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(employee count **is** 25; the alternate word order is also possible in this version)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В нашей компании работает 25 сотрудников - это больше, чем в компании нашего партнёра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    25 сотрудников работает в нашей компании, ещё 20 - в компании нашего партнёра." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="6020f7bc-2b9a-42ae-ad88-2ba82f87f376" CreationDate="2015-10-11T05:19:41.557" UserId="5897" Comment="more precision" Text="Technically, Russian is commonly understood in any country that used to be part of the USSR: Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This differs from place to place, and in more rural areas the use of their native language was much heavier than that of the official Russian, but generally people born as late as the 80's are bound to understand Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the former USSR, Russian is understood by older people from countries that used to belong to the Soviet Bloc - Hungary, former Eastern Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and more so and even by some younger people in those where the the main local language and alphabet is similar to Russian, like Bulgaria, and where there is more trade and interaction with Russians today (near Kaliningrad, on the Black Sea coast, and in Prague and Karlovy Vary).  There are parallel dynamics within the former non-aligned bloc of former Yugoslavia - Russian is most understand in Orthodox areas and on the Montenegrin coast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in those places, as in some places within the former USSR, speaking Russian has political symbolism, depending on the exact context, that can be positive or negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also other favourite destinations of Russian-speaking tourists - places in Egypt, Tunisia, the Emirates and Turkey - where it is possible to visit using only Russian.  In some neighbourhoods in Istanbul where many traders organise exports to the former Soviet Union, it is a lingua franca.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrelated to this, about a seventh of the population of Israel is made up of Russian-speaking immigrants and their children. You can visit Israel using only a working knowledge of Russian.  There are significant Russian-speaking populations in New York, San Francisco, Seattle and many other places around the world, but the tourist infrastructure is not really oriented around Russian speakers in those places." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25054" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="6020f7bc-2b9a-42ae-ad88-2ba82f87f376" CreationDate="2015-10-11T05:19:41.557" Comment="Proposed by 5897 approved by 113 edit id of 688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10915" RevisionGUID="690e612e-4f39-451c-a038-c2701c821eb9" CreationDate="2015-10-11T06:36:40.150" UserId="5008" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="This is a singular vs plural predicative question, and it's a bit tricky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [gramota.ru](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/22-spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На постановку сказуемого в форму единственного числа влияет стремление автора текста обратить внимание читателей на _пассивность_ подлежащего, _совместность_ действия действующих лиц, а также на _количество_, названное в подлежащем. Пассивность подлежащего может подчеркиваться употреблением в качестве сказуемых глаголов со значением бытия, наличия: быть, существовать, иметься и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, you _may_ use singular to emphasize that you think of all these people as a whole. So here we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;25 сотрудников _работают_ в нашей компании --&gt; 25 persons _work_ in our company  &#xD;&#xA;В нашей компании _работает_ 25 сотрудников --&gt; _A total of_ 25 persons _work_ in our company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that English verb is still plural in the 2nd example, but Russian verb is singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the matter of &quot;quasi-passive&quot; singular predicative, it's a sort of equivalent to English &quot;There are&quot;. Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В комнате _были_ три человека --&gt; Three persons _were_ in the room  &#xD;&#xA;В комнате _было_ три человека --&gt; _There were_ three persons in the room&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also may use the verbs different from &quot;to be&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На полу _лежало_ три человека --&gt; _There were_ three persons _lying_ on the floor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's a bit less advisable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10917" RevisionGUID="2e9ef30a-f240-4ea5-b23b-674884bcb405" CreationDate="2015-10-11T07:30:08.013" UserId="5201" Text="In my view, these three words seem to be the most common words to express the verb 'to force' or 'impel.' But I don't feel like I have the best grasp on how they are differentiated from one another and when to appropriately use them. Could their individual distinctions be explained?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10917" RevisionGUID="2e9ef30a-f240-4ea5-b23b-674884bcb405" CreationDate="2015-10-11T07:30:08.013" UserId="5201" Text="Мeaning between 'принудить,' 'вынудить,' 'заставлять'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10917" RevisionGUID="2e9ef30a-f240-4ea5-b23b-674884bcb405" CreationDate="2015-10-11T07:30:08.013" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25059" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10912" RevisionGUID="40b8e4c0-eb71-4449-86a4-726fde0af93b" CreationDate="2015-10-11T08:17:57.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/653122349395480576" />
  <row Id="25060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10918" RevisionGUID="d82bd651-12cc-4df6-9c68-4a100ea83a9e" CreationDate="2015-10-11T08:21:36.413" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="The most neutral and least agressive is `заставлять`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама заставляет сына заниматься в музыкальной школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`принудить` has a bit official tone, it's used in documents, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Противника принудили сесть за стол переговоров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And `вынудить` has less formal meaning, with a tone of extortion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они вынудили его подписать сделку поглощения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вынудил подростка пойти на место преступления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10919" RevisionGUID="2cd63abf-fea5-4846-9435-e5b87a441fad" CreationDate="2015-10-11T08:38:38.497" UserId="5443" Text="1.**Принудить** (к чему-либо, реже: сделать что-то) - the source of this action is always human, and they definitely do so with intention. It is often about making somebody to do what they are supposed do. This verb is typically used together with a noun in dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    принудить к даче показаний, к отдаче долга, к мирным переговорам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**Вынудить** (сделать что-то) - the source of action &quot;вынудить&quot; is not necessarily human, and if human then not necessarily they expect a particular result, which is expressed using another verb (infinitive). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Понизив подчинённого в должности, он вынудил его искать другую работу. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Обстоятельства вынудили его уехать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.**Заставить** (сделать что-то) - when the source of action here is human, the action &quot;заставить&quot; is intentional and aimed at a particular result,  which is expressed using another verb (infinitive). If not human, then the meaning is that some circumstances made somebody to do something particular (more likely without any choice between multiple evils, than in case of вынудить, but the meaning is almost the same):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он заставил матроса взять ветошь и вымыть гальюн.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Обстоятельства заставили его поступить именно так." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10918" RevisionGUID="d9685e1c-d932-4008-8492-c8b926507518" CreationDate="2015-10-11T09:06:30.880" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="The most neutral and least agressive is `заставлять`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама заставляет сына заниматься в музыкальной школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ты заставляешь себя столько тренироваться?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`принудить` has a bit official tone, it's used in documents, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Противника принудили сесть за стол переговоров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And `вынудить` has less formal meaning, with a tone of extortion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они вынудили его подписать сделку поглощения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вынудил подростка пойти на место преступления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10920" RevisionGUID="369c20dc-f5fb-4c7f-8a2e-5257053bfe9d" CreationDate="2015-10-11T13:05:57.727" UserId="3892" Text="In this passage, in response to a story about candies that contained Radium, does ведь have the force of &quot;you see, I tried...&quot; or does it justify the previous statement (exclamation) like a sort of &quot;I say this because I tried...&quot; or does it imply something else entirely that I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уххх, ну и история :) Я **ведь** пробовал такие в детстве. Они здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; считались большой редкостью в 90-ых годах." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10920" RevisionGUID="369c20dc-f5fb-4c7f-8a2e-5257053bfe9d" CreationDate="2015-10-11T13:05:57.727" UserId="3892" Text="interpretation of the particle ВЕДЬ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10920" RevisionGUID="369c20dc-f5fb-4c7f-8a2e-5257053bfe9d" CreationDate="2015-10-11T13:05:57.727" UserId="3892" Text="|particles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10921" RevisionGUID="ea3f7610-3548-467b-8db1-e45ec35b6d67" CreationDate="2015-10-11T13:38:24.587" UserId="5454" Text="[Here][1] is this word in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;This case is described in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. В разг. речи придает эмоциональную окраску высказыванию.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;­- In colloquial speech adds an emotional expressiveness.  &#xD;&#xA;(It does not add any information.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/754910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10922" RevisionGUID="b54a7bc6-579c-49fb-b52e-6fa0dd4fe3f0" CreationDate="2015-10-11T14:18:47.593" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Legend:&#xD;&#xA;==========================&#xD;&#xA;unLgc  = unlogical&#xD;&#xA;wSnds  = weird sounds&#xD;&#xA;sImp   = some imperfections&#xD;&#xA;taut   = tautology&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    Examles                           | Differences&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------+------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не заставлял, он вынужден был сделать это.    Ok&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не заставлял, он принужден был сделать это.      unLgc &#xD;&#xA;Его никто не заставлял, он заставлен был сделать это.      wSnds &amp; unLgc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не принуждал, его принудили сделать это.         unLgc&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не принуждал, его вынудили сделать это.          unLgc&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не принуждал, его заставили сделать это.         unLgc&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не принуждал, его вынудили &#xD;&#xA;                        сделать это обстоятельства.     Ok&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его никто не вынуждал, его ...                            all unLgc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его принудили, и он вынужден был сделать это.              sImp, taut&#xD;&#xA;Его принудили, и он принужден был сделать это.             utter taut&#xD;&#xA;Его принудили, и он заставлен был сделать это.             (1), or a bit taut&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его вынудили, и он вынужден был сделать это.               sImp,a bit taut&#xD;&#xA;Его вынудили, и он заставлен был сделать это.              wSnds&#xD;&#xA;Его вынудили, и он принужден был сделать это.              sImp, (1) &#xD;&#xA;Его вынудили обстоятельства, и он принужден&#xD;&#xA;                               был сделать это.         Ok, (1)&#xD;&#xA;                                                        &#xD;&#xA;Его заставили, и он принужден был сделать это.             sImp, (1) &#xD;&#xA;Его заставили, и он вынужден был сделать это.           Ok&#xD;&#xA;Его заставили, и он заставлен был сделать это.             wSnds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;(1) здесь мы подразумеваем два действия над объектом.&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10924" RevisionGUID="008f91f9-f17d-4be3-afbe-c7c6473990e4" CreationDate="2015-10-11T19:25:08.487" UserId="6106" Text="In song &quot;Где я!&quot; lyrics is word **загон** and **закон**. Why this word have two different form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне не звони на телефон, не за неуплату он отключен.&#xD;&#xA;    Ты знаешь, в жизни бывает и не такой загон.&#xD;&#xA;    Закон джунглей моих: лишь дело, меньше слов.&#xD;&#xA;    Знаешь, я даже не парюсь, совет вам да любовь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10924" RevisionGUID="008f91f9-f17d-4be3-afbe-c7c6473990e4" CreationDate="2015-10-11T19:25:08.487" UserId="6106" Text="What is correct: загон or Закон" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10924" RevisionGUID="008f91f9-f17d-4be3-afbe-c7c6473990e4" CreationDate="2015-10-11T19:25:08.487" UserId="6106" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10925" RevisionGUID="54796018-e95e-436f-ad1f-37c89df249ad" CreationDate="2015-10-11T19:37:21.157" UserId="194" Text="These are two different words. The word загон is from teenage slang, it comes from verb [загоняться][1], to think a lot about something not deserving that, to have the mind occupied by an unimportant problrem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time закон means law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slovonovo.ru/term/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10927" RevisionGUID="ff7a97ee-a20a-47ab-b830-e0a56ff292d0" CreationDate="2015-10-11T21:32:29.890" UserId="6120" Text="Большой толковой словарь (Кузнецов) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. *частица.* для усиления основного содержания всего высказывания&#xD;&#xA;    (предположения, утверждения, вопроса и т.п.) или выделения, подчёркивания отдельного слова.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2.*союз.*&#xD;&#xA;     1) Присоединяет предложения, содержащие указание на причину, обоснование &#xD;&#xA;    предыдущего высказывания. &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Полагаемся на тебя, ты ведь один знаешь дорогу.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Пора домой, ведь уже поздно.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2) Несмотря на то, что; хотя. &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ведь и сил нет, а работаешь.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ведь говорил вам, да не послушались.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;And Большой современный толковый словарь русского языка (Ефремова) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I 1. Употребляется при присоединении предложения, в котором указывается причина или &#xD;&#xA;    обоснование предыдущего высказывания. 2. Употребляется при выражении уступительности, &#xD;&#xA;    соответствуя по значению сл.: хотя, несмотря на то что. 3. Употребляется при выражении &#xD;&#xA;    предположительного или возможного условия. II Употребляется при подчеркивании чего-либо &#xD;&#xA;    сказанного или при противопоставлении сказанного чему-либо другому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually translated as &quot;after all&quot; or often just omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="93ca283b-6b5f-4b31-9452-58651755ba57" CreationDate="2015-10-12T05:52:13.687" UserId="5897" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="There are many [Russian words that are indeclinable](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_indeclinable_nouns).  So it's simply: *Я былa в Мальмё.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For foreign city names specifically, you can take some of the wisdom on&#xD;&#xA; [this question on the declension of foreign person names](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7223/non-russian-names-to-decline-or-not-to-decline).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fairly exact rules on the intonation and final ending combinations that make a word indeclinable, and some exceptions, and some disagreement in some edge cases if we actually look at the data descriptively.  (They tend to be foreign words, abbreviations etc.)  But for a language learner I think it does not make sense to focus more than minimal effort on learning the rules explicitly - just see the examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10928" RevisionGUID="6ce03804-8300-4118-b701-f9999cacd52b" CreationDate="2015-10-12T08:03:22.147" UserId="310" Text="I think the most precise translation for this case is &quot;actually&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I've actually tried those in my childhood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25082" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10920" RevisionGUID="9a02f4a2-47bc-45bf-80ef-deeb065087b4" CreationDate="2015-10-12T08:19:57.220" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Interpretation of the particle &quot;ведь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="de9e2760-b051-4166-8979-307f92280740" CreationDate="2015-10-13T01:09:21.323" UserId="5201" Text="Is there a Russian saying that is similar to the English phrase 'rise and shine' when you want to wake someone up? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="de9e2760-b051-4166-8979-307f92280740" CreationDate="2015-10-13T01:09:21.323" UserId="5201" Text="Russian equivalent for 'Rise and shine?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="de9e2760-b051-4166-8979-307f92280740" CreationDate="2015-10-13T01:09:21.323" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10930" RevisionGUID="e19a5aac-3308-42ce-a913-61ac80403318" CreationDate="2015-10-13T02:26:11.630" UserId="2079" Text=" - Вставайте, граф, вас ждут великие дела!&#xD;&#xA; - Проснись и пой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10931" RevisionGUID="6eb9fd45-6020-43f7-940b-862e0eade8c8" CreationDate="2015-10-13T06:43:34.477" UserId="5008" Text="If we talk about &quot;boys&quot;, then I can only think of &quot;military-style&quot;: _Рота, подъём!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10932" RevisionGUID="d487875c-ed2d-4aea-b663-64b9ad904cce" CreationDate="2015-10-13T10:33:58.313" UserId="4929" Text="Hard to believe, but this modern word is used with archaic *местный* (locative) case. It is supposed to not exist nowadays but it actually does. Another example, could be *в лесу*. Locative case mostly assimilates (uses same inflection) with prepositional, but for some words - with dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10933" RevisionGUID="0d64caec-d28a-4c20-a46a-22a1faf12e8d" CreationDate="2015-10-13T11:48:15.387" UserId="4481" Text="Also, If you want to parody someone, who can't wake up fast, you can say: &quot;Поднимите мне веки!&quot; (It is citation from [Viy][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viy_(story)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10934" RevisionGUID="13b80d39-9e40-4dca-a291-d1df5d4f73b8" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:28:50.700" UserId="6131" Text="The answer is &quot;Тель-Авив, Израиль&quot;. As it was mentioned in comments, you can use Wikipedia for translation of so popular words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="dd44e09c-30b5-4ddf-ada9-5bd7cfc89a26" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:39:38.250" UserId="4560" Text="There are several dozen nouns, 1st-declension masculine and overwhelmingly monosyllabic (**аэропорт** is on this list because it mimics the declension of **порт**), that have two propositional forms; a regular **-е** prepositional used with **о**, **при**, and *figurative* instances of **в** and **на** (*Что особенного **в** этом аэропорт**е**? Вполне обыкновенный на вид*), and an **-у** (or **-ю**) prepositional used with **в** and **на** when they *literally* refer to location, as in your example. On a side note, the **-у**/**-ю** ending is always stressed, making it inherently different from dative in many cases. Dative, in fact, has nothing to do with this whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all you need to know in order to use these forms correctly (apart from the actual word list; that link in the first comment is comprehensive enough, though one always forgets a few when one tries to list them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now I'll ramble on a little more about the theoretical stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might hear the expression &quot;locative case&quot; thrown around, and there's some potential confusion there. What's known in Russian as the &quot;prepositional case&quot; is, historically, the locative case, and it goes by that name in several other Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, however, we have a non-standard case ending that refers to location, hence it gets called the &quot;locative case&quot;. But like I said, there was a time when &quot;prepositional&quot; *was* locative, and then Russian has a limited-use &quot;locative&quot; case *on top of* its locative-renamed-prepositional. The tricky thing here is that while *forms* like **в аэропорту** are archaic, the *distinction* between **в аэропорту** and **в аэропорте** is innovative. In Proto-Slavic, these nouns would either always have an *-u* locative or always have a *-ě* locative (or always have something else entirely), depending on their paradigm, which was much more complicated than the Russian declension we have now. In Russian, the *-ě* (**-е**) ending supplanted all others, but a few leftover *-u* forms remained, and eventually were grammaticalised in a new role as &quot;the *locative* locative&quot;, as opposed to the &quot;general&quot; locative now called prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10935" RevisionGUID="61246edc-b1a9-4d32-985c-cd64448431b6" CreationDate="2015-10-13T14:56:47.530" UserId="4560" Comment="edited body" Text="There are several dozen nouns, 2nd-declension masculine and overwhelmingly monosyllabic (**аэропорт** is on this list because it mimics the declension of **порт**), that have two propositional forms; a regular **-е** prepositional used with **о**, **при**, and *figurative* instances of **в** and **на** (*Что особенного **в** этом аэропорт**е**? Вполне обыкновенный на вид*), and an **-у** (or **-ю**) prepositional used with **в** and **на** when they *literally* refer to location, as in your example. On a side note, the **-у**/**-ю** ending is always stressed, making it inherently different from dative in many cases. Dative, in fact, has nothing to do with this whatsoever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all you need to know in order to use these forms correctly (apart from the actual word list; that link in the first comment is comprehensive enough, though one always forgets a few when one tries to list them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now I'll ramble on a little more about the theoretical stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might hear the expression &quot;locative case&quot; thrown around, and there's some potential confusion there. What's known in Russian as the &quot;prepositional case&quot; is, historically, the locative case, and it goes by that name in several other Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, however, we have a non-standard case ending that refers to location, hence it gets called the &quot;locative case&quot;. But like I said, there was a time when &quot;prepositional&quot; *was* locative, and then Russian has a limited-use &quot;locative&quot; case *on top of* its locative-renamed-prepositional. The tricky thing here is that while *forms* like **в аэропорту** are archaic, the *distinction* between **в аэропорту** and **в аэропорте** is innovative. In Proto-Slavic, these nouns would either always have an *-u* locative or always have a *-ě* locative (or always have something else entirely), depending on their paradigm, which was much more complicated than the Russian declension we have now. In Russian, the *-ě* (**-е**) ending supplanted all others, but a few leftover *-u* forms remained, and eventually were grammaticalised in a new role as &quot;the *locative* locative&quot;, as opposed to the &quot;general&quot; locative now called prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10936" RevisionGUID="11267ab5-9a59-4239-8243-b495c88f0919" CreationDate="2015-10-13T15:25:05.780" UserId="1836" Text="There is also another meaning (slang one). &quot;Попустись&quot; is used when someone is high and has some weird ideas, and you want him to get sober before talking about the matter. Other use will be when someone gets paranoid because of being high, and you want to say that his paranoid thoughts are brought by drugs and probably have nothing to do with reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;попустись&quot; can be used to say that some ideas are totally crazy, or over-complicated and relying on some crooked logic (without implying that opponent is high).&#xD;&#xA;Closest translation I can think of is &quot;get sober&quot;, but I guess there are more suitable constructions in slang, which I'm not aware of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="3a7ea737-70eb-4340-ba51-53c53e5b3202" CreationDate="2015-10-13T15:39:34.793" UserId="6132" Text="What is the most common Word when referring to a bed?&#xD;&#xA;I.e., У меня есть две кровати? or is there a better word for the noun &quot;bed&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="3a7ea737-70eb-4340-ba51-53c53e5b3202" CreationDate="2015-10-13T15:39:34.793" UserId="6132" Text="What is most common word for the noun &quot;bed&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10937" RevisionGUID="3a7ea737-70eb-4340-ba51-53c53e5b3202" CreationDate="2015-10-13T15:39:34.793" UserId="6132" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10771" RevisionGUID="725a4467-817f-4d1e-8a71-3fc07c36a3cf" CreationDate="2015-10-13T15:48:59.633" UserId="6065" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="The original meaning of the word &quot;попускать&quot; is to allow something to happen. In my lifetime I have not heard it used that way.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning you are referring to seems to come from Ukrainian Russian speakers and has a darker meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;попускать кого-то&quot;** means to humiliate someone. It is not proper Russian though, and comes from Ukrainian slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, when you tell that annoying guy at the nightclub **&quot;Попустись!&quot; - &quot;Piss off!&quot;** would be a much more accurate translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are telling your annoyed and agitated friend **&quot;Попустись немного&quot;**, you can translate that as **&quot;Chillax/Let it go/Forget it&quot;**. How your friend will take it depends of your tome of voice and how close you are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="c4fc5a5c-f936-410a-9862-b32a755c2c7b" CreationDate="2015-10-13T17:18:37.000" UserId="277" Text="Could you please describe situation, when one word should be used instead of other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="c4fc5a5c-f936-410a-9862-b32a755c2c7b" CreationDate="2015-10-13T17:18:37.000" UserId="277" Text="What is the difference between &quot;закат&quot; and &quot;заход&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="c4fc5a5c-f936-410a-9862-b32a755c2c7b" CreationDate="2015-10-13T17:18:37.000" UserId="277" Text="|перевод|usage|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25102" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="95e99c6d-1679-4b92-b162-cb4f30d7977e" CreationDate="2015-10-13T17:25:43.160" UserId="277" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10939" RevisionGUID="aa49f298-e37c-4cdb-96e0-da225864c806" CreationDate="2015-10-13T17:26:51.393" UserId="5915" Text="В переносном смысле используется &quot;закат&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На **закате** своей карьеры он...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.  В прямом (когда речь идёт о солнце) они равноупотребимы.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When speaking figuratively, use &quot;**закат**&quot;.  When speaking of the astronomical event, they are interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is another meaning of &quot;*заход*&quot;, having to do with navigation (&quot;круиз по Карибскому морю с **заходом** на Кубу&quot;), there you'd not use '*закат*', of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10940" RevisionGUID="ae27b77f-e150-438a-a8eb-9488851f619e" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:14:35.487" UserId="5008" Text="_Заход солнца_ only means the descent of the sun below the horizon (or the time of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _Закат_ has all the meanings which the word _Sunset_ has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the descent of the sun&#xD;&#xA;2. what the sky looks like, when the sun goes down&#xD;&#xA;3. the final stage (figurative)&#xD;&#xA;4. the West (metaphor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when talking about austronomy, we usually say _заход солнца_ (though _закат солнца_ is OK too) but in all other cases it's simply _закат_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="331ffa27-d536-4ca3-a875-56ab7a5f989e" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:29:08.343" UserId="5008" Text="There are two different words in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Кровать_ is the piece of furniture&#xD;&#xA;- _Постель_ is any place with the bedclothes lying on it (or even just the full set of bedclothes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also old words such as _ложе_ or _одр_ but you may see them only in the books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="5944b117-d386-4bf1-99b5-70157f53b087" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:46:27.077" UserId="487" Text="Literally it means maybe &quot;just what they need&quot;. But it is supposed to bear an ironic meaning, I guess. Right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="5944b117-d386-4bf1-99b5-70157f53b087" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:46:27.077" UserId="487" Text="What does так им и надо mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="5944b117-d386-4bf1-99b5-70157f53b087" CreationDate="2015-10-13T19:46:27.077" UserId="487" Text="|slang|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="0828484b-516f-4539-9d3a-55fb3919ee0d" CreationDate="2015-10-13T20:16:39.480" UserId="134" Text="It means &quot;they deserve it&quot; (of a bad thing), &quot;they had it coming&quot;, &quot;it serves them right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage from &quot;The Brothers Karamazov&quot; by Dostoyevsky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сумасшедший, ведь ты убил его! — крикнул Иван. — Так ему и надо! - задыхаясь, воскликнул Дмитрий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English translation reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Madman! You’ve killed him!’ cried Ivan. ‘Serve him right!’ shouted Dmitri breathlessly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25110" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10942" RevisionGUID="2978f730-ef7f-477f-82de-32717c737a34" CreationDate="2015-10-13T20:17:02.860" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10943" RevisionGUID="377e3180-e96f-4c24-95b7-3e52259563c9" CreationDate="2015-10-13T20:46:26.980" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="It means &quot;they deserve it&quot; (of a bad thing), &quot;they had it coming&quot;, &quot;it serves them right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This passage from &quot;The Brothers Karamazov&quot; by Dostoyevsky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Сумасшедший, ведь ты убил его! — крикнул Иван. — Так ему и надо! — задыхаясь, воскликнул Дмитрий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in English translation reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Madman! You’ve killed him!’ cried Ivan. ‘Serve him right!’ shouted Dmitri breathlessly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="ab6dfe8d-2f09-4685-b659-fa9c08af3dff" CreationDate="2015-10-13T22:22:54.687" UserId="6133" Text="I'd say &quot;кровать&quot; is the most popular one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="6a678db5-f57f-4d33-814b-35d6e70c6e3a" CreationDate="2015-10-14T00:29:51.870" UserId="6096" Text="Can someone, Пожалуйста, help me by checking if I have understood the thing with hard adjective and the various forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ack. старый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. стар-ого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dat. стар-ому&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instr.старим&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P* стар-ом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="6a678db5-f57f-4d33-814b-35d6e70c6e3a" CreationDate="2015-10-14T00:29:51.870" UserId="6096" Text="Hard adjective and conjunction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="6a678db5-f57f-4d33-814b-35d6e70c6e3a" CreationDate="2015-10-14T00:29:51.870" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="2d033caf-03bd-4a33-9da7-afac7dffe9d4" CreationDate="2015-10-14T00:40:31.033" UserId="6096" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Can someone, Пожалуйста, help me by checking if I have understood the thing with hard adjective and the various forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. старый журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ack. старый журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. стар-ого журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dat. стар-ому журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instr.стар-ым журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P* стар-ом журнал" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10945" RevisionGUID="655370b0-ad1f-41b9-bfd9-e92a5a89be61" CreationDate="2015-10-14T00:52:42.647" UserId="6096" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Can someone, Пожалуйста, help me by checking if I have understood the thing with hard adjective and the various forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom. case: старый журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ack. case: старый журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gen. case: стар-ого журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dat. case: стар-ому журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instr. case: стар-ым журнал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositional Case: стар-ом журнал" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10946" RevisionGUID="0cb042b7-b464-446c-96eb-39893719f18c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T04:30:57.197" UserId="6108" Text="You have to change noun ending too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    N: старый журнал&#xD;&#xA;    A: старый журнал&#xD;&#xA;    G: старого журнала&#xD;&#xA;    D: старому журналу&#xD;&#xA;    I: старым журналом&#xD;&#xA;    P: старом журнале&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nominative and accusative forms are identical (in this case, not always) by appearance, but they are different by meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10947" RevisionGUID="58caac17-e71f-445d-9147-2882ba9cf8ea" CreationDate="2015-10-14T06:25:22.720" UserId="6096" Text="I have compiled an example. With it be correct to assume that a noun with 0-ending would end up with the following syntax?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N: старый ламп&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: старый ламп&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G: старого ламп&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D: старому ламп&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I: старым ламп&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P: старом ламп" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10947" RevisionGUID="58caac17-e71f-445d-9147-2882ba9cf8ea" CreationDate="2015-10-14T06:25:22.720" UserId="6096" Text="What happens to the noun ламп with used with an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10947" RevisionGUID="58caac17-e71f-445d-9147-2882ba9cf8ea" CreationDate="2015-10-14T06:25:22.720" UserId="6096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10948" RevisionGUID="7a753b24-31be-4af7-bd36-54eed2fae711" CreationDate="2015-10-14T06:34:41.970" UserId="4560" Text="- **Лампа** is a feminine noun with a very much non-zero ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It's more conventional, in Russian, to list accusative between dative and instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- An actual zero-ending noun (like **журнал**, which you used in your previous question) would be declined on its own quite independently of the adjective: *старый журнал, старого журнала, старому журналу*, etc. The adjective, on the other hand, inherits the noun's animacy category, and adjusts its accusative form accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10940" RevisionGUID="b9b36e12-d274-4137-bd5d-0222d145cd84" CreationDate="2015-10-14T07:52:20.387" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="_Заход солнца_ only means the descent of the sun below the horizon (or the time of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _Закат_ has all the meanings which the word _Sunset_ has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the descent of the sun&#xD;&#xA;2. what the sky looks like, when the sun goes down&#xD;&#xA;3. the final stage (figurative)&#xD;&#xA;4. west (metaphor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when talking about austronomy, we usually say _заход солнца_ (though _закат солнца_ is OK too) but in all other cases it's simply _закат_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="4d7be9ea-e73c-4dea-a1e8-d5104fd7660d" CreationDate="2015-10-14T08:01:17.853" UserId="6097" Comment="+ interchangeability" Text="There are two different words in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Кровать_ is the piece of furniture&#xD;&#xA;- _Постель_ is any place with the bedclothes lying on it (or even just the full set of bedclothes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are sometimes interchangeable though. &quot;Я лежу в кровати&quot; and &quot;Я лежу в постели&quot; mean the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also old words such as _ложе_ or _одр_ but you may see them only in the books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25125" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="4d7be9ea-e73c-4dea-a1e8-d5104fd7660d" CreationDate="2015-10-14T08:01:17.853" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 5008 edit id of 690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25126" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10944" RevisionGUID="1a698ec5-4c8c-4ec2-a103-b0b8c1d5fb7c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T08:55:18.767" UserId="134" Comment="51" />
  <row Id="25127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10940" RevisionGUID="4cbb0a70-ac16-49b9-9063-8ee2fc661908" CreationDate="2015-10-14T10:56:19.287" UserId="5008" Comment="added 828 characters in body" Text="_Заход солнца_ only means the descent of the sun below the horizon (or the time of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _Закат_ has all the meanings which the word _Sunset_ has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the descent of the sun&#xD;&#xA;2. what the sky looks like, when the sun goes down&#xD;&#xA;3. the final stage (figurative)&#xD;&#xA;4. the west (metaphor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when talking about austronomy, we usually say _заход солнца_ (though _закат солнца_ is OK too) but in all other cases it's simply _закат_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that both _закат_, _заход_ and _запад_ (the west) are made by the same pattern: _roll beyond_, _go beyond_ and _fall beyond_ respectively. But based on its meaning only _закат_ appears to be a highly poetic word. A couple of examples from the well-known songs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Звезда надежды благодатная,  &#xD;&#xA;Звезда любви волшебных дней.  &#xD;&#xA;Ты будешь вечно _незакатная_  &#xD;&#xA;В душе тоскующей моей.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;from the romance &quot;Shine, shine, my star&quot;, words by V. Tchuevsky&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лишь по небу тихо  &#xD;&#xA;Сползла погодя  &#xD;&#xA;На бархат _заката_  &#xD;&#xA;Слезинка дождя...  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;from &quot;Grenada&quot; by M. Svetlov&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мимо белого яблока луны,  &#xD;&#xA;Мимо красного яблока _заката_,  &#xD;&#xA;Облака из неведомой страны,  &#xD;&#xA;К нам спешат и опять бегут куда-то.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;from children's song &quot;Beside moon's white apple...&quot;, words by S. Kozlov&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10940" RevisionGUID="172e8f4c-a42e-4257-9275-49f8b38e3b0f" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:04:42.563" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="_Заход солнца_ only means the descent of the sun below the horizon (or the time of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _Закат_ has all the meanings which the word _Sunset_ has:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the descent of the sun&#xD;&#xA;2. what the sky looks like, when the sun goes down&#xD;&#xA;3. the final stage (figurative)&#xD;&#xA;4. the west (metaphor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when talking about astronomy, we usually say _заход солнца_ (though _закат солнца_ is OK too) but in all other cases it's simply _закат_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that both _закат_, _заход_ and _запад_ (the west) are made by the same pattern: _roll beyond_, _go beyond_ and _fall beyond_ respectively. But based on its meaning only _закат_ appears to be a highly poetic word. A couple of examples from the well-known songs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Звезда надежды благодатная,  &#xD;&#xA;Звезда любви волшебных дней.  &#xD;&#xA;Ты будешь вечно _незакатная_  &#xD;&#xA;В душе тоскующей моей.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;from the romance &quot;Shine, shine, my star&quot;, words by V. Tchuevsky&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лишь по небу тихо  &#xD;&#xA;Сползла погодя  &#xD;&#xA;На бархат _заката_  &#xD;&#xA;Слезинка дождя...  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;from &quot;Grenada&quot; by M. Svetlov&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мимо белого яблока луны,  &#xD;&#xA;Мимо красного яблока _заката_,  &#xD;&#xA;Облака из неведомой страны,  &#xD;&#xA;К нам спешат и опять бегут куда-то.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;from children's song &quot;Beside moon's white apple...&quot;, words by S. Kozlov&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="daa9f053-b7b0-46db-a4b5-ceed2d10175e" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:21:42.900" UserId="6137" Text="I need your help with this. I know how to conjugate the adjectives but I am in desperate need for some kind of reference where I can see how and read about how the noun is adapated with an appropriate ending in combination with the adjective (in G., D., I. and L. classes). Right now I have pieces of fragments and it makes me somewhat frustrated. I would highly appreciate any references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="daa9f053-b7b0-46db-a4b5-ceed2d10175e" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:21:42.900" UserId="6137" Text="Noun+adjective references" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="daa9f053-b7b0-46db-a4b5-ceed2d10175e" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:21:42.900" UserId="6137" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10950" RevisionGUID="38dcc03c-ea74-427a-aa08-b9de121a52b1" CreationDate="2015-10-14T16:47:10.537" UserId="6140" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Закат ~ Rolldown / Rollback - property of rolling - заКАТ - катиться&#xD;&#xA;Заход ~ Turndown / Turnback - property of common case turing - заХОД - ходить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantic meaning:&#xD;&#xA;Закат - is more lyric &#xD;&#xA;Заход - is more pragmatic&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10951" RevisionGUID="e07fc428-cc21-4135-b456-00029e72bbc1" CreationDate="2015-10-14T17:00:04.187" UserId="6140" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Semantic sense of &quot;Попустить&quot; in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;It's derivative / rural synonym from word &quot;Отпустить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;prefix &quot;по&quot; in word &quot;ПО_пустить&quot; gives &#xD;&#xA;some symantic tinge to stepped and immediate action to end of release.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;Наконец-то начало попускать. ( По-степенно отпускать. )&#xD;&#xA;Наконец-то попустило. ( Произошло окончательное действие - отпустило)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25134" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10929" RevisionGUID="094c4928-40c7-4db8-abd8-eb082f92a2ed" CreationDate="2015-10-14T20:37:12.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/654395554202578944" />
  <row Id="25135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10950" RevisionGUID="a8b7f067-8429-4efc-9f19-8effb5354916" CreationDate="2015-10-14T22:03:27.160" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Word for word meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закат ~ Rolldown / Rollback - property of rolling - заКАТ - катиться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Заход ~ Turndown / Turnback - property of common case turing - заХОД - ходить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantic meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закат - is more lyric  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Заход - is more pragmatic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="4daeac6e-6171-458c-b57b-9749eae3940f" CreationDate="2015-10-14T22:59:39.713" UserId="6139" Text="I'm having trouble understanding when the use the first or second verb conjunction. Could someone throw up some examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="4daeac6e-6171-458c-b57b-9749eae3940f" CreationDate="2015-10-14T22:59:39.713" UserId="6139" Text="Difference between first and second verb conjunctions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="4daeac6e-6171-458c-b57b-9749eae3940f" CreationDate="2015-10-14T22:59:39.713" UserId="6139" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10953" RevisionGUID="3a718bc1-3792-48f1-a929-2b0110f98962" CreationDate="2015-10-15T00:23:03.720" UserId="5915" Text="There is no difference in ***use***.  They are *just verbs* with their meanings.  Each belongs to either the first or the second conjugation, just like nouns belong to the first, second or third declension (or have gender, or animacy) - **an intrinsic trait of each verb**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conjugation governs the *postfixes* (*endings*) of the personal forms of verbs.  All *first conjugation* verbs have &quot;**-ет**&quot; or &quot;**-ёт**&quot; ending in 3rd person singular present tense.  All *second conjugation* verbs have &quot;**-ит**&quot; ending in 3rd person singular present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are exceptions, but your favourite book should tell you about those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples can be found on [this page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_grammar#Verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="c042a5b1-b1a0-42f5-9424-8ece5aac1ba1" CreationDate="2015-10-15T01:28:52.967" UserId="5201" Text="Maybe this is will be difficult because of how applicable and general slang words like 'nonsense' can be, but how do the words which are roughly translated as 'nonsense' differ from one another? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most notable ones in my view appear to be: чепуха, ерунда, чушь, вздор, мура, ахинея. Certainly feel free to mention any which I might have missed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="c042a5b1-b1a0-42f5-9424-8ece5aac1ba1" CreationDate="2015-10-15T01:28:52.967" UserId="5201" Text="Differences in meaning between synonyms for 'nonsense'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10954" RevisionGUID="c042a5b1-b1a0-42f5-9424-8ece5aac1ba1" CreationDate="2015-10-15T01:28:52.967" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10955" RevisionGUID="a26b046b-1cb7-437e-a6e2-4b1f657fbcb6" CreationDate="2015-10-15T03:48:09.450" UserId="6141" Text="I would favor бред  or фигня in most cases though certainly not in more formal settings, where I'd go with ерунда.  These others I learned once but rarely hear.  Consider usage according to Google [trends][1].  Note that searches for Brad Pitt are mixed in there so could be biased.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%2C%20%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BD%D1%8F%2C%20%D0%95%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B0&amp;cmpt=q&amp;tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25144" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10938" RevisionGUID="86eb2aee-1a17-4ee7-b53d-4931105ba124" CreationDate="2015-10-15T05:37:10.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/654531439355133952" />
  <row Id="25145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10956" RevisionGUID="7b6ba0f4-1609-47d5-9197-f61ea3f28a85" CreationDate="2015-10-15T06:42:41.783" UserId="2060" Text="**чепуха** is plain nonsense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ерунда** has a hint of unimportance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чушь** has a hint of upset or disagreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вздор** is bookish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мура** is slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ахинея** is mental" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10956" RevisionGUID="4e3a9b59-f437-4f6a-8672-347c78828cdd" CreationDate="2015-10-15T06:57:16.140" UserId="2060" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="**чепуха** is plain nonsense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ерунда** has a hint of unimportance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чушь** has a hint of upset or disagreement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вздор** is bookish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мура** is slang&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ахинея** is mental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бред** is delirious&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нелепость** is out of place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**абсурд** is absurd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бессмыслица** doesn't make sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**белиберда** is colloquial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**галиматья** is close to crazy (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few modern slang ones, in order of obscenity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**хрень**, **херня**, **хуйня**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="bc17ea6a-10ba-4084-986e-304ea71cbd22" CreationDate="2015-10-15T07:09:27.470" UserId="4267" Text="I know that technically, the prepositional (предложный) case is only used for objects of four prepositions: в (in), на (on), при (in presence of / at time of), and по (upon). However, can the prepositions be elided, for example, in dialog?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - О ком вы говорили?&#xD;&#xA;    - Маше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my non-native ear this sounds strange, but I wonder what native speakers would say. Can you provide good, natural-sounding examples where the prepositional case is used without a preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="bc17ea6a-10ba-4084-986e-304ea71cbd22" CreationDate="2015-10-15T07:09:27.470" UserId="4267" Text="Are prepositional-case prepositions obligatory? (Is it possible to have the prepositional case without a preposition?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="bc17ea6a-10ba-4084-986e-304ea71cbd22" CreationDate="2015-10-15T07:09:27.470" UserId="4267" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10958" RevisionGUID="50a008c9-fd2e-4ff3-bfc1-6203d74cb6cb" CreationDate="2015-10-15T07:19:52.907" UserId="4267" Text="Hopefully this chart is not too overwhelming, but if you just focus on the Adjectives and Nouns columns, it should be fairly simple. You have to learn the noun declensions, just like the adjective declensions. The Spelling Rules and Hard/Soft Indicators will help you to know exactly how to spell the endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Grammar chart 1a][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3I1jm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="c7ee0092-3822-4cd3-97b2-cd1acec683dc" CreationDate="2015-10-15T08:26:20.840" UserId="4267" Comment="improved tags" Text="|грамматика|склонение|согласование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25152" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10949" RevisionGUID="c7ee0092-3822-4cd3-97b2-cd1acec683dc" CreationDate="2015-10-15T08:26:20.840" Comment="Proposed by 4267 approved by 551, 2060 edit id of 691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="5aeb62b5-0dc6-4ca1-aad9-e0076cbc5e82" CreationDate="2015-10-15T08:54:47.547" UserId="5008" Text="No, as the name suggests, the modern prepositional case used with prepositions always. That wasn't so in old times, when there was _a locative case_, not _a prepositional one_. That is, all &quot;natural-sounding&quot; examples are about 500-900 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Солнце ему тъмою путь заступаше;  &#xD;&#xA;нощь, стонущи ему грозою, птичь убуди;  &#xD;&#xA;свистъ зверинъ въста,  &#xD;&#xA;збися див,  &#xD;&#xA;кличетъ _връху древа_...  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="4a97f91e-d14e-4f2e-a97d-2ccd09d020a4" CreationDate="2015-10-15T08:59:53.277" UserId="5008" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="No, as the name suggests, the modern prepositional case used with prepositions always. That wasn't so in old times, when there was _a locative case_, not _a prepositional one_. That is, all &quot;natural-sounding&quot; examples are about 500-900 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Солнце ему тъмою путь заступаше;  &#xD;&#xA;нощь, стонущи ему грозою, птичь убуди;  &#xD;&#xA;свистъ зверинъ въста,  &#xD;&#xA;збися див,  &#xD;&#xA;кличетъ _връху древа_... (i.e. _at the top of the tree_)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="0990eddc-00fd-4028-bc0e-f8af2b73378e" CreationDate="2015-10-15T09:07:52.737" UserId="5443" Text="This short-form answer (actually, dative case without additional context) to a question in prepositional case is *impossible*, it should be &quot;О Маше&quot;. However, it is possible to answer indirectly - with an extended sentence where the subject in question is mentioned in any other case (dative here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - О ком вы говорили?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Маше отдавали должное - всё никак забыть её (выходку) не можем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="885e9f96-a81c-477b-bc8d-588ccc9a4951" CreationDate="2015-10-15T09:22:48.330" UserId="5008" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="No, as the name suggests, the modern prepositional case used with prepositions always. That wasn't so in old times, when there was _a locative case_, not _a prepositional one_. That is, all &quot;natural-sounding&quot; examples are about 500-900 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Солнце ему тъмою путь заступаше;  &#xD;&#xA;нощь, стонущи ему грозою, птичь убуди;  &#xD;&#xA;свистъ зверинъ въста,  &#xD;&#xA;збися див,  &#xD;&#xA;кличетъ _връху древа_... (i.e. _at the top of the tree_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What still remains in modern language is considered to be _adverbs_, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я возвёл очи _горе́_ --&gt; I looked at the sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _горе́_ actually means _to the hill / mountain_ in a prepositionless form of locative case, but from the point of view of modern grammar it's _an adverb_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10960" RevisionGUID="d49fbff1-017f-40f3-a67d-2aa0046f1c5b" CreationDate="2015-10-15T09:52:58.647" UserId="5443" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="This short-form answer (actually, dative case without additional context) to a question in prepositional case is *impossible*, it should be &quot;О Маше&quot;. However, it is possible to answer indirectly - with an extended sentence where the subject in question is mentioned in any other case (dative here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - О ком вы говорили?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Маше отдавали должное - всё никак забыть её (выходку) не можем.&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a short indirect answer without a preposition can substitute for the subject meant in prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - На чём поедешь, на телеге или в карете?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Верхом (= на лошади, на ишаке)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="61e6e9e2-46a7-4d94-91fc-497a9fe8ca54" CreationDate="2015-10-15T11:53:51.817" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I'm having trouble understanding when to use the first or second verb conjugation. Could someone throw up some examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25159" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10952" RevisionGUID="61e6e9e2-46a7-4d94-91fc-497a9fe8ca54" CreationDate="2015-10-15T11:53:51.817" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Difference between first and second verb conjugations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="7e43f17d-05dc-48c8-8daa-f2cabd51cd8f" CreationDate="2015-10-15T13:25:45.450" UserId="3892" Text="I know that the particle **же** is used to remind someone of something they should already know. For instance, say my friend and I posted a nasty comment on someone’s Facebook, but then quickly deleted it. Then that person seemed angry with me a few days later and my friend suggests that it’s because of that comment. I could say to him: **Она же комментарий так и не видела**, to remind him that we deleted it before she could see it, which in English would be *But she never SAW that comment*. In English the stress on the verb *saw* has more or less the force as **же** in the same Russian statement, I believe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting to the point of my question, I saw a sentence recently: **Суп-то у нас того... испортился.** Staying within the theme of the spoiled soup, let’s say my wife suggested that we serve our guests soup; I could potentially say **Суп же у нас испортился**, which would mean: *But the soup (as you know) was RUINED*. Again stress on the verb in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: How does the use of -**то** in the sentence **Суп-то у нас испортился** change the semantics of the same situation as expressed with **же**. Does it, like **же**, also imply that the listener already knows about the soup being spoiled, or does it shift the sentential stress and focus onto the soup and make the whole statement a piece of news about the soup and what happened to it? In other words, what other underlying nuance(s) does it express that makes it different from **же**? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="7e43f17d-05dc-48c8-8daa-f2cabd51cd8f" CreationDate="2015-10-15T13:25:45.450" UserId="3892" Text="Differences between the particles же and -то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="7e43f17d-05dc-48c8-8daa-f2cabd51cd8f" CreationDate="2015-10-15T13:25:45.450" UserId="3892" Text="|particles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10962" RevisionGUID="d81db607-ac2d-4ee3-b9c2-ee82ca4c10be" CreationDate="2015-10-15T14:05:37.723" UserId="5915" Text="&gt;My question is: How does the use of **-то** in the sentence **Суп-то у нас испортился** change the semantics of the same situation as expressed with **же**. Does it, like **же**, also imply that the listener already knows about the soup being spoiled, or does it shift the sentential stress and focus onto the soup and make the whole statement a piece of news about the soup and what happened to it? In other words, what other underlying nuance(s) does it express that makes it different from **же**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle (postfix) **-то** is used to emphasize the word, bring it to the listener's attention (unless it's part of special pronouns like &quot;*что-то*&quot; in which it qualifies the pronoun as indefinite).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast with that, the particle **же** introduces the emphasis to the entire phrase, rather than a single word.  You can place it almost anywhere in that phrase without a significant change in the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Суп *же* у нас испортился.  &#xD;&#xA;Суп у нас *же* испортился.  &#xD;&#xA;Суп у нас испортился *же*. --  Our soup has gone bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the difference in meaning when the particle **-то** is placed after another word:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Суп-**то** у нас испортился. -- Our **soup** has gone bad (and not the bread).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Суп у нас-**то** испортился. -- **Our** soup has gone bad (and not theirs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both English sentences you'd stress the word I've put in bold.  I am really not sure how you'd indicate the emphasis in direct speech in English without typographical tricks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10963" RevisionGUID="8776287f-2e14-486a-9a83-558047237dbd" CreationDate="2015-10-15T14:48:43.147" UserId="5008" Text="_-то_ used to emphasize a single word; _же / ж_ used to emphasize **both** a word, and a full sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, you can't use _-то_ to put an emphasis on the words such as _кто_, _что_, _то_ etc. (because _кто-то_ only means _someone_, and so on). But you still may say: _кто же_, _что же_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, you may use them both to make a highly expressive phrase. E.g.: _Это что же делается-то!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="9ec9adf4-fb93-4237-8247-9349ed976335" CreationDate="2015-10-15T17:25:27.910" UserId="6143" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have been working with adjectives and I ran into a noun that I do not know how to handle when it comes to endings. I am curoious if you guys could help me with if &quot;cymka&quot; would have the same endings like &quot;кни́га&quot; or like &quot;ви́за&quot; for the nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, Instrumentalis and P* cases. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="9ec9adf4-fb93-4237-8247-9349ed976335" CreationDate="2015-10-15T17:25:27.910" UserId="6143" Text="Need your expert opinion with endings for a noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="9ec9adf4-fb93-4237-8247-9349ed976335" CreationDate="2015-10-15T17:25:27.910" UserId="6143" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10965" RevisionGUID="0e1f0161-d67d-411d-8667-5eeb9cc0baf0" CreationDate="2015-10-15T18:04:22.280" UserId="6141" Text="The short answer is книга, but these are not really &quot;different&quot; endings.  The difference comes from the spelling rule that you use soft vowels after certain consonants, like к and г.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10966" RevisionGUID="862446f1-ee17-4302-a871-888bbe3f8512" CreationDate="2015-10-15T21:15:22.257" UserId="4592" Text="I'm not sure what's the general rule is, if any, but for &quot;сумка&quot; the set of endings is the same as for &quot;книга&quot;, but not as for &quot;виза&quot;. Consider this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                     singular |    plural&#xD;&#xA;                   -----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative    |   сумка   |    сумки&#xD;&#xA;    Accusative    |   сумку   |    сумки&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive      |   сумки   |    сумок&#xD;&#xA;    Dative        |   сумке   |    сумкам&#xD;&#xA;    Prepositional | (о) сумке | (о) сумках&#xD;&#xA;    Instrumental  |  сумкой   |   сумками&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the general model for first declension feminine, the same for &quot;сумка&quot; and &quot;книга&quot;. The noun &quot;виза&quot; acts a bit differently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                     singular |    plural&#xD;&#xA;                   -----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative    |   виза   |    визы&#xD;&#xA;    Accusative    |   визу   |    визы&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive      |   визы   |    виз&#xD;&#xA;    Dative        |   визе   |    визам&#xD;&#xA;    Prepositional | (о) визе | (о) визах&#xD;&#xA;    Instrumental  |   визой  |   визами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I can't give you the general rule as to *why* that happens. The trick seems to be in the presense of letter з, since the words &quot;зебра&quot; (zebra) and &quot;Лиза&quot; (given name Lisa) both act as &quot;виза&quot;, but this is uncertain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10959" RevisionGUID="14548f7d-e0ef-44da-94d7-72f84e02b15b" CreationDate="2015-10-16T07:18:46.000" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="No, as the name suggests, the modern prepositional case used with prepositions always. That wasn't so in old times, when there was _a locative case_, not _a prepositional one_. That is, all &quot;natural-sounding&quot; examples are about 500-900 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Солнце ему тъмою путь заступаше;  &#xD;&#xA;нощь стонущи ему грозою птичь убуди, свистъ звѣринъ въ стазби;  &#xD;&#xA;дивъ кличетъ _връху древа_... (i.e. _at the top of the tree_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What still remains in modern language is considered to be _adverbs_, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я возвёл очи _горе́_ --&gt; I looked at the sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here _горе́_ actually means _to the hill / mountain_ in a prepositionless form of locative case, but from the point of view of modern grammar it's _an adverb_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10957" RevisionGUID="b808d8a8-eba3-4809-bf87-c7464c1b0496" CreationDate="2015-10-16T14:37:18.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/655029756115709952" />
  <row Id="25175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10967" RevisionGUID="0291f96b-ee53-43d7-9f1c-251d90f76225" CreationDate="2015-10-16T15:13:48.503" UserId="4782" Text="I've been told more than once by Russian speakers that Russian swear words have some kind of different connotation than English ones do, yet without being a speaker I can never quite understand how. From what they say I gather that Russian is unique in that swear words can be woven into normal words so that a sentence can be made up entirely of swear-words and still retain its meaning. How does this work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, to English speakers swearing is quite socially acceptable a thing to do, yet Russians I know claim that swearing is almost taboo to Russians. In what way is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10967" RevisionGUID="0291f96b-ee53-43d7-9f1c-251d90f76225" CreationDate="2015-10-16T15:13:48.503" UserId="4782" Text="What exactly separates Russian swearing from others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10967" RevisionGUID="0291f96b-ee53-43d7-9f1c-251d90f76225" CreationDate="2015-10-16T15:13:48.503" UserId="4782" Text="|грамматика|мат|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10968" RevisionGUID="f4511a3b-8a93-447e-b311-7857b7134476" CreationDate="2015-10-16T17:42:02.407" UserId="5008" Text="Well, basically all obscene words, both in Russian and English, are just combinations of several &quot;well-known roots&quot; meaning genitalia, sexual practices and such. Yet as &quot;the basic set&quot; is quite limited, people used to vary their &quot;tools&quot; a little: say, just single f-word could produce either f-you, or f-off, or f-up and so on; this way we could get a dozen of &quot;new&quot; swearings with totally different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes Russian language special, or, at least, what makes some people to believe in it, is a great flexibility due to the number of different prefixes/suffixes. So &quot;perfect swearing skill&quot; in Russian usually supposes speaker's ability to compose absolutely new expressions, or at least knowing truly rare ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to compare swearings in two languages, as usually we don't have equal knowledge in both. But as an example, say, a single Russian &quot;f-verb&quot; produces at least the following: go mad, hit someone, give a dusting, bully, bother, break smth., lose smth., harass, run away, get lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="4b3d2d24-374c-4854-96ca-e8618a808751" CreationDate="2015-10-16T20:46:54.357" UserId="6146" Text="Допускается ли на письме использование восклецательного и вопросительного знаков вокруг кавычек? Приведу пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С чего бы это он вопил &quot;На помощь, на помощь!&quot;?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="4b3d2d24-374c-4854-96ca-e8618a808751" CreationDate="2015-10-16T20:46:54.357" UserId="6146" Text="Восклецательный и вопросительный знак вокруг кавычек &quot;!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="4b3d2d24-374c-4854-96ca-e8618a808751" CreationDate="2015-10-16T20:46:54.357" UserId="6146" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="5f252273-e000-435b-b7bc-f46b667b799f" CreationDate="2015-10-16T20:59:34.973" UserId="3680" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Допускается ли на письме использование восклицательного и вопросительного знаков вокруг кавычек? Приведу пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*С чего бы это он вопил &quot;На помощь, на помощь!&quot;?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25183" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="5f252273-e000-435b-b7bc-f46b667b799f" CreationDate="2015-10-16T20:59:34.973" UserId="3680" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Восклицательный и вопросительный знак вокруг кавычек &quot;!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10970" RevisionGUID="86005855-f8a0-4c30-84e1-e2f7345c27fe" CreationDate="2015-10-16T20:59:54.770" UserId="6097" Text="Допускается. См. [Справочник. Кавычки и другие знаки](http://pravopisanie_i_stilistika.academic.ru/136/Кавычки_и_другие_знаки), п.4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если перед закрывающими кавычками стоит вопросительный или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; восклицательный знак, то тот же самый знак не повторяется после&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кавычек; неодинаковые же знаки, если они требуются по условиям&#xD;&#xA;&gt; контекста, ставятся перед закрывающими кавычками и после них.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: Читали ли вы роман А. И. Герцена «Кто виноват?» Ср.: Мы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изучаем роман А. И. Герцена «Кто виноват?». Бойцы двинулись в атаку с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; криком «Вперёд!». Когда был выдвинут лозунг «Вся власть Советам!»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="ffb07d0f-d180-4b03-a9d9-39fc2bd2827f" CreationDate="2015-10-16T21:00:01.780" UserId="3680" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Допускается ли в письме использование восклицательного и вопросительного знаков вокруг кавычек? Приведу пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*С чего бы это он вопил &quot;На помощь, на помощь!&quot;?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="48b96b10-1c06-41d6-9503-b104daebb252" CreationDate="2015-10-17T15:31:09.600" UserId="62" Text="On the page http://vremya4e.com/interes/16025-temy-sochineniy-dlya-gimnazistov-v-carskoy-rossii.-eto-vam-ne-ege.html there is an image of a handwritten essay from 1917 whose title begins with Развитие, but the written form of з looks quite different from its standard cursive form today. It looks like the cursive form of s in English. (This letter appears several times in the essay itself, e.g., in оказалось and, in the footnote, назад). The Wikipedia page for the Cyrillic letter S/s (dze) says this letter was eliminated from Russian in the 1700s, but if so why would this letter be appearing here? Maybe it is just an archaic written form of з, and if so when did it disappear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="48b96b10-1c06-41d6-9503-b104daebb252" CreationDate="2015-10-17T15:31:09.600" UserId="62" Text="Old form of cursive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="48b96b10-1c06-41d6-9503-b104daebb252" CreationDate="2015-10-17T15:31:09.600" UserId="62" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="43889500-05c1-4521-b250-ddd81fe4c37e" CreationDate="2015-10-17T16:58:12.930" UserId="5389" Text="Grades of swear words&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the Russian &quot;system&quot; of swear words consists of several grades of rudeness. Say, light, medium and hard grades. **First grade** is more like childish level; some words that can be used by children, those are euphemisms for &quot;adult&quot; swear words. For example, &quot;блин&quot; and &quot;фиг&quot; and their derivatives. **Second grade** presents words that can be used by adult people, but forbidden for children, it is not allowed to say them in front of children, but they still can appear on TV or in movies; for example, &quot;сука&quot;, &quot;хрен&quot;, &quot;хер&quot;, &quot;жопа&quot; (first two words also have normal meanings, literary words). And the **third grade** contains words based on the rudest roots, and are banned on TV and movies, and shouldn't be used in public. Those words are _хуй_ (a penis), _пизда_ (a vagina), _ебать_ (to have sex) and _блядь_ (a whore). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of grades&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;Let's take English swear word combination &quot;fuck you&quot;/&quot;go to hell&quot;. In Russian it can sound like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на фиг!_ - children's level&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на хрен!_ - ruder&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на хер!_ - little ruder&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на хуй!_ - the rudest, banned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another collocation &quot;it's fucking good!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _О**фиг**енно!_ - soft&#xD;&#xA; - _О**хер**енно!_ - medium&#xD;&#xA; - _О**ху**енно!_ - hard, banned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentences consisting of swear words&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;It reminds me a true story about a supervisor on a construction site:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На**хуя** до**хуя** на**хуя**чили?! Рас**хуя**чивайте на**хуй**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;_нахуя_&quot; - why&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;_дохуя_&quot; - so much, too much&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нахуячили&quot; - replaces some verb in past tense, perfect aspect, &quot;you did&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;расхуячивайте&quot; - replacement of another verb, opposite for the previous one, &quot;undo it&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нахуй&quot; - absolutely, totally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may be translated like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why did you load to much? Unload it totally!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10974" RevisionGUID="c8bc8eba-9976-4a8f-9660-00c75d07ea99" CreationDate="2015-10-17T17:34:22.320" UserId="5389" Text="According to a book, published in 1915 about Russian calligraphy - &quot;_Курс каллиграфии и конторской скорописи в шести отделах_&quot;, page 51, drawing 44, it was possible to write the letters &quot;З&quot; and &quot;В&quot; both ways: smaller and bigger (&quot;з&quot; is 5th and 9th, &quot;в&quot; is 3rd and 8th on the image).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 44][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aQQPA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="6d9ee88d-3afc-4e59-bbe8-d075c48149cb" CreationDate="2015-10-17T19:29:02.107" UserId="3892" Text="This is perhaps a use of **где** that I have yet to encounter; I simply can't work out the meaning of this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где бы смолчать, а он сейчас в драку." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="6d9ee88d-3afc-4e59-bbe8-d075c48149cb" CreationDate="2015-10-17T19:29:02.107" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning and usage of где бы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="6d9ee88d-3afc-4e59-bbe8-d075c48149cb" CreationDate="2015-10-17T19:29:02.107" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="caa4e921-5eab-4480-a3c5-41bda175df52" CreationDate="2015-10-17T20:20:52.533" UserId="62" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="On the page http://vremya4e.com/interes/16025-temy-sochineniy-dlya-gimnazistov-v-carskoy-rossii.-eto-vam-ne-ege.html there is an image of a handwritten essay from 1917 whose title begins with Развитие, but the written form of з looks quite different from its standard cursive form today. It looks like the cursive form of s in English. (This letter appears several times in the essay itself, e.g., in оказалось and, in the footnote, назад). The Wikipedia page for the Cyrillic letter S/s (dze) says this letter was eliminated from Russian in the 1700s, but if so why would this letter be appearing here? Maybe it is just an archaic written form of з, and if so when did it disappear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also be interested to know if this unusual way of writing з was used by other people back then too, if someone has access to scans of century-old written documents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10976" RevisionGUID="5d8daaf5-8798-4a39-933c-359e4f8cb645" CreationDate="2015-10-17T20:33:20.377" UserId="5915" Text="Here the words &quot;**где бы смолчать**&quot; is a subjunctive construct which actually means something like &quot;anywhere it might be advisable to keep silent&quot;.  Translated from &quot;proverbal&quot; Russian, the entire sentence might be&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Смолчать бы где-то, а он тотчас же - в драку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of words in Russian, as you probably know, is not predetermined, and here the particle **бы** is placed before the verb for giving the spoken phrase more fluency (compare to &quot;смолчать бы&quot;, where you can hear a very hard pause between words).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="880e5692-2c4b-4d31-871f-cdbe86c048ba" CreationDate="2015-10-17T21:13:29.830" UserId="6150" Text="What's the difference between &quot;я русский&quot; and &quot;я русская&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="880e5692-2c4b-4d31-871f-cdbe86c048ba" CreationDate="2015-10-17T21:13:29.830" UserId="6150" Text="What's the difference between &quot;я русский&quot; and &quot;я русская&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10977" RevisionGUID="880e5692-2c4b-4d31-871f-cdbe86c048ba" CreationDate="2015-10-17T21:13:29.830" UserId="6150" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10978" RevisionGUID="51492ff6-e74a-4565-b911-0d30b4a275df" CreationDate="2015-10-17T21:19:03.653" UserId="3892" Text="**Я русский** would be spoken by a male, whereas **Я русская** would be spoken by a female. And to complete the picture, **Мы русские** would be spoken by two or more people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="7ec8642e-7f3a-4ec9-a3fe-31179f9147c4" CreationDate="2015-10-18T02:57:29.540" UserId="194" Text="You can see [here][1] a list of some words derived from the same root meaning &quot;to fuck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the meanings span from &quot;face&quot; to trick, joke, annoy, good, bad, hit, flee, leave, show off etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6826/why-does-%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE-mean-a-face-and-%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-mean-to-fuck/6827#6827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10973" RevisionGUID="f730e3c6-3785-4f97-b3ce-85ede2cf8ec2" CreationDate="2015-10-18T02:59:54.327" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Grades of swear words&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;The point is that the Russian &quot;system&quot; of swear words consists of several grades of rudeness. Say, light, medium and hard grades. **First grade** is more like childish level; some words that can be used by children, those are euphemisms for &quot;adult&quot; swear words. For example, &quot;блин&quot; and &quot;фиг&quot; and their derivatives. **Second grade** presents words that can be used by adult people, but forbidden for children, it is not allowed to say them in front of children, but they still can appear on TV or in movies; for example, &quot;сука&quot;, &quot;хрен&quot;, &quot;хер&quot;, &quot;жопа&quot; (first two words also have normal meanings, literary words). And the **third grade** contains words based on the rudest roots, and are banned on TV and movies, and shouldn't be used in public. Those words are _хуй_ (a penis), _пизда_ (a vagina), _ебать_ (to have sex) and _блядь_ (a whore). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of grades&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;Let's take English swear word combination &quot;fuck you&quot;/&quot;go to hell&quot;. In Russian it can sound like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на фиг!_ - children's level&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на хрен!_ - ruder&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на хер!_ - little ruder&#xD;&#xA; - _Иди на хуй!_ - the rudest, banned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another collocation &quot;it's fucking good!&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - _О**фиг**енно!_ - soft&#xD;&#xA; - _О**хер**енно!_ - medium&#xD;&#xA; - _О**ху**енно!_ - hard, banned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentences consisting of swear words&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;It reminds me a true story about a supervisor on a construction site:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На**хуя** до**хуя** на**хуя**чили?! Рас**хуя**чивайте на**хуй**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;_нахуя_&quot; - why&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;_дохуя_&quot; - so much, too much&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нахуячили&quot; - replaces some verb in past tense, perfect aspect, &quot;you did&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;расхуячивайте&quot; - replacement of another verb, opposite for the previous one, &quot;undo it&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нахуй&quot; - absolutely, totally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may be translated like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Why did you load so much? Unload it totally!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10981" RevisionGUID="9a470ae9-5c0a-408d-a917-b1d010d3810b" CreationDate="2015-10-18T16:33:58.763" UserId="310" Text="    Where he could keep silence, he would eagerly brawl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I imagine there is better-styled version of &quot;keep silent&quot; in English)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="28da2e76-291f-4236-8be3-f175207fb3cc" CreationDate="2015-10-18T20:29:56.350" UserId="6153" Text="I just started learning Russian two weeks ago, so be patience with me, please! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a native Portuguese speaker, and i also speak decent English, with a basic grammar knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My question is, how do i say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My house has three windows.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried:&#xD;&#xA;*У меня дома есть три окна.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Google translates it to:&#xD;&#xA;*At home I have three windows.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is not exactly what i meant. I want to say that the house owns the windows. What are the cases governing this? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="28da2e76-291f-4236-8be3-f175207fb3cc" CreationDate="2015-10-18T20:29:56.350" UserId="6153" Text="Expressing ownership of objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="28da2e76-291f-4236-8be3-f175207fb3cc" CreationDate="2015-10-18T20:29:56.350" UserId="6153" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10983" RevisionGUID="dfd84057-c157-4725-9ef4-3c7b8f271a93" CreationDate="2015-10-18T21:30:58.710" UserId="5443" Text="The equivalent Russian phrase is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В моём доме [есть] три окна. (&quot;есть&quot; is usually omitted in this kind of expression)&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дома&quot; means 'at home'; it is also possible to say (meaning your apartment or room in a bigger house):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня дома три окна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10984" RevisionGUID="10636648-d805-4a5e-93a8-5d60470b776c" CreationDate="2015-10-18T21:31:38.193" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;I want to say that the house owns the windows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, technically it would be _У моего дома [есть] три окна_, but Russian speakers usually avoid saying that &quot;a thing&quot; has (or owns) &quot;another thing(s)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to put it in other way. For example, **В моём доме три окна** (i.e. _there are three windows in my house_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10975" RevisionGUID="2d9a0adf-67ff-45b6-affe-d3044350025d" CreationDate="2015-10-18T21:44:30.757" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning and usage of &quot;где бы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10985" RevisionGUID="7a55a621-abf1-45b7-a987-c812f2197459" CreationDate="2015-10-19T00:17:25.900" UserId="6154" Text="*Постель* is more official than *кровать*.&#xD;&#xA;*Ложе* or *одр*? No one says so. And you can't see it in modern books. I forgot when I met it last time.&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Trust me, I'm Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10986" RevisionGUID="b157e37e-ce9e-4755-a233-eea334e1c834" CreationDate="2015-10-19T00:25:21.453" UserId="6154" Text="Swearing is not almost taboo to Russians. If you step on the someone foot, you can hear *&quot;Блять&quot;*. If something bad happens, you can hear *&quot;Пиздец&quot;*. It's the most common. You can't hear any swearing in offices. You can't from teachers, but not from students. Young people likes use swearing. Also, I must to say it. Ussually *блядь* means a whore, but *блять* is interjection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10988" RevisionGUID="a7f9763c-35d3-4b1e-8881-15ab8114f11d" CreationDate="2015-10-19T00:46:35.347" UserId="6154" Text="*&quot;Всё в порядке?&quot;* usually asks when you think something wrong with another human.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*(meet a man lying on the ground)* *Всё в порядке? Может, вызвать скорую?* (Are you all right? Maybe call an ambulance?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10990" RevisionGUID="6c6a6775-abf4-441c-9c4c-21bed4684a8d" CreationDate="2015-10-19T00:55:35.423" UserId="6154" Text="Also, ussually блядь means a whore, but блять is interjection and true swearing. And you can change &quot;блять&quot; not only by &quot;блин&quot;, but by &quot;сука&quot; too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="5afa552c-c0af-4354-8ad0-cc8ffc9ddde0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T14:14:58.707" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="учить = learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;изучать = study." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25230" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="5d5e1184-d18d-402e-9dfa-8a5922490387" CreationDate="2015-10-19T16:44:13.243" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;ýчите&quot; and &quot;изучáете&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="638fcc24-d057-475a-8bfd-ff461e42cff5" CreationDate="2015-10-19T19:10:10.790" UserId="119" Comment="spelling fixed" Text="Rather than trying to compile a list of proper nouns and loan-words with initial **Ы**, I'll try to present a more linguistical view on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels /ы/ and /и/ are in the complementary distribution in the Russian language. Moscow Phonological School even asserted that /ы/ and /и/ are actually one phoneme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку в русском языке, по мнению сторонников МФШ, отсутствуют фонетические положения, в которых встречались бы и звук [и], и [ы], то есть присутствие в некоторой позиции одного из этих звуков исключает возможность присутствия в ней другого, последователями школы делается вывод о том, что [и] и [ы] являются разновидностями одной фонемы: [ы] представляет собой вариацию фонемы &lt;и&gt;, обусловленную положением после твёрдого согласного. Таким образом, в парах, подобных _мыл_ — _мил_, единственное фонемное различие состоит в мягкости или твёрдости согласного, а не в гласных фонемах. — [Московская фонологическая школа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0#.D0.93.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if there are no minimal pairs on /ы/—/и/, the phonetic difference between these vowels is merely the assimilation of the preceding consonant: /ы/ follow hard consonants, /и/ follows soft (palatalized) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, with no preceding consonant, only one of the variants can appear. Naturally, it's /и/, and /ы/ should thus be considered an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an alternate view (of Leningrad Phonological School), see [shabunc's answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/717/119).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in loanwords coming from languages where /ы/ _is_ a phoneme (take Kazakh, for example), the initial /ы/ is kept for the sake of transcription (same thing as **Ю** in _парашют_ ‘parachute’ to better render the French /y/ vowel, even though _-шю-_ is impossible in Russian words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10992" RevisionGUID="817f0451-e0d9-4620-ac11-e3a7aabe6d24" CreationDate="2015-10-19T19:30:59.533" UserId="5389" Text="Usage&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Usage of &quot;_Блин!_&quot; is close to English &quot;_Damn!_&quot;, &quot;_Shit!_&quot; or &quot;_Crap!_&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally this word means &quot;[a Russian pancake][1]&quot;, but obviously, it replaces a hard swear word &quot;Блядь&quot; in mentioned meanings (_&quot;Damn!&quot;, ..._) thanks to the same initial letters &quot;**бл**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Damn! I broke my nail! - Блин! Я сломала ноготь! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hey! You will not get you money today... - Дарова! Ты не получишь свои деньги сегодня...&#xD;&#xA; - Oh crap... - Вот блин...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10993" RevisionGUID="4b845ee0-9aca-4ad2-a582-3f87851bfc02" CreationDate="2015-10-19T19:39:41.303" UserId="5389" Text="Also &quot;_У моего дома три окна_&quot; works well for &quot;My house has three windows&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25236" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="10986" RevisionGUID="91decc5c-ed89-4ef4-9a66-0c494ce54c53" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:30:31.040" UserId="6154" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6154,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Bird&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25237" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="10986" RevisionGUID="ae7e4dd4-51df-40d1-98f2-8ccee8cd27c8" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:30:45.813" UserId="6154" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6154,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Bird&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="b6a40429-82d9-4883-84a0-eec4acd753b0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:32:35.147" UserId="6153" Text="Another very basic question from a beginner. In the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мой любимый спорт - хоккей.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(My favorite sport is hockey).`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that `мой` is the subject (and it's a possessive pronoum), so it's in the nominative form. But what about `любимый спорт`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does `любимый` is an adjective for `спорт`?  So which case `спорт` takes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="b6a40429-82d9-4883-84a0-eec4acd753b0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:32:35.147" UserId="6153" Text="Case use in simple sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="b6a40429-82d9-4883-84a0-eec4acd753b0" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:32:35.147" UserId="6153" Text="|грамматика|падежи|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="835425ac-c065-464d-bf5b-806a2e8951c3" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:47:28.823" UserId="3892" Text="Actually, the entire NOUN PHRASE **[мой любимый спорт]** is the subject of the sentence. In other words, all the elements of the phrase: the possessive adjective **мой**, the adjective **любимый** and the noun **спорт** together make up the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the HEAD of this noun phrase is the noun спорт. Since this is a singular masculine noun, it GOVERNS all the other elements in the phrase and makes them masculine and singular in form as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="30f6925c-9b7b-4eba-9993-f0517b43bcc5" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:00:22.130" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Another very basic question from a beginner. In the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мой любимый спорт - хоккей.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(My favorite sport is hockey).`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that `мой` is the subject (and it's a possessive pronoun), so it's in the nominative case. But what about `любимый спорт`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is `любимый`an adjective for `спорт`?  So which case does `спорт` take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="6f48a004-ff95-4211-8054-95f2d845ff94" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:06:16.747" UserId="3892" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Actually, the entire NOUN PHRASE **[мой любимый спорт]** is the subject of the sentence. In other words, all the elements of the phrase: the possessive adjective **мой**, the adjective **любимый** and the noun **спорт** together make up the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the HEAD of this noun phrase is the noun **спорт**. Since this is a singular masculine noun, it GOVERNS all the other elements in the phrase and makes them masculine and singular in form as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10995" RevisionGUID="e67866d3-bc54-4f6e-a480-8105517bcca9" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:11:34.300" UserId="242" Comment="uppercase is irrelevant here" Text="Actually, the entire *noun phrase* **[мой любимый спорт]** is the subject of the sentence. In other words, all the elements of the phrase: the possessive adjective **мой**, the adjective **любимый** and the noun **спорт** together make up the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the *head* of this noun phrase is the noun **спорт**. Since this is a singular masculine noun, it *governs* all the other elements in the phrase and makes them masculine and singular in form as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10830" RevisionGUID="3310950e-23a9-4a9a-a225-9613aa1bef05" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:57:14.630" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="`Блин` is only a filler word and is a euphemism only in that position, you can't use it as a noun. And is almost acceptable. Russian linguist [Maxim Krongauz mentions][1] it being used on stage at award ceremonies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В начале книги я назвал актера Евгения Миронова, использовавшего *блин* в благодарственном слове при вручении ему премии. Прошло несколько лет, и уже писатель Дмитрий Быков, вручая ту же премию, зачитывает поэтическое послание, в котором есть такие строки: «Вот вы сидите – номинанты, блин, – инфанты, дебютанты, неофиты, – а через пять минут из вас один пойдет под эти хищные софиты».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older generation (50 and older) hear it as rude and often told us off and demanded &quot;Без блинов!&quot; Krongauz writes that he (born in 1950s) strongly dislikes it, meanwhile his father strongly opposed to the word `фиг` which was also an euphemism to a strong obscenity. But nowadays its byproducts (`фиг вам`, `фиговина`) are 99% inoffencive, although definitely not acceptable in high style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/101730/45/Krongauz_-_Russkiii_yazyk_na_grani_nervnogo_sryva.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25246" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="7cb1f20c-7683-44be-a188-e8ddfe942f18" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:59:30.010" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="Is блин a euphemism for блядь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10795" RevisionGUID="7cb1f20c-7683-44be-a188-e8ddfe942f18" CreationDate="2015-10-19T21:59:30.010" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="Was блин's development independent of блядь? Does anybody have something to say to whether it is a euphemism of блядь this statement? (or against it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10994" RevisionGUID="373911b1-b17c-4a96-bc79-cb418555bfec" CreationDate="2015-10-19T22:24:39.993" UserId="6153" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Another very basic question from a beginner. In the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мой любимый спорт - хоккей.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(My favorite sport is hockey).`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that `мой` is the subject (and it's a possessive pronoun), so it's in the nominative case. But what about `любимый спорт`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is `любимый` an adjective for `спорт`?  So which case does `спорт` take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="b49018d2-9523-45ab-a236-f1f3216dbc86" CreationDate="2015-10-20T00:38:18.260" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="I don't quite understand the reason for why **Мое** instead of **Моя** is used. Could somebody explain it to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="b49018d2-9523-45ab-a236-f1f3216dbc86" CreationDate="2015-10-20T00:38:18.260" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why is the possessive pronoun for &quot;имя&quot; &quot;Мое&quot;, even though &quot;имя&quot; is a feminine word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="b49018d2-9523-45ab-a236-f1f3216dbc86" CreationDate="2015-10-20T00:38:18.260" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="7194b642-7af5-4d24-b831-9a6efb39682f" CreationDate="2015-10-20T01:01:00.193" UserId="1236" Text="**Имя** belongs to a special group of 10 nouns ending in **-мя**, all of which are of the *Neuter* gender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время, вымя, знамя, имя, пламя, племя, семя, стремя, темя, голомя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them also decline in a special way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           sing.       plur.&#xD;&#xA;    _____________________________       &#xD;&#xA;    Nom.   врéмя   	временá&#xD;&#xA;    Gen.   врéмени     времён&#xD;&#xA;    Dat.   врéмени 	временáм&#xD;&#xA;    Acc.   врéмя   	временá&#xD;&#xA;    Instr. врéменем	временáми&#xD;&#xA;    Prep.  врéмени 	временáх&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the 10 nouns (and **имя** too) have the same case endings as **время**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="161213f9-d060-4557-b4a1-5afc6b1050af" CreationDate="2015-10-20T01:02:00.290" UserId="194" Text="Имя is neuter noun, not feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a set of similar neuter nouns: имя, вымя, пламя, семя, время, темя, стремя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them originate from PIE words with -men suffix. Such words were neuter in PIE also. In Proto-Slavic -en and -n̥ becomes -ę nasal vowel and later -я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE e̯neo̯mn -&gt; имя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE see̯mn -&gt; семя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="6f970d3c-c2d3-4244-8301-74b6ab55be32" CreationDate="2015-10-20T01:07:24.660" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Имя is neuter noun, not feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a set of similar neuter nouns: имя, вымя, пламя, семя, время, темя, стремя, знамя, племя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them originate from PIE words with -men suffix. Such words were neuter in PIE also. In Proto-Slavic -en and -n̥ becomes -ę nasal vowel and later -я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***e̯neo̯mn*** -&gt; имя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***see̯mn*** -&gt; семя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***ĝneo̯mn*** -&gt; знамя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="0b4109cb-553c-450e-9bf1-0705d3f0a721" CreationDate="2015-10-20T01:33:08.097" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Имя is neuter noun, not feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a set of similar neuter nouns: имя, вымя, пламя, семя, время, темя, стремя, знамя, племя, бремя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them originate from PIE words with -men suffix. Such words were neuter in PIE also. In Proto-Slavic -en and -n̥ becomes -ę nasal vowel and later -я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***e̯neo̯mn*** -&gt; имя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***see̯mn*** -&gt; семя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***ĝneo̯mn*** -&gt; знамя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***bhermn*** -&gt; бремя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10999" RevisionGUID="8bdd3614-a62a-4dd9-be5d-328566399091" CreationDate="2015-10-20T02:07:29.917" UserId="194" Text="&gt; В моём доме три окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has three windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём доме есть три окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same but suggests continuation, more talk about the windows. For instance, you say that one is painted green, the other two yellow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня дома три окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My apartment has three windows (while the house may have more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня дома есть три окна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At my home there are three windows. Something special with the windows. You are underlining that the windows only exist, so maybe they are not *useful*?&#xD;&#xA;For instance, you are speaking about window frames stored in your apartment rather than openings in the walls or that while your apartment has three windows, you can use only one (others are blocked by furniture or in locked rooms or parents prohibit using them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="336a79e0-2453-4507-9cf6-fbf58aee5b27" CreationDate="2015-10-20T02:20:03.027" UserId="194" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Имя is neuter noun, not feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a set of similar neuter nouns: имя, вымя, пламя, семя, время, темя, стремя, знамя, племя, бремя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them originate from PIE words with -men suffix. Such words were neuter in PIE also. In Proto-Slavic -en and -n̥ becomes -ę nasal vowel and later -я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***e̯neo̯mn*** -&gt; имя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***see̯mn*** -&gt; семя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***ĝneo̯mn*** -&gt; знамя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***bhermn*** -&gt; бремя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still can see the -мен- part in oblique cases and plural: вре**мен**и, вре**мен**ем, вре**мен**а etc, as well as adjectives: вре**мен**ный." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10998" RevisionGUID="85911984-f517-467a-a69a-14aad6b573e1" CreationDate="2015-10-20T02:27:20.627" UserId="194" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Имя is neuter noun, not feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a set of similar neuter nouns: имя, вымя, пламя, семя, время, темя, стремя, знамя, племя, бремя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them originate from PIE words with -men suffix. Such words were neuter in PIE also. In Proto-Slavic -en and -n̥ becomes -ę nasal vowel and later -я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***e̯neo̯mn*** -&gt; имя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***see̯mn*** -&gt; семя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***ĝneo̯mn*** -&gt; знамя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; PIE ***bhermn*** -&gt; бремя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still can see the -мен- part in oblique cases and plural: вре**мен**и, вре**мен**ем, вре**мен**а etc, as well as adjectives: вре**мен**ный, бере**мен**ная." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10997" RevisionGUID="a68c7963-579f-452b-b17e-09f7213167e3" CreationDate="2015-10-20T03:24:31.940" UserId="1236" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**Имя** belongs to a special group of 11 nouns ending in **-мя**, all of which are of the *Neuter* gender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бремя, время, вымя, знамя, имя, пламя, племя, семя, стремя, темя, голомя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them also decline in a special way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           sing.       plur.&#xD;&#xA;    _____________________________       &#xD;&#xA;    Nom.   врéмя   	временá&#xD;&#xA;    Gen.   врéмени     времён&#xD;&#xA;    Dat.   врéмени 	временáм&#xD;&#xA;    Acc.   врéмя   	временá&#xD;&#xA;    Instr. врéменем	временáми&#xD;&#xA;    Prep.  врéмени 	временáх&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the 10 nouns (and **имя** too) have the same case endings as **время**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="54ab09f2-dc2b-4ac4-afcf-e4e515549b6d" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:30:31.233" UserId="6158" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I need you expertise opinion on this. when someone asks me what time it is and I want to say, the time is...do I start with &quot;время&quot; and the time or can I say &quot;время ect&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="54ab09f2-dc2b-4ac4-afcf-e4e515549b6d" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:30:31.233" UserId="6158" Text="What time is it? (how do i answer?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11000" RevisionGUID="54ab09f2-dc2b-4ac4-afcf-e4e515549b6d" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:30:31.233" UserId="6158" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="2e8b4044-4078-4b5e-82f3-e0dfcd881083" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:37:16.490" UserId="6158" Text="Have I understood this correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;четырнадцать часов однa минут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;четырнадцать часов две минуты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;четырнадцать часов три минуты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;четырнадцать часов пять минут" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="2e8b4044-4078-4b5e-82f3-e0dfcd881083" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:37:16.490" UserId="6158" Text="The minutes in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="2e8b4044-4078-4b5e-82f3-e0dfcd881083" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:37:16.490" UserId="6158" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11002" RevisionGUID="26aab193-c3bd-4747-9ab0-56f9e8fe07bc" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:49:38.017" UserId="4637" Text="I think you could begin with `время`. In my opinion though it sounds better with the word `сейчас`, for example `Сейчас половина четвёртого`. The other common approach would be to say the time directly without any pretext&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Который час?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Пять минут шестого." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11003" RevisionGUID="6c93fe17-af5c-403d-8d63-94f3f16dcb2c" CreationDate="2015-10-20T08:52:52.537" UserId="4801" Text="In common speech, no one uses *время* in their answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Который час?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пол-пятого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there are some variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас четырнадцать тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почти пять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. *Время* might be used in technical speech, announcements etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Московское время - пятнадцать часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Текущее время - одиннадцать часов тринадцать минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, the verb *быть* is not used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11004" RevisionGUID="6098c83e-b879-40cf-b316-2a105eaf393b" CreationDate="2015-10-20T09:16:43.513" UserId="6131" Text="As it was mentioned in comments, the only mistake is &quot;одна минут&quot;. The correct phrase is:&#xD;&#xA;четырнадцать часов однa минут**а**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11005" RevisionGUID="d1b5d964-c620-4c89-902f-1e7913f34441" CreationDate="2015-10-20T09:18:17.627" UserId="5389" Text=" - 1 мину**та**&#xD;&#xA; - 2,3,4 мину**ты**&#xD;&#xA; - 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 мину**т**&#xD;&#xA; - 11-19 мину**т**&#xD;&#xA; - Others depend on the last digit according to first 3 rules (2**1** мину**та**, 3**2** мину**ты**, 4**5** мину**т**)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25270" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11001" RevisionGUID="4d6fa07d-b665-45cd-93ef-7d733641e7cc" CreationDate="2015-10-20T10:08:29.653" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How to decline minutes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11003" RevisionGUID="0c7a421a-aa67-4544-ba48-a9ad570aa5fb" CreationDate="2015-10-20T10:19:07.733" UserId="5008" Comment="&quot;Полпятого&quot; пишется слитно" Text="In common speech, no one uses *время* in their answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Который час?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полпятого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there are some variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас четырнадцать тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почти пять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. *Время* might be used in technical speech, announcements etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Московское время - пятнадцать часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Текущее время - одиннадцать часов тринадцать минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, the verb *быть* is not used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="5ac486a7-5c0c-4f88-8043-38abde12dcea" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:02:11.743" UserId="4494" Text="What is the meaning of the word &quot;завьюженный&quot;? I can't find this in any dictionaries. It's an adjective, right? I think it might mean something like &quot;cold&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="5ac486a7-5c0c-4f88-8043-38abde12dcea" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:02:11.743" UserId="4494" Text="What does &quot;завьюженный&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="5ac486a7-5c0c-4f88-8043-38abde12dcea" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:02:11.743" UserId="4494" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11007" RevisionGUID="8aca0c22-66c1-4d91-9b30-fd20f3edd5e3" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:14:55.860" UserId="4801" Text="This word is derived from *вьюга*, which translates to **snowstorm** or **blizzard**. The meaning is therefore something close to &quot;covered in snow&quot; - basically, it describes something after a snowstorm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25276" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10982" RevisionGUID="c2f3b11c-897f-4ceb-8280-fa3fa031e0ae" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:42:06.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656435217759150080" />
  <row Id="25277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="573e711f-06c9-4afe-b8bc-299d02fe9647" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:48:18.230" UserId="4494" Text="This sentence apparently means &quot;I would like to sleep till April&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Заснуть бы до апреля бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't understand the use of &quot;бы&quot; here. Could someone give examples of other sentences using this double-бы construction? For instance, if I say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Infinitive verb] бы [object] бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that always mean &quot;I would like to verb the object&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="573e711f-06c9-4afe-b8bc-299d02fe9647" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:48:18.230" UserId="4494" Text="A construction with double &quot;бы&quot;-s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="573e711f-06c9-4afe-b8bc-299d02fe9647" CreationDate="2015-10-20T11:48:18.230" UserId="4494" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11009" RevisionGUID="940a4c99-99de-46ed-9cb9-7dbe383e7b49" CreationDate="2015-10-20T12:08:11.577" UserId="4801" Text="I could only think that this adds additional emphasis on the wish the particle *бы* expresses. In normal speech one would simply say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Заснуть бы до апреля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Заснуть до апреля бы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are similar, maybe with slight possible differences (emphasis on *заснуть* or *до апреля*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect double *бы* to be used in poetry, songs and the like, for additional emphasis, rhythm etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11010" RevisionGUID="7a9c1367-efe6-4b6f-b5ec-33d8e2701684" CreationDate="2015-10-20T12:14:28.857" UserId="5008" Text="That's a kind of &quot;colloquial tautology&quot;. In Russian the placement of &quot;_бы_&quot; is not fixed. That is both &quot;Заснуть бы до апреля&quot; and &quot;Заснуть до апреля бы&quot; mean the same. But sometimes the speaker may use a small emphasis to mean either: _I'd like to sleep till April_ or _I'd like to sleep, say, until April_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially, people sometimes use tautology to express both at once: _Заснуть бы до апреля бы_ --&gt; _I'd like to sleep; be my sleep until April_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11011" RevisionGUID="2504494a-5fa7-4070-9923-1ec3397d7117" CreationDate="2015-10-20T14:16:46.327" UserId="194" Text="If you announcing the time by your own initiative, you can use &quot;время&quot; to clarify that you are announcing time rather than some other numbers. But if you asked it would be excessive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25283" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10967" RevisionGUID="dfdd8324-0727-43d7-88d6-4205a4f9fcc1" CreationDate="2015-10-20T14:42:08.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656480522886107136" />
  <row Id="25284" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10969" RevisionGUID="ada4c30d-9c61-40da-b608-bcd0605e338f" CreationDate="2015-10-20T17:42:10.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656525830928117760" />
  <row Id="25285" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11006" RevisionGUID="aa25b05f-9f50-4074-ae5c-af97a031fbff" CreationDate="2015-10-20T20:42:11.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656571132146024449" />
  <row Id="25286" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10972" RevisionGUID="5c11c3d2-85d2-48a5-ae9c-3109076ee4b4" CreationDate="2015-10-20T23:42:21.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656616475881533441" />
  <row Id="25287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="e4894401-bee7-4e3d-a8d0-651a69476886" CreationDate="2015-10-21T01:08:26.367" UserId="6162" Text="I am writing a story (set in the modern day) involving a Russian man who has an American girlfriend named Anna.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to figure out what affectionate name he might use for her.  Specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is there an appropriate diminutive form for &quot;Anna&quot; in this situation?  I found [this site](http://www.russian-translation-pros.com/russian-translation-russia-women-names.html), but there are many forms of &quot;Anna&quot;.  Is there an important distinction between them or is it just a matter of preference?&#xD;&#xA;* Is it common to use a pet/tender name instead of the diminutive?  [This site](http://learnrussian.rt.com/speak-russian/tender-words-russian) lists some, but doesn't provide context.  For example, is “zvyozdochka” (little star) something you would use for a girlfriend or is it better suited to a small child?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="e4894401-bee7-4e3d-a8d0-651a69476886" CreationDate="2015-10-21T01:08:26.367" UserId="6162" Text="Affectionate Name for Girlfriend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="e4894401-bee7-4e3d-a8d0-651a69476886" CreationDate="2015-10-21T01:08:26.367" UserId="6162" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11013" RevisionGUID="c2eba719-1341-4fee-981d-07fd1a4e7f86" CreationDate="2015-10-21T02:27:42.027" UserId="242" Text="Анна is &quot;Аня&quot;, &quot;Анюта&quot;, &quot;Нюша&quot; and even &quot;Нюра&quot;. From this one can derive even more &quot;soft&quot; forms like &quot;Анюточка&quot;, &quot;Нюшенька&quot;, &quot;Нюрочка&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically all the forms mentioned on the page you've mentioned are valid. Stylistically there are very subtle differences but I guess that your story won't sound unnatural with any of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - &quot;звёздочка&quot; is not a regular noun used in cases of this kind. More likely &quot;солнышко&quot; or, talking of pets, &quot;рыбка&quot;, &quot;зайка&quot;, &quot;котёночек&quot;, &quot;котик&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11014" RevisionGUID="51255e9f-2c6a-4049-bbd1-e25f37e76cfc" CreationDate="2015-10-21T08:35:07.430" UserId="5389" Text="Name Anna&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Анна** - formal&#xD;&#xA;- **Аня** - regular, informal (widely used by friends, parents, boyfriend)&#xD;&#xA;- **Анечка**, **Анюта** - maybe used by parents, close friends or a boyfriend (your case)&#xD;&#xA;- **Ань**! - regular, the vocative case, used just addressing/calling a person&#xD;&#xA;- **Анют**! - is like the previous one, but more cute&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others forms from the list, such as _Аннушка, Ануша, Ануся, Нюня, Нюша, Нюта_, may sound strange in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pet/tender names&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Звёздочка_ is possible, but rarely used. It's more like mother can call her child.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most popular are:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Зайка**, more popular **Зая**, vocative **Зай!** - a bunny&#xD;&#xA;- **Солнышнко**, **солнце моё** - a sun of mine&#xD;&#xA;- **Родная моя**, **Роднуля** - a relative of mine&#xD;&#xA;- **Малыш** - a little one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11017" RevisionGUID="9fdb2059-370a-4a57-8b6a-83f6b4da4ade" CreationDate="2015-10-21T14:26:34.673" UserId="115" Text="In the context of your story, Anechka and/or Anya are probably the best choices. Any more variations will probably confuse your non-Russian readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, thank you for checking this. You are doing a great service to those of your readers who are familiar with Russian culture. Typically, seeing what English-language writers do with Russian names makes me cringe. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="f31779a5-759f-483d-b28c-08fae08c2c67" CreationDate="2015-10-21T14:27:54.943" UserId="115" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25302" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11012" RevisionGUID="6781066d-1617-4bc3-91f9-b4e7c1ced57b" CreationDate="2015-10-21T20:48:10.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656935028123897856" />
  <row Id="25303" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11008" RevisionGUID="9a6cfac0-ecaf-43b1-9759-0abe800fc0de" CreationDate="2015-10-21T23:48:24.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/656980385805553668" />
  <row Id="25304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11018" RevisionGUID="7dd39fe1-1459-49e2-8172-95e4fcc11f8b" CreationDate="2015-10-22T01:44:39.107" UserId="6173" Text="There are three words that could match &quot;bed&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Кровать*** - bed as in wooden piece of furniture in everybody's home. Probably your case.&#xD;&#xA;* ***Постель*** - bed as in sheets and covers. Widely used for talking about a place where lovers have fun.&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ложе*** - archaic, don't use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: I am Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10941" RevisionGUID="830df3f7-10bd-4c38-973d-faebc2e2d39f" CreationDate="2015-10-22T08:10:08.680" UserId="5008" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="There are two different words in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Кровать_ is the piece of furniture&#xD;&#xA;- _Постель_ is any place with the bedclothes lying on it (or even just the full set of bedclothes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are sometimes interchangeable though. &quot;Я лежу в кровати&quot; and &quot;Я лежу в постели&quot; mean the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also old words such as _ложе_ or _одр_ but you normally see them only in the books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Ложе_ (cf. &quot;_лежать_&quot; = to lie; &quot;_положить_&quot; = to lay) is an outdated poetic word for _bed_; in common speech it's still in use meaning _stream bed_ or _gun stock_&#xD;&#xA;- _Одр_ is only usable as a part of the expression: _на смертном одре_ = _on deathbed_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11019" RevisionGUID="5d7339d9-8cc6-467e-916e-5c4d7046ba8f" CreationDate="2015-10-23T05:37:33.943" UserId="6177" Text="The most common word is кровать. You can use постель when you are talking about place prepared for sleep, as it was sayed above. Actually, as a native speaker, I can say that постель can sound a little bit too intimate, but this is my opinion, not the rule.&#xD;&#xA;Mostly these two words are interchangeable, for example, if yu say &quot;Почему ты ещё в кровати, уже поздно?&quot; it won't be a mistake, even if the person you are talking to is on the sofa." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11020" RevisionGUID="932ecbdd-edc8-47d3-8392-b7c9cf8c5214" CreationDate="2015-10-24T09:29:55.717" UserId="5201" Text="If I wanted to say 'you just blew my mind', or maybe in other words, 'I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you just said/did,' what might be some possible translations? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11020" RevisionGUID="932ecbdd-edc8-47d3-8392-b7c9cf8c5214" CreationDate="2015-10-24T09:29:55.717" UserId="5201" Text="How would you translate 'you just blew my mind'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11020" RevisionGUID="932ecbdd-edc8-47d3-8392-b7c9cf8c5214" CreationDate="2015-10-24T09:29:55.717" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11021" RevisionGUID="1c1b509f-c5ee-4ce7-9c81-8e4497bcd74e" CreationDate="2015-10-24T10:43:12.650" UserId="5389" Text="- &quot;Ты только что взорвал мой мозг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Я пытаюсь врубиться в то, что ты только что сказал&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Врубиться/врубаться_ is a bit rude slang for &quot;осознать/понять&quot; - &quot;to realize/to understand&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11022" RevisionGUID="41575cc4-67d5-4b36-aae9-d82c7d1043f1" CreationDate="2015-10-24T12:42:05.660" UserId="5915" Text="Quite possible that &quot;**взорвал мой мозг**&quot; became quite common due to vocabulary limitations of the modern youth which is under enormous pressure from the West and its culture (and language) and trying to cope with it *using literal translations* of *pop culture idioms* previously unknown to them.  Nothing we can do about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression &quot;**вынес мне мозги**&quot; or &quot;**снёс мне мозги**&quot; sounds a bit smoother and actually closer to the intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to **wrapping one's mind** *around something*, I'd use &quot;**охватить** *что-то* **умом**&quot; or &quot;**постичь** *что-то*&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11023" RevisionGUID="6c6a4ebb-4236-4a15-af84-4e04cd89c874" CreationDate="2015-10-24T13:00:17.817" UserId="5008" Text="_Я не въезжаю_; _Я не догоняю_; _Я не врубаюсь_; _Я не вкурил_ - slang; means &quot;I really can't understand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ты мне мозг взорвал_; _Ты мне мозг вынес_ - rather modern (mostly teenager) slang; seems like a calque from English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following may also be usable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ну ты даёшь_ - colloquial; &quot;This is not what I expected of you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Да ты гонишь!_ - slang; &quot;You tell me shit&quot;; may also mean &quot;You got me surprised; Is this for real?!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="145205ba-71e8-4515-b936-6948aa7b7d6a" CreationDate="2015-10-25T09:38:19.173" UserId="6184" Text="please tell me if there are any rules for writing &quot;o&quot; or &quot;a&quot; in a Russian word. Meaning, if a pronounced word has many &quot;a&quot; how do you know if any of them and which one of them is written as &quot;o&quot;(unstressed o)and which one of them is written as &quot;a&quot; ? Can't remember how a word is written if it contains &quot;a&quot;, not sure which &quot;a&quot; is written as &quot;a&quot; and which one is written as &quot;o&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="145205ba-71e8-4515-b936-6948aa7b7d6a" CreationDate="2015-10-25T09:38:19.173" UserId="6184" Text="writing &quot;o&quot; or &quot;a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="145205ba-71e8-4515-b936-6948aa7b7d6a" CreationDate="2015-10-25T09:38:19.173" UserId="6184" Text="|правописание|морфология|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="0016f271-8e55-4742-b027-e87c4e3dd559" CreationDate="2015-10-25T10:34:48.460" UserId="6184" Text="Please tell me how the written “e” pronounces. I have checked various online resources and still not sure about it.&#xD;&#xA;“e” is pronounced as: ii – at begin of words, after vowels, after ь, after ъ&#xD;&#xA;                      i – between consonant and vowel&#xD;&#xA;                      ie –end of word, after consonant&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="0016f271-8e55-4742-b027-e87c4e3dd559" CreationDate="2015-10-25T10:34:48.460" UserId="6184" Text="pronunciation of &quot;e&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="0016f271-8e55-4742-b027-e87c4e3dd559" CreationDate="2015-10-25T10:34:48.460" UserId="6184" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11026" RevisionGUID="484e8030-097e-442d-b455-403c1886b85c" CreationDate="2015-10-25T10:58:20.610" UserId="6185" Text="Это - просто фрагмент работы, - то есть, большое прозводственное задание (например, технологический цикл производства) как раз и состоит из отдельных фрагментов работы, которые планируются для исполнения (последовательного, параллельного и т.п.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="b38f1948-62a2-4153-aef2-8db3db729989" CreationDate="2015-10-25T11:07:47.843" UserId="4121" Text="В русском языке есть ряд существительных, образованных от глаголов, с суффиксом -л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какова причина использования этого суффикса? Ведь в современном русском языке это суффикс глагола прошедшего времени." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="b38f1948-62a2-4153-aef2-8db3db729989" CreationDate="2015-10-25T11:07:47.843" UserId="4121" Text="Откуда суффикс -л у существительных: &quot;страшило&quot;, &quot;чернила&quot;, &quot;пряло&quot; и т.п" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="b38f1948-62a2-4153-aef2-8db3db729989" CreationDate="2015-10-25T11:07:47.843" UserId="4121" Text="|этимология|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="6c16995d-1d57-4777-93c5-e4734d34c98f" CreationDate="2015-10-25T11:55:11.623" UserId="5008" Text="For a proper pronounce you should know three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- iotizing&#xD;&#xA;- softening&#xD;&#xA;- reduction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Iotizing_ means that if _Е_ stands at the beginning of the word, or after another vowel, or after hard or soft sign (Ь or Ъ), then it's _iotized_, i.e. it produces two sounds: Й+Э (as in _YEllow_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Softening_ means that if _Е_ stands after a consonant, then the consonant becomes a &quot;soft variant&quot;. (Note that _Е_ gives only one sound &quot;Э&quot;, as in _Elbow_, in this case). But if the consonant has no &quot;soft variant&quot;, then it doesn't change, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is `Ель -&gt; ЙЭл'`; `ЛЕc -&gt; Л'Эс`; `МЕль -&gt;М'Эл'`; `ЖЕчь -&gt; ЖЭч'`; `ШЕст -&gt; ШЭст` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still one step remains so far. It's the _Reduction_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Reduction_ may be applied to _unstressed_ vowel (after proper iotizing and softening!)  to pronounce it differently, so this is a matter of a dialect. Usually, unstressed Russian &quot;Е&quot; gives &quot;И&quot; (this is the most standard way, called [&quot;Иканье&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5)). Though saying just &quot;Э&quot; is OK too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;_Е(катеринбург)_&quot; usually yields &quot;_ЙИ(катиринбурх)_&quot;. But stressed vowel is never changed, e.g.: _подъЕзд_ -&gt; _падЙЭст_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11030" RevisionGUID="dc99de26-202f-4c36-b91e-44af758b9642" CreationDate="2015-10-25T12:31:02.327" UserId="5008" Text="Well, this is a problem of a vowel reduction: _unstressed_ Russian &quot;_О_&quot; is usually replaced by &quot;_А_&quot; in the spoken language (called _Аканье_). So _to write_ it properly one usually has to find a word of the same root with a _stressed_ vowel, so it becomes clear what _the root_ of the word appears to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &quot;_Гроза_&quot; (thunderstorm) pronounced &quot;_граза_&quot; only because of reduction, but should be written with &quot;_О_&quot; as in &quot;stressed&quot; plural - &quot;_Грозы_&quot; (thunderstorms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are exceptions though. After all, the orthography is what the pupils learn in the school for the years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11030" RevisionGUID="a3e0aa8b-6214-40bf-9c74-ef47d8662e45" CreationDate="2015-10-25T12:39:35.093" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added stresses" Text="Well, this is a problem of a vowel reduction: _unstressed_ Russian &quot;_О_&quot; is usually replaced by &quot;_А_&quot; in the spoken language (called _Áканье_). So _to write_ it properly one usually has to find a word of the same root with a _stressed_ vowel, so it becomes clear what _the root_ of the word appears to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.: &quot;_Грозá_&quot; (thunderstorm) is pronounced &quot;_гр**а**зá_&quot; only because of reduction, but should be written with &quot;_О_&quot; as in the plural form where &quot;O&quot; is stressed - &quot;_Грóзы_&quot; (thunderstorms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are exceptions though. After all, the orthography is what the pupils learn in the school for the years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25328" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11030" RevisionGUID="a3e0aa8b-6214-40bf-9c74-ef47d8662e45" CreationDate="2015-10-25T12:39:35.093" Comment="Proposed by 1514 approved by 5008 edit id of 693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="4877e45d-2beb-4426-9444-c59500fa3234" CreationDate="2015-10-25T12:40:40.483" UserId="5915" Comment="formatting for emphasis" Text="For a proper pronounce you should know three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- iotizing&#xD;&#xA;- softening&#xD;&#xA;- reduction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Iotizing_ means that if _Е_ stands at the beginning of the word, or after another vowel, or after hard or soft sign (Ь or Ъ), then it's _iotized_, i.e. it produces two sounds: Й+Э (as in _YEllow_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Softening_ means that if _Е_ stands after a consonant, then the consonant becomes a &quot;soft variant&quot;. (Note that _Е_ gives only one sound &quot;Э&quot;, as in _Elbow_, in this case). But if the consonant has no &quot;soft variant&quot;, then it doesn't change, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is `Ель -&gt; ЙЭл'`; `ЛЕc -&gt; Л'Эс`; `МЕль -&gt;М'Эл'`; `ЖЕчь -&gt; ЖЭч'`; `ШЕст -&gt; ШЭст` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still one step remains so far. It's the _Reduction_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Reduction_ may be applied to _unstressed_ vowel (after proper iotizing and softening!)  to pronounce it differently, so this is a matter of a dialect. Usually, unstressed Russian &quot;Е&quot; gives &quot;И&quot; (this is the most standard way, called [&quot;Иканье&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5)). Though saying just &quot;Э&quot; is OK too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;_**Е**(кат**е**ринбург)_&quot; usually yields &quot;_Й**И**(кат**и**ринбурх)_&quot;. But stressed vowel is never changed, e.g.: _подъ**Е**зд_ -&gt; _пад**ЙЭ**ст_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25330" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="4877e45d-2beb-4426-9444-c59500fa3234" CreationDate="2015-10-25T12:40:40.483" Comment="Proposed by 5915 approved by -1 edit id of 692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="f7e7ad81-da74-4f2d-8c4e-d30f1ec392a6" CreationDate="2015-10-25T12:40:40.483" UserId="5008" Comment="formatting for emphasis" Text="For a proper pronounce you should know three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- iotizing&#xD;&#xA;- softening&#xD;&#xA;- reduction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Iotizing_ means that if _Е_ stands at the beginning of the word, or after another vowel, or after hard or soft sign (Ь or Ъ), then it's _iotized_, i.e. it produces two sounds: Й+Э (as in _YEllow_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Softening_ means that if _Е_ stands after a consonant, then the consonant becomes a &quot;soft variant&quot;. (Note that _Е_ gives only one sound &quot;Э&quot;, as in _Elbow_, in this case). But if the consonant has no &quot;soft variant&quot;, then it doesn't change, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is `Ель -&gt; ЙЭл'`; `ЛЕc -&gt; Л'Эс`; `МЕль -&gt;М'Эл'`; `ЖЕчь -&gt; ЖЭч'`; `ШЕст -&gt; ШЭст` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still one step remains so far. It's the _Reduction_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Reduction_ may be applied to _unstressed_ vowel (after proper iotizing and softening!)  to pronounce it differently, so this is a matter of a dialect. Usually, unstressed Russian &quot;Е&quot; gives &quot;И&quot; (this is the most standard way, called [&quot;Иканье&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5)). Though saying just &quot;Э&quot; is OK too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;_**Е**(кат**е**ринбург)_&quot; usually yields &quot;_Й**И**(кат'**и**р'инбурх)_&quot;. But stressed vowel is never changed, e.g.: _подъ**Е**зд_ -&gt; _пад**ЙЭ**ст_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11031" RevisionGUID="7da1470d-3fe7-4db7-b155-0c9e1cf7fa51" CreationDate="2015-10-25T13:29:55.057" UserId="1236" Text="Суффикс **-л-о** происходит от праславянского суффикса _*-dl-ŏ_, который служил для образования названий орудий. Происходит от [праиндоевропейского суффикса _*-dʰl-_][1], который соединялся с тематическим _*ŏ_ и образовывал имена среднего рода. В речи южных и восточных славян (в т. ч. в русском) в результате упрощения _*-dl-_ &gt; [л], в западнославянских языках (в польском, чешском и др.) этот суффикс сохранил форму _-dl-o_: праслав. _*my-dl-o_ (от _*my-ti_) &gt;  полсьск. _mydło_, чешск. _mýdlo_, русск. _мыло_; праслав. _*gьr-dl-o_  &gt;  полсьск. _gardło_, чешск. _hrdlo_, русск. _горло_; праслав. _*kri-dl-o-n_ (от корня _*kri-_ «лететь») &gt;  полсьск. _skszydyło_, чешск. _kridlo_, старослав. _крило_, русск. _крыло_ (в последнем звук [ы], вероятно, под влиянием «крыть»); праслав. _*zьrka-dl-o_ &gt;  полсьск. _zwierciadło_, чешск. _zrcadlo_, старослав. _зрьцало_, русск. _зеркало_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходство этого суффикса с современным руским суффиксом прошедшего времени **-л-** является просто совпадением, никакой связи между ними нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Slavic/-dlo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11031" RevisionGUID="d2934228-5146-46fd-b9cb-e2856d83f8de" CreationDate="2015-10-25T13:35:07.917" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="Суффикс **-л-о** происходит от праславянского суффикса _*-dl-ŏ_, который служил для образования названий орудий. Происходит от [праиндоевропейского суффикса _*-dʰl-_][1], который соединялся с тематическим _*ŏ_ и образовывал имена среднего рода. В речи южных и восточных славян (в т. ч. в русском) в результате упрощения _*-dl-_ &gt; [л], в западнославянских языках (в польском, чешском и др.) этот суффикс сохранил форму _-dl-o_: праслав. _*my-dl-o_ (от _*my-ti_) &gt;  полсьск. _mydło_, чешск. _mýdlo_, русск. _мыло_; праслав. _*gьr-dl-o_  &gt;  полсьск. _gardło_, чешск. _hrdlo_, русск. _горло_; праслав. _*kri-dl-o-n_ (от корня _*kri-_ «лететь») &gt;  полсьск. _skrzydyło_, чешск. _kridlo_, старослав. _крило_, русск. _крыло_ (в последнем звук [ы], вероятно, под влиянием «крыть»); праслав. _*zьrka-dl-o_ &gt;  полсьск. _zwierciadło_, чешск. _zrcadlo_, старослав. _зрьцало_, русск. _зеркало_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходство этого суффикса с современным руским суффиксом прошедшего времени **-л-** является просто совпадением, никакой связи между ними нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Slavic/-dlo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11032" RevisionGUID="627634b7-ea70-44cf-89d0-893e38081a48" CreationDate="2015-10-25T14:14:28.440" UserId="194" Text="Как насчет &quot;рабочий вопрос&quot;? Мне это кажется неплохим вариантом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11031" RevisionGUID="e98a84b0-e424-4926-bf9e-3299c5fe0dbe" CreationDate="2015-10-25T15:16:48.340" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Суффикс **-л-о** происходит от праславянского суффикса _*-dl-ŏ_, который служил для образования названий орудий. Происходит от [праиндоевропейского суффикса _*-dʰl-_][1], который соединялся с тематическим _*ŏ_ и образовывал имена среднего рода. В речи южных и восточных славян (в т. ч. в русском) в результате упрощения _*-dl-_ &gt; [л], в западнославянских языках (в польском, чешском и др.) этот суффикс сохранил форму _-dl-o_: праслав. _*my-dl-o_ (от _*my-ti_) &gt;  полсьск. _mydło_, чешск. _mýdlo_, русск. _мыло_; праслав. _*gьr-dl-o_  &gt;  полсьск. _gardło_, чешск. _hrdlo_, русск. _горло_; праслав. _*kri-dl-o-n_ (от корня _*kri-_ «лететь») &gt;  полсьск. _skrzydło_, чешск. _kridlo_, старослав. _крило_, русск. _крыло_ (в последнем звук [ы], вероятно, под влиянием «крыть»); праслав. _*zьrka-dl-o_ &gt;  полсьск. _zwierciadło_, чешск. _zrcadlo_, старослав. _зрьцало_, русск. _зеркало_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходство этого суффикса с современным руским суффиксом прошедшего времени **-л-** является просто совпадением, никакой связи между ними нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Slavic/-dlo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25337" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10996" RevisionGUID="653df773-27ba-43c1-a9b2-69f5057779c0" CreationDate="2015-10-25T17:59:31.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/658342136719482880" />
  <row Id="25339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11031" RevisionGUID="c3123681-b709-4d03-8017-fb21eda30086" CreationDate="2015-10-25T21:21:50.063" UserId="4560" Comment="чешский — диакритика" Text="Суффикс **-л-о** происходит от праславянского суффикса _*-dl-ŏ_, который служил для образования названий орудий. Происходит от [праиндоевропейского суффикса _*-dʰl-_][1], который соединялся с тематическим _*ŏ_ и образовывал имена среднего рода. В речи южных и восточных славян (в т. ч. в русском) в результате упрощения _*-dl-_ &gt; [л], в западнославянских языках (в польском, чешском и др.) этот суффикс сохранил форму _-dl-o_: праслав. _*my-dl-o_ (от _*my-ti_) &gt;  полсьск. _mydło_, чешск. _mýdlo_, русск. _мыло_; праслав. _*gьr-dl-o_  &gt;  полсьск. _gardło_, чешск. _hrdlo_, русск. _горло_; праслав. _*kri-dl-o-n_ (от корня _*kri-_ «лететь») &gt;  полсьск. _skrzydło_, чешск. _křídlo_, старослав. _крило_, русск. _крыло_ (в последнем звук [ы], вероятно, под влиянием «крыть»); праслав. _*zьrka-dl-o_ &gt;  полсьск. _zwierciadło_, чешск. _zrcadlo_, старослав. _зрьцало_, русск. _зеркало_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходство этого суффикса с современным руским суффиксом прошедшего времени **-л-** является просто совпадением, никакой связи между ними нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Slavic/-dlo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="c40c2851-3839-4100-922a-6196b91c750c" CreationDate="2015-10-26T08:26:57.730" UserId="4892" Text="I find it very difficult to understand the difference in meaning and usage between дальний и далёкий! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My teacher said:&#xD;&#xA;дальний: is &quot;far&quot; in relation to my (or the speaker's) position&#xD;&#xA;далёкий: is &quot;far&quot; in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I feel like it's the opposite! Am I wrong? If I say &quot;они живут в дальних селах&quot; I feel like this &quot;far&quot; is a general, absolute far. It's far from everything else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone give me a better explanation of the difference? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="c40c2851-3839-4100-922a-6196b91c750c" CreationDate="2015-10-26T08:26:57.730" UserId="4892" Text="Difference between дальний and далёкий!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11033" RevisionGUID="c40c2851-3839-4100-922a-6196b91c750c" CreationDate="2015-10-26T08:26:57.730" UserId="4892" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11034" RevisionGUID="e03edaba-1806-4a92-930e-ae285f659e36" CreationDate="2015-10-26T10:55:38.420" UserId="5389" Text="Your teacher is right. Talking about distances, &quot;**дальний**&quot; is close to &quot;a further one&quot;, while &quot;**далёкий**&quot; is more like &quot;a far one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 1:**&#xD;&#xA;1st town ---------------- 2nd town -------------3rd town   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three towns on the same interstate. We live in the first one. A man lives in the 3rd town. We say: &quot;_Он живёт в **дальнем** городе_&quot;. A woman lives in the 2nd town - &quot;_Она живёт в **ближнем** городе_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example 2:**&#xD;&#xA;1st town &lt;---------------- 1000 miles -------------&gt; 2rd town &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are in the 1st town, some person is in the 2nd town 1000 miles away. We would say &quot;_Человек живёт в **далёком** городе_&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;**дальний**&quot; implies the existence of closer objects (_ближний_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11035" RevisionGUID="8fec995b-4f4e-49cc-8c34-0da9c58a8a1b" CreationDate="2015-10-26T13:50:59.490" UserId="5915" Text="In some contexts *there is no real difference*.  Both are formed from the word &quot;*даль*&quot;.  They are often interchangeable, and we can find idiomatic phrases with both words as attributes: &quot;*дальний* путь&quot;, &quot;*далёкий* путь&quot; (see [here][1] for relative use statistics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stable antonyms to those are, respectively, &quot;*ближний*&quot; и &quot;*близкий*&quot;, which are also rather very similar, although there are some phrases that would use the second word but not the first (you'd say &quot;*близкий человек*&quot;, but &quot;*ближнее зарубежье*&quot; -- former Soviet republics after USSR had broken up).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, as Roman points out, and where your teacher is correct, *when you need to use comparative sense*, &quot;*дальний*&quot; would be better (meaning &quot;farth**er**&quot;), same with the antonyms: &quot;*ближний*&quot; also has a meaning of &quot;clos**er**&quot;, &quot;near**er**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning really depends on the context, and so does their use.  For instance, with the noun &quot;*дорога*&quot;, the phrase &quot;*дальняя дорога*&quot; means &quot;*road to far away places*&quot;, i.e. &quot;*road that [starts here and] leads far away*&quot;, whereas &quot;*далёкая дорога*&quot; has more of the meaning &quot;*the road far away*&quot;, &quot;*the road such that to reach it you need to travel far*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%2C%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4%3B%2C%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2C%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="46be129f-7939-4a6a-8945-1326572fb77b" CreationDate="2015-10-26T14:07:15.330" UserId="194" Text="&gt; они живут в дальних сёлах = they are leaving in villages which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficult to reach, in the outskirts of the populated area (whether you are there or not), far from the central area&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; они живут в далёких сёлах = they are living in the far villages, from you, from another place or from each other. They may be not far from the area's center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11036" RevisionGUID="09ec3665-0f59-42cc-a0ed-99b7f948508f" CreationDate="2015-10-26T14:21:59.927" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; они живут в дальних сёлах = they are living in villages which are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; difficult to reach, in the outskirts of the populated area (whether you are there or not), far from the central area&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; они живут в далёких сёлах = they are living in the far villages, from you, from another place or from each other. They may be not far from the area's center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="03fa122a-f4ed-4cf2-90d6-bc820032ad5a" CreationDate="2015-10-26T15:44:45.857" UserId="5932" Text="Как можно правильно использовать выражение засыпать кого чем? Можно сказать меня засыпали работой? Меня засыпали должностей? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо за помощь " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="03fa122a-f4ed-4cf2-90d6-bc820032ad5a" CreationDate="2015-10-26T15:44:45.857" UserId="5932" Text="как использовать выражение засыпать кого чем" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11037" RevisionGUID="03fa122a-f4ed-4cf2-90d6-bc820032ad5a" CreationDate="2015-10-26T15:44:45.857" UserId="5932" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11038" RevisionGUID="ff446213-5766-4755-9caf-f06ce5cd5fd3" CreationDate="2015-10-26T16:22:14.037" UserId="5915" Text="Глагол &quot;**зас*ы*пали**&quot; большей частью применяется (в прямом и переносном смысле) с материалами, которые состоят из большого количества маленьких частиц, то есть материалами, которые можно &quot;с**ы**пать&quot;.  Песок, например, можно сыпать.  Муку.  Снег.  Ну а *воду*, например, сыпать затруднительно, её обычно **льют**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Устойчивыми сочетаниями при переносном смысле являются &quot;**засыпать вопросами**&quot;, &quot;**засыпать упрёками**&quot;, &quot;**засыпать делами**&quot;.  &quot;*Засыпать работой*&quot; сказать-то можно и, наверное, поймут, причём правильно, но это идиомой не является.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще говорят &quot;**завалили работой**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С &quot;должностей&quot; - непонятно, что Вы хотели сказать...  Добавлю, если Вы поподробнее (или иными словами) объясните." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11038" RevisionGUID="7c21b845-2c87-4eaa-bf6f-f7f682160d10" CreationDate="2015-10-26T17:16:07.013" UserId="5915" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Глагол &quot;**зас*ы*пали**&quot; большей частью применяется (в прямом и переносном смысле) с материалами, которые состоят из большого количества маленьких частиц, то есть материалами, которые можно &quot;с**ы**пать&quot;.  Песок, например, можно сыпать.  Муку.  Снег.  Ну а *воду*, например, сыпать затруднительно, её обычно **льют**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Устойчивыми сочетаниями при переносном смысле являются &quot;**засыпать вопросами**&quot;, &quot;**засыпать упрёками**&quot;, &quot;**засыпать делами**&quot;.  &quot;*Засыпать работой*&quot; сказать-то можно и, наверное, поймут, причём правильно, но это идиомой не является.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще говорят &quot;**завалили работой**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;С &quot;должностей&quot; - я не понял, что Вы хотели сказать...  Добавлю, если Вы поподробнее (или иными словами) объясните." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25352" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11027" RevisionGUID="2b66bfcf-79ad-4a4e-948f-782c15d3f63b" CreationDate="2015-10-26T21:01:09.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/658750233254481920" />
  <row Id="25353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="b3160a1c-3043-4404-b061-27174daeafeb" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:46:44.517" UserId="4714" Text="Why is **за** used as a prefix meaning to start the action of the verb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian grammar is more or less very logical if you look at the history of words, but I just don't understand why **за** gives verbs this meaning of &quot;to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation is welcome)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="b3160a1c-3043-4404-b061-27174daeafeb" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:46:44.517" UserId="4714" Text="ЗА as a prefix meaning to start?—logic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="b3160a1c-3043-4404-b061-27174daeafeb" CreationDate="2015-10-26T22:46:44.517" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11040" RevisionGUID="68d84f41-bfa0-48ba-bd87-443dc2d8decf" CreationDate="2015-10-26T23:51:27.890" UserId="5915" Text="I think the answer to your question is, &quot;well, it doesn't&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**закопать**  - to cover with dirt, to bury  &#xD;&#xA;**зашить**  - to sew up  &#xD;&#xA;**защищать** - to guard  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you can also name&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**запустить** - to start up, to let/allow in[to]   &#xD;&#xA;**зазубр*и*ть** - to learn by rote  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possible explanation is that those are verbs that designate an action that is complete in some sense (even if the verb has imperfective aspect).  For instance &quot;**зазубривать**&quot; is a verb of imperfective aspect, although it does mean &quot;*to be learning by rote*&quot;, which in itself a completed action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="e226e8cd-c99a-4727-9062-2d93d791174e" CreationDate="2015-10-27T01:11:57.617" UserId="4714" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Why is **за** used as a prefix meaning to start the action of the verb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian grammar is more or less very logical if you look at the history of words, but I just don't understand why **за** gives verbs this meaning of &quot;to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation is welcome)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. зашевелиться&#xD;&#xA; 2. загудеть&#xD;&#xA; 3. запеть&#xD;&#xA; 4. засмеяться&#xD;&#xA; 5. заговорить&#xD;&#xA; 6. зацвести&#xD;&#xA; 7. заплакать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All mean, to start, begin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="9d019a96-f887-42f4-8153-91b493ebc86b" CreationDate="2015-10-27T01:17:33.180" UserId="4714" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Why is **за** used as a prefix meaning to start the action of the verb? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian grammar is more or less very logical if you look at the history of words, but I just don't understand why **за** gives verbs this meaning of &quot;to start&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation is welcome)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. зашевелиться&#xD;&#xA; 2. загудеть&#xD;&#xA; 3. запеть&#xD;&#xA; 4. засмеяться&#xD;&#xA; 5. заговорить&#xD;&#xA; 6. зацвести&#xD;&#xA; 7. заплакать&#xD;&#xA; 8. забе́гать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All mean, to start, begin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="e64aad8e-1f41-4f2e-bf37-41563b62afaf" CreationDate="2015-10-27T01:52:07.860" UserId="1097" Text="From [wiktionary.org][1] (English)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. начать выполнять соответствующее действие: стучать → застучать; болеть → заболеть.&#xD;&#xA;2. совершить заранее или впрок действие, названное производящим словом: готовить → заготовить; планировать → запланировать.&#xD;&#xA;3. довести до результативного завершения действие, названное производящим словом: асфальтировать → заасфальти́ровать; бетонировать → забетони́ровать. &#xD;&#xA;4. действие над предметом, объектом, в результате которого последний оказывается за какой-либо воображаемой или материальной линией: плыть → заплыть; бросить → забросить; брести → забрести. &#xD;&#xA;5. покрыть или покрыться, прикрыть или прикрыться чем-либо с помощью действия, названого производящим словом: брызгать → забрызгать; мазать → замазать; потеть → запотеть.&#xD;&#xA;6. чрезмерная интенсивность действия или доведение объекта до нежелательного состояния: читать → зачитать. &#xD;&#xA;7. создание преграды, препятствия, помехи: забаррикадировать, загромоздить, забаллотировать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11041" RevisionGUID="b584a02c-fab7-475a-930b-4d8fc1c86df5" CreationDate="2015-10-27T02:06:34.303" UserId="1097" Comment="shorten text" Text="From [wiktionary.org][1] (English)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Начать выполнять действие: стучать → застучать; болеть → заболеть.&#xD;&#xA;2. Совершить заранее или впрок: готовить → заготовить; планировать → запланировать.&#xD;&#xA;3. Довести до результативного завершения: асфальтировать → заасфальти́ровать; бетонировать → забетони́ровать. &#xD;&#xA;4. Действие над предметом, объектом, в результате которого последний оказывается за какой-либо воображаемой или материальной линией: плыть → заплыть; бросить → забросить; брести → забрести. &#xD;&#xA;5. Покрыть или покрыться, прикрыть или прикрыться чем-либо: брызгать → забрызгать; мазать → замазать; потеть → запотеть.&#xD;&#xA;6. Чрезмерная интенсивность действия или доведение объекта до нежелательного состояния: читать → зачитать; таскать → затаскать. &#xD;&#xA;7. Создание преграды, препятствия, помехи: забаррикадировать, загромоздить, забаллотировать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11005" RevisionGUID="d41022d9-768c-44d4-89a3-2eea4df8e121" CreationDate="2015-10-27T05:01:23.520" UserId="5389" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text=" - 1 мину**та**&#xD;&#xA; - 2,3,4 мину**ты**&#xD;&#xA; - 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 мину**т**&#xD;&#xA; - 11-19 мину**т**&#xD;&#xA; - numbers ending with 0 (zero): 0, 10, 20... мину**т**&#xD;&#xA; - Others depend on the last digit according to first 3 rules (2**1** мину**та**, 3**2** мину**ты**, 4**5** мину**т**)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25362" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="db82a3f5-98d8-4015-bea6-df5b4953718e" CreationDate="2015-10-27T06:36:08.933" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the logic behind &quot;за&quot; as a prefix indicating start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11042" RevisionGUID="4c50f9df-d94a-4e45-86f6-8dc35f3686c1" CreationDate="2015-10-27T09:06:33.180" UserId="5443" Text="The *logic* behind it can be seen within a more general function of &quot;**за-**&quot;: the addition of '**change of state**' sense to a verb. That includes 2 different aspects: a) **productivity of action** aimed at changing something/somebody (*забить, забронировать*) and b) bringing something/somebody to a **new condition** by putting into action (= *beginning* that action) expressed by that verb (*засмеяться, заверещать*). The '*change of state*' concept is more typical for some other languages like Chinese, where the corresponding sense is provided by addition of the particle 'le' (了) after the verb. While in Russian such a generalisation is rarely discussed, I find it useful for explanation here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25364" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10880" RevisionGUID="20400ae6-fa5d-4aa5-84e3-bf8183abd2ba" CreationDate="2015-10-27T15:02:42.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/659022413129191424" />
  <row Id="25365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="1603733d-dffa-4c48-8898-afffc0555316" CreationDate="2015-10-28T01:26:59.227" UserId="4714" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the logic behind &quot;за&quot; as a prefix indicating &quot;to start&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11043" RevisionGUID="7bc2fc7f-ada3-4f58-a782-26f4fbb6c1d9" CreationDate="2015-10-28T04:48:58.460" UserId="5288" Text="Let's take an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **За**шёл **за** угол, **за** которым **за**был **за**крыть **за**движку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of grammarians accepted that verbs in *Infinitive* behave in mind as nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Verb = an Action`**,**     &#xD;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;за&lt;/kbd&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(prep. or prefix)&lt;/sub&gt; = move, slide, transit; &lt;sub&gt; *and after still holds in a new state, denoted by that noun.* &lt;/sub&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;That's the key. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actions in the example are: `шёл, был, крыть.`     &#xD;&#xA;*Шёл* = he pictured as he was in the action 'walking'. Where he had to walk, is unknown, and that's the first state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let take a look at the noun, `угол` — an abstract idea. The mind has a state, say, keeping the mind's picture of `угол,` then the state moved to the more definitely state, after we're hearing `за угол, в угол, на угол.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say `Прошёл за угол,` then we mean: he passed the corner by walking along (around) the point of the corner. `Зашёл за угол` will be means: he's state of walking made a transition, and now he is already at the invisible side of the corner. And we track both states in the mind: first, he had been walked (nowhere), and now stood at the side of the corner.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Зашёл за угол за которым забыл закрыть задвижку.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means: &#xD;&#xA;         зашёл      = now he is already into the new state of action идти;&#xD;&#xA;         за угол    = now he is already at the invisible side of the corner;&#xD;&#xA;         за которым = behind that;&#xD;&#xA;         забыл      = now he is already into the failed state of memory;&#xD;&#xA;    забыл + закрыть = he's never been in the state of closing smth;&#xD;&#xA;         задвижка   = the bolt (a metal bar that you slide across a door).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="610ff72d-e280-4b65-9217-1f277612bda6" CreationDate="2015-10-28T11:58:05.873" UserId="6165" Text="Checking **o/a** with finding the same root based words doesn't work if there is an alternation of vowels in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A** Here is the list of alternation vowels roots with o/a inside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. з**а**р – з**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 2. кл**а**н – кл**о**н&#xD;&#xA; 3. тв**а**р – тв**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 4. л**а**г – л**о**ж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to write what you here, if it stressed, and **o** otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| загар огарок – [загАр, агАрак]                |&#xD;&#xA;| загорел горелый [загар'Эл, гар'Элый]          |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| кланяться поклон [клАнитса, паклОн]           |&#xD;&#xA;| наклонять склонение [наклан'Ат', склан'Энийэ] |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| тварь творчество [твАр', твОрчиства]          |&#xD;&#xA;| творить растворять [ тварИт', раствар'Ат']    |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B** Another confusing case is a connecting vowel between roots. Word can be composed of two different ones.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you always have to write **о**, because there is no connecting vowel **а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;сам**о**лёт, пар**о**ход, тепл**о**воз, красн**о**-зелёный, жёлт**о**-оранжевый (compound colors always are written with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C** Also if the word has been borrowed from other language (French, German or English for example) it usually follows transliteration rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**оппонент**&quot; that sounds like [апан'энт] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**opponent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**лотерея**&quot; &lt;–&gt; &quot;**lottery**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**монитор**&quot; &lt;–&gt; &quot;**monitor**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="7fbf6f8d-97a8-46b6-b108-881e29ecd98c" CreationDate="2015-10-28T12:18:58.990" UserId="6165" Comment="There is special term for softening, adding &quot;unsoftable&quot; letters for instance" Text="For a proper pronounce you should know three things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- iotizing&#xD;&#xA;- softening&#xD;&#xA;- reduction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Iotizing_ means that if _Е_ stands at the beginning of the word, or after another vowel, or after hard or soft sign (Ь or Ъ), then it's _iotized_, i.e. it produces two sounds: Й+Э (as in _YEllow_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Softening_(_Palatalization_) means that if _Е_ stands after a consonant, then the consonant becomes a &quot;soft variant&quot;(&quot;palatalized&quot;). (Note that _Е_ gives only one sound &quot;Э&quot;, as in _Elbow_, in this case). But if the consonant has no &quot;soft variant&quot;[Ш, Ж, Ц], then it doesn't change, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is `Ель -&gt; ЙЭл'`; `ЛЕc -&gt; Л'Эс`; `МЕль -&gt;М'Эл'`; `ЖЕчь -&gt; ЖЭч'`; `ШЕст -&gt; ШЭст` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still one step remains so far. It's the _Reduction_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Reduction_ may be applied to _unstressed_ vowel (after proper iotizing and softening!)  to pronounce it differently, so this is a matter of a dialect. Usually, unstressed Russian &quot;Е&quot; gives &quot;И&quot; (this is the most standard way, called [&quot;Иканье&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5)). Though saying just &quot;Э&quot; is OK too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;_**Е**(кат**е**ринбург)_&quot; usually yields &quot;_Й**И**(кат'**и**р'инбурх)_&quot;. But stressed vowel is never changed, e.g.: _подъ**Е**зд_ -&gt; _пад**ЙЭ**ст_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25369" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11028" RevisionGUID="7fbf6f8d-97a8-46b6-b108-881e29ecd98c" CreationDate="2015-10-28T12:18:58.990" Comment="Proposed by 6165 approved by 5008 edit id of 694" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11045" RevisionGUID="daeb4ebf-0238-44ad-99a8-244448260f96" CreationDate="2015-10-28T14:05:26.617" UserId="6199" Text="Все зависит от конкретных обязанностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;В семье:&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Нянь&quot; - шутливо.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Няня-мужчина&quot; - официально. Если этот мужчина занимается еще и воспитанием детей, то &quot;гувернёр&quot;. Если кроме ухода за детьми занимается работой по дому - &quot;горничный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Слуга&quot; - уничижительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В детском саду: &quot;воспитатель&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Санитар&quot;, &quot;медбрат&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11045" RevisionGUID="87279c32-14a3-497a-be2e-281efaa247f0" CreationDate="2015-10-28T14:22:32.140" UserId="6199" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Все зависит от конкретных обязанностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;В семье:&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Нянь&quot; - шутливо.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Няня-мужчина&quot; - официально. Если этот мужчина занимается еще и воспитанием детей (а не только уходом за ними), то &quot;гувернёр&quot;, &quot;воспитатель&quot;, &quot;няня-воспитатель&quot;. Если кроме ухода за детьми занимается работой по дому - &quot;горничный&quot;, &quot;домработник&quot; (наиболее официально), &quot;эконом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Слуга&quot; - уничижительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В детском саду: &quot;воспитатель&quot;, &quot;работник детского сада&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Санитар&quot;, &quot;медбрат&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11046" RevisionGUID="47fac145-0e0e-45ba-8239-3369379849a4" CreationDate="2015-10-28T16:23:15.140" UserId="4892" Text="I have read this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*какие професии **наиболее** востребованы?*&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;which translates &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Which jobs are the most needed?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so here &quot;the most (+ adjective)&quot; is rendered with *наиболее*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is: to translate &quot;the most...&quot; I have always said **&quot;самый + adjective&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am confused. Why did they use *наиболее*? &#xD;&#xA; Could it be possibile to write here *&quot;самые востребованы&quot;*? Are they interchangable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how can I make a form similar to наиболее with other adjecives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11046" RevisionGUID="47fac145-0e0e-45ba-8239-3369379849a4" CreationDate="2015-10-28T16:23:15.140" UserId="4892" Text="difference between наиболее and" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11046" RevisionGUID="47fac145-0e0e-45ba-8239-3369379849a4" CreationDate="2015-10-28T16:23:15.140" UserId="4892" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25375" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11046" RevisionGUID="5b492898-becf-454b-b272-81ac015cb8f8" CreationDate="2015-10-28T16:51:08.223" UserId="4892" Comment="edited title" Text="difference between наиболее and самый + adjective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11047" RevisionGUID="33144e26-d222-4534-9060-74f7c63790ec" CreationDate="2015-10-28T16:51:58.733" UserId="6200" Text="Неправильно - &quot;Самые востребованы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Правильно - &quot;Самые востребованные&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Why did they use наиболее?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Я не знаю и никто не знает. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excuse my English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11048" RevisionGUID="03eb07bd-b6ac-4b7e-8c9d-d833d52ce8a3" CreationDate="2015-10-28T17:16:22.067" UserId="5915" Text="An adjective (or an attributive pronoun like &quot;самый&quot;) is not used to modify a **short version** of an adjective or participle like &quot;*востребован*&quot;, &quot;*болен*&quot;, &quot;*бел*&quot;, etc.  Olny **an adverb** would do.  An adverb can, of course, modify the full form of the same adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весёлый** -- *самый* весёлый, ***but*** **весел** -- *предельно&lt;sub&gt;adverb&lt;/sub&gt;* весел (cannot say *самый весел*, but can say *предельно* весёлый)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глупый** -- *самый* глупый, ***but*** **глуп**  -- *неописуемо&lt;sub&gt;adverb&lt;/sub&gt;* глуп (cannot say *самый глуп*, but can say *неописуемо* глупый)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="0dd69ece-a2ab-48ab-af1a-dd0174382c04" CreationDate="2015-10-28T17:22:37.047" UserId="5008" Text="&gt; I have always said &quot;самый + adjective&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two forms of superlative in Russian: simple (using suffixes _-айш-_ or _-ейш-_, and, optionally, the prefix _наи-_) and complex one. To form a complex form you also have a couple of variants using either: _самый_, or _наиболее_, or _наименее_ + adjective/participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet what you have here is _the short form_ of participle (_востребованы_), which prohibits the usage of the adjective _самый_. That is the possible combinations are: _наиболее востребованные_, _наиболее востребованы_, _самые востребованные_ and _востребованнейшие_ (the latter is strongly discouraged in normal speech)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11050" RevisionGUID="892181df-b4f2-4a91-a623-b7b531955176" CreationDate="2015-10-28T17:44:15.407" UserId="6201" Text="As far as I know, наиболее is a bit more formal than самый. In terms of meaning I would say they're interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;Anyway, keep in mind that наиболее is an adverb, while самый is an adjective, so the latter must be declined.&#xD;&#xA;The two possible options are: 1. наиболее востребованы 2. самы**е** востребован**ные**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I'm not Russian, so it might not be 100% correct :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11049" RevisionGUID="bf8924c9-502a-4c09-82c7-232588432208" CreationDate="2015-10-28T18:19:14.813" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 85 characters in body" Text="&gt; I have always said &quot;самый + adjective&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two forms of superlative in Russian: simple (using suffixes _-айш-_ or _-ейш-_, and, optionally, the prefix _наи-_) and complex one. To form a complex superlative you also have a couple of variants using either: _самый_, or _наиболее_, or _наименее_ + adjective/participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet what you have here is _the short form_ (_востребованы_), which prohibits the usage of the adjective _самый_. That is the possible combinations are: _наиболее востребованные_, _наиболее востребованы_, _самые востребованные_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="42aaace5-f5f5-442d-9cc7-93871df7bf09" CreationDate="2015-10-29T04:11:30.720" UserId="5932" Text="Я слышал разные способы сказать &quot;класс&quot; или &quot;круто&quot;, но не знаю как правильно използоваться и когда они подходящие. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пацанский подгон&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ништяк&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Угарчик&quot; ( по моему это была шутка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Классно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знаете ли Вы какие-нибудь дополнительные способы выразить это чувство?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо за помощь " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="42aaace5-f5f5-442d-9cc7-93871df7bf09" CreationDate="2015-10-29T04:11:30.720" UserId="5932" Text="Как правильно использоваться эти выражение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="42aaace5-f5f5-442d-9cc7-93871df7bf09" CreationDate="2015-10-29T04:11:30.720" UserId="5932" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="528e2705-7b93-4f29-a0c5-2311b0d86f57" CreationDate="2015-10-29T04:13:39.777" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Я слышал разные способы сказать &quot;класс&quot; или &quot;круто&quot;, но не знаю как правильно използовать их и когда они уместны. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пацанский подгон&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ништяк&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Угарчик&quot; (по моему, это была шутка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Классно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знаете ли Вы какие-нибудь дополнительные способы выразить это чувство?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25386" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="528e2705-7b93-4f29-a0c5-2311b0d86f57" CreationDate="2015-10-29T04:13:39.777" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Синонимы &quot;класс&quot; и &quot;круто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="528e2705-7b93-4f29-a0c5-2311b0d86f57" CreationDate="2015-10-29T04:13:39.777" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11052" RevisionGUID="d9f3688d-3a4a-422b-85a9-a5a20ca8a477" CreationDate="2015-10-29T07:53:32.603" UserId="5008" Text="_Подгон_ на жаргоне означает &quot;подарок, подношение&quot;. То есть выражение &quot;пацанский подгон&quot; можно понять как &quot;_достойный подарок_&quot;, &quot;подарок, достойный настоящего мужчины&quot; (_пацан_ на жаргоне - это что-то вроде macho, bro и т.п.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ништяк_ - это довольно многозначное слово. Помимо _круто / cool_ вполне может использоваться и в смысле &quot;_ценная вещь_&quot;, &quot;особая привилегия&quot; и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Угар_ (так же как и _прикол_) означает _веселье_, _смех_ (fun). В принципе, разница между &quot;весело&quot; и &quot;круто&quot; (fun vs cool) существует, но иногда о ней просто забывают ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Класс_ - слово явно со &quot;школьными&quot; корнями. Лично я его воспринимаю как несколько облегчённую версию &quot;_круто_&quot;, но, на самом деле, оба слова весьма распространены и встречаются буквально повсюду. Пытаться найти между ними какие-то различия, это примерно то же самое, что выяснить, чем отличается _cool_ от _awesome_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме указанных слов есть ещё масса других, которые можно использовать для выражения &quot;сильных и светлых&quot; чувств, наподобие _чума_, _отпад_, _зашибись_, _балдёж_, _клёво_, _вот это тема_ и пр. и пр. Но вообще, жаргон всегда и везде признак социальной субкультуры. Так что если есть желание ограничиться наиболее обычными формами, приемлемыми для большинства граждан, то это _класс / классно_ и _круто_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11053" RevisionGUID="a307085b-1c8e-4337-9e95-3654b4ebfacd" CreationDate="2015-10-29T14:23:54.980" UserId="6204" Text="I stumbled upon Nikolaych, which I assume is a short form of Nikolayevich.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do all Russian patronymics have such forms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there a simple rule to form them? Please give examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How are they used in real life? Only when addressing someone or also in written?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11053" RevisionGUID="a307085b-1c8e-4337-9e95-3654b4ebfacd" CreationDate="2015-10-29T14:23:54.980" UserId="6204" Text="How are the short forms of Russian patronymics formed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11053" RevisionGUID="a307085b-1c8e-4337-9e95-3654b4ebfacd" CreationDate="2015-10-29T14:23:54.980" UserId="6204" Text="|узус|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="a8d71cab-4aa9-4bb0-a7a9-357804381bdd" CreationDate="2015-10-29T14:59:03.427" UserId="185" Comment="formatting to make it easier to read" Text="Please tell me how the written “e” pronounces. I have checked various online resources and am still not sure about it. I have found the following rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“e” is pronounced as: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii – at begin of words, after vowels, after ь, after ъ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i – between consonant and vowel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ie – at the end of a word, after the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25393" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10961" RevisionGUID="31e1db15-5a59-48f0-badb-8945525fe006" CreationDate="2015-10-29T15:00:21.127" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7082],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4801,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vilmar&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:185,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Olga&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="e831f788-9e3c-44bb-b1fc-b30cef67b31f" CreationDate="2015-10-29T15:08:58.217" UserId="6131" Comment="опечатки, запятые" Text="Я слышал разные способы сказать &quot;класс&quot; или &quot;круто&quot;, но не знаю, как правильно использовать их и когда они уместны. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пацанский подгон&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ништяк&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Угарчик&quot; (по-моему, это была шутка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Классно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знаете ли Вы какие-нибудь дополнительные способы выразить это чувство?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25395" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="e831f788-9e3c-44bb-b1fc-b30cef67b31f" CreationDate="2015-10-29T15:08:58.217" Comment="Proposed by 6131 approved by 5008, 5915 edit id of 695" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="3ec0d85d-58ec-4b64-a348-a7b6e1a1ad31" CreationDate="2015-10-29T15:47:30.103" UserId="1236" Text="If the father's name ends in _-й_ (like _Андре**й**_, _Серге**й**_, _Тимофе**й**_, _Никола**й**_, etc.), the masculine form of the patronymic ends in an unstressed _-евич_ [jɪvɪtʃ], e.g. _Андреевич_ [ənˈdrejɪvɪtʃ]. In this case in the colloquial language this _-евич_ [jɪvɪtʃ] can be shortened/reduced to _-[й]ич_ [(j)ɪtʃ] with the final _-й_ of the father's name dropping out or not, depending on the speaker, so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Андреевич_ [ənˈdrejɪvɪtʃ] &gt; _Андре[й]ич_ [ənˈdre(j)ɪtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Николаевич_ [nɪkəˈlɑjɪvɪtʃ] &gt; _Никола[й]ич_ [nɪkəˈlɑ(j)ɪtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father's name ends in another consonant (like *Степа**н***, _Кири**лл**_, _Вади**м**_, etc.), then the masculine form of the patronymic ends in an unstressed _-ович_ [əvɪtʃ], e.g. _Степанович_ [stɪ'pɑnəvɪtʃ]. In this case in the colloquial language this _-ович_ [əvɪtʃ] can be shortened/reduced to _-ыч_ [ɨtʃ], so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Степанович_ [stɪ'pɑnəvɪtʃ] &gt;  _Степаныч_ [stɪ'pɑnɨtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Кириллович_ [kɪ'riləvɪtʃ] &gt; _Кирилыч_ [kɪ'rilɨtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, however, does not apply to some names, e.g. although _Оле**г**_ ends in a consonant, you can hardly hear somebogy saying _*Олегыч_, since the sound combination _гы_ is normally not found in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, _Петрович_ has no reduced form, since _Пётр_ is a monosyllabic name and the suffix _-ович_ is stressed in it, so it cannot be reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some names have irregular colloquial patronymics mentioned by [Schullz][1] and [user4419802][2] in the comments to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Алексáндрович_ &gt; _Сáныч_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Михáйлович_ &gt; _Михáлыч_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Пáвлович_ &gt; _Пáлыч_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/6131/schullz&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11055" RevisionGUID="c0f6ed30-7ed8-4b48-bb5e-20a68bda51d7" CreationDate="2015-10-29T16:06:52.603" UserId="2284" Text="1. *Do all Russian patronymics have such forms?* No. For example, Ilyich and Petrovna are never reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Is there a simple rule to form them?* What you took for short forms are merely phonetic reductions. Therefore, they are formed by some kind of a natural process. When unstressed, elaborate suffixes such as *-yevich*, *-ovich*, *-yevna*, *-ovna* are reduced, the ultimate forms being *-ich* (*i* often being slightly iotified), *-ych*, *-na*, *-vna*: *Andre&lt;s&gt;yev&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Andreich*, *Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Ivanych*, *Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Ivanna*, *Nikola&lt;s&gt;yev&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Nikolavna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Reductions may affect the stem of the word: *Mikha&lt;s&gt;i&lt;/s&gt;l&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Mikhalych*, *Andre&lt;s&gt;yev&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Andrevna*. Name and patronymic of someone you're quite familiar with often form a tightly coupled compound which is pronounced as if it were a single word with stress on the name, heavily reduced: *Mikha&lt;s&gt;i&lt;/s&gt;l Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Mikhalyvanych*, or even *Mikhalvanch*, *Mar&lt;s&gt;ya&lt;/s&gt; Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Marivanna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The sounds that fall out may not vanish entirely. In fact, when they do so, it is perceived as something somewhat coarse and rustic; however, between good friends that may be a sign of cordiality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *How are they used in real life?* Clear articulation of unstressed '-yevich', '-ovich', '-ovna' or '-yevna' is encountered but rarely; but '-yich' and '-nichna' are usually pronounced quite clearly. *Only when addressing someone or also in written?* Original forms of names and patronymics are almost always retained in writing (except for example when the writer wants to give a character's speech a kind of uneducated touch). There are also some special usages. For example, *Marivanna* is an archetypal teacher often appearing in [Vovochka jokes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes#Vovochka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="aaabd644-0d84-441f-9268-033c356a67f1" CreationDate="2015-10-29T19:06:35.340" UserId="4892" Text="I find it difficult to understand how to translate some english expression you use to &quot;link&quot; sentences, in order to make your language more fluent.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ok let's meet tomorrow at 9... **By the way**, you can ask your friends if they want to join us&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;blablabla(long speech going on)...**anyway**, let's cut this boring conversaion, I want to show you my new car&quot; --&gt; change of topic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I forgot to buy the cake. It doesn't do much good, **anyway**&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can each of these sentences be translated in russian? Please provide me with some variants (if they exist) of *formal/informal* kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="aaabd644-0d84-441f-9268-033c356a67f1" CreationDate="2015-10-29T19:06:35.340" UserId="4892" Text="How to translate &quot;by the way&quot; and &quot;anyway&quot;: linker expressions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="aaabd644-0d84-441f-9268-033c356a67f1" CreationDate="2015-10-29T19:06:35.340" UserId="4892" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11057" RevisionGUID="64d6d816-a1e7-4d4d-aca2-013e3c003c15" CreationDate="2015-10-29T20:00:07.973" UserId="5915" Text="The usual translation of &quot;*by the way*&quot; is &quot;**кстати**&quot; or &quot;**к слову**&quot; or &quot;**между прочим**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual phrase used where an English speaker would use &quot;*anyway*&quot; is &quot;**как бы то ни было**&quot; or any other introductory phrase or word, like, &quot;**ну**&quot;, &quot;**ну что же**&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ok let's meet tomorrow at 9... **By the way**, you can ask your friends if they want to join us&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be  &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Ладно, давайте встретимся завтра в 9...  **Кстати**, вы можете спросить своих друзей, не хотят ли они к нам присоединиться.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**Anyway**, let's cut this boring conversaion, I want to show you my new car.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be   &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;**Ну,** давайте прекратим эту пустую болтовню, я хочу вам свою новую &quot;тачку&quot; показать.&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11055" RevisionGUID="fe654954-386e-463c-a09a-95ea16f4f8b5" CreationDate="2015-10-29T20:00:38.787" UserId="2284" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="1. *Do all Russian patronymics have such forms?* No. For example, Ilyich and Petrovna are never reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Is there a simple rule to form them?* What you took for short forms are merely phonetic reductions. Therefore, they are formed by some kind of a natural process. When unstressed, elaborate suffixes such as *-yevich*, *-ovich*, *-yevna*, *-ovna* are reduced, the ultimate forms being *-ich* (*i* often being slightly iotified), *-ych*, *-na*, *-vna*: *Andre&lt;s&gt;yev&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Andreich*, *Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Ivanych*, *Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Ivanna*, *Nikola&lt;s&gt;yev&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Nikolavna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Reductions may affect the stem of the word: *Mikha&lt;s&gt;i&lt;/s&gt;l&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Mikhalych*, *Andre&lt;s&gt;ye&lt;/s&gt;vna*-&gt;*Andrevna*. Name and patronymic of someone you're quite familiar with often form a tightly coupled compound which is pronounced as if it were a single word with stress on the name, heavily reduced: *Mikha&lt;s&gt;i&lt;/s&gt;l Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;ich*-&gt;*Mikhalyvanych*, or even *Mikhalvanch*, *Mar&lt;s&gt;ya&lt;/s&gt; Ivan&lt;s&gt;ov&lt;/s&gt;na*-&gt;*Marivanna*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The sounds that fall out may not vanish entirely. In fact, when they do so, it is perceived as something somewhat coarse and rustic; however, between good friends that may be a sign of cordiality, reproach etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *How are they used in real life?* Clear articulation of unstressed *-yevich*, *-ovich*, *-ovna* or *-yevna* is done only to help someone with spelling. Otherwise they are reduced even in formal context. *-ich* and *-inichna* are always stressed and therefore pronounced quite clearly.&#xA;&#xA; *Only when addressing someone or also in written?* Original forms of names and patronymics are almost always retained in writing (except for example when the writer wants to give a character's speech a kind of uneducated touch). There are also some special usages. For example, *Marivanna* is an archetypal teacher often appearing in [Vovochka jokes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes#Vovochka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25404" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11053" RevisionGUID="210db72b-02b4-4ca5-ae1d-6905e44c4e00" CreationDate="2015-10-30T00:04:57.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/659883651975544832" />
  <row Id="25409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="363f5eba-56b3-4b38-a8da-aef5369fce57" CreationDate="2015-10-30T05:16:31.233" UserId="6153" Text="Why in the following sentence we use&#xD;&#xA;`было` instead of `был`, since we're talking about the husband? (Муж in this case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Жена́ не выходи́ла из свои́х ко́мнат, му́жа тре́тий день не бы́ло до́ма.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English: *The wife did not leave her own room, the husband had not been at home for three days.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to follow an audiobook without worrying about grammar, but trying also to 'confirm' what i already know (or thought i knew lol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="363f5eba-56b3-4b38-a8da-aef5369fce57" CreationDate="2015-10-30T05:16:31.233" UserId="6153" Text="Verb was with masculine noum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="363f5eba-56b3-4b38-a8da-aef5369fce57" CreationDate="2015-10-30T05:16:31.233" UserId="6153" Text="|грамматика|падежи|склонение|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11060" RevisionGUID="f3684e9b-7ef9-4170-b38e-d5686e2c7a86" CreationDate="2015-10-30T06:47:44.647" UserId="5389" Text="It is so called **impersonal sentence** (_безличное предложение_). In your case the main member of the sentence is expressed with a negative form of the predicate (_не было_) in combination with a noun in the genitive (_мужа_). Here the emphasis is on the **absence** of the husband (_There was not the husband..._), while &quot;муж не был дома&quot; tells us about **non-attendance** of the husband (_The husband was not..._). Verbs in impersonal sentences come in the form of neuter gender, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples,  &#xD;&#xA;Personal affirmative sentences, nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Я дома* - I am home&#xD;&#xA; - *Я был дома* - I was home&#xD;&#xA; - *Я буду дома* - I will be home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal negative sentences, genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Меня нет дома_ - I am not home, there is not me in the house, the house is &quot;empty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Меня не было дома* - I was not home, there was not me...&#xD;&#xA;- *Меня не будет дома* - I will not be home, there will not be me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal negative sentences, nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не дома* - I am not home, I am in some other place&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не был дома* - I was not home, I didn't visit it (as a fact of visiting)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не буду дома* - I will not be home, I will not visit it (as a fact of visiting)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11060" RevisionGUID="44701cd7-1b69-45e2-b747-6dde61be94d2" CreationDate="2015-10-30T06:57:00.737" UserId="5389" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="It is so called **impersonal sentence** (_безличное предложение_). In your case the main member of the sentence is expressed with a negative form of the predicate (_не было_) in combination with a noun in the genitive (_мужа_). Here the emphasis is on the **absence** of the husband (_There was not the husband..._), while &quot;муж не был дома&quot; tells us about **non-attendance** of the husband (_The husband was not..._). Verbs in impersonal sentences come in the form of neuter gender, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples,  &#xD;&#xA;Personal affirmative sentences, nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Я дома* - I am home&#xD;&#xA; - *Я был дома* - I was home&#xD;&#xA; - *Я буду дома* - I will be home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal negative sentences, genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Меня нет дома_ - I am not home, there is not me in the house, the house is &quot;empty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Меня не было дома* - I was not home, there was not me...&#xD;&#xA;- *Меня не будет дома* - I will not be home, there will not be me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal negative sentences, nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не дома* - I am not home, I am in some other place&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не был дома* - I was not home, I didn't visit it (as a fact of visiting)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не буду дома* - I will not be home, I will not visit it (as a fact of visiting)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11061" RevisionGUID="076e0976-b82d-42ea-93d2-c64b19c05974" CreationDate="2015-10-30T07:29:06.337" UserId="5008" Text="**By the way** usually corresponds to **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**By the way**, you can ask your friends if they want to join us --&gt; **Кстати**, ты можешь пригласить своих друзей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anyway** can be different depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Anyway**, let's cut this boring conversation --&gt; **Ладно**, давай оставим этот скучный разговор (or maybe simply &quot;_Ладно_, хватит об этом&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It doesn't do much good, **anyway** --&gt; **Всё равно**, он не очень" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11061" RevisionGUID="0fe8463f-c38e-4112-955c-a171c0e624de" CreationDate="2015-10-30T07:35:17.720" UserId="5008" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**By the way** usually corresponds to **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**By the way**, you can ask your friends if they want to join us --&gt; **Кстати**, ты можешь пригласить своих друзей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anyway** can be different depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Anyway**, let's cut this boring conversation --&gt; **Ладно**, давай оставим этот скучный разговор (or maybe simply &quot;_Ладно_, хватит об этом&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It doesn't do much good, **anyway** --&gt; А, **всё равно** это ни к чему (or maybe _Всё равно_ бе́з толку)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11062" RevisionGUID="0bb78c0d-940b-44a3-8de6-d03c9a3569cb" CreationDate="2015-10-30T09:00:14.403" UserId="194" Text="by the way = между прочим, кстати&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;anyway = в любом случае&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11060" RevisionGUID="0ae992f4-22b4-45db-a856-e08d66bb4e60" CreationDate="2015-10-30T09:11:49.920" UserId="5008" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It is so called **impersonal sentence** (_безличное предложение_). In your case the main member of the sentence is expressed with a negative form of the predicate (_не было_) in combination with a noun in the genitive (_мужа_). Here the emphasis is on the **absence** of the husband (_There was no husband at home_), while &quot;муж не был дома&quot; tells us about **non-attendance** of the husband (_The husband was not at home_). Verbs in impersonal sentences come in the form of neuter gender, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples,  &#xD;&#xA;Personal affirmative sentences, nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Я дома* - I am home&#xD;&#xA; - *Я был дома* - I was home&#xD;&#xA; - *Я буду дома* - I will be home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal negative sentences, genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Меня нет дома_ - I am not home, there is not me in the house, the house is &quot;empty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- *Меня не было дома* - I was not home, there was not me...&#xD;&#xA;- *Меня не будет дома* - I will not be home, there will not be me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personal negative sentences, nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не дома* - I am not home, I am in some other place&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не был дома* - I was not home, I didn't visit it (as a fact of visiting)&#xD;&#xA;- *Я не буду дома* - I will not be home, I will not visit it (as a fact of visiting)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="f00955e9-42c8-4b52-ac00-c8e990a1dd00" CreationDate="2015-10-30T17:58:01.727" UserId="6210" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to write a letter in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...своим родственникам друзьям&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean...my guess is &quot;..their relatives and friends&quot; but I am a little uncertain about the conjugation. Is it because the chain of words is in dative and that the reason why the words ends in -им -ам and -ям?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="f00955e9-42c8-4b52-ac00-c8e990a1dd00" CreationDate="2015-10-30T17:58:01.727" UserId="6210" Text="Please explain this expression" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="f00955e9-42c8-4b52-ac00-c8e990a1dd00" CreationDate="2015-10-30T17:58:01.727" UserId="6210" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="b29ff004-aeec-4c6e-920e-5f454f799971" CreationDate="2015-10-30T17:58:38.843" UserId="6187" Text="I am a beginner at Russian, interest triggered by the availability of masses of old Russian scores at IMSLP. (So the first words I learnt were для, хора, фортепиано, оркестра and others in the genitive!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I have learnt three words already for &quot;piano&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - фортепиано : as in Сюита для двух фортепиано -- what it says in scores&#xD;&#xA; - пианино : &quot;upright piano&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - рояль : &quot;grand piano&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today I found this dialog, which says that people at a music school learn пианино...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp8hXo9HdpE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is: in ordinary conversation, how do I refer to the instrument I play? (Which is an upright at home, but a grand when I have the chance...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="b29ff004-aeec-4c6e-920e-5f454f799971" CreationDate="2015-10-30T17:58:38.843" UserId="6187" Text="Words for &quot;piano&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25430" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11065" RevisionGUID="b29ff004-aeec-4c6e-920e-5f454f799971" CreationDate="2015-10-30T17:58:38.843" UserId="6187" Text="|музыка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="2fecf617-7e2d-4f3a-badf-8dc4fdbce98e" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:25:55.493" UserId="6210" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="I am trying to write a letter in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...своим родственникам друзьям&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean...my guess is &quot;..their relatives and friends&quot; but I am a little uncertain about the conjugation. Is it because the chain of words is controlled by a feminine noun that in dative and that the reason why the words ends in -им -ам and -ям?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="742b4c63-d547-4291-be01-ef19016e5d9d" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:32:59.643" UserId="6210" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I am trying to write a letter in russian. I am new to this language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...своим родственникам друзьям&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean...my guess is &quot;..their relatives and friends&quot; but I am a little uncertain about the conjugation. Is it because the chain of words is controlled by a feminine noun that in dative and that the reason why the words ends in -им -ам and -ям?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="86d6c1d3-99f1-4bd9-a569-d21612c5a2d3" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:35:48.337" UserId="5389" Text="&quot;Пианино&quot; and &quot;рояль&quot; are two kinds of &quot;фортепиано&quot;. The 1st one has vertical string set, the 2nd one - horizontal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer is: say &quot;**Фортепиано**&quot; in the general case, and &quot;пианино&quot; and &quot;рояль&quot; when you talk about these specific kinds of &quot;фортепиано&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11067" RevisionGUID="56d1d6cb-3429-4fd2-83e9-f0f05ae5d8ac" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:40:32.940" UserId="5008" Text="Two consecutive datives have no sense. Should be a comma or &quot;and&quot; between them, just like in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Свой_ is a reflexive pronoun. It may mean _my_, _your_, _their_ or whatever depending on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11068" RevisionGUID="0b9dd838-8f92-4dd7-91aa-66c363ea940c" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:42:43.050" UserId="5915" Text="Something is missing between the second and the third word in the expression.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...своим родственникам друзьям&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a phrase that has two nouns (родственникам, друзьям) and one (reflexive possessive) pronoun which you correctly identified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case is Dative, which answers the question &quot;to whom&quot; or &quot;for whom&quot; (not a simple translation of course, in Russian it's &quot;кому&quot;).  All words are in the dative case, as if you &quot;give&quot; them something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Roman points out, a conjunction 'и' might be missing, or a comma (to make it&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;...своим родственникам и друзьям&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;...своим родственникам, друзьям&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11066" RevisionGUID="7fbb5025-423e-4fd0-963a-8a3d83f61e45" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:46:30.803" UserId="5389" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="&quot;Пианино&quot; and &quot;рояль&quot; are two kinds of &quot;фортепиано&quot;. The 1st one has vertical string set, the 2nd one - horizontal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer is: say &quot;**Фортепиано**&quot; in the general case, and &quot;пианино&quot; and &quot;рояль&quot; when you talk about these specific kinds of &quot;фортепиано&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я умею играть на фортепиано&#xD;&#xA;- У меня дома есть пианино&#xD;&#xA;- Я вернулся с концерта - за роялем был мой любимый исполнитель!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11064" RevisionGUID="1ae512da-c966-4ad4-bdc2-6377748221ef" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:48:42.907" UserId="6210" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I am trying to write a letter in russian. I am new to this language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...,юлди всё ещё посылают телеграммы своим родственникам друзьям&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean...my guess is &quot;..their relatives and friends&quot; but I am a little uncertain about the conjugation. Is it because the chain of words is controlled by a feminine noun that in dative and that the reason why the words ends in -им -ам and -ям?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11069" RevisionGUID="96de7298-11ea-4280-aedf-7fdab94af6d1" CreationDate="2015-10-30T18:53:30.510" UserId="5389" Text="So, according to the context:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... **люди** всё ещё посылают телеграммы своим родственникам **и** друзьям&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be translated as &quot;**...people still send telegrams to their relatives and friends.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="04985bd6-0ff2-47d5-94f0-8093dd1c8e6c" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:17:49.350" UserId="6210" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have another one for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;в последнее время во многих почтовых отделениях начали открывать.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в последнее -&gt; &quot;Lately&quot; appears to be set in accusative, direct object referring to time and if I remember correctly is often appears efter &quot;B&quot; like the locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;во многих почтовых отделениях&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me that it is pluralis with locative but the difficult part..is the &quot;во&quot; that sets the words in locative pluralis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="04985bd6-0ff2-47d5-94f0-8093dd1c8e6c" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:17:49.350" UserId="6210" Text="Questions about a sentence, accusative with twist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="04985bd6-0ff2-47d5-94f0-8093dd1c8e6c" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:17:49.350" UserId="6210" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="3f1d667e-0d6e-4222-8867-e29a73f48cc9" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:24:44.767" UserId="6210" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using a book that is a little confusing. I have tried the translate machines and got some garbage back so I am asking the Experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word, пункт, what does it refer to?&#xD;&#xA;Could a пункт be a bigger department store or the small stores and outlets one find inside and just outside the subway in Moscow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="3f1d667e-0d6e-4222-8867-e29a73f48cc9" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:24:44.767" UserId="6210" Text="Explain the word пункт?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="3f1d667e-0d6e-4222-8867-e29a73f48cc9" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:24:44.767" UserId="6210" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="13b8e0d1-d116-4e77-be3e-2f7028702c15" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:30:15.270" UserId="6210" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about the word &quot;доступ&quot;, can it be used for any kind of access like mobile phone, internet, physical access to an entrance or parking space?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="13b8e0d1-d116-4e77-be3e-2f7028702c15" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:30:15.270" UserId="6210" Text="Please explain the word &quot;доступ&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11072" RevisionGUID="13b8e0d1-d116-4e77-be3e-2f7028702c15" CreationDate="2015-10-30T19:30:15.270" UserId="6210" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11074" RevisionGUID="46fcbe5f-cc0f-48f7-b0de-1d03e7268af6" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:06:42.217" UserId="5915" Text="Yes, you can use that word to indicate any kind of access:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя есть ***доступ*** в интернет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Do you have access to Internet?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы были заперты в комнате без ***доступа*** к телефону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We were locked in the room without access to a telephone.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конфеты лежали на верхней полке, вне ***доступа*** малышей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sweets lay on the top shelf, inaccessible to toddlers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11076" RevisionGUID="0f594e80-196d-4d3f-93fc-5406deb1e334" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:21:29.227" UserId="5915" Text="&gt;&quot;в последнее время во многих почтовых отделениях начали открывать.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, &quot;&quot;в последнее время&quot; ***is*** assusative.  You can encounter it without a preposition, too, with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;во многих почтовых отделениях&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition &quot;во&quot; is the same as preposition &quot;в&quot;, and acquires the extra vowel when used before words starting with multiple consonants or with letter &quot;в&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;во времена...   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;во многих...   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;во праве (although 'в праве' can also be used)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes in poetry it replaced the preposition 'в' because the rhythm calls for it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во глубине сибирских руд / храните гордое терпенье ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, no, the preposition does not dictate the plural vs singular.  And, yes, in this instance it's *prepositional case*.  &quot;Почтовые отделения&quot; do not have a form of locative different from prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11077" RevisionGUID="11d565fc-3b29-404a-a118-4cc9acf580a3" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:21:36.253" UserId="5008" Text="_В последнее время_ is in Accusative. &quot;В&quot; is used with either Accusative or Prepositional case. Here you have Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Во_ is just the same as _В_. It's used to avoid spelling too many consecutive consonants, as it would have been otherwise: &quot;_вмн_ огих&quot;. No more magic here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="47aebcc0-e587-47fe-91a9-d4bda3703dc5" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:28:59.160" UserId="6210" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using a book that is a little confusing. I have tried the translate machines and got some garbage back so I am asking the Experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word, пункт, what does it refer to?&#xD;&#xA;Could a пункт be a bigger department store or the small stores and outlets one find inside and just outside the subway in Moscow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example was request. Enclosing two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Также есть государственные пункты на некоторых страницах метро.&#xD;&#xA;2) В Москве и в Санкт-Петербурге есть довольно много обменных пунктов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11078" RevisionGUID="7592d182-bead-44bc-8ab0-f885a60a2f3e" CreationDate="2015-10-30T20:34:34.727" UserId="5915" Text="&quot;**Пункт**&quot; here seems to refer to a [usually small] currency exchange office or branch (&quot;обменный пункт&quot; = &quot;пункт обмена валюты&quot;).  You can probably call it &quot;kiosk&quot;, but it's probably beefier than, say, a kiosk that sells public transportation tickets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25457" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11046" RevisionGUID="921b6f1c-cb23-48c5-9f04-1fdb661f456b" CreationDate="2015-10-30T21:04:58.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/660200746357538816" />
  <row Id="25458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="a06de496-cdb5-44dd-83cd-d21eb8f11272" CreationDate="2015-10-30T22:21:16.460" UserId="6212" Text="Как правильно писать вне-игровой, внеигровой или вне игровой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="a06de496-cdb5-44dd-83cd-d21eb8f11272" CreationDate="2015-10-30T22:21:16.460" UserId="6212" Text="Как правильно писать вне-игровой, внеигровой или вне игровой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11079" RevisionGUID="a06de496-cdb5-44dd-83cd-d21eb8f11272" CreationDate="2015-10-30T22:21:16.460" UserId="6212" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11080" RevisionGUID="b2fe7990-ec1f-4ec4-bcea-338ec996823e" CreationDate="2015-10-31T02:11:19.450" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="Проверка - можно ли убрать &quot;игровой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если нет - то слитно: &quot;У него ещё были внеигровые успехи.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Если да - раздельно: &quot;Вне игровой ситуации у нас совершенно другие ощущения.&quot; Потому что слово &quot;игровой&quot; можно перенести: &quot;Вне ситуации (которая игровая)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11081" RevisionGUID="4ece22c3-c3ec-4eb9-8341-b416add3bdac" CreationDate="2015-10-31T02:44:37.307" UserId="6213" Text="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или вот https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ещё 21 символ, который требует стэк-эксцчендж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="0e03a8e4-82d3-4339-827c-5e37bbf41fd7" CreationDate="2015-10-31T10:54:34.770" UserId="194" Text="Пункт = point except in geometric sence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a place on the map such as a city or town. Idiom населенный пункт means any settelment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a point of departure or arrival&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a small place where people do some task staying in place (distribute things, exchange currency, collect scrap)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a checkpoint or a small police office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an item in a list, a numbered paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="813f91f6-6d3d-4b5b-bf4d-14dd4267ea48" CreationDate="2015-10-31T11:42:41.200" UserId="6214" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about a sentence I am working on (see below). What I am a &#xD;&#xA;little puzzled about is the: &quot;пункты на некоторых страницах метро.&quot; in &#xD;&#xA;the sentence: &quot;Также есть государственные пункты на некоторых страницах метро.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean and is there a real life link?&#xD;&#xA;Can this be translated into that the offices are located in some subway exits or entrances?&#xD;&#xA;How would you as russian speaker interpret &quot;на некоторых страницах метро.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="813f91f6-6d3d-4b5b-bf4d-14dd4267ea48" CreationDate="2015-10-31T11:42:41.200" UserId="6214" Text="на некоторых страницах метро" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="813f91f6-6d3d-4b5b-bf4d-14dd4267ea48" CreationDate="2015-10-31T11:42:41.200" UserId="6214" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11085" RevisionGUID="915fdddd-a539-4406-9c4d-0a81f0d19e94" CreationDate="2015-10-31T11:51:58.387" UserId="1236" Text="There is an obvious typo there, it should be &quot;на *станциях* метро&quot; - 'at the metro stations', not &quot;на страницах метро&quot; which has no meaning at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11086" RevisionGUID="e4350ad6-4419-41b0-90db-69b8e2a5febd" CreationDate="2015-10-31T11:55:26.703" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Spatial&quot; **в** takes the prepositional while &quot;temporal&quot; **в** takes the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**во** has nothing to do with it; the reason for it (and for those extra Оs on prepositions in general) is that the late-medieval sound shift that eliminated ultra-short vowels ignored word boundaries between a preposition and the following word. Thus medieval Russian **въ мъногыхъ** was affected, as if it were a single word, by the law that required that when you had two ultra-short syllables in a row, only the second vowel disappeared, and the first one became full-length (same as why you have **сон &lt; сънъ** but **сна &lt; съна**). It occurs highly inconsistently in modern Russian, but tends to survive with very common words such as **многие** or **все**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11081" RevisionGUID="8be33d03-8f3f-4ad5-a560-6e0cfd7f8246" CreationDate="2015-10-31T11:56:38.647" UserId="3680" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Вот: [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#Russian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#Russian)  &#xD;&#xA;Или вот: [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/Russian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25475" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11039" RevisionGUID="e666f092-935f-43ff-b012-0ab6f59805de" CreationDate="2015-10-31T12:13:49.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/660429466997510144" />
  <row Id="25480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="0bb6d305-8a15-4678-8d02-f1b2737afd69" CreationDate="2015-10-31T15:34:11.210" UserId="5201" Text="Just interesting, but how would you translate the idea behind 'make my/your point?' Maybe &quot;Я высказался?&quot; (I've had my say.) Or also, when you see what someone is trying to do or convey, maybe with a little bit of frustration and you say, &quot;Alright, you've made your point.&quot; Meaning, 'you've expressed what you wanted to express, let's move on.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="0bb6d305-8a15-4678-8d02-f1b2737afd69" CreationDate="2015-10-31T15:34:11.210" UserId="5201" Text="How to translate 'make your point?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11089" RevisionGUID="0bb6d305-8a15-4678-8d02-f1b2737afd69" CreationDate="2015-10-31T15:34:11.210" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="3689e274-f5aa-4088-a4d7-31928dae18f0" CreationDate="2015-10-31T15:46:01.497" UserId="4833" Text="&quot;0&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ну что же, это твоя точка зрения. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11090" RevisionGUID="c3d58186-607f-4b4b-9ce3-662468b17d64" CreationDate="2015-10-31T15:58:27.247" UserId="4833" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="&quot;Point&quot; in this context can be translated as &quot;точка зрения&quot; , so one can say&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ну что же, это твоя точка зрения. &#xA;&#xA;You can also say &quot;высказался&quot;, but better as rhetoric question &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Всё, высказался?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11091" RevisionGUID="45b1bf62-6c18-4f2e-b86d-51b4d4bdd745" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:14:33.367" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Maybe &quot;Я высказался?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, maybe _У меня всё_, or _Я всё сказал_, or _Я закончил_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Alright, you've made your point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mentor tone: _Хорошо, я тебя услышал_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aggressive: _Всё сказал?_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="980bd924-31bd-497a-95f0-f0a7beaa7e0a" CreationDate="2015-10-31T18:23:37.870" UserId="5897" Comment="add more counterexamples" Text="пункт = *point* in various senses (but *not* in geometry, punctuation of numbers or words or in the phrase *&quot;What's your point?&quot;*)&#xA;&#xA;So it may mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a place on the map such as a city or town. Idiom населенный пункт means any settelment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a point of departure or arrival&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a small place where people do some task staying in place (distribute things, exchange currency, collect scrap)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a checkpoint or a small police office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an item in a list, a numbered paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25487" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="980bd924-31bd-497a-95f0-f0a7beaa7e0a" CreationDate="2015-10-31T18:23:37.870" Comment="Proposed by 5897 approved by 194 edit id of 697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11092" RevisionGUID="3cb51aad-8eee-43f3-a710-d41884fd658e" CreationDate="2015-10-31T19:46:23.393" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="There is no exact concept like this, it breaks down into several concepts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* abstract idea (`высказать свою точку зрения`)&#xD;&#xA;* articulating the point (e.g. `высказаться` this is less abstract without `точка зрения`)&#xD;&#xA;* having heard someone (`выслушать`, `понять`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general you can say &quot;everybody can make a point&quot; &gt; &quot;Каждый может высказать точку зрения.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone wanted to make a point and says: &quot;At least I made my point.&quot; It should translate as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но я хотя бы высказался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say  &quot;You made your point, let's move on,&quot; it will be like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хорошо, мы тебя поняли/выслушали. [Но...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="e48e2a1b-d988-4b80-b749-bde0aed03ce6" CreationDate="2015-11-01T01:09:34.137" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Somebody told to me that &quot;I saw a cat, that night&quot; translated to &quot;я видел кошку, ту **ночью**&quot;, but I do not understand why &quot;**ночь**&quot; becomes **ночью**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="e48e2a1b-d988-4b80-b749-bde0aed03ce6" CreationDate="2015-11-01T01:09:34.137" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why does &quot;та ночь&quot; become &quot;ту ночью&quot;, in &quot;I saw a cat, that night&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11093" RevisionGUID="e48e2a1b-d988-4b80-b749-bde0aed03ce6" CreationDate="2015-11-01T01:09:34.137" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11094" RevisionGUID="d2a6d774-fd21-4a05-b0bf-8651da99139c" CreationDate="2015-11-01T01:56:57.143" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Ту ночью&quot; is ungrammatical. It should be either **той ночью** or **в ту ночь**. And no comma is needed. And it's more natural to put it before **я видел кошку**. Or, more colloquially, between **я** and **видел**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="34d35d39-87fc-415f-aa64-5721bba1144a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:51:21.203" UserId="6153" Text="other-languages learning translationt place to ask this, if not, i can move it to another place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I always liked the culture and how the language sounds, so i took this challenge for fun. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My system for learning is very straightforward: listening-reading-speaking, using short transcripts (for which i have the English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hear-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="34d35d39-87fc-415f-aa64-5721bba1144a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:51:21.203" UserId="6153" Text="The value of translation at a beginner level" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="34d35d39-87fc-415f-aa64-5721bba1144a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:51:21.203" UserId="6153" Text="|перевод|обучение|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="cd70fca8-a5a2-4a65-b16d-48742704d595" CreationDate="2015-11-01T05:56:33.907" UserId="6153" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I always liked the culture and how the language sounds, so i took this challenge for fun. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is verystraightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hear-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the English grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="1246b75f-e7c1-4507-952c-5255703c5747" CreationDate="2015-11-01T06:02:11.600" UserId="6153" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I always liked the culture and how the language sounds, so i took this challenge for fun. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hear-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the English grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="2fc0fc8c-9595-4925-917e-af064eab1e18" CreationDate="2015-11-01T06:07:23.057" UserId="6153" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hear-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the English grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="dc895a61-b076-40f3-b1a3-06b643d55687" CreationDate="2015-11-01T06:11:45.743" UserId="6153" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listen-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think (baseado em porra nenhuma, as we say in Brazil), that this approach takes more time, but there are more gains, since translation is per si a complex task.&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the English grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="d1b30369-2450-470a-9550-0b4aa40d0aa9" CreationDate="2015-11-01T06:39:23.643" UserId="6153" Comment="deleted 172 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listen-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="2d537fa2-87dd-4144-a099-c0c4123ddc57" CreationDate="2015-11-01T07:00:06.910" UserId="6153" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listen-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a related study:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;rct=j&amp;q=translation%20as%20language%20learning%20tool&amp;ved=0CCQQFjACahUKEwjQr7PI0u7IAhVCgZAKHaLiAJ0&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kalbos.ktu.lt%2Findex.php%2FKStud%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F%25201469%2F2164&amp;usg=AFQjCNEyd70YJtJ2GSi2txmhqvJUJFSSpA&amp;sig2=7-dC1_vX71cfk2TLnyL19g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="f1c59b8e-13f4-49e0-8fc0-22c6f8a4c57e" CreationDate="2015-11-01T07:06:40.453" UserId="6153" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listen-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: sorry for the grammar/spelling errors!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="552ff383-2306-47ec-bcc0-ebe126865a59" CreationDate="2015-11-01T08:22:28.243" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;i'm using English as a bridge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using bridges brings too many problems. You could improve your English, but break up your Russian. Better not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it's too early. You should be able at least to read and interpret &quot;textbook-level&quot; excerpts about one page long. Anyway, no one believes that learning grammar could be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's a matter of taste. For me, personally, the most interesting thing is &quot;to catch and feel&quot; rather than &quot;to translate&quot;. That is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Take what you're really interested in. Do not worry if it's too complicated and/or long. You may even start from the poetry, if you want. Though the latter is the right way of getting a brain trauma.&#xD;&#xA;- Do not use ready translations. Do not read the text you've read in the translation earlier. Only finding something new on your own may keep your interest.&#xD;&#xA;- Never skip unknown words: looking up into the dictionary every time is tedious, yet it's the only way to fill in your vocabulary. Also, try to find all the common idioms - that's really helpful.&#xD;&#xA;- Do skip the sentences you absolutely can't understand. Don't stay in one place too long, but move on. It's enough, if you see the overall sentence's structure and is able to follow the plot. Do not damage your brain by thinking too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does one get of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Self-confidence. Just finishing a textbook is nothing. But if you could apply your knowledge and to do something on your own, be it talking to foreign people, or reading the foreign texts, you would have that sweet feeling that &quot;now everything's possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- Good (or at least moderate) vocabulary. No textbook helps you with this.&#xD;&#xA;- Seeing the language &quot;on the edge&quot;. No one can truly love a foreign language, yet one may have a high respect for it. That's only possible if one has seen for what it's worth. Otherwise it would be no more than a toy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="155370dc-e73e-49e6-8019-61267daedd9b" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:20:13.730" UserId="6217" Text="I know that for animate objects the third person plural pronoun is **их**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ты знаешь Мишу и Катю? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, я **их** не знаю.  ( _Нет, я **этих людей** не знаю._ )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am not sure if we use the same pronoun when talking about inanimate objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ты знаешь Лондон и Нью-Йорк? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, я **их**(?) не знаю. ( _Нет, я **этих городов** не знаю._ )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we use the same pronoun in both cases?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="155370dc-e73e-49e6-8019-61267daedd9b" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:20:13.730" UserId="6217" Text="Third Person Plural Pronoun for Inanimate Objects in Accusative Case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11097" RevisionGUID="155370dc-e73e-49e6-8019-61267daedd9b" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:20:13.730" UserId="6217" Text="|падежи|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="f435b5df-8cec-4c98-a96c-cdc903c9b7f3" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:24:09.223" UserId="6218" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a novice when it comes to russian language but I wanted to walk into a russian grocery story (there is one in my neighborhood) and ask if they sell квас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good approach when walking into a small store and asking for something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would: Добрый день or Здравствуйте be more suitable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followed by:&#xD;&#xA;Скажите пожалуйста, Вы продаете квас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="f435b5df-8cec-4c98-a96c-cdc903c9b7f3" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:24:09.223" UserId="6218" Text="Asking for a grocery in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="f435b5df-8cec-4c98-a96c-cdc903c9b7f3" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:24:09.223" UserId="6218" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11099" RevisionGUID="5e3d7f47-a272-43cf-bcfb-969ea9408045" CreationDate="2015-11-01T09:59:09.767" UserId="5008" Text="Both are possible, though the second pair is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Ты знаешь Лондон?_&quot; means &quot;_How well_ do you know the city of London?&quot;, so the right answer would be, for example, &quot;_Совсем_ не знаю&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also consider that spoken habit of omitting pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q: Ты знаешь Мишу и Катю?  &#xD;&#xA; A: Нет, не знаю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11100" RevisionGUID="e88330b5-02c1-4ee5-9a38-d58b9257245e" CreationDate="2015-11-01T10:13:43.920" UserId="4560" Text="Yes, **они** has the accusative **их** for both animate and inanimate. (Your intuition is correct about there being a &quot;missing&quot; inanimate form; it was supplanted by the animate one and went extinct. Had it survived, it would've been **е** or, confusingly, **я**.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="4e740f25-1e7a-4d7d-9f0e-cb2aec5b1e10" CreationDate="2015-11-01T10:14:52.263" UserId="5389" Text="**Здравствуйте** is a time independent greeting, while **Добрый день** literally means &quot;good day&quot;, and fit more for daylight time. Also, you can say just &quot;здрАсти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking about some goods the easiest way to say &quot;**У вас есть**...?&quot;, meaning &quot;Do you have... ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example dialogue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Здрасти! У вас есть квас?&#xD;&#xA;- Конечно, сколько вам кваса?&#xD;&#xA;- Два литра, пожалуйста.&#xD;&#xA;- С вас 100 рублей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11102" RevisionGUID="7bd9d3ee-891f-49db-8b7a-6455726e8465" CreationDate="2015-11-01T10:17:20.323" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Would: Добрый день or Здравствуйте be more suitable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, both OK, except sometimes people may also omit any greeting, as this is not a true &quot;personal&quot; communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Followed by: Скажите пожалуйста, Вы продаете квас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better to say: Скажите, пожалуйста, _у вас есть_ квас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11102" RevisionGUID="d3dad208-aeb1-48ee-a999-0b19082864ad" CreationDate="2015-11-01T10:24:26.917" UserId="5008" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="&gt;Would: Добрый день or Здравствуйте be more suitable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, both OK, except sometimes people may also omit any greeting, as this is not a true &quot;personal&quot; communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Followed by: Скажите пожалуйста, Вы продаете квас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better to say: Скажите, пожалуйста, _у вас есть_ квас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you may omit &quot;Скажите, пожалуйста&quot; too, yet in any case you should keep at least one &quot;polite&quot; phrase per speech, e.g.: &quot;Добрый день! У вас есть квас?&quot; is OK, but the sole &quot;У вас есть квас?&quot; may sound impolite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11101" RevisionGUID="155b36f4-5d4f-4729-bf35-918ebe766291" CreationDate="2015-11-01T10:25:26.117" UserId="5389" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**Здравствуйте** is a time independent greeting, while **Добрый день** literally means &quot;good day&quot;, and fit more for daylight time. Also, you can say just &quot;здрАсти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking about some goods the easiest way is to say &quot;**У вас есть**...?&quot;, meaning &quot;Do you have... ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example dialogue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Здрасти! У вас есть квас?&#xD;&#xA;- Конечно, сколько вам кваса?&#xD;&#xA;- Два литра, пожалуйста.&#xD;&#xA;- С вас 100 рублей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="9ddf5761-da52-4894-a235-347b94f0616a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T10:29:33.877" UserId="6218" Comment="story-&gt;store" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a novice when it comes to russian language but I wanted to walk into a russian grocery store (there is one in my neighborhood) and ask if they sell квас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good approach when walking into a small store and asking for something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would: Добрый день or Здравствуйте be more suitable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followed by:&#xD;&#xA;Скажите пожалуйста, Вы продаете квас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11096" RevisionGUID="4da0dca0-6734-4ebf-a407-44c486743aaa" CreationDate="2015-11-01T11:23:31.577" UserId="5008" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&gt;i'm using English as a bridge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using bridges brings too many problems. You could improve your English, but break up your Russian. Better not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it's too early. You should be able at least to read and interpret &quot;textbook-level&quot; excerpts about one page long. Anyway, no one believes that learning grammar could be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, that's a matter of taste. For me, personally, the most interesting thing is &quot;to catch and feel&quot; rather than &quot;to translate&quot;. That is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Take what you're really interested in. Do not worry if it's too complicated and/or long. You may even start from the poetry, if you want. Though the latter is the right way of getting a brain trauma.&#xD;&#xA;- Do not use ready translations. Do not read the text you've read in the translation earlier. Only finding something new on your own may keep your interest.&#xD;&#xA;- Never skip unknown words: looking up into the dictionary every time is tedious, yet it's the only way to fill in your vocabulary. Also, try to find all the common idioms - that's really helpful.&#xD;&#xA;- Do skip the sentences you absolutely can't understand. Don't stay in one place too long, but move on. It's enough, if you see the overall sentence's structure and are able to follow the plot. Do not damage your brain by too much thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does one get of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Self-confidence. Just finishing a textbook is nothing. But if you could apply your knowledge and to do something on your own, be it talking to foreign people, or reading the foreign texts, you would have that sweet feeling that &quot;now everything's possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- Good (or at least moderate) vocabulary. No textbook helps you with this.&#xD;&#xA;- Listening to the language &quot;on the edge&quot;. No one can truly love a foreign language, yet one may have a high respect for it. Still, that's only possible if one has seen for what it's worth. Otherwise it would be no more than a toy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11070" RevisionGUID="48f32aef-47ab-4978-aadc-edb178d0599e" CreationDate="2015-11-01T11:46:25.157" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="In the pharse &quot;в последнее время во многих почтовых отделениях начали открывать.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в последнее -&gt; &quot;Lately&quot; appears to be set in accusative, direct object referring to time and if I remember correctly is often appears efter &quot;B&quot; like the locative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;во многих почтовых отделениях&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to me that it is pluralis with locative but the difficult part..is the &quot;во&quot; that sets the words in locative pluralis?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11098" RevisionGUID="d8d4c4fe-45d2-4a0d-82a2-b9a4752c5264" CreationDate="2015-11-01T12:13:36.193" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="I wanted to walk into a russian grocery store (there is one in my neighborhood) and ask if they sell квас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good approach when walking into a small store and asking for something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would: Добрый день or Здравствуйте be more suitable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Followed by:&#xD;&#xA;Скажите пожалуйста, Вы продаете квас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11104" RevisionGUID="4d50a4da-30e5-45e8-b701-8a1a65ff2660" CreationDate="2015-11-01T13:25:51.040" UserId="6097" Text="Mentioning a period of time when something is happening you have to use `творительный падеж`. &quot;Ночью&quot; is that form of &quot;ночь&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;Other examples:&#xA;&#xA; - Я работаю днём (&quot;днём&quot; - творительный падеж от &quot;день&quot;) &#xA; - Мы встретились вечером (&quot;вечером&quot; - творительный падеж от &quot;вечер&quot;) &#xA; - Зимой у нас очень холодно (&quot;зимой&quot; - творительный падеж от &quot;зима&quot;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11105" RevisionGUID="9fefa0f3-f601-4092-b213-f6b169d8cc57" CreationDate="2015-11-01T15:55:27.113" UserId="5443" Text="Yes, it is usually OK to speak of cities, etc. using &quot;их&quot;. But in case of answering a question **it depends** on the form of that question. In your second example, the question doesn't include the word &quot;города&quot; (e.g. &quot;такие города как&quot;),  to which &quot;их&quot; in the answer would refer. So an extended answer (as opposed to &quot;нет, не знаю&quot;) to that question should use something like &quot;*этих городов*&quot; as you wrote in brackets, rather than &quot;их&quot;. However, in case there IS &quot;города&quot; in the question, you can surely use &quot;их&quot; in the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     — Ты знаешь города Лондон и Нью-Йорк?    — Нет, я их не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (&quot;их&quot; refers to &quot;города&quot;, not to city names)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `— Ты знаешь такие города как Лондон и Нью-Йорк?`   &#xD;&#xA; `— Нет, таких не знаю. (— Нет, я их не знаю.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `— Ты знаешь Лондон и Нью-Йорк? — Нет, этих городов я не знаю.` `(The short form: Нет, не знаю.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, generally you need some additional context to perfectly use &quot;их&quot; when speaking of city names: that pronoun typically replaces 'cities', not their names. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25526" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="15f221d6-8bf0-4f7d-b3b3-05b3815a7114" CreationDate="2015-11-01T18:14:33.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/660882635158368257" />
  <row Id="25527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="3cfbe567-0828-45f9-9dfb-59ff0a7e0fbf" CreationDate="2015-11-01T19:38:36.437" UserId="6153" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, if not, just tell me and i'll move it to another place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary. I also took a look at the prepositional and accusative cases, just to feel it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation).&#xD;&#xA;I'm not worried about talking to people right now, i believe that the listening skill is the key. If you understand what's being said, speaking is a matter of trainning your vocal cords (of course it also takes time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cycle would be something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listen-read-speak a sentence, until i feel comfortable, then translate it myself. Now, compare it with the 'more correct' translation and repeat the cycle, until everything is in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found [this paper]( http://www.google.com.br/url?q=http://www.kalbos.ktu.lt/index.php/KStud/article/download/%25201469/2164&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0CBwQFjACahUKEwitpcnW--_IAhULgpAKHXP0CnQ&amp;sig2=MbE88_hEVjIg6viABWZRxQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEIbPZnB_Voy0sfRozVEsQCOHOOFA), which has good info. I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11106" RevisionGUID="3dac9f6a-ea32-4f58-827c-aed072652c8f" CreationDate="2015-11-01T19:50:47.487" UserId="2079" Text="The instrumental case is used when something happens during one of the following periods of time: утро, день, вечер, ночь, зима, весна, лето, осень.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Прошлой весной мне исполнилось четыре года. (Last spring I turned 4 years old.)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Зимой я выхожу на пенсию. (This winter I retire from work.)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Ночью надо спать, а не дрочить. (At night you/one should sleep, not masturbate.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Есть ночью вредно. (It is unhealthy to eat at night.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot do this with other time intervals.  The following examples are WRONG!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Прошлой средой Маша ездила в ресторан с друзьями и ужралась в хлам. (Correctly: в прошлую среду Маша ездила в ресторан с друзьями и ужралась в хлам.  &quot;Ужралась в хлам&quot; is a colloquial phrase meaing &quot;got very drunk&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Следующим годом я научусь правильно говорить по-русски. (Correctly: в следующем году я научусь правильно говорить по-русски.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="8bacc74a-64d9-499e-b049-e7a24900c95a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T21:15:55.180" UserId="5582" Comment="ошибка, которая уже обсуждалась в другом вопросе этого же участника" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using a book that is a little confusing. I have tried the translate machines and got some garbage back so I am asking the Experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word, пункт, what does it refer to?&#xD;&#xA;Could a пункт be a bigger department store or the small stores and outlets one find inside and just outside the subway in Moscow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example was request. Enclosing two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Также есть государственные пункты на некоторых станциях метро.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 2) В Москве и в Санкт-Петербурге есть довольно много обменных пунктов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25530" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="8bacc74a-64d9-499e-b049-e7a24900c95a" CreationDate="2015-11-01T21:15:55.180" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 97, 5915 edit id of 698" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11107" RevisionGUID="b0d375c5-172a-41bd-a811-e1a7b0572d73" CreationDate="2015-11-02T04:02:09.413" UserId="5201" Text="What is the difference in meaning between these two words and how does their usage differ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11107" RevisionGUID="b0d375c5-172a-41bd-a811-e1a7b0572d73" CreationDate="2015-11-02T04:02:09.413" UserId="5201" Text="Difference between 'слишком' и 'чересчур'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11107" RevisionGUID="b0d375c5-172a-41bd-a811-e1a7b0572d73" CreationDate="2015-11-02T04:02:09.413" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11108" RevisionGUID="81033269-0325-45e8-9586-6ed782f36828" CreationDate="2015-11-02T07:18:32.583" UserId="5008" Text="Well, the difference is in negative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, _Он не слишком умён_ means _He's silly_. Yet negative _не чересчур_ is almost never used except questions: _А не чересчур ли он умён?_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also _с лишком_ literally means _with excess_, so if written as a whole _слишком_ is an adverb, but separate _с лишком_ is a noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11083" RevisionGUID="cfb1726c-02c3-4f35-b06a-76586b7cb2d3" CreationDate="2015-11-02T07:31:16.087" UserId="5008" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="пункт = *point* in various senses (but *neither* in geometry, nor punctuation of numbers or words, nor in the phrase *&quot;What's your point?&quot;*, nor the verb/participle &quot;to point&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may mean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a place on the map such as a city or town. Idiom _населенный пункт_ means any settlement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a point of departure or arrival (cf. also _пункт назначения_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a small place where people do some task staying in place (distribute things, exchange currency, collect scrap - _пункт обмена валюты_, _пункт приёма металлолома_ and so on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a checkpoint or a small police office (_контрольно-пропускной пункт_ aka _КПП_, _опорный пункт_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an item in a list, a numbered paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11110" RevisionGUID="5eac62aa-a315-4f6d-98e1-154ef1c0c7e9" CreationDate="2015-11-02T10:26:25.447" UserId="6187" Text="I don't really understand the question, but I think the key to learning (any) language is realising that you have to learn to understand and think, and then speak (or read-write, of course) in the language you are learning. Translation is a much harder job to do, and is not the key to understanding at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you mean by &quot;bridge&quot;? If for example there is much more material available with explanations in English, then by all means use it, but I can't see that there is any intrinsic value in this. When I started on Russian (a little while ago) I found it frustrating that English language materials were so slow, because they were frightened of explaining grammar, so for a while I was using a course in Italian -- they can just say работать: работаю работаешь работает работаем работаете работают... &quot;just like lavorare: lavoro lavori lavora lavoriamo lavorate lavorono&quot; (and wow, it's close! particularly if you know the Latin endings that degenerated into the Italian ones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, this is not much of an answer, but there are so many questions here (and on the Japanese language forum just the same) which say &quot;I am working on translation&quot;, rather than &quot;I am trying to understand this&quot;. It's very depressing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11111" RevisionGUID="ade1eab9-a8ee-49b6-9a08-148c9a782664" CreationDate="2015-11-02T12:20:41.020" UserId="4560" Text="**Чересчур** is one of those words that don't *sound* bookish, and yet you're radically less likely to hear it in everyday speech compared to **слишком**. **Чересчур** just isn't the word you'd immediately think of when seeking to express the idea of excess. But when you do hear it, it sounds perfectly natural and plain, &quot;oh yeah, that's a word too.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I feel subjectively that **слишком** is more, as it were, focused. All other things being equal (i.e. discounting the abovementioned general likelihood to think of **слишком** as a word choice before you think of **чересчур**), you're more likely to pick **слишком** over **чересчур** if you think you can more or less point to the exact measure, or the exact cause, of the perceived excess. **Чересчур** is more of a &quot;dunno, there's just too much of this here thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, **это уже слишком** &quot;now that's enough!&quot; makes you sound annoyed or angry while **это уже чересчур**  is a more laid-back &quot;now that would be going too far&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11112" RevisionGUID="b70c871f-5029-46ad-a7d0-1b1ab35ff7ae" CreationDate="2015-11-02T16:46:05.187" UserId="6225" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need your help with this. I am learning this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to respond to: &quot;как ваше имя?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;имя is средний род. Would that mean that I can respond with: Moё имя: Дженни?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11112" RevisionGUID="b70c871f-5029-46ad-a7d0-1b1ab35ff7ae" CreationDate="2015-11-02T16:46:05.187" UserId="6225" Text="притяжательные местоименные moй/moя/moё/moи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11112" RevisionGUID="b70c871f-5029-46ad-a7d0-1b1ab35ff7ae" CreationDate="2015-11-02T16:46:05.187" UserId="6225" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11113" RevisionGUID="3bd20862-b1c2-4816-8f9e-7e3a09dd40c6" CreationDate="2015-11-02T16:54:12.623" UserId="5389" Text="You can hardly meet such a phrase &quot;**Как ваше имя?**&quot;, it is rarely used in modern Russian. Rather, it would be &quot;**Как вас зовут?**&quot; and you can answer &quot;**Меня зовут Дженни.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about the possessive adjectives and pronouns, yes, with **имя** we use **моё**, neuter gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11114" RevisionGUID="bb1461a5-90f8-48ad-ba3c-cc49a846b005" CreationDate="2015-11-02T16:54:21.483" UserId="5915" Text="&gt;How to respond to: &quot;как ваше имя?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either answer as you proposed, &quot;**моё** имя Дженни&quot; (which would be a full answer), or you could provide a short answer, &quot;Дженни&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a common question, however.  The more common would be&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как Вас зовут?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to which you respond using the same form, &quot;**меня** зовут Дженни&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="2d803d23-94d0-4426-a2fc-059805d5c2af" CreationDate="2015-11-03T05:04:58.373" UserId="6153" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="I started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a 'base' language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. My system for learning is very straightforward: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening-reading-speaking using short transcripts (for which i have the correct English translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i ask for the more experienced language learners: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this as a beginner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember when i was learning English, i would listen to the old Metallica albums while following the lyrics and trying to match what the guy was screaming. Then later i would translate the song to Portuguese. The translation part was very effective to learn new words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i'm afraid this will not work so well with Russian: i still find it hard to read and there is the case system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper]( http://www.google.com.br/url?q=http://www.kalbos.ktu.lt/index.php/KStud/article/download/%25201469/2164&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0CBwQFjACahUKEwitpcnW--_IAhULgpAKHXP0CnQ&amp;sig2=MbE88_hEVjIg6viABWZRxQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEIbPZnB_Voy0sfRozVEsQCOHOOFA) also seems to point that translation is very effective to increase vocabulary. I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="8a4fddb1-8ee8-417a-8c19-fb1ad6911ce7" CreationDate="2015-11-03T05:29:19.880" UserId="6153" Comment="deleted 196 characters in body" Text="I started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a 'base' language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. What i'm doing now is basically listening and reading along, then checking the English translation. It's working, but i'm feeling that the vocabulary gain is not that great, so i ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this at beginner level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid this will not work so well with Russian: i still find it hard to read, and the case system is a problem too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i was learning English, i would listen to the old Metallica albums while following the lyrics and trying to match what the guy was screaming. Then later i would translate the entire song to Portuguese. This translation part was **very** effective to learn new words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper]( http://www.google.com.br/url?q=http://www.kalbos.ktu.lt/index.php/KStud/article/download/%25201469/2164&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0CBwQFjACahUKEwitpcnW--_IAhULgpAKHXP0CnQ&amp;sig2=MbE88_hEVjIg6viABWZRxQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEIbPZnB_Voy0sfRozVEsQCOHOOFA) also seems to point that translation is very effective to increase vocabulary. I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="690b449b-32d2-4916-869d-5ec2846724c4" CreationDate="2015-11-03T05:38:45.307" UserId="6153" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I started learning Russian about a month ago. I'm a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, but i'm using English as a 'base' language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think i'm doing well. I've used this one month period just to break that initial barrier: phonetics, pronouns, verbs and a basic vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that i'm 'ready' to start learning the language, i'm trying to organize things and avoid losing time. What i'm doing now is basically listening and reading along, then checking the English translation. It's working, but i'm feeling that the vocabulary gain is not that great, so i ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What if i do my own translations, then adjust it with the reference one? Has anyone here tried this at beginner level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid this will not work so well with Russian: i still find it hard to read, and the case system is a problem too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i was learning English, i would listen to the old Metallica albums while following the lyrics and trying to match what the guy was screaming. Then later i would translate the entire song to Portuguese. This translation part was **very** effective to learn new words and general structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper]( http://www.google.com.br/url?q=http://www.kalbos.ktu.lt/index.php/KStud/article/download/%25201469/2164&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0CBwQFjACahUKEwitpcnW--_IAhULgpAKHXP0CnQ&amp;sig2=MbE88_hEVjIg6viABWZRxQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEIbPZnB_Voy0sfRozVEsQCOHOOFA) also seems to point that translation is very effective to increase vocabulary. I'm happy to hear comments, suggestions. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11108" RevisionGUID="baaac7be-3d58-47de-9666-add024012a5b" CreationDate="2015-11-03T07:57:48.590" UserId="5008" Comment="added 964 characters in body" Text="Well, the difference is in negative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, _Он не слишком умён_ means _He's silly_. Yet negative _не чересчур_ is almost never used except questions: _А не чересчур ли он умён?_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also _с лишком_ literally means _with excess_, so if written as a whole _слишком_ is an adverb, but separate _с лишком_ is a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The etimology of &quot;_чересчур_&quot; is much more vague. First of all, of course, _чересчур_ = _через чур_, but what is _чур_, anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, we have the word _чур_ as a part of &quot;a guard spell&quot; against the evil: _чур меня!_ Also consider the verb _чураться_ (to keep away, to shun). Still it helps a little, because _the meaning_ of it is unknown. One option could be, for example, _Чур / Щур_ (cf. _Пращур_) = _Ancestor_ (so _Чур меня!_ means smth. like _Ancestors [defend] me!_), but Vasmer dictionary gives this as &quot;unlikely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that _чур меня!_ and _чересчур_ may be not related in any way. Vasmer says that the word _Чур_, meaning a kind of _Limit_ or _Bar_, is to be _reconstructed from_ the word _Чересчур_. Personally I know only one appearance of the word _чур_ in this sense: _Чуры не знать_ means _To have no limits_. But it's a dialectal expression, and I'm not sure if _чересчур_ is really related to _чуры не знать_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11108" RevisionGUID="8e15c4ca-44bd-4b87-885d-adba00aa51b6" CreationDate="2015-11-03T08:03:56.740" UserId="5008" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Well, the difference is in negative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, _Он не слишком умён_ means _He's silly_. Yet negative _не чересчур_ is almost never used except questions: _А не чересчур ли он умён?_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also _с лишком_ literally means _with excess_, so if written as a whole _слишком_ is an adverb, but separate _с лишком_ is a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The etimology of &quot;_чересчур_&quot; is much more vague. First of all, of course, _чересчур_ = _через чур_, but what is _чур_, anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, we have the word _чур_ as a part of &quot;a guard spell&quot; against the evil: _чур меня!_ Also consider the verb _чураться_ (to keep away, to shun). Still it helps a little, because _the meaning_ of it is unknown. One option could be, for example, _Чур / Щур_ (cf. _Пращур_) = _Ancestor_ (so _Чур меня!_ means smth. like _Ancestors [defend] me!_), but Vasmer dictionary gives this as &quot;unlikely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that _чур меня!_ and _чересчур_ may be not related in any way. Vasmer says that the word _Чур_, meaning a kind of _Limit_ or _Bar_, is to be _reconstructed from_ the word _Чересчур_. Personally I know only one appearance of the word _чур_ in this sense: _Чуры не знать_ means _To have no limits_ (especially when someone eats too much). But it's a dialectal expression, and I'm not sure if _чересчур_ is really related to _чуры не знать_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11115" RevisionGUID="fca02f1a-7f35-43e7-9162-7bc6924b3f8e" CreationDate="2015-11-03T11:56:24.357" UserId="1833" Text="If I tried to compare translations, I'd say that '*слишком*' is '*too*' and '*чересчур*' is like '*too much*' or '*more than enough*'. For instance: '*Он слишком умный*' = '*He is too smart*' and '*Он чересчур умный*' is 'He is smart more than enough'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, with '*smart*' expressions above sound a bit depreciatingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="ce3f485b-1727-4c12-81cd-d1caca24668e" CreationDate="2015-11-03T20:53:22.283" UserId="492" Text="Is there a sign language that can I find for Russian ? I am interested in how it compare with American Sign Language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="ce3f485b-1727-4c12-81cd-d1caca24668e" CreationDate="2015-11-03T20:53:22.283" UserId="492" Text="Russian Sign Language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="ce3f485b-1727-4c12-81cd-d1caca24668e" CreationDate="2015-11-03T20:53:22.283" UserId="492" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="d31f0402-ec92-488c-8052-cc6b65276759" CreationDate="2015-11-03T21:08:44.720" UserId="5389" Text="Of course Russian has a sign language. You can look for &quot;**Русский жестовый язык**0&quot; and &quot;**Сурдоперевод**&quot; in the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start, say, from [this Wikipedia article][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: &#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="fa31963e-ecc9-4eca-8aab-452f648a7ffa" CreationDate="2015-11-04T11:51:25.523" UserId="6165" Comment="adding case with suffixes" Text="Checking **o/a** with finding the same root based words doesn't work if there is an alternation of vowels in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A** Here is the list of alternation vowels roots with o/a inside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. з**а**р – з**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 2. кл**а**н – кл**о**н&#xD;&#xA; 3. тв**а**р – тв**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 4. л**а**г – л**о**ж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to write what you here, if it stressed, and **o** otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| загар огарок – [загАр, агАрак]                |&#xD;&#xA;| загорел горелый [загар'Эл, гар'Элый]          |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| кланяться поклон [клАнитса, паклОн]           |&#xD;&#xA;| наклонять склонение [наклан'Ат', склан'Энийэ] |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| тварь творчество [твАр', твОрчиства]          |&#xD;&#xA;| творить растворять [ тварИт', раствар'Ат']    |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B** Another confusing case is a connecting vowel between roots. Word can be composed of two different ones.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you always have to write **о**, because there is no connecting vowel **а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;сам**о**лёт, пар**о**ход, тепл**о**воз, красн**о**-зелёный, жёлт**о**-оранжевый (compound colors always are written with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C** Also if the word has been borrowed from other language (French, German or English for example) it usually follows transliteration rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**оппонент**&quot; that sounds like [апан'энт] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**opponent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**лотерея**&quot; &lt;–&gt; &quot;**lottery**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**монитор**&quot; &lt;–&gt; &quot;**monitor**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D**&#xD;&#xA;Or this unstressed vowels can be presented in a suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;воровать&quot; [варавАт']&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root here is '**вор**'(rubber), '**ова**' is a suffix and '**ть**' – ending of the verb infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find some basic suffixes in Russian. They are written as they are without modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/667499" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="bfa6fe80-b83c-4cc4-b6f9-abc14a2f01e7" CreationDate="2015-11-04T16:46:18.150" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Please tell me if there are any rules for writing &quot;o&quot; or &quot;a&quot; in a Russian word. Meaning, if a pronounced word has many &quot;a&quot; how do you know if any of them and which one of them is written as &quot;o&quot;(unstressed o)and which one of them is written as &quot;a&quot; ? Can't remember how a word is written if it contains &quot;a&quot;, not sure which &quot;a&quot; is written as &quot;a&quot; and which one is written as &quot;o&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25559" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="bfa6fe80-b83c-4cc4-b6f9-abc14a2f01e7" CreationDate="2015-11-04T16:46:18.150" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Writing &quot;o&quot; or &quot;a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="5d4a5d21-f093-4bb2-8f4c-e9175bc65707" CreationDate="2015-11-04T18:05:59.543" UserId="6165" Comment="added case with prefixes" Text="Checking **o/a** with finding the same root based words doesn't work if there is an alternation of vowels in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A** Here is the list of alternation vowels roots with o/a inside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. з**а**р – з**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 2. кл**а**н – кл**о**н&#xD;&#xA; 3. тв**а**р – тв**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 4. л**а**г – л**о**ж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to write what you here, if it stressed, and **o** otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| загар огарок – [загАр, агАрак]                |&#xD;&#xA;| загорел горелый [загар'Эл, гар'Элый]          |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| кланяться поклон [клАнитса, паклОн]           |&#xD;&#xA;| наклонять склонение [наклан'Ат', склан'Энийэ] |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| тварь творчество [твАр', твОрчиства]          |&#xD;&#xA;| творить растворять [ тварИт', раствар'Ат']    |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B** Another confusing case is a connecting vowel between roots. Word can be composed of two different ones.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you always have to write **о**, because there is no connecting vowel **а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;сам**о**лёт, пар**о**ход, тепл**о**воз, красн**о**-зелёный, жёлт**о**-оранжевый (compound colors always are written with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C** Also if the word has been borrowed from other language (French, German or English for example) it usually follows transliteration rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**оппонент**&quot; that sounds like [апан'Энт] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**opponent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**лотерея**&quot; [латэр'Эйа] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**lottery**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**монитор**&quot; [ман'итОр] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**monitor**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D**&#xD;&#xA;Or this unstressed vowels can be presented in a suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;воровать&quot; [варавАт']&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root here is '**вор**'(rubber), '**ова**' is a suffix and '**ть**' – ending of the verb infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find some basic suffixes in Russian. They are written as they are without modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**E**&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore o/a can exist within prefixes. There are about 70 prefixes in Russian language. Some of them change during some rules. You can check them [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - подобрать [падабрАт'] (to pick up) Here the prefix is подо- (пада doesn't exist), -бр- is the root, -ать is the infinitive verb ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - разослать [разаслАт'] (to send out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/667499&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="1f4d784b-1e41-46d6-b466-81d13b7d247c" CreationDate="2015-11-04T18:06:26.847" UserId="5915" Comment="typos" Text="Checking **o/a** with finding the same root based words doesn't work if there is an alternation of vowels in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A** Here is the list of alternation vowels roots with o/a inside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. з**а**р – з**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 2. кл**а**н – кл**о**н&#xD;&#xA; 3. тв**а**р – тв**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 4. л**а**г – л**о**ж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to write what you hear, if it is stressed, and **o** otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| загар огарок – [загАр, агАрак]                |&#xD;&#xA;| загорел горелый [загар'Эл, гар'Элый]          |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| кланяться поклон [клАнитса, паклОн]           |&#xD;&#xA;| наклонять склонение [наклан'Ат', склан'Энийэ] |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| тварь творчество [твАр', твОрчиства]          |&#xD;&#xA;| творить растворять [ тварИт', раствар'Ат']    |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B** Another confusing case is a connecting vowel between roots. Word can be composed of two different ones.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you always have to write **о**, because there is no connecting vowel **а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;сам**о**лёт, пар**о**ход, тепл**о**воз, красн**о**-зелёный, жёлт**о**-оранжевый (compound colors always are written with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C** Also if the word has been borrowed from another language (French, German or English for example) it usually follows transliteration rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**оппонент**&quot; that sounds like [апан'Энт] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**opponent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**лотерея**&quot; [латэр'Эйа] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**lottery**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**монитор**&quot; [ман'итОр] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**monitor**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D**&#xD;&#xA;Or the unstressed vowels can be presented in a suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;воровать&quot; [варавАт']&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root here is '**вор**'(rubber), '**ова**' is a suffix and '**ть**' – ending of the verb infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find some basic suffixes in Russian. They are written as they are without modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**E**&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore o/a can exist within prefixes. There are about 70 prefixes in Russian language. Some of them change during some rules. You can check them [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - подобрать [падабрАт'] (to pick up) Here the prefix is подо- (пада doesn't exist), -бр- is the root, -ать is the infinitive verb ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - разослать [разаслАт'] (to send out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/667499&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11117" RevisionGUID="951c6159-5854-419b-ac76-daa45921a8a8" CreationDate="2015-11-04T18:52:52.457" UserId="5389" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Of course Russian has a sign language. You can look for &quot;**Русский жестовый язык**&quot; and &quot;**Сурдоперевод**&quot; in the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start, say, from [this Wikipedia article][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: &#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="d3bfe584-4c6e-4da8-8245-7ebcf8ed36f1" CreationDate="2015-11-04T19:56:51.477" UserId="194" Text="Слишком is too serious while черезчур is only slighly disapproving as if you were approving it in essense or in the deep or your mind. Like in the case of playing children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы слишком шумите! - You are producing too much noise, reduce it!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы черезчур шумите! - Your noise is excessive. Even though I like it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and think you essentially have the right to do it, it can be annoying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for other people around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="d84f308a-d12a-41b1-a0ad-91003e2bd609" CreationDate="2015-11-04T20:02:09.493" UserId="194" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="Слишком is too serious while черезчур is only slighly disapproving as if you were approving it in essense or in the deep or your mind or it is generally a good property, just here it is unusually excessive. Like in the case of playing children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы слишком шумите! - You are producing too much noise, reduce it!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы черезчур шумите! - Your noise is excessive. Even though I like it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and think you essentially have the right to do it, it can be annoying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for other people around.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У вас слишком большой рост. - Your height is too large. You do not fit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У вас черезчур большой рост. - Large height is good in general, and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; like(we look for) specifically people with large height but I am a little concerned about yours&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it may be excessive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="996f7f1f-95c6-42a0-9c07-e573fe15774b" CreationDate="2015-11-04T20:13:04.957" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Слишком is too serious while черезчур is only slighly disapproving as if you were approving it in essense or in the deep or your mind or it is generally a good property, just here it is unusually excessive. Like in the case of playing children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы слишком шумите! - You are producing too much noise, reduce it!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы черезчур шумите! - Your noise is excessive. Even though I like it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and think you essentially have the right to do it, it can be annoying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for other people around.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У вас слишком большой рост. - Your height is too large. You do not fit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the requirements. It is unlikely you will pass.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У вас черезчур большой рост. - Large height is good in general, and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; like(we look for) specifically tall people but I am a little concerned about yours&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it may be excessive. Nevertheless, we can give you a try." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="485b9a16-c9e5-4416-9f43-639549954941" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:03:02.803" UserId="5201" Text="Can желание and охота  both be used as a synonym for the word 'desire' or do they differ slightly? If I'm not mistaken, sometimes охота appears to mean more like 'inclination.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="485b9a16-c9e5-4416-9f43-639549954941" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:03:02.803" UserId="5201" Text="Difference between 'желание' и 'охота'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="485b9a16-c9e5-4416-9f43-639549954941" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:03:02.803" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="c74c7c0c-e236-4b32-801c-3d1ddabd34f9" CreationDate="2015-11-04T22:38:13.297" UserId="4882" Text="&quot;Modest&quot; is a [common Russian name][1], most famously known as the name of the composer [Mussorgsky][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the etymology of this name have any relationship to the [English/Latin etymology][3] of the word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest_Mussorgsky&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&amp;search=modest&amp;searchmode=none" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="c74c7c0c-e236-4b32-801c-3d1ddabd34f9" CreationDate="2015-11-04T22:38:13.297" UserId="4882" Text="Etymology of the name &quot;Modest&quot; (Модест)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11121" RevisionGUID="c74c7c0c-e236-4b32-801c-3d1ddabd34f9" CreationDate="2015-11-04T22:38:13.297" UserId="4882" Text="|этимология|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="f0ba9551-9e80-4eea-9bd1-2328fd4909c8" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:08:19.493" UserId="242" Text="Not a surprising answer but yes, it does. There are at least two saints, both of them are recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church. One is мученик (martyr) Модест, the other one is святитель Модест. It never was very popular in Russia but earlier, like in 19th century, it definitely was at least more popular than now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it actually was used more in Polish-Russian families rather than in families without Polish roots. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="51b148ca-dd39-4f46-ad64-4cdda08dc20c" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:16:16.133" UserId="242" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Not a surprising answer but yes, it does. There are at least two saints, both of them are recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church. One is мученик (martyr) Модест, the other one is святитель Модест. It never was very popular in Russia but earlier, like in 19th century, it definitely was at least more popular than now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it actually was used more in Polish-Russian families rather than in families without Polish/Polish Jewish roots. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11123" RevisionGUID="41720b9d-d8ca-4585-95f2-e94df5c2c0ba" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:22:14.347" UserId="5915" Text="&quot;Желание&quot; is a noun which you can use with a possessive pronoun or as a subject of an &quot;I have...&quot; clause:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Самое большое **моё желание** на данный момент - согреться и поесть.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть тайное **желание** дать начальнику хороший подзатыльник.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although 'охота' is a noun, you can't use it interchangeably with 'желание' in those sentences.  To express desire with 'охота' you would use the impersonal form&#xD;&#xA;&gt;мне/тебе/ему/ей/нам/вам/им **охота**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar, if you look, at expressions describing feelings or emotions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;мне/тебе/ему/ей/нам/вам/им **тепло**/**смешно**/**кажется**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use &quot;охота&quot; as an inclination, favoritism, then it's *never abstract*, but always supplied with an object in genitive with the preposition &quot;до&quot; or dative with the preposition &quot;к&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я как есть тоже имею сильную **охоту до** рыбной ловли...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколь отменна была его **охота к** наукам и **ко** всему человечеству полезным знаниям,... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;охота&quot; is akin to verb &quot;хотеть&quot;, so whatever degrees of desire can be expressed by &quot;хотеть&quot;, can also apply to &quot;охота&quot;, and additional modifiers can be used with it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Уж **больно** мне **охота** посмотреть,   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;И **охота** тебе сейчас...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting to note that with the word &quot;охота&quot; either &quot;было&quot; or &quot;была&quot; can be used for past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне **было** охота прочитать про все:...   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Охота тебе **была** с ним связываться!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the difference in meaning, I think &quot;*охота*&quot; has more of an *unconscious desire*, **driven by instinct or habit** rather than organized thought.  That's why one of the meanings of &quot;*охота*&quot; is the state in which females of some species (e.g. dogs) are most sexually receptive, &quot;estrus&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11119" RevisionGUID="ac49c37d-be41-45c1-ae6e-8870ab037650" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:54:09.657" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Слишком is too serious while чересчур is only slighly disapproving as if you were approving it in essense or in the deep of your mind or it is generally a good property, just here it is unusually excessive. Like in the case of playing children:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы слишком шумите! - You are producing too much noise, reduce it!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы чересчур шумите! - Your noise is excessive. Even though I like it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and think you essentially have the right to do it, it can be annoying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for other people around.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У вас слишком большой рост. - Your height is too large. You do not fit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the requirements. It is unlikely you will pass.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У вас чересчур большой рост. - Large height is good in general, and I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; like(we look for) specifically tall people but I am a little concerned about yours&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because it may be excessive. Nevertheless, we can give you a try." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25577" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="854a6c29-9eaa-4a1d-8b84-57c58b0cdb80" CreationDate="2015-11-05T03:40:20.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/662112181790638080" />
  <row Id="25578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11122" RevisionGUID="c53a94e5-256d-457d-b6f4-7c5c6473ffcf" CreationDate="2015-11-05T03:55:14.993" UserId="242" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="Not a surprising answer but yes, it does. &#xD;&#xA;[Here][1]'s a link to academic source on Модест.&#xD;&#xA;[Here][2]'s an English link, which is not academic, but well, this is true :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two saints, both of them are recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church. One is мученик (martyr) Модест, the other one is святитель Модест. It never was very popular in Russia but earlier, like in 19th century, it definitely was at least more popular than now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it actually was used more in Polish-Russian families rather than in families without Polish/Polish Jewish roots. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/personal_names/1583&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.behindthename.com/name/modest" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="ea74002b-0a4b-4f4a-9ccc-321d52e187ed" CreationDate="2015-11-05T05:21:57.367" UserId="5932" Text="Наконец написания Чеховского Лошадиная фамилия есть выражение я не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Накося!- сказал генерал с презрением и поднес к лицу его два кукиша.- Не нужно мне теперь твоей лошадиной фамилии! Накося!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит ‹‹накося››?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="ea74002b-0a4b-4f4a-9ccc-321d52e187ed" CreationDate="2015-11-05T05:21:57.367" UserId="5932" Text="Что значит ‹‹Накося›› в" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="ea74002b-0a4b-4f4a-9ccc-321d52e187ed" CreationDate="2015-11-05T05:21:57.367" UserId="5932" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="364c245f-7dee-403e-8082-99cd1fb56f7f" CreationDate="2015-11-05T06:07:35.713" UserId="197" Text="Обычно, слово &quot;человек&quot; в множественном числе будет &quot;люди&quot;, &quot;людей&quot;, &quot;людям&quot; и т.д. Но иногда встречается со словами &quot;человеки&quot;, &quot;человекам&quot; и т.д. В каких контекстах они употребляются?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="364c245f-7dee-403e-8082-99cd1fb56f7f" CreationDate="2015-11-05T06:07:35.713" UserId="197" Text="В каких контекстах употреблебяются слова &quot;человеки&quot;, &quot;человекам&quot;, и т.д.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="364c245f-7dee-403e-8082-99cd1fb56f7f" CreationDate="2015-11-05T06:07:35.713" UserId="197" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11126" RevisionGUID="e3377344-ebe6-434c-aff0-3fea0f51f120" CreationDate="2015-11-05T06:20:34.997" UserId="6227" Text="Судя по [странице](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA#.D0.A1.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B0.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D1.81.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B9.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B0) в викисловаре, &quot;человеки&quot; - это устаревший вид множественного числа.&#xD;&#xA;Также такая форма употребляется для придания ироничного, нарочито странного оттенка фразе (&quot;все мы люди, все мы человеки&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25586" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11024" RevisionGUID="be6deebf-5e17-4c16-91d4-a0d41ea441ee" CreationDate="2015-11-05T06:40:21.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/662157486913429504" />
  <row Id="25587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11124" RevisionGUID="658b9c0d-673d-47f3-a22a-ff3c536594be" CreationDate="2015-11-05T06:48:34.320" UserId="5008" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="В самом конце рассказа Чехова &quot;Лошадиная фамилия&quot; есть выражение, которое я никак не могу понять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Накося_!- сказал генерал с презрением и поднес к лицу его два кукиша.- Не нужно мне теперь твоей лошадиной фамилии! _Накося_!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что значит ‹‹накося››?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11127" RevisionGUID="f974c001-6e64-4e1e-bede-4a5c3a67b9e6" CreationDate="2015-11-05T07:02:16.157" UserId="5008" Text="_Накося_ (или _накось_) это то же, что и просто междометие &quot;_на_&quot; (бери, получай, take that!) с двумя суффиксами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще всего _накося_ употребляется в сочетании _накося выкуси_ (на что собственно намекают и контекст, и жест, сделанный героем рассказа). _Накося выкуси_ обыкновенно означает _не получишь_; _даже не мечтай_ и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подлинный смысл выражения должен быть достаточно понятен, если уделить больше внимания, сопровождающему его жесту. Кстати, в английском языке есть более-менее близкий аналог: _bite me!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11127" RevisionGUID="67ee67e1-0100-4926-ba90-87dd7df3cb8a" CreationDate="2015-11-05T07:47:40.423" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="_Накося_ (или _накось_) это то же, что и просто междометие &quot;_на_&quot; (бери, получай, take that!) с двумя суффиксами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чаще всего _накося_ употребляется в сочетании _накося выкуси_ (на что собственно намекают и контекст, и жест, сделанный героем рассказа). _Накося выкуси_ обыкновенно означает _не получишь_; _даже не мечтай_ и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подлинный смысл выражения должен быть достаточно понятен, если уделить больше внимания сопровождающему его жесту. Кстати, в английском языке есть более-менее близкий аналог: _bite me!_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11044" RevisionGUID="20d2ef60-72cc-46c5-a1a9-34402fc417f7" CreationDate="2015-11-05T08:00:14.257" UserId="6165" Comment="раст/ращ/рос has been added" Text="Checking **o/a** with finding the same root based words doesn't work if there is an alternation of vowels in the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A** Here is the list of alternation vowels roots with o/a inside:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. з**а**р – з**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 2. кл**а**н – кл**о**н&#xD;&#xA; 3. тв**а**р – тв**о**р&#xD;&#xA; 4. л**а**г – л**о**ж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to write what you hear, if it is stressed, and **o** otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| загар огарок – [загАр, агАрак]                |&#xD;&#xA;| загорел горелый [загар'Эл, гар'Элый]          |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| кланяться поклон [клАнитса, паклОн]           |&#xD;&#xA;| наклонять склонение [наклан'Ат', склан'Энийэ] |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| тварь творчество [твАр', твОрчиства]          |&#xD;&#xA;| творить растворять [ тварИт', раствар'Ат']    |&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one list of alternation vowels is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. раст&#xD;&#xA; 2. ращ&#xD;&#xA; 3. рос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the rule:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| А (before СТ, Щ)	 -раст- / -ращ-	 возраст    [вОзраст]       |&#xD;&#xA;|                                    растить    [растИт']       |&#xD;&#xA;|                                    выращивать [вырАщ'иват']   |&#xD;&#xA;|                                    приращение [пр'иращЕн'ийе] |&#xD;&#xA;| О (in other cases) -рос-	         заросли    [зАрасл'и]      |&#xD;&#xA;|                                    вырос      [вЫрас]         |&#xD;&#xA;| ---------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;| Exceptions:	росток, ростовщик, Ростов, отрасль, Ростислав   |&#xD;&#xA;|----------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**B** Another confusing case is a connecting vowel between roots. Word can be composed of two different ones.&#xD;&#xA;In this case you always have to write **о**, because there is no connecting vowel **а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;сам**о**лёт, пар**о**ход, тепл**о**воз, красн**о**-зелёный, жёлт**о**-оранжевый (compound colors always are written with dash)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C** Also if the word has been borrowed from another language (French, German or English for example) it usually follows transliteration rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**оппонент**&quot; that sounds like [апан'Энт] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**opponent**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**лотерея**&quot; [латэр'Эйа] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**lottery**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**монитор**&quot; [ман'итОр] &lt;–&gt; &quot;**monitor**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D**&#xD;&#xA;Or the unstressed vowels can be presented in a suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;воровать&quot; [варавАт']&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root here is '**вор**'(rubber), '**ова**' is a suffix and '**ть**' – ending of the verb infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find some basic suffixes in Russian. They are written as they are without modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**E**&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore o/a can exist within prefixes. There are about 70 prefixes in Russian language. Some of them change during some rules. You can check them [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - подобрать [падабрАт'] (to pick up) Here the prefix is подо- (пада doesn't exist), -бр- is the root, -ать is the infinitive verb ending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - разослать [разаслАт'] (to send out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/667499&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11130" RevisionGUID="6b5f3dac-5480-4b31-a6c5-2d6d656d2680" CreationDate="2015-11-05T13:22:26.797" UserId="1836" Text="Мне кажется, в основном, &quot;человеки&quot; употребляется когда надо подчеркнуть что речь идет именно о людях (не об инопланетянах (рептилоиды, зеленые человечки и т.д.), не о фентезийных расах (эльфы, гномы и иже с ними) и не о ком-нибудь еще).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Часто используется когда говорящий не позиционирует себя как человека (например говорит от имени кота)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11131" RevisionGUID="1eae9155-b6b2-4504-ad7a-bb30b946ea34" CreationDate="2015-11-05T15:20:18.960" UserId="5008" Text="Положим, что ткну пальцем в небо, но всё же рискну предположить, что _впервые_ это всего лишь _в первые [ряды]_, по аналогии с _вперворяд_, _вдругорядь_ и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же учесть и форму женского рода _рядь_ (есть у Даля), то становится возможным и _впервыя_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="941" RevisionGUID="0d3b5c2e-a23a-4e87-87b2-d44ce0434507" CreationDate="2015-11-05T18:29:39.670" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="In pre-1918 Russian orhography, female and neuter adjectives in pl. nom. had endings *-iя*, *-ыя*: *новыя вещи, голубыя озёра*, but *новые наряды, голубые киты*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pluralia tantum require some etymologic background to put the adjective in right gender: *острыя ножницы, новыя сѣни* but *французскiе духи*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs originated from adjectives follow this rule too, however the noun the were governed by is usually lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in adverb *впервые*. It is clearly originated from the phrase *в первые …* with some noun, but I failed to find its etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Books search suggests 55 entries with *впервыя* and 123 entries with *впервые* between 1870 and 1916.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder: what was the right form of the adverb *впервые* (or its etymology)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11132" RevisionGUID="5815fdbf-d64e-450e-a409-1306ac46ffdc" CreationDate="2015-11-06T07:17:03.260" UserId="5389" Text="All you need is just to find some pre-reform sources, and better to find some scan copies. For example [here][1] or a least re-typed books like [here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [this PDF document][3] _(from the 2nd mentioned source)_ we can find a word &quot;**впервые**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы мыслить и писать затѣяли **впервые**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Съ Бѣлинскимъ: до него былъ вамъ дремучій мракъ.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прекрасно! У меня жъ учители другіе,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И до него еще я мыслилъ кое-какъ.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; П.А. Вяземский **1861**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amnesia.pavelbers.com/Starinnie%20izdanija.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://imwerden.de/cat/modules.php?name=books&amp;pa=last_update&amp;cid=90&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://imwerden.de/pdf/vyazemsky_pozdnie_stixotvoreniya.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11133" RevisionGUID="1b41028c-ffa4-4305-96f5-78d0a3f3c3b2" CreationDate="2015-11-06T10:49:14.260" UserId="1236" Text="Russian has its own sign language, and I can share a textbook of it, in Russian, [Гейльман И.Ф., «Знакомьтесь: ручная речь», Москва, «Загрей», 2001][1], 2 MB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mediafire.com/download/b2acb0d6uv6faq3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="0a44e025-b9d2-4371-a1d0-a05e134ef877" CreationDate="2015-11-06T11:49:14.317" UserId="2311" Text="В программировании (как наверняка многие здесь знают) есть понятие &quot;класс&quot; и &quot;дочерний класс&quot;, но более логично называть последнее &quot;подклассом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И по мимо этого есть понятие интерфейс. До сих пор я его его дочерний вариант писал только по-английски как subinterface. А тут нужно написать по-русски и я завис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Подинтерфейс&#xD;&#xA; 2. Подъинтерфейс&#xD;&#xA; 3. Подынтерфейс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все выглядят как-то неправильно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="0a44e025-b9d2-4371-a1d0-a05e134ef877" CreationDate="2015-11-06T11:49:14.317" UserId="2311" Text="Дочерний интерфейс: подъинтерфейс, подинтерфейс, или подинтерфейс?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="0a44e025-b9d2-4371-a1d0-a05e134ef877" CreationDate="2015-11-06T11:49:14.317" UserId="2311" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11135" RevisionGUID="9c758809-644e-4f15-b2d6-61d5409e44cf" CreationDate="2015-11-06T11:58:12.917" UserId="134" Text="It's *подынтерфейс*, similar to *подынтервал* and *подынтегральный*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После приставок, оканчивающихся на согласную, вместо *и* пишется *ы* в соответствии с произношением, например: *играть – подыграть, разыграть, сыграть; искать – отыскать, подыскать, разыскать: идейный – безыдейный; индукционный – безындукционный; интегральный – подынтегральный; исторический – предысторический; июльский – предыюльский.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25608" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="9b270d02-0289-4f38-ac28-f51f7d8b037e" CreationDate="2015-11-06T13:04:05.113" UserId="2311" Comment="edited title" Text="Дочерний интерфейс: подъинтерфейс, подинтерфейс, или подынтерфейс?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11135" RevisionGUID="96ee533f-e5c9-497f-8705-26ad1460ea25" CreationDate="2015-11-06T13:09:32.843" UserId="134" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="It's *подынтерфейс*, similar to *подынтервал* and *подынтегральный*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 33:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После приставок, оканчивающихся на согласную, вместо *и* пишется *ы* в соответствии с произношением, например: *играть – подыграть, разыграть, сыграть; искать – отыскать, подыскать, разыскать: идейный – безыдейный; индукционный – безындукционный; интегральный – подынтегральный; исторический – предысторический; июльский – предыюльский.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this rule is only valid for Slavic prefixes except *сверх-* and *меж-*: *суперигра*, *сверхидея*, *межинтервальный*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="24067aac-8421-4102-9f01-c640a2ce2d0a" CreationDate="2015-11-06T13:53:00.730" UserId="5008" Text="Приставки, оканчивающиеся на согласную, для целей правописания можно разделить на &quot;исконно русские&quot; и &quot;заимствованные&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После &quot;русских&quot; приставок, таких как _пред-_, _под-_ и пр. пишется буква _ы_, например _предыстория_. Но после &quot;заимствованных&quot;, к примеру, _суб-_, _супер-_ и пр. нужно писать _и_, например, _суперинтендант_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, правильно будет **субинтерфейс** или **подынтерфейс**, но никак иначе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11136" RevisionGUID="a950200a-f66d-4563-a0f9-cca11d876639" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:01:12.190" UserId="5008" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="Приставки, оканчивающиеся на согласную, для целей правописания можно разделить на &quot;исконно русские&quot; и &quot;заимствованные&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После &quot;русских&quot; приставок, таких как _пред-_, _под-_ и пр. пишется буква _ы_, например _предыстория_. Но после &quot;заимствованных&quot;, к примеру, _суб-_, _супер-_ и пр. нужно писать _и_, например, _суперинтендант_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исключениями являются приставки _сверх-_ и _меж-_ (например, _сверхискренний_, _межинститутский_), а также глагол _взимать_ (ср. _взыграть_, _взыскать_ и т.п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, правильно будет **субинтерфейс** или **подынтерфейс**, но никак иначе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="6b8a97cf-314e-4b1d-9d83-f20285cb4b99" CreationDate="2015-11-06T15:07:26.190" UserId="5874" Text="Я взрослый, который долго занимался русским языком.  Признаю, что я не говорю без ошибок, итак я еще занимаюсь.  Недавно нанял русскую учительницу, рожденную в СССР.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопреки этой грамматики тут,&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9546/use-of-dative-after-учить-etc&#xD;&#xA;она хочет, чтобы я писал,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она учит русский язык&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кажется, что наш учебник &quot;Поехали! 2.1&quot; поддерживает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас вопрос.  В этом случае в русском языке уже изменилась грамматика?  Иначе мне надо нанять другую учительницу? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="6b8a97cf-314e-4b1d-9d83-f20285cb4b99" CreationDate="2015-11-06T15:07:26.190" UserId="5874" Text="Надо ли нанять другую учительницу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="6b8a97cf-314e-4b1d-9d83-f20285cb4b99" CreationDate="2015-11-06T15:07:26.190" UserId="5874" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11138" RevisionGUID="4367d956-ab58-42fd-9118-b1724153baa7" CreationDate="2015-11-06T15:27:06.087" UserId="1236" Text="“Учить” can mean ‘to teach’, but also it can mean ‘to learn, to study’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it means ‘to teach’, it is usually followed by two objects, an Accusative object (the person being taught), and a Dative one (the subject taught):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She teaches me the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она учит меня (Acc.) русскому языку (Dat.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When “учить” means ‘to learn, to study’, it is followed by just one Accusative object which names the subject studied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She studies the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она учит русский язык (Acc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking this into account, you can see that the sentence “Она учит русский язык.” is absolutely correct from the point of view of the Russian grammar. The point is, since “русский язык” is an obvious name of a subject, and it is in the Accusative case, that sentence can only be translated as “She *studies/learns* the Russian language”, but definitely not “She *teaches* the Russian language”, the use of the cases after that verb defines whether it means ‘to teach’ or ‘to learn, to study’." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="89ef9aab-a722-4985-84b8-0b17036d9414" CreationDate="2015-11-06T16:37:01.750" UserId="242" Comment="The question was not about the teacher )" Text="Правильна ли грамматически фраза &quot;Она учит русский язык&quot;. Тут - http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9546/use-of-dative-after-учить-etc - &#xD;&#xA;прилагательное &quot;русский&quot; склоняется. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25617" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="89ef9aab-a722-4985-84b8-0b17036d9414" CreationDate="2015-11-06T16:37:01.750" UserId="242" Comment="The question was not about the teacher )" Text="&quot;Она учит русский язык&quot; или &quot;Она учит русскому языку?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="7af556dc-26ae-4f0a-8480-074ca4f11294" CreationDate="2015-11-06T18:33:43.187" UserId="831" Text="Каков изначальный смысл пословицы &quot;С волками жить - по-волчьи выть&quot;? Я смотрю на разные источники в Интернете и замечаю, что они предлагают разные толкования заложенного в эту пословицу смысла. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть источники, которые считают, что эта пословица несет *рекомендательный* смысл: если ты хочешь жить с волками, то лучше *старайся* вести себя по-волчьи. В частности, пословица часто сопоставляется с выраженно рекомендательной английской &quot;When in Rome, do as the Romans do.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я лично всегда воспринимал смысл этой пословицы по-другому, как констатацию *объективной неизбежности*: будешь жить с волками - *хочешь-не хочешь*, но сам рано или поздно обязательно превратишься в волка. Есть источники, поддерживающие и эту точку зрения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так каков же канонический смысл этой пословицы? Откуда она пошла?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="7af556dc-26ae-4f0a-8480-074ca4f11294" CreationDate="2015-11-06T18:33:43.187" UserId="831" Text="&quot;С волками жить - по-волчьи выть&quot; - каков изначальный смысл пословицы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="7af556dc-26ae-4f0a-8480-074ca4f11294" CreationDate="2015-11-06T18:33:43.187" UserId="831" Text="|значения|пословицы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11140" RevisionGUID="bcaa6394-bd7c-4821-9548-c3e651a7119d" CreationDate="2015-11-06T18:58:40.283" UserId="831" Text="Russian language contains a number of verbs that have pronouncedly *transitive* nature, yet don't mandate a specific direction of the associated action. In most cases the the direction can be deduced from the accompanying directional preposition, if any is present. In the absence of said preposition the only way to determine the direction is to analyze the surrounding context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such verb, encountered quite often is &quot;вернуть&quot; (&quot;to return &lt;something&gt;&quot;). For example, &quot;Алекс хочет вернуть эту книгу&quot; can mean that: 1) Alex has someone's elses book and wants to return it to the owner, or 2) someone else has Alex's book and Alex wants it back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;учить&quot; is another example of the same thing. It can mean both &quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn/to study&quot;. This verb does not accept a directional preposition, which makes it especially difficult to figure out what is meant without context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former meaning - &quot;to teach&quot; - can legally accept either an Accusative or Dative object. Meanwhile, the latter meaning - &quot;to learn/to study&quot; - requires Accusative object. This means that your first variant - “Она учит русский язык” - can mean both &quot;She studies Russian&quot; and &quot;She teaches Russian&quot;. Your second variant - “Она учит русскому языку” - is unambiguous and can only be interpreted as &quot;She teaches Russian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many native Russian speakers perceive the ambiguous nature of such verbs as &quot;mildly objectionable&quot; (let's put it this way) and strive to make sure that their usage eliminates any chance of ambiguity. I.e. they'd avoid sentences like “Она учит русский язык” and rather say &quot;Она **изучает** русский язык&quot; или &quot;Она **преподает** русский язык&quot;. Your variant with Dative - “Она учит русскому языку” - sounds good as well, since this usage of Dative eliminates the ambiguity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11140" RevisionGUID="554f97f2-6e33-4ef4-9cfc-b644ca739a6e" CreationDate="2015-11-06T19:08:27.393" UserId="831" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Russian language contains a number of verbs that have pronouncedly *transitive* nature, yet don't mandate a specific direction of the associated action. In most cases the the direction can be deduced from the accompanying directional preposition, if any is present. In the absence of said preposition sometimes the only way to determine the direction is to analyze the surrounding context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such verb, encountered quite often is &quot;вернуть&quot; (&quot;to return &lt;something&gt;&quot;). For example, &quot;Алекс хочет вернуть эту книгу&quot; can mean that: 1) Alex has someone's elses book and wants to return it to the owner, or 2) someone else has Alex's book and Alex wants it back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;учить&quot; is another example of the same thing. It can mean both &quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn/to study&quot;. This verb does not accept a directional preposition, which often makes it difficult to figure out what is meant without context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former meaning - &quot;to teach&quot; - can legally accept either an Accusative or Dative object. Meanwhile, the latter meaning - &quot;to learn/to study&quot; - requires Accusative object. This means that your first variant - “Она учит русский язык” - can mean both &quot;She studies Russian&quot; and &quot;She teaches Russian&quot;. Your second variant - “Она учит русскому языку” - is unambiguous and can only be interpreted as &quot;She teaches Russian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many native Russian speakers perceive the ambiguous nature of such verbs as &quot;mildly objectionable&quot; (let's put it this way) and strive to make sure that their usage eliminates any chance of ambiguity. I.e. they'd avoid sentences like “Она учит русский язык” and rather say &quot;Она **изучает** русский язык&quot; или &quot;Она **преподает** русский язык&quot;. Your variant with Dative - “Она учит русскому языку” - sounds good as well, since this usage of Dative eliminates the ambiguity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11141" RevisionGUID="1799263a-b1b5-495c-94aa-c218d8d31bfa" CreationDate="2015-11-06T23:31:50.703" UserId="242" Text="Коннотация неизбежности в этой поговорке совершенно точно есть. На самом деле &quot;с волками жить - по волчьи выть&quot;, как это нередко бывает с поговорками - это всего лишь один из вариантов - самый известный, но были и другие, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Либо с волками выть, либо съедену быть.&#xD;&#xA; - Так и быть: с волками выть ([встречаем][1] у Даля) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, и, кстати, эта пословица упомянута у Даля в разделе &quot;Воля-Неволя&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что да, это не совсем про то, что нужно следовать каким-то правилам социума, а скорее про то, что если даже этот социум плох, придётся сосуществовать по его правилам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dahl_proverbs/14186/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11141" RevisionGUID="e4245ed3-bdc5-4886-ab79-9be35120c283" CreationDate="2015-11-06T23:48:55.687" UserId="242" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Коннотация неизбежности в этой пословице совершенно точно есть. На самом деле &quot;с волками жить - по волчьи выть&quot;, как это нередко бывает с подобного рода высказываниями - это всего лишь один из вариантов - самый известный, но были и другие, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Либо с волками выть, либо съедену быть.&#xD;&#xA; - Так и быть: с волками выть ([встречаем][1] у Даля) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, и, кстати, эта пословица упомянута у Даля в разделе &quot;Воля-Неволя&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что да, это не совсем про то, что нужно следовать каким-то правилам социума, а скорее про то, что если даже этот социум плох, придётся сосуществовать по его правилам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dahl_proverbs/14186/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="182db229-2d66-49ec-a659-67bf4385aba7" CreationDate="2015-11-06T23:49:49.997" UserId="831" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="Каков изначальный смысл пословицы &quot;С волками жить - по-волчьи выть&quot;? Я смотрю на разные источники в Интернете и замечаю, что они предлагают разные толкования заложенного в эту пословицу смысла. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть источники, которые считают, что эта пословица несет *рекомендательный* смысл: если ты хочешь жить с волками, то лучше *старайся* вести себя по-волчьи. В частности, пословица часто сопоставляется с выраженно рекомендательной английской &quot;When in Rome, do as the Romans do.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я лично всегда воспринимал смысл этой пословицы по-другому, как констатацию *объективной неизбежности*: будешь жить с волками - *хочешь-не хочешь*, но сам рано или поздно обязательно превратишься в волка. Есть источники, поддерживающие и эту точку зрения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно заметил @Victor Bazarov в комментариях, наличествует еще и третий вариант интерпретации этой пословицы, основанный на использовании слова &quot;выть&quot; в значении &quot;страдать&quot;: будешь жить с волками - завоешь, хлебнешь горя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так каков же канонический смысл этой пословицы? Откуда она пошла?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11140" RevisionGUID="152e6672-4f17-4248-8106-ce45ff563eed" CreationDate="2015-11-07T00:30:42.420" UserId="831" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Russian language contains a number of verbs that have pronouncedly *transitive* nature, yet don't mandate a specific direction of the associated action. In most cases the the direction can be deduced from the accompanying directional preposition, if any is present. In the absence of said preposition sometimes the only way to determine the direction is to analyze the surrounding context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example of such verb, encountered quite often is &quot;вернуть&quot; (&quot;to return &lt;something&gt;&quot;). For example, &quot;Алекс хочет вернуть эту книгу&quot; can mean that: 1) Alex has someone's elses book and wants to return it to the owner, or 2) someone else has Alex's book and Alex wants it back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;учить&quot; is another example of the same thing. It can mean both &quot;to teach&quot; and &quot;to learn/to study&quot;. This verb does not accept a directional preposition, which often makes it difficult to figure out what is meant without context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former meaning - &quot;to teach&quot; - can legally accept either an Accusative or Dative object. Meanwhile, the latter meaning - &quot;to learn/to study&quot; - requires Accusative object. This means that your first variant - “Она учит русский язык” - can mean both &quot;She studies Russian&quot; and &quot;She teaches Russian&quot;. Your second variant - “Она учит русскому языку” - is unambiguous and can only be interpreted as &quot;She teaches Russian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many native Russian speakers perceive the ambiguous nature of such verbs as &quot;mildly objectionable&quot; (let's put it this way) and strive to make sure that their usage eliminates any chance of ambiguity. I.e. they'd avoid sentences like “Она учит русский язык” and rather say &quot;Она **изучает** русский язык&quot; or &quot;Она **преподает** русский язык&quot;. Your variant with Dative - “Она учит русскому языку” - sounds good as well, since this usage of Dative eliminates the ambiguity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="0f5f78f3-0261-437b-8190-66539e313943" CreationDate="2015-11-07T00:46:48.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/662793287338696704" />
  <row Id="25628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="e747f458-a2d9-4d1a-9e36-1c6741ee0f4e" CreationDate="2015-11-07T06:00:09.650" UserId="5201" Text="Maybe this question is needlessly elementary, but I can't help but ask - Is there any difference between потому and поэтому, whether by means of definition or usage? They both tend to be translated most often as meaning 'therefore,' but is there any noteworthy difference in meaning between them or something to note when one word is chosen over the other? If no, then any information about their respective etymologies would be interesting as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="e747f458-a2d9-4d1a-9e36-1c6741ee0f4e" CreationDate="2015-11-07T06:00:09.650" UserId="5201" Text="Difference between 'потому' and 'поэтому?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="e747f458-a2d9-4d1a-9e36-1c6741ee0f4e" CreationDate="2015-11-07T06:00:09.650" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="905afe4e-94eb-455b-9a6a-8e1b8d352bd2" CreationDate="2015-11-07T06:06:26.707" UserId="5201" Comment="added 21 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Maybe this question is needlessly elementary, but I can't help but ask - Is there any difference between потому and поэтому either in terms of definition or usage? They both tend to be translated most often as 'therefore,' but is there any noteworthy difference in definition between them or something to note when one word is chosen over the other (for example a stylistic difference)? Any information about their respective etymologies would be interesting as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11143" RevisionGUID="d6029527-dc5b-409e-83dc-db4ade86b1b2" CreationDate="2015-11-07T06:41:21.990" UserId="4560" Text="Not an elementary question at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is this: **поэтому** presents the *consequence* as the new and/or important part of the message, whereas **потому** focuses more on the cause (&quot;and that was why...&quot;). That focus is very often strengthened by the &quot;emphatic&quot; pre-verbal **и**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На нём была куртка, поэтому я решил, что он зашёл с улицы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He was wearing a jacket, so I thought he'd come in from outside.&quot; [And that led to something later in the story, or is just an aside.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На нём была куртка, **потому** я **и** решил, что он зашёл с улицы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;He was wearing a jacket, and *that's* why I thought he'd come in from outside.&quot; [&quot;Okay, I failed to spot a lurking criminal, but how was I supposed to know? He did put on a convincing act.&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, **поэтому я и решил** is also possible — and, in fact, more likely in the vernacular (where **потому** is rarely used outside of **потому что**, which is for all intents and purposes a different expression). But using **потому** always gives you a more explicit focus on the cause rather than the consequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the etymologies, they're very simple: the preposition **по** plus the dative of **это** and **то**, respectively. Here, **по** carries its older meaning of &quot;after&quot; or &quot;following&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11144" RevisionGUID="c84d5898-7f2d-4415-a452-f48de0b0fe41" CreationDate="2015-11-07T08:25:35.443" UserId="5443" Text="Probably, the most clear *difference in usage* is that &quot;**поэтому**&quot; always follows the already expressed reason for something, while &quot;**потому**&quot; (unless it's a part of undivided &quot;*потому что*&quot;) can precede it as well. E.g. you can't  use  &quot;поэтому&quot; in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я потому так поступил, что это мне велел начальник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can use either word in a sentence beginning with the explanation of reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Начальник это мне велел, и потому я это сделал (= поэтому я так и сделал).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11145" RevisionGUID="b2143285-fb9a-4647-a01d-657d25175f20" CreationDate="2015-11-07T09:34:03.850" UserId="5132" Text="I may be wrong but for me it sounds like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - это = this&#xD;&#xA; - то = that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по**это**му = because of **this**&#xD;&#xA; - по**то**му = because of **that**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also @Alex_ander's answer makes perfect sense for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11125" RevisionGUID="e29084e4-2ec4-48c0-89c7-a5c2865fb0ed" CreationDate="2015-11-07T09:46:48.640" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/662929183778217984" />
  <row Id="25637" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11120" RevisionGUID="25df6c24-7408-4e65-aa2d-77b4dded12db" CreationDate="2015-11-07T15:46:50.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/663019788751511552" />
  <row Id="25638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="440478fe-74cd-4cac-941a-ffca4a3fe74a" CreationDate="2015-11-07T17:40:15.397" UserId="6242" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to figure out the word: &quot;обощ&quot;, in genitive pl. and nominative pl., I have tried various other sources but the answers comes back as &quot;Word not found&quot; or something else that is not applicable. Can you please help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="440478fe-74cd-4cac-941a-ffca4a3fe74a" CreationDate="2015-11-07T17:40:15.397" UserId="6242" Text="The word: обощ, in gen. pl. and nom. pl?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="440478fe-74cd-4cac-941a-ffca4a3fe74a" CreationDate="2015-11-07T17:40:15.397" UserId="6242" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11147" RevisionGUID="b5e926da-c4ca-4001-ba9b-845ce259fbfe" CreationDate="2015-11-07T18:55:26.820" UserId="4560" Text="There well and truly is no such word. I'm guessing it's a misspelling (more of a typo or transliteration accident, really) of **овощ**, which has nom. pl. **óвощи** and gen. pl. **овощéй**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="8385a096-91ea-4b48-a26f-a15942a9d9da" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:01:11.720" UserId="6242" Comment="edited body" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to figure out the word: &quot;овощ&quot;, in genitive pl. and nominative pl., I have tried various other sources but the answers comes back as &quot;Word not found&quot; or something else that is not applicable. Can you please help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11147" RevisionGUID="0222bb23-0cba-4273-9dca-db81886786f4" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:04:38.597" UserId="4560" Comment="added 646 characters in body" Text="There well and truly is no such word. I'm guessing it's a misspelling (more of a typo or transliteration accident, really) of **овощ**, which has nom. pl. **óвощи** and gen. pl. **овощéй**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.** Oh! Dahl's dictionary actually [does list][1] **обощ** it as a southern dialectal form of **овощ**. The endings would be the same (standardly, anyway), and with the lot of dialectal levelling-out in the 20th century there's a high chance the form is extinct by now, or else surviving in a handful of villages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://megabook.ru/article/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%89%20%E2%94%80%20%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%92.%D0%98.%20%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11147" RevisionGUID="1d20dff8-862a-4f81-88bf-945947f2ab94" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:11:29.903" UserId="4560" Comment="added 646 characters in body" Text="There well and truly is no such word. I'm guessing it's a misspelling (more of a typo or transliteration accident, really) of **овощ**, which has nom. pl. **óвощи** and gen. pl. **овощéй**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.** Oh! Dahl's dictionary actually [does list][1] **обощ** it as a southern dialectal form of **овощ**. The endings would be the same (standardly, anyway; the respective dialect *might* have been sufficiently Ukrainian-leaning to go for *обощов* or *обощев*), and with the lot of dialectal levelling-out in the 20th century there's a high chance the form is extinct by now, or else surviving in a handful of villages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://megabook.ru/article/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%89%20%E2%94%80%20%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%20%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%92.%D0%98.%20%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25645" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11146" RevisionGUID="d730ed29-d4de-4fe8-bb2e-9e192ef12543" CreationDate="2015-11-07T19:29:39.787" UserId="5915" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="The word: обощ, in gen. pl. and nom. pl?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25646" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11139" RevisionGUID="a9d51c79-f0c4-4b48-a178-f9d3c648d500" CreationDate="2015-11-08T09:50:40.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/663292545540182017" />
  <row Id="25651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="fd3b56f1-9027-41b5-b2f0-674c052e0c29" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:15:38.993" UserId="4714" Text="So there are two sets of verbs that seem to have very similar meanings, but also some slight differences. What separates these these pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1. подворачивать подвёртывать--- подворотить подвернуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. заворачивать  завёртывать  ----  заворотить  завернуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean how is заворачивать different from завёртывать, and how is заворотить different from завернуть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend carries on for every pair— **пере, раз, итд.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the ***ворачивать, воротить*** pairs are misused in Russian sometimes. That is, they are used as synonyms for the ***вёртывать, ернуть*** pairs. Yet some dictionaries say that they should not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the difference between the sets ***IN GENERAL?*** I want a general answer not specifics of each verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="fd3b56f1-9027-41b5-b2f0-674c052e0c29" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:15:38.993" UserId="4714" Text="подворачивать or подвёртывать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="fd3b56f1-9027-41b5-b2f0-674c052e0c29" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:15:38.993" UserId="4714" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="f0e105fa-f2b2-4465-99ce-e8d23672495a" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:21:03.713" UserId="4714" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="So there are two sets of verbs that seem to have very similar meanings, but also some slight differences. What separates these these pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1. подворачивать подвёртывать--- подворотить подвернуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. заворачивать  завёртывать  ----  заворотить  завернуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean how is заворачивать different from завёртывать, and how is заворотить different from завернуть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend carries on for every pair— **пере, раз, итд.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the ***ворачивать, воротить*** pairs are misused in Russian sometimes. That is, they are used as synonyms for the ***вёртывать, ернуть*** pairs. Yet some dictionaries say that they should not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between the sets ***IN GENERAL?*** I want a general answer not specifics of each verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11151" RevisionGUID="e1b73148-e7a6-4902-ad08-bbc6751ebd13" CreationDate="2015-11-08T22:51:39.157" UserId="4560" Text="Basically, no real living breathing Russian speaker is likely to ever use **подвёртывать**, **подворотить**, or **заворотить**. There's some degree of free variation between **заворачивать** and **завёртывать**, but the former is massively more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I suppose the *-вёртывать* and *-воротить* ones can count as rare/obsolete at this point. Especially *-воротить*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="b25c55ec-819a-4ad0-a4dc-1798286a2118" CreationDate="2015-11-09T01:43:35.323" UserId="6250" Text="I recently bought a copy of, &quot;The Grand Inquisitor&quot; and, after a few days, I noticed that the title of the book on front cover was written partially in cyrillic. [![Here is a photo of it. ][1]][1] Does the cyrillic on the front mean anything or is it just for aesthetic purposes?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qs6EW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="b25c55ec-819a-4ad0-a4dc-1798286a2118" CreationDate="2015-11-09T01:43:35.323" UserId="6250" Text="&quot;The Grand Inquisitor&quot; book title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="b25c55ec-819a-4ad0-a4dc-1798286a2118" CreationDate="2015-11-09T01:43:35.323" UserId="6250" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11154" RevisionGUID="ddf984df-f2df-49df-b43b-dd8279972f96" CreationDate="2015-11-09T01:52:36.580" UserId="5740" Text="It means nothing. It just reads &quot;The Grand Inquisitor&quot; in English with a few Cyrillic letters thrown in to replace English letters that they look vaguely similar to. This is an example of [Faux Cyrillic][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, these are the letters used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;д - used for the &quot;a&quot; in &quot;grand&quot;, actually represents /d/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и - used for the &quot;n&quot; in &quot;grand&quot;, actually represents /i/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;б - used for the &quot;d&quot; in &quot;grand&quot;, actually represents /b/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ф - used for the &quot;q&quot; in &quot;inquisitor&quot;, actually represents /f/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_Cyrillic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11155" RevisionGUID="9bb52be0-4847-4dcd-b5ea-dbbcc2ce4f71" CreationDate="2015-11-09T08:05:03.987" UserId="5008" Text="All these words share the common root, so you can't find any true general difference. It's about the history of vowel alternation and dialects, not about &quot;essential meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this, you have to have living language experience to say obsolete and/or rare form from normal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peronally I think that _увёртываться_, _разворотить_, _развёртывать_ (for _deploy/develop_, but not for _unroll/unwrap_) are normal; _своротить_, _наворотить_ are normally colloquial; _подвёртывать_ is a relatively rare colloquial substitute for _подворачивать_; _поворотить_, _заворотить_ are quite obsolete and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt you can deduce anything &quot;generally useful&quot; from this, except _some_ forms in _-вёртывать_ and _-воротить_ are obsolete and shouldn't be used in the modern spoken language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9127" RevisionGUID="e0975be6-666e-470f-bb63-292950566751" CreationDate="2015-11-09T09:02:08.060" UserId="5008" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="Сказуемое - &quot;была примечательная&quot;. Это составное именное сказуемое. Именная часть сказуемого в принципе может выражаться разными частями речи - и существительным, и кратким прилагательным, и полным прилагательным (как в данном случае).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Крыса была примечательна - жила неизвестно где...&quot; - это значит, что крыса была примечательна именно тем, что жила неизвестно где.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Крыса была примечательная, жила неизвестно где...&quot; - это два более-менее независимых утверждения (в том смысле, что крыса, вероятно, была примечательна не только тем, что она жила неизвестно где).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.** Поскольку полные прилагательные получились из кратких добавлением указательного местоимения, то есть фактически _примечательная_ = _примечательна + я_ = _примечательна + та самая_, то можно предложить простую аналогию из английского языка:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Крыса была примечательна --&gt; The rat was remarkable  &#xD;&#xA;Крыса была примечательна**я** --&gt; The rat was **a** remarkable **one**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11155" RevisionGUID="9ce1194c-2349-4b22-8810-4b9aa9004ca4" CreationDate="2015-11-09T10:42:47.257" UserId="5008" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="All these words share the common root, so you can't find any true general difference. It's about the history of vowel alternation and dialects, not about &quot;essential meaning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given this, you have to have living language experience to say obsolete and/or rare form from normal one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe that _увёртываться_, _разворотить_, _развёртывать_ (as _deploy/develop_, but not _unroll/unwrap_), _приворотить_ (as _bewitch/enchant_) are normal; _своротить_, _наворотить_ are normally colloquial; _подвёртывать_ is a relatively rare colloquial substitute for _подворачивать_; _поворотить_, _заворотить_ are quite obsolete and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt you can deduce anything &quot;generally useful&quot; from this, except _some_ forms in _-вёртывать_ and _-воротить_ are obsolete and shouldn't be used in the modern spoken language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25664" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11142" RevisionGUID="0fc12486-4600-41d1-ba6f-6efd21572f9b" CreationDate="2015-11-09T13:02:41.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/663703252274438144" />
  <row Id="25666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="f96fafc3-fafd-4f95-992e-434155aaa105" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:11:50.373" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="So there are two sets of verbs that seem to have very similar meanings, but also some slight differences. What separates these these pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1. подворачивать подвёртывать--- подворотить подвернуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. заворачивать  завёртывать  ----  заворотить  завернуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean how is заворачивать different from завёртывать, and how is заворотить different from завернуть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend carries on for every pair— **пере, раз, итд.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that the ***ворачивать, воротить*** pairs are misused in Russian sometimes. That is, they are used as synonyms for the ***вёртывать, ернуть*** pairs. Yet some dictionaries say that they should not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between the sets ***in general***. I want a general answer not specifics of each verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25667" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11150" RevisionGUID="f96fafc3-fafd-4f95-992e-434155aaa105" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:11:50.373" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="&quot;Подворачивать&quot; or &quot;подвёртывать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="76eff058-3dbc-40a0-a787-40737a5879d0" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:42:21.737" UserId="242" Comment="More informative title" Text="&quot;Крыса была примечательная&quot; or &quot;примечательна&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10888" RevisionGUID="28258e58-aad8-42c5-8ec6-aa9f30b7fee3" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:42:41.450" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="bdfb57c6-83e5-4c5b-ac94-468b2f1869ab" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:43:41.970" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently bought a copy of, &quot;The Grand Inquisitor&quot; and, after a few days, I noticed that the title of the book on front cover was written partially in cyrillic. [![Here is a photo of it. ][1]][1] Does the cyrillic on the front mean anything or is it just for aesthetic purposes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qs6EW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="bdfb57c6-83e5-4c5b-ac94-468b2f1869ab" CreationDate="2015-11-09T21:43:41.970" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|литература|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25672" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="81b4c67c-6bbe-4097-ae3b-64ff94e27a8f" CreationDate="2015-11-10T03:51:27.930" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;The Grand Inquisitor&quot; book title - what does cyrillic letters stand for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25677" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="b1367a36-f329-4ec5-929f-e8c9bcc0bf5a" CreationDate="2015-11-10T03:57:04.090" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;The Grand Inquisitor&quot; book cover - what does cyrillic letters stand for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25679" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11153" RevisionGUID="5a46fe81-dca4-431e-be59-9d407393db8e" CreationDate="2015-11-10T16:11:10.523" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/664113074744479745" />
  <row Id="25680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11156" RevisionGUID="4e4e7a82-9acd-4a0a-a07c-96217b123cc2" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:09:55.397" UserId="2079" Text="Нужна ли запятая во фразах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Нам было(,) что показать.&#xD;&#xA; - И он(,) собственно(,) прав." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11156" RevisionGUID="4e4e7a82-9acd-4a0a-a07c-96217b123cc2" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:09:55.397" UserId="2079" Text="Нужны ли запятые перед &quot;что&quot; и вокруг &quot;собственно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11156" RevisionGUID="4e4e7a82-9acd-4a0a-a07c-96217b123cc2" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:09:55.397" UserId="2079" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11157" RevisionGUID="d32cd05a-6780-49a2-999e-7e26a7553f1c" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:21:56.683" UserId="5915" Text="&gt; Нам было что показать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, запятая не нужна, &quot;*было что показать*&quot; - составное сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И он, собственно, прав.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужны запятые, потому что здесь &quot;*собственно*&quot; - вводное слово." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11158" RevisionGUID="510a8d3e-de82-46e4-b570-e1fafb9c797b" CreationDate="2015-11-10T19:25:19.117" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Нам было что показать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 114.1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запятая не ставится перед подчинительным союзом или союзным словом в составе неразложимых сочетаний, например: *сделать как следует* (как полагается, как подобает), *выполнить как должно* (как надо, как нужно), *хватать что подвернется, явиться как ни в чем не бывало, говорить что в ум взбредёт, добиваться во что бы то ни стало, приходить когда вздумается, спрятаться кто куда успел, не лезть куда не следует, ночевать где придется, делай что хочешь, бери что нравится, спасайся кто может, есть что дают, будь что будет, идти куда глаза глядят, живите как знаете, приглашу к себе кого пожелаю, заплатил Бог знает сколько, кричит что есть мочи, рассказать все как есть, выдумывали кто во что горазд, достать что нужно* (но: *достать все, что нужно*), *черт знает что у них творится, городить черт знает что, поживиться чем можно, дать чего не жалко, картина чудо как хороша, страсть как интересно, ужас как трудно, беда как плохо.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И он, собственно, прав.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 99.5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запятыми выделяются вводные слова и словосочетания. Различается несколько основных групп вводных слов по их значению: … вводные слова, выражающие отношение к стилю речи, к характеру и способу изложения: *словом, одним словом, иными словами, другими словами, иначе говоря, коротко говоря, попросту сказать, мягко выражаясь, если можно так сказать, если можно так выразиться, с позволения сказать, лучше сказать, так сказать, что называется* и др.: слова *собственно, вообще, вернее, точнее, скорее* и т.п. являются вводными, если после них можно добавить слово *говоря*. Например: *… Правление уполномочило его ускорить работы, то есть, иными словами, он сам себя уполномочил к этому (Куприн); А Клавдия ушла, вернее, убежала, смущенно укрыв шалью лицо (Ю. Лаптев);*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11159" RevisionGUID="902ee9b2-ccae-4b22-a50d-6af2c8e9c091" CreationDate="2015-11-11T12:31:35.670" UserId="5870" Text="I have found the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он делает салат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они готовят суп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она готовит десерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my dictionary, `делать` means `do` or `make` while `готовить` means `prepare`. But how can I decide which to use to express these cooking situation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11159" RevisionGUID="902ee9b2-ccae-4b22-a50d-6af2c8e9c091" CreationDate="2015-11-11T12:31:35.670" UserId="5870" Text="How to decide whether to use &quot;делать&quot; vs &quot;готовить&quot; in cooking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11159" RevisionGUID="902ee9b2-ccae-4b22-a50d-6af2c8e9c091" CreationDate="2015-11-11T12:31:35.670" UserId="5870" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11160" RevisionGUID="0b66e4e0-33c1-4246-ba41-283423541b2a" CreationDate="2015-11-11T12:55:02.830" UserId="194" Text="In these cases they are interchangeable but you should bear in mind that готовить in the sense of making is specific to food. And you can say the both ways about dishes but you cannot say делает about raw products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она готовит мясо. = She is cooking the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она делает мясо. = She is making the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is incorrect unleass she is creating artificial meat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11161" RevisionGUID="1527d29b-f19c-4cb5-87ce-e90a8c04454e" CreationDate="2015-11-11T14:02:19.940" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, there are quite a few terms for _specific_ cooking actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Кипятить_ -- to boil  &#xD;&#xA;_Варить_ -- to cook smth. in boiling water  &#xD;&#xA;_Жарить_ -- to roast  &#xD;&#xA;_Тушить_ -- to stew with steam  &#xD;&#xA;_Томить_ -- to stew without steam (i.e. on small fire)  &#xD;&#xA;_Резать_ -- to chop  &#xD;&#xA;_Печь_ -- to bake  &#xD;&#xA;...   &#xD;&#xA;and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one may say, for example, _Он режет салат_ or _Они варят суп_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb _готовить_ (or _приготовить_) is used for non-specific cooking action, just like _to cook_ in English. You may use it nearly everywhere, except very minor work. For example, _to make tea_ is usually _заварить чай_ not _приготовить чай_, because making tea nowadays is rather primitive. Also by the same reason, warming up some half-stuff is _разогреть_ not _приготовить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Делать_ (do, make) is an all-purpose tool which people may (and do) use as a substitute for _приготовить_ (to cook) too. But there are two points to note. First, try not to be ambiguous, as _делать_ + _raw food_ may refer to producing such food. Yet as usually it's obvious from the context, what you mean, it's just a minor issue. People fail in this ten times a day, so no problem. Second, the imperative _сделай_ is quite in use as an _order_ to prepare smth. (e.g. boss' saying &quot;make some coffee&quot; would be &quot;_сделай_ кофе&quot; in Russian). So sometimes you would rather choose the imperative _приготовь_ over _сделай_, or at least add _пожалуйста_ (please)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11162" RevisionGUID="554ab2e1-6678-4f9a-8b68-ed10d75842de" CreationDate="2015-11-11T14:03:40.737" UserId="6262" Text="The use of these two words in Russian is very similar to that in English: *готовить* is equivalent to *prepare* and *делать* to *make*. So you can say both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она готовит дессерт -- She is preparing the dessert &#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она делает дессерт -- She is making a dessert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However keep in mind that *готовить* is used much more than *делать* with respect to food. You are (probably always) safe when using the former but need to know exactly when the latter is OK.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11162" RevisionGUID="2a0e1515-96bb-4d25-a87b-ff680f76a8b3" CreationDate="2015-11-11T14:07:19.090" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The use of these two words in Russian is very similar to that in English: *готовить* is equivalent to *prepare* and *делать* to *make*. So you can say both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она готовит десерт -- She is preparing the dessert   &#xD;&#xA;or   &#xD;&#xA;Она делает десерт -- She is making a dessert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However keep in mind that *готовить* is used much more than *делать* with respect to food. You are (probably always) safe when using the former but need to know exactly when the latter is OK.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11160" RevisionGUID="f2109bcd-839e-43ab-bbc3-0173976d16c7" CreationDate="2015-11-11T14:41:41.373" UserId="6262" Comment="Formatting" Text="In these cases they are interchangeable but you should bear in mind that *готовить* in the sense of making is specific to food. And you can say the both ways about dishes but you cannot say *делает* about raw products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она готовит мясо. = She is cooking the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она &lt;s&gt;делает&lt;/s&gt; мясо. = She is making the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is incorrect unless she is creating artificial meat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25694" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11160" RevisionGUID="f2109bcd-839e-43ab-bbc3-0173976d16c7" CreationDate="2015-11-11T14:41:41.373" Comment="Proposed by 6262 approved by 5008, 194 edit id of 699" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11160" RevisionGUID="44cf932d-4c93-44e8-8960-478bbccc97de" CreationDate="2015-11-11T14:42:11.353" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="In these cases they are interchangeable but you should bear in mind that *готовить* in the sense of making is specific to food. And you can say the both ways about dishes but you cannot say *делает* about raw products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она готовит мясо. = She is cooking the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она делает мясо. = She is making the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is incorrect unless she is creating artificial meat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11163" RevisionGUID="2c271dd1-6042-4f6b-bef3-f3066475cbad" CreationDate="2015-11-11T15:34:34.297" UserId="1836" Text="As for me, the main difference is that &quot;приготовить&quot; takes more effort than &quot;сделать&quot;, so you will probably say &quot;сделать&quot; if it's something pretty simple (at least for you). Consequently, if you are talking about someone else, it's better to use &quot;готовить&quot; unless you are talking about really simple things (sandwiches, tea, coffee, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25698" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11159" RevisionGUID="6c11d748-91d7-4cd9-89a9-c9f26a97aafa" CreationDate="2015-11-12T01:17:09.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/664612863298916356" />
  <row Id="25707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="0f7b2418-7007-4d87-8b32-99ed64af3be8" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:41:56.423" UserId="6265" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between несколько and много in your opinion and when are these two words used best (situation?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25708" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="0f7b2418-7007-4d87-8b32-99ed64af3be8" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:41:56.423" UserId="6265" Text="What is the difference between несколько and много?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25709" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11167" RevisionGUID="0f7b2418-7007-4d87-8b32-99ed64af3be8" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:41:56.423" UserId="6265" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11168" RevisionGUID="12ddfcd6-347b-4c1c-9fe2-fc27454e407e" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:44:08.673" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;Несколько&quot; means &quot;several&quot;, &quot;some&quot;, &quot;a few&quot;. &quot;Много&quot; means &quot;many&quot;, &quot;a lot&quot;. So the difference must be obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="a1b649d1-f552-40a4-bb94-1e28e5791a3b" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:50:03.307" UserId="6265" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am novice to this forum and to the Russian language. Can you please explain how come the word проезда switches from про to the по- in поездку?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для *проезда* в метро надо купить карточку то есть билет. Карточка на одну *поездку* стоит пятнадцать рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="a1b649d1-f552-40a4-bb94-1e28e5791a3b" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:50:03.307" UserId="6265" Text="Question about why проезда to поездку?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11169" RevisionGUID="a1b649d1-f552-40a4-bb94-1e28e5791a3b" CreationDate="2015-11-12T08:50:03.307" UserId="6265" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11170" RevisionGUID="976dc124-51cd-49b6-adad-86a95c0d0264" CreationDate="2015-11-12T09:00:12.400" UserId="4560" Text="It doesn't. **Проезд** and **поездка** are two different nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Проезд** is masculine, somewhat &quot;officialese&quot;, and refers to &quot;riding&quot; as a concept. It's also uncountable (in this meaning; not in its other one where it means &quot;thoroughfare&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поездка** is feminine, stylistically neutral, and means &quot;ride&quot; or &quot;trip&quot;. As such, it's countable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11171" RevisionGUID="8dd15f32-b72c-4de5-a254-ff9c867b4369" CreationDate="2015-11-12T11:34:34.483" UserId="6267" Text="The suffix *-та* forms many derivations in standard Russian: a quick search brings up *высота, доброта, духота, кислота, краснота, красота, нагота, нищета, простота, полнота, прямота, пустота, сирота, слепота, суета, темнота, теснота, тошнота, частота, чистота,* and some others from less standard strata of the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this suffix, originally from Church Slavonic, is not generally productive in modern Russian, new derivations using it have a distinctive non-standard, ironic ring to them. Many of these predate the Nomad example; e.g *лимита* and *наркота* are from the second half of the last century. *Скукота* and *сволота* are, similarly, rather old, emphatically informal derivations. A comparable example in English would be using the (semantically very similar) suffix *-th* (as in *length, warmth, mirth*) to coin words such as *coolth* or *yumth* for &quot;coolness&quot; and &quot;yumminess&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Aleks-G explains, the modern &quot;viral&quot; wave of *-та*-derivations is from Nomad's reviews and his many imitators. *Школота* and *политота* both belong to this new wave -- not derived from one another, but instead sharing the pattern for a non-standard, ironic derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11156" RevisionGUID="8202edfe-0207-4c49-b795-def227275d1e" CreationDate="2015-11-12T16:20:30.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/664840198111543296" />
  <row Id="25718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="96d1bd6c-ee05-4821-b0ce-dd981a98af9e" CreationDate="2015-11-12T20:06:15.093" UserId="6270" Text="I am novice when it comes to learning Russian. It is difficult but fun. I need you input and expertise on две фразы. What is &quot;в петь минyт&quot; and &quot;в два часa&quot; in this case? Would it be correct to say that they are Accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- Встретимться oколо **Центрaльного телегрaфа** (G) в два часa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- Электричка отправляется в петь минyт **одиннадцатого** (G)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="96d1bd6c-ee05-4821-b0ce-dd981a98af9e" CreationDate="2015-11-12T20:06:15.093" UserId="6270" Text="Need help to class accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="96d1bd6c-ee05-4821-b0ce-dd981a98af9e" CreationDate="2015-11-12T20:06:15.093" UserId="6270" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11173" RevisionGUID="25421228-f2e7-42b8-b0ba-08b2fdca770f" CreationDate="2015-11-12T21:09:03.607" UserId="6271" Text="два часа (singular genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;пять минут (plural genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2,3,4: singular genitive, e.g. три яблока, четыре окна, две рыбы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5,6,... plural genitive, e.g. семь яблок, восемь окон, десять рыб&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25722" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11134" RevisionGUID="ce691d44-94f9-4bd9-a432-a7043fda4a82" CreationDate="2015-11-13T04:30:18.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/665023859444359169" />
  <row Id="25723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="f4cb0389-160a-4be0-957d-02f5973896c4" CreationDate="2015-11-13T08:52:19.577" UserId="4892" Text="I encountered three different words to say &quot;lover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My teacher said that &#xD;&#xA;**сожитель** has a negative connotation, it is rather&quot;plebish&quot;, but I don't actually understood what kind of bad connotation it has. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**фаворит**, as she said, is used for lovers of kings and queens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**любовниц** should be a more general term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please explain the difference between these three words, according to you? How would you use them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="f4cb0389-160a-4be0-957d-02f5973896c4" CreationDate="2015-11-13T08:52:19.577" UserId="4892" Text="Difference between сожитель, любовниц and фаворит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="f4cb0389-160a-4be0-957d-02f5973896c4" CreationDate="2015-11-13T08:52:19.577" UserId="4892" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11175" RevisionGUID="1477828f-cbd5-445d-a028-2ba43cf61d91" CreationDate="2015-11-13T09:31:49.933" UserId="4801" Text="**Сожитель** indeed has some negative connotation for me. It doesn't mean &quot;lover&quot; in a sense that it is a partner for a married person, but it simply means people living together and having a relationship while not being officially married. I would usually see it in official sources (news etc.), which often report some negative occurrences and thus lead to this word having a bad connotation for me. One would rarely call his\her partner **сожитель**, we would rather usе **мой парень\моя девушка**. Although this word can sometimes be used in the same sense as **любовник** and even **муж** (husband), though I can't recall it being used often with these meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фаворит** is explained correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Любовник\любовница** is a general term for a person you have a relationship with while being married (who is not your husband or wife, obviously)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11176" RevisionGUID="73a802f4-4ef1-4be6-aac0-602bd1ed8a46" CreationDate="2015-11-13T11:01:06.967" UserId="6274" Text="the whole quantitative group (number+noun) in both cases is in accusative. But the noun itself is in singular genitive in the case of `два часа` and in plural genitive in the case of `пять минут`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="95d57e53-9818-465d-b24a-7f3bae2de76e" CreationDate="2015-11-13T11:02:47.897" UserId="4892" Comment="edited body" Text="I encountered three different words to say &quot;lover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; My teacher said that &#xD;&#xA;**сожитель** has a negative connotation, it is rather&quot;plebish&quot;, but I don't actually understand what kind of bad connotation it has. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**фаворит**, as she said, is used for lovers of kings and queens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**любовниц** should be a more general term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please explain the difference between these three words, according to you? How would you use them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="ab4aedde-633a-4b13-a03c-65a385f4bb27" CreationDate="2015-11-13T13:49:03.903" UserId="551" Comment="Changed tags, любовник" Text="I encountered three different words to say &quot;lover&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My teacher said that &#xD;&#xA;**сожитель** has a negative connotation, it is rather &quot;plebish&quot;, but I don't actually understand what kind of bad connotation it has. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**фаворит**, as she said, is used for lovers of kings and queens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**любовник** should be a more general term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please explain the difference between these three words, according to you? How would you use them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25730" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="ab4aedde-633a-4b13-a03c-65a385f4bb27" CreationDate="2015-11-13T13:49:03.903" UserId="551" Comment="Changed tags, любовник" Text="Difference between сожитель, любовник and фаворит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25731" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="ab4aedde-633a-4b13-a03c-65a385f4bb27" CreationDate="2015-11-13T13:49:03.903" UserId="551" Comment="Changed tags, любовник" Text="|выбор-слова|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11172" RevisionGUID="75b3c006-ebec-4ea6-9c3b-7f5a3e222c6d" CreationDate="2015-11-13T14:04:36.177" UserId="551" Comment="Not петь but пять" Text="I am novice when it comes to learning Russian. It is difficult but fun. I need you input and expertise on две фразы. What is &quot;в пять минyт&quot; and &quot;в два часa&quot; in this case? Would it be correct to say that they are Accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Встретимться oколо **Центрaльного телегрaфа** (G) в два часa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Электричка отправляется в пять минyт **одиннадцатого** (G)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11177" RevisionGUID="11dffaed-a36a-43a0-9247-e88054cdfba4" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:04:21.480" UserId="4892" Text="I am reading Nabokov's short story &quot;Облако, озеро, башня&quot; and I came across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;высилась прямо из дактиля в дактиль старинная черная башня&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a daktil in this case? I looked it up on wikipedia but there were no meanings of this word related to architecture. Someone can help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also, what does прямо mean in this sentence? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11177" RevisionGUID="11dffaed-a36a-43a0-9247-e88054cdfba4" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:04:21.480" UserId="4892" Text="what does дактиль mean in reference to a building?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11177" RevisionGUID="11dffaed-a36a-43a0-9247-e88054cdfba4" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:04:21.480" UserId="4892" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11178" RevisionGUID="e42dc94d-fd8b-47e8-9918-3a250a607033" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:22:49.037" UserId="4560" Text="It's got nothing to do with architecture, but — unsurprisingly, this being Nabokov — with words. Let me give a longer quote for context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это было чистое, синее озеро с необыкновенным выражением воды. Посередине отражалось полностью большое  облако. На той стороне, на холме, густо облепленном древесной зеленью (которая тем поэтичнее, чем темнее), высилась прямо из дактиля в дактиль старинная черная башня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Облако, озеро, башня» is a dactylic line (one stressed syllable followed by two unstressed), and this passage describes the titular lake, cloud, and tower. As a bonus, **вЫсилась прЯмо из дАктиля в дАктиль старИнная чЁрная бАшня** is also a dactyl; basically, for that stretch of phrase, the narrator breaks into verse. Admittedly it's somewhat cryptic and by far not immediately clear, but Nabokov can be like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now additionally, there's some ambiguity about **прямо**. Is it part of the verb phrase — **высилась прямо**, &quot;stood tall and straight&quot; — or part of **прямо из дактиля в дактиль** &quot;straight from one dactyl to another&quot;? I'd argue the former, seeing as removing **прямо из дактиля в дактиль** would break the verse, while only removing **из дактиля в дактиль** leaves **высилась прямо старинная черная башня**, which still scans. So one presumes it's &quot;the tower stood tall and straight&quot;, with **из дактиля в дактиль** added as a self-referential afterthought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25737" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11174" RevisionGUID="fef6dce6-26c7-49ef-820f-f4d22d2026f7" CreationDate="2015-11-13T16:35:47.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/665206435421290497" />
  <row Id="25738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11179" RevisionGUID="e8c4f87d-e9b8-486c-a86a-6dcfebf4fef7" CreationDate="2015-11-14T04:58:05.950" UserId="6278" Text="What is the difference between the forms of &quot;and&quot;  &quot;и&quot; and &quot;a&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11179" RevisionGUID="e8c4f87d-e9b8-486c-a86a-6dcfebf4fef7" CreationDate="2015-11-14T04:58:05.950" UserId="6278" Text="When to use и or а as &quot;and&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11179" RevisionGUID="e8c4f87d-e9b8-486c-a86a-6dcfebf4fef7" CreationDate="2015-11-14T04:58:05.950" UserId="6278" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="225d7522-e73b-4a58-a591-8e0388dae6c9" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:07:37.353" UserId="5692" Text="Здравствуйте.&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that verbs of motion with the prefix по in the unidirectional forms, for example поехали, are in the past tense, even though the sentence is in the present - for example, сейчас мы поехали в квартиру. I would translate this as &quot;we are going to the apartment.&quot; Why is this? Am I not understanding something? Also, do any other verbs of motion prefixes do this, or just the prefix по?&#xD;&#xA;There must be a rule. I'd be so grateful of someone could provide it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="225d7522-e73b-4a58-a591-8e0388dae6c9" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:07:37.353" UserId="5692" Text="Why is поехали in past tense when сейчас мы поехали в квартиру has a present tense meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="225d7522-e73b-4a58-a591-8e0388dae6c9" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:07:37.353" UserId="5692" Text="|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="3953443d-5666-4dde-bf7b-c912a5fb8170" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:41:02.153" UserId="5692" Text="This word, халява, it is interesting.&#xD;&#xA;Google translate translates it as &quot;freebie&quot;, but Russian students use it to describe a situation when they didn't study for a test and get an &quot;A&quot; anyway. &quot;Freebie&quot; doesn't really apply here. Google image search turns up a lot of interesting pictures for халява. But finding an English equivalent is proving taxing.&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;blind idiot luck&quot; *&#xD;&#xA;gravy train  *&#xD;&#xA;sependipity  *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I don't think any of those are exact translations. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="3953443d-5666-4dde-bf7b-c912a5fb8170" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:41:02.153" UserId="5692" Text="What is the most diect English equivalent to &quot;халява&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="3953443d-5666-4dde-bf7b-c912a5fb8170" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:41:02.153" UserId="5692" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11182" RevisionGUID="e8e0b4a5-925a-4c6a-a625-4b79b2d4c859" CreationDate="2015-11-14T08:51:33.443" UserId="1097" Text="Prefix `по-` with verbs ([wiktionary.org][1]):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Completion of the full or partial coverage of the action object (завершение действия с полным или частичным охватом объекта действия):  завтракать → позавтракать; красить → покрасить.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. An act for some time (совершение действия в течение некоторого времени): крутить → покрутить; рубить → порубить; ходить → походить.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Start moving (начало движения): ехать → поехать; ползти → поползти; двинуть → подвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Action produced in large numbers and volume, at the same time giving derogatory (действие, произведённое в значительном количестве или объёме, одновременно придавая пренебрежительный оттенок): наехать → понаехать; разбросать → поразбросать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example &quot;сейчас мы поехали в квартиру&quot; mean 'we are *start* going to the apartment.'&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11183" RevisionGUID="8c161b84-d421-45f1-8e06-24319becd7d4" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:53:11.300" UserId="4481" Text="The word `халява` is often used when you get something without any kind of work (not only without money). So in this situation student got &quot;A&quot; without work (studying) and called it `халява`.  &#xD;&#xA;Easy work itself also can be `халява`. For example, you could say in dialog:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Чем сейчас на работе занимаешься?  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Да ничем. Сижу за компьютером, смотрю в монитор, изредка нажимаю кнопку, чтобы дверь кому-нибудь открыть...  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Вот халява!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11183" RevisionGUID="48dd36f6-6b90-412a-9052-f7d13b7a54a3" CreationDate="2015-11-14T13:48:41.627" UserId="4481" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="The word `халява` is sometimes used when you get something without any kind of work (not only without money). So in this situation student got &quot;A&quot; without work (studying) and called it `халява`.  &#xD;&#xA;Easy work itself also can be `халява`. For example, you could say in dialog:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Чем сейчас на работе занимаешься?  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Да ничем. Сижу за компьютером, смотрю в монитор, изредка нажимаю кнопку, чтобы дверь кому-нибудь открыть...  &#xD;&#xA; &gt; — Вот халява!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, there is no full equivalent of word ` халява` in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11184" RevisionGUID="ace5b331-2992-4267-8114-9773b682243f" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:21:03.460" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Russian students use it to describe a situation when they didn't study for a test and get an &quot;A&quot; anyway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning is really specific to **student slang**. Especially &quot;the magic spell&quot;: _Халява, ловись!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But colloquially _халява_ still has two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _a thing_ given (or even taken, sometimes ;-) for free (or at very little price), i.e. _freebie_&#xD;&#xA;- _a work_ done badly; here _халява_ is very close to another nice word _халтура_, though there's a little difference: _халява_ is about _lazyness_, while _халтура_ is about _negligence_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So _халява_ in student slang is something like both at once: no learning (lazy working) and getting good marks (&quot;freebies&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11182" RevisionGUID="c7ae2387-bec8-4279-a392-9267746b41ef" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:23:31.043" UserId="6097" Comment="corrected English " Text="Prefix `по-` with verbs ([wiktionary.org][1]):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Completion of the full or partial coverage of the action object (завершение действия с полным или частичным охватом объекта действия):  завтракать → позавтракать; красить → покрасить.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. An act for some time (совершение действия в течение некоторого времени): крутить → покрутить; рубить → порубить; ходить → походить.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Start moving (начало движения): ехать → поехать; ползти → поползти; двинуть → подвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Action produced in large numbers and volume, at the same time giving derogatory (действие, произведённое в значительном количестве или объёме, одновременно придавая пренебрежительный оттенок): наехать → понаехать; разбросать → поразбросать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example &quot;сейчас мы поехали в квартиру&quot; means 'we have *started* to go to the apartment.'&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25752" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11182" RevisionGUID="c7ae2387-bec8-4279-a392-9267746b41ef" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:23:31.043" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 2060, 5008 edit id of 700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="6520ea62-9d7a-4d58-a88e-4a8afce50962" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:43:26.077" UserId="5008" Text="_Поехать_ is _perfective_ verb, i.e. it has no present tense at all. _Поехали_ refers to a completed action, which is _the start_ of moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, do any other verbs of motion prefixes do this, or just the prefix по?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there are quite a few. But being perfective, they also refer to some completed part of &quot;moving action&quot;. For example, _отъехать_: _Поезд уже довольно далеко отъехал от станции_. This means that the train went quite far from the station, i.e. it has finished some part of the distance, but it says nothing about whether it stopped or was still moving further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus prefixes with motion verbs show _which part_ of moving was finished. If you mean the journey was _fully_ completed, you have to use prefix _при-_, like in _приехать_, _прийти_, _прибыть_, _прилететь_, _приплыть_ and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="4020514c-3f97-4a3d-9b75-7faf31f56b12" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:56:55.540" UserId="5008" Comment="added 281 characters in body" Text="_Поехать_ is _perfective_ verb, i.e. it has no present tense at all. _Поехали_ refers to a completed action, which is _the start_ of moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, do any other verbs of motion prefixes do this, or just the prefix по?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there are quite a few. But being perfective, they also refer to some completed part of &quot;moving action&quot;. For example, _отъехать_: _Поезд уже довольно далеко отъехал от станции_. This means that the train went quite far from the station, i.e. it has finished some part of the distance, but it says nothing about whether it stopped or was still moving further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus prefixes with motion verbs show _which part_ of moving was finished. If you mean the journey was _fully_ completed, you have to use prefix _при-_, like in _приехать_, _прийти_, _прибыть_, _прилететь_, _приплыть_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet note that sometimes _поехать_ still could serve for the same purpose as simply _ехать_. That's because the speaker silently implies that after &quot;they have started moving&quot; immediately follows &quot;they were moving&quot;, which is simply omitted but should be obvious from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11186" RevisionGUID="9f555a84-8272-4af6-a6b4-cb30139aa314" CreationDate="2015-11-14T15:14:12.997" UserId="6280" Text="From the point of view a native Russian. Perfective past tense to me indicates some sense of urgency or desire to have the action performed already. For example, if a runner is drafting behind another one in a track race, and his coach senses that his pupil is not running at his best and it is time to pick it up and take the lead he is more likely to say: &quot;Вышел и пошёл!&quot; rather than the present tense &quot;Выйди и иди!&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11107" RevisionGUID="3b00324d-fdfc-47d3-814f-5e2f81b7be2a" CreationDate="2015-11-14T16:35:48.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/665568824712933376" />
  <row Id="25757" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="3f7108ce-bce4-4585-b204-7051d8082d07" CreationDate="2015-11-14T16:39:43.870" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the most direct English equivalent to &quot;халява&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25758" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11181" RevisionGUID="e62d56fb-516f-4c78-a3da-87e6b55d4dfd" CreationDate="2015-11-14T16:39:57.313" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="b5e7da79-155e-4141-90e5-f63c02c77104" CreationDate="2015-11-14T18:55:54.663" UserId="5008" Comment="added 911 characters in body" Text="_Поехать_ is _perfective_ verb, i.e. it has no present tense at all. _Поехали_ refers to a completed action, which is _the start_ of moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, do any other verbs of motion prefixes do this, or just the prefix по?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there are quite a few. But being perfective, they also refer to some completed part of &quot;moving action&quot;. For example, _отъехать_: _Поезд уже довольно далеко отъехал от станции_. This means that the train went quite far from the station, i.e. it has finished some part of the distance, but it says nothing about whether it stopped or was still moving further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus prefixes with motion verbs show _which part_ of moving was finished. If you mean the journey was _fully_ completed, you have to use prefix _при-_, like in _приехать_, _прийти_, _прибыть_, _прилететь_, _приплыть_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet note that sometimes _поехать_ still could serve for the same purpose as simply _ехать_. That's because the speaker silently implies that after &quot;they have started moving&quot; immediately follows &quot;they were moving&quot;, which is simply omitted but should be obvious from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.** Now on the matter of &quot;_Сейчас мы поехали в квартиру_&quot;. There's the obvious &quot;time contradiction&quot; between &quot;сейчас&quot; and &quot;поехали&quot;, but this is quite tolerable in Russian. Though it makes the sentence ambiguous: it has (at least) _three different meanings_ depending of context and pronounce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Determination** _Now let's go to the apartment_. Here past tense is to show speaker's resoluteness (he thinks the future to be as definite as the past);&#xD;&#xA;- **Narration** _Then we went to the apartment_. So simply, &quot;сейчас&quot; is for &quot;narration present time&quot;, &quot;поехали&quot; is &quot;regular past tense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- **Small interval** _That time we went to the apartment [but what about next time?!]_. _Сейчас_ (or _now_ for that matter) is not &quot;a point&quot; but rather &quot;a small time interval&quot;. So it's possible to match it over the past or future tense (like _Now I will sleep_), if speaker believes they are close to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="eec8f95e-fb8c-475e-8593-33598f5e8322" CreationDate="2015-11-14T19:20:55.733" UserId="5008" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="_Поехать_ is _perfective_ verb, i.e. it has no present tense at all. _Поехали_ refers to a completed action, which is _the start_ of moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, do any other verbs of motion prefixes do this, or just the prefix по?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there are quite a few. But being perfective, they also refer to some completed part of &quot;moving action&quot;. For example, _отъехать_: _Поезд уже довольно далеко отъехал от станции_. This means that the train went quite far from the station, i.e. it has finished some part of the distance, but it says nothing about whether it stopped or was still moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus prefixes with motion verbs show _which part_ of moving was finished. If you mean the journey was _fully_ completed, you have to use prefix _при-_, like in _приехать_, _прийти_, _прибыть_, _прилететь_, _приплыть_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet note that sometimes _поехать_ still could serve for the same purpose as simply _ехать_. That's because the speaker silently implies that after &quot;they have started moving&quot; immediately follows &quot;they were moving&quot;, which is simply omitted but should be obvious from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.** Now on the matter of &quot;_Сейчас мы поехали в квартиру_&quot;. There's the obvious &quot;time contradiction&quot; between &quot;сейчас&quot; and &quot;поехали&quot;, but this is quite tolerable in Russian. Though it makes the sentence ambiguous: it has (at least) _three different meanings_ depending of context and pronounce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Determination** _Now we shall go to the apartment_. Here past tense is to show speaker's resoluteness (he thinks the future to be as definite as the past);&#xD;&#xA;- **Narration** _Then we went to the apartment_. So simply, &quot;сейчас&quot; is for &quot;narration present time&quot;, &quot;поехали&quot; is &quot;regular past tense&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- **Small interval** _That time we went to the apartment [but what about next time?!]_. _Сейчас_ (or _now_ for that matter) is not &quot;a point&quot; but rather &quot;a small time interval&quot;. So it's possible to match it over the past or future tense (like _Now I will sleep_), if speaker believes they are close to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25761" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11116" RevisionGUID="38f80a68-df91-4852-959d-e8324e704c4f" CreationDate="2015-11-14T22:36:03.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/665659486053515264" />
  <row Id="25762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11187" RevisionGUID="07a9a824-796c-4039-b4b7-fb24bf3c89b1" CreationDate="2015-11-15T00:06:05.990" UserId="179" Text="I could not really recall any example when Russian `a` can be translated as `and` in English. Usually it is `but` in English. But then I looked into a dictionary and there was such a meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**and**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  1) и (сочинительный союз, реализующий различные логические отношения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; между соединяемыми частями)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   boys and girls — мальчики и девочки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   2) а, но (противительный союз)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   I shall go and you stay here. — Я пойду, а ты оставайся здесь.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are books and books. — Есть книги и книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that the former is a coordinative one and the latter is an adversative conjunction. The first connects some words, which are not opposing each other in a particular context. And the second is something like an opposite, it connects words, parts of a sentence which do oppose to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *boys and girls* do not oppose, you are sort of enumerating the options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the *I shall go and you stay here* example there are two parts of the sentence which do oppose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *There are books and books* even in the dictionary was translated as `и` which also has the same meaning in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if I encountered such examples in English I would not use the `a` conjunction, really. I would simply translate it as `и` in every example of the provided ones, as it was done with the third one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11071" RevisionGUID="c65a2aca-b654-40f1-9a21-4e8852a0c93c" CreationDate="2015-11-15T01:35:56.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/665704753914126336" />
  <row Id="25764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11185" RevisionGUID="2d6849c7-6a31-4687-9a03-efd7022cbfbd" CreationDate="2015-11-15T07:35:26.243" UserId="5008" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="_Поехать_ is _perfective_ verb, i.e. it has no present tense at all. _Поехали_ refers to a completed action, which is _the start_ of moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, do any other verbs of motion prefixes do this, or just the prefix по?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there are quite a few. But being perfective, they also refer to some completed part of &quot;moving action&quot;. For example, _отъехать_: _Поезд уже довольно далеко отъехал от станции_. This means that the train went quite far from the station, i.e. it has finished some part of the distance, but it says nothing about whether it stopped or was still moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus prefixes with motion verbs show _which part_ of moving was finished. If you mean the journey was _fully_ completed, you have to use prefix _при-_, like in _приехать_, _прийти_, _прибыть_, _прилететь_, _приплыть_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet note that sometimes _поехать_ still could serve for the same purpose as simply _ехать_. That's because the speaker silently implies that after &quot;they have started moving&quot; immediately follows &quot;they were moving&quot;, which is simply omitted but should be obvious from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.** Now on the matter of &quot;_Сейчас мы поехали в квартиру_&quot;. There's the obvious &quot;time contradiction&quot; between &quot;сейчас&quot; and &quot;поехали&quot;, but this is quite tolerable in Russian. Though it makes the sentence ambiguous: it has (at least) _three different meanings_ depending of context and pronounce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Determination** _Now we shall go to the apartment_. Here past tense is to show speaker's resoluteness (he thinks the future to be as definite as the past);&#xD;&#xA;- **Narration** _Then we went to the apartment_. So simply, &quot;сейчас&quot; is for &quot;narration present time&quot;, &quot;поехали&quot; is &quot;regular past tense&quot; (as @Quassnoi mentioned, this could also be seen as a remnant of old &quot;proper perfect&quot; tense);&#xD;&#xA;- **Small interval** _Last time we went to the apartment [but what about next time?!]_. _Сейчас_ (or _now_ for that matter) is not &quot;a point&quot; but rather &quot;a small time interval&quot;. So it's possible to match it over the past or future tense (like _Now I will sleep_), if speaker believes they are close to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11188" RevisionGUID="f35bd633-66cc-4016-ab3c-878ea422f49c" CreationDate="2015-11-15T11:01:41.777" UserId="6283" Text=" 1. Cожитель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand what is wrong with сожитель, you need to know the meaning of  **concubinage** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage). This word stresses the idea of the inability of further marriage, which makes these relations less legitimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally сожитель is somehow related to Soviet crime law as it was stated before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Фаворит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фаворит is outdated. Totally agree with your teacher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Любовник&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любовник translates directly into English as &quot;lover&quot;. Nothing more to add." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11189" RevisionGUID="84330f4e-52ee-4ef0-8224-dbd9ee60fef5" CreationDate="2015-11-15T12:25:55.450" UserId="5454" Text="Почему одежда из хлопка называется хлопчатобумажной?  &#xD;&#xA;При чем здесь бумага?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11189" RevisionGUID="84330f4e-52ee-4ef0-8224-dbd9ee60fef5" CreationDate="2015-11-15T12:25:55.450" UserId="5454" Text="Хлопчатобумажный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11189" RevisionGUID="84330f4e-52ee-4ef0-8224-dbd9ee60fef5" CreationDate="2015-11-15T12:25:55.450" UserId="5454" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25769" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11056" RevisionGUID="7a35d140-545a-4353-a67c-d34b7602169a" CreationDate="2015-11-15T13:35:58.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/665885958148104192" />
  <row Id="25770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11189" RevisionGUID="a7a0243e-a632-4d6b-8c53-47c449fbe509" CreationDate="2015-11-15T13:43:15.090" UserId="5454" Comment="Дополнение вопроса." Text="Почему одежда из хлопка называется хлопчатобумажной?  &#xD;&#xA;При чем здесь бумага?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upd:&#xD;&#xA;В [Национальном Корпусе Русского Языка](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html) фраза [бумажный платок](http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E1%F3%EC%E0%E6%ED%FB%E9%20%EF%EB%E0%F2%EE%EA&amp;p=1) со значением «платок из ткани» упоминается 18 раз. Последнее использование — не позднее 1930 года в С. В. Обручев. «В неизведанные края. Путешествия на Север 1917-1930 г.г.» 1954 года издания.  &#xD;&#xA;Начиная с примерно 1940 года используется слово _хлопчатобумажный_.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но тут возникает новый вопрос.   &#xD;&#xA;Цитата из О. М. Сомов. «Сватовство» (1831): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На голове у ней был шелковый платок, подвязанный наколкой, как у городских мещанок; на ногах голубые шерстяные чулки и башмаки без задников, с высокими каблуками; прочий наряд ее составляли шушун и юбка _ситцевые_ с большими разводами ярких цветов да клетчатый _бумажный_ платок на шее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из чего тогда делался ситец и чем ситцевая ткань отличалась от бумажной?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="ee664303-9ce4-4d16-9a3a-b60c97347e69" CreationDate="2015-11-15T17:07:43.400" UserId="5201" Text="I've seen 'сочувствие' used as a synonym for both sympathy and empathy. Does it correspond to either one in particular or to both in some way? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="ee664303-9ce4-4d16-9a3a-b60c97347e69" CreationDate="2015-11-15T17:07:43.400" UserId="5201" Text="Meaning of 'сочувствие'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="ee664303-9ce4-4d16-9a3a-b60c97347e69" CreationDate="2015-11-15T17:07:43.400" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11191" RevisionGUID="c14472b5-c793-404e-a769-05a2cd10fbc6" CreationDate="2015-11-15T18:48:33.160" UserId="5008" Text="Strictly speaking _сочувствие_ is sympathy, and _сопереживание_ is empathy. But people are used to think of both as synonyms, so they use both words interchangeably. For that reason there exists calque _эмпатия_, but it belongs almost exclusively to psychology science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25775" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11059" RevisionGUID="d85e33c1-db72-414b-b22c-d39b20f766e1" CreationDate="2015-11-16T01:35:58.303" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/666067150432542720" />
  <row Id="25776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11192" RevisionGUID="35e5ede7-df76-46a9-8741-205849e05a37" CreationDate="2015-11-16T02:12:10.607" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why is the former instead of the latter used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11192" RevisionGUID="35e5ede7-df76-46a9-8741-205849e05a37" CreationDate="2015-11-16T02:12:10.607" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why is &quot;have you returned&quot; &quot;ты вернулся&quot; instead of &quot;ты вернул?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11192" RevisionGUID="35e5ede7-df76-46a9-8741-205849e05a37" CreationDate="2015-11-16T02:12:10.607" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11193" RevisionGUID="27e0657f-cc51-466a-820c-40c5c26e468d" CreationDate="2015-11-16T03:56:53.480" UserId="242" Text="Because `вернуться` and `вернуть` are two related but distinct verbs. &quot;Вернуть&quot; is to return in sense **to give back** something you've taken/borrowed beforehand. &quot;Вернуться&quot; is **to be back**. It looks like you've just checked some resource sort of translate.google.com, which is fine but noe always provide you with all context needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11193" RevisionGUID="49d4df3a-cd0f-4882-bcb8-b6724c76969a" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:04:15.040" UserId="242" Comment="added 494 characters in body" Text="Because `вернуться` and `вернуть` are two related but distinct verbs. &quot;Вернуть&quot; is to return in sense **to give back** something you've taken/borrowed beforehand. &quot;Вернуться&quot; is **to be back**. It looks like you've just checked some resource sort of translate.google.com, which is fine but noe always provide you with all context needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be it would be a bit easier to memoize the difference if you'll keep in mind following fact: &quot;вернуться&quot; is a [reflexive verb][1] - in Russian this verbs are ended with cя/сь. So it is roughly like &quot;to return yourself&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this cя/cь ending is actually remnant of PIE similar (but more complex) feature. This is exactly what `se` in reflexive verbs in Spanish stand for. Moreover, English word &quot;self&quot; is related as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="e663ded4-16af-4a71-8b68-c5a9c3752823" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:15:54.043" UserId="242" Text="`Хлопковый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="7c1b63f6-bf29-4803-8147-5659756bcf57" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:23:23.817" UserId="242" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="`Хлопковый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25783" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11189" RevisionGUID="01b0e65e-27a6-4cd1-bea4-77273b68cb13" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:28:12.220" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему одежда из хлопка называется хлопчатобумажной?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="3a0310b0-7301-46c2-81cd-13f698f6c602" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:34:16.183" UserId="242" Comment="added 308 characters in body" Text="`Хлопковый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25785" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11177" RevisionGUID="65ab4e59-9c0d-4a05-ad64-cb0a86ad2557" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:35:20.430" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What does дактиль mean in reference to a building?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="35657f07-4df7-4cbf-ba5b-b84c9e653f97" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:42:21.433" UserId="242" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="`Хлопковый`/`хлопчатый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="086eaaef-1876-4606-914e-524e69ca0a5a" CreationDate="2015-11-16T04:59:12.717" UserId="242" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="`Хлопковый`/`хлопчатый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one final note. Just like @Matt correctly noted, most probably &quot;бумага&quot; is derived from Italian word (derived in turn from the Latin one) which standed for cotton. It possible but no one knows for sure actually. Also, in other Slavic languages, even in the closest to Russian `бумага` is not use for paper at all, but for cotton we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - бавовна in Ukrainian&#xD;&#xA; - бавоўна in Belarusian&#xD;&#xA; - bawełna in Polish&#xD;&#xA; - bombaž in Slovenian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very disputable how exactly these form find their way into the languages mentioned abov, we can end up in finding ourselves in the land of stupid pseudo-linguistics assumptions, but let me actually make one - it indeed very likely that some бумага was used for fiber and only afterwards - for paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="bdacff99-0739-4d14-928c-0a9e002447ab" CreationDate="2015-11-16T05:07:38.343" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Хлопковый`/`хлопчатый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one final note. Just like @Matt correctly noted, most probably &quot;бумага&quot; is derived from Italian word (derived in turn from the Latin one) which standed for cotton. It possible but no one knows for sure actually. Also, in other Slavic languages, even in the closest to Russian `бумага` is not use for paper at all, but for cotton we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - бавовна in Ukrainian&#xD;&#xA; - бавоўна in Belarusian&#xD;&#xA; - bawełna in Polish&#xD;&#xA; - bombaž in Slovenian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very disputable how exactly these form find their way into the languages mentioned above, we can end up in finding ourselves in the land of stupid pseudo-linguistics assumptions, but let me actually make one - it indeed very likely that some бумага was used for fiber and only afterwards - for paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="bce59e93-21ad-449f-84d1-50fdf0cf7940" CreationDate="2015-11-16T05:24:01.933" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="`Хлопковый`/`хлопчатый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one final note. Just like @Matt correctly noted, most probably &quot;бумага&quot; is derived from Italian word (derived in turn from the Latin one) which standed for cotton. It very likely but no one knows for sure actually. Also, in other Slavic languages, even in the closest to Russian `бумага` is not use for paper at all, but for cotton we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - бавовна in Ukrainian&#xD;&#xA; - бавоўна in Belarusian&#xD;&#xA; - bawełna in Polish&#xD;&#xA; - bombaž in Slovenian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very disputable how exactly these form find their way into the languages mentioned above, we can end up in finding ourselves in the land of stupid pseudo-linguistics assumptions. Most probably these words are related but definitely not always directly with `бумага`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11193" RevisionGUID="5bbd173d-baf9-4e25-b033-bb2732922705" CreationDate="2015-11-16T08:00:39.887" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Because `вернуться` and `вернуть` are two related yet distinct verbs. &quot;Вернуть&quot; is to return in sense **to give back** something you've taken/borrowed beforehand. &quot;Вернуться&quot; is **to be back**. It looks like you've just checked some resource sort of translate.google.com, which is fine but noe always provide you with all context needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be it would be a bit easier to memoize the difference if you'll keep in mind following fact: &quot;вернуться&quot; is a [reflexive verb][1] - in Russian this verbs are ended with cя/сь. So it is roughly like &quot;to return yourself&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this cя/cь ending is actually remnant of PIE similar (but more complex) feature. This is exactly what `se` in reflexive verbs in Spanish stand for. Moreover, English word &quot;self&quot; is related as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25792" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11189" RevisionGUID="b38ec771-01d1-4c46-a7ab-574ea19576a5" CreationDate="2015-11-16T13:36:54.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/666248578537508864" />
  <row Id="25793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11193" RevisionGUID="3e9f6630-ef65-4551-b42c-d7dd0337530c" CreationDate="2015-11-16T13:55:38.467" UserId="551" Comment="typos" Text="Because `вернуться` and `вернуть` are two related yet distinct verbs. &quot;Вернуть&quot; is to return in sense **to give back** something you've taken/borrowed beforehand. &quot;Вернуться&quot; is **to be back**. It looks like you've just checked some resource sort of translate.google.com, which is fine but not always provide you with all context needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be it would be a bit easier to memorize the difference if you'll keep in mind following fact: &quot;вернуться&quot; is a [reflexive verb][1] — in Russian this verbs are ended with cя/сь. So it is roughly like &quot;to return yourself&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, this cя/cь ending is actually remnant of PIE similar (but more complex) feature. This is exactly what `se` in reflexive verbs in Spanish stand for. Moreover, English word &quot;self&quot; is related as well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11195" RevisionGUID="a2139709-2104-48b6-bee9-8347dab78ea5" CreationDate="2015-11-16T13:58:29.733" UserId="6280" Text="*empathy* is an interesting word for a Russian. I learned it when I was around 18 - in English. It was a new concept for me. What I understood English speakers meant by *empathy* was neither сочувствие nor сопереживание to me. To them *empathy* was a desired quality that one should strive to develop, a gift, and in my mind I agreed with them. But when I thought of сочувствие, it was more along the lines of feeling sorry for a loser that does not know how to take care of his life. сопереживание was a fancy literary equivalent of сочувствие of sorts - it was one of those words that I understood more through root analysis (suffer together) than through the feel of usage. Granted, my vision of the Russian language was incomplete due to my age and some lack of emotional maturity in some aspects, but the reality is that when you speak to Russians you will find many people in a similar situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to understand that going from culture to culture some concepts have one precise word that describes them in one, but will require sometimes a paragraph or more to properly communicate in the other. I think the English *empathy* going to Russian is one of them. Not to be outdone, we have some words that require more than one word to translate into English. I keep running into those while reading Russian literature with my children. Some colorful examples I had to explain recently that perhaps will help one understand why we do not have a good word for *empathy*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;расстрел -  execution by firing squad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;автоматчик - a soldier with an automatic rifle ready to use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11196" RevisionGUID="ba5a0d30-0dd5-49f3-950f-712a91c8cc21" CreationDate="2015-11-16T15:18:29.393" UserId="5288" Text="Because words `&quot;сейчас, вчера, уже, ...&quot;` clearly mark the whole scene on the time-line being pictured by the speaker, and have much higher, almost highest, priority over the tense forms of a verb. Like multiplication over addition are in a mathematical expression. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One person talk to another:   &#xD;&#xA;`Едем мы вчера с другом на трамвае, и вдруг ... ` (Past)   &#xD;&#xA;but `едем = present form of &quot;ехать&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where are you now?    &#xD;&#xA;`Мы сейчас в трамвае, поехали на квартиру к Ивану.` (Present)    &#xD;&#xA;but `поехали = past form of &quot;поехать&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Free speech:    &#xD;&#xA;`Завтра мы едем на квартиру к Ивану.` (Future)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11197" RevisionGUID="1ded059b-1107-4c11-89d9-d84e9e6b4d55" CreationDate="2015-11-17T11:20:29.577" UserId="6289" Text="1.сожитель - one who you lives with someone in the same appartments and have intimate (sexual) relationships with him. Feminine - сожительница.&#xD;&#xA;2.любовник = lover. Feminine - любовница.&#xD;&#xA;3.фаворит = archaism, nowadays it is not in use. Means a favorite lover of a high-level person (king, prince, sultan, etc). Something like favorite concubine. Feminine - фаворитка.&#xD;&#xA;Once I worked at a publishing office, so that I had to get translated words like these ( due to translation agency, Technolex Translations, of course). I think фаворит isn't used nowadays in Russian, meanwhile любовник is a wider term, may be applied in more cases.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11198" RevisionGUID="c9dad04e-0929-4b01-aa93-956f0b697a80" CreationDate="2015-11-17T11:30:51.717" UserId="6289" Text="Сочувствие is more about sympathy, but it also may mean an empathy, it depends on a context. The company I work at used to deal with Russian texts rather often, it is very difficult and the meanings of different words and phrases often depend on the emotional message of the sentence. We used to order translations from BNG or Technolex Translations, because it is simply impossible to translate the whole doc perfectly :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="ceb3d752-270e-4726-ab0f-5c7c279fef7d" CreationDate="2015-11-17T13:41:29.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/666612122479144960" />
  <row Id="25799" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11025" RevisionGUID="7d4424b5-d9ca-4bed-880c-d521f3c6620b" CreationDate="2015-11-17T16:42:59.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/666657797103362051" />
  <row Id="25808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10866" RevisionGUID="3d3772d7-af2e-46d0-a3de-d015caba3ce3" CreationDate="2015-11-18T04:54:38.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/666841925115379712" />
  <row Id="25813" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9126" RevisionGUID="54fac6d2-14b5-4761-868b-b1962b30e9de" CreationDate="2015-11-18T13:56:04.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/666978177135284224" />
  <row Id="25814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="f0bc78d4-97d5-4463-9676-e63557f30326" CreationDate="2015-11-18T14:49:24.050" UserId="6298" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am struggeling with the phrase included into the double parenthesis. How should &quot;широкую рекламу&quot; be translatated in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(Мы провели ((широкую рекламу))) по телевидению и в метро в Москве и в Санкт-Петербурге.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="f0bc78d4-97d5-4463-9676-e63557f30326" CreationDate="2015-11-18T14:49:24.050" UserId="6298" Text="&quot;провели широкую рекламу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="f0bc78d4-97d5-4463-9676-e63557f30326" CreationDate="2015-11-18T14:49:24.050" UserId="6298" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11203" RevisionGUID="f99170a6-19a4-4794-94c9-f6d07b8565ea" CreationDate="2015-11-18T15:19:55.507" UserId="4801" Text="It is better to rephrase it in English, eliminating the need to use a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It [the product] was widely advertised on TV and in subways in Moscow and St. Petersburg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11204" RevisionGUID="814d02dc-30bc-4f2c-83af-6144783bb0dc" CreationDate="2015-11-18T15:20:04.863" UserId="134" Text="That's most probably a misuse of *мы провели широкую рекламную кампанию* which means &quot;we've conducted a broad advertising campaign&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synecdoches like this (*реклама* &quot;advertising&quot; instead of *рекламная кампания* &quot;advertising campaign&quot;) are quite common in professional jargons but should not normally be used outside them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="bc785d7e-9283-4d4c-9ccd-82cc840a3d26" CreationDate="2015-11-18T22:33:30.270" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am struggling with the phrase included into the double parenthesis. How should &quot;широкую рекламу&quot; be translatated in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(Мы провели ((широкую рекламу))) по телевидению и в метро в Москве и в Санкт-Петербурге.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25833" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="bc785d7e-9283-4d4c-9ccd-82cc840a3d26" CreationDate="2015-11-18T22:33:30.270" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Провели широкую рекламу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11208" RevisionGUID="66944694-6db7-4a76-8532-e21b0aa16a68" CreationDate="2015-11-19T03:14:10.150" UserId="3892" Text="&quot;We launched a widespread advertising campaign on tv as well as in the Moscow and St. Petersburg Metros.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11209" RevisionGUID="60eb16b7-1816-481b-a7eb-6c6bd1b0ca18" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:42:12.040" UserId="6308" Text="Как будет правильнее:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мое мнение – видеорегистратор достоин 9 баллов из 10.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мое мнение: видеорегистратор достоин 9 баллов из 10.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11209" RevisionGUID="60eb16b7-1816-481b-a7eb-6c6bd1b0ca18" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:42:12.040" UserId="6308" Text="Двоеточие или тире?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11209" RevisionGUID="60eb16b7-1816-481b-a7eb-6c6bd1b0ca18" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:42:12.040" UserId="6308" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="dbedafdc-1e52-4957-8b5b-a1358e6e2eae" CreationDate="2015-11-19T17:41:57.603" UserId="179" Text="Двоеточие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Второе простое предложение дополняет содержание первого (дополнительные отношения). Перед вторым предложением можно вставить союз что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ср.: Я знал: удар судьбы меня не обойдёт (Лермонтов). – Я знал, что удар судьбы меня не обойдёт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[источник][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.licey.net/russian/syntax/r2_3_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25839" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="45dcfff3-00a8-43b1-b70b-00c663d6e163" CreationDate="2015-11-19T17:42:15.630" UserId="179" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:179,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user907860&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25840" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="11210" RevisionGUID="8d902233-8ae3-43c9-a370-d94763435957" CreationDate="2015-11-19T17:42:37.660" UserId="179" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:179,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user907860&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="25841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="755a303d-f21c-44d6-b201-fb44ddafa96c" CreationDate="2015-11-19T17:49:17.877" UserId="4714" Comment="grammar—added a word" Text="It will look like a speech from 19th century, possibly like a citation from some classical work. Yes, it will be noticed and sound strange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25842" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="755a303d-f21c-44d6-b201-fb44ddafa96c" CreationDate="2015-11-19T17:49:17.877" Comment="Proposed by 4714 approved by 5008, 2060 edit id of 701" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11211" RevisionGUID="7c32a78e-d0ab-4d79-a3c6-c325246d6315" CreationDate="2015-11-19T20:27:04.777" UserId="6280" Text="I think it can also be used to achieve the effect of sounding colloquial and possibly less educated, at least that is what I get out of Vysotskiy's usage in the *Song About The High Jumper*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Но я лучше выпью зелье с отравою &#xD;&#xA;    И над собой что-нибудь сделаю,&#xD;&#xA;    Но свою неправую правую &#xD;&#xA;    Я не сменю на правую левую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally we would say `с отравой`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might be a challenge for non-advanced students of Russian, so I'll give my translation as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I would rather drink a poisoned potion,&#xD;&#xA;    And I would do something to myself,&#xD;&#xA;    But my right (leg) which is in the wrong,&#xD;&#xA;    I will not change to the left one which is (considered) correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11212" RevisionGUID="a5972a4a-0bca-48c4-b3af-90d10142f8c5" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:16:52.007" UserId="242" Text="While I agree to most extend with all answers proovided, I still insist that in colloquial speech not always but pretty often this does not sounds outdated. It is just something quick you don't even notice. Pretty much like in colloquial English it is acceptable to ignore some of grammar rules. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out, for instance, this phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Что вот с тобой не так? Со мною вcё нормально.&#xD;&#xA; - Друзья, мне кажется с едою что-то не так.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;-й&quot; version is de-facto more acceptable and  &quot;-ю&quot; is definitely getting obsolete, but still does not sound too strange in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11209" RevisionGUID="c49163c1-31f7-4b24-9099-5dace503e089" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:21:32.590" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="33ed5dbd-e465-4b21-9e85-6bbaad934130" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:32:03.670" UserId="242" Text="To simplify there's sort of rule of thumb you can keep in mind. Go for dash when you can imagine that is acceptable for this particular phrase to use &quot;is&quot; instead. &#xD;&#xA;Go for colon when you can imagine that phrase could be rephrased by adding something like &quot;Here's what...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case both of rules are acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Моё мнение [является следующим]:&#xD;&#xA; - [Вот] моё мнение: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вместо тире можно представить глагол-связку (например &quot;есть&quot;, &quot;является&quot;) то тире подходит. Если к фразе можно добавить что-то вроде &quot;вот что&quot;, &quot;вот какие&quot; - то уместно двоеточие.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры @user907860 хорошие, но в отличие от фразы &quot;я знал:&quot; заканчивающейся глаголом - ([вот что] я знал) грань тут тонкая, и в данном конкретном случае уместны оба знака препинания. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="5cab91b0-5f1c-4ef3-86b0-95b28636e466" CreationDate="2015-11-19T22:16:49.330" UserId="6003" Text="I can't seem to figure out the difference between одену and надену.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are future tense verbs of &quot;to put on&quot; or &quot;wear&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Are they both just synonyms? I fee like there is a subtle difference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="5cab91b0-5f1c-4ef3-86b0-95b28636e466" CreationDate="2015-11-19T22:16:49.330" UserId="6003" Text="одену vs надену" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="5cab91b0-5f1c-4ef3-86b0-95b28636e466" CreationDate="2015-11-19T22:16:49.330" UserId="6003" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11215" RevisionGUID="098f7aa9-60fb-4607-81f8-90ac99fa0173" CreationDate="2015-11-19T23:03:16.760" UserId="242" Text="Oh, this is a classic question and actually one with what even native speakers happen to have some hard times. Actually this verbs are not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надеть&quot; is for putting clothes on the person himself. So, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - я надену шапку [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - она надела чулки [на себя]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Одеть&quot; is for putting clothes on somebody else, like:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Одень шапку, холодно во дворе. &#xD;&#xA; - В дедстве я одевала кукол в красивые наряды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11215" RevisionGUID="090c64f5-98ff-4333-91c4-366de7d23731" CreationDate="2015-11-19T23:10:23.203" UserId="242" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Oh, this is a classic question and actually one with what even native speakers happen to have some hard times. Actually this verbs are not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надеть&quot; is for putting clothes (or something else like headphones, for instance) on the person himself. So, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - я надену шапку [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - она надела чулки [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - Надень шапку, холодно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Одеть&quot; is for putting clothes on somebody else, like:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - В дедстве я одевала кукол в красивые наряды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a mnemonic joke: &quot;Одевают Надежду, надевают одежду&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11215" RevisionGUID="3d7396e5-98e9-4e3d-a283-51a527b576bd" CreationDate="2015-11-19T23:17:02.210" UserId="242" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Oh, this is a classic question and actually one with what even native speakers happen to have some hard times. Actually this verbs are not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надеть&quot; is for putting clothes (or something else like headphones, for instance) on the person himself. Something inanimate. So, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - я надену шапку [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - она надела чулки [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - Надень [ты] шапку, холодно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Одеть&quot; is for putting clothes on somebody else, like:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - В дедстве я одевала кукол в красивые наряды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a mnemonic joke: &quot;Одевают Надежду, надевают одежду&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Одеть&quot; answers to the answer - &quot;whom I'm putting this on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надеть&quot; is sort of about &quot;what I'm putting on&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25853" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="06c2b8f2-438e-4a4e-9659-b852d3a6c36b" CreationDate="2015-11-19T23:19:47.380" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Одену&quot; or &quot;надену&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11215" RevisionGUID="358a923e-f939-4fbc-826a-4e69aba8b308" CreationDate="2015-11-19T23:44:21.247" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Oh, this is a classic question and actually one with what even native speakers happen to have some hard times. Actually this verbs are not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надеть&quot; is for putting clothes (or something else like headphones, for instance) on the person himself. Something inanimate. So, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - я надену шапку [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - она надела чулки [на себя]&#xD;&#xA; - Надень [ты] шапку, холодно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Одеть&quot; is for putting clothes on somebody else, like:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - В детстве я одевала кукол в красивые наряды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a mnemonic joke: &quot;Одевают Надежду, надевают одежду&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Одеть&quot; answers to the answer - &quot;whom I'm putting this on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надеть&quot; is sort of about &quot;what I'm putting on&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="07d14c6a-e6f9-4ef9-b1cf-792bb550a4b2" CreationDate="2015-11-20T00:46:53.683" UserId="4451" Text="I recently met someone named станислау, and couldn't figure out what his children's отчество would be. I know that for Станислав it is obviously Станиславович, but &quot;Станислауович&quot; sounds awkward to me. I know that one (for male) generally adds -ович unless the name ends in -ь or -й, for which -евич is used. But is there an exception for this name? What is he correct отчество? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, is this name still used? I have never seen it before, outside of this one person and some textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="07d14c6a-e6f9-4ef9-b1cf-792bb550a4b2" CreationDate="2015-11-20T00:46:53.683" UserId="4451" Text="What is the proper отчество for станислау?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="07d14c6a-e6f9-4ef9-b1cf-792bb550a4b2" CreationDate="2015-11-20T00:46:53.683" UserId="4451" Text="|грамматика|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11217" RevisionGUID="5b3d6ff2-1dc5-4e8f-ba58-4bfcd45cee2b" CreationDate="2015-11-20T01:09:01.027" UserId="242" Text="Станислау (Станіслаў to be precise) is a Belarussian version of name Stanislav.&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that Belarussian &quot;ў&quot; is more like w, so it does not sound like &quot;oo&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not dive into political issues here, but de-facto in all three eastern European Slavic countries there's a tendency to translate name into local variant. &#xD;&#xA;Nobody says Павел Маккартни, but Павло Скоропадський is always Павел Скоропадский in Russian. The same with Станіслаў - we can theorize for a pretty long time about forms like Миколаевич, Станислауович, Олександрович, Володимирович etc. - de-facto these are translated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is - &quot;Станиславович&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="8a9eb1d5-b564-4348-a2dc-cfe383f255a2" CreationDate="2015-11-20T01:10:38.250" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the proper отчество for Cтанислау?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="8a9eb1d5-b564-4348-a2dc-cfe383f255a2" CreationDate="2015-11-20T01:10:38.250" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|slavic|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11217" RevisionGUID="71d03f2f-dc3d-47cd-aed7-fc8338b432b4" CreationDate="2015-11-20T01:16:27.107" UserId="242" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Станислау (Станіслаў to be precise) is a Belarussian version of name Stanislav.&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that Belarussian &quot;ў&quot; is more like w, so it does not sound like &quot;oo&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not dive into political issues here, but de-facto in all three eastern European Slavic countries there's a tendency to translate name into local variant. &#xD;&#xA;Nobody says Павел Маккартни, but Павло Скоропадський is always Павел Скоропадский in Russian. The same with Станіслаў - we can theorize for a pretty long time about forms like Миколаевич, Станислауович, Олександрович, Володимирович etc. - de-facto these are translated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is - &quot;Станиславович&quot;. This is in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, in Belarussian, btw, patronymic is &quot;Станіслававіч&quot; - ў morphs into &quot;в&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So, no mystery here as well :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="24263b72-a411-45e2-b293-c1d6cf30559a" CreationDate="2015-11-20T01:16:54.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|slavic|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11217" RevisionGUID="c2155f3d-9a82-4a7b-b79b-d1f69eb8310b" CreationDate="2015-11-20T02:13:25.710" UserId="242" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Станислау (Станіслаў to be precise) is a Belarussian version of name Stanislav.&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that Belarussian &quot;ў&quot; is more like w, so it does not sound like &quot;oo&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not dive into political issues here, but de-facto in all three eastern European Slavic countries there's a tendency to translate name into local variant. &#xD;&#xA;Nobody says Павел Маккартни, but Павло Скоропадський is always Павел Скоропадский in Russian. The same with Станіслаў - we can theorize for a pretty long time about forms like Миколаевич, Станислауович, Олександрович, Володимирович etc. - de-facto these are translated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is - &quot;Станиславович&quot;. This is in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, in Belarussian, by the way, patronymic is &quot;Станіслававіч&quot; - ў morphs into &quot;в&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So, no mystery here as well :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11213" RevisionGUID="45266444-62df-4b8e-97a4-66f22e2f019c" CreationDate="2015-11-20T02:23:02.183" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="To simplify there's sort of rule of thumb you can keep in mind. Go for dash when you can imagine that is acceptable for this particular phrase to use &quot;is&quot; instead. &#xD;&#xA;Go for colon when you can imagine that phrase could be rephrased by adding something like &quot;Here's what...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case both of rules are acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Моё мнение [является/есть] - &#xD;&#xA; - [Вот] моё мнение: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если вместо тире можно представить глагол-связку (например &quot;есть&quot;, &quot;является&quot;) то тире подходит. Если к фразе можно добавить что-то вроде &quot;вот что&quot;, &quot;вот какие&quot; - то уместно двоеточие.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры @user907860 хорошие, но в отличие от фразы &quot;я знал:&quot; заканчивающейся глаголом - ([вот что] я знал) грань тут тонкая, и в данном конкретном случае уместны оба знака препинания. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11217" RevisionGUID="5e96c21b-055e-4254-81c3-548d547a5e76" CreationDate="2015-11-20T02:34:28.790" UserId="242" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="Станислау (Станіслаў to be precise) is a Belarussian version of name Stanislav.&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that Belarussian &quot;ў&quot; is more like w, so it does not sound like &quot;oo&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not dive into political issues here, but de-facto in all three eastern European Slavic countries there's a tendency to translate name into local variant. &#xD;&#xA;Nobody says Павел Маккартни, but Павло Скоропадський is always Павел Скоропадский in Russian. The same with Станіслаў - we can theorize for a pretty long time about forms like Миколаевич, Станислауович, Олександрович, Володимирович etc. - de-facto these are translated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is - &quot;Станиславович&quot;. This is in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, in Belarussian, by the way, patronymic [is][1] &quot;Станіслававіч&quot; - ў morphs into &quot;в&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So, no mystery here as well :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%9E_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%87_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%88-%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8D%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="8d838823-cbf5-42c7-a06d-650d7a5aa806" CreationDate="2015-11-20T07:05:51.117" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently met someone named Станислау, and couldn't figure out what his children's отчество would be. I know that for Станислав it is obviously Станиславович, but &quot;Станислауович&quot; sounds awkward to me. I know that one (for male) generally adds -ович unless the name ends in -ь or -й, for which -евич is used. But is there an exception for this name? What is he correct отчество? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, is this name still used? I have never seen it before, outside of this one person and some textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11218" RevisionGUID="1ada2100-b1f5-4038-a1dd-f689a9ac73c2" CreationDate="2015-11-20T08:27:02.297" UserId="551" Text="Speaking of how native speakers mix these two words, I would add that надеть is always used with clothing. However одеть may be used for both putting clothes on another person, or putting a piece of cloth onto oneself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;одеть одежду, одеть Надежду&quot; and most people (except for purists) won't feel that there is a problem, however you can only say &quot;надеть одежду&quot; and **never** &quot;надеть Надежду&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11217" RevisionGUID="276e3a4e-55c4-4bc1-ac41-1ed73fffa6f3" CreationDate="2015-11-20T08:43:36.567" UserId="5008" Comment="Belarussian -&gt; Belarusian" Text="Станислау (Станіслаў to be precise) is a Belarusian version of name Stanislav.&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that Belarusian &quot;ў&quot; is more like w, so it does not sound like &quot;oo&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's not dive into political issues here, but de-facto in all three eastern European Slavic countries there's a tendency to translate name into local variant. &#xD;&#xA;Nobody says Павел Маккартни, but Павло Скоропадський is always Павел Скоропадский in Russian. The same with Станіслаў - we can theorize for a pretty long time about forms like Миколаевич, Станислауович, Олександрович, Володимирович etc. - de-facto these are translated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is - &quot;Станиславович&quot;. This is in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, in Belarusian, by the way, patronymic [is][1] &quot;Станіслававіч&quot; - ў morphs into &quot;в&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So, no mystery here as well :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%9E_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%87_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%88-%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8D%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="75fc8ebf-bc69-4bc6-b797-164a131b539f" CreationDate="2015-11-20T12:51:12.877" UserId="134" Text="*Надевать / надеть что-то (на кого-то)* means &quot;to put something on (someone)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Одевать / одеть кого-то (во что-то)* means &quot;to dress someone (in something)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct object (one without a preposition) to *надевать* is the piece of garment (inanimate), the direct object to *одевать* is the one who'll be wearing it (animate) (*надень свитер на Оксану* / *одень Оксану в свитер*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To *одевать* there is a reflexive counterpart *одеваться* (&quot;to dress up&quot;), but there is no one for *надевать*. You can construct it but it would sound peculiar at least (*надеваться* would mean something like &quot;put oneself on something&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another pair *обувать / набувать*, used for footwear, however the second word in it is archaic and is not used anymore. *Надевать* is used instead nowadays when speaking of footwear instead of archaic *набувать*. *Обувать* and *обуваться* are used as counterparts to *одевать* and *одеваться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In vernacular speech, people tend to use *одевать* and *обувать* with inanimate objects (_*одень свитер_, _*обуй ботинки_), because the meaning is obvious from the context, and the case forms happen to be the same, only prepositions being different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prescriptive grammars, though, consider this usage incorrect, just the same as using &quot;to learn someone&quot; instead of &quot;to teach someone&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11216" RevisionGUID="7416f3e4-d8c9-4dfd-9e25-233a16efa873" CreationDate="2015-11-20T14:09:58.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/667706452010770432" />
  <row Id="25871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="7835b719-ff00-43ff-994e-909a8b783126" CreationDate="2015-11-20T14:14:03.790" UserId="134" Comment="added 476 characters in body" Text="*Надевать / надеть что-то (на кого-то)* means &quot;to put something on (someone)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Одевать / одеть кого-то (во что-то)* means &quot;to dress someone (in something)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct object (one without a preposition) to *надевать* is the piece of garment (inanimate), the direct object to *одевать* is the one who'll be wearing it (animate) (*надень свитер на Оксану* / *одень Оксану в свитер*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To *одевать* there is a reflexive counterpart *одеваться* (&quot;to dress up&quot;), but there is no one for *надевать*. You can construct it but it would sound peculiar at least (*надеваться* would mean something like &quot;put oneself on something&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another pair *обувать / набувать*, used for footwear, however the second word in it is archaic and is not used anymore. *Надевать* is used instead nowadays when speaking of footwear instead of archaic *набувать*. *Обувать* and *обуваться* are used as counterparts to *одевать* and *одеваться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In vernacular speech, people tend to use *одевать* and *обувать* with inanimate objects (_*одень свитер_, _*обуй ботинки_), because the meaning is obvious from the context, and the case forms happen to be the same, only prepositions being different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prescriptive grammars, though, consider this usage incorrect, just the same as using &quot;to learn someone&quot; instead of &quot;to teach someone&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, *Говорите и пишите правильно*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дело в том, что глаголы *одеть — одевать* обозначают действие, обращенное на другой предмет (в грамматическом значении этого слова, т. е. может быть и человек, и животное, и неодушевлённый предмет): *одевать ребёнка, одевать коня попоной, одевать куклу*. Если же действие обращено на его производителя, то употребляются глаголы *надеть — надевать*: *надеть пальто, надеть шляпу, надевать туфли, надеть очки, надевать коньки*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11219" RevisionGUID="88af4329-27ce-4ed9-8aa0-0139ea5b2e85" CreationDate="2015-11-20T15:58:03.373" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="*Надевать / надеть что-то (на кого-то)* means &quot;to put something on (someone)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Одевать / одеть кого-то (во что-то)* means &quot;to dress someone (in something)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct object (one without a preposition) to *надевать* is the piece of clothing (inanimate), the direct object to *одевать* is the one who'll be wearing it (animate): *надень свитер (на Оксану)* / *одень Оксану (в свитер)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To *одевать* there is a reflexive counterpart *одеваться* (&quot;to dress up&quot;), but there is no one for *надевать*. You can construct it but it would sound peculiar at least (*надеваться* would mean something like &quot;put oneself on something&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another pair *обувать / набувать*, used for footwear, however the second word in it is archaic and is not used anymore. *Надевать* is used instead nowadays when speaking of footwear instead of archaic *набувать*. *Обувать* and *обуваться* are used as counterparts to *одевать* and *одеваться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In vernacular speech, people tend to use *одевать* and *обувать* with inanimate objects (_*одень свитер_, _*обуй ботинки_), because the meaning is obvious from the context, and the case forms happen to be the same, only prepositions being different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prescriptive grammars, though, consider this usage incorrect, just the same as using &quot;to learn someone&quot; instead of &quot;to teach someone&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, *Говорите и пишите правильно*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дело в том, что глаголы *одеть — одевать* обозначают действие, обращенное на другой предмет (в грамматическом значении этого слова, т. е. может быть и человек, и животное, и неодушевлённый предмет): *одевать ребёнка, одевать коня попоной, одевать куклу*. Если же действие обращено на его производителя, то употребляются глаголы *надеть — надевать*: *надеть пальто, надеть шляпу, надевать туфли, надеть очки, надевать коньки*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25873" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11214" RevisionGUID="203c9167-765d-4bde-a3c2-31aab4c7e7b3" CreationDate="2015-11-20T17:15:15.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/667753080021229568" />
  <row Id="25874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="9092476c-508f-4170-b880-4dd4193513bb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T18:56:53.580" UserId="5924" Text="what's the difference between свой (своя... и т.д.) and мой (моя ... и т.д.) when Russian people speak they seem aware of the difference but still I can't wrap my head around it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25875" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="9092476c-508f-4170-b880-4dd4193513bb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T18:56:53.580" UserId="5924" Text="the difference between свой and мой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25876" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="9092476c-508f-4170-b880-4dd4193513bb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T18:56:53.580" UserId="5924" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="8dea22d7-0e75-4a39-8598-cf6afe796cd7" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:09:09.173" UserId="6003" Text="One thing to note is that свой can be applied to other people or yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы идете со своей женой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду с моей женой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where as мой can only ever be applied to yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="31a86caa-cf8a-4715-bd07-001ca18a3152" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:15:06.443" UserId="6003" Comment="edited body" Text="One thing to note is that свой can be applied to other people or yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы идёте со своей женой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду с моей женой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where as мой can only ever be applied to yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="e7c1b040-fadd-414a-97dc-7bb87c1b1cca" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:25:42.960" UserId="6003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="One thing to note is that свой can be applied to other people or yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы идёте со своей женой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду с своей женой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where as мой can only ever be applied to yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11222" RevisionGUID="c453eafa-d4c3-4ec4-8feb-ae94bb96ee1b" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:40:58.033" UserId="5008" Text="_Свой_ is a nice word which allows to enliven the speech avoiding those permanent occurences of pairs _me_ / _my_ (or _you_ / _your_ and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb, try not to use я/мой, ты/твой etc. both in the same sentence but replace &quot;мой&quot; (or &quot;твой&quot;, &quot;его&quot; etc.) with &quot;свой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may think that &quot;_I_ am in _my_ room&quot; looks OK, but Russian people hate sentences such as &quot;_Я_ в _моей_ комнате&quot;. In Russian it sounds as if you state _twice_ that it's _your_ room, because your companion doubts this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say it short, &quot;свой&quot; has no additional meaning except &quot;мой&quot; / &quot;твой&quot; / &quot;его&quot; but you _have to_ use this word often to speak Russian well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25881" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="fd2abd28-81df-40c7-9947-9935e6b8b873" CreationDate="2015-11-20T19:47:56.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="The difference between &quot;свой&quot; and &quot;мой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11223" RevisionGUID="998b8eee-f58c-473c-8374-afe2e7fa2010" CreationDate="2015-11-20T20:11:09.633" UserId="134" Text="In this meaning *свой* means &quot;belonging to the last agent in the sentence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса отдала Бобу свои деньги // Alice gave Bob her own (Alice's) money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боб отдал Алисе свои деньги // Bob gave Alice his own (Bob's) money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса отдала Бобу его деньги // Alice gave Bob his (not necessarily Bob's) money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса отдала Бобу её деньги // Alice gave Bob her (not necessarily Alice's) money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last phrase is normally only used in Russian when &quot;her&quot; means &quot;belonging to a third female person, neither the subject nor object of the sentence&quot;, that third person being obvious from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ева дала Алисе пальто. Алиса отдала её пальто Бобу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ева дала Алисе пальто. Алиса отдала своё пальто Бобу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;last agent&quot; thing might be a little bit confusing, as sometimes it's not clear what the agent is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса дала Бобу своё пальто // Alice gave Bob her coat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bob's definitely not the agent here, so *своё* unequivocally means &quot;Alice's&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса попросила Боба постирать своё пальто // Alice asked Bob to wash his coat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alice and Bob are both agents (Alice asks, Bob washes), but Bob goes last in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса попросила у Боба постирать своё пальто // Alice asked Bob for washing her (or his) coat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a bit confusing, as it's not clear who'll be doing the washing, so not clear whether Bob is an agent here or not. This sentence can be interpreted both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the &quot;last agent&quot; rule only works within a single sentence clause, it does not work across dependent clauses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса любит своих детей. // Alice loves her kids&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Алиса хочет, чтобы свои дети любили её // This is ungrammatical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алиса хочет, чтобы её дети любили её // Alice wants her kids to love her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use *свои* in the second sentence, as on this dependency level there is no agent before *свои*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11221" RevisionGUID="67ae925b-25fd-436b-bdc1-27fa3d1580ce" CreationDate="2015-11-20T20:12:58.590" UserId="6003" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="One thing to note is that свой can be applied to other people or yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы идёте со своей женой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду со своей женой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where as мой can only ever be applied to yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25885" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11177" RevisionGUID="418fb0cd-65d9-4977-b9e5-dd8d66376ac9" CreationDate="2015-11-20T23:15:18.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/667843691583840256" />
  <row Id="25887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11224" RevisionGUID="4f42c866-7673-4c8f-ae0c-e0a5e557850b" CreationDate="2015-11-21T00:58:53.000" UserId="2106" Text="I'd include another word - compassion - to the list of synonyms. [This][1] page describes this term as a positive one, however in Russian the phrase &quot;Я тебе сочуствую&quot; can be used to ridicule somebody, however not in a harsh way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25888" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="68789295-c113-416b-ae1f-7d8e8c387672" CreationDate="2015-11-21T02:17:12.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/667889466175053825" />
  <row Id="25889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11224" RevisionGUID="412e90e5-5677-493f-8f48-17b8bd4ea503" CreationDate="2015-11-21T03:43:13.050" UserId="2106" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I'd include another word - compassion - to the list of synonyms. [This][1] page describes this term as a positive one, however in Russian the phrase &quot;Я тебе сочуствую&quot; can be used to ridicule somebody, but not in a harsh way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="dbdac777-a2dc-41d4-aacd-26f7e5025775" CreationDate="2015-11-21T11:45:33.993" UserId="6317" Text="I am new to this language. I would need some help with the conjugation. Please check if I got it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific case G=A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N хороший врач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A хорошeго врач-a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G хорошeго врач-a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D хорошemy врач-y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I хорошиm врач-om&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P хорошom врач-e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="dbdac777-a2dc-41d4-aacd-26f7e5025775" CreationDate="2015-11-21T11:45:33.993" UserId="6317" Text="Conjugation adjective noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="dbdac777-a2dc-41d4-aacd-26f7e5025775" CreationDate="2015-11-21T11:45:33.993" UserId="6317" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11226" RevisionGUID="ea97b394-e4af-43dc-8962-d48700113e76" CreationDate="2015-11-21T12:39:01.783" UserId="5605" Text="N Хороший врач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хорошeго врач-а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G хорошeго врач-а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D хорошeмy врач-у&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хорошим врачом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Р хорошем врач-е" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="7ef76620-1e89-44d3-90fc-8372087f39e5" CreationDate="2015-11-21T13:00:21.537" UserId="5605" Text="Что имеется в виду в старой русской поговорке &quot;Не по чину нос&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="7ef76620-1e89-44d3-90fc-8372087f39e5" CreationDate="2015-11-21T13:00:21.537" UserId="5605" Text="Смысл поговорки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="7ef76620-1e89-44d3-90fc-8372087f39e5" CreationDate="2015-11-21T13:00:21.537" UserId="5605" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11226" RevisionGUID="a79830c2-a765-4617-a505-cdd3d621b497" CreationDate="2015-11-21T13:04:56.933" UserId="5605" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="N Хороший врач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Хорошeго врач-а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;G хорошeго врач-а&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D хорошeмy врач-у&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I хорошим врач-ом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Р хорошем врач-е" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11228" RevisionGUID="4516a1da-c82c-4c85-af06-d4d82bf7fa48" CreationDate="2015-11-21T15:37:24.817" UserId="6319" Text="Синоним &quot;всяк сверчок знай свой шесток&quot;, &quot;каждому - свое&quot;, или &quot;знай свое место&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С происхождением поговорки не могу помочь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11229" RevisionGUID="4850dddd-0a5c-4833-87a7-ba3b9c96a724" CreationDate="2015-11-21T16:06:47.190" UserId="5008" Text="_Не по чину нос_ = _Не по чину подношение (взятка)_, т.е. &quot;слишком много хочешь&quot;, &quot;не по чину берёшь&quot;, &quot;это не для тебя&quot; и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Противоположное значение имеет всем известное _остаться с носом_, т.е. твое &quot;подношение&quot; никто и брать-то не стал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25901" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="d2d2e6e8-023b-45ca-b7cc-043f6d612d1e" CreationDate="2015-11-21T19:08:15.473" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Смысл поговорки &quot;не по чину нос&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25902" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11225" RevisionGUID="2b471ab2-bd76-4726-92df-651da987d887" CreationDate="2015-11-21T19:42:04.037" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Conjugation оf &quot;врач&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25903" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11227" RevisionGUID="18b366a2-30a1-44fc-8362-1d43ea8bb14a" CreationDate="2015-11-22T14:32:32.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/668436906741362688" />
  <row Id="25904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="6d41b535-ddfd-4ca1-af47-87c3a36801aa" CreationDate="2015-11-23T00:38:37.423" UserId="6322" Text="Я заметила, что такое выражение часто слышится в популярных песнях. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо заранее за ответы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="6d41b535-ddfd-4ca1-af47-87c3a36801aa" CreationDate="2015-11-23T00:38:37.423" UserId="6322" Text="Что означает &quot;нам по пути&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="6d41b535-ddfd-4ca1-af47-87c3a36801aa" CreationDate="2015-11-23T00:38:37.423" UserId="6322" Text="|музыка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11231" RevisionGUID="917a8d20-141b-4ace-8be4-dac7b0f1ecc1" CreationDate="2015-11-23T05:55:33.777" UserId="5443" Text="В буквальном смысле, &quot;(мы в движении, но) **нам** (с вами/тобою предстоит идти) **по** (одному и тому же) **пути**&quot;; это намёк на возможность общения &quot;в движении&quot; (пойти вместе и по дороге поговорить или заняться общим делом). Поэтому в переносном смысле выражение означает: &quot;*у нас общие интересы (взгляды)*&quot;, &quot;*у нас есть повод для общения*&quot; или даже, как в некоторых песнях, &quot;*давай дружить*&quot;. Соответственно, выражение с отрицанием, &quot;*нам не по пути*&quot;, выражает (сравнительно резкий) отказ от совместной деятельности." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11232" RevisionGUID="51c744f6-59da-4890-b1ce-877f1f93720f" CreationDate="2015-11-23T06:45:14.067" UserId="2079" Text="It means &quot;we have a common path (or part of it), so we can go together&quot;.  The opposite is &quot;нам не по пути&quot; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Садись в машину, я тебя подвезу до работы, нам по пути.&#xD;&#xA; - В 12 лет я влюбился в одноклассницу. Каждый вечер я провожал её домой, хоть нам было и не по пути.&#xD;&#xA; - Давай я тебя провожу до дома, нам по пути.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In songs, this probably means that a guy and a girl can be together. &quot;Мне с тобой не по пути&quot; means &quot;I don't want be with you&quot;, &quot;we are not click&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="4bd1e084-b332-419e-bc93-982f19f08a29" CreationDate="2015-11-23T08:28:30.203" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="Я заметила, что такое выражение часто слышится в популярных песнях. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11232" RevisionGUID="bd00fbb5-3b68-4d40-8190-3d6edd78dcf9" CreationDate="2015-11-23T13:58:40.817" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It means &quot;we have a common path (or part of it), so we can go together&quot;.  The opposite is &quot;нам не по пути&quot; Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Садись в машину, я тебя подвезу до работы, нам по пути.&#xD;&#xA; - В 12 лет я влюбился в одноклассницу. Каждый вечер я провожал её домой, хоть нам было и не по пути.&#xD;&#xA; - Давай я тебя провожу до дома, нам по пути.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In songs, this probably means that a guy and a girl can be together. &quot;Мне с тобой не по пути&quot; means &quot;I don't want be with you&quot;, &quot;we do not click&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11233" RevisionGUID="a18eb8c0-0d1f-4359-80e6-c95be2a7e7a7" CreationDate="2015-11-23T14:21:20.420" UserId="5288" Text="The difference is the same in following verbs as they formed by the same principles that control the mean switching on the stem by adding either &lt;kbd&gt;о-&lt;/kbd&gt; or &lt;kbd&gt;на-&lt;/kbd&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;    окрасить    накрасить&#xD;&#xA;    оценить     наценить&#xD;&#xA;    осыпать     насыпать&#xD;&#xA;    опускать    напускать&#xD;&#xA;    означать    назначать&#xD;&#xA;    осушить     насушить&#xD;&#xA;    ограждать   награждать&#xD;&#xA;    оставлять   наставлять&#xD;&#xA;    опали       напали&#xD;&#xA;    очистить    начистить&#xD;&#xA;    огибать     нагибать&#xD;&#xA;    оказывать   наказывать&#xD;&#xA;    осмотреть   насмотреть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25912" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="072b96eb-8e04-4ed1-b377-6d4ec7d17cd2" CreationDate="2015-11-23T17:50:33.307" UserId="6097" Comment="changed tag" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25913" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="072b96eb-8e04-4ed1-b377-6d4ec7d17cd2" CreationDate="2015-11-23T17:50:33.307" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 551, 2060 edit id of 702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25914" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="b91c5d13-f75c-4c1a-9d5d-6beb0193576b" CreationDate="2015-11-24T11:41:15.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/669118579166552065" />
  <row Id="25916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11234" RevisionGUID="e4f88306-b2cd-4bd4-9297-353440473311" CreationDate="2015-11-25T02:53:40.427" UserId="5932" Text="Значит ли это букваьлно не касаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11234" RevisionGUID="e4f88306-b2cd-4bd4-9297-353440473311" CreationDate="2015-11-25T02:53:40.427" UserId="5932" Text="Что значит ‹‹это не про меня››" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11234" RevisionGUID="e4f88306-b2cd-4bd4-9297-353440473311" CreationDate="2015-11-25T02:53:40.427" UserId="5932" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11235" RevisionGUID="14f64e53-5a62-4cdf-a418-d947228e3a60" CreationDate="2015-11-25T03:26:00.140" UserId="1688" Text="В зависимости от контекста эта фраза может означать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- «то, что сказано, не относится ко мне», иначе говоря, «я не такой» («Неграмотный -- это не про меня»); либо&#xD;&#xA;- «я недостоин этого», «я не заслуживаю этого» («Такая награда не про меня»)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11202" RevisionGUID="5827c058-1c03-4ce2-81c8-611cb95a3ba0" CreationDate="2015-11-25T05:41:15.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/669390371659644928" />
  <row Id="25921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11236" RevisionGUID="203d48f3-4fb8-4e75-b6d4-dd61c2077c52" CreationDate="2015-11-25T10:24:13.580" UserId="109" Text="I listened to various pronunciations on Forvo, Wiktionary and various dictionaries with audio files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my (untrained) ear it always sounds as if the &quot;в&quot; is silent and not pronounced at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the IPA is [fsʲɪɡˈda] and that suggests that there should be a distinct hard /f/ sound (like the letter ф) in the beginning. So, I guess that sound is just very subtle and therefore (almost) imperceptible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I pronounce the word, I omit the /f/ sound, because I can hardly pronounce the /f/ sound before /sʲ/. That is, surely, I can pronounce the letter there, but then it really is a very, very distinct and perceptible sound and it kinda sounds funny, and to my mind my pronunciation is closer to the pronunciation of a native speaker when I drop that letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do native speakers, or those whose ears are trained to distinguish Russian sounds, perceive the /f/ sound in the beginning? Is it clearly distinguishable from a word that begins in &quot;с&quot; (e.g. сегмент)? And do you think you would notice when I omit the letter altogether, i.e. pronouncing it [sʲɪɡˈda]? Does someone have any experience on that?  &#xD;&#xA;And finally, how could I learn to pronounce it correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11236" RevisionGUID="203d48f3-4fb8-4e75-b6d4-dd61c2077c52" CreationDate="2015-11-25T10:24:13.580" UserId="109" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;всегда&quot; and other words beginning in &quot;вс&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11236" RevisionGUID="203d48f3-4fb8-4e75-b6d4-dd61c2077c52" CreationDate="2015-11-25T10:24:13.580" UserId="109" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="48a2eb17-4200-4869-b843-bd52f49e9a50" CreationDate="2015-11-25T10:48:18.650" UserId="109" Text="As of writing this question, there are two questions here on the difference of those two words. [The first one][1] has a quite extensive answer and [the second one][2], unfortunately, just a short answer that addresses only the example given there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite confident I understood the difference, but I've noticed something that hasn't been explicitly mentioned and therefore I'd like to clarify whether my understanding is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Какой* seems to be the counterpart to the English interrogative pronoun *what* and German *was*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What** is your favorite color?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Was** ist deine Lieblingsfarbe?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какой** твой любимый цвет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Короткый* seems to be the counterpart to the English interrogative pronoun *which* and German *welcher*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blue or red — **Which** color is more beautiful?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blau oder Rot — **Welche** Farbe ist schöner?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или кра́сный — **Кароткый** цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right or would *какой* also be correct in the second sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few side notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Короткый* is, of course, also a relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm aware that in a different context the English word *what* is translated as *что*.  &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;What is it?&quot; =&gt; &quot;что это?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4388/109&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/10836/109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="48a2eb17-4200-4869-b843-bd52f49e9a50" CreationDate="2015-11-25T10:48:18.650" UserId="109" Text="Difference between &quot;какой&quot; and &quot;который&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="48a2eb17-4200-4869-b843-bd52f49e9a50" CreationDate="2015-11-25T10:48:18.650" UserId="109" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="86584d8c-bb16-4334-b958-a91f3f9417a5" CreationDate="2015-11-25T11:05:15.367" UserId="551" Comment="Mistyped который" Text="As of writing this question, there are two questions here on the difference of those two words. [The first one][1] has a quite extensive answer and [the second one][2], unfortunately, just a short answer that addresses only the example given there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite confident I understood the difference, but I've noticed something that hasn't been explicitly mentioned and therefore I'd like to clarify whether my understanding is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Какой* seems to be the counterpart to the English interrogative pronoun *what* and German *was*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What** is your favorite color?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Was** ist deine Lieblingsfarbe?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какой** твой любимый цвет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Который* seems to be the counterpart to the English interrogative pronoun *which* and German *welcher*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blue or red — **Which** color is more beautiful?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blau oder Rot — **Welche** Farbe ist schöner?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или кра́сный — **Который** цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right or would *какой* also be correct in the second sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few side notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Который* is, of course, also a relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm aware that in a different context the English word *what* is translated as *что*.  &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;What is it?&quot; =&gt; &quot;что это?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4388/109&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/10836/109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11238" RevisionGUID="eece560e-837e-45f6-a570-7a51cfa64c4c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T11:37:22.953" UserId="134" Text="*Который* means &quot;which one (of the few)&quot; and assumes an exhaustive list of possibilities. In Proto-Slavic it used to mean &quot;which one of the two&quot; and is akin to English &quot;whether&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You normally can replace *который* with *какой* when the former is used (or can be used) with the preposition *из*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last question can be worded like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Который из цветов более красивый: красный или синий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so *какой* can be used instead indeed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или красный — какой цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an interrogative, *который* can be also used to ask &quot;which by order?&quot;, the expected answer to this being an ordinal numeral: *второй, пятый, последний* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Который час?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы который в очереди?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense, it cannot be replaced with *какой*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="ad278dd6-4587-4990-84cb-ebf5b7139e02" CreationDate="2015-11-25T11:45:56.467" UserId="194" Text="It is quite a surprising idea that you cannot hear /f/ there. Yes, it should be there and the word without it would sound wrong. Also there are a lot of other words that start with вс- which have differend meaning than similar words without в- because в- in the beginning is a prefix that changes meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, встать &quot;to stand, to stop&quot; vs. стать &quot;to become&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11240" RevisionGUID="afc1bf98-b0f1-432e-8966-8f75012a0406" CreationDate="2015-11-25T11:50:49.443" UserId="2079" Text="Всегда is pronounced with the sound [f] (&quot;ф&quot;) which is short and quiet, but not silent.  You cannot pronounce it without [f].  You can hear the correct pronuncation here: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/всегда ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="3b17ea73-c4bc-48d6-b2f7-5ac913e0b427" CreationDate="2015-11-25T11:51:34.897" UserId="194" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="It is quite a surprising idea that you cannot hear /f/ there. Yes, it should be there and the word without it would sound wrong. Also there are a lot of other words that start with вс- which have differend meaning than similar words without в- because в- in the beginning is a prefix that changes meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, встать &quot;to stand, to stop&quot; vs. стать &quot;to become&quot;, вставить &quot;to insert&quot; vs. ставить &quot;to put, to erect&quot;, встряхнуть &quot;to shake up&quot; vs. стряхнуть &quot;to shake off&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="25527b87-2666-4573-b4c6-03096b28c9d8" CreationDate="2015-11-25T11:56:43.583" UserId="194" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="It is quite a surprising idea that you cannot hear /f/ there. Yes, it should be there and the word without it would sound wrong. Also there are a lot of other words that start with вс- which have differend meaning than similar words without в- because в- in the beginning is a prefix that changes meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, встать &quot;to stand, to stop&quot; vs. стать &quot;to become&quot;, вставить &quot;to insert&quot; vs. ставить &quot;to put, to erect&quot;, встряхнуть &quot;to shake up&quot; vs. стряхнуть &quot;to shake off&quot;, вступить &quot;to enter, to accede&quot; vs. ступить &quot;to step&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11241" RevisionGUID="6c8509bf-2d88-4abd-88ec-2db3b5393b49" CreationDate="2015-11-25T12:03:19.330" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Синий или кра́сный — Который цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, actually you may say any of &quot;_какой_&quot;, &quot;_который_&quot; or &quot;_который из_&quot;, but &quot;_который_&quot; here seems to be the least used of three. Also note that pronouncing interrogative pronoun &quot;_который_&quot; requires some stress on it. Otherwise it may be confused with pronoun &quot;that&quot; or indefinite &quot;some&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11239" RevisionGUID="5f2f9f24-f64b-4bf0-9ee4-7e0763c549c1" CreationDate="2015-11-25T12:10:50.257" UserId="194" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="It is quite a surprising idea that you cannot hear /f/ there. Yes, it should be there and the word without it would sound wrong. Also there are a lot of other words that start with вс- which have differend meaning than similar words without в- because в- in the beginning is a prefix that changes meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, встать &quot;to stand, to stop&quot; vs. стать &quot;to become&quot;, вставить &quot;to insert&quot; vs. ставить &quot;to put, to erect&quot;, встряхнуть &quot;to shake up&quot; vs. стряхнуть &quot;to shake off&quot;, вступить &quot;to enter, to accede&quot; vs. ступить &quot;to step&quot;, всучить &quot;to give against recipient's wish&quot; vs. сучить &quot;to twist, roll out&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="8eeea9ba-237a-4194-ae77-993f6c9c22f6" CreationDate="2015-11-25T12:13:31.180" UserId="2079" Text="&gt; Синий или кра́сный — Который цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Какой` would be correct in this sentence, while the word `который` is considered as unusual at best.  Besides, the word `который` (or `какой`) starts with small letter, and `более красивый`, while grammatically correct, is considered a poor style, use comparative degree insead of `более` whenever possible.  You should ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или красный — какой цвет красивее?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, as an interrogative word you should use `какой`, unless you ask about the ordinal number (`который день вы больны?` etc.), or in an idiom `который час?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a relative word, you should in almost all cases use `который` rather than `какой`.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Ticket That Exploded&quot; — «Билет, который лопнул» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Man Who Was  Thursday&quot; — «Человек, который был Четвергом» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;A Moveable Feast&quot; — «Праздник, который всегда с тобой» (lit. *A feast which is always with you*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note also the difference in capitalization, as well as the comma before `который`.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="4e1eeaa3-639e-47d4-933b-b31952c740e4" CreationDate="2015-11-25T12:24:59.960" UserId="2079" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="You write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или кра́сный — Который цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Какой` would be correct in this sentence, while the word `который` is considered as unusual at best.  Besides, the word `который` (or `какой`) starts with small letter, and `более красивый`, while grammatically correct, is considered a poor style, use comparative degree insead of `более` whenever possible.  You should ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или красный — какой цвет красивее?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, as an interrogative word you should use `какой`, unless you ask about the ordinal number (`который день вы больны?` etc.), or in an idiom `который час?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a relative word, you should in almost all cases use `который` rather than `какой`.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Ticket That Exploded&quot; — «Билет, который лопнул» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Man Who Was  Thursday&quot; — «Человек, который был Четвергом» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;A Moveable Feast&quot; — «Праздник, который всегда с тобой» (lit. *A feast which is always with you*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note also differences in capitalization and punctuation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There word `какой` is used as a relative word is used in expressions `какой не жалко`, `какой поплоше` etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="f1b5ca6b-1aa7-461b-b85f-e1d188d1418c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T13:58:20.223" UserId="109" Comment="fixed typos" Text="You wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или кра́сный — Который цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Какой` would be correct in this sentence, while the word `который` is considered as unusual at best. Besides, the word `который` (or `какой`) starts with a small letter, and `более красивый`, while grammatically correct, is considered a poor style, use comparative degree instead of `более` whenever possible.  You should ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или красный — какой цвет красивее?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, as an interrogative word you should use `какой`, unless you ask about the ordinal number (`который день вы больны?` etc.), or in an idiom like `который час?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a relative pronoun, you should in almost all cases use `который` rather than `какой`.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Ticket That Exploded&quot; — «Билет, который лопнул» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Man Who Was  Thursday&quot; — «Человек, который был Четвергом» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;A Moveable Feast&quot; — «Праздник, который всегда с тобой» (lit. *A feast which is always with you*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note also differences in capitalization and punctuation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `какой` is used as a relative pronoun only in expressions like `какой не жалко`, `какой поплоше` etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25938" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="f1b5ca6b-1aa7-461b-b85f-e1d188d1418c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T13:58:20.223" Comment="Proposed by 109 approved by 2079 edit id of 703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11243" RevisionGUID="61ab3b6d-bf1b-4940-b67e-7dd2c420ad78" CreationDate="2015-11-25T14:29:58.457" UserId="1833" Text="Это может ещё означать &quot;это мне не подходит&quot;. Например, у Филатова: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне бы шпагу, да коня,  &#xD;&#xA;Да на линию огня,  &#xD;&#xA;А дворцовые интрижки -   &#xD;&#xA;Это всё не про меня" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11244" RevisionGUID="baddb667-628f-4cad-a438-bb8345f46c59" CreationDate="2015-11-25T15:40:12.860" UserId="4560" Text="The [f] is definitely there, but it's a barely perceptible short puff of air, as when you blow on something. On many recordings, it blends into the background noise. It does, however, affect the [sʲ] that follows, giving it a lower-than-usual acoustic pitch, and that *might* be a subconscious cue that the [f] is there even when one can't hear it. (I used to work as a sound engineer, so caveat that &quot;when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail&quot; is a possibility here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, what you might try to do is put your lips in the position for [f] and then start pronouncing the [sʲ] while you're still unrounding your lips. To some degree, it's what we all do, the [f] being as short as it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11245" RevisionGUID="95884efe-bd39-4530-8b7d-7f9795766e3c" CreationDate="2015-11-25T16:38:46.400" UserId="1236" Text="The German F [f] sound is really different from its Russian counterpart, the German [f] is fortis, that is very strong and noisy, while the Russian [f] is rather slight and lenis. When Germans speak Russian, very often they have a noticeable German accent which is perceived by Russians as if Germans say voiceless consonants instead of their voiced counterparts, e. g. the word **девочка** said by a German sounds to the Russian ear as if **тефочка** was pronounced. That is because the German voiced *lenis* consonants are weak, and for Russians they sound as the corresponding Russian voiceles consonants which are also *lenis*. This feature, the substitution of the voiced with the voiceless in the speech of a character, is often used in Russian literature, films, etc. to show that the person is of German origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, I can give you a tip. In the Russian words beginning with вс-, just try to do the reverse of what I explained above, pronounce the German voiced lenis W [v] in the beginning of such words, not the voiceless fortis F [f], that is, read such words as they are written, and you will get the Russian [f] sound that almost perfectly corresponds to how Russians pronounce it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11246" RevisionGUID="a4bee777-ab9e-475f-87cb-85016218e575" CreationDate="2015-11-25T16:39:46.147" UserId="5443" Text="The word &quot;**который**&quot; *in a question* is usually applied to items not too much different in their qualities like colour. For example, if there are just 3 baloons (white, blue and red), it's much more likely to hear the question &quot;тебе *какой* шарик купить?&quot; (thus inviting to choose its colour). If all 3 baloons are e.g. red, the similar question &quot;тебе *который* шарик?&quot; is quite likely to hear and it means 'which one' (invites the other person to point at the item's position, not to call its colour, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, along with selection of smth. within a **small group** of items, the usage of &quot;**который**&quot; in a question is also limited to **similar items**. This explains why this version of a question is so rare compared to the version with &quot;**какой**&quot; which is OK to use in both examples above, the only difference (different vs. similar items) being in type of the expected answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11247" RevisionGUID="2f1c12f8-61d8-47da-845c-ad73e4088009" CreationDate="2015-11-25T19:18:21.390" UserId="486" Text="Hm, your post reminded me that a lot of russian 1,5-3 years old children (including mine!) who are starting speaking, struggle with ф sound - *сегда* instead of *всегда*, *сем* instead of *всем*, *стать* instead of *встать* etc - may be they just do not hear it like you? :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question - people may understand you as we do understand our children but your pronunciation will be a bit &quot;childish&quot; for them. Also, people who do not expect &quot;childish&quot; speaking from adult may not understand you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11248" RevisionGUID="26dca27e-be3a-4750-a6f0-f5769e774747" CreationDate="2015-11-25T19:23:58.807" UserId="6280" Text="There is a clear audible difference to native speakers. If my kids said `седга` instead of `всегда` I would tell them this mistake would result in being quickly whisked off to `Лубянка` if they were in Russia as a spy  with the &quot;legend&quot; of being a native Russian :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible the reason you are not picking it up is in the quality of the audio. See if you can find any Russian native speakers in your area and have them show you the proper pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11242" RevisionGUID="f7e811d3-08b2-4441-bbd9-03403f5e23af" CreationDate="2015-11-25T20:09:24.350" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="You wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или кра́сный — Который цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Какой` would be correct in this sentence, while the word `который` is unusual at best. (Besides, the word `который` (or `какой`) starts with a small letter, and `более красивый`, while grammatically correct, is considered a poor style. Use comparative degree instead of `более` whenever possible.)  You should ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или красный — какой цвет красивее?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, as an interrogative word you should use `какой`, unless you ask about ordinal number (`который день вы больны?` etc.), or in an idiom `который час?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a relative pronoun, you should almost always use `который` rather than `какой`.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Ticket That Exploded&quot; — «Билет, который лопнул» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;The Man Who Was  Thursday&quot; — «Человек, который был Четвергом» &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;A Moveable Feast&quot; — «Праздник, который всегда с тобой» (lit. *A feast which is always with you*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note also differences in capitalization and punctuation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `какой` is used as a relative pronoun only in expressions like `какой не жалко`, `какой поплоше` etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11249" RevisionGUID="e49499b0-132d-4950-8ced-63e2f5fd4425" CreationDate="2015-11-26T09:12:37.217" UserId="6334" Text="Difference between &quot;платить&quot; and &quot;отбашливаться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between the two? Apart from the latter one being slang." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11249" RevisionGUID="e49499b0-132d-4950-8ced-63e2f5fd4425" CreationDate="2015-11-26T09:12:37.217" UserId="6334" Text="Difference between &quot;платить&quot; and &quot;отбашливаться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11249" RevisionGUID="e49499b0-132d-4950-8ced-63e2f5fd4425" CreationDate="2015-11-26T09:12:37.217" UserId="6334" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11250" RevisionGUID="eea512da-3f9a-4e38-b088-163ec8335242" CreationDate="2015-11-26T10:07:04.830" UserId="5008" Text="_Платить_ means simply _to pay_. About _отбашливаться_, I never heard such word, yet as there's jargon / colloquial _башлять_ (or _забашлять_), it could be some arbitrarily made up reflexive/imperfective form of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slanguish _башлять_ means _to pay off_ or _to bribe_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11251" RevisionGUID="dd56955c-6f8b-4999-ace7-2dc42848abb6" CreationDate="2015-11-26T10:11:11.857" UserId="134" Text="*Отбашляться* means &quot;to pay off someone&quot;, to avoid some kind of trouble by paying money: bail yourself out of jail, bribe an official who's threatening you with a legal penalty, pay someone whose car you have scratched on site to avoid dealing with insurance etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a slang word similar in meaning to neutral *откупиться* or *отплатиться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Платить* is a neutral word meaning &quot;to pay&quot;. Its slang counterpart with the same root would be *башлять*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="90a20deb-4c1f-4736-858f-a03cce4d2602" CreationDate="2015-11-26T17:47:49.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/669935605833445376" />
  <row Id="25959" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11249" RevisionGUID="221ca5c3-7a4b-4102-a23c-6494f0fcfe79" CreationDate="2015-11-27T08:53:23.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/670163498895319040" />
  <row Id="25961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="d6ac77cb-6a82-46fb-aaec-40b1465a1504" CreationDate="2015-11-27T14:55:59.330" UserId="487" Text="If I naively translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дай, Никита, мне одеться:   &#xD;&#xA;В митрополии звонят.   &#xD;&#xA;  (*Александр Сергеевич Пушкин,  март 1821—1822*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot apreciate the literary value of this verses. Pushkin is said to have had a servant called precisely *Nikita*; then it makes sense he calls him to bring him clothes. Then I don't know what sort of place *митрополия* is, can it be precisely located? And could I translate the last line as *in (the) Metropolija sounds/they call*.? Or does it mean the *metropoly*, a precise big city?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="d6ac77cb-6a82-46fb-aaec-40b1465a1504" CreationDate="2015-11-27T14:55:59.330" UserId="487" Text="Pushkin's shortest poem's meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="d6ac77cb-6a82-46fb-aaec-40b1465a1504" CreationDate="2015-11-27T14:55:59.330" UserId="487" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11256" RevisionGUID="28c5b638-fcd9-4ea4-a777-b0836fd49711" CreationDate="2015-11-27T15:21:00.117" UserId="551" Text="According to [this source](http://www.friends-partners.org/friends/literature/19century/pushkin/givnikm.html(opt,mozilla,unix,russian,koi8,new)) Митрополия is a palace of митрополит (a head of church province) which also has a church:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Митрополия - резиденция митрополита с церковью при ней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the document linked there are also other verses and comments to them.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25965" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11230" RevisionGUID="e35ab038-27f7-4164-85e6-1672a9379311" CreationDate="2015-11-27T17:58:24.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/670300656784273409" />
  <row Id="25969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11257" RevisionGUID="468d6b45-d4b9-4f3e-b63e-e9cb1e0048f9" CreationDate="2015-11-28T07:07:38.177" UserId="5405" Text="Нам по пути буквально означает, что хоть и конечная цель путешествия может отличаться, направление движения общее и часть дороги можно проделать вместе. В переносном смысле под путём может подразумеваться какое-то общее дело, которое, имея общие цели, можно делать в сотрудничестве. Например, во Вторую мировую войну СССР по отношению к США могло сказать, что в деле уничтожения нацистов нам с вами по пути." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="7c3b36e7-3c59-4a25-99c4-9373241986ff" CreationDate="2015-11-28T07:10:56.553" UserId="6344" Text="What does &quot;уииииии&quot; mean?  Is it an extended acronym?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="7c3b36e7-3c59-4a25-99c4-9373241986ff" CreationDate="2015-11-28T07:10:56.553" UserId="6344" Text="&quot;уииииии&quot; appears frequently in social media. What does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="7c3b36e7-3c59-4a25-99c4-9373241986ff" CreationDate="2015-11-28T07:10:56.553" UserId="6344" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11259" RevisionGUID="2d78bea7-3f5b-4274-974a-1368a05f50b3" CreationDate="2015-11-28T09:28:19.163" UserId="4843" Text="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds31EJ2cXPQ - &quot;уииииии&quot; is sound effect like in this video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11260" RevisionGUID="9c635685-cd2f-4592-b426-639e7db55b7f" CreationDate="2015-11-28T09:46:25.240" UserId="1097" Text="&quot;уииииии&quot; it's just the sound that you issue being crowded emotions when sliding down the snow slides or water slides, or something like that. Or when you get for something big, long expected, an awesome thing or event." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="8623122a-415f-42aa-a615-31919815dcec" CreationDate="2015-11-28T18:07:20.013" UserId="6346" Text="If I wanted to say the phrase 'too expensive' in Russian. The word for 'too' is слишком. And the word for 'expensive' is 'дорогая'. Then why (according to google translate which I'm assuming is correct here) does the ending of дорогая change - and 'too expensive' is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;слишком дорого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="8623122a-415f-42aa-a615-31919815dcec" CreationDate="2015-11-28T18:07:20.013" UserId="6346" Text="'Too expensive' in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="8623122a-415f-42aa-a615-31919815dcec" CreationDate="2015-11-28T18:07:20.013" UserId="6346" Text="|прилагательные|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11264" RevisionGUID="b7430e1e-5603-40cb-bfe3-c30309d8984e" CreationDate="2015-11-28T18:39:56.787" UserId="4560" Text="Russian is an inflecting language, meaning that endings change all the time for every possible reason. Russian has six cases for nouns and adjectives; on top of that, adjectives inflect for gender, number, and animateness to agree with the (explicit or presumed) noun they're describing; on top of that, Russian adjectives have a &quot;short&quot; or predicate form, which is basically a way of saying e.g. &quot;is expensive&quot; without using &quot;is&quot;, which Russian generally omits. That makes for a total of 31 forms that a Russian adjective can take; the endings on a handful of them are identical, but that's still over twenty possible endings. So unless you're familiar with the inflection system, you need the entire sentence to know the ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate (despite generally being a rather perfunctory tool) gave you the best translation for &quot;too expensive&quot; as a standalone phrase (as in &quot;Nah, too expensive&quot;). Here, **дорого** is technically the adverb &quot;expensively&quot; (while it's also the neuter predicate form, which is how many Russian adverbs are formed). **Дорогая** is the feminine nominative singular. The default/&quot;dictionary&quot; form of a Russian adjective is the masculine nom. sg., which would be **дорогой**. Here's [the complete declension][1] on Wiktionary. The ending you need might be any of them, depending, like I said, on the exact thing you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B9#.D0.9C.D0.BE.D1.80.D1.84.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D0.B8_.D1.81.D0.B8.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D1.81.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B9.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B0_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="6775f850-7823-4ab9-849e-b91a36aadc1a" CreationDate="2015-11-28T20:31:56.497" UserId="97" Comment="added 363 characters in body" Text="What does &quot;уииииии&quot; mean?  Is it an extended acronym?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example here (http://risovach.ru/upload/2014/08/mem/filosoraptor_58953516_orig_.jpg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or here (http://demotivatori.net/sozdanije/posters2/b04a316a10e7e609a6d0c7de158451be.png):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pt0iL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QsSp6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11266" RevisionGUID="9ffe9ad6-a656-4107-9758-9bcf11c47dec" CreationDate="2015-11-29T02:41:23.630" UserId="6348" Text="Would this not simply be a calque of the English word &quot;whee!&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11267" RevisionGUID="0c4a6e27-e3e7-4d2e-b1e1-9660e38ba8c9" CreationDate="2015-11-29T07:49:37.830" UserId="5201" Text="'Spread thin' is a phrase commonly used in reference to a person who has too many responsibilities. For example: &quot;Between his job at the factory, being a dedicated father, and taking university classes online, Tom is spread pretty thin.&quot; &#xA;&#xA;What are some ways to translate this expression and similar ones of 'juggling too many balls at once,' 'having a lot on one's plate,' or 'biting off more than one can chew?' (I would say all these have roughly the same meaning of having more work than one can easily manage.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11267" RevisionGUID="0c4a6e27-e3e7-4d2e-b1e1-9660e38ba8c9" CreationDate="2015-11-29T07:49:37.830" UserId="5201" Text="To say someone is 'spread thin'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11267" RevisionGUID="0c4a6e27-e3e7-4d2e-b1e1-9660e38ba8c9" CreationDate="2015-11-29T07:49:37.830" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11268" RevisionGUID="28812fe3-1c37-4754-9dd7-522d6dfa0e00" CreationDate="2015-11-29T08:58:33.403" UserId="5008" Text="Let's consider the following variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Разрываться на части_ - &quot;tear oneself to pieces&quot;; (unsuccessfully) trying to do many jobs at once&#xD;&#xA;- _Девочка-семиделочка_ - &quot;girl having seven works at once&quot;; applies to women only&#xD;&#xA;- _Наш пострел везде поспел_ - not really means the person fails, but rather his all-round activity is pretty annoying, quite often said with an irony&#xD;&#xA;- _Крутиться как белка в колесе_ - Russian variant of &quot;squirrel in a wheel&quot; which is close to &quot;having one's plate full&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11269" RevisionGUID="ce2fe839-0cb4-4b68-9ece-246b28a146c0" CreationDate="2015-11-29T16:49:32.850" UserId="6351" Text="This can be&#xD;&#xA;слишком дорого, слишком дорогой, слишком дорогая, слишком дорогие&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;очень дорого, очень дорогой, очень дорогая, очень дорогие" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="5449d432-dfcf-40bb-b3e1-9266a5fd11ed" CreationDate="2015-11-29T21:01:11.997" UserId="6353" Text="The phrase, that is the full sentence, &quot;Too expensive&quot;, in general is слишком дорого. Whereas &quot;This is&quot; or &quot;It is&quot; is missing, as well as Это. Дóрого counts as adverbe, because it is a valuation (Шелякин, §107, п.10, ч.2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it intends from the context, to a subject, say a car, that is missing in the sentence, then it is an adjective and goes with its gender. For example, when the words &quot;The car is&quot; are missing: слишком дорогая, or слишком дорогá  because машина is missing. It can be the full or short form in this case (Шелякин, §30, п.6.3, ч.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally with Слишком дорого you are on the safe side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="c6fc931f-cd89-409e-8eac-e385ca5e38d7" CreationDate="2015-11-30T01:12:38.410" UserId="6353" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="The phrase, that is the full sentence, &quot;Too expensive&quot;, in general is слишком дорого. Whereas &quot;This is&quot; or &quot;It is&quot; is missing, as well as Это. Дóрого counts as adverbe, because it is a valuation (Шелякин, §107, п.10, ч.2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it intends from the context, to a subject, say a car, that is missing in the sentence, then it is an adjective and goes with its gender. For example, when the words &quot;The car is&quot; are missing: слишком дорогая, or слишком дорогá  because машина is missing. It can be the full or short form in this case (Шелякин, §30, п.6.3, ч.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally with Слишком дорого you are on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When part of a sentence is missing (It is..., Это...) , it is called &quot;incomplete sentence&quot; in the russian grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally a native and grammar-knowledgeable russian confirms that до́рого here is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11270" RevisionGUID="5c5fdaf1-6a1d-46cc-8dae-70f1a9067f32" CreationDate="2015-11-30T01:33:32.993" UserId="6353" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="The phrase, that is the full sentence, &quot;Too expensive&quot;, in general is слишком дорого. Whereas &quot;This is&quot; or &quot;It is&quot; is missing, as well as Это. Дóрого counts as adverbe, because it is a valuation (Шелякин, §107, п.10, ч.2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it intends from the context, to a subject, say a car, that is missing in the sentence, then it is an adjective and goes with its gender. For example, when the words &quot;The car is&quot; are missing: слишком дорогая, or слишком дорогá  because машина is missing. It can be the full or short form in this case (Шелякин, §30, п.6.3, ч.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally with Слишком дорого you are on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When part of a sentence is missing (It is..., Это...) , it is called &quot;incomplete sentence&quot; in the russian grammar. (Шелякин, §99, п.2, последний абзац, by indication)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally a native and grammar-knowledgeable russian confirms that до́рого here is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11263" RevisionGUID="6b714825-79e0-4f1e-bcbb-b7278ee2bef2" CreationDate="2015-11-30T03:01:07.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/671162010474819586" />
  <row Id="26001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11271" RevisionGUID="3c682580-6d04-4d92-9e5d-51faee431e33" CreationDate="2015-11-30T05:12:26.387" UserId="242" Text="Just to add something to other questions. There's an other word that can be used interchangeably with &quot;слишком&quot; in this particular case (well, actually nothing comes to my mind when I'm trying to thinkg of example when thet are not 100% synonims in any case) - this word is &quot;черезчур&quot;. So, &quot;черезчур дорогой&quot;/&quot;черезчур дорогая&quot; is a valid translation as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11271" RevisionGUID="022dd4e7-18ab-4a7e-8a24-fffe64a1fe38" CreationDate="2015-11-30T07:18:41.960" UserId="5008" Comment="черезчур -&gt; чересчур; deleted 19 characters in body" Text="Just to add something to other questions. There's another word that can be used interchangeably with &quot;слишком&quot; in this particular case (well, actually nothing comes to my mind when I'm trying to think of example when they are not 100% synonyms) - this word is &quot;чересчур&quot;. So, &quot;чересчур дорогой&quot;/&quot;чересчур дорогая&quot; is a valid translation as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="77b90c14-86f6-41f3-85c0-02240654986f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T08:29:15.233" UserId="6354" Text="In **Отец не имеет прав на ребёнка.**, прав is in the genitive plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in **Все имеют недостатки, но не все - способности.**, способности is in the accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this the case, when both follow иметь and не?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="77b90c14-86f6-41f3-85c0-02240654986f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T08:29:15.233" UserId="6354" Text="Accusative vs. Genitive Case after не иметь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="77b90c14-86f6-41f3-85c0-02240654986f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T08:29:15.233" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11273" RevisionGUID="2b8314c3-57ca-4c33-90b6-0370fe351967" CreationDate="2015-11-30T08:42:08.650" UserId="5008" Text="Technically, the case of noun may vary depending on the meaning of _иметь_ (own, use, simply link-verb etc.). But in this particular case that's because of _negation_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, _Отец имеет права на ребёнка_ (Accusative), but _Отец не имеет прав на ребёнка_ (Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like this, because of the language history and incomplete replacement of Genitive by Accusative. But you haven't be too worry of this, just remember to use Genitive in negative sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11273" RevisionGUID="d871dfee-bf90-4768-a4a4-b74eeb4e602f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T08:49:03.580" UserId="5008" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Technically, the case of noun may vary depending on the meaning of _иметь_ (own, use, simply link-verb etc.). But in this particular case that's because of _negation_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, _Отец имеет права на ребёнка_ (Accusative), but _Отец не имеет прав на ребёнка_ (Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like this, because of the language history and incomplete replacement of Genitive by Accusative. The whole story is quite complicated and may confuse even native speakers, but for our example we may confine only to this: **не иметь** requires **Genitive case**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11273" RevisionGUID="3d20935c-ba58-404e-9bc0-ee9d1e15a926" CreationDate="2015-11-30T08:59:25.153" UserId="5008" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Technically, the case of noun may vary depending on the meaning of _иметь_ (own, use, simply link-verb etc.). But in this particular case that's because of _negation_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider, _Отец имеет права на ребёнка_ (Accusative), but _Отец не имеет прав на ребёнка_ (Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like this, because of the language history and incomplete replacement of Genitive by Accusative. The whole story is quite complicated and may confuse even native speakers, but for our example we may confine only to this: **не иметь** requires **Genitive case**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find more following this link: [Какой падеж нужен при отрицании?](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/22-spravka/letters/67-otr)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26010" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11267" RevisionGUID="0ac59d50-9fc8-4d4e-bc30-b7c762390302" CreationDate="2015-11-30T12:02:32.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/671298264201830400" />
  <row Id="26011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11268" RevisionGUID="ea11d76c-d5d3-466c-8cee-0897bd89b39d" CreationDate="2015-11-30T14:28:04.873" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Let's consider the following variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _Разрываться на части_ - &quot;tear oneself to pieces&quot;; (unsuccessfully) trying to do many jobs at once&#xD;&#xA;- _Девочка-семиделочка_ - &quot;girl having seven jobs at once&quot;; applies to women only&#xD;&#xA;- _Наш пострел везде поспел_ - doesn't really mean the person fails, but rather his all-round activity is pretty annoying, quite often said with irony&#xD;&#xA;- _Крутиться как белка в колесе_ - Russian variant of &quot;squirrel in a wheel&quot; which is close to &quot;having one's plate full&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11274" RevisionGUID="fcaea7a4-0e45-4099-9ed8-392352027624" CreationDate="2015-11-30T16:32:55.723" UserId="6354" Text="Сonsider these 3 sentences that contain стала (feminine past tense form of стать):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Она стала к конвейеру.**&#xD;&#xA;*She worked on the assembly line.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Я стала в очередь за сосисками.**&#xD;&#xA;*I got in line to buy hot dogs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Я стала на ковёр в спальне.**&#xD;&#xA;*I stood on the carpet in the bedroom.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;стать is quite versatile. For example, it appears to replace работать (to work) in sentence 1, and стоять (to stand) in sentence 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can стать mean so many things? When is it appropriate to use стать versus more specific verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11274" RevisionGUID="fcaea7a4-0e45-4099-9ed8-392352027624" CreationDate="2015-11-30T16:32:55.723" UserId="6354" Text="стать versus specific verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11274" RevisionGUID="fcaea7a4-0e45-4099-9ed8-392352027624" CreationDate="2015-11-30T16:32:55.723" UserId="6354" Text="|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11275" RevisionGUID="4792b803-e5ba-45e7-90ab-3c42c171b264" CreationDate="2015-11-30T16:54:35.007" UserId="1236" Text="Actually, there is no contradiction, and **стать** does not have that many meanings as your English translations of those sentences suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Стать** is a perfective verb that generally means 'to stand', and since it is perfective, the connotations are '*to come to a place and remain standing there*', so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) *Она стала к конвейеру* means 'She came up to the assembly line and remained working there.' = She began working at the assembly line'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) *Я стала в очередь за сосисками* means 'I came up to the line to buy hot dogs and remained standing there.' = I stood into the line to buy hot dogs.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) *Я стала на ковёр в спальне* means 'I came into the bedroom, stood onto the carpet there, and remained standing on it.' = I stood on the carpet in the bedroom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11275" RevisionGUID="f1b8c6d0-df72-4b35-a8a3-b23d8a9f78f7" CreationDate="2015-11-30T16:59:55.170" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Actually, there is no contradiction, and **стать** does not have that many meanings as your English translations of those sentences suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Стать** is a perfective verb that generally means 'to stand', and since it is perfective, the connotations are '*to come to a place and remain standing there*', so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) *Она стала к конвейеру* means 'She came up to the assembly line and remained working there.' = 'She began working at the assembly line.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) *Я стала в очередь за сосисками* means 'I came up to the line to buy hot dogs and remained standing there.' = 'I stood into the line to buy hot dogs.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) *Я стала на ковёр в спальне* means 'I came into the bedroom, stood onto the carpet there, and remained standing on it.' = 'I stood on the carpet in the bedroom.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11276" RevisionGUID="70080f2b-da5e-4d67-b1e0-497b043e98a1" CreationDate="2015-11-30T17:16:57.597" UserId="5373" Text="The same as Whee! in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whee&#xD;&#xA;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means nothing in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11277" RevisionGUID="decf838b-fae0-4077-bfb9-de9451dc90d1" CreationDate="2015-11-30T18:23:50.737" UserId="5373" Text="In [modern] Russian media literal translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я сделал(а) это!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is being commonly used. Is there better way to translate this expression? Or is there equivalent expression that can be used that would convey similar meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11277" RevisionGUID="decf838b-fae0-4077-bfb9-de9451dc90d1" CreationDate="2015-11-30T18:23:50.737" UserId="5373" Text="&quot;I did it!&quot; - is there better translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11277" RevisionGUID="decf838b-fae0-4077-bfb9-de9451dc90d1" CreationDate="2015-11-30T18:23:50.737" UserId="5373" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11278" RevisionGUID="70d5f675-2d9c-4b10-a646-126ff411772f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T18:52:07.607" UserId="134" Text="Use an impersonate construction like *получилось!*, *удалось!*, *у меня вышло!* and similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11279" RevisionGUID="aa114d6d-a057-433b-822c-a0453b6da535" CreationDate="2015-11-30T18:52:08.403" UserId="5008" Text="You ask about the best _translation_ which is hard to say without a context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Я сделал это_ really exists in the last years as a calque from English. Should it be used or not - it really depends. Though I'm sure that at least on some occasions one could (and should) change it to something more common, like _Получилось_, _Готово_, _Сделано_, _Есть!_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, I don't think that _Я сделал это_ should be absolutely inadmissible. After all, people do say like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="15c4faf9-2ebe-4750-8c32-a20d0a163ab2" CreationDate="2015-11-30T22:49:21.017" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Хлопковый`/`хлопчатый` and `хлопчатобумажный` are indeed mean the same thing. As of why second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you assumption is wrong it has not started in Soviet times. This words indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one final note. Just like @Matt correctly noted, most probably &quot;бумага&quot; is derived from Italian word (derived in turn from the Latin one) which standed for cotton. It very likely but no one knows for sure actually. Also, in other Slavic languages, even in the closest to Russian `бумага` is not used for paper at all, but for cotton we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - бавовна in Ukrainian&#xD;&#xA; - бавоўна in Belarusian&#xD;&#xA; - bawełna in Polish&#xD;&#xA; - bombaž in Slovenian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very disputable how exactly these form find their way into the languages mentioned above, we can end up in finding ourselves in the land of stupid pseudo-linguistics assumptions. Most probably these words are related but definitely not always directly with `бумага`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="dab72cef-2ef8-4810-9aec-bd3d88e93f91" CreationDate="2015-11-30T23:52:40.367" UserId="1409" Text="There is a rule if next word begins with a vowel you should use 'o', if not, you should use 'об'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the example from the title, it should be 'о меня', but I heard a lot of times people are saying, for example, 'ударился об меня'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="dab72cef-2ef8-4810-9aec-bd3d88e93f91" CreationDate="2015-11-30T23:52:40.367" UserId="1409" Text="&quot;об меня&quot; or &quot;о меня&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="dab72cef-2ef8-4810-9aec-bd3d88e93f91" CreationDate="2015-11-30T23:52:40.367" UserId="1409" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="63848b1f-aa55-4d73-a147-d550c9ca495e" CreationDate="2015-12-01T02:00:06.147" UserId="242" Text="De-facto &quot;об меня&quot; is used way more frequently than &quot;о меня&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Try to search in Yandex or Google phrases (quotes stands for exact matching in both search engines) &quot;о меня ноги&quot; and &quot;об меня ноги&quot;. This phrase is a part of very common idiom &quot;вытирать об кого-то ноги&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll see that &quot;об&quot; form is a clearer winner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.championat.com/football/article-236237-igroki-rubina-i-spartaka---o-matche-v-kazani.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="025985e6-8579-4493-9829-c57135259dba" CreationDate="2015-12-01T02:08:32.733" UserId="242" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="De-facto &quot;об меня&quot; is used way more frequently than &quot;о меня&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Try to search in Yandex or Google phrases (quotes stands for exact matching in both search engines) &quot;о меня ноги&quot; and &quot;об меня ноги&quot;. This phrase is a part of very common idiom &quot;вытирать об кого-то ноги&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll see that &quot;об&quot; form is a clearer winner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the same holds true for &quot;о тебя&quot;/&quot;об тебя&quot;, &quot;о неё&quot;/&quot;об неё&quot;, &quot;о него&quot;/&quot;об него&quot; forms but not for &quot;о нас&quot;/&quot;об нас&quot;, &quot;о них&quot;/&quot;об них&quot;. For &quot;нас&quot;, &quot;нам&quot; the &quot;o &quot; form is prevalent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.championat.com/football/article-236237-igroki-rubina-i-spartaka---o-matche-v-kazani.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="c92a993e-f65a-4206-a8c8-dc15ac9ab21a" CreationDate="2015-12-01T03:02:52.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/671524836636794880" />
  <row Id="26031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="3f9a7eaf-0b1e-41df-9b0d-d101c1af0f84" CreationDate="2015-12-01T03:42:10.257" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Об меня&quot; or &quot;о меня&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11281" RevisionGUID="b90fc137-596e-4c43-94b3-b87527a5bda6" CreationDate="2015-12-01T05:13:10.097" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="De-facto &quot;об меня&quot; is used way more frequently than &quot;о меня&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Try to search in Yandex or Google phrases (quotes stands for exact matching in both search engines) &quot;о меня ноги&quot; and &quot;об меня ноги&quot;. This phrase is a part of very common idiom &quot;вытирать об кого-то ноги&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll see that &quot;об&quot; form is a clearer winner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the same holds true for &quot;о тебя&quot;/&quot;об тебя&quot;, &quot;о неё&quot;/&quot;об неё&quot;, &quot;о него&quot;/&quot;об него&quot; forms but not for &quot;о нас&quot;/&quot;об нас&quot;, &quot;о них&quot;/&quot;об них&quot;. For &quot;нас&quot;, &quot;них&quot; the &quot;o &quot; form is prevalent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.championat.com/football/article-236237-igroki-rubina-i-spartaka---o-matche-v-kazani.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11282" RevisionGUID="9f5e6713-150b-4608-8e4d-332256e11666" CreationDate="2015-12-01T07:13:44.413" UserId="242" Text="Turnoff is a word that is used when you've suddenly loose interest in something.&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a woman goes on a date with somebody and this somebody get drunk too much. Than she can say something like &quot;Sorry, but your behaviour was total turnoff&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intuitively this is a very common concept but I'm failing to think of any good match in Ruassian. &quot;Разочарование&quot; is a different thing. What else? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11282" RevisionGUID="9f5e6713-150b-4608-8e4d-332256e11666" CreationDate="2015-12-01T07:13:44.413" UserId="242" Text="How to say &quot;turnoff&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11282" RevisionGUID="9f5e6713-150b-4608-8e4d-332256e11666" CreationDate="2015-12-01T07:13:44.413" UserId="242" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11283" RevisionGUID="d8b4e73b-eaed-4cf5-ac0b-491eb80e7b3b" CreationDate="2015-12-01T07:18:35.727" UserId="5008" Text="I'd go with _охладеть_ (or _охлаждение_ if a noun is needed), though some people may think that it belongs to XIX century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11282" RevisionGUID="1e25218f-6783-4bf7-be7c-f6514df26b1c" CreationDate="2015-12-01T07:19:38.743" UserId="242" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Turnoff is a word that is used when you've suddenly loose interest in something.&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a woman goes on a date with somebody and this somebody get drunk too much. Than she can say something like &quot;Sorry, but your behaviour was total turnoff&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intuitively this is a very common concept but I'm failing to think of any good match in Ruassian. &quot;Разочарование&quot; is a different thing. What else? &quot;Как отрезало&quot; sounds like something actually more relevant but it's difficult to construct the whole phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11284" RevisionGUID="d9ce5d5a-0771-4b26-87db-fd725a425774" CreationDate="2015-12-01T09:16:34.387" UserId="194" Text="This phrase sounds very stupid. I would replace it with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня получилось" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11283" RevisionGUID="7d5148a6-0d88-42e2-a3e4-a67a22f6629a" CreationDate="2015-12-01T09:36:10.630" UserId="5008" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="I'd go with _охладеть_ (or _охлаждение_ if a noun is needed), though some people may think that it belongs to XIX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another word which certainly comes to mind is _отвращение_, because it almost literally coincides with _turnoff_. Unfortunately it has too strong connotation with _disgust_, so one may want to choose some less insulting word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are more options, such as _стал противен_, _омерзителен_, _неприятен_, _перестал для меня существовать_ or just _разонравился_, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="a8e8807c-87d5-43e3-aafa-a9eefce9dcdf" CreationDate="2015-12-01T13:36:41.470" UserId="4432" Text="Can it be explained how the phrase *Есть!* came to be used in the military when someone accepts an order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="a8e8807c-87d5-43e3-aafa-a9eefce9dcdf" CreationDate="2015-12-01T13:36:41.470" UserId="4432" Text="Where does the use of Есть! come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="a8e8807c-87d5-43e3-aafa-a9eefce9dcdf" CreationDate="2015-12-01T13:36:41.470" UserId="4432" Text="|словоупотребление|этимология|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11286" RevisionGUID="19cc1991-82ae-4520-8f37-11e306858ffc" CreationDate="2015-12-01T14:18:35.077" UserId="4801" Text="Some search showed that it might be derived from English &quot;yes&quot;. From [Этимологический словарь Фасмера][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово: есть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ближайшая этимология: II. &quot;слушаю(сь)&quot;, воен. Из англ. yes &quot;да, есть&quot;, сближенного по народн. этимологии с есть I; см. Томсон 347.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://vasmer.narod.ru/p196.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11287" RevisionGUID="2e36a01e-c9ff-4154-a043-4d996d778393" CreationDate="2015-12-01T17:12:14.653" UserId="2079" Text="На соседнем сайте [ответили][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правила есть. Но в полном виде они весьма сложные. Полностью их можно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; найти в &quot;Орфоэпическом словаре&quot; под редакцией Аванесова,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сопроводительная статья. Там разбору посвящено несколько абзацев,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перепечатывать сюда нет никакой возможности. Обратите внимание, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о/об может управлять как винительным, так и предложным падежом,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; правила употребления о/об там разные. Кстати, если еще вариат &quot;обо&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;обо что&quot;, &quot;обо всем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/5240/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D0%BE%D0%B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="4f84fc74-0609-49c8-a41e-2448d0b3b0be" CreationDate="2015-12-01T21:02:53.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/671796635236724742" />
  <row Id="26047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="81c0dedd-2ef8-4070-9b90-d99f2643abbb" CreationDate="2015-12-01T21:35:24.077" UserId="1409" Comment="edited body" Text="There is a rule if next word begins with a vowel you should use 'oб', if not, you should use 'о'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the example from the title, it should be 'о меня', but I heard a lot of times people are saying, for example, 'ударился об меня'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26055" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11282" RevisionGUID="e2e572bf-9b11-4f8a-9bec-cb854545ad06" CreationDate="2015-12-02T03:03:03.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/671887271516364800" />
  <row Id="26060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="858398ea-6587-408a-8d30-ee40615d6bcb" CreationDate="2015-12-02T07:29:14.820" UserId="6354" Text="What is the difference in meaning between the following pairs?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Я **хачу** овчарку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) Мне **хочется** овчарку.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) Он так **хотел** новую машину!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) Ему так **хотелось** новую машину!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a) Я **захотел** поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3b) Мне **захотелось** поесть.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4a) Ребёнок **захотел** конфету.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4b) Ребёнку **захотелось** конфету.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="858398ea-6587-408a-8d30-ee40615d6bcb" CreationDate="2015-12-02T07:29:14.820" UserId="6354" Text="хотет versus хотеться, захотеть versus захотеться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="858398ea-6587-408a-8d30-ee40615d6bcb" CreationDate="2015-12-02T07:29:14.820" UserId="6354" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="ccdd064e-ec01-47c7-b61f-27fc602a50fe" CreationDate="2015-12-02T07:59:17.080" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What is the difference in meaning between the following pairs?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Я **хочу** овчарку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) Мне **хочется** овчарку.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) Он так **хотел** новую машину!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) Ему так **хотелось** новую машину!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a) Я **захотел** поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3b) Мне **захотелось** поесть.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4a) Ребёнок **захотел** конфету.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4b) Ребёнку **захотелось** конфету.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26064" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="ccdd064e-ec01-47c7-b61f-27fc602a50fe" CreationDate="2015-12-02T07:59:17.080" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="хотеть versus хотеться, захотеть versus захотеться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11292" RevisionGUID="524e1fa0-276c-48f1-8d6b-d9f58af6c26f" CreationDate="2015-12-02T08:51:09.200" UserId="242" Text="Here's a snippet from an [article][1] titled &quot;Почему российские военные отвечают на приказ «Есть!»?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Петр I отрядил на корабли солдат из «потешного войска», а для их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обучения наняли англичан с торговых кораблей, зимовавших в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Архангельске. Охотников перейти на русскую службу нашлось немного —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всего по два человека на галеру. Русские должны были повторять все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действия британцев. В частности, получив приказ, отвечать: Yes, sir!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; («Да, сэр»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the article claims that this started at the end of XVII-th century!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, though, just like @Vilmar, I've failed to find any other decent explanations, I'm very surprised. Never thought about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/quiz/690/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26069" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="73298138-1566-4109-b11f-eb3eef0be887" CreationDate="2015-12-02T08:55:27.163" UserId="242" Comment="more readable title" Text="&quot;Хотеть&quot; or &quot;хотеться&quot;, &quot;захотеть&quot; or &quot;захотеться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26072" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11285" RevisionGUID="d2c7e73e-332d-46bc-9538-caf2487d12e2" CreationDate="2015-12-02T08:56:40.297" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Etymology of &quot;Есть!&quot; (military command)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26073" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11272" RevisionGUID="b593c66d-7bd1-45f2-a750-1b413c5a71e5" CreationDate="2015-12-02T09:03:04.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/671977873784233985" />
  <row Id="26074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11292" RevisionGUID="a1d9b32c-5b8c-4398-bf77-9c9e322b19c4" CreationDate="2015-12-02T09:11:30.527" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Here's a snippet from an [article][1] titled &quot;Почему российские военные отвечают на приказ «Есть!»?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Петр I отрядил на корабли солдат из «потешного войска», а для их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обучения наняли англичан с торговых кораблей, зимовавших в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Архангельске. Охотников перейти на русскую службу нашлось немного —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всего по два человека на галеру. Русские должны были повторять все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действия британцев. В частности, получив приказ, отвечать: Yes, sir!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; («Да, сэр»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the article claims that dates back to the end of XVII-th century!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, though, just like @Vilmar, I've failed to find any other decent explanations, I'm very surprised. Never thought about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/quiz/690/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26075" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11258" RevisionGUID="d82b5391-1482-4c5a-b931-5970c9de792e" CreationDate="2015-12-02T09:24:38.033" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Уииииии&quot; appears frequently in social media. What does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26076" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11274" RevisionGUID="c4a237e9-387c-4456-8678-92a7c53cbb5d" CreationDate="2015-12-02T09:31:46.763" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Стать&quot; versus specific verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11293" RevisionGUID="62867972-b8b6-4051-837d-54eecb9d3239" CreationDate="2015-12-02T15:47:47.720" UserId="134" Text="It's acceptable but stylistically flawed to use the impersonal construct with an identified direct object (one which you have would have used with &quot;the&quot; in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You examples 1b and 4b sound a little bit peculiar out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b would have made sense in this conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я обещал тебе на день рождения собаку. Хочешь, я куплю тебе таксу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Спасибо, но мне хочется овчарку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, which makes clear it's not about any particular dog but rather the breed in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4b is better worded this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнку захотелось конфет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнку захотелось конфеты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, again, for the same reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11293" RevisionGUID="525b4fd5-9971-484e-ba7e-12c47c210192" CreationDate="2015-12-02T17:09:26.503" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="It's acceptable but stylistically flawed to use the impersonal construct with an identified direct object (one which you would have used with &quot;the&quot; in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You examples 1b and 4b sound a little bit peculiar out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b would have made sense in this conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я обещал тебе на день рождения собаку. Хочешь, я куплю тебе таксу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Спасибо, но мне хочется овчарку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, which makes clear it's not about any particular dog but rather the breed in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4b is better worded this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнку захотелось конфет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнку захотелось конфеты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, again, for the same reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="9af5615b-da11-4530-bf1b-cfb781fcdc7a" CreationDate="2015-12-02T18:03:43.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/672113929913413632" />
  <row Id="26086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="176e9ba7-e32a-49a5-8508-5af94dba8c4f" CreationDate="2015-12-03T05:30:55.250" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="I've been always wondering what are the origins of this expression? I searched through the net and found few discussions on this issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link 1: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=4111.0  &#xD;&#xA;Link 2: http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=7d0f828b9d91a0e1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it looks more like guessing and assumptions. Does anyone have any idea where does it really come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11236" RevisionGUID="a685ccac-f0d2-48b2-a41c-28a5649ca369" CreationDate="2015-12-03T08:35:32.863" UserId="109" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="I listened to various pronunciations on Forvo, Wiktionary and various dictionaries with audio files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my (untrained) ear it always sounds as if the &quot;в&quot; is silent and not pronounced at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the IPA is [fsʲɪɡˈda] and that suggests that there should be a distinct hard /f/ sound (like the letter ф) in the beginning. So, I guess that sound is just very subtle and therefore (almost) imperceptible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I pronounce the word, I omit the /f/ sound, because I can hardly pronounce the /f/ sound before /sʲ/. That is, surely, I can pronounce the letter there, but then it really is a very, very distinct and perceptible sound and it kinda sounds funny, and to my mind my pronunciation is closer to the pronunciation of a native speaker when I drop that letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do native speakers, or those whose ears are trained to distinguish Russian sounds, perceive the /f/ sound in the beginning? Is it clearly distinguishable from a word that begins in &quot;с&quot; (e.g. сегмент)? And do you think you would notice when I omit the letter altogether, i.e. pronouncing it [sʲɪɡˈda]? Does someone have any experience on that?  &#xD;&#xA;And finally, how could I learn to pronounce it correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, I am a native speaker of German." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="e5861dac-1269-4851-aca9-27264174fd60" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:13:06.347" UserId="6354" Text="With most verbs, the difference between the imperfective and perfective forms is obvious to me. But not so with хотеть(ся) and захотеть(ся), perhaps because &quot;to want&quot; is a state or condition, and not a clear cut action like &quot;to read&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between the following pairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Мне **хотелось** поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) Мне **захотелось** поесть.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) Детям **хочется** спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) Детям **захочется** спать.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a) Ребёнок **хотел** конфету.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3b) Ребёнок **захотел** конфету.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4a) Они **хотят** учиться в Гарварде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4b) Они **захотят** учиться в Гарварде.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="e5861dac-1269-4851-aca9-27264174fd60" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:13:06.347" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;хотеть(ся)&quot; or &quot;захотеть(ся)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="e5861dac-1269-4851-aca9-27264174fd60" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:13:06.347" UserId="6354" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26092" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="f994d4db-8151-42ae-99bf-e3b92fd7d697" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:14:59.457" UserId="6354" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26093" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="4642d015-2d21-44cc-87e3-6ec546ea8430" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:15:05.373" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Хотеть(ся)&quot; or &quot;захотеть(ся)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26094" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="a43cdcf0-cdd0-473b-8636-8c26a42c1684" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:23:11.590" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11290],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="432cddbb-bda8-45cc-8bfe-efe12591333d" CreationDate="2015-12-03T10:59:41.793" UserId="6354" Comment="improved formatting" Text="With most verbs, the difference between the imperfective and perfective forms is obvious to me. But not so with хотеть(ся) and захотеть(ся), perhaps because &quot;to want&quot; is a state or condition, and not a clear cut action like &quot;to read&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between the following pairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Мне хотелось поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) Мне **за**хотелось поесть.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) Детям хочется спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) Детям **за**хочется спать.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a) Ребёнок хотел конфету.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3b) Ребёнок **за**хотел конфету.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4a) Они хотят учиться в Гарварде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4b) Они **за**хотят учиться в Гарварде.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11296" RevisionGUID="7aa9f7d1-074f-47ae-8355-41733f8e5ff7" CreationDate="2015-12-03T11:33:22.430" UserId="6354" Text="Shouldn't it be in nominative form, not (I assume) genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11296" RevisionGUID="7aa9f7d1-074f-47ae-8355-41733f8e5ff7" CreationDate="2015-12-03T11:33:22.430" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;Отца не стало в июне.&quot; Why is Отца not Отец?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11296" RevisionGUID="7aa9f7d1-074f-47ae-8355-41733f8e5ff7" CreationDate="2015-12-03T11:33:22.430" UserId="6354" Text="|существительные|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11297" RevisionGUID="04a434bb-81c9-4b3d-a645-753cbbef4d3b" CreationDate="2015-12-03T12:22:31.393" UserId="134" Text="*не стало + gen.* (literally, &quot;it stopped being for smb. / smth.&quot;) means &quot;this thing is not there anymore&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нет машины // I don't have a car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера у меня не стало машины // Since yesterday I don't have a car anymore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера у меня не было машины // Yesterday I didn't have a car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отца не стало в июне* means &quot;father is not there anymore since June&quot;, which is an euphemism for &quot;father died in June&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26100" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="a2cfea0b-1218-4bd0-a956-3d0553e5f429" CreationDate="2015-12-03T12:23:24.327" UserId="6354" Comment="edited title" Text="Imperfective &quot;хотеть(ся)&quot; versus perfective &quot;захотеть(ся)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26101" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11290" RevisionGUID="7aa35869-57ae-4acf-a4a6-ecf7d5d2a55c" CreationDate="2015-12-03T12:26:23.713" UserId="6354" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;хотеть&quot; versus impersonal &quot;хотеться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11298" RevisionGUID="8633a0e1-ffb0-4aff-bdc4-36e373df76aa" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:59:24.887" UserId="6354" Text="I read that the translation of &quot;what do you mean?&quot; is **что вы имеете ввиду?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Which is the correct or better form: **ввиду** or **в виду**? Or there is no difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) What is the literal translation of **иметь ввиду**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know **иметь** means &quot;to have&quot;, and according to Wiktionary **ввиду** means &quot;in view of&quot;, so my rough guess is that the literal translation of **иметь ввиду** is &quot;to have a view&quot;, and the literal translation of **что вы имеете ввиду?** is &quot;what view do you have?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11298" RevisionGUID="8633a0e1-ffb0-4aff-bdc4-36e373df76aa" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:59:24.887" UserId="6354" Text="Understanding иметь ввиду" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11298" RevisionGUID="8633a0e1-ffb0-4aff-bdc4-36e373df76aa" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:59:24.887" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="428b0862-022f-4abf-87f3-f17b64b7e3f0" CreationDate="2015-12-03T14:00:44.603" UserId="6371" Text="Принято ли в русской типографике выносить кавычки за линию абзаца, если кавычки открываются в начале строки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J6J2V.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="428b0862-022f-4abf-87f3-f17b64b7e3f0" CreationDate="2015-12-03T14:00:44.603" UserId="6371" Text="Кавычки в начале строки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="428b0862-022f-4abf-87f3-f17b64b7e3f0" CreationDate="2015-12-03T14:00:44.603" UserId="6371" Text="|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11300" RevisionGUID="d3dd5dee-e268-4203-89f7-b862e6ab9e22" CreationDate="2015-12-03T14:14:53.860" UserId="6371" Text="`Иметь ввиду` is a grammar mistake. The right way of writing is `Иметь в виду`. It is an idiom meaning `to mean` or `to keep in mind`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что ты имеешь в виду?&#xD;&#xA;    What do you mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Имей в виду, что они не согласятся с тобой.&#xD;&#xA;    Keep in mind that they won't agree with you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11301" RevisionGUID="b14259b9-f8d7-4441-aa43-9a5fceaa090c" CreationDate="2015-12-03T15:03:58.110" UserId="6354" Text="Is it an adverb, pronoun, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a declension of весь, which case and gender is it in here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11301" RevisionGUID="b14259b9-f8d7-4441-aa43-9a5fceaa090c" CreationDate="2015-12-03T15:03:58.110" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;Я скажу тебе всё позднее.&quot;, what is the grammatical form of всё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11301" RevisionGUID="b14259b9-f8d7-4441-aa43-9a5fceaa090c" CreationDate="2015-12-03T15:03:58.110" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11302" RevisionGUID="808374eb-a564-4593-95a0-4c5fab8b4eb6" CreationDate="2015-12-03T15:40:36.330" UserId="5008" Text="In this sentence _всё_ is a pronoun. While English speakers use _all_ in place of an adjective and _everything_ in place of a noun, in Russian _всё_ may stand for both (BTW. English _All_, as a noun only, corresponds to _Все_ in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Russian pronouns do decline, _всё_ is a neutral gender singular of _весь_ in both Nominative and Accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11303" RevisionGUID="58093db4-8b5a-4b93-92f2-003902e440b5" CreationDate="2015-12-03T15:57:40.243" UserId="5008" Text="In the idiom &quot;_Иметь в виду_&quot; only split writing is acceptable. It literally means, as you guess, _to have in a view_, but really stands for _to mean_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet there also exists the preposition _ввиду_ (obviously made of the split form _в виду_ - it's quite a common thing in Russian), which means _due to_, _because of_. Actually you can compose some meaningful sentence using _иметь_ and _ввиду_, but probably it wouldn't be what _Вы имели в виду_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26114" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="2064988c-4a33-4df7-a710-db6003286334" CreationDate="2015-12-03T16:34:56.253" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="2a79f6b7-3b57-4d30-8d0e-a34125fe8ec1" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:19:18.270" UserId="6372" Text="I am new to Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What гласные are not allowed after к, г, х and ж, ш, ч, щ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what гласные are allowed in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="2a79f6b7-3b57-4d30-8d0e-a34125fe8ec1" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:19:18.270" UserId="6372" Text="гласные плюс к, г, х/ж, ш, ч, щ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="2a79f6b7-3b57-4d30-8d0e-a34125fe8ec1" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:19:18.270" UserId="6372" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11305" RevisionGUID="48cc18c7-c4a1-46d3-97ce-fc5c91ff1129" CreationDate="2015-12-03T18:03:30.910" UserId="310" Text="In Russian, э is normally used only as a first letter of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise:&#xD;&#xA;чя-щя&#xD;&#xA;чю-щю&#xD;&#xA;жы-шы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are disallowed explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;I can't remember any words with e.g. чы in normal Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11306" RevisionGUID="561fc650-5dc9-4740-8267-a2e44a85df45" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:44:48.233" UserId="6372" Text="&#xD;&#xA;There are a few verbs that will indicate that the following word is in instrumental case. Do you know what those verbs are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11306" RevisionGUID="561fc650-5dc9-4740-8267-a2e44a85df45" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:44:48.233" UserId="6372" Text="What verbs drive instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11306" RevisionGUID="561fc650-5dc9-4740-8267-a2e44a85df45" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:44:48.233" UserId="6372" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11307" RevisionGUID="ed92da61-d8d8-4616-be40-60c6e3eb4dff" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:53:49.103" UserId="242" Text="Российская типографика - весьма негреламентированная зона. Типографику можно условно разделить на три этапа (там дальше можно и мельче делить, но основных три). Это дореволюционная, советская и постоветская. Типографика бывает плакатная, газетная, книжная, у каждой немножко свои правила и традиции, это тоже можно иметь ввиду. Так что имейте ввиду, мой ответ упрощенный до предела. Но всё-таки ответ ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начнём с дореволюционной. Да, было принято выносить:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Советская типографика и дизайн корнями изначально уходила в дореволюционную - всё, что мы ассоциируем с раннесоветским на самом деле эволюционное продолжение дореволюционного. Даже Окна сатиры РОСТА. Вот, например, раннесоветский плакат (1927-й год):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше было по-разному, но если упрощать - правило постепенно нарушалось всё чаще и в конце концов перестало быть правилом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас даже занудные пуристы, настаивающие на использование кавычек-ёлочек уже не обращают внимание на подобные нюансы - выравнивают с кавычкой:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K6qKR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ci4Wz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4L0b.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mIAVY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gmz6N.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="17a6e521-ef7a-4e6f-9b18-a8dcc2acb6af" CreationDate="2015-12-03T20:00:48.500" UserId="6165" Text="There is a lot of such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Technically if you can remake sentence with using *by* + *participle* or just using *participle*, or you can say that some action was made *with* something as an instrument it may be instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я	написал	письмо	пером.`           [йа нап'исáл п'ис'мо п'ирóм]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	with (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	by (using) (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Говорит она сама с собою.` [гавари́т ана сама сабóйу]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`She speaks to (with) herself.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11309" RevisionGUID="a92a9f84-d85d-465a-a5e5-7351d48e5482" CreationDate="2015-12-03T20:04:30.517" UserId="134" Text="In writing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ы* is never used after *ж, ш, щ, ч* and only used after *ц* in several roots (*цыплёнок, цыган, цыпка* etc.) and on morpheme boundaries: *огурцы*, *куцый* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ю* and *э* are only used after *ж, ш, щ, ч, ц* in several loanwords and transcriptions: *жюри, жюльен, брошюра, парашют, пшют, амбушюр, Жюль, Чюрлёнис, Шютц, Шэрон, Шэньчжэнь* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Iotized back vowels (*я, ё, ю*) are mostly used in loanwords after *к, г, х*: *закят, кёрлинг, гюрза*, etc. However, Russian tends to cancel palatalization after velars, so vernacular forms like *пекёт, жгёт, могёт* are used more and more frequently, and the form *ткёт* (instead of obsolete _*тчёт_) even made it into the literary norm. Unlike other Slavic languages, *е* and *и* are pretty common after velars: *на ноге, на руке* (compare Belarusian *на назе, на руцэ*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *э* and *ы*, on the other hand, are almost never used after velars (*к, г, х*) in Russian, except in some loanwords (*гэльский, хычин, гымза* etc.) and several onomatopoeic words (*хых, гы, кыш* and similar). Old Russian had it the other way around (velars were always hard before the front vowels), and some remnants of this can still be observed in old Moscow pronunciation (traditionally used on stage in Moscow theaters), which uses *ы* after velars on morpheme boundaries: *русскый*, *долгый* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In speech, *ж, ш, ц* are always hard (non-palatalized), while *щ* and *ч* are always soft (palatalized) in Russian. Hence, all differences in writing are purely etymological: there are no differences at all between the first syllables in *цыпка* and *цирк*; *жёлоб* and *жопа*; *щётка* and *Щорс*; and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *э* in Russian is quite uncommon after hard consonants, if the consonant can be soft at all. So it's only used in writing for several loanwords and transcriptions (*мэр, сэр, пэр, мэтр, рэп, Сэм* etc., mainly those that can be confused with corresponding soft consonant counterparts), and a little bit more widely in speech (*тест, секс, кафе, термос, Дели* are all pronounced with a hard consonant before *е*, as if it were an *э*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, though, tends to soften pronunciation of hard consonants before *е*: *шинель, рельсы, термин* are soft in the literary norm; *энергия, компьютер* and several others are on their way there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, *ж, ш, ц* are never soft in Russian, so, despite the fact *э* is almost never written after those letters, they are still pronounced hard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="b075dff7-dd28-48c3-8961-a6f952a10030" CreationDate="2015-12-03T20:08:10.607" UserId="6165" Comment="Adding another case" Text="There is a lot of such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Technically if you can remake sentence with using *by* + *participle* or just using *participle*, or you can say that some action was made *with* *via* or *by way of* something as an instrument it may be instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я	написал	письмо	пером.`           [йа нап'исáл п'ис'мо п'ирóм]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	with (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	by (using) (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Говорит она сама с собою.` [гавар'и́т ана сама сабóйу]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`She speaks to (with) herself.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Они решили перейти реку бродом.` [ан'и́ р'ишы́л'и п'ир'ийт'и́ р'эку брóдам]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`They decided to cross the river via wade.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="41b0e667-6d32-4aaf-aeee-caed8836927d" CreationDate="2015-12-03T20:14:21.143" UserId="6165" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There is a lot of such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Technically if you can remake sentence with using *by* + *participle* or just using *participle*, or you can say that some action was made *with*, *via* or *by way of* something as an instrument it may be instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я	написал	письмо	пером.`           [йа нап'исáл п'ис'мо п'ирóм]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	with (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	by (using) (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Говорит она сама с собою.` [гавар'и́т ана сама сабóйу]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`She speaks to (with) herself.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Они решили перейти реку бродом.` [ан'и́ р'ишы́л'и п'ир'ийт'и́ р'эку брóдам]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`They decided to cross the river via wade.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11310" RevisionGUID="88172116-5a87-44c5-893d-9acbfc9304c8" CreationDate="2015-12-03T20:38:18.867" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Мне хотелось поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say this out of context, the response would probably be *когда?* (&quot;when was that?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective verbs denote **state**, so *хотелось* means that at some time in the past, you were experiencing desire to eat something, and it's not clear whether or not you want to eat now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне захотелось поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence makes sense by itself. Perfective verbs denote **state transition**, so you are saying that you have switched your inner state from &quot;not wanting to eat&quot; to &quot;wanting to eat&quot; - which means you're hungry now (or were hungry at the point in time you're telling about)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="32cfc4e1-841a-412f-8118-c9dba45f8894" CreationDate="2015-12-04T00:44:58.353" UserId="4451" Text="I would imagine that this is a tad politically sensitive, but am looking for an objective answer (not a political debate). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In everyday Russian, when someone calls themselves русский, it is safe to assume that they are of *Russian* origin, as opposed to perhaps Belarusian? Or does the term encompass a slightly wider sphere in the mind of the average Russian speaker? Additionally, can someone of perhaps half Russian origin describe themself with such a word, or does it generally imply wholly Russian origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="32cfc4e1-841a-412f-8118-c9dba45f8894" CreationDate="2015-12-04T00:44:58.353" UserId="4451" Text="Does &quot;русский&quot; refer exclusively to ethnic Russians or a wider Russo-community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="32cfc4e1-841a-412f-8118-c9dba45f8894" CreationDate="2015-12-04T00:44:58.353" UserId="4451" Text="|узус|belorussian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="65e354a4-6cdf-4988-929e-c16ff40f1b26" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:04:51.317" UserId="194" Text="As a noun русский means &quot;of Russian ethnicity&quot;. A half-Russian can call himself so, but it would be contestable, for instance, half-Russian African can hardly be called &quot;Russian&quot; becasuse of total dissimilarity in appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also русский can mean belonging to Russian state, Russian subject, but this only when referring pre-1917 Russian Empire. Some people who are sympathizing with monarchy and &quot;good old days&quot; or want to make their words appear as 19th century style may use the word in this meaning but it is not mainstream Russian. Modern Russian uses российский instead.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="10017d11-732d-4687-8459-a4bfbd62e4bb" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:10:48.887" UserId="194" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="As a noun русский means &quot;of Russian ethnicity&quot;. A half-Russian can call himself so, but it would be contestable, for instance, half-Russian African can hardly be called &quot;Russian&quot; becasuse of total dissimilarity in appearance. A half-Russian Jew calling himself русский may be attacked for allegedly attempting to hide his true ethnicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also русский can mean belonging to Russian state, Russian subject, but this only when referring pre-1917 Russian Empire. Some people who are sympathizing with monarchy and &quot;good old days&quot; or want to make their words appear as 19th century style may use the word in this meaning but it is not mainstream Russian. Modern Russian uses российский instead.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11312" RevisionGUID="ab950f92-f300-42c9-b005-47cd767b6f3a" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:17:28.733" UserId="194" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="As a noun русский means &quot;of Russian ethnicity&quot;. A half-Russian can call himself so, but it would be contestable, for instance, half-Russian African can hardly be called &quot;Russian&quot; becasuse of total dissimilarity in appearance. A half-Russian Jew calling himself русский may be attacked for allegedly attempting to hide his true ethnicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also русский can mean belonging to Russian state, Russian subject, but this only when referring pre-1917 Russian Empire. Some people who are sympathizing with monarchy and &quot;good old days&quot; or want to make their words appear as 19th century style may use the word in this meaning but it is not mainstream Russian. Modern Russian uses российский instead. Such usage in referrence to modern Russia may be offensive to both Russian nationalists (who would contest that modern Russia's regime belongs to Russian ethnicity) and non-Russians who would say that Russia not necessarily should belong to ethnic Russians alone.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="8550a764-5431-4883-af6c-a6c6e95de423" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:26:29.127" UserId="242" Text="We should distinct here three different cases. One is big Russian-speaking communities outside the Russian Federation which do not consider them Russians. It's pretty much like Irish and Scots people speak English but do not consider themselves Englishmen. A notable amount of Russian-speaking Ukraine and Belarus has not problems with speaking Russian and identifying them as non-Russian by ethnicity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second group is Russian-speaking communities outside of Russia that do consider them Russians. In Moldova and in Baltic republics. This is actually a case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The this group is native people from inner Russian republics -  like Tatars, Bashkirs, Erzya people etc. The situation here is pretty much like something we have in Brittany, France. People have strong and distinctive national 	&#xD;&#xA;self-consciousness and mostprobably inside the country they identify them not as Russians. But speaking with somebody outside the country the majority will casually use term Russian for self-identification. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In official language though it is more common to use term &quot;россияне&quot; rather than &quot;русские&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, being back to your question - it heavily depends on context. In particular, Belarusians prefer not to call themselves Russians. But, once again, it depends on how person self-identificates him or herself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11307" RevisionGUID="83417e82-620e-4ecc-ac2c-8bf043296527" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:40:36.570" UserId="242" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="Российская типографика - весьма негреламентированная зона. Типографику можно условно разделить на три этапа (там дальше можно и мельче делить, но основных три). Это дореволюционная, советская и постоветская. Типографика бывает плакатная, газетная, книжная, у каждой немножко свои правила и традиции, это тоже можно иметь ввиду. Так что имейте ввиду, мой ответ упрощенный до предела. Но всё-таки ответ ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начнём с дореволюционной. Да, было принято выносить:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Советская типографика и дизайн корнями изначально уходила в дореволюционную - всё, что мы ассоциируем с раннесоветским на самом деле эволюционное продолжение дореволюционного. Даже Окна сатиры РОСТА. Вот, например, раннесоветский плакат (1927-й год):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше было по-разному, но если упрощать - правило постепенно нарушалось всё чаще и в конце концов перестало быть правилом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас даже занудные пуристы, настаивающие на использование кавычек-ёлочек уже не обращают внимание на подобные нюансы - выравнивают с кавычкой:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом же это своего рода &quot;левый&quot; аналог (ну или часть её [часть][6] - это вопрос терминологии) так называемой висячей пунктуации - это когда при выравнивании по правой границе за неё выносятся знаки пунктуации, в том числе и кавычки. Висячая пунктуация используется пофакту мало где, но считается хорошим тоном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K6qKR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ci4Wz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4L0b.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mIAVY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gmz6N.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_punctuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26136" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="a6dd1f72-2c06-4907-b007-2fbb6509b4a1" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:43:43.557" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11307" RevisionGUID="778df3f9-8641-4c8f-af41-31294eefff23" CreationDate="2015-12-04T01:56:18.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="Российская типографика - весьма негреламентированная зона. Типографику можно условно разделить на три этапа (там дальше можно и мельче делить, но основных три). Это дореволюционная, советская и постоветская. Типографика бывает плакатная, газетная, книжная, у каждой немножко свои правила и традиции, это тоже можно иметь ввиду. Так что имейте ввиду, мой ответ упрощенный до предела. Но всё-таки ответ ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начнём с дореволюционной. Да, было принято выносить:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Советская типографика и дизайн корнями изначально уходила в дореволюционную - всё, что мы ассоциируем с раннесоветским на самом деле эволюционное продолжение дореволюционного. Даже Окна сатиры РОСТА. Вот, например, раннесоветский плакат (1927-й год):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше было по-разному, но если упрощать - правило постепенно нарушалось всё чаще и в конце концов перестало быть правилом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот киноплакат 47-го года:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот это уже - 58-й:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот 70-й:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас даже занудные пуристы, настаивающие на использование кавычек-ёлочек уже не обращают внимание на подобные нюансы - выравнивают с кавычкой:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом же это своего рода &quot;левый&quot; аналог (ну или часть её [часть][9] - это вопрос терминологии) так называемой висячей пунктуации - это когда при выравнивании по правой границе за неё выносятся знаки пунктуации, в том числе и кавычки. Висячая пунктуация используется пофакту мало где, но считается хорошим тоном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K6qKR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ci4Wz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4L0b.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lKoid.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uaBs6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rnp2B.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mIAVY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gmz6N.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_punctuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11307" RevisionGUID="f864678c-fd76-4f81-a8f8-205a5f864dc1" CreationDate="2015-12-04T02:08:22.283" UserId="242" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Российская типографика - весьма негреламентированная зона. Типографику можно условно разделить на три этапа (там дальше можно и мельче делить, но основных три). Это дореволюционная, советская и постоветская. Типографика бывает плакатная, газетная, книжная, у каждой немножко свои правила и традиции, это тоже можно иметь ввиду. Так что имейте ввиду, мой ответ упрощенный до предела. Но всё-таки ответ ))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начнём с дореволюционной. Да, было принято выносить:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Советская типографика и дизайн корнями изначально уходила в дореволюционную - всё, что мы ассоциируем с раннесоветским на самом деле эволюционное продолжение дореволюционного. Даже Окна сатиры РОСТА. Вот, например, раннесоветский плакат (1927-й год):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше было по-разному, но если упрощать - правило постепенно нарушалось всё чаще и в конце концов перестало быть правилом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот киноплакат 47-го года:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот это уже - 58-й:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот 70-й:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас даже занудные пуристы, настаивающие на использование кавычек-ёлочек уже не обращают внимание на подобные нюансы - выравнивают с кавычкой:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом же это своего рода &quot;левый&quot; аналог (ну или часть её [часть][9] - это вопрос терминологии) так называемой висячей пунктуации - это когда при выравнивании по правой границе за неё выносятся знаки пунктуации, в том числе и кавычки. Висячая пунктуация используется по факту мало где, но многими людьми, провессионально занимающимися русской типографикой всё-таки считается хорошим тоном в определённых случаях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K6qKR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ci4Wz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/h4L0b.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lKoid.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uaBs6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rnp2B.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mIAVY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gmz6N.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_punctuation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="3537279f-69d1-44f7-986f-6db2078f1520" CreationDate="2015-12-04T06:17:04.840" UserId="4451" Comment="Fixed some grammar" Text="We should examine three distinct cases. The first case is that of the numerous Russian-speaking communities outside of the Russian Federation, which do not consider themselves to be ethnic Russians. This is similar to how Irish and Scots speak English but do not consider themselves to be Englishmen. A notable quantity of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Belorussians have no problem speaking in Russian yet identifying as non-Russian in regards to their ethnicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second group is Russian-speaking communities outside of Russia that do consider themselves to be ethnic Russians, as is the case in Moldova and in the Baltic countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third group consists of native people from the inner Russian republics, including the Tatars, Bashkirs, Erzya, etc. The situation of such people is similar to that of those in Brittany, France. These people have a strong and distinctive sense of national pride, and they don't identify as ethnic Russians while they are within Russia. However, when speaking with somebody who is outside of their country, the majority will casually use term *Russian* when identifying themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In official language, however, it is more common to use term &quot;россияне&quot; rather than &quot;русские&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, being back to your question - it heavily depends on context. In particular, Belarusians prefer not to call themselves Russians. But, once again, it depends on how person identifies themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26140" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="3537279f-69d1-44f7-986f-6db2078f1520" CreationDate="2015-12-04T06:17:04.840" Comment="Proposed by 4451 approved by 242 edit id of 706" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11314" RevisionGUID="23e0b51f-515e-4625-a5f4-a4c768670349" CreationDate="2015-12-04T06:33:20.583" UserId="4876" Text="`1a vs 1b` - As Quassnoi noticed, the difference is &quot;state transition&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`3a vs 3d` - same difference, as for `1a vs 1b`. Word part -&quot;ось&quot; (and also &quot;ся&quot;) does not changes anything here). In Russian, we call it &quot;returning particle&quot; or &quot;возвратная частица&quot;. Here, it just means that subject and object of action is the same. Notice that sometimes this particle have different functions. For example &quot;забрал&quot; and &quot;забрал**ся**&quot; words have absolutely different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`2a vs 2b` - As noticed Matt, here &quot;за-&quot; changes verb tense to future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`4a vs 4b` - Same as 2a vs 4b&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can notice, preposition &quot;за-&quot; has two different functions here: first - changing verb tense, and second - adding &quot;state transition&quot;. But to be honest, there are much more functions that &quot;за-&quot; can do with words (not only verbs). For example in these pairs of words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    делал  - ЗАделал&#xD;&#xA;    бросил - ЗАбросил&#xD;&#xA;    смотрелся (в зеркало) - ЗАсмотрелся (на кого-либо)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;за&quot; preposition has absolutely different functions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11313" RevisionGUID="acc7b9e7-638a-4624-87d0-3716fcebeec8" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:07:54.040" UserId="242" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="We should examine three distinct cases. The first case is that of the numerous Russian-speaking communities outside of the Russian Federation, which do not consider themselves to be ethnic Russians. This is similar to how Irish and Scots speak English but do not consider themselves to be Englishmen. A notable quantity of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Belorussians have no problem with speaking Russian yet identifying themselves as non-Russian in regards to their ethnicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second group is Russian-speaking communities outside of Russia that do consider themselves to be ethnic Russians, as is the case in Moldova and in the Baltic countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third group consists of native people from the inner Russian republics, including the Tatars, Bashkirs, Erzya, etc. The situation of such people is similar to that of those in Brittany, France. These people have a strong and distinctive sense of national pride, and they don't identify as ethnic Russians while they are within Russia. However, when speaking with somebody who is outside of their country, the majority will casually use term *Russian* when identifying themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In official language, however, it is more common to use term &quot;россияне&quot; rather than &quot;русские&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, being back to your question - it heavily depends on context. In particular, Belarusians prefer not to call themselves Russians. But, once again, it depends on how person identifies themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26143" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11299" RevisionGUID="6b3a06e8-be6a-46f1-9848-1090c8fcf247" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:23:19.950" UserId="6371" Comment="added a tag" Text="|пунктуация|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11315" RevisionGUID="9f1021bb-e7b7-4b83-9053-a02008658cb9" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:26:34.730" UserId="4876" Text="Mostly I agree with Stepan, but not fully. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually in Russian we have no instrumental case. We have &quot;творительный падеж&quot; or ablativ. It has function of instrumental case, example of which you see in Stepan's answer, but it has also 12 more functions. You can find full list of them in [Russian wiki](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One the of most interesting function of Russian ablativ is pointing to time or place. Check out these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. Я иду дорогой&#xD;&#xA;    2. Под мостом&#xD;&#xA;    3. Тем временем&#xD;&#xA;    4. Утром&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11315" RevisionGUID="11b0ce33-49a8-44d5-95b9-9f8a87aeac03" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:31:59.850" UserId="4876" Comment="edited body" Text="Mostly I agree with Stepan, but not fully. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually in Russian we have no instrumental case. We have &quot;творительный падеж&quot; or ablativ. It has function of instrumental case, examples of which you see in Stepan's answer, but it has also 12 more functions. You can find full list of them in [Russian wiki](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most interesting function of Russian ablativ is pointing to time or place. Check out these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. Я иду дорогой&#xD;&#xA;    2. Под мостом&#xD;&#xA;    3. Тем временем&#xD;&#xA;    4. Утром&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11316" RevisionGUID="c078b8a8-afb3-4364-919a-03954a82febd" CreationDate="2015-12-04T08:10:57.517" UserId="4876" Text="I agree with most answers, but want to notice one thing. Word &quot;поехали&quot; is in the paste tense, **not because of prefix &quot;по&quot;**, since &quot;ехали&quot; is also in the paste tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes we use **prefixes** to change tense of words and sometimes we use **suffixes** (as here).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11317" RevisionGUID="6b937a30-3ba2-4bd7-b371-23e1601bedc2" CreationDate="2015-12-04T08:30:37.690" UserId="4876" Text="Лично я использую слово &quot;человеки&quot;, когда хочу подчекнуть их индивидуальность. Т.е. не просто толпа (люди), а именно человеки (где важен каждый человек). Такое использование слова не очень распространено и не вполне грамматически корректно, но иногда бывает полезным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, в примерах из других ответов: &quot;мы все люди, все человеки&quot; и &quot;убить всех человеков&quot;, думаю, используются именно этот смысловой оттенок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="4ccd8aad-2e78-424e-97e8-d3abe1e4981a" CreationDate="2015-12-04T08:34:40.100" UserId="6165" Comment="MFA transcription" Text="There is a lot of such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Technically if you can remake sentence with using *by* + *participle* or just using *participle*, or you can say that some action was made *with*, *via* or *by way of* something as an instrument it may be instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я	написал	письмо	пером.`           ['ʝа nɐpʲi'sɑɫ pʲisʲ'mo pʲi'rom]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	with (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	by (using) (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Говорит она сама с собою.` [gɐvɐ'rʲit ɐ'nа sɐ'ma sɐ'boju]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`She speaks to (with) herself.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Они решили перейти реку бродом.` [ɐ'nʲi rʲi'ʂɨlʲi pʲirʲij'tʲi 'rʲeku 'brodɐm]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`They decided to cross the river via wade.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11308" RevisionGUID="f2a55cb7-932f-484d-942d-0964c43b49fc" CreationDate="2015-12-04T08:58:20.590" UserId="6165" Comment="unstressed i" Text="There is a lot of such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;Technically if you can remake sentence with using *by* + *participle* or just using *participle*, or you can say that some action was made *with*, *via* or *by way of* something as an instrument it may be instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я	написал	письмо	пером.`           ['ʝа nɐpʲɪ'sɑɫ pʲɪsʲ'mo pʲɪ'rom]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	with (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I	wrote	(the) letter	by (using) (a) quill pen.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Говорит она сама с собою.` [gɐvɐ'rʲit ɐ'nа sɐ'ma sɐ'boju]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`She speaks to (with) herself.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Они решили перейти реку бродом.` [ɐ'nʲi rʲɪ'ʂɨlʲɪ pʲɪrʲɪj'tʲi 'rʲeku 'brodɐm]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`They decided to cross the river via wade.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26153" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11236" RevisionGUID="1a514833-3fb4-4c7f-9281-930b8ada3624" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:14:54.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/672705627551080448" />
  <row Id="26154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11318" RevisionGUID="29a431cb-d5af-4280-8ab5-e1a593bfe04b" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:26:24.073" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;Им хотелось жить по-старому&quot;, is старому in masculine or neuter gender? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11318" RevisionGUID="29a431cb-d5af-4280-8ab5-e1a593bfe04b" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:26:24.073" UserId="6354" Text="Gender of старому in &quot;Им хотелось жить по-старому&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11318" RevisionGUID="29a431cb-d5af-4280-8ab5-e1a593bfe04b" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:26:24.073" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11319" RevisionGUID="177a8696-c789-424a-9ead-48c88014a0e6" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:38:38.583" UserId="5605" Text="***По-старому - наречие,*** у него нет мужского, женского и среднего рода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наречия — ***неизменяемые слова***: они не склоняются и не спрягаются, не имеют окончаний, ***не изменяются по родам*** и числам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11320" RevisionGUID="f72eee09-dd43-4623-988d-79b8bf19eadf" CreationDate="2015-12-04T12:18:20.507" UserId="4560" Text="Presumably neuter. Nounless adjectives used abstractly or referentially take the neuter singular in Russian. (Can't think of the exact term for such usage; what I'm talking about is those cases where Spanish would use *lo*+masculine, and Latin/Ancient Greek/Church Slavonic would use the neuter plural, if that's any help. E.g. **Лучшее — враг хорошего** &quot;Better things are enemies of good things.&quot;) However, at this point **по-старому** is, like the previous answerer said, an adverb, and the exact etymology of adverbs is of little relevance. Just how little is demonstrated by the curious fact that the adverb **по-русски** is technically malformed, being a very old contamination of *русски* and *по-русскому* (or the archaic *по-русску*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="1cf5af4f-0a89-42f5-b8d4-d19f52879df0" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:24:01.863" UserId="6369" Text="Что считается ремой в новостных сообщениях? Возьмём, например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бобра выловили сачком из огромной лужи в Челябинске&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны, рема обычно стоит в конце, тогда это откуда выловили бобра - **из огромной лужи в Челябинске**. С другой стороны, я бы поставил смысловое ударения скорее на **выловили сачком**, а ударение обычно стоит на реме. Но новым в предложении является как раз **бобер**, может быть, это он рема?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="1cf5af4f-0a89-42f5-b8d4-d19f52879df0" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:24:01.863" UserId="6369" Text="Что считается ремой в новостных сообщениях?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="1cf5af4f-0a89-42f5-b8d4-d19f52879df0" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:24:01.863" UserId="6369" Text="|словоупотребление|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26163" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11304" RevisionGUID="ad56519b-7b2c-495c-982c-0606a0d6f795" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:39:09.047" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Гласные после к, г, х/ж, ш, ч, щ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11322" RevisionGUID="9c26351d-c157-443a-9c5d-b80abfdef81f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:43:15.950" UserId="6354" Text="I assume &quot;за сосисками&quot; translates to &quot;for hot dogs&quot;. But if за means &quot;for&quot;, shouldn't сосиска be in the plural accusative case, not instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11322" RevisionGUID="9c26351d-c157-443a-9c5d-b80abfdef81f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:43:15.950" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;Я стала в очередь за сосисками&quot;, why is сосисками in the instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11322" RevisionGUID="9c26351d-c157-443a-9c5d-b80abfdef81f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:43:15.950" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="6d5f24e0-37c1-4958-a68c-2fcf4a5b8b6f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:56:10.417" UserId="242" Text="To be completely honest with you there's not that much sense in your question. It's like to ask why particular phrasal verb in English contains exactly this combination of words. Why we are saying &quot;write it down&quot; instead of &quot;write it on&quot; - well, just because this is how it happened in language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is rules by &quot;стоять в очереди за чем?&quot; - and this is the way it is. No other option rather than just to memoize. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11324" RevisionGUID="a3849d65-07b7-4d05-84e8-6b8dce1a6980" CreationDate="2015-12-04T16:56:18.767" UserId="1236" Text="The preposition **за** has several meanings, and according to its meaning it can be used either with the Accusative case or with the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence **за** means the reason or the object why you go somewhere, the object you plan to take or buy somewhere. In this meaning, **за** is followed with the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он пошёл в магазин за хлебом. - He went to the store to buy some bread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж поехал в город за новым платьем для жены. - The husband went to the city to get/buy a new dress for his wife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему пришлось вернуться домой за ключами от машины. - He had to go back home to take his car keys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сходи в детский садик за ребёнком! - Go to the kindergarten and take back our kid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полиция следила за ним. - The police were following him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1729" RevisionGUID="2ee8c380-3378-425b-a282-47d78d224ec2" CreationDate="2015-12-04T18:02:34.557" UserId="115" Comment="edited body" Text="In English the word `where` has two meanings: place and direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where are you? - place&#xD;&#xA; - Where are you going? - direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there are two separate words for these meanings: `где` for place and `куда` for direction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Где вы?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Куда вы идёте?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason that &quot;Where are you from?&quot; is translated as &quot;Откуда вы?&quot; is that there is an implied direction:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Where did you *come from*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Откуда вы *приехали*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11325" RevisionGUID="c77404de-7a5b-4d76-8e2f-f1ad0b592414" CreationDate="2015-12-04T18:53:23.200" UserId="4560" Text="Most languages that use prepositions tend to have a handful of core prepositions do a terrific number of different jobs — too many to reliably predict their behaviour in another language even when the analogy seems close and clear enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **за**-accusative and the **за**-instrumental may both more or less translate into English as *for*, but they're nonetheless distinct. Accusative is used when it's *for* as in: &quot;instead of&quot;; &quot;in support of&quot;; &quot;for a price/fee of&quot;; or, &quot;in reward/punishment for&quot;. *For* can also mean &quot;in order to acquire&quot;, and also translate as **за** in this sense, but Russian treats it as not quite the same **за** and gives it the instrumental." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11326" RevisionGUID="f12a0c95-b1b1-4937-a1a3-a37a2e8755d1" CreationDate="2015-12-04T19:06:39.860" UserId="4560" Text="Конечно, рема — бобер, и по-хорошему он должен стоять в конце. Это влияние бездумно копируемых англоязычных руководств по составлению заголовков — значимое в самом начале, избегать запятых. Особенно заметно на Ленте.ру, где это доводят до откровенного абсурда — например, *&quot;Сделавший похожий на бомбу будильник школьник потребовал компенсацию&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11323" RevisionGUID="804b1d37-c02d-4345-9c20-7db9a9c38f74" CreationDate="2015-12-04T19:36:27.743" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="To be completely honest with you there's not that much sense in your question. It's like to ask why particular phrasal verb in English contains exactly this combination of words. Why we are saying &quot;write it down&quot; instead of &quot;write it on&quot; - well, just because this is how it happened in language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is ruled by &quot;стоять в очереди за чем?&quot; - and this is the way it is. No other option rather than just to memoize. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11328" RevisionGUID="fe1baee4-a362-427f-a495-6f44dd8c97b3" CreationDate="2015-12-04T20:56:34.333" UserId="134" Text="Technically, rheme (or comment) is the new information you add to already established theme (or topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't tell what is new and what is not from grammar alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence, being a news headline, is supposed to deliver some news, tell us some facts we didn't know yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a well known fact that there is a city called Chelyabinsk in Russia. No surprise it, being a Russian city, harbors a few puddles. It's mildly interesting that someone would want to use a net to catch something in a Chelyabinsk puddle. But the real punchline (and the news) is this something being no less than a beaver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Nikolay Ershov mentioned above, normally the comment goes last in a Russian sentence. So, being properly constructed, the sentence would read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Челябинске из огромной лужи сачком выловили бобра&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, the functional division is a pure semantic thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine this fictional series of headlines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В Московском зоопарке родился шестиногий бобёр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Шестиногий бобёр любит купаться в лужах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Для ухода за бобром из Московского зоопарка был разработан специальный сачок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Шестиногий бобёр сбежал из Московского зоопарка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Третий день ведутся поиски бобра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Бобра выловили сачком из огромной лужи в Челябинске.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, Chelyabinsk would be the comment, as the fictional beaver and his habits are known to us already, and the news is that he made all the way to Urals from Moscow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11328" RevisionGUID="349d0de6-0d2e-43bf-8452-addb0cbb928a" CreationDate="2015-12-04T21:01:42.293" UserId="134" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Technically, rheme (or comment) is the new information you add to already established theme (or topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't tell what is new and what is not from grammar alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence, being a news headline, is supposed to deliver some news, tell us some facts we didn't know yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a well known fact that there is a city called Chelyabinsk in Russia. No surprise it, being a Russian city, harbors a few puddles. It's mildly interesting that someone would want to use a net to catch something in a Chelyabinsk puddle. But the real punchline (and the news) is this something being no less than a beaver.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Nikolay Ershov mentioned above, normally the comment goes last in a Russian sentence. So, being properly constructed, the sentence would read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Челябинске из огромной лужи сачком выловили бобра&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, the functional division is a pure semantic thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine this fictional series of headlines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * В Московском зоопарке родился шестиногий бобёр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Шестиногий бобёр любит купаться в лужах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Для ухода за бобром из Московского зоопарка был разработан специальный сачок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Шестиногий бобёр сбежал из Московского зоопарка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Третий день ведутся поиски бобра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Бобра выловили сачком из огромной лужи в Челябинске.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example, Chelyabinsk would have been the comment, as the fictional beaver and his habits are known to us already, and the news is that he made all the way to Urals from Moscow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26181" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11295" RevisionGUID="f1f72d4c-ed9f-4ee3-a840-a530bb3112b6" CreationDate="2015-12-05T00:14:56.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/672932129366519811" />
  <row Id="26182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11329" RevisionGUID="10f7eec0-c454-44ff-8761-a399c4ace619" CreationDate="2015-12-05T08:40:45.873" UserId="6378" Text="Russian is partly pro-drop. Not nearly as much as other Slavic languages or Romance languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually varies among Slavic languages. In some like Czech and Polish it is very acceptable and in fact, unmarked to omit subject (and sometimes object pronouns). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. (QW=question word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polish&#xD;&#xA;Q: Czy kupi-ł-eś               banan-y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   QW (perf)buy-past-2sg.MASC  banana-PL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;Did you buy bananas?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Tak, Kupi-ł-em&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Yes (perf)buy-past-1sg.MASC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;Yes I bought them (lit &quot;yes bought&quot;)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had the pronouns in this sentence, especially for the question, it would sound weird, like you were emphasizing &quot;YOU&quot; (did YOU buy bananas?). In Russian however... &quot;ты купил бананы?&quot; does not sound marked, and it is better to have the pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This same conversations couldn't happen as easily in Russian. In Russian pro-drop usually only occurs in the present and future tenses. In the past it is very confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*дал        им      книги &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;da-l        im      knig-i  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;give-masc  3ppl-DAT book-PL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I/he gave them books&quot;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds pretty bad and is highly ambiguous. I am sure it could happen, but would be marked, unlike in Polish, Czech, or Romance languages like Spanish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="0923996d-7176-4dbc-a8cd-fbcc297436e5" CreationDate="2015-12-05T09:23:53.593" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Actually you are asking about whether Russian is a pro-drop language. A pro-drop language, [according to Wikipedia][1], is a language in which pronouns are usually omitted when they can be inferred. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Spanish and Portuguese are classical examples of pro-drop languages. &quot;Te quiero&quot; (I love you) can be heard way more often than &quot;yo te quiero&quot; just because verbs are conjugates in Spanish, so that you in a moment recognize contextual pronoun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's go back to Russian. The simplest valid answer we can give - Russian is partially pro-drop. The actual degree of this &quot;pro-dropness&quot; is an open issue and a [subject to debates][2]. Here's another relevant [quote][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is disagreement as to whether Russian has pro-drop (alternatively, subject pronoun omission is treated as an instance of contextually licensed ellipsis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further information I'd recommend you to checkout the last link, but to sum it up: Russian is a pro-drop language, but less pro-drop that Japanese or Spanish. There are some reasons for this, one of most notable is lack of information we can get from verbs in past tence. [Он] читал / [я] читал / [ты] читал will be indistinguishable without context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/prodrop1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="e75d116a-ed70-4573-942a-e60d7ab8f65c" CreationDate="2015-12-05T12:08:56.560" UserId="6354" Text="I want to ask my Russian-speaking friend if he had a fun night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Google Translate, the translation of &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot; is: *Вы должен весело ночь?* But I suspect должен is being used in the wrong context of &quot;to have&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Yandex Translate, the translation is: *повеселилась ночью?* But I could not find any information on повеселилась on wiktionary, so I'm suspicious about the quality of this translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="e75d116a-ed70-4573-942a-e60d7ab8f65c" CreationDate="2015-12-05T12:08:56.560" UserId="6354" Text="Correct translation of &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="e75d116a-ed70-4573-942a-e60d7ab8f65c" CreationDate="2015-12-05T12:08:56.560" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="a7cca315-45a1-4dff-825f-4631b3c87c05" CreationDate="2015-12-05T12:14:50.743" UserId="6354" Comment="edited body" Text="I want to ask my Russian-speaking friend if he had a fun night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Google Translate, the translation of &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot; is: *Ты должен весело ночь?* But I suspect должен is being used in the wrong context of &quot;to have&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Yandex Translate, the translation is: *повеселилась ночью?* But I could not find any information on повеселилась on wiktionary, so I'm suspicious about the quality of this translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11209" RevisionGUID="c1932986-dd50-49e0-a0dc-9f78b9cb5ced" CreationDate="2015-12-05T12:14:54.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/673113313992179712" />
  <row Id="26189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="063ecd9c-bba0-45b0-8af3-00482605b3ab" CreationDate="2015-12-05T14:26:38.850" UserId="6354" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="According to Google Translate, the translation of &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot; is: *Ты должен весело ночь?* But I suspect должен is being used in the wrong context of &quot;to have&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Yandex Translate, the translation is: *повеселилась ночью?* But I could not find any information on повеселилась on wiktionary, so I'm suspicious about the quality of this translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26190" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11330" RevisionGUID="063ecd9c-bba0-45b0-8af3-00482605b3ab" CreationDate="2015-12-05T14:26:38.850" UserId="6354" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="Translation of &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11331" RevisionGUID="4a30d878-e674-409a-b573-255bef402bc4" CreationDate="2015-12-05T20:14:21.187" UserId="6381" Text="I searched the whole forum but didn't found an appropriate answer so I would like to ask you. I'm confused about the following words which all state more or less the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**беспокоиться** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to worry about sth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тревожиться** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to get upset&#xD;&#xA;- to worry about sth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возмущаться** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to be offended at sth.&#xD;&#xA;- to get angry&#xD;&#xA;- to trouble over sth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say my translations are more or less correct, when would you use which word in which case (broadly speaking)? Many thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11331" RevisionGUID="4a30d878-e674-409a-b573-255bef402bc4" CreationDate="2015-12-05T20:14:21.187" UserId="6381" Text="Can't differentiate: беспокоиться, тревожиться, возмущаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11331" RevisionGUID="4a30d878-e674-409a-b573-255bef402bc4" CreationDate="2015-12-05T20:14:21.187" UserId="6381" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11332" RevisionGUID="1868256c-c747-44a4-a366-b7c019335912" CreationDate="2015-12-05T20:30:58.790" UserId="194" Text="**беспокоиться** and **тревожиться** are synonyms. Беспокоиться is more often used. The both mean to worry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возмущаться** means to complain, make point loudly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26195" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11192" RevisionGUID="d512b415-a717-420c-a392-b1f6202805f3" CreationDate="2015-12-06T06:14:59.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/673385125816705025" />
  <row Id="26196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11333" RevisionGUID="75662b04-118c-4bc7-bc11-20fa813c00b3" CreationDate="2015-12-06T07:56:16.833" UserId="5008" Text="_Беспокоиться_ means _to lose comfort_, while _тревожиться_ stands for _to feel anxiety_. So you may translate both these words as simply &quot;_to worry_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Возмущаться_ is more tricky. Literally it means _to roil oneself_. It may stand for either personal feeling (_resentment_, _indignation_) or crowd's actions (_clamor_, or even _rebellion_ sometimes)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11334" RevisionGUID="6c04abfe-2623-4ad6-a7f6-75086389d99b" CreationDate="2015-12-06T08:08:04.260" UserId="5443" Text="**Беспокоиться** usually means to worry about something without a *specific* reason (just for general reasons), like in a situation where one's kids are away in some other town for the first time or where one is not quite sure whether or not it's enough time for getting to the airport, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тревожиться** (literally, be alarmed) typically means to worry about something for some reason, when things probably go wrong (like a family member should already have come home two hours before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Возмущаться** means to feel unhappy/angry (and/or express that) about an undesired situation or persons responsible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26198" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11190" RevisionGUID="27edb139-b43f-42c7-8aa7-1d0ca792d848" CreationDate="2015-12-06T09:14:56.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/673430410383216642" />
  <row Id="26199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="7b05b65b-4f27-4487-8e31-f4122a9b4577" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:50:06.900" UserId="4785" Text="Если &quot;одевать&quot; другого, а &quot;надевать&quot; на себя, то почему не &quot;надевайся&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="7b05b65b-4f27-4487-8e31-f4122a9b4577" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:50:06.900" UserId="4785" Text="Почему &quot;надевать&quot;, но &quot;одевайся&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11335" RevisionGUID="7b05b65b-4f27-4487-8e31-f4122a9b4577" CreationDate="2015-12-06T14:50:06.900" UserId="4785" Text="|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11336" RevisionGUID="ef683d50-7014-4929-a27e-e252c785ad15" CreationDate="2015-12-06T15:00:14.697" UserId="6383" Text="Потому что надевать что-то (одежду), а одевать кого-то (человека).&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому &quot;надевайся&quot; звучит, как указание одежде налезть на тело.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RSNLa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11338" RevisionGUID="1e8c0e11-f021-4be1-ab37-98bc67c98d5e" CreationDate="2015-12-06T15:39:57.620" UserId="1236" Text="Дело в том, что «надевать» вовсе не означает «надевать на себя», надевать можно на кого угодно и на что угодно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я надел кольцо на палец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы надели на наших девушек карнавальные маски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или даже так: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Что ты на его голову надел?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ­– Сапог надел.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разница же в том, что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *одевать* мы можем *кого-то*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *надевать* мы можем *что-то на кого-то* / *на что-то*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; поэтому *одеваться* значит *одевать себя*, а *надеваться* может значить только *надеть себя на кого-то / на что-то*, что, по понятным причинам, в принципе не употребляется, только из-за того, что ситуации, когда человек себя на кого-то надевает крайне редки, мало кому и когда приходится о таком говорить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="892adc95-108b-40d7-8e37-c73d56d2bae8" CreationDate="2015-12-06T16:37:23.750" UserId="6385" Text="&#xD;&#xA;When declining ordinal numbers (date). Would nominative or genitive be more natural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either пятый день... or &quot;Пятое&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="892adc95-108b-40d7-8e37-c73d56d2bae8" CreationDate="2015-12-06T16:37:23.750" UserId="6385" Text="ordinal numbers in russian, what is more natural to you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="892adc95-108b-40d7-8e37-c73d56d2bae8" CreationDate="2015-12-06T16:37:23.750" UserId="6385" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11340" RevisionGUID="7f7616c0-9b59-47b3-9547-02968f6275c9" CreationDate="2015-12-06T16:45:19.977" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Пятый день декабря&quot; is archaic, with Bible connotations, never used now, except in highly stylised fiction. &quot;Пятое декабря&quot; is standard modern Russian and used by everybody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11341" RevisionGUID="7ef7b8ba-52c3-4681-8950-51bb940b206c" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:11:32.997" UserId="194" Text="You can use &quot;пятый день (time period in genitive)&quot; to mean the fifth day of a period. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день отпуска = fifth day of a/the vacation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день забастовки = fifth day of a/the strike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день войны = fifth day of a/the war&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день сбора урожая = fifth day of a/the harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you would not usually use this for months, to mean a date. In that case you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятое [число] декабря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter case is used because the noun число (number) is implyed but usually omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26210" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11180" RevisionGUID="b64ec5cf-17de-4a99-827e-91b4b1ad99bd" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:14:56.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/673566305933488129" />
  <row Id="26211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11341" RevisionGUID="9a0af579-2b5b-4672-a587-5d62df959a0f" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:44:20.757" UserId="194" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="You can use &quot;пятый день (time period in genitive)&quot; to mean the fifth day of a period. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день отпуска = fifth day of a/the vacation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день забастовки = fifth day of a/the strike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день войны = fifth day of a/the war&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день сбора урожая = fifth day of a/the harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you would not usually use this for months, to mean a date. In that case you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятое [число] декабря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter case is used because the noun число (number) is implyed but usually omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that you cannot use this form with some unusual, allien, ancient calendar where days are numered different way so you fall back to the first form &quot;пятый день of something&quot; in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11341" RevisionGUID="aa6e1c99-bf7d-4c0d-bcda-d0e013523df5" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:51:52.903" UserId="194" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="You can use &quot;пятый день (time period in genitive)&quot; to mean the fifth day of a period. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день отпуска = fifth day of a/the vacation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день забастовки = fifth day of a/the strike&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день войны = fifth day of a/the war&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятый день сбора урожая = fifth day of a/the harvest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you would not usually use this for months, to mean a date. In that case you use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пятое [число] декабря&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neuter case is used because the noun число (number) is implyed but usually omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that you cannot use this form with some unusual, allien, ancient calendar where days are numered different way so you fall back to the first form &quot;пятый день of something&quot; in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you cannot use the term число (number) as a synonym for day for any Moon-based calendar, including the one used in Bible. Compare English as well: would you say &quot;Nissan, 15th&quot;? I doubt. It would be better to say &quot;15th day of the month Nissan&quot; because the listener may not even know what Nissan is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11342" RevisionGUID="9a964a07-4e6a-4043-aa39-8abc1a106e58" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:52:44.327" UserId="6354" Text="I can't find any information about this word on wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example sentence: *Он стал на защиту обиженных.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11342" RevisionGUID="9a964a07-4e6a-4043-aa39-8abc1a106e58" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:52:44.327" UserId="6354" Text="Meaning and case of обиженных" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11342" RevisionGUID="9a964a07-4e6a-4043-aa39-8abc1a106e58" CreationDate="2015-12-06T18:52:44.327" UserId="6354" Text="|значения|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11343" RevisionGUID="8419a532-9ed3-428a-a486-53b68e324177" CreationDate="2015-12-06T19:36:09.700" UserId="6387" Text="Case is genitive (родительный падеж): стал на защиту ***кого***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*обиженные* means oppressed, disadvantaged (people), it is in plural form. Singular would be *обиженный*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11344" RevisionGUID="a7afa4c2-191f-46ce-ab94-a016e0fc83d2" CreationDate="2015-12-06T19:45:10.363" UserId="6387" Text="Yandex translation is a better one. Although it is appropriate for a singular female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translation is rather clumsy: it chooses the meaning of obligation (должен) as a translation of the verb 'to have' in this particular case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Весело провёл ночь&quot;?: literal translation is &quot;Did you conduct (spend) a fun night?&quot;. So, it is quite idiomatic in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11343" RevisionGUID="fc8ceb65-d24f-4713-967c-21c944f16e28" CreationDate="2015-12-06T20:28:27.307" UserId="194" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Case is genitive (родительный падеж): стал на защиту ***кого***?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*обиженные* means oppressed, disadvantaged (people), it is in plural form. Singular masculine would be *обиженный*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11345" RevisionGUID="c96bf9a7-4b14-4869-8566-417f43d3705d" CreationDate="2015-12-06T20:44:15.600" UserId="194" Text="The o-/об-/обо- prefix in Russian means &quot;around&quot;. It comes from Proto-Indo-European ***a̯entbhi*** &quot;around&quot;, &quot;about&quot;, &quot;on the both sides&quot; from the root a̯ent- meaning &quot;end&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So одеваться means thoroughly cloth up, from all sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надевать is to put something on from prefix на- meaning &quot;on&quot;. So you can put on a hat or gauntlets but it would not be одеваться because it is not putting clothing from the all sides of your body." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11345" RevisionGUID="b40b03c9-894b-43f2-9fec-92bc98b1cd84" CreationDate="2015-12-06T20:49:55.973" UserId="194" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The o-/об-/обо- prefix in Russian means &quot;around&quot;. It comes from Proto-Indo-European ***a̯entbhi*** &quot;around&quot;, &quot;about&quot;, &quot;on the both sides&quot; from the root a̯ent- meaning &quot;end&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So одеваться means thoroughly cloth up, from all sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надевать is to put something on from prefix на- meaning &quot;on&quot;. So you can put on a hat or gauntlets but it would not be одеваться because it is not putting clothing around you, from the all sides of your body." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11346" RevisionGUID="4ff6fb89-bdda-44c8-8c25-e8f552773ab1" CreationDate="2015-12-07T01:44:56.183" UserId="4876" Text="&quot;**Instrumental case**&quot; is not quite right translation of &quot;**творительный падеж**&quot;. Most correct translation would be &quot;**ablativ**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly we use this case as instrumental case, but it also has around 13 more functions. Full list of them you can find in [Russian wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence &quot;творительный падеж&quot; is used, because preposition &quot;за&quot; mostly indicates **place**, and place is one of the functions of &quot;творительный падеж&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11349" RevisionGUID="9d407cf7-e0b6-4d97-8bef-db49212b3a28" CreationDate="2015-12-07T04:09:05.343" UserId="6391" Text="Google Translate version is awful. At the same time Yandex version is appropriate for a singular female. I myself would say: &quot;У тебя была веселая ночь?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="681e9fe0-b43b-4740-968b-1e6d8176497e" CreationDate="2015-12-07T11:26:05.007" UserId="6354" Text="My question about the [translation of &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot;][1] made me wonder about the best correspondence for the word *fun* in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the answers there, my guess is that **весёлый** best corresponds to *fun* as an adjective. However, on [wiktionary][2], *merry*, *happy*, and *funny* are listed as definitions for it, but not *fun*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which Russian words best correspond to *fun*, as adjective and as noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11330/translation-of-did-you-have-a-fun-night&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%91%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="681e9fe0-b43b-4740-968b-1e6d8176497e" CreationDate="2015-12-07T11:26:05.007" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;Fun&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="681e9fe0-b43b-4740-968b-1e6d8176497e" CreationDate="2015-12-07T11:26:05.007" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11351" RevisionGUID="3762eac3-4d0e-4145-87e9-d1894c572f5c" CreationDate="2015-12-07T13:01:56.883" UserId="310" Text="I would ask this as &quot;Как провели вечер?&quot; - sounds natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Not ночь, but вечер.&#xD;&#xA;- It is assumed that it was fun because why else would you be there?&#xD;&#xA;- English phrases favor lots of short words, no reason to translate them all into Russian sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11352" RevisionGUID="9093bf72-784a-4ff6-a96f-ede378480718" CreationDate="2015-12-07T14:46:14.617" UserId="1836" Text="I'd say that &quot;to have fun&quot; is most close to &quot;повеселиться&quot;, but &quot;fun&quot; itself is closer to &quot;удовольствие&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that there are many words that would be translated differently if they go with &quot;to have&quot; than if the word is alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11353" RevisionGUID="2e9e9731-ffc7-472f-97bf-dc24ae5ef1a6" CreationDate="2015-12-07T14:50:06.180" UserId="5443" Text="Generally, translation is rebuilding the original *sense* from scratch by means of another language: very often you can't just combine translated words without getting something unnatural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a context where the other person is known to have attended some party, the asking person might wonder if they had a good time: *was that night a fun night?* Then the original sentence can be translated like this: **Вы хорошо провели (э)тот вечер?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="ffced46b-f9d1-4aba-be52-6120a1a5263f" CreationDate="2015-12-07T20:41:48.887" UserId="6354" Text="My guess is accusative case due to *на*, but I'm wondering if the negation (from **не иметь**) affects *ребёнок* here, as it does *право*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="ffced46b-f9d1-4aba-be52-6120a1a5263f" CreationDate="2015-12-07T20:41:48.887" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;Отец не имеет прав на ребёнка&quot;, is ребёнка in accusative or genitive case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11356" RevisionGUID="ffced46b-f9d1-4aba-be52-6120a1a5263f" CreationDate="2015-12-07T20:41:48.887" UserId="6354" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11358" RevisionGUID="a99c6234-0967-49cb-9c52-ed71470fe71d" CreationDate="2015-12-07T22:01:57.783" UserId="6401" Text="Предыдущий ответ вообще-то неправильный.&#xD;&#xA;Не так важно, что прав или права нет, важно что бывает право (или права) НА (кого/что) управление, проход, ребенка, жизнь...&#xD;&#xA;или просто право (права) (кого/чего) сильного, человека, прохода, управления.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="90045eb2-0bc4-4377-8dcc-e170ea01f73a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:24:35.787" UserId="3917" Text="I read the phrase *начать с дерева* in the context of a young man wanting to change his life and deciding to start by planting a tree.  &#xD;&#xA;Why is дерева in the genitive case, while I would have expected the instrumental?  &#xD;&#xA;A grammar book of mine indeed indicates that *с* can be followed by a genitive or an instrumental, but is there a rule telling which to choose?   &#xD;&#xA;Or should I just learn for each possible combination verb+*с* what the correct case is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="90045eb2-0bc4-4377-8dcc-e170ea01f73a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:24:35.787" UserId="3917" Text="What case after &quot;с&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11359" RevisionGUID="90045eb2-0bc4-4377-8dcc-e170ea01f73a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:24:35.787" UserId="3917" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11360" RevisionGUID="d1d628d2-227c-4fa7-8f48-9da9a9ddfc4a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:27:35.557" UserId="194" Text="&gt; начать с дерева = start from tree&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; начать с деревом = start having tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11361" RevisionGUID="7c470c05-58aa-4064-aaf9-13bae25df7ab" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:44:52.947" UserId="4892" Text="I learned that перечитать can mean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - read one more time&#xD;&#xA; - read everything that is available from one author or one subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While начитаться means: read a great quantity of (books from an author...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so what's the difference between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;он перечитал все книги Пушкина&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;он начитался все книги Пушкина&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the first example underline that he read ALL from Pushkin, while the second means that he read A LOT?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;please provide other examples similar to each other and explain the difference in usage!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11361" RevisionGUID="7c470c05-58aa-4064-aaf9-13bae25df7ab" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:44:52.947" UserId="4892" Text="difference between перечитать and начитаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11361" RevisionGUID="7c470c05-58aa-4064-aaf9-13bae25df7ab" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:44:52.947" UserId="4892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11362" RevisionGUID="b2010a50-b071-4ad7-9350-ad8148120b59" CreationDate="2015-12-08T09:05:04.937" UserId="6097" Text="The first example means either that he read all books from Pushkin or that he read all books from Pushkin once again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The secons example is grammatically incorrect. Correct would be ***он начитался Пушкина***, ***он начитался книг Пушкина*** or ***он начитался всех книг Пушкина*** (the last one sounds quite peculiar but is possible in some situations). Depending on context it can mean that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- he read a lot of Pushin and his hunger for Pushkin is satisfied&#xD;&#xA;   now. In this meaning you can add ***вдоволь*** (*Он начитался Пушкина вдоволь* or *Он вдоволь начитался Пушкина*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- he read so much from Pushkin and is fed up with Pushkin now (*Он начитался Пушкина в школе и больше смотреть на него не может*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11363" RevisionGUID="f3ab0b17-4ccd-4c30-9f1c-21de9cbc75bc" CreationDate="2015-12-08T09:18:02.650" UserId="134" Text="*С* can be followed by genitive, accusative or instrumental, but it's not the preposition which governs the case of a complement, it's the verb or noun it completes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Начать с + gen.* literally means &quot;start from (the top of) the tree&quot;, the preposition *c* here being used in the sense &quot;from the top of&quot;, as opposed to *из* &quot;from the inside of&quot; and *от* &quot;from the proximity of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb governs *с + gen.* in the same way *жить*, *брать* and even *смеяться* and *бить* in some dialects do: _брать с него долг, жить с нетрудовых доходов, **смеяться с клоуна, **бить с локтя_. It's just how these verbs work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two examples are dialectal and sound quite peculiar to those not used to them, but totally OK to those who are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26259" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11321" RevisionGUID="7a89822c-78e0-45b6-a6db-71dc0b8eadd3" CreationDate="2015-12-08T09:18:44.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/674156145217560577" />
  <row Id="26260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11364" RevisionGUID="806804d3-2033-4c4f-8b53-0add988e8c4d" CreationDate="2015-12-08T09:31:22.903" UserId="4560" Text="With instrumental, **с** means &quot;with&quot;. With genitive, **с** means &quot;from&quot; or &quot;off&quot; — that is, moving away from a thing's surface (as opposed to **из** which is for moving away from inside a thing). You take a thing &quot;off&quot; a shelf (**с полки**) but &quot;from&quot; a cupboard (**из шкафа**). For all intents and purposes, this **с** is a different preposition than the one meaning &quot;with&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among the more abstract meanings of **с**+genitive, the most common one is &quot;beginning with&quot;, &quot;from X onwards&quot;, or &quot;since&quot; when talking about time. Now of course, with prepositions used abstractly it's not always easy to figure out the underlying metaphor; **начать с дерева** is, literally, to &quot;start *from* a tree&quot; rather than *with* a tree, whereas in English one more commonly begins/starts &quot;with&quot; things. There's no particular reason why it's one or the other (or something else entirely); so I suppose with some verbs, you just have to learn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, you might want to first try and see if you can follow the logic behind which **с** it is; there are many cases where, abstract or not, that logic is plain enough, e.g. in **взыскать с должника**, it's clear that the debt is collected &quot;from&quot; someone rather than &quot;with&quot; them — whereas in **расплатиться с кредитором**, it makes mor sense to say that a debt are settled &quot;with&quot; a lender rather than &quot;from&quot; them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="866ffe34-b287-42cb-b2ce-aaae741ae9a5" CreationDate="2015-12-08T09:53:27.203" UserId="1236" Text="The verbs built according to the model `на-&lt;verb&gt;-ся` mean &quot;to do the action so much that you do not want to do it any more, to do the action so much that you feel satisfied with the result&quot;. All the verbs ending in `-ся`, the reflexive verbs, are intransitive, they cannot have direct objects, that is, they cannot have an Accusative case object. In the case of the `на-&lt;verb&gt;-ся` verbs, the object with which the satisfaction is achieved is usually in the Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical examples of such verbs are *наесться* 'to eat until you are fed up' and *напиться* 'to drink that much that you are not thirsty any more'. In the following examples the Genitive objects are italicized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вова наелся *варенья*. - Vova ate jam (until he was fed up with it didn't want to eat it any more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Колодец, колодец, дай *неба* напиться! - O well, o well, give me some sky to drink (so that my thirst ceases). - From a [song][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гости на свадьбе напились *самогонки* и танцевали до утра. - The guests at the wedding party drank so much moonshine that they danced until morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не видел Олега 5 лет, просидели весь день, никак не могли наговориться. - I haven't seen Oleg for 5 years, we spent the whole day together and couldn't stop talking (however much we talked it never seemed enough for us).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your two sentences, the first one is right. In the second one, the object should be in the Genitive case, and usually after *начитаться* you simply say the name of the author, because it is clear that the writer writes books, so it should be *Он начитался Пушкина* - &quot;He read Pushkin much&quot; or &quot;He read Pushkin so much that he doesn't want to read him anymore&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он начитался *Пушкина* и сам начал писать стихи. - He read Pushkin much and began to write poems himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он начитался *Троцкого* и вступил в коммунистическую партию Парагвая. - He read many books by Trotsky and joined the Communist Party of Paraguay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди спать, ты что, ещё не начитался *своих комиксов*? - Go to bed. Haven't you read your comic books enough yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the verb *начитаться* the adjective *начитанный* &quot;lettered, well-read, deep-read&quot; is formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHge_AbJSXE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="fe387136-768d-4d57-a434-fd71ffa06557" CreationDate="2015-12-08T10:20:35.343" UserId="5443" Text="**Перечитать** (two meanings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Перечитать** (Пушкина) means **to read** *something* (by Pushkin) **one more time** - in whatever complete form (usually it's some mentioned part). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вчера я перечитал Пушкина - чтобы уточнить текст из &quot;Онегина&quot;,` `о котором мы вчера поспорили.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you add the sense of completeness to that word, like saying &quot;**перечитать всего** Пушкина&quot;, that would mean **reading** the subject **in its entirety**. Most likely, you'd need to add more words if you also mean doing it one more time: &quot;**ещё раз** перечитать **всего** Пушкина&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он перечитал всего Пушкина,` `включая последние найденные его письма.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Начитаться** (two meanings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To have enough of reading something (negative sense) or to have read as much as one wanted (positive sense):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я вчера начитался газет` `и больше видеть их не могу.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он провёл несколько часов в библиотеке` `и вдоволь начитался Пушкина, о чём давно мечтал.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. (sarcastic) To get some strange knowledge or ideas which are definitely out of context - as a result of intensive reading some specific writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он начитался Пушкина и теперь сам пишет стихи,` `вставляя готовые строчки из его произведений.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11366" RevisionGUID="8f4ca316-3dc7-42aa-a71c-b535629372f0" CreationDate="2015-12-08T10:26:06.210" UserId="5443" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="**Перечитать** (two meanings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Перечитать** (Пушкина) means **to read** *something* (by Pushkin) **one more time** - in whatever complete form (usually it's some mentioned part). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вчера я перечитал Пушкина - чтобы уточнить текст из &quot;Онегина&quot;,` `о котором мы вчера поспорили.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you add the sense of completeness to that word, like saying &quot;**перечитать всего** Пушкина&quot;, that would mean **reading** the subject **in its entirety**. Most likely, you'd need to add more words if you also mean doing it one more time: &quot;**ещё раз** перечитать **всего** Пушкина&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он перечитал всего Пушкина,` `включая последние найденные его письма.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Начитаться** (two meanings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To have enough of reading something (negative sense) or to have read as much as one wanted (positive sense):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я вчера начитался газет` `и больше видеть их не могу.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он провёл несколько часов в библиотеке` `и вдоволь начитался Пушкина, о чём давно мечтал.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. (sarcastic) To get some strange knowledge or ideas which are definitely out of context - as a result of intensive reading some specific writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он начитался Пушкина и теперь сам пишет стихи,` `вставляя готовые строчки из его произведений.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он начитался Пушкина, и теперь &quot;Шаланды полные кефали...&quot;` `кажутся ему плагиатом с &quot;Мой дядя самых честных правил...&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11367" RevisionGUID="a7c423a2-7824-4e4b-96f3-1acf05724ab0" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:41:48.053" UserId="6386" Text="I would place the words in slightly different order to express their relationships more naturally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;тревожится&lt;/b&gt; to worry. This is always negative feeling. Usually doesn't expect  any special activity from the subject (i.e. person), it is just a feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;беспокоится&lt;/b&gt; also to worry, but less severe and less negative than тревожится. May expect some behavioral activity (but not necessary). The noun беспокойство may even refer to just unstable mood, readiness to unexpected decisions or adventures (Им овладело беспокойство, охота к перемене мест)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;возмущаться&lt;/b&gt; to get angry due to disagreement with somebody or something. There is no semantic intersections with neither тревожится nor беспокоиться despite the fact that the verb беспокоиться also describes some unstable emotional state (but the corresponding emotions are obviously different).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11374" RevisionGUID="d2853318-65ed-49b7-96a4-d9b84ee39a7a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T21:12:58.657" UserId="194" Text="If it comes from PIE ***q̆etlom*** then the Russian reflex should be &quot;четло&quot;. Why it is число then? A speculation may be that it came from ***q̆etˢtlom***, in this case it would become чесло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct analysis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11374" RevisionGUID="d2853318-65ed-49b7-96a4-d9b84ee39a7a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T21:12:58.657" UserId="194" Text="Why число, not четло?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11374" RevisionGUID="d2853318-65ed-49b7-96a4-d9b84ee39a7a" CreationDate="2015-12-08T21:12:58.657" UserId="194" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26282" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="c9235647-e578-459c-8592-85c981cef3c2" CreationDate="2015-12-08T21:21:20.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/674337992891310080" />
  <row Id="26284" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11311" RevisionGUID="e00fcac8-86cb-46c5-a986-479c2ad53417" CreationDate="2015-12-09T03:21:24.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/674428605418590208" />
  <row Id="26285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11375" RevisionGUID="4bf22e4c-9c0f-4401-b7bd-c1249bed932d" CreationDate="2015-12-09T04:58:37.937" UserId="242" Text="In Proto-Slavic it was most likely četslo/čitslo. Then &quot;t&quot; just dropped down due to the rule of ascending sonority (закон восходящей звучности), one of the most basic phonological rules of Old East Slavic (or Old Russian, whatever you call it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly for the same reason we have &quot;прясло&quot; (was прѧтсло initially) and &quot;ясли&quot; (derived from *ēdsli-)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11375" RevisionGUID="1e10d97c-bf5e-49a5-bcd6-bae8110062d8" CreationDate="2015-12-09T05:10:35.367" UserId="242" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="In Proto-Slavic it was most likely četslo/čitslo. Then &quot;t&quot; just dropped down due to the rule of ascending sonority (закон восходящей звучности), one of the most basic phonological rules of Old East Slavic (or Old Russian, whatever you call it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly for the same reason we have &quot;прясло&quot; (was прѧтсло initially) and &quot;ясли&quot; (derived from *ēdsli-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happened in Proto-Slavic so actually there are some more non-obvious examples, when this particular changes was affected by some other phonetical mutations. For instance [pṓds][1] - the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European word for foot is something that gave us words &quot;пехота&quot; and &quot;пеший&quot; (first, ds -&gt; s, then it moerphed into x and ʂ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/p%E1%B9%93ds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26289" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11361" RevisionGUID="01a7d6ba-5509-4a83-b83f-a9b0b58778ae" CreationDate="2015-12-09T07:20:02.167" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between перечитать and начитаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="521f1174-ea64-4c9c-b1a9-41c1a58e9ef3" CreationDate="2015-12-09T07:20:25.010" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="When declining ordinal numbers (date). Would nominative or genitive be more natural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either пятый день... or &quot;Пятое&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26291" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11339" RevisionGUID="521f1174-ea64-4c9c-b1a9-41c1a58e9ef3" CreationDate="2015-12-09T07:20:25.010" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Ordinal numbers in russian, what is more natural to you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26292" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11179" RevisionGUID="ffcc37e2-4b8c-4ffc-a30c-b8584862d98b" CreationDate="2015-12-09T09:26:25.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/674520462882422785" />
  <row Id="26293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11377" RevisionGUID="525660b4-d6e7-4fda-91b3-380151b06ac6" CreationDate="2015-12-09T14:08:04.787" UserId="5201" Text="I believe one good way to conceptualize 'a' in Russian and how to differentiate it from 'и' is the conjunction 'whereas.' In most cases I believe it is a good approximation, noting that 'whereas' generally means 'compared with the fact that; but.' When there is a clear, easily divisible contrast between the first and the second clauses of a sentence, it sets you down the right path to using it properly yourself when found in other contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly it doesn't cover all cases. In English, when it comes to bringing two clauses together there are a lot of subordinating conjunctions (after, although, as, as if, because, before, even if, even though, if, if only, rather than, since, that, though, unless, until, when, where, whereas, wherever, whether, which, while). As an English speaker you've internalized how to use these words largely unwittingly. If you wanted to explain when you use any of these and how one differs from the others, I think it would require a concerted mental effort to do so. Think analogously that Russian speakers have the same concepts, but some of which are wrapped up in 'а' but cannot be consistently translated as the same word in the English. It requires context to see its variety of meaning and you'll gain that with exposure, like you did with English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll give you a couple examples to see how it varies, even when among sentences where it seems to follow the same structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Звонок брякнул слабо, как будто был сделан из жести, а не из меди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The bell rang weakly, as if it was made out of tin ***and not*** out of copper. (/as though it were made ***not of*** copper ***but of*** tin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На ее тонкой и длинной шее, похожей на куриную ногу, было наверчено&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какое-то фланелевое тряпье, а на плечах, несмотря на жару, болталась&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вся истрепанная и пожелтелая меховая кацавейка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On her thin and long (we would say 'long, thin' in English) neck, which resembled a chicken's leg, was wrapped in some kind of flannel rag, ***whereas*** on (from) [her] shoulders, despite the heat, dangled an all (entirely) worn-out and yellowed fur katsaveyka (jacket). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11378" RevisionGUID="4009284e-308b-4d2d-a566-df0ebb1ff296" CreationDate="2015-12-09T15:47:36.660" UserId="6407" Text="When you want to express in russian that you speak a few languages besides russian. What is the common practise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я говорю на нескольких иностранных языках.&quot; is acceptable grammar-wise? and would it be ладно to say: &quot;странных&quot; instead of: &quot;иностранных&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26295" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11378" RevisionGUID="4009284e-308b-4d2d-a566-df0ebb1ff296" CreationDate="2015-12-09T15:47:36.660" UserId="6407" Text="Need help with an expression" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26296" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11378" RevisionGUID="4009284e-308b-4d2d-a566-df0ebb1ff296" CreationDate="2015-12-09T15:47:36.660" UserId="6407" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26297" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11378" RevisionGUID="cb6494fb-a5c0-47c9-af1f-20473460be4d" CreationDate="2015-12-09T16:11:25.043" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;Я говорю на нескольких иностранных языках&quot; grammatical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11379" RevisionGUID="f2408090-7372-42bd-9173-e5c65055dfd2" CreationDate="2015-12-09T17:36:33.927" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Я говорю на нескольких иностранных языках.&quot; is absolutely correct, both lexically and grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Странный* means 'strange, weird, queer, odd, unusual', it never means 'foreign'. *Иностранный* is a compound adjective formed from *иная*+*страна* ('another'+'country'). *Странный* is also derived from *страна*, 'country', but in a rather tricky way: first, the noun *странник*, 'traveller, wanderer' was formed from it, and *странный* is an adjective from *странник*. The meaning of *странный* developed from its original meaning 'pertaining to travellers, wanderers' in such a way: 'travelling' &gt; 'from far-away lands' &gt; 'of different culture, unusual' &gt; 'strange'. Nowadays the connection of the words *страна*, *странник*, and *cтранный* is not obvious for an average Russian native speaker, and *cтранный* does not mean 'foreign' any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *ладно* is not actually 'OK', it means 'well, if you wish...' or 'alright, I'll do it (so that to get rid of you)', it expresses agreement, often reluctant, and is used only as an answer, never inside a sentence. *Ладно* may or may not have the shade of reluctance, it depends on your intonation. The most neutral answer meaning agreement is *хорошо*, but it cannot be used in the question above, either. The Russian word that fits that question is *правильно*, 'correct'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26299" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10902" RevisionGUID="1d78b0ce-9da3-4a9c-888c-e56fc251a925" CreationDate="2015-12-09T18:28:44.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/674656941520613381" />
  <row Id="26300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11380" RevisionGUID="a096e04c-ecf0-4b2c-bc30-eaaa78148956" CreationDate="2015-12-09T21:52:53.133" UserId="115" Text="You could also omit the word &quot;иностранных&quot; altogether:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю на нескольких языках.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I speak several languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Foreign&quot; is implied here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю несколько языков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I know several languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the genitive case here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11365" RevisionGUID="954b759a-88e5-4b04-830b-637e27b387d7" CreationDate="2015-12-09T22:28:42.507" UserId="1236" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The verbs built according to the model `на-&lt;verb&gt;-ся` mean &quot;to do the action so much that you do not want to do it any more, to do the action so much that you feel satisfied with the result&quot;. All the verbs ending in `-ся`, the reflexive verbs, are intransitive, they cannot have direct objects, that is, they cannot have an Accusative case object. In the case of the `на-&lt;verb&gt;-ся` verbs, the object with which the satisfaction is achieved is usually in the Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical examples of such verbs are *наесться* 'to eat until you are fed up' and *напиться* 'to drink that much that you are not thirsty any more'. In the following examples the Genitive objects are italicized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вова наелся *варенья*. - Vova ate jam (until he was fed up with it and didn't want to eat it any more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Колодец, колодец, дай *неба* напиться! - O well, o well, give me some sky to drink (so that my thirst ceases). - From a [song][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гости на свадьбе напились *самогонки* и танцевали до утра. - The guests at the wedding party drank so much moonshine that they danced until morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не видел Олега 5 лет, просидели весь день, никак не могли наговориться. - I haven't seen Oleg for 5 years, we spent the whole day together and couldn't stop talking (however much we talked it never seemed enough for us).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your two sentences, the first one is right. In the second one, the object should be in the Genitive case, and usually after *начитаться* you simply say the name of the author, because it is clear that the writer writes books, so it should be *Он начитался Пушкина* - &quot;He read Pushkin much&quot; or &quot;He read Pushkin so much that he doesn't want to read him anymore&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он начитался *Пушкина* и сам начал писать стихи. - He read Pushkin much and began to write poems himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он начитался *Троцкого* и вступил в коммунистическую партию Парагвая. - He read many books by Trotsky and joined the Communist Party of Paraguay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иди спать, ты что, ещё не начитался *своих комиксов*? - Go to bed. Haven't you read your comic books enough yet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the verb *начитаться* the adjective *начитанный* &quot;lettered, well-read, deep-read&quot; is formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHge_AbJSXE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26302" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10964" RevisionGUID="194e4ac6-0437-42a5-b2fa-3e5ae9298761" CreationDate="2015-12-10T00:28:48.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/674747556556111872" />
  <row Id="26304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11381" RevisionGUID="99cbdf3c-ece4-4270-8f1b-4f2c6b1d41ed" CreationDate="2015-12-10T11:00:25.033" UserId="6381" Text="I'm looking for a russian word for the englisch term **wish book** or **book of wishes** (list of wishes exists on paper, like a book of wishes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stumbled upon **сонник** but this means dream book or book of dreams so it's not the right one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be just **книга жела́ние**? I'm also not sure if I can mix feminime words with neuter words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11381" RevisionGUID="99cbdf3c-ece4-4270-8f1b-4f2c6b1d41ed" CreationDate="2015-12-10T11:00:25.033" UserId="6381" Text="How do russians call a book of wishes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11381" RevisionGUID="99cbdf3c-ece4-4270-8f1b-4f2c6b1d41ed" CreationDate="2015-12-10T11:00:25.033" UserId="6381" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11382" RevisionGUID="4d385e5b-59eb-4109-b58e-434d68a19f58" CreationDate="2015-12-10T11:34:54.520" UserId="6402" Text="We don't call it **книга**. I don't even know if there is such thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;**Книга жела́ние** is grammatically incorrect, it should be **книга жела́ний**.&#xD;&#xA;What exactly do you mean by **wish book**?&#xD;&#xA;Is it a printed list of wishes a person has to pick from or is it a complete list of wishes a person has at all? Or maybe it is just a catalog of goods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11382" RevisionGUID="aca31dc6-6ae6-43e0-b416-fad56febf866" CreationDate="2015-12-10T11:40:24.377" UserId="6402" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We don't call it **книга**. I don't even know if there is such thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;**Книга жела́ние** is grammatically incorrect, it should be **книга жела́ний**.&#xD;&#xA;What exactly do you mean by **wish book**?&#xD;&#xA;Is it a printed list of wishes a person has to pick from or is it a complete list of wishes a person has at all? Or maybe it is just a catalogue of goods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11382" RevisionGUID="cd0b0c63-3954-45fa-b5cb-e110cfa10760" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:04:43.530" UserId="6402" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="We don't call it **книга**. I don't even know if there is such thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;**Книга жела́ние** is grammatically incorrect, it should be **книга жела́ний**.&#xD;&#xA;What exactly do you mean by **wish book**?&#xD;&#xA;Is it a printed list of wishes a person has to pick from or is it a complete list of wishes a person has at all? Or maybe it is just a catalog of goods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing you are asking about is called **список желаний**.&#xD;&#xA;The sample sentence would be &quot;У меня есть список желаний, в который я записываю то, что очень хочу получить, и вычёркиваю сбывшиеся желания.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11383" RevisionGUID="07c00a48-c590-411d-b426-d0073e832350" CreationDate="2015-12-10T14:51:58.457" UserId="6274" Text="both are correct, but &quot;об меня&quot; sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(here can be an especial situation since sound &quot;m&quot; produces some voice like, the same happens with &quot;n&quot;: об ногу is better then о ногу)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="c166229f-3fbb-4ddf-8cbf-3f1e9ab36b99" CreationDate="2015-12-10T16:22:59.597" UserId="6411" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My tutor says that &quot;бы&quot; should follow &quot;хотел&quot;. Example: &quot;бы хотел стать&quot;. What do you think is most correct and natural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="c166229f-3fbb-4ddf-8cbf-3f1e9ab36b99" CreationDate="2015-12-10T16:22:59.597" UserId="6411" Text="Russian grammar construction (simple question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="c166229f-3fbb-4ddf-8cbf-3f1e9ab36b99" CreationDate="2015-12-10T16:22:59.597" UserId="6411" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11385" RevisionGUID="b48af0ed-3088-4101-9067-023d9c13042a" CreationDate="2015-12-10T16:41:13.270" UserId="3680" Text="`бы` cannot be the first word in a sentence.  &#xD;&#xA;But in your example it doesn't matter where it is placed - before or after a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы хотел&amp;hellip;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я хотел бы&amp;hellip;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11386" RevisionGUID="36e3430e-44e8-488e-aeb2-afb672e9f9f4" CreationDate="2015-12-10T16:50:24.240" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Бы&quot; can follow or precede &quot;хотел&quot;, it can even be separated from &quot;хотел&quot; by one or several words, but surely &quot;бы&quot; cannot begin a sentence or a clause. All the following sentences are correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **бы хотел** стать космонавтом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **хотел бы** стать космонавтом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Космонавтом **бы** я стать **хотел**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стать **бы** космонавтом я **хотел**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я космонавтом **бы** стать **хотел**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11387" RevisionGUID="550a2b88-cb96-44ef-a7be-07d7532dbd9e" CreationDate="2015-12-10T18:09:46.807" UserId="6354" Text="Take a sentence such as **Надо действовать головой, а не силой, если возможно**. Is *возможно* in adverb or adjective (short neutral) form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is the translation is &quot;Need to use your head, not strength, if *possible*&quot;, so it appears to be an adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I want to make sure there aren't any surprises here that make it an adverb. For example, maybe my translation reflects my thinking in English, not Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11387" RevisionGUID="550a2b88-cb96-44ef-a7be-07d7532dbd9e" CreationDate="2015-12-10T18:09:46.807" UserId="6354" Text="Adverb versus short neutral adjective form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11387" RevisionGUID="550a2b88-cb96-44ef-a7be-07d7532dbd9e" CreationDate="2015-12-10T18:09:46.807" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11387" RevisionGUID="24650193-04d1-42fa-a917-b23e9e0e7809" CreationDate="2015-12-10T19:13:12.993" UserId="6354" Comment="Another example" Text="Take a sentence such as **Надо действовать головой, а не силой, если возможно**. Is *возможно* in adverb or adjective (short neutral) form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is the translation is &quot;Need to use your head, not strength, if *possible*&quot;, so it appears to be an adjective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I want to make sure there aren't any surprises here that make it an adverb. For example, maybe my translation reflects my thinking in English, not Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example: **Не обращай внимания, я просто не в настроении**, with respect to *просто*. This one seems more obviously like an adverb to me. I imagine a hidden &quot;am&quot;, so that *я просто* is equivalent to *I (am) simply*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="eccc823c-cc5d-49a5-8355-2f90b53e8756" CreationDate="2015-12-10T19:52:27.867" UserId="5874" Text="Я работаю с многими русскими клиентами.  У нас тут в США привычка отличать в сообщениях ACFM (actual cubic feet per minute, кубичные футы при настоящих условиях в минуту) от SCFM (standard cubic feet per minute, кубичные футы при определенных условиях в минуту).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У каждая культура свои обычаи.  Насколько я знаю, международная система единиц не определяет использование приставки &quot;N&quot;, вместе упомянутый выше &quot;S&quot;, который обозначает, что величина при определенных условиях.  Эту приставку используют всемирно.  А что насчет приставки &quot;A&quot;?  Строго говоря, зависит от культуры.  Используют ли эту приставку, или просто лишение приставки обозначает, что величина при настоящих условиях? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="eccc823c-cc5d-49a5-8355-2f90b53e8756" CreationDate="2015-12-10T19:52:27.867" UserId="5874" Text="Настоящий поток газа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="eccc823c-cc5d-49a5-8355-2f90b53e8756" CreationDate="2015-12-10T19:52:27.867" UserId="5874" Text="|физика|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11389" RevisionGUID="18a7264b-ce99-4a19-bb0f-039f6d19a3d5" CreationDate="2015-12-10T20:08:56.513" UserId="6402" Text="If you complete the clause **если возможно** with **если [это будет] возможно**, it'll make **возможно** be an adverb, so it's an adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11390" RevisionGUID="a6d45f65-1a14-4aa7-aa09-54286a295269" CreationDate="2015-12-10T20:34:09.527" UserId="6402" Text="Газовая отрасль Российской Федерации при расчётах с потребителями использует атмосферные условия по ГОСТ 2939—63:&#xD;&#xA;температура +20° С (293,15 К);&#xD;&#xA;давление 760 мм рт. ст. (101 325 Н/м²);&#xD;&#xA;влажность равна 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стандартные условия это температура 0° С, давление 100 000 Н/м²&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование единиц измерения зависит от общепринятых норм в конкретной отрасли. Я думаю, что указываются кубометры в минуту и условия: стандартные (они же нормальные), или те что по ГОСТу. Сомневаюсь, что у нас используются кубические футы или какие-либо приставки, указывающие на атмосферные условия." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26325" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="4c717760-8aaf-4e35-af4d-d0f1c7b7c959" CreationDate="2015-12-10T21:31:27.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/675065313692622853" />
  <row Id="26326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11388" RevisionGUID="c36be0f9-46ac-4380-9ebc-48fe941a941b" CreationDate="2015-12-11T00:00:54.287" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Я работаю с многими русскими клиентами.  У нас тут в США привычка отличать в сообщениях ACFM (actual cubic feet per minute, фактические кубические футы в минуту) от SCFM (standard cubic feet per minute, кубические футы при определенных условиях в минуту).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У каждая культура свои обычаи.  Насколько я знаю, международная система единиц не определяет использование приставки &quot;N&quot;, вместе упомянутый выше &quot;S&quot;, который обозначает, что величина при определенных условиях.  Эту приставку используют всемирно.  А что насчет приставки &quot;A&quot;?  Строго говоря, зависит от культуры.  Используют ли эту приставку, или просто лишение приставки обозначает, что величина при настоящих условиях? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26327" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11378" RevisionGUID="761fd628-5a2c-4669-a5a0-ef6b97fea8ab" CreationDate="2015-12-11T00:31:28.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/675110615036375040" />
  <row Id="26328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="9db96e9c-1e24-417b-b0ff-66019d7e0cc7" CreationDate="2015-12-11T01:49:48.950" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="My tutor says that &quot;бы&quot; should follow &quot;хотел&quot;. Example: &quot;бы хотел стать&quot;. What do you think is most correct and natural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26329" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11384" RevisionGUID="9db96e9c-1e24-417b-b0ff-66019d7e0cc7" CreationDate="2015-12-11T01:49:48.950" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I put &quot;бы&quot;-particle at the beginning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11392" RevisionGUID="247f1688-bec5-424f-b294-2c4489228728" CreationDate="2015-12-11T13:41:34.387" UserId="134" Text="Brief googling shows us that vacuum equipment engineers in Russia use *л/мин (литры в минуту)* and *нл/мин (нормолитры в минуту)* which I believe correspond to your ACFM and SCFM with appropriate coefficients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This (in no way authoritative) [link][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Нл/мин&quot;, как и &quot;норм.л/мин&quot;, &quot;l/min (ANR)&quot; - обозначают расход воздуха, выраженный в так называемых &quot;нормальных&quot; литрах в минуту. Это значит, что количество воздуха выражено в виде объема, который занимал бы этот воздух при атмосферном давлении и температуре 20 градусов Цельсия. Эти условия регламентированы стандартами ГОСТ 2939-63 и ISO 8778. Иногда можно встретить обозначение &quot;л/мин&quot;. Если при этом специально не оговаривается, при каких условиях выражен объем воздуха, это можно понимать так, что ссылка на &quot;нормальные&quot; условия просто опущена (по небрежности или для краткости), но имеются в виду именно эти условия. Тогда отличия между &quot;нл/мин&quot; и &quot;л/мин&quot; нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Russian standards require that all unit names and abbreviations are transliterated, so Russian does not use W, l or mm Hg, but rather *Вт, л* and *мм. рт. ст. (миллиметр ртутного столба)*. So neither N nor S could be used as prefixes in Russian unit abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.smc-pneumatik.ru/gb.php?uid=15341" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11393" RevisionGUID="2b398213-d4cf-4b6f-917c-cedab1d1c018" CreationDate="2015-12-11T15:45:08.680" UserId="6386" Text="You are right, _возможно_ is an adjective in short form, it is possible to reconstruct the full phrase as&#xD;&#xA;если это будет возможно or even replace it with &quot;если это будет возможным&quot; (with adjective in full form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to _просто_ (that used rather as &quot;just&quot; in this context), it is formally classified in russian as a particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПРОСТО III. частица. Разг. 1. Совершенно, прямо. П. невероятно! Стихи - п. прелесть! П. стыдно смотреть на тебя. Дом п. разваливается на глазах. 2. Всего лишь, всего-навсего; не иначе как. Вы п. смеётесь над нами. Всё это п. детское упрямство. Он п. не умён. Зашёл к вам п. так (без особых причин, целей, намерений). Зовите меня п. Ваней. Учусь в Технологическом институте или п. в Техноложке. IV. союз. (соединяет предл. или чл. предл.). Выражает противопоставление, сопоставление (часто с уступительным оттенком). Да не болен, просто устал. Ты не лентяй, просто избалован.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Большой Толковый Словарь, источник: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE&amp;all=x )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an adverb only if it is clearly opposed to сложно (difficult): &quot;Это сложно сделать&quot; (It is difficult to do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, however, it is rather conventional classification as in both cases просто describes or clarifies the predicate rather than the subject,&#xD;&#xA;(It become more clear if we reconstruct the phrase as &quot;Я просто нахожусь не в настроениии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think you are _extremely_ wrong with _просто_ as adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11393" RevisionGUID="d93aab8a-a95a-4780-a274-8bb7ea0103df" CreationDate="2015-12-11T15:50:28.220" UserId="6386" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="You are right, _возможно_ is an adjective in short form, it is possible to reconstruct the full phrase as&#xD;&#xA;если это будет возможно or even replace it with &quot;если это будет возможным&quot; (with adjective in full form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to _просто_ (that used rather as &quot;just&quot; in this context), it is formally classified in Russian as a particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПРОСТО III. частица. Разг. 1. Совершенно, прямо. П. невероятно! Стихи - п. прелесть! П. стыдно смотреть на тебя. Дом п. разваливается на глазах. 2. Всего лишь, всего-навсего; не иначе как. Вы п. смеётесь над нами. Всё это п. детское упрямство. Он п. не умён. Зашёл к вам п. так (без особых причин, целей, намерений). Зовите меня п. Ваней. Учусь в Технологическом институте или п. в Техноложке. IV. союз. (соединяет предл. или чл. предл.). Выражает противопоставление, сопоставление (часто с уступительным оттенком). Да не болен, просто устал. Ты не лентяй, просто избалован.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Большой Толковый Словарь, источник: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE&amp;all=x )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an adverb only if it is clearly opposed to _сложно_: &quot;это просто сделать&quot; as an opposition to &quot;это сложно сделать&quot;, so _просто_ as adverb can be translated also as _easy_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, however, it is rather conventional classification as in both cases просто describes or clarifies the predicate rather than the subject,&#xD;&#xA;(It become more clear if we reconstruct the phrase as &quot;Я просто нахожусь не в настроениии&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think you are _extremely_ wrong with _просто_ as adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26336" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11350" RevisionGUID="28995e5c-b982-4463-8983-f3462e4fc1d7" CreationDate="2015-12-12T09:34:33.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/675609676344664064" />
  <row Id="26337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11394" RevisionGUID="8094727f-7a5d-464a-9af6-824f4a695015" CreationDate="2015-12-12T14:28:29.270" UserId="6165" Text="If you don't need to emphasize some part of the sentence specifically, it's better to put `бы` right after the main verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because if you put it somewhere it a sentence, it will be hard to catch the main idea that the sentence is one of a *conditional sentences*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially if you have more than one verb (as homogeneous parts of the sentence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="8d1fb690-663e-4a2a-87d2-b290a48bf68a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T22:21:16.130" UserId="6419" Text="I was told that it is possible to use: &quot;Я попробоваю&quot; when referring to &quot;i will try&quot; (to answer the question). I know that the verb: &quot;попробовать&quot; means &quot;to try&quot;. Is there some other phrase/s that could be used and that is/are perhaps more commonly used when want to say that I will try to answer the question (give it a try)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="8d1fb690-663e-4a2a-87d2-b290a48bf68a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T22:21:16.130" UserId="6419" Text="Is there a better way to express &quot;I will give it a try&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="8d1fb690-663e-4a2a-87d2-b290a48bf68a" CreationDate="2015-12-12T22:21:16.130" UserId="6419" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="9f3359d3-b3a0-489f-82a3-265c320006f6" CreationDate="2015-12-12T22:22:03.473" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I was told that it is possible to use: &quot;Я попробую&quot; when referring to &quot;i will try&quot; (to answer the question). I know that the verb: &quot;попробовать&quot; means &quot;to try&quot;. Is there some other phrase/s that could be used and that is/are perhaps more commonly used when want to say that I will try to answer the question (give it a try)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11396" RevisionGUID="8407d88a-9595-4ef8-b7e3-e718a40ce87a" CreationDate="2015-12-13T00:06:28.660" UserId="4560" Text="Actually **я попробую** *is* the best translation. **Попробовать** means to try tentatively. &quot;Trying&quot; as in &quot;making an effort&quot; is better expressed by different verbs, **постараться** or **попытаться**. One is for sustained effort, the other one is more all-or-nothing, but still different from **попробовать** which is more about seeing what happens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26343" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11381" RevisionGUID="174fc7fe-d988-4688-891c-ed1876efd211" CreationDate="2015-12-13T07:06:03.017" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How do Russians call a book of wishes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11360" RevisionGUID="7c4211bf-24a4-4932-b16c-f02353200135" CreationDate="2015-12-13T08:57:13.250" UserId="194" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&gt; начать с дерева = start from a/the tree&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; начать с деревом = start having a/the tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="f47f4d8a-cf2d-4956-8d8a-8e0c8ffade5a" CreationDate="2015-12-13T10:45:03.907" UserId="6420" Text="I could not reconstruct the meaning using the dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="f47f4d8a-cf2d-4956-8d8a-8e0c8ffade5a" CreationDate="2015-12-13T10:45:03.907" UserId="6420" Text="What does it mean &quot;контора дурку гонит&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="f47f4d8a-cf2d-4956-8d8a-8e0c8ffade5a" CreationDate="2015-12-13T10:45:03.907" UserId="6420" Text="|значения|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11398" RevisionGUID="7ab688c3-b077-45c6-b66b-31035c4e6e47" CreationDate="2015-12-13T12:18:32.293" UserId="1097" Text="The exact translation depends on the context.  &#xD;&#xA;Generally meaning 'office wants me to fool'. &quot;Office&quot; — Government, Police, Firm, Company, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11399" RevisionGUID="0d9815f5-ade7-4c9a-a555-7fd296e823b4" CreationDate="2015-12-13T13:26:09.987" UserId="1236" Text="It means &quot;the organization is acting in a wrong way,&quot; and it is not possible to translate it more precisely since the context is lacking. Please, provide the context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11398" RevisionGUID="5213e5c0-cdc3-4d1a-8d96-9e1221e82403" CreationDate="2015-12-13T13:27:15.623" UserId="1097" Comment="fix word order" Text="The exact translation depends on the context.  &#xD;&#xA;Generally meaning 'office wants to fool me'. &quot;Office&quot; — Government, Police, Firm, Company, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11400" RevisionGUID="2b9d27ea-a5b8-4886-ae77-784b7ed2ea4e" CreationDate="2015-12-13T16:28:23.273" UserId="5605" Text="*Гнать дурку* (сленг) - лгать, обманывать, вводить в заблуждение. *Контора* - так в СССР называли КГБ. Сейчас так могут называть ФСБ, МВД и другие официальные государственные структуры. Фразу *контора дурку гонит* можно &quot;перевести&quot; на литературный русский язык как, например, *правительство (ФСБ, МВД) лжёт (вводит в заблуждение)*..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11400" RevisionGUID="379327e7-808b-48ed-a46d-6569f8fcb970" CreationDate="2015-12-13T16:36:25.613" UserId="5605" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="*Гнать дурку* (сленг) - лгать, обманывать, вводить в заблуждение. *Контора* - так в СССР называли КГБ. Сейчас так могут называть ФСБ, МВД и другие официальные государственные структуры. Фразу *контора дурку гонит* можно &quot;перевести&quot; на литературный русский язык как, например, *правительство (ФСБ, МВД) лжёт (вводит в заблуждение)*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Гнать дурку* (slang) - to lie, to deceive, to mislead. *Контора* - in the USSR was called the KGB. So now you can call the FSB, interior Ministry and other official government agencies. The phrase *контора дурку гонит* can be &quot;translated&quot; into the literary Russian language as, for example, the government (FSB, MVD) is lying (misleading)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="e31ba360-7d98-4982-a4b1-cc0262d400b4" CreationDate="2015-12-13T19:05:22.653" UserId="5008" Text="_Дурка_ (slang) usually means _bedlam_, _madhouse_, but here it stands for _psychopathy_, _madness_. So _гнать дурку_ (or _гнать дуру_, _включить дуру_, _гнать дурочку_ etc.) means _to simulate mental disorder_ --&gt; _to deceive someone_ (Cf. _Что ты мне дурочку гонишь?_ = _Trying to fool me?_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Контора_ here is close to &quot;_Company_&quot;. It could be just &quot;some organization&quot; or specifically FSB (cf. Company = CIA). That depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the whole expression is to be interpreted as &quot;**the company fools [someone]**&quot;. Whatever it means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11401" RevisionGUID="42c023c8-f55d-4b33-9369-8c5890a995e0" CreationDate="2015-12-13T19:11:20.977" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="_Дурка_ (slang) usually means _bedlam_, _madhouse_, but here it stands for _psychopathy_, _madness_. So _гнать дурку_ (or _гнать дуру_, _включить дуру_, _гнать дурочку_ etc.) means _to simulate mental disorder_ --&gt; _to deceive someone_ (cf. _Что ты мне дурочку гонишь?_ = _Trying to fool me?_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Контора_ here is close to &quot;_Company_&quot;. It could be just &quot;some organization&quot; or specifically FSB (cf. Company = CIA). That depends on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the whole expression is to be interpreted as &quot;**the company fools [someone]**&quot;. Whatever it means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26355" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11361" RevisionGUID="3384a44c-837a-4849-be4b-52723f7afe81" CreationDate="2015-12-13T21:37:49.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/676154076246224896" />
  <row Id="26356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11402" RevisionGUID="53ee7cc9-13c7-4b62-b7b1-515686f213e2" CreationDate="2015-12-14T08:43:43.123" UserId="551" Text="&quot;Контора дурку гонит&quot; can mean that &quot;the organization (контора) is **intentionally** acting in a wrong way (гонит дурку), **pretending** that they incorrectly understand your requests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This meaning was shown in a [sketch by Arkadii Raikin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei_dztACr14) where &quot;organization&quot; imitates that client's order and requests on &quot;насосы&quot; (pumps) that they cannot produce, are understood on their end as &quot;колеса&quot; (wheels) that they have produced, packed and sent to the client." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11383" RevisionGUID="53adb77d-8d8a-44f7-8f2a-9703037538b3" CreationDate="2015-12-14T12:05:51.367" UserId="6274" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="both are correct, but &quot;об меня&quot; sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(here can be an especial situation since sound &quot;m&quot; produces some voice like a vowel, the same happens with &quot;n&quot;: об ногу is better then о ногу)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="ce72bafe-fde7-45d1-950a-bab8355d2b10" CreationDate="2015-12-14T14:14:30.390" UserId="5605" Text="Что значит *отслюнить пару косарей*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="ce72bafe-fde7-45d1-950a-bab8355d2b10" CreationDate="2015-12-14T14:14:30.390" UserId="5605" Text="Отслюнить пару косарей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="ce72bafe-fde7-45d1-950a-bab8355d2b10" CreationDate="2015-12-14T14:14:30.390" UserId="5605" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11404" RevisionGUID="8d1e3d96-342d-4aff-ab5f-46e062dc7803" CreationDate="2015-12-14T14:18:54.327" UserId="3680" Text="Я полагаю, *заплатить пару тысяч*. Либо *отсчитать пару тысяч*.  &#xD;&#xA;Здесь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* отслюнить - как мне представляется, основано на том, что некоторые слюнявят пальцы, отсчитывая купюры.  &#xD;&#xA;* косарь - это тысяча." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26362" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11298" RevisionGUID="94e0364c-af35-432c-bc6e-6fe260158276" CreationDate="2015-12-14T15:47:32.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/676428315994021888" />
  <row Id="26363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="db14fc39-8a08-4ccf-95d1-6847bb24bf95" CreationDate="2015-12-14T18:14:18.980" UserId="5605" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11405" RevisionGUID="b371e675-042b-4cce-99a5-b55f8d0cc751" CreationDate="2015-12-14T22:32:59.977" UserId="6344" Text="The Google and Yandex English translations don't make sense to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11405" RevisionGUID="b371e675-042b-4cce-99a5-b55f8d0cc751" CreationDate="2015-12-14T22:32:59.977" UserId="6344" Text="What does &quot;До тебя как до осла не доходит&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11405" RevisionGUID="b371e675-042b-4cce-99a5-b55f8d0cc751" CreationDate="2015-12-14T22:32:59.977" UserId="6344" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11405" RevisionGUID="53c5c2f1-dc80-4272-ad6f-fc229504f7b9" CreationDate="2015-12-14T23:27:35.603" UserId="6344" Comment="added tag for suspected idiom" Text="|перевод|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11408" RevisionGUID="432751c1-1499-4f59-9b4c-c7908d7753e5" CreationDate="2015-12-14T23:30:47.130" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="All together it means *&quot;You idiot don't get it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не доходит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that person doesn't get it. Literally it means *&quot;doesn't reach&quot;*, probably originating from &quot;idea not reaching one's mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как до осла&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*like a donkey*. Calling one a donkey is equal to calling one an idiot. I can't recall what animal has a similar role in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1718" RevisionGUID="665c85d5-4116-4d5b-ae6b-fc29c36956b9" CreationDate="2015-12-15T00:48:33.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/676564467765911552" />
  <row Id="26372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="a11795cd-b091-4381-8072-eedb8416aa17" CreationDate="2015-12-15T03:48:46.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/676609818698850304" />
  <row Id="26376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11409" RevisionGUID="43f4414d-6b14-49a3-b762-fb0f5930dc76" CreationDate="2015-12-15T07:17:16.500" UserId="5443" Text="&#xD;&#xA;It's rather a nonce expression than a popular one (I even failed to google it). However, it is understandable: the same as to call somebody a donkey (1 - stubborn, 2- silly animal). A popular expression to say that *somebody is slow minded*: &quot;**до него доходит как до жирафа**&quot;. This is a hint that due to its long neck it takes a while for a jiraffe to receive the sound of words, same as it takes some time for that person to understand something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11408" RevisionGUID="6f8431ad-0729-404f-bf17-de674e482ea0" CreationDate="2015-12-15T10:02:40.303" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="All together it means *&quot;You idiot don't get it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не доходит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that person doesn't get it. Literally it means *&quot;doesn't reach&quot;*, probably originating from &quot;idea not reaching one's mind&quot;. **This is used often.** My personal impression is that nowadays it's not so frequent as in 1990s. It can be both neutral and rude, depending on the tone and way of saying: one can say angrily *&quot;ну чё, до тебя не доходит что ли?!&quot;*, or politely wonder: *&quot;не дошло?&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как до осла&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*like a donkey*. Calling one a donkey is equal to calling one an idiot. I can't recall what animal has a similar role in English. It's very rude." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11408" RevisionGUID="418a6e97-19af-4c5f-b46a-4609ef1933fe" CreationDate="2015-12-15T10:08:34.760" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="All together it means *&quot;You idiot don't get it.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не доходит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that person doesn't get it. Literally it means *&quot;doesn't reach&quot;*, probably originating from &quot;idea not reaching one's mind&quot;. **This is used often.** My personal impression is that nowadays it's not so frequent as in 1990s. It can be both neutral and rude, depending on the tone and way of saying: one can say angrily *&quot;ну чё, до тебя не доходит что ли?!&quot;*, or politely wonder: *&quot;не дошло?&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A joke based on this is: *An animal in the zoo complains: oh God, during the day, the monkey tells jokes, and then the giraffe laughs all the night.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как до осла&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*like a donkey*. Calling one a donkey is equal to calling one an idiot. I can't recall what animal has a similar role in English. It's very rude." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="af1b098a-16da-46a0-8275-201379996837" CreationDate="2015-12-15T11:05:31.550" UserId="1836" Text="Я пишу рассказ, и в одном месте персонаж произносит фразу &quot;ты тоже не весь в белом&quot; в ответ на некие претензии. Проблема в том, что действие происходит в другой стране, а я не уверена что эта фраза не является &quot;кросс-культурной&quot; (не знаю как иначе сказать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответственно вопрос: откуда эта фраза вообще появилась и какие есть более кросс-культурные аналоги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ближайшее, что приходит мне в голову — &quot;а кто не без греха&quot; или &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot;, но мне хотелось бы избежать отсылок к библии (если это возможно). К тому же, вариант &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot; кажется мне менее резким, что тоже не вполне меня устраивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо за помощь, и надеюсь, что я обращаюсь по адресу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="af1b098a-16da-46a0-8275-201379996837" CreationDate="2015-12-15T11:05:31.550" UserId="1836" Text="Происхождение фразы &quot;ты весь в белом&quot; и ее аналоги" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="af1b098a-16da-46a0-8275-201379996837" CreationDate="2015-12-15T11:05:31.550" UserId="1836" Text="|этимология|фраза|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="a3795c4e-cf68-486d-8410-54732f4f818d" CreationDate="2015-12-15T12:39:39.160" UserId="1836" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Я пишу рассказ, и в одном месте персонаж произносит фразу &quot;ты тоже не весь в белом&quot; в ответ на некие претензии. Проблема в том, что действие происходит в другой стране, а я не уверена что эта фраза является &quot;кросс-культурной&quot; (не знаю как иначе сказать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответственно вопрос: откуда эта фраза вообще появилась и какие есть более кросс-культурные аналоги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ближайшее, что приходит мне в голову — &quot;а кто не без греха&quot; или &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot;, но мне хотелось бы избежать отсылок к библии (если это возможно). К тому же, вариант &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot; кажется мне менее резким, что тоже не вполне меня устраивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо за помощь, и надеюсь, что я обращаюсь по адресу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="48c82b1c-69b1-4cd8-808d-da9aa0b3202a" CreationDate="2015-12-15T12:42:37.573" UserId="6381" Text="In the middle of the process of learning the verbs of motion I stuck at **за** &amp; **обо** because it seems a little bit complicated. I would appreciate if you could direct me into the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I know about the prefix **за-**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - to beginn an action&#xD;&#xA; - to go into something&#xD;&#xA; - to go behind something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I know about the prefix **обо-**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - to go around something&#xD;&#xA; - to visit a place with reason&#xD;&#xA; - to walk around&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All sentences a picked up from [RT Russian Course][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(A couple talks about to buy a tour for her mum as a present.)* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молодец, давай зайдём в турфирму и выберем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the meaning drastically change if I would use **войдём** or rather **пойдём**? (In the meaning of &quot;to go into this agency&quot; / &quot;let's go to the agency&quot;) What does a russian native speaker understands here exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она сказала, что зайдёт в магазин на пять минут, а я жду её уже два часа! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm generally stuck with **зайдёт**. Would it not be correct to use **войдёт** as well? In the meaning of &quot;she will be in the store in 5 minutes&quot;. I know it's wrong because the online course states that but I'm confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 3**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Марк, это ты вчера заходил  ко мне в офис? – Да, я заходил к тебе, я был недалеко, хотел попить кофе вместе с тобой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does **заходил** mean that Mark went straight into the office or more in the sense of he visited the office. If the latter, why not use **обходил**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/verbs-of-motion-and-prefixes-za--and-obo/ &quot;RT Learn Russian&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="48c82b1c-69b1-4cd8-808d-da9aa0b3202a" CreationDate="2015-12-15T12:42:37.573" UserId="6381" Text="Difficulties with verbs of motion (за-, обо-, по-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="48c82b1c-69b1-4cd8-808d-da9aa0b3202a" CreationDate="2015-12-15T12:42:37.573" UserId="6381" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11412" RevisionGUID="fb2e1f25-ab75-43f3-b4f2-f3e9797d39ad" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:10:15.750" UserId="310" Text="В английском есть похожее: Knight in shining armor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому, кажется, можно считать эту фразу переводимой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="088ffbd0-34ea-49ab-b96d-0dbf170c396b" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:44:23.673" UserId="5605" Text="В России есть довольно старый и многим известный анекдот, из которого, скорее всего, и взята фраза &quot;и тут выхожу *я -- весь в белом*&quot;: Пришёл в цирк человек с проектом нового номера. «Поднимают под купол здоровенный брезентовый мешок. Шпрехшталмейстер в него стреляет. Мешок лопается. И оказывается — он заполнен дерьмом. Шпрехшталмейстер в дерьме. Униформисты в дерьме. Оркестр в дерьме. Публика вся в дерьме. И тут выхожу я — весь в белом». " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11414" RevisionGUID="0625735b-7429-454c-a21a-f850e5e5fa35" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:48:02.040" UserId="6425" Text="«войти» and «зайти» are ALMOST synonymous in the context of entering something like a room or a building, when no indication of the purpose is given. For instance:&#xD;&#xA; *Они прошли через двор и вошли в дом*. You could also say «… зашли в дом». &#xD;&#xA;What matters here is that they went inside the building, even though we don't know why they went there. &#xD;&#xA;*В гостиную вошел молодой человек со свертков в руке.* Same logic here.&#xD;&#xA;When you say «Она зашла в магазин», the obvious purpose is implied, and «она вошла в магазин» sounds awkward&#xD;&#xA;«Зайти» и «пойти» are almost synonymous when describing a visit (or a trip) with a purpose, but there is a subtle difference: «зайти» is more like “to stop by”, it implies an action along the way of something else. For example:&#xD;&#xA;-Ты пойдешь со мной в магазин сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;- Да, только давай зайдем на почту, мне нужно отправить письмо.&#xD;&#xA;This implies that the store is the final destination, while post office is visited along the way. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11415" RevisionGUID="febc55c9-8609-49ea-a5d3-7e904cf7e701" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:52:34.517" UserId="310" Text="The prefix за- has another distinct meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To perform a quick action (without disturbing larger plans).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, зайдём or забежим means we'll also visit the agency, see if they have something on the spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they plan to go for more thorough examination, they would probably say &quot;сходим&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="43b41496-a71a-407f-9d6a-515a8ab6debb" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:53:55.470" UserId="1836" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="Я пишу рассказ, и в одном месте персонаж произносит фразу &quot;Я был не прав, но и ты не весь в белом&quot; в ответ на некие претензии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моей голове, эта фраза имеет оттенок &quot;ты тоже не с чистыми руками вышел из ситуации&quot;, &quot;и твоя вина в этом есть&quot;, что-то в таком ключе, хотя основной смысл — &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot;. Однако же, у меня есть сомнения в том, общепринято ли именно такое восприятие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, действие происходит в другой стране (предполагается что на самом деле герои разговаривают на другом языке. Поэтому мне хотелось бы, чтобы фраза была кросс-культурной или хотя бы переводимой. То есть я не хочу использовать локализм не имеющий аналогов в других странах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответственно вопрос: откуда эта фраза вообще появилась и какие есть более кросс-культурные или хотя бы переводимые аналоги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ближайшее, что приходит мне в голову — &quot;а кто не без греха&quot; или &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot;, но мне хотелось бы избежать отсылок к библии (если это возможно). К тому же, вариант &quot;ты тоже не безгрешен&quot; кажется мне менее резким, что тоже не вполне меня устраивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заранее спасибо за помощь, и надеюсь, что я обращаюсь по адресу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11413" RevisionGUID="df9efde7-963c-4e6d-9276-06a1ea27dbde" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:56:18.943" UserId="5605" Comment="added 469 characters in body" Text="В России есть довольно старый и многим известный анекдот, из которого, скорее всего, и взята фраза &quot;и тут выхожу *я -- весь в белом*&quot;: Пришёл в цирк человек с проектом нового номера. «Поднимают под купол здоровенный брезентовый мешок. Шпрехшталмейстер в него стреляет. Мешок лопается. И оказывается — он заполнен дерьмом. Шпрехшталмейстер в дерьме. Униформисты в дерьме. Оркестр в дерьме. Публика вся в дерьме. И тут выхожу я — весь в белом». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассказывают этот анекдот по-разному. Вот другой вариант: Приходит мужик к директору цирка и говорит: &quot;У меня есть для вашего шоу замечательный номер&quot;. Директор: &quot;Ну давай, излагай.&quot; Мужик с блеском в глазу: &quot;Подвешиваем под потолок огроменную бадью с дерьмом. Гаснет свет, только прожектора шур-шур, маэстро взмахнул палочкой, зарокотал барабан, всё громче и громче, и вдруг эта бадья из-под самого купола шмяк... Весь цирк в дерьме, и тут выхожу Я. Весь в белом.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11416" RevisionGUID="b8d3d14e-32d8-4cea-aa0b-e717363969fd" CreationDate="2015-12-15T14:35:02.620" UserId="5008" Text="Если в этом месте не предполагается обязательного наличия какого-нибудь фразеологизма, то можно сказать просто:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был не прав, но и ты ничем не лучше" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11417" RevisionGUID="de5482ee-bc50-4c3c-9ae9-fd616611f1f0" CreationDate="2015-12-15T15:22:46.733" UserId="5008" Text="Q1. _Войти_ means _to go inside_, _to enter_; it's not what you mean, I guess. Concerning _Пойти_ vs. _Зайти_, the first verb is just the &quot;normal&quot; way of saying &quot;_to go to_&quot;, but the second one is special: prefix _за-_ here gives the notion of &quot;_by the way_&quot;, i.e. _давай зайдём_ is not really &quot;let's go&quot;, but rather &quot;let's go as we're close to it&quot; (also _давай зайдем как-нибудь_ = &quot;let's go some day, when it will be convenient for us&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Again, _Войти_ means simply _to enter_, which has little sense here (&quot;she said that she enters the shop&quot; - so what!?). The speaker tries to emphasize that she will go _for a short time_ (cf. also commonly spoken _заскочить_). So the choice of _Зайти_ is obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. Well, why _Заходить_ is OK, it should be clear from Q1 and Q2. About _Обходить_, it means _go around_ or _make rounds_, but you can't use it when talking about a single person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11416" RevisionGUID="8e785eb1-43ba-4f45-acb0-1d9aafd40626" CreationDate="2015-12-15T15:34:10.990" UserId="5008" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Если в этом месте не предполагается обязательного наличия какого-нибудь фразеологизма, то можно сказать просто:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был не прав, но и ты ничем не лучше  &#xD;&#xA;Я был не прав, но и ты хорош&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из &quot;универсальных&quot; оборотов на ум приходит только ангел:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но и ты - не ангел" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11418" RevisionGUID="087047f5-aa29-4871-a097-ad757f47e9e9" CreationDate="2015-12-15T16:20:02.797" UserId="1097" Text="Войти в агентство — Just a change of location. Completed action. A moment ago, you were out of the agency, and now - within the agency, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Зайти в агентство — Completed action. Visit the agency with any purpose. Also can means &quot;Войти в агенство&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пойти в агентство — Guides(Go) to the Agency. Uncompleted action. You can go, but do not get into the agency for some reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обойти агентство — To bypass Agency without entering into it. Or being already within the agency, to bypass all of its rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зайти в магазин на 5 минут — enter the store and leave it in 5 minutes. &quot;зайти&quot; here - not only to enter but to go out after a short time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зайти в офис (находясь рядом) — Slightly changing the route(located nearby) cause a short visit to the office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обойти офис — The same as &quot;Обойти агентство&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26396" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11410" RevisionGUID="43f27d23-8b10-4d20-a05e-c31ef8ca7c6e" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:48:42.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/676926891341848577" />
  <row Id="26397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="06f54f0f-9611-42ee-b26d-94c54c3dc3a6" CreationDate="2015-12-16T08:34:33.043" UserId="5477" Text="In Второзаконие 32:13-14 I read the word агнец, which appears in genitive plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он вознес его на высоту земли и кормил произведениями полей, и питал его медом из камня и елеем из твердой скалы, маслом коровьим и молоком овечьим, и туком **агнцев** и овнов Васанских и козлов, и тучною пшеницею, и ты пил вино, кровь виноградных ягод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to pronounce this word (агнцев)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three consonants in a row (гнц). Isn't there any vowel sound in between these, especially in between the г and the н?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="06f54f0f-9611-42ee-b26d-94c54c3dc3a6" CreationDate="2015-12-16T08:34:33.043" UserId="5477" Text="How to pronounce the word агнцев (three consonants in row)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="06f54f0f-9611-42ee-b26d-94c54c3dc3a6" CreationDate="2015-12-16T08:34:33.043" UserId="5477" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11420" RevisionGUID="4d5fc9dd-8b8b-409f-99d4-9493efa4dfd0" CreationDate="2015-12-16T09:23:50.637" UserId="134" Text="You pronounce a schwa between *г* and *н*: *['agənt͡sɨf]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the poetic rhyme calls for a two-syllable word, like here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой люблю я, в мыслях сладких,  &#xD;&#xA;Собрать, устроить, просветить  &#xD;&#xA;Народы; тигров, к крови падких,   &#xD;&#xA;В смиренных агнцев превратить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, the *г* itself becomes lenient (vowel-like) and articulates as a nasalized uvular stop: *['aɢ&amp;#771;nt͡sɨf]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11420" RevisionGUID="01c4a08e-bf61-4df3-a249-764298fa6e20" CreationDate="2015-12-16T10:45:22.050" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You pronounce a schwa between *г* and *н*: *['agənt͡sɨf]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the poetic rhythm calls for a two-syllable word, like here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С тобой люблю я, в мыслях сладких,  &#xD;&#xA;Собрать, устроить, просветить  &#xD;&#xA;Народы; тигров, к крови падких,   &#xD;&#xA;В смиренных агнцев превратить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, the *г* itself becomes lenient (vowel-like) and articulates as a nasalized uvular stop: *['aɢ&amp;#771;nt͡sɨf]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11421" RevisionGUID="06c9344b-18ad-46c5-a62c-f132bb78f8f7" CreationDate="2015-12-16T10:51:38.103" UserId="2060" Text="Slavic languages are notorious for use of consonant clusters. Russian is not that bad when compared to, say, Polish, but still one may have a hard time mastering those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like @Quassnoi said, sometimes it may sound as if schwa were in between consonants, but basically you should really try not to pronounce any vowels at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now try to pronounce a funny made-up word *контрвзбзднуть*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26403" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="e570d358-4129-446d-a264-f5c6f35ccc2d" CreationDate="2015-12-16T10:53:23.447" UserId="2060" Comment="+ tag" Text="|произношение|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11418" RevisionGUID="794929eb-0b45-4cb1-a2c1-d6b294765e15" CreationDate="2015-12-16T14:00:37.303" UserId="1097" Comment="expand &quot;обойти&quot;" Text="Войти в агентство — Just a change of location. Completed action. A moment ago, you were out of the agency, and now - within the agency, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Зайти в агентство — Completed action. Visit the agency with any purpose. Also can means &quot;Войти в агенство&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пойти в агентство — Guides(Go) to the Agency. Uncompleted action. You can go, but do not get into the agency for some reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обойти агентство — To bypass Agency without entering into it.  &#xD;&#xA;Обойти всё агентство — Being already within the agency, to visit every room,  visit all the places within it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зайти в магазин на 5 минут — enter the store and leave it in 5 minutes. &quot;зайти&quot; here - not only to enter but to go out after a short time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зайти в офис (находясь рядом) — Slightly changing the route(located nearby) cause a short visit to the office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обойти офис — To bypass office without entering into it.  &#xD;&#xA;Обойти весь офис —  Being already within the office, to visit every room, visit all the places within it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11422" RevisionGUID="1b3ce03d-8b25-4bc9-bd10-4374d46fa179" CreationDate="2015-12-16T15:31:05.297" UserId="6354" Text="**скоро** means *quickly*, and **скорее** is the comparative form of **скоро**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the difference between **скорее** and **поскорее**? Don't they both fundamentally mean *quicker*? Or are they not interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) постарайтесь увидеть этот фильм **скорее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) постарайтесь увидеть этот фильм **поскорее**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11422" RevisionGUID="1b3ce03d-8b25-4bc9-bd10-4374d46fa179" CreationDate="2015-12-16T15:31:05.297" UserId="6354" Text="скорее versus поскорее" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11422" RevisionGUID="1b3ce03d-8b25-4bc9-bd10-4374d46fa179" CreationDate="2015-12-16T15:31:05.297" UserId="6354" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11423" RevisionGUID="1e91c989-f025-47e1-a162-d6bf229c80a5" CreationDate="2015-12-16T16:05:31.223" UserId="3680" Text="I believe that these words are synonyms in the most cases, but in your example the second option IMO looks *more Russian*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's because `Поскорее` means something like `the earlier the better` and not just `quicker`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11424" RevisionGUID="60766018-063e-4568-8c76-4ccf07cdccc9" CreationDate="2015-12-16T16:07:50.117" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, &quot;_скорее_&quot; may also mean &quot;_rather_&quot;, which is not the case for &quot;_поскорее_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, when both actually mean &quot;_quicker_&quot;, they are synonyms, yet _поскорее_ sounds more natural if used alone, while _скорее_ is usually better if used in a &quot;full&quot; comparative construction (i.e. &quot;quicker than smth.&quot;). That is in your example sentence, I would certainly choose _поскорее_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="1dc4fad3-8dfd-419a-9dd8-1bdbda4e6db2" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:22:10.250" UserId="6430" Text="Скажите пожалуйста какая разница между: Приглашать и Пригласить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would you use either one of them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="1dc4fad3-8dfd-419a-9dd8-1bdbda4e6db2" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:22:10.250" UserId="6430" Text="Приглашать или Пригласить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="1dc4fad3-8dfd-419a-9dd8-1bdbda4e6db2" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:22:10.250" UserId="6430" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11426" RevisionGUID="03dc3e40-a364-479e-b99c-bc55cff7351e" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:31:14.487" UserId="3680" Text="These are two aspects of the same verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Imperfective aspect: `Приглашать`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Perfective aspect: `Пригласить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info and examples: [External link](http://russianstepbystep.com/load/1-1-0-51)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="db639209-5515-4986-bb6f-c18874b68691" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:32:00.597" UserId="6430" Text="The system wants 30 characters lets try again: Try this one: https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86&amp;lang=ru-en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11427" RevisionGUID="e361c43d-573c-4acc-b888-cbff1a7e4f46" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:47:57.117" UserId="6430" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The system wants 30 characters lets try again:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try this one: https://translate.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86&amp;lang=ru-en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11429" RevisionGUID="b0eb9b94-8c62-4047-ad80-cdbafc6cf02b" CreationDate="2015-12-16T22:18:12.967" UserId="4356" Text="You can hear my pronunciation here (I'm a native speaker):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9c5ff-vyZgcTi00c2VMUC00VWc/view" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11430" RevisionGUID="b20ab3a3-d1c1-4af3-820c-355dd60cd48b" CreationDate="2015-12-17T09:57:26.330" UserId="5443" Text="The difference in usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&quot;**Пригласить**&quot; means to invite somebody **just once** (on some occasion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Она пригласила его на свадьбу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Позвольте пригласить вас на танец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&quot;**Приглашать**&quot; is used in most other cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(a)** somebody was invited numerous times, each time, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Каждый год я приглашал её на Рождество.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(b)** in some negative expressions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он пришёл в гости, хотя я его не приглашал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(it is also possible to say &quot;не пригласил&quot; here but the version above adds a bit of emphasis, like 'I can't remember inviting him', 'I definitely did't invite him')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(c)** in case where the invitation wasn't accepted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я его приглашал, но он отказался от приглашения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(like, he 'failed to invite' that person, maybe even tried it twice, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(d)** when speaking about past days (maybe once, but long ago)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я в своё время даже приглашал его на охоту. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="a6098ff9-e221-4fd2-a813-29814a510495" CreationDate="2015-12-17T12:26:38.463" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|перевод|грамматика|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11431" RevisionGUID="570aeadd-f1d1-4fc4-afac-c2d3840b0529" CreationDate="2015-12-17T22:00:00.583" UserId="6432" Text="Nominative is mostly used when noun acts as a *subject*. In your case &quot;father&quot; is an *object*, and there is no subject at all. Such sentences are called *impersonal* since there is no distinct subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English &quot;there is&quot;/&quot;it is&quot; or similar constructions are used for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No you could ask why the *accusative* is not used then, and the reason is &quot;не стало чего-либо/кого-либо&quot; simply demands noun in *genitive*. One could also try to invoke the negation rule that explains change of *accusative* to *genitive* in negated sentences but &quot;стать&quot; is not a transitive verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11432" RevisionGUID="2483eed1-8644-427b-9c14-1b2a036cadde" CreationDate="2015-12-18T03:26:45.207" UserId="4454" Text="Uh. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know, sometimes there is no specific rule, but rather a literary tradition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is о, об, and обо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To choose between об/обо there is pretty simple tradition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Добавление гласного -о к предлогу об (об + о = обо) происходит в сочетаниях: обо мне, обо что, обо всё; обо также наряду с о (обо or о) употребляется в сочетаниях: обо всём, обо всей, обо всех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first part, it will not be right to say о мне, о что, о всё. However, you can actually say о всём/обо всём (подумать о/обо всём - to take account on everything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To chose о or об there is a longer story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ОБ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Об&quot; употребляется вместо &quot;о&quot; перед словами, начинающимися с гласных а, и, о, у, э: об армии, об игре, об огне, об угол, об электричестве, об эту пору.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|| Перед словами, начинающимися с гласных е, я, ю, &quot;об&quot; употр. наряду с &quot;о&quot;, причем предпочтительно &quot;о&quot; : о елях, о его деле, о ее деле, о юности, о ягодах. (so you rather speak о, but will not be wrong to speak об елях, об его деле and so on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|| Перед местоимением &quot;их&quot; употребляется &quot;о&quot; наряду с &quot;об&quot; : о их деле и об их деле.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перед словами, начинающимися с согласной, &quot;об&quot; часто, но не обязательно, употребляется в просторечии вместо &quot;о&quot;: об доме, об тебе, а также в некоторых сочетаниях и в литературной речи, например: рука об руку; биться, как рыба об лед и другие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «- Вы слышали об нем? - Об ком? - Об Чацком.» Грибоедов.&#xD;&#xA; - «Уж об твоем ли не радели об воспитании! С колыбели!» Грибоедов.&#xD;&#xA; - «Ну вот о чем жалеть! Об лошади!» Пушкин.&#xD;&#xA; - «Об ней жалели в доме все.» Пушкин.&#xD;&#xA; - «Мыслил только об деле.» Салтыков-Щедрин.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11433" RevisionGUID="8c4459bb-c8ea-4c8f-b5cf-0f261ed5fcc2" CreationDate="2015-12-18T04:18:51.577" UserId="4454" Text="There is no straight analog for &quot;fun&quot; and its usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself, &quot;have fun&quot; is rather &quot;повеселись&quot;. But if in English you are having something fun, in Russian you rather doing something fun. Which make a big difference in grammatical constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as far as I understand, in English it's okay to have a conversation like:&#xD;&#xA;- I'm going to cinema.&#xD;&#xA;- Great, have fun!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Russian you usually will not see something like:&#xD;&#xA;- Я иду в кино.&#xD;&#xA;- Здорово, повеселись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it is not incorrect in any terms of grammar (if only the movie is not a horror or a lachrymose romance), it is just not like people are actually talking. In that case, if you don't want to expose yourself as a foreign spy, you should rather answer something like &quot;приятного просмотра&quot; or &quot;приятно провести время&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, &quot;to have fun&quot; is not the thing Russians are wish to each other in conversations too often. Although this is not means they aren't wish it at all. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if to translate &quot;Did you have a fun night?&quot; - I would say it is &quot;Ты хорошо провёл вечер/ночь?&quot;. Depends on what the night actually was, 6PM - 0AM, or 0AM - 6AM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Have fun&quot; is very general, but in Russian, in such cases, it is more specific to context:&#xD;&#xA;Приятного просмотра - have fun [in cinema]&#xD;&#xA;Приятно посидеть - have fun [in pub]&#xD;&#xA;Приятно покататься - have fun [in any activity involving driving]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. General phrase &quot;приятно провести время&quot; covers almost all cases, I believe, but as you see it is much longer than just &quot;have fun&quot;, and thus a bit formal phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if I'm correct, you could say &quot;have fun&quot; just like &quot;good luck&quot; (удачи) in some cases. &quot;Приятно провести время&quot; doesn't cover this, it is bound to an ongoing event that suggests having actual fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="541ec64c-1b32-4b39-920d-f1574bf8a90a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T12:24:12.100" UserId="6354" Text="Take a sentence such as *Я имею **основания** ей не верить*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If основания is **accusative**, then it must be **plural**. And thus the translation will be: I have **reasons** not to trust her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if основания is **genitive**, then it must be **singular**. And thus the translation will be: I have a **reason** not to trust her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure native Russian speakers can identify the correct form instantly from years of input, but what is going on behind the scenes here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I must simply know that there are no rules that make **основания** genitive here, and therefore it must be accusative, and mean reason**s**, not reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="541ec64c-1b32-4b39-920d-f1574bf8a90a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T12:24:12.100" UserId="6354" Text="Noun case and plurality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="541ec64c-1b32-4b39-920d-f1574bf8a90a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T12:24:12.100" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11436" RevisionGUID="bcece029-8098-4dc9-b1cf-d281c01807ce" CreationDate="2015-12-18T13:21:33.377" UserId="134" Text="First, a side note: unlike most other languages, you don't use *имею* in Russian unless there's a reason to. Here, you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания ей верить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *имею* (or *быть* in proximal possessive sense) does not govern genitive when positive, but does when negative. That's how the language works. It is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть* (or *я имею*) + nom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня нет* (or *я не имею*) + gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нет основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is negative, hence the object is in genitive, hence it is singular, and the whole sentence means &quot;I don't have a reason&quot;; or you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is positive, hence the object is in nominative, hence it is plural. This means &quot;I have (my) reasons&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11437" RevisionGUID="92131f04-7884-40be-9de2-be7c55ffeee9" CreationDate="2015-12-18T14:55:09.660" UserId="6438" Text="Wow man! I went searching to find an understanding of the same thing. Why &quot;I'm at home&quot; would be translated &quot;я дома&quot; with дом in the genitive as opposed to maybe with a preposition, like &quot;я на доме&quot; or &quot;я в доме&quot;. I guess sometimes you just have to accept that that's the way it's said and that's what it means.And really, that's how all children learn their native language. Everything is taught by rote repetition and only after a good few years of learning to use the language by trial and error can one then reflect back on the whys of it all :p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11436" RevisionGUID="ebb6183f-dae7-425e-b8d4-d3edb455f400" CreationDate="2015-12-18T15:52:30.723" UserId="134" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="First, a side note: unlike most other languages, you don't use *имею* in Russian unless there's a reason to. See this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C-vs-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-for-physical-things/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания ей не верить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *имею* (or *быть* in proximal possessive sense) does not govern genitive when positive, but does when negative. That's how the language works. It is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть* (or *я имею*) + nom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня нет* (or *я не имею*) + gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нет основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is negative, hence the object is in genitive, hence it is singular, and the whole sentence means &quot;I don't have a reason&quot;; or you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is positive, hence the object is in nominative, hence it is plural. This means &quot;I have (my) reasons&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11419" RevisionGUID="3550bed6-6a8b-4dca-807e-70fb6093495c" CreationDate="2015-12-18T16:05:45.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/677882450043797504" />
  <row Id="26438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11436" RevisionGUID="efd60e54-6de5-409a-b771-bce45611af1e" CreationDate="2015-12-18T18:57:51.063" UserId="134" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="First, a side note: unlike most other languages, you don't use *имею* in Russian unless there's a reason to. See this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C-vs-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-for-physical-things/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания ей не верить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *имею* (or *быть* in proximal possessive sense) does not govern genitive when positive, but does when negative. That's how the language works. It is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть + nom.* (or *я имею + acc.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня нет* (or *я не имею*) *+ gen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нет основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is negative, hence the object is in genitive, hence it is singular, and the whole sentence means &quot;I don't have a reason&quot;; or you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is positive, hence the object is in nominative, hence it is plural. This means &quot;I have (my) reasons&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11437" RevisionGUID="f41ed265-5df9-4535-8c07-97c03bae9f8a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T19:06:19.453" UserId="97" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="I too was looking for answer to the same question: why &quot;I'm at home&quot; would be translated &quot;я дома&quot; with дом in the genitive as opposed to maybe with a preposition, like &quot;я на доме&quot; or &quot;я в доме&quot;. I guess sometimes you just have to accept that that's the way it's said and that's what it means. Really, that's how all children learn their native language. Everything is taught by repetition and only after a good few years of learning to use the language by trial and error can one then reflect back on the why's of it all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11438" RevisionGUID="a1814e43-8c4a-4d26-992e-a407776a390e" CreationDate="2015-12-18T19:43:31.837" UserId="6442" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я знаю русский язык.&quot; and &quot;Я говорю русский язык.&quot; is as I have understood it equal in meaning (please, correct me if I am wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today my tutor told me that: &quot;Я говорю русский язык.&quot; is the preferred phrase to use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer to use: &quot;Я знаю русский язык&quot; that is if they are equal in meaning. Let me know what you think and if there is a difference between these two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11438" RevisionGUID="a1814e43-8c4a-4d26-992e-a407776a390e" CreationDate="2015-12-18T19:43:31.837" UserId="6442" Text="Dífference between: &quot;Я знаю русский язык.&quot; and &quot;Я говорю русский язык.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11438" RevisionGUID="a1814e43-8c4a-4d26-992e-a407776a390e" CreationDate="2015-12-18T19:43:31.837" UserId="6442" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11439" RevisionGUID="4ebd628d-de0d-490e-9c6c-05b9ed840373" CreationDate="2015-12-18T20:00:24.963" UserId="4481" Text="&quot;Я говорю русский язык&quot; is absolutely incorrect. You should say  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я говорю по-русски  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю русский язык" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="3e349a3a-e08c-4601-97eb-d937f20c59cf" CreationDate="2015-12-18T20:00:36.300" UserId="3680" Text="Your tutor is wrong. The second option sounds incorrectly.  &#xD;&#xA;Correct options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю русский (язык).  &#xD;&#xA;Я говорю по-русски.  &#xD;&#xA;Я говорю на русском языке.  &#xD;&#xA;Я владею русским (языком).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO: The last is the preferable one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="b14e0d86-86bf-4d6b-af53-0f94c8d4e6b4" CreationDate="2015-12-18T20:11:51.530" UserId="3680" Comment="options were sorted in the correct order" Text="Your tutor is wrong. The second option sounds incorrectly.  &#xD;&#xA;Correct options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я владею русским (языком).  &#xD;&#xA;Я знаю русский (язык).  &#xD;&#xA;Я говорю по-русски.  &#xD;&#xA;Я говорю на русском (языке).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO: The first is the preferable one. The last is the worst." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="0be87b0c-20e6-4f0d-94c6-a4a4ec737593" CreationDate="2015-12-19T02:18:52.977" UserId="6444" Text="Rosetta Stone is trying to teach me there any difference between `Мужчина в туфлях` when it previously taught that на should be used for wearing clothing with words such as туфли, шляпа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="0be87b0c-20e6-4f0d-94c6-a4a4ec737593" CreationDate="2015-12-19T02:18:52.977" UserId="6444" Text="Difference between на and в in clothing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="0be87b0c-20e6-4f0d-94c6-a4a4ec737593" CreationDate="2015-12-19T02:18:52.977" UserId="6444" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11442" RevisionGUID="1ca67433-ad03-48a4-b7ce-1ca9768d89e9" CreationDate="2015-12-19T04:25:17.317" UserId="5443" Text="**Мужчина в туфлях** (в ботинках; туфли из more typical for women to wear) translates as '**a man wearing shoes**' (literally, with shoes on his feet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**На мужчине (были) туфли** is a possible expession to describe someone's appearance; it includes *a verb* and is more like '**that man has (had) shoes on his feet**'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="32502a56-65d2-427e-9487-386192665c5d" CreationDate="2015-12-19T12:12:54.403" UserId="3680" Comment="added another meaning from @Matt" Text="Your tutor is wrong. The second option sounds incorrectly.  &#xD;&#xA;Correct options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я владею русским (языком).  &#xD;&#xA;Я говорю по-русски.  &#xD;&#xA;Я знаю русский (язык).  &#xD;&#xA;Я говорю на русском (языке).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO: The first is the preferable one. The last is the worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Matt mentioned in comment, the last has also another meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Now] I'm speaking Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11440" RevisionGUID="d8cb275d-bf24-492f-aa96-dc91577d9954" CreationDate="2015-12-19T21:47:31.580" UserId="3680" Comment="added details about secondary meaning" Text="Your tutor is wrong. The second option sounds incorrectly.  &#xD;&#xA;Correct options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я владею русским (языком).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Я говорю по-русски.  &#xD;&#xA;3. Я знаю русский (язык).  &#xD;&#xA;4. Я говорю на русском (языке).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO: The first is the preferable one. The last is the worst.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Matt and @user907860 mentioned in comment, `Я говорю` has two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I speak  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Now] I'm speaking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So options 2 and 4 can have another meaning in some circustances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="ce3c3e0e-2625-479d-82f5-49ca36425241" CreationDate="2015-12-19T22:45:39.643" UserId="6445" Text="**Мужчина в туфлях** had the meaning &quot;man wearing shoes&quot;. The important rule is that sentence tells you about a man **as the main subject of the sentence** who wears some piece of clothing (which is not a main subject, but an attribute to describe the person) - a man or woman wearing something should be described normally using **в**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мужчина в одежде&#xD;&#xA;    Женщина в платье \ в пальто \ в шапке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use **на** is when wearer is NOT a main subject of the expression, and piece of clothes IS THE SUBJECT. Then use the clothing name followed by **на** and  reference to whoever has that piece of clothing on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пальто на жещине&#xD;&#xA;    Одежда на мужчине&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this gets you the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26453" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11435" RevisionGUID="5d44855c-d86e-48a1-a393-6d5230f9e150" CreationDate="2015-12-20T04:08:36.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/678426751719088130" />
  <row Id="26456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11445" RevisionGUID="b6656a20-8eae-4d31-9492-7d477ee3eb9b" CreationDate="2015-12-20T13:15:29.537" UserId="6448" Text="Is there any situations where: прямо is pronounced as: прямó?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was watching the victory parade, the one in China and I got the impression that the officer said: &quot;прямó&quot; but i could have heard wrong. Please let me know if there exist a distinction in pronunciation for this word. If there is no distinction I will apply for a hearing aid. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From RT: starting at: 25:25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoC0Xcjko0A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11445" RevisionGUID="b6656a20-8eae-4d31-9492-7d477ee3eb9b" CreationDate="2015-12-20T13:15:29.537" UserId="6448" Text="Prounciation of прямо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11445" RevisionGUID="b6656a20-8eae-4d31-9492-7d477ee3eb9b" CreationDate="2015-12-20T13:15:29.537" UserId="6448" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="a5f01fc2-d7fd-4802-b46b-231e957267cf" CreationDate="2015-12-20T13:24:30.343" UserId="3680" Text="Military aural commands can have several stresses.  &#xD;&#xA;Typically a word is divided into two parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All syllables, except the last one. It identifies a command and means _get ready for step 2_.&#xD;&#xA;2. The last syllable that means _Go!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нале-во!  &#xD;&#xA;Напра-во!  &#xD;&#xA;Пря-мо!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11447" RevisionGUID="7098a3bd-ffba-4d6e-a1b4-72669e2b2805" CreationDate="2015-12-20T17:12:49.590" UserId="6449" Text="I do not know about rules, but &quot;o меня&quot; sounds incorrect for me. Never heard or read a Russian native speaker use it. I live in Kharkiv, Ukraine and speak Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11280" RevisionGUID="b559f44e-00ff-46b9-9262-46987f9a65ea" CreationDate="2015-12-20T22:08:42.920" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/678698568358748160" />
  <row Id="26463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11448" RevisionGUID="6399b6d9-b0f3-4750-abdb-73e1516ae076" CreationDate="2015-12-21T12:42:21.193" UserId="4454" Text="In this case you can just apply a direct translation and be good: в = in, на = on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;a man in hat/shoes/gloves/etc&quot; = &quot;мужчина в шляпе/туфлях/перчатках/и т.д.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hat/shoes/gloves/etc on a man&quot; = &quot;шляпа/туфли/перчатки/и т.д. на мужчине&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Штаны на ремне&quot; = &quot;pants on a belt&quot;, I don't sure if it is the way to actually say it in English, but the meaning is quite obvious, and the pants are holding on that belt, not in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One not so obvious case I've found is &quot;ходить на высоких каблуках&quot; or &quot;носить обувь на высоких каблуках&quot;. As I see it is rather &quot;in high heels&quot; in English, but this just because &quot;high heels&quot; is used as &quot;shoes with high heels&quot; equivalent, and one wearing shoes is _in_ the shoes, not _on_ it. But if your shoes have any heels, you are definitely standing on that heels, not in them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the words and the context translates quite straightforward. You can say both &quot;в/на высоких каблуках&quot; regarding to wearing such shoes, but if there is any standing on those heels involved, it is always &quot;on&quot;=&quot;на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you definitely not &quot;ходишь на шляпе&quot; or &quot;ходишь на туфлях&quot;, this is weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26466" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11445" RevisionGUID="fe4934ed-4e57-48fe-86ab-a461fbfacf14" CreationDate="2015-12-21T19:18:39.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/679018159005933568" />
  <row Id="26468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11449" RevisionGUID="1d3c2501-1e99-4178-974b-f5296d0d48d4" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:11:21.280" UserId="3892" Text="You're correct - there are rules that make it clear. The Russian speaker instictively knows that the verb **иметь** takes the accusative and not the genitive case. However in a negative context, it sometimes does take the genitive: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это не имеет **смысла**. [&lt; **смысл** m. *sense, meaning*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This doesn't make* [lit: *have*] *sense*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, what's going on behind the scenes here is a simple matter of **case government**, which can vary from verb to verb. For instance, the verb *help* takes a direct object in English, yet an indirect [dative] object in Russian. With this knowledge, the Russian sees **Президент помогает бедным** *The president helps the poor* and instantly knows that here *бедным* is the dative plural and not the instrumental singular, for example, which have identical endings in adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11443" RevisionGUID="cf85595c-5a31-4cb8-be6f-9974b73c3d84" CreationDate="2015-12-22T13:45:58.780" UserId="6445" Comment="added 598 characters in body" Text="**Мужчина в туфлях** had the meaning &quot;man wearing shoes&quot;. The important rule is that sentence tells you about a man **as the main subject of the sentence** who wears some piece of clothing (which is not a main subject, but an attribute to describe the person) - a man or woman wearing something should be described normally using **в**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мужчина в одежде&#xD;&#xA;    Женщина в платье \ в пальто \ в шапке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use **на** is when wearer is NOT a main subject of the expression, and piece of clothes IS THE SUBJECT. Then use the clothing name followed by **на** and  reference to whoever has that piece of clothing on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Пальто на жещине&#xD;&#xA;    Одежда на мужчине&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this gets you the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: as noted in the thread, if we talk about a woman on high heels,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    женщина В туфлях НА каблуке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is correct. So woman is В туфлях and shoes (in turn) are НА каблуке. Some sort of nested structure. Same rule works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is however some sort of shortened version of this that may be of interest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    женщина на каблуках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is viewed as not &quot;wearing&quot; but more like &quot;standing on&quot;. So &quot;wearing&quot; convention for **в\на** may no longer be relevant. In that sense &quot;на&quot; can be used for a person in relation of heels. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11446" RevisionGUID="9360e1f3-d5a8-4bdf-9267-5c3eb0f4aa6b" CreationDate="2015-12-22T16:19:29.597" UserId="3680" Comment="is was a wrong word" Text="Military oral commands can have several stresses.  &#xD;&#xA;Typically a word is divided into two parts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. All syllables, except the last one. It identifies a command and means _get ready for step 2_.&#xD;&#xA;2. The last syllable that means _Go!_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нале-во!  &#xD;&#xA;Напра-во!  &#xD;&#xA;Пря-мо!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="80fa2b23-79ce-4331-9f70-589a5f587f3e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T16:38:32.137" UserId="6451" Text="Thanks in advance for any answers or tips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using Duolingo to begin my learning of the Russian language (if there is a better product please let me know). In the beginning lessons they use &quot;россия&quot; as &quot;Russia&quot; such as &quot;вот россия&quot;. Speaking with a Russian friend and saying &quot;в россия&quot; was wrong, he corrected it to &quot;в россии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He wasn't sure how to explain the difference and said this:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Может примеры помогут:&#xD;&#xA;1)Россия большая,Россия красивая,Россия интересная&#xD;&#xA;2)Из России с любовью,граница России,экономика России,я еду из России&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;россия&quot; for Russia in general while &quot;россии&quot; is for specific Russian things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="80fa2b23-79ce-4331-9f70-589a5f587f3e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T16:38:32.137" UserId="6451" Text="When to use &quot;россии&quot; and when to use &quot;россия&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="80fa2b23-79ce-4331-9f70-589a5f587f3e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T16:38:32.137" UserId="6451" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11451" RevisionGUID="cce51240-bf07-4ba1-b2bd-ab35254888ec" CreationDate="2015-12-22T16:58:13.797" UserId="4560" Text="Russian is an inflecting language, like Latin or Ancient Greek. There are six cases for nouns and adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative: **Россия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive: **России**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dative: **России**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative: **Россию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental: **Россией**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositional: **(о) России**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The **о** in parentheses is a token preposition that it's customary to put there, since the prepositional case is never used without one — hence its name.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of your examples under (2), the case used is genitive. And the fact that three out of the six oblique forms are the same isn't altogether representative. Besides, there's also a plural declension — that would rarely be used with a proper name like **Россия**, but here goes anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative: **России**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive: **Россий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dative: **Россиям**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative: **России**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental: **Россиями**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositional: **(о) Россиях**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're only starting to learn Russian, you'll be introduced to all that eventually. For now, you're getting a little ahead of yourself when you come up with theories of that sort. There's a *lot* of rules involved in deciding which case to use; most of the time, you can't just chain words together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="438857ad-eef7-487d-842b-2ff219a4e719" CreationDate="2015-12-22T17:03:56.827" UserId="5008" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Thanks in advance for any answers or tips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using Duolingo to begin my learning of the Russian language (if there is a better product please let me know). In the beginning lessons they use &quot;Россия&quot; as &quot;Russia&quot; such as &quot;вот Россия&quot;. Speaking with a Russian friend and saying &quot;в Россия&quot; was wrong, he corrected it to &quot;в России&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He wasn't sure how to explain the difference and said this:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Может примеры помогут:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Россия большая, Россия красивая, Россия интересная&#xD;&#xA; 2. Из России с любовью, граница России, экономика России, я еду из России&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;Россия&quot; for Russia in general, while &quot;России&quot; is for specific Russian things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="438857ad-eef7-487d-842b-2ff219a4e719" CreationDate="2015-12-22T17:03:56.827" UserId="5008" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="When to use &quot;России&quot; and when to use &quot;Россия&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26477" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="438857ad-eef7-487d-842b-2ff219a4e719" CreationDate="2015-12-22T17:03:56.827" UserId="5008" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11452" RevisionGUID="1f5af5ed-f877-4990-90e6-826ca8c6478d" CreationDate="2015-12-22T22:23:23.860" UserId="6463" Text="I have a question about present Gerund for the verb (бежáть). Does a gerund for present tense exist for this verb? Could (my guess) the present Gerund be: &quot;бежя&quot; for бежáть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct if I am wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using a site* that is usually reliable but for this verb Gerund is missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* starling.rinet.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=endnnnn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11452" RevisionGUID="1f5af5ed-f877-4990-90e6-826ca8c6478d" CreationDate="2015-12-22T22:23:23.860" UserId="6463" Text="Gerund, present tense for the verb: бежáть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11452" RevisionGUID="1f5af5ed-f877-4990-90e6-826ca8c6478d" CreationDate="2015-12-22T22:23:23.860" UserId="6463" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11452" RevisionGUID="e32173c7-c111-4015-b911-6f86445c1cb3" CreationDate="2015-12-22T22:34:02.357" UserId="6463" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I have a question about present Gerund for the verb (бежáть). Does a gerund for present tense exist for this verb? Could (my guess) the present Gerund be: &quot;бежaя&quot; for бежáть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please correct if I am wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using a site* that is usually reliable but for this verb Gerund is missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* starling.rinet.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=endnnnn" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11453" RevisionGUID="dcd4f50f-b15a-4285-ae00-70737dbddf3c" CreationDate="2015-12-22T22:51:10.237" UserId="115" Text="Can you give an example of a sentence where you want to use it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form you are looking for is called деепричастие, and it is not really a gerund. A gerund is a verb form used as a noun. Деепричастие is a verb form used a adverb. According to Wikipedia, this form is called transgressive in English, but the Wiki article does not mention Russian. By the way, English doesn't have transgressive, and just uses participles instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Деепричастие can be perfective and imperfective, just like verbs. Perfective would be &quot;бежав&quot;. As for the imperfective, I don't think it exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11453" RevisionGUID="50b0f7f8-28d9-41a4-abc0-ab67621bcd23" CreationDate="2015-12-22T22:54:35.070" UserId="115" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Can you give an example of a sentence where you want to use it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form you are looking for is called деепричастие, and it is not really a gerund. A gerund is a verb form used as a noun. Деепричастие is a verb form used a adverb. According to Wikipedia, this form is called transgressive in English, but the Wiki article does not mention Russian. By the way, English doesn't have transgressives, and just uses participles instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Деепричастие can be perfective and imperfective, just like verbs. Perfective would be &quot;бежав&quot;. As for the imperfective, I don't think it exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="4d8f8cf6-c328-4861-821e-180ef9274909" CreationDate="2015-12-23T01:57:35.710" UserId="4238" Text="It seems to be relatively common knowledge that the name &quot;Красная Площадь,&quot; while translated in English as &quot;Red Square,&quot; does not actually mean &quot;Red Square&quot; in Russian, but rather &quot;Beautiful Square.&quot; However, I saw this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name Red Square does not originate from the pigment of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surrounding bricks (which, in fact, were whitewashed at certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; periods) nor from the link between the color red and communism.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rather, the name came about because the Russian word красная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (krasnaya), which means &quot;red,&quot; was applied to a small area between St.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basil's Cathedral, the Spassky Tower of the Kremlin, and the Lobnoe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mesto (place of execution), and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich officially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extended the name to the entire square**, which had previously been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called Pozhar, or &quot;burnt-out place&quot;, in reference to the fact that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several buildings had to be burned down to make place for the square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: [here][1] and [here][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an original source for that information and would be willing to dismiss it entirely. However, I would still wonder why in [seemingly every language][3]--including every other Slavic language--the name of the square is equivalent to &quot;Red&quot; Square. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there *any* chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know intellectually about its origins)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the latter: why does ~every other nation, including former Soviet and CIS countries, seem, according to their translations, to understand it as &quot;Red&quot; Square?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1488/what-is-the-first-recorded-appearance-of-the-mistranslation-red-square&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2931/when-did-%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C-begin-to-shift-from-beautiful-to-red &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.heesterbeek.net/Russia/Moscow/Moscow.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Square#Origin_and_name&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C#.D0.9F.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="4d8f8cf6-c328-4861-821e-180ef9274909" CreationDate="2015-12-23T01:57:35.710" UserId="4238" Text="&quot;Красная&quot; Площадь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="4d8f8cf6-c328-4861-821e-180ef9274909" CreationDate="2015-12-23T01:57:35.710" UserId="4238" Text="|перевод|этимология|прилагательные|история-языка|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="8dc2f4d1-15a9-4cae-b08a-2cdbdfd678b6" CreationDate="2015-12-23T02:53:09.010" UserId="4238" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="It seems to be relatively common knowledge that the name &quot;Красная Площадь,&quot; while translated in English as &quot;Red Square,&quot; does not actually mean &quot;Red Square&quot; in Russian, but rather &quot;Beautiful Square.&quot; However, I saw this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name Red Square does not originate from the pigment of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surrounding bricks (which, in fact, were whitewashed at certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; periods) nor from the link between the color red and communism.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rather, the name came about because the Russian word красная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (krasnaya), which means &quot;red,&quot; was applied to a small area between St.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basil's Cathedral, the Spassky Tower of the Kremlin, and the Lobnoe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mesto (place of execution), and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich officially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extended the name to the entire square**, which had previously been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called Pozhar, or &quot;burnt-out place&quot;, in reference to the fact that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several buildings had to be burned down to make place for the square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: [here][1] and [here][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an original source for that information and would be willing to dismiss it entirely. However, I would still wonder why in [seemingly every language][3]--including every other Slavic language--the name of the square is equivalent to &quot;Red&quot; Square--especially since in Russian, &quot;красный&quot; has a distinct tie with  прекрасный/красивый, and in a number of cases is still understood to mean that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there *any* chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know intellectually about its origins)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the latter: why does ~every other nation, including former Soviet and CIS countries, seem, according to their translations, to understand it as &quot;Red&quot; Square?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1488/what-is-the-first-recorded-appearance-of-the-mistranslation-red-square&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2931/when-did-%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C-begin-to-shift-from-beautiful-to-red &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.heesterbeek.net/Russia/Moscow/Moscow.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Square#Origin_and_name&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C#.D0.9F.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26488" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11450" RevisionGUID="41cfb1e6-ab84-4d1b-a4aa-759bb00a86ae" CreationDate="2015-12-23T04:20:07.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/679516812330024962" />
  <row Id="26489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11455" RevisionGUID="90f90fdf-2479-4901-84b1-e8d85dde1edd" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:09:35.980" UserId="5443" Text="There is no *formal* gerund in Russian, but English expressions can often be translated closely to original mood by using different parts of speech, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**running away** (as in 'while running away, he didn't look back') - **убегая** (деепричастие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**running away** (as in 'his running away was unexpected') - **бегство** (существительное)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**running** - **бег** (существительное)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to keep on **running** - продолжать **бежать/бег**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verb-to-noun and adv. participle forms *mainly* exist with some prefixed versions of the verb (**у**бегая/**у**бегание, **из**бегая/**из**бежание/**из**бегание, **за**бегая/**за**бегание, etc.). The form you asked of doesn't exist (if there were such a word, it would sound like &quot;бежа&quot;), but still it can be translated as &quot;**на бегу**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11456" RevisionGUID="d374493f-7743-4b3c-a2cc-33daace7e419" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:38:32.007" UserId="4270" Text="&quot;Эта игра что надо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это игра что надо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11456" RevisionGUID="d374493f-7743-4b3c-a2cc-33daace7e419" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:38:32.007" UserId="4270" Text="Согласование рода" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11456" RevisionGUID="d374493f-7743-4b3c-a2cc-33daace7e419" CreationDate="2015-12-23T07:38:32.007" UserId="4270" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11457" RevisionGUID="a63854ba-50a9-4c71-8b31-ca5a077c469f" CreationDate="2015-12-23T08:05:24.170" UserId="4560" Text="Generally, **это**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Эта** is when you contrast it with an implied **та игра** (or **те игры**) that aren't quite up to par." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11458" RevisionGUID="628d1d35-2500-45cd-b800-cf955ed8a628" CreationDate="2015-12-23T08:38:32.900" UserId="6425" Text="To answer your second question, in modern Russian *красный (красная, красное)* means red, as in color. When I hear someone say *Красная площадь*, what comes to mind is the image of that place, and neither color red nor anything else. It’s like if someone would say *Sears tower*, it’s the landmark building in Chicago that comes to mind, not the retail chain or its bankruptcy story. Or, if you hear *White house*, you’d think of the residence of US president, and not so much of the actual color. *Red sea* is a sea between Africa and Middle East, and we don’t associate it with anything red. &#xD;&#xA;Your first question is too deep for me to answer. &#xD;&#xA;I hope that helps. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11456" RevisionGUID="6dd2e846-37b0-4c48-89a0-ac18c942bdd4" CreationDate="2015-12-23T08:43:28.683" UserId="4801" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; **Эта** игра что надо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Это** игра что надо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11459" RevisionGUID="211b7235-2d3a-4eb6-8e3b-3acff3483ca1" CreationDate="2015-12-23T08:44:06.597" UserId="5008" Text="Both are acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Эта игра что надо_ = _This game is good_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Это игра что надо_ = _It is a good game_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11460" RevisionGUID="00a0ee38-e7c6-408c-b402-f5d24fcedb1a" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:15:44.473" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is there any chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and no. It took place in XVII century. And as we know, the word &quot;_Красный_&quot; got the meaning of &quot;_Red_&quot; in XVI century, and (almost) fully replaced the word &quot;_Червлёный_&quot; during 1600s. So I believe that was an intended wordplay from the very beginning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="a01577e7-3cd9-4de3-8edd-075b040a22c0" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:21:56.657" UserId="2079" Text="&gt; If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually about its origins)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian `красный` does not mean `красивый`.  For example, even if there is an idiom `красна девица` or `красная девица`, meaning beautiful girl and used mostly in fairy tails, you cannot say to a girl `ты очень красная`. She would either not understand what are you trying to say, or think that she is red from hot weather, shyness etc.  If a proof of a mathematical theorem is beautiful, you can call it `красивое доказательство` but not `красное доказательство`, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the colors mean in the modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Красный: a communist&#xD;&#xA; - Коричневый: a nazi&#xD;&#xA; - Жёлтый: when speaking about mass media, it means the same as in English (жёлтая пресса, жёлтая передача etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Зелёный: very young and/or inexperienced&#xD;&#xA; - Голубой: homosexual (male)&#xD;&#xA; - Синий: синяк - alcoholist (the main meaning is a bruise), синячить - to drink (alcoholic beverages). Also one can be &quot;blue&quot; from cold temperature, bruises, or blood supply problems.&#xD;&#xA; - Белый, чёрный - refers to skin color. Also, чёрный means illegal or unofficial, especially with respect to money: чёрная зарплата, чёрный нал, чёрный археолог etc., while белый means the opposite. There are many other meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="58146fae-f728-4192-9dcf-f35ba7f87372" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:27:28.960" UserId="2079" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually about its origins)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian `красный` does not mean `красивый`.  For example, even if there is an idiom `красна девица` or `красная девица`, meaning beautiful girl and used mostly in fairy tails, you cannot say to a girl `ты очень красная`. She would either not understand what are you trying to say, or think that she is red from hot weather, shyness etc.  If a proof of a mathematical theorem is beautiful, you can call it `красивое доказательство` but not `красное доказательство`, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the colors mean in the modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Красный: a communist&#xD;&#xA; - Коричневый: a nazi&#xD;&#xA; - Жёлтый: when speaking about mass media, it means the same as in English (жёлтая пресса, жёлтая передача etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Зелёный: very young and/or inexperienced&#xD;&#xA; - Голубой: homosexual (male)&#xD;&#xA; - Синий: `синяк` means alcoholist (the main meaning is a bruise), `синячить` means to drink (alcoholic beverages). Also one can be &quot;blue&quot; from cold temperature, bruises, or blood supply problems.&#xD;&#xA; - Белый, чёрный: refers to skin color. Also, чёрный means illegal or unofficial, especially with respect to money: чёрная зарплата, чёрный нал, чёрный археолог etc., while белый means the opposite. There are many other meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="dddc2b4a-6511-4dc0-b2eb-b5ecd828b051" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:32:50.297" UserId="2079" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually about its origins)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian `красный` does not mean `красивый`.  For example, even if there is an idiom `красна девица` or `красная девица`, meaning beautiful girl and used mostly in fairy tails, you cannot say to a girl `ты очень красная`. She would either not understand what are you trying to say, or think that she is red from hot weather, shyness etc.  If a proof of a mathematical theorem is beautiful, you can call it `красивое доказательство` but not `красное доказательство`, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the colors mean in the modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Красный: a communist&#xD;&#xA; - Коричневый: a nazi&#xD;&#xA; - Жёлтый: when speaking about mass media, it means the same as in English (жёлтая пресса, жёлтая передача etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Зелёный: very young and/or inexperienced&#xD;&#xA; - Голубой: homosexual (male)&#xD;&#xA; - Синий: `синяк` means alcoholist (the main meaning is a bruise), `синячить` means to drink (alcoholic beverages). Also one can be &quot;blue&quot; from cold temperature, bruises, or blood supply problems.&#xD;&#xA; - Белый, чёрный: refers to skin color. Also, чёрный often means illegal or unofficial, especially with respect to money: `чёрная зарплата`, `чёрный нал`, `чёрный археолог` etc., while белый sometimes means the opposite (`белая зарплата`). There are many other meanings.&#xD;&#xA; - Серый: having no talents, ordinary, opposite of &quot;outstanding&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11461" RevisionGUID="f6ea650e-1772-42da-8485-26a423a5f2de" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:43:45.963" UserId="2079" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; intellectually about its origins)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian `красный` does not mean `красивый`.  For example, even if there is an idiom `красна девица` or `красная девица`, meaning beautiful girl and used mostly in fairy tails, you cannot say to a girl `ты очень красная`. She would either not understand what are you trying to say, or think that she is red from hot weather, shyness etc.  If a proof of a mathematical theorem is beautiful, you can call it `красивое доказательство` but not `красное доказательство`, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the colors mean in the modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Красный: a communist&#xD;&#xA; - Коричневый: a nazi&#xD;&#xA; - Жёлтый: when speaking about mass media, it means the same as in English (жёлтая пресса, жёлтая передача etc.)&#xD;&#xA; - Зелёный: very young and/or inexperienced&#xD;&#xA; - Голубой: homosexual (male)&#xD;&#xA; - Синий: `синяк` means alcoholist (the main meaning is a bruise), `синячить` means to drink (alcoholic beverages). Also one can be &quot;blue&quot; from cold temperature, bruises, or blood supply problems.&#xD;&#xA; - Белый, чёрный: refers to skin color. Also, чёрный often means illegal or unofficial, especially with respect to money: `чёрная зарплата`, `чёрный нал`, `чёрный археолог` etc., while белый sometimes means the opposite (`белая зарплата`). There are many other meanings.&#xD;&#xA; - Серый: having no talents, ordinary, opposite of &quot;outstanding&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - Фиолетовый: (кому-либо) это фиолетово means (somebody) doesn't care at all about it, i. e. `мне это глубоко фиолетово`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26502" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11441" RevisionGUID="fdb47e7d-381c-47b9-856b-0b031e5dae93" CreationDate="2015-12-23T10:20:35.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/679607527554854912" />
  <row Id="26503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="92ffc337-3306-4c43-8d35-8721e936a493" CreationDate="2015-12-23T10:23:34.527" UserId="6296" Text="what is meaning this word? same as &quot;privet&quot;?? and what should i reply for this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="92ffc337-3306-4c43-8d35-8721e936a493" CreationDate="2015-12-23T10:23:34.527" UserId="6296" Text="what is meaning when someone say &quot;Xай&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="92ffc337-3306-4c43-8d35-8721e936a493" CreationDate="2015-12-23T10:23:34.527" UserId="6296" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11463" RevisionGUID="d09d22c2-7391-4bd0-b3b7-262bef23f90c" CreationDate="2015-12-23T10:32:42.120" UserId="6465" Text="Yes, it's the same as &quot;privet&quot; because&quot;Хай&quot; simply transliteration from &quot;Hi&quot;. You can use &quot;privet/привет&quot;(more informal) or &quot;Zdravstvyite/здравствуйте&quot; (more formal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11464" RevisionGUID="7cabe89b-9081-4aed-8346-93f6bf7c76dc" CreationDate="2015-12-23T12:22:44.107" UserId="2079" Text="`Хай` (transliteration of `Hi`) is more informal and joyous than `привет`, which is in turn more informal than `здравствуй(те)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хай` is seldom used in on-line chats (use `привет` or `hi`).  In real life talks, it may be used between young people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="5f360e88-39ff-40ee-9735-2db8acacb055" CreationDate="2015-12-23T12:39:00.840" UserId="5605" Comment="знак вопроса; заглавные буквы" Text="What is meaning this word? Same as &quot;privet&quot;? And what should i reply for this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26509" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11462" RevisionGUID="5f360e88-39ff-40ee-9735-2db8acacb055" CreationDate="2015-12-23T12:39:00.840" UserId="5605" Comment="знак вопроса; заглавные буквы" Text="What is meaning when someone say &quot;Xай&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11455" RevisionGUID="7f6853c9-58f3-4402-a210-780a8d4b5ee8" CreationDate="2015-12-23T13:17:05.473" UserId="5443" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="There is no *formal* gerund in Russian, but English expressions can often be translated closely to original mood by using different parts of speech, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**running away** (as in 'while running away, he didn't look back') - **убегая** (деепричастие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**running away** (as in 'his running away was unexpected') - **бегство** (существительное)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**running** - **бег** (существительное)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to keep on **running** - продолжать **бежать/бег**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verb-to-noun and adv. participle forms *mainly* exist with some prefixed versions of the verb (**у**бегая/**у**бегание, **из**бегая/**из**бежание/**из**бегание, **за**бегая/**за**бегание, etc.). The form you asked of doesn't exist (if there were such a word, it would sound like &quot;бежа&quot;), but still it can be translated as &quot;**на бегу**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** There's also a related imperfective verb with no prefix: **бегать**, which can mean *to run around*, *to run continuously or from time to time*. This one gives the corresponding adverbial participle **бегая** with the sense '(while) **running around**'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11465" RevisionGUID="9c84ff6d-ccbb-4c33-af57-147b864da940" CreationDate="2015-12-23T13:58:52.597" UserId="1236" Text="The Kremlin was painted red only in [the times of Stalin][1], about 1947, [before that it was painted white][2], so the name *Красная площадь* which was first attested in the early 17th century could no way relate to the now-red Kremlin walls and towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.istpravda.ru/pictures/226/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=653&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi065joj_LJAhUKnHIKHZEAD1QQ_AUIBigB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11466" RevisionGUID="a72e430a-0f74-49b4-8f89-6e1db14ba123" CreationDate="2015-12-23T14:25:28.453" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Is there any chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the most popular version, this name was given to the square by Tsar Alexis, extending it from the little part of the square (as we know it now) to the whole area between Kremlin wall, the Kazan Cathedral and the St. Basil's cathedral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a place is given a new name by a person, it is hardly just some kind of a word, it has to symbolize something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a street which used by be called Chertolskaya, was renamed Prechistenskaya (&quot;The purest&quot;, one of the Virgin Mary's titles) because of the former name's similarity to the Russian word *чёрт* (&quot;devil&quot;). The street Vozdvizhenka was renamed Smolenskaya to mark the liberation of Smolensk which had happened four years earlier. And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hardly possible that the Tsar (who had been a very literate person and of course aware of all the meanings of the word) just picked a random color to name a square. There was nothing remarkably red about the square at the time. On the other hand, renaming something from &quot;the burnt place&quot; to &quot;the beautiful place&quot; is a much more plausible thing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know intellectually about its origins)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A naive translation would have been &quot;red&quot;, of course. However, most Russians are aware of the origin of the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the latter: why does ~every other nation, including former Soviet and CIS countries, seem, according to their translations, to understand it as &quot;Red&quot; Square?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably for the same reasons Ivan IV is &quot;Ivan the Terrible&quot; and the body of water Moses crossed is &quot;Red Sea&quot; in every other language. Those are misnomers with a history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="f657aab6-1fa2-4d9e-9342-0173855b8e6a" CreationDate="2015-12-23T18:24:57.517" UserId="6471" Text="Как будет правильно: класс модели или класс моделей?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предполагается, что каждая &quot;модель&quot; является экземпляром этого класса. Вопрос про терминологию объектно-ориентированного программирования." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="f657aab6-1fa2-4d9e-9342-0173855b8e6a" CreationDate="2015-12-23T18:24:57.517" UserId="6471" Text="Класс модели или класс моделей?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="f657aab6-1fa2-4d9e-9342-0173855b8e6a" CreationDate="2015-12-23T18:24:57.517" UserId="6471" Text="|множественное-число|информатика|терминология|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11467" RevisionGUID="2a463e94-ef42-4b35-bf17-907a450ab8f2" CreationDate="2015-12-23T18:33:20.043" UserId="6471" Comment="уточнение вопроса" Text="Как будет правильно: класс модели или класс моделей?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предполагается, что каждая &quot;модель&quot; является экземпляром этого класса. Вопрос про терминологию объектно-ориентированного программирования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Допустим, на некотором языке программирования создается класс, каждый экземпляр которого является (по определению) моделью. Правильно называть этот класс &quot;класс модели&quot; или &quot;класс моделей&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11468" RevisionGUID="05415f38-080e-47e7-8e93-2e7e994cc773" CreationDate="2015-12-23T19:45:21.250" UserId="2079" Text="В обществе есть класс, каждый представитель которого - капиталист. Как он называется? Класс капиталистов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В школе есть класс, куда отправляют только хулиганов.  Как он называется? Класс хулиганов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В компьютерной программе есть класс, каждый экземпляр которого - модель.  Как он должен называться?  Ну конечно же, класс моделей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11469" RevisionGUID="fbaab709-5b05-4ad5-889a-fde565d07d63" CreationDate="2015-12-23T19:58:39.580" UserId="3680" Text="Отвечу как программист.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Применительно к ООП, как мне представляется, единственно верным будет _класс модели_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поясню.  &#xD;&#xA;Речь идет о типе, каждый экземпляр которого есть объект типа _модель_.&#xD;&#xA;В частности, в качестве типа может быть структура, класс (а может и еще что, в зависимости от языка программирования).  &#xD;&#xA;Этот тип, невзирая на потенциальную множественность его экземпляров, существует в единственном числе.  &#xD;&#xA;В этом случае, имеет смысл называть данный тип: _класс модели_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11469" RevisionGUID="eae995f7-b702-4983-8d02-b9e67ce42a71" CreationDate="2015-12-23T20:05:38.260" UserId="3680" Comment="examples added" Text="Отвечу как программист.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Применительно к ООП, как мне представляется, единственно верным будет _класс модели_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поясню.  &#xD;&#xA;Речь идет о типе, каждый экземпляр которого есть объект типа _модель_.&#xD;&#xA;В частности, в качестве типа может быть структура, класс (а может и еще что, в зависимости от языка программирования).  &#xD;&#xA;Этот тип, невзирая на потенциальную множественность его экземпляров, существует в единственном числе.  &#xD;&#xA;В этом случае, имеет смысл называть данный тип: _класс модели_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поясню на примере.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Есть класс `Велосипед`.  &#xD;&#xA;2. Еще есть класс коллекции велосипедов `Велосипеды`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чтобы адресовать первый, следует использовать фразу _класс велосипеда_, второй - _класс велосипедов_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще лучше называть как оно есть:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Класс Model  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Класс Bicycle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26520" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11425" RevisionGUID="b78bd36a-6367-4157-9253-bd819444e76d" CreationDate="2015-12-23T22:28:39.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/679790749806923776" />
  <row Id="26521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="b53a9cc9-23f3-49fd-a533-b42d472cae7b" CreationDate="2015-12-24T00:02:10.360" UserId="6452" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** — boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневый** — fascist.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** — (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is its first, original meaning, only later on did it become a color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** — male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** — in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозь розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** — greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** — (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** — illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** — in the phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is a calque of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;; there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (&quot;Вся эта статья&amp;nbsp;— чистая желтуха&quot;). In the phrase &quot;желторотый птенец&quot;, it means a very unexperienced person.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** (as an adverb, not an adjective) — used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;) — to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;). Cf. also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серо-буро-малиновый** — colloquial description of a color that is hard to determine or that is a result of a strange medley of hues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, an edit has been suggested to incorporate into this list the phrase *малиновый звон*, but be warned, this [has nothing to do][4] with the color *малиновый*. Much rather, this is a phonetical coincidence, much like *Китай-город* is by no means related to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="1f8a2a42-4554-4a85-a904-90c6febac23a" CreationDate="2015-12-24T01:04:55.190" UserId="6452" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="Well, let me try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серый** — boring, mediocre; semi-legal (&quot;серый рынок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красный** — (obsolete, but fully understandable nowadays by any native speaker), beautiful: &quot;Красная площадь&quot;, &quot;красна девица&quot;. Moreover, historically it is its first, original meaning, only later on did it become a color indication, displacing *червонный/червлённый*; may also mean strong or exaggerated as in &quot;красное словцо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Голубой** — male homosexual (&quot;голубая&quot; for lesbian is inappropriate); relaxed in &quot;голубые грёзы&quot;/&quot;голубая нега&quot; (something close to [dolce far niente][1]); (rapidly becoming historical) television in phrase &quot;голубой экран&quot;; (historical, not understandable nowadays) gendarmes, police in tzarist Russia, in phrase &quot;голубые штаны&quot;, [check out also][2] *гороховое пальто*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Розовый** — in phrases like &quot;жизнь в розовых тонах&quot; or &quot;смотреть на мир сквозь розовые очки&quot; means rose-colored, (unduly) optimistic. *Розовая* sometimes is used for indicating lesbianism, but, compared to *голубой* is used much more rarer. &#xD;&#xA;  * **Зелёный** — greenhorn (&quot;ты ещё зелёный совсем, куда тебе&quot;); environment-friendly, ecologic (&quot;зелёные технологии&quot;); apathy, cheerless as in &quot;тоска зелёная (drowsy boredoom, depression)&quot;. One can also turn green from anger (&quot;позеленеть от злости&quot;). In the late Soviet time, the American dollars were called &quot;зелень&quot; (green stuff) or just &quot;зеленые&quot;. &quot;Зелёнка&quot; in military slang means woodland or dense thickets (in everyday use just Brilliant Green dye).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белый** — (noun) I hate to say it, but it is heroin; legal (&quot;белый рынок&quot;, &quot;белая зарплата&quot;); &quot;белая ворона&quot; ironically, this can be translated as &quot;black sheep&quot;. &quot;Белая зависть&quot; (white envy) means that you are glad for someone, but also regret that you aren't like him/her, as opposed to &quot;черная зависть&quot; (black envy) when you are angry that the other person has something that you don't.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Чёрный** — illegal (&quot;чёрный рынок&quot;); villainous (&quot;чёрное дело ты задумал&quot;); dreary (&quot;на душе черным-черно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;  * **Жёлтый** — in the phrase &quot;жёлтая пресса&quot;, which is a calque of &quot;[yellow press][3]&quot;; there is also derivative adjective &quot;желтушный&quot; and noun &quot;желтуха&quot; (&quot;Вся эта статья&amp;nbsp;— чистая желтуха&quot;). In the phrase &quot;желторотый птенец&quot;, it means a very unexperienced person.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Фиолетово** (as an adverb, not an adjective) — used to indicate indifference: &quot;Мне это абсолютно фиолетово&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Побагроветь** (verb, derivative from &quot;багровый&quot;) — to get furious, to get pissed off (&quot;Валерий Петрович побагровел от возмущения&quot;). Cf. also  *сделаться белым*.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Серо-буро-малиновый** — colloquial description of a color that is hard to determine or that is a result of a strange medley of hues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Political (ability to understand these depending on one's education and conversation context, although красные and белые are much more recognizable than others):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Красные** — communists.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Белые** — the White movement.&#xD;&#xA;  * **Коричневые** — fascists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, an edit has been suggested to incorporate into this list the phrase *малиновый звон*, but be warned, this [has nothing to do][4] with the color *малиновый*. Much rather, this is a phonetical coincidence, much like *Китай-город* is by no means related to China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dolce_far_niente&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://folk-costume.com/goroxovyj-cvet/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26523" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11397" RevisionGUID="5f60be05-b55f-4df8-b0b0-dd75e99e1ac0" CreationDate="2015-12-24T01:47:49.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/679840872201060352" />
  <row Id="26524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11470" RevisionGUID="2bf4cb50-7e18-42a5-90b2-75911c54893c" CreationDate="2015-12-24T02:38:52.827" UserId="5288" Text="Заданный вопрос имеет не столько отношение к русскому языку, сколько к определению самого понятия класс. Наибольшую общность подхода даёт математика, и её приложения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Примеры.**   &#xD;&#xA;Класс наследует своё название *по названию элементов (мн.ч.)*__:__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Класс чётных чисел, класс млекопитающих, класс капиталистов, класс&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представителей, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Класс наследует своё название *по названию отношения (ед.ч.)* между элементами&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Класс эквивалентности,  класс подобия, класс параллельности, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Множество классов отношения&lt;b&gt;:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Множество классов эквивалентности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нам нет нужды обращаться к публике за советом. Ответ вычисляется и проверяется самостоятельно, обращаясь только к логике: кто/что даёт название классу?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обращаясь к Вашему частному примеру.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Класс как термин оказался востребованным, чтобы уйти от известного противоречия &quot;множество множеств&quot;. Но если опустить эти частности, то можно считать класс тем же множеством. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Идём в одну сторону: в некоем множестве, например, артефактов, выделяются эквивалентные вещи. Например, книги. Понятно, что они разные, но также интуитивно понятно, что все книги эквивалентны в том, что они именно книги. Это класс книг. Теперь путь в обратную сторону: каждая книга содержит то, что делает ее именно книгой, то есть, по одному элементу можно вообразить целый класс книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если Ваш термин &quot;модель&quot; это элемент множества, составляющего класс, или, по элементу-модели можно вообразить целый класс таких моделей, то мы говорим: это *класс моделей.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же Вы дадите определение некоего отношения &quot;модель&quot; (в математике Вы свободны в этом), то можете назвать своё множество по этому отношению. Проверить правильность высказывания можно чисто логически, если сможете заключить в один класс: класс эквивалентности и класс модели." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26525" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11395" RevisionGUID="4c908694-52c5-4964-83c9-31e85a6b63ce" CreationDate="2015-12-24T04:48:07.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/679886244659204097" />
  <row Id="26526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11471" RevisionGUID="069b58f0-7d4b-4fc5-b302-bc29064bdbe7" CreationDate="2015-12-24T06:44:37.523" UserId="5443" Text="1. Если этим выражением характеризуют класс в целом, то &quot;**класс моделей**&quot; (условный класс, в который входят модели определённого вида). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Если речь идёт об отдельном представителе класса, то в зависимости от формы утверждения, возможны выражения  &quot;**модель класса**...&quot; . (модель, принадлежащая к далее упоминаемому классу) и &quot;**класс модели**&quot; (класс, к которому принадлежит рассматриваемая модель). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для сравнения: 1) *порода собак*, 2а) *собака* такой-то *породы*, 2б) *порода* этой *собаки* такая-то." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11472" RevisionGUID="8fe54c3f-9ef2-46bb-ba1c-16363cf690e9" CreationDate="2015-12-24T06:53:02.847" UserId="2199" Text="Это слишком сложное для меня предложение. [Справочник][2] по пунктуации не сильно помог. Как правильно расставить знаки препинания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нашёл в [этом вопросе][1] и засомневался в том, что надо использовать тире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.stackoverflow.com/q/293186/17429&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_574" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11472" RevisionGUID="8fe54c3f-9ef2-46bb-ba1c-16363cf690e9" CreationDate="2015-12-24T06:53:02.847" UserId="2199" Text="Пунктуация в предложении со словом &quot;понятно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11472" RevisionGUID="8fe54c3f-9ef2-46bb-ba1c-16363cf690e9" CreationDate="2015-12-24T06:53:02.847" UserId="2199" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="e9c00d1a-482b-40b9-b881-cc38c2adec06" CreationDate="2015-12-24T11:33:46.890" UserId="6452" Text="&gt; &lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или авторские варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="c86966b2-26bc-4fbe-a3ef-4ebd3b051210" CreationDate="2015-12-24T11:39:24.617" UserId="6452" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&gt; &lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или авторские варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upd.: Засомневался, пока игнорьте ответ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11466" RevisionGUID="4c5c6c2e-ba71-4d3f-8c44-3765cb4700df" CreationDate="2015-12-24T12:08:26.357" UserId="134" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is there any chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the most popular version, this name was given to the square by Tsar Alexis, who has extended it from a little part of the square (as we know it now) to the whole area between Kremlin wall, the Kazan Cathedral and the St. Basil's cathedral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a place is given a new name by a person, it is hardly just some kind of a word, it has to symbolize something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a street which used to be called Chertolskaya, had been renamed Prechistenskaya (&quot;The purest&quot;, one of the Virgin Mary's titles) because of the former name's similarity to the Russian word *чёрт* (&quot;devil&quot;). The street Vozdvizhenka was renamed Smolenskaya to mark the liberation of Smolensk which had happened four years earlier. And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hardly possible that the Tsar (who had been a very literate person and of course aware of all the meanings of the word) just picked a random color to name a square. There was nothing remarkably red about the square at the time. On the other hand, renaming something from &quot;the burnt place&quot; to &quot;the beautiful place&quot; is a much more plausible thing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know intellectually about its origins)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A naive translation would have been &quot;red&quot;, of course. However, most Russians are aware of the origin of the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the latter: why does ~every other nation, including former Soviet and CIS countries, seem, according to their translations, to understand it as &quot;Red&quot; Square?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably for the same reasons Ivan IV is &quot;Ivan the Terrible&quot; and the body of water Moses crossed is &quot;Red Sea&quot; in every other language. Those are misnomers with a history." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11475" RevisionGUID="a442ca26-3097-488f-b0aa-9096bd4dbd06" CreationDate="2015-12-24T12:19:55.967" UserId="6354" Text="Which is the correct translation of **учитель увидел по глазам учеников, что что-то случилось**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The teacher saw in the **eyes** of the **student**, that something had happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The teacher saw in the **eyes** of the **students**, that something had happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that **чеников** is in the genitive plural, but I'm confused whether it's plural due to more than one eye (**глазам**) or because there is more than one student. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11475" RevisionGUID="a442ca26-3097-488f-b0aa-9096bd4dbd06" CreationDate="2015-12-24T12:19:55.967" UserId="6354" Text="Correct interpretation of genitive plural noun when preceded by another plural noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11475" RevisionGUID="a442ca26-3097-488f-b0aa-9096bd4dbd06" CreationDate="2015-12-24T12:19:55.967" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11475" RevisionGUID="eacd511a-a810-4553-9108-2659518e6dd9" CreationDate="2015-12-24T12:22:42.747" UserId="3680" Comment="typo fixed" Text="Which is the correct translation of **учитель увидел по глазам учеников, что что-то случилось**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The teacher saw in the **eyes** of the **student**, that something had happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The teacher saw in the **eyes** of the **students**, that something had happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that **учеников** is in the genitive plural, but I'm confused whether it's plural due to more than one eye (**глазам**) or because there is more than one student. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11476" RevisionGUID="30c3db3e-0547-4bbe-b793-cf4e68640d0d" CreationDate="2015-12-24T13:28:42.147" UserId="6475" Text="As @Dmitry said, the second option is correct. If you translate first expression to russian it will be **учитель увидел по глазам ученика, что что-то случилось**. And it has nothing to do with eyes, i think in english it would sound as awkward as in russian if you say something like 'The teacher saw in the **eye** of the **students**, that something had happened' :D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11477" RevisionGUID="43e73657-1fe5-46c4-99be-562d847e084f" CreationDate="2015-12-24T14:15:11.207" UserId="5" Text="Can anyone explain why &quot;упалось&quot; isn't a proper form whereas &quot;сдулось&quot; is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     [+] Упало     [+] Сдуло&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     [-] Упалось   [+] Сдулось" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11477" RevisionGUID="43e73657-1fe5-46c4-99be-562d847e084f" CreationDate="2015-12-24T14:15:11.207" UserId="5" Text="Упалось vs Сдулось" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11477" RevisionGUID="43e73657-1fe5-46c4-99be-562d847e084f" CreationDate="2015-12-24T14:15:11.207" UserId="5" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11478" RevisionGUID="afc3611c-b551-4958-90a1-7a6ff3c49e8b" CreationDate="2015-12-24T14:24:50.137" UserId="4560" Text="No reason; it's a possible verb that never acquired a meaning to become an actual verb. It's just how you don't say &quot;think down&quot; or &quot;open off&quot; in English — it's not that there's something inherently wrong with the combinations, they just don't mean anything. In the case of *\*упалось*, that's not surprising considering **упасть** is intransitive. A verb that doesn't take a direct object wouldn't take a reflexive particle either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26544" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11477" RevisionGUID="c6dd483f-794c-43f4-ade5-bf12c2f638e6" CreationDate="2015-12-25T13:53:15.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/680385820445028352" />
  <row Id="26546" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11452" RevisionGUID="14fa8bf9-cf20-4e2f-bbb4-6ec1db7226aa" CreationDate="2015-12-26T16:55:31.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/680794079618314240" />
  <row Id="26547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11479" RevisionGUID="c55d1335-5011-442d-bf2e-3d64db8ed162" CreationDate="2015-12-27T03:12:30.287" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Both of these adjectives seem to mean &quot;correct&quot;, but I do not understand the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11479" RevisionGUID="c55d1335-5011-442d-bf2e-3d64db8ed162" CreationDate="2015-12-27T03:12:30.287" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="What is the difference between правильна and правильная?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11479" RevisionGUID="c55d1335-5011-442d-bf2e-3d64db8ed162" CreationDate="2015-12-27T03:12:30.287" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11480" RevisionGUID="24ebaab8-fc21-4f4f-8a7a-2c25f1dc459e" CreationDate="2015-12-27T06:24:52.570" UserId="5008" Text="These are short and full forms of adjective respectively. Roughly speaking, short adjectives are confined to predicative (almost) exclusively, except really archaic texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also want to look at [this](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-or-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0/9127#9127) and [this](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9178/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BC) question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11481" RevisionGUID="f68ca69c-46d4-407c-8290-51e6919a132d" CreationDate="2015-12-27T06:42:41.763" UserId="5443" Text="Here's the difference in usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The short form of an adjective  like **правильна** (-льно, -лен, -льны) is limited to cases where a quality of something (usually put in nominative case) is declared directly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта формула правильна (English: this expression is correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The complete form **правильная** (льное, льный, -льные) can be used in this sense, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта формула - правильная.  Это правильная формула. (This is a correct&#xD;&#xA;&gt; expression.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But unlike the short form, it can also be used for any reference to something having that quality:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нашёл правильную формулу. (I've found the correct expression.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, **правильна** has a meaning close to &quot;*является **правильной***&quot; (**is** correct)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26552" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11479" RevisionGUID="1b3bac9a-1649-4738-b7d2-4b78e790b4e7" CreationDate="2015-12-27T11:35:23.533" UserId="5605" Comment="кавычки" Text="What is the difference between &quot;правильна&quot; and &quot;правильная&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11482" RevisionGUID="c49c9631-d2e4-490b-b315-5311e5056519" CreationDate="2015-12-27T17:18:06.097" UserId="4454" Text="&quot;Правильная&quot; answers to &quot;какая?&quot;, &quot;правильна&quot; - to &quot;какова?&quot;. Basically they have the same meaning, but they are used in different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;правильная формула&quot; is &quot;the correct formula&quot;, and &quot;формула правильна&quot; is &quot;the formula is correct&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions &quot;как/каков?&quot;, &quot;какова?&quot;, &quot;каково?&quot; (don't confuse it with &quot;какого?&quot;), or, to be more exact, answers to them, are mostly used with a definite object or subject of conversations. Like when you asking &quot;how is/was the [something]&quot;?. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как порыбачили? Каков улов? - How was the fishing? How is the catch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is more likely to see in literature. In speaking, &quot;какой&quot; is more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11483" RevisionGUID="33800d86-dd3f-4dbf-a675-1c23e26591d3" CreationDate="2015-12-27T19:43:14.300" UserId="6489" Text="Может быть тут:&#xD;&#xA;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled. Как убрать логотип, понятно setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, тут скорее ЭТО ПОНЯТНО С ПОМОЩЬЮ. Само предложение построено немного неверно. Тут скорее подошло бы : &quot; То, как быстро указать стрелку, вам будет понятно с помощью метода ...&quot; и &quot; То, как убрать логотип, вам будет понятно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11484" RevisionGUID="5499c46d-6527-444b-86cd-2a2ddab309f1" CreationDate="2015-12-27T21:01:19.830" UserId="6490" Text="There is no such word &quot;правильна&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you read it somewhere most probably it is phonetic description of speaking non-Russian (or even Russian from some region) &quot;правильно&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11485" RevisionGUID="2cebc3bc-eaee-4174-836e-dbf58132bab5" CreationDate="2015-12-27T21:16:22.770" UserId="97" Text="Возможно несколько вариантов.  Если нужно оставить это одним предложением, то вот так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку - понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип - понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11463" RevisionGUID="4d9f298c-e072-44f2-855c-fe4a93630b7b" CreationDate="2015-12-27T21:17:33.633" UserId="97" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's the same as &quot;привет&quot; because &quot;Хай&quot; is simply a transliteration of &quot;Hi&quot;. You can use &quot;privet/привет&quot;(more informal) or &quot;Zdravstvyite/здравствуйте&quot; (more formal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11486" RevisionGUID="96761ff8-45f5-4edd-b1f7-f58c4736df49" CreationDate="2015-12-27T21:27:16.777" UserId="6490" Text="Эти предложения сложны и для меня, русского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/158-tire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Первое предложение__&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Правило 168:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как просто указать стрелку понятно - с помощью метода setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Второе предложение__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правило 164:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как убрать логотип понятно - setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11484" RevisionGUID="c1079138-2fc5-4561-a6c6-4f9012484542" CreationDate="2015-12-27T21:47:44.250" UserId="6490" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="&lt;del&gt;There is no such word &quot;правильна&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you read it somewhere most probably it is phonetic description of speaking non-Russian (or even Russian from some region) &quot;правильно&quot; &lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Ha! Shame on me! I'm a Russian and I feel myself like Haruka Kano in &quot;日本人の知らない日本語&quot; (I don't know English translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Правильна&quot; - using on the end of sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Правильная формула&quot; but &quot;Формула правильна&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: &quot;Формула правильна&quot; have categorical tone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I insist that this formula is correct!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;No!This is correct formula!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="1e5e7002-2161-4b2c-83e0-d543db6fbfa8" CreationDate="2015-12-27T23:13:52.573" UserId="6452" Comment="added 1179 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в следующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы понимаем, как указать стрелку, а не указываем её.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» — это отдельная основа (сказуемое). А какие уж ставить знаки — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение. Однако после «понятно» всё же лучше ставить не запятую, как я предлагал в старом варианте ответа, и не тире, а двоеточие — по правилу [§ 161](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe) или [§ 162](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="6647b608-dd27-40dc-bf5a-8531e0b561ef" CreationDate="2015-12-27T23:26:30.063" UserId="6452" Comment="added 1179 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в следующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы понимаем, как указать стрелку, а не указываем её.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» — это отдельная основа (сказуемое). А какие уж ставить знаки — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение. Однако после «понятно» всё же лучше ставить не запятую, как я предлагал в старом варианте ответа, и не тире, а двоеточие — по правилу [§ 161](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe) или [§ 162](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**Update. Я перечитал [контекст](https://ru.stackoverflow.com/q/293186/17429) и увидел, что там идёт противопоставление, поэтому перед «понятно» нужно тире:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Как просто указать стрелку — понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип — понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`. Но как и убрать логотип приложения, и отобразить стрелку — непонятно.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="e10d20c9-1178-4d3b-8916-8acc487dd102" CreationDate="2015-12-27T23:33:32.747" UserId="6452" Comment="Я — лох.; added 411 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в следующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы понимаем, как указать стрелку, а не указываем её.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» — это отдельная основа (сказуемое). А какие уж ставить знаки — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение. Однако после «понятно» всё же лучше ставить не запятую, как я предлагал в старом варианте ответа, и не тире, а двоеточие — по правилу [§ 161](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe) или [§ 162](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update. Перечитал [контекст](https://ru.stackoverflow.com/q/293186/17429) и подумал, что, возможно, перед «понятно» нужно тире, но я в этом до конца не уверен:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку — понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип — понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`. Но как и убрать логотип приложения, и отобразить стрелку — непонятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11487" RevisionGUID="f347cadb-e440-4257-9105-bd69d7e59127" CreationDate="2015-12-27T23:34:24.920" UserId="6490" Text="I did a little research and came to conclusion that in __modern__ Russian correct form is &quot;об меня&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found 3 sentences on 25 pages of Google with &quot;о меня&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Interview with Artyom Dzyuba&#xD;&#xA; 2. Translation of Hopscotch&#xD;&#xA; 3. Translation of novel by Mayne Reid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All cases can be misprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other found cases are evident misprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But: grammatically both cases are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find examples in ecclesiastical texts, archaic texts, I suppose that exists example in verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11488" RevisionGUID="5f6f7719-a331-4b94-adf0-240cc32dd4b7" CreationDate="2015-12-27T23:51:02.397" UserId="6490" Text="I can supplement to other questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern youth frequently use &quot;фан&quot; almost with the same meaning as in English and derivative verb &quot;фаниться&quot; as &quot;have fun&quot;, &quot;doing something for fun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="f08b825b-eaba-4c89-8b3e-35929d6025a3" CreationDate="2015-12-28T00:39:12.230" UserId="6452" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в следующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы понимаем, как указать стрелку, а не указываем её.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» — это отдельная основа (сказуемое). А какие уж ставить знаки — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение. Однако после «понятно» всё же лучше ставить не запятую, как я предлагал в старом варианте ответа, и не тире, а двоеточие — по правилу [§ 161](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe) или [§ 162](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe). Перед ним же можно поставить и тире (например, по [§ 124.1](http://orthographia.ru/punctum.php?paragraph=pg124.php) или [§ 138.1.1](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=142#ppp_1)), и параллелизм структуры предложений, особенно хорошо видный в [исходном тексте](https://ru.stackoverflow.com/q/293186/17429), усиливает это желание:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку — понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип — понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`. Но как и убрать логотип приложения, и отобразить стрелку — непонятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="555710c1-8449-4c46-bdef-87b5324beb01" CreationDate="2015-12-28T00:58:35.227" UserId="6452" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в последующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы *понимаем, как указать стрелку*, вместо того, чтобы *указывать её*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» — это отдельная основа (сказуемое). А какие уж ставить знаки — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение. Однако после «понятно» всё же лучше ставить не запятую, как я предлагал в старом варианте ответа, и не тире, а двоеточие — по правилу [§ 161.а](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe) или [§ 162](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/157-dvoe). Перед ним же можно поставить и тире (например, по [§ 124.1](http://orthographia.ru/punctum.php?paragraph=pg124.php) или [§ 138.1.1](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=142#ppp_1)), и параллелизм структуры предложений, особенно хорошо видный в [исходном тексте](https://ru.stackoverflow.com/q/293186/17429), усиливает это желание:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку — понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип — понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`. Но как и убрать логотип приложения, и отобразить стрелку — непонятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="6764156e-6633-429e-8363-159715c7421b" CreationDate="2015-12-28T20:44:02.613" UserId="6452" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в последующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы *понимаем, как указать стрелку*, вместо того, чтобы *указывать её*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» нужно с двух сторон отделить какими-то знаками, иначе смысл кардинально исказится. Какими знаками — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;До «понятно» можно поставить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* запятую (если мы воспринимаем это в стиле «понятно, как [...]»);&#xD;&#xA;* тире ([§ 138.1.1](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=142#ppp_1); параллелизм структуры усиливает желание поставить тире);&#xD;&#xA;* вопросительный знак.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После «понятно» можно поставить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* если мы воспринимаем «понятно» не как вводное, а как сказуемое:&#xD;&#xA;  * тире ([§ 45.7](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=151#ppp_7));&#xD;&#xA;  * двоеточие ([§ 44.1](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=150#ppp_1) или [§ 44.3](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=150#ppp_3));&#xD;&#xA;  * открывающаяся скобка;&#xD;&#xA;* запятую, если мы считаем «понятно» просто вводным словом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку — понятно (с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`). Как убрать логотип — понятно (`setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`). Но как и убрать логотип приложения, и отобразить стрелку — непонятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11489" RevisionGUID="b746b842-5ada-4fa1-ab68-768f03beb89a" CreationDate="2015-12-28T21:39:10.627" UserId="4925" Text="My babushka and diedushka gave me money for Christmas, and I want to write a thank you card to them. I am pretty comfortable with Russian, but how would I start the letter? And how would I end it? Also, if I say &quot;Thanks for all the money&quot;, is that ,&quot;Спасиво за все деньги&quot; или &quot;Спасибо за всех денег&quot;? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11489" RevisionGUID="b746b842-5ada-4fa1-ab68-768f03beb89a" CreationDate="2015-12-28T21:39:10.627" UserId="4925" Text="Writing a Thank you card" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11489" RevisionGUID="b746b842-5ada-4fa1-ab68-768f03beb89a" CreationDate="2015-12-28T21:39:10.627" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11458" RevisionGUID="fc926380-cced-4fd4-8f0d-3b1c9aa33957" CreationDate="2015-12-28T22:09:03.703" UserId="6425" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="To answer your second question, in modern Russian *красный (красная, красное)* means red, as in color. When someone says *Красная площадь*, what comes to mind is the square at the center of Moscow, and neither color red nor anything else. It’s like if someone would say *Sears tower*, it’s the landmark building in Chicago that comes to mind, not the retail chain or its bankruptcy story. Or, if you hear *White house*, you’d think of the residence of US president, and not so much of the actual color. *Red sea* is a sea between Africa and Middle East, and we don’t associate it with anything red. &#xD;&#xA;Your first question is too deep for me to answer. &#xD;&#xA;I hope that helps. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11489" RevisionGUID="99c99a33-f59d-450b-8a38-08ae334d16eb" CreationDate="2015-12-28T22:09:40.653" UserId="4925" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="My babushka and diedushka gave me money for Christmas, and I want to write a thank you card to them. I am pretty comfortable with Russian, but how would I start the letter? And how would I end it? Also, if I say &quot;Thanks for all the money&quot;, is that ,&quot;Спасиво за все деньги&quot; или &quot;Спасибо за всех денег&quot;? And one last thing: they recently introduced me to a new &quot; Russian buddy&quot; and I wanted to thank them for that as well. I would I say, &quot;Thank you for introducing me to Igor!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11490" RevisionGUID="c28383f7-0db0-402d-82d5-bc11e428e389" CreationDate="2015-12-28T22:19:14.193" UserId="3680" Text="Just write:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Спасибо вам за деньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About &quot;Russian buddy&quot; Igor:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Спасибо, что познакомили меня с Игорем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11491" RevisionGUID="1ea2be31-daa4-48ad-b3b2-4779de24ff0b" CreationDate="2015-12-28T22:19:34.490" UserId="6425" Text="you can keep it simple, start by *Дорогие дудушка Ваня и бабушка Аня* (substitute names though), end by *ваш внук [your name here]*. It's better to thank them for the gift, not the money (even if they gave you the money), so you could say *спасибо за ваш щедрый подарок.*&#xD;&#xA;To thank for the introduction: *спасибо, что познакомили меня с Игорем, [он очень интересный человек]*. Or *хочу поблагодарить вас за то, что ...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11491" RevisionGUID="50eb25bd-364b-497a-b8c8-9a7dadcbaa1c" CreationDate="2015-12-28T22:29:58.687" UserId="6425" Comment="edited body" Text="you can keep it simple, start by *Дорогие дeдушка Ваня и бабушка Аня* (substitute names though), end by *ваш внук [your name here]*. It's better to thank them for the gift, not the money (even if they gave you the money), so you could say *спасибо за ваш щедрый подарок.*&#xD;&#xA;To thank for the introduction: *спасибо, что познакомили меня с Игорем, [он очень интересный человек]*. Or *хочу поблагодарить вас за то, что ...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11492" RevisionGUID="54f59516-af87-4916-9b30-6a5d807635eb" CreationDate="2015-12-28T23:58:26.303" UserId="1736" Text="&#xD;&#xA;*Сдуть* means to deflate[blow away (e.g. by the wind)] something or someone, so it's about performing an action aimed at some object which is different from the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сдуться* ends with **-ся** suffix. In this case it means the subject and object are the same, literally &quot;to deflate itself/on its own&quot; (btw, nothing can be blown away on its own, so in this context it would sound weird to me), without any action from outside. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;мыть -&gt; мыть**ся** (== мыть **с**еб**я**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вешать -&gt; вешать**ся** (== вешать **с**еб**я**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-**ся** can also implicitly indicate the passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;варить (to boil) -&gt; варить**ся** (== to be boiled)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When something falls (упасть only indicates the fact of falling, with no reference to the reason), there is no external object or force that causes the action, so such form (упасться/упалось), which would show the &quot;isolation&quot; of the action, makes no sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11493" RevisionGUID="e080672e-6107-401e-be1b-e703010948f7" CreationDate="2015-12-29T10:58:07.000" UserId="6381" Text="Привет всем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня вопрос. Это правильно что я не мог пользоваться **выгуливать / выгулять** с людьми только с животными?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Я выгуливаю свою/мою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Я хотел бы выгулять с тобой сейчас. (с другом)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Благодарю вас!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11493" RevisionGUID="e080672e-6107-401e-be1b-e703010948f7" CreationDate="2015-12-29T10:58:07.000" UserId="6381" Text="выгуливать / выгулять - Только с животными?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11493" RevisionGUID="e080672e-6107-401e-be1b-e703010948f7" CreationDate="2015-12-29T10:58:07.000" UserId="6381" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11494" RevisionGUID="abb179ec-eb6b-4606-8a7a-1c42b183a11b" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:10:05.510" UserId="109" Text="Both words translate as *here*, but in which context should I use one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a question about it on the Q&amp;A of [masterrussian.com][1] that already gives me a rough understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I should use *вот* when pointing at something and *здесь* when referring to where I am at the moment of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the examples given there though confuse me a bit as there's no context given&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот зонтик. = Here's the umbrella.  &#xD;&#xA;Зонтик здесь. = The umbrella is here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that in the former example a person is either passing on the umbrella or pointing at the umbrella, whereas in the latter example the person is just standing next to the umbrella (or maybe holding it in their hands) but is not pointing at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is my understanding of this example correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kinda believe that it is important whether or not the person I'm talking to can see me and knows exactly where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Suppose I am in the same room with the other person. Could I also use вот when just referring to my exact location? That is, would вот also cover the case where I'm just holding the umbrella or where I'm standing next to it, but without pointing at it? Like I would virtually point at myself.&#xD;&#xA;* Suppose I am on the phone. Am I right when I assume that only ever здесь is valid in that case as there's no way of pointing at something or, in case my previous assumption was correct, letting the other one know my very exact location as opposed to my approximate location like a city, a building or a room (unless I send him my GPS coordinates, of course)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ask.masterrussian.com/244/whats-the-difference-between-%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C-and-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-here" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11494" RevisionGUID="abb179ec-eb6b-4606-8a7a-1c42b183a11b" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:10:05.510" UserId="109" Text="What's the difference between &quot;вот&quot; and &quot;здесь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11494" RevisionGUID="abb179ec-eb6b-4606-8a7a-1c42b183a11b" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:10:05.510" UserId="109" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11495" RevisionGUID="f129948b-accd-4d68-8306-8a918bbecd6c" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:24:02.590" UserId="134" Text="*Выгулять* means &quot;to take smbd./smth. for a walk&quot;. This means you think that aforementioned somebody or something needs a walk, and decide where to go with them and what to do there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't say that of mature people, at least those you respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mentioned in the question, this is indeed normally used when speaking of animals. You can say *я выгулял детей* if you are talking about really little kids. Phrases like *выгуливать девушку* are also used but they sound kinda machist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Выгулять* is also a transitive verb, it requires an object in accusative. *Я хотел бы выгулять* is ungrammatical by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to have a walk with your friend on mutual consent, you use *гулять / погулять*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выгуливаю свою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хотел бы погулять с тобой (*другом*) сейчас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11495" RevisionGUID="5b3d31b3-4a7c-4556-a4b2-ae27e4bfb270" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:28:57.460" UserId="194" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="*Выгулять* means &quot;to take smbd./smth. for a walk&quot;. This means you think that aforementioned somebody or something needs a walk, and decide where to go with them and what to do there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't say that of mature people, at least those you respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mentioned in the question, this is indeed normally used when speaking of animals. You can say *я выгулял детей* if you are talking about really little kids. Phrases like *выгуливать девушку* are also used but they sound kinda machist. It also can be used for prisoners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Выгулять* is also a transitive verb, it requires an object in accusative. *Я хотел бы выгулять* is ungrammatical by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to have a walk with your friend on mutual consent, you use *гулять / погулять*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выгуливаю свою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хотел бы погулять с тобой (*другом*) сейчас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11496" RevisionGUID="26370374-6ed9-42d3-8c03-a5d3be474e97" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:30:47.610" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Я хотел бы выгулять с тобой сейчас = I would like to take [the dog] for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; walk together with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means you want to take the dog mentioned (possibly) before and omitted in this sentence for a walk and do it together with your friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11497" RevisionGUID="7f32d6b6-56ff-4f3d-b6d6-d7aaf2fb6e68" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:32:58.030" UserId="1097" Text="`выгуливать/выгулять` to humans may be used in a humorous/ironic conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Что-то ты давненько меня не выгуливал, давай сходим куда-нибудь?&#xD;&#xA;(A girl asks her boyfriend to go to the cafe, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ordinary speech is used `гулять/погулять/прогуляться`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Мы ходили гулять в парк.  &#xD;&#xA;— Мне предложили погулять по берегу.  &#xD;&#xA;— Я собираюсь прогуляться до магазина, тебе купить что-нибудь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11498" RevisionGUID="26be0d64-4a36-4ee3-99a9-52f2f97500ea" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:45:13.153" UserId="6425" Text="Здесь и вот are often synonymous, however not always. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would вот also cover the case where I'm just holding the umbrella or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where I'm standing next to it, but without pointing at it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can. If someone was looking for an umbrella, and you are pointing it out: here it is, then you say *вот зонтик.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If, on the other hand, the inquiry was about the list of items in the room, as in what do you see? question, Then you say *здесь зонтик*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is on the phone, and asks you where is that umbrella, then you say *зонтик здесь*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11499" RevisionGUID="682b398c-a305-4877-934c-0555b5af2cce" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:47:28.820" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;Вот&quot; does not mean &quot;here&quot; in the meaning of place. Never! You use it only pointing on something (Вот зонтик) or showing something (even yourself - Вот он я = here I am)  or giving something to somebody. &#xA;So your understanding is correct.  &#xA;&#xA;A synonym of &quot;здесь&quot; is &quot;тут&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11499" RevisionGUID="87df4f65-ede0-4493-a06f-bd6ee6ea052d" CreationDate="2015-12-29T11:52:39.970" UserId="6097" Comment="added 192 characters in body; added 60 characters in body" Text="&quot;Вот&quot; does not mean &quot;here&quot; in the meaning of place. Never! You cannot say &quot;Зонтик вот&quot; meaning &quot;the umbrella is here&quot;. You use it only pointing on something (Вот зонтик) or showing something (even yourself - Вот он я = here I am)  or giving something to somebody. &#xA;So your understanding is correct.  &#xA;&#xA;There is also &quot;вон&quot; with almost the same meaning as вот but the difference is that вон is considered to be further than вот.  Вот зонтик (here, right next to me), а вон пальто (over there). &#xA;&#xA;A synonym of &quot;здесь&quot; is &quot;тут&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11500" RevisionGUID="a7527ca1-66cb-42a8-be80-f56152da09e1" CreationDate="2015-12-29T13:14:17.497" UserId="5008" Text="Your understanding is quite correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Вот_ is a kind of _thing-pointer_ &quot;here&quot;, which is only appliable for seeable objects (I mean &quot;seeable&quot; in a broad sense; for example, _Вот оно что_ = _Now I see / understand_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Здесь_ is rather a _place-pointer_ &quot;here&quot;, so if, say, talking to someone who's looking for you but can't see you, you may shout _Эй, я здесь!_ (_Hey, I'm here!_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Тут_ is mostly the same things as _Здесь_. (BTW. Consider this brilliant saying: _Здесь вам не тут!_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11493" RevisionGUID="0480b97f-98e3-487f-b3e5-712a5f7663bb" CreationDate="2015-12-29T13:20:48.723" UserId="5008" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Привет всем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня вопрос. Верно ли, что я могу использовать глаголы **выгуливать / выгулять** только по отношению к животным, но не к людям?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Я выгуливаю свою/мою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Я хотел бы выгулять с тобой сейчас. (с другом)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Благодарю вас!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11493" RevisionGUID="0480b97f-98e3-487f-b3e5-712a5f7663bb" CreationDate="2015-12-29T13:20:48.723" UserId="5008" Comment="added 19 characters in body; edited title" Text="Выгуливать / выгулять - только про животных?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11501" RevisionGUID="70b2d470-2356-4de6-b07a-125f6aebfa28" CreationDate="2015-12-29T17:22:27.540" UserId="6494" Text="Just adding to the excellent answer by Dmitry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In military commands the second to last syllable most often is artificially prolonged, in order to give time to recognize the command and prepare for action. While the last syllable is not only given the additional stress, it must differ in intonation - basically, become a short shout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this makes military commands a rather bad suited example for language study." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11498" RevisionGUID="d729a02e-9aa1-4bf9-90fe-444ef3f76064" CreationDate="2015-12-29T17:28:24.677" UserId="6425" Comment="added 661 characters in body" Text="Здесь и вот are often synonymous, however not always. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would вот also cover the case where I'm just holding the umbrella or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where I'm standing next to it, but without pointing at it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can. If someone was looking for an umbrella, and you are pointing it out: here it is, then you say *вот зонтик.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If, on the other hand, the inquiry was about the list of items in the room, as in what do you see? question, Then you say *здесь зонтик*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone is on the phone, and asks you where is that umbrella, then you say *зонтик здесь*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reply to your comment, Em1:&#xD;&#xA;The approximate rule of thumb is: ***здесь*** identifies spacial location, ***вот*** identifies an object within a set of other objects. &#xD;&#xA;If you show me picture of a street where you live, and point to your house you'd *say вот мой дом*, meaning it's THIS house and not that house. If it's the only house on the photo, you can still use *вот* (или *это*). If you want to emphasize the surrounding - the neighborhood or the scenery, then you'd say зедесь мой дом, meaning that *this is [the wonderful place in the world] where my house is*. &#xD;&#xA;Again, there are many instances when ***здесь и вот*** can be used interchangeably. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11495" RevisionGUID="5c2f68ec-6c52-4ae2-ba9c-52740c4ce86b" CreationDate="2015-12-29T20:26:11.540" UserId="134" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="*Выгулять* means &quot;to take smbd./smth. for a walk&quot;. This means you think that aforementioned somebody or something needs a walk, and decide where to go with them and what to do there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't say that of mature people, at least those you respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mentioned in the question, this is indeed normally used when speaking of animals. You can say *я выгулял детей* if you are talking about really little kids. Phrases like *выгуливать девушку* are also used but they sound kinda machist. One might say *выгулять заключённых* of taking prisoners for their daily walk in the yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *выгулять* is a transitive verb, it requires an object in accusative. *Я хотел бы выгулять* is ungrammatical by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to have a walk with your friend on mutual consent, you use *гулять / погулять*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выгуливаю свою собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хотел бы погулять с тобой (*другом*) сейчас." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11473" RevisionGUID="76cb254b-2331-4a98-9b92-e5d8c10541be" CreationDate="2015-12-29T22:33:16.190" UserId="6452" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; Как просто указать стрелку, понятно: с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тут главное вот что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. До «понятно» ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в предыдущее предложение — и смысл его искажается: становится что-то вроде «как понятно указать стрелку», то есть теперь `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` у нас не просто *указывает стрелку*, а *указывает стрелку понятно*.&#xD;&#xA;2. После «понятно» тоже ***обязательно*** должен быть какой-то знак препинания. Иначе «понятно» влипает в последующее предложение — и смысл его искажается: теперь с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` мы *понимаем, как указать стрелку*, вместо того, чтобы *указывать её*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть «понятно» нужно с двух сторон отделить какими-то знаками, иначе смысл кардинально исказится. Какими знаками — это во многом на Ваше усмотрение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;До «понятно» можно поставить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* запятую (если мы воспринимаем это в стиле «понятно, как просто [...]»);&#xD;&#xA;* тире ([§ 138.1.1](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=142#ppp_1); параллелизм структуры усиливает желание поставить тире);&#xD;&#xA;* вопросительный знак.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После «понятно» можно поставить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* если мы воспринимаем «понятно» не как вводное, а как сказуемое:&#xD;&#xA;  * тире ([§ 45.7](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=151#ppp_7));&#xD;&#xA;  * двоеточие ([§ 44.1](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=150#ppp_1) или [§ 44.3](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=150#ppp_3));&#xD;&#xA;  * открывающаяся скобка;&#xD;&#xA;* запятую, если мы считаем «понятно» просто вводным словом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как просто указать стрелку — понятно (с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`). Как убрать логотип — понятно (`setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`). Но как и убрать логотип приложения, и отобразить стрелку — непонятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Ниже идёт старый вариант ответа:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;s&gt;Как просто указать стрелку, понятно с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип, понятно `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;-- такая пунктуация означала бы, что мы &quot;*понимаем с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`*&quot;. Теоретически такое возможно, т.к. многое может быть понятно благодаря одному только наличию этого метода в списке методов. Но на самом деле это немного бред, т.к. обычно люди понимают с помощью документации/мозгов, а метод `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled` -- это уже то, с помощью чего люди это делают (указывают стрелку), а не то, с помощью чего люди понимают, как это сделать.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно, с помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно, `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Или авторские варианты:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &lt;sub&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Понятно! С помощью метода `setDisplayHomeAsUpEnabled`. Как убрать логотип? Понятно: `setDisplayShowHomeEnabled(false)`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11502" RevisionGUID="40bb27e1-f5b9-48fa-bcf0-3f15934fe2be" CreationDate="2015-12-29T22:48:31.310" UserId="1688" Text="*Здесь* is strictly about location, which generally coincides with the location of the speaker, meaning &quot;right here, where I am (we are) at the moment&quot;. *Вот* is more about existence (or coming into existence). You can use either, depending on the intent, in both your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in your second example, somebody might tell you over the phone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потерял зонтик, не знаешь, где он?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the implication that the umbrella might have been lost forever. You happen to see the umbrella in the room with you and say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот он.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он здесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning &quot;You think you may have lost your umbrella but I found it, it is here with me&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a different situation, you have been long waiting for a train and suddenly see it in the distance. You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот поезд.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;which would mean that the train has appeared, but not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поезд здесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter is only applicable when the train actually arrives at your station." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11503" RevisionGUID="c65b21bc-52ca-4d89-8946-15e55e0a03fd" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:45:43.723" UserId="5405" Text="Из-за нескольких значений слова &quot;понятно&quot;, по-русски фразы звучат довольно коряво. Лучше заменить синонимами, а какими зависит от вкладываемого вами смысла:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как просто указать стрелку? Конечно же с помощью метода...  &#xD;&#xA;Как убрать стрелку? Конечно же - ...  &#xD;&#xA;Как просто указать стрелку можно понять с помощью метода...  &#xD;&#xA;Как убрать стрелку видно из..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26600" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11493" RevisionGUID="d75ffade-d7e8-41b6-bc5e-88a0af46af4e" CreationDate="2015-12-30T08:09:38.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/682111288143667201" />
  <row Id="26601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11504" RevisionGUID="0e66b684-2161-4c12-80ad-2ed9d73e4163" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:21:25.003" UserId="6497" Text="I m studying numbers and I got this sentence Этому городу триста лет. so why the subject (this city) is in dative case? &#xD;&#xA;can u help me? &#xD;&#xA;thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11504" RevisionGUID="0e66b684-2161-4c12-80ad-2ed9d73e4163" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:21:25.003" UserId="6497" Text="why dative case in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11504" RevisionGUID="0e66b684-2161-4c12-80ad-2ed9d73e4163" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:21:25.003" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="3c1b4620-5f98-4bd4-bc2b-705e87d77b46" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:40:33.147" UserId="6497" Text="I'm studying numbers and I found this example:  На станионе собралось пятьдесят тысяч человек. the subject should be in genitive plural, If I'm not wrong. Why the verb is in past singular? Is it like in english for &quot;people&quot;? Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="3c1b4620-5f98-4bd4-bc2b-705e87d77b46" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:40:33.147" UserId="6497" Text="why the verb is singular in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="3c1b4620-5f98-4bd4-bc2b-705e87d77b46" CreationDate="2015-12-30T09:40:33.147" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26607" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="072f1f6f-6d8a-4f73-9804-2d4bbfb191e0" CreationDate="2015-12-30T12:31:01.617" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8829],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26608" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11504" RevisionGUID="3e3a124f-8b26-42cf-b766-d402fa343807" CreationDate="2015-12-30T12:31:11.840" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9502],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26609" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="637bff36-5368-490a-b6fb-2b9d164af9b8" CreationDate="2015-12-30T14:38:21.993" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11506" RevisionGUID="23bb161e-be35-422a-b36f-f08bdbff6cf4" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:21:17.380" UserId="3892" Text="I found the following sentence in which один occurs in conjunction with a plural noun. I had to deduce that it is being used in a non-numerical way, perhaps with a meaning like *only*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; От них у меня **один** неприятности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being the case, is this considered an adverb or a particle? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is it on the level of **только** or **всего**, and if so, does it bear the same sentential stress that these words would in a similar sentence? Or does it bear a secondary stress like a number would?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11506" RevisionGUID="23bb161e-be35-422a-b36f-f08bdbff6cf4" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:21:17.380" UserId="3892" Text="non-numerical use of ОДИН" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11506" RevisionGUID="23bb161e-be35-422a-b36f-f08bdbff6cf4" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:21:17.380" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11507" RevisionGUID="264a0720-aae6-44de-8e94-a6df03d16452" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:25:24.913" UserId="3892" Text="In a story, I came across the exclamation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И вот **он я** - живой и здоровый!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this a typo, or is it in actual use and what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11507" RevisionGUID="264a0720-aae6-44de-8e94-a6df03d16452" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:25:24.913" UserId="3892" Text="Convergence of the pronouns ОН and Я" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11507" RevisionGUID="264a0720-aae6-44de-8e94-a6df03d16452" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:25:24.913" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11508" RevisionGUID="fb7a12e1-9bde-4091-9ff9-83cece3125b8" CreationDate="2015-12-30T15:39:58.293" UserId="3892" Text="You are correct - **человек** is actually the genitive plural form of **человек**. Alternatively **людей** is used as the genitive plural of the same word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is in the neuter past tense because plurality can be seen as a neuter *collective* **whole** in conjuncion with numbers and numerical expressions like **много** *many*, **большинство** *most*, and your number above -OR- as an animate *plural* **group** in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Большинство людей не **знает** (singluar verb referring to большинство)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-or- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Большинство людей не **знают** (plural verb referring to людей)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-native, I respectfully defer to the natives to elaborate on my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11509" RevisionGUID="655c2ffb-94ca-49bf-b22a-03d0d777a6d3" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:11:08.827" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;Вот он я&quot; is a fixed grammatical construction which means &quot;look, here I am&quot;. A female person would say &quot;ваши она я&quot; and a group of people-  &quot;Вот они мы&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;See also answers to this question: russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11494/whats-the-difference-between-вот-and-здесь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11509" RevisionGUID="0416666b-50cd-483d-99e0-4a12e4828468" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:19:59.933" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;Вот он я&quot; is a fixed grammatical construction which means &quot;look, here I am&quot;. A female person would say &quot;вот она я&quot; and a group of people-  &quot;Вот они мы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also answers to this question: russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11494/whats-the-difference-between-вот-and-здесь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11506" RevisionGUID="c387f4da-e65a-4dd7-b207-31b4f7bca505" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:27:00.543" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="I found the following sentence in which один occurs in a plural form and in conjunction with a plural noun. I had to deduce that it is being used in a non-numerical way, perhaps with a meaning like *only*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; От них у меня **одни** неприятности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being the case, is this considered an adverb or a particle? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is it on the level of **только** or **всего**, and if so, does it bear the same sentential stress that these words would in a similar sentence? Or does it bear a secondary stress like a number would?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11510" RevisionGUID="e03e7715-a723-485e-ba47-1ab15afc5a8b" CreationDate="2015-12-30T17:24:08.287" UserId="5008" Text="Here _Одни_ is used as an adjective with the meaning close to &quot;_Nothing but_&quot;, so it's in plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is it on the level of только or всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Всего_ means rather a different thing. _Только_ is certainly OK, but _Одни_ sounds a bit stronger. I guess, &quot;_Nothing but_&quot; vs &quot;_Only_&quot; is a decently good analogy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11511" RevisionGUID="a101eeb9-8713-4998-97c0-bff0c6d371f7" CreationDate="2015-12-30T17:32:06.650" UserId="4560" Text="Like Alex S said, **вот он я** is a fixed construction, and you're not likely to find the two pronouns in a row anywhere else. It sounds colloquial and kind of jovial — your example is very typical of its use — but curiously, the **он** seems to also be semi-mandatory. You can't just say **вот я** except in specific situations: when you're calling out to someone who can't seem to locate you (&quot;I'm *here*!&quot;), or you're pointing to an effigy of yourself — as in a photo (&quot;that's me there&quot;), or if you're explaining/reenacting something using objects (&quot;so suppose this [pencil] is me and this [eraser] is the car, and it whizzed past me just liiiike this&quot;: *вот я, вот машина, и та-а-а-к вот она мимо меня пронеслась*). **Вот он я**, on the other hand, is always about your literal physical self in the here-and-now, and the message it conveys is that you're present at all, not where exactly you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Disregard the part in my original answer about emphasis on *вот* vs. emphasis on *я*. Didn't think of enough examples. It's not really a factor.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11512" RevisionGUID="6401e11d-9e0e-4a32-8593-2fd3fa727f08" CreationDate="2015-12-30T20:50:58.593" UserId="134" Text="*Он* in *вот он* is a clitic (a word which does not have an accent on its own). Phonetically, *вот он* is a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Russian normally omits copula in a sentence, *вот он* is perceived as a deictic adverb on its own, with a meaning slightly different from a mere *вот*, as noted in the answers above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other phrases in vernacular Russian similar in origin: *вот так вот, вот это вот, как же ж так* etc, produced by adding a particle or an adverb to a (seemingly) one word which already had it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaliznyak mentions there was a period in old Russian when the reflexive pronoun *ся*, which was on its way from an unbound morpheme to the postfix it is now, was used *twice* with the reflexive verbs: *мнѣ сѧ не можетсѧ, а то сь диѧлось*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11509" RevisionGUID="9bc23fb7-2f59-4af6-b2f7-294db265f9af" CreationDate="2015-12-31T01:59:56.267" UserId="1097" Comment="Hyperlink formatting" Text="&quot;Вот он я&quot; is a fixed grammatical construction which means &quot;look, here I am&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;A female person would say &quot;вот она я&quot; and a group of people — &quot;Вот они мы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also answers to this question: [What's the difference between “вот” and “здесь”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11494/whats-the-difference-between-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-and-%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11513" RevisionGUID="f891fe4d-ef59-4fa6-99c7-f4268c810746" CreationDate="2015-12-31T04:51:44.760" UserId="3892" Text="I know that essentially **переделывать/переделать** means to redo something, or even convert something into something else, yet more and more in conversation I hear it used as if it were an alternate perfective form of simple делать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a friend on Skype said: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дело в том, что я пытаюсь тут кое-какие дела переделать перед тем, как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уедем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took this to mean that he is trying to **get some things done** before leaving town. Is this accurate? Or is there another meaning I'm not sussing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11513" RevisionGUID="f891fe4d-ef59-4fa6-99c7-f4268c810746" CreationDate="2015-12-31T04:51:44.760" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of ПЕРЕДЕЛАТЬ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11513" RevisionGUID="f891fe4d-ef59-4fa6-99c7-f4268c810746" CreationDate="2015-12-31T04:51:44.760" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11514" RevisionGUID="6b1dcd51-933a-40cc-a11a-75049b9f3bbe" CreationDate="2015-12-31T07:34:19.667" UserId="5008" Text="Yes, that's (almost) right. _Переделать_ (or even _Попеределать_) is a colloquial way of saying **to get all (or many) things done**. [Переделать - это...](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/925862).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also usage of &quot;_пытаюсь_&quot; and &quot;_кое-какие_&quot;. This means &quot;_I'm trying / struggling to_&quot; and &quot;_some / I'm not going to give you any more details_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the whole thing really means &quot;_I've got some problems, but you shouldn't take that into account_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11514" RevisionGUID="e859f462-34ba-4647-8bdd-8cb930a4c56c" CreationDate="2015-12-31T08:02:19.143" UserId="5008" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="Yes, that's (almost) right. _Переделать_ (or even _Попеределать_) is a colloquial way of saying **to get all (or many) things done**. [Переделать - это...](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/925862).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also usage of &quot;_пытаюсь_&quot; and &quot;_кое-какие_&quot;. This means &quot;_I'm trying / struggling to_&quot; and &quot;_some / I'm not going to give you any more details_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the whole thing really means &quot;_I've got some problems, but you shouldn't take that into account_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Well, that explanation probably gives little compared to just &quot;_I'm trying to_&quot; and &quot;_some business_&quot;, but it's a hint of how to crack seemingly awkward construction _some many things_ (i.e. some = irrelevant for you; many = worse than I expect)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26629" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11494" RevisionGUID="ae0d9ceb-6933-4d19-b2a3-55e222e81843" CreationDate="2015-12-31T08:23:11.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/682477084544004096" />
  <row Id="26630" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11506" RevisionGUID="01f9503c-4965-4455-b3f9-ce235aed18f5" CreationDate="2015-12-31T09:08:56.307" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Non-numerical use of &quot;один&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26631" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11513" RevisionGUID="d60dfeeb-aeea-4855-a4fb-c000f71f1dce" CreationDate="2015-12-31T09:09:10.343" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;переделать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26632" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11507" RevisionGUID="a84ef6df-e23a-46ea-bde4-86669ed00f7c" CreationDate="2015-12-31T09:09:33.413" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Convergence of the pronouns &quot;он&quot; and &quot;я&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="ed901b80-285b-46db-9a8e-ece82689eb35" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:16:56.763" UserId="6497" Text="I'm a newbie and I'm studying the rules for possession. As i got the у preposition calls the personal pronoun in genitive, but then the noun in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;ex. У меня есть книга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but why in this sentence друг is in genitive plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анастасия изучает литературу в университете в Москве, у нее там много друзей;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can you help me? &#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="ed901b80-285b-46db-9a8e-ece82689eb35" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:16:56.763" UserId="6497" Text="why друг is in genitive case in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="ed901b80-285b-46db-9a8e-ece82689eb35" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:16:56.763" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="33ac582b-65a1-496b-aa61-fdf50065d4a7" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:19:29.107" UserId="6501" Text="Apologies if this question is not within the recognized scope of this forum.&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering what the below might be. Some kind of clock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![what is it?](http://s23.postimg.org/62yb44j6j/what_is_it.png)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="33ac582b-65a1-496b-aa61-fdf50065d4a7" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:19:29.107" UserId="6501" Text="Requesting translation for clock-like image" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="33ac582b-65a1-496b-aa61-fdf50065d4a7" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:19:29.107" UserId="6501" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11518" RevisionGUID="fc13cb18-5ddd-4fee-a4c7-0d31ef7459e0" CreationDate="2016-01-01T08:43:15.190" UserId="5008" Text="Think of it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What** do I have? --&gt; У меня есть **книги**  &#xD;&#xA;**How many** books do I have? --&gt; У меня есть **много книг**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is here the Genitive case is mostly about the quantity, not just possession." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11519" RevisionGUID="a628ca4d-d1c9-44b3-98f2-5a97b5bf40df" CreationDate="2016-01-01T10:37:07.500" UserId="4560" Text="The Russian alphabet goes А**Б**В**Г**ДЕЁЖЗИЙ**КЛ**М**НОПРСТ**У**ФХ**ЦЧШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯ, so you can see that it's a selection of the letters arranged in alphabetical order, starting from Б on top and going clockwise. Why these particular twelve letters is anyone's guess. They don't correlate in any obvious way to numbers on a clock. If it's some kind of a combination lock or code dial, it might have parts missing. Also it might just turn out to be a faux-Russian prop from some foreign movie." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11520" RevisionGUID="83aa5700-227f-473d-a46a-03f06c1ce646" CreationDate="2016-01-01T23:10:01.187" UserId="6381" Text="I learned it like this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**много** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if things are countable than you take genetiv plural&#xD;&#xA;- if not countable than genetiv singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So because the friends are countable you have to use the genitiv plural case here. Hope that helps you too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26644" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="78eb2204-f8c7-4e2e-9ff7-53fe91348ed9" CreationDate="2016-01-02T05:29:07.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/683158055849189377" />
  <row Id="26645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="a6a7e434-5f26-495b-b592-8cabe4237902" CreationDate="2016-01-02T08:20:36.153" UserId="6497" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="I'm a newbie and I'm studying the rules for possession. As i got the у preposition calls the personal pronoun in genitive, but then the noun in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;ex. У меня есть книга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but why in this sentence друг is in genitive plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анастасия изучает литературу в университете в Москве, у нее там много друзей;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can you help me? &#xD;&#xA;thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: the two phrases upon here are in my textbook, I did not made them up. I'm just trying to figure out why in the first with у + genitive + nominative and the in the second у + genitive + genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="59da685c-2397-4d91-9a5c-9dafe1578dc6" CreationDate="2016-01-02T08:40:16.170" UserId="6497" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="I'm a newbie and I'm studying the rules for possession. As i got the у preposition calls the personal pronoun in genitive, but then the noun in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;ex. У меня есть книга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but why in this sentence друг is in genitive plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анастасия изучает литературу в университете в Москве, у нее там много друзей;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can you help me? &#xD;&#xA;thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: the two phrases upon here are in my textbook, I did not made them up. I'm just trying to figure out why in the first with у + genitive + nominative and the in the second у + genitive + genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit2: just found this other sentence&#xD;&#xA;У меня новый русско-итальянский словарь&#xD;&#xA;so nominative case after genitive personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;I'm so confused right now. first a nominative with книга, then a genitive with друзей and then a nominative again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11518" RevisionGUID="33892366-e5c0-46b6-9516-10914abc8b5c" CreationDate="2016-01-02T10:35:13.967" UserId="5008" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Think of it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What** do I have? --&gt; У меня есть **книги**  &#xD;&#xA;**How many** books do I have? --&gt; У меня есть **много книг**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is here the Genitive case is mostly about the quantity, not just possession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. On the matter **У меня [есть] что-то** vs. **Я имею что-то**, the former is more preferable way to express possessive in Russian. Technically it's something like &quot;The thing is near to me&quot; (which is why Genitive is used), but you've got just to remember this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="c1a49413-9314-4d71-b707-9c2ad28705fd" CreationDate="2016-01-02T12:12:41.720" UserId="6501" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="Apologies if this question is not within the recognized scope of this forum.&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering what the below might be. Some kind of clock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![what is it?](http://s23.postimg.org/62yb44j6j/what_is_it.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT - Sorry for not giving more information. It was on the wall in a room of a formerly KGB-run hospital in Kiev. As it is not readily recognizable, I guess it may have some medical purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; The frame is from the very highly recommended documentary 'The English Surgeon'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26649" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11479" RevisionGUID="d232ea30-b65c-49ee-a378-d816697afc1c" CreationDate="2016-01-02T14:29:06.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/683293945271611393" />
  <row Id="26650" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11411" RevisionGUID="fdb364a9-bd97-434d-90c1-676c9acbd46c" CreationDate="2016-01-02T17:31:05.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/683339745737457666" />
  <row Id="26651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11521" RevisionGUID="3cb88ae2-42e9-434a-9688-d19c13d37189" CreationDate="2016-01-02T20:55:21.693" UserId="6481" Text="Word **много** and any other word meaning quantity need an object in the genitive case. Your examples can be expanded:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня есть книга. Nominative  &#xD;&#xA;У меня [есть] **много** книг. Genitive  &#xD;&#xA;У меня **три** книги. Genitive  &#xD;&#xA;У меня есть друг. Nomenative  &#xD;&#xA;У меня [есть] **много** друзей. Genitive  &#xD;&#xA;У меня [есть] **куча** друзей. Genitive  &#xD;&#xA;У меня [есть] новый русско-итальянский словарь. Nominative  &#xD;&#xA;У меня [есть] **два** русско-итальянских словаря. Genitive  &#xD;&#xA;У меня [есть] **несколько** русско-итальянских словарей. Genitive  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11522" RevisionGUID="19e392ff-e35b-4dd3-9097-4ff1faf22612" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:33:24.203" UserId="6507" Text="I encountered this phrase: &quot;Много людей в Европе и Америке знает о Петербурге.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is intuitively plural, so I expected &quot;знают&quot; - &quot;Много людей знают...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in Russian do you use singular verbs for a plural subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11522" RevisionGUID="19e392ff-e35b-4dd3-9097-4ff1faf22612" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:33:24.203" UserId="6507" Text="Много людей (знает/знают)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11522" RevisionGUID="19e392ff-e35b-4dd3-9097-4ff1faf22612" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:33:24.203" UserId="6507" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11522" RevisionGUID="4873ad73-a565-47bb-b2d5-48d0449ea173" CreationDate="2016-01-03T08:48:06.180" UserId="6507" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I encountered this phrase: &quot;Много людей в Европе и Америке знает о Петербурге.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is intuitively plural, so I expected &quot;знают&quot; - &quot;Много людей знают...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When are singular verbs used in Russian for a plural subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11523" RevisionGUID="fa575011-7574-4d17-a28f-ceaa5b2ba3c8" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:19:05.783" UserId="6507" Text="&quot;To have&quot; is &quot;У меня&quot; / &quot;у тебя&quot; / &quot;у нее&quot; / &quot;у него&quot; / &quot;у нас&quot; / etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, you can say...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) есть друг. &quot;I/you/he/she/we have a friend.&quot;, emphasis on friend, friend in accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) много друзей. &quot;I/you/he/she/we have many friends.&quot;, emphasis on plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Много always takes genitive to mean &quot;many things&quot; and &quot;У&quot; always takes genitive to mean possession (have). (There are other ways to indicate possession, though.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11523" RevisionGUID="342fed00-35b7-4b2f-be5b-17896517b68a" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:24:51.693" UserId="6507" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="&quot;To have&quot; is &quot;У меня&quot; / &quot;у тебя&quot; / &quot;у нее&quot; / &quot;у него&quot; / &quot;у нас&quot; / etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, you can say...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) друг. &quot;(have) a friend.&quot;; Emphasis on friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) есть друг. &quot;(have) a friend.&quot;; Emphasis on have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) много друзей. &quot;(have) many friends.&quot;; Emphasis on plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Много and у both take genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11523" RevisionGUID="8dda8678-348a-4f5e-8552-aef64c5a2296" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:31:20.400" UserId="6507" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="&quot;To have  __&quot; is &quot;У меня/тебя/нас/их  __&quot;, with the blank in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fill in the blank you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;У меня друг.&quot; I have a friend - emphasis on friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;У меня есть новый словарь.&quot; I **do** have a new dictionary - emphasis on &quot;**do** have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;У меня много друзей.&quot; I have many friends - emphasis on plural (&quot;many&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Много always takes genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11523" RevisionGUID="27fff17a-115b-494b-92d9-99b979264028" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:36:49.360" UserId="6507" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;To have  __&quot; is &quot;У меня/тебя/нас/них  __&quot;, with the blank in nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fill in the blank you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) &quot;У меня друг.&quot; I have a friend - emphasis on friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;У меня есть новый словарь.&quot; I **do** have a new dictionary - emphasis on &quot;**do** have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;У меня много друзей.&quot; I have many friends - emphasis on plural (&quot;many&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Много always takes genitive.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26660" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11522" RevisionGUID="58f4547c-eaab-4e65-85ca-b5b3c617610c" CreationDate="2016-01-03T10:41:47.320" UserId="6507" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="f47cb335-2773-4557-851e-92e2e3793e18" CreationDate="2016-01-03T12:04:16.757" UserId="6501" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Apologies if this question is not within the recognized scope of this forum.&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering what the below might be. Some kind of clock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![what is it?](http://s23.postimg.org/62yb44j6j/what_is_it.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT - Sorry for not giving more information. It was on the wall in a room of a formerly KGB-run hospital in Kiev. As it is not readily recognizable, I guess it may have some medical purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; The frame is from the highly recommended documentary 'The English Surgeon'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11524" RevisionGUID="ceb9aa0f-7bfd-4035-8b31-c47b7267f802" CreationDate="2016-01-03T14:52:42.480" UserId="6508" Text="The subject here is *много* and it is singular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11525" RevisionGUID="60c54413-54e5-48c4-b070-9df0b6579113" CreationDate="2016-01-03T20:36:26.820" UserId="134" Text="Sorry for a long quote in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal, 184:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В рассматриваемой конструкции (*Q: сказуемое при счётном обороте*) сказуемое может иметь как форму единственного, так и форму множественного числа. Ср.: *Вошло семь человек погони... (Лесков). – Наутро пятьдесят семь выходцев подали заявления с просьбой принять в колхоз (Шолохов).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На выбор формы числа, помимо указанных выше условий согласования сказуемого с подлежащим – собирательным существительным, влияет также ряд других условий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Форма единственного числа сказуемого указывает на совместное действие, форма множественного числа – на раздельное совершение действия. Ср.: *Пять солдат отправилось в разведку (группой). – Пять солдат отправились в разведку (каждый с самостоятельным заданием); К началу экзамена явилось десять студентов. – Десять студентов окончили институт с отличием.* Ср. также различное согласование однородных сказуемых в одном и том же предложении: *Человек полтораста солдат высыпало из лесу и с криком устремились на вал (Пушкин)* (в первом случае характеризуется совместность действия, во втором – раздельность).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Форма единственного числа сказуемого указывает на совокупность предметов, форма множественного числа – на отдельные предметы. Ср.: *В городе строится пять объектов соцкультбыта (единое нерасчлененное представление о действии). – В крупнейших городах страны строятся еще пять объектов соцкультбыта (расчлененное представление о действии).* Ср. также: *В крендельной работало двадцать шесть человек... (Горький). – Восемь самолетов полка взлетали попарно, соблюдая очередь (Н. Чуковский).* Поэтому при подлежащем, обозначающем большое число предметов и воспринимаемом как одно целое, сказуемое обычно ставится в единственном числе, например: *В столовой в одну смену сидело сто человек (Макаренко); Прибыло шестьсот студентов-путейцев (Н. Островский).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Форма единственного числа сказуемого употребляется при обозначении меры веса, пространства, времени и т.д., так как в этом случае имеется в виду единое целое, например: *На покраску крыши ушло двадцать килограммов олифы; До конца пути оставалось пятнадцать километров; На выполнение всей работы понадобится шесть месяцев.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Сказуемые-глаголы (обычно со значением протекания времени) ставятся в единственном числе, если в составе количественно-именного сочетания (обычно оборота) имеются слова *лет, месяцев, дней, часов* и т.д., например: *Прошло сто лет (Пушкин); Однако уже, кажется, одиннадцать часов пробило (Тургенев); Вот два года моей жизни вычеркнуто (Горький).* Но при другом лексическом значении глагола возможна форма множественного числа сказуемого, например: *Десять секунд показались мне за целый час (Л. Толстой).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell: plural and singular can both be used, unless it's a special case (measures of length, weight, intervals of time etc. govern singural) or a nuance in meaning you want to stress (whether the subject is perceived as a group as a whole or many separate entities).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This discrepancy is a remnant of Old Russian, which used an adjective in neuter plural instead of an adverb in constructs like that (compare *многая лета; святая святых; вся суть; прочая, прочая, прочая* etc), and this adjective used to be the subject in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form coinsides with the feminine singular, and, since the gender and the number of the subject governs the verb, both plural and singular forms of the verb were perceived as acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11526" RevisionGUID="d73ab47e-3f64-4b92-823c-457a8a631528" CreationDate="2016-01-04T12:33:34.187" UserId="1262" Text="The choice between these two verb forms depends on the topic parsing. Notice that in Russian syntax the first word/phrase is a topic with the subsequent words being hierachially structured commentaries. This means *людей* is a genitive attribute to *много* (cf. with phrases like *много людей - это хорошо*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the topic can be positioned at the end of a phrase (not being a grammatical subject, as in the examples below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. to my Russian ear the most natural parcing here wourd be [*много]людей*], not [*много людей*], hence, the subject is ***много*** and it takes a singular verb form, just like in any impersonal phrase, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Было мало/много времени* (the topic is *время* and the subject is 'zero', or impersonal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Было* (not *были) много/мало дел.* (the topic is *дела* and the subject is 'zero', or impersonal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ожидается* (not *ожидаются) много осадков.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11527" RevisionGUID="e0f06567-d5ac-499a-b52c-b9b72dd1ad66" CreationDate="2016-01-04T12:42:08.690" UserId="1262" Text="The number of cases in modern Russian is disputable (some researchers say that there are over 20 of them), but the thing is that a meaning of Genitive is not  unified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, when you use it in phrases like *I have*, than it is a Genitive-with-a-preposition (and this is the case to be used with the majority of Russian prepositions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you count things (and Slavic counting can be quite a drama to beginners :-) ) you use it as a Genitive-For-Quantifucation (e.g. when counting animate/inanimate objects up to four items, or sayning that there many/much/little/some/few objects, or making phrases like 'a glass of vodka', where of+noun stands for a Russian noun in Genitive)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11526" RevisionGUID="03cbc339-b81c-4548-a3fb-e0430c7af2f7" CreationDate="2016-01-04T12:44:21.827" UserId="1262" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The choice between these two verb forms depends on the topic parsing. Notice that in Russian syntax the first word/phrase is [usually] a topic with the subsequent words being hierachially structured commentaries. This means *людей* is a genitive attribute to *много* (cf. with phrases like *много людей - это хорошо*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the topic can be positioned at the end of a phrase (not being a grammatical subject, as in the examples below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. to my Russian ear the most natural parcing here wourd be [*много]людей*], not [*много людей*], hence, the subject is ***много*** and it takes a singular verb form, just like in any impersonal phrase, cf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Было мало/много времени* (the topic is *время* and the subject is 'zero', or impersonal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Было* (not *были) много/мало дел.* (the topic is *дела* and the subject is 'zero', or impersonal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ожидается* (not *ожидаются) много осадков.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11528" RevisionGUID="e50d5d85-b407-4047-be71-4e449a775ed4" CreationDate="2016-01-04T18:26:10.300" UserId="6516" Text="Example: У него борода, усы и очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be wrong to write: &quot;У него борода, усы и в очках&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is most correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11528" RevisionGUID="e50d5d85-b407-4047-be71-4e449a775ed4" CreationDate="2016-01-04T18:26:10.300" UserId="6516" Text="Кто-то в очках?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11528" RevisionGUID="e50d5d85-b407-4047-be71-4e449a775ed4" CreationDate="2016-01-04T18:26:10.300" UserId="6516" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11529" RevisionGUID="2aef1c89-75be-43d8-ac7f-3c27f1bd418f" CreationDate="2016-01-04T19:00:52.397" UserId="4481" Text="This is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы и очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы и в очках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But also you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы, и он в очках" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11529" RevisionGUID="08b64fc7-582d-4dc1-8bde-e950dd74caa1" CreationDate="2016-01-04T19:09:36.603" UserId="4481" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="This is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы и очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы и в очках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But also you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы, и он в очках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to remember: if you say `he has ...` (`У него [есть] ... `), use accusative case - `очки`. If you say `he wears ...` (`Он в ...`), use prepositional case - `очках`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11530" RevisionGUID="fe99cc93-334a-4404-8c84-359c2d79fc3c" CreationDate="2016-01-04T20:31:21.563" UserId="1262" Text="One has ... (У кого-то [есть] ...) requires a nominative (not accusative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*в очках* here requires some more words. This wouldn't make the phrase more canonical, but at least it would not be so strange to a Russian ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, it would be also OK to say *У него борода, усы и лицо/глаза/взгляд/(сам)он в очках.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11531" RevisionGUID="52ca289b-8379-4159-84c2-b390592fe064" CreationDate="2016-01-04T21:59:00.893" UserId="6520" Text="I was reading a short story from Chekhov called &quot;Который из трех?&quot; when I came across a hyphenated suffix **-с** attached to certain words. Here are a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И при такой самой природе как приятно, знаете **ли-с**, любить такую&#xD;&#xA;приятную особу, как вы... Но я несчастлив!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Очень **несчастлив-с**!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Ни... **ничего-с**! Я хотел, собственно говоря, вас побеспокоить...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find what it means. I even looked through my reference grammar book, but to no avail. I reckon it's either an archaic grammar (the story was published in 1882) or some very obscure one. I would like to know what it means, when is it used and to what sort of words can it be attached?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11531" RevisionGUID="52ca289b-8379-4159-84c2-b390592fe064" CreationDate="2016-01-04T21:59:00.893" UserId="6520" Text="The meaning and usage of hyphenated suffix -с" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11531" RevisionGUID="52ca289b-8379-4159-84c2-b390592fe064" CreationDate="2016-01-04T21:59:00.893" UserId="6520" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11532" RevisionGUID="bb8d38d7-5b6f-4494-8f1d-ff56519afbf0" CreationDate="2016-01-04T22:05:29.467" UserId="6521" Text="I'm trying to develop an argument about Russian-English translations of figurative language. I've been looking at cases where people talk about capturing an animal versus capturing someone's attention. Here are two example sentences in English, found online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*When Ruth Harkness, a New York fashion designer, became the first foreigner to **capture** a live **panda** eight years later, she named it Su Lin, meaning “a little bit of something cute”.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Last week, Hungarian artist Dandolf **captured** the world's **attention** when he released an appallingly cute (and strangely hard) puzzle, featuring a hidden panda.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that пленить is mostly used in the figurative sense and using it to mean capture is deemed obsolete in many dictionaries. But захватить doesn't seem to be used with reference to animate objects besides prisoners and hostages. I've also found a couple of examples where пленить is used to mean capture an animal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В далекой Африке фермеры **пленили** российскую краснокнижную **птицу скопу**, окольцованную в 2013 году в Дарвиновском государственном биосферном заповеднике, который находится на границе Вологодской и Ярославской областей.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are: (1) can пленить still be used to mean to physically capture an animal, (2) can захватать be used to mean to physically capture an animal, (3) is one of these better than the other, (4) is there some other word that's even better, and (5) does the following translation sound okay or weird:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На прошлой неделе, венгерский художник Dandolf пленил внимание всего мира, когда он выпустил ужасающе мила (и странно трудная) головоломка, показывая скрытую панду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any advice!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11532" RevisionGUID="bb8d38d7-5b6f-4494-8f1d-ff56519afbf0" CreationDate="2016-01-04T22:05:29.467" UserId="6521" Text="Is пленить or захватить a better equivalent of English &quot;capture&quot; when referring to animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11532" RevisionGUID="bb8d38d7-5b6f-4494-8f1d-ff56519afbf0" CreationDate="2016-01-04T22:05:29.467" UserId="6521" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11533" RevisionGUID="dca32064-d0b4-4495-a471-a7ffe4657ba0" CreationDate="2016-01-04T22:08:19.663" UserId="5605" Text="Это словое́рс (тж. словое́р, словое́рик) — название частицы -с (написание по старой орфографии — -съ), прибавляемой в русском языке к концу слов в определённых ситуациях: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11534" RevisionGUID="9e77d395-674a-4704-9493-c76112636a9e" CreationDate="2016-01-04T22:50:10.580" UserId="5443" Text="It is possible to use &quot;пленить&quot; when speaking of people (though it's more typical to say &quot;взять в плен&quot; or &quot;захватить&quot;), but that word is almost never applied to animals (poetic texts might be a rare exception). So, in your example (&quot;пленили скопу&quot;) it sounds unnatural (too human). When it comes to animals, they say &quot;**поймать**&quot;, &quot;**выловить**&quot; or &quot;**отловить**&quot; (formal); &quot;похитить&quot; in case of illegal action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11529" RevisionGUID="8e12c3fa-2238-4f18-8305-ddb8c27233b8" CreationDate="2016-01-04T23:16:09.483" UserId="4481" Comment="edited body" Text="This is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы и очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы и в очках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But also you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него борода, усы, и он в очках&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to remember: if you say `he has ...` (`У него [есть] ... `), use nominative case - `очки`. If you say `he wears ...` (`Он в ...`), use prepositional case - `очках`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11535" RevisionGUID="cc334c2f-1b48-4ce2-8de1-0cc34f20a854" CreationDate="2016-01-04T23:26:57.763" UserId="4560" Text="Shortened from **сударь** over the course of centuries, it's basically used to add a respectful tone to the conversation. It went entirely out of use after the revolution, and its meaning has to be learned by present-day Russians — by default, it just registers as &quot;something people always say in 19th-century books for some reason&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11537" RevisionGUID="901ad883-c612-427b-970d-391c5944c655" CreationDate="2016-01-05T07:35:17.860" UserId="4481" Text="The word &quot;пленить&quot; could be used in meaning &quot;to capture&quot; in figurative language, but it have to be **very** figurative language. Your examples look like normal, neutral speech. As for me, this word looks outdated, and it is used rarely now. The best use of it, I think, is in telling a love story, something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её красота пленила его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When speaking about people, it is better to use &quot;взять (брать) в плен&quot; (first example I found on a news site):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместе с тем он обращает внимание на то, что ИГИЛ брало в плен и христиан и мусульман — шиитов и суннитов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Поймать&quot; is for &quot;capture an animal&quot;, and &quot;завладеть&quot; or &quot;привлечь&quot; is for attention. If you want to speak about capturing a lot of animals during the long time, you can say &quot;отловить&quot; about animals and &quot;выловить&quot; about fish. Your first example I would change to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В далекой Африке фермеры поймали российскую краснокнижную птицу скопу, окольцованную в 2013 году в Дарвиновском государственном биосферном заповеднике, который находится на границе Вологодской и Ярославской областей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also I would use &quot;занесенный в Красную Книгу&quot; instead of &quot;краснокнижный&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second example looks weird (and has a lot of errors). I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На прошлой неделе венгерский художник Dandolf привлёк внимание всего мира, когда выпустил очаровательную (и неожиданно трудную) головоломку, изображающую скрытую панду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11538" RevisionGUID="d1646932-351e-4cc3-916b-22e3d0052b20" CreationDate="2016-01-05T07:36:10.147" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;(1) can пленить still be used to mean to physically capture an animal -- **No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(2) can захватать be used to mean to physically capture an animal (I guess you really mean _захватить_) -- **No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(3) is one of these better than the other -- **Neither one is good when speaking of animals**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(4) is there some other word that's even better -- Certainly, **поймать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(5) does the following translation sound okay or weird -- **Absolutely awful**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На прошлой неделе венгерский художник Дандольф **привлёк** внимание всего мира, выпустив **потрясающе** **увлекательную** (и **необычайно** трудную) головоломку со **спрятанной** пандой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11537" RevisionGUID="61bda543-b637-404e-86c1-2dfcc416dc4d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T07:42:07.473" UserId="4481" Comment="typo" Text="The word &quot;пленить&quot; could be used in meaning &quot;to capture&quot; in figurative language, but it have to be **very** figurative language. Your examples look like normal, neutral speech. As for me, this word looks outdated, and it is used rarely now. The best use of it, I think, is in telling a love story, something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её красота пленила его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When speaking about people, it is better to use &quot;похищать&quot; (to kidnap) or (on the war) &quot;взять (брать) в плен&quot; (first example I found on a news site):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместе с тем он обращает внимание на то, что ИГИЛ брало в плен и христиан и мусульман — шиитов и суннитов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Поймать&quot; is for &quot;capture an animal&quot;, and &quot;завладеть&quot; or &quot;привлечь&quot; is for attention. Your first example I would change to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В далекой Африке фермеры поймали российскую краснокнижную птицу скопу, окольцованную в 2013 году в Дарвиновском государственном биосферном заповеднике, который находится на границе Вологодской и Ярославской областей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also I would use &quot;занесенный в Красную Книгу&quot; instead of &quot;краснокнижный&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;If you want to speak about capturing a lot of animals during the long time, you can say &quot;отловить&quot; about animals and &quot;выловить&quot; about fish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сбежавших из зоопарка животных удалось отловить только через неделю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В прошлом году браконьеры выловили 500 тонн рыбы.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second example looks weird (and has a lot of errors). I would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На прошлой неделе венгерский художник Dandolf привлёк внимание всего мира, когда выпустил очаровательную (и неожиданно трудную) головоломку, изображающую скрытую панду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11539" RevisionGUID="01325316-d120-46c8-8159-6650e92abf6d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T07:57:33.627" UserId="5008" Text="Just a side note. In &quot;Eugene Onegin&quot; Onegin's neighbours think him as being very impolite person for (besides other things) his constantly omitting suffix &quot;-s&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Сосед наш неуч, сумасбродит,  &#xD;&#xA;Он фармазон; он пьет одно  &#xD;&#xA;Стаканом красное вино;  &#xD;&#xA;Он дамам к ручке не подходит;  &#xD;&#xA;Все **да** да **нет**; не скажет **да-с**  &#xD;&#xA;Иль **нет-с**&quot;. Таков был общий глас.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;А.С. Пушкин &quot;Евгений Онегин&quot;, II, V&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Our neighbor is a boor; acts like a crackbrain;  &#xD;&#xA;he's a Freemason; he  &#xD;&#xA;drinks only red wine, by the tumbler;  &#xD;&#xA;he won't go up to kiss a lady's hand;  &#xD;&#xA;'tis all '**yes,**' '**no**' - he'll not say '**yes, sir,**'  &#xD;&#xA;or '**no, sir.**' &quot; This was the general voice.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Translated by E. Nabokov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11533" RevisionGUID="92b057e3-2f4a-43fb-a2fd-6de84dbd32ab" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:00:29.910" UserId="5605" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Это **словое́рс** (тж. словое́р, словое́рик) — название частицы -с (написание по старой орфографии — -съ), прибавляемой в русском языке к концу слов в определённых ситуациях: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11540" RevisionGUID="c214d3f8-1528-49ef-83d4-4282b4d3682f" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:42:18.393" UserId="6497" Text="In this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Перед обязанности затем удовольствия&#xD;&#xA;can you tell me in which cases are duty (dative, genitive, prepositional?) and pleasure (genitive? plural?)?&#xD;&#xA;can you help me?&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11540" RevisionGUID="c214d3f8-1528-49ef-83d4-4282b4d3682f" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:42:18.393" UserId="6497" Text="Перед and затем : which cases are these?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11540" RevisionGUID="c214d3f8-1528-49ef-83d4-4282b4d3682f" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:42:18.393" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11541" RevisionGUID="016cd3e8-2427-48ee-ab2f-b9d8418c3b0a" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:47:59.943" UserId="6497" Text="in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Скажи мне, где мы находимся (есть), мы находимся (есть) очень далеко от дома, сегодня облачно могла бы идти дождь&#xD;&#xA;why the мочЬ is in feminin gender? is it for an implied погода?&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26697" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11541" RevisionGUID="016cd3e8-2427-48ee-ab2f-b9d8418c3b0a" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:47:59.943" UserId="6497" Text="why in this sentence мочЬ is feminin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26698" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11541" RevisionGUID="016cd3e8-2427-48ee-ab2f-b9d8418c3b0a" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:47:59.943" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11542" RevisionGUID="9a69e65f-086a-439f-994a-1bdcec4ea83f" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:54:36.670" UserId="4637" Text="The sentence sounds strange. Better would `Сначала обязанности, затем удовольствия` or `Вперёд обязанности, потом удовольствия`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I think on cases it's difficult for me to distinguish (perhaps someone will correct me here). Both would be either Nominative or Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also mention the Russian sayings/proverbs, that suit better here and mean the same thing you'd like to express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Сделал дело - гуляй смело` and `Делу время, потехе час`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11543" RevisionGUID="bfec5601-6506-46cb-8bf3-7b2f3051575d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:34:29.653" UserId="6381" Text="I have the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал 8 часов утро, так же как и всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I have to place a comma between **так же** and **как и**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the meaning for you as a native speaker drastically change if I would say to you instead of the above this? (Because for me it's identically)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал 8 часов утро, как всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11543" RevisionGUID="bfec5601-6506-46cb-8bf3-7b2f3051575d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:34:29.653" UserId="6381" Text="Так же как и - With or without comma?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11543" RevisionGUID="bfec5601-6506-46cb-8bf3-7b2f3051575d" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:34:29.653" UserId="6381" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11544" RevisionGUID="6739789a-21f0-4934-bc57-5a728bc10326" CreationDate="2016-01-05T14:42:01.890" UserId="6481" Text="The sentence is incorrect even excluding cases of **обязанности** and **удовольствия** issue. And the answer depends on what do you really mean.  &#xD;&#xA;If the sentence supposed to be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;сначала обязанности, а потом удовольствия&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then it can be helpful to insert skipped verbs here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;сначала [идут] обязанности, а затем [идут] удовольствия&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's easier to see that the case is nominative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11545" RevisionGUID="6490f97b-22aa-448c-9dc3-b9a335cbd20a" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:17:33.027" UserId="6481" Text="No, a comma [isn't needed](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_710) between **так же** and **как и** in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw: part before the comma should be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал **в** 8 часов утр**а**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me common way to express this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я, как всегда, встал в 8 часов утра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting *как всегда* in the back of the sentence make me think that You want to stress that You **always** wake up at 8 o'clock. If you write **так же как и всегда** You make this stress stronger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11545" RevisionGUID="cec440a1-6d79-466b-a297-8d982a9f40f5" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:38:51.820" UserId="6481" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="No, a comma [isn't needed](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_710) between **так же** and **как и** in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw: part before the comma should be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал **в** 8 часов утр**а**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me common way to express this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я, как всегда, встал в 8 часов утра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting *как всегда* in the end of the sentence make me think that You want to stress that You **always** wake up at 8 o'clock. If you write **так же как и всегда** You make this stress stronger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11546" RevisionGUID="8e238cb6-9dbd-4711-997f-3bc3cbe7c13b" CreationDate="2016-01-05T21:06:05.820" UserId="6525" Text="Так же, как и &#xA;There should be a comma.&#xA;&#xA;There are a lot of examples:&#xA;http://pishempravilno.ru/takzhe-i-tak-zhe/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11546" RevisionGUID="55d84b18-c4a3-42b8-9ba8-9682eb26ecaf" CreationDate="2016-01-05T23:08:16.610" UserId="97" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; Так же, как и &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of examples:&#xD;&#xA;http://pishempravilno.ru/takzhe-i-tak-zhe/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11548" RevisionGUID="1b135700-45fa-4b3c-99bb-aee5534530c5" CreationDate="2016-01-05T23:41:57.140" UserId="1262" Text="Unless  могла бы идти is separated with e.g. commas as a form of address to a feminine addressee, the sentence is grammatically wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mistake derives from difficulty most non-native speakers face when trying to distinguish from each other masculine and feminine words ending in the soft sign. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **дождь** is masculine, but **рожь** is feminine. Then, again, **медведь** is masculine while **подать** (with the stressed a) is feminine. One could hope for  any monosyllabic word being feminine, but, alas, **кость** is feminine while **гость** is not. However, any word ending in **-сть** or **-нь** and deriving from an adjective is by rule a feminine one, e.g. *радость, гадость, пакость, синь, зелень, теплынь, пьянь.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11549" RevisionGUID="8ace58bc-ee2e-4190-803c-223c670998ca" CreationDate="2016-01-05T23:53:31.717" UserId="1262" Text="This is one of many examples of Fenno-Ugric impact upon the Russian language. The fact is that Russian Genitive bears, among other semantical aspects, also that of Partitive (just like in Estonian, Basque and Finnish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, the Possessive Genitive is like that in phrases similar to *брат друга, сестра отца, крыша дома, рукоять оружия.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Partitive Genitive is used together with the quantitative structures, like counting objects from 2`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; to 4 (and bigger numbers like 52, 64, etc) or in phrases like *много человек, много людей, мало умных.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense, the is identical to Finnish ***mitä?*** (or its shorterned form ***'täh?***) and stands for thema/rhema, definite/indefinite and visible/invisible semantical aspects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whenever the Russian speakers think of the adressee as of holding lower and/or equal social position and of the thing they ask about as of a new theme, or as of something invisible/indefinite, they are most likely to use  ***чего?*** (provided they use the 'living' form of a language and not that of some 'high speech')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11548" RevisionGUID="6fdd4128-7fbb-4c46-b391-a8f796b2626f" CreationDate="2016-01-06T00:16:12.000" UserId="1262" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Unless  *могла бы идти* is separated with e.g. commas as a form of address to a feminine addressee, the sentence is grammatically wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mistake derives from difficulty most non-native speakers face when trying to distinguish from each other masculine and feminine words ending in the soft sign. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **дождь** is masculine, but **рожь** is feminine. Then, again, **медведь** is masculine while **подать** (with the stressed a) is feminine. One could hope for  any monosyllabic word being feminine, but, alas, **кость** is feminine while **гость** is not. However, any word ending in **-сть** or **-нь** and deriving from an adjective is by rule a feminine one, e.g. *радость, гадость, пакость, синь, зелень, теплынь, пьянь.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11551" RevisionGUID="e5cd69d9-3b16-4209-9dc6-1d1aa07b2d1a" CreationDate="2016-01-06T09:16:29.093" UserId="6381" Text="I learned during my classes that I can close an informal letter to my familiy or friends with `С приветом, твои сын` for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I showed a couple days ago my homework to a real russian woman she laughts and said this means something like `to have bats in the belfry` and I should better use `пока` or `до свидания`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is this all about here in your opinion? I putted this into the Google Image search and there came up some stuff which points into the direction my Russian padruga said." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11551" RevisionGUID="e5cd69d9-3b16-4209-9dc6-1d1aa07b2d1a" CreationDate="2016-01-06T09:16:29.093" UserId="6381" Text="Complimentary close «С приветом» still existent nowadays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11551" RevisionGUID="e5cd69d9-3b16-4209-9dc6-1d1aa07b2d1a" CreationDate="2016-01-06T09:16:29.093" UserId="6381" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11548" RevisionGUID="7c2a01ee-166a-422e-ba77-29984e9fd4d0" CreationDate="2016-01-06T09:53:25.010" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="Unless  *могла бы идти* is separated with e.g. commas as a form of address to a feminine addressee, the sentence is grammatically wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mistake derives from difficulty most non-native speakers face when trying to distinguish from each other masculine and feminine words ending in the soft sign. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **дождь** is masculine, but **рожь** is feminine. Then, again, **медведь** is masculine while **подать** (with the stressed o) is feminine. One could hope for  any monosyllabic word being feminine, but, alas, **кость** is feminine while **гость** is not. However, any word ending in **-сть** or **-нь** and deriving from an adjective is by rule a feminine one, e.g. *радость, гадость, пакость, синь, зелень, теплынь, пьянь.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11552" RevisionGUID="5176ea33-5344-434d-9286-db69452e2ef4" CreationDate="2016-01-06T10:07:09.943" UserId="1262" Text="Well, a female friend is still podruga, not padruga; the language did not change *that quick* in the part of its orthography. As for the complementary close, it has a double meaning and semantically is actually closer in the modern Russian to 'be crazy', but that mostly works in phrases like Они с приветом / Он с приветом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complementary close stands for any other one of the same structure, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С уважением*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С уважением к Вам*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С наилучшими пожеланиями*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С поздравлениями*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С восхищением* (if you want to flatter a bit when writing a romantic letter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С пожеланиями успехов / удачи / всего наилучшего (any Genitive attribute would do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priviet also can be used, but then it would be better specified as a form of greeting, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С дружеским приветом* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С английским приветом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С американским приветом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, such a complementary close would be regarded by most native speakers as a manifestation of utter / absolute trust, which would really be a little bit strange for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calques from English also would do, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Всего хорошего*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Искренне Ваш / Искренне Ваша*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С наилучшими пожеланиями*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11553" RevisionGUID="7bc2fbcd-5ea8-46f9-aca6-6027247066b8" CreationDate="2016-01-06T10:08:18.867" UserId="5008" Text="Well, there's a &quot;common-language&quot; meaning of &quot;с приветом&quot; (crazy, nuts). So it's not much popular today as formal closing. Nevertheless it's still OK. But if the person not knowing this (a foreigner) writes so, some people could think it funny." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11545" RevisionGUID="af1dbd5f-55e5-44aa-ae59-aba9128b1584" CreationDate="2016-01-06T11:31:52.487" UserId="6481" Comment="added 1601 characters in body" Text="No, a comma [isn't needed](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_710) between **так же** and **как и** in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw: part before the comma should be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал **в** 8 часов утр**а**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me common way to express this is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я, как всегда, встал в 8 часов утра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting *как всегда* in the end of the sentence make me think that You want to stress that You **always** wake up at 8 o'clock. If you write **так же как и всегда** You make this stress stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD**&#xD;&#xA;There are two options, whether a comma is needed or not depends on what is **так же(,) как и**. If it's a **conjunction** it isn't needed. In this case, it is a synonym of **как**. When it is **adverb+particle+conjunction** a comma is necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how to distinguish these two cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if **так же(,) как и** expresses that the situation as the whole before **так же...** is the same as it after then **так же как и** is **a conjunction** and a comma isn't needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве я проводил лето на даче, так же как и большинство моих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одноклассников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is expressed here is that my situation *Я проводил лето на даче* (I spent summer at my dacha) is the same as my classmates situation (they also spent a summer at their dachas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you compare the way of doing something then it is **adverb+particle+conjunction** and you need a comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он старался плавать так же, как и остальные ребята в бассейне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is **так** is adverb describing the way he swam: the same as other boys did it. So everything after &quot;так же, как и&quot; is a description of how he swam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if **так** describes the whole clause then the construction **&quot;так же как и&quot;** is **conjunction** and a comma inside isn't necessary (in this case comma should be before it). If **так** describes a verb then this is **&quot;adverb+particle+conjunction&quot;** and you need a comma inside (but not before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence You compare the whole situation **I woke up at 8 o'clock** with the same situation which repeated day by day. This means that **так же как и** is a conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;oh I hope it's clear..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11552" RevisionGUID="617c97ab-b07d-4f81-87c9-aaf7a0aeed96" CreationDate="2016-01-06T13:36:32.583" UserId="1262" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Well, a female friend is still podruga, not padruga, and 'your' here would be tvoy (masc.sg.), not tvoi (pl.); the language did not change *that quick* in the part of its orthography. As for the complementary close, it has a double meaning and semantically is actually closer in the modern Russian to 'be crazy', but that mostly works in phrases like Они с приветом / Он с приветом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complementary close stands for any other one of the same structure, like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С уважением*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С уважением к Вам*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С наилучшими пожеланиями*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С поздравлениями*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С восхищением* (if you want to flatter a bit when writing a romantic letter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С пожеланиями успехов / удачи / всего наилучшего* (any Genitive attribute would do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The priviet also can be used, but then it would be better specified as a form of greeting, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С дружеским приветом* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С английским приветом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С американским приветом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, such a complementary close would be regarded by most native speakers as a manifestation of utter / absolute trust, which would really be a little bit strange for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calques from English also would do, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Всего хорошего*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Искренне Ваш / Искренне Ваша*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*С наилучшими пожеланиями*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11554" RevisionGUID="c1447b08-2a5c-4ab1-8041-57f5ad7dc9a1" CreationDate="2016-01-06T13:52:31.733" UserId="1262" Text="Hello ) I'm glad to see some new profiles here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the terminology for translated Buddhist texts and terms therein into Russian. The tradition goes back as long as to the early 1900s and I've noticed a strange fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While modern Russian tesaurus offers an abundance of nouns and adjectives deriving from Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese and Tibetan, there are absolutely no verbs with the same root or any Oriental root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. one can say **Будда, бодхисаттва, архат, дэв / дэви, дакини (and even дакиня), асур / асура, дак-па, тулку, гуру, терма, тертон, чод, ушниша, пурба, капала, дигуг, мантра, дзен, да-дзен, коан, син, у-вэй** и т.д., but not ***упайять, *увэйствовать, *мантровать, *дигугнуть, *чоднить/*чодовать, *шаматхить и так далее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead,  the loanwords for verbs covering this terminology derive from the Occidental languages or Russian: **наставлять, быть спокойным, концентрироваться, отсекать, проводить ритуал чод, медитировать, просветляться, рецитировать, etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody give any example of a Russian loanword that is a verb deriving from Sanskrit, Pali, Mongolian, Chinese and/or Tibetan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11554" RevisionGUID="c1447b08-2a5c-4ab1-8041-57f5ad7dc9a1" CreationDate="2016-01-06T13:52:31.733" UserId="1262" Text="Verbs deriving from Oriental languages in terminology translating Buddhist texts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11554" RevisionGUID="c1447b08-2a5c-4ab1-8041-57f5ad7dc9a1" CreationDate="2016-01-06T13:52:31.733" UserId="1262" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|глаголы|заимствования|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11556" RevisionGUID="7a3ad2b6-c265-44a5-befd-8ed480b473ed" CreationDate="2016-01-06T17:29:45.387" UserId="1262" Text="There seems to be the first letter missing in the beginning of the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most natural form would be, putting the lexical compatability aside, *Вперёд обязанности, затем - удовольствия.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cases in each part of the phrase are nominative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11557" RevisionGUID="82899282-1fe2-499d-9785-06d727dc0f34" CreationDate="2016-01-06T18:11:17.007" UserId="134" Text="Oriental spiritual practices have not been that big part of everyday Russian life long enough for such verbs to emerge in everyday language other than in analytic form (_делать + noun_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Russian speakers practicing them of course do form and use such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a yoga class you can hear verbs like _пранаямить_ (&quot;practice Pranayama&quot;) or _шавасанить_ (&quot;assume Shavasana&quot;; also metaphorically, meaning &quot;to lie idly&quot;: _ничего не хочется, только прийти домой, лечь на диван и шавасанить_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those practicing Japanese martial arts use verbs _макиварить_ (&quot;beat mercilessly&quot;, from _makiwara_ &quot;straw dummy used as a punch bag&quot;) and _мавашить_ (&quot;practice round kicks&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with the slang of Japanese animation community, but it's for sure large and vibrant enough to form its own verbs based on Japanese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So pick any Russian speaking subculture whose vocabulary is influenced by the any of the languages you mentioned, and you'll undoubtedly find the verbs you're after in the jargons they use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11554" RevisionGUID="6bbf05ba-3b6e-4d8b-8331-601bf3428344" CreationDate="2016-01-07T03:45:10.983" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="My question regards the terminology for translated Buddhist texts and terms therein into Russian. The tradition goes back as long as to the early 1900s and I've noticed a strange fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While modern Russian tesaurus offers an abundance of nouns and adjectives deriving from Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese and Tibetan, there are absolutely no verbs with the same root or any Oriental root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. one can say **Будда, бодхисаттва, архат, дэв / дэви, дакини (and even дакиня), асур / асура, дак-па, тулку, гуру, терма, тертон, чод, ушниша, пурба, капала, дигуг, мантра, дзен, да-дзен, коан, син, у-вэй** и т.д., but not ***упайять, *увэйствовать, *мантровать, *дигугнуть, *чоднить/*чодовать, *шаматхить и так далее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead,  the loanwords for verbs covering this terminology derive from the Occidental languages or Russian: **наставлять, быть спокойным, концентрироваться, отсекать, проводить ритуал чод, медитировать, просветляться, рецитировать, etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody give any example of a Russian loanword that is a verb deriving from Sanskrit, Pali, Mongolian, Chinese and/or Tibetan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11554" RevisionGUID="c3859b04-6510-4fe1-9078-97057fc05767" CreationDate="2016-01-07T04:18:44.663" UserId="1262" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="I am glad to see some new profiles here )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the terminology for translated Buddhist texts and terms therein into Russian. The tradition goes back as long as to the early 1900s and I've noticed a strange fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While modern Russian tesaurus offers an abundance of nouns and adjectives deriving from Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese and Tibetan, there are absolutely no verbs with the same root or any Oriental root. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. one can say **Будда, бодхисаттва, архат, дэв / дэви, дакини (and even дакиня), асур / асура, дак-па, тулку, гуру, терма, тертон, чод, ушниша, пурба, капала, дигуг, мантра, дзен, да-дзен, коан, син, у-вэй** и т.д., but not ***упайять, *увэйствовать, *мантровать, *дигугнуть, *чоднить/*чодовать, *шаматхить и так далее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead,  the loanwords for verbs covering this terminology derive from the Occidental languages or Russian: **наставлять, быть спокойным, концентрироваться, отсекать, проводить ритуал чод, медитировать, просветляться, рецитировать, etc.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody give any example of a Russian loanword that is a verb deriving from Sanskrit, Pali, Mongolian, Chinese and/or Tibetan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26739" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11554" RevisionGUID="ebc0422c-be2c-436b-9e3a-e8bbf96d92c8" CreationDate="2016-01-07T08:51:24.197" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/685020899632885760" />
  <row Id="26740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11559" RevisionGUID="535b4156-f968-4bf2-89ec-403ed25c6662" CreationDate="2016-01-07T10:47:06.163" UserId="6533" Text="Здравствуйте. &#xD;&#xA;Задумался над значением слова соорудить или сооружение. В поиске на первых страницах, к своему удивлениею, не обнаружил. Возникают осоциации с англ. rude. &#xD;&#xA;Может кто просветить? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11559" RevisionGUID="535b4156-f968-4bf2-89ec-403ed25c6662" CreationDate="2016-01-07T10:47:06.163" UserId="6533" Text="&quot;Соорудить&quot; - этимология" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11559" RevisionGUID="535b4156-f968-4bf2-89ec-403ed25c6662" CreationDate="2016-01-07T10:47:06.163" UserId="6533" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11559" RevisionGUID="8dd9485b-b659-4ebf-84de-a02b094cd75d" CreationDate="2016-01-07T11:23:18.530" UserId="5605" Comment="курсив; удивлению" Text="Здравствуйте. &#xD;&#xA;Задумался над значением слова *соорудить* или *сооружение*. В поиске на первых страницах, к своему удивлению, не обнаружил. Возникают осоциации с англ. rude. &#xD;&#xA;Может кто просветить? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26744" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11551" RevisionGUID="c38b4fae-90af-4c8f-bd53-e6f6bcfbbc6c" CreationDate="2016-01-07T11:51:24.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/685066199554764802" />
  <row Id="26745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11560" RevisionGUID="51fd71ef-4f0c-4392-b1f2-5c991026c3ad" CreationDate="2016-01-07T12:54:17.837" UserId="6097" Text="Ассоциации должны быть со словом &quot;орудие&quot;, которое &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *orǫdьje, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церк.-слав. ору́да «работа, труд», др.-русск. орудиıе «дело; судебное&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дело; работа; орудие, оружие» (Смол. грам. 1229 г.; ср.: тяжу урядити&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — там же), орудовати «действовать», укр. ору́да, ст.-слав. орѫдиѥ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (др.-греч. πρᾶγμα, ἀπόκρισις), болг. оръ́дие «орудие, орган»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словенск. оrо̑d, orȏdje — то же, чешск. orudí «орудие», польск.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; orędzie «извещение, поручение», orędować «ходатайствовать, выполнять&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (поручение)». Праслав. *orǫdьje связано чередованием с *rędъ (ряд,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; снаряд). Далее сближают с греч. ἀραρίσκω «устраиваю, сплачиваю,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; смыкаю», ἀρθμός «связь», ἄρθρον «член», лат. arma «оружие».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: [wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Словарь Фасмера](http://enc-dic.com/fasmer/Orudie-9233.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11557" RevisionGUID="51c48448-cf3d-41cb-81a9-a3fd8a764ed9" CreationDate="2016-01-07T19:05:11.560" UserId="134" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="Oriental spiritual practices have not been that big part of everyday Russian life long enough for such verbs to emerge in everyday language other than in analytic form (_делать + noun_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Russian speakers practicing them of course do form and use such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a yoga class you can hear verbs like _пранаямить_ (&quot;practice Pranayama&quot;) or _шавасанить_ (&quot;assume Shavasana&quot;; also metaphorically, meaning &quot;to lie idly&quot;: _ничего не хочется, только прийти домой, лечь на диван и шавасанить_)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those practicing Japanese martial arts use verbs _макиварить_ (&quot;beat mercilessly&quot;, from _makiwara_ &quot;straw dummy used as a punch bag&quot;) and _мавашить_ (&quot;practice round kicks&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with the slang of Japanese animation community, but it's for sure large and vibrant enough to form its own verbs based on Japanese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So pick any Russian speaking subculture whose vocabulary is influenced by the any of the languages you mentioned, and you'll undoubtedly find the verbs you're after in the jargons they use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief googling shows that words *гурить, коанить* and *дзенить* are in fact used in the Russian-speaking Buddhist subculture. And, since *гуру* is widely used outside this subculture, *гурить* has all chances to make it into everyday Russian as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11562" RevisionGUID="90fdf61f-a04b-4b58-b45f-06410804cb29" CreationDate="2016-01-07T21:06:30.447" UserId="6538" Text="It depends on context, could be &quot;hi&quot; (mainly the same way as if someone says &quot;bonjour&quot; to an English-speaking audience) but also &quot;speaking ill&quot; or &quot;running down&quot; - «Гражданочка, не поднимайте хай!» (http://song5.ru/text/%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D1%80-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9-%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%88-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11563" RevisionGUID="0f3d2eb3-e271-4abf-b83b-782f43ad22b4" CreationDate="2016-01-07T21:23:53.817" UserId="134" Text="In Old Russian *орудие* meant &quot;job, business&quot; and was synonymous to the modern word *дело*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the ancestor of the word *соорудить* meant the same as the modern *сделать*. Likewise, the ancestor of the modern *сооружение* meant the same as the modern *изделие*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The corpus mentions the Church Slavonic word *соорудитель* which had been used to translate Greek *κατασκευαστής* (&quot;constructor, designer&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11562" RevisionGUID="c78e3b7e-1e5f-48fb-8733-8830f0ea5b48" CreationDate="2016-01-07T21:28:53.227" UserId="6538" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="It depends on context, could be &quot;hi&quot; (mainly the same way as if someone says &quot;bonjour&quot; or &quot;hola&quot; to an English-speaking audience) but also &quot;speaking ill&quot; or &quot;running down&quot; - «Гражданочка, не поднимайте хай!» (http://song5.ru/text/%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D1%80-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9-%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%88-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11562" RevisionGUID="36324982-a1b5-4096-a6be-adb48e7220c6" CreationDate="2016-01-07T21:34:02.920" UserId="3680" Comment="link was too long" Text="It depends on context, could be &quot;hi&quot; (mainly the same way as if someone says &quot;bonjour&quot; or &quot;hola&quot; to an English-speaking audience) but also &quot;speaking ill&quot; or &quot;running down&quot; - [«Гражданочка, не поднимайте хай!»](http://song5.ru/text/%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D1%80-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9-%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%88-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11559" RevisionGUID="e8f739de-4b85-4e6d-b1a8-46a08d7d8c28" CreationDate="2016-01-08T01:25:20.367" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Задумался над значением слова *соорудить* или *сооружение*. В поиске на первых страницах, к своему удивлению, не обнаружил. Возникают ассоциации с англ. rude. &#xD;&#xA;Может кто просветить? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26759" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11531" RevisionGUID="730b5b75-997d-45d2-96e0-58c7a6a9bac9" CreationDate="2016-01-08T05:52:45.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/685338331543158784" />
  <row Id="26760" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11507" RevisionGUID="6d1c201b-db8e-447f-a0d8-282c0a3eed0a" CreationDate="2016-01-08T08:53:11.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/685383737337602048" />
  <row Id="26761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11565" RevisionGUID="b3f069ff-e914-4563-a5a1-a1af04cc0ca8" CreationDate="2016-01-08T16:59:31.927" UserId="6451" Text="thanks in advance for your answers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have come across &quot;)&quot; in many Russian written conversations, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Вид из окна на кухне)&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Посмотри лучше это)&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have even seen &quot;))&quot; or &quot;)))&quot; in forums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the equivalent of an exclamation mark in English? When is it appropriate to use this symbol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11565" RevisionGUID="b3f069ff-e914-4563-a5a1-a1af04cc0ca8" CreationDate="2016-01-08T16:59:31.927" UserId="6451" Text="What is the grammatical meaning of &quot;)&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11565" RevisionGUID="b3f069ff-e914-4563-a5a1-a1af04cc0ca8" CreationDate="2016-01-08T16:59:31.927" UserId="6451" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11566" RevisionGUID="36c22c01-d69b-494d-8449-549adaba50bc" CreationDate="2016-01-08T17:03:33.210" UserId="3680" Text="It's just a smile.  &#xD;&#xA;Many people use this short form instead of `:)`.  &#xD;&#xA;And there is an additional feature of such smiling technique: more `)))` means more fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11566" RevisionGUID="da9661e6-e0e6-4c45-ab2e-fe21b6ae8c73" CreationDate="2016-01-08T17:08:42.627" UserId="3680" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="It's just a smile.  &#xD;&#xA;Many people use this short form instead of `:)`.  &#xD;&#xA;And there is an additional feature of such smiling technique: you can control *degree* or *level* of your smile, more `)))` means more fun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11567" RevisionGUID="1c8af59c-0c4c-4015-9b0f-cfa38246a337" CreationDate="2016-01-08T19:18:46.533" UserId="6354" Text="In **журналист писал на разные темы**, why is *разные темы* in the accusative case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing **The journalist wrote on various themes** is a good translation, shouldn't the prepositional case follow *на* here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11567" RevisionGUID="1c8af59c-0c4c-4015-9b0f-cfa38246a337" CreationDate="2016-01-08T19:18:46.533" UserId="6354" Text="Prepositional or Accusative after на" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11567" RevisionGUID="1c8af59c-0c4c-4015-9b0f-cfa38246a337" CreationDate="2016-01-08T19:18:46.533" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11568" RevisionGUID="6c49ec25-03b3-400d-8a78-84a42a84df3c" CreationDate="2016-01-08T21:32:46.307" UserId="6451" Text="To the best of my knowledge both sentences are correct. Does the order of &quot;нет&quot; and &quot;ничего&quot; mean anything or is one used more often by native speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11568" RevisionGUID="6c49ec25-03b3-400d-8a78-84a42a84df3c" CreationDate="2016-01-08T21:32:46.307" UserId="6451" Text="Genitive Case Word Order &quot;У них ничего нет&quot; vs. &quot;У них нет ничего&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11568" RevisionGUID="6c49ec25-03b3-400d-8a78-84a42a84df3c" CreationDate="2016-01-08T21:32:46.307" UserId="6451" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11569" RevisionGUID="2da9e3aa-d14f-41cb-8729-ab73607e4b40" CreationDate="2016-01-08T21:59:37.773" UserId="115" Text="Both sentences are correct, and mean essentially the same thing. The difference is in the emphasis: They don't have **anything**. vs. They don't **have** anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11570" RevisionGUID="f768d359-f6fc-48c3-af20-347e46c3c252" CreationDate="2016-01-08T22:47:31.867" UserId="194" Text="The difference is very subtle. I would say something like the following, others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них ничего нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on нет. So if you are speaking about a shop, this empathizes that while at first glance the shop may have some goods, they do not have anything you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них нет ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on ничего. This empathizes the shop does not have anything. Not even things you are looking for, but it is empty totally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11570" RevisionGUID="d7eb2a28-4d44-47e3-85a4-0e5522b7f7d8" CreationDate="2016-01-08T22:53:06.313" UserId="194" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="The difference is very subtle. I would say something like the following, others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них ничего нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on нет. So if you are speaking about a shop, this empathizes that while at first glance the shop may have some goods, they do not have anything you are looking for. Or they may pretend to have something which is untrue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words. You initially expected or were told they have something but learned they **don't**. You empathize this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них нет ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on ничего. This empathizes the shop does not have anything. Not even things you are looking for, but it is empty totally, they do not even pretend to have something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words, you expected they do not have things you want, but learned that they do not have even things you do not need, they just do not have **anything**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11570" RevisionGUID="e3fa8081-6d3c-4311-8741-eb19e9f006bc" CreationDate="2016-01-08T23:48:53.810" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="The difference is very subtle. I would say something like the following, others may disagree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них ничего нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on нет. So if you are speaking about a shop, this empathizes that while at first glance the shop may have some goods, they do not have anything you are looking for. Or they may pretend to have something which is untrue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words. You initially expected or were told they have something but learned they **don't**. You empathize this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них нет ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on ничего. This empathizes the shop does not have anything. Not only things you are looking for, but it is empty totally, they do not even pretend to have something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, in other words, you expected they do not have things you want, but learned that they do not have even things you do not need, they just do not have **anything**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11506" RevisionGUID="0900ba1d-1302-4363-a5d1-178dc687cf90" CreationDate="2016-01-09T05:53:23.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/685700875868848128" />
  <row Id="26777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11571" RevisionGUID="7da6ab74-a8d0-49b1-8563-2b72e99e424f" CreationDate="2016-01-09T09:24:50.487" UserId="6481" Text="A short answer is: preposition **&quot;на&quot;** when used in this meaning need a noun in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence [**на**](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%D0%BD%D0%B0) seems to fit next meaning: *indicating a purpose of a thing or an action* sixth item in the link. (at least, on my opinion it's the closest meaning from the list). There are examples from the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разрешение на проезд.  `разрешение чтобы проехать`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Билет на самолёт.   `билет для того чтобы сесть на самолёт`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отдать ребёнка на воспитание.  `отдать для того чтобы воспитывали`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наряд на погрузку.  `наряд для того чтобы погружали`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просить на пропитание.  `просить чтобы пропитаться`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Учиться на инженера. `учиться для того чтобы стать инженером`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From these examples, it's seen, that a noun always in the accusative case when **на** is used in this meaning (though I can't assert that there are no exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;**писать на тему** seems to fit this meaning because looked as purpose here, we can change it to **писать чтобы раскрыть тему**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why it turned out in such using, is a question more to linguists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11571" RevisionGUID="2366c5ef-c7e8-414f-8b88-fd144113be3d" CreationDate="2016-01-09T09:42:49.913" UserId="6481" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="A short answer is: preposition **&quot;на&quot;** when used in this meaning need a noun in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence [**на**](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x&amp;word=%D0%BD%D0%B0) seems to fit next meaning: *indicating a purpose of a thing or an action* sixth item in the link. (at least, on my opinion it's the closest meaning from the list). There are examples from the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разрешение на проезд.  `разрешение чтобы проехать`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Билет на самолёт.   `билет для того чтобы сесть на самолёт`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отдать ребёнка на воспитание.  `отдать для того чтобы воспитывали`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наряд на погрузку.  `наряд для того чтобы погружали`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просить на пропитание.  `просить чтобы пропитаться`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Учиться на инженера. `учиться для того чтобы стать инженером`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From these examples, it's seen, that a noun always in the accusative case when **на** is used in this meaning (though I can't assert that there are no exceptions).&#xD;&#xA;**писать на тему** seems to fit this meaning because looked as purpose here, we can change it to **писать чтобы раскрыть тему**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why it turned out in such using, is a question more to linguists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD** I have also found an [article](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6) about conflicting between cases (including conflicting between accusative and prepositional cases) in Russian. But I'm not ready to translate it here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11572" RevisionGUID="ae432eb1-de49-4f0d-b66d-5148cc3ef202" CreationDate="2016-01-10T20:31:56.390" UserId="6547" Text="Насколько мне известно, более принято говорить &quot;класс целых чисел&quot; (а не &quot;целого числа&quot;), &quot;класс строк&quot; (а не &quot;класс строки&quot;), &quot;класс баз данных&quot; (а не &quot;класс базы данных&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда, соответственно, логично получаем &quot;**класс моделей**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Современные программисты в подобных случаях часто используют вариант с именительным падежом: &quot;класс целое число&quot;, &quot;класс строка&quot;, &quot;класс база данных&quot;, ну и, соответственно, &quot;**класс модель**&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Такие выражения (всё ещё) несколько неформальны, так что они гораздо чаще произносятся, чем пишутся, и поэтому несущественно, большая буква или маленькая; я не исключаю, что имеется в виду большая, т.е. что это рассматривается как своеобразное название класса.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще да, если уж вы пишете, то лучше сразу писать &quot;**класс Model**&quot; или как он там у вас называется, но из предложенных вами вариантов, лучше, конечно, &quot;**класс моделей**&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Но можно сказать &quot;*класс модели*&quot;, если вы имеете в виду класс, элементом которого является данная конкретная модель (но вы, скорее всего, всё-таки имеете в виду что-то другое)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11573" RevisionGUID="96d2a8cc-ea13-4e74-8f5f-c6e8ad831f75" CreationDate="2016-01-10T21:14:06.237" UserId="6547" Text="You can (often) basically think of the Russian reflective ending -ся as meaning &quot;self&quot; (with the respective pronominal addition).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case (yes, I'm using examples from Vladimir Kovalenko's reply), the verb &quot;сдуть&quot; can mean &quot;to deflate&quot; or &quot;to blow off&quot; (as in off some place), so &quot;сдулось&quot; means &quot;(it) deflated itself&quot;, which makes sense; or it can mean &quot;(it) blew itself off&quot;, which is kind of weird, so that meaning doesn't really exist in Russian.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, my spellchecker doesn't think that word exists. The verb certainly does, but its neuter form in particular might be too uncommon, since most of the objects that can deflate are not neuter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the verb &quot;упасть&quot; means &quot;to fall&quot;, which is intransitive (one cannot fall anything), so &quot;it fell itself&quot; doesn't mean anything, and similarly the Russian form &quot;упалось&quot; does not mean anything either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can, however, say &quot;свалилось&quot;, from the verb &quot;свалить&quot; (to push down). Really, &quot;it pushed itself down&quot; is also kind of weird, but it's as good as a metaphor for something falling down for no visible reason as any.&lt;br&gt;(Why does stuff randomly fall down from shelves and other such places anyway? But that's probably worth another StackExchange question by itself... I think I should go and ask it, actually. As soon as I figure out what section it should be in, anyway.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11572" RevisionGUID="2da556c1-59ca-4a3c-b3bb-e13006984a38" CreationDate="2016-01-10T21:15:27.680" UserId="6547" Comment="вставил пропущенное слово" Text="Насколько мне известно, более принято говорить &quot;класс целых чисел&quot; (а не &quot;класс целого числа&quot;), &quot;класс строк&quot; (а не &quot;класс строки&quot;), &quot;класс баз данных&quot; (а не &quot;класс базы данных&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда, соответственно, логично получаем &quot;**класс моделей**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Современные программисты в подобных случаях часто используют вариант с именительным падежом: &quot;класс целое число&quot;, &quot;класс строка&quot;, &quot;класс база данных&quot;, ну и, соответственно, &quot;**класс модель**&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Такие выражения (всё ещё) несколько неформальны, так что они гораздо чаще произносятся, чем пишутся, и поэтому несущественно, большая буква или маленькая; я не исключаю, что имеется в виду большая, т.е. что это рассматривается как своеобразное название класса.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще да, если уж вы пишете, то лучше сразу писать &quot;**класс Model**&quot; или как он там у вас называется, но из предложенных вами вариантов, лучше, конечно, &quot;**класс моделей**&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Но можно сказать &quot;*класс модели*&quot;, если вы имеете в виду класс, элементом которого является данная конкретная модель (но вы, скорее всего, всё-таки имеете в виду что-то другое)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11575" RevisionGUID="65c7ccef-cd6c-4c45-8e75-eefbd1ffdb49" CreationDate="2016-01-11T01:55:45.100" UserId="4925" Text="I came across this sentence, &quot;Уточни, пожалуйста: какого числа будем разговаривать и в какое время!&quot; Why is the genitive being used for какого числа? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11575" RevisionGUID="65c7ccef-cd6c-4c45-8e75-eefbd1ffdb49" CreationDate="2016-01-11T01:55:45.100" UserId="4925" Text="Genitive Help with Time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11575" RevisionGUID="65c7ccef-cd6c-4c45-8e75-eefbd1ffdb49" CreationDate="2016-01-11T01:55:45.100" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11576" RevisionGUID="c5da9214-35f5-428d-aad3-4b07cd23d5fb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T04:22:53.663" UserId="6550" Text="I know I am late to this thread, but for the sake of future users seeking to learn to touch type I would recommend this website: http://www.keybr.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like this website because it generates random and often nonsensical words to help you learn to type. I find that this helps train touch-typing faster than typing actual Russian words does. The site also provides a number of statistical tools with which you can track the speed at which you type and the letters which give you the most trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11577" RevisionGUID="893fe6e5-3f77-4d87-a7fe-1e2c4513dcd3" CreationDate="2016-01-11T06:27:35.060" UserId="5443" Text="I tend to see an abbreviation here: *(днём/в день) какого числа?* It's something like '*on the day of which date?*' Then, the missing Russian *day* technically 'belongs' to that *date* (чей, чего -&gt; genitive case)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11578" RevisionGUID="d0ff667e-316b-485d-9d6a-6349d8f2bbbb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T07:15:14.037" UserId="6551" Text="Whenever I see a quotation from the medieval chronicles (or even later sources like the time of Tsar Alexey), ч is followed by ю every single time. When and how did the rule change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11578" RevisionGUID="d0ff667e-316b-485d-9d6a-6349d8f2bbbb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T07:15:14.037" UserId="6551" Text="What are the origins of the чу/щу rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11578" RevisionGUID="d0ff667e-316b-485d-9d6a-6349d8f2bbbb" CreationDate="2016-01-11T07:15:14.037" UserId="6551" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11579" RevisionGUID="68706eed-46a4-4082-908b-70617054a638" CreationDate="2016-01-11T09:55:22.727" UserId="1262" Text="The meaning is often conveyed by tge intonation, yet some general rules can be detected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. in Russian syntax (just like in Fennish and Estonian) the topic-commentary strategy gives additional meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. a first word in a phrase is usually a topic, the rest be a sequence of [sub]commentaries organised in hierachial order. That is, in the phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У них ничего нет***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the topic is 'them having', then the speaker comments that with 'nothing' and then with the 'absense of nothing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У них нет ничего***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the topic is, again, 'them-having', but then what is second-rank important is 'the absense', of which the speaker comments that it is the 'absense of anything'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11580" RevisionGUID="35bcb791-b72b-4f1a-98f7-2b8e0766402a" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:01:08.813" UserId="4432" Text="What is a commonly used phrase to congratulate someone for the birth of a child?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11580" RevisionGUID="35bcb791-b72b-4f1a-98f7-2b8e0766402a" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:01:08.813" UserId="4432" Text="Congratulations for birth of child" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11580" RevisionGUID="35bcb791-b72b-4f1a-98f7-2b8e0766402a" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:01:08.813" UserId="4432" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11581" RevisionGUID="71d409c2-4815-48c7-8b5f-dc4d73d9837b" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:06:51.523" UserId="5443" Text="С новорОжденным (вас)! (more typical between friends or relatives)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C пополнением в семье! (more widely used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11582" RevisionGUID="56488de2-921e-4498-8afe-8fa118c83a88" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:09:42.873" UserId="6497" Text="Книги не читаются сами! Завтра вам придется учить больше, если вы хотите сдать экзамен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why, if the person is вы (so first plural), the verb is conjugated as the third singular?&#xD;&#xA;can you help me?&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11582" RevisionGUID="56488de2-921e-4498-8afe-8fa118c83a88" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:09:42.873" UserId="6497" Text="why the verb in this sentence is conjugated singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11582" RevisionGUID="56488de2-921e-4498-8afe-8fa118c83a88" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:09:42.873" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11583" RevisionGUID="ef6aafda-b6ef-4dda-a704-c4a7edb93198" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:56:05.483" UserId="134" Text="*Приходиться + dat.* is an impersonal construct which means &quot;smbd./smth. has to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Завтра вам придётся учить больше* means &quot;tomorrow you'll have to learn more&quot; or, if I may, &quot;tomorrow it will fare with you that you learn more&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is similar in construction to English &quot;it seems to me&quot;, &quot;it occurs to me&quot; (which also have parallels in Russian: *мне кажется*, *мне думается* etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, you put the agent (&quot;I&quot;) into an oblique case (replace &quot;I&quot; with &quot;me&quot;), and insert the expletive subject &quot;it&quot; (expletive here means that the word means nothing by itself, but is just placed there because the grammar requires something to be there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you don't normally use expletive subjects, except than in edge cases (*— Тебе не кажется, что он жулик? — Казаться-то оно кажется…*), but otherwise the sentence has exactly same structure as the English one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11582" RevisionGUID="5ef29eb5-13b5-40cf-a548-f2ecbadf5ffe" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:58:34.973" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; Книги не читаются сами! Завтра вам придется учить больше, если вы хотите сдать экзамен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why, if the person is *вы* (so second plural), the verb *приходиться* is put into the third singular?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11584" RevisionGUID="2c843eb5-00cf-4d71-a39b-d4b7ce1dc8ce" CreationDate="2016-01-11T12:23:25.890" UserId="134" Text="*Ч* and *щ* were hard in all early renditions of Church Slavonic (and pronounced as hard *ч* and *шт*, respectively), so the Church Slavonic orthography naturally used *у* and *а* instead of *ю* and *я* after them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule had been mechanically copied into Russian orthography by early Russian grammarians like Lomonosov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В окончаниях единственного первого лица глаголы с предыдущею согласною имеют всегда *у*, а *ю* принимают токмо согласные *л, н* и *р*: *молю, храню, орю*. Итак, неправильно пишут: *хочю, лѣчю* вместо *хочу* и *лѣчу*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Vostokov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гласные *я, ю* после *ц, ж, ч, ш, щ* сами заменяются гласными *а, у*… Таким образом производится *вижу* вместо *вижю*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this rule, as well as preserving the *ъ* at the end of words and making the letter *ё* a variant of *е*, not *о*, is only to make Russian orthography to be more consistent with that of Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11585" RevisionGUID="a3e91135-de67-44b1-b4f3-f67690c7f9e1" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:54:24.370" UserId="6451" Text="As far as I understand, both of these mean more or less the same thing. Duolingo, that introduced me to the Russian language seems to prefer учитель, but Russian Pod 101 prefers преподаватель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is преподаватель just more formal, or is there something more subtle going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11585" RevisionGUID="a3e91135-de67-44b1-b4f3-f67690c7f9e1" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:54:24.370" UserId="6451" Text="When is it more appropriate to use &lt;&lt;преподаватель&gt;&gt; rather than &lt;&lt;учитель&gt;&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11585" RevisionGUID="a3e91135-de67-44b1-b4f3-f67690c7f9e1" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:54:24.370" UserId="6451" Text="|выбор-слова|этикет|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26806" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11568" RevisionGUID="6cabe1cf-1f7f-4cc2-8acc-f8b14fd180c0" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:55:30.693" UserId="6451" Comment="edited tags" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26807" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11585" RevisionGUID="bf780b58-4b41-4954-9723-5d31e5c0ba1c" CreationDate="2016-01-11T16:10:18.213" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="When is it more appropriate to use &quot;преподаватель&quot; rather than &quot;учитель&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11586" RevisionGUID="478f6df8-07fb-4196-9b8c-c6d9a71487ef" CreationDate="2016-01-11T16:14:56.337" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Преподаватель&quot; is more often a professor in high school or instructor on some specific courses. While you can list (and consider) teachers in school as &quot;преподаватели&quot; the reverse is not true - nobody calls no one &quot;учитель&quot; in system of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;учитель&quot; is uses for describing someone who is a spiritual teacher. Sort of like Yoda was for jedis or Splinter for teenage mutant ninja turtles ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another subtle thing worth to mention, on can refer to somebody as &quot;учитель&quot; (like in phrase ```&quot;Но учитель, как же мне тогда быть&quot;```), but referring to somebody as &quot;преподаватель&quot; sounds very unnatural to the native speaker. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11587" RevisionGUID="1f585ed9-b276-4885-92ec-34bd752e627b" CreationDate="2016-01-11T16:17:00.547" UserId="3680" Text="I believe, both `преподаватель` and `учитель` are positions:&#xD;&#xA;`учитель` - at school, `преподаватель` - at university, professional courses etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also `учитель` has another meaning: `mentor`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11586" RevisionGUID="635b4173-96f7-4faf-9393-6da4179cebd2" CreationDate="2016-01-11T18:22:38.320" UserId="242" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="&quot;Преподаватель&quot; is more often a professor in high school or instructor on some specific courses. While you can list (and consider) teachers in school as &quot;преподаватели&quot; the reverse is not true - nobody calls no one &quot;учитель&quot; in system of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;учитель&quot; is uses for describing someone who is a spiritual teacher. Sort of like Yoda was for jedis or Splinter for teenage mutant ninja turtles ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another subtle thing worth to mention, on can refer to somebody as &quot;учитель&quot; (like in phrase ```&quot;Но учитель, как же мне тогда быть&quot;```), but referring to somebody as &quot;преподаватель&quot; sounds very unnatural to the native speaker. One will use the reference to position (like &quot;Профессор, скажите пожалуйста&quot;) or just name (&quot;Оксана Николаевна, можно задать вам вопрос?&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11586" RevisionGUID="8c7822ff-0270-419d-ba72-a3a46210f7c4" CreationDate="2016-01-11T19:58:08.843" UserId="242" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&quot;Преподаватель&quot; is more often a professor in high school or instructor on some specific courses. While you can list (and consider) teachers in school as &quot;преподаватели&quot; the reverse is not true - nobody calls no one &quot;учитель&quot; in system of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;учитель&quot; is uses for describing someone who is a spiritual teacher. Sort of like Yoda was for jedis or Splinter for teenage mutant ninja turtles ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another subtle thing worth to mention, on can refer to somebody as &quot;учитель&quot; (like in phrase ```&quot;Но учитель, как же мне тогда быть&quot;```), but referring to somebody as &quot;преподаватель&quot; sounds very unnatural to the native speaker. One will use the reference to position (like ```&quot;Профессор, скажите пожалуйста&quot;```) or just name (```&quot;Оксана Николаевна, можно задать вам вопрос?&quot;```)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11565" RevisionGUID="e56265c5-6b57-4e71-b2f8-685f196eae03" CreationDate="2016-01-11T21:08:21.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/686655910203289602" />
  <row Id="26817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11586" RevisionGUID="7998b2a0-ac37-47ba-b8cd-54376ae8fdb1" CreationDate="2016-01-12T02:17:14.737" UserId="242" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&quot;Преподаватель&quot; is more often a professor in college or university, or instructor on some specific courses. While you can list (and consider) teachers in school as &quot;преподаватели&quot; the reverse is not true - nobody calls no one &quot;учитель&quot; in system of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;учитель&quot; is uses for describing someone who is a spiritual teacher. Sort of like Yoda was for jedis or Splinter for teenage mutant ninja turtles ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another subtle thing worth to mention, on can refer to somebody as &quot;учитель&quot; (like in phrase ```&quot;Но учитель, как же мне тогда быть&quot;```), but referring to somebody as &quot;преподаватель&quot; sounds very unnatural to the native speaker. One will use the reference to position (like ```&quot;Профессор, скажите пожалуйста&quot;```) or just name (```&quot;Оксана Николаевна, можно задать вам вопрос?&quot;```)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11579" RevisionGUID="f5451e30-0517-44b1-a5a9-5e61a8329cc9" CreationDate="2016-01-12T12:06:58.533" UserId="1941" Comment="corrected misspelling in one word only" Text="The meaning is often conveyed by the intonation, yet some general rules can be detected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. in Russian syntax (just like in Finnish and Estonian) the topic-commentary strategy gives additional meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. a first word in a phrase is usually a topic, the rest be a sequence of [sub]commentaries organized in hierarchical order. That is, in the phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У них ничего нет***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the topic is 'them having', then the speaker comments that with 'nothing' and then with the 'absence of nothing'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У них нет ничего***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the topic is, again, 'them-having', but then what is second-rank important is 'the absence', of which the speaker comments that it is the 'absence of anything'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26819" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11579" RevisionGUID="f5451e30-0517-44b1-a5a9-5e61a8329cc9" CreationDate="2016-01-12T12:06:58.533" Comment="Proposed by 1941 approved by 2060, 5605 edit id of 710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11586" RevisionGUID="df258b4e-e23c-4de6-a8a9-1d5dbc08d4ae" CreationDate="2016-01-12T13:40:25.663" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Преподаватель&quot; is more often a professor in college or university, or instructor on some specific courses. While you can list (and consider) teachers in school as &quot;преподаватели&quot; the reverse is not true - nobody calls anyone &quot;учитель&quot; in system of higher education. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;учитель&quot; is uses for describing someone who is a spiritual teacher. Sort of like Yoda was for jedis or Splinter for teenage mutant ninja turtles ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another subtle thing worth to mention, on can refer to somebody as &quot;учитель&quot; (like in phrase ```&quot;Но учитель, как же мне тогда быть&quot;```), but referring to somebody as &quot;преподаватель&quot; sounds very unnatural to the native speaker. One will use the reference to position (like ```&quot;Профессор, скажите пожалуйста&quot;```) or just name (```&quot;Оксана Николаевна, можно задать вам вопрос?&quot;```)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11584" RevisionGUID="c94d1301-263d-4841-8bc0-5b81fddbfff3" CreationDate="2016-01-12T16:17:17.390" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 106 characters in body" Text="Orthography of Russian recension of Church Slavonic uses *у* and *а* instead of *ю* and *я* after sibilants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule had been mechanically copied into Russian orthography by early Russian grammarians like Lomonosov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В окончаниях единственного первого лица глаголы с предыдущею согласною имеют всегда *у*, а *ю* принимают токмо согласные *л, н* и *р*: *молю, храню, орю*. Итак, неправильно пишут: *хочю, лѣчю* вместо *хочу* и *лѣчу*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and Vostokov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гласные *я, ю* после *ц, ж, ч, ш, щ* сами заменяются гласными *а, у*… Таким образом производится *вижу* вместо *вижю*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this rule, as well as preserving the *ъ* at the end of words and making the letter *ё* a variant of *е*, not *о*, is only to make Russian orthography to be more consistent with that of Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11589" RevisionGUID="795e89fe-6f1f-429f-89bf-4353dea4c415" CreationDate="2016-01-13T01:31:31.627" UserId="6550" Text="From looking on yandex and other dictionaries I've seen a number of definitions of хоть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. 'at least,' 'if nothing else' as in *если не для него, то хоть для его товарища*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. 'for example,' 'for instance' as in *Возьмите хоть его друга*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. 'although,' 'though' as in *хоть она и устала, она продолжала работать.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. 'even' as in *Я бы хотел иметь хоть часть этих денег*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can understand the usage of **хоть** in all these sentences, its meaning becomes less clear in sentences like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я приду помочь вам хоть в чем-то* translated as 'I'll come help you in a little bit'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  *В доме есть хоть что-нибудь поесть?* translated as  'Is there something to eat at home?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он думал о том, как ему вставить хоть слово.* translated as 'He thought about getting the word out'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У тебя есть хоть какая-нибудь идея, почему это произошло?* translated as 'Have you any idea why it happened?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the instances of **хоть** in these sentences seem to correspond to the definitions given in 1-4. How can the usage of **хоть** in these sentences be explained? Also, is there a difference in the usage of **хоть** and **хотя**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11589" RevisionGUID="795e89fe-6f1f-429f-89bf-4353dea4c415" CreationDate="2016-01-13T01:31:31.627" UserId="6550" Text="Defintions and Usage of &quot;хоть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11589" RevisionGUID="795e89fe-6f1f-429f-89bf-4353dea4c415" CreationDate="2016-01-13T01:31:31.627" UserId="6550" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11590" RevisionGUID="9db212e2-4cbe-4646-be70-0c425d180208" CreationDate="2016-01-13T02:32:30.270" UserId="6561" Text="In all the examples of the 2nd section **&quot;хоть&quot;** means ***&quot;at least&quot;***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Я приду помочь вам хоть в чем-то* - literally means &quot;I'll come help you at least with something&quot; (=maybe I can't help you with all things but anyway can do something for you).&#xD;&#xA;2. ... (=maybe not many food, but at least something to eat)&#xD;&#xA;3. ... (=he realised he couldn't interrupt a talking person by a whole sentence but tried to understand if he could say at least a word during talking person's speech)&#xD;&#xA;4. ... (=it's not so easy to think of many ideas about it, but do you have at least one idea)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you misunderstand something about the above examples, write in comments, I'll try to explain more clearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**About &quot;хоть&quot; and &quot;хотя&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes they are synonyms (when **&quot;хоть&quot;** means ***&quot;though&quot;***): *Хоть (=хотя) ты мне друг, я не дам тебе ключи.* - Though you're my friend, I won't give you the keys. But sometimes &quot;хотя&quot; instead of &quot;хоть&quot; sounds a bit unnatural and it's hard to explain all the nuances (but sure, it's ok for foreigners, I know that my English sounds unnatural too :) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;**хоть**&quot; means &quot;at least&quot; or &quot;***even***&quot;, its synonym would be (&quot;**хотя бы**&quot;) but NOT &quot;хотя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;**хоть**&quot; means &quot;***for example***&quot;, neither &quot;хотя&quot; nor &quot;хотя бы&quot; instead would sound ok." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11591" RevisionGUID="f742e19a-54e3-4de9-ae5c-c900be65ce6a" CreationDate="2016-01-13T08:37:36.213" UserId="5008" Text="Yes, your dictionary is incomplete. _Хоть_ is not restricted to concessive (_though_/_although_; _even though_; _either ... or_) or limiting (_for instance_) particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Хоть_ could also be an intensifying particle similar to either _at least_, or _even_, or _no matter_. In your examples 1, 2 and 4 it means &quot;_no matter_&quot;; in 3 - &quot;_at least_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11591" RevisionGUID="2d99129b-972e-480b-bcf2-31805cf6a2d9" CreationDate="2016-01-13T08:43:41.880" UserId="5008" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Yes, your dictionary is incomplete. _Хоть_ is not restricted to concessive (_though_/_although_; _even though_; _either ... or_) or limiting (_for instance_) particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Хоть_ could also be an intensifying particle similar to either _at least_, or _even_, or _any / no matter_. In your example 1 it means &quot;_any_&quot;; 2 and 4 - &quot;_no matter_&quot;; and 3 - &quot;_at least_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11591" RevisionGUID="52898d53-e2ca-4bcb-b1e7-43aed6947a13" CreationDate="2016-01-13T08:51:09.673" UserId="5008" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Yes, your dictionary is incomplete. _Хоть_ is not restricted to concessive (_though_/_although_; _even though_; _either ... or_) or limiting (_for instance_) particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Хоть_ could also be an intensifying particle similar to either _at least_, or _even_, or _any / no matter what_ (with indefinite and relative pronouns). In your examples 1, 3 it means &quot;_at least_&quot;; in 2, 4 - &quot;_any / no matter what_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11592" RevisionGUID="a43aab73-3d06-48bd-9baf-dd753d5c53ba" CreationDate="2016-01-13T10:24:08.097" UserId="5443" Text="Two more meanings not explicitly mentioned here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Even if** (something happens)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне лягушку хоть сахаром облепи, не возьму её в рот... (Гоголь,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Мёртвые души&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Even if you cover that frog with sugar for me, I'll never eat it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Be it [one thing] or [another]** (&quot;**хоть, ... хоть...**&quot; - double or multiple usage of хоть)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть в дождь, хоть в снег - команда выйдет на поле.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Be it rain or snow, the team will play.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11593" RevisionGUID="a60ed74f-a409-4dbc-8907-68e3f13eceb4" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:25:20.313" UserId="6565" Text="## Why in the following sentence , we use &quot;**оста́лось**&quot; in the neuter singular form while &quot;не́сколько свобо́дных мест&quot; is [Genitive, PLURAL]?  &#xD;&#xA;I think as a plural subject, it needs a plural verb, but we used a singular form. and why neuter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас **оста́лось** то́лько не́сколько свобо́дных мест[Genitive, PLURAL], но, к сожале́нию, мест ря́дом друг с дру́гом уже нет. Е́сли хоти́те, вы мо́жете взять два отде́льных[Genitive PLURAL] мЕста[Genitive SINGULAR]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11593" RevisionGUID="a60ed74f-a409-4dbc-8907-68e3f13eceb4" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:25:20.313" UserId="6565" Text="why оста́лось is neauter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11593" RevisionGUID="a60ed74f-a409-4dbc-8907-68e3f13eceb4" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:25:20.313" UserId="6565" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11594" RevisionGUID="ed7ba21b-2cdb-43ac-8d1b-36411561c266" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:41:35.300" UserId="6561" Text="When the main word of subject contains &quot;*несколько*&quot;, &quot;*много*&quot;, &quot;*немного*&quot;, &quot;*мало*&quot;, &quot;*немало*&quot;, &quot;*определенное количество*&quot; and collective numbers (&quot;*двое*&quot;, &quot;*трое*&quot;, &quot;*четверо*&quot;, etc.) (e.g., &quot;**Там было много людей**&quot;, &quot;**У меня осталось мало денег**&quot;, &quot;**В банке было трое человек**&quot;) the verb is usually agreed in neutral gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe because &quot;*несколько*&quot;, &quot;*мало*&quot;, &quot;*много*&quot;, etc. are collective words (like when the quantity of something is more than one but is considered as a single whole - I don't know how to explain it properly). Like &quot;gente&quot; in Spanish means &quot;people&quot;, but gramatically is a feminine. Or like English &quot;gilded youth&quot; means more than one person but is singular.&#xD;&#xA;The same way when subject contains one of the italic words above as a main word, the verb is agreed as a neutral gender - it's just necessary to remember :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11595" RevisionGUID="d973acfc-1a99-49f4-ae79-7e96c52e4b57" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:45:49.720" UserId="492" Text="My Question just came across my mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I use the keyboard I have here and if there is a Russian keyboard...do they go the same as a translate between English and Russian ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11595" RevisionGUID="d973acfc-1a99-49f4-ae79-7e96c52e4b57" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:45:49.720" UserId="492" Text="Russian Keyboard and English keyboard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11595" RevisionGUID="d973acfc-1a99-49f4-ae79-7e96c52e4b57" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:45:49.720" UserId="492" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11596" RevisionGUID="40f7b404-addc-4a21-8ec7-2bcc8a2c7dfd" CreationDate="2016-01-13T15:59:11.000" UserId="134" Text="&gt; У нас оста́лось то́лько не́сколько свобо́дных мест&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is *несколько*, not *мест* (see this question: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11505/why-the-verb-is-singular-in-this-sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мест* is in plural because *несколько* (and other collective numerals) govern plural genitive for their arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Е́сли хоти́те, вы мо́жете взять два отде́льных ме́ста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, numerals *два, три, четыре* govern singular genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while the noun should be in **singular** genitive, the adjective which modifies it should be either in **plural** genitive or **plural** nominative (nominative is preferred for the female nouns, genitive for masculine and neuter nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that those sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __Можете взять два отдельных места__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можете взять два отдельные места&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можете взять две отдельных ложи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __Можете взять две отдельные ложи__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could all be used, though those in bold are preferred stylistically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11597" RevisionGUID="07f7662b-1dc8-4818-a573-3dd131a2adf0" CreationDate="2016-01-13T16:04:04.077" UserId="1836" Text="Though it is not quite clear to me what do you mean by &quot;go the same as a translate&quot;, I'll try to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no special &quot;Russian keyboard&quot;, all keyboards in Russia are just standard keyboards with Russian layout printed on key caps. But they do not differ in drivers, embedded software or anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be able to type Cyrillic letters, you need to add an appropriate layout to your system. There are many Cyrillic layouts, mostly we use &quot;ЙЦУКЕН&quot; (named by left part of the firs row), but you can use a phonetic one, where Cyrillic letters are put on keys with similarly sounding Latin letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also look at the [article][1] on Wikipedia about Russian layouts, but it's only available in Russian. You can take a look at pictures with layouts though. And there is a bit of information about Russian layouts in [English article on layouts][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26841" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11595" RevisionGUID="2489588a-fb63-44c7-b740-5fe0a9e73f27" CreationDate="2016-01-13T17:17:41.527" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11585" RevisionGUID="4f03272b-b45a-4f7c-adc0-3ab92d13dbb7" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:16:34.643" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/687382755521462272" />
  <row Id="26843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="5577fc7b-714b-46e1-9f3d-a894140d6386" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:33:00.647" UserId="6451" Text="It is to my understanding that Russian's have a first name, surname, and patronymic (based on father's name). What is the order of a full name, &quot;first - surname - patronymic&quot; or &quot;first - patronymic - surname&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would this full name ever be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="5577fc7b-714b-46e1-9f3d-a894140d6386" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:33:00.647" UserId="6451" Text="What is the order of a full Russian name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="5577fc7b-714b-46e1-9f3d-a894140d6386" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:33:00.647" UserId="6451" Text="|словоупотребление|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11599" RevisionGUID="e2ebff71-9248-468b-b311-f7b05392c561" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:36:29.940" UserId="3680" Text="There are two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. first - patronymic - surname&#xD;&#xA;2. surname - first - patronymic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt;Иван Иванович Иванов&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt;Иванов Иван Иванович&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words patronymic is an &quot;extension&quot; for the first name and can only follow it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Except for very informal form, when only the patronymic is used. For example:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эй, Петрович!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11599" RevisionGUID="5cf6cc02-66b0-420f-a65c-c8cf5d9539a2" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:41:43.927" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There are two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. first - patronymic - surname&#xD;&#xA;2. surname - first - patronymic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt;Иван Иванович Иванов&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt;Иванов Иван Иванович&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words patronymic is an &quot;extension&quot; for the first name and can only follow it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Except a very informal form, when only the patronymic is used.  &#xD;&#xA;For example:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эй, Петрович!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11600" RevisionGUID="4003919f-bd43-4f67-888e-9662a71852f1" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:57:09.590" UserId="242" Text="The first-patronymic-last is the most common form. The last-first-patronymic is something that is used some formal cases like official lists (for instance of awarded persons, or deceased in accident etc.), like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К награждению преставляются: Иванов  Никита Петрович, Павлова Анна Александровна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, last-first-patronymic  in articles dedicated to the person, like in &#xD;&#xA;[Пушкин, Александр Сергеевич][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this form, let's consider it being more formal one has as shortened form, when patronymic is ommited. Say in school one can hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Список учеников, у которых остались задолженности: Мандрыка Оксана, Ковалёв Никита. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11601" RevisionGUID="7197842b-ae10-4df3-8588-ec05eb818a7a" CreationDate="2016-01-13T21:57:53.737" UserId="1236" Text="The full name is used in official situations and when introducing someone officially, or when referring to highly honourable people like presidents or great writers, and also in official documents and in textbooks (in these two last cases the first name and the patronymic can be abbreviated to a single letter each). You never use the 3-word name to address someone personally, but you can use it when you would like to know if the person in front of you is the one you are looking for, in this case you pronounce it with a question intonation, policemen usually do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11599" RevisionGUID="44fd5d42-4a84-484d-887e-059bb1ad827c" CreationDate="2016-01-13T22:16:42.017" UserId="3680" Comment="added usage" Text="There are two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. first - patronymic - surname&#xD;&#xA;2. surname - first - patronymic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt;Иван Иванович Иванов&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt;Иванов Иван Иванович&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words patronymic is an &quot;extension&quot; for the first name and can only follow it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Except a very informal form, when only the patronymic is used.  &#xD;&#xA;For example:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эй, Петрович!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The full name is the most formal form, so it is typically used in official situations/documents only.  &#xD;&#xA;The _only patronymic_ form is a very familiar form and used only between friends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11602" RevisionGUID="5f078525-b840-4d3d-9f91-2aa8b9af37c8" CreationDate="2016-01-14T00:30:37.307" UserId="194" Text="first - patronymic - surname&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the default form and the most respectful one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;surname - first - patronymic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is used when alphabetic ordering is needed (in lists, encyclopedias, when calling a person from a group/class etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26852" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11593" RevisionGUID="3a6561b0-6a81-40b4-81a9-c4cb9140325c" CreationDate="2016-01-14T01:01:08.413" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;оста́лось&quot; is neater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26853" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11593" RevisionGUID="3dc85ba5-7118-4e95-99a6-66bb35e50419" CreationDate="2016-01-14T01:12:27.083" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;оста́лось&quot; is neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11603" RevisionGUID="7849e696-32a2-4043-89fa-35d5dd79548a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T02:20:53.043" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="What is the reason for this change? I had been under the impression that the rules from this (http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/nouns_dative.php) page apply to the changing of the noun ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11603" RevisionGUID="7849e696-32a2-4043-89fa-35d5dd79548a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T02:20:53.043" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="Why does рот become рта, in the Dative Case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11603" RevisionGUID="7849e696-32a2-4043-89fa-35d5dd79548a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T02:20:53.043" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11604" RevisionGUID="af7dcb25-bf33-4feb-9e60-4974efbc5a3c" CreationDate="2016-01-14T02:54:38.660" UserId="6550" Text="Up until I started reading through *Russian Review Grammar* by Marianna Bogojavlensky I had only seen **ничего** offered as a translation for the English &quot;nothing.&quot; Bogojavlensky's text, however, often uses **нечего** in its example dialogues as in the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если это так, то я могу чувствовать только жалость к тебе, и мне **нечего** больше прибавить к тому, что я сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here is the translation the text offers of this sentence: 'If this is so, I can feel only pity for you, and I have nothing to add to what I have said.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the use of **нечего** in this sentence just a simpler way of saying &quot;у меня нет **ничего** больше прибавить... ?&quot; One [thread][1] I looked at on Word Reference said that **ничего** stresses a kind of &quot;absolute negative&quot; while **нечего** merely stresses absence. Can this distinction explain the example given above? Yandex's dictionary [defines][2] **нечего** as 'there is nothing to + inf' or as 'it's no good to + inf.' While I can understand how these definitions differentiate the usage of **нечего** from the usage of **ничего** I don't see how this makes &quot;и мне **нечего** больше прибавить...&quot; preferable to &quot;у меня нет **ничего** больше прибавить... ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-vs-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE.2253864/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11604" RevisionGUID="af7dcb25-bf33-4feb-9e60-4974efbc5a3c" CreationDate="2016-01-14T02:54:38.660" UserId="6550" Text="нечего vs. ничего" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11604" RevisionGUID="af7dcb25-bf33-4feb-9e60-4974efbc5a3c" CreationDate="2016-01-14T02:54:38.660" UserId="6550" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11605" RevisionGUID="4303fb46-a410-436b-b306-f50f4d523d05" CreationDate="2016-01-14T03:10:43.120" UserId="1236" Text="Unfortunately, your page doesn't mention this important phenomenon which is called _беглая гласная_ 'a runaway vowel.' The thing is like this: in some words, the stressed vowels **o**, **e**, and **ё** completely disappear, turn to null, when the form of the word changes and the stress moves onto another vowel. Your noun _рот_ has its root stressed, but when we form the Genitive case and add the ending *-a*, the stress moves onto this ending and the *-o-* in the root disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;runaway&quot; vowels are met very often in Russian and also in all the other Slavic languages, that's a common-Slavic phenomenon. But note, not every **o**, **e**, and **ё** is &quot;runaway&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кóт — котá : no vowel disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сóн — снá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бéру — брáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звонóк — звонкá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to remember in which words the vowel disappears, a good dictionary marks such words and their forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why these vowels disappear is that the ones that do, descend from the ancient very short, reduced, vowels known as [*yers*][1]: a short high front vowel denoted as *ĭ* or *ь*, and a short back vowel denoted as *ŭ* or *ъ*. These vowels underwent reduction and were eventually deleted in certain positions in a word the early Slavic languages, but if they were in a stressed position, they changed into the full vowels, in Russian into **e** and **o** respectfully. Theis phenomenon is called [Havlík's law][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havl%C3%ADk%27s_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11606" RevisionGUID="35aecfd5-ca33-4ca3-978b-d4025992a99b" CreationDate="2016-01-14T03:11:34.293" UserId="1688" Text="I think the difference is somewhat akin to &quot;there's nothing&quot; vs. &quot;there isn't anything&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll tell you nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебе ничего не скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't tell you anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу тебе ничего сказать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11605" RevisionGUID="fe9b08af-65e0-41f4-acdf-82ef0dea9af4" CreationDate="2016-01-14T03:24:58.167" UserId="1236" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, your page doesn't mention this important phenomenon which is called _беглая гласная_ 'a runaway vowel.' The thing is like this: in some words, the stressed vowels **o**, **e**, and **ё** completely disappear, turn to null, when the form of the word changes and the stress moves onto another vowel. Your noun _рот_ has its root stressed, but when we form the Genitive case and add the ending *-a*, the stress moves onto this ending and the *-o-* in the root disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;runaway&quot; vowels are met very often in Russian and also in all the other Slavic languages, that's a common-Slavic phenomenon. But note, not every **o**, **e**, and **ё** is &quot;runaway&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кóт — котá : no vowel disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сóн — снá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бéру — брáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звонóк — звонкá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to remember in which words the vowel disappears, a good dictionary marks such words and their forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why these vowels disappear is that the ones that do, descend from the ancient very short, reduced, vowels known as [*yers*][1]: a short high front vowel denoted as *ĭ* or *ь*, and a short back vowel denoted as *ŭ* or *ъ*. These vowels underwent reduction and were eventually deleted in certain positions in a word the early Slavic languages, but if they were in a stressed position, they changed into the full vowels, in Russian into **e** and **o** respectfully. Theis phenomenon is called [Havlík's law][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again, note, *рта* is not the Dative case, it is the Genitive case of _рот_, the Dative case from this noun is _рту_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havl%C3%ADk%27s_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26863" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11604" RevisionGUID="55389928-add4-46b7-ab0f-3a2709a7bebd" CreationDate="2016-01-14T03:27:38.143" UserId="6550" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11606" RevisionGUID="e9f70c39-4d3d-46a0-8e36-3d3948062d07" CreationDate="2016-01-14T03:50:20.227" UserId="1688" Comment="wrong example" Text="I think the difference is somewhat akin to &quot;there's nothing&quot; vs. &quot;there isn't anything&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll tell you nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебе ничего не скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't tell you anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нечего тебе сказать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11605" RevisionGUID="8aaa906a-045c-415b-ac8b-cd36518e0693" CreationDate="2016-01-14T04:48:34.243" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, your page doesn't mention this important phenomenon which is called _беглая гласная_ 'a runaway vowel.' The thing is like this: in some words, the stressed vowels **o**, **e**, and **ё** completely disappear, turn to null, when the form of the word changes and the stress moves onto another vowel. Your noun _рот_ has its root stressed, but when we form the Genitive case and add the ending *-a*, the stress moves onto this ending and the *-o-* in the root disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;runaway&quot; vowels are met very often in Russian and also in all the other Slavic languages, that's a common-Slavic phenomenon. But note, not every **o**, **e**, and **ё** is &quot;runaway&quot;, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кóт — котá : no vowel disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сóн — снá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бéру — брáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звонóк — звонкá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to remember in which words the vowel disappears, a good dictionary marks such words and their forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why these vowels disappear is that the ones that do, descend from the ancient very short, reduced, vowels known as [*yers*][1]: a short high front vowel denoted as *ĭ* or *ь*, and a short back vowel denoted as *ŭ* or *ъ*. These vowels underwent reduction and were eventually deleted in certain positions in a word in the early Slavic languages, but if they were in a stressed position, they changed into the full vowels, in Russian into **e** and **o** respectfully. This phenomenon is called [Havlík's law][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again, note, *рта* is not the Dative case, it is the Genitive case of _рот_, the Dative case from this noun is _рту_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havl%C3%ADk%27s_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11607" RevisionGUID="57b1accf-a994-4e4c-a8d9-398de73fa213" CreationDate="2016-01-14T06:11:00.447" UserDisplayName="user4820" Text="Full name (last-first-patronymic) is also used in situations, where normally only last name (e. g. roll-call in the army) or first-last form (e. g. announcement of sport teams line-ups) are used to distinguish between two or more people, who share last or both last and first name:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стартовый состав команды: в воротах Иван Петров, защитники — Николай Смирнов, Дмитрий Иванович Комаров, Дмитрий Сергеевич Комаров &lt;..&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="b35d5340-ca79-4873-812b-d2db7482e45a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T10:44:30.287" UserId="6570" Comment="corrected grammar, removed secondary question to keep it focused" Text="It is my understanding that Russians have a first name, surname, and patronymic.  What is the order of a full name: &quot;first surname patronymic&quot; or &quot;first patronymic surname&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26868" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="b35d5340-ca79-4873-812b-d2db7482e45a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T10:44:30.287" UserId="6570" Comment="corrected grammar, removed secondary question to keep it focused" Text="What order are the parts of a full Russian name in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26869" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="b35d5340-ca79-4873-812b-d2db7482e45a" CreationDate="2016-01-14T10:44:30.287" Comment="Proposed by 6570 approved by 2060, -1 edit id of 711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="0e6cb119-d26e-44e3-8850-e386b23b0aed" CreationDate="2016-01-14T10:44:30.287" UserId="134" Comment="corrected grammar, removed secondary question to keep it focused" Text="It is my understanding that Russians have a first name, surname, and patronymic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the order of a full name: &quot;first name, surname, patronymic&quot; or &quot;first name, patronymic, surname&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26872" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11603" RevisionGUID="69f4d5ef-1c7e-4fb3-a4bc-d5f152e231f1" CreationDate="2016-01-14T10:48:32.640" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does рот become рту, in the Dative Case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11608" RevisionGUID="b6ddf442-fb6c-400d-ad3c-48feb48c95a0" CreationDate="2016-01-14T11:57:29.680" UserId="5008" Text="_Ничего_ along with a verb requires double negation, so it's always about negating actions. But _нечего_ is used with a positive form of the verb, and it denotes a non-existence of an object suitable for action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ничего не скажу --&gt; I say nothing; I won't say anything  &#xD;&#xA;Мне нечего сказать --&gt; I have nothing to say; There's nothing to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ничего не прибавлю --&gt; I won't add anything  &#xD;&#xA;Мне нечего прибавить --&gt; I have nothing to add&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the matter of &quot;у меня нет ничего больше добавить...&quot; - it's really ugly, no native speaker says so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11605" RevisionGUID="572131ed-9730-4d74-a323-409b51a238b0" CreationDate="2016-01-14T12:18:43.080" UserId="1236" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, your page doesn't mention this important phenomenon which is called _беглая гласная_ '[a fleeting vowel][1].' The thing is like this: in some words, the stressed vowels **o**, **e**, and **ё** completely disappear, turn to null, when the form of the word changes and the stress moves onto another vowel. Your noun _рот_ has its root stressed, but when we form the Genitive case and add the ending *-a*, the stress moves onto this ending and the *-o-* in the root disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fleeting vowels are met very often in Russian and also in all the other Slavic languages, that's a common-Slavic phenomenon. But note, not every **o**, **e**, and **ё** is fleeting, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кóт — котá : no vowel disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сóн — снá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бéру — брáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звонóк — звонкá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to remember in which words the vowel disappears, a good dictionary marks such words and their forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why these vowels disappear is that the ones that do, descend from the ancient very short, reduced, vowels known as [*yers*][2]: a short high front vowel denoted as *ĭ* or *ь*, and a short back vowel denoted as *ŭ* or *ъ*. These vowels underwent reduction and were eventually deleted in certain positions in a word in the early Slavic languages, but if they were in a stressed position, they changed into the full vowels, in Russian into **e** and **o** respectfully. This phenomenon is called [Havlík's law][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again, note, *рта* is not the Dative case, it is the Genitive case of _рот_, the Dative case from this noun is _рту_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.public.asu.edu/~deliving/russgram/fvover.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havl%C3%ADk%27s_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11610" RevisionGUID="930b7102-0038-413b-b679-d4c3f6f2cbad" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:55:17.673" UserId="191" Text="This is a famous quote from *Heart of a Dog* (*Собачье сердце*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если я, входя в уборную, начну, извините за выражение, мочиться мимо унитаза и то же самое будут делать Зина и Дарья Петровна, в уборной начнется разруха.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(translation by Avril Pyman) If, when I go to the lavatory, I, if you'll forgive the expression, begin to piss and miss the bowl, and Zina and Darya Petrovna do the same, then we get Disruption in the lavatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the speaker make an excuse for using the word *мочиться*? That could be reasonable if he used a slang synonym like *ссать* but *мочиться* seems just regular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a vulgar or otherwise indecent word? Why does the make an excuse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11610" RevisionGUID="930b7102-0038-413b-b679-d4c3f6f2cbad" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:55:17.673" UserId="191" Text="Is &quot;мочиться&quot; a vulgar or indecent word to any extent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11610" RevisionGUID="930b7102-0038-413b-b679-d4c3f6f2cbad" CreationDate="2016-01-14T14:55:17.673" UserId="191" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11611" RevisionGUID="7488e74a-a57d-4fb9-9227-f89cabc9a55b" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:03:36.543" UserId="3680" Text="This is not indecent word. This is indecent theme (topic).  &#xD;&#xA;Therefore the speaker made an excuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11612" RevisionGUID="6b737f6a-5433-4b60-9d97-d92b5c6c6bbc" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:06:41.237" UserId="6576" Text="Both forms &#xD;&#xA;1. first - patronymic - surname&#xD;&#xA;2. surname - first - patronymic&#xD;&#xA;are used in formal situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think &quot;**S**urname - **F**irst - **P**atronymic&quot; is used more often since there is special abbreviation &quot;**ФИО**&quot; i.e. &quot;**SFP**&quot;. E.g. you can often find this abbreviation in legal documents. While abbreviation &quot;**ИОФ**&quot; does not exist.&#xD;&#xA;first - patronymic - surname may be used in less formal texts e.g. , someone's biography, corporate lists, news etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26882" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="394df6ce-5ec2-45fc-bfc8-a95384c8405e" CreationDate="2016-01-14T15:17:49.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/687654858539806722" />
  <row Id="26883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="cd57e1bf-40db-4076-b078-c0f40315e0da" CreationDate="2016-01-14T17:29:29.673" UserId="4753" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called Live From Moscow (now out of print). Years later I needed compact case tables for a class, but could not find anything, so I made my own in OpenOffice Writer. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the download link at the top right for the ODT version. This is what you want it you wish to make modifications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11615" RevisionGUID="4b2eb844-9267-4ac8-874a-b1fd49598eba" CreationDate="2016-01-14T21:19:45.867" UserId="4560" Text="Preobrazhensky's middle-class manners compelled him to excuse himself for mentioning the subject itself, especially in front of ladies. **Мочиться** is perfectly neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English translator's word choice is odd; that trite little rhyme with &quot;miss&quot; is even odder. Did they think it was clever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11616" RevisionGUID="1a86b924-6f60-4a93-a00f-e608bf3c0939" CreationDate="2016-01-14T23:54:39.103" UserId="5" Text="Насмерть or вусмерть, when do I use what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11616" RevisionGUID="1a86b924-6f60-4a93-a00f-e608bf3c0939" CreationDate="2016-01-14T23:54:39.103" UserId="5" Text="Насмерть vs вусмерть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11616" RevisionGUID="1a86b924-6f60-4a93-a00f-e608bf3c0939" CreationDate="2016-01-14T23:54:39.103" UserId="5" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11617" RevisionGUID="dbe3a242-0d7f-4d7a-bf6e-d457167ba80c" CreationDate="2016-01-15T00:04:46.507" UserId="242" Text="Those words have quite different domains of usage. In fact, any time you are talking about death, death literally, it's &quot;насмерть&quot; - `разбиться насмерть`. Also, when you are talking about extreme level of something, than in most cases it is &quot;насмерть&quot; as well: `они стояли насмерть за свою родину`, `слушай, дверь насмерть просто закрылась, никак не открыть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вусмерть&quot; in modern Russian is about extreme states of conscience, about being at the edge of functioning. `Напиться вусмерть` - is to drink way to much, bit that does not imply death. In fact, &quot;вусмерть&quot; is used mostly in drunk-related context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, though, some cases when those two words are interchangeable. `Я просто вусмерть с ними рассорился`/`я прям насмерть с него обиделся`. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11617" RevisionGUID="18c99b4c-2260-49b3-aaf2-83e1f4a4a7c8" CreationDate="2016-01-15T00:10:22.247" UserId="242" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="Those words have quite different domains of usage. In fact, any time you are talking about death, death literally, it's &quot;насмерть&quot; - `разбиться насмерть`. Also, when you are talking about extreme level of something, than in most cases it is &quot;насмерть&quot; as well: `они стояли насмерть за свою родину`, `слушай, дверь насмерть просто закрылась, никак не открыть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вусмерть&quot; in modern Russian is about extreme states of conscience, about being at the edge of functioning. `Напиться вусмерть` - is to drink way to much, bit that does not imply death. In fact, &quot;вусмерть&quot; is used mostly in drunk-related context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, though, some cases when those two words are interchangeable. `Я просто вусмерть с ними рассорился`/`я прям насмерть с него обиделся`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, to non-native speaker who is yet to gain some experience in de-facto word usage I'de recommend to use &quot;вусмерть&quot; about being drunk (or stoned) and &quot;насмерть&quot; in other cases. This is oversimplification but it's something worth to start with. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11618" RevisionGUID="5a888887-d2dc-4463-a8e1-417e65293efd" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:03:08.940" UserDisplayName="user6485" Text="Is there an accepted Russian transliteration of the given name &quot;Keith&quot;? It appears **θ** is often transliterated as **ф**, but it doesn't *feel* correct in this case (of course I don't know). Кит, Кис, Киз? Something different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11618" RevisionGUID="5a888887-d2dc-4463-a8e1-417e65293efd" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:03:08.940" UserDisplayName="user6485" Text="Given name transliteration: &quot;Keith&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11618" RevisionGUID="5a888887-d2dc-4463-a8e1-417e65293efd" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:03:08.940" UserDisplayName="user6485" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11619" RevisionGUID="8b98346c-7626-4f27-a541-a02fbd6bbbb1" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:26:54.323" UserId="242" Text="Yep, as already is told in comments, for th &quot;т&quot; is usually used, but behold, here I present you a universal algorithm for resolving issues of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Choose one celebrity with this name. In our case, let's go with Keith Richards.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Find [an article][1] about this person in English wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Choose the same article in other language. In our case, [in Russian][2].&#xD;&#xA; 4. Check out how the name is translated.&#xD;&#xA; 5. If still not sure, repeat from step 1 with choosing some different celebrity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Richards&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D1%81,_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11619" RevisionGUID="0d720c22-56e4-4056-b380-b46d6e127db7" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:37:20.527" UserId="242" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="Yep, as already is told in comments, for th &quot;т&quot; is usually used, but behold, here I present you a universal algorithm for resolving issues of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Choose one celebrity with this name. In our case, let's go with Keith Richards.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Find [an article][1] about this person in English wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Choose the same article in other language. In our case, [in Russian][2].&#xD;&#xA; 4. Check out how the name is translated.&#xD;&#xA; 5. If still not sure (no irony, for historical reasons name of particular person could be transliterated differently), repeat starting from step 1 with choosing some different celebrity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Richards&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D1%81,_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26900" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11618" RevisionGUID="034e4bf6-e073-4b75-a6a9-87240e977564" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:40:56.620" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-имени|trasliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26901" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11618" RevisionGUID="aeb0cc89-accf-429c-9f09-c3d63efe0145" CreationDate="2016-01-15T03:43:08.573" UserDisplayName="user6485" Comment="edited tags" Text="|транслитерация|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11619" RevisionGUID="551d8e6a-2429-4b2c-94f0-69b41d2435c0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T04:55:46.477" UserId="242" Comment="added 457 characters in body" Text="Yep, as already is told in comments, &quot;т&quot; is usually standing for t[θ] in modern Russian (though we have Фёдор vs. Theodor, Коринф vs. Corinth). But behold, here I present you a universal algorithm for resolving issues of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Choose one celebrity with this name. In our case, let's go with Keith Richards.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Find [an article][1] about this person in English wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Choose the same article in other language. In our case, [in Russian][2].&#xD;&#xA; 4. Check out how the name is translated.&#xD;&#xA; 5. If still not sure (no irony, for historical reasons name of particular person could be transliterated differently), repeat starting from step 1 with choosing some different celebrity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenode, word algorithm itself is a nice example of how &quot;ф&quot;-tradition was changed by &quot;т&quot;-tradition. No that long ago there [was][3] alternative spelling for `алгоритм`, `алгорифм`, but now it is completely obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Richards&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D1%81,_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/921/can-i-encounter-a%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BC-nowadays-in-any-context-and-in-past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11620" RevisionGUID="028a3c8c-a8ca-4974-9f9f-a077d53c879e" CreationDate="2016-01-15T06:12:32.980" UserId="6579" Text="It is not that piss is a medical term. But at the same time, the doctor will suggest the patient to &quot;помочиться&quot;. If you appeal to your child, you say &quot;пописать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the sculpture in Brussels called &quot;Писающий мальчик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Not &quot;Мочащийся мальчик&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11617" RevisionGUID="44cf1de7-aab1-4f82-ba0b-a3e19ee541d7" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:45:45.307" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Those words have quite different domains of usage. In fact, any time you are talking about death, death literally, it's &quot;насмерть&quot; - `разбиться насмерть`. Also, when you are talking about extreme level of something, than in most cases it is &quot;насмерть&quot; as well: `они стояли насмерть за свою родину`, `слушай, дверь насмерть просто закрылась, никак не открыть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вусмерть&quot; in modern Russian is about extreme states of conscience, about being at the edge of functioning. `Напиться вусмерть` - is to drink way to much, bit that does not imply death. In fact, &quot;вусмерть&quot; is used mostly in drunk-related context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, though, some cases when those two words are interchangeable. `Я просто вусмерть с ними рассорился`/`я прям насмерть на него обиделся`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, to non-native speaker who is yet to gain some experience in de-facto word usage I'de recommend to use &quot;вусмерть&quot; about being drunk (or stoned) and &quot;насмерть&quot; in other cases. This is oversimplification but it's something worth to start with. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11621" RevisionGUID="9fbfd352-e681-43e6-a682-b5547a8c48f0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T10:18:27.333" UserId="6371" Text="Чем отличаются значения словосочетаний: `мастер ключей` или `мастер по ключам`? В каких случаях правильно писать `мастер чего-то`, а в каких – `мастер по чему-то`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11621" RevisionGUID="9fbfd352-e681-43e6-a682-b5547a8c48f0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T10:18:27.333" UserId="6371" Text="Мастер по чему-то или мастер чего-то?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11621" RevisionGUID="9fbfd352-e681-43e6-a682-b5547a8c48f0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T10:18:27.333" UserId="6371" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11622" RevisionGUID="5368233e-30ba-4da4-b1ee-44b7cfb0c956" CreationDate="2016-01-15T13:54:08.790" UserId="5008" Text="Слово [&quot;Мастер&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80) может иметь различные значения. В частности,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;мастер&quot; = &quot;квалифицированный рабочий&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;мастер&quot; = &quot;человек, достигший высокого искусства в своем деле&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сочетание &quot;_мастер по ..._&quot; однозначно указывает на первое и исключает второе. Соответственно &quot;мастер по ключам&quot; - это работник. А &quot;мастер ключей&quot; - это, вероятнее всего, ошибочный перевод (aka &quot;надмозг&quot;) английского выражения &quot;_master key_&quot; (специально сделанный ключ, которым можно открыть любую дверь в доме)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11623" RevisionGUID="559239e6-0e49-4379-ae73-5b88eb6fc6c4" CreationDate="2016-01-15T14:15:44.747" UserId="6497" Text="I'm studying numerals and I found this example:&#xD;&#xA;У меня есть 2 старших брата, и одна старшая сестра&#xD;&#xA;far as I know after У меня есть It should be an nominative, so for the rule of the numbers the 2 should need the genitive singular (and thats ok cause брата is right) but why the adjective does not respect this rule? It seems to me in plural (Genitive or Accusative). Can you help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11623" RevisionGUID="559239e6-0e49-4379-ae73-5b88eb6fc6c4" CreationDate="2016-01-15T14:15:44.747" UserId="6497" Text="Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11623" RevisionGUID="559239e6-0e49-4379-ae73-5b88eb6fc6c4" CreationDate="2016-01-15T14:15:44.747" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11624" RevisionGUID="cf3cfd89-d976-429a-90a1-8a758ea0d83d" CreationDate="2016-01-15T15:12:30.510" UserId="5008" Text="Well, it's just like that. You have to remember this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long story: here &quot;брата&quot; is actually a relict of dual number, not singular. Some time ago it must be kind of &quot;два старша брата&quot;, yet adjectives didn't keep any trace of dual form until nowadays, so for 2..5 it is now like this: &quot;plural adjective&quot; + &quot;singular noun&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26913" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11610" RevisionGUID="562f2948-f14a-4b98-914d-6a1071f045a3" CreationDate="2016-01-15T15:17:51.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/688017257419636736" />
  <row Id="26914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11624" RevisionGUID="13c5b0dd-6971-4c06-b76a-a0b12c5a94d0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T15:22:01.963" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="Well, it's just like that. You have to remember this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long story: here &quot;брата&quot; is actually a relict of dual number, not singular. Some time ago it must be kind of &quot;два старша брата&quot;, yet adjectives didn't keep any trace of dual form until nowadays, so for 2..4 it is now like this: &quot;plural adjective&quot; + &quot;singular noun&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11625" RevisionGUID="39c193b0-d700-40e2-962c-d6f663e59898" CreationDate="2016-01-15T16:10:23.320" UserId="6579" Text="Unfortunately I really do not know much English. But the reference to the rules.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe someone will be able to translate them.&#xD;&#xA;[§193. Определение при существительном, зависящем от числительных два, три, четыре][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/65.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26916" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11616" RevisionGUID="58636679-7742-4c9e-bdf9-56c47da6a064" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:18:09.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/688062632008511492" />
  <row Id="26917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11626" RevisionGUID="50e601b6-735c-4249-8079-c31e41ce9876" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:34:29.437" UserId="6550" Text="What is the meaning of the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;будь жена хоть коза, лишь бы золотые рога&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand all the words in the sentence, and I've roughly translated it as: &quot;Whether a wife be a she-goat, if only the golden horn&quot; This is a confusing and unsatisfying translation.The meaning of this sentence does not seem to be compositional, so I've come here seeking aid from a native speaker to whom this sentence is perhaps familiar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, I have a question about the use of **лишь**. I've read [some places][1] that **лишь** is not often used colloquially and is seen mostly in song lyrics. I've only seen it before in the song &quot;В траве сидел кузнечик&quot; in the line *он съел одну лишь травку*. Yandex translates лишь as 'only,' 'just,' or 'merely.' If this is so, is лишь merely synonymous with **только**, or does it have a different, more specific, usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.italki.com/question/205996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11626" RevisionGUID="50e601b6-735c-4249-8079-c31e41ce9876" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:34:29.437" UserId="6550" Text="Strange, Possibly Idiomatic Sentence and the Adverb лишь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11626" RevisionGUID="50e601b6-735c-4249-8079-c31e41ce9876" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:34:29.437" UserId="6550" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11627" RevisionGUID="c8bed6ac-2a04-4683-ae09-ddf3dbae929f" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:50:33.320" UserId="242" Text="It is translated something like &quot;You can have even a goat wife unless you won't have golden horns&quot;. It's not an &quot;if&quot; per se, it is sort of &quot;in case you don't...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11627" RevisionGUID="6410932b-6cd7-4e1d-97bb-acfed60b00cc" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:56:55.457" UserId="242" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="It is translated something like &quot;You can have even a goat wife unless you  have golden horns&quot;. It's not an &quot;if&quot; per se, it is sort of &quot;in case one don't find him or herself in this situation&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Лишь` is a pretty tricky word indeed. There are some subtly different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - only, merely, just: Я горжусь лишь тем, чего достиг сам.&#xD;&#xA; - лишь только: as soon as. Лишь только наступил вечер, она уже уснула.&#xD;&#xA; - лишь бы: only if.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last one is exactly your case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11628" RevisionGUID="03a4b1e2-0c9f-4900-a8a1-d482e0edc208" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:57:11.207" UserId="134" Text="*Лишь бы* here means *as long as*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase means *Don't care if the wife is a goat as long as she has golden horns*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11627" RevisionGUID="d4a42f84-b692-4a4c-a5bf-e88573a272b7" CreationDate="2016-01-15T18:59:16.433" UserId="242" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="It is translated something like &quot;You can have even a goat wife unless you  have golden horns&quot;. (In Russian &quot;наставить кому-то рога&quot; means &quot;cheat on somebody&quot;, that's why horns if you are confused.) It's not an &quot;if&quot; per se, it is sort of &quot;in case one don't find him or herself in this situation&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Лишь` is a pretty tricky word indeed. There are some subtly different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - only, merely, just: `Я горжусь лишь тем, чего достиг сам`. So it is indeed to some extent synonymous to &quot;только&quot; but be warned, there also:&#xD;&#xA; - лишь только: as soon as. `Лишь только наступил вечер, она уже уснула.`&#xD;&#xA; - лишь бы: only if.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last one is exactly your case. &#xD;&#xA;As of how often is is used - well, I'd say it's usage is gradually declining but it would be too radical to consider is obsolete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11627" RevisionGUID="addedde7-0a26-441d-84db-857040a91a4f" CreationDate="2016-01-15T19:04:09.083" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 103 characters in body" Text="It is translated something like &quot;You can have even a goat wife in case she has golden horns&quot;.  It's not an &quot;if&quot; per se, it is sort of &quot;in case one don't find him or herself in this situation&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Лишь` is a pretty tricky word indeed. There are some subtly different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - only, merely, just: `Я горжусь лишь тем, чего достиг сам`. So it is indeed to some extent synonymous to &quot;только&quot; but be warned, there also:&#xD;&#xA; - лишь только: as soon as. `Лишь только наступил вечер, она уже уснула.`&#xD;&#xA; - лишь бы: only if.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last one is exactly your case. &#xD;&#xA;As of how often is is used - well, I'd say it's usage is gradually declining but it would be too radical to consider is obsolete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11629" RevisionGUID="0f9b7360-d80a-4170-8c40-a4499151f872" CreationDate="2016-01-15T21:59:55.450" UserId="6550" Text="My understanding of the various facets of the numeral-case system is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1**--Both masculine and feminine countable nouns and the adjectives that describe them are in the nominative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11629" RevisionGUID="61bd598a-e10e-4864-9482-a0cdaa1f71cc" CreationDate="2016-01-15T22:06:53.077" UserId="6550" Comment="added 406 characters in body" Text="My understanding of the various facets of the numeral-case system is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1**--Both masculine and feminine countable nouns and the adjectives that describe them are in the nominative case. Ex: одно чёрное кофе, одна прекрасная принцеса&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Masculine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective in the genitive plural. Ex: два сильных спортсмена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Feminine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective is in the *nominative plural*. Ex: две сильные спортсменки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5-20**--Noun is in the genitive plural, adjective is in the genitive plural Ex: двадцать сумашедших людей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11629" RevisionGUID="78039d6b-af15-45dd-9e0e-ebb0339cab10" CreationDate="2016-01-16T00:11:39.687" UserId="6550" Comment="edited body" Text="My understanding of the various facets of the numeral-case system is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1**--Both masculine and feminine countable nouns and the adjectives that describe them are in the nominative case. Ex: один чёрный кофе, одна прекрасная принцеса&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Masculine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective in the genitive plural. Ex: два сильных спортсмена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Feminine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective is in the *nominative plural*. Ex: две сильные спортсменки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5-20**--Noun is in the genitive plural, adjective is in the genitive plural Ex: двадцать сумашедших людей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11629" RevisionGUID="b34b88e1-06c8-47e6-901f-40bf4ea93d83" CreationDate="2016-01-16T00:19:24.747" UserId="6550" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="My understanding of the various facets of the numeral-case system is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1**--Both masculine and feminine countable nouns and the adjectives that describe them are in the nominative case. Ex: один чёрный кофе, одна прекрасная принцеса&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Masculine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective in the genitive plural. Ex: два сильных спортсмена, or as in your case: два старших брата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Feminine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective is in the *nominative plural*. Ex: две сильные спортсменки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5-20**--Noun is in the genitive plural, adjective is in the genitive plural Ex: двадцать сумашедших людей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11629" RevisionGUID="fd651cb0-42a7-4c29-858f-3ceabfb6a1e8" CreationDate="2016-01-16T00:20:02.617" UserId="134" Comment="spelling" Text="My understanding of the various facets of the numeral-case system is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**1**--Both masculine and feminine countable nouns and the adjectives that describe them are in the nominative case. Ex: один чёрный кофе, одна прекрасная принцесcа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Masculine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective in the genitive plural. Ex: два сильных спортсмена, or as in your case: два старших брата&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2-4 Feminine**--Noun is in the genitive singular, adjective is in the *nominative plural*. Ex: две сильные спортсменки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5-20**--Noun is in the genitive plural, adjective is in the genitive plural Ex: двадцать сумаcшедших людей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26931" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11626" RevisionGUID="a8128212-6c78-405d-a75a-0222f7e46852" CreationDate="2016-01-16T09:22:29.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/688290215308447744" />
  <row Id="26932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11630" RevisionGUID="111e1aba-4a94-49f9-8a79-c620888f68b4" CreationDate="2016-01-16T11:34:51.367" UserId="5201" Text="What is the meaning of отлюбить мозг? I'm guessing it is slang, correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11630" RevisionGUID="111e1aba-4a94-49f9-8a79-c620888f68b4" CreationDate="2016-01-16T11:34:51.367" UserId="5201" Text="Meaning of отлюбить мозг" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11630" RevisionGUID="111e1aba-4a94-49f9-8a79-c620888f68b4" CreationDate="2016-01-16T11:34:51.367" UserId="5201" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11631" RevisionGUID="38936a70-1146-4ec8-a514-371aa5805bd5" CreationDate="2016-01-16T11:41:39.567" UserId="3680" Text="It's a slang.  &#xD;&#xA;It means `to fuck a brain`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11633" RevisionGUID="0438097f-b061-4e86-9e84-31bb59a56814" CreationDate="2016-01-16T14:08:48.647" UserId="134" Text="That's an euphemism for _отъебать мозг_ which is one of the possible perfective forms of _ебать мозг_ &quot;to badger, to annoy with too much talking&quot; (literally, &quot;to fuck one's brain&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11634" RevisionGUID="7dcb41f8-cac2-416d-a371-fd2cc5b4347e" CreationDate="2016-01-16T14:15:09.807" UserId="5443" Text="(В качестве дополнения)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Типичные примеры использования выражения &quot;**мастер чего-то**&quot;. Чаще всего так говорят о литераторах и людях искусства, выделяющихся каким-либо аспектом своего творчества:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер слова** - тот, кто особенно красиво и умело излагает свои мысли средствами литературного языка (писатель, поэт, рассказчик, литературный переводчик, существенно реже - журналист); не всегда великого писателя называют мастером слова в этом аспекте;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер короткого рассказа** (или иного конретного жанра) - о литераторе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер пейзажа** (натюрморта или иного жанра живописи, скульптуры) - о художнике&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер дальнего паса** - напр. о футболисте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер мистификации(-ий)** - об особенностях поведения, направленных на массовое введение людей в заблуждение по поводу чего-то - в любой области, не обязательно творческой (это может быть как личность вроде Гудини, Копперфильда, так и просто известный мошенник)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11634" RevisionGUID="b80245f3-c14a-40a0-a198-b625c9cff4d9" CreationDate="2016-01-16T17:51:25.783" UserId="5443" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="(В качестве дополнения)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Типичные примеры использования выражения &quot;**мастер чего-то**&quot;. Чаще всего так говорят о литераторах и людях искусства, выделяющихся каким-либо аспектом своего творчества:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер слова** - тот, кто особенно красиво и умело излагает свои мысли средствами литературного языка (писатель, поэт, рассказчик, литературный переводчик, существенно реже - журналист); не всегда великого писателя называют мастером слова в этом аспекте;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер короткого рассказа** (или иного конретного жанра) - о литераторе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер пейзажа** (натюрморта или иного жанра живописи, скульптуры) - о художнике&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер дальнего паса** - напр. о футболисте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мастер мистификации(-ий)** - об особенностях поведения, направленных на массовое введение людей в заблуждение по поводу чего-то - в любой области, не обязательно творческой (это может быть как личность вроде Гудини, Копперфильда, так и просто известный мошенник)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мастер перевоплощения** - об актёре" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26949" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11623" RevisionGUID="ac4e9dc5-90ac-4279-a5d0-11cc6bf92f21" CreationDate="2016-01-16T21:18:54.827" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11636" RevisionGUID="febdafef-1b44-4c37-96b5-26ac3b48687c" CreationDate="2016-01-16T22:05:47.283" UserId="6584" Text=" It seems dictionaries rarely offer definitions for adjectives that have the suffix -енький. There are a few (for instance: маленький; хорошенький), but by Googling many more show up (for instance: старенький; толстенький; весёленький). What nuance or change in meaning does -енький add to basic adjectives? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11636" RevisionGUID="febdafef-1b44-4c37-96b5-26ac3b48687c" CreationDate="2016-01-16T22:05:47.283" UserId="6584" Text="What does the adjectival ending -енький mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11636" RevisionGUID="febdafef-1b44-4c37-96b5-26ac3b48687c" CreationDate="2016-01-16T22:05:47.283" UserId="6584" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11637" RevisionGUID="2ae44c90-977d-4f47-8fc9-265285317cd1" CreationDate="2016-01-16T22:18:29.903" UserId="115" Text="It is a diminutive ending. It is often used when talking to little children." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11638" RevisionGUID="5ebd003a-b805-4bb5-a4ad-52da8cd436f1" CreationDate="2016-01-16T22:34:33.837" UserId="134" Text="*-еньк-/-оньк-* is an affectionate and/or diminutive suffix, similar to English &quot;-y/-ie&quot;: &quot;cute / cutie, sweet / sweetie&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used with nouns, adjectives, adverbs and (in baby talk) even verbs: *спать / спатеньки*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suffix can sometimes change the style of even the meaning of the words it's used with: for instance, the mentioned *маленький* is currently the neutral word for &quot;small, little&quot; (*малый* being an archaic word, mostly used in its short predicative form *мал* nowadays); and *хорошенький* means &quot;cute, handsome&quot; (mere *хороший* does not have this meaning). That's why they are mentioned separately in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, mostly the words with that suffix are just the affectionate varieties of their corresponding neutral counterparts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26955" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11604" RevisionGUID="2a99a889-ccd7-4cec-89ab-1864efab18f2" CreationDate="2016-01-17T09:25:35.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/688653383469772804" />
  <row Id="26956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11639" RevisionGUID="0c87012e-fcd5-4040-8532-ea7d97c7462b" CreationDate="2016-01-17T10:15:38.607" UserId="6585" Text="муссировать этимология please inform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11639" RevisionGUID="0c87012e-fcd5-4040-8532-ea7d97c7462b" CreationDate="2016-01-17T10:15:38.607" UserId="6585" Text="муссировать этимология" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11639" RevisionGUID="0c87012e-fcd5-4040-8532-ea7d97c7462b" CreationDate="2016-01-17T10:15:38.607" UserId="6585" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11640" RevisionGUID="a185cb33-d0f6-4fcf-8272-3de0fe13e041" CreationDate="2016-01-17T10:36:10.377" UserId="5427" Text="Французские слова mousse - пена, mousser - вспенивать. В русском глагол используется в переносном значении &quot;раздувать важность&quot; (события, дела).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11578" RevisionGUID="74aadb68-2d44-445f-9d6b-f673d1ed9f99" CreationDate="2016-01-17T12:25:35.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/688698680644349952" />
  <row Id="26961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11641" RevisionGUID="642f7d64-5b06-48d7-9abc-98e2b129a8d6" CreationDate="2016-01-17T17:12:41.873" UserId="6354" Text="From what I understand, both can mean **activity**, but действие also means **action**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they seem similar enough that I don't know when to use which. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this [frequency list][1], действие is ranked #83 among Russian nouns, #302 overall. деятельность is ranked #94 among Russian nouns, #322 overall. Given the prevalence of these 2 words, I believe a deeper understanding of when to use each is necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php?act=show&amp;dic=freq_s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11641" RevisionGUID="642f7d64-5b06-48d7-9abc-98e2b129a8d6" CreationDate="2016-01-17T17:12:41.873" UserId="6354" Text="действие versus деятельность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11641" RevisionGUID="642f7d64-5b06-48d7-9abc-98e2b129a8d6" CreationDate="2016-01-17T17:12:41.873" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11642" RevisionGUID="06ec68f5-0fba-43ce-9106-8e5da6ee912c" CreationDate="2016-01-17T18:50:50.657" UserId="2332" Text="Действие means that the process will be short.&#xD;&#xA;Деятельность is the long-running process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* brushing teeth is a short process. It's an action as действие.&#xD;&#xA;* working activity is a long process so it means рабочая деятельность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11643" RevisionGUID="10695cf3-dc50-4ca2-b104-12636a5ca35f" CreationDate="2016-01-17T18:53:17.170" UserId="5008" Text="_Деятельность_ is mostly about _working activities_, while _действие_ is about _actions_ and _functioning activities_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that the notion of working activity is rather vague. For example, _higher nervous activity_ = _высшая нервная деятельность_, that is brain really _works_, not just _functioning_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11644" RevisionGUID="49a67365-2fc8-41fd-bb5a-9ca0a8a7498f" CreationDate="2016-01-17T19:52:39.530" UserId="6586" Text="Learn one keyboard layout, the one you'd use most frequently. Layouts are in some sense independent from the language. Obviously one can type in English on German or French layout. It's only the characters special to that language that can be missing. You could learn to enter them in some alternative way when needed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11646" RevisionGUID="7d83d650-8414-48bc-b15a-5764d1434890" CreationDate="2016-01-17T20:33:36.033" UserId="6586" Text="I can imagine the original construction used &quot;из-за&quot; = &quot;because, for&quot; but as &quot;из&quot; got lost the case got adjusted to what sounds proper case for &quot;за&quot; usage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11647" RevisionGUID="a0311b25-f81f-4e81-bc00-29ae8ed9c8b2" CreationDate="2016-01-17T21:32:22.527" UserId="6097" Text="Действие is a single act while деятельность is a number of different actions with (or without) common purpose. &#xA;&#xA;So, деятельность can consist of many действие." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11648" RevisionGUID="d2611a32-03d9-49ac-9eca-40feec7c9fbf" CreationDate="2016-01-17T22:39:25.937" UserId="6586" Text="To further develop on what @yellow sky noted, the derivatives of быть can be easily understood when keeping in mind it's relationship with the notion of movement. I just want to illustrate with parallels from Spanish estar-&gt;есть, va -&gt; будет (will be) but va also means идёт (goes), to go -&gt; ir идти. The past tense of the movement verb ir serves as the past tense of estar: fui. Будущее =грядущее, настоящее &lt;- стоять, былое &lt;- прошедшее, all three tenses can be easily associated with movement or absent thereof. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11649" RevisionGUID="3278308a-dc7f-4c07-950d-bdc8d6f600b2" CreationDate="2016-01-18T03:52:20.800" UserId="6588" Text="In this expression, &quot;любить&quot; is just an obvious euphemism to f-word. One say so, if she/he implies that she/he is going to swear. This euphemism is just as inappropriate as f-word, but it is less emotional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means having someone bored to death and blaming one for doing so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11650" RevisionGUID="b4a5d3b4-cab0-4512-b569-f2b30b583937" CreationDate="2016-01-18T04:18:25.447" UserId="6588" Text="The sample text looks far-fetched. Being native speaker, I feel like there is a mistake. Though it's not a mistake, just odd words combination. One don't say &quot;только несколько&quot; unless she/he has speaking issues, such as stutter. If you would ask for a ticket, you will hear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Можно мне два места ря́дом?&#xD;&#xA;- Ря́дом не́ту. Всего пара билетов осталось. По отде́льности места́ брать будете?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11651" RevisionGUID="f5e4d37e-f09f-4f17-aae8-fcae18363591" CreationDate="2016-01-18T10:49:47.820" UserId="1958" Text="I believe **действие** is action, while **деятельность** is activity. And I can't remember any exceptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11652" RevisionGUID="5b9e2bed-b51e-4245-801f-b78ee1463b33" CreationDate="2016-01-18T12:50:05.647" UserId="4345" Text="I'm trying to translate into Russian language English term &quot;Inline disposition&quot; used in Internet communications. &quot;Inline disposition&quot; means that the file has to be shown directly in browser, not as attachment. And I can not find any close equivalent... Please help :) &#xD;&#xA;В Интернете ничего не могу найти...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11652" RevisionGUID="5b9e2bed-b51e-4245-801f-b78ee1463b33" CreationDate="2016-01-18T12:50:05.647" UserId="4345" Text="How to translate HTTP term &quot;Inline disposition&quot; into Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11652" RevisionGUID="5b9e2bed-b51e-4245-801f-b78ee1463b33" CreationDate="2016-01-18T12:50:05.647" UserId="4345" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26978" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11639" RevisionGUID="2c67ca80-6c59-4e0a-8257-1d68781e425f" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:07:20.080" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11652" RevisionGUID="1c6aec80-32f1-404b-b81b-de795a1d477b" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:13:13.863" UserId="4345" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to translate into Russian language English term &quot;Inline disposition&quot; used in Internet communications. &quot;Inline disposition&quot; means that the file has to be shown directly in browser, not as attachment. And I can not find any close equivalent... Please help :) &#xD;&#xA;В Интернете ничего не могу найти...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it could be &quot;«Инлайн» диспозиция&quot; or &quot;«Инлайн» размещение&quot;. But is &quot;инлайн&quot; word used in Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11652" RevisionGUID="ee0bc2e9-632f-49c0-bc26-d4b9bf0cc733" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:21:00.463" UserId="4345" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to translate into Russian language English term &quot;Inline disposition&quot; used in Internet communications. &quot;Inline disposition&quot; means that the file has to be shown directly in browser, not as attachment. And I can not find any close equivalent... Please help :) &#xD;&#xA;В Интернете ничего не могу найти...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it could be &quot;«Инлайн» диспозиция&quot; or &quot;«Инлайн» размещение&quot;. But is &quot;инлайн&quot; word used in Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little info about &quot;Inline disposition&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, if you have a PDF file and Firefox/Adobe Reader, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inline disposition will open the PDF within Firefox, whereas&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attachment will force it to download.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11653" RevisionGUID="c3237291-1546-4416-98e7-0760ea140778" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:51:39.443" UserId="1556" Text="In English touch-typing on a qwerty keyboard, the default position of the fingers is asdf (left) and hjkl (right). The Russian keys extend further to the right, owing to the greater number of letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a standard home row positioning for touch-typing on a йцукен keyboard? If so, is it with the left fingers on фыва and right fingers on ролд, or left fingers on фыва and right fingers on олдж, or something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11653" RevisionGUID="c3237291-1546-4416-98e7-0760ea140778" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:51:39.443" UserId="1556" Text="What is home row for touch typing on a йцукен layout?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11653" RevisionGUID="c3237291-1546-4416-98e7-0760ea140778" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:51:39.443" UserId="1556" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26984" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7816" RevisionGUID="729ac2ad-82f6-44c5-a65a-643f96edbbfc" CreationDate="2016-01-18T13:58:42.433" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11654" RevisionGUID="d24d882b-0004-4c0b-9aef-c3bc5b0b7fda" CreationDate="2016-01-18T14:00:40.680" UserId="5362" Text="The home row *asdf* and *jkl;* corresponds to *фыва* (left) *олдж* (right) on russian (Russian Cyrillic) layout." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26986" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11636" RevisionGUID="267c1584-41ca-40f3-8ee7-e16a8db1f0c5" CreationDate="2016-01-18T18:46:58.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/689157045254275072" />
  <row Id="26987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11655" RevisionGUID="ecd55277-6e19-40aa-a8cd-8b7cc4b35e11" CreationDate="2016-01-18T19:02:42.470" UserId="242" Text="Well, formally this could be translated as &quot;встраиваемое/встроенное расположение/размещение&quot;. The word inline in case it is even translated is `встроенный` or `встраиваемый`. But the thing is the actually in real life scenarios nobody translate it, de-facto Russian developer or engineer will just say `инлайн` or `заинлайненный`. Actually, we can claim that the `заинлайненный` word is a new Russian word, just like we have `юзер` for computer users but `пользователь` is not gone as well, or `киллер` and `убийца`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With disposition it is even more trickier. I bet there's no way you'll hear anything but &quot;disposition&quot; (диспозишн) - no developer will say &quot;размещение&quot;. Talking, for instance, of &quot;Content-Disposition&quot; http header no one even attempts to translate this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, the word disposition sometimes is translated as `диспозиция` - unlike the word `заинлайненный`, this word already existed in Russian, it's just that it is used in a new way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in technical documentation I guess it will probably just won't be translated in order not to confused reader. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26988" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11652" RevisionGUID="636195f3-35f3-47ad-9465-b412d55caeac" CreationDate="2016-01-18T19:08:08.720" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11656" RevisionGUID="5fa96242-f046-44d7-8332-73d454199747" CreationDate="2016-01-18T19:30:12.430" UserId="134" Text="If we use good old calquing, we'll have *встроенное размещение содержимого* and *размещение содержимого во вложении* for &quot;inline content disposition&quot; and &quot;attachment content disposition&quot;, respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This concept has apparently been taken from the email standards, which says whether you should show a picture or a rich text snippet as a whole in the email body window or just as a filename in the attachments bar with a paper clip next to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not translate for browsers very well, even in English: a downloadable file is hardly an &quot;attachment&quot;, or a PDF which opens in a new tab is hardly &quot;inline&quot;; and there is no envelope for the content to have &quot;disposition&quot; in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are just historical header names and values which had been reused for something completely different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my take on this would be just leaving the English terms as is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При передаче данных сервер указывает способ обработки содержимого: &quot;инлайн&quot;, если его нужно открыть в браузере, или &quot;аттачмент&quot;, если его нужно сохранить в файл на диске.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or giving a meaningful description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При передаче данных сервер сообщает, являются ли они *отображаемыми* или *сохраняемыми* путём установки значения заголовка `Content-Disposition` в `inline` или `attachment`, соответственно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you can't translate without a context, so if you want a useful answer, it would have been best if you provided a Russian phrase you are trying to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11656" RevisionGUID="82e5a4ed-a2b6-471e-bfbb-20948f926202" CreationDate="2016-01-18T19:37:28.560" UserId="134" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="If we use good old calquing, we'll have *встроенное размещение содержимого* and *размещение содержимого во вложении* for &quot;inline content disposition&quot; and &quot;attachment content disposition&quot;, respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This concept has apparently been taken from the email standards and originally said whether you should show a picture or a rich text snippet as a whole in the email body window or just as a filename in the attachments bar with a paper clip next to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not translate for browsers very well, even in English: a downloadable file is hardly an &quot;attachment&quot;, or a PDF which opens in a new tab is hardly &quot;inline&quot;; and there is no envelope for the content to have &quot;disposition&quot; in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are just historical header names and values which had been reused for something completely different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my take on this would be just leaving the English terms as is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При передаче данных сервер указывает способ обработки содержимого: &quot;инлайн&quot;, если его нужно открыть в браузере, или &quot;аттачмент&quot;, если его нужно сохранить в файл на диске.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or giving them a meaningful description, disregarding their English meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При передаче данных сервер сообщает, являются ли они *отображаемыми* или *сохраняемыми* путём установки значения заголовка `Content-Disposition` в `inline` или `attachment`, соответственно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, you can't translate without a context, so if you want a useful answer, it would have been best if you provided a Russian phrase you are trying to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11655" RevisionGUID="20264fb0-1d69-4d0d-81c1-889cca4a9a7c" CreationDate="2016-01-18T19:51:20.347" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, formally this could be translated as &quot;встраиваемое/встроенное расположение/размещение&quot;. The word inline in case it is even translated is `встроенный` or `встраиваемый`. But the thing is the actually in real life scenarios nobody translate it, de-facto Russian developer or engineer will just say `инлайн` or `заинлайненный`. Actually, we can claim that the `заинлайненный` word is a new Russian word, just like we have `юзер` for computer users but `пользователь` is not gone as well, or `киллер` and `убийца`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With disposition it is even more trickier. I bet there's no way you'll hear anything but &quot;disposition&quot; (диспозишн) - no developer will say &quot;размещение&quot;. Talking, for instance, of &quot;Content-Disposition&quot; http header no one even attempts to translate this term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, the word disposition sometimes is translated as `диспозиция` - unlike the word `заинлайненный`, this word already existed in Russian, it's just that it is used in a new way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in technical documentation I guess it will probably just won't be translated in order not to confuse reader. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26992" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11618" RevisionGUID="dd555e87-1bc5-482c-9f41-2f6ecbc113f0" CreationDate="2016-01-18T21:47:08.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/689202385030397952" />
  <row Id="26994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11657" RevisionGUID="b0caf0e4-cbf5-4c8f-9eb7-72e5a98e4764" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:44:40.037" UserId="98" Text="&gt; На стадионе собралось пятьдесят тысяч человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though formally, this sentence has a subject, using the singular neuter form makes it sound like an impersonal sentence, emphasizing that the situation (the number of people) is a result of some factors that are independent from those people's wills and active actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11658" RevisionGUID="a62ad1eb-b997-4704-a79e-d69b1df5bcae" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:52:05.550" UserId="3557" Text="There's a saying &quot;не фартануло&quot; which means something like &quot;не повезло&quot; or &quot;не получилось&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, where does it come from? There don't seem to be any related words that come to mind, and there doesn't seem to be a verb &quot;фартануть&quot; in use. (Found a dictionary entry like http://argo.academic.ru/5502/%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C which don't refer to the same meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;фартануть&quot; have any other uses or relations to other phrases or is it just a single isolated idiomatic expression &quot;не фартануло&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11658" RevisionGUID="a62ad1eb-b997-4704-a79e-d69b1df5bcae" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:52:05.550" UserId="3557" Text="Origin of &quot;не фартануло&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11658" RevisionGUID="a62ad1eb-b997-4704-a79e-d69b1df5bcae" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:52:05.550" UserId="3557" Text="|этимология|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11657" RevisionGUID="21369e11-c31a-49bf-88de-5d78f5c3083d" CreationDate="2016-01-19T00:02:44.690" UserId="98" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="&gt; На стадионе собралось пятьдесят тысяч человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though formally, this sentence has a subject, using the singular neuter form makes it sound like an impersonal sentence, emphasizing that the situation (the number of people) is a result of some factors that are independent from those people's wills and active actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's explained really well [here](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/22-spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo) (see the 'Согласование сказуемого с числительными' part)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11659" RevisionGUID="1f0f210b-7622-4e46-9eda-0fdbe04ed24c" CreationDate="2016-01-19T00:04:18.563" UserId="3680" Text="I believe the word `фартануло` comes from the word `фарт`, which means `удача`, `везение`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info: [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11659" RevisionGUID="e6a4f66a-4fe3-47bc-bfc2-99cac8ac5939" CreationDate="2016-01-19T00:10:02.493" UserId="3680" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="I believe the word `фартануло` comes from the word `фарт`, which means `удача`, `везение`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info: [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82), [dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1075186), [vedu.ru](http://www.vedu.ru/expdic/37258/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11660" RevisionGUID="1b092009-797c-4a37-922d-a2e11379ace0" CreationDate="2016-01-19T04:31:14.130" UserId="6588" Text="&quot;Фартану́ть&quot; comes from &quot;фарт&quot;, which originally means a luck in a card game. Later, the word became common among criminals and finally it's common slang (though using it still somehow refers to knowing how criminals do communication).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this form, &quot;не фартануло&quot; is much more common than &quot;фартануло&quot;. The one would probably say &quot;подфарти́ло&quot; instead of &quot;фартануло&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11661" RevisionGUID="1d91d784-7b91-4be4-ab68-473681c7acae" CreationDate="2016-01-19T05:03:03.427" UserId="6444" Text="My understanding is that на is used to describe an open space or a space with indistinct boundaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly that does not describe почта. Is there reason why на is used here or is it an isolated exception? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11661" RevisionGUID="1d91d784-7b91-4be4-ab68-473681c7acae" CreationDate="2016-01-19T05:03:03.427" UserId="6444" Text="Why на почте rather than в почте?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11661" RevisionGUID="1d91d784-7b91-4be4-ab68-473681c7acae" CreationDate="2016-01-19T05:03:03.427" UserId="6444" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11662" RevisionGUID="e044a94c-253a-4caf-ba6f-208794fd270e" CreationDate="2016-01-19T06:04:00.687" UserId="6550" Text="From a grammatical standpoint, I was taught a number of special settings which required **на** instead of **в** like *кухня*, *стадион*, and *почта* despite the fact that English speakers say &quot;*in* the kitchen/stadium/post office&quot; (For a full(er) list of these special settings, look [here][1]). So, to be sure, *почта* is not an &quot;isolated&quot; exception. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to whether or not there is a reason why this is true, I am not sure. That is probably more of a question for a historical linguist. It is possible that the post office or the kitchen are historically open spaces or spaces where activities took place, and thus take **на** instead of **в**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson8_main.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11663" RevisionGUID="40f05027-9822-4137-98c9-babef578a80b" CreationDate="2016-01-19T08:42:10.920" UserId="242" Text="Well, you understanding is not complete, there are a some of cases when it is not about an open space or space without distinct boundaries. We say also `на станции` for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, earlier the office it self even in colloquial speech was not `почта` but [`почтовая станция` or `почтовый стан`][1]. &#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пора была летняя, жаркая, и я вперед мечтал о том блаженном моменте,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; когда на почтовой станции смогу напиться чаю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Д. Мамин-Сибиряк)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  На  ...ской  почтовой  станции,  куда  я  прибыл  вечером,  лошадей &#xD;&#xA;&gt; не оказалось.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (В. Короленко)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess at least partially the reason why we say `на почте` is due to the fact that at first it was just a shorter version of `на почтовой станции`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11664" RevisionGUID="acfa930c-3bdd-4f2b-8d70-7863f24024a1" CreationDate="2016-01-19T10:39:10.337" UserId="5443" Text="Another aspect of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English both **at/in** prepositions are used with 'post-office', depending on which accent is needed - on the place by its function or on what happens *within* its building (room). But Russian **почта** can mean 2 different things: either **post-office** (or some greater institution) or **mail items**. So the prepositions **на/в** correspond to those different meanings. For example, you can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;в почте этого телешоу попалось письмо от знаменитости&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and that would refer to 'a letter found among numerous **mail** items'. If one speaks about something *inside a post-office*, they can't only change the preposition: an addition of another word is needed (**в** *здании* почты, **в** *помещении* почты). Also, **в** здании Почтамта, но **на** Почтамте (same strong attachment of the preposition by function of the place)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11665" RevisionGUID="6fdefc08-1722-4956-908f-808c49cd6810" CreationDate="2016-01-19T11:43:04.543" UserId="194" Text="This is totally like in English. You say &quot;in the post office&quot;. We can also say the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the post office = в почтовом отделении&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;in the post&quot; it would most likely mean &quot;in the letter&quot;. In Russian a similar construction &quot;в почте&quot; means rather &quot;in the mail&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It one says in English &quot;on the post&quot; I do not know what it would mean, possibly &quot;at the place where people stand for their duties&quot;. And given that post office historically was one of such places, you should figure out why in Russian is is acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11665" RevisionGUID="1e6d099e-beae-486c-a187-984f8837be02" CreationDate="2016-01-19T11:48:33.580" UserId="194" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="This is totally like in English. You say &quot;in the post office&quot;. We can also say the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the post office = в почтовом отделении&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;in the post&quot; it would most likely mean &quot;in the letter&quot;. In Russian a similar construction &quot;в почте&quot; means rather &quot;in the mail&quot; or &quot;in the correspondence&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If one says in English &quot;on the post&quot; I do not know what it would mean, possibly &quot;at the place where people stand for their duties&quot;. And given that post office historically was one of such places, you should figure out why in Russian is is acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11666" RevisionGUID="29f560be-033c-4eba-8520-63dc7f9a6c69" CreationDate="2016-01-19T11:51:35.007" UserId="194" Text="It came from the name of Roman goddess [Fortuna][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortuna" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11663" RevisionGUID="97ab2d72-7a50-4fdb-bcf6-e97c36dda548" CreationDate="2016-01-19T12:32:48.750" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed some grammar" Text="Well, your understanding is not complete, there are some cases when it is not about an open space or space without distinct boundaries. We say also `на станции` for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, earlier the office itself even in colloquial speech was not `почта` but [`почтовая станция` or `почтовый стан`][1]. &#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пора была летняя, жаркая, и я вперед мечтал о том блаженном моменте,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; когда на почтовой станции смогу напиться чаю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Д. Мамин-Сибиряк)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  На  ...ской  почтовой  станции,  куда  я  прибыл  вечером,  лошадей &#xD;&#xA;&gt; не оказалось.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (В. Короленко)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess at least partially the reason why we say `на почте` is due to the fact that at first it was just a shorter version of `на почтовой станции`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27012" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11663" RevisionGUID="97ab2d72-7a50-4fdb-bcf6-e97c36dda548" CreationDate="2016-01-19T12:32:48.750" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 4560, 5605 edit id of 712" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11668" RevisionGUID="c494ce2e-cd5e-4d51-b5b6-e81fae345625" CreationDate="2016-01-19T13:39:14.843" UserId="3892" Text="I saw the following sentence in a book and wondered if the inverted number and demonstrative had any marked emotive influence on the utterance, or is it just a neutral alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “И вот **две эти отвратительные ведьмы** сидели и потягивали свой лимонад,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время от времени покрикивая на Джеймса, чтобы он работал быстрее.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt From: Роальд Даль. “Джеймс и Персик-великан.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11668" RevisionGUID="c494ce2e-cd5e-4d51-b5b6-e81fae345625" CreationDate="2016-01-19T13:39:14.843" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of inverted number and demonstrative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11668" RevisionGUID="c494ce2e-cd5e-4d51-b5b6-e81fae345625" CreationDate="2016-01-19T13:39:14.843" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11669" RevisionGUID="fa4ecf75-ca46-43c2-b036-04abc3e4cf0d" CreationDate="2016-01-19T14:17:33.127" UserId="134" Text="That's a hyperbaton (inversion used to put emphasis on the first word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both variants are grammatically correct, but this sentence stresses slightly that the hags were two, no less, no more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that important for this very phrase (most probably, the translator used that to convey similar thing in &quot;there they sat&quot;), but in something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Генерал на мгновение скис, красивое его лицо потемнело&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's used to stress that the face is first &quot;good-looking&quot;, then &quot;his&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11670" RevisionGUID="c6a746e6-c2b9-4968-beaa-ce888eff4c4c" CreationDate="2016-01-19T14:17:43.460" UserId="3892" Text="I've seen **увидал** used where one would use **увидел**. Is there any difference in meaning, or perhaps register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он **увидал** фото, он просто сломался." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11670" RevisionGUID="c6a746e6-c2b9-4968-beaa-ce888eff4c4c" CreationDate="2016-01-19T14:17:43.460" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between &quot;(у)видать&quot; and &quot;(у)видеть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11670" RevisionGUID="c6a746e6-c2b9-4968-beaa-ce888eff4c4c" CreationDate="2016-01-19T14:17:43.460" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11671" RevisionGUID="5110808f-673b-458d-a856-c35769aac749" CreationDate="2016-01-19T14:23:06.917" UserId="2236" Text="&quot;увидал&quot; is just a demotic form of &quot;увидел&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11672" RevisionGUID="989852c8-6414-4bcd-9f42-40a8a6591546" CreationDate="2016-01-19T15:58:44.137" UserId="134" Text="Perfective *увидать* and *увидеть* don't really differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective *Ты это видел?* and *Ты это видал?* would mean &quot;Did you see that&quot; and &quot;Have you seen that?&quot;, respectively. This I think is the closest thing Russian has to English perfect and simple past distinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, *видать* is an iterative for *видеть* (same as *летать / лететь*, *плавать / плыть* etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this form is not productive in Russian anymore, so some of historical iteratives' meanings either have completely merged (*стелить / стлать*) or acquired idiomatic meanings like those above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11672" RevisionGUID="8f373694-fce8-4671-b6e2-8e649c37d009" CreationDate="2016-01-19T16:48:41.123" UserId="134" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Perfective *увидать* and *увидеть* don't really differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective *Ты это видел?* and *Ты это видал?* would mean &quot;Did you see that&quot; and &quot;Have you seen that?&quot;, respectively. This I think is the closest thing Russian has to English perfect and simple past distinction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, *видать* is an iterative for *видеть* (same as *летать / лететь*, *плавать / плыть* etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this form is not productive in Russian anymore, so some of historical iteratives either have completely merged with their base forms (*стелить / стлать*) or acquired idiomatic meanings like those above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11673" RevisionGUID="5f531f6b-eb72-4895-9bd8-c408979a147d" CreationDate="2016-01-20T00:43:00.057" UserId="4925" Text="I was watching a video, and in it, the girl asked, &quot;Что интересного произошло для вас в этом году?&quot; Why is genitive bring used here? I have another example: Много чего интересного. Can что in a sense be translated as &quot;thing&quot;? I often see что/чего being translated as &quot; thing&quot;. But I often see что being replaced with чего for no reason! Can the genitive be used as almost an &quot;abstract subject&quot;? I hope you understand my question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11673" RevisionGUID="5f531f6b-eb72-4895-9bd8-c408979a147d" CreationDate="2016-01-20T00:43:00.057" UserId="4925" Text="Thing in Russian? Genitive Usage help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11673" RevisionGUID="5f531f6b-eb72-4895-9bd8-c408979a147d" CreationDate="2016-01-20T00:43:00.057" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11673" RevisionGUID="7d7032f9-7198-4dba-9c86-997de3b9279a" CreationDate="2016-01-20T05:28:27.113" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Чего интересного&quot; - why genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11675" RevisionGUID="431405cb-e370-4353-af69-3f81c0e6f14a" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:31:02.293" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about this sentence. I am using slovar (book) and the auto-translate resources but can not narrow down what: &quot;предоставление&quot; means in this context. Is money involved in this or is it a loan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence comes supposedly from a &quot;перечень&quot; at a train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;предоставление постельного белья&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11675" RevisionGUID="431405cb-e370-4353-af69-3f81c0e6f14a" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:31:02.293" UserId="6603" Text="Meaning of the word: &quot;предоставление&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11675" RevisionGUID="431405cb-e370-4353-af69-3f81c0e6f14a" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:31:02.293" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27033" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11670" RevisionGUID="0775a749-2684-43a2-8b4f-5f6cb2230cbf" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:50:12.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/689746741319589888" />
  <row Id="27034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="f6f28faa-6ec0-4663-ab2f-cadcec230844" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:52:28.787" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have seen two words for &quot;car&quot; in Russian: &quot;машина&quot; and &quot;автомобиль&quot; or &quot;авто&quot;. Which is most common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27035" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="f6f28faa-6ec0-4663-ab2f-cadcec230844" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:52:28.787" UserId="6603" Text="What is most common word for &quot;car&quot; in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27036" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="f6f28faa-6ec0-4663-ab2f-cadcec230844" CreationDate="2016-01-20T09:52:28.787" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11675" RevisionGUID="d2a0fe14-660d-476b-b221-d94ea32e5e29" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:06:54.313" UserId="6603" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="I am using slovar (book) and the auto-translate resources but can not narrow down what: &quot;предоставление&quot; means in this context. Is money involved in this or is it a loan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence comes supposedly from a &quot;перечень&quot; at a train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;предоставление постельного белья&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;застилка и уборка постелей&quot;. I am curious what: &quot;застилка&quot; means in this context. If it is to clean, to cover or to make the bed? What is the most appropriate in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11677" RevisionGUID="fcd68618-4791-4d62-a129-f09f7e9f95ec" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:18:16.490" UserId="4637" Text="`предоставление` in this context would be `delivery`, i.e. bed linen delivery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`застилка (постели)` would be to make a bed in the evening (before going to sleep), `уборка (постели)` is to make a bed in the morning (when you get up).&#xD;&#xA;Just to elaborate more on that, there are corresponding verbs for that as well `застелить постель/кровать` and `убрать постель/кровать`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11678" RevisionGUID="696274a6-eaba-4ad7-90f0-0e9d34c3fbdb" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:21:48.730" UserId="5008" Text="The word most common in speech is _Машина_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Автомобиль_ is the &quot;right word&quot;, but it's long and unpopular. _Авто_ (unlike, say, its German counterpart) is not a &quot;real word&quot; on its own, but rather a spoken short form of _Автомобиль_, or just a prefix. It has its usage (say, in magazines), but generally it's far behind _Машина_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also slanguish variants, of course. The most popular are _Тачка_ (and its derivatives _тачила_, _точилка_ etc.) and _Колёса_ (cf. &quot;Wheels&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11678" RevisionGUID="1783fdd7-2d0d-4b11-b34e-146479b52634" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:30:16.370" UserId="5008" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="The word most common in speech is _Машина_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Автомобиль_ is the &quot;right word&quot;, but it's long and unpopular. _Авто_ (unlike, say, its German counterpart) is not a &quot;real word&quot; on its own, but rather a spoken short form of _Автомобиль_, or just a prefix. It has its usage (say, in magazines), but generally it's far behind _Машина_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also slanguish variants, of course. The most popular are _Тачка_ (and its derivatives _тачила_, _точилка_ etc.) and _Колёса_ (cf. &quot;Wheels&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW. In XIX century speech _Машина_ mostly denoted &quot;Train&quot;. I bet, in the future when we won't have &quot;cars&quot; anymore, the word _Машина_ will still be in use, meaning some kind of small spaceship and such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11679" RevisionGUID="90892861-68ac-4a38-a548-6fd8952a81b7" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:51:14.450" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;This another sentence from a train &quot;перечень&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Обеспечение чаем или кофе с сахаром в любое время суток по просьбе пассажиров.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In my slovar the word: &quot;Обеспечение&quot; is not translated very good. They link it to commodities and social welfare, &quot;security&quot;, &quot;well being&quot; and &quot;reliability&quot; which in my opinion do not really fit this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could the word &quot;Обеспечение&quot; perhaps be translated into: &quot;Provision&quot;, to provide tea and coffee...on request.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The reference to: &quot;at any time of the day&quot; in the sentence does that mean there is a 24hr service on the train or is it only during the daytime or up to bedtime?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11679" RevisionGUID="90892861-68ac-4a38-a548-6fd8952a81b7" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:51:14.450" UserId="6603" Text="The meaning of &quot;Обеспечение&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11679" RevisionGUID="90892861-68ac-4a38-a548-6fd8952a81b7" CreationDate="2016-01-20T10:51:14.450" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11680" RevisionGUID="807cf18e-776c-4984-9798-b2aa83ce5873" CreationDate="2016-01-20T11:12:21.307" UserId="6097" Text="Your understanding of _обеспечение_ as _provision_ is right in this situation. Here it's sinonymous with _снабжение_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, there is a 24hr service on the train." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11681" RevisionGUID="3534946b-643e-4ed7-aec5-d626f8df4ff7" CreationDate="2016-01-20T11:12:57.093" UserId="134" Text="First a side note: these kinds of documents are written in Russian officialese, which had been influenced by German and French. Normally, such nominalizations are not used in spoken language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Could the word &quot;Обеспечение&quot; perhaps be translated into: &quot;Provision&quot;, to provide tea and coffee...on request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it could, but that's not how you should translate it. This phrase just means &quot;passengers are provided tea or coffee and sugar any time of the day&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The reference to: &quot;at any time of the day&quot; in the sentence does that mean there is a 24hr service on the train or is it only during the daytime or up to bedtime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it does. There's always a conductor on duty who, sometimes a little bit reluctantly, would make you a glass of tea and bring it to your compartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11682" RevisionGUID="851a61d2-6e01-41b7-9ffd-92ca981bb6f5" CreationDate="2016-01-20T12:55:53.703" UserId="6603" Text="I am still at the train. What is included into this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;предоставление ***постельного белья***&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it include sheet, pillow holder et. cetera or is it only the bed sheet?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11682" RevisionGUID="851a61d2-6e01-41b7-9ffd-92ca981bb6f5" CreationDate="2016-01-20T12:55:53.703" UserId="6603" Text="Meaning of &quot;постельного белья&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11682" RevisionGUID="851a61d2-6e01-41b7-9ffd-92ca981bb6f5" CreationDate="2016-01-20T12:55:53.703" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11683" RevisionGUID="6eb7906b-3d0e-465b-bd51-d02bbc54e46d" CreationDate="2016-01-20T13:05:56.303" UserId="4637" Text="Usually when Russians talk about linen (`постельное бельё`) it includes sheet, pillow-case and blanket cover. Since you're in the you should also get a blanket." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11684" RevisionGUID="bbce2e02-7e3a-46bc-ae30-c6e3df5bcda2" CreationDate="2016-01-20T13:06:10.857" UserId="1236" Text="A typical set used in trains now includes 2 bed sheets, a pillow holder, a quilt cover, and 2 towels. These you receive from the conductor, all packed in one plastic bag, and a mattress, a pillow, and a quilt are stored in every compartment on shelves high under the ceiling. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11683" RevisionGUID="872ae47e-f454-4771-bbb3-e5e84de65270" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:35:12.733" UserId="6097" Comment="missed word " Text="Usually when Russians talk about linen (`постельное бельё`) it includes sheet, pillow-case and blanket cover. Since you're in the train you should also get a blanket." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27054" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11683" RevisionGUID="872ae47e-f454-4771-bbb3-e5e84de65270" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:35:12.733" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 4637 edit id of 713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11685" RevisionGUID="7ce7b460-77e7-4111-a8b3-018a52fc8e3c" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:44:26.130" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In my text book there is a copy of a &quot;перечень&quot; at a train and one bullet on the list is:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Реализация периодической печати&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Реализация&quot; the проводник will be able to sell or borrow the passenger a newspaper or magazine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What falls into the scope of: &quot;периодической печати&quot;? ((weekly/monthly) magazines/daily newspapers?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11685" RevisionGUID="7ce7b460-77e7-4111-a8b3-018a52fc8e3c" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:44:26.130" UserId="6603" Text="Реализация периодической печати" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11685" RevisionGUID="7ce7b460-77e7-4111-a8b3-018a52fc8e3c" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:44:26.130" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11686" RevisionGUID="bcb98be5-0a14-4f61-afb7-2b0f47c39ebf" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:50:41.233" UserId="5443" Text="'**Чего**' rather refers to '**много**' here than to 'интересного'. The colloquial *set expression* '**много чего** (такого)' basically means 'many such things (one could ask of or be interested in - too many to name all of them or to answer completely)'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Что происходило в городе в этом году?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Много чего. (many things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Что важного, интересного или неожиданного было в этом году?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Много чего такого. (plenty of that kind)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the genitive case of 'что' is adjusted for usage with the numeral 'много' (a noun in the place of this pronoun would have the same case). In your example the answer means 'many interesting things', with a flavour: too many for a simple answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11687" RevisionGUID="f692186a-324f-4463-a312-10e24f61a28a" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:58:18.840" UserId="134" Text="*Реализация* in this context is nominalized *реализовать* which is officialese for *продавать*, &quot;to sell&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Периодическая печать* is, literally, &quot;periodicals&quot;: newspapers and magazines, but this would also usually include puzzle books, soft cover novels, that kind of stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This clause means that the conductor has to offer some print media for sale for you to read during your journey." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11688" RevisionGUID="afb9f725-c5f5-48d6-9b00-45f2930603e9" CreationDate="2016-01-20T17:15:47.177" UserId="6617" Text="Мочиться is a verb which means 'to take a leak'. Its not derogatory or indecent in any way. Мочить means 'to wet' or 'to make wet' but can also be used to mean other, unrelated things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11689" RevisionGUID="0fbe32be-29aa-4507-83a7-619edee7afc6" CreationDate="2016-01-20T18:26:28.033" UserId="6621" Text="I would say that &quot;машина&quot; is the only correct version. &quot;автомобиль&quot; is completely dated and today is only used for affectation or humorous effect, while &quot;Тачка&quot; and &quot;колёса&quot; is pure slang and could never be used formally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most terms related to cars though are formed with a prefixoid АВТО - such as &quot;автостоянка&quot; (car park); &quot;автозаправка&quot; (petrol station); &quot;автосервис&quot; (car repair) etc., etc. Note (in it's turn dated, but wildly used in the 60s-80s) &quot;автолюбитель&quot; - literally &quot;car lover&quot; or &quot;car connoisseur&quot;, which meant simply a car owner - at a time, when car owners were few and far between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget that &quot;машина&quot; also translates as &quot;machine&quot;, such as &quot;стиральная машина&quot; (washing machine), &quot;посудомоечная машина&quot; (dish washer) and so forth, as well as &quot;машина времени&quot; (time machine (as in science fiction); &quot;государственная машина&quot; (machinery of government), ect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11690" RevisionGUID="52d8c3d2-c505-4bb6-867b-5de9d8cc4065" CreationDate="2016-01-20T18:46:12.807" UserId="6622" Text="Автомобиль is the &quot;right word&quot;, but it's rarely used by the younger generation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Машина is used fairly often &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тачка is more like slang (like &quot;a ride&quot; in english)and people use this often&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You decide, anyone is okay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="272abeb6-92e8-46fb-a52a-45dd00f4b247" CreationDate="2016-01-20T18:50:12.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/689882636593074177" />
  <row Id="27064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11691" RevisionGUID="2670bdc3-394c-4aa0-97c3-2d44f1ef3d37" CreationDate="2016-01-20T19:59:56.057" UserId="6623" Text="Машина `is the most common word. Don't listen to @Matt. The word` Автомобиль `is the official way of saying it. So if you would like to use it in informal conversation: use the word` машина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`The word` Тачка `is used in jargon informal language that you might use with your close friends. Or not use at all. I wouldn't find the person who uses that word very attractive. So be careful.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`The word` Колеса `sounds like wheels and you should it use as often as you use this word in English. I can't say for sure but I pretty sure it's quite rare use of this word. It's fine to use these unless it has car contexts.` Колеса `might also mean drugs to russian teenager's jargon unless you use the drug contexts, they might use this word in 15-20% so not that usual thing though. :D`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11689" RevisionGUID="f09e076f-3e9e-40b4-8f0c-e0dc5448eade" CreationDate="2016-01-20T20:48:08.400" UserId="6621" Comment="edited body" Text="I would say that &quot;машина&quot; is the only correct version. &quot;автомобиль&quot; is completely dated and today is only used for affectation or humorous effect, while &quot;Тачка&quot; and &quot;колёса&quot; is pure slang and could never be used formally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most terms related to cars though are formed with a prefixoid АВТО - such as &quot;автостоянка&quot; (car park); &quot;автозаправка&quot; (petrol station); &quot;автосервис&quot; (car repair) etc., etc. Note (in it's turn dated, but widely used in the 60s-80s) &quot;автолюбитель&quot; - literally &quot;car lover&quot; or &quot;car connoisseur&quot;, which meant simply a car owner - at a time, when car owners were few and far between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget that &quot;машина&quot; also translates as &quot;machine&quot;, such as &quot;стиральная машина&quot; (washing machine), &quot;посудомоечная машина&quot; (dish washer) and so forth, as well as &quot;машина времени&quot; (time machine (as in science fiction); &quot;государственная машина&quot; (machinery of government), ect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11689" RevisionGUID="5e5c22a8-c427-431e-9a13-13b1e86e9e46" CreationDate="2016-01-20T20:53:34.143" UserId="6621" Comment="edited body" Text="I would say that &quot;машина&quot; is the only correct version. &quot;автомобиль&quot; is completely dated and today is only used for affectation or humorous effect, while &quot;тачка&quot; and &quot;мотор&quot; is pure slang and could never be used formally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of terms related to cars though are formed with a prefixoid АВТО - such as &quot;автостоянка&quot; (car park); &quot;автозаправка&quot; (petrol station); &quot;автосервис&quot; (car repair) etc., etc. Note (in it's turn dated, but widely used in the 60s-80s) &quot;автолюбитель&quot; - literally &quot;car lover&quot; or &quot;car connoisseur&quot;, which meant simply a car owner - at a time, when car owners were few and far between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't forget that &quot;машина&quot; also translates as &quot;machine&quot;, such as &quot;стиральная машина&quot; (washing machine), &quot;посудомоечная машина&quot; (dish washer) and so forth, as well as &quot;машина времени&quot; (time machine (as in science fiction); &quot;государственная машина&quot; (machinery of government), ect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11691" RevisionGUID="12ff3c8f-4bdd-462e-9078-cd96761f3182" CreationDate="2016-01-20T22:36:23.533" UserId="6624" Comment="m fixed formatting removed unnecessary stuff" Text="`Машина` is the most common word. The word `Автомобиль` is the official way of saying it. So if you would like to use it in informal conversation: use the word `машина`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Тачка`is used in jargon informal language that you might use with your close friends. Or not use at all. I wouldn't find the person who uses that word very attractive. So be careful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Колеса` sounds like wheels and you should it use as often as you use this word in English. I can't say for sure but I pretty sure it's quite rare use of this word. It's fine to use these unless it has car contexts. ` Колеса` might also mean drugs to russian teenager's jargon unless you use the drug contexts, they might use this word in 15-20% so not that usual thing though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27068" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11691" RevisionGUID="12ff3c8f-4bdd-462e-9078-cd96761f3182" CreationDate="2016-01-20T22:36:23.533" Comment="Proposed by 6624 approved by 6623 edit id of 714" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="5e914e99-c929-42b7-b2fc-a283e9e22ab2" CreationDate="2016-01-21T07:09:32.953" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have seen two words for &quot;car&quot; in Russian: &quot;машина&quot; and &quot;автомобиль&quot; or &quot;авто&quot;. Which is most common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27070" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="5e914e99-c929-42b7-b2fc-a283e9e22ab2" CreationDate="2016-01-21T07:09:32.953" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is most common word for &quot;car&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11692" RevisionGUID="abc4a6be-e11c-4c04-8f1a-6a91eade9c13" CreationDate="2016-01-21T08:19:21.413" UserId="6632" Text="&gt; I often see что being replaced with чего for no reason! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, it is often used in informal language, I doubt you would see that in any kind of official text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11661" RevisionGUID="2adda2aa-ee45-4cff-9bb3-e2aced11bc2d" CreationDate="2016-01-21T09:51:51.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/690109542114418688" />
  <row Id="27073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11693" RevisionGUID="f25921be-3746-46d8-8080-4caeef235c19" CreationDate="2016-01-21T10:32:41.437" UserId="1640" Text="I would use *скоростной*. It has a slightly different meaning than *быстрейший* (something is faster than usual), but in my opinion it sounds much better (more natural)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11694" RevisionGUID="0f9e6c2a-5d8f-4393-8d65-f01cdcbe70e5" CreationDate="2016-01-21T10:44:16.110" UserId="6634" Text="official: автомобиль, автомашина, автотранспортное средство. [typically can be легковые and грузовые].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;slang: жоповозка (a regular car), карета (a good car), ведро (a bad car), гроб (a very bed car), дизель (a diesel drive based car), джип (a 4WD enabled car), корыто (an old car), тазик (an AutoVAZ labeled car), лошадка (a working car), старушка (a beloved car), целка (a new car, or never used/crashed car), металлолом (a crashed car), дыра (a non economic car), помойка (a cheap, very second-hand car), кредитомобиль (a Ford Focus car), пиздовоз(ка) (a car with mostly girls inside), телега (a farm car), и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also distingushed by model, limited examples only: альмерочка, альмероид (Nissan Almera), [автомобиль] какашкой (Nissan Quashqai), калека (Reno Kaleos), мерин (a Mercedes Benze labeled car), чпокус (Ford Focus), газенваген (a Voltzwagen car), и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27075" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="11676" RevisionGUID="d78a5fdd-9b4b-4889-ac07-1ea8ef2ff659" CreationDate="2016-01-21T10:47:16.610" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11695" RevisionGUID="c7683cae-247b-4738-a2f3-f1067d24fb2a" CreationDate="2016-01-21T12:49:02.417" UserId="6250" Text="How do I pronounce the difference of и versus й? They sound very similar and I can't really hear a difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11695" RevisionGUID="c7683cae-247b-4738-a2f3-f1067d24fb2a" CreationDate="2016-01-21T12:49:02.417" UserId="6250" Text="и versus й in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11695" RevisionGUID="c7683cae-247b-4738-a2f3-f1067d24fb2a" CreationDate="2016-01-21T12:49:02.417" UserId="6250" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11593" RevisionGUID="cab2ff56-75d3-41bb-b3f0-7b6dabcb8f47" CreationDate="2016-01-21T12:51:51.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/690154843672055809" />
  <row Id="27080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11696" RevisionGUID="fe28412d-c1b7-4ce7-b429-10809b4c5144" CreationDate="2016-01-21T12:56:00.173" UserId="6635" Text="и = &quot;i&quot;&#xD;&#xA;й = more like &quot;y&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can understand the difference by listening how &quot;i&quot; and &quot;y&quot; sounds in two different words: &quot;boy&quot; and &quot;blink&quot;, in first case it will be &quot;boy&quot; = &quot;бой&quot; while in the second &quot;blink&quot; = &quot;блинк&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11697" RevisionGUID="bc3587da-73d1-4cb9-969f-19d92ccf7863" CreationDate="2016-01-21T13:13:03.473" UserId="6632" Text="Russian &quot;и&quot; is vowel and sounds more like double 'e', i.e. &quot;tweet&quot;, as &quot;й&quot; is  a consonant and sounds more like the first sound of a &quot;young&quot; word. Btw, you could try to listen to words at http://www.lingvo-online.ru/ to find the difference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11698" RevisionGUID="09dc992f-7d32-43df-91ff-b137f80861e4" CreationDate="2016-01-21T14:27:11.967" UserId="6584" Text="**Oй** rhymes with &quot;joy&quot; and **ои** rhymes with &quot;Joey&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11699" RevisionGUID="2210e989-7c5f-4932-983b-d27929767fd5" CreationDate="2016-01-21T15:31:34.610" UserId="6641" Text="These are nominalizations of verbs, so `застилка` постели regards the process (or result, either way a noun) of bed-making.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between застилка and уборка, especially when compared in one sentence like this, can be that the former is about making the bed (putting on the linen) and the latter can be un-making it (clearing out the bedsheets and matresses, so it can be a sitting location during the day)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11700" RevisionGUID="c4598080-5b33-47e0-beb0-28bd2ee7801a" CreationDate="2016-01-21T17:30:38.987" UserId="6451" Text="From what I understand &lt;&lt;зачем&gt;&gt; means &quot;for what purpose&quot;, trying to distinguish between that and &lt;&lt;дия чего&gt;&gt; does not translate well. Additionally, how does &lt;&lt;зачем&gt;&gt; compare with &lt;&lt;почему&gt;&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11700" RevisionGUID="c4598080-5b33-47e0-beb0-28bd2ee7801a" CreationDate="2016-01-21T17:30:38.987" UserId="6451" Text="Uses for &lt;&lt;Для чего&gt;&gt; and &lt;&lt;зачем&gt;&gt;? And uses for &lt;&lt;зачем&gt;&gt; and &lt;&lt;почему&gt;&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11700" RevisionGUID="c4598080-5b33-47e0-beb0-28bd2ee7801a" CreationDate="2016-01-21T17:30:38.987" UserId="6451" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11700" RevisionGUID="263cb825-62aa-48f3-ad85-f3511549fb1e" CreationDate="2016-01-21T18:17:07.540" UserId="3680" Comment="quotes replaced" Text="From what I understand «зачем» means &quot;for what purpose&quot;, trying to distinguish between that and «для чего» does not translate well. Additionally, how does «зачем» compare with «почему»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11700" RevisionGUID="263cb825-62aa-48f3-ad85-f3511549fb1e" CreationDate="2016-01-21T18:17:07.540" UserId="3680" Comment="quotes replaced" Text="Uses for «для чего» and «зачем»? And uses for «зачем» and «почему»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11701" RevisionGUID="7ddfdcc7-9b7c-45cc-b56e-8b041cff5e01" CreationDate="2016-01-21T18:21:54.927" UserId="3680" Text="Both «зачем» and «для чего» in questions are synonyms and have the meaning &quot;for what purpose&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;In contrast, «почему» means &quot;for what reason&quot; (or &quot;what is the reason&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11702" RevisionGUID="58a0474b-90b7-435d-a77c-1bf1e3289e81" CreationDate="2016-01-21T18:26:22.543" UserId="4560" Text="**Зачем** refers for factual purpose while **для чего** is for intended purpose (**для чего эта кнопка?** &quot;what is this button for?&quot; vs. **зачем ты нажал эту кнопку?** &quot;why did you press this button?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему** asks for reasons or causes, not purposes — i.e. where meaningful intent is not involved (generally, anyway; you might come across some examples that blur these distinctions)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11703" RevisionGUID="b390c003-7fc0-4d0f-b274-5a3916227a72" CreationDate="2016-01-21T21:02:17.490" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Для чего = What for  &#xD;&#xA;Почему = Why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Зачем_ may mean either of two, though the latter belongs mostly to XIX century speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Зачем у вас я на примете?  &#xD;&#xA;Не потому ль, что в высшем свете  &#xD;&#xA;Теперь являться я должна;  &#xD;&#xA;Что я богата и знатна..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27092" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11568" RevisionGUID="635886c4-bc63-4157-aa95-3cc521c97fcc" CreationDate="2016-01-21T21:51:50.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/690290734222696449" />
  <row Id="27093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11522" RevisionGUID="a4596074-81ed-4173-9ce6-4370fbcef102" CreationDate="2016-01-22T06:53:40.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/690427089456070656" />
  <row Id="27094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11704" RevisionGUID="a5bf871f-1305-4277-aede-a281f6a4f6b8" CreationDate="2016-01-22T08:55:29.947" UserId="194" Text="предоставить is the official-style word meaning &quot;to give&quot;, &quot;to provide&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, предоставление is giving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11705" RevisionGUID="5583fffd-7d30-44a2-8b05-afdf258ea388" CreationDate="2016-01-22T09:59:17.017" UserId="194" Text="&gt; эти две отвратительные ведьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis is on эти. These hags, not others. Those mentioned before. Maybe they are acting separately at different times and places or against each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; две эти отвратительные ведьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis is on две. They are two, it is notable that they are two, a pair, acting together. First you see two objects and then you figure out they are the hags in question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11705" RevisionGUID="41181d87-7f51-46c1-b25f-31455b54d8ed" CreationDate="2016-01-22T14:04:47.433" UserId="194" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="&gt; эти две отвратительные ведьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis is on эти. These hags, not others. Those mentioned before. Maybe they are acting separately at different times and places or against each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; две эти отвратительные ведьмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis is on две. They are two, it is notable that they are two, a pair, acting together. First you see two objects and then you figure out they are the hags in question.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11706" RevisionGUID="fe7675e2-e697-4f74-99b1-114a3b7af505" CreationDate="2016-01-22T18:42:51.543" UserId="5477" Text="**Please explain the difference between those two actions.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that *спорить* is in some way more objective, sober and with the true wish to find a solution for a problem while the other is more an emotional quarrel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11706" RevisionGUID="fe7675e2-e697-4f74-99b1-114a3b7af505" CreationDate="2016-01-22T18:42:51.543" UserId="5477" Text="ссориться vs. спорить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11706" RevisionGUID="fe7675e2-e697-4f74-99b1-114a3b7af505" CreationDate="2016-01-22T18:42:51.543" UserId="5477" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11707" RevisionGUID="2f01925e-0619-452f-a928-f433f363ba39" CreationDate="2016-01-22T19:06:19.203" UserId="134" Text="You're basically right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ссориться*, however, might also mean &quot;to fall out&quot;, to stop being friends. It does not necessarily mean being actively involved in a dispute or a quarrel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11708" RevisionGUID="2d8cf52c-01b8-44c2-bca7-39484fb9936a" CreationDate="2016-01-22T19:32:27.303" UserId="5373" Text="**Спорить = Argue**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спорить doesn't mean to have more sober discussion at all. It can be heated or it can be calm. It means *to discuss* or *debate*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **ссориться = quarrel, bicker or even brawl**, which always has negative connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="ce98f3ff-a33c-4a6b-8cf6-b1445507acd0" CreationDate="2016-01-22T21:27:18.263" UserId="6603" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a short text (i have skipped the listing of all the cities the train stops at) in my text book where they refer to: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot; My slovar says that this type of train is owned in this context by a town. They also say that it could be owned by an organization or a specific firm. How would you translate: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot;? &quot;The firms train&quot;? or privately owned train company..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скорый поезд № 10 &quot;Байкал&quot; идёт от Москвы до Иркутска 72-76 часов (3,5 дня). Это фирменный поезд.&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;Фирменный поезд идёт быстрее обычного поезда, отправляются и приходит в удобное время, редко опаздывает и имеет лучший сервис. Он приходит всегда на первую платформу, и встречают его с музыкой. Несколько лет подряд поезд &quot;Байкал&quot; держит марку лучшего фирменного поезда России.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little curious about how come they can offer faster train service. Do they stop at fewer stations and drive faster (have newer train) or perhaps make very short stops at each station?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also refer in the text about that they greet the train with music. Is this common in Russia? I read somewhere in another text. That music was played when that specific train was leaving its starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="ce98f3ff-a33c-4a6b-8cf6-b1445507acd0" CreationDate="2016-01-22T21:27:18.263" UserId="6603" Text="Это фирменный поезд" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="ce98f3ff-a33c-4a6b-8cf6-b1445507acd0" CreationDate="2016-01-22T21:27:18.263" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="602a4e07-bb6b-411b-9c0b-0701578d9b3d" CreationDate="2016-01-22T21:32:35.707" UserId="6603" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a short text (i have skipped the listing of all the cities the train stops at) in my text book where they refer to: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot; My slovar says that this type of train is owned in this context by a town. They also say that it could be owned by an organization or a specific firm. How would you translate: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot;? &quot;The firms train&quot;? or privately owned train company..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скорый поезд № 10 &quot;Байкал&quot; идёт от Москвы до Иркутска 72-76 часов (3,5 дня). Это фирменный поезд.&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;Фирменный поезд идёт быстрее обычного поезда, отправляются и приходит в удобное время, редко опаздывает и имеет лучший сервис. Он приходит всегда на первую платформу, и встречают его с музыкой. Несколько лет подряд поезд &quot;Байкал&quot; держит марку лучшего фирменного поезда России.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little curious about how come they can offer faster train service. Do they stop at fewer stations and drive faster (have newer train) or perhaps make very short stops at each station?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also refer in the text about that they greet the train with music. Is this common in Russia? I read somewhere in another text in that music was played when that specific train was leaving its starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11710" RevisionGUID="65112412-c9be-46ba-b6c1-0a50ac7a6233" CreationDate="2016-01-22T22:17:23.923" UserId="134" Text="&gt; How would you translate: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot;? &quot;The firms train&quot;? or privately owned train company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd translate it as &quot;premium train service&quot; or &quot;luxury train service&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a legally defined concept in ex-Soviet rail service which designates some popular routes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a route has to have a proper name (like *001/002 Красная Стрела*, the first route of that kind), a livery, satisfy certain requirements to the rolling stock etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They usually have more convenient arrival and departure times, offer some perks like better linen and snacks, include a restaurant car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are of course also usually more expensive than ordinary routes (sometimes slightly, sometimes significantly) within the same car class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am a little curious about how come they can offer faster train service. Do they stop at fewer stations and drive faster (have newer train) or perhaps make very short stops at each station?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They make shorter stops on the stations and have priority over other routes (if the line is to be shared by a premium and an ordinary route, the ordinary one has to wait). This means trains on ordinary routes just move slower, as yielding to the premiums is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They also refer in the text about that they greet the train with music. Is this common in Russia? I read somewhere in another text in that music was played when that specific train was leaving its starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is quite common on those routes. They do play Gliere's &quot;Hymn to the Great City&quot; when *001/002 Красная Стрела* arrives to St. Petersburg, and &quot;Farewell of Slavianka&quot; when *31/32 Тамбов* departs from eponymous Tambov." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="bbc83b6f-499c-4519-82d1-beca6631acf1" CreationDate="2016-01-22T22:20:30.107" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have a short text (i have skipped the listing of all the cities the train stops at) in my text book where they refer to: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot; My slovar says that this type of train is owned in this context by a town. They also say that it could be owned by an organization or a specific firm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would you translate: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot;? &quot;The firms train&quot;? or privately owned train company..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скорый поезд № 10 &quot;Байкал&quot; идёт от Москвы до Иркутска 72-76 часов (3,5 дня). Это фирменный поезд.&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;Фирменный поезд идёт быстрее обычного поезда, отправляются и приходит в удобное время, редко опаздывает и имеет лучший сервис. Он приходит всегда на первую платформу, и встречают его с музыкой. Несколько лет подряд поезд &quot;Байкал&quot; держит марку лучшего фирменного поезда России.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little curious about how come they can offer faster train service. Do they stop at fewer stations and drive faster (have newer train) or perhaps make very short stops at each station?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also refer in the text about that they greet the train with music. Is this common in Russia? I read somewhere in another text in that music was played when that specific train was leaving its starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27109" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="bbc83b6f-499c-4519-82d1-beca6631acf1" CreationDate="2016-01-22T22:20:30.107" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does фирменный поезд mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="a814b54a-ed9b-4846-8d99-451d95d1f8cc" CreationDate="2016-01-22T22:28:51.283" UserId="6603" Comment="deleted 402 characters in body" Text="I have a short text (i have skipped the listing of all the cities the train stops at) in my text book where they refer to: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot; My slovar says that this type of train is owned in this context by a town. They also say that it could be owned by an organization or a specific firm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***How would you translate: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot;? &quot;The firms train&quot;? or privately owned train company..***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скорый поезд № 10 &quot;Байкал&quot; идёт от Москвы до Иркутска 72-76 часов (3,5 дня). Это фирменный поезд.&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;Фирменный поезд идёт быстрее обычного поезда, отправляются и приходит в удобное время, редко опаздывает и имеет лучший сервис. Он приходит всегда на первую платформу, и встречают его с музыкой. Несколько лет подряд поезд &quot;Байкал&quot; держит марку лучшего фирменного поезда России.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11711" RevisionGUID="3d9fe997-d606-487e-ab70-39a5b5a5aa54" CreationDate="2016-01-23T00:59:12.660" UserId="3595" Text="Russians transliterate *boy* as *бой*. A word *бои* is a plural form of *бой*, and is pronounced distinctly differently somewhat like *buyee*.&#xA;&#xA;So *и* is a vowel and sounds longer than consonant *й*. Your confusion stems from the feature of Russian pronunciation when Russian stick invisible *й* in front of many vowels, which makes it sound a little longer.  For instance, when Russians say *ем* (I'm eating), they actually say something like *yem*. So in the first example *бои* has that invisible *й* in front of *и*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11700" RevisionGUID="d41f99bd-e933-4ad4-91b2-bb8a8e916174" CreationDate="2016-01-23T01:00:58.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/690700720031580160" />
  <row Id="27113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11712" RevisionGUID="87f5d980-7912-4c1a-9786-0441189cf7de" CreationDate="2016-01-23T03:39:14.617" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="I have looked at the conjugation page for this verb ([ &quot;Cooljugator&quot;][1]), but this form of the verb seems to not be present on the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cooljugator.com/ru/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11712" RevisionGUID="87f5d980-7912-4c1a-9786-0441189cf7de" CreationDate="2016-01-23T03:39:14.617" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="What form of &quot;подъехать&quot; is &quot;подвести&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11712" RevisionGUID="87f5d980-7912-4c1a-9786-0441189cf7de" CreationDate="2016-01-23T03:39:14.617" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11714" RevisionGUID="aa801543-8369-48ee-8bf3-f0d53d054bd4" CreationDate="2016-01-23T17:31:13.623" UserId="5924" Text="is it true that бы replace the use of &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would've&quot; in English? someone told me that and give me those examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would've done it = я бы хотел это делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to read = я бы хотел читать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is that true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11714" RevisionGUID="aa801543-8369-48ee-8bf3-f0d53d054bd4" CreationDate="2016-01-23T17:31:13.623" UserId="5924" Text="when to use бы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11714" RevisionGUID="aa801543-8369-48ee-8bf3-f0d53d054bd4" CreationDate="2016-01-23T17:31:13.623" UserId="5924" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27121" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="e5d3962d-832a-4d1e-b837-3bb23dd1e6f1" CreationDate="2016-01-23T19:01:17.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/690972588642832384" />
  <row Id="27123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11715" RevisionGUID="9bbb811f-a562-4c1d-800d-b6fcf3d221b3" CreationDate="2016-01-24T07:50:34.850" UserId="5443" Text="It is not (always) true. Mainly because proper translation is expressing the same sense by means of another language, so generally, it can't be limited to *replacing words*. For example, in English '**would**' can be used to express repeated (usual) action of main verb in the past, and the Russian version of that *never* takes **бы**. A quote from a book:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When I was 8, my father **would** come home in the evening and I **would**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; always be sitting, waiting, in my numbered shirt and baseball cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Когда мне было 8 лет, отец [обычно, бывало] приходил домой вечером, а я всегда сидел и ждал его в майке с номером и бейсболке.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your examples. The second one is about correct in translation (maybe &quot;я хотел бы заняться чтением&quot; would sound more natural). The first one expresses unused possibility to complete an action in the past (not a desire to do smth. in nearest future) and needs a perfective verb in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would've done it = я бы (уже) это сделал" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27124" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11709" RevisionGUID="11e4fea4-6d72-4f83-8e56-a24a3a101d14" CreationDate="2016-01-24T19:03:50.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/691335616861069312" />
  <row Id="27125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11716" RevisionGUID="b4e2584b-85ec-4201-8c8c-de020468b734" CreationDate="2016-01-24T21:10:36.327" UserId="179" Text="&gt; is it true that бы replace the use of &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would've&quot; in English? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, this statement is incorrect. The particle **бы** is used to speak about something hypothetical, so sometimes it can have the meaning of &quot;would&quot; and &quot;would have&quot; but generally it has the meaning of English constructs which use verbs in their corresponding past tense to describe something hypothetical or in a more polite way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If I were you, I would be happy `Если б(ы) я был тобой, я был бы счастлив`.&#xD;&#xA;Here you can see two instances of `бы` and they are presented as the past and future in the past tense of `be`: were and would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I could have done this before. `Я б(ы) мог это сделать раньше`. Here once again you can see the occurrence of `бы` or `б` and no &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Could you give me a pen? `Могли бы вы дать мне ручку?` Here we have `бы` exactly with the same meaning with &quot;could&quot; has opposed to &quot;can&quot; in English. This is a more polite way to ask something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would've done it = я бы хотел это делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is incorrect. It means `Я бы это сделал`. There is nothing about &quot;to want&quot; (`хотеть`, `хотел` - the past form)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11716" RevisionGUID="e3a472f3-a383-4dfd-beb6-f07bdbc0e223" CreationDate="2016-01-24T21:17:12.050" UserId="179" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; is it true that бы replace the use of &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would've&quot; in English? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, this statement is incorrect. The particle **бы** is used to speak about something hypothetical, so sometimes it can have the meaning of &quot;would&quot; and &quot;would have&quot; but generally it has the meaning of English constructs which use verbs in their corresponding past tense to describe something hypothetical or in a more polite way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If I were you, I would be happy `Если б(ы) я был тобой, я был бы счастлив`.&#xD;&#xA;Here you can see two instances of `бы` and they are presented as the past and future in the past tense of `be`: were and would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I could have done this before. `Я б(ы) мог это сделать раньше`. Here once again you can see the occurrence of `бы` or `б` and no &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Could you give me a pen? `Могли бы вы дать мне ручку?` Here we have `бы` exactly with the same meaning which &quot;could&quot; has opposed to &quot;can&quot; in English. This is a more polite way to ask something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would've done it = я бы хотел это делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is incorrect. It means `Я бы это сделал`. There is nothing about &quot;to want&quot; (`хотеть`, `хотел` - the past form)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11717" RevisionGUID="b81c562c-780e-4546-970e-aab0a5b85154" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:26:06.463" UserId="4714" Text="Forms like these **&quot;ударяв, ударявши&quot;** are often listed for verbs on викисловарь but i've never seen them in a grammar book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;разделяв, разделявши&#xD;&#xA;делав, делавши&#xD;&#xA; and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that perfective verbs have these forms—сделав, ударив, разделив and so on, which basically mean &quot;having done X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11717" RevisionGUID="b81c562c-780e-4546-970e-aab0a5b85154" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:26:06.463" UserId="4714" Text="Which part of speech? ударяв, ударявши" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11717" RevisionGUID="b81c562c-780e-4546-970e-aab0a5b85154" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:26:06.463" UserId="4714" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11717" RevisionGUID="7aba2683-49ff-4c82-a8da-1d826e2b6069" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:36:01.280" UserId="4714" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Question 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forms like these (Verbal Adverb) **&quot;ударяв, ударявши&quot;** are often listed for verbs on викисловарь but i've never seen them in a grammar book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;разделяв, разделявши&#xD;&#xA;делав, делавши&#xD;&#xA; and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that perfective verbs have these forms—сделав, ударив, разделив and so on, which basically mean &quot;having done X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Question 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what about this form **делённый, from делить**. As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures—e.g., **разделённый итд** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11717" RevisionGUID="746a6fa9-fb33-466c-a8ad-2f40217baa1f" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:41:28.290" UserId="4714" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA; - Question 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forms like these (Verbal Adverb) **&quot;ударяв, ударявши&quot;** are often listed for verbs on викисловарь but i've never seen them in a grammar book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;разделяв, разделявши&#xD;&#xA;делав, делавши&#xD;&#xA; and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that perfective verbs have these forms—сделав, ударив, разделив and so on, which basically mean &quot;having done X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form? Does it mean something like &quot;having been saying, doing x&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Question 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what about this form **делённый, from делить**. As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures—e.g., **разделённый итд** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11718" RevisionGUID="fe82019a-50af-41b1-a36d-d0af4c15df2d" CreationDate="2016-01-25T08:38:59.460" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;For example, разделяв, разделявши делав, делавши and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called &quot;деепричастие&quot; (cf. &quot;действие&quot;=action and &quot;причастие&quot;=participle). Perfective verb could only have деепричастие of past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's a participle with a strong notion of continuous action. For example, &quot;ударяя&quot; = &quot;while knocking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And what about this form делённый, from делить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's причастие (participle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, imperfective verbs can do it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a question about differentiating between past participles and adjectives. It's a common curlpit even for native speakers. Roughly saying, participle is a &quot;verb-thing&quot;; that's, if a sentence is about action, it's a participle, if it's about quality, it's an adjective. The most common sign of the former is an existence of dependent words. I.e. &quot;_раненный_ в руку солдат&quot; is participle; &quot;_раненый_ солдат&quot; is adjective (note different spelling)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11718" RevisionGUID="3e706db8-5e62-4856-b62d-35f695c0d1d1" CreationDate="2016-01-25T08:50:20.027" UserId="5008" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="&gt;For example, разделяв, разделявши делав, делавши and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is called &quot;деепричастие&quot; (cf. &quot;действие&quot;=action and &quot;причастие&quot;=participle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it's a participle with a strong notion of continuous action. For example, &quot;ударяя&quot; = &quot;while knocking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And what about this form делённый, from делить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's причастие (participle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, imperfective verbs can do it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a question about differentiating between past participles and adjectives. It's a common curlpit even for native speakers. Roughly saying, participle is a &quot;verb-thing&quot;; that's, if a sentence is about action, it's a participle, if it's about quality, it's an adjective. The most common sign of the former is an existence of dependent words. I.e. &quot;_раненный_ в руку солдат&quot; is participle; &quot;_раненый_ солдат&quot; is adjective (note different spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say it short, past passive participle of an imperfective verb is &quot;almost&quot; an adjective. They only differ in spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11718" RevisionGUID="2b4b2e78-34dd-4220-9fb1-d76c9e0f322c" CreationDate="2016-01-25T09:26:18.823" UserId="5008" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="&gt;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, mostly yes. These forms are normal for perfective verbs. For imperfective ones they rather belong to XIX century. Basically, you should use imperfective in present tense only (e.g. &quot;делая&quot;), switching to perfective if past tense required (e.g. &quot;сделав&quot; or &quot;сделавши&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And what about this form делённый, from делить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's причастие (participle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, imperfective verbs can do it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a question about differentiating between past participles and adjectives. It's a common curlpit even for native speakers. Roughly saying, participle is a &quot;verb-thing&quot;; that's, if a sentence is about action, it's a participle, if it's about quality, it's an adjective. The most common sign of the former is an existence of dependent words. I.e. &quot;_белённый_ известью потолок&quot; is participle; &quot;_белёный_ потолок&quot; is adjective (note different spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say it short, past passive participle is &quot;almost&quot; an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11718" RevisionGUID="2b6d4047-19b7-4e4d-b2f1-38cba3b677fb" CreationDate="2016-01-25T09:35:54.280" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="&gt;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, mostly yes. These forms are normal for perfective verbs. For imperfective ones they rather belong to XIX century. Basically, you should use imperfective in present tense only (e.g. &quot;делая&quot;), switching to perfective if past tense required (e.g. &quot;сделав&quot; or &quot;сделавши&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And what about this form делённый, from делить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a _passive_ participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, imperfective verbs can do it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a question about differentiating between participles and adjectives. It's a common curlpit even for native speakers. Roughly saying, participle is a &quot;verb-thing&quot;; that's, if a sentence is about action, it's a participle, if it's about quality, it's an adjective. The most common sign of the former is an existence of dependent words. I.e. &quot;_белённый_ известью потолок&quot; is participle; &quot;_белёный_ потолок&quot; is adjective (note different spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say it short, past passive participle is &quot;almost&quot; an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11719" RevisionGUID="f79f63b4-6b73-4e26-ac03-84486dedf191" CreationDate="2016-01-25T10:33:10.073" UserId="134" Text="&gt; But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form? Does it mean something like &quot;having been saying, doing x&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually you can replace them with a present form. While according to the most purist points of view that might be considered a misuse, it's pretty acceptable almost everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these forms are equally acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делав свою работу, он останавливался каждые полчаса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делая свою работу, он останавливался каждые полчаса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in some cases both past and imperfective are required grammatically. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никогда не делав такой работы, он не знал, с чего начать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, *никогда* has nuances in meaning depending on the tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Никогда не делал* means &quot;I never did this before (though I might do that in future)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Никогда не делаю* means &quot;I never do this (didn't do before and not going to)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Никогда не сделаю* means &quot;I will never do this (though I might have done this before)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the example above, both imperfective and past are required to give the sentence the right (first) meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11719" RevisionGUID="6238c89e-fd60-4b5f-9d23-f1d1375ef943" CreationDate="2016-01-25T10:39:16.363" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form? Does it mean something like &quot;having been saying, doing x&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually you can replace them with a present form. While according to the most purist points of view that might be considered a misuse, it's pretty acceptable almost everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these forms are equally acceptable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делав свою работу, он останавливался каждые полчаса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делая свою работу, он останавливался каждые полчаса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in some cases both past and imperfective are required grammatically. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никогда не делав такой работы, он не знал, с чего начать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, *никогда* has nuances in meaning depending on the tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Никогда не делал* means &quot;I never did this before (though I might do that in future)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Никогда не делаю* means &quot;I never do this (didn't do before and not going to)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Никогда не сделаю* means &quot;I will never do this (though I might have done this before)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the example above, both imperfective and past are required to give the sentence the right (first) meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="1c328686-1ad1-4155-8283-d021069e624f" CreationDate="2016-01-25T17:11:26.123" UserId="4753" Comment="added link to simplified case chart" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called Live From Moscow (now out of print). Years later I needed compact case tables for a class, but could not find anything, so I made my own in OpenOffice Writer. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the download link at the top right for the ODT version. This is what you want it you wish to make modifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart above is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.readyrussian.org/#/Handouts/Grammar%206--Case%20Charts%20Simplified.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11718" RevisionGUID="70692318-fe2a-4435-9c14-42f7d2fae874" CreationDate="2016-01-25T17:14:18.803" UserId="5008" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, mostly yes. These forms are normal for perfective verbs. For imperfective ones they rather belong to XIX century. Basically, you should use imperfective in present tense only (e.g. &quot;делая&quot;), switching to perfective if past tense required (e.g. &quot;сделав&quot; or &quot;сделавши&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And what about this form делённый, from делить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a _passive_ participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, imperfective verbs can do it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a question about differentiating between participles and adjectives. Sometimes it's a problem even for native speakers. Roughly saying, participle is a &quot;verb-thing&quot;; that's, if a sentence is about action, it's a participle, if it's about quality, it's an adjective. The most common sign of the former is an existence of dependent words. I.e. &quot;_белённый_ известью потолок&quot; is participle; &quot;_белёный_ потолок&quot; is adjective (note different spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say it short, past passive participle is &quot;almost&quot; an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27140" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11653" RevisionGUID="4acc907c-843b-46df-9150-e5c69acf97d2" CreationDate="2016-01-25T19:04:10.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/691698088931622912" />
  <row Id="27141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11716" RevisionGUID="5b9a603c-fbc0-476f-822e-e08d3fbcde20" CreationDate="2016-01-25T19:22:44.507" UserId="179" Comment="the use of чтобы and чтоб has been added" Text="&gt; is it true that бы replace the use of &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would've&quot; in English? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, this statement is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle **бы** and its short form `б` are used to speak about something hypothetical, so sometimes it can have the meaning of &quot;would&quot; and &quot;would have&quot; but generally they have the meaning of English constructs which use verbs in their corresponding past tense to describe something hypothetical or in a more polite way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *If I were you, I would be happy `Если б(ы) я был тобой, я был бы счастлив`*.&#xD;&#xA;Here you can see two instances of `бы` and they are presented as the past and future in the past tense of `be`: were and would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *I could have done this before. `Я б(ы) мог это сделать раньше`*. Here once again you can see the occurrence of `бы` or `б` and no &quot;would&quot; or &quot;would have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Could you give me a pen? `Могли бы вы дать мне ручку?`* Here we have `бы` exactly with the same meaning which &quot;could&quot; has opposed to &quot;can&quot; in English. This is a more polite way to ask something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also these letter combinations `бы` and a single `б` can be heard in the conjunctions `чтобы` and `чтоб`. In spoken language they can be misunderstood as the standalone particles `бы` and `б`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *In order to be healthy one should work out. `Чтобы быть здоровым, надо заниматься физкультурой.`* or *I have decided to do it today so that I can rest tomorrow. `Я решил сделать это сегодня, чтоб отдыхать завтра.`* They are used to combine the secondary part of a sentence (which passes info about a purpose of something or that something is desirable, acceptable etc.) and its main part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would've done it = я бы хотел это делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation is incorrect. It means `Я бы это сделал`. There is nothing about &quot;to want&quot; (`хотеть`, `хотел` - the past form)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11710" RevisionGUID="0d3b109f-faba-40e1-a74b-3c07314449ba" CreationDate="2016-01-25T20:42:23.273" UserId="134" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="&gt; How would you translate: &quot;Это фирменный поезд.&quot;? &quot;The firms train&quot;? or privately owned train company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd translate it as &quot;premium train service&quot; or &quot;luxury train service&quot; (or, literally, &quot;signature train service&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a legally defined concept in ex-Soviet rail service which designates some popular routes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a route has to have a proper name (like *001/002 Красная Стрела*, the first route of that kind), a livery, satisfy certain requirements to the rolling stock etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They usually have more convenient arrival and departure times, offer some perks like better linen and snacks, include a restaurant car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are of course also usually more expensive than ordinary routes (sometimes slightly, sometimes significantly) within the same car class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am a little curious about how come they can offer faster train service. Do they stop at fewer stations and drive faster (have newer train) or perhaps make very short stops at each station?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They make shorter stops on the stations and have priority over other routes (if the line is to be shared by a premium and an ordinary route, the ordinary one has to wait). This means trains on ordinary routes just move slower, as yielding to the premiums is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They also refer in the text about that they greet the train with music. Is this common in Russia? I read somewhere in another text in that music was played when that specific train was leaving its starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, this is quite common on those routes. They do play Gliere's &quot;Hymn to the Great City&quot; when *001/002 Красная Стрела* arrives to St. Petersburg, and &quot;Farewell of Slavianka&quot; when *31/32 Тамбов* departs from eponymous Tambov." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11720" RevisionGUID="b05a7142-3c0f-4dbb-a1a4-29b3ebf3cf72" CreationDate="2016-01-26T01:21:22.910" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a slovar and I have asked people I know but I get all kind of answers. How to say in Russian: &quot;I have a blog&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11720" RevisionGUID="b05a7142-3c0f-4dbb-a1a4-29b3ebf3cf72" CreationDate="2016-01-26T01:21:22.910" UserId="6603" Text="How to say that you have a blog in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11720" RevisionGUID="b05a7142-3c0f-4dbb-a1a4-29b3ebf3cf72" CreationDate="2016-01-26T01:21:22.910" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11721" RevisionGUID="1416b2df-dc6c-48b8-a438-d8d1f7adcd32" CreationDate="2016-01-26T01:58:11.073" UserId="464" Text="`У меня есть блог` appears to be the most exact translation. `Я веду блог` is also an option. The latter variant is even closer to English `I have...` clause and it sounds natural to Russian, unlike literal translation `Я имею блог`. Please do not use `я имею...` in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11721" RevisionGUID="86231355-4d92-4c68-bf52-47033eb6ffb1" CreationDate="2016-01-26T02:14:15.840" UserId="464" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="`У меня есть блог` appears to be the most exact translation. `Я веду блог` is also an option. The latter variant is even closer to English `I have...` clause and it sounds natural to Russian, unlike literal translation `Я имею блог`. Please do not use `я имею...` in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your intend to introduce yourself as a blogger in an oral conversation, then just `я - блоггер` (`I'm a blogger`) will be OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11722" RevisionGUID="e8f64134-a6bf-4642-a4f5-956cfd36f6b0" CreationDate="2016-01-26T05:36:29.390" UserId="3892" Text="You can find the declension of any noun, adjective, and the conjugation of any verb on [this][1] site. Just enter a word (in any form) in the top field and select словоформы from the dropdown menu that reads рифмы by default. You will see the stress indicated in red type for every single form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rifmovnik.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11723" RevisionGUID="cc4b7dff-5e14-41e7-a4a7-f7e874a9d32b" CreationDate="2016-01-26T07:57:34.857" UserId="6662" Text="в технике, в патентоведении, [the] state of the art = уровень техники. следует различать, т. к. state-of-the-art (с дефисами) = современный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в написании технических/научных курсовых/диссертаций, Literature review / State of the art правильнее переводить как &quot;Патентно-информационный поиск&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11718" RevisionGUID="a9f69c37-e597-44e8-a9ec-59f6ba6cc620" CreationDate="2016-01-26T10:15:13.747" UserId="104" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&gt;But what does it mean when an imperfective verb has this form? Is it just an old form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, mostly yes. These forms are normal for perfective verbs. For imperfective ones they rather belong to XIX century. Basically, you should use imperfective in present tense only (e.g. &quot;делая&quot;), switching to perfective if past tense required (e.g. &quot;сделав&quot; or &quot;сделавши&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And what about this form делённый, from делить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a _passive_ participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far as I know, only perfective verbs can form these structures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, imperfective verbs can do it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When should I expect to see imperfective verbs with this form (Past Passive Participle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a question about differentiating between participles and adjectives. Sometimes it's a problem even for native speakers. Roughly saying, participle is a &quot;verb-thing&quot;; that's, if a sentence is about action, it's a participle, if it's about quality, it's an adjective. The most common sign of the former is an existence of dependent words. I.e. &quot;_белённый_ известью потолок&quot; is participle; &quot;_белёный_ потолок&quot; is adjective (note different spelling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say it short, past passive participle is &quot;almost&quot; an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11724" RevisionGUID="69e08b69-e258-401a-9ac9-973ed72235b6" CreationDate="2016-01-26T11:15:54.277" UserId="6664" Text="As far as I can tell, Russian has no word for 'grandparents' the same way as it has Родители, and you are stuck saying Бабушла и дедушка if you're talking about your grandparents. What if you're saying something like &quot;the country was built by the grandparents of the current residents&quot;? (as an example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely there is a less cumbersome word that can be used here!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11724" RevisionGUID="69e08b69-e258-401a-9ac9-973ed72235b6" CreationDate="2016-01-26T11:15:54.277" UserId="6664" Text="Appropriate term for 'grandparents'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11724" RevisionGUID="69e08b69-e258-401a-9ac9-973ed72235b6" CreationDate="2016-01-26T11:15:54.277" UserId="6664" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11725" RevisionGUID="33030797-5e38-4f05-97c2-0916a8fcc18e" CreationDate="2016-01-26T11:57:52.767" UserId="6665" Text="Imho, there is no precise analgue for 'grandparents' in Russian. I think you should use word &quot;предки&quot; in your example. &quot;страна была построена предками нынешних жителей&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11724" RevisionGUID="b0c20680-2b7c-49a4-96e9-3d4bed1dc8c0" CreationDate="2016-01-26T11:59:24.903" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, Russian has no word for 'grandparents' the same way as it has Родители, and you are stuck saying Бабушка и дедушка if you're talking about your grandparents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if you're saying something like &quot;the country was built by the grandparents of the current residents&quot;? (as an example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely there is a less cumbersome word that can be used here!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11726" RevisionGUID="7d571774-ae32-4c3b-92fc-4457ae2c5edc" CreationDate="2016-01-26T12:03:28.523" UserDisplayName="user4820" Text="To answer by Sergey I'd also add that you'd rather use `Я веду блог` if you want to imply that you're an active blogger, because `У меня есть блог` may also mean that you have a blog, but you are not posting actively or even abandoned it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11727" RevisionGUID="44a19908-2d74-4878-91bc-3679112e9e27" CreationDate="2016-01-26T12:08:01.613" UserId="134" Text="Russian does not have a collective word from &quot;grandparents&quot; indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are speaking about grandparents' achievements, synecdoches like *деды* or *отцы и деды* could be used: *страну построили отцы и деды тех, кто населяет её теперь*. (&quot;Synecdoche&quot; means using a word for part to name the whole or vice versa)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11728" RevisionGUID="e94f2e92-c24a-4a70-9069-21e5d4511e1a" CreationDate="2016-01-26T12:29:57.400" UserId="6665" Text="Можно использовать словосочетание &quot;принимающая сторона&quot;, хотя это звучит достаточно официально." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11729" RevisionGUID="2892f373-4dd4-4417-ab83-175eae9ba5be" CreationDate="2016-01-26T14:03:17.683" UserId="6107" Text="Plural &quot;старики&quot; (English: old man) in conjunction with the pronoun can be used in the colloquial with a sense of &quot;old parents&quot;, &quot;grandparents&quot; (also &quot;parents&quot; in the youth slang):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Слушай, а что же твои старики?&#xD;&#xA; - Дорогие мои старики, дайте я вас сейчас расцелую!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural &quot;отцы&quot;, &quot;праотцы&quot;, &quot;деды&quot;, &quot;прадеды&quot; can be used as an archaism with a sense of &quot;ancestors&quot;, &quot;previous generation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Как жили деды да прадеды, так и нам жить велели.&#xD;&#xA; - Бог Авраама и Исаака и Иакова, Бог отцов наших, прославил Сына Своего Иисуса.(Деян.3:13)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11730" RevisionGUID="e5f8c5e9-a73c-4228-b836-b8a3e3d27f77" CreationDate="2016-01-26T14:35:07.183" UserId="4803" Text="Зачем is about a purpose and почему is about circumstances&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you meet friend in shop and ask him why is he came there. And this dialogue is happened:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Зачем ты здесь / why you are her&#xD;&#xA;    - Купить молока / To buy a milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it can be that way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Почему ты здесь / Why you are here&#xD;&#xA;	- У меня кончилось молоко / I run out of milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difference is subtle and you almost always can replace one with another without any problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11730" RevisionGUID="7994b8ca-1e1c-456f-bbcf-0906dd111d96" CreationDate="2016-01-26T14:48:14.633" UserId="3680" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Зачем is about a purpose and почему is about circumstances&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you meet friend in shop and ask him why is he came there. And this dialogue is happened:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Зачем ты здесь / Why you are here?&#xD;&#xA;    - Купить молока / To buy a milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it can be that way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Почему ты здесь / Why you are here?&#xD;&#xA;	- У меня кончилось молоко / I run out of milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difference is subtle and you almost always can replace one with another without any problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11729" RevisionGUID="08697fed-42ae-44da-9c26-48de5386e707" CreationDate="2016-01-26T16:59:42.073" UserId="6107" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Plural &quot;старики&quot; (English: old people) in conjunction with the pronoun can be used in the colloquial with a sense of &quot;old parents&quot;, &quot;grandparents&quot; (also &quot;parents&quot; in the youth slang):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Слушай, а что же твои старики?&#xD;&#xA; - Дорогие мои старики, дайте я вас сейчас расцелую!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural &quot;отцы&quot;, &quot;праотцы&quot;, &quot;деды&quot;, &quot;прадеды&quot; can be used as an archaism with a sense of &quot;ancestors&quot;, &quot;previous generation&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Как жили деды да прадеды, так и нам жить велели.&#xD;&#xA; - Бог Авраама и Исаака и Иакова, Бог отцов наших, прославил Сына Своего Иисуса.(Деян.3:13)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11731" RevisionGUID="5e5335ea-917f-44f0-9c4a-338e9471e0f2" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:34:28.223" UserId="3892" Text="I have always considered **летяющий** the derived adjective/active participle of **летать**. However, today I came across the following passage: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В него попал какой-то **летящий** обломок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*He was pelted by some piece of flying debris*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they in fact interchangeable, or is this a typo? If not, what is the difference, if any, in their usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11731" RevisionGUID="5e5335ea-917f-44f0-9c4a-338e9471e0f2" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:34:28.223" UserId="3892" Text="&quot;летящий&quot; versus &quot;летающий&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11731" RevisionGUID="5e5335ea-917f-44f0-9c4a-338e9471e0f2" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:34:28.223" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11732" RevisionGUID="27e489a4-b438-4e6b-940d-5a3e110584a5" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:36:47.850" UserId="3680" Text="`Летящий` - means flying right now.  &#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Летящий обломок  &#xD;&#xA;Самолет, летящий в южном направлении&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;`Летающий` - means able to fly.  &#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Летающий кран  &#xD;&#xA;Самолет, ежедневно летающий по маршруту Москва - Нью-Йорк" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11733" RevisionGUID="d705561d-366b-4740-bb85-20d5a39c5183" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:51:31.297" UserId="3892" Text="This is potentially a very stupid question: I'm guessing **ДНК** is pronounced **дээнка́**. As such, is it treated grammatically as a feminine noun, or is it invariable? In other words, do you say **в его дээнке́** , **инопланетане взяли мою дээнку́** , etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this because I've only ever seen it in writing, I've never heard anyone actually say it :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11733" RevisionGUID="d705561d-366b-4740-bb85-20d5a39c5183" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:51:31.297" UserId="3892" Text="Declension of &quot;ДНК&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11733" RevisionGUID="d705561d-366b-4740-bb85-20d5a39c5183" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:51:31.297" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11734" RevisionGUID="a2d467e4-380b-4a91-925a-893c59ca4934" CreationDate="2016-01-26T20:55:49.997" UserId="3680" Text="As a most of all abbreviations it is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В его _дээнка_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инопланетане взяли мою _дээнка_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11733" RevisionGUID="276da1d1-c5bb-4fa4-8af1-8cbe8534c110" CreationDate="2016-01-26T21:36:25.317" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="This is potentially a very stupid question: I'm guessing **ДНК** is pronounced **дээнка́**. As such, is it treated grammatically as a feminine noun, or is it invariable? In other words, do you say **в его дээнке́** , **инопланетяне взяли мою дээнку́** , etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this because I've only ever seen it in writing, I've never heard anyone actually say it :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11720" RevisionGUID="30feede4-9f08-4a69-a916-c772765ed3d4" CreationDate="2016-01-26T22:06:28.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692106354446696448" />
  <row Id="27174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11735" RevisionGUID="ad418ccb-5e05-4285-b4e5-23deb8a9c1bf" CreationDate="2016-01-26T22:08:36.463" UserId="134" Text="This very abbreviation is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some abbreviations like *ЗАГС*, *БОМЖ*, *ТЭН* etc. which do decline as any other noun would, and in fact many Russian speakers are unaware those are abbreviations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more common for abbreviations which would have been masculine if they were nouns, however, *ЧК* used to decline as well in early XX century (*забрали в чеку, арестован чекой* etc.), and the abbreviation *з/к* gave birth to the (masculine) word *зек* &quot;inmate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is even a vernacular word *касемсот* &quot;a heavy tractor&quot;, which originates from *К-700*, a heavy tractor manufactured in Leningrad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It declines and is in every other way treated as a noun, you can find ads saying *продам касемсот модели К-701*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11731" RevisionGUID="bee5a044-134e-4d3e-b35b-d02778886162" CreationDate="2016-01-26T22:11:16.860" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="I have always considered **летающий** the derived adjective/active participle of **летать**. However, today I came across the following passage: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В него попал какой-то **летящий** обломок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*He was pelted by some piece of flying debris*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they in fact interchangeable, or is this a typo? If not, what is the difference, if any, in their usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11736" RevisionGUID="78418e29-ae6c-4f85-8d29-864cd0e516b1" CreationDate="2016-01-26T23:02:24.173" UserId="134" Text="*Летающий* and *летящий* are formed from two different verbs: *летать* and *лететь* (the former being an iterative for the latter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's similar to English &quot;sniffle / sniff, shuffle / shove&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this particular iterative participle also acquired an idiomatic meaning: it means not only &quot;flying repeatedly&quot; but also &quot;able to fly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives meaning &quot;able to&quot; or &quot;inherently doing smth.&quot; are in number of cases formed by using suffix *-уч/-юч*: *горючий / горящий, кипучий / кипящий, гремучий / гремящий* etc., *летучий / летящий* being no exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *летающий* has two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Adjective &quot;able to fly&quot;, synonymous to *летучий*: *летающая тарелка* &quot;flying saucer&quot;, *летающая крепость* &quot;flying fortress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Participle &quot;flying repeatedly or continuously&quot;: *Летающий в ночи* &quot;The Night Flier&quot;, *часто летающий пассажир* &quot;frequent flier&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Летящий* is a participle meaning &quot;flying at the moment&quot;: *астероид, летящий по направлению к Земле* &quot;an asteroid flying towards Earth&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11735" RevisionGUID="b1fbdcdc-836e-4862-a4ea-d069642fa836" CreationDate="2016-01-27T03:31:22.033" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="This very acronym is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some acronyms like *ЗАГС*, *БОМЖ*, *ТЭН* etc. which do decline as any other noun would, and in fact many Russian speakers are unaware those are acronyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more common for acronyms which would have been masculine if they were nouns, however, *ЧК* used to decline as well in early XX century (*забрали в чеку, арестован чекой* etc.), and the acronym *з/к* gave birth to the (masculine) word *зек* &quot;inmate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is even a vernacular word *касемсот* &quot;a heavy tractor&quot;, which originates from *К-700*, a heavy tractor manufactured in Leningrad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It declines and is in every other way treated as a noun, you can find ads saying *продам касемсот модели К-701*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11734" RevisionGUID="ee4f554c-9d6f-40ad-88df-3b6d60f34acc" CreationDate="2016-01-27T03:32:31.020" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="As a most of all acronyms it is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В его _дээнка_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инопланетане взяли мою _дээнка_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11737" RevisionGUID="2e5f7d77-f4d4-465b-884b-f005282e2b22" CreationDate="2016-01-27T04:59:53.917" UserId="6672" Text="I can use &quot;Деды&quot;. With stress on last Ы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11739" RevisionGUID="a32a9f9a-6e7c-4095-8773-0a86eafe491c" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:20:29.643" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11740" RevisionGUID="d70844d1-4f15-4d39-af7e-50f2fefdf4ab" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:20:29.643" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11741" RevisionGUID="0bd56a66-c27c-4cf2-ac5a-61fe3166daad" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:26:47.457" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11742" RevisionGUID="3223007a-9f43-49fa-bee6-db837f30813a" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:26:47.457" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11743" RevisionGUID="b2be230e-84ab-47d9-a080-f9b2c7d21b24" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:31:02.517" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11744" RevisionGUID="81f17963-2b36-4f82-8341-442e2989b214" CreationDate="2016-01-27T09:31:02.517" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11745" RevisionGUID="1ad9aef6-94b1-4616-bde8-934af654a151" CreationDate="2016-01-27T10:41:30.097" UserId="6381" Text="I recently finished the whole concept behind the verbs of motion in the Russian language. Putting a different prefix in front of the verb changes the meaning so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    по  &#xD;&#xA;    в / вы &#xD;&#xA;    под / от  &#xD;&#xA;    при / у  &#xD;&#xA;    с / рас  &#xD;&#xA;    про / пере  &#xD;&#xA;    за / обо  &#xD;&#xA;    до&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the past I learned of course other verbs like `read`, `drink` and `eat` for example. I hadn’t  understood why they would have different prefixes and what this would mean. So I just wrote them in my textbook and used them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I’m aware of mostly all this prefixes I think yet I’m really doleful about the fact that I mostly have to learn every verb from the beginning right? Anyway, I’m struggling here right now. I notice more and more verbs from day to day which have the same stem but a different prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past I would only now `пить` for `to drink` and I have to learn the same verb with each of these prefixes. This fact really removes energy from me and I would like to know what is the best practice to learn all those other verbs, besides the verbs of motions, with all the prefixes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned that `to drink up` would be `выпивать / выпить`. From the prefix `вы-` I could conclude logically that is means something like `to go out / out`, so therefore it can be `drink something up`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    попить  &#xD;&#xA;    впить / выпить &#xD;&#xA;    подпить / отпить  &#xD;&#xA;    припить / упить  &#xD;&#xA;    спить / распить  &#xD;&#xA;    пропить / перепить  &#xD;&#xA;    запить / обопить  &#xD;&#xA;    допить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is one supposed to learn all the meanings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11745" RevisionGUID="1ad9aef6-94b1-4616-bde8-934af654a151" CreationDate="2016-01-27T10:41:30.097" UserId="6381" Text="The concept behind prefixes &amp; verbs in the Russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11745" RevisionGUID="1ad9aef6-94b1-4616-bde8-934af654a151" CreationDate="2016-01-27T10:41:30.097" UserId="6381" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11746" RevisionGUID="daf47332-34ae-405f-aede-6aa809fffce4" CreationDate="2016-01-27T13:15:24.350" UserId="3892" Text="I have two suggestions for you: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can enter the prefixed forms of your new verbs in [Reverso Context][1] in order to see how that verb is used in different contexts. A lot of the material on this site is from movies, so there is also a lot of colloquial context, aside from the more literal examples. Note that you can search individual words, or entire phrases or sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, you can search for the individual prefixes in [gramota.ru][2] and see the basic meanings imparted by said prefix, with examples. This site is all in Russian, so if it's too advanced for you, you can simple cut and paste the entire entry in Google Translate to get the basic gist. When searching for prefixes, be sure to choose the entry that says ***приставка***, since most prefixes are also prepositions. This is what the entry for the prefix **под**- looks like:&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ПОД**...; **ПОДО**... (перед односложными корнями: подобреть, подогрев, подоспеть; перед некоторыми группами согласных: подопрелый, подостлать, подоткнуть); **ПОДЪ**... (перед гласными е, ё, ю, я: подъехать, подъёмник, подъязычный), ***приставка***. I. (служит для образования глаг.). 1. Указывает на направленность действия, движения снизу вверх. Подбросить, подпрыгнуть. 2. Указывает на совершение действия снизу, внизу. Подложить, подставить, подтечь. 3. Указывает на распространение действия на низ чего-л. Подкопать (дерево), подмочить, подшить. 4. Указывает на приближение к кому-, чему-л. Подбежать, подползти. 5. Указывает на добавление, прибавление. Подлить, подмешать, подсыпать. 6. Указывает на добавочное действие с целью улучшения результата. Подварить, подвинтить, подгладить. 7. Указывает на совершение действия или проявление состояния в ослабленной степени. Подгореть, полечиться, подмокнуть, подправить, подсохнуть. 8. Указывает на совершение действия тайком, скрытно. Подглядеть, подговорить, подкараулить, подкрасться, подслушать. 9. Указывает на совершение действия вслед за чем-л. как повторение или сопровождение действия кого-л. другого. Подвывать, поддакивать, подыгрывать, подпевать. 10. (с частицей -ся). Указывает на совершение действия с целью добиться расположения кого-л. Подольститься, подслужиться. II. (служит для образования прил. и сущ.). 1. Вносит зн.: расположенный, находящийся ниже поверхности чего-л., под чем-л. Подземелье, подводный, подкожный. 2. Вносит зн.: расположенный, находящийся в непосредственной близости от чего-л. Подгородный, подтропики. 3. Вносит зн.: представляющий собой часть, отделение какого-л. целого. Подкласс, подкомитет, подобласть, подотдел, подразделение. 4. Вносит зн.: находящийся в чьём-л. ведении, в сфере чего-л. Поднадзорный, подопытный, подследственный. 5. Вносит зн.: имеющий звание ниже другого, являющийся помощником кого-л. по какому-л. занятию, должности и т.п. Подполковник, подмастерье. 6. Вносит зн.: приближающийся по признакам, свойствам и т.п. к кому-, чему-л. Подлещик, подгруздь, подкотик. III. (служит для образования нареч.). Вносит зн. полноты признака. Подчистую. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://context.reverso.net/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4&amp;all=x&amp;lop=x&amp;bts=x&amp;zar=x&amp;ag=x&amp;ab=x&amp;sin=x&amp;lv=x&amp;az=x&amp;pe=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11747" RevisionGUID="21d18149-decb-47c5-909f-63468301ce6b" CreationDate="2016-01-27T14:09:27.577" UserId="5443" Text="Generally, prefixes modify verbs dependently on their meanings, for example &quot;**пере-**&quot; added to the verb &quot;читать&quot; mainly points at **repeating** the action, while &quot;перепить&quot; with that very prefix gives the meaning '(to have drunk) **too much** (alcohol)' and the meaning of &quot;пере-&quot; is absolutely different in the word &quot;перерезать&quot; (to **cut** something lengthy in **half** or to cut **everything** in pieces). Having a list of prefix meanings will not help you to define exact meanings of existing prefixed verbs or to build modified verbs you weren't familiar with - it can't be that simple. It's much the same as with Chinese characters: most of them have a number of meanings but you can't combine them into 2-syllable words as you wish, based only on a meaning selected from the list. So you still have to learn words with prefixes, same as in English one must know the meanings of particular verbs in combination with prepositions, as well as which prepositions really combine with those verbs in living language (the subject of collocation dictionaries)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11735" RevisionGUID="d358a88f-a753-4622-bf3a-a7cfe6c4cb8a" CreationDate="2016-01-27T14:20:33.247" UserId="3892" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="This very initialism is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some initialisms like *ЗАГС*, *БОМЖ*, *ТЭН* etc. which do decline as any other noun would, and in fact many Russian speakers are unaware those are initialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more common for initialisms which would have been masculine if they were nouns, however, *ЧК* used to decline as well in early XX century (*забрали в чеку, арестован чекой* etc.), and the acronym *з/к* gave birth to the (masculine) word *зек* &quot;inmate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is even a vernacular word *касемсот* &quot;a heavy tractor&quot;, which originates from *К-700*, a heavy tractor manufactured in Leningrad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It declines and is in every other way treated as a noun, you can find ads saying *продам касемсот модели К-701*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11734" RevisionGUID="0052b6f3-b2e9-4e66-9bf7-ccca6d6c18a2" CreationDate="2016-01-27T14:21:27.383" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="As with most initialisms, it is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В его _дээнка_  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инопланетане взяли мою _дээнка_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11742" RevisionGUID="23f1582b-99ee-4c9c-802c-5dd3c326a843" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:11:39.163" UserId="3680" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="Questions about meaning and different forms of verbs. A verb is a part of speech used to describe an action, state, or occurrence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27196" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11742" RevisionGUID="23f1582b-99ee-4c9c-802c-5dd3c326a843" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:11:39.163" Comment="Proposed by 3680 approved by 5008, 134 edit id of 716" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11744" RevisionGUID="b6a054e7-5880-4dad-b6b2-4abba9b6a507" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:11:47.167" UserId="3680" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Questions which a dictionary cannot answer about set phrases with unusual meanings that can't be properly understood just from the separate words in them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27198" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11744" RevisionGUID="b6a054e7-5880-4dad-b6b2-4abba9b6a507" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:11:47.167" Comment="Proposed by 3680 approved by 5008, 134 edit id of 717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11740" RevisionGUID="4f1de0df-235b-467c-bb11-49081613065f" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:11:50.367" UserId="3680" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Questions requesting external resources for educational purposes such as websites, software or hardware." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27200" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11740" RevisionGUID="4f1de0df-235b-467c-bb11-49081613065f" CreationDate="2016-01-27T16:11:50.367" Comment="Proposed by 3680 approved by 5008, 134 edit id of 715" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27205" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11733" RevisionGUID="a4c36211-d41c-4a1f-bd88-0165b0d2badf" CreationDate="2016-01-27T19:13:58.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692425333010751489" />
  <row Id="27207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11724" RevisionGUID="cbe0b217-e261-4547-a006-e1159c73971a" CreationDate="2016-01-27T22:13:59.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692470635268837378" />
  <row Id="27209" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11745" RevisionGUID="2dc88ea9-bd5e-478a-ab15-2a057595f581" CreationDate="2016-01-28T02:20:52.553" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4801,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vilmar&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11749" RevisionGUID="45d7fa49-45e8-4757-add8-1813a13b99d3" CreationDate="2016-01-28T07:58:24.357" UserId="551" Text="I listened lectures by antropologist Станислав Дробышевский - he makes many witty remarks in his speech. He (and some other scientists) change ДНК in his speech (maybe because it sounds fun, or, maybe, because it is some kind of jargon): &quot;Просеквенировали дээнку неандертальцев&quot;, &quot;нашли в дээнке современных людей следы дээнки кроманьонцев&quot;, etc. So, in fact, you can hear someone declensing ДНК as if it is feminine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, anyway, this was the only time I have heard such usage. I have never heard such usage on TV, in popular science movies or in speech of any people I met in person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11749" RevisionGUID="da768e9b-da91-4ded-bbee-c204c528bf35" CreationDate="2016-01-28T08:19:21.857" UserId="551" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I listened lectures by antropologist Станислав Дробышевский - he makes many witty remarks in his speech. He (and some other scientists) change ДНК in his speech (maybe because it sounds fun, or, maybe, because it is some kind of jargon): &quot;Просеквенировали дээнку неандертальцев&quot;, &quot;нашли в дээнке современных людей следы дээнки кроманьонцев&quot;, etc. (example: [Расшифровка генома древнего человека](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGOG3Lm5FJw&amp;t=43m30)) So, in fact, you can hear someone declensing ДНК as if it is feminine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, anyway, this was the only time I have heard such usage. I have never heard such usage on TV, in popular science movies or in speech of any people I met in person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11731" RevisionGUID="97094264-ca8d-4c25-b899-4176d6dfff8b" CreationDate="2016-01-28T13:15:28.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692697500008996864" />
  <row Id="27213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11735" RevisionGUID="33f12e5f-a1ec-4861-ab37-418c0199e518" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:00:56.220" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="This very initialism is invariable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some acronyms like *ЗАГС*, *БОМЖ*, *ТЭН* etc. which do decline as any other noun would, and in fact many Russian speakers are unaware those are initialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more common for initialisms which would have been masculine if they were nouns, however, *ЧК* used to decline as well in early XX century (*забрали в чеку, арестован чекой* etc.), and the acronym *з/к* gave birth to the (masculine) word *зек* &quot;inmate&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is even a vernacular word *касемсот* &quot;a heavy tractor&quot;, which originates from *К-700*, a heavy tractor manufactured in Leningrad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It declines and is in every other way treated as a noun, you can find ads saying *продам касемсот модели К-701*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11750" RevisionGUID="631fd006-edc2-48f9-b16a-50326410c83e" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:08:26.007" UserId="3892" Text="Do these two words share the same root, or are there two different roots at play?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11750" RevisionGUID="631fd006-edc2-48f9-b16a-50326410c83e" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:08:26.007" UserId="3892" Text="Root of the words присутствовать and существо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11750" RevisionGUID="631fd006-edc2-48f9-b16a-50326410c83e" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:08:26.007" UserId="3892" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11751" RevisionGUID="f662a4a3-d438-40e7-87fa-0246582ae588" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:14:32.977" UserId="1836" Text="Похоже, что оба слова происходят из одного корня, [сѫшти, сущий][1]. Но я не уверена, что считается корнем слова &quot;присутствовать&quot; в современном языке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Vasmer-term-10331.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="29a1a111-dffe-4836-91d3-d95046fb6a20" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:36:48.773" UserId="5897" Comment="fix spelling" Text="I'm studying numbers and I found this example:  &#xD;&#xA;__На стадионе _собралось_ пятьдесят тысяч человек.__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is genitive plural, if I'm not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the verb in past singular?  Is it like English _people_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27219" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11505" RevisionGUID="29a1a111-dffe-4836-91d3-d95046fb6a20" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:36:48.773" Comment="Proposed by 5897 approved by 5605, 3680 edit id of 718" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11752" RevisionGUID="7856a55c-b40b-45ab-9e61-110317a17d2f" CreationDate="2016-01-28T17:51:00.537" UserId="5008" Text="That depends on what you mean by &quot;root&quot; here. Historically, yes, they are of the same root. But _сущий / существо_ are derived from Church Slavonic form, so the consonants differ. Thus in modern grammar the roots are different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11749" RevisionGUID="c7da1fe8-48e0-4606-9ada-e517af88d71f" CreationDate="2016-01-28T20:42:33.527" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I listened lectures by antropologist Станислав Дробышевский - he makes many witty remarks in his speech. He (and some other scientists) change ДНК in his speech (maybe because it sounds fun, or, maybe, because it is some kind of jargon): &quot;Просеквенировали дээнку неандертальцев&quot;, &quot;нашли в дээнке современных людей следы дээнки кроманьонцев&quot;, etc. (example: [Расшифровка генома древнего человека](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGOG3Lm5FJw&amp;t=43m30)) So, in fact, you can hear someone declining ДНК as if it is feminine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, anyway, this was the only time I have heard such usage. I have never heard such usage on TV, in popular science movies or in speech of any people I met in person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27222" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11706" RevisionGUID="84cfbd4c-d199-44f5-9341-146a78130430" CreationDate="2016-01-28T22:19:06.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692834308537479169" />
  <row Id="27223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11753" RevisionGUID="242262d9-aff0-4c56-8e25-ec244fb1db11" CreationDate="2016-01-28T22:27:39.700" UserId="4454" Text="Actually, &quot;собралось&quot; and &quot;собрались&quot; are both fits. You can also say &quot;пришло два человека&quot; or &quot;пришли два человека&quot;. Both are correct. The only little difference is when you use &quot;пришли&quot;, &quot;собрались&quot;, you may be pointing to some particular persons, instead of people in general. So yes, I think, is has something to do with your comparison to English &quot;people&quot;. You can start a story like &quot;Пришли два человека [куда-то] и говорят: ...&quot; In such case &quot;пришли&quot; is preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11753" RevisionGUID="95e71212-2f81-42e6-90c8-2b926d5f5296" CreationDate="2016-01-28T22:39:40.717" UserId="4454" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Actually, &quot;собралось&quot; and &quot;собрались&quot; both fits. You can also say &quot;пришло два человека&quot; or &quot;пришли два человека&quot;. Both are correct. The only little difference is when you use &quot;пришли&quot;, &quot;собрались&quot;, you may be pointing to some particular persons, instead of people in general. So yes, I think, is has something to do with your comparison to English &quot;people&quot;. You can start a story like &quot;Пришли два человека [куда-то] и говорят: ...&quot; In such case &quot;пришли&quot; is preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11754" RevisionGUID="c65048b4-54c9-4163-a10f-907b56b06840" CreationDate="2016-01-28T22:45:24.370" UserId="4454" Text="Бы generally is for subjunctive (or conjunctive? google tells both for сослагательное наклонение) mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я **бы** предпочёл не проводить остаток зимы привязанным к сраному дивану. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XufZexZc-n0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do - я делаю, I would do - я бы сделал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11603" RevisionGUID="9ccbf5a9-de2f-4ee3-b24a-5f2bb2f077d7" CreationDate="2016-01-29T01:22:46.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692880530740633600" />
  <row Id="27227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11755" RevisionGUID="a4c10f98-a059-41a4-8ef7-9061e57bfd81" CreationDate="2016-01-29T02:40:55.803" UserId="194" Text="They both come from the PIE root e̯es- &quot;is&quot;. Particularly, from zero-grade of it. Compare PIE ***e̯sntia̯*** &quot;being&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27228" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11575" RevisionGUID="c9e7e439-3f94-4a8b-b4b2-bb44bd95eb88" CreationDate="2016-01-29T04:22:45.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/692925827344908290" />
  <row Id="27229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11756" RevisionGUID="c5181417-01bd-4c1f-87df-9b04dfcd5f51" CreationDate="2016-01-29T04:38:29.297" UserId="3892" Text="I read the following passage: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я понимаю, но в русской традиции, если можно так выразиться, это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; событие **как раз-таки** имеет название - высадка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did they mean to write **это событие как раз так и имеет название**,  or is this an actual word? If so, what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11756" RevisionGUID="c5181417-01bd-4c1f-87df-9b04dfcd5f51" CreationDate="2016-01-29T04:38:29.297" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of как раз-таки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11756" RevisionGUID="c5181417-01bd-4c1f-87df-9b04dfcd5f51" CreationDate="2016-01-29T04:38:29.297" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11730" RevisionGUID="5141ad03-b891-400f-985a-870a70b0c627" CreationDate="2016-01-29T04:46:13.813" UserId="3892" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Зачем is about a purpose and почему is about circumstances&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you meet friend in shop and ask him why is he came there. And this dialogue is happened:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Зачем ты здесь / Why you are here?&#xD;&#xA;    - Купить молока / To buy a milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it can be that way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Почему ты здесь / Why you are here?&#xD;&#xA;	- У меня кончилось молоко / I ran out of milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is subtle and you can almost always replace one with the other without any problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11757" RevisionGUID="2abaaf5a-3e95-4bcc-a4f0-be80c021351f" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:28:50.710" UserId="5443" Text="This is a real colloquial expression of disagreement with something just said. It doesn't unfold into expression you've suggested. Most likely, the other person mentioned some exception (like 'this event happens to have no Russian word for it'), then their opponent uses &quot;**как раз(-таки)**&quot; to catch at their words, meaning that very exception *proves otherwise*, like it's a rare case where that event actually *has* a Russian word for it. The part &quot;**-таки**&quot; which gives an extra sense of &quot;**although one can think so**&quot;, is optional here and maybe a bit informal for written language. It is more typical as a part of &quot;**всё-таки**&quot; (still, despite smth.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11758" RevisionGUID="2a1f883d-f89c-486e-8752-966360319252" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:50:04.373" UserId="134" Text="_Как раз_ and _-таки_ are emphatic particles, similar to emphatic &quot;do&quot; in English, but slightly differing in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил хлеба / I bought some bread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я-таки купил хлеба / I did buy some bread (after having failed to do this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как раз я купил хлеба / I did buy some bread (unlike someone else)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So _-таки_ is a slight misuse here, it is just used to give more stress to the argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand, but the Russian tradition, if I may say so, does have a name for this event: высадка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11758" RevisionGUID="a34cc82f-a795-4986-b3b2-5c31eb5395a4" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:31:04.017" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="_Как раз_ and _-таки_ are emphatic particles, similar to emphatic &quot;do&quot; in English, but slightly differing in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил хлеба / I bought some bread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я-таки купил хлеба / I did buy some bread (after having failed to do this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я-то как раз купил хлеба / I did buy some bread (unlike someone else)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So _-таки_ is a slight misuse here, it is just used to give more stress to the argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I understand, but the Russian tradition, if I may say so, does have a name for this event: высадка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11759" RevisionGUID="293dc84a-777b-436f-88a2-9bce95a331f9" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:35:44.880" UserId="5477" Text="From duolingo.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A TRICKY ASPECT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You may have spotted so far that the examples have all been the one-directional versions of 'go' and that they are all past or future. Well, here's where it may get confusing. When they have a prefix attached, the one- and two- directional versions of 'go' convey aspect rather than 'directionality'. This probably makes more sense with an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я перехожу мост - I am crossing the bridge/I cross the bridge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я перейду мост - I will cross the bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read [this][1] and other answers already, but I am quite uncertain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How would one differentiate then between e. g.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Tomorrow I will go to Dima and I will cross this bridge.* and &#xD;&#xA;- *Next month I start to go to school and en route I will cross this bridge.***?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**By context and signal words?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does it mean somehow there is no directionality for prefixed words in present and future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8595/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11759" RevisionGUID="293dc84a-777b-436f-88a2-9bce95a331f9" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:35:44.880" UserId="5477" Text="Directionality of prefixed verbs of motion in present and future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11759" RevisionGUID="293dc84a-777b-436f-88a2-9bce95a331f9" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:35:44.880" UserId="5477" Text="|глаголы|глаголы-движения|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11760" RevisionGUID="ba179d9a-74a0-4495-b2d2-ef08208d0708" CreationDate="2016-01-29T09:03:31.937" UserId="6635" Text="Not sure what your question is, but first will be translated as: &quot;Завтра я пойду к Диме и перейду этот мост&quot; and second one as: &quot;В следующем месяце я начну ходить в школу и по дороге **буду** переходить этот мост&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11761" RevisionGUID="4e5fb396-debf-4268-a159-2e8edc407cca" CreationDate="2016-01-29T10:37:03.690" UserId="170" Text="This question has already been asked [here][1], but it lacks some authoritative sources there. I once stumbled upon a source saying that in case with a territory it is correct to say &quot;на&quot; (&quot;на Руси&quot;, &quot;на Кубани&quot;, &quot;на Урале&quot;), and in case with a separate state, it is correct to say &quot;в&quot; (&quot;в Японии&quot;, &quot;в Ираке&quot;, &quot;в России&quot;, &quot;в Италии&quot;) with some exceptions of some island states when saying &quot;на&quot; can also be okay (&quot;на Кипре&quot;, &quot;на Ямайке&quot;, &quot;на Мальте&quot;). I can't find that source now, but I suspect that it was written long before this war in Ukraine, and even long before Ukraine became a separate state. And it looks like saying &quot;на Украине&quot;, though quite against the above-mentioned rule, still seems to be okay - as a kind of exception to the rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone cite an authoritative source specifically addressing this case of &quot;на Украине vs. в Украине&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7978/why-do-some-say-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5-and-others-%D0%B2-%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5-and-what-is-correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11761" RevisionGUID="4e5fb396-debf-4268-a159-2e8edc407cca" CreationDate="2016-01-29T10:37:03.690" UserId="170" Text="&quot;На Украине&quot; or &quot;В Украине&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11761" RevisionGUID="4e5fb396-debf-4268-a159-2e8edc407cca" CreationDate="2016-01-29T10:37:03.690" UserId="170" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27243" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11761" RevisionGUID="8e5b321d-e9c3-4a12-a69c-8fe9e2319459" CreationDate="2016-01-29T10:56:06.880" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7978],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11756" RevisionGUID="045e5da9-356b-47d5-9924-3328c780ae1c" CreationDate="2016-01-29T13:28:23.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/693063138971881472" />
  <row Id="27245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11760" RevisionGUID="7893422e-f19a-4ef5-a4e6-31e50c0fca9c" CreationDate="2016-01-29T13:38:19.020" UserId="6635" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Not sure what your question is, but first will be translated as: &quot;Завтра я пойду к Диме и перейду этот мост&quot; and second one as: &quot;В следующем месяце я начну ходить в школу и по дороге **буду** переходить этот мост&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw &quot;Завтра я пойду к Диме и перейду этот мост&quot; - sounds quite hmm... bizarre." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11762" RevisionGUID="0a87ae72-f6d2-4652-a004-93d77b70b0ba" CreationDate="2016-01-29T14:55:08.157" UserId="5008" Text="Russian verbs are not to be divided into &quot;prefixed&quot; and &quot;unprefixed&quot;, but rather into perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Переходить_ is imperfective, which means it has &quot;normal&quot; present tense: _Я перехожу мост_ = _I cross / I am crossing the bridge_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _Перейти_ is perfective, which effectively means that corresponding action is thought to be finished at some moment. Thus _Я перейду мост_ translates into future tense _I will cross the bridge_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that in English &quot;_I will cross the bridge_&quot; may mean different things, because it's an _indefinite_ tense. You may think either &quot;Tomorrow I will cross that bridge, and then I will go to some other place&quot; or &quot;I will cross that bridge once in a day from now on&quot; etc. In Russian you have to use different verbs, as there's no such thing like &quot;indefinite&quot; tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point is: in Russian you must think of &quot;perfective / imperfective&quot; actions first, and of past/present/future afterwards. All &quot;continuous tense&quot; belongs to imperfective; all &quot;perfect tense&quot; belongs to perfective; &quot;simple tense&quot; is 50/50 depending on what you really mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your examples the first one is certainly perfective (you're going to have some action be done once), and the second one is imperfective (you're going to repeat some action many times). This is what makes the difference. You need no additional signal words in Russian, as you have to choose the proper verb to say what you want to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11762" RevisionGUID="007cb129-7be7-411d-849e-d9804f5fb982" CreationDate="2016-01-29T15:00:25.317" UserId="5008" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="Russian verbs are not to be divided into &quot;prefixed&quot; and &quot;unprefixed&quot;, but rather into perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Переходить_ is imperfective, which means it has &quot;normal&quot; present tense: _Я перехожу мост_ = _I cross / I am crossing the bridge_. (But it has both past and future tense too: &quot;_Я переходил_&quot; and &quot;_Я буду переходить_&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But _Перейти_ is perfective, which effectively means that corresponding action is thought to be finished at some moment. Thus _Я перейду мост_ translates into future tense _I will cross the bridge_. (It also has past tense &quot;_Я перешёл_&quot;, but no present tense at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that in English &quot;_I will cross the bridge_&quot; may mean different things, because it's an _indefinite_ tense. You may think either &quot;Tomorrow I will cross that bridge, and then I will go to some other place&quot; or &quot;I will cross that bridge once in a day from now on&quot; etc. In Russian you have to use different verbs, as there's no such thing like &quot;indefinite&quot; tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the point is: in Russian you must think of &quot;perfective / imperfective&quot; actions first, and of past/present/future afterwards. All &quot;continuous tense&quot; belongs to imperfective; all &quot;perfect tense&quot; belongs to perfective; &quot;simple tense&quot; is 50/50 depending on what you really mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your examples the first one is certainly perfective (you're going to have some action be done once), and the second one is imperfective (you're going to repeat some action many times). This is what makes the difference. You need no additional signal words in Russian, as you have to choose the proper verb to say what you want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Я пойду_ / _Я перейду_ vs. _Я начну (буду) ходить_ / _Я буду переходить_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11763" RevisionGUID="12c5736b-a08d-4663-a672-8311ccc14400" CreationDate="2016-01-29T20:34:10.960" UserId="3892" Text="I believe what Duolingo is trying to tell you, not very effectively, is that unprefixed verbs of motion have two imperfectives: (1) the so-called **iterative** (2) and the **multidirectional**. Aside from these, there is also a perfective with prefixed **по**-. So in the case of *going* (on foot), these would be **идти** *impf*, **ходить** *impf*, and **пойти** *perf*, respectively.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once a prefix is added, the verbs of motion go back to being like all other verbs - one perfective form: **перейти**, and one imperfective form: **переходить**, responding to the same aspectual dictates of any other verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27249" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="caf98b14-a888-40aa-8696-bee6b89c5b0d" CreationDate="2016-01-30T13:38:08.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/693427980769628161" />
  <row Id="27250" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11630" RevisionGUID="4b343ebe-3a83-49eb-8f2a-d767cba5f9b9" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:41:18.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/693474074723520512" />
  <row Id="27251" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1698" RevisionGUID="1e5835b7-6416-40e9-be34-75cd3a435e75" CreationDate="2016-01-30T22:41:17.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/693564666430230529" />
  <row Id="27253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11600" RevisionGUID="65db2aa2-eea5-4391-9987-22f498e588b8" CreationDate="2016-01-31T10:33:02.640" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The first-patronymic-last is the most common form. The last-first-patronymic is something that is used some formal cases like official lists (for instance of awarded persons, or deceased in accident etc.), like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К награждению представляются: Иванов  Никита Петрович, Павлова Анна Александровна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, last-first-patronymic  in articles dedicated to the person, like in &#xD;&#xA;[Пушкин, Александр Сергеевич][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this form, let's consider it being more formal one has as shortened form, when patronymic is ommited. Say in school one can hear something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Список учеников, у которых остались задолженности: Мандрыка Оксана, Ковалёв Никита. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11765" RevisionGUID="56e87baa-cdcb-462b-bce8-a4be20846d05" CreationDate="2016-01-31T20:37:43.840" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to decode: &quot;Нас встречают&quot; with a slovar (book) and through   various machines but it result into something that does not make sense. Would it perhaps mean something like &quot;we are waited&quot; or they are &quot;waiting for us&quot; since the verb встречать is involved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11765" RevisionGUID="56e87baa-cdcb-462b-bce8-a4be20846d05" CreationDate="2016-01-31T20:37:43.840" UserId="6603" Text="What does: &quot;Нас встречают&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11765" RevisionGUID="56e87baa-cdcb-462b-bce8-a4be20846d05" CreationDate="2016-01-31T20:37:43.840" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11767" RevisionGUID="98aa80ec-8eca-48dd-a02a-edf5164871ae" CreationDate="2016-01-31T21:27:27.193" UserId="97" Text="The exact translation would depend on the context.  Assuming you're talking about arrivals (e.g. to a station, airport, etc.) and somebody waiting for the arriving paraty, it could be something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Someone's waiting for us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you edit your question with more details on the context, I'll update my answer accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11768" RevisionGUID="0cabfdd2-3ec8-4eb1-95b3-57ab5dca4d0d" CreationDate="2016-01-31T21:29:29.090" UserId="134" Text="Assuming you're still on your railroad journey book, this means &quot;someone's meeting us&quot; or &quot;someone's picking us up&quot; (at the airport or a train station)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11769" RevisionGUID="6923c19c-3695-4e42-bf22-4c49e13c2570" CreationDate="2016-01-31T22:07:58.537" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about a Gerund: &quot;Заметив&quot; and how you as russian speakers would translate it in this context. It is derived from the verb: &quot;заметить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Example: ***Заметив*** как из другого вагона выходит брюнетка с мальчиком школьного возраста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11769" RevisionGUID="6923c19c-3695-4e42-bf22-4c49e13c2570" CreationDate="2016-01-31T22:07:58.537" UserId="6603" Text="Gerund present: &quot;Заметив&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11769" RevisionGUID="6923c19c-3695-4e42-bf22-4c49e13c2570" CreationDate="2016-01-31T22:07:58.537" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11770" RevisionGUID="3cebeda5-8167-4ddf-bc9d-32718ca4cc1f" CreationDate="2016-01-31T22:13:38.963" UserId="97" Text="You could translate it as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Noticing** a brunette with a boy of school age leaving another car...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if the action described is in the past, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Having noticed** a brunette with a boy of school age leaving another car..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11771" RevisionGUID="77a280c5-a180-48d3-9538-ad1dba158f8e" CreationDate="2016-01-31T23:52:09.143" UserId="6603" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&quot;вот вы где&quot; is a an expression that does not exist in my slovar and when I split it up it does not make sense. I have also run it through the machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give you some context. The guests arrive but the man that was to meet them thought they were in a different car and then doubles back finds them and opens with greeting them with a &quot;hi&quot; and: &quot;вот вы где&quot;. Would this expression correspond to: &quot;here you are&quot; or perhaps &quot;welcome&quot; in a way? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11771" RevisionGUID="77a280c5-a180-48d3-9538-ad1dba158f8e" CreationDate="2016-01-31T23:52:09.143" UserId="6603" Text="Question about &quot;вот вы где&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11771" RevisionGUID="77a280c5-a180-48d3-9538-ad1dba158f8e" CreationDate="2016-01-31T23:52:09.143" UserId="6603" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11772" RevisionGUID="4a422a04-085f-4c3b-924f-98341d9efe57" CreationDate="2016-02-01T04:27:56.997" UserId="3892" Text="This simply means &quot;*There* you are!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually **вот** can be used quite productively with interrogative words to form such expressions of eureka:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так **вот почему** он не унаследовал семейный бизнес.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *that's* why he didn't inherit the family business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Значит, **вот куда** вы убежали?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This* is where you ran to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хорошо, **вот как** мы поступим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alright, *this* is how it's going to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вот когда** неплохо иметь собаку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*That's* when it would be nice to have a dog." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11773" RevisionGUID="0431b9f6-61ff-4f0b-949c-a7bb4a340935" CreationDate="2016-02-01T04:44:00.370" UserId="3892" Text="I'm pretty comfortable with the use of aspects in conjugated verbs. However, the choice of aspect for infinitives still gives me trouble. I recently read the following snippet, in which twice the act of *paying fines* is referred to in the exact context both times, however one is perfective and one is imperfective. Assuming this is correctly written, what is the logic behind the choice of aspect in each case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы выехали рано утром и через несколько часов обнаружили что водитель&#xD;&#xA;&gt; забыл его водительское удостоверение. В поездке он **вынужден был&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заплатить** два штрафа. В конце нашего пути мы поняли, что пересекли&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пограничную зону и каждый из нас **вынужден был платить** штраф." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11773" RevisionGUID="0431b9f6-61ff-4f0b-949c-a7bb4a340935" CreationDate="2016-02-01T04:44:00.370" UserId="3892" Text="Choice of aspect for infinitives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11773" RevisionGUID="0431b9f6-61ff-4f0b-949c-a7bb4a340935" CreationDate="2016-02-01T04:44:00.370" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11774" RevisionGUID="56b0b79c-512d-4d34-95ca-42c6e9840a8a" CreationDate="2016-02-01T05:04:46.393" UserId="6696" Text="In the prepositional case, a phrase &quot;about it&quot;, is usually translated as &quot;об этом&quot;. Is &quot;этом&quot; in this phrase, a declension from demonstrative pronoun &quot;этот&quot; ? And if that's so, why there is no noun after a demonstrative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11774" RevisionGUID="56b0b79c-512d-4d34-95ca-42c6e9840a8a" CreationDate="2016-02-01T05:04:46.393" UserId="6696" Text="Why do we use &quot;об этом&quot; for 'about it&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11774" RevisionGUID="56b0b79c-512d-4d34-95ca-42c6e9840a8a" CreationDate="2016-02-01T05:04:46.393" UserId="6696" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11775" RevisionGUID="30f3fa49-8bb9-4f6c-b6e4-b2fa5719e50f" CreationDate="2016-02-01T07:14:12.077" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;&quot;about it&quot;, is usually translated as &quot;об этом&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could also be _про это_. There's even a poem [Про это](http://www.ilibrary.ru/text/2392/p.1/index.html) by Mayakovskij.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;why there is no noun after a demonstrative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because _Это_ may also be used **in place of a noun**. Sort of _This_ or _That_. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Это_ кажется мне странным. --&gt; _It_ seems strange to me.  &#xD;&#xA;Что Вы _под этим_ подразумеваете? --&gt; What do you mean by _that_?  &#xD;&#xA;Что _это_ такое? --&gt; What is _this_?  &#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11776" RevisionGUID="80f0b209-9f0b-4a91-9e54-28bf560f7c85" CreationDate="2016-02-01T08:22:01.543" UserId="5008" Text="Leaving aside the ugliness of this excerpt, the choice of perfective/imperfective is sometimes absolutely free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the first occurence, the speaker says about what **already** happened, while they were riding. Thus he/she **must** use perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the second occurence he/she has a free choice. The difference is really subtle. By choosing perfective one shows again that it's all finished already. Yet by choosing imperfective one gives a slight feeling of &quot;presence&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it into other words, if you would have translated the first sentence into English, you **couldn't** use the continouos tense (you may be _paying twice_, but not _paying two fines_ in different places/times etc.). Thus you **couldn't** use imperfective here. But in the second sentence there's no such restriction. I know, everyone would go with simple tense here too, but technically you **might** choose free. In Russian there's no such thing as &quot;indefinite&quot; tense, so you _have to_ choose one of two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your problem probably lies in the observation that the speaker uses _different_ verb types in the consequent sentences. But it's not the fault on itself. They belong to different setups, so one may mix them, just like English speaker mixes perfect/continouos/simple tenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11777" RevisionGUID="4307a62c-2cd4-4a2d-a073-d20760bc2905" CreationDate="2016-02-01T16:25:40.100" UserId="6698" Text="Мои знакомые из забугорья,носители языка, как-то пошутили так. Закончили мою фразу и захихикали. Я не поняла, в чем прикол и попросила объяснить. Они сказали,что соль в том,что девушки как бы меньше пошлят и меньше думают о сексе,чем мужчины,поэтому когда произносится двусмысленная фраза, говорят именно &quot;that's what SHE said&quot;. А еще из сериала &quot;Scrubs&quot; ( Клиника) я поняла,что в англоговорящих странах это уже бородатая и несмешная шутейка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И по-моему, лучший перевод-это &quot;Если вы понимаете,о чем я&quot; с пошленькой интонацией. Ну или на крайняк &quot;теперь это так называется?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11778" RevisionGUID="acd611a3-eec4-4944-b44c-b83623f355f0" CreationDate="2016-02-01T16:45:07.583" UserId="6667" Text="Предлагаю еще один вариант не буквального перевода, но в каком-то смысле похожий: &quot;Заметьте, не я это сказал&quot; или же &quot;Заметьте, не я это предложил&quot;. Правда в этом случае акцент смещен с девушки на отвечающего мужчину но суть похожа." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11779" RevisionGUID="92e7375f-7a45-498a-b727-0cf42082f1d6" CreationDate="2016-02-01T17:29:38.653" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Мы выехали рано утром и через несколько часов обнаружили что водитель забыл его водительское удостоверение. В поездке он вынужден был заплатить два штрафа. В конце нашего пути мы поняли, что пересекли пограничную зону и каждый из нас вынужден был платить штраф.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am afraid it's a bad translation from English. Your second sentence should sound as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;каждый из нас вынужден будет платить/заплатить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence refers to a completed action so a perfective infinitive should be used.It means &quot;He had to pay and he did it.&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence refers to an expected obligation where the choice of the form платить/заплатить doesn't influence the general meaning " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11780" RevisionGUID="0525cd7c-aaa4-4945-aa9b-d7bb7d34fe74" CreationDate="2016-02-01T17:54:44.293" UserId="6699" Text="I actually wrote [a big blog post about this][1] a while ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simplify the matters for &quot;и&quot;, it is a coordinative conjunction. You'd use it to put together two parts of a sentence which are of equal grammatical strength. It just links one with the other. The English equivalent would be “and”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Éве стáло скýчно и онá откры́ла Youtube. (Eva got bored and she opened a Youtube tab.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contexts for &quot;a&quot; are numerous, but can be narrowed down to three:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Comparison**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) revealing or stressing the difference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Все засмея́лись, а я не пóнял, что бы́ло смешнóго в том, что я сказáл. (Everybody laughed, but I didn’t get what was so funny in what I had just said.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) revealing or stressing the likeness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`На дворé стоя́л декáбрь, а за окнóм крýпными хлóпьями пáдал снéг. (It was December, and it was snowing heavily.)` Here both parts of the sentence add up to a harmonious picture. Here, “a” is easily interchangeable with “и”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) stating the facts, often stressing neither difference nor likeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`У неё мать фи́нка, а оте́ц га́нец. (Her mother is Finnish, her father is from Ghana.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Connection, the “conjoint a”** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) describing a picture, or a course of events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напро́тив на́шего до́ма раски́нулся тени́стый пáрк, а за пáрком разлило́сь ди́вное о́зеро. (Right across from our building there is a wooded area, behind it there lies a picturesque lake.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) describing a turn of events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Послы́шался стук в дверь. Открыва́ю, а там сосе́д по ле́стничной площа́дке. (Knocking at the door. I opt to answer — there stands my neighbor from across the hall.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Deviation from the norm, “a of unusual consequence”**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ле́то в Ки́руне необы́чное: на часа́х два но́чи, а на у́лице светло́ как днём. (Summers in Kiruna are quite unusual: the clock says 2 am, but the sun is shining as if it were noon.)`  The emotional connotation here is surprise (at the weather).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[My humble blog about Russian as a foreign language][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bitsofrussian.com/conjunction-a/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bitsofrussian.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11780" RevisionGUID="ca8ded53-d1b2-4836-92ca-0b2c530ec87a" CreationDate="2016-02-01T18:04:36.877" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 96 characters in body" Text="I actually wrote [a big blog post about this][1] a while ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simplify the matters for &quot;и&quot;, it is a coordinative conjunction. You'd use it to put together two parts of a sentence which are of equal grammatical strength. It just links one with the other. The English equivalent would be “and”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Éве стáло скýчно и онá откры́ла Youtube. (Eva got bored and she opened a Youtube tab.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contexts for &quot;a&quot; are numerous, but can be narrowed down to three:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Comparison**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) revealing or stressing the difference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Все засмея́лись, а я не пóнял, что бы́ло смешнóго в том, что я сказáл. (Everybody laughed, but I didn’t get what was so funny in what I had just said.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) revealing or stressing the likeness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`На дворé стоя́л декáбрь, а за окнóм крýпными хлóпьями пáдал снéг. (It was December, and it was snowing heavily.)` Here both parts of the sentence add up to a harmonious picture. Here, “a” is easily interchangeable with “и”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) stating the facts, often stressing neither difference nor likeness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`У неё мать фи́нка, а оте́ц га́нец. (Her mother is Finnish, her father is from Ghana.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Connection, the “conjoint a”** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) describing a picture, or a course of events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Напро́тив на́шего до́ма раски́нулся тени́стый пáрк, а за пáрком разлило́сь ди́вное о́зеро. (Right across from our building there is a wooded area, behind it there lies a picturesque lake.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) describing a turn of events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Послы́шался стук в дверь. Открыва́ю, а там сосе́д по ле́стничной площа́дке. (Knocking at the door. I opt to answer — there stands my neighbor from across the hall.)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Deviation from the norm, “a of unusual consequence”**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ле́то в Ки́руне необы́чное: на часа́х два но́чи, а на у́лице светло́ как днём. (Summers in Kiruna are quite unusual: the clock says 2 am, but the sun is shining as if it were noon.)`  The emotional connotation here is surprise (at the weather).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bitsofrussian.com/conjunction-a/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27287" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7234" RevisionGUID="5929f043-ea5e-4660-b06d-ebc970f71aea" CreationDate="2016-02-01T18:09:56.770" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11781" RevisionGUID="1df71790-559f-4aee-91c9-69d54ca3c9a6" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:20:37.103" UserId="5405" Text="Недавно в статье наткнулся на такое высказывание Джилберта Доктороу (Gilbert Doctorow):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русская версия текста занимает 26 страниц мелким шрифтом. Ею я и пользовался, потому что предпочитаю иметь дело с источником и переводить самостоятельно, если могу. Английский текст занимает 40 страниц, что нормально для перевода с русского. (The Russian version takes up 26 tightly spaced printed pages. This is what I have used, since I prefer to go to the source and do my own translations when I have the option. The English version probably takes 40 pages, given the normal expansion from Russian to English in the translation process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько справедливо подобное высказывание? Мне показалось, что подобное соотношение объёма оригинального и переводного текста странным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11781" RevisionGUID="1df71790-559f-4aee-91c9-69d54ca3c9a6" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:20:37.103" UserId="5405" Text="Соотношение объёма русского и английского текста" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11781" RevisionGUID="1df71790-559f-4aee-91c9-69d54ca3c9a6" CreationDate="2016-02-01T20:20:37.103" UserId="5405" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11782" RevisionGUID="c9919168-d2aa-4f57-8d7b-c3ec20530d6c" CreationDate="2016-02-01T21:08:03.400" UserId="242" Text="Я работал переводчиком какое-то довольно непродолжительное время, но тем не менее - из моего опыта русский текст длиннее, в среднем в раза где-то 1.2-1.3. Уверен, что профессиональный переводчик может дать более точную оценку этого коэффициента, но какой бы они ни был - он совершенно точно больше единицы. Русские слова в целом длиннее. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11781" RevisionGUID="43c0fbdc-c04d-4f30-a1bf-008c572b1e78" CreationDate="2016-02-01T22:48:42.680" UserId="2079" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Недавно в статье наткнулся на такое высказывание Джилберта Доктороу (Gilbert Doctorow):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русская версия текста занимает 26 страниц мелким шрифтом. Ею я и пользовался, потому что предпочитаю иметь дело с источником и переводить самостоятельно, если могу. Английский текст занимает 40 страниц, что нормально для перевода с русского. (The Russian version takes up 26 tightly spaced printed pages. This is what I have used, since I prefer to go to the source and do my own translations when I have the option. The English version probably takes 40 pages, given the normal expansion from Russian to English in the translation process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько справедливо подобное высказывание? Мне подобное соотношение объёма оригинального и переводного текста показалось странным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11782" RevisionGUID="82f440a1-753a-4a4c-bdb6-c8e292d1bda4" CreationDate="2016-02-02T00:48:39.730" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Я работал переводчиком какое-то довольно непродолжительное время, но тем не менее - из моего опыта русский текст длиннее, в среднем в раза где-то 1.2-1.3. Уверен, что профессиональный переводчик может дать более точную оценку этого коэффициента, но какой бы они ни был - он совершенно точно больше единицы. Русские слова в в среднем длиннее. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11783" RevisionGUID="29952455-d01b-4d32-a726-6ee74f2169c0" CreationDate="2016-02-02T06:16:28.503" UserId="5008" Text="Я бы сказал, что при переводе текст вообще &quot;разбухает&quot;, неважно, переводят ли с русского на английский, или же наоборот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И дело тут не в длине отдельных слов (английские слова в среднем действительно несколько короче, а если учитывать только слоги - поэтический перевод - то и _намного_ короче), что на самом деле компенсируется наличием артиклей и избытком предлогов, а, скорее, необходимостью постоянно &quot;дообъяснять&quot; переведенное. Переводчик вынужден &quot;копировать&quot; не только смысл, но и сам ход рассуждений автора, его &quot;логику&quot;, а подыскивать для этого достаточно лаконичные параллели в другом языке, не сбиваясь на длиннющие придаточные предложения, может быть весьма непросто. Так что хотя в идеале перевод должен быть примерно той же длины, что и оригинал, но в реальности перевод оказывается почти всегда длиннее. В особенности это справедливо для &quot;технического&quot; перевода, когда переводчик не слишком заинтересован в сохранении ритмики и метафоричности исходного текста, а просто &quot;пересказывает&quot;, что там написано, идя по пути наименьшего сопротивления." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11782" RevisionGUID="0ce13bfc-5d55-4ce8-b392-5be9754a14b6" CreationDate="2016-02-02T07:40:16.713" UserId="242" Comment="added 791 characters in body" Text="Я работал переводчиком какое-то довольно непродолжительное время, но тем не менее - из моего опыта русский текст длиннее, в среднем в раза где-то 1.2-1.3. Уверен, что профессиональный переводчик может дать более точную оценку этого коэффициента, но какой бы они ни был - он совершенно точно больше единицы. Русские слова в в среднем длиннее. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:**&#xD;&#xA;Let's come up with more precise data. According to Wolfram's [alpha][1] search engine, the average English word is of length 5.1 characters. This is base on average of several different text bases, including Britannica and Wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking of Russian I've seen some different estimates that varied pretty noticeably (from [~5.28][2] to [~9.97][3]), I guess it heavily depends on text corpora used for collecting statistics. Also, one should keep in mind that beside the average length of word we should take into account the average length of sentence which also could be different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average%20english%20word%20length&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lingvisto.org/artikoloj/ru_stat.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ravi.io/language-word-lengths" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11784" RevisionGUID="cdbc7abc-b9bf-4b3f-9da4-1a9b55525568" CreationDate="2016-02-02T12:45:56.900" UserId="6588" Text="Я присутствовала на лекции С. Л. Николаева (доктор филологических наук, Институт славяноведения РАН), где после лекции был задан этот вопрос. Доктор Николаев ответил, что такой зависимости он не отметил. Перевод обычно длиннее оригинала, так как понятие, передаваемое одним словом в языке А, нередко переводится двумя словами в языке Б, чтобы избавиться от нежелательных оттенков смысла (значений (2), (3) и т. д. в словаре).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О существовании доказательных исследований на этот счёт не знаю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11785" RevisionGUID="f8e6afa5-73ec-450a-b92f-75e9ac9255a1" CreationDate="2016-02-02T13:03:59.137" UserId="5454" Text="Выводы, основанные на статистике переводов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечательно, что при переводе с английского на русский, длина текста вырастает на 9.11%, а при переводе в обратном направлении… снова вырастает, но всего на 1.39%. Это может говорить о том, что переводчики используют больше слов, чтобы не потерять и передать смысл текста правильно в ущерб лаконичности. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: статья [на Хабре][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но как учесть размер шрифта?  &#xD;&#xA;На лист А4 у меня влезло  &#xD;&#xA;52 строчки размера 12 пунктов,  &#xD;&#xA;62 строчки размера 10 пунктов,  &#xD;&#xA;69 строчек размера 9 пунктов,  &#xD;&#xA;77 строчек размера 8 пунктов.  &#xD;&#xA;Если «мелкий шрифт» имеет размер 8 пунктов, а английский перевод — 12 пунктов, то получаем (77/52)*26 = 38,5 страниц такого же текста, написанного крупным шрифтом вместо мелкого.  &#xD;&#xA;Тогда перевод добавляет полторы страницы к 38.5 страницам. Нормальное соотношение.&#xD;&#xA;Единственное, чего я не знаю — насколько принято в английском пользоваться размером 12 пунктов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://habrahabr.ru/company/alconost/blog/197146/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11785" RevisionGUID="fa00f83a-fe01-44c0-ae18-d4e73736edbd" CreationDate="2016-02-02T14:19:45.763" UserId="5454" Comment="added 748 characters in body" Text="Выводы, основанные на статистике переводов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечательно, что при переводе с английского на русский, длина текста вырастает на 9.11%, а при переводе в обратном направлении… снова вырастает, но всего на 1.39%. Это может говорить о том, что переводчики используют больше слов, чтобы не потерять и передать смысл текста правильно в ущерб лаконичности. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: статья [на Хабре][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но как учесть размер шрифта?  &#xD;&#xA;На лист А4 у меня влезло  &#xD;&#xA;52 строчки размера 12 пунктов,  &#xD;&#xA;62 строчки размера 10 пунктов,  &#xD;&#xA;69 строчек размера 9 пунктов,  &#xD;&#xA;77 строчек размера 8 пунктов.  &#xD;&#xA;Если «мелкий шрифт» имеет размер 8 пунктов, а английский перевод — 12 пунктов, то получаем (77/52)*26 = 38,5 страниц такого же текста, написанного крупным шрифтом вместо мелкого.  &#xD;&#xA;Тогда перевод добавляет полторы страницы к 38.5 страницам. Нормальное соотношение.&#xD;&#xA;Единственное, чего я не знаю — насколько принято в английском пользоваться размером 12 пунктов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Upd.** Вычисления, основанные на количестве строк на странице, учитывают только высоту букв. Но ведь при изменении размера шрифта изменяется и ширина букв, то есть на одну строку помещается больше текста!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальнейшие эксперименты показали:  &#xD;&#xA;Если взять 10 страниц, заполненных шрифтом 8 пунктов, и поменять размер шрифта на 10 пунктов, то они превращаются в 15 с половиной страниц (половина измерена на глаз :)).   &#xD;&#xA;В такой пропорции 26 страниц шрифтом в 8 пунктов превращается в (26/10)*15.5 = 40.3 (примерно) страниц, напечатанных шрифтом 10 пунктов.  &#xD;&#xA;То есть если «мелкий шрифт» имеет размер 8 пунктов, а английский перевод — 10 пунктов, то перевод имеет приблизительно такую же или чуть меньшую длину в буквах, чем оригинал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://habrahabr.ru/company/alconost/blog/197146/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7981" RevisionGUID="0991a759-e7d1-4be0-bcbf-31380b78664d" CreationDate="2016-02-02T17:31:52.943" UserId="4394" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="It's because the word &quot;Ukraine&quot; becomes from Russian &quot;Украина&quot; which means &quot;у края&quot; (the source word is &quot;край&quot; (eng. edge)) or &quot;окраина&quot; (eng.: &quot;closed to border&quot;). And in Russian language it is correct to say &quot;я живу на окраине&quot; and the same way for &quot;я живу на Украине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowadays Ukrainian government prefers to forget that Ukraine was a part of Russia and they say that &quot;Ukraine&quot; has another mistyficated root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So officialy, in Russia it is correct to say &quot;на Украине&quot;, but it is also okay if you say &quot;в Украине&quot;. But in Ukraine you have to say only &quot;в Украине&quot; for political reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11786" RevisionGUID="ccd000fa-6aac-416e-ab26-e7d821da600a" CreationDate="2016-02-02T19:07:30.773" UserId="5963" Text="Correct version in russian language is &quot;На Украине&quot;. &quot;В Украине&quot; is a &quot;political&quot; version for using just IN (or ON) Ukraine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27301" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7978" RevisionGUID="c84af67d-36cc-4447-afb5-6fc2b28341eb" CreationDate="2016-02-02T19:08:49.203" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11787" RevisionGUID="0edab304-f1a2-4d5c-a030-0dd7b5b1a5bf" CreationDate="2016-02-02T19:17:30.240" UserId="5963" Text="Despite of the previous answers I tell you that there is no difference at all. First of all the version &quot;заплатить&quot; is a little more euphonic in both cases. BUT second - you can use &quot;заплатить&quot; and &quot;платить&quot; in both cases, it does not matter. You can switch it just for not repeating the same word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11789" RevisionGUID="8c502133-5bb2-4dbd-968c-f00770033a2f" CreationDate="2016-02-03T00:25:35.717" UserId="6699" Text="&gt; Is &quot;этом&quot; in this phrase [about it, об этом], a declension from demonstrative pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;этот&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Это* is the demonstrative pronoun of neuter gender. *Этот* is the same pronoun, but of masculine gender, and *эта* is that of feminine gender. Sometimes the way the three are inflected for case is homonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`So what are we going to do about IT? Ну и что мы с этим будем делать?` (Instrumental case of *это*, neuter gender.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`So what are we going to do about HIM? Hу и что мы с этим будем делать?` (Instrumental case of *этот*, masculine gender.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same form, different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if that's so, why there is no noun after a demonstrative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in this case this demonstrative pronoun would be self-sufficient as the indirect object of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11790" RevisionGUID="e1f2c442-2d0e-4ba2-85d8-401f22b18469" CreationDate="2016-02-03T13:19:10.373" UserId="6709" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Which числительное have a ь at the end and which have in the middle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11790" RevisionGUID="e1f2c442-2d0e-4ba2-85d8-401f22b18469" CreationDate="2016-02-03T13:19:10.373" UserId="6709" Text="Question about числительное and ь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11790" RevisionGUID="e1f2c442-2d0e-4ba2-85d8-401f22b18469" CreationDate="2016-02-03T13:19:10.373" UserId="6709" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11793" RevisionGUID="1c2017a8-1e0e-411d-8f3c-f9334f08fb4c" CreationDate="2016-02-03T14:01:41.403" UserId="6097" Text="Many have an &quot;**ь**&quot; in the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5 - пять  &#xD;&#xA;    6 - шесть &#xD;&#xA;    7 - семь &#xD;&#xA;    20 - двадцать&#xD;&#xA;    30 - тридцать&#xD;&#xA;    и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And many have a &quot;**ь**&quot; in the middle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    50 - пятьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    60 - шестьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    70 - семьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    80 - восемьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    500 - пятьсот&#xD;&#xA;    600 - шестьсот&#xD;&#xA;    и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11790" RevisionGUID="b547050e-da5c-4ff8-9796-c758d415546a" CreationDate="2016-02-03T14:07:32.390" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Which numerals have a ь at the end and which have in the middle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27315" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11790" RevisionGUID="b547050e-da5c-4ff8-9796-c758d415546a" CreationDate="2016-02-03T14:07:32.390" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Numerals with ь at the end" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11795" RevisionGUID="9d9bad6f-ce7c-4efc-bd1f-2f49ea27aaca" CreationDate="2016-02-03T16:29:48.120" UserId="6699" Text="Let me jump in with some extracurricular findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In speech, some people would palatalize the sound /т/ and you'll have a /т'/ gravitating towards /ц/ at the end of these numerals:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `50 - пятьдесят &#xD;&#xA;60 - шестьдесят &#xD;&#xA;70 - семьдесят &#xD;&#xA;80 - восемьдесят &#xD;&#xA;500 - пятьсот &#xD;&#xA;600 - шестьсот &#xD;&#xA;и т.д.`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phenomenon doesn't affect the spelling, but you'd hear the palatalization, which may be confusing. Keeping this in mind may be of use when working on a transcript. Say, /пятьдесять/ pops up in someone's speech, and you're in two minds about how to spell it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, according to [this source][1], they used to spell these numerals with &quot;ь&quot; at the end in the 17th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.se/books?id=6nJgAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA23&amp;lpg=PA23&amp;dq=%22%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fWwFzGsAUx&amp;sig=F0-Wu07IRXwxy0kwDjqOjB7m-nc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwixubOv-NvKAhXEqXIKHbtiD9Q4ChDoAQgsMAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%22&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11787" RevisionGUID="c105959b-b813-4382-bd7e-0d1e8f6face2" CreationDate="2016-02-03T18:05:03.177" UserId="5963" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Despite of the previous answers I tell you that there is no difference at all. First of all the version &quot;заплатить&quot; is a little more euphonic in both cases. BUT second - you can use &quot;заплатить&quot; and &quot;платить&quot; in both cases, it does not matter. You can switch it just for not repeating the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD I mean - just in this case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11781" RevisionGUID="148f33e7-52e6-4bf2-8744-8904bde6e821" CreationDate="2016-02-03T21:13:19.817" UserId="115" Comment="spelling" Text="Недавно в статье наткнулся на такое высказывание Гилберта Доктороу (Gilbert Doctorow):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русская версия текста занимает 26 страниц мелким шрифтом. Ею я и пользовался, потому что предпочитаю иметь дело с источником и переводить самостоятельно, если могу. Английский текст занимает 40 страниц, что нормально для перевода с русского. (The Russian version takes up 26 tightly spaced printed pages. This is what I have used, since I prefer to go to the source and do my own translations when I have the option. The English version probably takes 40 pages, given the normal expansion from Russian to English in the translation process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько справедливо подобное высказывание? Мне подобное соотношение объёма оригинального и переводного текста показалось странным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11796" RevisionGUID="ad816f4a-aebc-4df9-a060-336376fe95c6" CreationDate="2016-02-04T00:48:38.877" UserId="4714" Text="So, does anyone want to attempt an explanation as to why **класть—положить** are a pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that textbooks often state that there are pairs that are &quot;just&quot;, for no good reason different, e.g., **говорить—сказать/ брать—взять.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you look at the history of the words, than it's not actually true what the authors say. In fact, **сказывать** is the old imperfective of сказать and **взимать** is the old imperfective of взять. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: what pair-shift happened that caused класть—положить? I know that ложить exists (at least colloquially), and кладывать seems to exist on wikislovar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, help!))) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11796" RevisionGUID="ad816f4a-aebc-4df9-a060-336376fe95c6" CreationDate="2016-02-04T00:48:38.877" UserId="4714" Text="класть, ложить, положить—weird perfective and imperfective pairs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11796" RevisionGUID="ad816f4a-aebc-4df9-a060-336376fe95c6" CreationDate="2016-02-04T00:48:38.877" UserId="4714" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27329" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11773" RevisionGUID="833edbba-a248-4483-8eb4-bc5b876896c4" CreationDate="2016-02-04T04:55:14.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/695108325793488896" />
  <row Id="27330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11797" RevisionGUID="3b6ea354-1a0a-4f29-81f3-d6633d5438b6" CreationDate="2016-02-04T06:14:04.450" UserId="6588" Text="Most widely known language mistakes among native speakers are &quot;ложить&quot; and &quot;зво́нит&quot; (instead of &quot;звони́т&quot;). For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут ударила мне кровь в голову.&#xD;&#xA;— Ложи, — говорю, — взад!&#xD;&#xA;А она испужалась. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассказ Зощенко &quot;Аристократка&quot; (1923). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this classic text, saying &quot;ложи́&quot; immidiately indicates education level of the speaker. As far as I know, there is no exact reason for word &quot;ложить&quot; become that inacceptable in imperfect form, but it is possible that &quot;Аристократка&quot; publication and popularity is a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;накласть&quot; instead of &quot;положить&quot; does not exist &quot;oficially&quot;, though it could be used, usually referring to the process of defecation. &quot;Он пришёл торговать, наклал на прилавок вещей&quot; - implies that the stuff does not have any value. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27331" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11790" RevisionGUID="a9eb8759-8d8d-4683-9f3f-2061969ba431" CreationDate="2016-02-04T06:51:19.177" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|грамматика|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11798" RevisionGUID="9cb7f49e-06f8-4a16-8ada-52c1a8e11350" CreationDate="2016-02-04T08:03:49.263" UserId="5008" Text="Originally these verbs were different. &quot;_Класть_&quot; meant &quot;to put **inside**&quot; (cf. _Клад_), while &quot;_Ложить_&quot; meant &quot;to lay **on the surface**&quot; (cf. _Ложе_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowadays this difference is completely lost, and we have what we have now: _класть_ is imperfective, and prefixed form _положить_ is perfective. You shouldn't say _покласть_ or _ложить_ anymore. That's it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11798" RevisionGUID="13911cbc-c870-470a-bde4-7722c906ae62" CreationDate="2016-02-04T08:11:26.617" UserId="5008" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Originally these verbs were different (not sure, whether it was in Old Russian, or in proto-Slavic). &quot;_Класть_&quot; meant &quot;to put **inside**&quot; (cf. _Клад_), while &quot;_Ложить_&quot; meant &quot;to lay **on the surface**&quot; (cf. _Ложе_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nowadays this difference is completely lost, and we have _класть_ as imperfective, and prefixed forms, such as _положить_ as perfective. You shouldn't say _покласть_ or _ложить_ anymore. That's it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11800" RevisionGUID="391231cd-1b5a-47c9-a511-aa8536b54dd3" CreationDate="2016-02-05T17:59:35.783" UserId="6721" Text="Which numerals have a 'ь' at the end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    5 - пять&#xD;&#xA;    6 - шесть&#xD;&#xA;    7 - семь&#xD;&#xA;    8 - восемь&#xD;&#xA;    9 - девять&#xD;&#xA;    10 - десять&#xD;&#xA;    11 - одиннадцать&#xD;&#xA;    12 - двенадцать&#xD;&#xA;    13 - тринадцать&#xD;&#xA;    14 - четырнадцать&#xD;&#xA;    15 - пятнадцать&#xD;&#xA;    16 - шестнадцать&#xD;&#xA;    17 - семнадцать&#xD;&#xA;    18 - восемнадцать&#xD;&#xA;    19 - девятнадцать&#xD;&#xA;    20 - двадцать&#xD;&#xA;    30 - тридцать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which numerals have a 'ь' in the middle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    50 - пятьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    60 - шестьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    70 - семьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    80 - восемьдесят&#xD;&#xA;    500 - пятьсот&#xD;&#xA;    600 - шестьсот&#xD;&#xA;    700 - семьсот&#xD;&#xA;    800 - восемьсот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About pronunciation:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers 11-30 (which I have written) ends with т' if pronounced slowly and т' with approach to ц' in fluent speech.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11801" RevisionGUID="2e7576ad-9da3-403c-be79-97960600a559" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:23:37.107" UserId="6722" Text="The following lyrics are taken from &quot;Диалог у телевизора&quot;. My understanding is that the woman talking to Вань wants him to buy her this shirt that she saw; so, **сваргань** would be referring to this shirt. This word **сваргань** seems to be related to the verb сварганить, which in my dictionary translates &quot;to botch,bungle&quot;. So my question is, does **сваргань** mean something that is botched or hastily made? Also, is this word used in &quot;everyday&quot; Russian; if so, can you give an example on how you as a Russian speaker would use **сваргань**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Ой! Вань! Гляди-кось, попугайчики!&#xD;&#xA;Нет, я, ей-богу, закричу!..&#xD;&#xA;А это кто в короткой маечке?&#xD;&#xA;Я, Вань, такую же хочу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В конце квартала — правда, Вань, —&#xD;&#xA;Ты мне такую же **сваргань**...&#xD;&#xA;Ну что &quot;отстань&quot;, всегда &quot;отстань&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;Обидно, Вань!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11801" RevisionGUID="2e7576ad-9da3-403c-be79-97960600a559" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:23:37.107" UserId="6722" Text="How to translate сваргань from song &quot;Диалог у телевизора&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11801" RevisionGUID="2e7576ad-9da3-403c-be79-97960600a559" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:23:37.107" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11802" RevisionGUID="82510722-57a1-4c8e-b71d-3cc7204c7901" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:33:28.627" UserId="6724" Text="I'm doing a research report on Rostov Veliky for a Geography class. I have no experience in Russian and I lack understanding of geography in general. The map refers to it as Poctov and I can not translate it into English using google, I tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only guess but is this the Russian word for Rostov, why wouldn't it use Russian characters? If not please explain what it is. If it is, please let me know if Russians would call Rostov Veliky, Poctob Veliky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, very confused here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11802" RevisionGUID="82510722-57a1-4c8e-b71d-3cc7204c7901" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:33:28.627" UserId="6724" Text="What does Poctob mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11802" RevisionGUID="82510722-57a1-4c8e-b71d-3cc7204c7901" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:33:28.627" UserId="6724" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11804" RevisionGUID="ca277df3-71cc-41e2-a657-14e821a9442b" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:38:57.843" UserId="1236" Text="**Poctob** is the Russian word **Ростов**, 'Rostov' written in the English letters that look closest to the Russian ones. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11805" RevisionGUID="5cd7df9d-e9d6-4c13-95e6-bda456afc41f" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:41:35.363" UserId="6721" Text="It is slang for cook or bake. You can refer to it as свари. It have similar meaning but more slangy maybe a little more rude. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11805" RevisionGUID="9b0994f5-a0ac-49f6-af6a-d3ea685ee61a" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:46:43.067" UserId="6721" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="1. It is slang for cook or bake. You can refer to it as свари. It have similar meaning but more slangy maybe a little bit rude. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. The translation you need is here. The other meaning is get or make it possible for me to have it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She wants t-short or something. And asks him for the same one at the end of the quarter (extra salary usually)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11805" RevisionGUID="7029e984-49c7-4195-bdef-75f4a132bcdb" CreationDate="2016-02-05T18:52:47.523" UserId="6721" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="1. It is slang for cook or bake. You can refer to it as свари. It have similar meaning but more slangy maybe a little bit rude. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. The translation you need is here. The other meaning is get, make it possible to happen or create something.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She wants t-short or something. And asks him for the same one at the end of the quarter (extra salary usually). So she asks him to сварганить (in form сваргань). The meaning is to buy t-short from extra money at the end of the quarter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11806" RevisionGUID="4c451c1c-7bfd-4a4b-ba7b-f36d276c5e1a" CreationDate="2016-02-05T19:11:10.493" UserId="6539" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова Сварганить по Ефремовой:&#xD;&#xA;Сварганить - Сделать что-л. наскоро или кое-как. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова Сварганить по словарю Ушакова:&#xD;&#xA;СВАРГАНИТЬ &#xD;&#xA;сварганю, сварганишь (простореч.). Сов. к варганить. По осени надо беспременно свадьбу сварганить. Мельников-Печерский. Уху на бережку сварганим. Мельников-Печерский. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова Сварганить по словарю Даля:&#xD;&#xA;Сварганить &#xD;&#xA;что, смастерить налегке, неумеючи, или как ни попало, наскоро, плохо, свалять; | кур. соврать для шутки, смеху. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11807" RevisionGUID="79832d64-01cf-42be-9337-485d465b0d75" CreationDate="2016-02-05T22:35:08.330" UserId="6494" Text="The translation you found for сварганить is OK, although I like another, given in comments, even more - &quot;slap together&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for specific form сваргань - no, it is not a noun. You were probably confused by similarly ending nouns like гармонь. But  сваргань is an imperative - &quot;go slap together&quot; (like достать - достань). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11802" RevisionGUID="76d74f45-da32-4a1f-ae32-7044a6c2b57b" CreationDate="2016-02-05T22:48:41.807" UserId="6724" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="I'm doing a research report on Rostov Veliky for a Geography class. I have no experience in Russian and I lack understanding of geography in general. The map refers to it as Poctov and I can not translate it into English using google, I tried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only guess but is this the Russian word for Rostov, why wouldn't it use Russian characters? If not please explain what it is. If it is, please let me know if Russians would call Rostov Veliky, Poctob Veliky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here it is: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rostov,+Yaroslavl+Oblast,+Russia/@57.1968466,39.3805101,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46b3204f23a50833:0xa4f3079f91ac13e0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, very confused here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="9bf44b57-a034-4ee0-ae90-502714dd693b" CreationDate="2016-02-05T23:20:27.767" UserId="1829" Text="There are some nouns that take the ending *-у* (locative) instead of *-е* (prepositional) after the prepositions *в, на*, like *год, лес, сад*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there any such noun which does not end on a consonant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="9bf44b57-a034-4ee0-ae90-502714dd693b" CreationDate="2016-02-05T23:20:27.767" UserId="1829" Text="Is there a locative for words not ending on consonant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="9bf44b57-a034-4ee0-ae90-502714dd693b" CreationDate="2016-02-05T23:20:27.767" UserId="1829" Text="|падежи|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="a1d2116b-6e51-451d-944f-d70858d1a9c6" CreationDate="2016-02-06T09:57:07.523" UserId="6699" Text="There's a bunch of nouns in neuter gender ending in *-о* in the nominative case, if that's what you mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сел**о**, settlement (в сел**е**, in the settlement)&#xD;&#xA;дел**о**, business (в дел**е**, in business; на деле, in practice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some nouns ending in *-й*, take the ending *-ю* (technically speaking, a yodded *-у*) in the prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кра**й**, brink (на кра**ю**, at the brink)&#xD;&#xA;ра**й**, paradise (в ра**ю**, in paradise)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="60f19a96-ef87-43d2-b66e-6466b9a68bf0" CreationDate="2016-02-06T10:02:38.407" UserId="6699" Comment="improved formatting (added paragraphs)" Text="There's a bunch of nouns in neuter gender ending in *-о* in the nominative case, if that's what you mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сел**о**, settlement (в сел**е**, in the settlement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дел**о**, business (в дел**е**, in business; на деле, in practice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some nouns ending in *-й*, take the ending *-ю* (technically speaking, a yodded *-у*) in the prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кра**й**, brink (на кра**ю**, at the brink)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ра**й**, paradise (в ра**ю**, in paradise)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11810" RevisionGUID="856b947d-0432-4c47-9aa1-0d5d13f94f48" CreationDate="2016-02-06T11:38:11.207" UserId="6699" Text="How about **родные просторы** (set phrase) for **motherworld**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Простор* here would stand for 'vast area', or 'vast region'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plural form, *просторы*, would lend a poetic air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And *родной* would cover for the 'mother' part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="565bf3d0-717b-465b-9d0c-cf0a724a73a5" CreationDate="2016-02-06T16:43:07.030" UserId="6699" Comment="added details" Text="There's a bunch of nouns in neuter gender ending in *-о* in the nominative case, if that's what you mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сел**о**, settlement (в сел**е**, in the settlement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дел**о**, business (в дел**е**, in business; на дел**е**, in practice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some nouns ending in *-й*, take the ending *-ю* (technically speaking, the yodded *-у*) in the prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кра**й**, brink (на кра**ю**, at the brink)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ра**й**, paradise (в ра**ю**, in paradise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Upd.** In [this source][1] you can find some additional info on the locative and the prepositional cases in contemporary Russian. There are more examples there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11811" RevisionGUID="d6d8ebe4-e87c-40dd-8353-b1b6eb7a7607" CreationDate="2016-02-06T22:24:23.617" UserId="6725" Text="If &quot;root&quot; in your question means &quot;something similar in etymology and/or meaning&quot;, then yes, words &quot;существо&quot; and &quot;присутствовать&quot; have the same root. In general, the meaning of this root is somehow connected with notions &quot;being&quot;, &quot;existence&quot;, &quot;reality&quot; or &quot;essence&quot;. Here are some other words with this root:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In old Russian the verb &quot;быть&quot; (&quot;to be&quot;) in third person plural present form looked like &quot;суть&quot;, i.e. &quot;они суть&quot; meaned &quot;they are&quot;. In modern Russian, we use &quot;они есть&quot; instead, but sometimes the old form is still used, usually to make one's speech sound artificially &quot;old-fashioned&quot;, poetic or extravagant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The word &quot;существовать&quot; means &quot;to exist&quot;, &quot;существование&quot; - &quot;existence&quot;. From here, there are two words that mean, in fact, &quot;something that **exists**&quot;: &quot;сущность&quot; can be translated as &quot;entity&quot;, and &quot;существо&quot; is &quot;creature&quot; (i.e. animated entity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The word &quot;суть&quot; (as a noun, not a verb!) means &quot;essence&quot;, &quot;core&quot; or &quot;root&quot;, the most fundamental or important part of something. Also, &quot;сущность&quot; and &quot;существо&quot; can have the same meaning as &quot;суть&quot;. For example, &quot;суть дела&quot; or &quot;сущность вопроса&quot; - &quot;root of a matter&quot;; &quot;говорить по существу&quot; - &quot;speak to the point&quot;. The adjective &quot;существенный&quot; means &quot;essential&quot;, &quot;important&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. You probably know the word &quot;существительное&quot; (&quot;a noun&quot;). It has the same root and can be explained like &quot;part of speech, that stands for some **entity**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. You know the word &quot;присутствовать&quot;, i.e. &quot;**to be** at certain place or event&quot;. It has an antonym &quot;отсутствовать&quot; - to be abcent, missing, or not exist at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. The world &quot;сущий&quot; originally means &quot;real&quot;, &quot;existing&quot;, but now it is mostly used in emphatic constructions in meaning &quot;real&quot;, &quot;complete&quot; or &quot;absolute&quot;. For instance, &quot;сущий кошмар&quot; - &quot;complete nightmare&quot;, &quot;сущий пустяк&quot; - &quot;mere trifle&quot; (literally, &quot;absolutely empty thing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. The word &quot;осуществлять&quot; means &quot;to realize&quot;, &quot;to bring into effect&quot; (about plans, dreams, activities, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope, these examples will be useful for you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11812" RevisionGUID="9877b6db-0175-4e63-8205-4707f66fc545" CreationDate="2016-02-07T06:20:52.990" UserId="6354" Text="Looks like these are synonyms that mean *change*, *alteration*. Is there any difference in usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11812" RevisionGUID="9877b6db-0175-4e63-8205-4707f66fc545" CreationDate="2016-02-07T06:20:52.990" UserId="6354" Text="изменение versus перемена" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11812" RevisionGUID="9877b6db-0175-4e63-8205-4707f66fc545" CreationDate="2016-02-07T06:20:52.990" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11813" RevisionGUID="01cd0304-1f27-4005-9243-773dc6932146" CreationDate="2016-02-07T07:12:35.610" UserId="5008" Text="Word _перемена_ has a few different meanings (cf. _change_ as money, not related to any _alteration_, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides generic &quot;_change_&quot;, _перемена_ may also mean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Set of dishes_ (i.e. _course_)  &#xD;&#xA;_Set of clothes / underware_  &#xD;&#xA;_A break in a school_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise these words are mostly the same, except people tend to use _изменение / измениться_ if talking of _slight changes_, and _перемена / перемениться_ as _big changes_. But that's not really a must." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11814" RevisionGUID="5f3fba41-7037-41fb-b7da-f4f076890f83" CreationDate="2016-02-07T07:28:48.080" UserId="6725" Text="In most cases, these two words are interchangeable (when used in meaning &quot;change, alteration&quot;). &quot;Изменение&quot; is more universal and common, so if you have doubts, use &quot;изменение&quot;. The difference between these two words is rather small, but it exists. I'll try to explain it according to my personal experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Перемена&quot; sounds stronger, &quot;bigger&quot;. For &quot;great changes&quot; both words are OK, but for &quot;minor changes&quot; you are likely to use &quot;изменения&quot;, not &quot;перемены&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Изменение&quot; tends to be more concentrated on process of changing, while &quot;перемена&quot; - on result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11814" RevisionGUID="97914c5a-4b70-40cc-9838-81ac1dec6575" CreationDate="2016-02-07T07:35:15.140" UserId="6725" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="In most cases, these two words are interchangeable (when used in meaning &quot;change, alteration&quot;). &quot;Изменение&quot; is more universal and common, so if you have doubts, use &quot;изменение&quot;. The difference between these two words is rather small, but it exists. I'll try to explain it according to my personal experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Перемена&quot; sounds stronger, &quot;bigger&quot;. For &quot;great changes&quot; both words are OK, but for &quot;minor changes&quot; you are likely to use &quot;изменения&quot;, not &quot;перемены&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Изменение&quot; tends to be more concentrated on process of changing, while &quot;перемена&quot; - on result. For example, &quot;watch the temperature changes&quot; - &quot;наблюдать за изменениями температуры&quot;, not &quot;переменами&quot;. But &quot;strive for changes&quot; - &quot;добиваться перемен&quot; or &quot;добиваться изменений&quot;, both variants are possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="86b5cb0e-62c0-4843-93e1-d8812cd0d5d0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T09:35:17.210" UserId="6726" Text="Собственно, меня интересует, возможно ли в следующем примере убрать двоеточие или нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все говорят: &lt;&lt;Выходите по одному с поднятыми руками, вы окружены&gt;&gt;, а ты купи слона." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="86b5cb0e-62c0-4843-93e1-d8812cd0d5d0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T09:35:17.210" UserId="6726" Text="Как правильно оформлять цитаты в прямой речи?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="86b5cb0e-62c0-4843-93e1-d8812cd0d5d0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T09:35:17.210" UserId="6726" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="460b12fe-0595-401c-9821-0aba6dbc2519" CreationDate="2016-02-07T10:14:08.223" UserId="3680" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Собственно, меня интересует, возможно ли в следующем примере убрать двоеточие или нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все говорят: &amp;laquo;Выходите по одному с поднятыми руками, вы окружены&amp;raquo;, а ты купи слона." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11816" RevisionGUID="84977b71-6279-4289-af0a-8c69a9f03dbb" CreationDate="2016-02-07T12:42:34.327" UserId="6699" Text="Возможно § 143 [вот в этом источнике][1] говорит о подобном случае цитирования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цитата, включенная в авторское предложение на правах его компонента,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выделяется кавычками (но начинается со строчной буквы), знаки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; препинания употребляются только те, которые диктуются самим авторским&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложением: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мысль Л. Н. Толстого «время есть отношение движения своей жизни к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; движению других существ», высказанная в его дневниках, имеет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; философское содержание.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда в вашем случае пунктуация будет такая:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Все говорят «выходите по одному с поднятыми руками, вы окружены», а ты купи слона.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://orthographia.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="1f9b1e85-f03b-4cb4-bf03-097dc36510a0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T14:42:07.077" UserId="6354" Text="These words have many overlapping definitions, making it difficult to understand proper contextual usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example definitions: **trip**, **voyage**, **journey**, **excursion**, **travel**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When is it appropriate to use *путешествие*, *экскурсия*, *поездка*, *рейс*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="1f9b1e85-f03b-4cb4-bf03-097dc36510a0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T14:42:07.077" UserId="6354" Text="Difference between путешествие, экскурсия, поездка, рейс" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="1f9b1e85-f03b-4cb4-bf03-097dc36510a0" CreationDate="2016-02-07T14:42:07.077" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11814" RevisionGUID="5f8eb9e1-6d43-47f9-bf9d-24ab64e2d20f" CreationDate="2016-02-07T16:51:27.387" UserId="6725" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="In most cases, these two words are interchangeable (when used in meaning &quot;change, alteration&quot;). &quot;Изменение&quot; is more universal and common, so if you have doubts, use &quot;изменение&quot;. The difference between these two words is rather small, but it exists. I'll try to explain it according to my personal experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Перемена&quot; sounds stronger, &quot;bigger&quot;. For &quot;great changes&quot; both words are OK, but for &quot;minor changes&quot; you are likely to use &quot;изменения&quot;, not &quot;перемены&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Изменение&quot; tends to be more concentrated on process of changing, while &quot;перемена&quot; - on result. For example, &quot;watch the temperature changes&quot; - &quot;наблюдать за изменениями температуры&quot;, not &quot;переменами&quot;. But &quot;strive for changes&quot; - &quot;добиваться перемен&quot; or &quot;добиваться изменений&quot;, both variants are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To summarize, &quot;перемена&quot; is closer to &quot;revolution&quot;, while &quot;изменение&quot; - to &quot;evolution (which sometimes includes revolutions, as well)&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11818" RevisionGUID="9ce160a3-1fa7-4be9-a068-86d2606a5f36" CreationDate="2016-02-07T17:32:08.647" UserId="6725" Text="1. &quot;Путешествие&quot; is used when someone goes far away from home (at least to another city... or, say, to another galaxy) and for a long time (at least for several days). One can go on foot or use any transport. In English it corresponds to &quot;travel&quot;, &quot;journey&quot; or &quot;voyage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Поездка&quot; is usually shorter, than &quot;путешествие&quot; (can last less than one day). Distance may be quite short, too (but not necessarily). But this word is derived from the verb &quot;ездить&quot; (&quot;to go by transport&quot;), that's why transport is necessary. If one goes on foot - it is not &quot;поездка&quot;, but &quot;поход&quot; (derived from &quot;ходить&quot;(to walk)). In English &quot;поездка&quot; is &quot;trip&quot; or &quot;tour&quot;, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Экскурсия&quot; is a trip which includes visiting some places of interest, usually for a group of people provided with a guide, who shows them the places of interest an tells some related stories. In English, it is &quot;excursion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Рейс&quot; is about transport, which follows some regular route at determined time. In English, it is &quot;voyage&quot; or, in case of planes, &quot;flight&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11820" RevisionGUID="8fa3394c-6180-4893-b640-03801d12b8b9" CreationDate="2016-02-08T03:45:26.937" UserId="5596" Text="In the following sentences, would *после* translate into English as *since*, or *after*? How can one tell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В Пентагоне эти самолеты называют лучшими после F-22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stern также очень лестно отозвался о достоинствах Су-35,&#xD;&#xA;    назвав его лучшим истребителем после американского F-22.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11820" RevisionGUID="8fa3394c-6180-4893-b640-03801d12b8b9" CreationDate="2016-02-08T03:45:26.937" UserId="5596" Text="после: after vs since" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11820" RevisionGUID="8fa3394c-6180-4893-b640-03801d12b8b9" CreationDate="2016-02-08T03:45:26.937" UserId="5596" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11821" RevisionGUID="59a2fcad-4ceb-4d10-9e6f-214dfc0fb896" CreationDate="2016-02-08T04:17:08.587" UserId="4560" Text="After.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since&quot; would be **со времён** + genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11822" RevisionGUID="d8c2d2dc-19e2-4126-b3dc-fbcef68cb64e" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:17:20.843" UserId="6588" Text="In this sample, &quot;после&quot; is probably short form of &quot;после того, как был представлен&quot;. However, it's not absolutely clear without full context, &quot;лучший после&quot; might also refer to a second place in competition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that &quot;после&quot; should be translated as &quot;since&quot;, because Google says that Су-35 is ten years newer than F-22." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11823" RevisionGUID="13bc8d27-9581-451a-89be-7f38481fb686" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:19:35.700" UserId="6727" Text="Hastily made / lubberly / self-made.&#xD;&#xA;It is vernacular, somewhat old-timer and intimate, used within a family. Absolutely not appropriate for business, scientific or journalistic genre. Not common among teenagers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11824" RevisionGUID="433a9480-04c2-4f1c-a724-e31eec021270" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:24:01.903" UserId="6539" Text="http://gizmodo.com/b-2-spirit-americas-best-airplane-since-the-sr-71-1601310730&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После is used in this meaning and should be translated as since. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11825" RevisionGUID="3285151f-23eb-46c2-96d1-fc1d9d2f48d2" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:34:03.900" UserId="6728" Text="English speakers' pronounce is closer to Ы when saying such words as vIsion, to lIve, clIck, etc., but native Russian Ы sound is more dull and wide.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, Russian clear pronounce of И is rarely heard in English speech, in such words as Even, lEAve, nEAt, snEAk, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11820" RevisionGUID="ad932bd7-a594-45b4-98c6-80aefb88e2b7" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:34:31.893" UserId="5596" Comment="Added link to the full article for context" Text="In the following sentences, would *после* translate into English as *since*, or *after*? How can one tell?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В Пентагоне эти самолеты называют лучшими после F-22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Stern также очень лестно отозвался о достоинствах Су-35,&#xD;&#xA;    назвав его лучшим истребителем после американского F-22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Edit: For context, here's the [source article][1] over at bbc.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.com//russian/international/2016/02/160202_russian_warplanes_syria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11826" RevisionGUID="bc0a70ab-4686-4ae2-9b71-571e9f499006" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:39:08.847" UserId="6729" Text="The second &quot;one&quot; can be translated by any suitable pronoun depending on translation of the first.&#xD;&#xA;Examples: 1. Не поступай с другими так, как не хочешь, чтобы поступали с ТОБОЙ.&#xD;&#xA;2. Не делай другим то, чего не желаешь СЕБЕ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11827" RevisionGUID="0e27e9dc-b7c5-468b-a6ba-fac6b14c719c" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:41:45.630" UserId="6730" Text="Must be Marina.&#xD;&#xA;Was it Marina?&#xD;&#xA;Marina, perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;No way! Marina?&#xD;&#xA;Whom? Marina?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11828" RevisionGUID="1a60dbee-ad7b-49f2-ba54-5abb1219631b" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:47:23.863" UserId="6731" Text="Sounds well in Russian: - What time is it? - Six o'clock.&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a bit polished in Russian: - What time is it? - It is six o'clock now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But both variants are appropriate in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is: - Сколько времени? - Шесть часов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11829" RevisionGUID="b71aafa0-3ab1-4c7d-bde8-3c904d8a01c0" CreationDate="2016-02-08T06:52:11.157" UserId="6732" Text="Equal to Здесь вы есть, which is not used at all. So, Here you are is an answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11830" RevisionGUID="4309b3fb-e0bd-4b2d-a186-be3777c257aa" CreationDate="2016-02-08T07:03:10.033" UserId="6733" Text="Предки is not appropriate at all. It means ancestors. Предки is only used as a teenager slang for родители, trying to emphasize how far the youngsters are from them by culture.&#xD;&#xA;Деды (forefathers) is suitable for common language, but has a somewhat paternalistic and militaristic (дед is also used for armed forces bully) scent.&#xD;&#xA;Старики is not recommended. It has a strong pathetic bias. It is used primarily among relatives.&#xD;&#xA;The answer is прародители, which is only suitable for scientific genre, and sometimes for debates. Sounds awkward in common speech, as My second-degree parents will for sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11821" RevisionGUID="0ef60ee1-5983-4da9-a1d1-10df25643a41" CreationDate="2016-02-08T07:06:07.770" UserId="4560" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="After.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Since&quot; would be **со времён** + genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: V.V.'s link seems to strongly suggest it was &quot;since&quot; after all in the original English quote. If that's the case, I find **после** a questionable, if not downright sloppy, choice on the part of the Russian translator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11832" RevisionGUID="8d1d4748-aba9-42fd-87c1-92304bffb85b" CreationDate="2016-02-08T07:14:00.337" UserId="6735" Text="Ссориться also means to separate with your ex, to spoil relations.&#xD;&#xA;Мы с ней поссорились means We left each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спорить has a merely debate meaning, not anything else.&#xD;&#xA;But спорить на вещь is to have a bet on something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11833" RevisionGUID="72f8acd1-7a55-4cfa-bedb-7227780251ae" CreationDate="2016-02-08T07:24:41.160" UserId="6736" Text="Has a weak polite scent, translated as &quot;Come in&quot; in this particular case. But Проходите мимо will be Pass by, for sure. Also, can even be translated as Take your seats (Займите места).&#xD;&#xA;Depends on situation and voice intonation. Merely, it is used to tell a person to move where he is mostly expected to go. For example, if a fireman officer tells you Проходите, he really means Don't stop there! But if you tell your girlfriend Проходи kindly, then you definitely mean You are welcome, darling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11834" RevisionGUID="13e0938a-fd25-4ad0-9f6a-d398b6bf3d88" CreationDate="2016-02-08T07:29:50.943" UserId="6737" Text="После means &quot;Compared to&quot; particularly in this case.&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, this meaning is influenced by envision of 1st and 2nd place on sport podiums. 2nd place runner is slower после 1st place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11835" RevisionGUID="4f3b24be-3e31-4fd0-9196-d05208689f64" CreationDate="2016-02-08T07:52:47.730" UserId="6738" Text="Путешествие has a sense of global travelling. It usually implies visiting other countries or states, far from your sweet home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Экскурсия is a service of being informed about sightseeing places. Excursion is a casual activity, not prolonged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поездка is a diminutive word for naming common trips of lesser importance. Even a usual everyday ride on subway can be named поездка. Nevertheless, it so now common to say Моя поездка во Францию (My trip to France), for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рейс is a scheduled transfer of a vehicle, including planes and ships. Equals to &quot;flight&quot; when talking about tickets in airport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds okay:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я путешествовала по всей стране. Я была на экскурсии в Альпах. Моя поездка в Италию. У меня прямой рейс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I travelled the whole country. I had an excursion to Alps. My trip to Italy. I have direct flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds awkward:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я путешествовал по городу. Завтра я еду на экскурсию в Африку. Моя поездка на конференцию не удалась. Мой рейс во Францию не состоялся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I travelled the city. Tomorrow I'm going on excursion to Africa. My trip to conference failed. My flight to France was not accomplished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11836" RevisionGUID="9ae453c9-35ae-45af-8c77-a83db6d39e66" CreationDate="2016-02-08T09:08:49.707" UserId="6725" Text="Words &quot;прародители&quot; and &quot;праотцы&quot; are used for very far ancestors, from Adam and Eve to those who lived, say, a few centuries ago. They can be real or legendary, but anyway, it is unlikely that anyone among currently alive knew them personally. So, these terms are not appropriate for grandparents, who are separated from you by only 2 generations and are probably still alive, or died not so long time ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Предки&quot; is a general word for ancestors. It fits a bit better than &quot;праотцы&quot; or &quot;прародители&quot;, but still looks awkward, if you mean your Grandma and Grandpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Quassnoi, that for your example the best variant is &quot;деды&quot;. This word is widely used nowadays, for example, for participants of the World War II (as collective word for both men and women). It sounds paternalistic, yes, but I don't think it can really insult any women. Use it with stress on Е only, not Ы! With stress on Ы, it sounds like a part of militaristic slang, and is unacceptable in common and, furthermore, official use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11837" RevisionGUID="c2d33656-c7f0-460f-9400-fd10a4b3c3ab" CreationDate="2016-02-08T11:30:19.853" UserId="310" Text="&quot;Поездка&quot; might also mean &quot;bus ride&quot;, as in &quot;на моём проездном пять поездок&quot; when I have rides prepaid on my bus card." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11838" RevisionGUID="14f4add4-a075-4489-b152-cba98829385e" CreationDate="2016-02-08T12:50:37.183" UserId="134" Text="The original quote in German reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Obwohl die Sukhoi Su-35S auf einem alten Modell aus der UDSSR basiert, gilt sie als gefährlichstes Kampfflugzeug der Welt – wenn man vom US-Jet F-22 Raptor absieht&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I believe means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Despite being based on an older Soviel model, the SU-35s is considered the most threatening fighter aircraft in the world, except for United States' F-22 &quot;Raptor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think in this context *лучший после* means &quot;the second best after&quot;, not &quot;the best since&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27407" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11801" RevisionGUID="d0714c60-81eb-424c-84df-f328991d4cc9" CreationDate="2016-02-08T17:24:55.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/696746542603116544" />
  <row Id="27409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="e922235d-aa35-47a2-b989-6944afd5f2a9" CreationDate="2016-02-08T22:11:00.000" UserId="6699" Text="**Спорить** (people debate differing opinions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Спорю на 5 баксов, что выйдет по-моему.&quot; *5 bucks says it'll happen my way.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они спорят о мелочах. *They're splitting hairs.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О вкусах не спорят. *One man's meat is another man's poison.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ссориться** (people fight, feelings get hurt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вы что, поссорились?&quot; *Did you guys have a fight?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Давай больше не будем ссориться?&quot; *Let's not fight anymore?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11840" RevisionGUID="21fef893-6513-4ca1-8b70-f6da0c892010" CreationDate="2016-02-09T00:40:26.057" UserId="5201" Text="Is there an equivalent to the verb 'to multitask' or the act of 'multitasking' in Russian or possibly an English calque? I tried to think of other suitable English synonyms that could approximate 'multitask' and was unable to find a closer translation that doesn't read like a definition, such as 'делать два дела (/несколько дел) одновременно.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11840" RevisionGUID="21fef893-6513-4ca1-8b70-f6da0c892010" CreationDate="2016-02-09T00:40:26.057" UserId="5201" Text="How to Translate 'Multitask' or 'Multitasking?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11840" RevisionGUID="21fef893-6513-4ca1-8b70-f6da0c892010" CreationDate="2016-02-09T00:40:26.057" UserId="5201" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11842" RevisionGUID="838aa5e9-aab1-428f-b2e9-0f3f698b5c0e" CreationDate="2016-02-09T03:04:46.593" UserId="6539" Text="There are some special terms like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;multitask&#xD;&#xA;1) Общая лексика: многозадачный&#xD;&#xA;2) Вычислительная техника: работать в многозадачном режиме, работать со многими задачами&#xD;&#xA;3) Автоматика: многозадачная работа, многозадачный режим работы, многофункциональность, многофункциональный, многоцелевой, мультизадачная работа, мультизадачный, мультизадачный режим работы&#xD;&#xA;4) Авиационная медицина: относящийся к (одновременному) выполнению нескольких операторских задач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for everyday usage &quot;делать несколько дел сразу/одновременно &quot; is the best interpretation &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11843" RevisionGUID="fe7627e5-5eca-4700-91f8-487d05dd2bec" CreationDate="2016-02-09T05:18:10.413" UserId="6588" Text="In technical documentation, &quot;to multitask&quot; ≈ &quot;работать в многозадачном режиме&quot;. In everyday use, it's &quot;делать много дел сразу&quot;. There is no equivalent verb in Russian. We can understand English calque &quot;многозадачить&quot;, but it's not in the dictionary and sounds ugly. There is a programmer slang &quot;колбасить в много потоков&quot;, there &quot;колбасить&quot; is for &quot;to work fast&quot;, but I'm not sure it's not a Siberian region-specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translators often find it hard to translate some English verbs to Russian, because something simple may suddenly became complicated in Russian translation. In Russia, we call it &quot;English specific&quot;. We say that English is verb-based, which I believe is not really accurate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11844" RevisionGUID="c2516f45-6dfa-4c36-bae2-4f34e1df2518" CreationDate="2016-02-09T19:53:09.283" UserId="6745" Text="Когда люди **ссорятся** - у них обязательно портятся отношения друг с другом. (Участники ссоры могут при этом *спорить*, а могут и не спорить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relationship between people who **quarrel** always becomes worse. (They may or may not *argue* while doing that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда люди **спорят** - они имеют разные точки зрения относительно предмета спора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people argue - they discuss the subject while having different opinions on the subject. (They may or may not remain calm while doing that. When people *quarrel* they *never* remain calm.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11845" RevisionGUID="6eeb912e-9766-4681-9976-9f71176bec75" CreationDate="2016-02-09T21:12:09.393" UserId="6745" Text="There are no direct translations of these terms to Russsian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of only one occasion when this term was used - at a job interview I was asked: &quot;Насколько вы многозадачны?&quot; (How well you're able to multitask?), but it's not common Russian way of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering these terms, people in Russia tend to speak 'definition-like' - check out this article: http://www.happymozg.ru/news/57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11846" RevisionGUID="a8cc9393-9bbf-4ae1-9df7-c4b174cc2d57" CreationDate="2016-02-09T22:27:58.410" UserId="6746" Text="For example, if I wanted to say &quot;I'm really rusty at chess because I have not played it in a long time&quot;, how would I do so while sounding more or less casual? I could say something like &quot;Я совсем забыл как играть в шахматы&quot;, but that feels a bit unnatural and seems to imply that you've forgotten the rules of chess, rather than that you're simply out of practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is even harder to translate when talking about video games, for example &quot;My aim in CS:GO is terrible, I'm so out of practice&quot;. &quot;Я совсем забыл как целится в CS:GO, ведь я так долго не тренировался&quot; seems a bit convoluted, and I have no idea how to properly translate &quot;aim&quot; :/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11846" RevisionGUID="a8cc9393-9bbf-4ae1-9df7-c4b174cc2d57" CreationDate="2016-02-09T22:27:58.410" UserId="6746" Text="How would you translate &quot;I'm rusty&quot; (in relation to a skill) to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11846" RevisionGUID="a8cc9393-9bbf-4ae1-9df7-c4b174cc2d57" CreationDate="2016-02-09T22:27:58.410" UserId="6746" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11847" RevisionGUID="b240bf64-3535-4fe4-916e-66312f487497" CreationDate="2016-02-09T22:56:20.020" UserId="134" Text="*Забыл* (or *позабыл*) is perfectly OK when you are talking about &quot;really rusty&quot;. &quot;A little rusty&quot; would be *подзабыл*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я совсем позабыл, как играть в шахматы // I'm really rusty at chess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подзабыл, как играть в шахматы // I'm a little bit rusty at chess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can replace either word with *разучился*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я совсем разучился целиться в CS:GO&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Russian sentence allows the nominal construct, you can also use *хромает*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня математика хромает // I'm rusty at math" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11846" RevisionGUID="7518c2f1-75d6-4172-aa99-f5c5058245dc" CreationDate="2016-02-09T22:58:12.550" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="For example, if I wanted to say &quot;I'm really rusty at chess because I have not played it in a long time&quot;, how would I do so while sounding more or less casual? I could say something like &quot;Я совсем забыл, как играть в шахматы&quot;, but that feels a bit unnatural and seems to imply that you've forgotten the rules of chess, rather than that you're simply out of practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is even harder to translate when talking about video games, for example &quot;My aim in CS:GO is terrible, I'm so out of practice&quot;. &quot;Я совсем забыл, как целиться в CS:GO, ведь я так долго не тренировался&quot; seems a bit convoluted, and I have no idea how to properly translate &quot;aim&quot; :/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11848" RevisionGUID="b72a7918-dfee-45c5-9190-52c024134abf" CreationDate="2016-02-09T23:20:03.327" UserId="6745" Text="I'm really rusty at chess because I have not played it in a long time.  &#xD;&#xA;А навык игры в шахматы-то я подрастерял за все это время. (maybe a bit too casual, but cannot really think of anything else)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My aim in CS:GO is terrible, I'm so out of practice.  &#xD;&#xA;Я так плохо целюсь в CS:GO, совсем навык потерял. ('rustiness' is more severe than in chess example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я совсем забыл, как играть в шахматы.  &#xD;&#xA;Yes this means either &quot;I forgot the rules&quot; or &quot;I forgot all good strategies&quot;, so 'rustiness' is complete or very severe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11849" RevisionGUID="dd90f54c-d571-4d5e-aee3-5e3799c675ce" CreationDate="2016-02-10T03:27:29.777" UserId="6539" Text="There's an expression from Gogol's novel. You can use it when you start to do something which you didn't practice for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Давненько я не брал в руки шашек &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always use that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7983" RevisionGUID="ffa41b33-5ab5-4970-873e-961d840a8698" CreationDate="2016-02-10T11:56:20.600" UserId="3887" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="As others have pointed out, this has become politically loaded, I would say since the breakup of the USSR and Ukraine becoming an independent country. Here is a detailed and more or less unbiased analysis of the controversy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gn.org.ua/in_ua&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, both prepositions are technically correct, &quot;на&quot; being much more common at least in the 20th century and supported by the &quot;окраина&quot; etymology, &quot;в&quot; emphasizing a separate country and usually implying an alternative (very contrived) etymology. The definite article was dropped in English also for that reason (compare to The Netherlands).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Украине&quot; sounds jarring to my ear, but it is technically not wrong, there are examples of this usage from 19th century Russian classics. From that point of view it just sounds like an anachronism today. Ironically, possibly the most famous poem by the most fervently patriotic 19t-century Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko uses &quot;на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, use &quot;в Украине&quot; if you want to please Ukrainian patriots/nationalists or want to make a political statement, use &quot;на Украине&quot; if you want please the purists, or avoid the construct altogether if you want to be neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11850" RevisionGUID="297b8616-49c2-4986-bdfa-4ab291ad221a" CreationDate="2016-02-10T13:35:56.830" UserId="3595" Text="There used to be an old word from soviet times [многостаночник][1] which referred to a person who worked on several machines at the factory. Obviously, this will not apply to software, where there is a standard term [многозадачный][2].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11851" RevisionGUID="3b2f11f9-51b5-4a2a-9575-0f546858b4d3" CreationDate="2016-02-10T15:02:32.963" UserId="6752" Text="You can say `Потерял сноровку`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Сноровка` is [defined][1] as `Навык, умение в каком-н. деле` (Skill, mastery in particular activity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your case you can use it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потерял сноровку игры в шахматы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ozhegov.com/words/33367.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11846" RevisionGUID="ac50ef1f-988d-48e2-b345-23b3197bd84f" CreationDate="2016-02-10T20:34:30.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/697519030475866112" />
  <row Id="27430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="2ef7db37-a6c6-4729-8bc8-98846c91dcfd" CreationDate="2016-02-10T20:42:24.160" UserId="6699" Comment="clarified the meaning, added related resources or links" Text="1. Toponyms ending in a vowel take the ending *-у* when indicating location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Москв**а**, Moscow &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Куда мы едем?&quot; *Where are we going?*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Москв**у**.&quot; *To Moscow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Some nouns ending in *-й*, take the ending *-ю* (technically speaking, the yodded *-у*) when indicating location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. кра**й**, *brink*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на кра**ю**, *at the brink*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;There are different phonemic theories build around Russian; some of them consider the sound &quot;й&quot;, or / j /, the jod, to be a semivowel. See p.76 [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. According to [this source][1], in contemporary Russian...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the locative case has largely lost its use as an independent case and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; became the prepositional case, which is used only after a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The latter is not always used to indicate location, while other cases&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may also be used to specify location (e.g. the genitive case &lt;...&gt;).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more examples there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/1839/344_003.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="04b4a617-50d6-48d5-8aa1-bdd4263f3112" CreationDate="2016-02-10T20:57:52.707" UserId="6699" Comment="fixed a spelling error" Text="1. Toponyms ending in a vowel take the ending *-у* when indicating location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Москв**а**, Moscow &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Куда мы едем?&quot; *Where are we going?*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Москв**у**.&quot; *To Moscow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Some nouns ending in *-й*, take the ending *-ю* (technically speaking, the yodded *-у*) when indicating location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. кра**й**, *brink*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на кра**ю**, *at the brink*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;There are different phonemic theories built around Russian; some of them consider the sound &quot;й&quot;, or / j /, the jod, to be a semivowel. See p.76 [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. According to [this source][1], in contemporary Russian...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the locative case has largely lost its use as an independent case and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; became the prepositional case, which is used only after a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The latter is not always used to indicate location, while other cases&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may also be used to specify location (e.g. the genitive case &lt;...&gt;).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more examples there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/1839/344_003.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="4dfb5589-5784-48ff-a77e-c04e35243f29" CreationDate="2016-02-10T21:16:07.340" UserId="6699" Comment="deleted a point that was not relevant" Text="1. Some nouns ending in *-й*, take the ending *-ю* (technically speaking, the yodded *-у*) when indicating location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. кра**й**, *brink*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на кра**ю**, *at the brink*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;There are different phonemic theories built around Russian; some of them consider the sound &quot;й&quot;, or / j /, the jod, to be a semivowel. See p.76 [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. According to [this source][1], in contemporary Russian...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the locative case has largely lost its use as an independent case and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; became the prepositional case, which is used only after a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The latter is not always used to indicate location, while other cases&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may also be used to specify location (e.g. the genitive case &lt;...&gt;).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more examples there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/1839/344_003.pdf?sequence=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11852" RevisionGUID="b5fe1b01-769e-4825-9164-4bf9f0b3251e" CreationDate="2016-02-11T01:17:58.150" UserId="6759" Text="I was typing a poem containing the word котейка into Google Translate and I came across this translation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/keyXI.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Searching for котейка seems to suggest that the word means a cat or kitten. Searching for Mike Farley just gives a lot of people called Mike Farley. Does &quot;Mike Farley&quot; have a special significance in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11852" RevisionGUID="b5fe1b01-769e-4825-9164-4bf9f0b3251e" CreationDate="2016-02-11T01:17:58.150" UserId="6759" Text="Why does Google Translate translate котейка as &quot;Mike Farley&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11852" RevisionGUID="b5fe1b01-769e-4825-9164-4bf9f0b3251e" CreationDate="2016-02-11T01:17:58.150" UserId="6759" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11853" RevisionGUID="b97b121d-5a18-429f-ae9a-ea14edcde9bc" CreationDate="2016-02-11T04:13:20.990" UserDisplayName="user4820" Text="No, he doesn't (as far as I know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems like a result of misuse of &quot;Suggest an edit&quot; feature combined with erroneous assumptions of Google's algorithm, which maps words and phrases from one language to another based on texts it find on web.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another prominent example of the same phenomenon: [Google translated Russia to 'Mordor' in 'automated' error][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35251478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11854" RevisionGUID="14b17ed0-8bd8-4b45-8fbd-f04d05231241" CreationDate="2016-02-11T15:55:14.407" UserId="6766" Text="How do you say something like `That's child's play!` or `That's a piece of cake` in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11854" RevisionGUID="14b17ed0-8bd8-4b45-8fbd-f04d05231241" CreationDate="2016-02-11T15:55:14.407" UserId="6766" Text="How to say something is easy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11854" RevisionGUID="14b17ed0-8bd8-4b45-8fbd-f04d05231241" CreationDate="2016-02-11T15:55:14.407" UserId="6766" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="14fb974c-a5ba-46dd-9271-cb028276b86c" CreationDate="2016-02-11T16:03:10.283" UserId="6725" Text="You can say &quot;Это проще пареной репы!&quot;, literally &quot;It's easier, than steamed turnip!&quot;. Steamed turnip was a popular dish among Russian peasants, especially before introduction of potatoes into Russian cuisine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="aad80869-f7c6-4ac0-8ef8-d0424d0352a7" CreationDate="2016-02-11T16:09:29.687" UserId="6725" Comment="added 273 characters in body" Text="1. You can say &quot;Это проще пареной репы!&quot;, literally &quot;It's easier, than steamed turnip!&quot;. Steamed turnip was a popular dish among Russian peasants, especially before introduction of potatoes into Russian cuisine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Это проще простого.&quot; - &quot;It's easier than easy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Это просто, как дважды два!&quot; - &quot;It's easy, like two times two.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you want to be shorter and avoid using idioms, you can just say &quot;Это элементарно&quot;. This is the simpliest and the most common variant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="59ea1d37-69e0-4b2b-8fc3-85a43d787cee" CreationDate="2016-02-11T17:57:38.213" UserId="6725" Comment="added 900 characters in body" Text="Idiomatic variants, which can be used in both common speech and books, articles etc.: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You can say &quot;Это проще пареной репы!&quot;, literally &quot;It's easier, than steamed turnip!&quot;. Steamed turnip was a popular dish among Russian peasants, especially before introduction of potatoes into Russian cuisine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Это проще простого.&quot; - &quot;It's easier than easy.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Это просто, как дважды два!&quot; - &quot;It's easy, like two times two.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be short and avoid using idioms, you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Это элементарно&quot; - &quot;This is elementary&quot;. This is the simpliest, neutral and very common variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;Легкотня!&quot; (derived from adverb &quot;легкo&quot;, which in this case means &quot;easily&quot;). This variant is for informal use only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about simplicity of **actions** (but not notions, concepts etc.) in informal cases you can use the following expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. &quot;Раз плюнуть!&quot;, which means that performing this action is as easy as performing one spit. For example: &quot;Я ни за что не подниму такую тяжелую коробку, но для моего мужа это - раз плюнуть. Он и три таких запросто донесет!&quot; - &quot;I would never lift such a heavy box, but for my husband, it's a piece of cake. He can easily carry three times as much!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. &quot;Как нечего делать&quot;, literally &quot;Like nothing to do&quot;. &quot;Легкотня! Я за 5 минут управлюсь, как нечего делать.&quot; - &quot;That's child's play! I'll be done by 5 minutes, no sweat.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11856" RevisionGUID="9c64ab91-b011-4c67-b8b4-c9c8a06e434c" CreationDate="2016-02-11T19:53:35.510" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Запросто,нет проблем,ничего не стоит,проще не бывает,играючи,без вопросов,легохонько,лёгко   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I am sure there are more...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="9df3d392-bc0c-48a2-9a84-c50c1e2876bf" CreationDate="2016-02-12T12:28:34.003" UserId="6699" Text="In English there are &quot;classic&quot; knock-knock jokes (1) and question-answer jokes (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Knock knock!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Who's there?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Lego who?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego to the movies!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Where do astronauts hang out? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Spacebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there a similar phenomenon in Russian? If there is, what is the Russian &quot;classic joke&quot; concept? Some examples would be great. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="9df3d392-bc0c-48a2-9a84-c50c1e2876bf" CreationDate="2016-02-12T12:28:34.003" UserId="6699" Text="Is there a &quot;classic joke&quot; phenomenon in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="9df3d392-bc0c-48a2-9a84-c50c1e2876bf" CreationDate="2016-02-12T12:28:34.003" UserId="6699" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11858" RevisionGUID="67aef99e-f26e-4741-8a08-2f2500b41d13" CreationDate="2016-02-12T13:16:36.467" UserId="90" Text="I doubt there is such thing, but here you can find the list of the most popular anecdote topics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Анекдот#Распространённые темы русских анекдотов](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%82#.D0.A0.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.BD.D1.91.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BC.D1.8B_.D1.80.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8.D1.85_.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B5.D0.BA.D0.B4.D0.BE.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="c256fbb5-12cf-4e1e-bd88-aac29d60945c" CreationDate="2016-02-12T20:03:02.300" UserId="6699" Comment="added a link, and clarified some points" Text="In English there are &quot;classic&quot; [knock-knock jokes][1] (1) based on puns, and two-line question-answer jokes(2) with witty punchlines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Knock knock!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Who's there?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Lego who?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego to the movies!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Where do astronauts hang out? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Spacebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more varieties, of course, but I'm only interested in these two, as they both are concise and don't require a setting or a backstory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is there a similar phenomenon in Russian? If there is, what would the format for such jokes be? Some examples would be great. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-knock_joke" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27453" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11812" RevisionGUID="fcacdb6a-60b7-403e-a809-5952eef41088" CreationDate="2016-02-12T20:41:59.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/698245686622552065" />
  <row Id="27457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11861" RevisionGUID="ebb737f0-d0c0-43f3-bb81-8607de17c420" CreationDate="2016-02-13T08:01:39.827" UserId="6539" Text="I am not quite sure but the following jokes should correspond to the &quot;question -answer &quot;type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Ты высыпаешься по ночам?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Куда высыпаюсь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Сколько бы вы дали мне лет?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Вам своих мало?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– До меня не доходят смс!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Спокойно, прочтите еще раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Этот поезд куда следует? &#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Куда следует. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Это курица?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Нет, кушается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11862" RevisionGUID="cd524e6a-075a-48a2-8589-dce288940b43" CreationDate="2016-02-14T01:30:15.947" UserId="6776" Text="We have, I think, five prepositions that take or may take the prepositional case: в, на,  о, при, по. But which of these (appart from  в and на) take the locative in -ý when that form exists? And which don't?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11862" RevisionGUID="cd524e6a-075a-48a2-8589-dce288940b43" CreationDate="2016-02-14T01:30:15.947" UserId="6776" Text="Prepositional vs. locative case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11862" RevisionGUID="cd524e6a-075a-48a2-8589-dce288940b43" CreationDate="2016-02-14T01:30:15.947" UserId="6776" Text="|грамматика|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27462" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="1aed0850-1aca-4656-8dd2-01ae6498e3ed" CreationDate="2016-02-14T02:50:13.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/698700744237649920" />
  <row Id="27463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11863" RevisionGUID="1d97891a-c29b-4c29-9285-58556b099f20" CreationDate="2016-02-14T02:59:36.480" UserId="134" Text="_При_ can also govern the locative form, especially in poetic language, though this usage is quite archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Верстах в двух от него, возле неглубокого яра, при шляху, Григорий спешил казаков, расположил в ярке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ой, при лужку, при лужке…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the mix of the two cases in the song lyric above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that the form in _-у_ is used both in locative and prepositional for some nouns (_мост, полк, бок_ etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prepositional has quite a limited use with _по_ and can be replaced with dative in most cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="14394cb4-5717-4dc2-9fc2-b5af264dae6b" CreationDate="2016-02-14T15:42:04.490" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="Somehow popular is the genre of пирожки, in [iamb][1] but without rhyme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are several random (not interconnected) pirozhki from the internets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    олег на утреннике в школе&#xD;&#xA;    глядит на пляшущих детей&#xD;&#xA;    и понимает что для счастья&#xD;&#xA;    порой достаточно кота&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вчера я продал душу черту&#xD;&#xA;    причем по выгодной цене&#xD;&#xA;    но он заметил в ней дефекты&#xD;&#xA;    и по гарантии вернул&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я сзади подойду прикрою&#xD;&#xA;    ладонями твои глаза&#xD;&#xA;    и буду слушать грустно виктор&#xD;&#xA;    иван василий константин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    давно в еще счастливом детстве&#xD;&#xA;    попутав на столе стакан &#xD;&#xA;    я вмиг познал и зло вселенной&#xD;&#xA;    и суть вещей и закусил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    когда мы встретились глазами&#xD;&#xA;    мы оба поняли что нам&#xD;&#xA;    необходимо повстречаться&#xD;&#xA;    друг с другом чем нибудь ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamb_(poetry)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.adme.ru/svoboda-narodnoe-tvorchestvo/luchshie-pirozhki-i-poroshki-2014-722360/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="3275f52a-b4bc-4f18-8d58-a20b78a5489c" CreationDate="2016-02-14T15:48:59.400" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Somehow popular is the genre of пирожки, in [iamb][1] but without rhyme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are several random (not interconnected) examples of pirozhki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    олег на утреннике в школе&#xD;&#xA;    глядит на пляшущих детей&#xD;&#xA;    и понимает что для счастья&#xD;&#xA;    порой достаточно кота&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вчера я продал душу черту&#xD;&#xA;    причем по выгодной цене&#xD;&#xA;    но он заметил в ней дефекты&#xD;&#xA;    и по гарантии вернул&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я сзади подойду прикрою&#xD;&#xA;    ладонями твои глаза&#xD;&#xA;    и буду слушать грустно виктор&#xD;&#xA;    иван василий константин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    давно в еще счастливом детстве&#xD;&#xA;    попутав на столе стакан &#xD;&#xA;    я вмиг познал и зло вселенной&#xD;&#xA;    и суть вещей и закусил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    когда мы встретились глазами&#xD;&#xA;    мы оба поняли что нам&#xD;&#xA;    необходимо повстречаться&#xD;&#xA;    друг с другом чем нибудь ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamb_(poetry)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.adme.ru/svoboda-narodnoe-tvorchestvo/luchshie-pirozhki-i-poroshki-2014-722360/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11865" RevisionGUID="da8c77cf-a3f1-421b-b7d6-a2c979a31ffb" CreationDate="2016-02-14T17:56:32.803" UserId="6780" Text="Also, you can say: &quot;Просто, как два пальца об асфальт.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="a54dfd9d-b0a2-42d4-ab99-36b4114a5a44" CreationDate="2016-02-14T17:57:19.727" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Somehow popular is the genre of пирожки, poems in [iamb][1] but without rhyme. Appeared in 2003 in the internets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are several random (not interconnected) examples of pirozhki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    олег на утреннике в школе&#xD;&#xA;    глядит на пляшущих детей&#xD;&#xA;    и понимает что для счастья&#xD;&#xA;    порой достаточно кота&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вчера я продал душу черту&#xD;&#xA;    причем по выгодной цене&#xD;&#xA;    но он заметил в ней дефекты&#xD;&#xA;    и по гарантии вернул&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я сзади подойду прикрою&#xD;&#xA;    ладонями твои глаза&#xD;&#xA;    и буду слушать грустно виктор&#xD;&#xA;    иван василий константин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    давно в еще счастливом детстве&#xD;&#xA;    попутав на столе стакан &#xD;&#xA;    я вмиг познал и зло вселенной&#xD;&#xA;    и суть вещей и закусил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    когда мы встретились глазами&#xD;&#xA;    мы оба поняли что нам&#xD;&#xA;    необходимо повстречаться&#xD;&#xA;    друг с другом чем нибудь ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamb_(poetry)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.adme.ru/svoboda-narodnoe-tvorchestvo/luchshie-pirozhki-i-poroshki-2014-722360/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="28dff7e2-7058-4d1e-a12d-38bb395bd7f1" CreationDate="2016-02-14T18:03:24.587" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Somehow popular is the genre of пирожки, poems in [iamb][1] but without rhyme. Appeared in 2003 in the internets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are several random (not interconnected) examples of pirozhki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    олег на утреннике в школе&#xD;&#xA;    глядит на пляшущих детей&#xD;&#xA;    и понимает что для счастья&#xD;&#xA;    порой достаточно кота&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вчера я продал душу черту&#xD;&#xA;    причем по выгодной цене&#xD;&#xA;    но он заметил в ней дефекты&#xD;&#xA;    и по гарантии вернул&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я сзади подойду прикрою&#xD;&#xA;    ладонями твои глаза&#xD;&#xA;    и буду слушать грустно виктор&#xD;&#xA;    иван василий константин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    давно в еще счастливом детстве&#xD;&#xA;    попутав на столе стакан &#xD;&#xA;    я вмиг познал и зло вселенной&#xD;&#xA;    и суть вещей и закусил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    когда мы встретились глазами&#xD;&#xA;    мы оба поняли что нам&#xD;&#xA;    необходимо повстречаться&#xD;&#xA;    друг с другом чем нибудь ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;а где тут руль?&quot; - спросил гагарин&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;деревня!&quot; - буркнул королёв&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;ещё спроси &lt;&lt;а где тут вожжи&gt;&gt;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;ещё &lt;&lt;поехали&gt;&gt; скажи&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(punctuation is mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamb_(poetry)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.adme.ru/svoboda-narodnoe-tvorchestvo/luchshie-pirozhki-i-poroshki-2014-722360/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11866" RevisionGUID="6ab694d3-18e5-4120-98f9-0c81fbb6dae2" CreationDate="2016-02-14T19:27:43.793" UserId="5870" Text="I read the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Две девочки разговаривают друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчины помогают друг другу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они танцуют друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the meaning in each sentence is something like the followings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two girls talk each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Men is helping each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are dancing together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't get when to use `друг с другом` and `друг другу`. What is the difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11866" RevisionGUID="6ab694d3-18e5-4120-98f9-0c81fbb6dae2" CreationDate="2016-02-14T19:27:43.793" UserId="5870" Text="What is the difference between друг с другом and друг другу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11866" RevisionGUID="6ab694d3-18e5-4120-98f9-0c81fbb6dae2" CreationDate="2016-02-14T19:27:43.793" UserId="5870" Text="|выбор-слова|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11867" RevisionGUID="bfe5a733-85f4-4b1c-acd4-05e6c03871aa" CreationDate="2016-02-14T20:07:24.720" UserId="5008" Text="That's simply Dative vs. Instrumental case issue. There is natural (although hidden in your translation) correspondence here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dance **with** --&gt; Instrumental case --&gt; танцевать друг с друг**ом**  &#xD;&#xA;help **to** --&gt; Dative case --&gt; помогать друг друг**у**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb _разговаривать_ yet differs: in Russian _разговаривать_ denotes &quot;cross-personal&quot; communication exclusively, so it requires Instrumental &quot;with&quot;. If you need Dative &quot;to&quot;, you have to use imperfective form &quot;_говорить_&quot; (note that both are OK, though slightly different: _говорить друг другу_ and _говорить друг с другом_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="1c1df946-5018-444e-8814-3f6203f57a45" CreationDate="2016-02-14T20:18:20.300" UserId="6781" Text="Which pair of the first one would you use when you talk Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Холодный 	холоднéе//похолоднéе//холоднéй//похолоднéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="1c1df946-5018-444e-8814-3f6203f57a45" CreationDate="2016-02-14T20:18:20.300" UserId="6781" Text="вопрос о прилагательных" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="1c1df946-5018-444e-8814-3f6203f57a45" CreationDate="2016-02-14T20:18:20.300" UserId="6781" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="57fc55e0-0b48-48a0-a238-672e5ec26775" CreationDate="2016-02-14T21:04:02.083" UserId="6781" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Which pair would you use when you talk Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Холодный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;холоднéе//похолоднéе//холоднéй//похолоднéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11869" RevisionGUID="e81a770f-3a63-445a-9fcc-599e05387487" CreationDate="2016-02-15T00:36:23.457" UserId="4560" Text="**-ей** forms of comparatives are either colloquial or poetic, and in both cases they're used in free variation with **-ее**. A more formal style of speech requires **-ее** only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now as regards **по-**, there's a limited number of contexts where you'd use it. Firstly, when you talk about &quot;a colder X&quot; as opposed to &quot;X is colder&quot;; e.g. *В странах похолоднее, вроде России или Канады, плотность населения меньше.* &quot;Colder countries such as Russia or Canada have lower population density.&quot; Note that you could also use **поменьше** in that sentence, which brings us to the second use of **по-**, which is a little harder to pinpoint. Say, in that last sentence, &quot;a little harder&quot; is a clear case for **потруднее** — which already kind of implies the &quot;a little&quot; part; but that doesn't quite mean that **по-** denotes a small difference; rather, that difference isn't great (so it could be small or just &quot;regular&quot;), but it's definitely one that you'd notice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another use of **по-** is to denote a desired increase in a certain quality. *Готовят там отлично, а вот пиво могло бы быть похолоднее.* &quot;The cooking's great there, but the beer could be colder&quot;. *Побольше бы таких сюрпризов.* &quot;I wish we had more surprises like that.&quot; (I know it's an adverb here rather than an adjective, but it works the same way.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11870" RevisionGUID="3260b1a6-4d3d-469f-adb4-41012ccfceb8" CreationDate="2016-02-15T05:48:41.340" UserId="6364" Text="Помогите, пожалуйста, перевести метафору в предложении. So we worked collectively to chisel, to carve out the gem from the rock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11870" RevisionGUID="3260b1a6-4d3d-469f-adb4-41012ccfceb8" CreationDate="2016-02-15T05:48:41.340" UserId="6364" Text="как красиво перевести метафору to chisel, to carve out the gem from the rock?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11870" RevisionGUID="3260b1a6-4d3d-469f-adb4-41012ccfceb8" CreationDate="2016-02-15T05:48:41.340" UserId="6364" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="1a4bf98e-1e0d-45b9-a10c-1c4a9e929ba6" CreationDate="2016-02-15T10:00:02.453" UserId="5454" Text=" 1. огранить этот алмаз&#xD;&#xA; 2. отсечь все лишнее от глыбы мрамора  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, второй вариант для более подготовленного читателя. Разные варианты этой фразы приписываются Родену и Микеланджело." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11872" RevisionGUID="bd94928e-373b-4120-889a-3beac408ee30" CreationDate="2016-02-15T10:55:48.393" UserId="6784" Text="вот так: &quot;сделать из говна конфетку&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11873" RevisionGUID="122c5ea0-c509-4f08-b8d4-7759e67c126f" CreationDate="2016-02-15T11:58:09.837" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Мы приложили немало усилий,чтобы превратить неграненый алмаз в бриллиант чистой воды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не зная контекста,конечно..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27484" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11870" RevisionGUID="034ea0ef-e7a3-4d5b-96c7-af1abe159b1b" CreationDate="2016-02-15T14:00:35.483" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="aae8b69e-9696-46fa-8ac7-0fe2e5750c4b" CreationDate="2016-02-15T14:01:51.307" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the comparative form of холодный?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;холоднéе//похолоднéе//холоднéй//похолоднéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="aae8b69e-9696-46fa-8ac7-0fe2e5750c4b" CreationDate="2016-02-15T14:01:51.307" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the comparative form of холодный?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="e892d9bd-7e92-4d53-8c43-817e1659dbb4" CreationDate="2016-02-15T16:45:43.237" UserDisplayName="user1514" Comment="deleted 131 characters in body" Text="Somehow popular is the genre of пирожки, poems in [iamb][1] but without rhyme. Appeared in 2003 in the internets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are several random (not interconnected) examples of pirozhki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    олег на утреннике в школе&#xD;&#xA;    глядит на пляшущих детей&#xD;&#xA;    и понимает что для счастья&#xD;&#xA;    порой достаточно кота&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вчера я продал душу черту&#xD;&#xA;    причем по выгодной цене&#xD;&#xA;    но он заметил в ней дефекты&#xD;&#xA;    и по гарантии вернул&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я сзади подойду прикрою&#xD;&#xA;    ладонями твои глаза&#xD;&#xA;    и буду слушать грустно виктор&#xD;&#xA;    иван василий константин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    когда мы встретились глазами&#xD;&#xA;    мы оба поняли что нам&#xD;&#xA;    необходимо повстречаться&#xD;&#xA;    друг с другом чем нибудь ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;а где тут руль?&quot; - спросил гагарин&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;деревня!&quot; - буркнул королёв&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;ещё спроси &lt;&lt;а где тут вожжи&gt;&gt;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;ещё &lt;&lt;поехали&gt;&gt; скажи&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(punctuation is mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamb_(poetry)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.adme.ru/svoboda-narodnoe-tvorchestvo/luchshie-pirozhki-i-poroshki-2014-722360/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27488" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="189bb024-af21-4711-8838-4bcbc033e8e8" CreationDate="2016-02-16T03:23:57.770" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="81b0c9b5-2e73-40a2-a24c-e1abb5958752" CreationDate="2016-02-16T17:10:38.037" UserId="551" Comment="Copied from author's comment, as it makes the question less broad." Text="In English there are &quot;classic&quot; [knock-knock jokes][1] (1) based on puns, and two-line question-answer jokes(2) with witty punchlines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Knock knock!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Who's there?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Lego who?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego to the movies!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Where do astronauts hang out? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Spacebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more varieties, of course, but I'm only interested in these two, as they both are concise and don't require a setting or a backstory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Are there similar jokes in the Russian language that are based exclusively on puns and wordplay? Some examples would be great. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-knock_joke" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="78fd762a-34cb-4e5f-9eca-47158eee8826" CreationDate="2016-02-16T19:58:10.983" UserId="6699" Comment="narrowed down the question" Text="In English, there are &quot;classic&quot; [knock-knock jokes][1] (1) based on puns, and two-line question-answer jokes (2) with witty punchlines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Knock knock!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Who's there?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yyy: Lego who?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: Lego to the movies!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Where do astronauts hang out? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Spacebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more varieties, of course, but I'm only interested in these two, as they both are concise and don't require a setting or a backstory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Are there similar jokes in the Russian language that are short, based exclusively on puns and wordplay, and that are currently popular? Some examples would be great. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-knock_joke" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27493" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="78fd762a-34cb-4e5f-9eca-47158eee8826" CreationDate="2016-02-16T19:58:10.983" UserId="6699" Comment="narrowed down the question" Text="A category of jokes based exclusively on puns and wordplay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27494" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="78fd762a-34cb-4e5f-9eca-47158eee8826" CreationDate="2016-02-16T19:58:10.983" UserId="6699" Comment="narrowed down the question" Text="|выражения|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27495" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="b0de3333-b007-4b6e-b6a8-b9d277fa73e2" CreationDate="2016-02-16T20:10:58.067" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1688,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mustaccio&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11854" RevisionGUID="1501627f-6eca-48b8-b31b-938d715a8f87" CreationDate="2016-02-17T03:01:16.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/699790690163810304" />
  <row Id="27498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11874" RevisionGUID="123a0f5a-e603-44f8-83ab-56823040e945" CreationDate="2016-02-17T16:00:35.657" UserId="3887" Text="There's nothing similar to knock-knock jokes in Russian (fortunately, I would say). There are plenty of jokes involving puns, and based exclusively on puns and wordplay, but not in a recognizable form with a rigid structure like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11875" RevisionGUID="b806eae4-797f-4526-9475-0ce6cd72f15c" CreationDate="2016-02-17T17:09:54.053" UserId="6801" Text="Not sure about popularity, but I personally find those funny:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; xxx: - У нее иссяк запал.  &#xD;&#xA;yyy: - Что запало?  &#xD;&#xA;xxx: - Иссяк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Кулич будешь?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Я бросил. Мне бы выпечь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tell me if you need explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11866" RevisionGUID="b5e6ecf9-1ccc-408f-b08e-68e045fd00fb" CreationDate="2016-02-18T10:30:02.697" UserId="5870" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I read the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Две девочки разговаривают друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мужчины помогают друг другу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они танцуют друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the meaning in each sentence is something like the followings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The two girls talk with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Men is helping each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are dancing together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't get when to use `друг с другом` and `друг другу`. What is the difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11876" RevisionGUID="f3a8fab4-efdf-4d32-84ef-2bf9b26b3871" CreationDate="2016-02-19T04:48:48.910" UserId="6808" Text="Как перевести на Русский &quot;dry humor&quot;, &quot;dry sense of humor&quot; или &quot;deadpan&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;тонкий юмор&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11876" RevisionGUID="f3a8fab4-efdf-4d32-84ef-2bf9b26b3871" CreationDate="2016-02-19T04:48:48.910" UserId="6808" Text="dry humor or “deadpan”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11876" RevisionGUID="f3a8fab4-efdf-4d32-84ef-2bf9b26b3871" CreationDate="2016-02-19T04:48:48.910" UserId="6808" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11878" RevisionGUID="620f2e04-46b1-439a-91dd-36dd0c42fbf4" CreationDate="2016-02-19T06:00:47.883" UserId="6588" Text="Существует точный перевод. &#xD;&#xA;**Английский юмор.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11879" RevisionGUID="53359456-4e5f-423e-81b4-adbfef421500" CreationDate="2016-02-19T06:13:07.973" UserId="6588" Text="&quot;Оволосение по мужскому типу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Для мужчин - физиологическая норма, для женщин либо индивидуальная особенность, либо симптом какого-либо заболевания. Обычно сильно беспокоит женщин." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11880" RevisionGUID="19825701-3c66-4ac9-8747-87bc48499304" CreationDate="2016-02-19T10:53:11.480" UserId="6699" Text="Ещё можно перевести через определение: **хорошо скрываемый сарказм**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или вот выдержка из [статьи][1], где при переводе даётся транслитерация:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фильм снят в жанре **дедпэн**, что дословно на русский язык переводится&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как «**комедия, в которой шутят с невозмутимым лицом**» — как, например,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это происходит у Вуди Аллена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример такого юмора, который понимаешь не сразу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mahatma Ghandi was asked by an English journalist what he thought of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Western Civilization. Ghandi replied, &quot;Ahhh, that would be a very good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; idea.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://daily.afisha.ru/archive/vozduh/archive/guide-to-summer-times/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11881" RevisionGUID="e4bd091f-b94b-4f0a-827c-3b77b23bf81d" CreationDate="2016-02-19T13:44:09.503" UserId="6807" Text="Дело в том что значение слова humor происходит от &quot;влага&quot;. Так что &quot;сухой юмор&quot; это выражение само по себе довольно забавное, как &quot;сухая вода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;В другом форуме я уже пытался ответить что не всегда можно перевести humor однозначно как юмор. В зависимости от контекста это - общая манера поведения,  personality. Sense of humor - это юмор.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11881" RevisionGUID="5b57d600-50d0-45b5-87b0-db651e1fb379" CreationDate="2016-02-19T13:55:16.560" UserId="6807" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Дело в том что значение слова humor происходит от &quot;влага&quot;. Так что &quot;сухой юмор&quot; это выражение само по себе довольно забавное, как &quot;сухая вода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;В другом форуме я уже пытался ответить что не всегда можно перевести humor однозначно как юмор. В зависимости от контекста это - общая манера поведения,  personality, или даже тип темперамента (была какая то древняя теория, будто 4 темперамента определяются преобладающей жидкостью организма - кровь, желчь и т.д.) Sense of humor - это чувство юмора, да.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="48d1dfb8-a61e-4efe-a875-73b197222ae5" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:44:40.177" UserId="6813" Text="картинок, рисунок, изображенио" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="48d1dfb8-a61e-4efe-a875-73b197222ae5" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:44:40.177" UserId="6813" Text="What is the difference between these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="48d1dfb8-a61e-4efe-a875-73b197222ae5" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:44:40.177" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27514" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="8eb85fba-447e-4125-9c3f-d698e9520fcc" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:51:15.493" UserId="6813" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the differences between these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="91a6bd5a-132f-42a6-9d5f-8bd0f8bb8b3b" CreationDate="2016-02-20T01:54:29.357" UserId="3680" Comment="typos fixed" Text="картинка, рисунок, изображение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11884" RevisionGUID="f2928085-d353-45e3-8dac-993c8bb85336" CreationDate="2016-02-20T03:55:29.660" UserId="6813" Text="[![What is real equivalent(s) of the word &quot;речь&quot; on the picture?][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JKBDO.jpg&#xA;&#xA;What is the real equivalent(s) of the word &quot;речь&quot; on the picture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11884" RevisionGUID="f2928085-d353-45e3-8dac-993c8bb85336" CreationDate="2016-02-20T03:55:29.660" UserId="6813" Text="What is the real equivalent(s) of the word &quot;речь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11884" RevisionGUID="f2928085-d353-45e3-8dac-993c8bb85336" CreationDate="2016-02-20T03:55:29.660" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11885" RevisionGUID="9455ce3d-b127-48fd-8ccf-5e09d4b73e40" CreationDate="2016-02-20T04:02:16.063" UserId="6588" Text="&quot;Картинка&quot; literally means &quot;little picture&quot;. While &quot;картина&quot; refers to an art object, &quot;картинка&quot; is something not so great, but usually describes something beautiful or at least interesting. For example, &quot;*красивый, как картинка*&quot;/&quot;*красивый, как [будто сошёл] с картинки*&quot;. Generally, &quot;картинка&quot; has positive connotation, while &quot;рисунок&quot; and &quot;изображение&quot; are more neutral.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Рисунок&quot; without a context commonly refers to a child drawing or rock paintings. In technical documentation, illustrations are also often called &quot;рисунок&quot;. For example, very common technical phrase is &quot;см. рис. 1&quot;, where &quot;см.&quot; is for &quot;смотри&quot;, &quot;рис.&quot; for &quot;рисунок&quot;. Though a technical drawing is never called &quot;рисунок&quot;, it's &quot;чертёж&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изображение&quot; is just a 2D representation of any real world object. Though with modern technologies, it could also be 3D. This word is not so common in conversation, it sounds pretty techinical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11886" RevisionGUID="0687dcfe-4f35-4fb7-9f2b-78213589d840" CreationDate="2016-02-20T04:19:34.020" UserId="6813" Text="[![pic_ik][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uCe9n.jpg&#xA;&#xA;its not hard to guess it's about stress of words but what &quot;ик-1, 2, 3&quot; stands for? there is no explanation in my book about it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11886" RevisionGUID="0687dcfe-4f35-4fb7-9f2b-78213589d840" CreationDate="2016-02-20T04:19:34.020" UserId="6813" Text="What is the expansion for the abbreviation(ик) on the image?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11886" RevisionGUID="0687dcfe-4f35-4fb7-9f2b-78213589d840" CreationDate="2016-02-20T04:19:34.020" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27523" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="7d46e8f8-dbed-44a9-818e-0168ba09aada" CreationDate="2016-02-20T05:50:40.097" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Картинка, рисунок, изображение - what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11887" RevisionGUID="16ac2992-c759-420e-8998-546f8cc9cf9d" CreationDate="2016-02-20T05:54:47.343" UserId="5443" Text="**ИК** stands for **интонационная конструкция** (intonation construction), the numbers point at particular tone combinations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://fsi-russian.yojik.eu/ch03s11.xhtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11888" RevisionGUID="8705f65e-b76a-41b0-b07f-c88b0109a2f1" CreationDate="2016-02-20T05:54:51.303" UserId="242" Text="&quot;ИК&quot; stands for &quot;интонационная конструкция&quot; (intonation structure) though I have to admit that this is not some wide-known term. It's just that some Russian-language linguists developed classification counting different intonations in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find one of such classifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11889" RevisionGUID="391d5635-ab58-4775-b79d-91bb75773bd6" CreationDate="2016-02-20T13:08:24.113" UserId="1836" Text="The exact translation of `речь` would be `speech` or `talking`. But `о чем идет речь?` is an idiom (collocation?). The literal translation is `what is the speech about`, but more correct one is `what are they/you talking about`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11890" RevisionGUID="fd9af956-7af1-428e-8694-f321328d0438" CreationDate="2016-02-20T15:42:10.293" UserId="6813" Text="предме=вещь? предмет=урок? &#xA;if i got it correct in some cases it means &quot;thing&quot;, in some cases it means &quot;lesson&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11890" RevisionGUID="fd9af956-7af1-428e-8694-f321328d0438" CreationDate="2016-02-20T15:42:10.293" UserId="6813" Text="i'm confused with the meanin of the word &quot;предмет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11890" RevisionGUID="fd9af956-7af1-428e-8694-f321328d0438" CreationDate="2016-02-20T15:42:10.293" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11890" RevisionGUID="56e92209-a8cb-4c6b-b55c-fb58733c32a7" CreationDate="2016-02-20T16:10:57.257" UserId="6813" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="предмет=вещь? предмет=урок? &#xA;if i got it correct in some cases it means &quot;thing&quot;, in some cases it means &quot;lesson&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11891" RevisionGUID="9dbd27e2-dd12-4818-9152-5b3c405a2088" CreationDate="2016-02-20T16:14:37.447" UserId="4560" Text="**Предмет** is a word whose meaning oscillates between &quot;object&quot; and &quot;subject&quot;. **Предмет** doesn't mean &quot;lesson&quot;, it means the thing that lessons are in — math, literature, etc. In English, these are called *subjects*, so there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11892" RevisionGUID="09eb9dc9-fe30-47a2-abd8-d6efab99af83" CreationDate="2016-02-20T16:23:04.960" UserId="6539" Text="There are several meanings of this noun in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.A thing предмет домашнего обихода,предмет неопределенной формы &#xD;&#xA;2 An object of thought, action предмет спора,предмет любви &#xD;&#xA;3.Science or school subject школьные предметы, успевать по всем предметам.&#xD;&#xA;4 Purpose in the phrase на предмет чего-то " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11894" RevisionGUID="1d0bbb51-b291-4f0a-8bd9-1aed4a8970d3" CreationDate="2016-02-20T20:07:37.443" UserId="6725" Text="В приведенной Вами статье речь идет не о вторичном половом признаке, а вообще обо всех сравнительно длинных, &quot;полноценных&quot; волосах на теле (в отличие от волос на голове и от пушковых волос, которыми покрыто все тело практически с рождения). У обоих полов они растут под влиянием гормонов андрогенов, отсюда и название &quot;androgenic&quot;. Эти гормоны есть как у мужчин, так и у женщин. У обоих полов они начинают вырабатываться корой надпочечников (а не половыми органами) в самом-самом начале полового созревания. Позже у мужчин они начинают вырабатываться также яичками (в большом количестве) а у женщин - яичниками (в маленьком количестве). В результате у мужчин их получается больше, поэтому и волос на теле тоже больше. В контексте данной статьи, перевод &quot;оволосение по мужскому типу&quot; вряд ли можно считать правильным, потому что там говорится про явление роста волос на теле под влиянием андрогенов в целом, у обоих полов. По-русски эти волосы, похоже, не принято называть &quot;андрогенными&quot;. Думаю, можно написать просто &quot;волосы на теле&quot;, или, возможно, &quot;оволосение тела&quot;, но насчет последнего не уверена." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27535" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11890" RevisionGUID="65a164e0-ec5a-4884-9525-84e248f21ab4" CreationDate="2016-02-20T21:21:24.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/701154710510837761" />
  <row Id="27542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11892" RevisionGUID="25cf9602-1d02-4e03-8ecf-584f1cecfc93" CreationDate="2016-02-21T16:00:21.870" UserId="5582" Comment="форматирование " Text="There are several meanings of the noun &quot;предмет&quot;  in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A thing:  &#xA;&gt; предмет домашнего обихода, предмет неопределённой формы. &#xD;&#xA;2. An object of thought, action:  &#xA;&gt; предмет спора,предмет любви.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;3. Science or school subject:  &#xA;&gt; школьные предметы, успевать по всем предметам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;4. Purpose in the phrase:  &#xA;&gt; на предмет чего-то." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27543" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11892" RevisionGUID="25cf9602-1d02-4e03-8ecf-584f1cecfc93" CreationDate="2016-02-21T16:00:21.870" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 3680, 2060 edit id of 724" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11898" RevisionGUID="d04d043c-e9fc-40d6-b543-887521c53e26" CreationDate="2016-02-21T16:01:41.533" UserId="6807" Text="Often found in &quot;negative&quot; meaning: &quot;Я **разрываюсь между** несколькими делами&quot;. (Обычно такое можно слышать от женщины. В отличие от мужчин, женщина может погнаться за двумя и более зайцами, и поймает всех)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="29798610-85e4-4a40-b3b1-d52b3a2b7d8c" CreationDate="2016-02-21T20:10:20.703" UserId="6816" Text="I am never quite sure when to stress particles such as `не`.&#xA;&#xA;Also, I am confused about people saying that the `a` in the past tense feminine is stressed, and whether or not this is always the case.&#xA;&#xA;*I am aware that stress is very irregular and can move around when the case, gender, number, or conjugation changes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="29798610-85e4-4a40-b3b1-d52b3a2b7d8c" CreationDate="2016-02-21T20:10:20.703" UserId="6816" Text="Stress on Particles and Past Tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="29798610-85e4-4a40-b3b1-d52b3a2b7d8c" CreationDate="2016-02-21T20:10:20.703" UserId="6816" Text="|ударение|tense|particles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="9c3f2897-7a6a-47ce-908f-de4adafd75cf" CreationDate="2016-02-21T20:30:57.113" UserId="6816" Text="Sometimes I find it hard to pronounce letter combinations with `л` such as `лю` at the end of the word `люблю` (or perhaps `ля`), and it's hard to tell whether or not native speakers are saying 'lyu' or just 'lu'. Is there any secret (other than softening the `л`) to saying these combos?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27549" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="9c3f2897-7a6a-47ce-908f-de4adafd75cf" CreationDate="2016-02-21T20:30:57.113" UserId="6816" Text="Soft Indicating Vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27550" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="9c3f2897-7a6a-47ce-908f-de4adafd75cf" CreationDate="2016-02-21T20:30:57.113" UserId="6816" Text="|english|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27551" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11886" RevisionGUID="36e90861-dad2-485e-95c3-2fd5b83ad2fc" CreationDate="2016-02-21T21:30:02.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/701519271554375682" />
  <row Id="27552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11901" RevisionGUID="f7756f36-42de-4e89-b58e-91154795852c" CreationDate="2016-02-21T22:25:08.467" UserId="6699" Text="When it comes to pronunciation, &quot;лю&quot; in *люблю* is like &quot;lu&quot; in *illusion* if you say it energetically with your lips rounded and protruded. Basically, it's the soft / л / plus an / у / that you say in the front part of your mouth instead of the back part as you'd usually do for аn / у / used in combination with hard consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ля&quot; in, for example, *Земля*, the Earth, is the soft / л / from &quot;лю&quot; plus an open vowel sound / æ / from, for example, *land* if you say it right in the front part of your mouth and without creating any constrictions to the airflow; try smiling with the corners of your mouth and also relaxing and &quot;dropping&quot; your jaw a bit for better effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="ba253dd9-2ca2-431d-9bf6-9f158272956f" CreationDate="2016-02-21T22:44:37.817" UserId="4560" Text="When **не** is written separately, I can only think of two cases when it's stressed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the past tense of **быть**, except the feminine form (so **нé был**, **нé было**, **нé были**, but **не былá**);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the pronouns **некого** and **нечего** when split by a preposition: **нé у кого**, **нé с чем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **-а** in the feminine past tense is *not* always stressed, and I'm sorry to say there's no useful rule to determine when it is (i.e. one that wouldn't have a ton of exceptions) other than a *tendency* for those verbs to have monosyllabic or **-ти** or **-чь** infinitives. (For our purposes, a monosyllabic infinitive with a prefix still counts as monosyllabic: **проспать**–**проспалá**, same as **спать**–**спалá**. Again, mostly. **Забыть** is an exception. It really is *very* irregular.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11903" RevisionGUID="a35dce50-bed8-4368-95a4-c14956ed2273" CreationDate="2016-02-22T00:05:20.377" UserId="6807" Text="Joke based on wordplay: maybe, &quot;прибаутка&quot; ([see here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vedu.ru/expdic/26094/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11852" RevisionGUID="7fa4913d-76fa-41b4-97ea-fd58f0ee2cbb" CreationDate="2016-02-22T03:34:59.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/701611111804698624" />
  <row Id="27556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="3841a8ab-23d9-4e1c-a694-d8fcbf84884b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T06:54:43.333" UserId="2380" Text="Каково значение слова уроки в следующей строфе Евгения Онегина?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как он умел казаться новым,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шутя невинность изумлять,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пугать отчаяньем готовым,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Приятной лестью забавлять,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ловить минуту умиленья,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Невинных лет предубежденья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умом и страстью побеждать,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Невольной ласки ожидать,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Молить и требовать признанья,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подслушать сердца первый звук,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Преследовать любовь и вдруг&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Добиться тайного свиданья…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И после ей наедине&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Давать уроки в тишине!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имеются ли в виду уроки &quot;науки страсти нежной&quot; или же Онегин смеётся над любовью девушек, научая их чему-то вместо свидания?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="3841a8ab-23d9-4e1c-a694-d8fcbf84884b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T06:54:43.333" UserId="2380" Text="&quot;И после ей наедине // Давать уроки в тишине!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="3841a8ab-23d9-4e1c-a694-d8fcbf84884b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T06:54:43.333" UserId="2380" Text="|значения|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11905" RevisionGUID="ef25834e-08ad-4efa-871f-a1eeb36e48dc" CreationDate="2016-02-22T08:18:38.003" UserId="5454" Text="Stress in past tense feminine verbs is a painful issue for many native speakers too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer from [here](https://ask.fm/russian/answers/127410272828):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  В каких глаголах женского рода ударение падает на последний слог?  &#xD;&#xA;Ударение в прошедшем времени обычно падает на тот же слог, что и в неопределенной форме глагола (например, смотрЕть — смотрЕла). Однако у большинства односложных глаголов (и глаголов, образованных от односложных с помощью приставок) ударение в форме женского рода прошедшего времени падает на последний слог:&#xD;&#xA;взялА&#xD;&#xA;бралА&#xD;&#xA;ждалА&#xD;&#xA;лгалА&#xD;&#xA;вралА&#xD;&#xA;дралА&#xD;&#xA;рвалА&#xD;&#xA;звалА&#xD;&#xA;гналА&#xD;&#xA;лилА&#xD;&#xA;пилА&#xD;&#xA;далА  &#xD;&#xA;У этих глаголов со всеми приставками (кроме приставки вы-) и с постфиксом –сь ударение также падает на последний слог: убралА, совралА, взорвалАсь, отозвалАсь.  &#xD;&#xA;Исключения.  &#xD;&#xA;У глаголов класть, красть и красться, пасть, упасть, слать, послать, стлать ударение в форме женского рода прошедшего времени остаётся на основе:&#xD;&#xA;клАла, крАла, пАла, упАла, крАлась, слАла, послАла, стлАла.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11906" RevisionGUID="680c47ef-d1d4-41d4-a66b-dab05c46aee2" CreationDate="2016-02-22T10:09:44.457" UserId="6823" Text="Полагаю, что автор намеренно допускает двойственность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Понятно, что (так как Евгений учился &quot;чему-нибудь и как-нибудь&quot; и обширными научными знаниями похвастать, вероятно, не мог) &quot;науку страсти нежной&quot; герой знал тверже всех остальных наук. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, видя себя в качестве взрослого мужчины, утомленного жизненным опытом, &quot;уроками&quot; можно также считать &quot;чтение морали&quot;, &quot;поучения&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="bdc16f99-bd3a-4ab1-8d2a-e31bee6a5797" CreationDate="2016-02-22T10:47:06.407" UserId="5454" Comment="Fixed punctuation symbols, i.e. &lt;&lt; become «, etc." Text="Somehow popular is the genre of пирожки, poems in [iamb][1] but without rhyme. Appeared in 2003 in the internets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are several random (not interconnected) examples of pirozhki:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    олег на утреннике в школе&#xD;&#xA;    глядит на пляшущих детей&#xD;&#xA;    и понимает что для счастья&#xD;&#xA;    порой достаточно кота&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вчера я продал душу черту&#xD;&#xA;    причем по выгодной цене&#xD;&#xA;    но он заметил в ней дефекты&#xD;&#xA;    и по гарантии вернул&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    я сзади подойду прикрою&#xD;&#xA;    ладонями твои глаза&#xD;&#xA;    и буду слушать грустно виктор&#xD;&#xA;    иван василий константин &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    когда мы встретились глазами&#xD;&#xA;    мы оба поняли что нам&#xD;&#xA;    необходимо повстречаться&#xD;&#xA;    друг с другом чем нибудь ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;а где тут руль?&quot; — спросил гагарин&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;деревня!&quot; — буркнул королёв&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;ещё спроси «а где тут вожжи»&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;ещё «поехали» скажи&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(punctuation is mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamb_(poetry)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.adme.ru/svoboda-narodnoe-tvorchestvo/luchshie-pirozhki-i-poroshki-2014-722360/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27562" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="bdc16f99-bd3a-4ab1-8d2a-e31bee6a5797" CreationDate="2016-02-22T10:47:06.407" Comment="Proposed by 5454 approved by 2060, 1514 edit id of 725" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11907" RevisionGUID="c6e0153c-d0f1-4be5-ba08-7b685e9d9d83" CreationDate="2016-02-22T11:32:25.173" UserId="6824" Text="It actually depends on verb syntax. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;разговаривать (с кем?) - с другом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;помогать (кому?) - другу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;танцевать (с кем?) - с другом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11908" RevisionGUID="c41af8b9-3fe6-4ca3-91d2-a0dba9fc44fe" CreationDate="2016-02-22T12:22:15.883" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Имеются ли в виду уроки &quot;науки страсти нежной&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Определенно, той самой, &quot;которую воспел Назон&quot;, причем во всех смыслах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;или же Онегин смеётся над любовью девушек, научая их чему-то вместо свидания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы имеете в виду, как это случилось с Татьяной?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Но я не создан для блаженства;&#xD;&#xA;    Ему чужда душа моя;&#xD;&#xA;    Напрасны ваши совершенства:&#xD;&#xA;    Их вовсе недостоин я.&#xD;&#xA;    и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет, в начале первой главе он далеко еще не стал &quot;отступником бурных наслаждений&quot;. В начале романа вообще хватает недвусмысленных намеков на опыт веселой столичной жизни: &quot;Вы также маменьки построже за дочерьми смотрите вслед... не то, не то, избави Боже&quot;, &quot;Держу я счастливое стремя и ножку чувствую в руках&quot; и пр." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11909" RevisionGUID="df1f8d8e-c9be-4372-ad0f-ed05ce88ce8b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T16:20:57.393" UserId="2380" Text="Почему в словосочетании *&quot;палка о двух концах&quot;* используется такой странный предлог? Я ещё нашёл *&quot;человек есть животное о двух ногах, лишенное перьев&quot;* Платона. Предлог *о* раньше значил также *с*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11909" RevisionGUID="df1f8d8e-c9be-4372-ad0f-ed05ce88ce8b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T16:20:57.393" UserId="2380" Text="&quot;Палка о двух концах&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11909" RevisionGUID="df1f8d8e-c9be-4372-ad0f-ed05ce88ce8b" CreationDate="2016-02-22T16:20:57.393" UserId="2380" Text="|значения|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11910" RevisionGUID="7a640a63-4ab9-4dcf-82b2-c58455046181" CreationDate="2016-02-22T16:41:21.247" UserId="6828" Text="Да, предлог *о* можно использовать в значении *с*. Даль пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С качественными и числительными, объясняет эти принадлежности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предмета: с чем. *Храм о золотой главе, о трех главах. Печи о глухих*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (герметических) *дверках. Ведь ты не о двух головах. У нас о дышле не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ездят, все об оглоблях. Стоит Потап о четырех лапах, из году в год&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воду пьет* (рассадник).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако сейчас такой оборот, за исключением устоявшихся выражений вроде *&quot;палка о двух концах&quot;*, звучит архаично и излишне пафосно для разговорной речи. Он уместен в сказках, легендах и стилизации под них, для придания &quot;фольклорного&quot; колорита." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11910" RevisionGUID="d4904326-ff8a-4341-9625-5622c8097c95" CreationDate="2016-02-22T16:50:43.740" UserId="6828" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Да, предлог *о* можно использовать в значении *с*. При этом подразумевается тесная, неотъемлемая принадлежность. Даль пишет:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С качественными и числительными, объясняет эти принадлежности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предмета: с чем. *Храм о золотой главе, о трех главах. Печи о глухих*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (герметических) *дверках. Ведь ты не о двух головах. У нас о дышле не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ездят, все об оглоблях. Стоит Потап о четырех лапах, из году в год&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воду пьет* (рассадник).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако сейчас такой оборот, за исключением устоявшихся выражений вроде *&quot;палка о двух концах&quot;*, звучит архаично и излишне пафосно для разговорной речи. Он уместен в сказках, легендах и стилизации под них, для придания &quot;фольклорного&quot; колорита." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="ecf281e8-ba56-419f-8ade-625160fd2c9c" CreationDate="2016-02-22T18:19:14.580" UserId="6813" Text="I know there is perfective and imperfective verb structure in interesting Russian language such as гулять(imperf) and погулять(perf). However after i've tried to translate those 2 verbs in the question title, i saw same equivalent which is verb &quot;to call&quot; and that made me a bit confused. Can you explain difference(s) with examples in English and Russian. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="ecf281e8-ba56-419f-8ade-625160fd2c9c" CreationDate="2016-02-22T18:19:14.580" UserId="6813" Text="звать/позвать and звонить/позвонить - What are the differences between these verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="ecf281e8-ba56-419f-8ade-625160fd2c9c" CreationDate="2016-02-22T18:19:14.580" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="4e089957-12c8-4c15-b258-d21fa8285254" CreationDate="2016-02-22T18:24:17.177" UserId="6813" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I know there is perfective and imperfective verb structure in interesting Russian language such as гулять(imperf) and погулять(perf). However after i've tried to translate those 2 verbs in the question title, i came across with same equivalent which is the verb &quot;to call&quot; and that made me a bit confused. Can you explain difference(s) with examples in English and Russian. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11912" RevisionGUID="6cb37d06-dde0-44f7-80c1-3166e80cd939" CreationDate="2016-02-22T18:44:24.317" UserId="4560" Text="**Звонить** is the phone verb. In Russian, you don't call but &quot;ring&quot; someone on the phone. **Звать** is the general calling verb, as in shouting after someone or referring to what someone is named. **Позвонить** and **позвать** are their respective perfective pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is yet another equivalent of the English &quot;call&quot;, and it's **называть**. It means &quot;call&quot; in the narrow sense of &quot;refer to as&quot;; it's the one you use when talking about what inanimate objects are called (**В Петербурге бордюр называют поребриком** &quot;In St Petersburg, a kerb is called *porebrik*&quot;), and when talking about something that a person is called which isn't a name (**Многие называют его шарлатаном** — &quot;Many are calling him a quack&quot;.) The perfective of **называть** is **назвать**. The reflexive form **называться** is also often used in the sense of &quot;to be called&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11913" RevisionGUID="feeebf52-ca9d-4958-b4d1-d5ac0ff1979c" CreationDate="2016-02-22T19:01:09.590" UserId="5008" Text="_Звать_ essentially means to use _a voice_, that is to cry for someone or smth. Although there is yet another meaning - to refer to smth., to give a name to someone - but it's clear that &quot;a name&quot; is just a thing said in &quot;voice&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Звонить_ means _to ring a bell_, that is to make some noise by using an object. It applies to door bells, or telephone ring etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27577" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="1de21e07-feeb-4e51-b5e5-c70d11b85dec" CreationDate="2016-02-23T06:35:41.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/702018975102844928" />
  <row Id="27578" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11909" RevisionGUID="0927dcd4-272d-437d-8233-061b17431439" CreationDate="2016-02-23T15:35:44.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/702154885094051840" />
  <row Id="27579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="9ca12064-ac13-4cb6-a244-87d7d615854a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:29:06.003" UserId="2380" Text="Правда ли, что *рубашка* (от *рубить*) -- более-менее единственный элемент **современной** одежды или обуви, называющимся исконно русским словом? Вот тут список некоторых из основных слов, все остальные предметы которого имеют заимствованные названия:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*рубашка, пальто, шуба, шапка, кепка, пиджак, костюм, сюртук, куртка, кофта, свитер, джемпер, пуловер, майка, трусы, штаны, брюки, джинсы, юбка, чулки, ботинки, туфли*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему так велика доля заимствованной лексики? Является ли это феноменом русского языка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="9ca12064-ac13-4cb6-a244-87d7d615854a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:29:06.003" UserId="2380" Text="Рубашка -- единственное исконно-русское название предмета одежды?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27581" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="9ca12064-ac13-4cb6-a244-87d7d615854a" CreationDate="2016-02-23T20:29:06.003" UserId="2380" Text="|лексикон|заимствования|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="c3f08a18-6adb-41c8-979d-6bf2e2b7182c" CreationDate="2016-02-23T21:08:13.317" UserId="6828" Text="Большое количество заимствованных слов, обозначающих предметы одежды, неудивительно, если вспомнить, что мода в Россию, по крайней мере, с петровских времен, приходила из-за границы. Этим же объясняется и вытеснение заимствованными формами русских слов: Если одеваться по иностранной моде престижно, то Вы скорее оденете голландские *брюки*, чем русские *портки*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, рубашка - далеко не единственный предмет одежды, называемый русским словом. На ум приходят **платье**, **сорочка**, **дублёнка**; части одежды, например, **рукав**, **воротник**. Кроме того, из приведенных Вами слов некоторые, например, *шуба*, используются в славянских языках с глубокой древности, будучи, таким образом, старше и русского этноса, и современного русского языка. Так что они вполне могут считаться исконно-русскими." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27583" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="18da6b9a-48d6-46f9-8663-033cc8895e3b" CreationDate="2016-02-23T23:13:55.463" UserId="90" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="cefc53cb-12c3-4c97-b50d-a5a61e7f3b68" CreationDate="2016-02-24T00:00:53.457" UserId="6828" Comment="Позорная ошибка." Text="Большое количество заимствованных слов, обозначающих предметы одежды, неудивительно, если вспомнить, что мода в Россию, по крайней мере, с петровских времен, приходила из-за границы. Этим же объясняется и вытеснение заимствованными формами русских слов: Если одеваться по иностранной моде престижно, то Вы скорее наденете голландские *брюки*, чем русские *портки*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, *рубашка* - далеко не единственный предмет одежды, называемый русским словом. На ум приходят **платье**, **сорочка**, **дублёнка**; части одежды, например, **рукав**, **воротник**. Кроме того, из приведенных Вами слов некоторые, например, *шуба*, используются в славянских языках с глубокой древности, будучи, таким образом, старше и русского этноса, и современного русского языка. Так что они вполне могут считаться исконно-русскими." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11917" RevisionGUID="a7ae5ea7-e3ff-41fa-bb06-8c0fb69f5335" CreationDate="2016-02-24T12:46:06.470" UserId="6813" Text="During my learning process of Russian language, i use my poor English skills to compare these two languages. Could you please tell me which verb group(imperfective and perfective) in the question title is the verb ***to listen*** in English? if both of them too(because translator shows up ***to listen*** for both verb group) so what is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11917" RevisionGUID="a7ae5ea7-e3ff-41fa-bb06-8c0fb69f5335" CreationDate="2016-02-24T12:46:06.470" UserId="6813" Text="слушать/послушать and прослушать/прослушивать - what is the difference(s) between these verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11917" RevisionGUID="a7ae5ea7-e3ff-41fa-bb06-8c0fb69f5335" CreationDate="2016-02-24T12:46:06.470" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11918" RevisionGUID="6d3fd18b-481a-418a-ad74-3ea63f89351a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:56.473" UserId="417" Text="Is there any explanation why a lot of sites use &quot;липсинг&quot; word instead of &quot;липсинк&quot;? Obviously it's russian version of the &quot;lip-sync&quot; word and should be written as &quot;липсинк&quot;. Sure thing I know it's not &quot;official&quot; russian word but I'm still wondering. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S: http://www.trpub.ru/perevod-video/lipsing/ even this site that provides translation services uses &quot;липсинг&quot; version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11918" RevisionGUID="6d3fd18b-481a-418a-ad74-3ea63f89351a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:56.473" UserId="417" Text="Липсинг или Липсинк?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11918" RevisionGUID="6d3fd18b-481a-418a-ad74-3ea63f89351a" CreationDate="2016-02-24T13:37:56.473" UserId="417" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="cb0afa08-6976-466b-9eeb-4aa85288bac9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:02:35.157" UserId="551" Text="I think it is because many English-borrowed words have 'ing' at the end. Фактчекинг, лизинг, конвертинг, спарринг, допинг, шопинг, тюнинг, кастинг, тренинг and so on and so forth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, many borrowed (and non-borrowed) words were later modified to match similar Russian words (otherwise they looked as common writing mistakes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Фляшка - фляжка&#xD;&#xA;* Пошта - почта&#xD;&#xA;* Машта - мачта&#xD;&#xA;* Мущина - мужчина" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="c1acdff3-36ee-4c4f-9590-9ea2719f600e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:11:01.980" UserId="551" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="I think it is because many English-borrowed words have 'ing' at the end: фактчекинг, лизинг, конвертинг, спарринг, допинг, шопинг, тюнинг, кастинг, тренинг and so on and so forth. Since липсинк obviously goes to english-borrowed category, it seems that 'инг' ending is 'more correct' than 'инк' ending (this is also a common spelling error - both endings are pronounced the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, many borrowed (and non-borrowed) words were later modified to match similar Russian words (otherwise they looked as common writing mistakes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Фляшка - фляжка&#xD;&#xA;* Пошта - почта&#xD;&#xA;* Машта - мачта&#xD;&#xA;* Мущина - мужчина" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="17ede5af-5a88-4335-a398-3cbb1c52fa36" CreationDate="2016-02-24T14:43:52.913" UserId="551" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="Though correct transliteration of lyp-sync is липсин**К**, липсин**Г** is often used instead, because many English-borrowed words have 'ing' at the end: фактчекинг, лизинг, конвертинг, спарринг, допинг, шопинг, тюнинг, кастинг, тренинг and so on and so forth. Since липсинк obviously goes to english-borrowed category, it seems that 'инг' ending is 'more correct' than 'инк' ending (this is also a common spelling error - both endings are pronounced the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;And in fact 'инк' ending is not common to non-English borrowed words as well. Ones that are listed in dictionaries are цинк, сцинк (lizard), инк (one of Inca people). Other words are proper and family names like Метерлинк, Хиддинк, Пинк Флойд. Non-listed in dictionaries, but known are линк (пруфлинк, гиперлинк), дринк (софт-дринк, лонг-дринк) and that's all.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, many borrowed (and non-borrowed) words were later modified to match similar Russian words (otherwise they looked as common writing mistakes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Фляшка - фляжка&#xD;&#xA;* Пошта - почта&#xD;&#xA;* Машта - мачта&#xD;&#xA;* Мущина - мужчина" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11917" RevisionGUID="e43694dd-4d62-491b-96c7-766cc10aa59d" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:17:50.180" UserId="6813" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="During my learning process of Russian language, i use my poor English skills to compare these two languages. Could you please tell me which verb group(imperfective and perfective) in the question title is the verb ***to listen*** in English? If both of them too(because translator shows up ***to listen*** for both of those verb groups) so what is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11920" RevisionGUID="6678b2b0-e812-45db-860c-e0595aadac15" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:18:44.697" UserId="6807" Text="Рубашка - уменьшительное от рубаха. Возможно, происходит вовсе не от &quot;рубить&quot; а от &quot;робить&quot; (работать), но может быть даже из библейского лексикона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему так велика доля заимствованной лексики? Является ли это феноменом русского языка?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если коротко - да, несомненно. Не феномен, а факт. Вот, библейский лексикон в том числе. (Возможно есть языки и с бОльшим процентом импорта... не знаю.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27600" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11917" RevisionGUID="193ba7fb-69e8-4efe-8489-9dfef414c73f" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:21:50.497" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11921" RevisionGUID="f9ea5f04-023c-44f9-af6e-d58a48175599" CreationDate="2016-02-24T15:48:12.920" UserId="6807" Text="Most likely, when listening to a live person or live TV/radio, you want forms of &quot;слушать&quot;: &quot;я сл'ушаю&quot;, &quot;ты меня сл'ушаешь?&quot; &quot;сл'ушай!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening to a recording, podcast (but not to live broadcast) - &quot;просл'ушать&quot;, &quot;просл'ушивать&quot;. &quot;Я просл'ушал з'апись л'екции&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посл'ушать - the main meaning is past/perfect or imperative of &quot;слушать&quot; : &quot;посл'ушай меня&quot;, &quot;послушай эту музыку&quot; (again, if this is about a recording, use &quot;прослушай&quot; instead). &quot;Я послушал это, но не понял&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are other, less frequent meanings of all these forms, for example &quot;прослушивать&quot; means also eavesdropping. &quot;Слушать&quot; also can mean to obey, comply to smb.  But I'll stop now. Good luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11920" RevisionGUID="95696670-f3a6-42e6-87e6-bc446bacefd8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T16:29:18.093" UserId="6807" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Рубашка - уменьшительное от рубаха, роба. Возможно, происходит вовсе не от &quot;рубить&quot; а от &quot;робить&quot; (работать), но может быть даже из библейского лексикона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему так велика доля заимствованной лексики? Является ли это феноменом русского языка?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если коротко - да, несомненно. Не феномен, а факт. Вот, библейский лексикон в том числе. (Возможно есть языки и с бОльшим процентом импорта... не знаю.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11922" RevisionGUID="4c30f881-bf25-455f-81a4-227e479004c8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:33:30.077" UserId="6833" Text="When we are using term **за границу** and when we are using term **за границей**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11922" RevisionGUID="4c30f881-bf25-455f-81a4-227e479004c8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:33:30.077" UserId="6833" Text="За границей или за границу?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11922" RevisionGUID="4c30f881-bf25-455f-81a4-227e479004c8" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:33:30.077" UserId="6833" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="de442600-3f32-4972-9f43-4f01ecbde0b5" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:53:22.793" UserId="551" Comment="added 288 characters in body" Text="Though correct transliteration of lyp-sync is липсин**К**, липсин**Г** is often used instead, because many English-borrowed words have 'ing' at the end: фактчекинг, лизинг, конвертинг, спарринг, допинг, шопинг, тюнинг, кастинг, тренинг and so on and so forth. Since липсинк obviously goes to english-borrowed category, it seems that 'инг' ending is 'more correct' than 'инк' ending (this is also a common spelling error - both endings are pronounced the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;And in fact 'инк' ending is not common to non-English borrowed words as well. Ones that are listed in dictionaries are цинк, сцинк (lizard), инк (one of Inca people). Other words are proper and family names like Метерлинк, Хиддинк, Пинк Флойд. Non-listed in dictionaries, but known are линк (пруфлинк, гиперлинк), дринк (софт-дринк, лонг-дринк) and that's all.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, many borrowed (and non-borrowed) words were later modified to match similar Russian words (otherwise they looked as common writing mistakes):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Фляшка - фляжка&#xD;&#xA;* Пошта - почта&#xD;&#xA;* Машта - мачта&#xD;&#xA;* Мущина - мужчина&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though липсин**г** may look more correct for a Russian eye (non-aware of English grammar and phonetics), the fact that most dictionaries do not contain this word, and existence of дринк and линк leaves a chance that consistent usage of липсинк will overcome incorrect transliteration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11923" RevisionGUID="87934f6c-6bc2-4fc5-b36b-d2dced50464c" CreationDate="2016-02-24T20:54:02.350" UserId="6828" Text="&quot;Куда?&quot; - За границу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Где?&quot; - За границей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="7787624e-bb21-4421-b576-30767a204c1e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:13:41.797" UserId="6813" Text="For translators all of those verbs are the verb ***to use*** in English. Is it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="7787624e-bb21-4421-b576-30767a204c1e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:13:41.797" UserId="6813" Text="употреблять/употребить and использовать/поиспользовать - what is difference(s) between these verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="7787624e-bb21-4421-b576-30767a204c1e" CreationDate="2016-02-24T21:13:41.797" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="df59e732-99f6-4f4d-bfee-7cc917160242" CreationDate="2016-02-24T22:07:18.473" UserId="551" Comment="added 1062 characters in body" Text="Though correct transliteration of lyp-sync is липсин**К**, липсин**Г** is often used instead, because the word is not listed in dictionaries, and as such, Russian speakers use their language feeling to decide which writing form suites best in this case. Note that most Russian speakers do not know English, so they do not use English rules here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, from a perspective of Russian-speaker, a word that sounds like [липсинк] can be written in two ways: липсинк and липсинг (both writings are pronounced the same way - [липсинк]). Russian speaker knows that many borrowed words (they may or may not be aware of English origin of those words) have 'инг' at the end: фактчекинг, лизинг, конвертинг, спарринг, допинг, шопинг, тюнинг, кастинг, тренинг and so on and so forth. Since [липсинк] obviously goes to borrowed category, it seems that 'инг' ending is 'more correct' than 'инк' ending. This version is also backed by the fact that writing 'инк' in this position instead of 'инг' is a common spelling error (since both endings are pronounced the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;And in fact 'инк' ending is not common to other Russian words as well. Almost all nouns that have such ending are limited by: цинк, сцинк (lizard), инк (one of Inca people). Other words are proper and family names like Метерлинк, Хиддинк, Пинк Флойд. Non-listed in dictionaries, but known are линк (пруфлинк, гиперлинк), дринк (софт-дринк, лонг-дринк). So we have here only 10 nouns (plus 20 family names), while there are [over 400][1] words ending with -инг.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such transformation, based on common native speakers impression what is 'correct' and what is 'incorrect' resulted in modification of borrowed or existing Russian words with spelling similar to common spelling errors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Initially **Фляшка** - later replaced with **фляжка** (borrowed from Polish flasza, looks like шк/жк misspelling)&#xD;&#xA;* **Пошта** - **почта** (borrowed from Polish росztа, looks like шт/чт misspelling)&#xD;&#xA;* **Машта** - **мачта** (borrowed from Dutch mast, looks like шт/чт misspelling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though липсин**г** may look more correct for a Russian eye (non-aware of English grammar and phonetics), the fact that most dictionaries do not contain this word, and existence of дринк and линк leaves a chance that consistent usage of липсинк will overcome incorrect transliteration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?s=%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3]&amp;FindNouns=ON&amp;a=133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11925" RevisionGUID="33d3f332-b7b7-4065-a453-4e5e42bef1e1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:25:26.560" UserId="6833" Text="1. Я играю в футбол и шахматы&#xD;&#xA;2. Я играю в футбол и в шахматы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this sentences grammatically correct? &#xD;&#xA;Or we should use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Я играю в футбол и играю в шахматы&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11925" RevisionGUID="33d3f332-b7b7-4065-a453-4e5e42bef1e1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:25:26.560" UserId="6833" Text="играть в футбол" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11925" RevisionGUID="33d3f332-b7b7-4065-a453-4e5e42bef1e1" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:25:26.560" UserId="6833" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="cdc84cba-fc59-41a6-968b-da6cfd7b6cc7" CreationDate="2016-02-24T23:47:39.207" UserId="6561" Text=" #3 sounds very-very unnatural. #2 is the best. #1 sounds a bit unnatural but still much better than #3. We don't like tautology :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11927" RevisionGUID="11a5c6ef-9f09-413a-99df-757b2af1b83b" CreationDate="2016-02-25T00:02:47.140" UserId="6561" Text="&quot;**употреблять/употребить**&quot; is about a grammatical aspect. &quot;**Употребить**&quot; is a perfect aspect (meaning that it was a single action). E.g. Yesterday I used (*употребил*) that f-word (I mean I did it once). &quot;**Употреблять**&quot; is an imperfect . E.g. All my childhood I used (*употреблял*) only good words (meaning it was more than once, lots of single actions for some period of time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Использовать**&quot; a bit differs from &quot;*употреблять*&quot;. &quot;**Употреблять**&quot; is usually used with &quot;words&quot; (meaning saying words) and with something that goes inside you (e.g. about food - *употреблять в пищу*). &quot;**Использовать**&quot; (btw, omonynic forms - both imperfect and perfect aspects depending on the context) is just &quot;use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;**поиспользовать**&quot; sounds a bit negative (very rarely about inanimate, usually about people), e.g. &quot;Поиспользовал и бросил&quot; - about a girl who was later dumped by a douche." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="94a67fcb-d695-493c-b90d-bdad2e5a2d35" CreationDate="2016-02-25T04:40:24.920" UserId="6588" Text="1 and 2 are grammatically equal. I don't feel any of it unnatural. Though neither of these feels like a part of real conversation. I mean, the form is rather formal, but the subject is informal. &quot;Играю в футбол, в шахматы ещё&quot; might be a part of a real-world dialog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 is grammatically correct, but it is so formal that it should be avoided. Чуковский called this way of speaking sick and named the sickness &quot;канцелярит&quot; (officialese/bureaucratese). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11929" RevisionGUID="04687df7-ac75-43f4-8a68-d18e7d84f328" CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:51:14.897" UserId="6725" Text="&quot;**Использовать**&quot; is the most universal word for &quot;to use&quot;, and also for &quot;to exploit&quot; and &quot;to utilize&quot;. It can be used for any kind of inanimate things, both material items and non-material things (like chances, capacities, technologies and so on). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В нашей работе мы используем новейшие технологии, современное оборудование и высококачественные материалы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In our work we use the newest technologies, modern equipment and high-quality materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when &quot;использовать&quot; is used for people, it means that one treats the person like an inanimate thing, not a human. Of course, it sounds negative. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я считал его другом, но он просто использовал меня для своей выгоды!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I claimed that he was my friend, but he just exploited me to his own&#xD;&#xA;&gt; benefit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Поиспользовать**&quot; sounds awkward and is used rarely. But when it is, as @Justin McGuire already noticed in his answer, it usually means the same as &quot;использовать&quot; about people. For inanimate things it is almost never used, just use &quot;использовать&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Употреблять/употребить**&quot; have more narrow meaning than &quot;использовать&quot;. It is **not** used for people, for non-material things (except for words and grammatical constructs) and for material things, which remain intact after usage, and can be used again later. The meaning of &quot;употреблять&quot; is closer to &quot;to consume&quot;. It can be used for food, drinks, drugs and other things we take inside our body. It can also be used for different kinds of supplies, which transform or disappear after usage, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти доски давно без дела лежат, занимают много места. Надо бы их на что-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребить...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These planks have been lying here for long time, occupying much space.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They should be used this or that way...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in @Justin McGuire's answer, &quot;употреблять/употребить&quot; is also used for words and grammar categories. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Это матерное слово, не употребляй его в приличном обществе!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a swear word, don't use it in polite company!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Какой падеж здесь употреблять - родительный или винительный? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which case should be used here - Genitive or Accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have doubts, which verb to use, it's better to use &quot;использовать&quot;, because it is correct in most cases.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="2b917e45-bf13-4557-895d-a04b0811e7bc" CreationDate="2016-02-25T10:56:38.970" UserId="551" Comment="Added devoicing rule link" Text="Though correct transliteration of lyp-sync is липсин**К**, липсин**Г** is often used instead, because the word is not listed in dictionaries, and as such, Russian speakers use their language feeling to decide which writing form suites best in this case. Note that most Russian speakers do not know English, so they do not use English rules here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, from a perspective of Russian-speaker, a word that sounds like [липсинк] can be written in two ways: липсинк and липсинг (both writings are pronounced the same way - [липсинк], this process is known as [devoicing][1]). Russian speaker knows that many borrowed words (they may or may not be aware of English origin of those words) have 'инг' at the end: фактчекинг, лизинг, конвертинг, спарринг, допинг, шопинг, тюнинг, кастинг, тренинг and so on and so forth. Since [липсинк] obviously goes to borrowed category, it seems that 'инг' ending is 'more correct' than 'инк' ending. This version is also backed by the fact that writing 'инк' in this position instead of 'инг' is a common spelling error (since both endings are pronounced the same way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;And in fact 'инк' ending is not common to other Russian words as well. Almost all nouns that have such ending are limited by: цинк, сцинк (lizard), инк (one of Inca people). Other words are proper and family names like Метерлинк, Хиддинк, Пинк Флойд. Non-listed in dictionaries, but known are линк (пруфлинк, гиперлинк), дринк (софт-дринк, лонг-дринк). So we have here only 10 nouns (plus 20 family names), while there are [over 400][2] words ending with -инг.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such transformation, based on common native speakers impression what is 'correct' and what is 'incorrect' resulted in modification of borrowed or existing Russian words with spelling similar to common spelling errors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Initially **Фляшка** - later replaced with **фляжка** (borrowed from Polish flasza, looks like шк/жк misspelling)&#xD;&#xA;* **Пошта** - **почта** (borrowed from Polish росztа, looks like шт/чт misspelling)&#xD;&#xA;* **Машта** - **мачта** (borrowed from Dutch mast, looks like шт/чт misspelling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though липсин**г** may look more correct for a Russian eye (non-aware of English grammar and phonetics), the fact that most dictionaries do not contain this word, and existence of дринк and линк leaves a chance that consistent usage of липсинк will overcome incorrect transliteration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final-obstruent_devoicing#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?s=%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3]&amp;FindNouns=ON&amp;a=133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11929" RevisionGUID="89270333-7d90-4729-be69-a333507d1279" CreationDate="2016-02-25T11:03:26.690" UserId="6725" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="&quot;**Использовать**&quot; is the most universal word for &quot;to use&quot;, and also for &quot;to exploit&quot; and &quot;to utilize&quot;. It can be used for any kind of inanimate things, both material items and non-material things (like chances, capacities, technologies and so on). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В нашей работе мы используем новейшие технологии, современное оборудование и высококачественные материалы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In our work we use the newest technologies, modern equipment and high-quality materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when &quot;использовать&quot; is used for people, it means that one treats the person like an inanimate thing, not a human. Of course, it sounds negative. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я считал его другом, но он просто использовал меня для своей выгоды!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I claimed that he was my friend, but he just exploited me to his own&#xD;&#xA;&gt; benefit!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Поиспользовать**&quot; sounds awkward and is used rarely. But when it is, as @Justin McGuire already noticed in his answer, it usually means the same as &quot;использовать&quot; about people. For inanimate things it is almost never used, just use &quot;использовать&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Употреблять/употребить**&quot; have more narrow meaning than &quot;использовать&quot;. It is **not** used for people, for non-material things (except for words and grammatical constructs) and for material things, which remain intact after usage, and can be used again later. The meaning of &quot;употреблять&quot; is closer to &quot;to consume&quot;. It can be used for food, drinks, drugs and other things we take inside our body. It can also be used for different kinds of supplies, which transform or disappear after usage, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти доски давно без дела лежат, занимают много места. Надо бы их на что-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребить...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These planks have been lying here for long time, occupying much space.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They should be used this or that way...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned in @Justin McGuire's answer, &quot;употреблять/употребить&quot; is also used for words and grammar categories. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Это матерное слово, не употребляй его в приличном обществе!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a swear word, don't use it in polite company!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Какой падеж здесь употреблять - родительный или винительный? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which case should be used here - Genitive or Accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Использовать&quot; can be used instead of &quot;употреблять&quot; in all these cases, *except for things you take inside and for words*. Grammatical categories and supplies allow both verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have doubts, which verb to use, it's better to use &quot;использовать&quot;, because it is correct in most cases.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11930" RevisionGUID="4d32573b-a42d-4469-b966-331cf9b15dbc" CreationDate="2016-02-25T11:06:30.490" UserId="3887" Text="These words are often interchangeable, but there are some established expressions in which one word is preferable to the other. They are also similar etymologically (cognate with *потребность* и *польза*, respectively). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is a general rule that will tell you which word to use, but *использовать* sounds more modern and is used (no pun intended) when talking about science and technology, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some established expressions with the word *употреблять*, as Justin McGuire pointed out, are *употреблять в пищу*, *употреблять выражения*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad translation from English will usually be *использовать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11930" RevisionGUID="362f8e13-141c-4c30-be1f-eb8bc22775f3" CreationDate="2016-02-25T11:30:09.893" UserId="3887" Comment="added 543 characters in body" Text="These words are often interchangeable, but there are some established expressions in which one word is preferable to the other. They are also similar etymologically (cognate with *потребность* и *польза*, respectively). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Поиспользовать* from the title of your question is redundant and awkward with both prefixes *по-* and *ис-*. The suffix *по-* instead of *ис-* here would mean the speaker is an oaf who had his way with someone. That's just the only context that comes to mind. Although one could use the other words in that context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Употреблять* somewhat implies consuming (e.g. food), and *использовать*, *пользоваться* implies using something without consuming it (e.g. a plate) . Also, *использовать* sounds more modern and is used (no pun intended) when talking about science and technology, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is that there is a cognate reflexive verb *пользоваться* (&quot;*я пользуюсь зубной щеткой*&quot;), but no similar form with *употреблять*; the verb *употребляться* is only used in passive voice (&quot;*зубные щетки не употребляются в пищу*&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some established expressions with the word *употреблять*, as Justin McGuire pointed out, are *употреблять в пищу*, *употреблять выражения*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bad translation from English will usually be *использовать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="eab84d5c-811b-4ff4-b2d0-ae47744a6f47" CreationDate="2016-02-25T12:05:28.260" UserId="6249" Text="&quot;For all I care&quot; generally has the same meaning as &quot;As far as I'm concerned&quot; but is definitely more informal, aggressive even. I have found quite a few sentence fragments expressing &quot;As far as I'm concerned&quot; but none of them seem to have the bite of &quot;For all I care&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по моему рассуждению &#xD;&#xA; - насколько я могу судить &#xD;&#xA; - по моему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In very general, you use this in situations when you refer to someone you either don't like or who made you angry, and the part of the sentence after &quot;For all I care&quot; is always referring to something the speaker considers to be a bad choice. Often, the speaker doesn't really mean it but is just being sarcastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;For all I care, you don't have to protect your head at all&quot; (when driving the motor cycle)&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;For all I care, you don't even have to get out of bed today&quot; (thereby missing something very important)&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;For all I care, you can keep paying twice more than everyone else&quot; (when it would be so easy to change that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to express the same in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="eab84d5c-811b-4ff4-b2d0-ae47744a6f47" CreationDate="2016-02-25T12:05:28.260" UserId="6249" Text="For all I care - in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="eab84d5c-811b-4ff4-b2d0-ae47744a6f47" CreationDate="2016-02-25T12:05:28.260" UserId="6249" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11932" RevisionGUID="5d67766f-cd78-4c1b-8ca6-5994a7a533de" CreationDate="2016-02-25T12:30:20.757" UserId="6828" Text="**&quot;По мне, так&quot;** fits your requirements nicely. It's informal and passive-aggressive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - По мне, так можешь вообще не беречь голову.&#xD;&#xA; - По мне, так можешь вообще не вставать сегодня.&#xD;&#xA; - По мне, так можешь продолжать платить в два раза больше остальных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use **&quot;Ну и&quot;** or **&quot;Да хоть&quot;**, if it's a generalization. It invokes an imperative, so it's even more aggressive and emotional. On the other hand, it expresses less of a personal opinion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Да хоть вообще голову не береги!&#xD;&#xA; - Да хоть вообще сегодня не вставай!&#xD;&#xA; - Ну и продолжай платить в два раза больше остальных!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="c78f9261-503e-4904-ba14-c3b6d7894e0f" CreationDate="2016-02-25T12:42:42.730" UserId="6725" Text="Here are not the literal translations, but maybe you will find these variants useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For calm sarcasm, you can use expressions like &quot;Да пожалуйста&quot;, &quot;Ну конечно.&quot;, &quot;Да на здоровье!&quot;, &quot;..., мне не жалко.&quot;, &quot;..., мне-то что?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For all I care, you don't even have to get out of bed today &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ой, ну конечно, можно ведь и вовсе с постели не вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For all I care, you can keep paying twice more than everyone else&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да пожалуйста, плати и дальше вдвое больше остальных, мне не жалко. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to add more emotions, you can say a sentence with right the opposite meaning, and using some constructions which normally emphasize ask, demand or forbidding, for example, &quot;Боже упаси!&quot;, &quot;Ни в коем случае&quot;, &quot;Я тебя умоляю&quot; and other ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For all I care, you don't have to protect your head at all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебя умоляю, ни в коем случае не защищай голову!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11934" RevisionGUID="cf50966a-4707-475d-9b2d-dc16bdc8bb46" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:19:03.553" UserId="6539" Text="Нейтральные выражения : &quot;мне то что, мне безразлично, меня это не касается,мне нет до этого дела, делай,как знаешь, да,ради бога&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разговорные: &quot;мне без разницы (параллельно, фиолетово),хоть...и все,что можно придумать с &quot;хоть&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="515da169-fd5e-4c62-b2fe-2ee9b5535d57" CreationDate="2016-02-25T15:53:34.347" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;For all I care&quot; generally has the same meaning as &quot;As far as I'm concerned&quot; but is definitely more informal, aggressive even. I have found quite a few sentence fragments expressing &quot;As far as I'm concerned&quot; but none of them seem to have the bite of &quot;For all I care&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - по моему рассуждению &#xD;&#xA; - насколько я могу судить &#xD;&#xA; - по-моему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In very general, you use this in situations when you refer to someone you either don't like or who made you angry, and the part of the sentence after &quot;For all I care&quot; is always referring to something the speaker considers to be a bad choice. Often, the speaker doesn't really mean it but is just being sarcastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;For all I care, you don't have to protect your head at all&quot; (when driving the motor cycle)&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;For all I care, you don't even have to get out of bed today&quot; (thereby missing something very important)&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;For all I care, you can keep paying twice more than everyone else&quot; (when it would be so easy to change that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to express the same in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27632" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="583b1a3d-1f96-49a4-8896-2ebb89652399" CreationDate="2016-02-25T18:51:11.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/702928845373087744" />
  <row Id="27633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11934" RevisionGUID="6954c581-ca6f-46c1-8df8-dc8697250e94" CreationDate="2016-02-25T19:21:54.290" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Нейтральные выражения : &quot;мне-то что, мне безразлично, меня это не касается, мне нет до этого дела, делай,как знаешь, да, ради бога&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разговорные: &quot;мне без разницы (параллельно, фиолетово),хоть...и все,что можно придумать с &quot;хоть&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="41e1fe64-0e9d-427d-b16f-27e5df6a0993" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:57:51.320" UserId="6813" Text="Unfortunately i will keep asking these kind of questions here on stackexchange. Please tell me which verb group on question title the verb ***to ask***  in English? And why translator gives same result which is the verb ***to ask*** in English for both of them? Please explain with some examples in two languages English and Russian. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="41e1fe64-0e9d-427d-b16f-27e5df6a0993" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:57:51.320" UserId="6813" Text="просить/попросить and спрашивать/спросить - what is difference(s) between these verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="41e1fe64-0e9d-427d-b16f-27e5df6a0993" CreationDate="2016-02-25T20:57:51.320" UserId="6813" Text="|перевод|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="2418475c-b6a1-4a4f-8cf7-41bcf2673e9c" CreationDate="2016-02-25T21:54:21.220" UserId="134" Text="If you are asking **something** (and expect something to be said in response), you use *спросить*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спроси его, как пройти в библиотеку // Ask him which way the library is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are asking **for something** (and expect something is done or given to you), you use *попросить*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Попроси его открыть тебе дверь // Ask him to open the door for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Попроси у него машину // Ask him for his car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11918" RevisionGUID="6ac9acc7-a11d-4db5-9254-39a5158bbb3e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T06:51:16.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/703110060566663168" />
  <row Id="27639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="b99cec58-98d4-4094-b9ec-572678ad1b80" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:44:29.397" UserId="6550" Text="Typically, when forming the genitive plural of some word which in the nominative ends in -CCа (where C represents a consonant, such that this represents a consonant cluster followed by &quot;а&quot;) the ending vowel is removed and an insert vowel like е, ё, or о is inserted. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;ошибка --&gt; ошибок; письмо --&gt; писем  ...etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the formation of the genitive plural of words ending in -CьCа like просьба and свадьба. Whereas the genitive plural of свадьба is свадеб, the genitive plural of просьба is просьб. Is this simply a result of some historical linguistic development? Or is there some other reason for why the genitive plural of просьба is not просеб?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сва́деб" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="b99cec58-98d4-4094-b9ec-572678ad1b80" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:44:29.397" UserId="6550" Text="Strange Genitive Plural" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="b99cec58-98d4-4094-b9ec-572678ad1b80" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:44:29.397" UserId="6550" Text="|грамматика|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="45b227ef-8ffd-4b19-951d-110055e07c50" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:53:19.363" UserId="6815" Text="What does &quot;Ой всё&quot; mean? My Russian friends use it a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="45b227ef-8ffd-4b19-951d-110055e07c50" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:53:19.363" UserId="6815" Text="What does &quot;Ой всё&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="45b227ef-8ffd-4b19-951d-110055e07c50" CreationDate="2016-02-26T07:53:19.363" UserId="6815" Text="|перевод|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11939" RevisionGUID="36c30de8-df2a-43fc-9061-b4aec1e0fb54" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:10:59.407" UserId="6843" Text="'Ohh, that's all.' literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means like you don't wanna chat, you wanna change a topic of the speech or dialogue. Sometimes it means that opponent don't wanna think about this problem/task right now, because he/she can't see solution or does not agree with your solution/thoughts. Yes, sometimes it can be translated as 'Lets stop talking, I STILL don't agree with you. There is no point in our dialogue/You are hopeless.' Also &quot;ой, всё&quot; can be used as a joke, not seriously. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11940" RevisionGUID="f7eda205-4346-4229-9791-ddb33769c58d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:11:37.910" UserId="4801" Text="This expression means something along the lines of &quot;I'm done&quot;, meaning that someone is not willing to continue an argument. Quite often it implies that a person saying &quot;Oй все&quot; lost an argument. The phrase can also be used as a joke to mock such behaviour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11941" RevisionGUID="f199ac65-cd4e-4a0f-b4c1-8e56d7e5e8ba" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:25:38.177" UserId="6815" Text="It's like &quot;HB though&quot;, where HB stands for Happy Birthday " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="6db7ff0f-5c9e-4b6c-83c8-3b62112227a7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:33:08.483" UserId="551" Comment="Made title more descriptive" Text="Typically, when forming the genitive plural of some word which in the nominative ends in -CCа (where C represents a consonant, such that this represents a consonant cluster followed by &quot;а&quot;) the ending vowel is removed and an insert vowel like е, ё, or о is inserted. Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ошибка --&gt; ошибок; письмо --&gt; писем  ...etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question regards the formation of the genitive plural of words ending in -CьCа like просьба and свадьба. Whereas the genitive plural of свадьба is сва́деб, the genitive plural of просьба is просьб. Is this simply a result of some historical linguistic development? Or is there some other reason for why the genitive plural of просьба is not просеб?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27649" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="6db7ff0f-5c9e-4b6c-83c8-3b62112227a7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:33:08.483" UserId="551" Comment="Made title more descriptive" Text="Strange Genitive Plural of просьба: why просьб and not просеб?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11942" RevisionGUID="5af0ee26-2c96-4d7e-bb14-577e66eb821d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T08:49:37.977" UserId="6844" Text="Let me try to find real life translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Да хоть совсем голову не береги (мозгов то нет) &#xD;&#xA;It is rude but it is OK between mother and her son.&#xD;&#xA;Here is another word you can use&#xD;&#xA;Сорвиголова! (= Слабоумие + отвага)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Даже попу лень c постели поднять&#xD;&#xA;3) Да хоть все деньги отдай&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also (mis)use proverbs with sarcasm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Бережёного Бог бережёт&#xD;&#xA;2) Работа дураков любит / Работа не волк, в лес не убежит&#xD;&#xA;3) Скупой платит дважды" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="f5d0dd80-b9da-445f-870e-402f8945f88d" CreationDate="2016-02-26T09:08:30.200" UserId="6844" Text="Word Предмет was created by the first famous russian scientist Vasiliy Lomonosov.&#xD;&#xA;It means the thing in front of your eyes. Point of interest. Or interest itself. &#xD;&#xA;Lomonosov used it to point to a subject of his scientific research. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="4a2420e5-04f2-421a-a3f4-2b9797c6a1a6" CreationDate="2016-02-26T09:32:53.633" UserId="6561" Text="Not sure but I think that's because &quot;**просьба**&quot; is pronounced as &quot;*прозьба*&quot; (&quot;*с*&quot; becomes voiced because the following &quot;*б*&quot; is paired voiced). So if it were &quot;*просеб*&quot;, &quot;с&quot; wouldn't become voiced unlike its actual pronunciation... maybe that's why for some historical reasons &quot;**просьб**&quot; has no vowel between &quot;*с*&quot; and &quot;*б*&quot; in this form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I can not coin another example with the equivalent feature :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="773c6800-e8d0-497a-95dd-958a6ff91c18" CreationDate="2016-02-26T12:39:24.817" UserId="6846" Text="**Спросить** - means that you expect ONLY verbal answer.&#xD;&#xA;Спроси его который час? (Ask him what time is it now?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Попросить** - means that you expect someone to do some action for you or you want to get a &quot;physical&quot; thing from someone.&#xD;&#xA;Попроси его позвонить Кэт. (Ask him to call Kat)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11947" RevisionGUID="0e715608-6eec-45e6-bdd3-2fe4511c1aad" CreationDate="2016-02-26T13:20:04.493" UserId="6847" Text="May be &quot;For all I care&quot; means &quot;Всё что меня волнует (интересует)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -I just drive to shop - it's 100m far away!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -I don't care how far you drive, for all I care, you don't have to protect your head at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я просто съездил в магазин - это в 100 метрах!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Меня не волнует как далеко ты съездил, всё что меня волнует, это то что ты не защитил свою голову (шлемом)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11948" RevisionGUID="c6f9bdaa-fe0d-4852-b6ad-a2b46b8f69e1" CreationDate="2016-02-26T13:22:14.383" UserId="6846" Text="**&quot;Ой, все&quot;** - it is a very informal way to stop discussion. It is mostly used by women as a final argument in a dispute. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Women always want to say the &quot;last word&quot; in any dispute but if they feel they don't have any more agruments they can say **&quot;Ой, все&quot;** and can even leave the room-))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you hear **&quot;Ой, все&quot;** it usially means that you are right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11946" RevisionGUID="48fe8de9-2e6b-404d-a6f7-c838db2222cc" CreationDate="2016-02-26T14:38:47.763" UserId="6846" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="**Спросить** - means that you expect ONLY verbal answer.&#xD;&#xA;Спроси его который час? (Ask him what time is it now?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Попросить** - means that you expect someone to do some action for you or you want to get a &quot;physical&quot; thing from someone.&#xD;&#xA;Попроси его позвонить Кэт. (Ask him to call Kat)&#xD;&#xA;Попроси у него ручку. (Ask him a pen)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27660" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="87acb8ee-804b-41e0-ae3b-feb7bfd0f0cf" CreationDate="2016-02-26T18:51:18.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/703291263144034304" />
  <row Id="27661" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="8c2bb722-7b52-4e6e-9f55-1479b108241a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T00:55:45.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/703382978769100801" />
  <row Id="27662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="7389ea8b-c8e1-45e1-a80c-e04795cb418f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:46:11.747" UserId="6816" Text="Which consonant in a cluster determines whether the other consonant(s) are voiced? For example, if there is **зт**, is it pronounced **ст** or **зд**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="7389ea8b-c8e1-45e1-a80c-e04795cb418f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:46:11.747" UserId="6816" Text="Voiced/Unvoiced" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="7389ea8b-c8e1-45e1-a80c-e04795cb418f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T13:46:11.747" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11950" RevisionGUID="5ea75a3d-42a2-475a-b958-ee9bd622be14" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:22:24.657" UserId="4600" Text="The latter one. **зт** is pronounced **ст.** Though I can't think of example, because if we are talking about prefixes **раз-**, **без-** they assume written forms **рас-**, **бес-** when preceding unvoiced consonants: *разливать*, but *раскрывать*, *безликий* but *бесхитростный.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="f3b25689-9ce3-4763-a8fa-d52b46ec48af" CreationDate="2016-02-27T15:26:50.650" UserId="6816" Comment="added &quot;is&quot;" Text="Which consonant in a cluster determines whether the other consonant(s) is/are voiced? For example, if there is **зт**, is it pronounced **ст** or **зд**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="d49734ff-f9ea-4896-9138-c319a30933c4" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:47:51.643" UserId="6816" Text="From what I understand, **чем** is used for the instrumental case and **чём** is for the prepositional case. I have listened to an audio recording of both and they were pronounced the same way. Is that true? I thought they were pronounced **chyem** and **chyom** respectively.&#xA;&#xA;*No, I do not have access to a native speaker, nor will I ever have access, so please don't ask. Thank you.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="d49734ff-f9ea-4896-9138-c319a30933c4" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:47:51.643" UserId="6816" Text="Difference between чем and чём" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="d49734ff-f9ea-4896-9138-c319a30933c4" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:47:51.643" UserId="6816" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="b53f189b-d905-4f9e-ad31-c4600326f47a" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:48:32.533" UserId="6816" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="e68ef78f-8dec-49f4-98b4-a88187eb759f" CreationDate="2016-02-27T19:48:51.220" UserId="6816" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="77598951-3363-4c7e-b2c3-1d7cb589dbb5" CreationDate="2016-02-27T20:14:48.753" UserId="6828" Text="For some reason, Google translate pronounces an isolated *чем* or *с чем* (with е, not ё) [as *чём*][1]. This is definitely incorrect. The phrase *[&quot;Лучше поздно, чем никогда&quot;][2]*, however, is pronounced correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/#en/ru/with%20what&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://translate.google.com/#ru/en/%D0%9B%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%2C%20%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11953" RevisionGUID="564537fe-4f50-4f8e-9c25-e240de0844e2" CreationDate="2016-02-28T05:56:25.060" UserId="4560" Text="I think **свадеб** is the real outlier here. **Просьб** is in line with **служб**, **тяжб**, and even **женитьб**. What's more, I think **свадеб** is a later development, driven by ease of pronunciation, from an earlier `*свадьб`. Had the vowel been around since the schwa extinction (as in **ошибок** and **писем**), it would have been the etymologically correct `*сватеб`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="46c2f4dd-f703-46df-8e79-0385bc6f200c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:50:02.470" UserId="6859" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Have tried to find out (checked several sources) what the difference is between: &quot;свистать&quot; and &quot;свистеть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have an explanation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="46c2f4dd-f703-46df-8e79-0385bc6f200c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:50:02.470" UserId="6859" Text="Difference between &quot;свистать&quot; and &quot;свистеть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="46c2f4dd-f703-46df-8e79-0385bc6f200c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T14:50:02.470" UserId="6859" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11955" RevisionGUID="2c85c7fb-3cf2-41af-a0de-dd71863cd59c" CreationDate="2016-02-28T15:12:17.967" UserId="134" Text="In the modern language, *свистать* is a little bit outdated, but otherwise is a synonym to *свистеть* (&quot;to whistle&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, it's an iterative, similar to *летать / лететь, плавать / плыть* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some idioms (*свистать всех наверх!, ищи-свищи!*) or metaphorical meanings &quot;to hiss, to boo (as when expressing discontent)&quot;, &quot;to make whistling sound (of a wind)&quot;, etc., only one verb of the pair can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Играют волны, ветер свищет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Профессора на рысаках не ездят, меня освистали бы студенты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="9bdc17dd-61f1-4aed-9814-d21fbca5d45f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:02:41.270" UserId="6859" Text="According to starling.rinet.ru the first person singularis is: &quot;кладý&quot; for the verb: &quot;клáсть&quot; but the TA has stated that it is: &quot;кладум&quot;. Is there some old form that is presently used in first person singular for this verb that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starling result: &#xD;&#xA;Infinitive: клáсть&#xD;&#xA;Present/future tense&#xD;&#xA;Singular	Plural&#xD;&#xA;1 person	кладý	кладём&#xD;&#xA;2 person	кладёшь	кладёте&#xD;&#xA;3 person	кладёт	кладýт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the TA has presented it to be: &quot;клáсть: кладум, кладёшь; клал, клала&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(everything but the first person singular seems to match up).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="9bdc17dd-61f1-4aed-9814-d21fbca5d45f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:02:41.270" UserId="6859" Text="First person singular &quot;клáсть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="9bdc17dd-61f1-4aed-9814-d21fbca5d45f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:02:41.270" UserId="6859" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11957" RevisionGUID="60a31b26-dd7b-44be-bda7-f90017275452" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:13:45.467" UserId="1236" Text="*Kладум* is an obvious typo, it is wrong, there's no such word, the correct form is *кладу*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11958" RevisionGUID="149f6620-3cd5-420d-b6c3-a69de331db1e" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:16:14.840" UserId="4560" Text="I don't know what TA stands for, but it's clearly a typo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian **-у** endings in the 1st person singular present descended from Proto-Slavic `-ǫ` (a nasal vowel, as in the French *Jean*), from an earlier `-on`. At no point did anything like &quot;-um&quot; exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="c1e29232-b5b3-475b-a30b-3dcd6e182e48" CreationDate="2016-02-28T17:20:21.630" UserId="6859" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="According to starling.rinet.ru the first person singularis is: &quot;кладý&quot; for the verb: &quot;клáсть&quot; but the TA (Teaching Assistant) has stated that it is: &quot;кладум&quot;. Is there some old form that is presently used in first person singular for this verb that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starling result: &#xD;&#xA;Infinitive: клáсть&#xD;&#xA;Present/future tense&#xD;&#xA;Singular	Plural&#xD;&#xA;1 person	кладý	кладём&#xD;&#xA;2 person	кладёшь	кладёте&#xD;&#xA;3 person	кладёт	кладýт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the TA has presented it to be: &quot;клáсть: кладум, кладёшь; клал, клала&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(everything but the first person singular seems to match up).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27684" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="aacec2dc-2eb0-45f2-9fbc-ffeb825f9026" CreationDate="2016-02-28T18:55:54.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/704017196738023424" />
  <row Id="27685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="efe2c22b-412c-4d3f-a907-95bd05fb7741" CreationDate="2016-02-28T19:32:10.357" UserId="6859" Text="Which one would you use in your every day conversation: &quot;избéг&quot; or &quot;избéгнул&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;избéгнуть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Past tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Masculine**	Feminine	Neutral	Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**избéг//избéгнул**	избéгла	избéгло	избéгли" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="efe2c22b-412c-4d3f-a907-95bd05fb7741" CreationDate="2016-02-28T19:32:10.357" UserId="6859" Text="Past tense verb &quot;избéгнуть&quot; ---&gt; избéг or избéгнул?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="efe2c22b-412c-4d3f-a907-95bd05fb7741" CreationDate="2016-02-28T19:32:10.357" UserId="6859" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11960" RevisionGUID="0b25827c-a5f8-4284-b620-1a49743a996f" CreationDate="2016-02-28T20:43:58.587" UserId="6861" Text="просить - is an action, it is adressed to some person to get something from, or do something to you, or somebody; it's similar to 'beg', beggin' a pardon&#xD;&#xA;спросить - is about making any question, this is actually a verb 'to ask', when you trying to get some information you do this: спрашиваешь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11961" RevisionGUID="e8ad3a12-0018-4aee-86a3-d00f3e8db633" CreationDate="2016-02-28T20:57:26.867" UserId="6861" Text="there is no such a word in any russian language as &quot;избегнуть&quot;. there is only &quot;избежать&quot;, that is similar to 'avoid'. it is difficult verb, a complex verb. it's consists of &quot;из&quot; and &quot;бежать&quot;. where the first word means from something, the second means to run. but when you running, you can run continiously in a long period of time, so you do run somewhere, or from something, or from someone. but 'избежать' means, that you trying to get as far as possible from undesired happening. and this word build on the root of 'бежать' instead of your meaning : 'бег'. the root here is a verb - to run, to run away from. &#xD;&#xA;избежать &#xD;&#xA;избежал&#xD;&#xA;избегаю&#xD;&#xA;избегать - here it means some process in some time&#xD;&#xA;избежание&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11962" RevisionGUID="c943c387-26c1-43b2-96ce-0550eef4ea0e" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:07:20.727" UserId="6861" Text="oh, there is a problem with a letter 'ё'&#xD;&#xA;somebody trys to erase that letter from russian alphabet and history, and there was a rumor about try to make any law to change ё on е.&#xD;&#xA;but anyway, this is a different sounds, and letters too.&#xD;&#xA;чем and чём is two diffent words.&#xD;&#xA;о чём ты говоришь? what do you talking about? a subject&#xD;&#xA;чем ты это докажешь? how will you prove that? a property" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11966" RevisionGUID="5893edfb-2a22-4c71-84af-001b9f5057ca" CreationDate="2016-02-28T21:59:43.720" UserId="6861" Text="also there is optional :&#xD;&#xA;запросто&#xD;&#xA;без бэ&#xD;&#xA;без базара&#xD;&#xA;нет проблем / не проблема / без проблем&#xD;&#xA;ваще легко&#xD;&#xA;легко&#xD;&#xA;сказано сделано&#xD;&#xA;как два пальца&#xD;&#xA;изи / изи пизи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="f89b06bf-1307-4658-baa9-a531540c30a2" CreationDate="2016-02-28T23:50:55.863" UserId="6858" Text="In modern language (especially spoken language) you should better use &quot;избежать&quot;. Its past tense in masculine is &quot;избежáл&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Избегнуть&quot; does sound old-fashioned and kind of poetical. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11969" RevisionGUID="b8547a66-f315-4ac9-9883-0110cea8c41f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T06:37:45.297" UserId="5008" Text="The situation is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Избежал** is normal  &#xD;&#xA;**Избег** is perfectly OK, but uncommonly spoken  &#xD;&#xA;**Избегнул** is rare and should be avoided&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a broader perspective, the verbs ending in _-нуть_ often denote one-time instant actions, kind of _сказануть_, _взгрустнуть_ etc. As we always use the verb _избегнуть_ in the sense of &quot;_to avoid_&quot;, not just &quot;to run away&quot; as the root suggests, we'd better to avoid using &quot;-нуть&quot; in a conjugation pattern. Yet the infinitive &quot;_избегнуть_&quot; is still certainly OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="cfc2457d-5e58-411a-91cb-611a9036a69f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:04:08.050" UserId="6497" Text="I'm doing this exercise to write down from videos on the internet just to see how russian people speaks colloquially, and I got some question about it.&#xD;&#xA;I copied the whole speech, to preserve the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;как изучать русский язык: это правило будет сюрпризом для многих: не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учите грамматику. это будет удивительно для вас, потому что с самого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начала вы **учили** грамматику. вы постоянно **писали** что-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; упражнения, **сидели** долго **думали**  &quot;какое там время?&quot; и самая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; главная ошибка, которую вы **допускали** до сего момента, вы **учили**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; только грамматику. вы не **уделяли** должного вниманя разговорный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) why the verbs are at the past?&#xD;&#xA;2) what is сего?&#xD;&#xA;3) the strange thing is that которую is at the accusative case but not самая главная ошибка, I mean, all that part is the object of the sentence cause допускали is transitive verb, right?&#xD;&#xA;4) question about listening: why I hear just &quot;годня&quot; or  &quot;час&quot; and not &quot;се&quot; before them, when subtitles are сегодня or сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="cfc2457d-5e58-411a-91cb-611a9036a69f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:04:08.050" UserId="6497" Text="why the past in these sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="cfc2457d-5e58-411a-91cb-611a9036a69f" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:04:08.050" UserId="6497" Text="|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="a0033253-9574-448a-9429-2d91c5eb47ba" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:40:56.723" UserId="6097" Text="A lot of questions in one Question :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The verbs are in the past because the author implies some moment in the future (see &quot;будет удивительно&quot;). You can understand it as [future perfect tense][1] - &quot;you **will have learned** grammar, you **will have written** etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Сего&quot; is genitive of &quot;сей&quot; which is an old-fashioned word meaning &quot;этот&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Которую&quot; is in accusative because it is governed by &quot;допускали&quot;. &quot;Ошибка&quot; is in nominative because it is not governed by anything. But in the sentence &quot;вы допускали большую ошибку&quot; &quot;ошибка&quot; must be in accustive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It might be not very accurate pronunciation of the speaker or you have to train your listening skills :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="7c2b062f-79cd-40ff-8656-141242cf03a3" CreationDate="2016-02-29T09:48:27.240" UserId="6097" Comment="edited body" Text="A lot of questions in one Question :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The verbs are in the past because the author implies some moment in the future (see &quot;будет удивительно&quot;). You can understand it as [future perfect tense][1] - &quot;you **will have learned** grammar, you **will have written** etc&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Сего&quot; is genitive of &quot;сей&quot; which is an old-fashioned word meaning &quot;этот&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Которую&quot; is in accusative because it is governed by &quot;допускали&quot;. &quot;Ошибка&quot; is in nominative because it is not governed by anything. But in the sentence &quot;вы допустили большую ошибку&quot; &quot;ошибка&quot; must be in accustive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It might be not very accurate pronunciation of the speaker or you have to train your listening skills :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11972" RevisionGUID="6edcc97c-ed15-423e-8f10-7b67d6c95bb8" CreationDate="2016-02-29T11:08:49.937" UserId="5008" Text="1. It's in the past, because it must be in the past. In English it would be something like &quot;you **were** sitting, learning etc.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Который_ takes a case suitable for the clause, not for the main sentence. That is, &quot;ошибка, которая...&quot; = &quot;mistake which [does smth. itself]&quot;, but &quot;ошибка, которую...&quot; = &quot;mistake which [is an object for some action]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. _Сего_ is genitive of &quot;сей&quot; which is an old word for &quot;this&quot;. Usually you may encounter this word only as a part of &quot;сегодня&quot; (i.e. &quot;of this same day&quot; = today) or &quot;сейчас&quot; (i.e. &quot;this same hour&quot; = now).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Normal pronounce should be kind of &quot;сегодня&quot;-&gt;&quot;сиводня&quot; and &quot;сейчас&quot;-&gt;&quot;си(й)час&quot;, but sometimes people reduce these words into &quot;сёдня&quot; and &quot;ща(с)&quot;. But I doubt you've really heard these variants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="a80ffc82-a2f1-4ec2-8aff-6361751138ae" CreationDate="2016-02-29T18:33:47.030" UserId="6859" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Background: I am located in southern Sweden and we are using some strange verbs that I often place 200 years back in time but are part of the &quot;modern&quot; Russian grammar we must learn so I need to ask you guys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;Which one would you use in your every day conversation: &quot;избéг&quot; or &quot;избéгнул&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;избéгнуть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Past tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Masculine**	Feminine	Neutral	Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**избéг//избéгнул**	избéгла	избéгло	избéгли" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="ce9b40f8-43bf-4add-876c-141e825a4145" CreationDate="2016-02-29T18:40:15.683" UserId="6859" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Background: I am located in southern Sweden and we are using some strange verbs that I often place 200 years back in time but are part of the &quot;modern&quot; Russian grammar we must learn so I need to ask you guys. Learning these verbs have no links to any other activities. They are useless but we must learn them by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;Which one would you use in your every day conversation: &quot;избéг&quot; or &quot;избéгнул&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;избéгнуть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Past tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Masculine**	Feminine	Neutral	Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**избéг//избéгнул**	избéгла	избéгло	избéгли" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="8f93d6c3-2fc1-4b3b-9c1f-7f8e202c6fdb" CreationDate="2016-02-29T18:42:42.683" UserId="6859" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="According to starling.rinet.ru the first person singularis is: &quot;кладý&quot; for the verb: &quot;клáсть&quot; but the TA (Teaching Assistant) has stated that it is: &quot;кладум&quot;. Is there some old form that is presently used in first person singular for this verb that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starling result: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infinitive: клáсть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present/future tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singular	Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 person	кладý	кладём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 person	кладёшь	кладёте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 person	кладёт	кладýт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the TA has presented it to be: &quot;клáсть: кладум, кладёшь; клал, клала&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(everything but the first person singular seems to match up). My guess is that the clown got it right because he has induced a lot of typos and mistakes. I guess he is their best student." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="92e1182b-76e3-4c0a-b859-ccf17743aa56" CreationDate="2016-02-29T18:54:38.873" UserId="6859" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="Background: I am located in southern Sweden and we are using some strange verbs that I often place 200 years back in time but are part of the &quot;modern&quot; Russian grammar we must learn so I need to ask you guys. Learning these verbs have no links to any other activities. They are useless but we must learn them by heart. We are always told that we have to talk well but the ones that say that would have to stop being lazy and do more and better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question:&#xD;&#xA;Which one would you use in your every day conversation: &quot;избéг&quot; or &quot;избéгнул&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;избéгнуть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Past tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Masculine**	Feminine	Neutral	Plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**избéг//избéгнул**	избéгла	избéгло	избéгли" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11973" RevisionGUID="3c254311-b066-428c-9328-1f70dd42ebf0" CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:18:04.463" UserId="4121" Text="В русском языке есть два глагола: *бегать* (to run, т.е. заниматься бегом) и *бежать* (to flee, т.е. находиться в состоянии бега) &amp;mdash; которые имеют разные грамматические возможности. Поэтому **нельзя сказать что *избежал* является предпочтительной формой** для прошлого времени глагола *избегнуть*. Это не верно, т.к. это разные глаголы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глагол *избегнуть* производный от *избегать* и имеет два вида в прошедшем времени: совершенный *избег, избегла, избегло, избегли* и несовершенный *избегал, избегала, избегало, избегали*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глагол *избежать* (синоним *избегнуть*) имеет только совершенный вид в прошедшем *избежал*, *избежала*, *избежало*, *избежали*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда вид и время этих глаголов совпадает, то в современном русском языке предпочтительнее использовать глагол *избежать* вместо *избегнуть* и *избежал* вместо *избег*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этих предложениях одинаковый смысл, но предпочтительнее второй вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Он избег встречи.&quot;* и *&quot;Он избежал встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Он хотел избегнуть встречи.&quot;* и  *&quot;Он хотел избежать встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в этих предложениях смысл разный, замену делать нельзя:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Надо избегать встречи.&quot;* и *&quot;Надо избежать встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Он избегал встречи.&quot;* и *&quot;Он избежал встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается XIX века, то уже в то время Пушкин, ярый сторонник московского варианта русского языка, использовал слово &quot;избежал&quot; вместо &quot;избег&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Присоветуй им встретить меня с детской любовию и послушанием; не то не **избежать** им лютой казни.&quot; А.С. Пушкин, &quot;Арап Петра Великого&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Барков шутливых од тебе не посылал,&#xD;&#xA;Радищев, рабства враг, цензуры **избежал**,&#xD;&#xA;И Пушкина стихи в печати не бывали;&#xD;&#xA;Что нужды? их и так иные прочитали.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;А.С. Пушкин, &quot;К цензору&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому, можно заключить, что форма *избег* была уже в те времена дико книжкой и канцелярской. Т.к. Гоголь с московским вариантом языка знаком не был, то не удивительно что языковая практика была намного менее элегантная чем у Пушкина. Отсюда такие косноязычные формы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11973" RevisionGUID="8d4aaee3-0308-49cb-83c4-13cf6a1e3774" CreationDate="2016-03-01T00:34:04.730" UserId="4121" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="В русском языке есть два глагола: *бегать* (to run, т.е. заниматься бегом) и *бежать* (to flee, т.е. находиться в состоянии бега) &amp;mdash; которые имеют разные грамматические возможности. Поэтому **нельзя сказать что *избежал* является предпочтительной формой** для прошлого времени глагола *избегнуть*. Это не верно, т.к. это разные глаголы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глагол *избегнуть* производный от *избегать* и имеет два вида в прошедшем времени: совершенный *избег, избегла, избегло, избегли* и несовершенный *избегал, избегала, избегало, избегали*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глагол *избежать* (синоним *избегнуть*) имеет только совершенный вид в прошедшем *избежал*, *избежала*, *избежало*, *избежали*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда вид и время этих глаголов совпадает, то в современном русском языке предпочтительнее использовать глагол *избежать* вместо *избегнуть* и *избежал* вместо *избег*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этих предложениях одинаковый смысл, но предпочтительнее второй вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Он избег встречи.&quot;* и *&quot;Он избежал встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Он хотел избегнуть встречи.&quot;* и  *&quot;Он хотел избежать встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в этих предложениях смысл разный, замену делать нельзя:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Надо избегать встречи.&quot;* и *&quot;Надо избежать встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Он избегал встречи.&quot;* и *&quot;Он избежал встречи.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается XIX века, то уже в то время Пушкин, ярый сторонник московского варианта русского языка, использовал слово &quot;избежал&quot; вместо &quot;избег&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Присоветуй им встретить меня с детской любовию и послушанием; не то не **избежать** им лютой казни.&quot; А.С. Пушкин, &quot;Арап Петра Великого&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Барков шутливых од тебе не посылал,&#xD;&#xA;Радищев, рабства враг, цензуры **избежал**,&#xD;&#xA;И Пушкина стихи в печати не бывали;&#xD;&#xA;Что нужды? их и так иные прочитали.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;А.С. Пушкин, &quot;К цензору&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому, можно заключить, что форма *избег* была уже в те времена дико книжкой и канцелярской. Т.к. Гоголь с московским вариантом языка знаком был совсем не так хорошо, то не удивительно что языковая практика была намного менее элегантная чем у Пушкина. Отсюда такие косноязычные формы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="a8231869-1c9d-46a9-8a86-9fef527e2a44" CreationDate="2016-03-01T03:07:39.083" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why the past in these sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="67e34eb1-3ee1-44af-ba80-2b10863cd5f7" CreationDate="2016-03-01T08:46:53.113" UserId="6097" Comment="changed 1)" Text="A lot of questions in one Question :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The verbs are in the past because the author is referring to your past activity - you **were learning** grammar, you **were writing** excercises etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Сего&quot; is genitive of &quot;сей&quot; which is an old-fashioned word meaning &quot;этот&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Которую&quot; is in accusative because it is governed by &quot;допускали&quot;. &quot;Ошибка&quot; is in nominative because it is not governed by anything. But in the sentence &quot;вы допустили большую ошибку&quot; &quot;ошибка&quot; must be in accustive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It might be not very accurate pronunciation of the speaker or you have to train your listening skills :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="a3f289ad-e166-48fb-9516-61699cc3d1e3" CreationDate="2016-03-01T16:05:22.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/704699058162704384" />
  <row Id="27731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11977" RevisionGUID="a49785c6-0d04-4394-aa84-afb5a3aaff87" CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:25:08.197" UserId="6874" Text="Why does молчать verb belong to second conjugation? According to for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Russian_verbs all verbs ending with -ать except держать, слышать, дышать belong to the first conjugation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11977" RevisionGUID="a49785c6-0d04-4394-aa84-afb5a3aaff87" CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:25:08.197" UserId="6874" Text="молчать conjugation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11977" RevisionGUID="a49785c6-0d04-4394-aa84-afb5a3aaff87" CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:25:08.197" UserId="6874" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11978" RevisionGUID="16a5bd41-49d2-4f0c-85bb-488da5278b13" CreationDate="2016-03-01T19:36:52.013" UserId="134" Text="This wiktionary entry is wrong, there are many more conjugation II verbs ending in *-ать* than listed there: *журчать, кричать, мычать* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They probably only list the verbs which don't have stress on the ending in corresponding forms (*молчи&amp;#x301;т, кричи&amp;#x301;т* but *слы&amp;#x301;шит, ды&amp;#x301;шит*), which makes it hard to tell the conjugation, as *и* and *е* are phonetically indistinguishable in Russian in that position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="e97113de-6dd5-471f-89df-568664e3482b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T20:59:43.603" UserId="6816" Text="Is **мне** stressed (as in, is it pronounced **mnyeh**?)? Is this always the case? If not, what are some examples? Also, what about other short words such as **по**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="e97113de-6dd5-471f-89df-568664e3482b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T20:59:43.603" UserId="6816" Text="Is мне stressed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="e97113de-6dd5-471f-89df-568664e3482b" CreationDate="2016-03-01T20:59:43.603" UserId="6816" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="c10e9b61-5648-4497-8911-e83cd7a1c8c0" CreationDate="2016-03-02T00:14:38.993" UserId="6858" Text="The pronoun **мне** will be always pronounced as **mnyeh**, no matter if its stressed or not. There's no way you'd say **mni**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it in a flowing speech (say, for example, &quot;мне нравится этот фильм&quot;) you have basically several options of stressing to report fine meaning of what you're trying to say. Normally if you just report the fact that you liked the film you pronounce &quot;мне нравится&quot; joined together putting primary stress on &quot;нравится&quot;, so you have something like (mnyeh-NRAH-vih-tsyah). If you stress the word &quot;мне&quot; putting secondary stress on the verb you would mean that you personally liked it as opposed to someone else who didn't. The same applies to the rest of the words in this example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**По** is a preposition and it is also unstressed most of the times and you should pronounce it as any syllable &quot;-по-&quot; in its unstressed position (**-pah-**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now thinking about the syllable -мне- in unstressed position, I'd say that I would always pronounce it like -mnyeh- (consider the following examples: **мнемóника**, **камнепáд** or **сомневáющийся**) but maybe there's a counter-example I can't think of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="dc47b07c-878f-446c-b32a-aa427361e62b" CreationDate="2016-03-02T11:09:00.960" UserId="6858" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The pronoun **мне** will be always pronounced as **mnyeh**, no matter if its stressed or not. There's no way you'd say **mni**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it in a flowing speech (say, for example, &quot;мне нравится этот фильм&quot;) you have basically several options of stressing to report fine meaning of what you're trying to say. Normally if you just report the fact that you liked the film you pronounce &quot;мне нравится&quot; joined together putting primary stress on &quot;нравится&quot;, so you have something like (mnyeh-NRUH-vih-tsuh). If you stress the word &quot;мне&quot; putting secondary stress on the verb you would mean that you personally liked it as opposed to someone else who didn't. The same applies to the rest of the words in this example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**По** is a preposition and it is also unstressed most of the times and you should pronounce it as any syllable &quot;-по-&quot; in its unstressed position (**-puh-**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now thinking about the syllable -мне- in unstressed position, I'd say that I would always pronounce it like -mnyeh- (consider the following examples: **мнемóника**, **камнепáд** or **сомневáющийся**) but maybe there's a counter-example I can't think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD 2016-03-02: Transcriptions edited according to hints of Yellow Sky" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="f1489de1-ef12-45f6-a482-7e412779cd74" CreationDate="2016-03-02T13:27:46.320" UserId="4121" Text="Если речь идет о предлогах, то важно понимать в каком падеже находится слово:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Палка (о ком? о чем?) о двух концах.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очевидно это предложный падеж, а не творительный для которого бы потребовался предлог &quot;с&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке предложный падеж исторически использовался для указания места, поэтому нет ничего удивительно в таких конструкциях. Проблема в понимании возникает из-за того, что доступные функции предлога &quot;о&quot; в современном русском языке очень ограничены. Но для формирования предложного падежа можно использовать и другие предлоги, тогда эти фразы будут звучать вполне по-современному:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Палка при двух концах.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Животное на двух ногах.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="d3521046-015a-4c2c-aca4-2403e01ab512" CreationDate="2016-03-02T13:41:57.943" UserId="6858" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="The pronoun **мне** will be always pronounced as **mnyeh**, no matter if its stressed or not. There's no way you'd say **mni**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say it in a flowing speech (say, for example, &quot;мне нравится этот фильм&quot;) you have basically several options of stressing to report fine meaning of what you're trying to say. Normally if you just report the fact that you liked the film you pronounce &quot;мне нравится&quot; joined together putting primary stress on &quot;нравится&quot;, so you have something like (mnyeh-NRUH-vih-tsuh). If you stress the word &quot;мне&quot; putting secondary stress on the verb you would mean that you personally liked it as opposed to someone else who didn't. The same applies to the rest of the words in this example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**По** is a preposition and it is also unstressed most of the times and you should pronounce it as any syllable &quot;-по-&quot; in its unstressed position (**-puh-**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now thinking about the syllable -мне- in unstressed position, I'd say that I would always pronounce it like -mnyeh- (consider the following examples: **мнемóника**, **камнепáд** or **сомневáющийся**) but maybe there's a counter-example I can't think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD 2016-03-02: Transcriptions edited according to hints of @YellowSky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD UPD 2016-03-02: As pointed out by @DenisKreshikhin standard pronunciation of a **-e-** following a soft consonant in an unstressed syllable followed by the stressed one would lean towards **-и-** rather than **-e-**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="f28c8a4a-a599-4816-8eb4-6fb81a86209b" CreationDate="2016-03-03T08:23:08.057" UserId="6725" Text="I've checked words ending with all (or almost all) possible combinations of C1C2V and C1ьC2V type, where C1 and C2 are different consonants, and V is vowel `а`, `я`, `о` or `е`. **The main conclusions are**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Most of the combinations don't follow the question author's rule.&#xD;&#xA; 2. But some of them do, and in most of them C2 is `к`, `л`, `н` or `ц`.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Some combinations with C2 = `б`, `г`, `м` or `р` follow the rule, too, but they are much less numerous.&#xD;&#xA; 4. For the rest values of C2 I didn't find a single word following the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the combinations following the rule:&#xD;&#xA;## C2 = `к`##&#xD;&#xA;C1 can be any other consonant. No exceptions found (for some rare combinations, like `гка` or `щька` no proofs found, as well, but if such words exist, they should follow the rule, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## C2 = `н` ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. C1 = `б`, `в`, `г`, `ж`, `к`, `м`, `п`, `с`, `т`, `х`, `ч`, `ш`. These combinations follow the rule, no exceptions found.&#xD;&#xA; 2. C1 = `д`, `з`, `л`. Only words with palatalized C2 follow the rule (`обедня` - `обеден`, `кузня` - `кузен`, `мыльня` - `мылен`, but `ехидна` - `ехидн`, `тризна` - `тризн`, `волна` - `волн`).&#xD;&#xA; 3. For C1 = `ф`, `ц` and `щ` no examples found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## C2 = `л` ##&#xD;&#xA;This case is very irregular. Some combinations follow the rule, some don't, and the majority of them follows it partly. I think, no rules can be successfully applied here, the best way to deal with it is to learn as many words as possible, so that you just remember the most common ones and develop some intuition for the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## C2 = `ц` ##&#xD;&#xA;I've found examples only for C1 = `в`, `д`, `л`, `н`, `р`, `т`. All of them follow the rule, except for one word: `солнце` - `солнц`. For other values of C1 I didn't find any words, but my intuition says that if there are, most of them should follow the rule, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other combinations, which follow the rule**: `дьб`, `ньг`, `рьг`, `&quot;др&quot; followed by &quot;о&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words following the rule while the corresponding combination doesn't follow it in general**: `розга` - `розог`, `тюрьма` - `тюрем`, `письмо` - `писем`, `ребро` - `рёбер`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I still don't understand, *why* the situation is as described above, and not some other way. If anyone has any suggestions, please write them in comments! Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="e7e08352-813d-49f5-a38b-83c08d9cd3a8" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:08:00.177" UserId="6354" Text="Is there any difference between **как будто** and **будто**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, is there a difference between the following sentences?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Как будто** он может действительно что-то сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Будто** он может действительно что-то сделать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="e7e08352-813d-49f5-a38b-83c08d9cd3a8" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:08:00.177" UserId="6354" Text="как будто versus будто" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="e7e08352-813d-49f5-a38b-83c08d9cd3a8" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:08:00.177" UserId="6354" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11986" RevisionGUID="1bba4fc3-e65e-4af7-8628-ea0c1582f156" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:28:02.930" UserId="2189" Text="Actually, it has no a significant difference in Russian. But both phrases are quite incomplete, though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11987" RevisionGUID="ec81c514-b31e-415f-8eff-e3bd6f91f613" CreationDate="2016-03-03T10:44:48.107" UserId="5008" Text="These are too close to each other, differing rather in minor stylistic points. The only true difference, which comes to my mind, is when using _Будто_ as interrogation, with the meaning of &quot;_Really?_&quot; But I must say that this usage is highly uncommon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27756" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="171a514d-392e-4b03-bef6-ca853fd95eee" CreationDate="2016-03-03T16:21:41.457" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Как будто&quot; versus &quot;будто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="3530edba-bb48-485d-a252-0e44162c596a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T22:25:55.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/705519601497591808" />
  <row Id="27759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11989" RevisionGUID="4074234a-86dc-44bb-9ca2-e15e46bfa85c" CreationDate="2016-03-04T04:11:07.193" UserId="6588" Text="In this sample, &quot;как будто&quot;, &quot;будто бы&quot;, &quot;будто&quot; and &quot;как будто бы&quot; are equivalent. Speaker chooses among these variants if she/he wants to make the sentence melodic. Otherwise, it's random choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases, &quot;как будто&quot; and &quot;будто&quot; are also equivalent, except by &quot;будто&quot; sometimes could be used for &quot;что&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Говорят, будто кур доят&quot; = &quot;Говорят, что кур доят&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it's not possible to put &quot;как будто&quot; instead of &quot;будто&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="793742c1-ece6-4671-989c-9599c839f57f" CreationDate="2016-03-04T13:17:42.057" UserId="5477" Text="*I opened the window* I'd say like this: *Я открыл окно*. How to say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***I tilted the window.* e. g. I opened the window using its tilting mechanism (Image A)?**&#xD;&#xA;* ***The window is tilted.* (Image B)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Please both aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Image A - (coralwindows.co.uk)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![tilting a window][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Image B - (tiltco.net)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![tilted window][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iFqVi.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xDIse.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="793742c1-ece6-4671-989c-9599c839f57f" CreationDate="2016-03-04T13:17:42.057" UserId="5477" Text="Correct term for tilting a window" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="793742c1-ece6-4671-989c-9599c839f57f" CreationDate="2016-03-04T13:17:42.057" UserId="5477" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="7519cf4c-3fe3-48f0-a7a3-0e32ebb78208" CreationDate="2016-03-04T13:38:28.920" UserId="551" Text="As Yellow Sky already answered, first picture can be described as &quot;приоткрыть окно&quot;, but this leaves uncertainity here, since you can leave a window in this 'tilted stable position', or open it similar to half-open door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Action for the second image would be &quot;открыть окно на проветривание&quot; (&quot;окно открыто на проветривание&quot;), unfortunately I am not aware of any simpler wordage. &quot;Приоткрытое окно&quot; would also have two possible meanings - tilted one and &quot;half-open&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In commercial descriptions of such window function it is called &quot;режим проветривания&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="0305aec4-343a-4dc5-a657-e63bc48f3841" CreationDate="2016-03-04T16:16:24.920" UserId="6445" Text="***I tilted the window. e. g. I opened the window using its tilting mechanism (Image A)?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should know that doing so is not called tilting in Russia(n). For ventilation we may use window, but you should probably use name of small or medium ventilation sections of windows (форточка, фрамуга).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tilting is not customary to Russian windows and common expression for exact this type of window does not exist. If you say something literally. similar to &quot;tilting&quot; you will not be understood. We either **открываем** (literally open, quite wide) or  **приоткрываем** (open ajar, half way). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The window is tilted. (Image B)?***&#xD;&#xA;I think the best fit is ***окно приоткрыто.*** It does not say whether it is locked or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you basically can not say it is &quot;tilted&quot; but use more generalized &quot;open&quot;/&quot;half-open&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="b3a13d7a-4580-461f-add2-81f69e52ea8b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T16:21:28.627" UserId="6445" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="***I tilted the window. e. g. I opened the window using its tilting mechanism (Image A)?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding noun in use: for ventilation we may use window, but you should probably use name of small or medium ventilation sections of windows (форточка, фрамуга). Window-word (окно) is usually reserved for big windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should know that doing so is not called tilting in Russia(n). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tilting is not customary to Russian windows and common expression for exact this type of window does not exist. If you say something literally. similar to &quot;tilting&quot; you will not be understood. We either **открываем** (literally open, quite wide) or  **приоткрываем** (open ajar, half way). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The window is tilted. (Image B)?***&#xD;&#xA;I think the best fit is ***окно приоткрыто.*** It does not say whether it is locked or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you basically can not say it is &quot;tilted&quot; but use more generalized &quot;open&quot;/&quot;half-open&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="c5455856-1c4e-4c5f-8e2f-3e81adf0718c" CreationDate="2016-03-04T16:37:28.163" UserId="6445" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="***I tilted the window. e. g. I opened the window using its tilting mechanism (Image A)?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding noun in use: for ventilation we may use window, but you should probably use name of small or medium ventilation sections of windows (**форточка** is a small ventilation window. It usually spans the frame of one window pane and opens on hinges independently of the whole window. Size is about 50x50 cm or less. If it is bigger and elongated, it is called rather **фрамуга** - horizontal or vertical part of window, but NOT section of window, size is about 1m in length). Window-word (окно) is usually reserved for big windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should know that doing so is not called tilting in Russia(n). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tilting is not customary to Russian windows and common expression for exact this type of window does not exist. If you say something literally. similar to &quot;tilting&quot; you will not be understood. We either **открываем** (literally open, quite wide) or  **приоткрываем** (open ajar, half way). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The window is tilted. (Image B)?***&#xD;&#xA;I think the best fit is ***окно приоткрыто/форточка приоткрыта*** It does not say whether it is locked or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you basically can not say it is &quot;tilted&quot; but use more generalized &quot;open&quot;/&quot;half-open&quot; word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="37f8d264-cb7d-42e3-98b6-b179107d6419" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:05:06.930" UserId="6889" Text="A year and a bit ago, I spent a semester studying mathematics in Moscow. Much to my surprise, rather than using the standard glyph &quot;σ&quot; to denote the Greek letter sigma, people invariably wrote a backwards delta &quot;δ&quot; (that's to say, with the top tail pointing to the left rather than to the right).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have any insight as to the origins of this practice? I have been unable to discover anything about it. My best guess is that the tail of the regular &quot;σ&quot; somehow got curved upwards and then back over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="37f8d264-cb7d-42e3-98b6-b179107d6419" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:05:06.930" UserId="6889" Text="Handwritten sigma in mathematics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="37f8d264-cb7d-42e3-98b6-b179107d6419" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:05:06.930" UserId="6889" Text="|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11995" RevisionGUID="6b1d3e24-6f38-43a2-b612-852038b68863" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:26:22.483" UserId="5008" Text="Mathematicians (at least in Russia) do not specially learn and/or practice Greek calligraphy, except while handwriting math formulas. So the quality of average handwriting may be somewhere between bad and ugly. But I'm rather surprised to hear that you found &quot;sigma&quot; and &quot;delta&quot; not differing at all. That could only be due to someone's **personal** mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm graduated in math in Russia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11996" RevisionGUID="0ac9f67a-410c-4a8a-93e6-f540c6180266" CreationDate="2016-03-04T19:31:23.967" UserId="4499" Text="As Artemix pointed out in his answer, window tilting function is called &quot;режим проветривания&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my own experience (I'm Russian, have a window that opens that way at home and used to have one at my workplace too) people usually say &quot;открой окно на проветривание&quot; or (rarely) &quot;откинь окно/форточку&quot; when they ask somebody to tilt a window open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these are universally understood nor &quot;official&quot; terms for tilting a window open though, so you might have to add &quot;ручкой вверх&quot; (the handle upwards) if people don't understand what you mean (happens to me about 3 times out of 10)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11997" RevisionGUID="13b9009c-ff14-4f39-8bf8-5ab9a41b6faf" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:25:20.833" UserId="134" Text="The tilt-and-turn mechanism is called *поворотно-откидной механизм* in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to specify which way exactly is the window open, you use *створка отворена* &quot;the sash is turn open&quot; or *створка откинута* &quot;the sash is tilt open&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also OK to use synecdoches *отворить окно* or *откинуть окно*, though, strictly speaking, those verbs only apply to the sash (*створка*) which is just a part of the window (*окно*). However, in everyday speech usage like this is perfectly acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="f59141e4-36ae-42f8-b969-d2453cc61529" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:48:53.720" UserId="4865" Comment="edited first paragraph at request of OP in comments" Text="A lot of questions in one Question :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The verbs are in the past because the author is referring to your past activity - you **used to learn** grammar, you **used to write** exercises etc, &quot;what about those times?&quot; - ie. how you will regret having spent so much time learned grammar. The Russian imperfective (past) does not have a literal translation to any particular English tense and has to be translated in context. It can take almost any English past form in the right context, but has the sense of habitual actions or actions being described in the moment. In this case the use is to describe habitual actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Сего&quot; is genitive of &quot;сей&quot; which is an old-fashioned word meaning &quot;этот&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Которую&quot; is in accusative because it is governed by &quot;допускали&quot;. &quot;Ошибка&quot; is in nominative because it is not governed by anything. But in the sentence &quot;вы допустили большую ошибку&quot; &quot;ошибка&quot; must be in accustive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It might be not very accurate pronunciation of the speaker or you have to train your listening skills :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="f59141e4-36ae-42f8-b969-d2453cc61529" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:48:53.720" Comment="Proposed by 4865 approved by 6097 edit id of 728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="70284eff-38c0-4ce5-bcf3-7e9ffcb36bca" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:49:14.233" UserId="134" Comment="edited first paragraph at request of OP in comments" Text="A lot of questions in one Question :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The verbs are in the past because the author is referring to your past activity - you **used to learn** grammar, you **used to write** exercises etc, &quot;what about those times?&quot; - i.e. how you will regret having spent so much time learning grammar. The Russian imperfective (past) does not have a literal translation to any particular English tense and has to be translated in context. It can take almost any English past form in the right context, but has the sense of habitual actions or actions being described in the moment. In this case the use is to describe habitual actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Сего&quot; is genitive of &quot;сей&quot; which is an old-fashioned word meaning &quot;этот&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) &quot;Которую&quot; is in accusative because it is governed by &quot;допускали&quot;. &quot;Ошибка&quot; is in nominative because it is not governed by anything. But in the sentence &quot;вы допустили большую ошибку&quot; &quot;ошибка&quot; must be in accustive too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) It might be not very accurate pronunciation of the speaker or you have to train your listening skills :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="d6e5db65-fa5a-4691-861c-d019789d3365" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:49:27.290" UserId="6833" Text="On some sites коала, коалы, коале, коалу, коалой/коалою, коале&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On some sites коала, коала, коала, коала, коала, коала&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="d6e5db65-fa5a-4691-861c-d019789d3365" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:49:27.290" UserId="6833" Text="Коала? Несклоняемое слово или склоняемое слово?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="d6e5db65-fa5a-4691-861c-d019789d3365" CreationDate="2016-03-04T21:49:27.290" UserId="6833" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11999" RevisionGUID="5ea10c61-1748-41f8-9e15-d054ca7d567b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:21:02.670" UserId="134" Text="As it often happens, this word was borrowed as indeclinableinto Russian, but accepted declination as more people were becoming familiar with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In older texts it's indeclinable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Живут коала на ветвях особого вида эвкалиптов и питаются листьями. [коллективный. Из почты «Огонька» // «Огонек». № 34, 1956]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вероятно, возрастающее внимание общественности к этому яркому шустрому зверьку сможет сохранить ему жизнь, как оно когда-то помогло спасти коала в Восточной Австралии. [Клуб Почемучек // «Юный натуралист», 1976]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, in newer ones it does decline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Зоопарк, наверное, выполнил свой годовой план, постоять в очереди к коале пришел и мэр города. [Ирина Соколова. Бабочки летают (заметки о Тайване) (1999)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Австралийскому сумчатому медведю коале бесполезно предлагать морковку или бутерброд с сыром. [Т. Подоскина. Нескучная латынь // «Наука и жизнь», 2008] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries don't agree on declinability and gender either: Lopatin treats it as declinable feminine or indeclinable masculine; Zarva's *Русское словесное ударение* says it's masculine and indeclinable; *Большой Толковый Словарь* (the 1998's edition) says it's declinable feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="efa8e24e-461a-43ba-9d4d-08a4570678ca" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:34:32.033" UserId="6891" Text="In my point of view, &quot;как будто&quot; quite more pessimistic and unreal then &quot;будто&quot;, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Будто он может действительно что-то сделать. - He can never change anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Как будто он может действительно что-то сделать - He can never EVER change anything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="056d3c42-58ee-4cca-a1d3-43e43a786687" CreationDate="2016-03-04T22:44:08.583" UserId="6891" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="In my point of view, &quot;как будто&quot; quite more pessimistic and unreal then &quot;будто&quot;. Also, the same words are &quot;Будто бы&quot; and &quot;будто&quot;, the words &quot;как&quot; and &quot;бы&quot; add some expression to the phrase. For, example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Будто он может действительно что-то сделать. - He can't change anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Будто бы он может действительно что-то сделать. - He can never change anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Как будто он может действительно что-то сделать - He can never EVER change anything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11999" RevisionGUID="9d71fe6c-e42d-42fc-9eb8-8c29827c1d41" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:21:36.193" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As it often happens, this word was borrowed as indeclinable into Russian, but accepted declination as more people were becoming familiar with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In older texts it's indeclinable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Живут коала на ветвях особого вида эвкалиптов и питаются листьями. [коллективный. Из почты «Огонька» // «Огонек». № 34, 1956]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вероятно, возрастающее внимание общественности к этому яркому шустрому зверьку сможет сохранить ему жизнь, как оно когда-то помогло спасти коала в Восточной Австралии. [Клуб Почемучек // «Юный натуралист», 1976]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, in newer ones it does decline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Зоопарк, наверное, выполнил свой годовой план, постоять в очереди к коале пришел и мэр города. [Ирина Соколова. Бабочки летают (заметки о Тайване) (1999)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Австралийскому сумчатому медведю коале бесполезно предлагать морковку или бутерброд с сыром. [Т. Подоскина. Нескучная латынь // «Наука и жизнь», 2008] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries don't agree on declinability and gender either: Lopatin treats it as declinable feminine or indeclinable masculine; Zarva's *Русское словесное ударение* says it's masculine and indeclinable; *Большой Толковый Словарь* (the 1998's edition) says it's declinable feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="61c481b7-bf70-4b41-bf79-fb6f76484ed4" CreationDate="2016-03-04T23:46:30.283" UserId="6889" Comment="Clarify question with image" Text="A year and a bit ago, I spent a semester studying mathematics in Moscow. Much to my surprise, rather than using the standard glyph &quot;σ&quot; to denote the Greek letter sigma, people invariably wrote a backwards delta &quot;δ&quot; (that's to say, with the top tail pointing to the left rather than to the right).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have any insight as to the origins of this practice? I have been unable to discover anything about it. My best guess is that the tail of the regular &quot;σ&quot; somehow got curved upwards and then back over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Edit_: I've attached an illustration of what I meant by &quot;backwards&quot; delta. The glyphs for &quot;Russian sigma&quot; and &quot;Greek delta&quot; are distinguishable: they're mirror images of each other. Moreover, I observed this peculiar style of σ from several faculty at the university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Interesting sigmas][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/l2UKx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12001" RevisionGUID="ea36e380-3cd5-4da6-9ad3-050b8f5070dc" CreationDate="2016-03-05T01:13:33.290" UserId="62" Text="You are probably seeing some local quirk of the speakers. I searched online for Russian math videos where I thought it most likely I'd see a lowercase sigma, namely in analytic number theory (for the real part of a complex variable s) and in statistics.  If you look at 24:05 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAN6cp2W4ME and 40:52 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLlprGzDbzc you'll see the letter written closer to the usual way, with no backward sweep at the top. Look also at Russian videos teaching people how to draw Greek letters, e.g., 7:49 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rReE5ycWII8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12001" RevisionGUID="eb464129-09db-424f-a7c0-d4070c5b9c9b" CreationDate="2016-03-05T01:19:49.777" UserId="62" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="You are probably seeing some local quirk of the speakers. I searched online for Russian math videos where I thought it most likely I'd see a lowercase sigma: in analytic number theory for the real part of a complex variable s and in statistics for variance.  If you look at 24:05 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAN6cp2W4ME (a lecture in Ukraine) and 40:52 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLlprGzDbzc (not a lecture in Ukraine, but note the background colors) you'll see the letter written closer to the way you are used to, with no backward sweep at the top. Look also at Russian videos teaching people how to draw Greek letters, e.g., 7:49 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rReE5ycWII8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="2692b020-9ed7-4f21-9ecc-a66f347e2630" CreationDate="2016-03-05T01:52:46.087" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|математика|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="6720b5ca-12f7-47ff-b433-b87b7e9e9688" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:47:40.183" UserId="6833" Text="Sometimes I know which verb to use but sometimes it is hard for me to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is it rule that with verb **ЛЮБИТЬ** we should always use **ХОТЕТЬ**, **ЕЗДИТЬ**, ... instead of **ИДТИ**, **ЕХАТЬ**, ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Уже восемь? Я **ЕДУ** на работу! (Is it possible to use here **ИДУ** if we are going by foot - ПЕШКОМ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мы **ЕДЕМ** на море, а они **ЕДЯТ** отдыхать в деревню. (Is this correct?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="6720b5ca-12f7-47ff-b433-b87b7e9e9688" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:47:40.183" UserId="6833" Text="ехать или ездить, идти или ходить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="6720b5ca-12f7-47ff-b433-b87b7e9e9688" CreationDate="2016-03-05T02:47:40.183" UserId="6833" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="9f33fd81-a841-4060-993a-50267d731cac" CreationDate="2016-03-05T04:13:19.083" UserId="1097" Comment="fix typo" Text="Sometimes I know which verb to use but sometimes it is hard for me to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is it rule that with verb **ЛЮБИТЬ** we should always use **ХОДИТЬ**, **ЕЗДИТЬ**, ... instead of **ИДТИ**, **ЕХАТЬ**, ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Уже восемь? Я **ЕДУ** на работу! (Is it possible to use here **ИДУ** if we are going by foot - ПЕШКОМ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мы **ЕДЕМ** на море, а они **ЕДУТ** отдыхать в деревню. (Is this correct?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12003" RevisionGUID="8a35d8f3-fef1-467d-ab58-024ea50c403a" CreationDate="2016-03-05T04:17:38.427" UserId="6892" Text="1. Not sure what the question is about.&#xD;&#xA;2. Correct.&#xD;&#xA;3. они ЕДУТ отдыхать. они ЕДЯТ арбуз (they are eating watermelon).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="0253cf64-d3b1-4816-9aa4-91c262ecd6ea" CreationDate="2016-03-05T04:58:33.920" UserId="4560" Text="1. Yes. **Люблю ходить пешком**, **люблю ездить летом на море**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Actually **идти на работу** is idiomatically correct regardless of means of transportation. (Unless you specify the means.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Yes, if both are referring to a single trip. If you're asking about the ending, it's been fixed by Eugene in the edit. **Едят** is a form of **есть**, not **ехать**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry for the duplicate answer, I was meaning to edit.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27800" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11990" RevisionGUID="dd0fe64a-a45e-4483-90ee-c3f416d3137d" CreationDate="2016-03-05T07:28:17.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/706018481469263873" />
  <row Id="27801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="db695377-e936-4294-804a-0517588e11e1" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:09:35.873" UserId="5443" Text="I think there **IS** difference. Let's add some context to those examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Он держится уверенно и даже разложил инструменты.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Как будто он может действительно что-то сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any further addition, version (1) is internally neutral and can express either **seeming possibility** (looks like he could do it; we don't know if he can) or **strong doubt** (looks he can do it, but we know he can't) and therefore needs more context for certainty. For example, you can add &quot;*Давайте посмотрим, что у него выйдет*&quot; as well as &quot;*Мы-то знаем, что ничего не выйдет*&quot; with the opposite sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Он держится уверенно и даже разложил инструменты.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Будто он может действительно что-то сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version (2) expresses **doubt or skepticism** *on its own* (**as if he could do it**, but he can't). **Будто** behaves like **якобы** here, so if one wanted to add any 'positive' phrase just after (2), most likely they'd need to add **как** before **будто**, to transform the sense into more neutral '**it looks like**'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12007" RevisionGUID="1d19a359-4e5e-434b-ae36-1e5d0d3f3ec6" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:16:58.867" UserId="6877" Text="1. &quot;Люблю ездить/ходить&quot; is correct in most cases, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) If you like the process of walking/riding/driving and doing something else in the same time, you can also say, for example: &quot;люблю идти по ночному городу и наслаждаться тишиной&quot;. This form is somewhat poetical, but is also OK in informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) There are collocations like &quot;идти на риск&quot; or &quot;идти в размен&quot; in which &quot;ходить&quot; is never used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="5e8fc055-754f-469a-a989-f8ee42f452df" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:18:59.500" UserId="5443" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I think there **IS** difference. Let's add some context to those examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Он держится уверенно и даже разложил инструменты.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Как будто он может действительно что-то сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any further addition, version (1) is internally neutral and can express either **seeming possibility** (looks like he could do it; we don't know if he can) or **strong doubt** (looks like he can do it, but we know he can't) and therefore needs more context for certainty. For example, you can add &quot;*Давайте посмотрим, что у него выйдет*&quot; as well as &quot;*Мы-то знаем, что ничего не выйдет*&quot; with the opposite sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Он держится уверенно и даже разложил инструменты.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Будто он может действительно что-то сделать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Version (2) expresses **doubt or skepticism** *on its own* (**as if he could do it**, but he can't). **Будто** behaves like **якобы** here, so if one wanted to add any 'positive' phrase just after (2), most likely they'd need to add **как** before **будто**, to transform the sense into more neutral '**it looks like**'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12007" RevisionGUID="335e9580-d3ce-406b-ac8e-08d1c67bf7a5" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:25:58.817" UserId="6877" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="1. &quot;Люблю ездить/ходить&quot; is correct in most cases, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) If you like the process of walking/riding/driving and doing something else in the same time, you can also say, for example: &quot;люблю идти по ночному городу и наслаждаться тишиной&quot;. This form is somewhat poetical, but is also OK in informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) There are collocations like &quot;идти на риск&quot; or &quot;идти в [размен][1]&quot; in which &quot;ходить&quot; is never used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; #2 and #3 are answered well by others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD_(%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="a99f1aed-d9a9-4b0b-8ae9-c4c69691fa4d" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:48:52.167" UserId="6895" Text="Cheers from Moscow mathematician school. I quote our professor - &quot;Never mind, what kind of sign you are using - it could be a greek or even ancient egyptian hieroglyph- the main thing is a clear pre definition of any sign you use&quot;. So, I think there are no common rules here.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="92ba599f-892b-4e0d-b120-f867a6cf774e" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:57:14.483" UserId="6895" Text="1. verb ЛЮБИТЬ is both for &quot;love&quot; and &quot;like&quot; &#xD;&#xA;Люблю идти/ехать - rare used it is like continuous action. &#xD;&#xA;Люблю ходить/ездить - much more correct - this about an action that you like to do - for example you have two abilities to reach your work place - by car or by foot.&#xD;&#xA;And you tell someone that &quot;Люблю ходить to my work place&quot; - this will be &quot;.. I choosing &quot;by foot&quot; rather then use any other ability to reach this place&quot; &#xD;&#xA;2. Correct&#xD;&#xA;3. Correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12010" RevisionGUID="356047f2-b806-4af5-abd7-9d8a4c4bd2f2" CreationDate="2016-03-05T08:59:26.987" UserId="5963" Text="Avoiding all the boring nuances - &quot;я ПРИоткрыл окно&quot;, &quot;приоткрытое окно&quot; would be absolutely normal and no one will said that it is not acceptable or is not &quot;native way to say it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12011" RevisionGUID="e176625e-e4a2-4460-9f92-ae8534889c5e" CreationDate="2016-03-05T09:15:31.930" UserId="6725" Text="In my personal experience (I studied in Moscow in applied maths) I've seen people writing both versions of sigma, but &quot;Russian&quot; one really was more common. And also there is a rather common scenario, when the lecturer first writes sigma with short tail, then someone asks, what letter it is (or the writer notices himself, that it is not clear enough), and then he prolongs the tail upwards to emphasize it. As @Matt pointed out, Russian mathematician don't have a special course of Greek calligraphy, that's why everybody writes according to his/her own standards. Personally for me, &quot;Russian&quot; version is distinguishable even when it is written very poorly, with distorted proportions, while Greek one is less resistant to such transformations. Maybe, this is the reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11995" RevisionGUID="de047270-edd3-4e81-8801-dfe9bc018aa3" CreationDate="2016-03-05T14:22:52.647" UserId="5008" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="Mathematicians (at least in Russia) do not specially learn and/or practice Greek calligraphy, except while handwriting math formulas. So the quality of average handwriting may be somewhere between bad and ugly. But I'm rather surprised to hear that you found &quot;sigma&quot; and &quot;delta&quot; not differing at all. That could only be due to someone's **personal** mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm graduated in math in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. I've never seen this &quot;Russian sigma&quot; scripting before. Actual writings may, of course, differ, yet, anyway, they are certainly way closer to &quot;Greek sigma&quot; pattern. I.e. normally it's about drawing &quot;o&quot;-clockwise, and adding some kind of &quot;curly tail&quot; pointing to the right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27812" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="610faa10-6348-418f-b40f-b07a855a4be7" CreationDate="2016-03-06T01:33:06.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/706291481380786176" />
  <row Id="27817" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11977" RevisionGUID="17b4a2f4-5bbe-4598-aeb7-25dbc8d2693f" CreationDate="2016-03-06T07:35:11.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/706382603314716672" />
  <row Id="27818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="a5a50263-a998-4914-a23f-20f877d88a45" CreationDate="2016-03-06T19:25:02.270" UserId="6349" Text="In conjunction with the recent Союз ТМА-18М mission there have been references to the «годовая» экпедиция of Scott Kelly and Михаил Корниенко, who spent 340 days in space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of Russian &quot;year&quot; adjectives is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ежего́дный = annual, yearly (happens once a year, every year, e.g., annual meeting)&#xD;&#xA;* годово́й = annual, yearly (characteristic of an entire year, e.g., annual salary, average temperature over an entire year)&#xD;&#xA;* годи́чный = yearlong, one-year (lasting one year)&#xD;&#xA;* годова́лый = one year old (e.g., a one year old child, or полуторагодовалый for an 18 month old child)&#xD;&#xA;* одноле́тний = annual (in the sense of a plant that is not a perennial), OR having the same age (as someone else)&#xD;&#xA;* двуле́тний = biennial (in the sense of a plant that is not annual or perennial, but takes two years to fully develop)&#xD;&#xA;* двухле́тний = two years long, two-year (lasting two years) OR two year old (e.g., a two year old child)&#xD;&#xA;* пятиле́тний = same as above, but for five years&#xD;&#xA;* пятиме́сячный = same as above, but for five months&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Annual salary would use годовой because it is not a salary that is paid once a year, but rather is the total salary over the course of a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An annual report is годовой отчет because even though it's produced once a year (ежегодный), it's best understood as a summary of an entire year's events.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree rings are годичные кольца, I suppose because each one represents a one-year time span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure about годовая экспедиция or годовой полёт. Would it make sense to talk about a годичная экспедиция instead, and what nuance does годовая give instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The starship Enterprise in *Star Trek* had a пятилетняя миссия, but if it was a one-year mission instead, would it be a годичная миссия or a годовая миссия? (or perhaps командировка, I'm not sure what the distinction would be between a миссия and a командирока)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="a5a50263-a998-4914-a23f-20f877d88a45" CreationDate="2016-03-06T19:25:02.270" UserId="6349" Text="«годовая» экспедиция and &quot;year&quot; adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="a5a50263-a998-4914-a23f-20f877d88a45" CreationDate="2016-03-06T19:25:02.270" UserId="6349" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="cedcddad-68ad-4cd5-8300-ff44c2d7009d" CreationDate="2016-03-06T20:55:18.900" UserId="6828" Text="There is a good [answer][1] on rus.stackexchange.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Годовой - получающийся к концу года, в итоге за год; рассчитанный на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; год (доход, прибыль, убытки, расходы, собрание, оценка, подшивка;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас чего-л., задание и т.п.). *I.e. something that is a result of a year, appears at the end of the year or is calculated for one year.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Годичный - продолжающийся, длящийся в течение года (курс чего-л.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аспирантура, стажировка, командировка, цикл чего-л. и т.д.). *I.e. something that takes place over the course of one year.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, *&quot;годовая экспедиция&quot;* is clearly incorrect in this context, even though it is quite frequently used by the media. It should be **&quot;годичная экспедиция&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *годичный* also meant &quot;annual&quot; formerly, and there are some idioms that still use it with this meaning, most notably in conjunction with terms like &quot;assembly&quot; or &quot;conference&quot;: *Годичная научная конференция РАУ*, *Годичное собрание Общества физиологов растений России*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%B6%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12016" RevisionGUID="4b750140-3815-4105-8e91-7e11c0017c79" CreationDate="2016-03-07T03:17:16.930" UserId="6877" Text="Anton's answer describes proper Russian, but today &quot;годовой&quot; is usually used instead of &quot;годичный&quot;. I searched the pairs of годовой/годичный and срок/кольцо/цикл/экспедиция in Google, and in all cases &quot;годовой&quot; gave me several times more results, except with &quot;срок&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="b9c3d61c-ad1d-4aca-95db-623db15f40b0" CreationDate="2016-03-07T10:39:52.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/706791469567320064" />
  <row Id="27825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12017" RevisionGUID="208ee2fc-f75f-4c15-b776-361ad8fd9fb7" CreationDate="2016-03-07T11:09:40.243" UserId="5008" Text="This is what one may call &quot;a normal mistake&quot;. Yes, &quot;годичный&quot; is right word here, but people keep saying &quot;годовой&quot;, so pointing at this looks a bit overpuristic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the matter of &quot;командировка&quot; vs. &quot;миссия&quot;. Roughly saying, if your boss says you to go to NY, it's &quot;командировка&quot;; but if Master Jedi says you to go to blow up the Death Star, it's certainly &quot;миссия&quot;. As all this scientific stuff, space exploration, saving humankind etc. are considered to be very important things, both Star Trek and Soyuz-TMA may have only &quot;a mission&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2272" RevisionGUID="b60b7282-d906-407a-8131-c81c1d0bf859" CreationDate="2016-03-07T15:07:39.873" UserId="551" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia][1] article that Clever Masha referenced, reads that disclaimer is widely used in US including every day life situations. However it is well known that russian culture is not used to legal terms in every day life. I think that we have to separate situations when disclaimer is used by companies and when it is used elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when publishing house, software company or cinema studio uses disclaimer it is translated as legal notice. All examples below are typical &quot;заявления об отказе от ответственности&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Издательство не несет ответственности и не предоставляет гарантий в связи с публикацией фактов, данных, результатов и другой информации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Редакция не несёт ответственности за содержание авторских материалов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все персонажи являются вымышленными и любое совпадение с реально живущими или жившими людьми случайно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When disclaimer is used in other situations it is not common to Russian culture. The example that you are giving &quot;Disclaimer: J. K. Rowling owns Harry Potter, and no one owns the methods of rationality.&quot; references both legal and &quot;non-legal&quot; sphere, so it is hard to find adequate translation immediately. This disclaimer references fantasy setting of the book, so to translate it one should try to find some creative solution. In this case &quot;предупреждение&quot; seems not so bad, but definetely looses 'legal' feeling of the term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It worth to note that Multitran also lists &quot;юридическое предупреждение&quot; as invention of cell phone provider MTC. Here 'legal' background is back).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update 2**&#xD;&#xA;New idea came to me 3 years since the original question. **Предуведомление** sounds quite old-fashioned and bureaucratic, so, to my mind, it combines both legal (like &quot;заявление&quot;, &quot;особое мнение&quot;, &quot;извещение&quot;, etc.) and fantasy setting (since it is old and not so widely used nowadays like предупреждение).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Original answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly &quot;disclaimer&quot; is not widely used in russian law, so the translators usually are trying to find the appropriate existing russian terms in different fields of knowledge (business, software, telecommunications, cinema, etc.). This is typical situation with freshly borrowed terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the translation depends on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that most general translation is &quot;отказ от ответственности&quot;. I think this is the best translation for the software EULA, where they write &quot;The end user uses this free software 'as is'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in the movies when they state that all the characters are fictional the translation may be &quot;оговорка о случайном характере совпадений&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More official &quot;corporate style&quot; translation may be &quot;заявление об отказе от ответственности&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in patents and in jurisprudence (legal practice) there may be more appropriate translations in different situations: правовая оговорка, защитительная оговорка, отказ от прав, отказ от изобретения, дискламация элемента товарного знака, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more alternative translations on [Multitran.ru][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7_%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=disclaimer&amp;l1=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="84a84d14-318f-453e-a5af-30825b2e5b6d" CreationDate="2016-03-07T15:22:07.607" UserId="6545" Text="I'm a little confused... When does one use each of the three endings in the title for nouns?&#xA;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27828" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="84a84d14-318f-453e-a5af-30825b2e5b6d" CreationDate="2016-03-07T15:22:07.607" UserId="6545" Text="Masculine singular instrumental -ом, -ем, -ём" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27829" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="84a84d14-318f-453e-a5af-30825b2e5b6d" CreationDate="2016-03-07T15:22:07.607" UserId="6545" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12019" RevisionGUID="bb4bac42-945b-402b-8963-ec5e3dcb20f7" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:06:25.367" UserId="6807" Text="This is a two-stage process. First, we get used to the name and correlate it with similarly sounding (gorilla, zebra, [panthera][1] and so on). Next, we transfer all inclination forms onto it, because this seems natural. So, coala becomes feminine, although it has also male connotations (медведь, а не медведица). Russians tend to thinks that words ending with &quot;a&quot; are feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12020" RevisionGUID="63e20364-a501-4859-a63e-2c1ea1ffe59b" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:13:02.753" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, you're presumably talking of 2nd declension, which includes both neuter gender and masculine ending in -о -е or &quot;zero&quot; grammatical ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**-о** --&gt; **-ом**  &#xD;&#xA;**-е** --&gt; **-ем**  &#xD;&#xA;**-й** --&gt; **-ем**  &#xD;&#xA;**-ь** --&gt; **-ём**  &#xD;&#xA;anything else --&gt; **-ом**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet take this as a hint, not as a strict rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12019" RevisionGUID="0ace67cb-44a5-498d-8e2e-47b6cc938048" CreationDate="2016-03-07T17:13:14.947" UserId="6807" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="This is a two-stage process. First, we get used to the name and correlate it with similarly sounding (gorilla, zebra, [panthera][1] and so on). Next, we transfer all declination forms onto it, because this seems natural. So, koala becomes feminine, although it has also male connotations (медведь, а не медведица). Russians tend to thinks that words ending with &quot;a&quot; are feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(my private opinion is that koala is not declinable - because it does not drink)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27834" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="358d2aa2-d50d-472b-aaa6-e38d7bf76b71" CreationDate="2016-03-07T19:40:10.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/706927441516879876" />
  <row Id="27836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="dc301f2a-5db3-4e3a-a762-b8967610841f" CreationDate="2016-03-07T22:39:32.710" UserId="134" Text="Those are variations of the same suffix in complementary distribution, depending on the preceding consonant and stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-ом* is used after hard (non-palatalized) consonants, except *ц, ч* anytime, and *ц, ш, ж, ч, щ* if stressed: *угло&amp;#x301;м, го&amp;#x301;дом, плечо&amp;#x301;м, борщо&amp;#x301;м*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-ем* is used after soft (palatalized) consonants (including implied _й_, that's after vowels and _ь_ in writing) and hard _ц, ш_ if unstressed: _мо&amp;#x301;рем, экипа&amp;#x301;жем, со&amp;#x301;лнцем, ду&amp;#x301;шем, халде&amp;#x301;ем, подспо&amp;#x301;рьем_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _-ём_ is used after soft consonants (except *ж, ч, щ*) if stressed: _конём, огнём, ружьём, холуём_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it more simply: _-ом_ is hard, _-ем_ is soft unstressed, _-ём_ is soft stressed; but _ц, ч, ж, ш, щ_ never work with _ё_ in that position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="dde79df6-5c7c-4782-8fac-ed3819d840ec" CreationDate="2016-03-08T05:56:59.640" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Those are variations of the same suffix in complementary distribution, depending on the preceding consonant and stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-ом* is used after hard (non-palatalized) consonants, except *ц, ш*, anytime, and *ц, ш, ж, ч, щ* if stressed: *угло&amp;#x301;м, го&amp;#x301;дом, плечо&amp;#x301;м, борщо&amp;#x301;м*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-ем* is used after soft (palatalized) consonants (including implied _й_, that's after vowels and _ь_ in writing) and hard _ц, ш_ if unstressed: _мо&amp;#x301;рем, экипа&amp;#x301;жем, со&amp;#x301;лнцем, ду&amp;#x301;шем, халде&amp;#x301;ем, подспо&amp;#x301;рьем_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _-ём_ is used after soft consonants (except *ж, ч, щ*) if stressed: _конём, огнём, ружьём, холуём_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it more simply: _-ом_ is hard, _-ем_ is soft unstressed, _-ём_ is soft stressed; but _ц, ч, ж, ш, щ_ never work with _ё_ in that position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="55018b65-e53b-470d-af23-991575fe08a3" CreationDate="2016-03-08T08:08:37.593" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Those are variations of the same suffix in complementary distribution, depending on the preceding consonant and stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-ом* is used after hard (non-palatalized) consonants, except *ц, ш, ж*, anytime, and *ц, ш, ж, ч, щ* if stressed: *угло&amp;#x301;м, го&amp;#x301;дом, плечо&amp;#x301;м, борщо&amp;#x301;м*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *-ем* is used after soft (palatalized) consonants (including implied _й_, that's after vowels and _ь_ in writing) and hard _ц, ш, ж_ if unstressed: _мо&amp;#x301;рем, экипа&amp;#x301;жем, со&amp;#x301;лнцем, ду&amp;#x301;шем, халде&amp;#x301;ем, подспо&amp;#x301;рьем_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* _-ём_ is used after soft consonants (except *ч, щ*) if stressed: _конём, огнём, ружьём, холуём_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it more simply: _-ом_ is hard, _-ем_ is soft unstressed, _-ём_ is soft stressed; but _ц, ч, ж, ш, щ_ never work with _ё_ in that position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11805" RevisionGUID="df9f717c-9130-4ac9-b82d-568db0921cb4" CreationDate="2016-03-08T14:52:09.770" UserId="6721" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="1. It is a slang for cook or bake. You can refer to it as свари. It has the similar meaning but more slangy maybe a little bit rude. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. The translation you need is here. The other meaning is get, make it possible to happen or create something.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;She wants a T-shirt or something and asks him for the same one at the end of the quarter (extra salary usually). So she asks him to сварганить (the command form сваргань). The meaning is to buy a T-shirt from extra money at the end of the quarter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12023" RevisionGUID="79705439-cbfc-41f9-9083-84ec40f09919" CreationDate="2016-03-09T08:39:18.660" UserId="6865" Text="I would also mention the variant &quot;***вертикально***&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**Я открыл окно *вертикально***&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**Окно открыто *вертикально***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the variant used in my surroundings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variant &quot;***на проветривание***&quot; is also widely used but often it specializes that the window is &quot;***приоткрыто***&quot; just a bit, when the handle is near 45 degrees:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/amvav.jpg&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;**Я открыл окно *на проветривание***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;**Окно *на проветривании***&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It really may be just a local use but it's common in many places over Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk regions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="640c5514-d8fb-41aa-91fc-743f13281141" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:27:25.190" UserId="6813" Text="[![question-kagda-pic][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;As you can see on the picture, one question is used for two different cases but why?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/44yVW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="640c5514-d8fb-41aa-91fc-743f13281141" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:27:25.190" UserId="6813" Text="Why the question &quot;когдa&quot; is for 2 different cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="640c5514-d8fb-41aa-91fc-743f13281141" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:27:25.190" UserId="6813" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12025" RevisionGUID="12b8cf5e-3e7d-4e70-9775-f72fb4dc7728" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:48:52.060" UserId="4560" Text="That's a misleading way to represent it. Either **когда** should be on a total of four cases, or two but not these two, because the only time constructions without prepositions use genitive (**пятого числа**) and instrumental (**ночью**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Genitive* is used with dates (see above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В**+*accusative* is used with times (**в пятнадцать часов**) and weekdays (**в субботу**). It's also used with the word **время**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Instrumental* is used for seasons (**весной, летом, осенью, зимой**) and times of the day (**утром, днём, вечером, ночью**). Just these eight. Note that when you say **днём** it specifically means &quot;in the afternoon&quot; (or &quot;in daytime&quot; in the context of a simple day/night binary); &quot;on that day&quot; would be **в тот день**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В**+*prepositional* is used with months (**в марте**) and years (**в две тысячи шестнадцатом году**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**На**+*prepositional* is used with the word &quot;week&quot;: **на прошлой/этой/следующей неделе.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything I forgot? **К**+*dative* is &quot;by&quot; some time, regardless of timescale — **мне нужно это закончить к понедельнику** &quot;I need to finish this by Monday&quot;. But this and other minor idiomatics would be too much for now, I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="baa5210b-2c6a-4f22-8cec-3a8ef4cd690a" CreationDate="2016-03-10T13:39:52.757" UserId="5008" Text="Well, that's because Accusative differs from Prepositional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative is about a whole range, while Prepositional is about &quot;an interval somewhere in between limits&quot;. Thus short ranges require Accusative (normally you can't split a moment, anyway), and long ones - Prepositional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, English speakers also treat time periods differently. Though English lacks cases, but it has a few different prepositions for this work. Consider &quot;_at that moment_&quot; vs. &quot;_on that day_&quot; vs. &quot;_in that year_&quot;. It's also possible that you could find some analogy in your native language too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, but a day (likewise an hour, or a minute) in Russian is thought to be too short for &quot;splitting&quot;, so we say &quot;в субботу&quot;, but not &quot;в субботе&quot;. Yet talking of month, one should finally switch to using Prepositional: &quot;в январе&quot;, but not &quot;в январь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note that there could be exceptions, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**В тот год** осенняя погода  &#xD;&#xA;Стояла долго на дворе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normal way of saying should be &quot;в том году&quot;, but the author intentionally uses Accusative, so it sounds rather kind of &quot;it was such a year...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="49dd0d6b-af44-4f17-8464-d73f4da8227b" CreationDate="2016-03-10T15:06:08.180" UserId="6349" Text="There are various prepositions used with time and date in English, and this doesn't follow any particular logic: why do we say &quot;in March&quot; but &quot;on March 10th&quot;? And why &quot;at&quot; 2 o'clock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian is no different, various prepositions are used for various expressions, with the extra twist that grammatical cases are also involved. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* в понедельник, в субботу = on Monday, on Saturday (accusative singular)&#xD;&#xA;* по понедельникам, по субботам = on Mondays, on Saturdays (dative plural)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="7fa5d09a-926b-480e-938e-cc75574795ad" CreationDate="2016-03-10T15:14:47.510" UserId="2380" Text="Насколько я понимаю, классические правила русского языка запрещают опускать частицу ***то*** в предложениях вроде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю ***то***, что ты обманула меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда ли, что опускать здесь ***то*** стало современной литературной нормой? Я всегда так делал, и начал сомневаться только после знакомства с правилами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="7fa5d09a-926b-480e-938e-cc75574795ad" CreationDate="2016-03-10T15:14:47.510" UserId="2380" Text="“Я знаю (то), что ты обманула меня.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="7fa5d09a-926b-480e-938e-cc75574795ad" CreationDate="2016-03-10T15:14:47.510" UserId="2380" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="fe18c4ac-449a-4ebe-ad7d-4152d81e14fe" CreationDate="2016-03-10T18:29:15.417" UserId="2380" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Насколько я понимаю, классические правила русского языка запрещают опускать слово ***то*** в предложениях вроде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю ***то***, что ты обманула меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда ли, что опускать здесь ***то*** стало современной литературной нормой? Я всегда так делал, и начал сомневаться только после знакомства с правилами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="cdc82806-70c8-4540-b509-845faade0f35" CreationDate="2016-03-10T20:06:23.380" UserId="6725" Text="В данном случае правильно будет как раз без &quot;то&quot;, потому что второстепенное предложение отвечает на вопрос главного:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Что ты обманула меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;То&quot; необходимо в другом случае, например: &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- **То**, чего не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если написать &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;, без &quot;то&quot;, смысл получится совсем другой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Чего (я) не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом случае говорящий владеет какой-то излишней информацией, которой у него быть не должно. А во втором - знает список вещей, которых он не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именно Ваше предложение будет понятно и сохранит смысл и с &quot;то&quot;, хоть и будет звучать несколько неестественно. Но во многих случаях &quot;то&quot; существенно меняет смысл." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="95857ed4-0ebe-422a-8b1d-42af6a94890b" CreationDate="2016-03-10T22:33:51.883" UserId="6561" Text="The **simpliest** explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I*. **идти**/**ехать** is a process. Literally - *be going (by foot/by car)*. Я **иду** на работу - *I'm going* to work (*now*). Compare: Я **хожу** на работу - I *go* to work (*every workday*). And yes, we use **ехать/ездить** only if it's *by car/bus/underground*, etc., if the *whole* way is *by foot*, we use **идти/ходить**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*II*. If we use infinitive we can say **идти/ехать** if we mean a *single (non-repeated) action*. Я не хочу туда **идти**. - *I don't wanna go there (single action)*. Compare: Я не хочу **ходить** на работу. - *I don't wanna go to work (not just today, but in general - meaning repeated action)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*III*. In '*when*' clauses we use **идти/ехать**, because we mean the process itself again. Когда я **иду** на работу, я не отвечаю на звонки. - *When I'm going to work I don't answer phone calls*. (not sure continuous form is appropriate here in English, sorry, if I'm mistaken). &quot;Когда я хожу...&quot; would sound a bit unnatural. But in the past tense things differ. We use **ходил/ездил** in case we don't mean a single action, but *all those actions together*. Когда я **ездил** на работу, я никогда не видел этот дом. - *When I went to work I never saw that house* (I went to work lots of times of course). The opposite, we use &quot;**шел/ехал**&quot; if we mean *a single action*. Когда я вчера **шел** на работу, мне перебежала дорогу черная кошка. - *When I was going to work yesterday a black cat crossed my way*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, with **любить** we usually use &quot;**ходить/ездить**&quot; because we mean those actions in general but not a process. In the accepted answer there is &quot;я люблю идти по ночному городу...&quot; but for me it sounds unnatural (I'm a native). I'd say &quot;я люблю ходить по ночному городу и наслаждаться тишиной&quot;. And yes with some idiomatic expressions like &quot;идти на рожон&quot; we use only this form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your #3 item: Мы **ЕДЕМ** на море - only *if we are doing it now*. *Otherwise* Мы **ЕЗДИМ**. The same is for the second part of your sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="0271069f-692d-4e93-b02e-82b24f3bf797" CreationDate="2016-03-10T22:45:56.070" UserId="6561" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="The **simpliest** explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I*. **идти**/**ехать** is a process. Literally - *be going (by foot/by car)*. Я **иду** на работу - *I'm going* to work (*now*). Compare: Я **хожу** на работу - I *go* to work (*every workday*). And yes, we use **ехать/ездить** only if it's *by car/bus/underground*, etc., if the *whole* way is *by foot*, we use **идти/ходить**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*II*. If we use infinitive we can say **идти/ехать** if we mean a *single (non-repeated) action*. Я не хочу туда **идти**. - *I don't wanna go there (single action)*. Compare: Я не хочу **ходить** на работу. - *I don't wanna go to work (not just today, but in general - meaning repeated action)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*III*. In '*when*' clauses we use **идти/ехать**, because we mean the process itself again. Когда я **иду** на работу, я не отвечаю на звонки. - *When I'm going to work I don't answer phone calls*. (not sure continuous form is appropriate here in English, sorry if I'm mistaken). &quot;Когда я хожу...&quot; would sound a bit unnatural. But in the past tense things differ. We use **ходил/ездил** in case we don't mean a single action, but *all those actions together*. Когда я **ездил** на работу, я никогда не видел этот дом. - *When I went to work I never saw that house* (I went to work lots of times of course). The opposite, we use &quot;**шел/ехал**&quot; if we mean *a single action*. Когда я вчера **шел** на работу, мне перебежала дорогу черная кошка. - *When I was going to work yesterday a black cat crossed my way*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, with **любить** we usually use &quot;**ходить/ездить**&quot; because we mean those actions in general but not a process. In the accepted answer there is &quot;я люблю идти по ночному городу...&quot; but for me it sounds unnatural (I'm a native). I'd say &quot;я люблю ходить по ночному городу и наслаждаться тишиной&quot;. And yes with some idiomatic expressions like &quot;идти на рожон&quot; we use only this form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your #2 item: correct, because you don't mean here a repeated action in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your #3 item: Мы **ЕДЕМ** на море - only *if we are doing it now*. *Otherwise* Мы **ЕЗДИМ**. The same is for the second part of your sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="bc7f6994-4549-45e1-a8a2-ba342901b09a" CreationDate="2016-03-10T22:53:00.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/708063131864535040" />
  <row Id="27858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="5799b052-bda0-4ac8-a304-f0b6f75e380a" CreationDate="2016-03-11T00:18:36.370" UserId="6828" Text="Это предложение грамматически верно как с *&quot;то&quot;*, так и без него. Стилистически вне контекста без *&quot;то&quot;* оно звучит лучше. *&quot;То&quot;* уместно, если есть цель сделать акцент на второй части предложения, привлечь внимание слушателя к тому, что сейчас последует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, какими благими намерениями ты руководствовалась. Я знаю то,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ты обманула меня. Вот что для меня имеет значение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я понял то, что те, кто меня любят по-настоящему, не что-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выдуманное, а меня, они любят меня не потому, что я хороший, а потому,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что они прекрасны. (Е. Гришковец)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое применение можно сравнить с использованием глагола *&quot;to do&quot;* в предложении *&quot;I do know that you lied to me.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Необходимым *&quot;то&quot;* становится в сложноподчиненных предложениях, в которых придаточная часть выносится в начало.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То, что вы накануне были у дома убитого, видели горничная и дворник." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27859" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12028" RevisionGUID="92a5a079-06ec-4bb8-bc24-03a01063c23d" CreationDate="2016-03-11T04:59:43.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/708155417076047872" />
  <row Id="27860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="128358e0-6a09-47b6-890b-a444d6e977ae" CreationDate="2016-03-11T07:20:38.720" UserId="6725" Comment="added 975 characters in body" Text="В данном случае правильно будет как раз без &quot;то&quot;, потому что второстепенное предложение отвечает на вопрос главного:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Что ты обманула меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;То&quot; необходимо в другом случае, например: &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- **То**, чего не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если написать &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;, без &quot;то&quot;, смысл получится совсем другой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Чего (я) не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом случае говорящий владеет какой-то излишней информацией (&quot;Я владею информацией, которой, по идее, владеть не должен&quot;). А во втором - знает список вещей, которых он не должен знать (&quot;Я знаю, какой информацией я не должен владеть&quot;). Допустим, я каким-то образом узнала новую секретную технологию создания сверхмощного оружия, которая является государственной тайной и точно не должна быть известна мне, простому обывателю. В этом случае я могу сказать: &quot;Я знаю **то**, чего не должна знать&quot;. А может быть совсем другая ситуация: я не знаю самой технологии, но зато точно знаю, что она засекречена, и если я ее каким-то образом узнаю, у меня будут неприятности. А кроме этого, есть и другие вещи, которых я также не должна знать, по тем или иным причинам. Например, я не должна знать пин-код от чужой банковской карты, не должна знать медицинский диагноз моего знакомого (если он не хочет его раскрывать), не должна знать подробностей чужой личной жизни, и т.д. Все знания такого рода я могу выразить предложением &quot;Я знаю, чего не должна знать.&quot; (при этом не важно, владею ли я на самом деле этими излишними знаниями, или нет).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именно Ваше предложение будет понятно и сохранит смысл и с &quot;то&quot;, хоть и будет звучать несколько неестественно. Но во многих случаях &quot;то&quot; существенно меняет смысл." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="8e1fad0c-6de2-48fc-856f-d56900453ed1" CreationDate="2016-03-11T07:41:50.853" UserId="6725" Comment="added 975 characters in body" Text="В данном случае правильно будет как раз без &quot;то&quot;, потому что второстепенное предложение отвечает на вопрос главного:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Что ты обманула меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;То&quot; необходимо в другом случае, например: &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- **То**, чего не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если написать &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;, без &quot;то&quot;, смысл получится совсем другой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Чего (я) не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом случае говорящий владеет какой-то излишней информацией (&quot;Я владею информацией, которой, по идее, владеть не должен&quot;). А во втором - знает список вещей, которых он не должен знать (&quot;Я знаю, какой информацией я не должен владеть&quot;). Допустим, я каким-то образом узнала новую секретную технологию создания сверхмощного оружия, которая является государственной тайной и точно не должна быть известна мне, простому обывателю. В этом случае я могу сказать: &quot;Я знаю **то**, чего не должна знать&quot;. А может быть совсем другая ситуация: я не знаю самой технологии, но зато точно знаю, что она засекречена, и если я ее каким-то образом узнаю, у меня будут неприятности. А кроме этого, есть и другие вещи, которых я также не должна знать, по тем или иным причинам. Например, я не должна знать пин-код от чужой банковской карты, не должна знать медицинский диагноз моего знакомого (если он не хочет его раскрывать), не должна знать подробностей чужой личной жизни, и т.д. Все знания такого рода я могу выразить предложением &quot;Я знаю, чего не должна знать.&quot; (при этом не важно, владею ли я на самом деле этими излишними знаниями, или нет).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именно Ваше предложение будет понятно и сохранит смысл и с &quot;то&quot;, хоть и будет звучать несколько неестественно. Но во многих случаях &quot;то&quot; существенно меняет смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Еще несколько примеров, где &quot;то&quot; существенно влияет на смысл предложения:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** Представьте, что вы заходите на кухню и видите на столе миску с яблоками. Вы можете сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу, где лежат яблоки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А теперь представьте, что миска с яблоками закрыта крышкой. Самих яблок вы не видите (хоть и знаете, где они), только миску. Поэтому предыдущее предложение вы сказать не можете. Зато можете сказать: &quot;Я вижу **миску**, где лежат яблоки.&quot; Или, если вы забыли слово &quot;миска&quot;, либо яблоки лежат в какой-то посуде, названия которой вы не знаете, вы можете сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **то**, где лежат яблоки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае все внимание сконцентрировано на посуде, а видите вы яблоки или нет - не важно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** Художник может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я рисую, где живу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это значит, что он работает (рисует) у себя дома. Содержание его картин в данном случае не имеет значения. Значение такое же, как если бы он сказал: &quot;Я рисую там же, где живу&quot;. Но также он может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я рисую **то**, где живу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь смысл совсем другой - художник рисует интерьер своего дома, и все равно, где он сам при этом находится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Девушка может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю **того**, за кого хочу выйти замуж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это то же самое, что &quot;Я знакома с тем человеком, за кого хочу выйти замуж&quot;. Но есть и другой вариант, она может также сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, за кого хочу выйти замуж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этом случае она просто знает, чего хочет от будущего мужа, но неизвестно, знакома ли она на данный момент с подходящим человеком, и существует ли он вообще." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="47ab4965-604f-41bc-90e2-ac3cf92074ac" CreationDate="2016-03-11T07:49:20.360" UserId="6725" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="В данном случае правильно будет как раз без &quot;то&quot;, потому что второстепенное предложение отвечает на вопрос главного:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Что ты обманула меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;То&quot; необходимо в другом случае, например: &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- **То**, чего не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если написать &quot;Я знаю то, чего не должен знать&quot;, без &quot;то&quot;, смысл получится совсем другой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я знаю что?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Чего (я) не должен знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом случае говорящий владеет какой-то излишней информацией (&quot;Я владею информацией, которой, по идее, владеть не должен&quot;). А во втором - знает список вещей, которых он не должен знать (&quot;Я знаю, какой информацией я не должен владеть&quot;). Допустим, я каким-то образом узнала новую секретную технологию создания сверхмощного оружия, которая является государственной тайной и точно не должна быть известна мне, простому обывателю. В этом случае я могу сказать: &quot;Я знаю **то**, чего не должна знать&quot;. А может быть совсем другая ситуация: я не знаю самой технологии, но зато точно знаю, что она засекречена, и если я ее каким-то образом узнаю, у меня будут неприятности. А кроме этого, есть и другие вещи, которых я также не должна знать, по тем или иным причинам. Например, я не должна знать пин-код от чужой банковской карты, не должна знать медицинский диагноз моего знакомого (если он не хочет его раскрывать), не должна знать подробностей чужой личной жизни, и т.д. Все знания такого рода я могу выразить предложением &quot;Я знаю, чего не должна знать.&quot; (при этом не важно, владею ли я на самом деле этими излишними знаниями, или нет).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именно Ваше предложение будет понятно и сохранит смысл и с &quot;то&quot;, хоть и будет звучать несколько неестественно. Но во многих случаях &quot;то&quot; существенно меняет смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Еще несколько примеров, где &quot;то&quot; существенно влияет на смысл предложения:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** Представьте, что вы заходите на кухню и видите на столе миску с яблоками. Вы можете сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу, где лежат яблоки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А теперь представьте, что миска с яблоками закрыта крышкой. Самих яблок вы не видите (хоть и знаете, где они), только миску. Поэтому предыдущее предложение вы сказать не можете. Зато можете сказать: &quot;Я вижу **миску**, где лежат яблоки.&quot; Или, если вы забыли слово &quot;миска&quot;, либо яблоки лежат в какой-то посуде, названия которой вы не знаете, вы можете сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу **то**, где лежат яблоки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае все внимание сконцентрировано на посуде, а видите вы яблоки или нет - не важно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** Художник может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я рисую, где живу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это значит, что он работает (рисует) у себя дома. Содержание его картин в данном случае не имеет значения. Значение такое же, как если бы он сказал: &quot;Я рисую там же, где живу&quot;. Но также он может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я рисую **то**, где живу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь смысл совсем другой - художник рисует интерьер своего дома, и все равно, где он сам при этом находится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3)** Девушка может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю **того**, за кого хочу выйти замуж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это то же самое, что &quot;Я знакома с тем человеком, за которого хочу выйти замуж&quot;. Но есть и другой вариант, она может сказать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, за кого хочу выйти замуж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этом случае она просто знает, чего хочет от будущего мужа, но неизвестно, знакома ли она на данный момент с подходящим человеком, и существует ли он вообще." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="6c2f1e61-d053-4d5b-8936-2f503f2a85b0" CreationDate="2016-03-11T21:03:46.537" UserId="6584" Text="	As I understand it, **вы**-words are used to show respect. They're used when speaking to elders, teachers, officials, and so on. I understand that **ты**-words are used when speaking to friends, family, animals, and people who are deemed disreputable. So why do Russians use **ты**-words in their national anthem (**Государственный гимн Российской Федерации**) to address Russia? I'd think they'd use respectful language to the country they're proud of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&quot;**Твоё достоянье на все времена!**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&quot;**Славься, страна! Мы гордимся тобой!**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&quot;**Одна ты на свете!**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="6c2f1e61-d053-4d5b-8936-2f503f2a85b0" CreationDate="2016-03-11T21:03:46.537" UserId="6584" Text="Word of respect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="6c2f1e61-d053-4d5b-8936-2f503f2a85b0" CreationDate="2016-03-11T21:03:46.537" UserId="6584" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="05c1ce40-19c0-46c3-95a1-d93eebb8b839" CreationDate="2016-03-11T21:05:26.277" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="As I understand it, **вы**-words are used to show respect. They're used when speaking to elders, teachers, officials, and so on. I understand that **ты**-words are used when speaking to friends, family, animals, and people who are deemed disreputable. So why do Russians use **ты**-words in their national anthem (**Государственный гимн Российской Федерации**) to address Russia? I'd think they'd use respectful language to the country they're proud of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*Твоё достоянье на все времена!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*Славься, страна! Мы гордимся тобой!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;*Одна ты на свете!*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12033" RevisionGUID="6f458374-c864-4110-9a39-7eb7e3f2e884" CreationDate="2016-03-11T21:21:04.633" UserId="3680" Text="We use `ты` to address inanimate single objects and the god.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не валяй дурака, Америка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же ты, власть, делаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боже, да святится имя твоё." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12034" RevisionGUID="18995afc-35ce-432a-9961-09fd39b81919" CreationDate="2016-03-11T21:24:11.977" UserId="4560" Text="There's respect, and there's reverence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English *you* is a universalised polite form, and yet one traditionally addresses God with the singular, and originally informal, *thou*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The V-address has an upper limit of respect, as it were. It's precisely because entities like God and country and worthy of supreme respect, that you wouldn't address them in the language of trivial good manners, and the T-address comes back full circle as the higher-sounding one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="8c114845-3aa3-496a-bcd2-55d3ec028bce" CreationDate="2016-03-11T23:13:58.763" UserId="6928" Text="I believe it is an idiom.  Literally, it means &quot;on charging become&quot; or &quot;charging is on&quot;, but I'm looking for a more meaningful translation.  I found the phrase written on the back of a photo of my Russian girlfriend when she was younger (around 30).  She is sitting on a hotel room bed in the photo next to a vase of flowers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="8c114845-3aa3-496a-bcd2-55d3ec028bce" CreationDate="2016-03-11T23:13:58.763" UserId="6928" Text="What does the phrase &quot;на зарядку становись!&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="8c114845-3aa3-496a-bcd2-55d3ec028bce" CreationDate="2016-03-11T23:13:58.763" UserId="6928" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="dfecfb12-52d1-4d92-838b-a01a3e9d0a7e" CreationDate="2016-03-11T23:37:32.593" UserId="6539" Text="*Зарядка* ,first of all,means *morning exercises* as soon as you get up and there's another meaning *charging* gadgets.Both give power and strength. The whole phrase means *get ready to do morning exercises!* The origin is a song which was popular many years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На зарядку,на зарядку,&#xD;&#xA;На зарядку по порядку становись!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27873" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="e240a099-0ff1-4b67-a382-645afac56676" CreationDate="2016-03-12T08:03:07.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/708563961222963200" />
  <row Id="27874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12037" RevisionGUID="03b6cf10-4ffc-42f9-a544-367711d32e80" CreationDate="2016-03-12T08:37:33.753" UserId="5008" Text="**Вы** is used to show _formal politeness to a human being_ only. Both parts are essential here: neither family, nor friend, nor enemy, nor sun, nor moon, nor God, nor country etc.etc. may be addressed by using &quot;Вы&quot;. Of course, rules may change from time to time: say, a century ago children had to say &quot;Вы&quot; to their parents; but nowadays it's like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So using **Ты** while talking to country has even two meanings here: (a) country is not a human (actually, more than a human), and (b) a deep personal feeling, which excludes any formality (i.e. true sympathy and love).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's normal for Russian language: you have to be highly lyrical if addressing to any formal concept or inanimate object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8032" RevisionGUID="cc5a1b8c-d460-4299-ae30-a64e4334303f" CreationDate="2016-03-12T12:16:46.613" UserId="4935" Comment="edited body" Text="Though it has a slightly retro style I guess, it can be used still in inofficial speech  like among good friends and such. Derives from wishing good health when saying goodbye ( i.e. бывай  здоров) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12038" RevisionGUID="3f849c39-64da-42a0-9cf2-02d032b50021" CreationDate="2016-03-12T12:33:50.620" UserId="4935" Text="&quot;Line up for morning excersise&quot; - phrase also can be used by an adult to gather up some group of children, say, at summer camp or P.E. at school to do those excersises. Can be followed by command &quot;по порядку рассчитайсь&quot; (i.e. based on the calculated order)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12039" RevisionGUID="696afc05-7669-4285-bf41-5d216e8483fe" CreationDate="2016-03-12T13:06:44.817" UserId="4935" Text="Though in casual speach I really don't think one would be using such a specifications as &quot;Я открыл окно вертикально&quot;, &quot;Окно открыто вертикально&quot;. Sounds like phrase or directions from some manual. Except for case you just need to clarify that the window is tilted and not wide-opened. In any other case there's really  no need in such a detail, you can just state the fact  я открыл (opened) or я приоткрыл  (half-opened). I guess that the tilting mechanism in a window kind of imitates/replaces window leaf (форточка). So as an option maybe you can say &quot;открыть окно как форточку&quot;... As for &quot;на проветривание&quot; part - sounds kind of obvious and excessive, why else would anyone open windows?))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12040" RevisionGUID="0bc3bf2f-4845-4c6d-ad5f-2a7919307335" CreationDate="2016-03-12T13:10:52.857" UserId="4935" Text="throw together, mix up - is pretty much close " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12040" RevisionGUID="d764b776-d4d4-42a2-b306-8896f714bf4c" CreationDate="2016-03-12T13:20:08.933" UserId="4935" Comment="added 359 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body; added 1 character in body; edited body" Text="throw together, mix up - is pretty much close&#xA;It can be used in a very casual speach, like among friends or family, as it is slang.&#xA;Сварганить обед, - to make a dinner very fast, for example from scratch or leftovers: &#xA;Сваргань мне что-нибудь поесть, я очень голоден (as a request) - Make me something to eat I'm very hungry.&#xA;Я быстро сварганила себе на обед салат - I quickly mixed up a salad for lunch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12042" RevisionGUID="210a2047-2db0-444e-933a-066940990f11" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:15:38.873" UserId="6928" Text="I would like to say to my girlfriend's mother in Russian (via Skype):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Are any of your flowers still alive?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I would like to you to visit us in Atlanta soon.   I will pay for your trip.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I say this?  If you type it in Russian letters, I can pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12042" RevisionGUID="210a2047-2db0-444e-933a-066940990f11" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:15:38.873" UserId="6928" Text="How do I ask these questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12042" RevisionGUID="210a2047-2db0-444e-933a-066940990f11" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:15:38.873" UserId="6928" Text="|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="ffddb16b-a27b-4c6d-8450-914cfd1155f7" CreationDate="2016-03-13T05:36:59.827" UserId="6539" Text="Though I don't consider it to be a proper question...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваши цветы все ещё живы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't sound polite, I believe, in both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы хотел, чтобы Вы приехали к нам в Атланту. Я оплачу поездку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="115b6de0-80ad-4c27-98eb-35e48a86e469" CreationDate="2016-03-13T11:48:27.093" UserId="6934" Text="1) No one says about flowers. Only reason to say it, you exactly know she is loving flowers.&#xD;&#xA;better ask smth like : Как ваши дела? or Как вы поживаете?&#xD;&#xA;it means approximatly &quot;how are u?&quot; or &quot;how its going?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;Я бы хотел (I want)&quot;, чтобы Вы приехали к нам в Атланту. Я оплачу поездку.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;you can say &quot; Мы &quot; instead &quot; Я &quot; cos &quot; Мы &quot; means &quot; We &quot; you and your girlfrend together&#xD;&#xA;    Мы хотим, чтобы Вы приехали к нам в Атланту. Я оплачу поездку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say also &quot; Приезжайте в гости к нам в Атланту. Я оплачу поездку&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;в гости&quot; means  You want them as guests in your house&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12046" RevisionGUID="a902577a-e42c-4c2b-b565-887344d4c630" CreationDate="2016-03-13T15:18:52.730" UserId="5288" Text=" **`Дупло`**&lt;sub&gt; сущ., ср.рода, им.падеж, ед.число&lt;/sub&gt; :  (there lives a squirrel).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then:   &#xD;&#xA;Две белки выглянули из своих `[...]`(there will be a *pl.noun* in this field)     &#xD;&#xA;(a couple ways to answer ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дупл &#xD;&#xA; - Дупел&#xD;&#xA; - Дуплей&#xD;&#xA; - ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: why have Russians faced difficulties in constructing such example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12046" RevisionGUID="a902577a-e42c-4c2b-b565-887344d4c630" CreationDate="2016-03-13T15:18:52.730" UserId="5288" Text="Белка живет в дупле. Две белки выглянули из своих ...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12046" RevisionGUID="a902577a-e42c-4c2b-b565-887344d4c630" CreationDate="2016-03-13T15:18:52.730" UserId="5288" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="fee511d9-e9a1-42bd-a199-c0638a85660f" CreationDate="2016-03-13T15:54:33.030" UserId="3680" Text="The correct answer is `дупел`: [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural forms of neuter nouns are rarely used in everyday language. In my opinion, most of the neuter nouns have no plural form at all.&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; метро  &#xD;&#xA;кофе  &#xD;&#xA;кино  &#xD;&#xA;пенсне  &#xD;&#xA;кимоно  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not easy to come up with a neuter noun which has a plural form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="ba3cf67b-c2fd-450b-8fcd-d9a4ca0eadef" CreationDate="2016-03-13T16:07:49.483" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="The correct answer is `дупел`: [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural forms of some neuter nouns are rarely used in everyday language. Also significant part of the neuter nouns have no plural form at all.&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; метро  &#xD;&#xA;кофе  &#xD;&#xA;кино  &#xD;&#xA;пенсне  &#xD;&#xA;кимоно  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="0e75185d-4685-4f75-b590-87d3bf77523c" CreationDate="2016-03-13T16:16:27.907" UserId="3680" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="The correct answer is `дупел`: [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural forms of some neuter nouns are rarely used in everyday language. Also significant part of the neuter nouns have no plural form at all. To be precise their plural form is the same as singular form.&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; метро  &#xD;&#xA;кофе  &#xD;&#xA;кино  &#xD;&#xA;пенсне  &#xD;&#xA;кимоно  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12048" RevisionGUID="a257a239-3d49-4d34-b008-01dd5a576e38" CreationDate="2016-03-13T17:53:45.600" UserId="6936" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccGvu.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello everyone,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am having trouble translating this note in Russian cursive. I have been able to make out a few words, but it doesn't make sense. Can someone please help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12048" RevisionGUID="a257a239-3d49-4d34-b008-01dd5a576e38" CreationDate="2016-03-13T17:53:45.600" UserId="6936" Text="Translating Russian cursive to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12048" RevisionGUID="a257a239-3d49-4d34-b008-01dd5a576e38" CreationDate="2016-03-13T17:53:45.600" UserId="6936" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12049" RevisionGUID="df2bec15-9238-40c3-9280-8126b9f5bfdf" CreationDate="2016-03-13T18:30:10.420" UserId="134" Text="The writing says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю что важно знать русский язык потому что если это понимаешь, то знаешь что я хочу говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not written by a native Russian speaker and its meaning is quite obscure, but I think that's the gist of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that knowing Russian is important, because if you can read this, you know what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is most probably a love letter of some kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27902" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12042" RevisionGUID="6915c861-d7fb-488e-aec0-917aa3b963ae" CreationDate="2016-03-13T18:34:34.330" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="379a1314-4fdc-4a82-9f1e-8147153fa3a0" CreationDate="2016-03-14T00:22:05.437" UserId="6349" Text="* **с** + *instr.* = &quot;with&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* **с** + *gen.* = &quot;from&quot; (more or less, for some meanings of &quot;from&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others have already given more precise answers about the above, so I will just mention the fairly rare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**с** + *acc.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is used in sentences like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;размером с морскую свинку = about the size of a guinea pig&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;размером с тыкву = roughly as big as a pumpkin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="0c11c450-e386-48cd-9b04-11dc401cd020" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:03:54.247" UserId="6939" Text="I am curious what &quot;папа и баба&quot; would translate into Russian graphemes?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="0c11c450-e386-48cd-9b04-11dc401cd020" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:03:54.247" UserId="6939" Text="Question: Russian graphemes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="0c11c450-e386-48cd-9b04-11dc401cd020" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:03:54.247" UserId="6939" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="ec674f0b-a01a-4c80-af7a-3ad1005a3cf8" CreationDate="2016-03-14T01:10:56.250" UserId="6939" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="This is part of the phonetics class but I can not find any information about this in the book, the hand outs or on any other electronic resource. It is somewhat narrow field (question). I am curious what &quot;папа и баба&quot; would translate into Russian graphemes?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12054" RevisionGUID="de825b4b-7c3e-4bf3-8990-dc3f5398a474" CreationDate="2016-03-14T06:10:23.067" UserId="487" Text="папа and баба translate in graphemes as папа and баба. There ara no graphemes --or if you want, the words are the graphemes. For the phonetics is as complicated languages which use them (incidentally English is the only language I know, that presents graphemes. German, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. don't). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Russian phonetics is unfamiliar to you, it might then be helpful to consider lerning [IPA][1] instead. In particular, if your aim is to learn another language after/together with Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12056" RevisionGUID="372852f6-f517-4dc0-ab77-2563bc309298" CreationDate="2016-03-14T13:09:49.213" UserId="134" Text="*Папа и баба* translate into a total of 11 graphemes (of which 5 are distinct: *п, а, и, б*, space) in modern Russian writing, *П* and *п* being allographs of the same grapheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we would have used a Church Slavonic written rendition of the same phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Па&amp;#x301;па и&amp;#x486; ба&amp;#x301;ба&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;,  that would have been a total of 14 graphemes, 7 distinct: *п, а, и, б*, space, acute accent, psili." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="4a1c06f1-3052-460a-8589-f5deccba3700" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:42:46.973" UserId="6349" Text="In Russian, **в** is used for days of the week, for instance в средy = on Wednesday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However **на** is used for special days like на Рождество = at Christmas, на Пасху = at Easter. I think maybe both of these can refer to a period of more than one day (thus, &quot;at&quot; Christmas, &quot;at&quot; Easter), or perhaps they refer specifically to a single day (on Christmas Day, on Easter Sunday)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also **на** + day of the week is used in expressions like в ночь со вторника на среду = overnight, on the night that starts on Tuesday evening and ends on Wednesday morning. The shorter expression в ночь на среду also means the same thing. Is there any other context that uses **на** + day of the week?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the expression в ночь на Рождество means the night that starts on Christmas Eve and ends on Christmas morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the expression в ночь на Хэллоуин means Halloween night. It is not the night that ends on the morning of October 31, but the night that begins on the evening of October 31.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I understanding something incorrectly, or is this last expression inconsistent with all the other **на** + day expressions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="4a1c06f1-3052-460a-8589-f5deccba3700" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:42:46.973" UserId="6349" Text="Inconsistent date logic of &quot;в ночь на Хэллоуин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="4a1c06f1-3052-460a-8589-f5deccba3700" CreationDate="2016-03-15T01:42:46.973" UserId="6349" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="c9449688-689a-48b2-ab8b-840541844149" CreationDate="2016-03-15T04:31:20.687" UserId="6588" Text="1) &quot;На Рождество&quot; = January, 7th. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Рождество&quot; - colloquial form for &quot;на Рождество&quot;. Both forms refers to an exact date. Despite the fact &quot;на Рождество&quot; sounds similar to &quot;на днях&quot;.&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Где-то под Рождество&quot; ≈ January 3rd - 7th.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Примерно на Рождество&quot; ≈ January 5th - 9th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: if you refer to December, 25th, then you should use &quot;на католическое Рождество&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Also на + day of the week is used in expressions like в ночь со вторника на среду = overnight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) However, the expression в ночь на Хэллоуин means Halloween night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a calque from English. In Russia, Halloween was not celebrated until 90th at all, and it's celebrated mostly by teenagers now. So there is no exact public opinion regarding how we should call the celebration. &quot;Ночь на Хэллоуин&quot; looks like random colloquial form, which makes native speakers &lt;a href=&quot;https://otvet.mail.ru/question/757123&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, whether we should celebrate it at October 30th, or 31th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) There are common forms for future periods, such as &quot;на завтра&quot;. They are used when doing something now, but the result of the actions will be of use in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Давай договоримся [о встрече] на завтра&quot; ≠ &quot;Давай договоримся о встрече завтра&quot;. &lt;br&gt;First is for making an arragement (for tomorrow meeting) now, in the second variant the arragement will not happen now, it would be done tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На следующую неделю/месяц/сезон/год&quot; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Давай на следующий год ребёнку купим лыжи&quot; ≠ &quot;давай в следующем году купим ребёнку лыжи&quot;. Second is for buying skis next year, when the snow will fall. First (depending on context) may refer to the same as second, but it also can mean buying skis now (so the kid is going to use it next year)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12062" RevisionGUID="62052c9a-4e8c-4a63-b553-ad942f55882b" CreationDate="2016-03-15T08:40:10.697" UserId="6945" Text="The meaning of the word &quot;сваргань&quot; goes from the name of musical instrument called &quot;варган&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Eng][1] and [Rus][2] wiki articles on that subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To play on that &quot;варган&quot; can be translated as &quot;варганить&quot;. In slang it means to do something easy and fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTV, I think it is a big challenge to learn language on &quot;Высоцкий&quot; songs. If you need any further help on that, don't hesitate asking.:) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew%27s_harp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12049" RevisionGUID="831c5b73-5a90-4cd8-916c-a0feb3ff8027" CreationDate="2016-03-15T12:46:46.193" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The writing says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю что важно знать русский язык потому что если это понимаешь, то знаешь что я хочу говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not written by a native Russian speaker and its meaning is quite obscure, but I think this is the gist of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think that knowing Russian is important, because if you can read this, you know what I want to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is most probably a love letter of some kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="9db1fb3e-978f-42c1-89ab-0570bc478f98" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:26:22.917" UserId="6949" Text="I've been trying to get a good translation of a Russian programming article. I more or less get the gist of what it is saying through google translate but some parts come out badly translated. Below is the original Russian and below that is the &quot;rough&quot; translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Динамическое программирование по профилю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]Заметим, что для базовой линии номер 1 существует единственный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профиль (то есть битовая карта, удовлетворяющая условиям профиля) —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; карта незаполненного столбца.Ответ на вопрос задачи будет записан в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a[m+ 1, 0]. Ошибкой бы было считать правильным ответом число a[m, 2n −&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1], так как в этом случае не учитывается возможность класть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вертикальные доминошки в последнем столбце (см. второй пример).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обсудим «странные» условия на доминошки при получении одного профиля&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из другого. Казалось бы, забыт еще один тип доминошек, которые могут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; участвовать при формировании нового профиля, а именно полностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лежащие в столбце i + 1. Дело в том, что если разрешить их, то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; некоторые способы замощения будут считаться более одного раза.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, пусть n = 2,m = 2. Т огда d[0][3] = 2, так как можно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; положить либо две вертикальные доминошки, либо две горизонтальные.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аналогично, d[3][3] = 1 (можно положить одну вертикальную). В итоге&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which &quot;translates&quot; to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dynamic programming on profile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that the baseline number 1 there is a unique profile (i.e. a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitmap that satisfy the conditions of profile) card blank column. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer to the problem will be recorded in a[m+ 1, 0]. The error would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it was considered the correct answer among a[m, 2n − 1], as in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the case is not taken into account the possibility to put vertical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dominoes in the last column (see second example). Discuss &quot;strange&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions on dominoes when you receive one profile from another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seemingly forgotten one more type of dominoes that can participate in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forming a new profile, namely completely lying in column i + 1. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fact is that if you allow them, some ways of tiling will be considered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more than once. For example, let n = 2,m = 2. Then d [0][3] = 2,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because you can put two vertical dominoes, or two horizontal.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, d [3][3] = 1 (you can put one vertical). In the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what `профилю`is supposed to be in English. The word &quot;profile&quot; seems unnatural in this sense. Also, `для базовой линии`doesn't make sense to me. Would someone be willing to give a rough translation of this paragraph for me. I would appreciate it greatly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="9db1fb3e-978f-42c1-89ab-0570bc478f98" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:26:22.917" UserId="6949" Text="Help with some translation issues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="9db1fb3e-978f-42c1-89ab-0570bc478f98" CreationDate="2016-03-15T15:26:22.917" UserId="6949" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="5e4d2b36-7a9d-4e03-9c0f-ea5ae054cdd3" CreationDate="2016-03-15T18:23:33.677" UserId="6877" Text="In [this article][1] &quot;базовая линия&quot; is a line between squares, it could be translated as &quot;grid line&quot; or &quot;dividing line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;профиль&quot; is used in a sense like &quot;topographic profile&quot;, a cross sectional view of the matrix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it says that the cross-section of the 1st grid line can only be an empty bitmap. The final result will be in a[m+ 1, 0]. One can make a mistake of not considering vertical dominoes in the last column and using a[m, 2n − 1] instead, etc... (The rest seems OK.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://informatics.mccme.ru/mod/book/print.php?id=290&amp;chapterid=73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="8e2caada-08e0-4b4b-981d-5d0ef2965c00" CreationDate="2016-03-15T18:31:40.197" UserId="6877" Comment="edited body" Text="In [this article][1] &quot;базовая линия&quot; is a line between squares, it could be translated as &quot;grid line&quot; or &quot;dividing line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;профиль&quot; is used in a sense like &quot;topographic profile&quot;, a cross sectional view of the matrix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it says that the cross section in the 1st grid line can only be an empty bitmap. The final result will be in a[m+1, 0]. One can make a mistake of not considering vertical dominoes in the last column and using a[m, 2n−1] instead, etc... (The rest seems OK.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://informatics.mccme.ru/mod/book/print.php?id=290&amp;chapterid=73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="5d8b050a-5afa-495e-acae-187a06c5ff81" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:45:06.083" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've been trying to get a good translation of a Russian programming article. I more or less get the gist of what it is saying through google translate but some parts come out badly translated. Below is the original Russian and below that is the &quot;rough&quot; translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Динамическое программирование по профилю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]Заметим, что для базовой линии номер 1 существует единственный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профиль (то есть битовая карта, удовлетворяющая условиям профиля) —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; карта незаполненного столбца.Ответ на вопрос задачи будет записан в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a[m+ 1, 0]. Ошибкой бы было считать правильным ответом число a[m, 2n −&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1], так как в этом случае не учитывается возможность класть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вертикальные доминошки в последнем столбце (см. второй пример).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обсудим «странные» условия на доминошки при получении одного профиля&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из другого. Казалось бы, забыт еще один тип доминошек, которые могут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; участвовать при формировании нового профиля, а именно полностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лежащие в столбце i + 1. Дело в том, что если разрешить их, то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; некоторые способы замощения будут считаться более одного раза.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например, пусть n = 2,m = 2. Т огда d[0][3] = 2, так как можно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; положить либо две вертикальные доминошки, либо две горизонтальные.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аналогично, d[3][3] = 1 (можно положить одну вертикальную). В итоге&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which &quot;translates&quot; to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dynamic programming on profile&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that the baseline number 1 there is a unique profile (i.e. a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bitmap that satisfy the conditions of profile) card blank column. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; answer to the problem will be recorded in a[m+ 1, 0]. The error would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it was considered the correct answer among a[m, 2n − 1], as in this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the case is not taken into account the possibility to put vertical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dominoes in the last column (see second example). Discuss &quot;strange&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conditions on dominoes when you receive one profile from another.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seemingly forgotten one more type of dominoes that can participate in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; forming a new profile, namely completely lying in column i + 1. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fact is that if you allow them, some ways of tiling will be considered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more than once. For example, let n = 2,m = 2. Then d [0][3] = 2,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because you can put two vertical dominoes, or two horizontal.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, d [3][3] = 1 (you can put one vertical). In the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what `профилю`is supposed to be in English. The word &quot;profile&quot; seems unnatural in this sense. Also, `для базовой линии`doesn't make sense to me. Would someone be willing to give a rough translation of this paragraph for me. I would appreciate it greatly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27943" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="5d8b050a-5afa-495e-acae-187a06c5ff81" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:45:06.083" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do &quot;базовая линия&quot; and &quot;профиль&quot; mean in this text?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="d5f1f226-8144-479c-9ca6-ff3faf9163f7" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:58:39.310" UserId="6877" Comment="edited body" Text="In [this article][1] &quot;базовая линия&quot; is a line between squares, it could be translated as &quot;grid line&quot; or &quot;dividing line&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;профиль&quot; is used in a sense like &quot;topographic profile&quot;, a cross-sectional view of the matrix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it says that the cross section in the 1st grid line can only be an empty bitmap. The final result will be in a[m+1, 0]. One can make a mistake of not considering vertical dominoes in the last column and using a[m, 2n−1] instead, etc... (The rest seems OK.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://informatics.mccme.ru/mod/book/print.php?id=290&amp;chapterid=73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="4cd99db2-b82b-45a4-8508-f839b28c2b44" CreationDate="2016-03-16T09:36:42.357" UserId="6381" Text="Would anybody be so kind and could explain me the difference between **зарекомендовывать** / **рекомендовать**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask a couple of dictionaries but they stated always the same **to recommend**, this might be clear for the one without the prefix but not for one with the prefix right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="4cd99db2-b82b-45a4-8508-f839b28c2b44" CreationDate="2016-03-16T09:36:42.357" UserId="6381" Text="Difference between зарекомендовывать / рекомендовать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="4cd99db2-b82b-45a4-8508-f839b28c2b44" CreationDate="2016-03-16T09:36:42.357" UserId="6381" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12066" RevisionGUID="c1f8550b-7439-4210-aaae-3ca740c4d156" CreationDate="2016-03-16T10:22:50.900" UserId="1097" Text="Рекомендовать — to recommend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовывать — imperfect form of Зарекомендовать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовать себя с лучшей стороны — Proved itself with the best hand  &#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовать себя с худшей стороны — To establish itself with the worst hand  &#xD;&#xA;Прослыть(зарекомендовать себя) азартным игроком — Pass gambler  &#xD;&#xA;Прослыть(зарекомендовать себя) обманщиком — Branded liar  &#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовать себя ~ заслужить/заработать мнение о себе — Deserve opinion of himself; Make an opinion about himself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12066" RevisionGUID="60b47d2e-e752-4039-b1f0-015e519372bc" CreationDate="2016-03-16T10:30:19.650" UserId="1097" Comment="more example" Text="Рекомендовать — to recommend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовывать — imperfect form of Зарекомендовать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовать себя с лучшей стороны — Proved itself with the best hand  &#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовать себя с худшей стороны — To establish itself with the worst hand  &#xD;&#xA;Прослыть(зарекомендовать себя) азартным игроком — Pass gambler  &#xD;&#xA;Прослыть(зарекомендовать себя) обманщиком — Branded liar  &#xD;&#xA;Зарекомендовать себя ~ заслужить/заработать мнение о себе — Deserve opinion of himself; Make an opinion about himself.  &#xD;&#xA;Этот телефон зарекомендовал себя как очень надёжный — This phone has proved to be very reliable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12067" RevisionGUID="6d02da29-d05f-4a84-88ae-49ad811d1087" CreationDate="2016-03-16T10:32:10.557" UserId="5008" Text="_Зарекомендовывать_ is just an imperfective form of _зарекомендовать_. But the verb _зарекомендовать_ is in 99% cases used in expression _зарекомендовать себя_ = _prove oneself_. So from this follows that imperfective _зарекомендовывать_ is almost never used in speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a normal situation when using prefixes: almost any combination is legal, but only some are really useful. I have no idea where you've found &quot;_зарекомендовывать_&quot;, but it's not of much use for your spoken practice. So just forget it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="50925e08-980c-4c0e-b846-da5e3d36d4b2" CreationDate="2016-03-16T19:01:36.980" UserId="4903" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][3] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][4] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][5] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][9] - spaced repetition using complete sentences (rather than single words). Covers the entire language and tracks your vocabulary size. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][6] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][7].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][8] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][10] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://ru.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27952" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12048" RevisionGUID="e9f6939d-192e-45c2-abff-9033c8d3624e" CreationDate="2016-03-16T23:27:52.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/710246232602624000" />
  <row Id="27956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="763e10cc-522c-4ba8-8885-0c7bc92a9ff3" CreationDate="2016-03-17T00:50:42.337" UserId="1688" Comment="Added link to Duolingo" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][5] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][6] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][7] - spaced repetition using complete sentences (rather than single words). Covers the entire language and tracks your vocabulary size. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][8] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][9].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][10] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][11] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ru.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12071" RevisionGUID="e533c5d8-8249-46be-87d4-1790fa5a81b4" CreationDate="2016-03-18T03:28:08.177" UserId="6962" Text="In Russian, verbs in the past have gender information attached to them, so that “я спросил” implies that the asker was male, whereas “я спросила” comes from a female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why no other tenses have this trait, or why verbs were even chosen to differ by speaker's gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12071" RevisionGUID="e533c5d8-8249-46be-87d4-1790fa5a81b4" CreationDate="2016-03-18T03:28:08.177" UserId="6962" Text="Why do verbs in past tense—and not other parts of speech—have gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12071" RevisionGUID="e533c5d8-8249-46be-87d4-1790fa5a81b4" CreationDate="2016-03-18T03:28:08.177" UserId="6962" Text="|этимология|глаголы|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="ca2076ab-f69e-49c4-873b-1cb5b744545c" CreationDate="2016-03-18T05:01:55.057" UserId="134" Text="Because historically what we call past in modern Russian is perfect, and what we believe to be past forms of the verbs are in fact participles (adjectives formed from verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он пел / она пела / оно пело (he / she / it has sung)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он бел / она бела / оно бело (he / she / it is white)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In old Russian there was a number of other past tenses. The most used of them, the aorist, did not change by gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12073" RevisionGUID="f43b32a5-0ee9-485b-b31a-49180037d2ec" CreationDate="2016-03-18T10:55:29.673" UserId="4848" Text="Good question. I guess for the same reason why in English you say &quot;ten apples&quot; and not &quot;ten apple&quot;, you have said &quot;ten&quot; already, why add &quot;s&quot;? :) If I am not mistaken, in Chinese they say &quot;ten apple&quot;. Historical, etymological reasons. Same in Spanish, even worse, the words are changed not only according to gender, but also according to tense and if its single or plural. English is so much easier :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12077" RevisionGUID="c61ce0f7-db2b-4477-a745-d1d7be352167" CreationDate="2016-03-18T19:46:00.973" UserId="6722" Text="I would translate **Не позволишь жизнь скомкати** as &quot;you will not allow life to get muffed up&quot;. I realize this is not a very poetic translation. It is taken from the following quatrain:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если беден я, как пес, один, &#xD;&#xA;И в дому моем шаром кати - &#xD;&#xA;Ведь поможешь ты мне, господи! &#xD;&#xA;**Не позволишь жизнь скомкати**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am not sure about the grammatical role of the word **скомкати**. Is it in the imperative? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12077" RevisionGUID="c61ce0f7-db2b-4477-a745-d1d7be352167" CreationDate="2016-03-18T19:46:00.973" UserId="6722" Text="Meaning of phrase &quot;Не позволишь жизнь скомкати&quot; from song Дом Xрустальный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12077" RevisionGUID="c61ce0f7-db2b-4477-a745-d1d7be352167" CreationDate="2016-03-18T19:46:00.973" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12078" RevisionGUID="a4c8821f-0015-46a5-a18b-10a83aed825d" CreationDate="2016-03-18T20:00:18.837" UserId="6877" Text="You are totally right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скомкати&quot; is [Church Slavonic][1] form (or maybe just imitation) of adverb &quot;скомкано&quot;, &quot;crumpled&quot;. Church Slavonic language is used in prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12078" RevisionGUID="1a95455f-729f-4072-832d-1850a9aaa07a" CreationDate="2016-03-18T20:06:21.277" UserId="6877" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; I would translate Не позволишь жизнь скомкати as &quot;you will not allow life to get muffed up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скомкати&quot; is a [Church Slavonic][1] form (or maybe just imitation) of adverb &quot;скомкано&quot;, &quot;crumpled&quot;. Church Slavonic language is used in prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12078" RevisionGUID="c70390f3-7b22-4844-8438-ef3a616cdf40" CreationDate="2016-03-18T20:12:57.920" UserId="6877" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; I would translate Не позволишь жизнь скомкати as &quot;you will not allow life to get muffed up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скомкати&quot; is a [Church Slavonic][1] form (or maybe just imitation) of verb &quot;скомкать&quot;, &quot;crumple&quot;. Church Slavonic language is used in prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12079" RevisionGUID="457556a9-f360-48fa-b967-067e8f62111e" CreationDate="2016-03-18T20:17:43.800" UserId="6494" Text="No, it is not an imperative. It is an infinitive, &quot;скомкать&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The form you found is archaic (or, in this case it would be the same, used as  a Church Slavonic word). The modern Russian infinitive ending -ть is derived from the old one -ти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it used for some poetic reason, or maybe just for a better rhyme.&#xD;&#xA;Hence it is (lyric enough) poetry, &quot;muffed up&quot; probably is not the  best translation. The direct &quot;to crumple&quot;  would be the best, I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative would be &quot;скомкай&quot;, &quot;скомкайте&quot; for plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12078" RevisionGUID="8db5d226-39c2-4be4-a40c-0912be1e0edd" CreationDate="2016-03-18T20:21:10.990" UserId="6877" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="&gt; I would translate Не позволишь жизнь скомкати as &quot;you will not allow life to get muffed up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Скомкати&quot; is a [Church Slavonic][1] form of verb &quot;скомкать&quot;, &quot;crumple&quot;. Church Slavonic language is used in prayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="2fe9cf94-54b5-4b9d-ae8c-5211eb3b0a73" CreationDate="2016-03-18T20:28:53.400" UserId="134" Text="*-ти, -ть, -чь* are variations of the same infinitive suffix in complementary distribution: *-ть* is used when unstressed (*да&amp;#x301;ть, бра&amp;#x301;ть*), *-ти* when stressed (*мести&amp;#x301;, нести&amp;#x301;*), and *-чь* when the stem ending is a stop (*к* or *г*): *печь (пеку), стричь (стригу)* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in poetic speech *-ть* and *-ти* (as well as *-чь* and now extinct *-чи*) are in free variation, dictated by rhythm, rhyme and meter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но ка&amp;#x301;к / проне&amp;#x301;сть / мне э&amp;#x301;/тот во&amp;#x301;/рох  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призна&amp;#x301;/ний че&amp;#x301;/рез ва&amp;#x301;ш / поро&amp;#x301;г? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the iamb (two-syllable foot with the stress on the last syllable) requires *пронесть* to be a two-syllable oxytone (a word with the stress on the last syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дай к тебе&amp;#x301; нам, / по тебе&amp;#x301; нам, / мать, ступа&amp;#x301;ти  &#xD;&#xA;В час вече&amp;#x301;рний, / на моско&amp;#x301;вском, / на Арба&amp;#x301;те.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here, the third paean (four-syllable foot with the stress on the third syllable) requires *ступати* to be a three-syllable paroxytone (a word with the stress on the penultimate syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, *ско&amp;#x301;мкати* is a poetic variation of the infinitive *скомка&amp;#x301;ть*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="6537b708-6a62-4b53-b619-ba545f433ccc" CreationDate="2016-03-18T22:57:05.597" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="*-ти, -ть, -чь* are variations of the same infinitive suffix in complementary distribution: *-ть* is used when unstressed (*да&amp;#x301;ть, бра&amp;#x301;ть*), *-ти* when stressed (*мести&amp;#x301;, нести&amp;#x301;*), and *-чь* when the stem ending is a velar stop (*к* or *г*): *печь (пеку), стричь (стригу)* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in poetic speech *-ть* and *-ти* (as well as *-чь* and now extinct *-чи*) are in free variation, dictated by rhythm, rhyme and meter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но ка&amp;#x301;к / проне&amp;#x301;сть / мне э&amp;#x301;/тот во&amp;#x301;/рох  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призна&amp;#x301;/ний че&amp;#x301;/рез ва&amp;#x301;ш / поро&amp;#x301;г? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the iamb (two-syllable foot with the stress on the last syllable) requires *пронесть* to be a two-syllable oxytone (a word with the stress on the last syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дай к тебе&amp;#x301; нам, / по тебе&amp;#x301; нам, / мать, ступа&amp;#x301;ти  &#xD;&#xA;В час вече&amp;#x301;рний, / на моско&amp;#x301;вском, / на Арба&amp;#x301;те.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here, the third paean (four-syllable foot with the stress on the third syllable) requires *ступати* to be a three-syllable paroxytone (a word with the stress on the penultimate syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, *ско&amp;#x301;мкати* is a poetic variation of the infinitive *скомка&amp;#x301;ть*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12080" RevisionGUID="47432149-db82-430f-835d-0590e31b57b2" CreationDate="2016-03-19T09:40:56.413" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="*-ти, -ть, -чь* are variations of the same infinitive suffix in complementary distribution: *-ть* is used when unstressed (*да&amp;#x301;ть, бра&amp;#x301;ть*), *-ти* when stressed (*мести&amp;#x301;, нести&amp;#x301;*), and *-чь* when the stem ending is a velar stop (*к* or *г*): *печь (пеку), стричь (стригу)* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in poetic speech *-ть* and *-ти* (as well as *-чь* and now extinct *-чи*) are in free variation, dictated by rhythm, rhyme and meter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но ка&amp;#x301;к / проне&amp;#x301;сть / мне э&amp;#x301;/тот во&amp;#x301;/рох  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призна&amp;#x301;/ний че&amp;#x301;/рез ва&amp;#x301;ш / поро&amp;#x301;г? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the iamb (two-syllable foot with the stress on the last syllable) requires *пронесть* to be a two-syllable oxytone (a word with the stress on the last syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дай к тебе&amp;#x301; нам, / по тебе&amp;#x301; нам, / мать, ступа&amp;#x301;ти  &#xD;&#xA;В час вече&amp;#x301;рний, / на моско&amp;#x301;вском, / на Арба&amp;#x301;те.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here, the third paean (four-syllable foot with the stress on the third syllable) requires *ступати* to be a three-syllable paroxytone (a word with the stress on the penultimate syllable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, *ско&amp;#x301;мкати* is a poetic variation of the infinitive *ско&amp;#x301;мкать*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="07f91e84-3a1c-473b-91b3-03d7a22ca80f" CreationDate="2016-03-19T15:19:03.507" UserId="6444" Text="I encountered an example on Rosetta Stone which contrasted these three  sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Здесь нельзя с собакой&#xD;&#xA;2. Здесь нельзя на машине&#xD;&#xA;3. Здесь нельзя в туфлях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is there any grammatical reason why to use any of these pronouns and not the others? Are these specific to the noun just as `в школе` and `на почте` have pronouns specific to that noun? Or would `нельзя в собаке` also be just fine? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="07f91e84-3a1c-473b-91b3-03d7a22ca80f" CreationDate="2016-03-19T15:19:03.507" UserId="6444" Text="Pronouns used with нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="07f91e84-3a1c-473b-91b3-03d7a22ca80f" CreationDate="2016-03-19T15:19:03.507" UserId="6444" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12084" RevisionGUID="252b0ff0-2069-4e27-9700-888430509e3c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T15:47:12.783" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;which contrasted these three sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sentences have some verb omitted. As we assume these verbs to be different, we naturally have to put different prepositions after them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[гулять] **с** собакой --&gt; [walk] **with** a dog  &#xD;&#xA;[ездить] **на** машине --&gt; [drive] a car (no prepostion needed in English)  &#xD;&#xA;[ходить] **в** туфлях --&gt; [walk] **in** shoes  &#xD;&#xA;[???] **в** собаке --&gt; [what???] **inside** a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are these specific to the noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific to both a noun and a verb. I.e. just as usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27996" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12071" RevisionGUID="e466b0fa-2840-4ec6-8a23-03bbaf774f4c" CreationDate="2016-03-19T23:40:48.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/711336651457478657" />
  <row Id="28005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12087" RevisionGUID="39e84523-f01e-4877-b936-026cf2355494" CreationDate="2016-03-20T10:01:04.503" UserId="6972" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I am doing some home work and would need help with a word that I can not find. What is яна in IPA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12087" RevisionGUID="39e84523-f01e-4877-b936-026cf2355494" CreationDate="2016-03-20T10:01:04.503" UserId="6972" Text="I would need help with how to translate an easy Russian word in IPA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12087" RevisionGUID="39e84523-f01e-4877-b936-026cf2355494" CreationDate="2016-03-20T10:01:04.503" UserId="6972" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12087" RevisionGUID="53e781c9-ddd7-4d30-b69a-eebb00e028d7" CreationDate="2016-03-20T10:15:14.800" UserId="6972" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I am doing some home work and would need help with two names that I can not find. What is Эва and яна in IPA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="0d3fb09f-6d15-4c4d-a956-667f450122a4" CreationDate="2016-03-20T12:14:41.267" UserId="551" Text="In his book Лев Кассиль describes introduction of verbal marks in such way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В учительской повесили  новый  портрет:  волосы  ершиком,  отвороченные&#xD;&#xA;уголки стоячего воротничка, как  крылышки  херувима...  Александр  Федорович&#xD;&#xA;Керенский.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    На специальном  молебне  учителя  присягали  Временному  правительству.&#xD;&#xA;Общую молитву всех классов отменили. По утрам, перед уроками,  стали  читать&#xD;&#xA;прямо в классе коротенькую молитву. Затем либеральный новый директор решился&#xD;&#xA;на смелый шаг: он отменил отметки.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Отныне учителя не ставили в наши дневники и тетради единиц  и  пятерок.&#xD;&#xA;Вместо единицы писалось  &quot;плохо&quot;,  вместо  двойки  -  &quot;неудовлетворительно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Тройку заменяло &quot;удовлетворительно&quot;. &quot;Хорошо&quot; означало прежнюю  четверку,  а&#xD;&#xA;&quot;отлично&quot; стоило пятерки.  Потом,  чтобы  не  утратить  прежних  &quot;плюсов&quot;  и&#xD;&#xA;&quot;минусов&quot;, стали  писать  &quot;очень  хорошо&quot;,  &quot;не  вполне  удовлетворительно&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;почти отлично&quot; и  так  далее.  А  латинист  Тараканиус,  очень  недовольный&#xD;&#xA;реформой, поставил однажды Биндюгу за  письменную  уже  нечто  необъяснимое:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;совсем плохо с двумя минусами&quot;. Так и за четверть вывел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, accrding to Kassil, such marks were introduced in his gymnasium in 1917 and before that time they had &quot;numeric&quot; marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it does not answer on what was the word for &quot;отличник&quot;, but nevertheless tells about &quot;хорошист&quot; - looks like such term could not be produced from verbal marks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12089" RevisionGUID="f5e473ae-02b7-4904-9279-9a2ed9b0187d" CreationDate="2016-03-20T12:17:17.837" UserId="6972" Text="Just out of curiosity, I was given the name Юля that I was to map in to IPA. When I tried to look up &quot;Юля&quot; it came up as &quot;Юлия&quot;. As Russian speaker what is the difference between these two spellings and are these two, two different names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to hear your input on this and if they are referring to the same name what is the background. What is commonly used in Russian language today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12089" RevisionGUID="f5e473ae-02b7-4904-9279-9a2ed9b0187d" CreationDate="2016-03-20T12:17:17.837" UserId="6972" Text="Spelling of name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12089" RevisionGUID="f5e473ae-02b7-4904-9279-9a2ed9b0187d" CreationDate="2016-03-20T12:17:17.837" UserId="6972" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12090" RevisionGUID="a1275068-deb9-4bb3-b2a7-fa52c4af3c20" CreationDate="2016-03-20T12:30:27.850" UserId="3680" Text="This is the same name.  &#xD;&#xA;`Юля` is just a shorthand for the name `Юлия`.  &#xD;&#xA;So, the difference is the same as between, for example, `Mike` and `Michael`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12091" RevisionGUID="71f0f9bc-0f2f-48b3-addd-f1605d929ec3" CreationDate="2016-03-20T12:50:56.787" UserId="4560" Text="**Яна** is ['janə] and **Эва** is ['ɛvə]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12092" RevisionGUID="77734bb7-a514-4ce4-8344-dfff582e3a98" CreationDate="2016-03-20T13:58:31.603" UserId="6354" Text="Is it simply **чувствовать ненависть**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a sentence like **Он не чувствовал ненависти к своим врагам**, what is the case of ненависти? I can rule out *nominative plural* and *prepositional singular*, but that leaves *genitive singular*, *dative singular*, and *accusative plural*. I want to make sure I'm thinking of ненависть in the Russian way here (not just a translation of &quot;hatred&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12092" RevisionGUID="77734bb7-a514-4ce4-8344-dfff582e3a98" CreationDate="2016-03-20T13:58:31.603" UserId="6354" Text="How to express &quot;feel hatred&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12092" RevisionGUID="77734bb7-a514-4ce4-8344-dfff582e3a98" CreationDate="2016-03-20T13:58:31.603" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12093" RevisionGUID="3375bd9b-7a8d-42bd-bb8e-d7ab75141c65" CreationDate="2016-03-20T14:13:14.423" UserId="4560" Text="**Испытывать ненависть** is probably the best choice in terms of style, but **чувствовать** is the go-to, catch-all term you're generally more likely to hear. **Ощущать** is another option but with **ненависть**, it somehow strikes me as unpleasantly wannabe-bookish. I could be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case on **ненависти** is genitive singular; the reason for it is just the negative on the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ненависть** is very much a translation of &quot;hatred&quot; — unless, conversely, I'm missing something uniquely English about the word; but I don't think I am. Both are the most generic term available in its respective language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="d0da35a4-bdbf-4dbc-8f9b-8bcf7f62d7c1" CreationDate="2016-03-20T20:10:38.483" UserId="6523" Comment="added Memrise" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][5] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][6] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][7] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][8] - spaced repetition using complete sentences (rather than single words). Covers the entire language and tracks your vocabulary size. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][9] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][10].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][11] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][12] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.memrise.com/courses/english/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://ru.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12094" RevisionGUID="2688208b-e0ea-4996-99a9-61a517d52759" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:29:56.157" UserId="6975" Text="I would need your constructive expert opinion on my IPA translations. This is a difficult topic so bare with me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Желтéть			ʐɛltʲetʲ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;чернéет			t͡ɕɪɾˈnʲeɛt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с детьми		s ͡ ˈdʲetʲmɪ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аквалáнг		ɐkvɐˈlank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жёлудь - Жора 	ˈʐolʊtʲ - ˈʐorə" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12094" RevisionGUID="2688208b-e0ea-4996-99a9-61a517d52759" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:29:56.157" UserId="6975" Text="Russian words translated into IPA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12094" RevisionGUID="2688208b-e0ea-4996-99a9-61a517d52759" CreationDate="2016-03-20T22:29:56.157" UserId="6975" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="e4f8b6a1-cbf2-4c11-a681-e49b97ea4c5a" CreationDate="2016-03-21T04:43:31.857" UserId="4560" Text="* ʐᵻltʲetʲ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* t͡ɕɪrˈnʲeɪt — two things here: 1. /r/ is definitely a trill in this position; 2. AFAIK, most or all authorities would insist on [t͡ɕɪrˈnʲejɪt], but I daresay the [j] is a bit of an academic relic; no-one really ever articulates it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* z‿dʲɪtʲˈmʲi (it's got mobile stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the rest are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. It took some time to find, but [this][1] seems to be an automated Russian IPA transcriptor that works. (Sadly it seems to never stop asking for the math captcha.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://easypronunciation.com/en/russian-phonetic-transcription-converter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="5639baf3-f8e9-460c-b3d8-7e8d33052647" CreationDate="2016-03-21T04:48:52.810" UserId="4560" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="* ʐᵻlˈtʲetʲ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* t͡ɕɪrˈnʲeɪt — two things here: 1. /r/ is definitely a trill in this position; 2. AFAIK, most or all authorities would insist on [t͡ɕɪrˈnʲejɪt], but I daresay the [j] is a bit of an academic relic; no-one really ever articulates it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* z‿dʲɪtʲˈmʲi (it's got mobile stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the rest are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. It took some time to find, but [this][1] seems to be an automated Russian IPA transcriptor that works. (Sadly it seems to never stop asking for the math captcha.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://easypronunciation.com/en/russian-phonetic-transcription-converter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="89556146-9b10-4bc5-8967-a09cdc4bb897" CreationDate="2016-03-21T07:59:41.890" UserId="551" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="In his book Лев Кассиль describes introduction of verbal marks in such way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В учительской повесили  новый  портрет:  волосы  ершиком,  отвороченные&#xD;&#xA;уголки стоячего воротничка, как  крылышки  херувима...  Александр  Федорович&#xD;&#xA;Керенский.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    На специальном  молебне  учителя  присягали  Временному  правительству.&#xD;&#xA;Общую молитву всех классов отменили. По утрам, перед уроками,  стали  читать&#xD;&#xA;прямо в классе коротенькую молитву. Затем либеральный новый директор решился&#xD;&#xA;на смелый шаг: он отменил отметки.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Отныне учителя не ставили в наши дневники и тетради единиц  и  пятерок.&#xD;&#xA;Вместо единицы писалось  &quot;плохо&quot;,  вместо  двойки  -  &quot;неудовлетворительно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Тройку заменяло &quot;удовлетворительно&quot;. &quot;Хорошо&quot; означало прежнюю  четверку,  а&#xD;&#xA;&quot;отлично&quot; стоило пятерки.  Потом,  чтобы  не  утратить  прежних  &quot;плюсов&quot;  и&#xD;&#xA;&quot;минусов&quot;, стали  писать  &quot;очень  хорошо&quot;,  &quot;не  вполне  удовлетворительно&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;почти отлично&quot; и  так  далее.  А  латинист  Тараканиус,  очень  недовольный&#xD;&#xA;реформой, поставил однажды Биндюгу за  письменную  уже  нечто  необъяснимое:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;совсем плохо с двумя минусами&quot;. Так и за четверть вывел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, accrding to Kassil, such marks were introduced in his gymnasium in 1917 and before that time they had &quot;numeric&quot; marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it does not answer on what was the word for &quot;отличник&quot;, but nevertheless tells about &quot;хорошист&quot; - looks like such term could not be produced from verbal marks before 1917." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12096" RevisionGUID="6bd1fbff-d23e-4386-9408-fe913615b429" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:09:32.070" UserId="6354" Text="Does **прятки**, the Russian word for the game **hide and seek**, come from *пяток* (five), *пятка* (heel), or something else? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is пяток, because of counting from 1 to 5." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12096" RevisionGUID="6bd1fbff-d23e-4386-9408-fe913615b429" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:09:32.070" UserId="6354" Text="Origin of прятки (Russian word for &quot;Hide and Seek&quot; game)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12096" RevisionGUID="6bd1fbff-d23e-4386-9408-fe913615b429" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:09:32.070" UserId="6354" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="636a0441-0b4a-48de-969f-76a67113e577" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:19:50.573" UserId="4801" Text="Neither. This word derives from the verb &quot;прятаться&quot;, which translates as &quot;to hide&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="3cb15182-dd13-4420-b083-feb09432a975" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:37:59.663" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Neither. This word derives from the verb &quot;прятаться&quot;, which translates as &quot;to hide onself&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="cdc33ae7-c7d6-4563-bdbc-9d88b0af193c" CreationDate="2016-03-21T09:44:55.453" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Neither. This word derives from the verb &quot;прятаться&quot;, which translates as &quot;to hide (oneself)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28032" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="40e051c6-17a0-48cc-8f36-906a96cbd99f" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:04:41.503" UserId="1688" Comment="clearer question (I think)" Text="Prepositions used after нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28033" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="40e051c6-17a0-48cc-8f36-906a96cbd99f" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:04:41.503" Comment="Proposed by 1688 approved by 3680, 134 edit id of 730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="c75f8391-0c1b-48ca-a678-ed43d7411d48" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:17:09.670" UserId="6975" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Is there a wording or a word in Russian for people that think they are sly, smart and clever but are only envy. In one of the languages I use I do not want to insult them but I want to signal that I do not want anything to do with them. That they should stay away so I use: &quot;мали грађанин&quot;. Could be translated as: &quot;small towner&quot;. In English there is &quot;white trash&quot; but that one stings no matter if one has a car and some kind of education. What about in Russian? I am looking for a word that is closer to the &quot;мали građanin&quot; on the scale, that is not derogatory, that is not a swear word but could sting a little so they get the picture quickly no matter how slow they are. If the title is too broad please amend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="c75f8391-0c1b-48ca-a678-ed43d7411d48" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:17:09.670" UserId="6975" Text="Looking for a Russian word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="c75f8391-0c1b-48ca-a678-ed43d7411d48" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:17:09.670" UserId="6975" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="836441b7-4477-4b9e-9ebf-e690ed5b6757" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:27:05.847" UserId="6975" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Is there a wording or a word in Russian for people that think they are sly, smart and clever but are only envy or just &quot;uninformed&quot;. In one of the languages I use I do not want to insult them but I want to signal that I do not want anything to do with them. That they should stay away so I use: &quot;мали грађанин&quot;. Could be translated as: &quot;small towner&quot;. In English there is &quot;white trash&quot; but that one stings no matter if one has a car and some kind of education. What about in Russian? I am looking for a word that is closer to the &quot;мали građanin&quot; on the scale, that is not derogatory, that is not a swear word but could sting a little so they get the picture quickly no matter how slow they are. If the title is too broad please amend it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="7c728992-e0f5-4938-a92a-26a5576f5343" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:38:55.650" UserId="6975" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="Is there a wording or a word in Russian for people that are just &quot;uninformed&quot;. In one of the languages I use I do not want to insult them but I want to signal that I do not want anything to do with them. That they should stay away so I use: &quot;мали грађанин&quot;. Could be translated as: &quot;small towner&quot;. What about in Russian? I am looking for a word that is closer to the &quot;мали građanin&quot; on the scale, that is not derogatory, broad, that is not a swear word but could sting a little so they get the picture quickly no matter how slow they are. If the title is too broad please amend it. Response on this is not urgent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12099" RevisionGUID="aaec5556-a959-48f3-8782-d3b1bf1150e3" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:39:55.530" UserId="310" Text="Maybe you're looking for `провинциал`? It's not derogatory but definitely stingy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/провинциал" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12100" RevisionGUID="1bbd0fac-03c2-4dc1-8ad5-d5b05e59878f" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:42:49.247" UserId="6588" Text="&quot;Белое пальто&quot; - from meme &quot;Вы все дураки и не лечитесь одна я умная в белом пальто стою красивая&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он в белом пальто&quot;/&quot;белопальтовый&quot; - describes the one who thinks he's smart and cool. But envious and not so cool, as he thinks about himself. Note: this term is not really widespead, only internet users would understand it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="e1f43b51-9025-49d3-b987-4aeb552c9331" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:48:58.657" UserId="551" Comment="added tag" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12101" RevisionGUID="2f51773a-c3c8-4b30-9949-56557dd3c7ca" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:51:29.970" UserId="6354" Text="My interpretation of **Жили-были старик со старухой у самого синего моря** is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Once upon a time, there lived an old man and woman by the* **most** *blue sea.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Once upon a time, there lived an old man and woman by the* **bluest** *sea.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, both Google and Yandex translate **самого синего моря** as simply *blue sea*, not **bluest** *sea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct translation of the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12101" RevisionGUID="2f51773a-c3c8-4b30-9949-56557dd3c7ca" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:51:29.970" UserId="6354" Text="Translation of &quot;Жили-были старик со старухой у самого синего моря&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12101" RevisionGUID="2f51773a-c3c8-4b30-9949-56557dd3c7ca" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:51:29.970" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12102" RevisionGUID="420d595c-9c5d-4ebb-9902-73f3658292ee" CreationDate="2016-03-21T10:55:52.237" UserId="6725" Text="&quot;Самого&quot; here refers to &quot;sea&quot;, not to &quot;blue&quot;. It means, that they lived right beside the blue sea, very close to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочитайте текст полностью, с самого начала до самого конца." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12102" RevisionGUID="387d7876-92d7-4a42-aa0c-33dde4747faa" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:00:54.433" UserId="6725" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="&quot;Самого&quot; here refers to &quot;sea&quot;, not to &quot;blue&quot;. It means, that they lived right beside the blue sea, very close to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочитайте текст полностью, с самого начала до самого конца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Read the text completely, from the very beginning up to the very end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вышла из магазина и пошла домой, но у самого входа в дом поняла,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что забыла купить молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I left the shop and went home, but when I was about to enter my house, I realized, that forgot to buy milk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12101" RevisionGUID="73a20b4b-068e-4313-b480-925b66c31615" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:01:26.877" UserId="6354" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="My interpretation of **Жили-были старик со старухой у самого синего моря** is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Once upon a time, there lived an old man and woman by the* **most** *blue sea.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Once upon a time, there lived an old man and woman by the* **bluest** *sea.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, both Google and Yandex translate **самого синего моря** as simply *blue sea*, not **bluest** *sea*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of самого in the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28050" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12101" RevisionGUID="73a20b4b-068e-4313-b480-925b66c31615" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:01:26.877" UserId="6354" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Meaning of самого in &quot;Жили-были старик со старухой у самого синего моря&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="08893fb8-bf7d-43f2-934d-64102c2a67bb" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:41:37.343" UserId="6978" Text="What if it's , &quot;**Между** 1905 и 1914 годами&quot;? How would you say the ending of the two years? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="08893fb8-bf7d-43f2-934d-64102c2a67bb" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:41:37.343" UserId="6978" Text="How would I say in between () and () year in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="08893fb8-bf7d-43f2-934d-64102c2a67bb" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:41:37.343" UserId="6978" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="8dcf8836-3be7-44b2-b1c7-f86e7787f104" CreationDate="2016-03-21T11:47:38.173" UserId="6602" Text="Между ...пят**ым** и ...четырнадцат**ым** годами." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="6b54ae15-a31c-465b-a473-8ff74df2fa13" CreationDate="2016-03-21T12:06:32.873" UserId="310" Text="I would say `С 1905-го по 2014-й`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't usually say &quot;between years&quot; in Russian, as an idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="da0898f2-bb53-49c8-995b-3127855ef142" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:33:33.063" UserId="6524" Text="In Rammstein's &quot;Moskau&quot; the singer uses &quot;раз два три&quot; which I had understood as meaning &quot;one, two, three&quot;, however I am now learning that the proper way to count up would be &quot;один два три&quot;. I've come across &quot;раз&quot; in other situations, such as &quot;еще раз&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When is it appropriate to use &quot;раз&quot; as meaning &quot;one&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28057" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="da0898f2-bb53-49c8-995b-3127855ef142" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:33:33.063" UserId="6524" Text="Oдин or раз (Rammstein Moskau lyrics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28058" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="da0898f2-bb53-49c8-995b-3127855ef142" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:33:33.063" UserId="6524" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="8b53d852-8b8a-4ae0-8208-17162f737f3a" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:36:44.753" UserId="5897" Text="Because  &#xD;&#xA;- the Russian past tense is the past perfect  &#xD;&#xA;- the past perfect requires an auxiliary verb  &#xD;&#xA;- the Slavic auxiliary verb is the copula (*быть*)  &#xD;&#xA;- the copula requires gender and number agreement  &#xD;&#xA;- **the copula is dropped in modern Russian in the present tense**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That dropped copula is what causes the confusion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in older Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он есть пел.  &#xD;&#xA;Она есть пела.  &#xD;&#xA;Оно есть пело.  &#xD;&#xA;Они суть пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы есмы пели.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is analogous to Ukrainian, Serbian and so on (and even Italian and French for many verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was true for Russian copula in any situation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он есть инженер.  Погода есть хорошая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ∅ пел.  &#xD;&#xA;Она ∅ пела.  &#xD;&#xA;Оно ∅ пело.  &#xD;&#xA;Они ∅ пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы ∅ пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Он ∅ инженер.  &#xD;&#xA;Погода ∅ хорошая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The copula is dropped, but the agreement is still required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this happen?  [Wikipedia article on zero copula][1]: *&quot;The present tense of the copula in Russian was in common use well into the 19th Century (as attested in the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky) but is now used only for archaic effect.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12109" RevisionGUID="b98eec03-43ec-480e-85d5-cbcf425b328d" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:51:32.997" UserId="1236" Text="The word *один* is used to tell the number of things, like *один день* 'one day' or *один человек* 'one person', but *раз* is used in the sequence *раз два три* when you count objects, like pointing your index finger at objects counting aloud 'one, two, three, four, etc.' without naming the objects you count. Also, *раз* is used in the army while the soldiers are marching, and the officer is counting 'one, two, three' to help them keep the marching rhythm, the same in sports when the coach counts to the sportsmen. It is this last, army/sports usage that is in the Rammstein song, there are girls dressed as the Young Pioneers who used to march to their leader's counting, back in the Soviet times. Sometimes, *один два три* is also used for counting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note, in Russian, only the word for **1** has different variants for these two purposes, but in Japanese _all_ the numbers have two variants, one for telling the number of objects and the other for counting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning of *раз* is 'a time', like *пять раз* 'five times', or even *один раз* 'one time'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="c9f2ea1b-0377-44c8-8074-0736c0d7867c" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:51:59.030" UserId="4801" Text="When counting, &quot;раз&quot; is synonymous то &quot;один&quot;. You will find &quot;раз&quot; more used in military, for example, probably due to it being more concise. However, you won't usually use &quot;раз&quot; when counting things, where &quot;один&quot; is preferable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один компьютер, два компьютера, три компьютера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although &quot;раз&quot; may be used in this scenario as well (note the case agreement):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Раз дощечка, два дощечка – будет лесенка. Раз словечко, два словечко – будет песенка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12111" RevisionGUID="fdb2d7b5-31c8-4b89-a58b-269c339f4ae0" CreationDate="2016-03-21T13:52:06.500" UserId="4560" Text="You may have come across **eins** in German: it's the form that's used in a counting sequence (**eins, zwei, drei...**), whereas otherwise the numeral one is **ein**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Раз** is much the same thing: it gets used instead of **один** in the counting sequence. The difference is that it's not mandatory, and, in fact, not standard, but in everyday language, it's virtually never **один, два, три** but **раз, два, три**. (Note that the counting-down sequence is still **три, два, один**; using **раз** here would sound incorrect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now **раз** is also a noun, meaning &quot;time&quot; — in the narrow sense of &quot;an instance&quot; (German *Mal*, French *fois*, Spanish *vez*). That's what it will mean most of the times you come across the word, such as in **еще раз** &quot;one more time&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Раз** can also be a colloquial conjunction meaning &quot;since&quot;, &quot;now that&quot;, &quot;seeing as [something has happened]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="e88f0896-cdb4-407d-a36f-c102d78b4341" CreationDate="2016-03-21T14:45:56.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/711926823190396928" />
  <row Id="28068" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12096" RevisionGUID="680f4e18-555d-46ce-96ba-5b19e9cceff4" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:48:11.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/711972689360101377" />
  <row Id="28069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12113" RevisionGUID="7bafc985-f79f-4493-8c2d-536d36bfa4be" CreationDate="2016-03-21T18:27:22.473" UserId="4903" Text="Russian language often drops/omits the verb &quot;to be.&quot;  In all of the provided examples the verb **&quot;to be&quot; (быть)** is dropped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь нельзя [быть] с собакой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь нельзя [быть] на машине&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь нельзя [быть] в туфлях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of a preposition is dictated by how **to be** is connected with the object.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be **with** a dog - быть **с** собакой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be **in** a car - быть **на** машине&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to be **in** shoes - быть **в** туфлях" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="cac5927a-bdab-4e5e-9b91-a76fdd832a3c" CreationDate="2016-03-21T20:59:35.027" UserId="3595" Text="&gt; Is there a separate word relevant for tsarist period gymnasium student, similar to modern &quot;отличник&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is NO. There wasn't a single grading system in Tsarist Russia such as 1-5 in Soviet times. There were many different academic grading approaches, as it is described [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В начале второй половины XIXвека в России в разных типах средних&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учебных заведениях параллельно сосуществовали пятибалльная и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12-балльная системы оценок. Кроме того, в начальной школе, учительских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учебных заведениях, некоторых новаторских средних школах баллов вообще&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не было (например, в гимназиях Гавловского, Спешневой, Оболенской,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; позднее – Стюининой в Петербурге, некоторых других) [12]. В разных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учебных заведениях и в разных странах использовали двухбалльную&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (зачтено, не зачтено), 60- балльную, 100-балльную системы. В некоторых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случаях вместо цифровых баллов использовали сжатые (&quot;отлично&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;хорошо&quot;, &quot;удовлетворительно&quot;, &quot;неудовлетворительно&quot;, &quot;абсолютно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неудовлетворительно&quot; или &quot;плохо&quot;) или развернутые словесные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характеристики. Во французской школе практиковалось установление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; определенного рейтинга среди учеников: первый ученик класса или по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какому-то предмету; второй, третий.… В ряде заграничных католических&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женских школах для привлечения учениц использовали разные ленты,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жетоны. А в десятках российских школах существовали красные и черные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; доски уважения и унижения фамилий лучших и худших учеников. Таким&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образом, во времена, когда в Петербургском педагогическом товариществе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходила дискуссия о школьной оценке, однозначных взглядов на нее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ни мировая педагогическая теория, ни школьная практика не произвели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, grading was and still is a subject of discussion, and many different approaches were tried during the past 200 years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see Education and the State in Tsarist Russia By Patrick L. Alston [here][2], which states that the Ministry of Education installed &quot;ballovaya systema&quot; with grades 1 through 5 throighout the empire, and that in conversation the teachers would call students: a &quot;two&quot;, a &quot;three&quot; or a &quot;five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it doesn't seem to be true to say that Russian had 1-12 grading system, and that there was a word for pupils getting 12. If anything there was a familiar 1-5 &quot;ball&quot; system, or a variety of different systems, and there was unlikely a common name of the best students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://domashke.com/referati/referaty-po-pedagogike/kursovaya-rabota-pedagogicheskoe-ocenivanie-i-ego-vliyanie-na-formirovanie-samoocenki-uchashhihsya&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xJarAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA148&amp;lpg=PA148&amp;dq=academic%20grading%20russia%20tsar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qF6S97yIpk&amp;sig=eSDPUgnjxyJIdPpgJ0YIFW8s5Gg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidwubw0NLLAhVEQCYKHa1-BOkQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=academic%20grading%20russia%20tsar&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="b35ba7a1-761b-49c0-ac4f-241cec3d12fa" CreationDate="2016-03-21T21:17:43.467" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is there a separate word relevant for tsarist period gymnasium student, similar to modern &quot;отличник&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer is **No**. There wasn't a single grading system in Tsarist Russia such as 1-5 in Soviet times. There were many different academic grading approaches, as it is described [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В начале второй половины XIXвека в России в разных типах средних&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учебных заведениях параллельно сосуществовали пятибалльная и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12-балльная системы оценок. Кроме того, в начальной школе, учительских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учебных заведениях, некоторых новаторских средних школах баллов вообще&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не было (например, в гимназиях Гавловского, Спешневой, Оболенской,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; позднее – Стюининой в Петербурге, некоторых других) [12]. В разных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учебных заведениях и в разных странах использовали двухбалльную&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (зачтено, не зачтено), 60- балльную, 100-балльную системы. В некоторых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случаях вместо цифровых баллов использовали сжатые (&quot;отлично&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;хорошо&quot;, &quot;удовлетворительно&quot;, &quot;неудовлетворительно&quot;, &quot;абсолютно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неудовлетворительно&quot; или &quot;плохо&quot;) или развернутые словесные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характеристики. Во французской школе практиковалось установление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; определенного рейтинга среди учеников: первый ученик класса или по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какому-то предмету; второй, третий.… В ряде заграничных католических&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женских школах для привлечения учениц использовали разные ленты,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жетоны. А в десятках российских школах существовали красные и черные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; доски уважения и унижения фамилий лучших и худших учеников. Таким&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образом, во времена, когда в Петербургском педагогическом товариществе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходила дискуссия о школьной оценке, однозначных взглядов на нее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ни мировая педагогическая теория, ни школьная практика не произвели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, grading was and still is a subject of discussion, and many different approaches were tried during the past 200 years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see Education and the State in Tsarist Russia By Patrick L. Alston [here][2], which states that the Ministry of Education installed &quot;ballovaya systema&quot; with grades 1 through 5 throighout the empire, and that in conversation the teachers would call students: a &quot;two&quot;, a &quot;three&quot; or a &quot;five&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it doesn't seem to be true to say that Russian had 1-12 grading system, and that there was a word for pupils getting 12. If anything there was a familiar 1-5 &quot;ball&quot; system, or a variety of different systems, and there was unlikely a common name of the best students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://domashke.com/referati/referaty-po-pedagogike/kursovaya-rabota-pedagogicheskoe-ocenivanie-i-ego-vliyanie-na-formirovanie-samoocenki-uchashhihsya&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=xJarAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA148&amp;lpg=PA148&amp;dq=academic%20grading%20russia%20tsar&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=qF6S97yIpk&amp;sig=eSDPUgnjxyJIdPpgJ0YIFW8s5Gg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidwubw0NLLAhVEQCYKHa1-BOkQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&amp;q=academic%20grading%20russia%20tsar&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9eec4905-6ef5-4cee-8ec6-ede2ea33ab54" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:51:11.237" UserId="6991" Text="The English Wiktionary example for the sentence 'унести' says &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ве́тром унесло́ мою́ ке́пку.‎&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated into &quot;The wind carried my cap away.&quot;. Why does it begin with the instrumental case? I'm sure that « Ветер унесло мою кепку » would also have been acceptable. Why begin a sentence with this case? What is the rule for this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9eec4905-6ef5-4cee-8ec6-ede2ea33ab54" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:51:11.237" UserId="6991" Text="Why do some sentences begin with the instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9eec4905-6ef5-4cee-8ec6-ede2ea33ab54" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:51:11.237" UserId="6991" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12101" RevisionGUID="5b27bafb-2aa6-479b-bba2-e413c8b8c082" CreationDate="2016-03-21T23:48:12.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/712063287664443392" />
  <row Id="28080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12119" RevisionGUID="5e228cbb-6350-4bac-a650-60accced0af0" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:45:38.057" UserId="242" Text="Actually there's not that much of a mystery here. In fact, even in English  (I'm saying &quot;even&quot; just because modern English has no cases at all) there are some hints that could help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's consider the famous title &quot;Gone with the wind&quot;. This is translated to Russian literally as &quot;Унесённые ветром&quot; not as  &quot;Ветер унёс&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So when one say in English &quot;with something&quot; or &quot;by something&quot; it most likely expressed in Russian via instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare another famous English phrase &quot;baptizing by fire&quot; to it Russian equivalent - &quot;крещение [чем? - instrumental case] огнём&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's take a look at &quot;gone&quot; - what form of verb is this?  This is a [participle][1], or, in Russian, причастия - or, to be more precise, those are [passive participle][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from wikipedia which nicely explains what it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Passive voice is a grammatical voice common in many languages. In a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; undergoes the action or has its state changed...For example, in the passive sentence **&quot;The tree was pulled down&quot;,** the subject (the tree) denotes the patient rather than the agent of the action. In contrast, the sentences **&quot;Someone pulled down the tree&quot;** and &quot;The tree is down&quot; are active sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be glad  to say that if you understand this one thing you should remember is the usage instrumental case when needed but unfortunately this is not the hardest part. The hardest part is to memorize all this verb-derived forms that can be use in passive voice. But I guess this could be a part of a different answer for a different question which you'll definitely will have many if you'll keep on studying Russian ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle#English&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12119" RevisionGUID="d9dd45f0-e79a-4b4b-9e90-c290d12cd6c9" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:50:22.393" UserId="242" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="Actually there's not that much of a mystery here. In fact, even in English  (I'm saying &quot;even&quot; just because modern English has no cases at all) there are some hints that could help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's consider the famous title &quot;Gone with the wind&quot;. This is translated to Russian literally as &quot;Унесённые ветром&quot; not as  &quot;Ветер унёс&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So when one say in English &quot;with something&quot; or &quot;by something&quot; it most likely expressed in Russian via instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare another famous English phrase &quot;baptizing by fire&quot; to it Russian equivalent - &quot;крещение [чем? - instrumental case] огнём&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's take a look at &quot;gone&quot; - what form of verb is this?  This is a [participle][1], or, in Russian, причастия - or, to be more precise, those are [passive participle][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from wikipedia which nicely explains what it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Passive voice is a grammatical voice common in many languages. In a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; undergoes the action or has its state changed...For example, in the passive sentence **&quot;The tree was pulled down&quot;,** the subject (the tree) denotes the patient rather than the agent of the action. In contrast, the sentences **&quot;Someone pulled down the tree&quot;** and &quot;The tree is down&quot; are active sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be glad  to say that if you understand this one thing you should remember is the usage instrumental case when needed but unfortunately this is not the hardest part. The hardest part is to memorize all this verb-derived forms that can be use in passive voice. But I guess this could be a part of a different answer for a different question which you'll definitely will have many if you'll keep on studying Russian ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** As @YellowSky has mentioned, indeed, things are a bit more complicated since, strictly speaking &quot;Унесло&quot; here is impersonal rather than passive, which is slightly a different concept but I don't won't go too deep into that. It is not oversimplification to say that those to concepts are very closely related. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle#English&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9776b46c-4d49-4e45-a3ad-de548ed826b6" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:55:34.830" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="The English Wiktionary example for the sentence 'унести' says &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ве́тром унесло́ мою́ ке́пку.‎&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated into &quot;The wind carried my cap away.&quot;. Why does it begin with the instrumental case? I'm sure that « Ветер унес мою кепку » would also have been acceptable. Why begin a sentence with this case? What is the rule for this? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28083" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9776b46c-4d49-4e45-a3ad-de548ed826b6" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:55:34.830" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why &quot;ветром унесло мою кепку&quot; rather than &quot;ветер унёс мою кепку&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12119" RevisionGUID="b367aa81-64ca-4947-9c70-176ec654e1f7" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:56:30.193" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Actually there's not that much of a mystery here. In fact, even in English  (I'm saying &quot;even&quot; just because modern English has no cases at all) there are some hints that could help you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's consider the famous title &quot;Gone with the wind&quot;. This is translated to Russian literally as &quot;Унесённые ветром&quot; not as  &quot;Ветер унёс&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;So when one say in English &quot;with something&quot; or &quot;by something&quot; it most likely expressed in Russian via instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare another famous English phrase &quot;baptizing by fire&quot; to it Russian equivalent - &quot;крещение [чем? - instrumental case] огнём&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's take a look at &quot;gone&quot; - what form of verb is this?  This is a [participle][1], or, in Russian, причастия - or, to be more precise, those are [passive participle][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from wikipedia which nicely explains what it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Passive voice is a grammatical voice common in many languages. In a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; undergoes the action or has its state changed...For example, in the passive sentence **&quot;The tree was pulled down&quot;,** the subject (the tree) denotes the patient rather than the agent of the action. In contrast, the sentences **&quot;Someone pulled down the tree&quot;** and &quot;The tree is down&quot; are active sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be glad  to say that if you understand this one thing you should remember is the usage instrumental case when needed but unfortunately this is not the hardest part. The hardest part is to memorize all this verb-derived forms that can be use in passive voice. But I guess this could be a part of a different answer for a different question which you'll definitely will have many if you'll keep on studying Russian ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** As @YellowSky has mentioned, indeed, things are a bit more complicated since, strictly speaking &quot;Унесло&quot; here is impersonal rather than passive, which is slightly a different concept but I don't won't go too deep into that. It is not oversimplification to say that those two concepts are very closely related. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle#English&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28085" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9776b46c-4d49-4e45-a3ad-de548ed826b6" CreationDate="2016-03-22T00:55:34.830" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="|грамматика|падежи|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12121" RevisionGUID="666a98ff-6aa7-4a66-ab89-aa2b5af2ff42" CreationDate="2016-03-22T01:50:02.587" UserId="6993" Text="I would use недалёкий (from недалеко - not far (reaching), implies that the person doesn't know much)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12122" RevisionGUID="e851cb42-8267-421f-ae6d-e14672ef5251" CreationDate="2016-03-22T03:55:13.660" UserId="6349" Text="I'm not a native speaker, but here's my understanding of it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an impersonal sentence, i.e., there is no noun or first-person, second-person, or third-person pronoun in the nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Mне хочется покоя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same vein you could ask, why does this sentence begin with the dative case. Except you probably wouldn't ask because this kind of sentence is already very familiar. Also, it doesn't necessarily begin with a dative; you could write for example &quot;Иногда просто хочется покоя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes Russian uses an impersonal sentence for some verbs where English uses a sentence with a subject, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Девушку вырвало&#xD;&#xA;* The girl vomited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So instead of impersonal sentences that involve a dative which are very familiar from Russian 101, there can also be sentences that involve an instrumental (like your example), or an accusative (like the above example). The verb is in the third person, and if it's in the past tense then it's neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, consider the opposite situations, where Russian uses a straightforward subject+verb sentence but English has an indirect formulation with an artificial subject. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Дождь идёт  (&quot;the rain goes&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;* It is raining" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="bf9a68a2-be0e-46ef-b5b6-45895d236ad3" CreationDate="2016-03-22T08:15:14.820" UserId="2079" Text="This kind of passinve sentences goes like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Object in Accusative + Verb in neutral gender + Subject in Instrumental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples, mostly from news and forums:&#xD;&#xA;* Женщину унесло ветром в Рамат-Гане.&#xD;&#xA;* Молодую женщину сбило с ног сильным порывом ветра. &#xD;&#xA;* Женщину в Техасе ранило шальной пулей из Мексики.&#xD;&#xA;* В Москве двоих детей поразило молнией&#xD;&#xA;* Ребёнка ударило током.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is mostly for accidents and incidents. You cannot use these when the subject is animate. For example, you cannot say &quot;Меня ужалило пчелой&quot; because пчела is animate.  You cannot say &quot;Пушкина убило пулей на дуэли&quot; because d'Anthès shot Pushkin on purpose rather than accidentaly.  You cannot say &quot;Его вылечило от туберкулёза горным воздухом&quot; because it is &quot;good&quot; and also because it lasts for long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words often exchange their order.  For example, one can say both &quot;кепку унесло ветром&quot; and &quot;ветром унесло кепку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passive sentences of this kind can be rewritten with passive participle, or as non-passive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;* Кепку унесло ветром&#xD;&#xA;* Кепка была унесена ветром (I'd say it is not a good style)&#xD;&#xA;* Ветер унёс кепку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in the examples above the verbs are in past tense, they also can be in present or future :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Кепку унесло ветром&#xD;&#xA;* Я снял кепку, а то её всё время ветром уносит&#xD;&#xA;* Сними кепку, а то её унесёт ветром." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="3bbf3b93-faf6-453c-bb3a-76d45488c059" CreationDate="2016-03-22T08:51:05.400" UserId="2079" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This kind of passinve sentences goes like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Object in Accusative + Verb in neutral gender + Subject in Instrumental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples, mostly from news and forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Женщину унесло ветром в Рамат-Гане.&#xD;&#xA;* Молодую женщину сбило с ног сильным порывом ветра. &#xD;&#xA;* Женщину в Техасе ранило шальной пулей из Мексики.&#xD;&#xA;* В Москве двоих детей поразило молнией&#xD;&#xA;* Ребёнка ударило током. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is mostly for accidents and incidents. You cannot use these when the subject is animate. For example, you cannot say &quot;Меня ужалило пчелой&quot; because пчела is animate.  You cannot say &quot;Пушкина убило пулей на дуэли&quot; because d'Anthès shot Pushkin on purpose rather than accidentaly.  You cannot say &quot;Его вылечило от туберкулёза горным воздухом&quot; because it is &quot;good&quot; and also because it lasts for long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words often exchange their order.  For example, one can say both &quot;кепку унесло ветром&quot; and &quot;ветром унесло кепку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passive sentences of this kind can be rewritten with passive participle, or as non-passive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Кепку унесло ветром&#xD;&#xA;* Кепка была унесена ветром (I'd say it is not a good style)&#xD;&#xA;* Ветер унёс кепку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in the examples above the verbs are in past tense, they also can be in present or future :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Кепку унесло ветром&#xD;&#xA;* Я снял кепку, а то её всё время ветром уносит&#xD;&#xA;* Сними кепку, а то её унесёт ветром." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="90a75ff0-efc7-466d-b8db-c2bb7d8d553b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T09:55:58.247" UserId="6354" Text="Which is the more correct interpretation of **Он до полночи думал над проблемой**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) *He was thinking about the problem until* **midnight**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) *He was thinking about the problem for* **half the night**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is 1, because до is followed by the genitive case, and the genitive of **полночь** (**midnight**), is **полночи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is also the word **полночи** (**half a night**), so maybe 2 is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="90a75ff0-efc7-466d-b8db-c2bb7d8d553b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T09:55:58.247" UserId="6354" Text="Meaning of полночи in &quot;Он до полночи думал над проблемой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="90a75ff0-efc7-466d-b8db-c2bb7d8d553b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T09:55:58.247" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="13753188-47c3-4c17-8a3b-1567b19ad777" CreationDate="2016-03-22T10:00:15.917" UserId="194" Text="I think this is a wrong sentence. Formally it should be 2) but the meaning suggests the author meant 1). The author should use &quot;до полуночи&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12126" RevisionGUID="2eb63431-6689-4caf-99dc-fb463b4dfdc0" CreationDate="2016-03-22T10:02:53.253" UserId="6987" Text="I guess that the intended meaning is &quot;until midnight&quot;, but the correct form is &quot;до полуночи&quot;, not &quot;до полночи&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For (2), the correct sentence would be &quot;Он полночи думал над проблемой&quot;, without the preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12127" RevisionGUID="06434b51-c17a-4dc0-97be-6130860f9c72" CreationDate="2016-03-22T10:04:53.163" UserId="6998" Text="Он до **полУночи** думал над проблемой - means exactly the same as **1**. Its just a grammatic mistake in ur word, because otherwise it makes no sense. You can trust me, I am native russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12126" RevisionGUID="6a99f5dd-040e-4c09-8b3c-33169c1cc757" CreationDate="2016-03-22T10:11:02.407" UserId="6987" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I guess that the intended meaning is &quot;until midnight&quot;, but the correct form is &quot;до полуночи&quot;, not &quot;до полночи&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;For (2), the correct sentence would be &quot;Он полночи думал над проблемой&quot;, without the preposition &quot;до&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12129" RevisionGUID="140e397c-ff39-43ca-93e9-d802075b7057" CreationDate="2016-03-22T11:40:31.987" UserId="2060" Text="Although `до полуночи` (meaning till midnight) is more frequent, `до полночи` is also correct and has the very same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12130" RevisionGUID="979c6819-dec9-45e8-8ff2-62c789e9afc4" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:03:17.750" UserId="5008" Text="Words **Полночь** and its counterpart **Полуночь** are very special. In Nominative and Accusative cases we normally say **Полночь**, yet in other cases forms of **Полуночь** (including **до полуночи** = **until midnight**) are used much more frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said this, Genitive case &quot;**до полночи**&quot; is still considered legal and means &quot;**until midnight**&quot;. So this sentence exactly means (1) &quot;**He thought about the problem until midnight**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, (2), i.e. &quot;**до полночи**&quot; = &quot;**about half a night**&quot;, is also formally possible. Yet the latter looks too ugly and should be ruled out. Anyone, trying to say &quot;about half a night&quot;, would choose &quot;почти полночи&quot; over &quot;до полночи&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="fae8c531-350d-46f5-94c6-39f504b3753b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:06:11.503" UserId="5897" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Because  &#xD;&#xA; - the Russian past tense is the past perfect   &#xD;&#xA; - the past perfect is the past tense form of the verb (eg _пел_) + the present tense form of the auxiliary verb  &#xD;&#xA; - the past tense form of the verb is a predicate adjective  &#xD;&#xA; - predicate adjectives requires gender/number agreement  &#xD;&#xA; - the auxiliary verb is the copula (*быть*)  &#xD;&#xA; - **the copula is dropped in modern Russian in the present tense**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That dropped copula is what causes the confusion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if we include the copula, as in older* Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он есть пел.  &#xD;&#xA;Она есть пела.  &#xD;&#xA;Оно есть пело.  &#xD;&#xA;Они суть пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы есмы пели.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is analogous to Ukrainian, Serbian and so on (and even Italian and French for many verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was true for Russian copula in any situation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он есть инженер.  Погода есть хорошая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ∅ пел.  &#xD;&#xA;Она ∅ пела.  &#xD;&#xA;Оно ∅ пело.  &#xD;&#xA;Они ∅ пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы ∅ пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Он ∅ инженер.  &#xD;&#xA;Погода ∅ хорошая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The copula is dropped, but the agreement is still required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How old is old?  [Wikipedia article on zero copula][1]: *&quot;The present tense of the copula in Russian was in common use well into the 19th Century (as attested in the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky) but is now used only for archaic effect.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12131" RevisionGUID="d55afb8c-c10a-4709-b298-6f8f66dbc595" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:29:49.590" UserId="7001" Text="&#xD;&#xA;дáть, past tense have four conjuntions. According to Starling the third person past tense seems a little &quot;morphed&quot;. Does &quot;да'ло'&quot; seems correct to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;да'л&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дала'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;да'ло'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;да'ли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morph.cgi?flags=endnnnnn&amp;root=config&amp;word=%E4%E0%F2%FC&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12131" RevisionGUID="d55afb8c-c10a-4709-b298-6f8f66dbc595" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:29:49.590" UserId="7001" Text="Morphed past tense third person of verb дáть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12131" RevisionGUID="d55afb8c-c10a-4709-b298-6f8f66dbc595" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:29:49.590" UserId="7001" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12132" RevisionGUID="ebad6f07-8365-43ed-b0c1-3345fdfa6cb3" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:32:23.290" UserId="7002" Text="Perhaps, it's [обыватель][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*неодобр.* человек, лишенный общественного кругозора, живущий только мелкими личными интересами &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12133" RevisionGUID="4025b1ba-1c15-4f3a-a390-a8cb795874d2" CreationDate="2016-03-22T12:33:05.613" UserId="134" Text="It means both *да&amp;#x301;ло* and *дало&amp;#x301;* are acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lopatin's *Русский орфографический словарь* seems to agree with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28115" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="9671c12e-3b81-40d9-8cf3-3f896854e341" CreationDate="2016-03-22T14:51:37.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/712290641473048576" />
  <row Id="28116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="c8fb5ba7-0f92-4625-bc3e-6489a8e0a500" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:26:34.760" UserId="6986" Comment="Fixed some English grammar" Text="1) &quot;На Рождество&quot; = January, 7th. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В Рождество&quot; - colloquial form for &quot;на Рождество&quot;. Both forms refers to an exact date. Despite the fact &quot;на Рождество&quot; sounds similar to &quot;на днях&quot;.&lt;br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Где-то под Рождество&quot; ≈ January 3rd - 7th.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Примерно на Рождество&quot; ≈ January 5th - 9th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: if you refer to December, 25th, then you should use &quot;на католическое Рождество&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Also на + day of the week is used in expressions like в ночь со вторника на среду = overnight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) However, the expression в ночь на Хэллоуин means Halloween night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a calque from English. In Russia, Halloween was not celebrated until the 90s at all, and it's celebrated mostly by teenagers now. So there is no exact public opinion regarding how we should call the celebration. &quot;Ночь на Хэллоуин&quot; looks like random colloquial form, which makes native speakers &lt;a href=&quot;https://otvet.mail.ru/question/757123&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, whether we should celebrate it on October 30th, or 31th.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) There are common forms for future periods, such as &quot;на завтра&quot;. They are used when doing something now, but the result of the actions will be of use in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Давай договоримся [о встрече] на завтра&quot; ≠ &quot;Давай договоримся о встрече завтра&quot;. &lt;br&gt;First is for making an arragement (for tomorrow meeting) now, in the second variant the arragement will not happen now, it would be done tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На следующую неделю/месяц/сезон/год&quot; &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Давай на следующий год ребёнку купим лыжи&quot; ≠ &quot;давай в следующем году купим ребёнку лыжи&quot;. Second is for buying skis next year, when the snow will fall. First (depending on context) may refer to the same as second, but it also can mean buying skis now (so the kid is going to use it next year)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28117" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="c8fb5ba7-0f92-4625-bc3e-6489a8e0a500" CreationDate="2016-03-22T15:26:34.760" Comment="Proposed by 6986 approved by 134 edit id of 731" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="28e68d58-cb16-49c2-9986-fd3b4dd6e7d2" CreationDate="2016-03-22T18:25:03.793" UserId="7005" Text="As one of the answers proposed: *`провинциал`* is a good choice but there are few more well-known in speech alternatives, like *`село`*, *`сельпо`*, or more politely: *`невежа`*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="f796acde-6097-445e-ac8a-5658c8b5535b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T22:42:34.810" UserId="6816" Text="If I wanted to say &quot;I know he loves Russia,&quot; could I say `Я знаю, он любит россию` or would it have to be `Я знаю, что он любит россию`?&#xA;&#xA;I know that in English it is more proper to use 'that,' however I'm not sure how this works in Russian. Is it different for colloquial speech vs. proper grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="f796acde-6097-445e-ac8a-5658c8b5535b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T22:42:34.810" UserId="6816" Text="Is что mandatory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="f796acde-6097-445e-ac8a-5658c8b5535b" CreationDate="2016-03-22T22:42:34.810" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="d104e3a7-09c4-4d24-8a4f-40a0e01ff47e" CreationDate="2016-03-23T00:03:55.820" UserId="6107" Text=" - **Я знаю, он любит Россию.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds sympathetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я знаю, что он любит Россию.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like a statement, or &quot;of course&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="df04ebda-b1b2-41bb-9a50-e8c4c278b520" CreationDate="2016-03-23T00:06:34.787" UserId="2079" Text="Both are gramatically correct. However, `Я знаю, он любит Россию` is emotional, while `Я знаю, что он любит Россию` is businesslike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, `Россия` should be capitalized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="94c659fe-53f6-4c9e-ac63-e10697fc9f32" CreationDate="2016-03-23T00:14:10.400" UserId="6107" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text=" - **Я знаю, он любит Россию.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds sympathetically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я знаю, что он любит Россию.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like a statement, or &quot;Of course I know...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="3c15eb49-5f20-4dd9-b934-1eb9cbf71a4b" CreationDate="2016-03-23T00:49:58.987" UserId="6816" Comment="edited body" Text="If I wanted to say &quot;I know he loves Russia,&quot; could I say `Я знаю, он любит Россию` or would it have to be `Я знаю, что он любит Россию`?&#xA;&#xA;I know that in English it is more proper to use 'that,' however I'm not sure how this works in Russian. Is it different for colloquial speech vs. proper grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12138" RevisionGUID="e7441655-52dc-4d9e-9d20-c0b3ec50faf2" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:15:37.283" UserId="4560" Text="You're asking about an example that is somewhat atypical as far as &quot;that&quot;-dropping in Russian is concerned, so even though you've already picked a best answer I want to warn you against generalising from this example. The emotional tone is only here with **знать**, which does *not* normally drop the conjunction. I don't think **он любит Россию** is even a subordinate clause here, rather than **я знаю** being a parenthetical, unattached statement, which is even movable (**он любит Россию, я знаю** works, but you can't say *\*Он любит Россию, он сказал*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now with **сказать**, **говорить** and **(по)думать**, the situation resembles English much more closely. **Он сказал, он любит Россию** and **Я думал, он любит Россию** are a highly colloquial, but entirely legitimate and very frequently used alternative to **он сказал, что** and **я подумал, что**. Outside of these two aspectual pairs of verbs, though, **что** is generally mandatory — again, *if* we're talking about sentences with true subordinate clauses, which the Russian version of your example isn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="7477f4fd-45ac-4939-8a77-0fb775f21b14" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:23:34.003" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="If I wanted to say &quot;I know he loves Russia,&quot; could I say `Я знаю, он любит Россию` or would it have to be `Я знаю, что он любит Россию`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that in English it is more proper to use 'that,' however I'm not sure how this works in Russian. Is it different for colloquial speech vs. proper grammar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28128" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="7477f4fd-45ac-4939-8a77-0fb775f21b14" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:23:34.003" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is &quot;что&quot; mandatory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="99ac31fb-b31d-4fad-8b31-2fac2ddeab2c" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:51:34.037" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about a sentence I am working on (see below). What I am a &#xD;&#xA;little puzzled about is the: &quot;пункты на некоторых страницах метро.&quot; in &#xD;&#xA;the sentence: &quot;Также есть государственные пункты на некоторых страницах метро.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this mean and is there a real life link?&#xD;&#xA;Can this be translated into that the offices are located in some subway exits or entrances?&#xD;&#xA;How would you as russian speaker interpret &quot;на некоторых страницах метро.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28130" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11084" RevisionGUID="99ac31fb-b31d-4fad-8b31-2fac2ddeab2c" CreationDate="2016-03-23T01:51:34.037" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;На некоторых страницах метро&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="0dcbd8fb-6208-4eb0-b318-ca5fef3c73e3" CreationDate="2016-03-23T10:56:27.317" UserId="6354" Text="How does one express **decade** in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the equivalent words are **десятилетие** and **десяток**, but I'm curious about proper usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) *&quot;It's John and Suzy's 20th anniversary next year.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wait, they've been married for almost 2 decades?!&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) *Are you a fan of 80s music?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) *A decade has passed since I last saw him.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) *Michael is in his 50s.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="0dcbd8fb-6208-4eb0-b318-ca5fef3c73e3" CreationDate="2016-03-23T10:56:27.317" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;Decade&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="0dcbd8fb-6208-4eb0-b318-ca5fef3c73e3" CreationDate="2016-03-23T10:56:27.317" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12141" RevisionGUID="b219c132-8c0d-4904-8d49-95cc5b358edb" CreationDate="2016-03-23T11:30:35.553" UserId="5008" Text="_Десятилетие_ sounds rather formal and official. It is rarely used in common speech, so it doesn't suit any of your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) _Десяток_ is preferred, of course&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Wait, they've been married for almost **2 decades**?! --&gt; Погоди, так они женаты уже почти **два десятка** (or simply **двадцать**) лет?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. are naturally translated into _пятидесятые_, _шестидесятые_, _семидесятые_ etc. Note that word _года_ is silently assumed but rarely spoken here (i.e. _пятидесятые года_)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Are you a fan of **80s** music? --&gt; Тебе нравится музыка **восьмидесятых**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) If Russian speaker means &quot;about X years&quot;, he simply changes word order. So &quot;_ten years_&quot; = &quot;_десять лет_&quot;, but &quot;_a decade_&quot; = &quot;_лет десять_&quot;. Also note that negative sentence is preferred here.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**A decade** has passed since I last saw him --&gt; Я его не видел уж **лет десять**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) Again _десяток_ is normally used if talking about human's age&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Michael is in his **50s** --&gt; Михаил разменял **шестой десяток**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="5d72ca07-98fc-4070-b01c-f5cd8c5807bb" CreationDate="2016-03-23T12:16:56.283" UserId="194" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="I think this is a wrong sentence. Formally it should be 2) but the context suggests the author meant 1). The author should use &quot;до полуночи&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Alex S. pointed out in the comments, it would be OK and have the 2) meaning if one more word is inserted. These both variants are correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он, бывало, до полн**о**чи думал над проблемой (meaning 2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он до пол**у**ночи думал над проблемой (meaning 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="3e42a972-f40f-405d-9dff-0db7064ede78" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:34:55.987" UserId="7010" Text="I'm having some trouble distinguishing [ɛ] and [a]. In fast speech I usually pronounce [ɛ] like [a]. Such as Алáния or Голосá.&#xD;&#xA;Does it really matter?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="3e42a972-f40f-405d-9dff-0db7064ede78" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:34:55.987" UserId="7010" Text="Stressed and unstressed [a]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="3e42a972-f40f-405d-9dff-0db7064ede78" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:34:55.987" UserId="7010" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="4d89670b-e994-4b4e-871c-b09bafa7b0c1" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:52:44.683" UserId="7010" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm having some trouble distinguishing  [ɐ] and [a]. In fast speech I usually pronounce  [ɐ] like [a]. Such as Алáния or Голосá.&#xD;&#xA;Does it really matter?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="aae90e0b-a998-473b-ba4d-dc05adaca953" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:14:16.453" UserId="7011" Text="In fact, it doesn't matter as much as you might think. If you pronounce stressed like unstressed (or, on the contrary, unstressed like stressed), most of russians will understand you. But sometimes it's difficult enough to understand person, whose native language isn't Russian, so it will be better, if you try to pronounce А letter correctly.&#xD;&#xA;When the syllable is stressed, sound is not as long as english &quot;ah&quot;, but very close to that. And in the unstressed syllables it's shorter and sounds like &quot;u&quot; in &quot;cut&quot;, &quot;nut&quot; etc. Talk Russian, keep on training and you'll get it :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="e3bdd1db-2904-4450-b69b-e29541906057" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:49:03.013" UserId="242" Text="From what I see when communicating with people learning Russian is that while pronunciation is definitely important factor it's not the most important one. Decent grammar is crucial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of phonetics it's enough to be able pronounce the &quot;basic&quot; set of sounds. I assure you that the majority of Russian native speakers does not even aware that there are more than one &quot;a&quot;-like or &quot;о&quot;-like phonemes. Moreover, though modern Russian has no such things like very distinctive dialects - there are some dialectal differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, around the Ural Mountains, people are pronouncing vowels noticeably in a very different way compared to one you can hear in, say, Central Region. And they don't give a flying anything whether their Russian is &quot;normal&quot; or not ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I encourage you to practice and doesn't care about subtle phonetics issues so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28147" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="d139db38-9d4b-4fc7-961d-05a32559504d" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:52:11.413" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Decade - &quot;десятилетие&quot; or &quot;десяток&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="d139db38-9d4b-4fc7-961d-05a32559504d" CreationDate="2016-03-23T21:52:11.413" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="aa6550a2-816c-4352-871f-d1b5168b6da5" CreationDate="2016-03-24T05:20:32.413" UserId="6588" Text="According to my experience, following common issues are disturbing while speaking Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using English or French-like &quot;r&quot; instead of &quot;р&quot; (картавость);&#xD;&#xA;- Messing &quot;c&quot; with &quot;ш&quot; (шепелявость);&#xD;&#xA;- Pronouncing &quot;тя&quot;, &quot;ме&quot; and etc. as &quot;тья&quot;, &quot;мье&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- Saying &quot;и&quot; instead of &quot;ы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In everyday communication, most of other issues sound sweet. If you go wrong with &quot;а&quot;, some people won't even notice, and the rest would think it's adorable. Furthermore, as lots of Russian think that Russian language is the most hard for learning, they will not blame you even for the issues listed above. Surely they would notice that you have an accent, but they would not think that you are low-educated or something like that.  They would rather feel themselves flattered, since you have spent so much time and efforts to study their language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they won’t be so pleased if you do a grammar error. Obviously grammar error means that you have not spent so much time studying. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="10f9fbdc-03d0-47e7-b39a-208c9f968943" CreationDate="2016-03-24T06:48:30.473" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="From what I see when communicating with people learning Russian is that while pronunciation is definitely important factor it's not the most important one. Decent grammar is crucial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of phonetics it's enough to be able pronounce the &quot;basic&quot; set of sounds. I assure you that the majority of Russian native speakers does not even aware that there are more than one &quot;a&quot;-like or &quot;о&quot;-like phonemes. Moreover, though modern Russian has no such things like very distinctive dialects - there are some dialectal differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, around the Ural Mountains, people are pronouncing vowels noticeably in a very different way compared to one you can hear in, say, Central Region. And they don't give a flying anything whether their Russian is &quot;normal&quot; or not ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I encourage you to practice and do not care about subtle phonetics issues so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="3a332ca9-dd95-4b42-87be-4e4bdf5f4d00" CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:27:19.480" UserId="6588" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="According to my experience, following common issues are disturbing while speaking Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Using English or French-like &quot;r&quot; instead of &quot;р&quot; (картавость);&#xD;&#xA;- Messing &quot;c&quot; with &quot;ш&quot; (шепелявость);&#xD;&#xA;- Pronouncing &quot;тя&quot;, &quot;ме&quot; and etc. as &quot;тья&quot;, &quot;мье&quot; (excessive iotizing);&#xD;&#xA;- Saying &quot;и&quot; instead of &quot;ы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In everyday communication, most of other issues sound sweet. If you go wrong with &quot;а&quot;, some people won't even notice, and the rest would think it's adorable. Furthermore, as lots of Russian think that Russian language is the most hard for learning, they will not blame you even for the issues listed above. Surely they would notice that you have an accent, but they would not think that you are low-educated or something like that.  They would rather feel themselves flattered, since you have spent so much time and efforts to study their language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they won’t be so pleased if you do a grammar error. Obviously grammar error means that you have not spent so much time studying. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="0e088880-472e-4eb1-b5d2-df3aad67db59" CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:42:22.503" UserId="6349" Text="If you want to say there is only one unicorn in Moscow (just one in the whole city), you could use the expression &quot;одни на всю Москву&quot;. Or other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **На всю Москву** всего лишь сотня белых слонов&#xD;&#xA;* **По всей Москве** по пальцам можно пересчитать банкоматы в отделениях, при этом только один банкомат **на всю Москву** работает круглосуточно ([source][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I can understand why this uses на instead of в Москве. But why does it use the accusative instead of prepositional? It describes a static situation, not motion into Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what is the difference in usage between &quot;по всей Москве&quot; and &quot;на всю Москву&quot;, which are used in the same sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.banki.ru/services/responses/bank/response/8614047/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="0e088880-472e-4eb1-b5d2-df3aad67db59" CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:42:22.503" UserId="6349" Text="why accusative in на всю Москву ? And how different from по всей Москве?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="0e088880-472e-4eb1-b5d2-df3aad67db59" CreationDate="2016-03-24T07:42:22.503" UserId="6349" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|падежи|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12147" RevisionGUID="28b3e0d2-130f-41b8-9856-b86664142260" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:10:15.387" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;In fast speech I usually pronounce [ɐ] like [a]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that's because your &quot;fast speech&quot; is not so fast, in fact. If you will ever talk Russian with the same tempo, as native speakers do, you will have to apply a vowel reduction extensively. Actually that's the only why we need a reduction at all - to be able to speak fast. And, maybe, you do reduce your speech sometimes, without even noticing - that's how we all do that, and that's perfectly OK too. So just learn &quot;better Russian&quot; and one day you'll get &quot;faster Russian&quot; for free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12148" RevisionGUID="8909f6e5-9f3c-4b4d-8284-a227fc8eb8d7" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:20:43.980" UserId="6602" Text="&quot;На всю Москву&quot; means &quot;the whole of Moscow&quot;, whereas &quot;По всей Москве&quot; means &quot;all over Moscow&quot;. &quot;По всей Москве&quot; has a connotation of spreading by area, i.e. &quot;**По всей Москве** всего лишь сотня белых слонов&quot; means that all elephants are distributed over area of Moscow town. And &quot;**На всю Москву** всего лишь сотня белых слонов&quot; emphasizes to a quantity of elephants (&quot;Oh, there are only hundred of white elephants to the whole of Moscow&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also when we speak about one object, **&quot;На всю Москву&quot;** will mean just &quot;There is only one object in Moscow&quot;, whereas **&quot;По всей Москве&quot;** will mean &quot;The object is spread over Moscow&quot; (like a smoke, a fog, etc.) or something like &quot;The object can be found in various parts of Moscow&quot; (Слон бегает по всей Москве — The elephant is running all over the city)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12139" RevisionGUID="b1c98655-c93c-4de5-9e3f-b9fe52b73e28" CreationDate="2016-03-24T09:06:50.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/712928650593742848" />
  <row Id="28159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12149" RevisionGUID="6b5c0d75-2530-4a38-b958-879be19328e7" CreationDate="2016-03-24T10:03:42.910" UserId="6539" Text="The meaning на всю Москву can be explained as existential or as you called it &quot;static&quot;.Москва often refers to Moscow population or as an idiom &quot;a lot of people&quot;. The translation might be &quot;for the whole Moscow &quot;.(один на всю Москву,шум на всю Москву, известен на всю Москву и т.д.).По всей Москве means spreading around or moving around, at least doing something in different parts of Moscow. (Слух обо мне пройдет по всей Москве великой...А.С.Пушкин)&#xD;&#xA;You can count terminals (moving)по всей Москве (though there's an idiom)but there's only one terminal (exists for the whole territory or population )на всю Москву which works twenty-four hours a day. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12150" RevisionGUID="02fed0d1-4875-42f8-9194-4b6d41a22357" CreationDate="2016-03-24T10:07:01.987" UserId="134" Text="*На* here means &quot;per, for&quot;, as of a fraction denominator. It's used with accusative in this sense indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Очень жаль, что на десять девчонок по статистике девять ребят // That's a shame that statistically there are nine boys for every ten girls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И, значит, нам нужна одна победа, одна на всех, мы за ценой не постоим // So then we need one victory, one for all, whatever the cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*По всей Москве* means &quot;all over Moscow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This preposition is misused here, it would have been properly used if the author wanted to say there are plenty of ATM, so that there's always one close to you no matter where in Moscow you are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По всей Москве в отделениях есть банкоматы // There are ATM in the offices all over Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to complain about the lack of the ATM, I'd use *во всей Москве*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28161" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="298e42fe-57a3-4393-9f03-699a95c1ef72" CreationDate="2016-03-24T12:06:51.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/712973952809828352" />
  <row Id="28162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12151" RevisionGUID="0daae944-7c47-4a34-b9a1-583d0da5038e" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:51:57.913" UserId="6354" Text="How would a native Russian speaker express &quot;**She went to work.**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my guesses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Она ходила на работу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Она пошла на работу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Она ходила работать.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **Она пошла работать.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12151" RevisionGUID="0daae944-7c47-4a34-b9a1-583d0da5038e" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:51:57.913" UserId="6354" Text="Translate &quot;She went to work&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12151" RevisionGUID="0daae944-7c47-4a34-b9a1-583d0da5038e" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:51:57.913" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="cf0e3f08-5f81-4676-807e-9a0e9356c17e" CreationDate="2016-03-24T14:19:47.170" UserId="134" Text="It's *она пошла на работу*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, all your phrases are valid, they just mean different things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она ходила на работу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;she used to go to work&quot;, repeatedly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она пошла на работу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;she went to work&quot;, the one your were asking about. This could also mean &quot;she got employed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она ходила работать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is &quot;she used to go to do some work&quot;, again, repeatedly. This means that she was actually working (or intending to), not just come to her working place and report for duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она пошла работать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This *might* mean &quot;she went to do some work&quot;, the single action of one in #3, or &quot;she got employed&quot;, same as #2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12153" RevisionGUID="7d9bb6b9-e816-4fed-97a9-b6cdf023adad" CreationDate="2016-03-24T14:58:53.510" UserId="5008" Text="You know, there is no single &quot;right&quot; translation witout a context. And for a good reason: any real-speech sentence may mean a few different things. So here we have two points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, &quot;**went**&quot; is in indefinite tense, which may denote either one-time action, or repeatable action - there's no exact Russian analogy, so we have to choose by (known) context only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, what a native English speaker may really mean by &quot;**go to work**&quot;? There could be different subtle nuances here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, saying &quot;_Она пошла работать_&quot; not necessarily means that &quot;she did go&quot; at all, but rather &quot;she is going to start working&quot;, and for that reason &quot;she did smth. (or even she's doing that just now)&quot;. But the latter does not always mean go/walk/run. It could also be that &quot;she stood up from her bed&quot;, or &quot;she got a new job&quot;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;_Она пошла на работу_&quot; certainly means in Russian that she went to some distant workplace/office. So you (usually) can't say this if you really mean &quot;she went to the garden to work there&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This stuff is a true headache, and the only way to avoid it is to have some context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28167" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="c31e5989-1cb4-404a-adb6-02dcb9bfe349" CreationDate="2016-03-24T17:30:25.397" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why accusative in &quot;на всю Москву&quot; ? And how different this is from &quot;по всей Москве&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="4789475e-21d2-49df-9503-8fd5f0eb46bb" CreationDate="2016-03-26T00:37:06.593" UserId="7018" Text="The distance from Moscow to Kazan is 500 miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Расстояние от Москвы до Казани составляет 500 миль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of the following is best for the above sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;расстояние, дистанция, дальность, даль&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="4789475e-21d2-49df-9503-8fd5f0eb46bb" CreationDate="2016-03-26T00:37:06.593" UserId="7018" Text="расстояние, дистанция, дальность, даль: which one to use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="4789475e-21d2-49df-9503-8fd5f0eb46bb" CreationDate="2016-03-26T00:37:06.593" UserId="7018" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="e61da874-2a6d-46b5-957d-aa6fbbaebbab" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:13:51.743" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Consider following examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - The distance from Moscow to Kazan is 500 miles.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of these is best for the above sentence:&#xD;&#xA;расстояние, дистанция, дальность, даль?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28172" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="e61da874-2a6d-46b5-957d-aa6fbbaebbab" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:13:51.743" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Расстояние&quot;, &quot;дистанция&quot;, &quot;дальность&quot;, &quot;даль&quot; - which one to use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="e61da874-2a6d-46b5-957d-aa6fbbaebbab" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:13:51.743" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12155" RevisionGUID="d94e6a7e-944e-492b-b46d-48d24d4f9ed5" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:23:57.730" UserId="242" Text="The best is &quot;расстояние&quot;, in the majority of cases this is the most appropriate one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дистанция&quot; is more of something related to measurements in sports and in military related terminology, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Спортсмен преодолел пол-дистанции очень бодро, но всё-таки уступил лидерство. &#xD;&#xA; - С обеих сторон выпустили массу ракет с большой дистанции с нулевым результатом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дальность&quot; is mainly used with fixed small set of nouns, the main usage is &quot;дальность стрельбы&quot;, which is &quot;shooting range&quot; in English - and that actually gives pretty clean idea what is &quot;дальность&quot; - it's range. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Даль&quot; - it looks like you are relying on Google Translate, which indeed translates it as a distance. Well, it is, but only in phrases like &quot;всмотреться в даль&quot; - &quot;to peer into the distance&quot;. So, distance here is not a measurement of any kind, it is an concept of something that is remotely located. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12156" RevisionGUID="bb2f5500-b4e9-417a-959f-d0e6582516ed" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:24:23.807" UserId="6494" Text="&quot;Расстояние&quot;, most definitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;дальность&quot; is range, and the term is most usually applied to the moving objects which can cover the range, less often to the static objects in range. In a latter case it will rather have specific military use - &quot;цель на дальности x&quot; - target at x distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;даль&quot; is a more abstract and poetic term, &quot;farness&quot;. Not used to represent a numerical value of the distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;дистанция&quot; is mostly used in sports, maybe also some technical context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="49a7edfe-4876-45ae-877d-6474ad59371d" CreationDate="2016-03-26T01:25:08.250" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In phrase &quot;The distance from Moscow to Kazan is 500 miles&quot; which word is the most appropriate for translating &quot;distance&quot; - &quot;расстояние&quot;, &quot;дистанция&quot;, &quot;дальность&quot;, or &quot;даль&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12155" RevisionGUID="c4a05e9f-dc41-48d4-bf47-10cea47d283e" CreationDate="2016-03-26T07:50:19.103" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The best is &quot;расстояние&quot;, in the majority of cases this is the most appropriate one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дистанция&quot; is more of something related to measurements in sports and in military related terminology, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Спортсмен преодолел пол-дистанции очень бодро, но всё-таки уступил лидерство. &#xD;&#xA; - С обеих сторон выпустили массу ракет с большой дистанции с нулевым результатом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дальность&quot; is mainly used with fixed small set of nouns, the main usage is &quot;дальность стрельбы&quot;, which is &quot;shooting range&quot; in English - and that actually gives pretty clean idea what is &quot;дальность&quot; - it's range. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Даль&quot; - it looks like you are relying on Google Translate, which indeed translates it as a distance. Well, it is, but only in phrases like &quot;всмотреться в даль&quot; - &quot;to peer into the distance&quot;. So, distance here is not a measurement of any kind, it is a concept of something that is remotely located. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28180" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="82daa913-387a-4358-8eff-dc7a48af36c7" CreationDate="2016-03-26T11:30:18.323" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="3ff1e3a4-c0fb-4964-b7be-6b04ad373845" CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:33:14.507" UserId="7018" Text="In America we say the fuel economy of car as miles/gallon (miles per gallon). I know in some countries people use Liter/100 km, Some countries use km/Liter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which format do Russian people use, L/100 km or km/L? (л / 100 км or км / л)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="3ff1e3a4-c0fb-4964-b7be-6b04ad373845" CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:33:14.507" UserId="7018" Text="L/100 km or km/L (л/100 км or км/л) which is used in Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="3ff1e3a4-c0fb-4964-b7be-6b04ad373845" CreationDate="2016-03-26T14:33:14.507" UserId="7018" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="7652079f-21fc-457b-91c2-bd68e6cc5cd9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:02:07.503" UserId="6816" Text="In questions like &quot;With whom did I go?&quot; where there is(are) a question word(s) and another part of the sentence could it be:&#xA;&#xA;1. С кем я пошёл?&#xA;2. Я пошёл с кем?&#xA;&#xA;or could you say both or something else? I'm not sure which word order is more natural either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="7652079f-21fc-457b-91c2-bd68e6cc5cd9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:02:07.503" UserId="6816" Text="Question grammar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="7652079f-21fc-457b-91c2-bd68e6cc5cd9" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:02:07.503" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="2bb26dbe-3e05-41ba-a1ff-60dfb3b87a34" CreationDate="2016-03-26T15:27:24.990" UserId="6539" Text="&quot;С кем&quot; is a question word in both sentences. The meaning is the same in both sentences. Both sentences are acceptable. The second gives emphasis on the partner(question word). You can also use :Пошел я с кем? Я с кем пошел." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="da1350b6-395a-494d-ad8b-72bc51759117" CreationDate="2016-03-26T17:39:16.117" UserId="6725" Text="1) The neutral and the most common word order is &quot;**С кем я пошёл?**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;**Я пошёл с кем?**&quot; most likely will be used as rhetorical question, when the speaker doesn't really expect an answer from other people, but answers the question himself. &quot;С кем&quot; should be emphasized with intonation. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл **с кем**? С тобой, конечно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Whom** did I go with? With you, of course!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вектор *a* направлен **куда**? Правильно, перпендикулярно плоскости *XY*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where** vector *a* is directed to? Correct, perpendicularly to plane *XY*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Пошёл я с кем?** can be used to emphasize &quot;пошёл&quot;, typically when it is opposed to some other action. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что разговаривал с несколькими людьми, а **пошёл** я с кем?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I remember that I talked to several people, but whom did I **go** with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) &quot;**Я с кем пошёл?**&quot; is similar to variant 2, it also emphasizes &quot;с кем&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="f357b653-7e81-49f0-a1f0-909c2b4deab6" CreationDate="2016-03-26T21:32:27.670" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="In questions like &quot;With whom did I go?&quot; where there is(are) a question word(s) and another part of the sentence could it be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. С кем я пошёл?&#xD;&#xA;2. Я пошёл с кем?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or could you say both or something else? I'm not sure which word order is more natural either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="f357b653-7e81-49f0-a1f0-909c2b4deab6" CreationDate="2016-03-26T21:32:27.670" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;С кем я пошёл&quot; or &quot;я пошёл с кем&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28196" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="c6a12114-200a-4f63-aa7c-3bbd0f0e4f2f" CreationDate="2016-03-26T22:37:45.390" UserId="6816" Comment="edited title" Text="Word order in questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28197" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="77e4840e-491a-4d38-b518-04ac5ce46347" CreationDate="2016-03-27T12:18:12.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/714063972362805248" />
  <row Id="28199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="57488914-f3d9-4880-96ec-655c1662ab82" CreationDate="2016-03-27T22:07:52.160" UserId="7027" Text="Пожалуйста, помоги мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Укажите предложение где менее трёх мягких согласных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Он купил тетрадь.&#xD;&#xA;2. Девять часов.&#xD;&#xA;3. Они жили рядом.&#xD;&#xA;4. Это мой день.&#xD;&#xA;5. Химия - это наука.&#xD;&#xA;6. Могу кататься на коньках.&#xD;&#xA;7. Хочу посмотреть дом.&#xD;&#xA;8. Увидишь эту девушку." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="57488914-f3d9-4880-96ec-655c1662ab82" CreationDate="2016-03-27T22:07:52.160" UserId="7027" Text="Укажите предложение где менее трёх мягких согласных" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="57488914-f3d9-4880-96ec-655c1662ab82" CreationDate="2016-03-27T22:07:52.160" UserId="7027" Text="|перевод|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="1862b677-1ac5-4997-8459-564524157b0f" CreationDate="2016-03-27T23:16:59.783" UserId="4560" Text="\#6,  there's only one. A trick question to test whether you know that -ться is pronounced [цца]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28203" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="9dfecb75-380d-4d8a-96dd-567dd0d455c0" CreationDate="2016-03-28T03:24:13.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/714291979237134340" />
  <row Id="28204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12165" RevisionGUID="b88e31a6-afde-401f-85d7-565ad4e11a09" CreationDate="2016-03-28T04:56:35.767" UserId="7029" Text="Russian people usually use L/100 km." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28205" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12157" RevisionGUID="6a518d01-0063-46e9-bc6e-931ff0fbb73e" CreationDate="2016-03-28T09:34:21.653" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12166" RevisionGUID="97e5bad7-c8a2-4aaa-9e0e-f0f24b1ac6b4" CreationDate="2016-03-28T10:34:49.213" UserId="6354" Text="In time expressions, I'm confused whether I'm looking at an adverb or a noun in instrumental case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **летом** can be an adverb meaning *in summer*, or the instrumental case of **лето** (*summer*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **вечером** can be an adverb meaning *in the evening*, or the instrumental case of **вечер** (*evening*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now take these two sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Может быть, они приедут к нам **летом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Мы ждём гостей в субботу **вечером**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the form of летом and вечером?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12166" RevisionGUID="97e5bad7-c8a2-4aaa-9e0e-f0f24b1ac6b4" CreationDate="2016-03-28T10:34:49.213" UserId="6354" Text="Adverb versus instrumental case in time expressions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12166" RevisionGUID="97e5bad7-c8a2-4aaa-9e0e-f0f24b1ac6b4" CreationDate="2016-03-28T10:34:49.213" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12167" RevisionGUID="3bb4bf67-898e-4d5f-a98f-022d7e1fae04" CreationDate="2016-03-28T11:09:18.210" UserId="134" Text="Those are adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try replacing the words with a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, они приедут к нам *чем*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ждём гостей в субботу *чем*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a more complex example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, они приедут к нам *жарким летом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, *жарким летом* is an adverbial clause (answering the question *когда?*) which consists of a noun and an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="25c68c67-fcdf-4f55-bcd0-b183f48cc655" CreationDate="2016-03-28T14:13:23.673" UserId="7030" Text="As stated Quassnoi, those are adverbs, and question &quot;чем?&quot; makes no sense. No sense - today. This is by definition of adverbs. But how was adverbs appeared long time ago? There were some meaning words , which was stripped. This is implication. I attempt to reconstruct such words: For example. &#xD;&#xA;Может быть, они приедут к нам тогда, когда пора года явится (чем?) летом.&#xD;&#xA;Or: ... тогда, когда жизнь природы обернётся\воспринимается (чем?) летом.&#xD;&#xA;Or: ... тогда, когда пора воспринимается (чем?) летом\вечером.&#xD;&#xA;Thought, it is semanticly correct, but no one say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Sorry for my english." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12167" RevisionGUID="04babd87-79bb-431c-9ca6-44873c9ddec9" CreationDate="2016-03-28T15:44:26.670" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Those are adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try replacing the words with a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, они приедут к нам *чем*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ждём гостей в субботу *чем*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes no sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a more complex example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может быть, они приедут к нам *жарким летом*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, *жарким летом* is an adverbial phrase (answering the question *когда?*) which consists of a noun and an adjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12169" RevisionGUID="31276c1b-9e5a-4f97-aee6-adf11ce301ff" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:35:41.930" UserId="5" Text="Нужна ли запятая в следующем предложении:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- С самого начала у меня была какая-то тактика, и я ее придерживался." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12169" RevisionGUID="31276c1b-9e5a-4f97-aee6-adf11ce301ff" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:35:41.930" UserId="5" Text="Нужна ли запятая в &quot;с самого начала у меня была какая-то тактика, и я ее придерживался&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12169" RevisionGUID="31276c1b-9e5a-4f97-aee6-adf11ce301ff" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:35:41.930" UserId="5" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12170" RevisionGUID="d1dd4526-731a-425f-9475-44f9adca9533" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:39:40.190" UserId="3680" Text="Разумеется, нужна.  &#xD;&#xA;Это предложение состоит из двух независимых частей ([Сложносочинённое предложение](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. тактика *(подлежащее)* ... была *(сказуемое)*.&#xD;&#xA;2. я *(подлежащее)* ... придерживался *(сказуемое)*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12170" RevisionGUID="baab30f8-42b6-4ee2-b354-466e8112f73b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:50:42.340" UserId="3680" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="Уверен, что нужна.  &#xD;&#xA;Это предложение состоит из двух независимых частей ([Сложносочинённое предложение](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. тактика *(подлежащее)* ... была *(сказуемое)*.&#xD;&#xA;2. я *(подлежащее)* ... придерживался *(сказуемое)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я в таких случаях использую следующее &quot;бытовое&quot; правило: если вместо запятой поставить точку, и в результате смысл не изменится, то запятая нужна." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12171" RevisionGUID="57c33210-0997-4a10-9cbf-a7c1f7e0d33a" CreationDate="2016-03-28T17:57:35.123" UserId="6539" Text="Запятая перед *и,да(в значении «и»),или, либо* не ставится,если части сложносочиненного предложения имеют общий второстепенный член или вводное слово (словосочетание). Здесь таковым является **с самого начала**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С самого начала у меня была какая‐то тактика и я ее придерживался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Справочник по русскому языку.ХХУ11 §104.2а." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12171" RevisionGUID="1ad7c0a5-6b74-4972-a0c8-48e577445700" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:08:12.523" UserId="6539" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Запятая перед *и,да(в значении «и»),или, либо* не ставится,если части сложносочиненного предложения имеют общий второстепенный член или вводное слово (словосочетание). Здесь таковым является **с самого начала**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С самого начала у меня была какая‐то тактика и я ее придерживался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Справочник по русскому языку.ХХУ11 §104.2а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Несмотря на распространившиеся слухи, газеты обходили этот вопрос молчанием и мы продолжали ждать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="0c139695-e730-49ac-998e-fc54ce24b04b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:21:33.677" UserId="6349" Text="The word под has many meanings, some of which use accusative and some of which use instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Большой толковый словарь](http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4), we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **I. 7.** Указывает на назначение предмета. *Банка под варенье. Бутылка под молоко. Склад под овощи. Отвести сарай под сено.*&#xD;&#xA;* **II. 6.** Указывает на характер использования предмета. *Банка под вареньем. Поле под клевером. Склад под картофелем.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem very similar. What is the difference between using the accusative and the instrumental?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [из-под](http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4) has a similar meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **4.** Указывает на прежнее назначение предмета, служившего вместилищем чего-л. *Бутылка из-под молока. Коробка из-под конфет. Банка из-под сметаны. Ящик из-под пива.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this seems fairly similar. What is the difference between using под here and из-под?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="0c139695-e730-49ac-998e-fc54ce24b04b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:21:33.677" UserId="6349" Text="1) банка под варенье vs. банка под вареньем 2) бутылка под молоко vs. бутылка из-под молока" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="0c139695-e730-49ac-998e-fc54ce24b04b" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:21:33.677" UserId="6349" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="43c3b7a3-2e68-48d7-ad29-080ed8c1550d" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:43:26.063" UserId="134" Text="*Под + acc.* means the intended content or purpose of something which is generally capable of storing something else or serving more than that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Сейчас, накопив после дефолта деньги, часть людей вкладывает их в нежилые помещения ― под сдачу в аренду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он уже приканчивал свои орехи, когда в ряду, отведенном под продажу орехов, фасоли, кукурузной муки, появился комсомольский патруль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * На участке, отведенном под картофель, в сторонке, поближе к сараю и бане, сажали тыкву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Под + inst.* is used exclusively of crops actually cultivated (as opposed to purpose above) on a piece of land:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * За десять лет эти облоги разработаны, и в нынешнем году в поле было уже 40 десятин в культуре, из коих 27 десятин были под рожью и 13 под травами. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Возможно, сельскохозяйственные земли не займут все участки водосбора, а часть их будет под лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's synonymous to English &quot;under&quot;, as in &quot;under beet, under wheat&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Склад под картофелем* and especially *банка под вареньем* sound most unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Из-под + gen.*, of a container, means that that container was designed to store something, but now is empty or stores something else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Горшки из-под молока оставляли под цветущим шиповником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Компоненты «адских машин» подсудимые доставляли в столицу из родной республики в мешках из-под сахара.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's same as English &quot;milk carton, soda can&quot; etc., where you can tell what was the container for just from the looks of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="a2d4cc4f-7c88-42ec-818b-3f60eb4148cc" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:48:27.503" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="*Под + acc.* means the intended content or purpose of something which is generally capable of storing something else or serving more than that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Сейчас, накопив после дефолта деньги, часть людей вкладывает их в нежилые помещения ― под сдачу в аренду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он уже приканчивал свои орехи, когда в ряду, отведенном под продажу орехов, фасоли, кукурузной муки, появился комсомольский патруль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * На участке, отведенном под картофель, в сторонке, поближе к сараю и бане, сажали тыкву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Под + inst.* is used exclusively of crops actually cultivated (as opposed to purpose above) on a piece of land:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * За десять лет эти облоги разработаны, и в нынешнем году в поле было уже 40 десятин в культуре, из коих 27 десятин были под рожью и 13 под травами. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Возможно, сельскохозяйственные земли не займут все участки водосбора, а часть их будет под лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's synonymous to English &quot;under&quot;, as in &quot;under beet, under wheat&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Склад под картофелем* and especially *банка под вареньем* sound most unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Из-под + gen.*, of a container, means that that container was designed to (and used to) store something, but now is empty or stores something else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Горшки из-под молока оставляли под цветущим шиповником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Компоненты «адских машин» подсудимые доставляли в столицу из родной республики в мешках из-под сахара.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's same as English &quot;milk carton, soda can&quot; etc., where you can tell what was the container for just from the looks of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12174" RevisionGUID="44da293b-3724-4441-845d-ea649a3e2ae2" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:49:23.980" UserId="6539" Text="1. The first usage shows what is the object meant for. It means the jar hasn't been filled with jam yet, but we have such plans.It actually means *prepared for something*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Банка под варенье. Бутылка под молоко. Склад под овощи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.The second point shows that the object is being used. The jar is full of jam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Банка под вареньем. Поле под клевером. Склад под картофелем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из-под shows the former usage of the object. It means that the jar is empty, but there was some jam some time ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бутылка из-под молока. Коробка из-под конфет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="3299a75c-1133-40e0-8193-8cae6bc4a9ae" CreationDate="2016-03-28T18:56:31.653" UserId="134" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="*Под + acc.* means the intended content or purpose of something which is generally capable of storing something else or serving more than that purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Сейчас, накопив после дефолта деньги, часть людей вкладывает их в нежилые помещения ― под сдачу в аренду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он уже приканчивал свои орехи, когда в ряду, отведенном под продажу орехов, фасоли, кукурузной муки, появился комсомольский патруль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * На участке, отведенном под картофель, в сторонке, поближе к сараю и бане, сажали тыкву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Под + inst.* is used exclusively of crops actually cultivated (as being intended to cultivate as in examples above) on a piece of land:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * За десять лет эти облоги разработаны, и в нынешнем году в поле было уже 40 десятин в культуре, из коих 27 десятин были под рожью и 13 под травами. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Возможно, сельскохозяйственные земли не займут все участки водосбора, а часть их будет под лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's synonymous to English &quot;under&quot;, as in &quot;under beet, under wheat&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Склад под картофелем* and especially *банка под вареньем* sound most unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Из-под + gen.*, of a container, means that that container was designed to (and used to) store something, but now is empty or stores something else:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Горшки из-под молока оставляли под цветущим шиповником.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Компоненты «адских машин» подсудимые доставляли в столицу из родной республики в мешках из-под сахара.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's same as English &quot;milk carton, soda can&quot; etc., where you can tell what was the container for just from the looks of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12174" RevisionGUID="ecdaf837-bf45-4d59-ad79-8621206211a2" CreationDate="2016-03-28T19:40:30.793" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="1. The first usage shows what is the object meant for. It means the jar hasn't been filled with jam yet, but we have such plans.It actually means *prepared for something*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Банка под варенье. Бутылка под молоко. Склад под овощи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.The second point shows that the object is being used. The field is full of clover. The shed is full of hay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Поле под клевером. Сарай под сеном.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из-под shows the former usage of the object. It means that the jar is empty, but there was some jam some time ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бутылка из-под молока. Коробка из-под конфет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="a5ff4629-304f-4de5-bfb4-7b0d9a4e9f39" CreationDate="2016-03-28T21:53:58.323" UserId="6913" Text="Multiple references classify каждый, другой, and иной, etc. as determinative pronouns (e.g. [here](http://masterrussian.com/aa030301a.shtml), [here](http://www.study-languages-online.com/russian-determinative-pronouns.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these words seem to function as typical adjectives as in: _Я читал каждую книгу._ While they don't describe specific attributes of the noun being modified, they nonetheless seem to modify the noun rather than standing in for a noun as pronouns do.&#xD;&#xA;I realize the distinction might be pedantic but I wonder if I'm missing something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="a5ff4629-304f-4de5-bfb4-7b0d9a4e9f39" CreationDate="2016-03-28T21:53:58.323" UserId="6913" Text="Why are words such as каждый, другой, etc. classified as determinative pronouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="a5ff4629-304f-4de5-bfb4-7b0d9a4e9f39" CreationDate="2016-03-28T21:53:58.323" UserId="6913" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12176" RevisionGUID="016da367-d601-4cfc-936b-f4072f7418cd" CreationDate="2016-03-29T00:23:25.793" UserId="6349" Text="I think it's usually an adjective but sometimes can be used as a pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каждый can sometimes be used to mean каждый человек:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Каждый делает свой выбор&#xD;&#xA;* Каждый должен знать свои права&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a rarer form, used mostly when you want to be very concise, for instance in proverbs and sayings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the same is true for иной and другой, although it's harder to think of sample sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12177" RevisionGUID="8cb58ec8-7d35-4af2-bf24-235b7eb9d892" CreationDate="2016-03-29T00:37:05.190" UserId="6349" Text="Others have answered the question, but note there are some languages where the &quot;по английский&quot; form doesn't really exist because the name of the language is not in adjectival form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* говорить на иврите (Hebrew = иврит)&#xD;&#xA;* говорить на хинди (Hindi = хинди = indeclinable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="af6d5323-dc82-4d6c-ba27-32875f6014b4" CreationDate="2016-03-29T01:51:48.587" UserId="6816" Text="I've heard words whose endings contain voiced consonants such as год (and others that I cannot remember off the top of my head), and these consonants are pronounced unvoiced (e.g., &quot;гот&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;Another letter I've heard is Б as П.&#xA;&#xA;Perhaps this applies to all words/letters or most (&gt;¾)?&#xA;&#xA;Sorry that I could not think of more than one example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="af6d5323-dc82-4d6c-ba27-32875f6014b4" CreationDate="2016-03-29T01:51:48.587" UserId="6816" Text="Voiceless consonants at the end of words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="af6d5323-dc82-4d6c-ba27-32875f6014b4" CreationDate="2016-03-29T01:51:48.587" UserId="6816" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="93b22f71-3d39-457a-a6d6-664c68fd1561" CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:32:43.730" UserId="6759" Text="I want to find out what the word сафиръ means in this passage from an old textbook. I cannot find the word in any dictionary. I think it might mean &quot;ambassador&quot; but am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qhVvd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="93b22f71-3d39-457a-a6d6-664c68fd1561" CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:32:43.730" UserId="6759" Text="Meaning of the word сафир(ъ) in this passage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="93b22f71-3d39-457a-a6d6-664c68fd1561" CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:32:43.730" UserId="6759" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12180" RevisionGUID="653fbb9d-fec0-4800-bf7b-e79356781890" CreationDate="2016-03-29T02:49:10.013" UserId="4560" Text="The dictionaries say it's an alternative spelling of **сапфир** &quot;sapphire&quot;, which makes no sense. On the other hand, **safîr سفير**  means &quot;ambassador&quot; in Arabic, from the root S-F-R meaning &quot;travel&quot;, and it could be a term with a more specific meaning back in the day. I've never come across it in Russian, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="6c2621e5-bef0-492d-b760-88ceff5d20ca" CreationDate="2016-03-29T03:14:34.857" UserId="6588" Text="This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)&#xD;&#xA;[![This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GvVJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each consonant from the top row is pronunced unvoiced (substituted by letter from bottom row), if it's located at the end of closed syllable (such as the consonant end of the word). We never say a voiced consonant in the word ending, and for children it's hard to write a word &quot;год&quot;, because it does sound &quot;гот&quot;. So we use another word form to check. For &quot;год&quot; it's &quot;годами&quot;. For &quot;гот&quot;, it's &quot;готами&quot;. In open syllable, there are no doubts, each consonant is written as it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://te.zavantag.com/tw_files2/urls_4/6/d-5436/5436_html_6b06cc3b.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://900igr.net/datas/russkij-jazyk/Bukvy-i-zvuki-russkogo-jazyka/0009-009-B-p-sugro-d-t-obe-g-k-utju-v-f-koroka-z-s-ukaka-zh-sh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, unvoicing consonants is so natural for Russian, that we have significant difficulties when learning to pronounce English &quot;dog&quot;, &quot;red&quot; and etc. &quot;Dok&quot; and &quot;ret&quot; are the default option, hard to overcome for the beginners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="957dd1ac-fb49-4659-af42-00d80a51fc7c" CreationDate="2016-03-29T03:25:34.713" UserId="6588" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)&#xD;&#xA;[![This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GvVJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each consonant from the top row is pronunced unvoiced (substituted by letter from bottom row), if it's located at the end of closed syllable (such as the consonant end of the word). We never say a voiced consonant in the word ending, and for children it's hard to write a word &quot;год&quot;, because it does sound &quot;гот&quot;. So we use another word form to check. For &quot;год&quot; it's &quot;годами&quot;. For &quot;гот&quot;, it's &quot;готами&quot;. In open syllable, there are no doubts, each consonant is written as it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://te.zavantag.com/tw_files2/urls_4/6/d-5436/5436_html_6b06cc3b.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://900igr.net/datas/russkij-jazyk/Bukvy-i-zvuki-russkogo-jazyka/0009-009-B-p-sugro-d-t-obe-g-k-utju-v-f-koroka-z-s-ukaka-zh-sh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, unvoicing consonants is so natural for Russians, that we have significant difficulties when learning to pronounce English &quot;dog&quot;, &quot;red&quot; and etc. &quot;Dok&quot; and &quot;ret&quot; are the default option, hard to overcome for the beginners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12182" RevisionGUID="1d752dd0-2c1c-4b38-93b0-2e7ef8903640" CreationDate="2016-03-29T03:48:37.713" UserId="6588" Text="There is no such thing as &quot;typical pronoun&quot;. Standing for noun is the most common pronoun function, but full list of functions is pretty huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#.D0.92.D0.B7.D0.B0.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BC.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Reciprocal pronoun is nothing like noun. It's more like preposition. And yes, determinative pronouns are grammatically similar to adjectives in Russian, the difference is in semantics. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12184" RevisionGUID="dbc6cc2a-3d6f-448e-ae20-4a894c77b0b9" CreationDate="2016-03-29T04:05:06.967" UserId="6539" Text="&#xD;&#xA;САФИР Мориц Готлиб (Moritz Gottlieb Saphir, 1795-1858) - немецкий юморист и журналист. Впервые обратил на себя внимание сборником стихов «Poetische Erstlinge» (1821). Издавал театральные и юмористические журналы, пользовавшиеся большим успехом. В Берлине издан был против С. памфлет, на к-рый он ответил брошюрой, выдержавшей 4 издания за неделю: «Der getodtete und dennoch lebende Saphir» (Убитый, но тем не менее живой Сафир, 1828). Литературная производительность С. весьма велика. В 1884 было издано собрание его избранных сочинений в 12тт., в 1890 - сочинения в 26тт. Наибольшим успехом пользовались «Fliegendes Album fur Ernst, Scherz, Humor...» (Летучий альбом серьезного, шуток, юмора и жизнерадостности, 1846), «Conversations-Lexikon fur Geistwitz und Humor» Словарь остроумия и юмора, 1851-1852, 2 Aufl., 1860, 3 Aufl., 1893), а также «Humoristische Abende» (Юмористические вечера, 1830), «Dumme Briefe» (Глупые письма, 1834) и др.Свой неглуб..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="a817c89e-b35d-43fd-bf3a-7b68e3502230" CreationDate="2016-03-29T04:23:44.273" UserId="6588" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)&#xD;&#xA;[![This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GvVJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each consonant from the top row is pronunced unvoiced (substituted by letter from bottom row), if it's located at the end of closed syllable (such as the consonant end of the word). We never say a voiced consonant in the word ending, and for children it's hard to write a word &quot;год&quot;, because it does sound &quot;гот&quot;. So we use another word form to check. For &quot;год&quot; it's &quot;годы&quot;. For &quot;гот&quot;, it's &quot;готы&quot;. In open syllable, there are no doubts, each consonant is written as it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://te.zavantag.com/tw_files2/urls_4/6/d-5436/5436_html_6b06cc3b.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://900igr.net/datas/russkij-jazyk/Bukvy-i-zvuki-russkogo-jazyka/0009-009-B-p-sugro-d-t-obe-g-k-utju-v-f-koroka-z-s-ukaka-zh-sh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, unvoicing consonants is so natural for Russians, that we have significant difficulties when learning to pronounce English &quot;dog&quot;, &quot;red&quot; and etc. &quot;Dok&quot; and &quot;ret&quot; is the default option, hard to overcome for the beginners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12184" RevisionGUID="952e00cf-78cb-42ae-9dd2-b470b78e3884" CreationDate="2016-03-29T06:46:28.200" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="САФИР Мориц Готлиб (Moritz Gottlieb Saphir, 1795-1858) - немецкий юморист и журналист. Впервые обратил на себя внимание сборником стихов «Poetische Erstlinge» (1821). Издавал театральные и юмористические журналы, пользовавшиеся большим успехом. В Берлине издан был против С. памфлет, на к-рый он ответил брошюрой, выдержавшей 4 издания за неделю: «Der getodtete und dennoch lebende Saphir» (Убитый, но тем не менее живой Сафир, 1828). Литературная производительность С. весьма велика. В 1884 было издано собрание его избранных сочинений в 12тт., в 1890 - сочинения в 26тт. Наибольшим успехом пользовались «Fliegendes Album fur Ernst, Scherz, Humor...» (Летучий альбом серьезного, шуток, юмора и жизнерадостности, 1846), «Conversations-Lexikon fur Geistwitz und Humor» Словарь остроумия и юмора, 1851-1852, 2 Aufl., 1860, 3 Aufl., 1893), а также «Humoristische Abende» (Юмористические вечера, 1830), «Dumme Briefe» (Глупые письма, 1834) и др." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12185" RevisionGUID="9e5a3216-601c-43a7-b258-b45932b54990" CreationDate="2016-03-29T07:50:23.547" UserId="6539" Text=" Adjectives are  describing  words which give more information about the object. The determinative adjectives point to the reference of the noun in the context not describing its quality. &#xD;&#xA;The determinative adjectives (определительные местоимения) are &#xD;&#xA;**каждый, весь, всякий, сам, самый, любой, иной, другой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Я хожу в школу **каждый** день. Приходи в **любой** день. **Иные** берега манят нас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same words can serve as determinative pronouns. They are not followed by objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Каждый** знает, что **всякое** может случиться в походе. Быть может, это все пустое, обман неопытной души, а суждено совсем **иное**( А.Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="60c876aa-f00b-4116-a97c-85338bc4e10e" CreationDate="2016-03-29T08:31:11.657" UserId="7035" Text="Just for fun, **&quot;She went to work.&quot;** can also have a completely different idiomatic use, something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она приступила к делу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12187" RevisionGUID="c23fb1a0-8ea3-4834-8994-9df483357bd8" CreationDate="2016-03-29T09:26:03.260" UserId="7035" Text="&gt; &quot;you will not allow life to get muffed up&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would add that it's more specifically &quot;won't let *me* mess up my life&quot; (don't know if that's obvious from the other explanations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The less formal meaning of комкать is to do something carelessly, or in a sloppy way, and can also mean to abridge/shorten. So, &quot;throw away&quot; may be a reasonable translation, but that's taking a lot of liberties, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28251" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="24945808-1852-4119-9b4e-3d4ef785f41d" CreationDate="2016-03-29T09:26:18.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/714745486176034817" />
  <row Id="28252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12188" RevisionGUID="2ce39358-1202-420d-8a7b-26a731520506" CreationDate="2016-03-29T09:39:50.450" UserId="7035" Text="There is also the somewhat more flowery **питать ненависть**. Literally to &quot;feed&quot; or &quot;nourish&quot;, here meaning &quot;harbor&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="740404e4-6161-4a78-aad0-8cdab0b0fb9f" CreationDate="2016-03-29T10:43:53.497" UserId="6588" Comment="Added a *note" Text="This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)&#xD;&#xA;[![This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GvVJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each consonant from the top row is pronunced unvoiced (substituted by letter from bottom row), if it's located at the end of closed syllable* (such as the consonant end of the word). We never say a voiced consonant in the word ending, and for children it's hard to write a word &quot;год&quot;, because it does sound &quot;гот&quot;. So we use another word form to check. For &quot;год&quot; it's &quot;годы&quot;. For &quot;гот&quot;, it's &quot;готы&quot;. In open syllable, there are no doubts, each consonant is written as it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://te.zavantag.com/tw_files2/urls_4/6/d-5436/5436_html_6b06cc3b.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://900igr.net/datas/russkij-jazyk/Bukvy-i-zvuki-russkogo-jazyka/0009-009-B-p-sugro-d-t-obe-g-k-utju-v-f-koroka-z-s-ukaka-zh-sh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, unvoicing consonants is so natural for Russians, that we have significant difficulties when learning to pronounce English &quot;dog&quot;, &quot;red&quot; and etc. &quot;Dok&quot; and &quot;ret&quot; is the default option, hard to overcome for the beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: general &quot;end of closed syllable&quot; rule is good only for the beginners. Actually, not every closed syllable has the final consonant devoiced, if the next consonant is voiced there occurs no devoicing, like in &quot;годный&quot;, &quot;грабли&quot;, &quot;бодрый&quot;, etc. The devoicing doesn't always occur even at the end of the word, e.g. &quot;год и один месяц&quot; – here &quot;год&quot; is pronounced as &quot;год&quot;, not like &quot;гот&quot;, the rule is: the devoicing occurs before a pause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="8d8cfdd1-4e96-49d9-9e83-05fc4c5e7bf0" CreationDate="2016-03-29T10:49:10.950" UserId="6588" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)&#xD;&#xA;[![This is the picture every Russian learns in 1st grade (7 years old)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2GvVJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each consonant from the top row is pronunced unvoiced (substituted by letter from bottom row), if it's located at the end of closed syllable* (such as the consonant end of the word). We never say a voiced consonant in the word ending, and for children it's hard to write a word &quot;год&quot;, because it does sound &quot;гот&quot;. So we use another word form to check. For &quot;год&quot; it's &quot;годы&quot;. For &quot;гот&quot;, it's &quot;готы&quot;. In open syllable, there are no doubts, each consonant is written as it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some samples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://te.zavantag.com/tw_files2/urls_4/6/d-5436/5436_html_6b06cc3b.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://900igr.net/datas/russkij-jazyk/Bukvy-i-zvuki-russkogo-jazyka/0009-009-B-p-sugro-d-t-obe-g-k-utju-v-f-koroka-z-s-ukaka-zh-sh.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, unvoicing consonants is so natural for Russians, that we have significant difficulties when learning to pronounce English &quot;dog&quot;, &quot;red&quot; and etc. &quot;Dok&quot; and &quot;ret&quot; is the default option, hard to overcome for the beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: general &quot;end of closed syllable&quot; rule is good only for the beginners. Actually, not every closed syllable has the final consonant devoiced, if the next consonant is voiced there occurs no devoicing, like in &quot;годный&quot;, &quot;грабли&quot;, &quot;бодрый&quot;, etc. The devoicing doesn't always occur even at the end of the word, e.g. &quot;год и один месяц&quot; – here &quot;год&quot; is pronounced as &quot;год&quot;, not like &quot;гот&quot;, the rule is: the devoicing occurs before a pause or before a voiceless consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12189" RevisionGUID="cddefd87-a134-4b68-a17f-cec7f79a5967" CreationDate="2016-03-29T10:53:54.050" UserId="2284" Text="The root of confusion lies in the fact that the two words, 'pronoun' and 'местоимение', although usually deemed translations of each other, have different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pro*noun* literally means 'instead of a *noun*'. Pronouns substitute nouns (or noun phrases).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Место*имени*е means 'вместо *имени*'. Now, there are several parts of speech called *имя*: имя существительное (noun), имя прилагательное (adjective), имя числительное (numeral). For every of these parts of speech there's a class of местоимения which may serve as a placeholder (and actually for adverbs as well)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28256" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12172" RevisionGUID="6fed92e0-2ffd-4e3e-bd7f-6a65318dc79b" CreationDate="2016-03-29T12:29:57.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/714791706919583744" />
  <row Id="28257" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="e4e1fa85-6815-4d6c-a21f-d43f90347e2d" CreationDate="2016-03-29T15:29:57.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/714837005243441152" />
  <row Id="28258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="387c4fd9-6198-421b-84a0-fab0dc7c3cfe" CreationDate="2016-03-29T18:29:57.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/714882301537218560" />
  <row Id="28259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12177" RevisionGUID="cb90f3fa-2cca-45df-b19e-af5103ae26a2" CreationDate="2016-03-29T19:30:45.320" UserId="6349" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Others have answered the question, but note there are some languages where the &quot;по-английски&quot; form doesn't really exist because the name of the language is not in adjectival form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* говорить на иврите (Hebrew = иврит)&#xD;&#xA;* говорить на хинди (Hindi = хинди = indeclinable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8037" RevisionGUID="3df01bf9-c801-4791-874f-11bb3a4d5ca3" CreationDate="2016-03-29T21:14:22.563" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;На английском&quot; or &quot;по-английски&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28261" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8037" RevisionGUID="3df01bf9-c801-4791-874f-11bb3a4d5ca3" CreationDate="2016-03-29T21:14:22.563" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12190" RevisionGUID="f9dcf550-e091-467a-ba38-ac1f7572bad8" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:42:02.187" UserId="6816" Text="If an adjective precedes multiple nouns of different number/gender but describes all of them, which form of the adjective should be used?&#xA;&#xA;Or must an adjective be repeated when describing the nouns to avoid misunderstandings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12190" RevisionGUID="f9dcf550-e091-467a-ba38-ac1f7572bad8" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:42:02.187" UserId="6816" Text="Adjectives preceding multiple nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12190" RevisionGUID="f9dcf550-e091-467a-ba38-ac1f7572bad8" CreationDate="2016-03-30T01:42:02.187" UserId="6816" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="e164b7c5-dbec-4567-9cbd-df645c192bbd" CreationDate="2016-03-30T03:10:38.107" UserId="6588" Text="1. &quot;Любимые мальчик и девочка&quot; = both are beloved. Correct, but rare form, because it's easy to mess it with 2.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Любимый мальчик и девочка&quot; = only the boy is beloved. Rough implication that the girl is not beloved. This form is often used for jokes.&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Любимый мальчик и любимая девочка&quot; = both are beloved. Correct and most common form in collocation.&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Мои любимые: мальчик и девочка&quot;, &quot;мальчик и девочка, которых я люблю&quot;, &quot;любимые дети&quot; and etc. are common in books, since 3 seems excessive on writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misunderstanding when number/gender is equal is a known issue. Speakers try to aviod it. The most famious disambiguation is &quot;Письма знакомой из Киева не заменят фотографии его любимой и милой дочери Марии&quot;. In &quot;фотографии его любимой  и милой дочери Марии&quot; following meanings are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved person, and sweet daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet person, and daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet daugther, and Maria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lots of other meanings. They say, more than 1000 meanings are possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="025231ed-4b03-49e9-9c0f-469269b211ea" CreationDate="2016-03-30T03:40:14.843" UserId="6588" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="1. &quot;Любимые мальчик и девочка&quot; = both are beloved. Correct, but rare form, because it's easy to mess it with 2.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Любимый мальчик и девочка&quot; = only the boy is beloved. Rough implication that the girl is not beloved. This form is often used for jokes.&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Любимый мальчик и любимая девочка&quot; = both are beloved. Correct and most common form in collocation.&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Мои любимые: мальчик и девочка&quot;, &quot;мальчик и девочка, которых я люблю&quot;, &quot;любимые дети&quot; and etc. are common in books, since 3 seems excessive on writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misunderstanding when number/gender is equal is a known issue. Speakers try to aviod it. The most famious disambiguation is &quot;Письма знакомой из Киева не заменят фотографии его любимой и милой дочери Марии&quot;. In &quot;фотографии его любимой  и милой дочери Марии&quot; following meanings are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved person, and sweet daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet person, and daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet daugther, and Maria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lots of other meanings. They say, it's more than 1000 possible meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="c0385882-923d-49a9-90da-abd0e959a1f5" CreationDate="2016-03-30T04:51:34.860" UserId="6588" Comment="edited body" Text="1. &quot;Любимые мальчик и девочка&quot; = both are beloved. Correct, but rare form, because it's easy to mess it with 2.&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Любимый мальчик и девочка&quot; = only the boy is beloved. Rough implication that the girl is not beloved. This form is often used for jokes.&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;Любимый мальчик и любимая девочка&quot; = both are beloved. Correct and most common form in collocation.&#xD;&#xA;4. &quot;Мои любимые: мальчик и девочка&quot;, &quot;мальчик и девочка, которых я люблю&quot;, &quot;любимые дети&quot; and etc. are common in books, since 3 seems excessive on writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Misunderstanding when number/gender is equal is a known issue. Speakers try to aviod it. The most famious disambiguation is &quot;Письма знакомой из Киева не заменят фотографии его любимой и милой дочери Марии&quot;. In &quot;фотографии его любимой  и милой дочери Марии&quot; following meanings are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved person, and sweet daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet person, and daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet daugther, and Maria.&#xD;&#xA;- Photo of his beloved and sweet daugther Maria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lots of other meanings. They say, it's more than 1000 meanings possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28269" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="be2bf4b4-9c9d-4f0d-9fdf-ec25ed97104c" CreationDate="2016-03-30T06:29:57.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/715063495881056256" />
  <row Id="28270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12192" RevisionGUID="a115a8f0-4044-4fb9-88c7-5ca3a9f1d592" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:13:56.553" UserId="6354" Text="I just encountered **аж**, which apparently means *even*. Any difference between this word and **даже**, or can I substitute one for the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12192" RevisionGUID="a115a8f0-4044-4fb9-88c7-5ca3a9f1d592" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:13:56.553" UserId="6354" Text="Difference between &quot;даже&quot; and &quot;аж&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12192" RevisionGUID="a115a8f0-4044-4fb9-88c7-5ca3a9f1d592" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:13:56.553" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12193" RevisionGUID="deae4cad-0e50-4883-9b8f-e7f24e44bfbf" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:43:49.950" UserId="6097" Text="Generally yes, but in some cases not. &#xD;&#xA;You cannot substitute _аж_ with _даже_ in sentences like _Он пробежал аж три километра_ (He ran /as much as/ whole three kilometers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12194" RevisionGUID="6439ed5a-9965-4f44-b997-48112a595ebd" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:44:23.267" UserId="6588" Text="You can almost always subsitute &quot;аж&quot;, &quot;ажно&quot; by &quot;даже&quot;, but not otherwise. &quot;Аж&quot; is a colloquial or expressive word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Шёл семнадцатый день лета. Мы от радости аж печку затопили&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Даже&quot; is good both for formal and informal use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Растение без своих грибных симбионтов развивается плохо, медленно, легко подвергается заболеваниям и даже может погибнуть.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12195" RevisionGUID="b0bab282-8a0e-4e8c-876c-5dcb3b1ae1f2" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:48:40.653" UserId="134" Text="_Аж_ is indeed etymologically connected to _даже_, however has nuances in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used with measurable quantities it means &quot;no less than&quot;, &quot;as many as&quot;, &quot;whole&quot; etc., mostly ironically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бильярдов теперь на этом вокзале аж три. // Now, there are no less than three pool tables on this station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живут же раки, говорят, аж до двадцати лет // Crayfish, they say, sometimes make it to as many as twenty years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12195" RevisionGUID="f691473e-c157-462b-8f41-0a7a7b9428a2" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:56:39.090" UserId="134" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="_Аж_ is indeed etymologically connected to _даже_, however has nuances in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used with measurable quantities it means &quot;no less than&quot;, &quot;as many as&quot;, &quot;whole&quot; etc., mostly ironically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бильярдов теперь на этом вокзале аж три. // Now, there are no less than three pool tables on this station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Живут же раки, говорят, аж до двадцати лет // Crayfish, they say, sometimes make it to as many as twenty years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used in dependent clauses, it means &quot;(so that) even&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лучше не бывает. Людка увидела и аж села. // It couldn't get any better. Lyudka saw it and (was so astonished that) even had to sit down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А ты приехал, Илья Муромец… Испугались они тебя, аж трясутся // And here you come, Ilya Muromets! Oh yeah, they are so afraid of you they even get tremors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28277" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12192" RevisionGUID="0ea3c288-b54f-42c2-aa36-6c484a1ed293" CreationDate="2016-03-30T18:30:08.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/715244738094489600" />
  <row Id="28278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="d40cd8a3-804b-4b94-8246-4418b77b8d05" CreationDate="2016-03-30T18:52:11.287" UserId="6381" Text="Right now I'm learning about constructions of occurences and I have a quesitions about some fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume someone asks you if you could help him. And he says the following (excerpt from the course):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если, конечно, ты располагаешь свободными временем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is **располагаешь** mandatory here or can I, for example, also form the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если у тебя есть свободного времени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`располагать` means `to have` and for me it is the same as `у xxx есть`. I know I must use this `располагать` because the course says so, but concurrently I often here people say `У меня нет времени сейчас.` So why do they not use: `Я не располагаю времени сейчас.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Appreciating your response!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="d40cd8a3-804b-4b94-8246-4418b77b8d05" CreationDate="2016-03-30T18:52:11.287" UserId="6381" Text="&quot;to have free time&quot; - Questions about if располагать is mandatory" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="d40cd8a3-804b-4b94-8246-4418b77b8d05" CreationDate="2016-03-30T18:52:11.287" UserId="6381" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28281" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="65eb9cf0-c174-43fb-95d9-e9106ceee46d" CreationDate="2016-03-30T19:34:27.520" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;To have free time&quot; - is &quot;располагать&quot; mandatory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="124e175b-94d3-4f52-8b9c-e81b2bf47a3d" CreationDate="2016-03-30T19:34:35.563" UserId="134" Text="*Располагать + inst.* means &quot;to have something at one's disposal&quot;. The Russian word itself is an apparent calque of Latin *disponere* or one of its descendants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually said when don't actually own the thing (time, resources etc.), but it's available to use at your convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in most if not all cases it can be freely replaced by *иметь*, whether in this very form or as a proximal possession clause. It's just a matter of style, *располагать* is officialese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ты располагаешь свободными временем* and *у тебя есть свободное время* are synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="dcc30749-c363-42bd-95aa-ddf8d8051362" CreationDate="2016-03-30T19:35:02.050" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Right now I'm learning about constructions of occurences and I have a quesitions about some fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume someone asks you if you could help him. And he says the following (excerpt from the course):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если, конечно, ты располагаешь свободными временем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is **располагаешь** mandatory here or can I, for example, also form the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если у тебя есть свободное время. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`располагать` means `to have` and for me it is the same as `у xxx есть`. I know I must use this `располагать` because the course says so, but concurrently I often here people say `У меня нет времени сейчас.` So why do they not use: `Я не располагаю временем сейчас.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Appreciating your response!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="aea3e4a4-a471-464a-9af7-1811dd17a2b5" CreationDate="2016-03-30T19:39:40.217" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="*Располагать + inst.* means &quot;to have something at one's disposal&quot;. The Russian word itself is an apparent calque of Latin *disponere* or one of its descendants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually said when you don't actually own the thing (time, resources etc.), but it's available to use at your convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in most if not all cases it can be freely replaced by *иметь*, whether in this very form or as a proximal possession clause. It's just a matter of style, *располагать* is officialese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ты располагаешь свободными временем* and *у тебя есть свободное время* are synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="c3de737d-4a37-4153-93e2-5c68a157c4f6" CreationDate="2016-03-30T21:55:21.357" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="*Располагать + inst.* means &quot;to have something at one's disposal&quot;. The Russian word itself is an apparent calque of Latin *disponere* or one of its descendants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually said when you don't actually own the thing (time, resources etc.), but it's available for you to use at your convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in most if not all cases it can be freely replaced by *иметь*, either in this very form or as a proximal possession clause. It's just a matter of style, *располагать* is officialese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ты располагаешь свободными временем* and *у тебя есть свободное время* are synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="65232d94-8452-476b-b706-d27665bbaacc" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:03:01.747" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Right now I'm learning about constructions of occurences and I have a quesitions about some fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume someone asks you if you could help him. And he says the following (excerpt from the course):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если, конечно, ты располагаешь свободным временем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is **располагаешь** mandatory here or can I, for example, also form the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если у тебя есть свободное время. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`располагать` means `to have` and for me it is the same as `у xxx есть`. I know I must use this `располагать` because the course says so, but concurrently I often here people say `У меня нет времени сейчас.` So why do they not use: `Я не располагаю временем сейчас.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Appreciating your response!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="df224f10-b420-4eb9-9197-c6155ad5a84a" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:25:19.880" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Располагать + inst.* means &quot;to have something at one's disposal&quot;. The Russian word itself is an apparent calque of Latin *disponere* or one of its descendants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually said when you don't actually own the thing (time, resources etc.), but it's available for you to use at your convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in most if not all cases it can be freely replaced by *иметь*, either in this very form or as a proximal possession clause. It's just a matter of style, *располагать* is officialese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ты располагаешь свободным временем* and *у тебя есть свободное время* are synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="3904170b-896f-417d-924d-c410bb05bc23" CreationDate="2016-03-31T10:01:18.897" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;So why do they not use: Я не располагаю временем сейчас&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this sentence is &quot;a right one&quot;, but it sounds like a quote from a hundred-years-old book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;can I, for example, also form the following? Если у тебя есть свободное время.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can. Although I should add that on many occasions people don't even care mentioning &quot;free time&quot;. So quite often just saying: &quot;_Если [тебе] не трудно_, ...&quot; or &quot;_Если [Вас] не затруднит_,...&quot; is sufficient. On the other hand, &quot;_У тебя есть свободное время_&quot; is rather a question on its own, than a conditional clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. you ask if a person has free time first, and then ask if he/she could do you a favour. But if you try to say all in a single sentence, kind of &quot;please, could you do me a favour, but only if you have free time, of course&quot;, then it's usually more natural to say &quot;если не трудно&quot; or something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="5b914151-a553-4c74-8092-d0111d4c8fcc" CreationDate="2016-03-31T20:23:09.333" UserId="7053" Text="This is actually a subject of &quot;holy wars&quot; between Russians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people insist that using `ё` must be mandatory, because replacing it by `е` can change the meaning of a sentence. The most famous example: `Завтра Петербург, наконец, передохнёт от жары`. This is also quite important in books for children who are just learning to read: they get really confused seeing a word like &quot;`еж`&quot; instead of &quot;`ёж`&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others argue that the meaning almost always is clear from the context, and the difference does not worth using diacritic sign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Officially it is completely legal to replace `ё` by `е` (which makes me very sad). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28294" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="1e6e0960-9e5d-4920-97c5-9874e2268636" CreationDate="2016-04-01T00:40:39.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/715700368399851521" />
  <row Id="28298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12151" RevisionGUID="4df75cae-8f5e-4f84-b464-fd872e31bd5c" CreationDate="2016-04-01T15:40:42.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/715926873658826752" />
  <row Id="28304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="86bf57d6-f88c-4279-9266-a1d858039652" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:01:02.370" UserId="6833" Text="What is the genitive case plural (Родительный падеж множественного числа) for **ПОВОД**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="86bf57d6-f88c-4279-9266-a1d858039652" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:01:02.370" UserId="6833" Text="Поводов или поводьев?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="86bf57d6-f88c-4279-9266-a1d858039652" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:01:02.370" UserId="6833" Text="|падежи|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="a751789a-a575-454b-8457-6066f39b0ff9" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:06:29.400" UserId="6833" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="What is the genitive case plural (Родительный падеж множественного числа) for **ПОВОД** (случай)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12204" RevisionGUID="e6e4e89e-783c-4524-b3df-86d32f4c23be" CreationDate="2016-04-02T00:12:43.047" UserId="4560" Text="It's **поводов**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поводьев** is the genitive of a pluralia tantum (=no singular, like &quot;scissors&quot;) noun **поводья**, meaning &quot;reins&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12206" RevisionGUID="66c1b8fc-1a7e-40b0-b0ef-cb9925882eb5" CreationDate="2016-04-02T11:46:13.170" UserId="6539" Text="There are different meanings of the word &quot;one of the reins&quot;,a long, narrow strap attached at one end to a horse’s bit, typically used in pairs to guide or check a horse in riding or driving, and a cause,a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ПО́ВОД, -а, предл. о по́воде, в поводу́; мн. ***пово́дья, поводьев*** м. Ремень, прикреплённый к удилам и служащий для управления лошадью. Вести лошадь за поводья. Натянуть поводья. Держать лошадь на поводу.&#xD;&#xA;◊ Идти (быть) на поводу́ у кого. Действовать по чьей-л. указке, не самостоятельно, быть зависимым в своих поступках от кого-л. Ты у него на поводу! Идти на поводу общественного мнения.&#xD;&#xA;◁ Поводок; Поводковый; Поводочный (см.).&#xD;&#xA;2. ПО́ВОД, -а; мн. **по́воды-поводов**; м. Случай, обстоятельство, факт, могущие быть основанием для чего-л., причиной чего-л.; предлог (1.П.). П. для ссоры. П. для серьёзного разговора. П. поругаться, помириться. Найти п. к сближению. Искать п. высказаться. Спорить по всякому (любому) поводу, без повода. Дать (подать) п. кому-л., чему-л. (дать основание, возможность поступать каким-л. образом).&#xD;&#xA;◁ По по́воду кого-чего. в зн. предлога. 1. Относительно кого-, чего-л. Решение по поводу премьерного фильма. Высказаться по поводу результатов голосования. -2. По причине, из-за чего-л., вследствие чего-л. Волноваться по поводу задержки поезда.&#xD;&#xA;Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт С. А. Кузнецов. 1998&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12206" RevisionGUID="c9030265-b7cf-4fce-99c1-ff3d04eab3e3" CreationDate="2016-04-02T11:51:43.573" UserId="6539" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There are different meanings of the word-- *one of the reins&quot;,a long, narrow strap attached at one end to a horse’s bit, typically used in pairs to guide or check a horse in riding or driving*, and *a cause,a reason*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ПО́ВОД, -а, предл. о по́воде, в поводу́; мн. ***пово́дья, поводьев*** м. Ремень, прикреплённый к удилам и служащий для управления лошадью. Вести лошадь за поводья. Натянуть поводья. Держать лошадь на поводу.&#xD;&#xA;◊ Идти (быть) на поводу́ у кого. Действовать по чьей-л. указке, не самостоятельно, быть зависимым в своих поступках от кого-л. Ты у него на поводу! Идти на поводу общественного мнения.&#xD;&#xA;◁ Поводок; Поводковый; Поводочный (см.).&#xD;&#xA;2. ПО́ВОД, -а; мн. **по́воды-поводов**; м. Случай, обстоятельство, факт, могущие быть основанием для чего-л., причиной чего-л.; предлог (1.П.). П. для ссоры. П. для серьёзного разговора. П. поругаться, помириться. Найти п. к сближению. Искать п. высказаться. Спорить по всякому (любому) поводу, без повода. Дать (подать) п. кому-л., чему-л. (дать основание, возможность поступать каким-л. образом).&#xD;&#xA;◁ По по́воду кого-чего. в зн. предлога. 1. Относительно кого-, чего-л. Решение по поводу премьерного фильма. Высказаться по поводу результатов голосования. -2. По причине, из-за чего-л., вследствие чего-л. Волноваться по поводу задержки поезда.&#xD;&#xA;Большой толковый словарь русского языка. - 1-е изд-е: СПб.: Норинт С. А. Кузнецов. 1998&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12193" RevisionGUID="c89b4d9b-bf0c-4f2b-a1fe-5af5d5571ecd" CreationDate="2016-04-02T12:05:55.470" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Generally yes, but in some cases not. &#xD;&#xA;You cannot substitute _аж_ with _даже_ in sentences like _Он пробежал аж три километра_ (He ran /as much as/a whole three kilometers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12194" RevisionGUID="eb50c11b-c2ff-49a0-8d70-f13a549a5d5d" CreationDate="2016-04-02T12:08:48.470" UserId="3892" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="You can almost always subsitute &quot;аж&quot;, &quot;ажно&quot; by &quot;даже&quot;, but not the other way around. &quot;Аж&quot; is a colloquial or expressive word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Шёл семнадцатый день лета. Мы от радости аж печку затопили&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Даже&quot; is good both for formal and informal use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Растение без своих грибных симбионтов развивается плохо, медленно, легко подвергается заболеваниям и даже может погибнуть.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12207" RevisionGUID="6facfaed-8fbc-4bd0-bc13-d4347a1bf2e5" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:48:29.413" UserId="5622" Text="Она ушла на работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reverse translation is 'she left for work'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="d9c92316-8c9f-4edc-81c4-f5e360995b04" CreationDate="2016-04-03T17:54:34.140" UserId="6816" Text="In a very simple clause such as &quot;I am an actor,&quot; would 'actor' be in the accusative or does the accusative require an actual verb to be present?&#xA;&#xA;Also, if it is in the accusative, could one write &quot;Мы — актёров&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="d9c92316-8c9f-4edc-81c4-f5e360995b04" CreationDate="2016-04-03T17:54:34.140" UserId="6816" Text="Accusative in descriptions/occupations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="d9c92316-8c9f-4edc-81c4-f5e360995b04" CreationDate="2016-04-03T17:54:34.140" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12210" RevisionGUID="ea6eacb8-bfd8-4fba-9264-408c48ae6c1d" CreationDate="2016-04-03T18:11:15.823" UserId="6725" Text="In &quot;Я - актёр.&quot; sentense &quot;актёр&quot; is in nominative case. So, in plural it will be &quot;Мы - актёры&quot;. If there is a verb, for example, &quot;являться&quot;, than you need instrumental case, i.e. &quot;Я являюсь актёром&quot; and &quot;Мы являемся актёрами&quot;. Accusative is not used for this kind of sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12211" RevisionGUID="d2026d47-6e12-4651-a2d5-28a6c871af69" CreationDate="2016-04-03T19:04:40.253" UserId="1236" Text="Apart from following a preposition that governs the Accusative case (like _в_, _на_, _за_, etc. when they mean direction), the Accusative case nouns can only be used as direct objects to a _transitive_ verb. Since &quot;to be&quot;, _быть_, is not a transitive verb, it cannot have any direct objects, nothing in the Accusative case can follow it, in the Present tense the verb &quot;to be&quot;, _быть_, is omitted in Russian, and the predicate is in the Nominative case. On the other hand, if &quot;to be&quot;, _быть_, is used in the Past or Future tense, what follows it must be in the Instrumental case, that is why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Present:** Я – актёр. (Nominative) - 'I am an actor.'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Past:** Я был актёром. (Instrumental) - 'I was an actor.'&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Future:** Я буду актёром. (Instrumental) - 'I will be an actor.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12204" RevisionGUID="de199a3f-52bc-4935-89ab-a802a1f797f7" CreationDate="2016-04-04T03:54:25.430" UserId="4560" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="It's **поводов**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поводьев** is the genitive of a pluralia tantum (=no singular, like &quot;scissors&quot;) noun **поводья**, meaning &quot;reins&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: People have pointed out in the comments that **поводья** does get used in the singular, and I stand corrected. It's rather a case of having two plurals according to the meaning, as with **лист** =&gt; **листы** &quot;sheets&quot; or **листья** &quot;leaves&quot;. In my defense, **поводов** is likely the only form you're ever going to need to remember, and when you do come across the word in its &quot;horse&quot; sense it's likely to already be in the **-ья** plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="b1343d3f-ce01-4056-9ac9-fe366f887a27" CreationDate="2016-04-04T08:49:49.330" UserId="5423" Text="I've been trying to find the stroke order (the order in which components of a character are written, and in which direction your pen goes) ([Wikipedia article][1], but only about Chinese characters) for Cyrillic, but I haven't yet found one. The only non-video image I've found so far is http://typedrawers.com/discussion/433/pointed-pen-calligraphy-guides , but I don't know whether to rely upon it, as it's talking about calligraphy, rather than everyday writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Cyrillic have a stroke order? (Maybe it doesn't - I assume that because even hiragana and katakana in Japanese has a stroke order, then Cyrillic also has a stroke order) If so, what is the stroke order for Cyrillic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I'd also like to know the stroke order of Үү and Өө, but that's a fairly minor matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_order" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="b1343d3f-ce01-4056-9ac9-fe366f887a27" CreationDate="2016-04-04T08:49:49.330" UserId="5423" Text="What is the stroke order for Cyrillic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="b1343d3f-ce01-4056-9ac9-fe366f887a27" CreationDate="2016-04-04T08:49:49.330" UserId="5423" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="d79a3e71-a1c7-41f7-b281-8719ab791980" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:01:57.910" UserId="6354" Text="According to The New Penguin Russian Course (page 216):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In informal Russian по- &quot;a little&quot; is often added to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; comparative:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; побыстрее &quot;a bit faster&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; поменьше &quot;a little less&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now take this sentence: **Тебе следует есть побольше фруктов и овощей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translates it as: **You should eat more fruits and vegetables.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yandex translates it as: **You ought to eat more fruits and vegetables.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it **more** and not **a little more**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, how can I know when **по** in front of comparative means **a little**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="d79a3e71-a1c7-41f7-b281-8719ab791980" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:01:57.910" UserId="6354" Text="When does &quot;по&quot; in front of comparative mean &quot;a little&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="d79a3e71-a1c7-41f7-b281-8719ab791980" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:01:57.910" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12214" RevisionGUID="aee57d4a-6f11-440b-9886-4e364a4138e7" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:26:19.213" UserId="7075" Text="I ба́ю&#xD;&#xA;ба́ять, ба́ить &quot;говорить&quot;, укр. ба́яти &quot;рассказывать&quot;, русск.-цслав. баю, баяти &quot;рассказывать, заговаривать, лечить&quot;, болг. ба́я &quot;колдую&quot;, сербохорв. ба̏jати &quot;колдовать&quot;, словен. bájati &quot;болтать, говорить, заклинать&quot;, чеш. bájiti &quot;говорить, болтать&quot;, польск. bajać &quot;болтать&quot;, в.-луж. bać – то же, н.-луж. bajaś.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исконнородственно греч. φημί, дор. φαμί &quot;говорю&quot;, φήμη, дор. φά̄μΒ̄ &quot;голос, молва&quot;, φωνή &quot;голос&quot;, лат. fāri &quot;говорить&quot;, fābula &quot;речь, рассказ&quot;, др.-исл. bón, bǿn, арм. ban &quot;слово, речь&quot; и т. д.; см. Бернекер 1, 39; Хюбшман 428. Сюда не относится лит. bóju, bóti &quot;обращать внимание&quot; – переразложение лит. atbóti, dabóti &quot;обращать внимание, заботиться&quot;, которое заимств. из польск. dbać; см. Лескин, Bildung 457; Остен-Сакен, IF 33, 206 и сл. Дальнейшее см. выше, на ба́сня.&#xD;&#xA;(Ср. еще сев.-фризск. bālen &quot;говорить&quot;; см. Хольтхаузен, PBB 48, стр. 460. – Т.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II ба́ю&#xD;&#xA;ба́юшки, ба́ю, отсюда (у)баю́кать. По мнению Брандта (РФВ 18, 27), это выражение связано с ба́ю &quot;говорю&quot;. Ср., однако, бай-бай." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="0ea9abfc-9673-46c8-ab91-5ea21998ecb0" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:43:51.180" UserId="310" Text="&quot;побольше&quot; is more polite than &quot;больше&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ешь больше овощей&quot; sounds like a command, if not coming from your doctor or loving granny it's a bit offensive.&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;Ешь побольше овощей&quot; sounds like genuine caring about somebody while leaving the extent of diet adjustment up to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why it does not mean &quot;a little&quot;? Just as in English, &quot;You ought to eat a bit more fruits and vegetables&quot; does not make mounds of sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12216" RevisionGUID="59f42376-284c-479d-8c10-d533757fd57a" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:45:45.410" UserId="310" Text="The only thing I know from top of my head that you should be able to write most words in full without ever taking pen off paper. Maybe adding some diactirics later. So, there's only one stroke. Start from the first letter, end with the last letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're talking about cursive, aren't we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="578e766e-441f-4e55-8c40-c2e3d830e1f6" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:51:51.117" UserId="6865" Text="Actually **по-** doesn't literally mean **a little**. This makes comparatives sound more informal and it 'weakens' the usual measure of a comparative you use with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You really can translate **Тебе следует есть побольше фруктов и овощей**&#xD;&#xA; as **You ought to eat a bit more fruits and vegetables**. But only the author of the phrase can say if he/she wanted to weaken the pressure of the advice to make it sound less categorical or it just means the same as **You ought to eat more fruits and vegetables**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28342" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="889117c3-463b-4083-b734-0dd74999b96d" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:55:03.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/716927048548265985" />
  <row Id="28343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12216" RevisionGUID="6ac3d55b-c382-4132-9d80-2dec758dbb4a" CreationDate="2016-04-04T09:57:31.177" UserId="310" Comment="edited body" Text="The only thing I know from top of my head that you should be able to write most words in full without ever taking pen off paper. Maybe adding some diacritics later. So, there's only one stroke. Start from the first letter, end with the last letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're talking about cursive, aren't we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12218" RevisionGUID="7447523e-af16-48cd-9859-4fd9f30be030" CreationDate="2016-04-04T10:48:55.843" UserId="6588" Text="Here is the classic one. I used to do it in my 1st grade. &#xD;&#xA;http://xn----gtbdmbeft1bdk.net/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/40/415/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this one does not contain old Cyrillic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12219" RevisionGUID="2cd37be6-f92d-4220-bcf8-ef7653800a10" CreationDate="2016-04-04T13:10:33.737" UserId="5443" Text="If you want an analogy with Chinese characters, the stroke order in Russian handwriting appears to 'follow' just 2 rules for lower-case letters (if divisible into strokes, like у, и): '*from left to right*' and '*dots last*' (й or ё)'. Unlike with Chinese characters, there's no other stroke order rule like 'from top to bottom', 'outside before inside', etc. Some capital letters (Г, Т, Р) though, have an upper element which doesn't follow strict writing order; I personally would write it as the second stroke in those letters (if it were a Chinese character, that upper element would be strictly the first stroke; same with dots like those over й and ё). Also, in Russian no one will ever write in two strokes the digit &quot;1&quot; (just as one stroke written from left to right), while the similar Chinese radical is written as down-left stroke, then vertical stroke (pie+shu)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12220" RevisionGUID="333451f1-340c-4eee-ba97-bbc49a5e4012" CreationDate="2016-04-04T18:31:20.740" UserId="134" Text="Russian distinguishes between true comparatives with *по-* (attenuative forms) and positive forms disguised as comparatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Овощей нужно есть побольше обычного // You should be eating more vegetables than you usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Эта штука посильнее, чем &quot;Фауст&quot; Гёте. Любовь побеждает смерть. // This piece must be more intense than Goethe's &quot;Faust&quot;. Love triumphs over death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the comparative adjectives are attenuatives, which would be have been similar to English forms with &quot;-ish&quot;, like &quot;red / reddish&quot; etc., if those worked with comparative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds really weird with used with *намного* (&quot;much&quot;) but works perfectly with *немного* (&quot;a little&quot;), just the same way &quot;it's very bluish&quot; is weird but &quot;it's a little bluish&quot; is OK in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not always &quot;a little&quot;, it could just as well mean &quot;seems like&quot;, &quot;to some extent&quot;, &quot;kinda&quot; etc., when you doubt the degree or validity of the comparison or that you're applying the right adjective at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тебе нужно есть овощи, да побольше // You should eat vegetables, lots of them, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Возьми бинокль посильнее, Иван, и проводи меня наверх. // Ivan, take binoculars, the powerful ones, too, and walk me upstairs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparative adjectives here are in fact positive forms, with emphasis on the property mentioned (&quot;really a lot&quot;, &quot;really powerful&quot; etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12220" RevisionGUID="14b5c8f9-8634-454e-8202-803d9fab67ee" CreationDate="2016-04-04T18:37:09.650" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Russian distinguishes between true comparatives with *по-* (attenuative forms) and positive forms disguised as comparatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Овощей нужно есть побольше обычного // You should be eating a bit more vegetables than you usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Эта штука посильнее, чем &quot;Фауст&quot; Гёте. Любовь побеждает смерть. // This piece must be more intense than Goethe's &quot;Faust&quot;. Love triumphs over death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the comparative adjectives are attenuatives, which would be have been similar to English forms with &quot;-ish&quot;, like &quot;red / reddish&quot; etc., if those worked with comparative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds really weird with used with *намного* (&quot;much&quot;) but works perfectly with *немного* (&quot;a little&quot;), just the same way &quot;it's very bluish&quot; is weird but &quot;it's a little bluish&quot; is OK in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not always &quot;a little&quot;, it could just as well mean &quot;seems like&quot;, &quot;to some extent&quot;, &quot;kinda&quot; etc., when you doubt the degree or validity of the comparison or that you're applying the right adjective at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тебе нужно есть овощи, да побольше // You should eat vegetables, lots of them, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Возьми бинокль посильнее, Иван, и проводи меня наверх. // Ivan, take binoculars, the powerful ones, too, and walk me upstairs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparative adjectives here are in fact positive forms, with emphasis on the property mentioned (&quot;really a lot&quot;, &quot;really powerful&quot; etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28349" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12166" RevisionGUID="1f59647b-908f-4899-b845-b6c8d2e7686e" CreationDate="2016-04-05T03:59:52.070" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/717200051588751361" />
  <row Id="28350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="a4aa2d57-7813-4701-9191-dcd13b03ff5e" CreationDate="2016-04-05T12:06:01.543" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="## On modern usage of Ы-words.##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The absense of words starting from letter **Ы** was challenged by many creative people in literature and cinema. The letter itself become a codename for &quot;cover operation&quot; in [&quot;Операция &quot;Ы&quot; movie](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%C2%AB%D0%AB%C2%BB_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC)) and a name of a fictional animal [Вепрь Ы](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%AB) from the SF-book by Strugatskies [&quot;Трудно быть богом&quot;](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my mind, the most influential nowadays is the cult film &quot;Кин-дза-дза&quot; by Georgiy Daneliya. It depicts a high-tech alien civilization with primitive culture. The aliens used Ы as interjection to show any kind of emotions ranging from anger to happiness. &#xD;&#xA;This usage of letter Ы become very popular in the Internet, so you can see that people use **ы** or even **ыыы** to show different emotions:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После выхода фильма «Кин-дза-дза» буква «Ы» также стала использоваться в качестве обозначения смеха или любых сильных, но невербализуемых эмоций. ([Wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AB#.C2.AB.D0.AB.C2.BB_.D0.B2_.D0.B8.D1.81.D0.BA.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.B5.2C_.D0.BA.D1.83.D0.BB.D1.8C.D1.82.D1.83.D1.80.D0.B5.2C_.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.85.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B5_.D0.B8_.D0.98.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.BD.D0.B5.D1.82.D0.B5))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason why Ы become popular to describe laugh is its visual similarity to English lol (laughing out loud) acronym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when usage of &quot;ыыы&quot; become more common the word &quot;ыкать&quot; from &quot;rare linguistic term to denote usage of ы instead of и&quot; began to mean just &quot;extensive usage of ы&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Loki: ы, клева  &#xD;&#xA;pyatachyok: чем ыкать да угукать, не забудь про десктоп, апач и инет :) ([board.rt.mipt.ru](http://board.rt.mipt.ru/?read=4746238))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this was only the beginning of intensive usage of Ы. [Словарь молодежного сленга](http://teenslang.ru/) lists the following [words starting from Ы](http://teenslang.ru/?page=1&amp;novar=1&amp;content=%D0%AB*):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ы**,  1. междометие. Обозначение громкого смеха, иногда с повторением ыыы.&#xD;&#xA;2. предикатив. Выражение насмешки, издевки. Пример: Ы!!! Ржу!!! Ни как лошадь, конечно!&#xD;&#xA;Синонимы: ыыы , гы, хы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ыбло**, -а, ср. идея сценария флэшмоба, которая уже была проведена. (анаграмма от было).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ыть**, междометие&#xD;&#xA;1 так, да, используется дли усиления подтверждения, выражения эмоциональной окраски. 2: оп, опа. Пример текста: Ыть в конце концов - есть-таки положительные результаты. • Ыть, я псых. • Ыть держите меня семеро, модерите меня в три руки. • Ыть я никуда не собирался ваабще-та.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ычк**, местоим., сущ., нареч. Все, всё. Происходит из систематической ошибки: на клавиатуре компьютера клавиши «ы» «ч» «к» расположены рядом с клавишами «в» «с» «е».&#xD;&#xA;Пример текста: И мой низкий поклон и Мэру и Администрации, я думаю у них ычк получится. • Правильный ответ в окошечке с кодом (1,1,1,1) в котором имеются ычк четыре признака. • Да мне по барабону ычк, что ты сказал. • Вроде бы, я ычк поимаю. • да Да я ычк знаю, но фотки клёвые. • • Как-то размыто ычк. • Ычк мужики по натуре охотники — добиваются того, чего хотят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ышник**, -а, м. Уважаемый человек в обществе. Пример текста: Он назвал его ышником, после чего они вместе бежали по коридору и кричали ы... Синонимы: наш человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ыыы**, междометие. Возглас выражения эмоций, чаще всего смеха, усмешки, но иногда плача, разочарования и др. Пример текста: Ыыыыыыы, это так кульно! • Ыыы вот так я отдыхал по весне. • Ыыы! лошадка то мля злая попалась! • Я тоже употребляю «ыыы», «гыыыы», «бугагаа». • Ыыы - опять же смех, а точнее передача текстом гортанного звука при глухом смехе. • Ыыы убится мона всё ыыы да ыыы!! • ЫЫы, непруха! • Ни плакай... ЫыЫ... Всё образуется!! Синонимы: гыы, бугага.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Словарь синонимов on dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/dic_synonims/?f=0YjQu9Cw0LM=&amp;t=0Y3Qu9C10Lo=&amp;nt=3910&amp;p=70) along with words mentioned above adds the following: **ычно** (классно, круто, непонятно, ржачно, смешно, странно), **ыка** (заика), **ыжлость** (грусть, уныние), **ыжливший** (грустивший, унывавший), **ыгы** (ага), etc. Looks like ычно, ыжлость, ыжливший also exploit the meaning of &quot;ы&quot; as &quot;strong unverbalizable emotion&quot; which can be &quot;cool or funny or strange or incomprehensible or anything else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about more traditional words starting from Ы, its worth to mention that Ы itself is a word - the name of letter Ы:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ы**, неизм. &#xD;&#xA;1. ж. и ср.&#xD;&#xA;Двадцать девятая буква русского алфавита, обозначающая гласный звук [ы]. Строчное ы.&#xD;&#xA;2. м.&#xD;&#xA;Гласный звук [ы],&#xD;&#xA;обозначаемый этой буквой. Ударное ы. ([Большой толковый словарь](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%FB&amp;all=x))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ы** (произн. также еры (устар.)), нескл., ср. название буквы &quot;ы&quot;, название соответствующего звука и другие значения: ср. а 1; см. также еры. ([Толковый словарь Ушакова](http://ushakovdictionary.ru/word.php?wordid=87030))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it may seem trivial that letter &quot;Ы&quot; has name &quot;Ы&quot;, though for many other letters it is not so. For instance &quot;Э&quot; is &quot;э оборотное&quot;, &quot;Й&quot; - &quot;и краткое&quot;, &quot;Б&quot; is read as &quot;бэ&quot;, &quot;К&quot; as &quot;ка&quot;, &quot;С&quot; as &quot;эс&quot; and so on and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. After searching for different examples of modern usage of words starting from letter Ы I found a [good article on Wikipedia](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AB) that summarizes many answers already given. (By the way, in modern internet slang P.S. is written **З. Ы.** since these correspond to the same letters on the Russian keyboard)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12221" RevisionGUID="fbe86f02-d73f-4452-8ffa-51a64df43919" CreationDate="2016-04-05T13:47:03.933" UserId="6539" Text="Let's compare two sentences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует есть **больше** фруктов и овощей.You should eat more fruit and vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует есть **побольше** фруктов и овощей.You should eat a little bit more fruit and vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence shows that the amount of useful food should be slightly increased.  &#xD;&#xA;And that is valid when we have a comparative degree of adverbs or adjectives meaning &quot; slight increasing of quality &quot;(побольше,посильнее,помягче,поярче ).I am afraid machine translating can't take into consideration such shades of meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28352" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="335f1cb8-807f-4769-8153-d2f5c4ec9316" CreationDate="2016-04-05T15:59:55.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/717381258783932416" />
  <row Id="28353" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12077" RevisionGUID="32a7312c-3df1-4dd5-a6e7-bb31c3259406" CreationDate="2016-04-06T03:59:56.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/717562458400038912" />
  <row Id="28354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12221" RevisionGUID="461280a0-7986-4093-a1b7-3e18c980cbd1" CreationDate="2016-04-06T09:09:27.210" UserId="6539" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Let's compare two sentences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует есть **больше** фруктов и овощей.You should eat more fruit and vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует есть **побольше** фруктов и овощей.You should eat a little bit more fruit and vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence shows that the amount of useful food should be slightly increased.  &#xD;&#xA;And that is valid when we have a comparative degree of adverbs or adjectives meaning &quot; slight increasing of quality &quot;(побольше,посильнее,помягче,поярче ).I am afraid machine translating can't take into consideration such shades of meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source is Ожегов Толковый словарь русского языка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="432d636a-9d40-45a7-8ffa-23e4138931d2" CreationDate="2016-04-07T00:35:07.203" UserId="6816" Text="I have not seen оно many times when reading Russian, but it seems like это is used in its place a lot. Does оно serve a separate purpose? Because it does mean &quot;it&quot; and it seems as though it is seldom used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="432d636a-9d40-45a7-8ffa-23e4138931d2" CreationDate="2016-04-07T00:35:07.203" UserId="6816" Text="Reason for infrequent usage of оно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="432d636a-9d40-45a7-8ffa-23e4138931d2" CreationDate="2016-04-07T00:35:07.203" UserId="6816" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="a77c1483-dcee-4a18-8041-96fa4a78c23e" CreationDate="2016-04-07T00:43:14.200" UserId="7082" Text="Another example of Russian noun, corresponding to the English word &quot;fun&quot;, is &quot;развлечение&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="1e50065b-2e5b-4032-9040-ad6e3398a538" CreationDate="2016-04-07T03:13:11.170" UserId="6588" Text="1) Words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring animated objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring not animated objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many middlesex animated objects in the world among us. Even if biologically they are middlesex, grammaticaly they are counted &quot;male&quot;, such as &quot;гермофродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not a rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and could be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="764f22d1-6133-41c7-abdf-970039e652e3" CreationDate="2016-04-07T03:19:42.980" UserId="6588" Comment="edited body" Text="1) Words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring animated objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring not animated objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many middlesex animated objects in the world among us. Even if biologically they are middlesex, grammaticaly they are counted &quot;male&quot;, such as &quot;гермафродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not a rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and could be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оно&quot; can substitute any middle gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="2ad97015-dae7-4918-bfcd-22ff0ec9bca9" CreationDate="2016-04-07T06:14:41.143" UserId="6588" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="1) Words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring animated objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring not animated objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many middlesex animated objects in the world among us. Even if biologically they are middlesex, grammaticaly they are counted &quot;masculine&quot; or &quot;femine&quot;, such as &quot;гермафродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;) or &quot;бактерия&quot; (&quot;bacteria&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not a rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and could be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оно&quot; can substitute any middle gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12225" RevisionGUID="8cac49a4-d95f-4b6a-b10f-d15a9890cf44" CreationDate="2016-04-07T07:22:33.137" UserId="5443" Text="Probably, an important reason is that unlike '**it**',  **оно** can only refer to a *noun* (maybe with an adjective, etc.) and never to a whole *extended expression*, where **это** is used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if **it** makes you feel alright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'**It**' can refer to both *the fact of buying* a ring and to that *ring itself*. In Russian, if you want to emphasize the fact of buying, you'd use **это** rather than **оно**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куплю тебе кольцо с бриллиантом, если тебя **это** [то, что я куплю тебе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кольцо] порадует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in case that ring is explicitly referred to оно would be used instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куплю тебе кольцо с бриллиантом, если **оно** [кольцо, которое у тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; появится] тебя порадует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **it** could partly explain why **оно** is used not as often as '**it**'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="5cf34775-616b-45d8-807e-f6961021647b" CreationDate="2016-04-07T08:56:21.297" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="1) Words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring animate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring inanimate objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many neuter animate objects in the world among us. Even if biologically they are neuter, grammaticaly they are counted &quot;masculine&quot; or &quot;femine&quot;, such as &quot;гермафродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;) or &quot;бактерия&quot; (&quot;bacteria&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not a rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and could be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оно&quot; can substitute any neuter gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="948791cd-e116-4289-91b5-254e268572d9" CreationDate="2016-04-07T08:56:42.530" UserId="6539" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**Оно** (его,ему,его,им,о нём) is a personal pronoun, third person, singular, neuter (ОНО́).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Whereas *it* is used to denote animals and things in English, *оно* is used only for things in the neuter,singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поискал **письмо**. **Оно** лежало на столе.(I looked for the letter.It was lying on the table).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Оно can be used like &quot;dummy&quot; it in fiction  but in spoken Russian we either leave it out or say *это* instead. My favourite example from Gogol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оно конечно, Александр Македонский герой, но зачем же стулья ломать?(Гоголь).(It is obvious that Alexander Makedonsky is a hero but there's no reason to destroy furniture because of that.) Так оно и вышло. (And so it happened ) Вот оно что! (That's it!) Оно и видно.(That's clear) Оно и лучше.(It's for the good). Оно хорошо бы, да нельзя.(It would be nice but it's impossible (prohibited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an idiom *То-то и оно* meaning the result of a deduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот то-то и оно, выходит, что с баронами фашисты заодно. Демьян Бедный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still difficulty for students to determine the gender of a noun in Russian. &#xD;&#xA; Russian nouns have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (neutral). Some nouns like *father* refer to physical gender. When we speak of other objects like *pen*, *cup*, *house*, there is no physical meaning attached to the gender. However you still have to know the gender. In Russian it is almost always possible to tell the gender of a noun by its spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here is how you can tell what the gender is from the dictionary form of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look at the last letter of the word:&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is a consonant, or “й”, the word is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is “а” or “я” it is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;3. *If it is “о” or “е” it is neuter*&#xD;&#xA;4. If it is a soft sign “ь” then it could be either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кофе - (Coffee) - Is Masculine(exception)&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Masculine : паспорт (passport), документ (document),Хлеб (bread).&#xD;&#xA;Feminine : газета (newspaper), Россия (Russia)&#xD;&#xA;Neuter : здание (building), радио (radio), письмо (letter) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="ebe03fd6-fc49-4ee3-99b7-d30bb9e93650" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:07:30.693" UserId="6539" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**Оно** (его,ему,его,им,о нём) is a personal pronoun, third person, singular, neuter (ОНО́).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Whereas *it* is used to denote animals and things in English, *оно* is used only for things in the neuter,singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поискал **письмо**. **Оно** лежало на столе.(I looked for the letter.It was lying on the table).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Оно can be used like &quot;dummy&quot; it in fiction  but in spoken Russian we either leave it out or say *это* instead. My favourite example from Gogol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оно конечно, Александр Македонский герой, но зачем же стулья ломать?(Гоголь).(It is obvious that Alexander Makedonsky is a hero but there's no reason to destroy furniture because of that.) Так оно и вышло. (And so it happened ) Вот оно что! (That's it!) Оно и видно.(That's clear) Оно и лучше.(It would be better like that). Оно хорошо бы, да нельзя.(It would be nice but it's impossible (prohibited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an idiom *То-то и оно* meaning the result of a deduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот то-то и оно, выходит, что с баронами фашисты заодно. Демьян Бедный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still difficulty for students to determine the gender of a noun in Russian. &#xD;&#xA; Russian nouns have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (neutral). Some nouns like *father* refer to physical gender. When we speak of other objects like *pen*, *cup*, *house*, there is no physical meaning attached to the gender. However you still have to know the gender. In Russian it is almost always possible to tell the gender of a noun by its spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here is how you can tell what the gender is from the dictionary form of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look at the last letter of the word:&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is a consonant, or “й”, the word is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is “а” or “я” it is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;3. *If it is “о” or “е” it is neuter*&#xD;&#xA;4. If it is a soft sign “ь” then it could be either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кофе - (Coffee) - Is Masculine(exception)&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Masculine : паспорт (passport), документ (document),Хлеб (bread).&#xD;&#xA;Feminine : газета (newspaper), Россия (Russia)&#xD;&#xA;Neuter : здание (building), радио (radio), письмо (letter) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="b2a9988d-2dea-4e97-81ea-9c5d01f884e3" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:11:07.110" UserId="6588" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="1) Words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring animate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring inanimate objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many neuter animate objects in the world among us. Even if biologically they are neuter, grammaticaly they are counted &quot;masculine&quot; or &quot;femine&quot;, such as &quot;гермафродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;) or &quot;бактерия&quot; (&quot;bacteria&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and could be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оно&quot; can substitute any neuter gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12227" RevisionGUID="d76dff87-6477-442e-89e5-db0ddb965a09" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:49:42.110" UserId="6354" Text="There seems to be many variants of **the same** in Russian: &quot;**один и тот же**&quot;, &quot;**этот же**&quot;, &quot;**такой же**&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What rules govern the use of these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the following sentences, how do I know which variant to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Why do you wear **the same** clothes everyday?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) &quot;Where should we meet?&quot; &quot;**Same** place as last time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) I go to **the same** university as him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12227" RevisionGUID="d76dff87-6477-442e-89e5-db0ddb965a09" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:49:42.110" UserId="6354" Text="How to express &quot;the same&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12227" RevisionGUID="d76dff87-6477-442e-89e5-db0ddb965a09" CreationDate="2016-04-07T09:49:42.110" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="a1956bab-d968-4565-be2a-86a24d04069f" CreationDate="2016-04-07T10:33:46.543" UserId="6588" Text="I would rather say, that in English many different meanings are expressed with &quot;the same&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) Why do you wear the same clothes everyday?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you describe one set of clothing. The question is, &quot;какую одежду?&quot;. Answer to question &quot;какую [одежду]?&quot; is &quot;одинаковую&quot;, &quot;одну и ту же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты носишь каждый день одно и то же? *(одну и ту же одежду, одинаковую одежду).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IB9C.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Квадраты А и В одного и того же *(одинакового)* цвета? Я думала, они разные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) &quot;Where should we meet?&quot; &quot;Same place as last time.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to question &quot;где?&quot; is &quot;там&quot; or &quot;в [описание] месте&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где встретимся? Там же, где в прошлый раз? *(В том же месте, что и [в] прошлый раз?).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) I go to the same university as him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to question &quot;какой [университет]?&quot; is &quot;тот же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с ним ходим в один [и тот же] университет. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12229" RevisionGUID="f4cc03da-10fe-47ac-9712-8e11a1ca2350" CreationDate="2016-04-07T11:01:05.237" UserId="6349" Text="There is also забава, which can be translated as &quot;amusement&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression для забавы can be used to mean (to do something) &quot;for fun&quot;, &quot;for sport&quot;, &quot;for amusement&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="f1a65b0d-4dba-4804-ae71-bb99ade06596" CreationDate="2016-04-07T11:04:35.570" UserId="6588" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="I would rather say, that in English many different meanings are expressed with &quot;the same&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) Why do you wear the same clothes everyday?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you describe one set of clothing. Answer to question &quot;какую [одежду]?&quot; is &quot;одинаковую&quot;, &quot;одну и ту же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты носишь каждый день одно и то же? *(одну и ту же одежду, одинаковую одежду).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3IB9C.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Квадраты А и В одного и того же *(одинакового)* цвета? Я думала, они разные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) &quot;Where should we meet?&quot; &quot;Same place as last time.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to question &quot;где?&quot; is &quot;там&quot; or &quot;в [описание] месте&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Где встретимся? Там же, где в прошлый раз? *(В том же месте, что и [в] прошлый раз?).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3) I go to the same university as him.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer to question &quot;какой [университет]?&quot; is &quot;тот же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы с ним ходим в один [и тот же] университет. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12230" RevisionGUID="b118c205-743b-4fde-bc12-67dcc7e89136" CreationDate="2016-04-07T11:06:51.500" UserId="7084" Text="I would say &quot;аж&quot; more emotionaly bus is sort of &quot;villeage- talk&quot;, colloquial or impolitely" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12231" RevisionGUID="92b4f376-813a-49c6-8b52-a43f940b2714" CreationDate="2016-04-07T12:09:06.303" UserId="5423" Text="Doing a search for &quot;Cyrillic cursive&quot; was more useful than doing a search for &quot;Cyrillic stroke order&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the hits I got were of video animations of writing Cyrillic letters, which is all very high-tech, but kind of distracting and also a bit inconvenient. http://krokotak.com/2012/06/tracing-cyrillic-letters-in-cursive/ is like Надежда Тарашкевич's [link][1], though it has the advantage of being on a single page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://xn----gtbdmbeft1bdk.net/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/40/415/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="ca79f4f5-2bfe-4e58-9b42-9ac3ef82f052" CreationDate="2016-04-07T13:39:43.830" UserId="194" Text="&quot;такой же&quot; = having the same qualities, similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;один и тот же&quot;, &quot;этот же&quot; = exactly that one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12233" RevisionGUID="199c602f-1a83-41b7-9f9d-154b3e740c9c" CreationDate="2016-04-07T15:29:16.387" UserId="4600" Text="**Один и тот же** – this is used to describe something that doesn't change from one occasion to another, usually with negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый день повторялось одно и то же – он обещал прийти вовремя, но снова опаздывал. // The same thing repeated every day – he kept promising to come on time but was always late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый год одно и то же – в марте холодно и повсюду грязь. // Every year it's the same – cold in March and dirt everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Этот же** – this is used to refer to an object or person, mentioned somewhere before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера он заходил в магазин. Этот же человек был замечен на вокзале. // Yesterday he went to the shop. The same man was spotted at the railway station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил машину в прошлое воскресенье. В этот же день я попал в аварию. // I bought the car last Sunday. On the same day I got into accident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Такой же** – this is used to express that object/person has the same qualities as another object/person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты такой же дурак, как и твой отец. // You are idiot just like your father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гастроскопия - такая же неприятная процедура, как и колоноскопия. // Gastroscopy is a procedure as unpleasant as colonoscopy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12233" RevisionGUID="a4c863af-b081-4b53-80c2-4bb1cf16274e" CreationDate="2016-04-07T15:41:01.843" UserId="4600" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**Один и тот же** – this is used to describe something that doesn't change from one occasion to another, usually with negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый день повторялось одно и то же – он обещал прийти вовремя, но снова опаздывал. // The same thing repeated every day – he kept promising to come on time but was always late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый год одно и то же – в марте холодно и повсюду грязь. // Every year it's the same – cold in March and dirt everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Этот же** – this is used to refer to an object or person, mentioned somewhere before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера он заходил в магазин. Этот же человек был замечен на вокзале. // Yesterday he went to the shop. The same man was spotted at the railway station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил машину в прошлое воскресенье. В этот же день я попал в аварию. // I bought the car last Sunday. On the same day I got into accident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Такой же** – this is used to express that object/person has the same qualities as another object/person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты такой же дурак, как и твой отец. // You are an idiot just like your father.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гастроскопия - такая же неприятная процедура, как и колоноскопия. // Gastroscopy is a procedure as unpleasant as colonoscopy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="b13da3bc-f97c-49b5-b7d9-1d361ff4cea2" CreationDate="2016-04-07T19:07:21.577" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/718153205151084544" />
  <row Id="28379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="6a030b37-aeb3-4da9-938d-af58abce01a3" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:20:04.827" UserId="194" Text="The difference has nothing to do with animatedness as the currently selected answer suggests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in that **оно** is a personal pronoun while **это** and **то** are demonstrative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is in English the pronoun &quot;it&quot; can be used in both demonstrative and personal roles. The pronoun &quot;this&quot; is used only when one wants to underline proximity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="2189723a-6945-451e-ad86-0bdca825c2c2" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:25:04.890" UserId="194" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="The difference has nothing to do with animatedness as the currently selected answer suggests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in that **оно** is a personal pronoun while **это** and **то** are demonstrative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that in English the pronoun &quot;it&quot; can be used in both demonstrative and personal roles. The pronoun &quot;this&quot; is used only when one wants to underline proximity.&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is it? - refers to the thing mentioned before &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is this? - refers to the thing near the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases the meaning is demonstrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="25177cca-74a0-4bbe-b364-b89aa6361304" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:26:47.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Improve wording and grammar" Text="1) The words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring to animate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring to inanimate objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many neuter animate objects in the world around us. Even if biologically they are neuter, grammaticaly they are counted as &quot;masculine&quot; or &quot;femine&quot;, such as &quot;гермафродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;) or &quot;бактерия&quot; (&quot;bacteria&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and can be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оно&quot; can substitute for any neuter gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28382" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="25177cca-74a0-4bbe-b364-b89aa6361304" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:26:47.387" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5605, -1 edit id of 733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12224" RevisionGUID="f469cacb-5b26-43b0-8d7b-1f18fc66fbe1" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:26:47.387" UserId="134" Comment="Improve wording and grammar" Text="1) The words &quot;он&quot;, &quot;она&quot; and &quot;оно&quot; are commonly used for referring to animate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The words &quot;этот&quot;, &quot;эта&quot;, &quot;это&quot; are commonly used for referring to inanimate objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not so many neuter animate objects in the world around us. Even if biologically they are neuter, grammatically they are &quot;masculine&quot; or &quot;feminine&quot;, such as &quot;гермафродит&quot; (&quot;hermaphrodite&quot;) or &quot;бактерия&quot; (&quot;bacteria&quot;). Which is why &quot;оно&quot; is not that common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 1) and 2) are not rules. This is just a common way of speaking. &quot;Это&quot; is a pointer and can be used for everything, for example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это такое?&quot; - &quot;Это моё домашнее животное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оно&quot; can substitute any neuter gender noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Что это полотенце здесь делает?&quot; - &quot;Оно висит&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="8facae3f-0993-4cd1-81cc-01d6e53af83c" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:31:01.440" UserId="194" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The difference has nothing to do with animatedness as the currently selected answer suggests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is in that **оно** is a personal pronoun while **это** and **то** are demonstrative pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that in English the pronoun &quot;it&quot; can be used in both demonstrative and personal roles. The pronoun &quot;this&quot; is used only when one wants to underline spatial proximity.&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is it? - refers to the thing mentioned before &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is this? - refers to the thing near the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases the meaning is demonstrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="c1b2394b-2e57-4059-a112-dc4c5c63484a" CreationDate="2016-04-07T20:40:37.200" UserId="6539" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="**Оно** (его,ему,его,им,о нём) is a personal pronoun, third person, singular, neuter (ОНО́).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Whereas *it* is used to denote animals and things in English, *оно* is used mostly  for things in the neuter,singular and some animals like животное,насекомое.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поискал **письмо**. **Оно** лежало на столе.(I looked for the letter.It was lying on the table).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Оно can be used like &quot;dummy&quot; it in fiction  but in spoken Russian we either leave it out or say *это* instead. My favourite example from Gogol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оно конечно, Александр Македонский герой, но зачем же стулья ломать?(Гоголь).(It is obvious that Alexander Makedonsky is a hero but there's no reason to destroy furniture because of that.) Так оно и вышло. (And so it happened ) Вот оно что! (That's it!) Оно и видно.(That's clear) Оно и лучше.(It would be better like that). Оно хорошо бы, да нельзя.(It would be nice but it's impossible (prohibited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an idiom *То-то и оно* meaning the result of a deduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот то-то и оно, выходит, что с баронами фашисты заодно. Демьян Бедный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still difficulty for students to determine the gender of a noun in Russian. &#xD;&#xA; Russian nouns have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (neutral). Some nouns like *father* refer to physical gender. When we speak of other objects like *pen*, *cup*, *house*, there is no physical meaning attached to the gender. However you still have to know the gender. In Russian it is almost always possible to tell the gender of a noun by its spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here is how you can tell what the gender is from the dictionary form of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look at the last letter of the word:&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is a consonant, or “й”, the word is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is “а” or “я” it is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;3. *If it is “о” or “е” it is neuter*&#xD;&#xA;4. If it is a soft sign “ь” then it could be either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кофе - (Coffee) - Is Masculine(exception)&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Masculine : паспорт (passport), документ (document),Хлеб (bread).&#xD;&#xA;Feminine : газета (newspaper), Россия (Russia)&#xD;&#xA;Neuter : здание (building), радио (radio), письмо (letter) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="71dc722f-ab94-46a2-b9ef-238842d84c75" CreationDate="2016-04-08T03:15:12.097" UserId="6539" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="**Оно** (его,ему,его,им,о нём) is a personal pronoun, third person, singular, neuter (ОНО́).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Whereas *it* is used to denote animals and things in English, *оно* is used in **the neuter,singular** for **any noun** (things, animals like *животное,насекомоe*, people like *лицо*), **animate and inanimate**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поискал **письмо**. **Оно** лежало на столе.(I looked for the letter.It was lying on the table).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Оно can be used like *&quot;dummy&quot; it* in fiction  but in spoken Russian we either leave it out or say *это* instead. My favourite example from Gogol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оно конечно, Александр Македонский герой, но зачем же стулья ломать?(Гоголь).(It is obvious that Alexander Makedonsky is a hero but there's no reason to destroy furniture because of that.) Так оно и вышло. (And so it happened ) Вот оно что! (That's it!) Оно и видно.(That's clear) Оно и лучше.(It would be better like that). Оно хорошо бы, да нельзя.(It would be nice but it's impossible (prohibited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an idiom *То-то и оно* meaning the result of a deduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот то-то и оно, выходит, что с баронами фашисты заодно. Демьян Бедный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still difficulty for students to determine the gender of a noun in Russian. &#xD;&#xA; Russian nouns have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (neutral). Some nouns like *father* refer to physical gender. When we speak of other objects like *pen*, *cup*, *house*, there is no physical meaning attached to the gender. However you still have to know the gender. In Russian it is almost always possible to tell the gender of a noun by its spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here is how you can tell what the gender is from the dictionary form of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look at the last letter of the word:&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is a consonant, or “й”, the word is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is “а” or “я” it is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;3. *If it is “о” or “е” it is neuter*&#xD;&#xA;4. If it is a soft sign “ь” then it could be either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кофе - (Coffee) - Is Masculine(exception)&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Masculine : паспорт (passport), документ (document),Хлеб (bread).&#xD;&#xA;Feminine : газета (newspaper), Россия (Russia)&#xD;&#xA;Neuter : здание (building), радио (radio), письмо (letter) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="343fbd2f-9af5-4d5a-9064-8a8171b53cd6" CreationDate="2016-04-08T04:36:19.473" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="**Оно** (его,ему,его,им,о нём) is a personal pronoun, third person, singular, neuter (ОНО́).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Whereas *it* is used to denote animals and things in English, *оно* is used for **any noun** in **the neuter,singular** (things, animals like *животное,насекомоe*, people like *лицо*), **animate and inanimate**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поискал **письмо**. **Оно** лежало на столе.(I looked for the letter.It was lying on the table).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Оно can be used like *&quot;dummy&quot; it* in fiction  but in spoken Russian we either leave it out or say *это* instead. My favourite example from Gogol:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Оно конечно, Александр Македонский герой, но зачем же стулья ломать?(Гоголь).(It is obvious that Alexander Makedonsky is a hero but there's no reason to destroy furniture because of that.) Так оно и вышло. (And so it happened ) Вот оно что! (That's it!) Оно и видно.(That's clear) Оно и лучше.(It would be better like that). Оно хорошо бы, да нельзя.(It would be nice but it's impossible (prohibited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an idiom *То-то и оно* meaning the result of a deduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот то-то и оно, выходит, что с баронами фашисты заодно. Демьян Бедный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's still difficulty for students to determine the gender of a noun in Russian. &#xD;&#xA; Russian nouns have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (neutral). Some nouns like *father* refer to physical gender. When we speak of other objects like *pen*, *cup*, *house*, there is no physical meaning attached to the gender. However you still have to know the gender. In Russian it is almost always possible to tell the gender of a noun by its spelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here is how you can tell what the gender is from the dictionary form of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look at the last letter of the word:&#xD;&#xA;1. If it is a consonant, or “й”, the word is masculine.&#xD;&#xA;2. If it is “а” or “я” it is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;3. *If it is “о” or “е” it is neuter*&#xD;&#xA;4. If it is a soft sign “ь” then it could be either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кофе - (Coffee) - Is Masculine(exception)&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Masculine : паспорт (passport), документ (document),Хлеб (bread).&#xD;&#xA;Feminine : газета (newspaper), Россия (Russia)&#xD;&#xA;Neuter : здание (building), радио (radio), письмо (letter) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12235" RevisionGUID="a2ac491a-1c21-4076-8163-ef7da8aa4426" CreationDate="2016-04-08T07:43:37.413" UserId="5758" Text="Сумма оплаты за товар/услугу, которая остаётся после предоставления скидки. Есть ли слово, которым можно выразить это значение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12235" RevisionGUID="a2ac491a-1c21-4076-8163-ef7da8aa4426" CreationDate="2016-04-08T07:43:37.413" UserId="5758" Text="Как называется та чать от стоимости, которая остаётся после скидки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12235" RevisionGUID="a2ac491a-1c21-4076-8163-ef7da8aa4426" CreationDate="2016-04-08T07:43:37.413" UserId="5758" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12236" RevisionGUID="4d80557a-f9f9-4ff4-a8ca-18b6e17f37b3" CreationDate="2016-04-08T08:44:26.290" UserId="6588" Text="Слышала варианты:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Цена со скидкой&#xD;&#xA; - Окончательная цена&#xD;&#xA; - Финальная цена&#xD;&#xA; - Цена нетто&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Одним словом не слышала. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12237" RevisionGUID="5da5e1ce-c456-41c3-a3a3-a6888895f210" CreationDate="2016-04-08T10:35:18.053" UserId="5443" Text="**Льготная цена** - пониженный уровень цены на товар в целях стимуляции продаж либо цена, дотируемая для отдельных групп покупателей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Экономика и право: словарь-справочник. — М.: Вуз и школа. Л. П. Кураков, В. Л. Кураков, А. Л. Кураков. 2004.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="ffcd8e00-462a-49ec-ba50-4f6a6ef1d361" CreationDate="2016-04-08T14:14:14.457" UserId="47" Text="I am looking for a valid translation of the word *meeting*. [According to Wikipedia][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a meeting, two or more people come together to discuss one or more topics, often in a formal setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is indeed the meaning I assume. However if I just switch to the [Russian version][2] of this Wikipedia article, I get *собрание* which one doesn't normally apply to a business meeting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I only worked in international companies, I am not used to saying anything but simply *митинг*, which is of course wrong—the Russian word implies a political/social event content with numerous participants. One would not call a one-to-one meeting a *митинг*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the word I should use when telling my Russian-speaking wife that I have a meeting at 6 pm and will therefore be late?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="ffcd8e00-462a-49ec-ba50-4f6a6ef1d361" CreationDate="2016-04-08T14:14:14.457" UserId="47" Text="The Russian equivalent of 'meeting', as in team meeting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="ffcd8e00-462a-49ec-ba50-4f6a6ef1d361" CreationDate="2016-04-08T14:14:14.457" UserId="47" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12239" RevisionGUID="a9585413-a51c-416b-96f0-8cb22c8f3c1b" CreationDate="2016-04-08T14:26:16.313" UserId="5373" Text="It's better to use word &quot;совещание&quot; instead of &quot;собрание&quot;. &quot;Cовещание&quot; presumes discussion and exchange of opinions, while&quot;собрание&quot; could be more like &quot;assembly&quot; (when everyone is gathered to listen to some presentation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;СОВЕЩАНИЕ, -я; ср. 1. к Совещаться. После короткого совещания было решено ехать в обход. Устроили с., как действовать дальше. 2. Заседание с целью совместного обсуждения чего-л. Всероссийское, международное с. Выступить на совещании. В совещании участвовать. К совещанию готовиться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12239" RevisionGUID="bd2679a4-fe62-4b6c-9a10-e2ad75c305fc" CreationDate="2016-04-08T14:45:11.193" UserId="5373" Comment="Added another option of translation." Text="It's better to use word &quot;совещание&quot; instead of &quot;собрание&quot;. &quot;Cовещание&quot; presumes discussion and exchange of opinions, while&quot;собрание&quot; could be more like &quot;assembly&quot; (when everyone is gathered to listen to some presentation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;СОВЕЩАНИЕ, -я; ср. 1. к Совещаться. После короткого совещания было решено ехать в обход. Устроили с., как действовать дальше. 2. Заседание с целью совместного обсуждения чего-л. Всероссийское, международное с. Выступить на совещании. В совещании участвовать. К совещанию готовиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;заседание&quot; can also be used, but it sounds too formal to my ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="47c9e1dc-9b0c-49d0-b8d0-2284b468fd6f" CreationDate="2016-04-08T15:00:56.060" UserId="134" Text="A short everyday meeting to discuss some pressing matters in a face-to-face talk would be *планёрка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more serious meeting, like the one to define a middle-term strategy, would be *совещание*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A formal meeting, with minutes and a chair and stuff like that, would be *собрание* or *заседание*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A meeting between people who don't work together (like a sales meeting or a social meeting) which does't involve strict protocol and lots of participants would be *деловая встреча* (or just *встреча*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12241" RevisionGUID="2692cb99-4ede-4f01-b685-933cf9e939fd" CreationDate="2016-04-08T18:05:53.237" UserId="5008" Text="1. **Летучка** - an extraordinary meeting (usually a short one)&#xD;&#xA;2. **Планёрка** - casual &quot;everyday&quot; meeting (usually in the morning)&#xD;&#xA;3. **Собрание** - a meeting of the whole team (usually about some common questions)&#xD;&#xA;4. **Совещание** - a meeting at the boss's office&#xD;&#xA;5. **Вызов на ковёр** (common joke) - when your boss wants &lt;s&gt;to rebuke&lt;/s&gt; to talk to you particularly at his office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So what is the word I should use when telling my Russian-speaking wife that I have a meeting at 6 pm and will therefore be late?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A funny story about business meetings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мальчик: Сегодня учительница читала сказку, которая начиналась так: «В некотором царстве, в некотором государстве…» Почему это?  &#xD;&#xA;Отец: Потому что все сказки начинаются так.  &#xD;&#xA;Мать: Не все! Некоторые сказки начинаются со слов: «Сегодня вечером у нас важное совещание».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Boy: Today my teacher read a fairytale which begins with the words: &quot;Once upon a time&quot;. Why so?  &#xD;&#xA;Father: All fairytales begin this way.  &#xD;&#xA;Mother: Not all. Some tales begin with the words: &quot;This evening we have an important business meeting&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12242" RevisionGUID="e100ceb1-bff0-4769-a3e2-3600a1892fed" CreationDate="2016-04-08T19:52:40.323" UserId="7092" Text="I would use &quot;встреча&quot; in your particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня сегодня встреча - I've got a meeting today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я опаздываю на встречу - I'm getting late for a meeting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a commonly used word which means just when people meet to discuss something or just to chat. It is usually used for formal meetings, but can also mean a personal meeting, for example, &quot;встреча с другом&quot; (meeting a friend). But as a noun, it never means a rendez-vous. However, as reflexive verb (встречаться) it often means &quot;to date&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="bdfac353-2527-466f-b0f9-0d0535b7d91f" CreationDate="2016-04-08T22:07:45.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/718560993866072064" />
  <row Id="28403" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12235" RevisionGUID="68864bed-0cdb-432c-81da-6f159c1be158" CreationDate="2016-04-09T00:39:18.620" UserId="3680" Comment="опечатка" Text="Как называется та часть от стоимости, которая остаётся после скидки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12243" RevisionGUID="3b640a02-539d-4c60-afaf-fca6c1692d63" CreationDate="2016-04-09T01:20:17.143" UserId="7085" Text="Помогите, пожалуйста, перевести выражение &quot;wholesome exercise of the Amorous disposition&quot; в следующем отрывке из философской статьи:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The truth is that there is a real plane for the wholesome exercise of the Amorous disposition that is part and parcel of our soul. It is necessary to realize the nature of this plane in order to be relieved of our harmful errors in regard to sexual relationship. Some sort of conviction must precede the actual adoption of any proposed method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой перевод: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Истина состоит в том, что существует реальная плоскость *для здоровой практики влюбчивости*, являющейся неоъемлемой частью нашей души. Необходимо понять природу этой плоскости, с тем, чтобы освободиться от наших пагубных ошибок в отношении сексуальных отношений. Необходимо наличие определенной убежденности, предшествующей фактическому принятию любого из предложенных методов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предлагаемый интернетом перевод &quot;аmorous disposition&quot; как &quot;влюбчивый&quot; не подходит. Мой перевод &quot;влюбчивость&quot; тоже. Для &quot;wholesome&quot; тоже не удается подобрать верное слово." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12243" RevisionGUID="3b640a02-539d-4c60-afaf-fca6c1692d63" CreationDate="2016-04-09T01:20:17.143" UserId="7085" Text="Перевод &quot;wholesome exercise of the Amorous disposition&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12243" RevisionGUID="3b640a02-539d-4c60-afaf-fca6c1692d63" CreationDate="2016-04-09T01:20:17.143" UserId="7085" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12244" RevisionGUID="4bf61566-34a0-4ae2-a105-0bfd39e38fa9" CreationDate="2016-04-09T07:36:43.450" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Правда в том, что есть реальная грань _для благотворного опыта любовной предрасположенности_, каковая является и частицей, и частью нашей души. Необходимо осознать природу этой грани, дабы избегать в дальнейшем наших пагубных ошибок, касающихся отношений между полами. Некое предубеждение тут должно предшествовать фактическому принятию любого из предложенных методов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12245" RevisionGUID="43372022-00fa-466f-a982-415671aa735f" CreationDate="2016-04-09T09:32:17.630" UserId="6539" Text="Я бы сказала «Правда в том,что существует  *матрица*(сразу поясню почему:&quot;форма для стереотипа&quot;) для *здравого использования склонности к любви*...» и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12245" RevisionGUID="57654097-cdbc-4e30-929f-3936ef2645b6" CreationDate="2016-04-09T11:34:56.563" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="Я бы сказала «Правда в том,что существует *грань* для *здравого использования склонности к любви*...» и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12247" RevisionGUID="c9bd7778-459f-43dc-87d4-be4aecb25b74" CreationDate="2016-04-09T20:00:43.253" UserId="7097" Text="Just to add to everything said above: &quot;Мне хорошо&quot; would be a fitting answer for &quot;Как тебе?&quot; (I can imagine this dialog after changing some physical environment, say, opening/closing the window: -Как тебе? - Мне хорошо. - А мне холодно/жарко.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="d59d168a-476d-4161-b63f-80df0481501a" CreationDate="2016-04-09T20:05:45.987" UserId="7097" Text="I would say here is doesn't mean exactly just &quot;take off/fly up&quot;, but rather underlines that they &quot;took off&quot; after spending some time settled on the sea. It doesn't mean that all this time they didn't fly, but they always were somewhere around. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12231" RevisionGUID="2b3ef083-9882-4141-a19f-adc21c82a339" CreationDate="2016-04-09T23:06:56.920" UserId="5423" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Doing a search for &quot;Cyrillic cursive&quot; was more useful than doing a search for &quot;Cyrillic stroke order&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the hits I got were of video animations of writing Cyrillic letters, which is all very high-tech, but kind of distracting and also a bit inconvenient. http://krokotak.com/2012/06/tracing-cyrillic-letters-in-cursive/ is like Надежда Тарашкевич's [link][1], though it has the advantage of being on a single page. Unfortunately, it is missing a few letters near the end of the alphabet such as &quot;Ээ&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://xn----gtbdmbeft1bdk.net/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/40/415/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12249" RevisionGUID="82a68287-df56-4512-876e-071af3b5c463" CreationDate="2016-04-09T23:09:33.240" UserId="7099" Text="планёрка, совещание, Летучка, Собрание are all very Soviet sounding and outdated, which is why modern Russian business people don't like to use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'митинг' is NOT just for political / social context at all, and applies perfectly well to business meeting. I hear this used more often than all the above, which sound very archaic now. And as many Russians take their business language from English anyway, there is nothing wrong with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hear Russians saying &quot;Business Lunch&quot; all the time, so the addition of &quot;Business&quot; ( ie Business meeting) wouldn't sound strange at all, if you wanted to make it clear it was about business. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12249" RevisionGUID="2241f5dc-819c-4e66-bb8a-327758456033" CreationDate="2016-04-09T23:22:36.567" UserId="7099" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="планёрка, совещание, Летучка, Собрание are all very Soviet sounding and outdated, which is why modern Russian business people don't like to use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'митинг' is NOT just for political / social context at all, and applies perfectly well to business meeting. I hear this used more often than all the above, which sound very archaic now. And as many Russians take their business language from English anyway, there is nothing wrong with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We hear Russians saying &quot;Business Lunch&quot; all the time, so the addition of &quot;Business&quot; ( ie Business meeting) wouldn't sound strange at all, if you wanted to make it clear it was about business. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with the social and political regression taking place in Russia at the moment, it's quite possible that the old Soviet terms might come back into use, as Putin's TV channels continue to brainwash their population that all that is Western is bad. In which case, you may attend your планёрка, совещание, Летучка, Собрание, with pleasure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28418" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12235" RevisionGUID="4345eff7-ca88-4f4c-be29-cb90ad2bf048" CreationDate="2016-04-10T01:09:17.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/718969062894792704" />
  <row Id="28419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="042b68f3-b808-4794-a363-26a560ab70c7" CreationDate="2016-04-10T04:41:23.897" UserId="7103" Text="I am a native Russian, a physicist. The answer is, of course, &quot;совещание&quot;, especially if more than 2 people participate. Планёрка, летучка are 2 outdated words introduced in the early 20th century, by now they are all but extinct.&#xD;&#xA;The word 'митинг' has been introduced, in order to indicate a political gathering, in the Russian language in the years of WW1 and revolution of 1917. Now, the language keeps changing. The infamous 'митинг' has returned as a &quot;business meeting&quot; in the last 15 years, along with many words borrowed from the English language (like &quot;босс&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12251" RevisionGUID="9e5825c3-c95b-40d4-852f-665c86a31439" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:49:44.650" UserId="4560" Text="I've been trying for some time to put my finger on what makes us choose, in everyday speech, between *Где моя сумка?* vs. *А где моя сумка?*, or *Мы квартиру покупаем* vs. *А мы квартиру покупаем*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not considering those cases where *а* clearly has its ordinary contrastive function (*Ты тут недавно! — А ты, что ли, давно?*), or where it strings together a narrative of back-and-forth action (*...А он этот бриллиант спрятал. А они нашли. А потом оказалось, что он вообще фальшивый.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My curiosity concerns just the &quot;out of the blue&quot; kind of *а* which seems to have no roots in a conversation's context — and indeed often seems to break that context. The best I could come up with was that this *а* was a sort of call to attention to the whole uttering as something new and important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better explanation? Has it been described as a more general linguistics phenomenon (because it has clear similarities to, as well as clear differences from, e.g. the Semitic sentence-initial &quot;and&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12251" RevisionGUID="9e5825c3-c95b-40d4-852f-665c86a31439" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:49:44.650" UserId="4560" Text="Beginning a sentence with &quot;а&quot;: what's the principle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12251" RevisionGUID="9e5825c3-c95b-40d4-852f-665c86a31439" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:49:44.650" UserId="4560" Text="|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="e2d079a5-9137-48a7-848b-5baf7846892b" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:59:23.207" UserId="6349" Text="Are there two different ways to be &quot;United&quot;, or is one simply the more modern usage while the other was used historically in previous centuries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="e2d079a5-9137-48a7-848b-5baf7846892b" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:59:23.207" UserId="6349" Text="Why Объединённые United Nations and United Arab Emirates but Соединённые United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="e2d079a5-9137-48a7-848b-5baf7846892b" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:59:23.207" UserId="6349" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|прилагательные|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12253" RevisionGUID="56f9cbc1-3cec-47e9-99a2-b4774a696a72" CreationDate="2016-04-10T09:05:57.030" UserId="134" Text="&gt; The best I could come up with was that this а was a sort of call to attention to the whole uttering as something new and important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what it is. It's basically a filler word, similar to English &quot;so&quot;, &quot;now&quot; etc. in the beginning of the sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From one of Zaliznyak's [lectures][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В бытовом разговоре мы часто отклоняемся от того, как мы должны были бы написать, если бы сдавали редактору свое литературное сочинение. И вы не получили бы одобрения, если бы в вашем школьном сочинении вы начали фразу так: *А знаете, что я вчера видел*. Между тем начальное *а* — это совершенно нормальная форма разговорной русской речи: *А вот что я вам скажу. А после этого было то-то и то-то*. В живой речи с *а* начинается едва ли не большинство предложений. И это ровно то, что мы наблюдаем в берестяных грамотах. Слово *а* в начале фразы означает примерно следующее: «Вот что я сейчас вам скажу». Но в нормах церковнославянского языка это слово отсутствовало. Церковнославянская норма его не только не употребляла, но и запрещала употреблять. То есть запрещала, конечно, не в смысле государственного эдикта, а в смысле редакторского давления, которое действует до сих пор. Редактор вам это *а* зачеркнет и сейчас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/431649/Ob_istorii_russkogo_yazyka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="bdd6739e-a5f7-4f29-bccd-d8aec311a005" CreationDate="2016-04-10T09:23:05.793" UserId="4560" Text="**Соединённые** is historical, used AFAIK only with the US and the UK (**Соединённое Королевство**, which loses overwhelmingly to **Великобритания** in frequency of usage. The English term &quot;United Kingdom&quot; dates back to 1707.) As a translation of &quot;united&quot;, it would sound &quot;off&quot; nowadays because the word in its current usage properly means &quot;connected&quot;, which isn't quite the same thing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12255" RevisionGUID="40db024a-2798-4702-aca9-3a5bc2b166d5" CreationDate="2016-04-10T09:24:06.017" UserId="134" Text="*Объединять* and its derivatives were not used in Russian before about 1850.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kostomarov did use it time to time in his works, however, he mostly used *соединить* wherever a modern Russian speaker would have used *объединить*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Итак, вместо того чтобы идти соединенными силами на половцев, Владимиру приходилось идти войною на своих. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рязанские и муромские князья уже прежде были с Андреем заодно, соединенные войною против болгар&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, *объединять* is just a more modern word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28429" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="2e78020b-1e61-4299-9e40-2b1e86c6e6ea" CreationDate="2016-04-10T10:13:49.230" UserId="1277" Comment="better title" Text="Why are United Nations and United Arab Emirates translated as &quot;Объединённые&quot;, but United States as &quot;Соединённые&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28430" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="2e78020b-1e61-4299-9e40-2b1e86c6e6ea" CreationDate="2016-04-10T10:13:49.230" Comment="Proposed by 1277 approved by 6349 edit id of 734" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28431" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12227" RevisionGUID="3a77f5c4-c242-4897-bbce-cdc74ef76197" CreationDate="2016-04-10T10:15:37.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/719106553115254784" />
  <row Id="28433" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="caeaafa9-c79c-4fe9-979d-f5bdb83ce74a" CreationDate="2016-04-11T01:25:05.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/719335426360795136" />
  <row Id="28434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12256" RevisionGUID="5b1cf217-3f25-40d5-a043-3d9831a9e191" CreationDate="2016-04-11T03:07:10.547" UserId="6588" Text="In all of your samples extra leading &quot;А&quot; makes phrase sound as if the speaker is low-educated or disquiet or etc. So this &quot;A&quot; could be perfectly replaced by any other filler word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12257" RevisionGUID="f6dc79a2-1ceb-495a-933c-7fb5746ba2ff" CreationDate="2016-04-11T03:11:56.650" UserId="6588" Text="In IT sphere, since we work for Europe and USA, we often do online meetings with our foreign colleagues and as sad as it sounds, we call it &quot;митинг&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="6db81ba4-42bf-47bd-bccc-be068437d07a" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:47:34.920" UserId="4069" Text="&gt; В эту минуту рядом проходил какой-то знатный вельможа, — шляпа Тома&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ивза слетела с его головы, и он бросился вперед с поклоном и улыбкой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это доказывало, что и он тоже знает свет — по-своему, по том-ивзовски,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конечно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Уильям Мейкпис Теккерей. «Ярмарка тщеславия». Перевод М. Дьяконова.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как и почему должно правильно писаться «по том-изовски»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="6db81ba4-42bf-47bd-bccc-be068437d07a" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:47:34.920" UserId="4069" Text="«По» со сложными наречиями" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="6db81ba4-42bf-47bd-bccc-be068437d07a" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:47:34.920" UserId="4069" Text="|правописание|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="a33db6b2-5fb8-445e-b0fb-4ecbb43fbf57" CreationDate="2016-04-11T11:59:58.787" UserId="134" Text="*По-том-ивзовски*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Lopatin's *Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 138. Пишутся через дефис:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Наречия с приставкой *по-*, … *по-социал-демократически, по-жюль-верновски, по-тёти-Валиному*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's quite a recent innovation, 1956's rules called for a single hyphen here: *по-томивзовски*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="72e1510d-acd4-4784-9cad-5de8e8222444" CreationDate="2016-04-11T12:06:15.083" UserId="134" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="*По-том-ивзовски*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Lopatin's *Правила русской орфографии и пунктуации*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 138. Пишутся через дефис:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Наречия с приставкой *по-*, оканчивающиеся на *-ому, -ему, -ски, -цки, -ьи* … *по-социал-демократически, по-жюль-верновски, по-тёти-Валиному*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's quite a recent innovation, 1956's rules called for a single hyphen here: *по-томивзовски*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12260" RevisionGUID="991daef0-cd08-4a65-aed2-01ff2447111b" CreationDate="2016-04-11T12:49:21.863" UserId="7113" Text="Actually, there's no more common way than calling a woman by name, in case you are not too familiar. The reason we seldom use the words of familiarity at turning to somebody we barely know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет,{NAME}! or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="33cee90f-2eb2-4420-bb9a-84c8ec2b6fd1" CreationDate="2016-04-11T16:50:46.407" UserId="6539" Text="В дополнение к предыдущему ответу.Как мы знаем,наречия образуются от соответствующих сложных прилагательных. Поэтому рассмотрим сначала этот вопрос.Через дефис пишутся сложные прилагательные,образованные от сочетания имени и фамилии,имени и отчества,разговорные по стилевой принадлежности:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вальтер-скоттовские романы – по-вальтер-скоттовски(наречие).робин-гудовские приключения – по-робин-гудовски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отдельных случаях встречается слитное написание :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тарасобульбовская сила,веропавловские мастерские.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но если речь идет не о персонажах:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Анна-Михайловнина кофта.(с прописной буквы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все это распространяется на наречия с *по-*.Правильно должно писаться **по-том-ивзовски**,как и было отмечено.&#xD;&#xA; Это по Розенталю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="536256d0-9328-4cd8-a053-96bbc0450b26" CreationDate="2016-04-11T17:18:32.377" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="В дополнение к предыдущему ответу. Как мы знаем, наречия образуются от соответствующих сложных прилагательных. Поэтому рассмотрим сначала этот вопрос.Через дефис пишутся сложные прилагательные,образованные от сочетания имени и фамилии, имени и отчества, разговорные по стилевой принадлежности:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вальтер-скоттовские романы – по-вальтер-скоттовски(наречие).робин-гудовские приключения – по-робин-гудовски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отдельных случаях встречается слитное написание :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тарасобульбовская сила, веропавловские мастерские.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но если речь идет не о персонажах:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Анна-Михайловнина кофта.(с прописной буквы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все это распространяется на наречия с *по-*.Правильно должно писаться **по-том-ивзовски**, как и было отмечено.&#xD;&#xA; Это по Розенталю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="0f40c4fc-2a0a-4cbe-be39-6ca546df533f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T23:26:17.577" UserId="7114" Text="I understand the song except for every mention of Опера.&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean? Google translate says it means Opera, and indeed it sound like the word too, but what is the context? It doesn't make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Song link][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiz75KTG94U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="0f40c4fc-2a0a-4cbe-be39-6ca546df533f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T23:26:17.577" UserId="7114" Text="Lyrics Translation of Прорвемся Опера" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="0f40c4fc-2a0a-4cbe-be39-6ca546df533f" CreationDate="2016-04-11T23:26:17.577" UserId="7114" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12263" RevisionGUID="47dfbd16-4415-46b6-afc8-734269ac2718" CreationDate="2016-04-12T00:24:17.820" UserId="3680" Text="`Опер` (slang) - is a short form of `оперуполномоченный`, which means `detective` / `tec` / `sleuth`.  &#xD;&#xA;Plural form of `опер` is `оперá` (stressed `а`).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прорвёмся, оперá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means something like&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Everything will be OK, detectives&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28449" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="bc74d4b7-6c41-473f-85e5-8489ffb33cac" CreationDate="2016-04-12T00:27:51.893" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="906f1602-f94b-409d-b7b3-083297bcbd94" CreationDate="2016-04-12T06:47:50.273" UserId="6539" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="In addition to the previous answer.We know that adverbs are formed from the adjectives. Let's consider how complex adjectives are formed. «Через дефис пишутся сложные прилагательные,образованные от сочетания имени и фамилии, имени и отчества, разговорные по стилевой принадлежности:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вальтер-скоттовские романы – по-вальтер-скоттовски(наречие).робин-гудовские приключения – по-робин-гудовски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отдельных случаях встречается слитное написание :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тарасобульбовская сила, веропавловские мастерские».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we speak of real people, not about characters:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Анна-Михайловнина кофта.(with capital letters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same rule is valid speaking about adverbs with *по-*. It should be written **по-том-ивзовски**, as stated at the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA; Это по Розенталю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="899b723a-0fb0-470e-a9bd-2d786c55c271" CreationDate="2016-04-12T08:00:25.140" UserId="6539" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="In addition to the previous answer.We know that adverbs are formed from the adjectives. Let's consider how complex adjectives are formed. «Через дефис пишутся сложные прилагательные,образованные от сочетания имени и фамилии, имени и отчества, **разговорные по стилевой принадлежности**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вальтер-скоттовские романы – по-вальтер-скоттовски(наречие).робин-гудовские приключения – по-робин-гудовски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отдельных случаях встречается слитное написание :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тарасобульбовская сила, веропавловские мастерские».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we speak of belonging to people, (not about characters):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Анна-Михайловнина кофта.(with capital letters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same rule is valid speaking about adverbs with *по-*. It should be written **по-том-ивзовски**, as stated at the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA; Это по Розенталю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="4bec8143-3be1-401e-9541-1899c14aa504" CreationDate="2016-04-12T08:24:38.270" UserId="6539" Comment="added 527 characters in body" Text="In addition to the previous answer.We know that adverbs are formed from the adjectives. Let's consider how complex adjectives are formed. «Через дефис пишутся сложные прилагательные,образованные от сочетания имени и фамилии, имени и отчества, **разговорные по стилевой принадлежности**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вальтер-скоттовские романы – по-вальтер-скоттовски(наречие).робин-гудовские приключения – по-робин-гудовски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отдельных случаях встречается слитное написание :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тарасобульбовская сила, веропавловские мастерские».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we speak of belonging to people, (not about characters):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Анна-Михайловнина кофта.(with capital letters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same rule is valid speaking about adverbs with *по-*. It should be written **по-том-ивзовски**, as stated at the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA; Это по Розенталю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прилагательные,обозначающие индивидуальную принадлежность, пишутся с прописной буквы, если они образованы от собственных имен при помощи суффикса **-ов-,-ев-,-ин-**.(Надина кукла,Одиссеевы странствия).Но подобные прилагательные пишутся со строчной буквы во фразеологических оборотах и научныз терминах (ахиллесова пята,базедова болезнь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прилагательные, обозначающие принадлежность,образованные отсобственных имен лиц,пишутся со *строчной* буквы,если имеют суффикс **-ск-**(шекспировские трагедии).&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Прописная или строчная." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="0ff5acc8-2493-43fa-890b-5ec5e1e65d59" CreationDate="2016-04-12T10:40:08.297" UserId="6539" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="In addition to the previous answer.We know that adverbs are formed from the adjectives. Let's consider how complex adjectives are formed. «Через дефис пишутся сложные прилагательные,образованные от сочетания имени и фамилии, имени и отчества, **разговорные по стилевой принадлежности**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вальтер-скоттовские романы – по-вальтер-скоттовски(наречие).робин-гудовские приключения – по-робин-гудовски.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В отдельных случаях встречается слитное написание :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тарасобульбовская сила, веропавловские мастерские».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we speak of belonging to individual people, (not about characters):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Анна-Михайловнина кофта.(with capital letters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same rule is valid speaking about adverbs with *по-*. It should be written **по-том-ивзовски**, as stated at the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA; Это по Розенталю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прилагательные,обозначающие индивидуальную принадлежность, пишутся с **прописной** буквы, если они образованы от собственных имен при помощи суффикса **-ов-,-ев-,-ин-**.(Надина кукла,Одиссеевы странствия).Но подобные прилагательные пишутся со **строчной** буквы во фразеологических оборотах и научныз терминах (ахиллесова пята,базедова болезнь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прилагательные, обозначающие принадлежность, образованные от собственных имен лиц, пишутся со **строчной** буквы,если имеют суффикс **-ск-**(шекспировские трагедии).&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Прописная или строчная." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12264" RevisionGUID="141bace5-8820-45b6-8815-af2891aeff4d" CreationDate="2016-04-12T12:58:44.957" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Привет, мой друг&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means sarcasm. Usually this means you want to admonish the person you know and to create some distance. This usually used when the person needs you more but at the same time behaves inappropriately so that you admonish the person and reminds him that you are not entitled to have patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, мой друг, мы уже ждем тебя пару часов, уже уходить хотели, а&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты не торопишься.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, мой друг. И что мы теперь будем делать после того, как ты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разбил ящик с шампунем? Кто будет за это платить?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, мой друг, я конечно, всё понимаю, но тебе не обязательно было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; писать на меня жалобу начальнику.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, моя подруга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the same. You also can use it to create distance and admonish. For instance, for bad behavior previously or she is too annoying or she pretends to be your friend but talks about other men or otherwise behaves inappropriately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, моя подруга. Всё ещё жить без меня не можешь?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, моя подруга, опять будешь всё время говорить про твоего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; любимого?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, моя подруга. Меня хотят уволить после той вечеринки, когда ты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; напилась и обругала моего начальника.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="5a73f339-afd2-4a03-a4a8-08ac35129723" CreationDate="2016-04-12T20:43:09.880" UserId="6539" Text="Never use *подруга* addressing a woman or a girl. It sounds disrespectful and even derogatory.You will never make a mistake if you call a person by their name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12266" RevisionGUID="247c1417-5b60-43ba-be24-ed66e234e501" CreationDate="2016-04-12T23:00:51.597" UserId="7118" Text="Привет, подруга!&#xD;&#xA;Здорово, подруга!&#xD;&#xA;Здорово, мать!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="ed21194c-69ff-4dfc-a30b-4f09a5c865e5" CreationDate="2016-04-13T05:05:08.023" UserId="6539" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Never use *подруга* addressing a woman or a girl. It sounds disrespectful and even derogatory.You will never make a mistake if you call a person by their name.For men, perhaps,it sounds differently but if somebody addressed me like this..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="ef16572f-78da-4a83-ad39-6b21f73fb4dc" CreationDate="2016-04-13T05:23:13.000" UserId="6539" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Never use *подруга* addressing a woman or a girl. It sounds disrespectful and even derogatory.You will never make a mistake if you call a person by their name.For men, perhaps,it sounds differently but if somebody addressed me like this...I believe the cultural level of a person is seen in such &quot;minor&quot;details. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="6f5b14db-8051-4108-ae4c-f729e06f2930" CreationDate="2016-04-13T10:13:12.360" UserId="6539" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Never use *подруга* addressing a woman or a girl. It sounds disrespectful and even derogatory.You will never make a mistake if you call a person by their name.For men, perhaps,it sounds differently but if somebody addressed me like this...I believe the cultural level of a person is seen in such &quot;minor&quot;details.Besides it's not the same as &quot;my friend&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="a2a46780-81c0-45e6-a982-9f667c8009d3" CreationDate="2016-04-13T12:36:38.963" UserId="4438" Text="Here's one of the most meaningful visualisations of what the word `daydream` is about, [a scene from *500 Days of Summer*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLG0IFRBrgY). I'm wondering how would I translate `daydream` into russian. I believe *сон наяву* could be the closest option, but it just doesn't sound right. Are there any better options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="a2a46780-81c0-45e6-a982-9f667c8009d3" CreationDate="2016-04-13T12:36:38.963" UserId="4438" Text="Most accurate translation of &quot;daydream&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="a2a46780-81c0-45e6-a982-9f667c8009d3" CreationDate="2016-04-13T12:36:38.963" UserId="4438" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="58e5bc21-e3db-4f02-b05d-c73eff8810b4" CreationDate="2016-04-13T12:40:48.760" UserId="6588" Text="Википедия ставит кросс-ссылки на слово &quot;мечта&quot;. &quot;Витать в облаках&quot; кажется немного более точно по смыслу. С отрицательной коннотацией - &quot;считать ворон&quot;, &quot;строить воздушные замки&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12269" RevisionGUID="12e6c195-d135-419d-a2e0-7c3598a1fff6" CreationDate="2016-04-13T12:58:36.680" UserId="5008" Text="The right poetic word is &quot;_Грёза_&quot;, which is commonly used in plural &quot;_Грёзы_&quot;, or as the verb &quot;_Грезить_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12270" RevisionGUID="e5526cf0-6992-4ff1-91b7-1a5ac485d006" CreationDate="2016-04-13T13:15:00.323" UserId="6539" Text="Сон наяву is a good definition,it can be expressed by the verb **грезить**, there's a noun **грёза**-**грёзы** which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;грёза - *светлая мечта*,а также  *призрачное видение*.(light or positive dream or illusive vision )&#xD;&#xA;Пример: Погрузиться в грезы. В мире грез.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ефремова Т.Ф. Толковый словарь русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12271" RevisionGUID="e6efed7c-9ba4-4e9e-a3c3-e573ed4a2fbc" CreationDate="2016-04-13T15:32:25.323" UserId="4560" Text="First of all, you need to know that Russian strictly differentiates between a sleeping-dream (**сон**) and a waking-dream (**мечта**). **Сон** just doesn't have any of the connotations of &quot;dream&quot; as it would be used in a vaguely metaphorical sense in English; instead, a non-literal use of **сон** would suggest slowness, unresponsiveness, or apathy, closer to the English &quot;sleep&quot; (which is indeed the same word in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now **грёза** is the closest translation of &quot;daydream&quot;, but it's a bookish or poetic term (to the point of being annoyingly saccharine if used unwisely); for everyday speech, a better candidate would be the plural **мечты** (a singular **мечта** is, generally, something held over a longer period of life and more goal-oriented), or the particular statement may not use &quot;daydream&quot; as a noun but instead be phrased around the verb **замечтаться** &quot;get lost in dreams&quot;. **Грёза** also has a correspoding verb, **грезить**, which is somewhat less elated than the noun and more open to indifferent or sarcastic usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="e401693d-7703-4c08-8af0-3d17a81f516d" CreationDate="2016-04-13T22:20:37.493" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What &quot;папа и баба&quot; would translate into Russian graphemes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="b0c37339-4770-4234-a49d-f0022e997902" CreationDate="2016-04-13T22:47:06.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/720382835165630464" />
  <row Id="28471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12270" RevisionGUID="125a3255-0b77-4308-9ba0-36e7812a27bf" CreationDate="2016-04-14T06:37:44.907" UserId="6539" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Сон наяву is a good definition,it can be expressed by the verb **грезить**, there's a noun **грёза**-**грёзы** which means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;грёза - *светлая мечта*,а также  *призрачное видение*.(light or positive dream or illusive vision )&#xD;&#xA;Пример: Погрузиться в грезы. В мире грез.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ефремова Т.Ф. Толковый словарь русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also liked some synonyms to this word:мечта,видение,воздушные замки,игра воображения,иллюзия,мечтание,самообман,фантазия,химера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28472" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12251" RevisionGUID="5a6c43c2-ba24-4aa1-b41c-36efd0772678" CreationDate="2016-04-14T07:47:07.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/720518732704059392" />
  <row Id="28474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="70234774-3f91-4135-a2b1-86b14d4fa27a" CreationDate="2016-04-15T01:25:38.473" UserId="170" Text="Do I need to put commas on either side of вроде как?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Foe example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цитата эта, вроде как, к месту." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="70234774-3f91-4135-a2b1-86b14d4fa27a" CreationDate="2016-04-15T01:25:38.473" UserId="170" Text="Do I need to put commas on either side of вроде как?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="70234774-3f91-4135-a2b1-86b14d4fa27a" CreationDate="2016-04-15T01:25:38.473" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="8e750bcd-2d38-4987-be94-277430c9b2b1" CreationDate="2016-04-15T07:01:30.743" UserId="7129" Text="Первеод *sanity check* -&gt; *проверка на вшивость* напрашивается сам собой. Однко словари ничего про это не знают. Они предпочитают кучу странных вариантов, типа *санитарная проверка*, *прверка работоспособности* (как будто проверка на вшивость не является санитарной и можно проверить работоспособность поверхностной санитарной проверкой) кроме этого. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-моему проверка на вшивость как и санитарная проверка это нечто поверхностное, поверхностная проверка работоспособности. Перевод в обратную сторону показывает *integrity check*. Проверка целосности это то же самое, как я понимаю -- поверхностный тест работоспособности. Только в контексте sanity наверное лучше брать не &quot;целостность&quot; а &quot;вшивость&quot;, чтобы дух ихсодной фразы тоже передать. Нет?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="8e750bcd-2d38-4987-be94-277430c9b2b1" CreationDate="2016-04-15T07:01:30.743" UserId="7129" Text="Sanity check -&gt; проверка на вшивость?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="8e750bcd-2d38-4987-be94-277430c9b2b1" CreationDate="2016-04-15T07:01:30.743" UserId="7129" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12274" RevisionGUID="e8dfd6a6-8942-40b3-ae2a-a1cdfb2f14c4" CreationDate="2016-04-15T10:21:47.220" UserId="134" Text="&quot;Sanity&quot; does not have anything in common with personal hygiene. &quot;Sane&quot; means &quot;sound&quot;, &quot;reasonable&quot;: an insane person is not dirty, they are crazy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sanity check is a basic test for absence of, well, insane things in your product. If a car engine part under a heavy load is made of a wrong alloy, it might not pass functional tests; if it's made of cheap plastic held together by a piece of duct tape, it would fail the sanity check. It's insane to make engine parts of duct tape and plastic, and there is no need to even bother putting it under load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context it might be translated as _испытание здравым смыслом_, _проверка на разумность_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Проверка на вшивость_ is usually applied to people. It's result is revealing of the person's true self, whether or not they would expose their dark side under extreme conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12275" RevisionGUID="09c2e0cd-0335-4272-a6f0-bc1a0003d530" CreationDate="2016-04-15T10:27:30.210" UserId="551" Text="Есть несколько уровней проверки программы на работоспособность. Smoke check и Sanity check два наиболее поверхностных. Проваленный &quot;Тест на дым&quot; - это если при запуске программы она сразу же выдает сообщение об ошибке (в электронике - если аппарат включенный в розетку начинает дымить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тест на &quot;вменяемость&quot; - это если программа внешне выглядит рабочей и вроде бы способна выполнять ожидаемые функции. Более подробной проверки не делается - т.е. не обязательно чтобы данные считались правильно и т.п. Это простой поверхностный осмотр того что окошки открываются, кнопки нажимаются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Integrity check - обычно это проверка целостности файлов. Есть еще integration testing - это совершенно другой уровень проверки. Обычно это проверка на совместную работу различных компонентов программы, которые разрабатывались отдельно. Например отдельно разрабатывался ввод данных в программу и отдельно - вывод отчетов на принтер. По отдельности они работают, но работают ли они вместе - это должна показать проверка на интеграцию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что это не &quot;санитарная&quot; проверка, а проверка &quot;на здравомыслие&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="dd740061-4349-455d-bf62-7dcbccde1e44" CreationDate="2016-04-15T12:35:44.867" UserId="7131" Text="It all depends on intonation. In principle - no, but if you want to emphasize your uncertainty, make pause, should put commas on either side of this phrase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12277" RevisionGUID="49860f38-05b7-444b-a3a7-e8928de6e4a8" CreationDate="2016-04-15T13:38:58.027" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="Как бывший тестер:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще-то, учитывая отсылку к program bugs, &quot;проверка программы на вшивость&quot; звучит очень неплохо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако дух фразы sanity check &quot;проверка на вшивость&quot; как раз НЕ передаёт.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Во-первых, &quot;sanity check&quot; применяется и в формальнoй среде, а вот &quot;результат проверки на вшивость&quot; в отчёте звучит немного по-хулигански.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;И, во-вторых, &quot;проверка на вшивость&quot; предполгает аккуратный поиск конкретной проблемы, а sanity check, наоборот, с наименьшей дотошностью проверяет общую работоспособность." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12277" RevisionGUID="337b926d-334f-40c0-9fa0-f1a468cebfaa" CreationDate="2016-04-15T13:47:19.683" UserDisplayName="user5462" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Как бывший тестер:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вообще-то, учитывая отсылку к program bugs, &quot;проверка программы на вшивость&quot; звучит очень неплохо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако дух фразы sanity check &quot;проверка на вшивость&quot; как раз НЕ передаёт.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Во-первых, &quot;sanity check&quot; применяется и в формальнoй среде, а вот &quot;результат проверки на вшивость&quot; в отчёте звучит немного по-хулигански.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;И, во-вторых, &quot;проверка на вшивость&quot; предполгает аккуратный поиск конкретной проблемы, а sanity check, наоборот, с наименьшей дотошностью проверяет общую работоспособность. Даже грязная и забагованная программа, связанная с самыми  подозрительными библиотеками, может пройти sanity check." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28486" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="ce03c14b-fafb-4ae2-ac8f-fa3d44eecc6f" CreationDate="2016-04-15T13:52:01.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/720972951676461056" />
  <row Id="28487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="fd3a4835-d8ce-4423-97c4-1692b31bf35c" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:58:31.357" UserId="-1" Comment="Исправление опечаток" Text="Перевод *sanity check* -&gt; *проверка на вшивость* напрашивается сам собой. Однако словари ничего про это не знают. Они предпочитают кучу странных вариантов, типа *санитарная проверка*, *проверка работоспособности* (как будто проверка на вшивость не является санитарной и можно проверить работоспособность поверхностной санитарной проверкой) кроме этого. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-моему проверка на вшивость как и санитарная проверка это нечто поверхностное, поверхностная проверка работоспособности. Перевод в обратную сторону показывает *integrity check*. Проверка целостности это то же самое, как я понимаю -- поверхностный тест работоспособности. Только в контексте sanity наверное лучше брать не &quot;целостность&quot; а &quot;вшивость&quot;, чтобы дух исходной фразы тоже передать. Нет?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28488" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12273" RevisionGUID="fd3a4835-d8ce-4423-97c4-1692b31bf35c" CreationDate="2016-04-15T19:58:31.357" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 7129 edit id of 736" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="4da38053-36a6-4d1c-98de-dfe56a02adae" CreationDate="2016-04-15T21:28:58.777" UserId="4576" Text="Если ли идиоматический перевод? Если нет, то как перевести точнее всего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="4da38053-36a6-4d1c-98de-dfe56a02adae" CreationDate="2016-04-15T21:28:58.777" UserId="4576" Text="&quot;Кому и кобыла невеста&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="4da38053-36a6-4d1c-98de-dfe56a02adae" CreationDate="2016-04-15T21:28:58.777" UserId="4576" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12274" RevisionGUID="7582526f-f6d7-4f1b-9d80-8f85d887b707" CreationDate="2016-04-15T22:45:57.147" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&quot;Sanity&quot; does not have anything in common with personal hygiene. &quot;Sane&quot; means &quot;sound&quot;, &quot;reasonable&quot;: an insane person is not dirty, they are crazy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sanity check is a basic test for absence of, well, insane things in your product. If a car engine part under heavy load is made of a wrong alloy, it might not pass functional tests; if it's made of cheap plastic held together by a piece of duct tape, it would fail the sanity check. It's insane to make engine parts of duct tape and plastic, and there is no need to even bother putting it under load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on context it might be translated as _испытание здравым смыслом_, _проверка на разумность_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Проверка на вшивость_ is usually applied to people. Its result is revealing the person's true self, whether or not they would expose their dark side under extreme conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28493" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="c0004a95-13f0-471b-b3d1-8978694e5ec5" CreationDate="2016-04-15T22:57:04.517" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28494" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="bf46974e-0f11-4ce4-b41e-74358c972def" CreationDate="2016-04-16T01:52:01.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721154145227550720" />
  <row Id="28495" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="d2911852-8b65-4d96-990a-9d22095c5ca8" CreationDate="2016-04-16T04:52:01.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721199443798814720" />
  <row Id="28496" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12092" RevisionGUID="bac7c512-6bf6-4f81-a3dc-c45ff5eb1a65" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:53:31.100" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721290416923025409" />
  <row Id="28497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12279" RevisionGUID="d090d05a-c859-4388-86ab-1169ca356728" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:07:41.447" UserId="6953" Text="I must say that ступор is also widely used. However ступор is a more shocked state, грёза is the most accurate translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="6ddf3ff0-b177-482f-af83-988e3f184c4e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:23:57.600" UserId="6953" Text="I have got a few russian freands, who I comunicate with in russian. Many of them use the word youtube. I hqve noticed that some of them pronounce ютьюб and some - ютуб.I am not sure which one is correct so I use the english pronounciation т.е. ютьюб. Is there a rule on how to pronounce correctly? Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="6ddf3ff0-b177-482f-af83-988e3f184c4e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:23:57.600" UserId="6953" Text="How to pronounce correctly - ютьюб or ютуб?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="6ddf3ff0-b177-482f-af83-988e3f184c4e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:23:57.600" UserId="6953" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12281" RevisionGUID="afedb5c4-846e-4b9d-8842-c9b2f7157334" CreationDate="2016-04-17T01:45:48.167" UserId="4560" Text="On an everyday level, there's no right and wrong way. **Ютьюб** is more conventional and consistent with similar Russian phonetisations, which is why it's the one that would be used in broadcast media and anywhere else that &quot;correctness&quot; is required. **Ютьюб** is also, however, a bit of a disaster as far as euphony and ease of pronunciation are concerned. Still, as a **ютуб** person I think I'm slightly in the minority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12284" RevisionGUID="b6ad3389-2ac7-427c-a696-8333b0af4d26" CreationDate="2016-04-17T10:10:49.383" UserId="6953" Text="Very recently in a russian newspaper I came across the words якобы and дабы. I surfed the internet for these words and found out that generally якобы is alike псевдо or как будто бы, and дабы is так как. How do I use these old-fashioned words correctly in a context? Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12284" RevisionGUID="b6ad3389-2ac7-427c-a696-8333b0af4d26" CreationDate="2016-04-17T10:10:49.383" UserId="6953" Text="What are the advanced Russian words якобы and дабы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12284" RevisionGUID="b6ad3389-2ac7-427c-a696-8333b0af4d26" CreationDate="2016-04-17T10:10:49.383" UserId="6953" Text="|словоупотребление|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28512" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="49a7aea7-537d-478e-a64c-0162fad334ce" CreationDate="2016-04-17T10:54:09.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721652967062052864" />
  <row Id="28513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12285" RevisionGUID="96a25e4b-84f0-4d60-a386-64a7597e7b8e" CreationDate="2016-04-17T11:05:01.913" UserId="5008" Text="**Якобы** means &quot;**allegedly**&quot;. It's perfectly normal in everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дабы** (either the first or the second syllable can be put under the stress) is an old-fashioned conjunction meaning &quot;**so that**&quot;. You must have a clear intention on using such outdated word. Normally Russian speakers say &quot;**чтобы**&quot; or &quot;**для того, чтобы**&quot;, but not &quot;**дабы**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28516" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12046" RevisionGUID="d8a92bf6-b710-43de-aab6-a7f6bb0a002c" CreationDate="2016-04-17T13:54:09.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721698265230667776" />
  <row Id="28523" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8037" RevisionGUID="fa567656-f851-4542-94cb-d6d83bb5916b" CreationDate="2016-04-17T19:58:02.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721789836634537984" />
  <row Id="28525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="a66a9e1b-48c3-4000-8dd7-8419d82bdfd3" CreationDate="2016-04-17T20:32:36.233" UserId="7141" Text="In what contexts should I use за or для when saying &quot;for&quot; or &quot;to&quot; something or someone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I understand that it is proper to use &quot;за&quot; when calling out a toast: &quot;за Россию!&quot;. But that you should use &quot;для&quot; when saying for example: &quot;для меня это важно&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any rules concerning the usage of these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="a66a9e1b-48c3-4000-8dd7-8419d82bdfd3" CreationDate="2016-04-17T20:32:36.233" UserId="7141" Text="Difference between &quot;за&quot; (as in &quot;за чего-либо/кого-либо&quot;) and &quot;для&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="a66a9e1b-48c3-4000-8dd7-8419d82bdfd3" CreationDate="2016-04-17T20:32:36.233" UserId="7141" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="c7dd78b9-3388-41bc-8dcf-0503581ca3bf" CreationDate="2016-04-17T22:28:08.097" UserId="310" Text="`За` is more like `pro-` prefix in English. It signifies that you're not going to do anything material for the object, other than feeling good for it. When drinking for something, supporting your sports team, you use за.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use для when it ought to be followed by actions in support of the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One exception is, perhaps, voting: `Голосовать за Пупкина` means casting vote for Pupkin. But given the state of Russian democracy maybe it isn't an exception at all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is mocked in `Понедельник начинается в субботу`, where they make a wall newspaper called `За передовую магию`, this task handled to the most inept persons in the collective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12291" RevisionGUID="1648ef0d-5bcb-41e8-8f20-968d24790253" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:15:07.017" UserId="4560" Text="**За**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- support or backing: `сражаться за Родину`, `голосовать за законопроект`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- anything involving trade or exchange, as well reward, punishment, gratitude or apology: `продать за сто рублей`, `поблагодарить за приём`, `ответить за свои преступления`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- acting on another's behalf, *instead* of them: `сделать за сына домашнее задание`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Для:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- doing something for someone else's benefit, but *not* instead of them: `найти для сына невесту`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- general intended or affirmed purpose of a thing: `вилка для сыра`, `книга для детей`, `место для меня`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- subjective measure of a quality: `здесь для нас слишком жарко`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;too X/(not) X enough for a Y&quot;, &quot;pretty X as Ys go&quot; constructions: `неплохо для начинающего`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that **for** in English and **за** in Russian can both have meanings referring to time, but those meanings are different in each case and do *not* translate into each other. **For two weeks** is, depending on context, `две недели` (plain accusative) or `на две недели`, whereas **за две недели** is, again depending on context, `in two weeks` or `two weeks before` (if followed by **до**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="e095d0f9-0c85-413b-91bc-c97e28ca128d" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:47:20.137" UserId="6953" Text="I continued reading the newspaper and came across the anecdote in which лже Семён was mentioned. Unfortunately I could not find a rule which mentiones when to use псевдо and where to use лже. Is there a pattern or could they simply be used randomly? Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="e095d0f9-0c85-413b-91bc-c97e28ca128d" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:47:20.137" UserId="6953" Text="When do I use лже and when псевдо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="e095d0f9-0c85-413b-91bc-c97e28ca128d" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:47:20.137" UserId="6953" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12293" RevisionGUID="7176eccd-4577-4c90-9ca9-dc6c2c38a093" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:55:38.520" UserId="310" Text="`лже` is for impersonation (of, say, Tzar) or mimicry (of edible mushroom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`псевдо` is for copying form without reproducing essense. Don't think it ever applies to animate being. `квази` is sometimes used, meaning &quot;unrelated, but essentially the same&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `псевдо` is greek and `лже` is slavic; when making complex words, use together roots of same origin: `ложноножка`, она же `псевдоподия`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28538" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="de04704a-8413-4599-b768-a567afbb237d" CreationDate="2016-04-18T01:58:02.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/721880434381058048" />
  <row Id="28539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="b6791546-abeb-4ef7-9a44-1454789c8be6" CreationDate="2016-04-18T10:10:44.430" UserId="5443" Text="**Лже**- in most cases expresses negative attitude (or strong denial of the sense the root of the word usually carries) while **псевдо**- is rather skeptical and often even neutral, especially when used in engineering and scientific terms where it means 'similar to smth. but strictly speaking, not exactly that thing'. **Лже**наука (much stronger than *псевдонаука* which is possible for expression of skepticism towards some theory), **лже**пророк, but (neutral) **псевдо**ним, **псевдо**стерео, **псевдо**фланец, **псевдо**когерентный, **псевдо**-ЭВМ, **псевдо**уплотнитель and many more such words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28540" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12288" RevisionGUID="02273133-2b05-4a8c-a9ca-01d148f8bb1b" CreationDate="2016-04-18T10:11:37.603" UserId="7141" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;за&quot; (as in &quot;за что-либо/кого-либо&quot;) and &quot;для&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="53936ff2-6e99-45ae-b06c-03f6db59f917" CreationDate="2016-04-18T18:42:12.257" UserId="5694" Text="[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;I mean things like in that picture - used to grab hot coffee cups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JIAqd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="53936ff2-6e99-45ae-b06c-03f6db59f917" CreationDate="2016-04-18T18:42:12.257" UserId="5694" Text="What is the Russian for a coffee sleeve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="53936ff2-6e99-45ae-b06c-03f6db59f917" CreationDate="2016-04-18T18:42:12.257" UserId="5694" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12296" RevisionGUID="b8b12eef-154c-453e-8026-6683e86e3c7e" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:18:29.810" UserId="6354" Text="What is the correct translation of **Ты разве не хочешь посмотреть телевизор?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If **разве** is removed, would the meaning be altered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's confusing because I interpret the sentence as **&quot;Don't you want to watch TV?&quot;** whether or not it includes **разве**, so I'm not sure what role it plays in the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12296" RevisionGUID="b8b12eef-154c-453e-8026-6683e86e3c7e" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:18:29.810" UserId="6354" Text="Meaning of разве in &quot;Ты разве не хочешь посмотреть телевизор?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12296" RevisionGUID="b8b12eef-154c-453e-8026-6683e86e3c7e" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:18:29.810" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="4ecc54df-1724-4649-99d3-1debd01ac878" CreationDate="2016-04-18T19:25:21.143" UserId="97" Text="You are correct as far as the translation goes - it's **Don't you want to watch TV?**.  Word _разве_ adds an element of surprise on the part of the person asking the question, as if the asker assumes that the other person wants to watch TV and isn't really expecting a negative answer; very much like using **Don't you...** instead of **Do you...**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the difference in meaning between sentences with and without _разве_ is exactly the same as with using _Don't you_ and _Do you_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты разве не хочешь посмотреть телевизор?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't you want to watch TV?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не хочешь посмотреть телевизор?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you want to watch TV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that word _разве_ can be used in a slightly different meaning of _is it really_, but still maintaining an element of surprise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Посмотри на эту машину!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Да _разве_ это машина!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Look at this car!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Is it _really_ a car!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (or)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Come on, that's not _really_ a car!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12298" RevisionGUID="9645f72d-de1b-447a-a7fc-7bfbc17343ef" CreationDate="2016-04-18T20:27:23.063" UserId="6349" Text="Разве adds a tinge of real or feigned disbelief or skepticism, to either a positive or negative statement. &quot;Could it really be true that...&quot;, &quot;Can it be that..&quot;, &quot;Is it possible that...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you normally watch TV every night, so the person is surprised that tonight you don't seem to be in the mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar word is неужели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разве can also be used in rhetorical or sarcastic statements like, &quot;Well isn't this a fine mess!&quot; or &quot;What's the matter, aren't you enjoying this crappy food?&quot; or &quot;Well, well, if it isn't Team Rocket... what brings you here?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A secondary meaning of разве is in expressions like разве что or разве только or разве лишь, which mean something like &quot;except maybe&quot;, &quot;except perhaps&quot;, &quot;unless maybe&quot;. I.e., to indicate that a general rule admits an exception, albeit one that is relatively unlikely. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could never afford this car, unless maybe you're a millionaire or something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="d771fb5d-b7d7-4cf0-8741-717981568712" CreationDate="2016-04-18T21:06:18.960" UserId="242" Text="There are two term that are sort of competing with each other so far - which if them will become de-facto standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is &quot;картонный подстаканник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other one is - &quot;капхолдер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, though the second term is direct borrowing from English, in English cupholder is slightly different thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Russian retailers sees as cupholders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what it actually mean in English:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCtr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMXuo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12300" RevisionGUID="37d75866-291d-4576-955e-cc83f3dd4668" CreationDate="2016-04-18T21:13:11.907" UserId="134" Text="The guy in the coffee shop I patronize calls it *манжета*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief googling shows he's not the only one to do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="9a63fc76-efa2-43a7-a59d-ddd6185ae8f8" CreationDate="2016-04-18T21:59:25.927" UserId="242" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="There are two term that are sort of competing with each other so far - which if them will become de-facto standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is &quot;картонный подстаканник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other one is - &quot;капхолдер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There's also such thing like literal translation - &quot;манжет на стаканчик&quot; or &quot;манжет для стаканчик&quot; but de-facto it is less used than first two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, though the second term is direct borrowing from English, in English cupholder is slightly different thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Russian retailers sees as cupholders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what it actually mean in English:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCtr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMXuo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="7ff06c21-677d-4123-bd6e-9b19d65c0741" CreationDate="2016-04-18T22:01:12.437" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I mean things like in that picture - used to grab hot coffee cups.&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JIAqd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="75648c4c-a842-4508-a8cc-d7b553a893af" CreationDate="2016-04-18T22:41:09.450" UserId="242" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="There are two term that are sort of competing with each other so far - which if them will become de-facto standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is &quot;картонный подстаканник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other one is - &quot;капхолдер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There's also such thing like literal translation - &quot;манжет на стаканчик&quot; or &quot;манжет для стаканчик&quot; but de-facto it is less used than first two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, though the second term is direct borrowing from English, in English cupholder is slightly different thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Russian retailers sees as cupholders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what it actually mean in English:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note - this phenomenon is not that rare, it is called [pseudo-anglicism][3] and there's a bunch of other neat examples, like &quot;puzzle&quot; or &quot;master&quot; or &quot;biker&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCtr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMXuo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-anglicism#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28554" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="6315c5c4-22f1-46d7-8536-f876700d602e" CreationDate="2016-04-18T22:43:15.620" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the Russian for a &quot;coffee sleeve&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="aaf20e6c-0fb8-407b-92ec-505db0249f27" CreationDate="2016-04-19T02:37:00.330" UserId="242" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="There are two term that are sort of competing with each other so far - which if them will become de-facto standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is &quot;картонный подстаканник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other one is - &quot;капхолдер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There's also such thing like literal translation - &quot;манжет на стаканчик&quot; or &quot;манжет для стаканчик&quot; but de-facto it is less used than first two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, though the second term is direct borrowing from English, in English cupholder is slightly different thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Russian retailers sees as cupholders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what it actually mean in English:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note - this phenomenon is not that rare, it is called [pseudo-anglicism][3] and there's a bunch of other neat examples - check out [this][4] video for instance (apart from the author mocking pronunciation - it's actually norma that words are phonetically changing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCtr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMXuo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-anglicism#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrTPMjRRsU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="6d27902f-f4c4-4f34-9c6d-795d2e547b24" CreationDate="2016-04-19T02:41:46.683" UserId="4560" Comment="minor typo" Text="There are two term that are sort of competing with each other so far - which if them will become de-facto standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is &quot;картонный подстаканник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other one is - &quot;капхолдер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There's also such thing like literal translation - &quot;манжет на стаканчик&quot; or &quot;манжет для стаканчика&quot; but de-facto it is less used than first two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, though the second term is direct borrowing from English, in English cupholder is slightly different thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Russian retailers sees as cupholders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what it actually mean in English:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note - this phenomenon is not that rare, it is called [pseudo-anglicism][3] and there's a bunch of other neat examples - check out [this][4] video for instance (apart from the author mocking pronunciation - it's actually norma that words are phonetically changing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCtr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMXuo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-anglicism#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrTPMjRRsU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="fff57108-d30f-4c13-bbd9-0542cec89105" CreationDate="2016-04-19T08:22:12.937" UserId="6354" Text="Is there a difference between **заканчивать**/**закончить** and **кончать**/**кончить**? Or are they interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="fff57108-d30f-4c13-bbd9-0542cec89105" CreationDate="2016-04-19T08:22:12.937" UserId="6354" Text="Заканчивать versus кончать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="fff57108-d30f-4c13-bbd9-0542cec89105" CreationDate="2016-04-19T08:22:12.937" UserId="6354" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="6340a996-06de-492b-af4c-3ba0e99aaf14" CreationDate="2016-04-19T08:31:25.160" UserId="4600" Text="There is no difference. You can say interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закончить университет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кончить университет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закончить доклад&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кончить доклад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, you can't now. Not in the last ~25 years. Because now the verb **кончить/кончать** had been attached this meaning: **to orgasm.** And now it's almost exclusively used to express this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you still can say and write `кончить` implying it's usual meaning. But you'll almost certainly get giggled at." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="babffd6d-2a69-489d-b8cf-fe546b85e44c" CreationDate="2016-04-19T08:36:45.613" UserId="4600" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There is no difference. You can say interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закончить университет //&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кончить университет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Закончить доклад //&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кончить доклад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, you can't now. Not in the last ~25 years. Because now the verb **кончить/кончать** had been attached this meaning: **to orgasm.** And now it's almost exclusively used to express this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you still can say and write `кончить` implying it's usual meaning. But you'll almost certainly get giggled at." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12304" RevisionGUID="dbfce6db-32b4-4e6b-9420-c2cbff68febc" CreationDate="2016-04-19T08:44:30.870" UserId="242" Text="[Here][1]'s an (incomplete) list of meanings with which &quot;за-&quot; prefix can modify the original verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - to begin doing something &#xD;&#xA; - doing something ahead of time&#xD;&#xA; - to finish, to complete something&#xD;&#xA; - (sort of related to previous one) to acquire certain property: заплесневеть, заржаветь)&#xD;&#xA; - to do something up to extreme point: зачитать до дыр, &#xD;&#xA; - to do something that implies the existence of barriers, obstacles etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of &quot;кончать&quot; / &quot;заканчивать&quot; - this is exactly &quot;to complete, to end something&quot; / &quot;to start to end something&quot;. And yes, &quot;кончать&quot; also means &quot;to cum&quot; but whatever, though in original meaning this word is used more and more rare, it is still used. But if you are not native speaker, and thus can not feel subtle connotations, I won't recommend use it at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of &quot;кончить&quot; / &quot;закончить&quot; - it's sort of perfect, it's about some action that already happened, so it's pretty much like &quot;have completed&quot; in both cases (&quot;за&quot;- just add more weight to the fact that we are talking about completed action. And once again - if you don't feel it, safer to use &quot;закончить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="f4497fd9-13b9-4592-8a0f-8709ad2529f7" CreationDate="2016-04-19T10:42:25.170" UserId="6539" Text="**Разве** has got several meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 It's a particle used in questions corresponding to negative questions in English. It expresses **doubt , surprise**( так ли, правда ли.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разве он уже приехал?--Hasn't he already come? Он уезжает. разве.? -- Isn't he leaving? Разве  можно?!--Isn't that  allowed?!  (выражение резкого неодобрения, осуждения; разг.).Разве ты не хочешь посмотреть телевизор?--Don't you want to watch TV? Compare:Ты хочешь посмотреть телевизор?--Do you want to watch TV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It expresses **doubtfulness to make a decision**, to agree to something.  (разг.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разве съездить? (может быть, стоит съездить). -- Should I go? Perhaps it's worth visiting.  Никогда этого не ел. Попробовать разве?--I never tasted it. Should I try?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Разве can express a doubtful supposition meaning **perhaps, may be**. (разг.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Денег нет, премию разве дадут.--We have no money but there may be a prize (reward ). Гостей не будет, дедушка разве  зайдёт.--No guests, though grandpa might come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. As a conjunction разве expresses **possibility** (разг.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сегодня не поеду, разве завтра.- - I am not going today, perhaps tomorrow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. As a conjunction it also has a meaning **in case, unles** В случае, если не, если только не (разг.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Обязательно приду, разве заболею.--I will definitely come unless I fall ill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь Ожегова. С.И. Ожегов, Н.Ю. Шведова. &#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some synonyms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;будто, возможно ли, да ну?, да ты что!, да что вы, да что вы?, да что ты, да?, если, или, может ли быть, небось, неужели, неужто, ну, ну?, ой ли?,  ужели.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12306" RevisionGUID="2c39b270-eb48-4d84-af76-de366da199c1" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:04:26.663" UserId="7155" Text="Reverso Context shows both of those words as &quot;said&quot; and Google Translate gives them slightly different meanings. So when do I use one over the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12306" RevisionGUID="2c39b270-eb48-4d84-af76-de366da199c1" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:04:26.663" UserId="7155" Text="How do I know when to use &quot;сказал&quot; or &quot;заявили&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12306" RevisionGUID="2c39b270-eb48-4d84-af76-de366da199c1" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:04:26.663" UserId="7155" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="e604e3e8-3d27-4411-9f22-4bed286251c9" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:36:32.977" UserId="4600" Text="&quot;Сказал&quot; is just &quot;said&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Заявили&quot; means &quot;proclaimed&quot;, &quot; claimed&quot; or &quot;pronounced&quot;, also this verb is in plural form. Singular would be &quot;заявил&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="2a6d5fd4-7fc5-4860-bc70-d07b71d0ac59" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:46:42.587" UserId="4600" Comment="added 591 characters in body; added 4 characters in body; added 94 characters in body; added 10 characters in body" Text="&quot;Сказал&quot; is just &quot;said&quot;. It doesn't need explanation as this word can be used in everyday situations, both formal and informal.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Заявили&quot; means &quot;proclaimed&quot;, &quot;claimed&quot; or &quot;pronounced&quot;, also this verb is in plural form. Singular would be &quot;заявил&quot;. This word is used when someone claims, refuses, protests something. Here are examples:&#xA;&gt; Делегация Соединённых Штатов заявила о нарушениях договора. // The delegation of the United Stated claimed there were violations of the agreement.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я заявляю решительный протест! // I hereby lodge strongest protest!&#xA;&#xA;Examples of colloquial use:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнок заявил, что не хочет есть овощи. // The child said he did not want to eat vegetables.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Он заявляет, что ты украл у него деньги. // He claims you have stolen some money from him.&#xA;&#xA;See also: *заявка*, *заявление*, *заявитель*, *заявленная стоимость*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="795dff8d-4dd5-453b-9ef8-2ffdf3004a9f" CreationDate="2016-04-19T16:56:19.487" UserId="4600" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="&quot;Сказал&quot; is just &quot;said&quot;. It doesn't need explanation as this word can be used in everyday situations, both formal and informal.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Заявили&quot; means &quot;proclaimed&quot;, &quot;claimed&quot; or &quot;pronounced&quot;, also this verb is in plural form. Singular would be &quot;заявил&quot;. This word is used when someone claims, refuses, protests something. Here are examples:&#xA;&gt; Делегация Соединённых Штатов заявила о нарушениях договора. // The delegation of the United Stated claimed there were violations of the agreement.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Корпорация заявила об увеличении объёмов производства. // The corporation announced increased production figures.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я заявляю решительный протест! // I hereby lodge strongest protest!&#xA;&#xA;Examples of colloquial use:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ребёнок заявил, что не хочет есть овощи. // The child said he did not want to eat vegetables.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Он заявляет, что ты украл у него деньги. // He claims you have stolen some money from him.&#xA;&#xA;See also: *заявка*, *заявление*, *заявитель*, *заявленная стоимость*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28573" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12292" RevisionGUID="d93a9762-32ad-4304-8d7d-b8c1f6237dc8" CreationDate="2016-04-19T20:02:54.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/722515837861654530" />
  <row Id="28574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12308" RevisionGUID="060460fd-d015-4cf7-a27a-2f5dd211832f" CreationDate="2016-04-19T20:31:48.537" UserId="4560" Text="Where **заявить** and **сказать** are interchangeable at all, the former is usually media-speak for the latter. &quot;State&quot;, though not an exact translation, is a similarly used English term (*a spokesman for the company stated that...*) You simply don't need **заявить** in day-to-day Russian, unless you specifically mean &quot;declare&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28575" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12284" RevisionGUID="a10d9a64-fe5f-4ade-9120-f16492f0fd06" CreationDate="2016-04-20T05:02:56.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/722651741452443649" />
  <row Id="28576" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12309" RevisionGUID="475ccea8-828d-4be9-ac76-3e33028ef170" CreationDate="2016-04-20T08:15:09.963" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/423548/%d0%af-%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bc%d0%b0%d1%8e-%d0%9c%d0%bd%d0%b5-%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%bd%d1%8f%d1%82%d0%bd%d0%be" />
  <row Id="28577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="b699c861-5ed6-41e1-960c-2a14a0cbbbcc" CreationDate="2016-04-19T14:31:18.033" UserId="7160" UserDisplayName="Артём Луговой" Text="No, Echilon, there is no significant difference, it's quite the same. At least, it's so in the case of &quot;Я понимаю, что...&quot; and &quot;Мне понятно, что...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12309" RevisionGUID="e7bd574f-05e8-4831-b4a2-570ec1928b00" CreationDate="2016-04-19T13:44:12.250" UserId="7169" UserDisplayName="Echilon" Text="I've always used &quot;я понимаю&quot; to mean &quot;I understand&quot; but today came across &quot;мне понятно&quot; which, after checking, seems to mean the same. Is there a difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12309" RevisionGUID="e7bd574f-05e8-4831-b4a2-570ec1928b00" CreationDate="2016-04-19T13:44:12.250" UserId="7169" UserDisplayName="Echilon" Text="Я понимаю / Мне понятно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12309" RevisionGUID="e7bd574f-05e8-4831-b4a2-570ec1928b00" CreationDate="2016-04-19T13:44:12.250" UserId="7169" UserDisplayName="Echilon" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28581" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="3c130442-d560-44c8-ba3a-5008ddae8b0e" CreationDate="2016-04-20T08:15:09.963" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/423548/%d0%af-%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bc%d0%b0%d1%8e-%d0%9c%d0%bd%d0%b5-%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%bd%d1%8f%d1%82%d0%bd%d0%be/423549#423549" />
  <row Id="28582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12311" RevisionGUID="6010aa14-d112-4c3c-88a8-0e96210460a7" CreationDate="2016-04-20T10:21:28.653" UserId="2284" Text="Although in some situations these sentences may be used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Мне понятно' is a neutral impersonal sentence, which basically means 'it is clear to me that ...' ('A clear picture of the subject is present in my mind'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Мне непонятно, как ему это удаётся.` - 'I can't understand how he manages that.'&#xD;&#xA;* `Всем ли понятно, что тут написано?` - 'Does everyone understand what is written here?'&#xD;&#xA;* `После твоего объяснения мне всё понятно.` - 'Now that you've explained it, it's all clear to me.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Я понимаю' can often be used instead of 'мне понятно', but the stress here is on my own mental activity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Я не понимаю, как ему это удаётся.` - 'I try to understand how he manages that, but I can't.'&#xD;&#xA;* `Я тебя не понимаю.` - `I fail to understand you (though am eager to).`&#xD;&#xA;* `Правильно ли я понимаю, что...?` - 'Do I understand correctly that...?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both `Понимаю.` and `Понятно.` can be used as replies in a conversation. Both are translated as 'I see', but 'понятно' has a hint of finality: 'Now that you told all that to me, it's all clear to me; no further explanation is necessary.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12311" RevisionGUID="4e98cbd4-b682-4c43-8f90-c24e45e93ffa" CreationDate="2016-04-20T10:52:21.477" UserId="7160" Comment="Russian quotation marks, a comma, etc." Text="Although in some situations these sentences may be used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне понятно&quot; is a neutral impersonal sentence which basically means 'it is clear to me that...' ('A clear picture of the subject is present in my mind'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Мне непонятно, как ему это удаётся.` - 'I can't understand how he manages that.'&#xD;&#xA;* `Всем ли понятно, что тут написано?` - 'Does everyone understand what is written here?'&#xD;&#xA;* `После твоего объяснения мне всё понятно.` - 'Now that you've explained it, it's all clear to me.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я понимаю&quot; can often be used instead of &quot;мне понятно&quot;, but the stress here is on my own mental activity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Я не понимаю, как ему это удаётся.` - 'I try to understand how he manages that, but I can't.'&#xD;&#xA;* `Я тебя не понимаю.` - `I fail to understand you (though am eager to).`&#xD;&#xA;* `Правильно ли я понимаю, что...?` - 'Do I understand correctly that...?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both &quot;понимаю&quot; and &quot;понятно&quot; can be used as replies in a conversation. Both are translated as 'I see', but &quot;понятно&quot; has a hint of finality: 'Now that you told all that to me, it's all clear to me; no further explanation is necessary.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28584" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12311" RevisionGUID="4e98cbd4-b682-4c43-8f90-c24e45e93ffa" CreationDate="2016-04-20T10:52:21.477" Comment="Proposed by 7160 approved by -1 edit id of 738" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12311" RevisionGUID="bd229812-89a3-4e91-ba95-6ac5f263e62e" CreationDate="2016-04-20T10:52:21.477" UserId="2284" Comment="Russian quotation marks, a comma, etc." Text="Although in some situations these sentences may be used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне понятно&quot; is a neutral impersonal sentence that basically means 'it is clear to me that...' ('A clear picture of the subject is present in my mind'):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Мне непонятно, как ему это удаётся.` - 'I can't understand how he manages that.'&#xD;&#xA;* `Всем ли понятно, что тут написано?` - 'Does everyone understand what is written here?'&#xD;&#xA;* `После твоего объяснения мне всё понятно.` - 'Now that you've explained it, it's all clear to me.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я понимаю&quot; can often be used instead of &quot;мне понятно&quot;, but the stress here is on my own mental activity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Я не понимаю, как ему это удаётся.` - 'I try to understand how he manages that, but I can't.'&#xD;&#xA;* `Я тебя не понимаю.` - `I fail to understand you (though am eager to).`&#xD;&#xA;* `Правильно ли я понимаю, что...?` - 'Do I understand correctly that...?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both &quot;понимаю&quot; and &quot;понятно&quot; can be used as replies in a conversation. Both are translated as 'I see', but &quot;понятно&quot; has a hint of finality: 'Now that you told all that to me, it's all clear to me; no further explanation is necessary.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12312" RevisionGUID="4aa1eaff-82d8-4225-8f4e-5c5e2adf41ca" CreationDate="2016-04-20T11:00:33.900" UserId="6349" Text="I know that разве has some additional meanings, for instance the expression разве что/лишь/только. However in their principal meaning, разве and неужели are somewhat synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the nuances of difference between the two words? Are there some situations where you would definitely use one but not the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12312" RevisionGUID="4aa1eaff-82d8-4225-8f4e-5c5e2adf41ca" CreationDate="2016-04-20T11:00:33.900" UserId="6349" Text="What is the difference between разве and неужели?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12312" RevisionGUID="4aa1eaff-82d8-4225-8f4e-5c5e2adf41ca" CreationDate="2016-04-20T11:00:33.900" UserId="6349" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|синонимы|particles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12313" RevisionGUID="bb7140dc-d83c-43f7-8e43-47733651cba4" CreationDate="2016-04-20T12:12:47.497" UserId="5008" Text="_Неужели_ is particle used in questions only. On the other hand, _разве_ can be both particle and adjunction in both questions and positive statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within a statement _разве_ is often used together with other words such as _что_/_лишь_/_только_/_иногда_/_когда_ etc.etc. But the latter is not a strict rule. For example, &quot;_Смолкли осенние птички, разве изредка вдали дергач прокричит, сова ребёнком заплачет, филин ухнет в бору_&quot;. Here &quot;разве что&quot; is intentionally changed to just &quot;разве&quot; without losing sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now considering question sentences, here the situation is more controversial. _Разве_ and _неужели_ seem to be almost synonyms to each other. But, I think, there's a little nuance - IMO, _разве_ is more neutral and commonly spoken word, while _неужели_ is more &quot;pushing&quot; one. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Разве_ ты не придёшь? --&gt; Just surprised.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Неужели_ ты не придёшь? --&gt; Some note of disappointment; maybe you'll change your mind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12314" RevisionGUID="2f6035bc-8afa-4642-95ef-a9a836322f46" CreationDate="2016-04-20T16:11:05.970" UserId="6815" Text="Is there a canonical equivalent of &quot;form-based website authentication&quot; in Russian computer science?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12314" RevisionGUID="2f6035bc-8afa-4642-95ef-a9a836322f46" CreationDate="2016-04-20T16:11:05.970" UserId="6815" Text="How to translate &quot;form-based website authentication&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12314" RevisionGUID="2f6035bc-8afa-4642-95ef-a9a836322f46" CreationDate="2016-04-20T16:11:05.970" UserId="6815" Text="|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="a7c8576f-7dc5-4125-a2c8-517a9258cea4" CreationDate="2016-04-20T19:50:37.303" UserId="2079" Text="&quot;Неужели X?&quot; means that X is possible but surprising. The surprise maybe pleasant or unpleasant. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Неужели вместе нам&#xD;&#xA;    Песню не сложить? &#xD;&#xA;    Неужели суждено &#xD;&#xA;    Hам в разлуке жить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the song &quot;Неужели&quot;, lyrics by И. Шумаков)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singer doesn't know whether &quot;суждено нам в разлуке жить&quot; or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Неужели&quot; can be also about good things, i. e. &quot;Неужели Маша меня любит?&quot; or &quot;Неужели суд меня оправдает?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Неужели?&quot; or &quot;Да неужели?&quot; may be a complete sentence. It means &quot;Really?&quot; and expresses the surprise (but not disbelief) about what you just heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве X?&quot; means that X is improbable, if not impossible. If one told instead &quot;**Разве** суждено нам в разлуке жить?&quot;, it would mean that he doesn't believe that &quot;суждено нам в разлуке жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве&quot; is often used with rethorical questions.  Example from Poroshenko's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но поставлю и себе, и вам риторический вопрос: разве Россия когда-нибудь выдаст нам преступника Януковича, главного виновника кровопролития на Майдане?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;разве&quot; means that, according to Poroshenko, it is obvious that this will never happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like &quot;разве X?&quot; means &quot;not X&quot;, &quot;разве не X?&quot; means X.   Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Разве не я тогда у креста,&#xD;&#xA;    Разве я не тонула в море,&#xD;&#xA;    Разве забыли мои уста&#xD;&#xA;    Вкус твой, горе!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Anna Akhmatova)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="e26a8521-6c3f-49fb-b346-f52fe39b99ad" CreationDate="2016-04-20T22:57:03.010" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;Неужели X?&quot; means that X is possible but surprising. The surprise may be pleasant or unpleasant. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Неужели вместе нам&#xD;&#xA;    Песню не сложить? &#xD;&#xA;    Неужели суждено &#xD;&#xA;    Hам в разлуке жить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the song &quot;Неужели&quot;, lyrics by И. Шумаков)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singer doesn't know whether &quot;суждено нам в разлуке жить&quot; or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Неужели&quot; can also refer to good things, i. e. &quot;Неужели Маша меня любит?&quot; or &quot;Неужели суд меня оправдает?&quot;, which means that the speaker considers it probable, albeit surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Неужели?&quot; or &quot;Да неужели?&quot; can be a complete sentence. It means &quot;Really?&quot; and expresses the surprise (but not disbelief) about what you just heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве X?&quot; means that X is improbable, if not outright impossible. If one told instead &quot;**Разве** суждено нам в разлуке жить?&quot;, it would mean that he doesn't believe that &quot;суждено нам в разлуке жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве&quot; is often used with rethorical questions.  Example from Poroshenko's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но поставлю и себе, и вам риторический вопрос: разве Россия когда-нибудь выдаст нам преступника Януковича, главного виновника кровопролития на Майдане?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;разве&quot; means that, according to Poroshenko, it is obvious that this will never happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like &quot;разве X?&quot; means &quot;not X&quot;, &quot;разве не X?&quot; means X.   Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Разве не я тогда у креста,&#xD;&#xA;    Разве я не тонула в море,&#xD;&#xA;    Разве забыли мои уста&#xD;&#xA;    Вкус твой, горе!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Anna Akhmatova)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="9fc9da6b-03a7-4f3c-807f-314578b50999" CreationDate="2016-04-20T23:10:27.517" UserId="2079" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="&quot;Неужели X?&quot; means that X is possible but surprising. The surprise may be pleasant or unpleasant. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Неужели вместе нам&#xD;&#xA;    Песню не сложить? &#xD;&#xA;    Неужели суждено &#xD;&#xA;    Hам в разлуке жить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From the song &quot;Неужели&quot;, lyrics by И. Шумаков)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singer doesn't know whether &quot;суждено нам в разлуке жить&quot; or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Неужели&quot; can also refer to good things, i. e. &quot;Неужели Маша меня любит?&quot; or &quot;Неужели суд меня оправдает?&quot;, which means that the speaker considers it probable, albeit surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Неужели?&quot; or &quot;Да неужели?&quot; can be a complete sentence. It means &quot;Really?&quot; and expresses the surprise (but not disbelief) about what you just heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве X?&quot; means that X is improbable, if not outright impossible. If one told instead &quot;**Разве** суждено нам в разлуке жить?&quot;, it would mean that he doesn't believe that &quot;суждено нам в разлуке жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разве&quot; is often used with rethorical questions.  Example from Poroshenko's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но поставлю и себе, и вам риторический вопрос: разве Россия когда-нибудь выдаст нам преступника Януковича, главного виновника кровопролития на Майдане?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;разве&quot; means that, according to Poroshenko, it is obvious that this will never happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like &quot;разве X?&quot; means &quot;not X&quot;, &quot;разве не X?&quot; means X.   Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Разве не я тогда у креста,&#xD;&#xA;    Разве я не тонула в море,&#xD;&#xA;    Разве забыли мои уста&#xD;&#xA;    Вкус твой, горе!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Anna Akhmatova)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common idioms with &quot;разве&quot; are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Разве можно X ?  Means either &quot;doing X is bad&quot; or &quot;X is impossible&quot;. For example, a mom can say to her kid &quot;разве можно рисовать на стенах?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;* Разве не так? - don't you agree?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="e34d4fd6-020e-41fb-9bde-b5afa709ab0e" CreationDate="2016-04-21T03:48:11.227" UserId="7165" Text="I have the word ошеломленный on a text I am reading, but it is written as ошеломленно.  I cannot understand what is happening with this adjective's suffix?  I have looked at all the charts and &quot;но&quot; does not seem to be a suffix option for adjectives.  The context sentence is &quot;вошли в кабинет, все, кто там был, ошеломленно&quot;.  Is the adjective in the past tense...?  Thank you for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="e34d4fd6-020e-41fb-9bde-b5afa709ab0e" CreationDate="2016-04-21T03:48:11.227" UserId="7165" Text="Suffix но on adjective? &quot;ошеломленно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="e34d4fd6-020e-41fb-9bde-b5afa709ab0e" CreationDate="2016-04-21T03:48:11.227" UserId="7165" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="85b29ec1-fc23-4981-9944-55e708262b32" CreationDate="2016-04-21T03:56:41.177" UserId="7165" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="I have the word ошеломленный on a text I am reading, but it is written as ошеломленно.  I cannot understand what is happening with this adjective's suffix?  I have looked at all the charts and &quot;но&quot; does not seem to be a suffix option for adjectives.  The context sentence is &quot;когда четверо подземных странников - Гарри, Рон, Джинни и Локонс - с головы, до пят мокрые, грязные, а Гарру еще и в пятнах вошли в кабинет, все, кто там был, ошеломленно замолчали но тишина в тот же миг взорвалась воплем: -Джинни!&quot;.  Is the adjective in the past tense...?  Thank you for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12317" RevisionGUID="f2b0205f-742d-4238-9af3-48353d93ddbc" CreationDate="2016-04-21T04:03:13.683" UserId="4560" Text="It's an adverb, which is what **-но** usually forms. **Ошеломленно** describes **замолчали**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives have no tense; that said, **ошеломлённый** is not an adjective but a participle of **ошеломить**, and as such, is indeed in the past tense (the present participle would be **ошеломляемый**); but then again, tense is no longer relevant when the participle becomes an adverb. They're formed from past participles by default. A present-tense participial adverb **ошеломляемо** would mean &quot;stunnably&quot; and it's rather hard to imagine a context in which someone would need a word like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12317" RevisionGUID="d313c1cb-0a86-4152-8ad8-7909b46f5e73" CreationDate="2016-04-21T04:13:19.603" UserId="4560" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="It's an adverb, which is what **-но** usually forms. **Ошеломленно** describes **замолчали**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives have no tense; that said, **ошеломлённый** is not an adjective but a participle of **ошеломить**, and as such, is indeed in the past tense (the present participle would be **ошеломляемый**); but then again, tense is no longer relevant when the participle becomes an adverb. Passive ones are formed from past participles by default. A present-tense participial adverb **ошеломляемо** would mean &quot;stunnably&quot; and it's rather hard to imagine a context in which someone would need a word like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="b099c0f9-3a3f-468e-8406-9a9e6643a4af" CreationDate="2016-04-21T04:30:36.520" UserId="242" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I have the word ошеломленный on a text I am reading, but it is written as ошеломленно.  I cannot understand what is happening with this adjective's suffix?  I have looked at all the charts and &quot;но&quot; does not seem to be a suffix option for adjectives.  The context sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда четверо подземных странников - Гарри, Рон, Джинни и Локонс - с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; головы, до пят мокрые, грязные, а Гарру еще и в пятнах вошли в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кабинет, все, кто там был, ошеломленно замолчали но тишина в тот же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; миг взорвалась воплем: -Джинни!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the adjective in the past tense...?  Thank you for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12318" RevisionGUID="dd276af5-7ba3-45d8-9b7e-9bc98a29abe0" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:00:55.460" UserId="7167" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Для изучающих английский язык существует отличный ресурс -- словарь [Макмилана][1]. В нем приводится куча разной лексики с поясниями, примерами употребления и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кто-нибудь знает хороший аналог, но для изучения русского языка?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12318" RevisionGUID="dd276af5-7ba3-45d8-9b7e-9bc98a29abe0" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:00:55.460" UserId="7167" Text="Аналог словаря Макмилана для изучающих русский язык" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12318" RevisionGUID="dd276af5-7ba3-45d8-9b7e-9bc98a29abe0" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:00:55.460" UserId="7167" Text="|узус|resources|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12319" RevisionGUID="b0c61513-c9fa-4615-b671-4921b20a0a8f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:51:46.910" UserId="5443" Text="It is and *adverb* meaning 'in condition of being stunned'. I don't think it's good Russian to say &quot;ошеломлённо замолчали&quot; (style-wise), maybe because &quot;ошеломлённо&quot; is more about **mode of action** ('how' they did something, e.g. &quot;ошеломлённо /за/хлопали ресницами&quot; sounds natural), rather than about **the reason** of *switching to inaction* like here (&quot;будучи ошеломлены, замолчали&quot; or &quot;ошеломлённые, они замолчали&quot; would sound much better). Also, going from momentary 'change of state' to continuous (замолчали -&gt; молчали) would 'repair' the style: &quot;*ошеломлённо молчали*&quot; (in what condition they were while keeping silence) seems OK for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="46df61f8-1390-466a-b5f3-77462d496ba7" CreationDate="2016-04-21T10:34:34.940" UserId="7168" Text="Я использую тот интернет-ресурс: http://translate.academic.ru&#xD;&#xA;В нем найдешь и толкованя и переводы.&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению иногда рекламные баннеры мешают. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12321" RevisionGUID="3e5a4c38-e7a2-43fe-b043-cbe39a09356f" CreationDate="2016-04-21T12:17:30.717" UserId="6131" Text="In Wikipedia's [OWA][1] article it is called &quot;Авторизация с помощью «окна логина»&quot;. Not a notable source, but maybe better than nothing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/OWA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="6ac402e1-32a9-470c-9fe1-9eceaabc5eaf" CreationDate="2016-04-21T15:59:16.017" UserId="6354" Text="I understand both **низ** and **дно** mean *bottom*, but what is the difference between them in terms of usage? Is it simply that **дно** additionally or exclusively carries the meaning of *bottom surface*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="6ac402e1-32a9-470c-9fe1-9eceaabc5eaf" CreationDate="2016-04-21T15:59:16.017" UserId="6354" Text="What's the difference between низ and дно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="6ac402e1-32a9-470c-9fe1-9eceaabc5eaf" CreationDate="2016-04-21T15:59:16.017" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="63fb19d1-8b00-4bb5-8430-367e0678606d" CreationDate="2016-04-21T16:26:40.197" UserId="6539" Text="You are right.**Низ** is a bottom,or a lower part of an object. **Дно** is a bottom, a surface. You can say низ дома,(the lower part of the house ),but дно тарелки, бутылки,стакана,моря,океана (the bottom of the plate,bottle, glass,sea,ocean ).**Вверх дном** means *upside-down*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12324" RevisionGUID="f9cdcbe6-5200-4af7-bfbe-5ee6cd84d150" CreationDate="2016-04-21T20:46:47.910" UserId="7172" Text="&quot;Дно&quot; is the bottom of the pan, for example, the bottom of the sea - the lowest part of the relief, object. Also there is a figurative meaning - &quot;the bottom of life,&quot; &quot;the bottom of the society&quot;, etc. (Social bottoms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;низ&quot; is absolutely identical to the word &quot;bottom&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="0e983abd-86c8-4796-b219-18d08f105add" CreationDate="2016-04-21T23:15:09.953" UserId="7010" Text="Because prepositions act like clitics, they are pronounced as if the're part of the next word.Does that mean the vowels of the prepositions are also reduced to [ə] and [ɐ] and does this also apply to conjunctions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are these examples pronounced correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на столе [nə] [stɐˈlʲe]&#xD;&#xA;на почте [nɐ] [ˈpot͡ɕtʲe]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="0e983abd-86c8-4796-b219-18d08f105add" CreationDate="2016-04-21T23:15:09.953" UserId="7010" Text="Russian prepositions &amp; stress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="0e983abd-86c8-4796-b219-18d08f105add" CreationDate="2016-04-21T23:15:09.953" UserId="7010" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="7746d9f9-1e18-4b63-aea6-d18b886562d2" CreationDate="2016-04-22T01:10:44.683" UserId="4560" Text="Yes, that's correct; reduction applies to prepositions as if they were part of the next word, and there's even a limited number of preposition-noun combinations where the preposition steals stress: **пóд ноги** (but: под ногáми), **нá руку** (but: **на рукé**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not apply to conjunctions. **Но** is always [nо]; **а** is always [a]; **что** as a stand-alone conjunction *can* vary freely in colloquial speech between [ʂto] and [ʂtə], but never \*[ʂtɐ], and the next word's stress is not a factor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="02816e9b-fa71-414a-bd15-2fbccb49c289" CreationDate="2016-04-22T01:32:28.117" UserId="4560" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="Yes, that's correct; reduction applies to prepositions as if they were part of the next word, and there's even a limited number of preposition-noun combinations where the preposition steals stress: **пóд ноги** (but: под ногáми), **нá руку** (but: **на рукé**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have to correct what I originally wrote after this, and double-checking is welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not apply to conjunctions. **Но** is always [nо]; **а** is always [a]; **что** is always [ʂto], etc. However, in colloquial speech, the compound conjunctions `то, что`, `то, чтобы` and `то, как` and their oblique forms can be pronounced as one word, with stress on the first element: ['toʂtə], ['toʂtəbɨ], ['tokək]. **Потому что** without the comma is always pronounced as one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="056bbf06-a0ae-4ea8-ad81-7f2322924579" CreationDate="2016-04-22T06:56:18.150" UserId="6097" Comment="for better readability" Text="I have the word `ошеломленный` on a text I am reading, but it is written as `ошеломленно`.  I cannot understand what is happening with this adjective's suffix?  I have looked at all the charts and &quot;но&quot; does not seem to be a suffix option for adjectives.  The context sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда четверо подземных странников - Гарри, Рон, Джинни и Локонс - с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; головы, до пят мокрые, грязные, а Гарру еще и в пятнах вошли в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кабинет, все, кто там был, ошеломленно замолчали но тишина в тот же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; миг взорвалась воплем: -Джинни!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the adjective in the past tense?  Thank you for the help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28624" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="056bbf06-a0ae-4ea8-ad81-7f2322924579" CreationDate="2016-04-22T06:56:18.150" UserId="6097" Comment="for better readability" Text="Suffix &quot;-но&quot; on adjective? &quot;ошеломленно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28625" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="056bbf06-a0ae-4ea8-ad81-7f2322924579" CreationDate="2016-04-22T06:56:18.150" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 6588, 551 edit id of 739" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="dbfacadc-fcf3-43d7-835b-c1860134c37c" CreationDate="2016-04-22T11:28:30.737" UserId="6370" Text="I know the word накликать, which has for me a meaning like &quot;tempting fate&quot; (pulling in bad luck), but is there a word in Russian which gives &quot;self-fulfilling prophesy&quot; a positive meaning? Something that has the sense: &quot;believe and it will happen&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="dbfacadc-fcf3-43d7-835b-c1860134c37c" CreationDate="2016-04-22T11:28:30.737" UserId="6370" Text="Positive translation for &quot;self-fulfilling prophesy&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="dbfacadc-fcf3-43d7-835b-c1860134c37c" CreationDate="2016-04-22T11:28:30.737" UserId="6370" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12329" RevisionGUID="d40a473d-b471-4cdf-98b5-31c231531168" CreationDate="2016-04-22T13:09:57.337" UserId="7117" Text="You can say &quot;предсказать&quot;. It is not positive, but neutral word.&#xD;&#xA;Usually it used about prophets. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кассандра предсказала падение Трои. / Cassandra predicted the fall of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Troy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="964294a5-3198-41b0-ace1-3aa579ff2b98" CreationDate="2016-04-22T21:19:21.173" UserId="242" Comment="typo fix" Text="There are two term that are sort of competing with each other so far - which if them will become de-facto standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is &quot;картонный подстаканник&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The other one is - &quot;капхолдер&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There's also such thing like literal translation - &quot;манжет на стаканчик&quot; or &quot;манжет для стаканчика&quot; but de-facto it is less used than first two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly, though the second term is direct borrowing from English, in English cupholder is slightly different thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what Russian retailers sees as cupholders:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's what it actually means in English:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note - this phenomenon is not that rare, it is called [pseudo-anglicism][3] and there's a bunch of other neat examples - check out [this][4] video for instance (apart from the author mocking pronunciation - it's actually norma that words are phonetically changing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JCCtr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RMXuo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-anglicism#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrTPMjRRsU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="c333dddd-b923-47bd-aa1f-bb8ecca61cf2" CreationDate="2016-04-23T11:56:58.517" UserId="6815" Text="There is a paragraph in [this post][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And finally, login throttling: that is, setting a time delay between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempts after N failed attempts (yes, DoS attacks are still possible,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but at least they are far less likely and a lot more complicated to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pull off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know what does it mean, so I no need explanations. The only one question is what is there a specific term in Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/549/the-definitive-guide-to-form-based-website-authentication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="c333dddd-b923-47bd-aa1f-bb8ecca61cf2" CreationDate="2016-04-23T11:56:58.517" UserId="6815" Text="What is in Russian &quot;login throttling&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="c333dddd-b923-47bd-aa1f-bb8ecca61cf2" CreationDate="2016-04-23T11:56:58.517" UserId="6815" Text="|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="b55fb338-b4fa-4119-9249-0edaff304554" CreationDate="2016-04-23T12:06:46.463" UserId="6815" Comment="edited body" Text="There is a paragraph in [this post][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And finally, login throttling: that is, setting a time delay between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempts after N failed attempts (yes, DoS attacks are still possible,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but at least they are far less likely and a lot more complicated to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pull off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know what does it mean, so I need no explanations. I have the only one question: is there a specific term in Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/549/the-definitive-guide-to-form-based-website-authentication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="9330631c-85de-423d-ae85-68fdde72d804" CreationDate="2016-04-23T16:15:37.680" UserId="4600" Text="Modern informatics term are hard to translate because there is no official body that regulates this field in Russia, plus usually IT specialists are proficient in English so that they don't need translations and use original info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd translate this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Логин с задержкой обработки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Логин с таймаутом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28638" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="60afc831-f013-477a-a886-fcfc8c17a06c" CreationDate="2016-04-23T19:24:38.910" UserId="6816" Comment="changed s to c in prophecy" Text="Positive translation for &quot;self-fulfilling prophecy&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28639" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="60afc831-f013-477a-a886-fcfc8c17a06c" CreationDate="2016-04-23T19:24:38.910" Comment="Proposed by 6816 approved by 5008, 3680 edit id of 740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="0d17b745-a246-4172-8069-019b5c426516" CreationDate="2016-04-23T20:43:31.857" UserId="6370" Comment="edited body" Text="I know the word накликать, which has for me a meaning like &quot;tempting fate&quot; (pulling in bad luck), but is there a word in Russian which gives &quot;self-fulfilling prophecy&quot; a positive meaning? Something that has the sense: &quot;believe and it will happen&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="39ea1e93-1595-4332-a0f0-796fde9f8060" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:42:35.307" UserId="7184" Text="Есть разные мемы с этой фразой. Что она означает и как ей пользоваться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="39ea1e93-1595-4332-a0f0-796fde9f8060" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:42:35.307" UserId="7184" Text="Что значит фраза “это вам не это&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="39ea1e93-1595-4332-a0f0-796fde9f8060" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:42:35.307" UserId="7184" Text="|значения|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28644" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="208974d2-64b9-4e52-965d-e682f5ce1153" CreationDate="2016-04-23T22:44:34.930" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="8cbe9b22-5f91-4b89-892f-5937535cf0bf" CreationDate="2016-04-24T02:39:48.620" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Есть разные мемы с этой фразой, но что именно она означает?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28646" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="4c6ebcf8-fcb3-416c-9d2c-29fb775e2d44" CreationDate="2016-04-24T02:39:59.057" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12333" RevisionGUID="b4dfd770-d82f-4c13-ac13-23173e79cb1b" CreationDate="2016-04-24T03:27:27.113" UserId="4560" Text="It's apparently a [film quote][1]. It's a staple of army-related humour that officers have a problem speaking coherently. **Это вам не это** means something like, &quot;This ain't the, you know&quot;, i.e. the second **это** is a filler word that just trails off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef_dGigQK9Q" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28648" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="1546383a-d46e-46eb-9e51-b454cdfde3ad" CreationDate="2016-04-24T05:15:58.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/724104573158350848" />
  <row Id="28651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12335" RevisionGUID="6e6adde2-6f8a-4d61-bcfa-42455c4406e8" CreationDate="2016-04-24T07:23:02.787" UserId="1159" Text="Usually it souds like: если сильно захотеть - обязательно сбудется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28655" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="acee1f96-1d92-4e58-975f-df1f6b43ac7b" CreationDate="2016-04-24T17:16:10.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/724285817087250433" />
  <row Id="28656" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="2121d174-0da3-4b1c-a7e2-2d2742522e0f" CreationDate="2016-04-25T02:16:03.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/724421682216206337" />
  <row Id="28657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12336" RevisionGUID="49e11763-88e1-4611-a6bc-c35ee8942981" CreationDate="2016-04-25T05:53:16.873" UserId="7190" Text="If have just started to learn Russian and have come across the fact that 'ь' remains silent but changes the sound of the letter that comes before it (I think). Please can someone give me an example of how e.g. ять and ят would sound different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(feel free to change the tags)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12336" RevisionGUID="49e11763-88e1-4611-a6bc-c35ee8942981" CreationDate="2016-04-25T05:53:16.873" UserId="7190" Text="If 'ять' sounds like 'yat' then what does 'ят' sound like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12336" RevisionGUID="49e11763-88e1-4611-a6bc-c35ee8942981" CreationDate="2016-04-25T05:53:16.873" UserId="7190" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12337" RevisionGUID="bb2452e6-457b-4bab-a93f-0d6498233773" CreationDate="2016-04-25T06:50:39.280" UserId="4600" Text="The do sound different as long as they are written so:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Брат // brother&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Брать // to take&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Мат // mattress&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Мать // mother&#xA;&#xA;If you need to listen to feel the difference, use Google Translate - there's a button to read your text aloud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28661" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12336" RevisionGUID="7c29cb70-267e-4ab8-9d1e-7d591216f32e" CreationDate="2016-04-25T08:23:04.590" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12337" RevisionGUID="1e935195-c777-41ad-bbb6-4580e78d1b4d" CreationDate="2016-04-25T09:09:17.797" UserId="4600" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="They do sound different as long as they are written so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брат // brother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брать // to take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мат // mattress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мать // mother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to listen to feel the difference, use Google Translate - there's a button to read your text aloud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="544faa4a-699b-4645-aa5a-ddf002f8a10b" CreationDate="2016-04-25T11:02:11.630" UserId="5605" Comment=" кавычки: &quot;про&quot;, &quot;о&quot;" Text="usage of &quot;про&quot; instead of &quot;о&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12336" RevisionGUID="b54e5387-4e8c-420a-81dd-ea08b14b5e8e" CreationDate="2016-04-25T14:19:47.650" UserId="7190" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="If have just started to learn Russian and have come across the fact that 'ь' remains silent but changes the sound of the letter that comes before it (I think). Please can someone give me an example of how e.g. ять and ят would sound different. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28669" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="f27a5168-5b00-42ef-9d40-de9d831a28f6" CreationDate="2016-04-25T20:09:59.293" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Usage of &quot;про&quot; instead of &quot;о&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="c3991a02-3720-4182-84aa-61e93155e4ad" CreationDate="2016-04-26T07:40:54.383" UserId="7194" Text="Ять is made of two sounds: я [ya] and ть [t']. Second  sound, soft T, you can hear in a few english words such as tea, terminate (first t), estimate (first t). Russian examples are мать, тигр, тяжба. But remember that [t'] in russian is much softer than in english.&#xD;&#xA;Ят is also made of я [ya], but here T is hard and pronounced like [t]. For example, in english train, track, tomb, in russian твердь, торг, трамвай.&#xD;&#xA;Also, like it is advised above, watch some youtube videos (cs:go with russian teammates, they swear a lot, and swearing in russian is the best way to understand pronunciation of ять), or listen to google translator.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12341" RevisionGUID="5a1bce09-a824-42cb-a9b7-c7085aea6f9d" CreationDate="2016-04-26T13:10:25.040" UserId="3892" Text="If you're British, then you probably already use a soft [t] in the word **tune**, as compared to how we Americans say the same word. You basically say **тюн** and we say **тун**. If you can, isolate the first consonant in both pronunciations, and you will get the gist of what happens phonetically when you pronounce a Russian soft consonant. Basically, you're producing the target sound, but with your tongue wanting to form a [y] sound at the same time. Very often, English speakers who are learning Russian get away with just saying a full [y] after the target sound, which is wrong. The idea is to produce the target consonant WHILE the tongue is in the [y] position as one articulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, you can do the same for -дь- with **dune** (Brit. **дюн** Am. **дун**)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12336" RevisionGUID="b926ee0f-17f8-4f47-9e8d-308c2d8a3a89" CreationDate="2016-04-27T14:21:58.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/725329144502980608" />
  <row Id="28673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12342" RevisionGUID="7a9ad598-9435-4574-8bfb-b32657f8d65f" CreationDate="2016-04-27T18:49:35.507" UserId="6539" Text="I don't know whether it's useful,but there's an expression *привлечь удачу*(to attract luck),though you can hear *поймать удачу(за хвост)*,*ловить миг удачи* (catching luck,or a lucky moment ) more often in Russian. And when a person visits a fortune teller there's *приворот на счастье*(some magic to bring luck)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="649dd75f-9058-47dd-9430-194db8ba9121" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:55:12.810" UserId="7165" Text="I have been trying to figure out what conjugation &quot;имелся&quot; is; as far as I understand it is some form of &quot;иметь&quot;.  I have consulted various conjugation charts and none of them have this word.  The only result I have gotten is by putting it into google translate, which said it was a past tense &quot;I had,&quot; but I am not sure how accurate this is.  Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="649dd75f-9058-47dd-9430-194db8ba9121" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:55:12.810" UserId="7165" Text="имелся, what conjugation is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="649dd75f-9058-47dd-9430-194db8ba9121" CreationDate="2016-04-27T19:55:12.810" UserId="7165" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12344" RevisionGUID="476635cb-3bfb-41cc-81f6-3383b2df0c78" CreationDate="2016-04-27T20:09:17.913" UserId="6539" Text="It's really past tense of иметь,rather иметься, masculine, and it means *there was*, for example :There was a house in the picture. It isn't *I had*, it's impersonal,a bit bookish and old-fashioned  and rarely used nowadays. We say был instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12345" RevisionGUID="99d614e9-d286-48a1-b397-41f7a20e9cad" CreationDate="2016-04-27T20:56:46.030" UserId="7202" Text="Помимо слова &quot;окрест&quot; можно [проверить слово &quot;окрестность&quot;][1] словами &quot;крест&quot;, &quot;перекресток&quot;, &quot;крестильный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiiyazyk.ru/orfografiya/pravopisanie/proverochnoe-slovo-k-slovu-okrestnost.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12344" RevisionGUID="cf10563c-ddf9-4d93-8bd0-5e79f5452fe5" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:34:41.717" UserId="6539" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="It's really past tense of иметь,rather иметься, masculine, and it means *there was*, for example :There was a house in the picture. It isn't *I had*, it's impersonal,a bit bookish and old-fashioned  and rarely used nowadays. We say был instead. They say I should have mentioned 1 conjugation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12346" RevisionGUID="3fc56e2f-908f-4230-823c-0f8ce0afeafa" CreationDate="2016-04-28T07:20:32.163" UserId="2079" Text="Антоним к `накликать беду` - `приманить/привлечь удачу`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="72c1ceec-116b-4e4c-bc4a-616b453c5adb" CreationDate="2016-04-28T12:22:55.060" UserId="5758" Text="Пленэр — живописная техника изображения объектов при естественном свете в естественных условиях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой диапазон использования у этого слова (действие, создание картины в этой технике; сама техника; картина, изображённая   этой технике)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;1. Сегодня вечером у меня пленэр (выезд к изображаемому объекту и рисование его).&#xD;&#xA;2. Этот пленэр (картина) получился особенно выразительно.&#xD;&#xA;3. Благодаря отработке пленэра (техники) в студенческие годы он добился значительных успехов в живописи в целом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="72c1ceec-116b-4e4c-bc4a-616b453c5adb" CreationDate="2016-04-28T12:22:55.060" UserId="5758" Text="Использование слова &quot;пленэр&quot;. Примеры" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="72c1ceec-116b-4e4c-bc4a-616b453c5adb" CreationDate="2016-04-28T12:22:55.060" UserId="5758" Text="|словоприменение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28684" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="087769cb-19ff-49ab-ab51-2d2b3fe6af0f" CreationDate="2016-04-28T17:31:52.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/725739320460623872" />
  <row Id="28685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="e60e6eac-762c-4ba4-8a7e-02f97c4b50a9" CreationDate="2016-04-28T17:45:43.017" UserId="7204" Text="В английском языке я бы сказала один тур или маршрут состоит из **Stations**. &#xD;&#xA;Какое русское слово лучше подходит? Станция звучит как-то нелепо. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Достопримечательность не подходит.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="e60e6eac-762c-4ba4-8a7e-02f97c4b50a9" CreationDate="2016-04-28T17:45:43.017" UserId="7204" Text="Из чего состоит туристический маршрут" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="e60e6eac-762c-4ba4-8a7e-02f97c4b50a9" CreationDate="2016-04-28T17:45:43.017" UserId="7204" Text="|перевод|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="1a91bfb5-df3e-4880-90b7-93d3a9f6358b" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:07:24.757" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="Если предполагается на &quot;stations&quot; задерживаться - остановки, если нет - разве что корявые &quot;промежуточные пункты&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12350" RevisionGUID="5c28a56b-566b-4662-afdb-e0721ddc5304" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:37:54.370" UserId="7196" Text="First of all, there is no suffix -но in Russian, it's suffix -енн- from adjective &quot;ошеломленный&quot; (actualy, it's not an adjective in russian, it is something we call &quot;причастие&quot;. Basicly, it's form of verb (in our case form of verb &quot;ошеломить&quot;), which is formed with differnt suffixes, and one of them is -енн. But i think in English you can say that it is an adjective, because there is'nt such thing in English as &quot;причастие&quot;) + suffix of adverb -о. Second, adjectives haven't got any tense in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; And &quot;ошеломленно&quot; is an adverb and it means stunningly or dazedly, more detailed meanings are in previous answers. It's will be more easy understand Russian words, if you will know how they were formed. For this example it will be like this: &#xD;&#xA;ошеломить + -енн --&gt; ошеломленный + -o --&gt; ошеломленно.&#xD;&#xA;That is how it is done in Russia on Russian lessons, you should try it, it really become easier to understand the meaning and the right spelling of any word you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12350" RevisionGUID="be3a8f91-3b90-4b17-8479-bdb0aa87a417" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:49:20.747" UserId="7196" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="First of all, there is no suffix -но in Russian, it's suffix -енн- from adjective &quot;ошеломленный&quot; (actualy, it's not an adjective in russian, it is something we call &quot;причастие&quot;. Basicly, it's form of verb (in our case form of verb &quot;ошеломить&quot;), which is formed with differnt suffixes, and one of them is -енн. But i think in English you can say that it is an adjective, because there is'nt such thing in English as &quot;причастие&quot;) + suffix of adverb -о. Second, adjectives haven't got any tense in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And &quot;ошеломленно&quot; is an adverb and it means stunningly or dazedly, more detailed meanings are in previous answers. It's will be more easy understand Russian words, if you will know how they were formed. For this example it will be like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;шелом (this word is outdated, it's from Old Russian, now it is &quot;шлем&quot; that is translated &quot;helmet&quot;) + o- + -и- + -ть --&gt; ошеломить + -енн --&gt; ошеломленный + -o --&gt; ошеломленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is how it is done in Russia on Russian lessons, you should try it, it really become easier to understand the meaning and the right spelling of any word you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12350" RevisionGUID="679da6f1-7934-4e4a-a60b-a0f04742c8ac" CreationDate="2016-04-28T18:59:58.470" UserId="7196" Comment="deleted 80 characters in body" Text="First of all, there is no suffix -но in Russian, it's suffix -енн- from adjective &quot;ошеломленный&quot; (actualy, it's not an adjective in russian, it is something we call &quot;причастие&quot;. Basicly, it's form of verb (in our case form of verb &quot;ошеломить&quot;), which is formed with differnt suffixes, and one of them is -енн. In English it is called &quot;participle&quot;) + suffix of adverb -о. Second, adjectives haven't got any tense in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And &quot;ошеломленно&quot; is an adverb and it means stunningly or dazedly, more detailed meanings are in previous answers. It's will be more easy understand Russian words, if you will know how they were formed. For this example it will be like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;шелом (this word is outdated, it's from Old Russian, now it is &quot;шлем&quot; that is translated &quot;helmet&quot;) + o- + -и- + -ть --&gt; ошеломить + -енн --&gt; ошеломленный + -o --&gt; ошеломленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is how it is done in Russia on Russian lessons, you should try it, it really become easier to understand the meaning and the right spelling of any word you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12350" RevisionGUID="b0f109dd-4cf2-4dac-91ff-fa3dcba8ae51" CreationDate="2016-04-28T19:08:01.577" UserId="7196" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="First of all, there is no suffix -но in Russian, it's suffix -енн- from adjective &quot;ошеломленный&quot; (actualy, it's not an adjective in russian, it is something we call &quot;причастие&quot;. Basicly, it's form of verb (in our case form of verb &quot;ошеломить&quot;), which is formed with differnt suffixes, and one of them is -енн. In English it is called &quot;participle&quot;) + suffix of adverb -о. Second, adjectives haven't got any tense in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And &quot;ошеломленно&quot; is an adverb and it means stunningly or dazedly, more detailed meanings are in previous answers. It's will be more easy understand Russian words, if you will know how they were formed. For this example it will be like this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;шелом (this word is outdated, it's from Old Russian, now it is &quot;шлем&quot; that is translated &quot;helmet&quot;) + o- + -и- + -ть --&gt; ошеломить + -енн- --&gt; ошеломленный + -o --&gt; ошеломленно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is how it is done in Russia on Russian lessons, you should try it, it really become easier to understand the meaning and the right spelling of any word you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28693" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="8deb8e1b-6d00-4284-b174-c19961421665" CreationDate="2016-04-28T22:41:22.747" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12351" RevisionGUID="65572d76-418e-4bab-a5fc-1bea1d02aa5d" CreationDate="2016-04-29T02:51:00.947" UserId="6588" Text="Просторечное - &quot;заезды&quot;. Например, поедем по золотому кольцу, пять заездов сделаем в церкви. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28695" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="30d8d4b2-d2d7-44b9-8d5c-37c3685a585c" CreationDate="2016-04-30T05:36:35.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/726284087628025857" />
  <row Id="28696" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="9a610083-2a62-4ae5-8db1-abe421d02ead" CreationDate="2016-04-30T20:41:35.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/726511841791332353" />
  <row Id="28698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12353" RevisionGUID="33d65bc5-4055-462e-a946-5b2ea981a7e5" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:02:09.930" UserId="6816" Text="I came across a sentence on the language-learning site Duolingo that said&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Много людей в Европе и Америке знает о Петербурге.&#xA;&#xA;Why is `знает` used instead of `знают`?&#xA;&#xA;One suggestion in the comments was that a singular verb is used when a group acts as one entity, but in this case it seems to me as though each *individual* knows about St. Petersburg.&#xA;&#xA;Can someone explain the usage of singular verbs for multiple things/people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12353" RevisionGUID="33d65bc5-4055-462e-a946-5b2ea981a7e5" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:02:09.930" UserId="6816" Text="Singular Verbs for Groups" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12353" RevisionGUID="33d65bc5-4055-462e-a946-5b2ea981a7e5" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:02:09.930" UserId="6816" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="9db02f6c-979e-4923-9bb7-31eac5e29ea4" CreationDate="2016-05-01T13:13:27.763" UserId="4069" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; В эту минуту рядом проходил какой-то знатный вельможа, — шляпа Тома&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ивза слетела с его головы, и он бросился вперед с поклоном и улыбкой.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это доказывало, что и он тоже знает свет — по-своему, по том-ивзовски,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конечно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Уильям Мейкпис Теккерей. «Ярмарка тщеславия». Перевод М. Дьяконова.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как и почему должно правильно писаться «по том-ивзовски»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12355" RevisionGUID="042cb953-ccb7-42fa-82f3-6787351b0934" CreationDate="2016-05-01T16:18:04.547" UserId="7169" Text="I've always used `мне нужно был` to mean `I had to` / `it was necessary to` but today I came across `мне пришлось` which seems to mean the same thing. I can't find it in a dictionary but it looks like a past tense form. Google translates it as `I had` but is it a common expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12355" RevisionGUID="042cb953-ccb7-42fa-82f3-6787351b0934" CreationDate="2016-05-01T16:18:04.547" UserId="7169" Text="пришлось / мне нужно был" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12355" RevisionGUID="042cb953-ccb7-42fa-82f3-6787351b0934" CreationDate="2016-05-01T16:18:04.547" UserId="7169" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12355" RevisionGUID="1e8fe0c1-8f96-47c4-934c-f37864e7a14e" CreationDate="2016-05-01T16:54:11.417" UserId="1236" Comment="Corrected the Russian verb form" Text="I've always used `мне нужно было` to mean `I had to` / `it was necessary to` but today I came across `мне пришлось` which seems to mean the same thing. I can't find it in a dictionary but it looks like a past tense form. Google translates it as `I had`, but is it a common expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28707" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12355" RevisionGUID="1e8fe0c1-8f96-47c4-934c-f37864e7a14e" CreationDate="2016-05-01T16:54:11.417" UserId="1236" Comment="Corrected the Russian verb form" Text="пришлось / мне нужно было" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="838ff884-0bdd-48c0-a71c-aab30ebf1f11" CreationDate="2016-05-01T17:06:30.360" UserId="1236" Text="*Мне пришлось* means exactly the same as 'I had to', that is, you did something because of the circumstances, you had no other way out but to do that, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не успел на автобус, поэтому мне пришлось идти пешком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;I was late for my bus, that's why I had to walk on foot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *мне нужно было* means only 'it was necessary to', but not 'I had to', *мне нужно было* implies the existence of an alternative, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Врачи говорили, что мне нужно было побольше ходить пешком, но я всё равно ездил на машине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;The doctors said it was necessary for me to walk on foot more, but I still drove my car.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="6fd72b7c-9071-4d71-a01a-208411d6eb38" CreationDate="2016-05-01T17:19:19.150" UserId="1236" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="*Мне пришлось* means exactly the same as 'I had to', that is, you did something because of the circumstances, you had no other way out but to do that, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не успел на автобус, поэтому мне пришлось идти пешком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;I was late for my bus, that's why I had to walk on foot.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, *мне нужно было* means only 'it was necessary to', but not 'I had to', *мне нужно было* implies the existence of an alternative, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Врачи говорили, что мне нужно было побольше ходить пешком, но я всё равно ездил на машине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;The doctors said it was necessary for me to walk on foot more, but I still drove my car.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пришлось* is the past tense, singular, neuter gender form of the perfective aspect verb *прийтись*, here it is in a dictionary, the meaning we are talking about is #3: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/прийтись][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28710" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12353" RevisionGUID="d9976e48-012e-4f4a-9c1c-8bdd694d38c4" CreationDate="2016-05-01T20:44:19.413" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11522],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="51305d72-c297-4c66-b31d-44099febf671" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:47:42.770" UserId="115" Text="You could translate `мне пришлось` as &quot;I was forced to...&quot;. In other words, it is not simply &quot;I had to&quot;, but with added implication that there was no other choice, as Yellow Sky pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, `мне нужно было` would be better translated as &quot;I needed to...&quot;, as opposed to `я должен был`, which is a better equivalent of &quot;I had to&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="c99580cc-61e9-48ba-8f72-e95cb92a8565" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:53:27.497" UserId="115" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="You could translate `мне пришлось` as &quot;I was forced to...&quot;. In other words, it is not simply &quot;I had to&quot;, but with added implication that I didn't want to do this, but there was no other choice, as Yellow Sky pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ну дела, - подумал Лось, - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хотелось. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А пришлось&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;        -Рената Муха&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, `мне нужно было` would be better translated as &quot;I needed to...&quot;, as opposed to `я должен был`, which is a better equivalent of &quot;I had to&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="ff2978bf-eddb-4463-ab9f-dfbf4e4e6d55" CreationDate="2016-05-04T01:06:04.707" UserId="3713" Text="Приняли волю пророка.  &#xD;&#xA;Они смирились с нарисованной картиной будущего, и стали действовать согласно ролям, предписываемой им, этой картиной.  &#xD;&#xA;Действовали грезя о будущем, приближая неизбежность свершившегося/будущего.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shure it's positive in english, or it's just stupid believe in doom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12359" RevisionGUID="c5853451-6259-4f97-a4b1-47871a28ad6e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T01:27:37.180" UserId="3713" Text="Ютуб, на ютубе only.  &#xD;&#xA;Ютьюб - unecessary too overcomplicated to prononce  &#xD;&#xA;If you wish look like noob, who can't english, except that one word, and who wish to show that knowledge - you may use that Ютьюб, or actually Ютюб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be cool, name it: тытруба, на тытрубе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12360" RevisionGUID="98e9aa0e-80fd-4158-8719-29dda0a8e047" CreationDate="2016-05-04T12:21:38.737" UserId="2079" Text="По-английски произносится ютюб. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dQPfC8n2dY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А по-русски ютьюб:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qtg8bPgEww" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12361" RevisionGUID="8b1a91ab-820c-4e44-9dc6-ef1df2c7aabc" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:49:06.473" UserId="7085" Text="Как лучше перевести &quot;golden bridge&quot; в следующем отрывке:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The writings of Thakur Bhaktivinode provide the golden bridge by which the mental speculationist can safely cross the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their guidance for finding the Truth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой перевод&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура - это золотой мост, по которому ментальный спекулянт может безопасно пересечь бушующие воды бесплодных эмпирических споров, нарушающих покой тех, кто в поисках Истины выбрал твердо верить в их руководство. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не нашла, чтобы это выражение относилось к устойчивым. Слово &quot;golden&quot; может переводиться как &quot;прекрасный&quot; или &quot;отличный&quot;, но это также мало помогает. Может быть &quot;крепкий&quot;, но это как кажется уже совсем вольный стиль. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12361" RevisionGUID="8b1a91ab-820c-4e44-9dc6-ef1df2c7aabc" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:49:06.473" UserId="7085" Text="Как лучше перевести &quot;golden bridge&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12361" RevisionGUID="8b1a91ab-820c-4e44-9dc6-ef1df2c7aabc" CreationDate="2016-05-04T16:49:06.473" UserId="7085" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="d3ea6d3c-40bb-4205-83b1-a73b43634d1e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T20:13:07.973" UserId="6365" Comment="a new course" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][5] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][6] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][7] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][8] - spaced repetition using complete sentences (rather than single words). Covers the entire language and tracks your vocabulary size. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][9] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][10].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][11] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][12] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fluent in Russian][13] - free audio lessons in the form of questions and answers for developing speaking and listening skills, as well as grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.memrise.com/courses/english/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://ru.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://speakfluentrussian.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28723" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="d3ea6d3c-40bb-4205-83b1-a73b43634d1e" CreationDate="2016-05-04T20:13:07.973" Comment="Proposed by 6365 approved by 496, 97 edit id of 741" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="7512c696-dc31-4999-8f43-012c654f1b9a" CreationDate="2016-05-05T08:36:12.987" UserId="7223" Text="*Я понимаю A* = active voice, *I understand A*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне понятно A* = passive voice, *A is understandable for me*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12366" RevisionGUID="b6f89e1e-47c4-4825-b4b6-58e889622f5a" CreationDate="2016-05-05T12:01:35.713" UserId="5448" Text="Место, посещение или в комбинации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Маршрут включает посещение пяти мест.** &#xD;&#xA;**Маршрут состоит из посещения пяти мест.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тонкости в подобных вариантах есть, но подобрать подходящие по контексту глагол и форму предложения, думаю, всегда можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*И еще. Я тут человек новый, может чего-то не понимаю, мне кажется, что этот вопрос надо задавать преимущественно русскоязычным пользователям и отвечать на русском, на английском все тонкости русского не объяснишь, да и зачем?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://rus.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12367" RevisionGUID="7ed505fe-cc3d-4bb8-a9b6-7006bc1f53b8" CreationDate="2016-05-05T18:14:51.803" UserId="7229" Text=" &gt; Don't overthink it, it's about you getting work done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find a translator software that correctly translates expressions like &quot;overthink&quot; in a way that's actually used in the target language. At least that's the case with Portuguese and Spanish (both of which I'm fluent in)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12367" RevisionGUID="7ed505fe-cc3d-4bb8-a9b6-7006bc1f53b8" CreationDate="2016-05-05T18:14:51.803" UserId="7229" Text="How would you say this in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12367" RevisionGUID="7ed505fe-cc3d-4bb8-a9b6-7006bc1f53b8" CreationDate="2016-05-05T18:14:51.803" UserId="7229" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12368" RevisionGUID="e6a4a751-4e7d-44da-8941-1daf5e6a8d9b" CreationDate="2016-05-05T19:04:39.573" UserId="5008" Text="In this case I'd translate the whole sentence in a different way, rather than choose word for &quot;overthink&quot;. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Меньше думай, больше делай_ --&gt; Think less, do more  &#xD;&#xA;_Глаза боятся, а руки делают_ --&gt; The eyes fear but the hands work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering &quot;to overthink&quot;, I doubt if there is a good bookish word but commonly people say &quot;_зацикливаться_&quot;, i.e. &quot;_don't overthink it_&quot; --&gt; &quot;_не зацикливайся на этом_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a couple of &quot;slanguish / teenager&quot; variants: &quot;_не загоняйся_&quot; or &quot;_не парься_&quot; (the latter stands for both &quot;don't think / don't worry&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28746" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11712" RevisionGUID="b9c084dd-c993-4411-96da-a6e7b4e5f528" CreationDate="2016-05-06T03:40:35.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12368" RevisionGUID="d7e36653-b157-4880-bb0e-26c09a101209" CreationDate="2016-05-06T06:32:49.933" UserId="5008" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="In this case I'd translate the whole sentence in a different way, rather than choose word for &quot;overthink&quot;. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Меньше думай, больше делай_ --&gt; Think less, do more  &#xD;&#xA;_Глаза боятся, а руки делают_ --&gt; The eyes fear but the hands work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering &quot;to overthink&quot;, I doubt if there is a good bookish word but commonly people say &quot;_зацикливаться_&quot;, i.e. &quot;_don't overthink it_&quot; --&gt; &quot;_не зацикливайся на этом_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a couple of &quot;slanguish / teenager&quot; variants: &quot;_не загоняйся_&quot; or &quot;_не парься_&quot; (the latter stands for both &quot;don't think / don't worry&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. OK, for this case &quot;_мудрить_&quot; seems to fit nice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Ты не мудри, просто сделай свою работу_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11605" RevisionGUID="d9107091-11e3-4c21-850c-eacfed2471dc" CreationDate="2016-05-06T10:25:33.037" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="Unfortunately, your page doesn't mention this important phenomenon which is called _беглая гласная_ '[a fleeting vowel][1].' The thing is like this: in some words, the stressed vowels **o**, **e**, and **ё** completely disappear, turn to null, when the form of the word changes and the stress moves onto another vowel. Your noun _рот_ has its root stressed, but when we form the Genitive case and add the ending *-a*, the stress moves onto this ending and the *-o-* in the root disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fleeting vowels are met very often in Russian and also in all the other Slavic languages, that's a common-Slavic phenomenon. But note, not every **o**, **e**, and **ё** is fleeting, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кóт — котá : no vowel disappears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сóн — снá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бeрý — брáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звонóк — звонкá&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to remember in which words the vowel disappears, a good dictionary marks such words and their forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why these vowels disappear is that the ones that do, descend from the ancient very short, reduced, vowels known as [*yers*][2]: a short high front vowel denoted as *ĭ* or *ь*, and a short back vowel denoted as *ŭ* or *ъ*. These vowels underwent reduction and were eventually deleted in certain positions in a word in the early Slavic languages, but if they were in a stressed position, they changed into the full vowels, in Russian into **e** and **o** respectfully. This phenomenon is called [Havlík's law][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And again, note, *рта* is not the Dative case, it is the Genitive case of _рот_, the Dative case from this noun is _рту_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.public.asu.edu/~deliving/russgram/fvover.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havl%C3%ADk%27s_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12369" RevisionGUID="e8a11f5f-9a49-4d54-bd4c-f648a034126a" CreationDate="2016-05-06T10:34:11.553" UserId="7231" Text="My team is working on a software for parsing Russian text / documents. I am completely new to Russian language hence posting this question. My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How do we represent standard metric system in Russian? For example, how do we write 100 meters or 100 litres or 100 km or 100 seconds etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How do we represent months and year and dates? For example, &quot;10 January&quot;, &quot;10th January&quot; or &quot;10th Jan, 2016&quot; or 12/31/2015 etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How do we represent email? For example, if I need to write rbhatt@gmail.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How do we represent numbers (numeric system 0-9)? For example, 1234.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope for a native Russian these would be a cake walk questions to answer. I would be greatly thankful for any other info related to Russian language that would help me in my job. Thanks in advance and apologies for writing this in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12369" RevisionGUID="e8a11f5f-9a49-4d54-bd4c-f648a034126a" CreationDate="2016-05-06T10:34:11.553" UserId="7231" Text="Russian equivalents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12369" RevisionGUID="e8a11f5f-9a49-4d54-bd4c-f648a034126a" CreationDate="2016-05-06T10:34:11.553" UserId="7231" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12370" RevisionGUID="2fb836dc-3d5b-4453-8ac3-cea110a72d31" CreationDate="2016-05-06T11:04:50.787" UserId="5008" Text="1. There are standard Russian signatures using cyrillic letters, i.e. &quot;**km**&quot; --&gt; &quot;**км**&quot; etc. The full list would be too long...&#xD;&#xA;2. See [Date format by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country)&#xD;&#xA;3. As is.&#xD;&#xA;4. Screenshot from Windows control panel:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PIOov.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12370" RevisionGUID="31acd381-42e0-42f1-8a3f-b9d0505a212b" CreationDate="2016-05-06T11:16:10.713" UserId="5008" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="1. There are standard Russian signatures using cyrillic letters, i.e. &quot;**km**&quot; --&gt; &quot;**км**&quot; etc. See [Russian Wiki on SI units](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86#.D0.95.D0.B4.D0.B8.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.86.D1.8B_.D0.A1.D0.98).&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;European&quot; style rather than &quot;american&quot;. See [Date format by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country).&#xD;&#xA;3. As is.&#xD;&#xA;4. Screenshot from Windows control panel:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PIOov.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12355" RevisionGUID="b47bafcd-ccd8-4825-952e-2585e7a468c8" CreationDate="2016-05-06T12:14:19.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/728558508241752064" />
  <row Id="28756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12371" RevisionGUID="b641f275-9d49-4311-95ba-e14b24513d60" CreationDate="2016-05-06T12:40:24.967" UserId="7210" Text="The word 'golden' in this particular piece doesn't hold any meaning other than emphasizing the quality of the 'bridge', perhaps holding the meaning 'best', as in 'the writings provide the best way there is for the mental speculationist to cross the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their guidance for finding the Truth'. So the translation isn't a word-by-word one like you've presented, it's more to do with the meaning of the phrase itself. So, translating freely, it could be 'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура - лучший способ для...', 'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура наилучший путь для...' or 'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура как нельзя лучше позволяют...'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12371" RevisionGUID="38149bc8-0200-418a-9e96-2a68fff5c061" CreationDate="2016-05-06T14:04:22.520" UserId="7210" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The word 'golden' in this particular piece doesn't hold any meaning other than emphasizing the quality of the 'bridge', perhaps holding the meaning 'best', as in&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'the writings provide the best way there is for the mental speculationist to cross the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their guidance for finding the Truth'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the translation isn't a word-by-word one like you've presented, it's more to do with the meaning of the phrase itself. So, translating freely, it could be &#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура - лучший способ для...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура наилучший путь для...' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура как нельзя лучше позволяют...'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12371" RevisionGUID="bad966e1-057d-4d2f-8d17-fb29952d0970" CreationDate="2016-05-06T14:23:41.130" UserId="7210" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The word 'golden' in this particular piece doesn't hold any meaning other than emphasizing the quality of the 'bridge', perhaps holding the meaning 'best', as in&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'the writings provide the best way there is for the mental speculationist to cross the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their guidance for finding the Truth'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the translation isn't a word-by-word one like you've presented, it's more to do with the meaning of the phrase itself. So, translating freely, it could be &#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура - лучший способ для...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура - наилучший путь для...' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Труды Бхактивинода Тхакура как нельзя лучше позволяют...'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28759" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="65f71d38-e784-4fd1-9c05-62d824d9c3f3" CreationDate="2016-05-06T15:17:37.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/728604637515943936" />
  <row Id="28760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12372" RevisionGUID="6e2bddb0-eeab-46ba-8ea2-9d1966713695" CreationDate="2016-05-06T22:39:13.640" UserId="7234" Text="I would say &quot;низ&quot; (3d) is a lower part of an object, and &quot;дно&quot; (2d) is a lower surface of an object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12373" RevisionGUID="23fc9e2a-5a87-4d8d-bbde-a2c2c878eefb" CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:25:49.417" UserId="2079" Text="В предложении бесплодные эмпирические споры сравниваются с бушующими водами, а труды Тхакура - с золотым мостом, по которому можно пересечь их.  В переводе, чтобы сохранить метафору, надо brigde перевести как мост, и никак иначе.  Golden bridge - это золотой мост, тем более что как &quot;золотой мост&quot;, так и &quot;golden bridge&quot; широко используются, когда говорят о йоге (легко нагуглить)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="6961e798-62b9-4b2a-83f3-0af713bd7410" CreationDate="2016-05-07T14:44:28.587" UserId="2079" Text="&gt; How do we represent standard metric system in Russian? For example,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how do we write 100 meters or 100 litres or 100 km or 100 seconds etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 100 meters - 100 метров&#xD;&#xA; - 100 litres - 100 литров&#xD;&#xA; - 100 km - 100 км&#xD;&#xA; - 100 seconds - 100 секунд (или 1 минута 40 секунд)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent months and year and dates? For example, &quot;10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January&quot;, &quot;10th January&quot; or &quot;10th Jan, 2016&quot; or 12/31/2015 etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 января&#xD;&#xA;10.1 or 10.01 (first day then month)&#xD;&#xA;10.I (rarely - day as a Western number, month as a Latin number)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 января 2016&#xD;&#xA;10 января 2016 года&#xD;&#xA;10.1.2016&#xD;&#xA;10/1/2016&#xD;&#xA;10.01.2016&#xD;&#xA;10/01/2016&#xD;&#xA;10.I.2016&#xD;&#xA;Some use &quot;-&quot; instead of &quot;.&quot;, but always remeber: day should be before month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent email? For example, if I need to write rbhatt@gmail.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like this: rbhatt@gmail.com . Email is language-independent.  The character &quot;@&quot; is pronunced собака, the character &quot;.&quot; is pronunced точка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent numbers (numeric system 0-9)? For example, 1234.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like this: 1234.  If there is a fractional part, it is separated by &quot;,&quot; , but some computer programmers use &quot;.&quot; .&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12375" RevisionGUID="5eb6bfaf-4613-4136-9b79-2973f4ff88d3" CreationDate="2016-05-07T22:46:22.857" UserId="7238" Text="I am translating a [Russian scientific journal article](http://www.sibran.ru/journals/issue.php?ID=160175&amp;ARTICLE_ID=160248) to English and the various online translation services are returning ambiguous translations for one sentence in particular (first page, third paragraph):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Институте горного дела имени А. А. Скочинского автором были поставлены опыты по исследованию влияния поперечных пульсационных скоростей на распыливание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate initially translates this as &quot;*The Mining Institute named after A. A. Skochinsky author* carried out experiments on the effect of the transverse fluctuating velocities on atomization.&quot; (Emphasis is my own, and is the confusing part.) But Google Translate also suggests a possible translation is &quot;At the Mining Institute named after A. A. Skochinsky *the author* carried out experiments on the effect of the transverse fluctuating velocities on atomization.&quot; Does this sentence suggest that the author of the paper I am translating carried out the experiments, or were the experiments conducted by a scientist who worked at the mining institute (and was not necessarily the author of the paper of interest)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12375" RevisionGUID="5eb6bfaf-4613-4136-9b79-2973f4ff88d3" CreationDate="2016-05-07T22:46:22.857" UserId="7238" Text="Confusion about use of the word &quot;автором&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12375" RevisionGUID="5eb6bfaf-4613-4136-9b79-2973f4ff88d3" CreationDate="2016-05-07T22:46:22.857" UserId="7238" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12376" RevisionGUID="8ba4c285-befa-4032-aabb-df2145c75bd6" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:08:56.553" UserId="6097" Text="It's impossible to say without a further context.  Both is possible.  If it's a synopsis of the own writer's paper, then the writer made experiments himself. If it's a review of someone other's work, then experiments were made by that other person.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12377" RevisionGUID="5a854a52-8193-42eb-a861-268d6d9549fc" CreationDate="2016-05-08T13:25:16.893" UserId="5617" Text="There is no form of `&quot;подъехать&quot;`, that sounds `&quot;подвести&quot;`. Both are infinitives of different words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Подъехать means &quot;drive up (to)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Подве&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;ти has to do with walking, leading, guiding or directing and means &quot;bring somebody or something closer (to)&quot;, &quot;insert something under something&quot; (drive one end beneath the other)&#xD;&#xA;* Подве&lt;b&gt;з&lt;/b&gt;ти has to do with driving a vehicle and means &quot;to deliver&quot;, &quot;to give a lift&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;подве&lt;b&gt;з&lt;/b&gt;ти&quot; is a little bit closer to &quot;подъехать&quot; as both have to do with vehicle driving, but they are different too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12378" RevisionGUID="be67114f-ef51-4b65-9b6f-234f8f6c68ba" CreationDate="2016-05-08T13:50:42.397" UserId="5617" Text="Just my five cents, a bit closer to the original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не думай больше, чем надо. Суть в том, чтобы ты **сделал** работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with an emphasis on a word &quot;сделал&quot; (Do not think more than necessary. The point is that you get the work done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the last Matt's variant (не мудри) is the best one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12378" RevisionGUID="ca8e482f-f042-45b7-b261-4de27cbf5688" CreationDate="2016-05-08T13:58:34.053" UserId="5617" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Just my five cents, a bit closer to the original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не думай больше, чем надо. Суть в том, чтобы ты **сделал** работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with an emphasis on a word &quot;сделал&quot; (Do not think more than necessary. The point is that you get the work done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even closer, a bit clumsy, but acceptable (I could say so):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не думай больше, чем надо. Вся суть в **выполнении** работы тобою.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Do not think more than necessary. The point is in accomplishing of the work by you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the last Matt's variant (не мудри) is the best one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12378" RevisionGUID="b70ef995-284f-4f5f-9deb-dc47131b3cc3" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:05:27.010" UserId="5617" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Just my five cents, a bit closer to the original phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не думай больше, чем надо. Суть в том, чтобы ты **сделал** работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with an emphasis on a word &quot;сделал&quot; (Do not think more than necessary. The point is that you get the work done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even closer, a bit clumsy, but acceptable (I could say so, but primitive minds could get stuck in an attempt to extract the matter from the sentence):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не думай больше, чем надо. Вся суть в **выполнении** работы тобою.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Do not think more than necessary. The point is in accomplishing of the work by you)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the last Matt's variant (не мудри) is the best one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="65ee99ac-9ee9-420b-8870-cbd783d34982" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:46:52.387" UserId="7242" Text="I was watching a movie in Russian and came across a phrase for which I cannot find a match in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нехорошо получилось&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was said after some misunderstanding between two men that led to a fight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="65ee99ac-9ee9-420b-8870-cbd783d34982" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:46:52.387" UserId="7242" Text="How to translate &quot;Нехорошо получилось&quot; to English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="65ee99ac-9ee9-420b-8870-cbd783d34982" CreationDate="2016-05-08T14:46:52.387" UserId="7242" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12380" RevisionGUID="52f71c78-14e8-4b5f-b158-e82a425e10ab" CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:18:12.307" UserId="1884" Text="&quot;Нехорошо получилось&quot; is a half-veiled expression of regret. The person regrets having done something, but does not go as far as to acknowledge his guilt. The upside is that the phrase also evades putting the blame on the opponent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's as if the mishap happened by itself. &quot;We only wanted to have a little argument, to exchange opinions, and look what has happened.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm finding it hard to come up with an idiomatic everyday equivalent in English. I recall the expression &quot;Just my luck!&quot;, but that has a single person as subject. Interjections like &quot;Oops!&quot; and &quot;D'oh!&quot; also come to mind. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12380" RevisionGUID="e280a6ad-8ff6-4dc7-b2e6-8e1c4df3cd6e" CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:24:57.997" UserId="1884" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="&quot;Нехорошо получилось&quot; is a half-veiled expression of regret. The person regrets having done something, but does not go as far as to acknowledge his guilt. The upside is that the phrase also evades putting the blame on the opponent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's as if the mishap happened by itself. &quot;We only wanted to have a little argument, to exchange opinions, and look what has happened.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm finding it hard to come up with an idiomatic everyday equivalent in English. I recall the expression &quot;Just my luck!&quot;, but that has a single person as subject. Interjections like &quot;Oops!&quot; and &quot;D'oh!&quot; also come to mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be translated as &quot;We've gone a bit too far with this&quot; or something like this, I wonder. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12380" RevisionGUID="47430dd9-b320-4bbb-a0b1-5ba163c1b372" CreationDate="2016-05-08T15:34:59.737" UserId="1884" Comment="added 231 characters in body" Text="&quot;Нехорошо получилось&quot; is a half-veiled expression of regret. The person regrets having done something, but does not go as far as to acknowledge his guilt. The upside is that the phrase also evades putting the blame on the opponent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's as if the mishap happened by itself. &quot;We only wanted to have a little argument, to exchange opinions, and look what has happened.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm finding it hard to come up with an idiomatic everyday equivalent in English. I recall the expression &quot;Just my luck!&quot;, but that has a single person as subject. Interjections like &quot;Oops!&quot; and &quot;D'oh!&quot; also come to mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be translated as &quot;We've gone a bit too far with this&quot; or something like this, I wonder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a morphology standpoint, the verb 'получилось' is ambiguous as to the character of the implied subject: it could be &quot;Нехорошо получилось у меня&quot; (I'm the culprit) or &quot;Нехорошо получилось у нас&quot; (we are both culpable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28777" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="2f211b87-7a7e-456f-8c57-d05df1e463bf" CreationDate="2016-05-08T16:42:21.490" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="48e67290-7412-43cc-9efa-34ec229c00ba" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:14:05.433" UserId="6816" Text="Similar to one of my [previous posts](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/12190/6816), I am wondering what case is used for nouns preceded by numbers of different nature (when there is some discrepancy over which number, or an approximation).&#xA;&#xA;This is because numbers like 1 or 21 are different from numbers like 2, 3, and 4, which are, in turn, different from the rest in which case is used (any, s. gen., and pl. gen., respectively).&#xA;&#xA;Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xA;&#xA;Ex. 2: три или четыре (года?)(лет?)&#xA;&#xA;**Which way is correct? Is there more than one correct way?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="48e67290-7412-43cc-9efa-34ec229c00ba" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:14:05.433" UserId="6816" Text="Multiple numbers before a noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="48e67290-7412-43cc-9efa-34ec229c00ba" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:14:05.433" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12382" RevisionGUID="d085fc4c-f8d7-4ed2-b5d4-84b1ebdaf5cf" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:36:02.493" UserId="5008" Text="In short, the last one takes precedence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;один или два года  &#xD;&#xA;три или пять лет  &#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12382" RevisionGUID="7ab58f94-b5ab-47e8-bba5-383e5612253e" CreationDate="2016-05-08T17:50:29.260" UserId="5008" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="In short, the last one takes precedence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;один или два года  &#xD;&#xA;три или пять лет  &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD**. Well, as Russian language has free word order, I'd better put it another way: **the closest** number decides. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Три года или пять  &#xD;&#xA;Три или лет пять  &#xD;&#xA;Лет пять или три  &#xD;&#xA;etc.etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28783" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12375" RevisionGUID="5c231ddf-3542-4b8d-bd42-2faf72fc16bb" CreationDate="2016-05-09T00:25:37.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/729467323749388288" />
  <row Id="28787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12369" RevisionGUID="1a174a1e-6739-4b47-bc0e-fafef4de4b08" CreationDate="2016-05-09T06:26:27.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/729558129881567232" />
  <row Id="28788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12296" RevisionGUID="7a633ef1-e0f7-4764-a9a6-958356b6b93f" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:26:26.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/729694019639492608" />
  <row Id="28790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12384" RevisionGUID="3c5af922-e789-471c-ac9c-3507f9703125" CreationDate="2016-05-09T19:04:43.967" UserId="4029" Text="To add to Paul's answer, &quot;подвести&quot; can also mean &quot;to let [someone] down&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a figurative term, I think it comes from &quot;to walk [someone] under [something]&quot;, I don't remember what the origin of this particular use is, unfortunately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="926753f5-e084-4796-8a73-fdf8f6780b94" CreationDate="2016-05-09T19:17:50.657" UserId="4029" Text="I'll give you an analogy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. в**низ**у - below;&#xD;&#xA; 1. на **дне** - at the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would argue, that &quot;дно&quot; is a literal translation of &quot;bottom&quot;, while &quot;низ&quot; is a general term for any surface that's below you (or in relation to some object)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12386" RevisionGUID="b6cb9c49-fb82-468e-8592-8dad818e9055" CreationDate="2016-05-10T00:01:09.110" UserId="7114" Text="Reading a few Wikipedia articles I come across different ways to spell buckwheat. One is Гречка (which is what I use when talking about buckwheat) and Гречиха (which I have never heard of before). What is the difference between the two words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12386" RevisionGUID="b6cb9c49-fb82-468e-8592-8dad818e9055" CreationDate="2016-05-10T00:01:09.110" UserId="7114" Text="Гречка or Гречиха" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12386" RevisionGUID="b6cb9c49-fb82-468e-8592-8dad818e9055" CreationDate="2016-05-10T00:01:09.110" UserId="7114" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="fe92594f-1c0f-474b-9232-4f753cce8b73" CreationDate="2016-05-10T04:39:52.657" UserId="6539" Text="Buckwheat *plant* is called **гречиха** . It is cultivated for its *grain- like seeds* called **греча** or **гречка** (**гречневая крупа**) which we cook.The cooked buckwheat is called **гречка,греча,гречневая каша.** There are also *гречневый продел* (which is grated buckwheat grain) and *гречневая мука* (buckwheat flour) used for cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12388" RevisionGUID="487010a4-2e06-49d5-886f-7b00c72881ec" CreationDate="2016-05-10T11:53:24.227" UserId="1836" Text="Second translation is closer to the source. You can easily check yourself by doing following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) There is &quot;Институт горного дела имени А. А. Скочинского&quot;. Well, we can drop details for a while and say it's just &quot;Институт&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) We can also skip the part about the experiment (for a while of course, we will put it back later)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we will get following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Институте автором были поставлены опыты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is quite obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At (the/an) Institute the author carried out experiments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's now put back details we dropped. &quot;Институт горного дела имени А. А. Скочинского&quot; can be translated using Wikipedia: find article about the Institute in the Russian wiki ([here it is][1]), go to english version, and check out its title: &quot;Skochinsky Institute of Mining&quot;. The part about the experiment... Not sure the translation is 100% correct, but looks fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After assembling things back we will get following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At Skochinsky Institute of Mining the author carried out experiments on the effect of the transverse fluctuating velocities on atomization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%82_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%90._%D0%90._%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12386" RevisionGUID="4fc47f2e-4c8c-43f8-8647-f17263b5e7a6" CreationDate="2016-05-10T12:28:50.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/730011716164198400" />
  <row Id="28799" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12312" RevisionGUID="4bf21a32-db8e-45cb-887f-b8b7afece1ee" CreationDate="2016-05-11T00:28:50.753" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/730192910025670656" />
  <row Id="28800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="a9e6f4b0-7e1c-48ef-96ec-3fae4faca344" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:26:02.140" UserId="7249" Text="How do I say 'LOL' in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="a9e6f4b0-7e1c-48ef-96ec-3fae4faca344" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:26:02.140" UserId="7249" Text="How to say 'LOL' in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="a9e6f4b0-7e1c-48ef-96ec-3fae4faca344" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:26:02.140" UserId="7249" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28803" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="1e347ca3-9630-4155-888c-c493fc3f6f07" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:26:54.360" UserId="7249" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7249,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;madone&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28804" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="b85d78f3-06f2-4053-9d72-c159d24b8fd0" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:34:03.753" UserId="7249" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7249,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;madone&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28805" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="f6accd63-67d7-439f-80b8-94b29c6a314d" CreationDate="2016-05-11T05:34:41.517" UserId="7249" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7249,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;madone&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28806" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="aa1b476c-2bfc-486c-a056-d73e20472d28" CreationDate="2016-05-11T12:12:49.830" UserId="7249" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7249,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;madone&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12390" RevisionGUID="216a3ccf-0dd1-4a84-a4c2-2c9a8b8f7c2a" CreationDate="2016-05-11T13:44:56.057" UserId="6131" Text="The most obvious translation is just &quot;лол&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some malformed options: &quot;лал&quot;, &quot;лел&quot;, &quot;лiл&quot;, but they are not common, and I would not give advice to use them &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exist a good analogue - &quot;ржунимагу&quot; (I can't stop laughing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find other analogues there: https://lurkmore.to/LOL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="711203fe-2560-4ff1-8308-fff0d26b21c1" CreationDate="2016-05-11T13:58:58.163" UserId="1236" Text="• The most adequate Russian analog of 'LOL' is _ржунимагý_ which is the phonetic spelling of _ржу, не могу_, '[I'm] nickering (literary 'neighing'), cannot [stop]'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• Another one is _пацталóм_ (= *под столом*), '[laughing having fallen] under the table'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• One more variant is _бгг!_ which is a contracted way of writing _бу-га-гá!_, onomatopoeia that imitates laughing out loud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [an article][1] about 'LOL' on Lurkmore, a Russian Internet memes wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lurkmore.to/LOL" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="ac19e884-2faa-4cab-8723-9ea520119438" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:07:52.863" UserId="1236" Comment="corrected spacing" Text="Buckwheat *plant* is called **гречиха**. It is cultivated for its *grain-like seeds* called **греча** or **гречка** (**гречневая крупа**) which we cook. The cooked buckwheat is called **гречка, греча, гречневая каша.** There are also *гречневый продел* (which is grated buckwheat grain) and *гречневая мука* (buckwheat flour) used for cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="8b75c522-3159-49b4-982f-ad346aae3632" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:14:00.883" UserId="6584" Text=" Since there are many possible diminutive endings, how do Russians know which one to use for a word that has not yet been so modified?&#xD;&#xA; For instance, if the English word &quot;blob&quot; (i.e. a formless, viscous drop or daub) is borrowed as **блоб** and a Russian wants to indicate a smaller or repulsive version of it, how would she or he decide what to say or write - **блобик**, **блобочка**, **блобец**, or something else?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="8b75c522-3159-49b4-982f-ad346aae3632" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:14:00.883" UserId="6584" Text="Creating a Diminutive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="8b75c522-3159-49b4-982f-ad346aae3632" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:14:00.883" UserId="6584" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12393" RevisionGUID="605e7a93-2c09-43a1-a11e-dd440358a186" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:29:54.477" UserId="5008" Text="There's no formal rule. But if you borrow this word as 2nd declension male gender, then, I believe, you should conform to other nouns of such type. Say, &quot;мяч&quot;-&gt;&quot;мячик&quot;, &quot;конь&quot;-&gt;&quot;коник&quot; etc. So the most natural form sems to be &quot;блоб&quot;-&gt;&quot;блобик&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the alteration of consonants works for the borrowed words too, e.g. &quot;блог&quot;-&gt;&quot;бложик&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12394" RevisionGUID="5ff9dbb3-7310-46f3-87a5-4fefc623ec4d" CreationDate="2016-05-11T14:36:32.970" UserId="1236" Text="In such a case, every person would use the form s/he likes. As for me, I would use _блóбка_. As the word is used more and more with the course of time, one or two diminutives would remain, the rest of them would get stylistically marked, that is, acquire some connotations, like derisive, humiliating, not that little as one would expect, etc. It is not uncommon for Russian nouns to have more than one diminutive forms, e. g. from _книга_ such diminutives are possible: _книжка_, _книжечка_, _книженция_, _книжонка_, _книжоночка_, even _книжулька_ and _книжулечка_. The diminutive suffixes don't have any specific meaning, they are context-oriented, e. g. in some contexts, _книжечка_ can mean exactly what _книга_ means, in other contexts it can mean 'small book', in other 'good book', in other 'bad book', and also as many other variations of the idea of a book as the number of contexts possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28815" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12309" RevisionGUID="54da67ba-3eda-4f9e-b448-7e5177f237c7" CreationDate="2016-05-11T15:38:15.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/730421770298249216" />
  <row Id="28821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="4f5d842b-e00d-4cd0-bb04-4660baa85edb" CreationDate="2016-05-12T11:11:01.533" UserId="7254" Text="As far as I know Accusative case is used for objects (I sure do hope I am using the proper term, as English is not my first language) and the Instrumental case is used for the tool with which the action is performed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happens if the tool is the object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing with a pen.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Я пишу ручкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if the sentence in Russian is correct, but either way - is pen/ручка in Accusative or Instrumental case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="4f5d842b-e00d-4cd0-bb04-4660baa85edb" CreationDate="2016-05-12T11:11:01.533" UserId="7254" Text="Accusative vs Instrumental case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="4f5d842b-e00d-4cd0-bb04-4660baa85edb" CreationDate="2016-05-12T11:11:01.533" UserId="7254" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12397" RevisionGUID="6eea04cd-6996-4031-a25a-b1b0e07c311a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T11:20:17.663" UserId="4108" Text="Я держу ручку в руке − I am holding a pen in my hand  &#xD;&#xA;The pen is the object in this sentence − it’s *being held*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, the pen is still assumed to be held, but it’s not the object in a sentence. There is no object in the sentence “Я пишу ручкой”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12337" RevisionGUID="90e1c4c5-cede-4295-a652-1d979df272e5" CreationDate="2016-05-12T12:01:48.710" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="They do sound different as long as they are written so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брат // brother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брать // to take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мат // mat (gym)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мать // mother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to listen to feel the difference, use Google Translate - there's a button to read your text aloud." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12398" RevisionGUID="bacc609a-b798-4599-8898-bfc540cf7154" CreationDate="2016-05-12T12:13:54.273" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;A tool&quot; is just a special kind of &quot;an object&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_I am writing with a pen_&quot; certainly means that &quot;_I am using a pen as a writing tool_&quot;. So it's in Instrumental case: &quot;_Я пишу ручкой_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talking about cases usage in general unavoidably leads to oversimplification. There are too many exceptions and peculiarities. But if I still have to say something about Accusative case, you may think that it stands for &quot;the rest of objects&quot; which is not governed by &quot;more particular&quot; cases: Genitive, Dative, Instrumental or Prepositional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28830" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="bdb9f952-0e0e-4c48-9831-61310262f1dc" CreationDate="2016-05-12T18:46:19.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/730831488997072896" />
  <row Id="28847" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="7710e10b-19e1-43a0-86b0-ca8609197703" CreationDate="2016-05-13T06:47:34.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/731012995782938625" />
  <row Id="28848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="ca8ee415-a78d-4e0f-9fa1-e4a4309b121b" CreationDate="2016-05-13T07:00:19.073" UserId="7259" Text="How do you translate: ...какие бы они там ни были?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="ca8ee415-a78d-4e0f-9fa1-e4a4309b121b" CreationDate="2016-05-13T07:00:19.073" UserId="7259" Text="question about translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="ca8ee415-a78d-4e0f-9fa1-e4a4309b121b" CreationDate="2016-05-13T07:00:19.073" UserId="7259" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12404" RevisionGUID="c70eaa06-619c-4379-9963-4b1b9ab4d356" CreationDate="2016-05-13T07:26:01.687" UserId="310" Text="Without context I would imagine `whatever they were`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12406" RevisionGUID="d316d2bd-2f91-43b0-b92f-68e024cccd63" CreationDate="2016-05-13T09:40:57.233" UserId="6588" Text="&gt; regardless of their quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Quality&quot; is not really good translatation, since &quot;какие&quot; is wider than &quot;quality&quot;. Anyway, &quot;какие бы они там ни были&quot; could be said in another words, &quot;вне зависимости от их качеств&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the construction is built:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какие они есть&quot; = pointer to all possible qualities of the certain objects at the moment. For example, if referring to oranges, then it's color, aroma, weight and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какие они были&quot; = the same, but at the moment the one who says so has probably no access to the subject and cannot check whether the description it's still actual (for example, he does not know if oranges had rotten).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какие бы они ни были&quot; = &quot;бы&quot; and &quot;ни&quot; indicates that the one who says so does not know and does not care. This part is hard to understand, but &quot;какие бы ни были&quot; is a common phrase indicating that the one who says so does not care about object qualities, he cares only about the object itself (no matter if they are rotten or green).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какие бы они там ни были&quot; = &quot;Какие бы они ни были&quot;, additional &quot;там&quot; means that the objects for now are far away, which is why the speaker does not care about the objects quality at all. &quot;Какие бы они там ни были&quot; is very informal form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="4da76007-fc0e-4159-87eb-cf0b94ced0eb" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:08:11.450" UserId="5" Text="в чем разница между жёлтый и желтенький?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="4da76007-fc0e-4159-87eb-cf0b94ced0eb" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:08:11.450" UserId="5" Text="Жёлтый vs желтенький" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="4da76007-fc0e-4159-87eb-cf0b94ced0eb" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:08:11.450" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="966e783a-d1e3-4bd7-8a07-7e472b17074f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:19:50.540" UserDisplayName="user7261" Text="Подскажите пожалуйста, Что обозначает &quot;уж не тайное ли общество самоубийц?&quot; Я вижу очень часто, что есть такая конструкция: &quot;прилагательное + ли&quot;. Что это обозначает? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="966e783a-d1e3-4bd7-8a07-7e472b17074f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:19:50.540" UserDisplayName="user7261" Text="Значение частицы &quot;ли&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="966e783a-d1e3-4bd7-8a07-7e472b17074f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:19:50.540" UserDisplayName="user7261" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="dd1a96f6-01aa-47b3-b2f0-2a6b225d50dc" CreationDate="2016-05-13T11:53:57.453" UserId="7262" Text="Никакой разницы в цвете нет, вся разница в объекте, о котором идёт речь: если к нему применяется уменьшительно-ласкательное, его можно распространить и на прилагательное. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="c9afb66d-c4f1-4961-9e8e-b0c8fcec15cc" CreationDate="2016-05-13T13:55:47.003" UserId="1236" Text="The difference is the attitude of the speaker towards the color. While _жёлтый_ is neutral, the speaker has no special feelings or attitude towards the object being that yellow, calling an object _желтенький_ shows the speaker is not indifferent to the yellow of the object, the color seems somehow unusual, out-of-place, either too bright, too yellow, or not suitable for that object to be taken seriously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, _желтенький_ can be used without any attitude connotations by children or young mothers who tend to use diminutive forms of every word, &quot;horsy/horsie, doggy, birdy&quot; style. In Russian, not only nouns and adjectives but even verbs can have diminutive forms, like «А вот вы что с утра любите _покушенькать_?», 'And what do you like to eat in the morning?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12411" RevisionGUID="9c5cbec4-a5be-40db-84a1-d6a750d69b4a" CreationDate="2016-05-13T14:15:39.933" UserId="4714" Text="So I recently read about indirect and direct speech. And here is a website with some examples. But Im confused on which form I should use in speech, the top one or the bottom one (See site). Normally I use the bottom one, but now I'm confused on which form is the most common in daily conversations. For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Студенты говорят: &quot;Мы хотим стабильности и мира.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Студенты говорят, что  они хотят стабильности и мира.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Бабушка сказала: &quot;Я хочу купить игрушку внуку.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бабушка сказала, что она хочет купить игрушку внуку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'm always tempted to say &quot;что она хотела купить&quot; because that's how we do it in English. But really I'm just super confused on how to tell a story (who said what, etc) Nobody has ever told me I do it wrong, but after reading about indirect speech I'm very confused. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Site][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rus-on-line.ru/Exercises/Grammar/exer-gram-0068.html?box1=%F7%F2%EE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12411" RevisionGUID="9c5cbec4-a5be-40db-84a1-d6a750d69b4a" CreationDate="2016-05-13T14:15:39.933" UserId="4714" Text="Reported Speech—How to use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12411" RevisionGUID="9c5cbec4-a5be-40db-84a1-d6a750d69b4a" CreationDate="2016-05-13T14:15:39.933" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12412" RevisionGUID="950332ca-477a-4a42-859c-70dde11cd0d1" CreationDate="2016-05-13T14:29:37.487" UserId="1236" Text="The particle _ли_ which is used to form general questions (aka Yes/No questions) and which can be translated into English as 'whether' does not form any constructions with adjectives. This particle is never used as the first word in a sentence. Since Russian has free word order, you normally begin a question with a theme, the word which names what you are inquiring about, then goes the description of the kind of information you would like to get about the theme. Actually, you can well do without the _ли_, marking the theme by mere intonation, but if you do use _ли_, you put it after the theme, and very often the theme is the adjective, you often need to know whether (_ли_) the object possesses the quality described by the adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example _уж не тайное ли общество самоубийц?_ the _ли_ is put after _тайное_, 'secret', which means the intention of the person who asks this question is to find out whether the society is *secret* or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is, if you see or hear a question with _ли_, you have to confirm or negate the relevance of the fact expressed by the word after which the _ли_ is placed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="9841c345-dc47-4d5c-b398-d1a9d52f15d5" CreationDate="2016-05-13T15:34:33.877" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="Well, formally Russian does not use sequence of tenses. Indirect speech just uses the same tense that is used in a direct speech. So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бабушка сказала: &quot;Я хочу *(present, first person)* купить игрушку внуку.&quot; =&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Бабушка сказала, что она хочет *(present, third person)* купить игрушку внуку.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бабушка сказала: &quot;Я хотела *(past, first person)* купить игрушку внуку.&quot; = &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Бабушка сказала, что она хотела *(past, third person)* купить игрушку внуку&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But informally, in casual speech, there's no problem if you use a sequence of tenses, most people won't even notice it. (Unless it is really important what time was used in the direct speech, or you're talking with a peculiarly pedantic person)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12414" RevisionGUID="968ea6b3-c174-4bef-bf84-cfc9df139a94" CreationDate="2016-05-13T15:50:08.880" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="One more meaning of &quot;жёлтенький&quot;: it can refer to close shades of yellow, something like &quot;yellowish&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12415" RevisionGUID="fe9c7d13-2465-43ef-8541-b03b6dc8b1a8" CreationDate="2016-05-13T17:02:20.110" UserId="134" Text="Instead of tense harmony, Old and Middle Russian had an evidential particle *де* which was grammatically required to mark reported speech, both direct and indirect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А сказал, дана, де, им в монастырь наша жаловальная грамота, а велено им по той нашей жаловальной грамоте ходити на Низ рекою Волгою судном до Казани и за Казань рыбы купите на монастырьской обиход по четыре тысечи рыб на год безпошлинно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И в розпросе, государь, скозала та девка: «Родам де есми, государь, руска, а имя де мне Аринка, а отца де у меня звали Иванам, крестьянин, и отца де, государь, у меня и матери не стала, а была де есми, государь, в Кашинском уезде в селе в Ыванковском у попа, Богданам завут, за дитяти места; и тот де, государь, миня поп Богдан отдал в Кашинском же уезде в Славки тотарину, Тушаем зовут, и тот де, государь, тотарин Тушай меня продал тому Енговату Бехкулакову»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern Russian does not require it grammatically (though you can still use it or another particle, *мол*, to mark reported speech), but it did not acquire any other grammatical means to mark reported speech either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28875" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="fd3b2650-f787-4546-bdc4-19e908362e5f" CreationDate="2016-05-13T17:09:12.190" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12414" RevisionGUID="7540760e-9322-43df-810f-3cb7c7f5dbd7" CreationDate="2016-05-13T17:21:23.840" UserDisplayName="user5462" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="One more meaning of &quot;жёлтенький&quot;: it can refer to close shades of yellow, something like &quot;yellowish&quot;. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Added: for example, if I am (informally) asked which of those button to click, my gut instinct is to answer &quot;жёлтенькую&quot;. If I answer &quot;жёлтую&quot;, I might get an odd look because there's no yellow button and the first one is beige or whatever. &lt;br&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;[![two awful buttons][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But agreed with Quassnoi♦, &quot;желтоватый&quot; is a more correct term here. It's just a bit longer to pronounce.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a8d5H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12416" RevisionGUID="99e048d9-f39f-44ca-ae61-4f647c3748d2" CreationDate="2016-05-14T01:43:18.877" UserId="4560" Text="In authentic, real-life daily conversations... neither.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Студенты говорят, они хотят стабильности и мира.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бабушка сказала, она хочет купить внуку игрушку.** (Even more true-to-life would be something like **Бабушка сказала, она внуку игрушку хочет купить.** And **сказала** would in all likelihood be pronounced `скаала`.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're unlikely to be taught this, and the forms of reported speech that you listed are the &quot;correct&quot; ones (although, one more thing, when the subject is the same in both clauses, it's usually more idiomatic to drop the pronoun: **Студенты говорят, что хотят стабильности и мира.** **Бабушка сказала, что хочет купить внуку игрушку.** With the pronoun in place, one intuitively expects more to follow, most likely a &quot;but&quot;.) These are the forms you should probably learn first — just be prepared for a slightly different syntax in &quot;live&quot; everyday Russian, and for not many people being able to concisely answer questions about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="7c5e9afb-4368-41b9-a4d1-27cf3845283d" CreationDate="2016-05-14T01:59:47.560" UserId="6539" Text="I believe that using reported speech in Russian is much easier than in English because there's no sequence of tenses.The tense of the reported verb doesn't depend on the tense in the main clause. So just imagine what would you say if there's **no** &quot;бабушка говорит&quot; or &quot;бабушка сказала&quot; and use **the same tense** as in direct speech but don't forget to change pronouns and make the verb agreement respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;я **хочу** купить–*что она **хочет** купить*, я **хотела** купить – *что она **хотела** купить*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It can't be easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="8de615e7-b3d5-4cc6-b7f0-f43e6df38c45" CreationDate="2016-05-14T08:42:15.280" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="в чем разница между жёлтый и жёлтенький?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="74372eb0-c5ae-46de-9e52-c2f65d8770d0" CreationDate="2016-05-14T09:08:11.690" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe that using reported speech in Russian is much easier than in English because there's no sequence of tenses.The tense of the reported verb doesn't depend on the tense in the main clause. So just imagine what you would say if there's **no** &quot;бабушка говорит&quot; or &quot;бабушка сказала&quot; and use **the same tense** as in direct speech but don't forget to change pronouns and make the verb agreement respectively:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;я **хочу** купить–*что она **хочет** купить*, я **хотела** купить – *что она **хотела** купить*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It can't be easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="9e2ed1f5-d7ed-4631-bc85-4b46630ed067" CreationDate="2016-05-14T17:30:04.533" UserId="7163" Text="I was told that the soft sign makes the preceding consonant soft. I understand why it used at the end of words (царь, гулять, здесь) or before consonants (огоньки, письмо). But why is the soft sign used between a consonant and a soft-indicating vowel (like ю and ё) in words like &quot;ком**пью**теры&quot; and &quot;**пьё**т&quot;? Wouldn't the consonant before the soft sign already be pronounced soft because of the soft-indicating vowel coming after it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read it has something to do with &quot;[iotation][1]&quot;, but I couldn't figure out what that means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="9e2ed1f5-d7ed-4631-bc85-4b46630ed067" CreationDate="2016-05-14T17:30:04.533" UserId="7163" Text="What is the use of the soft sign in front of (soft-indicating) vowels, in words like &quot;компьютеры&quot; and &quot;пьёт&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="9e2ed1f5-d7ed-4631-bc85-4b46630ed067" CreationDate="2016-05-14T17:30:04.533" UserId="7163" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12420" RevisionGUID="53f8891e-f2bd-4f41-b372-d45bc118d9ba" CreationDate="2016-05-14T18:51:32.403" UserId="194" Text="After oft and hard sign and after other vowels, vowels е, ё, ю, я are iotized and read [й'э], [й'о], [й'у], [й'а] respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12420" RevisionGUID="c4abb23a-ea0d-47c4-b6c7-7731895314e6" CreationDate="2016-05-14T18:56:35.987" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="After soft and hard sign and after other vowels, vowels е, ё, ю, я are iotized and read [й'э], [й'о], [й'у], [й'а] respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12421" RevisionGUID="59baaa29-767d-4cf7-9609-dffa54fd5aad" CreationDate="2016-05-14T21:12:01.053" UserId="134" Text="A soft or hard sign before a vowel indicates the palatal approximant *[j]*. This is the first sound in the English word &quot;year&quot; which makes it distinct from &quot;ear&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian words [*лёд*][1] &quot;ice&quot; and [*льёт*][2] &quot;(he) pours&quot; are pronounced *[lʲɵt]* and *[lʲjɵt]*, appropriately. They only differ in that one sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard sign in modern Russian is only used on morpheme boundaries, separating the roots starting with *е, ё, ю, я* from some preceding morphemes ending in a hard consonant; and, sometimes, in transcriptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of a hard versus soft sign is, hence, etymological rather than phonetical. Techically, one is supposed to pronounce a palatalized (soft) consonant before a soft sign and non-palatalized (hard) before a hard sign, however, in practice, many Russian speakers soften consonants preceding *[j]* even if it's denoted by a hard sign. Most Russian speakers would pronounce the first consonant in *адъютант* and *адью* exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B4/#ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%82/#ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="14c89912-87a1-4e48-b002-d668cbfd857e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T04:23:08.337" UserId="7239" Text="&quot;Never write unstressed 'o' after the letters, ж, ч, ш, щ, ц, instead use 'e'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are we supposed to still pronounce it like an &quot;o&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the answer is yes when the vowel is stressed, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нашЁл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but what about when it is unstressed? for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хорошЕе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since most people write &quot;е&quot; instead &quot;ё&quot; even when there is supposed to be stress,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**how are you supposed to know if the letter &quot;e&quot; is pronounced like an actual &quot;e&quot; or like an &quot;o&quot;?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why doesn't Russian have an additional letter for soft o, or just write &quot;ио&quot; or &quot;ьо&quot; instead of &quot;е/ё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="14c89912-87a1-4e48-b002-d668cbfd857e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T04:23:08.337" UserId="7239" Text="Pronunciation of Spelling Rule &quot;е&quot; vs &quot;о&quot; vs &quot;ё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="14c89912-87a1-4e48-b002-d668cbfd857e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T04:23:08.337" UserId="7239" Text="|произношение|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="4a80d32b-b942-4bea-8ace-1ff02343030b" CreationDate="2016-05-15T05:01:08.000" UserDisplayName="user6625" Text="Generally ли has many meanings, but in the sentence you brought, I'd rather look at the construct **&quot;уж не ... ли ...&quot;**. This specific construct is usually there to either emphasize suspicion in which the speaker is somewhat sure, or to convey sarcasm or skepticism. The first meaning could be translated to English quite straight forward. Translating sarcasm or skepticism is more tricky. Let's try your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;уж не тайное ли общество самоубийц?&quot;* could mean that person came to conclusion that s/he is indeed dealing with &quot;secret suicide society&quot; (the emphasis is not on secret here, but on the fact that he discovered what s/he is dealing with), but they cannot be 100% sure, so they convey their suspicion. E.g. *&quot;could it be a secret suicide society?&quot;* *&quot;I wonder if it's a secret suicide society&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if your text means this more in a sarcastic or skeptical way, where person is trying to say that secret suicide society is sort of irrelevant nonsense, then a more appropriate translation would be sceptic *&quot;are you trying to (blame it) on secret suicide society?&quot;* or sarcastic *&quot;and it was a secret suicide society of course&quot;*.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="857b831b-9d31-4b60-8243-f6e9a555712e" CreationDate="2016-05-15T06:25:21.403" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;but what about when it is unstressed? for example: хорошЕе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no soft &quot;ш&quot; in modern Russian, so &quot;е&quot; works just like &quot;э&quot; here: &quot;_харошэйэ_&quot;. Some historical or dialect pronounce may differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, since most people write &quot;е&quot; instead &quot;ё&quot; even when there is supposed to be stress, how are you supposed to know if the letter &quot;e&quot; is pronounced like an actual &quot;e&quot; or like an &quot;o&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just remember. No other magic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why doesn't Russian have an additional letter for soft o, or just write &quot;ио&quot; or &quot;ьо&quot; instead of &quot;е/ё&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, some borrowed words are spelled with &quot;ьо&quot;, for example &quot;бульон&quot; (bouillon)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="feedd0a4-7162-4498-96db-1be475082fb1" CreationDate="2016-05-15T07:39:17.900" UserId="194" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="&gt;but what about when it is unstressed? for example: хорошЕе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no soft &quot;ш&quot; in modern Russian, so &quot;е&quot; works just like &quot;э&quot; here: &quot;_харошэйэ_&quot;. Some historical or dialect pronounce may differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, since most people write &quot;е&quot; instead &quot;ё&quot; even when there is supposed to be stress, how are you supposed to know if the letter &quot;e&quot; is pronounced like an actual &quot;e&quot; or like an &quot;o&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just remember. No other magic here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why doesn't Russian have an additional letter for soft o, or just write &quot;ио&quot; or &quot;ьо&quot; instead of &quot;е/ё&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, some borrowed words are spelled with &quot;ьо&quot;, for example &quot;бульон&quot; (bouillon), pronounced the same way as if it were &quot;бульён&quot;. Letter ё is usually avoided in borrowed words because in writing it can be confused with e, and the readers unfamiliar with foreign languages may genuinely think they should pronounce e there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="3f44796c-3775-4491-b943-e0edec17b024" CreationDate="2016-05-15T07:42:49.837" UserId="194" Text="You should notice that ё is always stressed. If not stressed it becomes е everywhere, both in writing and pronounciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28902" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="89f2ff6d-c718-49e1-b308-fa0576010765" CreationDate="2016-05-15T15:50:59.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/731874527903371264" />
  <row Id="28903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12427" RevisionGUID="f59c163a-bbcd-4e23-994a-735d288682b9" CreationDate="2016-05-15T16:20:29.443" UserId="7274" Text="http://i.imgur.com/9f7we6n.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picture taken during a tour of the Chernobyl facility. I assume it is in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12427" RevisionGUID="f59c163a-bbcd-4e23-994a-735d288682b9" CreationDate="2016-05-15T16:20:29.443" UserId="7274" Text="What does this say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12427" RevisionGUID="f59c163a-bbcd-4e23-994a-735d288682b9" CreationDate="2016-05-15T16:20:29.443" UserId="7274" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12428" RevisionGUID="4562f83b-6be5-4727-8442-3273d54b1646" CreationDate="2016-05-15T18:17:33.497" UserId="7275" Text="It's an abbreviation &quot;послеоперационная палата&quot; which means &quot;postoperating room&quot;, &quot;recovery room&quot; in hospital." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12428" RevisionGUID="259c9eec-1efd-4d79-9cb2-be3df7a101e7" CreationDate="2016-05-15T18:48:31.940" UserId="7275" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It's an abbreviation for &quot;послеоперационная палата&quot; which means &quot;postoperating room&quot;, &quot;recovery room&quot; in hospital." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12427" RevisionGUID="3539966e-573a-4ce9-ab92-7ebaf9750410" CreationDate="2016-05-15T21:10:16.723" UserId="3680" Comment="image inlined" Text="![](http://i.imgur.com/9f7we6n.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picture taken during a tour of the Chernobyl facility. I assume it is in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28909" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12427" RevisionGUID="f0a349a0-07ef-4d11-816a-65223a92caf9" CreationDate="2016-05-15T22:47:02.897" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12429" RevisionGUID="bed19692-9819-4f11-90be-bafb3ce7234d" CreationDate="2016-05-16T07:43:55.880" UserId="551" Text="&gt; Why doesn't Russian have an additional letter for soft o, or just write &quot;ио&quot; or &quot;ьо&quot; instead of &quot;е/ё&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is because of historical reasons. &quot;Ё&quot; was suggested in 1783 by non-linguists to denote a situation when old-style pronunciation (and writing rules) required letter &quot;е&quot; to be written in this position, but modern pronunciation shifted to йо/ьо instead. I think a matter of visual similarity to letter О was not considered at those times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, other letters are also non-paired in modern writing: а/я у/ю э/е." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28911" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="96681c37-6912-4ef8-aeb9-122113436472" CreationDate="2016-05-16T07:44:47.273" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|правописание|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12430" RevisionGUID="4432d270-8402-4709-8b7d-8fbcad97830f" CreationDate="2016-05-16T09:00:05.517" UserId="7277" Text="How is Splash Page in Russian (IT)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12430" RevisionGUID="4432d270-8402-4709-8b7d-8fbcad97830f" CreationDate="2016-05-16T09:00:05.517" UserId="7277" Text="How is Splash Page in Russian (IT)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12430" RevisionGUID="4432d270-8402-4709-8b7d-8fbcad97830f" CreationDate="2016-05-16T09:00:05.517" UserId="7277" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28915" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12430" RevisionGUID="6f0e37e4-70af-4821-85f0-d35836be615d" CreationDate="2016-05-16T10:41:40.387" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12431" RevisionGUID="9f7a812d-117d-48a2-8c90-c0e84a3a4628" CreationDate="2016-05-16T14:32:49.097" UserId="4674" Text="На мой взгляд слово желтенький, как и вообще прилагательные с суффиксом &quot;еньк&quot; не несет в себе никакого грамматического смысла, и используется по какой-то непонятной причине в лексиконе женщин. Если нужно словами передать блеклый оттенок желтого цвета то правильно будет сказать &quot;желтоватый&quot;, но уж никак не &quot;желтенький&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12431" RevisionGUID="df61ca34-9750-4282-9bf9-9b24bed607c5" CreationDate="2016-05-16T14:37:49.483" UserId="4674" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="На мой взгляд слово желтенький, как и вообще прилагательные с суффиксом &quot;еньк&quot; не несет в себе никакого грамматического смысла, и используется по какой-то непонятной причине в лексиконе женщин. Если нужно словами передать блеклый оттенок желтого цвета то правильно будет сказать &quot;желтоватый&quot;, но уж никак не &quot;желтенький&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако есть некоторые устоявшиеся слова с суффиксом &quot;еньк&quot;, например: &#xD;&#xA;маленький, старенький.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="b37b80b1-ff25-435d-81f2-1824f2c568c2" CreationDate="2016-05-16T18:36:04.547" UserId="4714" Text="Why does походить mean to be similar in appearance to&quot;? When would you use the verb and when would you use the adjective &quot;похожий&quot;? I don'y quite get the logic being why a motion verb means to be similar in appearance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to say &quot;Он походит на отца&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how is that different from &quot;он похож на отца&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="b37b80b1-ff25-435d-81f2-1824f2c568c2" CreationDate="2016-05-16T18:36:04.547" UserId="4714" Text="what's the logic behind походить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="b37b80b1-ff25-435d-81f2-1824f2c568c2" CreationDate="2016-05-16T18:36:04.547" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="aac21d06-456b-44ae-82c5-d58b4c824250" CreationDate="2016-05-16T19:11:41.577" UserId="194" Text="&gt; он похож на отца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oн походит на отца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is weird and too bookish. The verb походить is too bookish and somewhat outdated in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12434" RevisionGUID="ed2fdb4c-4b00-4d57-9168-76458aa26455" CreationDate="2016-05-16T19:16:16.413" UserId="6682" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Походить is in the class of Russian abstract verbs. Its counterparts,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти and пойти, are concrete verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that походить expresses something along the lines of &quot;to walk in step with something&quot;; so to say &quot;Они похожи&quot; would translate to something like &quot;They are walking (in tune/in step/in line)&quot;, i.e. they are similar to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for when to use походить or похож, the verb form is more antiquated, used primarily in literary contexts while похож is most common in colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="26498def-4130-43cd-b793-b6faf004c1ce" CreationDate="2016-05-16T19:16:50.437" UserId="194" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="&gt; он похож на отца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oн походит на отца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is weird and too bookish. The verb походить (in the meaning be alike) is too bookish and somewhat outdated in general. The common meaning of походить is to be visiting some place for a while like in &quot;я походил на курсы немецкого языка, но ничему не научился&quot; or &quot;walk over something for a while&quot; like in &quot;я походил по улице еще час и пошел домой&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28924" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="15608bed-9369-4c2d-84aa-8d38d0b0da5b" CreationDate="2016-05-16T22:30:14.797" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the logic behind &quot;походить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28925" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="6b7edfe2-c93d-4b20-b896-415fd68d1a55" CreationDate="2016-05-17T00:51:03.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/732372828230721537" />
  <row Id="28926" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="9bb3500e-af8a-4aed-a803-b765e8f6209a" CreationDate="2016-05-17T06:51:08.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/732463442762698752" />
  <row Id="28927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12434" RevisionGUID="4ca9ccb1-74a1-4d10-ba2f-f2349756c6ef" CreationDate="2016-05-17T20:00:12.160" UserId="6682" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Походить is in the class of Russian abstract verbs. Its counterparts,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти and пойти, are concrete verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My impression is that походить expresses something along the lines of &quot;to walk (in step with something)&quot;; so to say &quot;Они походят&quot; would translate to something like &quot;They are walking (in tune/in step/in line)&quot;, i.e. they are similar to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for when to use походить or похож, the verb form is more antiquated, used primarily in literary contexts while похож is most common in colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="27f73baa-2e8c-4f70-ba1e-61511bdcff8b" CreationDate="2016-05-17T23:27:51.920" UserId="6816" Text="How would you counter someone that says something false, such as, &quot;Ты не говоришь по-руский.&quot;? Then you say, &quot;I **do** speak Russian!&quot; But how do you emphasize the *do* part?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="27f73baa-2e8c-4f70-ba1e-61511bdcff8b" CreationDate="2016-05-17T23:27:51.920" UserId="6816" Text="How to emphasize the word &quot;do&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="27f73baa-2e8c-4f70-ba1e-61511bdcff8b" CreationDate="2016-05-17T23:27:51.920" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="1475283c-5d50-42bf-bd6b-ce66c72e4ca5" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:29:05.833" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="How would you counter someone that says something false, such as, &quot;Ты не говоришь по-русски?&quot;. Then you say, &quot;I **do** speak Russian!&quot; But how do you emphasize the *do* part?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12436" RevisionGUID="7ac56023-9ba3-487d-a9ce-c833db80ebd2" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:34:51.143" UserId="242" Text="There's no such thing like &quot;do&quot; as an auxiliary verb in Russian, thus, there's not such thing like direct analog. But here's a list of phrases than more or less convey the same as the &quot;I do&quot; construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *(colloquial)* А вот и [нет,] говорю!&#xD;&#xA; 2. *(even more colloquial, even childish)*  - Очень даже и говорю!&#xD;&#xA; 3. *(more neutral)* Да нет, [почему], говорю. (The same &quot;отчего же, говорю&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; 4. *(bookish)* Напротив, говорю.&#xD;&#xA; 5. *(even more bookish)* Отнюдь, говорю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="7f6f137e-7fd8-4bc3-95a8-1c6beb02c1a3" CreationDate="2016-05-18T00:36:55.997" UserId="6816" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="How would you counter someone that says something false, such as, &quot;You don't speak Russian,&quot; then you say, &quot;I **do** speak Russian!&quot;? But how do you emphasize the *do* part?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12438" RevisionGUID="b4bc1f98-ddd4-4c3e-8726-535d4f1ed8f7" CreationDate="2016-05-18T03:37:38.577" UserId="6588" Text="This kind of &quot;do&quot; is not indicated in the text. All possible variants are either bookish or colloquial. An exact equivalent is emphasized by intonation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Вы не говорите по-русски.&#xD;&#xA;- **Я́** говорю. (default is &quot;Я говорю́&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional words, such as &quot;-то&quot; in &quot;я-то говорю&quot; instead of the intonation change indicates the intention of the speaker to argue. Only the intonation change is as plain and simple, as &quot;do&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="58b44b1d-b00c-4ffa-9ee9-ed430905db47" CreationDate="2016-05-18T21:27:40.237" UserId="7254" Text="According to some resources I have you use the Dative case after a lot of verbs that mean an action pointed towards a person, like the &quot;hate&quot;, &quot;love&quot;, &quot;gift&quot; verbs. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Виктор мешает брату.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;брат&quot; is in Dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the same time I know that you use Accusative case for direct objects, i.e. the object of the action (and, subsequently, Dative for the indirect object). So in the example given above &quot;брат&quot; is clearly the direct object, so why isn't it in Accusative case? Is it just one of many &quot;exceptions&quot; that need to be remembered that go with the Dative, instead of the Accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="58b44b1d-b00c-4ffa-9ee9-ed430905db47" CreationDate="2016-05-18T21:27:40.237" UserId="7254" Text="Accusative vs Dative case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="58b44b1d-b00c-4ffa-9ee9-ed430905db47" CreationDate="2016-05-18T21:27:40.237" UserId="7254" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11375" RevisionGUID="49aa10e9-987b-4fbf-aa6b-f0884dd363f2" CreationDate="2016-05-18T23:41:50.590" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In Proto-Slavic it was most likely četslo/čitslo. Then &quot;t&quot; just dropped down due to the rule of ascending sonority (закон восходящей звучности), one of the most basic phonological rules of Old East Slavic (or Old Russian, whatever you call it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly for the same reason we have &quot;прясло&quot; (was прѧтсло initially) and &quot;ясли&quot; (derived from *ēdsli-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happened in Proto-Slavic so actually there are some more non-obvious examples, when this particular changes was affected by some other phonetical mutations. For instance [pṓds][1] - the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European word for foot is something that gave us words &quot;пехота&quot; and &quot;пеший&quot; (first, ds -&gt; s, then it morphed into x and ʂ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/p%E1%B9%93ds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1858" RevisionGUID="3fa1084a-5387-4b9e-b05a-604b0e331267" CreationDate="2016-05-18T23:55:43.133" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="*Short answer.* Yes, they are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer.* These words both are descending from the same PIE root  `reudh`, which stood for indicating something related red. I use phrase something related to red, since no one knows for sure (and, alas, no one most probably will know in future) whether this root in it first meaning indicated colour and than some additional meanings(blood, red-coloured fruits or berries etc.)  had been derived; or vice versa. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, as far as I know, red is one of the few colours (if not the only one) for which we have solid evidence of common PIE origin. English words `red`, `rust`, `rusty`, Russian words `руда` (in some dialects of Old Russian this also meant &quot;blood&quot; by the way), `рыжий`, `рдеть`, `ржавый`, French word `rouge`, all of them are related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The longest answer I can provide.* French is a Romance language but it's phonetics evolution was very intensive. If one would be asked to characterise this evolution in a single words, it wouldn't be too bold oversimplification to say reduction. For example, French word août (which [is pronounced just][1] `u`) actually originally had been latin &quot;augustus&quot;. Something similar had happened to Latin word `rubeus` (red, reddish), which had been transformed to modern `rouge`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for russian `рыжий` it indeed is related to `рудый` which, in turn, is related to `руда`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also one thing we always should remember almost each time when we are talking that two words in different languages are related in deep historical context: those relations are not always straightforward. It's not always that simple that there existed some word in some mother language and this word have precisely that meaning and had been derived from exactly that word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, above mentioned Latin word `rubeus` claimed to be originated [from][2] `rubus` (blackberry). And `rubus` is related to `wr̥dʰo` (some plant with red flowers, presumably sweetbrier or rose, or part of this plant) Oh, by the way, almost forget to mention that `rose` is also related to `рыжий`, but, once again not directly. And `wr̥dʰo` is, once again, related to the first PIE root I've mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao%C3%BBt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12441" RevisionGUID="491a40e3-913d-4e1b-90f8-ff168ccca3b8" CreationDate="2016-05-19T02:42:08.120" UserId="2079" Text="The so called law about direct and indirect objects is good only to explain things post-factum.  You cannot use the law to predict anything.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Виктор учит студентов физике.  (Студенты is in accusative, физика is in dative)&#xD;&#xA;* Виктор преподаёт студентам физику. (Студенты is in dative, физика is in accusaive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Victor does the same thing in both cases.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should just remember which verbs govern dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12442" RevisionGUID="54545795-64fa-4c56-8d7f-2c801d020419" CreationDate="2016-05-19T10:58:52.440" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Виктор мешает брату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мешает means mixes or messes. In this case the direct object is omitted. Victor mixes or messes some things with which his brother is doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say Виктор мешает брата (accusative) this would mean Victor is mixing his brother. Like if he were cooking his brother in a pot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12442" RevisionGUID="efc6434e-58db-4284-8607-fe0a6e23a491" CreationDate="2016-05-19T11:08:09.417" UserId="194" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="&gt; Виктор мешает брату. = Victor mixes [things] to his brother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мешает means mixes or messes. In this case the direct object is omitted. Victor mixes or messes some things with which his brother is doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say Виктор мешает брата (accusative) this would mean Victor is mixing his brother. Like if he were cooking his brother in a pot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12443" RevisionGUID="d372f08e-5504-4e68-8a7f-5d7fb8e4743a" CreationDate="2016-05-19T11:33:33.943" UserId="194" Text="I do not know how to construct a repulsive version using deminutive. It would be rather augmentative that would be repulsive (блобище).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural deminutive here is блобик. It is rather sympathetic than repulsive.&#xD;&#xA;Блобочка is of different gender, it is a deminutive of a would-be word &quot;блоба&quot; which does not exist. Блобец is somewhat ironic but also underlines unvanishing and/or problematic existence of the object. It is something a thing, you know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="98482eed-c89b-493d-8b8c-65d1d71f6621" CreationDate="2016-05-19T13:42:12.923" UserId="7254" Comment="removed &quot;hate&quot; and &quot;love&quot; verbs, must hava made a mistake when putting them in the first place" Text="According to some resources I have you use the Dative case after a lot of verbs that mean an action pointed towards a person, like the &quot;to gift&quot; verb. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Виктор мешает брату.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;брат&quot; is in Dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the same time I know that you use Accusative case for direct objects, i.e. the object of the action (and, subsequently, Dative for the indirect object). So in the example given above &quot;брат&quot; is clearly the direct object, so why isn't it in Accusative case? Is it just one of many &quot;exceptions&quot; that need to be remembered that go with the Dative, instead of the Accusative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Removed the &quot;to hate&quot; and &quot;to love&quot; verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="fb8f293c-c616-4e8c-a71d-6fa2aa16108c" CreationDate="2016-05-19T13:44:08.207" UserId="7239" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неживой, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/живой, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кего&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неживой? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/живой (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="fb8f293c-c616-4e8c-a71d-6fa2aa16108c" CreationDate="2016-05-19T13:44:08.207" UserId="7239" Text="Почему так часто &quot;ничего&quot; а нет &quot;ничто&quot;? (Why &quot;ничего&quot; and not &quot;ничто&quot;?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="fb8f293c-c616-4e8c-a71d-6fa2aa16108c" CreationDate="2016-05-19T13:44:08.207" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|склонение|морфология|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="d9b0b8fc-f210-49ea-806b-daf6ad987b52" CreationDate="2016-05-19T14:04:03.743" UserId="7239" Comment="одушевлённый" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неодушевлённый, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/одушевлённый, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кего&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неодушевлённый? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/одушевлённый (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="32724912-9225-4501-b008-f1ef8450d04f" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:17:08.997" UserId="7239" Comment="edited body" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неодушевлённый, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/одушевлённый, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кoм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неодушевлённый? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/одушевлённый (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="66c87340-7660-4556-a00a-f6c9a38b5c5b" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:17:45.887" UserId="7239" Comment="edited body" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неодушевлённый, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/одушевлённый, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кoму&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кoм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неодушевлённый? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/одушевлённый (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12445" RevisionGUID="25c78be9-04ef-4b39-8a41-6a6b7ae7bb1b" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:24:51.717" UserId="194" Text="On my map the accusative of ничто is still ничто. Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за кризиса все облигации превратились в ничто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot come with an example where ничто would be in accusative but having the form ничего." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="62dfca03-47f9-42b6-9a49-0e6f26c4b0a1" CreationDate="2016-05-19T15:52:30.017" UserId="7299" Text="&quot;Ничто&quot; can be used as  zero, void.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot; is accusative word &quot;ничто&quot;. &quot;Ничего&quot; can be used as assessment of what is happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&quot;что произошло?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&quot;Ничего.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also used to express inability to doing something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я ничего не умею.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="16cd24b9-91d0-4b75-a9e7-1ea3d7170ffc" CreationDate="2016-05-19T16:56:52.737" UserId="5008" Text="Negation in Russian requires Genitive. _Ничего_ is Genitive. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative _Ничто_ is a special object. It isn't nothing. It's Nothing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="36c464c5-2d16-4724-8b07-bf8f65d80c7d" CreationDate="2016-05-19T18:24:40.140" UserId="5008" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Negation of existense (i.e. &quot;no such thing&quot;) in Russian requires Genitive. _Ничего_ is Genitive. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative _Ничто_ is a special object. It isn't nothing. It's Nothing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28969" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="74360a14-0b74-4c05-93e1-b4bc9f23b542" CreationDate="2016-05-19T21:36:35.653" UserId="97" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему так часто &quot;ничего&quot; а не &quot;ничто&quot;? (Why &quot;ничего&quot; and not &quot;ничто&quot;?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="0e8996fa-ae26-4b45-bb4e-c927bc38421b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T08:31:27.350" UserId="145" Text="I am a Polish native speaker. I have a pretty good passive understanding of written Russian. I have however a terrible pronounciation, especially with regards to stress (it always falls on penultimate syllabe in Polish). I believe I could improve it by reading texts that have stress markings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any editions of classic Russian literature that feature stress markings? Both paper and electronic editions would interest me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="0e8996fa-ae26-4b45-bb4e-c927bc38421b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T08:31:27.350" UserId="145" Text="Russian classic literatur with stress marking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="0e8996fa-ae26-4b45-bb4e-c927bc38421b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T08:31:27.350" UserId="145" Text="|литература|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="2f5e7021-2549-4462-897a-e8595ff11d32" CreationDate="2016-05-20T10:25:02.333" UserId="5008" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="Negation of existense (i.e. &quot;no such thing&quot;) in Russian requires Genitive. _Ничего_ is Genitive. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative _Ничто_ is a special object. It isn't nothing. It's Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the difference may seem very subtle for English speakers. Consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Ничто_ на земле не проходит бесследно --&gt; Nothing on earth goes without leaving a trace  &#xD;&#xA;И поэтому верю со мной _ничего_ не случится --&gt; And so I believe nothing [bad] ever happens to me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="7f2cb77e-cf0a-4567-b5a7-fae79a4da72c" CreationDate="2016-05-20T10:57:25.147" UserId="7283" Text="I want to propose you a better solutution of the problem http://morpher.ru/accentizer/ - this programm makes stresses in every texts. Or Google: Тексты с ударениями &#xD;&#xA;For exemple https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Толстый_и_тонкий_(Чехов,_текст_с_ударениями)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="af1c4e3f-048d-4d18-93b9-3eb9ca105eeb" CreationDate="2016-05-20T10:59:17.987" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body" Text="Negation of existense (i.e. &quot;no such thing&quot;) in Russian requires Genitive. _Ничего_ is Genitive. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative _Ничто_ is a special object. It isn't nothing. It's Nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the difference may seem very subtle for English speakers. Consider&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Ничто_ на земле не проходит бесследно --&gt; Nothing on earth goes without leaving a trace  &#xD;&#xA;И поэтому знаю: со мной _ничего_ не случится! --&gt; And so I know that nothing [bad] happens to me!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="396f3e47-62ee-4ae9-affa-f47dfdc9133c" CreationDate="2016-05-20T11:16:49.247" UserId="7283" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I want to propose you a better solution of the problem http://morpher.ru/accentizer/ - this program makes stresses in every Russian text. Or Google: Тексты с ударениями &#xD;&#xA;For example https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Толстый_и_тонкий_(Чехов,_текст_с_ударениями)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="7d609b03-ca8b-44cc-9296-b51137a1ffab" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:51:09.623" UserId="7239" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неодушевлённый, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/одушевлённый, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кoму&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кoм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неодушевлённый? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/одушевлённый (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Here are some (probably incorrect) examples of what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не возможно делать эту задачу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;but/а  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не возможно делать ничего." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="75b461b8-3af5-41fb-8037-a5a92349ba6b" CreationDate="2016-05-20T13:56:51.203" UserId="7283" Comment="improve English vocabullary" Text="I want to propose you a better solution of the problem http://morpher.ru/accentizer/ - this program makes stress marks in every Russian text. Or Google: Тексты с ударениями &#xD;&#xA;For example https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Толстый_и_тонкий_(Чехов,_текст_с_ударениями)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28979" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="8be2442d-14b4-4f61-9188-be85a07e11b4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T19:36:34.293" UserId="4714" Comment="typo was found " Text="Russian classic literature with stress marking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28980" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="8be2442d-14b4-4f61-9188-be85a07e11b4" CreationDate="2016-05-20T19:36:34.293" Comment="Proposed by 4714 approved by 1236, 242 edit id of 744" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="f957a33e-fbda-4b97-a65c-3ed70c28a776" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:16:28.407" UserId="587" Text="You should look for books labeled &quot;Russian for foreigners&quot; (Русский язык для иностранцев). They are available for sale quite cheaply, for instance, at [litres.ru][1]. Not all of them have stresses marked, but after registration you may preview samples and see for yourself. Audiobooks are there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_search/?q=%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%20%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F%20%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12451" RevisionGUID="7f25b30d-e93d-4d38-a6e0-c2cee777ab33" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:25:39.490" UserId="4999" Text="Он походит на отца. Это значит, что характер, поведение такое же самое как у отца.&#xA;Он похож на отца. Значит он внешне похож на отца." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12453" RevisionGUID="b082d931-1214-4b04-a88d-998db24eca32" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:43:42.583" UserId="4999" Text="Это непереходные глаголы и они требуют дательного падежа. брату не direct object" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12453" RevisionGUID="ab356361-9a19-46b0-9b1e-2d05b3398d44" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:49:23.113" UserId="4999" Comment="added 121 characters in body; edited body" Text="Это непереходные глаголы и они требуют дательного падежа. брату не direct object.&#xA;Глагол мешать имеет два значения:&#xA;Мешать что-то - переходный: Мешать кашу.&#xA;Мешать кому-то - непереходный: Мешать брату." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12453" RevisionGUID="052bb803-7b79-4ddd-b8fd-958037d76430" CreationDate="2016-05-20T20:56:45.147" UserId="4999" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Это непереходные глаголы и они требуют дательного падежа. брату не direct object.&#xA;Глагол мешать имеет два значения:&#xA;Мешать что-то - переходный: Мешать кашу.&#xA;Мешать кому-то - непереходный: Мешать брату.&#xA;https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/мешать " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="549bae52-9ea8-421d-b87a-64548e34198f" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:45:03.690" UserId="-1" Comment="Added a free Russian self study guide" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][5] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][6] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][7] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][8] - spaced repetition using complete sentences (rather than single words). Covers the entire language and tracks your vocabulary size. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][9] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][10].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][11] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][12] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fluent in Russian][13] - free audio lessons in the form of questions and answers for developing speaking and listening skills, as well as grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][14] - Russian language self study guide for beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.memrise.com/courses/english/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://ru.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://speakfluentrussian.com&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28989" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="549bae52-9ea8-421d-b87a-64548e34198f" CreationDate="2016-05-21T07:45:03.690" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 3680, 5008 edit id of 745" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="10e808f0-09e1-479e-b35f-12c0db5705d4" CreationDate="2016-05-21T10:12:11.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/733963594086404096" />
  <row Id="28991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="313ea411-2e31-4287-af38-a9791cfc273c" CreationDate="2016-05-21T10:58:25.810" UserId="7242" Text="I've heard the phrase during the conversation of two teenagers. One was saying to the other, &quot;Я веду разгульный образ жизни. Не знаю плохо это или хорошо.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="313ea411-2e31-4287-af38-a9791cfc273c" CreationDate="2016-05-21T10:58:25.810" UserId="7242" Text="What is the meaning of the phrase &quot;разгульный образ жизни&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="313ea411-2e31-4287-af38-a9791cfc273c" CreationDate="2016-05-21T10:58:25.810" UserId="7242" Text="|перевод|значения|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="5c2f961f-ac76-4464-80cb-2a9638b40504" CreationDate="2016-05-21T11:20:33.607" UserId="3680" Text="It means something like `rackety life`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я веду разгульный образ жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I live a rackety life.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12456" RevisionGUID="cc7c4442-8097-43f1-b59c-03d8b44c839a" CreationDate="2016-05-21T11:31:41.227" UserId="6539" Text="Разгульный образ жизни can be translated into English as *a dissolute or rakish way of life* but it is less negative than  that. It is perhaps &quot;easy&quot; or sometimes even &quot;wild&quot; behaviour of a person who devotes his life to all kinds of  non-stop entertainment, eating out, drinking,parties,dancing, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="b7cbfa60-11e3-43d2-a8c6-307748d0ad19" CreationDate="2016-05-21T14:21:16.573" UserId="7239" Text="I see this a lot in the context of computer programs. My original guess was that it stood for something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;программа операции&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning something like operating system (i.e. &quot;ПО=OS&quot;), but it seems to appear in the context of general computer programs, not just operating systems, so I really am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried googling it but found it difficult to find a useful result since it has the same spelling as the obviously very common preposition по.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for your time and help -- I really appreciate it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="b7cbfa60-11e3-43d2-a8c6-307748d0ad19" CreationDate="2016-05-21T14:21:16.573" UserId="7239" Text="Что значит &quot;ПО&quot;? (What does the abbreviation &quot;ПО&quot; stand for?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="b7cbfa60-11e3-43d2-a8c6-307748d0ad19" CreationDate="2016-05-21T14:21:16.573" UserId="7239" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="045b4ee8-45e5-48ed-b1b7-48b9251ab76a" CreationDate="2016-05-21T14:23:28.413" UserId="3528" Text="In this context, &quot;ПО&quot; stands for &quot;программное обеспечение&quot;, i.e. &quot;software&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12454" RevisionGUID="d2938b82-2449-41a3-a91b-a12b826b4e26" CreationDate="2016-05-21T22:14:12.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/734145292933693440" />
  <row Id="29001" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="c4fbc277-cd24-4c24-a2ba-24192273ea30" CreationDate="2016-05-22T09:55:48.530" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|лексикон|it|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29005" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="e7803544-0c18-4d2b-83a8-b5aacaca7e2a" CreationDate="2016-05-23T04:54:29.517" UserId="4188" Comment="52" />
  <row Id="29006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12460" RevisionGUID="ded3bedb-2d38-44bc-a5f9-b11a132cec1b" CreationDate="2016-05-23T06:38:01.993" UserId="2079" Text="Корпус русского языка находит 29 текстов со словом &quot;пленэр&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из них в одном тексте некий &quot;пленэр-мемориал&quot; (текст Пелевина), и ещё в 4 имя собственное.  Из 24 релевантных текстов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* в 16 - рисование на открытом воздухе (`поехал на пленэр`, `он на пленэре` и т. п.) &#xD;&#xA;* в 7 - другое мероприятие на открытом воздухе (пикник, спектакль и т. д.)  &#xD;&#xA;* В одном тексте 1916 года смысл трудно понять:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`На снегу писать — все иное получается. Вон пишут на снегу силуэтами... А на снегу все пропитано светом. Все в рефлексах лиловых и розовых. Вон как одежда боярыни Морозовой, верхняя, черная, и рубахи в толпе. Все пленэр. Я с 1878 го­да уже пленэристом стал. «Стрельцов» тоже на воздухе писал. Все с натуры писал: и сани, и дровни.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ни в одном случае пленэр не означает ни картину, ни технику.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для полноты следует искать слово пленэр во всех падежах и в обоих числах, предоставляю это автору вопроса.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12460" RevisionGUID="d94c8cf7-82f8-4a3f-9ee8-970f1a4be49c" CreationDate="2016-05-23T06:43:53.497" UserId="2079" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Корпус русского языка находит 29 текстов со словом &quot;пленэр&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из них в одном тексте некий &quot;пленэр-мемориал&quot; (текст Пелевина), и ещё в 4 имя собственное.  Из 24 релевантных текстов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* в 16 - рисование на открытом воздухе (`поехал на пленэр`, `он на пленэре` и т. п.) &#xD;&#xA;* в 7 - другое мероприятие на открытом воздухе (пикник, спектакль и т. д.) или просто пребывание на открытом воздухе&#xD;&#xA;* В одном тексте 1916 года точный смысл трудно понять:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`На снегу писать — все иное получается. Вон пишут на снегу силуэтами... А на снегу все пропитано светом. Все в рефлексах лиловых и розовых. Вон как одежда боярыни Морозовой, верхняя, черная, и рубахи в толпе. Все пленэр. Я с 1878 го­да уже пленэристом стал. «Стрельцов» тоже на воздухе писал. Все с натуры писал: и сани, и дровни.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В любом случае, текст столетней давности вряд ли актуален.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ни в одном случае (кроме, может быть, последнего) пленэр не означает ни картину, ни технику.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для полноты следует искать слово пленэр во всех падежах и в обоих числах, предоставляю это автору вопроса.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="00eddec7-5d36-4900-97d1-61131c0e8062" CreationDate="2016-05-23T07:03:31.180" UserId="5758" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="**Пленэр** — живописная техника изображения объектов при естественном свете в естественных условиях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой диапазон использования у этого слова (действие, создание картины в этой технике; сама техника; картина, изображённая   этой технике)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Например:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Мы берем одну, заметь - одну чувиху и едем на пленэр. *С.Довлатов &quot;Заповедник&quot;* (выезд к изображаемому объекту и его рисование).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не подтверждённые примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Этот пленэр (картина) получился особенно выразительно.&#xD;&#xA;3. Благодаря отработке пленэра (техники) в студенческие годы он добился значительных успехов в живописи в целом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29009" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="cf197f43-91d6-4ac8-a2d9-73e039ae2fa4" CreationDate="2016-05-23T07:33:26.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/734648416245043200" />
  <row Id="29010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="6a4e97cf-b0c7-42b2-beb3-37d178e97652" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:12:13.440" UserId="7267" Text="По правилу о постановке запятой перед союзом `&quot;как&quot;` запятая не ставится, если оборот входит в состав фразеологизма. Мне кажется, что `&quot;верный как пёс&quot;` является достаточно устойчивым оборотом, и поэтому может считаться фразеологизмом. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть во фразе `&quot;У меня есть братаны, верные как псы&quot;` после `&quot;верные&quot;` запятая не нужна. Правильно ли это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="6a4e97cf-b0c7-42b2-beb3-37d178e97652" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:12:13.440" UserId="7267" Text="Ставится ли запятая в обороте &quot;верный как пёс&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="6a4e97cf-b0c7-42b2-beb3-37d178e97652" CreationDate="2016-05-23T10:12:13.440" UserId="7267" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29013" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12457" RevisionGUID="11a4d297-09e2-4041-966c-cdd9f4d48345" CreationDate="2016-05-23T13:33:26.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/734739014184521728" />
  <row Id="29014" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12435" RevisionGUID="bc5f7551-431d-4b28-a66e-bf3e43a125c4" CreationDate="2016-05-23T16:39:38.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/734785874152558593" />
  <row Id="29015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12462" RevisionGUID="b7e1c23c-be49-440d-b965-1ade5a0e0947" CreationDate="2016-05-23T17:00:34.030" UserId="134" Text="This depends on which grammatical role you are using *как псы* in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean your have buddies who are very loyal to you, and *верные как псы* is just a synonym to *очень верные*, you should not use a comma here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Черные как ночь (*= очень чёрные*), могучие «абердино-ангусы», под ними земля дрожала, до тонны весом быки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean your buddies are loyal to you in a doggish way and *верные как псы* is a synonym to *по-собачьи верные*, you should not use a comma either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японец с палкой вдруг зашипел как змея (*= по-змеиному*) и что было сил треснул Петькиного япошку по голове.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if you mean that your buddies are loyal to you as dogs are loyal to their master (in some way which you are probably going to describe), i.e. it's neither a simile nor a manner, but a true comparison, you should use a comma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="a46608a6-78a8-441a-a68f-0d4a779a71f0" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:00:33.623" UserId="4714" Text="I think I missed this point in my first year of study. Is it correct to say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я был в стадионе на футболе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned that на goes with words like стадионе, but today one of my roommates mentioned that we can use &quot;в&quot; here. Why is that? His teacher said it's proper to say &quot;в&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that it's correct to say: &quot;Я ее видел в автобусе&quot;. Is the above similar case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="a46608a6-78a8-441a-a68f-0d4a779a71f0" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:00:33.623" UserId="4714" Text="prepositional case—exceptions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="a46608a6-78a8-441a-a68f-0d4a779a71f0" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:00:33.623" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12464" RevisionGUID="df3dc048-376b-4443-85e3-15a0dcfdc98d" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:04:10.860" UserId="4560" Text="There might be a misunderstanding here. On the one hand, there is no way, ever, you'd say **в стадионе** unless it's in the abstract, e.g. **не видеть необходимости в новом стадионе**. Only in that non-locational, abstract usage. The logic of **в автобусе** doesn't apply here: even when really pressed to use an &quot;in&quot; word, you'd prefer **внутри стадиона** to **в**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a *specific* stadium when mentioned by name can require **в**. In fact, I think most do: **в «Лужниках»** vs. **на стадионе «Лужники»**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12465" RevisionGUID="dae80d44-2004-44a4-a937-0fa475df5a69" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:37:41.950" UserId="134" Text="Usage of *в* vs *на* is basically something you learn with the word itself, that is some words go with *в*, others go with *на*, and you just have to learn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most broad distinction is that *на* is generally used with open-space objects (like *стадион* in your example), while *в* is used with enclosures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is very vague and exceptions are so numerous that it's just better to say the preposition is something you learn with the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some words the usage of the preposition varies with the speech register (prison argots use *на тюрьме, на зоне, на больнице*, while normative Russian uses *в*); regional and municipal preferences (*в Украине, на Лобне, на Сходне*); awareness of tradition and etymology (*на ФГУП, на Физтехе*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case, *на стадионе* is correct and _*в стадионе_ is not, same as *(я видёл её) в автобусе* is correct and _*(я видел её) на автобусе_ is not, just because there very words require these very prepositions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12466" RevisionGUID="ee74e888-52ad-4e01-934b-88c1f0f8f517" CreationDate="2016-05-24T09:47:11.203" UserId="7313" Text="Both sentences sound absolutely perfect to me. It really matters what you put after &quot;походить&quot;.&#xA;Походить на is to have something in common with someone , to be alike.&#xA;Походить по горам, Походить по магазинам.  To walk in the mountains. Do shopping." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12466" RevisionGUID="f8bc068d-9576-433b-b732-2bcf7235a0af" CreationDate="2016-05-24T10:49:07.777" UserId="7313" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Both sentences sound absolutely perfect to me. It really matters what you put after &quot;походить&quot;.&#xA;Походить на is to have something in common with someone , to be alike.&#xA;Походить по горам, Походить по магазинам.  To walk in the mountains. Do shopping , in a sense of walking from one shop to another without necessary buying anything.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12433" RevisionGUID="ec37780c-aea3-4f9e-9791-81919fab9bca" CreationDate="2016-05-24T10:51:14.690" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; он похож на отца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oн походит на отца&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is weird and too bookish. The verb походить (in the meaning be alike) is too bookish and somewhat outdated in general. The common meaning of походить is to be visiting some place for a while like in &quot;я походил на курсы немецкого языка, но ничему не научился&quot; or &quot;walk over something for a while&quot; like in &quot;я походил по улице ещё час и пошел домой&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29024" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="99fdf890-542e-4b55-9c88-f92ec262b4b3" CreationDate="2016-05-25T10:49:55.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/735422638420570112" />
  <row Id="29027" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="c5101775-443b-4ce9-9d45-f6b93e663218" CreationDate="2016-05-25T19:55:58.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/735560057681776640" />
  <row Id="29028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="6284d186-3acb-46fe-9714-63a8a7ffdc5b" CreationDate="2016-05-25T22:26:25.143" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я был в стадионе&quot; - is it correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="4147a845-44f7-41ef-a9bd-2e1b4fe0e85c" CreationDate="2016-05-25T23:13:24.073" UserId="6280" Text="To me this means the person likes to go to wild parties, abuses all kinds of substances, is promiscuous, does not hold a steady job, have a business, or attend school, and generally does not go out of his or her way to be a contributing member of society. If you asked me to make up a sentence with it, the first thing that comes to mind is something along the lines of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Суд лишил её родительских прав, так как она вела разгульный образ жизни.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The court took away her parental rights as she lived a *I am having a hard time coming up with a concise, fairly common, well understood, and accurate adjective, I do not want to use &quot;rackety&quot; because it is not as common in English as &quot;разгульный&quot; in Russian but you get the idea* life.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word гулять literally means to walk around for pleasure without a purpose, but can also mean to party in a wild manner. разгульный comes from the same root as гулять." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12470" RevisionGUID="da3b4e0a-77a5-4cd6-ac5f-54b77ba7a94d" CreationDate="2016-05-25T23:13:42.973" UserId="4188" Text="the word &quot;разгул&quot; is mostly coincide by meaning with the word revelry.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;разгульный образ жизни&quot; is a style of life when revelry is present most to compare to other activities.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12472" RevisionGUID="7afa77eb-205e-476b-b038-6ab31297cf9f" CreationDate="2016-05-26T07:47:13.877" UserId="4188" Text="*&quot;ли&quot; is an auxiliary particle for help making questions from statements.*&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;in this context &quot;уж не тайное ли (pointed object) общество самоубийц?&quot;, &quot;ли&quot; may mean &quot;whether&quot; or &quot;if&quot; by sense - &quot;(pointed object) should be a secret suicide society, is'nt it?&quot;. by putting this particle just near the questionable subject (or if to be precise, enclosing questionable subject in the pair &quot;уж не ... ли&quot;), the speaker try to introduce an additional question tone to this subject making this statement an ironical or mockery one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="4f95a53f-8658-4942-a9f2-b13b18854c79" CreationDate="2016-05-26T10:40:54.283" UserId="6354" Text="What's the best/proper way to express **wallet** in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked my Russian speaking friends and they say **кошелёк** or **портмоне**. Google Translate suggests **бумажник**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="4f95a53f-8658-4942-a9f2-b13b18854c79" CreationDate="2016-05-26T10:40:54.283" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;Wallet&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="4f95a53f-8658-4942-a9f2-b13b18854c79" CreationDate="2016-05-26T10:40:54.283" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="6557734f-ce49-4345-b123-d2bd1e4d9c1a" CreationDate="2016-05-26T11:22:43.993" UserId="551" Text="Портмоне and бумажник are synonyms. In fact, they are correct translations for wallet. They are used to keep paper money and other things like credit cards, business cards and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кошелек is a bit different. It is also used for keeping money, but it usually has a larger place for coins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="1d431292-c350-4e3c-815e-b3122dbe4f5a" CreationDate="2016-05-26T11:32:02.563" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="&quot;Бумажник&quot; is a wallet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кошелёк&quot; is a purse or a wallet. If you just need a term for &quot;wherever you carry the money&quot;, &quot;кошелёк&quot; sounds more natural than &quot;бумажник&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Портмоне&quot; sounds fancy. It's mostly used in literature and ads, and calling your own wallet &quot;портмоне&quot; might be perceived as a bit pompous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="fb1837bc-5ef7-45ca-943b-604f6d50bd39" CreationDate="2016-05-26T11:34:02.263" UserId="551" Comment="added 480 characters in body" Text="Портмоне and бумажник are synonyms. In fact, they are correct translations for wallet. They are used to keep paper money and other things like credit cards, business cards and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кошелек is a bit different. It is also used for keeping money, but it usually has a larger place for coins. Nowadays it looks closer to портмоне, but it is usually smaller. Wikipedia reads that you have to fold a banknote to put it into кошелек, while you don't have to fold paper money when putting it into портмоне or бумажник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2][![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JFuwD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wi7tN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jFKc0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="e43af5d5-0cd7-4395-8982-25016d97ea4d" CreationDate="2016-05-26T11:40:41.300" UserId="134" Text="*Кошелёк* is any small case for carrying money and paper around in your pocket or purse. It's a broader term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Портмоне* (or *бумажник*) is &quot;wallet&quot;: a specific type of such a case, a flat, foldable case primarily designed to hold flat items such as paper money and credit cards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three translations are acceptable, but *портмоне* and *бумажник* are more precise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="5bf0ff89-3672-400f-a206-116edb3cbc9f" CreationDate="2016-05-26T11:49:36.580" UserId="134" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="*Кошелёк* is any small case for carrying money and paper around in your pocket or purse. It's a broader term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Портмоне* (or *бумажник*) is &quot;wallet&quot;: a specific type of such a case, a flat, foldable case primarily designed to hold flat items such as paper money and credit cards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three translations are acceptable, but *портмоне* and *бумажник* are more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кошелёк* is also better suited for translation of wallet&quot; in metaphorical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, names of numerous payment services which use &quot;wallet&quot; in English (Google Wallet, Qiwi Wallet etc.) are usually translated using *кошелёк* into Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12477" RevisionGUID="b30171f8-d73d-4196-a3da-9c0a487f9fe0" CreationDate="2016-05-26T23:50:42.420" UserId="4188" Text="in common everyday speech &quot;бумажник&quot; for wallet is more preferable. google was right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="017fe360-511d-4def-8f4a-3ee14ee995f3" CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:12:42.960" UserId="4188" Text="you can say anything with word ржу (ржать, ржачный, угараю, угарать, угар, угарный), adding necessary definitions on a thing you are laughing about.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вот это угар&quot; - this is for real (LOL)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Угараю (не могу)&quot; - cracking, can't help myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Оборжаться&quot; - yeah, LOL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ржачный прикол&quot; ~ that's awesome (gag, prank), this (gag, prank is) awesome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and some other, you can catch them in chat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="efcce79f-4a09-4efc-9b75-80e539f80d13" CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:28:06.120" UserId="4188" Text="автором - by the author&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В Институте горного дела имени А. А. Скочинского автором были поставлены опыты по исследованию влияния поперечных пульсационных скоростей на распыливание.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the A.A. Skochinsky institution of mining works, _the author_ have conducted the experiments relating to researches of impacting ￼transversal impulse speeds over atomization.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the experiments were carried out by the author of the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12479" RevisionGUID="dadbc73d-b7e7-45c7-b8c3-0936bbbaf7d0" CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:37:50.937" UserId="4188" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="автором - by the author&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В Институте горного дела имени А. А. Скочинского автором были поставлены опыты по исследованию влияния поперечных пульсационных скоростей на распыливание.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the A.A. Skochinsky institution of mining works, _the author_ have conducted the experiments relating to researches of impacting ￼transversal impulse speeds over atomization.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;the experiments were carried out by the author of the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what made you think that some scientist is conducting the experiments? there is no word indicating that any scientist is present out there. the author have completed these experiments alone. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="2a7f94f0-bf27-43e6-a4e2-ac4427de982e" CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:41:20.937" UserId="4188" Text="my suggest is that you would better hire a translator. the subject is too complex to make notes about it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, if your tasks do not involve anything complex you can use help of various opensource projects relating to internationalization. such as gnu i18n (search google), they have made already all the necessary work for such tasks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="ff80c20b-4bbe-4224-b797-21c27415c0c0" CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:46:50.643" UserId="4188" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="my suggest is that you would better hire a translator. the subject is too complex to make notes about it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, if your tasks do not involve anything complex involving translations you can use help of various opensource projects relating to internationalization. such as gnu i18n (try google search), they already have made all the necessary work for such sort of tasks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="60b4daf2-bca7-4ea7-96fb-d2efc6916af7" CreationDate="2016-05-27T00:59:48.617" UserId="4188" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="my suggest is that you would better hire a translator. the subject is too complex to make notes about it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, if your tasks do not involve anything complex involving translations you can use help of various opensource projects relating to internationalization. such as gnu i18n (try google search), they already have made all the necessary work for such sort of tasks and they have nice documentation regarding subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent standard metric system in Russian? For example,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how do we write 100 meters or 100 litres or 100 km or 100 seconds etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;measurement units are written as in any other country using metric system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent months and year and dates? For example, &quot;10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; January&quot;, &quot;10th January&quot; or &quot;10th Jan, 2016&quot; or 12/31/2015 etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are pretty common standards for writing dates in exUSSR countries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent email? For example, if I need to write rbhatt@gmail.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we do not write email in any specific form&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How do we represent numbers (numeric system 0-9)? For example, 1234.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;numbers are also written pretty much the same way as everywhere else in the world (well, in most of it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="e3bf1940-2776-4cdd-9816-62e3d2cc6cfe" CreationDate="2016-05-27T01:22:27.890" UserId="4188" Text="i can supply an explanation involving spanish, if of course you have some knowledge of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the russian sign &quot;ь&quot; changing the sounding of previous letter in the similar way as &quot;~&quot; upper sign changes sounding of simple &quot;n&quot; in spanish. (ñ=нь, Ñ=Нь. one sample of transliteration - niño=ниньо, try in cyrillics this word in google search)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;however unlike spanish, russian &quot;ь&quot; sign may change the pronuncation into similar way of almost any consonant that it follows after.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;so &quot;ять&quot; is not actually [yat], but rather [yat'] and &quot;ят&quot; is then [yat]. note the appearing apostrophe in the first one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="dd4ea2b6-cc12-4cf9-a473-03e8e6631718" CreationDate="2016-05-27T01:34:59.437" UserId="4188" Comment="added 411 characters in body" Text="i can supply an explanation involving spanish, if of course you have some knowledge of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the russian sign &quot;ь&quot; changing the sounding of previous letter in the similar way as &quot;~&quot; upper sign changes sounding of simple &quot;n&quot; in spanish. (ñ=нь, Ñ=Нь. one sample of transliteration - niño=ниньо, try in cyrillics this word in google search)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;however unlike spanish, russian &quot;ь&quot; sign may change the pronuncation into similar way of almost any consonant that it follows after.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;so &quot;ять&quot; is not actually [yat], but rather [yat'] and &quot;ят&quot; is then [yat]. note the appearing apostrophe in the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you don't have access to some spanish source, then there is also may be an explanation. try to imangine how the previous consonant would sound if it would stand before the i/y letter in two words combination where the second is starting with i/y, as in phrase, got you - gotcha(got'cha). as you see the &quot;t&quot; in &quot;got&quot; have changed. in the same way all the letters with &quot;ь&quot; following are changed in russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="0c703723-9952-4441-9e28-582c4408abf2" CreationDate="2016-05-27T01:39:29.503" UserId="4188" Text="тот кто эту фразу говорил забыл название того термина который он хотел сказать и вместо термина он сказал слово &quot;это&quot;. вобщем вместо этого он сказал это. просто у человека проблемы с памятью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12476" RevisionGUID="2e6a9444-63a0-4add-843e-893a0eadde7a" CreationDate="2016-05-27T06:55:54.180" UserId="134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Кошелёк* is any small case for carrying money and paper around in your pocket or purse. It's a broader term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Портмоне* (or *бумажник*) is &quot;wallet&quot;: a specific type of such a case, a flat, foldable case primarily designed to hold flat items such as paper money and credit cards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three translations are acceptable, but *портмоне* and *бумажник* are more precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кошелёк* is also better suited for translation of &quot;wallet&quot; in metaphorical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, names of numerous payment services which use &quot;wallet&quot; in English (Google Wallet, Qiwi Wallet etc.) are usually translated using *кошелёк* into Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="e493166b-29b7-492e-930c-a7d53247dcfb" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:54:02.797" UserId="6953" Text="I have watched a children's cartoon called &quot;Умная дочка&quot; made by &quot;Гора Самоцветов&quot;. At one point a phrase &quot;от горшка два вершка&quot; is used. What does it mean? Is вершок a special Russian metric unit, or something? Which горшок is meant, the one in which babies poop?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I only watch Russian childern cartoons, because characters use, more or less, everyday Russian language, not because I am a kid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="e493166b-29b7-492e-930c-a7d53247dcfb" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:54:02.797" UserId="6953" Text="What does &quot;От горшка два вершка&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="e493166b-29b7-492e-930c-a7d53247dcfb" CreationDate="2016-05-27T18:54:02.797" UserId="6953" Text="|значения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="2bc46217-7d0e-4c16-a7a8-943313514935" CreationDate="2016-05-27T19:09:42.623" UserId="3680" Text="It means `You are too young (too small)`.  &#xD;&#xA;On other questions:  &#xD;&#xA;`вершок` - length unit (obsolete),  &#xD;&#xA;`горшок` - chamber pot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12473" RevisionGUID="8d43f789-16d5-42b9-8db6-249063522428" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:05:37.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/736287260769947648" />
  <row Id="29073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12487" RevisionGUID="20f654d1-3bb0-4503-93fe-37b7fbaf0125" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:18:02.487" UserId="7325" Text="if it is said about person, this phrase indicates that a person is not very tall" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="d971473e-be90-4d29-8a88-4dfda4876364" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:22:50.523" UserId="6539" Text="&#xD;&#xA;От горшка два вершка jokingly denotes a person 's small height.&#xD;&#xA;Горшок was a kind of Russian ancient pot made of clay and used for cooking food.They could be of different sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вершок was an ancient Russian measure of length equal to modern 4,44см. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12487" RevisionGUID="799a984e-cbb9-456e-8c28-9e3da90ab198" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:36:05.417" UserId="7325" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="If it is said about person, this phrase indicates that a person is not very tall.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Just an russian idiom.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;горшок&quot; is pot&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;вершок - definition from wiktionary &#xD;&#xA;&quot;an old Russian unit of length approximately equal to 4.445 centimeters&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Then according to phrase, this person is as tall as a pot with two these units above.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;compare to english analogues:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;pint-sized, knee-high to a grass-hopper, a little runt&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="560137a9-7cd5-4495-a157-c65fd91b51dd" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:37:11.367" UserId="6539" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="От горшка два вершка jokingly denotes a person 's small height or young age.&#xD;&#xA;Горшок was a kind of Russian ancient pot made of clay and used for cooking food.They could be of different sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вершок was an ancient Russian measure of length equal to modern 4,44см. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="62041736-a830-4ecf-be60-de8c424418ff" CreationDate="2016-05-27T20:56:44.623" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is вершок a special Russian metric unit, or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's old antropomorphic unit. While &quot;inch&quot; is &quot;thumb-wide&quot;, &quot;вершок&quot; is &quot;pointing+middle fingers wide&quot;, which is formally a little less than two inches. But otherwise &quot;вершок&quot; is just like &quot;inch&quot; - &quot;something very small&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Which горшок is meant, the one in which babies poop?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to say but I believe it's a (food) bowl. So it rather means sort of &quot;two inches above a soup bowl&quot; / &quot;you're hardly seen behind a soup bowl&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression may mean both &quot;too young&quot; and &quot;too small&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="75f6d8a7-dcb5-4a9d-9ba7-695392e66b0b" CreationDate="2016-05-27T23:19:12.497" UserId="6953" Text="In my work about Russian history, I want to write &quot;Russia, former USSR&quot;. What word should I use instead of former, in Russian? I do have ideas about various options, like &quot;которая раньше называлась&quot;, but these options are too primitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="75f6d8a7-dcb5-4a9d-9ba7-695392e66b0b" CreationDate="2016-05-27T23:19:12.497" UserId="6953" Text="What is the most accurate translation of &quot;former&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="75f6d8a7-dcb5-4a9d-9ba7-695392e66b0b" CreationDate="2016-05-27T23:19:12.497" UserId="6953" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="d29a8bc2-d147-4549-96ff-cac731e515f6" CreationDate="2016-05-28T00:47:31.943" UserId="4188" Text="The most approximate translation would be,i believe, is &quot;бывшый&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russia, former USSR - Россия, бывший СССР. Is often used in this situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="29a2ac2e-6b8d-4629-944e-f68f15fb2e93" CreationDate="2016-05-28T00:53:34.710" UserId="4188" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="The most approximate translation would be,i believe, is &quot;бывшый&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russia, former USSR - Россия, бывший СССР. Is often used in this situation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The simpler is better in most situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="72c7d1c5-210f-40ab-a3a0-5dbe4b8b29f3" CreationDate="2016-05-28T02:19:51.723" UserId="4188" Comment="edited body" Text="The most approximate translation would be,i believe, is &quot;бывший&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russia, former USSR - Россия, бывший СССР. Is often used in this situation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The simpler is better in most situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="628608bd-ea2b-48ba-8bef-dcb282d6a545" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:19:33.850" UserId="7259" Text="Chekhov about &quot;this world&quot; and &quot;that&quot;: &quot;в том нужны грехи на веса и добрые дела вместо гпрь&quot;...I don't think that in this context вес and гиря are synonyms, are they? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="628608bd-ea2b-48ba-8bef-dcb282d6a545" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:19:33.850" UserId="7259" Text="question вес и гиря" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="628608bd-ea2b-48ba-8bef-dcb282d6a545" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:19:33.850" UserId="7259" Text="|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="b8d34d58-08b8-47d4-bd8d-8cc41e5f61b9" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:53:42.633" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Here's a quote from Checkov: &quot;в том нужны грехи на веса и добрые дела вместо гирь&quot;. I don't think that in this context &quot;вес&quot; and &quot;гиря&quot; are synonyms, or are they? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="b8d34d58-08b8-47d4-bd8d-8cc41e5f61b9" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:53:42.633" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are &quot;вес(а)&quot; и &quot;гиря&quot; synonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29089" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12369" RevisionGUID="ca2c1860-e6bc-402e-8b07-d2aa76f9e131" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:54:55.123" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Formatting standard measurments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29090" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="907d2ffa-5c43-4983-82ce-fb0ca375b9d8" CreationDate="2016-05-28T08:55:43.613" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;по ходу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12493" RevisionGUID="f0e57fa7-af9b-417e-9b0d-12940087cf56" CreationDate="2016-05-28T09:04:16.320" UserId="6494" Text="No they are not. Веса here is used as &quot;весы&quot;, scales.&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure about the historical usage of this particular form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="7be3b5f8-a117-4611-aee8-abe6bb14b4f2" CreationDate="2016-05-28T09:59:10.487" UserId="5008" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="&gt;Is вершок a special Russian metric unit, or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's old antropomorphic unit. While &quot;inch&quot; is &quot;thumb-wide&quot;, &quot;вершок&quot; is &quot;pointing+middle fingers wide&quot;, which is formally a little less than two inches. But otherwise &quot;вершок&quot; is just like &quot;inch&quot; - &quot;something very small&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Which горшок is meant, the one in which babies poop?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to say but I believe it's a (food) bowl. So it rather means sort of &quot;two inches above a soup bowl&quot; / &quot;you're hardly seen behind a soup bowl&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version is that it's actually [&quot;корх&quot;](https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%A1%D0%94/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%85), not &quot;горшок&quot; - another outdated unit - a fist, i.e. four fingers wide. So it becomes: &quot;от коршка два вершка&quot; = &quot;a fist and two halves&quot; (or even &quot;a fist _without_ two halves&quot;, i.e. zero).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway it's unlikely related to a chamber pot, as &quot;горшок&quot; was a general term in old times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole expression used in a live speech may mean both &quot;too young&quot; and &quot;too small&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29095" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12485" RevisionGUID="4cfb27a5-fbd0-4f4a-945c-c8d5230794c8" CreationDate="2016-05-28T11:07:45.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/736514291122245633" />
  <row Id="29096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="84879c50-fbe0-465d-b5d9-59e9a30c2bdc" CreationDate="2016-05-28T12:47:43.737" UserId="7313" Text="Гошок  would mean a baby pot in this case. Meaning you're young, small or unexperienced. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="3d13e2cb-7366-440a-ac90-3c1f286c489b" CreationDate="2016-05-28T19:53:08.237" UserId="6539" Text="&gt; &quot;Пусть твоя математическая слава и ученость раздадутся, как этот выстрел в сем мире&quot; (но не в том; в том нужны грехи на веса и добрые дела вместо гирь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all **веса** is an old form from весы-scales, **гиря** is weight which you put on one pan of the scales.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the sentence is the following. &quot;May your fame in the world of Maths be heard like this shot in this world,living,not that one,of the dead,(in that world you need your sins put on one scale(pan) and your good deeds on the other scale as weight.)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="e816f0b3-26d8-440e-aa93-9b83a26e7500" CreationDate="2016-05-28T20:28:16.593" UserId="6539" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Пусть твоя математическая слава и ученость раздадутся, как этот выстрел в сем мире&quot; (но не в том; в том нужны грехи на веса и добрые дела вместо гирь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all **веса** is an old form from весы-scales, **гиря** is weight which you put on one pan of the scales.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the sentence is the following. &quot;May your fame in the world of Maths be heard like this shot in this world,living,not that one,of the dead,(in that world you need your sins put on one scale(pan) and your good deeds on the other scale as weight.)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words are not synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="587d835b-8175-47b0-9f74-32ece2aaa1a1" CreationDate="2016-05-28T21:11:33.533" UserId="5600" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="I have got a few Russian friends, who I communicate with in Russian. Many of them use the word youtube. I have noticed that some of them pronounce ютьюб and some - ютуб. I am not sure which one is correct so I use the English pronunciation т.е. ютьюб. Is there a rule on how to pronounce correctly? Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29100" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="587d835b-8175-47b0-9f74-32ece2aaa1a1" CreationDate="2016-05-28T21:11:33.533" Comment="Proposed by 5600 approved by 3680, 2060 edit id of 746" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="2378a08e-1104-465d-918e-1a5d3aefe944" CreationDate="2016-05-29T02:28:31.873" UserId="6539" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;Пусть твоя математическая слава и ученость раздадутся, как этот выстрел в сем мире&quot; (но не в том; в том нужны грехи на веса и добрые дела вместо гирь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all **веса** is an old form from весы-scales, **гиря** is weight which you put on one pan of the scales.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the sentence is the following. &quot;May your fame in the world of Maths be heard like this shot in this world,living,not that one,of the dead,(in that world you need your sins put on one scale(pan) and your good deeds on the other scale as weight.)&quot; You will go either to paradise or to hell depending on what is heavier,your sins or your good deeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words are not synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="53acd667-d07f-4541-bc1e-ed010c08fe08" CreationDate="2016-05-29T03:35:31.377" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend of mine mentioned to me a while back from now that it should be &quot;Во&quot; instead of &quot;В&quot;, but he does not know of the definite rule for the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="53acd667-d07f-4541-bc1e-ed010c08fe08" CreationDate="2016-05-29T03:35:31.377" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="What is the difference between &quot;Во рту&quot; and В рту&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="53acd667-d07f-4541-bc1e-ed010c08fe08" CreationDate="2016-05-29T03:35:31.377" UserDisplayName="user5898" Text="|pronouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="e542870b-ccc6-415f-a850-62f56ebf8c0b" CreationDate="2016-05-29T06:07:40.773" UserId="7326" Text="There is no difference in meaning. &quot;Во рту&quot; can be pronounced easier then &quot;В рту&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Follow this rule: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/416895/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3-%D0%B2-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If word  starts with two consonants and word consists of one syllable, preposition &quot;в&quot; becomes &quot;во&quot;. (example: &quot;во рту&quot;, &quot;во мне&quot;, &quot;во сне&quot;, но &quot;в слезах&quot;, &quot;в сновидениях&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;2. If word starts with two consonants and one of them is &quot;в&quot;: во власти, во внушении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="fc8f828b-1c98-44bd-be39-251b8dbc165f" CreationDate="2016-05-29T07:36:17.737" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="A friend of mine mentioned to me a while back from now that it should be &quot;Во&quot; instead of &quot;В&quot;, but he does not know of the definite rule for the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="35c22a68-9bb7-441c-b6f3-0dcba7b20691" CreationDate="2016-05-29T08:37:21.940" UserId="4560" Text="The difference is that you don't say *в рту*. (While on the other hand, I think you do say **в рте** rather than *во рте*, in those rare instances where you'd use that form at all.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no reliable rule because the phenomenon itself is highly inconsistent — similar to how you can sort-of-but-not-really predict the &quot;strongness&quot; of verbs in English (**cut/cut** vs. **strut/strutted**). And this, too, is something that gets spoken of in terms of &quot;strong&quot; and &quot;weak&quot; things — namely strong and weak yers, per [Havlík's law][1]. The `-о` on prepositions is usually a strong yer, i.e. a former `-ъ` that got upgraded to a full vowel because of a yer in the next syllable — which in its turn disappeared, leaving us with a consonant cluster. That explains why **во** tends to be present around consonant clusters, especially those that begin with `в-` (ditto **со** and `с-`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it doesn't explain, of course, is why it's so sporadic. The answer is, because it essentially shouldn't be there at all: Russian went on to level out this particular complication, *but* sometimes the need for easier pronunciation as well as frequency of usage conspired to preserve those remnants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, there's an even smaller handful of expressions where the `-о` occurs despite no consonant clusters in sight: **во имя**, **во веки веков**, etc. All of them come from that slightly rephoneticised Russian variant of Church Slavonic, which grew preposition-final `-ъ` into `-о` very liberally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havl%C3%ADk%27s_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="5c6c5297-1026-410d-980e-10246584550d" CreationDate="2016-05-29T10:00:20.640" UserId="179" Comment="the gibberish has been replaced with normal cyrillic text" Text="There is no difference in meaning. &quot;Во рту&quot; can be pronounced easier then &quot;В рту&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Follow this rule: http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/416895/Предлог-в-или-во&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If word  starts with two consonants and word consists of one syllable, preposition &quot;в&quot; becomes &quot;во&quot;. (example: &quot;во рту&quot;, &quot;во мне&quot;, &quot;во сне&quot;, но &quot;в слезах&quot;, &quot;в сновидениях&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;2. If word starts with two consonants and one of them is &quot;в&quot;: во власти, во внушении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29109" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="5c6c5297-1026-410d-980e-10246584550d" CreationDate="2016-05-29T10:00:20.640" Comment="Proposed by 179 approved by 4560, 1236 edit id of 747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29110" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="035394de-56e7-4ee3-84f2-465ea01cf442" CreationDate="2016-05-29T10:21:03.027" UserId="4188" Comment="52" />
  <row Id="29112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="dc10e2d9-920c-4b42-830e-05e7c1428d41" CreationDate="2016-05-29T14:23:07.787" UserId="4714" Text="I've seen expressions like this, with, and without the **&quot;в&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в первый раз— Я в первый раз здесь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**первый раз — я первый раз здесь** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в последнее время— я в последнее время стала очень ленивой&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**последнее раз— я в последнее время стала очень нервной&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="dc10e2d9-920c-4b42-830e-05e7c1428d41" CreationDate="2016-05-29T14:23:07.787" UserId="4714" Text="&quot;в последнее время&quot; или &quot;последнее время&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="dc10e2d9-920c-4b42-830e-05e7c1428d41" CreationDate="2016-05-29T14:23:07.787" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="022ace1c-fd0f-4111-a632-3d7877377149" CreationDate="2016-05-29T14:33:34.453" UserId="4714" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I've seen expressions like this, with, and without the **&quot;в&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В первый раз— Я в первый раз здесь.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Первый раз — Я первый раз здесь.** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В последнее время— я в последнее время стала очень ленивой.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Последнее раз— я в последнее время стала очень нервной.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29117" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="4dfae319-466a-4668-9432-ca8fe7e13da6" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:00:38.970" UserId="179" Comment="the &quot;pronoun&quot; tag had nothing to do with the question" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29118" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="4dfae319-466a-4668-9432-ca8fe7e13da6" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:00:38.970" Comment="Proposed by 179 approved by 4560, 3680 edit id of 748" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29119" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="9ea8234f-c6a3-4a3a-9112-53f6150b76ef" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:02:00.993" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;В последнее время&quot; или &quot;последнее время&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29120" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="a6f84e3e-5124-48c5-8cab-3f3f9493d3c8" CreationDate="2016-05-29T19:02:22.117" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;во рту&quot; and &quot;в рту&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="801815da-720f-4443-a638-f92a2b0d10bc" CreationDate="2016-05-29T21:05:36.050" UserId="6451" Text="In my Russian studies I came across this sample line and this comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Yes, there is no apple here&quot;. - &lt;&lt;Да, здесь нет яблока.&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comment: &quot;A general rule to follow in Russian is that new information is presented at the end of the sentence. This sentence is emphasizing the absence of a particular object, an apple. If you wanted to emphasize the location, here as opposed to there perhaps, then здесь would take the final position in the sentence.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to emphasize the location would I write:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Да, яблока нет здесь&gt;&gt; или &lt;&lt;Да, нет яблока здесь&gt;&gt;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut says it's the first option but I'd like to know why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="801815da-720f-4443-a638-f92a2b0d10bc" CreationDate="2016-05-29T21:05:36.050" UserId="6451" Text="Emphasizing absence vs. emphasizing place" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="801815da-720f-4443-a638-f92a2b0d10bc" CreationDate="2016-05-29T21:05:36.050" UserId="6451" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="00b01dcc-39ff-4fbb-8e3b-14dfd94e0d7a" CreationDate="2016-05-29T21:43:31.393" UserId="7310" Text="To emphasize the location, if by that you mean underlining the fact the apple is not here, say &quot;Да, яблоко не здесь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They like to say word order is non-important in Russian phrases. This is generally not true, but to some extent all the reorderings mentioned are possible.&#xD;&#xA;Fun fact is, a particular word ordering changes not the semantics, but rather stylistic coloring of the phrase. &quot;Яблока нет здесь&quot; sounds like in a 1980s Gothic lyrics, while &quot;Нет яблока здесь&quot; is more like early XX century symbolism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="578204ae-e814-4eab-9d38-399e334a5ef8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T00:45:07.817" UserId="6953" Text="For numbers between 10 and 40 Russians use дцать. What is дцать? A very Russian way to say десять? A word made of multiple parts, each of which do have a meaning, like дца and ть, as in еха-ть? (I would hope not!). I just cannot understand, where it comes from, as I cannot think of any words which have дцать, except for numbers in range from 10 to 40!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="578204ae-e814-4eab-9d38-399e334a5ef8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T00:45:07.817" UserId="6953" Text="What is the etimology of the afterpart дцать in words like двенадцать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="578204ae-e814-4eab-9d38-399e334a5ef8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T00:45:07.817" UserId="6953" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="35d8d63d-0671-4093-a8c3-fc5a2b757b3e" CreationDate="2016-05-30T02:01:40.607" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Дцать&quot; is just a reduction, originally &quot;двенадцать&quot; was &quot;дъванадесѩте&quot;, sort of &quot;two on top of ten&quot;. English word of Latin origin &quot;decimal&quot; can give you a hint. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="761f1b5f-5e0a-4106-b4d8-2c9de51a76bd" CreationDate="2016-05-30T07:45:01.543" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="The etimology of the &quot;-дцать&quot; postfix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="761f1b5f-5e0a-4106-b4d8-2c9de51a76bd" CreationDate="2016-05-30T07:45:01.543" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="|этимология|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12508" RevisionGUID="a4d64e43-8572-47bc-8b8f-fab882c483f8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T09:43:20.750" UserId="6354" Text="What's the best way to express **tornado** and **hurricane** in Russian? From Wiktionary and Google Images, it looks like **ураган** can mean both, so how should one express each separately?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: *&quot;Are you more scared of tornadoes or hurricanes?&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12508" RevisionGUID="a4d64e43-8572-47bc-8b8f-fab882c483f8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T09:43:20.750" UserId="6354" Text="Express &quot;tornado&quot; and &quot;hurricane&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12508" RevisionGUID="a4d64e43-8572-47bc-8b8f-fab882c483f8" CreationDate="2016-05-30T09:43:20.750" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="db6422a3-6ab1-4737-986e-337f42701200" CreationDate="2016-05-30T10:00:26.267" UserId="179" Text="I think **ураган** can mean both, but rarely, because to refer to a tornado, we have two words in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *торнадо* - is a tornado in North America.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *смерч* - this word is used, if we are talking about a &quot;tornado&quot; elsewhere, they are much less powerful. We usually do not use торнадо to refer to a whirlwind for instance in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ураган* - is usually about a hurricane, I mean a wind, weather conditions on much larger area compared to a tornado, and we do not use it widely (if at all) to refer to a tornado or a whirlwind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12510" RevisionGUID="0d08eb87-b9d1-4247-9baa-1e5646eccc3b" CreationDate="2016-05-30T10:00:32.720" UserId="310" Text="I believe tornado is `смерч` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Чего больше боишься - урагана или смерчей?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="3b0b379a-2898-47f7-9650-7ee02031259f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T11:51:04.990" UserId="426" Text="Lomonosov consistently calls Russian language &quot;российский&quot; in his works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [&quot;Российская грамматика&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [&quot;Письмо о правилах российского стихотворства&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [&quot;Предисловие о пользе книг церковных в российском языке&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason why he does not use &quot;русский язык,&quot; which is the proper name of Russian language in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rvb.ru/18vek/lomonosov/01text/02addenda/11addenda/137.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://miresperanto.com/o_russkom_jazyke/lomon_cerk.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="3b0b379a-2898-47f7-9650-7ee02031259f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T11:51:04.990" UserId="426" Text="Why Lomonosov calls Russian language &quot;российский&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="3b0b379a-2898-47f7-9650-7ee02031259f" CreationDate="2016-05-30T11:51:04.990" UserId="426" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="bf9bf234-0199-4215-b03f-010329a7f772" CreationDate="2016-05-30T13:18:20.413" UserId="134" Text="*Россия* is a hellenized form of the native Russian word *Русь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was first attested in XIV century and had since been for some time a part of grand style rhetoric (*высокий штиль*), the one Lomonosov used in his scientific writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the time, it was just a fancy way to say &quot;Russian&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the modern language, *российский* means something pertaining to the Russian state (*российские законы, российская армия*) while *русский* is something pertaining to the Russian people (*русский язык, русский народ*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same distinction holds for several other nations (*германский / немецкий*, *латвийский / латышский* etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="a835e66b-6688-4e2a-8e37-0ff6dcbd0cc9" CreationDate="2016-05-30T13:23:12.653" UserId="7334" Text="I believe that tornado is &quot;смерчь&quot; and hurricane is &quot;ураган&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding tornado are very rare in Russia, that's why &quot;смерчь&quot; word is also pretty rare, so not even every people could say the difference from &quot;ураган&quot;&#xD;&#xA;And the &quot;ураган&quot; phonetically pretty similar to hurricane, so it is pretty much the same word and notion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="f576b81d-80a1-4ca5-bca9-8121e3ceefd4" CreationDate="2016-05-30T13:29:21.437" UserId="7334" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="I believe that tornado is &quot;смерч&quot; and hurricane is &quot;ураган&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In my understanding tornado are very rare in Russia, that's why &quot;смерч&quot; word is also pretty rare, so not even every people could say the difference from &quot;ураган&quot;&#xD;&#xA;And the &quot;ураган&quot; phonetically pretty similar to hurricane, so it is pretty much the same word and notion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ураган is often used as a synonym to &quot;strong wind&quot;, not the actual hurricane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="1e1c0737-f5c8-462f-89c5-52d3dc3d4e88" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:16:45.370" UserId="7335" Text="I guess, it is no correct. Russia had been a part of USSR. Russia hadn't  changed its name while was a part of USSR. I think right is 'Russia, successor USSR'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12516" RevisionGUID="514bda11-eb1d-4f81-bcc1-6d64f9714788" CreationDate="2016-05-30T14:46:36.513" UserId="7335" Text="В первый раз— Я в первый раз здесь.&#xD;&#xA;Первый раз — Я первый раз здесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they are both correct but second is more common. And first is more emotional a little bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I've not got it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время— я в последнее время стала очень ленивой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Последнее раз— я в последнее время стала очень нервной.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="340ef332-ac32-42cf-bb8b-659c8b2d0fe2" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:10:29.683" UserId="7336" Text="You may use the term `Ex-USSR` (or `former USSR`) to describe the territory, (people, cultural features/difference, etc.) on the territories which were belonging to USSR. But definitely not to describe Russia. Russia was `РСФСР` and it was the [largest republic of the USSR][1]. And as @Vladislav correctly noted, Russia is a `successor` of the `USSR` - `Россия стала правопреемницей СССР`. And Russia was separate country before the [October Revolution][2] and become RSFSR in the union with other republics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12518" RevisionGUID="145053b3-1aac-44ed-b2ed-c1a0a88f1120" CreationDate="2016-05-30T16:28:36.907" UserId="7336" Text="Since `Youtube` is a foreign proper name it should be pronounced according to the foreign language pronunciation rules. So, since `You` + `tube` is pronounced as `[ju]` + `[tju:b]` this should sound like `ютьюб`. And for any russian-speaking person who keeps an eye on his/her pronunciation, saying `ютуб` means to show the ignorance. But there are cultural influence on that (slang, etc.). So `ютьюб` is the correct way to pronounce this, but `ютуб` is rather a slang form which may be widespread. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12519" RevisionGUID="cfdf50d6-5fdb-4d94-87f0-0f7c3953d94d" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:19:15.740" UserId="7338" Text="Proper &quot;wallet&quot; translation is &quot;бумажник&quot;, &quot;purse&quot; is &quot;кошелёк&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common word people use in everyday speech is &quot;кошелёк&quot;, although both are fine. &quot;Бумажник&quot; sounds modernish to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Портмоне&quot; is originally French - porte-monnaie. French language was often used before revolution by nobles/rich, so it has some degree of luxury or retro meaning. It will most likely be used for some brand/luxury wallet. Some rural village people might not understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a quite common jargon word &quot;лопатник&quot; (criminal origin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12520" RevisionGUID="bb3b5168-6949-41c0-8114-d67fdf1bdf1d" CreationDate="2016-05-30T22:24:27.190" UserId="6163" Text="The version **ютюб** should not be ignored as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it a good compromise between acknowledging the foreign origin of the word and not twisting one's tongue too much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29160" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12508" RevisionGUID="a4f3ef7f-4b4c-42e5-a190-37e54a52dd8b" CreationDate="2016-05-31T02:19:33.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/737468527188267008" />
  <row Id="29164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="7e6a2c65-0116-4a38-91e7-be184d1b0ac8" CreationDate="2016-05-31T04:44:09.803" UserId="7342" Text="what means &quot;Куда им до&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;....Мне доводилось встречать много необычных вещей, но куда им до кроссовка, одержимого демонами...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="7e6a2c65-0116-4a38-91e7-be184d1b0ac8" CreationDate="2016-05-31T04:44:09.803" UserId="7342" Text="what means &quot;Куда им до&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="7e6a2c65-0116-4a38-91e7-be184d1b0ac8" CreationDate="2016-05-31T04:44:09.803" UserId="7342" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="42ef2db6-1993-4a74-aeb0-5aa91debb0aa" CreationDate="2016-05-31T04:47:26.973" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="What means &quot;Куда им до&quot; in phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне доводилось встречать много необычных вещей, но куда им до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кроссовка, одержимого демонами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="42ef2db6-1993-4a74-aeb0-5aa91debb0aa" CreationDate="2016-05-31T04:47:26.973" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="What means &quot;Куда им до&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12523" RevisionGUID="8cb2d8fa-b130-4ff5-8b42-6d2d85aaf5ce" CreationDate="2016-05-31T06:08:23.680" UserId="7345" Text="&quot;Куда им до&quot; usually used to show that object in the context is less superior in an ability to do something or power or the number of features than the object in the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Куда им до меня/нас/его&quot; - I/we/he is much better in something in comparison with a person in the context.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Куда им до танка&quot; - They are too weak in comparison with a battle tank &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your particular example could be translated as &quot;I've seen many unusual things but all of them looks ordinary compare to a shoe obsessed with daemons &quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29170" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12505" RevisionGUID="9338d836-808d-42ea-8908-d52a629150a1" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:19:36.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/737559137806999552" />
  <row Id="29171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="9e808c99-ee57-4cc1-929b-dfd61a3a2461" CreationDate="2016-05-31T11:19:37.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/737604438873907200" />
  <row Id="29172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="89dd3c42-252e-4e78-a84b-0f97cb7d1bb6" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:14:36.910" UserId="6953" Text="I am reading a Russian book and at one point I was a little confused, as to how one would say plural of &quot;кочерга&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="89dd3c42-252e-4e78-a84b-0f97cb7d1bb6" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:14:36.910" UserId="6953" Text="What is the plural of &quot;кочерга&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="89dd3c42-252e-4e78-a84b-0f97cb7d1bb6" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:14:36.910" UserId="6953" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12525" RevisionGUID="92481428-1bcc-4ad8-887c-db7ff348e7f7" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:20:09.067" UserId="242" Text="It's кочерги, though yes it used relatively rare. Here's how it's inclined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Им.* кочерги&#xD;&#xA; - *Р.*  кочерёг&#xD;&#xA; - *Д.*  кочергам&#xD;&#xA; - *В.*  кочерги&#xD;&#xA; - *Тв.* кочергами&#xD;&#xA; - *Пр.* кочергах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Actually it's not non-standard, and it would be nice that you'll try at lest to google beforehand. Information of this kind [easily][1] can be found. (My guess is that's the reason you've been downvoted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12525" RevisionGUID="956b76a2-0be3-4ab7-a927-06465f10585e" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:26:14.777" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="It's кочерги, though yes it used relatively rare. Here's how it's inclined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Им.* кочерги&#xD;&#xA; - *Р.*  кочерёг&#xD;&#xA; - *Д.*  кочергам&#xD;&#xA; - *В.*  кочерги&#xD;&#xA; - *Тв.* кочергами&#xD;&#xA; - *Пр.* кочергах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Actually it's not non-standard, and it would be nice if you'd tried at least to google beforehand. Information of this kind [easily][1] can be found. (My guess is that's the reason you've been downvoted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="81237fcb-c111-473e-adc3-c5db0a1ea843" CreationDate="2016-05-31T20:29:12.747" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="I am reading a Russian book and at one point I was a little confused, as to how one would say plural of &quot;кочерга&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29178" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="da8b0f91-326d-4c7f-b17a-fef0a9c9e875" CreationDate="2016-06-01T02:14:34.433" UserId="4714" Comment="bad grammar, yo) " Text="What does &quot;Куда им до&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29179" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="da8b0f91-326d-4c7f-b17a-fef0a9c9e875" CreationDate="2016-06-01T02:14:34.433" Comment="Proposed by 4714 approved by 6588, 2060 edit id of 750" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12525" RevisionGUID="4609ca05-0fed-4846-bffc-7297ee921f30" CreationDate="2016-06-01T05:51:39.167" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It's кочерги, though yes it used relatively rare. Here's how it's inclined:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Им.* кочерги́&#xD;&#xA; - *Р.*  кочерёг&#xD;&#xA; - *Д.*  кочерга́м&#xD;&#xA; - *В.*  кочерги́&#xD;&#xA; - *Тв.* кочерга́ми&#xD;&#xA; - *Пр.* кочерга́х&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Actually it's not non-standard, and it would be nice if you'd tried at least to google beforehand. Information of this kind [easily][1] can be found. (My guess is that's the reason you've been downvoted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="1b133d5e-466a-442c-bfe8-b72282044e1f" CreationDate="2016-06-01T12:49:10.053" UserId="4637" Text="I was just wondering what would be the origin of the verb `обчёлся`? Does it have something to do with `закончил считать`? I don't think we use other forms of this verb, but in this idiom. How old is this expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="1b133d5e-466a-442c-bfe8-b72282044e1f" CreationDate="2016-06-01T12:49:10.053" UserId="4637" Text="Раз, два и обчёлся" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="1b133d5e-466a-442c-bfe8-b72282044e1f" CreationDate="2016-06-01T12:49:10.053" UserId="4637" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12527" RevisionGUID="fb1f7d1c-ca5c-4ee9-99e3-3a07cd340569" CreationDate="2016-06-01T12:56:21.390" UserId="5008" Text="_Обчёлся_ is past tense of _Обчесться_ which is just the same as _Обсчитаться_ i.e. _to miscount_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet the verb _Обчесться_ is almost never used nowadays except this idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How old is this expression?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I can only say that it's really old." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="f34506e7-2436-4640-ba27-07d51cbf82d4" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:45:03.927" UserId="7353" Text="This expression denotes a small quantity of anything.обчелся = обсчитался = быстро закончился счет = мало насчитал &#xD;&#xA;Современным городам много света дарят уличные кафе, которых у нас почти нет. Да и обычных кафе раз-два и обчелся. (Ю. Нагибин.)&#xD;&#xA;Folksy expression. The start time of use is unknown" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="cde55000-b519-4a25-80cb-774f40d8d824" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:51:26.020" UserId="7350" Text="What is the origin of the word мешок?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="cde55000-b519-4a25-80cb-774f40d8d824" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:51:26.020" UserId="7350" Text="What is the origin of the word мешок?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="cde55000-b519-4a25-80cb-774f40d8d824" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:51:26.020" UserId="7350" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="7c8ace8a-290d-47bc-830e-fa0192cc46ca" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:57:32.927" UserId="7353" Text="Мешки used were made of skins with the fur.The word мешок comes from the word мех" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="d312ec17-b764-47ed-a6c3-e22d642d6ed9" CreationDate="2016-06-01T16:27:26.757" UserId="6349" Text="I think the meaning is &quot;not many, hardly any&quot;. I.e., if you count to two, you've counted them all (but not literally exactly two).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen this written with a hyphen раз-два и обчёлся which subtly alters the &quot;literal&quot; interpretation to &quot;one or two and that's about it&quot;. A hyphen between two successive numbers is used for estimates: e.g., &quot;три-четыре&quot; = &quot;(about) three or four&quot;. And, naturally, the monosyllabic раз is often used in counting in place of один.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what you can say about the origin. Russian is very prolific with adding prepositions as prefixes to verbs to form new verbs, just like English is very prolific with using prepositions or adverbs after verbs (&quot;give up&quot;, &quot;look out&quot;, &quot;get away with&quot;) to form phrasal verbs with new meanings. In both cases the new meaning is not always predictable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29193" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="59d67680-ab73-4065-8d2f-a8a58881a78b" CreationDate="2016-06-01T19:05:27.140" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the origin of the word &quot;мешок&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="70ce2148-2cd2-479f-aec4-912e2d24bd23" CreationDate="2016-06-01T22:34:18.100" UserId="6953" Text="Today I heard from my friend &quot;Э оборотное&quot;. I still do not understand why he called it &quot;оборотное&quot;. Is there a secret letter &quot;э&quot;, which only Russian native speakers know about, which is turned the other way, or could it be written both ways? Maybe, even, there was a reversed letter &quot;э&quot; in old Russian? I am not sure, since the only thing I get in Google, when I type in &quot;э оборотное&quot;, are articles about the normal letter &quot;э&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="70ce2148-2cd2-479f-aec4-912e2d24bd23" CreationDate="2016-06-01T22:34:18.100" UserId="6953" Text="What is &quot;Э оборотное&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="70ce2148-2cd2-479f-aec4-912e2d24bd23" CreationDate="2016-06-01T22:34:18.100" UserId="6953" Text="|история-языка|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="9b0167cb-edbe-486f-af40-b2f90c58e4b3" CreationDate="2016-06-01T22:42:58.933" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Э оборотное&quot;  is just other name for &quot;э&quot;. The reason why it's called &quot;оборотное&quot; (sort of reversed) is that modern Russian &quot;е&quot; initially was written as &quot;є&quot; - well, more strictly among other form this one was used as well. Buy the way, this is how it is still written in Ukrainian.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="8f5655cc-c832-4035-af4d-9c0407e99fa0" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:04:03.323" UserId="6953" Text="I came across a saying on the television, which is &quot;Не мудренно, что их лишили свободы, ведь они торговали наркотиками!&quot;. How could this phrase be translated, in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="8f5655cc-c832-4035-af4d-9c0407e99fa0" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:04:03.323" UserId="6953" Text="What is the best translation of &quot;Не мудренно, что&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="8f5655cc-c832-4035-af4d-9c0407e99fa0" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:04:03.323" UserId="6953" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12537" RevisionGUID="ee88b53d-0a84-4645-8040-2a2f2907f610" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:30:19.007" UserId="7345" Text="&quot;Не мудренно&quot; could be literally translated as &quot;Don't need (to be) a wise man to understand this&quot;. In your particular case, the translation could be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;This is not a surprise that they got jailed, they were drug dealers.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="f7d43e94-40cf-4d94-a823-803ad1591a03" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:36:39.300" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I came across a saying on the television, which is &quot;Немудрено, что их лишили свободы, ведь они торговали наркотиками!&quot;. How could this phrase be translated, in this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29203" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="f7d43e94-40cf-4d94-a823-803ad1591a03" CreationDate="2016-06-01T23:36:39.300" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the best translation of &quot;Немудрено, что&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12537" RevisionGUID="78984869-021d-43d8-9d57-6d53e346fe91" CreationDate="2016-06-02T00:47:59.267" UserId="6953" Comment="&quot;Немудрено&quot; пишетвя слитно и с одной &quot;н&quot;." Text="&quot;Немудрено&quot; could be literally translated as &quot;Don't need (to be) a wise man to understand this&quot;. In your particular case, the translation could be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;This is not a surprise that they got jailed, for they were drug dealers.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29205" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12537" RevisionGUID="78984869-021d-43d8-9d57-6d53e346fe91" CreationDate="2016-06-02T00:47:59.267" Comment="Proposed by 6953 approved by 2079, 7345 edit id of 751" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="ff16b041-8223-4628-8b7c-f0a1db1ca9ba" CreationDate="2016-06-02T00:52:07.810" UserId="6953" Text="&quot;Чайник долго остывает&quot; and &quot;чайник долго не остывает&quot; are an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="1d6f3297-217d-414f-aa1b-099a2c31401e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T15:54:08.420" UserId="134" Text="There is a number of so called biaspectual verbs in Russian, those whose perfective and imperfective aspects are homonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though technically those are different verbs, using them may lead to something you are probably looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Когда-нибудь я крещусь. Я никогда не крещусь. // Some day I'll get baptized. I'm never crossing myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я бегу марафоны. Я не бегу марафонов. // I'm running marathons. I'm not avoiding marathons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29219" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="4128c158-a580-46c3-a5cf-306123b208ac" CreationDate="2016-06-02T20:30:07.890" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="a8799e1c-47fe-4c75-ae9b-e2e4ab82761e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T23:08:09.187" UserId="6550" Text="I am currently learning Russian using [Glossika][1] and it gives the following as the translation of the sentence &quot;I'm going out with some friends tonight. Why don't you come too?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы идём гуля́ть с друзья́ми сего́дня ве́чером. Почему́ бы тебе́ не пойти́ с на́ми?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot understand two things about this sentence: (1) Why is the subject of the sentence in the dative case? and (2) Why is the verb in the infinitive rather than the past tense which I was taught to use with **бы** constructions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://glossika.com/courses/?target=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="a8799e1c-47fe-4c75-ae9b-e2e4ab82761e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T23:08:09.187" UserId="6550" Text="Translations of &quot;Why don't you...&quot; using почему бы + pres" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="a8799e1c-47fe-4c75-ae9b-e2e4ab82761e" CreationDate="2016-06-02T23:08:09.187" UserId="6550" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29223" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="f3dd009b-ca5c-41b0-ac1b-f5c8f3ec1536" CreationDate="2016-06-03T02:23:03.197" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/738556571828031492" />
  <row Id="29224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="557527ba-20e8-4483-a152-d7dca1fdfc9a" CreationDate="2016-06-03T03:01:45.027" UserId="6588" Text="&quot;Почему бы [кому-либо] не [сделать] что-либо?&quot; is a template, where [кому-либо] is a noun or a pronoun in dative case, and [сделать] is a verb in perfect infinitive. It means &quot;Why don't [someone] [do something]?&quot;. It's a polite form of speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to use &quot;Ты бы пошёл с нами?&quot; instead. No dative and past tense, I believe this is the one you've been looking for. Though this is less polite. Friends could use use &quot;Пойдешь с нами?&quot; and even shorter &quot;А ты?&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12545" RevisionGUID="0afffaa4-ac9c-4bc2-84de-e1811bd38481" CreationDate="2016-06-03T04:29:46.840" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Почему бы тебе не пойти с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a special form of a polite suggestion. We don't use nominative case and past form of the verb after **why** in such sentences. It's very close in form to *Would you like to go?* where an infinitive is used. You can make a suggestion without **why** with the verb in the past (Ты бы пошел с нами?Would you go with us?) or in the present (Ты пойдешь с нами?Пойдешь с нами?Will you join us?) But to say Почему бы ты не пошел is incorrect. Perhaps the sentence *Why not joining us?* corresponds better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12546" RevisionGUID="7238e79f-21d0-4f05-9572-1326c9f1dcf3" CreationDate="2016-06-03T08:52:21.927" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Why is the verb in the infinitive rather than the past tense which I was taught to use with бы constructions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, there are quite a few different constructions with &quot;_бы_&quot;. Do not expect a politeness to be a simple thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_А ты бы пошёл с нами_ --&gt; this is also **to motivate / slightly push** rather than simply ask; need right stress not to confuse with a question (i.e. _do not_ stress the verb here);  &#xD;&#xA;_А ты хотел бы пойти с нами?_ --&gt; again could be confused with a plain question; put the stress over &quot;хотел&quot; to show it's **an invitation** too;  &#xD;&#xA;_Пойти бы с вами_ (or _Хорошо бы пойти с вами_) --&gt; infinitive + &quot;бы&quot; shows an inclination to do something; missing any &quot;who&quot; points to the speaker himself, i.e. it's the same thing as **I'd like**;  &#xD;&#xA;_Тебе пойти бы с нами_ --&gt; here I say that such an inclination to go _should_ belong to _you_; so it means **you should better**;  &#xD;&#xA;_Почему бы не пойти?_ --&gt; this is sort of &quot;is there any reason not to go?&quot;, which in fact stands for soft variant of &quot;let's go&quot;: **why don't we go**;  &#xD;&#xA;_Почему бы тебе не пойти с нами?_ --&gt; now it's like a previous one, but points to _you_, so it's a polite form for asking to go with us: **why don't you**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12547" RevisionGUID="ddb76e32-e38b-40c9-b872-b316ab219002" CreationDate="2016-06-03T10:15:31.357" UserId="6953" Text="I have found out that there is a phrase, which has a meaning of something like &quot;whoever it was&quot; - &quot;кто бы то ни был&quot;. Why is &quot;ни&quot; used instead of &quot;не&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12547" RevisionGUID="ddb76e32-e38b-40c9-b872-b316ab219002" CreationDate="2016-06-03T10:15:31.357" UserId="6953" Text="Why is &quot;ни&quot; used in a phrase &quot;кто бы то ни был&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12547" RevisionGUID="ddb76e32-e38b-40c9-b872-b316ab219002" CreationDate="2016-06-03T10:15:31.357" UserId="6953" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12547" RevisionGUID="ebe58e24-d87d-461c-9cb0-aadd3882f4a0" CreationDate="2016-06-03T10:23:20.833" UserId="6953" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="dd5daa3f-7937-43f6-8b6e-76d58744c5e7" CreationDate="2016-06-03T12:50:57.337" UserId="7223" Text="*&quot;ни&quot;* is the amplifying particle, *&quot;не&quot;* is the negative particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no negation in phrase *&quot;whoever it was&quot;* and so particle *&quot;ни&quot;* used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="c377afc0-488e-4387-ad16-acdef1f7f992" CreationDate="2016-06-03T14:31:23.207" UserId="7252" Text="This is because the particle &quot;ни&quot; has a different meaning than the particle &quot;не&quot;. In affirmative sentences in conjunction with the pronoun or interrogative words, &quot;ни&quot; means a true statement in any options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кого бы я **ни спрашивал**, все говорили, что **не знают** его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try to change &quot;ни&quot; to &quot;не&quot;. The sense of the statement will change:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кого бы я не спрашивал, все говорили, что не знают его. - I asked&#xD;&#xA;    nobody, nobody knows him. &#xD;&#xA;Кого бы я ни спрашивал, все говорили, что&#xD;&#xA;    не знают его. - I asked everyone, nobody knows him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="0f58f677-6a94-4e57-b6e5-d0fa571a692a" CreationDate="2016-06-04T05:23:30.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/738964375185313792" />
  <row Id="29236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="4244fe5e-ae74-4b93-b232-47ec1bdd90fc" CreationDate="2016-06-04T08:50:22.777" UserId="1236" Text="&gt; Почему бы тебе не пойти с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For practical reasons, you can look at it this way: the sentence is elliptical, that is, some words are missing, but everybody can reconstruct them and understand the sentence. Look at it like this, the missing words are in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему бы тебе не пойти с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why would — Почему бы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [it be good] for you — тебе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not to go with us? — не пойти с нами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="b6394ee4-56ff-4ada-94f1-4a63584b1f11" CreationDate="2016-06-04T08:56:17.923" UserId="1236" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="&gt; Почему бы тебе не пойти с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For practical reasons, you can look at it this way: the sentence is elliptical, that is, some words are missing, but everybody can reconstruct them and understand the sentence. Look at it like this, the missing words are in square brackets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему бы тебе не пойти с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why would — Почему бы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [it be good] for you — тебе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not to go with us? — не пойти с нами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a *why?* question, the possible answers can be 'because I'm busy', 'because I don't like you', or 'great, I'm going!', etc., but still you will always answer the question 'Why isn't it *good* for you to go or not to go with us?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="ce4c539b-49e0-4bdf-b68c-bfbbcc3e0a40" CreationDate="2016-06-04T09:55:27.850" UserId="6953" Text="There are some confusing words in russian, because they can be stressed differently and mean different things. I know some, like: &quot;замки&quot;, &quot;стрелки&quot;, &quot;белки&quot;, &quot;кружки&quot;. Are there any more? Is there a website where such words are collected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="ce4c539b-49e0-4bdf-b68c-bfbbcc3e0a40" CreationDate="2016-06-04T09:55:27.850" UserId="6953" Text="What are the words, where stresses are important?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="ce4c539b-49e0-4bdf-b68c-bfbbcc3e0a40" CreationDate="2016-06-04T09:55:27.850" UserId="6953" Text="|resources|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="82b71d33-6b3b-4fb0-bda2-7ff8b26af018" CreationDate="2016-06-04T12:29:48.070" UserId="6539" Text="Such words are called **омографы**. They have the same written form but are pronounced differently. There's also a larger group called **омонимы** which have the same written form and pronunciation(коса,for example.And there exist a special kind of dictionaries-**Словарь омонимов русского языка**.I saw such dictionary by **Ахманова**,it has got a special part called Омографы,where you will find such words,translation into several languages, stress,meaning etc. There's also a useful introduction to this part " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29249" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="ec8ce226-f55b-4d2d-89af-b7a2f9f7f6b9" CreationDate="2016-06-04T19:43:24.303" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29251" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12543" RevisionGUID="43152801-420d-4367-b170-8ed3a7cf88b3" CreationDate="2016-06-05T02:23:31.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/739281467746996224" />
  <row Id="29252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="3b71f7c7-036c-4a6f-94c2-6738ee8a0221" CreationDate="2016-06-05T12:42:38.257" UserId="6953" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="There are some confusing words in russian, because they can be stressed differently and mean different things. I know some, like: &quot;замки&quot;, &quot;стрелки&quot;, &quot;белки&quot;, &quot;кружки&quot;. Is there a website where such words are collected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12555" RevisionGUID="3cdbb434-01d3-4cb7-b7bc-027acc4796e4" CreationDate="2016-06-05T13:42:22.690" UserId="7325" Text="This word (looking different now and often mistook for &quot;не&quot; - &quot;not&quot;) is a remnant of some old slavonic laguage. Standing in this context for the word &quot;ever&quot; usually going in company with &quot;be&quot; - &quot;быть&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like in:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_whoever_ that _be_ - _кто_ бы это там _ни был_&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;whenever it happens - _когда_ бы это _ни_ происходило&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_weherever_ it _is_ - _где_ бы это _ни было_&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Deep research should be made to find what word to this particle relates, in old slavonic. Because it is only orthographic dictionaries now are instructing how to write russian words with &quot;не/ни&quot;. No any reference to language history. So few (if someone at all) people can give answer about the &quot;ни&quot; particle and why it is written that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="653a6163-6f06-4bde-ae07-dbdfbece9e70" CreationDate="2016-06-05T14:26:46.943" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="I've seen expressions like this, with, and without the **&quot;в&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В первый раз— Я в первый раз здесь.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Первый раз — Я первый раз здесь.** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В последнее время— я в последнее время стала очень ленивой.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Последнее время— я последнее время стала очень нервной.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in meaning? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="0499d75f-c6be-446b-b460-bb8388e965e7" CreationDate="2016-06-05T17:08:36.683" UserId="7365" Text="For as big as Russia, America, UK,  Canada and Australia are it is a shame and its maybe strange that most translations between Russian and English seem to be deficient to an extent... This word attitude  is a perfect example and its why most English speaking people have a difficult time with learning Russian....&#xD;&#xA;Russian is a very specific language and the Russian people have an extremely direct attitude to most things. As a result of the language and vice-versa... Many English words describe an approximate situation and not as very precise as Russian usually does. Meaning that: there are usually several words in Russian for every one word in English and yes its little frustrating sometimes...  This might also be the reason of tensions between East and West.  But I contribute this for world peace..and for the beauty of Russian poetry..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THEREFORE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:отношение	is relationship but its also is how one relates to the outside world =Relation Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:расположение just means disposition = Behavioural Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3:мироощущение  How one feels about the world in his  insides.....world-feeling =Feeling Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4:мировоззрение  world-view =Vision Attitude trough your pink or dark glasses......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5:Attitude is actually the Salad of all the above words put together  = Attitude =Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was maybe late answer but its the best answer to the  concept of attitude..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m sure many people look for this....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck whomever, wherever you all are..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For world peace for the enlightened and the helpless all together as One..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vega Rozenberg  Just a Teacher of Mankind&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="3ad80fb9-8bb4-4709-bc2b-b6a234753d56" CreationDate="2016-06-05T17:12:13.400" UserId="7347" Comment="Corrected spelling and improved formatting." Text="Such words are called **омографы**. They have the same written form but are pronounced differently. There's also a larger group called **омонимы** which have the same written form and pronunciation (коса, for example). And there exist a special kind of dictionaries – &quot;**Словарь омонимов русского языка**&quot;. I saw such dictionary by **Ахманова**, it has a special part called Омографы, where you will find such words, translations into several languages, stresses, meanings etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29257" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="3ad80fb9-8bb4-4709-bc2b-b6a234753d56" CreationDate="2016-06-05T17:12:13.400" Comment="Proposed by 7347 approved by 3680, 1236 edit id of 752" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="9ffa4b70-e973-44d8-a1e0-22ccfb383cf4" CreationDate="2016-06-05T18:26:31.483" UserId="6539" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Such words are called **омографы**. They have the same written form but are pronounced differently. There's also a larger group called **омонимы** which have the same written form and pronunciation (коса, for example). And there exists a special kind of dictionaries – &quot;**Словарь омонимов русского языка**&quot;. I saw such a dictionary by **Ахманова**, it has a special part called Омографы, where you will find such words, translations into several languages,stresses, meanings etc.There's also a good introduction explaining the usage and forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="4c1ad0ea-5e5e-4175-af4f-8ae687dcf8d2" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:18:18.610" UserId="3847" Text="Is there any difference between the nouns 'доставка' (delivery) and 'поставка' (delivery)? I mean to ask if a delivery of a package to a residence requires a different noun than a commercial delivery (iron, bulk deliveries of grain, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="4c1ad0ea-5e5e-4175-af4f-8ae687dcf8d2" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:18:18.610" UserId="3847" Text="Доставка and/or Поставка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="4c1ad0ea-5e5e-4175-af4f-8ae687dcf8d2" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:18:18.610" UserId="3847" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="dfa16a56-6609-4f24-a34f-7d13b9b263d3" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:20:27.367" UserId="5454" Text="There is an article [Choosing Natural Adjective Ladders](http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/storytelling/lichert_article.htm) about ordered list of English adjectives describing quality, from Phenomenal to Abysmal.  The list was received by survey.  &#xD;&#xA;Is there similar work exists for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="dfa16a56-6609-4f24-a34f-7d13b9b263d3" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:20:27.367" UserId="5454" Text="Russian Quality Adjective Ladder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="dfa16a56-6609-4f24-a34f-7d13b9b263d3" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:20:27.367" UserId="5454" Text="|словоупотребление|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="86fa40a9-ad16-43f0-8f7b-1d3e49860129" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:20:27.367" UserId="5454" Text="Yes, there is!  &#xD;&#xA;See [Количественный анализ качественных прилагательных русского языка](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303803391_Qualitative_Analysis_of_Russian_Quantitative_Adjectives_in_Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;But be careful using these adjectives, come of them colloquial or close to obscene. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="ea906ef0-7740-47bd-81d3-852fa0dcf282" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:30:33.383" UserId="242" Text="Both terms are indeed quite alike though definitely different. One can tell that &quot;поставка&quot; is subtly wider term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Доставка&quot; is about delivery to the end customer, &quot;поставка&quot; is about the whole logistic cycle: shipment, supply etc. - and it usually implies describing the process en-masse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Доставка товаров на дом&quot; is correct, &quot;поставка товаров на дом&quot; is not. &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand though &quot;наладил доставку лекарств за границу&quot; is acceptable, &quot;наладил поставку лекарств за границу&quot; would sound more appropriate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simple, &quot;доставка&quot; is more about deliver getting something by a person from  the Amazon, and &quot;поставка&quot; is more about the process of sending wood from the Amazon to some, don't know, wood factory. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29271" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="283be4ed-ba97-4745-82d9-d9a8a927ed43" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:30:55.180" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="7f9dc49b-d1c4-4a41-a75c-b360f03ba9c4" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:52:19.480" UserId="194" Text="Доставка = transportation to the end point, often retail, or letter delivery or cargo or luggage. Can include any transportation, not only sale-related. Giving the thing to the addressee or putting at the place of addressee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поставка = always wholesale, in big volume, may not include transportation to the end point, just unloading at agreed place. Always sale-related, usually between companies, not to end-user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="72ab361e-a192-402b-8f9f-ba67512c31ea" CreationDate="2016-06-05T21:00:06.830" UserId="194" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Доставка = transportation to the end point, often retail, or letter delivery or cargo or luggage. Can include any transportation, not only sale-related. Giving the thing to the addressee or putting at the place of addressee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поставка = always wholesale, in big volume, may not include transportation to the end point, just unloading at agreed place. Always sale-related, usually between companies, not to end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, доставка = transportation to the end point, поставка = sale in big volume between companies&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="31dca12d-b492-48f8-a7d0-6248a016cd66" CreationDate="2016-06-05T23:30:36.307" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There is an article [Choosing Natural Adjective Ladders](http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/storytelling/lichert_article.htm) about ordered list of English adjectives describing quality, from Phenomenal to Abysmal.  The list was received by survey.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a similar work exist for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="c81f44ad-4b0e-4b83-a61f-c2a82a85e428" CreationDate="2016-06-06T06:38:51.370" UserId="5454" Comment="Added quote from the reference." Text="Yes, there is!  &#xD;&#xA;See [Количественный анализ качественных прилагательных русского языка](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303803391_Qualitative_Analysis_of_Russian_Quantitative_Adjectives_in_Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;But be careful using these adjectives, come of them colloquial or close to obscene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one of the lists they received.  &#xD;&#xA;It is an ordered set of 10 unordered sets of adjectives (levels), graded from the most &quot;positive&quot; words to the most &quot;negative&quot;. All the words of one level perceived by respondents as about the same on the scale of &quot;good&quot; - &quot;bad.&quot;  Any of them (for example, the most commonly used in the language) can be selected as a typical representative of this level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. фантастический, феноменальный, превосходный, восхитительный, волшебный,&#xD;&#xA;суперский, офигенный  &#xD;&#xA; 2. первоклассный, отменный, отличный, замечательный  &#xD;&#xA; 3. первосортный, сильный  &#xD;&#xA; 4. хороший, добротный  &#xD;&#xA; 5. недурной, неплохой,нормальный  &#xD;&#xA; 6. средний, так себе*  &#xD;&#xA; 7. посредственный, слабый, никакой  &#xD;&#xA; 8. плохой, жалкий, никчёмный, негодный  &#xD;&#xA; 9. дрянной, гадостный, ужасный  &#xD;&#xA; 10. говённый, дерьмовый, отвратительный, омерзительный    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This idiomatic expression is actually not an adjective, but often used by  native speakers for describing mediocre quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12562" RevisionGUID="f2d73500-98f0-4458-bf45-c0f5ce2a281e" CreationDate="2016-06-06T06:49:41.610" UserId="194" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Доставка = transportation to the end point, often retail, or letter delivery or cargo or luggage or people. Can include any transportation, not only sale-related. Giving the thing to the addressee or putting at the place of addressee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поставка = always wholesale, in big volume, may not include transportation to the end point, just unloading at agreed place. Always sale-related, usually between companies, not to end-user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, доставка = transportation to the end point, поставка = sale in big volume between companies&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="352fef07-b455-4415-9d2e-f1c725b0ccc9" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:13:25.020" UserId="4629" Text="Доставка = delivery, shipment&#xD;&#xA;Поставка = supply" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12560" RevisionGUID="dcc45032-2309-49db-add5-d1211023d3e1" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:16:39.850" UserId="4629" Comment="Typing errors" Text="Yes, there is!  &#xD;&#xA;See [Количественный анализ качественных прилагательных русского языка](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303803391_Qualitative_Analysis_of_Russian_Quantitative_Adjectives_in_Russian).  &#xD;&#xA;But be careful using these adjectives, some of them are colloquial or close to obscene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is one of the lists they received.  &#xD;&#xA;It is an ordered set of 10 unordered sets of adjectives (levels), graded from the most &quot;positive&quot; words to the most &quot;negative&quot;. All the words of one level perceived by respondents as about the same on the scale of &quot;good&quot; - &quot;bad.&quot;  Any of them (for example, the most commonly used in the language) can be selected as a typical representative of this level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. фантастический, феноменальный, превосходный, восхитительный, волшебный,&#xD;&#xA;суперский, офигенный  &#xD;&#xA; 2. первоклассный, отменный, отличный, замечательный  &#xD;&#xA; 3. первосортный, сильный  &#xD;&#xA; 4. хороший, добротный  &#xD;&#xA; 5. недурной, неплохой,нормальный  &#xD;&#xA; 6. средний, так себе*  &#xD;&#xA; 7. посредственный, слабый, никакой  &#xD;&#xA; 8. плохой, жалкий, никчёмный, негодный  &#xD;&#xA; 9. дрянной, гадостный, ужасный  &#xD;&#xA; 10. говённый, дерьмовый, отвратительный, омерзительный    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This idiomatic expression is actually not an adjective, but often used by  native speakers for describing mediocre quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="90182bf3-89ae-42de-9b45-55663563e8a9" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:24:26.827" UserId="4629" Comment="I broadened the question further." Text="There are some confusing words in russian, because they can be stressed differently and mean different things. I know some, like: &quot;замки&quot;, &quot;стрелки&quot;, &quot;белки&quot;, &quot;кружки&quot;. Is there a website [or any other resource] where such words are collected?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29280" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="07ba7c63-7712-4f21-b9a7-172c48678107" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:24:49.203" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6953,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;L_Pav&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4629,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Avi Gordon&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="7f4daff1-10ea-4080-a2d3-5d4fe065f5b8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:25:21.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/739734910823464960" />
  <row Id="29282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12564" RevisionGUID="fcefae8a-e60c-4962-8942-67a8087ee484" CreationDate="2016-06-06T08:30:46.517" UserId="4629" Text="This paper may be of particular interest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/6650/1/077-082.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to it, there are thousands of Russian homographs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this book apparently addresses the phenomenon in detail. I do not know if it is available in an electronic form but hopefully may be purchased on line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gramma.ru/RUS/?id=6.53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12565" RevisionGUID="f8388839-c08d-40a8-85b7-39ed476775ca" CreationDate="2016-06-06T09:00:50.367" UserId="4629" Text="Although the variants omitting &quot;в&quot; are widely used they are colloquial and grammatically incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="c7ed34bd-2ef5-410a-bca2-e03d58e1581a" CreationDate="2016-06-06T09:02:20.093" UserId="4629" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Доставка = delivery, shipment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поставка = supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="a7abc34d-afa3-44b0-b31c-ded65de48169" CreationDate="2016-06-06T09:47:13.113" UserId="551" Comment="Removed all parts that were not related to answering the question." Text="There are usually several words in Russian for every one word in English and yes its little frustrating sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:отношение	is relationship but its also is how one relates to the outside world =Relation Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:расположение just means disposition = Behavioural Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3:мироощущение  How one feels about the world in his  insides.....world-feeling =Feeling Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4:мировоззрение  world-view =Vision Attitude trough your pink or dark glasses......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5:Attitude is actually the Salad of all the above words put together  = Attitude =Attitude" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="be5dd281-06e8-4a91-956b-074b277409f8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T09:50:30.633" UserId="5454" Comment="Quotes added" Text="There is an article [&quot;Choosing Natural Adjective Ladders&quot;](http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/storytelling/lichert_article.htm) about ordered list of English adjectives describing quality, from Phenomenal to Abysmal.  The list was received by survey.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does a similar work exist for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="f0a4383b-b168-423f-ab5e-cd801586c6de" CreationDate="2016-06-06T12:06:04.953" UserId="4629" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Доставка = delivery, shipment, shipping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поставка = supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12566" RevisionGUID="8658b1ab-b33f-4faa-879f-8891068fd1b5" CreationDate="2016-06-06T16:19:55.620" UserId="4629" Text="*how do Russians know which one to use*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They just do. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is: every native speaker will have heard and used hundreds and thousands of diminuted words in context so will instinctively know which suffix tends to be used to convey which shade of meaning. And here's the gotcha: every diminutive suffix conveys a certain attitude of the speaker to the person/object called by a diminuted form of the basic word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find the following somewhat informative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://moluch.ru/archive/54/7300/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="98f5d313-6b7e-4c42-9df0-f7bee6157bbb" CreationDate="2016-06-06T16:51:18.723" UserId="6354" Text="Is there a difference between **забывать**/**забыть** and **позабывать**/**позабыть**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Я **забыл** ее имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) Я **позабыл** ее имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) Время **забудь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) Время **позабудь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="98f5d313-6b7e-4c42-9df0-f7bee6157bbb" CreationDate="2016-06-06T16:51:18.723" UserId="6354" Text="забывать/забыть versus позабывать/позабыть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="98f5d313-6b7e-4c42-9df0-f7bee6157bbb" CreationDate="2016-06-06T16:51:18.723" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12568" RevisionGUID="44ad78a9-9b90-4bdd-a3ca-466faf3bb5ea" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:25:13.833" UserId="4629" Text="In terms of semantics the two are synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of style &quot;позабыть&quot; sounds a bit archaic or bookish. The one who chooses it over the neutral &quot;забыть&quot; creates the impression of being well-read/old-fashioned/highbrow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12568" RevisionGUID="bba7c111-587d-4a19-8af1-c75fee99b0fd" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:43:15.623" UserId="4629" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="In terms of semantics the two are synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of style ***позабыть*** sounds a bit archaic or bookish. The one who chooses it over the neutral ***забыть*** creates the impression of being well-read/old-fashioned/highbrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позабывать*** is a special case, though. An imperfect verb with the prefix ***по-*** acquires the meaning of a distributed action: ***побросать*** - to have dropped many objects (independently), ***поснимать*** - to have taken many objects off or down, ***понастроить*** - to have built many constructions etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="e1754f90-2ada-431f-8f8a-37bd8f7d51cc" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:46:42.893" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Забывать/забыть versus позабывать/позабыть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12568" RevisionGUID="be04b7ca-b6ea-4097-b2ad-00987129fb6e" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:51:34.393" UserId="4629" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="In terms of style ***позабыть*** sounds a bit archaic or bookish. The one who chooses it over the neutral ***забыть*** creates the impression of being well-read/old-fashioned/highbrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of semantics...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A verb with the prefix ***по-*** acquires the meaning of a distributed action: ***побросать*** - to have dropped many objects (independently), ***поснимать*** - to have taken many objects off or down, ***понастроить*** - to have built many constructions etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, ***позабывать*** means to have forgotten many things. However, ***позабыть*** (as in: *Я всё позабыл*) has almost lost this shade of &quot;distributedness&quot; and become almost synonymous to ***забыть***. Hence the aforementioned archaic flavour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="a04d0777-6834-4ca0-a4ad-abb9fe5411c2" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:52:18.473" UserId="6354" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Is there a difference between **забывать**/**забыть** and **позабывать**/**позабыть**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Я **забыл** ее имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) Я **позабыл** ее имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) Слушай, на время время **забудь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) Слушай, на время время **позабудь**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29297" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="9a9d6b10-6e34-474f-93d7-be8e0845470c" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:55:15.160" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Diminutive of &quot;blob&quot; (and more general rule if it possible)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12443" RevisionGUID="df385462-2311-44a0-a155-6189a5054ece" CreationDate="2016-06-06T17:55:35.803" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="I do not know how to construct a repulsive version using diminutive. It would be rather augmentative that would be repulsive (блобище).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural diminutive here is блобик. It is rather sympathetic than repulsive.&#xD;&#xA;Блобочка is of different gender, it is a diminutive of a would-be word &quot;блоба&quot; which does not exist. Блобец is somewhat ironic but also underlines unvanishing and/or problematic existence of the object. It is something a thing, you know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="529add38-ede0-42c5-a90e-1d8f2095380e" CreationDate="2016-06-06T21:40:11.987" UserId="7369" Text="I encountered this phrase as the title of a section, while reading a Russian military document.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Учебные вопросы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Уяснение задачи, оценка обстановки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good way to translate this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives the translation as: &quot;Study Questions&quot;, but that seems not quite right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;Training questions&quot; be more accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="529add38-ede0-42c5-a90e-1d8f2095380e" CreationDate="2016-06-06T21:40:11.987" UserId="7369" Text="Учебные вопросы in a military context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="529add38-ede0-42c5-a90e-1d8f2095380e" CreationDate="2016-06-06T21:40:11.987" UserId="7369" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29302" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="93183bfd-4a9e-4b6e-ac10-abb7a09396d8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T21:57:15.087" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="4963465a-ed87-4711-bc49-322b13bc332d" CreationDate="2016-06-06T22:50:38.487" UserId="7369" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I encountered the phrase &quot;Учебные вопросы&quot; as the title of a section, while reading a Russian military document.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Учебные вопросы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Уяснение задачи, оценка обстановки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good way to translate this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives the translation as: &quot;Study Questions&quot;, but that seems not quite right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;Training questions&quot; be more accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29304" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12558" RevisionGUID="1023fdd9-3911-4c41-98d0-48cecf7515ba" CreationDate="2016-06-06T23:27:47.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/739962016887103494" />
  <row Id="29305" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="1bd4c7f6-e5f3-4da1-9a1f-8dc335daa41d" CreationDate="2016-06-07T02:27:49.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/740007322987155456" />
  <row Id="29306" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="25dbc72b-b1ab-4676-908e-8dc26a9980a0" CreationDate="2016-06-07T05:27:49.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/740052621566869504" />
  <row Id="29307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12570" RevisionGUID="9b10d8a4-38d1-4093-b39a-a22ebb3238c4" CreationDate="2016-06-07T08:15:44.073" UserId="6425" Text="Diminutive form in Russian is created by adding suffices, not endings. Of cause there are rules, and here are a couple of links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.funrussian.com/2013/02/01/russian-diminutive-nouns/&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/nounsandcases/suffixes.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’d encourage you not to give into the “only the native speaker can blah blah blah” argument. My opinion is that people often use it inflate their self-worth, and not as often to point out minute peculiarities that you failed to see. I’ve stopped doing that (the self-worth part, I mean), and now my message is this: basic grammar is not beyond your grasp. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12568" RevisionGUID="76f88455-f9fa-4916-b02b-ffd3205ae6f8" CreationDate="2016-06-07T09:32:00.133" UserId="4629" Comment="edited body" Text="In terms of style ***позабыть*** sounds a bit archaic or bookish. The one who chooses it over the neutral ***забыть*** creates the impression of being well-read/old-fashioned/highbrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of semantics...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A verb with the prefix ***по-*** acquires the meaning of a distributed action: ***побросать*** - to have dropped many objects (independently), ***поснимать*** - to have taken many objects off or down, ***понастроить*** - to have built many constructions etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, ***позабывать*** means to have forgotten many things. However, ***позабыть*** (as in: *Я всё позабыл*) has all but lost this shade of &quot;distributedness&quot; and become almost synonymous to ***забыть***. Hence the aforementioned archaic flavour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="17d40451-58cd-4f45-82fb-7eba2893d833" CreationDate="2016-06-07T09:46:29.893" UserId="4629" Comment="rephraised the question to bring it in line with the community requirements." Text="I encountered the phrase &quot;Учебные вопросы&quot; as the title of a section, while reading a Russian military document.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Учебные вопросы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Уяснение задачи, оценка обстановки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives the translation as: &quot;Study Questions&quot;, but that seems not quite right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would &quot;Training questions&quot; be more accurate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="29ffe899-71be-42c0-9268-ebee189ef3a7" CreationDate="2016-06-07T14:28:11.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/740188610117406722" />
  <row Id="29312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="7577ad97-41dc-4a08-b53b-1cbe7e4b12b5" CreationDate="2016-06-07T15:30:16.670" UserId="6953" Comment="Just corrected the phrases corresponding to the dialog, made them more usual." Text="How to translate ***attitude / mind-set***, when speaking about a person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a term which fits best, when speaking about this inner attitude of one's heart. The term should *not* refer to one's mood or things which are more related to the collective outer appearance. See also the example below. It's not so easy to explain, but I thought with some more statements it's easier to get an idea of the possibilities that Russian offers here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A corresponding German term is *(Geistes-)Haltung*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be ***отношение, мышление, поведение или позиция***, but I'm not sure.  &#xD;&#xA;Other terms I've found: ***ментальность, умонастроение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a basic example of what I mean. Let's say a guy sits down in a train and takes a rather dingy newspaper which lies beside him to read it. Now another guy asks him: &quot;Why you want to read such things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He might respond like so: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Well, maybe there's something interesting inside.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Ehm, never really thought about it. Why shouldn't I?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or like so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Does it make any difference?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;Get a life.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the attitude is reflected by words, behavior and deeds. Let's say the first answers testify to a good attitude and the latter to a poor. Let me also point out, that even a bad mood would not result in the latter answers if you have a good attitude (let's just assume that for now). So the attitude is more about something deeper. The attitude of one's heart. In the example, the answers may reveal whether the guy's heart clings to the newspaper (or things in it or the habit or reading it) or whether his heart is distant to it or just slightly leans to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **What would be the Russian term for this understanding of attitude / mind-set?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about adjectives describing a *good attitude* or *bad attitude*.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some possible hints&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как говорит прп. Иоанн Лествичник (слово 24): «Кротость есть такое ***состояние ума***, когда он непоколебим пребывает и в чести, и в бесчестии.... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;http://azbyka.ru/tserkov/duhovnaya_zhizn/osnovy/pestov_praktika_pravoslavnogo_blagochestiya_70-all.shtml&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;meekness - a ***disposition*** to be patient and long suffering.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meekness&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Для чистых все чисто; а для оскверненных и неверныхнет ничего чистого, но осквернены и ***ум*** их и совесть. &lt;sub&gt;Титу 1:15&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29313" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="7577ad97-41dc-4a08-b53b-1cbe7e4b12b5" CreationDate="2016-06-07T15:30:16.670" Comment="Proposed by 6953 approved by 6588, 134 edit id of 753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="964aeee5-6e89-45fd-9a65-94cbdfea59b4" CreationDate="2016-06-07T15:30:39.843" UserId="6953" Comment="Nothing serious, just tidied up the punctuation a little bit." Text="There are usually several words in Russian for every one word in English and yes, it's little frustrating sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:отношение	is relationship but it also is how one relates to the outside world = Relation Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:расположение just means disposition = Behavioural Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3:мироощущение  How one feels about the world in his  insides.....world-feeling = Feeling Attitude&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4:мировоззрение  world-view = Vision Attitude trough your pink or dark glasses......&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5:Attitude is actually the salad of all the above words put together  = Attitude = Attitude" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29315" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="964aeee5-6e89-45fd-9a65-94cbdfea59b4" CreationDate="2016-06-07T15:30:39.843" Comment="Proposed by 6953 approved by 134 edit id of 754" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29317" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="f62c9a1a-d1bb-40cb-bc7f-3a9e8e2c3b71" CreationDate="2016-06-07T17:47:21.050" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4629,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Avi Gordon&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="f0ada33e-e506-419b-a4a9-bab71fa86f00" CreationDate="2016-06-07T18:16:54.113" UserId="134" Text="This is Russian military officialese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your excerpt is apparently a part of a document (*план-конспект*) describing a training session and defining its goals, steps and methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, *учебный вопрос* just means &quot;topic&quot;: something the trainees are going to learn during this session.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Уяснение задачи* is something like &quot;objective clarification&quot; (for the lack of a better term; I'm not familiar with English military jargon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a skill of reading and processing orders received down the chain of command, understanding what exactly does and what does not the commander want from you and your regiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Оценка обстановки* is &quot;situation assessment&quot;: where you are, what do you have, and how can you use this to complete your objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two skills are what the trainees are going to learn and what the whole session is all about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="7ae5462e-087a-48ed-93da-a006aa9cecad" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:02:29.527" UserId="7369" Text="Эти синонимы. Но мне кажется, что все-таки тонкая разница есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My current understanding of the difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Беспризорный** = &quot;homeless&quot; -- used in a more educated written register (literature etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Бездомный** = &quot;homeless&quot; -- most common everyday verbal usage for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Бомж** = &quot;homeless/bum&quot; -- Acronym for: без определённого места жительства (slang/jargon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any additional difference in where one would encounter these words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in my assumptions about what &quot;register&quot; the words fall into? Or am I imagining the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="7ae5462e-087a-48ed-93da-a006aa9cecad" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:02:29.527" UserId="7369" Text="Беспризорный vs. Бомж vs. Бездомный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="7ae5462e-087a-48ed-93da-a006aa9cecad" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:02:29.527" UserId="7369" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="e3aeafa7-db34-428f-a7e1-564b9635d094" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:14:53.053" UserId="242" Text=" - **Беспризорный** it's mostly about underage homeless persons, children and teenagers, the derived noun &quot;беспризорник&quot; is used more often, but I'd rather not agree that this is more high-style language, may be it's slowly getting outdated but we're definitely far from there.&#xD;&#xA; - **Бездомный** is neutral, it's just a person without home. &#xD;&#xA; - **Бомж** is less neutral, it's sort of homeless but quite often with negative connotations - drunk, junkie, dirty etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Russian speaker &quot;бездомный&quot; is more close to the image of homeless in a Les miserables way and &quot;бомж&quot; is more of a gentlemen you can encounter on San Francisco streets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, &quot;бомж&quot; is used only for describing modern homeless, most likely urban. No one will use it in translations of historic texts for instance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="16349f69-fdb1-4fbf-a3cc-fae382c02110" CreationDate="2016-06-07T20:56:55.817" UserId="242" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text=" - **Беспризорный** it's mostly about underage homeless persons, children and teenagers - it does not used for depicting adult homeless persons, the derived noun &quot;беспризорник&quot; is used more often, but I'd rather not agree that this is more high-style language, may be it's slowly getting outdated but we're definitely far from there. &#xD;&#xA; - **Бездомный** is neutral, it's just a person without home. &#xD;&#xA; - **Бомж** is less neutral, it's sort of homeless but quite often with negative connotations - drunk, junkie, dirty etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Russian speaker &quot;бездомный&quot; is more close to the image of homeless in a Les miserables way and &quot;бомж&quot; is more of a gentlemen you can encounter on San Francisco streets: a quite aggressive, stinky, stoned or drunk junky shouting out loud some nonsense.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, &quot;бомж&quot; is used only for describing modern homeless, most likely urban. No one will use it in translations of historic texts for instance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="e6c8af16-5648-45c4-b577-675d79fdf1bd" CreationDate="2016-06-08T05:15:46.920" UserId="6539" Text="The difference between бездомный (homeless) and бомж (tramp,hobo -colloquial) is mainly that of a register whereas беспризорный has got a wider and a bit different meaning including that of *homeless*, mostly spoken of a child or a teenager uncared-for/ neglected by his/her family. Беспризорный can even define a forgotten neglected object/thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="b9a00c8d-b2ee-4521-a533-53caeec7786b" CreationDate="2016-06-08T05:52:10.127" UserId="6588" Text="**Беспризорный** - the one who does not have &quot;призор&quot;, parental custody. Though this one can have a home, but the parent, who's supposed to live where too, is missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бездомный** - is literally &quot;homeless&quot;, this is a neutral term. In rare cases, it could even be applied to the person who does not own a home and rents one (in Russia, an adult is commonly supposed to own a real estate or a part of it, renting for the whole life is a misfortune, unless it's a municipal property with no rental payment). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бомж**  is an abbrevation &quot;без определённого места жительства&quot;, it's a rude and offensive term. &quot;Одет как бомж&quot; = &quot;очень плохо одет&quot;. &quot;Воняет как от бомжа&quot; = &quot;пахнет экскрементами&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="402b8db8-aba6-4bf6-9737-2de4a33d29f7" CreationDate="2016-06-08T06:57:33.067" UserId="7307" Text="Беспризорный applies to minors and has more to do with a lack of custody/supervision than a lack of residence. Бездомный is the plain and neutral translation of &quot;homeless&quot;. Бомж started out as a legal category and has taken on a derogatory character:&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29328" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="74813aa5-e5ce-4b8b-bd64-82f8d57cb66a" CreationDate="2016-06-08T07:57:22.683" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29329" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="d436153d-cf18-455c-bd73-c81801fa055b" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:00:02.167" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="b1d885be-c004-40ee-adeb-d592b33fdc61" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:24:57.567" UserId="6539" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The difference between бездомный (homeless) and бомж (tramp,hobo -colloquial) which originates from the official БОМЖ (of unfixed abode) is mainly that of a register whereas беспризорный has got a wider and a bit different meaning including that of *homeless*, mostly spoken of a child or a teenager uncared-for/ neglected by his/her family. Беспризорный can even define a forgotten neglected object/thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="d5be970c-8c9f-454c-a2b1-6870761bd86c" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:38:05.037" UserId="7307" Text="Я уехал из России в возрасте 10-и лет. Моя жена не русскоязычная, но с детьми я говорю по-русски. Глагол &quot;бояться&quot; требует родительного падежа, т.е., кого? чего? а не кого? что?. Если память мне не изменяет, я детям всё время говорил &quot;не бойся собаку&quot; (т.е., в винительном падеже вместо родительного). С точки зрения грамматики, это, конечно, неправильно. Но мне кажется, что в современной русской речи, неправильная форма встречается чаще правильной. Это так?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="d5be970c-8c9f-454c-a2b1-6870761bd86c" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:38:05.037" UserId="7307" Text="Кто-нибудь говорит &quot;не бойся собаки, не бойся кошки&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="d5be970c-8c9f-454c-a2b1-6870761bd86c" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:38:05.037" UserId="7307" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="cfbc7b73-f803-4e67-8494-c0d0ac5fd08f" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:58:27.183" UserId="6354" Text="What are the differences between **история**, **сказка**, **рассказ**, and **повесть** in terms of everyday usage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only obvious difference to me is **история** meaning **history**, otherwise I see **story**, **short story**, and/or **tale** listed for basically all of them in the dictionary, which is not useful for knowing when to correctly use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be missing other synonyms. These are just the ones I know. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="cfbc7b73-f803-4e67-8494-c0d0ac5fd08f" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:58:27.183" UserId="6354" Text="Differences between: история, сказка, рассказ, повесть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="cfbc7b73-f803-4e67-8494-c0d0ac5fd08f" CreationDate="2016-06-08T08:58:27.183" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12580" RevisionGUID="47af399c-2fff-4ce8-82fd-c5a66d70e4d1" CreationDate="2016-06-08T09:11:13.183" UserId="6131" Text="Если отвечать на вопрос из заголовка, то да, кто-нибудь (и много кто) говорит.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;бойся собаки&quot; и &quot;бойся собаку&quot; оба выглядят приемлемо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в предложении &quot;я боюсь собаку&quot; только один вариант приемлем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="30331651-1fa3-4c5f-a82c-e5ee84f93af6" CreationDate="2016-06-08T09:16:34.463" UserId="6131" Text="Сказка is a fairytale, usually with fantastic. If somebody told a story (which is called &quot;история&quot; by him) which happened with him, others don't believe him because that story doesn't look real, they could say that it is a &quot;сказка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;рассказ and повесть are used for literature. In short, рассказ is smaller.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12582" RevisionGUID="36949940-b18a-49ce-b710-04f5f17cdce5" CreationDate="2016-06-08T09:46:08.883" UserId="6588" Text="**история** is a series of events happened. Usually it's about real events, if it's a fantasy story, the story teller is supposed to indicate it. For example:  &quot;Вот такая история у нас случилась: родился телёнок о двух головах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***история*** as history is a different meaning of the same word. It's series of events from the past, described by a historian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **сказка** is a fairy tale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**рассказ** is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) the result of someone telling *история*. For example:&#xD;&#xA;- Вот такая история у нас случилась. [...]&#xD;&#xA;Он закончил рассказ и ушёл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) A short story, usually published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**повесть** in a past could be used for any quite long *рассказ*, but nowadays it's only a form of literature, similar to novel, which is much larger than a  short story, but shorter than a general novel (*роман*). Philologist define difference between *повесть* and *роман* in main character(s) personality change. No changing at all is for a *повесть*, otherwise it's *роман*. In collocation, there is only size difference. For example, 200 book pages is *повесть*, 500 is *роман*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="00c06359-a49e-4b1f-a826-06d6e6a484a5" CreationDate="2016-06-08T10:07:14.777" UserId="6354" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the various ways to express **story**, **short story**, **tale**, and **fairy tale** in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to put the question: what are the differences between **история**, **сказка**, **рассказ**, **повесть**, and other related words, in terms of everyday usage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only obvious difference to me is **история** means **history**, otherwise I see **story**, **short story**, and/or **tale** listed for basically all of them in the dictionary, which is not useful for knowing when to correctly use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29341" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="00c06359-a49e-4b1f-a826-06d6e6a484a5" CreationDate="2016-06-08T10:07:14.777" UserId="6354" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Story&quot;, &quot;short story&quot;, &quot;tale&quot;, &quot;fairy tale&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="9deee236-f237-4cc2-952c-f81a610d5907" CreationDate="2016-06-08T10:51:47.473" UserId="4629" Text="Я позволю себе не согласиться с @Schullz. Предложение &quot;Я боюсь собаки&quot; для меня звучит совершенно нормально и приемлемо. Так же, как *боюсь огня*, *боюсь высоты*, *боюсь измены*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, -- чем дольше носитель языка провёл вдали от языковой среды, тем заметнее такому носителю признаки явления под названием &quot;распад падежной системы&quot;. Ваш пример -- один из признаков этого процесса. Я не возьмусь разбирать в деталях частные случаи вытеснения родительного падежа винительным, но вытеснение это очевидно любому сколько-нибудь внимательному наблюдателю. Всё чаще встречаются такие, например, формы как *прошу прощени**е***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29343" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="922ef1d9-ed9c-4fdb-9ad4-a00dddc40d18" CreationDate="2016-06-08T12:16:53.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/740517956015230976" />
  <row Id="29344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="96bb1f18-9520-47cd-b64d-ebacd0feab8b" CreationDate="2016-06-08T12:30:27.873" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Не бойся собаки = Don't fear a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не бойся собаку = Don't fear the dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="d2ffd965-bb41-41b7-bc4f-e29ca1703034" CreationDate="2016-06-08T15:35:47.923" UserId="7379" Text="Правильно ли я понимаю, что от сказуемого в этом предложении осталась только частица &quot;бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="d2ffd965-bb41-41b7-bc4f-e29ca1703034" CreationDate="2016-06-08T15:35:47.923" UserId="7379" Text="“Мне бы на юг.” Где здесь сказуемое?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="d2ffd965-bb41-41b7-bc4f-e29ca1703034" CreationDate="2016-06-08T15:35:47.923" UserId="7379" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="9f11bb47-ab6b-49a3-a1d6-1feffd2168b1" CreationDate="2016-06-08T17:52:32.217" UserId="4629" Text="Хочется классифицировать как неполное инфинитивное предложение (*Мне бы [поехать] на юг* (сказуемое - да, пропущено). Но обоснований найти не могу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="258f8e31-2fa0-4cd0-b3ea-fc51b54ce378" CreationDate="2016-06-08T18:27:34.760" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Не бойся собаки&quot; or &quot;не бойся собаку&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29351" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="076db9d3-054a-4938-b3c3-a504693d1bb7" CreationDate="2016-06-08T18:28:55.213" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Учебные вопросы&quot; in a military context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="67e3a6ab-f166-4c00-b821-a41db283d9ce" CreationDate="2016-06-08T19:02:09.277" UserId="7223" Text="Литературной нормой является использование родительного падежа (потому что винительный падеж &quot;занят&quot; постфиксом -ся), однако для одушевленных предметов винительный падеж тоже допускается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда вы говорите &quot;не бойся собаку&quot; - вы подразумеваете, что собака имеет некоторую близость к вам. Это может быть &quot;родственная&quot; близость - в том случае если это ваша собака; либо же это может быть близость &quot;географическая&quot; - если собака рядом с вами, вы на нее показываете и говорите что эту конкретную собаку не надо бояться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование винительного падежа для неодушевленного предмета обычно означает олицетворение (литературный прием). Также винительный падеж может использоваться для процедуры (&quot;я боюсь маникюр&quot;) - лично для меня звучит дико, но автор исследования таких примеров, по-видимому, накопал достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;PS Спасибо [Andrey Chernyakhovskiy](http://russian.stackexchange.com/users/2284/andrey-chernyakhovskiy) за [ссылку на исследование](http://diplomba.ru/work/76639)  в комментарии." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12589" RevisionGUID="c8aa1293-a91c-4c3e-9324-5e0055013d76" CreationDate="2016-06-08T19:29:47.163" UserId="6539" Text="Эллиптические предложения — особый вид неполных предложений. В них всегда отсутствует глагол-сказуемое. Отличаются тем, что они понятны без контекста и без ситуации.В данном случае предложение безличное.Опущен глагол движения в форме инфинитива. Похожий пример :Мне в Париж, по делу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29354" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="bc7708c0-7edc-451a-b9a5-03127addff85" CreationDate="2016-06-09T00:17:34.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/740699321595793408" />
  <row Id="29356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="60a3ca7e-2534-4875-a12a-5e409da077ee" CreationDate="2016-06-09T03:58:02.717" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text=" Бездомный is *homeless*, sounds rather neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бомж (*tramp,hobo*) can be colloquial and БОМЖ as an abbreviation (*of unfixed abode*) is official. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Беспризорный has got a wider and a bit different meaning including that of *homeless*, mostly spoken of a child or a teenager uncared-for/ neglected by his/her family. Беспризорный can even define a forgotten neglected object/thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="5188ad01-8885-458f-a7f0-6cce99bfc8ca" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:10:24.777" UserId="7259" Text="In &quot;Дама с собачкой&quot;, часть 2, Чехов writes: &quot;Анна Сергеевна была трогательна, от нее веяло чистотой порядочной, наивной, мало жившей женщины; одинокая свеча, горевшая на столе, едва освещала ее лицо, но было видно, что у нее нехорошо на душе.&quot;&#xA;I have a question about the translation of &quot;... горевшая... and освещала...&quot; Resp. part. past act. and (not part.) past tense f. My translation: the solitary candle burning on the table threw scarcely light on her face...&#xA;I do not understand the function of горевшая, does this not mean that the candle has burnt? Why doesn't Chekhov use горящая instead (part. pres. active)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="5188ad01-8885-458f-a7f0-6cce99bfc8ca" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:10:24.777" UserId="7259" Text="Question about participia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="5188ad01-8885-458f-a7f0-6cce99bfc8ca" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:10:24.777" UserId="7259" Text="|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12591" RevisionGUID="e07954d2-311f-4471-9d3a-150ef39a21b6" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:24:43.617" UserId="5510" Text="It doesn't mean that the candle has burnt. It means that the candle was burning during that time (while she was sitting near this candle) - moment in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think author wanted to emphasize this. But it is not in error in Russian to say &quot;горящая&quot; in this phrase as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12592" RevisionGUID="7e80c94b-25d5-4dd2-99eb-48d280fbac43" CreationDate="2016-06-09T08:38:07.493" UserId="7371" Text="indeed, &quot;горевшая&quot; is more like &quot;was burning&quot; and &quot;has burnt&quot; would be &quot;сгоревшая&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the other hand, since the whole sentence is written in past, i would not use pres. for one particular verb in the middle of the sentence. It sounds bad for me. I#M not sure if russian grammar allows mixing times in a sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="653d1af4-983c-47a1-9f51-ca92b6395fff" CreationDate="2016-06-09T09:04:03.873" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="In &quot;Дама с собачкой&quot;, часть 2, Чехов writes: &quot;Анна Сергеевна была трогательна, от нее веяло чистотой порядочной, наивной, мало жившей женщины; одинокая свеча, горевшая на столе, едва освещала ее лицо, но было видно, что у нее нехорошо на душе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a question about the translation of &quot;... горевшая... and освещала...&quot; Resp. part. past act. and (not part.) past tense f. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My translation: the solitary candle burning on the table threw scarcely light on her face...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand the function of *горевшая*, does this not mean that the candle has burnt? Why doesn't Chekhov use *горящая* instead (part. pres. active)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29364" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="653d1af4-983c-47a1-9f51-ca92b6395fff" CreationDate="2016-06-09T09:04:03.873" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="&quot;Одинокая свеча, горевшая на столе&quot; - why not горящая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12592" RevisionGUID="bef31889-c187-4220-9031-e36c4cdac950" CreationDate="2016-06-09T10:18:36.930" UserId="7371" Comment="Corrected spelling, and did some general minute clean-ups." Text="Indeed, &quot;горевшая&quot; is more like &quot;was burning&quot; and &quot;has burnt&quot; would be &quot;сгоревшая&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Although russian grammar allows mixing past and pres. in same sentence, it sounds bad to me, since the whole sentence is written in past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12591" RevisionGUID="455593e9-e6aa-4dd3-a209-a816fb5fca87" CreationDate="2016-06-09T10:28:41.190" UserId="6953" Comment="Edited a few minute things." Text="It doesn't mean that the candle has burnt. It means that the candle was burning during that time (while she was sitting next to that particular candle) - moment in the past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, that the author wanted to emphasize this. But it is not an error in Russian to say &quot;горящая&quot; in this phrase as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29367" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12591" RevisionGUID="455593e9-e6aa-4dd3-a209-a816fb5fca87" CreationDate="2016-06-09T10:28:41.190" Comment="Proposed by 6953 approved by 5510 edit id of 757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="301b4730-42c4-42f5-a301-18206e434a5c" CreationDate="2016-06-09T10:58:24.523" UserId="5008" Text="That's a direct consequence of using tenses with participles. In English you actually have no choice, as &quot;_burning_&quot; cannot be put into past tense, except a complex construction such as &quot;_was burning_&quot;. But in Russian both &quot;_горящая_&quot; and &quot;_горевшая_&quot; fit nice, because the sentence is in the past tense anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's only about minor stylistic difference. If author constantly uses past tense, then he's trying to make an impression of reminescenes, recollections, some distancing from the events of his story. On the other hand, using past tense for verbs but present tense for participles gives a feeling of an instant look, sort of &quot;a book with pictures&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="60e567cc-143f-4870-96e3-72410c94e0ca" CreationDate="2016-06-09T11:02:29.823" UserId="1836" Comment="corrected typos" Text="**Беспризорный** - the one who does not have &quot;призор&quot;, parental custody. Though this one can have a home, but the parent, who's supposed to live there too, is missing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бездомный** - is literally &quot;homeless&quot;, this is a neutral term. In rare cases, it could even be applied to the person who does not own a home and rents one (in Russia, an adult is commonly supposed to own a real estate or a part of it, renting for the whole life is a misfortune, unless it's a municipal property with no rental payment). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бомж**  is an abbreviation for &quot;без определённого места жительства&quot;, it's a rude and offensive term. &quot;Одет как бомж&quot; = &quot;очень плохо одет&quot;. &quot;Воняет как от бомжа&quot; = &quot;пахнет экскрементами&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29370" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="60e567cc-143f-4870-96e3-72410c94e0ca" CreationDate="2016-06-09T11:02:29.823" Comment="Proposed by 1836 approved by 6588 edit id of 755" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12595" RevisionGUID="d81b18f5-d906-43fb-b6b1-1c9d679cc394" CreationDate="2016-06-09T13:20:41.053" UserId="1236" Text="Могу предложить альтернативную интерпретацию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глагольная часть сказуемого в этом эллиптическом предложении — **было бы**. Кроме неё в этом предложении опущены также подлежащее **поехать** (или другой, соответствующий контексту, глагол движения, например, **уехать**, **слетать**, **податься**, и т. д.), а также именная часть составного именного сказуемого, **хорошо**. Таким образом, если восстановить все его члены, это предложение выглядело бы так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне [было] бы [хорошо] [поехать] на юг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **[поехать] на юг** — подлежащее, выраженное инфинитивным оборотом,&#xD;&#xA; - **[было] бы [хорошо]** — составное именное сказуемое, состоящее из связки **быть** в условном наклонении и именной части, выраженной наречием **хорошо**,&#xD;&#xA; - **мне** — косвенное дополнение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12596" RevisionGUID="cde38a36-4eed-478f-8147-c0a355d14f9c" CreationDate="2016-06-09T14:03:44.937" UserId="1236" Text="The answer is very simple: the English participles have *relative* tenses, the Russian participles have *absolute* tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;*relative* tenses&quot; I mean that although 'burning' is called a &quot;present participle&quot;, it does not actually refer exactly to the very moment of speech, its &quot;present&quot; meaning is to show an action happening simultaneously with the action expressed by the predicate verb. Thus, &quot;The burning candle lit her face&quot; means that the candle *was* burning when the face was lit, it does not mean that the candle is burning now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Russian participles are not (often) like this, their tenses are *absolute*, they do not need any other verbs to explain the exact moment when the action is or was taking place. *Горящая* normally means &quot;burning right now, at the moment of speech&quot;, *горевшая* means &quot;the one which was burning then, at that/some moment in the past&quot;. Thus, &quot;свеча, горевшая на столе&quot; means &quot;the candle which was burning at the table *at that moment*.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, the Russian present active participles (*горящая*) are often used the same way as the English present active participles (*burning*), that is, with the *relative* tense meaning, e.g. &quot;Они *увидели* (past) *горящую* (pres.) свечу.&quot; Generally speaking, the semantics of the Russian present active participles is ideally seen in the sentences where both the predicate verb and the active participle are in the present tense, e.g. &quot;Я *вижу* (pres.) *горящую* (pres.) свечу.&quot; And for practical reasons, it is better to use the Russian active participles in the same tense as the predicate verb, just like Chekhov did it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="ddfb3648-9714-4ae4-8537-540c6d52414f" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:24:19.260" UserId="5224" Text="I'm looking for large lists of nicknames in Russian in a format such as this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Base Name | [Nickname1, Nickname2, ...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="ddfb3648-9714-4ae4-8537-540c6d52414f" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:24:19.260" UserId="5224" Text="Is there a database/list of names, with their associated common nicknames?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="ddfb3648-9714-4ae4-8537-540c6d52414f" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:24:19.260" UserId="5224" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="d0d8473d-6285-4ade-9632-0f4cc7d6b027" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:42:44.140" UserId="1236" Text="It looks like that by &quot;nicknames&quot; you mean diminutive forms of personal names. If so, then you can find the list of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the book &quot;Справочник личных имен народов РСФСР&quot; starting from [this page][1], there is a list of personal names (first go male names, then female ones) together with their etymologies and diminutive forms. You can read the book online or download it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://padaread.com/?book=49840&amp;pg=417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12599" RevisionGUID="25f34478-d8ed-4e08-b429-66353b18799c" CreationDate="2016-06-09T16:31:13.463" UserId="6551" Text="It's one of these words where the concept itself doesn't exist in Russia as a single word, like &quot;curfew&quot; or &quot;to ground&quot;. You can say &quot;Мама не пустит меня к тебе в гости с ночёвкой, я пришла вчера после полуночи&quot; to express &quot;I can't come to your sleepover, I came home past my curfew yesterday so mom grounded me&quot; with reasonable precision, but there's no way to find a single *noun* that means &quot;sleepover&quot;. You can say &quot;это когда приходят в гости, заранее планируя, что останутся допоздна и там же заночуют&quot;, or &quot;это время, до которого дети должны прийти домой, чтобы избежать наказания&quot;, since military curfew is &quot;комендантский час&quot;, а completely different concept in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29379" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="37687373-edf1-452b-a89b-659dfc6fbe20" CreationDate="2016-06-09T16:43:16.077" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29380" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="22b68c1b-48cd-4e1a-8462-4dc58c5e296c" CreationDate="2016-06-10T00:17:39.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/741061729057177601" />
  <row Id="29381" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="1324789a-05b8-4928-a9a3-caba9535e2be" CreationDate="2016-06-10T03:19:47.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/741107564704870400" />
  <row Id="29382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="003bf774-604e-4c46-948f-63ad57f1c1d2" CreationDate="2016-06-10T08:26:41.830" UserId="4432" Text="Does the word пять have an origin in an Indian language? I noticed that the word in Bengali sounds almost the same. See [here][1] for the spelling, and [here][2] for the pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.omniglot.com/language/numbers/bengali.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XC6iKTGCC8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="003bf774-604e-4c46-948f-63ad57f1c1d2" CreationDate="2016-06-10T08:26:41.830" UserId="4432" Text="Origin of пять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="003bf774-604e-4c46-948f-63ad57f1c1d2" CreationDate="2016-06-10T08:26:41.830" UserId="4432" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="19d69feb-a945-4d06-b674-ecb4f66ced8a" CreationDate="2016-06-10T08:43:10.137" UserId="7386" Text="Yes, this is one of the very ancient words &quot;common&quot; to almost all Indo-European languages, which suggests that it comes from proto-Indo-European (i.e. the predecessor of Sanskrit, Latin, Old Greek, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, cannot provide a link at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="c2c2d11f-ce13-4319-b685-a6a806f0b13b" CreationDate="2016-06-10T09:34:56.240" UserId="7386" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Updating my answer: Not Indian but Proto-Indo-European (PIE) from which a huge number of modern and ancient languages (commonly known as Indo-European) have evolved, including Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin, and, eventually, most modern European languages (Roman, Germanic, Baltic, Славянские), Hindi, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="118ed03d-597f-493b-866f-73b0f6c78006" CreationDate="2016-06-10T10:25:14.247" UserId="7386" Text="[Откупщиков &quot;К истокам слова&quot;](http://flibusta.is/b/219475/read)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что такое мешок?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не менее важную роль играет также и анализ тех формальных средств (например, приставок, суффиксов), с помощью которых образовано слово (словообразовательный анализ). Допустим, что мы хотим выяснить, каково было происхождение слова мешок. Выделяем в этом слове суффикс — ок (-ек). Находим ряд русских слов с тем же самым суффиксом, которые с полной очевидностью соотносятся с простыми бессуффиксными образованиями: смешок — смех, грешок — грех, душок — дух, пушок — пух и т. п. Если в этот же самый словообразовательный ряд включить слово мешок, то его можно будет легко соотнести со словом мех. Таким образом, словообразовательный анализ позволил нам прояснить этимологию слова. мешок (буквально: ‘маленький мех’). Правда, здесь, быть может, последует возражение: кто же изготовляет мешки из меха?! Чтобы ответить на этот вопрос, обратимся к истории. В древности «мешки» (мехи) изготовляли из шкур животных. В этих мехах обычно держали вино и другие продукты. Известно, например, выражение из Евангелия: «Не вливают вина молодого в мехи ветхие». Древние ассирийские воины переправлялись через широкие реки вплавь с полным вооружением, пользуясь при этом надутыми воздухом мехами (мешками из шкур). Этот способ переправы был знаком и другим народам древности. Ещё шире, по-видимому, было распространено хранение в мехах вина и других жидкостей. Да и в наши дни такие мехи для хранения жидкости употребляются многими народами Востока. По-русски такой мешок, изготовленный из цельной шкуры, называется бурдюком (это слово было заимствовано из азербайджанского языка).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="c9c8192d-5045-427b-8829-c1201890295c" CreationDate="2016-06-10T10:40:03.493" UserId="7386" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="Updating my answer: Not Indian but Proto-Indo-European (PIE) from which a huge number of modern and ancient languages (commonly known as Indo-European) have evolved, including Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin, and, eventually, most modern European languages (Roman, Germanic, Baltic, Славянские), Hindi, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;П.С.: надеюсь, я не нарушу слишком много правил, если добавлю источник для интересующихся тем, как из одного древнего слова получается &quot;пять&quot;, &quot;five&quot;, &quot;cinque&quot; и т.д? &#xD;&#xA;Для начинающих: &#xD;&#xA;[Зализняк. &quot;Об исторической лингвистике&quot;](http://flibusta.is/b/270015/read)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29391" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="bd35b2df-c070-4ee0-bada-f8add2da2529" CreationDate="2016-06-10T14:45:21.090" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Origin of &quot;пять&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="3c73626c-1da3-44bd-b286-537d29240bdc" CreationDate="2016-06-10T14:55:12.793" UserId="5224" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm looking for large lists of nicknames in Russian in a format such as this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Base Name | [Diminutive1, Diminutive2, ...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29395" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="3c73626c-1da3-44bd-b286-537d29240bdc" CreationDate="2016-06-10T14:55:12.793" UserId="5224" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a database/list of names, with their associated common diminutives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="52b6a03c-7969-4cea-8c17-38c73d65fe98" CreationDate="2016-06-10T15:49:56.987" UserId="1236" Comment="corrected wording" Text="It looks like by &quot;nicknames&quot; you mean diminutive forms of personal names. If so, then you can find a thorough list of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the book &quot;Справочник личных имен народов РСФСР&quot; starting from [this page][1], there is a list of personal names (first go male names, then female ones) together with their etymologies and diminutive forms. You can read the book online or download it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://padaread.com/?book=49840&amp;pg=417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="775be7db-af48-4227-8569-5c898a4051b9" CreationDate="2016-06-10T16:57:48.660" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I'm looking for large lists of diminutives in Russian in a format such as this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Base Name | [Diminutive1, Diminutive2, ...]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29398" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="4cc55643-0f73-4421-8cee-90e7ca384d0e" CreationDate="2016-06-10T16:57:52.910" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8138" RevisionGUID="c7ef5779-a171-4e97-801e-720e1928c8bb" CreationDate="2016-06-10T20:38:00.020" UserId="2388" Comment="removed a typo" Text="I think it is not exactly a pefect question for this particular forum, but here it is. I am a game developer, fortunately. As you asked, I tried to provide sort of &quot;typical&quot; names for such options in a real game rather than precise translations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Start game = «**Новая игра**» (New game), sometimes «**Начать новую игру**» (Start a new game)&#xD;&#xA;- Read file = If it is about savegames, better «**Загрузить**» (Load) or «**Загрузить игру**» (Load game). &quot;Файл&quot; is not the word you'd use here... but if you *really* mean (literally) reading some files from your HDD, it would be &quot;Прочитать файл&quot; or &quot;Загрузить файл&quot;(Load file), or maybe &quot;Открыть файл&quot; (Open file).&#xD;&#xA;- Pictures = «**Картинки**» (Images, Pictures) or «**Галерея**» (Gallery). «Альбом»(Album), if you want to be really fancy (not a typical word for images gallery inside the game, but there isn't anything wrong about using this methaphor)&#xD;&#xA;- Music = «**Музыка**»&#xD;&#xA;- Settings = «**Настройки**»&#xD;&#xA;- Exit = «**Выход**»/«**Выйти**»/«**Выйти из игры**». Also, if you have seprate options for quitting to main menu and to the desktop, they are «Выйти в главное меню» and «Выйти из игры/ Выйти на рабочий стол»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Menu = «**Меню**», Main menu = «**Главное меню**»&#xD;&#xA;- Save game = «**Сохранить игру**» (Save game), «**Сохранить**» (Save)&#xD;&#xA;- Recap — no standard name, of course, so getting creative here. You could use «**История**» (History), «Предыдущие» (previous ones; non-standard), «Ранее» /«Раньше» (Earlier). For going further back into the old info, maybe «**Записи**», «Записки» (Notes), «**Блокнот**» (Notepad), «**Журнал**» (Journal, Notes), «Дневник» (Diary, Journal). &#xD;&#xA;- Automatically progress = «*Автопромотка**», «**Проматывать текст автоматически**», «Проматывать текст» or &quot;реплики&quot;(lines, cues) instead of &quot;текст&quot;. In a modern setting «Автоскролл» would be just about right but «скролл» isn't a word in Russian, so it really sounds off and slangy for a historical game.&#xD;&#xA;- Properties — kinda fuzzy. If you mean the character screen with their different stats, you can use «**Персонаж**» (Character), «Навыки» (Skills), «Параметры» or **«Характеристики»**. More literal &quot;свойства&quot; is really bad here: first, it kinda sounds like &quot;settings&quot; or &quot;options&quot;, and second, you'd rather expect &quot;свойства&quot; to describe properties of some object or substance than living being. Not really used for character stats screen in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;- Fullscreen = «**Полноэкранный режим**», «**Во весь экран**»/«**На весь экран**»/«**На полный экран**» &#xD;&#xA;- In window = «**Оконный режим**», «**В окне**»&#xD;&#xA;- Back = «**Назад**» (the moooost standard and ubiquitous), «Вернуться»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days games also tend to have a single main menu option to &quot;continue&quot; playing from the savegame made the last time you left the game (people do have to sleep once in a while :) ). So if you don't fail or replay stuff, you don't even need to go to the load screen much:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Continue = «**Продолжить**», «Продолжить игру»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29413" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12578" RevisionGUID="5c1b902e-358c-4897-8021-065927250709" CreationDate="2016-06-11T03:19:59.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/741470003459960834" />
  <row Id="29414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="364de178-3212-44f1-96b3-8b47a40ae08d" CreationDate="2016-06-11T10:23:51.180" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Updating my answer: Not Indian but Proto-Indo-European (PIE) from which a huge number of modern and ancient languages (commonly known as Indo-European) have evolved, including Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin, and, eventually, most modern European languages (Roman, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic), Hindi, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;П.С.: надеюсь, я не нарушу слишком много правил, если добавлю источник для интересующихся тем, как из одного древнего слова получается &quot;пять&quot;, &quot;five&quot;, &quot;cinque&quot; и т.д? &#xD;&#xA;Для начинающих: &#xD;&#xA;[Зализняк. &quot;Об исторической лингвистике&quot;](http://flibusta.is/b/270015/read)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="69c469d3-2b86-4ef2-ac5e-60b38bd0defe" CreationDate="2016-06-11T14:02:08.340" UserId="6953" Text="I read about a flower which is called &quot;Иван да Марья&quot;. I am assuming, that &quot;Иван&quot; and &quot;Марья&quot; are Russian names, since they start with capital letters and &quot;Марья&quot; sounds like an English name &quot;Maria&quot;. What does &quot;да&quot; mean though? I know of it as &quot;yes&quot;. Does it have other meanings? Because thinking of it as &quot;yes&quot; in this context does not make a lot of sense to me!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="69c469d3-2b86-4ef2-ac5e-60b38bd0defe" CreationDate="2016-06-11T14:02:08.340" UserId="6953" Text="What is the word &quot;да&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="69c469d3-2b86-4ef2-ac5e-60b38bd0defe" CreationDate="2016-06-11T14:02:08.340" UserId="6953" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="b84c2864-3bbe-4876-b33e-6a35513d3d97" CreationDate="2016-06-11T14:59:16.253" UserId="6097" Text="It means &quot;and&quot; in this case, so it's Ivan and Maria (see also &quot;тишь да гладь&quot;, &quot;вокруг да около&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;Sometimes it can also mean &quot;but&quot;: Я старался, да не смог - I tried  but I couldn't (do that). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12607" RevisionGUID="29ac1272-cdd9-4733-b866-9e488cb38553" CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:09:31.027" UserId="6097" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Да&quot; means &quot;and&quot; in this case, so it's Ivan and Maria (see also &quot;тишь да гладь&quot;, &quot;вокруг да около&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;Sometimes it can also mean &quot;but&quot;: Я старался, да не смог - I tried  but I couldn't (do that). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="d53b8b1f-49d6-4c5f-9357-081b403ab86f" CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:40:29.180" UserId="6539" Text="**Да** has got various functions in Russian.1. In your example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иван да Марья (Иван и Марья)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is **a conjunction** which means **и**. As a conjunction it can also mean **но** (but) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Солнце светит, да не греет*(The sun is shining, but it isn't warm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we put a comma in front of да.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.As a particle  да can denote agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы говорите по-русски?--Да.(Do you speak Russian? Yes,I do). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can express surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю по-русски.--Да?(I can speak Russian. --Really?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It can also mean **by the way** when it is at the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, совсем забыл, напиши ему.(By the way, I forgot to tell you, write him a letter. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a particle it helps to form imperative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да будет так!(Let it be so!)Да здравствует свобода!(Long live freedom! )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.It can be used as an interjection &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да не хочу я ничего! (I don't want anything!) Here it is used for emphasis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="c86520d8-c9db-4b07-8172-6c6dd270244a" CreationDate="2016-06-11T15:56:15.310" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="**Да** has got various functions in Russian.1. In your example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иван да Марья (Иван и Марья)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is **a conjunction** which means **и**. As a conjunction it can also mean **но** (but) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Солнце светит, да не греет*(The sun is shining, but it isn't warm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we put a comma in front of да.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.As a particle  да can denote agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы говорите по-русски?--Да.(Do you speak Russian? Yes,I do). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can express surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю по-русски.--Да?(I can speak Russian. --Really?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It can also mean **by the way** when it is at the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, совсем забыл, напиши ему.(By the way, I forgot to tell you, write him a letter. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a particle it helps to form imperative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да будет так!(Let it be so!)Да здравствует свобода!(Long live freedom! )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used for emphasis. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да не хочу я ничего! (I don't want anything!) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29422" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="14d2c7dc-87af-42e6-b80c-4d3d55ea629c" CreationDate="2016-06-11T21:24:52.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/741743024921841664" />
  <row Id="29423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="b07c36d2-997e-4b5a-97dc-32ebadc85b2e" CreationDate="2016-06-12T05:18:34.227" UserId="3595" Text="In soviet times officials would use this term to describe a life style of drinking and partying. Conversely ordinary people would use this phrase as a joke parodying the officials. Most likely the teenagers were joking too " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="7dca0dd0-7851-4fd8-ac14-7f36adacca0c" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:03:12.577" UserId="4260" Comment="English grammar, spelling" Text=" - **Беспризорный** is mostly about underage homeless persons, children and teenagers - it is not used for depicting adult homeless persons. The derived noun &quot;беспризорник&quot; is used more often, but I'd rather not agree that this is higher-style language, maybe it's slowly getting outdated but we're definitely far from there. &#xD;&#xA; - **Бездомный** is neutral, it's just a person without home. &#xD;&#xA; - **Бомж** is less neutral, it's sort of homeless but quite often with negative connotations - drunk, junkie, dirty etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a Russian speaker &quot;бездомный&quot; is closer to the image of homeless in a Les miserables way and &quot;бомж&quot; is more of a gentleman you can encounter on San Francisco streets: a quite aggressive, stinky, stoned or drunk junky shouting out loud some nonsense.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, &quot;бомж&quot; is used only for describing modern homeless, most likely urban. No one will use it in translations of historic texts for instance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29426" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="7dca0dd0-7851-4fd8-ac14-7f36adacca0c" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:03:12.577" Comment="Proposed by 4260 approved by 3680, 242 edit id of 758" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="d9ead032-64ca-43e0-b6cc-eedbd0b6d81b" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:37:45.650" UserId="6354" Text="At which hour does the following start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **ночи** (genitive of ночь, **night**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **утра** (genitive of утро, **morning**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **дня** (genitive of день, **day** or **afternoon**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **вечера** (genitive of вечер, **night**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sources give conflicting information. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29428" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="d9ead032-64ca-43e0-b6cc-eedbd0b6d81b" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:37:45.650" UserId="6354" Text="Telling time in Russian: when does night, morning, afternoon, and evening start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29429" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="d9ead032-64ca-43e0-b6cc-eedbd0b6d81b" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:37:45.650" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="ab80c98c-2f71-4046-a461-ab26bdd6c9a0" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:44:29.667" UserId="242" Text="More or less like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  **Hочь** - 23:00 - 05:00&#xD;&#xA; -  **Утро** - 05:00 - 12:00&#xD;&#xA; -  **День** - 12:00 - 17:00&#xD;&#xA; -  **Вечер** - 17:00 - 23:00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important thing to keep in mind - while &quot;доброе утро&quot;, &quot;добрый день&quot;/&quot;доброго дня&quot;, &quot;добрый вечер&quot;/&quot;доброго вечера&quot; are just regular greetings, nothing special with them, &quot;доброй ночи&quot; is something usually told to somebody who is going to sleep right now. That said, it's pretty different from &quot;have a good night&quot; one can hear leaving office at 10pm in USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's worth to mention that this, of course, is very contextual. At winter, when sun goes down earlier you easily can hear &quot;Добрый вечер&quot; at 17:00 and even earlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="f6c7270e-36d0-4dbe-b7f7-66b1a6c7b898" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:49:34.420" UserId="6354" Comment="Correct error in definition of вечер" Text="At which hour does the following start?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **ночи** (genitive of ночь, **night**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **утра** (genitive of утро, **morning**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **дня** (genitive of день, **day** or **afternoon**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **вечера** (genitive of вечер, **evening**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sources give conflicting information. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="ef2139ec-4894-4fbe-afad-a66a9a02c9ef" CreationDate="2016-06-12T17:53:04.653" UserId="242" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="More or less like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  **Hочь** - `23:00 - 05:00`&#xD;&#xA; -  **Утро** - `05:00 - 12:00` (with `05:00 - 07:00` usually indicated as &quot;раннее утро&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; -  **День** - `12:00 - 17:00`&#xD;&#xA; -  **Вечер** - `17:00 - 23:00` (with anytime later than `22:00` usually referred as &quot;поздний вечер&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One important thing to keep in mind - while &quot;доброе утро&quot;, &quot;добрый день&quot;/&quot;доброго дня&quot;, &quot;добрый вечер&quot;/&quot;доброго вечера&quot; are just regular greetings, nothing special with them, &quot;доброй ночи&quot; is something usually told to somebody who is going to sleep right now. That said, it's pretty different from &quot;have a good night&quot; one can hear leaving office at 10pm in USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's worth to mention that this, of course, is very contextual. At winter, when sun goes down earlier you easily can hear &quot;Добрый вечер&quot; at 17:00 and even earlier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="9b5c5a84-3eb5-4994-a3ec-cab5c012567c" CreationDate="2016-06-12T18:04:41.640" UserId="6725" Text="As far as I know, there is no firm rule about that. From my experience I can say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In interval [00:00 ; 04:00) it is &quot;**ночи**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. In interval [04:00 ; 05:00) it can be **either &quot;ночи&quot; or &quot;утра&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 3. In interval [05:00 ; 12:00) it is &quot;**утра**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. 12:00 is usually **&quot;дня&quot;**, but sometimes can be **&quot;утра&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 5. In interval (12:00 ; 17:00) it is &quot;**дня**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 6. In interval [17:00 ; 23:00) it is &quot;**вечера**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. In interval [23:00 ; 12:00) it can be **either &quot;вечера&quot; or &quot;ночи&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="08e62eff-28cc-44d4-b4b2-a5528351aace" CreationDate="2016-06-12T21:28:47.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/742106396112637952" />
  <row Id="29437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="ce1444af-f215-45b0-9034-bb17f54fb41d" CreationDate="2016-06-13T03:31:27.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/742197667351126016" />
  <row Id="29438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="66c8d0e5-0608-4c92-ba5f-6ca4e7cdeac7" CreationDate="2016-06-13T10:31:13.213" UserId="6354" Text="In **мы купили продуктов на сто долларов**, why is **продукт** in the genitive plural (**продуктов**), not accusative plural (**продукты**)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="66c8d0e5-0608-4c92-ba5f-6ca4e7cdeac7" CreationDate="2016-06-13T10:31:13.213" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;мы купили продуктов на сто долларов&quot;, why продуктов?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="66c8d0e5-0608-4c92-ba5f-6ca4e7cdeac7" CreationDate="2016-06-13T10:31:13.213" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="bc6459e1-ed91-4f4d-b634-a7512619e5e6" CreationDate="2016-06-13T10:45:13.080" UserId="4629" Text="I think this is not genitive but, rather, partitive case. Its meaning is 'some quantity out of a larger quantity'. &#xD;&#xA;For the same reason one should say 'Я налил себе чаю', not 'Я налил себе чай'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12617" RevisionGUID="33eaceeb-9866-4e3a-85a2-e1ddd9a749ba" CreationDate="2016-06-13T10:45:52.317" UserId="5008" Text="Well, actually you may choose either Accusative or Genitive case freely. That's rather a matter of taste, I believe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive case is used to denote some &quot;indefinite&quot; object, i.e. _Сходи, купи масл**а**_ --&gt; _Go buy **some** butter_. Yet as &quot;_продукты_&quot; stands for some &quot;food in general&quot; then Genitive case doesn't add much sense here. Anyway, we all used to go with Genitive, so it sounds more natural IMO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="ede87f30-353a-4734-b47b-5564acf6f2d0" CreationDate="2016-06-13T10:54:19.460" UserId="4629" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="I think this is not genitive but, rather, partitive case. Its meaning is 'some quantity out of a larger quantity'. &#xD;&#xA;For the same reason one should say 'Я налил себе чаю', not 'Я налил себе чай'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly but inevitably, partitive (as well as the remnants of some other ancient cases, e.g. Locative) are gradually falling into disuse. One is very unlikely to come across phrases like 'Я вышел из лесу' (locative). These days genitive has all but completely replaced locative in such constructs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="c05f7425-8abe-4891-9261-c6a683828446" CreationDate="2016-06-13T12:52:09.453" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 92 characters in body" Text="I think this is not genitive but, rather, partitive case. Its meaning is 'some quantity out of a larger quantity'. &#xD;&#xA;For the same reason one should say 'Я налил себе чаю', not 'Я налил себе чай'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly but inevitably, partitive (as well as the remnants of some other ancient cases, e.g. Locative) are gradually falling into disuse. One is very unlikely to come across phrases like 'Я вышел из лесу'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="6a450819-aab2-4196-a1e5-775060ca4bd8" CreationDate="2016-06-13T13:56:11.793" UserId="4629" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I think this is not genitive but, rather, partitive case. Its meaning is 'some quantity out of a larger quantity'. &#xD;&#xA;For the same reason one should say 'Я налил себе чаю', not 'Я налил себе чай'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly but inevitably, partitive (as well as the remnants of some other ancient cases, e.g. Locative) are gradually falling into disuse. One is very unlikely to come across phrases like 'Я вышел из лесу' these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12618" RevisionGUID="7cf42857-7ed6-4652-940c-a5cba22cf3a1" CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:29:20.247" UserId="6097" Text="There is a little difference between &quot;*Мы купили продуктов*&quot; and &quot;*Мы купили продукты*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Мы купили продуктов*&quot; means that we bought some food in generl as Matt wrote in his answer, and the person we talk to doesn't know exactly what food we bought. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Мы купили продукты*&quot; implies that we bought that very food we had spoken about earlier, and the person we talk to knows what food we bought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29447" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12547" RevisionGUID="ca6a70fe-e7d5-4bec-badb-eb1f21d8df21" CreationDate="2016-06-13T15:38:33.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/742380644395814912" />
  <row Id="29449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="f4cd9223-9e40-4fa5-bbab-da71c2ecf333" CreationDate="2016-06-13T18:38:33.043" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/742425942627373056" />
  <row Id="29452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="41d03a7c-48da-4bf7-9c0c-d600583ffde9" CreationDate="2016-06-13T21:19:00.847" UserId="6953" Text="In Russian &quot;косарь&quot; means a thousand. But what are the different forms and cases of &quot;косарь&quot;? For example, can you say &quot;Это двухкосарёвый вопрос на Stack Exchange русского языка&quot;? What are the dative or genitive cases of &quot;косарь&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. &quot;Косарь&quot; is, as far as I understand, informal. Russians would usually use it in dialogues like &quot;Сколько у тебя с собой рублей?&quot; -- &quot;Пять косарей.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="41d03a7c-48da-4bf7-9c0c-d600583ffde9" CreationDate="2016-06-13T21:19:00.847" UserId="6953" Text="What are the different forms of &quot;косарь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="41d03a7c-48da-4bf7-9c0c-d600583ffde9" CreationDate="2016-06-13T21:19:00.847" UserId="6953" Text="|падежи|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="26adbe55-c6ba-41a9-bb9d-e250a08aa333" CreationDate="2016-06-13T21:25:02.133" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Это двухкосарёвый вопрос на Stack Exchange русского языка&quot; will immediately give you away as a non-native speaker who imporperly tries to use some Russian slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Косарь&quot; is used only for amount of money - it's indeed 1000, but there's also another term - &quot;штука&quot; which seem to be used wider. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="ca32d848-7773-47d8-9f12-ac1336350a50" CreationDate="2016-06-13T21:36:08.587" UserId="242" Comment="added 518 characters in body" Text="&quot;Это двухкосарёвый вопрос на Stack Exchange русского языка&quot; will immediately give you away as a non-native speaker who imporperly tries to use some Russian slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Косарь&quot; is used only for amount of money - it's indeed 1000, but there's also another term - &quot;штука&quot; which seem to be used wider. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, while it's easy to provide all cases, you need to understand that it's just not use with the majority of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Им.* Косарь, косари:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Косарь можешь одолжить?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - *Р.* Косаря, косарей:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чёрт, косаря не хватает, чтоб купить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Д.* Косарю, косарям (Hardly used in this form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *В.* Косарь, косари:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ругаю себя за этот косарь, который я ему должен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Тв.* косарём, косарями:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да подавись ты своим косарём, жадина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Пр.* косаре, косарями: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; О косаре забудь.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Last, it worth to mention that unlike &quot;штука&quot; which easily is used for denominating multiple thousands, &quot;косарь&quot; is used more often when talking about one thousand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="8cc55aa1-d218-4905-8667-847f6028cb4b" CreationDate="2016-06-13T22:11:33.097" UserId="242" Comment="improved example for Nominative" Text="&quot;Это двухкосарёвый вопрос на Stack Exchange русского языка&quot; will immediately give you away as a non-native speaker who imporperly tries to use some Russian slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Косарь&quot; is used only for amount of money - it's indeed 1000, but there's also another term - &quot;штука&quot; which seem to be used wider. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, while it's easy to provide all cases, you need to understand that it's just not use with the majority of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Им.* Косарь, косари:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ух ты, целый косарь?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - *Р.* Косаря, косарей:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чёрт, косаря не хватает, чтоб купить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Д.* Косарю, косарям (Hardly used in this form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *В.* Косарь, косари:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ругаю себя за этот косарь, который я ему должен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Тв.* косарём, косарями:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да подавись ты своим косарём, жадина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Пр.* косаре, косарями: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; О косаре забудь.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Last, it worth to mention that unlike &quot;штука&quot; which easily is used for denominating multiple thousands, &quot;косарь&quot; is used more often when talking about one thousand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="9857444d-ea29-4c78-b17b-078f143e3119" CreationDate="2016-06-14T08:17:54.050" UserId="7371" Text="besides of all the other answers, nobody actually says &quot;17 часов вечера&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;These additional information like &quot;ночи&quot; ор &quot;утра&quot; is used when you tell the time in 12h format and not in 24h format:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;*5 часов вечера*&quot; is like &quot;5. p.m.&quot; = 17:00  &#xD;&#xA;or &quot;*9 часов утра**&quot; = &quot;9 a.m.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically this is an extended version of &quot;a.m.&quot; and &quot;p.m.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;It is also often used as a rhetoric device to intensify or emphasize the aspect of time:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;он слушает громкую музыку в 2 часа ночи!&quot; = &quot;he is listening to loud music at 2 o'clok in the night!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="2168307f-bb59-42d4-9893-f5b21e2a9907" CreationDate="2016-06-14T08:25:28.027" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Besides of all the other answers, nobody actually says &quot;17 часов вечера&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;These additional information like &quot;ночи&quot; ор &quot;утра&quot; is used when you tell the time in 12h format and not in 24h format:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;*5 часов вечера*&quot; is like &quot;5. p.m.&quot; = 17:00  &#xD;&#xA;or &quot;*9 часов утра**&quot; = &quot;9 a.m.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically this is an extended version of &quot;a.m.&quot; and &quot;p.m.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;It is also often used as a rhetoric device to intensify or emphasize the aspect of time:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;он слушает громкую музыку в 2 часа ночи!&quot; = &quot;he is listening to loud music at 2 o'clok in the night!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="76e8e158-6002-41f1-8fdb-7f747da97dfa" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:36:42.323" UserId="6953" Text="Some of my friends use the word &quot;грёбанный&quot;. Where does it come from? I suggested to myself that it could be somehow linked to words like &quot;бан&quot; or &quot;баня&quot;, but it does not make sense in a sentence &quot;Грёбанные кроссовки, почему они не налезают на ногу!?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="76e8e158-6002-41f1-8fdb-7f747da97dfa" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:36:42.323" UserId="6953" Text="What is the etymology of &quot;грёбанный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="76e8e158-6002-41f1-8fdb-7f747da97dfa" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:36:42.323" UserId="6953" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="a3032b80-4499-48e1-a961-894bbe664d39" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:42:48.243" UserId="134" Text="It's an euphemism of *ёбаный* (&quot;fucking&quot;, literally &quot;fucked&quot;), same as in English &quot;frigging&quot; instead of &quot;fucking&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="da5f5d53-97a2-495e-ad5a-069393629e68" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:43:02.133" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Some of my friends use the word &quot;грёбаный&quot;. Where does it come from? I suggested to myself that it could be somehow linked to words like &quot;бан&quot; or &quot;баня&quot;, but it does not make sense in a sentence &quot;Грёбаные кроссовки, почему они не налезают на ногу!?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="da5f5d53-97a2-495e-ad5a-069393629e68" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:43:02.133" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the etymology of &quot;грёбаный&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="3e3ec226-688c-49eb-9182-e1bdd52825a7" CreationDate="2016-06-14T12:56:48.510" UserId="134" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="It's an euphemism of *ёбаный* (&quot;fucking&quot;, literally &quot;fucked&quot;), same as in English &quot;frigging&quot; instead of &quot;fucking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root itself is a descendant of a PIE root meaning &quot;to dig, to scratch&quot;. This word is akin to *гроб* (&quot;coffin&quot;), English &quot;grub&quot;, &quot;grave&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="0e9861ce-6288-46fd-bf88-b8795f3d6e3a" CreationDate="2016-06-14T14:18:43.493" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's a euphemism of *ёбаный* (&quot;fucking&quot;, literally &quot;fucked&quot;), same as in English &quot;frigging&quot; instead of &quot;fucking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root itself is a descendant of a PIE root meaning &quot;to dig, to scratch&quot;. This word is akin to *гроб* (&quot;coffin&quot;), English &quot;grub&quot;, &quot;grave&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="1521d699-f15b-475c-96fc-dd877d8675e5" CreationDate="2016-06-14T16:06:10.543" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Considering all other answers, nobody actually says &quot;17 часов вечера&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;This additional information like &quot;ночи&quot; оr &quot;утра&quot; is used when you tell the time in 12h format and not in 24h format:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*5 часов вечера* is like *5. p.m.*= 17:00  &#xD;&#xA;or *9 часов утра* = *9 a.m.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically this is an extended version of &quot;a.m.&quot; and &quot;p.m.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;It is also often used as a rhetoric device to intensify or emphasize the aspect of time:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он слушает громкую музыку в 2 часа ночи! = He is listening to loud music at 2 o'clock at night!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="e8121156-4c65-464d-8214-72c3ad23a4fc" CreationDate="2016-06-14T17:35:27.280" UserId="7416" Text="Word &quot;гребаный&quot; is a variation of &quot;ебаный&quot; that translated to English literally means &quot;fucking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The origins of this word goes back to &quot;Perestroyka&quot; period in Soviet Union in the middle of the 80s. At the time with the freedom of expression came a whole new wave of cinema reflecting not &quot;Soviet Realism&quot;, on which the entire SU population was raised, but the everyday straggle of younger generation who were disillusioned in the ideas of Socialism and leaned to Western ideology.&#xD;&#xA;One of the brightest example of this new direction in cinema was the movie &quot;Маленькая Вера&quot; (&quot;The Little Vera&quot;) that was pretty explicit for its times.&#xD;&#xA;Now, in Russian language using cuss words is a taboo, be it a TV or literature or any kind of media. No amount of freedom of expression has ever been change this taboo, even nowadays you will never hear cuss words on independent TV channels or press, no to mention state media. The director of &quot;Маленькая Вера&quot; had to change the dialog of one of the characters (the father) to substitute &quot;ебаный&quot; for &quot;гребаный&quot;. This was the first time this word ever came to Russian language, and just took off after that.&#xD;&#xA;Gosh, I'm old." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="012b21c7-a90a-4ad0-bc55-247088cd8680" CreationDate="2016-06-14T17:43:45.377" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Word &quot;гребаный&quot; is a variation of &quot;ебаный&quot; that translated to English literally means &quot;fucking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The origins of this word goes back to &quot;Perestroyka&quot; period in Soviet Union in the middle of the 80s. At the time with the freedom of expression came a whole new wave of cinema reflecting not &quot;Soviet Realism&quot;, on which the entire SU population was raised, but the everyday struggle of younger generation who were disillusioned in the ideas of Socialism and leaned to Western ideology.&#xD;&#xA;One of the brightest example of this new direction in cinema was the movie &quot;Маленькая Вера&quot; (&quot;The Little Vera&quot;) that was pretty explicit for its times.&#xD;&#xA;Now, in Russian language using cuss words is a taboo, be it a TV or literature or any kind of media. No amount of freedom of expression has ever been change this taboo, even nowadays you will never hear cuss words on independent TV channels or press, no to mention state media. The director of &quot;Маленькая Вера&quot; had to change the dialog of one of the characters (the father) to substitute &quot;ебаный&quot; for &quot;гребаный&quot;. This was the first time this word ever came to Russian language, and just took off after that.&#xD;&#xA;Gosh, I'm old." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="beb32f2d-d71d-4a8e-9dc2-906ac665b9c1" CreationDate="2016-06-14T19:01:25.657" UserId="4219" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I am a native Russian speaker and it's hard to imagine other meaning of this phrase except this one : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Not at all!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this phase is used when somebody wants to say `&quot;Thank you&quot;` to you and you pronounce this phrase in order to show that this was very easy for you, as you would answer &quot;You shouldn't thank me at all &quot; but &quot;thanks&quot; is omitted. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="5920dfc7-c375-4eeb-8b51-56bffc3b3a7b" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:45:50.253" UserId="4560" Text="I'm aware of **шёл**'s derivation from Proto-Slavic `*xьdlъ`, related to **ходить**, but that form still seems irregular — given that **вёл**, which has the exact same relation to **водить**, had `e` rather than `ь` in the root, as demonstrated by the lack of elision in the feminine, neuter, and plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that **шёл**, **шла**, etc. were in fact a contamination of `*хedl-` and the lost regular past participle form of **идти**, which I expect to be `*jьdl-`. Am I correct? And, out of curiosity, what would the hypothetical regular (in Proto-Slavic terms) past tense of **идти** have been in modern Russian? Probably *\*ёл*, but what of the other forms? *\*Ила*, *\*ило* or maybe even *\*ла*, *\*ло*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="5920dfc7-c375-4eeb-8b51-56bffc3b3a7b" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:45:50.253" UserId="4560" Text="The exact origin of шёл" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="5920dfc7-c375-4eeb-8b51-56bffc3b3a7b" CreationDate="2016-06-15T00:45:50.253" UserId="4560" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12628" RevisionGUID="4f712c8b-ab19-40b0-a9aa-d275cd129794" CreationDate="2016-06-15T01:52:31.280" UserId="242" Text="&quot;X&quot; mutating into &quot;ш&quot; - is not that rare, if it is not obvious with say &quot;ход&quot;/&quot;шедший&quot; this connection can be found for instance in such pairs like &quot;тихий&quot;/&quot;тишь&quot;, &quot;Михаил&quot;/&quot;Миша&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This started in Praslavic and it's part of well known and well studied process, it is actually called  &quot;первая палатализация согласных&quot; and it is about `к`, `г`, `х` mutating into soft `ч'`, `ж'`, `ш'` accordingly. The was also a second one (вторая палатализация), which is about the law of mutating the same set of consonants into `ц'`, `з'`, `c'`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up to the XIV century `ж'` and `ш'` (unlike `ч`) in Russian has lost their &#xD;&#xA;softness, but what you see in &quot;шёл&quot; is the remnant of palatalisation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the fact that this happend in Proto-Slavic - and first palatalisation is present in all Slavic languages - the &quot;what-if&quot; part of you question is very hard to answer. It's sort of &quot;what if we won't consider one of the main phonetic changes in Slavic languages&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know. What if Pedersen's [law][1] never had happened?&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, any answer will be pretty speculative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruki_sound_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="5927fa4f-431b-4d43-9f3c-12c8a05ee5d7" CreationDate="2016-06-15T03:56:18.600" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I vaguely remember discussing the phrase &quot;не за что!&quot; with my Russian teacher and I believe that he said the phrase has different meanings when spoken in different ways. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do remember that one meaning is basically &quot;Hell no!&quot; What is the correct intonation/pronunciation for the phrase when its delivered with this meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another meaning when the phrase is spoken with a different intonation/pronunciation? If so, what is it and how do I say it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="5cfe314b-7a79-4187-8f9a-918046959a04" CreationDate="2016-06-15T07:29:52.353" UserId="7108" Text="здравствуйте,&#xA;&#xA;I have seen that there are certain ways to say 'how are you' in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;I understand the part where there is a formal you and an informal one.&#xA;&#xA;I also understand that they are conjugated differently.&#xA;&#xA;What I do not understand, is the difference between these three formal ways:&#xA;&#xA;1. Как у вас дела?&#xA;2. Как поживаете?&#xA;3. Как ваши дела?&#xA;&#xA;Same goes for the difference between these in the informal form.&#xA;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="5cfe314b-7a79-4187-8f9a-918046959a04" CreationDate="2016-06-15T07:29:52.353" UserId="7108" Text="&quot;How are you&quot; differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="5cfe314b-7a79-4187-8f9a-918046959a04" CreationDate="2016-06-15T07:29:52.353" UserId="7108" Text="|узус|вид|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="695fc5df-2426-4727-a522-a571657af92e" CreationDate="2016-06-15T08:17:35.970" UserId="6588" Text="&quot;How are you&quot; does not have an exact analogue in Russian communication culture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Как дела?** - is a question asked when&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Close friends or relatives meeting. Supposed answers are either &quot;да&#xD;&#xA;   всё как обычно/нормально&quot; or &quot;квартиру вот купил&quot; (or another huge&#xD;&#xA;   news) or &quot;всё плохо&quot; (if the things go wrong). It is still supposed&#xD;&#xA;   that the person who asks that is really interested in how the things&#xD;&#xA;   are going. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Meeting with a foreigner or with the one who follows foreign traditions. Answer is &quot;Прекрасно, а у тебя?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Date with a stranger. In this case, the question means &quot;I'm bored, tell me something about yourself&quot;. Common answer is &quot;лучше всех&quot;, which means that &quot;I'm bored too, go tell something interesing yourself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would rather have a small talk, you'd better start with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Хорошая сегодня погода, а? (formal version is &quot;Хорошая сегодня погода, не правда ли?&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Как [поживают] ваши дети/внуки?;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Как вы замечательно выглядите сегодня!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12632" RevisionGUID="4f65efd4-050f-447a-a829-489e56bb566a" CreationDate="2016-06-15T08:44:06.100" UserId="5008" Text="Let's say it again: nowadays Russian speakers do not have a totally neutral form of &quot;How are you&quot;. Which means usually you do one of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Informal way of saying &quot;Hello&quot;. This rules out any formal stuff above. Say instead &quot;Как жизнь?&quot;, &quot;Как сам?&quot;, &quot;Как ваше ничего?&quot; etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;2. Real asking of &quot;how are you&quot;. This requires you to be more precise. Sort of &quot;Как на работе?&quot;, &quot;Как здоровье?&quot;, &quot;Как дети?&quot;, &quot;Что у вас нового?&quot; etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I really needed to choose a neutral polite and totally uninformative form of &quot;how are you&quot;, I'd rather go with &quot;Как поживаете?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, both &quot;Как ваши дела&quot; and &quot;Как у вас дела&quot; require a slightly higher level of communication and should not be used as just the second sentence after saying &quot;Hello&quot;. Though in general your ability to choose right intonation is much more important than the words you say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="e5367640-bea5-4b97-8123-7bab3dd677bc" CreationDate="2016-06-15T13:46:18.100" UserId="4629" Text="At the risk of repeating what's already been said: 'How are you' is almost not a question but a mere token of politeness akin to what 'How do you do' used to be. The one asking 'How are you' does not expect to hear in response *how* they really are.&#xD;&#xA;Opposite to that, when you use one of the Russian phrases you are asking about, you *do* expect some response ranging from a hollow 'ok' (*неплохо*, *ничего*) to a fairly detailed account. On that scale, the three phrases you suggest as 'translations' would be roughly ordered like this: 2, 3, 1. 2 expects a neutral-positive reply implying that everything is okay, 3 is a bit more involved, and 1 expresses yet more real interest. Still higher on that scale are questions about particular personal circumstanced (family, work, health etc.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is: the standard English exchange *Hi, how are you -- Hello* simply cannot be translated into Russian where any form of *how are you* implies some sort of interest and requires at least some sort of response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="c6e0e689-aaf4-4303-b0e8-58bc414715e3" CreationDate="2016-06-15T14:48:41.857" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think this is not genitive but, rather, partitive case. Its meaning is 'some quantity out of a larger quantity'. &#xD;&#xA;For the same reason one should say 'Я налил себе чаю', not 'Я налил себе чай'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly but inevitably, partitive (as well as the remnants of some other ancient cases, e.g. locative) is gradually falling into disuse. One is very unlikely to come across phrases like 'Я вышел из лесу' these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="0849223e-7b98-483f-9a57-ae62d81ad6f7" CreationDate="2016-06-15T15:18:48.603" UserId="242" Comment="removed redundant greetings and thanks" Text="I have seen that there are certain ways to say 'how are you' in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;I understand the part where there is a formal you and an informal one.&#xD;&#xA;I also understand that they are conjugated differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do not understand, is the difference between these three formal ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как у вас дела?&#xD;&#xA;2. Как поживаете?&#xD;&#xA;3. Как ваши дела?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same goes for the difference between these in the informal form.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12628" RevisionGUID="5d1859dc-dce2-4a2f-af7b-177a773b7206" CreationDate="2016-06-15T15:31:46.587" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;X&quot; mutating into &quot;ш&quot; - is not that rare, if it is not obvious with say &quot;ход&quot;/&quot;шедший&quot; this connection can be found for instance in such pairs like &quot;тихий&quot;/&quot;тишь&quot;, &quot;Михаил&quot;/&quot;Миша&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This started in Praslavic and it's part of well known and well studied process, it is actually called  &quot;первая палатализация согласных&quot; and it is about `к`, `г`, `х` mutating into soft `ч'`, `ж'`, `ш'` accordingly. The was also a second one (вторая палатализация), which is about the law of mutating the same set of consonants into `ц'`, `з'`, `c'`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up to the XIV century `ж'` and `ш'` (unlike `ч`) in Russian have lost their &#xD;&#xA;softness, but what you see in &quot;шёл&quot; is the remnant of palatalisation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the fact that this happend in Proto-Slavic - and first palatalisation is present in all Slavic languages - the &quot;what-if&quot; part of you question is very hard to answer. It's sort of &quot;what if we won't consider one of the main phonetic changes in Slavic languages&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I don't know. What if Pedersen's [law][1] never had happened?&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, any answer will be pretty speculative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruki_sound_law" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29493" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="2bb3dca0-bcf7-47a3-8e63-987765c9631b" CreationDate="2016-06-15T18:59:05.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/743155889377546240" />
  <row Id="29494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="6c0705ae-e659-4539-be0d-6456d64bfa28" CreationDate="2016-06-15T19:16:03.523" UserId="6725" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, there is no firm rule about that. From my experience I can say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In interval [00:00 ; 04:00) it is &quot;**ночи**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. In interval [04:00 ; 05:00) it can be **either &quot;ночи&quot; or &quot;утра&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 3. In interval [05:00 ; 12:00) it is &quot;**утра**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. 12:00 is usually **&quot;дня&quot;**, but sometimes can be **&quot;утра&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 5. In interval (12:00 ; 17:00) it is &quot;**дня**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 6. In interval [17:00 ; 23:00) it is &quot;**вечера**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. In interval [23:00 ; 12:00) it can be **either &quot;вечера&quot; or &quot;ночи&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these rules work when you tell the time in straightforward way, using only numbers. For example, 16:45 = &quot;четыре сорок пять дня&quot;; 23:30 = &quot;одиннадцать тридцать вечера&quot;. But if you use special style designed for telling time, then hour part is essential, no matter how many minutes are there before or after it. For example, 16:45 = &quot;без четверти **пять вечера**&quot; (not &quot;дня&quot;); 23:30 = &quot;пол-**двенадцатого ночи**&quot; (not &quot;вечера&quot;); 03:55 can be &quot;без пяти **четыре утра**&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="6787c6c3-757e-494e-a4c6-132fda3309fd" CreationDate="2016-06-15T19:24:13.817" UserId="6725" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As far as I know, there is no firm rule about that. From my experience I can say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In interval [00:00 ; 04:00) it is &quot;**ночи**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. In interval [04:00 ; 05:00) it can be **either &quot;ночи&quot; or &quot;утра&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 3. In interval [05:00 ; 12:00) it is &quot;**утра**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. 12:00 is usually **&quot;дня&quot;**, but sometimes can be **&quot;утра&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 5. In interval (12:00 ; 17:00) it is &quot;**дня**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; 6. In interval [17:00 ; 23:00) it is &quot;**вечера**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. In interval [23:00 ; 12:00) it can be **either &quot;вечера&quot; or &quot;ночи&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these rules work when you tell the time in straightforward way, using only numbers. For example, 16:45 = &quot;четыре сорок пять дня&quot;; 23:30 = &quot;одиннадцать тридцать вечера&quot;. But if you use special style designed for telling time, then hour part is essential, no matter how many minutes are there before or after it. For example, 16:45 = &quot;без четверти **пять вечера**&quot; (not &quot;дня&quot;); 23:30 = &quot;пол-**двенадцатого ночи**&quot; (not &quot;вечера&quot;); 03:05 can be &quot;пять минут **четвертого утра**&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29496" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="2b55ccdb-aebf-47ae-bae0-4f10a045b599" CreationDate="2016-06-15T22:00:45.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/743201607605751809" />
  <row Id="29497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12634" RevisionGUID="dd761c19-a3f1-497b-a2f2-bf7f970a9794" CreationDate="2016-06-16T00:01:25.457" UserId="7371" Text="There are also another similar words &quot;шастать&quot; (old Russian word) or &quot;шляться&quot; (more like slang) , which I would translate as &quot;walking&quot; or &quot;walking around&quot;. &#xA;But &quot;шастать&quot; has its own past form &quot;шастал&quot;. Maybe they had some impact on the origin of &quot;шёл&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="158e33ee-224b-42cc-bda2-9e3aece65711" CreationDate="2016-06-16T03:59:59.273" UserId="194" Text="Мы купили продуктов на $100 = We bought some products for $100.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы купили продукты на $100 = We bought the products for $100." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="1cec7612-f6de-4e98-acdb-e687add24aca" CreationDate="2016-06-16T10:56:23.300" UserId="963" Text="Most commonly used and understood is афтепати.&#xD;&#xA;But It doesn't look nice in written." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="1cec7612-f6de-4e98-acdb-e687add24aca" CreationDate="2016-06-16T10:56:23.300" UserId="963" Text="Is there a better translation for after-party than most commonly used transliteration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="1cec7612-f6de-4e98-acdb-e687add24aca" CreationDate="2016-06-16T10:56:23.300" UserId="963" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="9bff8472-7cd1-4efd-b69b-b3e853aaf7e7" CreationDate="2016-06-16T11:08:48.087" UserId="963" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Most commonly used and understood is &quot;афтепати&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But It doesn't look nice when written." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="d5986694-1985-44d9-9b37-3d8dd599deb8" CreationDate="2016-06-16T11:38:01.840" UserId="5605" Comment="знак вопроса" Text="Is there a better translation for after-party than most commonly used transliteration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="97dc406a-1d1b-4402-ab4e-155aa5867521" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:36:30.620" UserId="6539" Text="Поскольку это неологизм,вошедший в жизнь и язык где‐то после 2000 года и не имеющий аналога в русском языке, лучше оставить все так, как есть: **афтерпати**, **афтепати**, либо даже **after-party**,нравится вам это или нет.&#xD;&#xA;Но в некоторых ситуациях можно использовать **междусобойчик**, **тусовка** или, как говорил бессмертный Иван Васильевич, **продолжение банкета**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="393bfc03-108b-4426-ac03-1037919d7f7c" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:50:45.440" UserId="1836" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I’m native Russian, but I cannot say exactly what does this _и_ means. As I see, it strengthens the expression. @kirelagin gave good translations and examples. In general, _и_ used like this doesn’t need an **exact** translation. It will be OK if you first translate sentence without it, and then just strengthen it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="50a2c4a3-b294-4ad7-ab76-c80fbf4a71ae" CreationDate="2016-06-16T12:58:32.897" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 145 characters in body" Text="Поскольку это неологизм,вошедший в жизнь и язык где‐то после 2000 года и не имеющий аналога в русском языке, лучше оставить все так, как есть: **афтерпати**, **афтепати**, либо даже **after-party**,нравится вам это или нет.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="796a26ef-a282-4d38-a2a1-8b1134fddf5a" CreationDate="2016-06-16T13:35:37.023" UserId="134" Text="*шёл* is to *идти* is as *вёл* to *вести*, not *водить*. *Водить / водил* and *ходить / ходил* seem quite regular to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any reflexes other than *шёл* and *шествие* (*&lt; шьствие*) which would have been used to reconstruct _*xьd-_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contamination hypothesis would not let you get rid of _*хod-_, and if you accept a root with another vowel gradation, _*хed-_ is not any better than _*xьd-_. It does not explain any other reflexes, and you need to invoke an extra assumption about that contamination to justify the change in the root vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="5dd62f5b-ff9d-40f6-98e8-5264a3670dc4" CreationDate="2016-06-16T15:44:05.790" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="*шёл* is to *идти* as *вёл* to *вести*, not *водить*. *Водить / водил* and *ходить / ходил* seem quite regular to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any reflexes other than *шёл* and *шествие* (*&lt; шьствие*) which would have been used to reconstruct _*xьd-_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contamination hypothesis would not let you get rid of _*хod-_, and if you accept a root with another vowel gradation, _*хed-_ is not any better than _*xьd-_. It does not explain any other reflexes, and you need to invoke an extra assumption about that contamination to justify the change in the root vowel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="20477940-1db9-44a4-82ca-af0ba955012c" CreationDate="2016-06-16T19:58:46.863" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Поскольку это неологизм,вошедший в жизнь и язык где‐то после 2000 года и не имеющий аналога в русском языке, лучше оставить все так, как есть: **афтерпати**, **афтепати**, либо даже **after-party**, нравится вам это или нет.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29510" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="756174c6-71bf-40ad-a2f7-0b813c2b6552" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:03:23.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/743700549569110016" />
  <row Id="29511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="18c60cd9-925d-47e5-80bd-c6bd16f0d836" CreationDate="2016-06-17T08:27:02.760" UserDisplayName="user4820" Text="There is also a Siberian/Far Eastern dialectism **бич**, which has roughly the same meaning as **бомж**, but can also be used to denote a seedy, socially degraded person, often alcoholic or drug addict, but not necessary homeless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="a204f1b3-2137-440e-9c51-13f93950d78b" CreationDate="2016-06-17T18:14:23.977" UserId="6991" Text="According to my understanding the aforementioned verbs have two related meanings like the English word 'to leave'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) _to misplace_. This makes sense somewhat because in order to misplace something you have to have put it someplace else. The prefix 'о-' meaning 'around/about' may have a sense of approximate (e.g. 'I approximately placed my keys somewhere over...')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) _to depart_. This meaning does not make sense. If you are departing from someplace, why would you use the verb _оставлять_? You know where you are going, there is no sense of approximation. What are you putting away? Is using this verb wrong when referring to people, because it would seem more fitting when referring to objects only. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Why would _оставлять_ and _оставаться_ be antonyms? They have the same prefix and the same root. Why would they have contrasting meaning and what is their morphological relationship with the verb _ставить_? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="a204f1b3-2137-440e-9c51-13f93950d78b" CreationDate="2016-06-17T18:14:23.977" UserId="6991" Text="Why does оставлять/оставить mean to leave when it literally means 'to put around'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="a204f1b3-2137-440e-9c51-13f93950d78b" CreationDate="2016-06-17T18:14:23.977" UserId="6991" Text="|выбор-слова|морфология|глаголы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29515" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="0f1c4be6-1975-4382-b47c-57f85e6edf27" CreationDate="2016-06-17T19:07:27.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/743882770217304064" />
  <row Id="29516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="6c20d9d5-690d-4819-8b4a-9629f2b5a07d" CreationDate="2016-06-17T19:54:26.427" UserId="7426" Text="I have encountered the sentence &quot;Mom is not here anymore&quot; translated as &quot;Мамы здесь больше нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why мамы and not мама? Is it the genetive case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="6c20d9d5-690d-4819-8b4a-9629f2b5a07d" CreationDate="2016-06-17T19:54:26.427" UserId="7426" Text="Why using the genitive case here instead of the nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="6c20d9d5-690d-4819-8b4a-9629f2b5a07d" CreationDate="2016-06-17T19:54:26.427" UserId="7426" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="9686cc18-258f-427e-acc5-5f8a24acdce2" CreationDate="2016-06-17T20:25:51.230" UserId="242" Text="The thing in in Russian the phrase &quot;Mom is not here anymore&quot; is sort of answering the question &quot;Whom do we miss here&quot; rather than &quot;Who is no here?&quot; - it quite a subtle difference regarding the fact that the usage of &quot;whom&quot; is declining, but luckily it's still a thing in English so I can use it for explanation )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - whom? - кого (genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - who? - кто (nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="ed23ec22-2378-4f83-a6e0-e52f1563dd66" CreationDate="2016-06-17T20:26:08.747" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I have encountered the sentence &quot;Mom is not here anymore&quot; translated as &quot;Мамы здесь больше нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why &quot;мамы&quot; and not just &quot;мама&quot;? Is it in genitive case?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29521" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="ed23ec22-2378-4f83-a6e0-e52f1563dd66" CreationDate="2016-06-17T20:26:08.747" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Why &quot;мамы здесь нет&quot;, not &quot;мама здесь нет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12643" RevisionGUID="a3d29a9c-c617-4f09-830d-906a0ae188b2" CreationDate="2016-06-17T21:19:21.790" UserId="6097" Text="Negative construction with &quot;нет&quot; always needs genitive in Russian and answers the question &quot;нет кого/чего&quot;, and not &quot;нет кто&quot; which is ungrammatical:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Нет кого? - Нет мамы.&#xA;&#xA;However you can say &quot;Мама не здесь&quot; (as opposite of &quot;мама здесь&quot;) which is totally correct. &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="5fe09262-2a20-4ccf-89c1-b8ff0e0cbe2f" CreationDate="2016-06-17T21:25:54.683" UserId="6539" Text="When you use negation meaning that something or someone is absent, especially strong negation (not here anymore) it's natural in Russian to use **нет**, which demands *genitive* нет (кого,чего?) мамы, хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="acb83086-6e02-4103-ad62-14e0c1947ea7" CreationDate="2016-06-17T21:33:51.790" UserId="6539" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="When you use negation meaning that something or someone is absent, especially strong negation (not here anymore) it's natural in Russian to use **нет**, which demands *genitive* **нет (кого,чего?) мамы, хлеба.**&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise you can say &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама не в Москве,она в Саратове. Or &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мамы нет в Москве, она в Саратове.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12645" RevisionGUID="f44369a3-22b0-480a-b166-662a9ea5afdf" CreationDate="2016-06-17T21:34:53.520" UserId="7427" Text="Вусмурть - I hear this word first time. I'm russian btw. I may say that for sure this word is out of date and you won't find nowadays, only in old books maybe.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="138a64db-238f-4a22-ac9a-aaa0470a23eb" CreationDate="2016-06-18T00:57:31.593" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The thing in in Russian the phrase &quot;Mom is not here anymore&quot; is sort of answering the question &quot;Whom do we miss here&quot; rather than &quot;Who is not here?&quot; - it quite a subtle difference regarding the fact that the usage of &quot;whom&quot; is declining, but luckily it's still a thing in English so I can use it for explanation )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - whom? - кого (genitive)&#xD;&#xA; - who? - кто (nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12646" RevisionGUID="b10cf12d-7133-4609-9a2d-4176a1f4045b" CreationDate="2016-06-18T01:34:02.253" UserId="4560" Text="(a) **Оставить** does *not* mean &quot;misplace&quot;. It can of course mean a related thing, forgetting/abandoning/leaving something behind, but that's not the same as &quot;misplacing&quot;. You remember the location; you just forgot to go through with the action of retrieving the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) This is a rare and somewhat obsolete meaning of **оставить**. **Покинуть** is the natural word to use here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, you are misconstruing the meaning of the prefix. `O-sta-` is a very old combination of prefix and root that occurs in most if not all Slavic languages with the meaning of &quot;remain&quot; (and a host of related concepts, including &quot;last&quot;). It can perhaps be thought of as a new root that's greater than the sum of its parts. Here, we're dealing with older and harder-to-interpret meanings of the prefix than the ones you can intuit in present-day Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) It's a little bit strained to construe **оставлять** and **оставаться** as antonyms, but supposing we do, the answer is really fairly obvious. Because one is transitive and the other reflexive. &quot;Leaving behind&quot; a place and &quot;leaving *yourself* behind&quot; are as antonymous, in context, as antonymous gets. Or consider that to *leave* a thing is to *make it remain* — which is one way you can get &quot;remain&quot; and &quot;leave&quot; to be somewhat synonymous despite their intuitive antonymy which we keep getting reminded of in these pre-UK referendum days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="b11d58f0-d380-4675-9fd7-c22ebfb54484" CreationDate="2016-06-18T01:35:44.643" UserId="7413" Text="So, since (a) makes sense to you, I am going to skip it :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) to depart.&#xD;&#xA;If I was asked what &quot;оставлять&quot; means without any context, my first thought would be &quot;to leave behind&quot;. You mentioned &quot;to leave&quot;, so, I guess, this is close to your understanding. When you leave something behind, you must be departing from somewhere in some sense, so, I am guessing, that's why someone has translated it like this. I, probably, would not in most cases, but it does make some sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) &quot;оставлять&quot; vs. &quot;оставаться&quot;. If someone _leaves_ you, then you are `left`. This is the same kind of distinction. &quot;Я оставляю вещи в номере&quot; means &quot;I leave my luggage in the room&quot;, &quot;Мои вещи остаются в номере&quot; - &quot;my luggage is left in the room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In other words: если ты _остаешься_, значит, кто-то тебя _оставляет_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="9b9794e8-106a-47aa-aa46-365fc6764369" CreationDate="2016-06-18T01:50:32.787" UserId="7413" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="So, since (a) makes sense to you, I am going to skip it :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) to depart.&#xD;&#xA;If I was asked what &quot;оставлять&quot; means without any context, my first thought would be &quot;to leave behind&quot; (which is why I felt compelled to right an answer to this question: it does not at all mean to &quot;to put around&quot;). You mentioned &quot;to leave&quot;, so, I guess, this is close to your understanding. When you leave something behind, you must be departing from somewhere in some sense, so, I am guessing, that's why someone has translated it like this. I, probably, would not in most cases, but it does make some sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) &quot;оставлять&quot; vs. &quot;оставаться&quot;. If someone _leaves_ you, then you are `left`. This is the same kind of distinction. &quot;Я оставляю вещи в номере&quot; means &quot;I leave my luggage in the room&quot;, &quot;Мои вещи остаются в номере&quot; - &quot;my luggage is left in the room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In other words: если ты _остаешься_, значит, кто-то тебя _оставляет_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="805521e3-1fa5-498a-8196-2069a02f4990" CreationDate="2016-06-18T02:22:25.933" UserId="7413" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="So, since (a) makes sense to you, I am going to skip it :)&#xD;&#xA;(even though, &quot;o-&quot; isn't a prefix here: &quot;оста&quot; is the root. In fact, verbs never have prefixes, only nouns do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) to depart.&#xD;&#xA;If I was asked what &quot;оставлять&quot; means without any context, my first thought would be &quot;to leave behind&quot; (which is why I felt compelled to write an answer to this question: it does not at all mean to &quot;to put around&quot;). You mentioned &quot;to leave&quot;, so, I guess, this is close to your understanding. When you leave something behind, you must be departing from somewhere in some sense, so, I am guessing, that's why someone has translated it like this. I, probably, would not in most cases, but it does make some sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) &quot;оставлять&quot; vs. &quot;оставаться&quot;. If someone _leaves_ you, then you are `left`. This is the same kind of distinction. &quot;Я оставляю вещи в номере&quot; means &quot;I leave my luggage in the room&quot;, &quot;Мои вещи остаются в номере&quot; - &quot;my luggage is left in the room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In other words: если ты _остаешься_, значит, кто-то тебя _оставляет_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12647" RevisionGUID="6c8513d4-f24e-4d96-8ef8-ca9824761262" CreationDate="2016-06-18T11:47:00.640" UserId="7413" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="So, since (a) makes sense to you, I am going to skip it :)&#xD;&#xA;(even though, &quot;o-&quot; isn't a prefix here: &quot;оста&quot; is the root).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) to depart.&#xD;&#xA;If I was asked what &quot;оставлять&quot; means without any context, my first thought would be &quot;to leave behind&quot; (which is why I felt compelled to write an answer to this question: it does not at all mean to &quot;to put around&quot;). You mentioned &quot;to leave&quot;, so, I guess, this is close to your understanding. When you leave something behind, you must be departing from somewhere in some sense, so, I am guessing, that's why someone has translated it like this. I, probably, would not in most cases, but it does make some sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) &quot;оставлять&quot; vs. &quot;оставаться&quot;. If someone _leaves_ you, then you are `left`. This is the same kind of distinction. &quot;Я оставляю вещи в номере&quot; means &quot;I leave my luggage in the room&quot;, &quot;Мои вещи остаются в номере&quot; - &quot;my luggage is left in the room&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In other words: если ты _остаешься_, значит, кто-то тебя _оставляет_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12648" RevisionGUID="8b2a44e1-f6ee-48e6-8d1a-c1f09fcb8191" CreationDate="2016-06-18T14:06:19.517" UserId="6539" Text="Не претендуя на ответ... Нашла вот это.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ход&quot; - &quot;шед&quot; Произошло замещение буквы &quot;Х&quot; на &quot;Ш&quot; в одной из форм изначального глагола &quot;хъдьти&quot; (&quot;ъ&quot; и &quot;ь&quot; - это звук &quot;э&quot; разной краткости, сегодня стал где &quot;о&quot;, где &quot;е&quot;, где &quot;и&quot;, а где и вовсе выпал)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;первоначальная форма глагола *хъдьти, откуда через *хьдьти &gt; идти, причем, в основных формах &quot;хь&quot; перешло в &quot;ь&quot; (краткое гласное &quot;е&quot;) *хьду &gt; иду - *хьдемы &gt; идем *хьдеши &gt; идешь - *хьдете &gt; идете *хьде &gt; идет - *хьдут &gt; идут в перфекте &quot;хь&quot; &gt; &quot;ш&quot;: *хь (дъ) л &gt; шь (дъ) л &gt; шел" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29533" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="3ab73fd5-9927-46c9-9523-d8300a86ca7f" CreationDate="2016-06-18T16:13:24.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/744201355791896581" />
  <row Id="29534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="9f5e294b-2316-4ea7-a649-113d922bae11" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:10:06.453" UserId="6065" Text="So, *&quot;Я в гостях&quot;* seems to be prepositional plural of *гость*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Я иду в гости&quot;* leaves me puzzled, though. According to conjugation tables, it is nominative plural, while *в* used to express direction requires accusative (which is *гостя* or *гостей* - *&quot;Я иду в гостя/гостей&quot;* just sounds silly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What form are we dealing with here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="9f5e294b-2316-4ea7-a649-113d922bae11" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:10:06.453" UserId="6065" Text="What form is &quot;в гости&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="9f5e294b-2316-4ea7-a649-113d922bae11" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:10:06.453" UserId="6065" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="0550e01e-8524-4d71-842f-72abfd3c78ce" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:37:22.863" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;в гости&quot; (и &quot;в гостях&quot;) here is an adverb, not really a noun with a preposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A prepositional plural &quot;в гостях&quot; would mean _inside_ the guests (some food, maybe?)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="f44d2403-bc14-4dbd-a2c9-3a0346f420e1" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:38:39.383" UserId="242" Text="The thing is that &quot;в гости&quot; is an adverb (&quot;наречие&quot;), so the real answer is the concept of case is just not applicable, since though this form is indeed derived from noun, it sort of solidified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like we don't think of word &quot;воля&quot; when we use word &quot;поневоле&quot;. Or, another example, &quot;втиши&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12652" RevisionGUID="aaf9093a-94bb-4ba1-ad10-0b3d62b66e8a" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:47:59.183" UserId="4560" Text="Two objections to people dismissing this &quot;because it's an adverb&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Adverb or not, it started out as a noun and a preposition, and the case form still has to be explained somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly: you can say **в жёны** is also an adverb, and **в пионеры** too, but what about **(произведён) в полковники**? Or Pushkin's **мы все глядим в Наполеоны**? Are they really just that many ad hoc adverbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say we're dealing with another &quot;lesser case&quot; — along with the locative-prepositional (**в снегу**) and partitive-genitive (**выпить чаю**). This one we may call [translative][1]-accusative — which is indeed what it's described as (*превратительный падеж*) [here][2], though I don't know what the ultimate source of that list is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/all/cases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="b502c397-347c-44cd-99b9-157dedfde2a2" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:52:35.007" UserId="6065" Text="According to *Русский язык в задачах и ответах By Борис Норман* [p. 288 point 2.90] https://books.google.be/books?id=xXTLAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA288&amp;lpg=PA288&amp;dq=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DzqTGLzxPP&amp;sig=ca-LbiIdlOGrdDiBXvZbDeG2JtI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9h9-ynbLNAhXF1hoKHRKeCloQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&quot;в гости&quot; is &quot;an prepositional-case name group, that has almost become and adverb&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not quite an adverb, and also includes the preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12652" RevisionGUID="3c611fab-9461-4ea3-83b0-f484b45223de" CreationDate="2016-06-18T18:53:13.273" UserId="4560" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="Two objections to people dismissing this &quot;because it's an adverb&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Adverb or not, it started out as a noun and a preposition, and the case form still has to be explained somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. More importantly: you can say **в жёны** is also an adverb, and **в пионеры** too, but what about **(произведён) в полковники**? Or Pushkin's **мы все глядим в Наполеоны**? Are they really just that many ad hoc adverbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say we're dealing with another &quot;lesser case&quot; — along with the locative-prepositional (**в снегу**) and partitive-genitive (**выпить чаю**). This one we may call [translative][1]-accusative — which is indeed what it's described as (*превратительный падеж*) [here][2], though I don't know what the ultimate source of that list is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can of course be argued that the literal meaning of **в гости** isn't necessarily a change of status to one of a guest; more intuitively, we tend to think of this **гости** as a kind of abstract territorial notion (**в гостях** thus referring to a sort of guest-space), but I think this is a later shift of perception and the original usage, which accounts for the ending, was the same as with the other &quot;translative&quot; examples (which isn't contradicted by **в гостях**; compare **в денщиках у фельдкурата**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/all/cases/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="2aa23dc0-1df9-4610-a0b8-4ca43bced28f" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:00:03.850" UserId="6065" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="According to *Русский язык в задачах и ответах By Борис Норман* [p. 288 point 2.90] https://books.google.be/books?id=xXTLAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA288&amp;lpg=PA288&amp;dq=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DzqTGLzxPP&amp;sig=ca-LbiIdlOGrdDiBXvZbDeG2JtI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9h9-ynbLNAhXF1hoKHRKeCloQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;&quot;в гости&quot; is &quot;a prepositional-case name group, that has almost become and adverb&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not quite an adverb, and also includes the preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="7b953609-245c-4f00-a4c9-4cd8c7ac146a" CreationDate="2016-06-18T19:00:11.123" UserId="242" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="The thing is that &quot;в гости&quot; is an adverb (&quot;наречие&quot;), so the real answer is the concept of case is just not applicable, since though this form is indeed derived from noun, it sort of solidified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like we don't think of word &quot;воля&quot; when we use word &quot;поневоле&quot;. Or, another example, &quot;втиши&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Reacting on what @Nikolay Ershov is claiming. Indeed, one can just ask - OK, but why the original form was &quot;в гости&quot;. Speaking of &quot;lesser&quot; cases, this could be a good candidate for traces [illative][1] case. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="2fd7bcf0-1b9b-42f9-b35a-593c8f3d6049" CreationDate="2016-06-19T19:52:19.770" UserId="6354" Text="Is there a difference between **заря** and **рассвет**? My understanding is that **заря** can mean both **dawn** and **dusk**, while **рассвет** can only mean **dawn**, but I'm not sure if this is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="2fd7bcf0-1b9b-42f9-b35a-593c8f3d6049" CreationDate="2016-06-19T19:52:19.770" UserId="6354" Text="Заря versus рассвет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="2fd7bcf0-1b9b-42f9-b35a-593c8f3d6049" CreationDate="2016-06-19T19:52:19.770" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="e293e605-45b0-4f2e-a64b-d46947269071" CreationDate="2016-06-19T20:26:03.673" UserId="6131" Text="Заря is a shining in the sky before the dawn and after the dusk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассвет is dawn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12656" RevisionGUID="ecdcefca-d303-4e0e-95f1-b38f9f08c6c1" CreationDate="2016-06-19T20:26:37.877" UserId="5008" Text="_Рассвет_ means time just before sunrise, which is the same as _dawn_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet _Заря_ is actually _light_ which you see in the sky before sunrise and after sunset. So it's something close to _dawn or dusk_ but it's not really the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12657" RevisionGUID="1ca504b4-c0fe-4971-8bcb-d1114a0a4d7c" CreationDate="2016-06-19T20:30:12.393" UserId="134" Text="*Заря* means &quot;twilight&quot;, &quot;illumination of the Earth's lower atmosphere when the Sun itself is not directly visible because it is below the horizon&quot; (from Wikipedia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with the English word, it can be applied both to light seen before the sunrise and that seen after the sunset, but the morning meaning is the primary one. If you are speaking the time after the sunset, you should specify *вечерняя заря*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The is another word, *сумерки*, which technically means the same, but its evening meaning is the primary, as with the English word &quot;twilight&quot;. This one is usually used to translate &quot;twilight&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Рассвет* is the brightest part of the morning twilight, seen right before the sunrise. It's the direct translation of *dawn* indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *рассвет* and *заря* can be used metaphorically, meaning the time when such a light can be seen (*встал на заре, проснулся на рассвете*), and, further extending the metaphor, meaning &quot;beginning of something&quot; (*заря новой жизни*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29552" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="78250c23-e30d-482d-858b-55bacab071d0" CreationDate="2016-06-19T22:22:57.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/744656744916336640" />
  <row Id="29553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="bc2d8551-0922-4590-920b-766bd271a37a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T22:23:07.297" UserId="7371" Text="As other answers say, заря is the light before sunrise and after sunset,  but when it is used as rhetorical device like &quot;на заре 20 века&quot;, it always means the beginning of something, not the end. (in this case &quot;the beginning of the 20th century&quot; ) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12194" RevisionGUID="a5798e66-4b5b-4abb-ab8f-fcbf4c1cb16c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T00:31:59.400" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You can almost always subsitute &quot;аж&quot;, &quot;ажно&quot; for &quot;даже&quot;, but not the other way around. &quot;Аж&quot; is a colloquial or expressive word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Шёл семнадцатый день лета. Мы от радости аж печку затопили&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Даже&quot; is good both for formal and informal use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Растение без своих грибных симбионтов развивается плохо, медленно, легко подвергается заболеваниям и даже может погибнуть.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="0e4bcfc5-0e68-4583-b256-7bb5a0e52742" CreationDate="2016-06-20T04:22:58.697" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/744747346316132352" />
  <row Id="29556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="da65fda1-efbc-45ff-bff9-375aa26067a2" CreationDate="2016-06-20T06:38:30.280" UserId="6354" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Is there a difference between **заря** and **рассвет**? My understanding is that **заря** can mean both **dawn** and **dusk**, while **рассвет** can only mean **dawn**, but I'm not sure if this is correct. [Edit: it's not correct, see answers.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="ffac58a0-3bad-44c8-86c2-77531c5f9244" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:21:39.830" UserId="6354" Text="Both **заявка** and **заявление** appear to mean *application*. In which, if any, situations is one correct and not the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to express *job application*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="ffac58a0-3bad-44c8-86c2-77531c5f9244" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:21:39.830" UserId="6354" Text="Заявка versus заявление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="ffac58a0-3bad-44c8-86c2-77531c5f9244" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:21:39.830" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="9ca8cddc-2fdd-4e97-8619-71883e0d877c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:39:51.030" UserId="5510" Text="We can express `Job application` as `Заявление о приёме на работу`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Заявка` is being used in other cases like `подавать заявку на что-то` - `file an application for something` or `apply for something`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="6dd4d8ba-655c-4641-bd2f-0a9c78ce6df3" CreationDate="2016-06-20T08:49:58.343" UserId="194" Text="I am not entirely sure what English &quot;job application&quot; means. It it means you send a CV seeking a job or a position, there is no equivalent Russian term, you have just describe this as sending CV for a position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Заявление о приёме на работу* is the official part. This happens when you are already approved for the position. It is just a part of the official paperwork, describing your official intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, заявление is a very official term. It always means something properly signed and addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заявка is more like a request or a booking. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="c326d6ea-6a26-475c-8df8-40b4e2a870aa" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:03:40.723" UserId="7371" Text="**Заявление** is formal/official request from natural person to a corporate entity, department, agency, etc to do or accept something, e.g. &quot;заявка о выдачи паспорта&quot; is a request for new passport, or &quot;заявление на отпуск&quot; is request for vacation. Bureaucracy stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Заявка** is an announcement, but also a request or offer. E.g.:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка об оплате&quot; is a bill from a company for their services (request for payment / announcement that you have to pay)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в санаторий&quot; in communism UdSSR emplayers offered their employees to visit a sanatorium (kind of spa hotel).  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в газете&quot; is also announcement or advertisement in a newspaper (like &quot;sell my mixer, alsmost new&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на кредит&quot; is a request for bank credit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="941d54ea-95dd-478f-afa4-e1b220ff3a5a" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:10:56.990" UserId="7371" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="**Заявление** is formal/official request from natural person to a corporate entity, department, agency, etc to do or accept something, e.g. &quot;заявка о выдачи паспорта&quot; is a request for new passport, or &quot;заявление на отпуск&quot; is request for vacation. Bureaucracy stuff.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заявление о приеме на работу&quot; - job application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Заявка** is an announcement of intention, very similar to request. E.g.:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка об оплате&quot; is a bill from a company for their services (announcement that you have to pay / request for payment)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в санаторий&quot; in communism UdSSR employers offered their employees to visit a sanatorium (kind of spa hotel).  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в газете&quot; is announcement or advertisement in a newspaper (like &quot;sell my mixer, alsmost new, call me maybe&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на кредит&quot; annouce, that you want a bank credit / request for bank credit  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на участие в конкурсе&quot; announcement, that you want to join some contest / competition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually every request is kind of announcement, that you want something. But &quot;заявка&quot; is more &quot;i want to ...&quot; and not &quot;could i do ... ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29564" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="2eb640eb-5dc9-42ce-994f-a04bd9ac3c9a" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:22:58.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/744837943391625216" />
  <row Id="29565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="9d6a6000-2867-41c2-9084-9f02869a8d2c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:36:07.393" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="I am not entirely sure what English &quot;job application&quot; means. If it means you send a CV seeking a job or a position, there is no equivalent Russian term, you have just describe this as sending CV for a position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Заявление о приёме на работу* is the official part. This happens when you are already approved for the position. It is just a part of the official paperwork, describing your official intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, заявление is a very official term. It always means something properly signed and addressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заявка is more like a request or a booking. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="a6590c6e-f947-4cc1-abb7-8639395b74e5" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:39:23.613" UserId="4481" Text="As I understand, term *job application* means first step in job seeking process, when a person, who needs the work, sends a resume. There is no term for this in Russian. On russian job seeking sites, like hh.ru or others, this action is called &quot;откликнуться на вакансию&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech, you can use &quot;отправить резюме&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера наконец-то нашел отличную вакансию! Отправил резюме сразу же, теперь жду ответа.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="5985d231-6a02-44f0-be72-f02f8eff2224" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:54:46.557" UserId="7371" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**Заявление** is formal/official request from natural person to a corporate entity, department, agency, etc to do or accept something, e.g. &quot;заявление о выдачи паспорта&quot; is a request for new passport, or &quot;заявление на отпуск&quot; is request for vacation. Bureaucracy stuff.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заявление о приеме на работу&quot; - job application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Заявка** is an announcement of intention, very similar to request. E.g.:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка об оплате&quot; is a bill from a company for their services (announcement that you have to pay / request for payment)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в санаторий&quot; in communism UdSSR employers offered their employees to visit a sanatorium (kind of spa hotel).  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в газете&quot; is announcement or advertisement in a newspaper (like &quot;sell my mixer, alsmost new, call me maybe&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на кредит&quot; annouce, that you want a bank credit / request for bank credit  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на участие в конкурсе&quot; announcement, that you want to join some contest / competition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually every request is kind of announcement, that you want something. But &quot;заявка&quot; is more &quot;i want to ...&quot; and not &quot;could i do ... ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="18318567-d5bd-46f7-87e7-76fa8c6acd24" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:25:56.880" UserId="7371" Comment="edited body" Text="**Заявление** is formal/official request from natural person to a corporate entity, department, agency, etc to do or accept something, e.g. &quot;заявление о выдаче паспорта&quot; is a request for new passport, or &quot;заявление на отпуск&quot; is request for vacation. Bureaucracy stuff.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заявление о приеме на работу&quot; - job application&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Заявка** is an announcement of intention, very similar to request. E.g.:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка об оплате&quot; is a bill from a company for their services (announcement that you have to pay / request for payment)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в санаторий&quot; in communism UdSSR employers offered their employees to visit a sanatorium (kind of spa hotel).  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка в газете&quot; is announcement or advertisement in a newspaper (like &quot;sell my mixer, alsmost new, call me maybe&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на кредит&quot; annouce, that you want a bank credit / request for bank credit  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;заявка на участие в конкурсе&quot; announcement, that you want to join some contest / competition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually every request is kind of announcement, that you want something. But &quot;заявка&quot; is more &quot;i want to ...&quot; and not &quot;could i do ... ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="347ac165-2605-4f2f-a71e-8bd9565b59b3" CreationDate="2016-06-20T16:51:35.393" UserId="6354" Text="How should one express the concept of &quot;*take turns*&quot; in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *taking turns* using the bench press in the gym, or *taking turns* on the Xbox controller or iPad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="347ac165-2605-4f2f-a71e-8bd9565b59b3" CreationDate="2016-06-20T16:51:35.393" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;Take turns&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="347ac165-2605-4f2f-a71e-8bd9565b59b3" CreationDate="2016-06-20T16:51:35.393" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="4f4b19b6-29c8-46d2-92ec-112040aac3cd" CreationDate="2016-06-20T16:56:09.503" UserId="134" Text="It's *по очереди*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jim and Bob are taking turns playing with their mom's Xbox // Джим и Боб играют в мамин Xbox по очереди." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12657" RevisionGUID="36f36eb2-bd0f-4a56-b71a-27152c5f56d0" CreationDate="2016-06-20T17:21:55.110" UserId="134" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="*Заря* means &quot;twilight&quot;, &quot;illumination of the Earth's lower atmosphere when the Sun itself is not directly visible because it is below the horizon&quot; (from Wikipedia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with the English word, it can be applied both to light seen before the sunrise and that seen after the sunset, but the morning meaning is the primary one. If you are speaking of the time after the sunset, you should specify *вечерняя заря*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another word, *сумерки*, which technically means the same, but its evening meaning is the primary one, as with the English word &quot;twilight&quot;. This one is usually used to translate &quot;twilight&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Рассвет* is the brightest part of the morning twilight, seen right before the sunrise. It's the direct translation of *dawn* indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *рассвет* and *заря* can be used metaphorically, meaning the time when such a light can be seen (*встал на заре, проснулся на рассвете*), and, further extending the metaphor, meaning &quot;beginning of something&quot; (*заря новой жизни*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="c51916f1-b275-4bd2-99ed-5bb97fb8c16c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T18:37:37.347" UserId="242" Text="To add something to (completely valid) @Quassnoi answer. Sometimes &quot;поочерёдно&quot; form is appropriate as well. Regarding your examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поочерёдно занимая скамейку для жима лёжа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поочерёдно занимая iPad&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="0bc5f67e-f0f0-4346-87e2-898c5be853bc" CreationDate="2016-06-20T18:44:56.377" UserId="5510" Comment="removed wrong tag" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29576" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12567" RevisionGUID="0bc5f67e-f0f0-4346-87e2-898c5be853bc" CreationDate="2016-06-20T18:44:56.377" Comment="Proposed by 5510 approved by 134 edit id of 760" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29577" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="7067cb90-3ca2-4584-a495-615bb1dd9f68" CreationDate="2016-06-20T18:45:57.750" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Заявка&quot; versus &quot;заявление&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="ef772bca-c00f-4107-869e-48c39d7dffd4" CreationDate="2016-06-20T19:41:16.810" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;Заявление&quot; doesn't always mean &quot;application&quot;. It can also mean &quot;a statement&quot;. For example: &quot;я катергорически не согласен с вашим заявлением!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases when it does mean &quot;application&quot;, &quot;заявка&quot; is kinda similar, but not quite the same. &quot;Заявление&quot; is more closely associated with the actual official paperwork that the application involves. It is also more of a _request_, while &quot;заявка&quot; is kinda closer to a statement of intent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one would, usually say &quot;я подал заявку на участие в соревнованиях&quot;, not &quot;я подал заявление ...&quot;, because you are not asking someone to let you compete, rather just notifying them that you intend to do so.  On the other hand, if you would like to get a visa to visit Russia, you would send a &quot;заявление&quot; to the embassy, not &quot;заявку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples in one of the other answers (like &quot;заявка на кредит&quot; or &quot;заявка в санаторий&quot;)  are actually incorrect (those would be &quot;заявления&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заявка в газете&quot; is wrong too (it is &quot;объявление&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to look at it is that &quot;заявление&quot; is asking somebody to do something, while &quot;заявка&quot; is notifying someone about something you intend to do (even if you actually need their permission to do it - that's where the boundary with &quot;заявление&quot; becomes kinda fuzzy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="3cb06c4d-005f-43fd-9f64-a4995a1edd68" CreationDate="2016-06-20T22:13:41.607" UserId="7413" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="&quot;Заявление&quot; doesn't always mean &quot;application&quot;. It can also mean &quot;a statement&quot;. For example: &quot;я катергорически не согласен с вашим заявлением!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases when it does mean &quot;application&quot;, &quot;заявка&quot; is kinda similar, but not quite the same. &quot;Заявление&quot; is more closely associated with the actual official paperwork that the application involves. It is also more of a _request_, while &quot;заявка&quot; is kinda closer to a statement of intent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one would, usually say &quot;я подал заявку на участие в соревнованиях&quot;, not &quot;я подал заявление ...&quot;, because you are not asking someone to let you compete, rather just notifying them that you intend to do so.  On the other hand, if you would like to get a visa to visit Russia, you would send a &quot;заявление&quot; to the embassy, not &quot;заявку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples in one of the other answers (like &quot;заявка на кредит&quot; or &quot;заявка в санаторий&quot;)  are actually incorrect (those would be &quot;заявления&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Заявка в газете&quot; is wrong too (it is &quot;объявление&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to look at it is that &quot;заявление&quot; is asking somebody to do something, while &quot;заявка&quot; is notifying someone about something you intend to do (even if you actually need their permission to do it - that's where the boundary with &quot;заявление&quot; becomes kinda fuzzy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, another possible meaning of &quot;заявка&quot; is &quot;claim&quot;: &quot;это серьезная заявка на победу&quot; == &quot;this is a serious claim to victory&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="2cd25a44-660a-4be6-bf1b-f49ea3efd530" CreationDate="2016-06-20T23:08:59.400" UserId="7313" Text="Words from the song &quot;На заре ты меня разбуди&quot; meaning wake me up at the sunrise. This is how &quot;Заря&quot; is mainly used. &quot;Заря&quot; is more kinda literature, poetry meaning of &quot;рассвет&quot; to me. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="7ccc22cc-053c-4dbb-ad4e-a0a2584c674d" CreationDate="2016-06-20T23:42:19.943" UserId="7313" Text="You can write the following. Россия, бывший &quot;Cоюз&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="adfd6f91-d8ba-4183-92d2-6c718adf8a3a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:16:29.283" UserId="2079" Text="Как эта штука называется?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Коробка с несколькими парами розеток, от нее отходит кабель со своей вилкой.  Как ни странно, я пользуюсь этим нехитрым электроприбором, но не знаю его названия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Картинку нашёл в гугле.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y6lpj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NHySL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="adfd6f91-d8ba-4183-92d2-6c718adf8a3a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:16:29.283" UserId="2079" Text="Как эта штука называется?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="adfd6f91-d8ba-4183-92d2-6c718adf8a3a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:16:29.283" UserId="2079" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="1784594d-0f1e-4075-9cf9-d7905661add5" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:22:48.113" UserId="2079" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Как эта штука называется?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Коробка с несколькими парами розеток, от нее отходит кабель со своей вилкой.  Как ни странно, я пользуюсь этим нехитрым электроприбором, но не знаю его названия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Картинку нашёл в гугле.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;удлинитель&quot; в википедии переводится как extension cord. Удлинитель может, но не обязан иметь несколько розеток.  Как назвать удлинитель именно с несколькими розетками?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y6lpj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NHySL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="a917d5e6-f428-4949-90c4-3396af23042a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:23:07.437" UserId="1236" Text="Эта штука называется всего-навсего [_удлинитель_][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?tbm=isch&amp;q=electronics&amp;oq=&amp;gs_l=#tbm=isch&amp;q=%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="bf251796-13d6-44bb-af96-003fe3b35220" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:23:40.900" UserId="2079" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Как называется удлинитель, снабжённый двумя или более розетками?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Картинку нашёл в гугле.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y6lpj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NHySL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="0221b81f-abfe-43d1-affc-78f4c2a93027" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:25:24.260" UserId="1236" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Эта штука называется всего-навсего [_удлинитель_][1]. С несколькими розетками — это _удлинитель с тремя/пятью/шестью розетками_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?tbm=isch&amp;q=electronics&amp;oq=&amp;gs_l=#tbm=isch&amp;q=%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="49818911-6e86-4ded-872e-37f4c0eb8626" CreationDate="2016-06-21T01:30:58.460" UserId="1236" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Эта штука называется всего-навсего [_удлинитель_][1]. С несколькими розетками — это _удлинитель с тремя/пятью/шестью розетками_. Если внутри есть электронное устройство для подавления сетевых помех, тогда он называется [_сетевой фильтр_][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?tbm=isch&amp;q=electronics&amp;oq=&amp;gs_l=#tbm=isch&amp;q=%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="d49f9901-8838-456c-adf2-4c587e973c6c" CreationDate="2016-06-21T03:24:33.997" UserId="242" Comment="honestly, it's not relevant from where the picture was fetched" Text="Как называется удлинитель, снабжённый двумя или более розетками?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y6lpj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NHySL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29592" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="d49f9901-8838-456c-adf2-4c587e973c6c" CreationDate="2016-06-21T03:24:33.997" UserId="242" Comment="honestly, it's not relevant from where the picture was fetched" Text="Как называется удлинитель, снабжённый двумя или более розетками?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="8941ab68-fb1d-43ca-88d6-0840a9a40ed4" CreationDate="2016-06-21T03:43:19.047" UserId="242" Text="Вообще-то технически у этой штуки есть официозное название &quot;электрический разветвитель питания&quot;, но, так, разумеется, не говорят даже самые прожжённые канцеляристы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот у удлинителя с тремя розетками есть вполне устоявшееся название - &quot;тройник&quot;. При этом слова, например,  &quot;двойник&quot; (в значении удлинитель с двумя розетками) по факту нет. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="97838b15-4a10-4409-a25e-59f422e60881" CreationDate="2016-06-21T03:54:35.727" UserId="242" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="У этого устройства две главные функции - во-первых, длинный провод, чтобы можно было подключить электроприборы на большем расстоянии. Во-вторых, количество розеток. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В качестве обладателя первого свойства, действительно, ничего кроме как `удлинитель` особо и не вспомнить. В качестве обладателя второго свойства, &#xD;&#xA;строго говоря есть официозное `электрический разветвитель питания`, но, так, разумеется, не говорят даже самые прожжённые канцеляристы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот у разветвителя с тремя розетками есть вполне устоявшееся название - `тройник` - и если он с удлинённым проводом тоже. При этом слова, например,  `двойник` (в значении удлинитель с двумя розетками) по факту нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У профессионалов же употребляются прилагательные `двухгнездовой`, `трёхгнездовой` и так далее удлинители/разветвители" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="07304324-6886-497d-a995-9e350b1ee9d6" CreationDate="2016-06-21T04:01:04.310" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="955f711b-20af-4d52-9ae1-33db0ee26321" CreationDate="2016-06-21T04:01:59.703" UserId="242" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="У этого устройства две главные функции - во-первых, длинный провод, чтобы можно было подключить электроприборы на большем расстоянии. Во-вторых, количество розеток. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В качестве обладателя первого свойства, действительно, ничего кроме как `удлинитель` особо и не вспомнить. В качестве обладателя второго свойства, &#xD;&#xA;строго говоря есть официозное `электрический разветвитель питания`, но, так, разумеется, не говорят даже самые прожжённые канцеляристы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот у разветвителя с тремя розетками есть вполне устоявшееся название - `тройник` - и если он с удлинённым проводом тоже. При этом слова, например,  `двойник` (в значении удлинитель с двумя розетками) по факту нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У профессионалов же употребляются прилагательные `двухгнездовой`, `трёхгнездовой` и так далее удлинители/разветвители. Так же можно встретить термин &quot;групповая розетка на 4 гнезда&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="f377f538-d46a-4e2b-8d91-589a5e68f00b" CreationDate="2016-06-21T04:08:44.320" UserId="242" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="У этого устройства две главные функции - во-первых, длинный провод, чтобы можно было подключить электроприборы на большем расстоянии. Во-вторых, количество розеток. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В качестве обладателя первого свойства, действительно, ничего кроме как `удлинитель` особо и не вспомнить. В качестве обладателя второго свойства, &#xD;&#xA;строго говоря есть официозное `электрический разветвитель питания`, но, так, разумеется, не говорят даже самые прожжённые канцеляристы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот у разветвителя с тремя розетками есть вполне устоявшееся название - `тройник` - и если он с удлинённым проводом тоже. При этом слова, например,  `двойник` (в значении удлинитель с двумя розетками) по факту нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У профессионалов же употребляются прилагательные `двухгнездовой`, `трёхгнездовой` и так далее удлинители/разветвители. Так же можно встретить термин `групповая розетка`, например: &quot;групповая розетка на 4 гнезда&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="905e148d-2717-495d-a1be-2f18a9bcdc78" CreationDate="2016-06-21T05:40:55.510" UserId="7344" Text="Дополню:&#xD;&#xA;На большой части территории России эту штуку называют &quot;удлинитель&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;При этом среди пожилого поколения, а так же в деревнях можно встретить название &quot;переноска&quot;, которое можно отнести к местному диалекту.&#xD;&#xA;Так же, пожилые люди часто называют их &quot;тройник&quot; независимо от того, сколько в них розеток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если в приборе имеется защита от перепадов напряжения - это &quot;сетевой фильтр&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Однако, большое количество людей называет их &quot;пилот&quot;, т.к. на момент появления сетевых фильтров в России самой распространенной фирмой, выпускающей их, была фирма &quot;PILOT&quot;, а т.к. особенно старшее поколение не знало правильного названия - просто читали единственное слово, написанное на сетевом фильтре. Название прижилось, но сейчас используется чаще взрослыми людьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подобное (Как с PILOT) так же было с копировальными аппарат фирмы Xerox - это настолько прижилось, что сейчас практически любой русскоговорящий человек назовет любой копировальный аппарат &quot;ксерокс&quot;, независимо от фирмы-производителя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29599" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="a8b4a43f-f2b2-4b90-a758-ad087b453386" CreationDate="2016-06-21T06:44:12.910" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Заря&quot; versus &quot;рассвет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="c3cf429a-ac2b-45c3-a703-dcba178cf90b" CreationDate="2016-06-21T09:21:04.147" UserId="4629" Comment="Corrected typos" Text="The most appropriate translation would be, I believe, &quot;бывший&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russia, former USSR - Россия, бывший СССР. It is often used in this situation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The simpler the better in most situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="674e0f93-264f-497b-9a34-703b22a08727" CreationDate="2016-06-21T10:11:02.920" UserId="7344" Comment="Исправлены несколько опечаток" Text="Дополню:&#xD;&#xA;На большей части территории России эту штуку называют &quot;удлинитель&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;При этом среди пожилого поколения, а так же в деревнях можно встретить название &quot;переноска&quot;, которое можно отнести к местному диалекту.&#xD;&#xA;Так же, пожилые люди часто называют их &quot;тройник&quot; независимо от того, сколько в них розеток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если в приборе имеется защита от перепадов напряжения - это &quot;сетевой фильтр&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Однако, большое количество людей называет их &quot;пилот&quot;, т.к. на момент появления сетевых фильтров в России самой распространенной фирмой, выпускающей их, была фирма &quot;PILOT&quot;, а т.к. особенно старшее поколение не знало правильного названия - просто читали единственное слово, написанное на сетевом фильтре. Название прижилось, но сейчас используется чаще взрослыми людьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подобное (Как с PILOT) так же было с копировальными аппарат фирмы Xerox - это настолько прижилось, что сейчас практически любой русскоговорящий человек назовет любой копировальный аппарат &quot;ксерокс&quot;, независимо от фирмы-производителя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="d8dca1b3-9715-4189-87cc-39ef5f10a40a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T20:53:51.753" UserId="7386" Text="Мой первый здесь вопрос. Заголовок я постарался сделать забавным, но вопрос вполне серьёзен. &#xA;Друг спросил сегодня, нет ли общего происхождения у вышеозначенных слов.&#xA;У меня под рукой нет словарей, сам ничего об этом не знаю, прошу помощи лингвистов-профессионалов - какова этимология слов &quot;жрать&quot; и &quot;жрец&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Чутьё подсказывает, что ничего общего между ними нет, но чутьё - не наш метод :-) &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="d8dca1b3-9715-4189-87cc-39ef5f10a40a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T20:53:51.753" UserId="7386" Text="Жратва и Жертва, жрать и жрец" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="d8dca1b3-9715-4189-87cc-39ef5f10a40a" CreationDate="2016-06-21T20:53:51.753" UserId="7386" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12677" RevisionGUID="a0c5aef1-4e76-42b7-b7ce-9e4a30a30459" CreationDate="2016-06-21T21:38:27.667" UserId="242" Text="Насколько я знаю, это всё-таки народная этимология - слова эти разного происхождения. Слово &quot;жрец&quot; (и &quot;жертва&quot;) связано с группой значений, которое в других индоевропейских языках обозначают такие сущности как восхваление, превозношение, благодарность. В частности итальянское grazie (спасибо) - оно родственное русскому &quot;жрец&quot;. Индоевропейский же корень был [*gʷerǝ-/ *gʷrā][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А слово &quot;жрать&quot; родственно русскому слову &quot;корм&quot; и происходит от праиндоевропейского корня [*gʷere-, *gʷrō-][2] &#xD;&#xA;Я не индоевропеист и не рискну предполагать как были связаны эти два корня, но даже если и были - к русскому языку это точно не имеет отношения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&amp;basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&amp;text_number=%20%201763&amp;root=config&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&amp;basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&amp;text_number=%20%201759&amp;root=config&amp;encoding=utf-rus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="edf6a79c-0c7c-462d-9959-72e44bd39107" CreationDate="2016-06-22T00:15:46.783" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Мой первый здесь вопрос. Заголовок я постарался сделать забавным, но вопрос вполне серьёзен. &#xD;&#xA;Друг спросил сегодня, нет ли общего происхождения у вышеозначенных слов.&#xD;&#xA;У меня под рукой нет словарей, сам ничего об этом не знаю, прошу помощи лингвистов-профессионалов - какова этимология слов &quot;жрать&quot; и &quot;жрец&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чутьё подсказывает, что ничего общего между ними нет, но чутьё - не наш метод :-) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29612" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="edf6a79c-0c7c-462d-9959-72e44bd39107" CreationDate="2016-06-22T00:15:46.783" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Жратва&quot; и &quot;жертва&quot;, &quot;жрать&quot; и &quot;жрец&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29613" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="dade1ce2-db44-4ffb-b362-67203db42dac" CreationDate="2016-06-22T01:40:44.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/745431291932344320" />
  <row Id="29614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="918e202b-5ce9-4983-a775-a0282d8d591e" CreationDate="2016-06-22T06:59:19.900" UserId="242" Comment="grammar fix" Text="Surprisingly, both forms have been introduced relatively at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;This happens quite often with foreign words - different form coexist (especially in colloquial speech) for a quite a long time, till one of the forms is recognized de-facto as the only accepted one.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Слово «кофе» фиксируется в русском языке с середины XVII века 29. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; годы петровского правления словоформа «кофе» варьируется («кофий»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кофей», «кохей», «кефа», «кофа», «кофь», «кафе») в возможном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соответствии с аналогиями в западноевропейских и восточных языках&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (голландский koffie, арабский gahwa, немецкий Kaffee, итальянский&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cafe, польский kawa, турецкий kahve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, there's no such thing as a strict and well-established procedure for introducing new loanwords into the language. This is how it actually happens. Some merchants started to export coffee to Russia. Some of them keep business relations with, say, Netherlands. Some of them keep tights with, well, whatever, some other countries and regions. Those merchants - and first consumers of goods they sell - were early adopters of such new terminology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Coffee.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="a9ba27cf-e045-433b-b827-7a2961d919a1" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:35:49.390" UserId="7444" Text="([Anatolij Isakovič Lur'ie][1]) A. I. Lur'e was a great mathematician from USSR, however no one that I know of knows how to properly pronounce his name, especially last name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a Russian speaker guide a English speaker to properly pronounce his name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А. И. Лурье был великий математик из СССР , однако никто не , что я знаю знает, как правильно произносить его имя , особенно фамилию .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может ли русский динамик направлять английского оратора , как правильно произносить его имя ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolij_Isakovi%C4%8D_Lur%27ie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="a9ba27cf-e045-433b-b827-7a2961d919a1" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:35:49.390" UserId="7444" Text="How to properly pronounce Lur'e for a English speaker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="a9ba27cf-e045-433b-b827-7a2961d919a1" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:35:49.390" UserId="7444" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="6c318707-27af-4aa6-9fcc-63b434b17ee5" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:42:01.407" UserId="6097" Text="I would spell the pronunciation this way: &quot;loo-rr-yeah&quot;.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="d7464ca2-3d1f-475a-9e77-586bf8574122" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:45:37.760" UserId="6097" Comment="corrected Russian translation " Text="([Anatolij Isakovič Lur'ie][1]) A. I. Lur'e was a great mathematician from USSR, however no one that I know of knows how to properly pronounce his name, especially last name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a Russian speaker guide a English speaker to properly pronounce his name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А. И. Лурье был великий математик из СССР , однако никто из тех, кого я знаю, не знает, как правильно произносить его имя, особенно фамилию. &#xA;&#xA;Может ли носитель русского языка  обьяснить носителю английского, как правильно произносить это имя ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolij_Isakovi%C4%8D_Lur%27ie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29621" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="d7464ca2-3d1f-475a-9e77-586bf8574122" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:45:37.760" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 7444 edit id of 762" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="9cb70a6d-d1af-463a-b5a2-cd3c23284c7c" CreationDate="2016-06-22T21:47:38.267" UserId="6097" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I would spell the pronunciation this way: &quot;Anatoly ie-ssakovich loo-rr-yeah&quot;.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="1f6aaa6b-de04-4555-8c4c-905092d8d1c2" CreationDate="2016-06-23T00:29:31.217" UserId="242" Text="Here are some tips that can help you in similar situations in future - just search youtube and it's pretty straightforward to find some video mentioning this particular person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found in 2 minutes:&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/JuW1rRcgzoA?t=16s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a MacOS user then pretty often (but not always, that's for sure), this can give a hint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say -v Milena Лурье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way Лурье is pronounced by Milena perfectly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="02a5f1f8-17c7-40ba-9911-cf6e58b8bac1" CreationDate="2016-06-23T05:07:37.660" UserId="242" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Here are some tips that can help you in similar situations in future - just search youtube and it's pretty straightforward to find some video mentioning this particular person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is found in 2 minutes:&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/JuW1rRcgzoA?t=16s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are a MacOS user then pretty often (but not always, that's for sure), this can give a hint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say -v Milena Лурье&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way Лурье is pronounced by Milena (it's voice used for Russian) perfectly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29625" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="24461af1-0be0-4f19-8ea0-6c26f6fce089" CreationDate="2016-06-23T07:42:52.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/745884814755176448" />
  <row Id="29626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="e4b813dc-a3b6-43f5-abd3-6831c103149a" CreationDate="2016-06-23T10:26:47.583" UserId="5008" Text="[IPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet) transcription should be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ɐnɐtˈolʲɪj ɪsˈakəvʲɪt͡ɕ lurʲjˈe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering &quot;how to pronounce that Russian r-r-r&quot;, you may look into [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_flaps) which kindly explains that it's &quot;dental apical palatalized tap&quot; or sometimes &quot;dental apical palatalized trill&quot;. This essentially means that you have to tap your upper teeth with the tip of your tongue (and possibly even to make it to reverberate). But I doubt you can do such a trick without practicing a couple of weeks ;-) At least when I was about seven years old, I had to visit my speech therapist for about a fortnight to improve my native Russian speech skill and to learn to spell that damned &quot;r-r-r&quot; flawlessly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12682" RevisionGUID="e8dbb4a9-0437-49e9-bb2b-b885c6b7ace7" CreationDate="2016-06-23T10:53:53.410" UserId="194" Text="The same way you pronounce &quot;Fourier&quot;. The both are French surnames." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29628" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="3275a7cd-7e8f-4582-b1dc-e3a81f0b02dc" CreationDate="2016-06-23T13:42:56.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/745975427932524546" />
  <row Id="29632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="d5bea113-aed0-4c5c-b474-2cd485cf83c4" CreationDate="2016-06-24T03:44:15.450" UserId="4188" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The most approximate translation would be, i believe, is &quot;бывший&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russia, former USSR - Россия, бывший СССР. Is often used in this situation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The simpler is better in most situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="e00f097f-c30c-4c8a-a414-45e431a57635" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:45:24.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/746247839160934400" />
  <row Id="29634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="8421f3b3-dd87-43cf-ba6b-42b768afce59" CreationDate="2016-06-24T09:55:18.860" UserId="1236" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I guess, it is not correct. Russia had been a part of USSR. Russia hadn't  changed its name while it was a part of USSR. I think right is 'Russia, the successor of the USSR'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="43211e24-ce70-4b16-8420-8c97d3b3c4f4" CreationDate="2016-06-25T07:53:47.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/746612336966963200" />
  <row Id="29640" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="baaa6578-60de-4211-8c5b-452ebbee9dda" CreationDate="2016-06-25T16:58:16.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/746749363049873408" />
  <row Id="29643" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12432" RevisionGUID="4a79f6b5-68b1-4bf5-8182-2f5932117942" CreationDate="2016-06-26T17:05:16.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/747113512929988608" />
  <row Id="29644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="51850d93-dcfa-4be1-a50e-725df23054e7" CreationDate="2016-06-27T18:53:09.397" UserId="3713" Comment="fix spelling" Text="Приняли волю пророка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они смирились с нарисованной картиной будущего, и стали действовать согласно ролям, предписываемой им, этой картиной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Действовали грезя о будущем, приближая неизбежность свершившегося/будущего.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но все ествественно гораздо проще, мы смотрим в гугл и обнаруживаем что вики знает:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Self-fulfilling prophecy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy) для не носителей и для носителей [Самоисполняющееся пророчество](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Самоисполняющееся_пророчество)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, **due to positive feedback between belief and behavior**. Although examples of such prophecies can be found in literature as far back as ancient Greece and ancient India, it is 20th-century sociologist Robert K. Merton who is credited with coining the expression &quot;self-fulfilling prophecy&quot; and formalizing its structure and consequences. In his 1948 article Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Merton defines it in the following terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Речь идет **не** об удаче или не удаче, а о некотором варианте самообмана, акте веры, *который* приводит к последствиям согласно этой вере, но в тоже время эти последствия могли бы и не случиться, если бы эта вера принята не была. Те следствия, являются прямыми последствиями некоторого самообмана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Простейший пример, действия в критической ситуации, действия в ситуации связанной с выживанием. Басня о лягушках и кувшине с молоком, как раз из этой оперы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Те в исходном варианте, речь о вере и убежденности в некоторое вероятное будущее, в возможные события этого будущего, которые меняют способы действия самого человека(носителя этих убеждений) и тем самым меняет вероятный исход для этого человека в будущем, на тот который соответствует этим убеждениям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В таком ключе можно предполагать или вообразить себе, как положительный смысл так и отрицательный. Однако в положительных вариантах, это результаты целеустремленности и полного использование своих возможностей, для которого(использования) следует знать эти возможности. Те это результат не самообмана, а объективной оценки имеющихся возможностей. Да, при этом действиям может сопутствовать удача, или можно положиться на удачу - но в любом случае это максимальное использование имеющихся возможностей с объективной(те соответствующей реальности) оценкой, и не важно сопутствовало этому удача или нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно обманываться относительно возможностей, в сторону завышения, но это либо ничего не изменит или (и с большей вероятностью) приведет к неудаче.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Недооценка собственных возможностей, те самообман, в сторону их занижения, гарантированно приведет к отсутствию действий по реализации этих возможностей, и гарантированно отрицательным последствиям в ситуациях в которых это вообще имеет смысл обсуждать, в критических или могущих стать таковыми ситуациях, как минимум.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению ОП не привел вариантов положительного использования этого термина в английском языке. Также я не исключаю что возможно для носителей языка термин имеет нейтральную окраску, и приобретает соответствующую в зависимости от контекста где он использован.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианты использования которые довелось слышать мне, имеют явно негативную окраску, в духе: гуси уже во всю гогочут, а вы все спите. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Более чем уверен, что классики отечественной литературы в результате работы над смыслами, имеют образцы и такого смысла, и мне кажется что этому вопросу требуется человек с литературным образованием, который мог бы привести варианты использования этого смысла примерами из золотого и серебряного века.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть также другие определения этого термина: самореализующееся пророчество, эффект Розенталя, эффект Пигмалиона." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="d2588167-25ec-45f1-bd38-a74c16c8d7fb" CreationDate="2016-06-28T11:41:32.900" UserId="3713" Comment="fix link referring to information, it not worked as intended." Text="According to **Русский язык в задачах и ответах By Борис Норман** (p. 288 point 3.90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Русский язык в задачах и ответах By Борис Норман, p. 288 point 2.90][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;в гости&quot; is &quot;a prepositional-case name group, that has almost become and adverb&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not quite an adverb, and also includes the preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MH7mT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29647" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="d2588167-25ec-45f1-bd38-a74c16c8d7fb" CreationDate="2016-06-28T11:41:32.900" Comment="Proposed by 3713 approved by 6725, 6588 edit id of 763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="fd40da74-fdbf-4cfa-b399-d6e4073c3bb6" CreationDate="2016-06-28T16:25:07.240" UserId="7369" Text="Attempting to understand воинская часть.  Initially I just thought it meant &quot;troop group&quot;, but after seeing it in other contexts that didn't fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done the due diligence of looking up this word in dictionaries and on Wikipedia: &quot;организационно самостоятельная боевая, учебная и административно-хозяйственная единица в Вооружённых Силах (ВС)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still feel like I'm missing a key part of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently &quot;military installation personnel&quot; is what I'm using, but I still feel that is not the full meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the corresponding U.S. military term?  Or would it be better to have a sentence describing the term initially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="fd40da74-fdbf-4cfa-b399-d6e4073c3bb6" CreationDate="2016-06-28T16:25:07.240" UserId="7369" Text="Easiest way to understand воинская часть for the modern Russian military" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="fd40da74-fdbf-4cfa-b399-d6e4073c3bb6" CreationDate="2016-06-28T16:25:07.240" UserId="7369" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12686" RevisionGUID="72144630-1fd7-4dc6-9c22-86c57e4f28c7" CreationDate="2016-06-28T16:55:55.980" UserId="7310" Text="'Military base' most likely. This is usually a fenced territory with some purportedly complete set of military personnel and/or war machines, planes etc. inside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29652" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="3800e829-d2e6-404a-8f3f-4b54f3780102" CreationDate="2016-06-28T17:12:48.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/747840184666951680" />
  <row Id="29653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="1e79d041-b3a6-433d-bb35-cd0a3605e4c9" CreationDate="2016-06-28T17:13:14.043" UserId="7369" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="Attempting to understand воинская часть.  Initially I just thought it meant &quot;troop group&quot;, but after seeing it in other contexts that didn't fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done the due diligence of looking up this word in dictionaries and on Wikipedia: &quot;организационно самостоятельная боевая, учебная и административно-хозяйственная единица в Вооружённых Силах (ВС)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I still feel like I'm missing a key part of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently &quot;military installation personnel&quot; is what I'm using, but I still feel that is not the full meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the corresponding U.S. military term?  Or would it be better to have a sentence describing the term initially?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 1: &quot;Подготовку спланировать в ходе тренировки в управлении воинских частей - под руководством начальников.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 2: &quot;Управление соединениями, воинскими частями в ходе проведения наступательной операции.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12687" RevisionGUID="34e7e481-0a92-47f9-9371-d6199b96d813" CreationDate="2016-06-28T18:02:12.507" UserId="134" Text="There are two related but still distinct terms: *воинская часть* and *войсковая часть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Воинская часть* is primarily a management entity, similar to a branch in civilian corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has its own bank account, keeps the paperwork, usually is stationed on its own base etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the service branch, it can be a regiment (*полк*), squadron (*эскадрилья*), division (*дивизион*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every such unit has its own name, or, rather, a set of two names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one, the real name (*действительное наименование*) is used internally in the military paperwork. It discloses the organizational structure of the unit, and, as such, is classified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one, the open name (*открытое наименование*) is used when dealing with the rest of the world. It looks like this: *войсковая часть XXXXX*, where XXXXX is an opaque number. The unit uses it when legally incorporating and applying for a taxpayer's identification number (*ИНН*), dealing with civilian suppliers, receiving unclassified mail etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *войсковая часть 12345* is an open name for a *воинская часть*, which is a separate legal and management entity, and this is about all the civilians are supposed to know of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12687" RevisionGUID="b8fd3569-bf36-44ea-acb0-9b1da2018d78" CreationDate="2016-06-28T18:12:45.203" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There are two related but still distinct terms: *воинская часть* and *войсковая часть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Воинская часть* is primarily a management entity, similar to a branch in civilian corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has its own bank account, keeps the paperwork, usually is stationed on its own base etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the service branch, it can be a regiment (*полк*), squadron (*эскадрилья*), division (*дивизион*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every such unit has its own name, or, rather, a set of two names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one, the real name (*действительное наименование*) is used internally in the military paperwork. It discloses the organizational structure of the unit, and, as such, is classified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one, the open name (*открытое наименование*) is used when dealing with the rest of the world. It looks like this: *войсковая часть XXXXX*, where XXXXX is an opaque number. The unit uses it when legally incorporating and applying for a taxpayer's identification number (*ИНН*), dealing with civilian suppliers, receiving unclassified mail etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *войсковая часть 12345* is an open name for a *воинская часть*, which is a separate legal and management entity, and this is about as much the civilians are supposed to know of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12688" RevisionGUID="f87e6db9-79af-4d68-a404-1e0b03a1e8be" CreationDate="2016-06-28T19:51:22.750" UserId="4753" Text="Here is the explanation which we used in an introductory course. One of the things we emphasized was that you cannot treat Russian words as one-for-one replacements for English words. You have to treat them as words in their own right with their own definitions. Therefore we defined the verbs used in these expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лежать--to lie fallen or stretched out. A knife can лежит and will unless you stand it up inside a glass or stick it into the table. I drinking glass will лежит if you knock it over. A dinner plate cannot лежит because it is not tall enough to fall over!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;стоять--to stand in a vertical position, possibly on some kind of foot. A boy can стоит on his feet. Drinking glasses стоят on their bottoms which are a kind of foot. Dinner plates стоят too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сидеть--to “sit” in the sense of occupying a sunk down but still upright position. A boy can сидит on a table or chair, but a drinking glass cannot because it has no legs to fold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These definitions are intended as a starting point for beginners. They obviously will not cover all cases where one must choose between стоять, лежать, and сидеть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also prepared a video demonstration which you can see here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.readyrussian.org/Videos/Motion%20and%20Location/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12689" RevisionGUID="c3982f0f-c487-4542-8aae-965703a06a72" CreationDate="2016-06-29T03:09:25.630" UserId="194" Text="The answer by Avi Gordon is wrong, позабыть does not mean forget multiple things. This verb does not have such connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The semantic difference between позабыть and забыть is in that позабыть means to forget permanently, while забыть means that one cannot remember the thing now even with effort but may recall later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Забыть also can mean forgetting doing something or taking something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: позабыть is permanently, забыть is temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я забыл ее имя. = I cannot remember her name. The reason may be any, my bad memory, untypical name, I heard the name only in passing, long time gone, I parted with her etc.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я позабыл ее имя. = I erased her name from my memory (means I parted with her for good)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29658" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="9651e624-428f-43de-905d-de530cbc2977" CreationDate="2016-06-29T03:42:24.080" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="3d864719-c346-4ce7-adff-d39d3945d1b7" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:15:42.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/748067404358500352" />
  <row Id="29660" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="7970c242-1488-48e7-a1e2-b056fa4e55f1" CreationDate="2016-06-29T09:54:49.643" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="460770e7-d2e3-40c4-8f80-22047568390f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T11:06:53.813" UserId="7464" Text="How can be translated the phrase &quot;Doing what makes you feel fulfilled&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble with the &quot;feel fulfilled&quot; part. According to Google Translator, it would be `чувствовать себя выполнены`, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Doing what makes you feel fulfilled*** implies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Doing what you love:*** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делая то, что ты любишь/ Занимаясь тем, что ты любишь/тебе нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have the feeling that none of theses translations transmits what the expression ''feel fulfilled'' does (that combined feeling of happiness and satisfaction when doing/achieving something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="460770e7-d2e3-40c4-8f80-22047568390f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T11:06:53.813" UserId="7464" Text="How to translate &quot;Doing what makes you feel fulfilled&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="460770e7-d2e3-40c4-8f80-22047568390f" CreationDate="2016-06-29T11:06:53.813" UserId="7464" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="4f769b4a-6d4a-43ab-80e1-c09e2ccbd5bb" CreationDate="2016-06-29T11:38:00.047" UserId="7386" Text="&quot;чувствовать себя выполнены&quot; - это бред :) even if we add the apparently missing &quot;м&quot; at the end.  &quot;Делать то, что приносит удовлетворение&quot;, &quot;Делать то, что приносит чувство удовлетворения&quot; - that's off the top of my head.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12692" RevisionGUID="36bbe568-9d02-4a67-9d21-e706a58636b4" CreationDate="2016-06-29T12:14:08.780" UserId="4481" Text="You can use idiom `занятие по душе` (literally &quot;business for the soul&quot;). Examples:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Найди себе занятие по душе. - Find something, what you will like to do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делай то, что тебе по душе. - Do what you like to do.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12693" RevisionGUID="9ef21618-4af3-4c5f-9d44-21926caae73d" CreationDate="2016-06-29T13:15:43.490" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;fulfilled&quot; is more &quot;воплощенным&quot; here, than &quot;выполненным&quot;. But that doesn't make things much better, I am afraid :)&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;do what makes you feel fulfilled&quot; as &quot;занимайся тем, в чем ты видишь свое предназначение&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12693" RevisionGUID="05a080e4-2493-4fae-8ef3-e94a893913d4" CreationDate="2016-06-29T14:20:28.987" UserId="7413" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I would say &quot;fulfilled&quot; means &quot;воплощенным&quot; here, sooner than &quot;выполненным&quot;, but that doesn't make things much better, I am afraid :)&#xD;&#xA;I would translate &quot;do what makes you feel fulfilled&quot; as &quot;занимайся тем, в чем ты видишь свое предназначение&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;And no, it is not at all the same as &quot;doing what you like&quot;, as the accepted answer incorrectly suggests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12694" RevisionGUID="d924f79c-acf2-4bd0-958a-f5aaadaaad1e" CreationDate="2016-06-29T16:39:47.080" UserId="6539" Text="Думаю, что правильны все версии, все зависит от того, на каком уровне это говорится I believe all variants are correct, depending on the register.&#xD;&#xA;На бытовом:Делай то,что тебе по душе/нравится.&#xD;&#xA;На лекции психолога (A psychologist speaking ):Делайте то, что поможет вам полностью реализовать свои возможности / быть довольным самим собой,принесет вам чувство удовлетворения(bookish,official ) и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, there's no context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="1c854ba3-3b96-4230-91e8-5c45872d6581" CreationDate="2016-06-29T20:03:29.790" UserId="7464" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="How can be translated the phrase &quot;Doing what makes you feel fulfilled&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble with the &quot;feel fulfilled&quot; part. According to Google Translator, it would be `чувствовать себя выполнены`, but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Doing what makes you feel fulfilled*** implies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Doing what you love:*** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делая то, что ты любишь/ Занимаясь тем, что ты любишь/тебе нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have the feeling that none of these translations transmits what the expression ''feel fulfilled'' does (that combined feeling of happiness and satisfaction when doing/achieving something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12687" RevisionGUID="b2eea8a1-99d8-4c20-aac1-d1c36db3a14d" CreationDate="2016-06-29T21:00:56.933" UserId="134" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="There are two related yet distinct terms: *воинская часть* and *войсковая часть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Воинская часть* is primarily a management entity, similar to a branch in civilian corporations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has its own bank account, keeps its own books, usually is stationed on its own base etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the service branch, it can be a regiment (*полк*), squadron (*эскадрилья*), division (*дивизион*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every such unit has its own name, or, rather, a set of two names.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one, the real name (*действительное наименование*) is used internally in the military paperwork. It discloses the organizational structure of the unit, and, as such, is classified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one, the open name (*открытое наименование*) is used when dealing with the rest of the world. It looks like this: *войсковая часть XXXXX*, where XXXXX is an opaque number. The unit uses it when legally incorporating and applying for a taxpayer's identification number (*ИНН*), dealing with civilian suppliers, sending and receiving unclassified mail etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, *войсковая часть 12345* would be the open name for a *воинская часть*, which on its turn is a separate legal entity and a military unit. This open name is pretty much all the civilians are supposed to know of this unit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12694" RevisionGUID="3e00c8c8-316b-40ba-989c-a1c0867f3dec" CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:20:31.850" UserId="6539" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Думаю, что правильны все версии, все зависит от того, на каком уровне это говорится I believe all variants are correct, depending on the register.&#xD;&#xA;На бытовом(как минимум)(not covering the full meaning )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Делай то,что тебе по душе/нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На лекции психолога &#xD;&#xA;(A psychologist speaking ):&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Делайте то, что поможет вам полностью **реализовать свои возможности** / быть **довольным самим собой/жизнью**,принесет вам **чувство удовлетворения**(bookish,official ),etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, there's no context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12690" RevisionGUID="cff72136-31e5-4c0f-bcd3-c3d221eb5a78" CreationDate="2016-06-30T05:21:41.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/748385998262898688" />
  <row Id="29673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12695" RevisionGUID="7c7f8e8d-bacc-475e-b22c-64f86d20c6f8" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:01:14.880" UserId="1640" Text="I'd say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делай то, что делает твою жизнь осмысленной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делай то, что наполняет твою жизнь смыслом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best translation of &quot;to feel fulfilled&quot; that I can think of is *чувствовать себя самореализованным*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="d3e42a4b-4de3-4bb2-af41-3563dbfafa5b" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:05:15.127" UserId="7470" Text="Какой вопрос задавать к слову получится в предложении &quot;Получится ли?&quot; для проверки тся ться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="d3e42a4b-4de3-4bb2-af41-3563dbfafa5b" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:05:15.127" UserId="7470" Text="Какой вопрос задавать к слову получиться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="d3e42a4b-4de3-4bb2-af41-3563dbfafa5b" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:05:15.127" UserId="7470" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="b1df667a-2dba-40fc-92e9-dd5bae233e64" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:11:56.707" UserId="6354" Text="I'm curious about the meaning of **в самом себе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On its own, does it mean *in itself*, but in different contexts it can take on different meanings? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in a sentence like **Ищите причину неудач в самом себе**, the meaning changes to *in yourself*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="b1df667a-2dba-40fc-92e9-dd5bae233e64" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:11:56.707" UserId="6354" Text="Meaning of &quot;в самом себе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12697" RevisionGUID="b1df667a-2dba-40fc-92e9-dd5bae233e64" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:11:56.707" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12698" RevisionGUID="9eb40a23-da01-4740-91d1-7465238e3992" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:37:48.463" UserId="4620" Text="It means &quot;in the subject of this sentence&quot;. In your example, the subject is the person who is supposed to look for the reason, so, &quot;yourself&quot; is the right translation. When used without imperative it would be like &quot;Я ищу причину неудач в самом себе&quot; — &quot;Я&quot; is the subject, so, I'm looking for the reason in myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="31a60e03-7490-4705-a560-acd829c3d513" CreationDate="2016-06-30T09:39:41.160" UserId="4620" Text="&quot;Что сделает? — Получится&quot;. Это будущее время." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29682" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="3801bcca-2e09-41bf-923b-e266200fe63b" CreationDate="2016-06-30T11:16:33.560" UserId="7470" Comment="edited title" Text="Какой вопрос задавать к слову получится?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="92b2bcf4-ad98-4402-9bbc-0313c454fbc3" CreationDate="2016-06-30T11:47:39.047" UserId="6097" Text="&gt; but in different contexts it can take on different meanings? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No! It always means the same thing - the source of the mentioned action. You have to translate it differently because of different usage of words &quot;сам&quot; and &quot;self&quot; in Russian and Englisch respectively. You can say neither *&quot;I did it self&quot; nor *&quot;You did it self&quot; nor *&quot;He did it self&quot;. You must always mention whose &quot;self&quot; did it: **my**self, **your**self or **him**self. That's how English &quot;self&quot; works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you say &quot;Я сделал это сам&quot;, &quot;Ты сделал это сам&quot; or &quot;Он сделал это сам&quot;. Note that it's always &quot;сам&quot; and you must not specify whose &quot;сам&quot; it was (and I think it's even not possible in Russian). That's how Russian &quot;сам&quot; works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12701" RevisionGUID="5884e429-7950-4bb3-bbe6-f9ce44a464f8" CreationDate="2016-06-30T12:21:44.103" UserId="6539" Text="On its own **в самом себе** means **within oneself**.There can be changes in gender **в самой себе** and in number **в самих себе**respectively. Your example is an imperative sentence referring to **you**( **Вы**,a polite form ).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ищите причину неудач в самом себе.(Find the reason of your misfortune /failure within **yourself**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="20193e21-573b-4b03-8c13-895a60eec98a" CreationDate="2016-06-30T13:00:46.923" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed syntax" Text="Какой вопрос задавать к слову &quot;получится&quot; в предложении &quot;Получится ли?&quot; для проверки &quot;-тся/-ться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29686" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="20193e21-573b-4b03-8c13-895a60eec98a" CreationDate="2016-06-30T13:00:46.923" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 2060, 5605 edit id of 765" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="9de747f5-e7e5-452f-942b-7ad253f4e2fa" CreationDate="2016-06-30T13:37:23.620" UserId="4753" Text="I am answering this question even though it is old because it seems to me that though there are already several interesting answers, none of them is simple and direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in -нибудь refer casually to something unknown to the speaker. Words ending with -либо mean something unknown to the speaker, no matter what that might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь--someone or other&#xD;&#xA;кто-либо--anyone at all&#xD;&#xA;когда-нибудь--ever&#xD;&#xA;когда-либо--at any time whatsoever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@FlashCactus says that -либо sounds more official. But this is not a mere matter of style. It is because -либо conveys an idea which officials often need to convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at a dinner party you might be asked:&#xD;&#xA;Были ли вы когда-нибудь в России?&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever been to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But customs or immigration official might ask:&#xD;&#xA;Совершили ли вы когда-либо неразрешеный въезд на территорию Российской федерации?&#xD;&#xA;Have you at any time entered the Russian Federation without permission?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="0005762b-5637-4c88-b558-925acc07aa89" CreationDate="2016-06-30T16:44:17.480" UserId="7413" Text="Depends on where the accent is. &quot;ПолУчится ли&quot; - что сделает? &quot;ПолучИться ли&quot; - что сделать?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11508" RevisionGUID="51e04d83-6875-4e1c-a6df-4f2ec66fe64a" CreationDate="2016-06-30T17:24:33.913" UserId="5617" Comment="Making the answer more precise" Text="You are correct - **человек** is actually the genitive plural form of **человек**. Alternatively **людей** is used as the genitive plural of the same word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is in the neuter past tense because plurality can be seen as a neuter *collective* **whole** in conjuncion with numbers and numerical expressions like **много** *many*, **большинство** *most*, and your number above -OR- as an animate *plural* **group** in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Большинство людей не **знает** (singluar verb referring to большинство)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A plurality of people does not know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-or- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Большинство людей не **знают** (plural verb referring to людей)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Many people do not know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-native, I respectfully defer to the natives to elaborate on my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update from natives:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is great. The singular form is used because it relates to a &quot;multitude&quot; as a whole, or, to give you more precise feeling, to a mathematical meaning of &quot;set&quot;. So, the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На стадионе собралось пятьдесят тысяч человек&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could be literally translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On a stadium there has gathered a set of fifty thousand people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;fifty thousand people&quot; is used here as a noun when &quot;a set of&quot; is omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make your feeling even more precise look at the English word &quot;dozen&quot;. It means 12, but is a noun. It is the very same case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On a stadium there has gathered a dozen OF people&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive relates to (literally): &quot;[Fifty OF thousands] OF people&quot; because &quot;a thousand&quot; and &quot;a person&quot; are nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29690" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11508" RevisionGUID="51e04d83-6875-4e1c-a6df-4f2ec66fe64a" CreationDate="2016-06-30T17:24:33.913" Comment="Proposed by 5617 approved by 5605, 6725 edit id of 764" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="b8278bed-cb8f-4b0c-aa74-1250c2fe5b82" CreationDate="2016-06-30T17:30:00.463" UserId="7413" Text="It actually never means &quot;in itself&quot;, because it always applies to an animate object. Could be &quot;[with]in yourself&quot;, &quot;[with]in myself&quot; or &quot;[with]in oneself&quot;, as another answer put it, &quot;in the subject of this sentence&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;in itself&quot;, one could translate something like &quot;Ответ содержится в самом вопросе&quot; as &quot;The answer is in the question itself&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="ab7ea1de-a5c7-46f1-9cf7-5f52e9963f1e" CreationDate="2016-06-30T17:39:24.907" UserId="7413" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="It actually never means &quot;in itself&quot;, because it always applies to an animate subject. Could be &quot;[with]in yourself&quot;, &quot;[with]in myself&quot; or &quot;[with]in oneself&quot;, as another answer put it, &quot;in the subject of this sentence&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;in itself&quot;, I don't think, there is actually a matching reflective pronoun in Russian, that could be properly applied to an inanimate subject. So, there would not be an exact literal translation in this case, although there are many possible variations. For example, one could translate something like &quot;Ответ содержится в самом вопросе&quot; as &quot;The answer is in the question itself&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re. reflective pronouns, you can actually say something like &quot;Пустыня отвоевала для *себя* часть территории у моря&quot; - Dessert won some of the territory from the seа for itself. But I would still say, that here the dessert is being considered like an animate object in some metaphorical sense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12705" RevisionGUID="0492003f-c0c2-440d-ab50-8f50d30ba139" CreationDate="2016-06-30T18:05:21.233" UserId="6725" Text="Нужно задавать тот вопрос, на который интересующий вас глагол отвечает (а иначе какой смысл его задавать?!). Если не очевидно, на какой вопрос отвечает слово, попробуйте представить, что вы его не расслышали в разговоре и хотите переспросить. А дальше в случае &quot;-тся/-ться&quot; все просто: если в проверочном вопросе глагол &quot;делать&quot; стоит в форме с мягким знаком, то и ваш глагол будет с мягким знаком, а если в вопросе мягкого знака нет - то и в вашем глаголе не будет. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1. Получится ли?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Что сделае*т*?&#xD;&#xA;-- Получи*т*ся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **2. А может ли не получиться?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Может что сдела*ть*?&#xD;&#xA;-- Не получи*ть*ся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **3. Мне нравится эта книга.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Книга что делае*т*?&#xD;&#xA;-- Нрави*т*ся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **4. У него талант нравиться людям.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Талант что дела*ть*?&#xD;&#xA;-- Нрави*ть*ся." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="cf64c003-1abe-4ff2-b60b-daea1e7b7751" CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:01:45.307" UserId="4753" Comment="corrected formatting" Text="I am answering this question even though it is old because it seems to me that though there are already several interesting answers, none of them is simple and direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in -нибудь refer casually to something unknown to the speaker. Words ending with -либо mean something unknown to the speaker, no matter what that might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь--someone or other&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;кто-либо--anyone at all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-нибудь--ever&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-либо--at any time whatsoever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@FlashCactus says that -либо sounds more official. But this is not a mere matter of style. It is because -либо conveys an idea which officials often need to convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at a dinner party you might be asked:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Были ли вы когда-нибудь в России?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever been to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But customs or immigration official might ask:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Совершили ли вы когда-либо неразрешеный въезд на территорию Российской федерации?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Have you at any time entered the Russian Federation without permission?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12707" RevisionGUID="83e33c70-81b1-4845-94a0-6ba287331157" CreationDate="2016-06-30T20:55:22.460" UserId="7475" Text="It is not really that often when you read such things in Russian. But if you really need to connect the idea of Russian past to its name, I would recommend Россия (бывший СССР). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12708" RevisionGUID="a4569c6c-e7ce-4cea-beb9-db62c0cc346f" CreationDate="2016-06-30T21:04:50.933" UserId="7475" Text="Заря из more like a natural event, what you actually see. And рассвет is more like a process. &quot;Рассвет застал их вместе в поле&quot; and &quot;Они увидели невиданной красоты зарю&quot;.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="5f2b83a5-ed6f-41e0-8bbf-59180b08c833" CreationDate="2016-06-30T21:48:49.460" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;заря&quot; and &quot;сумерки&quot; do _not_ &quot;mean the same&quot;, like the accepted answer incorrectly suggests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former, is the red coloring of the sky before sunrise or after sunset. The latter is a specific time of day (there are actually notions of &quot;civil twilight&quot; - &quot;гражданские сумерки&quot;, &quot;nautical twilight&quot;, etc.), and/or a reference to a specific lighting conditions, darker than the daylight, but lighter than night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words do not mean the same thing at all. In fact, the only thing that relates them is that the former usually (not always) happens during the latter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, the problem here is that &quot;заря&quot; has two different meanings. The first meaning, one being mostly discussed here, is, like I said, the beautiful red coloring of the sky that can sometimes be seen just before the sunrise, or soon after sunset. I don't think there is actually a specific English word for this, other than &quot;red skies&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_sky_at_morning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A closely related Russian word (the word is related, not the phenomenon) is &quot;зарница&quot;, which corresponds to English &quot;heat lightning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning is indeed synonymous with &quot;рассвет&quot; (dawn), signifying the beginning of day (or, more widely, the beginning of a new period): &#xD;&#xA;&quot;на заре ты ее не буди ...&quot;, &quot;заря новой жизни...&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;In such context, the proper translation would be &quot;dawn&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="da58bc1d-4ee1-438b-9fe2-fa2e358f9b29" CreationDate="2016-07-01T04:52:46.700" UserId="7476" Text="I have run across two terms, головная боль and болит голова. Do they mean different things, or are they used in different ways?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="da58bc1d-4ee1-438b-9fe2-fa2e358f9b29" CreationDate="2016-07-01T04:52:46.700" UserId="7476" Text="What is the right way to say headache?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="da58bc1d-4ee1-438b-9fe2-fa2e358f9b29" CreationDate="2016-07-01T04:52:46.700" UserId="7476" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29704" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12696" RevisionGUID="de45f271-d241-4d75-9852-fcb52510eb02" CreationDate="2016-07-01T05:33:57.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/748751474176303105" />
  <row Id="29705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="31f5d2a2-19fd-4868-9ac1-759e73d788aa" CreationDate="2016-07-01T05:58:28.557" UserId="242" Text="They mean exactly the same thing, `головная боль` is the headache, the `[у меня] болит голова` is `[I'm] having a headache`. The phrase `у меня головная боль` is, though grammatically correct, quite unnatural. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29706" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="1dae30d0-fbd7-474c-a80b-1bb706613d7c" CreationDate="2016-07-01T06:03:13.943" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the right way to say &quot;headache&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="89d71eb2-5b4d-4deb-ad74-4a1b82d3d13b" CreationDate="2016-07-01T07:33:25.223" UserId="6097" Text="They both mean the same but &quot;головная боль&quot; is more official, you hardly hear it in conversations. It's mostly &quot;у меня (него/её) болит/болела голова&quot; what people say, not &quot;у меня головная боль&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both can also be used in figurative way with meaning &quot;to feel concerned about smth.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;У меня голова болит по поводу завтрашнего экзамена&quot; - &quot;I worry about my tomorrow's exam&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="565cb5b1-541a-4cf4-875b-f5c6fb5861e8" CreationDate="2016-07-01T14:09:25.723" UserId="7478" Text="Головная боль = headache (&quot;головная&quot; is an ajective and &quot;боль&quot; is a noun). Голова болит = (My) head hurts (&quot;голова&quot; is a noun and &quot;болит&quot; is a verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, ones don't say &quot;*У меня головная боль*&quot; = &quot;*I've got a headache*&quot;, you should say: &quot;*У меня болит голова*&quot; (more appropriate) or &quot;*У меня голова болит*&quot; (less appropriate). But it's normal to say in plural: &quot;*У меня головн**ые** бол**и***&quot; that means &quot;*I have regular headache*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't agree that &quot;голова болит&quot; figuratively means &quot;worry&quot;, that means &quot;tired, sick&quot;: &quot;*У меня голова болит от моих соседей*&quot; = &quot;*I'm sick of my neighbours*&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="f3ed193a-ab86-4349-a606-ef3e686be30f" CreationDate="2016-07-01T14:32:13.100" UserId="7478" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Головная боль = headache (&quot;головная&quot; is an ajective and &quot;боль&quot; is a noun). Голова болит = (My) head hurts (&quot;голова&quot; is a noun and &quot;болит&quot; is a verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, ones don't say &quot;*У меня головная боль*&quot; = &quot;*I've got a headache*&quot;, you should say: &quot;*У меня болит голова*&quot; (more appropriate) or &quot;*У меня голова болит*&quot; (less appropriate).  &quot;*У меня гловная боль*&quot; is in 16 time less coomon than &quot;*У меня болит голова*&quot; due to Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's normal to say in plural: &quot;*У меня головн**ые** бол**и***&quot; that means &quot;*I have regular headache*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't agree that &quot;голова болит&quot; figuratively means &quot;worry&quot;, that means &quot;tired, sick&quot;: &quot;*У меня голова болит от моих соседей*&quot; = &quot;*I'm sick of my neighbours*&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12713" RevisionGUID="da918a61-16d1-4f2b-ae10-b05adcde2afc" CreationDate="2016-07-01T14:39:33.233" UserId="7478" Comment="edited body" Text="Головная боль = headache (&quot;головная&quot; is an ajective and &quot;боль&quot; is a noun). Голова болит = (My) head hurts (&quot;голова&quot; is a noun and &quot;болит&quot; is a verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, ones don't say &quot;*У меня головная боль*&quot; = &quot;*I've got a headache*&quot;, you should say: &quot;*У меня болит голова*&quot; (more appropriate) or &quot;*У меня голова болит*&quot; (less appropriate).  &quot;*У меня гловная боль*&quot; is in 16 time less common than &quot;*У меня болит голова*&quot; due to Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's normal to say in plural: &quot;*У меня головн**ые** бол**и***&quot; that means &quot;*I have regular headache*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't agree that &quot;голова болит&quot; figuratively means &quot;worry&quot;, that means &quot;tired, sick&quot;: &quot;*У меня голова болит от моих соседей*&quot; = &quot;*I'm sick of my neighbours*&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12701" RevisionGUID="bfb47ad8-dd0b-4432-b7f5-b5841cd8d4a3" CreationDate="2016-07-01T17:07:06.157" UserId="6354" Comment="Minor tweaks for enhanced clarity and presentation" Text="On its own, **в самом себе** means **within oneself**. There can be changes in gender (feminine: **в самой себе**) and in number (plural: **в самих себе**). Your example is an imperative sentence referring to **you** (**вы**, a polite form).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ищите причину неудач **в самом себе**. (Find the reason of your misfortune/failure **within yourself**.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="1f9cea0f-ab76-46b7-bd26-079d17c45434" CreationDate="2016-07-02T09:29:27.550" UserId="6354" Text="I came across the word **весточки**, which apparently means **message**. There doesn't seem to be much info about it, so I assume it is an unpopular word, perhaps outdated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it still in use? If so, in what context? What's its gender? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="1f9cea0f-ab76-46b7-bd26-079d17c45434" CreationDate="2016-07-02T09:29:27.550" UserId="6354" Text="Usage of &quot;весточки&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="1f9cea0f-ab76-46b7-bd26-079d17c45434" CreationDate="2016-07-02T09:29:27.550" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12717" RevisionGUID="9be01fb3-9632-45e3-917f-19f69add4929" CreationDate="2016-07-02T10:22:33.487" UserId="7482" Text="You can hear this word sometimes in our, Russian, villages, much rare in cities. So, it is used when you wanna, for example ask about some news,messages from your relatives, friend ets..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="6e533a19-dce0-4868-b220-5678cc5eca15" CreationDate="2016-07-02T12:51:07.973" UserId="7483" Text="how do i know when should i use мне или меня &#xD;&#xA;тебе тебя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="6e533a19-dce0-4868-b220-5678cc5eca15" CreationDate="2016-07-02T12:51:07.973" UserId="7483" Text="How to differntiate with кого и кому" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="6e533a19-dce0-4868-b220-5678cc5eca15" CreationDate="2016-07-02T12:51:07.973" UserId="7483" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="04fe68b0-4e2e-49d1-97a8-c6e0aa85717e" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:03:26.637" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;Мне&quot; и &quot;тебе&quot; is the dative case:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &quot;To whom? - to me&quot;. &quot;Кому? - мне&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Меня и тебя&quot; is genitive: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;For whom? - for you&quot;. &quot;From whom? - from me&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Для кого? - Для тебя&quot;. &quot;От кого? - От меня&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12720" RevisionGUID="9d1feba9-c7f7-481c-87d0-95164033d758" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:13:06.790" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;весточки&quot; is plural of &quot;весточка&quot;. This is a feminine noun, diminutive of &quot;весть&quot;, that indeed means loosely &quot;message&quot; or &quot;news&quot;. &quot;Получить весть от ...&quot; means &quot;to hear from ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;It is a bit archaic, and not used a lot nowadays, especially the diminutive form. You are, probably, better of sticking with some more modern equivalents: &quot;сообщение&quot;, &quot;новость&quot;, &quot;известие&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12721" RevisionGUID="f880a5ed-95e7-40f6-bafe-8d82217b5cde" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:19:08.660" UserId="7475" Text="This is a nice cute way to say regardless where you live. You can describe this way any news, information from someone who is dear to your heart, something you have been waiting for pationately. Examples, что-то нет ни одной весточки от моей дочки, а ведь прошла целая неделя как она уехала. Another one. До меня долетела весточка, что с ним всё в порядке и он хорошо добрался.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12720" RevisionGUID="19e7a790-ec58-4c3d-8ecc-ffe4e74a17fb" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:24:32.397" UserId="7413" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;весточки&quot; is plural of &quot;весточка&quot;. This is a feminine noun, diminutive of &quot;весть&quot;, that indeed means loosely &quot;message&quot; or &quot;news&quot;. &quot;Получить весть от ...&quot; means &quot;to hear from ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;It is a bit archaic, and not used a lot nowadays, especially the diminutive form. You are, probably, better off sticking with some more modern equivalents: &quot;сообщение&quot;, &quot;новость&quot;, &quot;известие&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="673bb6b7-fba3-47b7-b326-616461fdbd24" CreationDate="2016-07-02T17:33:58.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/749295061691752448" />
  <row Id="29730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="c2bae19f-e635-4766-8668-ecbbd3cabd35" CreationDate="2016-07-02T18:45:03.483" UserId="5375" Text="Assume that you are talking with a woman whom you address with &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say, &quot;You were here&quot;, which would be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы была здесь.&#xD;&#xA;    Вы были здесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the second one is correct, using the plural rather than the feminine form of the verb. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to say, &quot;You are beautiful&quot;, which would be correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы красивая.&#xD;&#xA;    Вы Красивые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the first one is correct, using the feminine rather than the plural form of the adjective. Is that correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am correct in both of these cases, is there any explanation for this inconsistency? And how would you say, &quot;You were beautiful&quot;? With the plural verb and the feminine singular adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="c2bae19f-e635-4766-8668-ecbbd3cabd35" CreationDate="2016-07-02T18:45:03.483" UserId="5375" Text="Gender agreement for verbs and adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="c2bae19f-e635-4766-8668-ecbbd3cabd35" CreationDate="2016-07-02T18:45:03.483" UserId="5375" Text="|глаголы|прилагательные|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="fea153c9-065e-45c5-b783-51fbc5b6477a" CreationDate="2016-07-02T20:08:31.110" UserId="6539" Text="There's a subject -verb agreement like in your first sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду,ты идешь,он идет,мы идем,вы идете, они идут(see verb conjugation)(present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был(была),ты был(была),он был,она была,мы были,вы были, они были (past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;**вы были** is correct. As for adjectives,you should bear in mind that they denote nouns and thus should agree with **nouns**.If you want to say &quot;You are beautiful(handsome) to a woman, change a bit your sentence to make it clear who is your compliment addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы -красивая (женщина,девушка)(You are a beautiful girl (woman )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивый мужчина (парень,юноша)(You are a handsome man(fellow)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="ec5c1de9-2615-4502-8867-b7327ce1e1ad" CreationDate="2016-07-02T20:14:21.607" UserId="6539" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="There's a subject -verb agreement like in your first sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду,ты идешь,он идет,мы идем,вы идете, они идут(see verb conjugation)(present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был(была),ты был(была),он был,она была,мы были,вы были, они были (past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;**вы были** is correct. As for adjectives,you should bear in mind that they denote nouns and thus should agree with **nouns**.If you want to say &quot;You are beautiful(handsome) to a woman, change a bit your sentence to make it clear who is your compliment addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы -красивая (женщина,девушка)(You are a beautiful girl (woman )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивый мужчина (парень,юноша)(You are a handsome man(fellow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивые люди.(plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a woman is meant Вы (polite form) – **красивая**. is correct " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29735" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="1c18dc82-8dd8-47bb-9624-66e7dfa00b23" CreationDate="2016-07-02T20:33:58.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/749340359294119937" />
  <row Id="29740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="cdb8ca7c-d233-421f-933c-76020f2da992" CreationDate="2016-07-03T09:19:04.113" UserId="6539" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="There's a subject -verb agreement like in your first sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду,ты идешь,он идет,мы идем,вы идете, они идут(see verb conjugation)(present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был(была),ты был(была),он был,она была,мы были,вы были, они были (past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;**вы были** is correct. As for adjectives,you should bear in mind that they denote nouns and thus should agree with **nouns**.If you want to say &quot;You are beautiful(handsome) to a woman, change a bit your sentence to make it clear who is your compliment addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы -красивая (женщина,девушка)(You are a beautiful girl (woman )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивый мужчина (парень,юноша)(You are a handsome man(fellow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивые люди.(plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a woman is meant Вы (polite form) – **красивая**. is correct. But( thanks to Yellow Sky) there should be an important addition.If we have a short form of the same adjective **красив,-а,-о,-ы** which functions as a part of a predicate, the picture will be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы **красивы**. (No matter who it is addressed to,a man,a woman some people,after a polite &quot;Вы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other forms with a short form would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;:Я красив/красива,ты красив/красива,он красив,она красива,мы красивы,вы красивы,они красивы.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="2ad9ea34-073e-4db5-b481-e42a47a95d60" CreationDate="2016-07-03T09:36:18.180" UserId="194" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="This proposed case has distinct forms for many measure units:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает годов       пять лет   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает людей       пять человек   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает вольтов     пять вольт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает амперов     пять ампер   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает граммов     пять грамм   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает битов       пять бит   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает байтов      пять байт   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает каратов     пять карат   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает эргов       пять эрг   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гауссов     пять гаусс   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает радианов    пять радиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает кельвинов   пять кельвин   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает стерадианов пять стерадиан   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает мегагерцев  пять мегагерц   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ангстремов  пять ангстрем   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает микронов    пять микрон   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает децибелов   пять децибел   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гранов      пять гран   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает рентгенов   пять рентген   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает бэров       пять бэр   &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает разов       пять раз&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает аршинов     пять аршин&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает ваттов      пять ватт&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает гектаров    пять гектар&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also many other nouns have distinct forms, such as names of soldiers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive        Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет драгун      пять драгунов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гусар       пять гусаров&#xD;&#xA;    нет улан        пять уланов        &#xD;&#xA;    нет кирасир     пять кирасиров     &#xD;&#xA;    нет сарацин     пять сарацинов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гренадёр    пять гренадёров&#xD;&#xA;    нет кадет       пять кадетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет гардемарин  пять гардемаринов&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And things that occur in pairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive       Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    нет сапог      пять сапогов&#xD;&#xA;    нет чулок      пять чулков&#xD;&#xA;    нет валенок    пять валенков&#xD;&#xA;    нет носок      пять носков&#xD;&#xA;    нет бот        пять ботов&#xD;&#xA;    нет рельс      пять рельсов&#xD;&#xA;    нет погон      пять погонов&#xD;&#xA;    нет манжет     пять манжетов&#xD;&#xA;    нет эполет     пять эполетов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vegetables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive               Numerative&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает баклажан    пять баклажанов&#xD;&#xA;    не хватает помидор     пять помидоров &#xD;&#xA;    не хватает патиссон    пять патиссонов&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="7c784152-747d-4cba-8ceb-b0491441bf57" CreationDate="2016-07-03T12:29:54.313" UserId="6824" Text="In this certain case, you could use &quot;ранее&quot; - &quot;Россия, ранее СССР&quot;. Not mentioning it is actually incorrect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="fc07ae1a-e084-4cd9-a359-6d23b02c33be" CreationDate="2016-07-03T12:30:48.470" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing and punctuation corrected." Text="There's a subject-verb agreement like in your first sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду, ты идешь, он идет, мы идем, вы идете, они идут (see verb conjugation)(present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был (была), ты был (была), он был, она была, мы были, вы были, они были (past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **вы были** is correct. As for adjectives, you should bear in mind that they denote nouns and thus should agree with **nouns**. If you want to say &quot;You are beautiful (handsome)&quot; to a woman, change a bit your sentence to make it clear who is your compliment addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивая (женщина, девушка) (You are a beautiful girl (woman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивый мужчина (парень, юноша) (You are a handsome man (fellow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивые люди. (plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a woman is meant Вы (polite form) – **красивая** is correct. But (thanks to Yellow Sky) there should be an important addition. If we have a short form of the same adjective **красив, -а, -о, -ы** which functions as a part of a predicate, the picture will be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы **красивы**. (No matter who it is addressed to, a man, a woman, some people, after a polite &quot;Вы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other forms with a short form would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я красив/красива, ты красив/красива, он красив, она красива, мы красивы, вы красивы, они красивы.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="fa400de4-31d2-47d8-9b8a-b76c8ee10313" CreationDate="2016-07-03T19:00:03.713" UserId="4238" Text="I had thought that &quot;вслед за чем&quot; was used in the capacity of *куда* (e.g. &quot;Я шел — и вслед за мною шли / Какие-то неистовые люди&quot; --A. Blok, &quot;Он отправился вслед за нею; но толпа разделила их&quot; --Gogol, *Nevskij Prospekt*), whereas &quot;вслед чему&quot; was used for *где* (&quot;Спаси тебя Бог, — говорит она вслед тому, кто ее не слышит&quot; --Olga Sedakova). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So [I thought] I learned from a very proper Russian teacher. However, a search online reveals that &quot;вслед чему&quot; is seemingly quite often used for *куда*--particularly following &quot;смотреть,&quot; but in other contexts too (the [dictionary][1] gives the example &quot;Вершинин погнал лошадь вдоль линии железной дороги, вслед убегающему бронепоезду (Вс. Иванов).&quot;) The same dictionary says, rather confusingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслед — кому чему и за кем чем. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. кому чему (**по направлению**, в сторону кого , чего л. удаляющегося). Смотреть вслед ушедшим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and [elsewhere][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВСЛЕД&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. кому (чему), предл. с дат. **По направлению** за кем-чем-н. Смотреть в. ушедшему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives? Is what I learned wrong? What rule(s) actually govern the use of these expressions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://upravlenie.academic.ru/287/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ogegova/30306/%D0%92%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="fa400de4-31d2-47d8-9b8a-b76c8ee10313" CreationDate="2016-07-03T19:00:03.713" UserId="4238" Text="Difference between &quot;вслед за чем&quot; and &quot;вслед чему&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="fa400de4-31d2-47d8-9b8a-b76c8ee10313" CreationDate="2016-07-03T19:00:03.713" UserId="4238" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|падежи|предлоги|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="9fc0bf42-995a-47d5-a6c9-1ed2a460ce51" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:41:21.383" UserId="7487" Text="There are cases when those two expressions can be used interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g: Я бежал **вслед за** поездом. - Я бежал **вслед** поезду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I wouldn't say &quot;**Вслед** меня шли два человека&quot; instead of &quot;**вслед за** мною&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Maybe it has something to do with animate/inanimate feature of the object. Because *&quot;Спаси тебя Бог, — говорит она **вслед** машине, которая проносится мимо неё&quot;* sounds perfectly fine to me.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="f941b769-5493-458d-bfa0-e39dc533b07b" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:48:11.813" UserId="4481" Text="Interesting question, I had never thought about it before.  &#xD;&#xA;I can see here following difference (in your examples and in all examples, which I can imagine). *Вслед за чем* is used, when one person repeats action of another person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошел вслед за ним. - He went, and I followed him - I repeat his action (to go) and direction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я назвал свое имя вслед за ним. - He said his name, and I repeated his action - I said my name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare second phrase with following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сказал свое имя ему вслед.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the second type of phrase (*вслед кому*) is used, and now it means &quot;He began to go away from me, and I said my name to him.&quot; Here is two different actions: one person goes, another - speaks. The same with your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вершинин погнал лошадь вдоль линии железной дороги, вслед убегающему бронепоезду.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вершинин is riding a horse, train - runs. (Well, both are moving, that's why you can use here *погнал лошадь вслед за убегающим бронепоездом*. but it is a bit different ways to move, so author used *вслед убегающему бронепоезду*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спаси тебя Бог, — говорит она вслед тому, кто ее не слышит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here also different actions: *she* says, another person seems to go away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12730" RevisionGUID="1667e51d-4403-47f3-ab77-27386e108d0f" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:52:21.880" UserId="7413" Text="It's not about &quot;куда&quot; и &quot;где&quot;. More like &quot;after something&quot; or &quot;in the direction of something (going away)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вслед за ...&quot; means &quot;after&quot;. &quot;Я побежал вслед за поездом&quot; - I run after the train (trying to catch up with it probably). &quot;Вслед за первой группой, отправилась вторая&quot; - the second group departed after the first one (not even necessarily in the same direction in this context, though, most of the time it is implied). &quot;Темная машина медленно тронулась вслед за нами&quot; (someone is after us!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вслед кому-то&quot; is closer to &quot;in the direction of (something leaving)&quot;. &quot;Она грустно посмотрела ему вслед&quot;. Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, there is usually something actually moving after the other thing, while in the other case, it's just a sense of direction - somebody is looking it that direction, or yelling in it, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a very clear boundary at all, and also sometimes people just use it differently, either because they don't know better, or because they want to sound original. Your example with &quot;вслед убегающему бронепоезду&quot; is one of those cases. It would have been more fitting to say &quot;вслед за ...&quot; here, but when you are a prominent writer, you get to be a bit more playful with the rules sometimes than the rest of us can afford." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12730" RevisionGUID="77f55d94-3242-4253-830c-368f4238b94e" CreationDate="2016-07-03T21:01:03.807" UserId="7413" Comment="edited body" Text="It's not about &quot;куда&quot; и &quot;где&quot;. More like &quot;after something&quot; or &quot;in the direction of something (going away)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вслед за ...&quot; means &quot;after&quot;. &quot;Я побежал вслед за поездом&quot; - I ran after the train (trying to catch up with it probably). &quot;Вслед за первой группой, отправилась вторая&quot; - the second group departed after the first one (not even necessarily in the same direction in this context, though, most of the time it is implied). &quot;Темная машина медленно тронулась вслед за нами&quot; (someone is after us!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вслед кому-то&quot; is closer to &quot;in the direction of (something leaving)&quot;. &quot;Она грустно посмотрела ему вслед&quot;. Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, there is usually something actually moving after the other thing, while in the other case, it's just a sense of direction - somebody is looking it that direction, or yelling in it, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a very clear boundary at all, and also sometimes people just use it differently, either because they don't know better, or because they want to sound original. Your example with &quot;вслед убегающему бронепоезду&quot; is one of those cases. It would have been more fitting to say &quot;вслед за ...&quot; here, but when you are a prominent writer, you get to be a bit more playful with the rules sometimes than the rest of us can afford." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="6ee55ab6-c956-41f7-bc88-de4d5680f819" CreationDate="2016-07-04T02:38:38.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/749794519986610177" />
  <row Id="29756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="bd22dfe7-c19d-45d9-b368-f78654b0c366" CreationDate="2016-07-04T08:37:39.067" UserId="6539" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="There's a subject-verb agreement like in your first sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду, ты идешь, он идет, мы идем, вы идете, они идут (see verb conjugation)(present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был (была), ты был (была), он был, она была, мы были, вы были, они были (past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **вы были** is correct. As for adjectives, you should bear in mind that they denote nouns and thus should agree with **nouns**. If you want to say &quot;You are beautiful (handsome)&quot; to a woman, change a bit your sentence to make it clear who is your compliment addressed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивая (женщина, девушка) (You are a beautiful girl (woman).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивый мужчина (парень, юноша) (You are a handsome man (fellow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы – красивые люди. (plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a woman is meant Вы (polite form) – **красивая** is correct. But (thanks to Yellow Sky) there should be an important addition. If we have a short form of the same adjective **красив, -а, -о, -ы** which functions as a part of a predicate, the picture will be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы **красивы**. (No matter who it is addressed to, a man, a woman, some people, after a polite &quot;Вы&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other forms with a short form would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я красив/красива, ты красив/красива, он красив, она красива, мы красивы, вы красивы, они красивы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tbe past forms are either &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы были красивы (a polite вы, a verb +a short adjective) or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы были красивой(instrumental case).&#xD;&#xA;There's no change in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="16bc224b-2ea5-42dc-abbe-87e6eca7b455" CreationDate="2016-07-04T09:02:28.477" UserId="6354" Text="I understand the translation of **Мы предлагаем гостям чашку чаю** to be &quot;We offer a cup of tea to guests&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if this is so, shouldn't **чай** be in the genitive case (**чая**)? Why is it **чаю**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps I'm interpreting the sentence incorrectly, or there is a nuanced grammar rule at play here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="16bc224b-2ea5-42dc-abbe-87e6eca7b455" CreationDate="2016-07-04T09:02:28.477" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;мы предлагаем гостям чашку чаю&quot;, why чаю?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="16bc224b-2ea5-42dc-abbe-87e6eca7b455" CreationDate="2016-07-04T09:02:28.477" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29760" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="a51fc2e9-7212-4987-9b5e-e1629b9f8e90" CreationDate="2016-07-04T09:22:36.357" UserId="6354" Comment="edited title" Text="Why чаю, not чая, in &quot;мы предлагаем гостям чашку чаю&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="c64a071a-cac5-4ff9-9b65-26ac5bcf2ba0" CreationDate="2016-07-04T09:37:19.120" UserId="7487" Text="Both &quot;чашку чаю&quot; and &quot;чашку чая&quot; are correct. The difference is that &quot;чаю&quot; is a spoken variant and &quot;чая&quot; is a stilistically neutral one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="6813a34a-7b38-422f-b4cf-3558f691d7fc" CreationDate="2016-07-04T11:43:37.943" UserId="551" Text="(Translation of an [answer in Russian][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of [Partitive][2] ([частичного падежа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2)). It is rarely used in Russian, usually with nouns that mean food or drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить воды (not all the water, but some water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поесть хлеба (some bread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить коньяку (some cognac)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partitive usually matches Genitive case, but most masculine nouns like чай (tea), коньяк (cognac), бензинчик (gasoline), etc., have two forms of Partitive:  чая/чаю, коньяка/коньяку, бензинчика/бензинчику. Both variants are correct, but second one (that matches Dative case) is colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in second case, in a sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно мне ещё чая/чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both variants are correct, because Partitive is used. However in case of &quot;Я бы не отказался от чашки чая&quot; the noun should be in Genitive case and so the correct form should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/196/551&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="6b4fdc8a-5f64-4c58-96fc-ae738f2404e5" CreationDate="2016-07-04T12:45:07.337" UserId="4481" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body" Text="I can see here following difference (in your examples and in all examples, which I can imagine). *Вслед за чем* is used, when one person repeats action of another person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошел вслед за ним. - He went, and I followed him - I repeat his action (to go) and direction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я назвал свое имя вслед за ним. - He said his name, and I repeated his action - I said my name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare second phrase with following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сказал свое имя ему вслед.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the second type of phrase (*вслед кому*) is used, and now it means &quot;He began to go away from me, and I said my name to him.&quot; Here is two different actions: one person goes, another - speaks. The same with your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вершинин погнал лошадь вдоль линии железной дороги, вслед убегающему бронепоезду.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вершинин is riding a horse, train - runs. (Well, both are moving, that's why you can use here *погнал лошадь вслед за убегающим бронепоездом*. But it is a bit different ways to move, so author used *вслед убегающему бронепоезду*.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спаси тебя Бог, — говорит она вслед тому, кто ее не слышит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here also different actions: she says, another person seems to go away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="5c4e5efc-944f-401b-aa0c-ac8fa6544938" CreationDate="2016-07-04T14:06:00.320" UserId="194" Text="Contrary to the answer by Dima, the word (as deminutive) is not archaic. The non-deminutive form is archaic a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Весточки is plural, the sigular form весточка means a **very small** and rare message about something of personal importance, from a place with which the communication is difficult, like whether a relative who lives far away is still alive or healthy. The word has positive connotation, so it usually means a message about something positive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="5741eadb-0bc5-4830-9b66-b7e21d77558b" CreationDate="2016-07-04T14:18:00.170" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="Contrary to the answer by Dima, the word (as diminutive) is not archaic. The non-deminutive form is archaic a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Весточки is plural, the sigular form весточка means a **very small** and rare message about something of personal importance, from a place with which the communication is difficult, like whether a relative who lives far away is still alive or healthy. The word has positive connotation, so it usually means a message about something positive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29766" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="4fcaea4a-a091-46ed-b03b-7e78fb5582db" CreationDate="2016-07-04T20:41:21.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/750066991319359488" />
  <row Id="29767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="2c7b46c8-971e-4a79-bdc9-52441a771f2d" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:03:35.103" UserId="6354" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="Both &quot;чашку чаю&quot; and &quot;чашку чая&quot; are correct. The difference is that &quot;чаю&quot; is a spoken variant and &quot;чая&quot; is a stylistically neutral one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="492361a6-dae9-4ff3-927c-d52e34361e51" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:57:39.707" UserId="6354" Text="What is the best way to express &quot;relative(s)&quot; in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) You're my favorite relative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) How many relatives do you have? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've come across some candidates (e.g., **родные**, **родня**, **родственник**) but don't know what the differences between them are in meaning and/or usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="492361a6-dae9-4ff3-927c-d52e34361e51" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:57:39.707" UserId="6354" Text="Express &quot;relatives&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="492361a6-dae9-4ff3-927c-d52e34361e51" CreationDate="2016-07-05T08:57:39.707" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12736" RevisionGUID="ce203465-6ecd-4e3a-9f1c-270e365d0b12" CreationDate="2016-07-05T10:13:29.637" UserId="6097" Text="***Родня*** in broad meaning is the whole bunch of your relatives, kinsfolk. In narrow meaning ***родня*** can be used for one or several persons - &quot;Он мне родня (he's my relative)&quot;, &quot;Они мне родня (they are my relatives)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Родные***  is mainly the same as **родня**. Note that &quot;родной&quot; has also a meaning of genetic relation (as in &quot;родной брат&quot; (not step-brother). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Родственник*** is one of your relatives, one person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The most natural here is &quot;родственник&quot; - Ты мой самый любимый родственник. &quot;Ты моя самая любимая родня&quot; is also possible but would be very colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Here you can say &quot;сколько у тебя родственников?&quot; or &quot;сколько у тебя родных?&quot; But the second sounds unnatural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12737" RevisionGUID="50aec280-9ce6-4f23-a419-c3f6529916e3" CreationDate="2016-07-05T10:16:37.293" UserId="134" Text="*Родня* and *родные* are collective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Родные* and *родня* are close in meaning, however *родные* more often than not means &quot;close family&quot;, those who you maintain relationship with, while *родня* usually means &quot;extended family&quot;, those who are related to you, even if you are not in contact with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested if a person comes from a numerous family, you'd ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя много родни?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to ask if a person has a relative they can rely on, you ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя есть кто-нибудь из родных?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in exact number of relatives, you can't use collective nouns, so you'd just ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько у тебя родственников?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12738" RevisionGUID="6db26a0c-c5b5-47bf-b2f2-00ba765972b0" CreationDate="2016-07-05T10:30:25.743" UserId="6602" Text="In addition, **родня** and **родные** are familiar words while **родственник(и)** is much formal and widespread word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12367" RevisionGUID="49f4f0cc-6821-4141-ae49-185c3f56a0ac" CreationDate="2016-07-05T11:44:14.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/750294211732340736" />
  <row Id="29775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="f47a625d-dfce-481a-bade-51fc83b9aa3e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T11:49:48.997" UserId="7494" Text="Can suggest next explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say &quot;встала и вышла&quot;, I don't want to take a responsibility for the action (to stand up and gou out). So, she did it by her self.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say &quot;встань и выйди&quot;, I take a responsiblitiy for the action. I command!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29778" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="a67971ce-4bf9-427a-95bb-0af781d7829e" CreationDate="2016-07-05T17:44:14.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/750384809302720512" />
  <row Id="29779" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="f77d1020-1410-4bc8-973e-28328df0bb9c" CreationDate="2016-07-06T02:44:14.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/750520705087930368" />
  <row Id="29784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12742" RevisionGUID="b8556f57-d4b6-4348-a039-96d2c348bfcc" CreationDate="2016-07-07T06:30:25.507" UserId="6824" Text="Using past tense as imperative is aggressive, offensive, and not accepting any resistance. You may understand &quot;Пошёл...&quot; as &quot;You must have been already going&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form can be used in any phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, as Armen said, it can be not offensive if someone says &quot;Побежали&quot;, &quot;Понесли&quot;, &quot;Взяли&quot;, meaning &quot;us&quot;. That may be understood as &quot;Let's run&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="0e32a343-b3f8-4028-8f8a-581153a89377" CreationDate="2016-07-07T07:42:46.103" UserId="551" Text="As Anixx has already written весточка is a short message from &quot;far away&quot;. In the beginning of 2000-ies this word was quite rare, but now it is used more and more often. Here's a graph based on [Ruscorpora.ru data][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![весточка usage graph][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruscorpora also gives plenty [examples of usage][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;(He) did not send letters to relatives and had not received any messages from them.&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сам не писал своим родным и от них не получал весточек. [Олег Павлов. Карагандинские девятины, или Повесть последних дней // «Октябрь», 2001] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What can be more precious for us, emigrants than message from homeland?&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Весточка с Родины ― что может быть дороже для нас, эмигрантов, особенно таких, как я? [Григорий Горин. Иронические мемуары (1990-1998)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example you can see that весточка is not a letter (&quot;We did not received from him nor letter nor message&quot;): &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он меня вообще сильно жалел. И ни письма, ни весточки. Сколько ни добивались, никто нигде ничего нам толком не сказал. [Г. Я. Бакланов. В месте светлом, в месте злачном, в месте покойном (1995)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here the telegram equals to весточка (&quot;I recalled everything from first days of your life till the last message received from you - a telegram, received on June 30&quot;):  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  всё вспоминала от первых дней твоей жизни до последней весточки от тебя, телеграммы, полученной 30 июня. [Василий Гроссман. Жизнь и судьба, ч. 1 (1960)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This message usually is likely to have some written form, or through some third person. For example, phone call here is not a весточка &quot;(We did not receive) anything from Misha: nor message, nor greeting, nor phone call&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; От Миши не было ни одной весточки, ни привета, ни звонка. [Маша Трауб. Замочная скважина (2012)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, весточка, is usually a small message from a person to relatives from far away, in some written form, or sent via a third person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%E5%F1%F2%EE%F7%EA%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v7Ru6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%E5%F1%F2%EE%F7%EA%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="409ee80d-567d-4a4c-83b8-1b420da45370" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:04:44.590" UserId="6816" Text="When both are unstressed and reduced, they would be **ɪj** and **ij** respectively. To me, however, they sound the same because the **ɪ** in combination with the **j** sound makes it sound the same is **ij**, especially when it is said quickly. Are they actually meant to sound distinguishably different, or is it purely orthographical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="409ee80d-567d-4a4c-83b8-1b420da45370" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:04:44.590" UserId="6816" Text="Pronunciation of ей vs ий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="409ee80d-567d-4a4c-83b8-1b420da45370" CreationDate="2016-07-07T15:04:44.590" UserId="6816" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="04322a56-167f-4d90-9d59-cdedf9de0be7" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:46:13.110" UserId="4828" Text="Recently, a friend accused me of misgendering myself by using &quot;feminine&quot; verb endings. I am aware of many situations where there are verb endings for the grammatical gender of the noun, but when should I worry about inflecting words with my literal gender? I seem to recall a situation where this happens, but I can't find the explanation for it at the moment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="04322a56-167f-4d90-9d59-cdedf9de0be7" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:46:13.110" UserId="4828" Text="Which grammatical situations depend on the literal gender of a speaker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="04322a56-167f-4d90-9d59-cdedf9de0be7" CreationDate="2016-07-07T16:46:13.110" UserId="4828" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12747" RevisionGUID="6a0d8742-65f5-44c6-a9ea-604c60508c9d" CreationDate="2016-07-07T17:42:00.970" UserId="194" Text="Never use IPA when speaking about Russian. It simply does not fit. Use phonetic analysis system taught in Russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription of these words are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;синей = [\[с'ин'эй'\]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;синий = [\[с'ин'ий'\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two different phonemes here. Even if they are not stressed they still retain their quality. Only [o]-&gt;[a] changes quality without stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://razborslova.ru/%D0%A1/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://razborslova.ru/%D0%A1/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12748" RevisionGUID="bbee2717-caba-4e9a-91a8-875bbb2627c4" CreationDate="2016-07-07T18:14:32.183" UserId="134" Text="Almost anything that can serve as an adjective: adjectives proper, participles, ordinal numerals, possessive pronouns etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я красивый (m.) / я красивая (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я богат (m.) / я богата (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я обиженный (m.) / я обиженная (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я первый (m.) / я первая (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сам (m.) / я сама (m.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs in past single (etymologically they are participles too):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сделал (m.) / я сделала (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some collective numerals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы оба (m.) / мы обе (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Двое из нас (m.) / две из нас (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я дурак (m.) / я дура (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я певец (m.) / я певица (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several adverbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я женат (m.) / я замужем (f.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я холост (m.) / я не замужем (f.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="b2666c49-f5cc-4b9b-8c08-142b19728d0a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T04:58:46.953" UserId="7507" Text="The phrase 'в человецех благоволение' means goodwill among men. What is the nominative of человецех?  It appears to be old Russian.  Tom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="b2666c49-f5cc-4b9b-8c08-142b19728d0a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T04:58:46.953" UserId="7507" Text="Derivation of word человецех" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="b2666c49-f5cc-4b9b-8c08-142b19728d0a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T04:58:46.953" UserId="7507" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="165d5daa-4ad2-4b30-8406-d94c23742c70" CreationDate="2016-07-08T06:06:27.077" UserId="5008" Text="This is not &quot;old Russian&quot; but Church Slavonic language, obviously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though the Nominative case is just the same as in pre-reform orthography: &quot;**человѣ́къ**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="002f1b76-af64-459c-b9fa-8da80f68c9c5" CreationDate="2016-07-08T07:17:04.207" UserId="6354" Text="What are the various ways to express *nothing* in Russian, and the rules that govern usage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I came across this sentence: Жена умерла, и ему больше **нечем** жить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why **нечем** here and not **ничего**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when is it appropriate to use **ничто** over its more commonly used genitive case, **ничего**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="002f1b76-af64-459c-b9fa-8da80f68c9c5" CreationDate="2016-07-08T07:17:04.207" UserId="6354" Text="&quot;Nothing&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="002f1b76-af64-459c-b9fa-8da80f68c9c5" CreationDate="2016-07-08T07:17:04.207" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="4d6c98eb-babd-4874-9713-0b59406c6656" CreationDate="2016-07-08T08:38:47.297" UserId="5008" Text="This is a colloquialism close to &quot;_nothing to live for_&quot;, yet its literal meaning is &quot;nothing to live by&quot; which is an Instrumental case, so here we use &quot;_нечем_&quot; which is an Instrumental case of a pronoun &quot;_нечего_&quot;. On the other hand, _ничего_ is Genitive case of _ничто_, so it shouldn't be used here by two causes: wrong pronoun and wrong case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the difference between _ничто_ и _нечего_: &quot;_ничто_&quot; is like &quot;void-object&quot;, while &quot;_нечего_&quot; is &quot;no object&quot;. So &quot;_жить ничем_&quot; means &quot;to live for Nothing, to live for Zero&quot;, while &quot;_жить нечем_&quot; is &quot;to have no reason to live&quot; (or, sometimes, &quot;to have no money to live&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning case usage &quot;_ничто_&quot; vs. &quot;_ничего_&quot;, you may want to look at this question: [Why “ничего” and not “ничто”?](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12444/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%83-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE-why-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-and-not-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12716" RevisionGUID="2c46a50c-cbab-4e33-95fa-39c8b930c201" CreationDate="2016-07-08T09:49:32.637" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="1b289c97-d929-4a76-95aa-d5946196484f" CreationDate="2016-07-08T11:25:25.850" UserId="551" Comment="removed signature" Text="The phrase 'в человецех благоволение' means goodwill among men. What is the nominative of человецех?  It appears to be old Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="96d15c15-0a13-4cda-8098-a21b8d4f57f4" CreationDate="2016-07-08T11:30:05.770" UserId="2284" Text="In addition to other replies, it has to be noted that this usage of 'часть' is quite generic. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My grandmother served as an attending doctor in *медсанчасть* (медико-санитарная часть, medical and sanitary department) at a factory; there also were other departments such as *хозчасть* (хозяйственная часть, roughly, household department).&#xD;&#xA;* Firefighters depart for a fire from *пожарная часть* (fire station).&#xD;&#xA;* In a large urban school, the deputy director immediately responsible for organization of classes and lessons is called *завуч* (заведующий учебной частью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traces of this terminology are found in railway professional jargon. Quite a number of their abbreviations consists of two letters where the first letter denotes a service and the second is 'Ч':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ТЧ*, originally 'тяговая часть', nowadays 'дистанция тяги' or simply 'депо', a locomotive depot,&#xD;&#xA;* *ВЧ*, 'вагонная часть', wagon depot,&#xD;&#xA;* *ШЧ*, originally 'шнуровая часть', nowadays 'дистанция сигнализации', a territorial branch of signalling service,&#xD;&#xA;* *ПЧ*, originally 'путевая часть', nowadays 'дистанция пути', a territorial branch of track and building maintenance service,&#xD;&#xA;* *ЭЧ*, 'электрическая часть' or 'дистанция электроснабжения', a territorial branch of power supply service, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="a9ba2a8f-77ff-4171-8423-b377f6b87811" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:25:46.757" UserId="2284" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In addition to other replies, it has to be noted that this usage of 'часть' is quite generic. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* My grandmother served as an attending doctor in *медсанчасть* (медико-санитарная часть, medical and sanitary department) at a factory; there also were other departments such as *хозчасть* (хозяйственная часть, roughly, household department).&#xD;&#xA;* Firefighters depart for a fire from *пожарная часть* (fire station).&#xD;&#xA;* In a large urban school, the deputy director immediately responsible for organization of classes and lessons is called *завуч* (заведующий учебной частью).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traces of this terminology are found in railway professional jargon. Quite a number of their abbreviations consists of two letters where the first letter denotes a service and the second is 'Ч':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *ТЧ*, originally 'тяговая часть', nowadays 'дистанция тяги' or simply 'депо', a locomotive/EMU/DMU depot,&#xD;&#xA;* *ВЧ*, 'вагонная часть', wagon depot,&#xD;&#xA;* *ШЧ*, originally 'шнуровая часть', nowadays 'дистанция сигнализации', a territorial branch of signalling service,&#xD;&#xA;* *ПЧ*, originally 'путевая часть', nowadays 'дистанция пути', a territorial branch of track and building maintenance service,&#xD;&#xA;* *ЭЧ*, 'электрическая часть' or 'дистанция электроснабжения', a territorial branch of power supply service, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="5aff0416-4998-40cc-bcc5-745eefcc5a95" CreationDate="2016-07-08T16:57:55.733" UserId="115" Text="This must have roots in the Church-Slavonic: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не хлебом единым жив человек.&quot; - A man does not live by bread alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that &quot;хлебом&quot; is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian you can ask &quot;Чем он живет?&quot; which can be translated as &quot;What does he live for?&quot; or &quot;What is important in his life?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="d3e93ab1-af24-4a04-9b13-456d6d4df03a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T19:13:57.727" UserId="7369" Text="I'm mostly familiar with тыль in the military sense - &quot;rear of the battle&quot; or &quot;the home front&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I recently encountered the phrase &quot;Тыльная сторона руки&quot;.  Which I understood to mean the back of the hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In what other collocations, idioms, or constructions is тыль or тыльный used?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Can &quot;Тыльная сторона руки&quot; be used in the English idiom &quot;like the back of my hand&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/know+like+the+back+of+hand&#xD;&#xA;.  Or does it only work with &quot;как свои пять пальцев.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. When would you use &quot;тыльный&quot; instead of &quot;задний&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="d3e93ab1-af24-4a04-9b13-456d6d4df03a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T19:13:57.727" UserId="7369" Text="Тыльный - the rear, back or other side?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="d3e93ab1-af24-4a04-9b13-456d6d4df03a" CreationDate="2016-07-08T19:13:57.727" UserId="7369" Text="|перевод|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="09ab7054-0302-4d71-8924-1af130c19f61" CreationDate="2016-07-08T20:33:10.387" UserId="6539" Text="**Ничего** (ничему, ничего, ничем, ни...чём) is used to denote the absence of something, it refers to an  unidentified thing which doesn't exist or isn't present  and is the accusative of ничто. &#xD;&#xA;It declines similarily to the corresponding interrogative/relative pronoun. When it is used with a preposition, the prefix ни- is detached and the preposition comes between ни and the second part of the pronoun (ни...чему, ни...чего, ни...чем). Note that ничто in the accusative case takes the forms of the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;When it is used in a sentence, the verb is negated with the negative particle **не**. Unlike English, Russian sententces can have several negatives together with a negated verb (**ничего+ не+ глагол в личной форме**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Никто ничего не знает.(Nobody knows anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Нечего**( нечему, нечего, нечем, не о чем) is used to denote the absence of an object for an action and is followed **by an infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нечего читать (nothing to read), нечего надеть(nothing to wear).&#xD;&#xA;The English structure will be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing to do. Or They have nothing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides нечего is used in some idioms&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(нечего говорить--it goes without saying) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example belongs to idioms too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему больше нечем жить.(He has nothing to live for).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нечего can also be used in orders with negative meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нечего тут сидеть! - There is no good in sitting here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this negative pronoun does not occur in the nominative case form to express negation, since impersonal consructions in which it is used do not have subject. The nominative form may occur ( нeчто), but it will have a different meaning and refer to an  unspecified objects(see Indefinite Pronouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it is used with a preposition, the prefix не- is detached and the preposition is placed between не and the second part of the pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Мне с вами не о чем говорить.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Почему вы **ничего не** читаете?--Потому что мне **нечего** читать.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="bb938809-cbdd-427a-b98c-e37cfd561b19" CreationDate="2016-07-08T20:44:01.507" UserId="7369" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm mostly familiar with тыл in the military sense - &quot;rear of the battle&quot; or &quot;the home front&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I recently encountered the phrase &quot;Тыльная сторона руки&quot;.  Which I understood to mean the back of the hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In what other collocations, idioms, or constructions is тыл or тыльный used?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Can &quot;Тыльная сторона руки&quot; be used in the English idiom &quot;like the back of my hand&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/know+like+the+back+of+hand&#xD;&#xA;.  Or does it only work with &quot;как свои пять пальцев.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. When would you use &quot;тыльный&quot; instead of &quot;задний&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12757" RevisionGUID="76866077-e1cc-4e10-a6e2-5522a4f3f413" CreationDate="2016-07-08T22:44:29.447" UserId="134" Text="*Тыльный* means &quot;back end&quot; (as opposed to &quot;business end&quot;), the side or end you don't normally use or see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Сейчас в продаже появились зубные щётки, тыльная поверхность головки которых имеет специальную резиновую подушечку для чистки языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Затем взять канцелярскую кнопку, немного загнуть острие, тыльную сторону обезжирить, смазать клеем и плотно прижать к стене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Бодро открываю капот и направляю луч карманного фонарика на тыльную сторону фары.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Тыл* can be used as a synonym to *зад* (as you mentioned, primarily in the military context, but also as a joke or a euphemism):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * К выходу альбома «Encore» Эм побрил пятую точку и принял ответственное решение сняться «ню» ― правда, только с тыла." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4090" RevisionGUID="d03271b9-cd35-44fe-b393-e3ad57e2edaf" CreationDate="2016-07-09T13:48:43.230" UserId="1305" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Generally,the `Руки не доходят` idiom means &quot;Cannot find time to do [something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your phrase can be translated as &quot;Cannot find time to view/read/watch [something (a movie, an article, a leak in the plumbing etc.)]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the given phrase (with `посмотреть`) is an oxymoron often referenced as an example of collocation, which non Russian-speaking people find hard to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="a39e3e1c-f924-4bd5-988f-b1ceac265c9b" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:43:55.513" UserId="4776" Text="According to the UrbanDictionary website, **butterface**/**butter face** is an American slang for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A girl who is hot, except for her (*but her*, *butter*) face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you think of any common slang or playful words with that meaning in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="a39e3e1c-f924-4bd5-988f-b1ceac265c9b" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:43:55.513" UserId="4776" Text="What are some words that can translate &quot;butterface&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="a39e3e1c-f924-4bd5-988f-b1ceac265c9b" CreationDate="2016-07-10T02:43:55.513" UserId="4776" Text="|сленг|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="13a6584f-344d-4fb2-9775-95f36e485817" CreationDate="2016-07-10T08:06:58.437" UserId="7514" Text="Context:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I heard this conversation between a woman and a man. The woman asked the man why in his country many men wear the earring and he explained that it's either because they like to wear it or maybe because they are gay. The woman said that she doesn't like it because it looks strange and the man replied I think so, that's why I would never wear it. The woman then said ты вообще молодец. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, was that sarcasm? What's the exact meaning of ты вообще молодец?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="13a6584f-344d-4fb2-9775-95f36e485817" CreationDate="2016-07-10T08:06:58.437" UserId="7514" Text="What does &quot;ты вообще молодец&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="13a6584f-344d-4fb2-9775-95f36e485817" CreationDate="2016-07-10T08:06:58.437" UserId="7514" Text="|перевод|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="9656e6e7-d574-49e7-ba2b-ed5b29d3a862" CreationDate="2016-07-10T10:30:28.627" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;So, was that sarcasm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That fully depends upon a context / intonation. Could be a sarcasm, but also could be a praise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What's the exact meaning of ты вообще молодец?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as is: &quot;_you're really a good fellow_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="85f53591-886a-4466-b5bc-8e459efc0dde" CreationDate="2016-07-10T11:25:03.233" UserId="7254" Text="As far as I know you put dates in Genetive case, when you are saying something occurred on that date. So, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We met on the twenty-second of June.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы познакомились двадцать второго июля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a grammar textbook I have is saying that the following should not be in Genetive and I can't understand why, when it is saying something happened on that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My birthday  - the twenty first of December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения - двадцать первое ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="85f53591-886a-4466-b5bc-8e459efc0dde" CreationDate="2016-07-10T11:25:03.233" UserId="7254" Text="Genetive case and dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="85f53591-886a-4466-b5bc-8e459efc0dde" CreationDate="2016-07-10T11:25:03.233" UserId="7254" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="f2cabc13-b994-4901-878c-0c9d207538ca" CreationDate="2016-07-10T12:46:07.023" UserId="4028" Text="I have learned that &quot;что&quot; is not used as a relative to an animate noun antecedent. But I found a few sentences that do not follow this rule: &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Эта сестра, что я всюду таскала за собой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сестра, что увяла подобно дивному цветку.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;(These are lines spoken by a heroine in a story. She is talking about her frail sister who has died.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between the above expressions and the ones in which &quot;что&quot; is replaced by &quot;кого/кто&quot; or &quot;которую/которая&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="f2cabc13-b994-4901-878c-0c9d207538ca" CreationDate="2016-07-10T12:46:07.023" UserId="4028" Text="&quot;Что&quot; used as a relative to a personal noun antecedent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12763" RevisionGUID="f2cabc13-b994-4901-878c-0c9d207538ca" CreationDate="2016-07-10T12:46:07.023" UserId="4028" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="49fb771a-6d40-4404-8b2b-8c57da70e877" CreationDate="2016-07-10T12:46:28.557" UserId="7514" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Context:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I heard this conversation between a woman and a man. The woman asked the man why in his country many men wear the earring and he explained that it's either because they like to wear it or maybe because they are gay. The woman said that she doesn't like it because it looks strange and the man replied &quot;I think so, that's why I would never wear it&quot;. The woman then said &quot;ты вообще молодец&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, was that sarcasm? What's the exact meaning of ты вообще молодец?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="97d2f95a-99e8-46d0-b44e-3a3a762478f4" CreationDate="2016-07-10T13:39:06.187" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;I have learned that &quot;что&quot; is not used as a relative to an animate noun antecedent. But I found a few sentences that do not follow this rule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from these you may safely deduce that this rule is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the difference between the above expressions and the ones in which &quot;что&quot; is replaced by &quot;кого/кто&quot; or &quot;которую/которая&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that &quot;_что_&quot; here sounds bookish / outdated / poetic-alike. Normally people do not talk like this. But it's OK for a book." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="166e90d7-49a7-4c71-bbf1-306e6868d593" CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:10:25.807" UserId="7515" Text="The case depends on what the dash stands for (even in English &quot;_My birthday - the twenty first of December_&quot; the dash implies &quot;_is on_&quot;, otherwise the sentence in ungrammatical).  In Russian you could imply &quot;был/будет&quot; (&quot;was on/will be on&quot;, when you talk about a particular occurrence), in such a case it would be genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [был/будет] двадцать перво**го** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your example the dash stands for something like &quot;приходится на&quot; (&quot;falls on&quot;, i.e. every year), and it is an **accusative** case (винительный падеж, because it answers the question &quot;приходится на **кого/что**?&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [приходится на] двадцать перво**е** ноября." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="f873dece-4ab6-4141-a8c8-3bf053c93199" CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:19:22.500" UserId="7515" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="The case depends on what the dash stands for (even in English &quot;_My birthday - the twenty first of December_&quot; the dash implies &quot;_is on_&quot;, otherwise the sentence in ungrammatical).  In Russian you could imply &quot;был/будет&quot; (&quot;was on/will be on&quot;, when you talk about a particular occurrence), in such a case it would be genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [был/будет] двадцать перво**го** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your example the dash stands for something like &quot;приходится на&quot; (&quot;falls on&quot;, i.e. every year), and it is an **accusative** case (винительный падеж, because it answers the question &quot;приходится на **кого/что**?&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [приходится на] двадцать перво**е** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: the dash could also imply &quot;это&quot;, i.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [это] двадцать перво**е** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus being a plain nominative case (answers the question &quot;это **кто/что**?&quot;).  But this variant sounds less literate to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12766" RevisionGUID="07eb0eb6-9488-46f5-bcbb-7224e00cedf6" CreationDate="2016-07-10T19:12:06.940" UserId="134" Text="Both Old Russian and Church Slavonic used genitive to mark a moment in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has survived in Modern Russian in constructs like *первого числа*, *второго (дня месяца) октября*, *третьего дня* (&quot;three days ago&quot;), *четвёртого года* (&quot;four years ago&quot;), and has been fossilized in words *вчера*, *сегодня*, *завтра*, *днесь*, all originating from ancient genitive forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the date answers the question &quot;when&quot;, like in &quot;when did it happen&quot;, you should put it into genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * When did you meet? We met on July, 22th // Когда вы познакомились? Мы познакомились двадцать второго июля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the date answers the question &quot;what&quot;, like in &quot;what day was that&quot;, you put it into nominative or whatever case is required grammatically to answer that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * What is the date were you born on? That date is November, 21st. // Какая дата твоего рождения? Дата моего рождения -- двадцать первое ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * By what date should it be done? This should be done by March 1st // К какой дате это нужно сделать? Это нужно сделать к первому марта.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two can easily be confused, as &quot;what date&quot; and &quot;when&quot; are very close in meaning. So both those answers are in fact valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When it is your birthday? My birthday is (when?) on November, 21st. // Когда у тебя день рождения? У меня день рождения (когда?) двадцать первого ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is your birth date? It's (what?) November 21st. // Какой день твоего рождения? День моего рождения — (что?) двадцать первое ноября." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="70df3ac6-8d1e-41f3-a095-2e978220d376" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:03:32.550" UserId="134" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="As far as I know you put dates in Genitive case, when you are saying something occurred on that date. So, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We met on the twenty-second of June.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы познакомились двадцать второго июля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a grammar textbook I have is saying that the following should not be in Genitive and I can't understand why, when it is saying something happened on that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My birthday  - the twenty first of December.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения - двадцать первое ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29838" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="70df3ac6-8d1e-41f3-a095-2e978220d376" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:03:32.550" UserId="134" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Genitive case and dates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12766" RevisionGUID="04eabef4-fb96-40fe-b4fa-60ae95008226" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:05:02.700" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Both Old Russian and Church Slavonic used genitive to mark a moment in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has survived in Modern Russian in constructs like *первого числа*, *второго (дня месяца) октября*, *третьего дня* (&quot;three days ago&quot;), *четвёртого года* (&quot;four years ago&quot;), and has been fossilized in words *вчера*, *сегодня*, *завтра*, *днесь*, all originating from ancient genitive forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the date answers the question &quot;when&quot;, like in &quot;when did it happen&quot;, you should put it into genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * When did you meet? We met on July, 22th // Когда вы познакомились? Мы познакомились двадцать второго июля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the date answers the question &quot;what&quot;, like in &quot;what day was that&quot;, you put it into nominative or whatever case is required grammatically to answer that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * What is the date were you born on? That date is November, 21st. // Какая дата твоего рождения? Дата моего рождения -- двадцать первое ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * By what date should it be done? This should be done by March 1st // К какой дате это нужно сделать? Это нужно сделать к первому марта.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those two can easily be confused, as &quot;what date&quot; and &quot;when&quot; are very close in meaning. So both those answers are in fact valid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When is your birthday? My birthday is (when?) on November, 21st. // Когда у тебя день рождения? У меня день рождения (когда?) двадцать первого ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is your birth date? It's (what?) November 21st. // Какой день твоего рождения? День моего рождения — (что?) двадцать первое ноября." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="3130412a-e593-4a1f-997d-6202a5f98ca8" CreationDate="2016-07-10T20:07:58.740" UserId="7515" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="The case depends on what the dash stands for (even in English &quot;_My birthday - the twenty first of December_&quot; the dash implies &quot;_is on_&quot;, otherwise the sentence in ungrammatical).  In Russian you could imply &quot;был/будет&quot; (&quot;was on/will be on&quot;, when you talk about a particular occurrence), in such a case it would be genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [был/будет] двадцать перво**го** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;strike&gt;But in your example the dash stands for something like &quot;приходится на&quot; (&quot;falls on&quot;, i.e. every year), and it is an **accusative** case (винительный падеж, because it answers the question &quot;приходится на **кого/что**?&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [приходится на] двадцать перво**е** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: the dash could also imply &quot;это&quot;, i.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой день рождения [это] двадцать перво**е** ноября.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus being a plain nominative case (answers the question &quot;это **кто/что**?&quot;).  &lt;strike&gt;But this variant sounds less literate to me.&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update2**: suddenly realized that the &quot;accusative&quot; part above is incorrect: while it's possible to say &quot;_Мой день рождения приходится на двадцать первое ноября._&quot;, it's impossible to substitute &quot;_приходится на_&quot; with a dash here, so this variant doesn't apply to the original question, and the rest of my answer boils down to what Quassnoi explained in greater detail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12767" RevisionGUID="c0148dec-2f95-489b-be72-5d64ea2fa987" CreationDate="2016-07-10T22:37:06.683" UserId="7336" Text="Can't propose exact form, which means hot body and ugly face at the same time, but ugly girl may be described as `страшная` (literally `scary`, figuratively `ugly`). But this doesn't describe body attractiveness. So, maybe you need to do this additionally, like `фигуристая, но страшная` (`has a slender figure/hot body but ugly`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="ce6c2e3b-28b6-4abe-8faf-3f45dd03f529" CreationDate="2016-07-11T07:24:01.003" UserId="4432" Text="Last week I visited a restaurant called *Пряности и радости* and a shop *Индийские специи*. This leads me to ask: Is there any difference between the words *Пряность* and *специя*? The *Oxford Russian English Dictionary* yields *spice* for both words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="ce6c2e3b-28b6-4abe-8faf-3f45dd03f529" CreationDate="2016-07-11T07:24:01.003" UserId="4432" Text="Пряность vs специя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="ce6c2e3b-28b6-4abe-8faf-3f45dd03f529" CreationDate="2016-07-11T07:24:01.003" UserId="4432" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="a38f6f50-374d-4964-a464-8581c3b014ac" CreationDate="2016-07-11T07:48:25.493" UserId="6097" Text="There was a difference indeed (*пряности* used to mean &quot;spices&quot; whereas *специи* meant salt, sugar, etc). But today these words  are interchangeable. &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="643e5518-d960-47c4-a43d-796b690c2954" CreationDate="2016-07-11T08:13:30.597" UserId="6097" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="There was a difference indeed (*пряности* used to mean &quot;spices&quot; whereas *специи* meant salt, sugar, etc). Today these words  are interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upd:* I found some sources (f.e. [here][1]) which define &quot;пряности&quot; as vegetative seasoning (pepper, dill, garlic, nuts, saffron etc), and &quot;специи&quot; as seasonings which can be produced synthetically  - salt, sugar, vinegar, acids, erc. But I never heard that anyone makes any difference between these two words in everyday life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://aayurveda.ca/spice/difference/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="2ecc1fba-09ca-452e-b884-5bf6fdfce079" CreationDate="2016-07-11T08:47:36.760" UserId="6539" Text="Those, who cook, clearly distinguish between специи and пряности. Специи are substances, which change the taste or consistency of a dish,but they rarely have &quot;aroma&quot;(salt,sugar,vinegar,yeast, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пряности are usually plants or parts of the plants, which add some flavour(aroma) and taste.Those are parsley, dill, onions,garlic,cloves,etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries present them as synonyms,though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="267c2f41-f13b-499d-9f4f-3a5f495fe52d" CreationDate="2016-07-11T10:04:49.343" UserId="551" Text="[This site](http://margoscha.ru/povar/specii/index.shtm) defines the difference in the following manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Специи** and **пряности** - are rather homohenous, they improve or change the taste and flavor of food. **Приправы** - is a composition of специи and пряности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Специи change the taste of food (like salt, sugar, etc.) while пряности usually have flavor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More detailed description as can be seen on the site:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; специи и пряности - относительно однородные компоненты, улучшающие или изменяющие вкус пищи, а приправы являются своеобразной композицией специй и пряностей. Обычно к классическим специям относят сахар, соль, подкислители и прочие элементы, способные радикально изменить вкус блюда (сделать его соленым, сладким, кислым, горьким и т. д.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пряностями называют отдельные части растений, обладающих специфическими вкусо-ароматическими свойствами (перец, тмин, гвоздика и т. п.). &#xD;&#xA;Приправами считают более сложные композиции из специй, пряностей и пищевых продуктов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К приправам можно смело отнести различные соусы, сухие смеси и т. п. &#xD;&#xA;Специи, и пряности - продукты, в большинстве своем не имеющие питательной ценности, а приправы могут не только улучшать вкус, но и повышать сытность блюда." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="b79f1c60-68da-45aa-a006-23b2d64d27c2" CreationDate="2016-07-11T11:25:27.963" UserId="6815" Text="There is no exact same slang word in Russian for that, but you can try `крокодил`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="5f28aca1-64e3-42ae-a24f-2086e5b6be49" CreationDate="2016-07-11T13:38:00.710" UserId="5288" Text="&lt;pre&gt; &quot;Эта сестра, что я всюду таскала за собой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;              \____________A______________/&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally we don't speak the part A as of an animate. More to the point, because we're not linking the verb *&quot;таскать&quot;* to an animate as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next thing, if we substitute an animate object for a lifeless thing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &quot;Эта книга, что я всюду таскала за собой.&quot; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this sounds as a chaotic colloquial speech in a context where the speaker is a little lost, and has mixed feelings about something. This is the way to a correct expression of that.  Literary and written Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &quot;Эта книга,  которую я всюду таскала за собой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Эта сестра, которую я всюду таскала за собой.&quot; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your question is more about whether or not we can substitute the pronoun *&quot;что&quot;* for a living thing. it turns out, while the pronoun &quot;кого&quot; pointed out to an animate man-person, we don't have the counterpart for an animate woman-person. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; Этот брат,     кого я всюду таскала за собой. (okay, given what we have said)&#xD;&#xA; Это  существо, что  я всюду таскала за собой. (okay, too)&#xD;&#xA;*Этот брат,     что  я всюду таскала за собой. (*Ungrammatical, there IS &quot;кого&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;                ^^^_________________________________|&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logically, what is fair for a man-person could be applied to a woman-person, but as long as there is no counterpart to *&quot;кого&quot;*, then it somehow became acceptable in conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the way for literary and written Russian with *&quot;кого&quot;*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; Это говоришь мне ты, кого я всюду таскала за собой? [:astounded](fully grammatical)&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;here *&quot;ты&quot;* can be a woman-person or man-person.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;*Это говоришь мне ты, что я всюду таскала за собой? (Ungrammatical)&#xD;&#xA;                      ^^^_________________________________|&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ungrammatical, because *&quot;что&quot;* pointed out to smth but *&quot;ты&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="32e09a80-8ad5-455c-a755-f88c788f3316" CreationDate="2016-07-11T13:46:11.983" UserId="5288" Comment="improved for being not so categorical" Text="&lt;pre&gt; &quot;Эта сестра, что я всюду таскала за собой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;              \____________A______________/&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally we don't speak the part A as of an animate. More to the point, because we're not linking the verb *&quot;таскать&quot;* to an animate as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next thing, if we substitute an animate object for a lifeless thing,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &quot;Эта книга, что я всюду таскала за собой.&quot; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this sounds as a chaotic colloquial speech in a context where the speaker is a little lost, and has mixed feelings about something. This is the way to a correct expression of that.  Literary and written Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; &quot;Эта книга,  которую я всюду таскала за собой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Эта сестра, которую я всюду таскала за собой.&quot; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your question is more about whether or not we can substitute the pronoun *&quot;что&quot;* for a living thing. it turns out, while the pronoun &quot;кого&quot; pointed out to an animate man-person, we don't have the counterpart for an animate woman-person. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; Этот брат,     кого я всюду таскала за собой. (okay, given what we have said)&#xD;&#xA; Это  существо, что  я всюду таскала за собой. (okay, too)&#xD;&#xA;*Этот брат,     что  я всюду таскала за собой. (*Ungrammatical, there IS &quot;кого&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;                ^^^_________________________________|&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logically, what is fair for a man-person could be applied to a woman-person, but as long as there is no counterpart to *&quot;кого&quot;*, then it somehow became acceptable in conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the way for literary and written Russian with *&quot;кого&quot;*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; Это говоришь мне ты, кого я всюду таскала за собой? [:astounded](okay)&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;where *&quot;ты&quot;* can be a woman-person or man-person.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;*Это говоришь мне ты, что я всюду таскала за собой? (Ungrammatical)&#xD;&#xA;                      ^^^_________________________________|&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;ungrammatical, because *&quot;что&quot;* pointed out to smth but *&quot;ты&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12775" RevisionGUID="74847409-4791-41af-b3d3-6af1fb99dfa7" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:23:06.140" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="A closest pun I can remember: `сзади - пионерка, спереди - пенсионерка`, &quot;a teenager from behind, an old lady from the front&quot;. It's mostly used for misleadingly-dressed elder women, but might indicate hot body and not-so-hot face.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="9b6e2fe7-3a0d-46d0-83cf-2af411e6d513" CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:22:01.250" UserId="4069" Text="В чем семантическая разница между словами «концепт» и «концепция»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Верно ли говорить «концепт добра и зла»? Различие между лево и право — это концепция? Любовь — это концепт?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="9b6e2fe7-3a0d-46d0-83cf-2af411e6d513" CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:22:01.250" UserId="4069" Text="Концепт VS концепция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="9b6e2fe7-3a0d-46d0-83cf-2af411e6d513" CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:22:01.250" UserId="4069" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="18ca8dc4-0196-4165-b73c-d4286521754f" CreationDate="2016-07-11T20:52:26.797" UserId="6725" Text="From my experience, &quot;пряности&quot; is a subset of &quot;специи&quot;. It includes mostly spices used in baking, sweet dishes and drinks. For example, cinnamon, vanilla, ginger, cardamom, cloves, but not garlic, pepper, oregano, etc. There is no strict distinction, however. The same spice can be &quot;пряность&quot; when the speaker uses it to cook bread, cookies or coffee, and &quot;специя&quot; when used in soup, second course or salad. Shop &quot;Индийские специи&quot; is expected to have all &quot;специи&quot;, including &quot;пряности&quot;. But I've never heard these words referred to salt, sugar or, furthermore, yeast... Even if it is correct, that would sound awkward and funny to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12779" RevisionGUID="2216e75a-3055-4a79-a487-b676de04cd52" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:19:08.583" UserId="6725" Text="На мой взгляд, во всех Ваших примерах должна быть &quot;концепция&quot;. То есть, некая достаточно абстрактная система взаимосвязанных понятий,  взглядов, идей. А &quot;концепт&quot; - это вещь более конкретная, примерно как &quot;задумка&quot;, &quot;набросок&quot;, &quot;проект&quot; или даже уже готовый опытный образец, прототип. Например, может быть концепт нового мобильного телефона, автомобиля или космического корабля. Но никак не добра и зла, любви, эволюции, строения атома, происхождения Вселенной и прочих подобных вещей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="98b3f41d-7078-4f85-9060-3d516f78c74a" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:19:11.283" UserId="7254" Text="As far as I know, you use Genetive case when indicating the cause of something and that can be with either &quot;от&quot;, &quot;из&quot; or &quot;из-за&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use &quot;от&quot; when the cause is a physical or psychological change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от страха, от радости&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use &quot;из&quot; for feelings, inciting positiveness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из вежливости, из любви&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am having trouble understanding why the following prepositions are used in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он плакал от счастья.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt; Она сделала ето из любви.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that in the first sentence &quot;из&quot; should be used as &quot;счастья&quot; or &quot;happiness&quot; is a positive emotion, while in the second sentence &quot;от&quot; should be used, as it indicates she did something &quot;because of&quot;, without it indicating she did something positive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="98b3f41d-7078-4f85-9060-3d516f78c74a" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:19:11.283" UserId="7254" Text="Use of prepositions &quot;от&quot; and &quot;из&quot; for indicating a cause in Genetive case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="98b3f41d-7078-4f85-9060-3d516f78c74a" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:19:11.283" UserId="7254" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="c216f26a-b3f7-4c7c-a335-428ae60aa5ad" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:25:24.853" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="As far as I know, you use Genitive case when indicating the cause of something and that can be with either &quot;от&quot;, &quot;из&quot; or &quot;из-за&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use &quot;от&quot; when the cause is a physical or psychological change&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от страха, от радости&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You use &quot;из&quot; for feelings, inciting positiveness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из вежливости, из любви&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am having trouble understanding why the following prepositions are used in the following examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он плакал от счастья.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt; Она сделала это из любви.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it seems that in the first sentence &quot;из&quot; should be used as &quot;счастья&quot; or &quot;happiness&quot; is a positive emotion, while in the second sentence &quot;от&quot; should be used, as it indicates she did something &quot;because of&quot;, without it indicating she did something positive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="7ee39ce6-ee68-437b-99d8-22f1832529f8" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:40:13.603" UserId="6725" Text="The difference between &quot;из&quot; and &quot;от&quot; is the following. When you have some circumstances and make a decision based on them, you are to say &quot;из&quot;. But when you don't make any decisions, you just have circumstances that determine your behavior, use &quot;от&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="1188a817-addc-48a3-9c1c-43a82fe7deae" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:42:41.040" UserId="3713" Text="[Концепт](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Концепт) это больше предметная сторона вопроса, воплощение идеии, или предмет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Концепция](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Концепция) это больше идеологическая сторона вопроса, сама идея или набор система идей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответствующие статьи википедии вполне адекватно отражают различие и способы употребления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тоже время у терминов есть свой спектр и определенная гибкость, и в зависимости от того, какой аспект вы хотите подчеркнуть, могут быть использованы нетрадиционно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концепция добра и зла - это устоявшееся выражение, обозначающее набор ценностей определяющий само понятие, разделяющее безличное на две новые формы, и при дальнейшем развитии позволяющий классифицировать явления, события, предметы и тд по наличию или отсутствию добра и зла(признаков, воплощений). Это не две разные концепции, это одна концепция *о том то* и *том то*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В зависимости от контекста, возможно употребление и *концепт добра и зла*, к примеру в качестве сарказма или шутки, применительно к описанию конкретного человека, к примеру в качестве замены *воплощение добра и зла* по причине того, что *воплощение* более сильная коннотация, оставляющая меньше(или совсем не оставляющая) места для наличия других свойств, особенно когда смешано не смешиваемое(обычно все-таки или одно или другое; когда и то и другое, да еще и воплощение - это что то действительно особенно из ряда вон выходящее)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концепт применительно к предметам, имеет больше окраску неопределенности, временности и возможности изменения в будущем. Концепт, набросок, эскиз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лево и право - как стороны света, это не концепция, это направления. Концепция, если можно так сказать, или элементы этой концепции в данном случае, это левая рука и правая рука - само их разделение, и они в свою очередь позволяют классифицировать стороны света, направления и тд. Те концепция левого и правого в общем и ее атрибуты в виде рук - это концепция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Левоцетрисскоправоультврофиолетовые и все возможные сочетания - определенно образуют систему с некоторыми правилами классификации и базис всего этого, это концепция чего то там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любовь это своего рода термин, имеющий значение в контексте, описывающий некоторое состояние. И как термин не является концептом или концепцией сам по себе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако система представлений или убеждений, позволяющая классифицировать наличие или отсутствие любви, является концепцией(представлением), определяющее место явлений.&#xD;&#xA;К примеру такой пассаж, [источник](http://www.lyubi.ru/phil7.5.4.php):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дантовская концепция любви раскрывается в символической картине Россетти &quot;Любовь Данте&quot;. В центре композиции - крылатый Амур с луком и стрелами на фоне звездного неба. В верхнем левом и нижнем правом углу картины изображены лица Данте и Беатриче как лики солнца и луны. На одном из ранних эскизов к картине была надпись на итальянском языке: &quot;Любовь движет солнцем и другими звездами&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его представление, и место явления в его мировоззрении выраженное символами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концепция это те незримые связи, которые объединяют явления и предметы в систему и определяют их положение в мире. И их можно в какой то степени выразить, определить, через через предметы и явления, и их отношения между собой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="63c5bb35-0573-4bbd-84f5-d21f03839bd8" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:45:28.717" UserId="134" Text="&gt; You use &quot;от&quot; when the cause is a physical or psychological change&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You use &quot;из&quot; for feelings, inciting positiveness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not quite correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*От* means an emotion causes you do something, probably as a reflex, against your will:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Захлебнувшись от возмущения, она дойдёт до двери, закроет её, закроет все двери.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вы ей ещё дата-кабель купите к телефону, она под потолком парить от счастья будет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Люди сжимаются от страха, как только слышат о принятии очередных законов, потому что они, как правило, против улучшения жизни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is usually conveyed using &quot;to make smb. do smth.&quot;: &quot;fear makes people cringe&quot;, &quot;she'll be so happy it will make her fly&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Из* means emotion or feeling affects your decision to do something willingly. It does not have to be a positive emotion, you can use *из чувства вины*, *из боязни* etc:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Спросит из вежливости: &quot;Ну, как у вас там?&quot; ― а ответа уже не слушает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Они должны интересоваться наукой хотя бы из чувства самосохранения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Но ни потерпевшие, ни свидетели не явились на процесс. Из боязни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English this is usually *out of smth.*: &quot;he'll ask out of courtesy&quot;, &quot;they did not attend out of terror&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он плакал от счастья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, sense of happiness made him cry, though probably he did not want to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она сделала это из любви.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, she was in love, and the sense of love made her feel like doing this, at her own will." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="26632b97-5da6-435a-a030-2803093eb3e2" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:47:40.027" UserId="6725" Comment="added 327 characters in body" Text="The difference between &quot;из&quot; and &quot;от&quot; is the following. When you have some circumstances and make a decision based on them, you are to say &quot;из&quot;. But when you don't make any decisions, you just have circumstances that determine your behavior, use &quot;от&quot;.  For example, &quot;он делал это из страха перед наказанием&quot; means that he knew that otherwise he would be punished, and that's why he decided to do it. But &quot;он дрожал от страха&quot; doesn't mean that he knew, that he was frightened, and that's why he decided to tremble. No, he didn't make such decision, he just was trembling in fear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="d50be40b-b475-4390-b89f-e3a462d0cfa0" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:48:03.533" UserId="3713" Comment="fix spelling" Text="[Концепт](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Концепт) это больше предметная сторона вопроса, воплощение идеи, или предмет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Концепция](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Концепция) это больше идеологическая сторона вопроса, сама идея или набор система идей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соответствующие статьи википедии вполне адекватно отражают различие и способы употребления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тоже время у терминов есть свой спектр и определенная гибкость, и в зависимости от того, какой аспект вы хотите подчеркнуть, могут быть использованы нетрадиционно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концепция добра и зла - это устоявшееся выражение, обозначающее набор ценностей определяющий само понятие, разделяющее безличное на две новые формы, и при дальнейшем развитии позволяющий классифицировать явления, события, предметы и тд по наличию или отсутствию добра и зла(признаков, воплощений). Это не две разные концепции, это одна концепция *о том то* и *том то*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В зависимости от контекста, возможно употребление и *концепт добра и зла*, к примеру в качестве сарказма или шутки, применительно к описанию конкретного человека, к примеру в качестве замены *воплощение добра и зла* по причине того, что *воплощение* более сильная коннотация, оставляющая меньше(или совсем не оставляющая) места для наличия других свойств, особенно когда смешано не смешиваемое(обычно все-таки или одно или другое; когда и то и другое, да еще и воплощение - это что то действительно особенно из ряда вон выходящее)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концепт применительно к предметам, имеет больше окраску неопределенности, временности и возможности изменения в будущем. Концепт, набросок, эскиз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лево и право - как стороны света, это не концепция, это направления. Концепция, если можно так сказать, или элементы этой концепции в данном случае, это левая рука и правая рука - само их разделение, и они в свою очередь позволяют классифицировать стороны света, направления и тд. Те концепция левого и правого в общем и ее атрибуты в виде рук - это концепция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Левоцетрисскоправоультврофиолетовые и все возможные сочетания - определенно образуют систему с некоторыми правилами классификации и базис всего этого, это концепция чего то там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любовь это своего рода термин, имеющий значение в контексте, описывающий некоторое состояние. И как термин не является концептом или концепцией сам по себе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако система представлений или убеждений, позволяющая классифицировать наличие или отсутствие любви, является концепцией(представлением), определяющее место явлений.&#xD;&#xA;К примеру такой пассаж, [источник](http://www.lyubi.ru/phil7.5.4.php):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дантовская концепция любви раскрывается в символической картине Россетти &quot;Любовь Данте&quot;. В центре композиции - крылатый Амур с луком и стрелами на фоне звездного неба. В верхнем левом и нижнем правом углу картины изображены лица Данте и Беатриче как лики солнца и луны. На одном из ранних эскизов к картине была надпись на итальянском языке: &quot;Любовь движет солнцем и другими звездами&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его представление, и место явления в его мировоззрении выраженное символами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Концепция это те незримые связи, которые объединяют явления и предметы в систему и определяют их положение в мире. И их можно в какой то степени выразить, определить, через через предметы и явления, и их отношения между собой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="b92978f9-9de7-4691-ae62-155a78c4ebcd" CreationDate="2016-07-12T04:13:59.960" UserId="7523" Text="I was sent a message. I could translate all of it except for this word: прилогаю &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help is appreciated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="b92978f9-9de7-4691-ae62-155a78c4ebcd" CreationDate="2016-07-12T04:13:59.960" UserId="7523" Text="I would like to know what this word means" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="b92978f9-9de7-4691-ae62-155a78c4ebcd" CreationDate="2016-07-12T04:13:59.960" UserId="7523" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="d5e8d96f-948c-4ad8-aa3f-4491853ef1d6" CreationDate="2016-07-12T05:50:29.440" UserId="6539" Text="Прилагать means *to attach*,to add something, give more information.(Alex is right,there's a spelling typo). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29876" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="6abc8e72-8882-4b4f-8731-04cfc47efc09" CreationDate="2016-07-12T06:06:33.527" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Use of prepositions &quot;от&quot; and &quot;из&quot; for indicating a cause in Genitive case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="bd948a47-cc35-45f7-b205-41afaf1fc374" CreationDate="2016-07-12T07:45:03.823" UserId="6539" Text="ОТ + genitive denotes physical and emotional (involuntary) cause :	умереть от рака(to die from cancer), замереть от восторга (to freeze in excitement) , побледнеть от страха	(to pale in fear)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ИЗ + genitive means that emotional cause motivates a deliberate action:	убить из ревности (to kill out of jealousy ), соврать из страха	(to lie out of fear)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="9fc85403-edbf-4d46-b645-433ebdf14a56" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:47:59.393" UserId="7254" Comment="Improved readability by adding paragraphs." Text="The difference between &quot;из&quot; and &quot;от&quot; is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have some circumstances and make a decision based on them, you are to say &quot;из&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;But when you don't make any decisions, you just have circumstances that determine your behavior, use &quot;от&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;он делал это из страха перед наказанием&quot; means that he knew that otherwise he would be punished, and that's why he decided to do it. But &quot;он дрожал от страха&quot; doesn't mean that he knew, that he was frightened, and that's why he decided to tremble. No, he didn't make such decision, he just was trembling in fear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29879" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="9fc85403-edbf-4d46-b645-433ebdf14a56" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:47:59.393" Comment="Proposed by 7254 approved by 134 edit id of 766" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="74acd6e6-9437-4650-af06-94f021e3ccbf" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:49:01.100" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29881" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11051" RevisionGUID="c038aa7a-9a94-458e-8dc8-1c61150afaec" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:52:09.727" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29882" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="33bd9844-10a2-46b0-bdfd-f3eb5e0f1080" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:52:37.450" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29883" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1695" RevisionGUID="cae96454-a943-4085-aad7-9fb2d7fc28f7" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:53:18.530" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="e45bec30-44a3-48fe-96b8-93e5b2596619" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:53:49.550" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29885" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="3c821e84-aad7-41a9-80fe-36ece73a96cb" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:54:16.693" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2087" RevisionGUID="b33f7725-9b7f-45df-a532-1445ed4c649e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:54:37.630" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29887" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="a1e3c013-1bd0-4aa2-925c-d63257f5745f" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:56:23.407" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29888" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="ccd4c713-647c-48fa-b2c9-9aeb6b09835b" CreationDate="2016-07-12T13:59:08.293" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="30cae9ca-4f48-4349-9fad-6e883ee0d3c0" CreationDate="2016-07-12T16:46:33.270" UserId="7369" Text="Having some difficulty understanding the concise meaning of &quot;cопряженная пара&quot;.  What does it actually mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Вентиляция легких - сопряженная пара процессов.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Все станции помех комплекса могут работать в следующих режимах: автономная; автономная под руководством пункта управления; сопряженная&#xD;&#xA;пара; сопряженная пара под руководством пункта управления. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Сопряженная пара — это единство тяги и смысла. Само единство — покой, а если богов разлучить, появится напряжение, начнется движение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first thought was to translate it as &quot;matched pair&quot;.  Evidently (from context) that is not correct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English phrase &quot;matched pair&quot; indicates two nearly identical and complementary items (commonly weapons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Matched pair&quot; is translated into Russian usually as &quot;пара&quot; or &quot;в пару&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this phrase is a specific item of technical jargon (idea supported by a Google image search of &quot;Сопряженная пара&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other translations: conjugate pair, mating couple, mating pair.  These however only further obfuscate the meaning..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="30cae9ca-4f48-4349-9fad-6e883ee0d3c0" CreationDate="2016-07-12T16:46:33.270" UserId="7369" Text="Explain/understand ~ Сопряженная пара vs. пара" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="30cae9ca-4f48-4349-9fad-6e883ee0d3c0" CreationDate="2016-07-12T16:46:33.270" UserId="7369" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="34284142-2a47-44a7-ab35-b1d13967aa1e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T17:36:42.727" UserId="134" Text="I'm only aware of the chemical term *сопряжённая пара*, which seems to correspond to English &quot;conjugate pair&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The English phrase &quot;matched pair&quot; indicates two nearly identical and complementary items (commonly weapons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This perfectly matches your example 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the other examples, those are apparently taken from texts dealing with some obscure mystical topics, and I doubt their authors used some kind of established terminology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12789" RevisionGUID="2e43adc8-3c8e-402c-8abb-fa139244a286" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:27:29.743" UserId="2060" Text="*Сопряженная* emphasizes that the pair constituents are coupled. So *cопряженная пара* is basically just a *couple*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="11a2e5a9-b10e-4b5d-beaf-b052110ce1b6" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:50:02.503" UserId="7528" Text="Hello probably this is duplicate question but I still can't understand the difference in use between  these 2 words?&#xA;&#xA;Нода и нужно &#xA;&#xA;Can you give me some examples please? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="11a2e5a9-b10e-4b5d-beaf-b052110ce1b6" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:50:02.503" UserId="7528" Text="Difference between нужно и надо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="11a2e5a9-b10e-4b5d-beaf-b052110ce1b6" CreationDate="2016-07-12T18:50:02.503" UserId="7528" Text="|перевод|грамматика|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="d75eebb0-ed5a-4b41-b4fd-1d14464ad83e" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:06:56.163" UserId="134" Text="Excepts as in idioms (*надо же* and similar), those two (as adverbs) are complete synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *нужно* is not only an adverb but also a short neuter singular adjective (*это ведро мне нужно*). You cannot replace it with *надо*, however you can with *надобно*, though it's somewhat archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Надо* itself was conceived as a colloquial contraction of *надобно*, with the latter having been the only acceptable form in the literary language before the beginning of the XX century." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="f19028b6-8b57-4702-97b0-41bf95bd259d" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:07:07.743" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Hello probably this is duplicate question but I still can't understand the difference in use between  these 2 words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо и нужно &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give me some examples please? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12792" RevisionGUID="ef7f0e77-0a2a-4c32-8a25-8049c9220d09" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:07:20.150" UserId="1674" Text="Generally the meaning of the words надо and нужно [is the same](http://ozhegov.textologia.ru/definit/nado-znach-1/?q=742&amp;n=187693):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Надо*** (знач. 1), в знач. сказуемое. То же, что ***нужно*** (см. нужный в 3 и 4 знач.).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нaдо* работать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его беспокойство *надо* понять.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Надо* денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They often can be substituted and the meaning of the sentence *in most cases* will be preserved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо поспать *and* Мне нужно поспать (I need to have a rest).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо понимать, что это неправильно *and*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно понимать, что это неправильно. (One needs to understand this isn't correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there are cases when these words in the same context won't be the best choise. E.g. *надо* can be used for expressing surprise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это надо же было так задержаться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word *нужно* in this context would be inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12792" RevisionGUID="c96b9306-8b48-46d7-a3f4-68479200270d" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:13:45.797" UserId="1674" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Generally the meaning of the words надо and нужно [is the same](http://ozhegov.textologia.ru/definit/nado-znach-1/?q=742&amp;n=187693):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Надо*** (знач. 1), в знач. сказуемое. То же, что ***нужно*** (см. нужный в 3 и 4 знач.).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нaдо* работать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его беспокойство *надо* понять.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Надо* денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They often can be substituted and the meaning of the sentence *in most cases* will be preserved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо поспать *and* Мне нужно поспать (I need to have a rest).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо понимать, что это неправильно *and*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно понимать, что это неправильно. (One needs to understand this isn't correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there are cases when these words in the same context won't be the best choise. E.g. *надо* can be used for expressing surprise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это надо же было так задержаться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word *нужно* in this context would be inappropriate or at least would change the meaning of the sentence dramatically.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="16b55a28-6e85-46fa-b99a-2846e441ba40" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:42:15.050" UserId="6725" Text="&quot;Сопряженная&quot; means that this pair is somewhat greater, than just two items put together. There is some synergy between them, i.e. the properties of such pair significantly differ from simple sum of the two items' properties. Often (but not always) each item is useless or can't exist without the other one.&#xD;&#xA;In your example 1 &quot;сопряженная пара процессов&quot; means the two interconnected processes: inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2. They don't make sense apart, none of them alone can help to keep the organism alive. But together they do it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="b62587ae-e2e4-4894-86df-0985d6927b4c" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:51:17.910" UserId="6725" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="&quot;Сопряженная&quot; means that this pair is somewhat greater, than just two items put together. There is some synergy between them, i.e. the properties of such pair significantly differ from simple sum of the two items' properties. Often (but not always) each item is useless or can't exist without the other one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example 1 &quot;сопряженная пара процессов&quot; means the two interconnected processes: inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2. They don't make sense apart, none of them alone can help to keep the organism alive. But together they do it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 2 is about two devices that can work either independently or together, in pair. I have no idea, what they are supposed to do and, consequently, what benefit one can obtain from using them in pair...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 3 seems to be about two gods, who can't function properly without each other... but I'm not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="87c11d32-04d7-4f79-a02e-9765c9069aeb" CreationDate="2016-07-12T21:10:51.547" UserId="6725" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="&quot;Сопряженная&quot; means that this pair is somewhat greater, than just two items put together. There is some synergy between them, i.e. the properties of such pair significantly differ from simple sum of the two items' properties. Often (but not always) each item is useless or can't exist without the other one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example 1 &quot;сопряженная пара процессов&quot; means the two interconnected processes: inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2. They don't make sense apart, none of them alone can help to keep the organism alive. But together they do it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 2 is about two devices that can work either independently or together, in pair. I have no idea, what they are supposed to do and, consequently, what benefit one can obtain from using them in pair...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 3 seems to be about two gods, who can't function properly without each other... but I'm not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, the word &quot;сопряженный&quot; occurs not only in this expression. It is extensively used in maths. For example, &quot;сопряженное пространство&quot; is &quot;dual space&quot;, i.e. the space of all linear functionals on given linear space. Also in chemistry &quot;сопряженные связи&quot; means &quot;conjugated bonds&quot;. For example, in conjugated dienes there are two double bonds separated with a one single bond. These bonds are conjugated, and that's why such dienes' chemical properties differ from properties of other alkenes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="2a02768d-c43a-4ba5-8cf5-da089a6f83bd" CreationDate="2016-07-13T00:16:32.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/753020248929042432" />
  <row Id="29907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="01ca8152-ca24-48f8-a304-afdd23df2cfc" CreationDate="2016-07-13T01:37:50.757" UserId="7413" Text="&quot;Концепт&quot; isn't really a word. It's just a calc of &quot;concept&quot;, that actually means &quot;концепция&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There are some Russian philosophical schools that seem to define that term to depict something different, but it never goes beyond anything that would be easily described by another, &quot;normal&quot; word (like &quot;смысl&quot; - meaning, or &quot;понятие&quot; - notion). In any event, unless you are speaking to a specialized philosophical forum, simply don't use that word. &quot;Концепция&quot; is the proper translation of &quot;concept&quot;. &quot;Концепт&quot; is simply a calc. It's not really a Russian word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="476e3dca-0a7a-4761-91b6-04e4c68e2c67" CreationDate="2016-07-13T01:44:01.743" UserId="7413" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="&quot;Концепт&quot; isn't really a word. It's just a calc of &quot;concept&quot;, that actually means &quot;концепция&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There are some Russian philosophical schools that seem to define that term to depict something different, but it never goes beyond anything that would be easily described by another, &quot;normal&quot; word (like &quot;смысl&quot; - meaning, or &quot;понятие&quot; - notion). In any event, unless you are speaking to a specialized philosophical forum, simply don't use that word. &quot;Концепция&quot; is the proper translation of &quot;concept&quot;. &quot;Концепт&quot; is simply a calc. It's not really a Russian word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, it had first appeared in the language some 400 years ago, but it meant a completely different thing back than, and had completely fallen out of use before reappearing again in our days. It was a completely different word back than for all practical purposes, just happened to be spelled the same way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="fbf09326-d034-436d-a276-bab37709246d" CreationDate="2016-07-13T02:45:39.913" UserId="5600" Text="`пара` can mean just `two`, `a few`, `two of a kind`, a `couple`, or a matching couple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `можно тебя на пару слов?` = `may I have a few words with you?`&#xD;&#xA;- `пара уединилась` = `a couple found a secluded place`&#xD;&#xA;- `там была пара гаишников` = `there were a couple of traffic officers`&#xD;&#xA;- `у меня на руках пара` = `I have two of a kind in my hand` (talking about cards)&#xD;&#xA;- `они - идеальная пара` = `they are a perfect match`&#xD;&#xA;- `найди гайку в пару к этому болту` = `find a nut to match this bolt`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`cопряженный` ([wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сопряжение)) on the other hand is _not_ a word everyone commonly use every day, but more of a domain-specific term that may mean somewhat different if it is used in the context of chemistry, geometry etc. In general it means `linked`, `interconnected`, or more generally `not independent`. However, when used outside of the context where it's well-defined, it may assume any other kind of a specific connection or relation implied by the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, when translating `cопряженная пара`, you may find there are different translation, based not only on the authors intent, but also on the context, domain terminology, and translator's domain knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. `Вентиляция легких - сопряженная пара процессов.` I'd translate as `Lung ventilation consists of two inter-related processes.` Bun not being a medic myself, I wouldn't be surprised if a specialist words it differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="9973f833-d8f8-4de0-aca8-044cfb3e2219" CreationDate="2016-07-13T03:07:02.433" UserId="5600" Comment="edited body" Text="`пара` can mean just `two`, `a few`, `two of a kind`, a `couple`, or a matching couple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `можно тебя на пару слов?` = `may I have a few words with you?`&#xD;&#xA;- `пара уединилась` = `a couple found a secluded place`&#xD;&#xA;- `там была пара гаишников` = `there were a couple of traffic officers`&#xD;&#xA;- `у меня на руках пара` = `I have two of a kind in my hand` (talking about cards)&#xD;&#xA;- `они - идеальная пара` = `they are a perfect match`&#xD;&#xA;- `найди гайку в пару к этому болту` = `find a nut to match this bolt`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`cопряженный` ([wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сопряжение)) on the other hand is _not_ a word everyone commonly use every day, but more of a domain-specific term that may mean somewhat different if it is used in the context of chemistry, geometry etc. In general it means `linked`, `interconnected`, or more generally `not independent`. However, when used outside of the context where it's well-defined, it may assume any other kind of a specific connection or relation implied by the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, when translating `cопряженная пара`, you may find there are different translation, based not only on the authors intent, but also on the context, domain terminology, and translator's domain knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. `Вентиляция легких - сопряженная пара процессов.` I'd translate as `Lung ventilation consists of two inter-related processes.` But not being a medic myself, I wouldn't be surprised if a specialist words it differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="9c79ede4-f884-42f8-9e4c-adb6fb9b0de2" CreationDate="2016-07-13T03:08:55.320" UserId="6539" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="ОТ + genitive denotes *physical and emotional (involuntary)* cause :&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	умереть от рака(to die from cancer), замереть от восторга (to freeze in excitement) , побледнеть от страха	(to pale in fear)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ИЗ + genitive means that *emotional cause motivates a deliberate action*:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;	убить из ревности (to kill out of jealousy ), соврать из страха	(to lie out of fear)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="5f2b3f29-17ac-491d-90c4-636af2fcc130" CreationDate="2016-07-13T03:13:28.123" UserId="6539" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Those, who cook, clearly distinguish between специи and пряности. **Специи** are substances, which change the taste or consistency of a dish,but they rarely have any flavor or &quot;aroma&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(salt,sugar,vinegar,yeast, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пряности** are usually plants or parts of the plants, which add some flavour(aroma) and taste.Those are &#xD;&#xA;&gt;parsley, dill, onions,garlic,cloves,etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries present them as synonyms,though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12795" RevisionGUID="7c7e8322-18de-4a8f-9b42-018b942c10a4" CreationDate="2016-07-13T03:18:26.467" UserId="5600" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="`пара` can mean just `two`, `pair`, `a few`, `two of a kind`, a `couple`, or a matching couple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `можно тебя на пару слов?` = `may I have a few words with you?`&#xD;&#xA;- `пара уединилась` = `a couple found a secluded place`&#xD;&#xA;- `там была пара гаишников` = `there were a couple of traffic officers`&#xD;&#xA;- `у меня на руках пара` = `I have two of a kind in my hand` (talking about cards)&#xD;&#xA;- `они - идеальная пара` = `they are a perfect match`&#xD;&#xA;- `найди гайку в пару к этому болту` = `find a nut to match this bolt`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`cопряженный` ([wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сопряжение)) on the other hand is _not_ a word everyone commonly use every day, but more of a domain-specific term that may mean somewhat different if it is used in the context of chemistry, geometry etc. In general it means `linked`, `interconnected`, or more generally `not independent`. However, when used outside of the context where it's well-defined, it may assume any other kind of a specific connection or relation implied by the author.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, when translating `cопряженная пара`, you may find there are different translations, based not only on the authors intent, but also on the context, domain terminology, and translator's domain knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. `Вентиляция легких - сопряженная пара процессов.` I'd translate as `Lung ventilation consists of two inter-related processes.` But not being a medic myself, I wouldn't be surprised if a specialist words it differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="e8003fe1-ca81-4e13-b149-8bb9497e0d40" CreationDate="2016-07-13T04:49:28.270" UserId="62" Comment="Fixed English " Text="1) The neutral and the most common word order is &quot;**С кем я пошёл?**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;**Я пошёл с кем?**&quot; most likely will be used as rhetorical question, when the speaker doesn't really expect an answer from other people, but answers the question himself. &quot;С кем&quot; should be emphasized with intonation. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл **с кем**? С тобой, конечно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Whom** did I go with? With you, of course!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вектор *a* направлен **куда**? Правильно, перпендикулярно плоскости *XY*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where** is the vector *a* directed? That's right, perpendicular to the plane *XY*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Пошёл я с кем?** can be used to emphasize &quot;пошёл&quot;, typically when it is opposed to some other action. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помню, что разговаривал с несколькими людьми, а **пошёл** я с кем?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I remember that I talked to several people, but whom did I **go** with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) &quot;**Я с кем пошёл?**&quot; is similar to variant 2, it also emphasizes &quot;с кем&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="d04093d5-cb34-46b5-a7f4-a27877c01a6b" CreationDate="2016-07-13T05:05:34.593" UserId="6539" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="**Ничего** (ничему, ничего, ничем, ни...чём) is used to denote *the absence of something*, it refers to an  unidentified thing which doesn't exist or isn't present  and is the accusative of **ничто**. &#xD;&#xA;It declines similarily to the corresponding interrogative/relative pronoun. When it is used with a preposition, the prefix **ни-** is detached and the preposition comes between ни and the second part of the pronoun (ни...чему, ни...чего, ни...чем). Note that ничто in the accusative case takes the forms of the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;When it is used in a sentence, the verb is negated with the negative particle **не**. Unlike English, Russian sententces can have several negatives together with a negated verb (**ничего+ не+ глагол в личной форме**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Никто ничего не знает.(Nobody knows anything).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Нечего**( нечему, нечего, нечем, не о чем) is used to denote *the absence of an object for an action* and is followed **by an infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нечего читать (nothing to read), нечего надеть(nothing to wear).&#xD;&#xA;The English structure will be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There's nothing to do. Or They have nothing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides нечего is used in some idioms&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(нечего говорить--it goes without saying) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example belongs to idioms too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему больше нечем жить.(He has nothing to live for).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нечего can also be used in orders with negative meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нечего тут сидеть! - There is no good in sitting here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this negative pronoun does not occur in the nominative case form to express negation, since impersonal consructions in which it is used do not have subject. The nominative form may occur ( нeчто), but it will have a different meaning and refer to an  unspecified objects(see Indefinite Pronouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it is used with a preposition, the prefix **не-** is detached and the preposition is placed between не and the second part of the pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Мне с вами не о чем говорить.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Почему вы **ничего не** читаете?--Потому что мне **нечего** читать.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12764" RevisionGUID="5d87dbb5-ccf6-4b9f-86d2-230c5a9fbf39" CreationDate="2016-07-13T06:52:28.107" UserId="5008" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="&gt;I have learned that &quot;что&quot; is not used as a relative to an animate noun antecedent. But I found a few sentences that do not follow this rule&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from these you may safely deduce that this rule is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the difference between the above expressions and the ones in which &quot;что&quot; is replaced by &quot;кого/кто&quot; or &quot;которую/которая&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that &quot;_что_&quot; here sounds bookish / outdated / poetic-alike. Normally people do not talk like this. But it's OK for a book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But I still want to get some idea how Russians imagine the speaker's psychological situation when they hear such expressions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see both sentences look the same. That is, &quot;что&quot; itself isn't about love or hate. It is rather used to mark the start of &quot;a poetic description&quot;. And its repetitive use is, no doubt, an intentional anaphora." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12794" RevisionGUID="a5d122fa-d7d9-4479-ad0d-94eab01dff1f" CreationDate="2016-07-13T11:02:37.277" UserId="7413" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;Концепт&quot; isn't really a word. It's just a calque of &quot;concept&quot;, that actually means &quot;концепция&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;There are some Russian philosophical schools that seem to define that term to depict something different, but it never goes beyond anything that would be easily described by another, &quot;normal&quot; word (like &quot;смысl&quot; - meaning, or &quot;понятие&quot; - notion). In any event, unless you are speaking to a specialized philosophical forum, simply don't use that word. &quot;Концепция&quot; is the proper translation of &quot;concept&quot;. &quot;Концепт&quot; is simply a calque. It's not really a Russian word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, it had first appeared in the language some 400 years ago, but it meant a completely different thing back than, and had completely fallen out of use before reappearing again in our days. It was a completely different word back than for all practical purposes, just happened to be spelled the same way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="50f46d41-22ae-4f43-a152-351d709c796c" CreationDate="2016-07-13T12:08:09.977" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="f0fe23a0-b48e-4fa0-a973-3bb8bf0020d0" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:16:09.053" UserId="496" Text="Let's use English words as helpers as we are here on a bilingual resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Надо' is more close to English 'must do', or 'it is required'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Нужно' is more close to 'it is needed'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Couple of centuries ago 'надо' was more associated with 'надобно' and hence were more close to 'нужно'. Nowadays 'надо' sounds as more direct order/appeal to do something, while 'нужно' explains the appeal by a need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо прийти вовремя. - We must come on time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно прийти вовремя.- We need to come on time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Надо - значит надо' I would translate as 'if we must - we must'.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Нужно - значит нужно' (which sounds a bit awkward in Russian) I would translate as 'if it is needed - it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; needed'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying it is completely equivalent: надо-must, нужно-need, but there is some bias, in my mind at least, to translate it like that in some cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29928" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="5018095c-185d-4869-ad05-58b65cbbcc97" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:18:39.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/753337869259902977" />
  <row Id="29929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="7efe3618-8f9b-4060-93c2-2aafa0371592" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:33:58.550" UserId="7528" Text="I can't exactly wrap my head about the &quot;ого&quot; ending in a word for example &quot;русского&quot; when do we add it? And how is it used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="7efe3618-8f9b-4060-93c2-2aafa0371592" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:33:58.550" UserId="7528" Text="Can't understand the Genitive Case in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="7efe3618-8f9b-4060-93c2-2aafa0371592" CreationDate="2016-07-13T21:33:58.550" UserId="7528" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29932" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="1a1e8a98-3c05-4f60-a9b8-99cc9f0b6b1c" CreationDate="2016-07-13T22:25:13.000" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex.S&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29933" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="2143663e-346d-4581-8d4d-e7dc9a446f18" CreationDate="2016-07-14T06:18:48.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/753473806145060864" />
  <row Id="29934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="0262dbcd-4ba1-488c-a446-68ae3884d45d" CreationDate="2016-07-14T09:20:35.980" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="1381f6bd-5811-4dec-83a7-314b663793da" CreationDate="2016-07-14T11:30:40.613" UserId="6097" Comment="corrected tags " Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|падежи|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29936" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="1381f6bd-5811-4dec-83a7-314b663793da" CreationDate="2016-07-14T11:30:40.613" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 6725, 5605 edit id of 768" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29937" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="ed11438f-3734-4263-a60a-11219bd0690b" CreationDate="2016-07-14T15:18:49.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/753609701791821824" />
  <row Id="29939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="2123b781-11e5-4845-822b-5ebb82b56755" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:11:03.137" UserId="7239" Text="In general I think of &quot;to speak&quot; as being &quot;говорить&quot; and &quot;to say&quot; as being &quot;сказать&quot;, but I know this can't be correct, since they are an aspectual pair, and thus their only semantic difference should be that between perfective and imperfective verbs (and the words &quot;to speak&quot; and &quot;to say&quot; seemingly should have translations in both the perfective _and_ the imperfective, not just one or the other).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most languages that I know besides English (German: sprechen vs. sagen, Spanish: hablar vs. decir) there is a clear way to differentiate between &quot;to speak&quot; and &quot;to say&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are the two words translated interchangeably into Russian, the choice between &quot;говорить&quot; and &quot;сказать&quot; coming down to aspect _only_?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="2123b781-11e5-4845-822b-5ebb82b56755" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:11:03.137" UserId="7239" Text="Is there a conceptual difference between &quot;speak&quot; and &quot;say&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="2123b781-11e5-4845-822b-5ebb82b56755" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:11:03.137" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="81cdeac2-daae-43e2-9cd7-580093450d3c" CreationDate="2016-07-14T19:40:24.707" UserId="134" Text="The difference is not purely aspectual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The perfective counterparts to *говорить* meaning &quot;to talk, to speak&quot; would be *поговорить* (&quot;to have been talking&quot;), *заговорить* (&quot;to start speaking&quot;) etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю по-английски // я заговорю по-английски&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю с учительницей // я поговорю с учительницей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no imperfective cognate counterpart to *сказать* indeed (except for archaic *сказывать*), so *говорить* is used as a suppletive imperfective form to *сказать* meaning &quot;to say, to tell&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю ему, что люблю его // Я скажу ему, что люблю его&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю &quot;хватит!&quot; // Я скажу &quot;хватит!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective *говорить* means both &quot;to say&quot; and &quot;to speak&quot; while perfective *сказать* and *поговорить* can only mean perfective forms of &quot;to say&quot; and &quot;to speak&quot;, respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="cb6d75a1-dee9-4d2e-b44d-8d7a74401702" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:01:14.380" UserId="7413" Text="It is the same kind of difference as in English (and in other languages you mentioned). For example &quot;он говорил два часа подряд, но так ничего и не сказал&quot;. It is the same kind of relationship that exists between &quot;смотреть/видеть&quot; (look/see), &quot;слушать/слышать&quot; (listen/hear) etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="855c1858-4d59-48e8-b204-0ec7c9d46bcd" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:46:15.040" UserId="7254" Text="It seems in this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она не верила своему мужу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Man&quot; is in Dative case. Is this because he is the one the verb is &quot;acting&quot; upon, i.e. the receiver of the action or is it another rule, governing the &quot;believe&quot; verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, why is this not in Genitive case, seeing as there is negativity/denial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, why is &quot;история&quot; in Dative in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не поверил ее истории.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be in Genitive, seeing as it is &quot;possessed&quot; by her?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="855c1858-4d59-48e8-b204-0ec7c9d46bcd" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:46:15.040" UserId="7254" Text="не верю + Дательный падеж?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="855c1858-4d59-48e8-b204-0ec7c9d46bcd" CreationDate="2016-07-14T20:46:15.040" UserId="7254" Text="|падежи|родительный-падеж|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="a63c7305-02a0-402f-a0b6-f295af09f25c" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:06:08.760" UserId="7514" Text="What does that expression mean and when would you use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="a63c7305-02a0-402f-a0b6-f295af09f25c" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:06:08.760" UserId="7514" Text="When do Russians use the expression &quot;Ты смеешься надо мной&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="a63c7305-02a0-402f-a0b6-f295af09f25c" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:06:08.760" UserId="7514" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12804" RevisionGUID="ff1d19a5-7415-4a6d-b82a-3cc326f3d947" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:20:58.797" UserId="5753" Text="this just means &quot;are you kidding?&quot; (or even &quot;are you f..n kidding me?!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;this is usually a negative expression and we dont use in friendly talks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="4c7d1aa9-c97e-49fa-8a96-98c96bdae692" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:21:55.930" UserId="7413" Text="They don't really. It means &quot;are you kidding me&quot;, but I have never heard anyone say that, except when translating an American movie.&#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;ты шутишь?&quot; or &quot;ты смеешься?&quot; can be heard somewhat more often in that context, but are still a bit too academic. A simple &quot;Да ну?&quot; would be more appropriate in most cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="82ea0138-2e9c-46f2-a733-beb2f0e66bdb" CreationDate="2016-07-14T22:40:25.287" UserId="5753" Text="When we say &quot;сказать&quot; - we mean to tell few words for a short period.&#xD;&#xA;when we say &quot;говорить&quot; - it is usually much longer.&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу сказать` - means I stand in front of a microphone, and I want to say a few words. `Я хочу говорить` - means I will be staying here for a long time and I will say a lot of words.&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Я хочу сказать маме как я ее люблю&quot;` vs `&quot;Я хочу говорить всему миру как я люблю мою маму&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12807" RevisionGUID="32783b60-7fd8-4da1-ad48-be0e52ee22d0" CreationDate="2016-07-15T05:32:40.420" UserId="7537" Text="The relationship in both of your examples is the same, so the case is the same. It doesn't matter that истории is inanimate. (However, in some circumstances animate and inanimate words may change differently in the same grammatical case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why Dative? Well, we can invent some mental bridges that can help to remember it, but the point is that _this_ sort of relationship requires Dative in Russian. You might call it 'acting upon' (there is nothing 'possessive' in it), but I'm not sure it's 100% accurate. In school, we learned it was a 'give to' sort of relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;истории&quot;, BTW, is not the best example because its Genitive and Dative forms are identical. But compare e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я не поверил ее совету.&#xD;&#xA;(Genitive would be 'совета')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29954" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="7df296a7-1f6b-4964-bfd6-20f217906dfb" CreationDate="2016-07-15T06:19:02.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/753836250784673792" />
  <row Id="29955" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="f37bdf41-26ad-484e-a478-f02ec6314282" CreationDate="2016-07-15T09:19:02.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/753881548655648768" />
  <row Id="29956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="1f11a1d2-3565-4223-8426-d1dc309f5f9f" CreationDate="2016-07-15T10:52:21.320" UserId="7413" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="They don't really. It means &quot;are you kidding me&quot;, but I have never heard anyone say that, except when (poorly) translating an American movie.&#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;ты шутишь?&quot; or &quot;ты смеешься?&quot; can be heard somewhat more often in that context, but are still a bit too academic. A simple &quot;Да ну?&quot; would be more appropriate in most cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="4d313ac2-832d-4883-83b5-f668478b7e18" CreationDate="2016-07-15T11:26:20.610" UserId="4560" Text="&gt; Shouldn't it be in Genitive, seeing as it is &quot;possessed&quot; by her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not how genitive works. It marks the possessor without modifying the possessee in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Man&quot; is in Dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Husband&quot; actually; &quot;man&quot; is **мужчина**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this because he is the one the verb is &quot;acting&quot; upon, i.e. the receiver of the action or is it another rule, governing the &quot;believe&quot; verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it's just a specific verb governed in a specific way. Same as in English, you listen *to* someone, rather than &quot;listen them&quot;, for what seems to be no particular reason — while in Russian, the object of **слушать** is in the accusative, not dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a tendency for verbs describing states of mental receptiveness — **верить**, **доверять** &quot;to trust&quot;, **внимать** &quot;to heed&quot; — to take a dative object, but while it may explain the original reasons, it's not really useful in predicting whether you'll need dative or accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition, why is this not in Genitive case, seeing as there is negativity/denial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The negative genitive only comes into play where the affirmative would use accusative — meaning, additionally, that the point is moot with masculine animate nouns such as **муж**, since their genitives and accusatives are identical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12809" RevisionGUID="723aceda-7085-4de0-9d60-e00282d17b15" CreationDate="2016-07-15T11:35:06.637" UserId="1674" Text="It can be used as expression of disbelief or asking if person is joking (also with negative tone). In this case the meaning will consist of 2 parts (from [here](http://www.vedu.ru/expdic/32557/)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; над кем-чем. То же, что **насмехаться**.  &#xD;&#xA; Смеяться над глупостью.  &#xD;&#xA;*Смеяться, право, не грешно над тем, что кажется смешно (афоризм).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be a kind of the same meaning as &quot;mocking&quot;. And the second:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перен., над кем-чем.  &#xD;&#xA;Пренебрегать кем-нибудь - чем-нибудь, не знать страха перед кем-нибудь - чем-нибудь.  &#xD;&#xA;*Смеяться над опасностью или перед лицом опасности.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Ozhegov dictionary](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&amp;all=x), these meanings are combined into one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  над кем-чем; (устар.) кому-чему.  &#xD;&#xA;*Насмехаться, издеваться над кем-л., чем-л.*  &#xD;&#xA;Смеяться над собой.  &#xD;&#xA;Смеяться над глупостью.  &#xD;&#xA;Смеяться над доверчивостью.  &#xD;&#xA;Смеяться над приятелями. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be also used when expressing misbelief, misunderstanding of someone else taste / opinions, like asking yourself &quot;..Who could really need these things when they are so [poorly / wrong / etc] done ?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot; ...Старая шинель и нещегольское платье показывали в нем того человека, который с самоотвержением предан был своему труду и не имел времени заботиться о своем наряде[...] Он остановился перед лавкою и сперва *внутренно смеялся* над этими уродливыми картинами. Наконец овладело им невольное размышление: он стал думать о том, кому бы нужны были эти произведения.  &quot;  &#xD;&#xA;*Н.В. Гоголь, &quot;Портрет&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word is used in this meaning in formal talking mostly. I wouldn't say it is inappropriate to use it in friends' talk; however to soften the meaning it's better not to use &quot;надо мной&quot; and leave only verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх ты, толстоносый! Сосульку, тряпку принял за важного человека! [...] Вот что обидно! Чина, звания не пощадит, и будут все скалить зубы и бить в ладоши. [...]  &#xD;&#xA;Чему смеетесь? — Над собою смеетесь!.. Эх вы!..  &#xD;&#xA;*Н. В. Гоголь. &quot;Ревизор&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="c0c43e16-cad2-4ba2-bade-fe5f5cea97b8" CreationDate="2016-07-15T14:30:21.563" UserId="4903" Text="It is Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative single case was &quot;человѣкъ&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nominative plural case was &quot;человѣцы&quot; or &quot;человѣци&quot; (both spellings were used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an orthographic reform of Russian Language in 1918 in which the letter &quot;ѣ&quot; was replaced by &quot;е&quot;, and letter &quot;ъ&quot; at the end of the noun was removed. This reform didn't apply to Church Slavonic. Nevertheless when scripture is quoted outside of church texts modern orthography is used.  Hence producing &quot;человецы&quot; and &quot;челевецех&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12811" RevisionGUID="b6d5ef5f-50b6-4bd1-9e09-877d800d4afa" CreationDate="2016-07-15T17:20:13.097" UserId="5329" Text="As a native I was able to hear the difference between `синий дом` - `с синей крышей` while saying it multiple times as carelessly as I could. It seems minor, but I can confirm that tongue is in different positions in these cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say `-ий` your tongue moves slightly closer to the top of a mouth, and when you say `-ей` tongue moves down a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say `синей дом с синий крышей` in a normal voice to a person who doesn't know me, he will likely think that it's some sort of my dialect. My friends probably will notice it, but no one will say anything about it and many would not realize they have noticed it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12792" RevisionGUID="da1cbd39-37b1-4572-a02c-687443ae5da9" CreationDate="2016-07-15T19:48:54.047" UserId="1674" Comment="I'm tired to explain that &quot;Ну надо же&quot; is acceptable while &quot;Ну нужно же&quot; is NOT. Hope edit will make all clearer" Text="Generally the meaning of the words надо and нужно [is the same](http://ozhegov.textologia.ru/definit/nado-znach-1/?q=742&amp;n=187693):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Надо*** (знач. 1), в знач. сказуемое. То же, что ***нужно*** (см. нужный в 3 и 4 знач.).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нaдо* работать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его беспокойство *надо* понять.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Надо* денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They often can be substituted and the meaning of the sentence *in most cases* will be preserved.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо поспать *and* Мне нужно поспать (I need to have a rest).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо понимать, что это неправильно *and*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно понимать, что это неправильно. (One needs to understand this isn't correct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there are cases when these words in the same context won't be the best choise. E.g. *надо* can be used for expressing surprise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это надо же было так задержаться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Using of &quot;Нужно&quot; in this context is not the best choice. It is not known to be told / written in this meaning from any trusted source (like explanatory dictionaries); hence translating of such can be quite a big problem for not native Russian speaker. There is a reference with quite disputed but present usage of word &quot;нужно&quot; *probably* as an idiom like &quot;надо же&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Эту историю Пришвин вскоре описал в рассказе «Сопка Маира», [...]  а вот с романом вышла неувязка: услыхав пришвинское «Детство», Семашко воскликнул:&#xD;&#xA;— Нужно же написать такую мрачную вещь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note though that it is not well-known form and likely can be understood not as expected (and hence the sense of the whole sentence would be dramatically changed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно же было написать так! - It was required to write like that!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the region of usage and difference in language evolution in different areas you may not be understood like you intended to; it's better to not just use it in this context at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="cf46ceda-16e8-4e65-a931-d98fdcf3873f" CreationDate="2016-07-16T10:46:53.110" UserId="7543" Text="I hope to be making more progress soon but forgive me my humble beginnings. I have great difficulty reading cursive lettering sometimes, which is somewhat of a starting point. I have this single line which is actually very important for me to understand, so are you able to aid me unpicking it? I would be most grateful. I have had to upload it to another page because I can't see how to upload images here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo?album_id=4306062736&amp;photo_id=21263228403#21263228403&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="cf46ceda-16e8-4e65-a931-d98fdcf3873f" CreationDate="2016-07-16T10:46:53.110" UserId="7543" Text="Difficulty reading cursive lettering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="cf46ceda-16e8-4e65-a931-d98fdcf3873f" CreationDate="2016-07-16T10:46:53.110" UserId="7543" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="40da8e6d-57df-41fc-82a2-ff029c021c8a" CreationDate="2016-07-16T11:27:43.913" UserId="7543" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="I hope to be making more progress soon but forgive me my humble beginnings. I have great difficulty reading cursive lettering sometimes, which is somewhat of a starting point. I have this single line which is actually very important for me to understand, so are you able to aid me unpicking it? I would be most grateful. I have had to upload it to another page because I can't see how to upload images here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo?album_id=4306062736&amp;photo_id=21263228403#21263228403&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So sorry, the link has disappeared. It is&#xD;&#xA;[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2akmuyt.jpg[/IMG]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12813" RevisionGUID="26fa489f-c3fc-4c4d-ba3d-126bd1789826" CreationDate="2016-07-16T11:41:02.520" UserId="4481" Text="First three letters is `СПБ` - unofficial abbreviation of `Санкт-Перербург`. Next: `Московский пр. д 95` - Moskovskij avenue(`проспект` - I'm not sure in correct translation), building 95." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="0ee3c31a-cfae-4922-9c4b-d83b1df020cf" CreationDate="2016-07-16T21:38:29.180" UserId="7544" Text="I have to admit it that cursive handwriting is very often of very bad quality, especially if made by someone who has to do a lot of paperwork as a part of his job. So it's totally OK if you struggle with undestanding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different people often write the same letters completely differently, thus making the letters seem to be the same. Some occasionally write the same letter in 2 or even more different ways (for no reason). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice would be: practice on printed texts in *Italic fonts*. That should help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12815" RevisionGUID="7f9fead0-35a9-4e29-9d28-21e40f0520b6" CreationDate="2016-07-16T22:12:47.860" UserId="7544" Text="I think, this should be explained word by word.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ты&quot; is &quot;you&quot;, that's clear and easy.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Молодец&quot; with the accent placed on the last vowel primarily means &quot;a good person&quot;, it is kinda frequently used to praise someone. The phrase &quot;Ты молодец!&quot; means &quot;You are good!&quot; or &quot;Your effort was good&quot;, or &quot;You performed well&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The same letters with accent placed on the _first_ vowel is used to describe a man (not a woman!) who looks brave and strong, and is very archaic. Frequently used in tales as &quot;добрый молодец&quot; to describe the epic protagonist, the word &quot;добрый&quot; meaning more &quot;хороший&quot; (&quot;good&quot;) than &quot;добрый&quot; (&quot;kind&quot;) in this case.. Don't mistake one word for another, though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вообще&quot; is a more complicated word with meanings changing strongly from context to context. Check [this](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5) for a lot of info. In this particular case it is used to intensify the sentence, the meaning could be explained as &quot;most of the time&quot;, &quot;absolutely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by @Matt already, it is unclear if it was sarcasm, you can only tell this by context and intonation.&#xD;&#xA;Hope that it helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12816" RevisionGUID="e9f60a4e-dc4b-40ef-9297-235fa3e3d3e7" CreationDate="2016-07-16T23:19:42.030" UserId="7544" Text="To put it simpler, I will try to link both finitive and infinitive forms of a verb with tenses that you would use in English language.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this probably applies to any of such a pair of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuous and Perfect Continuous tenses all would be translated through the useof imperfective form (**вставать**, **делать**). Such as &quot;I am standing up right now!&quot; (&quot;Я **встаю** прямо сейчас!&quot;) or &quot;I will be standing up when you come in.&quot; (&quot;Я **буду вставать**, когда ты войдёшь.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the Perfect tenses, as you would guess, are translated with the perfective form, &quot;**встать**, **сделать**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Simple (Indefinite) tenses, it is not that &quot;simple&quot;. :) Present Indefinite I can clearly link to the imperfective form, I couldn't come up with any examples of the opposite. For example, (&quot;I [wake up/leave my bed] at 7 a.m. every day.&quot;, &quot;Я каждый день **встаю** в 7 утра&quot;). With Past and Future Indefinite tenses you should check if you can substitute this tense for any other without losing the meaning. Let's call it &quot;defining&quot; an Indefinite tense. :) If you can, go ahead and use the instructions provided above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes you can tell it by pairs of finitive and infinitive words in English. For example, &quot;do&quot; is always &quot;делать&quot; and never &quot;сделать&quot;, which is always &quot;make&quot;. Not in the situation you asked about, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If even this doesn't help, try to understand if the action itself is spoken about as finished or unfinished. It is very important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with your learning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12817" RevisionGUID="7def7dc6-b560-45c3-9552-bd2c510d6a3b" CreationDate="2016-07-17T02:41:25.703" UserId="1236" Text="Without long explanations: верить + Dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="4e8a2b3e-38d8-4b78-89c6-a7799960a6e4" CreationDate="2016-07-17T03:05:45.347" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing corrected" Text="&quot;Прилагать&quot; means *to attach*, to add something, give more information. (Alex is right, there's a spelling typo)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12818" RevisionGUID="841f8f9e-bed3-4b37-9fa0-8e2dfa2d39de" CreationDate="2016-07-17T03:33:15.863" UserId="1236" Text="Вам тут вообще никому не понять, что такое «концепт», ибо это понятие из эпохи настолько вам чуждой, что даже аналогию степени чуждости этого понятия вам мне подобрать навряд ли удастся. «Концепт» – это сердце-окно из сонета Шекспира, в которое девушка смотрит, и бесконечно видит свои отражения, это блоха Джона Донна, которая укусила парня и девушку, и внутри которой произошло то, что иначе не произойдёт, в её желудке смешалась их кровь, это воплощение высшего творчества Лос из пророческих книг Уильяма Блейка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="a2036150-e7e0-4b33-ab05-37da4ae5c745" CreationDate="2016-07-17T04:02:01.773" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing corrected" Text="Those who cook clearly distinguish between специи and пряности. **Специи** are substances which change the taste or consistency of a dish, but they rarely have any flavor or &quot;aroma&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(salt, sugar, vinegar, yeast, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пряности** are usually plants or parts of the plants which add some flavour (aroma) and taste. Those are &#xD;&#xA;&gt;parsley, dill, onions, garlic, cloves, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries present them as synonyms, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12819" RevisionGUID="9268899e-8bb5-44f8-8a3e-71323224c9b0" CreationDate="2016-07-17T04:42:43.940" UserId="7547" Text="Genitive case is a trace of “some amount of” («некоторое количество») being omitted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A full variant must be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы купили *[некоторое количество]* продуктов на сто долларов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where parts are linked together in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `купили количество` (*noun-to-noun* with expected Accusative case) — `bought (an) amount`;&#xD;&#xA;2. `количество продуктов` (*noun-to-noun* with Genitive case) — `(an) amount of products`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such ommission of «некоторое количество» is widely used in Russian. It may be easily recognized either by a context or by such *Accusative→Genitive* case substitution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29976" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12780" RevisionGUID="d89a0775-e9f8-40f4-a569-39332c6deea7" CreationDate="2016-07-17T09:26:29.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/754608201119723520" />
  <row Id="29977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12820" RevisionGUID="1b2f4922-538a-42bf-95fa-7a080dee4b17" CreationDate="2016-07-17T14:58:52.993" UserId="7544" Text="&quot;Раба&quot; -- архаизм с соответствующей окраской. Употребляется в том числе в составе устойчивых выражений: упомянутое &quot;раба Божия&quot;, &quot;Сама себя раба бьёт, что не чисто жнёт&quot;. В Русской Правде записано как &quot;роба&quot;, через &quot;о&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Рабыня&quot; -- более современное слово, но и оно употребляется сравнительно редко сейчас. Обычно в текстах про современное рабство я его не вижу. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="3273c566-f562-488e-9cc0-9b5c9821f10c" CreationDate="2016-07-17T15:26:53.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/754698895972761600" />
  <row Id="29979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="79a98f31-65cd-4e4b-87be-6a0056f517a2" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:55:36.737" UserId="7548" Text="I'm not sure if the meaning is offensive or not. Somebody wrote me in a game chat and there's nothing meaningful in google translate for &quot;ХНЮ&quot; while &quot;ВСЯКУЮ&quot; translated for &quot;ANY&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="79a98f31-65cd-4e4b-87be-6a0056f517a2" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:55:36.737" UserId="7548" Text="Whats the meaning of the phrase &quot;ВСЯКУЮ ХНЮ&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="79a98f31-65cd-4e4b-87be-6a0056f517a2" CreationDate="2016-07-17T19:55:36.737" UserId="7548" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="b4c0e5ff-0fa4-407e-a322-9e76d8cd827e" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:29:30.657" UserId="4481" Comment="picture added" Text="I hope to be making more progress soon but forgive me my humble beginnings. I have great difficulty reading cursive lettering sometimes, which is somewhat of a starting point. I have this single line which is actually very important for me to understand, so are you able to aid me unpicking it? I would be most grateful. I have had to upload it to another page because I can't see how to upload images here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rAO7w.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29983" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="b4c0e5ff-0fa4-407e-a322-9e76d8cd827e" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:29:30.657" Comment="Proposed by 4481 approved by 6725, 2060 edit id of 769" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12822" RevisionGUID="1805a146-28f4-4f9f-ad63-a5141bf04981" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:41:17.973" UserId="1674" Text="This is shortened word which means &quot;garbage&quot;, &quot;nonsense&quot; or &quot;rubbish&quot; with the strongest degree to express &quot;how much is it bad&quot; (in all meanings, but mostly in figurative, like when someone wants to express how wrong things are told to him). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translator didn't find anything because original word lacks 2 letters, &quot;y&quot; and &quot;ю&quot; (I will not write the word neither its correct translation here as I don't think it's appropriate; correct me if I'm wrong). In the context given by you I think it was used as something to express &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you shouldn't tell *those lies / wrong ideas / wrong assumptions / bad things* to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;regarding something what was spoken about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="90b37d04-f92c-4770-bb63-ad685f184ade" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:45:51.917" UserId="7547" Comment="Grammar fix, formatting" Text="I\`m a newbie and I\`m studying the rules for possession. As I have got the `у` preposition calls, the personal pronoun in genitive, but then the noun in nominative. Ex. *У меня есть книга*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why in this sentence *друг* is in genitive plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Анастасия изучает литературу в университете в Москве, у нее там много друзей;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you help me? Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**: the two phrases upon here are in my textbook, I did not made them up. I\`m just trying to figure out why in the first with `у + genitive + nominative` and the in the second `у + genitive + genitive`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 2**: just found this other sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня новый русско-итальянский словарь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so nominative case after genitive personal pronouns. I`m so confused right now. First a nominative with *книга*, then a genitive with *друзей* and then a nominative again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29986" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11516" RevisionGUID="90b37d04-f92c-4770-bb63-ad685f184ade" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:45:51.917" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 2060, 496 edit id of 772" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="4809ee61-bf3a-4249-ac07-4380383f7399" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:46:19.573" UserId="7547" Comment="Punctuation correction" Text="I can`t exactly wrap my head about the “-ого” ending in a word for example “русского”. When do we add it? And how is it used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="4809ee61-bf3a-4249-ac07-4380383f7399" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:46:19.573" UserId="7547" Comment="Punctuation correction" Text="Can't understand the Genitive Case in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29989" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="4809ee61-bf3a-4249-ac07-4380383f7399" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:46:19.573" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 2060, 496 edit id of 770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11789" RevisionGUID="31b22e61-89f0-43ee-a593-6869989c7aa5" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:46:41.700" UserId="7547" Comment="Formatting" Text="&gt; Is &quot;этом&quot; in this phrase [about it, об этом], a declension from demonstrative pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;этот&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Это* is the demonstrative pronoun of neuter gender. *Этот* is the same pronoun, but of masculine gender, and *эта* is that of feminine gender. Sometimes the way the three are inflected for case is homonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here`s an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `So what are we going to do about IT?` — `Ну и что мы с этим будем делать?` (Instrumental case of *это*, neuter gender.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `So what are we going to do about HIM?` — `Hу и что мы с этим будем делать?` (Instrumental case of *этот*, masculine gender.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same form, different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And if that's so, why there is no noun after a demonstrative pronoun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in this case this demonstrative pronoun would be self-sufficient as the indirect object of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29991" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11789" RevisionGUID="31b22e61-89f0-43ee-a593-6869989c7aa5" CreationDate="2016-07-17T20:46:41.700" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 2060, 496 edit id of 771" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12822" RevisionGUID="c3c51dcb-7d3d-4eb1-8756-81e19596b4ff" CreationDate="2016-07-17T21:41:14.140" UserId="1674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is shortened word which means &quot;garbage&quot;, &quot;nonsense&quot; or &quot;rubbish&quot; with the strongest grade to express &quot;how much is it bad&quot; (in all meanings, but mostly in figurative, like when someone wants to express how wrong things are told to him). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translator didn't find anything because original word lacks 2 letters, &quot;y&quot; and &quot;й&quot; (I will not write the word neither its correct translation here as I don't think it's appropriate; correct me if I'm wrong). In the context given by you I think it was used as something to express &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you shouldn't tell *those lies / wrong ideas / wrong assumptions / bad things* to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;regarding something what was spoken about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29993" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12821" RevisionGUID="9934035c-4f0c-4c22-90e1-f8b5b9eb2333" CreationDate="2016-07-18T03:59:19.573" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Whats the meaning of the phrase &quot;Всякую хню&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12823" RevisionGUID="4b909473-52a6-4b26-ac75-23dccec2b010" CreationDate="2016-07-18T09:31:03.287" UserId="7544" Text="Well, I will take the risk, because filthy language is a part of language. [Here](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8F) is a lot of info about that word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [here](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82) is info about russian filthy language in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29995" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="2b5b3e69-d50a-471b-912f-fc1f2854d87a" CreationDate="2016-07-18T09:35:16.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/754972797529690113" />
  <row Id="29996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="c2664a74-6ba4-4b89-bba6-4df565d6f9e6" CreationDate="2016-07-18T10:37:01.283" UserId="6065" Text="&quot;Предполагалось, что новые правила обязывают граждан Украины совершать въезд в Россию не по внутренним, как раньше, а сугубо по заграничным паспортам.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть мнение, что подобные операции совершают не по документам, а с документами. Подскажите, какой вариант более корректный." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="c2664a74-6ba4-4b89-bba6-4df565d6f9e6" CreationDate="2016-07-18T10:37:01.283" UserId="6065" Text="По паспорту или с паспортом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="c2664a74-6ba4-4b89-bba6-4df565d6f9e6" CreationDate="2016-07-18T10:37:01.283" UserId="6065" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12825" RevisionGUID="1089c94c-03fe-4672-8a46-fc6d44f4f7a1" CreationDate="2016-07-18T10:53:38.110" UserId="6097" Text="Более корректный вариант – &quot;по документам&quot;. Можно въехать по заграничному паспорту и с внутренним (в кармане лежит)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12826" RevisionGUID="2b003748-43d9-4158-83c6-1af79e57cedf" CreationDate="2016-07-18T11:25:18.067" UserId="6065" Text="Вопрос для самых педантичных:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это хорошо. Это плохо.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;*Хорошо* и *плохо* здесь неречия, да?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какая из машин тебе нравится? - Эта хороша.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь *хороша* - краткая форма прилагательного. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как можно с уверенностью сказать, что в первом случае мы имеем дело именно с наречием, а не с краткой формой прилагательного?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12826" RevisionGUID="2b003748-43d9-4158-83c6-1af79e57cedf" CreationDate="2016-07-18T11:25:18.067" UserId="6065" Text="Наречие или краткая форма" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12826" RevisionGUID="2b003748-43d9-4158-83c6-1af79e57cedf" CreationDate="2016-07-18T11:25:18.067" UserId="6065" Text="|прилагательные|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12827" RevisionGUID="ee040590-8ed9-4589-a1f3-7c25fdd925df" CreationDate="2016-07-18T11:33:46.103" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="Если описание относится к глаголу (&quot;это *есть* хорошо&quot;), оно выражается наречием; если к существительному (&quot;*машина* хороша&quot;) - прилагательным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12828" RevisionGUID="d1f80957-538d-499a-8ed5-6bb76ef7c7bd" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:22:40.570" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Пошёл дождь. Это (*как?*) хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Передо мною три ведра. Это (*каково?*) — хорошо, это — так себе, а это — плохо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those (including *так себе*) are predicative adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="e657b0ad-a986-4d2c-b1f3-5ca0a86edc8b" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:24:50.850" UserId="3750" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;Russian Language and Usage is a Q&amp;amp;A site for people who are interested in studying or teaching Russian as well as for enthusiast and curious native speakers. We welcome questions about the Russian vocabulary and grammar, about the history of expressions, words and grammatical constructions as well as questions about their usage in the modern language. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I request a translation?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not forbid translation requests but note that &lt;strong&gt;this is not a translation service&lt;/strong&gt;, so we will close any translation request that does not show research effort. Make sure you clearly show it in your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Russian to &lt;em&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This kind of questions should be better asked in the sites dedicated to the destination language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;any language&lt;/em&gt; to Russian translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Welcome as long as you provide &lt;em&gt;enough&lt;/em&gt; explanation/detail about the original expression/word and you also show research effort, of course.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask for resources?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not generally welcome resource requests. They are in danger of being &quot;not constructive&quot;, because they expect a list-of-links kind of answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have created a &lt;a href=&quot;http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/833/71&quot;&gt;single resource question&lt;/a&gt;, where everybody can post their known resources for sharing and can use the other ones. Note that unless your question is &lt;strong&gt;very specific&lt;/strong&gt;, we will close it as a duplicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I ask about the meaning of a single word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Translation, show research effort. Before posting, check if: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's in the dictionary;   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's easily found in a Google search.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer to this two points is no, you can ask simple questions like this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Should I post in Russian or English?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions and answers can be written both in Russian and English on the Main Site only. The Meta site should be in English only, though. This is a request by the Stack Exchange team so they can communicate with us. So, on the Main site you can choose either language, but we suggest a guideline that has been used on other Stack Exchange sites as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in English, please answer in English;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the question is in Russian, please answer in Russian.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, if you're not as comfortable in the question's language, you can provide a brief but complete answer in the original language, and then a more detailed answer in your preferred language. Other users may help improve your translation. Translations are not mandatory, they are just helpful for users who are not fully bilingual. But keep in mind that if your answer is correct without providing a translation, the OP might not consider it as much as it deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in the Meta site, if you post in Russian, you &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; post an English version, because it's used by the SE team, which doesn't know Russian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for Russian Stack Exchange, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area 51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30006" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="6f23a7aa-1ff5-4b9b-a273-c0a527968980" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:42:10.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/755019832525979652" />
  <row Id="30007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12829" RevisionGUID="c74a723a-1d6d-4531-9bd3-0d7c78efd898" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:00:59.197" UserId="7549" Text="My question is probably off-topic but hope I can get an answer here. There is a game which is played in russia and to make the player feel the russian atmosphere the english narration contains russian words. There is a scene in [this][1] video at 1:15 where the following paragraph could be heard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ulman enough of jokes! ***[Russian word here]*** When we are back at the base you will be sweeping tunnels with a toothbrush!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, what russian word is that, and what is it's meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=OgEHQg2Y8wg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12829" RevisionGUID="c74a723a-1d6d-4531-9bd3-0d7c78efd898" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:00:59.197" UserId="7549" Text="What is the meaning of the word I am asking about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12829" RevisionGUID="c74a723a-1d6d-4531-9bd3-0d7c78efd898" CreationDate="2016-07-18T13:00:59.197" UserId="7549" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12830" RevisionGUID="743ffe5e-e525-47aa-9b19-dcea8e94032c" CreationDate="2016-07-18T14:09:11.653" UserId="5443" Text="*В первом примере* для классификации важен смысл, стоящий за местоимением. Например, в некотором контексте (сопоставление двух стихотворений, на которые ссылаются при помощи местоимения) можно говорить о кратких прилагательных (смысл: одно стихотворение хорошо, другое - плохо). В более типичном для этого же примера случае выявляемая часть речи относится к тому, чему нельзя приписать свойство, выражаемое прилагательным, поскольку местоимение &quot;это&quot; замещает не отдельно взятое существительное (как в примере со стихотворениями), а ситуацию, для описания которой требуется законченное выражение, например, сказанному &quot;это хорошо&quot; предшествует: &quot;долгожданное письмо пришло&quot;. Соответственно, такому выражению нельзя непосредственно приписать прилагательного &quot;хороший&quot; (зелёный и пр.), но соотв. ситуации можно дать оценку в целом при помощи наречия (каково это?): &quot;то, что письмо пришло&quot; (= это), &quot;хорошо&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Во втором примере* проще: кр. прилагательное привязано к &quot;машине&quot; (отдельное существительное) и характеризует её свойства." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12831" RevisionGUID="ab9950fc-58dc-4e7d-92f6-3d5236019e78" CreationDate="2016-07-18T14:48:03.147" UserId="6539" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Некоторые наречия легко перепутать с прилагательными в краткой форме. Например, Лето было зелено и свежо и Летом было зелено и свежо. В таком случае важно правильно поставить вопрос, ведь в первом предложении «зелено и свежо» связываются с подлежащим вопросом «каково?», а во втором «как?». «Каково», так же как и какой, какая, какое – это вопрос прилагательного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, что Вы искали вот это:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Некоторые наречия могут выступать как именная часть сказуемых. Чаще всего это сказуемые безличных предложений (На море тихо), однако некоторые наречия могут служить и сказуемыми двусоставных предложений (Разговор будет начистоту. Она замужем).&#xD;&#xA;Наречия, выступающие как сказуемые безличных предложений, иногда выделяют в самостоятельную часть речи или в самостоятельный разряд внутри наречия и называются словами категории состояния (словами состояния, предикативными наречиями).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Категория состояния&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова категории состояния обозначают состояние природы (Было холодно), человека (У меня на душе радостно. Мне жарко), оценку действий (Можно пойти в кино).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова категории состояния с суффиксом -о, образованные от прилагательных, могут иметь степени сравнения (С каждым днем становилось все холоднее / более холодно).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В лингвистике, действительно, иногда выделяют эти слова в самостоятельную часть речи, называемую словами категории состояния (предикативными наречиями, безлично-предикативными словами). Слова этой группы делятся на слова, которые могут употребляться и в других синтаксических позициях (ср.: Море тихо (прил.) — Он сидел тихо (нар.) — В классе тихо (кат. сост.)), и слова, которые могут употребляться только в функции сказуемых безличных предложений: можно, нельзя, боязно, совестно, стыдно, пора, жаль и др. Отличительной особенностью этих слов является то, что они не сочетаются с подлежащим и теряют способность обозначать признак действия (весело) или предмет (лень). Однако в лингвистике также широко распространена точка зрения, согласно которой слова категории состояния считаются подгруппой **наречий**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12831" RevisionGUID="5eba7a6a-b23c-4c38-96b8-8430f41753a8" CreationDate="2016-07-18T15:22:05.160" UserId="6539" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="Некоторые наречия легко перепутать с прилагательными в краткой форме. Например, Лето было зелено и свежо и Летом было зелено и свежо. В таком случае важно правильно поставить вопрос, ведь в первом предложении «зелено и свежо» связываются с подлежащим вопросом «каково?», а во втором «как?». «Каково», так же как и какой, какая, какое – это вопрос прилагательного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, что Вы искали вот это:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Некоторые наречия могут выступать как именная часть сказуемых. Чаще всего это сказуемые безличных предложений (На море тихо), однако некоторые наречия могут служить и сказуемыми двусоставных предложений (Разговор будет начистоту. Она замужем).&#xD;&#xA;Наречия, выступающие как сказуемые безличных предложений, иногда выделяют в самостоятельную часть речи или в самостоятельный разряд внутри наречия и называются словами категории состояния (словами состояния, предикативными наречиями).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Категория состояния&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова категории состояния обозначают состояние природы (Было холодно), человека (У меня на душе радостно. Мне жарко), оценку действий (Можно пойти в кино).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова категории состояния с суффиксом -о, образованные от прилагательных, могут иметь степени сравнения (С каждым днем становилось все холоднее / более холодно).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В лингвистике, действительно, иногда выделяют эти слова в самостоятельную часть речи, называемую словами категории состояния (предикативными наречиями, безлично-предикативными словами). Слова этой группы делятся на слова, которые могут употребляться и в других синтаксических позициях (ср.: Море тихо (прил.) — Он сидел тихо (нар.) — В классе тихо (кат. сост.)), и слова, которые могут употребляться только в функции сказуемых безличных предложений: можно, нельзя, боязно, совестно, стыдно, пора, жаль и др. Отличительной особенностью этих слов является то, что они не сочетаются с подлежащим и теряют способность обозначать признак действия (весело) или предмет (лень). Однако в лингвистике также широко распространена точка зрения, согласно которой слова категории состояния считаются подгруппой **наречий**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, если Вы хотите сказать, что *это* может быть указательным местоимением, то ситуация должна быть более определенной, объясняющей предмет или явление,определяемое указательным местоимением." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12831" RevisionGUID="cc4b5329-5940-4748-90ca-c9d9796ec7e7" CreationDate="2016-07-18T17:52:36.323" UserId="6539" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Некоторые наречия легко перепутать с прилагательными в краткой форме. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лето было зелено и свежо и Летом было зелено и свежо. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В таком случае важно правильно поставить вопрос, ведь в первом предложении «зелено и свежо» связываются с подлежащим вопросом «каково?», а во втором «как?». «Каково», так же как и какой, какая, какое – это вопрос прилагательного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется, что Вы искали вот это:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Некоторые наречия могут выступать как именная часть сказуемых. Чаще всего это сказуемые безличных предложений (На море тихо), однако некоторые наречия могут служить и сказуемыми двусоставных предложений (Разговор будет начистоту. Она замужем).&#xD;&#xA;Наречия, выступающие как сказуемые безличных предложений, иногда выделяют в самостоятельную часть речи или в самостоятельный разряд внутри наречия и называются словами **категории состояния** (словами состояния, **предикативными наречиями**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Категория состояния&#xD;&#xA;Слова категории состояния обозначают &#xD;&#xA;&gt;состояние природы (Было холодно), человека (У меня на душе радостно. Мне жарко), оценку действий (Можно пойти в кино).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова категории состояния с суффиксом -о, образованные от прилагательных, могут иметь степени сравнения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (С каждым днем становилось все холоднее / более холодно).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В лингвистике, действительно, иногда выделяют эти слова в самостоятельную часть речи, называемую словами категории состояния (предикативными наречиями, безлично-предикативными словами). Слова этой группы делятся на слова, которые могут употребляться и в других синтаксических позициях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (ср.: Море тихо (прил.) — Он сидел тихо (нар.) — В классе тихо (кат. сост.)), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и слова, которые могут употребляться только в функции сказуемых безличных предложений: *можно, нельзя, боязно, совестно, стыдно, пора, жаль* и др. Отличительной особенностью этих слов является то, что они не сочетаются с подлежащим и теряют способность обозначать признак действия (весело) или предмет (лень). Однако в лингвистике также широко распространена точка зрения, согласно которой слова категории состояния считаются подгруппой **наречий**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, если Вы хотите сказать, что *это* может быть указательным местоимением, то ситуация должна быть более определенной, объясняющей предмет или явление,определяемое указательным местоимением." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="be59f968-4a59-4c7d-b59b-aa3fe8cc6735" CreationDate="2016-07-18T20:51:26.447" UserId="7557" Text="If someone would be so kind as to answer this question, I would be grateful: In American English we have a phrase &quot;playing chicken&quot; to indicate people or groups opposing each other on a collision course, whereby one or both groups would change course to prevent collision. In other word, they &quot;chicken out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an equivalent phrase in Russian? If there is would you be so kind as to give me the non-Cyrillic spelling and pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="be59f968-4a59-4c7d-b59b-aa3fe8cc6735" CreationDate="2016-07-18T20:51:26.447" UserId="7557" Text="&quot;Playing Chicken&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="be59f968-4a59-4c7d-b59b-aa3fe8cc6735" CreationDate="2016-07-18T20:51:26.447" UserId="7557" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12833" RevisionGUID="e45a9798-47e8-40c1-b254-4d3777cef658" CreationDate="2016-07-18T21:45:41.520" UserId="134" Text="There no idiomatic expression for this game that I'm aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's translated using *кто первый струсит* (kto pervyy strusit, [KTO PEHR-viy STROO-sit]), literally &quot;who quails first&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30018" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12826" RevisionGUID="dd3af03d-7f40-4048-afe6-002d30bae327" CreationDate="2016-07-19T00:42:11.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/755201031714250753" />
  <row Id="30019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="3ea4778d-5d40-4174-b4a1-f252dfd14bba" CreationDate="2016-07-19T04:13:13.233" UserId="6539" Text="To chicken out is струсить or ,if you need idioms, **выйти из игры** or **пойти на попятный**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="7e3b114e-51a8-48f4-afc4-24d6a2a267b3" CreationDate="2016-07-19T04:20:27.980" UserId="6539" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="To chicken out is струсить or ,if you need idioms, **выйти из игры** (vyiti iz igry,which means *to leave tbe game*  or **пойти на попятный**(poiti na popiatnyi),which means *to make a step back*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12834" RevisionGUID="b2b0f749-95c2-4633-9091-05f5ae88106f" CreationDate="2016-07-19T04:36:41.597" UserId="6539" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="To chicken out is струсить or ,if you need idioms, **выйти из игры** (vyiti iz igry,which means *to leave tbe game*  or **пойти на попятный**(poiti na popiatnyi),which means *to make a step back*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To chicken out means to avoid something because of fear.&#xD;&#xA;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/eng_rus/651244/out" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12835" RevisionGUID="7560faff-8e8c-4b4a-bd93-1f103d9be921" CreationDate="2016-07-19T04:43:34.100" UserId="5008" Text="A slanguish variant is &quot;_сдрейфить_&quot; (which is derived from the nautical(!) term 'drift'. BTW. It's from Dutch, not from English). So this could be &quot;**кто сдрейфит**&quot; (kto zdreifit - who drifts). Though again it's not really the same as &quot;turning aside&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bookish variant is &quot;_праздновать труса_&quot;. So this could be &quot;**кто празднует труса**&quot; (kto praznuiet troosa - who celebrates a coward). But this one is not popular and you may look like a true bookworm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A neutral (but boring) option is &quot;**кто струсит**&quot; (kto stroosit)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12836" RevisionGUID="6fcb3e25-c245-4f34-8ac9-1dda8b245c78" CreationDate="2016-07-19T08:55:27.603" UserId="7559" Text="It's «блин» — slang word, smth like «geez», «damn». " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="53981812-572e-41ad-a5ce-d34d54c3440f" CreationDate="2016-07-19T09:41:02.133" UserId="7544" Text="It's the word &quot;блин&quot;. While it's primarty meening is [&quot;a pankake&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B), though, this russian thing is a lot thinner as I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In slang it is used with a meaning of &quot;damn&quot; or similar. In this case the word is an euphemism of &quot;блядь&quot; (blyad, &quot;a whore&quot;), part of russian filthy language, the latter can't be used openly in some cases, for example, in mass media, so euphemisms go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12838" RevisionGUID="2143adc2-fb8f-4a15-826a-da97744aafe3" CreationDate="2016-07-19T15:26:36.930" UserId="6065" Text="Как говорит нам Грамота.ру&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Числительные два, три, четыре (а также составные числительные, оканчивающиеся на два, три, четыре, например двадцать два) в именительном падеже сочетаются с существительным в форме родительного падежа и единственного числа, например: двадцать два стола, тридцать три несчастья, пятьдесят четыре человека. Числительные пять, шесть, семь, восемь, девять и т. д. и составные числительные, оканчивающиеся на пять, шесть, семь, восемь и т. д., согласуются с существительным, стоящим в форме родительного падежа множественного числа, например: сорок восемь преступников. Однако в косвенных падежах согласование выравнивается: р. п. – двух столов, пяти столов, д. п. – двум столам, пяти столам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также на википедии нашел такую информацию&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выделяют прямой падеж (именительный и иногда также винительный) и косвенные падежи (остальные).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом в предложениях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вышел из комнаты на три минуты. Она жила в Москве два года. Саша купил четире стула.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;существительные использованы в родительном падеже единственного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помогите найти информацию про &quot;косвенность&quot; или &quot;прямость&quot; винительного падежа, и чем он заслужил такое особенное положение. Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12838" RevisionGUID="2143adc2-fb8f-4a15-826a-da97744aafe3" CreationDate="2016-07-19T15:26:36.930" UserId="6065" Text="Винительный падеж - косвенный или прямой, и почему" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12838" RevisionGUID="2143adc2-fb8f-4a15-826a-da97744aafe3" CreationDate="2016-07-19T15:26:36.930" UserId="6065" Text="|числительные|родительный-падеж|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="e95f5051-5cdf-4884-bdba-87da6a9e81dc" CreationDate="2016-07-19T15:48:41.427" UserId="7544" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="It's the word &quot;блин&quot;. While it's primarty meening is [&quot;a pankake&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B), though, this russian thing is a lot thinner thank actual american pankakes, as I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In slang it is used with a meaning of &quot;damn&quot; or similar. In this case the word is an euphemism of &quot;блядь&quot; (blyad, &quot;a whore&quot;), part of russian filthy language, the latter can't be used openly in some cases, for example, in mass media, so euphemisms go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12837" RevisionGUID="a56f625b-32ad-4e4c-8f82-331d248ccd54" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:43:53.540" UserId="7544" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="It's the word &quot;блин&quot;. While it's primarty meening is [&quot;a pankake&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blini), though, this russian thing is a lot thinner thank actual american pankakes, as I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In slang it is used with a meaning of &quot;damn&quot; or similar. In this case the word is an euphemism of &quot;блядь&quot; (blyad, &quot;a whore&quot;), part of russian filthy language, the latter can't be used openly in some cases, for example, in mass media, so euphemisms go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12840" RevisionGUID="415534bd-1c6f-4e65-a47d-3ba5712b9975" CreationDate="2016-07-19T16:45:59.117" UserId="7310" Text="There were few other versions in 1980s action movies translations: игра в &quot;слабачка&quot;, e.g." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="70ebe4f9-4eba-42c9-8293-2539587717d4" CreationDate="2016-07-19T18:03:10.883" UserId="4702" Text="Why are we saying Как твои дела? Твои is for plural subjects according to my notes. We say Твои книги.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="70ebe4f9-4eba-42c9-8293-2539587717d4" CreationDate="2016-07-19T18:03:10.883" UserId="4702" Text="Why Как твои дела? Твои is for a plural subject" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="70ebe4f9-4eba-42c9-8293-2539587717d4" CreationDate="2016-07-19T18:03:10.883" UserId="4702" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12842" RevisionGUID="71378c3f-2994-4674-8eee-6e4af37077bb" CreationDate="2016-07-19T18:23:52.463" UserId="6807" Text="Yes, it is plural. Exactly like in &quot;How are things?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30036" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12829" RevisionGUID="e51b80ed-de52-4e3b-9e82-84053795e745" CreationDate="2016-07-19T18:54:26.630" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="acc07ffb-d3bc-49b9-b020-cff1efbfcc4c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:30:03.937" UserId="1409" Text="What is the possible translation of the phrase &quot;Пройтись по тексту&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="acc07ffb-d3bc-49b9-b020-cff1efbfcc4c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:30:03.937" UserId="1409" Text="How to translate &quot;Пройтись по тексту&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="acc07ffb-d3bc-49b9-b020-cff1efbfcc4c" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:30:03.937" UserId="1409" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12844" RevisionGUID="41add42a-80ab-4f90-8aaa-6bea33663164" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:03:16.613" UserId="5132" Text="Skim the text. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;scan the text&quot;. But &quot;skim&quot; has closer meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="68242543-92e2-4d93-94ea-0296cb5754dd" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:28:49.817" UserId="7307" Text="Какая самая близкая русская идиома?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="68242543-92e2-4d93-94ea-0296cb5754dd" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:28:49.817" UserId="7307" Text="&quot;Not to put too fine a point on it&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="68242543-92e2-4d93-94ea-0296cb5754dd" CreationDate="2016-07-19T20:28:49.817" UserId="7307" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12846" RevisionGUID="6ae70005-6ec6-4f30-8456-95d1d6865845" CreationDate="2016-07-19T21:01:39.543" UserId="134" Text="The idiom means &quot;to put it bluntly&quot; and can be translated into Russian using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Если говорить начистоту**, то строительство горки - дело довольно дорогостоящее и хлопотное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Называя вещи своими именами**, священник ― апологет телегонии, нанес ребенку тяжелейшую психологическую травму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Или, **говоря прямо**, вы не двинете свой отряд на выручку?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Откровенно говоря**, Пазульский, вы совсем не умеете говорить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="1eaca89d-028f-41bf-a663-ddd7f6c02a2d" CreationDate="2016-07-19T21:01:41.720" UserId="7307" Comment="added 663 characters in body" Text="Какая самая близкая русская идиома?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: including definitions and usage examples from here:&#xD;&#xA;http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/not+to+put+too+fine+a+point+on+it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;not to put too fine a point on it&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;Fig. a phrase introducing a fine or important point, apologetically. Rachel: Not to put too fine a point on it, Mary, but you're still acting a little rude to Tom. Mary: I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. John: I think, not to put too fine a point on it, you ought to do exactly as you are told. Andy: And I think you ought to mind your own business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;not to put too fine a point on it&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;to mean exactly what is said Her performance, not to put too fine a point on it, was terrible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30046" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12843" RevisionGUID="d579f13a-f071-41e6-9daa-e8c645ec8bf0" CreationDate="2016-07-19T21:10:11.020" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="30852916-b3b4-425a-b5d4-e9a6b158deee" CreationDate="2016-07-19T22:35:05.303" UserId="1674" Comment="Changed formatting of examples as it was hard to understand what's going on there" Text="Какая самая близкая русская идиома?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: including definitions and usage examples from here:&#xD;&#xA;http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/not+to+put+too+fine+a+point+on+it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Figurative: a phrase introducing a fine or important point, apologetically*.  &#xD;&#xA;Rachel: Not to put too fine a point on it, Mary, but you're still acting a little rude to Tom.  &#xD;&#xA;Mary: I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;John: I think, not to put too fine a point on it, you ought to do exactly as you are told.  &#xD;&#xA;Andy: And I think you ought to mind your own business.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *To mean exactly what is said*:  &#xD;&#xA;Her performance, not to put too fine a point on it, was terrible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30048" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="30852916-b3b4-425a-b5d4-e9a6b158deee" CreationDate="2016-07-19T22:35:05.303" UserId="1674" Comment="Changed formatting of examples as it was hard to understand what's going on there" Text="Translation of idiom &quot;Not to put too fine a point on it&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30049" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="30852916-b3b4-425a-b5d4-e9a6b158deee" CreationDate="2016-07-19T22:35:05.303" Comment="Proposed by 1674 approved by 134 edit id of 773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12847" RevisionGUID="91361950-fa8b-43b7-b890-c1e173ef3f75" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:57:26.630" UserId="6539" Text="Not to put too fine a point on it — грубо говоря, если уж начистоту, если уж называть вещи своими именами,сказать по правде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;something that you say when you are going *to say exactly what you mean, even if other people may not like it*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12848" RevisionGUID="31087b48-95fb-4c40-af8c-00f8a3e062a4" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:50:27.573" UserId="7537" Text="В принципе, винительный падеж - косвенный. Но для неодушевленных предметов в русском для него используется форма, идентичная именительному падежу. В этом случае его можно (с натяжкой) назвать прямым. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу утку. (Одуш. в.п. от &quot;утка&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вижу шкаф. (Неодуш. в.п. = и.п. &quot;шкаф&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Грамматическая зависимость тут все равно косвенная, но форма (в какой-то мере случайно) прамая." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="7c1e7843-756b-4d92-aa87-fc761e7d1610" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:54:18.977" UserId="7561" Text="As I'm sure you all know, prior to its sale to the United States in 1867, Alaska was Russian territory. As such, it had a flag. Here is an image of that flag's design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Russian America][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to read *Россійской Америк. Кампа*. From this I have three questions: Firstly, why is it *Россійской* and not *Россійская* (or even *Россійско-*)? Secondly, why was *компанiя* abbreviated as *кампа* instead of *компа*? And thirdly, is that a colon (:) after *Америк*? Was that the accepted way to truncate a word in an abbreviation at that time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Information about Russian America here for those who need a refresher.][2] (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо заранее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SKGin.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="7c1e7843-756b-4d92-aa87-fc761e7d1610" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:54:18.977" UserId="7561" Text="The case of the Russian American flag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="7c1e7843-756b-4d92-aa87-fc761e7d1610" CreationDate="2016-07-20T04:54:18.977" UserId="7561" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12850" RevisionGUID="44488208-891c-4638-92e6-2d08724ddbd2" CreationDate="2016-07-20T05:36:35.733" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Firstly, why is it Россійской and not Россійская (or even Россійско-)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _Флаг_ (banner, flag) is silently assumed, so it's in Genitive: **[Флагъ] Россійской Американской Компанiи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Secondly, why was компанiя abbreviated as кампа instead of компа?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a script which you read wrong. It is written &quot;_К**о**мпа_&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And thirdly, is that a colon (:) after Америк? Was that the accepted way to truncate a word in an abbreviation at that time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about this. Pre-reform punctuation rules were quite different, but I didn't hear about common abbreviating words with a colon. Maybe it was done especially for inscriptions, as a single point is not the easiest thing to see." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12851" RevisionGUID="475c7cd5-89c7-4646-8e90-1648ba1d9677" CreationDate="2016-07-20T06:28:24.623" UserId="6539" Text="Небольшое дополнение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В церковнославянской письменности двоеточие эквивалентно русскому знаку «точка с запятой», но также используется и в функциях многоточия и даже **точки на конце сокращений**. Двоеточие как знак сокращения вообще было присуще старым европейским письменностям **(в русском языке так было до середины XIX века)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A semicolon was used in the Russian language **for abbreviation** up to the middle of the 19 th century. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12851" RevisionGUID="d1378216-20fd-4e7c-accf-7652598b1748" CreationDate="2016-07-20T07:59:20.843" UserId="7544" Comment="Made english translation much better, placed it above russian original." Text="English translation of this answer:&#xD;&#xA;______________________________________&#xD;&#xA;A small addition.&#xD;&#xA;In Old Church Slavonic writing the colon (:) was equal to russian semicolon (;), but was however also used as ellipsis (...) and even **as a dot in abbreviations**. Colon as an abbreviation sign was very common in old european writing languages. It was so in Russian language until the mid-19th century.&#xD;&#xA;______________________________________&#xD;&#xA;Небольшое дополнение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В церковнославянской письменности двоеточие эквивалентно русскому знаку «точка с запятой», но также используется и в функциях многоточия и даже **точки на конце сокращений**. Двоеточие как знак сокращения вообще было присуще старым европейским письменностям **(в русском языке так было до середины XIX века)**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30058" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12851" RevisionGUID="d1378216-20fd-4e7c-accf-7652598b1748" CreationDate="2016-07-20T07:59:20.843" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 6539 edit id of 774" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="b25018dc-2455-484e-b687-ce1d3c6a6efd" CreationDate="2016-07-20T09:58:11.307" UserId="-1" Comment="You are not allowed to write anything in any language but English." Text="As I'm sure you all know, prior to its sale to the United States in 1867, Alaska was Russian territory. As such, it had a flag. Here is an image of that flag's design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Russian America][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears to read *Россійской Америк. Кампа*. From this I have three questions: Firstly, why is it *Россійской* and not *Россійская* (or even *Россійско-*)? Secondly, why was *компанiя* abbreviated as *кампа* instead of *компа*? And thirdly, is that a colon (:) after *Америк*? Was that the accepted way to truncate a word in an abbreviation at that time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Information about Russian America here for those who need a refresher.][2] (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SKGin.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%90%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30060" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="b25018dc-2455-484e-b687-ce1d3c6a6efd" CreationDate="2016-07-20T09:58:11.307" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5008, 551 edit id of 775" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="bc402937-3208-4f2b-815c-b23edd0edcca" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:21:36.767" UserId="1674" Text="The possible misunderstanding arised because word &quot;дела&quot; may serve as [different parts of speech](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0) and hence will have different meanings depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  дела́ (e.g. как [твои] дела́ ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is general question, like &quot;How do you do ?&quot; in English and may be asked regarding disposition, health, business etc. In this case &quot;дела́&quot; is substantive, nominative case. It is in plural because question is general and not focusing on any concrete things.  &#xD;&#xA;The original form of question is [&quot;как дела ?&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *приветствие, вопрос о текущем состоянии дел*  &#xD;&#xA; Это был грек из России, [...]. Одет он был бедно, выглядел печально. ― Как **дела́** ? ― спросил я у него. Он немного подумал и таинственно вздохнул: ― У вас хоть керосин есть.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ф. А. Искандер, &quot;Курортная идиллия&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Question &quot;Как твое де́ло?&quot; may be asked only regarding concrete business, when asker knows that his collocutor owns one and would like to learn current state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. де́ла (куда ты его де́ла ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this case &quot;де́ла&quot; is a verb [&quot;деть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) in past time, gender feminine (it depends on &quot;ты&quot; and question assumes &quot;ты&quot; is of gender feminine).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *разг. положить, запрятать так, что не найти*.  &#xD;&#xA;На зов явилась женщина с тарелкой в руках [...]. И между ними произошел такой разговор: — Куда ты **де́ла**, разбойница, бумагу? — Ей-Богу, барин, не видывала, опричь небольшого лоскутка, которым изволили прикрыть рюмку.  &#xD;&#xA;*Н.В.Гоголь, &quot;Мертвые души&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *разг. найти для кого-либо, чего-либо место или применение; поместить или использовать*.  &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. де́ла (Без де́ла не входить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is the substantive [&quot;де́ло&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE) in genetive case, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Много у вас **дела**? ― спросил Обломов. ― Да, довольно. Две статьи в газету каждую неделю, потом разборы беллетристов пишу, да вот написал рассказ...  &#xD;&#xA;*И.А. Гончаров, &quot;Обломов&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30062" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12849" RevisionGUID="e1950c96-c036-4d64-b018-e4306bc1e30d" CreationDate="2016-07-21T00:43:26.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/755926121917677568" />
  <row Id="30063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12853" RevisionGUID="2227391d-2674-436c-ab0f-c4445f19123f" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:11:44.937" UserId="7566" Text="The song &quot;Exploring Yourself With A Knife&quot; is a track form the Russian post-rock band April Rain's album &quot;Waiting For Sunrise&quot;. some Russian dialog is spoken between a man and a woman starting at 4:37. could someone provide a transcription or translation ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The song could be found here on Last.fm:&#xD;&#xA;[Exploring Yourself With A Knife][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.last.fm/music/April+Rain/_/Exploring+Yourself+With+A+Knife" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12853" RevisionGUID="2227391d-2674-436c-ab0f-c4445f19123f" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:11:44.937" UserId="7566" Text="What is the english translation of Russian dialog spoken over this song?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12853" RevisionGUID="2227391d-2674-436c-ab0f-c4445f19123f" CreationDate="2016-07-21T01:11:44.937" UserId="7566" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12854" RevisionGUID="640ecb59-4d18-472d-93e2-82ec7c40d521" CreationDate="2016-07-21T04:42:42.810" UserId="4108" Text="It's a dialog from [The Fountain][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the first comment [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbrK6S_mwa4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="cf807f99-1162-44ee-b187-db65c5bf27e4" CreationDate="2016-07-21T13:32:04.187" UserId="551" Comment="How do you do is asked only when people see each other for the first time" Text="The possible misunderstanding arised because word &quot;дела&quot; may serve as [different parts of speech](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0) and hence will have different meanings depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  дела́ (e.g. как [твои] дела́ ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is general question, like &quot;How are you?&quot; in English and may be asked regarding disposition, health, business etc. In this case &quot;дела́&quot; is substantive, nominative case. It is in plural because question is general and not focusing on any concrete things.  &#xD;&#xA;The original form of question is [&quot;как дела ?&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *приветствие, вопрос о текущем состоянии дел*  &#xD;&#xA; Это был грек из России, [...]. Одет он был бедно, выглядел печально. ― Как **дела́** ? ― спросил я у него. Он немного подумал и таинственно вздохнул: ― У вас хоть керосин есть.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ф. А. Искандер, &quot;Курортная идиллия&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Question &quot;Как твое де́ло?&quot; may be asked only regarding concrete business, when asker knows that his collocutor owns one and would like to know about the current state of affairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. де́ла (куда ты его де́ла ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this case &quot;де́ла&quot; is a verb [&quot;деть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) in past time, gender feminine (it depends on &quot;ты&quot; and question assumes &quot;ты&quot; is of gender feminine).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *разг. положить, запрятать так, что не найти*.  &#xD;&#xA;На зов явилась женщина с тарелкой в руках [...]. И между ними произошел такой разговор: — Куда ты **де́ла**, разбойница, бумагу? — Ей-Богу, барин, не видывала, опричь небольшого лоскутка, которым изволили прикрыть рюмку.  &#xD;&#xA;*Н.В.Гоголь, &quot;Мертвые души&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *разг. найти для кого-либо, чего-либо место или применение; поместить или использовать*.  &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. де́ла (Без де́ла не входить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is the substantive [&quot;де́ло&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE) in genetive case, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Много у вас **дела**? ― спросил Обломов. ― Да, довольно. Две статьи в газету каждую неделю, потом разборы беллетристов пишу, да вот написал рассказ...  &#xD;&#xA;*И.А. Гончаров, &quot;Обломов&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="e5b43eac-2bcd-49ca-8864-0ae814306dd6" CreationDate="2016-07-21T13:36:18.903" UserId="1674" Comment="I wanted to emphasize that Как твое дело can be used only for business you know about before asking." Text="The possible misunderstanding arised because word &quot;дела&quot; may serve as [different parts of speech](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0) and hence will have different meanings depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  дела́ (e.g. как [твои] дела́ ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is general question, like &quot;How are you?&quot; in English and may be asked regarding disposition, health, business etc. In this case &quot;дела́&quot; is substantive, nominative case. It is in plural because question is general and not focusing on any concrete things.  &#xD;&#xA;The original form of question is [&quot;как дела ?&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Приветствие, вопрос о текущем состоянии дел:*  &#xD;&#xA; Это был грек из России, [...]. Одет он был бедно, выглядел печально. ― Как **дела́** ? ― спросил я у него. Он немного подумал и таинственно вздохнул: ― У вас хоть керосин есть.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ф. А. Искандер, &quot;Курортная идиллия&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Question &quot;Как твое де́ло?&quot; may be asked only regarding concrete business, when you would like to learn how is it going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. де́ла (куда ты его де́ла ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this case &quot;де́ла&quot; is a verb [&quot;деть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) in past time, gender feminine (it depends on &quot;ты&quot; and question assumes that your conversation partner (&quot;ты&quot;) is of gender feminine).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *разг. положить, запрятать так, что не найти*.  &#xD;&#xA;На зов явилась женщина с тарелкой в руках [...]. И между ними произошел такой разговор: — Куда ты **де́ла**, разбойница, бумагу? — Ей-Богу, барин, не видывала, опричь небольшого лоскутка, которым изволили прикрыть рюмку.  &#xD;&#xA;*Н.В.Гоголь, &quot;Мертвые души&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *разг. найти для кого-либо, чего-либо место или применение; поместить или использовать*.  &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. де́ла (Без де́ла не входить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is the substantive [&quot;де́ло&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE) in genetive case, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Много у вас **дела**? ― спросил Обломов. ― Да, довольно. Две статьи в газету каждую неделю, потом разборы беллетристов пишу, да вот написал рассказ...  &#xD;&#xA;*И.А. Гончаров, &quot;Обломов&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="91617145-871a-4e1c-8546-6a9af857239b" CreationDate="2016-07-21T17:16:54.160" UserId="4714" Text="It seems like one can use either the structure У МЕНЯ or dative МНЕ with this verb in the sense of not enough, or enough of X. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See link—[LINGVO][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lingvolive.com/ru-ru/translate/ru-en/%D1%85%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use one and not the other?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="91617145-871a-4e1c-8546-6a9af857239b" CreationDate="2016-07-21T17:16:54.160" UserId="4714" Text="Verb Хватать/хватить—use мне or у меня?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="91617145-871a-4e1c-8546-6a9af857239b" CreationDate="2016-07-21T17:16:54.160" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12856" RevisionGUID="6768e556-e7c2-42ad-988d-c8cf82567559" CreationDate="2016-07-21T17:33:05.003" UserId="134" Text="In the sense &quot;to have enough of&quot; they are interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Повторяю: всем нам хватает (*= у всех нас хватает*) мужества переживать чужие несчастья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ему хватает (*= у него хватает*) забот в собственной компании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sense &quot;to be enough for&quot; you can only use dative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Лес был не очень большой и не слишком дремучий, но места в нём всем хватало.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Хотя для волнений ему хватало и первых впечатлений…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="584b525e-cf76-4fe9-8d50-b8ec291cd9e8" CreationDate="2016-07-21T20:04:32.960" UserId="7369" Text="Штатный appears in contexts referencing &quot;staff&quot; and &quot;standard&quot; (dissimilar words in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to grasp the meaning of word штатный?  Is it only used in specific technical set phrases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other half of the question is внештатный. Внештатный can be (easily) translated in all observed contexts as &quot;freelance&quot;.  Why does штатный appear to be so much more complex in usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can штатный be used as the opposite of внештатный?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Штатный Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Установка багажника на штатные места в крыше.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Штатное расписание имеет большое значение для эффективного использования работников.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Сейчас штатная численность армии РФ будет составлять 1 миллион 885 тыс. человек.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Широкий выбор штатных головных устройств в Екатеринбурге по низким ценам! (This, from a web site selling car audio display boards.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Внештатный Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. По словам главного внештатного специалиста по акушерству и гинекологии, к концу 2013 количество родов в регионе по итогам года достигнет 50 тыс.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Может ли внештатный сотрудник полиции применять свои полномочия при прикреплённым за ним полицейским?&#xD;&#xA; 3. В общем чем хорошо быть внештатным журналистом и чем плохо?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Внештатные переводчики работают на дому, получая заказы лично в нашем офисе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="584b525e-cf76-4fe9-8d50-b8ec291cd9e8" CreationDate="2016-07-21T20:04:32.960" UserId="7369" Text="Meaning of штатный and внештатный?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="584b525e-cf76-4fe9-8d50-b8ec291cd9e8" CreationDate="2016-07-21T20:04:32.960" UserId="7369" Text="|значения|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12832" RevisionGUID="676bc53e-4b2a-4aae-96c9-4b5be3a4f17d" CreationDate="2016-07-21T21:48:23.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/756244457540976640" />
  <row Id="30078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12858" RevisionGUID="dff62960-004c-442e-9f5e-aa5f31fee849" CreationDate="2016-07-21T23:31:20.340" UserId="7569" Text="Examples 1 and 4 from штатный are technically correct, but it's not a common use of the word.&#xD;&#xA;In general the opposite of штатный is внештатный OR нештатный. More about this [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be aware of another use of opposite for штатный:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Нештатная ситуация (чрезвычайная ситуация, не предусмотренная регламентом) instead of внештатная ситуация that is not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The same is for режим: штатный/нештатный режим, not внештатный режим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ask.fm/russian/answers/27048848956" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12824" RevisionGUID="886ef3d4-d794-4a69-8b46-8c868a6d2656" CreationDate="2016-07-22T00:48:23.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/756289756032561152" />
  <row Id="30080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12859" RevisionGUID="b6b2ae02-0028-4301-8e23-72c851c77abd" CreationDate="2016-07-22T03:04:03.600" UserId="3892" Text="The plural word **дела́**  *things* *is* the subject here. Think of it as **your things are how**, except inverted for a question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **де́ло** belongs to a class of nouns that are stressed on the stem in the singular (де́ло, де́ла, де́лом, де́ле, etc.) and stressed on the ending in the plural  forms (дела́, дела́м, дела́ми, дела́х, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30081" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="d01370f2-659f-4f90-9032-73348b542fce" CreationDate="2016-07-22T03:48:23.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/756335054612271104" />
  <row Id="30082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12860" RevisionGUID="3fcca1b1-4bde-4bb3-94f1-e7aa088f1a70" CreationDate="2016-07-22T04:50:14.340" UserId="6539" Text="We can observe two main meanings of the adjective *штатный*--*on the staff* (штатный сотрудник) and *regular, standard* (штатные места,штатная ситуация).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The antonyms are respectively  внештатный (сотрудник) and нештатный (нештатная ситуация)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12861" RevisionGUID="41f0bf5e-3d4a-4d9e-8921-857e6456f92d" CreationDate="2016-07-22T04:50:43.667" UserId="5443" Text="Штатный (сотрудник) means a full-time employee working constantly for the enterprise, внештатный is the opposite. &quot;Штатное расписание&quot; is a formal document at an enterprise establishing the number of employees in each position for a department. By extension, штатный  (even less formal &quot;родной&quot; can be heard instead) can be applied sometimes to things specially intended for usage as a part of a particular product. The word &quot;внештатный&quot; is not used for things or events, *нештатный* is used instead: &quot;нештатная ситуация&quot; means an unwanted/unexpected situation or emergency. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="a6580ecf-5b00-42b3-9e58-c3c7f8b936ae" CreationDate="2016-07-22T12:11:07.223" UserId="3892" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="The possible misunderstanding arose because word &quot;дела&quot; may serve as [different parts of speech](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0) and hence will have different meanings depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  дела́ (e.g. как [твои] дела́ ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a general question, like &quot;How are you?&quot; in English and may be asked to inquire about one's disposition, health, business etc. In this case &quot;дела́&quot; is substantive, nominative case. It is in the plural because the question is general and not focusing on any concrete things.  &#xD;&#xA;The original form of the question is [&quot;как дела ?&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Приветствие, вопрос о текущем состоянии дел:*  &#xD;&#xA; Это был грек из России, [...]. Одет он был бедно, выглядел печально. ― Как **дела́** ? ― спросил я у него. Он немного подумал и таинственно вздохнул: ― У вас хоть керосин есть.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ф. А. Искандер, &quot;Курортная идиллия&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Question &quot;Как твое де́ло?&quot; may be asked only regarding concrete business, when you would like to learn how is it going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. де́ла (куда ты его де́ла ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this case &quot;де́ла&quot; is a verb [&quot;деть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) in past time, gender feminine (it depends on &quot;ты&quot; and question assumes that your conversation partner (&quot;ты&quot;) is of gender feminine).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *разг. положить, запрятать так, что не найти*.  &#xD;&#xA;На зов явилась женщина с тарелкой в руках [...]. И между ними произошел такой разговор: — Куда ты **де́ла**, разбойница, бумагу? — Ей-Богу, барин, не видывала, опричь небольшого лоскутка, которым изволили прикрыть рюмку.  &#xD;&#xA;*Н.В.Гоголь, &quot;Мертвые души&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *разг. найти для кого-либо, чего-либо место или применение; поместить или использовать*.  &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. де́ла (Без де́ла не входить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is the substantive [&quot;де́ло&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE) in genetive case, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Много у вас **дела**? ― спросил Обломов. ― Да, довольно. Две статьи в газету каждую неделю, потом разборы беллетристов пишу, да вот написал рассказ...  &#xD;&#xA;*И.А. Гончаров, &quot;Обломов&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12862" RevisionGUID="f2db16d5-6511-4f97-9d7c-b3d4e4838eee" CreationDate="2016-07-22T13:32:55.973" UserId="4903" Text="Прямой падеж это когда форма совпадает с именительным падежом, а косвенный когда не совпадает.  Существительные 3-го склонения (мышь, рожь) и многие существительные второго склонения (шкаф, поле) имеют одну и ту же форму в винительном падеже, что и в именительном. Этот случай называется прямым падежом. Все остальные случаи косвенные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nashol.com/2011060955536/tablica-padejei-russkogo-yazika.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выделяют прямой падеж (именительный и иногда также винительный) и косвенные падежи (остальные). Эта терминология связана с античным представлением о «склонении» (declinatio) как «отклонениях», «отпадениях» от правильной, «прямой» формы слова" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30087" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="683d9b28-bd0e-4236-95b8-ff11bd50a56e" CreationDate="2016-07-22T15:29:54.323" UserId="6097" Comment="removed irrelevant tag " Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30088" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="683d9b28-bd0e-4236-95b8-ff11bd50a56e" CreationDate="2016-07-22T15:29:54.323" Comment="Proposed by 6097 approved by 7369 edit id of 777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12863" RevisionGUID="6bd2654f-44c9-47a2-8c21-a67627875da3" CreationDate="2016-07-22T16:33:36.673" UserId="7544" Text="Russian language is very complex in terms of how similar types of words are consructed. &quot;Внештатный&quot; is only opposite of &quot;штатный&quot; in the meaning of &quot;internal staff&quot;, derived from &quot;вне штата&quot; (outside of the staff); for the meaning of &quot;standard&quot; the opposite is &quot;нештатный&quot;, because it is not related to being in or out of something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="3e2e2d85-f715-4ae3-8fd8-b42971a893ba" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:40:15.743" UserId="6350" Text="When learning a new language, I'm always looking for similarities between word roots - this helps me in remembering them. When learning Russian, I was surprised by the similarity of the words дорогой (expensive) and дорога (road). Do they have a common origin, or is this just a coincidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="3e2e2d85-f715-4ae3-8fd8-b42971a893ba" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:40:15.743" UserId="6350" Text="Do the words дорогой (expensive) and дорога (road) have a common origin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="3e2e2d85-f715-4ae3-8fd8-b42971a893ba" CreationDate="2016-07-22T17:40:15.743" UserId="6350" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="f2d4244d-0171-4e53-9f70-54e84f1a7581" CreationDate="2016-07-22T18:55:52.727" UserId="242" Text="Are &quot;dear&quot; and &quot;deer&quot;, or &quot;drag&quot; and &quot;drug&quot; are related in English? No they are not. It's just happens sometime that some words sounds similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дорога&quot; is related to &quot;дёрн&quot; (turf), &quot;драть&quot; (tear), &quot;дёргать&quot; and &quot;дерево&quot; (tree) and initially meant something like a path in a forest. Surprisingly, &quot;дорога&quot; is related to English verb drag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find out more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от индоевроп. *dorgh- (связано с дёргать и означает «продранное в лесу пространство»); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of &quot;дорогой&quot;, it's related to English word &quot;dear&quot;, [here's][2] a quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle English *dere*, from Old English *dēore*, from Proto-Germanic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diurijaz. Cognate with Dutch *duur* ‎(“costly, precious”), German teuer ‎(“costly, precious”), Icelandic *dýr* ‎(“expensive”), Norwegian *dyr*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swedish *dyr* ‎(“expensive”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30097" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12857" RevisionGUID="cae4f502-f4b9-4152-aaa7-02226bd787f0" CreationDate="2016-07-23T00:51:30.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/756652927893303296" />
  <row Id="30100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12864" RevisionGUID="24794bcf-af11-453b-926f-cda8f0342278" CreationDate="2016-07-23T09:51:30.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/756788823825248256" />
  <row Id="30101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="d55a8a81-7e70-4de1-862a-3bf9c7000ee4" CreationDate="2016-07-23T16:05:46.120" UserId="7254" Text="As far as I know you just have to *know* which words go with &quot;на&quot; and which with &quot;в&quot; concerning &quot;going to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I was wondering isn't it possible for certain words to be used with both prepositions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на театр. - I am going to see a play (in the theatre)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Я иду в театр. - I am going inside the theatre building for whatever reasons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="d55a8a81-7e70-4de1-862a-3bf9c7000ee4" CreationDate="2016-07-23T16:05:46.120" UserId="7254" Text="Я иду в vs Я иду на" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12867" RevisionGUID="d55a8a81-7e70-4de1-862a-3bf9c7000ee4" CreationDate="2016-07-23T16:05:46.120" UserId="7254" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12868" RevisionGUID="801f86db-8475-4d76-b4f0-76189fb8519c" CreationDate="2016-07-23T17:22:44.200" UserDisplayName="user7575" Text="In Russian you can say only &quot;Я иду в театр&quot; - &quot;I'm going to the theatre.&quot;&#xA;It doesn't use this in Russian: &quot;Я иду на театр&quot;. it sounds very strange.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12869" RevisionGUID="25d8ccfb-c45a-4b96-99a2-312cd3c28a50" CreationDate="2016-07-23T17:31:16.127" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Я иду на театр. - I am going to see a play (in the theatre)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nope. No one says so. Should be &quot;_Я иду на спектакль (пьесу)_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;isn't it possible for certain words to be used with both prepositions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, yes, but the meaning could differ a little. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на поле --&gt; I go on the field (any field: meadow, battle field, playing field etc.)  &#xD;&#xA;Я иду в поле --&gt; I go on the field (only in primary meaning: meadow / wheat field)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12870" RevisionGUID="56b4c4ef-4910-4443-b854-66d80721edf5" CreationDate="2016-07-23T17:36:23.263" UserId="7515" Text="We hardly say &quot;Я иду на театр&quot;, but I think it's possible to say both &quot;Она ушла _на_ балет&quot; - &quot;She went _to_ ballet&quot; (meaning a performance) and &quot;Она ушла _в_ балет&quot; - &quot;She went _for_ ballet&quot; (meaning an occupation, like in &quot;Её тренер предлагал тяжёлую атлетику, но она ушла в балет&quot; - &quot;Her coach has suggested heavy lifting, but she went for ballet&quot;).  Note however that in second case &quot;ballet&quot; means the whole enterprise/form of art/whatever you call it, and thus may not qualify as the &quot;same&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I wrote it, Matt gave a much better example [above][1]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/12869/7515" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30107" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="e1e9ca1f-5aca-4f3d-a831-a61ae63c41cf" CreationDate="2016-07-24T03:54:24.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/757061342989877248" />
  <row Id="30108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12871" RevisionGUID="d272d3dc-64b0-4ef1-91b5-ea6973a4ac1b" CreationDate="2016-07-24T09:03:10.233" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Я иду на театр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means either you are going to the theatre's roof or you are going to attack theatre (such as in &quot;I am going to attack theatre with my army&quot; or &quot;I am going to bulldoze theater with my bulldozer&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12871" RevisionGUID="56a86f61-9468-40e8-87a4-6555611a5140" CreationDate="2016-07-24T09:08:18.573" UserId="194" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я иду на театр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means either you are going to the theatre's roof or you are going to attack theatre (such as in &quot;I am going to attack theatre with my army&quot; or &quot;I am approaching the theater to bulldoze it with my bulldozer&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8137" RevisionGUID="9ea45dcc-e9a9-4912-9e10-a2e76b0174eb" CreationDate="2016-07-24T09:54:45.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/757152027214548992" />
  <row Id="30111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12852" RevisionGUID="85cef35f-30ce-4958-b80d-8d84813daa18" CreationDate="2016-07-24T11:34:54.207" UserId="3892" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The possible misunderstanding arose because the word &quot;дела&quot; may serve as [different parts of speech](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0) and hence will have different meanings depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  дела́ (e.g. как [твои] дела́ ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is a general question, like &quot;How are you?&quot; in English and may be asked to inquire about one's disposition, health, business etc. In this case &quot;дела́&quot; is substantive, nominative case. It is in the plural because the question is general and not focusing on any concrete things.  &#xD;&#xA;The original form of the question is [&quot;как дела ?&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Приветствие, вопрос о текущем состоянии дел:*  &#xD;&#xA; Это был грек из России, [...]. Одет он был бедно, выглядел печально. ― Как **дела́** ? ― спросил я у него. Он немного подумал и таинственно вздохнул: ― У вас хоть керосин есть.  &#xD;&#xA;*Ф. А. Искандер, &quot;Курортная идиллия&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Question &quot;Как твое де́ло?&quot; may be asked only regarding concrete business, when you would like to learn how is it going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. де́ла (куда ты его де́ла ?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In this case &quot;де́ла&quot; is a verb [&quot;деть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) in past time, gender feminine (it depends on &quot;ты&quot; and question assumes that your conversation partner (&quot;ты&quot;) is of gender feminine).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 1. *разг. положить, запрятать так, что не найти*.  &#xD;&#xA;На зов явилась женщина с тарелкой в руках [...]. И между ними произошел такой разговор: — Куда ты **де́ла**, разбойница, бумагу? — Ей-Богу, барин, не видывала, опричь небольшого лоскутка, которым изволили прикрыть рюмку.  &#xD;&#xA;*Н.В.Гоголь, &quot;Мертвые души&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; 2. *разг. найти для кого-либо, чего-либо место или применение; поместить или использовать*.  &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. де́ла (Без де́ла не входить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is the substantive [&quot;де́ло&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE) in genetive case, singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Много у вас **дела**? ― спросил Обломов. ― Да, довольно. Две статьи в газету каждую неделю, потом разборы беллетристов пишу, да вот написал рассказ...  &#xD;&#xA;*И.А. Гончаров, &quot;Обломов&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12872" RevisionGUID="06df6cbf-0cd4-445c-a36f-6bae012993d1" CreationDate="2016-07-24T14:38:25.203" UserId="7537" Text="Other answers pointed out to the possible semantic difference between these prepositions (в/на балет) in some cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there _are_ a few cases where the usage comes down to personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, about half of the Russians I know say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду на кухню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в кухню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such things can also be regional or historical. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду на концерт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is today's prevailing norm, but a few decades back&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в концерт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was in more common use, and was used exclusively this way in the XIX century. Yet, I know people who prefer _в концерт_ even today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. And let us not start about в/на Украину :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30113" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="9514c077-8a21-4d5b-92ee-04de06bcc2a2" CreationDate="2016-07-24T18:55:38.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/757288145977282566" />
  <row Id="30114" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="b88f8909-5c2d-4961-ba76-f5a0eabd640c" CreationDate="2016-07-25T03:57:21.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/757424472555151360" />
  <row Id="30115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12873" RevisionGUID="ef5b4ccc-25c9-44ba-83ed-cd8d7f730aa7" CreationDate="2016-07-25T10:32:00.720" UserId="5919" Text="Какая разница между **вокзал** и **станция**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12873" RevisionGUID="ef5b4ccc-25c9-44ba-83ed-cd8d7f730aa7" CreationDate="2016-07-25T10:32:00.720" UserId="5919" Text="Разница между вокзал и станция?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12873" RevisionGUID="ef5b4ccc-25c9-44ba-83ed-cd8d7f730aa7" CreationDate="2016-07-25T10:32:00.720" UserId="5919" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12874" RevisionGUID="ddc11730-3b27-469c-a7c7-3187db2bfbb4" CreationDate="2016-07-25T10:44:31.640" UserId="6602" Text="**Вокзал** is a [**station** building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_building). By the way, in informal speech **вокзал** means the station itself (Поезд прибывает на Ленинградский *вокзал* Москвы — Train departures to Leningradskiy *railway station* of Moscow)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="dc1d2660-4494-4c40-8edc-a2bd1164c1d6" CreationDate="2016-07-25T12:10:07.757" UserId="3503" Text="&quot;Станция&quot; - название места по его функции, например &quot;железнодорожная станция&quot; - место, где останавливаются поезда. &quot;Вокзал&quot; - это собственно комплекс зданий. Вокзал выполняет функцию станции (служит станцией). Станция может быть и без вокзала (например, содержит только платформу)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12877" RevisionGUID="9a164238-9190-400d-8b24-b4317437ef75" CreationDate="2016-07-25T12:34:51.403" UserId="4903" Text=" 1. The usage differs due to the size of the station. `Вокзал` is used for larger station buildings, while `станция` is used for small stops which may consist of only a platform and an overhang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Additionally, the usage differs due to the type of the transport, or location of the stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Subway stops - are called `станция метро,` but never `вокзал.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Passenger-train stops could be either `железнодорожная станция,` or `железнодорожный вокзал,` depending on the size. Stops for loading/unloading freight trains are `станция,` but not `вокзал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bus stops.  All stops in a city and small stops outside of a city are called `автобусная остановка,` large ones serving many buses are `автовокзал,`  anything in between is `автостанция` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Passenger-boat stops could be either `водный вокзал, речной вокзал, морской вокзал` or `водная станция`, depending on the size.  Note that `водная станция` is also used for beach areas and / or a places that rent out recreational rowing boats.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12876" RevisionGUID="05587516-c78f-45c2-bdf8-9060db5fcb87" CreationDate="2016-07-25T12:55:08.483" UserId="3503" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="Если оставаться в рамках &quot;транспортного&quot; контекста (не &quot;орбитальная станция&quot; и т.п.), то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Станция**&quot; - название места по его функции, например &quot;железнодорожная станция&quot; - место, где останавливаются поезда. &quot;**Вокзал**&quot; - это собственно комплекс зданий. Вокзал выполняет функцию станции (служит станцией).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Толковый словарь Ушакова:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; СТА́НЦИЯ, станции, жен. (от лат. statio).&#xD;&#xA;1. Пункт остановки на больших дорогах, почтовых трактах. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Словарь иностранных слов русского языка:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВОКЗАЛ — 1) здание железнодорожной станции с залом для ожидающих поездов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="d3b3642b-896b-4acc-b2cc-1bf7ecd4e040" CreationDate="2016-07-25T14:07:39.817" UserId="6526" Text="In the described context the reply &quot;ты вообще [молодец][1]&quot; could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Confirmation of the man's previous statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In this case the phrase could get translated like 'You are down it', 'You rock', implying that the woman really believes the man would do (or normally, usually = [вообще][2] does ) the right thing, and she approves his taste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Mockery of the man's statement, disbelieve or reaction on his assertion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here the usage of the phrase is rather irony than sarcasm. This meaning is mainly expressed by the word вообще that, besides the direct meaning of 'in general', can stand for both good and bad, negative or positive emotional connotation, much like the English 'Great!'. A common usage is '(Ну) вообще!' (Oh great! Perfect!). And we can add whatever we need to it to narrow to the subject: Да она вообще спец! Ну он вообще Паганини... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EC%EE%EB%EE%E4%E5%F6&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=r%3Aconcr%20%26%20ev%3Aposit&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;docid=107345&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="e9735b90-76ee-46dd-acb1-05928fc2ef84" CreationDate="2016-07-25T15:35:18.900" UserId="7544" Text="На фоне всё большего количества адептов предлога &quot;в&quot; в данном вопросе, становится интересно: а что говорят по этому поводу официальные источники? Есть ли официальные источники, утверждающие, что говорить &quot;в Украину&quot; -- правильно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30125" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="e9735b90-76ee-46dd-acb1-05928fc2ef84" CreationDate="2016-07-25T15:35:18.900" UserId="7544" Text="&quot;В&quot; или &quot;на&quot; Украину? Интересуют официальные источники" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30126" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="e9735b90-76ee-46dd-acb1-05928fc2ef84" CreationDate="2016-07-25T15:35:18.900" UserId="7544" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12878" RevisionGUID="7a15ebac-7953-41ef-93e7-0f8cd17f4aa2" CreationDate="2016-07-25T16:02:10.407" UserId="6526" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In the described context the reply &quot;ты вообще [молодец][1]&quot; could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Confirmation of the man's previous statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In this case the phrase could get translated like 'You are down with it', 'You rock', implying that the woman really believes the man would do (or normally, usually = [вообще][2] does ) the right thing, and she approves his taste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Mockery of the man's statement, disbelieve or reaction on his assertion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here the usage of the phrase is rather irony than sarcasm. This meaning is mainly expressed by the word вообще that, besides the direct meaning of 'in general', can stand for both good and bad, negative or positive emotional connotation, much like the English 'Great!'. A common usage is '(Ну) вообще!' (Oh great! Perfect!). And we can add whatever we need to it to narrow to the subject: Да она вообще спец! Ну он вообще Паганини... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EC%EE%EB%EE%E4%E5%F6&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=r%3Aconcr%20%26%20ev%3Aposit&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;docid=107345&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12880" RevisionGUID="6a0593d8-e8bd-4b9f-bddf-1e654355958d" CreationDate="2016-07-25T19:42:34.810" UserId="242" Text="Дмитрий, школа грамматистов делится на два больших лагеря - я не про русскую а вообще. Например, французская столетиями зиждилась на том, что есть некая норма, некий правильный язык - и её надо придерживаться. Назовём этот лагерь пуристами. Другой подход - назовём его условном статистическим - отслеживается, какая из форм употребляется всё чаще, какая начинает употребляться реже - и просто констатируется факт - нормой стало вот это вот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С языками, массово используемыми в нескольких странах ситуация становится ещё запутанней. Есть американский английский и есть английский Великобритании - определённое количество речевых оборотов и правил орфографии в этих странах разнитcя *по факту*. В США говорят **truck**, в Великобритании говорят **lorry**. Если задать на английском форуме вопрос - скажите пожалуйста, всё-таки мне нужен авторитетный источник - правильно truck или lorry - то вопрос этот закроют как риторический и, честно говоря бессмысленный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть факт - украинские русскоязычные люди предпочитают говорить &quot;в Украине&quot;, определённое части российской русскоязычной аудитории это режет слух, для какой-то её части этот вопрос вдруг перетекает в политическую плоскость. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы просите авторитетных источников, пожалуйста, у Розенталя читаем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Административно-географическими наименованиями употребляется предлог&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **в**, например: в городе, в районе, в области, в республике; в Сибири, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белоруссии, в Закавказье. Сочетание **на Украине** возникло под влиянием&#xD;&#xA;&gt; украинского языка (ср.: на Полтавщине, на Черниговщине) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поддерживается выражением на окраине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть Дитмар Эльяшевич фактически говорит следующее - вообще говорят &quot;в&quot;, но под влиянием украинского существует форма &quot;на &quot; - к тому же есть слово окраина и форма образована по аналогии с ней (мы сейчас оставляем за скобками это замечание, оно не имеет отношения к делу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Достаточно для вас Розенталь авторитетный источник? &#xD;&#xA;Может быть, вам будет комфортней, если это будет там не знаю, какой-нибудь административный акт?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это всё не важно, важно что по факту норма употребляется.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот например, москвичи часто говорят &quot;сосиська&quot; и &quot;тётька&quot; - мне ужасно режет это слух, но поправлять их - дело неблагодарное. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12880" RevisionGUID="e91aa983-5cd1-44c3-9e1b-025a80a5bcb1" CreationDate="2016-07-25T20:04:45.207" UserId="242" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Дмитрий, школа грамматистов делится на два больших лагеря - я не про русскую а вообще. Например, французская столетиями зиждилась на том, что есть некая норма, некий правильный язык - и её надо придерживаться. Назовём этот лагерь пуристами. Другой подход - назовём его условном статистическим - отслеживается, какая из форм употребляется всё чаще, какая начинает употребляться реже - и просто констатируется факт - нормой стало вот это вот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С языками, массово используемыми в нескольких странах ситуация становится ещё запутанней. Есть американский английский и есть английский Великобритании - определённое количество речевых оборотов и правил орфографии в этих странах разнитcя *по факту*. В США говорят **truck**, в Великобритании говорят **lorry**. Если задать на английском форуме вопрос - скажите пожалуйста, всё-таки мне нужен авторитетный источник - правильно truck или lorry - то вопрос этот закроют как риторический и, честно говоря бессмысленный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть факт - украинские русскоязычные люди предпочитают говорить &quot;в Украине&quot;, определённое части российской русскоязычной аудитории это режет слух, для какой-то её части этот вопрос вдруг перетекает в политическую плоскость. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы просите авторитетных источников, пожалуйста, у Розенталя [читаем][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Административно-географическими наименованиями употребляется предлог&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **в**, например: в городе, в районе, в области, в республике; в Сибири, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белоруссии, в Закавказье. Сочетание **на Украине** возникло под влиянием&#xD;&#xA;&gt; украинского языка (ср.: на Полтавщине, на Черниговщине) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поддерживается выражением на окраине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть Дитмар Эльяшевич фактически говорит следующее - вообще говорят &quot;в&quot;, но под влиянием украинского существует форма &quot;на &quot; - к тому же есть слово окраина и форма образована по аналогии с ней (мы сейчас оставляем за скобками это замечание, оно не имеет отношения к делу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Достаточно для вас Розенталь авторитетный источник? &#xD;&#xA;Может быть, вам будет комфортней, если это будет там не знаю, какой-нибудь административный акт?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это всё не важно, важно что по факту норма употребляется.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот например, москвичи часто говорят &quot;сосиська&quot; и &quot;тётька&quot; - мне ужасно режет это слух, но поправлять их - дело неблагодарное. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://2yxa.ru/rus/styli_xlv_199_2.wml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="0f98d4b4-4133-494f-b082-9e1630eab017" CreationDate="2016-07-26T02:38:07.670" UserId="3892" Text="Is there any significant difference between the nouns **прах** and **пепел**. I understand they both refer to *ashes*, but are they completely interchangeable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="0f98d4b4-4133-494f-b082-9e1630eab017" CreationDate="2016-07-26T02:38:07.670" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between ПРАХ and ПЕПЕЛ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="0f98d4b4-4133-494f-b082-9e1630eab017" CreationDate="2016-07-26T02:38:07.670" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12882" RevisionGUID="6d3b10e9-191f-4bfe-81c4-e66a508987a6" CreationDate="2016-07-26T02:51:50.633" UserId="6097" Text="*Прах* is ashes of a dead person, not necessarily cremated  (мир праху его). *Пепел* is ashes of any burnt thing (бумажный пепел, пепел костра). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12882" RevisionGUID="4f89c209-dd48-4f01-9f8c-9caf01b16fdf" CreationDate="2016-07-26T03:00:43.260" UserId="6097" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="*Прах* is remains of a dead human body, not necessarily cremated  (мир праху его). *Пепел* is remains of any burnt thing (бумажный пепел, пепел костра). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12882" RevisionGUID="eeee1d27-c904-4d40-ab5a-9597fcccda89" CreationDate="2016-07-26T03:11:20.043" UserId="6097" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="*Прах* is remains of a dead human body, not necessarily cremated  (мир праху его). The word is a little bookish and almost not used in everyday language. &#xA;&#xA;*Пепел* is remains of any burnt thing (бумажный пепел, пепел костра). See also *зола*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30136" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="a84d0ba0-b6a9-4c22-99de-17f1bf21499e" CreationDate="2016-07-26T03:47:52.477" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;прах&quot; and &quot;пепел&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="a84d0ba0-b6a9-4c22-99de-17f1bf21499e" CreationDate="2016-07-26T03:47:52.477" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="4c4da570-0ec3-4d65-91cc-0d5c1c38df30" CreationDate="2016-07-26T07:41:06.210" UserId="551" Text="I agree with Alex.S that first thing one think of hearing word &quot;прах&quot; is what is left of a man after his death. &quot;Прах к праху&quot; is a citation from Bible - &quot;Ashes to ashes&quot;. However this is high-style figurative meaning. And it is the only time when &quot;ashes&quot; is translated as &quot;прах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact &quot;прах&quot; is old word for &quot;dust&quot;, and not for a &quot;пепел&quot;. Пепел is what is left from burnt things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below go examples from [Ushakov's dictionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Usages of &quot;прах&quot; in &quot;dust&quot; meaning: &quot;Отрясти прах от ног&quot; - remove dust from feet. &quot;Прах вился столбом&quot; (Лермонтов) - &quot;Dust was raised high&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Another old-style figurative meaning - something non-valuable, &quot;И мощь бесов исчезнет яко прах&quot; (Пушкин) - &quot;Devils' might will disappear like ashes&quot;, &quot;Деньги прах, вот что я тебе говорю&quot; (Островский) - &quot;Money is a dust, that's what I'm saying to you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally - dead body (figurative), including cremated body (in this case it is less figurative - instead of &quot;ashes&quot; you call this powder &quot;a dust&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. And there are several proverbs &quot;В пух и в прах&quot; - completely, like when spent all money on gambling - &quot;проигрался в пух и в прах&quot;, &quot;Пойти прахом&quot; - when something valuable is ruined or disappeared, like when someone's business was ruined because of a bankrupcy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, these words are usually not interchangeable. They are interchangeable only in biblical meaning, or when you are referring to a cremated body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1101158" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12883" RevisionGUID="8e74c220-b070-45d6-aa7d-b07b0aaf6806" CreationDate="2016-07-26T07:46:18.553" UserId="551" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="I agree with Alex.S that first thing one think of hearing word &quot;прах&quot; nowadays is what is left of a man after his death. &quot;Прах к праху&quot; is a citation from Bible - &quot;Ashes to ashes&quot;. However this is high-style figurative meaning. And it is the only time when &quot;ashes&quot; is translated as &quot;прах&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact &quot;прах&quot; is old word for &quot;dust&quot;, and not for a &quot;пепел&quot;. Пепел is what is left from burnt things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below go examples from [Ushakov's dictionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Usages of &quot;прах&quot; in &quot;dust&quot; meaning: &quot;Отрясти прах от ног&quot; - remove dust from feet. &quot;Прах вился столбом&quot; (Лермонтов) - &quot;Dust was raised high&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Another old-style figurative meaning - something non-valuable, &quot;И мощь бесов исчезнет яко прах&quot; (Пушкин) - &quot;Devils' might will disappear like dust&quot;, &quot;Деньги прах, вот что я тебе говорю&quot; (Островский) - &quot;Money is a dust, that's what I'm saying to you&quot;. (However if I would translate this to English I would use &quot;ashes&quot; to make a reference to Bible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally - dead body (figurative), including cremated body (in this case it is less figurative - instead of &quot;ashes&quot; you call this powder &quot;a dust&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. And there are several proverbs &quot;В пух и в прах&quot; - completely, like when spent all money on gambling - &quot;проигрался в пух и в прах&quot;, &quot;Пойти прахом&quot; - when something valuable is ruined or disappeared, like when someone's business was ruined because of a bankrupcy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, these words are usually not interchangeable. They are interchangeable only in biblical figurative meaning, or when you are referring to a cremated body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1101158" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12884" RevisionGUID="2f713b31-9de5-4d21-95ed-809c5ca2e3be" CreationDate="2016-07-26T11:26:57.320" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;_Прах_&quot; (Church Slavonic), &quot;_порох_&quot; (native Russian) and &quot;_порошок_&quot; (diminutive of &quot;порох&quot;) were essentially the same thing, but in modern language they become completely different: &quot;порох&quot; - gunpowder, &quot;порошок&quot; - any powder, except gunpowder and cosmetic powder (which is denoted by the loanword &quot;пудра&quot;), and for &quot;прах&quot; now remain only bookish and high-style figuratives for dust and human ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Пепел_&quot; is a cognate word to &quot;powder&quot;, yet it denotes exclusively a light powder-like ash (often flying round the fire). As such ash is typically grayish, so there is an adjective &quot;_пепельный_&quot; which means &quot;grayish color&quot; (e.g. &quot;пепельные волосы&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;_зола_&quot; (btw. it's a cognate to &quot;coal&quot;) means dark heavy ash, which usually remains in the fireplace." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="ac3baf2b-423b-4910-b4f6-09319c9f3562" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:12:42.933" UserId="3892" Text="I've only ever heard this verb in its perfective form **раздобыть**, yet the dictionary lists **раздобывать** as its imperfective. However is it ever used? The only context I could possibly imagine is something like: Здесь долго раздобывают такие вещи на черном рынке. Is that possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="ac3baf2b-423b-4910-b4f6-09319c9f3562" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:12:42.933" UserId="3892" Text="Usage of imperfective раздобывать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="ac3baf2b-423b-4910-b4f6-09319c9f3562" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:12:42.933" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="218d2179-5a2f-46d2-ae8f-d1b7db95d341" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:17:15.147" UserId="3892" Text="In the expression **не раздумывая ни секунды/минуты** are the time elements accusative plural or genitive singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="218d2179-5a2f-46d2-ae8f-d1b7db95d341" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:17:15.147" UserId="3892" Text="не раздумывая ни" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="218d2179-5a2f-46d2-ae8f-d1b7db95d341" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:17:15.147" UserId="3892" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12887" RevisionGUID="f55f0e80-6e1c-42c9-9568-092fa8e06b85" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:29:05.017" UserId="3892" Text="I have seen both **раздумывать** and **подумывать** used in situations where the subject is giving serious thought to doing something. Thus in the sentence: **Я подумываю сказать пару слов после ужина**, the speaker is entertaining the possibility of addressing his guests. Could he just as well have used **раздумываю**? Are there any nuances that differentiate the choice of one over the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, I saw the sentence: **Я уже подумываю позвонить твоему отцу!** which I interepreted as a threat or warning along the lines of *I have half a mind to call your father! (and tell him what you did)*. Would **раздумываю** here preserve the same tenor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12887" RevisionGUID="f55f0e80-6e1c-42c9-9568-092fa8e06b85" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:29:05.017" UserId="3892" Text="раздумывать versus подумывать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12887" RevisionGUID="f55f0e80-6e1c-42c9-9568-092fa8e06b85" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:29:05.017" UserId="3892" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12888" RevisionGUID="8599b537-143d-48d9-9da2-0bc2d57789a6" CreationDate="2016-07-26T13:30:52.637" UserId="5510" Text="This is **genitive singular** (родительный падеж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers the question: кого? чего? - секунды, минуты. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar: не терять ни секунды." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12889" RevisionGUID="abff6542-1e24-4d93-9c5a-3804810aeb78" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:06:23.883" UserId="5008" Text="Sometimes they even say &quot;Не раздумывая ни **единой** секунды&quot;. So it should be obvious it's singular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="9c387954-23c6-4649-af34-f8ca1cc890f5" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:19:18.160" UserId="2383" Text="«раздумываю» is more about the process, while «подумываю» is more about an intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is pure grammatical: they control different prepositions/cases. In «раздумываю _о чем-либо_» the object is in a prepositional case, while in «подумываю _что-либо_» there is a nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я уже подумываю позвонить твоему отцу!» sentence could be used with «раздумываю», but in this case, native speaker would likely use an indirect negation (sic!) «Я раздумываю, _не позвонить ли_ мне твоему отцу!». I would say, the latter is the consequence of «раздумываю» being more about a process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="221110ea-09d1-4af2-88af-969177c540f6" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:22:44.803" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="«раздумываю» is more about the process, while «подумываю» is more about an intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is pure grammatical: they control different prepositions/cases. In «раздумываю _о чем-либо_» the object is in the prepositional case, while in «подумываю _что-либо_» it's accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я уже подумываю позвонить твоему отцу!» sentence could be used with «раздумываю», but in this case, a native speaker would likely use an indirect negation (sic!) «Я раздумываю, _не позвонить ли_ мне твоему отцу!». I would say, the latter is the consequence of «раздумываю» being more about a process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12891" RevisionGUID="a92a0065-fa1b-4a37-b5c3-e9cc27c165f1" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:23:05.683" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Thus in the sentence: Я подумываю сказать пару слов после ужина, the speaker is entertaining the possibility of addressing his guests. Could he just as well have used раздумываю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Раздумываю_&quot; means an alternative here. So you may say something like: &quot;Я раздумываю сказать пару слов после ужина или нет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Would раздумываю here preserve the same tenor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, unless you mean colloquial &quot;раздумываю&quot; = &quot;собираюсь передумать&quot; = &quot;I'm going to change my mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally &quot;раздумывать&quot; makes sense only as &quot;fair thinking&quot;, so it's a &quot;bad&quot; threat. Of course one may make his intention more obvious, sort of: &quot;Я уже раздумываю, не лучше ли в таком случае позвонить твоему отцу&quot; etc. But as is the single verb &quot;раздумывать&quot; is too weak for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12892" RevisionGUID="987a06e9-6c20-47f8-bdc9-3a7f9ad78a6d" CreationDate="2016-07-26T14:30:49.887" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;However is it ever used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though this verb is a &quot;legal&quot; one, I can't think of any good reason to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Здесь долго раздобывают такие вещи на черном рынке. Is that possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure why you say &quot;долго&quot; - it seems to have no sense in this context. I'd rather say: &quot;Здесь можно раздобыть такие вещи только на черном рынке&quot; or something like that. So instead of &quot;раздобывать&quot;, I believe, one may always say either &quot;добывать&quot; or &quot;можно раздобыть&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12893" RevisionGUID="4c02a9cf-803d-447a-950b-4d3bf5df424a" CreationDate="2016-07-26T15:45:17.570" UserId="1674" Text="In case of negative statement, &quot;ни&quot; will serve as particle and word depending on it (most likely noun, but not necessary) will be used in genitive case, singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.*Част.* В отрицательном предложении означает полное отсутствие упоминаемого объекта, обозначаемого в родительном падеже.   &#xD;&#xA;*Я не видел там ни одного солдата.*  &#xD;&#xA;[source](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule will apply to the negative statements where &quot;ни&quot; is used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30157" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="68a9c7da-671c-447a-b1f2-0da04d6d429d" CreationDate="2016-07-26T16:30:58.507" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Which case is used with &quot;не раздумывая ни&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="b2340327-dd4f-44c5-a8ce-b847e1474b39" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:06:39.707" UserId="4702" Text="When do you use про and when о? (about). Are they synonyms in all contexts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="b2340327-dd4f-44c5-a8ce-b847e1474b39" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:06:39.707" UserId="4702" Text="When do you use про and when о?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="b2340327-dd4f-44c5-a8ce-b847e1474b39" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:06:39.707" UserId="4702" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="78275877-a66d-440b-bfa3-794cfcbdfddd" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:26:57.553" UserId="7584" Text="I play a mobile game that has a number of Russians in my guild. I can type out what they say in Google Translate, but on my phone I only have the Latin A-Z available. I know I could go get a Russian keyboard app, but is there a way to communicate in an elementary fashion with Russians using just the Latin alphabet? Is there a mapping of Russian letters to Latin letters that would allow me to type to them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="78275877-a66d-440b-bfa3-794cfcbdfddd" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:26:57.553" UserId="7584" Text="Communicate to Russians with only Latin alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="78275877-a66d-440b-bfa3-794cfcbdfddd" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:26:57.553" UserId="7584" Text="|узус|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="2588d170-987b-4c11-8ff0-71c6a08ea582" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:27:48.097" UserId="7544" Text="They are basically complete synonyms, but &quot;про что-то&quot; is mostly used in conversation or when imitatimg oral speach, while &quot;о чём-то&quot; is stylistically neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="95375e82-be9f-4e58-868a-b23b5dccb277" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:31:56.613" UserId="7544" Text="Pleasem clarify your needs. Do you want to be able to respond to them in latin keyboard? Just type russian words in transliteration, like &quot;Spasibo&quot;, I do it in all the games that have problems with russian layout. Do you want to type what they say in Google Translate so it translates things for you? Unfortunately, it can't accept transliteration as far as I know, but instead of typing you could use some application that can detect text and translate it for you, I am not a smartphone user, but I know that such applications exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12884" RevisionGUID="3f9adf82-36b0-4f00-800c-37fe2e8f9b74" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:34:21.757" UserId="179" Comment="a small correction of the use of tenses" Text="&quot;_Прах_&quot; (Church Slavonic), &quot;_порох_&quot; (native Russian) and &quot;_порошок_&quot; (diminutive of &quot;порох&quot;) were essentially the same thing, but in modern language they have become completely different: &quot;порох&quot; - gunpowder, &quot;порошок&quot; - any powder, except gunpowder and cosmetic powder (which is denoted by the loanword &quot;пудра&quot;), and for &quot;прах&quot; now remain only bookish and high-style figurative expressions for dust and human ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Пепел_&quot; is a cognate word to &quot;powder&quot;, yet it denotes exclusively a light powder-like ash (often flying round the fire). As such ash is typically grayish, so there is an adjective &quot;_пепельный_&quot; which means &quot;grayish color&quot; (e.g. &quot;пепельные волосы&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;_зола_&quot; (btw. it's a cognate to &quot;coal&quot;) means dark heavy ash, which usually remains in the fireplace." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30168" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12884" RevisionGUID="3f9adf82-36b0-4f00-800c-37fe2e8f9b74" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:34:21.757" Comment="Proposed by 179 approved by 5008 edit id of 778" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12898" RevisionGUID="3db089c9-4888-49f3-8dba-18cfd21d11f8" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:34:31.803" UserId="7544" Text="Your sentence is gramatically correct, but the word &quot;раздобывать&quot; is of informal style, consider using other words if not speaking informally. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12899" RevisionGUID="5fcf8ec4-f051-4c54-a00e-ac10105783f9" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:43:21.020" UserId="4714" Text="In principle we can use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он выглядит—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;КАК ДУРАК, ДУРАКОМ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ХОРОШО, ХОРОШИМ, КАК ХОРОШИЙ X&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which structure is best, or how do they differ in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read this in Толковый словарь Ушакова—(всё более входящий в употребление германизм - букв. перевод нем. aussehen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean this verb only recently took on the meaning of &quot;to look like&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12899" RevisionGUID="5fcf8ec4-f051-4c54-a00e-ac10105783f9" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:43:21.020" UserId="4714" Text="Which case to use with &quot;выглядеть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12899" RevisionGUID="5fcf8ec4-f051-4c54-a00e-ac10105783f9" CreationDate="2016-07-26T17:43:21.020" UserId="4714" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12900" RevisionGUID="0a4c8271-726c-4336-9c59-ed7592c4218b" CreationDate="2016-07-26T18:31:24.247" UserId="6539" Text="**Разд’умать**, -аю, -аешь; соверш. вид, с неопред. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Отказаться от задуманного, перерешить. --*to change one's mind,decision*. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Раздумать ехать.(to change one's mind and not to go.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;несовершенный вид **раздумывать**, -аю, -аешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Думать, долго не приходя к какому-нибудь заключению, к решению. --*to think for a long time not coming to any decision, conclusion*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Раздумывать о случившемся.( to think of what happened )&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хватит раздумывать, соглашайся.(Stop thinking it over.Accept it.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под’умывать**, -аю, -аешь; несовершенный вид (разговорн.).(colloquial )&#xD;&#xA;1. От времени до времени думать о чём-нибудь предстоящем. --*from time to time to think about future events*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Подумывать об отъезде.(to think about leaving ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Намереваться сделать что-нибудь .--*to have an intention, to decide to do something*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Давно подумывал уехать.(I have been thinking about going away for a long time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your examples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **подумываю** сказать пару слов после ужина.-- I am thinking(I am determined, I know what to say) of saying something after dinner. The structure is *verb+infinitive*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can't just change the verb here, but you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **раздумываю**, сказать ли об этом после ужина.(или нет)(I am thinking whether to say about that after dinner or not. I haven't decided yet.)The structure is *verb+if clause(conditional )*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я уже **подумываю** позвонить твоему отцу.(I am almost ready to call your father) *verb+infinitive*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't just change the verb here. But you can say, using *conditional*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **раздумываю**, позвонить  твоему отцу или нет.(I am thinking of calling but I haven't made up my mind yet).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12901" RevisionGUID="dde3a434-5266-4393-a882-1f5d8ac04a8e" CreationDate="2016-07-26T18:31:29.890" UserId="3727" Text="I disagree with the accepted answer. And the reference to the translation of &quot;user experience&quot; as &quot;опыт взаимодействия&quot; does not hold much water either, IMHO. English word &quot;experience&quot; has 2 meanings (at least): 1. certain level of expertise and 2. a process of observation, encounter etc.&#xD;&#xA;Russian word &quot;опыт&quot;, on the other hand, only corresponds to the first meaning. This fact completely invalidates the referenced title translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better translation would be something like &quot;впечатление пользователя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="b58bb20a-5295-4ad1-9a99-081951d9534f" CreationDate="2016-07-26T18:58:02.533" UserId="5510" Comment="fixed errors" Text="They are basically complete synonyms, but &quot;про что-то&quot; is mostly used in conversation or when imitating oral speech, while &quot;о чём-то&quot; is stylistically more neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30176" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="b58bb20a-5295-4ad1-9a99-081951d9534f" CreationDate="2016-07-26T18:58:02.533" Comment="Proposed by 5510 approved by 7544 edit id of 779" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12902" RevisionGUID="1b3eaa5d-611d-4901-b8d5-1a54c53ee2ff" CreationDate="2016-07-26T19:05:39.887" UserId="7544" Text="&quot;Выглядеть&quot; + Adverb is always without &quot;как&quot;, in singular instrumental case, so is &quot;Выглядеть&quot; + Adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Выглядеть&quot; + Noun doesn't really change meaning at all depending on which construction do you use, both are totally OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12903" RevisionGUID="ad55b26a-fa2f-403e-8032-f4b95b9ca9df" CreationDate="2016-07-26T19:55:13.153" UserId="1674" Text="What you are searching for is [translit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Translit is a method of encoding Cyrillic letters with Latin ones. [...]  &#xD;&#xA;The translit system arose when Russian speakers first needed to write their language on computers that did not support the Cyrillic script.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically what it means is that you will write russian words using the latin keyboard. There are certain rules however (refer to **Common Transliterations in translit** table), which can be a bit tedious to write and to read / understand too (although they are common and well-known):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    odin       ||      один&#xD;&#xA;    chetyre    ||      четыре&#xD;&#xA;    shest'     ||      шесть  &#xD;&#xA;    sem'       ||      семь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to convert russian words to translit and back with some services, like [translit.net](http://translit.net/). That can be done only when words are already written in Russian though; you will need to know respective rules of transliteration to write word only with Latin keyboard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12881" RevisionGUID="dc0e569d-5dce-44b1-930b-e292b1c4e4f9" CreationDate="2016-07-26T22:23:16.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758065175928897536" />
  <row Id="30180" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="0fd2cad9-6960-471c-b6d6-ecd661004067" CreationDate="2016-07-26T22:27:51.877" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|предлоги|toponyms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12904" RevisionGUID="9bcddd1d-e8d2-4dc2-9fd0-933f2f654da2" CreationDate="2016-07-26T22:49:16.610" UserId="2284" Text="There are many fine points related to both of these words. In some contexts they may be used interchangeably, or a choice may be made depending on the context and the point of view. Now we won't bother ourselves with non-transportation usages of станция such as электростанция or станция переливания крови.&#xA;&#xA;Станция in technical sense means a point where vehicles or trains start or complete their journeys, are shunted, split, joined etc.&#xA;&#xA;When speaking of railroads, it is important to know that for a railway person there's a difference between поезд (train) as a unit of traffic and its physical implementation such as состав (consist), одиночный локомотив (solitary locomotive), сплотка локомотивов (a group of locomotives), дрезина, мотриса (railcars) or others. A consist is always a consist, a railcar is always a railcar, etc, but they all only become a train when the train dispatcher appoints it and gives it the order to start; and they are no longer a train once they arrived at destination. That's exactly what станция is for. A станция always has a few tracks, points, entry and exit (and possibly intermediate) semaphores and a signalbox. There's also a specialized type of станция called разъезд - that is a passing loop on single track line. You may ask, what about a simple platform near a straight stretch of track? Well, a Russian railway pro will tell you that that is not a станция, that's a платформа (if it has any passenger facilities) or an остановочный пункт (otherwise). Moreover, in some cases you can find out that sometimes a станция is so large that there is more than one платформа in its boundaries (eg. станция Подмосковная in Moscow, where local trains stop at платформа Гражданская and платформа Ленинградская). Without going into extremely fine points, that's all there is  about станция as a railroad term.&#xA;&#xA;In bus traffic, [авто]станция is also a place where bus routes start and finish. However, a rural bus route will usually have only one of its ends at a станция - the other will be a mere остановка (stop) in a remote village. What makes the difference is enough space for prolonged stopping and facilities for passengers and drivers. Soviet traditions of urban bus and tram planning usually also prescribe the creation of terminus stations (конечная станция) with facilities for drivers. In pre-GPS times their schedule keeping was also done there. Every route is then planned so that at least one of its ends is at such a terminus station.&#xA;&#xA;The easiest situation is in metro - every stop is a станция, in both technical and informal contexts, although even here there's the ever-going controversy whether cross-platform interchanges should be counted as one or two.&#xA;&#xA;In water transportation the word станция is usually not used. Here we use пристань for a single pier or порт for larger traffic hubs. In air transportation, it's аэродром (without a passenger building) or аэропорт.&#xA;&#xA;Вокзал technically is the passenger building of a станция, порт or аэропорт. It often comes with some prefix: автовокзал, аэровокзал, речной вокзал, морской вокзал.&#xA;&#xA;Now to everyday usage.&#xA;&#xA;The fine points of difference between станция, платформа, разъезд, остановочный пункт are of no interest to most railway passengers; they use the word станция to denote most of them, making their railway-employed friends wince.&#xA;&#xA;However, some of the stations are synecdochally called вокзал. A city dweller will use вокзал to denote the principal station of a railway line serving that city. Long-distance trains usually will only stop at these stations. For example, Moscow has 9 stations called вокзал, with 10 radii originating from them; long-distance trains in normal conditions never stop anywhere within the bounds of Moscow but at these stations. Most cities have only one вокзал.&#xA;&#xA;A passenger travelling on a long-distance train (say, along the Trans-Siberian) has a different perspective. He will use the word вокзал to describe a particularly large station en route. For passengers travelling in a suburban train, вокзал is the terminus station in the regional capital.&#xA;&#xA;This synecdochal usage also applies to bus and water transportation. However, аэровокзал is nowadays faded out of colloquial usage at all - even if we want to speak of the building itself, we'll say терминал or just здание аэропорта.&#xA;&#xA;With metro, вокзал is only used very rarely in exalted newspaper reports praising the beauties of the new stations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12896" RevisionGUID="ba0e136a-accc-42c9-a079-6a3694047c76" CreationDate="2016-07-27T01:10:07.760" UserId="7544" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="They are basically complete synonyms, but &quot;про что-то&quot; is mostly used in conversation or when imitating oral speech, while &quot;о чём-то&quot; is stylistically more neutral. Also note that &quot;о чём-то&quot; uses different case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30184" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12873" RevisionGUID="aea5c16e-37f2-4005-aea5-844d697668f9" CreationDate="2016-07-27T08:24:53.427" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Разница между &quot;вокзал&quot; и &quot;станция&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30187" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12886" RevisionGUID="7d6fbff9-f437-4de7-8fe1-3076655f9600" CreationDate="2016-07-27T13:31:20.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758293696035033089" />
  <row Id="30188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12899" RevisionGUID="312a7e88-ddc1-4f67-a6fb-4e9e88cf0a8c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:05:41.670" UserId="1674" Comment="Added explanation from Ushakov dictionary to make post clearer and link to it" Text="In principle we can use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он выглядит *как дурак*; *дураком*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он выглядит *хорошо, хорошим, как хороший X*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which structure is best, or how do they differ in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read this in [Толковый словарь Ушакова](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/769942):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ВЫ́ГЛЯДЕТЬ&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;**, *всё более входящий в употребление германизм - букв. перевод нем. aussehen.*  &#xD;&#xA;*(разг.)*. Иметь какой-нибудь вид, производить какое-нибудь впечатление своим видом. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После болезни он хорошо выглядит.  &#xD;&#xA; Этот дом выглядит совсем новым. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean this verb only recently took on the meaning of &quot;to look like&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30189" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12899" RevisionGUID="312a7e88-ddc1-4f67-a6fb-4e9e88cf0a8c" CreationDate="2016-07-27T14:05:41.670" Comment="Proposed by 1674 approved by 4714 edit id of 781" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30190" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12885" RevisionGUID="e1922316-5cc4-4fb9-90bb-aaba0f1b7622" CreationDate="2016-07-27T16:31:20.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758338994228891648" />
  <row Id="30192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12905" RevisionGUID="aeadf340-dc18-4f07-b1ab-7927c651c5cc" CreationDate="2016-07-28T01:35:30.947" UserId="6816" Text="If you ask for a &quot;table for five&quot; or a question of similar nature where the number or adjective implies a noun following it such as &quot;table for five (people),&quot; should the number or adjective be in the nominative case or the accusative case (пять or пяти)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12905" RevisionGUID="aeadf340-dc18-4f07-b1ab-7927c651c5cc" CreationDate="2016-07-28T01:35:30.947" UserId="6816" Text="Adjectives &amp; Numbers Implying Nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12905" RevisionGUID="aeadf340-dc18-4f07-b1ab-7927c651c5cc" CreationDate="2016-07-28T01:35:30.947" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12906" RevisionGUID="be611d2b-7775-4f1b-8e67-f06c87f40a47" CreationDate="2016-07-28T02:33:15.477" UserId="7537" Text="Genitive: &quot;стол для пяти (человек/тарелок)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a special form for numerals which is commonly used in Russian in such cases: стол для пятерых. This is called &quot;собирательное числительное&quot; (collective numeral):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    двое&#xD;&#xA;    трое&#xD;&#xA;    четверо&#xD;&#xA;    пятеро&#xD;&#xA;    шестеро&#xD;&#xA;    etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a bit tricky: they can also be used with a noun (для пятерых человек), but only with an animate one and never feminine (для двоих братьев, но: для двух сестёр, для шести коробок). (There are exceptions for plural-only words). And, which makes it more relevant to your example, they more readily imply 'persons' as the noun, so &quot;стол для пятерых&quot; is a bit clearer and less potentially ambiguous (and more common) than &quot;стол для пяти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used in the 'nominative' form (двое братьев), they formally require Accusative for the noun, but remember it's animate plural only, which is in practice often identical to Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in your example, the whole phrase (including the numeral) takes whatever form is required by the case: для + Genitive. We can put it in any other case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Думаю о пяти/пятерых братьях (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;    Горжусь тремя/троими братьями (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;    Стол для семи/семерых братьев (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="79953360-d9da-4433-a089-3c3311c77601" CreationDate="2016-07-28T03:21:13.307" UserId="6816" Text="When you are asked a question like &quot;Откуда вы?&quot;, and you wanted to answer with a single word, would you say &quot;Россия&quot; or &quot;России&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="79953360-d9da-4433-a089-3c3311c77601" CreationDate="2016-07-28T03:21:13.307" UserId="6816" Text="Answering Questions with Incomplete Phrases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="79953360-d9da-4433-a089-3c3311c77601" CreationDate="2016-07-28T03:21:13.307" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="a17dfbc9-2965-4759-85e7-f372a6a26187" CreationDate="2016-07-28T04:23:52.593" UserId="6539" Text="You can actually use both, but the second noun should be used with its preposition *из России* and it sounds more correct. But speaking to foreigners I would choose *Россия*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12906" RevisionGUID="c0ba5048-54e5-40a2-a4d1-deed349a0223" CreationDate="2016-07-28T04:25:39.160" UserId="7537" Comment="Added Accusative example to show the difference with Genitive" Text="Genitive: &quot;стол для пяти (человек/тарелок)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a special form for numerals which is commonly used in Russian in such cases: стол для пятерых. This is called &quot;собирательное числительное&quot; (collective numeral):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    двое&#xD;&#xA;    трое&#xD;&#xA;    четверо&#xD;&#xA;    пятеро&#xD;&#xA;    шестеро&#xD;&#xA;    etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a bit tricky: they can also be used with a noun (для пятерых человек), but only with an animate one and never feminine (для двоих братьев, но: для двух сестёр, для шести коробок). (There are exceptions for plural-only words). And, which makes it more relevant to your example, they more readily imply 'persons' as the noun, so &quot;стол для пятерых&quot; is a bit clearer and less potentially ambiguous (and more common) than &quot;стол для пяти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used in the 'nominative' form (двое братьев), they formally require Accusative for the noun, but remember it's animate plural only, which is in practice often identical to Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in your example, the whole phrase (including the numeral) takes whatever form is required by the case: для + Genitive. We can put it in any other case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Думаю о пяти/пятерых братьях (Prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;    Горжусь тремя/троими братьями (Instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;    Стол для семи/семерых братьев (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;    Стол на шесть/шестерых братьев (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30201" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12899" RevisionGUID="381e28fa-c709-49a0-b376-30ca2a5a01eb" CreationDate="2016-07-28T04:32:34.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758520499114762240" />
  <row Id="30202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12909" RevisionGUID="37d3c177-273b-47f5-90d0-abdeae62e383" CreationDate="2016-07-28T07:32:06.247" UserId="5443" Text="*Из России* is the proper answer. *России* would be definitely a **mistake**: you can't use the required case with dropped preposition here. *Россия* из possible but not perfect: similar simplified, low colloquial answers sometimes even sound impolite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12910" RevisionGUID="12f45406-f059-4f21-95c2-165555fec628" CreationDate="2016-07-28T08:55:09.883" UserId="5443" Text="*Раздобыть* means to get something rare *by chance*, as opposed to *добыть/добывать* - *by making proper efforts*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не поверите, сегодня я раздобыл для своей коллекции [картину]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Айвазовского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Раздобыть* even carries a hidden meaning '**for once**' (by strange coincidence, it reminds the expression &quot;как-то *раз добыл*&quot;). It could explain why the imperfective form *раздобывать* (meaning some person gets lucky with something all the time) is almost never used and even if used properly (about smth. happening not too often) might sound strange (as in your example). Here's my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Порой ему везло, и он раздобывал для музея что-нибудь удивительное и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неожиданное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12910" RevisionGUID="b7760d95-2fd4-4dae-8d55-ce3fd56b119f" CreationDate="2016-07-28T09:00:23.133" UserId="5443" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="*Раздобыть* means to get something rare *by chance*, as opposed to *добыть/добывать* - *by making proper efforts*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не поверите, сегодня я раздобыл для своей коллекции [картину]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Айвазовского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Раздобыть* even carries a hidden meaning '**for once**' (by strange coincidence, it reminds the expression &quot;как-то *раз добыл*&quot;). It could explain why the imperfective form *раздобывать* (meaning some person gets lucky with something all the time) is almost never used and even if used properly (about smth. happening not too often and each time *for once*) might sound strange (as in your example). Here's my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Порой ему везло, и он раздобывал для музея что-нибудь удивительное и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неожиданное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12890" RevisionGUID="be41f180-3175-4f29-961b-2dd1133a6d6c" CreationDate="2016-07-28T11:35:27.087" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="«раздумываю» is more about the process, while «подумываю» is more about an intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference is purely grammatical: they govern different prepositions/cases. In «раздумываю _о чем-либо_» the object is in the prepositional case, while in «подумываю _что-либо_» it's accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Я уже подумываю позвонить твоему отцу!» sentence could be used with «раздумываю», but in this case, a native speaker would likely use an indirect negation (sic!) «Я раздумываю, _не позвонить ли_ мне твоему отцу!». I would say, the latter is the consequence of «раздумываю» being more about a process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12911" RevisionGUID="b979bf01-dab7-4e8e-acb1-aab4a2466da3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T12:30:59.053" UserId="7587" Text="Добрый день!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае &quot;раздумывать&quot; означает процесс ( Пример: &quot;Я раздумываю над проблемой потепления климата&quot; - &quot;I'm (trying to decide/ thinking of a) a problem of a global warming&quot; ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Раздумать&quot; - означает отказ от намерения ( Пример: &quot;Я раздумал готовить ужин сегодня вечером&quot; - &quot;I decided not to cook a dinner tonight&quot; )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Подумывать&quot; - думать о чем-либо, имея альтернативу ( Пример: &quot;Я подумываю завтра поехать за город&quot; ( т.е. &quot;Я еще не решил поеду я или нет&quot; ) - &quot;I still thinking to go to a village tomorrow, but I didn't make concrete decision yet - may be I will, may be not&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12911" RevisionGUID="b6741d3b-e338-448b-97d4-c918c715c2d3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T12:38:09.637" UserId="3892" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Добрый день!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае &quot;раздумывать&quot; означает процесс ( Пример: &quot;Я раздумываю над проблемой потепления климата&quot; - &quot;I'm (trying to decide/ thinking of a) a problem of a global warming&quot; ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Раздумать&quot; - означает отказ от намерения ( Пример: &quot;Я раздумал готовить ужин сегодня вечером&quot; - &quot;I decided not to cook dinner tonight&quot; )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Подумывать&quot; - думать о чем-либо, имея альтернативу ( Пример: &quot;Я подумываю завтра поехать за город&quot; ( т.е. &quot;Я еще не решил поеду я или нет&quot; ) - &quot;I still thinking about going to the village tomorrow, but I haven't made concrete decision yet - maybe I will, maybe I won't&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="73ac709a-eb88-4cfc-bf70-4c5fa40273df" CreationDate="2016-07-28T12:39:42.517" UserId="5919" Comment="improved formatting" Text="When do you use ```про``` and when ```о```? (about). Are they synonyms in all contexts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30209" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="73ac709a-eb88-4cfc-bf70-4c5fa40273df" CreationDate="2016-07-28T12:39:42.517" Comment="Proposed by 5919 approved by 5605, 2060 edit id of 780" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12912" RevisionGUID="9bdf1008-7091-4ac7-802b-641c23aed363" CreationDate="2016-07-28T12:42:08.517" UserId="7587" Text="&#xD;&#xA;У слова &quot;вокзал&quot; есть 2 значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- здание на станции, где продаются билеты и ждут поезда пассажиры&#xD;&#xA;- крупная железнодорожная станция с большим количеством пассажиров&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Станция&quot; - более общее понятие:&#xD;&#xA;- станция метро (subway)&#xD;&#xA;- железнодорожная станция (railway station)&#xD;&#xA;- насосная станция (pumb station)&#xD;&#xA;.... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12873" RevisionGUID="d3d62a6d-1806-4b2d-9142-323c45e844d3" CreationDate="2016-07-28T13:37:46.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758657703707279360" />
  <row Id="30212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12913" RevisionGUID="27aff6e9-7dba-42d1-9d5d-04eb4ed3dae6" CreationDate="2016-07-28T13:38:36.070" UserId="6539" Text="Which structure is the best or how do they differ in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;Does that mean that the word only recently took that meaning? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The verb выглядеть originally meant *to watch and see secretly* where something is or what is being done.&#xD;&#xA;It is perfective and transitive. This meaning is preserved in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В толпе он выглядел своего знакомого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb выглядеть in the meaning *to look like* was first mentioned in 1830 used by German people living in St.Petersburg. It was borrowed from German and used as a calque.(Драганов П.Д. О германизме &quot;выглядит&quot; в русском языке.) The usage was considered &quot;abnormal &quot; by some linguists (Я.К. Грот) because the verb &quot;aussehen&quot; was imperfective. It becomes a norm in the 20th century.&#xD;&#xA;In its new meaning the verb is followed by a noun and an adjective in the instrumental case, an adjective or a noun (instr. case), a comparative or an adverb. Adverbs are used as often as adjectives (full form ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Здания выглядят неопрятными. Каким чучелом ты выглядишь. Я выгляжу моложе. Вы хорошо выглядите.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Апресян Ю.Д. explains  difference in usage. Adverbs give general impression of the object. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты так молодо выглядишь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives describe  and add a quality to the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты сегодня выглядишь молодым и свежим. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not as easy as that. Он выглядел совсем больным. But you can't use an adverb &quot;больно&quot;. Why? Because the meaning of the verb is &quot;to look like&quot; and &quot;painfully &quot; doesn't describe a person. Adverbs and adjectives aren't always interchangeable.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="cd21e710-9c82-47bc-95c1-92f890099b78" CreationDate="2016-07-28T14:31:19.903" UserId="4903" Text="It seems that usage of &quot;выглядеть&quot; depends on what part of speech it needs to be conjoined with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Выглядеть + как + Noun phrase in nominative case**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is used to show that something/someone looks similar to something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит как королева* - looks like a queen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядела как английская королева* - looked like an English queen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит как новый* - looks like new (the noun is dropped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Выглядеть + Noun phrase in nominative case**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form is used in questions with &quot;как&quot;, or in statements with &quot;так.&quot; In the latter case it simply states the facts. It is the only use case which does not use similarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Как выглядит траектория?* - How does trajectory look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Так выглядит спутниковая антенна.* - This is how satellite antenna looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Выглядеть + Noun phrase in instrumental case / Noun phrase in instrumental case + Выглядеть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the first case this expression is used to show that something looks like something else.  There is no difference in meaning between the first case and this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит новобранцем* - looks like a rookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит смешной пародией* - looks like a funny parody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядела бледной и блёклой* - looked pale and dull (the noun is dropped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Островком роста выглядит страхование имущества.* - Property insurance looks like an island of growth (the noun phrase in instrumental case can precede the verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Выглядеть + adverbial phrase**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is used to show similarity.  Just like the first and the third cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит странно и неубедительно* - looks strange and unconvincing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он пытается выглядеть как можно умнее* - He tries to look as smart as possible (adverbial phrase uses the word &quot;как&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Моей дочке 13, но она выглядит на 15 лет.* - My daughter is 13, but she looks as if she were 15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the form that needs to be used is dictated by what are you comparing to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30214" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="f2393b63-4544-435c-b77c-35b463ac6ae4" CreationDate="2016-07-28T16:37:46.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758703001804701696" />
  <row Id="30215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12914" RevisionGUID="7f319707-bcbf-4d24-8b4b-669344067347" CreationDate="2016-07-28T16:50:15.487" UserId="4903" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="It seems that usage of &quot;выглядеть&quot; depends on what part of speech it needs to be conjoined with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Выглядеть + как + Noun phrase in nominative case**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is used to show that something/someone looks similar to something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит как королева* - looks like a queen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядела как английская королева* - looked like an English queen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит как новый* - looks like new (the noun is dropped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Выглядеть + Noun phrase in nominative case**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form is used in questions with &quot;как&quot;, or in statements with &quot;так.&quot; In the latter case it simply states the facts. It is the only use case which does not use similarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Как выглядит траектория?* - How does trajectory look like?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Так выглядит спутниковая антенна.* - This is how satellite antenna looks like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Выглядеть + Noun phrase in instrumental case / Noun phrase in instrumental case + Выглядеть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the first case this expression is used to show that something looks like something else.  There is no difference in meaning between the first case and this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит новобранцем* - looks like a rookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит смешной пародией* - looks like a funny parody&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядела бледной и блёклой* - looked pale and dull (the noun is dropped)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Островком роста выглядит страхование имущества.* - Property insurance looks like an island of growth (the noun phrase in instrumental case can precede the verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Выглядеть + adverbial phrase**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression is used to show similarity.  Just like the first and the third cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выглядит странно и неубедительно* - looks strange and unconvincing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он пытается выглядеть как можно умнее* - He tries to look as smart as possible (adverbial phrase uses the word &quot;как&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Моей дочке 13, но она выглядит на 15 лет.* - My daughter is 13, but she looks as if she were 15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the form that needs to be used is dictated by what part(s) of speech is used in the rest of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12915" RevisionGUID="9aae1550-fef7-45fe-9ae8-f0a6aca886dd" CreationDate="2016-07-28T19:11:13.387" UserId="3727" Text="Never heard &quot;стол для пяти&quot; to be used in real life. In a context of, say, a restaurant reservation, it will be &quot;стол на пятерых&quot;. In a context of something like explaining what size is your dining room, you will say: &quot;может вместить стол на пять человек&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="fd481ab0-0eb8-4705-836a-0633b1464cdd" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:04:04.690" UserId="3892" Text="I recently came across the sentence: **Не беспокойся по поводу этого** and wondered if it can also be expressed as **Не беспокойся по этому поводу** with no change in meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="fd481ab0-0eb8-4705-836a-0633b1464cdd" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:04:04.690" UserId="3892" Text="по этому поводу -versus- по поводу этого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="fd481ab0-0eb8-4705-836a-0633b1464cdd" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:04:04.690" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="e1dd3fc5-440b-4c84-bb29-c53369508fe9" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:58:42.553" UserId="6545" Text="If I wanted to ask someone, &quot;What sport do you like?&quot; or almost the same thing, &quot;Which sport do you like?&quot; - this latter being used as if a parent was asking a child while they were reviewing a sign-up sheet for try-outs at school what sport they may like. &#xA;&#xA;Are these two cases best translated by,&#xA;&#xA;Что спорт ты любишь?&#xA;Какой спопт ты любишь?&#xA;&#xA;Or is the first one always improper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="e1dd3fc5-440b-4c84-bb29-c53369508fe9" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:58:42.553" UserId="6545" Text="Какой vs что - when asking questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12917" RevisionGUID="e1dd3fc5-440b-4c84-bb29-c53369508fe9" CreationDate="2016-07-28T21:58:42.553" UserId="6545" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12918" RevisionGUID="b57d15f3-9819-48fb-af9a-b5827b10f426" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:03:26.597" UserId="3892" Text="In the following sentence, given that **дай** is an imperative form (and singular at that), I have to assume that **только дай повод** is an idiom: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, что вам **только дай повод** надо мной поиздеваться, но для меня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; много значит, чтобы она вам понравилась.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the interpretation of this idiom and could you cite more examples of its usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12918" RevisionGUID="b57d15f3-9819-48fb-af9a-b5827b10f426" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:03:26.597" UserId="3892" Text="только дай повод" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12918" RevisionGUID="b57d15f3-9819-48fb-af9a-b5827b10f426" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:03:26.597" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12919" RevisionGUID="8bf43d58-0b93-4046-a4f4-5e63c06e7745" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:18:42.507" UserId="3892" Text="Does the short neuter form of adjectives always automatically constitute the corresponding adverb, or are there cases of the short neuter form and the adverb having different forms/stress patterns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12919" RevisionGUID="8bf43d58-0b93-4046-a4f4-5e63c06e7745" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:18:42.507" UserId="3892" Text="Form of Russian adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12919" RevisionGUID="8bf43d58-0b93-4046-a4f4-5e63c06e7745" CreationDate="2016-07-28T22:18:42.507" UserId="3892" Text="|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="624b01ae-8b13-4cec-90a4-2344e53ccc32" CreationDate="2016-07-28T23:02:47.910" UserId="7592" Text="When should I use &quot;Бегать&quot; and when should I use &quot;Бежать&quot;? What's the difference between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if want to say &quot;I enjoy running&quot; should I say &quot;Мне нравется бегать&quot; or &quot;Мне нравется бежать&quot;? Or does it sound more natural to just say &quot;Я интересуюсь бегом&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up speaking Russian at home, but I haven't had much of a formal education in Russian, and so there are many things about Russian grammar that I don't understand. This particular question is something I have a lot of trouble with. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="624b01ae-8b13-4cec-90a4-2344e53ccc32" CreationDate="2016-07-28T23:02:47.910" UserId="7592" Text="Бегать vs. Бежать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="624b01ae-8b13-4cec-90a4-2344e53ccc32" CreationDate="2016-07-28T23:02:47.910" UserId="7592" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12921" RevisionGUID="3f1d8bbe-a459-4c32-a50d-191d733bc71c" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:18:32.407" UserId="1674" Text="The first one will be incorrect using of the word, at least with that punctuation and words order (and the meaning). You *could* use it in this combination:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Что*, ты спорт любишь ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it changes meaning quite a bit and becomes more like &quot;Well, it appears that you like sport ?&quot;. Word &quot;что&quot; will become as [particle for increasing effect of the question](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To ask for clarification according to your examples you will use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Какой* спорт ты любишь ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way, more of formal language, but still acceptable would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Что за* спорт ты любишь ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you'll use &quot;что&quot; when asking about thing / fact / anything described with a noun, while &quot;какой&quot; - for description of that noun.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - Что ты любишь читать ?  &#xD;&#xA;    - Художественную литературу.&#xD;&#xA;    - А какой жанр ты предпочитаешь ? (Что за could  be also used here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12922" RevisionGUID="10adbc6b-a74b-460a-8722-815900d740e2" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:19:48.210" UserId="4560" Text="It's **мне нравится бегать**. More natural, perhaps, is **я люблю бегать**; definitely not **интересуюсь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне нравится бежать** is something you could say in the middle of running, in response to a question why you wouldn't walk. Or it could be an &quot;existential&quot;, mildly pretentious way to say &quot;I like fleeing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a specific case of the motion verb issue, which is a notoriously hard part of Russian grammar. These verbs have, beside aspect, another inherent category which splits them in pairs: directionality. **Бежать** is for running in a particular direction or towards a certain endpoint. **Бегать** is for just running about, or for repeated/habitual instances of **бежать**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other motion verbs that work the same are (directional first):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;идти — ходить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ехать — ездить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;лететь — летать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;плыть — плавать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;тащить — таскать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;нести — носить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вести — водить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;везти — возить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ползти — ползать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;лезть — лазать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;брести — бродить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;гнать — гонять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([source][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russkiyyazik.ru/178/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12923" RevisionGUID="277afbea-206b-4b6a-af95-5a386c8282b3" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:36:14.473" UserId="7537" Text="You are right, only &quot;Какой спорт&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, &quot;Что&quot; requires a dependent verb, which, however, could often be &quot;is&quot; (есть), which, as you know, is usually implicit in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что полезного _производит_ спорт? Что такое спорт? (= Что есть спорт?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are asking to qualify or select one of a class, like in your example, you always need to use words _какой_ or _который_. These two words _approximately_ account for the subtle difference between _what_ and _which_ in your example: _какой_ usually qualifies from a generic set of unspecified/unknown alternatives (какой цвет тебе больше нравится?), while _который_ assumes a known set: который из этих цветов ты выберешь? However, _какой_ is more generic and can usually be used for both cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12923" RevisionGUID="361d9b80-9b8a-467a-b836-a5f280a3addd" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:42:02.267" UserId="7537" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="You are right, only &quot;Какой спорт&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, &quot;Что&quot; in questions of such kind requires a dependent verb, which, however, could often be &quot;is&quot; (есть), which, as you know, is usually implicit in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что полезного _производит_ спорт? Что такое спорт? (= Что есть спорт?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are asking to qualify or select one of a class, like in your example, you always need to use words _какой_ or _который_. These two words _approximately_ account for the subtle difference between _what_ and _which_ in your example: _какой_ usually qualifies from a generic set of unspecified/unknown alternatives (какой цвет тебе больше нравится?), while _который_ assumes a known set: который из этих цветов ты выберешь? However, _какой_ is more generic and can usually be used for both cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12924" RevisionGUID="53b25c61-e4c4-4ef1-9d1d-bf6521c61a93" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:49:55.747" UserId="4560" Text="**Равный** yields the short neuter **равнó** but the adverb is **рáвно**. I think there are other adverbs that don't follow suit when the corresponding short adjective shifts stress to the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, most passive participles with the suffix  `-нн-` lose the second `н` in the short form, while the adverb keeps it geminated: **растерянный** — **общество растеряно**, but **растерянно улыбнуться**. That can also be accompanied by a non-matching stress shift: **определенó** (adj.) vs. **определённо** (adv.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12925" RevisionGUID="2a352eff-ee10-4cc7-a360-d616304e1b2f" CreationDate="2016-07-29T00:59:17.190" UserId="7537" Text="You are right, it is an idiom. Sometimes it is also used in the form &quot;дай только повод&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is like &quot;give him a chance, and he'll immediately do it&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second implicit part can sometimes be given explicitly, in which case the idiom becomes almost a literal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Тебе только дай повод, и ты опять сбежишь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally it is used in situations similar to your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашей собаке только дай повод залезть в воду!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Give our dog a chance to get into water, and it will immediately jump in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30238" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12918" RevisionGUID="57664fb3-2e03-4179-8cbf-75a9795b94ca" CreationDate="2016-07-29T01:07:07.157" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Только дай повод&quot; - what it supposed to mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30239" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12916" RevisionGUID="d7c40524-9dd6-46ec-82de-0789b1acaa54" CreationDate="2016-07-29T01:08:04.767" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;По этому поводу&quot; or &quot;по поводу этого&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30240" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12918" RevisionGUID="bf508296-b0c9-474c-a5c2-34cf89a6758b" CreationDate="2016-07-29T03:50:58.017" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="Interpretation of the idiom &quot;только дай повод&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30241" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12907" RevisionGUID="fd176cff-0d55-41ea-af76-16a398f7de62" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:37:46.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/758884195716390914" />
  <row Id="30242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12926" RevisionGUID="9b95f2bf-004d-424c-827e-48ea97a5d360" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:39:18.440" UserId="5008" Text="I take it more as &quot;normal sentence&quot; than an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian imperative is used to express a conditional clause, e.g.: &quot;тебе что ни скажи, всё не так&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may interpret it like this: &quot;вам только дай повод надо мной поиздеваться&quot; --&gt; &quot;[if] only you were given a chance (occasion) to mock me [you'd readily do this]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="6841dad5-16c9-486f-a35a-70cee07b6060" CreationDate="2016-07-29T04:45:18.333" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="When should I use &quot;Бегать&quot; and when should I use &quot;Бежать&quot;? What's the difference between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if want to say &quot;I enjoy running&quot; should I say &quot;Мне нравится бегать&quot; or &quot;Мне нравится бежать&quot;? Or does it sound more natural to just say &quot;Я интересуюсь бегом&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up speaking Russian at home, but I haven't had much of a formal education in Russian, and so there are many things about Russian grammar that I don't understand. This particular question is something I have a lot of trouble with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12927" RevisionGUID="e2168541-6daf-4ca2-add0-e01efaada37f" CreationDate="2016-07-29T07:35:26.127" UserId="6539" Text="**ПОВОД**, повода, мн. ы, м. Случай, обстоятельство, которое можно использовать с какой-нибудь целью, предлог.(Circumstances which can be used for a certain purpose, pretext ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Повод для ссоры. Придираться по всякому поводу. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Дать или подать повод** кому-чему -to give someone an opportunity to act or think in a certain way.&#xD;&#xA;To submit an event which will serve as the beginning of the action. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12928" RevisionGUID="4335602b-8818-4e89-abf6-91afe5cdf723" CreationDate="2016-07-29T07:56:34.143" UserId="6539" Text="По этому поводу and по поводу этого (not followed by a noun) are synonyms. According to the National Corpus the first is used more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Василь Быков. Лесное счастье &#xD;&#xA;Правительство срочно определило праздничный день Идеи; общественный комитет, созданный **по этому поводу**, разработал целый комплекс торжественных мероприятий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Виктор Пелевин. Ника  &#xD;&#xA;Я не помню, когда она первый раз пошла гулять без меня, но помню свои чувства **по этому поводу** ― я отпустил её без особого волнения, отбросив вялую мысль о том, что надо бы пойти вместе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Володин Борис. «Мы собрались не смотреть, а рассмотреть медиумические явления...» &#xD;&#xA;**По поводу этого** г-н Аксаков заявил, что «это нехорошо». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase is more often used with a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А. Т. Твардовский. Рабочие тетради 60-х годов (1968) // «Знамя», 2003  &#xD;&#xA;А кроме того ― какая бы радость была **по поводу этого «ЧП»** в пятом подъезде (это, оказывается, агитпроп, а в отдел культуры еще будет особое наставление), какая возможность для «оформления дела». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;З. И. Воскресенская. Сердце матери (1963-1965)   &#xD;&#xA;**По поводу этого случая** я беседовал с матерью о...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="942f7c78-33e5-4ae2-b8e5-2dbc7b9bca3b" CreationDate="2016-07-29T09:22:45.863" UserId="4702" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="When do you use ```про``` and when ```о```? (about). Are they synonyms in all contexts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I discovered http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/52/usage-of-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE-instead-of-%D0%BE?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12929" RevisionGUID="54a6d698-3579-4834-bfc5-f8b3ccf395de" CreationDate="2016-07-29T12:09:47.097" UserId="194" Text="&gt; По этому поводу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means related to the discussed topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По поводу этого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to the discussed event or situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="6ef99b13-82f7-4499-a9a5-b18052d7bc90" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:44:08.900" UserId="7595" Text="I heard there's a common saying in Russia that says something like &quot;even a police won't take the last cigarette&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is this true?&#xD;&#xA;and if it is, what is the exact phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="6ef99b13-82f7-4499-a9a5-b18052d7bc90" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:44:08.900" UserId="7595" Text="taking the last cigarette of a pack" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="6ef99b13-82f7-4499-a9a5-b18052d7bc90" CreationDate="2016-07-29T14:44:08.900" UserId="7595" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12931" RevisionGUID="06f7e9ed-32da-47f9-ab0e-928b3b230222" CreationDate="2016-07-29T15:00:30.847" UserId="2343" Text="`Про` is used with case - `написать про кого, что? - написать про картину, написать про актрису`. `О` is used with another case - `написать о ком, чём? - написать о книге, написать об актрисе`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One subtle grammatical difference is that о should be written as об if vowels follow in the next word `почитал о картине`, but `почитал об актрисе`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also imply some emotions, which are not easily logically explained. I guess, because people of higher education or/and of more poetical nature tend to use о instead of про. When you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они разговаривали о любви&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (They spoke about love) it sounds different as when you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; они разговаривали про любовь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last phrase implies that love has lower meaning, lake dating etc. On the other hand `про` is more business-style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12932" RevisionGUID="25971932-85c4-4cbd-889c-199bb887bf90" CreationDate="2016-07-29T16:18:35.217" UserId="1836" Text="There is such saying, the exact phrase is &quot;последнюю даже мент не возьмет&quot;. Cigarettes aren't mentioned, but the phrase is not used about anything else or in a metaphorical meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a person asks you for a cigarette, and you offer him one, but he sees that it's last cigarette in a box, then he would probably say this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is more of a &quot;common answer&quot; than a simile, idiom or anything, that's why you won't find it in a dictionary of any kind, but it really is rather common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12933" RevisionGUID="91443b61-bbc6-463d-914d-d4543eba3fb6" CreationDate="2016-07-30T06:11:26.257" UserId="5443" Text="(an addition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb **бежать** из also used in idiomatic meaning 'to escape' (form. совершить побег) from a place of captivity like jail. In that case it usually works as *perfective* verb and doesn't need to be modified with a preposition (less formal prepositional versions *сбежать* or *убежать* are possible in proper context). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера он бежал из тюрьмы. (He escaped from jail yesterday.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of repeated action *бежать* in the meaning of escape is transformed into smth. like *совершать побеги* (inform. сбегать, убегать) while the verb **бегать** is not used in that meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12934" RevisionGUID="f36080be-01bb-4930-abcb-4e6570399964" CreationDate="2016-07-30T06:24:35.760" UserId="7599" Text="Абсолютно взаимозаменяемые слова. Нет никакой разницы. Автор строк про самолеты и билеты в корне не прав. Говорю, как филолог. И эти слова не предлоги, а союзы. &#xD;&#xA;Изначально союз &quot;только&quot; означал &quot;столько, сколько есть&quot;, а &quot;лишь&quot; употреблялся в значении &quot;свыше, больше&quot;. Теперь же их употребление регулируется скорее нормами благозвучия, чем семантикой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12933" RevisionGUID="9b87909e-9222-449d-9fc6-28954a39740e" CreationDate="2016-07-30T11:50:49.313" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="(an addition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb **бежать** из also used in idiomatic meaning 'to escape' (form. совершить побег) from a place of captivity like jail. In that case it usually works as *perfective* verb and doesn't need to be modified with a prefix (less formal 'prefixed' versions *сбежать* or *убежать* are possible in proper context). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера он бежал из тюрьмы. (He escaped from jail yesterday.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of repeated action *бежать* in the meaning of escape is transformed into smth. like *совершать побеги* (inform. сбегать, убегать) while the verb **бегать** is not used in that meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12935" RevisionGUID="ffa47fad-c816-4b8d-807a-e5080410b998" CreationDate="2016-07-30T13:27:47.797" UserId="3892" Text="I recently came across this sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В любом случае клейми́ть целую нацию из-за частных случаев **негоже**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm having a hard time finding any concrete information on the actual meaning of негоже, and it's register - is it colloquial, formal, archaic, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30259" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12935" RevisionGUID="ffa47fad-c816-4b8d-807a-e5080410b998" CreationDate="2016-07-30T13:27:47.797" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation and usage of негоже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30260" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12935" RevisionGUID="ffa47fad-c816-4b8d-807a-e5080410b998" CreationDate="2016-07-30T13:27:47.797" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="ef20d32f-8ae4-4871-8d0d-377519e36421" CreationDate="2016-07-30T14:43:45.563" UserId="6807" Text="Literary an rather archaic. From &quot;не годится&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="fcd39f0d-7405-42c8-b614-ea4b22c809ff" CreationDate="2016-07-30T15:19:47.343" UserId="5443" Text="**Негоже** replaces the phrase *(это) никуда не годится* and means '**it's not the done thing**'. Works as a predicative adverb here. It is an outdated, bookish word but sometimes it is used for sounding less formal - instead of words like *неприемлемо*, *недопустимо* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12938" RevisionGUID="1396a547-a04a-470c-beca-9c1d0bb2422d" CreationDate="2016-07-30T15:53:25.340" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;_Негоже_&quot; (from &quot;негожий&quot; / &quot;негодный&quot; / &quot;unfit&quot; / &quot;useless&quot;) means &quot;не следует&quot; (ought not), i.e. a very strong &quot;advice&quot; not to do something. It is typically used as a predicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's colloquial but rather obsolete. Most often such words are to be found in a book within character's direct speech. But I wouldn't say it's archaic, as it's still spoken from time to time (just as many other &quot;old&quot; words in Russian language), sometimes also idiomatic, e.g.: &quot;возьми, убоже, что нам негоже&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm having a hard time finding any concrete information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you to use [this dictionary](http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/default.asp)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12937" RevisionGUID="e364d843-ef31-47b6-9a98-9b09a44c90b4" CreationDate="2016-07-30T16:59:07.840" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Негоже** replaces the phrase *(это) никуда не годится* and means '**it's not the thing to do**'. Works as a predicative adverb here. It is an outdated, bookish word but sometimes it is used for sounding less formal - instead of words like *неприемлемо*, *недопустимо* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12935" RevisionGUID="3cb691da-e3dd-4cfa-b9a8-6ebddff14034" CreationDate="2016-07-30T22:47:31.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/759520827956232192" />
  <row Id="30266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12908" RevisionGUID="4fea88eb-3afa-472f-97de-00ca7da8d04e" CreationDate="2016-07-31T02:46:31.293" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="You can actually use both, but the second noun should be used with its preposition **из России** and it sounds **more correct**. But speaking to foreigners I would choose *Россия*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30267" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12930" RevisionGUID="c2e5cfa9-8e21-403f-80c7-3569f696f772" CreationDate="2016-07-31T10:55:02.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/759703914186956800" />
  <row Id="30268" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12920" RevisionGUID="9fe9883d-dfb8-4201-8910-3aad203c54a4" CreationDate="2016-07-31T19:57:56.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/759840541483929600" />
  <row Id="30269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12936" RevisionGUID="d7f47ffb-3ae3-4431-800b-9b6e8febd0fa" CreationDate="2016-07-31T21:23:16.533" UserId="6807" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Literary and rather archaic. From &quot;не годится&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="22e72d8a-9aa0-4f71-b883-dfa6596c4ab1" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:21:47.850" UserId="3887" Text="Это религиозный гимн середины 19-го века. Как бы вы перевели название, чтобы передать стлилистику?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abide_with_Me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="22e72d8a-9aa0-4f71-b883-dfa6596c4ab1" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:21:47.850" UserId="3887" Text="Как лучше перевести название &quot;Abide with Me&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="22e72d8a-9aa0-4f71-b883-dfa6596c4ab1" CreationDate="2016-07-31T22:21:47.850" UserId="3887" Text="|перевод|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12938" RevisionGUID="157f6879-3437-4bca-8ff2-255a01323843" CreationDate="2016-07-31T23:35:15.790" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;_Негоже_&quot; (from &quot;негожий&quot; / &quot;негодный&quot; / &quot;unfit&quot; / &quot;useless&quot;) means &quot;не следует&quot; (ought not), i.e. a very strong &quot;advice&quot; not to do something. It is typically used as a predicative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's colloquial but rather obsolete. Most often such words are to be found in a book within character's direct speech. But I wouldn't say it's archaic, as it's still spoken from time to time (just as many other &quot;old&quot; words in Russian language), sometimes also idiomatic, e.g.: &quot;возьми, убоже, что нам негоже&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm having a hard time finding any concrete information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest you use [this dictionary](http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/default.asp)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="477d0a44-b7a5-446c-9907-f3a15db5d77b" CreationDate="2016-08-01T01:13:07.397" UserId="3887" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Это религиозный гимн середины 19-го века. Как бы вы перевели название, чтобы передать стлилистику?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abide_with_Me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: чтобы был сразу понятен стиль и контекст, вот две заключительные строки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heaven's morning breaks, and earth's vain shadows flee; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30275" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="477d0a44-b7a5-446c-9907-f3a15db5d77b" CreationDate="2016-08-01T01:13:07.397" UserId="3887" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Как лучше перевести название гимна &quot;Abide with Me&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="3ae2c131-efb8-422f-8ed6-92569d494614" CreationDate="2016-08-01T02:57:49.573" UserId="6816" Text="Is тоже usually placed before or after the word to which it is referring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="3ae2c131-efb8-422f-8ed6-92569d494614" CreationDate="2016-08-01T02:57:49.573" UserId="6816" Text="Placement of тоже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="3ae2c131-efb8-422f-8ed6-92569d494614" CreationDate="2016-08-01T02:57:49.573" UserId="6816" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12941" RevisionGUID="f75b45ba-2f04-413d-8bfd-63282c238958" CreationDate="2016-08-01T03:39:20.787" UserId="7537" Text="I believe &quot;Пребудь со мной&quot; is the standard translation. It means basically the same as &quot;оставайся со мной&quot;, but has some poetic flavour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12942" RevisionGUID="37a3e196-b878-418d-9e59-38be61615455" CreationDate="2016-08-01T03:54:52.570" UserId="7537" Text="Like many thing Russian, either, but the 'norm' is (usually) before:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта тарелка тоже красива. (&quot;...also beautiful.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта тарелка красива тоже. (&quot;...beautiful as well.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter is perfectly OK (if slightly less usual), but here &quot;тоже&quot; relates to the whole sentence (pretty much like in English).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things may get somewhat complicated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тоже хочу спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it &quot;me, too&quot; or &quot;want, too&quot;? Well, the meaning is not that much different, but when the difference is important, it is usually handled by intonation in speech. Intonation can be hugely important in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="8999e179-e5ee-4032-ae0a-5c24fb7f54e3" CreationDate="2016-08-01T04:05:59.590" UserId="6539" Text="Хотя мне понравилось &quot;пребудь&quot;, я бы сказала &quot;не покидай меня&quot;. Звучит не так архаично." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12944" RevisionGUID="4020c0fd-b380-432a-8d7a-27184f359b05" CreationDate="2016-08-01T06:00:08.390" UserId="5008" Text="Во-первых, название обычно не переводят отдельно от текста. Поэтому, как в русском (поэтическом!) тексте будет звучать &quot;abide&quot;, таким оно должно быть и в названии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во-вторых, это отсылка к библии. Поэтому имеет смысл обратиться к её русским переводам. Однако тут есть проблемка: выходит либо &quot;**облязи со мной**&quot;, либо &quot;**останься со мной**&quot;. При этом вряд ли одно или другое будет употребимо в поэтическом переводе (см. п. 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итого мы имеем: полный поэтический перевод проще сделать на &quot;**Пребудь со мной**&quot;, хотя это будет не совсем верно, но если речь идет просто о названии, лучше все же держаться синодального перевода: &quot;**Останься со мной**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="9a264852-3072-4815-a22a-73f88e24001e" CreationDate="2016-08-01T07:28:21.410" UserId="6539" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Хотя мне понравилось &quot;пребудь&quot;, я бы сказала &quot;не покидай меня&quot;. Звучит не так архаично.&#xD;&#xA;Как в выражении &quot;не оставь меня,Господи&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="b99c289d-a5c6-43fd-968d-764e652b71e4" CreationDate="2016-08-01T08:05:38.480" UserId="6539" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Хотя мне понравилось &quot;пребудь&quot;, я бы сказала &quot;не покидай меня&quot;. Звучит не так архаично.&#xD;&#xA;Как в выражении &quot;**не оставь меня, Господи**&quot; (своими молитвами)&#xD;&#xA;Вообще, отрицательная повелительная форма смотрится и звучит мягче в обращении к богу, нежели &quot;пребудь&quot;,&quot;останься&quot;. Впрочем,перевод всегда субъективен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="1e930c1a-4101-4400-91aa-52e2254861ad" CreationDate="2016-08-01T10:16:37.340" UserId="6539" Text="Would you be so kind to explain what the rule of capitalizing the above mentioned words is? What I am sure of is the fact that in exclamations like боже мой, о,господи we don't capitalize such words, but I am not quite sure if we always capitalize them in prayers or other situations connected with religion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="1e930c1a-4101-4400-91aa-52e2254861ad" CreationDate="2016-08-01T10:16:37.340" UserId="6539" Text="Capitalization of *бог, боже, господь, господи*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="1e930c1a-4101-4400-91aa-52e2254861ad" CreationDate="2016-08-01T10:16:37.340" UserId="6539" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12946" RevisionGUID="13a888e8-596f-44ac-ab3d-b3edad1eefe1" CreationDate="2016-08-01T10:59:28.660" UserId="1836" Text="I'd say that you capitalize these words when you actually mean The God (of one of three religions: Christianity, Judaism or Islam, though not sure about the latter), so in prayers – definitely capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In expressions like &quot;о боже мой&quot;, you don't usually mean mentioning The God, thus no capitalization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are somewhat tricky cases like &quot;бог простит&quot;, &quot;я верю в бога&quot;, etc. The capitalization is up to you, as you might actually mean The God, or just appeal to any god or whatever force there is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you talk about any gods from a polytheistic religion, the word бог is never capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some extremely religious people who would capitalize these words (or even omit &quot;о&quot; in &quot;Бог&quot;) no matter what, but it is usually considered weird and wrong. E.g. &quot;Б-г мой, смотри какая шляпка&quot; or &quot;О Боже мой, я ужасно опаздываю&quot;. I think even non-native can see how ridiculous this looks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30292" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="ba48b33c-06c4-43ae-b1db-93386f49f35e" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:58:57.577" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2258],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="30296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12943" RevisionGUID="fedfe43f-c6d5-4e9f-965f-d0917b48acfd" CreationDate="2016-08-01T13:45:10.113" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="Хотя мне понравилось &quot;пребудь&quot;, я бы сказала &quot;не покидай меня&quot;. Звучит не так архаично.&#xD;&#xA;Как в выражении &quot;**не оставь меня, Господи**&quot; (своими молитвами)&#xD;&#xA;Вообще, отрицательная повелительная форма смотрится и звучит мягче в обращении к Богу, нежели &quot;пребудь&quot;,&quot;останься&quot;. Впрочем,перевод всегда субъективен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12948" RevisionGUID="213c2fa9-8b05-42b3-bbbe-1272b32c5285" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:36:30.450" UserId="3503" Text="I'm confused with the pronunciation of &quot;воины&quot; (&quot;warriors&quot;). To my knowledge, &quot;воины&quot; should be pronounced as `[ˈvo̞ɪnɨ]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've heard native speakers pronounce it as `[ˈvo̞jnɨ̞]` (with the &quot;й&quot; sound), which sounds like the word &quot;войны&quot; (means &quot;wars&quot;). That might be the reason why people confuse this two words, even being native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can hear an example in the &quot;[В Багдаде всё спокойно][1]&quot; song by &quot;Кар-мэн&quot; (popular Russian nineties music):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Багдаде всё спокойно, в Багдаде всё спокойно  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И спят седые *воины* на золотых коврах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing &quot;войны&quot; instead of &quot;воины&quot; is illiterate, but what with the pronunciation? Is it acceptable to pronounce &quot;й&quot; in this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://music.yandex.ru/album/63048/track/590413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12948" RevisionGUID="213c2fa9-8b05-42b3-bbbe-1272b32c5285" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:36:30.450" UserId="3503" Text="The pronunciation of &quot;воины&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12948" RevisionGUID="213c2fa9-8b05-42b3-bbbe-1272b32c5285" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:36:30.450" UserId="3503" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12948" RevisionGUID="5953e88a-3f34-4706-9d1a-dcb12a95cfaf" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:51:50.250" UserId="3503" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm confused with the pronunciation of &quot;воины&quot; (&quot;warriors&quot;). To my knowledge, &quot;воины&quot; should be pronounced as `[ˈvo̞ɪnɨ]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've heard native speakers pronounce it as `[ˈvo̞jnɨ̞]` (with the &quot;й&quot; sound), which sounds like the word &quot;войны&quot; (means &quot;wars&quot;). That might be the reason why people confuse these two words, even being native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can hear an example in the &quot;[В Багдаде всё спокойно][1]&quot; song by &quot;Кар-мэн&quot; (popular Russian nineties music):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Багдаде всё спокойно, в Багдаде всё спокойно  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И спят седые *воины* на золотых коврах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Writing &quot;войны&quot; instead of &quot;воины&quot; is illiterate, but what with the pronunciation? Is it acceptable to pronounce &quot;й&quot; in this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://music.yandex.ru/album/63048/track/590413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12949" RevisionGUID="2cb3b721-143a-4d98-9240-3526b36ab1c6" CreationDate="2016-08-01T14:58:20.773" UserId="6602" Text="&quot;Кар-мэн&quot; sings &quot;воины&quot; with short [ɪ]. Aurally for me it slightly different from [j] and I think that pronouncing of [j] in this word will be not acceptable because [jn] sounds much stronger than [ɪ]. It seems that pronouncing of short [je] is much more appropriate in this word (as if it be written as &quot;воены&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12950" RevisionGUID="dab3914b-d26c-4e2b-b713-d1904b3a49b7" CreationDate="2016-08-01T15:17:07.570" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;However, I've heard native speakers pronounce it as [ˈvo̞jnɨ̞]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Live speech isn't 100% bookish right thing. Yet I believe you're wrong for the most part: there's also a &quot;shorter version&quot; of [ɪ] which is still different from [j].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You can hear an example in the &quot;В Багдаде всё спокойно&quot; song by &quot;Кар-мэн&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, well, pop music is a bad language teacher. Actually, I always wondered how they had misspelt this word so miserably. I never heard anyone else saying this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it acceptable to pronounce &quot;й&quot; in this word?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12951" RevisionGUID="6c78dff8-aac9-4034-9582-b1d36986e35c" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:22:26.680" UserId="2271" Text="Бегать is a continuous action (to jog in the morning every day), while бежать is a momentary (to run).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For instance, if want to say &quot;I enjoy running&quot; should I say &quot;Мне нравится бегать&quot; or &quot;Мне нравится бежать&quot;? Or does it sound more natural to just say &quot;Я интересуюсь бегом&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне нравится бегать&quot; would be used no matter if you enjoy jogging or you just have a crush on moving fast, depending on context.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне нравится бежать&quot; sounds strange as is, yet &quot;мне нравится бежать рядом с тобой&quot; means that speaker enjoys the current moment.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я интересуюсь бегом&quot; in a proper context would be &quot;(I'm up to choose how to fill my time and) I've got interested in jogging&quot;. (And even then it would be better to say that &quot;я заинтересовался бегом&quot;.) Otherwise it sounds strange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12933" RevisionGUID="6a87eb07-ab83-43ad-bcae-f0f8a85fb481" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:41:15.500" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="(an addition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb **бежать** is also used in idiomatic meaning 'to escape' (form. совершить побег) from a place of captivity like jail. In that case it usually works as *perfective* verb and doesn't need to be modified with a prefix (less formal 'prefixed' versions *сбежать* or *убежать* are possible in proper context). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера он бежал из тюрьмы. (He escaped from jail yesterday.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of repeated action *бежать* in the meaning of escape is transformed into smth. like *совершать побеги* (inform. сбегать, убегать) while the verb **бегать** is not used in that meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12951" RevisionGUID="944aa874-9e49-47eb-92ff-6fd3e39f446a" CreationDate="2016-08-01T17:48:15.827" UserId="2271" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Бегать is a continuous action (to jog in the morning every day), while бежать is a momentary (to run).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For instance, if want to say &quot;I enjoy running&quot; should I say &quot;Мне нравится бегать&quot; or &quot;Мне нравится бежать&quot;? Or does it sound more natural to just say &quot;Я интересуюсь бегом&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне нравится бегать&quot; would be used no matter if you enjoy jogging or you just have a crush on moving fast, depending on context.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне нравится бежать&quot; sounds strange as is, yet &quot;мне нравится бежать рядом с тобой&quot; means that speaker enjoys the current moment.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я интересуюсь бегом&quot; in a proper context would be &quot;(I'm up to choose how to fill my time and) I approve jogging as an option&quot;. Otherwise it sounds strange.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я заинтересовался бегом&quot; is &quot;(I'm up to choose how to fill my time and) I've got interested in jogging&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30308" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12939" RevisionGUID="7dbb68af-7258-43cc-9cb9-74722c2cd26f" CreationDate="2016-08-01T19:18:53.690" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30314" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12879" RevisionGUID="db86f98a-3d6d-43bc-b958-de55e503fc07" CreationDate="2016-08-02T08:03:16.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/760385464557826048" />
  <row Id="30316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12954" RevisionGUID="91a16612-31fc-47e3-a3c5-2980c55a7255" CreationDate="2016-08-02T21:29:53.207" UserId="1674" Text="Indeed word &quot;тоже&quot; *generally* can be placed before or after the word it refers to. However this might depend on meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word [has 2 meanings](http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;all=x):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ТОЖЕ. I. наречие**. *Равным образом, в равной мере; также.*   &#xD;&#xA;Он устал, я тоже (устал).  &#xD;&#xA;Одежда грязная, обувь тоже (грязная).  &#xD;&#xA;Я перестал спрашивать, все тоже приумолкли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Тоже&quot; should be generally used *after* substantive and *before* the verb.&#xD;&#xA;Although you can move &quot;тоже&quot; before or after the verb just fine:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он устал, я тоже устал **or** Он устал, я устал тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However &quot;тоже&quot; before substantive would be *not good*, athough probably acceptable (it was told somewhat like this before):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он устал, **тоже** я устал.  *(it is not generally used like that)*  &#xD;&#xA; Одежда грязная, **тоже** обувь грязная.  *(the same)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ТОЖЕ. II. частица**. *(усилительное) Разговорное. Выражает неодобрение по адресу кого-либо, сомнение относительно чьего-либо права называться как-либо, быть кем-либо, делать что-либо.*  &#xD;&#xA;Тоже, судьи нашлись!  &#xD;&#xA;Тоже мне, умник нашёлся!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most used way would be before the word it refers to. Although you can find nearly any variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Примерно, ежели бы у тебя был брат или, скажем, друг, который, значит, с самого сыздетства. [...] То за сколько бы ты его примерно продал?   &#xD;&#xA;-Приравнял **тоже**!..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Говорю, луну он ни разу с неба не захотел?  &#xD;&#xA; -Ну вот... **тоже** скажешь — луну!  &#xD;&#xA;*A.И. Куприн. &quot;Белый пудель&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is colloquial usage, however it can be met quite often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In general, you can place it either before or after, however keep in mind that depending on the sentence it could start looking really weird and probably impossible to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30317" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12940" RevisionGUID="4e2bf101-2333-4888-a765-3bd5d2517a75" CreationDate="2016-08-02T21:38:39.563" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Placement of &quot;тоже&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="30045f61-1349-477a-96d1-2f180d469919" CreationDate="2016-08-03T01:07:05.137" UserId="6816" Text="How do you express the phrase &quot;was going to&quot; as in &quot;I forget what I was going to say&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="30045f61-1349-477a-96d1-2f180d469919" CreationDate="2016-08-03T01:07:05.137" UserId="6816" Text="&quot;Was going to&quot; translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="30045f61-1349-477a-96d1-2f180d469919" CreationDate="2016-08-03T01:07:05.137" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="46d66f20-8b91-479b-afa3-251fd39fce20" CreationDate="2016-08-03T03:13:41.310" UserId="6539" Text="A usual interpretation  is **собирался** (to do something ).But we also use **хотел** in this case meaning intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I forget what I was going to say--Я забываю,что собирался (хотел) сказать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12957" RevisionGUID="e411bbcb-f499-47af-839e-ba58396deca7" CreationDate="2016-08-03T11:39:51.850" UserId="3892" Text="The dictionary states that **отвести** means to *take someone somewhere*, however most of the instances of this action that I have found on online resources use **вести**: Ты меня больше никуда не водишь. *You never take me anywhere anymore*. -or- **брать**: Ты меня никогда не берёшь к ней. *You never take me to see her*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in what contexts is отвести used with this meaning? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12957" RevisionGUID="e411bbcb-f499-47af-839e-ba58396deca7" CreationDate="2016-08-03T11:39:51.850" UserId="3892" Text="What is the usage of отвести?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12957" RevisionGUID="e411bbcb-f499-47af-839e-ba58396deca7" CreationDate="2016-08-03T11:39:51.850" UserId="3892" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12958" RevisionGUID="67c4882f-7715-4af9-ac8c-96a44ec3c765" CreationDate="2016-08-03T12:06:05.070" UserId="134" Text="*Отвести* is used when you're taking someone who's cooperating with you in this effort, but you are not really concerning their will. This can be a child, an animal, a person who cannot take care of themselves, a prisoner etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Восхвалите девочку, отведите её в наш храм, посадите её на трон первого жреца, зажгите перед ней благовонные курева и служите в честь её, в честь вестницы правды!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Король обратился к матери и тайно отвёл её в комнату, которую запер за собою.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - На четвёртые сутки нас, слава богу, взяли в плен и отвели в крепость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Потом отвел Машу обратно в палату, посадил на кровать и вышел." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12959" RevisionGUID="36c70c79-d580-48f4-ba0a-3873b82aff08" CreationDate="2016-08-03T12:43:00.097" UserId="5443" Text="(typical meanings concerning people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвести ребёнка в школу &#xD;&#xA;(to take one's kid to school, going on foot)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвести кого-то (куда-то, к кому-то), помогая найти дорогу (e. g. в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учреждении)  &#xD;&#xA;to see somebody to an office at an enterprise in order to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show the way or to help to meet smb.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвести заключённого в камеру (to convoy a prisoner to the cell)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвести кандидатуру на выборах, в суде (to get smb. banned from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; participation in some official event like elections, trial etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="ba4f8f95-c38d-44f0-bc32-c435eaad3c88" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:12:18.963" UserId="551" Text="In addition to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruscorpora.ru gives a [bunch of examples][1] when person asks others to &quot;отвести меня&quot;, usually because the person is ill, or exhausted, etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I won't dance any more&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Немножко, ― прошептала Фро. ― Отведите меня к двери. Я больше не буду танцевать. [А. П. Платонов. Фро (1936)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I'm very tired&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста, поскорей отведите меня куда надо: я очень устал. [Е. И. Замятин. Островитяне (1917)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отведите меня, Гриневич. Возьмите меня под руку… ну, крепче держите… вот так. [Л. Н. Андреев. Gaudeamus. Комедия в четырех действиях (1910)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blind woman asks Lea to help her get home:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Слепая, жен, 25] Леа, будьте так добры, отведите меня домой. [Д. Я. Айзман. Терновый куст (1907)] - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Я сяду кой-как на лошадь, отведите меня шагом за последнюю линию нашей армии; бог наградит ваше человеколюбие». [Н. А. Дурова. Кавалерист-девица (1835)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EE%F2%E2%E5%E4%E8%F2%E5%20%EC%E5%ED%FF&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12960" RevisionGUID="6df43db3-234a-4855-814f-f31936a37f1f" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:18:48.870" UserId="551" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="In addition to other answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ruscorpora.ru gives a [bunch of examples][1] when person asks others to &quot;отвести меня&quot;, usually because the person is ill, or exhausted, etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I won't dance any more&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Немножко, ― прошептала Фро. ― Отведите меня к двери. Я больше не буду танцевать. [А. П. Платонов. Фро (1936)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I'm very tired&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста, поскорей отведите меня куда надо: я очень устал. [Е. И. Замятин. Островитяне (1917)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Take me by the arm&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отведите меня, Гриневич. Возьмите меня под руку… ну, крепче держите… вот так. [Л. Н. Андреев. Gaudeamus. Комедия в четырех действиях (1910)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blind woman asks Lea to help her get home:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Слепая, жен, 25] Леа, будьте так добры, отведите меня домой. [Д. Я. Айзман. Терновый куст (1907)] - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I will try to sit on a horse&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Я сяду кой-как на лошадь, отведите меня шагом за последнюю линию нашей армии; бог наградит ваше человеколюбие». [Н. А. Дурова. Кавалерист-девица (1835)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EE%F2%E2%E5%E4%E8%F2%E5%20%EC%E5%ED%FF&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="d2f9b7fe-265a-44b2-bfa6-812b013884da" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:33:11.627" UserId="1674" Text="The word &quot;отвести&quot; has quite a lot of meanings which generally can be described as &quot;take away&quot; (in all meanings). Note that not all its cases fall under this definiton.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1. Отвести, кого / что.** *Ведя, сопровождая, доставить куда-либо / Lead someone somewhere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* гостя в комнату.   &#xD;&#xA;*Отвёл* приятеля в сторону.   &#xD;&#xA;Полк *отведён* в тыл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2. Отвести, что / чем.** *Отстранить, отодвинуть какую-либо преграду, что-либо мешающее, заслоняющее / Move away a barrier, something interferring, disturbing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* прядь волос рукой.  *(Take the hair away, avoid it closing the eyes)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3. Отвести, что**. *Изменить расположение или направление движения кого-, чего-либо; заставить переместиться, отодвинуться / Change position of something; move something away* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* глаза, взгляд, взор.  *(Look away)*   &#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* руку, локоть, голову в сторону.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4. Отвести, кого / что (от чего).** *Отвлечь, отдалить от чего-либо, не допустить до чего-либо / Distract from something, do not allow something to happen*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* разговор от деталей.  *(Prevent some details from being told in conversation, probably by distracting, changing topic)*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5. Отвести, что. Разговорное** *Предотвратить что-либо, предохранить от чего-либо / Prevent something*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* чёрные мысли.  *(Prevent bad thoughts from coming)*   &#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* беду, угрозу.  *(Prevent misfortune, troubles)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **6. Отвести, кого / что (от кого).** *Отклонить, отвергнуть, не принять. / Reject, do not accept something*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* от себя, от друга подозрения, обвинения. *(Divert suspicion from oneself, from a friend)*&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* чью-л. кандидатуру.  *(Make someone's candidature being banned, rejected from participating)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **7. Отвести, что (кому).** *Назначить, предоставить в пользование, в распоряжение, предназначить для чего-л. / Appoint, provide for using, make avaliable*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* участок под сад, под огороды, под пастбище.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meanings of the word &quot;отвести&quot;](http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;all=x)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12961" RevisionGUID="f93b09da-edb2-4232-9d65-ec239941ccfc" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:50:37.937" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;отвести&quot; has quite a lot of meanings, which generally can be described as &quot;take away&quot; (in all meanings). Note that not all its cases fall under this definiton.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1. Отвести, кого / что.** *Ведя, сопровождая, доставить куда-либо / Lead someone somewhere*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* гостя в комнату.   &#xD;&#xA;*Отвёл* приятеля в сторону.   &#xD;&#xA;Полк *отведён* в тыл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2. Отвести, что / чем.** *Отстранить, отодвинуть какую-либо преграду, что-либо мешающее, заслоняющее / Move away a barrier, something interferring, disturbing*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* прядь волос рукой.  *(Move one's hair aside, to not block one's vision)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3. Отвести, что**. *Изменить расположение или направление движения кого-, чего-либо; заставить переместиться, отодвинуться / Change the position of something; move something away* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* глаза, взгляд, взор.  *(Look away)*   &#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* руку, локоть, голову в сторону.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4. Отвести, кого / что (от чего).** *Отвлечь, отдалить от чего-либо, не допустить до чего-либо / avert something, do not allow something to happen*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* разговор от деталей.  *(Prevent some details from being said in conversation, probably by distracting, changing topic)*   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5. Отвести, что. Разговорное** *Предотвратить что-либо, предохранить от чего-либо / Prevent something*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* чёрные мысли.  *(Prevent bad thoughts)*   &#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* беду, угрозу.  *(Prevent misfortune, trouble)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **6. Отвести, кого / что (от кого).** *Отклонить, отвергнуть, не принять. / Reject, not accept something*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* от себя, от друга подозрения, обвинения. *(Divert suspicion from oneself, from a friend)*&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* чью-л. кандидатуру.  *(Make someone's candidature be banned, rejected from participating)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **7. Отвести, что (кому).** *Назначить, предоставить в пользование, в распоряжение, предназначить для чего-л. / Appoint, provide for, make avaliable*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Отвести* участок под сад, под огороды, под пастбище.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Meanings of the word &quot;отвести&quot;](http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;all=x)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12962" RevisionGUID="0545191b-a48b-4f82-8021-8ea31c01b712" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:17:23.090" UserId="3892" Text="Is there any difference in meaning between these two expressions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12962" RevisionGUID="0545191b-a48b-4f82-8021-8ea31c01b712" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:17:23.090" UserId="3892" Text="отвести глаз или свести глаз?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12962" RevisionGUID="0545191b-a48b-4f82-8021-8ea31c01b712" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:17:23.090" UserId="3892" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12963" RevisionGUID="06ac94a0-bac8-4a93-800b-cfa563c80ac4" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:53:22.373" UserId="6515" Text="The first one, “отвести глаз”, has only one meaning: to look away, like in “She is so beautiful, I cannot look away from her”. Is may be used in a general description:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она такая красивая — глаз не отвести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, “глаз” is plural genitive, not singular nominative, because negation with transitive verbs often requires genitive case, as in French “faire qch” — “ne faire pas *de* qch”, with *de* implying genitive case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one can be used in a sentence where you emphasize that looking is an action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всю лекцию я не сводил с неё глаз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone has been actually staring at her incessantly because he was infatuated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you may put “отвести глаза” in a sentence with an action taking place:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он положил украденные деньги на стол и стыдливо отвёл глаза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He looked aside because he was ashamed of what he had done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, simply “свести глаза” also means “свести глаза в кучу”, i.e. cross one’s eyes or impersonate someone with a squint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы изобразить безумного профессора, он взлохматил волосы и свёл глаза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum it up, if you mean that one cannot look aside because X is beautiful, use “не отвести глаз от X”. If you intend to say that someone was gazing at X, you say “не сводил глаз с X”. If someone focused his sight on the tip of his nose to look cross-eyed, use “свести глаза”. If someone looked away, say “отвести глаза” or “отвести взгляд”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12964" RevisionGUID="478679fb-4a3d-4aff-ad2a-59be42cd1327" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:58:06.847" UserId="134" Text="Both those sentences have several idiomatic meanings (some of them only in negative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To revert one's eyes (both can be used in negative, only *отвести* in affirmative). In negative this means &quot;to watch someone closely, to keep sight on someone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Он мешал и тем, и этим, ― отводя глаза, проговорил Мышкин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Примерно столько же, ― ответил Сторожев, не отводя глаз от Даши, которая в это время нагнулась.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Приезжает… ― повторила Тамара зло, не сводя глаз с Каландарашвили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To divert one's attention, to fool (used with dative, only *отвести*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Те две капли мёда, которые дольше других отводили мне глаза от жестокой истины ― любовь к семье и к писательству, которые я называл искусством, ― уже не сладки мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Они, наверно, влюблены друг в друга, хоть и отводят людям глаза, и оттого бедный Николай Сергеич сослан в кабинет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. To cross, squint one's eyes, to look at some direction (usually down). Only *свести* can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Валюшок очень комично свел глаза к переносице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Еще до того, как все они уставились на нее, пихая пригожего детину, который, сведя глаза, разбирал у себя на шее какие-то цепочки и шнурки, Софья Андреевна почуяла опасность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Прислонясь к дереву, я с голосистых певцов невольно свел глаза на самих слушателей-наблюдателей, тот поврежденный класс полу-европейцев, к которому и я принадлежу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Не отвести глаз* as an idiomatic predicative adjective, meaning &quot;very pretty&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Валькирия собрала все свои познания и стала просто красоткой, глаз не отвести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вроде лишь вчера зарозовелась, а вот уже стоят деревца нарядные, глаз не отвести&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * У нас в механическом при Жердее выбросили четыре «бромлея», этакие грохота, и установили два «краснопролетарца» ― глаз не отвести!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12962" RevisionGUID="423b7310-89b8-4dee-867f-f6e34ea8c2a7" CreationDate="2016-08-03T22:21:57.370" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="Не отвести глаз или не свести глаз?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30337" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12962" RevisionGUID="3dcf49c3-346e-4848-bac7-1842073fbfe6" CreationDate="2016-08-04T05:07:13.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/761065936166133760" />
  <row Id="30338" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12955" RevisionGUID="0c36fd78-1bac-4535-8bc2-564a272a9607" CreationDate="2016-08-04T08:07:13.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/761111234397691906" />
  <row Id="30339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="3a3ac256-9720-4027-8da7-fac71e2005a7" CreationDate="2016-08-04T12:51:28.580" UserId="4438" Text="As in: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приношу извинения что *морочил голову*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: made a booking but plans were cancelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Checked [ru.wiktionary.org](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83#.D0.A1.D0.B8.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BC.D1.8B) and [frazbook.ru](http://frazbook.ru/2008/12/21/morochit-golovu/) but none of the suggested options sound natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="3a3ac256-9720-4027-8da7-fac71e2005a7" CreationDate="2016-08-04T12:51:28.580" UserId="4438" Text="What'd be a formal way to say &quot;морочить голову&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="3a3ac256-9720-4027-8da7-fac71e2005a7" CreationDate="2016-08-04T12:51:28.580" UserId="4438" Text="|idioms|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12966" RevisionGUID="67f644f6-dbad-4701-9d6d-e6aeb10927b6" CreationDate="2016-08-04T13:49:16.460" UserId="7169" Text="You can [add a secondary keyboard layout in Windows][1] and do the same on your phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://superuser.com/questions/177305/using-multiple-keyboards-with-different-keyboard-layouts-in-windows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can buy Cyrillic stickers for the keys from eBay (though once you start you get used to the letter positions and won't need them after a while). It takes practice and is difficult at first, но это стоит того." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12967" RevisionGUID="0689833e-dcee-4757-98d0-af19fd1456d5" CreationDate="2016-08-04T14:20:06.180" UserId="6539" Text="Прошу прощения за доставленные хлопоты, за беспокойство,за то, что отнял у Вас время. Any will do, I think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30344" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="103ef88e-e0c7-4929-9061-4d0563d6ce60" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:58:12.250" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30345" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="2cfa383a-c6cd-4d03-9ab5-d36029a421d4" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:58:12.250" UserId="242" Comment="to http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/35231/communicate-to-russians-with-only-latin-alphabet" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30346" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="ebe7e954-6765-40c9-ab1d-b58b66f6aba9" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:58:12.250" UserId="-1" Comment="to http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/35231/communicate-to-russians-with-only-latin-alphabet" />
  <row Id="30347" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="12903" RevisionGUID="f8b90d2c-a7ae-4e8b-813b-da915e533f5c" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:58:12.250" UserId="-1" Comment="to http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/35231/communicate-to-russians-with-only-latin-alphabet" />
  <row Id="30348" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="12966" RevisionGUID="b6426235-66ce-4fd0-8861-8012837a64f0" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:58:12.250" UserId="-1" Comment="to http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/35231/communicate-to-russians-with-only-latin-alphabet" />
  <row Id="30349" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="80dda645-7daf-4896-a1f7-fe4d64c459a4" CreationDate="2016-08-04T18:58:12.250" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30350" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="d0a2f0c5-75a8-41f7-8947-967b1166b89f" CreationDate="2016-08-04T20:16:20.370" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30351" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="3ebc3b56-1644-4c14-b82b-4821e9ac2819" CreationDate="2016-08-04T20:34:36.417" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12968" RevisionGUID="0d90a4ee-0eca-4abc-82b7-63b92e3c9ee3" CreationDate="2016-08-04T21:35:22.167" UserId="7544" Text="1) There should definitely be a comma behind &quot;что&quot; that you missed, such as &quot;Извините, что побеспокоил&quot;, to mark another part of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;2) The list of possible synonims is very long, too long to be fully listed in here. However, here are some examples (partially already noted by V.V.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Извините, что (побеспокоил/отнял Ваше время/потревожил)&#xD;&#xA;- Извините за (беспокойство/отнятое время/потраченное время)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many more! &#xD;&#xA;Good luck learning that complex language!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30354" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12965" RevisionGUID="bcd10b1b-0e81-44cc-bce9-6d6772c73b46" CreationDate="2016-08-04T23:07:14.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/761337729363902469" />
  <row Id="30355" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12957" RevisionGUID="63a3459c-f4cf-473a-9814-10efac031c23" CreationDate="2016-08-05T08:13:32.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/761475211728416768" />
  <row Id="30356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12969" RevisionGUID="e70a273a-dff3-4784-bafc-b727e927dcde" CreationDate="2016-08-05T10:40:42.857" UserId="7544" Text="I would say, use &quot;бежать&quot; whenever you would use continuos tense in English. I would translate it as &quot;to be running&quot;. Otherwise use &quot;бегать&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12970" RevisionGUID="8ceb727e-4a31-48a1-b058-710b3f6b823f" CreationDate="2016-08-05T11:20:02.343" UserId="7544" Text="Depending on style, you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Собираться&#xD;&#xA;- Хотеть&#xD;&#xA;- Намереваться&#xD;&#xA;- Думать&#xD;&#xA;- Замышлять&#xD;&#xA;- Планировать&#xD;&#xA;- Задумывать &#xD;&#xA;- Вознамериваться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and many more! I assume you are already familiar with putting those verbs in a needed form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="704a2635-9d67-47e7-b932-c2a023a74882" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:06:29.943" UserId="7544" Comment="Punctuation and some minor mistakes fixed." Text="The word **&quot;Да&quot;** has got various functions in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. In your example &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иван да Марья (Иван и Марья)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is **a conjunction** which means **&quot;и&quot;**. As a conjunction it can also mean **&quot;но&quot;** (&quot;but&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Солнце светит, да не греет* (&quot;The sun is shining, but it isn't warm&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we put a comma in front of &quot;да&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.As a particle  &quot;да&quot; can denote agreement.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Вы говорите по-русски?&quot; (&quot;Do you speak Russian?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Да. (&quot;Yes, I do&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also express being surprised:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Я говорю по-русски. (&quot;I speak Russian.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; --Да ладно? (&quot;Really?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It can also mean **&quot;by the way&quot;** when it is at the beginning of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, совсем забыл, напиши ему письмо. (&quot;By the way, I forgot to tell you, write him a letter.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a particle it helps to form imperative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да будет так!(&quot;Let it be so!&quot; if translated literary, but that's also one of the possible translateions of &quot;Amen!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or like here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да здравствует свобода!(Long live freedom! )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used for putting emphasis on a sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Да не хочу я ничего! (&quot;I don't want anything!&quot;, a bit stronger than just &quot;Не хочу я ничего!&quot; which would be translated in English in the same way) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30359" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12608" RevisionGUID="704a2635-9d67-47e7-b932-c2a023a74882" CreationDate="2016-08-05T16:06:29.943" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 6097, 5605 edit id of 782" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30360" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12948" RevisionGUID="317f4e08-9775-4c9d-bf8b-896d9aa11321" CreationDate="2016-08-05T23:23:48.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/761704289240768512" />
  <row Id="30361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="b2625ab7-ea49-44ec-ad21-88a49881900d" CreationDate="2016-08-06T02:44:53.480" UserId="7625" Text="I see both forms being mentioned as perfective forms of кушать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="b2625ab7-ea49-44ec-ad21-88a49881900d" CreationDate="2016-08-06T02:44:53.480" UserId="7625" Text="What is the difference between the perfective forms скушать and покушать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="b2625ab7-ea49-44ec-ad21-88a49881900d" CreationDate="2016-08-06T02:44:53.480" UserId="7625" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="069cbaf4-232f-4556-8c95-4bc929b7aebc" CreationDate="2016-08-06T04:12:54.510" UserId="5008" Text="Basically, _покушать_ (or _поесть_) means to have eaten some meal, while _скушать_ (or _съесть_) is for eating a single dish. A pair of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы хотите есть? -- Нет, спасибо. Я уже покушал.   &#xD;&#xA;А где мороженое? -- Я его уже скушал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="d9292f6a-4682-45fe-b54b-e7b04b6eea37" CreationDate="2016-08-06T06:45:59.343" UserId="5008" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="_Покушать_ (or _поесть_) means to have eaten some unspecified portion of meal, while _скушать_ (or _съесть_) is for finishing a whole thing (meal or just dish). A pair of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы хотите есть? -- Нет, спасибо. Я уже покушал. (i.e. I have eaten something)   &#xD;&#xA;А где мороженое? -- Я его уже скушал. (I ate the whole ice-cream)  &#xD;&#xA;Он съел свой обед (He has eaten/finished his lunch)  &#xD;&#xA;Попейте молока. Покушайте вот хлебца (Take some milk, eat some bread)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="55b79ac6-5a91-4f9e-86b2-2051cb36166b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T07:08:18.750" UserId="5008" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="_Покушать_ (or _поесть_) means to have eaten some unspecified portion of meal, while _скушать_ (or _съесть_) is for finishing a whole thing (meal or just dish). A pair of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы хотите есть? -- Нет, спасибо. Я уже покушал. (i.e. I have eaten something)   &#xD;&#xA;А где мороженое? -- Я его уже скушал. (I ate the whole ice-cream)  &#xD;&#xA;Он съел свой обед (He has eaten/finished his lunch)  &#xD;&#xA;Попейте молока. Покушайте вот хлебца (Take some milk, eat some bread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in Russian they more often use the verb form for &quot;having a meal&quot;, e.g.: &quot;позавтракать / пообедать / поужинать&quot; (to breakfast / to dine / to supper) vs. &quot;съесть завтрак / обед / ужин&quot; (to have breakfast / dinner / supper). Although in this context &quot;съесть&quot; doesn't necessarily imply eating meal a whole, yet it is less popular in speech and sounds a little bookish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12956" RevisionGUID="f07a045f-cdad-44a2-ad30-355c3a45518b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T17:02:30.120" UserId="6539" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="A usual interpretation  is **собирался** (to do something ).But we also use **хотел** in this case meaning intention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I forget what I was going to say--Я забываю,что собирался (хотел) сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since *forget* is often used instead of *forgot* or *have forgotten*(though some people consider it incorrect) we'd better say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **забыл**, что хотел сказать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12973" RevisionGUID="f6099d79-6192-4fbb-9d92-a92216522e8b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T22:10:52.907" UserId="4925" Text="I often see the word &quot;чего&quot; in places that don't make sense. For example, &quot;Пётр снисходительно пожал плечами: чего, мол, морочить голову&quot;. Now, чего means &quot;that&quot; or &quot;what&quot;, if I'm correct. But it also seems to have a lot of different uses, like in the sentence above. Could you please explain why &quot;чего&quot; was used in the above sentence and also provide some examples of &quot;чего&quot; in places that don't translate to &quot;that&quot; or &quot;what&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12973" RevisionGUID="f6099d79-6192-4fbb-9d92-a92216522e8b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T22:10:52.907" UserId="4925" Text="Чего: Usage and Meanings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12973" RevisionGUID="f6099d79-6192-4fbb-9d92-a92216522e8b" CreationDate="2016-08-06T22:10:52.907" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12971" RevisionGUID="ee325386-4195-4bb5-b13e-740e6c83c3ca" CreationDate="2016-08-06T23:23:50.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/762066682173071360" />
  <row Id="30372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12974" RevisionGUID="4e428857-be79-43b1-a1ea-b207b5a26abf" CreationDate="2016-08-07T03:47:10.637" UserId="6539" Text="It seems you are aware of the main and most frequent usage of чего meaning что (colloquial). That's not the case with your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего морочить голову?(What for, why)--Why should you worry about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another frequent usage is an adverb meaning **what for** and **why**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЧЕГО́ &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Чего я туда пойду? Чего с ним разговаривать? (т. е. незачем).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why,what's the reason**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего остановились? Чего загрустил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An idiom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• Чего там!-- неважно, не стоит обращать внимания(Don't pay any attention.It's not that important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Не расстраивайся, чего там!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you,we don't consider чего meaning что." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="46910a07-1706-437a-99da-54a76a4fc320" CreationDate="2016-08-07T08:12:35.587" UserId="7544" Comment="Пунктуация, оформление, исправил небольшие ошибки в английском." Text="_Покушать_ (or _поесть_) means to have eaten some unspecified portion of meal, while _скушать_ (or _съесть_) is for finishing a whole thing (meal or just dish). A pair of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы хотите есть? -- Нет, спасибо. Я уже покушал. (i.e. I have eaten [something] already.)   &#xD;&#xA;А где мороженое? -- Я его уже скушал. (I ate it already)  &#xD;&#xA;Он съел свой обед (He has eaten/finished his lunch)  &#xD;&#xA;Попейте молока. Покушайте вот хлебца (Take some milk, eat some bread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in Russian they more often use the verb form for &quot;having a meal&quot;, e.g.: &quot;(по)завтракать / (по)обедать / (по)ужинать&quot; (to breakfast / to dine / to supper) vs. &quot;съесть завтрак / обед / ужин&quot; (to eat breakfast / dinner / supper). Although in this context &quot;съесть&quot; doesn't necessarily imply eating meal a whole, yet it is less popular in speech and sounds a little bookish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30374" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="46910a07-1706-437a-99da-54a76a4fc320" CreationDate="2016-08-07T08:12:35.587" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by -1 edit id of 783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12972" RevisionGUID="971b9569-8ed6-453d-8779-44e2c7de0f0c" CreationDate="2016-08-07T08:12:35.587" UserId="5008" Comment="Пунктуация, оформление, исправил небольшие ошибки в английском." Text="_Покушать_ (or _поесть_) means to have eaten some unspecified portion of meal, while _скушать_ (or _съесть_) is for finishing a whole thing (meal or just dish). A pair of examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы хотите есть? -- Нет, спасибо. Я уже покушал. (i.e. I have eaten [something] already.)   &#xD;&#xA;А где мороженое? -- Я его уже скушал. (I ate it already)  &#xD;&#xA;Он съел свой обед (He has eaten/finished his lunch)  &#xD;&#xA;Попейте молока. Покушайте вот хлебца (Take some milk, eat some bread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that in Russian they more often use the verb form for &quot;having a meal&quot;, e.g.: &quot;(по)завтракать / (по)обедать / (по)ужинать&quot; (to breakfast / to dine / to supper) vs. &quot;съесть завтрак / обед / ужин&quot; (to have breakfast / dinner / supper). Although in this context &quot;съесть&quot; doesn't necessarily imply eating meal a whole, yet it is less popular in speech and sounds a little bookish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12975" RevisionGUID="3e0ed855-61b3-42f7-9a47-fa0ff875d699" CreationDate="2016-08-07T09:04:27.953" UserId="7629" Text="First of all, &quot;чего?&quot; is a rather rude form of answering. The speaker sounds rude or just uneducated. An educated person would say &quot;Что?&quot; or, if she\he wants to sound really polite: &quot;Что, простите?&quot; or &quot;Извините, что вы сказали?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чего?&quot; also could mean &quot;What do you want?&quot; (again, it sounds rude. The polite form would be longer: &quot;Чего вы хотите?&quot; or, to sound really polite, &quot;Чем я могу вам помочь?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;And the third meaning is expressing disbelief and\or outrage. Sometimes it is written as Чего-о?. –&quot;Чего-о? – Ден оторвался от оптики, с недоумением зыркнул на командира.  – Ты серьезно?&quot; &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30377" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12895" RevisionGUID="45d75081-4af6-42d5-99c8-778ea0e0d007" CreationDate="2016-08-07T11:23:50.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/762247878509223936" />
  <row Id="30378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="c3562620-bc3b-4c84-8571-a8ca12dc3f21" CreationDate="2016-08-07T13:23:28.400" UserId="4714" Text="So we can use either Genitive or чем when making comparisons. My question is, when should I prefer one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я круче его. &#xD;&#xA;Я круче, чем он. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю это лучше тебя.&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю это лучше, чем ты. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы более привлекательные тех девушек.&#xD;&#xA;Мы более привлекательные, чем те девушки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some general rules?)) Or your opinions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="c3562620-bc3b-4c84-8571-a8ca12dc3f21" CreationDate="2016-08-07T13:23:28.400" UserId="4714" Text="When to use Genitive in comparatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="c3562620-bc3b-4c84-8571-a8ca12dc3f21" CreationDate="2016-08-07T13:23:28.400" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12977" RevisionGUID="87dbef0c-862b-417f-a844-9e3df3a6fefa" CreationDate="2016-08-07T13:41:19.410" UserId="6097" Text="There is no rule and no difference. You can use both as you like. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="38bbca91-9308-4e03-829c-a2f850e83215" CreationDate="2016-08-07T14:53:50.073" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="So we can use either Genitive or чем when making comparisons. My question is, when should I prefer one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я круче его. &#xD;&#xA;Я круче, чем он. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю это лучше тебя.&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю это лучше, чем ты. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она красивее той девушкой.&#xD;&#xA;Она более Красивая, чем та девушка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some general rules?)) Or your opinions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12978" RevisionGUID="268544dd-1841-489e-96bb-b98f19947b85" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:32:11.117" UserId="6539" Text="A comparison may be expressed either with genitive case, or with the conjunction чем  meaning &quot;than&quot; with no difference in meaning :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сестра красивее брата. Сестра красивее, чем брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken Russian I prefer a short form when possible, but both are widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the **compound** form, the construction with **чем**  should be used, you can't use genitive in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они – двойняшки, но сестра более активная, **чем** брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction with **чем** should be used with parts of speech which are **not declined** or **with prepositions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сегодня день теплее, **чем** вчера.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мороженое с клубникой вкуснее, **чем** с вишней." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12978" RevisionGUID="a3f831ec-6116-4fd1-8350-b34a57371cb5" CreationDate="2016-08-07T18:40:04.383" UserId="6539" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="A comparison may be expressed either with genitive case, or with the conjunction чем  meaning &quot;than&quot; with no difference in meaning :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сестра красивее брата. Сестра красивее, чем брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken Russian I prefer a short form when possible, but both are widely used.I said &quot;when possible&quot; because if I use менее +adjective, I say чем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the **compound** form, the construction with **чем**  should be used, you can't use genitive in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они – двойняшки, но сестра более активная, **чем** брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction with **чем** should be used with parts of speech which are **not declined** or **with prepositions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сегодня день теплее, **чем** вчера.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мороженое с клубникой вкуснее, **чем** с вишней." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12978" RevisionGUID="dddff441-4d0f-41dd-ac78-8613aa1f901c" CreationDate="2016-08-08T06:14:03.367" UserId="6539" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="A comparison can be expressed either with genitive case, or with the conjunction чем  meaning &quot;than&quot; with no difference in meaning :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сестра красивее брата. Сестра красивее, чем брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken Russian I prefer a short form when possible, but both are widely used.I said &quot;when possible&quot; because if I use менее +adjective, I say чем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the **compound** form (более,менее + adjective), the variant with **чем**  should be used, you can't use genitive in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они – двойняшки, но сестра более активная, **чем** брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction with **чем** should be used with parts of speech which are **not declined** or **with prepositions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сегодня день теплее, **чем** вчера.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мороженое с клубникой вкуснее, **чем** с вишней." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12979" RevisionGUID="29b6c798-e925-4b2d-86a6-89383f837e4c" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:04:21.267" UserId="5008" Text="Если мы посмотрим на этот же глагол в сербском языке, то увидим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Инфинитив &quot;ићи&quot; (ћ - сербская мягкая &quot;ч&quot;, как в словах &quot;ночь&quot; - &quot;ноћ&quot;, &quot;печь&quot; - &quot;пећ&quot;  и т.д.); в настоящем времени &quot;ћ&quot; чередуется с &quot;д&quot; - &quot;ми идемо&quot;; в прошедшем времени &quot;ћ&quot; чередуется с &quot;ш&quot; - &quot;ми смо ишли&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть спряжение практически регулярно за исключением чередования &quot;ћ-д-ш&quot;. Так что можно предположить, что и русское &quot;шёл&quot; / &quot;шли&quot; получилось чередованием &quot;д&quot;-&quot;ш&quot; и усечением начального &quot;и&quot; - &quot;ишёл&quot; / &quot;ишла&quot; / &quot;ишло&quot; / &quot;ишли&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="ae838660-d337-4938-914b-3cc16ae18f71" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:14:32.527" UserId="5510" Comment="removed unnecessary words" Text="&gt; Иди, дело есть. ― Чего? ― спросил Карусельщик с подозрением, но из тумана все же показался. // *[Елена Хаецкая. Синие стрекозы Вавилона/ Семеро праведных в раю господина (2004)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anybody explain why *чего* is used in genitive here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you can say &quot;What?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why don't they use the nominative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30389" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="ae838660-d337-4938-914b-3cc16ae18f71" CreationDate="2016-08-08T13:14:32.527" Comment="Proposed by 5510 approved by 5605, 6097 edit id of 784" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="44b14888-2640-47e7-96e4-bc3cce972130" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:36:53.807" UserId="6816" Text="It is apparent that вы is used with the plural ending in past tense verbs regardless of whether or not it is plural in context.&#xA;&#xA;Does the same hold true for short adjectives (but not long ones)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="44b14888-2640-47e7-96e4-bc3cce972130" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:36:53.807" UserId="6816" Text="Вы used with plural verbs and adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12980" RevisionGUID="44b14888-2640-47e7-96e4-bc3cce972130" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:36:53.807" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12981" RevisionGUID="6e32c51d-17a4-4176-ae11-55bbaf28289a" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:55:51.763" UserId="5443" Text="Yes, it does:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы проницательны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12982" RevisionGUID="2110f714-2a73-4b85-8910-ac7afc63c71b" CreationDate="2016-08-08T18:02:21.803" UserId="5605" Text="Как пишется &quot;О/одиссеева Итака&quot;: с прописной или строчной &quot;О&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12982" RevisionGUID="2110f714-2a73-4b85-8910-ac7afc63c71b" CreationDate="2016-08-08T18:02:21.803" UserId="5605" Text="С прописной или строчной буквы пишется &quot;О/одиссеева Итака&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12982" RevisionGUID="2110f714-2a73-4b85-8910-ac7afc63c71b" CreationDate="2016-08-08T18:02:21.803" UserId="5605" Text="|грамотность|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="9aca447b-d7d4-401a-9006-6dfe9f6b1e3c" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:12:11.183" UserId="7239" Text="Почему зовут символ @ &quot;собака&quot;?  Why is the @-symbol called &quot;dog&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw this translation on the Babbel website. Most of the Russian terms regarding computer technology seem to be either direct loanwords or calques from English, but I have absolutely no insight regarding why @ would be called &quot;собака&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a historical reason for this perhaps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="9aca447b-d7d4-401a-9006-6dfe9f6b1e3c" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:12:11.183" UserId="7239" Text="Почему зовут символ @ &quot;собака&quot;? Why is the @-symbol called &quot;dog&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="9aca447b-d7d4-401a-9006-6dfe9f6b1e3c" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:12:11.183" UserId="7239" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12984" RevisionGUID="cdef9e15-9d0c-4b7f-9000-3e5974f8ccff" CreationDate="2016-08-08T20:52:17.003" UserId="5132" Text="&gt; Одна из версий происхождения названия «собака»: на алфавитно-цифровых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мониторах персональных компьютеров серии ДВК (1980-е годы) «хвостик»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рисуемого на экране изображения этого символа был очень коротким,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что придавало ему сходство со схематически нарисованной собачкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/@&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Забавно, что, например, в датском этот символ называется snabel a. Snabel – большой нос или хобот." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12985" RevisionGUID="c1f47883-c64b-4e9d-abb4-70a5d301023d" CreationDate="2016-08-09T01:03:31.487" UserId="7537" Text="[С прописной](http://lingvanotes.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/blog-post.html). Но надо сказать, что правило на этот счет не самое очевидное, и вопрос очень правомерен. Многие подобные прилагательные, образованные от имен, (и даже сами имена: &quot;современные онегины&quot;) должны писаться со строчной буквы, тогда как в английском они почти всегда пишутся с прописной." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12983" RevisionGUID="824f7945-240a-40af-a2ed-9bcd9463817c" CreationDate="2016-08-09T17:44:27.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/763068439007268864" />
  <row Id="30404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12986" RevisionGUID="261c456b-5e3e-4637-bcd1-36f79148d051" CreationDate="2016-08-10T04:40:42.433" UserId="7629" Text="&quot;Извините, что я вас напрасно обнадежил (обнадежила, if the speaker is female)&quot; - это самое близкое по смыслу в данном случае. &#xD;&#xA;Но &quot;извините, что отнял (отняла) у вас время&quot; - самый стандартный вариант, вас сразу поймут. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12982" RevisionGUID="5f31b85b-afb9-44f7-8367-8e112486b3af" CreationDate="2016-08-10T08:51:36.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/763296728212729856" />
  <row Id="30406" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12976" RevisionGUID="2b2e534e-e079-4f96-81f5-078563d66386" CreationDate="2016-08-10T20:54:11.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/763478574292725764" />
  <row Id="30407" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12973" RevisionGUID="9d8cc00c-6bc9-40c7-8db1-92ad5337e25f" CreationDate="2016-08-10T23:54:11.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/763523874344603648" />
  <row Id="30409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="13d8dae8-387d-4c03-b8da-ee180b7a4ceb" CreationDate="2016-08-11T10:48:27.553" UserId="3504" Text="&#xD;&#xA;When i saw a dictionary that contains almost three million words [Bigg English-Russian Dictionary](http://biggdictionary.com/?en#.V6ckoAerD-h.facebook) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make me wonder to really know how many words are there in Russian language !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the largest dictionary in the world ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;did you know any research on Russian words estimation ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="13d8dae8-387d-4c03-b8da-ee180b7a4ceb" CreationDate="2016-08-11T10:48:27.553" UserId="3504" Text="almost how many words are there in Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12987" RevisionGUID="13d8dae8-387d-4c03-b8da-ee180b7a4ceb" CreationDate="2016-08-11T10:48:27.553" UserId="3504" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12988" RevisionGUID="531ade28-f498-4bb1-b02a-dbf7b218d717" CreationDate="2016-08-11T12:35:59.887" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="First, &quot;three million entries&quot; sounds a bit unbelievable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian has ~200K words according to [Dal's dictionary][1] (published in 1862, so *quite* obsolete); more modern dictionary, [&quot;Словарь современного русского литературного языка&quot;][2], is supposed to have ~150K entries, but it hasn't been fully published yet.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;English [is estimated][3] to have ~170K words in current usage, and ~600K words including obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the comparison of language sizes here: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.lingholic.com/how-many-words-do-i-need-to-know-the-955-rule-in-language-learning-part-2/&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;None of the compared languages has more than 500K words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="06c4e875-5315-4957-b10e-4513b15526c6" CreationDate="2016-08-11T15:51:50.460" UserId="7641" Text="The history of a country probably heavily affects the language, therefore I would presume that some concepts in the russian language might differ from their counterparts in languages from western, capitalist countries due to the rule of the communist party during the soviet union and the different meaning of property, work, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know any concrete examples of such interesting differences? Or am I completely wrong about something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="06c4e875-5315-4957-b10e-4513b15526c6" CreationDate="2016-08-11T15:51:50.460" UserId="7641" Text="What are the lasting effects of communism on the russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="06c4e875-5315-4957-b10e-4513b15526c6" CreationDate="2016-08-11T15:51:50.460" UserId="7641" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30417" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12841" RevisionGUID="a3d64142-754d-4430-8bc9-d55dc400030e" CreationDate="2016-08-11T17:58:20.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/763796709411545088" />
  <row Id="30419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12991" RevisionGUID="1d35af01-6324-4021-9892-c21e0d33d808" CreationDate="2016-08-11T20:42:55.883" UserId="4560" Text="You're asking for something that, how should I put it, can be found but one's got to really look for it. Much more prominent are the &quot;longitudinal&quot; differences in the Russian language pre-, during, and post-Communism — but even that's more to do with linguistic form than meaning. As for &quot;the different meaning of property, work, etc.&quot;, this is the part where a lot of people amuse themselves by mining everyday language for deeper cultural significance that is, frankly, not there most of the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="8a4acc72-3f43-467b-8f09-5b4dc8f01c90" CreationDate="2016-08-12T05:29:37.983" UserId="7561" Text="The adjective **Христов** looks quite unique to a learner such as myself. I can't think of any others that look like it; meaning it lacks the characteristic -ый/ий/ой endings (and their inflected forms) I'm used to. It also seems to follow the declension pattern of a noun (or more specifically, male surnames, where the instrumental and all the plural forms are inflected like adjectives). I'd like to know why this is. Is it a grammatical holdover from Old Church Slavonic or Old East Slavic? If so, how did it come about, morphologically speaking? I'm only familiar with -ов in modern Russian, where it is an ending for plural nouns or singular male surnames. How was Христов formed from whatever the noun form of &quot;Christ&quot; was at the time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="8a4acc72-3f43-467b-8f09-5b4dc8f01c90" CreationDate="2016-08-12T05:29:37.983" UserId="7561" Text="Regarding the adjective &quot;Христов&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="8a4acc72-3f43-467b-8f09-5b4dc8f01c90" CreationDate="2016-08-12T05:29:37.983" UserId="7561" Text="|прилагательные|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="d6023f79-1370-48f2-801d-069978726413" CreationDate="2016-08-12T06:49:55.490" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;I can't think of any others that look like it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tons. Отцов, дедов, братов etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm only familiar with -ов in modern Russian, where it is an ending for plural nouns or singular male surnames&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it's surnames which are produced from possessive forms, i.e. _Петров_ means _Peter's [son]_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="a29deb72-1785-46e5-9b24-6669963c8076" CreationDate="2016-08-12T06:56:02.347" UserId="5008" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="&gt;I can't think of any others that look like it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tons. Отцов, дедов, братов etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm only familiar with -ов in modern Russian, where it is an ending for plural nouns or singular male surnames&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it's surnames which are produced from possessive forms, i.e. _Петров_ means _Peter's [son]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was also surprised not to see &quot;Христоса,&quot; the genitive of Христос, used instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive of _Христос_ is _Христа_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="ae2dfa49-a4db-4975-a228-21d75ae1610a" CreationDate="2016-08-12T08:05:10.183" UserId="194" Text="In general, the Communist revolution in Russia brought some modernization to the language, many archaic words were dropped and replaced with more bureaucratic, educated or scientifically sounding ones. Later, when Russia returned to Capitalism, some of these changes were reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term for the deputy/vice office holder in pre-revolutionary Russian was &quot;товарищь&quot; &quot;comrade&quot;, so deputy/vice minister would be &quot;товарищ министра&quot; &quot;comrade of the minister&quot;. But under Communist rule the word &quot;товарищь&quot; &quot;comrade&quot; became a common address, so it was replaced with the word &quot;zamestitel&quot;, literally &quot;replacer&quot;. So now the deputy/vice minister is &quot;zamestitel ministra&quot; &quot;replacer of the minister&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The state legislature was called &quot;Государственная Дума&quot;, literally &quot;State Thought&quot;, a term from 15-16th century, a board of boyars. Under Communist rule the word was replaced with &quot;sovet&quot;, literally &quot;council&quot;. Now we again have &quot;State Thought&quot; instead &quot;State Council&quot; which sounds weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word for the head of a city was &quot;голова&quot;, literally &quot;head&quot;, but since it is native Russian word rather than borrowed from Church Slavonic &quot;глава&quot;, it sounds very uneducated/low class. The word глава is still used but means a generic &quot;head&quot; of any entity. The Communists replaced this uneducated-sounding word with something very complicated &quot;Predsedatel ispolnitelnogo komiteta gorodskogo soveta narodnykh deputatov&quot; which translates &quot;President/chairman of the executive committee of the city council of the people's deputies&quot;. Now the heads of most cities called with a newly borrowed word &quot;Мэр&quot; &quot;Mayor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before the revolution there was an institution similar to court marshalls. They were called with the word &quot;pristav&quot;, literally &quot;near-stand&quot;. They watched for discipline during court proceedings, executed court decisions and even watched for discipline in the legislature. Under the USSR, the regular police watched for discipline in courts, while those executing court decisions were called &quot;sudebniy ispolnitel&quot;, literally &quot;court executioner&quot;. Now the word &quot;pristav&quot; has been returned, but sounds very archaic: I imagine a fat man with long 19th century style mustache when I hear it. It it is an official term now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word &quot;uprava&quot; for the ruling body of police departments and far-right paramilitary parties such as &quot;Black Hundreds&quot; completely went out of use under USSR except in the idiom &quot;нет на него управы&quot; which meant &quot;there is no uprava to deal with him&quot;. So the word meant some aggressive or threatening thing that can take measures against violators. Under the USSR they extensively used the word &quot;upravlenie&quot; intead, often translated as &quot;directorate&quot;, in both state and economic contexts, which sounds much more educated and much less aggressive. Now the word &quot;uprava&quot; has been returned as a ruling body on low municipal level and as governing body of far-right parties such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some changes that existed in early years of the Communist rule but later reversed still under Communists. For instance, the soldiers were renamed warriors, the officers to commanders, the ministers to people's commissars.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="257baa52-da20-47b5-b732-9270db2e7230" CreationDate="2016-08-12T08:12:19.327" UserId="194" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="In general, the Communist revolution in Russia brought some modernization to the language, many archaic words were dropped and replaced with more bureaucratic, educated or scientifically sounding ones. Later, when Russia returned to Capitalism, some of these changes were reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term for the deputy/vice office holder in pre-revolutionary Russian was &quot;товарищь&quot; &quot;comrade&quot;, so deputy/vice minister would be &quot;товарищ министра&quot; &quot;comrade of the minister&quot;. But under Communist rule the word &quot;товарищь&quot; &quot;comrade&quot; became a common address, so it was replaced with the word &quot;zamestitel&quot;, literally &quot;replacer&quot;. So now the deputy/vice minister is &quot;zamestitel ministra&quot; &quot;replacer of the minister&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The state legislature was called &quot;Государственная Дума&quot;, literally &quot;State Thought&quot;, a term from 15-16th century, a board of boyars. Under Communist rule the word was replaced with &quot;sovet&quot;, literally &quot;council&quot;. Now we again have &quot;State Thought&quot; instead &quot;State Council&quot; which sounds weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word for the head of a city was &quot;голова&quot;, literally &quot;head&quot;, but since it is native Russian word rather than borrowed from Church Slavonic &quot;глава&quot;, it sounds very uneducated/low class. The word глава is still used but means a generic &quot;head&quot; of any entity. The Communists replaced this uneducated-sounding word with something very complicated &quot;Predsedatel ispolnitelnogo komiteta gorodskogo soveta narodnykh deputatov&quot; which translates &quot;President/chairman of the executive committee of the city council of the people's deputies&quot;. Even with all contractions the title would be &quot;Prededatel ispolkoma gorsoveta&quot;. Now the heads of most cities called with a newly borrowed word &quot;Мэр&quot; &quot;Mayor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before the revolution there was an institution similar to court marshalls. They were called with the word &quot;pristav&quot;, literally &quot;near-stand&quot;. They watched for discipline during court proceedings, executed court decisions and even watched for discipline in the legislature. Under the USSR, the regular police watched for discipline in courts, while those executing court decisions were called &quot;sudebniy ispolnitel&quot;, literally &quot;court executioner&quot;. Now the word &quot;pristav&quot; has been returned, but sounds very archaic: I imagine a fat man with long 19th century style mustache when I hear it. It is the official term now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word &quot;uprava&quot; for the ruling body of police departments and far-right paramilitary parties such as &quot;Black Hundreds&quot; completely went out of use under USSR except in the idiom &quot;нет на него управы&quot; which meant &quot;there is no uprava to deal with him&quot;. So the word meant some aggressive or threatening thing that can take measures against violators. Under the USSR they extensively used the word &quot;upravlenie&quot; intead, often translated as &quot;directorate&quot;, in both state and economic contexts, which sounds much more educated and much less aggressive. Now the word &quot;uprava&quot; has been returned as a ruling body on low municipal level and as governing body of far-right parties such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some changes that existed in early years of the Communist rule but later reversed still under Communists. For instance, the soldiers were renamed warriors, the officers to commanders, the ministers to people's commissars.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="9fd3dcdb-9e8c-4679-9733-9be0a95272cd" CreationDate="2016-08-12T08:20:06.407" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="In general, the Communist revolution in Russia brought some modernization to the language, many archaic words were dropped and replaced with more bureaucratic, educated or scientifically sounding ones. Later, when Russia returned to Capitalism, some of these changes were reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term for the deputy/vice office holder in pre-revolutionary Russian was &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot;, so deputy/vice minister would be &quot;товарищ министра&quot; &quot;comrade of the minister&quot;. But under Communist rule the word &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot; became a common address, so it was replaced with the word &quot;zamestitel&quot;, literally &quot;replacer&quot;. So now the deputy/vice minister is &quot;zamestitel ministra&quot; &quot;replacer of the minister&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The state legislature was called &quot;Государственная Дума&quot;, literally &quot;State Thought&quot;, a term from 15-16th century, a board of boyars. Under Communist rule the word was replaced with &quot;sovet&quot;, literally &quot;council&quot;. Now we again have &quot;State Thought&quot; instead &quot;State Council&quot; which sounds weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word for the head of a city was &quot;голова&quot;, literally &quot;head&quot;, but since it is native Russian word rather than borrowed from Church Slavonic &quot;глава&quot;, it sounds very uneducated/low class. The word глава is still used but means a generic &quot;head&quot; of any entity. The Communists replaced this uneducated-sounding word with something very complicated &quot;Predsedatel ispolnitelnogo komiteta gorodskogo soveta narodnykh deputatov&quot; which translates &quot;President/chairman of the executive committee of the city council of the people's deputies&quot;. Even with all contractions the title would be &quot;Prededatel ispolkoma gorsoveta&quot;. Now the heads of most cities called with a newly borrowed word &quot;Мэр&quot; &quot;Mayor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before the revolution there was an institution similar to court marshalls. They were called with the word &quot;pristav&quot;, literally &quot;near-stand&quot;. They watched for discipline during court proceedings, executed court decisions and even watched for discipline in the legislature. Under the USSR, the regular police watched for discipline in courts, while those executing court decisions were called &quot;sudebniy ispolnitel&quot;, literally &quot;court executioner&quot;. Now the word &quot;pristav&quot; has been returned, but sounds very archaic: I imagine a fat man with long 19th century style mustache when I hear it. It is the official term now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word &quot;uprava&quot; for the ruling body of police departments and far-right paramilitary parties such as &quot;Black Hundreds&quot; completely went out of use under USSR except in the idiom &quot;нет на него управы&quot; which meant &quot;there is no uprava to deal with him&quot;. So the word meant some aggressive or threatening thing that can take measures against violators. Under the USSR they extensively used the word &quot;upravlenie&quot; intead, often translated as &quot;directorate&quot;, in both state and economic contexts, which sounds much more educated and much less aggressive. Now the word &quot;uprava&quot; has been returned as a ruling body on low municipal level and as governing body of far-right parties such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some changes that existed in early years of the Communist rule but later reversed still under Communists. For instance, the soldiers were renamed warriors, the officers to commanders, the ministers to people's commissars.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12995" RevisionGUID="806a4438-44e4-41bf-8d06-6899c1617643" CreationDate="2016-08-12T08:55:28.467" UserId="6539" Text="In Russian we have got possessive adjectives, which mean belonging to a person or an animal (singular ): мамина сумка, отцовы кроссовки, кошачьи следы, нянькины сказки, кровь Христова братовы  ботинки. &#xD;&#xA;They are equal to a noun+noun structure сумка мамы, кроссовки отца, следы кошки, etc., but this structure can show belonging to ownership in plural: ботинки братьев.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -ов,(-ев) helps to form adjectives from nouns (masculine, ending with hard(soft) consonant &#xD;&#xA;Отец – отцов, брат– братов, Христос – (we remove -ос) Христов, Христова, Христово. We also remove -ос in declension : Христос, Христа,Христу, Христа, Христом, о Христе. (храм Христа Спасителя).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Matt has already mentioned surnames,  which were formed with the same suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="2be4e18f-982e-44ba-b278-676f65d9d5d6" CreationDate="2016-08-12T09:09:24.160" UserId="5008" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="&gt;I can't think of any others that look like it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tons. Отцов, дедов, братов etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm only familiar with -ов in modern Russian, where it is an ending for plural nouns or singular male surnames&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it's surnames which are produced from possessive forms, i.e. _Петров_ means _Peter's [son]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was also surprised not to see &quot;Христоса,&quot; the genitive of Христос, used instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive of _Христос_ is _Христа_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the -ов we see in possessive adjectives the same -ов we see in the inflectional ending for masculine nouns in the genitive plural today? Or is it etymologically unrelated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are different and do not always coincide. For example, _братов_ (possessive) vs. _братьев_ (gen. pl.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would have thought Петра would be &quot;Peter's,&quot; whereas Петров would be &quot;Peters'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петров = &quot;Peter's&quot; or &quot;of Peters&quot;; Петра = &quot;of Peter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it still a productive ending today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but it applies only to animate nouns, just like &quot;'s&quot; in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="2f337322-1ba5-4a88-8afa-1ee329cd89a2" CreationDate="2016-08-12T09:16:21.600" UserId="5008" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="&gt;I can't think of any others that look like it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tons. Отцов, дедов, братов etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm only familiar with -ов in modern Russian, where it is an ending for plural nouns or singular male surnames&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it's surnames which are produced from possessive forms, i.e. _Петров_ means _Peter's [son]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was also surprised not to see &quot;Христоса,&quot; the genitive of Христос, used instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive of _Христос_ is _Христа_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the -ов we see in possessive adjectives the same -ов we see in the inflectional ending for masculine nouns in the genitive plural today? Or is it etymologically unrelated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are different and do not always coincide. For example, _братов_ (possessive) vs. _братьев_ (gen. pl.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would have thought Петра would be &quot;Peter's,&quot; whereas Петров would be &quot;Peters'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петров = &quot;Peter's&quot; or &quot;of Peters&quot;; Петра = &quot;of Peter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it still a productive ending today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but it applies only to animate nouns, just like &quot;'s&quot; in English. Also Genitive is definitely more popular nowadays, which is especially true for &quot;modern&quot; words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12993" RevisionGUID="c0dab5d6-e01b-4cb7-bb30-b7bbdf1f887b" CreationDate="2016-08-12T09:24:39.060" UserId="5008" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="&gt;I can't think of any others that look like it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tons. Отцов, дедов, братов etc.etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm only familiar with -ов in modern Russian, where it is an ending for plural nouns or singular male surnames&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually it's surnames which are produced from possessive forms, i.e. _Петров_ means _Peter's [son]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was also surprised not to see &quot;Христоса,&quot; the genitive of Христос, used instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive of _Христос_ is _Христа_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the -ов we see in possessive adjectives the same -ов we see in the inflectional ending for masculine nouns in the genitive plural today? Or is it etymologically unrelated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are different and do not always coincide. For example, _братов_ (possessive) vs. _братьев_ (gen. pl.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I would have thought Петра would be &quot;Peter's,&quot; whereas Петров would be &quot;Peters'&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петров = &quot;Peter's&quot; or &quot;of Peters&quot;; Петра = &quot;of Peter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it still a productive ending today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but it applies only to animate nouns, just like &quot;'s&quot; in English. Also Genitive is definitely more popular nowadays, which is especially true for &quot;modern&quot; words. So making possessive of such words is somewhere between &quot;not recommended&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12995" RevisionGUID="7dbad2d6-12a0-4041-bcfe-b5fedf160bb4" CreationDate="2016-08-12T10:20:07.640" UserId="6539" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="In Russian we have got possessive adjectives, which mean belonging to a person or an animal (singular ): мамина сумка, отцовы кроссовки, кошачьи следы, нянькины сказки, кровь Христова братовы  ботинки. &#xD;&#xA;They are equal to a noun+noun structure сумка мамы, кроссовки отца, следы кошки, etc., but this structure can show belonging to ownership in plural: ботинки братьев.That's why, they say,there's a tendency to use a noun+ noun structure or adjectives ending with -овский,ский more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -ов,(-ев) helps to form adjectives from nouns (masculine, ending with hard(soft) consonant &#xD;&#xA;Отец – отцов, брат– братов, Христос – (we remove -ос) Христов, Христова, Христово. We also remove -ос in declension : Христос, Христа,Христу, Христа, Христом, о Христе. (храм Христа Спасителя).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Matt has already mentioned surnames,  which were formed with the same suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12996" RevisionGUID="01efacc8-4c3c-49ae-8692-5cbcbd9c8886" CreationDate="2016-08-12T13:05:43.920" UserId="5919" Text="When to use ```ещё``` and when to use ```пока```?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С утра пока темно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С утра ещё темно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference in the meaning in example? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12996" RevisionGUID="01efacc8-4c3c-49ae-8692-5cbcbd9c8886" CreationDate="2016-08-12T13:05:43.920" UserId="5919" Text="Using ещё and пока" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12996" RevisionGUID="01efacc8-4c3c-49ae-8692-5cbcbd9c8886" CreationDate="2016-08-12T13:05:43.920" UserId="5919" Text="|значения|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12997" RevisionGUID="e58e617e-ddb7-4797-8257-0f4880c11612" CreationDate="2016-08-12T13:51:06.347" UserId="6539" Text="The first sounds like an unfinished sentence, like a clause because пока in your sentence means **while**.In the morning while it's dark or while it's still dark...(С утра пока темно...or С утра, пока еще темно,я готовлю завтрак).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is OK.In the morning it's still dark. It sounds like a background for a story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12996" RevisionGUID="fe64c0ab-206f-4401-b9c2-5f56188e5073" CreationDate="2016-08-12T13:51:54.760" UserId="5919" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="When to use ```ещё``` and when to use ```пока```?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```С утра пока темно. ```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```С утра ещё темно. ```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference in the meaning in these  examples?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Alex.S said, there is also one other variant: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```С утра пока ещё темно```. So, what are the differences in the meaning if they exist? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12998" RevisionGUID="ebb13086-fd71-49cf-a30f-2698f39b15e0" CreationDate="2016-08-12T14:17:05.860" UserId="7537" Text="Roughly, &quot;пока&quot; is closer to &quot;yet&quot;, whereas &quot;ещё&quot; is closer to &quot;still&quot;. &quot;Пока&quot; implies continuation: `С утра пока темно[, но скоро будет светлее].` You can even combine these words, to make the opposition even stronger: `...пока ещё темно, [но совсем скоро уже будет светло]`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12997" RevisionGUID="c24ffd36-0432-4b07-b972-3e9536a08828" CreationDate="2016-08-12T14:36:36.317" UserId="6539" Comment="added 875 characters in body" Text="The first sounds like an unfinished sentence, like a clause because пока in your sentence means **while**.In the morning while it's dark or while it's still dark...(С утра пока темно...or С утра, пока еще темно,я готовлю завтрак).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is OK.In the morning it's still dark. It sounds like a background for a story.&#xD;&#xA;Пока and еще have got several meanings. The main are:&#xD;&#xA;1.at the moment, now, waiting for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пока подожду.&#xD;&#xA;Пока мне ста рублей достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 пока еще or пока--still, yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пока еще ждем.(we are still waiting).Пока еще не уехали.(we haven't left yet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.пока--while&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Куй железо, пока горячо.(Make hay while the sun shines)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4пока--until&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сиди здесь, пока не приду.(Stay here till I come).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ЕЩЁ, &#xD;&#xA;1. (ещё). --again &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ещё раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. (ещё) --in addition с предшествующими союзами, и, да.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Дайте мне масла, муки и ещё сахару. Он способный, образованный, да ещё добрый.&#xD;&#xA;| Он мало способен, да еще ленив.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. (еще). already &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом сгорел еще в прошлом году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.еще--still&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Молод ты еще, чтоб курить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5еще--having enough time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Я еще успею на поезд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. (ещё) --more при прил. и нареч. сравн.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она стала ещё красивее.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12995" RevisionGUID="6e63afff-3cc0-4b2f-9799-04d352b13ab2" CreationDate="2016-08-12T15:09:23.697" UserId="6539" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="In Russian we have got possessive adjectives, which mean belonging to a person or an animal (singular ):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мамина сумка, отцовы кроссовки, кошачьи следы, нянькины сказки, кровь Христова братовы  ботинки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are equal to a noun+noun structure &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сумка мамы, кроссовки отца, следы кошки, etc.,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; but this structure can show belonging to ownership in plural: ботинки братьев.That's why, they say,there's a tendency to use a noun+ noun structure or adjectives ending with -овский,ский more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix -ов,(-ев) helps to form adjectives from nouns (masculine, ending with hard(soft) consonant &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отец – отцов, брат– братов, Христос – (we remove -ос) Христов, Христова, Христово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also remove -ос in declension : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Христос, Христа,Христу, Христа, Христом, о Христе. (храм Христа Спасителя).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Matt has already mentioned surnames,  which were formed with the same suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12999" RevisionGUID="89e47c66-7c74-4d20-8783-90fa98e95662" CreationDate="2016-08-12T15:55:54.620" UserId="194" Text="&gt; С утра пока темно. = Not a phrase. As has been mentioned, it looks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; like &quot;In the morning, while it is still dark...&quot;, requiring a continuation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С утра ещё темно. = In the morning it is still dark. Means, well, it is still too dark in the morning for the proposed activity.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С утра пока ещё темно. = It is still dark in the morning in this part of the year/season. Means you need to wait some months for it being not that dark in the morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13000" RevisionGUID="ab7c1810-ba15-4c05-9aa3-8187f68b27e7" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:16:07.230" UserId="7537" Text="As Nikolay pointed out, one can amuse oneself looking for new meanings of the old words, or new words, or some such, but this is hardly a specific characteristic of communist-era influence. Any language develops, acquires new words/meanings etc. Yes it can be argued that the Bolshevik revolution forced some of these changes (Anixx mentioned some), but I don't think it's important. I guess, the French revolution brought more changes (in this sense) to the French language than the Russian revolution to the Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be more interesting to consider *formal* or conceptual changes in and around the language. They are invariably influenced by the *culture*, on which the revolution had a profound impact. I can think of a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Love of acronyms and abbreviations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Нардеп` (народный депутат), `Реввоенсовет` (революционный военный совет), `Минсредмаш` (министерство среднего машиностроения), `ВАЗ/ГАЗ/КамАЗ` (Волжский/Горьковский/Камский автомобильный завод), or just such word contraptions as `Востокнефтегазэлектромонтаж`. They were everywhere and were often so integrated that not only they followed normal grammatical rules, but even their derivatives sounded normal (_минсредмашевское_ заседание, _ВАЗовец_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 1920s, it was even common to invent names in a similar manner. `Даздраперма` (да здравствует Первое мая, a female name) is a notorious example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George Orwell spotted this trend perfectly. He notes somewhere in _1984_: words like `Ingsoc` acquire their own attached meaning, which may end up being substantially different to what it would be if you try to consciously break it into parts. But this is the trick: you never do. Never need to. It doesn't even cross your mind (unless you make an effort) that this is English Socialism (wait, why English? and what exactly is socialism?) Orwell didn't invent the phenomenon (just like most social aspects in _1984_); he studied the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Governing body for the language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Soviets established a body (now called Институт русского языка) that had a mandate to establish definitive rules of the Russian language. It issued the complete 'codex' of the orthographic rules (at the time of collapse of the USSR, the latest one was from 1956!), grammar, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not uncommon; France and Germany have similar bodies. But I'm not aware of a similar establishment in tsarist Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dialects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Centralisation is a common Russian trait. For the language, it partly relates to the previous point. Not only the formal rules of writing, but even pronunciation was standardised (mostly around the Moscow dialect). Local deviations were often considered 'improper' language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, radio and TV played their role, and they can hardly be classified as Soviet inventions. Nevertheless, one could rarely be found to be 'proud' of his dialect (the way many Europeans are); it was something to be ashamed of. Someone lucky enough to move to Moscow would strive to learn to speak in a Moscow way, so as not to look provincial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, dialects existed, and professionals studied them. But at school, kids were taught (or supposed to be taught) the 'proper' language across the country. (That said, Russian is remarkably uniform compared to most other European languages).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13001" RevisionGUID="0fdf3872-4fcd-4831-85c7-41cef3ef8037" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:37:22.160" UserId="3892" Text="As a temporal adverb, I've always understood ещё to mean still. Therefore I don't understand its function in statements of the type: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здание, в котором ***ещё*** вчера находились дети..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13001" RevisionGUID="0fdf3872-4fcd-4831-85c7-41cef3ef8037" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:37:22.160" UserId="3892" Text="Use of ещё with time elements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13001" RevisionGUID="0fdf3872-4fcd-4831-85c7-41cef3ef8037" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:37:22.160" UserId="3892" Text="|выбор-слова|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12999" RevisionGUID="cff3dfe2-7591-4ed7-aa2a-4cb63bc010e8" CreationDate="2016-08-12T16:56:18.143" UserId="194" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="&gt; С утра пока темно. = Not a phrase. As has been mentioned, it looks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; like &quot;In the morning, while it is still dark...&quot;, requiring a continuation. And a comma before пока.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С утра ещё темно. = In the morning it is still dark. Means, well, it is still too dark in the morning for the proposed activity.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; С утра пока ещё темно. = It is still dark in the morning in this part of the year/season. Means you need to wait some months for it being not that dark in the morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13001" RevisionGUID="3e22110b-df03-4ecb-8acc-b82a43655f03" CreationDate="2016-08-12T17:16:59.713" UserId="3892" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="As a temporal adverb, I've always understood **ещё** to mean *still*. Therefore I don't understand its function in statements of the type: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здание, в котором ***ещё*** вчера находились дети..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13000" RevisionGUID="41a31cd8-6fd3-427c-a4b8-d954b85515c1" CreationDate="2016-08-12T17:20:19.547" UserId="7537" Comment="Added another point" Text="As Nikolay pointed out, one can amuse oneself looking for new meanings of the old words, or new words, or some such, but this is hardly a specific characteristic of communist-era influence. Any language develops, acquires new words/meanings etc. Yes it can be argued that the Bolshevik revolution forced some of these changes (Anixx mentioned some), but I don't think it's important. I guess, the French revolution brought more changes (in this sense) to the French language than the Russian revolution to the Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be more interesting to consider *formal* or conceptual changes in and around the language. They are invariably influenced by the *culture*, on which the revolution had a profound impact. I can think of a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Love of acronyms and abbreviations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Нардеп` (народный депутат), `Реввоенсовет` (революционный военный совет), `Минсредмаш` (министерство среднего машиностроения), `ВАЗ/ГАЗ/КамАЗ` (Волжский/Горьковский/Камский автомобильный завод), or just such word contraptions as `Востокнефтегазэлектромонтаж`. They were everywhere and were often so integrated that not only they followed normal grammatical rules, but even their derivatives sounded normal (_минсредмашевское_ заседание, _ВАЗовец_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 1920s, it was even common to invent names in a similar manner. `Даздраперма` (да здравствует Первое мая, a female name) is a notorious example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George Orwell spotted this trend perfectly. He notes somewhere in _1984_: words like `Ingsoc` acquire their own attached meaning, which may end up being substantially different to what it would be if you try to consciously break it into parts. But this is the trick: you never do. Never need to. It doesn't even cross your mind (unless you make an effort) that this is English Socialism (wait, why English? and what exactly is socialism?) Orwell didn't invent the phenomenon (just like most social aspects in _1984_); he studied the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Governing body for the language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Soviets established a body (now called Институт русского языка) that had a mandate to establish definitive rules of the Russian language. It issued the complete 'codex' of the orthographic rules (at the time of collapse of the USSR, the latest one was from 1956!), grammar, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not uncommon; France and Germany have similar bodies. But I'm not aware of a similar establishment in tsarist Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dialects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Centralisation is a common Russian trait. For the language, it partly relates to the previous point. Not only the formal rules of writing, but even pronunciation was standardised (mostly around the Moscow dialect). Local deviations were often considered 'improper' language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, radio and TV played their role, and they can hardly be classified as Soviet inventions. Nevertheless, one could rarely be found to be 'proud' of his dialect (the way many Europeans are); it was something to be ashamed of. Someone lucky enough to move to Moscow would strive to learn to speak in a Moscow way, so as not to look provincial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, dialects existed, and professionals studied them. But at school, kids were taught (or supposed to be taught) the 'proper' language across the country. (That said, Russian is remarkably uniform compared to most other European language ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Pronunciation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat hard to prove as there are no recordings, but I read that in the 19th century it was the norm amongst the educated people to have a rolling R, similar to French. This, apparently, had to do with the French, which Russians aristocrats often learned as the *first* language. More generally, the French influence was enormous, perhaps greater than the English has now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the revolution, this was all gone rather quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13002" RevisionGUID="95174846-1b24-486d-813c-ef95f2022cbf" CreationDate="2016-08-12T17:28:44.173" UserId="7537" Text="Same. In this particular sentence you would rather translate it ... **only** yesterday ... , but essentially the meaning is the same: yesterday they were *still* there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13002" RevisionGUID="6aef5bfe-9b39-425c-8336-f7568ad0640f" CreationDate="2016-08-12T17:35:31.297" UserId="7537" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="Same. In this particular sentence you would translate it ... **only** yesterday ... , but essentially the meaning is the same: yesterday they were *still* there. Although, there is a subtle difference in that it is вчера that is stressed, so *only yesterday* is a better fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13003" RevisionGUID="07a0714b-4a5c-410d-88f0-412b666ca3da" CreationDate="2016-08-12T18:26:59.570" UserId="5008" Text="The word _ещё_ can be used to emphasize something, so here it's almost the same as _только вчера_. You may even skip it without losing sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13004" RevisionGUID="3d61d697-2658-488c-924e-b1fd2910fd7b" CreationDate="2016-08-12T18:38:28.463" UserId="6539" Text="Вчера ещё в глаза глядел,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А нынче - всё косится в сторону!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера ещё до птиц сидел, -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все жаворонки нынче - вороны!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Марина Цветаева.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Only yesterday** (the meaning is emphatic  **quite recently** and often opposed to today's changed situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13004" RevisionGUID="f0075963-124d-4d08-aeb4-81528c68899d" CreationDate="2016-08-12T18:44:01.700" UserId="6539" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Вчера ещё в глаза глядел,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А нынче - всё косится в сторону!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера ещё до птиц сидел, -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все жаворонки нынче - вороны!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Марина Цветаева.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Only yesterday** (the meaning is emphatic ( **quite recently** ) and often opposed to today's **changed** situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13005" RevisionGUID="3090f15a-4421-4dec-8457-e183262ca741" CreationDate="2016-08-12T19:28:26.927" UserId="194" Text="You can translate it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The building where yesterday there were **still** some kids." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="fcd153b5-2d41-4ccf-a138-51f57f50d1a2" CreationDate="2016-08-13T10:08:34.557" UserId="5924" Text="I've noticed in more than an occasion that the short form of adjective is used in places where I would use the normal (long) form typically for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was listening to a song in Russian is which the singer says:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Моя душа полна тобой&quot; and my question is why he used 'полна' and not 'полная'? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so, what are the rules to when to use a short or long form of adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="fcd153b5-2d41-4ccf-a138-51f57f50d1a2" CreationDate="2016-08-13T10:08:34.557" UserId="5924" Text="when to use the short form of an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="fcd153b5-2d41-4ccf-a138-51f57f50d1a2" CreationDate="2016-08-13T10:08:34.557" UserId="5924" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="2f5aafc8-c2ad-4375-ad5f-f04033ba64ef" CreationDate="2016-08-13T10:45:21.890" UserId="4714" Text="Basically, you use it only after &quot;is&quot;. Of course in Russian there is no &quot;to be&quot; in the present tense, but none the less you can only use short forms (in modern russian) in this position. You can use the long form in this position too but it's meaning can be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Моя душа (is) полна тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms describe things that are true right now, in the present moment. In contrast if we use a long form we need to put some time marker сейчас, сегодня и тд to show that it is not a permanent characteristic of the person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он весёлый—he is a happy person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он весел—he is happy (now/ looks happy) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он сейчас весёлый—he is happy (now/ looks happy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without some time reference implied or otherwise the long forms show permanent characteristics. Also remember that adjectives only describe appearances, and adverbs describe true emotions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13007" RevisionGUID="78f56db3-9292-435b-abd3-2fcf6e17cbb5" CreationDate="2016-08-13T10:51:05.327" UserId="4714" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Basically, you use it only after &quot;is&quot;. Of course in Russian there is no &quot;to be&quot; in the present tense, but none the less you can only use short forms (in modern russian) in this position. You can use the long form in this position too but it's meaning can be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Моя душа (is) полна тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms describe things that are true right now, in the present moment. In contrast if we use a long form we need to put some time marker сейчас, сегодня и тд to show that it is not a permanent characteristic of the person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он весёлый—he is a happy person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он весел—he is happy (now/ looks happy) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он сейчас весёлый—he is happy (now/ looks happy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without some time reference implied or otherwise the long forms show permanent characteristics. Also remember that adjectives only describe appearances, and adverbs describe true emotions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;он веселый, хотя ему не весело. He looks, seеms happy, but really he isn't. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30462" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12996" RevisionGUID="5ad1f32c-8ba0-4bd8-8546-f9e3b09f6d0d" CreationDate="2016-08-13T12:09:25.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/764433677157797889" />
  <row Id="30463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13008" RevisionGUID="24514317-7e88-4906-8f49-2172a776013a" CreationDate="2016-08-13T14:25:58.950" UserId="7644" Text="Большой англо-русский политехнический словарь:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(изд. &quot;Русский язык&quot;, Москва, 1991)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**firmware 1.** микропрограммное обеспечение, микропрограммы **2.** программы, записанные в ПЗУ **3.** аппаратно-реализованное программное обеспечение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30464" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13006" RevisionGUID="670f45ab-a54e-4a90-b908-f72b42d79f46" CreationDate="2016-08-13T21:11:56.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/764570206417059841" />
  <row Id="30465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="88e12b2a-ff9c-410e-93d5-b404e50a575f" CreationDate="2016-08-14T03:12:08.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/764660852427485184" />
  <row Id="30466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13009" RevisionGUID="14fdc0ec-fd6d-4bd0-a4a9-f805cc97a987" CreationDate="2016-08-15T20:29:47.157" UserId="115" Text="I am surprised nobody has mentioned the [The Russian Orthographic Reform of 1917-1918][1]. I would argue that this is the most noticeable and lasting influence that socialism has had on the Russian language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as concepts, my favorite example is ипотека, the Russian word for &quot;mortgage&quot;. The word was used in the tsarist Russia, where land-owners could get mortgage their holdings. During the Soviet times, there was simply no such thing as mortgage, so the word virtually disappeared from the language. After the fall of Socialism, and the subsequent privatization of real estate, the word ипотека is back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography#The_post-revolution_reform" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30467" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12845" RevisionGUID="08f16861-8c6f-4533-a9d6-c7722ffe3cd6" CreationDate="2016-08-15T21:18:15.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/765296569541328896" />
  <row Id="30469" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12989" RevisionGUID="4e903670-164b-4bcb-a474-579b595bc89e" CreationDate="2016-08-15T22:08:17.527" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="64f1a2d2-156d-4b60-bad3-4e8fb07c5439" CreationDate="2016-08-15T22:16:44.353" UserId="3892" Text="In a recent Russian composition, one of my sentences was changed to the following by a native: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну точнее, сначала она хотела, чтобы я **лишь** заглядывал в её квартиру&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по вечерам, **дабы** ее собаки не чувствовали себя в полном одиночестве в ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отсутствие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In her comments, she mentioned that the use of **дабы** in conjunction with **лишь** would prepare the listener/reader for the eventual complication to this plan, and would additionally lend the entire sentence an air of irony. I find this intriguing, but need a little more information and examples as to what she means by this. I would appreciate any input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="64f1a2d2-156d-4b60-bad3-4e8fb07c5439" CreationDate="2016-08-15T22:16:44.353" UserId="3892" Text="Stylistic differences between чтобы and дабы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13010" RevisionGUID="64f1a2d2-156d-4b60-bad3-4e8fb07c5439" CreationDate="2016-08-15T22:16:44.353" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13000" RevisionGUID="759e8c66-f3b2-463b-802a-ecf219dfe997" CreationDate="2016-08-16T00:48:50.807" UserId="7537" Comment="minor grammar" Text="As Nikolay pointed out, one can amuse oneself looking for new meanings of the old words, or new words, or some such, but this is hardly a specific characteristic of the communist-era influence. Any language develops, acquires new words/meanings etc. Yes it can be argued that the Bolshevik revolution forced some of these changes (Anixx mentioned some), but I don't think it's important. I guess, the French revolution brought more changes (in this sense) to the French language than the Russian revolution to the Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be more interesting to consider *formal* or conceptual changes in and around the language. They are invariably influenced by the *culture*, on which the revolution had a profound impact. I can think of a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Love of acronyms and abbreviations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Нардеп` (народный депутат), `Реввоенсовет` (революционный военный совет), `Минсредмаш` (министерство среднего машиностроения), `ВАЗ/ГАЗ/КамАЗ` (Волжский/Горьковский/Камский автомобильный завод), or just such word contraptions as `Востокнефтегазэлектромонтаж`. They were everywhere and were often so integrated that not only they followed normal grammatical rules, but even their derivatives sounded normal (_минсредмашевское_ заседание, _ВАЗовец_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 1920s, it was even common to invent names in a similar manner. `Даздраперма` (да здравствует Первое мая, a female name) is a notorious example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;George Orwell spotted this trend perfectly. He notes somewhere in _1984_: words like `Ingsoc` acquire their own attached meaning, which may end up being substantially different to what it would be if you try to consciously break it into parts. But this is the trick: you never do. Never need to. It doesn't even cross your mind (unless you make an effort) that this is English Socialism (wait, why English? and what exactly is socialism?) Orwell didn't invent the phenomenon (just like most social aspects in _1984_); he studied the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Governing body for the language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Soviets established a body (now called Институт русского языка) that had a mandate to establish definitive rules of the Russian language. It issued the complete 'codex' of the orthographic rules (at the time of collapse of the USSR, the latest one was from 1956!), grammar, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not uncommon; France and Germany have similar bodies. But I'm not aware of a similar establishment in tsarist Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dialects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Centralisation is a common Russian trait. For the language, it partly relates to the previous point. Not only the formal rules of writing, but even pronunciation was standardised (mostly around the Moscow dialect). Local deviations were often considered 'improper' language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly, radio and TV played their role, and they can hardly be classified as Soviet inventions. Nevertheless, one could rarely be found to be 'proud' of his dialect (the way many Europeans are); it was something to be ashamed of. Someone lucky enough to move to Moscow would strive to learn to speak in a Moscow way, so as not to look provincial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, dialects existed, and professionals studied them. But at school, kids were taught (or supposed to be taught) the 'proper' language across the country. (That said, Russian is remarkably uniform compared to most other European languages).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Pronunciation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat hard to prove as there are no recordings, but I read that in the 19th century it was the norm amongst the educated people to have a rolling R, similar to the French one. This, apparently, had to do with the French, which Russian aristocrats often learned as the *first* language. More generally, the French influence was enormous, perhaps greater than the English has now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the revolution, this was all gone rather quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="8617e04d-f5f4-4b74-8b6b-aec90a8fb671" CreationDate="2016-08-16T04:05:18.473" UserId="5008" Text="- Using outdated word -- some people might think it funny&#xD;&#xA;- avoiding second &quot;чтобы&quot; in the same sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But overall it doesn't make much sense for me in this case. You know, stylistics is a thing to be &quot;served&quot; for one's personal taste. Neither &quot;лишь&quot;, nor &quot;дабы&quot; has something humourous by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [What are the advanced Russian words якобы and дабы?](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/what-are-the-advanced-russian-words-%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B-and-%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%8B)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13012" RevisionGUID="99d531be-c8a8-436f-8e2f-d0d9da367de4" CreationDate="2016-08-16T06:25:59.000" UserId="6539" Text="Using archaic words for an everyday context does create an ironic effect, but is rarely used in everyday speech nowadays. It is often used in fiction and newspapers though. See the examples from the National Corpus with **дабы**(meaning **чтобы**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Другие покупают своему ещё не родившемуся &quot;юному гению&quot; зайцевские таблицы для обучения чтению и письму, дабы не потерять потом ни одного драгоценного дня ― а ну как их малыш окажется в числе &quot;отстающих&quot;, и к трем (!) годам не сможет прочесть &quot;мама мыла раму&quot;. [Мария Давыдова. Кто в доме хозяин? (2003) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В Сибирь приехали учёные люди из Оксфорда, дабы просветить омичей на предмет избавления от мусора. [Омский мусорный абзац (2003) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автомобиль Панкрашина стоял там, где указал водитель, перед входом в здание клубного типа, где и переговоры удобно проводить, и ресторан есть, дабы заполировать удачную сделку совместной трапезой. [Александра Маринина. Последний рассвет (2013)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Максим заканчивал привилегированные курсы, дабы его новый костюм из “Хэрродз”, супруга и акцент полностью соответствовали тому рафинированному обществу, в которое он так неожиданно попал. [Нина Щербак. Роман с филфаком // «Звезда», 2010] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Лишь** means **только** and is used to express &quot;limitation &quot; (only we didn't sleep...see the example. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лишь мы одни бодрствовали в этом мире, непреклонно приближаясь к своей великой цели. [Булат Окуджава. Искусство кройки и житья (1985)] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13012" RevisionGUID="9195ee43-9d84-4a64-a321-3f11dca1acc7" CreationDate="2016-08-16T07:29:30.990" UserId="6539" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Using archaic words for an everyday context does create an ironic effect, but is rarely met in everyday speech nowadays. It is often used in fiction and newspapers though as a literary device. See the examples from the National Corpus with **дабы**(meaning **чтобы**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Другие покупают своему ещё не родившемуся &quot;юному гению&quot; зайцевские таблицы для обучения чтению и письму, дабы не потерять потом ни одного драгоценного дня ― а ну как их малыш окажется в числе &quot;отстающих&quot;, и к трем (!) годам не сможет прочесть &quot;мама мыла раму&quot;. [Мария Давыдова. Кто в доме хозяин? (2003) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В Сибирь приехали учёные люди из Оксфорда, дабы просветить омичей на предмет избавления от мусора. [Омский мусорный абзац (2003) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автомобиль Панкрашина стоял там, где указал водитель, перед входом в здание клубного типа, где и переговоры удобно проводить, и ресторан есть, дабы заполировать удачную сделку совместной трапезой. [Александра Маринина. Последний рассвет (2013)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Максим заканчивал привилегированные курсы, дабы его новый костюм из “Хэрродз”, супруга и акцент полностью соответствовали тому рафинированному обществу, в которое он так неожиданно попал. [Нина Щербак. Роман с филфаком // «Звезда», 2010] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Лишь** means **только** and is used to express &quot;limitation &quot; (only we didn't sleep...see the example. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Лишь мы одни бодрствовали в этом мире, непреклонно приближаясь к своей великой цели. [Булат Окуджава. Искусство кройки и житья (1985)] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30477" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12992" RevisionGUID="dad027ac-6c4a-46c9-9e34-ff0e8562e5ce" CreationDate="2016-08-16T09:18:16.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/765477768008269824" />
  <row Id="30478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13013" RevisionGUID="eb526407-4412-499b-b86b-21a34536d7f6" CreationDate="2016-08-16T13:06:02.967" UserId="4560" Text="Frankly the change and its explanation sound a little random to me, especially the **лишь**. And whatever &quot;air of irony&quot; there is just gets lost in the overall stylistic heaviness of the last clause, which is a little at odds with the lighter and more colloquial tone introduced by **Ну точнее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I would reword, aiming for stylistic cohesion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ну точнее, сначала она хотела, чтобы я **просто** заглядывал **к ней в** квартиру по вечерам, **а то собакам** в её отсутствие **будет совсем одиноко**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дабы**, as others have mentioned, is archaic; a rough equivalent of &quot;in order that&quot; followed by subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13013" RevisionGUID="57b8c37b-91f2-46c7-b78c-1f12f32c959d" CreationDate="2016-08-16T13:13:31.217" UserId="4560" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="Frankly the change and its explanation sound a little random to me, especially the **лишь**. And whatever &quot;air of irony&quot; there is just gets lost in the overall stylistic heaviness of the last clause, which is a little at odds with the lighter and more colloquial tone introduced by **Ну точнее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I would reword, aiming for stylistic cohesion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ну точнее, сначала она хотела, чтобы я **просто** заглядывал **к ней в** квартиру по вечерам, **а то собакам** в её отсутствие **будет совсем одиноко**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дабы**, as others have mentioned, is archaic — or perhaps just very formal; a rough equivalent of &quot;in order that&quot; followed by subjunctive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12855" RevisionGUID="76b5c6ab-e340-44b6-8512-4552f8e21688" CreationDate="2016-08-16T15:24:40.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/765569976396869632" />
  <row Id="30481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="3d03099f-538a-432e-b6c8-ae9f95fc0aee" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:41:58.090" UserId="7239" Text="&gt;&quot;This is not fair!&quot; said the Russian after looking at a map when they realized that they were not at the state fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember precisely how the joke goes, but it goes something like the above. I was thinking that the reason why the joke works is that, in Russian, one can distinguish between nouns and predicative adjectives, even though no articles are used, because the two are declined differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это -- не честен!  &#xD;&#xA;Это -- не ярмарка!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, when one translates the above two sentences into English, one relies on the presence of an article to tip-off clearly whether the predicate is a noun or a (predicative) adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact that both nouns and adjectives are highly declined in Russian, and moreoever declined differently from one another, enable Russian speakers to get by without articles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="3d03099f-538a-432e-b6c8-ae9f95fc0aee" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:41:58.090" UserId="7239" Text="Does Russian not have articles because of the declension of (predicative) adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="3d03099f-538a-432e-b6c8-ae9f95fc0aee" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:41:58.090" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30485" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12853" RevisionGUID="c0c6abb4-0ca4-4c65-9ea1-1279f2756ea6" CreationDate="2016-08-16T21:26:11.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/765660952901672960" />
  <row Id="30486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="c40e39c5-846d-4309-a470-87d4b45bb702" CreationDate="2016-08-17T01:17:10.137" UserId="7239" Comment="added 588 characters in body" Text="&gt;&quot;This is not fair!&quot; said the Russian after looking at a map when they realized that they were not at the state fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember precisely how the joke goes, but it goes something like the above. I was thinking that the reason why the joke works is that, in Russian, one can distinguish between nouns and predicative adjectives, even though no articles are used, because the two are declined differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это -- не честен!  &#xD;&#xA;Это -- не ярмарка!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, when one translates the above two sentences into English, one relies on the presence of an article to tip-off clearly whether the predicate is a noun or a (predicative) adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact that both nouns and adjectives are highly declined in Russian, and moreoever declined differently from one another, enable Russian speakers to get by without articles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Looking at the comments and answers to this question, it appears more likely that Russian does not have articles because of the declension of _nouns_. Of course, technically speaking there is no evidence for &quot;why&quot; articles are or aren't in any given language -- the comments however do note an apparent correlation between the declension of nouns and the absence of articles, as well as between undeclined nouns and the presence of articles, in several branches of Indo-European languages. Still, we are talking about a sample size of at most n=4-7, so nothing definitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30487" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="4eb6bd39-044d-4ce5-9594-82272ff4cbc5" CreationDate="2016-08-17T03:26:11.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/765751550606204928" />
  <row Id="30488" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13012" RevisionGUID="913fdcbd-b184-4fc7-bb60-0fb67555d500" CreationDate="2016-08-17T03:46:39.470" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13016" RevisionGUID="a29a9d24-100b-496e-9172-2c80e522ccf7" CreationDate="2016-08-17T05:04:36.493" UserId="4560" Text="My impression is that no language develops articles because it &quot;needs&quot; them. I'd even venture to say that articles start out as glorified filler words, and then gradually *become* indispensable as language sheds some of its complexity. Ancient Greek had a definite article despite being extensively inflectional. The Nordic suffixed articles predate the loss of Old Norse declension, although they became much more heavily used afterwards. Chinese, on the other hand, lost all of its declension but never developed articles. And then we have the curious case of modern colloquial Czech, which one might argue has an *emerging* definite article, while showing no signs of losing inflexion or even simplifying it (it's about twice as complicated as the Russian one)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13017" RevisionGUID="9842a771-ee36-452a-bd85-5ac8b88cf220" CreationDate="2016-08-17T09:00:33.060" UserId="194" Text="What is conducted by articles in English is often conducted by word order in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик вошёл в комнату = **The** boy entered **a** room.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнату вошёл мальчик = **A** boy entered **the** room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, free word order is possible because of declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I often feel that English lacks a would-be-useful article for what is conducted by the pronoun *some*. Similar to English in this case, pronouns can be used in other languages instead of articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used to specify what is conducted by indefinite article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне это дал **один** коллега = **A** colleague gave it to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13017" RevisionGUID="e50c28c7-984b-4e40-95b3-5864790a0c27" CreationDate="2016-08-17T09:05:36.263" UserId="194" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="What is conducted by articles in English is often conducted by word order in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик вошёл в комнату = **The** boy entered **a** room.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнату вошёл мальчик = **A** boy entered **the** room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, free word order is possible because of declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I often feel that English lacks a would-be-useful article for what is conducted by the pronoun *some*. Similar to English in this case, pronouns can be used in other languages instead of articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used to specify what is conducted by indefinite article in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне это дал **один** коллега = **A** colleague gave it to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13017" RevisionGUID="275d8e0e-39e3-44e4-be05-14ffa0e7377d" CreationDate="2016-08-17T09:20:15.000" UserId="194" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="What is conducted by articles in English is often conducted by word order in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик вошёл в комнату = **The** boy entered **a** room.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В комнату вошёл мальчик = **A** boy entered **the** room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, free word order is possible because of declension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, I often feel that English lacks a would-be-useful article for what is conducted by the pronoun *some*. Similar to English in this case, pronouns can be used in other languages instead of articles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used to specify what is conducted by indefinite article in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне это дал **один** коллега = **A** colleague gave it to me. (literally: **One** colleague gave it to me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="05633552-f1c5-4d7d-b1bc-996baaa3e64c" CreationDate="2016-08-17T14:25:37.177" UserId="7650" Text="Russian relies on the context. Out of context there is almost always clear whether we speak about a definite or indefinite concept. In some cases it's unclear and we just use additional words to describe that. Look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There is boy whose name is Max. Boy entered room. In room there were lot of toys. Boy took his most beloved toy and went to another room. In this room Max placed toy on red table. On table were already another toys. Then, boy played with them some time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that you can correctly place all the missing articles in the example above. So, from the Russian (and almost any Slavic language) point of view the concept of articles is redundant. They don't carry any additional information, which already comes out of context. And that is the reason why Russians have problems and one can make funny jokes about them. And I hope that I used all the articles correctly in my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with the declension or predicative adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13019" RevisionGUID="6dc8cab2-cbdd-47a6-b8a9-d978fad688f7" CreationDate="2016-08-17T21:52:45.900" UserId="7239" Text="Admittedly this might just be a problem with the course material I was looking at, but I was reading some letters between two ***friends*** (emphasis mine), Анна and Иван, because apparently Иван was sightseeing in the Urals and Анна was stuck back in Nizhny Novgorod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, they sign their letters to each others as &quot;твой Иван&quot; and &quot;твоя Анна&quot;, after telling each other &quot;скучаю&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would this level of familiarity/intimacy be considered &quot;proper&quot; or &quot;normal&quot; for two platonic friends in Russian, especially for friends of the opposite gender?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this seems like too much emotional disclosure. Unless you are discussing anger, disclosing any negative emotion to someone to whom you are not related, particularly when they are of the opposite gender, seems like it could be misconstrued as a request for romantic intimacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, saying to someone unrelated that &quot;I am yours&quot; seems like an offer of an inappropriate amount of commitment and loyalty, unless that person is a romantic partner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only if I was _really_ familiar with someone would I write &quot;your friend&quot;, but this doesn't translate well into Russian, especially for a friend of the opposite gender, because then &quot;твой друг&quot; or &quot;твоя подруга&quot; means &quot;your boy/girlfriend&quot;, which would really be the wrong message to send.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, translating the letters literally into English, one has the impression that these two friends have boundary issues. Or am I just misinterpreting Russian culture here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13019" RevisionGUID="6dc8cab2-cbdd-47a6-b8a9-d978fad688f7" CreationDate="2016-08-17T21:52:45.900" UserId="7239" Text="How to avoid seeming overly familiar when writing letters to a friend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13019" RevisionGUID="6dc8cab2-cbdd-47a6-b8a9-d978fad688f7" CreationDate="2016-08-17T21:52:45.900" UserId="7239" Text="|formality|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13020" RevisionGUID="c1e8bab2-324b-4b6f-91e0-d3c98798040d" CreationDate="2016-08-17T22:16:53.520" UserId="7310" Text="&gt; seems like it could be misconstrued as a request for romantic intimacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, but it's totally okay among just the close friends. In fact, &quot;Yours + name&quot; is uncommon for lovers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13021" RevisionGUID="d0934a3e-19b8-458a-8c77-c8e569eeb06f" CreationDate="2016-08-17T23:54:33.647" UserId="6745" Text="I would say these 'friends' aren't that platonic if they sign their letters like that. I assume they have some sort of romantic feelings to each other, even if they know they could never be together and all that's left is to write letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays not a lot of people write each other paper letters, but in this situation if we are talking about friends I'd say &quot;Скучаю, пиши!&quot; or &quot;С нетерпением жду ответа :)&quot; would be much more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've written about 10-15 paper letters in my life to a friend (a girl) and I've never signed them with my name - what for? She could see it on the envelope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13022" RevisionGUID="1be88466-01ca-46ad-b46f-6a99d3623b8b" CreationDate="2016-08-18T02:16:05.700" UserId="6539" Text="Close friends can use **твой/твоя +name** without any additional (emotional ) feeling nowadays. But in Russian culture we use other patterns : we say *hello,hi&quot; starting the letter (emails ) and often finish them with &quot;bye&quot;.Your friend would say Пока.Что у тебя новенького?Пиши.Анна. But everything depends on the relationship. We can suspect a flavour  of romance in your examples but hardly anything deeper.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13023" RevisionGUID="603f029a-5468-4d11-93ad-d6d8f922ee44" CreationDate="2016-08-18T04:58:25.720" UserId="3528" Text="I believe the OP's example isn't even about declension. He's asking how Russian distinguishes between different parts of speech, such as between &quot;fair&quot; being a noun or an adjective in this example. And the answer is that Russian, unlike English, doesn't have word conversion -- the same word can't be used as different parts of speech. So in OP's own words &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both nouns and adjectives are ... declined differently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is esentially the explanation. But I'd say that it's not really about declension, but about the fact that different parts of speech in Russian are formed with different endings (and possibly suffixes), which makes them clearly distinguishable from each other (modulo some occasional coincidental homoforms like &quot;три&quot; or &quot;полого&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30503" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13012" RevisionGUID="76b969ba-80c6-4dc8-8149-026db5ac945f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T06:47:14.397" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13024" RevisionGUID="d54a242f-8398-4b39-8d0d-c001682f549f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T13:54:48.817" UserId="90" Text="1. How to chose between these two words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Which one should I use here:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кнопка 'Отправить' активи(зи?)руется только когда заполнены все поля" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13024" RevisionGUID="d54a242f-8398-4b39-8d0d-c001682f549f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T13:54:48.817" UserId="90" Text="Активируется vs активизируется" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13024" RevisionGUID="d54a242f-8398-4b39-8d0d-c001682f549f" CreationDate="2016-08-18T13:54:48.817" UserId="90" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13025" RevisionGUID="632b7cbf-4367-450f-bc01-ca7e8aa021e4" CreationDate="2016-08-18T13:59:18.487" UserId="5443" Text="The main function of the definite and indefinite articles in English is to express explicitly definiteness/indefiniteness of the noun. There are formal rules in contemporary English grammar making their usage (or zero article usage) mandatory in standard situations. In Russian, some helpful words used instead - less formally and just by necessity, in case the context doesn't clarify the aspect of definiteness: e.g. we simply use pronouns **этот/это/эта/эти/тот/то/та** (*тот прохожий*) for explicit expression of definiteness and smth. like the numeral **один** (*один мой друг*) for addition of indefiniteness. As for the origin of indefinite article in English, it comes from the numeral **one**, 'an' being the older form. It is about the same in some other languages (Italian: **un/uno/una**, etc.). In Chinese, indefiniteness can be expressed (in singular case) quite similarly, by using the numeral '**one**' before the measure word (=classifier, which precedes the noun in singular), so the typical '**yi ge**' in Mandarin functions much like indefinite article, while the pronoun '**zhei ge**' (this/that) before the noun expresses definiteness; indefiniteness of a noun in plural (+ unknown quantity) is expressed by default (no numeral, no classifier), while definiteness in plural is expressed explicitly - by using the pronoun '**zhei xie**' (these/those), with or without 'numeral + measure word'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the languages without 'mandatory' articles use their own grammatical 'workaround' means, other than just context. Here's a source, mentioning usage of post-positioned particles in Russian, which function similar to definite articles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://aftersimple.com/language-and-speech/articles-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="fded4d2e-322f-40d4-82e2-4047e7a5626d" CreationDate="2016-08-18T14:25:24.977" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Кнопка активируется, когда заполнены все поля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Активировать** means *to turn on,**to make active* what didn't work, to start a process.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Активизировать** means **to make a process more active**, to increase productivity or speed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13025" RevisionGUID="04affcc8-f087-461e-a243-ae3db5657944" CreationDate="2016-08-18T14:33:18.453" UserId="5443" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The main function of the definite and indefinite articles in English is to express explicitly definiteness/indefiniteness of the noun. There are formal rules in contemporary English grammar making their usage (or zero article usage) mandatory in standard situations. In Russian, some helpful words are used instead - less formally and just by necessity, in case the context doesn't clarify the aspect of definiteness: e.g. we simply use pronouns **этот/это/эта/эти/тот/то/та** (*тот прохожий*) for explicit expression of definiteness and smth. like the numeral **один** (*один мой друг*) for addition of indefiniteness. As for the origin of indefinite article in English, it comes from the numeral **one**, 'an' being the older form. It is about the same in some other languages (Italian: **un/uno/una**, etc.). In Chinese, indefiniteness can be expressed (in singular case) quite similarly, by using the numeral '**one**' before the measure word (=classifier, which precedes the noun in singular), so the typical '**yi ge**' in Mandarin functions much like indefinite article, while the pronoun '**zhei ge**' (this/that) before the noun expresses definiteness; indefiniteness of a noun in plural (+ unknown quantity) is expressed by default (no numeral, no classifier), while definiteness in plural is expressed explicitly - by using the pronoun '**zhei xie**' (these/those), with or without 'numeral + measure word'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the languages without 'mandatory' articles use their own grammatical 'workaround' means, other than just context. Here's a source, mentioning usage of post-positioned particles in Russian, which function similarly to definite articles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://aftersimple.com/language-and-speech/articles-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13026" RevisionGUID="05a49b20-f188-4f67-bec5-3b7b7a85dd16" CreationDate="2016-08-18T14:53:13.370" UserId="6539" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt;Кнопка активируется, когда заполнены все поля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Активировать** means *to turn on,**to make active* what didn't work,to start a process.** activate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Активизировать** means **to make a process more active**, to increase productivity or speed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30511" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="997401e8-020b-4cd0-8997-deef944f4873" CreationDate="2016-08-18T15:33:31.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/766296979034996736" />
  <row Id="30512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="05c8558d-94db-4689-9c75-d5e11a094197" CreationDate="2016-08-19T06:03:38.603" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="In general, the Communist revolution in Russia brought some modernization to the language, many archaic words were dropped and replaced with more bureaucratic, educated or scientifically sounding ones. Later, when Russia returned to Capitalism, some of these changes were reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term for the deputy/vice office holder in pre-revolutionary Russian was &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot;, so deputy/vice minister would be &quot;товарищ министра&quot; &quot;comrade of the minister&quot;. But under Communist rule the word &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot; became a common address, so it was replaced with the word &quot;zamestitel&quot;, literally &quot;replacer&quot;. So now the deputy/vice minister is &quot;zamestitel ministra&quot; &quot;replacer of the minister&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The state legislature was called &quot;Государственная Дума&quot;, literally &quot;State Thought&quot;, a term from 15-16th century, a board of boyars. Under Communist rule the word was replaced with &quot;sovet&quot;, literally &quot;council&quot;. Now we again have &quot;State Thought&quot; instead &quot;State Council&quot; which sounds weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word for the head of a city was &quot;голова&quot;, literally &quot;head&quot;, but since it is native Russian word rather than borrowed from Church Slavonic &quot;глава&quot;, it sounds very uneducated/low class. The word глава is still used but means a generic &quot;head&quot; of any entity. The Communists replaced this uneducated-sounding word with something very complicated &quot;Predsedatel ispolnitelnogo komiteta gorodskogo soveta narodnykh deputatov&quot; which translates &quot;President/chairman of the executive committee of the city council of the people's deputies&quot;. Even with all contractions the title would be &quot;Prededatel ispolkoma gorsoveta&quot;. Now the heads of most cities called with a newly borrowed word &quot;Мэр&quot; &quot;Mayor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before the revolution there was an institution similar to court marshalls. They were called with the word &quot;pristav&quot;, literally &quot;near-stand&quot;. They watched for discipline during court proceedings, executed court decisions and even watched for discipline in the legislature. Under the USSR, the regular police watched for discipline in courts, while those executing court decisions were called &quot;sudebniy ispolnitel&quot;, literally &quot;court executioner&quot;. Now the word &quot;pristav&quot; has been returned, but sounds very archaic: I imagine a fat man with long 19th century style mustache when I hear it. It is the official term now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word &quot;uprava&quot; for the ruling body of police departments and far-right paramilitary parties such as &quot;Black Hundreds&quot; completely went out of use under USSR except in the idiom &quot;нет на него управы&quot; which meant &quot;there is no uprava to deal with him&quot;. So the word meant some aggressive or threatening thing that can take measures against violators. Under the USSR they extensively used the word &quot;upravlenie&quot; intead, often translated as &quot;directorate&quot;, in both state and economic contexts, which sounds much more educated and much less aggressive. Now the word &quot;uprava&quot; has been returned as a ruling body on low municipal level and as governing body of far-right parties such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some changes that existed in early years of the Communist rule but later reversed still under Communists. For instance, the soldiers were renamed fighters, the officers to commanders, the ministers to people's commissars.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13024" RevisionGUID="34e64009-0677-4af2-b54e-45d10d4086f5" CreationDate="2016-08-19T12:37:25.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/766615048685051904" />
  <row Id="30515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="b7f9acad-831a-4b9e-96c4-8e35ac0d9d32" CreationDate="2016-08-20T15:24:05.597" UserId="6816" Text="**1.** Is there a set way to form *nouns* like 'running' or 'talking' from their respective verbs, or do they just have to be memorized?&#xA;&#xA;*Ex.* &quot;Running is difficult.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;**2.** Also, along the same lines as the above question, how would you say &quot;It is difficult to run&quot;? Would you use это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="b7f9acad-831a-4b9e-96c4-8e35ac0d9d32" CreationDate="2016-08-20T15:24:05.597" UserId="6816" Text="Formation of nouns formed from verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13028" RevisionGUID="b7f9acad-831a-4b9e-96c4-8e35ac0d9d32" CreationDate="2016-08-20T15:24:05.597" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13029" RevisionGUID="85e8ab5b-b0a4-4140-a122-d759fc657c48" CreationDate="2016-08-20T15:56:16.387" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is there a set way to form nouns like 'running' or 'talking' from their respective verbs, or do they just have to be memorized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, yes, there are several patterns, but neither they apply to all possible verbs, nor they preserve verb's &quot;universal&quot; meaning. For example, there is noun &quot;_беганье_&quot; (by the way it follows a very common pattern in Russian), but you can't use it in this particular case (&quot;_Running is difficult_&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;how would you say &quot;It is difficult to run&quot;? Would you use это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That highly depends on context and stylistics. But remember that Russian &quot;это&quot; isn't essential part of syntax as English &quot;it&quot;. So you rarely put it in the first place. More usual way of saying should be &quot;_Бегать - это трудно_&quot; or just &quot;_Бегать трудно_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="cea4305e-e3b7-4632-8d5e-38e9b0271081" CreationDate="2016-08-20T17:24:46.503" UserId="7239" Text="This question is related http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7903/how-to-address-a-female-friend, although somewhat different in its focus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the speaker is female, then &quot;подруга&quot; means &quot;friend&quot; and &quot;друг&quot; means &quot;boyfriend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the speaker is male, then &quot;друг&quot; means &quot;friend&quot; and &quot;подруга&quot; means &quot;girlfriend&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Is the above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the answers to the other question, it seems like the only way to refer to friends of the opposite gender is via their name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** So is there no way to talk about the relationship in the third person, i.e. no translation of &quot;So-and-so [of the opposite gender of the speaker] is my friend&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is particularly important to me because I don't want to offend my friends by accidentally telling other people incorrectly/falsely that we are in a romantic relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** How do people refer to romantic partners of the same gender in Russian? Or is non-heterosexuality sufficiently taboo in all Russian-speaking societies that people never acknowledge such relationships or develop words to refer to them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4.** How to translate, without ambiguity, in all possible cases, &quot;platonic friend&quot; and &quot;romantic partner&quot; into Russian? Как правильно описать все отношения по-русски?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really expect a satisfying answer to this question, since the exact same problem exists in German and I have never heard a satisfying answer to that question either. I suppose it is also worth noting that in English some women refer to their platonic female friends as &quot;girlfriend&quot;, although I imagine this usage has declined with the normalization of non-heterosexual relationships in English-speaking countries, or at least in the United States." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="cea4305e-e3b7-4632-8d5e-38e9b0271081" CreationDate="2016-08-20T17:24:46.503" UserId="7239" Text="How to use the words &quot;друг&quot; and &quot;подруга&quot; properly? Как правильно описать отношения по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="cea4305e-e3b7-4632-8d5e-38e9b0271081" CreationDate="2016-08-20T17:24:46.503" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="2425dfa8-cca7-4136-9ba0-fd91e1ed4231" CreationDate="2016-08-20T17:51:41.860" UserId="6131" Text="Usually:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Male friend = друг&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Female friend = подруга&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Boyfriend = (мой) парень&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Girlfriend = (моя) девушка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;He is my friend = он мой друг.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;She is my friend = она моя подруга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't depends if relationships heterosexual or homosexual, it is always:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Boyfriend = парень&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Girlfriend = девушка&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;platonic friend = друг&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;if a girl is going to unambigiously say that the boy is just a platonic friend, not a boyfriend, she can say &quot;он мне просто друг&quot;&lt;br/&gt; (sometimes it can be used for friendzoned)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The most unambiguous way to say &quot;boyfriend/ girlfriend&quot; is &quot;мой парень/моя девушка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="38220e1a-5eac-4591-98a0-91aa926a708e" CreationDate="2016-08-20T22:09:51.480" UserId="7662" Comment="Fixed indentation, some spelling, added highlighting for better reading" Text="Usually:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Male friend` = `друг` &#xD;&#xA;- `Female friend` = `подруга`&#xD;&#xA;- `(My) Boyfriend` = `(мой) парень`  &#xD;&#xA;- `(My) Girlfriend` = `(моя) девушка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **No**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;`He is my friend` = `он мой друг`  &#xD;&#xA;`She is my friend` = `она моя подруга`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It **doesn't matter** if the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual, it is always:  &#xD;&#xA;`Boyfriend` = `парень`  &#xD;&#xA;`Girlfriend` = `девушка`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  &#xD;&#xA;`platonic friend` = `друг`  &#xD;&#xA;if a girl is going to unambiguously say that the boy is just a platonic friend, not a boyfriend, she can say `&quot;он мне просто друг&quot;` (which can sometimes be used for `friendzoned`)  &#xD;&#xA;The most unambiguous way to say `&quot;boyfriend/ girlfriend&quot;` is `&quot;мой парень/моя девушка&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30524" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="38220e1a-5eac-4591-98a0-91aa926a708e" CreationDate="2016-08-20T22:09:51.480" Comment="Proposed by 7662 approved by 3680, -1 edit id of 785" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13031" RevisionGUID="dfc8e0c4-f34a-4616-a0da-014a8d465b06" CreationDate="2016-08-20T22:09:51.480" UserId="97" Comment="Fixed indentation, some spelling, added highlighting for better reading" Text="Usually:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Male friend` = `друг` &#xD;&#xA;- `Female friend` = `подруга`&#xD;&#xA;- `(My) Boyfriend` = `(мой) парень`  &#xD;&#xA;- `(My) Girlfriend` = `(моя) девушка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;`He is my friend` = `он мой друг`  &#xD;&#xA;`She is my friend` = `она моя подруга`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It doesn't matter if the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual, it is always:  &#xD;&#xA;`Boyfriend` = `парень`  &#xD;&#xA;`Girlfriend` = `девушка`  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  &#xD;&#xA;`platonic friend` = `друг`  &#xD;&#xA;if a girl is going to unambiguously say that the boy is just a platonic friend, not a boyfriend, she can say `&quot;он мне просто друг&quot;` (which can sometimes be used for `friendzoned`)  &#xD;&#xA;The most unambiguous way to say `&quot;boyfriend/ girlfriend&quot;` is `&quot;мой парень/моя девушка&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30526" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13019" RevisionGUID="b8b2eb46-fb0a-444f-aa3d-0437f6e9771a" CreationDate="2016-08-21T03:38:39.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/767204239764578304" />
  <row Id="30528" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12838" RevisionGUID="705ae49d-491b-4cca-913d-bccf5f40143a" CreationDate="2016-08-21T12:43:36.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/767341382092619777" />
  <row Id="30529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13032" RevisionGUID="7d500e94-b683-42aa-95bd-9dda4f1632ac" CreationDate="2016-08-21T15:22:42.093" UserId="6938" Text="&quot;Друг&quot; and &quot;подруга&quot; are mainly used in in platonic relationships, but could be used in romantic relationships as well (especially when man speaks &quot;моя подруга&quot; it usually implies girlfriend)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="21ddd592-161c-4251-b784-afd77fcfd0cd" CreationDate="2016-08-21T16:25:19.657" UserId="62" Text="To illustrate this type of adjectival construction with names in another setting, I have seen it used sometimes in math to name concepts after people: артинов модуль (Artinian  module), риманова поверхность (Riemann surface), банахово пространство (Banach space), and so on. It also occurs in physics: ньютонова механика (Newtonian mechanics). If the name ends softly then -ов becomes -ев: Абель (Abel) leads to абелев интеграл (abelian integral), абелева группа (abelian group), and абелевое многообразие (abelian variety). As other answers have indicated, this method of forming an adjective out of a name is less frequent than using the genitive following the noun, e.g., сфера Римана (Riemann sphere), not риманова сфера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is standard to use a lower-case first letter (артинов rather than Артинов, unless it is the first word of a sentence), and this adjective precedes the noun. Neither of these is the case with your example of Христов; maybe that is because Христос is a rather special historical figure (native speakers are welcome to comment on that). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13033" RevisionGUID="0403b815-70b9-4bf3-9ecc-9a98e9aa1d30" CreationDate="2016-08-21T16:32:49.950" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="To illustrate this short-form adjectival construction with last names in another setting, I have seen it used sometimes in math to name concepts after people: Артин --&gt; артинов модуль (Artinian  module), Риман --&gt; риманова поверхность (Riemann surface), Банах --&gt; банахово пространство (Banach space), and so on. It also occurs in physics: Ньютон --&gt; ньютонова механика (Newtonian mechanics). If the name ends softly then -ов becomes -ев: Абель (Abel) --&gt; абелев интеграл (abelian integral), абелева группа (abelian group), and абелевое многообразие (abelian variety). As other answers have indicated, this method of forming an adjective out of a name seems old-fashioned. Far more often I see the genitive following the noun, e.g., сфера Римана (Riemann sphere), not риманова сфера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is standard to use a lower-case first letter (артинов rather than Артинов, unless it is the first word of a sentence), and this short-form adjective precedes the noun. Neither of these is the case with your example of Христов; native speakers are welcome to comment on that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13034" RevisionGUID="eec5c230-0789-433d-b979-4da526dd099e" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:28:50.917" UserId="7254" Text="I know &quot;Вас&quot; is the &quot;you&quot; preposition for Accusative case and &quot;Вам&quot; is for Dative case, but I've seen both of these on the internet and I don't know what is the difference between &quot;Прошу Вас&quot; and &quot;Прошу Вам&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13034" RevisionGUID="eec5c230-0789-433d-b979-4da526dd099e" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:28:50.917" UserId="7254" Text="Прошу Вас vs Прошу Вам" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13034" RevisionGUID="eec5c230-0789-433d-b979-4da526dd099e" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:28:50.917" UserId="7254" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13035" RevisionGUID="bf450723-76d9-4a49-bb8b-52db0f13e076" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:33:42.827" UserId="4560" Text="Only **прошу вас** is correct. *Прошу вам* is a strange solecism — but on the internet, it could also be a simple typo. С and М are next to each other on the Russian keyboard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="df7d5e6f-0f95-4109-b5bd-91ad5ee2fd90" CreationDate="2016-08-21T18:46:16.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/767432647626854400" />
  <row Id="30537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13036" RevisionGUID="88e04e8f-e987-475e-b6b9-7efb4e081b78" CreationDate="2016-08-22T09:47:13.070" UserId="1641" Text="The title &quot;товарищ&quot; can be used to address or refer to someone, though given its ideological implications, the term has fallen out of use since the end of the USSR.  I've heard the title used alone, or followed by the surname, or followed by the first name and patronymic.  Was/is it ever permissible to use &quot;товарищ&quot; with the first name alone, perhaps if only as a jocular usage?  Or would this construction be unambiguously wrong, no matter the context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13036" RevisionGUID="88e04e8f-e987-475e-b6b9-7efb4e081b78" CreationDate="2016-08-22T09:47:13.070" UserId="1641" Text="Can &quot;товарищ&quot; be used with the first name only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13036" RevisionGUID="88e04e8f-e987-475e-b6b9-7efb4e081b78" CreationDate="2016-08-22T09:47:13.070" UserId="1641" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-имени|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13037" RevisionGUID="54ed4c73-044b-4673-8d91-8d66363f5694" CreationDate="2016-08-22T10:34:45.480" UserId="6097" Text="Yes, it's permissible. It sounds not official then, could be used between friends in a jocular way: &quot;Товарищ Петя, пойдём гулять&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13038" RevisionGUID="6f0dea05-a621-429a-9a13-c14e924d5b2d" CreationDate="2016-08-22T10:40:14.233" UserId="6602" Text="In modern Russian language the title &quot;Товарищ&quot; may be used in such variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **just &quot;товарищ&quot;** - may be used for addressing to a strange person. (*&quot;Эй, товарищ! Куда вы пошли?&quot; - &quot;Hey sir! Where did you go?&quot;*). It's some outdated and much familiar than English &quot;sir&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **&quot;товарищи&quot; (in plural)** - some used for addressing to audience. Sounds some familiar and isn't official.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a surname:** &quot;Товарищ Иванов&quot; - Widely used only in military and power structures as a title when it's need to specify the one of same ranked (&quot;Товарищ Иванов, выйти из строя!&quot;). Calling to a civil person or by civil person to a soldier this way is outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a first name:** &quot;Товарищ Иван&quot; - sounds very familiar and jokingly, and may be used only in a friendly chat (*&quot;Товарищ Иван, что ты об этом думаешь?&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a civil position:** &quot;Товарищ доктор&quot;, &quot;товарищ вахтёр&quot; - sounds some familiar and outdated, and rarely used to show respect (but remember about familiarity!) Notice that in the Russian Empire there was a position &quot;товарищ министра&quot; (&quot;undersecretary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a military rank or position:** &quot;Товарищ рядовой&quot;, &quot;товарищ генерал&quot;, &quot;товарищ командир&quot; - used in military and power structures as a common title. May be used by civils to officers to show respect. Also in speech addressing to many militants with various ranks it sounds as &quot;товарищи&quot; (*&quot;Здравствуйте, товарищи!&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using &quot;товарищ&quot; with patronymic or with first name and patronymic is very strange and never used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13038" RevisionGUID="767a28b3-6087-4dc6-8f38-1dd14d2e604b" CreationDate="2016-08-22T10:45:58.957" UserId="6602" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In modern Russian language the title &quot;Товарищ&quot; may be used in such variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **just &quot;товарищ&quot;** - may be used for addressing to a strange person. (*&quot;Эй, товарищ! Куда вы пошли?&quot; - &quot;Hey sir! Where did you go?&quot;*). It's some outdated and much familiar than English &quot;sir&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **&quot;товарищи&quot; (in plural)** - some used for addressing to audience. Sounds some familiar and isn't official.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a surname:** &quot;Товарищ Иванов&quot; - Widely used only in military and power structures as a title when it's need to specify the one of same ranked (&quot;Товарищ Иванов, выйти из строя!&quot;). Calling to a civil person or by civil person to a soldier this way is outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a first name:** &quot;Товарищ Иван&quot; - sounds very familiar and jokingly, and may be used only in a friendly chat (*&quot;Товарищ Иван, что ты об этом думаешь?&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a civil position:** &quot;Товарищ доктор&quot;, &quot;товарищ вахтёр&quot; - sounds some familiar and outdated, and rarely used to show respect (but remember about familiarity!) Notice that in the Russian Empire there was a position &quot;товарищ министра&quot; (&quot;undersecretary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a military rank or position:** &quot;Товарищ рядовой&quot;, &quot;товарищ генерал&quot;, &quot;товарищ командир&quot; - used in military and power structures as a common title. May be used by civils to officers to show respect. Also in speech addressing to many militants with various ranks it sounds as &quot;товарищи&quot; (*&quot;Здравствуйте, товарищи!&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using &quot;товарищ&quot; with a patronymic or with first name and patronymic is very strange and never used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13038" RevisionGUID="9046daca-63a7-489c-83a5-55a93adaa9e6" CreationDate="2016-08-22T11:38:42.887" UserDisplayName="user5462" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="In modern Russian language the title &quot;Товарищ&quot; may be used in such variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **just &quot;товарищ&quot;** - may be used for addressing a stranger. (*&quot;Эй, товарищ! Куда вы пошли?&quot; - &quot;Hey sir! Where did you go?&quot;*). It's somewhat outdated and less ceremonious than English &quot;sir&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **&quot;товарищи&quot; (in plural)** - used for addressing to audience. Sounds more crony and isn't official.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a surname:** &quot;Товарищ Иванов&quot; - Widely used only in military and power structures as a title when it's needed to specify the one of same rank (&quot;Товарищ Иванов, выйти из строя!&quot;). Calling to a civil person or by civil person to a soldier this way is outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a first name:** &quot;Товарищ Иван&quot; - sounds very familiar and jokingly, and may be used only in a friendly chat (*&quot;Товарищ Иван, что ты об этом думаешь?&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a civil position:** &quot;Товарищ доктор&quot;, &quot;товарищ вахтёр&quot; - sounds somewhat familiar and outdated and rarely used to show respect (but remember about familiarity!) Notice that in the Russian Empire there was a position &quot;товарищ министра&quot; (&quot;undersecretary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **товарищ with a military rank or position:** &quot;Товарищ рядовой&quot;, &quot;товарищ генерал&quot;, &quot;товарищ командир&quot; - used in military and power structures as a common title. May be used by civilians to officers to show respect. Also in speech addressing to many militants with various ranks it sounds as &quot;товарищи&quot; (*&quot;Здравствуйте, товарищи!&quot;*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using &quot;товарищ&quot; with a patronymic or with first name and patronymic is very strange and never used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30544" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13038" RevisionGUID="9046daca-63a7-489c-83a5-55a93adaa9e6" CreationDate="2016-08-22T11:38:42.887" Comment="Proposed by 5462 approved by 6725, 6602 edit id of 786" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="a9ca23dd-bc5e-4cfc-aa86-6b1b07c2a399" CreationDate="2016-08-22T11:59:55.690" UserId="7674" Text="the use of 'comrade' with the personal name (or a party alias as noted above) was not uncommon prior to and around the time of the bolshevik revolution of 1917, but it fell out of use with time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'comrade' with the personal name and patronimic i've never heard being used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nowadays the word by itself as a form of address has disdainful connotation, not in a sense of implied communist affiliation of a person, but as an expression of alienation and cold shoulder  &#xD;&#xA;in fact it was so in the later Soviet period as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13039" RevisionGUID="d31e9273-7081-48ee-a32c-8d73ba0aede0" CreationDate="2016-08-22T12:06:40.663" UserId="7674" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="the use of 'comrade' with the personal name (or a party alias as noted above) was not uncommon prior to and around the time of the bolshevik revolution of 1917, but it fell out of use with time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'comrade' with the personal name and patronimic i've never heard being used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nowadays the word by itself as a form of address has disdainful or patronizing connotation depending on the intonation, not in a sense of implied communist affiliation of a person, but as an expression of alienation and cold shoulder  &#xD;&#xA;in fact it was so in the later Soviet period as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="e82d9abd-dd3b-4a67-8104-43cbbfdbb7bf" CreationDate="2016-08-22T13:59:32.323" UserId="4892" Text=" 1. I looked **пользование and использование** up in the dictionary but they look the same to me. They translate the english word &quot;use&quot; or &quot;usage&quot;. Could you please explain in which contexts you can use these words, giving some examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I am also confused by the verbs **пользовать, использовать and воспользовать**. I think the first is imperfective, while the second and third one perfective.But which one of the last two makes the &quot;couple&quot; with пользовать? Which one is its perfective form?  &#xD;&#xA;If you could also give examples of their usage that would help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="e82d9abd-dd3b-4a67-8104-43cbbfdbb7bf" CreationDate="2016-08-22T13:59:32.323" UserId="4892" Text="What's the difference between пользование and использование?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="e82d9abd-dd3b-4a67-8104-43cbbfdbb7bf" CreationDate="2016-08-22T13:59:32.323" UserId="4892" Text="|существительные|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13041" RevisionGUID="f91dbf32-c639-4c9a-b5ae-11ff9d37803a" CreationDate="2016-08-22T14:59:59.593" UserId="310" Text="`Пользовать` means *лечить* as an outdated form. &quot;Меня пользовали от холеры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If used in the meaning of `использовать`, it means that the speaker is clueless about their own language but trying to sound informal (In my book that's almost as bad as `ложить`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пользоваться` and `использовать` is *to use*, imperfect form. &quot;Я использую утюг, чтобы гладить бельё&quot; (sounds a bit silly), &quot;Я пользуюсь утюгом, чтобы гладить бельё&quot; (a bit less), &quot;Я глажу бельё утюгом&quot; (better)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Воспользоваться` is also *to use*, perfect form (likely implies *once*). &quot;Чтобы погладить бельё, я воспользовался утюгом&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Использоваться` means that something gets used (for something). &quot;Утюг используется для глажки белья&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Воспользовать` does not exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="63d21659-74e8-49c4-a216-98451f36e181" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:06:23.167" UserId="7674" Text="as far as their synonymy is concerned, their application is a matter of style&#xD;&#xA;with `ис-пользование` being more formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also like the respondent before me indicated `пользование` can not only mean usage (of an object) but also administering (a medicine to a person) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with Google you can look up some contexts they're appear in " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13043" RevisionGUID="5d2d7d0f-b30f-4e4b-90ce-133d96d45f14" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:10:11.407" UserId="5008" Text="1. _Пользование_ is about contionuous actions, for example, legal term _Right of use_ = _Право пользования_. While _использование_ is a single shot usage, sort of _application_. Naturally, participle _used_ correponds to _использованный_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. _Пользовать_ is an outdated synonym for _to cure someone_, _воспользовать_ is not a word at all. You probably mean reflexive forms - _пользоваться_ and _воспользоваться_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Пользоваться_ is imperfective. _Воспользоваться_ is perfective. But note that they both correspond to &quot;_to use_&quot;, and not to &quot;_to be used_&quot;. It's rather sort of &quot;I use smth. for myself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Использовать(ся)_ is both perfective and imperfective. It means _make use of_ (or _to be used_ - reflexive form)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="4d3c8694-b0da-48cf-ab9f-2a8a31e7ec23" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:12:16.973" UserId="7674" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="as far as their synonymy is concerned, their application is a matter of style&#xD;&#xA;with `ис-пользование` being more formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also like the respondent before me indicated `пользование` can not only mean usage (of an object) but also administering (a medicine to a person) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because `пользование` is a verbal noun not only from `пользовать-ся`, but  from `пользовать` as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with Google you can look up some contexts they appear in " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13044" RevisionGUID="b9335584-4377-43d0-a1e5-4f055c75c2aa" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:13:52.173" UserId="5443" Text="**Пользование** comes from the verb **пользоваться** (imperfective; **-ся** is mandatory: *пользовать* is not used in contemporary Russian) and means continuous (daily) consumer usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пользование холодильником обходится дорого.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пользоваться холодильником удобно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Использование** is used much wider and comes from the verb **использовать** (with perfective or imperfective sense), which has a form **использоватьcя** for passive voice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Использование солнечной энергии экологически выгодно.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Использовать солнечную энергию непросто.                (imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sense)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остатки вчерашнего ужина нужно использовать на завтрак. (perfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sense)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отходы могут использоваться как топливо.                (passive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Воспользоваться** (**-ся** is mandatory; no related noun) is a perfective verb with the meaning 'to take advantage of smth.' or simply 'to use once something at one's disposal'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он воспользовался предложением поехать в командировку в Китай." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13045" RevisionGUID="7eb7ae19-72c3-439d-80f7-85902a89e400" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:16:18.430" UserId="310" Text="`Прошу вам` is not meaningless meaning in Russian language. Just rarely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's when somebody asks some favor for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Сказал вашему преподавателю, что прошу вам поставить хорошую оценку`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="0f3c3b16-ea8c-42ed-b652-aac6974d8f16" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:17:19.763" UserId="7674" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="as far as their synonymy is concerned, their application is a matter of style&#xD;&#xA;with `ис-пользование` being more formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also like the respondent before me indicated `пользование` can not only mean usage (of an object) but also administering (a medicine to a person) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because `пользование` is a verbal noun not only from `пользовать-ся`, but  from `пользовать` as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`воспользоваться` is a one-off instance of `пользоваться`, the action is both perfective and one-off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with Google you can look up some contexts they appear in " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="b54ff748-b3d9-4a78-bae0-9e3219a161ec" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:25:48.620" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="1. as far as their synonymy is concerned, their application is a matter of style&#xD;&#xA;with `ис-пользование` being more formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also like the respondent before me indicated `пользование` can not only mean usage (of an object) but also administering (a medicine to a person), treatment (of a person with a medicine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because `пользование` is a verbal noun not only from `пользовать-ся`, but  from `пользовать` as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.`воспользоваться` is a one-off instance of `пользоваться`, the action is both perfective and one-off, can be translated as 'to make use of'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with Google you can look up some contexts they appear in " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13042" RevisionGUID="eb38fae8-3942-466b-adfc-f29904254a98" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:36:32.783" UserId="7674" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="1. as far as their synonymy is concerned, their application is a matter of style&#xD;&#xA;with `ис-пользование` being more formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also like the respondent before me indicated `пользование` can not only mean usage (of an object) but also administering (a medicine to a person), treatment (of a person with a medicine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because `пользование` is a verbal noun not only from `пользовать-ся`, but  from `пользовать` as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.`воспользоваться` is a one-off instance of `пользоваться`, the action is both perfective and one-off, can be translated as 'to make use of'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пользуюсь эти утюгом уже неделю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На прошлой неделе я воспользовался этим утюгом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st usage continues through the entire week, while the 2nd happened only once during the week&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also `воспользоваться` lacks its own present tense form, instead the present tense form of `использовать` is employed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with Google you can look up some contexts they appear in " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13046" RevisionGUID="3578b676-2892-4781-8fb5-a975bbc5035b" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:42:37.660" UserId="7579" Text="Нужен ли дефис во фразе «процедурно(-)сгенерированный» (от термина «процедурная генерация»)? Если что, это перевод английского &quot;procedurally generated&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13046" RevisionGUID="3578b676-2892-4781-8fb5-a975bbc5035b" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:42:37.660" UserId="7579" Text="Дефис: «процедурно сгенерированный» или «процедурно-сгенерированный»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13046" RevisionGUID="3578b676-2892-4781-8fb5-a975bbc5035b" CreationDate="2016-08-22T15:42:37.660" UserId="7579" Text="|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13047" RevisionGUID="a9ae0165-5d81-4a6e-80db-ca05b71053ef" CreationDate="2016-08-22T17:02:42.180" UserId="7678" Text="It can, but only with familiar, but so seldom. In official situations we use it only with lastname (&quot;Товарищ Иванов&quot;) or with titles (&quot;Товарищ рядовой&quot;). And we don't use with a patronymics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind, that this address is used very seldom today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13048" RevisionGUID="029fc5c3-a7c2-4d47-a651-1167e2823956" CreationDate="2016-08-22T18:40:26.813" UserId="6539" Text="Не нужен. Это словосочетание из наречия и прилагательного.Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Различаются сложные прилагательные, образующие одно слово (со слитным или дефисным написанием, см. выше), и словосочетания, состоящие из наречия на -о (-е) и прилагательного или причастия (с раздельным написанием); к наречию, играющему роль отдельного члена предложения, можно поставить соответствующий вопрос. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ср.:&#xD;&#xA;морально-этические проблемы – морально устойчивый человек (в каком отношении устойчивый?);&#xD;&#xA;общественно-исторические законы – общественно опасные элементы (опасные для кого?)&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Справочник по русскому языку.   гл1Х§43 п14.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Процедурно сгенерированный  (сгенерированный как?каким образом?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30564" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13036" RevisionGUID="60a2a0a3-165c-4e1b-a527-554c4044b96e" CreationDate="2016-08-22T18:46:18.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/767795047375011840" />
  <row Id="30565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="1142bb7e-3fcb-458c-8423-2e4de89cec48" CreationDate="2016-08-22T19:34:29.977" UserId="7680" Text="In this case you mix both more formal greeting with less formal name form. It makes sense when situation implies the same mixture of relations. E.g. a formal meeting held at work between ppl knowing each other for decades. They call each other with just names outside of the office, but they have to make a semi-formal appearance, though not to formal to use surnames. In earlier Soviet times (1920s) they had a tendency to use Tovarisch more often as it was a recent reform, so they exaggerated this usage in the sense of more mature Soviet Union, e.g. one could call his girlfriend Tovarisch Anna at the dinner table. The next case for this combination is possible post-USSR usage, slightly in the late USSR (1980s) and heavily during Perestroika (1990s). People diminished the value of this greeting (Гусь свинье не товарищ. Goose is not a comrade to a pig - could be a reply to it). So it could be quite often used as ironic or even offensive, in the sense that you are still (a sovetic) Tovarisch while I’m already a (capitalistic) Sir.&#xD;&#xA;Today Tovarisch is not in use as a greeting, except nostalgic usage (which is also the case for the question as it is a mixture of formal and informal, e.g. memories of two party members regarding their activities in the past) or in its initial meaning which is “someone not so close as a friend”. In this case joint usage makes sense in the same way we use &quot;friend&quot;. My friend Peter - is OK. Friend Peter, please pick this up – ridiculous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13049" RevisionGUID="50a4a934-825b-4f69-aa91-d43c91e227c5" CreationDate="2016-08-22T19:43:09.490" UserId="7680" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="In this case you mix both more formal greeting with less formal name form. It makes sense when situation implies the same mixture of relations. E.g. a formal meeting held at work between ppl knowing each other for decades. They call each other with just names outside of the office, but they have to make a semi-formal appearance, though not to formal to use surnames. In earlier Soviet times (1920s) they had a tendency to use Tovarisch more often as it was a recent reform, so they exaggerated this usage in the sense of more mature Soviet Union, e.g. one could call his girlfriend Tovarisch Anna at the dinner table. The next case for this combination is possible post-USSR usage, slightly in the late USSR (1980s) and heavily during Perestroika (1990s). People diminished the value of this greeting (Гусь свинье не товарищ. Goose is not a comrade to a pig - could be a reply to it). So it could be quite often used as ironic or even offensive, in the sense that you are still (a sovetic) Tovarisch while I’m already a (capitalistic) Sir.&#xD;&#xA;Today Tovarisch is not in use as a greeting, except nostalgic usage (which is also the case for the question as it is a mixture of formal and informal, e.g. memories of two party members regarding their activities in the past) or in its initial meaning which is “someone not so close as a friend”. In this case joint usage makes sense in the same way we use &quot;friend&quot;. My friend Peter - is OK. Friend Peter, please pick this up – ridiculous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Just to mention that all above is about Tovarisch+Name combination. Tovarisch without name it's just &quot;excuse me Sir&quot; pattern, could be in use anywhere in similar situations during the USSR, now this usage is impossible unless you just escaped a time capsule. Actually there is no any substitution now for Sir or Ma'am, so it's safer to say just &quot;excuse me&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30569" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13046" RevisionGUID="30315c77-3ccd-4771-8e3b-6678502b97ec" CreationDate="2016-08-22T21:54:04.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/767842297513992192" />
  <row Id="30570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13048" RevisionGUID="760cfc6c-7325-4588-8342-e73b5888459b" CreationDate="2016-08-23T06:29:42.460" UserId="6539" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="Не нужен. Это словосочетание из наречия и прилагательного.Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Различаются сложные прилагательные, образующие одно слово (со слитным или дефисным написанием, см. выше), и словосочетания, состоящие из наречия на -о (-е) и прилагательного или причастия (с раздельным написанием); к наречию, играющему роль отдельного члена предложения, можно поставить соответствующий вопрос. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ср.:&#xD;&#xA;морально-этические проблемы – морально устойчивый человек (в каком отношении устойчивый?);&#xD;&#xA;общественно-исторические законы – общественно опасные элементы (опасные для кого?)&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Справочник по русскому языку.   гл1Х§43 п14.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Процедурно сгенерированный  (сгенерированный как?каким образом?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For everybody to understand. &#xD;&#xA;No, you shouldn't use a hyphen because it's an adjective with an adverb. Rosental says we should distinguish between compound adjectives (hyphenated or not) and such phrases. When an adverb is a separate sentence element, you can ask a question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Процедурно сгенерированный (сгенерированный как?каким образом?)Generated in what way?How?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="432e273f-9b14-4b87-9104-682b25883597" CreationDate="2016-08-23T09:13:13.910" UserId="1671" Comment="youtube video was removed, setting a new youtube url for the same video" Text="It is an **occasionalism** based on the expression `всё будет в шоколаде`. To better understand what it means watch Михаил Гребенщиков - Булки: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1awcNq8L924 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically &quot;`тогда я в повидле`&quot; means &quot;`then I'm even better off`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;The expression is used mostly by younger generation. In the context of chocolate most Russian speakers would understand it correctly. Without chocolate context it would be much harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run it's not very hard to understand why cookies, marsh-mallow (`зефир` - род пастилы), sweets in **chocolate glaze** are better than without it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13050" RevisionGUID="c0f09393-e87e-4154-bbaa-83c72c309ae9" CreationDate="2016-08-23T09:37:40.183" UserId="6539" Text="As a matter of fact, nobody recognized an idiom **to be in a jam** (**попасть в переделку, в трудную ситуацию**) meaning *to get into a difficult situation*. It was a whitty translation of the word *jam* into Russian like повидло based on different meanings of the same word. The girl meant that since he started learning Russian it would be hard to hide anything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="d5245328-d630-465f-907a-ec782bb2bd10" CreationDate="2016-08-23T12:13:27.520" UserId="1836" Text="1. Is the above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly. I know lots of people who only use &quot;друг&quot; or &quot;подруга&quot; meaning friend (no romance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I also know some people that use &quot;мой парень/моя девушка&quot; for romance, but also use &quot;друг/подруга&quot; for romance if it is a free relationship, or if it's cheating, or to male it &quot;not obvious&quot; (Logic isn't available for everyone). These people usually don't believe in friendship between man and woman, and generally, they appear not to be smart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. So is there no way to talk about the relationship in the third person, i.e. no translation of &quot;So-and-so [of the opposite gender of the speaker] is my friend&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, you can say &quot;Аня — моя подруга&quot; or &quot;Вася — мой друг&quot;. Someone might ask you &quot;То есть вы встречаетесь?&quot; implying romance, to which you should reply &quot;нет, мы просто друзья&quot;. There are people who will still think that there is some romance between you, but it will be their problems, not yours. If one sees no possibility for friendship between people of different sex... Well, I think they should be seeing a shrink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How do people refer to romantic partners of the same gender in Russian? Or is non-heterosexuality sufficiently taboo in all Russian-speaking societies that people never acknowledge such relationships or develop words to refer to them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a taboo, but usually you wouldn't tell everyone that you are not straight. Though, if you are close enough (or don't care, or want to shock), then it will be &quot;мой парень&quot; or &quot;моя девушка&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more about discretion on this topic: elder people (50+) are usually less tolerant than young ones. Also there is more tolerance for women (with any gender-related deviations) than for men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How to translate, without ambiguity, in all possible cases, &quot;platonic friend&quot; and &quot;romantic partner&quot; into Russian? Как правильно описать все отношения по-русски?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any word can be ambiguous. Even if you say that Smith is your business partner, someone could still think that you are sleeping with him (or her) if Smith isn't of same gender as you are. But that's again their problems, not yours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13052" RevisionGUID="3db848cc-775f-46c0-9127-3f2ab1003324" CreationDate="2016-08-23T13:46:07.050" UserDisplayName="user7683" Text="Another difference between these words, not yet mentioned, is that &quot;ничего&quot; is used in everyday's language, while &quot;ничто&quot; is more &quot;literary&quot; or &quot;poetic&quot;, so to speak. Even when one says &quot;Из-за кризиса все облигации превратились в ничто&quot;, this phrase has a somewhat &quot;epic&quot; sound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13053" RevisionGUID="7b60aac6-9262-4a12-878c-2f56c25717d7" CreationDate="2016-08-23T17:45:39.087" UserId="7674" Text="1. the thing to memorize is that the role of nouns of these 2 particular verbs play simple nouns 'running' and 'talk', that is `бег` and `разговор`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. following the above explanation it can be said&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бег - дело трудное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бег - это трудно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but usage of an infinitive instead of a noun to express this idea is more normative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="1b05f2c7-5612-476d-b000-b214f10e87a6" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:08:11.527" UserId="6816" Text="Which conjugation of the verb is used in a sentence like, &quot;Neither I nor he will go to the party,&quot; where the subjects are different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="1b05f2c7-5612-476d-b000-b214f10e87a6" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:08:11.527" UserId="6816" Text="Conjugation with ни/либо phrases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="1b05f2c7-5612-476d-b000-b214f10e87a6" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:08:11.527" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13055" RevisionGUID="7cef16e3-79da-40ae-bf65-00a4da6b7e89" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:58:03.383" UserId="6539" Text="We use plural verb forms in such sentences for all tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ни он, ни я ничего не сделаем. Ни он, ни я ничего не сделали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Либо он,либо я купим подарок. Либо он,либо она не закрыли дверь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But whenever the verb comes after one of the subjects, the verb agrees with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ни он ничего не сделал, ни она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ни я ничего не сделала, ни он. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="43e8e14f-3448-418e-a0b9-267f0748ac66" CreationDate="2016-08-24T15:40:34.877" UserId="3892" Text="I interpreted **вот прям** to mean *right now*, but I came across this sentence, where this wouldn't really make sense: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебя **вот прям** уважаю, но...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="43e8e14f-3448-418e-a0b9-267f0748ac66" CreationDate="2016-08-24T15:40:34.877" UserId="3892" Text="meaning of вот прям" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="43e8e14f-3448-418e-a0b9-267f0748ac66" CreationDate="2016-08-24T15:40:34.877" UserId="3892" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13057" RevisionGUID="47eeb10d-2e8d-48d2-9838-6c4c164a9085" CreationDate="2016-08-24T15:49:20.900" UserId="1836" Text="вот прям has nothing to do with time. The closest translation will be &quot;really&quot;, though it may wary depending on context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вот прям щас – &quot;right now&quot;. Note that it's usually used with &quot;щас&quot; instead of &quot;сейчас&quot;, which is not a correct word, but imitation of how it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я тебя вот прям уважаю — I do really respect you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— показал охраннику паспорт моего друга и прошел — что, вот прям так и прошел?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— showed the guard my friend's document and walked in. – Really? Walked in, just like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13058" RevisionGUID="4d8740f7-4174-4021-a6c8-89da8eedfd51" CreationDate="2016-08-24T16:18:00.287" UserId="5008" Text="_Прям(о)_ is a parasite word colloquially used to emphasize something. It could correspond to any of _just_, _really_, _exactly_ or whichever you use for this task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A pair of examples,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я тебя прям зауважал --&gt; You really earned my respect  &#xD;&#xA;Я прям не знаю что сказать --&gt; I just don't know what to say  &#xD;&#xA;Это прям то что надо --&gt; That's exactly what I/you/we/etc. need&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Вот прям_&quot; is a widespread pleonasm, as both words mean the same. Sort of &quot;_just really_&quot;, I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13048" RevisionGUID="18585c20-6a38-43cc-a4cf-c13165de90f6" CreationDate="2016-08-25T02:44:49.503" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Не нужен. Это словосочетание из наречия и причастия.Розенталь:&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Различаются сложные прилагательные, образующие одно слово (со слитным или дефисным написанием, см. выше), и словосочетания, состоящие из наречия на -о (-е) и прилагательного или причастия (с раздельным написанием); к наречию, играющему роль отдельного члена предложения, можно поставить соответствующий вопрос. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ср.:&#xD;&#xA;морально-этические проблемы – морально устойчивый человек (в каком отношении устойчивый?);&#xD;&#xA;общественно-исторические законы – общественно опасные элементы (опасные для кого?)&#xD;&#xA;Розенталь Справочник по русскому языку.   гл1Х§43 п14.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Процедурно сгенерированный  (сгенерированный как?каким образом?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For everybody to understand. &#xD;&#xA;No, you shouldn't use a hyphen because it's a participle with an adverb. Rosental says we should distinguish between compound adjectives (hyphenated or not) and such phrases. When an adverb is a separate sentence element, you can ask a question &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Процедурно сгенерированный (сгенерированный как?каким образом?)Generated in what way?How?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="05cf34a8-7009-443d-8d0d-4de1183d5481" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:30:33.897" UserId="7239" Text="Моя книга упражнений использует часто слова &quot;слушать магнитофон&quot;. Насколько архаичный слово &quot;магнитофон&quot;? Что сегодня наиболее обычно? &quot;МР3-плеер&quot;? &quot;иПод&quot;? &quot;сотовый&quot;? (как слово и как технология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я не уверен, что точный перевод слова &quot;магнитофон&quot; - &quot;tape recorder&quot;, &quot;audio cassette&quot;, &quot;boombox&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Какая технология использоваться наиболее часто в русский-говорящих странах чтобы слушать музыку? (вероятно не ещё магнитофон)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="05cf34a8-7009-443d-8d0d-4de1183d5481" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:30:33.897" UserId="7239" Text="Насколько архаичный слово &quot;магнитофон&quot;? Что равное использоваться наиболее часто сегодня?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="05cf34a8-7009-443d-8d0d-4de1183d5481" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:30:33.897" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|лексикон|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13050" RevisionGUID="b4741109-2735-44de-871f-0f2d10a12edf" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:31:13.210" UserId="6539" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="As a matter of fact, nobody recognized an idiom **to be in a jam** (**попасть в переделку, в трудную ситуацию**) meaning *to get into a difficult situation*. It was a whitty translation of the word *jam* into Russian like повидло based on different meanings of the same word. The girl meant that since he started learning Russian it would be hard to hide anything. She had a good command of English and created a pun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13060" RevisionGUID="6877ce30-824b-4322-85a2-57950d58203b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:49:16.140" UserId="7537" Text="Магнитофон = tape recorder; соответственно, этот термин нисколько не архаичен если используется по назначению (т.е. для описания именно этого устройства).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Плеер&quot;, пожалуй, сейчас используется наиболее часто в общем смысле. Еще можно &quot;слушать запись&quot; (a recording), так даже еще лучше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13061" RevisionGUID="1bd92ea7-f4be-40b7-9b83-59dbc17a97d3" CreationDate="2016-08-25T07:10:25.090" UserId="7674" Text="1. `магнитофон` is as archaic as cassette player&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  same technologies are being used as in the West: mp3 players, smartphones, tablets, CD-players, cassette players by some, record players (especially by audiophiles who seek *warm sound of tubes*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="90c675b0-346b-4054-8122-e30705be9cb6" CreationDate="2016-08-25T09:29:38.513" UserId="551" Text="**Магнитофон** is actually a name of the device that plays audio records that are written to a magnetic tape. It could be a cassette player, or a reel-to-reel tape recorder. If you want to disambiguate between these two kinds, you can call them **кассетный магнитофон** or **катушечный (бобинный) магнитофон** respectively (I guess this term become popular because of WWII german [Magnetophon][1] device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Магнитофон is single-source device - it can play or record audio. Nowadays most devices can play audio from many sources - from CD's, mp3 sticks or SD cards, FM radio stations, etc. So, they are called differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Personal device is usually called **[плеер][2]** for generic devices or if brand is widely known, you can use brand name instead (e.g. айпод or iPod, волкман or Walkman, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stationary devices that one usually uses at home and rarely movable - are called **[музыкальный центр][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Portable devices that can be brought with you can be called **магнитола** (may be there are more popular names for them however). However for car audio systems it is mostly **автомагнитола**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last kind has sub-classes like CD-магнитола (си-ди магнитола), MP3-магнитола (эм-пэ-три магнитола) based on primary source of audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetophon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5%D1%80&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1680&amp;bih=941&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMgrain9zOAhWOuB4KHc1-DUcQ_AUIBygC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5%D1%80&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1680&amp;bih=941&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMgrain9zOAhWOuB4KHc1-DUcQ_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&amp;q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="724dd9ca-5fff-4a02-bddf-02dd6ca4883f" CreationDate="2016-08-25T09:43:57.243" UserId="5600" Comment="Fixed the grammar and basic style." Text="Мой задачник часто использует слова &quot;слушать магнитофон&quot;. Насколько архаично слово &quot;магнитофон&quot;? Что сегодня чаще употребляется? &quot;МР3-плеер&quot;? &quot;иПод&quot;? &quot;сотовый&quot;? (как слово и как технология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я не уверен в точном переводе слова &quot;магнитофон&quot; - &quot;tape recorder&quot;, &quot;audio cassette&quot;, &quot;boombox&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Какая технология используется наиболее часто в русскоговорящих странах чтобы слушать музыку? (вероятно уже не магнитофон)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30594" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="724dd9ca-5fff-4a02-bddf-02dd6ca4883f" CreationDate="2016-08-25T09:43:57.243" UserId="5600" Comment="Fixed the grammar and basic style." Text="Насколько архаично слово &quot;магнитофон&quot;? Что сегодня используется наиболее часто вместо него?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30595" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="724dd9ca-5fff-4a02-bddf-02dd6ca4883f" CreationDate="2016-08-25T09:43:57.243" Comment="Proposed by 5600 approved by 6539, 5008 edit id of 787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30596" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13040" RevisionGUID="4d5b5f31-6649-443a-9be1-562efd5b46b5" CreationDate="2016-08-25T13:01:12.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/768795363054587905" />
  <row Id="30597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="d5ca52f4-befd-476e-a35d-85c7f8835706" CreationDate="2016-08-25T16:01:18.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/768840685902565376" />
  <row Id="30598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="b6f17f7e-0c9f-4707-917f-98f14654798d" CreationDate="2016-08-25T20:10:12.053" UserId="7239" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;&quot;This is not fair!&quot; said the Russian after looking at a map when they realized that they were not at the state fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember precisely how the joke goes, but it goes something like the above. I was thinking that the reason why the joke works is that, in Russian, one can distinguish between nouns and predicative adjectives, even though no articles are used, because the two are declined differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это -- не честен!  &#xD;&#xA;Это -- не ярмарка!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, when one translates the above two sentences into English, one relies on the presence of an article to tip-off clearly whether the predicate is a noun or a (predicative) adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact that both nouns and adjectives are highly declined in Russian, and moreover declined differently from one another, enable Russian speakers to get by without articles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Looking at the comments and answers to this question, it appears more likely that Russian does not have articles because of the declension of _nouns_. Of course, technically speaking there is no evidence for &quot;why&quot; articles are or aren't in any given language -- the comments however do note an apparent correlation between the declension of nouns and the absence of articles, as well as between undeclined nouns and the presence of articles, in several branches of Indo-European languages. Still, we are talking about a sample size of at most n=4-7, so nothing definitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="8938f897-4fd1-4fa6-966f-dda8c8936fd9" CreationDate="2016-08-25T22:25:41.027" UserId="4753" Comment="Corrected &quot;out of context&quot; (без контекста) to &quot;from the context&quot; (из контекста)" Text="Russian relies on the context. From the context it is almost always clear whether we speak about a definite or indefinite concept. In some cases it's unclear and we just use additional words to describe that. Look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There is boy whose name is Max. Boy entered room. In room there were lot of toys. Boy took his most beloved toy and went to another room. In this room Max placed toy on red table. On table were already another toys. Then, boy played with them some time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that you can correctly place all the missing articles in the example above. So, from the Russian (and almost any Slavic language) point of view the concept of articles is redundant. They don't carry any additional information, which already comes out of context. And that is the reason why Russians have problems and one can make funny jokes about them. And I hope that I used all the articles correctly in my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with the declension or predicative adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30600" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="8938f897-4fd1-4fa6-966f-dda8c8936fd9" CreationDate="2016-08-25T22:25:41.027" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by -1 edit id of 789" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="4e8d8fcc-e1b4-433f-883f-8cf8df87151c" CreationDate="2016-08-25T22:25:41.027" UserId="97" Comment="Corrected &quot;out of context&quot; (без контекста) to &quot;from the context&quot; (из контекста)" Text="Russian relies on the context. From the context it is almost always clear whether we speak about a definite or indefinite concept. In some cases it's unclear and we just use additional words to describe that. Look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There is boy whose name is Max. Boy entered room. In room there were lot of toys. Boy took his most beloved toy and went to another room. In this room Max placed toy on red table. On table were already another toys. Then, boy played with them some time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that you can correctly place all the missing articles in the example above. So, from the Russian (and almost any Slavic language) point of view the concept of articles is redundant. They don't carry any additional information, which isn't already available from the context. And that is the reason why Russians have problems and one can make funny jokes about them. And I hope that I used all the articles correctly in my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with the declension or predicative adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13014" RevisionGUID="007afebb-8e7b-4511-aec6-cde48625e20f" CreationDate="2016-08-25T22:34:30.710" UserId="7239" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;&quot;This is not fair!&quot; said the Russian after looking at a map when they realized that they were not at the state fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't remember precisely how the joke goes, but it goes something like the above. I was thinking that the reason why the joke works is that, in Russian, one can distinguish between nouns and predicative adjectives, even though no articles are used, because the two are declined differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это -- не честнo!  &#xD;&#xA;Это -- не ярмарка!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, when one translates the above two sentences into English, one relies on the presence of an article to tip-off clearly whether the predicate is a noun or a (predicative) adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the fact that both nouns and adjectives are highly declined in Russian, and moreover declined differently from one another, enable Russian speakers to get by without articles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Looking at the comments and answers to this question, it appears more likely that Russian does not have articles because of the declension of _nouns_. Of course, technically speaking there is no evidence for &quot;why&quot; articles are or aren't in any given language -- the comments however do note an apparent correlation between the declension of nouns and the absence of articles, as well as between undeclined nouns and the presence of articles, in several branches of Indo-European languages. Still, we are talking about a sample size of at most n=4-7, so nothing definitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30603" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="7ee1cba1-4ffa-4dc2-ab19-2f27117e127b" CreationDate="2016-08-26T07:05:43.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/769068288588521472" />
  <row Id="30604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="d82f1138-44a0-4657-9c02-e33894cf1ed9" CreationDate="2016-08-26T11:37:43.123" UserId="4753" Comment="New, smaller edit with only clearly necessary changes" Text="In general, the Communist revolution in Russia brought some modernization to the language, many archaic words were dropped and replaced with more bureaucratic, educated or scientifically sounding ones. Later, when Russia returned to Capitalism, some of these changes were reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term for the deputy/vice office holder in pre-revolutionary Russian was &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot;, so deputy/vice minister would be &quot;товарищ министра&quot; &quot;comrade of the minister&quot;. But under Communist rule the word &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot; became a common address, so it was replaced with the word &quot;zamestitel&quot;, literally &quot;replacer&quot;. So now the deputy/vice minister is &quot;zamestitel ministra&quot; &quot;replacer of the minister&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The state legislature was called &quot;Государственная Дума&quot;, literally &quot;State Thought&quot;, a term from 15-16th century, a board of boyars. Under Communist rule the word was replaced with &quot;sovet&quot;, literally &quot;council&quot;. Now we again have &quot;State Thought&quot; instead &quot;State Council&quot; which sounds weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word for the head of a city was &quot;голова&quot;, literally &quot;head&quot;, but since it is native Russian word rather than borrowed from Church Slavonic &quot;глава&quot;, it sounds very uneducated/low class. The word глава is still used but means a generic &quot;head&quot; of any entity. The Communists replaced this uneducated-sounding word with something very complicated &quot;Predsedatel ispolnitelnogo komiteta gorodskogo soveta narodnykh deputatov&quot; which translates &quot;President/chairman of the executive committee of the city council of the people's deputies&quot;. Even with all contractions the title would be &quot;Prededatel ispolkoma gorsoveta&quot;. Now the heads of most cities called with a newly borrowed word &quot;Мэр&quot; &quot;Mayor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before the revolution there was an institution similar to courts marshall. They were called with the word &quot;pristav&quot;, literally &quot;near-stand&quot;. They watched for discipline during court proceedings, executed court decisions and even enforced discipline in the legislature. Under the USSR, the regular police enforced discipline in courts, while those executing court decisions were called &quot;sudebniy ispolnitel&quot;, literally &quot;court executioner&quot;. Now the word &quot;pristav&quot; has been returned, but sounds very archaic: I imagine a fat man with long 19th century style mustache when I hear it. It is the official term now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word &quot;uprava&quot; for the ruling body of police departments and far-right paramilitary parties such as &quot;Black Hundreds&quot; completely went out of use under USSR except in the idiom &quot;нет на него управы&quot; which meant &quot;there is no uprava to deal with him&quot;. So the word meant some aggressive or threatening thing that can take measures against violators. Under the USSR they extensively used the word &quot;upravlenie&quot; instead, often translated as &quot;directorate&quot;, in both state and economic contexts, which sounds much more educated and much less aggressive. Now the word &quot;uprava&quot; has been returned as a ruling body on low municipal level and as governing body of far-right parties such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some changes that existed in early years of the Communist rule but were later reversed still under Communists. For instance, the soldiers were renamed fighters, the officers to commanders, the ministers to people's commissars.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30605" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="d82f1138-44a0-4657-9c02-e33894cf1ed9" CreationDate="2016-08-26T11:37:43.123" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 6097, 5605 edit id of 791" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13060" RevisionGUID="347cdf0a-bc35-4009-aa42-0a28f5a01d35" CreationDate="2016-08-26T19:29:03.797" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Магнитофон = tape recorder; соответственно, этот термин нисколько не архаичен, если используется по назначению (т.е. для описания именно этого устройства).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Плеер&quot;, пожалуй, сейчас используется наиболее часто в общем смысле. Еще можно &quot;слушать запись&quot; (a recording), так даже еще лучше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="6c24f669-d8e6-44ea-8b97-9a0aa33781e0" CreationDate="2016-08-26T21:01:16.407" UserId="4753" Comment="I finally figured out that by &quot;court marshalls&quot; author meant &quot;court bailiffs&quot;, not &quot;courts marshall&quot; (military courts). Sorry about that." Text="In general, the Communist revolution in Russia brought some modernization to the language, many archaic words were dropped and replaced with more bureaucratic, educated or scientifically sounding ones. Later, when Russia returned to Capitalism, some of these changes were reversed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The term for the deputy/vice office holder in pre-revolutionary Russian was &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot;, so deputy/vice minister would be &quot;товарищ министра&quot; &quot;comrade of the minister&quot;. But under Communist rule the word &quot;товарищ&quot; &quot;comrade&quot; became a common address, so it was replaced with the word &quot;zamestitel&quot;, literally &quot;replacer&quot;. So now the deputy/vice minister is &quot;zamestitel ministra&quot; &quot;replacer of the minister&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The state legislature was called &quot;Государственная Дума&quot;, literally &quot;State Thought&quot;, a term from 15-16th century, a board of boyars. Under Communist rule the word was replaced with &quot;sovet&quot;, literally &quot;council&quot;. Now we again have &quot;State Thought&quot; instead &quot;State Council&quot; which sounds weird for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word for the head of a city was &quot;голова&quot;, literally &quot;head&quot;, but since it is native Russian word rather than borrowed from Church Slavonic &quot;глава&quot;, it sounds very uneducated/low class. The word глава is still used but means a generic &quot;head&quot; of any entity. The Communists replaced this uneducated-sounding word with something very complicated &quot;Predsedatel ispolnitelnogo komiteta gorodskogo soveta narodnykh deputatov&quot; which translates &quot;President/chairman of the executive committee of the city council of the people's deputies&quot;. Even with all contractions the title would be &quot;Prededatel ispolkoma gorsoveta&quot;. Now the heads of most cities called with a newly borrowed word &quot;Мэр&quot; &quot;Mayor&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before the revolution there was an institution similar to court bailiffs. They were called with the word &quot;pristav&quot;, literally &quot;near-stand&quot;. They enforced discipline during court proceedings, executed court decisions and even enforced discipline in the legislature. Under the USSR, the regular police enforced discipline in courts, while those executing court decisions were called &quot;sudebniy ispolnitel&quot;, literally &quot;court executioner&quot;. Now the word &quot;pristav&quot; has been returned, but sounds very archaic: I imagine a fat man with long 19th century style mustache when I hear it. It is the official term now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The word &quot;uprava&quot; for the ruling body of police departments and far-right paramilitary parties such as &quot;Black Hundreds&quot; completely went out of use under USSR except in the idiom &quot;нет на него управы&quot; which meant &quot;there is no uprava to deal with him&quot;. So the word meant some aggressive or threatening thing that can take measures against violators. Under the USSR they extensively used the word &quot;upravlenie&quot; instead, often translated as &quot;directorate&quot;, in both state and economic contexts, which sounds much more educated and much less aggressive. Now the word &quot;uprava&quot; has been returned as a ruling body on low municipal level and as governing body of far-right parties such as the Movement Against Illegal Immigration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some changes that existed in early years of the Communist rule but were later reversed still under Communists. For instance, the soldiers were renamed fighters, the officers to commanders, the ministers to people's commissars.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30608" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12994" RevisionGUID="6c24f669-d8e6-44ea-8b97-9a0aa33781e0" CreationDate="2016-08-26T21:01:16.407" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 5605, 6725 edit id of 792" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="0252e67f-60ab-4f92-94ba-5d237f2ba4f6" CreationDate="2016-08-27T22:18:58.357" UserId="7696" Text="What is the difference between «поиграть» and «сыграть»? They both are perfective forms of «играть» (*to play*, *to perform*). When should each one be used? Are they interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="0252e67f-60ab-4f92-94ba-5d237f2ba4f6" CreationDate="2016-08-27T22:18:58.357" UserId="7696" Text="Difference between поиграть and сыграть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="0252e67f-60ab-4f92-94ba-5d237f2ba4f6" CreationDate="2016-08-27T22:18:58.357" UserId="7696" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13064" RevisionGUID="c51341a8-883f-415b-b6c0-cdf42d77ba18" CreationDate="2016-08-28T07:36:19.233" UserId="5443" Text="**Поиграть** means 'to play a little (for some time, with something)' and if it's about some game (not just toys), then maybe to leave it unfinished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; До двух часов поиграем в футбол, потом пойдём купаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сыграть** means to play a complete game or to perform some element in a game, a g. to pass the ball or to make a chess move. Idiomatically, the word can be used in the meaning ' to take advantage of something'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сыграл на слабости своего начальника к выпивке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also idioms like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сыграть в ящик (to bite the dust, to die)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the words are usually not interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13064" RevisionGUID="4bae53a2-0787-4304-955e-b0ad174fa444" CreationDate="2016-08-28T07:43:06.300" UserId="5443" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="**Поиграть** means 'to play a little (for some time, with something)' and if it's about some game (not just toys), then maybe to leave it unfinished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; До двух часов поиграем в футбол, потом пойдём купаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сыграть** means to play a complete game or to perform some element in a game, a g. to pass the ball or to make a chess move. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера наша команда сыграла вничью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этой позиции Фишер сыграл Kg5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Idiomatically, the word can be used in the meaning ' to take advantage of something'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сыграл на слабости своего начальника к выпивке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also idioms like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сыграть в ящик (to bite the dust, to die)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the words are usually not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13064" RevisionGUID="1b4bba3e-ec72-45d0-be25-abca660ddc72" CreationDate="2016-08-28T07:58:21.507" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="**Поиграть** means 'to play a little (for some time, with something)' and if it's about some game (not just toys), then maybe to leave it unfinished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; До двух часов поиграем в футбол, потом пойдём купаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сыграть** means to play a complete game or to perform some element in a game, e g. to pass the ball or to make a chess move. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вчера наша команда сыграла вничью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этой позиции Фишер сыграл Kg5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Idiomatically, the word can be used in the meaning ' to take advantage of something'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сыграл на слабости своего начальника к выпивке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also idioms like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сыграть в ящик (to bite the dust, to die)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the words are usually not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="262c8f32-2a12-408e-8947-77d463f27263" CreationDate="2016-08-28T10:53:32.740" UserId="6539" Text="Сыграть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. take part to in a game, to finish playing the game.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть в шахматы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Transitive. to perfom a play, an opera.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть пьесу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Intransitive . to take part in some performance. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть в фильме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Transitive. To play a part(role) , &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть роль Городничего, &#xD;&#xA;Сыграть в великодушие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. To perform using a musical instrument &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть сонату на скрипке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. To use someone 's feelings in one 's own interests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть на инстинктах, на чувствах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поиграть to.spend some time playing &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поиграть в шахматы. Поиграть в крокет. Поиграть на скрипке. Поиграть с ребенком.&#xD;&#xA;Поиграть еще некоторое время на сцене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are lots of idioms, like *сыграть в ящик*, *поиграть на нервах*, *сыграть шутку или штуку*, сыграть на руку кому-нибудь*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="c4e64b8e-d233-480e-95e0-f50080583153" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:19:18.553" UserId="6539" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Сыграть.The general meaning is a result,completion of playing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. take part to in a game, to finish playing the game.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть в шахматы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Transitive. to perfom a play, an opera.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть пьесу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Intransitive . to take part in some performance. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть в фильме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Transitive. To play a part(role) , &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть роль Городничего, &#xD;&#xA;Сыграть в великодушие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. To perform using a musical instrument &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть сонату на скрипке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. To use someone 's feelings in one 's own interests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть на инстинктах, на чувствах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поиграть to.spend some time playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поиграть в шахматы. Поиграть в крокет. Поиграть на скрипке. Поиграть с ребенком.&#xD;&#xA;Поиграть еще некоторое время на сцене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are lots of idioms, like *сыграть в ящик*, *поиграть на нервах*, *сыграть шутку или штуку*, сыграть на руку кому-нибудь*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="a16df294-781e-4723-930c-cc94cd1579b3" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:37:05.567" UserId="7674" Text="yes, the difference is in completeness of action, or maybe rather intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы поиграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played some football, we could play the whole 90 mins, but not necessarily, or we could play longer than 90 mins, could also adjourn the rest of the game for later, the outcome of the game doesn't necessarily imply any end result &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы сыграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played from start to finish and must have had a winner&#xD;&#xA;such statement actually invites a question 'so who won?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он поиграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for some time he played guitar for me, he could take breaks then resume playing, played different pieces and not necessarily in full&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он cыграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he played guitar for a fixed amount of time with no breaks, which usually implies a complete performance of a musical piece or a set of consecutive pieces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider also `сделать` VS `поделать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я поделал уроки (highly colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i did some homework, doesn't mean i did all of it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я cделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i've done my homework, meaning i did all assignments i had had" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="4252bb0b-7eab-41b4-90bf-3ddde3483e44" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:44:43.190" UserId="7674" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="yes, the difference is in completeness of action, or maybe rather intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы поиграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played some football, we could play the whole 90 mins, but not necessarily, or we could play longer than 90 mins, could also adjourn the rest of the game for later, the outcome of the game doesn't necessarily imply any end result &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы сыграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played from start to finish and must have had a winner&#xD;&#xA;such statement actually invites a question 'so who won?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он поиграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for some time he played guitar for me, he could take breaks then resume playing, played different pieces and not necessarily in full&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он cыграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he played guitar for a fixed amount of time with no breaks, which usually implies a complete performance of a musical piece or a set of consecutive pieces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider also `сделать` VS `поделать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я поделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i did some homework, doesn't mean i did all of it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я cделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i've done my homework, meaning i did all assignments i had had&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;prefix `ПО-` has a meaning of incompleteness or rather INSUFFICIENCY of action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вскопать - покопать`  &#xD;&#xA;`спеть - попеть`  &#xD;&#xA;`прочитать - почитать`  &#xD;&#xA;`выпить - попить`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="50f00c1d-ceec-4171-b620-caad257f4c4b" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:50:42.130" UserId="7674" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="yes, the difference is in completeness of action, or maybe rather intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы поиграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played some football, we could play the whole 90 mins, but not necessarily, or we could play longer than 90 mins, could also adjourn the rest of the game for later, the outcome of the game doesn't necessarily imply any end result &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы сыграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played from start to finish and must have had a winner&#xD;&#xA;such statement actually invites a question 'so who won?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он поиграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for some time he played guitar for me, he could take breaks then resume playing, play different pieces and not necessarily in full&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он cыграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he played guitar for a fixed amount of time with no breaks, which usually implies a complete performance of a musical piece or a set of consecutive pieces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider also `сделать` VS `поделать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я поделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i did some homework, doesn't mean i did all of it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я cделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i've done my homework, meaning i did all assignments i had had&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one of prefix `ПО-` meanings is incompleteness or rather INSUFFICIENCY of action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вскопать - покопать`  &#xD;&#xA;`спеть - попеть`  &#xD;&#xA;`прочитать - почитать`  &#xD;&#xA;`выпить - попить`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30621" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="28194a88-23c7-4942-92b7-f2b00c159429" CreationDate="2016-08-28T13:13:36.753" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/769885646966185984" />
  <row Id="30622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13066" RevisionGUID="844ceefd-8a3a-404c-a279-b83ac3cf0add" CreationDate="2016-08-28T14:16:39.260" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="yes, the difference is in completeness of action, or maybe rather intensity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы поиграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played some football, we could play the whole 90 mins, but not necessarily, or we could play longer than 90 mins, could also adjourn the rest of the game for later, the outcome of the game doesn't necessarily imply any end result &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вчера мы сыграли в футбол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning we played from start to finish and must have had a winner&#xD;&#xA;such statement actually invites a question 'so who won?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он поиграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for some time he played guitar for me, he could take breaks then resume playing, play different pieces and not necessarily in full&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он cыграл мне на гитаре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he played guitar for a fixed amount of time with no breaks, which usually implies a complete performance of a musical piece or a set of consecutive pieces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;consider also `сделать` VS `поделать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я поделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i did some homework, doesn't mean i did all of it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я cделал уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i've done my homework, meaning i did all assignments i had had&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one of prefix `ПО-` meanings is incompleteness or rather INSUFFICIENCY of action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вскопать - повскапывать`  &#xD;&#xA;`выкопать - покопать`  &#xD;&#xA;`спеть - попеть`  &#xD;&#xA;`прочитать - почитать`  &#xD;&#xA;`выпить - попить`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13065" RevisionGUID="3c4e9c7e-e415-4d43-a11f-19b053571613" CreationDate="2016-08-28T18:09:19.127" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Сыграть.The general meaning is a result,completion of playing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.To take part in a game, to finish playing the game.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть в шахматы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Transitive. to perfom a play, an opera.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть пьесу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Intransitive . to take part in some performance. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть в фильме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Transitive. To play a part(role) , &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть роль Городничего, &#xD;&#xA;Сыграть в великодушие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. To perform using a musical instrument &#xD;&#xA;&gt;сыграть сонату на скрипке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. To use someone 's feelings in one 's own interests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сыграть на инстинктах, на чувствах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поиграть to.spend some time playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поиграть в шахматы. Поиграть в крокет. Поиграть на скрипке. Поиграть с ребенком.&#xD;&#xA;Поиграть еще некоторое время на сцене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are lots of idioms, like *сыграть в ящик*, *поиграть на нервах*, *сыграть шутку или штуку*, сыграть на руку кому-нибудь*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="3b1b55fb-bdb1-4d37-8007-8b5d436c5ad2" CreationDate="2016-08-28T22:09:14.837" UserId="6816" Text="I read that давай(те) is optional when using perfective imperatives. Is one option preferred over the other?&#xA;&#xA;Also, if it is used, is it used with the infinitive or the мы form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="3b1b55fb-bdb1-4d37-8007-8b5d436c5ad2" CreationDate="2016-08-28T22:09:14.837" UserId="6816" Text="Usage of давай(те) with perfective imperatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13067" RevisionGUID="3b1b55fb-bdb1-4d37-8007-8b5d436c5ad2" CreationDate="2016-08-28T22:09:14.837" UserId="6816" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="a9d49731-8b86-4c2b-83ea-3c46be2bc3f8" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:11:46.520" UserId="7239" Text="When someone asks a question along the lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;Чья это собака?&#xD;&#xA;Чьё это письмо?&#xD;&#xA;Чьи это очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the following two questions regarding the structure of these interrogative sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** What type of pronoun is чья/чей/чьё/чьи here? Is it a pronoun which replaces a noun, or a pronoun that replaces an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example - &quot;This is your car&quot; -- here &quot;your&quot; takes the place of an adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This car is yours&quot; -- here &quot;yours&quot; takes the place of noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in these questions, does чьё/чья/чей/чьи mean &quot;whose&quot; in the sense of &quot;Whose is this?&quot; (replacing a noun) or &quot;Whose car is this?&quot; (replacing an adjective)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** I have an essentially analogous question about the function of &quot;это&quot; in this type of question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these questions, does &quot;это&quot; mean &quot;this&quot; in the sense of &quot;Think about this&quot; (takes the place of a noun) or &quot;this&quot; in the sense of &quot;Think about this question&quot; (takes the place of an adjective)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My confusion is as follows: чей/чья/чьи/чьё declines with the noun in &quot;...&quot;, but this isn't enough to tell us whether it is taking the role of a noun or adjective, because both of these types of pronouns decline the same in Russian -- i.e. &quot;(Это) авто -- твоё.&quot; and &quot;Это -- твоё авто.&quot; are both valid sentences, and &quot;твоя&quot; is declined the same way in both, despite the fact that it serves a different function in both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in German, one would have &quot;Das Auto ist deines&quot; and &quot;Das ist dein Auto&quot;. In German one can tell from the declension of &quot;dein&quot; what function it is serving in each sentence, and from that infer what the function of &quot;das&quot; is (along with whether it is separated from the noun by the copular verb, which generally isn't used in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hint in Russian that allows one to differentiate between &quot;Это авто твоё&quot; and &quot;Это твоё авто&quot; (at least as far as I can tell) is the word order. But the rules for word order in questions are usually different from the rules for word order in regular sentences, so I really don't know what at all to make of &quot;Чьё это авто&quot;. Hence any help would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="a9d49731-8b86-4c2b-83ea-3c46be2bc3f8" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:11:46.520" UserId="7239" Text="Parts of speech in the question &quot;Чей это ...?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="a9d49731-8b86-4c2b-83ea-3c46be2bc3f8" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:11:46.520" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13069" RevisionGUID="2c6edc3c-8b3c-4d3c-892c-3ccd61a5cec3" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:39:10.090" UserId="6539" Text="Russian is much easier than English or German in this aspect. We don't distinguish between posessive pronouns and adjectives (they are both called pronouns in modern English grammar btw). Neither have we different forms for them like *my* and *mine*. It will be мой,моя,мое in all cases,you will never make a mistake. As for Russian into English  translating the rule is the same as in English. Just look whether you have a corresponding noun after the posessive in your sentence or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13070" RevisionGUID="e044aac4-39de-4ab8-8590-63781163a90e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T03:53:02.177" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is one option preferred over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't say this in general, as one is more of proposal, while other is a question. As a rule of thumb, a proposal is more natural if speaking to several people and/or expecting to face different opinions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;question&quot;-form isn't restricted to perfective verbs only. E.g. &quot;пойдём в кино&quot; vs. &quot;идём в кино&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;is it used with the infinitive or the мы form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infinitive denotes an order rather than a question. Normally you can use it only alongside with &quot;давай(те)&quot;: &quot;давайте погуляем&quot; (perf.) vs. &quot;давайте гулять&quot; (impf.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet you can alternatively use singular &quot;ты&quot; if it's obvious you are going to join too. Also some verbs allow using of past tense. E.g. &quot;пойдём в кино&quot; vs. &quot;пойдёшь в кино&quot; vs. &quot;пошли в кино&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="d02967aa-b438-4685-9df3-1908c3b6f7d6" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:30:26.123" UserId="7674" Text="not sure i fully understand the crux but i'll try to give an answer and hopefully it'll help to arrive at a conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the presented questions the interrogative pronouns point at a possessor of the object in question who (the possessor) is expressed with a possessive pronoun or a noun in Genitive case in the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A1 *(possessive pronoun)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это наш кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A2 *(noun in Genitive)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это кот соседа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there's an obsolete form, yet still understandable, where a possessive adjective is used instead of a noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседов кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a modern variant with a regular adjective would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседский кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although it's less specific than the former because it doesn't point at possessor's gender and number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that said, a female form of a possessive adjective is still very much in use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседкин кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT correspond the grammatical form of this interrogative pronoun must with the object and not with the possessor  &#xD;&#xA;it's essentially a possessive pronoun itself and these always correspond with the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Это` here is an indicative pronoun, which technically could be replaced by pronouns declined in accordance with the object of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чей это кот?` = `Чей этот кот?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чьи это очки?` = `Чьи эти очки?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though it sounds somewhat artificial and is rarely used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="005eac9b-e529-49f7-8bfe-df414da46ed1" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:49:40.450" UserId="7674" Comment="added 425 characters in body" Text="not sure i fully understand the crux but i'll try to give an answer and hopefully it'll help to arrive at a conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the presented questions the interrogative pronouns point at a possessor of the object in question who (the possessor) is expressed with a possessive pronoun or a noun in Genitive case in the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A1** *(possessive pronoun)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это наш кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A2** *(noun in Genitive)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это кот соседа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there's an obsolete form, yet still understandable, where a possessive adjective is used instead of a noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседов кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a modern variant with a regular adjective would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседский кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although it's less specific than the former because it doesn't point at possessor's gender and number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that said, a female form of a possessive adjective is still very much in use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседкин кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT correspond the grammatical form of this interrogative pronoun must with the object and not with the possessor  &#xD;&#xA;it's essentially a possessive pronoun itself and these always correspond with the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Это` here is an indicative pronoun, which technically could be replaced by pronouns declined in accordance with the object of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чей это кот?` = `Чей этот кот?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чьи это очки?` = `Чьи эти очки?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though it sounds somewhat artificial and is rarely used&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But the rules for word order in questions are usually different from the rules for word order in regular sentences, so I really don't know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what at all to make of &quot;Чьё это авто&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in order to arrive at a function of noun (by your terminology) for `это` in the answer, a question must be worded in a specific way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** `Этот кот, он чей?` **A.** `Этот кот - мой / Он - мой` but a regular answer `Это мой кот` is equally valid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in a reversed situation an answer `Он - мой` to a question `Чей это кот?` sounds awkward" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="df0e6e6e-a087-4b25-a977-cf333ede102e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:55:13.970" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="not sure i fully understand the crux but i'll try to give an answer and hopefully it'll help to arrive at a conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the presented questions the interrogative pronouns point at a possessor of the object in question who (the possessor) is expressed with a possessive pronoun or a noun in Genitive case in the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A1** *(possessive pronoun)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это наш кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A2** *(noun in Genitive)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это кот соседа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there's an obsolete form, yet still understandable, where a possessive adjective is used instead of a noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседов кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a modern variant with a regular adjective would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседский кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although it's less specific than the former because it doesn't point at possessor's gender and number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that said, a female form of a possessive adjective is still very much in use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседкин кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT correspond the grammatical form of this interrogative pronoun must with the object and not with the possessor  &#xD;&#xA;it's essentially a possessive pronoun itself and these always correspond with the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Это` here is an indicative pronoun, which technically could be replaced by pronouns declined in accordance with the object of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чей это кот?` = `Чей этот кот?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чьи это очки?` = `Чьи эти очки?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though it sounds somewhat artificial and is rarely used&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But the rules for word order in questions are usually different from the rules for word order in regular sentences, so I really don't know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what at all to make of &quot;Чьё это авто&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in order to arrive at a function of noun (by your terminology) for `это` in the answer, a question must be worded in a specific way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** `Этот кот, он чей?` **A.** `Этот кот - мой / Он - мой` but a regular answer `Это мой кот` is equally valid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however in a reversed situation an answer `Он - мой` to a question `Чей это кот?` sounds awkward" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="23a07256-81f5-46fb-84dc-738b8ffde69a" CreationDate="2016-08-29T09:47:11.057" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="not sure i fully understand the crux but i'll try to give an answer and hopefully it'll help to arrive at a conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the presented questions the interrogative pronouns point at a possessor of the object in question who (the possessor) is expressed with a possessive pronoun or a noun in Genitive case in the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A1** *(possessive pronoun)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это наш кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A2** *(noun in Genitive)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это кот соседа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there's an obsolete form, yet still understandable, where a possessive adjective is used instead of a noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседов кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a modern variant with a regular adjective would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседский кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although it's less specific than the former because it doesn't point at possessor's gender and number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that said, a female form of a possessive adjective is still very much in use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседкин кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT correspond the grammatical form of this interrogative pronoun must with the object and not with the possessor  &#xD;&#xA;it's essentially a possessive pronoun itself and these always correspond with the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Это` here is an demonstrative pronoun, which technically could be replaced by pronouns declined in accordance with the object of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чей это кот?` = `Чей этот кот?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чьи это очки?` = `Чьи эти очки?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though it sounds somewhat artificial and is rarely used&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But the rules for word order in questions are usually different from the rules for word order in regular sentences, so I really don't know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what at all to make of &quot;Чьё это авто&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in order to arrive at a function of noun (by your terminology) for `это` in the answer, a question must be worded in a specific way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** `Этот кот, он чей?` **A.** `Этот кот - наш / Он - наш` but a regular answer `Это наш кот` is equally valid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however in a reversed situation an answer `Он - наш` to a question `Чей это кот?` sounds awkward, because a purpose of such type of question isn't to find out whom out of several potential owners the cat belongs to, but just to find out in general who the owner is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13054" RevisionGUID="e11f4273-ba10-4aa5-8734-b6bfdf15fce9" CreationDate="2016-08-29T10:13:44.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/770202768837664768" />
  <row Id="30641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="574000b4-2e14-4e62-ba28-3fa6dc605933" CreationDate="2016-08-29T10:54:13.937" UserId="7674" Text="in imperatives for the first person plural (**we**), which are called motivational, it's always required regardless of the verb form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) (будем) дружить *(infinitive)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) забудем *(perfective)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in regular imperatives appendage of `давай(те)` adds a connotation of urgency, impatience and also disdain towards the addressee, it encourages concentration on a specific action without distractions and usually appears in combination with imperfective form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) пиши(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) думай(те)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="4ed53f46-8d39-45da-ba0f-d011ebd3efe6" CreationDate="2016-08-29T11:28:31.900" UserId="7674" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="in imperatives for the first person plural (**we**), which are called motivational, it's normally required regardless of the verb form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) (будем) дружить *(infinitive)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) забудем *(perfective)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a variant without `давай(те)` is more expressive, implying intolerance to refusal and therefore only used  when warranted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's worth noting that since in 'motivational imperatives' future form of verbs is employed, their imperfective mode consists of `(не) будем + infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;in regular imperatives appendage of `давай(те)` adds a connotation of urgency, impatience and also disdain towards the addressee, it encourages concentration on a specific action without distractions and usually appears in combination with imperfective form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) пиши(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) думай(те)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in combination with perfective verbs the word `давай(те)` receives particle `-ка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка напишите &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка сыграйте  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="81941e85-d8b3-4472-acff-21d320ef6526" CreationDate="2016-08-29T11:38:10.550" UserId="7674" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="in imperatives for the first person plural (**we**), which are called motivational, it's normally required regardless of the verb form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) (будем) дружить *(infinitive)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) забудем *(perfective)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a variant without `давай(те)` is more expressive, implying intolerance to refusal and therefore only used  when warranted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's worth noting that since in 'motivational imperatives' future form of verbs is employed, their imperfective mode consists of `(не) будем + infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;in regular imperatives appendage of `давай(те)` adds a connotation of urgency, impatience and also disdain towards the addressee, it encourages concentration on a specific action without distractions and usually appears in combination with imperfective form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) пиши(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) думай(те)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in combination with perfective verbs the word `давай(те)` receives particle `-ка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка напишите &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка сыграйте  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the `-ка` particle is applicable to `давай(те)` in motivational imperatives as well, where it imparts a connotation of reservedness and shyness in expressing the invitation to act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="be713115-1d67-4297-82e4-3b0f1cd0c927" CreationDate="2016-08-29T12:38:06.590" UserId="7674" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="in imperatives for the first person plural (**we**), which are called motivational, it's normally required regardless of the verb form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) дружить *(imperfective infinitive)* = Давай(те) будем дружить *(future imperfective)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) забудем *(future perfective)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a variant without `давай(те)` is more expressive, implying intolerance to refusal and therefore only used when warranted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's worth noting that since in 'motivational imperatives' future form of verbs is employed, their imperfective mode consists of `[(не) будем +] infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;in regular imperatives appendage of `давай(те)` adds a connotation of urgency, impatience and also disdain towards the addressee, it encourages concentration on a specific action without distractions and usually appears in combination with imperfective form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) пиши(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) думай(те)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in combination with perfective verbs the word `давай(те)` receives particle `-ка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка напишите &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка сыграйте  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the `-ка` particle is applicable to `давай(те)` in motivational imperatives as well, where it imparts a connotation of reservedness and shyness in expressing the invitation to act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="25132fcb-5e59-47c4-b0b9-5e8f6e8baf74" CreationDate="2016-08-29T12:46:12.097" UserId="7674" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="in imperatives for the first person plural (**we**), which are called motivational, it's normally required regardless of the verb form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) дружить *(imperfective infinitive)* = Давай(те) будем дружить *(future imperfective)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) забудем *(future perfective)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's worth noting that since in 'motivational imperatives' future form of verbs is employed, their imperfective mode consists of `[(не) будем +] infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a variant without `давай(те)` is more expressive, implying intolerance to refusal and therefore only used when warranted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будем дружить!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забудем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in this case `будем` for imperfective form is obviously obligatory since otherwise we end up with imperfective infinitive instead of imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;in regular imperatives appendage of `давай(те)` adds a connotation of urgency, impatience and also disdain towards the addressee, it encourages concentration on a specific action without distractions and usually appears in combination with imperfective form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) пиши(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) думай(те)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in combination with perfective verbs the word `давай(те)` receives particle `-ка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка напишите &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте-ка сыграйте  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the `-ка` particle is applicable to `давай(те)` in motivational imperatives as well, where it imparts a connotation of reservedness and shyness in expressing the invitation to act" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="3e3be3af-074d-4caa-a4c7-a04cba08caa2" CreationDate="2016-08-29T15:49:40.710" UserId="7239" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="When someone asks a question along the lines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;Чья это собака?&#xD;&#xA;Чьё это письмо?&#xD;&#xA;Чьи это очки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the following two questions regarding the structure of these interrogative sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** What type of pronoun is чья/чей/чьё/чьи here? Is it a pronoun which replaces a noun, or a pronoun that replaces an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example - &quot;This is your car&quot; -- here &quot;your&quot; takes the place of an adjective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This car is yours&quot; -- here &quot;yours&quot; takes the place of noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in these questions, does чьё/чья/чей/чьи mean &quot;whose&quot; in the sense of &quot;Whose is this?&quot; (replacing a noun) or &quot;Whose car is this?&quot; (replacing an adjective)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** I have an essentially analogous question about the function of &quot;это&quot; in this type of question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these questions, does &quot;это&quot; mean &quot;this&quot; in the sense of &quot;Think about this&quot; (takes the place of a noun) or &quot;this&quot; in the sense of &quot;Think about this question&quot; (takes the place of an adjective)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My confusion is as follows: чей/чья/чьи/чьё declines with the noun in &quot;...&quot;, but this isn't enough to tell us whether it is taking the role of a noun or adjective, because both of these types of pronouns decline the same in Russian -- i.e. &quot;(Это) авто -- твоё.&quot; and &quot;Это -- твоё авто.&quot; are both valid sentences, and &quot;твоя&quot; is declined the same way in both, despite the fact that it serves a different function in both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in German, one would have &quot;Das Auto ist deins&quot; and &quot;Das ist dein Auto&quot;. In German one can tell from the declension of &quot;dein&quot; what function it is serving in each sentence, and from that infer what the function of &quot;das&quot; is (along with whether it is separated from the noun by the copular verb, which generally isn't used in Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only hint in Russian that allows one to differentiate between &quot;Это авто твоё&quot; and &quot;Это твоё авто&quot; (at least as far as I can tell) is the word order. But the rules for word order in questions are usually different from the rules for word order in regular sentences, so I really don't know what at all to make of &quot;Чьё это авто&quot;. Hence any help would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13072" RevisionGUID="0307704a-b13f-44ec-8db8-6b4aa20110b6" CreationDate="2016-08-29T21:04:03.507" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="not sure i fully understand the crux but i'll try to give an answer and hopefully it'll help to arrive at a conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. in the presented questions the interrogative pronouns point at a possessor of the object in question who (the possessor) is expressed with a possessive pronoun or a noun in Genitive case in the answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чей это кот?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A1** *(possessive pronoun)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это наш кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A2** *(noun in Genitive)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это кот соседа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there's an obsolete form, yet still understandable, where a possessive adjective is used instead of a noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседов кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a modern variant with a regular adjective would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседский кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although it's less specific than the former because it doesn't point at possessor's gender and number&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that said, a female form of a possessive adjective is still very much in use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это соседкин кот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT correspond the grammatical form of this interrogative pronoun must with the object and not with the possessor  &#xD;&#xA;it's essentially a possessive pronoun itself and these always correspond with the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Это` here is an demonstrative pronoun, which technically could be replaced by pronouns declined in accordance with the object of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чей это кот?` = `Чей этот кот?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Чьи это очки?` = `Чьи эти очки?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though it sounds somewhat artificial and is rarely used&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *But the rules for word order in questions are usually different from the rules for word order in regular sentences, so I really don't know&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what at all to make of &quot;Чьё это авто&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in order to arrive at a function of noun (by your terminology) for `это` in the answer, a question must be worded in a specific way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q.** `Этот кот, (он) чей?` **A.** `Этот кот - наш / Он - наш` but a regular answer `Это наш кот` is equally valid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however in a reversed situation an answer `Он - наш` to a question `Чей это кот?` sounds awkward, because a purpose of such type of question isn't to find out whom out of several potential owners the cat belongs to, but just to find out in general who the owner is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13069" RevisionGUID="92b4a891-b39e-4e3b-8f7a-92ff2c4707e0" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:16:01.260" UserId="6539" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="Russian is much easier than English or German in this aspect. We don't distinguish between posessive pronouns and adjectives (they are both called pronouns in modern English grammar btw). Neither have we different forms for them like *my* and *mine*. It will be мой,моя,мое in all cases,you will never make a mistake. As for Russian into English  translating the rule is the same as in English. Just look whether you have a corresponding noun after the posessive in your sentence or not.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это моя книга.--This is my book. Чья это книга?-- Моя.Whose book is this?--It's. mine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="09ad7096-3902-4e18-ae29-bf911f007b2d" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:45:58.293" UserId="7239" Text="As far as I understand, &quot;ч&quot; is always soft. The letter &quot;ь&quot; usually denotes that the preceding letter is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two facts together seem to imply that the combination &quot;чь&quot; (just like &quot;щь&quot;) would/should always be redundant, and thus never used or replaced by &quot;ч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one sees this letter combination in the pronouns &quot;чьё/чья/чьи&quot; -- I have not seen it anywhere else in the Russian language although I do not presume to have a wide vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the reason why this letter combination exists in these three words historical? Or does it actually affect the pronunciation of the words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Say compared to &quot;чё/ча/чи&quot; -- of course because of the spelling rule &quot;чя&quot; is illegal but such a combination would be redundant anyway since the vowel following &quot;ч&quot; is always soft.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sort of related: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1030/%D1%87%D1%91-or-%D1%87%D0%BE-which-is-the-correct-spelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="09ad7096-3902-4e18-ae29-bf911f007b2d" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:45:58.293" UserId="7239" Text="Question about spelling &quot;чьё/чья/чьи&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="09ad7096-3902-4e18-ae29-bf911f007b2d" CreationDate="2016-08-30T02:45:58.293" UserId="7239" Text="|этимология|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="54f3d71b-837b-448c-aaf8-f9df49df62db" CreationDate="2016-08-30T03:13:13.540" UserId="6539" Text="You are right that ч is soft. But we use &quot;ь&quot; in чья,чьи,чьё (pronounced differently from чё) to mark the sound [j] like in &quot;й&quot;, so it's not redundant (чё--чьё).Examples : мужичьё,дурачьё,ничья, but чёлка,плечо,влечёт. Чё is spelled both ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13077" RevisionGUID="6a075222-e20a-4367-81f7-395d85042264" CreationDate="2016-08-30T03:15:53.727" UserId="4560" Text="Not redundant, does affect. The soft mark is the reason **чьи** is pronounced `[tɕji]` and not `[tɕi]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, `ь` between a consonant and a vowel is pronounced `[j]` — an actual separate iotic consonant, as opposed to just the preceding one getting palatalised: **пьяный** `['pʲja-]` vs. **пятна** `['pʲa-]`. The principle works with the ь-unaffected sibilants too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the soft mark *supposedly* isn't itself &quot;pronounced&quot; but rather &quot;resets&quot; the so-called modifier letters (`е/ё`, `ю`, `я`), causing them to iotate instead of palatalise, but with a word like **чьи** (or, say, **бульон**), the `[j]` can only really be regarded as the pronunciation of `ь` itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course it's a little more complicated from a historical viewpoint: in obsolete and dialectal pronunciations, `и` can also be a &quot;modifier letter&quot; with a `[ji]` pronunciation in the same positions as where `я` would be `[ja]`, etc., while `ьо` being pronounced `[jo]` is more recent and more random.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13078" RevisionGUID="a7c3b03d-f965-47b4-97c7-cf1010a6866e" CreationDate="2016-08-30T05:05:18.660" UserId="5008" Text="It has nothing to do with letter &quot;**ч**&quot;. &quot;**ьё**&quot; always produces &quot;**йо**&quot;, &quot;**ья**&quot; - &quot;**йа**&quot; and &quot;**ьи**&quot; - &quot;**йи**&quot;. For example, &quot;лукоморье&quot; -&gt; &quot;лукамор'йэ&quot;, &quot;ульи&quot; -&gt; &quot;ул'йи&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For &quot;**ьё**&quot; or &quot;**ья**&quot; one may explain it as &quot;opening a syllable&quot;, so it's pronounced as if there were two separate words, e.g. &quot;спросонья&quot; -&gt; &quot;спросонь + я&quot;. But for &quot;**ьи**&quot; it doesn't work that way and the reason why &quot;**ьи**&quot; is always pronounced as &quot;**йи**&quot; now is purely historical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13079" RevisionGUID="06bcf5ed-61ff-458d-9189-6113f73798d7" CreationDate="2016-08-30T05:45:51.290" UserId="194" Text="These vowels are iotized after ь but not after consonants. So the soft sign serves to indicate iotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чья = [ч'й'а]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; чьё = [ч'й'о]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чё = [ч'о]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13073" RevisionGUID="7b5f34be-426c-42cd-a7a9-e2e86ed17279" CreationDate="2016-08-30T06:50:42.117" UserId="7674" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="in imperatives for the first person plural (**we**), which are called motivational, it's normally required regardless of the verb form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) дружить *(imperfective infinitive)* = Давай(те) будем дружить *(future imperfective)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) забудем *(future perfective)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's worth noting that since in 'motivational imperatives' future form of verbs is employed, their imperfective mode consists of `[(не) будем +] impf infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a variant without `давай(те)` is more expressive, implying intolerance to refusal and therefore only used when warranted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будем дружить!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забудем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in this case `будем` for imperfective form is obviously obligatory since otherwise we end up with imperfective infinitive instead of imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;in regular imperatives appendage of `давай(те)` adds a connotation of urgency, impatience and also disdain towards the addressee, it encourages concentration on a specific action without distractions and usually appears in combination with imperfective form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) пиши(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те) думай(те)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in combination with perfective verbs the word `давай(те)` receives particle `-ка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те)-ка напиши(те) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай(те)-ка сыграй(те)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's not a hard and fast rule, it's just that without the particle the phrase sounds kind of rude and inconsiderate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the `-ка` particle is applicable to `давай(те)` in motivational imperatives as well, where it imparts a connotation of reservedness and shyness in expressing the invitation to act&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="16beb19e-597d-408e-986e-3f0d69870119" CreationDate="2016-08-30T09:24:56.437" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You are right that ч is soft. But we use &quot;ь&quot; in чья,чьи,чьё (pronounced differently from чё) to mark the sound [j] like in &quot;й&quot;, so it's not redundant (чё--чьё).Examples : мужичьё,дурачьё,ничья, but чёлка,плечо,влечёт. Чё is spelt both ways(чо,чё)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13076" RevisionGUID="10c65976-28f3-4f11-81fc-90f5215df556" CreationDate="2016-08-30T09:46:43.503" UserId="6539" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="We use &quot;ь&quot; in чья,чьи,чьё (pronounced differently from чё) to mark the sound [j] like in &quot;й&quot;, so it's not redundant (чё--чьё).Examples : мужичьё,дурачьё,ничья, but чёлка,плечо,влечёт. Чё is spelt both ways(чо,чё)&#xD;&#xA;By the way,we also use ь with other consonants for the same reason пьяный--пятница." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30666" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="6f97315a-0984-43ce-ae2b-3783858300e8" CreationDate="2016-08-30T22:15:26.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/770746776743714816" />
  <row Id="30667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13059" RevisionGUID="aeb375b9-7f6d-4de3-a819-33ed59004851" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:03:06.837" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|лексикон|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13062" RevisionGUID="98c72fc3-1562-4623-9880-0af09116fc0b" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:21:22.817" UserId="551" Comment="added 812 characters in body" Text="**Магнитофон** is actually a name of the device that plays audio records that are written to a magnetic tape. It could be a cassette player, or a reel-to-reel tape recorder. If you want to disambiguate between these two kinds, you can call them **кассетный магнитофон** or **катушечный (бобинный) магнитофон** respectively (I guess this term become popular because of WWII german [Magnetophon][1] device).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Магнитофон is single-source device - it can play or record audio. Nowadays most devices can play audio from many sources - from CD's, mp3 sticks or SD cards, FM radio stations, etc. So, they are called differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Personal device is usually called **[плеер][2]** for generic devices or if brand is widely known, you can use brand name instead (e.g. айпод or iPod, волкман or Walkman, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stationary devices that one usually uses at home and rarely movable - are called **[музыкальный центр][3]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Portable devices that can be brought with you can be called **магнитола** (may be there are more popular names for them however). However for car audio systems it is mostly **автомагнитола**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last kind has sub-classes like CD-магнитола (си-ди магнитола), MP3-магнитола (эм-пэ-три магнитола) based on primary source of audio data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **сотовый** - it's a cellphone, not an audio playing device (at least it is not its main function). Of course, most cellphones can play audio nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bottom line, 50 years ago there were only 3 sources of music - radio, turn tables and tape recorders and one could emphasize that they listened to recorded music vs. radio. 30 years ago personal players emerged and one could emphasize that they listened the music using personal player vs some big audio device vs radio. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays there are so many sources of music that the distinction is between &quot;Слушал радио&quot;, &quot;Слушал альбом Нирваны&quot;, &quot;Слушал сборник хитов&quot;, etc. - in other words &quot;I could not influence the song selection&quot; vs. &quot;I selected the music myself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, магнитофон is not archaic, it become more specialized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetophon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5%D1%80&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1680&amp;bih=941&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMgrain9zOAhWOuB4KHc1-DUcQ_AUIBygC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5%D1%80&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1680&amp;bih=941&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjMgrain9zOAhWOuB4KHc1-DUcQ_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&amp;q=%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13080" RevisionGUID="24e14964-3df7-43c7-83da-46f7752aeaf7" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:43:03.473" UserId="4432" Text="In a magazine on an advertising page asking readers to subscribe the word *подписываться* was used. In a beginners' Russian textbook I saw the word *выписать* for the same thing. Are both correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13080" RevisionGUID="24e14964-3df7-43c7-83da-46f7752aeaf7" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:43:03.473" UserId="4432" Text="Verb подписываться vs выписать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13080" RevisionGUID="24e14964-3df7-43c7-83da-46f7752aeaf7" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:43:03.473" UserId="4432" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="1307e791-3fc8-45db-bdf9-5553433b2986" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:52:42.393" UserId="4560" Text="**Выписать** strictly refers to printed periodicals delivered by regular mail, and, as such, is a little outdated now. Also, as far as I remember from my childhood when it was in use, **выписывать газету/журнал** referred to *being* a subscriber (i.e. regularly receiving the publication), whereas the action of subscribing (as in filling in the form and paying at the post office) was **подписаться**, which transitioned quite naturally into online usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13081" RevisionGUID="dbabfb20-dbbd-42df-b269-30159e554e7d" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:57:59.033" UserId="4560" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="**Выписать** strictly refers to printed periodicals delivered by regular mail, and, as such, is a little outdated now. Also, as far as I remember from my childhood when it was much more common to subscribe to things by mail, **выписывать газету/журнал** referred to *being* a subscriber (i.e. regularly receiving the publication), whereas the *action* of subscribing (as in filling in the form and paying at the post office) was **подписаться**, which transitioned quite naturally into online usage. **Выписывать**, on the other hand, didn't make it to electronic mailing lists; you say **я подписан на эту рассылку**, never *я выписываю эту рассылку*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="0cd43cf0-b517-4299-9337-abf3e11732c5" CreationDate="2016-08-31T09:58:57.180" UserId="7674" Text="Yes they are, the contexts they are used in differ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a subscription campaign going on the most likely verb would be `подписываться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a private personal affair both are applicable, while `подписываться` is more formal and doesn't go with every word denoting a periodical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is stylistically preferable over &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`издание` is a broad generic term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they're interchangeable however with words denoting specific types of periodicals like `газета`, `журнал`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="1f2c5fdc-554e-4ea0-bbee-3588701f536f" CreationDate="2016-08-31T10:09:14.367" UserId="7674" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="Yes they are, the contexts they are used in differ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a subscription campaign going on the most likely verb would be `подписываться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a private personal affair both are applicable, while `подписываться` is more formal and doesn't go with every word denoting a periodical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is stylistically preferable over &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`издание` is a broad generic term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they're interchangeable however with words denoting specific types of periodicals like `газета`, `журнал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;echoing Nikolay Ershov's response, in present tense their meaning isn't entirely identical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписываюсь на журнал = *(Right now) I'm setting up my subscription for a magazine*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписываю журнал = ***1**. (Right now) I'm setting up my subscription for a magazine               **2**. I'm being a regular subscriber of a magazine*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="4fef1095-b31c-4aec-ada4-c0957ddb73a5" CreationDate="2016-08-31T10:15:46.740" UserId="7674" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="Yes they are, the contexts they are used in differ and their form affects the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`выписывать` means both `to set up a subscription` and `be a regular subscriber`  &#xD;&#xA;`выписать` only means `to set up a subscription` as does `подписаться/подписываться` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a subscription campaign going on the most likely verb would be `подписаться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a private personal affair both are applicable, while `подписываться` is more formal and doesn't go with every word denoting a periodical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is stylistically preferable over &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`издание` is a broad generic term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they're interchangeable however with words denoting specific types of periodicals like `газета`, `журнал`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="31d8bea0-036f-46fe-b758-e2d55f696dc1" CreationDate="2016-08-31T10:21:08.193" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Yes they are, the contexts they are used in differ and their form affects the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`выписывать` means both `to set up a subscription` and `be a regular subscriber`  &#xD;&#xA;`выписать` only means `to set up a subscription` as does `подписаться/подписываться` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a subscription campaign going on the most likely verb would be `подписаться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a private personal affair both are applicable, while `подписаться` is more formal and doesn't go with every word denoting a periodical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is stylistically preferable over &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`издание` is a broad generic term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they're interchangeable however with words denoting specific types of periodicals like `газета`, `журнал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я подписался на новую газету` = `Я выписал новую газету`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я подписывался на новую газету` not always = `Я выписывал новую газету` as it depends on the meaning of `выписывал` as either `was setting up my subscription` OR `was a subscriber`, which is clear from the context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="cf144cc6-b624-4af2-ae3c-0a4c4f699fc6" CreationDate="2016-08-31T10:26:24.987" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Yes they are, the contexts they are used in differ and their form affects the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`выписывать` means both `to set up a subscription` and `be a regular subscriber`  &#xD;&#xA;`выписать` only means `to set up a subscription` as does `подписаться/подписываться` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a subscription campaign going on the most likely verb would be `подписаться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a private personal affair both are applicable, while `подписаться` is more formal and doesn't go with every word denoting a periodical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is stylistically preferable over &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`издание` is a broad generic term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they're interchangeable however with words denoting specific types of periodicals like `газета`, `журнал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я подписался на новую газету` = `Я выписал новую газету`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я подписывался на новую газету` not always = `Я выписывал новую газету` as it depends on the meaning of `выписывал` as either `was setting up my subscription` OR `was a subscriber`, which transpires from the context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="bc0bad88-4f0d-4745-be31-92aec8a464b0" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:38:29.117" UserId="4560" Text="Russian and other East Slavic languages are peculiar, by Slavic standards, in having a fixed post-verbal reflexive particle rather than a free one (or rather, one that tends to follow Wackernagel's law and come second in a clause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was already frozen in place by the time of the *Song of Igor's Campaign*, yet there are exceptions, such as this passage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ту **ся** копиемъ приламати, ту **ся** саблямъ потручяти о шеломы половецкыя, на рѣцѣ на Каялѣ, у Дону Великаго.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when did the change occur, and could it have been a regional phenomenon that went on to spread?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's notable here is that, while unusual by Slavic standards, the affixed reflexive is consistently observed in North Germanic languages (Old Norse `-sk` yielding modern `-s`), while Polish `się` shows *some* degree of affixed rather than Wackernagelian behaviour, and Polish is a &quot;northern&quot; language in purely geographical terms. Any possibility of a spread by contact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="bc0bad88-4f0d-4745-be31-92aec8a464b0" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:38:29.117" UserId="4560" Text="When (and, if applicable, where) did ся cease to be a free clitic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="bc0bad88-4f0d-4745-be31-92aec8a464b0" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:38:29.117" UserId="4560" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13084" RevisionGUID="e1bd7984-5f7e-4ba1-8008-31eaf58c402e" CreationDate="2016-08-31T11:39:05.680" UserId="7716" Text="The [j] element in чья, чьё, чьи also makes sense from a structural standpoint - it's the same [j] that's at the end of чей. The -е- in чей/чья etc. can be present or absent because of a historical sound change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13085" RevisionGUID="0af17f52-9874-4b29-9035-a235901f6e42" CreationDate="2016-08-31T12:18:04.503" UserId="7716" Text="Fasmer's dictionary gives шьлъ as an old form of шёл; this makes sense given х &gt; ш (the first palatalization of velars) and the loss of д before л. The strong ь in шьлъ then becomes е, which (according to Vlasto) around the 12 century becomes o to result in шёл (for comparison he gives льнъ &gt; лён, осьлъ &gt; осёл)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13086" RevisionGUID="ed3ddb35-290d-4441-80ca-19acfd5125d9" CreationDate="2016-08-31T12:24:13.120" UserId="7716" Text="Mahota's book on motion verbs highlights the nuance mentioned by VCH250 of 'dropping off' - taking someone someplace, but the person who's leading the other doesn't remain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отвезли меня в аэропорт. They took me to the airport. (I was flying, but they weren't)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13051" RevisionGUID="0895bfed-9654-4f84-99c6-3530cb13dd3d" CreationDate="2016-08-31T12:43:57.180" UserId="1836" Comment="edited body" Text="1. Is the above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not exactly. I know lots of people who only use &quot;друг&quot; or &quot;подруга&quot; meaning friend (no romance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I also know some people that use &quot;мой парень/моя девушка&quot; for romance, but also use &quot;друг/подруга&quot; for romance if it is a free relationship, or if it's cheating, or to make it &quot;not obvious&quot; (Logic isn't available for everyone). These people usually don't believe in friendship between man and woman, and generally, they appear not to be smart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. So is there no way to talk about the relationship in the third person, i.e. no translation of &quot;So-and-so [of the opposite gender of the speaker] is my friend&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, you can say &quot;Аня — моя подруга&quot; or &quot;Вася — мой друг&quot;. Someone might ask you &quot;То есть вы встречаетесь?&quot; implying romance, to which you should reply &quot;нет, мы просто друзья&quot;. There are people who will still think that there is some romance between you, but it will be their problems, not yours. If one sees no possibility for friendship between people of different sex... Well, I think they should be seeing a shrink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How do people refer to romantic partners of the same gender in Russian? Or is non-heterosexuality sufficiently taboo in all Russian-speaking societies that people never acknowledge such relationships or develop words to refer to them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a taboo, but usually you wouldn't tell everyone that you are not straight. Though, if you are close enough (or don't care, or want to shock), then it will be &quot;мой парень&quot; or &quot;моя девушка&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit more about discretion on this topic: elder people (50+) are usually less tolerant than young ones. Also there is more tolerance for women (with any gender-related deviations) than for men.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How to translate, without ambiguity, in all possible cases, &quot;platonic friend&quot; and &quot;romantic partner&quot; into Russian? Как правильно описать все отношения по-русски?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any word can be ambiguous. Even if you say that Smith is your business partner, someone could still think that you are sleeping with him (or her) if Smith isn't of same gender as you are. But that's again their problems, not yours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13087" RevisionGUID="34848b3c-9a35-4176-a6a5-86c947081e89" CreationDate="2016-08-31T12:54:52.810" UserId="7717" Text="Do we really see difference between?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No! It's the same. Depends on region etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To subscribe - Подписаться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;not: `подписываться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You never will use `подписываться` despite you can use it. And very rare you will use `выписать` in internet. `выписать` is quite usefull for paper magazine etc. `Я хочу выписать(подписаться на) эту газету. Я выписывал(подписывался на) журнал &quot;Мурзилка&quot;. Пётр, выпиши(подпишись для меня на) мне(delete this word) газету &quot;Правда&quot;!` . For abstract words and internet we use 'подписаться'. `Я подписался на russian.stackexchange.com(internet). Я подпишусь на это издание(not concrete one).`.&#xD;&#xA;And &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Subscription = подписка! NOT `выписка`!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So. Use `подписаться` as more universal word. No mistake.&#xD;&#xA;`подписываться` - is little different actually.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I didn't want to sign under this document- Я не хотел ПОДПИСЫВАТЬСЯ под этим документом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope my english is not so worse and you can understand at least half." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13088" RevisionGUID="4d692fa1-7c38-4565-aad8-583fc4a8cf1d" CreationDate="2016-08-31T13:04:18.837" UserId="7717" Text="Guess `плеер` will be the best.&#xD;&#xA;We just use english words even if there is no such word in russian&#xD;&#xA;`айфон` - iphone&#xD;&#xA;`радио` - radio&#xD;&#xA;`сиди, компакт, компакт диск` - CD (compact disk) just pronounce english word&#xD;&#xA;`мп 3` - mp3&#xD;&#xA;`дивиди` - DVD&#xD;&#xA;`проигрыватель, плеер` - player. First you can see in supermarkets, second you use in real life. And you can add `мп 3 плеер`.&#xD;&#xA;p.s. `кассетник = магнитофон`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13082" RevisionGUID="955cf807-a319-4f14-bdde-4e0068170096" CreationDate="2016-08-31T15:32:31.867" UserId="7674" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Yes they are, the contexts they are used in differ and their form affects the meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`выписывать` means both `to set up a subscription` and `be a regular subscriber`  &#xD;&#xA;`выписать` only means `to set up a subscription` as does `подписаться/подписываться` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`подписаться/подписываться` requires preposition `на`+ Accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a subscription campaign going on the most likely verb would be `подписаться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a private personal affair both are applicable, while `подписаться` is more formal and doesn't go with every word denoting a periodical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я подписался на это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is stylistically preferable over &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выписал это издание&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`издание` is a broad generic term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they're interchangeable however with words denoting specific types of periodicals like `газета`, `журнал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я подписался на новую газету` = `Я выписал новую газету`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я подписывался на новую газету` not always = `Я выписывал новую газету` as it depends on the meaning of `выписывал` as either `was setting up my subscription` OR `was a subscriber`, which transpires from the context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="bf350680-de49-4848-aa64-fca65abd5c07" CreationDate="2016-08-31T18:49:20.290" UserId="6539" Text="Вот что я нашла.&#xD;&#xA; Все имевшиеся в исходной системе древнерусского языка у возвратного местоимения падежные формы были тождественны формам местоимения ты. Следовательно, они отличались от современных форм только в род.-вин. пад. (др.-русск. себе — современное себя) и в дат.-местн. над. (др.русск. соб-k — современное себе).&quot;В дат. и вин. пад. у этого местои мения, как и у ты, были энклитические формы: си и ся Падежные формы возвратного местоимения широко отмечаются в памятни ках: род. пад.— оу себе (Новг. гр. 1305 г.), а межи себе оучинили (Двин. гр. XV в.) и (под влиянием дат.-местн. пад.) межю собе (Лавр, лет.), промеж собе (Новг. гр. 1471 г.); дат. пад.— коупи соб*Ь (Двин. гр. XV в.), мы соб-k боудемъ, а ты соб-k (там же), головоу си розби(х) дважды (там же); вин. пад.— ХОТА мстити себе (Лавр, лет.), возьмоутъ на сл. (там же); местн. пад.— по соб\ (Грам. 1447—1456 гг.), и рече в соб-k (Лавр, лет.) и т. д. Пути изменения этих форм или утраты их, так же как и причины таких изменений, у возвратного местоимения были теми же, что и у местоимения ты, и поэтому не требуют подробных комментариев: и здесь в род.-вин. пад. установилась форма себя вместо др.-русск. себе, а в дат.-местн. пад.— форма себе вместо др.-русск. соб-k; энклитические же формы были утрачены. Однако форма вин. пад. ся (а в говорах иногда дат, пад. си) не просто исчезла из языка, а превратилась в особую частицу, служащую для образования возвратных глаголов. В древнерусском языке форма СА, являясь ме стоимением, употреблялась в возвратном значении, не сливаясь с глаголом в одно целое: она могла выступать и после, и перед глаголом, а могла быть и отделена от глагола иными словами (ср. в Смоленской грамоте 1229 г.: что СА дкете по веремьнемь; в Лаврентьевской летописи: а га возъвращю СА похожю и еще). Превращаясь &#xD;&#xA;в возвратную частицу, ся теряло свою самостоятельность и полностью сливалось с глаголом, сначала семантически, а за тем фонетически и морфологически, образуя его возвратную форму. Этот процесс отражается в памятниках с XV в. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13090" RevisionGUID="30a778fb-4666-4733-af20-d29348f884fa" CreationDate="2016-09-01T01:14:30.223" UserId="7716" Text="Using the genitive in a partitive sense (kind of like &quot;some..&quot;) is not that uncommon, but special partitive forms in -у are used less &amp; less often these days. An American textbook in the 1970s (&quot;Making Progress in Russian&quot;) listed about twenty words with -у partitive endings; most books now don't bother bringing it up, with the possible exception of чаю, which is still used, and народу (as in много народу). For a sense of this you can play with Google's ngram viewer: here's a comparison of [много народу vs. много народа][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83%2C%20%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=12&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="7ec4f494-8ae8-4964-bd68-e0421432d217" CreationDate="2016-09-01T01:38:23.897" UserId="7716" Text="I think this is a kind of 'fossilized' expression, that's why it doesn't seem to fit into the modern case system. #449 in Wade's 'A Comprehensive Russian Grammar' mentions that в is used with nouns in what looks like nom. pl., but is historically an accusative, in contexts of professions or other groups; sometimes it implies a change of state or status. A few similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ИГИЛ набирает детей в солдаты. ISIS is recruiting children to be soldiers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кандидат в солдаты a presidential candidate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каких женщин мужчины берут в жёны? What kind of women do men marry (lit., take to be a wife)?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13092" RevisionGUID="dc270c05-1789-47b9-a5e0-520553c715a8" CreationDate="2016-09-01T01:48:59.993" UserId="7716" Text="Building on Kovyl's post: a good example is the line from Olga Berggolts' poem at the Piskaryovskoe Cemetery, where many victims of the WWII blockade of Leningrad are buried:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Никто не забыт, ничто не забыто" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13093" RevisionGUID="41259522-151f-4187-854a-f03f295c399e" CreationDate="2016-09-01T01:58:20.817" UserId="7716" Text="It's worth keeping in mind that unlike most other consonants in Russian, м, н, л, and р generally remain voiced before a pause, or before a voiceless consonant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="80945a52-0d5b-4013-88bd-4d8add2a897b" CreationDate="2016-09-01T03:20:30.357" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Вот что я нашла.&#xD;&#xA; Все имевшиеся в исходной системе древнерусского языка у возвратного местоимения падежные формы были тождественны формам местоимения ты. Следовательно, они отличались от современных форм только в род.-вин. пад. (др.-русск. себе — современное себя) и в дат.-местн. над. (др.русск. соб-k — современное себе).&quot;В дат. и вин. пад. у этого местои мения, как и у ты, были энклитические формы: си и **ся** Падежные формы возвратного местоимения широко отмечаются в памятни ках: род. пад.— оу себе (Новг. гр. 1305 г.), а межи себе оучинили (Двин. гр. XV в.) и (под влиянием дат.-местн. пад.) межю собе (Лавр, лет.), промеж собе (Новг. гр. 1471 г.); дат. пад.— коупи соб*Ь (Двин. гр. XV в.), мы соб-k боудемъ, а ты соб-k (там же), головоу си розби(х) дважды (там же); вин. пад.— ХОТА мстити себе (Лавр, лет.), возьмоутъ на сл. (там же); местн. пад.— по соб\ (Грам. 1447—1456 гг.), и рече в соб-k (Лавр, лет.) и т. д. Пути изменения этих форм или утраты их, так же как и причины таких изменений, у возвратного местоимения были теми же, что и у местоимения ты, и поэтому не требуют подробных комментариев: и здесь в род.-вин. пад. установилась форма себя вместо др.-русск. себе, а в дат.-местн. пад.— форма себе вместо др.-русск. соб-k; энклитические же формы были утрачены. Однако форма вин. пад. ся (а в говорах иногда дат, пад. си) не просто исчезла из языка, а превратилась в особую частицу, служащую для образования возвратных глаголов. В древнерусском языке форма СА, являясь ме стоимением, употреблялась в возвратном значении, не сливаясь с глаголом в одно целое: она могла выступать и после, и перед глаголом, а могла быть и отделена от глагола иными словами (ср. в Смоленской грамоте 1229 г.: что СА дкете по веремьнемь; в Лаврентьевской летописи: а га возъвращю СА похожю и еще). Превращаясь в возвратную частицу, ся теряло свою самостоятельность и полностью сливалось с глаголом, сначала семантически, а за тем фонетически и морфологически, образуя его возвратную форму. Этот процесс отражается в памятниках **с XV в.** &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13094" RevisionGUID="bb3fd0d9-82ac-4066-b1dc-b43d5dbad492" CreationDate="2016-09-01T09:06:44.663" UserId="7223" Text="В данном случае, слово **&quot;выписать&quot;** означает &quot;отправить письмо с просьбой выслать следующий номер журнала&quot;. Это - старая модель распространения периодических изданий, когда для получения каждого номера надо заранее отправить письмо (и такие журналы существуют даже в 21м веке, если верить [бору](http://bash.im/quote/395598)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для случаев автоматической рассылки, когда не требуется запрашивать каждое сообщение - глагол &quot;выписывать&quot; не применим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Извиняюсь, что пишу по-русски, по-английски я писать не умею.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13095" RevisionGUID="804867ca-1f9c-4cf6-9c97-0d813746eb50" CreationDate="2016-09-01T12:05:29.047" UserId="7716" Text="I think Havlík's law, mentioned by Nikolaj above, does explain at least some of the seeming randomness. Jers were strong in a syllable that's followed by a syllable with a weak jer, so whether the jer in въ was strong depended on the next word. If that word's first syllable had a weak jer, the jer in въ was strong, and become -о-. If the first syllable of the next word didn't have a weak jer, then the jer in въ was weak, and disappeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why we say во сне (сон used to be сънъ), but в снегу (снег comes from снѣгъ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are also the other issues mentioned by Nikolaj, just to keep things interesting. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30697" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13083" RevisionGUID="dc0bdb2d-ee7f-4249-a5ce-da6379c0272d" CreationDate="2016-09-01T13:19:40.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/771336723771060224" />
  <row Id="30698" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13080" RevisionGUID="230f54a4-1f60-4d38-84d8-209988c69482" CreationDate="2016-09-01T16:30:09.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/771384659838197764" />
  <row Id="30699" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13068" RevisionGUID="9a61d1db-3015-4788-942c-79b990fdfce4" CreationDate="2016-09-01T19:30:16.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/771429987589193732" />
  <row Id="30700" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="259f4daa-992b-466c-941b-93cdc279d1b4" CreationDate="2016-09-02T04:30:16.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/771565885744001027" />
  <row Id="30701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13089" RevisionGUID="0fcac4d4-330b-4262-8738-4ec8b2938710" CreationDate="2016-09-02T04:34:05.267" UserId="6539" Comment="added 364 characters in body" Text="Вот что я нашла.&#xD;&#xA; Все имевшиеся в исходной системе древнерусского языка у возвратного местоимения падежные формы были тождественны формам местоимения ты. Следовательно, они отличались от современных форм только в род.-вин. пад. (др.-русск. себе — современное себя) и в дат.-местн. над. (др.русск. соб-k — современное себе).&quot;В дат. и вин. пад. у этого местои мения, как и у ты, были энклитические формы: си и **ся** Падежные формы возвратного местоимения широко отмечаются в памятни ках: род. пад.— оу себе (Новг. гр. 1305 г.), а межи себе оучинили (Двин. гр. XV в.) и (под влиянием дат.-местн. пад.) межю собе (Лавр, лет.), промеж собе (Новг. гр. 1471 г.); дат. пад.— коупи соб*Ь (Двин. гр. XV в.), мы соб-k боудемъ, а ты соб-k (там же), головоу си розби(х) дважды (там же); вин. пад.— ХОТА мстити себе (Лавр, лет.), возьмоутъ на сл. (там же); местн. пад.— по соб\ (Грам. 1447—1456 гг.), и рече в соб-k (Лавр, лет.) и т. д. Пути изменения этих форм или утраты их, так же как и причины таких изменений, у возвратного местоимения были теми же, что и у местоимения ты, и поэтому не требуют подробных комментариев: и здесь в род.-вин. пад. установилась форма себя вместо др.-русск. себе, а в дат.-местн. пад.— форма себе вместо др.-русск. соб-k; энклитические же формы были утрачены. Однако форма вин. пад. ся (а в говорах иногда дат, пад. си) не просто исчезла из языка, а превратилась в особую частицу, служащую для образования возвратных глаголов. В древнерусском языке форма СА, являясь ме стоимением, употреблялась в возвратном значении, не сливаясь с глаголом в одно целое: она могла выступать и после, и перед глаголом, а могла быть и отделена от глагола иными словами (ср. в Смоленской грамоте 1229 г.: что СА дкете по веремьнемь; в Лаврентьевской летописи: а га возъвращю СА похожю и еще). Превращаясь в возвратную частицу, ся теряло свою самостоятельность и полностью сливалось с глаголом, сначала семантически, а за тем фонетически и морфологически, образуя его возвратную форму. Этот процесс отражается в памятниках **с XV в.** (Иванов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой источник.(Черных) Устранение подвижности частицы ся относится к позднему времени (XVI—XVlI вв.). Закрепление произошло сначала в области глаголов со значением страдательным и собственно-возвратным, а потом в (XVII в.) и в области остальных глаголов с частицей ся. В Уложении 1649 г. не имеется ни одного случая свободного употребления частицы ся. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13096" RevisionGUID="ce032e0f-368a-40ce-ba01-061e5fb4eb70" CreationDate="2016-09-02T13:21:34.263" UserId="7716" Text="It can be hard to generalize because the nuances vary depending on a given adjective; it's very context sensitive. A few generalizations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As VCH250 mentions, when an adjective can express either a temporary or a more permanent state, the short form is used for the temporary state (think &quot;short time, short adjective&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вчера она была больна. -She was ill yesterday.  &#xD;&#xA;Он больной. -He's sickly/an invalid/has some long-term health issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms are often used when there's some limitation in the context; the corresponding long form would indicate a more general, inherent quality. This touches on your example Моя душа полна тобой - my soul is full *with/because of you*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она права. -She's right (about this particular thing).  &#xD;&#xA;Наше дело правое. -Our cause is just (an inherent quality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он ей не был симпатичен. -He wasn't attractive to her (maybe others did find him attractive, but she didn't)  &#xD;&#xA;Он очень симпатичный. -He's very nice/attractive.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они не способны выполнять свои обязанности. -They aren't capable of fulfilling their obligations. (maybe they can do other things, but not this)  &#xD;&#xA;Я его давно знаю, он очень способный. -I've know him a long time, he's very capable (in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms are often used with a preposition for phrases best learned as vocabulary: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;готов к &quot;ready for,&quot; похож на &quot;similar to,&quot; знаком с &quot;acquainted with,&quot; согласен с &quot;in agreement with,&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short forms can be used to describe an action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пить вредно. -Drinking is bad for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If none of the above applies to a given context*, then the short form, as others have mentioned, often sounds more formal, archaic, or bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это хороший вопрос. -That's a good question. (normal, conversational tone)  &#xD;&#xA;Вопрос хорош. -The question is a good one. (heard in a radio interview with an academically oriented expert)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learners should avoid using short forms before a noun, since they're only used in the predicate (the English translation will have 'was,' 'is/are,' or 'will be'). Russians can play with word order - in Евгений Онегин Pushkin wrote &quot;Но вреден север для меня.&quot; - but note that it means not 'the harmful north,' rather 'the north is harmful for me (doesn't agree with me).'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13001" RevisionGUID="aa30f8f4-d8d8-46f1-bfdf-85e453d05ad7" CreationDate="2016-09-02T13:30:20.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/771701796108660736" />
  <row Id="30704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13097" RevisionGUID="4b4a2a07-41b6-44ff-a6ee-2dc502ad6403" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:19:52.270" UserId="3892" Text="I found this in a book and have no inkling of what it can mean, and nothing in dictionaries to help me understand. Any ideas? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сама знаю, что зря. Мужика у меня уже Святая Дева знает сколько не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; было. С тех пор, как год назад Альберто убили. И уж если с кем пойти,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; так с этим русским, он мне, в общем-то, давно нравится. Что-то в нем&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такое есть, отличающее от остальных кобелей, которые вьются вокруг&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медперсонала. Хотя кобель он, конечно, изрядный, **одна морда чего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стоит**. Но дело не в морде, а вот в чем – пока не пойму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13097" RevisionGUID="4b4a2a07-41b6-44ff-a6ee-2dc502ad6403" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:19:52.270" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of одна морда чего стоит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13097" RevisionGUID="4b4a2a07-41b6-44ff-a6ee-2dc502ad6403" CreationDate="2016-09-02T15:19:52.270" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13098" RevisionGUID="303e8f8d-fdd6-430b-9a3e-047156a15495" CreationDate="2016-09-02T17:27:57.777" UserId="7674" Text="this is a fixed phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя кобель он, конечно, изрядный, *одна* морда *чего стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning: he's a dog, the muzzle alone is that of a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть чрезвычайную ценность чего-либо: *А чего стоила записка великой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; императрицы, собственноручно начертавшей всего два слова, но зато&#xD;&#xA;&gt; каких! | Чего стоит одна её улыбка!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть своё возмущение и негодование по поводу чего-либо: *Одни только анонимные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; письма чего стоят!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dmitriev/5188/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13098" RevisionGUID="90123aa5-34b2-4d3f-b01e-a9eeda70da79" CreationDate="2016-09-02T17:34:12.540" UserId="7674" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="this is a fixed phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя кобель он, конечно, изрядный, *одна* морда *чего стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he's a dog, the muzzle alone is that of a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`чего стоит` is in fact a rhetoric question which implies that an object figuratively `is worth a lot` or `has a certain quality to the highest degree`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the cited passage it means that one his muzzle is worth or equal to many other muzzles &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть чрезвычайную ценность чего-либо: *А чего стоила записка великой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; императрицы, собственноручно начертавшей всего два слова, но зато&#xD;&#xA;&gt; каких! | Чего стоит одна её улыбка!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть своё возмущение и негодование по поводу чего-либо: *Одни только анонимные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; письма чего стоят!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dmitriev/5188/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13098" RevisionGUID="14dcbcde-938c-4858-8276-95b812af48e0" CreationDate="2016-09-02T17:39:13.117" UserId="7674" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="this is a fixed phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя кобель он, конечно, изрядный, *одна* морда *чего стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he's a dog, the muzzle alone is that of a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`чего стоит` is in fact a rhetoric question which implies that an object figuratively `is obviously worth a lot` or `has a certain quality to the highest degree`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть чрезвычайную ценность чего-либо: *А чего стоила записка великой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; императрицы, собственноручно начертавшей всего два слова, но зато&#xD;&#xA;&gt; каких! | Чего стоит одна её улыбка!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть своё возмущение и негодование по поводу чего-либо: *Одни только анонимные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; письма чего стоят!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dmitriev/5188/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13098" RevisionGUID="8cadf406-ba87-47a8-b437-f4034494c171" CreationDate="2016-09-02T17:46:19.667" UserId="7674" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="this is a fixed phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя кобель он, конечно, изрядный, *одна* морда *чего стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;he's a dog, the muzzle alone is that of a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`чего стоит` is in fact a rhetoric question which implies that an object figuratively `is obviously worth a lot` (стоить = be worth) or `has a certain quality to the highest degree` as if being worth many items possessing that quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть чрезвычайную ценность чего-либо: *А чего стоила записка великой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; императрицы, собственноручно начертавшей всего два слова, но зато&#xD;&#xA;&gt; каких! | Чего стоит одна её улыбка!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. Вы используете выражение **чего стоит**, если хотите подчеркнуть своё возмущение и негодование по поводу чего-либо: *Одни только анонимные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; письма чего стоят!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dmitriev/5188/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13099" RevisionGUID="7d2df5fb-4596-4fb6-b0ee-35383ee2112f" CreationDate="2016-09-02T18:51:07.347" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Хотя кобель он, конечно, изрядный, одна морда чего стоит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's slangy.And it's quite rude.It means something like the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Though he is indeed a tomcat with an ugly mug like his.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13100" RevisionGUID="c1b2e42c-2352-4692-a9ce-0d9eae7718fa" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:50:23.753" UserId="7731" Text="На другом форуме кто-то поделился следующим инсторическим толи анекдотом толи былью:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В XIX веке военнообязанные, но достаточно обеспеченные мещане косили от армии следующим образом: покупали у доктора справку о том, что они больны грыжей, и таким образом от армии отмазывались. Грыжа на используемом в медицинских документах Латинском языке называется &quot;hernia&quot;, и, соответственно, у симулянтов в бумагах стоял диагноз &quot;hernia&quot;, который для незнакомого с латынью обывателя читался как &quot;херня&quot;. Соответственно и появилось выражение &quot;хернёй страдать&quot; как синоним &quot;симулировать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так вот, любопытно узнать у знакомых с этимологией историков или филологов: это настоящая история или анекдот?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13100" RevisionGUID="c1b2e42c-2352-4692-a9ce-0d9eae7718fa" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:50:23.753" UserId="7731" Text="Этимология выражения &quot;хернёй страдать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13100" RevisionGUID="c1b2e42c-2352-4692-a9ce-0d9eae7718fa" CreationDate="2016-09-02T20:50:23.753" UserId="7731" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30715" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="b8d632d4-2ddd-4d61-9ddd-e2d17063579d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T01:30:23.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/771883000837640192" />
  <row Id="30716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13101" RevisionGUID="bd84e2ff-359c-4414-8b3b-ce23ab6500e1" CreationDate="2016-09-03T07:11:57.683" UserId="5443" Text="**Кобель** (male dog) here means a man preying on women all the time, like some dirty animal (goat, etc.); **изрядный** emphasizes that definition and means smth. like outstanding, extraordinary. The expression **одна морда чего стоит** means that just by a look at his ugly face (which is a real dog muzzle) one can tell the previously given definition is true. Literally, *it's worth looking at his face* (his muzzle is worth looking at): you'll understand all that immediately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13102" RevisionGUID="45714b4d-be09-4e17-8323-f4ee5e297aa2" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:20:38.517" UserId="7716" Text="I'd be interested in native speakers' thoughts on how I sometimes try to explain this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider these English phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My car broke down on me.  &#xD;&#xA;My dog died on me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you weren't under the car when it broke down, and the dog wasn't on top of you when it died. To my ear, adding &quot;on me&quot; makes it more informal, and adds a note of emotional involvement (like the &quot;social relationship&quot; mentioned by Pycckи). It's more expressive than the comparatively flat, neutral &quot;My car broke down.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this usage of у меня, у тебя, у нас is similar, with this difference: I hear this &quot;on me&quot; mostly in negative contexts, but у меня etc. can be used in an affectionate way (as well as condescension, as in the joke, or Pycckи's examples). You can sometimes capture this note with a possessive in English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Федя у нас замечательный музыкант.  &#xD;&#xA;Our Fedya is a wonderful musician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can also use the construction in Russian with pronouns; in these cases I've never thought of how to express that nuance of connection/relationship in English. In my translations below, it just gets lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;..они у меня такие добрые, щедрые, талантливые, а главное, остроумные..  &#xD;&#xA;They're so kind, generous, talented, and the main thing - witty..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она у нас такая красавица, а ты говоришь: рыбой пахнет! ― сказал Тарарах.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's such a beauty, and you say she smells like fish!&quot; said Tararakh.  &#xD;&#xA;     -Дмитрий Емец, from ruscorpora.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13103" RevisionGUID="745426b1-a25c-463c-9ae2-c99e5b0bf9a9" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:39:16.067" UserId="4892" Text="I need to say &quot;when I was young&quot; in reference to a male. I always forget whether the correct translation is &quot;Когда я был молодой&quot; or &quot;Когда я был молодым&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you please explain why I need to use the first/second form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I learned that in these cases the instrumental is used to express transitive qualities, that alter over time, while the nominative is used to express permanent qualities. So in this case it should be intstrumental, because the men has eventually grown older. However, on the internet I have found the nominative case, too &quot;Когда я был молодой&quot; (I think it was a song or something of the sort). I'm confused!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13103" RevisionGUID="745426b1-a25c-463c-9ae2-c99e5b0bf9a9" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:39:16.067" UserId="4892" Text="Translation for &quot;When I was young&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13103" RevisionGUID="745426b1-a25c-463c-9ae2-c99e5b0bf9a9" CreationDate="2016-09-03T12:39:16.067" UserId="4892" Text="|перевод|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13104" RevisionGUID="6a27c113-4f29-4694-888d-d2aa11eb5860" CreationDate="2016-09-03T14:41:41.807" UserId="194" Text="The both are OK and it is difficult to come up with a case where they are not interchangeable. I will try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодой = He looked young while sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодым = He was young in his sleeping dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is a fairy tale where a magic ring makes the person young temporarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым = When he was young due to the ring, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration of spell. Can also mean when he was truly young.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я бы молодой = When he was truly young, cannot mean young due to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magic ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;Когда я бы молодой&quot; means when I was truly young, &quot;Когда я бы молодым&quot; can mean young due to some factors like imagining oneself young or be temporarily young or playing a role of a young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, молодой can mean a bride or any other slang or special meaning (like young role in a play etc), so if you mean молодой as a noun, use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13104" RevisionGUID="c81cf9b2-347d-4e50-b7ec-0a32261c098b" CreationDate="2016-09-03T14:47:06.737" UserId="194" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="The both are OK and it is difficult to come up with a case where they are not interchangeable. I will try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодой = He looked young while sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодым = He was young in his sleeping dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is a fairy tale where a magic ring makes the person young temporarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым = When he was young due to the ring, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration of spell. Can also mean when he was truly young.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я бы молодой = When he was truly young, cannot mean young due to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magic ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;Когда я бы молодой&quot; means when I was truly young, &quot;Когда я бы молодым&quot; can mean besides truly young also young due to some factors like imagining oneself young or be temporarily young or playing a role of a young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, молодой can mean a bride or any other slang or special meaning (like young role in a play etc), so if you mean молодой as a noun, use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13104" RevisionGUID="c8097e9b-8e99-43d7-9b4f-dda64232d474" CreationDate="2016-09-03T14:53:07.083" UserId="194" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="The both are OK and it is difficult to come up with a case where they are not interchangeable. I will try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодой = He looked young while sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодым = He was young in his sleeping dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is a fairy tale where a magic ring makes the person young temporarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым = When he was young due to the ring, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration of spell. Can also mean when he was truly young.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я бы молодой = When he was truly young, cannot mean young due to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magic ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;Когда я бы молодой&quot; means when I was truly young, &quot;Когда я бы молодым&quot; can mean besides truly young also young due to some factors like imagining oneself young or be temporarily young or playing a role of a young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я слышу эту песню, я становлюсь молодым = When I hear this song,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I feel as a young, much better, stronger than usually. Physically change to a young man.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я слышу эту песню, я становлюсь молодой = When I hear this song,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I re-asses my current age, despite my actual age, I think of it as of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quite young age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, молодой can mean a bride or any other slang or special meaning (like young role in a play etc), so if you mean молодой as a noun, use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13104" RevisionGUID="ab70391b-325e-4d3b-87e1-539cd0bdc439" CreationDate="2016-09-03T14:58:53.067" UserId="194" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="The both are OK and it is difficult to come up with a case where they are not interchangeable. I will try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодой = He looked young while sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодым = He was young in his sleeping dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is a fairy tale where a magic ring makes the person young temporarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым = When he was young due to the ring, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration of spell. Can also mean when he was truly young.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я бы молодой = When he was truly young, cannot mean young due to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magic ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;Когда я бы молодой&quot; means when I was truly young, &quot;Когда я бы молодым&quot; can mean besides truly young also young due to some factors like imagining oneself young or be temporarily young or playing a role of a young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я слышу эту песню, я становлюсь молодым = When I hear this song,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I feel as a young, much better, stronger than usually. Physically change to a young man. Can mean he can date young women.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я слышу эту песню, я становлюсь молодой = When I hear this song,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I re-asses my current age, despite my actual age, I think of it as of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quite young age. Can men he can date women of his age as if the both were young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, молодой can mean a bride or any other slang or special meaning (like young role in a play etc), so if you mean молодой as a noun, use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13104" RevisionGUID="c810aa75-e356-4973-9ad2-2aface74f212" CreationDate="2016-09-03T16:29:09.357" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The both are OK and it is difficult to come up with a case where they are not interchangeable. I will try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодой = He looked young while sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во сне он был молодым = He was young in his sleeping dream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is a fairy tale where a magic ring makes the person young temporarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым = When he was young due to the ring, during the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duration of spell. Can also mean when he was truly young.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодой = When he was truly young, cannot mean young due to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the magic ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;Когда я был молодой&quot; means when I was truly young, &quot;Когда я был молодым&quot; can mean besides truly young also young due to some factors like imagining oneself young or be temporarily young or playing a role of a young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я слышу эту песню, я становлюсь молодым = When I hear this song,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I feel as a young, much better, stronger than usually. Physically change to a young man. Can mean he can date young women.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я слышу эту песню, я становлюсь молодой = When I hear this song,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I re-asses my current age, despite my actual age, I think of it as of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quite young age. Can mean he can date women of his age as if the both were young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, молодой can mean a bride or any other slang or special meaning (like young role in a play etc), so if you mean молодой as a noun, use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я был молодым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13105" RevisionGUID="c31b587a-dee0-403c-a73d-2ba44625630a" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:30:41.447" UserId="6539" Text="You can use three variants. Those are a full adjective in the nominative case, a full adjective in the instrumental case and a short adjective. Our celebrated linguist Розенталь describes their usage like the following but admits that the rule is not strict and some adjectives  don't follow it. We use a full adjective (nominative case) to express either a constant or an absolute quality and when we don't mention the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Человек он был молодой и красивый.&#xD;&#xA;Потолок был низкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use a full adjective (instrumental case) when the situation describes a certain period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда он был молодым, мы часто встречались.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we use a short adjective when the situation refers to a certain moment.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он был молод, когда я с ним познакомился.&#xD;&#xA;Потолок был низок для купленной мебели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in real life these cases are not always followed and searching in the National corpus I found all the three variants after когда. But the statistics was rather interesting :&#xD;&#xA;&gt; когда я был молодой --9 examples in the main part, когда я был молодым--18, когда я был молод--21.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="e5c12e2b-19ec-44c3-9feb-1e9d30b03c20" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:36:08.180" UserId="6545" Text="In this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1670/От-До-and-С-ВНа-disambiguation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is answers to most of my questions. However, the use of к is left out..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen things like, &quot;(I have a meeting/I talk) from six until eight in the morning.&quot; -&gt; &quot;(У меня встреча/Я говорю) с/от шести к/до восеми утра.&quot; with genitive forms of the numbers, and с and к together, or от and до together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about using к?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="e5c12e2b-19ec-44c3-9feb-1e9d30b03c20" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:36:08.180" UserId="6545" Text="I (have a meeting,run,blank) from X to Y in the morning. с/к or от/до?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="e5c12e2b-19ec-44c3-9feb-1e9d30b03c20" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:36:08.180" UserId="6545" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13107" RevisionGUID="574f6a22-8f08-476f-af24-1177e44167d9" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:46:32.363" UserId="7674" Text="`от/c... к...` is simply not used in denotation of duration, only as indication of direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он шёл от победы к победе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the context of time `к` means `close to`, `around`, `about`, `by`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я буду к восьми - i'll come at about 8 (by 8 i will have come)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13107" RevisionGUID="8324b56a-286b-455f-a23e-77a24d32822f" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:57:44.550" UserId="7674" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="`от... к...` is simply not used in denotation of duration, only as indication of direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он шёл от победы к победе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`с... к...` i can't think of a situation where they'd appear in combination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the context of time `к` means `close to`, `around`, `about`, `by`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я буду к восьми - i'll come at about 8 (by 8 i will have come)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13108" RevisionGUID="b0b80dde-175a-450e-919f-b2d684731a04" CreationDate="2016-09-03T18:31:21.880" UserId="4560" Text="Ну раз всамделишные филологи не спешат появиться...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подозрительны:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- огласовка `h` как `[х]` в девятнадцатом веке;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- насколько мне известно, ни одного завалящего примера такого употребления, — при том, что какие-нибудь &quot;ноги хером&quot; до нас вполне себе дошли;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- то, что у экспрессивного и разговорного выражения так забылся первоначальный смысл; это не какое-нибудь &quot;довлеть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По последнему пункту можно предположить влияние &quot;дурью маяться&quot;, но гораздо более вероятным кажется, что от &quot;дурью маяться&quot; оно на самом деле и произошло — видимо, как придуманный кем-то маньеризм. У `страдать` [той или иной]`-нёй`, особенно в матерном варианте, все задатки успешного речевого мема: смысл предельно ясен, а вот сочетание двух разных стилистических окрасок застает врасплох. Это фраза, которую хочется взять себе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13108" RevisionGUID="4fe044e4-254e-48ea-84a0-277697de9f7e" CreationDate="2016-09-03T18:41:51.963" UserId="4560" Comment="added 510 characters in body" Text="Ну раз всамделишные филологи не спешат появиться...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подозрительны:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- огласовка `h` как `[х]` в девятнадцатом веке;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- насколько мне известно, ни одного завалящего примера такого употребления, — при том, что какие-нибудь &quot;ноги хером&quot; до нас вполне себе дошли;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- то, что у экспрессивного и разговорного выражения так забылся первоначальный смысл; это не какое-нибудь &quot;довлеть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По последнему пункту можно предположить влияние &quot;дурью маяться&quot;, но гораздо более вероятным кажется, что от &quot;дурью маяться&quot; оно на самом деле и произошло — видимо, как придуманный кем-то маньеризм. У `страдать` [той или иной]`-нёй`, особенно в матерном варианте, все задатки успешного речевого мема: смысл предельно ясен, а вот сочетание двух разных стилистических окрасок застает врасплох. Это фраза, которую хочется взять себе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском просторечии много выражений, явственно возникших в какое-то конкретное время в конкретном месте, и хотя большинство из них старые — &quot;кузькина мать&quot;, &quot;как на Маланьину свадьбу&quot;, &quot;куда Макар телят не гонял&quot;, есть, например, и вполне современное &quot;е...ть ту Люсю&quot;. Здесь хотя и отсутствует имя собственное, но очень ощущается чья-то частная любовь к усложнению речи, а по времени появления фразы `страдать [...]нёй` можно предположить, что анонимный автор этой фразы с некоторой вероятностью еще жив." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30736" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13100" RevisionGUID="60bebb03-a453-4b2a-a8fc-dc98df3b93e2" CreationDate="2016-09-03T19:31:44.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/772155134591770624" />
  <row Id="30737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13109" RevisionGUID="3c332e40-4163-4f74-ae37-b72070efa39d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:01:24.637" UserId="7737" Text="I have had the impression that there are fewer Latin and Greek loan words in Russian than there are in German and in English. Is my impression right, and is there documentation about this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13109" RevisionGUID="3c332e40-4163-4f74-ae37-b72070efa39d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:01:24.637" UserId="7737" Text="Roman and Greek loan words in Russian and Germanic languages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13109" RevisionGUID="3c332e40-4163-4f74-ae37-b72070efa39d" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:01:24.637" UserId="7737" Text="|лексикон|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13110" RevisionGUID="f7099d8c-857b-458f-812b-b0e544d120cf" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:41:02.077" UserId="7674" Text="I think it is, although i can't prove it, or maybe i can by comparing the number of originally Latin words used in an English sentence with their number in its translation into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аnd it's explainable i think mainly by the fact that the territory of the eastern Slavic tribes was never subjected to direct Roman influence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Грецизмы** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Заметный след (некоторые считают, что наибольший[5]) оставили&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грецизмы, пришедшие в древнерусский язык в основном через посредство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; старославянского в связи с процессом завершения христианизации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; славянских государств. Активную роль в этом процессе принимала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Византия. Начинается формирование древнерусского (восточнославянского)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка. К грецизмам периода X—XVII веков относятся слова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;научные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; термины: математика, философия, история, грамматика;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;бытовые термины:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известь, сахар, скамья, тетрадь, фонарь; наименования растений и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; животных: буйвол, фасоль, свёкла и другие; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;из области религии:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; анафема, ангел, епископ, демон, икона, монах, монастырь, лампада,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пономарь. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Более поздние заимствования относятся главным образом к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; области искусства и науки: хорей, комедия, мантия, стих, логика,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аналогия и другие. Многие греческие слова, получившие статус&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интернациональных, попали в русский язык через западноевропейские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Латинизмы**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;К XVII веку появились переводы с латинского языка на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церковнославянский, в том числе Геннадиевская Библия. В русский язык с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тех пор начинается проникновение латинских слов. Многие из этих слов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продолжают существовать в нашем языке и поныне (Библия, доктор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медицина, лилия, роза и другие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that online there're no definitive stats info on the loan words by origin, or their total number for that matter, but relative numbers of Latin and Greek ones can be derived from Словарь иностранных слов where origin is indicated, although it'd be a tedious task unless processed programmatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13110" RevisionGUID="03a7c890-32ba-4706-ab6b-3f23992ca6a9" CreationDate="2016-09-03T20:46:41.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I think it is, although i can't prove it, or maybe i can by comparing the number of originally Latin words used in an English sentence with their number in its translation into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's explainable i think mainly by the fact that the territory of the eastern Slavic tribes was never subjected to direct Roman influence and influence of the Catholic church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Грецизмы** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Заметный след (некоторые считают, что наибольший[5]) оставили&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грецизмы, пришедшие в древнерусский язык в основном через посредство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; старославянского в связи с процессом завершения христианизации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; славянских государств. Активную роль в этом процессе принимала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Византия. Начинается формирование древнерусского (восточнославянского)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка. К грецизмам периода X—XVII веков относятся слова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;научные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; термины: математика, философия, история, грамматика;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;бытовые термины:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известь, сахар, скамья, тетрадь, фонарь; наименования растений и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; животных: буйвол, фасоль, свёкла и другие; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;из области религии:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; анафема, ангел, епископ, демон, икона, монах, монастырь, лампада,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пономарь. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Более поздние заимствования относятся главным образом к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; области искусства и науки: хорей, комедия, мантия, стих, логика,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аналогия и другие. Многие греческие слова, получившие статус&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интернациональных, попали в русский язык через западноевропейские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Латинизмы**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;К XVII веку появились переводы с латинского языка на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церковнославянский, в том числе Геннадиевская Библия. В русский язык с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тех пор начинается проникновение латинских слов. Многие из этих слов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продолжают существовать в нашем языке и поныне (Библия, доктор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медицина, лилия, роза и другие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that online there're no definitive stats info on the loan words by origin, or their total number for that matter, but relative numbers of Latin and Greek ones can be derived from `Словарь иностранных слов` (The dictionary of foreign words) where origin is indicated, although it'd be a tedious task unless processed programmatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13110" RevisionGUID="2b9555ae-4759-418f-98a2-51b87261ebfb" CreationDate="2016-09-03T21:08:28.467" UserId="7674" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="I think it is, although i can't prove it, or maybe i can by comparing the number of originally Latin words used in an English sentence with their number in its translation into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's explainable i think mainly by the fact that the territory of the eastern Slavic tribes was never subjected to direct Roman influence and influence of the Catholic church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Грецизмы** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Заметный след (некоторые считают, что наибольший[5]) оставили&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грецизмы, пришедшие в древнерусский язык в основном через посредство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; старославянского в связи с процессом завершения христианизации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; славянских государств. Активную роль в этом процессе принимала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Византия. Начинается формирование древнерусского (восточнославянского)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка. К грецизмам периода X—XVII веков относятся слова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;научные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; термины: математика, философия, история, грамматика;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;бытовые термины:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известь, сахар, скамья, тетрадь, фонарь; наименования растений и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; животных: буйвол, фасоль, свёкла и другие; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;из области религии:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; анафема, ангел, епископ, демон, икона, монах, монастырь, лампада,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пономарь. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Более поздние заимствования относятся главным образом к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; области искусства и науки: хорей, комедия, мантия, стих, логика,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аналогия и другие. Многие греческие слова, получившие статус&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интернациональных, попали в русский язык через западноевропейские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Латинизмы**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;К XVII веку появились переводы с латинского языка на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церковнославянский, в том числе Геннадиевская Библия. В русский язык с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тех пор начинается проникновение латинских слов. Многие из этих слов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продолжают существовать в нашем языке и поныне (Библия, доктор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медицина, лилия, роза и другие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that online there're no definitive stats info on the loan words by origin, or their total number for that matter, but relative numbers of Latin and Greek ones can be derived from `Словарь иностранных слов` (The dictionary of foreign words) where origin is indicated, although it'd be a tedious task unless processed programmatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to run some search on the [online Dictionary of foreign words][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the results are as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[of Greek origin][3] - about 210  &#xD;&#xA;[of Latin origin][4] - about 305&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data is from the dictionary released in 1933&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.megaslov.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/#q=%22%D0%B3%D1%80.%22+site:www.megaslov.ru&amp;start=0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/#q=%22%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82.%22+site:www.megaslov.ru&amp;start=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13110" RevisionGUID="01780385-0d7d-42af-b415-cc9962dea309" CreationDate="2016-09-04T07:00:25.743" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I think it is, although i can't prove it, or maybe i can by comparing the number of originally Latin words used in an English sentence with their number in its translation into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's explainable i think mainly by the fact that the territory of the eastern Slavic tribes was never subjected to direct Roman influence and influence of the Catholic church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Грецизмы** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Заметный след (некоторые считают, что наибольший[5]) оставили&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грецизмы, пришедшие в древнерусский язык в основном через посредство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; старославянского в связи с процессом завершения христианизации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; славянских государств. Активную роль в этом процессе принимала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Византия. Начинается формирование древнерусского (восточнославянского)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка. К грецизмам периода X—XVII веков относятся слова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;научные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; термины: математика, философия, история, грамматика;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;бытовые термины:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известь, сахар, скамья, тетрадь, фонарь; наименования растений и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; животных: буйвол, фасоль, свёкла и другие; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;из области религии:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; анафема, ангел, епископ, демон, икона, монах, монастырь, лампада,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пономарь. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Более поздние заимствования относятся главным образом к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; области искусства и науки: хорей, комедия, мантия, стих, логика,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аналогия и другие. Многие греческие слова, получившие статус&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интернациональных, попали в русский язык через западноевропейские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Латинизмы**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;К XVII веку появились переводы с латинского языка на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церковнославянский, в том числе Геннадиевская Библия. В русский язык с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тех пор начинается проникновение латинских слов. Многие из этих слов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продолжают существовать в нашем языке и поныне (Библия, доктор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медицина, лилия, роза и другие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that online there's no definitive stats info on the loan words by origin, or their total number for that matter, but relative numbers of Latin and Greek ones can be derived from `Словарь иностранных слов` (The dictionary of foreign words) where origin is indicated, although it'd be a tedious task unless processed programmatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to run some search on the [online Dictionary of foreign words][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the results are as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[of Greek origin][3] - about 210  &#xD;&#xA;[of Latin origin][4] - about 305&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data is from the dictionary released in 1933&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.megaslov.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/#q=%22%D0%B3%D1%80.%22+site:www.megaslov.ru&amp;start=0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/#q=%22%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82.%22+site:www.megaslov.ru&amp;start=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13111" RevisionGUID="03c9190b-648b-40f9-a9c9-e8e50a871941" CreationDate="2016-09-04T07:54:41.270" UserId="194" Text="I think Russian has less Latin borrowings than English (but not necessary German!) but maybe more Greek borrowings. Some of them became so much indistinguishable from Russian words that the majority of speakers would not even say they are borrowings. Like, say кукла, скамья, свёкла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn you against relying on the dictionary from the answer by Баян Купи-ка. The dictionary is called &quot;Dictionary of foreign words&quot;, not &quot;dictionary of borrowed words&quot;. So it does not include old borrowings integrated will into Russian language, for instance it does not include any of кукла, скамья, свёкла. On the other hand it includes many words I had never encountered.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13103" RevisionGUID="dd231c69-5394-4b76-b214-72e312aeab84" CreationDate="2016-09-04T10:38:53.577" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/772383425621811201" />
  <row Id="30746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13112" RevisionGUID="5d08058c-0654-4bf1-acdb-10b871f37d66" CreationDate="2016-09-04T19:16:05.977" UserId="7641" Text="I usually hear the letter &quot;р&quot; pronounced as a post-alveolar trill, and in countless introductions to Russian phonetics it is taught as such, but some people appear to pronounce the letter further back, as an uvular fricative, such as in this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/Ecy6G-rLGBo?t=23m39s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker is Дми́трий Ви́кторович Лива́нов, a native Russian so it can't be an foreign accent. And also, I have already heard the same pronunciation in other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might be hearing the pronunciation incorrectly, but if not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where do the differences in pronunciation of the letter &quot;р&quot; come from?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13112" RevisionGUID="5d08058c-0654-4bf1-acdb-10b871f37d66" CreationDate="2016-09-04T19:16:05.977" UserId="7641" Text="Why do some people pronounce &quot;р&quot; as uvular fricative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13112" RevisionGUID="5d08058c-0654-4bf1-acdb-10b871f37d66" CreationDate="2016-09-04T19:16:05.977" UserId="7641" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13113" RevisionGUID="cd2fda5b-ca35-4625-af97-2d0cd3bdec00" CreationDate="2016-09-04T19:54:36.680" UserId="7674" Text="such pronunciation of `эр` is a case of speech impediment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;incorrect pronunciation of phonemes is a result of inadequate development of speech apparatus (anatomic or neurological) or uncured bad habits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;defects of `P` pronunciation is called `ротацизм` a form of dyslalia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the type of `ротацизм` this gentlemen demonstrates is [`увулярный`][1] or [`горловой`][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.logoped.info/dyslalia/rhotacism.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.logoped.ru/zv-r06.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13113" RevisionGUID="ac2f2bd8-a97d-4f4a-95d7-559d3bc8aa25" CreationDate="2016-09-04T20:06:31.587" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="such pronunciation of `эр` is a case of speech impediment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;incorrect pronunciation of phonemes is a result of inadequate development of speech apparatus (anatomic or neurological) or uncured bad habits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;deficiency in `P` pronunciation  is called `ротацизм` a form of dyslalia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the type of `ротацизм` this gentlemаn demonstrates is [`увулярный`][1] or [`горловой`][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.logoped.info/dyslalia/rhotacism.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.logoped.ru/zv-r06.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13114" RevisionGUID="8a735ac0-9c47-4588-aee1-2df8b9f2cd33" CreationDate="2016-09-04T21:26:14.477" UserId="7239" Text="Are the verb suffixes &quot;-ate&quot; in English and &quot;-ать&quot; in Russian cognates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess that &quot;-ate&quot; comes from Latin and is also the source of the verb suffix &quot;-ar&quot; in Spanish. Latin and Russian are supposed to be similar in many ways, so it perhaps would not be surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried searching for this on Google but I couldn't find any results (probably because I am bad at searching). Anyway I figured that someone on this website would probably know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13114" RevisionGUID="8a735ac0-9c47-4588-aee1-2df8b9f2cd33" CreationDate="2016-09-04T21:26:14.477" UserId="7239" Text="Are the verb suffixes &quot;-ate&quot; and &quot;-ать&quot; cognates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13114" RevisionGUID="8a735ac0-9c47-4588-aee1-2df8b9f2cd33" CreationDate="2016-09-04T21:26:14.477" UserId="7239" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30754" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13097" RevisionGUID="7ec1f32e-b597-42fc-9d1a-f894b86519ae" CreationDate="2016-09-05T07:39:54.407" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/772700770345025536" />
  <row Id="30755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13115" RevisionGUID="080c0a0f-12f4-4751-a3bd-615fa708a7fa" CreationDate="2016-09-05T09:22:19.433" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="You are right, English suffix -ate [comes][1] from the Latin -ātus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, there's no suffix &quot;-ать&quot;. Usually, &quot;-a&quot; is considered to be one suffix, and &quot;-ть&quot; - another one. &quot;-ть&quot; [is assumed][2] to originate from &quot;-ти&quot;,  marker for the infinitive in proto-slavic language, which, in turn, comes from Proto-Indo-European &quot;-tei&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, they are quite unlikely to be cognates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ate&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13116" RevisionGUID="0c13fc14-cf38-4812-8a33-58dbeaf0b909" CreationDate="2016-09-05T11:15:57.120" UserId="2238" Text="No, they are not directly cognates. The -ate comes from Latin -atus, as Roux stated above, and the -atus is dividable in -a and -tu(s), as Nikolay stated. -tus is homonymic for participle *-to and verbal noun *-tu. But the verbal noun *-tu is not the same verbal noun as verbal noun in *-ti(s), whose dative *-tei gave us our -ть- and -ти-infinitives (-чь-infinitive is -к-ть or -г-ть). The -a- of Latin verbs and of Russian verbs is usually suffix in both (and even the exception is the same: dare/дать), but it is not always the same one (though there is verbalisator -ā in both languages). So neither part is directly cognate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it is worth mentioning that when we have loanwords for verbs in -ate, they usually end in -ировать (because of German and French interference), as in castrate - кастрировать, meditate - медитировать. However, their verbal noun is -ация for -ation: castration - кастрация, meditation - медитация." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13117" RevisionGUID="0d8efda2-7d83-440e-a49e-79b7858ad1ec" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:08:10.977" UserId="7746" Text="What affects how the ending of нужно should be changed?  A corrected sentence I wrote reads &gt;Ксения говорила, Мне нужна его общество как собаке нужны блохи.  Why are нужна and нужны used? (And I realize now that Russians say как собаке пятая нога which is not exactly something said in English, but it's clever!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does надо also change similarly depending on what noun is associated with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13117" RevisionGUID="0d8efda2-7d83-440e-a49e-79b7858ad1ec" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:08:10.977" UserId="7746" Text="Use of нужно with the dative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13117" RevisionGUID="0d8efda2-7d83-440e-a49e-79b7858ad1ec" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:08:10.977" UserId="7746" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13118" RevisionGUID="b4fb44f6-be5d-48a5-9ae6-c2a1d3087db5" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:35:53.707" UserId="3680" Text="Ending of `нужно` depends on the grammatical gender and plurality of associated noun.  &#xD;&#xA;Your example should be:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Мне нужн**о** его общество как собаке нужны блохи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `общество`: neuter gender, singular. Correct form: `нужно`.&#xD;&#xA;2. `блохи`: plural. Correct form: `нужны`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative word `надо` has the only form, but it cannot completely replace word `нужно`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="e51a3dfd-9333-46f0-9fb9-4bbb92e2cec5" CreationDate="2016-09-05T18:23:32.533" UserId="6539" Text="The pattern is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что (Accusative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the object ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо in the same function has got the pattern &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Для этого дела надо особого работника. Вам что надо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="1fb0f100-c28b-41ee-b84b-a4d65718d135" CreationDate="2016-09-05T18:29:23.347" UserId="6539" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что (Accusative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the object ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо (a modal word) in the same function has got the pattern &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Для этого дела надо особого работника. Вам что надо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13117" RevisionGUID="4cb13a61-836e-4f03-9b47-b3b85eb73b34" CreationDate="2016-09-05T18:36:43.513" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="What affects how the ending of нужно should be changed?  A corrected sentence I wrote reads &gt;Ксения говорила, Мне нужно его общество как собаке нужны блохи.  Why are нужно and нужны used? (And I realize now that Russians say как собаке пятая нога which is not exactly something said in English, but it's clever!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does надо also change similarly depending on what noun is associated with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="9a6b526e-bbd1-44fe-a211-4dd31e2d2de9" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:31:15.503" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что ( Nominative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the object ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо (a modal word) in the same function has got the pattern &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Для этого дела надо особого работника. Вам что надо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="53c432e3-bd36-432f-9ef3-77ac66faf75a" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:53:05.653" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что ( Nominative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the noun  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо (a modal word) in the same function has got the pattern &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Для этого дела надо особого работника. Вам что надо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="ef7b2a2c-b2a4-4ea1-b5d2-79d28620bfa9" CreationDate="2016-09-05T19:59:53.093" UserId="6539" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что ( Nominative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the noun  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо (a modal word) in the same function has got the pattern but it cannot always replace нужно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Мне нужна вода.Для этого дела надо особого работника.Для этого дела нужен особый работник. Вам что надо?Вам что нужно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30767" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="c0c95745-d170-43d9-a065-43f76e6f8946" CreationDate="2016-09-05T22:40:02.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/772927296567140352" />
  <row Id="30769" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="0a3686da-6aee-433d-8e81-3ee18466afe1" CreationDate="2016-09-06T01:40:33.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/772972726134996992" />
  <row Id="30770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="53da5c27-8975-41b6-ad09-5887896de5a9" CreationDate="2016-09-06T03:32:06.850" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что ( Nominative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the noun  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо in the same function has got the pattern but it cannot always replace нужно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Мне нужна вода.Для этого дела надо особого работника.Для этого дела нужен особый работник. Вам что надо?Вам что нужно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="2db36550-d181-4c8c-80fd-edacd2bd6ef3" CreationDate="2016-09-06T03:43:45.900" UserId="6539" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что ( Nominative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the noun  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо (predicative ) in the same function has got the pattern but it cannot always replace нужно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Мне нужна вода.Для этого дела надо особого работника.Для этого дела нужен особый работник. Вам что надо?Вам что нужно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13119" RevisionGUID="1dafb231-9dd9-484e-8004-7cbdd47ca06d" CreationDate="2016-09-06T06:18:11.673" UserId="6539" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="The pattern with нужно (an adjective, short form) is &#xD;&#xA;Кому/чему(Dative) нужно (нужен, нужна, нужны) кто, что ( Nominative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему нужно одеяло. Мне нужна рубашка. Им нужны деньги.(The ending corresponds to the gender of the noun  ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can sometimes find genitive case after нужно as a predicative ( in fiction, archaic )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо (predicative ) in the same function has got the pattern but it cannot always replace нужно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кому /чему надо (doesn't change ) кого/что (Accusative ) or чего(Genitive )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо воды. Мне нужна вода.Для этого дела надо особого работника.Для этого дела нужен особый работник. Вам что надо?Вам что нужно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not consider other meanings of these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="df2a7657-ea27-4edd-8963-0158141ff538" CreationDate="2016-09-06T16:18:43.353" UserId="7239" Comment="added 2183 characters in body" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неодушевлённый, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/одушевлённый, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кoму&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кoм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неодушевлённый? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/одушевлённый (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Here are some (probably incorrect) examples of what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не возможно делать эту задачу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;but/а  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не возможно делать ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Here is a related question on this website which phrases the issue better than I do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/direct-object-of-negated-verbs-takes-which-case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this website:][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In &quot;proper&quot; Russian, the direct object of the negated verb is supposed to be put into the genitive case regardless of gender. This doesn't always happen in speech, but it is nonetheless recommended, particularly in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently this is also an issue in other Slavic languages: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/all-slavic-languages-genitive-after-negated-verbs.710336/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And apparently it is also a very complicated issue in Russian, since there has been much linguistic research (apparently for even more than a century) into when and why the genitive is sometimes used for the direct objects of negated verbs, and it seems like basically there are no hard-and-fast rules and whatever rules exist are rapidly changing over time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/SLS06_handout.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.academia.edu/5479874/Changing_semantic_factors_in_case_selection_Russian_evidence_from_the_last_two_centuries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature of Russian might explain why genitive is usually listed before accusative in declension tables written in Russian, since the genitive is in some cases associated with direct objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked my native-speaker friend about this, they gave one answer, then decided that answer was wrong, gave the opposite answer, and then admitted that they don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the accusative is used always for direct objects in other languages, and it is used sometimes for the direct objects of negated verbs in Russian, and there is no 100% rule mandating that the genitive must be used for such direct objects, I think I am probably just going to always use the accusative for the direct object, regardless of whether the verb is negated or not, and let the chips fall where they may. It doesn't seem like there is any practical advantage to using two different cases for direct objects anyway, whereas there are many obvious disadvantages to such a system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ielanguages.com/russian2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13120" RevisionGUID="9762fedd-f6b5-4626-bc67-49ae00cd54a3" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:41:47.677" UserId="506" Text="How to translate &quot;по коробу поскреби&quot; [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iu_MAZWLZs&amp;list=PLnI9xbPdZUAmfrzf0gBsov_5ySlXQiSAu&amp;index=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13120" RevisionGUID="9762fedd-f6b5-4626-bc67-49ae00cd54a3" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:41:47.677" UserId="506" Text="по коробу поскреби" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13120" RevisionGUID="9762fedd-f6b5-4626-bc67-49ae00cd54a3" CreationDate="2016-09-06T21:41:47.677" UserId="506" Text="|колобок|translate|сказка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="2c2b6c0d-46ac-42a2-bbde-f8e9b7fcb8fe" CreationDate="2016-09-07T00:49:52.727" UserId="6991" Text="They are _свадьба_, _женитьба_, and _замужество_. According to wiktionary, _женитьба_ is marriage from a man's perspective (despite being feminine) and _замужество_ a woman's (despite being neuter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it seriously necessary to differentiate? More important, do Russians feel the need to differentiate? If I confused one meaning with another, would a Russian speaker pick that up and say 'you should have used this other word, sounds more natural'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that _свадьба_ is used when it doesn't matter or your referring to marriage in a neutral/objective stance. Is this wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My final question would be are there any other words like this or does it not really matter and I'm blowing it out of proportion? I'm sorry if it seems like a strange question but I can't think of any English words that work like this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="2c2b6c0d-46ac-42a2-bbde-f8e9b7fcb8fe" CreationDate="2016-09-07T00:49:52.727" UserId="6991" Text="Why does Russian have three words for marriage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="2c2b6c0d-46ac-42a2-bbde-f8e9b7fcb8fe" CreationDate="2016-09-07T00:49:52.727" UserId="6991" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|connotation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13122" RevisionGUID="4b49fb5b-5fa5-4262-b771-6ec5b5323708" CreationDate="2016-09-07T05:36:59.427" UserId="6539" Text="We have more words related to the topic.**Брак** (wedlock,marriage ) is an official term.The verb is **вступить в брак**. It is related to both parties (a man and a woman ) **Супружество** (cojugality) is the state of being married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЖЕНИ́ТЬСЯ, женюсь, женишься; совер. и несовер.&#xD;&#xA;1. на ком. О мужчине: вступить (пать) в брак 1 . Сын женится.&#xD;&#xA;2. (ед. не употр.). Вступить (пать) в брак1 (разг.). Сосед с соседкой женятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb refers either to **a man** (when used in the singular) or to **a couple** (a man and a woman ) when used in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,the same usage applies to the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Женитьба — ж. 1. Вступление мужчины в брак. 2. Брачный союз мужчины с женщиной. Толковый словарь Ефремовой. Т. Ф. Ефремова. 2000 …   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus,you can say **его женитьба,брак, её замужество,брак, их женитьба,брак**&#xD;&#xA;**Замужество** is for women only.&#xD;&#xA;Свадьба (wedding ) refers to the selebration of this happy event,usually **их свадьба**.&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't misuse them in order not to be corrected.We do differentiate these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="33c141e5-34d1-48dc-bc36-564c0ce0d95f" CreationDate="2016-09-07T06:00:21.737" UserId="7755" Text="*Cвадьба* is a ceremony of getting married, better translation would be *wedding*. If you mean *marriage* you could use word ***брак*** without concern of direction.&#xD;&#xA;Also *женитьба* describes *matchmaking* from man's perspective — a man getting a *wife*(***жена*** — ***жен**итьба*). And *замужество* is a state of being married, from a woman's perspective — wife behind a husband ***за муж**ем*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13123" RevisionGUID="a43836e1-e3ff-4f5e-a01c-286a06710c67" CreationDate="2016-09-07T06:22:33.170" UserId="7755" Comment="edited body" Text="*Cвадьба* is a ceremony of getting married, better translation would be *wedding*. If you mean *marriage* you could use word ***брак*** without concern of direction.&#xD;&#xA;Also *женитьба* describes *matchmaking* from man's perspective — a man getting a *wife*(***жен**а* — ***жен**итьба*). And *замужество* is a state of being married, from a woman's perspective — wife behind a husband ***за муж**ем*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="de80fa02-4c43-41cc-b160-436b6f9f5380" CreationDate="2016-09-07T07:06:45.827" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13124" RevisionGUID="df64025f-fd40-4ff6-a382-2afe25a2d3c5" CreationDate="2016-09-07T07:13:52.813" UserId="551" Text="Короб is a kind of a box, that was used for storing things in old times. Поскреби is a suggestion to 'скрести', which means 'to scrape'. It's like &quot;Scrape the bottom of the barrel&quot;, but instead of a barrel it should be some kind of a box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning here is that the box is empty, but maybe there's something left on it's bottom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13117" RevisionGUID="9919d834-e445-49f5-989b-afd5dda1079a" CreationDate="2016-09-07T09:21:53.303" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed formatting" Text="What affects how the ending of нужно should be changed?  A corrected sentence I wrote reads &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ксения говорила, Мне нужно его общество как собаке нужны блохи.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are нужно and нужны used? (And I realize now that Russians say как собаке пятая нога which is not exactly something said in English, but it's clever!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does надо also change similarly depending on what noun is associated with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13125" RevisionGUID="8fce4895-f277-453a-8f6e-ee32ff6ade20" CreationDate="2016-09-07T09:24:32.570" UserId="5008" Text="This terminology isn't specific to Russian language. It's rather a common point for the whole Slavic culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Замужество** ultimately means a status of a married woman who _lives at her husband's place_ (see [patrilocal residence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrilocal_residence)). Note that living at wife's house was considered improper, so there even exists a specific term &quot;_примак_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, **Женитьба** means &quot;getting&quot; a wife, which in turn changes man's social status.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Свадьба** is a wedding ceremony, but unlike English &quot;marriage&quot; Russian word refers to the whole families which now become cognate. So &quot;_свадьба_&quot; is &quot;connection of families&quot; which requires absolutely different word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Брак** is of the same root as &quot;_брать_&quot; (to take) which is probably due to practice of [bride kidnapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping). Though this meaning was lost long time ago and now &quot;_брак_&quot; is just an official term for marriage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30788" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13120" RevisionGUID="d93e26df-eda7-4bd5-b430-e97e326ccce2" CreationDate="2016-09-07T11:49:53.613" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="eda3127a-54c5-4795-ac96-747e3d29f229" CreationDate="2016-09-07T12:09:05.117" UserId="7756" Text="В русском языке есть такое выражение: измерять что-то в &quot;попугаях&quot;. А есть ли что-то подобное в английском языке?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract points - не совсем то, хотя имеет похожую смысловую нагрузку. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="eda3127a-54c5-4795-ac96-747e3d29f229" CreationDate="2016-09-07T12:09:05.117" UserId="7756" Text="&quot;Попугаи&quot; по-английски в контексте измерения чего-либо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="eda3127a-54c5-4795-ac96-747e3d29f229" CreationDate="2016-09-07T12:09:05.117" UserId="7756" Text="|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13122" RevisionGUID="a36220c5-be8d-4708-9ca0-8b519426fdd4" CreationDate="2016-09-07T14:10:35.267" UserId="6539" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="We have more words related to the topic.**Брак** (wedlock,marriage ) is an official term.The verb is **вступить в брак**. It is related to both parties (a man and a woman ) **Супружество** (cojugality) is the state of being married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЖЕНИ́ТЬСЯ, женюсь, женишься; совер. и несовер.perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;1. на ком. О мужчине: вступить (пать) в брак about a man to marry somebody.1 . Сын женится.&#xD;&#xA;2. (ед. не употр.)isn't used in singular to marry (for a couple.). Вступить (пать) в брак1 (разг.). Сосед с соседкой женятся.My neighbours are going to marry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb refers either to **a man** (when used in the singular) or to **a couple** (a man and a woman ) when used in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,the same usage applies to the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Женитьба — ж. 1. Вступление мужчины в брак. 2. Брачный союз мужчины с женщиной. Толковый словарь Ефремовой. Т. Ф. Ефремова. 2000 …   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus,you can say **его женитьба,брак, её замужество,брак, их женитьба,брак**&#xD;&#xA;**Замужество** is for women only.&#xD;&#xA;Свадьба (wedding ) refers to the selebration of this happy event,usually **их свадьба**.&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't misuse them in order not to be corrected.We do differentiate these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="f8dcb317-d985-45ea-8a6e-d52856bcbebc" CreationDate="2016-09-07T14:51:51.190" UserId="4753" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner anв so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter marriage&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свядебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свядебная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас небыло свадбы. We did not have a reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна желились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в секу до брака/до свадбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="f7a08995-ce43-43ee-b9fa-4021e28e433d" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:00:27.883" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner anв so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter marriage&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свядебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свядебная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас небыло свадбы. We did not have a reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна желились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в секу до брака/до свадбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30795" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13126" RevisionGUID="c27b4774-d0d9-4cb7-9693-a74ff13b8295" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:05:35.927" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13122" RevisionGUID="b2c48927-e321-4c2e-b087-e41e0c6aef22" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:44:05.903" UserId="4753" Comment="added dash to make it clear that пать is an alternative suffix; changed &quot;about&quot; and &quot;for&quot; to &quot;of&quot; to conform to standard dictionary style" Text="We have more words related to the topic.**Брак** (wedlock,marriage ) is an official term.The verb is **вступить в брак**. It is related to both parties (a man and a woman ) **Супружество** (cojugality) is the state of being married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЖЕНИ́ТЬСЯ, женюсь, женишься; совер. и несовер. perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;1. на ком. О мужчине: вступить (-пать) в брак of a man: to marry somebody.1 . Сын женится.&#xD;&#xA;2. (ед. не употр.) (singular not used) to marry (of a couple.). Вступить (-пать) в брак1 (разг.). Сосед с соседкой женятся. My neighbours are going to marry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb refers either to **a man** (when used in the singular) or to **a couple** (a man and a woman ) when used in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,the same usage applies to the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Женитьба — ж. 1. Вступление мужчины в брак. 2. Брачный союз мужчины с женщиной. Толковый словарь Ефремовой. Т. Ф. Ефремова. 2000 …   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus,you can say **его женитьба,брак, её замужество,брак, их женитьба,брак**&#xD;&#xA;**Замужество** is for women only.&#xD;&#xA;Свадьба (wedding ) refers to the selebration of this happy event,usually **их свадьба**.&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't misuse them in order not to be corrected.We do differentiate these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30797" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13122" RevisionGUID="b2c48927-e321-4c2e-b087-e41e0c6aef22" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:44:05.903" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 6539 edit id of 793" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="90e31a25-3171-4eb4-8313-be1f35fb39c1" CreationDate="2016-09-07T16:23:57.637" UserId="4753" Comment="typo" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter marriage&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свядебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свядебная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас небыло свадбы. We did not have a reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна желились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в секу до брака/до свадбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="c77958a2-def6-45a6-b44b-12c684051203" CreationDate="2016-09-07T18:10:53.927" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed grammar " Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter marriage&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13128" RevisionGUID="77dc73e3-b6f3-4e7f-b076-042e7918edb4" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:39:57.570" UserDisplayName="user5462" Text="&gt; Is it seriously necessary to differentiate? More important, do Russians feel the need to differentiate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not quite &quot;the need to differentiate&quot;, more like a need &quot;to use more correct word&quot;. In a casual speech Russians occasionally misplace &quot;женитьба&quot; and &quot;замужество&quot;, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I confused one meaning with another, would a Russian speaker pick that up and say 'you should have used this other word, sounds more natural'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd probably be corrected in more or less official environment (if you're preparing a speech or something), of if someone tries to properly teach you the language, or if someone is being a bit pedantic.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also, though unlikely, mismatched wording could be interpreted as if you mean same-sex marriage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My final question would be are there any other words like this or does it not really matter and I'm blowing it out of proportion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it does not matter too much. I've heard &quot;yeah right, I always confuse these words&quot; from a number of Russians. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13128" RevisionGUID="aaecf6d2-debe-429d-b965-b41e0ae75bf0" CreationDate="2016-09-08T14:52:05.313" UserDisplayName="user5462" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is it seriously necessary to differentiate? More important, do Russians feel the need to differentiate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not quite &quot;the need to differentiate&quot;, more like a need to use more correct word. In a casual speech Russians occasionally misplace &quot;женитьба&quot; and &quot;замужество&quot;, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I confused one meaning with another, would a Russian speaker pick that up and say 'you should have used this other word, sounds more natural'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd probably be corrected in more or less official environment (if you're preparing a speech or something), of if someone tries to properly teach you the language, or if someone is being a bit pedantic.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also, though unlikely, mismatched wording could be interpreted as if you mean same-sex marriage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My final question would be are there any other words like this or does it not really matter and I'm blowing it out of proportion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it does not matter too much. Think of it like &quot;its&quot; vs &quot;it's&quot; in English - it is a common and minor mistake, most people just won't bother correcting you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="619a3f01-105c-4816-aeb5-48fd80694b69" CreationDate="2016-09-08T15:57:09.140" UserId="4753" Comment="corrected &quot;enter marriage&quot; to &quot;enter into marriage&quot; and added &quot;enter into matrimony&quot; as a variant" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="d7fdeddc-677d-4a9c-9981-4e7e6cbdd4fb" CreationDate="2016-09-08T16:48:26.520" UserId="4753" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russians consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis. For example if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In certain cases &quot;is&quot; is translated &quot;является&quot;. However &quot;явлается&quot; does not literally mean &quot;is&quot;. Instead it means &quot;appears&quot; or &quot;shows up&quot;. It is used to say that someone or some thing is acting in a particular role or capacity. The role or capacity is always in the instrumental case in order to convey the idea &quot;as a&quot; or &quot;as the&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он явлается деректором. (He is the director.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он явлается террористом. (He is a terrorist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is appropriate to use &quot;явлается&quot; here because these are roles which these men have assumed and which they can put off. The director was not born a director and may die a former director. He is acting in his role as director.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast the sentence &quot;Мяч явлается красным.&quot; makes no sense. It suggests that the ball's words are deeds are what make it red. Say &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot; If someone contradicts you, say &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="19c59417-376f-48d5-934b-6abf5c76702e" CreationDate="2016-09-08T16:51:58.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/773926866604400640" />
  <row Id="30805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13130" RevisionGUID="9664f619-8786-4032-9f8e-7100fd9f94d1" CreationDate="2016-09-08T18:46:04.457" UserId="7239" Text="For instance, I have the impression that the phrase &quot;on the toilet&quot; translates to &quot;в туалете&quot; or &quot;на унитазе&quot;, but that switching &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot; between either of these two phrases would be incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My workbook (задачник) has a list of about 50 or so set phrases with &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot;, which I have made flashcards of, and I have added some more, like &quot;на пустыре&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a comprehensive list of these phrases somewhere so I could complete my flashcards?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/%D0%B2-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5, http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11441/difference-between-%D0%BD%D0%B0-and-%D0%B2-in-clothing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13130" RevisionGUID="9664f619-8786-4032-9f8e-7100fd9f94d1" CreationDate="2016-09-08T18:46:04.457" UserId="7239" Text="Is there a comprehensive list of where &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot; are used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13130" RevisionGUID="9664f619-8786-4032-9f8e-7100fd9f94d1" CreationDate="2016-09-08T18:46:04.457" UserId="7239" Text="|выбор-слова|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13131" RevisionGUID="38d54d3b-43a5-4336-b38b-32ddee93ebaa" CreationDate="2016-09-08T20:21:25.110" UserId="4714" Text="Does anyone have a theory, or knowledge about the origin of the particle ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does it act as a question particle? Where did it come from, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13131" RevisionGUID="38d54d3b-43a5-4336-b38b-32ddee93ebaa" CreationDate="2016-09-08T20:21:25.110" UserId="4714" Text="Origin of particle &quot;ли&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13131" RevisionGUID="38d54d3b-43a5-4336-b38b-32ddee93ebaa" CreationDate="2016-09-08T20:21:25.110" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13132" RevisionGUID="32e11ce0-809d-4dad-ab37-21ed26a0def9" CreationDate="2016-09-08T20:58:44.237" UserId="6381" Text="I am more or less familiar with the conecept behind `хватает/хватило/хватит` and `достаточно` which is to say that one has something or lacks it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less formal: `(не) хватает/хватило/хватит` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More formal: `(не) достаточно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did an exercise regarding those two words and I had to guess which one to put into which gap. Let's take this short conversation as an example. For you as native speakers what exactly lets you choose the one or the other here? Personally I would choose the more formal one because the situation takes place in a workplace environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Начальник:** Тебе не хватает   опыта, внимания к деталям, терпения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Подчинённый:** У меня достаточно   всего, о чём вы сказали. Я трудоспособный, терпеливый, быстро учусь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://learnrussian.rt.com/lessons/styles-of-speech-constructions-of-sufficiency/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13132" RevisionGUID="32e11ce0-809d-4dad-ab37-21ed26a0def9" CreationDate="2016-09-08T20:58:44.237" UserId="6381" Text="One has something or lacks it (хватит/достаточно)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13132" RevisionGUID="32e11ce0-809d-4dad-ab37-21ed26a0def9" CreationDate="2016-09-08T20:58:44.237" UserId="6381" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="cbabec01-105e-4e8b-9707-3583fa98281e" CreationDate="2016-09-08T21:17:08.013" UserId="7674" Text="to my taste the style of `мне хватает всего` is lower and in the given situation a response reusing `хватает` picked up from the statement of the boss but in opposite meaning would sound confrontational&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as far as the connotation is concerned when applied to oneself `достаточно` sounds more objective, `хватает` has this spirit of *being enough for me* which may not be so for someone else or meet certain critera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="a0a4b03a-77af-4e41-ba7a-ba5d6915284a" CreationDate="2016-09-08T21:22:14.447" UserId="7674" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="to my taste the style of `мне хватает всего` is lower and in the given situation a response reusing `хватает` picked up from the statement of the boss but in opposite meaning would sound confrontational&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as far as the connotation is concerned in this situation `достаточно` sounds more objective, `хватает` when applied to oneself has this spirit of *being enough for me* which may not be so for someone else or meet certain critera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`достаточно` also has a connotation of *sufficiency for the time being* which may change later on, whereas `хватать` has an *undertone of constancy*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="ebb6aae9-f562-4c9e-af54-723d9914c6c9" CreationDate="2016-09-09T04:29:40.313" UserId="6539" Text="How to distinguish between the styles. The boss in your dialogue is not polite, he uses ты addressing his employee, and uses 'хватать, хватить' respectively. Though normally it shouldn't be like this. The employee cannot behave the same way. He uses вы and достаточно.It is formal and polite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. **Достаточно** appeared in the Russian language at the end of the18th century as a bookish word and was used in the scientific language. Later it was widespread in the official style.  Хватит is informal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you know something *достаточно хорошо*, you know it rather well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда-то он изучал физику достаточно глубоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Достаточно* means &quot;as much as it is necessary* for something  Хватать has the same meaning (informal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он получает достаточно. | Вы достаточно потрудились в этом полугодии. | Месяца вполне достаточно, чтобы подготовиться.&#xD;&#xA;На жизнь ему хватает денег. Чтобы подготовиться, месяца хватит вполне.&#xD;&#xA;— Вы не мало ли взяли с собой еды в дорогу? — Достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;Не маловато ли ты взял с собой еды?--Мне хватит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Недостаточно, не хватает** means *insufficient*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нe хватает /недостаточно времени для близких, для детей. | Не хватает ласки, нежности, тепла, общения. |&#xD;&#xA;Не хватило денег, чтобы купить что-либо.&#xD;&#xA;Компьютеру не хватает памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 as a predicative If there is something ** больше чем достаточно,** it means the quantity or number is too much, or too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умеющих играть на гитаре оказалось больше чем достаточно. | Идей у него больше чем достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 as a predicative ** достаточно сделать** something to achieve a result means 'you will get a result as soon as you do something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне достаточно посмотреть на страницу в течение двадцати секунд, и я её запомню. | Достаточно пропустить один день занятий, чтобы тебя исключили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. as a predicative When you say **чего-либо достаточно,** you mean &quot;it is enough&quot; &quot;you don't need more&quot;, &quot;stop it&quot;. It is more polite. Хватит is also used, but sounds a bit rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Достаточно музыки! | Перестань, достаточно!&#xD;&#xA;Хватит! Перестань!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хватать, хватить.more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you say,** вас на всё (всех) не хватает**, it means you cannot multitask or take care of several people .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.If you say, ** вам чего-либо не хватает для полного счастья**, it means you have a lot, but you still need something to be fully satisfied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.If you say **кого-то не хватает**, you miss them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Страшно не хватает мудрого друга. | Ты ведь знаешь, что мне не хватает тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Idioms **его (нам) только не хватало**--you don't want their presence in your company  &#xD;&#xA;** Этого нам (мне) только не хватало**--said when there is something unexpected which can serve an obstacle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="9e433818-829c-49a5-a80b-731180caeb8d" CreationDate="2016-09-09T04:37:13.440" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="How to distinguish between the styles. The boss in your dialogue is not polite, he uses ты addressing his employee, and uses 'хватать, хватить' respectively. Though normally it shouldn't be like this. The employee cannot behave the same way. He uses вы and достаточно.It is formal and polite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. **Достаточно** appeared in the Russian language at the end of the18th century as a bookish word and was used in the scientific language. Later it was widespread in the official style.  Хватит is informal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you know something *достаточно хорошо*, you know it rather well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда-то он изучал физику достаточно глубоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Достаточно* means &quot;as much as it is necessary* for something  Хватать has the same meaning (informal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он получает достаточно. | Вы достаточно потрудились в этом полугодии. | Месяца вполне достаточно, чтобы подготовиться.&#xD;&#xA;На жизнь ему хватает денег. Чтобы подготовиться, месяца хватит вполне.&#xD;&#xA;— Вы не мало ли взяли с собой еды в дорогу? — Достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;Не маловато ли ты взял с собой еды?--Мне хватит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Недостаточно, не хватает** means *insufficient*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нe хватает /недостаточно времени для близких, для детей. | Не хватает ласки, нежности, тепла, общения. |&#xD;&#xA;Не хватило денег, чтобы купить что-либо.&#xD;&#xA;Компьютеру не хватает памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 as a predicative If there is something **больше чем достаточно,** it means the quantity or number is too much, or too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умеющих играть на гитаре оказалось больше чем достаточно. | Идей у него больше чем достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 as a predicative **достаточно сделать** something to achieve a result means 'you will get a result as soon as you do something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне достаточно посмотреть на страницу в течение двадцати секунд, и я её запомню. | Достаточно пропустить один день занятий, чтобы тебя исключили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. as a predicative When you say **чего-либо достаточно** you mean &quot;it is enough&quot; &quot;you don't need more&quot;, &quot;stop it&quot;. It is more polite. Хватит is also used, but sounds a bit rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Достаточно музыки! | Перестань, достаточно!&#xD;&#xA;Хватит! Перестань!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хватать, хватить.more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you say,**вас на всё (всех) не хватает**, it means you cannot multitask or take care of several people .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.If you say, **вам чего-либо не хватает для полного счастья**, it means you have a lot, but you still need something to be fully satisfied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.If you say **кого-то не хватает**, you miss them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Страшно не хватает мудрого друга. | Ты ведь знаешь, что мне не хватает тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Idioms **его (нам) только не хватало**--you don't want their presence in your company  &#xD;&#xA;**Этого нам (мне) только не хватало**--said when there is something unexpected which can serve an obstacle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13135" RevisionGUID="0a72cb96-ecfa-4c56-a63c-bf8ecfda345b" CreationDate="2016-09-09T06:13:34.060" UserId="5443" Text="(How it works in questions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever the origin of the particle is, it adds the sense &quot;**или не/нет**&quot; (whether or not). This could explain its function in *embedded questions*: it helps to simplify an expression by excluding the complete form of negated alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не знал, придёт **ли** [= **или не** придёт, придёт **или нет**]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сегодня его брат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(He didn't know **if** his brother would come /or wouldn't come/ that night.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an *actual question* the sense &quot;**или... не**&quot; can be also (along with the mentioned simplification) used to express additional *doubt* about a judgment or about some its detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А знает **ли** он об этом [**или** всё-таки **не** знает]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(But does he *really* know about it?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А так **ли** это [**или** всё-таки **не** так]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Is it *really* so?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13136" RevisionGUID="7a7cb814-873e-4e5b-8229-c2211982e731" CreationDate="2016-09-09T06:41:05.800" UserId="6425" Text="I’m not sure that it’s possible to compose such a list, since in some instances usage depends on the context. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Корабли уходят в море;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пастух вышел в поле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; vs&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы едем на море отдыхать;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Футболист вышел на поле&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="b2a9ccb5-2efc-411b-baba-a4f07d4d4c6f" CreationDate="2016-09-09T07:44:56.497" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="to my taste the style of `мне хватает всего` is lower and in the given situation a response reusing `хватает` picked up from the boss' statement but in opposite meaning would sound confrontational&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as far as the connotation is concerned in this situation `достаточно` sounds more objective, `хватает` when applied to oneself has this spirit of *being enough for me* which may not be so for someone else or meet certain critera&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`достаточно` also has a connotation of *sufficiency for the time being* which may change later on, whereas `хватать` has an *undertone of constancy*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30821" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13117" RevisionGUID="982abb42-0478-4604-8112-f59daaf3cb3a" CreationDate="2016-09-09T07:55:05.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/774154144181432320" />
  <row Id="30822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="d8dba1dc-699e-4e4f-8def-c538779a7d6f" CreationDate="2016-09-09T09:39:07.587" UserId="7223" Comment="Fixed spelling. " Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russians consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis. For example if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In certain cases &quot;is&quot; is translated &quot;является&quot;. However &quot;является&quot; does not literally mean &quot;is&quot;. Instead it means &quot;appears&quot; or &quot;shows up&quot;. It is used to say that someone or some thing is acting in a particular role or capacity. The role or capacity is always in the instrumental case in order to convey the idea &quot;as a&quot; or &quot;as the&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он является директором. (He is the director.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он является террористом. (He is a terrorist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is appropriate to use &quot;является&quot; here because these are roles which these men have assumed and which they can put off. The director was not born a director and may die a former director. He is acting in his role as director.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast the sentence &quot;Мяч является красным.&quot; makes no sense. It suggests that the ball's words are deeds are what make it red. Say &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot; If someone contradicts you, say &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30823" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="d8dba1dc-699e-4e4f-8def-c538779a7d6f" CreationDate="2016-09-09T09:39:07.587" Comment="Proposed by 7223 approved by 1329, 5605 edit id of 794" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13137" RevisionGUID="b65faaff-9c3e-4f0c-b2ef-eb48339fa65c" CreationDate="2016-09-09T10:26:42.643" UserId="6539" Text="I don't think there are too many exceptions to learn them by heart.We should just analyse the situation, whether it is the preposition of place or movement. Another stage is to consider the position like in your example. If you are inside or on the surface. If you group your 50 examples in such a way,you are sure to see some rules and you will have less exceptions to learn. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13137" RevisionGUID="94a22ed5-a61d-4e56-8783-cd7f0796d545" CreationDate="2016-09-09T10:32:48.983" UserId="6539" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="I don't think there are too many exceptions to learn them by heart.We should just analyse the situation, whether it is the preposition of place or movement. Another stage is to consider the position like in your example. If you are inside or on the surface. If you group your 50 examples in such a way,you are sure to see some rules and you will have less exceptions to learn. A fotballer wouldn't go *в* футбольное поле, only *на*,because he plays on its surface." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="f128046a-91da-473e-ada9-d9f606c42fbc" CreationDate="2016-09-09T12:53:54.813" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1060 characters in body" Text="How to distinguish between the styles. The boss in your dialogue is not polite, he uses ты addressing his employee, and uses 'хватать, хватить' respectively. Though normally it shouldn't be like this. The employee cannot behave the same way. He uses вы and достаточно.It is formal and polite.But then comes the difference in the meaning and mixture of styles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Ты хотел со мной поговорить, Степан?&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: Да, Михаил Петрович. Я хочу стать начальником департамента продаж. Я знаю, что вы ищете нового начальника. Я много работаю, у меня хорошие продажи. Все клиенты мной довольны.&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Этого ...Недостаточно....(not enough).... , чтобы стать начальником департамента.&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: А чего мне не ....хватает.....(lack).. ?&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Тебе не ....хватает....(lack)... опыта, внимания к деталям, терпения.&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: У меня ......достаточно...(enough).. всего, о чём вы сказали. Я трудоспособный, терпеливый, быстро учусь.&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Не думаю, что это так.&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: А у Андрея есть все эти качества, чтобы стать начальником департамента? Я знаю, что он тоже хочет получить это место. А ведь он работает только три месяца в нашей компании!&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: ...хватит...(stop it)..... говорить об этом. Я сам буду решать, кто станет начальником отдела продаж. Всё, на сегодня ....(достаточно )(enough)..... , иди работать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. **Достаточно** appeared in the Russian language at the end of the18th century as a bookish word and was used in the scientific language. Later it was widespread in the official style.  Хватит is informal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you know something *достаточно хорошо*, you know it rather well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда-то он изучал физику достаточно глубоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Достаточно* means &quot;as much as it is necessary* for something  Хватать has the same meaning (informal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он получает достаточно. | Вы достаточно потрудились в этом полугодии. | Месяца вполне достаточно, чтобы подготовиться.&#xD;&#xA;На жизнь ему хватает денег. Чтобы подготовиться, месяца хватит вполне.&#xD;&#xA;— Вы не мало ли взяли с собой еды в дорогу? — Достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;Не маловато ли ты взял с собой еды?--Мне хватит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Недостаточно, не хватает** means *insufficient*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нe хватает /недостаточно времени для близких, для детей. | Не хватает ласки, нежности, тепла, общения. |&#xD;&#xA;Не хватило денег, чтобы купить что-либо.&#xD;&#xA;Компьютеру не хватает памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 as a predicative If there is something **больше чем достаточно,** it means the quantity or number is too much, or too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умеющих играть на гитаре оказалось больше чем достаточно. | Идей у него больше чем достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 as a predicative **достаточно сделать** something to achieve a result means 'you will get a result as soon as you do something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне достаточно посмотреть на страницу в течение двадцати секунд, и я её запомню. | Достаточно пропустить один день занятий, чтобы тебя исключили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. as a predicative When you say **чего-либо достаточно** you mean &quot;it is enough&quot; &quot;you don't need more&quot;, &quot;stop it&quot;. It is more polite. Хватит is also used, but sounds a bit rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Достаточно музыки! | Перестань, достаточно!&#xD;&#xA;Хватит! Перестань!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хватать, хватить.more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you say,**вас на всё (всех) не хватает**, it means you cannot multitask or take care of several people .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.If you say, **вам чего-либо не хватает для полного счастья**, it means you have a lot, but you still need something to be fully satisfied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.If you say **кого-то не хватает**, you miss them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Страшно не хватает мудрого друга. | Ты ведь знаешь, что мне не хватает тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Idioms **его (нам) только не хватало**--you don't want their presence in your company  &#xD;&#xA;**Этого нам (мне) только не хватало**--said when there is something unexpected which can serve an obstacle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13134" RevisionGUID="bee677f8-07ca-4c6c-aabc-a9897ef17e92" CreationDate="2016-09-09T13:05:39.923" UserId="6539" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="How to distinguish between the styles. The boss in your dialogue is not polite, he uses ты addressing his employee, and uses 'хватать, хватить' respectively. Though normally it shouldn't be like this. The employee cannot behave the same way. He uses вы and достаточно.It is formal and polite.But then comes the difference in the meaning and mixture of styles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you can see the structure is different. Кому? Мне, тебе не хватает.Чего, у кого достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Ты хотел со мной поговорить, Степан?&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: Да, Михаил Петрович. Я хочу стать начальником департамента продаж. Я знаю, что вы ищете нового начальника. Я много работаю, у меня хорошие продажи. Все клиенты мной довольны.&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Этого ...Недостаточно....(not enough).... , чтобы стать начальником департамента.&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: А чего мне не ....хватает.....(lack).. ?&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Тебе не ....хватает....(lack)... опыта, внимания к деталям, терпения.&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: У меня ......достаточно...(enough).. всего, о чём вы сказали. Я трудоспособный, терпеливый, быстро учусь.&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: Не думаю, что это так.&#xD;&#xA;Подчинённый: А у Андрея есть все эти качества, чтобы стать начальником департамента? Я знаю, что он тоже хочет получить это место. А ведь он работает только три месяца в нашей компании!&#xD;&#xA;Начальник: ...хватит...(stop it)..... говорить об этом. Я сам буду решать, кто станет начальником отдела продаж. Всё, на сегодня ....(достаточно )(enough)..... , иди работать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. **Достаточно** appeared in the Russian language at the end of the18th century as a bookish word and was used in the scientific language. Later it was widespread in the official style.  Хватит is informal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you know something *достаточно хорошо*, you know it rather well.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда-то он изучал физику достаточно глубоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Достаточно* means &quot;as much as it is necessary* for something  Хватать has the same meaning (informal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он получает достаточно. | Вы достаточно потрудились в этом полугодии. | Месяца вполне достаточно, чтобы подготовиться.&#xD;&#xA;На жизнь ему хватает денег. Чтобы подготовиться, месяца хватит вполне.&#xD;&#xA;— Вы не мало ли взяли с собой еды в дорогу? — Достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;Не маловато ли ты взял с собой еды?--Мне хватит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Недостаточно, не хватает** means *insufficient*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нe хватает /недостаточно времени для близких, для детей. | Не хватает ласки, нежности, тепла, общения. |&#xD;&#xA;Не хватило денег, чтобы купить что-либо.&#xD;&#xA;Компьютеру не хватает памяти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 as a predicative If there is something **больше чем достаточно,** it means the quantity or number is too much, or too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умеющих играть на гитаре оказалось больше чем достаточно. | Идей у него больше чем достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 as a predicative **достаточно сделать** something to achieve a result means 'you will get a result as soon as you do something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне достаточно посмотреть на страницу в течение двадцати секунд, и я её запомню. | Достаточно пропустить один день занятий, чтобы тебя исключили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. as a predicative When you say **чего-либо достаточно** you mean &quot;it is enough&quot; &quot;you don't need more&quot;, &quot;stop it&quot;. It is more polite. Хватит is also used, but sounds a bit rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Достаточно музыки! | Перестань, достаточно!&#xD;&#xA;Хватит! Перестань!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хватать, хватить.more meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.If you say,**вас на всё (всех) не хватает**, it means you cannot multitask or take care of several people .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.If you say, **вам чего-либо не хватает для полного счастья**, it means you have a lot, but you still need something to be fully satisfied. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.If you say **кого-то не хватает**, you miss them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Страшно не хватает мудрого друга. | Ты ведь знаешь, что мне не хватает тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Idioms **его (нам) только не хватало**--you don't want their presence in your company  &#xD;&#xA;**Этого нам (мне) только не хватало**--said when there is something unexpected which can serve an obstacle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="d3bff4d7-c425-4b12-894e-2a2cec10385d" CreationDate="2016-09-09T14:00:36.673" UserId="4753" Comment="reordered sections, added section about engagements" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руки и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13138" RevisionGUID="f742a696-11f5-41f2-b32b-83debd427419" CreationDate="2016-09-09T14:52:05.403" UserId="4714" Text="I'm pretty good with grammar, but I've never been able to see the point of the что in constructions like these. Why is it there? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.,—почти что/ только что/ пока что/ разве что/ и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13138" RevisionGUID="f742a696-11f5-41f2-b32b-83debd427419" CreationDate="2016-09-09T14:52:05.403" UserId="4714" Text="What role does &quot;что&quot; play in— почти что/ только что/ пока что и т.д" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13138" RevisionGUID="f742a696-11f5-41f2-b32b-83debd427419" CreationDate="2016-09-09T14:52:05.403" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13139" RevisionGUID="ac5d5797-df8f-4ea4-8d7b-c66f5765d3a1" CreationDate="2016-09-09T17:55:33.697" UserId="7674" Text="`почти что` can be reduced to `почти` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я почти что ничего не помню = Я почти ничего не помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so is `пока что`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пока что не решил, куда поеду отдыхать = Я пока не решил, куда поеду&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдыхать&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`только что` and `только` have slightly different connotations as adverbs of time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я только что узнал об этом = I just now found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Только что &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я только узнал об этом = I just recently found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Недавно/Вчера/Полчаса назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`разве что` is irreducible to `разве`, besides that there's an interrogative particle `разве` synonymous to `неужели`, which is irreplaceable with `разве что` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поговорить по-русски можно разве что на кухне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве вам запрещают говорить по-русски?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13139" RevisionGUID="6a8237dd-e67f-4c18-8a26-37433c4b2e5e" CreationDate="2016-09-09T18:01:05.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Could be for embellishment, but not in all these adverbs the parts are separable without loss of meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почти что` can be reduced to `почти` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я почти что ничего не помню = Я почти ничего не помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so can be `пока что`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пока что не решил, куда поеду отдыхать = Я пока не решил, куда поеду&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдыхать&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`только что` and `только` have slightly different connotations as adverbs of time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я только что узнал об этом = I just now found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Только что &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я только узнал об этом = I just recently found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Недавно/Вчера/Полчаса назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`разве что` is irreducible to `разве`, besides that there's an interrogative particle `разве` synonymous to `неужели`, which is irreplaceable with `разве что` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поговорить по-русски можно разве что на кухне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве вам запрещают говорить по-русски?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13139" RevisionGUID="7ed27672-ef20-4401-ac6c-f7f9a4190c86" CreationDate="2016-09-09T18:06:53.633" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Could be for embellishment, but not in all these adverbs the parts are separable without loss of meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почти что` can be reduced to `почти` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я почти что ничего не помню = Я почти ничего не помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so can be `пока что`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пока что не решил, куда поеду отдыхать = Я пока не решил, куда поеду&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдыхать&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`только что` and `только` have slightly different connotations as adverbs of time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я только что узнал об этом = I just now found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Только что (a moment ago)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я только узнал об этом = I just recently found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Недавно/Вчера/Полчаса назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and conventions of their placement within the sentence differ, unlike `только что`, `только` can only be placed before the verb it describes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`разве что` is irreducible to `разве`, besides that there's an interrogative particle `разве` synonymous to `неужели`, which is irreplaceable with `разве что` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поговорить по-русски можно разве что на кухне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве вам запрещают говорить по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13140" RevisionGUID="7b0a6ed1-0356-4118-ad89-0ae6cbb66720" CreationDate="2016-09-09T18:17:03.067" UserId="4560" Text="Each of your four examples is actually its own thing, at least to an extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почти** and **почти что** are almost (no pun intended) completely interchangeable, **почти что** being significantly more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ditto **пока** and **пока что**, *but* only for the **пока** that means &quot;for now&quot;. Not the &quot;while&quot; one, which is **пока** only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Разве что** &quot;save perhaps for&quot;, &quot;unless perhaps&quot; is a different expression altogether from **разве** (a question word conveying surprise or doubt). There are *very* rare instances of **разве** alone use in the sense of **разве что**, and the ones you might come across are likely to be antiquated (and more on the &quot;rustic&quot; side of antiquated than the &quot;bookish&quot; one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Только что** &quot;just now&quot;, &quot;just then&quot;: treat as non-interchangeable with **только** to err on the safe side. The variations are highly colloquial and their usage is tricky in that special way colloqualisms can be. What I wrote here originally made sense to me until I saw `Я только узнал об этом` in the other answer. One gets a feel for it, I suppose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13139" RevisionGUID="33a92818-fe7d-4c19-84df-092e2dcd665b" CreationDate="2016-09-09T18:17:59.607" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Could be for embellishment, but not in all these adverbs the parts are separable without loss of meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почти что` can be reduced to `почти` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я почти что ничего не помню = Я почти ничего не помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so can be `пока что`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пока что не решил, куда поеду отдыхать = Я пока не решил, куда поеду&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдыхать&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`только что` and `только` have slightly different connotations as adverbs of time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я только что узнал об этом = I just now found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Только что (a moment ago)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я только узнал об этом = I just recently found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Недавно/Вчера/Полчаса назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and conventions of their placement within the sentence differ, unlike `только что`, `только` can only be placed before the verb it describes, because at other places it could be misconstrued for an adverb of quantity `Только я узнал об этом = I'm the only one who found out`, `Я узнал только об этом = That's all I found out`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`разве что` is irreducible to `разве`, besides that there's an interrogative particle `разве` synonymous to `неужели`, which is irreplaceable with `разве что` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поговорить по-русски можно разве что на кухне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве вам запрещают говорить по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13139" RevisionGUID="27b6aecf-bbc7-4c61-bc60-ce08ddf7e59a" CreationDate="2016-09-09T18:45:17.160" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Could be for embellishment, but not in all these adverbs the parts are separable without loss of meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почти что` can be reduced to `почти` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я почти что ничего не помню = Я почти ничего не помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so can be `пока что`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пока что не решил, куда поеду отдыхать = Я пока не решил, куда поеду&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдыхать&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`только что` and `только` have slightly different connotations as adverbs of time &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я только что узнал об этом = I just now found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Только что (a moment ago)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я только узнал об этом = I just recently found out about that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  -Когда ты узнал? - Недавно/Вчера/Полчаса назад&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and conventions of their placement within the sentence differ, unlike `только что`, `только` can only be placed before the verb it describes, because at other places it could be misconstrued for an adverb of quantity `Только я узнал об этом = I was the only one who found out`, `Я узнал только об этом = That's all I found out`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`разве что` is irreducible to `разве`, besides that there's an interrogative particle `разве` synonymous to `неужели`, which is irreplaceable with `разве что` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поговорить по-русски можно разве что на кухне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве вам запрещают говорить по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13141" RevisionGUID="a7aabd7f-d662-40db-92c8-f5ef9eaf6b30" CreationDate="2016-09-09T19:10:19.850" UserId="194" Text="It is cognate of English *let*, comes from PIE root lee̯- meaning allow, idle, inactive. English words &quot;left&quot;, &quot;leave&quot;, Russuan лень &quot;lazyness&quot; are of the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare PIE forms ***lee̯nos*** &quot;quiet&quot;, ***lee̯u̯os*** &quot;left&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13141" RevisionGUID="e71fc14e-b234-40d0-a88c-549ef2a0dba1" CreationDate="2016-09-09T19:17:58.453" UserId="194" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It is cognate of English *let*, comes from PIE root lee̯- meaning allow, idle, lazyu, inactive. English words &quot;left&quot;, &quot;leave&quot;, Russuan лень &quot;lazyness&quot; are of the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare PIE forms ***lee̯nos*** &quot;quiet&quot;, ***lee̯u̯os*** &quot;left&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13141" RevisionGUID="73494cb6-df28-4082-accf-541721ea8430" CreationDate="2016-09-09T19:27:54.083" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It is cognate of English *let*, comes from PIE root lee̯- meaning allow, idle, lazy, inactive. English words &quot;left&quot;, &quot;leave&quot;, Russuan лень &quot;lazyness&quot; are of the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare PIE forms ***lee̯nos*** &quot;quiet&quot;, ***lee̯u̯os*** &quot;left&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="17f87255-8c09-4464-b547-376ec352060e" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:09:15.490" UserId="7769" Text="I sometimes see Russian people add some `)` to the end of sentences, and sometimes even many of them: `))))`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently [read][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Russian: `)))))))` is a loud laugh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder: what does it mean when it is just one of them `)`? And is it a loud laugh when it comes with multiple of them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/17219/ja-ja-ja-o-jajaja-para-re%C3%ADrse-en-internet#comment23205_17221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30842" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="17f87255-8c09-4464-b547-376ec352060e" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:09:15.490" UserId="7769" Text="What do &quot;)&quot; or multiple &quot;)))&quot; mean in an internet conversation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30843" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="17f87255-8c09-4464-b547-376ec352060e" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:09:15.490" UserId="7769" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13144" RevisionGUID="ac32e911-b2b9-4031-8395-ea4d8a827982" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:36:39.347" UserId="6097" Text="It is a smilie :-) Many people are too lazy to type it. Multiple &quot;))))&quot; do not mean laughing, it's just a more friendly smile. :))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30849" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13120" RevisionGUID="9b8fe791-f3ee-4262-b477-2375d6051054" CreationDate="2016-09-09T21:58:18.867" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;По коробу поскреби&quot; - what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13145" RevisionGUID="89402109-c016-4812-ad0c-6a8cd6469695" CreationDate="2016-09-09T22:46:28.680" UserId="3713" Text="I'm  one of those who uses it&#xD;&#xA;I use mostly ), )), ))) - more then that is very rare exception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;first is like slight smile;&#xD;&#xA;second is like - my smile lasted second or so, yhea good;&#xD;&#xA;third - my smile lasted few seconds and probably laugh'ed, like this was really funny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more then that - I was laughing a lot, and it was crazy as sh so funny, can't stop to laugh, I have convulsions from that all and my finger do not belong me at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not wide used convention I guess, used myself as example of my reasoning. So it is kinda that battery charging icon - low charge etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you see so much ))))))) more then once a day - girl, young, is annoyed, not ready to reject you yet. I'm kidding). But more seriously they do use another convention, do not know about them to much, would not take serious their smiles rough)))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13145" RevisionGUID="ab0b5a4f-cf75-4a95-ae17-b335580fcaab" CreationDate="2016-09-09T22:55:48.793" UserId="3713" Comment="fix spelling and formating" Text="I'm  one of those who uses it.&#xD;&#xA;I use mostly ), )), ))) - more then that is very rare exception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;first is like slight smile;&#xD;&#xA;second is like - my smile lasted second or so, yhea good;&#xD;&#xA;third - my smile lasted few seconds and probably laugh'ed, like this was really funny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more then that - I was laughing a lot, and it was crazy as sh so funny, can't stop to laugh, I have convulsions from that all and my finger do not belong me at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not wide used convention I guess, used myself as example of my reasoning. So it is kinda that battery charging icon - low charge etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you see so much ))))))) more then once a day - girl, young, is annoyed, not ready to reject you yet. I'm kidding). But more seriously they do use another convention, do not know about them to much, would not take serious their smiles trough)))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="6d9b5894-71d9-48c4-81c6-0e115465cd03" CreationDate="2016-09-10T02:41:51.323" UserId="4753" Comment="corrected example" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руки и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="3f9f7a7c-cbac-42c9-9ad1-5d33b544fab4" CreationDate="2016-09-10T02:55:09.053" UserId="4753" Comment="added section on the parties" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Parties in Courtship and Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жених***--a suitor, an betrothed man, a bridegroom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***невеста***--a betrothed woman, a bride&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруг***--a spouse (male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруга***--a spouse (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***спутник жизнь***--a spouse of either sex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступление в брак***--the act of getting married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руки и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13122" RevisionGUID="cb6cca05-cc4a-4b8d-813f-0d242b18baea" CreationDate="2016-09-10T04:04:30.690" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="We have more words related to the topic.**Брак** (wedlock,marriage ) is an official term.The verb is **вступить в брак**. It is related to both parties (a man and a woman ) **Супружество** (spousehood ) is the state of being married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ЖЕНИ́ТЬСЯ, женюсь, женишься; совер. и несовер. perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;1. на ком. О мужчине: вступить (-пать) в брак of a man: to marry somebody.1 . Сын женится.&#xD;&#xA;2. (ед. не употр.) (singular not used) to marry (of a couple.). Вступить (-пать) в брак1 (разг.). Сосед с соседкой женятся. My neighbours are going to marry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb refers either to **a man** (when used in the singular) or to **a couple** (a man and a woman ) when used in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So,the same usage applies to the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Женитьба — ж. 1. Вступление мужчины в брак. 2. Брачный союз мужчины с женщиной. Толковый словарь Ефремовой. Т. Ф. Ефремова. 2000 …   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus,you can say **его женитьба,брак, её замужество,брак, их женитьба,брак**&#xD;&#xA;**Замужество** is for women only.&#xD;&#xA;Свадьба (wedding ) refers to the selebration of this happy event,usually **их свадьба**.&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't misuse them in order not to be corrected.We do differentiate these words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30855" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13138" RevisionGUID="af25e4b5-8a87-45e2-8423-3e3e86a8aa97" CreationDate="2016-09-10T04:57:52.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/774471932850933760" />
  <row Id="30856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13146" RevisionGUID="300210e4-057a-4ec5-8ec1-54fc202289f7" CreationDate="2016-09-10T07:58:32.937" UserId="62" Text="This question gets asked regularly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/2p55os/why_do_a_lot_of_russian_people_use_smiley_faces/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/1ppdyf/russians_and/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Russians-use-as-a-smiley-instead-of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure I have seen this asked on this site before too, but can't find such pages now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is entrenched now no matter what, but the reason explained by multiple sources is that the : symbol is ordinarily less convenient to produce on a Cyrillic keyboard, so the : in :) dropped out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13133" RevisionGUID="e555b7e7-a8ec-4b35-beea-9bc36cde4534" CreationDate="2016-09-10T08:45:38.760" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="to my taste the style of `мне хватает всего` is lower and in the given situation a response reusing `хватает` picked up from the boss' statement but in opposite meaning would sound confrontational&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as far as the connotation is concerned in this situation `достаточно` sounds more objective, `хватает` when applied to oneself has this spirit of *being enough for me* which may not be so for someone else or meet certain criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`достаточно` also has a connotation of *sufficiency for the time being* which may change later on, whereas `хватать` has an *undertone of constancy*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13146" RevisionGUID="cb032eeb-a786-4ec8-a1da-a5dfb561ec65" CreationDate="2016-09-10T15:28:15.440" UserId="62" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="This question gets asked regularly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/2p55os/why_do_a_lot_of_russian_people_use_smiley_faces/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/1ppdyf/russians_and/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Russians-use-as-a-smiley-instead-of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure I have seen this asked on this site before too, but can't find such pages now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is entrenched now no matter what, but the reason explained by multiple sources is that the : symbol is ordinarily less convenient to produce on a Cyrillic keyboard [edit: you have to press two keys to get it, as the links above explain and as fedorqui points out in a comment below], so the : in :) dropped out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30859" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13114" RevisionGUID="890ba3b4-fcc3-4300-adb3-f3e775aba9a0" CreationDate="2016-09-11T05:05:26.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/774836226025201665" />
  <row Id="30860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13109" RevisionGUID="c6ea60dc-90f3-4b97-9ea4-2848056572d9" CreationDate="2016-09-11T11:05:30.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/774926837965283328" />
  <row Id="30861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="82746b2c-6772-4370-b85b-c7c4fc58a4b9" CreationDate="2016-09-12T08:40:23.340" UserId="4714" Text="I recently read a lot about word order (it makes life so much easier). But I have the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's said that for adverbs the following order is normal— Time, Place, Manner.&#xD;&#xA;But, if for example, I have a huge stack of adverbs (just because I want to to do that), how far can the subject be separated from the noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ИЛИ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Среди ночи в ресторане быстро я съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feel free to change question, I just thought up a random example (like 1 sec). The point is, how far should (Я, ТЫ МЫ ... be from the verb?). I'm well aware that there are many thing dictating order, but it seems one could have the subject super far the verb if one wanted. It seems slightly strange.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="82746b2c-6772-4370-b85b-c7c4fc58a4b9" CreationDate="2016-09-12T08:40:23.340" UserId="4714" Text="Order of adverbs and position of subject" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="82746b2c-6772-4370-b85b-c7c4fc58a4b9" CreationDate="2016-09-12T08:40:23.340" UserId="4714" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13148" RevisionGUID="4f590ff5-1388-4156-8d7a-6b2d711224b0" CreationDate="2016-09-12T09:31:21.663" UserId="6425" Text="`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` sounds more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я, среди ночи в ресторане, быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is also fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no set rule, as far as I understand" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13149" RevisionGUID="1ce6c559-8184-4458-bf0f-5172035e18b4" CreationDate="2016-09-12T10:18:23.053" UserId="6097" Text="You can have the subject as far from the verb as you wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Съел быстро сыр среди ночи в ресторане я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я в ресторане быстро сыр среди ночи съел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both are ok. They have stylistic diferrences though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have also to consider that some word orders sound unusual or even awkward for a normal speech and must used only for some effect (comic, satire atc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13150" RevisionGUID="b06e2c8e-4091-4a4a-8bbd-eb42512a74b7" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:18:12.813" UserId="7776" Text="I want to know how to say &quot;how far is it between Bangkok and Moscow?&quot; in russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13150" RevisionGUID="b06e2c8e-4091-4a4a-8bbd-eb42512a74b7" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:18:12.813" UserId="7776" Text="How to say this in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13150" RevisionGUID="b06e2c8e-4091-4a4a-8bbd-eb42512a74b7" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:18:12.813" UserId="7776" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="3c1be6d2-c365-4496-9a24-181dcad02736" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:23:44.253" UserId="4753" Comment="removed duplicate" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Parties in Courtship and Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жених***--a suitor, an betrothed man, a bridegroom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***невеста***--a betrothed woman, a bride&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруг***--a spouse (male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруга***--a spouse (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***спутник жизнь***--a spouse of either sex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руки и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13151" RevisionGUID="72eed92f-c2f4-43aa-a47d-754a86c3bfdd" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:28:00.610" UserId="6539" Text="Каково расстояние от Бангкока до Москвы? --What's the distance from Bangkok to Moscow? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="438e5507-292f-4e24-ba68-cff5806e63f9" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:28:35.330" UserId="4753" Comment="clarifified some wording" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russians consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis. For example if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In certain cases &quot;is&quot; is translated &quot;является&quot;. However &quot;является&quot; does not literally mean &quot;is&quot;. Instead it means &quot;appears as&quot;. It is used to say that someone or some thing is acting in a particular role or capacity. The role or capacity is always in the instrumental case in order to convey the idea &quot;as a&quot; or &quot;as the&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он является директором. (He is the director.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он является террористом. (He is a terrorist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is appropriate to use &quot;является&quot; here because these are roles which these men have assumed and which they can put off. The director was not born a director and may die a former director. He is acting in his role as director.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We would not usually say &quot;Мяч является красным.&quot; This conveys the odd idea that at the moment it is being a red ball. Simply say &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot; If someone contradicts you, say &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30872" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13150" RevisionGUID="1e8e8369-73c0-409f-890b-75f0d4a45576" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:55:45.363" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;how far is it between Bangkok and Moscow?&quot; in russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13152" RevisionGUID="2bfe9520-9b08-438b-85b2-4bb01787f79a" CreationDate="2016-09-12T13:59:11.277" UserId="310" Text="You can also specify desired dimension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сколько километров от Москвы до Бангкока?&#xD;&#xA;    Сколько часов лететь из Москвы в Бангкок?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually preferred form for a native speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30874" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13151" RevisionGUID="9ec4baec-6764-424d-84e7-116094efd5ee" CreationDate="2016-09-12T14:32:37.197" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="3cd8c5f0-c79a-4c9d-aa1d-34685da81d79" CreationDate="2016-09-12T15:10:35.930" UserId="4753" Comment="slight clarification" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russian speakers consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis or clarity. For example, if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; This moves the meaning toward: &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present tense forms of &quot;быть&quot; other than &quot;есть&quot; are so seldom needed that they are all but forgotten. A few places where they are still encountered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иисус сказал ему: Я **есмь** путь и истина и жизнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jesus said to him: I **am** the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In discussions of philisophy such as in this translation of a lecture into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но сегодня говорят «мы». Нынче эпоха самоутверждения масс, а не личностей. Мы **есмы**. Какое бытие называем мы в этой фразе? Мы говорим также: окна **суть**, камни **суть**. Заключает ли это высказывание («мы **есмы**») в себе утверждение наличности множества «я»? А как обстоит дело с «я был» и «мы были», с бытием в прошедшем? Ушло ли оно от нас? Или мы **есмы** как раз то, чем мы были? И не станем ли мы как раз тем, что мы **есмы**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But today we say &quot;we&quot;. This is the era for self-afirmation of the mass rather than the individual. We **are**. To what kind of being does this phrase refer? We say also: The windows **are**. The stones **are**. Does the utterance &quot;We **are**&quot; imply that there is a multiplicity of &quot;I&quot;? And what about &quot;I was&quot; and &quot;We were&quot;, what about existence in the past. Has it left us? Or is it that we **are** that which we were? And is it not that we will become that which we **are**? (Introduction to Metaphysics, Martin Heiydegger, 1935)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a poetic or archaic effect is desired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, брат, где ты еси?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Brother, Where Art Thou? (film title)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;is&quot; is a favorite of English speakers. They have found ways to express all sorts of ideas by using &quot;is&quot; to attach labels to things are by declaring that they exist. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The meeting **is** in that building over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian speaker this sounds odd. He might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Собрание **проводится** в этом здании вон том.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that rather than declaring that the meeting **is** he has chosen a 'real' verb. He says that the meeting &quot;is being conducted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another 'real' verb you can use is &quot;представлять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **представляет** угрозу мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **poses** a thread to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about &quot;является&quot;. This is another 'real' verb which can be used instead of &quot;есть&quot; in certain cases. The word that comes after it is always in the instrumental case. The word &quot;является&quot; has no exact English translation. It literally means &quot;to appear on the scene as&quot; something. It conveys the idea that under the circumstances which exists, one person or thing acts in a particular role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can change change the last example to read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **явлается** угрозой мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate this literally in a way that makes sense. This may be close:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **is on the scene** as a threat to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in English &quot;is a threat&quot;, &quot;poses a threat&quot;, or &quot;constitutes&quot; a threat, are good ways to express this idea, they are different expresions. None of them is a translation of &quot;является&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кто является директором этого завода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who is the director of this plant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сообщил что сосед является террористом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He informed that his neighor is a terrorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian speakers might use &quot;является&quot; instead of &quot;есть&quot; in these sentences because &quot;is&quot; here conveys something more than existence. A suit may simple be navy blue, but being a director or a terrorist involves more. They have to be there and do what directors and terrorists do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30876" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13151" RevisionGUID="1fb3a090-51aa-4b87-af2e-b0553da9ec87" CreationDate="2016-09-12T15:15:49.203" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="bae0cfd9-0f4b-4c82-8d3a-dbf5568efc26" CreationDate="2016-09-12T15:36:10.217" UserId="4753" Comment="corrected formatting" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russian speakers consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis or clarity. For example, if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; This moves the meaning toward: &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Present Tense Forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present tense forms of &quot;быть&quot; other than &quot;есть&quot; are so seldom needed that they are all but forgotten. A few places where they are still encountered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иисус сказал ему: Я **есмь** путь и истина и жизнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jesus said to him: I **am** the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In discussions of philisophy such as in this translation of a lecture into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но сегодня говорят «мы». Нынче эпоха самоутверждения масс, а не личностей. Мы **есмы**. Какое бытие называем мы в этой фразе? Мы говорим также: окна **суть**, камни **суть**. Заключает ли это высказывание («мы **есмы**») в себе утверждение наличности множества «я»? А как обстоит дело с «я был» и «мы были», с бытием в прошедшем? Ушло ли оно от нас? Или мы **есмы** как раз то, чем мы были? И не станем ли мы как раз тем, что мы **есмы**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But today we say &quot;we&quot;. This is the era for self-afirmation of the mass rather than the individual. We **are**. To what kind of being does this phrase refer? We say also: The windows **are**. The stones **are**. Does the utterance &quot;We **are**&quot; imply that there is a multiplicity of &quot;I&quot;? And what about &quot;I was&quot; and &quot;We were&quot;, what about existence in the past. Has it left us? Or is it that we **are** that which we were? And is it not that we will become that which we **are**? (Introduction to Metaphysics, Martin Heiydegger, 1935)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a poetic or archaic effect is desired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, брат, где ты еси?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Brother, Where Art Thou? (film title)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Avoiding &quot;Is&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;is&quot; is a favorite of English speakers. They have found ways to express all sorts of ideas by using &quot;is&quot; to attach labels to things are by declaring that they exist. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The meeting **is** in that building over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian speaker this sounds odd. He might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Собрание **проводится** в этом здании вон том.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that rather than declaring that the meeting **is** he has chosen a 'real' verb. He says that the meeting &quot;is being conducted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another 'real' verb you can use is &quot;представлять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **представляет** угрозу мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **poses** a thread to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When to Use &quot;Является&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about &quot;является&quot;. This is another 'real' verb which can be used instead of &quot;есть&quot; in certain cases. The word that comes after it is always in the instrumental case. The word &quot;является&quot; has no exact English translation. It literally means &quot;to appear on the scene as&quot; something. It conveys the idea that under the circumstances which exists, one person or thing acts in a particular role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can change change the last example to read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **явлается** угрозой мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate this literally in a way that makes sense. This may be close:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **is on the scene** as a threat to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in English &quot;is a threat&quot;, &quot;poses a threat&quot;, or &quot;constitutes&quot; a threat, are good ways to express this idea, they are different expresions. None of them is a translation of &quot;является&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кто является директором этого завода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who is the director of this plant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сообщил что сосед является террористом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He informed that his neighor is a terrorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian speakers often use &quot;является&quot; instead of &quot;есть&quot; in these sentences because &quot;is&quot; here conveys something more than mere existence. A suit may simple be navy blue, but being a director or a terrorist involves more. They have to be on the spot and do what directors and terrorists do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time the word &quot;есть&quot; should be ommited. It is sometimes used for emphasis or clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe skilled Russian speakers. Note their use of 'real verbs' instead of forms of быть. Fight the urge to constantly say what things &quot;are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch for uses of &quot;является&quot;. Get a feel for when people and circumstances are seen as &quot;showing up&quot; in a role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="794f6914-c0bb-4eff-8658-104f0084735f" CreationDate="2016-09-12T15:45:22.090" UserId="4753" Comment="added гражданский брак" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как в относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Parties in Courtship and Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жених***--a suitor, an betrothed man, a bridegroom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***невеста***--a betrothed woman, a bride&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруг***--a spouse (male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруга***--a spouse (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***спутник жизнь***--a spouse of either sex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гражданский брак***--strictly speaking: a marriage entered into in a civil ceremony; informally: living together without marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking (take care since this can also mean procuring of prostitutes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руки и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="bb5e7465-69f6-486c-b90c-b805dc85c33a" CreationDate="2016-09-12T16:46:41.600" UserId="4753" Comment="attributed translation from German, corrected English translation from Russian" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russian speakers consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis or clarity. For example, if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; This moves the meaning toward: &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Present Tense Forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present tense forms of &quot;быть&quot; other than &quot;есть&quot; are so seldom needed that they are all but forgotten. A few places where they are still encountered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иисус сказал ему: Я **есмь** путь и истина и жизнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jesus said to him: I **am** the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In discussions of philisophy. Here is an except from Nina Guchinskaya's translation of Martin Heidegger's 1935 lecture &quot;Introduction to Metaphysics&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но сегодня говорят «мы». Нынче эпоха самоутверждения масс, а не личностей. Мы **есмы**. Какое бытие называем мы в этой фразе? Мы говорим также: окна **суть**, камни **суть**. Заключает ли это высказывание («мы **есмы**») в себе утверждение наличности множества «я»? А как обстоит дело с «я был» и «мы были», с бытием в прошедшем? Ушло ли оно от нас? Или мы **есмы** как раз то, чем мы были? И не станем ли мы как раз тем, что мы **есмы**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But today we say &quot;we&quot;. This is the era for self-afirmation of the multitude rather than the individual. We **are**. To what sort of being do we refer by this phrase? We say also: The windows **are**. The stones **are**. Does the utterance &quot;We **are**&quot; imply that there is a multiplicity of &quot;I&quot;? And what about &quot;I was&quot; and &quot;We were&quot;, what about existence in the past. Has it left us? Or is it that we **are** that which we were? And is it not that we will become that which we **are**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a poetic or archaic effect is desired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, брат, где ты еси?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Brother, Where Art Thou? (film title)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Avoiding &quot;Is&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;is&quot; is a favorite of English speakers. They have found ways to express all sorts of ideas by using &quot;is&quot; to attach labels to things are by declaring that they exist. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The meeting **is** in that building over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian speaker this sounds odd. He might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Собрание **проводится** в этом здании вон том.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that rather than declaring that the meeting **is** he has chosen a 'real' verb. He says that the meeting &quot;is being conducted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another 'real' verb you can use is &quot;представлять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **представляет** угрозу мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **poses** a thread to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When to Use &quot;Является&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about &quot;является&quot;. This is another 'real' verb which can be used instead of &quot;есть&quot; in certain cases. The word that comes after it is always in the instrumental case. The word &quot;является&quot; has no exact English translation. It literally means &quot;to appear on the scene as&quot; something. It conveys the idea that under the circumstances which exists, one person or thing acts in a particular role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can change change the last example to read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **явлается** угрозой мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate this literally in a way that makes sense. This may be close:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **is on the scene** as a threat to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in English &quot;is a threat&quot;, &quot;poses a threat&quot;, or &quot;constitutes&quot; a threat, are good ways to express this idea, they are different expresions. None of them is a translation of &quot;является&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кто является директором этого завода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who is the director of this plant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сообщил что сосед является террористом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He informed that his neighor is a terrorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian speakers often use &quot;является&quot; instead of &quot;есть&quot; in these sentences because &quot;is&quot; here conveys something more than mere existence. A suit may simple be navy blue, but being a director or a terrorist involves more. They have to be on the spot and do what directors and terrorists do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time the word &quot;есть&quot; should be ommited. It is sometimes used for emphasis or clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe skilled Russian speakers. Note their use of 'real verbs' instead of forms of быть. Fight the urge to constantly say what things &quot;are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch for uses of &quot;является&quot;. Get a feel for when people and circumstances are seen as &quot;showing up&quot; in a role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30880" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13131" RevisionGUID="493ca98c-9962-47a0-919b-b2fdf3478578" CreationDate="2016-09-12T17:09:41.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/775380876402233344" />
  <row Id="30881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13153" RevisionGUID="90abc59b-c413-4f7e-8c56-6f7d774ffb27" CreationDate="2016-09-12T19:06:59.623" UserId="7674" Text="i have a gut feeling that sentences with many adverbs tend to start with adverbs and not the subject, which at some point breaks their sequence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this sequence to me sounds the best flowing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ресторане среди ночи я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it appears that the adverb of manner tend to be the closest to the verb, because i think it describes the most important aspect of action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i may be totally wrong and if someone adduces examples to the contrary i'll happily concede my mistake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13153" RevisionGUID="ae3ce967-5e20-4036-a79b-c3764fd24a70" CreationDate="2016-09-12T19:18:22.223" UserId="7674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="i have a gut feeling that sentences with many adverbs tend to start with adverbs and not the subject, which at some point breaks their sequence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this sequence to me sounds the best flowing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ресторане среди ночи я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it appears that the adverb of manner tend to be the closest to the verb, because i think it describes the most important aspect of action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i may be totally wrong and if someone adduces examples to the contrary i'll happily concede my mistake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;the last position in the sentence adds emphasis and is used for that purpose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13153" RevisionGUID="c8478264-842f-4b01-93e8-4ab933151b65" CreationDate="2016-09-12T19:24:14.690" UserId="7674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="i have a gut feeling that sentences with many adverbs tend to start with adverbs and not the subject, which at some point breaks their sequence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this sequence to me sounds the best flowing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ресторане среди ночи я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it appears that the adverb of manner tend to be the closest to the verb, because i think it describes the most important aspect of action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or i err and if someone adduces examples to the contrary i'll happily concede my mistake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;the last position in the sentence adds emphasis and is used for that purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in your sentence it's `сыр` and the audience immediately gets that it wasn't something else that you ate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="ca5d4e19-5f52-435e-9b8f-070e3ca66ee0" CreationDate="2016-09-13T04:29:08.780" UserId="464" Text="В последнее время в интернете мне всё чаще встречается словосочетание &quot;цикл процессора&quot; или &quot;процессорный цикл&quot; в значении &quot;такт&quot;. Поводом к написанию этого вопроса стала [статья][1] на известном IT-ресурсе, которая не является переводом (изначально написана на русском), и в которой автор упорно использует слово &quot;цикл&quot; для обозначения такта. Очевидно, что слово &quot;цикл&quot; в этом значении пришло из английского языка, где такты процессора называются CPU cycles или clock cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько правильно использовать слово &quot;цикл&quot; в таком значении? По моему мнению, это слово и без того перегружено в &quot;компьютерном&quot; контексте, а в таком значении оно выглядит как плохой перевод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://habrahabr.ru/post/309796/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="ca5d4e19-5f52-435e-9b8f-070e3ca66ee0" CreationDate="2016-09-13T04:29:08.780" UserId="464" Text="Такт процессора vs цикл процессора" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13154" RevisionGUID="ca5d4e19-5f52-435e-9b8f-070e3ca66ee0" CreationDate="2016-09-13T04:29:08.780" UserId="464" Text="|информатика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13155" RevisionGUID="6389f158-b42f-466a-bd4d-bf2eebe2d0bd" CreationDate="2016-09-13T07:15:33.623" UserId="6539" Text="Russian word order is very flexible. The relationships between parts of the Russian sentence are shown by the endings of words. So, because of words endings, the parts of the Russian sentence can go in almost any order without causing any misunderstanding on the part of the listener.And the distance between the subject and the verb doesn't matter much. What really matters is what new information you want to offer to your listener. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the beginner in Russian there is nothing very important to remember about word order, you can use the word order of the English sentence and native speakers will always understand you.&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, Russian word order has its own peculiarities. One of these peculiarities is that in written Russian **new information** (or **emphasized information**) comes at the end of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Борис едет в Москву. - Boris goes to Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Москва is a new information because this sentence tells where Boris goes. If another word order is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В Москву едет Борис. – It is Boris who goes to Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis is on the word Борис, and, in this case, the sentence tells who goes to Moscow.&#xD;&#xA;In a conversation the word order is much more flexible since *intonation* and *stress* can be used to show the emphasized information in a sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13148" RevisionGUID="a200bb77-3f47-427f-8484-a8d35788db13" CreationDate="2016-09-13T08:38:58.973" UserId="551" Comment="Removed ```` noise." Text="&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sounds more natural.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я, среди ночи в ресторане, быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is also fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no set rule, as far as I understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13156" RevisionGUID="06c53694-888b-44d5-9711-7f0104065077" CreationDate="2016-09-13T11:03:11.753" UserId="7537" Text="Не думаю, что вопрос в это комьюнити, но ощущение верное. _Вообще-то_, правильно &quot;такт&quot;, а &quot;цикл&quot; - ненужная калька с английского. То же самое относится, например, к разрядности: правильная терминология &quot;32-разрядный&quot; (а не &quot;32-битный&quot;) процессор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но, как всегда в таких случаях, сколь бы ни было неграмотным слово, если оно начинает массово использоваться, оно постепенно закрепляется. Так произошло, например, со словом &quot;файервол&quot;: мало кто сейчас упорствует с правильным &quot;брандмауэр&quot;. Компьютерные термины особенно подвержены этому явлению, поскольку большинство компьютерщиков в той или иной мере двуязычны, и переключаться на другую терминологию утомительно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30890" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="47d50b92-b015-48b9-baef-84b29bd5957a" CreationDate="2016-09-13T11:13:41.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/775653672382504960" />
  <row Id="30891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="0ca87580-9106-4673-ad5d-161974c14ad4" CreationDate="2016-09-13T11:19:25.543" UserId="5600" Text="&gt; _Russian word order is very flexible._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^ That's probably the most appropriate answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How far should Я, ТЫ МЫ ... be from the verb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it could be really far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Быстро, споро, экстремально,&#xD;&#xA;    Находясь почти в нирване&#xD;&#xA;    Я средь ночи в ресторане,&#xD;&#xA;    На весь зал треща ушами,&#xD;&#xA;    Чтоб не дай бог не поймали, озираясь по углам,&#xD;&#xA;    Злясь, икая и потея,&#xD;&#xA;    Отдуваясь и бледнея,&#xD;&#xA;    Скатерть протерев до дыр,&#xD;&#xA;    Лопал сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A particular word order might sound a bit foreign to a native speaker when written down; e.g. `я съел быстро сыр`, but even then you can still make it sound smooth with the proper intonation. For pretty much all other combinations it is rather hard to make it sound wrong: `сыр я съел быстро`, `быстро сыр я съел`, `съел быстро сыр я`,.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30892" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="ba5e8f80-8af3-4539-8098-14c1669629ed" CreationDate="2016-09-13T11:21:00.180" UserId="5600" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5600,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DK.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30893" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13157" RevisionGUID="6a3aa5c8-65b7-422d-94cb-c4399e623fef" CreationDate="2016-09-13T11:21:23.203" UserId="5600" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5600,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;DK.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13159" RevisionGUID="d4d5ccc7-932c-4f5b-aed6-110803107dcb" CreationDate="2016-09-13T20:55:25.647" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is unmarked, default word order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане быстро я съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is wrong, unnatural word order mainly because of &quot;быстро я&quot; part, if you swap these words the word order improves. As it is it only can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it would be also non-default. The meaning is different from default.&#xD;&#xA;In the default word order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meanig is roughly &quot;I ate cheese in a/the restaurant in the night&quot; or &quot;Because it was in a restaurant and in the night, I ate some cheese quickly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means something &quot;Imagine a scene in a restaurant at night: I had ate cheese there&quot;. It stresses the scene and your action is the addition to the scene &quot;restaurant at midnight&quot;. Or it can mean &quot;During the night in the  restaurant I quickly ate cheese&quot;. That is in the certain &quot;restaurant night&quot; which should be understood as one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13159" RevisionGUID="f50f5ffc-21c5-42f0-a923-3e1d66425f5d" CreationDate="2016-09-13T21:00:51.450" UserId="194" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is unmarked, default word order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане быстро я съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is wrong, unnatural word order mainly because of &quot;быстро я&quot; part, if you swap these words the word order improves. As it is it only can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it would be also non-default. The meaning is different from default.&#xD;&#xA;In the default word order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meanig is roughly &quot;I ate cheese in a/the restaurant in the night&quot; if в ресторане is stressed or &quot;Because it was in a restaurant and in the night, I ate some cheese quickly&quot; if быстро stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means something &quot;Imagine a scene in a restaurant at night: I had ate cheese there&quot;. It stresses the scene and your action is the addition to the scene &quot;restaurant at midnight&quot;. Or it can mean &quot;During the night in the  restaurant I quickly ate cheese&quot;. That is in the certain &quot;restaurant night&quot;, a party, which should be understood as one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13159" RevisionGUID="d095dfb3-f13f-42d5-b1b7-4005412d16c9" CreationDate="2016-09-13T21:07:22.683" UserId="194" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is unmarked, default word order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане быстро я съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is wrong, unnatural word order mainly because of &quot;быстро я&quot; part, if you swap these words the word order improves. As it is it only can be used in poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it would be also non-default. The meaning is different from default.&#xD;&#xA;In the default word order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meanig is roughly &quot;I ate cheese in a/the restaurant in the night&quot; if в ресторане is stressed or &quot;Because it was in a restaurant and in the night, it became possible for me to eat some cheese quickly&quot; if быстро stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means something &quot;Imagine a scene in a restaurant at night: I had ate cheese there&quot;. It stresses the scene and your action is the addition to the scene &quot;restaurant at midnight&quot;. Or it can mean &quot;During the night in the  restaurant I quickly ate cheese&quot;. That is in the certain &quot;restaurant night&quot;, a party, which should be understood as one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13160" RevisionGUID="b31ddbc9-1ea5-4489-b687-af8a17f3f46b" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:23:55.197" UserId="4714" Text="What is the difference between using the imperfective vs the perfective? My textbook (a very good compressive one) only mentions future negation in passing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я ей не буду говорить об этом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я ей не скажу об этом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я не буду брать карандаши из ящики&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я не возьму карандаши из ящики&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I get it, negated perfective means (won't be able to do it, finish the action, it's not possible (because it really isn't or I just think so)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to me it also seems like it means a type of refusal. I won't do it (Am not going to do) vs negated imperfective (I won't do it at all, it's a none issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Change the sentences if you wish; just random 1 sec examples. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13160" RevisionGUID="b31ddbc9-1ea5-4489-b687-af8a17f3f46b" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:23:55.197" UserId="4714" Text="Negated future and aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13160" RevisionGUID="b31ddbc9-1ea5-4489-b687-af8a17f3f46b" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:23:55.197" UserId="4714" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="5e016c14-d084-49c9-9ccd-8f39599623eb" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:56:13.763" UserId="7674" Text="although fundamentally the sentences in these pairs are equal, there's difference in the degree of assertiveness with *perfective* displaying the stronger one in the pair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also the *imperfective* may presuppose some specific process during which an action won't be performed (e.g. a conversation for `не буду говорить` and a drawing class for `не буду брать карандаши`), whereas the connotation of the *perfective* could be that the action won't be taken in principle in the future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it's all still very vague and only adds shades of meaning&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="8cac53b1-bacf-48ca-9350-f0c0e12050dd" CreationDate="2016-09-14T09:03:54.460" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="although fundamentally the sentences in these pairs are equal, there's difference in the degree of determination with *perfective* displaying the stronger one in the pair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also the *imperfective* may presuppose some specific event during which an action won't be performed (e.g. a conversation for `не буду говорить` and a drawing  session for `не буду брать карандаши`), whereas the connotation of the *perfective* could be that the action won't be taken in principle in the future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it's all still very vague and only adds shades of meaning&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13161" RevisionGUID="6fb0d7a0-270b-4ad0-96a0-2d45f588ac21" CreationDate="2016-09-14T09:06:13.747" UserId="6097" Comment="Capitalized and dotted." Text="Although fundamentally the sentences in these pairs are equal, there's difference in the degree of determination with *perfective* displaying the stronger one in the pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the *imperfective* may presuppose some specific event during which an action won't be performed (e.g. a conversation for `не буду говорить` and a drawing  session for `не буду брать карандаши`), whereas the connotation of the *perfective* could be that the action won't be taken in principle in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's all still very vague and only adds shades of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13160" RevisionGUID="b4fac69a-e219-49fe-b916-48d2d991eb74" CreationDate="2016-09-14T09:07:52.400" UserId="6097" Comment="Capitalized and dotted." Text="What is the difference between using the imperfective vs the perfective? My textbook (a very good compressive one) only mentions future negation in passing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ей не буду говорить об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ей не скажу об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не буду брать карандаши из ящики.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не возьму карандаши из ящики.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I get it, negated perfective means (won't be able to do it, finish the action, it's not possible (because it really isn't or I just think so)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to me it also seems like it means a type of refusal. I won't do it (Am not going to do) vs negated imperfective (I won't do it at all, it's a none issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Change the sentences if you wish; just random 1 sec examples. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13162" RevisionGUID="cb5e3683-47c8-4ce5-9316-9cc862dba8ac" CreationDate="2016-09-14T09:47:40.320" UserId="5443" Text="Usage *can* depend on situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Imperfective version is more natural if it's about continuous inaction or refusal (which you mentioned) to behave as somebody expects or has just asked for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не буду брать карандаши из ящика. [Ни сейчас, ни потом - предпочитаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свои].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Скажи ей об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- (Нет,) я не буду [= не стану] говорить ей об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Perfective version is more typical for once (this time, etc.). It doesn't mean that action wouldn't happen later or if something changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не возьму карандаши из ящика. [Они мне сейчас не нужны.]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Что будет, когда она узнает?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Я не скажу ей об этом. [Возможно, скажу позже, когда это не будет иметь значения.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="b35a4246-10ab-4b38-a9b1-5d70063ee653" CreationDate="2016-09-14T10:07:14.610" UserId="6065" Comment="decided not to translate a certain passage" Text="According to **Русский язык в задачах и ответах By Борис Норман** (p. 288 point 3.90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Русский язык в задачах и ответах By Борис Норман, p. 288 point 2.90][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;в гости&quot; is &quot;предложно-падёжная форма имени (???), that has almost become and adverb&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not quite an adverb, and also includes the preposition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MH7mT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13159" RevisionGUID="5be75d82-03f2-463e-b993-af2fc9b0ab24" CreationDate="2016-09-14T10:16:55.913" UserId="194" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is unmarked, default word order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане быстро я съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is wrong, unnatural word order mainly because of &quot;быстро я&quot; part, if you swap these words the word order improves. As it is it only can be used in poetry. Moreover, I would argue, it is the best word order for a poem because of the rhythmics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it would be also non-default. The meaning is different from default.&#xD;&#xA;In the default word order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я среди ночи в ресторане быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meanig is roughly &quot;I ate cheese in a/the restaurant in the night&quot; if в ресторане is stressed or &quot;Because it was in a restaurant and in the night, it became possible for me to eat some cheese quickly&quot; if быстро stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Среди ночи в ресторане я быстро съел сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means something &quot;Imagine a scene in a restaurant at night: I had ate cheese there&quot;. It stresses the scene and your action is the addition to the scene &quot;restaurant at midnight&quot;. Or it can mean &quot;During the night in the  restaurant I quickly ate cheese&quot;. That is in the certain &quot;restaurant night&quot;, a party about which the listener knows, which should be understood as one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13163" RevisionGUID="71cc59fa-9f62-487e-95fa-6e419bbf9670" CreationDate="2016-09-14T10:23:04.017" UserId="5008" Text="Perhaps it's an oversimplification but I believe that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Я ей не скажу об этом_ ---&gt; _I won't tell her about this_  &#xD;&#xA;_Я ей не буду_ (or _не стану_) _говорить об этом_ --&gt; _I'm not going to tell her about this_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13160" RevisionGUID="1a0503f1-8b44-418c-af63-d9b3cc6cf4c4" CreationDate="2016-09-14T11:48:22.940" UserId="4714" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the difference between using the imperfective vs the perfective? My textbook (a very good compressive one) only mentions future negation in passing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ей не буду говорить об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ей не скажу об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не буду брать карандаши из ящика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не возьму карандаши из ящика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I get it, negated perfective means (won't be able to do it, finish the action, it's not possible (because it really isn't or I just think so)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to me it also seems like it means a type of refusal. I won't do it (Am not going to do) vs negated imperfective (I won't do it at all, it's a none issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Change the sentences if you wish; just random 1 sec examples. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13091" RevisionGUID="ad58775e-73aa-48ca-bbc5-fad24d03f257" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:05:02.823" UserId="7716" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I think this is a kind of 'fossilized' expression, that's why it doesn't seem to fit into the modern case system. #449 in Wade's 'A Comprehensive Russian Grammar' mentions that в is used with nouns in what looks like nom. pl., but is historically an accusative, in contexts of professions or other groups; sometimes it implies a change of state or status. A few similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ИГИЛ набирает детей в солдаты. --&gt; ISIS is recruiting children to be soldiers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кандидат в солдаты --&gt; a presidential candidate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каких женщин мужчины берут в жёны? --&gt; What kind of women do men marry (lit., take to be a wife)?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13164" RevisionGUID="24028e19-4f24-439d-8cbe-5585e5c9d95c" CreationDate="2016-09-14T14:29:00.053" UserId="7783" Text="Из уроков Java&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Assignment expressions &#xD;&#xA; - Any use of ++ or --&#xD;&#xA; - Method invocations&#xD;&#xA; - Object creation expressions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such statements are called expression statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выходит пример a = b + c - это составное выражение (присвоение и вычисление).&#xD;&#xA;А выражения-инструкции (я так перевел):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;int i = 0;&#xD;&#xA;i++;&#xD;&#xA;using(i);&#xD;&#xA;String str = new String(&quot;&quot;);" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="88c6c508-f4b3-4241-9b7a-5c41ffc815cf" CreationDate="2016-09-14T17:56:13.053" UserId="7239" Text="I forgot how I found this poster on the internet, but it looked strange so I thought I would translate it so it would make sense:  &#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems even _more_ bizarre and non-sensical after translating it. Specifically, my translation is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you take care of your breasts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chill your nipples every day by washing them with cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never heard of any health benefits of chilling one's nipples daily. Am I misunderstanding this poster, or was nipple-chilling a regular part of Russian/Soviet culture for historical reasons? Is this the origin of the expression &quot;[chill your nips][2]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could explain to me the смысл of this poster or correct my translation so that its sense becomes self-evident, I would greatly appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EP9TI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chill%20your%20nips" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="88c6c508-f4b3-4241-9b7a-5c41ffc815cf" CreationDate="2016-09-14T17:56:13.053" UserId="7239" Text="Does anyone understand the sense (смысл) of this Soviet-era poster?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="88c6c508-f4b3-4241-9b7a-5c41ffc815cf" CreationDate="2016-09-14T17:56:13.053" UserId="7239" Text="|значения|idioms|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13166" RevisionGUID="712414f8-eebd-4b4d-a107-77ff678cbc4c" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:17:50.757" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; &lt;strike&gt;Do&lt;/strike&gt; *Have* you take*n* care of your breasts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chill your nipples &lt;strike&gt;every day&lt;/strike&gt; by *daily* washing with cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;fresh mothers share their experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.baby.ru/answers/planning/category-4718015/question-169019524/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сейчас напарница говорит что мне пора уже соски закаливать, ледяной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; водой обтирать а потом вафельным полотенцем энтенсивно растирать, это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чтоб потом не трескалась! вы так делали? я боюсь что так можно друдь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; застудить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Врачи советуют после 20 недельки каждый день утром и вечером холодной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; водой обмывать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; растирать грудь нельзя, можно тонус вызвать. Я до беременности просто&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соски обливала прохладной водой и постепенно воду делала холодней" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13167" RevisionGUID="09908b6b-847e-426b-97f3-b880c4ddebde" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:37:02.290" UserId="4560" Text="[Apparently][1] it was/is believed to soften the nipples for easier lactation and preventing cracking. How medically sound this is I cannot tell. Now it obviously wasn't a regular part of culture since it had to be promoted with public awareness posters; and the very reason you came across this particular one was that Russian internet users had found it amusing. Dating back to 1930, it was just one of [many][2] posters promoting greater health/hygiene awareness in a nation that, only a few decades ago, had been mostly illiterate and &quot;folksy&quot; in its approach to healthcare. Most of those posters are entirely uncontroversial from the perspective of the medical knowledge we have today; as I said, I'm not qualified to comment on the nipple-chilling one, but if indeed it was based on a misconception, there should be nothing surprising about that. A host of &quot;learned&quot; superstitions have accompanied genuine scientific progress everywhere and in every age, and were slow to go even after they'd been discredited. In the case of medicine, much slower than in other fields since it plays such a part in ordinary lives. Few of today's physicists would dabble in astrology like Sir Isaac Newton, but we still have cupping marks on Olympic athletes, Hollywood celebrity anti-vaxxers, etc. etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.telegraf.in.ua/around/6329-6329.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://propagandahistory.ru/2026/Sovetskie-plakaty-na-temu-zdorovya-1920-1950-kh-godov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="ef236397-bd11-4754-8c61-fddee5dbf7d9" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:56:06.157" UserId="7674" Comment="tense corrected" Text="I forgot how I found this poster on the internet, but it looked strange so I thought I would translate it so it would make sense:  &#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems even _more_ bizarre and non-sensical after translating it. Specifically, my translation is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;strike&gt;Do&lt;/strike&gt; *Have* you take*n* care of your breasts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chill your nipples &lt;strike&gt;every day&lt;/strike&gt; by *daily* washing with cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never heard of any health benefits of chilling one's nipples daily. Am I misunderstanding this poster, or was nipple-chilling a regular part of Russian/Soviet culture for historical reasons? Is this the origin of the expression &quot;[chill your nips][2]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could explain to me the смысл of this poster or correct my translation so that its sense becomes self-evident, I would greatly appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EP9TI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chill%20your%20nips" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30919" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="ef236397-bd11-4754-8c61-fddee5dbf7d9" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:56:06.157" Comment="Proposed by 7674 approved by 7239 edit id of 795" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="2a10dd02-4ee5-4e8c-9b95-c7ca77570bbd" CreationDate="2016-09-14T18:57:16.507" UserId="7239" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="I forgot how I found this poster on the internet, but it looked strange so I thought I would translate it so it would make sense:  &#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems even _more_ bizarre and non-sensical after translating it. Specifically, my translation is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;strike&gt;Do&lt;/strike&gt; *Have* you take*n* care of your breasts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chill your nipples &lt;strike&gt;every day&lt;/strike&gt; by *daily* washing with cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have never heard of any health benefits of chilling one's nipples daily. Am I misunderstanding this poster, or was nipple-chilling a regular part of Russian/Soviet culture for historical reasons? Is this the origin of the expression &quot;[chill your nips][2]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://historydoc.edu.ru/catalog.asp?cat_ob_no=17037&amp;ob_no=13735&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone could explain to me the смысл of this poster or correct my translation so that its sense becomes self-evident, I would greatly appreciate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EP9TI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chill%20your%20nips" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30921" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9141" RevisionGUID="c6d18f72-35ad-4ec5-aff7-bf8d9bc4ae97" CreationDate="2016-09-15T05:19:39.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/776289352951488512" />
  <row Id="30922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13124" RevisionGUID="f6b3ee4e-64cd-4f10-84bd-607c440662d9" CreationDate="2016-09-15T07:28:01.983" UserId="551" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="Короб is a kind of a box, that was used for storing things in old times. Поскреби is a suggestion to 'скрести', which means 'to scrape'. It's like &quot;Scrape the bottom of the barrel&quot;, but instead of a barrel it should be some kind of a box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning here is that the box is empty, but maybe there's something left on it's bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for [сусек][1] - this is an area in амбар ([granary][2], a building to store grains or vegetables), it is much larger than a box, so old man ask his wife to &quot;мести&quot; (sweep) there: &quot;по сусекам помети&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13168" RevisionGUID="dd090ca7-9a6c-45b8-8136-57da04e8ec79" CreationDate="2016-09-15T09:29:33.287" UserId="7786" Text="Lets say we have a Russian name which contains &quot;й&quot; and we want to write it in English. For example Николай. The right way to spell it in English should be Nikolay or Nikolai? Same for Dmitrii / Dmitriy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13168" RevisionGUID="dd090ca7-9a6c-45b8-8136-57da04e8ec79" CreationDate="2016-09-15T09:29:33.287" UserId="7786" Text="English equivalent of &quot;й&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13168" RevisionGUID="dd090ca7-9a6c-45b8-8136-57da04e8ec79" CreationDate="2016-09-15T09:29:33.287" UserId="7786" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13169" RevisionGUID="fe00702a-8268-43c0-a435-d5b59938074e" CreationDate="2016-09-15T10:48:34.317" UserId="6539" Text="The newest standard of Russian - English transliteration was adopted in 2012 for official use, for passports, for example. The letter й should be written like *i*. Nikolai,Dmitrii." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13170" RevisionGUID="eb7a214b-2f67-4a78-8543-b7e30981ad84" CreationDate="2016-09-15T12:37:47.333" UserId="4714" Text="My grammar book states that **ею** is preferred to **ей** in the instrumental case for educated speech. Is it worth using this form in everyday speech? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я слежу за нею.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дракон летит над нею.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и тд &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as a side note, when should (can) I use тобою, моею and all the other similar forms? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13170" RevisionGUID="eb7a214b-2f67-4a78-8543-b7e30981ad84" CreationDate="2016-09-15T12:37:47.333" UserId="4714" Text="Use of &quot;ею&quot; instead of &quot;ей&quot; in instrumental" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13170" RevisionGUID="eb7a214b-2f67-4a78-8543-b7e30981ad84" CreationDate="2016-09-15T12:37:47.333" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="b0ee56ce-87c1-4854-9fd5-1c2e607f8683" CreationDate="2016-09-15T13:19:34.417" UserId="4560" Text="The rationale behind recommending **ею** is that **ей** is easily confused with the dative. Nothing else has this problem, and it's already gone when using the form with a preposition. Dative only takes two prepositions, **к** and **по**, and both are exclusive to it. So the **ней** forms following prepositions are never ambiguous (yes, it's also the prepositional case form, but no prepositions overlap with instrumental there either), and there's no particular reason to use **нею**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, `-ю` endings on instrumental sound archaic/poetic, and with literally everything except **ею**, they're not something a person would use nowadays unless they're deliberately trying to come across as either affected or facetious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="50425a60-ab7f-43eb-ba2e-6439abc310a0" CreationDate="2016-09-15T14:19:06.980" UserId="4560" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The rationale behind recommending **ею** is that **ей** is easily confused with the dative. Nothing else has this problem, and it's already gone when using the form with a preposition. Dative only takes two prepositions, **к** and **по**, and both are exclusive to it. So the **ней** forms following prepositions are never ambiguous (yes, it's also the prepositional case form, but no prepositions overlap with instrumental there either), and there's no particular reason to use **нею**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, `-ю` endings on 1st-declension instrumental sound archaic/poetic, and with literally everything except **ею**, they're not something a person would use nowadays unless they're deliberately trying to come across as either affected or facetious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13171" RevisionGUID="5d62e15b-ab60-45bc-8a31-8a283a294cc2" CreationDate="2016-09-15T14:24:15.367" UserId="4560" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The rationale behind recommending **ею** is that **ей** is easily confused with the dative. Nothing else has this problem, and it's already gone when using the form with a preposition. Dative only takes two prepositions, **к** and **по**, and both are exclusive to it. So the **ней** forms following prepositions are never ambiguous (yes, it's also the prepositional case form, but no prepositions overlap with instrumental there either), and there's no particular reason to use **нею**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, `-ю` endings instrumental sound archaic/poetic, and with literally everything except **ею**, they're not something a person would use nowadays unless they're deliberately trying to come across as either affected or facetious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I might just add that none of this applies to the 3rd-declension noun instrumental `-ью`, where the `ю` never goes away. That said, it is itself a contraction of the older `-ию` — *мыслию*, *совестию* — which is even more distinctly archaic than the `-ою`/`-ею` on 1st declension nouns, adjectives, and pronouns.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13172" RevisionGUID="2fe5c68d-54e3-4fcf-b0d6-25a8f4d701bb" CreationDate="2016-09-15T15:48:37.330" UserId="194" Text="No, it is not preferred for educated speech, the standard form is &quot;ей&quot;. &quot;Ею&quot; sounds either uneducated(country-style) or archaic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30936" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13150" RevisionGUID="bc739ff5-c2cf-466f-bce9-fb0d327531d3" CreationDate="2016-09-15T18:46:04.723" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex.S&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13169" RevisionGUID="3f6cad4c-e6f9-4a3c-8c61-af889c8f340a" CreationDate="2016-09-16T02:29:17.647" UserId="6539" Comment="added 425 characters in body" Text="The newest standard of Russian - English transliteration was adopted in 2012 for official use, for passports, for example. The letter й should be written like *i*. Nikolai,Dmitrii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В п. 97 приказа ФМС России N 320 от 15 октября 2012 г. указывается, что транслитерация (простое замещение русских букв на латинские) производится в соответствии с рекомендованным ИКАО международным стандартом. Описание рекомендаций по транслитерации включено в документ «Doc 9303. Машиносчитываемые проездные документы» (часть 3 «Спецификации, общие для всех МСПД», раздел 6, блок B «Транслитерация кириллических знаков»)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13170" RevisionGUID="fe3ef2e5-193c-4f32-8b3d-45cb3952d093" CreationDate="2016-09-16T06:47:38.953" UserId="4714" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="My grammar book states that **ею** is preferred to **ей** in the instrumental case for educated speech. Is it worth using this form in everyday speech? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я слежу за нею.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дракон летит над нею.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и тд &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as a side note, when should (can) I use тобою, моею and all the other similar forms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i16zT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13174" RevisionGUID="8460569b-adbf-4bc9-a171-d8fcd595118b" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:35:59.050" UserId="5605" Text="Как правильно: *рискованный человек* или *рисковый человек*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13174" RevisionGUID="8460569b-adbf-4bc9-a171-d8fcd595118b" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:35:59.050" UserId="5605" Text="&quot;Рискованный человек&quot; или &quot;рисковый человек&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13174" RevisionGUID="8460569b-adbf-4bc9-a171-d8fcd595118b" CreationDate="2016-09-16T11:35:59.050" UserId="5605" Text="|грамотность|семантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13175" RevisionGUID="0147b8eb-81b8-4c0d-9760-c191ec7facfd" CreationDate="2016-09-16T14:11:14.867" UserId="7791" Text="В отношении людей употребляется только *рисковый*, а *рискованным* может быть только действие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Рисковый* can be used with regard to people, but  *рискованный* can be used only for  action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13145" RevisionGUID="79b94663-dd54-4143-80ee-fb18a402a359" CreationDate="2016-09-16T16:24:15.457" UserId="3713" Comment="fix spelling" Text="I'm  one of those who uses it.&#xD;&#xA;I use mostly ), )), ))) - more then that is very rare exception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;first is like slight smile;&#xD;&#xA;second is like - my smile lasted second or so, yhea good;&#xD;&#xA;third - my smile lasted few seconds and probably laugh'ed, like this was really funny&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more then that - I was laughing a lot, and it was crazy as sh so funny, can't stop to laugh, I have convulsions from that all and my finger do not belong me at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not wide used convention I guess, used myself as example of my reasoning. So it is kinda that battery charging icon - low charge etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you see so much ))))))) more then once a day - girl, young, is annoyed, not ready to reject you yet. I'm kidding). But more seriously they do use another convention, do not know about them too much, would not take serious their smiles trough)))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="e8982791-21a2-4ad9-bf85-f099c8ff1a37" CreationDate="2016-09-16T20:20:17.817" UserId="496" Text="There is the official translation of Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ book and it is better that we all use the Russian terminology used there instead of introducing new translations of terms (even if some translations may feel awkward :-)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an excerpt from the translated book followed by the same excerpt from the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Все такие неоднозначности разрешаются в пользу объявлений (если нечто выглядит&#xD;&#xA;    как объявление, это и есть объявление). Например:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Т(а)-&gt;т ; 		// оператор-выражение&#xD;&#xA;    Т(а)++; 		// оператор-выражение&#xD;&#xA;    Т(*е)(int(3));	// объявление&#xD;&#xA;    T(f)[4]			// объявление&#xD;&#xA;    Т(а);			// объявление&#xD;&#xA;    Т(а)=m;			// объявление&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бьерн Страуструп. Язык программирования C++. Специальное издание. Пер. с англ. — М.:Издательство Бином, 2011 г. ISBN 978-5-7989-0425-9 (pyc.), стр. 934.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    All such ambiguities are resolved to declarations. That is, &quot;if it could possibly be interpreted as a declaration, it is a declaration.&quot; For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    T(a)-&gt;m;      // expression statement&#xD;&#xA;    T(a)++;       // expression statement&#xD;&#xA;    T(*e)(int(3));// declaration&#xD;&#xA;    T(f)[4];      // declaration&#xD;&#xA;    T(a);         // declaration&#xD;&#xA;    T(a)=m;       // declaration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The C++ Programming Language. Third Edition. Bjarne Stroustrup. AT&amp;T Labs&#xD;&#xA;Murray Hill, New Jersey 1997. p. 802.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *statement* is translated as *оператор*&#xD;&#xA; - *expression statement* is translated as *оператор-выражение*&#xD;&#xA; - (by the way) *operator* is translated as *операция*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13176" RevisionGUID="0c566616-bb6c-41fb-8d34-9af038f161ef" CreationDate="2016-09-16T20:34:14.773" UserId="496" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="There is the official translation of Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ book and it is better that we all use the Russian terminology used there instead of introducing new translations of terms (even if some translations may feel awkward :-)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an excerpt from the translated book followed by the same excerpt from the original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Все такие неоднозначности разрешаются в пользу объявлений (если нечто выглядит&#xD;&#xA;    как объявление, это и есть объявление). Например:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Т(а)-&gt;т ; 		// оператор-выражение&#xD;&#xA;    Т(а)++; 		// оператор-выражение&#xD;&#xA;    Т(*е)(int(3));	// объявление&#xD;&#xA;    T(f)[4]			// объявление&#xD;&#xA;    Т(а);			// объявление&#xD;&#xA;    Т(а)=m;			// объявление&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бьерн Страуструп. Язык программирования C++. Специальное издание. Пер. с англ. — М.:Издательство Бином, 2011 г. ISBN 978-5-7989-0425-9 (pyc.), стр. 934.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        All such ambiguities are resolved to declarations. That is, &quot;if it could possibly be &#xD;&#xA;    interpreted as a declaration, it is a declaration.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;    For example:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        T(a)-&gt;m;      // expression statement&#xD;&#xA;        T(a)++;       // expression statement&#xD;&#xA;        T(*e)(int(3));// declaration&#xD;&#xA;        T(f)[4];      // declaration&#xD;&#xA;        T(a);         // declaration&#xD;&#xA;        T(a)=m;       // declaration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The C++ Programming Language. Third Edition. Bjarne Stroustrup. AT&amp;T Labs&#xD;&#xA;Murray Hill, New Jersey 1997. p. 802.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *statement* is translated as *оператор*&#xD;&#xA; - *expression statement* is translated as *оператор-выражение*&#xD;&#xA; - (by the way) *operator* is translated as *операция*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="04802ea0-ca59-4c8d-a80a-3ea446eb1e2a" CreationDate="2016-09-17T09:09:48.760" UserId="7795" Text="An answer from native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;)&quot; very often) &#xD;&#xA;One parenthesis &quot;)&quot; means friendly or smile, for example, when you share good news or just say &quot;hi&quot;. (duty smile)&#xD;&#xA;Two or more ))) russians commonly use at the end of the joke message or after cheerful story, when we want to show how funny it was and we are still laughing.&#xD;&#xA;:] - sly demon smile. when you have eaten a basket of ice-cream secretly alone]]] &#xD;&#xA;:) - this is a satisfied, glad or pleased smile. It's more official then without colon.&#xD;&#xA;:D - &quot;can you imagine!&quot; we use this smile to stress that a previously mentioned was a good joke and we are surprised and proud of it. it's like &quot;wow&quot; and &quot;)))&quot; at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;^^ - means &quot;look at me, I'm a fine fellow&quot;, &quot;it is done well because of my efforts&quot;, &quot;Not at all, I don't need flowers&quot;, &quot;you make me blush&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="7f261ebf-6e40-466b-8598-fc9bb14910f6" CreationDate="2016-09-17T09:19:40.453" UserId="7795" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="An answer from native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;)&quot; very often) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One parenthesis &quot;)&quot; means friendly or smile, for example, when you share good news or just say &quot;hi&quot;. (duty smile)&#xD;&#xA; - Two or more ))) russians commonly use at the end of the joke message or after cheerful story, when we want to show how funny it was and we are still laughing.&#xD;&#xA; - :] - sly demon smile. when you have eaten a basket of ice-cream secretly alone]]] &#xD;&#xA; - :) - this is a satisfied, glad or pleased smile. It's more official then without colon.&#xD;&#xA; - :D - &quot;can you imagine!&quot; we use this smile to stress that a previously mentioned was a good joke and we are surprised and proud of it. it's like &quot;wow&quot; and &quot;)))&quot; at the same time.&#xD;&#xA; - ^^ - means &quot;look at me, I'm a fine fellow&quot;, &quot;it is done well because of my efforts&quot;, &quot;Not at all, I don't need flowers&quot;, &quot;you make me blush&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13178" RevisionGUID="b782f31f-3952-4147-8830-ae3e251054a0" CreationDate="2016-09-17T21:36:24.727" UserId="7716" Text="I couldn't quite tell from your question - have you taken a Russian course with a real teacher, or worked from a good book (rather than gathering internet resources)? &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It's great that you've worked on vocabulary, but do you have a solid understanding of the structure of the language - meaning case endings, aspect, motion verbs, etc.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After studying Russian for many years, and teaching it for over 14 years, I've observed that good courses scaffold the language - gradually introducing new structures - and make you practice those before moving on to the next, let alone advanced tasks like understanding authentic speech in a film. Since you're not a 2-year old living in Russia I'm afraid you won't be able to just absorb it the way native speakers do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd urge you to work your way through Nicholas Brown's 'New Penguin Russian Course' (about $15 on Amazon), perhaps with an online tutor who has experience teaching foreign learners; there are also several good Youtube channels that focus on Russian grammar (full disclosure: I have one, don't want to spam you here though). If you know the material in Brown's book (yes, all of it!) already, try to find an online tutor who can assess your level and suggest more advanced learning materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For radio: at [this page](http://echo.msk.ru/top/programs.html) on Эхо Москвы you can mouse over a program &amp; click читать for a transcript. Super handy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For film: look for Мосфильм on Youtube, where they have a few [classic movies with *Russian* subtitles](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4dWJMOQ_a1TPLZbU-K3ic_HODgNTppT9); or buy DVDs of good films with Russian subtitles - that can be a great bridge as you work your way up to managing authentic materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Успеха!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13102" RevisionGUID="8cdde76b-a861-4f5d-8a46-e1b439bb4e16" CreationDate="2016-09-17T21:47:14.043" UserId="7716" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="I'd be interested in native speakers' thoughts on how I sometimes try to explain this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider these English phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;My car broke down on me.  &#xD;&#xA;My dog died on me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you weren't under the car when it broke down, and the dog wasn't on top of you when it died. To my ear, adding &quot;on me&quot; makes it more informal, and adds a note of emotional involvement (like the &quot;social relationship&quot; mentioned by Pycckи). It's more expressive than the comparatively flat, neutral &quot;My car broke down.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this usage of у меня, у тебя, у нас is similar, with this difference: I hear this &quot;on me&quot; mostly in negative contexts, but у меня etc. can be used in an affectionate way (as well as condescension, as in the joke, or Pycckи's examples). You can sometimes capture this note with a possessive in English translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Федя у нас замечательный музыкант.  &#xD;&#xA;Our Fedya is a wonderful musician.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can also use the construction in Russian with pronouns; in these cases I've never found a good way to express that nuance of connection/relationship in English (we can't say &quot;our he&quot; or &quot;my they..&quot;!). In my translations below, it just gets lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;..они у меня такие добрые, щедрые, талантливые, а главное, остроумные..  &#xD;&#xA;They're so kind, generous, talented, and the main thing - witty..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она у нас такая красавица, а ты говоришь: рыбой пахнет! ― сказал Тарарах.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's such a beauty, and you say she smells like fish!&quot; said Tararakh.  &#xD;&#xA;     -Дмитрий Емец, from ruscorpora.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="d31a40e6-61d3-4f31-b5e4-e4e52af7be80" CreationDate="2016-09-17T22:54:37.827" UserId="4753" Comment="clarity, grammar" Text="I will agree with Aksakal, that many words ending in -ция have probably been imported from Latin or French. Although модерация might be imported from English, since it is a relatively new word used mostly in the internet and IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your question. No, not all words are translated by this rule. Many words do have such a counterpart, and the ones you mentioned are totally okay, along with many others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's take, for example, &quot;motion&quot;. In Russian it is &quot;движение&quot;, and if you say &quot;моция&quot;, I doubt anybody will understand you, this word doesn't really exist in Russian language. Same for &quot;notion&quot;. Or &quot;contribution&quot;. Or &quot;contamination&quot;. But &quot;emotion&quot; translates as &quot;эмоция&quot;, and it's perfectly fine. 8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to note is that some words have such counterparts, but a Russian counterpart means a different thing in Russian language, or it may mean the same thing, but only in secondary/tertiary/whatever meaning, while it's **primary** meaning is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;pollution&quot;. The primary English meaning is &quot;a contamination (of the environment, for example)&quot; while the meaning of &quot;wet-dream&quot; is secondary. &quot;Поллюция&quot; has it vice versa. When we hear &quot;Поллюция&quot;, we first think of &quot;wet dream&quot;, and barely anybody (except for linguistically literate people) will think of it as &quot;a contamination of the environment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or let's take &quot;action&quot;. It is some activity/act/deed. &quot;Акция&quot; can have these meanings (&quot;акция протеста&quot; - &quot;protest action&quot;), but it's more widely used meanings are &quot;a share of stock in a company&quot; and &quot;a sale or a special offer in a shop&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to sum it up: yes, there are very many words that can be translated by the rule you stated. But this rule doesn't officially exist, because there are also many words that either cannot be translated that way or that have different meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30953" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="d31a40e6-61d3-4f31-b5e4-e4e52af7be80" CreationDate="2016-09-17T22:54:37.827" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 5605, 496 edit id of 797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13177" RevisionGUID="43cd8c9f-495f-43d6-bcf8-1a2af783ae0b" CreationDate="2016-09-18T19:59:40.210" UserId="7795" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The answer from a native speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use &quot;)&quot; very often) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One parenthesis &quot;)&quot; means a friendly smile, for example, when you share good news or just say &quot;hi&quot;. (duty smile)&#xD;&#xA; - Two or more )))  russians commonly use at the end of a joke message or after a cheerful story, when we want to show how funny it was and we are still laughing.&#xD;&#xA; - :] - a sly demon smile. when you have eaten a basket of ice-cream secretly alone]]] &#xD;&#xA; - :) - this is a satisfied, glad or pleased smile. It's more official than without a colon.&#xD;&#xA; - :D - &quot;can you imagine!&quot; we use this smile to stress that a previously mentioned was a good joke and we were surprised and proud of it. it's like &quot;wow&quot; and &quot;)))&quot; at the same time.&#xD;&#xA; - ^^ - means &quot;look at me, I'm a fine fellow&quot;, &quot;it is done well because of my efforts&quot;, &quot;Not at all, I don't need flowers&quot;, &quot;you make me blush&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13170" RevisionGUID="12667ed7-0358-4de2-a5d0-ca6c28ff416d" CreationDate="2016-09-18T20:27:41.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/777605033403834369" />
  <row Id="30957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8842" RevisionGUID="699bbf1c-99e3-4c5b-831e-c59faecb06db" CreationDate="2016-09-19T09:40:44.923" UserId="7806" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="There’s one more way — none, that is without any special word. Works for me.  &#xD;&#xA;Just make your speech self-attractive and addressive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А не подскажете…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though initial &lt;code&gt;А&lt;/code&gt; above is also an addressing word, it can be omitted.  &#xD;&#xA;Seems not very polite maybe? Universal.  &#xD;&#xA;(Вам шашечки или ехать?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13180" RevisionGUID="83d79262-aa40-4759-8383-1ef07cf61137" CreationDate="2016-09-19T18:03:28.147" UserId="4454" Text="You probably know the difference between и and й. Think like е/ь relates the same way и/й does. Try to tell &quot;чеё&quot;, feel the difference of &quot;чё&quot;. Then make &quot;е&quot; as short as possible. The same is right (in most cases) for ы/ъ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13165" RevisionGUID="35855cf2-72de-4871-8bd4-516a57ccda3a" CreationDate="2016-09-19T23:30:31.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/778013428388626432" />
  <row Id="30966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="abf20735-f496-45d2-9b21-59c21a29cbdd" CreationDate="2016-09-20T16:48:56.153" UserId="4753" Comment="fixed typos, added article" Text="In Russian &quot;чёрные&quot; (&quot;blacks&quot;) is a racist slur for Caucasians. It is not associated with people of African descent at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрные люди&quot; (&quot;black people&quot;) sounds not connected to race at all, it looks as if you were speaking about their soul being &quot;black&quot; and evil and the persons were immoral, so it is derogatory but not racist. In an archaic meaning it may mean servants who do the &quot;black work&quot;, i.e. dirty work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also can mean optically black-colored people but not in racial sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some black-colored aliens or people who contracted some fantastic desease which makes people black&#xD;&#xA;* People appearing black due to the position of light source, sihluettes.&#xD;&#xA;* People painted black for some reason&#xD;&#xA;* People wearing totlly black clothing, including black helm, like Darth Vader. Wearing a Batman costume would not qualify due to non-black face!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts about black race just excluded so you cannot use it for race. Confusingly, &quot;black people&quot; would more likely mean black-skinned aliens than people of African descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use just &quot;чёрные&quot;, this is very much derogatory and racist, although implies the people are Caucasians rather than blacks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30967" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2774" RevisionGUID="abf20735-f496-45d2-9b21-59c21a29cbdd" CreationDate="2016-09-20T16:48:56.153" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 194 edit id of 798" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13182" RevisionGUID="a5ac6518-57b3-483d-8511-b44df9771d6c" CreationDate="2016-09-21T01:35:48.243" UserId="7813" Text="It is used as an indication that something happened or broke unexpectedly. In an overly cute and helpless sort of way. Kind of like &quot;oopsie!&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30970" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="477e6e3b-ea30-4080-b28a-47f6eb173773" CreationDate="2016-09-22T05:50:45.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/778833895567527936" />
  <row Id="30971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13183" RevisionGUID="3ce1c12e-b619-425d-aa78-263c3e272a0b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:56:40.733" UserId="7818" Text="Approximately 30 minutes into the 1987 film &quot;Russkies&quot; the main character, Mischa, sings what I assume to be a Russian folk song. A clip is available on YouTube at [this link][1]. Can you name that tune or provide a lyrics translation to English that can be googled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/CbRhfwSw9z8?t=1901" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13183" RevisionGUID="3ce1c12e-b619-425d-aa78-263c3e272a0b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:56:40.733" UserId="7818" Text="Russian folk song sung in the movie Russkies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13183" RevisionGUID="3ce1c12e-b619-425d-aa78-263c3e272a0b" CreationDate="2016-09-22T16:56:40.733" UserId="7818" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13184" RevisionGUID="8a3c77af-44e4-4c7a-8967-ab71d7476050" CreationDate="2016-09-22T19:43:01.220" UserId="7818" Text="Cheers to Quassnoi who answered via comment.  The Romanized name of the song is &quot;Shalandy polnye kefali&quot; (&quot;Scows Full of Mullet&quot;) by Mark Bernes.  The original is available on YouTube [here][1].  The translated lyrics are available [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/hDSxfoHWCS8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lyricstranslate.com/en/shalandy-polnye-kefali-%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8-scows-full-mullet.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30975" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="b625f311-9f07-474c-9786-a37607b35c1d" CreationDate="2016-09-23T02:56:53.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/779152530681032704" />
  <row Id="30976" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="e19c25d4-4fb0-4abb-bc97-db96bd9a7c33" CreationDate="2016-09-23T05:56:53.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/779197828774133760" />
  <row Id="30977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="c8063eb0-d885-4c7f-915a-83da4b6c519a" CreationDate="2016-09-23T08:18:44.517" UserId="109" Text="It seems to me that in some cases the preposition *на* is used in the sense of *for* where I would use *для*. In the following two examples I would use the preposition *для*, but apparently this is only true for the former example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата **для** одного человека?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У Вас есть комната **на** одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this website][1], *на* — in the sense of *for* — is only used for a temporal application or for a deadline (which is temporal use once again).  &#xD;&#xA;I didn't find any other sources that address *на* related to the subject in matter. Most sites discuss the matter 'location', e.g. in/at a factory, at a meeting, on an island etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when to use *на* and is there a rule (or rule of thumb) when to use *на* over *для*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/for.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="c8063eb0-d885-4c7f-915a-83da4b6c519a" CreationDate="2016-09-23T08:18:44.517" UserId="109" Text="&quot;для / на одного человека&quot; — When to use &quot;на&quot; or &quot;для&quot;, respectively, in the sense of &quot;for&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="c8063eb0-d885-4c7f-915a-83da4b6c519a" CreationDate="2016-09-23T08:18:44.517" UserId="109" Text="|словоупотребление|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13186" RevisionGUID="432aaa89-0832-4ee0-bc02-3eb90c26ac4c" CreationDate="2016-09-23T10:15:01.093" UserId="6539" Text="На with Accusative &#xD;&#xA;Shows a quantitative measure of something &#xD;&#xA;указывает количественную меру чего-либо &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Товару на сто рублей. ◆ Аренда на два года. ◆ Рыба тянет на три кило.&#xD;&#xA;Комната на одного человека.--A room (meant )for one person (describing the room ) Комната для одного человека (describing the purpose I want to live alone in this room )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13187" RevisionGUID="1e937f2a-648e-438a-ac00-102f9e16a791" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:32:07.067" UserId="194" Text="You can use the both variants, but the first one is ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can mean &quot;How much is the room for a *certain* man (whom I know)?&quot; Because the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used in a sense similar to &quot;one friend of me&quot;, &quot;one colleague of me&quot;, in place of &quot;certain&quot;. So this may be understood as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much is the room for one important man?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13187" RevisionGUID="a15781fc-49a0-4217-a4e1-fb53677451d2" CreationDate="2016-09-23T13:42:34.397" UserId="194" Comment="added 915 characters in body" Text="You can use the both variants, but the first one is ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This can mean &quot;How much is the room for a *certain* man (whom I know)?&quot; Because the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used in a sense similar to &quot;one friend of me&quot;, &quot;one colleague of me&quot;, in place of &quot;certain&quot;. So this may be understood as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much is the room for one important man?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another meaning this phrase can have is &quot;How much is the room which is intended for one person?&quot; Implying that you maybe want to live there in greater number, you just want a room that is designed for one man. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Third meaning this phrase can have is that it implies that the same room costs differently for one person and for several ones. So you are asking &quot;How much is this room for a sole man as opposed to several payers&quot;. Even if they do not intend to live there the room may cost more if you are together. This may imply &quot;Sorry, I am not alone in this hotel today, but what if I were alone, would it be cheaper?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата на одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does not have such ambiguity. It clearly means you are asking how much is this room for one person to occupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in this sense looks like a calque from English to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="ff8c62d3-672e-4af5-a091-149331837a17" CreationDate="2016-09-23T22:14:31.180" UserId="7823" Text="my father used to use word in regards to blacks, and not in a nice way.I am spelling it I know chorni is black but what about chornata?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="ff8c62d3-672e-4af5-a091-149331837a17" CreationDate="2016-09-23T22:14:31.180" UserId="7823" Text="Chornata what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="ff8c62d3-672e-4af5-a091-149331837a17" CreationDate="2016-09-23T22:14:31.180" UserId="7823" Text="|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13189" RevisionGUID="816d37e5-fc69-4c35-91a6-dc46e305d57b" CreationDate="2016-09-24T03:48:09.640" UserId="6539" Text="Чернота is a noun from the adjective *black*, (*blackness*). It can name either a very deep black colour or *darkness*. There is also a meaning *frailty* used figuratively which is considered archaic nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чернота цвета. Чернота волос. Чернота души." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="925b2a09-2be0-4443-8b01-2e8a380e6c8a" CreationDate="2016-09-24T03:50:16.230" UserId="6539" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="my father used to use word in regards to blacks, and not in a nice way.I am spelling it I know chorni is black but what about chornata (чернота)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="925b2a09-2be0-4443-8b01-2e8a380e6c8a" CreationDate="2016-09-24T03:50:16.230" UserId="6539" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="Chornata (чернота ) what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="d93c1bc9-01a5-407b-a5ce-92719d7c81c8" CreationDate="2016-09-24T06:52:34.777" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; **чернотА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It indeed can be applied to black people or any group of people with dark skin as a collective term in a demeaning sense and also with the stress being shifted to the second syllable to add a more scornful connotation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чернОта**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the stress in the second variant could be a result of Ukrainian influence, so not sure whether it's common in other versions of the Russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13191" RevisionGUID="d15a7737-b016-4400-8819-71d25cd109d9" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:36:46.717" UserId="3892" Text="In English, when we want someone to direct their gaze in a certain direction in order to take a photo, for example, or to see a specific angle of their face, we tell them to **look over here**, **look that way**, **look at me**, etc. Can **(по)смотреть** (or (an)other ***смотр** or ***гляд** verb(s)) be used in this way, or is there a more idiomatic way to express this in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13191" RevisionGUID="d15a7737-b016-4400-8819-71d25cd109d9" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:36:46.717" UserId="3892" Text="Different nuances of the verb LOOK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13191" RevisionGUID="d15a7737-b016-4400-8819-71d25cd109d9" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:36:46.717" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13192" RevisionGUID="e19a0935-c95e-46e3-87cd-fde8d69b0081" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:47:08.037" UserId="7674" Text="`глядеть` is too dialectic and means rather `to stare in order to perceive` and not with a kind of a blank disinterested stare, therefore not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`посмотреть` is OK like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; смотри на меня&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as `повернуть голову` (towards certain direction or object) for taking a shot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="3d45faff-f147-4e9f-ac53-a3d08558aee1" CreationDate="2016-09-24T12:49:15.910" UserId="7674" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="&gt; **чернотА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It indeed can be applied to black people or any group of people with dark skin as a collective term in a demeaning sense and also with the stress being shifted to the second syllable to add a more scornful connotation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чернОта**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the stress in the second variant could be a result of Ukrainian influence, so not sure whether it's common in other versions of the Russian language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **быдлОта**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="282d972a-9e3c-4ca6-aa7d-14bc1125230a" CreationDate="2016-09-24T14:03:28.550" UserId="7674" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="&gt; **чернотА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It indeed can be applied to black people or any group of people with dark skin as a collective term in a demeaning sense and also with the stress being shifted to the second syllable to add a more scornful connotation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чернОта**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the stress in the second variant could be a result of Ukrainian influence, so not sure whether it's common in other versions of the Russian language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **быдлОта**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;even in English it sometimes used in a metaphorical sense to denote a collective of black people, as in the name of a black group **[Sounds of *Blackness][1]***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounds_of_Blackness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13190" RevisionGUID="472fb170-21f5-4adc-a968-c8597f68d8f3" CreationDate="2016-09-24T14:43:13.100" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 222 characters in body" Text="&gt; **чернотА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It indeed can be applied to black people or any group of people with dark skin as a collective term in a demeaning sense and also with the stress being shifted to the second syllable to add a more scornful connotation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чернОта**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the stress in the second variant could be a result of Ukrainian influence, so not sure whether it's common in other versions of the Russian language&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **быдлОта**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13193" RevisionGUID="7b297202-481f-4981-b453-ed4a5ae087d7" CreationDate="2016-09-24T14:43:18.590" UserId="1674" Text="To make someone look in the certain direction verbs of the root -смотр- and -гляд- can be used. The most often used here will be [смотреть](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) like &quot;посмотри вот туда&quot;, &quot;смотри, как красиво&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **СМОТРЕТЬ**, смотрю, смотришь; смотренный; *несов*.  &#xD;&#xA;1. *на кого-что и на что.*  Направлять взгляд, чтобы увидеть кого-что-н., глядеть.   &#xD;&#xA;Смотреть на собеседника.  &#xD;&#xA;Смотри в окно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a collocation [&quot;смотровая площадка&quot;](http://www.ozhegov.com/words/33261.shtml), which means &quot;площадка для осмотра местности&quot; (a viewing area).  &#xD;&#xA;*Посмотреть* can also be used in that same sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Глядеть](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C) is another way of directing someone's gaze; although in some cases it may sound as a bit deprecated, it has mostly [the same meaning](http://www.ozhegov.com/words/5764.shtml). A way to use it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Взгляни, какой красивый вид! *Look what a beautiful view!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other ways to express something like admire; they may depend on situation, used vocabulary and society. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полюбуйтесь, каков вид!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Только взгляните, до чего красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13194" RevisionGUID="22ed9ec4-a104-4e4e-92d9-e0b4c4ef47f2" CreationDate="2016-09-24T16:34:41.987" UserId="7825" Text="&#xD;&#xA;                                                                                           -1-&#xD;&#xA;                                      СМЕШНЫЕ ЭТИМОЛОГИИ&#xD;&#xA;                                                   &#xD;&#xA;                                                        Эссе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разбирая этимологию слов, иногда попадаешь на слова, которые в своем происхождении имеют нормальный смысл, а в принятом ныне толковании неприличны, или наоборот.  Чтобы понять этимологию слова, следует подобрать максимальное количество похожих слов и не только в русском языке, но и в других индоевропейских языках и попытаться понять, какой же смысл их всех объединяет. Возьмем, к примеру , простое русское слово « дупло». Откуда это слово взялось? Подбираем похожие по звучанию слова:&#xD;&#xA;-du(литовское)- два;&#xD;&#xA;-дубль- второй экз. чего-то;&#xD;&#xA;-дуплет-выстрел одновременно из двух стволов ружья- двухстволки;&#xD;&#xA;-дупель-двойная кость домино ( пусто-пусто, пять-пять.и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA;-dupa( польский яз., русский аналог , простите, жопа)- т.е. двуединая конструкция.&#xD;&#xA;А, теперь, на что похоже дупло, особенно не очень большое? Да на выход прямой кишки! Присмотритесь и Вы убедитесь, что слово « дупло» происходит от слова « dupa» (жопа), а последнее от слова « два». А дальше начинается юмор: истолкуйте фразу:» у меня в зубе дупло!&#xD;&#xA;Второй пример: как в старославянском яз. звучит буква «х» ? « хер»!&#xD;&#xA;Почему название этой нормальной буквы стало сегодня  неприличным? &#xD;&#xA;Существует древний корень , условно звучащий как « ker» и означающий « колоть, резать». В современных индоевропейских яз. существуют множество слов этого корня. Этот корень может менять свою форму: кер,цер, чер , хер ,гер и т . п .. Он может менять гласный звук : кар, кор, кур,кир и т.д.. Гласная вообще может выпасть: кр, цр, чр,хр, гр и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;А теперь представьте себе древнего человека, идущего в дремучий лес. Чтобы не заблудиться он делал топором, мечем, ножом на деревьях зарубки. Как выглядели эти зарубки? Если ее делать одним движением, этот рез                     &#xD;&#xA; можно спутать с царапиной, сделанной, скажем , рогом лося или оленя; а если топором или другим острым предметом в виде буквы « х « то, понятно ,этот знак выполнил человек ,и означал этот знак –зарубка, рез  ,то есть- «хер». И когда изобретался славянский алфавит ,знак «х» стал назваться так, как его уже славяне называли, т.е. « хер».&#xD;&#xA;А теперь возникает вопрос: почему это очень даже приличное слово вдруг стало « ненормативным»? Во все времена вопрос размножения людей был и есть чрезвычайно важный ( Божий наказ: плодитесь и размножайтесь!) Люди бережно относились к детородным органам, а многие народы даже обожествляли их ( так называемые фаллические религии). И наши далекие предки называть эти органы вслух опасались, боясь привлечь внимание к ним злых духов, которые могли им повредить. Вот потому-то  люди называли этот орган иносказательно, используя начальную букву: хер, хрен, хутор и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ALEXANDRGUSCHIN44   29.01.2016 г. Вильнюс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13195" RevisionGUID="9838eb8c-5cca-49fe-b842-df033e16b3f5" CreationDate="2016-09-24T19:35:18.767" UserId="6539" Text="The most commom verbs meaning &quot;look here, at me&quot;are &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*смотри*,*смотрите сюда*, *посмотрите сюда*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are inviting to look at something, you say &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*смотри-ка*,*посмотри на это*,*глянь сюда*,*глянь-ка на него* (very colloquial ) *взгляни*,*взгляните на это*,*гляди* (often used by people in villages,but rarely in cities now),*погляди на него*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone takes pictures, he usually says,especially to children:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Внимание,сейчас вылетит птичка!*(When you say 'Say &quot;cheese&quot;!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13187" RevisionGUID="924f5b62-a7a0-4545-9a31-df46fedf062b" CreationDate="2016-09-24T22:08:53.240" UserId="194" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="You can use the both variants, but the first one is ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This can mean &quot;How much is the room for a *certain* man (whom I know)?&quot; Because the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used in a sense similar to &quot;one friend of me&quot;, &quot;one colleague of me&quot;, in place of &quot;certain&quot;. So this may be understood as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much is the room for one important man?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another meaning this phrase can have is &quot;How much is the room which is intended for one person?&quot; Implying that you maybe want to live there in greater number, you just want a room that is designed for one man. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Third meaning this phrase can have is that it implies that the same room costs differently for one person and for several ones. So you are asking &quot;How much is this room for a sole man as opposed to several payers&quot;. Even if they do not intend to live there the room may cost more or less if you are together as a group. This may imply &quot;Sorry, I am not alone in this hotel today, but what if I were alone, would it be cheaper?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата на одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does not have such ambiguity. It clearly means you are asking how much is this room for one person to occupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комата для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in this sense looks like a calque from English to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31001" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13185" RevisionGUID="8927b8fd-6f83-40eb-b7cb-5d5e404c4057" CreationDate="2016-09-24T23:57:54.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/779832262372253696" />
  <row Id="31002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7583" RevisionGUID="e2f59d63-9823-4190-947e-3670b38882ef" CreationDate="2016-09-25T05:57:56.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/779922865672052736" />
  <row Id="31003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="8cca9dc9-0d00-4e39-9b4b-78a3abfb5713" CreationDate="2016-09-25T10:55:45.020" UserId="6354" Text="In terms of expressing *ten*, what's the difference between **десять**, **десятка** and **десяток**? I understand the first is a numeral and the other two are nouns, but I'm curious in which contexts each are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a declension of десятка or десяток?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="8cca9dc9-0d00-4e39-9b4b-78a3abfb5713" CreationDate="2016-09-25T10:55:45.020" UserId="6354" Text="Express &quot;ten&quot; in Russian: difference between десять, десятка, десяток" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="8cca9dc9-0d00-4e39-9b4b-78a3abfb5713" CreationDate="2016-09-25T10:55:45.020" UserId="6354" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13197" RevisionGUID="1efb0b9d-f3f2-4190-abba-48b2782f681e" CreationDate="2016-09-25T11:59:05.313" UserId="5443" Text="**Десятка** - typically, an informal reference to something *numbered 10* (like a bus following route 10) or about a *10 ruble banknote* (in the past, when it mattered more) - now it can sometimes informally mean 10 thousand rubles; inform. about sentencing to 10 years of imprisonment (ему дали &quot;десятку&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Десяток** - *10 pieces* (similar to *a dozen* eggs etc.), *10 years of age* in expressions like &quot;ему уже седьмой *десяток*&quot; (he's already in his 60's), also about approximate length in time (прошёл/пройдёт десяток лет - один или более десятков); mathematically, *десятки* (plural) - the position of *tens* in a number." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="4f0dba2c-8fda-4e83-a296-4f6610616db3" CreationDate="2016-09-25T14:06:03.223" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` outside of mathematics is never meant in a literal sense of  quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this sense, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozen`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;same with `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="d04e5ba3-b21c-45d8-ad33-06b8b55aa8e7" CreationDate="2016-09-25T14:11:04.560" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` outside of mathematics is never meant in a literal sense of  quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this sense, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;same with `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="7065bc68-db82-4bae-8357-db5e360f8d63" CreationDate="2016-09-25T14:17:53.093" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` is never meant in a literal sense of quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this usage, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;same with `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in an attempt to summarize it might be said that **десятка** can be applied to something solid and indivisible, whereas **десяток** - to a set of separate items of one kind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="17fd97f1-2890-4753-8a34-53b153ddca04" CreationDate="2016-09-25T14:24:02.780" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` is never meant in a literal sense of quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this usage, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;likewise `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at the same time `десяток` and nouns just listed can indicate a precise number if appended by a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *два десятка* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or express uncertainty about the exact number if followed by one (this is a case of a more general syntactic rule)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *десятка два* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in an attempt to summarize it might be said that **десятка** can be applied to something solid and indivisible, whereas **десяток** - to a set of separate items of one kind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="e8e45e6d-c004-45cb-9a48-80dfb0d1737c" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:12:59.147" UserId="7674" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` is never meant in a literal sense of quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this usage, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;likewise `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at the same time `десяток` and nouns just listed can indicate a precise number if appended by a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *два десятка* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or express uncertainty about the accuracy of the number (quantity) if followed by one (this is a case of a more general syntactic rule)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *десятка два* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in an attempt to summarize it might be said that **десятка** (and any other numeral cognate noun ending with `-ка` such as *`тройка`*, *`семёрка`*, *`двадцатка`*, *`пятидесятка`* and so on) can be applied to something solid and indivisible, whereas **десяток** - to a set of separate items of one kind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13199" RevisionGUID="99e20b4e-a48a-4fc3-a634-70d6cdde1d37" CreationDate="2016-09-25T17:48:10.757" UserId="6539" Text="ДЕСЯТКА  noun (colloquial ) feminine.&#xD;&#xA;1.The name of the number &quot;ten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.colloquial. The name of means of transport (a bus, a tram ) which  has number 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой автобус тут ходит?--Десятка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Bull's-eye (sports )--a black central circle  --десятка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An idiom попасть в десятку--To hit on the right nail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.A ten--rouble coin--десятка. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. A card The ten of spades--десятка пик,the ten of hearts-- десятка червей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.Score десятка два людей--a score of people &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ДЕСЯТОК A noun, masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Ten things ( like a dozen ) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Десяток пирожных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.Ten years of age. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему пошёл шестой десяток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.A group of ten people. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Десяток ребят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.in mathematics, tens --тысячи, сотни, десятки, единицы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Idioms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не робкого десятка --he is brave.&#xD;&#xA;Добрый десяток лет.--over a decade. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="5344b4dc-f733-47a0-af2d-f34a5007e7aa" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:30:04.830" UserId="7674" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` is never meant in a literal sense of quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this usage, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;likewise `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at the same time `десяток` and nouns just listed can indicate a precise number if appended by a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *два десятка* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or express uncertainty about the accuracy of the number (quantity) if followed by one (this is a case of a more general syntactic rule)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *десятка два* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in an attempt to summarize it might be said that **десятка** (and any other numeral cognate noun ending with `-ка` such as *`тройка`*, *`семёрка`*, *`двадцатка`*, *`пятидесятка`* and so on) can be applied to something solid and indivisible, whereas **десяток** - to a set of separate items of one kind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference may be exemplified with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил десяток штук десяток &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the 2nd `десятка` means `an item numbered 10`, for example a spool of sewing thread size 10, and so the entire sentence means `I bought ten items of the (number) 10`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="e2618568-52db-4f34-b17a-4925a17de758" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:35:35.427" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` is never meant in a literal sense of quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this usage, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;likewise `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at the same time `десяток` and nouns just listed can indicate a precise number if appended by a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *два десятка* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or express uncertainty about the accuracy of the number (quantity) if followed by one (this is a case of a more general syntactic rule)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *десятка два* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in an attempt to summarize it might be said that **десятка** (and any other numeral cognate noun ending with `-ка` such as *`тройка`*, *`семёрка`*, *`двадцатка`*, *`пятидесятка`* and so on) can be applied to something solid and indivisible, whereas **десяток** - to a set of separate items of one kind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference may be exemplified with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил десяток штук десяток &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the 2nd `десятка` means `an item numbered 10`, for example a spool of sewing thread size 10, and so the entire sentence means `I've bought ten items of the (number) 10`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13198" RevisionGUID="96b6b76f-3070-4ecf-8d6b-522a78ca311b" CreationDate="2016-09-25T18:54:47.473" UserId="7674" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="&gt; Also, in the sentence **Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей**, is десятки a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; declension of десятка or десяток?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is a declined `десяток`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`десятки` is never meant in a literal sense of quantity but just used to indicate `great amount` within certain limits, in this case under 100  &#xD;&#xA;in this usage, as Alex_ander has noted, it's better to be understood as idiomatic `dozens`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;likewise `cотни`, `тысячи`, `десятки тысяч` and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;at the same time `десяток` and nouns just listed can indicate a precise number if appended by a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *два десятка* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or express uncertainty about the accuracy of the number (quantity) if followed by one (this is a case of a more general syntactic rule)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Он сыграл в кино *десятка два* ролей**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so in an attempt to summarize it might be said that **десятка** (and any other numeral cognate noun ending with `-ка` such as *`тройка`*, *`семёрка`*, *`двадцатка`*, *`пятидесятка`* and so on) can be applied to something solid and indivisible, whereas **десяток** - to a set of separate items of one kind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference may be exemplified with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я купил десяток (штук) десяток = Я купил десять (штук) десяток &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the 2nd `десятка` means `an item numbered 10`, for example a spool of sewing thread size 10, and so the entire sentence means `I've bought ten items of the (number) 10`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="9a691357-4297-4c2f-9900-9dd3ad628ec5" CreationDate="2016-09-26T07:49:41.857" UserId="551" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered one example from USSR times, so it has longer history&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from быдло&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота - comes from гопник&#xD;&#xA; - Лимита - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a person, that got a &quot;лимитная прописка&quot; (allowance to live in a city) because they have a profession that is required by factories or other organizations in the city, which is rare for locals. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="e7e18812-1658-4077-9288-5b0001ff53bc" CreationDate="2016-09-26T07:55:06.027" UserId="551" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered one example from USSR times, so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from [быдло][1] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота - comes from [гопник][2] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age).[3] coming from families of poor education and income&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - [Лимита][3] - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a person, that got a &quot;лимитная прописка&quot; (allowance to live in a city) because they have a profession that is required by factories or other organizations in the city, which is rare for locals. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="1d748d05-ab4a-4bd3-81e1-cb685efd9175" CreationDate="2016-09-26T08:00:42.743" UserId="551" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered one example from USSR times, so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from [быдло][1] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота́ - comes from [гопник][2] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - [Лимита́][3] - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a person, that got a &quot;лимитная прописка&quot; (allowance to live in a city) because they have a profession that is required by factories or other organizations in the city, which is rare for locals. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="0883ffc0-885c-4b6f-b5a7-26eb7d5660cf" CreationDate="2016-09-26T08:06:20.253" UserId="551" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times, so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from [быдло][1] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота́ - comes from [гопник][2] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - [Лимита́][3] - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a person, that got a &quot;лимитная прописка&quot; (allowance to live in a city) because they have a profession that is required by factories or other organizations in the city, which is rare for locals. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="ad1c66aa-8a5b-4ec1-9587-f368ff6dd6e4" CreationDate="2016-09-26T08:18:18.907" UserId="551" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times, so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Лимита́][3] - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a person, that got a &quot;лимитная прописка&quot; (allowance to live in a city) because they have a profession that is required by factories or other organizations in the city, which is rare for locals. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration. Looks like this phenomenon appeared around 1971.&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота́ - comes from [гопник][2] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from [быдло][1] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;. Seems like this is rather new term, since it does not appear in Ruscorpora and Wiktionary at all.&#xD;&#xA; - Школота́ - comes from &quot;школьник&quot; - this is new term, which describes an iternet user (most of the time it is a teenager) that post meaningless messages on forums etc. full of excitement or hatred (like 'xxx sucks!' or 'yyy is awesome!').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="5a2d5699-e8e4-499a-b5be-3d2c76ae7c0f" CreationDate="2016-09-26T08:23:58.847" UserId="551" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times (лимита), so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Лимита́][1] - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a unskilled worker, that got a &quot;[лимитная прописка][2]&quot; (allowance to work in a city, existed from 50ies till 80ies) because they were needed by factories or other organizations in the city, while most locals had a good education. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration (e.g. by marriage). Looks like this phenomenon become a big problem around 1971.&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота́ - comes from [гопник][3] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;. Гопник is rather old word (at least 50 years older than лимитчик), but it is unclear to me when гопота first appeared.&#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from [быдло][4] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;. Seems like this is rather new term, since it does not appear in Ruscorpora and Wiktionary at all.&#xD;&#xA; - Школота́ - comes from &quot;школьник&quot; - this is internet-era term, which describes an internet user (most of the time it is a teenager) that posts meaningless messages on forums, etc. full of excitement or hatred (like 'xxx sucks!' or 'yyy is awesome!').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13197" RevisionGUID="8f5714e4-b28d-4d6d-b5d0-2936d59815a5" CreationDate="2016-09-26T10:15:01.977" UserId="5443" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="**Десятка** - typically, an informal reference to something *numbered 10* (like a bus following route 10) or about a *10 ruble banknote* (in the past, when it mattered more) - now it can sometimes informally mean 10 thousand rubles; inform. about sentencing to 10 years of imprisonment (ему дали &quot;десятку&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Десяток** - *10 pieces* (similar to *a dozen* eggs etc.), *10 years of age* in expressions like &quot;ему уже седьмой *десяток*&quot; (he's already in his 60's), also about approximate length in time (прошёл/пройдёт десяток лет - один или более десятков); mathematically, *десятки* (plural) - the position of *tens* in a number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. In *&quot;Он сыграл в кино десятки ролей&quot;* **десятки** из the plural of десят**ок** in accusative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31024" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13196" RevisionGUID="705a1c79-9c12-4576-a09b-52f431ca695c" CreationDate="2016-09-26T12:04:07.947" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/780377409774317572" />
  <row Id="31025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="f4b7b0b2-0cf4-48c2-9e66-8e90597f13e9" CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:44:35.700" UserId="551" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times (лимита), so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Темнота́ - comes from &quot;темный человек&quot; - ignorance, backwardness&#xD;&#xA; - Простота́ - can be used both for silliness; innocence - &quot;Ваня, Ваня, простота - купил лошадь без хвоста&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [Лимита́][1] - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a unskilled worker, that got a &quot;[лимитная прописка][2]&quot; (allowance to work in a city, existed from 50ies till 80ies) because they were needed by factories or other organizations in the city, while most locals had a good education. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration (e.g. by marriage). Looks like this phenomenon become a big problem around 1971.&#xD;&#xA; - Гопота́ - comes from [гопник][3] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;. Гопник is rather old word (at least 50 years older than лимитчик), but it is unclear to me when гопота first appeared.&#xD;&#xA; - Быдлота - comes from [быдло][4] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;. Seems like this is rather new term, since it does not appear in Ruscorpora and Wiktionary at all.&#xD;&#xA; - Школота́ - comes from &quot;школьник&quot; - this is internet-era term, which describes an internet user (most of the time it is a teenager) that posts meaningless messages on forums, etc. full of excitement or hatred (like 'xxx sucks!' or 'yyy is awesome!').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31026" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="7fff2ec9-6c66-4f95-8df4-4620e245f747" CreationDate="2016-09-26T15:13:52.557" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anixx&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="6beac7ab-e88c-461a-a412-b97f390e188d" CreationDate="2016-09-27T09:49:07.033" UserId="551" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times (лимита), so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Темнота́** - comes from &quot;темный человек&quot; - ignorance, backwardness&#xD;&#xA; - **Простота́** - can be used both for silliness; innocence - &quot;Ваня, Ваня, простота - купил лошадь без хвоста&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **[Лимита́][1]** - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a unskilled worker, that got a &quot;[лимитная прописка][2]&quot; (allowance to work in a city, existed from 50ies till 80ies) because they were needed by factories or other organizations in the city, while most locals had a good education. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration (e.g. by marriage). Looks like this phenomenon become a big problem around 1971.&#xD;&#xA; - **Гопота́** - comes from [гопник][3] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;. Гопник is rather old word (at least 50 years older than лимитчик), but it is unclear to me when гопота first appeared.&#xD;&#xA; - **Быдлота** - comes from [быдло][4] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;. Seems like this is rather new term, since it does not appear in Ruscorpora and Wiktionary at all.&#xD;&#xA; - **Школота́** - comes from &quot;школьник&quot; - this is internet-era term, which describes an internet user (most of the time it is a teenager) that posts meaningless messages on forums, etc. full of excitement or hatred (like 'xxx sucks!' or 'yyy is awesome!').&#xD;&#xA; - Also there are number of words that describe poor people: **беднота**, **нищета**, **голота**, **босота**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13199" RevisionGUID="b223b059-3f8b-49e5-a9b3-1af2929fee7a" CreationDate="2016-09-27T11:30:12.237" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="ДЕСЯТКА  noun (colloquial ) feminine.&#xD;&#xA;1.The name of the number &quot;ten&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.colloquial. The name of means of transport (a bus, a tram ) which  has number 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой автобус тут ходит?--Десятка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Bull's-eye (sports )--a black central circle  --десятка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An idiom попасть в десятку--To hit on the right nail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.A ten--rouble coin--десятка. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. A card The ten of spades--десятка пик,the ten of hearts-- десятка червей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ДЕСЯТОК A noun, masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Ten things ( like a dozen ) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Десяток пирожных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.Ten years of age. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ему пошёл шестой десяток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.A group of ten people. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Десяток ребят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.in mathematics, tens --тысячи, сотни, десятки, единицы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 a score of  десятка два людей &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Idioms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не робкого десятка --he is brave.&#xD;&#xA;Добрый десяток лет.--over a decade. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="015d8094-e662-48ce-ab3c-b620fa573cdd" CreationDate="2016-09-29T08:02:35.693" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="My father used to use word in regards to blacks, and not in a nice way. I am spelling it I know chorni is black but what about chornata (чернота)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31030" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="015d8094-e662-48ce-ab3c-b620fa573cdd" CreationDate="2016-09-29T08:02:35.693" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Chornata (чернота) what is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31031" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13188" RevisionGUID="015d8094-e662-48ce-ab3c-b620fa573cdd" CreationDate="2016-09-29T08:02:35.693" UserId="551" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="135625c6-07be-4380-933f-5c1b4d605ca5" CreationDate="2016-09-30T21:00:41.597" UserId="6816" Comment="corrected number" Text="Similar to one of my [previous posts](http://russian.stackexchange.com/q/12190/6816), I am wondering what case is used for nouns preceded by numbers of different nature (when there is some discrepancy over which number, or an approximation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because numbers like 1 or 21 are different from numbers like 2, 3, and 4, which are, in turn, different from the rest in which case is used (any, s. gen., and pl. gen., respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which way is correct? Is there more than one correct way?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="6be6da9b-4f1b-4424-8b4b-00b66f64ef41" CreationDate="2016-10-01T15:59:57.270" UserId="7674" Text="i disagree with the chosen response, its example phrases although understandable diverge from the standard usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion the rule is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. when two numerals call for the same noun but in different numbers (sing. &amp; pl.), only the first one is spelled out whereas the second is implied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`один год или два`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. when two numerals call for different nouns, both nouns are spelled out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`три года или пять лет`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="ff8afba0-1cac-4f31-a8cb-2fb85682d8b0" CreationDate="2016-10-01T17:06:41.713" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="i disagree with the chosen response, its example phrases although understandable diverge from the standard usage and good style&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion the rule is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. when two numerals call for the same noun but in different numbers (sing. &amp; pl.), only the first one is spelled out whereas the second is implied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`один год или два`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. when two numerals call for different nouns, both nouns are spelled out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`три года или пять лет`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="d6c9bef1-ed6b-4aea-b678-a191fc21350e" CreationDate="2016-10-01T19:12:44.110" UserId="6944" Text="I am wondering about ethimology of an idiom  &quot;Глаз на жопу натянуть&quot;, which literally means &quot;Pull an eye onto ass&quot;. Surfing through the internet I have found that it was used in Shirli-Myrli [Ширли-мырли], but I am interested in the true nature of this idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="d6c9bef1-ed6b-4aea-b678-a191fc21350e" CreationDate="2016-10-01T19:12:44.110" UserId="6944" Text="History of &quot;Глаз на жопу натянуть&quot; idiom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="d6c9bef1-ed6b-4aea-b678-a191fc21350e" CreationDate="2016-10-01T19:12:44.110" UserId="6944" Text="|этимология|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13187" RevisionGUID="7cafa9be-ad34-4620-8d25-dad7ae1ee1ba" CreationDate="2016-10-02T13:34:43.280" UserId="194" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You can use the both variants, but the first one is ambiguous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комната для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This can mean &quot;How much is the room for a *certain* man (whom I know)?&quot; Because the word for &quot;one&quot; can be used in a sense similar to &quot;one friend of me&quot;, &quot;one colleague of me&quot;, in place of &quot;certain&quot;. So this may be understood as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much is the room for one important man?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another meaning this phrase can have is &quot;How much is the room which is intended for one person?&quot; Implying that you maybe want to live there in greater number, you just want a room that is designed for one man. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Third meaning this phrase can have is that it implies that the same room costs differently for one person and for several ones. So you are asking &quot;How much is this room for a sole man as opposed to several payers&quot;. Even if they do not intend to live there the room may cost more or less if you are together as a group. This may imply &quot;Sorry, I am not alone in this hotel today, but what if I were alone, would it be cheaper?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комната на одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does not have such ambiguity. It clearly means you are asking how much is this room for one person to occupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько стоит комната для одного человека?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in this sense looks like a calque from English to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="486d3049-16a6-48d3-939c-60849be8cf16" CreationDate="2016-10-03T08:08:58.020" UserId="7239" Text="This a follow-up to a previous question of mine, because I realized that the phenomenon is more general: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13068/parts-of-speech-in-the-question-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%B9-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Why is the word order for such questions sometimes like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;это -- (*adjectival pronoun*) (*noun*)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. &quot; (*subject*) -- (*predicate*)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example, &quot;Это -- твоё письмо?&quot; &quot;Это -- ваш преподаватель?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but other times the word order is inverted, in a way which seems illogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(*adjectival pronoun*) это (*noun*)?    &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. &quot;(*predicate part 1*) (*subject*) (*predicate part 2*)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example, &quot;Чей это карандаш?&quot; &quot;Какой это журнал?&quot; &quot;Какой он студент?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More  context:** Wouldn't a word order like &quot;Это -- чей карандаш?&quot; &quot;Это -- какой журнал?&quot; &quot;Он -- какой студент?&quot; be (1) more consistent (2) more logical? Or even &quot;Чей карандаш -- это?&quot; &quot;Какой журнал -- это?&quot; &quot;Какой студент -- он?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And why does this &quot;splitting&quot; of phrases involving adjectival pronouns happen only when the adjectival pronoun is in the predicate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not seem to happen when it is in the subject. For example &quot;Какой журнал лежит там?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we had the same type of splitting that occurs elsewhere, it seems like we would have something like &quot;Какой лежит там журнал?&quot; instead, which is clearly illogical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="486d3049-16a6-48d3-939c-60849be8cf16" CreationDate="2016-10-03T08:08:58.020" UserId="7239" Text="Word order in questions with adjectival (determinative) pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="486d3049-16a6-48d3-939c-60849be8cf16" CreationDate="2016-10-03T08:08:58.020" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13205" RevisionGUID="7803a967-4a25-461c-bb06-f8518d7e60b9" CreationDate="2016-10-03T10:20:58.447" UserId="4714" Text="Question words almost always come at the beginning. And if English is your native language than it's useful to think how we would ask such a question. What kind of student is he? In many cases the order is exactly opposite (because important info comes at the end of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What kind of Student is he?&quot; He is less important than student, so it comes before студент.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какой он студент?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="052e58f8-955d-4544-8a3a-1f1e5e603f0d" CreationDate="2016-10-03T10:44:32.863" UserId="6539" Text="I would like you to read the answers on this question which seems to be similar to yours http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13147/order-of-adverbs-and-position-of-subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order in a Russian sentence is very flexible. You shouldn't compare it to the English one.Both **чей это карандаш?&quot; and &quot; это чей карандаш?** would work.The third variant **чей карандаш это?** is also possible and grammatical but it emphasizes the word &quot;это&quot;, not &quot;карандаш&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentences with copula verbs are very flexible.The same can be done with action verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;какой журнал лежит там? Какой там лежит журнал? Какой лежит журнал там? Журнал там какой лежит? Журнал там лежит какой? Лежит там какой журнал?(the meaning is slightly different &quot;is there any magazine?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But if we stress &quot;какой&quot;,the meaning is the same as in the previous sentences. &#xD;&#xA;All sentences are fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="5c004954-0580-4aa0-9672-dfd0cd22419e" CreationDate="2016-10-03T10:58:22.877" UserId="7674" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="i disagree with the chosen response, its example phrases although understandable diverge from the standard usage and good style&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion the rule is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. when two numerals call for the same noun but in different numbers (sing. &amp; pl.), only the first one is spelled out whereas the second is implied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`(один) год или два`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. when two numerals call for different nouns, both nouns are spelled out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`три года или пять лет`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also it's important to remember that a Russian noun for the word `year` varies depending on the declension of a numeral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13207" RevisionGUID="8d084757-3b45-44ad-98d9-07e0ab39e3cb" CreationDate="2016-10-03T11:57:49.793" UserId="7716" Text="And keep in mind that inverting the neutral word order of topic/comment (as described above) can make a statement more &quot;emotive&quot; - for expressing impatience, enthusiasm, or just a more informal tone. It's all very sensitive to context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="3f7b068e-26e0-4025-a7df-9be75876ed80" CreationDate="2016-10-03T12:24:25.880" UserId="7674" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="i disagree with the chosen response, its example phrases although understandable diverge from the standard usage and good style&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion the rule is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. when two numerals call for the same noun but in different numbers (sing. &amp; pl.), only the first one is spelled out whereas the second is implied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`(один) год или два`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. when two numerals call for different nouns, both nouns are spelled out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`три года или пять лет`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also it's important to remember that a Russian noun for the word `year` varies depending on the declension of a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N - *1 `год`, *2 - *4 `года`, *5 - *9 and round numbers `лет`  &#xD;&#xA;G - *1 `года`, *2 and onwards `лет`  &#xD;&#xA;D - *1 `году`, *2 and onwards `годам`  &#xD;&#xA;А = N  &#xD;&#xA;I - *1 `годом`, *2 and onwards `годами`  &#xD;&#xA;P - *1 `годе`, *2 and onwards `годах` " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="427acbb5-b078-47e6-a23a-d7487ae0b22b" CreationDate="2016-10-03T13:19:24.990" UserId="6539" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I would like you to read the answers on this question which seems to be similar to yours http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13147/order-of-adverbs-and-position-of-subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order in a Russian sentence is very flexible. You shouldn't compare it to the English one.Both **чей это карандаш?&quot; and &quot; это чей карандаш?** would work.The third variant **чей карандаш это?** is also possible and grammatical but it emphasizes the word &quot;это&quot;, not &quot;карандаш&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentences with copula verbs are very flexible.The same can be done with action verbs.I think I should mark the stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**какой** журнал лежит там? **Какой** там лежит журнал? **Какой** лежит журнал там? Журнал там **какой** лежит? Журнал там лежит **какой**? **Лежит**1  там **какой**2 журнал?(the meaning is slightly different &quot;is there any magazine?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But if we stress &quot;какой&quot;,the meaning is the same as in the previous sentences. &#xD;&#xA;All sentences are fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="a8d53941-3ff0-4e22-aae1-4a2fd9c4a5fb" CreationDate="2016-10-03T13:42:18.883" UserId="6539" Text="The sentence is not an idiom but an example of argot (slang belonging to some social groups (outlaws, youngsters, etc.) Found in several dictionaries of Russian argot. Here's one of them:&#xD;&#xA;Большой словарь русских поговорок → Глаз на ж... (на задницу) натянуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаз на ж... (на задницу) натянуть кому. Вульг.-прост.  Vulgar. Сильно избить, наказать кого-л.  To punish, beat somebody (a threat). СПП 2001, 24; Вахитов 2003, 109; Подюков 1989, 128; Мокиенко, Никитина 2003, 103. Since most of the words originate from outlaws  I doubt that we can find any further information. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13209" RevisionGUID="7b832f97-d55e-4b9b-9b51-aa7f393e6af6" CreationDate="2016-10-03T17:12:35.573" UserId="6816" Text="I am wondering how you translate the word &quot;then&quot; as it is used in the following sentences.&#xA;&#xA;1. If he can do it, **then** I can do it, too.&#xA;&#xA;2. If you don't like this place, **then** why are you here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13209" RevisionGUID="7b832f97-d55e-4b9b-9b51-aa7f393e6af6" CreationDate="2016-10-03T17:12:35.573" UserId="6816" Text="Translation of &quot;then&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13209" RevisionGUID="7b832f97-d55e-4b9b-9b51-aa7f393e6af6" CreationDate="2016-10-03T17:12:35.573" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13210" RevisionGUID="21c4859e-28e5-40d6-bf00-558e996b49e7" CreationDate="2016-10-03T17:25:32.417" UserId="6539" Text="We say тогда in both sentences. Or you can use *то* instead &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если он может это делать, тогда(то) и я смогу тоже. Если тебе не нравится это место,тогда (то) почему ты здесь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13201" RevisionGUID="4f6ac115-bf1c-4c49-9d99-c148a98ba84a" CreationDate="2016-10-03T18:38:58.900" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="i disagree with the chosen response, its example phrases although understandable diverge from the standard usage and good style&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in my opinion the rule is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. when two numerals call for the same noun but in different numbers (sing. &amp; pl.), only the first one is spelled out whereas the second is implied&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`(один) год или два`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. when two numerals call for different nouns, both nouns are spelled out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`три года или пять лет`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also it's important to remember that a Russian noun for the word `year` varies depending on the declension of a numeral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N - *1 `год`, *2 - *4 `гОда`, *5 - *9 and round numbers `лет`  &#xD;&#xA;G - *1 `гОда`, *2 and onwards `лет`  &#xD;&#xA;D - *1 `гОду`, *2 and onwards `годАм`  &#xD;&#xA;А = N  &#xD;&#xA;I - *1 `гОдом`, *2 and onwards `годАми`  &#xD;&#xA;P - *1 `гОде`, *2 and onwards `годАх`  &#xD;&#xA;L(ocative) *1 `годУ`, *2 and onwards `годАх`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13211" RevisionGUID="9cc474f6-1e80-4036-afde-56a7b098ad66" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:05:06.610" UserId="7859" Text="I'm native speaker. First thing first, that dash after это looks pretty rare/weird to me. You may just skip it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question I would just make a parallel with English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is your teacher.&#xD;&#xA;Is it your teacher?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whose pencil is this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой, чей are question words (like whose, which etc). &quot;Это&quot; is &quot;it is&quot; - &quot;это есть&quot;. &quot;Есть (быть)&quot; is just omitted in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who is this person? - Кто этот человек? =&gt; &quot;Кто есть этот человек?&quot; -- you NEVER say &quot;есть&quot; in normal speech, it sounds very oldish but may be used in funny way. &quot;to be&quot; (быть) is kind of in the back of your mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чей карандаш -- это?&quot; &quot;Какой журнал -- это?&quot; &quot;Какой студент -- он?&quot; sounds very-very wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about word order. Particular one will emphasize particular word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какой журнал лежит ТАМ?&quot; -&gt; and I think that person will point somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;КАКОЙ лежит там журнал?&quot; -&gt; I think perhaps the person asking didn't hear well or perhaps is just shocked with kind of magazine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какой там ЖУРНАЛ лежит?&quot; -&gt; perhaps person asking can see more things on the table but is asking about magazine specifically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13212" RevisionGUID="e0e8a142-f643-4c3e-afb9-61f2cb822233" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:28:34.307" UserId="7859" Text="That is speech defect. &quot;Р&quot; is a hard sound. When I was a child I had problems pronouncing it. It sounded like &quot;ЭЛ&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that guy in the video &quot;картавит&quot;. Infinitive &quot;картавить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ротацизм&quot; sounds like diagnosis to me and honestly that is the first time I see the word in my life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13213" RevisionGUID="73d62f10-a75f-4fe8-8aa2-5986c0fdacda" CreationDate="2016-10-03T20:48:20.603" UserId="7859" Text="Они – двойняшки, но сестра более активная, чем брат.&#xD;&#xA;Они – двойняшки, но сестра активнее брата.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both make perfect sence. There is no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сегодня день теплее, чем вчера. Мороженое с клубникой вкуснее, чем с вишней.&#xD;&#xA;Сегодня день теплее вчерашнего. Мороженое с клубникой вкуснее вишневого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should really use the one you prefer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13202" RevisionGUID="685f424d-f794-412f-a755-cd8f0244a139" CreationDate="2016-10-04T07:36:02.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/783209046316818432" />
  <row Id="31069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="50d9fa63-a5e1-4e46-ba70-e45965fab7d6" CreationDate="2016-10-05T08:03:20.447" UserId="551" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times (лимита), so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Темнота́** - comes from &quot;темный человек&quot; - ignorance, backwardness&#xD;&#xA; - **Простота́** - can be used both for silliness; innocence - &quot;Ваня, Ваня, простота - купил лошадь без хвоста&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **[Лимита́][1]** - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a unskilled worker, that got a &quot;[лимитная прописка][2]&quot; (allowance to work in a city, existed from 50ies till 80ies) because they were needed by factories or other organizations in the city, while most locals had a good education. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration (e.g. by marriage). Looks like this phenomenon become a big problem around 1971.&#xD;&#xA; - **Гопота́** - comes from [гопник][3] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;. Гопник is rather old word (at least 50 years older than лимитчик), but it is unclear to me when гопота first appeared.&#xD;&#xA; - **Быдлота** - comes from [быдло][4] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;. Seems like this is rather new term, since it does not appear in Ruscorpora and Wiktionary at all.&#xD;&#xA; - **Школота́** - comes from &quot;школьник&quot; - this is internet-era term, which describes an internet user (most of the time it is a teenager) that posts meaningless messages on forums, etc. full of excitement or hatred (like 'xxx sucks!' or 'yyy is awesome!').&#xD;&#xA; - **[Мразота][5]** - comes from &quot;мразь&quot; -  scum of the earth.&#xD;&#xA; - Also there are number of words that describe poor people: **беднота**, **нищета**, **голота**, **босота**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://argo.academic.ru/3180/%D0%BC%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13215" RevisionGUID="ae03075b-53f4-4cc0-b4fe-360c57d30852" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:07:56.467" UserId="3892" Text="I saw the following exchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будешь поступать в институт? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Куда мне**, мне б в училище поступить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there's no question mark, I'm led to believe that куда мне is rhetorical here, and quite possibly an idiom. (Also, I admit, I don't really know what the second sentence means). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13215" RevisionGUID="ae03075b-53f4-4cc0-b4fe-360c57d30852" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:07:56.467" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of куда мне" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13215" RevisionGUID="ae03075b-53f4-4cc0-b4fe-360c57d30852" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:07:56.467" UserId="3892" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13216" RevisionGUID="323843ed-070f-4fe1-b9df-4005189428fd" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:20:39.537" UserId="3680" Text="You are right, `куда мне` (and also `куда ему`, `куда им` etc) is an idiom that means:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm not *good* / *smart* / *skilled* enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the second sentence could be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm not *smart* enough for the university. I hope to enter the trade school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13217" RevisionGUID="f6627fa3-6d4b-45b0-bb30-b5696143be76" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:22:00.597" UserId="6097" Text="*Куда* with dative (*куда мне*, *куда тебе*, *куда им*) is used to sceptically express doubts. In your example it can be translated as &quot;(I think) I am not able to do it, I would be happy to be admitted to professional college&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="0f62e764-c1d3-47c0-b9c2-f988a58b4647" CreationDate="2016-10-05T13:25:48.623" UserId="6602" Text="**Куда** as a particle may ironically express a negation, doubt, or impossibility. It may be translated as a rhetorical question : Болею уже несколько дней: **куда там** работать! *(I'm sick for several days. How can I work?!)*, Куда же мне петь! Голоса нет. *(How can I song? I have no voice!)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13219" RevisionGUID="2bf8bfe0-7dbb-4f0b-a60a-b217fa3074af" CreationDate="2016-10-05T18:30:34.300" UserId="6539" Text="Куда a particle, colloquial, used with pronouns in the Dative (куда мне, куда ему, куда нам, etc.) expresses **doubt, scepticism**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **куда тебе** до него! **you will never be able to do** it like him!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;куда мне, мне б в училище поступить.--I am not so clever(I can't do it), I would be happy to enter a vocational school." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13219" RevisionGUID="d6154715-d7e1-4dbe-ba26-5f635fcca4df" CreationDate="2016-10-05T18:41:23.433" UserId="6539" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Куда a particle, colloquial, used with pronouns in the Dative (куда мне, куда ему, куда нам, etc.) expresses **doubt, scepticism**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **куда тебе** до него! **you will never be able to do** it like him!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;куда мне, мне б в училище поступить.--I am not so clever(I can't do it), I would be happy to enter a vocational school.&#xD;&#xA;Куда мне in general means that my level is not very high to get,to reach something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13219" RevisionGUID="e496aea2-aaf9-4b13-9d29-342d317b963c" CreationDate="2016-10-06T02:09:37.523" UserId="6539" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Куда a particle, colloquial, used with pronouns in the Dative (куда мне, куда ему, куда нам, etc.) expresses **doubt, scepticism**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **куда тебе** до него! **you will never be able to do** it like him!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;куда мне, мне б в училище поступить.--I am not so clever(I can't do it), I would be happy to enter a vocational school.&#xD;&#xA;Куда мне in general means that my level is not very high to get,to reach something. Or I am not able due to circumstances to do something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="62957276-4bb1-4834-99c5-b51689b34176" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:18:16.493" UserId="5897" Comment="синг - петь, сонг - песня" Text="**Куда** as a particle may ironically express a negation, doubt, or impossibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be translated as a rhetorical question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Болею уже несколько дней: **куда там** работать!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I've been sick for several days. How can I work?!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куда же мне петь! Голоса нет.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *How can I sing? I have no voice!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31084" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13218" RevisionGUID="62957276-4bb1-4834-99c5-b51689b34176" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:18:16.493" Comment="Proposed by 5897 approved by 134 edit id of 799" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13208" RevisionGUID="bfee30d8-7ce7-443a-aec9-0d04218fcca2" CreationDate="2016-10-06T14:19:48.870" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The sentence is not an idiom but an example of argot (slang belonging to some social groups (outlaws, youngsters, etc.) Found in several dictionaries of Russian argot. Here's one of them:&#xD;&#xA;Большой словарь русских поговорок → Глаз на ж... (на задницу) натянуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаз на ж... (на задницу) натянуть кому. Вульг.-прост.  Vulgar. **Сильно избить, наказать кого-л.  To punish, beat somebody (a threat)**. СПП 2001, 24; Вахитов 2003, 109; Подюков 1989, 128; Мокиенко, Никитина 2003, 103. Since most of the words originate from outlaws  I doubt that we can find any further information. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="090f5d1c-f020-478c-813e-a4b985fa53ec" CreationDate="2016-10-07T11:19:23.893" UserId="5605" Text="Слова ***дюжий*** и ***недужный*** близки или далеки с точки зрения этимологии?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="090f5d1c-f020-478c-813e-a4b985fa53ec" CreationDate="2016-10-07T11:19:23.893" UserId="5605" Text="Дюжий и недужный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="090f5d1c-f020-478c-813e-a4b985fa53ec" CreationDate="2016-10-07T11:19:23.893" UserId="5605" Text="|этимология|семантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13222" RevisionGUID="018ec2e7-c6af-4018-9452-6140612ca5c1" CreationDate="2016-10-07T11:49:09.493" UserId="6097" Text="[Близки][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от сущ. недуг, из праслав. , от кот. в числе прочего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произошли: ст.-слав. недѫгъ (νόσος, νόσημα; Клоц., Супр.), русск.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; недуг, болг. недъ́г, чешск., словацк. neduh — то же; **связано с -дуг,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дюжий**, ср. чешск. duh «процветание, удача», словацк. duh «сила»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; польск. dążyć «стремиться, поспевать за кем-либо»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31091" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13221" RevisionGUID="cfc83b59-6c63-46cd-bd6e-3fd6edbb6c86" CreationDate="2016-10-07T15:28:05.177" UserId="5605" Comment="изменение заголовка" Text="Слова &quot;дюжий&quot; и &quot;недужный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31092" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11403" RevisionGUID="1a7e58f4-1bec-4f57-b1d0-07e7b9843b20" CreationDate="2016-10-07T15:30:54.787" UserId="5605" Comment="изменение заголовка" Text="Выражение &quot;отслюнить пару косарей&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13223" RevisionGUID="66b873e6-b659-4363-8bbc-2ad6ba4d15dd" CreationDate="2016-10-07T19:27:20.107" UserId="7878" Text="Is there a contextual difference between раздражать (кого-то) and досаждать (кому-то)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13223" RevisionGUID="66b873e6-b659-4363-8bbc-2ad6ba4d15dd" CreationDate="2016-10-07T19:27:20.107" UserId="7878" Text="Is there a contextual difference between раздражать (кого-то) and досаждать (кому-то)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13223" RevisionGUID="66b873e6-b659-4363-8bbc-2ad6ba4d15dd" CreationDate="2016-10-07T19:27:20.107" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13224" RevisionGUID="5c961090-1bac-4b80-b8c7-da4579a0cbb0" CreationDate="2016-10-07T19:40:44.150" UserId="7674" Text="yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`досаждать` is a deliberate action, that is `to harass`, `to molest`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`раздражать` is `to annoy` involuntary by one's natural demeanor or qualities&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13225" RevisionGUID="1de2e726-1995-4827-af6d-28df90d0dd58" CreationDate="2016-10-07T22:32:41.160" UserId="7878" Text="What's the difference between using &quot;Прежде чем я ушёл....&quot; and &quot;До того как я ушёл&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;I'm fascinated by fine nuances and idiosyncracies and I have noticed that kavkaz people seem to favor &quot;зачем&quot; instead of &quot;почему&quot; (and some other things when they use mat). Do any of the other former republics have any peculiarities that distinguish themselves from Russian speakers actually from Russia? (like how Ukrainians will say &quot;шо /шё&quot; instead oh &quot;что / чё&quot;). Any help would be greatly appreciated. I mean no disrespect to anyone and truly value any insider insight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13225" RevisionGUID="1de2e726-1995-4827-af6d-28df90d0dd58" CreationDate="2016-10-07T22:32:41.160" UserId="7878" Text="difference between прежде чем and до того как" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13225" RevisionGUID="1de2e726-1995-4827-af6d-28df90d0dd58" CreationDate="2016-10-07T22:32:41.160" UserId="7878" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13226" RevisionGUID="0b3660b6-cff6-4bad-8ac8-388e2c35e3ef" CreationDate="2016-10-08T00:02:55.050" UserId="6725" Text="This answer is for the first question, about the difference between &quot;прежде чем&quot; and &quot;до того, как&quot;. All the rest is to be moved to a seperate question, because the topics are really different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**До того, как** is used just to express that some event happened before the other one. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Дождь начался еще до того, как я вышел из дома.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *It started to rain before I left my home.*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   До того, как я пришел, ничего интересного не происходило.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *Nothing interesting was going on before I came.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Прежде чем** is used when there is a sequence of *interconnected* actions, where one preceeds (or should preceed) the other because of certain reason, not just randomly. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Она погасил свет, прежде чем лечь спать.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *She turned off the light before going to bed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Прежде чем жарить картошку, нужно налить масла на сковороду.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *The pan should be oiled before frying potatoes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Дважды подумай, прежде чем лезть в драку!&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *Think twice before putting up a fight!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13227" RevisionGUID="f6c92c1d-2a01-4126-983d-1b1c7c834d5a" CreationDate="2016-10-08T02:43:29.870" UserId="7878" Text="What's the difference between : У меня́ бы́ло немно́го рабо́ты  and  У меня́ не́ было мно́го рабо́ты. ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13227" RevisionGUID="f6c92c1d-2a01-4126-983d-1b1c7c834d5a" CreationDate="2016-10-08T02:43:29.870" UserId="7878" Text="What's the difference between : У меня́ бы́ло немно́го рабо́ты and У меня́ не́ было мно́го рабо́ты.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13227" RevisionGUID="f6c92c1d-2a01-4126-983d-1b1c7c834d5a" CreationDate="2016-10-08T02:43:29.870" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13228" RevisionGUID="248b95ee-d7a5-4194-93a5-41f993b287ab" CreationDate="2016-10-08T04:43:07.327" UserId="194" Text="У меня́ бы́ло немно́го рабо́ты = I had some work to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня́ не́ было мно́го рабо́ты. = I had quite a lot of spare time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13229" RevisionGUID="a7bba52a-b853-46ca-bc8d-86681ae4b8ef" CreationDate="2016-10-08T05:14:58.290" UserId="6539" Text="The difference is the same as in other languages using different types of negation. When the verb is positive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*У меня было немного работы*(I had little work )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the focus is on the amount of work, that you still worked though not much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When the verb is negative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня не было много работы*(I didn't have much work), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it means you didn't work much,you weren't busy much. The focus is on the action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13229" RevisionGUID="4c6ae803-cb98-4b93-84f5-5dbb7d989cd1" CreationDate="2016-10-08T05:37:23.737" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The difference is the same as in other languages using different types of negation. Negation usually emphasizes the following  word.  When the verb is positive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*У меня было немного работы*(I had little work )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the focus is on the amount of work, that you still worked though not much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When the verb is negative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня не было много работы*(I didn't have much work, I didn't work much), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it means you weren't busy much. The focus is on the action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13224" RevisionGUID="07a88d03-117b-403a-83b2-641e21ffe67e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T06:55:24.177" UserId="7674" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`досаждать` is a deliberate action, that is `to harass`, `to molest` and it doesn't necessarily indicate the actual emotional response of the object&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`раздражать` is `to annoy`, `to irritate` involuntary by one's natural demeanor or qualities, where the object is clearly emotionally disturbed&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13230" RevisionGUID="d38278f4-02ae-453a-ae54-7499589313a2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T08:13:25.660" UserId="5691" Text="At the Russian wiki page for the [&quot;All Saint's Bridge&quot;][1], it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Представлял собой выдающееся архитектурное и инженерное сооружение, считался одним из чудес Москвы. Существовал, со значительными утратами, до 1853 года .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Translate gives the last sentence as &quot;There, with considerable losses, up to 1853.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what does that mean? Does it mean the bridge was destroyed in 1853? If so, I don't understand what the &quot;со значительными утратами&quot; is trying to say either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%85%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13230" RevisionGUID="d38278f4-02ae-453a-ae54-7499589313a2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T08:13:25.660" UserId="5691" Text="What does &quot;до&quot; and &quot;со значительными утратами&quot; mean in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13230" RevisionGUID="d38278f4-02ae-453a-ae54-7499589313a2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T08:13:25.660" UserId="5691" Text="|предлоги|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13231" RevisionGUID="1b49140d-6878-442f-8ebf-d9c98261b49e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T09:50:42.303" UserId="5008" Text="It means that the bridge existed until 1853, although it had lost some major parts (probably it was damaged, or simply decayed) even before that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This site](http://www.openmoscow.ru/mostbolkamenny.php) claims that the bridge was intentionally destroyed in 1859 due to its bad condition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="49ce976b-722e-49d3-8aeb-9f64602e36a0" CreationDate="2016-10-08T13:20:07.497" UserId="6358" Text="how would you call a moth cutely? in german an example is lein and chen are word endings that make things cute.. or small. so hund is dog... hundchen is a cute dog.. or puppy. i know in russian the word is Mol for moth. but what word ending goes with this to make it cute?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="49ce976b-722e-49d3-8aeb-9f64602e36a0" CreationDate="2016-10-08T13:20:07.497" UserId="6358" Text="what is a cute way to call a moth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="49ce976b-722e-49d3-8aeb-9f64602e36a0" CreationDate="2016-10-08T13:20:07.497" UserId="6358" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="f2656811-0cbf-46b3-b002-0a286069d90e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T13:53:18.843" UserId="7881" Text="Talking with a russian friend of mine about russian nicknames she said that if you add a letter 'к' to the persons official nickname it means you don't like that person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example for Александр the nickname is Саша and if you don't happen to like this person you call him Сашка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a common practise and does this work with every nickname? For example it would seem hard to add к to катя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="f2656811-0cbf-46b3-b002-0a286069d90e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T13:53:18.843" UserId="7881" Text="Nickname for person you don't like" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="f2656811-0cbf-46b3-b002-0a286069d90e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T13:53:18.843" UserId="7881" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13234" RevisionGUID="5efac3c3-6102-4801-992e-a2382b58f0f5" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:12:48.830" UserId="6539" Text="A moth has several meanings: моль is an insect which we don't like much for spoiling (making holes)in fur,wool,etc. So I don't think we have a diminutive word for it.&#xD;&#xA;But the second meaning is мотылёк,a sort of a little butterfly and it sounds the way you need.In general we use suffixes for that purpose:птица--птичка,цветок--цветочек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="fc337d9e-35de-4fcd-ba38-68ac8d6ba849" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:18:27.450" UserId="7878" Text="Are there any clear identifiers in speech that people from the former republics make / have / use when theyre speaking? For instance, I have noticed that certain republics pronounce &quot;что&quot; like &quot;чи-то&quot; &quot;шо / шё&quot;, and others trill/roll their r's more forcefully and longer than &quot;standard&quot; Russian, per se." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="fc337d9e-35de-4fcd-ba38-68ac8d6ba849" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:18:27.450" UserId="7878" Text="different former republics' pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="fc337d9e-35de-4fcd-ba38-68ac8d6ba849" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:18:27.450" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="eced5631-9233-4491-ae33-05451b95b0aa" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:21:05.843" UserId="7674" Text="if by `moth` you mean `a butterfly (бабочка)` and not `a moth (моль)` whos larvae subsist on clothes, then the phonetic pattern the word `бабочка` is formed by already has the feminine diminutive-affectionate suffіx `-чка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another such suffix for feminine nouns is `-нька`, for masculine nouns - &#xD;&#xA;`-ок/ёк`, `-ик`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for adjectives and adverbs `-еньк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for personal names, along with the aforementioned, are `-юня/юся`, `-аша/юша`, `-ок`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13237" RevisionGUID="cc33f662-30e7-4a0c-be0b-b8b07d0a1313" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:23:59.133" UserId="7674" Text="`Катя - Катька`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's either to express a dislike or extreme familiarity bordering disregard" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="f90028c9-7b37-497c-8df5-6633229658ec" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:26:19.993" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="if by `moth` you mean `a butterfly (бабочка)` and not `a moth (моль)` whos larvae subsist on clothes, then the phonetic pattern the word `бабочка` is formed by already has the feminine diminutive-affectionate suffіx `-чка`, so can't be any cuter, than it already is :^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another such suffix for feminine nouns is `-(нь)ка`, for masculine nouns - &#xD;&#xA;`-ок/ёк`, `-ик`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for adjectives and adverbs `-еньк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for personal names, along with the aforementioned, these are `-юня/юся`, `-аша/юша`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31125" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13223" RevisionGUID="afee9978-b9af-44ee-994e-615cf838b062" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:26:31.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/784761898847899648" />
  <row Id="31126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13238" RevisionGUID="ad235c1b-f623-4e64-adb2-565e0a9b9849" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:26:31.787" UserId="6539" Text="Саша--Сашка, Катя--Катька, Оля--Олька,Витя--Витька.You should take a short name,Саша (from Александр),Катя(from Екатерина)and add a suffix (к). If the name ends with a soft ending, put **ь** before *к*. It doesn't really mean you don't like the person, it means you don't respect them much. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13239" RevisionGUID="28fc03fa-58c1-4822-b725-d8b303275f51" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:37:35.947" UserId="4560" Text="Ukrainian Russian is the only clearly identifiable one, a language variety unto itself somewhat like Irish English (and not to be confused with the Ukrainian *language* in the same way you also have an Irish language, although Ukrainian is better compared to Scots in terms of similarity). A significant number of people from Kazakhstan, including ethnic Kazakhs fluent in Russian, have Southern Russian vowel patterns (**сказал** `[skə'zal]` rather than `[skɐ'zal]`), but that's not consistent. Any other differences would register as a foreign accent or, if they're minor ones, pass under the radar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="fa95e161-1e17-4129-8279-78237881ed95" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:41:16.513" UserId="7674" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="if by `moth` you mean `a butterfly (бабочка)` and not `a moth (моль)` whos larvae subsist on clothes, then the phonetic pattern the word `бабочка` is formed by already has the feminine diminutive-affectionate suffіx `-чка`, so can't be any cuter, than it already is :^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another such suffix for feminine nouns is `-(нь)ка`, for masculine nouns - &#xD;&#xA;`-ок/ёк`, `-ик`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - собАчка, (colloquial) собАнька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пёс - пЁсик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for adjectives and adverbs `-еньк/оньк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мAленький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; красный - крАсненький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; легко - легOнько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мало - малЕнько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for personal names, along with the aforementioned, these are: colloquial `-юня/юся`, more normative `-аша/юша`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей - АндрЮня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коля - КолЮня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боря - БорЮся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наталья - НатАша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любовь, Люба - ЛюбАша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таня - ТанЮша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей - АндрЮша" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="68e4fe31-ffa0-413c-8abb-eaba54883aaa" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:49:14.363" UserId="7674" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="if by `moth` you mean `a butterfly (бабочка)` and not `a moth (моль)` whos larvae subsist on clothes, then the phonetic pattern the word `бабочка` is formed by already has the feminine diminutive-affectionate suffіx `-чка`, so can't be any cuter, than it already is :^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another such suffix for feminine nouns is `-(нь)ка`, `-уля-` for masculine nouns - `-ок/ёк`, `-ик`, a rather ancient fossil suffix `-ушк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мама - мАмочка, мамУля&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мать - мАтушка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - собАчка, (colloquial) собАнька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пёс - пЁсик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for adjectives and adverbs `-еньк/оньк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мAленький, мАхонький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; красный - крАсненький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; легко - легOнько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мало - малЕнько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for personal names, along with the aforementioned, these are: colloquial `-юня/юся`, more normative `-аша/юша`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей - АндрЮня, АндрЮша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коля - КолЮня, КОленька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боря - БорЮся, БОренька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наталья - НатАша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любовь, Люба - ЛюбАша, ЛюбОк, ЛЮбочка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таня - ТанЮша, ТАнечка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Света - СветУля, СвЕтик, СвЕточка&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="cd29483c-b249-40b7-bd21-cb5f11832a3e" CreationDate="2016-10-08T14:59:10.467" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="if by `moth` you mean `a butterfly (бабочка)` and not `a moth (моль)` whos larvae subsist on clothes, then the phonetic pattern the word `бабочка` is formed by already has the feminine diminutive-affectionate suffіx `-чка`, so can't be any cuter than it already is :^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another such suffix for feminine nouns is `-(нь)ка`, `-уля-` for masculine nouns - `-ок/ёк`, `-ик`, a rather ancient fossil suffix `-ушк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мама - мАмочка, мамУля&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мать - мАтушка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - собАчка, (colloquial) собАнька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пёс - пЁсик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for adjectives and adverbs `-еньк/оньк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мAленький, мАхонький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; красный - крАсненький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; легко - легOнько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мало - малЕнько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for personal names, along with the aforementioned, these are: colloquial `-юня/юся`, more normative `-аша/юша`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей - АндрЮня, АндрЮша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коля - КолЮня, КОленька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боря - БорЮся, БОренька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наталья - НатАша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любовь, Люба - ЛюбАша, ЛюбОк, ЛЮбочка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таня - ТанЮша, ТАнечка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Света - СветУля, СвЕтик, СвЕточка&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13240" RevisionGUID="396240d5-4b36-4f0e-ad7a-e0aea0e9c8a3" CreationDate="2016-10-08T15:57:42.847" UserId="7819" Text="This particle is used as diminutive and not only for names but for any object, for instance, короб - коробок. In case of name it's a diminutive in sense of age or social status, but it doesn't always imply negative connotation. It can be used among friends, colleagues or family members in informal situation. It will be considered derogatory only if context implies use of more formal addressing, for instance, employee addressing to his boss.  So, in general it's the most informal way in the line of context formality from the most formal to the most informal: first name with patronymic (Александр Сергеевич), first name (Александр), diminutive of first name (Саша), diminutive of first name with 'к' (Сашка). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13241" RevisionGUID="719b310b-d751-4b9b-ab66-ca5513ef082f" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:00:07.793" UserId="62" Text="I had previously known words for vessels that move on the water like корабль and лодка, but recently came across судно.  It was quite surprising that н, which is not a final consonant, disappears in all the plural cases: суда, судов, судам, судами, судах. Are there other words where an interior consonant disappears in many declensions (without the word fundamentally changing, so человек-&gt;люди isn't an example of what I'm asking about)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the н is retained in the plural declensions when судно has the meaning of &quot;bedpan&quot; instead of &quot;ship,&quot; and maybe these two different meanings are in some way an explanation for the phenomenon of the disappearing н in the plural, but since the two words seem to be identical in the singular I don't understand how the came to be treated differently only in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13241" RevisionGUID="719b310b-d751-4b9b-ab66-ca5513ef082f" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:00:07.793" UserId="62" Text="Declensions with non-ending consonant removed: судно,...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13241" RevisionGUID="719b310b-d751-4b9b-ab66-ca5513ef082f" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:00:07.793" UserId="62" Text="|склонение|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13242" RevisionGUID="083db22f-6354-433a-a1f1-fb2a20b5f05f" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:29:01.557" UserId="4560" Text="According to [this forum thread][1] (Russian), **суда** is a suppletive plural much like **люди**, albeit from the same root. The plural forms come from **суд**, in its Old Russian meaning of &quot;vessel&quot; (which is also the literal translation of **судно**, albeit in the narrow nautical sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must say I'm not quite satisfied with how the question of the nom. pl. **суда** is waved away there (&quot;we've discussed this before&quot;). I'm not sure pointing to other `-а` plurals of masculine nouns isn't anachronistic in this case. I'm aware, though, that the posters there are probably more qualified than me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, also mentioned there, is **цветок**–**цветы**, which is, again, two nouns fused into one. **Цвет** used to be the word for &quot;flower&quot; but there was obvious pressure to disambiguate it from &quot;colour&quot;. Note that the &quot;regular&quot; plural **цветки** is the norm when talking about flowers in a scientific (biological) context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvoforum.net/index.php?topic=28763.0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13234" RevisionGUID="85cc0338-d66b-45bf-a143-64da3dfe0de9" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:38:35.063" UserId="6539" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="A moth has several meanings: **моль** is an insect which we don't like much for spoiling (making holes)in fur,wool,etc. So I don't think we have a diminutive word for it.&#xD;&#xA;But the second meaning is **мотылёк**,a sort of a little butterfly and it sounds the way you need.In general we use suffixes for that purpose:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;птица--птичка,цветок--цветочек." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13229" RevisionGUID="0a2a0bfd-7289-43c7-936b-664ea8782606" CreationDate="2016-10-08T17:40:05.427" UserId="6539" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The difference is the same as in other languages using different types of negation. Negation usually emphasizes the following  word.  When the verb is positive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*У меня было немного работы*(I had little work )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the focus is on the **amount** of work, that you still worked though not much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; When the verb is negative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня не было много работы*(I didn't have much work, I didn't work much), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it means you weren't busy much. The focus is on the **action**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13226" RevisionGUID="e008b2da-dc85-4220-bab6-7595d8783003" CreationDate="2016-10-08T18:05:29.953" UserId="6725" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="This answer is for the first question, about the difference between &quot;прежде чем&quot; and &quot;до того, как&quot;. All the rest is to be moved to a seperate question, because the topics are really different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**До того, как** is used just to express that some event happened before the other one. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Дождь начался еще до того, как я вышел из дома.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *It started to rain before I left my home.*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   До того, как я пришел, ничего интересного не происходило.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *Nothing interesting was going on before I came.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Прежде чем** is used when there is a sequence of *interconnected* actions, where one preceeds (or should preceed) the other because of certain reason, not just randomly, and the fact of interconnection is important for the speaker. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Она погасила свет, прежде чем лечь спать.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *She turned off the light before going to bed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Прежде чем жарить картошку, нужно налить масла на сковороду.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *The pan should be oiled before frying potatoes.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt;   Дважды подумай, прежде чем лезть в драку!&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; *Think twice before putting up a fight!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13238" RevisionGUID="b2b43f0a-47d6-48c4-a8a3-5525e9b94adc" CreationDate="2016-10-08T18:42:31.933" UserId="6539" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;Саша--Сашка, Катя--Катька, Оля--Олька, Витя--Витька.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should take a short name,Саша (from Александр),Катя(from Екатерина)and add a suffix **к**. If the name ends with a soft ending, put **ь** before *к*. It doesn't really mean you don't like the person, it means you don't respect them much. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13236" RevisionGUID="b1779f48-0986-4deb-a346-9000d3e90249" CreationDate="2016-10-08T18:54:51.413" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="if by `moth` you mean `a butterfly (бабочка)` and not `a moth (моль)` whos larvae subsist on clothes, then the phonetic pattern the word `бабочка` is formed by already has the feminine diminutive-affectionate suffіx `-чка`, so can't be any cuter than it already is :^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another such suffix mostly for feminine nouns is `-(нь)ка`, `-уля`, mostly for masculine nouns `-ок/ёк`, `-ик`, a rather ancient fossil suffix `-ушк`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мама - мАмочка, мамУля&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мать - мАтушка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; собака - собАчка, (colloquial) собАнька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пёс - пЁсик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for adjectives and adverbs `-еньк/оньк-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мAленький, мАхонький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; красный - крАсненький&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; легко - легOнько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мало - малЕнько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for personal names, along with the aforementioned, these are: colloquial `-юня/юся`, more normative `-аша/юша`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей - АндрЮня, АндрЮша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коля - КолЮня, КОленька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боря - БорЮся, БОренька&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наталья - НатАша&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любовь, Люба - ЛюбАша, ЛюбОк, ЛЮбочка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таня - ТанЮша, ТАнечка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Света - СветУля, СвЕтик, СвЕточка&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="bbd48d07-f229-4fe3-b6e6-e3158826aa41" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:02:51.690" UserId="3892" Text="Amongst it's many meanings, I gleaned from the following sentence that it can refer to death. Is it completely synonymous with **умереть** or is it nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цветы **пропа́ли** от мороза." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="bbd48d07-f229-4fe3-b6e6-e3158826aa41" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:02:51.690" UserId="3892" Text="Usage of пропасть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="bbd48d07-f229-4fe3-b6e6-e3158826aa41" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:02:51.690" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13244" RevisionGUID="5228eda6-7986-4527-92a6-8885b5963434" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:41:24.000" UserId="5605" Text="**Погибнуть, умереть** - одно из нескольких значений слова **пропасть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение №5. Глагол **пропасть** это ⇔ утратиться, исчезнуть; **погибнуть**;&#xD;&#xA;Пример употребления:&#xD;&#xA;пропал голос, румянец. нигде не пропадет ( о том, Кто Ловок, находчив; разг. ). ни за грош пропал ( совершенно напрасно, зря; разг. ). с ним не пропадешь! ( все будет в порядке, Если он помогает, поддерживает; разг. );&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://yavix.ru/%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13245" RevisionGUID="fc54745b-d145-49d9-adea-8d425a58d9b3" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:45:57.343" UserId="4560" Text="That's a surprising usage of **пропасть**. I'm not even sure what it means exactly, that the flowers were gone (&quot;disappeared&quot;) or that they were &quot;doomed&quot;. Both are possible meanings of the verb, which is definitely not synonymous with **умереть**, not least because it can also refer to going missing. **Погибнуть**, to perish, is the verb one would more naturally use to refer to flowers hit by frost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most generic translation I can think of for **пропасть** is &quot;be lost&quot; (**всё пропало!** &quot;all is lost&quot;, **у меня пропал голос** &quot;I've lost my voice&quot;, etc.) When it refers to death, it's most often with the &quot;doomed&quot; or &quot;done for&quot; connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13246" RevisionGUID="4a00ec6a-5997-49df-af37-120fa51efd12" CreationDate="2016-10-08T19:46:11.683" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Цветы пропали от мороза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say that the meaning is **died** but actually they were **spoiled** by frost.. But the stronger verb is **погибли**. If you say *погибли* от мороза,the verbs are complete synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13247" RevisionGUID="0849691d-b182-44c8-a955-721a4811f064" CreationDate="2016-10-08T20:09:56.657" UserId="7819" Text="Literal meaning of **пропа́сть** is to disappear and other meanings are based on it. Here is description from Ozhegov dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; III. ПРОПА́СТЬ, -аду, -адёшь; -ал, -ала; -ади; -авший; -ав; совер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Исчезнуть неизвестно куда. Пропали нужные бумаги. П. на неделю (не приходить целую неделю).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Перестать быть видимым или слышимым. Очертания корабля пропали в тумане. Отзвуки голосов пропали в лесу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Утратиться, исчезнуть; погибнуть. Пропал голос, румянец. Нигде не пропадёт (о том, кто ловок, находчив; разг.). Ни за грош пропал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (совершенно напрасно, зря; разг.). С ним не пропадёшь! (всё будет в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; порядке, если он помогает, поддерживает; разг.).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. (1-ое лицо и 2-е лицо не употр.). Пройти бесполезно, безрезультатно. Зря пропало время. Весь день пропал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **умереть** is used to  describe process of transition from state of life to the state of death , like in `жил человек и умер`. In Russian language flowers do not live. That is funny because there is a phrase 'живые цветы', but it is used only to distinguish them from artificial ones and verb `жить` is not applicable to noun `цветы`.&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of цветы verbs **умереть**     and **пропа́сть** are not synonymous. **пропа́сть** in this case synonymous to **погибнуть** that has meaning of destruction as result of outer forces. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13248" RevisionGUID="d238ad05-c656-499a-b2f4-1672e2bb1bf8" CreationDate="2016-10-08T20:12:50.133" UserId="7674" Text="in relation to flowers and edibles it's **to spoil, become unusable, go bad, be gone** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13250" RevisionGUID="04094661-75ef-48f5-9e37-59048a99c6dd" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:58:21.207" UserId="7878" Text=" Is there a preference as to when to use cardinals vs collectives when referring to groups of people with the numbers 2 and 3? I was told that collective numerals sound best with the number 2 and cardinal numbers sound best with the number 3. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там НЕ́ бы́ло ДВОИ́Х / ДВУХ МУЖЧИ́Н&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я помо́г ДВОИ́М / ДВУМ МУЖЧИ́НАМ по́сле рабо́ты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ТРО́Е МУЖЧИ́Н / ТРИ МУЖЧИ́НЫ сказа́ли, что они́ меня́ ви́дели в магази́не позавчера́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там НЕ́ бы́ло ТРОИ́Х / ТРЁХ МУЖЧИ́Н&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ТРОИ́М  /  ТРЁМ МУЖЧИ́НАМ по́сле рабо́ты&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13250" RevisionGUID="04094661-75ef-48f5-9e37-59048a99c6dd" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:58:21.207" UserId="7878" Text="Collective numerals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13250" RevisionGUID="04094661-75ef-48f5-9e37-59048a99c6dd" CreationDate="2016-10-08T23:58:21.207" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13251" RevisionGUID="6ad1e2f2-028d-46fd-bdff-c05572be2cda" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:25:28.377" UserId="7882" Text="Есть неориентированный граф с n вершинами и m рёбрами. Поступают запросы трёх видов: добавить ребро (x_i,y_i), удалить ребро (x_i,y_i), и проверить, связаны или нет вершины x_i и y_i путём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если бы запросы удаления отсутствовали, то решением задачи была бы известная структура данных disjoint-set-union (система непересекающихся множеств). Однако при наличии удалений задача значительно усложняется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сделаем следующим образом. В начале каждого блока запросов посмотрим, какие рёбра в этом блоке будут удаляться, и сразу удалим их из графа. Теперь построим систему непересекающихся множеств (dsu) на полученном графе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мы теперь должны отвечать на очередной запрос из текущего блока? Наша система непересекающихся множеств &quot;знает&quot; обо всех рёбрах, кроме тех, что добавляются/удаляются в текущем блоке. Однако удаления из dsu нам делать уже не надо — мы заранее удалили все такие рёбра из графа. Таким образом, всё, что может быть — это дополнительные, добавляющиеся рёбра, которых может быть максимум \sqrt{m} штук.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, при ответе на текущий запрашивающий запрос мы можем просто пустить обход в ширину по компонентам связности dsu, который отработает за O(\sqrt{m}), поскольку у нас в рассмотрении будут только O(\sqrt{m}) рёбер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13251" RevisionGUID="6ad1e2f2-028d-46fd-bdff-c05572be2cda" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:25:28.377" UserId="7882" Text="Can anyone please translate this text? I have tried google and yandex translator but none of them is clear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13251" RevisionGUID="6ad1e2f2-028d-46fd-bdff-c05572be2cda" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:25:28.377" UserId="7882" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13252" RevisionGUID="0f277e10-65fb-43f4-9acb-4208076e7163" CreationDate="2016-10-09T02:58:30.660" UserId="6725" Text="There is an undirected graph with *n* nodes and *m* edges. We should handle three types of requests: add edge (*x_i*,*y_i*), delete edge (*x_i*,*y_i*), and check whether nodes *x_i* and *y_i* are connected with a path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were no deletion requests, than the well-known data structure disjoint-set-union would solve the problem. However, occurence of deletions makes the problem far more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do the following. At the beginning of each request block we will look up, which edges will be deleted in this block, and delete them from the graph straight away. Now let's build disjoint-set-union (DSU) on the obtained graph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How shall we respond to each next request from the current block? Our disjoint-set-union &quot;knows&quot; about all edges except for ones that are added/deleted in the current block. But we don't need to perform deletions from the DSU, because we've already deleted all such edges from the graph. So, all we may get are new, additional edges, not more than \sqrt{*m*}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, to respond the currently handled request we can just launch a width-first search through the connected components of the DSU, that will complete one's work in *O*(\sqrt{*m*}), because we'll have to deal with only *O*(\sqrt{*m*}) edges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13252" RevisionGUID="1bf6bbb7-f841-4bd4-be21-81fb28180c4b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T04:51:54.423" UserId="62" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="There is an undirected graph with *n* nodes and *m* edges. We can get three types of requests: add an edge (*x_i*,*y_i*), delete an edge (*x_i*,*y_i*), and check whether or not the nodes *x_i* and *y_i* are connected by a path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were no deletion requests, than the well-known data structure disjoint-set-union (a system of nonintersecting subsets) would solve the problem. However, the occurrence of deletions makes the problem far more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do the following. At the beginning of each request block we will check  which edges will be deleted in this block, and immediately delete them from the graph. Now let's build a system of nonintersecting subsets (a disjoint-set-union, DSU) on the graph we obtain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How shall we respond to the successive requests from the current block? Our disjoint-set-union &quot;knows&quot; about all the edges except for ones that are added/deleted in the current block. But we don't need to perform deletions from the DSU, because we've already deleted all such edges from the graph. So, all we may get are new, additional edges, not more than \sqrt{*m*}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, to respond to the currently handled request we can just launch a width-first search of the connected components of the DSU, that will be completed in time *O*(\sqrt{*m*}), because we have to deal with only *O*(\sqrt{*m*}) edges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13252" RevisionGUID="1358fe76-f134-43e1-a16b-5e829bd019c0" CreationDate="2016-10-09T06:01:36.020" UserId="5008" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is an undirected graph with *n* nodes and *m* edges. We can get three types of requests: add an edge (*x_i*,*y_i*), delete an edge (*x_i*,*y_i*), and check whether or not the nodes *x_i* and *y_i* are connected by a path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were no deletion requests, than the well-known data structure disjoint-set-union (a system of nonintersecting subsets) would solve the problem. However, the occurrence of deletions makes the problem far more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's do the following. At the beginning of each request block we will check  which edges will be deleted in this block, and immediately delete them from the graph. Now let's build a system of nonintersecting subsets (a disjoint-set-union, DSU) on the graph we obtain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How shall we respond to the successive requests from the current block? Our disjoint-set-union &quot;knows&quot; about all the edges except for ones that are added/deleted in the current block. But we don't need to perform deletions from the DSU, because we've already deleted all such edges from the graph. So, all we may get are new, additional edges, not more than \sqrt{*m*}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, to respond to the currently handled request we can just launch a breadth-first search of the connected components of the DSU, that will be completed in time *O*(\sqrt{*m*}), because we have to deal with only *O*(\sqrt{*m*}) edges." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13253" RevisionGUID="1d49e020-cf27-48c9-afd6-f78081239ba9" CreationDate="2016-10-09T07:30:05.053" UserId="7674" Text="i don't know how orthodox my opinion is, but to me collective numerals rather refer to people known from earlier or who are going to be the subject, whereas cardinals accordingly refer to people spoken of in passing who are not the focus of the statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when i hear `двоих мужчин` i immediately think of two certain men i must either already know of or am going to be told about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13254" RevisionGUID="22ff7916-10d7-4df8-ae14-a2781855d445" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:32:54.253" UserId="7878" Text="How do these meanings change when they are made reflexive? Does the implication change to doing something alone, somehow? Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он училься русскому (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он учил русский (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он убрался в квартире за час.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он убрал квартиру за час." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13254" RevisionGUID="22ff7916-10d7-4df8-ae14-a2781855d445" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:32:54.253" UserId="7878" Text="reflexive verb differences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13254" RevisionGUID="22ff7916-10d7-4df8-ae14-a2781855d445" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:32:54.253" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13255" RevisionGUID="3eeefeb8-022c-4ee1-8f17-746e63ee056b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:57:59.990" UserId="242" Text="I've just started learning German and what strikes me with there plurals is that a word in plural can differ no only at the end but in the middle as well (die Kopf / die Köpfe, der Stuhl / die Stühle, der Wald / die Wälde).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I've realized that in Russian we have for istance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - десна / дёсны&#xD;&#xA; - весна / вёсны&#xD;&#xA; - ведро / вёдра&#xD;&#xA; - бедро / бёдра&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - is there any rule one can memorize when this is the case in Russian? If not, what is more or less full list of such words? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13255" RevisionGUID="3eeefeb8-022c-4ee1-8f17-746e63ee056b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:57:59.990" UserId="242" Text="When does &quot;e&quot; change to &quot;ё&quot; in plurals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13255" RevisionGUID="3eeefeb8-022c-4ee1-8f17-746e63ee056b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:57:59.990" UserId="242" Text="|множественное-число|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13254" RevisionGUID="2674f049-e102-4efc-95dc-a398874cdc8b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T09:58:26.823" UserId="5605" Comment="учился, точки" Text="How do these meanings change when they are made reflexive? Does the implication change to doing something alone, somehow? Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он учился русскому (всю свою жизнь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он учил русский (всю свою жизнь).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он убрался в квартире за час.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он убрал квартиру за час." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31169" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="11400" RevisionGUID="08ea67f4-6330-4a2a-80a8-e4c2a389842a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:25:36.007" UserId="5605" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13256" RevisionGUID="96b8523e-9971-4783-8901-310feb0f26ae" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:26:49.673" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; жена - жёны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; звезда - звёзды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[some people say][1] that the difference stems from the form of singular with or without the obsolete letter &quot;ѣ - ять&quot;, which denoted the vowel &quot;e&quot;, so i guess unless one knows where &quot;ѣ - ять&quot; must be present in the singular form it's impossible to derive the plural form logically&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%B5-%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5.2124709/#post-10635925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13257" RevisionGUID="e0c424fc-d19f-453b-b378-e53f0b8a8785" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:36:40.043" UserId="7674" Text="that might have been the connotation originally, but in the modern language i don't think it still applies, i'd say that now it indicates an intensive, persistent activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он учился русскому (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't a normative phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`учиться` as a rule is combined with verbs in an indefinite form rather than nouns, as in the following phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он учился *говорить* по-русски (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`обучаться`, a cognate of `учиться`, on the other hand can be used with nouns in Dative (or maybe it's Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обучался военному ремеслу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31172" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="11400" RevisionGUID="5939980b-d007-4736-a50a-852fa0681ab5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:37:01.073" UserId="5605" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13255" RevisionGUID="89bf1f31-97cd-4ea2-a734-aa2a6a95d9e7" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:45:50.680" UserId="242" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="I've just started learning German and what strikes me with there plurals is that a word in plural can differ no only at the end but in the middle as well (die Kopf / die Köpfe, der Stuhl / die Stühle, der Wald / die Wälde).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I've realized that in Russian we have for istance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - десна / дёсны&#xD;&#xA; - весна / вёсны&#xD;&#xA; - ведро / вёдра&#xD;&#xA; - бедро / бёдра&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - is there any rule one can memorize when this is the case in Russian? If not, what is more or less full list of such words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *UPD:*  I've just realized that it's wider than &quot;ё&quot;/&quot;е&quot;. Just like Dmitry've mentioned, we have &quot;ё&quot;/&quot;е&quot;. And actually we also have &quot;a&quot;/&quot;о&quot; (заря/зори)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13258" RevisionGUID="49fc90dc-8d8a-40ad-9b4d-d786f39e9ce5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T10:52:37.223" UserId="7819" Text="If you have rather good skill in Russian language your question is fully answered in [this][1] part of the Book. And since this [Book][2] available online for free I recommend to read it whole, it will improve Russian language skill even for native speaker :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have yet Russian language skill enough to comprehend this book here is my **short** translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collectives differ from cardinals by shorter area of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. collectives can be used as countable for nouns used in plural form only, e.g. *ворота, сутки*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. collectives can be used with nouns *дети, люди, лицо* (as human being) and with nouns like *ребята, волчата* colloquially.&#xD;&#xA; 3. usage of collectives is limited by formality, cardinals are preferred in official context. *Требуются на работу четыре инженера* not (четверо инженеров)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collectives are not used with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. feminine gender nouns or with nouns describing females, e.g. *три страницы* (not трое страниц), *четыре сестры* (not четверо сестёр).&#xD;&#xA; 2. masculine gender nouns that are names of animals and birds, *три быка, три орла* (not трое быков, трое орлов) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is acceptable to use collectives as variant form for cardinals with nouns having following meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. male human beings, *четверо учеников и четыре ученика*&#xD;&#xA; 2. objects that have only plural form except ***двое, трое, четверо***, *пятеро ножниц и пять ножниц*&#xD;&#xA; 3. with personal pronouns, *их было четверо, пригласили нас четверых*, it is preferred to use cardinals with oblique cases, *с ними четырьмя, у них четырех* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook107/01/part-085.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook107/01/topicsw.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13258" RevisionGUID="16666250-617c-49f8-a414-b737f0721301" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:18:39.727" UserId="7819" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="If you have rather good skill in Russian language your question is fully answered in [this][1] part of the Book. And since this [Book][2] available online for free I recommend to read it whole, it will improve Russian language skill even for native speaker :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have yet Russian language skill enough to comprehend this book here is my **short** translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collectives differ from cardinals by shorter area of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. collectives can be used as countable for nouns used in plural form only, e.g. *ворота, сутки*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. collectives can be used with nouns *дети, люди, лицо* (as human being) and with nouns like *ребята, волчата* colloquially.&#xD;&#xA; 3. usage of collectives is limited by formality, cardinals are preferred in official context. *Требуются на работу четыре инженера* not (четверо инженеров)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collectives are not used with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. feminine gender nouns or with nouns describing females, e.g. *три страницы* (not трое страниц), *четыре сестры* (not четверо сестёр).&#xD;&#xA; 2. masculine gender nouns that are names of animals and birds, *три быка, три орла* (not трое быков, трое орлов) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is acceptable to use collectives as variant form for cardinals with nouns having following meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. male human beings, *четверо учеников и четыре ученика*&#xD;&#xA; 2. objects that have only plural form except ***двое, трое, четверо***, e.g. *пятеро ножниц и пять ножниц*&#xD;&#xA; 3. with personal pronouns, *их было четверо, пригласили нас четверых*, it is preferred to use cardinals with oblique cases, *с ними четырьмя, у них четырех* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook107/01/part-085.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook107/01/topicsw.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="2929aa64-5c85-45be-a5f2-d9c70377fe98" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:32:19.267" UserId="7878" Text="Does the word order in the sentences below make any difference or sound unnatural to natives? I oftentimes inadvertently use Serbian’s word order due to personal preferences with clitic word ordering but I’m aware that the 2 languages are not the same and even less mutually intelligible as many pan-slavists claim but I never notice anyone using the word order of “Я тебя спросил / Я тебе сказал”, it seems. I was also told that it doesn’t matter but I can only assume that since it doesn’t seem to be used all that much that it may not be correct or may sound a bit “off”. Thank you. :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я тебя спросил / Я тя спросил &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я спросил тебя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я тебе сказал / Я те сказал &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сказал тебе&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="2929aa64-5c85-45be-a5f2-d9c70377fe98" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:32:19.267" UserId="7878" Text="word order with pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="2929aa64-5c85-45be-a5f2-d9c70377fe98" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:32:19.267" UserId="7878" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="8e344294-d948-4e45-9a66-0105583f1acd" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:32:19.723" UserId="7267" Text="*&quot;Тройбан&quot;* is a slang word for *&quot;три&quot;*, more rude variation of 'three'. I know that also exists word *&quot;трояк&quot;*, less rude and more common; and affix *&quot;як&quot;* can be attached to some other numerals to make more informal lexeme: e.g. *&quot;двояк&quot;*, *&quot;пятак&quot;*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But affix *&quot;бан&quot;* can only be found in word *&quot;тройбан&quot;*. So, I guess, this word has it's special, particular origin. I've also heard a version that this word is derived from *&quot;троебан&quot;*, which, in it's turn, goes from word *&quot;трое ебан&quot;*, i.e. &quot;*ебан тремя&quot;* (literally means 'had sexual intercourse with three persons at once'). But I haven't found any further information about this version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: what is true etymology of that word? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="8e344294-d948-4e45-9a66-0105583f1acd" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:32:19.723" UserId="7267" Text="Etymology of word &quot;тройбан&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="8e344294-d948-4e45-9a66-0105583f1acd" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:32:19.723" UserId="7267" Text="|этимология|числительные|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="0f168718-3244-4ce7-8529-79617cb158ac" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:37:21.137" UserId="7267" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="*&quot;Тройбан&quot;* is a slang word for *&quot;три&quot;* (more rude variation of 'three'). I know that also exists word *&quot;трояк&quot;*, less rude and more common; affix *&quot;як&quot;* can be attached to some other numerals to make more informal, little bit ironical lexeme: e.g. *&quot;двояк&quot;*, *&quot;пятак&quot;*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But affix *&quot;бан&quot;* can only be found in the word *&quot;тройбан&quot;*. So, I guess, this word has a special, particular origin. I heard an interesting story: word *&quot;тройбан&quot;* is derived from *&quot;троебан&quot;*, which, in it's turn, goes from word *&quot;трое ебан&quot;*, i.e. &quot;*ебан тремя&quot;* (literally means 'had sexual intercourse with three persons at once'). But I haven't found any further information about this version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is: what is true etymology of that word? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13261" RevisionGUID="3698a899-e737-4349-98a0-bd57ad37d7d4" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:48:06.913" UserId="5008" Text="I believe this word belongs to school slang exclusively. And concerning its roots, it's most probably derived as a pure occasionalism with a pattern similar to _дерибан_, _щелбан_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13262" RevisionGUID="cc472214-e22d-4519-808f-b6b5db914d47" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:48:22.373" UserId="7262" Text="It's quite simple: if you have an emphasis changed from other vovwel to `е` it changes to `ё`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ведро — вёдра... and other examples from your question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одежда, умение, отец" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13263" RevisionGUID="73846a0d-d6a5-45bf-9df0-d0afb9b59594" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:57:33.303" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Я тя спросил... Я те сказал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that, unlike in Serbian, such clitics in Russian are thought to be of particularly low style. Yes, sometimes people say so, but I don't recommend you to use them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;word order due to personal preferences with clitic word ordering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in (literate) Russian there's no clitic here. So both word orders sound essentially the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, if you're still going to use clitic, you can only say &quot;Я те сказал&quot;, but again I believe it's a bad idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="5accc9e7-ff5a-4040-b5af-dce0bda67f0d" CreationDate="2016-10-09T11:58:58.870" UserId="7878" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Does the word order in the sentences below make any difference or sound unnatural to natives? I oftentimes, inadvertently, use Serbian’s word order due to personal preferences with clitic word ordering but I’m aware that the 2 languages are not the same and even less mutually intelligible as many pan-slavists claim but I never notice anyone using the word order of “Я тебя спросил / Я тебе сказал”, it seems. I was also told that it doesn’t matter but I can only assume that since it doesn’t seem to be used all that much, that it may not be correct or may sound a bit “off”. Thank you. :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я тебя спросил / Я тя спросил &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я спросил тебя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я тебе сказал / Я те сказал &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сказал тебе&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="eb2bb124-94d5-42bf-bbc3-581fa7e18dfd" CreationDate="2016-10-09T12:20:13.830" UserId="7878" Text="Is it correct to think that these mean the following and when would the sentences below the descriptions of each one of the verbs that I have be preferred to say? Why would one use a reflexive form of the verb? :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ВСТРЕ́ТИЛ - more general notion that includes meeting people for the first time, meeting up your friends, and just seeing someone without even talking at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПОЗНАКО́МИМСЯ - to meet someone for the first time and talk a bit at least, to find out the person’s name and some other things you might be interested in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я ВСТРЕ́ТИЛ твоего́ брата в метро́. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы ВСТРЕ́ТИЛИСЬ с твои́м братом в метро́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы ВСТРЕ́ТИЛИ твоего́ бо́сса в го́роде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы ВСТРЕ́ТИЛИСЬ с твои́м бо́ссом в торго́вом це́нтре.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="eb2bb124-94d5-42bf-bbc3-581fa7e18dfd" CreationDate="2016-10-09T12:20:13.830" UserId="7878" Text="Verbal preference upon meeting people or meeting with others" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13264" RevisionGUID="eb2bb124-94d5-42bf-bbc3-581fa7e18dfd" CreationDate="2016-10-09T12:20:13.830" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13265" RevisionGUID="7c339cf8-4b3a-4873-bc49-2bf2dd1b3877" CreationDate="2016-10-09T12:20:55.843" UserId="7819" Text="-бан is an argotic suffix that is used to create word  that is not used in normal/official language as one of purposes of argot itself. See *тройбан, щелбан, дружбан*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13267" RevisionGUID="9e988297-efec-4a6e-933b-d5e138a5729d" CreationDate="2016-10-09T12:46:45.180" UserId="7819" Text="Literal meaning of `встречать` is to be on/by the way of someone/something, e.g. *встречать врага во всеоружии*. It relates to physical location of object. Reciprocal voice `встретиться` describes mutual process of physical relocation to the same location.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal meaning of `знакомить` is to give knowledge about subject and in reflexive form `знакомиться` is to obtain (give to him/her self) knowledge about subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="7ce4cdc5-7879-426e-b55d-f56a26937c70" CreationDate="2016-10-09T13:03:31.273" UserId="7878" Text="Is it more colloquial to use около or примерно when telling time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about 7:15&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;около  (preposition)  семи пятнадцати&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;примерно (adverb) семь пятнадцать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о́коло пятна́дцати мину́т восьмо́го&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;о́коло че́тверти восьмо́го&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;приблизи́тельно в семь пятна́дцать&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="7ce4cdc5-7879-426e-b55d-f56a26937c70" CreationDate="2016-10-09T13:03:31.273" UserId="7878" Text="colloquial usage when telling time with approximates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="7ce4cdc5-7879-426e-b55d-f56a26937c70" CreationDate="2016-10-09T13:03:31.273" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="8c9080d8-e559-43de-9b8f-71c64096a0a9" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:07:38.900" UserId="7884" Text="I would like to congratulate someone I know well for his 50th birthday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the following be considered good, ok, bad or very bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С Днем Рождения, старый пердун!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="8c9080d8-e559-43de-9b8f-71c64096a0a9" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:07:38.900" UserId="7884" Text="Congratulate a buddy for his birthday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="8c9080d8-e559-43de-9b8f-71c64096a0a9" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:07:38.900" UserId="7884" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13270" RevisionGUID="9e1f66a3-a416-42e5-9a7f-2917e757c4b3" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:08:27.890" UserId="5605" Text="В разговорной речи на вопрос **который час?** чаще отвечают: **примерно че́тверть восьмо́го**, ***где-то*** **четверть восьмого**.&#xD;&#xA;**Семь пятнадцать** - *точная цифра*, и говорить **около, приблизительно, примерно** ***семи/семь пятнадцати/ пятнадцать***, по-моему не корректно. В данном случае лучше использовать слово **четверть** (***около четверти восьмого, где-то четверть восьмого***), не претендующее на точность." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13270" RevisionGUID="81f75631-7b49-43af-8c83-fd1a0930bdab" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:13:28.407" UserId="5605" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="В разговорной речи на вопрос **который час?** чаще отвечают: **примерно че́тверть восьмо́го**, ***где-то*** **четверть восьмого**, ***приблизительно четверть восьмого***.&#xD;&#xA;**Семь пятнадцать** - *точная цифра*, и говорить **около, приблизительно, примерно** ***семи/семь пятнадцати/ пятнадцать***, по-моему *не корректно*. В данном случае лучше использовать слово **четверть** (***примерно четверть восьмого, где-то четверть восьмого***), не претендующее на точность." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13271" RevisionGUID="635d21e7-0875-485b-95cb-3c5c4c6585c2" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:14:19.790" UserId="7674" Text="depends on the terms you're on with this person, because this is quite offensive&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13272" RevisionGUID="7ffad47a-d12b-41d7-a9fc-4b6ab6084719" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:17:13.937" UserId="3892" Text="I understand that both **на самом деле** and **вообще-то** are used to correct a misconception or present a clarification of the reality of a situation. However are they completely interchangeable, or (as a native Russian informed me) can **вообще-то** express some frustration or even anger on the part of the speaker?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if someone offers you a cigarette in a social setting, it's quite polite to say &quot;Actually, I don't smoke.&quot; (with a smile, of course). However, my friend told me that saying &quot;Вообще-то я не курю.&quot; would sound defensive and reactionary in Russian. He cited the following exchange: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слушай, у тебя такой кашель.... и ты бледный какой-то... Может тебе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пора бросить курить?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ага, спасибо тебе! **Вообще-то** я не курю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13272" RevisionGUID="7ffad47a-d12b-41d7-a9fc-4b6ab6084719" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:17:13.937" UserId="3892" Text="Nuances of вообще-то vs на самом деле" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13272" RevisionGUID="7ffad47a-d12b-41d7-a9fc-4b6ab6084719" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:17:13.937" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13270" RevisionGUID="807c5a76-08be-416d-bf8b-5f317445e920" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:18:46.280" UserId="5605" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="В разговорной речи на вопрос **который час?** чаще отвечают: ***примерно***  **че́тверть восьмо́го**, ***где-то*** **четверть восьмого**, ***приблизительно*** **четверть восьмого**.&#xD;&#xA;**Семь пятнадцать** - ***точная цифра***, и говорить **около, приблизительно, примерно** ***семи/семь пятнадцати/ пятнадцать***, по-моему *не корректно*. В данном случае лучше использовать слово **четверть** (***примерно четверть восьмого, где-то четверть восьмого***), не претендующее на точность." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13273" RevisionGUID="c40e2899-2d9a-4fc3-aea1-eaf363e1c8cf" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:23:13.907" UserId="7819" Text="In this context they are equal and usage of them is a matter of &quot;mental habit&quot; that is learned from parents or significant others and relates to mental representation of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `около` means area limited by circle.    &#xD;&#xA;- `примерно` is an adverb from &#xD;&#xA;   `примерить` - process of measuring by overlaying one thing on   &#xD;&#xA;   another.     &#xD;&#xA;- `приблизи́тельно` means something close to&#xD;&#xA;   and is    originated from `приблизить` - relocating one thing close&#xD;&#xA;   to another    thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13274" RevisionGUID="edd8a3ae-8c09-400e-a18e-d3b7330b5d80" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:25:21.930" UserId="7674" Text="he's right, `вообще-то` said in response implies that the interlocutor should have known their statement was inappropriate or wrong or stupid, that is to contradict their expectations, but it of course can be expressed both aggressively and amiably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the example `вообще-то` can be replaced with `на самом деле` without loss of meaning if the original phrase isn't meant to express strong emotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;generally `на самом деле` doesn't have these strong connotations of `вообще-то`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13275" RevisionGUID="1f45a4dc-80f7-4116-a902-aa65f4ada597" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:31:12.320" UserId="7878" Text="I was told that I must say ''БЫ''  in BOTH parts of the sentence and that the placement of it makes no  difference at all. Is the placement of  ''БЫ'' critical? Thank you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он БЫ тебе́ понра́вился как то́лько БЫ ты его́ уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он тебе́ БЫ понра́вился как то́лько ты БЫ его́ уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он тебе́ понра́вился БЫ как то́лько ты его́ БЫ уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он тебе́ понра́вился БЫ как то́лько ты его́ уви́дел БЫ.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13275" RevisionGUID="1f45a4dc-80f7-4116-a902-aa65f4ada597" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:31:12.320" UserId="7878" Text="Placement of БЫ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13275" RevisionGUID="1f45a4dc-80f7-4116-a902-aa65f4ada597" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:31:12.320" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="44386ff1-2d77-4950-92b3-0d59406da98e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:31:53.940" UserId="6539" Text="Just to prove the previous answers and to disappoint you:**тройбан*. belongs to school argot,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Словарь русского арго&quot; Елистратова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЩЕЛБАН, -а, м. Удар, щелчок.&#xD;&#xA;Возм. из шк.; общеупотр. «щелчок» + **арготический суффикс «-бан»** (ср. ДРУЖБАН, **ТРОЙБАН** и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31214" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="9d8e8483-18da-49a9-9bd8-6a0f6b518886" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:39:47.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/785127626616733696" />
  <row Id="31215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="95824aa6-a9e0-4037-8e3a-c835de560d52" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:40:49.023" UserId="7674" Text="critical to style maybe, but not critical to meaning, i believe the placement is only dictated by considerations of smooth flow of the sentence and maybe convenience of the speaker, which obviously may vary from one person to the next.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="ce6e83c9-938c-4756-ad56-9115f8e81b5f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T14:45:04.527" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="critical to style maybe, but not critical to meaning, i believe the placement is only dictated by considerations of smooth flow of the sentence and maybe convenience of the speaker, which obviously may vary between different people.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13278" RevisionGUID="1e746219-9595-4956-abc5-9465a769e2e1" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:12:13.620" UserId="5008" Text="Using your scale it's &quot;bad&quot;. Definitely, it's not that &quot;very bad&quot;, but still &quot;bad&quot; enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13279" RevisionGUID="875e5670-0b65-408b-9402-fa5b2e73c07c" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:16:43.517" UserId="5008" Text="In real life people may use virtually any form, but the most colloquial ones are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- около четверти [восьмого]&#xD;&#xA;- минут пятнадцать [восьмого] (note the inversion)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="99736bb8-c7f9-4c28-ac50-daca1ee0a37b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:25:21.150" UserId="6539" Text="**Don't!** You will definitely spoil the celebration. Or at least remind that person of his age. Do you know the meaning of the last word? I bet you don't. Look it up in your dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13281" RevisionGUID="640c2efc-95b4-4ea2-83cb-7e81de88a13d" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:26:13.613" UserId="7878" Text="Are these sentences different when referring to the English implication of the word “take” (duration required to do something until completion)? It seems like saying that one made for dinner for 2 hours is not _exactly_ the same as saying that it took 2 hours to make dinner but I'm not sure if it is necessary to translate the 2 any differently from one another. Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она приготовила обед за 2 часа.  - She made dinner in 2 hours.  /  It took her 2 house to make dinner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он написал роман за два  месяца. - He wrote a novel in 2 months.  /  It took him 2 months to write a novel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они написали эту песню за один вечер. - They wrote that song in one evening.  /  It took them one evening to write that song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приготовлю нам бутерброды за 5 минут.   -  I’ll make us sandwiches in 5 min.  /  It will take me 5 min to make us sandwiches.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13281" RevisionGUID="640c2efc-95b4-4ea2-83cb-7e81de88a13d" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:26:13.613" UserId="7878" Text="&quot;Take&quot; (duration of time)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13281" RevisionGUID="640c2efc-95b4-4ea2-83cb-7e81de88a13d" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:26:13.613" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13282" RevisionGUID="c703252d-6047-48b4-8c84-4a5fb6f699ad" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:34:33.710" UserId="6539" Text="They all correspond to the sentence It takes(took,will take)me,him,us,etc.2 hours,minutes...to do something. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он написал роман за два месяца.Она приготовила обед за два часа--is not an exception. She spent two hours in the kitchen cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="609338e5-914a-4237-b9fa-37b43abcc8b2" CreationDate="2016-10-09T15:43:14.583" UserId="6539" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="Just to prove the previous answers and to disappoint you:**тройбан*. belongs to school argot,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Словарь русского арго&quot; Елистратова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЩЕЛБАН, -а, м. Удар, щелчок.&#xD;&#xA;Возм. из шк.; общеупотр. «щелчок» + **арготический суффикс «-бан»** (ср. ДРУЖБАН, **ТРОЙБАН** и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жаргон номиналов в нумизматике&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•	3 - алтын (алтынник) (с 1534 г. до начале XVIII в.) - (по Торговой книге 1670 г. 1 алтын=3 новгородки=6 денег=12 полушек), трешка, трояк, троячок, троечка, трояшка, тройбан, треха, трюльник, трюндель, , трынка, трёхкопеечник, трехрублевик, трехрублевка, трешник, трёшница; зелененькая, зеленушка (по цвету купюры 3 рубля царской и СССР)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13283" RevisionGUID="de66f62f-d141-41b7-b423-a2f27a01a08e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T16:03:45.387" UserId="4560" Text="There's no single way to translate that &quot;take&quot;, but you most often use **занять**, impersonal **уйти**, or **понадобиться**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На приготовление обеда у неё ушло 2 часа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Написание романа заняло у него 2 месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы написать эту песню, им понадобился один вечер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня займёт 5 минут приготовить нам бутерброды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The syntax in that last one is rather colloquial.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, though, those aren't very elegant sentences. To stress a long duration, it's more idiomatic to just use the imperfective aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я полчаса отчищал это пятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can make it explicit by qualifying the duration itself, with the adverb **всего** if it's short or the appropriate form of the adjective **целый** if it's long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13284" RevisionGUID="d5c47390-4254-4694-89d2-d402a914e10c" CreationDate="2016-10-09T16:28:22.383" UserId="2238" Text="Actually, as Zaliznyak (1967) shows, it is, synchronically, ё&gt;е in singular not e&gt;ё in plural. Words like &quot;десна'&quot; are actually &quot;дёсна'&quot; (' for stress), but unstressed ё is not used in Russian (except for very special cases of some loanwords, for which Zaliznyak adds a special rule &quot;convert unstressed ё to ё` (a special symbol unaffected by most rules)&quot; before converting every е that is in stress-caused alternation with ё to ё) so we write &quot;десна&quot;. It is lexical information for every word (or, rather, morpheme) what is its actual phonemical view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just the same thing happens to words with ё which lose their stress on it in oblique cases: &quot;ёж&quot; - &quot;ежа'&quot; (phonemically &quot;ёжа'&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diachronically, though, it is related to ѣ which did not alternate to o in t'et situation (where t is any hard consonant but ц and t' is any soft consonant or ж or ш) and е which did. However, ѣ later coincided with е, and afterwards some analogy processes caused some words with ѣ to gain &quot;alternation&quot; as well and some words with е to lose it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13285" RevisionGUID="909e366a-e9ac-4591-b80e-8db14b3525b2" CreationDate="2016-10-09T16:34:14.797" UserId="4560" Text="Depends on the person's sensitivity and sense of humour really. If in doubt, don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, you might find this useful: **старый пердун** has a Soviet-era slang form, **старпёр** (parodying the Communist knack for acronymising everything), which comes across as less risqué and which should be familiar enough to a person of that age." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13241" RevisionGUID="1a433ea2-420d-4e48-99c4-272b628db3b2" CreationDate="2016-10-09T17:12:46.447" UserId="62" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I had previously known words for vessels that move on the water like корабль and лодка, but recently came across судно.  It was quite surprising that н, which is not a final consonant, disappears in all the plural cases: суда, судов, судам, судами, судах. Are there other words where an interior consonant disappears in many declensions (without the word fundamentally changing, so человек-&gt;люди isn't an example of what I'm asking about)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the н is retained in the plural declensions when судно has the meaning of &quot;bedpan&quot; instead of &quot;ship,&quot; and maybe these two different meanings are in some way an explanation for the phenomenon of the disappearing н in the plural, but since the two words seem to be identical in the singular I don't understand how they came to be treated differently only in the plural.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13257" RevisionGUID="02289e6b-dc60-4c13-9ac6-ab25d689891f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T17:22:01.173" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="that might have been the connotation originally, but in the modern language i don't think it still applies, i'd say that now it indicates an intensive, persistent activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он учился русскому (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't a normative phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`учиться` as a rule is combined with verbs in an infinitive rather than nouns, as in the following phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он учился *говорить* по-русски (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`обучаться`, a cognate of `учиться`, on the other hand can be used with nouns in Dative (or maybe it's Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обучался военному ремеслу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13274" RevisionGUID="79951adf-c733-4f84-9d1b-7a2df1b36d9a" CreationDate="2016-10-09T17:23:49.520" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="he's right, `вообще-то` said in response implies that the interlocutor should have known their statement was inappropriate or wrong or stupid, so as to contradict their expectations, but it of course can be expressed both aggressively and amiably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the example `вообще-то` can be replaced with `на самом деле` without loss of meaning if the original phrase isn't meant to express strong emotion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;generally `на самом деле` doesn't have these strong connotations of `вообще-то`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13271" RevisionGUID="f77ef892-6110-4e76-9d39-281d38027e35" CreationDate="2016-10-09T17:26:51.107" UserId="7674" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="depends on the terms you're on with this person, because this is quite offensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i think it's as strong as its English equivalent &quot;Happy Birthday, old fart!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13233" RevisionGUID="04f5e878-4e6b-46af-83c9-4fa16d1acef9" CreationDate="2016-10-09T17:41:01.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/785173232861253632" />
  <row Id="31233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="89643c16-91b1-4642-a0e3-2a02182cb9c5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:02:46.613" UserId="7878" Text="I was told that :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПОШЁЛ - went somewhere and (usually) haven’t come back yet (you can use ушёл here too) if you state it as a fact or as a part of a story with other actions following one another.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ХОДИЛ - a fact and can mean a one time occurence in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CХОДИЛ - not as significant to mention / may mean for a short amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the descriptions / details regarding these verbs of motion accurate observations and why would someone ever choose сходил instead of ходил? :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́   ХОДИ́ЛА приме́рно НА со́рок пять мину́т.       (ходи́ла fact - there and back)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́   ПОШЛА́ приме́рно НА со́рок пять мину́т.        (пошла́ left and no one knows where she's at or part of a story and NOT a fact)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́   СХОДИ́ЛА приме́рно НА со́рок пять мину́т.    (сходи́ла there and back or  insignificant)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл СХОДИ́Л на рабо́ту и пото́м, я пошёл в университе́т.  (СХОДИ́Л because the action was completed (ПОШЁЛ means that you just started off toward somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="89643c16-91b1-4642-a0e3-2a02182cb9c5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:02:46.613" UserId="7878" Text="ходил / сходил / пошёл" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="89643c16-91b1-4642-a0e3-2a02182cb9c5" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:02:46.613" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="7f0231b0-f20e-4f7a-82bd-f545b01dfce2" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:11:54.260" UserId="7878" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I was told that :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПОШЁЛ - went somewhere and (usually) haven’t come back yet (and told that I can use ушёл here too) if you state it as a fact or as a part of a story with other actions following one another.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ХОДИЛ - a fact and can mean a one time occurence in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CХОДИЛ - not as significant to mention / may mean for a short amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the descriptions / details regarding these verbs of motion accurate observations and why would someone ever choose сходил instead of ходил? :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́   ХОДИ́ЛА приме́рно НА со́рок пять мину́т.       (ходи́ла fact - there and back)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́   ПОШЛА́ приме́рно НА со́рок пять мину́т.        (пошла́ left and no one knows where she's at or part of a story and NOT a fact)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́   СХОДИ́ЛА приме́рно НА со́рок пять мину́т.    (сходи́ла there and back or  insignificant)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл СХОДИ́Л на рабо́ту и пото́м, я пошёл в университе́т.  (СХОДИ́Л because the action was completed (ПОШЁЛ means that you just started off toward somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31237" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="a2019d6b-0d0a-4f49-baa2-541570fea297" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:17:47.490" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;с днём рождения, старый пердун&quot; acceptable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="047e987a-845c-4746-8ea9-006741a77852" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:20:42.033" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text=" I was told that :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пошёл` - went somewhere and (usually) haven’t come back yet (and told that I can use ушёл here too) if you state it as a fact or as a part of a story with other actions following one another.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ходил` - a fact and can mean a one time occurence in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сходил` - not as significant to mention / may mean for a short amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the descriptions / details regarding these verbs of motion accurate observations and why would someone ever choose сходил instead of ходил? :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́ `ходи́ла` приме́рно на со́рок пять мину́т.       (ходи́ла fact - there and back)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́ `пошла́` приме́рно на со́рок пять мину́т.        (пошла́ left and no one knows where she's at or part of a story and not a fact)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она́ `сходи́ла` приме́рно на со́рок пять мину́т. (сходи́ла there and back or  insignificant)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл `сходи́л` на рабо́ту и пото́м, я пошёл в университе́т.  (`сходи́л` because the action was completed (`пошёл` means that you just started off toward somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31239" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="047e987a-845c-4746-8ea9-006741a77852" CreationDate="2016-10-09T18:20:42.033" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13280" RevisionGUID="c671f25c-368d-4367-949b-1e6a09242f17" CreationDate="2016-10-09T19:17:59.963" UserId="6539" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="**Don't!** You will definitely spoil the celebration. Or at least remind that person of his age. Do you know the meaning of the last word? I bet you don't. Look it up in your dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't capitalize letters in С днём рождения!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13287" RevisionGUID="cf09e7a8-af2e-465e-9a71-7d36495f7ee9" CreationDate="2016-10-09T19:28:57.873" UserId="5008" Text="Your examples are wrong. In a live speech people may make such mistakes from time to time, but it's still a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она́ ходи́ла приме́рно на со́рок пять мину́т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Must be &quot;_она **у**ходила примерно **на** сорок пять минут_&quot; (i.e. she had left and was absent for about 45 minutes), or, perhaps, &quot;_она ходила примерно сорок пять минут_&quot; (i.e. she was going for about 45 minutes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она́ пошла́ приме́рно на со́рок пять мину́т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, must be &quot;_она **у**шла примерно **на** сорок пять минут_&quot; (could mean (1) she had left and was absent for about 45 minutes, or (2) she had left and you expect she'll be back in 45 minutes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она́ сходи́ла приме́рно на со́рок пять мину́т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Must be &quot;_она **с**ходила [туда] примерно **за** сорок пять минут_&quot; (i.e. it took her about 45 minutes to go [there]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл сходи́л на рабо́ту и пото́м, я пошёл в университе́т. (сходи́л because the action was completed (пошёл means that you just started off toward somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a matter of style. You say &quot;I went to the work&quot; as a part of &quot;story&quot;, so you may choose between &quot;пошёл&quot;, or &quot;сходил&quot;, or &quot;заскочил&quot;, or whatever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13288" RevisionGUID="7d6bb226-377a-4d03-9c69-b90b119eea5b" CreationDate="2016-10-09T19:36:55.083" UserId="6539" Text="Мы в жизни не говорим **примерно** и **около** с минутами и секундами. В крайнем случае **почти**. Правильнее говорить **примерно** без четверти восемь,а лучше **около**восьми, **почти** /**где‐то** восемь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31243" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="f1599fab-0188-4a06-9975-ecac04c5e6a3" CreationDate="2016-10-09T20:03:10.163" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Colloquial usage when telling time with approximates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31244" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="f1599fab-0188-4a06-9975-ecac04c5e6a3" CreationDate="2016-10-09T20:03:10.163" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13289" RevisionGUID="3ff53911-298e-4f5f-95c8-1f7ee6bbf83f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T20:16:06.227" UserId="1674" Text="Ходил - action lasting for some time in the past. It could be used for describing repeating actions happenning in the past for some time (probably but not necessarily finished).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Весь этот день я *ходил* по городу и искал себе квартиру. [...] В целый день я ничего не мог найти порядочного...  &#xD;&#xA;Ф.М. Достоевский *&quot;Униженные и оскорбленные&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходил - action already completed in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Э, Влас? — вскрикнул Туман, вглядевшись в него. — Здорово, брат. Откуда бог принес?   &#xD;&#xA;— Здорово, Михайла Савельич, — проговорил мужик, подходя к нам, — издалеча.  &#xD;&#xA;— Где пропадал? — спросил его Туман.  &#xD;&#xA;— А в Москву *сходил*, к барину...  &#xD;&#xA;И.С. Тургенев &quot;Записки охотника. Малиновая вода&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пошел - action which is still not finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извозчик остановился возле освещенного подъезда, за раскрытыми дверями которого круто поднималась старая деревянная лестница, старый, небритый лакей в розовой косоворотке и в сюртуке недовольно взял вещи и *пошел* на своих растоптанных ногах вперед.  &#xD;&#xA;И.А. Бунин &quot;Солнечный удар&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31246" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13254" RevisionGUID="bf5590db-a559-402c-afe8-1b96a1c2beb4" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:03:26.433" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;учился&quot;/&quot;учил&quot;, &quot;убрался&quot;/&quot;убрал&quot; pairs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13257" RevisionGUID="1882d0cb-7fb5-4b62-9ce9-e4a531bc6b6f" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:07:33.327" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="that might have been the connotation originally, but in the modern language i don't think it still applies, i'd say that now it indicates an intensive, persistent activity like `играться`, `дуться`, `плеваться`, `драться`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он учился русскому (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;isn't a normative phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`учиться` as a rule is combined with infinitives rather than nouns, as in the following phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он учился *говорить* по-русски (всю свою жизнь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`обучаться`, a cognate of `учиться`, on the other hand can be used with nouns in Dative (or maybe it's Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он обучался военному ремеслу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13290" RevisionGUID="faa36431-4103-4d27-b608-2ee3ee31fb0e" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:19:20.613" UserId="194" Text="&gt; пошёл - went somewhere and (usually) haven’t come back yet (and told&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that I can use ушёл here too)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ушёл means went and not expected to come back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ходил - a fact and can mean a one time occurence in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or several times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сходил - not as significant to mention / may mean for a short amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходил is different from ходил only in that it means one or fixed amount of times, each time the action was complete (reached there) while ходил can mean not reached only attempted but interrupted en route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="8101510b-8b5e-483c-a036-c2584561c9c0" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:35:52.857" UserId="170" Text="What part of speech is &quot;нельзя&quot;? I see so many Russian dictionaries say it is used as a predicative complement (предикатив), but none of the ones I saw would &quot;dare&quot; to state it as an adverb (наречие).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="8101510b-8b5e-483c-a036-c2584561c9c0" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:35:52.857" UserId="170" Text="What part of speech is &quot;нельзя&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="8101510b-8b5e-483c-a036-c2584561c9c0" CreationDate="2016-10-09T21:35:52.857" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13292" RevisionGUID="c72d83b5-b0ce-4eac-8f8d-5f213e71d74d" CreationDate="2016-10-09T22:37:32.537" UserId="7889" Text="Maybe a usual contemporary dictionary says that 'Нельзя' is a predicative. But not all linguists are agree to separate predicatives to a specific part of speech. In our old schoolbooks this word was assigned to adverbs. I am not a professional linguist and I think predicatives are rather a matter of syntax, than of grammar. So, I'm comfortable &quot;to state it as an adverb&quot; ) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31253" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13260" RevisionGUID="759f0a5c-7d9e-4970-8657-d499aaca5d6c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T02:44:22.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/785309970313207809" />
  <row Id="31254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="79959b8a-57d4-4465-b35c-e0ed9566a152" CreationDate="2016-10-10T03:20:51.300" UserId="194" Text="Predicative is an ambiguous term that can also mean a part of sentence and include adjectives, adverbs and participles. So I do not recommend using this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are linguists who propose a separate part of speech, called **категория состояния**, that is, **category of state**. They count нельзя as such part of speech. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня на душе *спокойно* (category of state);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Река течёт *спокойно* (adverb);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дитя *спокойно* (adjective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, it is something like an adverb or adjective but without a verb or noun to which it relates. Something like *dark* in &quot;It is dark now&quot;. In English &quot;it&quot; and &quot;is&quot; are mandatory, so *dark* is adjective related to *it*. In Russian they can be omitted: &quot;dark now here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some categories of state have forms similar to adjectives and adverbs (like спокойно) but others do not, and can be used only as category of state: можно, надо, нельзя, жаль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="3ffd40b8-dbed-491c-85be-13d5f33ac939" CreationDate="2016-10-10T03:26:46.123" UserId="194" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Predicative is an ambiguous term that can also mean a part of sentence and include adjectives, adverbs and participles. So I do not recommend using this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are linguists who propose a separate part of speech, called **категория состояния**, that is, **category of state**. They count нельзя as such part of speech. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня на душе *спокойно* (category of state);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Река течёт *спокойно* (adverb);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дитя *спокойно* (adjective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, it is something like an adverb or adjective but without a verb or noun to which it relates. Something like *dark* in &quot;It is dark now&quot;. In English &quot;it&quot; and &quot;is&quot; are mandatory, so *dark* is adjective related to *it*. In Russian they can be omitted: &quot;dark now here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some categories of state have forms similar to adjectives and adverbs (like спокойно) but others do not, and can be used only as category of state: можно, надо, нельзя, жаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some coincide with nouns in form: грех, стыд, охота, неохота." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="d8ff03c3-2091-46b7-80ee-9b8fe647fb59" CreationDate="2016-10-10T03:34:24.897" UserId="194" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Predicative is an ambiguous term that can also mean a part of sentence and include adjectives, adverbs and participles. So I do not recommend using this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are linguists who propose a separate part of speech, called **категория состояния**, that is, **category of state**. They count нельзя as such part of speech. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня на душе *спокойно* (category of state);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Река течёт *спокойно* (adverb);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дитя *спокойно* (adjective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, it is something like an adverb or adjective but without a verb or noun to which it relates. Something like *dark* in &quot;It is dark now&quot;. In English &quot;it&quot; and &quot;is&quot; are mandatory, so *dark* is adjective related to *it*. In Russian they can be omitted: &quot;dark now here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some categories of state have forms similar to adjectives and adverbs (like спокойно) but others do not, and can be used only as category of state: можно, надо, нельзя, жаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, most precise, нельзя is modal category of state. The old term for it in 1980s was &quot;predicative&quot;, as a class of adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;Some coincide with nouns in form: грех, стыд, охота, неохота.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside category of state it is separated the class of modal categories of state. These words include нужно, можно, надо, нельзя, жаль, незачем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most precisely, it is modal category of state, formerly, in the 1980s called &quot;predicative&quot; and grouped inside adverbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13293" RevisionGUID="d7834912-459b-4f91-8d7b-44e68d57431d" CreationDate="2016-10-10T03:39:27.130" UserId="194" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Predicative is an ambiguous term that can also mean a part of sentence and include adjectives, adverbs and participles. So I do not recommend using this term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are linguists who propose a separate part of speech, called **категория состояния**, that is, **category of state**. They count нельзя as such part of speech. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня на душе *спокойно* (category of state);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Река течёт *спокойно* (adverb);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дитя *спокойно* (adjective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, it is something like an adverb or adjective but without a verb or noun to which it relates. Something like *dark* in &quot;It is dark now&quot;. In English &quot;it&quot; and &quot;is&quot; are mandatory, so *dark* is adjective related to *it*. In Russian they can be omitted: &quot;dark now here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some categories of state have forms similar to adjectives and adverbs (like спокойно) but others do not, and can be used only as category of state: можно, надо, нельзя, жаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some coincide with nouns in form: грех, стыд, охота, неохота.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside category of state it is separated the class of modal categories of state. These words include нужно, можно, надо, нельзя, жаль, незачем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, most precise, нельзя is **modal category of state**. The old term for it in 1980s was &quot;predicative&quot;, as a class of adverbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13294" RevisionGUID="7a375c55-618c-47c8-ab4e-425139101dc4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T03:56:29.853" UserId="194" Text="The neutral, unmarked, default form is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он БЫ тебе́ понра́вился, как то́лько ты БЫ его́ уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I think you need a comma before как." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="feb54bac-d3d7-4280-9fe1-d5e82135ee3e" CreationDate="2016-10-10T04:18:38.517" UserId="7537" Text="It depends how detailed you want to be. Even a native speaker will be surprised at the variety of dialects and nuances, opening a linguistic atlas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://au.smugmug.com/Misc/Other/n-ZGCwgV/i-4KdPgRb/A&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4KdPgRb/0/M/i-4KdPgRb-M.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;чё&quot; or &quot;шо&quot; that you mentioned are quite prevalent in speech in some regions of Russia per se. But the distribution is not even, and also depends somewhat on the education/social level, as these variations are often considered improper by purists, if not outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not always possible to make a &quot;clear&quot; distinction that you want. That said, some dialects are easily identifiable, such as Ukranian (Ukranian Russian) by their soft Ukranian 'Г' and many other characteristic features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13295" RevisionGUID="4fb1cc34-6712-4176-92f8-93360b943a0f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T04:25:10.210" UserId="194" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It depends how detailed you want to be. Even a native speaker will be surprised at the variety of dialects and nuances, opening a linguistic atlas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://au.smugmug.com/Misc/Other/n-ZGCwgV/i-4KdPgRb/A&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4KdPgRb/0/M/i-4KdPgRb-M.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;чё&quot; or &quot;шо&quot; that you mentioned are quite prevalent in speech in some regions of Russia per se. But the distribution is not even, and also depends somewhat on the education/social level, as these variations are often considered improper by purists, if not outright wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not always possible to make a &quot;clear&quot; distinction that you want. That said, some dialects are easily identifiable, such as Ukranian (Ukranian Russian) by their fricative Ukranian 'Г' and many other characteristic features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31261" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13241" RevisionGUID="4fd84ec5-4193-47fc-a5d5-41c046028cf0" CreationDate="2016-10-10T05:45:08.070" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/785355461679874048" />
  <row Id="31262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13296" RevisionGUID="355a5e89-fd2a-41cd-aabc-a0f819ec1b43" CreationDate="2016-10-10T06:11:35.867" UserId="6539" Text="Debates around the group of words &#xD;&#xA;&gt;нельзя, можно, надо, жаль, пора, грех, стыд, неохота, больно ( в безличных предложениях)etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have been going since 1928, when Щерба Л.В. wrote his article «О частях речи в русском языке».(&quot;Word classes in Russian ). He said it's difficult to refer these words to any of the existing &quot;parts of speech &quot;. He called them &quot;a category of state&quot;(**категория состояния**). Some linguists call them &quot;predicatives&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Предикативы**--особая группа слов, стоящая &#xD;&#xA;вне традиционной системы частей речи и обозначающих нединамическое состояние. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This term has no official status.&#xD;&#xA;This terminology is often criticized because it can be confused with sentence  constituents (subject, predicate, etc) Other linguists refer these words to a special category of **adverbs** or even &quot;**modal adverbs**&quot;. For more information see &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12826/%d0%9d%d0%b0%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%87%d0%b8%d0%b5-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-%d0%ba%d1%80%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%8f-%d1%84%d0%be%d1%80%d0%bc%d0%b0/12831?s=1|0.2090#12831" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13276" RevisionGUID="7762d811-d12f-4181-9e4d-17f1aa5ebdde" CreationDate="2016-10-10T06:26:35.123" UserId="6539" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Just to prove the previous answers and to disappoint you:**тройбан**. belongs to school argot,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Словарь русского арго&quot; Елистратова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЩЕЛБАН, -а, м. Удар, щелчок.&#xD;&#xA;Возм. из шк.; общеупотр. «щелчок» + **арготический суффикс «-бан»** (ср. ДРУЖБАН, **ТРОЙБАН** и т. п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Жаргон номиналов в нумизматике&#xD;&#xA;&gt;•	3 - алтын (алтынник) (с 1534 г. до начале XVIII в.) - (по Торговой книге 1670 г. 1 алтын=3 новгородки=6 денег=12 полушек), трешка, трояк, троячок, троечка, трояшка, **тройбан**, треха, трюльник, трюндель, , трынка, трёхкопеечник, трехрублевик, трехрублевка, трешник, трёшница; зелененькая, зеленушка (по цвету купюры 3 рубля царской и СССР)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13282" RevisionGUID="8368c8c0-68ee-400f-abcb-2f6d7367f200" CreationDate="2016-10-10T07:55:50.420" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="They **all correspond to the sentence It takes**(took,will take)me,him,us,etc.2 hours,minutes...to do something. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он написал роман за два месяца.Она приготовила обед за два часа--is not an exception. She spent two hours in the kitchen cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13297" RevisionGUID="b83e553a-f7c0-4c0e-8f9a-1f80c4c8725e" CreationDate="2016-10-10T09:48:14.883" UserId="7891" Text="First of all, they all are the verbs of motion. In Russian, there are tenses, aspects, and conjugations, that is why you have all these different forms. &#xD;&#xA;ИДТИ and ПОЙТИ are Russian concrete verbs. The prefix ПО- means “the start of movement”, otherwise the meaning is the same – “to go, to move, to walk one-way, to set off”, they are interchangeable in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their counterpart ХОДИТЬ is an abstract verb.&#xD;&#xA;ХОДИТЬ means same as ИДТИ but it is used to denote a movement done not at the same time, not at one go or not in one direction. It would be best translated into English as “to wander”, “to ramble”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian verbs ИДТИ, ПОЙТИ, ХОДИТЬ belong to the imperfective aspect which presents an event without exact finish implication (such as ongoing or habitual actions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ПРИЙТИ is a Russian verb of motion belonging to the perfective aspect. Perfective aspect is used for momentary events and the onsets or completions of events. It would be best translated into English as “to come”, “to arrive”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's in short! Still not getting it?&#xD;&#xA;Check the full explanation + conjugation tables in [this post][1]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://expressrussian.com/russian-verbs-hodit-idti-poiti-prijti/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13275" RevisionGUID="05e25144-24f7-4cdc-95e2-7c6154607afd" CreationDate="2016-10-10T09:48:48.023" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I was told that I must say `бы`  in BOTH parts of the sentence and that the placement of it makes no  difference at all. Is the placement of  `бы` critical? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он `бы` тебе́ понра́вился как то́лько `бы` ты его́ уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он тебе́ `бы` понра́вился как то́лько ты `бы` его́ уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он тебе́ понра́вился `бы` как то́лько ты его́ `бы` уви́дел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он тебе́ понра́вился `бы` как то́лько ты его́ уви́дел `бы`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31267" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13275" RevisionGUID="05e25144-24f7-4cdc-95e2-7c6154607afd" CreationDate="2016-10-10T09:48:48.023" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Placement of &quot;бы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13277" RevisionGUID="c3905e87-68e6-4586-bb7f-72d397f69fa8" CreationDate="2016-10-10T09:49:18.417" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Сritical to style maybe, but not critical to meaning, i believe the placement is only dictated by considerations of smooth flow of the sentence and maybe convenience of the speaker, which obviously may vary between different people.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13255" RevisionGUID="c617b49a-f54c-494f-af90-f289ab37e967" CreationDate="2016-10-10T10:14:31.530" UserId="242" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="I've just started learning German and what strikes me with there plurals is that a word in plural can differ no only at the end but in the middle as well (die Kopf / die Köpfe, der Stuhl / die Stühle, der Wald / die Wälde).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I've realized that in Russian we have for istance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - десна / дёсны&#xD;&#xA; - весна / вёсны&#xD;&#xA; - ведро / вёдра&#xD;&#xA; - бедро / бёдра&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - is there any rule one can memorize when this is the case in Russian? If not, what is more or less full list of such words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*UPD:* For those who claims that this is due to ѣ/e change, can you please be more specific. For instance, words that evolved from `рѣпа`, `пѣна`, `лѣто` do not follow this pattern. On the other hand, word `жена` which came from `жєна` does follow this pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *UPD:*  I've just realized that it's wider than &quot;ё&quot;/&quot;е&quot;. Just like Dmitry've mentioned, we have &quot;ё&quot;/&quot;е&quot;. And actually we also have &quot;a&quot;/&quot;о&quot; (заря/зори)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13298" RevisionGUID="8868b52a-6aae-4d8a-8a75-fae052152dae" CreationDate="2016-10-10T10:15:23.353" UserId="7891" Text="- -ся is the present-day suffix which was developed from себя (=self), so just bear it in mind all the time when you see verbs with - ся:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;мыть = to wash (to wash dishes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;мыться  = to wash oneself (to take a shower)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Drop by my educational portal [expressrussian.com][1], as well as my social media channels (you'll find on the site) to stay in touch with Russian daily.&#xD;&#xA;Learning a language is fun, so subscribe and stay tuned!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://expressrussian.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="1647486e-8982-4915-bd87-0eb3b4080859" CreationDate="2016-10-10T10:32:22.403" UserId="7891" Text="They all mean &quot;generally&quot;, however вообще-то is more colloquial , на самом деле is more neutral &#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps:) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learn Russian online http://expressrussian.com/russian-classes/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="3c46cba5-d037-4e80-b645-e3f07d7f2fc4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T11:32:10.143" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="They all mean &quot;generally&quot;, however вообще-то is more colloquial , на самом деле is more neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13299" RevisionGUID="495d9ba6-0232-4500-82c8-c7a622b73027" CreationDate="2016-10-10T11:40:07.157" UserId="5605" Comment="точка" Text="They all mean &quot;generally&quot;, however вообще-то is more colloquial , на самом деле is more neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13301" RevisionGUID="f46c667c-e210-4790-83de-2191d51e9596" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:22:38.030" UserId="7878" Text="I oftentimes see people using both forms in their speech but never knew whether or not they are merely colloquialisms/preferences or if they are actually grammatically sound or not. :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сегодня _с утра_ проснулся примерно без пятнадцати/четверти три.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сегодня _утром_ проснулся примерно без пятнадцати/четверти три.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошла́ в зал с утра́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошла́ в зал сегодня у́тром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сегодня с утра пошла́ в зал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сегодня с утра пошла́ в зал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошла́ в зал у́тром.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13301" RevisionGUID="f46c667c-e210-4790-83de-2191d51e9596" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:22:38.030" UserId="7878" Text="Does the usage of &quot;утром&quot; versus &quot;с утра&quot; change the impact of sentences whatsoever?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13301" RevisionGUID="f46c667c-e210-4790-83de-2191d51e9596" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:22:38.030" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13302" RevisionGUID="1166b607-8a4b-41ee-8e3f-0e4e69603305" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:37:55.797" UserId="7674" Text="with `проснуться` it sounds odd, because when else one usually wakes up if not in the morning? unless it's known that the person was supposed to wake up much later, but surprisingly did so earlier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other cases `с утра` helps the speaker to make a point that action was performed specifically in the morning, which may not be a trivial task for many people due to sleepiness, that a person took care to do it in the morning and feel good about themselves (or approve others) because of that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13302" RevisionGUID="73ef75b7-3ec0-4f08-a4b6-152682c516ba" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:44:50.790" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="with `проснуться` it sounds odd, because when else one usually wakes up if not in the morning? unless it's known that the person was supposed to wake up much later, but surprisingly did so earlier&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in other cases `с утра` helps the speaker to make a point that action was performed specifically in the morning, which may not be a trivial task for many people due to sleepiness, that a person took care to do it in the morning and feels good about themselves (or approve others) because of that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="74589627-915e-4a71-a2f2-6d6f10439941" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:45:27.370" UserId="6725" Text="If the phrase should mean &quot;**in the morning**&quot;, than both &quot;утром&quot; and &quot;с утра&quot; are OK, while the latest one is more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;с утра&quot; can also mean &quot;**since the morning**&quot;, and in this case you can't use &quot;утром&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13304" RevisionGUID="b366e89b-0168-4c58-99ad-b40492e167be" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:48:14.633" UserId="242" Text="When one is marking some action or event with `c утра` he/she wants to emphasize the fact that this happened as early as at morning. When one is using `утром`, he's just pointing at the specific timeframe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, in some cases they are more or less interchangeable, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я сегодня с утра пошла в зал.&#xD;&#xA; - Я сегодня утром пошла в зал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While in other cases they are not:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Слушай, я не пойду вечером в кино. Я [аж] с [самого] утра на работе и очень устала.&#xD;&#xA; - Учти, ты с [самого] утра должен быть выспавшимся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;проснуться с утра&quot; just does not sound right to a native speaker at all. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13303" RevisionGUID="7c7814db-bf71-4bc2-ac4a-9152eb42009e" CreationDate="2016-10-10T14:54:03.840" UserId="6725" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="If the phrase should mean &quot;**in the morning**&quot;, than both &quot;утром&quot; and &quot;с утра&quot; are OK, while the latest one is more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;с утра&quot; can also mean &quot;**since the morning**&quot;, and in this case you can't use &quot;утром&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the word order depends on which part of the sentence you want to emphasize. All the sentences in the question are grammatical and their basic idea is the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13305" RevisionGUID="84645d9b-a86b-49af-82be-4130f2475418" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:07:20.643" UserId="7878" Text="Are there any exceptions when one can forgo the usage of &quot;чтобы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я поехал в москву́ посмотре́ть кремль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я поехал в москву́,_чтобы_ посмотре́ть кремль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл в магази́н купи́ть хле́ба́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл в магази́н, _чтобы_ купи́ть хле́ба́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я поехал на рабо́ту забра́ть инструме́нты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я поехал на рабо́ту, _чтобы_ забра́ть инструме́нты.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13305" RevisionGUID="84645d9b-a86b-49af-82be-4130f2475418" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:07:20.643" UserId="7878" Text="Are there any exceptions when one can forgo the usage of &quot;чтобы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13305" RevisionGUID="84645d9b-a86b-49af-82be-4130f2475418" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:07:20.643" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="285d3e67-c781-4cee-be9d-c1226901c3e9" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:08:09.287" UserId="242" Text="Here's the insignia of [the 339th Infantry Regiment][1] of of the United States Army. For historical reason the motto is in Russian. The thing is that as for me the phrase &quot;штык решает&quot; sounds quite anachronic since I've been thinking that construction something + решает&quot; (which can roughly be translated as that something rules) is sort of modern slang. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is - when did this construction come into existence?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/339th_Infantry_Regiment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1kfO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="285d3e67-c781-4cee-be9d-c1226901c3e9" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:08:09.287" UserId="242" Text="Origin of &quot;что-то/кто-то решает&quot; construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="285d3e67-c781-4cee-be9d-c1226901c3e9" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:08:09.287" UserId="242" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="5cc88925-ce29-4f75-9096-ed3f7091a19d" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:17:09.660" UserId="7674" Text="my feeling is that `чтобы` expresses intention but doesn't give any indication of whether the intended action was successful or was performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the phrases without `чтобы` have a connotation that the intention was fulfilled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the end i did buy it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н, чтобы купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was my intention, whether i bought or not is beside the point" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13308" RevisionGUID="d0427698-86ff-484b-ac44-88ffb33e4761" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:17:40.393" UserId="6725" Text="It seems that for omitting &quot;чтобы&quot; both parts of the sentence should at least have the same subject. If the subjects are different, you can't. For example, the following sentences will totally lose sense without &quot;чтобы&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Он позвонил ей и предупредил, что придет поздно, чтобы она не волновалась.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &gt; Он закрыл дверь на два замка, чтобы воры не забрались в дом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13309" RevisionGUID="89d7a93f-1fdc-448b-83cc-e242b2eba2ec" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:23:00.470" UserId="242" Text="In all examples above it's completely ok to omit &quot;чтобы&quot;. Keep in mind though that this is not always the case. Actually, in the majority of cases it is the other way around. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not do it in phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Чтобы забрать инструменты, я поехал на работу &#xD;&#xA; 2. Нужны годы, чтобы стать настоящим мастером своего дело. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Я много тренируюсь, чтобы победить на марафоне. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference? Well, speaking of first example - you can never omit `чтобы` when `чтобы`-part оf the complex sentence comes first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And actually phrases like `пойти сделать что-нибудь`/`поехать сделать что-нибудь` which are roughly equivalent for `to go to do something` are sort of something you can think of as of complex verb construction which is self-sufficient per se. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the rule of thumb is that if you can take two verbs that are separated by `чтобы` and will manage to get a viable construct which indicates intention to do something, than you can omit `чтобы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - собраться сделать что-нибудь&#xD;&#xA; - задумать сделать что-нибудь&#xD;&#xA; - намереваться сделать что-нибудь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="fd74bd20-f9ee-4853-839f-e30aa83d8e45" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:23:53.470" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Here's the insignia of [the 339th Infantry Regiment][1] of of the United States Army. For historical reason the motto is in Russian. The thing is that as for me the phrase &quot;штык решает&quot; sounds quite anachronic since I've been thinking that construction something + решает&quot; (which can roughly be translated as that something rules) is sort of modern slang. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is - when did this construction came into existence?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/339th_Infantry_Regiment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1kfO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="456f111c-4083-46ac-ac4d-49d6e58d1697" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:24:18.213" UserId="7674" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="my feeling is that `чтобы` expresses intention but doesn't give any indication of whether the intended action was successful or was performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the phrases without `чтобы` have a connotation that the intention was fulfilled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the end i did buy it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н, чтобы купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was my intention, whether i bought or not is beside the point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the first example `пошёл` plays a part of a modal verb and so is secondary to the purport of the sentence, that's perhaps why `купить` gets the emphasis - my clumsy way of making sense of it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="4d7c33c9-875f-4b1f-bfec-4b5f15675387" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:26:55.893" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="My feeling is that `чтобы` expresses intention but doesn't give any indication of whether the intended action was successful or was performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the phrases without `чтобы` have a connotation that the intention was fulfilled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the end i did buy it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н, чтобы купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was my intention, whether i bought or not is beside the point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the first example `пошёл` plays a part of a modal verb and so is secondary to the purport of the sentence, that's perhaps why `купить` gets the emphasis - my clumsy way of making sense of it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13307" RevisionGUID="bfc47147-a4c3-4478-9fc4-eafe9deef89f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T15:29:49.640" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="My feeling is that `чтобы` expresses intention but doesn't give any indication of whether the intended action was successful or was performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the phrases without `чтобы` have a connotation that the intention was fulfilled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in the end i did buy it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл в магази́н, чтобы купи́ть хле́ба́  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that was my intention, whether i bought it or not is beside the point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the first example `пошёл` plays a part of a modal verb and so is secondary to the purport of the sentence, that's perhaps why `купить` gets the emphasis - my clumsy way of making sense of it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="cde09016-5759-43b7-87de-d44deb30b811" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:09:34.837" UserId="7878" Text="Does the placement and choice of &quot;вообще&quot; as opposed to &quot;совсем&quot; make any difference and which &quot;filler/parasite&quot; words are the most fitting in colloquial speech? Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я вообще не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я не знаю, вообще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я просто не знаю  /  Ну вот я просто не знаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот, я совсем не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я так не знаю вообще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="cde09016-5759-43b7-87de-d44deb30b811" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:09:34.837" UserId="7878" Text="Does the placement and choice of &quot;вообще&quot; as opposed to &quot;совсем&quot; make any difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="cde09016-5759-43b7-87de-d44deb30b811" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:09:34.837" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31301" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="f154be5e-982b-43be-b403-9d29c0b7d200" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:11:27.223" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="f7c2a962-3ebc-4872-875b-42bf2f59ef2f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:11:41.500" UserId="7878" Comment="added 146 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Does the placement and choice of &quot;вообще&quot; as opposed to &quot;совсем&quot; make any difference and which &quot;filler/parasite&quot; words are the most fitting in colloquial speech? Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я вообще не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я не знаю, вообще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я просто не знаю  /  Ну вот я просто не знаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот, я совсем не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я так не знаю вообще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я какк-то вообще не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я вообщем совсем не знаю вообще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я просто как-то совсем не знаю, как-то как.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я совсем вообще не знаю. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31303" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="f7c2a962-3ebc-4872-875b-42bf2f59ef2f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:11:41.500" UserId="7878" Comment="added 146 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="f7881b05-ff3b-4210-8aa5-6f31d54fcc01" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:11:44.920" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выражения|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31305" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13310" RevisionGUID="9b1ddcec-1f02-41e0-8025-97eb8b5d940a" CreationDate="2016-10-10T16:15:45.287" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Вообще&quot; as opposed to &quot;совсем&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="d9fff7f5-feba-435d-a7ac-9d0cb266b3d2" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:30:51.467" UserId="7239" Text="У меня есть вопрос: что разница между &quot;начать и начаться&quot; и &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="d9fff7f5-feba-435d-a7ac-9d0cb266b3d2" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:30:51.467" UserId="7239" Text="Что разница между &quot;начать и начаться&quot; и &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="d9fff7f5-feba-435d-a7ac-9d0cb266b3d2" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:30:51.467" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13313" RevisionGUID="8d9fb3fb-b24a-41d0-a06d-7f6460574163" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:30:51.467" UserId="7239" Text="I asked my friend this question a while ago, and she gave a very thorough and thoughtful response, so I thought I would post it here so more people could benefit from it in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can't imagine how puzzled I was. So, I had to think really hard about it. =D&#xD;&#xA;Ты не представляешь, как меня озадачил. Так что пришлось серьёзно подумать об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ok. Now, a little bit of grammar introduction (there is nothing new I guess so just roll with it if you know it).&#xD;&#xA;Pairs of words 'начать' and 'начаться', and 'учить' и 'учиться' have the same roots and here sometimes close meanings. The most obvious difference is the '-ся' postfix. It shows that the verb is reflexive, so in Russian that means that the object and the subject in the sentence are probably the same, e.g Я одеваюсь - I dress myself, Мы виделись утром - We met (each other) in the morning etc.&#xD;&#xA;Thus, when using verbs with a postfix, you usually mean that the subject and object are the same. &#xD;&#xA;Most of grammar stuff is over. &#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Повторение - мать учения*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As to your pairs of words. &#xD;&#xA;По поводу твоих слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Let's start with 'учить' and 'учиться':&#xD;&#xA;the general meaning is 'to learn' in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;However, there are some differences. It is better to show by examples.&#xD;&#xA;Но есть некоторые различия. Это лучше видно на примерах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Учиться' in most cases means 'to learn how to do something'. Using the word 'учить' with verbs we get the meanig 'to teach'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Учиться танцевать. - Learn to dance.           Учить танцевать - Teach to dance.&#xD;&#xA;More about a person:&#xD;&#xA;Я учусь танцевать - I learn to dance (kind of by myself).            Я учу танцевать - I teach to dance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And it's all the same with verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Now more complicated. These words with nouns and pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас посложнее. Эти же слова с существительными и местоимениями. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The grammatical difference is that after 'учить' goes accusative case and after 'учиться' dative. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure how to systemize the use of them. &#xD;&#xA;Разница в грамматике состоит в том, что после 'учить' нужен винительный падеж, а после 'учиться' дательный. Честно говоря, я не уверена как можно систематизировать их использование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;However, here are some tips.&#xD;&#xA;When you need to say that you study at university, school, are taking a course etc. you use 'учиться':&#xD;&#xA;Я учусь в университете. Я учусь на курсах. и т.п. &#xD;&#xA;But I study law at university. Я учу юриспруденцию в университете. (The best is 'изучаю', but anyway...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Also, 'учиться' is similar to the meaning of simple tenses (regularity), and 'учить' besides that can be also used to describe continuous action.&#xD;&#xA;Я учусь грамоте. (the same as present simple)     Я учу грамоту. (May be both simple or continuous, it depends on the context.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Now 'начать' and 'начаться'. I almost wrote a book. &#xD;&#xA;First, we don't use 'начаться' with verbs. At all.&#xD;&#xA;Первое, мы не ставим 'начаться' с глаголами. Совсем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you need to say I started to read, to sing, to cry etc. you use form of the word 'начать'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Начаться' is more commonly used in impersonal constructions such as &#xD;&#xA;Начался дождь. It started to rain.&#xD;&#xA;Началась гроза. A storm began. &#xD;&#xA;Урок начался. The lesson began. &#xD;&#xA;Фильм начался. The film started. &#xD;&#xA;As if something started by itself. Puts more selfness in a sentence. =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In other cases you probably will use 'начать'. &#xD;&#xA;Oh, as to cases. 'Начаться' needs nominative and 'начать' accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Hope it's more or less helpful,&#xD;&#xA;Надеюсь, что это более менее полезно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*[Repetiljo est inaier studiorum][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_wingwords/3453/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13314" RevisionGUID="0126ed3a-3dec-4545-b504-d8e0635d692b" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:43:14.400" UserId="7674" Text="the answer is very simple: first verb in each pair is transitive, the second is not, which determines their usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reflexive verbs are intransitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31312" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="4073134d-1e20-4675-b095-cf4abb328c01" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:49:46.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/785537821885038592" />
  <row Id="31313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13315" RevisionGUID="d56584e0-2df6-47b6-95f6-b03c85be424f" CreationDate="2016-10-10T17:54:53.510" UserId="6539" Text="First of all some meanings of **вообще**.&#xD;&#xA; 1В общем, в большей части случаев.In most cases, in general &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Вообще**, это верно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Adverb. Всегда, при всяких условиях . always&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Этот человек **вообще** необщителен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Adverb. Взяв в целом, в общем, обобщая. On the whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я говорю о людях **вообще**, а не о тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Introductory word Used when one thing is opposed to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Над ним всегда смеются, хотя **вообще** он прав. **Вообще** он чудак, но с ним интересно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; И вообще(разг.) Conjunction connecting the idea more general than the previous one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он гулял, купался **и вообще** отдыхал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Совсем and вообще coincide only in the meaning &quot;completely, absolutely&quot; Вообще is colloquial. Used more often.But in written speech it's better to use совсем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now your examples, which words are fillers and which are meaningful ? **Я не знаю**.is a general idea.&#xD;&#xA;Я вообще не знаю.Absolutely ( stressed )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я не знаю, вообще.--Introductory word.,ну--filler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я просто не знаю / Ну вот я просто не знаю--Ну--filler, просто--emphatic filler,вот--filler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот, я совсем не знаю.вот--filler,совсем--absolutely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я так не знаю вообще.так--emphatic filler вообще--absolutely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я как-то вообще не знаю.ну-filler, как‐то uncertainty filler, вообще--absolutely &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я в общем совсем не знаю вообще.--Ну--filler, в общем--in general, совсем--absolutely &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну я просто как-то совсем не знаю, как-то как.--Ну--filler, просто--emphatic filler, как‐то uncertainty filler, совсем--absolutely, как‐то так--uncertainty filler &#xD;&#xA;Я совсем вообще не знаю.Sounds weird. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ну** and **вот** are  most frequently used fillers, youngsters use *блин*, there are other words used as fillers depending of habits and culture as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="ac44bfc9-c761-47d5-b064-608102de0c4c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:01:06.097" UserId="7674" Comment="corrected a mistake" Text="У меня есть вопрос: &lt;strike&gt;что&lt;/strike&gt; *в чём* разница между &quot;начать и начаться&quot; и &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31315" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="ac44bfc9-c761-47d5-b064-608102de0c4c" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:01:06.097" Comment="Proposed by 7674 approved by -1 edit id of 800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31316" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="abe316fa-f1b3-4220-aa1f-47f7eb58feff" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:01:06.097" UserId="6539" Comment="corrected a mistake" Text="Какая разница между &quot;начать и начаться&quot; и &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13316" RevisionGUID="d797d683-829f-434b-b5b3-e5191a69069a" CreationDate="2016-10-10T18:06:37.833" UserId="5008" Text="Собственно, всегда существовало и сейчас существует выражение &quot;решить дело&quot;. Ну а поскольку слово &quot;дело&quot; употребимо и в военном контексте (&quot;дело&quot; = &quot;бой&quot;), то оно легко угадывается и даже может быть опущено, как в данном случае: _штык решает [дело]_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13317" RevisionGUID="2de88063-05cd-4182-86a2-570b30f5f88e" CreationDate="2016-10-10T19:11:38.580" UserDisplayName="user1514" Text="`Эпатаж` происходит от épater (é + patter), на французском означает впечатлить (буквально &quot;дать пинка&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Эскапада` - от романского (фр. или исп.) `escapar`, убегать или выбегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском слово &quot;выходка&quot; смысл отражает ясно, а заимствования со временем размывают смысл или дрейфуют. Но здесь они пока отражают разницу:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* эпатаж - это результат&#xD;&#xA;* эскапада - это действие&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13318" RevisionGUID="ef2c69b3-1f2e-42ea-92a5-1c3e880284f3" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:14:06.630" UserId="7878" Text="Are both of these sentences correct to say? :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will finish everything in about 10 min.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы закончим всё минут через десять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы закончим всё за десять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13318" RevisionGUID="ef2c69b3-1f2e-42ea-92a5-1c3e880284f3" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:14:06.630" UserId="7878" Text="Correct variants of sentence with &quot;in about 10 minutes&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13318" RevisionGUID="ef2c69b3-1f2e-42ea-92a5-1c3e880284f3" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:14:06.630" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13318" RevisionGUID="24f1cb33-3da1-4118-a643-71751103a6da" CreationDate="2016-10-11T00:25:58.133" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Are both of these sentences correct to say? (We will finish everything in about 10 min) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мы закончим всё минут через десять. &#xD;&#xA; - Мы закончим всё за десять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13319" RevisionGUID="b7f19136-33e3-4fa6-858c-8b723c28b6e0" CreationDate="2016-10-11T04:06:13.143" UserId="6539" Text="&gt; 1.Мы закончим всё минут через десять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is grammatical with emphasis on **when** everything will be done. *через* means *in approximately 10 minutes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.Мы закончим всё за десять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one has got another meaning due to the preposition *за*: It will take us ten minutes to do it.(How much time will it take?) Both are fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="714fb5b5-48bd-468a-a9fb-fcaa31cbe1af" CreationDate="2016-10-11T04:43:50.723" UserId="6539" Text="Привожу &quot;доказательства&quot;, что выражение **&quot;штык решает&quot;** известно со времен Суворова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исход удачи, участь боя решает штык героя.(Поговорка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петр Ершов Русский штык.(1833)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пушки бьются до последа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Штык кончает дело вмиг;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там удача, там победа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где сверкает русский штык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ссылка вряд ли получится.&#xD;&#xA;https://docviewer.yandex.ru/htmlimage?id=aohq-i7s0qwjbdzb9jepdmexlnstz9cjycq1szdjjbn2u4749qs0ljwd3f2xpb4bhvah7spe96hw503pz7159f9kfxryn7ac1p8wo4i6&amp;width=900&amp;name=bg-3.png&amp;uid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13316" RevisionGUID="0e27823b-ced0-44e9-9fe2-792792bd16c9" CreationDate="2016-10-11T05:02:37.180" UserId="5008" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="Собственно, всегда существовало и сейчас существует выражение &quot;решить дело&quot;. Ну а поскольку слово &quot;дело&quot; употребимо и в военном контексте (&quot;дело&quot; = &quot;бой&quot;), то оно легко угадывается и даже может быть опущено, как в данном случае: _штык решает [дело]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Пожалуй, четко обосновать что глагол &quot;решать&quot; появился в (около)военном жаргоне прямиком из жаргона (около)юридического, будет затруднительно, хотя лично мне это кажется наиболее разумным объяснением. Но по меньшей мере в источниках XIX века найти подобное словоупотребление уже не трудно (в отличие от &quot;цитат&quot; из Суворова, которые вполне могут быть неаутентичными).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Штык и сабля решили бой.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наконец подоспел принц с шведами и россиянами 25-го числа и решил битву при Деневице.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;[Глинка Ф. Н. &quot;Письма русского офицера о Польше, Австрийских владениях, Пруссии и Франции, с подробным описанием Отечественной и заграничной войны с 1812 по 1814 год&quot;](http://militera.lib.ru/db/glinka1/04.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="e0e1e6a9-fbb0-46ef-a5dc-8a365a7bf42a" CreationDate="2016-10-11T05:46:10.817" UserId="6539" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Привожу &quot;доказательства&quot;, что выражение **&quot;штык решает&quot;** известно со времен Суворова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исход удачи, участь боя решает штык героя.(Поговорка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sbornik-mudrosti.ru/poslovicy-i-pogovorki-pro-shtyk/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петр Ершов Русский штык.(1833)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пушки бьются до последа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Штык кончает дело вмиг;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там удача, там победа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Где сверкает русский штык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ссылка .http://45parallel.net/anthology/petr_ershov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="248200f8-ef14-454c-84bd-4d499c960c95" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:06:58.547" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Привожу &quot;доказательства&quot;, что выражение **&quot;штык решает&quot;** известно со времен Суворова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Исход удачи, участь боя решает штык героя.(Поговорка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sbornik-mudrosti.ru/poslovicy-i-pogovorki-pro-shtyk/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Петр Ершов Русский штык.(1833)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пушки бьются до последа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Штык кончает дело вмиг;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там удача, там победа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где сверкает русский штык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ссылка .http://45parallel.net/anthology/petr_ershov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="817d8d4c-1981-4e79-b53f-ca1da1b9e154" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:16:33.047" UserId="6539" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="Привожу &quot;доказательства&quot;, что выражение **&quot;штык решает&quot;** известно со времен Суворова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Исход удачи, участь боя решает штык героя.(Поговорка)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sbornik-mudrosti.ru/poslovicy-i-pogovorki-pro-shtyk/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Петр Ершов Русский штык.(1833)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пушки бьются до последа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Штык кончает дело вмиг;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там удача, там победа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где сверкает русский штык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ссылка .http://45parallel.net/anthology/petr_ershov/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Небезынтересно привести здесь и еще более решительные афоризмы ген. Драгомирова и Сухотина в пользу штыка, которые также имели влияние на принятое в русской армии решение.&#xD;&#xA;'Великое Суворовское начало - пуля - дура, штык - молодец останется вечно справедливым не потому, чтобы пуля была недействительна, но потому, что а) **штык решает дело**, б) он есть представитель воли, нравственной энергии, на которой зиждется все в боевом деле' (Драгомиров)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13321" RevisionGUID="82289a25-f600-42b3-a98a-6a24e99eb9e0" CreationDate="2016-10-11T08:33:49.743" UserId="6097" Text="The difference is that &quot;*учить*&quot; and &quot;*начать*&quot; need an object (you can only &quot;*учить*&quot; or &quot;*начать*&quot; something) while &quot;*учиться*&quot; и &quot;*начаться*&quot; do not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Группа начала концерт ровно в 19-00 (The band began the concert exactly at 19-00)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Концерт начался ровно в 19-00 (The concert began exactly at 19-00)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not so strict with &quot;учиться&quot; and mostly depends on context. &quot;Учиться ездить на велосипеде&quot; means &quot;to learn to ride a bike&quot; while &quot;учить ездить на велосипеде&quot; means &quot;to teach to ride a bike&quot;. At the same time &quot;учить математику&quot; is &quot;to learn math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="57592938-7003-4763-b837-c2c58f8b9e7f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:05:08.150" UserId="7239" Comment="added 245 characters in body; edited title" Text="У меня есть вопрос: &lt;strike&gt;что&lt;/strike&gt; *в чём* разница между &quot;начать и начаться&quot; и &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between &quot;начать и начаться&quot; and &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I changed the title to English so that the question can probably be found more easily. Also the original Russian title was grammatically incorrect anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="57592938-7003-4763-b837-c2c58f8b9e7f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:05:08.150" UserId="7239" Comment="added 245 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;начать и начаться&quot; and &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13322" RevisionGUID="3892ed71-704e-4078-b8b6-42de9404427c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:28:48.533" UserId="7878" Text="How are these sentences different from each other? (The flight will take 6 hours) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~Полёт / Перелёт займёт шесть часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~Мы долетим _за_ шесть часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I erroneously assumed that I'd have to say _za_ in the first sentence too. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13322" RevisionGUID="3892ed71-704e-4078-b8b6-42de9404427c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:28:48.533" UserId="7878" Text="Requirement to use _za_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13322" RevisionGUID="3892ed71-704e-4078-b8b6-42de9404427c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:28:48.533" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13322" RevisionGUID="0ac86f86-5ac9-40b8-b8f5-c443c6ae888d" CreationDate="2016-10-11T09:37:04.717" UserId="7878" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="How are these sentences different from each other? (The flight will take 6 hours) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~Полёт / Перелёт займёт шесть часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~Мы долетим _за_ шесть часов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes around 3 hours to make borscht.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чтобы приготовить борщ, нужно примерно три часа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I erroneously assumed that I'd have to say _za_ in the first sentence too. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13323" RevisionGUID="ad0d7f38-dda5-4470-ab62-d19bd0f7b1ef" CreationDate="2016-10-11T10:09:37.653" UserId="5443" Text="The version **утром** is quite neutral and simply means '*in the morning*' or '*this morning*' while **с утра** can have 2 different accented meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) (to do something) **first thing in the morning**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) (to be in condition of doing or not doing something) **since (the early) morning**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correspondingly, your sentence 2 (which uses **утром**) sounds more natural than sentence 1 (which unnecessarily emphasizes awakening as *the first thing done in the morning*). I'd also slightly adjust the word order (to neutral) and add a preposition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня утром я проснулся примерно [в какое время?] **в** без четверти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences 3-7 are all possible, they vary in exact meaning (*in the morning* or *first thing in the morning*) and (due to diff. word order) emphasize different aspects, e g. sentence 4 emphasizes time aspect (as if it's a complete answer to a question about time), since in neutral case (sentence 5) time words in Russian are usually close to the beginning of the sentence (they are typically not in the end of it as in English). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13324" RevisionGUID="f74e76b4-65a3-47d9-86e9-a978491153fb" CreationDate="2016-10-11T11:54:03.843" UserId="5443" Text="In sentence 1 *шесть часов* is a direct object after **transitive** verb, so similarly to the English version with 'it will take us 6 hours', it doesn't take *any preposition*. Same with the last Russian sentence: &quot;нужно&quot;, &quot;требуется&quot;, &quot;уйдёт&quot; - all such versions would reveal transitivity resulting in no preposition. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31339" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13322" RevisionGUID="1d94a684-8759-40df-93cd-4c630965f01e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T12:04:03.230" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Requirement to use &quot;за&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13321" RevisionGUID="de39303d-a5f9-4c97-943c-8754249a8a15" CreationDate="2016-10-11T12:57:34.620" UserId="6097" Comment="added учить девочку" Text="The difference is that &quot;*учить*&quot; and &quot;*начать*&quot; need an object (you can only &quot;*учить*&quot; or &quot;*начать*&quot; something) while &quot;*учиться*&quot; и &quot;*начаться*&quot; do not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Группа начала концерт ровно в 19-00 (The band began the concert exactly at 19-00)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Концерт начался ровно в 19-00 (The concert began exactly at 19-00)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not so strict with &quot;учиться&quot; and mostly depends on context. &quot;Учиться ездить на велосипеде&quot; means &quot;to learn to ride a bike&quot; while &quot;учить ездить на велосипеде&quot; means &quot;to teach to ride a bike&quot;. At the same time &quot;учить математику&quot; is &quot;to learn math&quot; but &quot;учить девочку&quot; is &quot;to teach a girl&quot; :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13312" RevisionGUID="d275f753-45e7-448e-9006-51c27705b3a1" CreationDate="2016-10-11T13:18:01.840" UserId="242" Comment="Please don't add info on how and why you've edited the title, it's in the edit history" Text="У меня есть вопрос: &lt;strike&gt;что&lt;/strike&gt; *в чём* разница между &quot;начать и начаться&quot; и &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between &quot;начать и начаться&quot; and &quot;учить и учиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="f766ad12-f8ba-4acf-ac90-fa0d88180062" CreationDate="2016-10-11T18:13:19.677" UserId="7825" Text=" А.ГУЩИН       ЭТИМОЛОГИЯ СЛОВ &quot;ЖРЕЦ, ЖРАТЬ&quot;  И ПР. ПОДОБНЫХ.           Несколько лет тому назад  в передаче «Умницы и умники» , посвященной жрецам, кудесникам и пр. волхвам, ведущий передачи профессор Ю. Вяземский сказал, что слово» жрец «происходит от слова « жрать» Позвольте высказать Вам  другую  версию. Существует в индоевропейских языках словесный корень , условно говоря, « ker «, означающий по - русски –« колоть, резать». Почему –условно говоря ? Потому что этот корень может изменяться; он может менять первую букву : цер ( церковь т.е. высокое строение , как бы прокалывающее небо , чтобы было проще общаться с Богом ), жер ( жертва т. е. человек, животное ,птица , которых резали ,  принося в дар богам ),  чер ( черта , которую вырезали , выдавливали на каком либо материале)  , х.р( т. е. знак «х» в старославянском алфавите) ,  который вырезали, вырубали мечом, топором на деревьях идущие в лес люди ,чтобы не заблудиться ),и т. п.; он может менять гласный звук : кар (кара –убийство, наказание за совершенный грех ), кор ( кора,имеющая вид порезанной , поцарапанной поверхности) , кур( курица, прокалывающяя землю в поисках пищи)  и т. д. ; он может совсем потерять гласный звук: кр , гр, хр и т. д.                                              &#xD;&#xA;А теперь построим цепочки слов от корня» кер» до слов  « жрец « и  «жрать».&#xD;&#xA;Итак: кер ( колоть, резать ) – жертвовать (приносить дар  богам ) – жертва ( человек , животное , птица,которых жертвуют богам ) – жрец (тот, кто непосредственно режет жертву ); и вторая цепочка : кер ( колоть, резать ) – жрать ( рвать, резать зубами пищу ).  Конечно оба эти слова происходят от одного корня – «кер». Но в первом случае слово жрец есть четкертая производная корня « кер», а во втором – первая производная. Т. е примерно так же эти цепочки можно сравнить со следующими: основа- мой отец, далее- я - моя дочка - моя внучка - моя правнучка; вторая чепочка: мой отец – мой брат. Т. е. сказать что моя правнучка произошла от моего брата очевидно будет  непревильно. А считать вышеназванные слова нерусскими будет неправильно!&#xD;&#xA;Александр Гущин        11.10. 2016 г. Вильнюс&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13326" RevisionGUID="78cece1c-f871-473b-9f58-f456ff15b0b2" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:16:20.510" UserId="6813" Text="Could you please answer with samples which are clear and easy to comprehend for a beginner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13326" RevisionGUID="78cece1c-f871-473b-9f58-f456ff15b0b2" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:16:20.510" UserId="6813" Text="Differences between имя, имён and имена?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13326" RevisionGUID="78cece1c-f871-473b-9f58-f456ff15b0b2" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:16:20.510" UserId="6813" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13327" RevisionGUID="5e61c290-2450-4aa7-b6e8-e463e915c30f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:26:39.453" UserId="4714" Text="In some cases **что** can be translated as, &quot;something&quot;. Why is this? I thought that **что-то** is the equivalent of &quot;something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть чем заняться в этом городе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У тебя есть что добавить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;если что (случится), напиши мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13327" RevisionGUID="5e61c290-2450-4aa7-b6e8-e463e915c30f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:26:39.453" UserId="4714" Text="Logic behind что meaning &quot;something&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13327" RevisionGUID="5e61c290-2450-4aa7-b6e8-e463e915c30f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:26:39.453" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13328" RevisionGUID="fd1cc843-f9fd-4d3a-a01d-9288e5e1ef70" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:28:38.733" UserId="1688" Text="These are all forms of the same word, &quot;имя&quot; (name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имя -- nominative case singular. Пример: &quot;Моё имя -- Исмаил&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имена -- nom. case plural, пример: &quot;Назовите ваши имена!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имён -- genitive case plural, пример: &quot;Никто не знает их имён&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13327" RevisionGUID="81f28687-4693-4317-9a37-6dc9b434a098" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:34:33.170" UserId="4714" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="In some cases **что** can be translated as, &quot;something&quot;. Why is this? I thought that **что-то** is the equivalent of &quot;something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть чем заняться в этом городе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У тебя есть что добавить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;если что (случится), напиши мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it more like— (very colloquially and just gut feeling translation)&#xD;&#xA;There is a thing to do.&#xD;&#xA;Do you have stuff to add?&#xD;&#xA;If what (stuff), phone me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because these phrases are just the opposite of—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нечего— there is nothing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;есть что— there is what (stuff, that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;нечем заняться— there's nothing to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;есть чем заняться— there is wha (a thing)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13329" RevisionGUID="059cea70-f634-40b8-b4e5-9c3c4b6375ec" CreationDate="2016-10-11T19:49:24.707" UserId="7674" Text="in this usage `что` из simply a shorthand of `что-то`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same is true for `какой(-нибудь)`, `чего(-нибудь)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя нет какой газетки почитать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочешь чего перекусить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i believe `Есть чем/где/когда` don't belong to this category" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13329" RevisionGUID="01e7d0a5-a0f4-45d0-af39-0edc3db9ff0f" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:02:38.070" UserId="7674" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="in this usage `что` из simply a shorthand of `что-то`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same is true for `какой(-нибудь)`, `чего(-нибудь)`, `кто(-нибудь)` in interrogative and conditional sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя нет какой газетки почитать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочешь чего перекусить? Если захочешь чего перекусить, говори.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы мне кто сказал, кем я в итоге стану, ни за что бы не поверил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i believe `Есть чем/где/когда` don't belong to this category" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13325" RevisionGUID="9ab28879-2349-4fb7-b4e6-48fcd175432e" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:06:44.620" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 119 characters in body" Text="Несколько лет тому назад  в передаче «Умницы и умники» , посвященной жрецам, кудесникам и пр. волхвам, ведущий передачи профессор Ю. Вяземский сказал, что слово» жрец «происходит от слова « жрать» Позвольте высказать Вам  другую  версию. Существует в индоевропейских языках словесный корень , условно говоря, « ker «, означающий по - русски –« колоть, резать». Почему –условно говоря ? Потому что этот корень может изменяться; он может менять первую букву : цер ( церковь т.е. высокое строение , как бы прокалывающее небо , чтобы было проще общаться с Богом ), жер ( жертва т. е. человек, животное ,птица , которых резали ,  принося в дар богам ),  чер ( черта , которую вырезали , выдавливали на каком либо материале)  , х.р( т. е. знак «х» в старославянском алфавите) ,  который вырезали, вырубали мечом, топором на деревьях идущие в лес люди ,чтобы не заблудиться ),и т. п.; он может менять гласный звук : кар (кара –убийство, наказание за совершенный грех ), кор ( кора,имеющая вид порезанной , поцарапанной поверхности) , кур( курица, прокалывающяя землю в поисках пищи)  и т. д. ; он может совсем потерять гласный звук: кр , гр, хр и т. д.                                              &#xD;&#xA;А теперь построим цепочки слов от корня» кер» до слов  « жрец « и  «жрать».&#xD;&#xA;Итак: кер ( колоть, резать ) – жертвовать (приносить дар  богам ) – жертва ( человек , животное , птица,которых жертвуют богам ) – жрец (тот, кто непосредственно режет жертву ); и вторая цепочка : кер ( колоть, резать ) – жрать ( рвать, резать зубами пищу ).  Конечно оба эти слова происходят от одного корня – «кер». Но в первом случае слово жрец есть четкертая производная корня « кер», а во втором – первая производная. Т. е примерно так же эти цепочки можно сравнить со следующими: основа- мой отец, далее- я - моя дочка - моя внучка - моя правнучка; вторая чепочка: мой отец – мой брат. Т. е. сказать что моя правнучка произошла от моего брата очевидно будет  непревильно. А считать вышеназванные слова нерусскими будет неправильно!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13329" RevisionGUID="d07ef9dd-8b50-4142-b03e-ef8b201bbd23" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:10:12.657" UserId="7674" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="in this usage `что` из simply a shorthand of `что-то`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same is true for `какой(-нибудь)`, `чего(-нибудь)`, `кто(-нибудь)`, and their declined forms, in interrogative and conditional sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя нет **какой** газетки почитать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочешь **чего** перекусить? Если захочешь **чего** перекусить, говори.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы мне **кто** сказал, кем я в итоге стану, ни за что бы не поверил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i believe `Есть чем/где/когда/кому` don't belong to this category because in this pattern `чем/где/когда/кому` are complete words without the truncated  `-нибудь` part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does this help a beginner? ;^)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13329" RevisionGUID="910c9c9a-e666-4e15-b1f1-f9e4065ffa88" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:18:08.597" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="in this usage `что` из simply a shorthand of `что-то`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same is true for `какой(-нибудь)`, `чего(-нибудь)`, `кто(-нибудь)`, and their declined forms, in interrogative and conditional sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя нет **какой** газетки почитать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочешь **чего** перекусить? (Если) захочешь **чего** перекусить, говори.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы мне **кто** сказал/Сказал бы мне **кто**, кем я в итоге стану, ни за что бы не поверил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i believe `Есть чем/где/когда/кому` don't belong to this category because in this pattern `чем/где/когда/кому` are complete words without the truncated  `-нибудь` part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does this help a beginner? ;^)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="69269ebe-f07a-48ad-a328-96393f586735" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:22:20.033" UserId="7878" Text="How are these sentences any different, in principle, and would it be a big mistake to use them interchangeably in conversational language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stayed there for half an hour - &#xD;&#xA;Я там _остановился_ на полчаса&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stayed with them for a week - &#xD;&#xA;Я _остановился_ у них на неделю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll stay at a hotel for a few days. - Я _останусь_ в оте́лье па́ру дней / не́сколько дне́й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы _остановились_ в роско́шном оте́ле.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не хочу́ _остановиливаться_ в дорого́м оте́ле на пару́ дней.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="69269ebe-f07a-48ad-a328-96393f586735" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:22:20.033" UserId="7878" Text="остаться - vs- остановиться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="69269ebe-f07a-48ad-a328-96393f586735" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:22:20.033" UserId="7878" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="38e7c119-1530-4870-a9f9-fe79e4cae20d" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:29:37.153" UserId="97" Text="Your Russian translation for _I'll stay at a hotel for a few days._ is not correct.  You should use the same word root - _остановлюсь_. Word _остаться_ means _remain_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я останусь в этом городе навсегда.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll remain in this city forever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth adding that word _остаться_ often has the connotation of staying/remaining for a longer period than _остановиться_, although this isn't necessarily the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13331" RevisionGUID="c3ce9d1a-82e2-40fe-a960-b7d0d56d7672" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:31:49.520" UserId="97" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Your Russian translation for _I'll stay at a hotel for a few days._ is not correct.  You should use the same word root - _остановлюсь_. Word _остаться_ means _remain_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я останусь в этом городе навсегда.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll remain in this city forever&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth adding that _остановиться_ (in the meaning you imply) has the connotation of a temporary action to it while word _остаться_ often has the connotation of staying/remaining for a longer period than _остановиться_, although this isn't necessarily the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13329" RevisionGUID="b0dc9b54-9d0a-4636-839a-0cd0622da999" CreationDate="2016-10-11T20:57:10.227" UserId="7674" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="in this usage `что` из simply a shorthand of `что-то`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same is true for `какой(-нибудь)`, `чего(-нибудь)`, `кто(-нибудь)`, and their declined forms, in interrogative and conditional sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя нет **какой** газетки почитать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочешь **чего** перекусить? (Если) захочешь **чего** перекусить, говори.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы мне **кто** сказал/Сказал бы мне **кто**, кем я в итоге стану, ни за что бы не поверил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i believe `Есть чем/где/когда/кому` don't belong to this category because in this pattern `чем/где/когда/кому` are complete words without the truncated  `-нибудь` part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does this help a beginner? ;^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference between for example `есть кем` and `кем(-то/нибудь)` can be illustrated by such sentences as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне бы его **кем** заменить = Мне бы его **кем-то** заменить  -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *truncated `кем-то/-нибудь`*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Было бы у меня **кем** его заменить - *`кем` doesn't suggest truncated `-то` or `-нибудь` because it's `есть кем` in a form of conjunctive*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13329" RevisionGUID="cee2f6d3-eba8-476f-9f35-0e0d1756cc12" CreationDate="2016-10-11T21:05:05.303" UserId="7674" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="in this usage `что` из simply a shorthand of `что-то`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;same is true for `какой(-нибудь)`, `чего(-нибудь)`, `кто(-нибудь)`, and their declined forms, in interrogative, conditional and conjunctive sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя нет **какой** газетки почитать?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочешь **чего** перекусить? (Если) захочешь **чего** перекусить, говори.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы мне **кто** сказал/Сказал бы мне **кто**, кем я в итоге стану, ни за что бы не поверил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i believe `Есть чем/где/когда/кому` don't belong to this category because in this pattern `чем/где/когда/кому` are complete words without the truncated  `-нибудь` part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does this help a beginner? ;^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference between for example `есть кем` and `кем(-то/нибудь) + any verb` can be illustrated by such sentences as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне бы его **кем** заменить = Мне бы его **кем-то** заменить  -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *truncated `кем-то/-нибудь`*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Было бы у меня **кем** его заменить - *`кем` doesn't suggest truncated `-то` or `-нибудь` because it's `есть кем` in a form of conjunctive*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может ты хотел бы его **кем** заменить? = Может ты хотел бы его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кем-то/-нибудь** заменить?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя есть **кем** его заменить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31363" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13306" RevisionGUID="2af1fe27-bdad-41d6-9297-3c1fee3f3210" CreationDate="2016-10-12T00:08:12.690" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/785995448133754880" />
  <row Id="31364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="ee54ca3f-37da-4a54-9f2f-8b09811159ca" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:30:29.220" UserId="6840" Text="Why is it that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I like you&quot; is `Ты нравишься мне` and not `Я нравию тебя`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I love you&quot; is `Я люблю тебя` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm learning from `The New Penguin Russian Course` and I've been practicing with Russians on VK and one of them explained to me that &quot;нравию&quot; is not actually a word. But according to the book tacking on &quot;ся&quot; makes the verb reflexive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. in the book it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одевать - to dress&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одеваться - to dress oneself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the difference between `Я нравию тебя vs  Ты нравишься мне`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the people I've been speaking with on VK don't speak great english so I may have misunderstood what they were trying to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One more thing, I'm new to Russian Stack Exchange so I have no idea what to tag this question as, if someone could edit it appropriately, I'd appreciate it ))** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="ee54ca3f-37da-4a54-9f2f-8b09811159ca" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:30:29.220" UserId="6840" Text="Я нравию тебя vs Ты нравишься мне" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="ee54ca3f-37da-4a54-9f2f-8b09811159ca" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:30:29.220" UserId="6840" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="69521cab-a074-4fe2-bd3e-1690b065d865" CreationDate="2016-10-12T01:48:51.387" UserId="6840" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Why is it that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I like you&quot; is `Ты нравишься мне` and not `Я нравию тебя`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I love you&quot; is `Я люблю тебя` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm learning from `The New Penguin Russian Course` and I've been practicing with Russians on VK and one of them explained to me that &quot;нравию&quot; is not actually a word. But according to the book tacking on &quot;ся&quot; makes the verb reflexive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. in the book it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одевать - to dress&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одеваться - to dress oneself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the difference between `Я нравию тебя vs  Ты нравишься мне`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think `Ты нравишься мне` means &quot;You like me&quot; but I don't think that's right either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the people I've been speaking with on VK don't speak great english so I may have misunderstood what they were trying to explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One more thing, I'm new to Russian Stack Exchange so I have no idea what to tag this question as, if someone could edit it appropriately, I'd appreciate it ))** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13333" RevisionGUID="3d9f6eee-f848-4475-a461-46421f369165" CreationDate="2016-10-12T02:24:10.320" UserId="4903" Text="Unlike the pair of verb &quot;одевать - одеваться&quot;, &quot;нравиться&quot; is only used in its reflexive form. &quot;Я нравлюсь;&quot; &quot;Ты нравишься&quot;  and so on. As the other person mentioned &quot;нравию&quot; is not a valid word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can use both phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Я тебе нравлюсь&quot; - You like me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more often used in a question. Same phrase, but with a change of intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Ты мне нравишься&quot; - I like you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more often used as a statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="10147f9b-88e3-4c10-af22-9bbb560a2012" CreationDate="2016-10-12T05:44:48.733" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 171 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is it that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I like you&quot; is `Ты нравишься мне` and not `Я нравию тебя`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I love you&quot; is `Я люблю тебя` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm learning from `The New Penguin Russian Course` and I've been practicing with Russians on VK and one of them explained to me that &quot;нравию&quot; is not actually a word. But according to the book tacking on &quot;ся&quot; makes the verb reflexive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg. in the book it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одевать - to dress&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одеваться - to dress oneself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what's the difference between `Я нравию тебя vs  Ты нравишься мне`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think `Ты нравишься мне` means &quot;You like me&quot; but I don't think that's right either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the people I've been speaking with on VK don't speak great english so I may have misunderstood what they were trying to explain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13332" RevisionGUID="10147f9b-88e3-4c10-af22-9bbb560a2012" CreationDate="2016-10-12T05:44:48.733" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 171 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why &quot;нравишься мне&quot;, not &quot;нравию тебя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31371" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="cf837e28-a38e-4375-a071-cff1d0a525fc" CreationDate="2016-10-12T05:45:25.743" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Остаться&quot; or &quot;остановиться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13194" RevisionGUID="da49ee42-833d-4e0b-886f-aa2591aca4df" CreationDate="2016-10-12T05:46:43.363" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 332 characters in body" Text="Разбирая этимологию слов, иногда попадаешь на слова, которые в своем происхождении имеют нормальный смысл, а в принятом ныне толковании неприличны, или наоборот.  Чтобы понять этимологию слова, следует подобрать максимальное количество похожих слов и не только в русском языке, но и в других индоевропейских языках и попытаться понять, какой же смысл их всех объединяет. Возьмем, к примеру , простое русское слово « дупло». Откуда это слово взялось? Подбираем похожие по звучанию слова:&#xD;&#xA;-du(литовское)- два;&#xD;&#xA;-дубль- второй экз. чего-то;&#xD;&#xA;-дуплет-выстрел одновременно из двух стволов ружья- двухстволки;&#xD;&#xA;-дупель-двойная кость домино ( пусто-пусто, пять-пять.и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA;-dupa( польский яз., русский аналог , простите, жопа)- т.е. двуединая конструкция.&#xD;&#xA;А, теперь, на что похоже дупло, особенно не очень большое? Да на выход прямой кишки! Присмотритесь и Вы убедитесь, что слово « дупло» происходит от слова « dupa» (жопа), а последнее от слова « два». А дальше начинается юмор: истолкуйте фразу:» у меня в зубе дупло!&#xD;&#xA;Второй пример: как в старославянском яз. звучит буква «х» ? « хер»!&#xD;&#xA;Почему название этой нормальной буквы стало сегодня  неприличным? &#xD;&#xA;Существует древний корень , условно звучащий как « ker» и означающий « колоть, резать». В современных индоевропейских яз. существуют множество слов этого корня. Этот корень может менять свою форму: кер,цер, чер , хер ,гер и т . п .. Он может менять гласный звук : кар, кор, кур,кир и т.д.. Гласная вообще может выпасть: кр, цр, чр,хр, гр и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;А теперь представьте себе древнего человека, идущего в дремучий лес. Чтобы не заблудиться он делал топором, мечем, ножом на деревьях зарубки. Как выглядели эти зарубки? Если ее делать одним движением, этот рез                     &#xD;&#xA; можно спутать с царапиной, сделанной, скажем , рогом лося или оленя; а если топором или другим острым предметом в виде буквы « х « то, понятно ,этот знак выполнил человек ,и означал этот знак –зарубка, рез  ,то есть- «хер». И когда изобретался славянский алфавит ,знак «х» стал назваться так, как его уже славяне называли, т.е. « хер».&#xD;&#xA;А теперь возникает вопрос: почему это очень даже приличное слово вдруг стало « ненормативным»? Во все времена вопрос размножения людей был и есть чрезвычайно важный ( Божий наказ: плодитесь и размножайтесь!) Люди бережно относились к детородным органам, а многие народы даже обожествляли их ( так называемые фаллические религии). И наши далекие предки называть эти органы вслух опасались, боясь привлечь внимание к ним злых духов, которые могли им повредить. Вот потому-то  люди называли этот орган иносказательно, используя начальную букву: хер, хрен, хутор и т.д." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="5921dc14-e5de-4095-a042-9311d60dd26e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T06:19:43.113" UserId="6539" Text="This is a very interesting question and it's really a hard one for a foreign learner because the English translation of both verbs is &quot;to stay&quot; in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Волкодав слегка пожалел о том, что успел миновать ворота и не остался на ночь в лесу. [Мария Семенова. Волкодав: Знамение пути )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;― Вы уже или уходите, или оставайтесь». Он остался на восемь лет.  [Антонина Крищенко. Императрица Клавдия (2002) // «Домовой», 2002.12.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но когда через неделю он опять остался на ночь у Шуры, утром, придя на работу, еще с улицы в окне лаборатории увидел Броню. [Роман Солнцев. Полураспад. Из жизни А. А. Левушкина-Александрова, а также анекдоты о нем (2000-2002) // «Октябрь», 2002]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впервые он остался на ночь один. Он побродил по квартире, не зная, чем заняться. [Ирина Антонова. Тринадцатый пират // «Мурзилка», 2000]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот туда, на дачу, когда все съехали осенью, а я еще остался на день-два сторожить вещи, приехал ко мне мой старший брат Юра: наверное, пожалел меня, что я тут один. [Г. Я. Бакланов. Жизнь, подаренная дважды (1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are from the National corpus.&#xD;&#xA;Остановиться for some time somewhere means to start your staying or to organize it making reservations &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я остановился в отеле.--I just came and engaged a room there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я остался в отеле на два дня. --I was staying at the hotel at that time and decided to prolong or continue my staying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the main difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13194" RevisionGUID="e7f88c49-44c9-4fea-bb77-52ddbb650f3e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T06:19:50.087" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1619 characters in body" Text="Разбирая этимологию слов, иногда попадаешь на слова, которые в своем происхождении имеют нормальный смысл, а в принятом ныне толковании неприличны, или наоборот.  Чтобы понять этимологию слова, следует подобрать максимальное количество похожих слов и не только в русском языке, но и в других индоевропейских языках и попытаться понять, какой же смысл их всех объединяет. Возьмем, к примеру , простое русское слово « дупло». Откуда это слово взялось? Подбираем похожие по звучанию слова:&#xD;&#xA;-du(литовское)- два;&#xD;&#xA;-дубль- второй экз. чего-то;&#xD;&#xA;-дуплет-выстрел одновременно из двух стволов ружья- двухстволки;&#xD;&#xA;-дупель-двойная кость домино ( пусто-пусто, пять-пять.и т.д.)&#xD;&#xA;-dupa( польский яз., русский аналог , простите, жопа)- т.е. двуединая конструкция.&#xD;&#xA;А, теперь, на что похоже дупло, особенно не очень большое? Да на выход прямой кишки! Присмотритесь и Вы убедитесь, что слово « дупло» происходит от слова « dupa» (жопа), а последнее от слова « два». А дальше начинается юмор: истолкуйте фразу:» у меня в зубе дупло!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13335" RevisionGUID="dcdf5ea6-eec8-4e1c-9656-f682fff74340" CreationDate="2016-10-12T07:10:15.510" UserId="7537" Text="These are the words that are only used in the reflexive (нравиться) or non-reflexive (standard) form (любить). It just so happens in the modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, Russian is a very 'passive' language; it uses passive sentences far more than other languages. The verb can be reflexive or not, it depends on its meaning; but it doesn't imply that the translation should be passive too. Compare such common phrases as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня зовут xxx = I am / My name is xxx (though literally 'I am called xxx')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть xxx = I have xxx (literally 'There is xxx with me')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13337" RevisionGUID="27e9155c-0cc6-4279-b289-1b17380a6382" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:27:14.750" UserId="194" Text="One can translate `ты нравишься мне` as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are looking good to my taste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are making yourself looking good to me (to my taste).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I hope it is clear where the reflective particle and Dative case come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `нрав` means &quot;taste&quot;, so нравиться is to be &quot;tasting&quot; good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31380" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="222f5472-e3ae-43d3-878a-40f760f99956" CreationDate="2016-10-12T08:49:28.407" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13324" RevisionGUID="8643116d-cc9b-482c-953e-c7343087f3b0" CreationDate="2016-10-12T11:05:12.553" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="In sentence 1 *шесть часов* is a direct object after **transitive** verb, so similarly to the English version with 'it will take us 6 hours', it doesn't take *any preposition*. Same with the last Russian sentence: &quot;нужно (затратить - omitted)&quot; reveals transitivity resulting in no preposition. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="77a58dba-b376-4d3f-b7bb-2b4d97683a99" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:59:32.050" UserId="6815" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|значения|сленг|meme|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13339" RevisionGUID="c4380755-1775-474b-80fe-f9d39d226f3a" CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:01:19.800" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13340" RevisionGUID="39f6cba1-9bf8-49db-a96c-ad6879ad4e0e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T14:01:19.800" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13341" RevisionGUID="6550ce2a-b59b-4ca9-89eb-ea80d2742eda" CreationDate="2016-10-12T15:16:36.597" UserId="7674" Text="are everybody sure they get the meaning of the phrase right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i can envision two meanings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**А**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Enough of that!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to cut the conversation short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wow, is that right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a sarcastic remark meant to belittle the significance of the interlocutor's statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in this sense the phrase can also look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ой (ну теперь) всё!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всё` in the sense of `всё пропало`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;synonymous to such sarcastic phrases as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ой, горе-то какое!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ой, что ж теперь делать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ой, как жить-то теперь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13334" RevisionGUID="3318f26e-a887-4c88-aab7-141664758fd8" CreationDate="2016-10-12T15:37:02.070" UserId="6539" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="This is a very interesting question and it's really a hard one for a foreign learner because the English translation of both verbs is &quot;to stay&quot; in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Волкодав слегка пожалел о том, что успел миновать ворота и не **остался** на ночь в лесу. [Мария Семенова. Волкодав: Знамение пути )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;― Вы уже или уходите, или оставайтесь». Он **остался** на восемь лет.  [Антонина Крищенко. Императрица Клавдия (2002) // «Домовой», 2002.12.04]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но когда через неделю он опять **остался** на ночь у Шуры, утром, придя на работу, еще с улицы в окне лаборатории увидел Броню. [Роман Солнцев. Полураспад. Из жизни А. А. Левушкина-Александрова, а также анекдоты о нем (2000-2002) // «Октябрь», 2002]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впервые он **остался** на ночь один. Он побродил по квартире, не зная, чем заняться. [Ирина Антонова. Тринадцатый пират // «Мурзилка», 2000]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот туда, на дачу, когда все съехали осенью, а я еще **остался** на день-два сторожить вещи, приехал ко мне мой старший брат Юра: наверное, пожалел меня, что я тут один. [Г. Я. Бакланов. Жизнь, подаренная дважды (1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These examples are from the National corpus.&#xD;&#xA;Остановиться for some time somewhere means to start your staying or to organize it making reservations &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **остановился** в отеле.--I just came and engaged a room there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **остался** в отеле на два дня. --I was staying at the hotel at that time and decided to prolong or continue my staying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the main difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31393" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="58af7c83-3669-4ee4-9496-69336633cc3e" CreationDate="2016-10-12T16:05:29.993" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13320" RevisionGUID="e9254f6b-9bd5-4cc4-9bd5-4e9ab83355f0" CreationDate="2016-10-12T16:06:54.647" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Привожу &quot;доказательства&quot;, что выражение **&quot;штык решает&quot;** известно давно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Исход удачи, участь боя решает штык героя.(Пословица) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sbornik-mudrosti.ru/poslovicy-i-pogovorki-pro-shtyk/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Петр Ершов Русский штык.(1833)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пушки бьются до последа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Штык кончает дело вмиг;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там удача, там победа,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где сверкает русский штык.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ссылка .http://45parallel.net/anthology/petr_ershov/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Небезынтересно привести здесь и еще более решительные афоризмы ген. Драгомирова и Сухотина в пользу штыка, которые также имели влияние на принятое в русской армии решение.&#xD;&#xA;'Великое Суворовское начало - пуля - дура, штык - молодец останется вечно справедливым не потому, чтобы пуля была недействительна, но потому, что а) **штык решает дело**, б) он есть представитель воли, нравственной энергии, на которой зиждется все в боевом деле' (Драгомиров)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="4a18c8c4-3357-411d-a02e-a7c45e4a264d" CreationDate="2016-10-12T18:22:36.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/786270864128040960" />
  <row Id="31397" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13322" RevisionGUID="6090eb26-3a4d-4e57-9209-9b2b9b3f90c0" CreationDate="2016-10-13T03:28:29.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/786408236668846080" />
  <row Id="31398" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13251" RevisionGUID="1225a21f-7bcc-4973-93ca-0c53277d1f19" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:10:39.990" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4903,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="b7740a6c-488e-4450-b0e1-be6aea05fdc9" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:14:26.507" UserId="7239" Text="I was writing a letter to a friend where I said &quot;скучаю тебя&quot; (to mean &quot;I miss you&quot;). But then I remembered that &quot;скучать&quot; means &quot;to be bored&quot; and I panicked because I thought I misremembered the verb for &quot;to miss&quot; and was telling my friend that I think they are boring/that they make me bored (when of course the opposite is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, apparently it [means both][1]. Is there ever any danger of ambiguity or sever misunderstandings when using the word &quot;скучать&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am kind of afraid to use &quot;скучать&quot; now and would prefer to find alternatives to &quot;скучаю тебя&quot;, since I don't want to insult people who are close to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="b7740a6c-488e-4450-b0e1-be6aea05fdc9" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:14:26.507" UserId="7239" Text="Why does скучать mean both &quot;to be bore&quot; and &quot;to miss&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="b7740a6c-488e-4450-b0e1-be6aea05fdc9" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:14:26.507" UserId="7239" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13343" RevisionGUID="31202628-a5a3-4bcd-bad5-e860a741af59" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:20:08.053" UserId="97" Text="First, correct usage is _скучаю по тебе_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you are correct, word _скучать_ can mean both, however the main difference is in usage.  If you want to indicate that you missing something/someone, you would indicate what/who you are missing.  If you keep only the verb without adding any subject(s), then it would mean that you're bored:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скучаю **по тебе**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I miss **you**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скучаю **по дому**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I miss **home**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скучаю  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am bored&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13344" RevisionGUID="6186b6d2-2073-4356-8dc4-9ad538548068" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:39:16.700" UserId="4560" Text="Believe it or not, for most of my life, I (a native speaker) wasn't aware they were the same word, until one day it just hit me. The thing is, **мне скучно** is a *massively* more common way to say &quot;I'm bored&quot; than **я скучаю**, so the latter pretty much defaults to &quot;I miss&quot; unless the opposite is very clear from the context. (And, as already pointed out, it's **я скучаю по тебе**, not *тебя*. The &quot;bored&quot; one uses **от** as its natural preposition.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31404" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="bf3d6725-52a8-4432-8f18-a8187c948d2b" CreationDate="2016-10-13T21:49:23.127" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does скучать mean both &quot;to be bored&quot; and &quot;to miss&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13344" RevisionGUID="8ac17acf-8653-4d7e-93fb-ad3b852826a7" CreationDate="2016-10-13T23:53:59.710" UserId="4560" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="Believe it or not, for most of my life, I (a native speaker) wasn't aware they were the same word, until one day it just hit me. The thing is, **мне скучно** is a *massively* more common way to say &quot;I'm bored&quot; than **я скучаю**, so the latter pretty much defaults to &quot;I miss&quot; unless the opposite is very clear from the context. (And, as already pointed out, it's **я скучаю по тебе**, not *тебя*. The &quot;bored&quot; one uses **от** as its natural preposition.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. To answer the question in the title–*why* does it mean both &quot;to be bored&quot; and &quot;to miss&quot;: they're two different extensions of the same, now-lost original meaning, which is to howl or whimper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13330" RevisionGUID="be1c706e-674d-4104-8ce8-b61669348a4a" CreationDate="2016-10-14T05:40:21.380" UserId="5288" Comment="a few typo in the Russian" Text="How are these sentences any different, in principle, and would it be a big mistake to use them interchangeably in conversational language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stayed there for half an hour - &#xD;&#xA;Я там _остановился_ на полчаса&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stayed with them for a week - &#xD;&#xA;Я _остановился_ у них на неделю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll stay at a hotel for a few days. - Я _останусь_ в оте́ле па́ру дней / не́сколько дне́й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы _остановились_ в роско́шном оте́ле.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не хочу́ _останавливаться_ в дорого́м оте́ле на пару́ дней.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13345" RevisionGUID="3c166005-35ec-43ca-b30b-6bd48d1d2057" CreationDate="2016-10-14T07:51:09.167" UserId="7239" Text="One sees a lot of discussion about a &quot;[new vocative case][1]&quot; in modern Russian; however, I am not asking about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this -- in the instances where only one of the six standard cases is used, which of the six is used to express the vocative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess would have been nominative, because they are similar. However, in German, for many expressions of a seemingly vocative nature, accusative is used instead: &quot;guten Morgen!&quot;, for example. And actually the same seems to be true in English (although there one would describe it as the objective case) -- &quot;[Lucky me!][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when an entirely different construction isn't used, which of the six standard cases are used to replace the vocative in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/nouns2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/353255/are-there-fixed-phrases-where-i-or-me-are-used-unusually?noredirect=1#comment819480_353255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13345" RevisionGUID="3c166005-35ec-43ca-b30b-6bd48d1d2057" CreationDate="2016-10-14T07:51:09.167" UserId="7239" Text="Which case has replaced the vocative in modern Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13345" RevisionGUID="3c166005-35ec-43ca-b30b-6bd48d1d2057" CreationDate="2016-10-14T07:51:09.167" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13346" RevisionGUID="2b065ba9-c4b1-4753-bbc2-360efc369218" CreationDate="2016-10-14T08:16:22.907" UserId="6602" Text="&quot;Vocative&quot; case always may be replaced with a nominative case, because it's just a shortening of initial form of names ended with -а, -я.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(кто?)* **Дим**, иди сюда! — *(кто?)* **Дима**, иди сюда! — nominative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вижу *(кого?)* **Диму** — accusative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Special forms like *Господи, Боже, Отче* are traditional and cannot be replaced with *Господин, Бог, Отец* in addressing to God." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13347" RevisionGUID="a9c23bfe-9a0b-42a8-9607-09060cb4ffc1" CreationDate="2016-10-14T09:35:17.897" UserId="6539" Text="Vocative forms (used addressing someone ) correspond to the nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Девушка, как вас зовут? Больной,назовите фамилию.&#xD;&#xA;Наташа, как я рада, что ты позвонила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a short form of names and some words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Саш, Кать, мам, бабуль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and archaic and religious words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чего тебе надобно, старче?(Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;боже, господи, владыко.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13348" RevisionGUID="e7af0587-71da-46c0-98e5-bc300fe3deaa" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:24:51.400" UserId="4782" Text="I sometimes find myself looking up Russian words on wiktionary and following the etymology of the word upstream to find what words it is related to, as you do. I think I've noticed a peculiar thing: in words of the same origin, the Eastern Slavic languages seem to agree pretty well on which one of the syllables is stressed. For example, the corresponding forms of *górod* are in Belorussian stressed as &quot;hórad&quot;, and in Ukrainian, &quot;hórod&quot;. There's also &quot;molokó&quot; vs &quot;malakó&quot;, etc. It doesn't seem to hold true outside of the Eastern branch, as the Polish form of &quot;zemljá&quot;, &quot;zemia&quot;, is stressed on the first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the cause of this pattern? Is this an Eastern Slavic thing which they inherited from their most recent common ancestor, did they borrow it from Church Slavonic, or is it simply that Belorussian and Ukrainian have for most of their recent history been treated as Russian dialects and come under heavy Russian influence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To speakers of the other Eastern Slavic languages, what are some exceptions to the rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13348" RevisionGUID="e7af0587-71da-46c0-98e5-bc300fe3deaa" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:24:51.400" UserId="4782" Text="Why do stress patterns often match between cognates in Russian and Ukrainian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13348" RevisionGUID="e7af0587-71da-46c0-98e5-bc300fe3deaa" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:24:51.400" UserId="4782" Text="|произношение|ударение|slavic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="b5369492-84e5-4e2a-a677-944698549acb" CreationDate="2016-10-14T11:56:56.003" UserId="242" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are ver closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors in stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who's happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly to not make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="bbe45638-ded2-4291-b437-7e90587b84f9" CreationDate="2016-10-14T12:04:05.197" UserId="242" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are ver closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - whey the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors in stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly to not make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="58c7e529-61f1-4822-b6a7-7acad114d4ec" CreationDate="2016-10-14T12:09:20.837" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - why the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors with stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly to not make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;п**о**мер&quot; - &quot;пом**е**р&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31419" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13286" RevisionGUID="ac80022b-6ec3-4544-ad8f-5f9dac490e8c" CreationDate="2016-10-14T15:34:15.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/786953273085485057" />
  <row Id="31420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="baa4bda3-d97f-49b0-be86-321a5f48a837" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:02:25.350" UserId="242" Comment="added 452 characters in body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - why the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors with stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly to not make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;п**о**мер&quot; - &quot;пом**е**р&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;my understanding of [cognates][1] (quite possibly was wrong)it's they are ethymologycally stem from one root, but ok, let me add some stricter examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;говор**и**шь&quot; - &quot;гов**о**ришь&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;стр**а**шный&quot; - &quot;страшн**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;р**е**дкий&quot; - &quot;рiдк**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;хоч**у**&quot; - &quot;х**о**чу&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;друг**о**й&quot; - &quot;др**у**гий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;мыш**и**ный&quot; - &quot;м**и**шачий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;белизн**а**&quot; -  &quot;біл**и**зна&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="88a1c559-941a-40be-b8d5-2b614060bacb" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:14:24.833" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - why the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors with stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly to not make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;п**о**мер&quot; - &quot;пом**е**р&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;my understanding of [cognates][1] (quite possibly was wrong)it's they are ethymologycally stem from one root, but ok, let me add some stricter examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;говор**и**шь&quot; - &quot;гов**о**риш&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;стр**а**шный&quot; - &quot;страшн**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;р**е**дкий&quot; - &quot;рiдк**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;хоч**у**&quot; - &quot;х**о**чу&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;друг**о**й&quot; - &quot;др**у**гий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;мыш**и**ный&quot; - &quot;м**и**шачий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;белизн**а**&quot; -  &quot;біл**и**зна&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="705c4c55-9b8a-4973-a9d7-85706e17e3f1" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:23:19.687" UserId="242" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - why the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors with stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly to not make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;п**о**мер&quot; - &quot;пом**е**р&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;my understanding of [cognates][1] (quite possibly was wrong)it's they are ethymologycally stem from one root, but ok, let me add some stricter examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;говор**и**шь&quot; - &quot;гов**о**риш&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;стр**а**шный&quot; - &quot;страшн**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;р**е**дкий&quot; - &quot;рiдк**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;хоч**у**&quot; - &quot;х**о**чу&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;друг**о**й&quot; - &quot;др**у**гий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;мыш**и**ный&quot; - &quot;м**и**шачий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;белизн**а**&quot; -  &quot;біл**и**зна&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нач**и**нка&quot; - &quot;н**а**чинка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13342" RevisionGUID="34612d50-e224-461d-bd28-00a468d82b09" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:34:13.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/786998562148286464" />
  <row Id="31425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="d809ad14-da07-475a-8772-23a1da8310a5" CreationDate="2016-10-14T18:54:32.503" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - why the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors with stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly not to make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;п**о**мер&quot; - &quot;пом**е**р&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;my understanding of [cognates][1] (quite possibly was wrong)it's they are ethymologycally stem from one root, but ok, let me add some stricter examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;говор**и**шь&quot; - &quot;гов**о**риш&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;стр**а**шный&quot; - &quot;страшн**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;р**е**дкий&quot; - &quot;рiдк**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;хоч**у**&quot; - &quot;х**о**чу&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;друг**о**й&quot; - &quot;др**у**гий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;мыш**и**ный&quot; - &quot;м**и**шачий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;белизн**а**&quot; -  &quot;біл**и**зна&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нач**и**нка&quot; - &quot;н**а**чинка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31427" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13215" RevisionGUID="8b7d5d66-6410-4902-94b7-77982604cc7c" CreationDate="2016-10-15T09:34:14.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/787225056850108416" />
  <row Id="31428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13350" RevisionGUID="e1c4358e-979a-4e18-9cdd-936c74a7c98a" CreationDate="2016-10-16T09:31:50.667" UserId="7537" Text="The history of the modern Russian language is remarkable in that it appeared from _convergence_ of two distinct dialects in about equal parts (Nothern and South-Eastern; only the latter you might call 'the speech of Kievan Rus'). The 'Northern' (or Novgorod/Pskov) dialect predates the Ukranian/Russian/etc. languages per se; it stands in equal opposition to other Slavic groups including the Western one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More info](http://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/431649/Ob_istorii_russkogo_yazyka) if you read in Russian (esp. second half).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, in _some_ cases you find a perfect match with the south/eastern Slavic languages, while in others there is something different. This concerns not just the stress, but primarily grammatical and phonetical rules, of which stress is just a small part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, I'll quote a small part from Zalisnyak I linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...на северо-западе говорили _на руке_, в то время как на востоке было _на руце_. Сейчас мы говорим _целый_, но _на руке_. Это не что иное, как соединение того _целый_, которое идет с востока, с тем _на руке_, которое идет с северо-запада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You'll find &quot;на руци&quot; (руці etc.) in most other Slavic languages, including Ukrainian, Serbian or Czech).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to stress, the Western Slavic languages underwent a more rapid change towards a more consistent stress pattern. Czech finished with all stress on the first syllable. Polish is a bit more difficult but is still way more consistent than Russian. Russian is still on its way, but linguists say a pattern is likely to emerge eventually. Which one we don't know yet. But perhaps partly due to its unique ancestry it may take longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13351" RevisionGUID="3a6f9f76-1906-4c59-9819-68b24f0a290b" CreationDate="2016-10-16T12:39:44.947" UserId="2079" Text="Here, `за` is like English `for`.  Like `for`, `за` presents only after the verb specifying the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We will do it **for** three hours. (Мы сделаем это **за** три часа.)&#xD;&#xA;* It will take three hours to do it. (Literally: У нас займёт три часа сделать это. &#xD;&#xA;Better: У нас это займёт три часа. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One can cook borscht **for** three hours - борщ можно приготовить **за** три часа.&#xD;&#xA;* It takes about three hours to cook borscht - чтобы приготовить борщ, нужно примерно три часа (около трёх часов, часа три); приготовление борща занимает около трёх часов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13351" RevisionGUID="93d5c0c2-1edc-4c90-ac93-78638d58480d" CreationDate="2016-10-16T12:44:45.500" UserId="2079" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Here, `за` is like English `for`.  Like `for`, `за` presents only after the verb specifying the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We will do it **for** three hours. (Мы сделаем это **за** три часа.)&#xD;&#xA;* It will take three hours to do it. (Literally: У нас займёт три часа сделать это. &#xD;&#xA;Better: У нас это займёт три часа. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One can cook borscht **for** three hours - борщ можно приготовить **за** три часа.&#xD;&#xA;* One can cook borscht **for** about three hours - борщ можно приготовить примерно **за** три часа (часа **за** три - the stress here should be on **за**).&#xD;&#xA;* It takes about three hours to cook borscht - чтобы приготовить борщ, нужно примерно три часа (около трёх часов, часа три); приготовление борща занимает около трёх часов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13351" RevisionGUID="033f31ca-b050-46db-9ec0-462384de297f" CreationDate="2016-10-16T12:51:45.630" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Here, `за` is like English `in`.  Like `in`, `за` presents only after the verb specifying the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* We will do it **in** three hours. (Мы сделаем это **за** три часа.)&#xD;&#xA;* It will take three hours to do it. (Literally: Займёт три часа сделать это. &#xD;&#xA;Better: Это займёт три часа. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One can cook borscht **in** three hours - борщ можно приготовить **за** три часа.&#xD;&#xA;* One can cook borscht **in** about three hours - борщ можно приготовить примерно **за** три часа (часа **за** три - the stress here should be on **за**).&#xD;&#xA;* It takes about three hours to cook borscht - чтобы приготовить борщ, нужно примерно три часа (около трёх часов, часа три); приготовление борща занимает около трёх часов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13349" RevisionGUID="28d28d60-d8ca-4570-bab7-8f50260ea6bb" CreationDate="2016-10-16T15:18:13.867" UserId="242" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Your claim is just wrong. While Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related indeed (so this is an answer to your question - why the majority of words that share same origin share same stress pattern as well), there are like a lot of words where the Ukrainian stress is counter-intuitive to a Russian monolingual speaker. In fact, if you'll give a Ukrainian text to Russian speaker he will certainly do noticeable amount of errors with stressing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a Russian speaker who happened to visit Ukraine quite often and one of the hardest thing in Ukrainian is exactly not to make errors of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;б**ы**ли&quot; - &quot;бул**и**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ж**и**знь&quot; - &quot;житт**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в**о**лосы&quot; - &quot;вол**о**сся&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;козл**ё**нок&quot; - &quot;козен**я**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;п**о**мер&quot; - &quot;пом**е**р&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;my understanding of [cognates][1] (quite possibly was wrong)it's they are ethymologycally stem from one root, but ok, let me add some stricter examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;говор**и**шь&quot; - &quot;гов**о**риш&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;стр**а**шный&quot; - &quot;страшн**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;р**е**дкий&quot; - &quot;рiдк**и**й&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;хоч**у**&quot; - &quot;х**о**чу&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;друг**о**й&quot; - &quot;др**у**гий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;мыш**и**ный&quot; - &quot;м**и**шачий&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;белизн**а**&quot; -  &quot;біл**и**зна&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;нач**и**нка&quot; - &quot;н**а**чинка&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;распрод**а**жа&quot; - &quot;розпр**о**даж&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c6315269-3852-4ec0-bf1e-4bfb30806612" CreationDate="2016-10-16T18:14:37.350" UserId="7925" Text="In all languages with genders I know the word for man is masculine, and the word for women is feminine. While this is still technically true for the word мужчина, it is the only Russian word I know that declines like a feminine word ending in &quot;a&quot;. Can anyone give a historical reason why this is the case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c6315269-3852-4ec0-bf1e-4bfb30806612" CreationDate="2016-10-16T18:14:37.350" UserId="7925" Text="Why does the word мужчина decline like a feminine noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c6315269-3852-4ec0-bf1e-4bfb30806612" CreationDate="2016-10-16T18:14:37.350" UserId="7925" Text="|этимология|склонение|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13353" RevisionGUID="862f57de-e98a-4488-a484-b2d8ecbab36e" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:01:21.197" UserId="7674" Text="the suffix `-ина` doesn't seem native to Russian and 3 East Slavic languages in general, there's really a handful of words formed by it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another masculine word of this pattern is `детина`, in Ukrainian however `дитина` is feminine and means quite what the root suggests, `a child`, and not `a big guy`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in fact all Ukrainian words suffixed `-ина` are feminine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13354" RevisionGUID="75ad6160-280b-4ef9-aded-0bbcef6b2e81" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:20:41.717" UserId="7926" Text="Not all words in Russian ending with -a are feminine, so the question is quite incorrect. When we use any definition, like &quot;clever&quot;, there appears masculine ending -ый, that shows we talk of a masculine: умный мужчина, while it would be -ая for femine: умная женщина. &#xD;&#xA;The suffix -ина appears both in feminine and masculine words, masculine words like детина, мужчина were often used in conversational dialect, showing the brutality and big size of the matter :) In many dialects мужчина was used for rustics. Here is some information: http://wordhist.narod.ru/genshina.html " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13355" RevisionGUID="e31c6c8c-f6bc-43b8-bcf9-9bd6f3c487f3" CreationDate="2016-10-16T19:22:34.630" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;it is the only Russian word I know that declines like a feminine word ending in &quot;a&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Дядя_, _юноша_, _мальчишка_ etc. There are also many words which can be both masculine and feminine, e.g. _судья_, _забияка_, _сквалыга_, _размазня_ and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is ill-formed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="fb0f4d24-9366-4f0f-a3cb-bf27600eecaf" CreationDate="2016-10-16T20:37:16.707" UserId="7925" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In all languages with genders I know the word for man is masculine, and the word for women is feminine. While this is still technically true for the word мужчина, it is the only Russian masculine word I know that declines like a feminine word ending in &quot;a&quot;. Can anyone give a historical reason why this is the case? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13356" RevisionGUID="92bb84d8-2a89-4593-a851-e28ede86ed8b" CreationDate="2016-10-16T21:56:21.293" UserId="7330" Text="why write Чьи это книги? instead of Чьи эти книги?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13356" RevisionGUID="92bb84d8-2a89-4593-a851-e28ede86ed8b" CreationDate="2016-10-16T21:56:21.293" UserId="7330" Text="why write Чьи это книги? instead of Чьи эти книги?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13356" RevisionGUID="92bb84d8-2a89-4593-a851-e28ede86ed8b" CreationDate="2016-10-16T21:56:21.293" UserId="7330" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="9be5bc6c-c5fa-4ad6-9185-58407df0c582" CreationDate="2016-10-16T23:28:55.280" UserId="4560" Text="Will it make sense to you if I say, &quot;because **это** is a picture-frame rather than a tag&quot;? In other words, **это** refers to the abstract, uncountable &quot;stuff we're looking at&quot;, rather than to be a marker attached to the books themselves, as in the English &quot;Whose books are these?&quot;. You *can* ask **Чьи эти книги?**, but it will sound weirdly &quot;off&quot;, at least if you were pointing to the actual books. The variant with **эти** can (at least in some cases) sound natural when what you're asking is &quot;whose are these books?&quot; rather than &quot;whose books are these?&quot; – i.e. when &quot;these&quot; is a contextual reference rather than a literal indication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13357" RevisionGUID="833c7878-0d5e-436f-a17c-11bb801c4918" CreationDate="2016-10-16T23:35:32.713" UserId="4560" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="Will it make sense to you if I say, &quot;because **это** is a picture-frame rather than a tag&quot;? In other words, **это** refers to the abstract, uncountable &quot;stuff we're looking at&quot;, rather than to be a marker attached to the books themselves, as in the English &quot;Whose books are these?&quot;. You *can* ask **Чьи эти книги?**, but it will sound weirdly &quot;off&quot;, at least if you were pointing to the actual books. The variant with **эти** can (at least in some cases) sound natural when what you're asking is &quot;whose are these books?&quot; rather than &quot;whose books are these?&quot; – i.e. when &quot;these&quot; is a contextual reference rather than a literal indication. But even there, I must say, I can't quite come up with satisfactory everyday examples. The abstract, independent, generalising **это** is just so much more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13358" RevisionGUID="978d3e48-861b-4336-9f6d-87d1aae4b2e3" CreationDate="2016-10-17T04:39:31.277" UserId="6539" Text="In such cases people say &quot;it's just as it is&quot;. Note:we use a declined  form of this determiner«Эта книга чья? Эти книги чьи?» only before the noun in emphatic sentences.Used in post- position the pronoun is not declined and the sentence sounds more neutral. Though we can't deny grammaticality of a declined pronoun used in postposition, we don't use it as a rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13359" RevisionGUID="b8ea00dd-d7ce-4eea-88f4-bd24f0aa166f" CreationDate="2016-10-17T05:00:29.037" UserId="7926" Text="There are really no clitics here. But there is a subtle difference between the first word order and the second. &quot;Я сказал тебе&quot; is a little bit more neutral, as &quot;тебе&quot; is a direct object and it should follow the verb. See the link: http://rosental-book.ru/styli_xlii.html &#xD;&#xA;We put the verb in the end of the sentence when it's necessary to underline the fact of the action. So we use &quot;Я тебе сказал&quot; order when blaming someone for not doing what we said, and it is the only right word order for doing that :) Or, it works if someone doesn't believe that we have said whatever it was. For a native speaker the version ending with the verb sounds a little more harsh :) Though we all use both orders, using intonation to get the message across.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13360" RevisionGUID="0ae2eee7-86a5-4d0a-b63f-65ced8e6cf6c" CreationDate="2016-10-17T06:42:19.460" UserId="6539" Text="This word is not a single example of nouns ending with -а belonging to the masculine gender. But it is interesting that it appeared rather late and in Old Russian we had **муж**(see Фасмер ).&#xD;&#xA;I will try to translate the essential part of that interesting article. &#xD;&#xA;The word *мужчина* originated from the noun with generalized meaning **мужьщина**, formed from the adjective  **мужьскъ** with the suffix  **-ина**; Compare: женщина, деревенщина etc. (Соболевский, Лекции, с. 111).  The word came into being not earlier than XV — XVI centuries. It was not mentioned in the book  («Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка» И. И. Срезневский.) А. А. Потебня used this word to illustrate the change in the meaning (general--collective --individual ).  &#xD;&#xA;Thus, мужьчина meant the quality of the person who was мужьскъ (manly ). (Потебня, Из зап. по русск. грам., 3, с. 33).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Д. И. Буслаев and А. А. Потебня ...analysed the reasons of transition of general, abstract or collective nouns into those denoting a person. (like слуга, служба, простота, старина, мужчина и т. п.)  showing how words of common gender (ending with -a) developed (Виноградов. Русск. язык, с. 67).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13360" RevisionGUID="b0ec51d3-5d25-4d54-a159-eda0b9ff475d" CreationDate="2016-10-17T06:50:17.577" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="This word is not a single example of nouns ending with -а belonging to the masculine gender. But it is interesting that it appeared rather late and in Old Russian we had **муж**(see Фасмер ).&#xD;&#xA;I will try to translate the essential part of that interesting article. &#xD;&#xA;The word *мужчина* originated from the noun with generalized meaning **мужьщина**, formed from the adjective  **мужьскъ** with the suffix  **-ина**; Compare: женщина, деревенщина etc. (Соболевский, Лекции, с. 111).  The word came into being not earlier than XV — XVI centuries. It was not mentioned in the book  («Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка» И. И. Срезневский.) А. А. Потебня used this word to illustrate the change in the meaning (general--collective --individual ).  &#xD;&#xA;Thus, мужьчина meant the quality of the person who was мужьскъ (manly ). (Потебня, Из зап. по русск. грам., 3, с. 33).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Д. И. Буслаев and А. А. Потебня ...analysed the reasons of transition of general, abstract or collective nouns into those denoting a person  (like слуга, служба, простота, старина, мужчина и т. п.)  showing how words of common gender (ending with -a) developed (Виноградов. Русск. язык, с. 67).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13360" RevisionGUID="352980ce-10ab-4e20-a459-8d70e52fb72b" CreationDate="2016-10-17T06:59:15.547" UserId="6539" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Because they have the same origin (from abstract words).&#xD;&#xA;This word is not a single example of nouns ending with -а belonging to the masculine gender. But it is interesting that it appeared rather late and in Old Russian we had **муж**(see Фасмер ).&#xD;&#xA;I will try to translate the essential part of that interesting article. &#xD;&#xA;The word *мужчина* originated from the noun with generalized meaning **мужьщина**, formed from the adjective  **мужьскъ** with the suffix  **-ина**; Compare: женщина, деревенщина etc. (Соболевский, Лекции, с. 111).  The word came into being not earlier than XV — XVI centuries. It was not mentioned in the book  («Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка» И. И. Срезневский.) А. А. Потебня used this word to illustrate the change in the meaning (general--collective --individual ).  &#xD;&#xA;Thus, мужьчина meant the quality of the person who was мужьскъ (manly ). (Потебня, Из зап. по русск. грам., 3, с. 33).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«Д. И. Буслаев and А. А. Потебня ...analysed the reasons of transition of general, abstract or collective nouns into those denoting a person  (like слуга, служба, простота, старина, мужчина и т. п.)  showing how words of common gender (ending with -a) developed (Виноградов. Русск. язык, с. 67).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31450" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="c4404a9a-15a2-4109-a9a7-112a5770e57d" CreationDate="2016-10-17T09:40:33.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/787951422491033600" />
  <row Id="31451" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13356" RevisionGUID="717222cf-b49b-4c5e-976e-4775aebb5a15" CreationDate="2016-10-17T13:34:17.917" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;чьи это книги&quot; and not &quot;чьи эти книги&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13259" RevisionGUID="1d095a81-9875-428a-8db8-3c1abfc72081" CreationDate="2016-10-17T13:35:13.673" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Word order: &quot;я сказал тебе&quot; or &quot;я тебе сказал&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31453" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13352" RevisionGUID="2f68dc50-3c5e-44fd-9360-1f105bfad272" CreationDate="2016-10-17T14:04:22.683" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why does the word &quot;мужчина&quot; decline like a feminine noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31454" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13356" RevisionGUID="70c836b2-54c2-4547-a62a-85d909647916" CreationDate="2016-10-17T15:43:13.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/788042690164326400" />
  <row Id="31455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="150b8701-80eb-42cf-a685-2464b9784a0e" CreationDate="2016-10-17T17:44:00.797" UserId="7929" Text="Can someone provide good explanation about word - &quot;так&quot;? For example what does word &quot;так&quot; means in &quot;Меня так не завут&quot;, or &quot;Вот так&quot;, or &quot;Так вот&quot;. Maybe someone knows good article or something about word &quot;так&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="150b8701-80eb-42cf-a685-2464b9784a0e" CreationDate="2016-10-17T17:44:00.797" UserId="7929" Text="Meaning of &quot;так&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="150b8701-80eb-42cf-a685-2464b9784a0e" CreationDate="2016-10-17T17:44:00.797" UserId="7929" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13362" RevisionGUID="fb2046ed-e5d1-4bf8-a119-5a47f6f159d2" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:11:07.347" UserId="7674" Text="i'm sure there's translation of the word in the Ru-En dictionary, one of which is `so`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня так не зoвут - They don't call me so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот так - Like so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот - So" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="a7cfb872-b6a9-4c51-a840-2d9d3909fe81" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:54:59.507" UserId="7674" Comment="corrected misspelling" Text="Can someone provide good explanation about word - &quot;так&quot;? For example what does word &quot;так&quot; means in &quot;Меня так не з&lt;strike&gt;а&lt;/strike&gt;*о*вут&quot;, or &quot;Вот так&quot;, or &quot;Так вот&quot;. Maybe someone knows good article or something about word &quot;так&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31460" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="a7cfb872-b6a9-4c51-a840-2d9d3909fe81" CreationDate="2016-10-17T18:54:59.507" Comment="Proposed by 7674 approved by 6539, 5605 edit id of 803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13363" RevisionGUID="6c32617a-6e0e-4769-be09-7d6bfac923e4" CreationDate="2016-10-17T22:16:12.363" UserId="242" Text="Roughly speaking it's translated as `so` (as it is mentioned in other answer here) or `this/that way`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Со мной никто так не будет обращаться - Nobody will treat me that way.&#xD;&#xA; - [нужно делать] вот так! - [one should do it] this way! &#xD;&#xA; - Так вот надо использовать топором - Here's how it is supposed to use an axe.&#xD;&#xA; - Вот так я стал моряком - this is how I became a sailor. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13364" RevisionGUID="87fbf2a6-440e-4204-a7b1-ff1e37b11121" CreationDate="2016-10-18T09:27:35.283" UserId="194" Text="The default, unmarked word order is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебя спросил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебе сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The both sentences do not look finished, so to provide other info one has to see the full phrase.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31467" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13361" RevisionGUID="c8ef13bd-e78d-4c28-a8f0-d9bd011d374d" CreationDate="2016-10-18T09:44:53.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/788314899474776066" />
  <row Id="31468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="4acd6c57-140e-4664-9e60-40d538799f62" CreationDate="2016-10-18T14:21:13.407" UserId="7932" Text="How to explain the difference to someone who's not native russian speaker?&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты любишь свою маму?&#xD;&#xA; - Ты любишь твою маму?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example sounds a bit wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="4acd6c57-140e-4664-9e60-40d538799f62" CreationDate="2016-10-18T14:21:13.407" UserId="7932" Text="Difference between &quot;свою&quot; and &quot;твою&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="4acd6c57-140e-4664-9e60-40d538799f62" CreationDate="2016-10-18T14:21:13.407" UserId="7932" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="948f0b7a-e34b-4f07-b1c8-831c3e95ecc8" CreationDate="2016-10-18T14:55:13.460" UserId="6539" Text="That is simple.We use **свой(свою)** with all personal pronouns.Here **mom** is a close relation of the person (the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю **свою** маму. (I love my mum) Ты любишь **свою** маму?(Do you love your mom? )Мы любим **своих** мам.(we love our moms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the case when in English the subject corresponds to the possessive adjective. When it doesn't, we use possessive adjectives according to the meaning. **Mom** is not a relative of the person (the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я видел твою маму вчера. Она видела мою маму." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="a11ad454-a573-4133-beb9-28a8588552cd" CreationDate="2016-10-18T15:13:44.487" UserId="6539" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="That is easy.We use **свой(свою)** with all personal pronouns.Here **mom** is a close relation of the person (the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю **свою** маму. (I love my mum) Ты любишь **свою** маму?(Do you love your mom? )Мы любим **своих** мам.(we love our moms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the case when in English the subject corresponds to the possessive adjective. We **don't** say **ты --твою**.  When it doesn't, we use possessive adjectives according to the meaning. **Mom** is not a relative of the person (the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я видел твою маму вчера. Она видела мою маму." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="f61ad4d9-e434-471e-827a-bfb7fca967e4" CreationDate="2016-10-18T15:18:01.077" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How to explain the difference to someone who's not a native Russian speaker?&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты любишь свою маму?&#xD;&#xA; - Ты любишь твою маму?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example sounds a bit wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31474" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="f61ad4d9-e434-471e-827a-bfb7fca967e4" CreationDate="2016-10-18T15:18:01.077" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|грамматика|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13367" RevisionGUID="2977be3d-3a0e-406d-a85b-3546b738b456" CreationDate="2016-10-18T20:44:02.090" UserId="134" Text="*Свой* is used as a possessive pronoun for the agent (not necessarily subject) in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я люблю свою маму&#xD;&#xA;* Солдату приказали принести свою винтовку (*солдат* is not a subject but still the agent for *принести*. There is no agent for *приказали*, so *своя* unequivocally refers to *солдат*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is more than one agent in the sentence, it can be somewhat confusing what does *свой* refer to, though usually the last mentioned agent is assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Папа попросил принести свой чемодан (*папа* is only the agent in the sentence, so it's dad's suitcase)&#xD;&#xA;* Папа попросил маму принести свой чемодан (*папа* and *мама* are both agents to different verbs, so the sentence can be parsed both ways, but most people would assume it's mom's suitcase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are using a non-reflexive possessive pronoun, it should either refer to a third party (*он любит его маму* &quot;he loves his (someone else's) mom&quot;) or resolve the ambiguity introduced by multiple agents (*папа попросил маму принести её чемодан*). Otherwise it would sound a bit wrong indeed, as you have correctly noted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="c77eeec1-947d-489c-888c-ee01201c057a" CreationDate="2016-10-18T21:05:43.963" UserId="7937" Text="I have been told it is Scholarly however this is impossible to type on a US keyboard. Could anyone please enlighten me as to what is the most common, or perhaps the most well understood by the average Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Transliteration Standards][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian#Transliteration_table &quot;Transliteration Standards&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="c77eeec1-947d-489c-888c-ee01201c057a" CreationDate="2016-10-18T21:05:43.963" UserId="7937" Text="What is the most common transliteration/romanization standard of Cyrillic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="c77eeec1-947d-489c-888c-ee01201c057a" CreationDate="2016-10-18T21:05:43.963" UserId="7937" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13370" RevisionGUID="18dbb6e5-040d-4df4-bd22-6c44220d6746" CreationDate="2016-10-18T21:21:36.810" UserId="115" Text="It doesn't decline like a feminine nown. It declines like a nown of the first declension, which includes both masculine and feminine nowns ending in -а or -я. Examples of first declension masculine nowns are возница, старшина, дядя, папа, юноша. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13363" RevisionGUID="42e71246-142e-42d4-9a97-681a1d405301" CreationDate="2016-10-18T21:24:37.170" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Roughly speaking it's translated as `so` (as it is mentioned in other answer here) or `this/that way`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Со мной никто так не будет обращаться - Nobody will treat me that way.&#xD;&#xA; - [нужно делать] вот так! - [one should do it] this way! &#xD;&#xA; - Так вот надо использовать топор - Here's how it is supposed to use an axe.&#xD;&#xA; - Вот так я стал моряком - this is how I became a sailor. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="4d5e0032-1cbe-4740-9cba-7a0f9bffa130" CreationDate="2016-10-19T03:31:36.067" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="That is easy.We use **свой(свою)** with all personal pronouns.Here **mom** is a close relation of the person ( here the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю **свою** маму. (I love my mum) Ты любишь **свою** маму?(Do you love your mom? )Мы любим **своих** мам.(we love our moms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the case when in English the subject corresponds to the possessive adjective. We **don't** say **ты --твою**.  When it doesn't, we use possessive adjectives according to the meaning. **Mom** is not a relative of the person (the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я видел твою маму вчера. Она видела мою маму." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="17fbd5b1-2aea-456b-9c18-4a2739ad74e4" CreationDate="2016-10-19T03:41:13.360" UserId="6539" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="That is easy.We use **свой(свою)** with all personal pronouns.Here **mom** is a close relation of the person ( here the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю **свою** маму. (I love my mum) Ты любишь **свою** маму?(Do you love your mom? )Мы любим **своих** мам.(we love our moms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the case when in English the subject corresponds to the possessive adjective. We **don't** say **ты --твою**.  When it doesn't, we use possessive adjectives according to the meaning. **Mom** is not a relative of the person (the subject ).The agent is not necessarily a subjec in the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я видел твою маму вчера. Она видела мою маму." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31487" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13365" RevisionGUID="8d20c30c-b3f1-4d29-a0e9-3f63a47f5d21" CreationDate="2016-10-19T11:14:43.457" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11220],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13366" RevisionGUID="7bedd81a-5501-48aa-b405-5a80809c965a" CreationDate="2016-10-19T11:27:01.927" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="That is easy.We use **свой(свою)** with all personal pronouns.Here **mom** is a close relation of the person ( here the subject ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю **свою** маму. (I love my mum) Ты любишь **свою** маму?(Do you love your mom? )Мы любим **своих** мам.(we love our moms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is the case when in English the subject corresponds to the possessive adjective. We **don't** say **ты --твою**.  When it doesn't, we use possessive adjectives according to the meaning. **Mom** is not a relative of the person (the subject ).The agent is not necessarily a subject in the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я видел твою маму вчера. Она видела мою маму." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31493" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13348" RevisionGUID="17d139fa-507a-4824-b448-fe61563ba8d1" CreationDate="2016-10-19T12:45:54.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/788722844029124609" />
  <row Id="31494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13372" RevisionGUID="12c84db6-5662-48a0-9cec-dd111afae753" CreationDate="2016-10-19T14:36:29.460" UserId="7716" Text="I'm aware that о is added to some prepositions for historical reasons in some combinations (со дня, ко мне, во сне, etc.). A student recently asked why we usually say с днём рождения instead of со днём рождения and I didn't have an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quick checks at ruscorpora.ru and Google's Ngram Viewer suggest со днём is used, but much less frequently than с днём; I'm wondering if there's a reason for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A question especially for native speakers: do you feel a difference between с днём and со днём?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13372" RevisionGUID="12c84db6-5662-48a0-9cec-dd111afae753" CreationDate="2016-10-19T14:36:29.460" UserId="7716" Text="со днём vs. с днём" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13372" RevisionGUID="12c84db6-5662-48a0-9cec-dd111afae753" CreationDate="2016-10-19T14:36:29.460" UserId="7716" Text="|грамматика|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13373" RevisionGUID="09fc31dd-6daf-4304-8bcf-0e317b0031c0" CreationDate="2016-10-19T14:58:51.717" UserId="7923" Text="there is a rule:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1) before many words,started with 2 or more con somatic, especially with „р“, „л“, „н“, &quot;с&quot; (example – со льдом, со шторами, со зла, со всяким, со многими, со мною, со всеми and other.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2) Before all words started with 2 or more consomatic if first one is &quot;с&quot;, &quot;з&quot;  (со стыда, со смеху, со страху, со слезами, со ста, со сроками, со своими, со стола, со звездой, со сна, со стариком, со стрелой, со зла, со службы, со слов, со знанием and other.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Before words started with &quot;щ&quot; sound (со щами, со щукой, со щенком, со счастьем и др.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13374" RevisionGUID="1c0bbd8f-7c6c-44df-b8d6-414dc174dfdb" CreationDate="2016-10-19T17:34:32.110" UserId="6539" Text="Preposition **со** is used:&#xD;&#xA;1)before words which begin with *с,з,ш,ж + consonant * or from  consonant *щ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;со славой, со звездой, со шкафа, со жгутом, со щами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)before the genitive and instrumental case of the following one-syllable words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**лев, лёд, лён, лоб, мох, ров, рот**(схватка со львом, виски со льдом)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) with **мной, мною**(со мной, со мною)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)with forms of tbe words &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**вошь, весь, всякий, всяческий, вторник, второй, второе, многие, многое** (со многими людьми, со всяким встречным)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5)with idioms:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; со вкусом (to do something ), со вниманием( attentively ), со временем (in the future)--со временем все наладится, со двора (уйти), со дна (достать), со дня на день (soon), со дня (as a point in time for counting)--со дня свадьбы прошел месяц.&#xD;&#xA;**But** : &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Фотографии с дня рождения.(taken on that very day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6)with **вчерашний** we use both с and со &#xD;&#xA;&gt;с вчерашнего дня и со вчерашнего дня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) Besides, **со** is used in solemn speech, archaic, folklore styles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;со товарищи, со Ильей со Муромцем, со крестом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, с днем рождения, фотографии с дня рождения,but:со дня рождения прошло несколько дней.со днем is archaic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.The sources are reliable :Розенталь and new.gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13374" RevisionGUID="560587ad-38c9-4e3c-8a3f-1161063348ef" CreationDate="2016-10-19T19:04:02.700" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Preposition **со** is used:&#xD;&#xA;1)before words which begin with *с,з,ш,ж + consonant* or with  consonant *щ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;со славой, со звездой, со шкафа, со жгутом, со щами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)before the genitive and instrumental case of the following one-syllable words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**лев, лёд, лён, лоб, мох, ров, рот**(схватка со львом, виски со льдом)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) with **мной, мною**(со мной, со мною)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)with forms of tbe words &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**вошь, весь, всякий, всяческий, вторник, второй, второе, многие, многое** (со многими людьми, со всяким встречным)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5)with idioms:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; со вкусом (to do something ), со вниманием( attentively ), со временем (in the future)--со временем все наладится, со двора (уйти), со дна (достать), со дня на день (soon), со дня (as a point in time for counting)--со дня свадьбы прошел месяц.&#xD;&#xA;**But** : &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Фотографии с дня рождения.(taken on that very day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6)with **вчерашний** we use both с and со &#xD;&#xA;&gt;с вчерашнего дня и со вчерашнего дня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) Besides, **со** is used in solemn speech, archaic, folklore styles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;со товарищи, со Ильей со Муромцем, со крестом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, с днем рождения, фотографии с дня рождения,but:со дня рождения прошло несколько дней.со днем is archaic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.The sources are reliable :Розенталь and new.gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13370" RevisionGUID="3a7263ad-5ee2-4779-86b0-691a6ffc03da" CreationDate="2016-10-20T02:13:59.273" UserId="6725" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="It doesn't decline like a feminine noun. It declines like a noun of the first declension, which includes both masculine and feminine nouns ending in -а or -я. Examples of first declension masculine nouns are возница, старшина, дядя, папа, юноша. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13375" RevisionGUID="7f0ebda8-baf0-4a13-bf90-7567d640b028" CreationDate="2016-10-20T03:16:24.893" UserId="7537" Text="There is none, really, unless you _have to_ abide by a legal standard (e.g. when making a passport). People use whatever they think is right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the table on your link, I would suggest that the &quot;Passport (1997)&quot; is the most common and clear. (Newer passport standards are actually worse; they were made primarily to conform to the older ICAO standard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Scholarly is more common for the academic use; but for the same reason as yours (difficulty of typing) it is not commonly used elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, the differences between these systems are relatively minor, and all can be read with comparable difficulty. There are more drastic schemes where, for example, similarities between the scripts (glyphs) are used, e.g. `kolxo3` or even `ko/\xo3` (= `колхоз`), but please don't use them, it really sucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, reading translit is always a pain, and in this day and age there is little justification for using it in normal writing. There are enough online services ([for example](http://winrus.com/keyboard.htm)) that let you type Cyrillic text (using some form of a translit) live without installing a Russian keyboard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13376" RevisionGUID="51040072-52aa-412d-afa2-7a2df2023af8" CreationDate="2016-10-20T03:26:28.173" UserId="209" Text="Because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я скучаю по тебе - I miss you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;actually means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне скучно без тебя - I'm bored without you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13374" RevisionGUID="b100ede4-baa9-424c-bd1a-0c9f8e0e83c5" CreationDate="2016-10-20T07:19:43.030" UserId="6539" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Preposition **со** is used:&#xD;&#xA;1)before words which begin with *с,з,ш,ж + consonant* or with  consonant *щ*&#xD;&#xA;&gt;со славой, со звездой, со шкафа, со жгутом, со щами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)before the genitive and instrumental case of the following one-syllable words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**лев, лёд, лён, лоб, мох, ров, рот**(схватка со львом, виски со льдом)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) with **мной, мною**(со мной, со мною)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)with forms of tbe words &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**вошь, весь, всякий, всяческий, вторник, второй, второе, многие, многое** (со многими людьми, со всяким встречным)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5)with idioms:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; со вкусом (to do something ), со вниманием( attentively ), со временем (in the future)--со временем все наладится, со двора (уйти), со дна (достать), со дня на день (soon), со дня (as a point in time for counting)--со дня свадьбы прошел месяц.&#xD;&#xA;**But** : &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Фотографии с дня рождения.(taken on that very day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6)with **вчерашний** we use both с and со &#xD;&#xA;&gt;с вчерашнего дня и со вчерашнего дня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) Besides, **со** is used in solemn speech, archaic, humorous,folklore styles, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;со товарищи, со Ильей со Муромцем, со крестом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, с днем рождения, фотографии с дня рождения,but:со дня рождения прошло несколько дней.со днем is archaic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.The sources are reliable :Розенталь and new.gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="99599579-327f-4b9c-a9ca-b6404bfc2c58" CreationDate="2016-10-20T09:48:58.800" UserId="6354" Text="Take this sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но похоже, что русским настолько неприятна мысль о геморрое и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложностях, **связанных с его лечением**, что они решили называть этим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словом любые трудности, с которыми сталкиваются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume связанных is the prepositional plural of связанный, but is it a declension of связанный the adjective or связанный the past passive participle of the verb связать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="99599579-327f-4b9c-a9ca-b6404bfc2c58" CreationDate="2016-10-20T09:48:58.800" UserId="6354" Text="In &quot;связанных с его лечением&quot;, is связанных an adjective or verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="99599579-327f-4b9c-a9ca-b6404bfc2c58" CreationDate="2016-10-20T09:48:58.800" UserId="6354" Text="|грамматика|падежи|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13378" RevisionGUID="51cd29a9-7723-4084-ae5f-28caa8856b8b" CreationDate="2016-10-20T09:58:40.630" UserId="7386" Text="I would say this is &quot;the past passive participle of the verb связать&quot;. Actually, I might have lost some of my Russian grammar, but I feel that the word 'past' is redundant here as I struggle to think of a 'present passive participle' from 'связать'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13378" RevisionGUID="d9ef9bb3-32b6-49dc-b894-e2a28a43d2ce" CreationDate="2016-10-20T10:05:17.157" UserId="7386" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="I would say this is &quot;the past passive participle of the verb связать&quot;. Actually, I might have lost some of my Russian grammar, but I feel that the word 'past' is redundant here as I struggle to think of a 'present passive participle' from 'связать'.&#xD;&#xA;The construction is called 'причастный оборот', it follows the noun it relates to ('сложностях') and is embraced in commas.&#xD;&#xA;As for an adjective, the adjective would be placed _before_ the noun it relates to:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Его не покидала мысль о связанных пленных.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13380" RevisionGUID="63074ed9-5d43-43dc-a75a-fd17d2c723f7" CreationDate="2016-10-20T10:33:04.383" UserId="7674" Text="[an article on the difference between participles and adjectives][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;lists 5 counts of difference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Прилагательное является самостоятельной частью речи. Причастие представляет собой особую форму глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. `Прилагательные имеют разряды по значению и делятся на качественные, относительные и притяжательные. Причастия не имеют такой характеристики.`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Причастие обладает морфологическими признаками прилагательного и глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. У прилагательного глагольных признаков быть не может.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. `Прилагательные образуются от имен существительных. Причастия – от основы глагола.`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Прилагательные, в отличие от причастий, не могут иметь зависимых слов в предложении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging by these principles `связанный` is a participle &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thedifference.ru/otlichie-prilagatelnogo-ot-prichastiya/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13381" RevisionGUID="29a7e142-33ab-46bd-8e56-5913fe8ff584" CreationDate="2016-10-20T11:23:58.197" UserId="7864" Text="As far as I know, the transliteration system depends on the language into which you transliterate the Russian name. For example, [Пётр Ильич Чайковский](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9F%D1%91%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B8%D1%87) is transliterated as [Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky) in English, [Pjotr Iljitsch Tschaikowski](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pjotr_Iljitsch_Tschaikowski) in German, [Piotr Ilitch Tchaïkovski](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Ilitch_Tcha%C3%AFkovski) in French, [Piotr Ilich Chaikovski](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Ilich_Chaikovski) in Spanish, [Pëtr Il'ič Čajkovskij](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%ABtr_Il%27i%C4%8D_%C4%8Cajkovskij) in Italian, etc., etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the Wikipedia article [Romanization of Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian) you will notice that there are different transliteration system just for English, for example, the system used by the American Library Association and the Library of Congress ([ALA-LC](http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf)), British Standard [BS 2979:1958](http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000000090651), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passports are not the only area where consistent transliterations are important. Library catalogues are another one (although they can contain synonyms that &quot;redirect&quot; to the library's &quot;official&quot; transliteration system). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13381" RevisionGUID="f1c86d0a-28bb-4fee-9c4e-86ab318fe3a3" CreationDate="2016-10-20T11:29:42.790" UserId="7864" Comment="link to table &quot;Transliteration of the Russian alphabet&quot;" Text="As far as I know, the transliteration system depends on the language into which you transliterate the Russian name. For example, [Пётр Ильич Чайковский](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9F%D1%91%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B8%D1%87) is transliterated as [Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky) in English, [Pjotr Iljitsch Tschaikowski](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pjotr_Iljitsch_Tschaikowski) in German, [Piotr Ilitch Tchaïkovski](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Ilitch_Tcha%C3%AFkovski) in French, [Piotr Ilich Chaikovski](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Ilich_Chaikovski) in Spanish, [Pëtr Il'ič Čajkovskij](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%ABtr_Il%27i%C4%8D_%C4%8Cajkovskij) in Italian, etc., etc. [**Transliteration of the Russian alphabet**](http://www.boutler.de/translit/trans.htm) contains a comparative overview of translitations of Cyrillic in 12 languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the Wikipedia article [Romanization of Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian) you will notice that there are different transliteration system just for English, for example, the system used by the American Library Association and the Library of Congress ([ALA-LC](http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf)), British Standard [BS 2979:1958](http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000000090651), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passports are not the only area where consistent transliterations are important. Library catalogues are another one (although they can contain synonyms that &quot;redirect&quot; to the library's &quot;official&quot; transliteration system). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13382" RevisionGUID="119eb84c-36ed-411a-bdb8-e387c88a7c26" CreationDate="2016-10-20T15:27:35.817" UserId="134" Text="You cannot form an adjective from a perfective verb, only a participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some idiomatic adjectives (*назва&amp;#x301;ный, смышлёный, посажёный*) which are historically perfective participles, however, they are fossils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Связанный* is a participle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13378" RevisionGUID="b7ce1121-454b-4150-807a-fc6c2ff3ed78" CreationDate="2016-10-20T16:16:00.323" UserId="7386" Comment="deleted 129 characters in body" Text="I would say this is &quot;the past passive participle of the verb связать&quot;. Actually, I might have lost some of my Russian grammar, but I feel that the word 'past' is redundant here as I struggle to think of a 'present passive participle' from 'связать'.&#xD;&#xA;The construction is called 'причастный оборот', it follows the noun it relates to ('сложностях') and is embraced in commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31516" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13372" RevisionGUID="1225598a-3ad4-4a83-a02b-490086d554e2" CreationDate="2016-10-20T18:45:59.640" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/789175850058993664" />
  <row Id="31517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="3ff11348-51a0-43c7-baea-5fb25ce3b91b" CreationDate="2016-10-20T19:53:57.213" UserId="242" Text="There's an English [expression][1] &quot;to put somebody on the spot&quot; which, among other meanings includes following one: &quot;to ask someone forthright questions&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if you are asking someone about some hard decision he/she was supposed to make, an answer can be: &quot;Don't put me on the spot, I have not decided anything yet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - what will be the best match in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;Off the top of my head it's something like &quot;не хочется вам досаждать / вас пытать раньше времени&quot; but I guess there are some better alternatives out there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+on+the+spot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="3ff11348-51a0-43c7-baea-5fb25ce3b91b" CreationDate="2016-10-20T19:53:57.213" UserId="242" Text="How to say &quot;to put you on the spot&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="3ff11348-51a0-43c7-baea-5fb25ce3b91b" CreationDate="2016-10-20T19:53:57.213" UserId="242" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13384" RevisionGUID="29f70d48-12f0-4ab1-9627-425aa6906d91" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:01:10.150" UserId="7945" Text="In South Park episodes, Kenny's mom usually wears a t-shirt which says &quot;I'm with stupid&quot;, and an arrow pointing towards a person standing next to her.  How would you translate &quot;I'm with stupid&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13384" RevisionGUID="29f70d48-12f0-4ab1-9627-425aa6906d91" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:01:10.150" UserId="7945" Text="как перевести &quot;I'm with stupid&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13384" RevisionGUID="29f70d48-12f0-4ab1-9627-425aa6906d91" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:01:10.150" UserId="7945" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13385" RevisionGUID="41860448-d96d-40ee-a464-0a4bee175979" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:09:40.160" UserId="7674" Text="if i get the meaning of the phrase, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вот с этим дурачком   &#xD;&#xA;OR   &#xD;&#xA;Этот дурачок - со мной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem with this rendering is that it's not unisex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;one way to circumvent this limitation is to use a unisex pejorative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вот с этим чучелом  &#xD;&#xA;OR   &#xD;&#xA;Это чучело - со мной&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13385" RevisionGUID="61452e8e-063c-414f-8870-adfc0d1ed6ce" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:19:05.470" UserId="7674" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="if i get the meaning of the phrase, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я согласен с этим дурачком   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem with this rendering is that it's not unisex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to circumvent this limitation a unisex pejorative may be used, but the adjective is still gender specific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я согласен с этим чучелом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more wordy but gender neurtal version would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы единомышленники с этим чучелом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31525" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13384" RevisionGUID="27118108-74b1-49db-b8dc-49b6ba0b6214" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:20:03.777" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Как перевести &quot;I'm with stupid&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="06161d2a-d310-4653-9d27-af65c8212539" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:32:06.520" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Ставить в неловкое положение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Загонять в тупик" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13385" RevisionGUID="3c0028f0-362a-4463-90c8-6ceed328eb81" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:35:43.433" UserId="7674" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="if i get [the meaning][1] of the phrase, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я согласен с этим дурачком   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem with this rendering is that it's not unisex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to circumvent this limitation a unisex pejorative may be used, but the adjective is still gender specific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я согласен с этим чучелом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more wordy but gender neurtal version would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы единомышленники с этим чучелом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/166704/why-does-im-with-stupid-have-a-positive-connotation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="85e0755f-97e4-4a06-83b1-e72efcf4b8be" CreationDate="2016-10-20T20:38:53.790" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="&gt; Ставить в неловкое положение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Загонять в тупик&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Припереть к стен(к)е" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31529" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13368" RevisionGUID="ae90c149-614b-4d4c-89f0-f09e60fc3a75" CreationDate="2016-10-20T21:16:42.313" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12895],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="9b552f2e-0205-434d-9fb3-5e29f2ee302d" CreationDate="2016-10-21T03:46:00.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/789311747035463680" />
  <row Id="31531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13386" RevisionGUID="f0897b2f-9839-4492-a0ae-2eb79e2c26b2" CreationDate="2016-10-21T06:53:44.000" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Ставить в неловкое положение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Загонять в угол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Припереть к стен(к)е" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31532" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13377" RevisionGUID="0b2f83b5-d18e-4ad3-b1c2-96c4d1456900" CreationDate="2016-10-21T07:16:12.897" UserId="6354" Comment="More clear title" Text="In &quot;связанных с его лечением&quot;, is связанных an adjective or a participle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13387" RevisionGUID="ec666f80-995a-4a4b-9f74-d96f2238916e" CreationDate="2016-10-21T08:32:04.617" UserId="6274" Text="The verb `убраться` in the meaning &quot;to clean something&quot; is marked in the dictionary as vernacular. So both the constructions are synonymous but only one of them could be accepted in a weel-edited newspaper, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb `учить` is rather more literal than `учиться`. It's more concentrated in the process of learning: sitting at home and repeating the words or rules. `Учиться` in such conctructions rather means &quot;he spent some time with the subject and got useful knowledge&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference is not so actual for languages (because learning languages is alsways hard), but could be more noticeable with math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он учил математику 6 лет &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;really means that he visited the lectures, learned rooles and read books, so made something visible. And he himself invested in this **process** really much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он учился математике 6 лет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means that he also learned math but the speaker is more concentrated on the **fact** that &quot;he&quot; was learning something. but theoretically maybe it was without books and he got all his knowledge &quot;from the air&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13388" RevisionGUID="ecdbcbda-f8e4-4f2a-ba62-61cd02778c03" CreationDate="2016-10-21T08:46:33.710" UserId="5443" Text="Russian speakers usually *don't include themselves* into such an expression. The second meaning of it if written on a T-shirt ('my companion is stupid' or 'I accompany this psycho' - *этот придурок - со мной*) is lost here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этот придурок прав (= а ведь прав этот придурок)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; тупой, а соображает (= он хоть и тупой, а иногда соображает)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit *different* situation, but it is more typical in Russian to indulgently agree with a stupid person in *anything* they do or say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... И не оспоривай глупца. (А.С. Пушкин, &quot;Памятник&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; что с него (дурака) возьмёшь?!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; дуракам закон не писан" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13391" RevisionGUID="031b56b1-1331-4a5d-bc7d-ff2a95edb690" CreationDate="2016-10-21T16:32:32.743" UserId="3713" Text="Don't put me on the spot, I have not decided anything yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не дави на меня, я еще не решил/определился." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13392" RevisionGUID="1d28ea76-a488-4963-9403-fc0410d7910d" CreationDate="2016-10-21T17:24:17.923" UserId="3713" Text="С/cо днем пришла метель и пурга == (С наступившим днем/вместе с днем) пришла метель и пурга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Со/c вчерашнего дня, метель и пурга все никак не могли успокоиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V.V. pointed some rules out, and it feels like there is slight difference, but if there are some practical reasons (like outside noises,  difficulties to pronounce(cold, tongue is frozen and not flexible enough)) to say со дня, со днем - it will be perfectly fine to say in that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although there will be a difference in pronunciation, &quot;со дня&quot; is more fused pronunciation &quot;содня&quot;, where &quot;с дня&quot; more separate(not necessary, but kinda tends to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it gets about writing, &quot;o&quot; is just a letter we do not need much in that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So answering - &quot;do you feel a difference between с днём and со днём?&quot; - yes, I do, but for me this difference have more practical sense as difficulties of pronunciation and laziness to write in first place. And that &quot;с дня&quot; is more &quot;the day/this particular day as object&quot; and &quot;со дня&quot; is more like period of time, since particular day. Although in most cases(which I come-up at the moment) с/со are interchangeable in usage with word день. (I would like to see example where it is not)  &#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;со дня&quot; is more relaxed, &quot;с дня&quot; is more city style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="807c3b43-0abf-40e5-af36-175ee49de39d" CreationDate="2016-10-21T18:11:30.320" UserId="6722" Text="While reading a newspaper, I came across the word **двушку-хрущевку**, and had a question concerning it. The full sentence reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquoteквартплата за двушку-хрущевку- — 2,5-4,5 тысячи в месяц&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the word **хрущевкa**, and it said that it is one of those pre-fabricated concrete apartment buildings built during the time of Xрущев. And my guess is that the **двушку** refers to it being two bedrooms. I was wondering if there are any other common ways to refer to these type of buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="807c3b43-0abf-40e5-af36-175ee49de39d" CreationDate="2016-10-21T18:11:30.320" UserId="6722" Text="Meaning and usage of двушку-хрущевку" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="807c3b43-0abf-40e5-af36-175ee49de39d" CreationDate="2016-10-21T18:11:30.320" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13394" RevisionGUID="74f62802-e597-4288-b24d-0833fac721a4" CreationDate="2016-10-21T18:54:12.137" UserId="7674" Text="not exactly `bedrooms`, just two rooms, `a living room + a bedroom` constitute а `двушка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another way is too verbose and thus uncommon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дом хрущёвской постройки`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if by `concrete` you mean `constructed of panels`, it's not the only type of `хрущёвкa` as there're brick-made `хрущёвки` as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13394" RevisionGUID="d6b9d335-de11-4d83-9bc9-370f7088c2c0" CreationDate="2016-10-21T19:02:02.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 333 characters in body" Text="not exactly `bedrooms`, just two rooms, `a living room + a bedroom` constitute а `двушка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just to clarify `хрущёвка` refers to the type of building, not to an apartment, but for convenience of brevity it all has been lumped into a single term which includes designation of both the type of an apartment and the type of building&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another way is too verbose and thus uncommon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дом хрущёвской постройки`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the complete term unpacked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`двухкомнатная квартира в доме хрущёвской постройки`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another point is that if by `concrete` you mean `constructed of panels`, it's not the only type of `хрущёвкa` as there're brick-made `хрущёвки` as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13394" RevisionGUID="077bab49-ec36-47ee-8d05-a886ed2d2a1f" CreationDate="2016-10-21T19:16:03.820" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Not exactly `bedrooms`, just two rooms, `a living room + a bedroom` constitute а `двушка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to clarify `хрущёвка` refers to the type of building, not to an apartment, but for convenience of brevity it all has been lumped into a single term which includes designation of both the type of an apartment and the type of building&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way is too verbose and thus uncommon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дом хрущёвской постройки`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the complete term unpacked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`двухкомнатная квартира в доме хрущёвской постройки`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point is that if by `concrete` you mean `constructed of panels`, it's not the only type of `хрущёвкa` as there're brick-made `хрущёвки` as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13395" RevisionGUID="d709e470-18be-4e3a-88b8-07b63c8148bf" CreationDate="2016-10-21T22:19:22.847" UserId="7948" Text="As the title says, why are the surname and patronymic formed from Яков Яковлев and Яковлевич instead of *Яковов and *Яковович? Where did this **-л-** come from? Is it simply because Яковлев(ич) is more euphonious than *Яковов(ич)? If so, аre there other examples where words or names formed from a root add an **-л-** through the same process by which it was added to Яков?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, am I correct in thinking -л- was chosen for the same reasons -л- shows up in certain first-person verb conjugations, i.e. оставить --&gt; остав**л**ю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо заранее." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13395" RevisionGUID="d709e470-18be-4e3a-88b8-07b63c8148bf" CreationDate="2016-10-21T22:19:22.847" UserId="7948" Text="Why Яковлев/Яковлевич with the intrusive -л-?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13395" RevisionGUID="d709e470-18be-4e3a-88b8-07b63c8148bf" CreationDate="2016-10-21T22:19:22.847" UserId="7948" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13396" RevisionGUID="e16df14f-bd51-44ed-8aab-9588ed90650d" CreationDate="2016-10-22T00:28:08.810" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Also, am I correct in thinking -л- was chosen for the same reasons -л- shows up in certain first-person verb conjugations, i.e. оставить --&gt; оставлю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly, this is so called &quot;epenthetic l&quot;. It was inserted in Proto-Slavic between a labial consonant and *j*, and is common for East Slavic languages in all positions, and all Slavic languages in the first syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why we have word pairs like *земля / земной*, *рубль / рубить*, *травля / травить* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If so, аre there other examples where words or names formed from a root add an -л- through the same process by which it was added to Яков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any root ending in a labial (*б*, *п*, *в*, *ф*, *м*) would add it if the paradigm requires putting a *j* after it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm which gave *Яковлевич* is not productive anymore, however you can see it fossilized in the names like *Ярославль, Переяслявль, Лихославль* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take any productive paradigm, say, the one you mentioned, we can see it applies even to the words borrowed long after the Proto-Slavic split: *графить / графлю / графлёный* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13397" RevisionGUID="8f728ab3-c39b-4163-bfe2-060540a022e4" CreationDate="2016-10-22T05:46:05.037" UserId="6539" Text="Surnames and patronimic names were formed with suffixes. The mystery of the surnames Ивлев(Иевлев) and Яковлев is explained in the book by **Убенгаун Б.О. Русские фамилии**. They were  not formed directly from Christian names (Яков, Иов), but from the adjective with the suffix -л(ь)- meaning &quot;belonging to &quot;(Яковль, Иевль). We can still see this suffix in the names of old Russian cities (Ярославль-belonging to Ярослав (the king). They say the usage of two patronimic suffixes helped to avoid pronunciation difficulties.(-овов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Яков--Яковль--Яковлев--Яковлевич." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="ba435980-8254-4dfc-9874-ae35c26b686d" CreationDate="2016-10-22T13:03:38.773" UserId="5375" Text="How do you say &quot;borrow&quot; or &quot;lend&quot; in Russian? My dictionary gives a number of different expressions, but I'm not sure if they are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - одолжить&#xD;&#xA; - дать/брать взаймы&#xD;&#xA; - дать/брать в долг&#xD;&#xA; - дать/брать на время&#xD;&#xA; - занять&#xD;&#xA; - заимствовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all words and expressions which my dictionary lists as translations of &quot;borrow&quot; or &quot;lend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that &quot;дать/брать в долг&quot; specifically refers to lending/borrowing money; but what about the rest? What is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="ba435980-8254-4dfc-9874-ae35c26b686d" CreationDate="2016-10-22T13:03:38.773" UserId="5375" Text="&quot;Borrow&quot; and &quot;lend&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="ba435980-8254-4dfc-9874-ae35c26b686d" CreationDate="2016-10-22T13:03:38.773" UserId="5375" Text="|перевод|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13400" RevisionGUID="a34dba08-cd63-4391-a674-53b74fa35ac0" CreationDate="2016-10-22T13:20:13.440" UserId="5605" Text="ОДОЛЖИТЬ, -жу, -жишь; -олженный; совершенный вид 1. что кому. Дать взаймы. Одолжить кому-нибудь деньги до зарплаты [неправильно употр. одолжить у кого-нибудь в значение “взять в долг”]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13400" RevisionGUID="1c2dfea4-c58e-4c5c-99f5-a1ef319ceece" CreationDate="2016-10-22T13:26:20.837" UserId="5605" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="**ОДОЛЖИТЬ**, -жу, -жишь; -олженный; совершенный вид 1. что кому. **Дать взаймы. Одолжить кому-нибудь деньги** до зарплаты [неправильно употр. одолжить у кого-нибудь в значение “взять в долг”].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Занять** - **Взять на время, взаймы.**&#xD;&#xA;Надо занять денег, потому что будет много расходов. Л. Толстой, Анна Каренина.&#xD;&#xA;[Дуся] с мелким жемчугом заколку У подруги заняла. Жаров, Варя Одинцова." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="36184169-b6f2-4000-8024-ebf746616125" CreationDate="2016-10-22T14:04:22.083" UserId="6725" Text=" - **Одолжить** means &quot;to lend&quot;, can refer to money or to anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Можешь одолжить мне 1000 рублей до понедельника?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Could you lend me 1000 roubles until Monday?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Often this word is used incorrectly in the opposite meaning,&quot;to borrow&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Я одолжила у него 1000 рублей до понедельника.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `I borrowed 1000 roubles until Monday from him.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     This is considered **wrong**, but is still common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Занять** is the opposite to **одолжить**, means &quot;to borrow&quot;. It also can refer to money and any kind of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Займи у кого-нибудь 5000 рублей до моей зарплаты, пожалуйста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Please borrow 5000 roubles from someone until I get my salary.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This word is also often used **incorrectly** in the opposite meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Займи мне 500 рублей, пожалуйста!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Lend me 500 roubles, please!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать взаймы** means &quot;to lend&quot;, and **взять взаймы** - &quot;to borrow&quot;. Both refer mostly either to money or to consumables, but usually not to things that are expected to be used for some time and then returned intact. These expressions seem to become a bit outdated nowadays, but are still in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Он дал мне взаймы 5000 рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *He lended me 5000 roubles.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Я взяла у соседей взаймы мешок муки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *I borrowed a sack of flour from my neighbours.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать/взять в долг** is similar to **дать/взять взаймы**, but refers mostly to money and isn't outdated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать/взять на время**, and also **Дать/взять напрокат**  means &quot;to lend/borrow&quot; when talking about items that are supposed to be returned intact. Not used for money and consumables.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Можешь дать мне на время свою тетрадь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *Could you lend me your notebook?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Я взяла у мамы напрокат швейную машинку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *I borrowed a sewing-machine from my mother.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Заимствовать** usually means &quot;to borrow without return&quot;. It can refer not only to money and items, but also to non-material things, like cultural elements, technologies, words, and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Римляне заимствовали свою мифологию у греков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *Romans borrowed their mythology from Greeks.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - В русском языке много слов, заимствованных из французского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *There are many words borrowed from Frenc in Russian language.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13402" RevisionGUID="d8efac4e-d8bd-4488-9be5-f6ff0f0e3f2d" CreationDate="2016-10-22T14:04:24.750" UserId="4560" Text="**одолжить** – the most generic one, working both ways (&quot;borrow&quot; is `одолжить у кого-либо`, &quot;lend&quot; is `одолжить кому-либо`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**дать/брать взаймы** – money only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**дать/брать в долг** – money only; more likely to refer to borrowing/lending in the abstract than to a specific instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**дать/брать на время** – I wouldn't even call this a set expression, it just seems to spell out how borrowing/lending works for any who may be unfamiliar with the idea or not quite sure it's what is meant. Can't think of where it would be particularly useful outside of the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**занять** – money only again, and properly &quot;borrow&quot; only. You will also hear it with the dative meaning &quot;lend&quot;, but don't use it this way anywhere that style matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**заимствовать** is for metaphorical borrowing (of words, concepts, story plots, cultural customs, etc.) It *can't* be used in reverse to talk about metaphorical lending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="9af13731-8e29-4f0f-9a6b-13d0b8281765" CreationDate="2016-10-22T14:11:20.877" UserId="6725" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text=" - **Одолжить** means &quot;to lend&quot;, can refer to money or to anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Можешь одолжить мне 1000 рублей до понедельника?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Could you lend me 1000 roubles until Monday?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Often this word is used incorrectly in the opposite meaning,&quot;to borrow&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Я одолжила у него 1000 рублей до понедельника.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `I borrowed 1000 roubles until Monday from him.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     This is considered **wrong**, but is still common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Занять** is the opposite to **одолжить**, means &quot;to borrow&quot;. It also can refer to money and any kind of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Займи у кого-нибудь 5000 рублей до моей зарплаты, пожалуйста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Please borrow 5000 roubles from someone until I get my salary.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This word is also often used **incorrectly** in the opposite meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Займи мне 500 рублей, пожалуйста!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Lend me 500 roubles, please!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать взаймы** means &quot;to lend&quot;, and **взять взаймы** - &quot;to borrow&quot;. Both refer mostly either to money or to consumables, but usually not to things that are expected to be used for some time and then returned intact. These expressions seem to become a bit outdated nowadays, but are still in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Он дал мне взаймы 5000 рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *He lended me 5000 roubles.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Я взяла у соседей взаймы мешок муки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *I borrowed a sack of flour from my neighbours.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать/взять в долг** is similar to **дать/взять взаймы**, but refers mostly to money and isn't outdated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать/взять на время**, and also **дать/взять напрокат**  means &quot;to lend/borrow&quot; when talking about items that are supposed to be returned intact. Not used for money and consumables.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Можешь дать мне на время свою тетрадь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *Could you lend me your notebook?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Я взяла у мамы напрокат швейную машинку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *I borrowed a sewing-machine from my mother.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Заимствовать** usually means &quot;to borrow without return&quot;. It can refer not only to money and items, but also to non-material things, like cultural elements, technologies, words, and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Римляне заимствовали свою мифологию у греков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *Romans borrowed their mythology from Greeks.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - В русском языке много слов, заимствованных из французского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *There are many words borrowed from French in Russian language.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="173c09b5-4172-4a0a-94e8-1586edccfcc1" CreationDate="2016-10-22T15:01:08.347" UserId="7948" Text="Let's take a very simple sentence like *Меня зовут Анна.* While typically translated as &quot;My name is Anna&quot; a more literal translation would be, &quot;They call me Anna,&quot; correct? Меня is the accusative, or direct object of the verb, зовут is the third-person plural form of звать, and Анна is the nominative form of the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this: Why is _Анна_ in the nominative and not an oblique case? Isn't the (implied) subject of the sentence _они_, since the third-person plural form of the verb is used, and not _Анна_? *(Они) Меня зовут Анна.* This would give the sentence two subjects, one explicit (_Анна_) and one implicit (_они_), wouldn't it? If this is the case, is it common to have sentences with other verbs where this situation exists (i.e. using the implicit &quot;they&quot; conjugation of a verb and an explicit noun in the nominative simultaneously)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="173c09b5-4172-4a0a-94e8-1586edccfcc1" CreationDate="2016-10-22T15:01:08.347" UserId="7948" Text="Regarding case usage with звать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="173c09b5-4172-4a0a-94e8-1586edccfcc1" CreationDate="2016-10-22T15:01:08.347" UserId="7948" Text="|грамматика|падежи|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13404" RevisionGUID="969b4d6a-b735-49ab-96b0-cf2a38049a16" CreationDate="2016-10-22T15:31:21.690" UserId="6816" Text="I believe Анна is not the subject, but rather a quoted word. In other words you could rephrase it as `Меня зовут &quot;Анна.&quot;`&#xA;&#xA;It is true that the third person alone can be used as an alternative to the passive voice. Like in English saying `&quot;They play this song a lot.&quot;` rather than `&quot;This song is played a lot.&quot;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13405" RevisionGUID="154ac511-6f24-4118-8640-648b587a2757" CreationDate="2016-10-22T15:41:12.800" UserId="7674" Text="which oblique case would you suggest being appropriate here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the necessity of the Nominative case of the name `Анна` i'd explain using a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Меня зовут как? - They call me (as) what?` and the answer calls for the Nominative i guess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to have an oblique case the phrase can be changed into `Меня зовут Анной`, this is a totally legitimate form which has unfortunately become pretty obsolete &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would answer the question `Меня зовут (называют) кем? - The call me as whom?`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13405" RevisionGUID="9bc3c4f3-50d6-48e9-9b2a-2d1f4ad1e2da" CreationDate="2016-10-22T15:48:47.417" UserId="7674" Comment="added 334 characters in body" Text="which oblique case would you suggest being appropriate here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the necessity of the Nominative case of the name `Анна` i'd explain using a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Меня зовут как? - They call me (as) what?` and the answer calls for the Nominative i guess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to have an oblique case the phrase can be changed into `Меня зовут Анной`, this is a totally legitimate form which has unfortunately become pretty obsolete &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would answer the question `Меня зовут (называют) кем? - The call me as whom?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another rule which i think is related is that it's correct to keep names in the Nominal when the noun of the object they belong to gets declined&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в город**е** Москв**а**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; instead of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в город**е** Москв**е**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although in speech this rule is rarely adhered to due to i think inconvenience, but logically it's sound " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13405" RevisionGUID="80ee8e9e-4ec3-44d7-b4ff-7e79314b713e" CreationDate="2016-10-22T17:17:02.237" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="which oblique case would you suggest being appropriate here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the necessity of the Nominative case of the name `Анна` i'd explain using a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Меня зовут как? - They call me (as) what?` and the answer calls for the Nominative i guess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to have an oblique case the phrase can be changed into `Меня зовут Анной`, this is a totally legitimate form which has unfortunately become pretty obsolete &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would answer the question `Меня зовут (называют) кем? - They call me as whom?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another rule which i think is related is that it's correct to keep names in the Nominal when the noun of the object they belong to gets declined&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в город**е** Москв**а**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; instead of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в город**е** Москв**е**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although in speech this rule is rarely adhered to due to i think inconvenience, but logically it's sound " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13406" RevisionGUID="4cf0cc95-a6b6-4489-bfd2-a3498c43a330" CreationDate="2016-10-22T17:44:42.130" UserId="3892" Text="I came across the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **даже и** заме́длил до 85% и то не разобра́л текст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and wondered if the **и** is optional here, or if there are cases where the combination **даже и** has a special meaning. In my understanding, both **дажe** and **и** basically share the meaning of *even*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13406" RevisionGUID="4cf0cc95-a6b6-4489-bfd2-a3498c43a330" CreationDate="2016-10-22T17:44:42.130" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of дажe и vs just даже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13406" RevisionGUID="4cf0cc95-a6b6-4489-bfd2-a3498c43a330" CreationDate="2016-10-22T17:44:42.130" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|particles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13407" RevisionGUID="3f26b093-d66b-415d-bcd0-22095ed2cfc6" CreationDate="2016-10-22T17:57:43.670" UserId="7674" Text="without the context it's not completely clear what this combination is suppose to connote, but i would guess that what's superfluous here is `даже`, whereas `и` could indicate that `slowing down` was another action among a few he undertook in order to see the text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but generally speaking this combination is an example of redundancy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13407" RevisionGUID="02cd8844-a676-40db-a7c7-508e465d9c40" CreationDate="2016-10-22T17:59:57.327" UserId="7674" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="without the context it's not completely clear what this combination is suppose to connote, but i would guess that what's superfluous here is `даже`, whereas `и` could indicate that `slowing down` was another action among a few he undertook in order to hear the text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if however he only meant that he specifically had made sure to hear the text by slowing down, then that's `и` which is superfluous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but generally speaking this combination is an example of redundancy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13401" RevisionGUID="c8364f1d-022a-4a9c-aeaa-23b4cc2ed8f4" CreationDate="2016-10-22T18:42:53.057" UserId="6725" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text=" - **Одолжить** means &quot;to lend&quot;, can refer to money or to anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Можешь одолжить мне 1000 рублей до понедельника?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Could you lend me 1000 roubles until Monday?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Often this word is used incorrectly in the opposite meaning,&quot;to borrow&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Я одолжила у него 1000 рублей до понедельника.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `I borrowed 1000 roubles until Monday from him.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     This is considered **wrong** by dictionaries and other official sources (for example, http://ozhegov.info/slovar/?ex=Y&amp;q=%D0%9E%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%96%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%AC), but is still commonly used in real life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Занять** is the opposite to **одолжить**, means &quot;to borrow&quot;. It also can refer to money and any kind of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Займи у кого-нибудь 5000 рублей до моей зарплаты, пожалуйста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Please borrow 5000 roubles from someone until I get my salary.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This word is also often used **incorrectly** in the opposite meaning (the same situation as in case of &quot;одолжить&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Займи мне 500 рублей, пожалуйста!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     `Lend me 500 roubles, please!`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать взаймы** means &quot;to lend&quot;, and **взять взаймы** - &quot;to borrow&quot;. Both refer mostly either to money or to consumables, but usually not to things that are expected to be used for some time and then returned intact. These expressions seem to become a bit outdated nowadays, but are still in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Он дал мне взаймы 5000 рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *He lended me 5000 roubles.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Я взяла у соседей взаймы мешок муки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *I borrowed a sack of flour from my neighbours.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать/взять в долг** is similar to **дать/взять взаймы**, but refers mostly to money and isn't outdated at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Дать/взять на время**, and also **дать/взять напрокат**  means &quot;to lend/borrow&quot; when talking about items that are supposed to be returned intact. Not used for money and consumables.&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Можешь дать мне на время свою тетрадь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *Could you lend me your notebook?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Я взяла у мамы напрокат швейную машинку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *I borrowed a sewing-machine from my mother.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Заимствовать** usually means &quot;to borrow without return&quot;. It can refer not only to money and items, but also to non-material things, like cultural elements, technologies, words, and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - Римляне заимствовали свою мифологию у греков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *Romans borrowed their mythology from Greeks.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; - В русском языке много слов, заимствованных из французского.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;  *There are many words borrowed from French in Russian language.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13408" RevisionGUID="45109a40-ab41-4f2e-8379-77bc4ea4ac42" CreationDate="2016-10-22T20:12:03.167" UserId="6539" Text="An article from Толковый словарь русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;ЗВАТЬ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. кого (что) кем или им., или (при вопросе) как**. Именовать, называть.to call &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отец зовёт сына **Ванюшей (Ванюша**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **зовут, звали и (прост.) звать кого кем или им., или (при вопросе) как.** Указывает на личное имя кого-нибудь shows a name of the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как тебя зовут (звать)? Мальчика зовут **Вася (Васей)**. Этого человека звали **Иван Иванович (Иваном Ивановичем)** &#xD;&#xA;As you see, both variants are valid.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13409" RevisionGUID="895ea6d9-528f-4986-8e96-62720f3820c9" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:26:45.557" UserDisplayName="user7955" Text="What the difference between ь and ъ? Why Russians use these?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13409" RevisionGUID="895ea6d9-528f-4986-8e96-62720f3820c9" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:26:45.557" UserDisplayName="user7955" Text="Difference between ь and ъ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13409" RevisionGUID="895ea6d9-528f-4986-8e96-62720f3820c9" CreationDate="2016-10-23T15:26:45.557" UserDisplayName="user7955" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13410" RevisionGUID="6ee3d48f-426f-44c9-86b0-2003a32cab0e" CreationDate="2016-10-23T16:56:17.473" UserId="7386" Text="Have you tried reading about them? On wiki, for example: [Russian alphabet][1], [Ъ][2], [Ь][3]  &#xA;Your second question does not make sense, really. They are used because they must be used for the correct spelling.  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_alphabet&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ъ&#xA;  [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13411" RevisionGUID="9908ae14-ffa8-4d1a-afe1-efd6368db1cf" CreationDate="2016-10-23T22:09:04.103" UserId="2079" Text="Both letters change the pronuncation of preceding and/or succeeding letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мягкий знак (ь) смягчает предшествующую согласную (а если она должна быть мягкой из-за того, что после неё стоит е,ё,и,ю,я , то она мягкой и остаётся). Если за мягким знаком следует гласная, она йотируется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твёрдый знак (ъ) делает предшествующую согласную твёрдой и йотирует следующую за ним гласную. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что такое смягчать согласную? Послушайте слова `кон` и `конь` и сравните звучание буквы `н`.  Сравните звучание буквы `л` в словах `больно` и `полно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что такое йотировать гласную?  Сравните звучание буквы `я` в словах `Коля` и `колья`, буквы `е` в словах `въезд` и `весть`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31583" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="ea34766a-538c-4a30-8507-7dbd85c23eb5" CreationDate="2016-10-24T04:06:55.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/790404176488595456" />
  <row Id="31584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13399" RevisionGUID="694a2d5b-18c4-4dc3-aa0f-1c1bfb779b7d" CreationDate="2016-10-24T07:08:20.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/790449831693213696" />
  <row Id="31585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13405" RevisionGUID="e3afcf12-c02a-4573-ae14-a260bbfafdd6" CreationDate="2016-10-24T07:28:21.493" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 340 characters in body" Text="which oblique case would you suggest being appropriate here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the necessity of the Nominative case of the name `Анна` i'd explain using a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Меня зовут как? - They call me (as) what?` and the answer calls for the Nominative i guess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to have an oblique case the phrase can be changed into `Меня зовут Анной`, this is a totally legitimate form which has unfortunately become pretty obsolete &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would answer the question `Меня зовут (называют) кем? - They call me as whom?`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13412" RevisionGUID="690deaeb-72df-4346-836e-36a8c9bcfb5f" CreationDate="2016-10-24T07:34:40.380" UserId="6539" Text="Твёрдый знак выполняет в русском языке разделительную функцию — указывает, что после согласного йотированная гласная буква обозначает не мягкость согласного, а два звука: я — [й’а], е — [й’э], ё — [й’о], ю — [й’у] (объять [абй’́ат’], съест [сй’эст], съёмка [сй’́омка]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Функции мягкого знака сложнее. Он имеет в русском языке три функции — разделительную, функцию обозначения самостоятельной мягкости парных согласных, грамматическую функцию:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Мягкий знак может выполнять аналогичную разделительную функцию перед я, ю, е, ё, и внутри слова не после приставки (вьюга, соловьиный) и в некоторых иноязычных словах перед о: (бульон, компаньон). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мягкий знак может служить для обозначения самостоятельной мягкости парного согласного на конце слова и в середине слова перед согласным:конь, банька.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мягкий знак после непарного по твёрдости / мягкости согласного может выполнять грамматическую функцию — пишется по традиции в определённых грамматических формах, не неся никакой фонетической нагрузки (ср.: ключ — ночь, учится — учиться). При этом мягкий знак не обозначает мягкости не только у непарных твёрдых, но и у непарных мягких согласных. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13413" RevisionGUID="ab6fcbcc-d3b5-4694-a5cb-cc42354138a8" CreationDate="2016-10-24T08:04:40.910" UserId="5443" Text="The sentence doesn't sound correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The combination &quot;*даже + и*&quot; is not typical (unlike **хотя и**, **ещё и**, etc.), at least it doesn't work in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Замедлил is a typical *transitive* verb and it needs a direct object used *explicitly* here (like 'scrolling', 'browsing')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я даже замедлил скорость (прокрутки) до 85%, **и то** (or *но так и*) **не** разобрал текст.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже замедлив скорость до 85%, я (так и) не разобрал текст.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Хотя** я **и** замедлил скорость до 85%, я **так и не** разобрал текст.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я (даже) замедлил скорость до 85%, но **всё равно** (or *но так и*) **не** разобрал текст.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я, **хотя и** замедлил скорость до 85%, **так и не** разобрал текст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **ещё и** [*= вдобавок к прочим усилиям*] замедлил скорость (прокрутки) до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 85%,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; но **всё равно не** разобрал текст." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13412" RevisionGUID="cdc19a91-4c50-4378-89d3-928bc08ed710" CreationDate="2016-10-24T08:55:09.247" UserId="6539" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Твёрдый знак выполняет в русском языке **разделительную функцию** — указывает, что *после согласного йотированная гласная буква обозначает не мягкость согласного, а два звука*: я — [й’а], е — [й’э], ё — [й’о], ю — [й’у] (объять [абй’́ат’], съест [сй’эст], съёмка [сй’́омка]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Функции мягкого знака сложнее. Он имеет в русском языке три функции — **разделительную, функцию обозначения самостоятельной мягкости парных согласных, грамматическую функцию**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Мягкий знак может выполнять аналогичную разделительную функцию перед я, ю, е, ё, и внутри слова не после приставки (вьюга, соловьиный) и в некоторых иноязычных словах перед о: (бульон, компаньон). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мягкий знак может служить для обозначения самостоятельной мягкости парного согласного на конце слова и в середине слова перед согласным:конь, банька.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мягкий знак после непарного по твёрдости / мягкости согласного может выполнять грамматическую функцию — пишется по традиции в определённых грамматических формах, не неся никакой фонетической нагрузки (ср.: ключ — ночь, учится — учиться). При этом мягкий знак не обозначает мягкости не только у непарных твёрдых, но и у непарных мягких согласных. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31596" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13406" RevisionGUID="1889ca97-8938-4a40-85c9-59bb33a9794a" CreationDate="2016-10-25T07:13:35.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/790813539996987392" />
  <row Id="31597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13409" RevisionGUID="d9d31c02-28eb-4ec8-aee9-3ab1f704ff84" CreationDate="2016-10-25T07:20:00.020" UserId="7267" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="What is the difference between ь and ъ? Why do Russians use these letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31598" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13409" RevisionGUID="d9d31c02-28eb-4ec8-aee9-3ab1f704ff84" CreationDate="2016-10-25T07:20:00.020" Comment="Proposed by 7267 approved by 6539, 551 edit id of 804" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13415" RevisionGUID="12cc2f78-4519-4d4d-9381-8f10362fce62" CreationDate="2016-10-25T13:05:30.690" UserId="4432" Text="These days one sees often the phrase *Кофе с собой* at some coffee shops. It seems to be equivalent to *Coffee to go*, but how does this contruction work? Does *собой* refer to the coffee or the one who takes it along?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13415" RevisionGUID="12cc2f78-4519-4d4d-9381-8f10362fce62" CreationDate="2016-10-25T13:05:30.690" UserId="4432" Text="What is the grammar in Кофе с собой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13415" RevisionGUID="12cc2f78-4519-4d4d-9381-8f10362fce62" CreationDate="2016-10-25T13:05:30.690" UserId="4432" Text="|грамматика|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13416" RevisionGUID="723e25a1-0904-4d78-a0c7-27b06abd9fc6" CreationDate="2016-10-25T13:35:22.067" UserId="5443" Text="It means the visitors can take their (likely, plastic) cup of coffee (**with them**; literally '*with themselves*') and go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13417" RevisionGUID="e676132b-038f-435c-ba2d-1fe4b3ffa85a" CreationDate="2016-10-25T13:55:45.980" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Взять с собой = take with oneself" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13418" RevisionGUID="94b7a99c-54ea-4bcd-8753-a6fda290998b" CreationDate="2016-10-25T14:29:57.927" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Кофе с собой? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a short form of the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы хотите взять кофе с собой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where собой is a reflexive pronoun себя in the instrumental case corresponding to the personal pronoun &quot;you&quot;. Another variant is &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вам сделать кофе с собой?(собой refers to you)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13419" RevisionGUID="0db9556c-9106-45e7-a39d-f34d81580778" CreationDate="2016-10-25T14:35:35.293" UserId="7674" Text="the phrase sounds counter-intuitive to me (i'm not disputing of the fact of it being used somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning i read into it is `one must BRING coffee with them` NOT `TAKE AWAY with them`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because in Russian so far as my life experience tells me `с собой` usually `приносят` and not `забирают/уносят`, speaking usage wise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning of `taking away` would be best conveyed with `кофе навынос`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13419" RevisionGUID="e7ed084f-d773-4a6a-9463-6abcb3a8792c" CreationDate="2016-10-25T14:54:01.190" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="the phrase sounds counter-intuitive to me (i'm not disputing of the fact of it being used somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning i read into it is `one must BRING coffee with them` NOT `TAKE AWAY with them`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because in Russian so far as my life experience tells me `с собой` usually `приносят` and not `забирают/уносят`, speaking usage wise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning of `taking away` in the name of a service would be best conveyed with `кофе навынос`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13395" RevisionGUID="3a85156a-27b3-4019-b9b7-2013f6d176f2" CreationDate="2016-10-25T16:13:36.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/790949439850577920" />
  <row Id="31610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="ad328778-fd31-448a-a098-54dbe771544a" CreationDate="2016-10-25T18:17:29.903" UserId="6539" Text="Предложение Сегодня страна является одним из 21 участник(-?) международного соглашения.&#xD;&#xA;Какое должно быть окончание у существительного и почему?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="ad328778-fd31-448a-a098-54dbe771544a" CreationDate="2016-10-25T18:17:29.903" UserId="6539" Text="Какое должно быть окончание и почему" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="ad328778-fd31-448a-a098-54dbe771544a" CreationDate="2016-10-25T18:17:29.903" UserId="6539" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13422" RevisionGUID="452032af-c75d-4537-9d71-0ed51bd6e062" CreationDate="2016-10-25T19:54:06.173" UserId="3680" Text="Если заменить в предложении число на числительное (что необходимо при произнесении предложения), то сложно себе представить иное окончание, кроме `-а`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня страна является одним из двадцати одного участника международного соглашения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13423" RevisionGUID="1b53ac67-c2c2-4e43-9782-3b0f13dc05ac" CreationDate="2016-10-25T20:23:31.070" UserId="6816" Text="I came across a sentence on Duolingo that said&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я пишу стихи, а потом читаю их маме.&#xA;&#xA;I know that this sounds pretty 'out there,' but how do you know whether the sentence means&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I write poems, and then read them to mom.&#xA;&#xA;or&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I write poems, and then read to their mom.&#xA;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13423" RevisionGUID="1b53ac67-c2c2-4e43-9782-3b0f13dc05ac" CreationDate="2016-10-25T20:23:31.070" UserId="6816" Text="Distinguish meanings of их" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13423" RevisionGUID="1b53ac67-c2c2-4e43-9782-3b0f13dc05ac" CreationDate="2016-10-25T20:23:31.070" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13424" RevisionGUID="ae21922e-6613-4176-8624-752bdde86fdb" CreationDate="2016-10-25T21:52:18.570" UserId="3680" Text="Definitely the first option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I write poems, and then read them to mom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because there is no other plural nouns in the sentence except `стихи`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31619" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="43dac661-20d6-4fdf-98ff-bc0bb767736a" CreationDate="2016-10-26T01:13:36.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/791085335916797952" />
  <row Id="31620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13425" RevisionGUID="3d0ff552-3602-469b-a554-fc97203626a7" CreationDate="2016-10-26T04:29:09.760" UserId="7537" Text="Вообще-то, поскольку &quot;участник&quot; можно поставить в любой род, и состав всего коллектива стостоит только из стран (т.е. понятий ж.р.), правильнее говорить &quot;одной из ... участниц&quot; (в общем случае). Но в случае &quot;21&quot; согласовяние идет, как всегда, с последним словом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня страна является одной из двадцати одной участницы международного соглашения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственная проблема только в том, что _одной из двадцати одной участницы_ звучит бестолково из-за повтора. Тогда, если в м.р., то обычное согласование с &quot;один&quot; в род.п.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...одним из [двадцати|пятидесяти|N] одного участника" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13426" RevisionGUID="beb3f5ea-4911-4ba4-9688-166e221de01d" CreationDate="2016-10-26T07:44:52.880" UserId="6274" Text="oh, it is really an ambiguous conctruction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the first option comes to mind earlier, since the verb `читать` needs logically an object in Accusative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13427" RevisionGUID="a5af0e1f-941e-4766-8725-17270e507258" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:39:06.573" UserId="5008" Text="In spoken language there's an alternate form which could sometimes be used to avoid such ambuguity. Of course, it's considered absolutely wrong (please, don't hurt me too much for even mentioning it) but in reality we all say such things from time to time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I write poems, and then read to their mom --&gt; Я пишу стихи, а потом читаю ихней маме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can shift word order a little to prevent any possible misunderstanding, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I write poems, and then read them to mom --&gt; Я пишу стихи, а потом их читаю маме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So returning to your question, yes, there's some room for ambuiguity here, but typically the context is enough to understand it correctly. If still unsure, there's a plenty of variations to avoid any mistake completely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13364" RevisionGUID="4d792d2b-fa71-47a7-a43a-87965833d051" CreationDate="2016-10-26T12:11:46.407" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The default, unmarked word order is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебя спросил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебе сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of the sentences look finished, so to provide other info one has to see the full phrase.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13423" RevisionGUID="0835b49f-1e66-4907-874e-85b8baa97f77" CreationDate="2016-10-26T13:19:08.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/791267920353591296" />
  <row Id="31625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13428" RevisionGUID="9bd97cd0-0abc-4dce-81a9-4852e00b30af" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:36:18.683" UserId="115" Text="Both word orders are acceptable, but there is a subtle difference in emphasis: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я тебя спросил. - I asked *you*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я спросил тебя. - I *asked* you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13429" RevisionGUID="28cd192a-a178-4373-bd52-b514d99a63f3" CreationDate="2016-10-26T15:22:18.920" UserId="1836" Text="Страна, конечно же, будет участницей, а не участником, так как слово &quot;страна&quot; женского рода. Но вопрос, я так понимаю о том, в каком числе должно быть слово после числительного. Правило простое: если числительное в тектовой форме заканчивается на &quot;один&quot; (&quot;один&quot;, &quot;двадцать один&quot; и т.д.), то слово к которому это числительное относится будет в единственном числе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один мальчик,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двадцать одна девочка&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это не совсем исключение, но стоит обратить внимание, что 11 (211 и т.д.) хоть и заканчиваются на 1, в текстовой форме выглядят как &quot;одиннадцать&quot;, &quot;двести одиннадцать&quot;, и т.д., то есть не заканчиваются на &quot;один&quot;. Поэтому&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одиннадцать девочек,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сто одиннадцать мальчиков,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двести тридцать жирафов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После определения рода и числа нужно определить падеж и склонить сущствительное соответственно, но это уже совсем другая тема." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13430" RevisionGUID="86b8da08-d18e-4950-a2ef-e4b45b71b867" CreationDate="2016-10-26T18:41:23.743" UserId="194" Text="You can use a colloquial form &quot;ихней маме&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="a4e940a0-6354-46be-9a99-cd2540f18148" CreationDate="2016-10-26T20:09:10.790" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Предложение Сегодня страна является одним из 21 участник(-?) международного соглашения.&#xD;&#xA;Какое должно быть окончание у существительного и почему?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ответ справочной службы русского языка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово страна-участница есть в русском литературном языке (оно зафиксировано, например, в «Русском орфографическом словаре» РАН). Но в строгом стиле письменной речи, в деловых документах даже по отношению к лицам женского пола используются существительные мужского рода (а страна – и вовсе неодушевленное существительное). Поэтому при вариативности страна-участница и страна-участник в официальных документах лучше всё же использовать форму мужского рода: страна – участник договора (если после слова участница / участник есть зависимое слово, используется не дефис, а тире)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13419" RevisionGUID="4ff83aa3-4f79-493e-97da-24f299d3de7b" CreationDate="2016-10-27T07:52:32.797" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="the phrase sounds counter-intuitive to me (i'm not disputing the fact of it being used somewhere)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning i read into it is `one must BRING coffee with them` NOT `TAKE AWAY with them`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because in Russian so far as my life experience tells me `с собой` usually `приносят` and not `забирают/уносят`, speaking usage wise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning of `taking away` in the name of a service would be best conveyed with `кофе навынос`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13431" RevisionGUID="be9da5f9-d671-4c06-a403-4c5233f04f6d" CreationDate="2016-10-27T08:07:57.563" UserId="1547" Text="Google has &quot;Input tools&quot; which allow you to type in multiple languages using latin letters (including Russian):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.google.com/inputtools/try/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="dbff29dc-2d93-4a28-b3e4-b2a10ff500af" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:17:05.523" UserId="5919" Text="Sometimes I am not sure and a little confused when to use ```больше``` and when to use ```более```, can somebody explain it to me? For example which sentence is grammatically right?: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Надо больше пить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Надо более пить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="dbff29dc-2d93-4a28-b3e4-b2a10ff500af" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:17:05.523" UserId="5919" Text="Больше vs. более" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="dbff29dc-2d93-4a28-b3e4-b2a10ff500af" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:17:05.523" UserId="5919" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="a15b4acd-a146-4482-9ed3-fb1d500e2c86" CreationDate="2016-10-27T10:19:35.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/791585125930852352" />
  <row Id="31636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="2fd6a6c3-7376-4b57-9d92-574ea8ab99a0" CreationDate="2016-10-27T11:09:37.460" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The sentence is Сегодня страна является одним из 21 участник(-?) международного соглашения.&#xD;&#xA;What should the ending of tne noun be and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ответ справочной службы русского языка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово страна-участница есть в русском литературном языке (оно зафиксировано, например, в «Русском орфографическом словаре» РАН). Но в строгом стиле письменной речи, в деловых документах даже по отношению к лицам женского пола используются существительные мужского рода (а страна – и вовсе неодушевленное существительное). Поэтому при вариативности страна-участница и страна-участник в официальных документах лучше всё же использовать форму мужского рода: страна – участник договора (если после слова участница / участник есть зависимое слово, используется не дефис, а тире)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31637" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="f3d11edd-8db4-4184-b902-a64f46e6a9e5" CreationDate="2016-10-27T11:34:03.013" UserId="6539" Comment="edited title" Text="What should the ending be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="f3d11edd-8db4-4184-b902-a64f46e6a9e5" CreationDate="2016-10-27T11:34:03.013" UserId="6539" Comment="edited title" Text="The sentence is Сегодня страна является одним из 21 участник(-?) международного соглашения.&#xD;&#xA;What should the ending of the noun be and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An addition &#xD;&#xA;Ответ справочной службы русского языка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово страна-участница есть в русском литературном языке (оно зафиксировано, например, в «Русском орфографическом словаре» РАН). Но в строгом стиле письменной речи, в деловых документах даже по отношению к лицам женского пола используются существительные мужского рода (а страна – и вовсе неодушевленное существительное). Поэтому при вариативности страна-участница и страна-участник в официальных документах лучше всё же использовать форму мужского рода: страна – участник договора (если после слова участница / участник есть зависимое слово, используется не дефис, а тире)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13415" RevisionGUID="c833f264-013b-41ee-abb8-dfff8732ea05" CreationDate="2016-10-27T13:19:36.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/791630426712539136" />
  <row Id="31640" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13383" RevisionGUID="4fcaf13a-ee9a-4ead-a24e-91fb9ac76110" CreationDate="2016-10-27T16:21:38.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/791676239236956165" />
  <row Id="31641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13433" RevisionGUID="3c7c20f0-64a9-4a91-8d68-a09673198fd6" CreationDate="2016-10-27T20:51:52.590" UserId="7977" Text="этот стул больше - this chair is bigger - size or amount  &#xD;&#xA;этот стул более удобный - this chair is more comfortable - comparison" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31643" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13384" RevisionGUID="b755126f-5ea2-4abe-8460-68e1a09c078b" CreationDate="2016-10-28T07:23:27.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/791903187066322944" />
  <row Id="31644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13434" RevisionGUID="640f1c0f-6d04-4360-92bc-806125a54a3c" CreationDate="2016-10-28T10:12:18.277" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13434" RevisionGUID="640f1c0f-6d04-4360-92bc-806125a54a3c" CreationDate="2016-10-28T10:12:18.277" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13435" RevisionGUID="e554e1d0-ba55-4ef5-a21c-19bc5adf7c5e" CreationDate="2016-10-28T10:12:18.277" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13435" RevisionGUID="e554e1d0-ba55-4ef5-a21c-19bc5adf7c5e" CreationDate="2016-10-28T10:12:18.277" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13436" RevisionGUID="b921a6ea-5254-4604-9871-03868769ddaf" CreationDate="2016-10-28T11:57:51.597" UserId="7981" Text="я совсем не знаю как я изучаю более чем год, без знании как спросить &quot;How do you spell that?&quot; в моём словарнный запас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13436" RevisionGUID="b921a6ea-5254-4604-9871-03868769ddaf" CreationDate="2016-10-28T11:57:51.597" UserId="7981" Text="How to ask &quot;How do I spell x?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13436" RevisionGUID="b921a6ea-5254-4604-9871-03868769ddaf" CreationDate="2016-10-28T11:57:51.597" UserId="7981" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13438" RevisionGUID="aaabddce-274b-47ad-ae60-036bca351daf" CreationDate="2016-10-28T12:58:29.353" UserId="551" Text="You should use &quot;Как пишется слово Х&quot; to know how to write the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not sure how to read the word - ask &quot;как произносится это слово&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13439" RevisionGUID="97a050db-ce6b-4e3b-b346-d864e87e913d" CreationDate="2016-10-28T12:59:06.733" UserId="1236" Text="I assume, by &quot;spell&quot; you mean 'to write correctly'. You say that as&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Как [правильно] пишется X?&quot; (lit. 'How [correctly] is written X?')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Как [правильно] написать X?&quot; (lit. 'How [correctly] to write X?')" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13440" RevisionGUID="565db292-9a92-44d2-bf1d-466c4762640b" CreationDate="2016-10-28T15:35:15.643" UserId="6539" Text="When you say &quot;how do you spell it(that)?&quot;, you expect the person to name each letter separately in order to write it down. Unfortunately, we don't have the verb with the same meaning. You can either ask &quot;how do you write that&quot; (**как это пишется?**), because your purpose is to write it down, but if you don't achieve your goal, just add, &quot;**по буквам, пожалуйста**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31655" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13432" RevisionGUID="a4ccdd3f-16f4-458a-82dd-39a44cbcabe4" CreationDate="2016-10-28T16:23:37.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792039122734952452" />
  <row Id="31656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="2a83d632-105a-41cf-ba0b-fb6e5c0cb1b3" CreationDate="2016-10-28T20:21:56.057" UserId="6539" Text="In some cases Больше/более are used interchangeably, but they have also different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.Больше and более (bookish) used interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. больше /более  (Excessing the quantity mentioned ),более is bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ждать больше /более часа. (to wait for more than an hour) Стоит больше/более трех рублей. (It costs more than three roubles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA;**Больше всего/более всего**(most of all)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более всего ему сейчас следует опасаться простуды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Больше того,/более того**--moreover , a transition to a more important part of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваша деятельность бесполезна; более того, она даже вредна.(Your activity is useless, moreover it's harmful. )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умен, более того, талантлив(He is clever, and moreover, gifted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Больше чем/ более чем** (more than, very, to a high extent )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Более чем интересно.(It's more than interesting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ваше поведение более чем возмутительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не больше чем / не более чем**(only)— &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это не более чем игра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ни больше ни меньше как / Не более и не менее, как** (exactly )- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Речь идет не более и не менее, как о франко-германском соглашении. (exactly )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Опоздал ни больше ни меньше как на час&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.Больше .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Больше  - далее,(**not any more in the future**)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше туда не ходи.(Don't go there any more) Больше не буду (promising not to do something bad any more)  Больше нет вопросов?(Any questions? )&#xD;&#xA;Более is archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. -**the comparative from большой и много**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Та комната больше.(That room is bigger)&#xD;&#xA;У него больше игрушек, чем у меня. (He has got more toys than me.) Надо тренироваться больше.(You should exercise more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.. -mostly, mainly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шли больше лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **И больше ничего** (and that's all) &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Делай, что говорят, и больше ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.Более &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**forms the comparative degree** from adjectives and adverbs &#xD;&#xA; &gt; более подвижные, более спокойный, более важно&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA; **Более или менее** —(to some extent ) [неправильно более-менее]. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Более или менее понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тем более** (especially )— emphatic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Климат здесь вредный, тем более для ребёнка; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тем более (что)**.(moreover because )&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаёмся дома, тем более собирается гроза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **всё более и более**-(more and more) About something increasing or decreasing &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гул всё более и более утихал. Отношения становились всё более и более натянутыми.&#xD;&#xA;Надо больше пить.--больше is the comparative from много(quantity )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="ef8c47a2-1786-4e18-9148-20e7504028c2" CreationDate="2016-10-28T20:55:27.537" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In some cases Больше/более are used interchangeably, but they have also different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.Больше and более (bookish) used interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. больше /более  (Excessing the quantity mentioned ),более is bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ждать больше /более часа. (to wait for more than an hour) Стоит больше/более трех рублей. (It costs more than three roubles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA;**Больше всего/более всего**(most of all)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более всего ему сейчас следует опасаться простуды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Больше того,/более того**--moreover , a transition to a more important part of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваша деятельность бесполезна; более того, она даже вредна.(Your activity is useless, moreover it's harmful. )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умен, более того, талантлив(He is clever, and moreover, gifted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Больше чем/ более чем** (more than, very, to a high extent )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Более чем интересно.(It's more than interesting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ваше поведение более чем возмутительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не больше чем / не более чем**(only)— &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это не более чем игра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ни больше ни меньше как / Не более и не менее, как** (exactly )- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Речь идет не более и не менее, как о франко-германском соглашении. (exactly )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Опоздал ни больше ни меньше как на час&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.Больше .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Больше  - далее,(**not any more in the future**)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше туда не ходи.(Don't go there any more) Больше не буду (promising not to do something bad any more)  Больше нет вопросов?(Any questions? )&#xD;&#xA;Более is archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. -**the comparative from большой и много**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Та комната больше.(That room is bigger)&#xD;&#xA;У него больше игрушек, чем у меня. (He has got more toys than me.) Надо тренироваться больше.(You should exercise more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.. -mostly, mainly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шли больше лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **И больше ничего** (and that's all) &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Делай, что говорят, и больше ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.Более &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**forms the comparative degree** from adjectives and adverbs &#xD;&#xA; &gt; более подвижные, более спокойный, более важно&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA; **Более или менее** —(to some extent ) [неправильно более-менее]. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Более или менее понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тем более** (especially )— emphatic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Климат здесь вредный, тем более для ребёнка; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тем более (что)**.(moreover because )&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаёмся дома, тем более собирается гроза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **всё более и более**-(more and more) About something increasing or decreasing &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гул всё более и более утихал. Отношения становились всё более и более натянутыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо больше пить.--больше is the comparative from много(quantity )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="682789a6-8efc-4245-8504-746ea1fa31d7" CreationDate="2016-10-29T02:44:35.770" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In some cases Больше/более are used interchangeably, but they have also different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.Больше and более (bookish) used interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. больше /более  (Excessing the quantity mentioned ),более is bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ждать больше /более часа. (to wait for more than an hour) Стоит больше/более трех рублей. (It costs more than three roubles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA;**Больше всего/более всего**(most of all)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более всего ему сейчас следует опасаться простуды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Больше того,/более того**--moreover , a transition to a more important part of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваша деятельность бесполезна; более того, она даже вредна.(Your activity is useless, moreover it's harmful. )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умен, более того, талантлив(He is clever, and moreover, gifted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Больше чем/ более чем** (more than, very, to a high extent )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Более чем интересно.(It's more than interesting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ваше поведение более чем возмутительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не больше чем / не более чем**(only)— &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это не более чем игра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ни больше ни меньше как / Не более и не менее, как** (exactly )- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Речь идет не более и не менее, как о франко-германском соглашении. (exactly )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Опоздал ни больше ни меньше как на час&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.Больше .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Больше  - далее,(**not any more in the future**)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше туда не ходи.(Don't go there any more) Больше не буду (promising not to do something bad any more)  Больше нет вопросов?(Any questions? )&#xD;&#xA;Более is archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. -**the comparative from большой и много**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Та комната больше.(That room is bigger)&#xD;&#xA;У него больше игрушек, чем у меня. (He has got more toys than me.) Надо тренироваться больше.(You should exercise more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.. -mostly, mainly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шли больше лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **И больше ничего** (and that's all) &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Делай, что говорят, и больше ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.Более &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**forms the comparative degree** from adjectives and adverbs &#xD;&#xA; &gt; более подвижные, более спокойный, более важно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA; **Более или менее** —(to some extent ) [неправильно более-менее]. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Более или менее понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тем более** (especially )— emphatic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Климат здесь вредный, тем более для ребёнка; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тем более (что)**.(moreover because )&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаёмся дома, тем более собирается гроза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **всё более и более**-(more and more) About something increasing or decreasing &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гул всё более и более утихал. Отношения становились всё более и более натянутыми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо больше пить.--больше is the comparative from много(quantity )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13275" RevisionGUID="669fb2e7-3d2a-467c-a38a-63172c6ed2c1" CreationDate="2016-10-29T04:24:21.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792220503301816320" />
  <row Id="31660" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13235" RevisionGUID="912485db-2ccf-4536-8646-bf141d697ad7" CreationDate="2016-10-29T10:24:20.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792311096443101184" />
  <row Id="31663" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12812" RevisionGUID="80e8d0c5-bb8f-4e5a-bf2c-43e206c801a7" CreationDate="2016-10-29T20:00:52.260" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31668" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13301" RevisionGUID="ec8ad8a5-53de-452a-bd70-194c6d6bc297" CreationDate="2016-10-29T22:25:12.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792492508290945024" />
  <row Id="31669" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13250" RevisionGUID="9beb6dd1-8620-4c74-9532-3cd92b7214b3" CreationDate="2016-10-30T01:25:13.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792537809584320512" />
  <row Id="31670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13441" RevisionGUID="ba48cc7a-1fcb-4e9b-b009-157cb8ab824c" CreationDate="2016-10-30T04:21:01.683" UserId="6539" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="In some cases Больше/более are used interchangeably, but they have also different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.Больше and более (bookish) used interchangeably:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. больше /более  (Excessing the quantity mentioned ),более is bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ждать больше /более часа. (to wait for more than an hour) Стоит больше/более трех рублей. (It costs more than three roubles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA;**Больше всего/более всего**(most of all)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Более всего ему сейчас следует опасаться простуды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Больше того,/более того**--moreover , a transition to a more important part of the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваша деятельность бесполезна; более того, она даже вредна.(Your activity is useless, moreover it's harmful. )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умен, более того, талантлив(He is clever, and moreover, gifted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Больше чем/ более чем** (more than, very, to a high extent )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Более чем интересно.(It's more than interesting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ваше поведение более чем возмутительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не больше чем / не более чем**(only)— &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это не более чем игра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Ни больше ни меньше как / Не более и не менее, как** (exactly )- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Речь идет не более и не менее, как о франко-германском соглашении. (exactly )&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Опоздал ни больше ни меньше как на час&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.Больше .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Больше  - далее,(**not any more in the future**)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше туда не ходи.(Don't go there any more) Больше не буду (promising not to do something bad any more)  Больше нет вопросов?(Any questions? )&#xD;&#xA;Более is archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. -**the comparative from большой и много**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Та комната больше.(That room is bigger)&#xD;&#xA;У него больше игрушек, чем у меня. (He has got more toys than me.) Надо тренироваться больше.(You should exercise more)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.. -mostly, mainly &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шли больше лесом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **И больше ничего** (and that's all) &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Делай, что говорят, и больше ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.Более &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**forms the comparative degree** from adjectives and adverbs &#xD;&#xA; &gt; более подвижные, более спокойный, более важно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;2.Idioms:&#xD;&#xA; **Более или менее** —(to some extent ) [неправильно более-менее]. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Более или менее понятно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тем более** (especially )— emphatic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Климат здесь вредный, тем более для ребёнка; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тем более (что)**.(moreover because )&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаёмся дома, тем более собирается гроза. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **всё более и более**-(more and more) About something increasing or decreasing &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гул всё более и более утихал. Отношения становились всё более и более натянутыми.&#xD;&#xA;About your examples, &#xD;&#xA;Надо больше пить.--больше is the comparative from много(quantity )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31671" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13232" RevisionGUID="b76b7ae3-419e-4202-a403-5c70019f1cbd" CreationDate="2016-10-30T04:25:14.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792583111498432513" />
  <row Id="31672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="e45315ed-d441-42e6-a087-8affa6887243" CreationDate="2016-10-30T16:27:33.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/792764889026756608" />
  <row Id="31677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="34509cc9-89e4-488b-96a2-0cc61b411112" CreationDate="2016-10-30T19:47:17.217" UserId="5" Text="- ты меня предал, теперь я преданный&#xD;&#xA;- я верю тебе, я преданный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в виду этого, что означает фарза &quot;преданный последователь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="34509cc9-89e4-488b-96a2-0cc61b411112" CreationDate="2016-10-30T19:47:17.217" UserId="5" Text="как понять какой мысл у слова преданный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="34509cc9-89e4-488b-96a2-0cc61b411112" CreationDate="2016-10-30T19:47:17.217" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13446" RevisionGUID="b2a87411-f894-4d20-b514-4de4dd64a68e" CreationDate="2016-10-30T20:39:56.563" UserId="2079" Text="There is an adjective `преданный` meaning dedicated, devoted (about a person).  There is also a participle `преданный` (past participle passive) from the verb `предать`.  `Преданный` as a participle means (one who was) betrayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Преданный последователь` means either devoted follower or betrayed follower, depending on the context.  If there is no context information, the first sense (devoted follower) is the most probable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13447" RevisionGUID="24ba6397-d3bb-4761-a69e-0e1b74ff23aa" CreationDate="2016-10-30T21:18:39.600" UserId="6097" Text="Your first example is a very unnatural use of this word. You could almost always assume that &quot;преданный&quot; means &quot;devoted&quot;. In those cases where &quot;преданный&quot; means &quot;betrayd&quot; it is used with instrumental case (i.e. betrayed by whom) - &quot;преданный тобой/союзниками/итд&quot;. Or at least it is obvious from the context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="226b574e-e6e6-4633-9e51-34268989d22d" CreationDate="2016-10-31T00:15:46.727" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="- ты меня предал, теперь я преданный&#xD;&#xA;- я верю тебе, я преданный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В виду этого, что означает фраза «преданный последователь»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31683" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="226b574e-e6e6-4633-9e51-34268989d22d" CreationDate="2016-10-31T00:15:46.727" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Как понять, какой смысл у слова «преданный»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="a8ec5ef6-905d-4462-a4ec-7bf1960651eb" CreationDate="2016-10-31T05:23:04.033" UserId="7948" Text="As far as I can tell, the Russian equivalent of the English phrase &quot;to add smb&quot; with regards to social media accounts like Facebook, VKontakte, etc. is &quot;добавлять/добавить в друзья.&quot; My question is: why is друзья in the nominative case? Why not в друзей? Is it because друзья isn't being used to mean &quot;friends&quot; in the animate sense of &quot;intimate acquaintances,&quot; but instead has taken on a second meaning -- &quot;friends list&quot; -- which would be inanimate and thus not change its form in the accusative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="a8ec5ef6-905d-4462-a4ec-7bf1960651eb" CreationDate="2016-10-31T05:23:04.033" UserId="7948" Text="Regarding phrase добавить в друзья" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="a8ec5ef6-905d-4462-a4ec-7bf1960651eb" CreationDate="2016-10-31T05:23:04.033" UserId="7948" Text="|грамматика|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13450" RevisionGUID="487ff0b1-7e32-416f-9b37-e47a623f1639" CreationDate="2016-10-31T06:31:28.717" UserId="4560" Text="You're on the right track, but the meaning is more abstract than &quot;friends list&quot;; it's more like the &quot;state of being a friend&quot; in general. Compare **записать в члены общества**, **вывести в генералы**, etc. It seems to be one of the &quot;lesser cases&quot; in Russian (like the partitive-genitive **выпить чаю** and the locative-prepositional **в снегу**). I might call it translative-accusative but that's just my own ad hoc term. It's been discussed here: [What form is “в гости”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12649/what-form-is-%D0%B2-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31690" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="753bba34-c4cc-48a3-97bf-99edb507cea7" CreationDate="2016-10-31T10:39:44.790" UserId="7896" Comment="Added tag прилагательные" Text="|значения|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31691" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="753bba34-c4cc-48a3-97bf-99edb507cea7" CreationDate="2016-10-31T10:39:44.790" Comment="Proposed by 7896 approved by 2060, 5605 edit id of 807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="2c3bd82b-8363-465b-98be-49be5388c286" CreationDate="2016-10-31T14:26:36.003" UserId="7999" Text="when listing things in Russian language using commatas, do you use an и before the last thing (e.g. столы, стулья и полки or just столы, стулья, полки)? I've seen some internet pages omitting the и but it's not explained anywhere so I don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="2c3bd82b-8363-465b-98be-49be5388c286" CreationDate="2016-10-31T14:26:36.003" UserId="7999" Text="Enumerations in Russian - is an и needed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="2c3bd82b-8363-465b-98be-49be5388c286" CreationDate="2016-10-31T14:26:36.003" UserId="7999" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13452" RevisionGUID="ff8385b2-9a26-487f-8d1b-44c851cc2605" CreationDate="2016-10-31T14:34:40.477" UserId="3680" Text="The last `и` isn't required, but its usage is pretty natural in the most cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="f2d0b820-2a17-4686-a26e-0d21d220c208" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:15:32.467" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="As far as I can tell, the Russian equivalent of the English phrase &quot;to add smb&quot; with regards to social media accounts like Facebook, VKontakte, etc. is &quot;добавлять/добавить в друзья.&quot; My question is: why is друзья in the nominative case? Why not в друзей? Is it because друзья isn't being used to mean &quot;friends&quot; in the animate sense of &quot;intimate acquaintances,&quot; but instead has taken on a second meaning -- &quot;friends list&quot; -- which would be inanimate and thus not change its form in the accusative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13453" RevisionGUID="46128fbe-5f93-4c6c-837b-d4798e0a5e74" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:19:56.720" UserId="242" Text="I actually disagree with @NikolayErshov on this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we indeed have in Russian &quot;small cases&quot; for this particular example it's easier.  It's actually because it's short for something like &quot;добавить в [категорию] друзья&quot;. The same happens when you, say, adding files for some designated folder - when one says &quot;добавить в &quot;Избранное&quot; - he/she actually intend to say &quot;добавить в [папку] &quot;Избранное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31698" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="6d4b8a3c-bd98-4e7a-a6fb-fe8b7261b12b" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:21:41.133" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Добавить в друзья&quot; - why nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="4f952e93-b566-4465-b5f6-a98ff473cc00" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:25:11.070" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="When listing things in Russian language using commatas, do you use an и before the last thing (e.g. столы, стулья и полки or just столы, стулья, полки)? I've seen some internet pages omitting the `и` but it's not explained anywhere so I don't know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31700" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="4f952e93-b566-4465-b5f6-a98ff473cc00" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:25:11.070" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Enumerations in Russian - is an `и` needed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13447" RevisionGUID="48c4f30f-647b-4b17-9e46-41473525eb1f" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:27:26.280" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your first example is a very unnatural use of this word. You could almost always assume that &quot;преданный&quot; means &quot;devoted&quot;. In those cases where &quot;преданный&quot; means &quot;betrayed&quot; it is used with instrumental case (i.e. betrayed by whom) - &quot;преданный тобой/союзниками/итд&quot;. Or at least it is obvious from the context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13455" RevisionGUID="6574e096-59db-4cd0-9a73-4d22a0c32879" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:33:25.630" UserId="242" Text="Когда обращаются к маленькой девочке с вопросом &quot;подай мне ручку&quot; - как понять, имеется ли ввиду шариковая ручка или анатомическая конечность. Из одной этой фразы - никак. Есть масса таких примеров - в том числе из-за них машинный перевод штука сложная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возвращаясь к вашему пример - &quot;преданный последователь&quot; *формально* может означать последователя, которого предали, но *по факту словоупотребления* любой русскоговорящий сразу поймёт, что речь идёт тут всё-таки о горячо преданном какому-то либо делу / идеологии человеке. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И если придётся говорить о преданном *кем-то* последователе, то так и скажу, чтобы не было лишней путаницы - &quot;преданные руководителем партии рядовые её члены&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13456" RevisionGUID="8d0a3b60-dec5-4367-ac2c-a4069d5982e8" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:04:00.063" UserId="7896" Text="Both cases &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столы, стулья, полки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столы, стулья и полки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are appropriate. The `и` union (in russian - `союз`) before the last element points the last element and logically completes the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is logical pairing/binding, f.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столы и стулья, полки и шкафы, серванты и лавки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this could be used to logically group item pairs, or to subscribe the long enumeration (plenty of elements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="3fb74583-fd3c-4eff-ad94-a2f29bc2c1a6" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:23:30.913" UserId="6539" Text="It's up to you to decide whether to use и or not. In colloquial  speech, the rules are not strict. But in written speech, especially in scientific works they do exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the last word in enumeration is added without the conjunction **и**, the chain is meant and perceived as unfinished and open for possible addition (in some cases the words *и так далее*, *и тому подобное*, *и прочее* can be used).&#xD;&#xA;An example from a scientific text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Инфекции могут подразделяться на антропонозы (полиомиелит, менинго- кокковая инфекция, вирусный гепатит и др.) и зоонозы (бешенство, бруцеллез, лептоспироз, туляремия и пр.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enumeration is considered finished when the last word is linked with the conjunction *и*. The conjunction shows that the list is full, exhaustive  and doesn't require additional information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Музыкальные звуки различаются по силе, высоте и тембру. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="7de0c9e5-d497-4c1a-af7d-3060c409a5ac" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:31:22.837" UserId="6354" Text="What is the meaning of **кому как**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the sentence I came across:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кому как, конечно, это дело вкуса, я так просто, для примера." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="7de0c9e5-d497-4c1a-af7d-3060c409a5ac" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:31:22.837" UserId="6354" Text="Meaning of кому как" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="7de0c9e5-d497-4c1a-af7d-3060c409a5ac" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:31:22.837" UserId="6354" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="2038393f-8502-4054-9d58-7e0abe80ba74" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:43:28.347" UserId="6354" Comment="added 222 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the literal translation of **кому как**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the sentence I came across:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кому как, конечно, это дело вкуса, я так просто, для примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it roughly translates as something like the English expression &quot;to each his own&quot;, but I'm curious about a more exact translation, like how a native Russian speaker would think of it in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31714" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="2038393f-8502-4054-9d58-7e0abe80ba74" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:43:28.347" UserId="6354" Comment="added 222 characters in body; edited title" Text="Literal translation of кому как" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31715" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="fa32012b-b3ea-4ab6-9f48-cc9744138950" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:47:06.443" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="6331db7e-9317-4ba5-9d13-b6c3d89caffb" CreationDate="2016-10-31T18:50:50.490" UserId="6354" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="What is the literal translation of **кому как**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the sentence I came across:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кому как, конечно, это дело вкуса, я так просто, для примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it's equivalent to the English expression &quot;to each his own&quot;, but I'm curious about a more exact translation, like how a native Russian speaker would think of it in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кому как** sounds strange to me, because I think of it as &quot;how to who&quot; or &quot;what to who&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="71bedcc4-b59a-4ccc-a41b-c203dc82be8b" CreationDate="2016-10-31T19:21:58.697" UserId="6354" Comment="Clarified post" Text="I came across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кому как, конечно, это дело вкуса, я так просто, для примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something about **кому как** just feels off or unnatural to me. Maybe its because I assume the literal translation to be &quot;how to who&quot; or &quot;what to who&quot;, which sound strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is equivalent to the English expression &quot;to each his own&quot;, but I'm not satisfied with this. I want to think of it as a native Russian speaker would, not simply understand its general meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't necessarily need a meaningful literal translation, though this might be helpful. For example, a logical way to approach or think about it would be great. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's one of those linguistic cases where one must simply accept it for what it is, and not overthink it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31718" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="71bedcc4-b59a-4ccc-a41b-c203dc82be8b" CreationDate="2016-10-31T19:21:58.697" UserId="6354" Comment="Clarified post" Text="Making sense of кому как" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31719" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="9a94e43f-b064-4bbb-9952-197aec90be08" CreationDate="2016-10-31T19:30:16.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/793173261873999872" />
  <row Id="31720" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="c4a47e65-0288-4855-b625-647adb49a226" CreationDate="2016-10-31T19:38:17.337" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13459" RevisionGUID="35b8205a-377d-4793-beae-a774d91292af" CreationDate="2016-10-31T20:50:28.293" UserId="5443" Text="**Кому как** (literally, *how for whom*) in your example can be thought of as a short form of the expression: ***how** good it is depends on 'good **for whom***'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13460" RevisionGUID="7b58e04c-ed41-4eb9-9290-d7a7407a18bd" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:16:03.940" UserId="1236" Text="Look at it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;For me it's good, for him it's bad, and for them it's all the same&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'For me', 'for him', 'for them' is generalized as &quot;for whom&quot;, which is `кому` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Good', 'bad', 'all the same' is generalized as &quot;how&quot;, which is `как` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `кому как` means 'depending on whether it is I, he, or they (i.e. all the possible variants implied by `кому`), it will be good, bad or all the same (i.e. all the possible different kinds of experience included in `как`.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="cb4f2138-4546-470b-8dba-5a2370a1f99f" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:21:11.880" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Making sense of &quot;кому как&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="3bc18282-2acf-4d0d-a05c-6b33391f725d" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:34:46.867" UserId="6354" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I came across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Кому как, конечно, это дело вкуса, я так просто, для примера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something about **кому как** just feels off or unnatural to me. Maybe its because I assume the literal translation to be &quot;how to whom&quot; or &quot;what to whom&quot;, which sound strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it is equivalent to the English expression &quot;to each his own&quot;, but I'm not satisfied with this. I want to think of it as a native Russian speaker would, not simply understand its general meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't necessarily need a meaningful literal translation, though this might be helpful. For example, a logical way to approach or think about it would be great. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's one of those linguistic cases where one must simply accept it for what it is, and not overthink it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13461" RevisionGUID="71879b85-80d6-4807-bdde-4b0032423cff" CreationDate="2016-10-31T21:52:33.253" UserId="4481" Text="There is another one type of enumeration (not listed in previous answers). It is used when you want to emphasize that all items in the list have certain property:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этой комнате и столы, и стулья, и полки, и шкафы были выкрашены в белый цвет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you put union `и` before each word and comma between words in the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31726" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13448" RevisionGUID="33a0a71f-f5ee-466d-bcfe-467dca601113" CreationDate="2016-11-01T01:30:16.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/793263855833116672" />
  <row Id="31727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13457" RevisionGUID="60976719-d3f4-4d00-b3eb-c2e724fc202f" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:14:12.153" UserId="6539" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It's up to you to decide whether to use и or not. In colloquial  speech, the rules are not strict. But in written speech, especially in scientific works they do exist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the last word in enumeration is added without the conjunction **и**, the chain is meant and perceived as unfinished and open for possible addition (in some cases the words *и так далее*, *и тому подобное*, *и прочее* can be used).&#xD;&#xA;An example from a scientific text:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Инфекции могут подразделяться на антропонозы (полиомиелит, менинго- кокковая инфекция, вирусный гепатит и др.) и зоонозы (бешенство, бруцеллез, лептоспироз, туляремия и пр.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enumeration is considered finished when the last word is linked with the conjunction *и*. The conjunction shows that the list is complete , exhaustive  and doesn't require additional information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Музыкальные звуки различаются по силе, высоте и тембру. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13462" RevisionGUID="ad4b172f-cffc-4905-8f05-e5f5ec54464e" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:21:16.387" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Кому как,а мне русский язык нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is &quot;**I can't say for the whole world, for other people**, but I personally like Russian.&quot; Or &quot;**It depends**, you know, but I like Russian very much.&quot; Or &quot;**I don't know what others would say**, but I...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13445" RevisionGUID="ddfe0a90-7614-4881-a4c1-afa302f47b0b" CreationDate="2016-11-01T04:34:58.523" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/793310338859069441" />
  <row Id="31730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13463" RevisionGUID="423c8558-08a9-4980-bc5d-10a5975cb9e2" CreationDate="2016-11-01T05:47:36.317" UserId="4560" Text="Respectfully, it seems that most people are trying to explain you precisely the part you don't have a problem understanding. And I see how you might feel this usage of question words can only have some truly esoteric grammatical reasoning behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's useful in any situation, when confronted with something mystifying, to ask yourself what might be missing from the picture. Imagine an alien biologist on Earth looking at a snake and wondering, &quot;how can this worm have a spinal cord?&quot; The answer being, a snake isn't really a worm and it didn't even always look like one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a Czech proverb, **Kdo chce kam, pomozme mu tam.** Literally, &quot;who wants where, let's help him there.&quot; (Meaning that the speaker washes their hands over someone they think is walking into trouble.) Now the same words in the same order wouldn't quite work in Russian, but this very saliently illustrates the logic behind this usage of Slavic question words: they're on one side of the scale, as it were, counterweighted by their definite counterparts in the second clause (&quot;who&quot;/&quot;him&quot;, &quot;where&quot;/&quot;there&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **кому как** started out the same way, as the first part of a diptych; to use V.V.'s example, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кому как, а мне русский язык нравится&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; — again, **кому** has a clear counterweight in **мне**, and, slightly less obviously, **как** corresponds to **нравится**. The rest is just the universal linguistic tendency to trim things. **Кому как** (and a few other question word duos, such as **кому что** or **кто куда**, as in that Czech proverb) saw enough usage in Russian to no longer need an explicit antithesis. (Not to mention that at some earlier point, they had stopped needing an explicit verb.) And so you can think of **кому как** as a snake: to find its evolutionary origin, you first have to find its lost limbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13462" RevisionGUID="403f8642-85b9-42d0-93d7-9d16370bc08f" CreationDate="2016-11-01T07:00:32.880" UserId="6539" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="&gt;Кому как,а мне русский язык нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is &quot;**I can't say for the whole world, for other people**, but I personally like Russian.&quot; Or &quot;**It depends**, you know, but I like Russian very much.&quot; Or &quot;**I don't know what others would say**, but I...&#xD;&#xA;Just to develop the idea of a &quot;seesaw &quot;in the sentence. Кому как (others,I don't know how they feel)--мне нравится (but I like)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13462" RevisionGUID="b2868bfc-bec8-4583-995e-223488735f30" CreationDate="2016-11-01T07:08:44.027" UserId="6539" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="&gt;Кому как,а мне русский язык нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is &quot;**I can't say for the whole world, for other people**, but I personally like Russian.&quot; Or &quot;**It depends**, you know, but I like Russian very much.&quot; Or &quot;**I don't know what others would say**, but I...&#xD;&#xA;Just to develop the idea of a &quot;seesaw &quot;in the sentence. Кому как (others,I don't know how they feel,might feel different )--мне нравится (but I like)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13464" RevisionGUID="84c10b16-c69c-4a97-bd61-fd300f026e93" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:57:25.400" UserId="7330" Text="why say for example:&#xA;в кухне нет радио&#xA;and not?&#xA;в кухне нет радиа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13464" RevisionGUID="84c10b16-c69c-4a97-bd61-fd300f026e93" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:57:25.400" UserId="7330" Text="Genitive of радио" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13464" RevisionGUID="84c10b16-c69c-4a97-bd61-fd300f026e93" CreationDate="2016-11-01T10:57:25.400" UserId="7330" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13465" RevisionGUID="bb60786c-cac1-419d-9395-d0bbb9b9f14c" CreationDate="2016-11-01T12:44:51.420" UserId="3680" Text="The words like `радио`, `патио`, `метро`, `меню`, `кофе` etc are indeclinable.  &#xD;&#xA;The rules (in Russian): [external link](http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1015483/189/Rozental_-_Spravochnik_po_pravopisaniyu,_proiznosheniyu,_literaturnomu_redaktirovaniyu.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13464" RevisionGUID="161ef581-ecf2-44e1-91ea-b247c16cc12d" CreationDate="2016-11-01T14:06:37.090" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Why say for example: `в кухне нет радио` and not `в кухне нет радиа`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13466" RevisionGUID="027329a7-b488-4710-a926-a30c9f59e1a6" CreationDate="2016-11-01T14:46:55.193" UserId="4560" Text="Many loanwords don't decline in Russian, mostly those that don't intuitively fit into one of the existing paradigms (no regular Russian neuter noun ends in `-о` preceded by a vowel), and to see why, it's helpful to turn to the social history of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most early adopters of loanwords were people fluent in at least one foreign language, and thought of these words as essentially clippings from those other languages; in writing, it was—and still is—very common to include Western terms in their original Latin script. And so, essentially, those were islands of foreignness where Russian declension didn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That isn't the path taken by the vernacular—which tends to not only decline everything but also work around difficult and 'strange' foreign phonotactics; and thus, for example, the popularisation of the radio spawned the early vernacular form **радиво**, perfectly declinable—**радива**, etc.—but here, the social history of the language kicks in again. The spread of literacy in the Soviet times also lead to a lot of importance placed on language standards, which were regarded as ideology-neutral and thus inherited fairly intact from the Empire (save for the spelling reform, of course, but it was a one-off utilitarian thing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so it was that **радиво** and suchlike vernacular adaptations were levelled out, while declining 'indeclinables' in general continued to be regarded as a feature of 'rustic' and uneducated speech, with an even greater insistence on avoiding it than in pre-Soviet times, now that everyone could, and was expected to, aspire to the same general level of culture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13458" RevisionGUID="02c30021-2455-4ab3-8ada-0450aa7f3a07" CreationDate="2016-11-01T16:34:58.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/793491533924339712" />
  <row Id="31742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13467" RevisionGUID="2ab95af3-d57c-4aae-93b3-4aab1296e480" CreationDate="2016-11-01T19:14:16.030" UserId="419" Text="Often you just need to learn a specific cases of usage, there are some idioms, like @V.V. said. But generally you can remember that &quot;более&quot; is more emotional and dramatic form of &quot;больше&quot;. So when you are unsure which word to use in a sentence: just imagine whether you can say the sentence in a calm, rational state of mind, if yes - use &quot;больше&quot;, if no - use &quot;более&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example &quot;You need to drink more&quot; can be said by a doctor, emotionally indifferent to your problems. So you need to say &quot;Надо болЬШЕ пить&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13461" RevisionGUID="f4098cb7-2c5b-4732-b24a-d99bb70f6b05" CreationDate="2016-11-01T20:23:38.090" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed language " Text="There is another one type of enumeration (not listed in previous answers). It is used when you want to emphasize that all items in the list have certain property:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этой комнате и столы, и стулья, и полки, и шкафы были выкрашены в белый цвет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you put conjunction `и` before each word and comma between words in the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="a20f32f0-927a-4df9-b4ef-2ef9cc18617c" CreationDate="2016-11-02T02:00:12.143" UserId="8009" Text="I am writing something predominately in English but want to add the Russian equivalent of the phrase &quot;compliments of [Name]&quot; instead of writing it in English. This isn't to say that somebody is being complimented but that something is provided through the courtesy of the person being named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I found looking online (Google translate mainly), was that it would read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;комплиментом (komplimentom) followed by the name. Is this correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, and perhaps this is meant for a different thread, why does Google Translate use the Russian alphabet and then &quot;komplimentom&quot; underneath? If I'm writing everything else in English, can I use &quot;komplimentom&quot; in italics?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31745" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="a20f32f0-927a-4df9-b4ef-2ef9cc18617c" CreationDate="2016-11-02T02:00:12.143" UserId="8009" Text="How do you translate &quot;Compliments of&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31746" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="a20f32f0-927a-4df9-b4ef-2ef9cc18617c" CreationDate="2016-11-02T02:00:12.143" UserId="8009" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13469" RevisionGUID="92b68489-ee43-47ea-8d95-58d54315b489" CreationDate="2016-11-02T03:59:38.083" UserId="6840" Text="Sorry if this is a simple question but I'm struggling with when I should use these two and if they are interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13469" RevisionGUID="92b68489-ee43-47ea-8d95-58d54315b489" CreationDate="2016-11-02T03:59:38.083" UserId="6840" Text="я тоже vs мне тоже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13469" RevisionGUID="92b68489-ee43-47ea-8d95-58d54315b489" CreationDate="2016-11-02T03:59:38.083" UserId="6840" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31750" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13469" RevisionGUID="13e9ff13-ee1f-42a6-be51-63006e4df4f2" CreationDate="2016-11-02T04:07:51.640" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я тоже&quot; vs &quot;мне тоже&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="33e47f01-cb5e-410e-88cc-6dd7b86d981d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T05:19:02.953" UserId="6539" Text="The usage of я тоже and мне тоже confirming the previous sentence or that of the other partner in a conversation entirely **depends on the verb** meant. To make it clear, consider the following. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю гулять вечером,а ты?--Я тоже (meaning Я тоже люблю).You can't say мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нравится гулять вечером.--Мне тоже.(meaning мне тоже нравится).You can't say я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is absolutely the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13471" RevisionGUID="1d44c4e6-914c-4ef7-8017-8a276dc9eb6c" CreationDate="2016-11-02T06:02:00.920" UserId="5443" Text="Those two versions simply represent the pronoun **я** in two of six grammatical cases. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Я хочу есть. -- **Я тоже** хочу (есть). (nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  У сестры новый телефон. У **меня тоже** (новый). (genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моему приятелю на том спектакле было скучно. **Мне тоже** (было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скучно). (dative)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моего коллегу послали в командировку. **Меня тоже** (послали).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родители гордятся моим старшим братом... и **мной тоже** (гордятся).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (instrumental)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не* будешь вспоминать об этом лете и **обо мне тоже** (не будешь вспоминать).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (prepositional)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: in Russian **я тоже** can be used in both positive and *negative* clauses while in English a similar negation typically needs smth. like *neither* instead of *too* or *also*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13470" RevisionGUID="812b6116-39b7-4809-9793-d1098fc48694" CreationDate="2016-11-02T06:14:37.900" UserId="6539" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="The usage of я тоже and мне тоже confirming the previous sentence or that of the other partner in a conversation entirely **depends on the verb** meant and the case required. The pronoun can be used in different cases according to the situation.  To make it clear, consider the following. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я люблю гулять вечером,а ты?--Я тоже (meaning Я тоже люблю).You can't say мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нравится гулять вечером.--Мне тоже.(meaning мне тоже нравится).You can't say я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is absolutely the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13472" RevisionGUID="3f53a378-c551-4d90-a8c8-ffd6a277c82f" CreationDate="2016-11-02T14:32:18.420" UserId="4903" Text="I can't think of a simple one-to-one translation. Here are a few possible translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Любезно предоставленный** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Фотографии в книге любезно предоставлены компанией IBM.*  Pictures in this book are compliments of IBM Corp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * *Цветы для нашего праздника любезно предоставлены городской администрацией.*  Flowers for our celebration are compliments of City Hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подарок от кого-то**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* *Билеты в театр - подарок от руководства компании.*  Theater tickets are compliments of corporate management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подарен кем-то**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* *Экспонаты в этой галерее подарены семьёй Николаевых.* Artifacts in this gallery are compliments of Nikolayev family.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="0a8084f7-dc79-45e9-96db-5f25e75917da" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:20:47.800" UserId="242" Text="There is a word which is used in Yaroslavl, &quot;блондиться&quot;, here's a [quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Блондиться – значит где-то долго находиться, отсутствовать. Но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказывается, это слово чисто ярославское. Ни в каких других регионах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a lot of friends in Yaroslavl so I can confirm that this verb is indeed casually used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - when this word came to usage and what it's origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yar.kp.ru/daily/24267/464092/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="0a8084f7-dc79-45e9-96db-5f25e75917da" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:20:47.800" UserId="242" Text="What is the etymology of &quot;блондиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="0a8084f7-dc79-45e9-96db-5f25e75917da" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:20:47.800" UserId="242" Text="|этимология|диалект|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13474" RevisionGUID="c45fe21f-8d04-42db-a91a-2b4db2c10ef8" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:24:30.040" UserId="242" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="While Moscow dialect is prevailing and de-facto standard form of Russian is spoken throughout all Russian-speaking territories, there are large number of regional-specific terminology. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13474" RevisionGUID="c45fe21f-8d04-42db-a91a-2b4db2c10ef8" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:24:30.040" UserId="242" Comment="added 185 characters in body" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="870f137b-db88-48ee-8614-4cd5f8d713da" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:24:30.040" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Questions on Russian dialects and regional-specific usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13475" RevisionGUID="870f137b-db88-48ee-8614-4cd5f8d713da" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:24:30.040" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13476" RevisionGUID="fd58775c-560a-48f0-936b-405ed9db52b8" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:34:23.840" UserId="1236" Text="In Polish, there is a noun [błąd][1] [bwɔ̃n̪t̪] 'mistake' to which there is an etymological cognate in Russian, _блуд_, 'fornication'. But Russian has other words formed from the root _блуд_ which are not connected with fornication, e.g. _за**блуд**иться_, the same in Polish, only without a prefix: [błądzić][2] [ˈbwɔɲ.dʑitɕ] 'to stray, to roam, to rove'. Pronounced with all the Polish sounds substituted for their nearest Russian equivalents it will sound as _блондить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, your word _блондиться_ is most probably a borrowing from Polish, the corresponding Russian equivalent would be _*блудиться_. The sound correspondence [on]~[u] definitely says it is a Polish word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/b%C5%82%C4%85d&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/b%C5%82%C4%85dzi%C4%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="55262273-d5a9-413e-b6bf-7b4eaedcf857" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:35:57.923" UserId="242" Comment="added 425 characters in body" Text="There is a word which is used in Yaroslavl, &quot;блондиться&quot;, here's a [quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Блондиться – значит где-то долго находиться, отсутствовать. Но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказывается, это слово чисто ярославское. Ни в каких других регионах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a lot of friends in Yaroslavl so I can confirm that this verb is indeed casually used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - **when this word came to usage and what it's origin?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here what I've found so far. According to &quot;Русский этимологический словарь&quot; под редакцией Аникина, выпуск 2&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рус. `бландать` (бездельничать), воронежское &quot;плутать&quot;...Это слово и к `блондать` - блуждать и далее к `блындать` - слоняться (новгородское)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually give a hint (an old word that probably an evidence of that nasals were a thing in Slavic - a well know fact) but the question is still open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yar.kp.ru/daily/24267/464092/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13436" RevisionGUID="6d2ec206-0e7c-4ec4-b215-d1b79c93f84c" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:38:26.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/793854790929375232" />
  <row Id="31765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13456" RevisionGUID="8b2382d2-3c3b-4f89-b80e-fc815f0e9af3" CreationDate="2016-11-02T18:11:37.763" UserId="7896" Comment="fxied grammar" Text="Both cases &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столы, стулья, полки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столы, стулья и полки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are appropriate. The `и` conjunction (in russian - `союз`) before the last element points the last element and logically completes the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is logical pairing/binding, f.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столы и стулья, полки и шкафы, серванты и лавки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this could be used to logically group item pairs, or to subscribe the long enumeration (plenty of elements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="514c3805-0b58-4b82-a668-47c0845934de" CreationDate="2016-11-02T22:08:30.860" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There is a word which is used in Yaroslavl, &quot;блондиться&quot;, here's a [quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Блондиться – значит где-то долго находиться, отсутствовать. Но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказывается, это слово чисто ярославское. Ни в каких других регионах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a lot of friends in Yaroslavl so I can confirm that this verb is indeed casually used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - **when this word came to usage and what it's origin?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here what I've found so far. According to &quot;Русский этимологический словарь&quot; под редакцией Аникина, выпуск 2&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рус. `бландать` (бездельничать), воронежское &quot;плутать&quot;...Это слово и к `блондать` - блуждать и далее к `блындать` - слоняться (новгородское)   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually give a hint (an old word that probably an evidence of that nasals were a thing in Slavic - a well known fact) but the question is still open. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yar.kp.ru/daily/24267/464092/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31778" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13473" RevisionGUID="8c1b1b02-9593-44ce-b941-c339e2acaa1d" CreationDate="2016-11-03T04:38:56.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/794036110859046912" />
  <row Id="31779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13479" RevisionGUID="f13c031a-c9b3-442c-a069-05ed3454bd94" CreationDate="2016-11-03T06:29:04.557" UserId="4815" Text=" 1. Well, in practice (I mean from pronunciation point of view) there's no special difference between `Ь`, `Ъ`, especially concerning `Ъ`. From time to time there's discussion to completely remove letter `Ъ` and replace it everywhere with `Ь`&#xD;&#xA; 2. From the other hand correct spelling of these letters is considered as a sign of literate/educated person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you don't care about what kind of impression you do have on others - replace `Ъ` with `Ь` and forget about problem. If one is a foreigner - it's excusable and understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise read carefully rules and use letters accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31783" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13272" RevisionGUID="d81219b5-ba5a-4924-a1a1-144b9efc84e6" CreationDate="2016-11-03T07:38:56.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/794081412483870720" />
  <row Id="31784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13480" RevisionGUID="e17f231c-a737-4beb-988e-3c07eba29eea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T22:11:00.387" UserId="8019" Text="What does this translate to in English? ПРЕВЬЫШЕНА НАГРУЗКА на сервер. ведется техоБслуживание." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13480" RevisionGUID="e17f231c-a737-4beb-988e-3c07eba29eea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T22:11:00.387" UserId="8019" Text="what does this translate to in english?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13480" RevisionGUID="e17f231c-a737-4beb-988e-3c07eba29eea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T22:11:00.387" UserId="8019" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31788" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13480" RevisionGUID="4f0ee003-6a11-4793-aa6f-2d37703d70ec" CreationDate="2016-11-03T22:28:05.907" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13481" RevisionGUID="eef852af-ec1b-4ea6-917a-7362b08d36ef" CreationDate="2016-11-03T22:28:29.337" UserId="6405" Text="`Server overload. [The system] is being serviced`. There are several misprints in the original message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13482" RevisionGUID="3b71557d-e467-467e-a192-a6868b36af67" CreationDate="2016-11-03T22:35:11.517" UserId="97" Text="In addition to other answers, it's worth pointing out that when conjunction _и_ is used, the implied meaning is that the list is full, i.e. you listed everything that's relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Столы, стулья и полки [and nothing else]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the conjunction is omitted, the implied meaning is that there may be other relevant items, but you don't really want/need to list them all, so you only list a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Столы, стулья, полки [and maybe other items of furniture]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13483" RevisionGUID="0a428a0f-d7ab-480b-9ed6-07c1072c328e" CreationDate="2016-11-04T00:53:07.990" UserId="8021" Text="1. You will find long lists of Russian prefixes and suffixes arranged alphabetically with links to dictionary-type definitions and explanations in the English language Wiktionary [en.wiktionary.org].  The lists are located in specific Wiktionary &quot;catagories&quot; In the English Wiktionary search box enter either &quot;Category:Russian prefixes&quot; or &quot;Category:Russian suffixes&quot; to access the lists.  [Note that there is NO SPACE following the colon in the entry]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Users who are able to enter text in the Cyrillic alphabet will find similar lengthy categorical prefix/suffix lists with dictionary definition links in the Russian language Wiktionary [ru.wiktionary.org].  In the Russian Wiktionary search box enter either &quot;Категориа:Яусские слова по приставкам&quot; or &quot;Категориа:Яусские слова по суффиксам&quot; to access either list.  [As above, note that there is NO SPACE following the colon in the entry].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this tip will help advance the study of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мир!&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31792" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13464" RevisionGUID="8a9c71f2-6e68-4f51-a681-3e101405daca" CreationDate="2016-11-04T04:44:47.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/794399973513318400" />
  <row Id="31793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13483" RevisionGUID="1e79d7a1-8e17-4c77-8474-08c8c5befdea" CreationDate="2016-11-04T13:32:25.317" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typos" Text="1. You will find long lists of Russian prefixes and suffixes arranged alphabetically with links to dictionary-type definitions and explanations in the English language Wiktionary [en.wiktionary.org].  The lists are located in specific Wiktionary &quot;categories&quot; In the English Wiktionary search box enter either &quot;Category:Russian prefixes&quot; or &quot;Category:Russian suffixes&quot; to access the lists.  [Note that there is NO SPACE following the colon in the entry]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Users who are able to enter text in the Cyrillic alphabet will find similar lengthy categorical prefix/suffix lists with dictionary definition links in the Russian language Wiktionary [ru.wiktionary.org].  In the Russian Wiktionary search box enter either &quot;Категория:Русские слова по приставкам&quot; or &quot;Категория:Русские слова по суффиксам&quot; to access either list.  [As above, note that there is NO SPACE following the colon in the entry].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this tip will help advance the study of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мир!&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31794" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13483" RevisionGUID="1e79d7a1-8e17-4c77-8474-08c8c5befdea" CreationDate="2016-11-04T13:32:25.317" Comment="Proposed by 4903 approved by -1 edit id of 808" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13483" RevisionGUID="3aa17657-bd7a-4623-83a8-391fe413a4a6" CreationDate="2016-11-04T13:32:25.317" UserId="551" Comment="fixed typos, removed greeting" Text="1. You will find long lists of Russian prefixes and suffixes arranged alphabetically with links to dictionary-type definitions and explanations in the [English language Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org).  The lists are located in specific Wiktionary &quot;categories&quot; In the English Wiktionary search box enter either &quot;Category:Russian prefixes&quot; or &quot;Category:Russian suffixes&quot; to access the lists.  [Note that there is NO SPACE following the colon in the entry]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Users who are able to enter text in the Cyrillic alphabet will find similar lengthy categorical prefix/suffix lists with dictionary definition links in the [Russian language Wiktionary](http://ru.wiktionary.org).  In the Russian Wiktionary search box enter either &quot;Категория:Русские слова по приставкам&quot; or &quot;Категория:Русские слова по суффиксам&quot; to access either list.  [As above, note that there is NO SPACE following the colon in the entry].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this tip will help advance the study of the Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13281" RevisionGUID="105b8477-e5d8-4df2-985e-f842b5abf0f9" CreationDate="2016-11-04T16:44:52.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/794581188803444737" />
  <row Id="31798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13484" RevisionGUID="06986a48-d230-43cb-b279-90f31219f291" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:58:05.050" UserId="6816" Text="Are `потому что` and `то, что` pronounced with the `o` in `что` as `ə`, or as `o`? It seems the former can be both, but which is more standard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13484" RevisionGUID="06986a48-d230-43cb-b279-90f31219f291" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:58:05.050" UserId="6816" Text="Pronunciation of что phrases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13484" RevisionGUID="06986a48-d230-43cb-b279-90f31219f291" CreationDate="2016-11-04T23:58:05.050" UserId="6816" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="93e69c63-5e5f-402d-b88b-b5c49b0fa0d3" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:04:08.057" UserId="6816" Text="How do you construct a sentence like `I heard you talking` or maybe `I saw you walking`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="93e69c63-5e5f-402d-b88b-b5c49b0fa0d3" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:04:08.057" UserId="6816" Text="I heard/saw you [verb]ing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13485" RevisionGUID="93e69c63-5e5f-402d-b88b-b5c49b0fa0d3" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:04:08.057" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="f8cae70c-0bff-429a-bc46-f6115d959cff" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:36:18.643" UserId="4903" Text="Here is a straight-forward translation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I heard you talking.** - Я слышал, как ты разговаривала.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I saw you walking.** - Я виделa, как ты шёл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a spoken speech [как] could be dropped, especially when English participle has some dependent words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I heard you talking on the phone.** - Я слышал, ты разговаривала по телефону.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I saw you walking in the park.**  - Я видела, ты гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use Russian participles:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **I saw you talking.** - Я видел тебя разговаривающей.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **I saw you walking.** - Я видел тебя гуляющим.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* However, _&quot;Я **слышал** тебя разговаривающей.&quot;_ sounds unnatural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful when some expressions have idiomatic meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Я слышала, ты гулял.** _&quot;Я слышала&quot;_ could mean _&quot;I heard a rumour&quot;._ _&quot;Он гуляет/гулящий&quot;_ could mean _&quot;He is а playboy.&quot;_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13486" RevisionGUID="a06d0115-fe3f-4ea8-a068-e771fabaabfc" CreationDate="2016-11-05T00:45:05.703" UserId="4903" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Here is a straight-forward translation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I heard you talking.** - Я слышал, как ты разговаривала.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I saw you walking.** - Я виделa, как ты шёл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a spoken speech [как] could be dropped, especially when English participle has some dependent words:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I heard you talking on the phone.** - Я слышал, ты разговаривала по телефону.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **I saw you walking in the park.**  - Я видела, ты гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use Russian participles:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **I saw you talking.** - Я видел тебя разговаривающей.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* **I saw you walking.** - Я видел тебя гуляющим.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* However, _&quot;Я **слышал** тебя разговаривающей.&quot;_ sounds unnatural to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful when some expressions have idiomatic meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **Я слышала, ты гулял.** _&quot;Я слышала&quot;_ could mean _&quot;I heard a rumour&quot;._ _&quot;Он гуляет&quot;_ could mean _&quot;He is a playboy / goes around.&quot;_ The participles _&quot;гуляющий&quot;_ and _&quot;гулящий&quot;_ have distinctly different meanings," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13487" RevisionGUID="5a42c936-d022-4885-ab12-8a3e57b4d10f" CreationDate="2016-11-05T01:00:22.207" UserId="4903" Text="In the first phrase, **&quot;потому что&quot;** all three &quot;о&quot; are pronounced as **&quot;shwa&quot; - ə.**  In the second one, **&quot;то, что&quot;** both &quot;о&quot; are pronounced as **&quot;о&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in **&quot;потому, что&quot;** the first two &quot;o&quot; are pronounced as **&quot;shwa&quot;,** but the last one is stressed and pronounced as **&quot;o&quot;.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13468" RevisionGUID="16abd9ae-ac0a-4629-a695-9402466f0172" CreationDate="2016-11-05T04:44:51.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/794762377334034432" />
  <row Id="31809" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13147" RevisionGUID="94bb38ed-3f2a-4f89-a039-6de483d4b057" CreationDate="2016-11-05T10:45:22.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/794853103975759872" />
  <row Id="31810" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="55a42445-d6a0-4270-bca0-f25ac47fe1ee" CreationDate="2016-11-05T12:28:12.687" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="30946db3-ba92-427e-a3f2-8a36d53d57da" CreationDate="2016-11-05T14:10:31.900" UserId="6816" Text="I know that the subjunctive uses past tense, but *does that mean there's no way to distinguish the following sentences?*&#xA;&#xA;    I would say hello, if he were home.&#xA;&#xA;and&#xA;&#xA;    I would have said hello, if he were home.&#xA;&#xA;The first means that the speaker is willing to say hello, if the person is home. The second one means the speaker had the opportunity to say hello previously, but the person wasn't home.&#xA;&#xA;The distinction may not seem significant, but the two sentences mean something entirely different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="30946db3-ba92-427e-a3f2-8a36d53d57da" CreationDate="2016-11-05T14:10:31.900" UserId="6816" Text="Distinguish tense of subjunctive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="30946db3-ba92-427e-a3f2-8a36d53d57da" CreationDate="2016-11-05T14:10:31.900" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13489" RevisionGUID="d7fdded0-cddf-4333-aee1-f9695dad064d" CreationDate="2016-11-05T14:52:56.137" UserId="6725" Text="As far as I understand, both sentences should normally be translated as  `&quot;Я бы поздоровался, если бы он был дома&quot;`. So, they really can't be distinguished without context. If you want unambiguous translation, you can use a construction with `будь` for the second sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будь он дома, я бы поздоровался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is usually used only in the second case (`&quot;the speaker had the opportunity to say hello previously, but the person wasn't home&quot;`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the first sentence you can just use future tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если он будет дома, я поздороваюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not quite accurate, but expresses the main idea (`&quot;the speaker is willing to say hello, if the person is home&quot;`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13488" RevisionGUID="c3e5d8a7-4806-4d87-9827-97ea69e68a55" CreationDate="2016-11-05T15:17:47.533" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31816" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13421" RevisionGUID="5e2fc844-68c1-4818-9c16-44b69b998eea" CreationDate="2016-11-05T17:38:33.493" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31817" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13372" RevisionGUID="1f0df8d8-d511-49dc-80f6-e16b81e45eb4" CreationDate="2016-11-05T17:41:16.717" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31818" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13395" RevisionGUID="1207c947-4d2a-4b9d-8010-b674c2a4ec70" CreationDate="2016-11-06T02:42:39.353" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13451" RevisionGUID="c839373c-c4fb-441f-ab72-7529b25e942f" CreationDate="2016-11-06T02:46:26.837" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13469" RevisionGUID="76da1bb0-f3f2-4ab3-978b-08215343d282" CreationDate="2016-11-06T02:49:09.847" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13490" RevisionGUID="f67f9eb5-59b7-405f-b316-9a6faea29816" CreationDate="2016-11-06T13:29:37.137" UserId="8034" Text="I hope I understood your question right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 1st variant ('the speaker is willing to say hello, if the person is home') person can either be or not be at home right now (or in future). So this is a REAL condition. And for real conditions we do not use БЫ. So only one БЫ (for would):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Анна, ты не знаешь, Игорь сейчас дома? Я **бы** поздоровался с ним, если он (сейчас) дома.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 2d one the person wasn't home at some point in the past, and it can't be changed now. So this condition is not real and we use БЫ in both parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я **бы** поздоровался с ним, если **бы** он был (вчера, час назад и т.п.) дома.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13484" RevisionGUID="b6740029-6ce7-46ef-aa3f-fddc53e8df8e" CreationDate="2016-11-06T19:52:45.577" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/795353245937991684" />
  <row Id="31824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13492" RevisionGUID="70a24794-d6f6-40c8-a868-5f1f74ba19b1" CreationDate="2016-11-06T20:43:30.343" UserId="5443" Text="1. **I would say hello, if he were home.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the form of it, it belongs to **Future Unreal Conditionals** [He's not home, so I won't say hello]&#xD;&#xA;http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/futureconditional.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(similar example there: I would buy that computer tomorrow if it were cheaper.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будь он дома, я бы (сейчас пошёл и) поздоровался с ним.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *[Его нет дома, так что я с ним не поздороваюсь]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **I would have said hello, if he were homе.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a **Mixed (Present/Past) Unreal Conditional**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(similar example in that source: If I were rich, I would have bought that Ferrari we saw yesterday.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будь он дома, я бы с ним (уже) поздоровался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  *[Его (до сих пор) нет дома, так что я с ним не поздоровался]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only difference is in timeline position of imaginary saying hello (before or after time of speaking). Since it is hardly sufficient, the words in brackets (or similar clarifications) in Russian versions are most often omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31825" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13469" RevisionGUID="d0da4a38-4580-472a-944c-d16530212f01" CreationDate="2016-11-06T22:52:46.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/795398546333827073" />
  <row Id="31828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13191" RevisionGUID="da1f046a-beaf-4452-93c3-7da09f05317f" CreationDate="2016-11-07T04:52:45.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/795489141358260224" />
  <row Id="31829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13493" RevisionGUID="9fc4b534-7d07-49dd-942c-60ecb83d0ed7" CreationDate="2016-11-07T06:06:47.380" UserId="6539" Text="The dialectic regional блондить originates from the idiom блыонды бить. In some dialects we observe idioms which are different in possessing either one or a combination of consonants in the first syllable. They are *лыОнды бить и блыОнды бить* 'бездельничать' which are equivalent to a well-known *бить баклуши*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idiom лынды бить 'бить баклуши, бездельничать' is used mostly in southern dialects, in Pskov region, Lithuania and Latvia and actively in Smolensk region where another variant is known : Олындьё бить'то же, что лынды бить' Смол., лúнду петь сидеть сложа руки, бездельничать'. In Orel, Bryansk regions they have лынды продавáть 'бесцельно бродить; слоняться' , лынды лындать 'вести праздный образ жизни'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a variant with **блыОнды** in some dialects блынды бить 'бездельничать'. The formal comparison shows the simplification бл- &gt; л-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research showed that the idiom originated from the noun **лыОнда**--нога which is seen in several Slavonic dialects including Byelorussian and Polish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blr. лыОнды 'ноги', лыОндаць 'лентяйничать притаившись', 'бродить, шляться'; Pol. fynda 'бродяга', fyndac sif 'шататься, шляться'&#xD;&#xA;Though M. Фасмер thought the word лыОнда, лыОнды, лыОндать was connected with Slavonic лынь 'лентяй, тунеядец' и лытáть 'лениться, лодырничать' , Ю.А.Лаучюте shows that the origin is Baltic considering the Lithuanian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;linda 'пронырливый человек; лентяй; тот, кто притаился, избежал работы' ,also: lindé ti '(прятаться, скрываться) торчать' ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="3b91846d-553f-4e58-9375-1430d9bed993" CreationDate="2016-11-07T08:56:48.033" UserId="4782" Text="I've noticed that, not only in Russian, but in many other Eastern European languages that in French loanwords that end in &quot;-tion&quot;, the suffix almost always appears as &quot;-cija&quot; (-ция). Examples include words like &quot;informacija&quot;. I've tried to look up the etymology of the suffix to no avail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is &quot;-cija&quot; a native Slavic suffix or is it a phonetic rendering of the original French suffix?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="3b91846d-553f-4e58-9375-1430d9bed993" CreationDate="2016-11-07T08:56:48.033" UserId="4782" Text="French loanwords ending in &quot;-tion&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="3b91846d-553f-4e58-9375-1430d9bed993" CreationDate="2016-11-07T08:56:48.033" UserId="4782" Text="|этимология|лексикон|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13495" RevisionGUID="42d159f9-ab07-4edb-b568-521baae68b53" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:08:02.087" UserId="5008" Text="&quot;-ция&quot; is a rendering of Latin &quot;-tio&quot; rather than French &quot;-tion&quot;. Even though some words were borrowed from French (actually in Russian many loan words were borrowed indirectly through Polish), they became &quot;Latin&quot;-lookalike in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="2391d988-170d-404e-b24d-cda575ca8c0d" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:30:22.737" UserId="242" Text="Just to complements Matt's answer. Your assumption is indeed false, first set of words with &quot;-ция&quot; was not derived from French words but rather from their Latin cognates - through Polish - for instance words навигация, революция нация, милиция, конструкция, акция are corresponding to Polish nawigacja, rewolucja, nасjа, milicja, konstrukcja, akcja.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then some words were derived from French (or English which was influenced by French and also have -tion) but the tradition to keep &quot;-ция&quot; for &quot;-tion&quot; preserved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of why Latin `-tion` morphed into `-cja` - it's better ask at Polish related Stack. Which, unfortunately, does not exist so far. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="5b377cd0-fbe8-405d-bcca-5f13b3da8f2f" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:36:31.877" UserId="242" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Just to complement Matt's answer. Your assumption is indeed false, first set of words with &quot;-ция&quot; was not derived from French words but rather from their Latin cognates - through Polish - for instance words `навигация`, `революция`, `нация`, `милиция`, `конструкция`, `акция` are corresponding to Polish `nawigacja`, `rewolucja`, `nасjа`, `milicja`, `konstrukcja`, `akcja`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then some words were derived from French (or English which was influenced by French and also have -tion) but the tradition to keep &quot;-ция&quot; for &quot;-tion&quot; preserved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of why Latin `-tion` morphed into [cja][1] - it's better ask at Polish related Stack. Which, unfortunately, does not exist so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-cja" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31836" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13494" RevisionGUID="32a1008f-e3df-4df8-ab18-db6810577b6d" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:37:49.080" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4368],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13496" RevisionGUID="ea91e7d6-a82c-46ad-b756-8ddb153df934" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:43:49.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Just to complement Matt's answer. Your assumption is indeed false, first set of words with &quot;-ция&quot; was not derived from French words but rather from their Latin cognates - through Polish - for instance words `навигация`, `революция`, `нация`, `милиция`, `конструкция`, `акция` are corresponding to Polish `nawigacja`, `rewolucja`, `nасjа`, `milicja`, `konstrukcja`, `akcja`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then some words were derived from French (or English which was influenced by French and also have -tion) but the tradition to keep &quot;-ция&quot; for &quot;-tion&quot; preserved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of why Latin `-tion` morphed into [cja][1] - it's better ask at Polish-related Stack. Which, unfortunately, does not exist so far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-cja" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31838" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13209" RevisionGUID="5d230535-b32b-406e-a710-ef63504aa47d" CreationDate="2016-11-07T10:52:55.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/795579777545551872" />
  <row Id="31839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13497" RevisionGUID="a7c79e8a-1a0b-4610-aec5-4b71b80a7372" CreationDate="2016-11-07T13:57:11.620" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Я бы поздоровался, если бы он был дома = first case (as explaining to somebody why you haven't said hello, this is because he was not at home)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы поздоровался, если он дома = second case (as telling his wife that you would like to say hello if he is home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, you **would** say hello if he **would** be at home (you think he is not/was not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, you **would** say hello if he **is** home (you do not know)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="48e6c534-a92b-4080-b466-d568cec5e915" CreationDate="2016-11-07T18:17:49.543" UserId="6725" Text="It looks like imperative singular, but its meaning is obviously not imperative. Maybe it's actually some other verb form mostly absent in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="48e6c534-a92b-4080-b466-d568cec5e915" CreationDate="2016-11-07T18:17:49.543" UserId="6725" Text="What verb form is &quot;будь&quot; (or any other verb) in constructions similar to &quot;Будь он дома, открыл бы нам дверь.&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="48e6c534-a92b-4080-b466-d568cec5e915" CreationDate="2016-11-07T18:17:49.543" UserId="6725" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13500" RevisionGUID="14af271b-b907-4f5d-bf25-ab4bb9bc02bb" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:31:09.527" UserId="6539" Text="Conditional subordinate clauses contain a condition from  which the realization of the content in the main clause depends. Subordinate clauses usually begin with conjunctions, but such relationship can be formed without conjunctions using the imperative which is not used in its usual function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Явись** теперь на Руси поэт, который был бы неизмеримо выше Пушкина, его появление уже не могло бы наделать столько шума (Белинский).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative is used to denote **a contrary to fact  condition**. The construction is informal and its usage is rather limited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Будь я) на вашем месте, я не отвечал бы на это письмо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Знай я ремеслo – жил бы я в городе.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И не случись бы в моей судьбе тех перипетий, кто знает, как бы оно и что бы… И вообще, какой бы я стала. Л. Гурченко. Аплодисменты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будь бы другие времена, я бы по нём настоящую панихиду отслужил, как у нас в монастырях служат. С. А. Еремеева. Лекции по русскому искусству .&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13498" RevisionGUID="6fe4e680-020b-46da-9866-2a698cbd5760" CreationDate="2016-11-07T19:38:46.203" UserId="6725" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="It looks like imperative singular, but its meaning is obviously not imperative. Maybe it's actually some other verb form mostly absent in modern Russian? What is the origin of usage of imperative (or what is it?) to express conditional mood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your answers!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="90f2487b-38ba-461a-80ee-249e41384164" CreationDate="2016-11-08T01:52:28.240" UserId="6840" Text="The two sentences I wrote in english roughly translate to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Did you know she was in Berlin? (Asking a genuine question)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You knew she was in Berlin? (And you didn't tell me?!, accusing the other person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think `Вы знали, что она быль в Берлине?` is how you would translate the first sentence, but how would you imply the second one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="90f2487b-38ba-461a-80ee-249e41384164" CreationDate="2016-11-08T01:52:28.240" UserId="6840" Text="Did you know she was in Berlin? vs You knew she was in Berlin? How to differentiate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="90f2487b-38ba-461a-80ee-249e41384164" CreationDate="2016-11-08T01:52:28.240" UserId="6840" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13502" RevisionGUID="c669d5ec-3e9a-471f-be57-edd5f7d7285d" CreationDate="2016-11-08T03:01:40.260" UserId="2079" Text="&gt; Did you know she was in Berlin? (Asking a genuine question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If she was in Berlin before he supposedly knew it (i.e. did he know in 1990 that she was in Berlin in 1975):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы знали, что она была в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;    Знали ли вы, что она была в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;    Известно ли было вам, что она была в Берлине? (most formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If she was in Berlin at the same time he supposedly knew it (i. e. did he know in 1990 that she was at Berlin in 1990)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы знали, что она в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;    Знали ли вы, что она в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;    Известно ли были вам, что она в Берлине? (most formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You knew she was in Berlin? (And you didn't tell me?!, accusing the other person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И вы знали, что она (была) в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, even better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Она была в Берлине, и вы это знали?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13503" RevisionGUID="77b1aa46-d21f-4480-9bdb-c507656b3c2c" CreationDate="2016-11-08T03:26:52.113" UserId="6539" Text="Your second sentence is nonstandard in English, it's colloquial.As for forming sentences containing a reproach or a sort of accusation, we use both affirmative and interrogative sentences supporting them with intonation and words increasing expressiveness&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Так** Вы знали,что она была в Берлине? И не сказали мне?or *Как*? Вы знали, что она была в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can repeat words, pause emphatically &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы...,Вы знали, что она была в Берлине и *ничего* мне не сказали?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is pronounced with a rising intonation and sounds neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Знали ли Вы,(Вы знали),что она была в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="8da29e60-2997-46ff-8487-e4c991a05def" CreationDate="2016-11-08T04:42:56.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="The two sentences I wrote in english roughly translate to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Did you know she was in Berlin? (Asking a genuine question)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You knew she was in Berlin? (And you didn't tell me?!, accusing the other person)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think `Вы знали, что она была в Берлине?` is how you would translate the first sentence, but how would you imply the second one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13504" RevisionGUID="d6cda450-55f0-4acd-8e05-bea93f5212bf" CreationDate="2016-11-08T07:41:51.330" UserId="4560" Text="First things first, tense sequencing. &quot;Did you know she was in Berlin?&quot; is **Вы знали, что она в Берлине?** No **была**, which would make it &quot;did you know that she *had been* to Berlin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the most natural and economical way to differentiate between question and accusation would be with intonation alone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы ↗**знали**, что она ↘в Берлине? *(question)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы знали, что она ↗**в Берлине**? *(accusation)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13504" RevisionGUID="cc2857e6-854f-4c7e-bdc2-908ab48ea226" CreationDate="2016-11-08T07:47:53.320" UserId="4560" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="First things first, tense sequencing. &quot;Did you know she was in Berlin?&quot; is **Вы знали, что она в Берлине?** No **была**, which would make it &quot;did you know that she *had been* to Berlin&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the most natural and economical way to differentiate between question and accusation would be with intonation alone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы ↗↗**знали**, что она ↘в Берлине? *(question)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы знали, что она ↗**в Берлине**? *(accusation)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The double arrow is a makeshift way to indicate that that pitch rise is greater than the other one and the drop.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13503" RevisionGUID="854b08e6-b8c1-418f-9e06-bb4eb5687b8d" CreationDate="2016-11-08T08:26:01.237" UserId="6539" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Your second sentence is nonstandard in English, it's colloquial.As for forming sentences containing a reproach or a sort of accusation, we use both affirmative and interrogative sentences supporting them with intonation and words increasing expressiveness(I am not going to consider English sentences была или есть.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Так** Вы знали,что она была в Берлине? И не сказали мне?or *Как*? Вы знали, что она была в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can repeat words, pause emphatically &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы...,Вы знали, что она была в Берлине и *ничего* мне не сказали?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is pronounced with a rising intonation and sounds neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Знали ли Вы,(Вы знали),что она была в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13503" RevisionGUID="bd471227-ce32-40a5-84e0-bd00e8f5a7dc" CreationDate="2016-11-08T15:27:16.310" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Your second sentence is nonstandard in English, it's colloquial.As for forming sentences containing a reproach or a sort of accusation, we use both affirmative and interrogative sentences supporting them with intonation and words increasing expressiveness(I am not going to consider English sentences была или есть.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Так** Вы знали,что она в Берлине? И не сказали мне? or *Как*? Вы знали, что она  в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can repeat words, pause emphatically &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы...,Вы знали, что она в Берлине и *ничего* мне не сказали?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is pronounced with a rising intonation and sounds neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Знали ли Вы,(Вы знали),что она в Берлине?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="98f400b8-b680-4eab-98d0-3c6fd9a97072" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:24:41.930" UserId="4903" Text="When looking at phrases in the form of &quot;verb - pronoun - participle&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Увидел его гуляющим &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Застал его пьющим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Представил его улыбающимся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use some verbs of perception, but not others.  For example we don't use the verb &quot;hear&quot; *(слышать/услышать)* We can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я слышал её&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я слышал её голос&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  __But not__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я слышал её разговаривавшей / шептавшей / болтавшей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does there exist some anti-pattern in the language to not use the verb __&quot;hear&quot;,__ and possibly other verbs in such phrases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="98f400b8-b680-4eab-98d0-3c6fd9a97072" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:24:41.930" UserId="4903" Text="Why don't we say &quot;Я слышал её говорившей&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="98f400b8-b680-4eab-98d0-3c6fd9a97072" CreationDate="2016-11-08T19:24:41.930" UserId="4903" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13508" RevisionGUID="e5afec2e-9ef8-437b-ae06-6dbe8145d0ba" CreationDate="2016-11-09T10:39:45.500" UserId="4238" Text="Is there any rule governing the choice of aspect following forms of должен? It seems that in a negative sentence with должен, the best choice is often the imperfective, i.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не должны были терять очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even with regards to this, though, I am not sure, since Google shows almost as many results using the perfective as the imperfective in sentences such as &quot;Mы [не] должни были выигрывать/выиграть.&quot; (The imperfective is still more common.) So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Which aspect is generally correct in a positive sentence with должен? Can one use both?  (If so, is there truly a difference in meaning?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Which aspect is generally correct in a negative sentence with должен? (&quot;&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Which aspect is generally correct in a question with должен? What about a negative question, i.e. [ ]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не должны ли мы стремиться к такому идеалу народной жизни... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13508" RevisionGUID="e5afec2e-9ef8-437b-ae06-6dbe8145d0ba" CreationDate="2016-11-09T10:39:45.500" UserId="4238" Text="Aspect following должен" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13508" RevisionGUID="e5afec2e-9ef8-437b-ae06-6dbe8145d0ba" CreationDate="2016-11-09T10:39:45.500" UserId="4238" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13509" RevisionGUID="9973d43b-4e64-4be6-8c4e-f0896b124b52" CreationDate="2016-11-09T10:58:10.460" UserId="6065" Text="The fact is that должен in no way influences the choice of aspect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Both &quot;Мы должны выигрывать&quot; and &quot;Мы должны выиграть&quot;. The former implies a regular pattern - we must always win; the latter - we must win once.&#xD;&#xA; 2. не has no influence here either&#xD;&#xA; 3. see #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote a [popular site for Russian learners][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The aspects are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective - Incomplete, ongoing, habitual, reversed or repeated actions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective - Actions completed successfully.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a very rough explanation, but it's important to keep this whole должен business out of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13510" RevisionGUID="d2cf7473-2dea-454b-bd8e-5abc431f6294" CreationDate="2016-11-09T19:48:18.287" UserId="194" Text="Depending on the meaning you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не должны терять очки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means you should not repeatedly lose your eyeglasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13511" RevisionGUID="ca252864-b2b0-4a10-affc-c2af28448f96" CreationDate="2016-11-10T13:57:24.347" UserId="310" Text="`Я слышал её говорившей о [чём-либо]` sounds totally okay to my ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, for example, you happened to catch a speech on some topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the weirdness comes from `слышал` and `говорившей`, which are both about sounds and therefore redundant. Maybe the better one would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я видел её говорившей о [чём-либо]`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31878" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13506" RevisionGUID="d8c3f263-31ac-4f7d-8cc8-6864be729aa9" CreationDate="2016-11-10T14:05:08.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/796715315371659264" />
  <row Id="31879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="5110c783-7c84-41a3-bcd9-447a1b6a3485" CreationDate="2016-11-10T15:19:50.657" UserId="194" Text="It is totally grammatical and correct to say so, but in modern language you usually would say &quot;я слышал, как она говорила...&quot;. I think there is some nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following setting. She is the factory manager. Now consider the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел её говорившей с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел, как она говорила с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both can mean the same, you saw her talking to the workers. But the second one can also mean you saw *how* she was talking to the workers. Her manners, mimic, tone. If you want exclude this, you use the first one. It is momentary: this can mean you say her face was red, but you cannot say anything about time-prolonged details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what about слышал instead of видел? Well, the same, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел её говорившей с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means you heard some short moment of their conversation, by chance, like through a wall or by hearing their telephone call accidentally, but you cannot say in what manner and how she was speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more to note. Я слышал её говорившей can mean either once or several times, while я слышал, как она говорила can imply either only one (without referring to the manners) or referring to the manners (then likely not once)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="243a78f4-7919-421d-ad01-39a92c4df6a9" CreationDate="2016-11-10T15:30:55.557" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It is totally grammatical and correct to say so, but in modern language you usually would say &quot;я слышал, как она говорила...&quot;. I think there is some nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following setting. She is the factory manager. Now consider the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел её говорившей с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел, как она говорила с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both can mean the same, you saw her talking to the workers. But the second one can also mean you saw *how* she was talking to the workers. Her manners, mimic, tone. If you want exclude this, you use the first one. It is momentary: this can mean you say her face was red, but you cannot say anything about time-prolonged details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what about слышал instead of видел? Well, the same, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слышал её говорившей с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means you heard some short moment of their conversation, by chance, like through a wall or by hearing their telephone call accidentally, but you cannot say in what manner and how she was speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more to note. Я слышал её говорившей can mean either once or several times, while я слышал, как она говорила can imply either only one (without referring to the manners) or referring to the manners (then likely not once)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13513" RevisionGUID="55f1d3d5-1e8f-433b-91ee-fa056e13674e" CreationDate="2016-11-10T16:14:15.430" UserId="5443" Text="**Я видел её** describes *direct perception* of 'her', not derived from the idea 'I watched the vision of her' (я видел её изображение). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я **слышал** её **голос** (or *как она говорит/говорила*) directly describes just *sound perception*, while **я слышал её** is an idiomatic transformation of it (голос -&gt; она). So it is less flexible at building participle constructions of the type used not too often. Maybe that is the reason why the phrase in question sounds a bit unnatural. I don't think it's because of the mentioned redundancy of *слышал+говорящей*, since both versions of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слышал/видел, как она говорит(-ла) по телефону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (having different meaning) sound *equally* normal to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13517" RevisionGUID="9786c0ae-2b07-4d5d-ae3e-eb550b68527e" CreationDate="2016-11-11T02:19:47.963" UserId="8046" Text="How do I ask &quot;Can you come pick me up?&quot; For example, I am at work and would like to call one of my friends and ask him to pick me up. I would like to know both the most common way to say it and the formal way to say it.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;From my informal education, I have heard people say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Можешь меня подобрать?&#xD;&#xA; - Можешь меня забрать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13517" RevisionGUID="9786c0ae-2b07-4d5d-ae3e-eb550b68527e" CreationDate="2016-11-11T02:19:47.963" UserId="8046" Text="How to ask &quot;Can you come pick me up&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13517" RevisionGUID="9786c0ae-2b07-4d5d-ae3e-eb550b68527e" CreationDate="2016-11-11T02:19:47.963" UserId="8046" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="d4635634-bff7-4df9-a21d-cfb855a5e43b" CreationDate="2016-11-11T03:56:38.253" UserId="8046" Text="How do I say &quot;affluenza&quot; in Russian? For example, &quot;his parents suffer from affluenza.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="d4635634-bff7-4df9-a21d-cfb855a5e43b" CreationDate="2016-11-11T03:56:38.253" UserId="8046" Text="How to say &quot;affluenza&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="d4635634-bff7-4df9-a21d-cfb855a5e43b" CreationDate="2016-11-11T03:56:38.253" UserId="8046" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31893" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="9426f613-d499-48c7-97fc-bdd8e5885054" CreationDate="2016-11-11T04:31:42.013" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13519" RevisionGUID="ad4a7da9-289e-4933-9ee7-14c00687305d" CreationDate="2016-11-11T05:07:03.490" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Можешь заехать за мной?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a usual sentence. **Забрать** is more colloquial,but it's also used.**Подобрать** means *to pick you up on the way to some place*.In some situations **подвезти** (to give someone a lift) would also do.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="94368d63-a9f6-4c7f-b0ed-1eb5677f2505" CreationDate="2016-11-11T07:02:50.567" UserId="8046" Comment="Improved the question. Gave more specific description." Text="How do I say &quot;affluenza&quot; in Russian? &lt;br/&gt;I am specifically referring to the negative connotation of a condition in which a person or some people pursue material possessions simply to have them. For example, &quot;his parents suffer from affluenza, they waste their monthly savings buying _fancy new_ products that they store indefinitely in their garage.&quot; I could not find any translations of the word online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31897" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="94368d63-a9f6-4c7f-b0ed-1eb5677f2505" CreationDate="2016-11-11T07:02:50.567" UserId="8046" Comment="Improved the question. Gave more specific description." Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31898" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="80bde26e-b3b6-4650-b389-ba287d7f6a16" CreationDate="2016-11-11T11:28:12.733" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13520" RevisionGUID="ec46eaf8-970e-444d-b0ef-898941efcf15" CreationDate="2016-11-11T11:37:56.967" UserId="134" Text="There is a term *покупательский зуд* (literally, &quot;the buyer's itch&quot;), &quot;an urge to buy things just for the sake of buying&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it's not attested in the corpus yet, however, brief googling shows it's been used in print for some time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Удивительно, ты начинаешь испытывать покупательский зуд именно тогда, когда в театре ломается машина!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - В одном из недавних номеров «Нью-Йорк таймс» научный обозреватель Николас Бакалар называет «покупательский зуд», охвативший жителей развитых стран на рубеже тысячелетий, настоящим психическим заболеванием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Эйфория, азарт, и даже гордость охватывали каждого покупателя, попавшего на территорию внезапного рая, вызывающего неудержимый покупательский зуд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earliest entry in Google Books is from 2003." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13521" RevisionGUID="6d07e374-0251-4a27-9356-1be2f87e39d9" CreationDate="2016-11-11T11:46:18.600" UserId="6539" Text=" *Вещизм*, *безудержное потребление* can be used to describe it. Translators also use general terms : *перепотребление*, *потребительство* and **консьюмеризм**, a loan word, which is most often used nowadays. *Ониомания* (*шопогализм*, *шопингализм*) is a medical term, a sort of addiction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13522" RevisionGUID="ae9ebf5c-0069-48a8-886e-5ec8b1760ebc" CreationDate="2016-11-11T12:11:04.157" UserId="6816" Text="Similar to one of my previous questions, I want to know how to say &quot;going to&quot; as in `The salt shaker was going to/about to fall off the table`&#xA;&#xA;This is because I read online that собираться was only for things with consciousness, and I want to know what word you would use if an object was about to do something in the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13522" RevisionGUID="ae9ebf5c-0069-48a8-886e-5ec8b1760ebc" CreationDate="2016-11-11T12:11:04.157" UserId="6816" Text="&quot;Going to&quot; translation for inanimate things" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13522" RevisionGUID="ae9ebf5c-0069-48a8-886e-5ec8b1760ebc" CreationDate="2016-11-11T12:11:04.157" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13523" RevisionGUID="56045b9e-c458-4c8a-8389-ce0509efd2ac" CreationDate="2016-11-11T13:06:32.690" UserId="5443" Text="&gt; Солонка была близка к тому, чтобы упасть со стола.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солонка была на грани падения со стола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, it is possible to reveal it's somebody's impression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солонка *будто* вознамерилась упасть со стола.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Казалось*, солонка вот-вот упадёт со стола." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13524" RevisionGUID="4e1789b4-0619-4b79-aa71-b8dd2254f7d8" CreationDate="2016-11-11T14:13:25.243" UserId="4903" Text="In __present tense,__ *&quot;The salt shaker is about to fall of the table&quot;* can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солонка сейчас упадёт.  *(as mentioned by jwalker)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солонка вот-вот упадёт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of a straight-forward way to express it in the __past tense.__  So I would use an additional clause to indicate the past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я увидел, что солонка вот-вот упадёт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13525" RevisionGUID="4f805e85-f988-43f8-92be-5b7847ba2235" CreationDate="2016-11-11T16:25:52.303" UserId="6539" Text="Let me explain the problem. Be going to +infinitive has two main meanings:a planned action which is mainly translated as собираться что‐то делать,though should sometimes be translated as будущее время.In this case &quot;consciousness &quot; as you call it is important. But there exists a &quot;narrow&quot; usage of *going to*, that of referring to a prediction **based on facts**(visual or well-known ). Such predictions can involve all kinds of subjects (including inanimate nouns). Such sentences are translated with будущее время, or прошедшее время as in your example. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри,солонка сейчас упадет.(because you see it near the edge of the table).Or Смотри, солонка чуть не упала. Я видел,что она чуть не упала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes собирается is used to describe the rain coming, here the meaning of it is &quot;пойдет&quot;,&quot;будет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кажется, дождь собирается." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13526" RevisionGUID="3d168e31-1327-4a49-81f8-3d8a33418802" CreationDate="2016-11-11T18:21:53.687" UserId="310" Text="    Его родители - транжиры, спускают всю зарплату на шмотки и барахло&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The profound difference here is that `транжира` is not newspeak like `affluenza` is but a good old literary word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13521" RevisionGUID="597c879c-49b4-48ef-a8cb-9462d41fcda2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T20:53:06.890" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text=" *Вещизм*, *безудержное потребление* can be used to describe it. Translators also use general terms : *перепотребление*, *потребительство* and **консьюмеризм**, a loan word, which is most often used nowadays. *Ониомания* (*шопоголизм*, *шопинголизм*) is a medical term, a sort of addiction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="4f0e5df2-a5a7-4c4d-af09-4fc85ef9b1a7" CreationDate="2016-11-11T23:10:36.493" UserId="8046" Comment="Fixed punctuation" Text="How do I say &quot;affluenza&quot; in Russian? &lt;br/&gt;I am specifically referring to the negative connotation of a condition in which a person or some people pursue material possessions simply to have them. For example, &quot;his parents suffer from affluenza; they waste their monthly savings buying _fancy new_ products that they store indefinitely in their garage.&quot; I could not find any translations of the word online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13521" RevisionGUID="c1118a2c-774c-44aa-8bac-8e48af31eba0" CreationDate="2016-11-12T04:48:57.503" UserId="6539" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text=" *Вещизм*, *безудержное потребление* can be used to describe it. Translators also use general terms : *перепотребление*, *потребительство* and **консьюмеризм**, a loan word, which is most often used nowadays. *Ониомания* (*шопоголизм*, *шопинголизм*) is a medical term, a sort of addiction. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он страдает от вещизма.( страдает шопоманией)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13521" RevisionGUID="6e2a619b-bb67-4e7c-a92c-3668aef8b55e" CreationDate="2016-11-12T04:58:13.800" UserId="6539" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text=" *Вещизм*, *безудержное потребление* can be used to describe it. Translators also use general terms : *перепотребление*, *потребительство* and **консьюмеризм**, a loan word, which is most often used nowadays. *Ониомания* (*шопоголизм*, *шопинголизм*) is a medical term, a sort of addiction. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он страдает от вещизма.( страдает шопоманией)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From National corpus. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нездоровый вещизм как один из признаков современного общества потребления ежегодно достигает своего апогея в канун рождественских и новогодних праздников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-моему, это мудро: в классе должны царить дисциплина и равенство детей перед знаниями, а не вещизм и похвальба возможностями родителей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13521" RevisionGUID="019028de-0e85-4f7c-be4f-d31989dc6c03" CreationDate="2016-11-12T05:08:36.870" UserId="6539" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text=" *Вещизм*, *безудержное потребление* can be used to describe it. Translators also use general terms : *перепотребление*, *потребительство* and **консьюмеризм**, a loan word, which is most often used nowadays. *Ониомания* (*шопоголизм*, *шопинголизм*) is a medical term, a sort of addiction. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он страдает от вещизма.( страдает шопоманией)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From National corpus. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нездоровый вещизм как один из признаков современного общества потребления ежегодно достигает своего апогея в канун рождественских и новогодних праздников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;По-моему, это мудро: в классе должны царить дисциплина и равенство детей перед знаниями, а не вещизм и похвальба возможностями родителей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Безудержное потребление стало новой мировой религией. Миллионы людей в разных странах живут ради того, чтобы покупать все больше товаров. Аппетиты потребителей растут, с каждым годом становясь изощрённее." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13521" RevisionGUID="3857572e-8c9f-4ac3-b457-d8d43ab5cae3" CreationDate="2016-11-12T05:15:17.353" UserId="6539" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text=" *Вещизм*, *безудержное потребление* can be used to describe it. Translators also use general terms : *перепотребление*, *потребительство* and **консьюмеризм**, a loan word, which is most often used nowadays. *Ониомания* (*шопоголизм*, *шопинголизм*) is a medical term, a sort of addiction. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он страдает от вещизма.( страдает шопоманией)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эта неконтролируемая тяга что-либо приобретать, невзирая на необходимость и последствия, называется ониоманией, шопоголизмом или просто вещизмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From National corpus. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нездоровый вещизм как один из признаков современного общества потребления ежегодно достигает своего апогея в канун рождественских и новогодних праздников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;По-моему, это мудро: в классе должны царить дисциплина и равенство детей перед знаниями, а не вещизм и похвальба возможностями родителей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Безудержное потребление стало новой мировой религией. Миллионы людей в разных странах живут ради того, чтобы покупать все больше товаров. Аппетиты потребителей растут, с каждым годом становясь изощрённее." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13519" RevisionGUID="56fdb9c6-f03f-45fe-a8fc-6133c5f1af65" CreationDate="2016-11-12T05:22:48.470" UserId="6539" Comment="added 336 characters in body" Text="&gt;Можешь заехать за мной?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a usual sentence. **Забрать** is more colloquial,but it's also used.**Подобрать** means *to pick you up on the way to some place*.In some situations **подвезти** (to give someone a lift) would also do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is neutral and can be used in every situation. If you are asking a friend, take it unchanged. In a more formal way you would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не могли бы Вы заехать за мной? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, meaning &quot;give a lift&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не могли бы Вы подвезти меня?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Забрать и подобрать should be used addressing a friend.They are highly colloquial. –" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13525" RevisionGUID="6a81f9d3-4eb3-4e91-93d4-29eac7c85479" CreationDate="2016-11-12T05:28:40.953" UserId="6539" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Let me explain the problem. Be going to +infinitive has two main meanings:a **planned action** which is mainly translated as **собираться что‐то делать**,though should sometimes be translated as будущее время.In this case &quot;consciousness &quot; as you call it **is important**. But there exists a &quot;narrow&quot; usage of *going to*, that of referring to a **prediction based on facts**(visual or well-known ). Such predictions can involve **all kinds of subjects** (including inanimate nouns). Such sentences are translated with **будущее время, or прошедшее время** as in your example. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри,солонка сейчас упадет.(because you see it near the edge of the table).Or Смотри, солонка чуть не упала. Я видел,что она чуть не упала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes собирается is used to describe the rain coming, here the meaning of it is &quot;пойдет&quot;,&quot;будет&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кажется, дождь собирается." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="73f8c125-8149-4928-a0ec-349657f8d55f" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:20:15.577" UserId="8053" Text="Onomatopoetic &quot;Zzz&quot; is well known in languages that use latin alphabet. It means &quot;sleep&quot; in many languages. Is this also the case in Russian? Can &quot;Ззз&quot; be used to symbolize sleep?&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tomaž." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="73f8c125-8149-4928-a0ec-349657f8d55f" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:20:15.577" UserId="8053" Text="Has &quot;Zzz&quot; (sleep) same meaning in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="73f8c125-8149-4928-a0ec-349657f8d55f" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:20:15.577" UserId="8053" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13528" RevisionGUID="2e82fed4-f843-4544-994d-6425fafc1482" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:35:25.073" UserId="8052" Text="No, it can not be used to symbolize sleep. Instead of it, we sometimes use &quot;Хррр&quot; to denote sleep." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="82bbb472-5ce7-4bf0-af54-b288c436aec4" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:56:59.533" UserId="25" Comment="Some markup to make Russian more visible" Text="It is totally grammatical and correct to say so, but in modern language you usually would say &quot;_я слышал, как она говорила..._&quot;. I think there is some nuance here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following setting. She is the factory manager. Now consider the phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел её говорившей с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел, как она говорила с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both can mean the same, you saw her talking to the workers. But the second one can also mean you saw *how* she was talking to the workers. Her manners, mimic, tone. If you want exclude this, you use the first one. It is momentary: this can mean you say her face was red, but you cannot say anything about time-prolonged details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what about _слышал_ instead of _видел_? Well, the same, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я слышал её говорившей с рабочими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means you heard some short moment of their conversation, by chance, like through a wall or by hearing their telephone call accidentally, but you cannot say in what manner and how she was speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more to note. _Я слышал её говорившей_ can mean either once or several times, while _я слышал_, _как она говорила_ can imply either only one (without referring to the manners) or referring to the manners (then likely not once)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31922" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13512" RevisionGUID="82bbb472-5ce7-4bf0-af54-b288c436aec4" CreationDate="2016-11-12T11:56:59.533" Comment="Proposed by 25 approved by 5605, 2060 edit id of 809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="20461073-7a99-4fd8-b784-6ff61aec98e1" CreationDate="2016-11-12T17:37:58.293" UserId="6065" Comment="Russian Morpheem no longer operates as a language course" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][5] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][6] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][7] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][8] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][9].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][10] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][11] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fluent in Russian][12] - free audio lessons in the form of questions and answers for developing speaking and listening skills, as well as grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][13] - Russian language self study guide for beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.memrise.com/courses/english/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://speakfluentrussian.com&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="34ae9b42-83e7-4951-8480-d4107c0bba3e" CreationDate="2016-11-12T17:40:56.720" UserId="6065" Comment="Moved Russian Morpheem here from Courses since resource operates differently now" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][20] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian-15steps.com][18], 15 simple lessons for beginners and also quizes, articles and own dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-15steps.com&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://russian.morpheem.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13529" RevisionGUID="6e15b14e-73d9-4960-bd4f-ccdb7f8e7a7f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T11:07:20.543" UserId="5668" Text="What is the difference between &quot;а то&quot; and &quot;а не то&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13529" RevisionGUID="6e15b14e-73d9-4960-bd4f-ccdb7f8e7a7f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T11:07:20.543" UserId="5668" Text="What is the difference between &quot;а то&quot; and &quot;а не то&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13529" RevisionGUID="6e15b14e-73d9-4960-bd4f-ccdb7f8e7a7f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T11:07:20.543" UserId="5668" Text="|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13530" RevisionGUID="538463fe-76c0-436a-a0a6-fc12ec1b37f4" CreationDate="2016-11-13T11:47:47.073" UserId="4560" Text="**А не то** is somewhat antiquated, and doesn't have **а то**'s range of other possible meanings besides &quot;or else&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="0a97bf5f-adaa-48e1-8169-9a0719c3e46d" CreationDate="2016-11-13T15:58:17.903" UserId="7330" Text="Why decline неделя in  &quot;В НЕДЕЛЮ&quot;? And not день or год in  &quot;В год&quot; and &quot;B день&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what should be the case? i would expec the prepositional case to decline, but is looks reather that it was declined in acusative case. Why use this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="0a97bf5f-adaa-48e1-8169-9a0719c3e46d" CreationDate="2016-11-13T15:58:17.903" UserId="7330" Text="Why decline неделя in &quot;В НЕДЕЛЮ&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="0a97bf5f-adaa-48e1-8169-9a0719c3e46d" CreationDate="2016-11-13T15:58:17.903" UserId="7330" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13532" RevisionGUID="6fdf2fb5-acfd-4f09-8bed-42acd9c15af8" CreationDate="2016-11-13T16:10:58.060" UserId="194" Text="It is accusative case in all the examples. Accusative case of год and день coincides in form with Nominative, while accusative of неделя does not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13532" RevisionGUID="f0b3182b-7841-402b-a1bb-8f247284a88d" CreationDate="2016-11-13T16:12:49.510" UserId="194" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="It is accusative case in all the examples. Accusative case of год and день coincides in form with Nominative, while Accusative of неделя does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And what should be the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what meaning you want. It can be Accusative, Prepositional, Locative, depending on context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="6bc13096-db1a-4587-81c1-70c2fffa73e6" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:02:49.497" UserId="1860" Text="What is says on the tin: how would you say &quot;copycat&quot; in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;обезьянничать&quot; does not quite cut it - it implies making faces or being silly - while &quot;copycat&quot; is more neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="6bc13096-db1a-4587-81c1-70c2fffa73e6" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:02:49.497" UserId="1860" Text="Copycat in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="6bc13096-db1a-4587-81c1-70c2fffa73e6" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:02:49.497" UserId="1860" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="6ca5192e-7a0c-4d96-b806-1d60d947eb27" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:25:31.737" UserId="1860" Comment="clarification based on comment" Text="What it says on the tin: how would you say &quot;copycat&quot; in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;обезьянничать&quot; (dictionary translation for &quot;copycat&quot;) does not quite cut it - it implies making faces or being silly - while &quot;copycat&quot; is more neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31940" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="0d4d38f0-18e7-4801-bd15-33d11c87ba44" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:20:26.253" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why decline неделя in &quot;В неделю&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="0d4d38f0-18e7-4801-bd15-33d11c87ba44" CreationDate="2016-11-13T21:20:26.253" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why decline неделя in  &quot;В неделю&quot;? And not день or год in  &quot;В год&quot; and &quot;B день&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what should be the case? i would expec the prepositional case to decline, but is looks reather that it was declined in acusative case. Why use this case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13534" RevisionGUID="6376aeac-366c-4a61-b448-bbb1f51112f6" CreationDate="2016-11-14T07:17:06.630" UserId="6539" Text="**А то and а не то** (conjunctions) are used as **synonyms** when they connect two sentences and the action in the second sentence  could happen but for the real action or event from the first one.( meaning **otherwise**, or else -иначе, в противном случае). Such contexts often refer to threat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отдай машинку, а то &lt;а не то&gt; маме пожалуюсь.&#xD;&#xA;Придется дать кролику капусты, а то &lt;а не то&gt; он убежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another usage where these conjunctions are synonymous is connecting phrases or sentences with obvious change of actions ( meaning &quot;or&quot;-или)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Купались, ходили за грибами, а то &lt;а не то&gt; (или) брали лодку и уплывали на соседний остров&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Иногда засыпала сразу и спала всю ночь, а то &lt;а не то&gt; до рассвета читала романы. = Иногда засыпала сразу и спала всю ночь или (же)  до рассвета читала романы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These conjunctions are not interchanged expressing  other meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**А то** can express the **reason**( meaning **because**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пойду, а то уже поздно [‘пойду, потому что уже поздно’].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**А то** showing a change of the former situation &#xD;&#xA;The situations are in opposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Теперь ей лучше (now), а то все болела (earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несколько ночей прошло, пока научились(then) находить свой овраг, а то плутали.(earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **А то!** colloquial interjection meaning *Sure, of course, yes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пойдешь на каток? – А то! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't consider these combinations with &quot;что, чтобы&quot;. It's another big question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13535" RevisionGUID="95f5f929-b5c8-4ba6-86b6-8b968b9e04dd" CreationDate="2016-11-14T08:47:33.430" UserId="8057" Text="Basically a person who is a copycat is &quot;подражатель&quot; or &quot;имитатор&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If it's related to subculture, person is &quot;позёр&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13534" RevisionGUID="8d5ce895-0fa6-421e-b570-a1142053685b" CreationDate="2016-11-14T09:17:37.523" UserId="6539" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="**А то and а не то** (conjunctions) are used as **synonyms** when they connect two sentences and the action in the second sentence  could happen but for the real action or event from the first one.( meaning **otherwise**, or else -иначе, в противном случае). Such contexts often refer to threat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отдай машинку, а то &lt;а не то&gt; маме пожалуюсь.&#xD;&#xA;Придется дать кролику капусты, а то &lt;а не то&gt; он убежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another usage where these conjunctions are synonymous is connecting phrases or sentences with obvious change of actions ( meaning &quot;or&quot;-или)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Купались, ходили за грибами, а то &lt;а не то&gt; (или) брали лодку и уплывали на соседний остров&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Иногда засыпала сразу и спала всю ночь, а то &lt;а не то&gt; до рассвета читала романы. = Иногда засыпала сразу и спала всю ночь или (же)  до рассвета читала романы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when  these conjunctions are synonymous, there's still a slight difference in the function of the word **то**, which refers to the previous context in **а не то** and to the context which follows in **а то**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These conjunctions are not interchanged expressing  other meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**А то** can express the **reason**( meaning **because**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пойду, а то уже поздно [‘пойду, потому что уже поздно’].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**А то** showing a change of the former situation &#xD;&#xA;The situations are in opposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Теперь ей лучше (now), а то все болела (earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Несколько ночей прошло, пока научились(then) находить свой овраг, а то плутали.(earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **А то!** colloquial interjection meaning *Sure, of course, yes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пойдешь на каток? – А то! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't consider these combinations with &quot;что, чтобы&quot;. It's another big question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="8db3e67c-58b1-4325-b523-6907ae135c78" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:30:36.427" UserId="8060" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8EiOx.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the 4th letter a valid russian character?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when i copy the above word it is automatically converted to &quot;сведения&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="8db3e67c-58b1-4325-b523-6907ae135c78" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:30:36.427" UserId="8060" Text="is this a russian letter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="8db3e67c-58b1-4325-b523-6907ae135c78" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:30:36.427" UserId="8060" Text="|russian-usage|belorussian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="38eb6a00-de12-4ace-9cf5-4c4c280c7b70" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:37:44.180" UserId="3680" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is the 4th letter a valid russian character?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8EiOx.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I copy the above word it is automatically converted to &quot;сведения&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31949" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="38eb6a00-de12-4ace-9cf5-4c4c280c7b70" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:37:44.180" UserId="3680" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is this a russian letter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="215fbbd2-e3f2-40a2-967c-30ca8d6f037c" CreationDate="2016-11-14T13:52:16.323" UserId="4903" Text="It is a valid letter &quot;д&quot;, the fourth letter of the alphabet. The glyph in the example is produced with a cursive/italic font. The other one is a glyph from a regular straight font." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31951" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="95e10315-ba1f-49c3-ba72-0c387dc0dda8" CreationDate="2016-11-14T14:43:41.217" UserId="8060" Comment="edited tags" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13537" RevisionGUID="a10ead8d-5492-4918-9e16-5c78c08540bd" CreationDate="2016-11-14T15:40:55.073" UserId="2060" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It is a valid letter &quot;д&quot;, the fifth letter of the alphabet. The glyph in the example is produced with a cursive/italic font. The other one is a glyph from a regular straight font." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13538" RevisionGUID="c9b40789-808e-41ac-b4f0-fcce37ba2d61" CreationDate="2016-11-14T17:44:33.330" UserId="5618" Text="The character &quot;*д*&quot; is the lowercase italic version of [&quot;Д&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94), which both derive from the greek letter Delta (compare with &quot;Δ&quot;, &quot;δ&quot;). In many fonts the straight lowercase letter is written as &quot;д&quot;, while &quot;*д*&quot; is used in italic type. In the remaining fonts (e.g. Tahoma) &quot;д&quot; is used in both straight and italic types. Capital letters are always written as &quot;Д&quot;, even in italic type: &quot;*Д*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make things even more confusing, there is [Russian cursive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cursive), or handwriting, which has different glyphs. In cursive, &quot;д&quot; will become similar to the Latin letter &quot;g&quot;. In the picture below, it's the first letter on the last line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F2Y05.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31958" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="78f30d08-0c92-4dd4-8527-d2c9c9f5470b" CreationDate="2016-11-14T20:09:44.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/798256623890403328" />
  <row Id="31959" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="0328ce77-6418-4810-b0b3-e5a6d25772b1" CreationDate="2016-11-14T22:52:54.243" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What Russian letter is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13536" RevisionGUID="660b1b9d-c49f-41cf-8e5e-2347a1a7d041" CreationDate="2016-11-14T23:40:37.847" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|алфавит|буквы|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="09a5d118-60ed-49d9-b0d3-4c8efb9fe742" CreationDate="2016-11-15T02:09:46.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/798347226053509120" />
  <row Id="31966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="dc773e22-1957-47ee-9ea2-13ae01addaef" CreationDate="2016-11-15T07:21:16.710" UserId="8071" Text="__  Hello @SwayamRaina, Every language has its quirkiness. With Russian,this is evident when one starts typing texts on a PC - and then formatting parts of it. Hence, the  *сведения* seems to differ from  сведения. But, this is solely due the use of italics. &#xD;&#xA;__  This can be easily verified by copying &quot;сведения&quot; TWICE without a particular format, then mark one of these Russian words; changing its format to italics results in the text as you previously presented this word.&#xD;&#xA;__*In my experience, attempting to find a font that shows no visible change when italicised is simply too time-consuming. Once one is aware of these Russian text quirks, one can concentrate on Russian cases and declensions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13538" RevisionGUID="c1d22cb5-92d7-4cdc-8ec0-5be55cdd9fe0" CreationDate="2016-11-15T09:04:12.570" UserId="5618" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="The character &quot;*д*&quot; is the lowercase italic version of [&quot;Д&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94), which both derive from the greek letter Delta (compare with &quot;Δ&quot;, &quot;δ&quot;). In many fonts the straight lowercase letter is written as &quot;д&quot;, while &quot;*д*&quot; is used in italic type. In the remaining fonts (e.g. Tahoma) &quot;д&quot; is used in both straight and italic types. Capital letters are always written as &quot;Д&quot;, even in italic type: &quot;*Д*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Wikipedia has a list of Cyrillic glypths which are substantially different when italized:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make things even more confusing, there is [Russian cursive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cursive), or handwriting, which has different glyphs. In cursive, &quot;д&quot; will become similar to the Latin letter &quot;g&quot;. In the picture below, it's the first letter on the last line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hgenV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F2Y05.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13538" RevisionGUID="da30d9f6-8d7d-4d67-92d1-ab3a72aa2a4b" CreationDate="2016-11-15T09:29:57.230" UserId="5618" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="The character &quot;*д*&quot; is the lowercase italic version of [&quot;Д&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94), which both derive from the greek letter Delta (compare with &quot;Δ&quot;, &quot;δ&quot;). In most fonts the straight lowercase letter is written as &quot;д&quot;, while &quot;*д*&quot; is used in italic type. In some fonts (typically monospace console fonts or fonts designed for headings: Tahoma, Lucida Console, Franklin, Arial Bold, Century, Courier New) &quot;д&quot; is used in both straight and italic types. Capital letters are always written as &quot;Д&quot;, even in italic type: &quot;*Д*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has a list of Cyrillic glypths which are substantially different when italized:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make things even more confusing, there is [Russian cursive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cursive), or handwriting, which has different glyphs. In cursive, &quot;д&quot; will become similar to the Latin letter &quot;g&quot;. In the picture below, it's the first letter on the last line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hgenV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F2Y05.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="f8fac1f7-5436-40e4-871a-0a42d5a4c0da" CreationDate="2016-11-15T11:04:18.683" UserId="7769" Comment="copy edited" Text="Every language has its quirkiness. With Russian,this is evident when one starts typing texts on a PC - and then formatting parts of it. Hence, the  *сведения* seems to differ from *сведения*. But, this is solely due the use of italics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be easily verified by copying *сведения* twice without a particular format, then mark one of these Russian words; changing its format to italics results in the text as you previously presented this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, attempting to find a font that shows no visible change when italicised is simply too time-consuming. Once one is aware of these Russian text quirks, one can concentrate on Russian cases and declensions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31973" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="f8fac1f7-5436-40e4-871a-0a42d5a4c0da" CreationDate="2016-11-15T11:04:18.683" Comment="Proposed by 7769 approved by 3680, 5605 edit id of 810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="a4099497-1454-4bb2-8480-34e1e69b65d5" CreationDate="2016-11-15T14:52:36.870" UserId="-1" Comment="Improve wording and grammar" Text="While I believe that both answers provided actually answer your question, there is still some information you may find relevant to the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, the fact that the modern Russian T is [homoglyphic][1] to the Latin T should not confuse you. @yellowsky has provided an image of T as it had been shaped earlier, before Peter I's reforms. Actually, this is almost the end of the evolution of this letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [quote][2] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В славянской письменности буква Т имела несколько разновидностей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начертания: наряду с обычным т-образным рано возникло трёхногое&#xD;&#xA;&gt; m-образное; в старопечатных украинских книгах обнаруживается тенденция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; к орфографическому разграничению этих начертаний (впрочем, до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; полностью формализованного и обязательного правила не дошедшая). А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно, т писали в начале слов, а m — в середине; но если слово было&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не славянским, а заимствованным, то и в середине слова ставили т.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сверх того существовало и «высокое» начертание этой буквы, похожее на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифру «7»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short summary: the three-legged shape happily existed and even co-existed with the one-legged form. In old Ukrainian books one can find that the т-form had been used in initial positions, while m - in the middle of words (except loan-words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going even further, there is some evidence that Cyrillic script was at least heavily influenced by (if not a direct ancestor of) the [Glagolitic alphabet][3], and here's what Glagolitic t looked like:&#xD;&#xA;![Shape of Glagolitic letter &quot;t&quot;][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Macedonian language, for example, the letter T is still written as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Macedonian letter T][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, it is basically an inverted form (compared to Russian) with an additional line above - in order to look different from ш.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, actually this three-leggedness is quite common in Cyrillic scripts and quite an old story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFrEI.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLICt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31976" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="a4099497-1454-4bb2-8480-34e1e69b65d5" CreationDate="2016-11-15T14:52:36.870" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 4903, 6097 edit id of 811" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="965ac532-4a01-448a-b121-2690d5a7875d" CreationDate="2016-11-15T19:22:40.077" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="Could anyone please tell me, where I can find and download a font type of Russian italics? I haven't find any on the net so far, but I have to admit to only have looked on English and German language pages. However, since there are so many people in this world whose native language is written in cyrillic letters, I really have a hard time believing that there doesn't exist at least one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not looking for anything fancy (like a special historical handwriting type of e.g. the 17th or 18th century), just normal standard type would do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7490" RevisionGUID="9a436052-b564-4473-9064-658047c6f6dd" CreationDate="2016-11-15T20:56:52.530" UserId="487" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|обучение|алфавит|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13533" RevisionGUID="64bd000c-4f66-4896-bd51-eb5071a25ea6" CreationDate="2016-11-15T23:13:28.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/798665250350383105" />
  <row Id="31991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13540" RevisionGUID="dd63c2ed-01c5-485e-a613-b677e67c7aaa" CreationDate="2016-11-16T01:39:16.173" UserId="8057" Text="[Here][1] are good Latin+Cyrillic fonts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://allfont.ru/cyrillic/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13435" RevisionGUID="6a13ef79-a801-4cfb-8d78-fc8358084285" CreationDate="2016-11-16T03:21:32.183" UserId="3680" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Questions about group of words used together to express a single idea and/or having a single meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31994" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13435" RevisionGUID="6a13ef79-a801-4cfb-8d78-fc8358084285" CreationDate="2016-11-16T03:21:32.183" Comment="Proposed by 3680 approved by 97, 6539 edit id of 806" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="b3bd6720-590b-464f-b7bc-1eddce5964a2" CreationDate="2016-11-16T09:54:33.900" UserId="7769" Comment="remove previous edit of mine in which I was adding italics, since it breaks the intent of the answer" Text="Every language has its quirkiness. With Russian,this is evident when one starts typing texts on a PC - and then formatting parts of it. Hence, the  *сведения* seems to differ from &quot;сведения&quot;. But, this is solely due the use of italics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be easily verified by copying &quot;сведения&quot; twice without a particular format, then mark one of these Russian words; changing its format to italics results in the text as you previously presented this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, attempting to find a font that shows no visible change when italicised is simply too time-consuming. Once one is aware of these Russian text quirks, one can concentrate on Russian cases and declensions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31997" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13539" RevisionGUID="b3bd6720-590b-464f-b7bc-1eddce5964a2" CreationDate="2016-11-16T09:54:33.900" Comment="Proposed by 7769 approved by 6539, 5605 edit id of 812" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="93d96840-42b6-4ead-b5f4-b5dc32e23e5a" CreationDate="2016-11-16T17:43:53.720" UserId="8094" Text="It obviously seems to have a latin etymology, but i wonder if it came in russian by the french.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="93d96840-42b6-4ead-b5f4-b5dc32e23e5a" CreationDate="2016-11-16T17:43:53.720" UserId="8094" Text="Is Интернационализм a french loanword?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="93d96840-42b6-4ead-b5f4-b5dc32e23e5a" CreationDate="2016-11-16T17:43:53.720" UserId="8094" Text="|этимология|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13542" RevisionGUID="e4df3558-edd4-4544-8d70-ff753948fa93" CreationDate="2016-11-16T17:50:09.487" UserId="8021" Text="     I highly recommend using the Russian browser &quot;Yandex.ru&quot; for anyone learning or attempting to learn the Russian language.  I have found that the '**Translator**' link (**Переводчик**)on the browser's main menu bar is of inestimable value.&#xD;&#xA;     For cross-translation purposes in the user's question, the Yandex translator will give the student cross-translations to and from Russian, Portuguese, and English texts.  In addition, Yandex *can pronounce* the words of the text of all the three languages that the questioner is using in his studies.  &#xD;&#xA;     Yandex has more than 50 languages that can be called up for translation and interpretation, but not all the languages have pronunciation capabilities.  For the Russian language Yankex is structured like a dictionary; words can be highlighted and alternative meanings and synonyms will be displayed.&#xD;&#xA;     As just one pertinent example of the Yandex browser's capabilities, when entering text in a Yandex input box the browser executes &quot;word completion&quot;, i.e., when entering the Portuguese word '**coleccao** into the Portuguese data entry box the browser will flag &quot;**colecção**&quot; as the correct Portuguese spelling of the word, and it is that spelling that will be entered if the ENTER key is pressed.&#xD;&#xA;     Yandex has many other capabilities, such as &quot;block select copy and paste&quot; for translations of large blocks of text from Internet news websites (e.g., Spanish-language &quot;mundo.Sputniknews.com&quot; and other foreign-language Sputnik news websites).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     I hope this answer will be of help to many other students of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Мир!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13543" RevisionGUID="79ccc3a6-e65f-4ac3-8834-884ab7ed4bde" CreationDate="2016-11-16T18:21:21.040" UserId="6539" Text="The word originates from Latin roots *inter*(между) plus *national*(nation)(национальный,народный) and appeared in Russian as a loan word from French at the beginning of the 20 th century(according to Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="c5b80d0c-ff53-4ac9-9b7c-447a96015bff" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:10:16.047" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="It obviously seems to have a Latin etymology, but I wonder if it came into  Russian from French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32008" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="c5b80d0c-ff53-4ac9-9b7c-447a96015bff" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:10:16.047" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is Интернационализм a French loanword?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13541" RevisionGUID="b1eff6fe-9b14-4b61-bd41-679489bcb7d0" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:15:39.737" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="It obviously seems to have a Latin etymology, but I wonder if it came into  Russian from French." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32010" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11095" RevisionGUID="49cf9b74-699f-4f6a-a83e-c54dda94552d" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:18:07.520" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32013" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="8ba25368-2324-496d-b8f0-a842a3fb23c7" CreationDate="2016-11-16T23:18:50.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/799028985711775747" />
  <row Id="32014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13544" RevisionGUID="57f9e2c3-a6ad-4519-9863-6726805da2fd" CreationDate="2016-11-17T02:19:40.193" UserId="8021" Text="Я нашел исключительно мощная и полезная функция &quot;Переводчик&quot;, который находится на главной странице российского интернет-браузер &quot;Yandex.ru&quot;. Я использую этот браузер прямо сейчас, чтобы ответить на Ваш вопрос, введя текст в поле ввода на английском языке, а затем &quot;выделение, копирование и вставка&quot; на русский язык перевод в поле &quot;stackexchange.com&quot; ответа на ответ Вам. Попробуйте!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мир!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13522" RevisionGUID="06ee55ab-c949-443a-9890-b1f38d5dd980" CreationDate="2016-11-17T05:18:52.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/799119591704317952" />
  <row Id="32016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13545" RevisionGUID="fdbd2417-ea3e-4534-a51d-cb524e04512e" CreationDate="2016-11-17T09:20:40.590" UserId="8056" Text="It's always help: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?&amp;l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;CL=1&amp;a=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For rus-&gt;eng and for eng-&gt;rus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="a36857e8-3324-4074-8d4b-cd9c3b20013f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T12:58:24.490" UserId="8096" Text="I want to know what construction I should use in order to form sentences like &quot;I saw you crying&quot;, &quot;I caught him trying to steal smth&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="a36857e8-3324-4074-8d4b-cd9c3b20013f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T12:58:24.490" UserId="8096" Text="How to say that an action was performed on a person while that person was doing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="a36857e8-3324-4074-8d4b-cd9c3b20013f" CreationDate="2016-11-17T12:58:24.490" UserId="8096" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13547" RevisionGUID="72267a8f-2832-476c-b400-35f139f5c852" CreationDate="2016-11-17T13:31:29.097" UserId="8097" Text="&quot;Я увидел тебя плачущим&quot;. &quot;Я поймал его ворующим что-то&quot;&#xD;&#xA;You use &quot;плачущим&quot; or &quot;ворующим&quot; which is participle. Words like this says that action they describe is not over yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13548" RevisionGUID="db302545-6a93-4f12-8567-0d006e0fdfde" CreationDate="2016-11-17T13:39:33.687" UserId="3680" Text="I believe the most natural form is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я видел тебя, когда ты плакал(а).  &#xD;&#xA;Я поймал его, когда он пытался украсть *что-либо*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the pattern is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я [verb1 (*past*)] [pronoun (*genitive*)], когда [pronoun] [verb2] ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13549" RevisionGUID="0c17b936-4807-4aa5-8f1d-3ff7fedef4b3" CreationDate="2016-11-17T18:00:29.323" UserId="7371" Text="Literal translation for &quot;i saw you crying&quot; (participle) would be &quot;я видел тебя плачущим&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;while &quot;я видел, как ты плакал&quot; means &quot;i saw, how you were crying&quot; (verb) or &quot;i saw, how you cried&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the second form is used more often because its simplier, but both have in most cases the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on context and intonation, the second form &quot;[...] как ты плакала&quot; could also refer to the circumstances of how someone cried.  &#xD;&#xA;Better example: &quot;я видел, как ты помыл посуду&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;Translation: &quot;i saw, how you washed the dishes&quot;, which means e.g. he washed it very bad. So the importat thing here is, how womething happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer &quot;Я видел тебя, когда ты плакал(а).&quot; by Dmitry literally means &quot;i saw when you were crying&quot;, which implies some contextual reference to the time.   &#xD;&#xA;Better example would be &quot;i saw when you came home&quot;, so the time is important here and not the fact of coming home or seeing someone coming home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13549" RevisionGUID="045d97c8-4fcb-4e79-a8a2-d728409729ec" CreationDate="2016-11-17T18:05:50.853" UserId="7371" Comment="edited body" Text="Literal translation for &quot;i saw you crying&quot; (participle) would be &quot;я видел тебя плачущим&quot;,  &#xD;&#xA;while &quot;я видел, как ты плакал&quot; means &quot;i saw, how you were crying&quot; (verb) or &quot;i saw, how you cried&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the second form is used more often because its simplier, but both have in most cases the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on context and intonation, the second form &quot;[...] как ты плакала&quot; could also refer to the circumstances of how someone cried.  &#xD;&#xA;Better example: &quot;я видел, как ты помыл посуду&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;Translation: &quot;i saw, how you washed the dishes&quot;, which means e.g. he washed it very bad. So the importat thing here is, how сomething happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answer &quot;Я видел тебя, когда ты плакал(а).&quot; by Dmitry literally means &quot;i saw when you were crying&quot;, which implies some contextual reference to the time.   &#xD;&#xA;Better example would be &quot;i saw when you came home&quot;, so the time is important here and not the fact of coming home or seeing someone coming home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="078922f1-c210-4ba1-ab59-deed5470657a" CreationDate="2016-11-18T05:11:30.130" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="I want to know what construction I should use in order to form sentences like &quot;I saw you crying&quot;, &quot;I caught him trying to steal smth&quot; etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13553" RevisionGUID="4d3e8fa7-a8a2-4933-be60-121671a9cf29" CreationDate="2016-11-18T23:22:07.583" UserId="3824" Text="When a was a child we called them: повторюшка, дядя хрюшка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13555" RevisionGUID="c41f2cba-395a-40c7-a3da-c398c2da20a5" CreationDate="2016-11-19T04:30:55.863" UserId="8057" Text="I would not translate &quot;Кому как&quot; at all.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, my translation would be: &quot;It's a matter of taste, I'm just asking.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="b2e4e057-bfbb-4525-b5bc-ee2cedb0a9e6" CreationDate="2016-11-20T09:00:51.757" UserId="8114" Text="I'm following Penguin's Russian Course and it doesn't make it clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says words anding with и, а , о the last letter is substituted by e and that in words ending with a consonant we add e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also gives the rule to words ending with ь (substituted by e if masculine or и if feminine), but what about the other endings, like я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="b2e4e057-bfbb-4525-b5bc-ee2cedb0a9e6" CreationDate="2016-11-20T09:00:51.757" UserId="8114" Text="Can anyone explain the rule that explains why Россия declines to Россйи in the prepositional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="b2e4e057-bfbb-4525-b5bc-ee2cedb0a9e6" CreationDate="2016-11-20T09:00:51.757" UserId="8114" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13557" RevisionGUID="21351454-b20c-4c2d-8809-2db37951257c" CreationDate="2016-11-20T10:32:59.433" UserId="8115" Text="If a word ends in -ия, in the prepositional the ending is -ии. This is also applied to proper names on -ия. If the word's ending is -я, then it is usually replaced by the ending -е" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13558" RevisionGUID="745161d7-87a9-41c3-9f57-d673e25b513e" CreationDate="2016-11-20T11:13:49.883" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;what about the other endings, like я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have several types of declension of nouns and some nouns are not declined.&#xD;&#xA;Nouns which end with -я belong to the first declension. &#xD;&#xA;They include feminine gender nouns like земля, статья, экскурсия, masculine gender nouns (дядя, Ваня), common gender nouns (соня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have the following forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;земля, земли, земле,землю, землёй(землёю), земле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Семья, семьи, семье, семью, семьёй( семьёю), семье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nouns ending with *-ия* have *-ии* in the dative and prepositional :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;России, Марии, Софии, экскурсии. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="31124fec-7a58-48f5-ba56-769b6ffb566a" CreationDate="2016-11-20T16:57:21.673" UserId="6725" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I'm following Penguin's Russian Course and it doesn't make it clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says words ending with и, а , о the last letter is substituted by e and that in words ending with a consonant we add e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also gives the rule to words ending with ь (substituted by e if masculine or и if feminine), but what about the other endings, like я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32048" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13556" RevisionGUID="31124fec-7a58-48f5-ba56-769b6ffb566a" CreationDate="2016-11-20T16:57:21.673" UserId="6725" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Can anyone explain the rule that explains why Россия declines to России in the prepositional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13559" RevisionGUID="b2ba256a-b1a2-4a02-8782-9215765476fa" CreationDate="2016-11-20T18:51:34.310" UserId="2208" Text="We have different types of declensions. School course says that we have 3 types. However, the things are more complicated. [Andrey Zaliznyak][1] had developed his own classification for Russian declensions. For example, Russian Wiktionary uses a slightly modified version of his classification. So, according to this classification, the word `Россия` is a type 7a declension. And that said it is declined accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Zaliznyak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13560" RevisionGUID="691c96d9-978c-4b91-bee3-b693fdda207a" CreationDate="2016-11-20T21:59:19.527" UserId="8118" Text="I'm a native speaker, but I can't explain. Why we use &quot;года&quot; and &quot;лет&quot; in different situations? For example, when we talk about age of people. Can you explain sources of using these words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13560" RevisionGUID="691c96d9-978c-4b91-bee3-b693fdda207a" CreationDate="2016-11-20T21:59:19.527" UserId="8118" Text="Sources of the difference in using &quot;года&quot; and &quot;лет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13560" RevisionGUID="691c96d9-978c-4b91-bee3-b693fdda207a" CreationDate="2016-11-20T21:59:19.527" UserId="8118" Text="|грамматика|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13561" RevisionGUID="8fc551ae-b4e6-428e-9630-37c01b00d03f" CreationDate="2016-11-21T03:45:36.150" UserId="7716" Text="I've often presented it like this: nouns in -ий, -ия, and -ие all have -ии in the prepositional: кафетерий &gt; в кафетерии, Россия &gt; в России, здание &gt; в здании. So this group is a little different from other nouns in the prepositional singular. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13562" RevisionGUID="9dfe2a4a-4903-4889-95e6-d61eadf58001" CreationDate="2016-11-21T05:17:39.790" UserId="5008" Text="В формах единственного числа слова _год_ и _лето_ очевидно употребляются в разных значениях. Но во множественном числе имеет место &quot;конкуренция&quot; между ними. Например,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дожив без цели, без трудов до двадцати пяти _годов_  &#xD;&#xA;И правда то, что в наши _лета_ довольно скучен высший тон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В итоге получилось так, что форма &quot;_лет_&quot; стала основной формой родительного падежа мн.ч. для слова &quot;год&quot;, хотя форма &quot;_годов_&quot; все еще допустима, если используется не с количественными числительными (см. &quot;Грамматический словарь&quot; Зализняка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В принципе, такое иногда случается, что некоторые грамматические формы одного слова заменяются формами другого, близкого по смыслу. В качестве примера из английского языка глагол _to go_ и его форма прошедшего времени _went_ (фактически же это форма глагола _to wend_)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="cf3c68a7-eaca-494f-87e3-6543a9297d7a" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:18:23.003" UserId="8076" Text="Friends, help me out please. I'm doing a translation and can't find the best and most-correct Russian equivalents for a few terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Layered hairstyle&#xD;&#xA; - Choppy hairstyle&#xD;&#xA; - Hair band&#xD;&#xA; - Hair accessories&#xD;&#xA; - Funky look&#xD;&#xA; - Trendy look&#xD;&#xA; - To adopt a side-bang to a hairstyle&#xD;&#xA; - Hairstyle texture&#xD;&#xA; - Tones of blond&#xD;&#xA; - Razor-cut hairstyles.&#xD;&#xA; - Hairstyle up-do&#xD;&#xA; - New hairstyle styles and features.&#xD;&#xA; - Cranky look&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And I can't understand the difference between **&quot;bang&quot;** and **&quot;bangs&quot;**. it seems that in Russian it's all **&quot;чёлка&quot;**. But in English they say for instance: **a hairstyle with a side-bang** or **a haircut with short bangs**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="cf3c68a7-eaca-494f-87e3-6543a9297d7a" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:18:23.003" UserId="8076" Text="Hairdresser terminology and Russian equivalents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="cf3c68a7-eaca-494f-87e3-6543a9297d7a" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:18:23.003" UserId="8076" Text="|перевод|значения|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="cd91f728-66f7-452c-934c-c5b195544ccc" CreationDate="2016-11-21T18:09:42.147" UserId="4714" Text="What's the difference between these words? It seems to me that вещь is more abstract than штука, except when we talk about furniture or clothing. Is this correct. The old meaning of штука is часть so maybe it retains the meaning of a whole thing, whereas вещь is just a substance, idea, concept, etc (from вещество)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could somebody give some examples to clarify the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="cd91f728-66f7-452c-934c-c5b195544ccc" CreationDate="2016-11-21T18:09:42.147" UserId="4714" Text="вещь and штука—is there a difference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="cd91f728-66f7-452c-934c-c5b195544ccc" CreationDate="2016-11-21T18:09:42.147" UserId="4714" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13565" RevisionGUID="96a11a47-7bdb-4cdb-ae3c-95975bca6c61" CreationDate="2016-11-21T20:43:28.717" UserId="5008" Text="If we omit several totally different meanings which these word may have (e.g. &quot;штука&quot; = slang &quot;thousand&quot;, &quot;вещь&quot; = &quot;work of art&quot; etc.) then &quot;_вещь_&quot; stands for &quot;_a thing_&quot; in a wide sense (although note that sometimes word &quot;предмет&quot; is preferred over &quot;вещь&quot;), while &quot;_штука_&quot; denotes a countable item. So usually the word &quot;_штука_&quot; is used along with a numeral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the source of your confusion is the fact that in a live speech people may use word &quot;штука&quot; as synonym for &quot;вещь&quot; (thing). But such usage is considered a colloquialism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32062" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13546" RevisionGUID="ff87256a-8669-42ab-b982-a8220434d3ef" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:45:39.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/801028869902004224" />
  <row Id="32063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13566" RevisionGUID="70de8508-cc7d-4ec1-b2d9-37e2643d0749" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:43:42.040" UserId="8076" Text="Скажите пожалуйста знатоки, чем отличается употребление краткого прилагательного заместо прилагательного?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Эти книги очень интересны и популярны среди других книг этой коллекции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Эти книги очень интересные и популярные среди других книг этой коллекции.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или еще пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Она очень красива и её внешность притягательна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Она очень красивая и её внешность притягательная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем отличаются примеры друг от друга? Можно ли их взаимозаменить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13566" RevisionGUID="70de8508-cc7d-4ec1-b2d9-37e2643d0749" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:43:42.040" UserId="8076" Text="Прилагательное или краткое прилагательное?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13566" RevisionGUID="70de8508-cc7d-4ec1-b2d9-37e2643d0749" CreationDate="2016-11-22T13:43:42.040" UserId="8076" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13566" RevisionGUID="639c5fd7-3ccc-4e1d-bd58-bf9c751dbc2b" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:09:45.440" UserId="8076" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="Скажите пожалуйста знатоки, чем отличается употребление краткого прилагательного заместо прилагательного?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Эти книги очень интересны и популярны среди читателей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Эти книги очень интересные и популярные среди читателей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или еще пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Она очень красива и её внешность притягательна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Она очень красивая и её внешность притягательная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем отличаются примеры друг от друга? Можно ли их взаимозаменить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="9ad27e99-e531-4a44-aaef-418a311a90bb" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:33:06.347" UserId="8076" Text="Скажите, пожалуйста, как лучше использовать и распределять множественные прилагательные перед существительным. Не создают ли обманчивые образы, когда неправильно применяются? И как правильно их писать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - большая красивая голубая луна&#xD;&#xA; - большая, красивая голубая луна&#xD;&#xA; - большая и красивая голубая луна&#xD;&#xA; - большая, красивая, голубая луна&#xD;&#xA; - большая и красивая и голубая луна&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой из вариантов правильный, или какой неправильный?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - качественная прелестная шелковая белая ткань&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно использовать прилагательные в этом случае? И какой принцип упорядочивания этих прилагательных? Можно ли разместить в другом порядке, будет ли меняться смысл и разрешено ли это? Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - прелестная качественная шелковая белая ткань&#xD;&#xA; - шелковая прелестная качественная белая ткань&#xD;&#xA; - белая шелковая прелестная качественная ткань&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и т.п." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="9ad27e99-e531-4a44-aaef-418a311a90bb" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:33:06.347" UserId="8076" Text="Множественные прилагательные перед существительным" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="9ad27e99-e531-4a44-aaef-418a311a90bb" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:33:06.347" UserId="8076" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13568" RevisionGUID="a91be826-e114-4a19-94cf-41b9179ff1f8" CreationDate="2016-11-22T14:36:32.373" UserId="6539" Text="Short adjectives are usually preferred  as predicatives, like in your sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эти книги популярны среди читателей.(you can't say интересны среди...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full forms are preferred in an attributive function.They are interchangeable in most(but not all) situations.And the emphasis is slightly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У нее привлекательная внешность. Ее внешность привлекательна.Эти книги интересные.Книги интересны и тебе и мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13569" RevisionGUID="a6b4d7cb-698b-4ed7-b681-7e41db9a77a4" CreationDate="2016-11-22T21:52:14.233" UserId="8123" Text="В первом примере используются неоднородные определения, т.е. такие определения, которые описывают разные качества определяемого слова. Между неоднородными определения не ставятся запятые и союз и. При этом непосредственно к определяемому слову относится только ближайшее определение, а другие относятся к сочетанию определяемого существительного с первым определением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во втором примере прилагательные `прелестная` и `качественная` являются однородными и должны разделяться запятыми или союзом `и`. Они описывают словосочетание `шелковая белая ткань` и, поэтому не могут перемежаться или идти после прилагательных `шелковая` и `белая`, являющихся неоднородными определениями." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="efbeb057-f2f3-4092-a772-7ef1f51e4967" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:55:28.753" UserId="6545" Text="I'm doing exercises and i found in the text, &quot;через неделю&quot; and in parentheses it says &quot;in two weeks time&quot;.  I looked up через, a preposition with the accusative case, and for the 'time' definition it said;&#xA;&#xA;(time) in, after:&#xA;&#xA;Я бу́ду петь пе́сню че́рез пять мину́т.&#xA;I will sing a song after five minutes.&#xA;&#xA;and;&#xA;&#xA;че́рез день&#xA;every other day&#xA;&#xA;The latter implies a cycle of two, so to speak... But is &quot;two&quot; always associated with через?  Apparently not in the sing a song example...&#xA;&#xA;Isn't через just &quot;in, after&quot;? Where did the two come from?&#xA;&#xA;PS.  No tags for preposition? Nor accusative? Nor case? ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="efbeb057-f2f3-4092-a772-7ef1f51e4967" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:55:28.753" UserId="6545" Text="через неделю - why &quot;in two weeks time&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="efbeb057-f2f3-4092-a772-7ef1f51e4967" CreationDate="2016-11-22T23:55:28.753" UserId="6545" Text="|dictionary|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13571" RevisionGUID="1c4dda74-55b7-44f8-acd9-a82311c6f8b8" CreationDate="2016-11-23T01:06:36.743" UserId="3528" Text="That translation actually looks wrong to me. &quot;In two weeks time&quot; should be &quot;через две недели&quot;, while &quot;через неделю&quot; does mean &quot;in one week&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;That being said, I'd say there are two different contexts for &quot;через&quot; that appear as examples in your question. Speaking about a single event in the future: &quot;Я уеду через неделю&quot; means &quot;I am leaving in a week&quot;. Speaking about something repetitive: &quot;Я езжу в Москву через неделю (каждую вторую неделю)&quot; means &quot;I visit Moscow every other week&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13572" RevisionGUID="906e3613-5351-488b-9c26-5132d79863c4" CreationDate="2016-11-23T01:15:33.203" UserId="4903" Text="In the context of time periods **&quot;через&quot;** means **&quot;after skipping&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For singular occurrences:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я буду петь через 5 минут - I'll sing after 5 minutes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поеду в отпуск через неделю - I'll go on vacation in a week time (after skipping one week)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recurring events:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я плаваю в бассейне через день - I swim in the pool every other day. (i.e. I skip a day and swim on the second day.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наша группа собирается через неделю - Our group meets every other week (i.e. we meet one week, and then skip a week)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can skip multiple periods:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы встретимся через 2 недели - We will meet after 2 weeks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13567" RevisionGUID="5b162141-aead-4fad-bf78-3008237bac9f" CreationDate="2016-11-23T02:50:52.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/801256675285999616" />
  <row Id="32078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="4a9c90bd-a6d7-4e44-9294-13b0644b737c" CreationDate="2016-11-23T05:25:01.097" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm doing exercises and i found in the text, &quot;через неделю&quot; and in parentheses it says &quot;in two weeks time&quot;.  I looked up через, a preposition with the accusative case, and for the 'time' definition it said;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(time) in, after:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бу́ду петь пе́сню че́рез пять мину́т.&#xD;&#xA;I will sing a song after five minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;че́рез день&#xD;&#xA;every other day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter implies a cycle of two, so to speak... But is &quot;two&quot; always associated with через?  Apparently not in the sing a song example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't через just &quot;in, after&quot;? Where did the two come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS.  No tags for preposition? Nor accusative? Nor case? ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32079" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="4a9c90bd-a6d7-4e44-9294-13b0644b737c" CreationDate="2016-11-23T05:25:01.097" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Через неделю - why &quot;in two weeks time&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32080" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="4a9c90bd-a6d7-4e44-9294-13b0644b737c" CreationDate="2016-11-23T05:25:01.097" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32081" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="76c10222-4806-452a-9e7d-79b420da52f9" CreationDate="2016-11-23T05:25:38.437" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Вещь&quot; and &quot;штука&quot; - is there a difference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32082" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13566" RevisionGUID="891b3f77-3b0d-4059-84f6-57e85cfccaf1" CreationDate="2016-11-23T05:50:52.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/801301971965771776" />
  <row Id="32083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13573" RevisionGUID="04275a96-fb2b-462e-ad0d-fdeb16abf00e" CreationDate="2016-11-23T06:29:14.907" UserId="8126" Text="I couldn't understand the suffixes(endings) of the words written in **bold** in the following sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;э́то мои́ но́вые **Англо**-**ру́сские** словари́." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13573" RevisionGUID="04275a96-fb2b-462e-ad0d-fdeb16abf00e" CreationDate="2016-11-23T06:29:14.907" UserId="8126" Text="what are these endings: -о and ие?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13573" RevisionGUID="04275a96-fb2b-462e-ad0d-fdeb16abf00e" CreationDate="2016-11-23T06:29:14.907" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13574" RevisionGUID="640702fa-73c6-43d6-afcd-152111378bb0" CreationDate="2016-11-23T06:56:15.990" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Англо-ру́сские словари́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective &quot;англо-русский&quot; is a **single** word. Therefore it has only one ending &quot;-ий&quot; (pl. &quot;-ие&quot;). Its first part should not be declined. The same holds with &quot;русско-английские словари&quot;, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it's written in two separate words then both are to be declined: &quot;английские и русские словари&quot; (note that it means a totally different thing though)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13575" RevisionGUID="1720d031-955e-4ce3-9c63-2b918b8c5c83" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:52:09.377" UserId="4259" Text="Do Russian writers have an equivalent style guide or list of guides, which outline key concepts for writing well in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13575" RevisionGUID="1720d031-955e-4ce3-9c63-2b918b8c5c83" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:52:09.377" UserId="4259" Text="Is there a Russian equivalent of &quot;The Elements of Style&quot; by William Strunk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13575" RevisionGUID="1720d031-955e-4ce3-9c63-2b918b8c5c83" CreationDate="2016-11-23T08:52:09.377" UserId="4259" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13576" RevisionGUID="6ec00002-c4f1-431d-a3a5-55917e105eb9" CreationDate="2016-11-23T09:47:52.720" UserId="134" Text="The classic works on the topic are Rosenthal's books, namely *Справочник по правописанию и стилистике*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It covers orthography, punctuation, word usage and sentence composition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's available online here: http://rosental-book.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13577" RevisionGUID="58ad1d20-9985-433f-8b69-3351f4ec32b3" CreationDate="2016-11-23T18:28:22.297" UserId="8127" Text="It means dictionary translate from English to Russian.`Русско-английский` - translate from Russian to English.&#xD;&#xA;`Англо-русский словарь` - one diсtionary&#xD;&#xA;`Англо-русские словари` - many dictionaries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="cc1d1f08-1db2-4802-a254-4d4ee799eed2" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:09:42.810" UserId="-1" Comment="Improve grammar and wording" Text="Onomatopoetic &quot;Zzz&quot; is well known in languages that use the Latin alphabet. It means &quot;sleep&quot; in many languages. Is this also the case in Russian? Can &quot;Ззз&quot; be used to symbolize sleep?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="cc1d1f08-1db2-4802-a254-4d4ee799eed2" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:09:42.810" UserId="-1" Comment="Improve grammar and wording" Text="Does &quot;Zzz&quot; (sleep) have the same meaning in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32096" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13527" RevisionGUID="cc1d1f08-1db2-4802-a254-4d4ee799eed2" CreationDate="2016-11-23T20:09:42.810" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5605, 6725 edit id of 813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13580" RevisionGUID="12516652-319c-429b-b425-020a937d59e3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:56:04.903" UserId="8126" Text="I heard the expression &quot;**в руки мне**&quot; (=into my hands, *genitive plural*) in a song. As far as  I know, to say &quot;*into*&quot; we have to use accusative case. But in that expression it is in genitive case. Can we rewrite that expression like:&quot;**в Мой рук**&quot; (*accusative plural*) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13580" RevisionGUID="12516652-319c-429b-b425-020a937d59e3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:56:04.903" UserId="8126" Text="Are the following expressions the same: &quot;в Мой рук&quot; and &quot;в руки мне&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13580" RevisionGUID="12516652-319c-429b-b425-020a937d59e3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:56:04.903" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32112" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="99007dcc-4c5f-400f-be81-13df8a5c4e61" CreationDate="2016-11-24T14:16:02.737" UserId="8076" Comment="53" />
  <row Id="32114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="e60d8f89-b3f4-4779-9087-ca60a4824e85" CreationDate="2016-11-24T14:21:53.607" UserId="8076" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="Friends, help me out please. I'm doing a translation and can't find the best and most-correct Russian equivalents for a few terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Layered hairstyle&#xD;&#xA; - Choppy hairstyle&#xD;&#xA; - Hair band&#xD;&#xA; - Hair accessories&#xD;&#xA; - Funky look&#xD;&#xA; - Messy look&#xD;&#xA; - Messy hair&#xD;&#xA; - Crop hair&#xD;&#xA; - Rough look&#xD;&#xA; - To carry a haircut&#xD;&#xA; - To carry a bang on one side or both sides of the head&#xD;&#xA; - Side swept bang&#xD;&#xA; - Straitened hair  &#xD;&#xA; - Trendy look&#xD;&#xA; - To adopt a side-bang to a hairstyle&#xD;&#xA; - Hairstyle texture&#xD;&#xA; - Tones of blond&#xD;&#xA; - Razor-cut hairstyles.&#xD;&#xA; - Hairstyle up-do&#xD;&#xA; - New hairstyle styles and features.&#xD;&#xA; - Cranky look&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And I can't understand the difference between **&quot;bang&quot;** and **&quot;bangs&quot;**. it seems that in Russian it's all **&quot;чёлка&quot;**. But in English they say for instance: **a hairstyle with a side-bang** or **a haircut with short bangs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difference between a **'light blond tone'** and **'light shade of blond'**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13583" RevisionGUID="f0a3422c-0664-4b2b-b5cb-322194c6a542" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:13:54.873" UserId="8076" Text="What is the English equivalent for this word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13583" RevisionGUID="f0a3422c-0664-4b2b-b5cb-322194c6a542" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:13:54.873" UserId="8076" Text="The translation for 'шаболда'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13583" RevisionGUID="f0a3422c-0664-4b2b-b5cb-322194c6a542" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:13:54.873" UserId="8076" Text="|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13584" RevisionGUID="38f228de-1634-4676-8566-1ae773fa4fc2" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:23:04.573" UserId="6539" Text="Let us see where your confusion starts.One hand is рука, the genetive from it is чего?руки, the accusative is во что? в руку.And all these are singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now two hands is **руки**(nominative ),нет чего? **рук** (genitive plural),во что? **в руки** (accusative plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13585" RevisionGUID="64cc97b5-a772-411e-8694-5d8be538d2b3" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:24:09.470" UserId="551" Text="According to [wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B0):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. устар., жарг. то же, что шабалда; **болтун, врун, негодный человек**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. жарг., пренебр. **потаскуха, распутница** ◆ А мне все равно, что ты думала, шаболда ты пучеглазая! Владимир Колычев, «Постой, паровоз!», 2007 г. ◆ Мешки под глазами и ярко накрашенные губы красочно дополняли портрет этой привокзальной шаболды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, outdated meaning is &quot;someone that talks too much, liar, worthless person&quot; and second, derogatory one - &quot;a slut&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I have never heard this word in speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13584" RevisionGUID="3083dac0-2aac-4198-8317-5b828534a6c8" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:28:14.003" UserId="6539" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Let us see where your confusion starts.One hand is рука, the genetive from it is чего?руки, the accusative is во что? в руку.And all these are singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now two hands is **руки**(nominative ),нет чего? **рук** (genitive plural),во что? **в руки** (accusative plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рука is feminine, so it **can't be** *мой--accusative singular +рук (genitive plural ).В руки is correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13586" RevisionGUID="2997bb08-dedb-4705-b753-70fec7d5a7c7" CreationDate="2016-11-24T16:35:20.530" UserId="7371" Text="Are you talking about this song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGSBJXxmbNg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Songwriters and poets usually have a freedom to bend regular grammar rules, so their texts sound better. Thatswhy songs and poems can hardly be translated literally. I would definitely not learn russian grammar from song lyrics, esp. from old folk music. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As V.V. said, &quot;в мой рук&quot; is definitely wrong. Read his answer for the correct explanation of grammatical cases.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13587" RevisionGUID="e885c6f6-2771-4fd2-9f5a-b6ee5f0bbb7f" CreationDate="2016-11-24T17:20:31.923" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;I heard the expression &quot;в руки мне&quot; (=into my hands, genitive plural) in a song&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;_Give me in [my] hands_&quot;. &quot;Мне&quot; is Dative and &quot;в руки&quot; is Accusative plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can we rewrite that expression like:&quot;в Мой рук&quot; (accusative plural) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems you just confused which form is which. &quot;Рук&quot; is Genitive plural, not Accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13588" RevisionGUID="ad04e401-6220-4ac1-bd98-9232900c1a72" CreationDate="2016-11-24T17:54:03.183" UserId="194" Text="&gt; &quot;в руки мне&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here руки is in Accusative plural, not Genitive. The word order is non-default, the default would be мне в руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singular form would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в мою руку or мне в руку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;в Мой рук&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is ungrammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13584" RevisionGUID="0b70e533-292a-4955-b841-4ccf73cda16a" CreationDate="2016-11-24T17:57:22.557" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="Let us see where your confusion starts.One hand is рука, the genitive from it is чего?руки, the accusative is во что? в руку.And all these are singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now two hands is **руки**(nominative ),нет чего? **рук** (genitive plural),во что? **в руки** (accusative plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рука is feminine, so it **can't be** *мой--accusative singular +рук (genitive plural ).В руки is correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="5ad64e15-6c2c-4d1c-95f3-75ddfa1a0129" CreationDate="2016-11-24T19:17:59.830" UserId="8126" Text="I am so confused with the cases when constructing this sentence in Russian. I tried to construct it in 2 ways. I really don't know whether they are right or wrong. If wrong, what are my errors? I did my best to explain the problem in the picture:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fvQYr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="5ad64e15-6c2c-4d1c-95f3-75ddfa1a0129" CreationDate="2016-11-24T19:17:59.830" UserId="8126" Text="How to say &quot;I am going to my friend's party.&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="5ad64e15-6c2c-4d1c-95f3-75ddfa1a0129" CreationDate="2016-11-24T19:17:59.830" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13590" RevisionGUID="a22fbcd3-62f9-4990-a7eb-30547f4574e2" CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:22:42.620" UserId="6539" Text="You are almost perfect in your investigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на вечеринку к **своему** другу.(к кому -dative, на что-accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All cases are used correctly. Mind the possessive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на **вечеринку** моего друга.(на что--accusative, кого--моего друга --genitive ).Possessive case is Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is more natural though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13591" RevisionGUID="ba9fb7b1-055a-493a-92e9-e6df1c1574c6" CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:23:15.057" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Я иду на вечеринку моего друга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure why you're so confused. Word order doesn't matter here, so &quot;на вечеринку&quot; must be in Accusative just like in the first example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both variants are OK, although the first one is slightly more natural IMO. Also note that it's often a good idea to say &quot;своему / своего&quot; instead of &quot;моему / моего&quot;, i.e. &quot;Я иду на вечеринку к своему другу&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13590" RevisionGUID="ac814c90-b95e-43a7-af0b-3bf1742de678" CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:28:03.607" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You are almost perfect in your investigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на вечеринку к **своему** другу.(к кому -dative, на что-accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All cases are used correctly. Mind the possessive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на **вечеринку** своего друга.(на что--accusative, кого-своего  друга --genitive ).Possessive case is Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is more natural though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13590" RevisionGUID="e1b02a6b-9cff-4cfc-8652-ac1eaf59d44a" CreationDate="2016-11-24T20:31:56.840" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing corrected" Text="You are almost perfect in your investigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на вечеринку к **своему** другу. (к кому? – dative, на что? – accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All cases are used correctly. Mind the possessive pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду на **вечеринку** своего друга. (на что? – accusative, кого? –своего  друга – genitive ). Possessive case is Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is more natural, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32139" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13583" RevisionGUID="292a6502-2a2f-418b-917e-c187b813c555" CreationDate="2016-11-24T22:25:41.913" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13592" RevisionGUID="7bfad5fd-64d6-446a-97f6-fb91d98654c5" CreationDate="2016-11-24T22:42:49.413" UserId="3843" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hair band&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soft band that you can use to tie long hair into ponytail is &quot;резинка для волос&quot;. Google Picture also shows hard bow-shaped thing which can be put vertically around your head. This thing is &quot;ободок&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Messy hair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A person having messy hair is &quot;лохматый&quot;/&quot;лохматая&quot; (adj.). &quot;лохматые волосы&quot; also work. Also does (but worse) &quot;лохматая причёска&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;A literal translation is &quot;лохмы&quot; but it is much rarely used than &quot;лохматый&quot; and sounds more negative (&quot;лохмы&quot; can never be stylish, while &quot;лохматые волосы&quot; can be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crop hair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less formally it's &quot;причёска/стрижка под мальчика&quot;. For hairdressers it's probably &quot;гарсон&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To carry a haircut&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal &quot;носить стрижку&quot; works here pretty good. &quot;у него/у меня/ у неё &amp;lt;some characteristic&amp;gt; стрижка&quot; also works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Straitened hair&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выпрямленные волосы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hairstyle up-do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Высокая причёска&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding these ones I am less confident:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Layered hairstyle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google says this hairstyle is known as &quot;каскад&quot; in Russian but you better recheck it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hair accessories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Аксессуары для волос&quot; look fine for me. Also it feels like someone can find something better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hairstyle texture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Текстура причёски&quot; sounds fine for me. Although there maybe more professional translation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13593" RevisionGUID="4b410fb2-bd55-4f3a-aecf-be16f19df5a5" CreationDate="2016-11-25T01:11:39.977" UserId="8133" Text="Both sentences are right. But the first case accentuates that you are going to your friend and the second one - that you are going to party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="0a228369-f4f1-44a1-acd5-9da7336a92e0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T03:00:31.713" UserId="4925" Text="This word has given me a lot of trouble while studying Russian. At first, I thought it meant &quot;what&quot; or &quot;that&quot;. But, I recently heard someone say, &quot;Да, что очень важно.&quot; Why? Why not, &quot;Это очень важно&quot;? Then, I heard someone say, &quot;Есть что посмотреть.&quot; What? Does this word mean what, that, thing? I just need a list of uses for this word because it is just not clicking for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="0a228369-f4f1-44a1-acd5-9da7336a92e0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T03:00:31.713" UserId="4925" Text="Что: Can it even be translated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="0a228369-f4f1-44a1-acd5-9da7336a92e0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T03:00:31.713" UserId="4925" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13595" RevisionGUID="4b2d38b1-4df0-45cf-b94f-518e8541bd48" CreationDate="2016-11-25T05:25:58.753" UserId="6539" Text="The list is very long and I am afraid it still doesn't comprise all the meanings,because there are lots of idioms.The main points are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.*Что* as a question word and a conjunction is used to speak of an inanimate thing, an action &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что такое? Я вижу, что происходит. Что случилось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.As a conjunction (when unstressed ) in subordinate clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я знаю, что он был здесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Meaning &quot;how much?&quot;(colloquial )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Купите яблоки.– Что стОит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Meaning &quot;something &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А было ли что на самом деле?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Meaning &quot;why&quot; (colloquial )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что же ты ничего не сказал?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 Meaning &quot;как&quot; in a comparison &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Материнский гнев — что весенний снег: и много его выпадет, да скоро растает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7 Emphatic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что, я неправ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8 Meaning &quot;which, that&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дом, что стоит на углу, покосился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.Surprise &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что вы говорите? Вот не знал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 As a question to a predicate describing a state of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что наш больной? Ему легче?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11.Meaning &quot;it doesn't matter &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне дождь, что мне зной, что мне дождик проливной, когда мои друзья со мной.&#xD;&#xA;Неприятности что, справимся. Что толку спорить? Что пользы ждать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Idioms and phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;и что,&#xD;&#xA;не весть что,&#xD;&#xA;не для чего,&#xD;&#xA;чего ради,&#xD;&#xA;чем бы ни,&#xD;&#xA;чему быть, того не миновать,&#xD;&#xA;подумать бог знает что,&#xD;&#xA;что бы ни,&#xD;&#xA;что бы там ни было,&#xD;&#xA;что же, что ж,&#xD;&#xA;что ли,&#xD;&#xA;что нибудь,&#xD;&#xA;что такое,&#xD;&#xA;не что иное, как,&#xD;&#xA;что угодно,&#xD;&#xA;все что угодно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13596" RevisionGUID="0300e8fe-291c-4b2e-88d6-b39bd87c4421" CreationDate="2016-11-25T05:54:43.533" UserId="5443" Text="The incomplete phrase &lt;**Да, что очень важно.**&gt; can have one of two meanings, depending on context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It can be a concluding reply to another person's words, then it means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Yes, **which** is very important.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It can precede something the speaker wants to add to what he's just said, then it means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Oh/Well, and here's **what**'s very important.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The *'Yes'* doesn't translate literally here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13597" RevisionGUID="1479a8fb-abc2-4974-8cbf-efdc5a1a04a4" CreationDate="2016-11-25T08:09:32.627" UserId="8057" Text="Some words could be omitted:&lt;br&gt;&quot;Да, (это то) что очень важно.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Есть что (-нибудь) посмотреть.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13596" RevisionGUID="05c1ddd5-8629-46c8-b5f2-231d0e613b26" CreationDate="2016-11-25T08:20:53.950" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The incomplete phrase &lt;**Да, что очень важно.**&gt; can have one of two meanings, depending on context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It can be a concluding reply to another person's words, then it means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Yes, **which** is very important.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It can precede something the speaker wants to add to what he/she's just said, then it means: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Oh/Well, and here's **what**'s very important.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Да** doesn't translate literally here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13598" RevisionGUID="3c743782-e019-463a-9882-d6ab1dfcdea0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:40:01.770" UserId="8136" Text="How would I write pchelka (little bee, as a term of endearment) as a plural (as in my little bees)? &#xD;&#xA;Thank you x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13598" RevisionGUID="3c743782-e019-463a-9882-d6ab1dfcdea0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:40:01.770" UserId="8136" Text="What is the plural of pchelka?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13598" RevisionGUID="3c743782-e019-463a-9882-d6ab1dfcdea0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T09:40:01.770" UserId="8136" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13599" RevisionGUID="b1451221-06f7-4baa-896b-8fdd64f60d0a" CreationDate="2016-11-25T10:43:09.180" UserId="7371" Text="&gt; пчёлки  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for grammatical cases you can refer to this site: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%87%D1%91%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13580" RevisionGUID="491dd739-536f-42b6-bacf-b710ff36c5ca" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:35:18.950" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32156" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="ecac9def-3c14-41aa-bb3b-b93ff45606c0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:37:12.473" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13573" RevisionGUID="238821ec-551c-403b-b567-616d65dfe15d" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:39:35.287" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32158" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="74fe8180-1ef2-4c4d-a6e9-5fb9d7e7ee17" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:46:42.233" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32159" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13531" RevisionGUID="3666314e-b292-475d-8e7f-08d13d4f17bb" CreationDate="2016-11-25T13:51:21.533" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32160" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13464" RevisionGUID="168bd6ea-87bd-4fb8-b114-e20c9ebf5a6e" CreationDate="2016-11-25T14:06:52.033" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13600" RevisionGUID="2aaa7b79-8384-4fcd-bcec-d0df1697dd03" CreationDate="2016-11-25T15:37:17.023" UserId="8076" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В году, в сутках, в неделе. В году у нас 365 дней. В сутках 24 часа. В неделе 7 дней." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13601" RevisionGUID="ccdc824b-0688-4c1b-be8d-b0a7428cb0ef" CreationDate="2016-11-25T16:06:05.810" UserId="8076" Text="Look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;через неделю&quot;** is **&quot;after (in) a (one) week&quot;**, **&quot;after (in) a (one) week's time&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;and it should have been **&quot;in two weeks' time&quot;** or **&quot;in two weeks&quot;** for **&quot;через две недели&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And concerning the other two answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speaking about a single event in the future: &quot;Я уеду через неделю&quot; means &quot;I am leaving in a week&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Actually &quot;I am leaving in a week&quot; is closer to the Russian &quot;Я уезжаю через неделю&quot; and &quot;I will leave in a week&quot; means &quot;Я уеду через неделю&quot;!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Speaking about something repetitive: &quot;Я езжу в Москву через неделю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (каждую вторую неделю)&quot; means &quot;I visit Moscow every other week&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is incorrect in Russian to say: &quot;Я езжу в Москву через неделю&quot;. It should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I visit Moscow every other week&quot;. Is equivalent to &quot;Я посещаю Москву каждую вторую неделю (неделя через неделю)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я езжу в Москву через неделю&quot; would be &quot;I ride to Moscow after a week&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поеду в отпуск через неделю - I'll go on vacation in a week time&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (after skipping one week)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It should be &quot;I'll go on vacation in a week's time&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я плаваю в бассейне через день - I swim in the pool every other day.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i.e. I skip a day and swim on the second day.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorrect Russian, should be: &quot;Я плаваю в бассейне сутки через сутки (каждые вторые сутки)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наша группа собирается через неделю - Our group meets every other week&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i.e. we meet one week, and then skip a week)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Наша группа собирается через неделю&quot; will be &quot;Our group is meeting after a week (in a week's time)&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Our group meets every other week&quot; is &quot;Наша группа собирается каждую вторую неделю (неделя через неделю)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13602" RevisionGUID="206be1d1-77e6-4d8a-aab3-a86643abad27" CreationDate="2016-11-25T16:35:10.007" UserId="8139" Text="Answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пчёлк**а** / пчёлк**и**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cannot add comments, so reply to @Pasha Syrnikov:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my foreign pass this should be written in latin characters like: Pch**e**lka / Pch**e**lki, however it has other (possibly better) variants: Pch**o**lka, Pch**yo**lka (RU ё -&gt; LA o, yo, e).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13603" RevisionGUID="4e843fe9-47a1-4f4d-bbed-ab8f49e89fa2" CreationDate="2016-11-25T17:03:37.707" UserDisplayName="user8140" Text="I'd say it always means `what`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example `Есть что посмотреть` could still make sense in English as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    What is there to watch?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32165" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13594" RevisionGUID="3c7ad352-b744-4c3e-b3dd-e02f2caaebea" CreationDate="2016-11-25T20:56:02.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/802254542129623040" />
  <row Id="32166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13597" RevisionGUID="87703bca-7c80-4469-a180-b28787d30741" CreationDate="2016-11-26T00:20:18.833" UserId="8057" Comment="Punctuation explains everything!" Text="Some words could be omitted:&lt;br&gt;&quot;Да, (это то) что очень важно.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Есть что (-нибудь) посмотреть?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Есть (кое-) что посмотреть!&quot; - &quot;There is something to watch down here!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32167" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13598" RevisionGUID="bbf84ef3-5e56-4aed-b5c3-7556082a57f7" CreationDate="2016-11-26T02:03:01.727" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13604" RevisionGUID="936bea55-2863-452f-91aa-8ebcf05bce5a" CreationDate="2016-11-26T05:55:28.993" UserId="1097" Text="A small clarification to the answers.  &#xD;&#xA;These words are spelled the same but pronounced differently:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ру́ки - nominative or accusative plural, accent on the first syllable. &quot;в мои ру́ки&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;руки́ - genitive singular, accent on the second syllable. &quot;взмах руки́&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32169" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13575" RevisionGUID="173eb6a6-cd8c-41d8-bda0-ba8b2c648181" CreationDate="2016-11-26T05:56:19.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/802390509218123776" />
  <row Id="32170" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13589" RevisionGUID="979aa182-29cb-4a28-8359-21358e09c257" CreationDate="2016-11-26T08:56:20.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/802435810519826433" />
  <row Id="32171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="af8d15d0-0464-431d-99b8-bec0e1db9775" CreationDate="2016-11-26T23:26:53.387" UserId="-1" Comment="Made it actually correct in English" Text="In typographic text «…» are preferable. In da internetz &quot;…&quot; are used, as no other quotes available on the keyboard. In hand-writing „…“ are used almost exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, if you want translate something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “It's very useful to have a gun,” he said with calm voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it is better to avoid quotes at all, using direct speech, where applicable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Очень полезно иметь пушку, — хладнокровно сказал он.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32172" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1472" RevisionGUID="af8d15d0-0464-431d-99b8-bec0e1db9775" CreationDate="2016-11-26T23:26:53.387" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 334 edit id of 814" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13573" RevisionGUID="60a9b488-d429-438e-9f6e-16230bdb29ed" CreationDate="2016-11-27T09:05:54.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/802800604661874689" />
  <row Id="32175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13570" RevisionGUID="5bfedf9b-c0d8-48b7-9272-ad12b47dacb7" CreationDate="2016-11-27T12:05:59.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/802845926310182913" />
  <row Id="32184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="2f9d79c9-698e-42cc-96a9-0accacd088ba" CreationDate="2016-11-27T21:29:52.870" UserId="7764" Text="Consider the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Купи нам какого-нибудь хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have thought to express it as &quot;Купи нам какой-нибудь хлеба&quot;, reasoning that &quot;Купи нам какой-нибудь&quot; is a perfectly sound sentence with &quot;какой-нибудь&quot; being the object of купи, and that хлеба could be thought of as a sort of subordinate to какой-нибудь.&#xD;&#xA;However, I've been told that this is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the reasoning given above wrong because какой-нибудь is an adjective, and therefore must have the same case as хлеба?&#xD;&#xA;In the same vein, does какой-нибудь ever act like an object?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="2f9d79c9-698e-42cc-96a9-0accacd088ba" CreationDate="2016-11-27T21:29:52.870" UserId="7764" Text="Can какой-нибудь be an object, or just an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13608" RevisionGUID="2f9d79c9-698e-42cc-96a9-0accacd088ba" CreationDate="2016-11-27T21:29:52.870" UserId="7764" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13609" RevisionGUID="fb9872de-db2b-456c-82b1-6d1143ffdb92" CreationDate="2016-11-28T00:57:42.663" UserId="194" Text="Какой-нибудь is a pronoun , not adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Купи нам какой-нибудь хлеб. &quot;Buy us any bread&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Купи нам какой-нибудь. &quot;Buy us any&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if from the context it is clear you mean bread." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13610" RevisionGUID="ece31549-b2dd-42f2-95f8-94f089eca51a" CreationDate="2016-11-28T04:10:00.970" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Купи хлеб. Купи хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can use either accusative or genitive in  this  sentence The meaning is slightly different.      The accusative signifies the item itself or the whole item.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive means  &quot;some,&quot;  &quot;a little&quot;. Some nouns have the special form of genitive which is called the  partitive. Хлеб doesn't have it. You can see the  partitive in action when you hear &quot;сахару&quot; for example. There are three possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахар? - accusative. It refers to a substance as a class. Соли нет, хочешь сахар?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахара? - genitive. One of the multiple functions of genitive is to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;стакан воды&quot;, &quot;ложка сахара&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахару? - partitive. It's the special form of genitive to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;ложка сахару&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой‐нибудь is a pronoun in Russian and is used as a determiner to a noun хлеб, so it should be declined **какого-нибудь хлеба**. **Купи хлеба** would mean &quot;some bread&quot;, when you add a pronoun, you mean &quot;a sort&quot;, &quot;a kind&quot;. It is **not** used as a noun. In a conversation the noun хлеб can be left out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой хлеб/какого хлеба купить? – Да купи какой‐нибудь, не важно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13610" RevisionGUID="5fd09a65-08a9-4684-8711-f2cb7e54a27b" CreationDate="2016-11-28T05:19:10.507" UserId="6539" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="&gt;Купи хлеб. Купи хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can use either accusative or genitive in  this  sentence The meaning is slightly different.      The accusative signifies the item itself or the whole item.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive means  &quot;some,&quot;  &quot;a little&quot;. Some nouns have the special form of genitive which is called the  partitive. Хлеб doesn't have it. You can see the  partitive in action when you hear &quot;сахару&quot; for example. There are three possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахар? - accusative. It refers to a substance as a class. Соли нет, хочешь сахар?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахара? - genitive. One of the multiple functions of genitive is to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;стакан воды&quot;, &quot;ложка сахара&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахару? - partitive. It's the special form of genitive to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;ложка сахару&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой‐нибудь is a pronoun in Russian and is used as a determiner to a noun хлеб, so it should be declined **какого-нибудь хлеба**. **Купи хлеба** would mean &quot;some bread&quot;, when you add a pronoun, you mean &quot;a sort&quot;, &quot;a kind&quot;. It is **not** used as a noun or its substitution. In a conversation the noun хлеб can be left out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой хлеб/какого хлеба купить? – Да купи какой‐нибудь, не важно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13610" RevisionGUID="569930c9-43a9-498a-aeb7-7b101bba41d7" CreationDate="2016-11-28T06:32:05.583" UserId="6539" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="&gt;Купи какой‐нибудь хлеб. Купи какого-нибудь хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can use either accusative or genitive in  this  sentence The meaning is slightly different.      The accusative signifies the item itself or the whole item.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive means  &quot;some,&quot;  &quot;a little&quot;. Some nouns have the special form of genitive which is called the  partitive. Хлеб doesn't have it. You can see the  partitive in action when you hear &quot;сахару&quot; for example. There are three possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахар? - accusative. It refers to a substance as a class. Соли нет, хочешь сахар?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахара? - genitive. One of the multiple functions of genitive is to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;стакан воды&quot;, &quot;ложка сахара&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахару? - partitive. It's the special form of genitive to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;ложка сахару&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой‐нибудь is a pronoun in Russian and is used as a determiner to a noun хлеб, so it should be declined **какого-нибудь хлеба**. **Купи хлеба** would mean &quot;some bread&quot;, when you add a pronoun, you mean &quot;a sort&quot;, &quot;a kind&quot;. It is **not** used as a noun or its substitution.We use **что‐нибудь** in that case. In a conversation the noun хлеб can be left out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой хлеб/какого хлеба купить? – Да купи какой‐нибудь, не важно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13610" RevisionGUID="97c06ebe-7109-4a7c-b2cd-c7b83a96582a" CreationDate="2016-11-28T06:38:10.697" UserId="6539" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="&gt;Купи какой‐нибудь хлеб. Купи какого-нибудь хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can use either accusative or genitive in  this  sentence The meaning is slightly different.      The accusative signifies the item itself or the whole item.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive means  &quot;some,&quot;  &quot;a little&quot;. Some nouns have the special form of genitive which is called the  partitive. Хлеб doesn't have it. You can see the  partitive in action when you hear &quot;сахару&quot; for example. There are three possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахар? - accusative. It refers to a substance as a class. Соли нет, хочешь сахар?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахара? - genitive. One of the multiple functions of genitive is to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;стакан воды&quot;, &quot;ложка сахара&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахару? - partitive. It's the special form of genitive to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;ложка сахару&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой‐нибудь is a pronoun in Russian and is used as a determiner to a noun хлеб, so it should be declined **какого-нибудь хлеба** (used attributively) **Купи хлеба** would mean &quot;some bread&quot;, when you add a pronoun, you mean &quot;a sort&quot;, &quot;a kind&quot;. It is **not** used as a noun or its substitution.We use **что‐нибудь** in that case. In a conversation the noun хлеб can be left out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой хлеб/какого хлеба купить? – Да купи какой‐нибудь, не важно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13393" RevisionGUID="e7549281-3113-4506-84d0-ce2c3c588977" CreationDate="2016-11-28T08:13:01.803" UserId="551" Comment="Removed &quot;blockquote&quot;" Text="While reading a newspaper, I came across the word **двушку-хрущевку**, and had a question concerning it. The full sentence reads: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; квартплата за двушку-хрущевку — 2,5-4,5 тысячи в месяц&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the word **хрущевкa**, and it said that it is one of those pre-fabricated concrete apartment buildings built during the time of Xрущев. And my guess is that the **двушку** refers to it being two bedrooms. I was wondering if there are any other common ways to refer to these type of buildings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13600" RevisionGUID="d59de9aa-b441-46f6-bafa-36eeee4b6156" CreationDate="2016-11-28T08:47:19.043" UserId="8076" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В году, в сутках, в неделе. В году у нас 365 дней. В сутках 24 часа. В неделе 7 дней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can decline the way you say but it will be like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мы ходим туда один раз в неделю.&#xD;&#xA; - Мы летаем в Москву дважды в год.&#xD;&#xA; - Это явление произошло точно день в день, как и было предсказано.&#xD;&#xA; - Его нет дома уже третьи сутки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32194" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13564" RevisionGUID="f2aaeee4-cdd9-4347-a24a-ce37be341771" CreationDate="2016-11-28T09:08:18.460" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/803163597660684289" />
  <row Id="32195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13611" RevisionGUID="ff10166f-79f1-4b94-85b3-9da5cb2534be" CreationDate="2016-11-28T14:39:14.623" UserId="4714" Text="In what cases can we leave out &quot;ли&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не знаю умер он или нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**or**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не знаю умер ли он. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically when should I use ли? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13611" RevisionGUID="ff10166f-79f1-4b94-85b3-9da5cb2534be" CreationDate="2016-11-28T14:39:14.623" UserId="4714" Text="When can we leave out ли?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13611" RevisionGUID="ff10166f-79f1-4b94-85b3-9da5cb2534be" CreationDate="2016-11-28T14:39:14.623" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13610" RevisionGUID="ae16567a-e65c-4ffe-b1a9-4176b2857354" CreationDate="2016-11-28T14:40:55.600" UserId="6539" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="&gt;Купи какой‐нибудь хлеб. Купи какого-нибудь хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can use either accusative or genitive in  this  sentence The meaning is slightly different.      The accusative signifies the item itself or the whole item.&#xD;&#xA;The genitive means  &quot;some,&quot;  &quot;a little&quot;. Some nouns have the special form of genitive which is called the  partitive. Хлеб doesn't have it. You can see the  partitive in action when you hear &quot;сахару&quot; for example. There are three possible variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахар? - accusative. It refers to a substance as a class. Соли нет, хочешь сахар?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахара? - genitive. One of the multiple functions of genitive is to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;стакан воды&quot;, &quot;ложка сахара&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хочешь сахару? - partitive. It's the special form of genitive to refer to some amount of a substance: &quot;ложка сахару&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой‐нибудь is a **pronoun** in Russian (terminology is different in Russian and in English ) and is used as a determiner to a noun хлеб, so it should be declined **какого-нибудь хлеба** (used **attributively**) **Купи хлеба** would mean &quot;some bread&quot;, when you add a pronoun, you mean &quot;a sort&quot;, &quot;a kind&quot;. It is **not** used as a noun or its substitution.We use **что‐нибудь** in that case. In a conversation the noun хлеб can be left out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой хлеб/какого хлеба купить? – Да купи какой‐нибудь, не важно.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32199" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13560" RevisionGUID="55012b4e-a922-439e-862d-bbeccddbcd88" CreationDate="2016-11-28T15:08:21.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/803254207474233345" />
  <row Id="32202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13612" RevisionGUID="55b95d34-2a38-40d7-90ef-61a529d58fee" CreationDate="2016-11-28T17:45:02.600" UserId="6539" Text="We use &quot;ли&quot; mostly in yes/no questions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Любите ли вы театр?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can leave out *ли* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы любите театр?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind the word order.We use inversion in the first sentence. &#xD;&#xA;We also use &quot;ли&quot; in reported yes/no questions like in those examples of yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не знаю, придет ли он сегодня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ли functions as *if* or *whether*. We can't leave out *ли* or change the word order,but we can use another sentence with almost the same meaning with *или*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не знаю, придет он или нет сегодня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет adds the emphasis to the sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="93e54c91-15f8-4abd-8f82-49685e427fbd" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:27:33.860" UserId="3680" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13613" RevisionGUID="93e54c91-15f8-4abd-8f82-49685e427fbd" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:27:33.860" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="3f25d29e-8d7f-4cb2-b978-6faa6eb367fb" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:27:33.860" UserId="3680" Text="Questions about special language used by a particular group as well as about an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed of invented words, changed words, and exaggerated or humorous figures of speech. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13614" RevisionGUID="3f25d29e-8d7f-4cb2-b978-6faa6eb367fb" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:27:33.860" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10652" RevisionGUID="5f5c28ad-56c8-478e-8dd4-03f9d1240df1" CreationDate="2016-11-28T22:30:09.860" UserId="3680" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Questions about different words having the same or similar meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32208" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13529" RevisionGUID="bf16f7b8-19b6-4265-b656-a7ebb587a7dd" CreationDate="2016-11-29T09:11:42.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/803526841550127104" />
  <row Id="32210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13616" RevisionGUID="871af9a9-ec0f-49bb-b6ef-bb8b9bfb3bfe" CreationDate="2016-11-29T11:46:33.007" UserId="7167" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Basically, &quot;ли&quot; can be treated as &quot;whether&quot;/&quot;if&quot;. When you want to ask some indirect question. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I don't know whether he has done his homework or not.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я не знаю сделал **ли** он свою домашнюю работу или нет.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13611" RevisionGUID="7001840d-6600-4115-8e52-f63ddd3ccbf3" CreationDate="2016-11-29T12:11:42.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/803572138439380992" />
  <row Id="32222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="322bb291-ca55-4689-9ccf-b24bf45ed588" CreationDate="2016-11-30T08:03:42.477" UserId="8126" Text=" &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Я ви́жу **одного́ ма́льчика**. (I see one boy.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я ви́жу **два до́ма**. (I see two houses.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Я ви́жу **двух ма́льчиков**. (I see two boys.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often get confused with the cases. As far as I know, after &quot;`видеть`&quot;, we need to use the *Accusative Case*.  I really have difficulty understanding *the cases of the numbers and the nouns after them* in the above sentences. (what case are they and why?). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="322bb291-ca55-4689-9ccf-b24bf45ed588" CreationDate="2016-11-30T08:03:42.477" UserId="8126" Text="What are the cases of the following words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="322bb291-ca55-4689-9ccf-b24bf45ed588" CreationDate="2016-11-30T08:03:42.477" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13619" RevisionGUID="32c6bd6d-80ed-42f7-b7e8-bfffa6ed2ee6" CreationDate="2016-11-30T19:49:22.390" UserId="6816" Text="A Wiktionary page for два helps:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; два and две, when in the nominative case or accusative case, even in compounds (22, 32, 42, 102, etc.), govern the genitive of the noun.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In the accusative case, animate nouns become genitive plural and inanimate nouns remain in genitive singular.&#xA;&#xA;**And a few rules for adjectives (e.g. &quot;Two red cats&quot;)**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; While the noun in a nominative construction is in the genitive singular following два or две, an intervening adjective or adjectival participle will be in the genitive plural or nominative plural&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If два is in nominative case, the adjective will be nominative plural when the noun is feminine&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If два is in accusative case, the adjective will be nominative plural only if the noun is feminine inanimate&#xA;&#xA;These rules apply to три and четыре as well.&#xA;&#xA;Sorry for basically copy pasting but I figured I would separate the rules from the examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13620" RevisionGUID="1bc3bf53-af02-40d4-b541-2bfb37f190fc" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:30:41.087" UserId="8169" Text="&gt; 1. Я ви́жу одного́ ма́льчика. (I see one boy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this first case what you're seeing &lt;b&gt;is&lt;/b&gt; accusative. What happens in accusative case when you have a masculine animate noun is that the object becomes genitive based on whether it's one or many (genitive singular or genitive plural).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Я ви́жу два до́ма. (I see two houses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case what you're seeing is accusative with the word дом being in the genitive singular &quot;дома&quot;. Why is this happening? Because you have to have agreement between your nouns and your numbers. There's a brief rundown [here](http://learningrussian.net/russian-grammar/russian-nouns/agreement-with-numbers.php).&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Я ви́жу двух ма́льчиков. (I see two boys.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have the same case as #1, the only difference is that there are many boys meaning the object will take genitive plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="679a5d81-8faa-4f87-8656-2d56b61933b0" CreationDate="2016-12-01T12:19:29.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/804298874693255169" />
  <row Id="32233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="b176274b-a51f-44c7-8e5c-9c71caf275a3" CreationDate="2016-12-01T19:36:31.230" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Я вижу + numeral + noun - in which case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32234" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="5c716f3b-dfcb-4d0d-a92c-60931303f56d" CreationDate="2016-12-01T19:45:11.420" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Я вижу + numeral + noun - governed by which case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32235" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="9f702b31-06c8-4689-ab2f-829a36a1818c" CreationDate="2016-12-01T19:56:34.050" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Я вижу + numeral + noun - governed by what case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="0e49313f-e068-452a-b0a9-52acd7ed4470" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:32:55.077" UserId="8175" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z2jd9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of English, &quot;she&quot; was used much less than &quot;he&quot;, and it still hasn't caught up. In Russian, it looks as if the translation of &quot;he&quot; almost didn't exist, until around 1915. What happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="0e49313f-e068-452a-b0a9-52acd7ed4470" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:32:55.077" UserId="8175" Text="Why did он suddenly become so much more common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="0e49313f-e068-452a-b0a9-52acd7ed4470" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:32:55.077" UserId="8175" Text="|род|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="6d754a2d-0a76-4edd-acb2-6d337dfd510d" CreationDate="2016-12-01T21:19:58.340" UserId="1236" Text="Actually, the year is not &quot;around 1915&quot;, but the beginning of 1918 when the orthography reform began. Before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was written as &quot;онъ&quot;, and naturally before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was not used. Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1918, **Ъ** at the end of words after &quot;hard&quot; consonants was used mainly by emigrants in their printed editions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HB0I4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="7f719240-7720-426a-8b93-317dae2e18f4" CreationDate="2016-12-01T21:31:08.227" UserId="1236" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Actually, the year is not &quot;around 1915&quot;, but the beginning of 1918 when the orthography reform began. Before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was written as &quot;онъ&quot;, and naturally before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was not used. Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1918, **Ъ** at the end of words after &quot;hard&quot; consonants was used mainly by emigrants in their printed editions. All the instances of &quot;он&quot; used before 1918 that Ngram Viewer shows in that graph you posted are actually mistakes of the Google Books OCR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HB0I4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="102070ad-86e1-4cf9-8412-bc3d90e86434" CreationDate="2016-12-01T22:23:34.833" UserId="1236" Comment="A link added." Text="Actually, the year is not &quot;around 1915&quot;, but the beginning of 1918 when the [orthography reform][1] began. Before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was written as &quot;онъ&quot;, and naturally before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was not used. Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1918, **Ъ** at the end of words after &quot;hard&quot; consonants was used mainly by emigrants in their printed publications. All the instances of &quot;он&quot; used before 1918 that Ngram Viewer shows in the graph you posted are actually mistakes of the Google Books OCR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography#The_post-revolution_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HB0I4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32242" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13501" RevisionGUID="6c834b98-4490-4a3c-ac44-f9766355f485" CreationDate="2016-12-02T00:26:08.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/804481742862249985" />
  <row Id="32250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13625" RevisionGUID="4d0c109f-633c-4422-818e-b94dfe751c0f" CreationDate="2016-12-02T11:40:46.073" UserId="8181" Text="In my opinion this phrase is said about a person, who became only a few inches taller as compared to himself when he used to use a baby poo bowl. It is a comparison between person's height in past (when he had to use a baby poo bowl) and his current height (when he is tall enough to use regular toilet) not between his height and a height of some thing like cooking pot or some bowl.&#xD;&#xA;Similar proverb: **Молоко на губах не обсохло.** - " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13626" RevisionGUID="5041f94f-cbba-4f0c-8254-d41ace872481" CreationDate="2016-12-02T13:19:30.343" UserId="8048" Text="Those words have slightly different meanings.&#xD;&#xA;1. Word &quot;штука&quot; and its derivatives &quot;штучка&quot;, &quot;штуковина&quot; means basically &quot;thing&quot;, and usually is used when author do not know correct term for the thing e.g. name of tool or a part of machinery: &quot;Я взял у него эту штуку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It also means &quot;piece&quot; in &quot;3 штуки&quot; (3 pieces). &#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;Вещь&quot; is more formal and beside of main meaning &quot;thing&quot; has couple of others: &quot;piece of clothing&quot;, &quot;work of art&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="d3c29f6d-9e0d-49f8-9065-c139fe1044d7" CreationDate="2016-12-02T14:59:16.263" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why did &quot;он&quot; suddenly become so much more common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13627" RevisionGUID="b8634ce5-710a-42f8-ad00-935822dd9cd1" CreationDate="2016-12-02T15:29:31.837" UserId="8021" Text="An answer to this case question citing the cardinal numbers &quot;one&quot; and &quot;two&quot; can be found in most Russian grammars in sections on the genitive case and/or the declension of cardinal numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most succinct explanation that I have found (for beginners, that is) in seven (soon to be eight) Russian grammar texts for the declension rules for the cardinal numbers &quot;one&quot; and &quot;two&quot; are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Nouns qualified by numerals:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) The number &quot;one&quot; (**один, одна, одно**) agrees in gender with the noun following it, e.g. &quot;один стол&quot;, &quot;одна женщина&quot;, &quot;одно перо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;(b) **два** (for masculine and neuter nouns) and **две**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32265" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="13563" RevisionGUID="0208e39c-1d29-4489-ba77-9a00bd9f3f25" CreationDate="2016-12-02T15:54:24.863" UserId="-1" Comment="53" />
  <row Id="32266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13627" RevisionGUID="aa122cc1-4397-4c6c-8ce6-bd667b181b64" CreationDate="2016-12-02T16:30:56.487" UserId="8021" Comment="added 1677 characters in body" Text="An answer to this case question citing the cardinal numbers &quot;**one**&quot; and &quot;**two**&quot; can be found in most Russian grammars in sections on the genitive case and/or the declension of cardinal numbers. The confusion as to whether the case of a number or noun is in the genitive or the accusative can be resolved by checking those grammar texts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most *succinct* explanation (for beginners) that I have found in seven  Russian grammar texts that I examined for the declension rules for the cardinal numbers &quot;one&quot; and &quot;two&quot; are the following from J.L.I Fennell's ***THE PENGUIN RUSSIAN COURSE*** (1961); copies are available from Amazon.com at exceptionally low cost.  (Note: The ellipsis in my quote from text of that book indicate where I have not included the examples that are given by the author):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[quote]&#xD;&#xA;***Nouns qualified by numerals**:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) The number &quot;one&quot; (**один, одна, одно**) agrees in gender with the noun following it: ...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;(b) **два** (for masculine and neuter nouns) and **две** (for feminine nouns) are followed by the genitive singular: ...  The same applies to **оба**, **обе** 'both': ...&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;(c) **три** and **четыре** (all genders) are also followed by the genitive singular: ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ends quote]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text also gives the  rules governing the numerals &quot;five&quot; to &quot;twenty&quot;, &quot;thirty&quot; *etc*. up to &quot;100&quot;.  All those numbers are followed by the genitive plural.  For compound numbers the case for the noun is governed by the gender/case of the last numeral in the compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more advanced texts which list more rules governing the case and use of numerals, so I have more or less limited my answer to the numbers in the examples given for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only caveat I would like to add is that, serious beginning students should avoid books on &quot;tourist&quot; Russian, as they rarely deal with any form of this type of grammar question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more advanced student will, of course, find more detailed explanations in texts such as (available from Amazon.com) the often cited I.Pulkina and E.Zakhava-Nekrasova's &quot;**RUSSIAN: A PRACTICAL GRAMMAR WITH EXERCISES**, or Borras and Christian's **RUSSIAN SYNTAX: ASPECTS OF MODERN RUSSIAN SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY**.  These and similar grammars go on to further explain case and syntax for quantitative numeric nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="0cda3c0f-da40-4c38-95c2-0d94b6b1686b" CreationDate="2016-12-02T17:05:12.520" UserId="1236" Comment="The graph changed." Text="Actually, the year is not &quot;around 1915&quot;, but the beginning of 1918 when the [orthography reform][1] began. Before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was written as &quot;онъ&quot;, and naturally before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was not used. Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1918, **Ъ** at the end of words after &quot;hard&quot; consonants was used mainly by emigrants in their printed publications. All the instances of &quot;он&quot; used before 1918 that Ngram Viewer shows in the graph you posted are actually mistakes of the Google Books OCR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography#The_post-revolution_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J9Fll.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="0bec04b8-a73f-459a-90cd-be0420a6ec78" CreationDate="2016-12-02T17:12:35.793" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="Actually, the year is not &quot;around 1915&quot;, but the beginning of 1918 when the [orthography reform][1] began. Before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was written as &quot;онъ&quot;, and naturally before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was not used. Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1918, **Ъ** at the end of words after &quot;hard&quot; consonants was used mainly by emigrants in their printed publications. All the instances of &quot;он&quot; used before 1918 that Ngram Viewer shows in the graph you posted are actually mistakes of the Google Books OCR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography#The_post-revolution_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J9Fll.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32269" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="19d3e519-cbe3-4a77-a0d5-ee4b86aa26e8" CreationDate="2016-12-02T17:47:33.793" UserId="1236" Comment="A tag added." Text="|орфография|род|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13623" RevisionGUID="7e5b01ae-a00f-4a5b-bc98-0e323447ff13" CreationDate="2016-12-02T19:22:37.863" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Actually, the year is not &quot;around 1915&quot;, but the beginning of 1918 when the [orthography reform][1] began. Before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was written as &quot;онъ&quot;, and naturally before 1918 &quot;он&quot; was not used. Have a look:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1918, **Ъ** at the end of words after &quot;hard&quot; consonants was used mainly by emigrants in their printed publications. All the instances of &quot;он&quot; used before 1918 that Ngram Viewer shows in its graphs are actually mistakes of the Google Books OCR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography#The_post-revolution_reform&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J9Fll.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13628" RevisionGUID="a0b03141-acd2-4899-88d3-75a1b68a2101" CreationDate="2016-12-02T20:28:53.037" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13628" RevisionGUID="a0b03141-acd2-4899-88d3-75a1b68a2101" CreationDate="2016-12-02T20:28:53.037" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="8cab81c5-56af-4d7c-87ea-8dc6d2c1f9ff" CreationDate="2016-12-02T20:28:53.037" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="8cab81c5-56af-4d7c-87ea-8dc6d2c1f9ff" CreationDate="2016-12-02T20:28:53.037" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32275" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13622" RevisionGUID="b9aea39f-6e21-4dfd-852a-505b2827d5c4" CreationDate="2016-12-02T21:28:57.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/804799541576953861" />
  <row Id="32276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="ec8f199f-b623-4909-a530-8c995677d603" CreationDate="2016-12-03T06:54:58.593" UserId="7239" Text="I've known for a while what the word &quot;совсем&quot; means, but only recently did I realize that the meaning stems from the fact that: &quot;совсем = с(о)+всем&quot; (entirely=with everything).&#xA;&#xA;This is probably fairly obvious for native speakers, but it took a long time for me to realize. The same is true of &quot;сейчас = сей+час&quot; (now=this hour/time). Also &quot;нет+(genitive)=не+есть&quot;, &quot;когда=кого+года&quot;, &quot;всегда=все+года&quot;, and &quot;если=есть+ли&quot;. There are other such examples which I am forgetting now.&#xA;&#xA;Is there a list somewhere of such common words which are actually built up from small words whose meanings are easier to remember? I feel like this would be very helpful to those learning the language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="ec8f199f-b623-4909-a530-8c995677d603" CreationDate="2016-12-03T06:54:58.593" UserId="7239" Text="Examples of compound words &quot;hidden in plain sight&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="ec8f199f-b623-4909-a530-8c995677d603" CreationDate="2016-12-03T06:54:58.593" UserId="7239" Text="|этимология|история-языка|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13631" RevisionGUID="d09c21a3-93de-4a89-b59b-918f2159d0fb" CreationDate="2016-12-03T08:28:04.153" UserId="5008" Text="Well, that could be trickier than you think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;нет+(genitive)=не+есть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually &quot;_нет_&quot; goes from &quot;_нету_&quot; which is &quot;_не [есть] тут_&quot; (not here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;когда=кого+года&quot;, &quot;всегда=все+года&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a doubtful theory. Usually they say that &quot;_всегда_&quot;=&quot;_все+когда_&quot;, but &quot;_когда_&quot; has a root of its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there a list somewhere of such common words which are actually built up from small words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Never seen it. But note that some prepositions are still written separately (&quot;compound prepositions&quot;): &quot;в течение&quot;, &quot;в связи&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some obvious examples of &quot;single-word multi-root&quot; prepositions which come to my mind: &quot;вместо&quot; (в+место = in place), &quot;или&quot; (и+ли), &quot;ввиду&quot; (в+виду = in sight), &quot;вряд [ли]&quot; (в+ряд = in a row), &quot;наподобие&quot; (на+подобие), &quot;вроде&quot; (в+роде), &quot;вокруг&quot; (во+круг), &quot;около&quot; (о+коло, cf. колесо), &quot;вблизи&quot; (в+близи), &quot;навстречу&quot; (adv.) (на+встречу) and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13517" RevisionGUID="1e3c9d92-078c-4350-878a-4b0a33a2b004" CreationDate="2016-12-04T12:36:48.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/805390396373270529" />
  <row Id="32281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13632" RevisionGUID="12e4da54-690d-482b-9761-0e362c38fbd1" CreationDate="2016-12-04T16:05:58.290" UserId="6539" Text="Numerals in combinations with other words can act as main words and dependent ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The numeral один (одна, одно, одни) and all ordinal numerals are dependent from the following noun and agree in gender, number and case like adjectives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; третий ряд, третья комната, третье событие, третьи ножницы;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nom. один год/мальчик, одна неделя/девочка, одно окно, одни люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gen. одного года/мальчика, одной недели/девочки, одного окна, одних людей&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. один год, одного мальчика, одну неделю /девочку, одно окно, одних людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So один doesn't govern the following noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Most cardinal numerals require the genitive case of the  noun (except один, 21, 31,etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Два  человека (gen. sing), сто двадцать пять человек.(gen.pl)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.All other numerals either govern the following nouns (in **the nominative and the accusative** ) or are dependent of them in other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerals два, три, четыре (and all compounds like 22, 34, 42, 72,84,etc.) and collective numerals (двое, трое, четверо,etc. ) have the following **animate** noun in the accusative which coincides in the form with the **genitive plural**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nom. два, три, четыре мальчика, две девочки, двое мальчиков &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gen. Двух, трёх, четырёх мальчиков, двух девочек, двоих мальчиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. Двух,трёх,четырёх мальчиков, двух девочек, двоих мальчиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's see what happens to **inanimate** nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nom. Два,три, четыре стола, окна, две,три, четыре недели &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gen. Двух, трёх, четырёх столов, окон, двух, трёх, четырёх недель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. Два, три, четыре стола, окна, две, три, четыре недели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the acc. of the **inanimate** nouns after 2,3,4 coincides with the nominative which is in fact **genitive singular**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other combinations ( from 5... ), except mentioned above, have a noun in **genitive plural**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nom пять мальчиков, девочек, столов, окон &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gen пяти мальчиков, девочек,столов, окон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. Пять мальчиков, девочек, столов, окон.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="cac42fb5-be68-4c1e-beb6-357977abdf24" CreationDate="2016-12-05T17:46:44.393" UserId="5668" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Не то что ... а&quot; and &quot;Не то чтобы ... но&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="cac42fb5-be68-4c1e-beb6-357977abdf24" CreationDate="2016-12-05T17:46:44.393" UserId="5668" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Не то что ... а&quot; and &quot;Не то чтобы ... но&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="cac42fb5-be68-4c1e-beb6-357977abdf24" CreationDate="2016-12-05T17:46:44.393" UserId="5668" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13634" RevisionGUID="9d67ff5a-9d41-4651-bc72-e979808a5d35" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:43:04.000" UserDisplayName="user8200" Text="For example, I have two sentenses: `Поскуливающая собака лежащая в углу лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость` and `Лежащая в углу поскуливающая собака лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость`. Where do I have to put commas and where don't? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13634" RevisionGUID="9d67ff5a-9d41-4651-bc72-e979808a5d35" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:43:04.000" UserDisplayName="user8200" Text="Do I need to put a comma? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13634" RevisionGUID="9d67ff5a-9d41-4651-bc72-e979808a5d35" CreationDate="2016-12-05T18:43:04.000" UserDisplayName="user8200" Text="|словоупотребление|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13634" RevisionGUID="741552c6-bfa1-4869-bde8-5716fab9a08e" CreationDate="2016-12-05T19:16:45.450" UserId="6539" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="For example, I have two sentenses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`Поскуливающая собака лежащая в углу лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`Лежащая в углу поскуливающая собака лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Where do I have to put commas and where don't? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="3c01d433-9898-47fc-ad95-9077bb5960d7" CreationDate="2016-12-05T21:03:56.163" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Поскуливающая собака, *лежащая в углу*, лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually put commas before and after reduced participle clause (причастный оборот),when it follows the noun which it determines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Лежащая в углу* поскуливающая собака лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't put commas,when the reduced participle clause comes before the noun which it determines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But** if the reduced participle clause has the meaning of a condition or a reason or refers to a **pronoun**, we put commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Потревоженная громким стуком в дверь, девочка вскочила с кровати.(reason )&#xD;&#xA;Не умеющий стрелять, брат, конечно же, в очередной раз промахнулся.(reason &#xD;&#xA;Изможденный жарой, **он** жадно припал к студеной колодезной воде.&#xD;&#xA;Утомленная бессонной ночью, **она** уснула перед рассветом.(Pronouns )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="21f34055-b267-4b26-a303-91469459e844" CreationDate="2016-12-05T23:37:56.207" UserId="1236" Comment="Punctuation and spacing corrected." Text="&gt;Поскуливающая собака, *лежащая в углу*, лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually put commas before and after reduced participle clause (причастный оборот) when it follows the noun which it determines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Лежащая в углу* поскуливающая собака лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't put commas when the reduced participle clause comes before the noun which it determines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But** if the reduced participle clause has the meaning of a condition or a reason or refers to a **pronoun**, we put commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Потревоженная громким стуком в дверь, девочка вскочила с кровати. (reason )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не умеющий стрелять, брат, конечно же, в очередной раз промахнулся. (reason) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Изможденный жарой, **он** жадно припал к студеной колодезной воде. (pronoun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Утомленная бессонной ночью, **она** уснула перед рассветом. (pronoun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13636" RevisionGUID="6075f0f1-3822-456c-b125-ed50e5614bc4" CreationDate="2016-12-06T03:51:28.980" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;Поскуливающая собака, *лежащая в углу*, лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We usually put commas before and after the reduced participle clause (причастный оборот) when it follows the noun which it determines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Лежащая в углу* поскуливающая собака лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't put commas when the reduced participle clause comes before the noun which it determines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But** if the reduced participle clause has the meaning of a condition or a reason or refers to a **pronoun**, we put commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Потревоженная громким стуком в дверь, девочка вскочила с кровати. (reason )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не умеющий стрелять, брат, конечно же, в очередной раз промахнулся. (reason) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Изможденный жарой, **он** жадно припал к студеной колодезной воде. (pronoun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Утомленная бессонной ночью, **она** уснула перед рассветом. (pronoun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13632" RevisionGUID="3d022ae8-8b92-485c-88f5-cf38f89265f2" CreationDate="2016-12-06T08:18:41.080" UserId="6539" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Numerals in combinations with other words can act as main words and dependent ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The numeral один (одна, одно, одни) and all ordinal numerals are dependent from the following noun and agree in gender, number and case like adjectives &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; третий ряд, третья комната, третье событие, третьи ножницы;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nom. один год/мальчик, одна неделя/девочка, одно окно, одни люди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Gen. одного года/мальчика, одной недели/девочки, одного окна, одних людей&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. один год, одного мальчика, одну неделю /девочку, одно окно, одних людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So один doesn't govern the following noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Most cardinal numerals require the genitive case of the  noun (except один, 21, 31,etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Два  человека (gen. sing), сто двадцать пять человек.(gen.pl)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.All other numerals either govern the following nouns (in **the nominative and the accusative** ) or are dependent of them in other cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numerals два, три, четыре (and all compounds like 22, 34, 42, 72,84,etc.) and collective numerals (двое, трое, четверо,etc. ) have the following **animate** noun in the accusative which coincides in the form with the **genitive plural**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nom. два, три, четыре мальчика, две девочки, двое мальчиков &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gen. Двух, трёх, четырёх мальчиков, двух девочек, двоих мальчиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. Двух,трёх,четырёх мальчиков, двух девочек, двоих мальчиков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's see what happens to **inanimate** nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nom. Два,три, четыре стола, окна, две,три, четыре недели &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gen. Двух, трёх, четырёх столов, окон, двух, трёх, четырёх недель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. Два, три, четыре стола, окна, две, три, четыре недели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the acc. of the **inanimate** nouns after 2,3,4 coincides with the nominative which is in fact **genitive singular**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other combinations ( from 5... ), except mentioned above, have a noun in **genitive plural**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nom пять мальчиков, девочек, столов, окон &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Gen пяти мальчиков, девочек,столов, окон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Acc. Пять мальчиков, девочек, столов, окон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case is determined by the verb, so it would be correct to say that the case is &quot;accusative  which coincides in its form with...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="b4c56f88-0ad7-477a-889c-ec95e58c279c" CreationDate="2016-12-06T08:58:36.803" UserId="7864" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Questions that are partly about languages other than Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32299" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13629" RevisionGUID="b4c56f88-0ad7-477a-889c-ec95e58c279c" CreationDate="2016-12-06T08:58:36.803" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 3680, 551 edit id of 818" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32300" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="219f99a4-4b8b-4ed5-9af1-3936a9299b1a" CreationDate="2016-12-06T09:02:54.660" UserId="-1" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13634" RevisionGUID="0d200e53-b118-4a31-9f51-8d8006e4960c" CreationDate="2016-12-06T10:35:22.710" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting (backtick is for preformatted text)" Text="For example, I have two sentenses: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскуливающая собака лежащая в углу лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лежащая в углу поскуливающая собака лениво переводила свой взгляд то на хозяев, то на кость.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Where do I have to put commas and where don't? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="f978a0b5-804d-4eac-abeb-f27f008e347d" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:32:17.873" UserId="5668" Comment="Added example sentences" Text="What's the difference between the constructions &quot;Не то что ... а ...&quot; and &quot;Не то чтобы ... но ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. Is there any difference in meaning or style between the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не то чтобы согласился с ним, а решил не продолжать спор.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я не то что согласился с ним, но решил не продолжать спор." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32303" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="f978a0b5-804d-4eac-abeb-f27f008e347d" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:32:17.873" UserId="5668" Comment="Added example sentences" Text="What's the difference between the constructions &quot;Не то что ... а ...&quot; and &quot;Не то чтобы ... но ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="0046d283-f64d-49e2-81d6-b8daf6bd8e35" CreationDate="2016-12-06T17:42:09.093" UserId="5668" Comment="edited body" Text="What's the difference between the constructions &quot;Не то что ... а ...&quot; and &quot;Не то чтобы ... но ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. Is there any difference in meaning or style between the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не то что согласился с ним, а решил не продолжать спор.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я не то чтобы согласился с ним, но решил не продолжать спор." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13637" RevisionGUID="460a5b34-53ae-428a-992f-c61406a79ebe" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:39:44.213" UserId="8206" Text="Is there a difference between words отель and гостиница? Can I always use either of them for some given estate? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13637" RevisionGUID="460a5b34-53ae-428a-992f-c61406a79ebe" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:39:44.213" UserId="8206" Text="Is there a difference between отель and гостиница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13637" RevisionGUID="460a5b34-53ae-428a-992f-c61406a79ebe" CreationDate="2016-12-06T18:39:44.213" UserId="8206" Text="|выбор-слова|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13544" RevisionGUID="3b6a3c9a-bdcb-4f1b-9c1f-aefb13bb650a" CreationDate="2016-12-06T19:53:12.710" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Я нашел исключительно мощная и полезная функция &quot;Переводчик&quot;, который находится на главной странице российского интернет-браузер &quot;Yandex.ru&quot;. Я использую этот браузер прямо сейчас, чтобы ответить на Ваш вопрос, введя текст в поле ввода на английском языке, а затем &quot;выделение, копирование и вставка&quot; на русский язык перевод в поле &quot;stackexchange.com&quot; ответа на ответ Вам. Попробуйте!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="d15b9290-a84d-4425-a43f-e439cc3bced6" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:00:56.740" UserId="242" Text="Well, they are interchangeable but `oтель` has subtle connotations of something more if not luxurious but high class, so one can hardly name something very shitty `отель` ( unless it is actually has `отель` in it's name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But actually `гостиница` is widely used in all contexts as well. You can say in a luxury hotel and Russian native-speaker will have no troubles calling it just `гостниница`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, `гостиница` is applicable whenever `отель` can be used, almost in all cases it works the other way around as well. I'd rather stick to `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, [actually][1] `отель` was more popular word but then it lost to `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZqejV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="9ed6a06d-5436-409b-87f7-5dc0ce759944" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:06:18.327" UserId="242" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Well, they are interchangeable but `oтель` has subtle connotations of something more if not luxurious but at least of higher class, so one can hardly name something very shitty `отель` ( unless it is actually has `отель` in it's name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But actually `гостиница` is widely used in all contexts as well. You can say in a luxury hotel and Russian native-speaker will have no troubles calling it just `гостниница`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, `гостиница` is applicable whenever `отель` can be used, almost in all cases it works the other way around as well. I'd rather stick to `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, [actually][1] `отель` was more popular word but then it lost to `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZqejV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13637" RevisionGUID="ce88b704-80d4-420c-86a1-3e15a36b4e45" CreationDate="2016-12-06T20:07:24.643" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a difference between &quot;отель&quot; and &quot;гостиница&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13638" RevisionGUID="3c63cd9f-71f2-492a-8754-42d815c23b66" CreationDate="2016-12-06T21:47:38.560" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, they are interchangeable but `oтель` has subtle connotations of something more if not luxurious but at least of higher class, so one can hardly name something very shitty `отель` ( unless it is actually has `отель` in it's name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But actually `гостиница` is widely used in all contexts as well. You can say in a luxury hotel and Russian native-speaker will have no troubles calling it just `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, those two words a easily used together, just not to sound too repetitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отель «Премьер» расположен в центре рабочего поселка Кантемировка. ... Здание гостиницы оборудовано пожарной сигнализацией &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, `гостиница` is applicable whenever `отель` can be used, almost in all cases it works the other way around as well. I'd rather stick to `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, [actually][1] `отель` was more popular word but then it lost to `гостиница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%2C%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZqejV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32321" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13637" RevisionGUID="722da386-4d61-4f77-9126-88c977654331" CreationDate="2016-12-07T18:44:43.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/806570147054022656" />
  <row Id="32327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13640" RevisionGUID="6ca9f354-1025-4788-b5b8-bec98cdf81d4" CreationDate="2016-12-08T08:56:26.620" UserId="1726" Text="Я бы ожидал либо Парис либо Пари (согласно французскому произношению)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13640" RevisionGUID="6ca9f354-1025-4788-b5b8-bec98cdf81d4" CreationDate="2016-12-08T08:56:26.620" UserId="1726" Text="Почему Париж пишется через ж?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13640" RevisionGUID="6ca9f354-1025-4788-b5b8-bec98cdf81d4" CreationDate="2016-12-08T08:56:26.620" UserId="1726" Text="|произношение|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13641" RevisionGUID="117f7c94-a0a0-48c9-a444-b769fe087deb" CreationDate="2016-12-08T11:21:29.693" UserId="2079" Text="Мои предположения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как писали комментаторы, Париж кончается на букву ж, кроме восточнославянских языков, в чешском, польском, словацком, болгарском языках, то есть в трёх западнославянских и одном южнославянском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Париж был столицей Франции с 508 года.  Вероятно, носители праславянского языка как-то его называли.  Судя по сказанному выше, его название оканчивалось на ж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как пишут комментаторы, его название оканчивается на ж в венгерском языке и имеет ж в итальянском языке.  По-моему, это всё значит, что сами франки или сами парижане когда-то произносили его название &quot;Париж&quot; (или по крайней мере был такой вариант произношения)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13641" RevisionGUID="8d2d9876-da1c-428f-a391-4185af15acd3" CreationDate="2016-12-08T11:27:05.053" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Мои предположения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как писали YellowSky, Париж кончается на букву ж, кроме восточнославянских языков, в чешском, польском, словацком, болгарском языках, то есть в трёх западнославянских и одном южнославянском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Париж был столицей Франции с 508 года.  Вероятно, носители праславянского языка как-то его называли.  Судя по сказанному выше, его название оканчивалось на ж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как пишeт YellowSky, его название оканчивается на ж в венгерском языке и имеет -дж- в итальянском языке.  По-моему, это всё значит, что сами франки или сами парижане когда-то произносили его название &quot;Париж&quot; (или по крайней мере был такой вариант произношения)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13643" RevisionGUID="8590c927-af77-4787-952d-107f7ae01d15" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:56:34.967" UserId="242" Text="Слово Париж пришло в современный русский через польский, в котором оно звучит так же  - Paryż. Гипотеза @user31264 не выдерживает критики и проходит по разряду любительской этимологии. И например, у чехов слово Парид - Paříž - ř уж никак не объяснить &quot;потому что так франки на самом деле произносили&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть полуапокрифическая гипотеза, что первые карты Франции на территории восточной Европы были отпечатаны в Чехии и в названии столицы была опечатка - и слово читалось как Париш, а потом ш превратилось в ж. Мне не удалось найти каких-то серьёзных научных источников, эту гипотезу подтверждающих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честный ответ - я не знаю почему именно &quot;ж&quot;, но всё равно не вижу ничего удивительного в том, что Paris читается как  Париж, потому что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нередко заимствованное слово не читается по правилам оригинального языка, и немые согласные вдруг читаются&#xD;&#xA; - произношение продолжает эволюционировать в обоих языка - и из которого заимствовали и в который заимствовали&#xD;&#xA; - озвончение для славянских языков не редкость&#xD;&#xA; - переход з в ж не редкость.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну вот сложилось так исторически. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13643" RevisionGUID="c0d506e6-8a50-46af-a4d4-bf7514132c65" CreationDate="2016-12-08T22:09:36.010" UserId="242" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="Слово Париж пришло в современный русский через польский, в котором оно звучит так же  - Paryż. Гипотеза @user31264 не выдерживает критики и проходит по разряду любительской этимологии. И например, у чехов слово Парид - Paříž - ř уж никак не объяснить &quot;потому что так франки на самом деле произносили&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть полуапокрифическая гипотеза, что первые карты Франции на территории восточной Европы были отпечатаны в Чехии и в названии столицы была опечатка - и слово читалось как Париш, а потом ш превратилось в ж. Мне не удалось найти каких-то серьёзных научных источников, эту гипотезу подтверждающих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честный ответ - я не знаю почему именно &quot;ж&quot;, но всё равно не вижу ничего удивительного в том, что Paris читается как  Париж, потому что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нередко заимствованное слово не читается по правилам оригинального языка, и немые согласные вдруг читаются&#xD;&#xA; - произношение продолжает эволюционировать в обоих языка - и из которого заимствовали и в который заимствовали&#xD;&#xA; - озвончение для славянских языков не редкость&#xD;&#xA; - переход з в ж не редкость.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну вот сложилось так исторически. Там в комментах правильно написали, что возможно это из итальянского аффриката дж получилось западнославянского ж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32339" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13640" RevisionGUID="0836d11e-de05-42a1-85da-42742af869c1" CreationDate="2016-12-09T00:50:31.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/807024592443310080" />
  <row Id="32340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="3c89fe77-8d7f-4189-b2e7-fb527a346ebf" CreationDate="2016-12-09T02:45:44.817" UserId="6539" Text="Согласно **топонимическому словарю** Е.М.Поспелова **&quot;современная французская форма названия - Пари (Paris); принятая в русском языке форма Париж усвоена в искаженном виде через польское посредство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В 58 - 51 гг. до н.э. римские войска Юлия Цезаря покорили Галлию. Попав на пять столетий под власть Рима, Лютеция Паризиорум, как стали называть поселение римляне, стала важным портом, военной базой в борьбе с германскими племенами. На левом, возвышенном берегу Секваны римляне построили по римскому образцу новый город - с прямыми улицами, дворцами и храмами, театром и цирком, водопроводом, некрополем.&#xD;&#xA;В 358 году Лютецию переименовали в Цивитас Паризиорум (город паризиев), потом - просто Паризия. Вот так в названии появился звонкий согласный *з*. В 497 году город захватило племя франков, он стал столицей Франкского королевства. Остров Лютеция получил название Сите, а город - Пари. В польском много шипящих, поэтому соглашусь, что переход &quot;з&quot; в &quot;ж&quot; не так уж и необычен, буквы тоже пишутся почти одинаково  (z, ż)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13643" RevisionGUID="61f23421-ddb1-4f78-92a7-2e82bb9ec6d7" CreationDate="2016-12-09T03:14:06.783" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Слово Париж пришло в современный русский через польский, в котором оно звучит так же  - Paryż. Гипотеза @user31264 не выдерживает критики и проходит по разряду любительской этимологии. И например, у чехов слово Парид - Paříž - ř уж никак не объяснить &quot;потому что так франки на самом деле произносили&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть полуапокрифическая гипотеза, что первые карты Франции на территории восточной Европы были отпечатаны в Чехии и в названии столицы была опечатка - и слово читалось как Париш, а потом ш превратилось в ж. Мне не удалось найти каких-то серьёзных научных источников, эту гипотезу подтверждающих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честный ответ - я не знаю почему именно &quot;ж&quot;, но всё равно не вижу ничего удивительного в том, что Paris читается как  Париж, потому что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нередко заимствованное слово не читается по правилам оригинального языка, и немые согласные вдруг читаются.&#xD;&#xA; - произношение продолжает эволюционировать в обоих языка - и из которого заимствовали и в который заимствовали.&#xD;&#xA; - озвончение для славянских языков не редкость.&#xD;&#xA; - переход з в ж не редкость.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну вот сложилось так исторически. Там в комментах правильно написали, что возможно это из итальянского аффриката дж получилось западнославянского ж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="c873a82b-a8c0-4119-a57b-1eba0fb2e965" CreationDate="2016-12-09T06:27:57.493" UserId="6539" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="Согласно **топонимическому словарю** Е.М.Поспелова **&quot;современная французская форма названия - Пари (Paris); принятая в русском языке форма Париж усвоена в искаженном виде через польское посредство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В 58 - 51 гг. до н.э. римские войска Юлия Цезаря покорили Галлию. Попав на пять столетий под власть Рима, Лютеция Паризиорум, как стали называть поселение римляне, стала важным портом, военной базой в борьбе с германскими племенами. На левом, возвышенном берегу Секваны римляне построили по римскому образцу новый город - с прямыми улицами, дворцами и храмами, театром и цирком, водопроводом, некрополем.&#xD;&#xA;В 358 году Лютецию переименовали в Цивитас Паризиорум (город паризиев), потом - просто Паризия. Вот так в названии появился звонкий согласный *з*. В 497 году город захватило племя франков, он стал столицей Франкского королевства. Остров Лютеция получил название Сите, а город - Пари. В польском много шипящих, поэтому соглашусь, что переход &quot;з&quot; в &quot;ж&quot; не так уж и необычен, буквы тоже пишутся почти одинаково  (z, ż). У прилаготельного нет звука ж &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jeśli jest przypadkiem winien: jeśli naprawdę był na Elbie; jeśli rzeczywiście ma jakieś pismo do  **paryskiego** komitetu bonapartystów i jeśli to pismo znajdą przy nim, obrońcy jego zostaną oskarżeni o współwinę&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32344" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13634" RevisionGUID="5643675c-b877-49b0-a365-c74b4b10130b" CreationDate="2016-12-09T09:51:03.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/807160621708050433" />
  <row Id="32345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13644" RevisionGUID="21727113-350a-4d65-abd8-1260c3a40ad5" CreationDate="2016-12-09T10:40:02.240" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 247 characters in body" Text="Согласно **топонимическому словарю** Е.М.Поспелова **&quot;современная французская форма названия - Пари (Paris); принятая в русском языке форма Париж усвоена в искаженном виде через польское посредство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В 58 - 51 гг. до н.э. римские войска Юлия Цезаря покорили Галлию. Попав на пять столетий под власть Рима, Лютеция Паризиорум стали называть поселение римляне.&#xD;&#xA;В 358 году Лютецию переименовали в Цивитас Паризиорум (город паризиев), потом - просто Паризия. Вот так в названии появился звонкий согласный *з*. В 497 году город захватило племя франков, он стал столицей Франкского королевства. Остров Лютеция получил название Сите, а город - Пари. В польском много шипящих, поэтому соглашусь, что переход &quot;з&quot; в &quot;ж&quot; не так уж и необычен, буквы тоже пишутся почти одинаково  (z, ż).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8581" RevisionGUID="87c485d5-6d7d-4957-b722-58dfa6721395" CreationDate="2016-12-09T15:52:53.810" UserId="8221" Comment="Some aesthetic fixes in the first diagram" Text="&lt;h3&gt;Let us consider only one single cell:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the unique top-left cell of the table, the cell are further subdivided into header and data cells in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;                         +-------+&#xD;&#xA;                         | I ate |&#xD;&#xA;                         |       |&#xD;&#xA;                         +-------+&#xD;&#xA;                             |&#xD;&#xA;                             |&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;               Imperfective  &amp;   Perfective       &#xD;&#xA;                       \  partners  /     &#xD;&#xA;                    +--------+--------+        &#xD;&#xA;                    |  есть   | съесть |    infinitive &#xD;&#xA;                    +-----------------+      &#xD;&#xA;   -- Singular --   |        |        |     &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |     &#xD;&#xA;  Masculine Past    |  ел    | съел   |    I, you, he&#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Feminine  Past    |  ела   | съела  |    I, you, she&#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Neuter    Past    |  ело   | съело  |    I, you, it&#xD;&#xA;  - - - - - - - - - + - - -  + - - -  +    - - - - - - -   &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |&#xD;&#xA;  Plural &amp; Polite   |  ели   | съели  |    we, you, they    &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  - - - - - - - - - +--------+--------+        &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This lets us to say more by writing less in Russian. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  еcт     it eats           съест     it will eat&#xD;&#xA;  едим    we eat            съедим    we shall eat&#xD;&#xA;  едят    they eat          съедят    they will eat&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; What the aspect actually is &lt;/h3&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                           &lt;b&gt;A dog greedily ate her meat.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                                           .&#xD;&#xA;                                                           .&#xD;&#xA;                             NO · · · · · ·  Собака жадно ела мясо.&#xD;&#xA;  are you sure she          /                              .&#xD;&#xA;  swallowed it whole? _____/                               .&#xD;&#xA;                           \                               .&#xD;&#xA;                            \YES · · · · · · Собака жадно съела мясо.&#xD;&#xA;                                                          =====&#xD;&#xA;                                                            |&#xD;&#xA;                         She has already eaten her meat ____|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                          &#xD;&#xA;                          &#xD;&#xA;      &lt;b&gt;She ate in quick gulps, and never got enough.&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;          ===&#xD;&#xA;           |&#xD;&#xA;   Imperf ?|? Perf&#xD;&#xA;           |&#xD;&#xA;       (ела/съела) торопливо, и никогда не бывала сыта.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it look so simple? In my opinion, for beginning Russian, think of that no more. Before we can quickly and easily applying those aspects, we must first improve our knowledge of the process on compound words — the graphic first-level elements in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall consider an application how to combining a prefix (or sometimes two prefixes) with the root and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Two points coincide.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:    co-in-cid-e&#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |&#xD;&#xA;           with |  fall   ·········  unfamiliar Latin form -cide (fall)&#xD;&#xA;            |  into |&#xD;&#xA;            со  |  пад    ·········  everyday Russian stem, ex: in падать &#xD;&#xA;            |   в   |     &#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |     .········  they, unknown as long and now continues&#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |    /&#xD;&#xA;Russian:    со- в- пад -ают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Две точки совпадают.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the process on compound words is used very wide and extensively: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;                push to the limit,               &#xD;&#xA;                    finally                      &#xD;&#xA;                  (и наконец)                    &#xD;&#xA; Imperfective          |             Perfective       &#xD;&#xA;         \             |              /          &#xD;&#xA;      переписывал   (----&gt;)     переписал        | недописывал, недописавший, недописывая, недописаться, недонадписывал ...+ -ший, -ся ..., пописывал  ...+ -ший, -ся ...,  записывал ..., записывался, недозаписывал, расписывал, расписывался, отписывал, вписывал, надписывал, пописывал,  &#xD;&#xA;      читал         (----&gt;)     прочитал         | дочитал, дочитался, дочитавшись, дочитывая, недочитал, ...+ -ший, -ся ..., считал, вчитался, почитал, начитал, отчитался, дочитал, ...&#xD;&#xA;      делил         (----&gt;)     разделил         | разделил, недоразделил, переделил, недопеределил, обделил, выделил, уделил, наделил, отделил, поделил, + ... + -ший, -ся ...,&#xD;&#xA;      таял          (----&gt;)     растаял          | растаял, дотаял, утаял, оттаял, стаял, протаял, потаял, надтаял, недорастаял, ...&#xD;&#xA;      белил         (----&gt;)     побелил          | ...&#xD;&#xA;      пахал         (----&gt;)     вспахал          | ... &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the process on compound words remain much more clearly visible than in English, so focus on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32351" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8581" RevisionGUID="87c485d5-6d7d-4957-b722-58dfa6721395" CreationDate="2016-12-09T15:52:53.810" Comment="Proposed by 8221 approved by 6097, -1 edit id of 819" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8581" RevisionGUID="0e9049eb-3c04-49ef-aaff-4384036ffeeb" CreationDate="2016-12-09T15:52:53.810" UserId="551" Comment="Some aesthetic fixes in the first diagram" Text="&lt;h3&gt;Let us consider only one single cell:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the unique top-left cell of the table, the cell are further subdivided into header and data cells in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;                         +-------+&#xD;&#xA;                         | I ate |&#xD;&#xA;                         |       |&#xD;&#xA;                         +-------+&#xD;&#xA;                             |&#xD;&#xA;                             |&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;               Imperfective  &amp;   Perfective       &#xD;&#xA;                       \  partners  /     &#xD;&#xA;                    +--------+--------+        &#xD;&#xA;                    |  есть  | съесть |    infinitive &#xD;&#xA;                    +-----------------+      &#xD;&#xA;   -- Singular --   |        |        |     &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |     &#xD;&#xA;  Masculine Past    |  ел    | съел   |    I, you, he&#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Feminine  Past    |  ела   | съела  |    I, you, she&#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  Neuter    Past    |  ело   | съело  |    I, you, it&#xD;&#xA;  - - - - - - - - - + - - -  + - - -  +    - - - - - - -   &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |&#xD;&#xA;  Plural &amp; Polite   |  ели   | съели  |    we, you, they    &#xD;&#xA;                    |        |        |        &#xD;&#xA;  - - - - - - - - - +--------+--------+        &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This lets us to say more by writing less in Russian. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  еcт     it eats           съест     it will eat&#xD;&#xA;  едим    we eat            съедим    we shall eat&#xD;&#xA;  едят    they eat          съедят    they will eat&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; What the aspect actually is &lt;/h3&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                           &lt;b&gt;A dog greedily ate her meat.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                                           .&#xD;&#xA;                                                           .&#xD;&#xA;                             NO · · · · · ·  Собака жадно ела мясо.&#xD;&#xA;  are you sure she          /                              .&#xD;&#xA;  swallowed it whole? _____/                               .&#xD;&#xA;                           \                               .&#xD;&#xA;                            \YES · · · · · · Собака жадно съела мясо.&#xD;&#xA;                                                          =====&#xD;&#xA;                                                            |&#xD;&#xA;                         She has already eaten her meat ____|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                          &#xD;&#xA;                          &#xD;&#xA;      &lt;b&gt;She ate in quick gulps, and never got enough.&lt;/b&gt; &#xD;&#xA;          ===&#xD;&#xA;           |&#xD;&#xA;   Imperf ?|? Perf&#xD;&#xA;           |&#xD;&#xA;       (ела/съела) торопливо, и никогда не бывала сыта.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it look so simple? In my opinion, for beginning Russian, think of that no more. Before we can quickly and easily applying those aspects, we must first improve our knowledge of the process on compound words — the graphic first-level elements in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We shall consider an application how to combining a prefix (or sometimes two prefixes) with the root and suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Two points coincide.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English:    co-in-cid-e&#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |&#xD;&#xA;           with |  fall   ·········  unfamiliar Latin form -cide (fall)&#xD;&#xA;            |  into |&#xD;&#xA;            со  |  пад    ·········  everyday Russian stem, ex: in падать &#xD;&#xA;            |   в   |     &#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |     .········  they, unknown as long and now continues&#xD;&#xA;            |   |   |    /&#xD;&#xA;Russian:    со- в- пад -ают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       &lt;b&gt;Две точки совпадают.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the process on compound words is used very wide and extensively: &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;                push to the limit,               &#xD;&#xA;                    finally                      &#xD;&#xA;                  (и наконец)                    &#xD;&#xA; Imperfective          |             Perfective       &#xD;&#xA;         \             |              /          &#xD;&#xA;      переписывал   (----&gt;)     переписал        | недописывал, недописавший, недописывая, недописаться, недонадписывал ...+ -ший, -ся ..., пописывал  ...+ -ший, -ся ...,  записывал ..., записывался, недозаписывал, расписывал, расписывался, отписывал, вписывал, надписывал, пописывал,  &#xD;&#xA;      читал         (----&gt;)     прочитал         | дочитал, дочитался, дочитавшись, дочитывая, недочитал, ...+ -ший, -ся ..., считал, вчитался, почитал, начитал, отчитался, дочитал, ...&#xD;&#xA;      делил         (----&gt;)     разделил         | разделил, недоразделил, переделил, недопеределил, обделил, выделил, уделил, наделил, отделил, поделил, + ... + -ший, -ся ...,&#xD;&#xA;      таял          (----&gt;)     растаял          | растаял, дотаял, утаял, оттаял, стаял, протаял, потаял, надтаял, недорастаял, ...&#xD;&#xA;      белил         (----&gt;)     побелил          | ...&#xD;&#xA;      пахал         (----&gt;)     вспахал          | ... &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the process on compound words remain much more clearly visible than in English, so focus on it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13647" RevisionGUID="8353cb81-bcf0-41df-9cba-9599435e9670" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:32:41.963" UserId="8075" Text="I am attempting to complete some _simple_ homework examples my Russian teacher has given me. (I am learning Russian in my free time, whilst I work full-time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example given in my textbook is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Given: Наша квартира была приватизирована пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Desired: _Нашу квартиру приватизировали_ пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I require the following clarifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is my assumption that the sentence is going from the _active voice_ in the _given_ sentence, to the _passive voice_ in the _desired_ sentence, correct?&#xD;&#xA;2. What part of speech is the word _«приватизирована»_? (My usual search source, [Wiktionary](https://wiktionary.org) is failing me.)&#xD;&#xA;3. What is happening to the above mentioned word when it moves from the _given_ sentence to the _desired_ sentence?&#xD;&#xA;4. Why does the above mentioned word decline into the plural past tense form, whereas in the first sentence _«быть»_ is in its feminine form?&#xD;&#xA;5. How does it happen? What topic or topics must I read, to elaborate this topic further?&#xD;&#xA;6. Are there any rules regarding this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13647" RevisionGUID="8353cb81-bcf0-41df-9cba-9599435e9670" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:32:41.963" UserId="8075" Text="Active voice, passive voice, adjectives transforming into verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13647" RevisionGUID="8353cb81-bcf0-41df-9cba-9599435e9670" CreationDate="2016-12-09T18:32:41.963" UserId="8075" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13648" RevisionGUID="ae66f41c-db70-43c5-a451-9989d590016e" CreationDate="2016-12-09T19:17:01.757" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is my assumption that the sentence is going from the active voice in the given sentence, to the passive voice in the desired sentence, correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, actually it's vice versa: passive to active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What part of speech is the word «приватизирована»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is &quot;_краткое страдательное причастие_&quot; (passive participle, short form, past tense, singular, feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is happening to the above mentioned word when it moves from the given sentence to the desired sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why does the above mentioned word decline into the plural past tense form, whereas in the first sentence «быть» is in its feminine form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is impersonate construction which is used along with &quot;normal&quot; active voice plural. I.e. &quot;[they] did&quot; (with &quot;they&quot; omitted) in Russian doesn't mean anyone in particular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32358" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13640" RevisionGUID="543d743a-c1b7-4023-a7fb-6afbf37264ca" CreationDate="2016-12-09T19:22:13.553" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему Париж пишется через &quot;ж&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13649" RevisionGUID="36b71b4e-ef7b-4a14-b770-7a2f64575720" CreationDate="2016-12-09T21:37:07.077" UserId="4714" Text="Can anyone tell me the main difference between these words and where they should and should not be used? Are they more or less synonyms? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13649" RevisionGUID="36b71b4e-ef7b-4a14-b770-7a2f64575720" CreationDate="2016-12-09T21:37:07.077" UserId="4714" Text="Difference— вид, род, тип" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13649" RevisionGUID="36b71b4e-ef7b-4a14-b770-7a2f64575720" CreationDate="2016-12-09T21:37:07.077" UserId="4714" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13643" RevisionGUID="ba47b6dc-aa1b-406e-94c4-6494be00f65c" CreationDate="2016-12-10T01:34:22.850" UserId="242" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Слово Париж пришло в современный русский через польский, в котором оно звучит (ну, практически) так же  - Paryż. Гипотеза @user31264 не выдерживает критики и проходит по разряду любительской этимологии. И например, у чехов слово Парид - Paříž - ř уж никак не объяснить &quot;потому что так франки на самом деле произносили&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть полуапокрифическая гипотеза, что первые карты Франции на территории восточной Европы были отпечатаны в Чехии и в названии столицы была опечатка - и слово читалось как Париш, а потом ш превратилось в ж. Мне не удалось найти каких-то серьёзных научных источников, эту гипотезу подтверждающих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честный ответ - я не знаю почему именно &quot;ж&quot;, но всё равно не вижу ничего удивительного в том, что Paris читается как  Париж, потому что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нередко заимствованное слово не читается по правилам оригинального языка, и немые согласные вдруг читаются.&#xD;&#xA; - произношение продолжает эволюционировать в обоих языка - и из которого заимствовали и в который заимствовали.&#xD;&#xA; - озвончение для славянских языков не редкость.&#xD;&#xA; - переход з в ж не редкость.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну вот сложилось так исторически. Там в комментах правильно написали, что возможно это из итальянского аффриката дж получилось западнославянского ж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13650" RevisionGUID="013d4e80-5044-4d3e-bcdd-e3a83d6c8bd2" CreationDate="2016-12-10T02:31:54.743" UserId="4560" Text="All three have their established usages in a multitude of highly specific contexts (e.g. **род** &quot;genus&quot; vs. **вид** &quot;species&quot;), but in everyday usage, you often get situations where you can freely pick between at least two out of the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It helps to identify whether you're dealing with a set expression. **Вроде** &quot;like, such as&quot; is clearly its own word by now, even from its spelling, but equally immutable are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**такого рода** &quot;suchlike, of this sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**иного рода** &quot;of a different sort&quot; (you also occasionally get *такого/иного сорта*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в некотором роде** &quot;in a way&quot; (rare, very bookish and often ironic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что-то в этом роде** &quot;something of the sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в виде** &quot;in the form of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**типа** &quot;similar to, of the ___ kind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Типа** has also, since about the 1990s, become a very flexible &quot;kinda&quot;/&quot;sorta&quot; filler word that, like in colloquial English, can break syntax in very informal Russian: **я типа понимаю** &quot;I get it and everything&quot;, **а она типа: я уже знаю** &quot;and she's like: I know already&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if you just randomly need a word with that approximate meaning? To avoid being bogged down in existing idiomatics, let's take flying teapots as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the very rare event you'd want to say **род летающих чайников**, you'd mean it disparagingly. As in **тот род летающих чайников, от которого все беды** &quot;the sort of flying teapots that are causing all the trouble&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **вид летающих чайников** vs. **тип летающих чайников** is down to whether you're classifying by simple observation (**вид**), or some knowledge or assumption about the flying teapots' inner workings or m.o. (**тип**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13650" RevisionGUID="99da841b-6d88-4702-bcec-e6fdd61c3b54" CreationDate="2016-12-10T02:40:09.853" UserId="4560" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="All three have their established usages in a multitude of highly specific contexts (e.g. **род** &quot;genus&quot; vs. **вид** &quot;species&quot;), but in everyday usage, you often get situations where you can freely pick between at least two out of the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It helps to identify whether you're dealing with a set expression. **Вроде** &quot;like, such as&quot; is clearly its own word by now, even from its spelling, but equally immutable are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**такого рода** &quot;suchlike, of this sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**иного рода** &quot;of a different sort&quot; (you also occasionally get *такого/иного сорта*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в некотором роде** &quot;in a way&quot; (rare, very bookish and often ironic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что-то в этом роде** &quot;something of the sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в виде** &quot;in the form of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**типа** &quot;similar to, of the ___ kind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Типа** has also, since about the 1990s, become a very flexible &quot;kinda&quot;/&quot;sorta&quot; filler word that, like in colloquial English, can break syntax in very informal Russian: **я типа понимаю** &quot;I get it and everything&quot;, **а она типа: я уже знаю** &quot;and she's like: I know already&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if you just randomly need a word with that approximate meaning? To avoid being bogged down in existing idiomatics, let's take flying teapots as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the very rare event you'd want to say **род летающих чайников**, you'd mean it disparagingly. As in **тот род летающих чайников, от которого все беды** &quot;the sort of flying teapots that are causing all the trouble&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **вид летающих чайников** vs. **тип летающих чайников** is down to whether you're classifying by simple observation (**вид**), or some knowledge or assumption about the flying teapots' inner workings or mode of function (**тип**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Здешний вид летающих чайников красивее.** &quot;The local variety of flying teapot is nicer-looking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Только совсем другой тип летающих чайников смог бы поддерживать высоту в атмосфере Марса.** &quot;Only a wholly different type of flying teapot could maintain altitude in Mars's atmosphere.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13650" RevisionGUID="219e20de-5ffb-4204-9296-9b6e8b24dcf6" CreationDate="2016-12-10T02:51:01.287" UserId="4560" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="All three have their established usages in a multitude of highly specific contexts (e.g. **род** &quot;genus&quot; vs. **вид** &quot;species&quot;), but in everyday usage, you often get situations where you can freely pick between at least two out of the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It helps to identify whether you're dealing with a set expression. **Вроде** &quot;like, such as&quot; is clearly its own word by now, even from its spelling, but equally immutable are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**такого рода** &quot;suchlike, of this sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**иного рода** &quot;of a different sort&quot; (you also occasionally get *такого/иного сорта*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в некотором роде** &quot;in a way&quot; (rare, very bookish and often ironic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что-то в этом роде** &quot;something of the sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в виде** &quot;in the form of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**типа** &quot;similar to, of the ___ kind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Типа** has also, since about the 1990s, become a very flexible &quot;kinda&quot;/&quot;sorta&quot; filler word that, like in colloquial English, can break syntax in very informal Russian: **я типа понимаю** &quot;I get it and everything&quot;, **а она типа: я уже знаю** &quot;and she's like: I know already&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if you just randomly need a word with that approximate meaning? To avoid being bogged down in existing idiomatics, let's take flying teapots as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the very rare event you'd want to say **род летающих чайников**, you'd mean it disparagingly. As in **тот род летающих чайников, от которого все беды** &quot;the sort of flying teapots that are causing all the trouble&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **вид летающих чайников** vs. **тип летающих чайников** is down to whether you're classifying by simple observation (**вид**), or some knowledge or assumption about the flying teapots' inner workings or mode of function (**тип**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Здешний вид летающих чайников красивее.** &quot;The local variety of flying teapot is nicer-looking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Только совсем другой тип летающих чайников смог бы поддерживать высоту в атмосфере Марса.** &quot;Only a wholly different type of flying teapot could maintain altitude in Mars's atmosphere.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this (and basically anything regarding **вид** vs. **тип** unless there is clear linguistic precedent) is about which is a better fit, not which is correct. They *are* more or less synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13650" RevisionGUID="51ad53a0-6394-45c3-ae88-ae1eb654d8b2" CreationDate="2016-12-10T02:56:25.210" UserId="4560" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="All three have their established usages in a multitude of highly specific contexts (e.g. **род** &quot;genus&quot; vs. **вид** &quot;species&quot;), but in everyday usage, you often get situations where you can freely pick between at least two out of the three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It helps to identify whether you're dealing with a set expression. **Вроде** &quot;like, such as&quot; is clearly its own word by now, even from its spelling, but equally immutable are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**такого рода** &quot;suchlike, of this sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**иного рода** &quot;of a different sort&quot; (you also occasionally get *такого/иного сорта*);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в некотором роде** &quot;in a way&quot; (rare, very bookish and often ironic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что-то в этом роде** &quot;something of the sort&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в виде** &quot;in the form of&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**типа** &quot;similar to, of the ___ kind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Типа** has also, since about the 1990s, become a very flexible &quot;kinda&quot;/&quot;sorta&quot; filler word that, like in colloquial English, can break syntax in very informal Russian: **я типа понимаю** &quot;I get it and everything&quot;, **а она типа: я уже знаю** &quot;and she's like: I know already&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if you just randomly need a word with that approximate meaning? To avoid being bogged down in existing idiomatics, let's take flying teapots as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the very rare event you'd want to say **род летающих чайников**, you'd mean it disparagingly. As in **тот род летающих чайников, от которого все беды** &quot;the sort of flying teapots that are causing all the trouble&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **вид летающих чайников** vs. **тип летающих чайников** is down to whether you're classifying by simple observation (**вид**), or some knowledge or assumption about the flying teapots' inner workings or mode of function (**тип**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Здешний вид летающих чайников красивее.** &quot;The local variety of flying teapot is nicer-looking&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Только совсем другой тип летающих чайников смог бы поддерживать высоту в атмосфере Марса.** &quot;Only a wholly different type of flying teapot could maintain altitude in Mars's atmosphere.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this (and basically anything regarding **вид** vs. **тип** unless there is clear linguistic precedent) is about which is a better fit, not which is correct. They *are* more or less synonyms, in that you have to try really hard to make it register as an error. The worst you can get is &quot;mmm... okay&quot;. Even randomly using **род** in any of the last two examples would just be &quot;mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... o...kay?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13651" RevisionGUID="a0a67ed2-ab91-4399-987f-0e28a5428040" CreationDate="2016-12-10T04:32:04.680" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Наша квартира *была приватизирована* пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is in the **passive voice** in the past formed with *быть* which agrees with the subject наша квартира in gender(feminine )=была + приватизирована (past passive participle, short form)also agreeing in gender with the subject.The topic is страдательный залог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашу квартиру приватизировали пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is in the **active voice**,impersonal,past tense,formed with the verb which agrees with the &quot;dummy&quot; **they**(приватизировали),which is left out. The object is нашу квартиру (accusative sing).The topic is безличные предложение.&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences mean the same and have a &quot;hidden&quot; agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13630" RevisionGUID="fea3128e-fd14-4e22-ba40-2b90a44ba6ad" CreationDate="2016-12-10T12:56:35.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/807569703015251968" />
  <row Id="32373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13652" RevisionGUID="9c0191ad-3ca6-44dd-9ebc-a086e99aaccd" CreationDate="2016-12-11T02:08:18.743" UserId="6816" Text="How would the phrase &quot;You may have...&quot; be translated best in a sentence such as the following?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **You may have** seen the movie, but you probably didn't *understand* it.&#xA;&#xA;I have done a quick search online, but found nothing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13652" RevisionGUID="9c0191ad-3ca6-44dd-9ebc-a086e99aaccd" CreationDate="2016-12-11T02:08:18.743" UserId="6816" Text="&quot;You may have...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13652" RevisionGUID="9c0191ad-3ca6-44dd-9ebc-a086e99aaccd" CreationDate="2016-12-11T02:08:18.743" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13653" RevisionGUID="b98f14cc-2c60-42fa-aeb9-70d3eb38eba3" CreationDate="2016-12-11T04:29:21.900" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Возможно/может, вы и смотрели этот фильм, но не поняли его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both &quot;might&quot;and &quot;probably &quot; carrying the same meaning of probability and doubt would be expressed by может/возможно.The inversion makes it emphatic with и added. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32377" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13653" RevisionGUID="127d8cd5-32ab-4e7e-9cd9-965572bfbced" CreationDate="2016-12-11T06:51:05.727" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13654" RevisionGUID="0dd23ce3-d8df-4eee-a4e4-75e56d951b22" CreationDate="2016-12-11T07:23:44.510" UserId="2079" Text="`may have` переводится как `могли` (а `probably not` как `вряд ли`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы могли видеть этот фильм, но вряд ли поняли его." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13655" RevisionGUID="f312a4d8-a4a6-42c3-8d38-51074bf438a0" CreationDate="2016-12-11T08:41:39.730" UserId="7896" Text="`Должно быть, Вы посмотрели фильм, но, скорее всего, не поняли его`&#xA;This is my translation version" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13651" RevisionGUID="893ed29f-8647-49eb-b787-18b386d42ad4" CreationDate="2016-12-11T08:46:29.593" UserId="7544" Comment="согласование, оформление" Text="&gt;Наша квартира *была приватизирована* пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is in the **passive voice** in the past formed with *быть* which agrees with the subject *наша квартира* in gender(feminine )=*была + приватизирована* (past passive participle, short form)also agreeing in gender with the subject. The topic is **страдательный залог** (passive voice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашу квартиру приватизировали пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is in the **active voice**,impersonal,past tense,formed with the verb which agrees with the &quot;dummy&quot; **they** ([они] *приватизировали*), which is left out, like it may happen in some other languages, such es Spanish or Latin. The object is *нашу квартиру* (accusative singular). The topic is **безличные предложения** (impersonal sentences).&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences mean the same and have a &quot;hidden&quot; agent: we don't know who did the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32381" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13651" RevisionGUID="893ed29f-8647-49eb-b787-18b386d42ad4" CreationDate="2016-12-11T08:46:29.593" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 4903, 6725 edit id of 820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13651" RevisionGUID="3bdf195a-15ad-438c-9584-6f272741a395" CreationDate="2016-12-11T08:46:31.960" UserId="6539" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&gt;Наша квартира *была приватизирована* пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is in the **passive voice** in the past formed with *быть* which agrees with the subject наша квартира in gender(feminine ) = была + приватизирована (past passive participle, short form) also agreeing in gender with the subject.The topic is *страдательный залог*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашу квартиру приватизировали пять лет назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is in the **active voice**, impersonal, past tense,formed with the verb which agrees with the &quot;dummy&quot; **they** (приватизировали), which is left out. The object is нашу квартиру (accusative sing).The topic is *безличные предложения*.&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences mean the same and have a &quot;hidden&quot; agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32383" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13653" RevisionGUID="353e7f09-8a43-4d4e-af14-09c4824aa065" CreationDate="2016-12-11T08:49:56.607" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13656" RevisionGUID="7509206f-5a5c-4176-a120-2105a0260416" CreationDate="2016-12-11T09:17:30.763" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Фильм вы если и смотрели, вряд ли поняли&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence, as much as I can tell without seeing the context, emphasizes the fact the person probably does not understand the movie (regardless of whether or not they have seen it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian phrase above assumes the reading of &quot;you may or may not have seen the movie, the fact is you likely don't understand it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13508" RevisionGUID="49a69902-1a03-46ec-8fff-922db5bbf996" CreationDate="2016-12-11T10:09:20.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/807889997982560256" />
  <row Id="32386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13652" RevisionGUID="4ccb46b1-115b-41b0-b1a7-895395a2da01" CreationDate="2016-12-11T13:38:13.250" UserId="6816" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="How would the phrase &quot;You may have...&quot; be translated best in a sentence such as the following?&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **You may have** seen the movie, but you probably didn't *understand* it.&#xA;&#xA;I have done a quick search online, but found nothing.&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** The sentence means that the person *did* see the movie, but this was not enough to understand it. It's very specific, I know, but I can't see any other way to word it that sounds right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13657" RevisionGUID="ee5030f8-0878-4ae2-9a5b-b067dafe463c" CreationDate="2016-12-11T15:42:18.540" UserId="4714" Text="By the way, I came across this not too long ago—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ODpj5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32388" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13652" RevisionGUID="c1bda11b-ea14-45c5-9b3a-602163f00199" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:09:51.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/808207217673535488" />
  <row Id="32389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13658" RevisionGUID="c4626d6e-fad2-4cdf-a465-c530630f2cbb" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:27:47.733" UserId="8126" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он работает с двух часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the preposition &quot;`с`&quot; (=since,from) we need to use the genitive case. &quot;`двух`&quot; is in genitive and as far as I know, два requires the noun to be in genitive singular(**часа**) after itself. But in the above sentence it is in genitive plural(&quot;`часов`&quot;). Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13658" RevisionGUID="c4626d6e-fad2-4cdf-a465-c530630f2cbb" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:27:47.733" UserId="8126" Text="Why is &quot;час&quot; in genitive plural in Он работает с двух часов?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13658" RevisionGUID="c4626d6e-fad2-4cdf-a465-c530630f2cbb" CreationDate="2016-12-12T07:27:47.733" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13660" RevisionGUID="7e253b21-ae66-4e95-92d8-2b1c9321182f" CreationDate="2016-12-12T09:05:13.847" UserId="2079" Text="Because `с` governs genitive when it means `from` (с двух часов, убрать со стола, слезть с дерева) and instrumental when it means `with` (картошка со сметаной, поговорить с клиентом)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13660" RevisionGUID="d7ee6093-c27c-42e0-bc96-72e58e49dea6" CreationDate="2016-12-12T09:13:08.873" UserId="2079" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="Indeed `с` governs genitive when it means `from` (с двух часов, убрать со стола, слезть с дерева). It governs instrumental when it means `with` (картошка со сметаной, поговорить с клиентом).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the case is anything but nominative or accusative, numericals do not affect case or number, except that numbericals which end by `один` (in all genders) make the number singlular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nominative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- genitive plural: часов, двух часов, пяти часов&#xD;&#xA;- dative plural: часам, двум часам, пяти часам&#xD;&#xA;- accusative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- instrumental: plural часами, двумя часами, пятью часами&#xD;&#xA;- prep. plural: о часах, о двух часах, о пяти часах" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13660" RevisionGUID="bf5315bc-29cc-40f6-9962-ee50682bc68b" CreationDate="2016-12-12T09:19:44.000" UserId="2079" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="Indeed `с` governs genitive when it means `from` (с двух часов, убрать со стола, слезть с дерева). It governs instrumental when it means `with` (картошка со сметаной, поговорить с клиентом, пойти в кино с девушкой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the case is anything but nominative or accusative, numericals do not affect case or number of the following noun (or intervening adjectives), except that numbericals which end by `один`/`одна`/`одно` still govern singlular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nominative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- genitive plural: часов, двух часов, пяти часов&#xD;&#xA;- dative plural: часам, двум часам, пяти часам&#xD;&#xA;- accusative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- instrumental: plural часами, двумя часами, пятью часами&#xD;&#xA;- prep. plural: о часах, о двух часах, о пяти часах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is happening here? The preposition `с` governs genitive, and, since the case is not nominative or accusative, the numerical `два` is now powerless to affect the following noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13660" RevisionGUID="5210bb13-a9c6-44b9-8c6f-a53b204c5e80" CreationDate="2016-12-12T09:27:05.317" UserId="2079" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Indeed `с` governs genitive when it means `from` (с двух часов, убрать со стола, слезть с дерева). It governs instrumental when it means `with` (картошка со сметаной, поговорить с клиентом, пойти в кино с девушкой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the case is neither nominative nor accusative, numericals do not affect the case or number of the following noun (or intervening adjectives). There is only one exception to that rule: numericals which end by `один`/`одна`/`одно` still govern singlular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nominative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- genitive plural: часов, двух часов, пяти часов&#xD;&#xA;- dative plural: часам, двум часам, пяти часам&#xD;&#xA;- accusative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- instrumental: plural часами, двумя часами, пятью часами&#xD;&#xA;- prep. plural: о часах, о двух часах, о пяти часах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is going on in your sentence `он работает с двух часов`? The preposition `с` governs genitive, and, since the case is not nominative or accusative, the numerical `два` is now powerless to affect the following noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13660" RevisionGUID="0d621fc0-b942-4338-931f-4231fb6399cf" CreationDate="2016-12-12T09:39:17.850" UserId="2079" Comment="added 398 characters in body" Text="Indeed `с` governs genitive when it means `from` (с двух часов, убрать со стола, слезть с дерева). It governs instrumental when it means `with` (картошка со сметаной, поговорить с клиентом, пойти в кино с девушкой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the case is neither nominative nor accusative, numericals do not affect the case or number of the following noun (or intervening adjectives). There is only one exception to that rule: numericals which end by `один`/`одна`/`одно` still govern singlular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nominative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- genitive plural: часов, двух часов, пяти часов&#xD;&#xA;- dative plural: часам, двум часам, пяти часам&#xD;&#xA;- accusative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- instrumental: plural часами, двумя часами, пятью часами&#xD;&#xA;- prep. plural: о часах, о двух часах, о пяти часах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is going on in your sentence `он работает с двух часов`? The preposition `с` governs genitive, and, since the case is not nominative or accusative, the numerical `два` is now powerless to affect the following noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is a caveat with the word `час`.  In this word, if the genitive case is due to numerical, i.e. `два (три, четыре) часа́` the stress is on the last syllable.  If the genitive case is due to other cases (i.e. «Бодрствуйте, потому что не знаете ни дня, ни ча́са» - Евангелие от Матфея), the stress is on the first syllable. I don't know why, and cannot think of other similar words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13660" RevisionGUID="2bbe3f2f-6863-4298-ab95-f0a832bbf08a" CreationDate="2016-12-12T11:39:29.497" UserId="2079" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Indeed `с` governs genitive when it means `from` (с двух часов, убрать со стола, слезть с дерева). It governs instrumental when it means `with` (картошка со сметаной, поговорить с клиентом, пойти в кино с девушкой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the case is neither nominative nor accusative, numericals do not affect the case or number of the following noun (or intervening adjectives). There is only one exception to that rule: numericals which end by `один`/`одна`/`одно` still govern singlular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- nominative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- genitive plural: часов, двух часов, пяти часов&#xD;&#xA;- dative plural: часам, двум часам, пяти часам&#xD;&#xA;- accusative plural: часы, два часа, пять часов&#xD;&#xA;- instrumental: plural часами, двумя часами, пятью часами&#xD;&#xA;- prep. plural: о часах, о двух часах, о пяти часах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is going on in your sentence `он работает с двух часов`? The preposition `с` governs genitive, and, since the case is not nominative or accusative, the numerical `два` is now powerless to affect the following noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there is a caveat with the word `час`.  In this word, if the genitive case is due to numerical, e. g. `два (три, четыре) часа́` the stress is on the last syllable.  If the genitive case is due to other cases (e. g. «Бодрствуйте, потому что не знаете ни дня, ни ча́са» - Евангелие от Матфея), the stress is on the first syllable. I don't know why, and cannot think of other similar words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13518" RevisionGUID="329885b0-47ed-4d1a-b4f6-1f96cff5d63b" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:12:10.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/808298400466800640" />
  <row Id="32403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13662" RevisionGUID="5ce44544-8ad3-4077-a95e-0e9e6b516d65" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:33:19.643" UserId="8240" Text="Zdrastvutie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been looking around in the net, and I have several options come up, so I better ask those who know. Is &quot;S uvazheniyem&quot; a proper end of a mail with equivelant to kind regards or is it something else altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zaranee spasibo&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13662" RevisionGUID="5ce44544-8ad3-4077-a95e-0e9e6b516d65" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:33:19.643" UserId="8240" Text="Kind Regards in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13662" RevisionGUID="5ce44544-8ad3-4077-a95e-0e9e6b516d65" CreationDate="2016-12-12T13:33:19.643" UserId="8240" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13663" RevisionGUID="99672fa3-d6a2-4f47-808f-f69d53f94243" CreationDate="2016-12-12T14:02:53.240" UserId="1097" Text="С уважением &quot;S uvazheniyem&quot; literally - 'with respect'. It's a proper end of a mail, but you need to add your name to the end of the sentence: &quot;С уважением, Албан.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also end the letter with such phrases: &quot;Всего наилучшего!&quot;, &quot;С наилучшими пожеланиями! [Author's name].&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13662" RevisionGUID="6f3ad1c2-cd01-4e5c-ba8b-2f099361d12a" CreationDate="2016-12-12T15:14:49.307" UserId="551" Comment="No need to add greetings or signatures." Text="I have been looking around in the net, and I have several options come up, so I better ask those who know. Is &quot;С уважением&quot; a proper end of a mail with equivelant to kind regards or is it something else altogether?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13662" RevisionGUID="5e30304f-e781-4594-8fe8-8f1b95a81e14" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:36:41.090" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Kind regards&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13666" RevisionGUID="a687dd63-e357-4dfd-a695-9123766170df" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:50:43.533" UserId="3892" Text="The dictionaries list **provocative** in both cases... I'm wondering if there's any difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13666" RevisionGUID="a687dd63-e357-4dfd-a695-9123766170df" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:50:43.533" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between провокационный and провокативный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13666" RevisionGUID="a687dd63-e357-4dfd-a695-9123766170df" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:50:43.533" UserId="3892" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13667" RevisionGUID="5f68b2f8-1990-4ca4-9028-27e429e485b0" CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:20:06.650" UserId="6725" Text="I hardly ever heard the word &quot;провокативный&quot;, and it is not listed in most dictionaries, while &quot;провокационный&quot; is a common word. To translate &quot;provocative&quot; you can use &quot;провокационный&quot; only when it refers to something that leads to conflict, fight or polemic. For other meanings word &quot;вызывающий&quot; fits better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13668" RevisionGUID="aac182e3-aab0-456c-977b-4a10e41d0cff" CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:45:18.680" UserId="242" Text="`Провокационный` is an older borrowing from the Latin through German, while `провокативный` is borrowed from English is way new - it has started to be used at the end of XXth century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While `провокативный` is gaining some popularity (I guess because it's just shorter) it's nowhere near as widely used as `провокационный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge they are completely interchangeable though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13666" RevisionGUID="81e0bd6d-e9a9-4300-a709-6ed0a4916773" CreationDate="2016-12-12T19:47:48.617" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;провокационный&quot; and &quot;провокативный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32421" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="fb84435c-6dad-4f49-b022-35cef6b09baa" CreationDate="2016-12-12T20:01:48.753" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why in this sentence is used genitive case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13669" RevisionGUID="ddf66bcd-01e6-4f83-8770-d2f3e180708c" CreationDate="2016-12-12T20:18:11.697" UserId="6013" Text="For something perhaps a bit closer to the &quot;feel&quot; of &quot;kind regards&quot; (to me «с уважением» feels more like &quot;yours faithfully&quot; or even the archaic &quot;your obedient servant&quot;), consider «с сердечным преветом,...» &quot;with heart-felt greetings,....&quot;.  «С горячим преветом» would be another alternative, but that might be a bit strong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13658" RevisionGUID="3b7d4f65-74a6-4be1-a3e5-d62a76db711c" CreationDate="2016-12-13T01:17:43.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/808480988833660928" />
  <row Id="32424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13668" RevisionGUID="dd312765-79e7-4474-8c47-d76a0244d9d9" CreationDate="2016-12-13T05:12:07.573" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="`Провокационный` is an older borrowing from the Latin through German, while `провокативный` is borrowed from English is way new - it started to be used at the end of XXth century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While `провокативный` is gaining some popularity (I guess because it's just shorter) it's nowhere near as widely used as `провокационный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, they are completely interchangeable though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13670" RevisionGUID="d626890e-3624-4b24-b7c5-1db58a3c022e" CreationDate="2016-12-13T10:11:03.560" UserId="5443" Text="**Провокационный** is usually about *something* (supposedly) done intentionally in order to get an expected reaction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Провокативный** can be either about something *potentially* provocative (able to cause some undesired reaction, not necessarily intended), or (by extension of the term used in psychology*) about *someone* who tends to behave in a provocative way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://azps.ru/handbook/conflict/provokativnosty.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32426" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13633" RevisionGUID="ea787188-155f-4401-9d0f-b5a7e3d8fb1a" CreationDate="2016-12-13T10:42:48.307" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:194,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Anixx&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13671" RevisionGUID="4750809f-1021-4fb1-9a87-b6a7c5a27f51" CreationDate="2016-12-13T11:14:29.047" UserId="6274" Text="A standard variation is `не то чтобы`. It sounds well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Construction `не то что` is either very vernacular or does not exist (I haven't hesrd it before and for me it seems wrong)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13663" RevisionGUID="917abd2d-ae90-46f4-b6cf-84d4a21971eb" CreationDate="2016-12-13T13:35:15.057" UserId="1097" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="&quot;С уважением&quot; literally - 'with respect'. It's a proper end of a mail, but you need to add your name to the end of the sentence: &quot;С уважением, Албан.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;As noted by  **Artemix**, &quot;С уважением&quot; can be used for any business/official letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also end the letter with such phrases: &quot;Всего наилучшего!&quot;, &quot;С наилучшими пожеланиями! [Author's name].&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="3a806f85-e625-49fa-abdd-9f0c02f534dc" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:23:35.633" UserId="7763" Text="I've seen both &quot;лу́чший друг&quot; and &quot;вéрный товáрищ&quot; used online to mean &quot;best friend&quot; and I was wondering which is more commonly used. Is the latter only used in specific contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="3a806f85-e625-49fa-abdd-9f0c02f534dc" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:23:35.633" UserId="7763" Text="&quot;best friend&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="3a806f85-e625-49fa-abdd-9f0c02f534dc" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:23:35.633" UserId="7763" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13673" RevisionGUID="8936105e-450c-4be1-a415-1b02fa3d6a40" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:49:25.487" UserId="6539" Text="*Лучший друг* would be a better choice nowadays.*Товарищ* with or without attributes is used less frequently. It is still used in historical background, books,films,etc. Though the word itself is not to blame for its political past, it is somewhat being avoided nowadays. Друг, друзья, приятель are the usual choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32433" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="503119f5-b5b8-4e5a-aec9-c0c0963996b8" CreationDate="2016-12-13T18:54:19.930" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Best friend&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13674" RevisionGUID="1ab6d149-f94f-42dc-a7c3-514c4a7d4978" CreationDate="2016-12-13T19:34:59.117" UserId="242" Text="I disagree with @V.V. on `товарищ` being outdated. While historical association with communism and Soviet period is indeed strong, word `товарищ` is used not only in ironical context. It's just that it's differ from what it meant at the Soviet period (sort of communistic analogue of sir or monsieur - by gender-agnostic) and is used in it's original meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, &quot;товарищ&quot; is a buddy, a person you have nice relationships with, one you can rely on, but not necessarily friend. So I agree with @V.V. on &quot;лучший друг&quot; being the most relevant translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words and phrases worth two now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Закадычные друзья` - very closed friends, also `закадычная дружба`.&#xD;&#xA; - `Друзья не разлей вода` - idiomatic, for close friendship.&#xD;&#xA; - `Корефан`, `кореш` - slang words for close friend.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13673" RevisionGUID="e740f294-8935-4250-87d3-f86a5f9e91d0" CreationDate="2016-12-14T04:05:59.010" UserId="6539" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="*Лучший друг* would be a better choice nowadays.*Товарищ* with or without attributes is not outdated but used less frequently. It is still used in historical background, books,films,etc. Though the word itself is not to blame for its political past, it is somewhat being avoided nowadays. **Друг, друзья, приятель** are the usual choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="9dd3efdf-c7aa-433e-8225-99364ea9f27f" CreationDate="2016-12-14T08:09:14.300" UserId="194" Text="Вéрный товáрищ has connotation of war circumstances or other difficulties. It means somebody who does not betray you or leave you in hard circumstances. Remains faithful despite the hardships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лу́чший друг simply means best friend, somebody with whom you are in good mood and like to spend time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that лу́чший друг betrays you and stops being лу́чший друг. On the other hand вéрный товáрищ cannot betray because the very phrase means somebody who does not betray." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13676" RevisionGUID="53b58e23-bfd8-47f2-8192-a4ebe6ac2a61" CreationDate="2016-12-14T08:17:53.853" UserId="194" Text="I would say, провокационный can refer to some action or doing such as military maneuvers or accusation while провокативный to things, like sexy clothing or unusual design.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13677" RevisionGUID="3fc7b6f5-daf6-42db-bef4-565979092362" CreationDate="2016-12-14T08:57:13.110" UserId="5443" Text="1.The thing or idea following the expression **не то что... (а)** can be compared to something '*stronger*':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он от этого **не то что** *расстроился* [это можно было предположить или это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; само собой разумеется, но слишком мягко сказано], а (даже) *впал в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; депрессию*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar type of comparison can be found in this classical example (from Lermontov's poem): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, были люди наше время - **не то что** нынешнее племя: богатыри - не вы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.The expression **не то чтобы... (а/но)** can be used in the *opposite* case - to *soften* the literal sense of the words said just after that expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он от этого не то чтобы впал в депрессию [это было бы слишком сильно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сказано], а/но был всерьёз расстроен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second of your 2 examples is about correct: it would sound more natural with **a** instead of **но**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="205647bd-8012-4fc6-ba4e-95e7fbde0deb" CreationDate="2016-12-14T10:17:21.867" UserId="7544" Comment="Оформление" Text="Here is the sentence: *&quot;У меня есть друг, который имеет четырех сыновей и двух собак. Твоему другу повезло, мой брат имеет четырех сыновей и двух жен!&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After *&quot;имеет&quot;* all the numbers and words are in genitive plural, can you tell me why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;*У меня есть*&quot; I use nominative case, but why with имеет is in genitive?&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32440" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="205647bd-8012-4fc6-ba4e-95e7fbde0deb" CreationDate="2016-12-14T10:17:21.867" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 5605, 6097 edit id of 821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32441" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13672" RevisionGUID="735d231b-edd5-424a-9e75-c834098f44b5" CreationDate="2016-12-14T10:18:14.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/808979404642717696" />
  <row Id="32442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13675" RevisionGUID="f79f64ad-1d6b-44eb-b140-5669339f4954" CreationDate="2016-12-14T14:55:53.167" UserId="194" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Вéрный товáрищ has connotation of war circumstances or other difficulties. It means somebody who does not betray you or leave you in hard circumstances. Remains faithful despite the hardships. I would translate it &quot;faithful comrade&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лу́чший друг simply means best friend, somebody with whom you are in good mood and like to spend time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that лу́чший друг betrays you and stops being лу́чший друг. On the other hand вéрный товáрищ cannot betray because the very phrase means somebody who does not betray." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="bab94230-6300-40cb-8305-8d4138f3479a" CreationDate="2016-12-14T17:21:08.517" UserId="8248" Text="&quot;HP&quot; is something commonly found in sci-fi and fantasy role-playing games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me a clue? Specifically I need the abbreviation equivalent if there is one, or else a very short word. If you give an acceptable synonym (e.g. &quot;life&quot; in English), please tell me what that word's closest equivalent is in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the &quot;HP&quot; refers to a human character, to &quot;life&quot; equivalent may also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="bab94230-6300-40cb-8305-8d4138f3479a" CreationDate="2016-12-14T17:21:08.517" UserId="8248" Text="&quot;HP&quot; / &quot;Hit points&quot; in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="bab94230-6300-40cb-8305-8d4138f3479a" CreationDate="2016-12-14T17:21:08.517" UserId="8248" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="1723e028-dd7a-442d-afb2-f41f97d4bb01" CreationDate="2016-12-14T17:51:59.460" UserId="8248" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;HP&quot; / &quot;Hit Points&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="1723e028-dd7a-442d-afb2-f41f97d4bb01" CreationDate="2016-12-14T17:51:59.460" UserId="8248" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;HP&quot; is something commonly found in sci-fi and fantasy role-playing games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me a clue? Specifically I need the abbreviation equivalent if there is one, or else a very short word. If you give an acceptable synonym (e.g. &quot;life&quot; in English), please tell me what that word's closest equivalent is in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it is &quot;HP&quot; of a human character, so something like &quot;life&quot; or &quot;life force&quot; may also work. But I'm sure there must be a standard term since there are many Russian gamers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13679" RevisionGUID="b6960b48-1bb8-405a-b26e-162a370975a3" CreationDate="2016-12-14T18:47:48.960" UserId="6097" Text="Usually it's &quot;жизнь&quot; or &quot;здоровье&quot;. It's okay to say &quot;у меня осталось всего 14 жизни&quot; (I have only 14 HPs left) or &quot;здоровья/жизни совсем мало осталось&quot; (I'm short of HPs)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13680" RevisionGUID="ace64aaf-00a6-42f4-834b-60cbca014dc8" CreationDate="2016-12-14T20:22:52.950" UserId="7371" Text="&quot;жизнь&quot; is actually &quot;life&quot;, like &quot;cats have 9 lives&quot;, not &quot;cats have 9 HP&quot;. If you have both Hit points and lives, using жизнь for both would be very confuisng. &#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;100% жизни&quot;  for 100% HP, if you only have HP. &#xD;&#xA;For russian gamers it is also very common to use english words but write them with russian letters: &quot;хит поинтс&quot;  for &quot;Hit points&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13682" RevisionGUID="7eee4945-f52c-4b0b-936d-dfa0e1ef71dc" CreationDate="2016-12-15T14:41:38.833" UserId="2079" Text="Часто так и называют - хиты.  &quot;Сколько у тебя хитов?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13683" RevisionGUID="a79cf0fc-98e4-4d6e-8fb7-76740c09073b" CreationDate="2016-12-15T15:59:07.327" UserId="7544" Text="It depends on what are you playing. When we play LARP in Russian, we typically use the word `хиты` (sing. `хит`). When playing computer games, we transliterate HP as `ХП` (read as [хэпэ]). You may see expressions like `полХП` (&quot;Half of the HP bar&quot;), `треть ХП` etc. It is not uncommon to translate &quot;HP&quot; (Health Points) directly, as `Очки здоровья`, abbriviated as `ОЗ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use the &quot;wrong&quot; word, for example, say &quot;У меня мало хитов осталось&quot; while playing a computer game, or &quot;Мало [хэпэ]&quot; when playing LARP, you would seem... strange? :) `ОЗ`I actually have never heard from any kind of gamers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that some systems use different ways to measure damage, for example, *Vampire: The Masquerade* tabletop uses &quot;health levels&quot; that are pretty much the same for all humanoid characters. It would be wrong to translate that as either `хиты`, `ОЗ` or `ХП`: translate it directly as &quot;Уровни здоровья&quot;, or, if you want, as &quot;Уровни ранений&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the word &quot;life&quot; (`жизнь`) isn't really common, since games that made you lose one of several lives for making a mistake are left in somewhere in the 80s, most games don't use such a concept. I would expect such an expression from a kid (because kids' language is a bit different from adult language, and is a bit stuck in time), or from a mom who is also stuck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Awesome question, mate, thank you for it. If you need clarifications, ask in comments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13669" RevisionGUID="74663acd-1b1c-407a-b6df-794868c523db" CreationDate="2016-12-15T17:42:47.407" UserId="6013" Comment="fixed embarrassing typo" Text="For something perhaps a bit closer to the &quot;feel&quot; of &quot;kind regards&quot; (to me «с уважением» feels more like &quot;yours faithfully&quot; or even the archaic &quot;your obedient servant&quot;), consider «с сердечным приветом,...» &quot;with heart-felt greetings,....&quot;.  «С горячим приветом» would be another alternative, but that might be a bit strong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13684" RevisionGUID="082e3c30-f10a-4f2e-adad-0f0b5e60a920" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:01:12.327" UserId="8257" Text="For example, why do you say &quot;как узнать сказал ли он правду&quot; and not &quot;как знать&quot; although you ask for the general rules of knowing that someone spoke the truth and not just in one certain situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13684" RevisionGUID="082e3c30-f10a-4f2e-adad-0f0b5e60a920" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:01:12.327" UserId="8257" Text="When to use the imperfective/perfective aspect after conjunctions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13684" RevisionGUID="082e3c30-f10a-4f2e-adad-0f0b5e60a920" CreationDate="2016-12-16T17:01:12.327" UserId="8257" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13685" RevisionGUID="a7660f2f-b3f3-48d7-b48b-86e02ace63b4" CreationDate="2016-12-16T22:17:29.487" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;knowing that someone spoke the truth and not just in one certain situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You look at the wrong verb. Here &quot;_сказал_&quot; implies that we talk of a single case. Otherwise you need to use &quot;_говорил_&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, &quot;knowing&quot; is thought to be a one-time action, so it's just perfective &quot;_узнать_&quot; (unless you mean &quot;I wonder&quot;, which is &quot;_как знать_&quot;, as @shabunc noted)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32459" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13678" RevisionGUID="23c32027-beb6-4d72-998c-5b8b8ac48626" CreationDate="2016-12-17T07:37:43.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/810026170557333504" />
  <row Id="32460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13685" RevisionGUID="7b4d40e3-6ef8-48c4-ba82-3634ee538bcf" CreationDate="2016-12-17T08:36:52.963" UserId="5008" Comment="added 739 characters in body" Text="&gt;knowing that someone spoke the truth and not just in one certain situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you have two verbs here. The verb &quot;сказать&quot; (or &quot;говорить&quot;) shows if you talk of a single instance or of many ones. But the verb &quot;знать&quot; (or &quot;узнать&quot;) is about _what exactly you want to know_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mentioning some &quot;general rule&quot; implies that your knowledge should be as much independent on actual situation as possible. So it's only natural to use perfective to show this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But actually in Russian there are very few restrictions on what you can't say. So let's put it this way (shuffling words a little to get rid of secondary meanings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А мне как знать говорит он правду или нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence uses imperfective &quot;знать&quot; and is perfectly OK. But as you may see it's not about &quot;general rules&quot;. It's rather a rhetorical question which could be transformed into simple &quot;I don't know&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because imperfective verb &quot;mixes&quot; into all &quot;situations&quot;, so you are not talking about any &quot;positive general knowledge&quot; anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to put it short, the choice of verb is nearly always about semantics, and not about grammar rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13686" RevisionGUID="a8bd67a8-7d0d-4b39-880e-a7225785eab1" CreationDate="2016-12-17T08:58:40.670" UserId="7896" Text="IMHO:&#xD;&#xA;1) If you want to say something meaning `I don't know` and you don;t want to know exactly, did he said the truth, you may say `Как знать, сказал ли он правду`;&#xD;&#xA;2) If you are interested to know exactly did he said the truth or not, you may say `Как узнать, сказал ли он правду`, meaning you need an bunch of steps to detect, did he said the truth and you rather going to perform them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13686" RevisionGUID="d23ec683-cb1f-4a5f-a613-d8874b50427f" CreationDate="2016-12-17T09:21:58.287" UserId="7896" Comment="fixed grammars" Text="IMHO:&#xD;&#xA;1) If you want to say something meaning `I don't know` and you don't want to know exactly, if he said the truth, you may say `Как знать, сказал ли он правду`;&#xD;&#xA;2) If you are interested to know exactly if he said the truth or not, you may say `Как узнать, сказал ли он правду`, meaning you need an bunch of steps to detect, did he said the truth and you rather going to perform them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="184aedb0-25e3-4325-b27f-b9065bf13999" CreationDate="2016-12-17T10:45:45.600" UserId="7330" Text="In the sentence: &quot;моя подруга будет ужинать дома&quot;, what means дом to be in genitive? I actually expect it to be in prepositional case with some preposition like в, is that wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="184aedb0-25e3-4325-b27f-b9065bf13999" CreationDate="2016-12-17T10:45:45.600" UserId="7330" Text="Why the word &quot;house&quot; is genitive on this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="184aedb0-25e3-4325-b27f-b9065bf13999" CreationDate="2016-12-17T10:45:45.600" UserId="7330" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13688" RevisionGUID="741f332e-7230-4be0-9649-027f0579a83f" CreationDate="2016-12-17T11:37:16.517" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Моя подруга будет ужинать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ДОма* with the stress on the first syllable is not a noun, but an adverb which indicates a place. It corresponds to English &quot;home&quot; (at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am at home.I came home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs were historically formed from other word classes:дома, весной (from nouns), попусту (from adjectives), вдвое (from numeral), etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13688" RevisionGUID="b7fac379-64d0-462d-8140-2bbfc5978582" CreationDate="2016-12-17T11:45:49.867" UserId="6539" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="&gt;Моя подруга будет ужинать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ДОма* with the stress on the first syllable is not a noun, but an adverb which indicates a place. It corresponds to English &quot;home&quot; (at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am at home.I came home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs were historically formed from other word classes:дома, весной (from nouns), попусту (from adjectives), вдвое (from numeral), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В доме* would mean *inside* the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода прохладная, чай будем пить в доме, не в саду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="5b450f13-456a-461b-a2f5-b617a8021a8d" CreationDate="2016-12-17T11:49:57.040" UserId="6539" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In the sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя подруга будет ужинать дома&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; what means *дом* to be in genitive? I actually expect it to be in prepositional case with some preposition like *в*, is that wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13688" RevisionGUID="7947d87e-b51a-4aa7-b0fa-eb99cfc1a546" CreationDate="2016-12-17T11:55:53.040" UserId="6539" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&gt;Моя подруга будет ужинать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ДОма* (with the stress on the first syllable) in this sentence is not a noun, but an adverb which indicates a place. It corresponds to English &quot;home&quot; (at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am at home.I came home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs were historically formed from other word classes:дома, весной (from nouns), попусту (from adjectives), вдвое (from numeral), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В доме* would mean *inside* the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода прохладная, чай будем пить в доме, не в саду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="9a1314ca-a064-4506-840b-a4fb43ad755b" CreationDate="2016-12-17T14:57:12.260" UserId="170" Text="What form should I use in this case, the form of Accusative Case or of Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это вовсе не сводит на нет **того факта/тот факт**, что они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; преступники" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="9a1314ca-a064-4506-840b-a4fb43ad755b" CreationDate="2016-12-17T14:57:12.260" UserId="170" Text="&quot;это вовсе не сводит на нет тот факт&quot; or &quot;того факта&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="9a1314ca-a064-4506-840b-a4fb43ad755b" CreationDate="2016-12-17T14:57:12.260" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13690" RevisionGUID="55b87cde-8462-4479-b460-4508e69a51c5" CreationDate="2016-12-17T16:12:18.037" UserId="6539" Text=" The idiom **Сводить на нет** means *to reduce to zero (nothing) the successful results gained before due to improper actions. *Сводить* is a transitive verb which requires the noun in the **accusative**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это вовсе не сводит на нет **тот факт**, что они преступники" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13690" RevisionGUID="4f8caf58-5047-48e8-8030-febdc78e7f98" CreationDate="2016-12-17T18:32:44.347" UserId="6539" Comment="added 422 characters in body" Text=" The idiom **Сводить на нет** means *to reduce to zero (nothing) the successful results gained before due to improper actions. *Сводить* is a transitive verb which requires the noun in the **accusative**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это вовсе не сводит на нет **тот факт**, что они преступники&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun in the genitive is used after some verbs when the collocation bears a shade of uncertainty&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать (каких-то) писем, ждать (какого-то) поезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if a noun is animate or bears a shade of certainty, then we use the accusative.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;жду одну девушку, жду московский поезд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a definite факт, not какой‐нибудь. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13686" RevisionGUID="5514ebd9-d638-473e-bc25-d11b9d5e8f74" CreationDate="2016-12-18T09:36:12.440" UserId="242" Comment="any answer is opinionated" Text=" 1.  If you want to say something meaning `I don't know` and you don't want to know exactly, if he said the truth, you may say `Как знать, сказал ли он правду`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. If you are interested to know exactly if he said the truth or not, you may say `Как узнать, сказал ли он правду`, meaning you need an bunch of steps to detect, did he said the truth and you rather going to perform them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="0c630ea3-14b7-4f68-9abb-1d842c9411b8" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:46:46.360" UserId="8259" Text="In the statement Завтра нас здесь не будет. (We will not be here tomorrow.), why use нас instead of мы? And why the conjugation is on the third person? i would translate like: tomorrow, here will not go to us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="0c630ea3-14b7-4f68-9abb-1d842c9411b8" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:46:46.360" UserId="8259" Text="About adverbs. вопрос грамматки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="0c630ea3-14b7-4f68-9abb-1d842c9411b8" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:46:46.360" UserId="8259" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13693" RevisionGUID="06d3daba-4ac4-4792-a175-570931282865" CreationDate="2016-12-18T17:14:56.977" UserId="4560" Text="**Нас здесь не будет** is **нас здесь нет** transposed, as a chunk, into the future tense. **Нет** is immutably impersonal, and the so-called negative genitive is a phenomenon you might encounter elsewhere in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="cfda56ea-508c-4793-ac3e-4a87b419b7bc" CreationDate="2016-12-18T18:16:11.440" UserId="6725" Comment="Improved spelling and formatting" Text="In the statement *`&quot;Завтра нас здесь не будет.&quot;`* (*&quot;We will not be here tomorrow.&quot;*), why use *нас* instead of *мы*? And why the conjugation is on the third person? I would translate it like *&quot;Tomorrow, here will not go to us&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32483" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="cfda56ea-508c-4793-ac3e-4a87b419b7bc" CreationDate="2016-12-18T18:16:11.440" UserId="6725" Comment="Improved spelling and formatting" Text="About adverbs. вопрос грамматики" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13694" RevisionGUID="011d34b9-6582-4d8f-bf0e-703d6820e9ec" CreationDate="2016-12-18T18:27:27.827" UserId="6725" Text="The most literal English translation of *&quot;`Завтра нас здесь не будет`&quot;* is *&quot;`There will be no us here tomorrow`&quot;*. In English such construction looks pretty weird, but in Russian the opposite is true: *&quot;Завтра нас здесь не будет&quot;* is the natural way to say it, while the literal translation *&quot;Завтра мы здесь не будем&quot;* sounds awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32485" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="972f2c67-c460-4a59-9019-474f88b175ae" CreationDate="2016-12-18T20:31:14.967" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Завтра нас здесь не будет&quot; - why &quot;нас&quot;, not &quot;we&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="b09c3ed3-94b2-4370-b657-9b93b43938bd" CreationDate="2016-12-18T20:32:15.393" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Ужинать дома&quot; - why the word &quot;house&quot; is in genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32487" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="e250e608-da41-4359-8eb5-9f4bb5cd42dd" CreationDate="2016-12-18T20:32:27.713" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Это вовсе не сводит на нет тот факт&quot; or &quot;того факта&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13695" RevisionGUID="3fa52505-9a49-4133-97a1-e17cf83f1573" CreationDate="2016-12-18T21:43:52.853" UserId="5443" Text="*Both* forms are possible here. The transitiveness of a verb doesn't mean it can never be used in genitive case (an obvious example: 'он этого факта не знает'). Depending on context, genitive (after a verb with negation) can even be preferable to accusative if otherwise it might be not completely clear, which noun or pronoun is in nominative case and which one is in the accusative at that. For example, the previous sentence gives another fact, opposed to the fact (next sentence) that some people 'are criminals':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти двое спасли полицейскому жизнь. Это вовсе не сводит на нет тот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; факт, что они преступники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case (1) the pronoun **это** is understood as being in accusative, the second sentence might mean the speaker *emphasizes* the first fact, which can't be completely beaten by the known second 'fact' (calls for mercy). In case (2) the noun **факт** is perceived as being in accusative, then the speaker just *reminds*: despite the first fact, they are still criminals. So, to make the first version clearer, the pronoun can be used in genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Этого** вовсе не сводит на нет тот факт, что они преступники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And vice versa - with different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это вовсе не сводит на нет **того факта**, что они преступники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Style wise (to avoid double negation) it is possible to replace **не сводит на нет** with the more simple **не отменяет**, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32489" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="dc91ef60-003b-4721-9a72-707af29569e9" CreationDate="2016-12-19T00:14:41.957" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Ужинать дома&quot; - why in genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13696" RevisionGUID="cb7cea78-2877-4142-98c6-9ffdfa40c2e7" CreationDate="2016-12-19T03:35:25.570" UserId="6539" Text="Just some rules from new.gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA;Какой падеж нужен при отрицании?&#xD;&#xA;Существительное, относящееся к глаголу с отрицанием, может иметь форму родительного или винительного падежа, например: *не прочитал этой статьи – не прочитал эту статью*. Трудность заключается в том, что в одних случаях тот или иной падеж является предпочтительным, а в других существует равная возможность употребления как родительного, так и винительного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда нужен **родительный** падеж?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При сочетании с глаголом **не иметь**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;не имеет права, значения, смысла, намерения, понятия, влияния; не имеет дома, денег, машины, брата, друга, сведений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При наличии слов **никакой, ничей, ни один**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не взял на себя никакой ответственности, не потерял ни одного грамма, не прочитал ни одной статьи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При **глаголах восприятия, мысли**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не понял вопроса, не знал урока, не чувствовал боли, не заметил ошибки, не видел дорожного знака.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если существительное имеет **отвлеченное значение**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не теряет времени, не испытывает желания, не скрывает радости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если в качестве зависимого слова используется **местоимение**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не допущу этого; не делайте того.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если перед глаголом или непосредственно перед именем есть **усилительные частицы** и, даже: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отправлялись за покупками втроем, но Любе и слова сказать не удавалось, старики сами все выбирали (Кетл.); Руки дрожат и не держат даже плошки с лекарством - не удержать им и книги (Сарт.); На тротуарах тесно, но никто вас не толкнет, никто ни с кем не ссорится, не услышишь даже громкого слова (газ.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При наличии **повторяющегося союза ни... ни**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не читает ни книг, ни газет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В некоторых **устойчивых сочетаниях**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не играет роли, не производит впечатления, не обращает внимания, не уделяет внимания, не приносит ущерба, не придает значения, не вызывает сомнения, не принимает участия  и т. д. А также: не говоря (не сказав) худого слова; не сводить глаз с кого-чего-л.; не находить себе места; плетью обуха не перешибешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда нужен **винительный** падеж?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если **отрицание не стоит не при глаголе**, а при другом слове: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не очень люблю стихи, не всегда читает книги, не вполне усвоил предмет (ср.: люблю стихи, но не очень; читает книги, но не всегда; усвоил предмет, но не вполне).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если при глаголе кроме данного существительного должно быть **еще одно зависимое существительное или прилагательное**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;он не считает книгу интересной; не прочитал статью за вечер; не обеспечили регион электроэнергией; Разве вы не считаете эту практику полезной?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если существительное относится **к инфинитиву, отделенному от глагола с отрицанием другим инфинитивом**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;он не хочет начинать писать мемуары (ср. он не хочет писать мемуаров и мемуары).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При наличии в предложении местоимений, указывающих на **определенность** объекта: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эту песню не задушишь, не убьешь; он не решил эту задачу (ср.: он не решал задач); Ростов, не желая навязывать свое знакомство, не пошел в дом (Л. Толст.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При наличии после существительного **придаточного предложения со словом который**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он не прочитал книгу, которую я ему дал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При **одушевленном существительном или при имени собственном**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Со времени моего кондукторства я не люблю Лесную улицу (Пауст.); Но Суровцев уже понимал, что уйти, не повидав Веру, не в силах (Чак.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если отрицание входит в состав частицы **едва не, чуть не, чуть-чуть не**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Едва не уронил стакан; Чуть не пропустил трамвай; Чуть было не потерял билет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В **собственно отрицательных предложениях** типа Некому показать работу; негде опубликовать статью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В некоторых **устойчивых сочетаниях**: Не морочь мне голову; Не скаль зубы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В остальных случаях существительные в описываемых конструкциях обычно можно использовать в форме и родительного падежа, и винительного падежа." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13688" RevisionGUID="6ed78df0-a186-44d0-aeb4-68dee60581de" CreationDate="2016-12-19T18:52:34.800" UserId="6539" Comment="added 731 characters in body" Text="&gt;Моя подруга будет ужинать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ДОма* (with the stress on the first syllable) in this sentence is not a noun, but an adverb which indicates a place. It corresponds to English &quot;home&quot; (at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am at home.I came home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs were historically formed from other word classes:дома, весной (from nouns), попусту (from adjectives), вдвое (from numeral), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В доме* would mean *inside* the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода прохладная, чай будем пить в доме, не в саду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some histrical background. &#xD;&#xA;Переходом из других частей речи образованы многие наречия. Так, можно отметить наречия, образованные переосмыслением&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— существительных (дома, весной),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— прилагательных (попусту, в открытую),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— деепричастий (сидя, лёжа),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— числительных (вдвое).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Необходимо понимать, что переход слова из одной части речи в другую — процесс исторический. С точки зрения современном состояния языка (с синхронической точки зрения) все эти слова образованы при помощи суффикса или приставки и суффикса, омонимичного окончанию существительного, прилагательного или числительного, а также формообразующему суффиксу деепричастной формы глагола, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;зим-ой ← зима, леж-а ← лежать, по-пуст-у ← пустой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13688" RevisionGUID="dbce4b49-de75-441f-ab55-4027543b9af9" CreationDate="2016-12-19T19:27:01.127" UserId="6539" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt;Моя подруга будет ужинать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ДОма* (with the stress on the first syllable) in this sentence is not a noun, but an adverb which indicates a place. It corresponds to English &quot;home&quot; (at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am at home.I came home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs were historically formed from other word classes:дома, весной (from nouns), попусту (from adjectives), вдвое (from numeral), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В доме* would mean *inside* the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода прохладная, чай будем пить в доме, не в саду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some historical background. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Переходом из других частей речи образованы многие наречия. Так, можно отметить наречия, образованные переосмыслением&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— существительных (дома, весной),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— прилагательных (попусту, в открытую),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— деепричастий (сидя, лёжа),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— числительных (вдвое).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Необходимо понимать, что переход слова из одной части речи в другую — процесс исторический. С точки зрения современном состояния языка (с синхронической точки зрения) все эти слова образованы при помощи суффикса или приставки и суффикса, омонимичного окончанию существительного, прилагательного или числительного, а также формообразующему суффиксу деепричастной формы глагола, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;зим-ой ← зима, леж-а ← лежать, по-пуст-у ← пустой,дом-а –дом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13697" RevisionGUID="e08fbc36-b704-42e3-a902-a09b5be757c4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T05:09:28.343" UserId="8273" Text="There may be two forms of the word, the mythical creature and the Internet &quot;troll&quot; who spreads anger and discord through anonymous online forums.  I am interested in the second form of the word, though the first form might be interesting, too.  Please use the Latin alphabet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13697" RevisionGUID="e08fbc36-b704-42e3-a902-a09b5be757c4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T05:09:28.343" UserId="8273" Text="What is the word for &quot;troll&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13697" RevisionGUID="e08fbc36-b704-42e3-a902-a09b5be757c4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T05:09:28.343" UserId="8273" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="bcba7ef5-c407-4fad-b5c8-b8c1e1ab5be7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T05:54:09.120" UserId="242" Text="This word is borrowed directly from English and it's actually &quot;тролль&quot; or &quot;троль&quot; (pronounced almost like English `trol` but l is softer). It's quite common word in Internet slang and there is also a verb derived from it - `троллить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `жирный тролль` (zh**i**rnyj trol`) - about somebody who is, well, let's put it this way, a dedicated, passionate troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="51518304-9146-432f-afa4-6d3966735d4b" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:00:34.440" UserId="242" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="This word is borrowed directly from English and it's actually &quot;тролль&quot; or &quot;троль&quot; (pronounced almost like English `trol` but l is softer). It's quite common word in Internet slang and there is also a verb derived from it - `троллить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `жирный тролль` (zh**i**rnyj trol`, literally a fat troll) - about somebody who is, well, let's put it this way, a dedicated, passionate troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of palatalization (the way final &quot;l&quot; is pronounced softer) it's not easy to pronounce for someone who is a native speaker of a language where there's no such thing. But you can try to pronounce `trollee` and than try to pronounce `ee` very quickly, as quickly as possible. And then even shorter :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13698" RevisionGUID="f22890c7-5157-411f-974a-920ab7280c01" CreationDate="2016-12-20T06:08:12.190" UserId="242" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="This word is borrowed directly from English and it's actually &quot;тролль&quot; or &quot;троль&quot; (pronounced almost like English `trol` but l is softer). It's quite common word in Internet slang and there is also a verb derived from it - `троллить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `жирный тролль` (zh**i**rnyj trol`, literally a fat troll) - about somebody who is, well, let's put it this way, a dedicated, passionate troll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of palatalization (the way final &quot;l&quot; is pronounced softer) it's not easy to pronounce for someone who is a native speaker of a language where there's no such thing. But you can try to pronounce `trollee` and than try to pronounce `ee` very quickly, as quickly as possible. And then even shorter :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sidenote - &quot;original&quot; troll is also `тролль` in Russian (since its a Scandinavian word both in Russian and English) but actually there's a theory that English trolling was initially based on the concept of trolling - a fishing technique, and only later this word became associated with mythological creature. [More][1] about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thomasvan.com/random-philosophy/internet-slang-where-did-the-word-troll-come-from" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="620e37f4-2a4c-4634-ba21-e27d207fc59e" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:35:31.133" UserId="3892" Text="I've seen expressions for living one's life expressed with the accusative: **Она жила *спокойную жизнь***, as well as with the instrumental: **Пока другие люди *жили своей жизнью*...** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between these two usages or are they completely interchangeable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="620e37f4-2a4c-4634-ba21-e27d207fc59e" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:35:31.133" UserId="3892" Text="Expressions for living one's life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="620e37f4-2a4c-4634-ba21-e27d207fc59e" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:35:31.133" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13700" RevisionGUID="1b93e759-0475-4402-a040-ba335fb326dc" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:44:27.120" UserId="2079" Text="*`Она жила спокойную жизнь` is wrong, in my opinion.  Instrumental case is needed here. You can, however, say `она `**`прожила`** `спокойную жизнь`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="08f09951-7733-45e3-949c-a9df28bfcdd8" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:59:53.767" UserId="551" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="The word, to smile: улыбаться. I have tried a new speech engine and it is much better than the ones I used so far but this one is a little tricky in my opinion. The verbs with -ся can be a challenge. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help with the first few words (see markings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is more correct and how do you pronounce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; улыбаться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;*u**v**i*-bat-tsa&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;*u**l**i*-bat-tsa&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9432" RevisionGUID="7498d55a-b405-4b6e-b54e-9e78170f7712" CreationDate="2016-12-20T15:02:24.577" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="Мы прочитали эту пословицу вчера.  Дочка хотела узнать значение.  Я сказал, что первый язык то, с которым вкусить.  Есть ли второе значение, нечто более глубоко?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13697" RevisionGUID="69844e98-30e5-491d-a97f-fdbdf54997a9" CreationDate="2016-12-20T17:35:36.827" UserId="8273" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="There may be two forms of the word, the mythical creature and the Internet &quot;troll&quot; who spreads anger and discord through anonymous online forums.  I am interested in the second form of the word, though the first form might be interesting, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="0b19491e-d63c-4134-91d3-1e65e260e9f4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:22:10.943" UserId="8259" Text="In the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;где ты была?&#xD;&#xA;я ходила на пояту to mean ``i went in the post office``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore why была?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="0b19491e-d63c-4134-91d3-1e65e260e9f4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:22:10.943" UserId="8259" Text="Why use ходила instead of ездила?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="0b19491e-d63c-4134-91d3-1e65e260e9f4" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:22:10.943" UserId="8259" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="264b4fab-dde6-4a44-a53d-3866da69b9ed" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:32:53.703" UserId="3680" Comment="edited body" Text="In the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;где ты была?&#xD;&#xA;я ходила на почту to mean ``i went in the post office``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore why была?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32511" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="3e32ea78-f687-498f-88c3-c956d8c28c68" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:37:16.453" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="013fa983-994d-4713-9195-4deb02672e07" CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:32:52.727" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the phrase:&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Где ты была?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Я ходила на почту &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why `ходила` is used instead of `ездила`?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32514" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="013fa983-994d-4713-9195-4deb02672e07" CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:32:52.727" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why &quot;ходила&quot; and not &quot;ездила&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32517" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10875" RevisionGUID="5513c1ac-4580-4379-8fdf-16065d9aedb6" CreationDate="2016-12-21T05:49:01.063" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;улыбаться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32518" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13697" RevisionGUID="fa25138a-db17-4481-b4c1-1c5693a2c2dc" CreationDate="2016-12-21T11:06:39.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/811528300506021888" />
  <row Id="32521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="b161ea2a-cc88-43b0-9be5-e97d6bb32a14" CreationDate="2016-12-22T09:54:26.540" UserId="5786" Text="I've asked a friend of mine, which is Russian, why they were saying on the news выдвигаться в президенты instead of выдвигаться в президентов, and he told me it is an exception, of an old case that he couldn't remember at the occasion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, I've tried to find everywhere what it could be, to no avail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone please explain to me what rules are involved in that sentence and why does it make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="b161ea2a-cc88-43b0-9be5-e97d6bb32a14" CreationDate="2016-12-22T09:54:26.540" UserId="5786" Text="What old rare case or rule is used in the sentence &quot;выдвигаться в президенты&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="b161ea2a-cc88-43b0-9be5-e97d6bb32a14" CreationDate="2016-12-22T09:54:26.540" UserId="5786" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="5deb5bfb-d9a5-448e-9b07-944bfc455ade" CreationDate="2016-12-22T10:00:25.880" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="I've asked a friend of mine, which is Russian, why they were saying on the news `выдвигаться в президенты` instead of `выдвигаться в президентов`, and he told me it is an exception, of an old case that he couldn't remember at the occasion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, I've tried to find everywhere what it could be, to no avail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone please explain to me what rules are involved in that sentence and why does it make sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13703" RevisionGUID="093a452c-9d32-49df-bd15-824ca4f8b38a" CreationDate="2016-12-22T10:06:51.333" UserId="2079" Text="This is one of the so called *lesser cases* in Russian.  This case has many names: второй винительный (second accusative), включительный (inclusive), превратительный (translative), собирательный. From [rusgram.ru][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Второй винительный падеж (другие названия – включительный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превратительный, собирательный) встречается после предлога `в` при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; небольшом количестве глаголов, и его окончания совпадают с окончаниями&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительного падежа множественного числа (другая трактовка –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колебания в одушевлённости): [`пойти`, `записаться`, `выбиться`, `готовиться`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `проситься`, `метить`, `принять`, `выбрать` и т.д. `в`] `солдаты`, `летчики`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `генералы`, `начальники`. За этой формой признаются наименьшие права на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статус особого падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13703" RevisionGUID="2cd2d508-fda0-4665-bed2-832c7236148a" CreationDate="2016-12-22T10:12:36.260" UserId="2079" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="This is one of the so called *lesser cases* in Russian.  This case has many names: второй винительный (second accusative), включительный (inclusive), превратительный (translative), собирательный. From [rusgram.ru][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Второй винительный падеж (другие названия – включительный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превратительный, собирательный) встречается после предлога `в` при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; небольшом количестве глаголов, и его окончания совпадают с окончаниями&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительного падежа множественного числа (другая трактовка –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колебания в одушевлённости): [`пойти`, `записаться`, `выбиться`, `готовиться`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `проситься`, `метить`, `принять`, `выбрать` и т.д. `в`] `солдаты`, `летчики`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `генералы`, `начальники`. За этой формой признаются наименьшие права на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статус особого падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used after the preposition `в` when somebody receives or seeks some new post or rank: постричься в монахи, баллотироваться в президенты etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="2c23dca8-cb21-4b93-9661-ae90465ea139" CreationDate="2016-12-22T16:53:41.573" UserId="8285" Text="can anyone tell what word is on the tank on the picture?&#xD;&#xA;its on an old Soviet gas cylinder, probably has to do with welding or cutting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QX4q6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="2c23dca8-cb21-4b93-9661-ae90465ea139" CreationDate="2016-12-22T16:53:41.573" UserId="8285" Text="identify a word on a gas cylinder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="2c23dca8-cb21-4b93-9661-ae90465ea139" CreationDate="2016-12-22T16:53:41.573" UserId="8285" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13705" RevisionGUID="71151c98-19a5-4176-a61a-1e496d11ecc4" CreationDate="2016-12-22T17:11:22.927" UserId="551" Text="It's hard to tell based on what is left from the letters, but possibly [this article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8) may be of help - it is a standard of marking gas tanks based on the type of gas inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this is a yellow text on black background, so it could be:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Азот&#xD;&#xA;* Углекислота&#xD;&#xA;* 'Other non-flammable gas' (e.g. Неон)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these three the УГЛЕКИСЛОТА (CO2) is long enough, but I'm not sure if it is really it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13705" RevisionGUID="99d82f86-35aa-497c-9df1-f7ba1840f058" CreationDate="2016-12-22T17:24:59.447" UserId="551" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="It's hard to tell based on what is left from the letters, but possibly [this article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8) may be of help - it is a standard of marking gas tanks based on the type of gas inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this is a yellow text on black background, so it could be:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Азот&#xD;&#xA;* Углекислота&#xD;&#xA;* 'Other non-flammable gas' (e.g. Неон)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these three the УГЛЕКИСЛОТА (CO2) is long enough, but I'm not sure if it is really it. If it is so, then we likely see the ЛЕКИС part of УГЛЕКИСЛОТА." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13705" RevisionGUID="40eda77f-2bef-4cd9-8bcf-4b38dac40122" CreationDate="2016-12-22T19:03:21.210" UserId="551" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="It's hard to tell based on what is left from the letters, but possibly [this article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8) may be of help - it is a standard of marking gas tanks based on the type of gas inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this is a yellow text on black background, so it could be:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Азот&#xD;&#xA;* Углекислота&#xD;&#xA;* 'Other non-flammable gas' (e.g. Неон)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these three the УГЛЕКИСЛОТА (CO2) is long enough, but I'm not sure if it is really it. If it is so, then we likely see the ЛЕКИС part of УГЛЕКИСЛОТА.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CO2 tank][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dRMRj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13705" RevisionGUID="78db9669-f71f-404f-880b-c22c0e10879a" CreationDate="2016-12-22T19:20:36.517" UserId="551" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="It's hard to tell based on what is left from the letters, but possibly [this article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8) may be of help - it is a standard of marking gas tanks based on the type of gas inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this is a yellow text on black background, so it could be:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Азот&#xD;&#xA;* Углекислота&#xD;&#xA;* 'Other non-flammable gas' (e.g. Неон)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these three the УГЛЕКИСЛОТА (CO2) is long enough, but I'm not sure if it is really it. If it is so, then we likely see the ЛЕКИС part of УГЛЕКИСЛОТА.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a picture of CO2 tanks with hand-made УГЛЕКИСЛОТА inscription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CO2 tank][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dRMRj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13705" RevisionGUID="522f6277-f9ca-4729-9c19-d6dd854316fe" CreationDate="2016-12-22T19:43:10.060" UserId="551" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="It's hard to tell based on what is left from the letters, but possibly [this article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8) may be of help - it is a standard of marking gas tanks based on the type of gas inside. Though it is marked as 2003 document, but it actually the same as the one approved in 1970.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like this is a yellow text on black background, so it could be:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Азот&#xD;&#xA;* Углекислота&#xD;&#xA;* 'Other non-flammable gas' (e.g. Неон)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these three the УГЛЕКИСЛОТА (CO2) is long enough, but I'm not sure if it is really it. If it is so, then we likely see the ЛЕКИС part of УГЛЕКИСЛОТА.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Углекислота (Carbon Dioxide) is used in welding to protect hot metal from contact with oxygen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a picture of CO2 tanks with hand-made УГЛЕКИСЛОТА inscription.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CO2 tank][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dRMRj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32536" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13704" RevisionGUID="0a824ef5-40f5-4c4b-8caa-1e7cbb6cd9f2" CreationDate="2016-12-22T21:12:47.877" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13706" RevisionGUID="d95cf230-5038-4196-a4a8-aa8bea9ebe34" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:14:24.383" UserId="8289" Text="The rule given here is that the accusative case is used for animate/inanimate objects. If animate that means using the genitive case, if the sentence is positive, right? Example:(Masculine)  я вижу кота (Feminine)  я вижу кошки  But what about the negative? (Masculine)  я не вижу кота (Feminine)  я не вижу кошку It seems that feminine nouns of animate objects in the accusative do not change to the genitive, or as in inanimate objects you have a choice.  Is this true?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13706" RevisionGUID="d95cf230-5038-4196-a4a8-aa8bea9ebe34" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:14:24.383" UserId="8289" Text="Negation of feminine nouns in the accusative case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13706" RevisionGUID="d95cf230-5038-4196-a4a8-aa8bea9ebe34" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:14:24.383" UserId="8289" Text="|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13707" RevisionGUID="59ca3ce8-37e2-4039-947f-018b80f85f6e" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:25:40.860" UserId="3680" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13707" RevisionGUID="59ca3ce8-37e2-4039-947f-018b80f85f6e" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:25:40.860" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13708" RevisionGUID="6527ee5b-a7f7-45d7-b8e7-d4cf684c9316" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:25:40.860" UserId="3680" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Questions related to the negation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13708" RevisionGUID="6527ee5b-a7f7-45d7-b8e7-d4cf684c9316" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:25:40.860" UserId="3680" Comment="added 4 characters in body" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13709" RevisionGUID="898ab753-104b-4038-af70-0c17ed825b1a" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:36:25.057" UserId="242" Text="Well your assumption is slightly wrong. Correct form form feminine form of `я вижу кота` is `я вижу кошку`, so it it exactly like for negation `я не вижу кота`/`я не вижу кошку`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, it is the other way around, it's the form `я не вижу кошку` has an alternative form `я не вижу кошки`. So what you have notice is indeed something that exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know it's not that simple, it's not about feminine nouns, there are actually *some set* of rules when one should use accusative or genitive with some set of *verbs in negative*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote (and actually you can find [there][1] a big, yet not full, set of rules I've mentioned):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудность заключается в том, что в одних случаях тот или иной падеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; является предпочтительным, а в других существует равная возможность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребления как родительного, так и винительного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what you have noticed is exactly about some words that can be used in both cases. It's hard to me to provide a complete list of such words (or rules by which they are generated) but as of counter-example for your hypothesis: (non-feminine and non-animate) `я не нашёл здание` /` не нашёл здания`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other counter-examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Вчерашнего дня не воротишь / вчерашний день не воротишь.&#xD;&#xA; - Не учуял запах газа / не учуял запаха газа. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though indeed good point, I guess this should be investigated.&#xD;&#xA;Here are even [more][2] rules about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/67-otr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rosental-book.ru/styli_xlv.html#sect201" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32545" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13687" RevisionGUID="5ac797ce-ee0b-40da-8baf-e73abd2eb86e" CreationDate="2016-12-22T23:15:24.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/812074084620177408" />
  <row Id="32546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13706" RevisionGUID="98dcabe0-3160-47cc-be85-f9b6983eb957" CreationDate="2016-12-23T07:52:57.470" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="The rule given here is that the accusative case is used for animate/inanimate objects. If animate that means using the genitive case, if the sentence is positive, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* (Masculine)  я вижу кота &#xD;&#xA;* (Feminine)  я вижу кошки  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the negative? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   * (Masculine)  я не вижу кота&#xD;&#xA;  * (Feminine)  я не вижу кошку &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that feminine nouns of animate objects in the accusative do not change to the genitive, or as in inanimate objects you have a choice.  Is this true?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="29d6d1b3-8006-42f7-856c-af7e9cd1df6c" CreationDate="2016-12-23T08:08:50.693" UserId="4323" Text="Я понимаю, что в устной рече так не говорят и более того так, наверное, не пишут.&#xD;&#xA;Но верно ли это с грамматической точки зрения, и противоречит ли каким-то правилам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также интересует вариант &quot;Я не прыгал не в доме&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="29d6d1b3-8006-42f7-856c-af7e9cd1df6c" CreationDate="2016-12-23T08:08:50.693" UserId="4323" Text="Can i say &quot;я не в доме не прыгал&quot; meaning &quot;за пределами дома я не прыгал&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="29d6d1b3-8006-42f7-856c-af7e9cd1df6c" CreationDate="2016-12-23T08:08:50.693" UserId="4323" Text="|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13711" RevisionGUID="5475b288-87bd-40aa-9aa7-8fa82700fb1e" CreationDate="2016-12-23T09:33:56.390" UserId="5443" Text="Unlikely that rule works: if animate, it doesn't necessarily mean using the genitive (or vice versa). In your examples with the affirmative it's always accusative, while *both* cases are possible with negations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не вижу здесь никакого кота (никакой кошки) - нет здесь котов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (кошек)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (strictly genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сейчас не вижу своего кота (свою кошку, fem.): его (её) заслоняет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; монитор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не вижу своего кота (своей кошки): куда-то убежал(а).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, sometimes only context helps to tell genitive (кота) from accusative (кота). You only need to choose between cases with feminine in the examples above. I wouldn't dare to define any general rule, but with those examples, genitive tends to be used with objects which are considered *absent* (from the fact they are not seen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for animate/inanimate objects, there is a difference in accusative case endings for plural, while both accusative/genitive are still possible in sentences with negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не кормите своих кошек?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (strictly accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы терпеть не можете кошек?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (more likely, genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не будете есть огурцы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы никогда не ели огурцов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tendency can be noticed from the latter group of examples: *genitive* is more likely to be used with '*abstractly*' mentioned objects, which are out of focus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13711" RevisionGUID="0bab0d2f-1d1a-450e-8381-7b590ef8e44e" CreationDate="2016-12-23T09:41:26.543" UserId="5443" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Unlikely that rule works: if animate, it doesn't necessarily mean using the genitive (or vice versa). In your examples with the affirmative it's always accusative, while *both* cases are possible with negations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не вижу здесь никакого кота (никакой кошки) - нет здесь котов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (кошек)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (strictly genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сейчас не вижу своего кота (свою кошку, fem.): его (её) заслоняет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; монитор.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не вижу своего кота (своей кошки): куда-то убежал(а).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, sometimes only context helps to tell genitive (кота) from accusative (кота). You only need to choose between cases with feminine in the examples above. I wouldn't dare to define any general rule, but with those examples, genitive tends to be used with objects which are considered *absent* (from the fact they are not seen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for animate/inanimate objects, there is a difference in accusative case endings for plural (which usually coincide with those in the nominative for inanimate objects), while both accusative/genitive are still possible in sentences with negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не кормите своих кошек?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (strictly accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы терпеть не можете кошек?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (more likely, genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не будете есть огурцы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы никогда не ели огурцов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (preferably genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another tendency can be noticed from the latter group of examples: *genitive* is more likely to be used with '*abstractly*' mentioned objects, which are out of focus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13712" RevisionGUID="7a4191b2-160c-438c-9334-5edea26dd118" CreationDate="2016-12-23T11:06:24.047" UserId="6539" Text="Совершенно нормальное предложение с двойным отрицанием (double negation), обычно характерное для детской речи,когда ребенку требуется подчеркнуть важность какого-то слова.Both fronting and emphasis are used.The meaning is usually positive and opposite because it's one of thosr cases when &quot;negative &quot;+&quot;negative &quot;gives &quot;plus&quot;(giving the affirmative sense). That said, your sentence means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не в доме не прыгал = Я прыгал только в доме.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="b6640bf3-2777-45b4-a7d7-1039e7ce6db7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T11:10:04.930" UserId="6539" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Я понимаю, что в устной речи так не говорят и, более того, так, наверное, не пишут.&#xD;&#xA;Но верно ли это с грамматической точки зрения, и не противоречит ли каким-то правилам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Также интересует вариант &quot;Я не прыгал не в доме&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32554" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="b6640bf3-2777-45b4-a7d7-1039e7ce6db7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T11:10:04.930" UserId="6539" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I say &quot;я не в доме не прыгал&quot; meaning &quot;за пределами дома я не прыгал&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13712" RevisionGUID="df08249b-572e-4822-8b2e-d59ad293577a" CreationDate="2016-12-23T12:52:43.657" UserId="6539" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Совершенно нормальное предложение с двойным отрицанием (double negation), обычно характерное для детской речи,когда ребенку требуется подчеркнуть важность какого-то слова.Both fronting and emphasis are used.The meaning is usually positive and opposite because it's one of thosr cases when &quot;negative &quot;+&quot;negative &quot;gives &quot;plus&quot;(giving the affirmative sense). That said, your sentence means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не в доме не прыгал = Я прыгал только в доме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adults also use it sometimes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;не мог не посмотреть (значит посмотрел), не смог не взять (значит взял)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="ecf0d693-1333-4bf2-9c0e-b4fd1bbce5d7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T15:43:45.817" UserId="4714" Text="When would you use one over the other—in what cases? I've looked at dictionary entries but I don't see, or feel ant difference, but there must be one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Link for reference—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See Link for reference—][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://translate.academic.ru/%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC/ru/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="ecf0d693-1333-4bf2-9c0e-b4fd1bbce5d7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T15:43:45.817" UserId="4714" Text="Difference between &quot;куда там&quot; and &quot;где там&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="ecf0d693-1333-4bf2-9c0e-b4fd1bbce5d7" CreationDate="2016-12-23T15:43:45.817" UserId="4714" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="48b59e1e-02f7-494b-8269-11e110a95acb" CreationDate="2016-12-23T17:52:31.070" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 30 characters in body" Text="When would you use one over the other—in what cases? I've looked at dictionary entries but I don't see, or feel ant difference, but there must be one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See Link for reference][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://translate.academic.ru/%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC/ru/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="cdcb2128-3dcb-4b4f-a980-f32d60b61e10" CreationDate="2016-12-23T18:00:53.170" UserId="4714" Comment="edited body" Text="When would you use one over the other—in what cases? I've looked at dictionary entries but I don't see, or feel any difference, but there must be one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[See Link for reference][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://translate.academic.ru/%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC/ru/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32561" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="a2660d2a-eee2-499e-b687-e05bb911f1f9" CreationDate="2016-12-23T20:36:21.337" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13714" RevisionGUID="913bcb39-27af-426f-9372-dcf3eb7ea8a1" CreationDate="2016-12-23T21:52:09.693" UserId="134" Text="If they are used as standalone interjections (*где там!, куда там!, какое там!*), I can't say I see any difference either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interjections, though, have evolved from rhetorical questions using these constructs. If you are using them as a part of those questions, they should agree with the rest of the sentence, of course, so you can't just swap those freely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ― Какое там равенство шансов! ― воскликнул он. ― Мало того, что она ушла сама.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Но отменено, потому что где там шведам теперь нападать, когда Каролус в могиле, а со Швецией трактамен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Куда там каким-нибудь масонам ― об этих понемногу всё стало известно, вплоть до деталей тайных ритуалов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13715" RevisionGUID="acc81a05-e37f-45dc-bc1f-29e6f183593f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:41:45.270" UserId="3892" Text="**Парень** is a word I'm comfortable using in Russian because I liken it to our *guy* in all its nuances. However, although I see and hear **мужик** all the time, I'm hesitant to use it because it seems that I've only ever heard it in negative contexts, e.g. about deadbeat boyfriends or fuckwit husbands or generally with a disparaging air like *some guy at the bar pushed me and I spilled my beer* (=some fucker); or *She walked in with this guy with a porn mustache and an unfortunate laugh*... I think you get the picture! Is this my imagination, or is it closer to **парень** than I think?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13715" RevisionGUID="acc81a05-e37f-45dc-bc1f-29e6f183593f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:41:45.270" UserId="3892" Text="Nuances of мужик versus парень" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13715" RevisionGUID="acc81a05-e37f-45dc-bc1f-29e6f183593f" CreationDate="2016-12-24T03:41:45.270" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13716" RevisionGUID="aad40df7-c83e-4157-9d4b-d01cecaaf20d" CreationDate="2016-12-24T05:38:02.833" UserId="242" Text="It's almost like in Zootopia, remember, one bunny can call another bunny cute ) The same about `мужик` it's very informal and may be percepted (and intended to be such) rude if a man is addressed by a person who is not a close acquaintance or is higher in rank (social, job, military, whatever). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But no, `мужик` is definitely not used only in negative context. Say you are trying to move some heavy objects from your backyard. Saying to your friends something like &quot;навалимся, мужики&quot; will sound very friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider pretty common phrase - which is also used ironically though - &quot;ну ты мужик&quot; (something like &quot;you are quite a man&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `парень` - this also can sound rude if it intended to sound rude (&quot;эй, парень!&quot;) - in Russian language actually even `большое спасибо` can sound rude has it to be pronounced with some specific intonations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally it's just about some young men. Say, a sports commentator can say something like: &quot;Парни на воллейбольной площадке выложились сегодня по полной!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to put it in two lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Парень - a young man, dude, lade, mate, used quite widely.&#xD;&#xA; - Мужик - either rude  (when addressing somebody) or quite friendly informal word used in a close group of friends. Sort of something in the middle of `nigga` and `bro`. Used relatively rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32568" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13715" RevisionGUID="adddd04c-4ff5-4d98-8d4e-088fa1033811" CreationDate="2016-12-24T06:50:56.187" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Nuances of &quot;мужик&quot; versus &quot;парень&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13716" RevisionGUID="21afc1bd-98d5-4739-8f45-93aadb2e8329" CreationDate="2016-12-24T09:09:57.883" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It's almost like in Zootopia, remember, one bunny can call another bunny cute ) The same about `мужик` it's very informal and may be percepted (and intended to be such) rude if a man is addressed by a person who is not a close acquaintance or is higher in rank (social, job, military, whatever). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But no, `мужик` is definitely not used only in negative context. Say you are trying to move some heavy objects from your backyard. Saying to your friends something like &quot;навалимся, мужики&quot; will sound very friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider pretty common phrase - which is also used ironically though - &quot;ну ты мужик&quot; (something like &quot;you are quite a man&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `парень` - this also can sound rude if it intended to sound rude (&quot;эй, парень!&quot;) - in Russian language actually even `большое спасибо` can sound rude has it to be pronounced with some specific intonations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally it's just about some young men. Say, a sports commentator can say something like: &quot;Парни на воллейбольной площадке выложились сегодня по полной!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to put it in two lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Парень - a young man, dude, lade, mate, guy; used quite widely.&#xD;&#xA; - Мужик - either rude  (when addressing somebody) or quite friendly informal word used in a close group of friends. Sort of something in the middle of `nigga` and `bro`. Used relatively rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32570" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13715" RevisionGUID="107ddfad-de84-44bb-960c-7dca135d5972" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:24:01.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/812665134879571968" />
  <row Id="32571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13717" RevisionGUID="a22e9255-b91f-4b6e-8042-7d5b9ce6586c" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:28:13.403" UserId="6539" Text="We sometimes use the verb **ходить** in a broad sense of **быть**.Consider it not like a movement (on foot), but more like an event. We say **ходила** even if we used means of transport. We also use other words in the same sense (бегать,slang *мотаться*,*слетать*), all of them meaning **to quickly go and come back**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где ты была?– Да на почту ходила/бегала/моталась/слетала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't mean you actually **ran** or **flew** somewhere, you just visited the place. But it is also correct to use *ездила*, if you want to mention the means of transport. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13717" RevisionGUID="1c57d240-0889-42c0-af5d-e22cedc098d4" CreationDate="2016-12-24T14:34:10.280" UserId="6539" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="We sometimes use the verb **ходить** in a broad sense of **быть**.Consider it not like a movement (on foot),unless the post office is not very far, but more like an event. We say **ходила** even if we used means of transport. We also use other words in the same sense (бегать,slang *мотаться*,*слетать*), all of them meaning **to quickly go and come back**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Где ты была?– Да на почту ходила/бегала/моталась/слетала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't mean you actually **ran** or **flew** somewhere, you just visited the place. But it is also correct to use *ездила*, if you want to mention the means of transport. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32582" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13713" RevisionGUID="2c71f424-2ed4-4f35-b3f9-2f5c6cc264b9" CreationDate="2016-12-24T23:25:59.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/812801523520589824" />
  <row Id="32584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13722" RevisionGUID="de7ec5bf-f370-4f07-8909-c2e270077572" CreationDate="2016-12-25T03:13:49.500" UserId="8300" Text="(Sory for my English - I'm Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know (if to say shortly), as I understand, there is deference only in &#xD;&#xA;where - где&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;where to - куда&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at this phrases like at the questions: &#xD;&#xA;Какое там равенство шансов! - What is the equality of chances?&#xD;&#xA;где там шведам теперь нападать - WHERE sweden can attack now?&#xD;&#xA;AND&#xD;&#xA;Куда там каким-нибудь масонам? - WHERE are the [to be ?] some massons TO?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, there is, deference only in hues.You can say: &#xD;&#xA;КУДА там шведам теперь нападать.&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;ГДЕ там каким-нибудь масонам&quot;... Of course you can say so, and I'm already don't see the difference between Куда там and Где там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just look at these like at the questions and that's all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13722" RevisionGUID="76af4b66-840b-4d9e-8239-5f212aef5ab7" CreationDate="2016-12-25T04:23:03.393" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 43 characters in body" Text="As I understand, there is difference only in where - `где` and where to - `куда`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at this phrases like at the questions: &#xD;&#xA;Какое там равенство шансов! - What is the equality of chances?&#xD;&#xA;где там шведам теперь нападать - literally **where** Sweden can attack now?&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;Куда там каким-нибудь масонам? - **where** are the [to be ?] some masons **to**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, there is, difference is very subtle. You can say: &#xD;&#xA;куда там шведам теперь нападать.But &quot;где там каким-нибудь масонам&quot;... Of course you can say so, and I'm already don't see the difference between Куда там and Где там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just look at these like at the questions and that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13716" RevisionGUID="3e51313d-47b8-49d3-9667-fe8cadcc676e" CreationDate="2016-12-25T14:18:52.773" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It's almost like in Zootopia, remember, one bunny can call another bunny cute ) The same about `мужик` it's very informal and may be perceived (and intended to be such) as rude if a man is addressed by a person who is not a close acquaintance or is higher in rank (social, job, military, whatever). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But no, `мужик` is definitely not used only in negative contexts. Say you are trying to move some heavy objects from your backyard. Saying to your friends something like &quot;навалимся, мужики&quot; will sound very friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider pretty common phrase - which is also used ironically though - &quot;ну ты мужик&quot; (something like &quot;you are quite a man&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `парень` - this also can sound rude if it intended to sound rude (&quot;эй, парень!&quot;) - in Russian language actually even `большое спасибо` can sound rude has it to be pronounced with some specific intonations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally it's just about some young men. Say, a sports commentator can say something like: &quot;Парни на воллейбольной площадке выложились сегодня по полной!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to put it in two lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Парень - a young man, dude, lad, mate, guy; used quite widely.&#xD;&#xA; - Мужик - either rude  (when addressing somebody) or quite friendly informal word used in a close group of friends. Sort of something between `nigga` and `bro`. Used relatively rarely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32588" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="36e10a45-7afe-44ef-8c5a-505ecac9c163" CreationDate="2016-12-25T19:07:22.623" UserId="7896" Comment="Добавил метку &quot;грамматика&quot;" Text="|грамматика|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32589" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="36e10a45-7afe-44ef-8c5a-505ecac9c163" CreationDate="2016-12-25T19:07:22.623" Comment="Proposed by 7896 approved by 3680, 6725 edit id of 822" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13381" RevisionGUID="15475569-9b19-4c56-b5d1-23eb6c32cc6c" CreationDate="2016-12-25T23:26:22.950" UserId="7864" Comment="added:  ISO 9:1995: Information and documentation -- Transliteration of Cyrillic characters into Latin characters -- Slavic and non-Slavic languages" Text="As far as I know, the transliteration system depends on the language into which you transliterate the Russian name. For example, [Пётр Ильич Чайковский](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9F%D1%91%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B8%D1%87) is transliterated as [Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky) in English, [Pjotr Iljitsch Tschaikowski](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pjotr_Iljitsch_Tschaikowski) in German, [Piotr Ilitch Tchaïkovski](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Ilitch_Tcha%C3%AFkovski) in French, [Piotr Ilich Chaikovski](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Ilich_Chaikovski) in Spanish, [Pëtr Il'ič Čajkovskij](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%ABtr_Il%27i%C4%8D_%C4%8Cajkovskij) in Italian, etc., etc. [**Transliteration of the Russian alphabet**](http://www.boutler.de/translit/trans.htm) contains a comparative overview of translitations of Cyrillic in 12 languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the Wikipedia article [Romanization of Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian) you will notice that there are different transliteration system just for English, for example, the system used by the American Library Association and the Library of Congress ([ALA-LC](http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf)), British Standard [BS 2979:1958](http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000000090651), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passports are not the only area where consistent transliterations are important. Library catalogues are another one (although they can contain synonyms that &quot;redirect&quot; to the library's &quot;official&quot; transliteration system). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: ISO has a number of [standards related to transliteration](http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=01&amp;ICS2=140&amp;ICS3=10&amp;), one of which is [ISO 9:1995: Information and documentation -- Transliteration of Cyrillic characters into Latin characters -- Slavic and non-Slavic languages](http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=01&amp;ics2=140&amp;ics3=10&amp;csnumber=3589)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13723" RevisionGUID="0278b951-ea52-4d13-be38-56f578527742" CreationDate="2016-12-26T02:00:03.723" UserId="8301" Text="What about Я рад if a man says it, but if a woman says it, it's Я рада. In English, there's no spelling or pronouncing differences but this is what I was wondering about. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32592" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1756" RevisionGUID="911d67b3-9f2d-4e0f-9ac0-37750d5aaa27" CreationDate="2016-12-26T04:03:06.360" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="004c82b0-f762-4d04-a40d-bad7e2782704" CreationDate="2016-12-26T11:53:14.140" UserId="7864" Comment="Formatting and capitalisation." Text="Please clarify your needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to be able to respond to them using a Latin keyboard? Just type Russian words in transliteration, like &quot;Spasibo&quot;. I do it in all the games that have problems with Russian layout. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to type what they say in Google Translate so it translates things for you? Unfortunately, it can't accept transliteration as far as I know, but instead of typing you could use some application that can detect text and translate it for you. I am not a smartphone user, but I know that such applications exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32595" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12897" RevisionGUID="004c82b0-f762-4d04-a40d-bad7e2782704" CreationDate="2016-12-26T11:53:14.140" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 3680, 7544 edit id of 823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13710" RevisionGUID="b2121c0b-9f22-4086-a3fc-b5be29ce7c55" CreationDate="2016-12-27T02:41:27.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/813575492402024449" />
  <row Id="32598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13724" RevisionGUID="c55d0eeb-4597-4f16-9242-ca955c14dbe4" CreationDate="2016-12-27T03:53:12.780" UserId="6816" Text="I read on [Wiktionary][1] that `иначе` could have stress on the first or second syllable.&#xA;&#xA;1. Which pronunciation is more common in your experience?&#xA;2. Why does such a common word not have a standard pronunciation like most others?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/иначе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13724" RevisionGUID="c55d0eeb-4597-4f16-9242-ca955c14dbe4" CreationDate="2016-12-27T03:53:12.780" UserId="6816" Text="Pronunciation/etymology of иначе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13724" RevisionGUID="c55d0eeb-4597-4f16-9242-ca955c14dbe4" CreationDate="2016-12-27T03:53:12.780" UserId="6816" Text="|этимология|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13725" RevisionGUID="5365245b-f9e9-43e6-83ef-4ee6198bddd9" CreationDate="2016-12-27T05:32:03.380" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Which pronunciation is more common in your experience?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ина́че is more common in speech though both variants are equal in terms of orthoepy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Why does such a common word not have a standard pronunciation like most others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually in Russian quite a few words may have different stresses. In this particular case, I guess, the form &quot;и́наче&quot; was due to Church Slavonic influence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32607" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13724" RevisionGUID="6433ab26-763b-42cb-bbec-79bdfe90ba18" CreationDate="2016-12-27T14:43:51.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/813757290926968833" />
  <row Id="32608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="36a18f2c-d2f4-42ba-ad19-bceba82166dc" CreationDate="2016-12-27T14:56:08.493" UserId="3892" Text="When I look in dictionaries, they give me *driveway*, but then the following sentences don't really make sense. It sounds more like a part of a building (complex):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы живем в одном **подъезде**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя квартира -- в четверном **подъезде** на третьем этаже.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она работает консьержкой в нашем **подъезде**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она убирает в нашем **подъезде**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="36a18f2c-d2f4-42ba-ad19-bceba82166dc" CreationDate="2016-12-27T14:56:08.493" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of подъезд" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="36a18f2c-d2f4-42ba-ad19-bceba82166dc" CreationDate="2016-12-27T14:56:08.493" UserId="3892" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13727" RevisionGUID="ff19c270-a38b-4e2e-99c2-dacca20f8b83" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:13:32.497" UserId="551" Text="Its &quot;communal entrance hallway&quot; or &quot;entrance of an apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Other synonym is &quot;парадное&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13728" RevisionGUID="adc7a02c-de02-4694-96f7-27c85c8cf9cf" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:13:46.600" UserId="3680" Text="`Подъезд` - is a (multilevel) block of appartments with a common entrance.  &#xD;&#xA;Another meaning _driveway_ is also correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="fdfb1c93-6212-4d8c-af15-adc7cdc645ff" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:17:02.030" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="First of all, let me point out that questions in form &quot;Why this specific word is associated with this specific concept&quot; are not that good. Why is Russian &quot;хрю&quot; associated with what is described in English with &quot;oink&quot;? Why in vulgar Latin did &quot;caballus&quot; override the usage of &quot;equus&quot;? As to me, those are a bit broader than a valuable question can contain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about &quot;баю-бай&quot;. It is closely related to the russian word &quot;байка&quot;, both these words are derivatives of the verb &quot;[баять][1]&quot; - which can be translated as (among other things) &quot;to cast a spell&quot;. The very same root can be met in &quot;обаяние&quot; (charm) and &quot;басня&quot; (fable). Moreover, fable is actually related tо &quot;баять&quot; оn a PIE level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;басиньки&quot; - I guess it's a way to mimic childish speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13727" RevisionGUID="965777ef-252c-44f7-b10c-37aa350aa34a" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:19:08.963" UserId="551" Comment="added 556 characters in body" Text="Its &quot;communal entrance hallway&quot; or &quot;entrance of an apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Other synonym is &quot;парадное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One building can have multiple entrances which lead to a different parts of a building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы живем в одном подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We use common entrance to the apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя квартира -- в четверном подъезде на третьем этаже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My apartments are in the 4th entrance, on the third floor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она работает консьержкой в нашем подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She is a doorkeeper of the entrance we use&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она убирает в нашем подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She cleans the entrance (and staircase, and other commonly used indoor spaces - hallway, corridors, elevators) we use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Driveway is also correct, but &quot;entrance&quot; is more commonly used in cities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13727" RevisionGUID="54e72a2b-c92a-4f43-9c33-21e56a85e307" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:42:04.437" UserId="551" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Its &quot;communal entrance hallway&quot; or &quot;entrance of an apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Other synonym is &quot;парадное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One building can have multiple entrances which lead to a different parts of a building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы живем в одном подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We use common entrance to the apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя квартира -- в четверном подъезде на третьем этаже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My apartments are in the 4th entrance, on the third floor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она работает консьержкой в нашем подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She is a doorkeeper of the entrance we use&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она убирает в нашем подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She cleans the entrance (and staircase, and other commonly used indoor spaces - hallway, corridors, elevators) we use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last example illustrates the idea of подъезд as a &quot;section of an apartment building that uses single entrance&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Driveway is also correct, but &quot;entrance&quot; is more commonly used in cities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13729" RevisionGUID="ab03103a-af93-4e7b-8f60-4e35bc366adf" CreationDate="2016-12-27T15:51:14.577" UserId="1236" Text="As an addition to @Artemix' answer, here's a picture of what a _подъезд_ looks like. Usually buildings have several of them, they are counted from left to right, so the leftmost arrow points to the _первый подъезд_, the next one is _второй подъезд_, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jv2Fh.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="087dcf0d-4946-438d-919b-4ada3ff0f52f" CreationDate="2016-12-27T17:37:20.580" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="First of all, let me point out that questions in form &quot;Why is this specific word associated with this specific concept&quot; are not that good. Why is Russian &quot;хрю&quot; associated with what is described in English with &quot;oink&quot;? Why in vulgar Latin did &quot;caballus&quot; override the usage of &quot;equus&quot;? As to me, those are a bit broader than a valuable question can contain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, about &quot;баю-бай&quot;. It is closely related to the russian word &quot;байка&quot;, both these words are derivatives of the verb &quot;[баять][1]&quot; - which can be translated as (among other things) &quot;to cast a spell&quot;. The very same root can be met in &quot;обаяние&quot; (charm) and &quot;басня&quot; (fable). Moreover, fable is actually related tо &quot;баять&quot; оn a PIE level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;басиньки&quot; - I guess it's a way to mimic childish speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13730" RevisionGUID="6cfca9f7-e58e-4fc4-8061-839ab358ba43" CreationDate="2016-12-27T21:40:16.267" UserId="7334" Text="I believe it's not about animated/inanimated or feminine. It's just about ending of the word.&#xD;&#xA;Totally doesn't matter if one is animated or inanimated if it ends with 'a', like 'река', or 'палка'.&#xD;&#xA;But defenetely it's more common for Russian language that any word ending with 'a' have feminine semantic. But not every word.&#xD;&#xA;You can take for instance word 'братишка' - which means little brother (masculine, animated) and it will *behave* exactly like word 'кошка' - the correct examples already presented to you above: 'братишки' 'братишку' - both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="9a435b3b-5251-48eb-b912-7a4818f00601" CreationDate="2016-12-27T22:47:43.540" UserId="4629" Text="On the etymology, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fasmer maintains that *иначе* is the comparative form of the Old Slavonic *инáкъ* (инакий, иной — different, other). The morphology may be the same as in the pairs *яркий &gt; ярче*, *громкий &gt; громче*, *мелкий &gt; мельче* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13731" RevisionGUID="ac725b55-a4f6-4e3b-b4e0-0902ecc1bced" CreationDate="2016-12-27T23:13:04.973" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="On the etymology, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fasmer maintains that *иначе* is the comparative form of the Old Slavonic *инáкъ* (инакий, иной — different, other). The morphology may be the same as in the pairs *яркий &gt; ярче*, *громкий &gt; громче*, *мелкий &gt; мельче* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13732" RevisionGUID="5fba375d-985e-4fb6-a376-c38e76f2ba9d" CreationDate="2016-12-27T23:30:46.327" UserId="4629" Text="On the pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;You may find the following excerpt interesting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваше имя в платочки рассоплено,  &#xD;&#xA;ваше слово слюнявит Собинов,  &#xD;&#xA;и выводит под берёзкой дохлой —  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ни слова, о дру-уг мой, ни вздо-о-о-о-ха&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Эх, поговорить бы **и́наче**  &#xD;&#xA;с этим самым с Леонидом Лоэнгринычем!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В.Маяковский. &quot;Сергею Есенину&quot;, 1926&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether stressing the first syllable used to be the standard pronunciation and we are witnessing it drawing its last breath today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32624" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="aea36975-9752-4601-b282-d840d6344150" CreationDate="2016-12-27T23:42:28.247" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;подъезд&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13730" RevisionGUID="8920a19b-816b-4df3-8cfe-e0d4fb661801" CreationDate="2016-12-28T01:54:58.533" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe it's not about animated/inanimated or feminine. It's just about ending of the word.&#xD;&#xA;Totally doesn't matter if one is animated or inanimated if it ends with 'a', like 'река', or 'палка'.&#xD;&#xA;But definitely it's more common for Russian language that any word ending with 'a' have feminine semantic. But not every word.&#xD;&#xA;You can take for instance word 'братишка' - which means little brother (masculine, animated) and it will *behave* exactly like word 'кошка' - the correct examples already presented to you above: 'братишки' 'братишку' - both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13733" RevisionGUID="d5bcd8ff-e4e7-4595-9a44-ec162117fc8a" CreationDate="2016-12-28T07:31:11.413" UserId="5008" Text="I believe it's easier to illustrate these differences by examples from English. Actually it's much like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Accusative: Я не вижу кошку --&gt; I don't see (a / the) cat  &#xD;&#xA;Genitive: Я не вижу кошки --&gt; I see no cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not about animate/inanimate nouns at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="2b7aa3e3-8eea-47c6-a16f-fc6b77c777ca" CreationDate="2016-12-28T11:48:21.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/814075511999709184" />
  <row Id="32631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13727" RevisionGUID="2668102d-07f7-4669-a4e5-48403c190127" CreationDate="2016-12-28T12:26:29.263" UserId="551" Comment="edited body" Text="Its &quot;communal entrance hallway&quot; or &quot;entrance of an apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Other synonym is &quot;парадное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One building can have multiple entrances which lead to a different parts of a building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы живем в одном подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We use common entrance to the apartment building&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя квартира -- в четвертом подъезде на третьем этаже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My apartments are in the 4th entrance, on the third floor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она работает консьержкой в нашем подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She is a doorkeeper of the entrance we use&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она убирает в нашем подъезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She cleans the entrance (and staircase, and other commonly used indoor spaces - hallway, corridors, elevators) we use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last example illustrates the idea of подъезд as a &quot;section of an apartment building that uses single entrance&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Driveway is also correct, but &quot;entrance&quot; is more commonly used in cities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="e10dcc3a-6010-4a14-a8dd-095b5f6e9d04" CreationDate="2016-12-28T13:51:49.490" UserId="7864" Comment="Formatting" Text="Because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the Russian past tense is the past perfect   &#xD;&#xA; - the past perfect is the past tense form of the verb (eg _пел_) + the present tense form of the auxiliary verb  &#xD;&#xA; - the past tense form of the verb is a predicate adjective  &#xD;&#xA; - predicate adjectives requires gender/number agreement  &#xD;&#xA; - the auxiliary verb is the copula (*быть*)  &#xD;&#xA; - **the copula is dropped in modern Russian in the present tense**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(That dropped copula is what causes the confusion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if we include the copula, as in older* Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он есть пел.  &#xD;&#xA;Она есть пела.  &#xD;&#xA;Оно есть пело.  &#xD;&#xA;Они суть пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы есмы пели.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is analogous to Ukrainian, Serbian and so on (and even Italian and French for many verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was true for Russian copula in any situation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он есть инженер.  Погода есть хорошая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in modern Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ∅ пел.  &#xD;&#xA;Она ∅ пела.  &#xD;&#xA;Оно ∅ пело.  &#xD;&#xA;Они ∅ пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы ∅ пели.  &#xD;&#xA;Он ∅ инженер.  &#xD;&#xA;Погода ∅ хорошая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The copula is dropped, but the agreement is still required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*How old is old?*  [Wikipedia article on zero copula][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present tense of the copula in Russian was in common use well into the 19th Century (as attested in the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky) but is now used only for archaic effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32633" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="e10dcc3a-6010-4a14-a8dd-095b5f6e9d04" CreationDate="2016-12-28T13:51:49.490" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 5605, 551 edit id of 824" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13726" RevisionGUID="6ca8c700-3400-4197-90fb-5648bd493378" CreationDate="2016-12-28T15:55:11.013" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="When I look in dictionaries, they give me *driveway*, but then the following sentences don't really make sense. It sounds more like a part of a building (complex):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы живем в одном **подъезде**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя квартира -- в четвертом **подъезде** на третьем этаже.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она работает консьержкой в нашем **подъезде**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она убирает в нашем **подъезде**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13734" RevisionGUID="23030ced-3944-477b-a294-9fc280a1e315" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:16:50.917" UserId="3680" Text="Очень часто наблюдаю во всевозможных источниках, что люди почему-то путают понятия `число` и `цифра`.  &#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 3 млрд. - очень большая **цифра** для ...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Хотелось бы озвучить **цифру**...  &#xD;&#xA; *И дальше называют **число**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Этот кошмар можно услышать почти каждый день в новостях даже на федеральных каналах.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако люди не путают понятия, которые соотносятся приблизительно так же, например: `слово` и `буква`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос: почему именно `число` и `цифра`?  &#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какие-либо объективные причины / исторические предпосылки / иное?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я было предположил, что это из-за того, что есть аж 10 чисел, которые выражаются одной цифрой. Однако и однобуквенные слова тоже есть.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13734" RevisionGUID="23030ced-3944-477b-a294-9fc280a1e315" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:16:50.917" UserId="3680" Text="Почему люди путают цифры и числа?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13734" RevisionGUID="23030ced-3944-477b-a294-9fc280a1e315" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:16:50.917" UserId="3680" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|словоприменение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13735" RevisionGUID="fefb1779-e80b-4378-80d0-25f70b3980d1" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:26:40.570" UserId="8310" Text="On Duolingo, I was asked to construct the sentence, &quot;Dad always has questions.&quot; The correct answer was &quot;У папы всегда есть вопросы.&quot; I got it wrong since I left out есть but I was wondering if this would be wrong 100% of the time or not. Like let's say I'm annoyed that he's always asking questions. Or... if there's any other way to construct that same sentence. It's said that Russian has less structure than other languages overall, but thus far Duolingo's sentences are pretty structured. Any advice/examples on flexibility to feed my curiosity? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13735" RevisionGUID="fefb1779-e80b-4378-80d0-25f70b3980d1" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:26:40.570" UserId="8310" Text="Is this always wrong? (есть)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13735" RevisionGUID="fefb1779-e80b-4378-80d0-25f70b3980d1" CreationDate="2016-12-28T20:26:40.570" UserId="8310" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13736" RevisionGUID="6c58d5f6-379a-4cb5-8a57-c6b8d7abfb73" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:05:25.017" UserId="242" Text="In the majority of cases it's actually not wrong to omit word &quot;есть&quot; and your particular example it is indeed completely acceptable to say just &quot;У папы всегда вопросы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian whenever you can use &quot;есть&quot; (in sense to have) / &quot;имеется&quot;  + noun you can omit this verb for affirmation. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `У меня есть билет на концерт`  / `у меня билет на концерт`&#xD;&#xA; - `Там есть еда` /  `там еда`&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It's getting more complicated for questions: `Там еда?` is acceptable but `есть там еда?` is used more often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if affirmative sentence starts with `есть` it can not be omitted. One can not just say `что выпить?` instead of `есть что выпить?`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is intentionally simplified, there are some constructions that de-facto are used more often with `есть` than without it, but I believe this is enough for understanding basic usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to mention that sometimes this `есть` is used for emotional amplification, some in some context `у меня вопрос` can sound like `I have a question` and `у меня есть вопрос` is something like `I do have a question`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32646" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13735" RevisionGUID="956f58a5-9129-402d-b74d-4250a16dab13" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:06:07.313" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;У папы есть вопросы&quot; or &quot;у папы вопросы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="8d717732-2605-40a3-aea8-b6e99c092dd4" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:20:30.130" UserId="242" Text="**Короткий ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Люди в обиходной речи  часто путают/смешивают понятия, которые близко связаны. Если такой точности достаточно в контексте той информации, в которой она используется - то по факту словоупотребления остаётся лишь констатировать тот факт что да, эти понятия путают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Развёрнутый ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю смысла объяснять, почему путают понятия числа и цифры нет. Поставьте мысленный эксперимент - от вас зависит судьбы человечества, на нас летят инопланетяне - а так вышло, что только вот именно вы сейчас возле Самой Главной Пушки. И вот вам звонит их центра кто-то и говорит &quot;Сейчас я вам продиктую координаты главного крейсера противника. Записывайте цифры!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сомневаюсь, что вы положите трубку, потому что ясный же пень, что имеются-то ввиду числа. А почему вы не положите трубку? А потому что вам из контекста ясно, что имеется ввиду. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом для обывательского словоупотребления (и я не произношу в слово `обывательский` с какой-то презрительной ухмылкой) не такое уж редкое явление неправильное словоупотребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой любимый пример - слово `плечо`. В анатомическом смысле `плечо` - это вот эта вот часть руки (рисунок честно позаимствован [отсюда][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Та же часть, которую называют плечом в обиходной речи - это часть &quot;настоящего плеча&quot; и плечевой сустав.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тот факт, что мы живём в мире, где есть статьи вроде &quot;Пуля попала ему в плечо&quot;, &quot;как накачать мышцы плеч&quot; - живём и как-то не цивилизация не гибнет - свидетельство того, что нужно проще относится к таким вещам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BE_(%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKQ9i.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="988a967f-aba9-420e-833d-2d5336258397" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:29:56.753" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Короткий ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Люди в обиходной речи  часто путают/смешивают понятия, которые близко связаны. Если такой точности достаточно в контексте той информации, в которой она используется - то по факту словоупотребления остаётся лишь констатировать тот факт что да, эти понятия путают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Развёрнутый ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю смысла объяснять, почему путают понятия числа и цифры нет. Поставьте мысленный эксперимент - от вас зависит судьбы человечества, на нас летят инопланетяне - а так вышло, что только вот именно вы сейчас возле Самой Главной Пушки. И вот вам звонит их центра кто-то и говорит &quot;Сейчас я вам продиктую координаты главного крейсера противника. Записывайте цифры!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сомневаюсь, что вы положите трубку, потому что ясный же пень, что имеются-то ввиду числа. А почему вы не положите трубку? А потому что вам из контекста ясно, что имеется ввиду. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом для обывательского словоупотребления (и я не произношу в слово `обывательский` с какой-то презрительной ухмылкой) не такое уж редкое явление неправильное словоупотребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой любимый пример - слово `плечо`. В анатомическом смысле `плечо` - это вот эта вот часть руки (рисунок честно позаимствован [отсюда][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Та же часть, которую называют плечом в обиходной речи - это часть &quot;настоящего&quot; плеча и даже надплечья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тот факт, что мы живём в мире, где есть статьи вроде &quot;Пуля попала ему в плечо&quot;, &quot;как накачать мышцы плеч&quot; - живём и как-то не цивилизация не гибнет - свидетельство того, что нужно проще относится к таким вещам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BE_(%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKQ9i.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="0afbc4d9-17db-42a8-b39e-33b15a660a7d" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:48:27.573" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="**Короткий ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Люди в обиходной речи  часто путают/смешивают понятия, которые близко связаны. Если такой точности достаточно в контексте той информации, в которой она используется - то по факту словоупотребления остаётся лишь констатировать тот факт что да, эти понятия путают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Развёрнутый ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю смысла объяснять, почему путают понятия числа и цифры нет. Поставьте мысленный эксперимент - от вас зависит судьбы человечества, на нас летят инопланетяне - а так вышло, что только вот именно вы сейчас возле Самой Главной Пушки. И вот вам звонит их центра кто-то и говорит &quot;Сейчас я вам продиктую координаты главного крейсера противника. Записывайте цифры!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сомневаюсь, что вы положите трубку, потому что ясный же пень, что имеются-то ввиду числа. А почему вы не положите трубку? А потому что вам из контекста ясно, что имеется ввиду. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом для обывательского словоупотребления (и я не произношу в слово `обывательский` с какой-то презрительной ухмылкой) не такое уж редкое явление неправильное словоупотребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой любимый пример - слово `плечо`. В анатомическом смысле `плечо` - это вот эта вот часть руки (рисунок [отсюда][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Та же часть, которую называют плечом в обиходной речи - это часть &quot;настоящего&quot; плеча и даже надплечья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тот факт, что мы живём в мире, где есть статьи вроде &quot;Пуля попала ему в плечо&quot;, &quot;как накачать мышцы плеч&quot; - живём и как-то не цивилизация не гибнет - свидетельство того, что нужно проще относится к таким вещам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BE_(%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKQ9i.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13737" RevisionGUID="366fa343-3edd-47b5-9244-177781f8744e" CreationDate="2016-12-29T00:33:49.800" UserId="242" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="**Короткий ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Люди в обиходной речи  часто путают/смешивают понятия, которые близко связаны. Если такой точности достаточно в контексте той информации, в которой она используется - то по факту словоупотребления остаётся лишь констатировать тот факт что да, эти понятия путают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Развёрнутый ответ**&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю смысла объяснять, почему путают понятия числа и цифры нет. Поставьте мысленный эксперимент - от вас зависит судьбы человечества, на нас летят инопланетяне - а так вышло, что только вот именно вы сейчас возле Самой Главной Пушки. И вот вам звонит их центра кто-то и говорит &quot;Сейчас я вам продиктую координаты главного крейсера противника. Записывайте цифры!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я сомневаюсь, что вы положите трубку, потому что ясный же пень, что имеются-то ввиду числа. А почему вы не положите трубку? А потому что вам из контекста ясно, что имеется ввиду. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом для обывательского словоупотребления (и я не произношу в слово `обывательский` с какой-то презрительной ухмылкой) не такое уж редкое явление неправильное словоупотребление.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой любимый пример - слово `плечо`. В анатомическом смысле `плечо` - это вот эта вот часть руки (рисунок [отсюда][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Та же часть, которую называют плечом в обиходной речи - это часть &quot;настоящего&quot; плеча и даже надплечья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тот факт, что мы живём в мире, где есть вопиюще неточные статьи вроде &quot;Пуля попала ему в плечо&quot;, &quot;как накачать мышцы плеч&quot; - живём и как-то не цивилизация не гибнет - свидетельство того, что нужно проще относится к таким вещам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BE_(%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eKQ9i.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32651" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13702" RevisionGUID="2a2e1b9f-c894-4460-bf2a-219140682462" CreationDate="2016-12-29T03:07:40.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/814306864406134784" />
  <row Id="32652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13738" RevisionGUID="9d55756a-c45f-4aaa-9c4f-c849457cd9d3" CreationDate="2016-12-29T06:26:40.127" UserId="6539" Text="Тут дело не в неграмотности населения, а в многозначности слова. Посмотрите в словарь.&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова **Цифра** по Ефремовой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Цифра - 1. Знак для обозначения числа. &#xD;&#xA;2. разг. **Сумма, число**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, переносить второе значение в письменную речь рановато, но, видимо, тенденция уже налицо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13738" RevisionGUID="2883207c-a52d-43f2-8032-1154e3ab0600" CreationDate="2016-12-29T06:32:35.817" UserId="6539" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Тут дело не в неграмотности населения, а в многозначности слова,точнее в расширении значения в языке. Посмотрите в словарь.&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова **Цифра** по Ефремовой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Цифра - 1. Знак для обозначения числа. &#xD;&#xA;2. разг. **Сумма, число**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, переносить второе значение в письменную речь рановато, но, видимо, тенденция уже налицо,поскольку зафиксирована даже в словаре." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13738" RevisionGUID="51527887-fd7f-47a6-885c-787e2f2293e3" CreationDate="2016-12-29T06:41:37.530" UserId="6539" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="Тут дело не в неграмотности населения, а в многозначности слова,точнее в расширении значения в языке. Посмотрите в словарь.&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова **Цифра** по Ефремовой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Цифра - 1. Знак для обозначения числа. &#xD;&#xA;2. разг. **Сумма, число**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение слова **Цифра** по Ожегову:&#xD;&#xA;Цифра - **Показатель, расчет чего-нибудь, выраженный в числах**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Цифра Знак, обозначающий число &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, переносить второе значение в письменную речь рановато, но, видимо, тенденция уже налицо, поскольку зафиксирована даже в словаре." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13739" RevisionGUID="bfa0b314-8df3-4d4e-9b1e-1aab9e741504" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:02:13.387" UserId="5622" Text="Both could be used to describe a third person: *У дверей стоял хорошо одетый парень. К нам подошел здоровенный мужик.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is assumed maturity *парень* has a side meaning of being young.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are acceptable when addressing multiple persons directly: *Мужики/Парни, что здесь случилось?* Both are acceptable when addressing friend(s). When addressing an unknown person both have carry some rude intonations but *мужик* is softer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases of direct addressing *мужик* is way more popular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13740" RevisionGUID="872541f4-dbfa-45d0-a4ba-95a029ccda4e" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:06:42.907" UserId="5622" Text="*Завтра нас здесь не будет* - passive expression not highlighting the mean of leaving&#xD;&#xA;*Завтра мы уедем отсюда* - active equivalent with *мы*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13741" RevisionGUID="8ca2ad87-6618-45f9-af9f-c0c38f29c46b" CreationDate="2016-12-29T15:13:43.233" UserId="4560" Text="1. Мне кажется, у обиходно употребляемого так слова &quot;цифра&quot; смысл более узкий, чем у слова &quot;число&quot;. Оно означает &quot;число, имеющее некую материальную значимость или важность&quot;. Вряд ли при каком угодно градусе разговорности доведется услышать, что &quot;цифра 13 несчастливая&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. У слова &quot;число&quot; в той же обиходной речи настолько преобладает значение &quot;день месяца&quot;, что &quot;правильное&quot; употребление даже немного сбивает с толку: &quot;число? при чем тут календарь? а, в смысле *цифра*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13742" RevisionGUID="23b9a013-91b6-4bdb-9b4c-63552364654b" CreationDate="2016-12-29T16:22:56.987" UserId="194" Text="В статистике, цифра - статистический показатель. Так что, первый пример верен. Цифра в статистике - это не обязательно, количество. Это может быть, например, процент, доля, соотношение, корреляция, прирост, долг и т.д. Может быть и количество, и число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Число же - это количество физических единиц. Это даже более узко, чем количество. Может быть количество денег, но не может быть числа денег (а вот число грузовиков может быть). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13742" RevisionGUID="92857563-fb0a-4c3f-b799-72891b24e7dc" CreationDate="2016-12-29T16:28:39.900" UserId="194" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="В статистике, цифра - статистический показатель. Так что, первый пример верен. Цифра в статистике - это не обязательно, количество. Это может быть, например, процент, доля, соотношение, корреляция, прирост, долг и т.д. Может быть и количество, и число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Число же - это количество физических единиц. Это даже более узко, чем количество. Может быть количество денег, но не может быть числа денег (а вот число грузовиков может быть). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть цифра долга, но не может быть количества долга и числа долга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть цифра денег на счету (усреднённая или на конец года), может быть количество денег на счету, но не может быть числа денег на счету." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13740" RevisionGUID="77ab6dbd-8d34-4d99-a88e-abf262a1aa7f" CreationDate="2016-12-29T17:00:49.610" UserId="551" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="*Завтра нас здесь не будет* - passive expression not highlighting the mean of leaving  &#xD;&#xA;*Завтра мы уедем отсюда* - active equivalent with *мы*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32663" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13735" RevisionGUID="b1c3fe9e-cb37-476f-98c6-7eb730d1cd1f" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:07:43.407" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/814578668232183808" />
  <row Id="32664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="be21c235-e396-4318-a5e2-e09eef361820" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:15:25.170" UserId="551" Text="Why is it called so? Дембель is a soldier that ends his service soon. Why аккорд?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="be21c235-e396-4318-a5e2-e09eef361820" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:15:25.170" UserId="551" Text="What is дембельский аккорд?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="be21c235-e396-4318-a5e2-e09eef361820" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:15:25.170" UserId="551" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13744" RevisionGUID="486046d1-b858-4999-bb86-fb2fffeb76ca" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:21:34.923" UserId="3680" Text="[Аккордная работа](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/473385/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B4) — разовая работа, оплачиваемая по её полному выполнению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Де́мбельский акко́рд](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B4) — объём разовых работ, выполняемый по приказу командования военнослужащими срочной службы (как правило в последние один-два месяца перед увольнением в запас), условия выполнения которого неформально связаны с датой их предстоящего увольнения и мотивируются последней." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="396c0258-2b4f-4ca9-bb8c-cfebbd792d3f" CreationDate="2016-12-29T21:24:24.523" UserId="551" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Why is it called so? Дембель is a soldier that ends his service soon. Why аккорд?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like it is some kind of an action before service ends. Does any action qualifies for the &quot;chord&quot;? Does it imply some kind of joke? (E.g. painting horses into zebras or something like that, which is found out after that person(s) leave the army)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13745" RevisionGUID="5015b16e-a0f9-4cbd-8800-86d3074b6857" CreationDate="2016-12-29T22:54:19.360" UserId="5020" Text="Check these two!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Russian essential grammar and conversational language][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Russian language in 25 lessons][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://amzn.to/2hxs0Ln&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://amzn.to/2id6RH6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32671" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7888" RevisionGUID="315295b4-cd58-470c-aa34-eddc7d4066c0" CreationDate="2016-12-29T23:05:40.170" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[833],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32672" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="6a4eaad4-740d-4c45-9022-ce43eee9a212" CreationDate="2016-12-29T23:05:59.030" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is &quot;дембельский аккорд&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13706" RevisionGUID="ae9a7974-9291-4d1b-b114-51ff5d80b660" CreationDate="2016-12-30T00:08:38.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/814624196533829632" />
  <row Id="32674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="127bb2b8-125d-4820-b812-8fc25c8cf537" CreationDate="2016-12-30T03:52:13.673" UserId="6153" Text="While reading https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Interrogative_Pronouns it's not clear to me the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He talks about the girl who works there - Он говорит о девушке, *которая* работает там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why которая is not declined with the prepositional case? Can you give me more examples of this? They also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You may notice that какой ('what kind'), который ('what/which'), and чей ('whose'), are adjectives. They are therefore called adjectival pronouns. As such, when they are used in a sentence, they take on the ending appropriate for the gender and number of the noun it refers to, and the case appropriate for where it is in the sentence. This can mean that it takes on a different case to its noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="127bb2b8-125d-4820-b812-8fc25c8cf537" CreationDate="2016-12-30T03:52:13.673" UserId="6153" Text="Interrogative pronoums declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="127bb2b8-125d-4820-b812-8fc25c8cf537" CreationDate="2016-12-30T03:52:13.673" UserId="6153" Text="|падежи|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32677" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="7a54c778-2c48-41a2-aa1e-7ddc77c1c7b2" CreationDate="2016-12-30T03:58:01.360" UserId="6153" Comment="edited title" Text="Interrogative pronoums taking different case than it's noum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13747" RevisionGUID="3765aaf0-b83f-4a3a-9b79-95c748838cec" CreationDate="2016-12-30T04:24:47.190" UserId="6816" Text="I believe it takes the case of the part of the clause it is in. For example,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Он говорил о девушке, у которой есть много денег.&#xA;&#xA;Here, `которой` is genitive, because *in the second clause `у` is used.*&#xA;&#xA;In your example, `которая` is in nominative because the girl is the subject of the **clause** (i.e., she is the one working).&#xA;&#xA;Another example:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я увидел человека, которому нравится сыр.&#xA;&#xA;Here, it is in the dative, regardless of the fact that accusative is required in the first clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="8ecd7a3d-dbe8-4057-9034-ca5a8f983aa8" CreationDate="2016-12-30T04:50:09.243" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="While reading https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Interrogative_Pronouns it's not clear to me the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He talks about the girl who works there - Он говорит о девушке, *которая* работает там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why которая is not declined with the prepositional case? Can you give me more examples of this? They also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You may notice that какой ('what kind'), который ('what/which'), and чей ('whose'), are adjectives. They are therefore called adjectival pronouns. As such, when they are used in a sentence, they take on the ending appropriate for the gender and number of the noun it refers to, and the case appropriate for where it is in the sentence. This can mean that it takes on a different case to its noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32680" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="8ecd7a3d-dbe8-4057-9034-ca5a8f983aa8" CreationDate="2016-12-30T04:50:09.243" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited title" Text="Interrogative pronoums taking different case than it's noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32681" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="bc5ed0b5-2436-4f4e-bd71-740e5674c2bc" CreationDate="2016-12-30T05:04:43.647" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Interrogative pronouns taking different case than it's noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13748" RevisionGUID="6ad758c7-fee4-42f5-91ea-3af72e341447" CreationDate="2016-12-30T05:46:15.430" UserId="6539" Text="A relative clause in Russian is joined by a pronoun, the relative pronoun который &quot;who, which, that&quot;. Actually, который is a conjunction, joining  a subordinate clause. **Который** introduces a sentence that modifies the noun in the main clause.  For this reason it has to agree in **number and gender** with the **noun** it modifies like adjectives. However, unlike regular adjectives, it *does not agree with that noun* in case; rather, **it reflects the case of its function in the subordinate clause**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот *мужчина*(masculine, singular ), с **которым**(masculine, singular ) я вчера&#xD;&#xA;познакомился	.This is the man who(m) I met yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Которым** agrees in gender (masculine) and number (singular) with the noun to which it connects the subordinate clause. However, it reflects the case demanded by the preposition с, the instrumental, in the clause it introduces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он влюбился в девушку, которая живет напротив.(девушка живет напротив--которая )&#xD;&#xA;He fell in love with the girl who lived across the street. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мой сын не ладит с ребятами, которые живут в нашем доме.(ребята живут в нашем доме--которые )&#xD;&#xA;My son doesn't get along with the children who live in our house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не читал книгу, о которой вы говорите. (вы говорите о книге --которой.)&#xD;&#xA;I didn't read the book you are talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32683" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13692" RevisionGUID="3f9f3e25-5b79-4404-b262-d6e6b0d16266" CreationDate="2016-12-30T06:08:34.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/814714778316898304" />
  <row Id="32684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13748" RevisionGUID="616db080-e017-41a2-a768-0b53d4f71036" CreationDate="2016-12-30T06:28:22.093" UserId="6539" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="A relative clause in Russian is joined by a pronoun, the relative pronoun который &quot;who, which, that&quot;. Actually, который is a conjunction, joining  a subordinate clause. **Который** introduces a sentence that modifies the noun in the main clause.  For this reason it has to agree in **number and gender** with the **noun** it modifies like adjectives. However, unlike regular adjectives, it *does not agree with that noun* in case; because it doesn't belong to that clause , **it reflects the case of its function in the subordinate clause**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот *мужчина*(masculine, singular ), с **которым**(masculine, singular ) я вчера&#xD;&#xA;познакомился	.This is the man who(m) I met yesterday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Которым** agrees in gender (masculine) and number (singular) with the noun to which it connects the subordinate clause. However, it reflects the case demanded by the preposition с, the instrumental, in the clause it introduces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он влюбился в девушку, которая живет напротив.(девушка живет напротив--которая )&#xD;&#xA;He fell in love with the girl who lived across the street. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мой сын не ладит с ребятами, которые живут в нашем доме.(ребята живут в нашем доме--которые )&#xD;&#xA;My son doesn't get along with the children who live in our house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не читал книгу, о которой вы говорите. (вы говорите о книге --которой.)&#xD;&#xA;I didn't read the book you are talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13110" RevisionGUID="cb85533f-eddc-4f43-8482-9e53711aaf30" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:12:19.690" UserId="7864" Comment="minor edits: capitalisation and formatting" Text="I think it is, although I can't prove it, or maybe I can by comparing the number of originally Latin words used in an English sentence with their number in its translation into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's explainable, I think, mainly by the fact that the territory of the eastern Slavic tribes was never subjected to direct Roman influence and influence of the Catholic church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Грецизмы** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Заметный след (некоторые считают, что наибольший[5]) оставили&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грецизмы, пришедшие в древнерусский язык в основном через посредство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; старославянского в связи с процессом завершения христианизации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; славянских государств. Активную роль в этом процессе принимала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Византия. Начинается формирование древнерусского (восточнославянского)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка. К грецизмам периода X—XVII веков относятся слова:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;научные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; термины: математика, философия, история, грамматика;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;бытовые термины:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; известь, сахар, скамья, тетрадь, фонарь; наименования растений и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; животных: буйвол, фасоль, свёкла и другие; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;из области религии:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; анафема, ангел, епископ, демон, икона, монах, монастырь, лампада,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пономарь. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Более поздние заимствования относятся главным образом к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; области искусства и науки: хорей, комедия, мантия, стих, логика,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аналогия и другие. Многие греческие слова, получившие статус&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интернациональных, попали в русский язык через западноевропейские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Латинизмы**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;К XVII веку появились переводы с латинского языка на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; церковнославянский, в том числе Геннадиевская Библия. В русский язык с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тех пор начинается проникновение латинских слов. Многие из этих слов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продолжают существовать в нашем языке и поныне (Библия, доктор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; медицина, лилия, роза и другие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that online there's no definitive stats info on the loan words by origin, or their total number for that matter, but relative numbers of Latin and Greek ones can be derived from *Словарь иностранных слов* (The dictionary of foreign words) where origin is indicated, although it'd be a tedious task unless processed programmatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to run some search on the [online Dictionary of foreign words][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the results are as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[of Greek origin][3] - about 210  &#xD;&#xA;[of Latin origin][4] - about 305&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data is from the dictionary released in 1933&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.megaslov.ru&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/#q=%22%D0%B3%D1%80.%22+site:www.megaslov.ru&amp;start=0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.com/#q=%22%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82.%22+site:www.megaslov.ru&amp;start=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32687" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13110" RevisionGUID="cb85533f-eddc-4f43-8482-9e53711aaf30" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:12:19.690" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 551, 6725 edit id of 825" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="0bc1008d-e3a1-40da-b4f9-bbe3c602adbd" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:54:04.357" UserId="5020" Comment="Changed domain name of my site Russian-1000words.pw" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][20] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Learn to speak Russian][18] - Russian learning site that provides a lot of helpful lessons and other information. Own course from beginning to confident level, and own books. The blog of Russian-1000words.pw contains a lot of information on Russian language that one will not find anywhere else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-1000words.pw&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://russian.morpheem.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32690" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="0bc1008d-e3a1-40da-b4f9-bbe3c602adbd" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:54:04.357" Comment="Proposed by 5020 approved by 551, -1 edit id of 826" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="4ea55f56-d851-47bc-9812-5e38c1960fb8" CreationDate="2016-12-30T13:54:04.357" UserId="6725" Comment="Changed domain name of my site Russian-1000words.pw" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][20] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Learn to speak Russian][18] - Russian learning site that provides a lot of helpful lessons and other information, including original course from beginning to confident level, and original books. The blog of Russian-1000words.pw contains a lot of different information on Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-1000words.pw&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://russian.morpheem.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13749" RevisionGUID="bf734724-f9da-4411-befe-0d1c8ea46e98" CreationDate="2016-12-30T16:01:59.420" UserId="3892" Text="I've seen these particles used in a metaphoric sense, where a fantastic, implausible scenario is presented for effect: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе, наверное, женщины на шею **так и** вешаются.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Он **так и** покатился со смеху.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these cases in English we say *The women must **literally** be throwing themselves at you*, or *He was **literally** rolling with laughter*. However, I've also seen **так и** used with plausible situations, but with somewhat &quot;extreme&quot; verbs that describe things the subject is prone to do, yet to a higher,  degree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дождь **так и** льёт.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солнце **так и** жжёт.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ветки **так и** гнулись под тяжестью яблок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These make perfect sense to me as I assume they mean *The rain was **absolutely** pouring*, or *The sun was ***absolutely*** sweltering*, or *The branches were ***literally*** bending under the weight of the apples*. However, I was hard put to interpret this same &quot;extremeness&quot; in the following sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кошка **так и** ластилась к его ногам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In what situation would somebody say this and what would they mean? &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13749" RevisionGUID="bf734724-f9da-4411-befe-0d1c8ea46e98" CreationDate="2016-12-30T16:01:59.420" UserId="3892" Text="Usage of the partices так и" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13749" RevisionGUID="bf734724-f9da-4411-befe-0d1c8ea46e98" CreationDate="2016-12-30T16:01:59.420" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13750" RevisionGUID="fc218204-c4be-44a0-aef2-c31109bce1ee" CreationDate="2016-12-30T16:56:09.843" UserId="4560" Text="I'd say **так и** describes an action that is *intense* without necessarily being extreme. About the intensity of &quot;Boy was the cat snuggling at his feet.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32696" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13743" RevisionGUID="b156b17f-d718-4538-9082-f0b9b71dba5f" CreationDate="2016-12-30T18:12:33.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/814896974084341760" />
  <row Id="32703" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13749" RevisionGUID="c07535f7-a12e-47ec-9bb8-91167d6d052d" CreationDate="2016-12-30T21:06:17.537" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Usage of the partices &quot;так и&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13753" RevisionGUID="97e4d909-c721-4334-b431-e7328956cce1" CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:07:29.623" UserId="6722" Text="I'm having some trouble understanding some of the grammatical constructions found in the following sentence which was taken from an article entitled &quot;горшки на коммунальной кухне&quot;. Here is the link: https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/12/30/usrfmilitary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Российским властям не впервой пользоваться методом «обнуления» накопленного в двусторонних отношениях негатива, когда, грубо говоря, все помои оптом сливаются за шиворот уходящей вашингтонской администрации, а отношения с новыми людьми начинаются с чистого листа.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, why is **Российским властям** in the dative plural? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, I am not sure what role **негатива** plays in the first part of the sentence. Is it associated with **накопленного**? My attempt at translation is as follows: &quot;the Russian government is not the first to use the method of equalization (not sure about translation of **обнуления**. I assume it to be something along the lines of maintaining nuclear parity from the context of the article) having been accumulated negatively in two-sided relations, when ,roughly speaking,....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I am not sure how to fit **за шиворот** into my translation of *все помои оптом сливаются за шиворот уходящей вашингтонской администрации*. My basic understanding is that all the &quot;garbage&quot; created by the Obama administration with Russia is &quot;going out the door&quot; once Trump comes into office. That is to say, there will be a clean slate once Trump and his people take over. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13753" RevisionGUID="97e4d909-c721-4334-b431-e7328956cce1" CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:07:29.623" UserId="6722" Text="Why dative plural in this sentence, and help with translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13753" RevisionGUID="97e4d909-c721-4334-b431-e7328956cce1" CreationDate="2016-12-30T22:07:29.623" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13754" RevisionGUID="4c8aa31a-784a-48b6-9232-fb4768f80be8" CreationDate="2016-12-30T23:50:55.353" UserId="4560" Text="&gt; &quot;This isn't be the first time the Russian government uses the method of 'resetting' the negativity accumulated in mutual relations, when, to put it bluntly, all of the mud is poured wholesale *[sic]* behind the outgoing Washington administration's collar, while relations with the new people start with a clean slate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не впервой** is a way of saying someone (appearing in the dative form) has done the action referred to before, with the implication that they're either experienced at it or use it as a preferred m.o.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Негатив** is an unpleasantly slangy-with-a-touch-of-vogue-word general term for, essentially, anything bad that's communicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;когда, грубо говоря, все помои оптом сливаются за шиворот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's some truly horrible style by someone who thinks they're being edgy when they're just being stylistically tone-deaf; I'm surprised someone actually wrote that, as opposed to said in a trascripted interview which would at least be excusable. **Шиворот** is a term for &quot;collar&quot; that mostly appears in the idiom **за шиворот**, which usually refers not to the metaphorical action here (tugging at someone's collar and dumping a lot of filthy liquid under their shirt) but to *grabbing* someone by the collar or scruff of the neck. Another idiom is **шиворот-навыворот**, a vernacular rough equivalent of &quot;topsy-turvy&quot; that's not seeing a lot of use these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оптом** is a particularly horrible word choice here — the deliberate kind of horrible, by someone who presumably congratulated themselves on what they thought was the energetic, p\*ss-and-vinegar quality of their journalistic copy. Anyway, not to rant too much, the word is *not* used in this random kind of manner, even by people who don't care how they sound. It's just weird and clunky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обнуление** is literally a reset to zero, semi-figuratively to a &quot;clean-slate&quot; state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13754" RevisionGUID="08a34090-1718-4892-9257-eaabd3bafec5" CreationDate="2016-12-30T23:56:11.243" UserId="4560" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;This isn't the first time the Russian government has used the method of 'resetting' the negativity accumulated in mutual relations, when, to put it bluntly, all of the mud is poured wholesale *[sic]* behind the outgoing Washington administration's collar, while relations with the new people start with a clean slate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не впервой** is a way of saying someone (appearing in the dative form) has done the action referred to before, with the implication that they're either experienced at it or use it as a preferred m.o.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Негатив** is an unpleasantly slangy-with-a-touch-of-vogue-word general term for, essentially, anything bad that's communicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;когда, грубо говоря, все помои оптом сливаются за шиворот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's some truly horrible style by someone who thinks they're being edgy when they're just being stylistically tone-deaf; I'm surprised someone actually wrote that, as opposed to said in a trascribed interview, where it would at least be excusable. **Шиворот** is a term for &quot;collar&quot; that mostly appears in the idiom **за шиворот**, which usually refers not to the metaphorical action here (tugging at someone's collar and dumping a lot of filthy liquid under their shirt) but to *grabbing* someone by the collar or scruff of the neck. Another idiom is **шиворот-навыворот**, a vernacular rough equivalent of &quot;topsy-turvy&quot; that's not seeing a lot of use these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оптом** is a particularly horrible word choice here — the deliberate kind of horrible, by someone who presumably congratulated themselves on what they thought was the energetic, p\*ss-and-vinegar quality of their journalistic copy. Anyway, not to rant too much, the word is *not* used in this random kind of manner, even by people who don't care how they sound. It's just weird and clunky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обнуление** is literally a reset to zero, semi-figuratively to a &quot;clean-slate&quot; state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13754" RevisionGUID="b83d240d-a8bf-47c7-a279-c5747e0a8c4f" CreationDate="2016-12-31T00:05:12.013" UserId="4560" Comment="власти vs. власть" Text="&gt; &quot;This isn't the first time the Russian government has used the method of 'resetting' the negativity accumulated in mutual relations, when, to put it bluntly, all of the mud is poured wholesale *[sic]* behind the outgoing Washington administration's collar, while relations with the new people start with a clean slate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Власти** is often used as if it were pluralia tantum (cf. *the authorities*). It has a stronger implication of agency than **власть**, which usually refers to power/government/authority as an abstract concept, or else to a particular authority when it appears as a kind of presence, a thing to be dealt with; **власти** is a government as a doer of things or an active participant in something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не впервой** is a way of saying someone (appearing in the dative form) has done the action referred to before, with the implication that they're either experienced at it or use it as a preferred m.o.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Негатив** is an unpleasantly slangy-with-a-touch-of-vogue-word general term for, essentially, anything bad that's communicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;когда, грубо говоря, все помои оптом сливаются за шиворот&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's some truly horrible style by someone who thinks they're being edgy when they're just being stylistically tone-deaf; I'm surprised someone actually wrote that, as opposed to said in a trascribed interview, where it would at least be excusable. **Шиворот** is a term for &quot;collar&quot; that mostly appears in the idiom **за шиворот**, which usually refers not to the metaphorical action here (tugging at someone's collar and dumping a lot of filthy liquid under their shirt) but to *grabbing* someone by the collar or scruff of the neck. Another idiom is **шиворот-навыворот**, a vernacular rough equivalent of &quot;topsy-turvy&quot; that's not seeing a lot of use these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оптом** is a particularly horrible word choice here — the deliberate kind of horrible, by someone who presumably congratulated themselves on what they thought was the energetic, p\*ss-and-vinegar quality of their journalistic copy. Anyway, not to rant too much, the word is *not* used in this random kind of manner, even by people who don't care how they sound. It's just weird and clunky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обнуление** is literally a reset to zero, semi-figuratively to a &quot;clean-slate&quot; state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="a5e4b94a-5696-4d0d-9f79-0ce18eff82e0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T01:15:46.190" UserId="3892" Text="This is a comment I saw in a forum. Is it a typo, or does it actually mean something? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что не день, то приключение!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="a5e4b94a-5696-4d0d-9f79-0ce18eff82e0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T01:15:46.190" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of Что не день" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="a5e4b94a-5696-4d0d-9f79-0ce18eff82e0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T01:15:46.190" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13756" RevisionGUID="ac659816-f1fb-4bb8-b97f-215bd1d59d39" CreationDate="2016-12-31T03:28:23.917" UserId="8319" Text="It is a real sentence, but the poster incorrectly used &quot;не&quot; where they should have used &quot;ни&quot;. The correct form of the sentence is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что ни день, то приключение!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not a day passes without some adventure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Что ни день&quot;* means *&quot;every day&quot;* but is more literally translated as *&quot;any given day&quot;* or *&quot;any passing day&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="05de9705-12d1-4a92-b10c-42e6561ac1b9" CreationDate="2016-12-31T04:24:19.480" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;Что не день&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13757" RevisionGUID="7612225c-e0a3-4d21-9540-fc69014640f0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T09:14:42.873" UserId="551" Text="The dictionary of Efremova gives [three cases](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/279715/%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA) of usage &quot;так и&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при подчеркивании энергичного, интенсивного непроизвольно совершающегося действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beleive this case is describing most of your examples - &quot;Emphasizing of active, intense spontaneously happening action.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при подчеркивании значения итога, результата предшествующего действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly this definition matches &quot;Он так и покатился со смеху.&quot; example - &quot;Is used to emphasize the result of the preceding action&quot; (something happened and as a result he started to laugh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется для усиления эмоционально окрашенного несогласия или отрицания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case is absent in your examples - &quot;Is used for emphasizing emotional agreement or disagreement&quot; - like &quot;Так и нет&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13757" RevisionGUID="6db2dc84-edd2-4dc2-a7f0-9c904d588757" CreationDate="2017-01-01T10:36:19.197" UserId="551" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="The dictionary of Efremova gives [three cases](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/279715/%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA) of usage &quot;так и&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при подчеркивании энергичного, интенсивного непроизвольно совершающегося действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I beleive this case is describing most of your examples - &quot;Emphasizing of active, intense spontaneously happening action.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется при подчеркивании значения итога, результата предшествующего действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incorrect) *Possibly this definition matches &quot;Он так и покатился со смеху.&quot; example - &quot;Is used to emphasize the result of the preceding action&quot; (something happened and as a result he started to laugh&quot;).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct example is the following: &quot;Вода начала подниматься в восточной части города, добралась до торгового центра, затем до библиотеки, потом до жилых кварталов - так и затопила весь район&quot;. - Here you see how step-by-step something happens and &quot;Так и&quot; summarizes what has happened in the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or different example: &quot;Он пошел купить себе костюм. В одном магазине ему не понравился продавец, в другом магазине - не было подходящего цвета, в третьем - не понравились пуговицы - так и остался он без костюма.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3.&#xD;&#xA;Употребляется для усиления эмоционально окрашенного несогласия или отрицания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This case is absent in your examples - &quot;Is used for emphasizing emotional agreement or disagreement&quot; - like &quot;Так и нет&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="88f84aed-3078-4e07-929b-e59aed398318" CreationDate="2017-01-01T19:40:38.570" UserId="8259" Text="``why она всегда думает о сыне instead of она всегда думает о её сыне?``&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this reduction common? must i occult the pronoun whenever the suject and also whose posses is close to the object of possesion in the setence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="88f84aed-3078-4e07-929b-e59aed398318" CreationDate="2017-01-01T19:40:38.570" UserId="8259" Text="why она всегда думает о сыне instead of она всегда думает о её сыне?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="88f84aed-3078-4e07-929b-e59aed398318" CreationDate="2017-01-01T19:40:38.570" UserId="8259" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13759" RevisionGUID="e2189d7c-d8bf-4ee2-8c8b-b01ee6312cb1" CreationDate="2017-01-01T20:20:36.910" UserId="6539" Text="We can use a possessive pronoun before the noun &quot;son&quot;,but it won't be **её** which is incorrect.You should say **своего** with any personal pronoun,if the boy is really her son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она всегда думает о своём сыне.or Она всегда думает о сыне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are correct. We can leave out the possessive pronoun and it will be clear that she is thinking about her own son. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32723" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="650f796a-ca89-422d-99d8-5cc294268959" CreationDate="2017-01-01T21:12:49.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/815667114287788033" />
  <row Id="32724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="3d106f98-2eb6-4bfb-b629-83f44ef9ad7b" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:08:19.787" UserId="8211" Text="I've just recently begun to try to learn Russian. Right now I'm focusing on the alphabet and phonetics. Because I'm a space nerd, I've been using the [Roscosmos Twitter page][1] to help me. What I've been doing is looking at a post, reading each word individually (just for the sake of pronunciation), and then putting that word into Google Translate to see how close I was to the correct pronunciation, and correct myself. I came across a [post][2] about an old spacecraft, and I'm curious about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 28 лет назад впервые был произведен запуск многоразовой транспортной космической системы «Энергия-Буран».&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm curious about is the «Энергия-Буран». Does that mean &quot;Energy Blizzard&quot;? If so, that's a pretty epic name. If that's not what it means, can you please explain its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://twitter.com/roscosmos&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/798504861289615360&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b6Ihg.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="3d106f98-2eb6-4bfb-b629-83f44ef9ad7b" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:08:19.787" UserId="8211" Text="Does «Энергия-Буран» mean &quot;Energy Blizzard&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="3d106f98-2eb6-4bfb-b629-83f44ef9ad7b" CreationDate="2017-01-01T23:08:19.787" UserId="8211" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="83f67c73-f168-4236-8cbb-064e68abb30b" CreationDate="2017-01-02T00:23:23.130" UserId="6494" Text="No, translation &quot;Energy Blizzard&quot; is incorrect. It assumes that the meaning is compound, where the first noun plays a role of adjective (i.e. blizzard made of energy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for this to be correct, in Russian it is not enough to place two nouns in nominative case together. It would require to use an actual adjective (&quot;энергетический буран&quot;); or to use the genitive case (&quot;буран из энергии&quot;, although this one is artificial, this particular construction is not used). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dash may also have similar effect, bot not in our case. Here it means that it is a system made of two separate parts - the Energiya rocket and the Buran spaceship. On top of that, the Energiya is independent from Buran, it has its own engines and could have been launched without the Buran attached (contrary to the Space Shuttle).&#xD;&#xA;A similar example would be some US designations, like Atlas-Centaur launch system. Here it does not imply that a mythological giant Atlas suddenly also acquires four horse legs and body, like centaurs do.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="4d498caf-ca71-4d43-8ff0-6d432888223b" CreationDate="2017-01-02T00:25:32.187" UserId="6494" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="No, translation &quot;Energy Blizzard&quot; is incorrect. It assumes that the meaning is compound, where the first noun plays a role of adjective (i.e. blizzard made of energy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for this to be correct, in Russian it is not enough to place two nouns in nominative case together. It would require to use an actual adjective (&quot;энергетический буран&quot;); or to use the genitive case (&quot;буран из энергии&quot;, although this one is artificial, this particular construction is not used). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dash may also have similar effect, bot not in our case. Here it means that it is a system made of two separate parts - the Energiya rocket and the Buran spaceship. On top of that, the Energiya is independent from Buran, as it has its own engines and could have been launched without the Buran attached (contrary to the Space Shuttle).&#xD;&#xA;A similar example would be some US designations, like Atlas-Centaur launch system. Here it does not imply that a mythological giant Atlas suddenly also acquires four horse legs and body, like centaurs do.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13749" RevisionGUID="ccccf048-4572-44df-858e-3663756c203a" CreationDate="2017-01-02T06:12:56.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/815803040225787904" />
  <row Id="32732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13763" RevisionGUID="0bd9ab5c-51c9-48ef-b794-9ef64c84a604" CreationDate="2017-01-02T13:11:14.253" UserId="4714" Text="Here's a good description of this structure—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jp9OB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32733" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13730" RevisionGUID="09eccf2b-12a6-4878-8d8e-ede27d93c7e8" CreationDate="2017-01-02T13:44:29.167" UserId="7334" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7334,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Павел&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32734" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13730" RevisionGUID="2316f275-fc9b-4672-bc20-32d54c56ea40" CreationDate="2017-01-02T13:50:44.610" UserId="7334" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7334,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Павел&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13730" RevisionGUID="5f8ef6f1-6809-4d2d-9188-ae5290988358" CreationDate="2017-01-02T14:11:21.147" UserId="7334" Comment="edited body" Text="I believe it's not about animated/inanimated or feminine. It's just about ending of the word.&#xD;&#xA;Totally doesn't matter if one is animated or inanimated if it ends with `a`, like `река`, or `палка`.&#xD;&#xA;But definitely it's more common for Russian language that any word ending with `a` have feminine semantic. But not every word.&#xD;&#xA;You can take for instance word `братишка` - which means little brother (masculine, animated) and it will *behave* exactly like word `кошка` - the correct examples already presented to you above: `братишки` `братишку` - both are correct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13764" RevisionGUID="f321dc17-fc6e-4a99-88f1-97375d3c3eff" CreationDate="2017-01-02T15:55:10.907" UserId="8330" Text="нельзя is a *predicative adverb*, as a word class in morphology (*предикативное наречие*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used as a *predicate*, as part of the sentence, in syntaxis (*сказуемое*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(predicative also belongs to syntaxis, when the predicate is composed with an helping verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most logical classification, and it leans towards the 'latin' grammar which is appropriate to indogerman languages. And russian is a quite antique language, near to latin (latvian, lithuan even more antique than russian). My exact source is Шелякин, справочник по русской грамматике, М.: Рус.яз., 2003. which I consider a reasonable grammar for foreigners. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13764" RevisionGUID="a929a367-e5c1-404e-986b-a74e62ffea06" CreationDate="2017-01-02T16:00:16.843" UserId="8330" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="нельзя is a *predicative adverb*, as a word class in morphology (*предикативное наречие*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used as a *predicate*, as part of the sentence, in syntaxis (*сказуемое*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(predicative also belongs to syntaxis, when the predicate is composed with an helping verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may think that the word есть is missing: нельзя = является не легким, можно = есть возможным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most logical classification, and it leans towards the 'latin' grammar which is appropriate to indogerman languages. And russian is a quite antique language, near to latin (latvian, lithuan even more antique than russian). My exact source is Шелякин, справочник по русской грамматике, М.: Рус.яз., 2003. which I consider a reasonable grammar for foreigners. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13291" RevisionGUID="bb509889-6417-40d7-a56b-53dd9880c4ea" CreationDate="2017-01-02T18:04:49.640" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="What part of speech is &quot;нельзя&quot;? I see so many Russian dictionaries say it is used as a predicative complement (предикатив), but none of the ones I saw would &quot;dare&quot; state it as an adverb (наречие).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13765" RevisionGUID="00c25cbe-f941-4af0-bcab-e29da0c8a01c" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:18:29.490" UserId="8259" Text="If i write:я учился в многих школе there is a meaning, i think that the understand that the  studied in many schools at same time is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if i write:я учился в много школе here seems to be ugly, at least for me, but the translation looks better because seems that i studied in a lot of schools , what i should do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13765" RevisionGUID="00c25cbe-f941-4af0-bcab-e29da0c8a01c" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:18:29.490" UserId="8259" Text="Help to understand how russian language ``works``" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13765" RevisionGUID="00c25cbe-f941-4af0-bcab-e29da0c8a01c" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:18:29.490" UserId="8259" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32742" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13765" RevisionGUID="4efc187e-633f-4309-93fa-f7f15988b578" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:51:23.810" UserId="8259" Comment="edited title" Text="whyя учился в многих школе instead of я учился в много школе?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13766" RevisionGUID="d1de3f52-21f9-4efe-a483-8b3403dcf110" CreationDate="2017-01-02T19:59:01.280" UserId="4560" Text="The (only) correct grammar here is **Я учился во многих школах**; while you shouldn't worry about &quot;studying in many schools at the same time&quot; (you'd need to explicitly say **сразу во многих** or **сразу в нескольких**), there is a different kind of vague problem about this wording, in that it sounds more like &quot;I studied in many *of the* schools&quot;. Russian doesn't have articles, of course, but some random distinctions based on definitiveness turn up every now and then; **многие** sort of implies that more information about those particular schools is forthcoming (&quot;in many of the schools which...&quot;) or has already been given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я учился в нескольких школах** doesn't have this problem; I don't know how many schools we're talking about here; I went to five, but it's still something I would say, i.e. I don't feel &quot;several&quot; is an understatement. If you insist on &quot;many&quot;, though, it's probably better to reword as **Я сменил много школ**. (Another option, theoretically, would be **Я учился во множестве школ**, but that would most likely be an *over*statement unless we're talking about a really extraordinary number of schools, maybe about ten or more.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32744" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13760" RevisionGUID="7746e790-4923-4959-a794-11d6f5d59825" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:16:39.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/816030467715698688" />
  <row Id="32745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="f5178e94-93ba-4bb6-9a89-3c2fdc140b68" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:19:03.297" UserId="5288" Text="In the Russian language we pronounce the written word `считать` differently,  `с-читать` или `щщитать`, depending on what is expressed. (they are heteronyms, also known as heterophones, for English it's here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial-stress-derived_noun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronym_(linguistics) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we desribe in Russian the picture:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    An electromagnetic head reading data from a magnetic tape.&#xD;&#xA;    Электромагнитая головка считывает данные с магнитной ленты.&#xD;&#xA; we pronounce `с-читать` with 2 short sounds. One more example:     &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    The head can read out data from a magnetic tape.&#xD;&#xA;    Данная головка может считать данные с магнитной ленты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the picture is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    one thinks about something, that … ; he takes into account something    &#xD;&#xA;    cчитается, что … ; он считает, [e.g.: надо + глагол]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then we use the pronunciation `щщитать` with a single long sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я считаю, что мы достигли своей цели. &#xD;&#xA;    Он может считать, что достиг цели. &#xD;&#xA;    Он считает, надо достигнуть цели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a plenty of examples for the latter, sitting right in the google searching output https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%8F+%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8E%22 , usually written in twitter-dritter-style or joke-style grammar (sounding utter illiterate otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other heteronyms / heterophones in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="f5178e94-93ba-4bb6-9a89-3c2fdc140b68" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:19:03.297" UserId="5288" Text="считывать, считать (heteronyms, AKA heterophones)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="f5178e94-93ba-4bb6-9a89-3c2fdc140b68" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:19:03.297" UserId="5288" Text="|произношение|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32748" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="0baf6607-2ad1-4bac-aaa9-e9c26a0f5da7" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:21:09.467" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32749" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13765" RevisionGUID="22721446-5cd2-4b27-9589-c6882b6be1a0" CreationDate="2017-01-02T21:21:48.043" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;я учился в многих школе&quot; instead of &quot;я учился в много школе&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="f70b7d3a-ffed-4ecd-8f1c-bbdd22f6443c" CreationDate="2017-01-03T00:47:23.127" UserId="4629" Comment="typo" Text="In the Russian language we pronounce the written word `считать` differently,  `с-читать` или `щщитать`, depending on what is expressed. (they are heteronyms, also known as heterophones, for English it's here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial-stress-derived_noun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronym_(linguistics) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we desribe in Russian the picture:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    An electromagnetic head reading data from a magnetic tape.&#xD;&#xA;    Электромагнитая головка считывает данные с магнитной ленты.&#xD;&#xA; we pronounce `с-читать` with 2 short sounds. One more example:     &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    The head can read out data from a magnetic tape.&#xD;&#xA;    Данная головка может считать данные с магнитной ленты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the picture is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    one thinks about something, that … ; he takes into account something    &#xD;&#xA;    cчитается, что … ; он считает, [e.g.: надо + глагол]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then we use the pronunciation `щщитать` with a single long sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я считаю, что мы достигли своей цели. &#xD;&#xA;    Он может считать, что достиг цели. &#xD;&#xA;    Он считает, надо достигнуть цели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is plenty of examples for the latter, sitting right in the google searching output https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%8F+%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8E%22 , usually written in twitter-dritter-style or joke-style grammar (sounding utter illiterate otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other heteronyms / heterophones in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13762" RevisionGUID="0dbd290c-a6bf-4584-b762-6b5e10284330" CreationDate="2017-01-03T01:53:51.693" UserId="4629" Comment="typo" Text="No, translation &quot;Energy Blizzard&quot; is incorrect. It assumes that the meaning is compound, where the first noun plays a role of adjective (i.e. blizzard made of energy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for this to be correct, in Russian it is not enough to place two nouns in nominative case together. It would require to use an actual adjective (&quot;энергетический буран&quot;); or to use the genitive case (&quot;буран из энергии&quot;, although this one is artificial, this particular construction is not used). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dash may also have similar effect, but not in our case. Here it means that it is a system made of two separate parts - the Energiya rocket and the Buran spaceship. On top of that, the Energiya is independent from Buran, as it has its own engines and could have been launched without the Buran attached (contrary to the Space Shuttle).&#xD;&#xA;A similar example would be some US designations, like Atlas-Centaur launch system. Here it does not imply that a mythological giant Atlas suddenly also acquires four horse legs and body, like centaurs do.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32754" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13758" RevisionGUID="a47c85c0-c609-4d87-a46a-863eb21cee15" CreationDate="2017-01-03T15:21:42.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/816303530738847745" />
  <row Id="32755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10951" RevisionGUID="f1ab9305-7729-4ac5-b8ac-35cebd82f027" CreationDate="2017-01-03T17:07:35.467" UserId="6140" Comment="edited body" Text="&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Semantic sense of &quot;Попустить&quot; in russian:&#xD;&#xA;It's derivative / rural synonym from word &quot;Отпустить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;prefix &quot;по&quot; in word &quot;ПО_пустить&quot; gives &#xD;&#xA;some symantic tinge to stepped and immediate action to end of release.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;Наконец-то начало попускать. ( По-степенно отпускать. )&#xD;&#xA;Наконец-то попустило. ( Произошло окончательное действие - отпустило)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13767" RevisionGUID="f0a5aa9a-1f03-4db7-b4a8-8f9308fd6d4b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:37:25.493" UserId="5288" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="In the Russian language we pronounce the written word `считать` differently,  `с-читать` или `щщитать`, depending on what is expressed. (they are heteronyms, also known as heterophones, for English it's here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial-stress-derived_noun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronym_(linguistics) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we desribe in Russian the picture:     &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    An electromagnetic head reading data from a magnetic tape.&#xD;&#xA;    Электромагнитая головка считывает данные с магнитной ленты.&#xD;&#xA; we pronounce `с-читать` with 2 short sounds. One more example:     &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA;    The head can read out data from a magnetic tape.&#xD;&#xA;    Данная головка может считать данные с магнитной ленты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the picture is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    one thinks about something, that … ; he takes into account something    &#xD;&#xA;    cчитается, что … ; он считает, [e.g.: надо + глагол]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then we use the pronunciation `щщитать` with a single long sound:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я считаю, что мы достигли своей цели. &#xD;&#xA;    Он может считать, что достиг цели. &#xD;&#xA;    Он считает, надо достигнуть цели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is plenty of examples for the latter, sitting right in the google searching output https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%8F+%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8E%22 , usually written in twitter-dritter-style or joke-style grammar (sounding utter illiterate otherwise).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**__Addition__:**     &#xD;&#xA;For those who doubt in pronunciation of the heterophone `считать` as `с-читать` there is a search query: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=считыватель&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;Any other heteronyms / heterophones in Russian?&lt;/s&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;The 5 others most frequently used heteronyms / heterophones in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13764" RevisionGUID="60f39357-b731-47fb-81fa-f583e47dffec" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:50:01.687" UserId="8332" Comment="improved for brevity" Text="нельзя is a *predicative adverb*, as a word class in morphology (*предикативное наречие*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used as a *predicate*, as part of the sentence, in syntaxis (*сказуемое*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(predicative also belongs to syntaxis, when the predicate is composed with an helping verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We may think that the word есть is missing: нельзя = является не лёгким, можно = есть возможным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a logical classification, and it leans towards the 'latin' grammar which is appropriate to indogerman languages. And russian is a quite near to latin (latvian, lithuan even more antique than russian). My exact source is Шелякин, справочник по русской грамматике, М.: Рус.яз., 2003. The Oxford Russian Dictionary, too, gives нельзя as adverbe.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32758" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13764" RevisionGUID="60f39357-b731-47fb-81fa-f583e47dffec" CreationDate="2017-01-03T18:50:01.687" Comment="Proposed by 8332 approved by 6725, 5288 edit id of 827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13768" RevisionGUID="1d50db7e-495d-4dce-9ca5-db71c5c3548b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:15:46.157" UserId="194" Text="Is this translation more clear? I tried to use Dative in English too and translate as literally as I could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Российским властям не впервой пользоваться методом «обнуления»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; накопленного в двусторонних отношениях негатива, когда, грубо говоря,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; все помои оптом сливаются за шиворот уходящей вашингтонской&#xD;&#xA;&gt; администрации, а отношения с новыми людьми начинаются с чистого листа.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To Russian authorities it is not new to use the method of &quot;annulling&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the negative[things] collected in the bilateral relations, when,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speaking rudely, all the garbage wholesale is thrown into the collar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the leaving Washington administration, and the relations with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; new people are starting from a clean page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13769" RevisionGUID="62930027-ded4-4096-b426-35cb5e859a14" CreationDate="2017-01-03T23:28:35.320" UserId="194" Text="I would say that when you use the word есть it underlines that he can **have** questions or reservations or doubts while not necessarily expressing them. He can keep the questions to himself for a time. On the other hand, without есть it more implies he **asks** the questions (not keeping to himself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть вопросы по поводу нового оборудования = I have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reservations/doubts/questions about the new equipment (not necessary&#xD;&#xA;&gt; want to share them).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня вопросы по поводу нового оборудования = I want to ask questions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; about the new equipment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13770" RevisionGUID="5a94d2b4-9c71-4be2-8386-8c79be9fe2c7" CreationDate="2017-01-04T12:55:42.183" UserId="8332" Text="In english it is in the year 1948, which is a *numeral*, a *number word*. In russian however, it is in the 1948th year, which is an ordinal, an *ordinal number*. You may use the 48th year, the 948th year or the 1948th year in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, after the numeral eight it is лет, but after an ordinal it is год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same usage of ordinals holds for other numbers, in german we say tramway line five, or platform number two, the Raphael hospital, but in russian it is the fifth autobus, or the second platform, the one hundred second clinique." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13770" RevisionGUID="0b31e900-3427-4216-b51d-35f79af688a1" CreationDate="2017-01-04T13:02:08.360" UserId="8332" Comment="added 160 characters in body; added 20 characters in body" Text="In english it is in the year 1948, which is a *numeral*, a *number word*. In russian however, it is in the 1948th year, which is an ordinal, an *ordinal number*. You may use the 48th year, the 948th year or the 1948th year in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, after the numeral eight it is лет, but after an ordinal it is год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make smthing clear, the original question was not about age, but about year of birth, which is the year in a date. That seems handled differently in RF, that in USA or EU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same usage of ordinals holds for other numbers, in german we say tramway line five, or platform number two, the Raphael hospital, but in russian it is the fifth autobus, or the second platform, the one hundred second clinique.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13770" RevisionGUID="9aff8551-37e1-4b7e-8f1f-4389b01b7e57" CreationDate="2017-01-04T13:07:48.070" UserId="8332" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="In english it is in the year 1948, which is a *numeral*, a *number word*. In russian however, it is in the 1948th year, which is an ordinal, an *ordinal number*. You may use the 48th year, the 948th year or the 1948th year in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, after the numeral eight it is лет, but after an ordinal it is год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make smthing clear, the original question was not about age, but about year of birth, which is the year in a date. That seems handled differently in RF, that in USA or EU. And one has to add year always in russian, sometimes implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same usage of ordinals holds for other numbers, in german we say tramway line five, or platform number two, the Raphael hospital, but in russian it is the fifth autobus, or the second platform, the one hundred second clinique.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13770" RevisionGUID="b2f753c2-ddd3-4de5-a67b-4d407f2cd6c7" CreationDate="2017-01-04T16:07:15.040" UserId="8332" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="In english it is in the year 1948, which is a *numeral*, a *number word*. In russian however, it is in the 1948th year, which is an ordinal, an *ordinal number*. You may use the 48th year, the 948th year or the 1948th year in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, after the numeral eight it is лет, but after an ordinal it is год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make smthing clear, the original question was not about age, but about year of birth, which is the year in a date. That seems handled differently in RF, that in USA or EU. And one has to add year always in russian, sometimes implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same usage of ordinals holds for other numbers, in german we say tramway number five, or platform two, the Raphael hospital, but in russian it is the fifth autobus, or the second platform, the one hundred second clinique.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32765" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13746" RevisionGUID="cd51d2f7-5451-4a7a-919f-492d59499b98" CreationDate="2017-01-04T18:22:02.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/816711300994760712" />
  <row Id="32766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13770" RevisionGUID="73774661-1198-4e82-b2e0-9d61bbf3ab70" CreationDate="2017-01-04T21:15:20.670" UserId="8332" Comment="add orthography paragraph for ordinal numbers." Text="In english it is in the year 1948, which is a *cardinal*, a *quantity number*. In russian however, it is in the 1948th year, which is an ordinal, an *ordinal number*. You may use the 48th year, the 948th year or the 1948th year in russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, after the numeral eight it is лет, but after an ordinal it is год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make smthing clear, the question was not about age, but about year of birth, which is the year in a date. Dates seems handled differently in RF, that in USA or EU. And one has to add year always in russian, sometimes implied. For ages both languages use cardinal numbers, quantity numbers (russian name of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same difference in usage of ordinals holds for other numbers, in german we say tramway number five, or platform two, the St. Raphael hospital, but in russian it is the fifth autobus, or the second platform, the &lt;s&gt;one&lt;/s&gt; hundred second clinique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+edit+ russian orthography with arabic ordinal numbers requires endings: 1948-й год, в июне месяце 1948-го года, and spoken it is в июне месяце тысяча девятьсот сорок восьмого года.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="4f28d926-ff77-4664-b91f-7c2f63a9ae46" CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:03:45.337" UserId="8344" Text="I can understand the first part of the sentence, it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no comet in the night sky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the second part confuses me, how to translate this part? is снов the genitive case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It comes from here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mumiytroll.com/inc/song_text.php?id=69&amp;title=%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="4f28d926-ff77-4664-b91f-7c2f63a9ae46" CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:03:45.337" UserId="8344" Text="&quot;В ночном небе нет комет, Вся планета в мире снов.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="4f28d926-ff77-4664-b91f-7c2f63a9ae46" CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:03:45.337" UserId="8344" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13772" RevisionGUID="dcc3087d-7a71-4a96-b38c-66c1c701d9dc" CreationDate="2017-01-05T15:32:29.723" UserId="6539" Text="**В мире снов means** &quot;in the world of dreams&quot;. Снов from сны is a noun in the genitive. Вся планета в мире снов (The whole planet is in the world of dreams= The planet is sleeping)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13772" RevisionGUID="1bdff7e2-e5e7-4563-a7b0-d74c7451c1f1" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:04:06.217" UserId="6539" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="**В мире снов means** &quot;in the world of dreams&quot;. Снов from сны is a noun in the genitive. Вся планета в мире снов (The whole planet is in the world of dreams= The planet is sleeping).Комет is also in the genitive plural. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13773" RevisionGUID="b04da773-27a7-438c-b2ab-89dbbfaca228" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:09:28.073" UserId="8075" Text="As the title states, what is the difference between the two perfective forms of the verb видеть? Essentially, I am asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When would you use завидеть and when would you use увидеть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give you an example of where I am trying to use it is, is in a message stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not know, if you will see this message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, если вы завидите/увидите это письмо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13773" RevisionGUID="b04da773-27a7-438c-b2ab-89dbbfaca228" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:09:28.073" UserId="8075" Text="Perfective forms of видеть - завидеть и увидеть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13773" RevisionGUID="b04da773-27a7-438c-b2ab-89dbbfaca228" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:09:28.073" UserId="8075" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13776" RevisionGUID="b19ca7b7-4a88-4273-9ddd-70e001897440" CreationDate="2017-01-05T19:53:19.610" UserId="5172" Text="`Завидеть` seems to be an obsolete and colloquial (perhaps) word. This word appears in dictionaries, but usually is not used in modern speech. This can be translated as `to see something from afar`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you want say `Я не знаю, увидишь ли ты это письмо`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13773" RevisionGUID="6b08eb41-3686-4718-90cf-edd068397338" CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:31:49.457" UserId="8075" Comment="Corrected some grammar." Text="As the title states, what is the difference between the two perfective forms of the verb видеть? Essentially, I am asking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When would you use завидеть and when would you use увидеть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give you an example of where I am trying to use it is in a message stating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I do not know, if you will see this message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю, если вы завидите/увидите это письмо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13777" RevisionGUID="d93cc326-46db-4d42-a7d4-6b37f433f8ae" CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:32:27.133" UserId="6539" Text="**Увидеть** means just **to see**. This word is frequently used in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вчера я увидел его на вокзале.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Завидеть** means **to nofice from the distance**. The verb is used mostly in the form of **деепричастие**(завидев, завидя)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не боясь его, стрекотали в густой траве кузнечики, летали бабочки, ящерицы сидели на тёплых камнях и грелись и, **завидев** Колюнчика, исчезали в траве. [Алексей Варламов. Купавна // «Новый Мир», 2000] …→&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Павел стоял в коридоре у окна и, **завидев** меня, неприветливо поморщился, немного согнувшись при этом в поясе ― будто хотел встретить гостя поклоном. [Андрей Волос. Недвижимость (2000) // «Новый Мир», 2001] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of examples in the national corpus.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не знаю, увидите ли вы это письмо.&#xD;&#xA;This will be correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13778" RevisionGUID="51e444ca-2926-4085-b146-6e8451a1dd44" CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:40:17.743" UserId="7310" Text="Завидеть is (practically?) never used as a verb, but you can meet its adverbial participle завидев, mostly in texts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13734" RevisionGUID="0728abd8-42b8-47e8-b1e4-b3805358051e" CreationDate="2017-01-06T03:24:07.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/817210108975468544" />
  <row Id="32790" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13773" RevisionGUID="c5c85bee-9f66-47b1-b75b-130ea7351678" CreationDate="2017-01-07T03:34:44.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/817575166821724160" />
  <row Id="32795" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13771" RevisionGUID="9608bd50-8370-4900-b4c8-a8ae616cd59b" CreationDate="2017-01-07T15:40:37.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/817757841457029120" />
  <row Id="32796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="1c43a7a7-be2e-4997-85e3-e6bc2313a692" CreationDate="2017-01-07T16:05:00.213" UserId="5692" Text="In the sentence &quot;Истории двух девушек, которые поняли, что терпеть не могут отца и мать&quot;, why aren't &quot;отца и мать&quot;  in accusative case? Thank you for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="1c43a7a7-be2e-4997-85e3-e6bc2313a692" CreationDate="2017-01-07T16:05:00.213" UserId="5692" Text="In the sentence &quot;Истории двух девушек, которые поняли, что терпеть не могут отца и мать&quot;, why aren't &quot;отца и мать&quot; in accusative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="1c43a7a7-be2e-4997-85e3-e6bc2313a692" CreationDate="2017-01-07T16:05:00.213" UserId="5692" Text="|грамматика|падежи|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13784" RevisionGUID="833a55a8-3f73-40f2-b20e-0b2d4872085e" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:33:13.790" UserId="5370" Text="It can't be said &quot;жить спокойную жизнь&quot; - we rather say &quot;spend&quot; than &quot;live&quot; if wanna use accusative. So it'll sound as &quot;она вела спокойную жизнь&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should not use verb &quot;жить&quot; with accusative. It would sound strange (though will remain understood). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13787" RevisionGUID="649ceb53-9f96-4b98-91e7-cb5e00e003e7" CreationDate="2017-01-08T11:35:42.290" UserId="7239" Text="More specifically, what is the difference in meaning between: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Анна:** Сколько времени ты делала домашнее задание?   &#xD;&#xA;**Нина:** Я делала домашнее задание час.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **Анна:** За сколько времени ты сделала домашнее задание?  &#xD;&#xA; **Нина:** Я сделала домашнее задание за час.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any significance to the fact that perfective verbs are only used with &quot;за&quot; and that imperfective verbs are only used in the absence of &quot;за&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background information:** This relates to Exercise 91 on page 134 of the [German version][1] of [this workbook][2] and the two examples preceding it. ([See here][3].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only result I could find discussing this using Google was [this][4]. However, it does not seem to address the specific situation I am confused about (&quot;за сколько времени/сколько времени&quot; as well as &quot;за+(винительный)срок/(винительный)срок&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the answers seem to imply that there is a difference in meaning between: *&quot;Как долго она не работала?&quot;* and *&quot;Сколько времени она не работала?&quot;*, which would be very confusing to me, since Exercise 87 on page 133 and the preceding example of the same workbook would seem to imply that there is no difference between them. If there is actually a difference, I could ask that as a separate question, I just wanted to explain why I found the thread on WordReference unhelpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.de/Russkij-jazyk-upraznenijach-Russisch-%C3%9Cbungen/dp/5883371930&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.europeanbookshop.com/languagebooks/series/RIVP&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://docdro.id/aeXNKVL&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE.2409339/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13787" RevisionGUID="649ceb53-9f96-4b98-91e7-cb5e00e003e7" CreationDate="2017-01-08T11:35:42.290" UserId="7239" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;за&quot; in expressions relating to time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13787" RevisionGUID="649ceb53-9f96-4b98-91e7-cb5e00e003e7" CreationDate="2017-01-08T11:35:42.290" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|предлоги|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13788" RevisionGUID="201407fa-2f7c-4e52-925c-5a928397c810" CreationDate="2017-01-08T12:07:38.220" UserId="242" Text="Well, as you can see, in the given context both &quot;сколько [времени]&quot; and &quot;за сколько времени&quot; are corresponding to the phrase &quot;how much time&quot; in questions like &quot;how much time it will take&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But actually, William, your observation is quite elegant and, the most important, valid. This is indeed has something to do with the perferctiveness/imperfectiveness of Russian verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is even more obvious when we are talking about some actions that yet to be done, probably in future (if they are supposed to be done at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare following pairs of questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сколько [времени] ты ещё будешь собираться! &#xD;&#xA; - За сколько [времени] ты соберёшься.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сколько ещё времени ты будешь делать домашнее задание?&#xD;&#xA; - За сколько времени можно сделать домашнее задание?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, whenever we have so-called &quot;будущее несовершенное&quot; - one that is used with &quot;быть&quot; - &quot;сколько&quot; is used, and with &quot;будущее совершенное&quot; (future perfect) or just infinitive of a perfect verb &quot;за сколько&quot; is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, just to mention, there is a separate colloquial &quot;Сколько времени?&quot; which has a different meaning - &quot;how much time it is?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13789" RevisionGUID="095b7c21-2003-46c7-9794-ac7350204bde" CreationDate="2017-01-08T13:54:24.150" UserId="6816" Text="I know how to make plurals using numerals and nouns, but how does one use numerals  with demonstrative pronouns or even just regular pronouns? Examples:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I need two of these.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I will select three of you to help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13789" RevisionGUID="095b7c21-2003-46c7-9794-ac7350204bde" CreationDate="2017-01-08T13:54:24.150" UserId="6816" Text="How to say &quot;two of these&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13789" RevisionGUID="095b7c21-2003-46c7-9794-ac7350204bde" CreationDate="2017-01-08T13:54:24.150" UserId="6816" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13790" RevisionGUID="af161f15-acd5-4f99-9dd1-0686d844b1a3" CreationDate="2017-01-08T13:56:31.137" UserId="8353" Text="Both in accusative already:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) [отец](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=213627):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![отец][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) [мать](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=156447):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wxudw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/k2TW6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="f4ad6157-5082-4eca-8f28-0c9f72532110" CreationDate="2017-01-08T13:59:16.543" UserId="8353" Text="'of'  = 'из' (accusativ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно два из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata 'они': http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=206619&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata 'вы': http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=55560&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8H8M6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ShVK8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32820" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="51235e5c-6256-4ca2-ad68-e06939ee5961" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:07:53.683" UserId="8353" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8353,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;A K&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32821" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="ccd6b057-bd5b-413d-88e4-b99ddd6e43e9" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:20:19.840" UserId="8353" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8353,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;A K&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="6cb7271e-120d-4a59-a43a-cc749bc329fc" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:20:49.307" UserId="8353" Comment="deleted 176 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мне нужно двоих из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata 'два': http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=78668&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata 'три': http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=349973&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="a526d152-8825-403e-9406-181d4fec968c" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:27:28.650" UserId="8353" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мне нужно &lt;выбрать&gt; двоих из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata [двое](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=78866)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata ['трое'](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=350318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next: четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="e34cc89d-dbf6-457d-b410-c352ffe01b78" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:37:44.037" UserId="8353" Comment="added 761 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мне нужно &lt;выбрать&gt; двоих из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata [двое](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=78866)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata ['трое'](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=350318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next: четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you normally use the regular number if it is higher than 7? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heard it's not normal to use collectives after 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sure](http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/24631/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%85-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85 ).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Собирательные числительные — это замкнутая группа слов: двое, трое,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро, восьмеро, девятеро, десятеро; в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разговорной речи образуются и числительные типа одиннадцатеро,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двенадцатеро (но не двадцатеро, тридцатеро). Собирательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные называют количество, понимаемое как нечто целостное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; единое.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Современный русский литературный язык / Под ред. П. А. Леканта — М.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2009г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also from gramota.ru: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=274656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  В словарях зафиксированы собирательные числительные &quot;восьмеро&quot;, &quot;девятеро&quot;, &quot;десятеро&quot;. Насколько употребительны именно эти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные в современном языке? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ответ справочной службы русского языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Они малоупотребительны в начальной форме, но частотны в косвенных падежах: нет восьмерых, девятерых, десятерых. Об употребительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; можно судить, например, по Национальному корпусу русского языка:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ruscorpora.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="4091cc8f-0b9d-4d21-a599-06ce6674d657" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:50:51.740" UserId="8353" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мне нужно &lt;выбрать&gt; двоих из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata [двое](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=78866)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata ['трое'](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=350318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next: четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you normally use the regular number if it is higher than 7? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heard it's not normal to use collectives after 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See gramota.ru: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=274656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  В словарях зафиксированы собирательные числительные &quot;восьмеро&quot;, &quot;девятеро&quot;, &quot;десятеро&quot;. Насколько употребительны именно эти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные в современном языке? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ответ справочной службы русского языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Они малоупотребительны в начальной форме, но частотны в косвенных падежах: нет восьмерых, девятерых, десятерых. Об употребительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; можно судить, например, по Национальному корпусу русского языка:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ruscorpora.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [topic about 30](http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/24631/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%85-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Собирательные числительные — это замкнутая группа слов: двое, трое,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро, восьмеро, девятеро, десятеро; в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разговорной речи образуются и числительные типа одиннадцатеро,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двенадцатеро (но не двадцатеро, тридцатеро). Собирательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные называют количество, понимаемое как нечто целостное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; единое.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Современный русский литературный язык / Под ред. П. А. Леканта — М.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2009г.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="950841d1-e285-4701-9c0b-5cb813934a24" CreationDate="2017-01-08T14:56:36.773" UserId="8353" Comment="deleted 152 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мне нужно &lt;выбрать&gt; двоих из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata [двое](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=78866)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata ['трое'](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=350318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next: четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you normally use the regular number if it is higher than 7? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heard it's not normal to use collectives after 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See gramota.ru: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=274656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Q: В словарях зафиксированы собирательные числительные &quot;восьмеро&quot;, &quot;девятеро&quot;, &quot;десятеро&quot;. Насколько употребительны именно эти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные в современном языке? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A: Они малоупотребительны в начальной форме, но частотны в косвенных падежах: нет восьмерых, девятерых, десятерых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [topic about 30](http://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/24631/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%85-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Собирательные числительные — это замкнутая группа слов: двое, трое,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро, восьмеро, девятеро, десятеро; в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разговорной речи образуются и числительные типа одиннадцатеро,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двенадцатеро (но не двадцатеро, тридцатеро). Собирательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные называют количество, понимаемое как нечто целостное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; единое.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Современный русский литературный язык / Под ред. П. А. Леканта — М.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2009г.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="11e6d700-0adb-40fb-b1f7-11581c720ef4" CreationDate="2017-01-08T21:41:53.740" UserId="8357" Text="The main feature of these examples is that they don't have a noun attached to the numeral, while the “container” of the things counted is mentioned and attached with the preposition “of”. Actually, your question is: how do I get read of the noun when I use a numeral, and should I. I can see three ways to solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I need thirty of these — мне нужно тридцать штук. I will select fifty of you to help me — я отберу среди вас пятьдесят человек себе в помощь. That is, I don't get rid of the noun at all, I just use something generic that does not interfere. This is a very common way: «хорошо, мне нужно две штуки» (okay, I need two of these) is what you probably would say in a shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When the noun is implied by repetition, I can just omit it. Есть 100 коробок с леденцами, из них две содержат зелёные леденцы, десять — красные, а остальные — жёлтые. Сколько коробок с жёлтыми леденцами? (A simple arithmetical problem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I can use a collective numeral as the other answer suggests («из них трое» as a substitute for «из них три игрока»: в команде двадцать три игрока, из них трое не пожелали выйти на поле). But трое телевизоров (three TV boxes) makes no sense at all to me, I think the collectives are reserved to something animate. Трое псов (three dogs) is fine. With the number two, the numeral оба also quite works, whether the thing is animate or not. But it means not only “both of them”, but also “all of them”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the second option is valid in place of the third; that is, the use of a collective numeral may be not necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="6010c8db-68ad-43ca-a4dc-162b585d82ee" CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:10:53.477" UserId="6725" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The main feature of these examples is that they don't have a noun attached to the numeral, while the “container” of the things counted is mentioned and attached with the preposition “of”. Actually, your question is: how do I get rid of the noun when I use a numeral, and should I? I can see three ways to solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need thirty of these. —&#xD;&#xA; Мне нужно тридцать штук.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will select fifty of you to help me. — Я отберу среди вас пятьдесят человек себе в помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I don't get rid of the noun at all, I just use something generic that does not interfere. This is a very common way: «хорошо, мне нужно две штуки» (okay, I need two of these) is what you probably would say in a shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When the noun is implied by repetition, I can just omit it. Есть 100 коробок с леденцами, из них две содержат зелёные леденцы, десять — красные, а остальные — жёлтые. Сколько коробок с жёлтыми леденцами? (A simple arithmetical problem.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. I can use a collective numeral as the other answer suggests («из них трое» as a substitute for «из них три игрока»: в команде двадцать три игрока, из них трое не пожелали выйти на поле). But трое телевизоров (three TV boxes) makes no sense at all to me, I think the collectives are reserved to something animate. Трое псов (three dogs) is fine. With the number two, the numeral оба also quite works, whether the thing is animate or not. But it means not only “both of them”, but also “all of them”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the second option is valid in place of the third; that is, the use of a collective numeral may be not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="64331993-9509-485b-bd2c-222da57e0514" CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:22:17.343" UserId="6725" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="The main feature of these examples is that they don't have a noun attached to the numeral, while the “container” of the things counted is mentioned and attached with the preposition “of”. Actually, your question is: how do I get rid of the noun when I use a numeral, and should I? I can see three ways to solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need thirty of these. — *Мне нужно тридцать штук.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will select fifty of you to help me. — *Я отберу среди вас пятьдесят человек себе в помощь.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I don't get rid of the noun at all, I just use something generic that does not interfere. This is a very common way: «Хорошо, мне нужно две штуки.» (&quot;*Okay, I need two of these.*&quot;) is what you probably would say in a shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** When the noun is implied by repetition, I can just omit it. For example, a simple arithmetic problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Есть 100 коробок с леденцами, из них две содержат зелёные леденцы,десять — красные, а остальные — жёлтые. Сколько коробок с жёлтыми леденцами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3)** I can use a collective numeral as the other answer suggests («из них трое» as a substitute for «из них три игрока»: «В команде двадцать три игрока, из них трое не пожелали выйти на поле.»). But «трое телевизоров» (&quot;*three TV boxes*&quot;) makes no sense at all to me, I think the collectives are reserved to something animate. «Трое псов» (&quot;*three dogs*&quot;) is fine. With the number two, the numeral «оба» also quite works, whether the thing is animate or not. But it means not only “*both of them*”, but also “*all of them*”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the second option is valid in place of the third; that is, the use of a collective numeral may be not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13794" RevisionGUID="2571d119-fd16-43c6-9076-7349f181cef5" CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:52:05.863" UserId="8357" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The main feature of these examples is that they don't have a noun attached to the numeral, while the “container” of the things counted is mentioned and attached with the preposition “of”. Actually, your question is: how do I get rid of the noun when I use a numeral, and should I? I can see three ways to solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1)** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I need thirty of these. — *Мне нужно тридцать штук.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will select fifty of you to help me. — *Я отберу среди вас пятьдесят человек себе в помощь.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, I don't get rid of the noun at all, I just use something generic that does not interfere. This is a very common way: «Хорошо, мне нужно две штуки.» (&quot;*Okay, I need two of these.*&quot;) is what you probably would say in a shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2)** When the noun is implied by repetition, I can just omit it. For example, a simple arithmetic problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Есть 100 коробок с леденцами, из них две содержат зелёные леденцы, десять — красные, а остальные — жёлтые. Сколько коробок с жёлтыми леденцами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3)** I can use a collective numeral as the other answer suggests («из них трое» as a substitute for «из них три игрока»: «В команде двадцать три игрока, из них трое не пожелали выйти на поле.»). But «трое телевизоров» (&quot;*three TV boxes*&quot;) makes no sense at all to me, I think the collectives are reserved to something animate. «Трое псов» (&quot;*three dogs*&quot;) is fine. With the number two, the numeral «оба» also quite works, whether the thing is animate or not. But it means not only “*the two of them*”, but also “*all of them*”, i. e. it's not always applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, the second option is valid in place of the third; that is, the use of a collective numeral may be not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13795" RevisionGUID="5830aa23-d929-40c0-a2fc-58b3bd391606" CreationDate="2017-01-09T02:56:12.907" UserId="7716" Text="Yes, you (and shabunc) are right that aspect is involved here. To use English for comparison:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;за + (time period) + perfective verb expresses how long it took to *complete* or *accomplish* something. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прочитал книгу за неделю.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I read the book **in** a week/It took me a week to read the book. [and I've finished it]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using just the accusative expresses *duration*: how long you spent on an activity, with no indication of whether you completed it, or whether there's a result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я читал книгу неделю.  &#xD;&#xA;I read the book **for** a week/I spent a week reading the book. [no indication of whether I finished it or not; maybe I gave up on it after a week. I'm just stating how long I was reading it.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13796" RevisionGUID="93c7bc3b-1807-4849-864d-a0a3877f8c87" CreationDate="2017-01-09T03:02:34.227" UserId="8359" Text="The man's name Осип is a form of Ио́сиф. Is it a nickname, a diminutive, a regionalism, or a register change? Would someone named Ио́сиф potentially also answer to Осип, as with Joseph and Joe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13796" RevisionGUID="93c7bc3b-1807-4849-864d-a0a3877f8c87" CreationDate="2017-01-09T03:02:34.227" UserId="8359" Text="What distinguishes Осип from Ио́сиф?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13796" RevisionGUID="93c7bc3b-1807-4849-864d-a0a3877f8c87" CreationDate="2017-01-09T03:02:34.227" UserId="8359" Text="|выбор-имени|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13795" RevisionGUID="f04dd6a5-f833-4459-a813-f51752800939" CreationDate="2017-01-09T03:22:55.807" UserId="7716" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Yes, you (and shabunc) are right that aspect is involved here. To use English for comparison:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;за + (time period) + perfective verb expresses how long it took to *complete* or *accomplish* something. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прочитал книгу за неделю.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;I read the book **in** a week/It took me a week to read the book. [and I've finished it]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using just the time period in the accusative, with an imperfective verb, expresses *duration*: how long you spent on an activity, with no indication of whether you completed it, or whether there's a result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я читал книгу неделю.  &#xD;&#xA;I read the book **for** a week/I spent a week reading the book. [no indication of whether I finished it or not; maybe I gave up on it after a week. I'm just stating how long I was reading it.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13797" RevisionGUID="f0199572-f4b5-45bf-8ff9-c8bc98e80047" CreationDate="2017-01-09T04:13:25.853" UserId="242" Text="It's neither a nickname, nor a dinimutive. It's just a form which became distinctive from the (borrowed through Greek) Иосиф and happily co-exist with it just like Johannes co-exist with John. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it indeed initially was introduced at lower-class usage I'm not sure it can be treated as regionalism - I'd rather say it is Russian vulgar version of the name. Just like say Йозеф.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - yes, in colloquial speech Иосиф could be addressed as `Осип` if hi didn't mind - nowadays it's pretty obsolete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a famous Russian-speaking poet of jewish origin, Осип Манедльштам,  who actually was Иосиф. But this name can be use as a separate one as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13797" RevisionGUID="563c7800-ec69-408b-9550-329660a85655" CreationDate="2017-01-09T07:13:50.770" UserId="242" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="It's neither a nickname, nor a dinimutive. It's just a form which became distinctive from the (borrowed through Greek) Иосиф and happily co-exist with it just like Johannes co-exist with John. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it indeed initially was introduced at lower-class usage I'm not sure it can be treated as regionalism - I'd rather say it is Russian vulgar version of the name. Just like say Йозеф.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - yes, in colloquial speech Иосиф could be addressed as `Осип` if hi didn't mind - nowadays it's pretty obsolete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a famous Russian-speaking poet of jewish origin, Осип Манедльштам,  who actually was Иосиф. But this name can be use as a separate one as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there are some other examples when colloquial form of name became a separate one. For instance, `Егор` initially was a form of `Георгий`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32849" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13796" RevisionGUID="4c7d8360-c4a8-41cb-8895-a548336490ff" CreationDate="2017-01-09T10:17:16.710" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What distinguishes &quot;Осип&quot; from &quot;Ио́сиф&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13798" RevisionGUID="f69da5ad-884f-471f-8ba2-67ed02231772" CreationDate="2017-01-09T11:21:10.607" UserId="8361" Text="William&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to answer your questions from another perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Also, the answers seem to imply that there is a difference in meaning&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between: &quot;Как долго она не работала?&quot; and &quot;Сколько времени она не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; работала?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite there's difference in form, the meaning is just the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And your another question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Is there any significance to the fact that perfective verbs are only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used with &quot;за&quot; and that imperfective verbs are only used in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absence of &quot;за&quot;?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say, there's no significance to this fact. Let us see the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Анна**: За какое время ты сделала домашнее задание? (What time did it take you to do the homework)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Нина**: Я сделала домашнее задание за час.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective verbs can be used with the preposition &quot;за&quot; as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Анна**: За какое время ты делаешь домашнее задание? (What time does it take you to do the homework)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Нина**: Я делаю домашнее задание за час. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ЗА&quot; in expressions relating to time means either &quot;how much time does/did/will it take&quot; e.g.: За какое время? За какой срок? or &quot;for the time of smth e.g.: За время учебы. За время каникул.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the situation you are concerned about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сколько времени ты делала домашнее задание?** vs **За сколько времени ты сделала домашнее задание?**&#xD;&#xA;Both the preposition &quot;За&quot; and a perfective aspect are used to highlight that the action is finished. But they are translated in the same way into English: **How much time did it take you to do your homework?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, also, probably some knowledge of aspect will help you investigate this puzzle.&#xD;&#xA;(I suppose, you already know that, but, to my mind, it never hurts to revise). As well as in English, there are two aspects: perfective and imperfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imerfective aspect has three tense forms: &#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;**(all of them are used when talking about incomplete actions)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The past form: Я делал /Eng: I did&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The present form: Я делаю /Eng: I do/I am doing (and here it probably gets tricky)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The Future form: Я буду делать /Eng I will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective aspect has only two forms:&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The past form: Я сделал /Eng: either I did smth or I have done smth (BUT in Russian it's never about Present, in other words, it is NEVER about duration from the past until now. It is always about actions in the Past. **This form is used when talking about completed actions**)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The present form: Я сделаю /Eng: I will have done it (it is always about the result in Future) It is tricky, because there's a present form, but a Future meaning. **And again, we are takling about completed actions**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13799" RevisionGUID="5ba694ab-8961-4e65-be76-5d590183b06f" CreationDate="2017-01-09T12:29:26.360" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;I need two of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me remind you that Russian numerals agree in gender, number and case with the nouns (even if there's obviously no noun in the clause, it is often  clear from the situation when you point at a certain thing or person ) Thus,there can't be a universal answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужны **две** такие(ручки), **два** таких (карандаша), **две** из вас (девчонки),**двое**(ребят),**два**(мальчишки)в помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will select three of you to help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я выберу **троих/трех** (ребят),**трех** (девчонок) из вас себе в помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13799" RevisionGUID="20740601-dea9-47e7-a9c9-2c302b7a5bee" CreationDate="2017-01-09T12:35:28.093" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="&gt;I need two of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me remind you that Russian numerals agree in gender, number and case with the nouns (even if there's obviously no noun in the clause, it is often  clear from the situation when you point at a certain thing or person ) Thus,there can't be a universal answer. I don't think &quot;these&quot; can refer to people(sounds pejorative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужны **две** такие(ручки), **два** таких (карандаша).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will select three of you to help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я выберу **троих/трех** (ребят),**трех** (девчонок) из вас себе в помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="28e24a10-c031-48ee-a443-c71e2d515ca2" CreationDate="2017-01-09T18:39:28.717" UserId="5826" Text="I has tried to render the expression &quot;invalid at computed-value time&quot; into very understandable Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was rendered &quot;недопустимое значение&quot; by myself, and so trimmed in a way that retains no real essentials. Really, I do not want to say &quot;invalid value&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain it. It comes from computation. For example, I have a function, an input value and a conditional statement that defines if an output value returned by the function is acceptable. I do not know if the input value is valid to be taken as an input because it depends on what the output value is. Later, at computation time the output—the computed value—proves to be unacceptable, so the input value is invalid at computed-value time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is accurate rendering of the expression so it never need to be explained in order to be properly understood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="28e24a10-c031-48ee-a443-c71e2d515ca2" CreationDate="2017-01-09T18:39:28.717" UserId="5826" Text="What is accurate rendering of the expression &quot;invalid at computed-value time&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="28e24a10-c031-48ee-a443-c71e2d515ca2" CreationDate="2017-01-09T18:39:28.717" UserId="5826" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32858" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13796" RevisionGUID="dc6daa93-428d-4c0b-9d53-aab9bd8053a3" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:06:18.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/818534381237243905" />
  <row Id="32859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13801" RevisionGUID="7fd845d9-0ea9-4819-9b25-115010d4180b" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:12:54.660" UserId="7544" Text="&quot;Недопустимое значение&quot; seems to be totally fine for what you have described. I don't see any problem. If you want to explain the reason of this value being invalid, you can explain it shortly, like &quot;Недопустимое значение: (here goes the condition that makes it invalid&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't see any real way of going with no explanation at all in your case, unless you explain it somewhere else, which in turn isn't going without an explanation. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13802" RevisionGUID="01485a56-d881-4c19-b646-5bdefa09a725" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:22:06.633" UserId="7544" Text="In Russian it actually changes a lot if things you are refering to are animate or inanimate. Animate and inanimate nouns are declined in diffrent ways, the same goes with pronouns that refer to them. I am not an English native speaker, but it seems like the first sentence refers to inanimate objects, and the second -- to animate. In this case you would say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно два таких&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If those &quot;two&quot; are masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужно две таких &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If they both are feminine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would refer to animate objects, you would probably use the word &quot;двое&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What goes to the second phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я выберу троих из вас, чтобы помочь мне. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we don't expect the narrator to be talking to inanimate objects in this way, we definitely go this way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13803" RevisionGUID="3df20466-76e4-4b28-943a-6f26025b254e" CreationDate="2017-01-09T20:06:27.517" UserId="4903" Text="I would approach it similarly to a stable expression:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __&quot;Invalid run-time value&quot;__ which is translated as __&quot;Недопустимое значение во время выполнения.&quot;__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we need to differentiate __compute-time__ from __run-time__, then we can translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __&quot;Invalid at computed-value time&quot;__ as __&quot;Недопустимое значение во время вычисления.&quot;__" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="ecf60c4e-09e4-4de1-822f-f1750f14f7bf" CreationDate="2017-01-09T20:06:46.217" UserId="7544" Comment="English grammar" Text="I have tried to render the expression &quot;invalid at computed-value time&quot; into very understandable Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was rendered as &quot;недопустимое значение&quot; by myself, and so trimmed in a way that retains no real essentials. Really, I do not want to say &quot;invalid value&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain it. It comes from computation. For example, I have a function, an input value and a conditional statement that defines if an output value returned by the function is acceptable. I do not know if the input value is valid to be taken as an input because it depends on what the output value is. Later, at computation time the output—the computed value—proves to be unacceptable, so the input value is invalid at computed-value time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is accurate rendering of the expression so it never need to be explained in order to be properly understood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32863" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="ecf60c4e-09e4-4de1-822f-f1750f14f7bf" CreationDate="2017-01-09T20:06:46.217" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 4903, -1 edit id of 828" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13800" RevisionGUID="170ab397-7e33-4402-9031-93d29a195318" CreationDate="2017-01-09T20:06:46.217" UserId="5826" Comment="English grammar" Text="I had tried to render the expression &quot;invalid at computed-value time&quot; into very understandable Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was rendered as &quot;недопустимое значение&quot; by myself, and so trimmed in a way that retains no real essentials. Really, I do not want to say &quot;invalid value&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me explain it. It comes from computation. For example, I have a function, an input value and a conditional statement that defines if an output value returned by the function is acceptable. I do not know if the input value is valid to be taken as an input because it depends on what the output value is. Later, at computation time the output—the computed value—proves to be unacceptable, so the input value is invalid at computed-value time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is accurate rendering of the expression so it never need to be explained in order to be properly understood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13803" RevisionGUID="bf8c5c02-dc56-491e-b382-b3fb0f15662a" CreationDate="2017-01-09T20:15:18.407" UserId="4903" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="I would approach it similarly to a stable expression:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __&quot;Invalid run-time value&quot;__ which is translated as __&quot;Недопустимое значение во время выполнения.&quot;__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we need to differentiate __compute-time__ from __run-time__, then we can translate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __&quot;Invalid at computed-value time&quot;__ as __&quot;Недопустимое значение во время вычисления.&quot;__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the literal translation is: &quot;Недопустимо во время вычисления значения.&quot; But that phrase (adverbial clause) is less convenient for usage in different contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13806" RevisionGUID="4344ba3a-3de1-4129-a32a-917bee925b76" CreationDate="2017-01-09T23:32:46.623" UserId="4481" Text="I would propose a translation, based on your description. You wrote, that certain value, used as an input parameter, leads to un unacceptable result. So, in Russian it will be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Значение переменной [which you use as input] приводит к неприемлемому результату&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. As a programmer, I prefer clear error explanations. Error text has to explain a situation as much as possible, so I wrote not a translation, but an explanation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13806" RevisionGUID="92e27ef2-1c9d-4e96-a169-68e698e5e14c" CreationDate="2017-01-09T23:40:31.453" UserId="4481" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I would propose a translation, based on your description. You wrote, that certain value, being used as an input parameter, leads to an unacceptable result. So, in Russian it will be something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Значение переменной [which you use as input] приводит к неприемлемому результату&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. As a programmer, I prefer clear error explanations. Error text has to explain a situation as much as possible, so it is more an explanation than a translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="97cfe0a0-15d1-46a8-b74e-f4aa8c97e38d" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:03:51.013" UserId="5313" Text="In my stamp collection is a 1990 Soviet Union stamp commemorating British double agent Kim Philby. Above his likeness is the title СОВЕТСКИЙ РАЗВЕДЧИК, which to my understanding translates to &quot;Soviet Sentry&quot;. The term &quot;sentry&quot; strikes me as odd though, because sentry isn't a synonym for spy. Can somebody shed any light on this particular choice of wording?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="97cfe0a0-15d1-46a8-b74e-f4aa8c97e38d" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:03:51.013" UserId="5313" Text="Meaning of РАЗВЕДЧИК on Soviet Era Stamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="97cfe0a0-15d1-46a8-b74e-f4aa8c97e38d" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:03:51.013" UserId="5313" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32879" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="fe4b896e-00c9-483b-a1c2-11ab3c6b33a0" CreationDate="2017-01-10T02:06:30.103" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32880" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="0ff38b6e-7493-49b0-8a08-59a1490f85a8" CreationDate="2017-01-10T04:12:00.613" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;разведчик&quot; on Soviet Era Stamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13808" RevisionGUID="7bc5711e-0019-4200-8924-f149965c0ec8" CreationDate="2017-01-10T06:38:56.643" UserId="8365" Text="Folant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand your task correctly, you deal with a function and a conditional statement that evaluates these function outputs. In this case, your function + the conditional statement is basically another function that has its own range and domain. For this reason, if an output value is not acceptable, I would simply say: &quot;The input parameter is out of the range&quot; and, by definition, it automatically means that the corresponding output value is not acceptable in a process of computation. A Russian equivalent of &quot;The input parameter is out of the range&quot; is &quot;Входной параметер вне область допустимых значений&quot;, and this message sounds scientific and elegant in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13808" RevisionGUID="09e6f32e-2f3d-47be-aad6-113f1cb658a9" CreationDate="2017-01-10T07:00:11.827" UserId="8365" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Folant,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand your task correctly, you deal with a function and a conditional statement that evaluates these function outputs. In this case, your function + the conditional statement is basically another function that has its own range and domain. For this reason, if an output value is not acceptable, I would simply say: &quot;The input parameter is out of the range&quot; and, by definition, it automatically means that the corresponding output value is not acceptable in a process of computation. A Russian equivalent of &quot;The input parameter is out of the range&quot; is &quot;Входной параметер вне области определения&quot;, and this message sounds scientific and elegant in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13809" RevisionGUID="229c177c-b57f-4d94-9fa0-219056c68ab5" CreationDate="2017-01-10T07:32:54.100" UserId="194" Text="Иосиф is not really a Russian name. It is a Jewish name, which can be encountered among Russian Jews moderately often and never among ethnic Russians.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Осип is a Russian name, but it is very archaic, outdated and not widely used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I encountered a person named Осип I would suspect a family of Russian Orthodox conservatives, priests, Old Believers, peasants, whatever of this kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13799" RevisionGUID="7a9cc477-0170-49d9-af4e-ee87dd561774" CreationDate="2017-01-10T14:56:14.120" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;I need two of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me remind you that Russian numerals agree in gender, number and case with the nouns (even if there's obviously no noun in the clause, it is often  clear from the situation when you point at a certain thing or person ) Thus, there can't be a universal answer. I don't think &quot;these&quot; can refer to people(sounds pejorative ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужны **две** такие(ручки), **два** таких (карандаша).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will select three of you to help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я выберу **троих/трех** (ребят), **трех** (девчонок) из вас себе в помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="25ea16f5-82c0-446a-9589-c9eab27f5bb3" CreationDate="2017-01-10T15:46:26.153" UserId="5313" Comment="Edited question to indicate preliminary research undertaken prior to posting." Text="In my stamp collection is a 1990 Soviet Union stamp commemorating British double agent Kim Philby. Above his likeness is the title СОВЕТСКИЙ РАЗВЕДЧИК, which to my understanding translates to &quot;Soviet Sentry&quot;. The term &quot;sentry&quot; strikes me as odd though, because sentry isn't a synonym for spy. Can somebody shed any light on this particular choice of wording?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An online dictionary indicates the term means &quot;sentry&quot; which doesn't make any sense. Kim Philby was a British double agent, not a &quot;scout&quot;, but obviously the USSR considered him valuable, and perhaps a hero. So does the particular Russian term have a more nuanced meaning when it comes to espionage, or does it perhaps mean &quot;Guardian of the Soviet Union&quot;, or something else entirely?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32886" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="513e9c79-906a-41d0-9e14-e7c6bd2d3c6d" CreationDate="2017-01-10T17:53:46.717" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13811" RevisionGUID="cb0c468f-0c38-42a3-a5fb-e66e2fd59902" CreationDate="2017-01-10T19:25:14.433" UserId="2079" Text="Well, if `sentry` is &quot;a soldier stationed to keep guard or to control access to a place&quot;, then `разведчик` is not `sentry`. If some dictionary translates `разведчик` as `sentry`, it doesn't make sense indeed.  &quot;A soldier stationed to keep guard or to control access to a place&quot; is `часовой` (when he is on duty) or `караульный` (while not on duty). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Разведчик` is either `scout` (&quot;a soldier or other person sent out ahead of a main force so as to gather information about the enemy's position, strength, or movements&quot;) or `spy`.  `Spy` can also be translated as `шпион`, but `шпион` has some negative connotation, while `разведчик` has positive connotation.  For instance, a Soviet press would likely call Francis Gary Powers &quot;шпион&quot;, but Rudolf Abel might be called &quot;разведчик&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32893" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="6c2d3c02-67df-4485-9329-86f76313ac8a" CreationDate="2017-01-11T07:17:07.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/819080684027387904" />
  <row Id="32894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13812" RevisionGUID="8d272c74-da3c-42b7-a2a2-2b31d0866a66" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:50:20.457" UserId="4739" Text="Во время прочтения фразы &quot;парами ртути отравились и умерли 60 мастеров&quot; в [статье на Википедии][1], мне показалось, что построена она неверна, и если дополнение стоит в начале предложение, то все последующие сказуемые должны относиться к нему, соответственно, вторая часть предложения читается как &quot;парами ртути... умерли&quot;, что лишено какого-либо смысла. Фразой, не вызывающей диссонанса, в данном случае является &quot;отравились парами ртути и умерли 60 мастеров&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какое-то правило, подтверждающее это чувство?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80#.D0.A1.D1.82.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.BE_.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B1.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13812" RevisionGUID="8d272c74-da3c-42b7-a2a2-2b31d0866a66" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:50:20.457" UserId="4739" Text="Порядок в предложении с несколькими сказуемыми" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13812" RevisionGUID="8d272c74-da3c-42b7-a2a2-2b31d0866a66" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:50:20.457" UserId="4739" Text="|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13812" RevisionGUID="9f35a43d-f983-45e8-b1d0-8e91e7eac363" CreationDate="2017-01-11T10:06:18.033" UserId="4833" Comment="spelling, punctuation" Text="Во время прочтения фразы &quot;парами ртути отравились и умерли 60 мастеров&quot; в [статье на Википедии][1], мне показалось, что построена она неверно, и если дополнение стоит в начале предложения, то все последующие сказуемые должны относиться к нему. Соответственно, вторая часть предложения читается как &quot;парами ртути... умерли&quot;, что лишено какого-либо смысла. Фразой, не вызывающей диссонанса, в данном случае является &quot;отравились парами ртути и умерли 60 мастеров&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли какое-то правило, подтверждающее это чувство?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80#.D0.A1.D1.82.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.BE_.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B1.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32898" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13812" RevisionGUID="9f35a43d-f983-45e8-b1d0-8e91e7eac363" CreationDate="2017-01-11T10:06:18.033" Comment="Proposed by 4833 approved by 4739 edit id of 829" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="35bcb9a0-628d-40ab-88ce-6846c69a10c0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T12:31:03.897" UserId="87" Text="Got a business letter with this phrase followed by a list of 6 officials, sixth being a president. So I wonder whether it's me who always interpreted this phrase incorrectly (5 members total) or them (6 members)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="35bcb9a0-628d-40ab-88ce-6846c69a10c0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T12:31:03.897" UserId="87" Text="In &quot;делегация из 5 человек во главе с президентом&quot;, are 5 or 6 visitors meant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="35bcb9a0-628d-40ab-88ce-6846c69a10c0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T12:31:03.897" UserId="87" Text="|словоупотребление|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13814" RevisionGUID="a35c9185-d726-40e4-a2d1-bde9d01b4f8c" CreationDate="2017-01-11T12:59:36.357" UserId="5443" Text="Вряд ли найдётся универсальное правило, но можно определить, почему первый вариант неудачен. Дело не столько в порядке слов (напр. возможны варианты с разным положением подлежащего), сколько в **тесном объединении** союзом &quot;и&quot; соседствующих **глаголов**. В результате взаимной связи они оказались в равной степени отнесёнными к вынесенному в начало предложения дополнению &quot;парами ртути&quot;, *с падежом* которого может сочетаться лишь один из этих глаголов. *Разорвать связь* второго глагола с имеющимся дополнением можно разными способами. В предложенном вами (правильном) варианте союз &quot;и&quot; объединяет законченную конструкцию из глагола с индивидуально связанным дополнением и второй глагол без дополнения. Без нарушения смысла здесь можно напр. перенести &quot;60 мастеров&quot; из конца в начало. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отравились парами ртути и умерли 60 мастеров.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 60 мастеров отравились парами ртути и умерли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другой вариант исправления (с сохранением акцента на &quot;парах ртути&quot;) возможен при связывании второго глагола с дополнением в подходящем падеже:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Парами ртути отравились и от последствий отравления (ими) умерли 60&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мастеров." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13815" RevisionGUID="720e4b9c-cea1-4525-9e7c-98724703e93c" CreationDate="2017-01-11T13:27:22.973" UserId="4560" Text="It's them, and it doesn't look like an intuitive kind of mistake: by which I mean, it was likely caused by uninformed overthinking on the part of the person that wrote the letter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13816" RevisionGUID="7203c6cc-249f-442a-8e49-5ca0b151a191" CreationDate="2017-01-12T01:20:20.227" UserId="242" Text="Well, this is exactly why the words like &quot;включительно&quot;, &quot;включая&quot; do exist - otherwise in some cases there is indeed a disambiguation. The answer to your question is that the phrase &quot;делегация из N человек во главе с президентом&quot; can mean either N or N+1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid such uncertainty one can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Делегация из пяти человек **вместе** с президентом&#xD;&#xA; - Делегация из пяти человек **и** президент&#xD;&#xA; - Делегация из шести человек, **включая** президента&#xD;&#xA; - Делегация из пяти человек, **не включая** президента&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32908" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13807" RevisionGUID="56b001d7-c1ba-47a0-86c6-faa014f0de67" CreationDate="2017-01-12T01:43:05.877" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;разведчик&quot; on a Soviet era stamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="f2ff0752-a759-41c9-a636-be5ce75cabc3" CreationDate="2017-01-12T02:21:35.740" UserId="8357" Text="Есть особенная разновидность поэтического творчества, которую я сейчас опишу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В стихотворении рассматриваем несколько стихов. В каждом из этих стихов есть некое количество выделенных слов или словосочетаний — всегда одно и то же. Стихи объединены общностью тематического соотношения между этими словами. Например, если взять пары слов «жара» и «мороз», «футбол» и «хоккей», «трава» и «снег», то соотношение между словами в каждой паре состоит в том, что первое слово связано с летом, а второе — с зимой. Или можно взять тройки слов, где первое слово связано со зверем, второе — с птицей, а третье — с рыбой, как показано [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-английски эта штука называется — “correlative poetry”. А как по-русски? Есть ли какое-нибудь установившееся название? Может быть, есть несколько названий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2857099?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="f2ff0752-a759-41c9-a636-be5ce75cabc3" CreationDate="2017-01-12T02:21:35.740" UserId="8357" Text="“Correlative poetry” — как перевести это название на русский?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="f2ff0752-a759-41c9-a636-be5ce75cabc3" CreationDate="2017-01-12T02:21:35.740" UserId="8357" Text="|перевод|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13818" RevisionGUID="388d379b-4f42-42ec-bdb6-4b3493627b13" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:15:32.407" UserId="8357" Text="Есть такая вещь, для которой итальянское название — «versi incatenati». Так называются стихи, из которых каждый следующий начинается с того же слова, которым завершается предыдущий. Как такая вещь называется по-русски? Пример (прошу прощения за глупость — просто чтобы показать, как это по-русски может выглядеть):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Собака попала в подвал,&#xD;&#xA;    Подвал был сырой и холодный.&#xD;&#xA;    Холодный сбирается вал;&#xD;&#xA;    Вал — душегубец не модный…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И так далее по цепочке…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть схожее явление — «catena di sonetti», венок сонетов. Это сонеты, из которых каждый следующий начинается с того же стиха, которым завершается предыдущий. Но меня интересует русское название для другой вещи…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13818" RevisionGUID="388d379b-4f42-42ec-bdb6-4b3493627b13" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:15:32.407" UserId="8357" Text="Как по-русски назвать — «versi incatenati»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13818" RevisionGUID="388d379b-4f42-42ec-bdb6-4b3493627b13" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:15:32.407" UserId="8357" Text="|перевод|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13819" RevisionGUID="f02bcaf8-42f8-4d68-ac21-03789bc044eb" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:35:19.677" UserId="242" Text="This one I know) Actually it is called `aнадиплосис`. Here's a quote from dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анадиплосис - стилистическая фигура, состоящая в том, что отрезок речи (стих, фраза) начинается словами, которыми заканчивается предыдущий, например &quot;Голова болит, мало можется. Мало можется, нездоровится&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was quite widely used in Old Russian poetry as well, here's an example from relevant [wiki article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Станем-ка, ребята челобитную писать, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Челобитную писать, во Москву посылать.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во Москву посылать, царю в руки подавать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13819" RevisionGUID="0cd9bcb0-746b-4615-a012-b13ac591dca9" CreationDate="2017-01-12T03:46:56.720" UserId="242" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="This one I know) Actually it is called `aнадиплосис`. Here's a quote from dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анадиплосис - стилистическая фигура, состоящая в том, что отрезок речи (стих, фраза) начинается словами, которыми заканчивается предыдущий, например &quot;Голова болит, мало можется. Мало можется, нездоровится&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was quite widely used in Old Russian poetry as well, here's an example from relevant [wiki article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Станем-ка, ребята челобитную писать, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Челобитную писать, во Москву посылать.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во Москву посылать, царю в руки подавать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking it is not the name of a poetry of such kind but rather of the act of repetition itself but in Russian one would say &quot;стихи с использованием анадиплосиса&quot; - this is the closest you can get if not to dive in &quot;I-am-too-smart-kind&quot; self-induced neologisms, something like &quot;анадиплосисческие стихи&quot; ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13802" RevisionGUID="0157be7a-d16a-425f-b2ea-8a32e2fdbb9a" CreationDate="2017-01-12T04:19:15.450" UserId="7544" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In Russian it actually changes a lot if things you are refering to are animate or inanimate. Animate and inanimate nouns are declined in diffrent ways, the same goes with pronouns that refer to them. I am not an English native speaker, but it seems like the first sentence refers to inanimate objects, and the second -- to animate. In this case you would say it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужны два таких&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If those &quot;two&quot; are masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне нужны две такие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(If they both are feminine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would refer to animate objects, you would probably use the word &quot;двое&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What goes to the second phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я выберу троих из вас, чтобы помочь мне. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we don't expect the narrator to be talking to inanimate objects in this way, we definitely go this way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13813" RevisionGUID="7c9c7d17-8122-4d0c-8013-2059bc7dfd4e" CreationDate="2017-01-12T07:20:58.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/819444038298378240" />
  <row Id="32924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="08b45587-f508-4afa-b85a-6d80cd274395" CreationDate="2017-01-12T13:40:52.283" UserId="8377" Text="In an audio course of Russian language I heard several times я видел петербурга. Does this mean that geographical names are animate nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="08b45587-f508-4afa-b85a-6d80cd274395" CreationDate="2017-01-12T13:40:52.283" UserId="8377" Text="Is петербург an animate noun? I heard я видел петербурга" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="08b45587-f508-4afa-b85a-6d80cd274395" CreationDate="2017-01-12T13:40:52.283" UserId="8377" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13818" RevisionGUID="8ee0ff4c-a9e9-47ca-8fc1-546e3ba11636" CreationDate="2017-01-12T13:44:21.940" UserId="8357" Comment="уточнение вопроса" Text="Есть такая вещь, для которой итальянское название — «versi incatenati». Так называются стихи, из которых каждый следующий начинается с того же слова, которым завершается предыдущий. Как такая вещь называется по-русски? Пример (прошу прощения за глупость — просто чтобы показать, как это по-русски может выглядеть):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Собака попала в подвал,&#xD;&#xA;    Подвал был сырой и холодный.&#xD;&#xA;    Холодный сбирается вал;&#xD;&#xA;    Вал — душегубец не модный…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И так далее по цепочке…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть схожее явление — «catena di sonetti», венок сонетов. Это сонеты, из которых каждый следующий начинается с того же стиха, которым завершается предыдущий. Но меня интересует русское название для другой вещи…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Добавление**: слово должно явственно указывать, что речь идёт о шуточной поэзии. То есть такой, цель которой — в первую очередь, соответствие текста форме. В интернете можно найти довольно много примеров «палиндромических» стихов разного рода. В таких стихах смысл если и есть (как бывает в пословных или построчных ракоходах), то всё же очевидно, что он — совсем не главное или не совсем главное. Вот о чём-то таком я и говорю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13822" RevisionGUID="0c25a20c-ff7b-4d3d-abb9-9d97e89e0998" CreationDate="2017-01-12T13:47:15.337" UserId="8357" Text="No. You either mis-parsed or mis-heard what they said." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="256f16eb-1615-4fd5-a821-101b00e5a1e3" CreationDate="2017-01-12T13:50:10.283" UserId="8357" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="Есть особенная разновидность поэтического творчества, которую я сейчас опишу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В стихотворении рассматриваем несколько стихов. В каждом из этих стихов есть некое количество выделенных слов или словосочетаний — всегда одно и то же. Стихи объединены общностью тематического соотношения между этими словами. Например, если взять пары слов «жара» и «мороз», «футбол» и «хоккей», «трава» и «снег», то соотношение между словами в каждой паре состоит в том, что первое слово связано с летом, а второе — с зимой. Или можно взять тройки слов, где первое слово связано со зверем, второе — с птицей, а третье — с рыбой, как показано [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-английски эта штука называется — “correlative poetry”. А как по-русски? Есть ли какое-нибудь установившееся название? Может быть, есть несколько названий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Добавление**: слово должно явственно указывать, что речь идёт о шуточной поэзии. То есть такой, цель которой — в первую очередь, соответствие текста форме. В интернете можно найти довольно много примеров «палиндромических» стихов разного рода. В таких стихах смысл если и есть (как бывает в пословных или построчных ракоходах), то всё же очевидно, что он — совсем не главное или не совсем главное. Вот о чём-то таком я и говорю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2857099?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="3d129059-e558-4b74-9044-5b0652bad6ec" CreationDate="2017-01-12T14:00:00.440" UserId="8357" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="Есть особенная разновидность поэтического творчества, которую я сейчас опишу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В стихотворении рассматриваем несколько стихов. В каждом из этих стихов есть некое количество выделенных слов или словосочетаний — всегда одно и то же. Стихи объединены общностью тематического соотношения между этими словами. Например, если взять пары слов «жара» и «мороз», «футбол» и «хоккей», «трава» и «снег», то соотношение между словами в каждой паре состоит в том, что первое слово связано с летом, а второе — с зимой. Или можно взять тройки слов, где первое слово связано со зверем, второе — с птицей, а третье — с рыбой, как показано [здесь][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-английски эта штука называется — “correlative poetry”. А как по-русски? Есть ли какое-нибудь установившееся название? Может быть, есть несколько названий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Добавление**: слово должно явственно указывать, что речь идёт о шуточной поэзии. То есть такой, цель которой — в первую очередь, соответствие текста форме. В интернете можно найти довольно много примеров «палиндромических» стихов разного рода. В таких стихах смысл если и есть (как бывает в пословных или построчных ракоходах), то всё же очевидно, что он — совсем не главное или не совсем главное. Вот о чём-то таком я и говорю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форму этой разновидности стихотворений можно ещё описать так: есть несколько кортежей из слов (в математическом смысле слова: кортеж — это конечный упорядоченный список заданной длины), и в каждом кортеже на каждой позиции слово играет семантическую роль, заданную номером позиции. Кортежи разнесены по строкам стихотворения (необязательно по всем строкам), и в каждой такой строке слова встречаются в той же последовательности, в которой они записаны в кортеж. Получается занятный эффект «соотносения», похожий на взаимосвязанности в численных отношениях (А относится к Б, как В относится к Г — то есть частное А/Б равно частному В/Г, и отсюда следует, что частное А/В равно частному Б/Г).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2857099?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13823" RevisionGUID="399c0129-8f11-477b-949c-65f72b098a33" CreationDate="2017-01-12T15:40:51.213" UserId="2079" Text="No, `Петербург` is not an animate noun, and `я видел Петербурга` is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is if somebody is named `Петербург`, e.g. it is an animal name, somebody's nick etc.  In this case `Петербург` would be an animate noun, and `я видел Петербурга` is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У моего друга есть кот по кличке Петербург. Вчера я видел Петербурга.&#xD;&#xA;or    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Брат моей жены пишет в форум под ником Петербург. На прошлой неделе я видел Петербурга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you heard `я не видел Петербурга` (genitive case due to neglection)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13823" RevisionGUID="c52a0561-631c-40a4-a06d-a2928e0abc20" CreationDate="2017-01-12T16:17:44.980" UserId="115" Comment="spelling" Text="No, `Петербург` is not an animate noun, and `я видел Петербурга` is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is if somebody is named `Петербург`, e.g. it is an animal name, somebody's nick etc.  In this case `Петербург` would be an animate noun, and `я видел Петербурга` is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У моего друга есть кот по кличке Петербург. Вчера я видел Петербурга.&#xD;&#xA;or    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Брат моей жены пишет в форум под ником Петербург. На прошлой неделе я видел Петербурга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you heard `я не видел Петербурга` (genitive case due to negation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32933" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13812" RevisionGUID="9075f4f6-3616-41de-b04c-0363ef465705" CreationDate="2017-01-12T16:21:20.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/819580028497358852" />
  <row Id="32934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="17093f52-4530-4286-acae-68b8f96f3c25" CreationDate="2017-01-12T18:22:24.457" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;Петербург&quot; an animate noun? I heard &quot;я видел Петербурга&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13824" RevisionGUID="196ac12f-db10-43f9-8d2e-01c225a147d7" CreationDate="2017-01-12T22:12:48.340" UserId="8357" Text="&gt; I think I got it, but... what exactly defines a clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a clause when you have a complete thought. Usually, a clause is defined by one (no more) verb with all its actants, i. e. noun-like words that go with the verb, either nouns or adjectives. The role of every noun-like word within the clause is defined by its case and its preposition. What that role means depends on the verb to use. For example, every transitive verb accepts two roles: the subject (in the nominative case) and the object (in the accusative case) of the action. For the verb «кушать», that's the one who eats and what he eats, respectively. For the verb «целовать», that's the one who kisses and the one who is kissed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g. the clause «*которая работает там*» has one verb, one adverb (a word that is attached to the verb and “modifies” its meaning — see “ad” + “verb”) and one nominal word: «*которая*». That word is a pronoun, i. e. it has no meaning of its own and stands for whomever you think of, «*девушка*» in this case; grammatically, this word is quite like an adjective. Since the thing that the nominal word stands for is the subject of the action that the verb means (“*to work*”), the pronoun is in the nominative case. Just the same, if the first clause («*Он говорит о девушке*», which has one verb and two nominals) was not there, in the clause «*Девушка работает там*» the noun «*девушка*» would be in the nominative case, which I believe is a very natural thing to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are huge theory books (which I didn't read) about the roles of the verbal actants; above is what is necessary to understand the usage of «*который*». That's also useful to understand the Russian punctuation. It's pretty mechanical, a foreigner can easily learn it better than most natives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13818" RevisionGUID="a9be59cd-53c0-4a6c-b358-4507c3f2c8f0" CreationDate="2017-01-13T01:21:31.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/819715970084257792" />
  <row Id="32941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="8d152d0e-6fd1-4fd1-8c08-fea3c62a526e" CreationDate="2017-01-13T04:59:10.907" UserId="8377" Text="I would like to know how to say in Russian a sentence like &quot;I'm going to Ivan's&quot; and &quot;I'm staying at Ivan's&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="8d152d0e-6fd1-4fd1-8c08-fea3c62a526e" CreationDate="2017-01-13T04:59:10.907" UserId="8377" Text="How do you say in Russian &quot;I'm going to Ivan's&quot; and &quot;I'm staying at Ivan's&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="8d152d0e-6fd1-4fd1-8c08-fea3c62a526e" CreationDate="2017-01-13T04:59:10.907" UserId="8377" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13826" RevisionGUID="7da153d4-34ce-4bc0-a16a-55af8eea28d5" CreationDate="2017-01-13T05:22:13.933" UserId="6539" Text="Yes, we say that, but we don't use the possessive, just a proper noun in different cases, like a common noun.This is quite different from English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я еду(иду) к Ивану, (compare:к брату).Я остановлюсь(остановился) у Ивана (у брата).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32945" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="a7177ca2-8116-4cbb-8862-d432229fce66" CreationDate="2017-01-13T06:21:26.253" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32946" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13826" RevisionGUID="c86d0359-e0c7-461d-96b8-36782245f3ae" CreationDate="2017-01-13T06:56:25.500" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13789" RevisionGUID="93e753df-23cb-497d-b847-305a9397739b" CreationDate="2017-01-13T07:21:32.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/819806573262356486" />
  <row Id="32948" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13826" RevisionGUID="117258f1-4c79-463f-bbef-881c08c28587" CreationDate="2017-01-13T08:31:18.047" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13825" RevisionGUID="9bae974e-eb9e-4134-95d8-e1333e2dfe78" CreationDate="2017-01-13T15:58:59.823" UserId="8377" Comment="Specified that it is Ivan's _home_ and not an inn or some other place" Text="I would like to know how to say in Russian a sentence like &quot;I'm going to Ivan's home&quot; and &quot;I'm staying at Ivan's home&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="29599bd9-a0e7-487f-b629-2da768d5e81e" CreationDate="2017-01-13T20:11:51.437" UserId="8357" Comment="упорядочил объяснение оригинального термина; добавил пример в текст вопроса" Text="Есть особенная разновидность поэтического творчества, которую я сейчас опишу. По-английски этот жанр называется “correlative poetry”; мне хотелось бы знать русское название.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть несколько кортежей из слов (в математическом смысле слова: кортеж — это конечный упорядоченный список заданной длины), и в каждом кортеже на каждой позиции слово играет семантическую роль, заданную номером позиции. Кортежи разнесены по строкам стихотворения (необязательно по всем строкам), и в каждой такой строке слова встречаются в той же последовательности, в которой они записаны в кортеж. Получается занятный эффект «соотносения», похожий на взаимосвязанности в численных отношениях (А относится к Б, как В относится к Г — то есть частное А/Б равно частному В/Г, и отсюда следует, что частное А/В равно частному Б/Г).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример такого стихотворения можно найти [здесь][1]. В оригинале (в испанском, а разъяснения — по-английски) это сонет; ниже я приведу подстрочный перевод. В данном случае кортежи — это тройки; первое слово каждой тройки относится к зверю, второе — к птице, а третье — к рыбе. Первая тройка — это среда обитания; вторая тройка — это, собственно, название существа и его способ передвижения; третья тройка — это место, которое существу приносит радость; а четвёртая — это условия, в которых обитает существо и которые оно покидает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой вопрос относится не к литературному приёму (довольно-таки специфическому), а к стихам, которые использованием такого приёма характеризуются. Стихи эти могут быть более или менее осмыслены, предназначаться для выражения одного или другого, но их основная черта и, можно сказать, цель существования — организация именно в такой форме, которую я описал. Слово «сонет» — того же рода: стихотворение, нарушающее определённые формальные требования (рифмовка, распределение мысли) перестаёт быть сонетом, чем бы оно ни было сверх того. Разве что вот эта форма — более специальная и более «игривая».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот подстрочник:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Ни в этих лесах (А1), ни в этих небесах (А2), ни в этой реке (А3)&#xD;&#xA;    не бежит зверь (Б1), не летит птица (Б2), рыба не плывёт (Б3),&#xD;&#xA;    которые не выслушают с полным вниманием&#xD;&#xA;    грустный голос моих грустных рыданий;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        и хотя бы даже и в расцвете лета&#xD;&#xA;    моя жалоба будет ветру доверена,&#xD;&#xA;    когда каждому из них милей всего их&#xD;&#xA;    свежая пещера (В1), зелёное дерево (В2), прохладный ручей (В3),&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        сочувствием движимы к моей жалобе,&#xD;&#xA;    оставляют они сумрак (Г1), ветку (Г2) и глубины (Г3),&#xD;&#xA;    как в старину — чтобы слышать сладостную песнь&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        того, что в лесах у Струмы&#xD;&#xA;    их держало тысячу веков. Вот сколько&#xD;&#xA;    владычествует моё горе и владычествовала его сладость!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2857099?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32952" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="5b609e55-481e-4347-a15e-0aedc1b95788" CreationDate="2017-01-14T04:27:07.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/820125066256125952" />
  <row Id="32954" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13666" RevisionGUID="1eef08df-8805-424f-9921-57219acd1efe" CreationDate="2017-01-15T04:27:45.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/820487613744377856" />
  <row Id="32955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13827" RevisionGUID="afdc6323-c45a-4853-8e66-fc553bf1b442" CreationDate="2017-01-15T06:11:18.333" UserId="5288" Text="&gt; &quot;парами ртути отравились и умерли 60 мастеров&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Парами ртути (отравились и умерли) 60 мастеров.`   &#xD;&#xA;Именно так, как сгруппировано скобками, читается по-русски машинально.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В скобках стоят (глагол и его уточнение). Вариации уточнения: (отравились насмерть). Выбор данного глагола потребовал уточнение, когда автор пожелал передать точный смысл картины. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно продемонстрировать, в чём неопределенность у этого глагола, примером:     &#xD;&#xA;`Парами ртути отравились 60, а умерли 10 мастеров.`    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример из английского: `A man was (shot to death) == Человек был (застрелен)`. Уточнение `насмерть` или `и умер`, _to death_, в русском языке не нужно. Есть один глагол, `застрелить`, передающий именно этот единственный смысл. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13689" RevisionGUID="f8d09428-22eb-4dd3-ae2d-6e33b2b72a2a" CreationDate="2017-01-15T13:27:42.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/820623494417416193" />
  <row Id="32957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13828" RevisionGUID="15125dda-92f3-4f1d-9809-e69c60004bea" CreationDate="2017-01-15T22:21:37.823" UserId="8389" Text="How do you pronounce &quot;лошадь&quot; (horse)? My (beginner) attempt is &quot;lo-sha-dy&quot;, with &quot;dy&quot; that tricky soft y sound. On Duolingo, the pronounciation seems to be &quot;oh-vo-shet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I mishearing or is there some coincidence of sounds which I don't really understand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13828" RevisionGUID="15125dda-92f3-4f1d-9809-e69c60004bea" CreationDate="2017-01-15T22:21:37.823" UserId="8389" Text="Pronounciation of лошадь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13828" RevisionGUID="15125dda-92f3-4f1d-9809-e69c60004bea" CreationDate="2017-01-15T22:21:37.823" UserId="8389" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13829" RevisionGUID="f08630d5-800a-4d89-88fc-b93f4b67ff53" CreationDate="2017-01-15T22:26:19.140" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Лошадь&quot; is [pronounsed as][1] [ˈɫoʂətʲ], there's definitely the ty-type sound at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Oh-vo-shet&quot; is obviously wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13701" RevisionGUID="93e29f27-d127-4e88-a891-ad9c0de338c1" CreationDate="2017-01-16T01:30:13.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/820805321547456512" />
  <row Id="32962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13830" RevisionGUID="ef2d3b30-5575-4a7c-b666-5f848c877c66" CreationDate="2017-01-16T06:46:22.827" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Oh-vo-shet&quot; is certainly curious, but I think I can see how it happened, and, in fact, you've stumbled upon a curious little feature of Russian pronunciation that even most native speakers aren't conscious of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;v&quot; is explained easily, it's what the hard [ɫ] sounded like to you, being as it is quite different from the [l] in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what to make of the &quot;oh&quot;? Without hearing the recording, I suddenly had a flashback to my childhood, when I heard a then-unfamiliar word, **рафинад**, and from the way it was pronounced by the speaker, wasn't quite sure whether it was that or &quot;арафинад&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of self-testing for what sounds natural, here's what I have. When a word begins with a consonant that is *voiced, non-plosive, and non-nasal* (that's [в], [ж], [з], [j], [л], and [р]), and when that word begins an utterance or comes after a pause, sometimes there's a tiny prosthetic vowel in front of it; it doesn't come across as wrong or &quot;uncultured&quot; (in fact, like I said, it barely registers at all), so there's a chance that the Duolingo recording you heard had this ghost of a shwa, *[ᵊ]лошадь*, in front of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we learn the phonetics of a new language, it's hard to tell the regular from the accidental, and it sometimes happens that native speakers don't seem to have an idea what you're talking about. Don't be discouraged. In fact, it's an interesting thing you've spotted there, albeit at this point it's probably not going to be very relevant to you as a learner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13830" RevisionGUID="4a5addaf-558e-48c5-8cc2-6e1f7c20c9c4" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:00:55.723" UserId="4560" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&quot;Oh-vo-shet&quot; is certainly curious, but I think I can see how it happened, and, in fact, you've stumbled upon a curious little feature of Russian pronunciation that even most native speakers aren't conscious of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;v&quot; is explained easily, it's what the hard [ɫ] sounded like to you, being as it is quite different from the [l] in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what to make of the &quot;oh&quot;? Without hearing the recording, I suddenly had a flashback to my childhood, when I heard a then-unfamiliar word, **рафинад**, and from the way it was pronounced by the speaker, wasn't quite sure whether it was that or &quot;арафинад&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a bit of self-testing for what sounds natural, here's what I have. When a word begins with a consonant that is *voiced, non-plosive, and non-nasal* (that's [в], [ж], [з], [j], [л], and [р]), and when that word begins an utterance or comes after a pause, sometimes there's a tiny prosthetic vowel in front of it; it doesn't come across as wrong or &quot;uncultured&quot; (in fact, like I said, it barely registers at all), so there's a chance that the Duolingo recording you heard had this ghost of a schwa, *[ᵊ]лошадь*, in front of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we learn the phonetics of a new language, it's hard to tell the regular from the accidental, and it sometimes happens that native speakers don't seem to have an idea what you're talking about. Don't be discouraged. In fact, it's an interesting thing you've spotted there, albeit at this point it's probably not going to be very relevant to you as a learner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13699" RevisionGUID="fca9aecd-57d8-4aef-be1f-271674ffce2e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T07:30:15.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/820895927229644806" />
  <row Id="32965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13831" RevisionGUID="26e70a72-b977-449b-acbd-80297dede892" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:34:36.363" UserId="7544" Text="Например, во фразе &quot;Го в Доту, я создал&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13831" RevisionGUID="26e70a72-b977-449b-acbd-80297dede892" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:34:36.363" UserId="7544" Text="К какой части речи относится слово &quot;го&quot; из молодёжного сленга?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13831" RevisionGUID="26e70a72-b977-449b-acbd-80297dede892" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:34:36.363" UserId="7544" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13832" RevisionGUID="88845450-5971-4886-b941-ae6b0176a57a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T08:37:20.403" UserId="4560" Text="**Го** ничем по формальным признакам не отличается от **айда**. Которое считается междометием." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32969" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13828" RevisionGUID="3b782d00-0c63-4e11-a73f-6d4ada75a98b" CreationDate="2017-01-16T11:25:42.657" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronounciation of &quot;лошадь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13833" RevisionGUID="cf0cfb16-e4b0-4cfb-8dc6-5430f8e2b696" CreationDate="2017-01-16T13:29:46.477" UserId="4714" Text="What's the difference here? I've seen both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я мало чего помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я мало что помню &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я много чего умею делать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я много что умею делать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я много что/чего видел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use Винительный and when Родителный падеж? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13833" RevisionGUID="cf0cfb16-e4b0-4cfb-8dc6-5430f8e2b696" CreationDate="2017-01-16T13:29:46.477" UserId="4714" Text="Мало/ много + что or чего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13833" RevisionGUID="cf0cfb16-e4b0-4cfb-8dc6-5430f8e2b696" CreationDate="2017-01-16T13:29:46.477" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13834" RevisionGUID="294a72b8-d571-4c77-86a5-9a1ca420adfe" CreationDate="2017-01-16T15:25:28.570" UserId="6097" Text="There is no difference, neither in the meaning nor in style. &quot;Чего&quot; sounds a little bit more colloquial though and is used more often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13835" RevisionGUID="94364268-4005-4c36-8441-30165a9a0e16" CreationDate="2017-01-16T16:11:30.260" UserId="8357" Text="It is about the same as the difference between «*я что-то помню*» and «*я чего-то помню*», or as the difference between «*я кое-что говорил*» and «*я кое-чего говорил*». In other words, it's minuscule. The word «*мало*» does make the genitive version sound somewhat more natural to me, but this is a trifle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32976" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13831" RevisionGUID="c7179e6f-184e-4f00-aac6-a7f174ca643d" CreationDate="2017-01-16T16:35:59.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/821033268694970368" />
  <row Id="32977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13836" RevisionGUID="29165f90-12a0-4dbd-8e6f-20cb3786a121" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:12:57.613" UserId="194" Text="Using Russian transcription, лошадь is pronounced [лошад']" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13837" RevisionGUID="258b091f-00b7-43d2-bf15-319270e168da" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:15:22.267" UserId="194" Text="Это слово - междометие, как и &quot;стоп&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13835" RevisionGUID="b01bc286-3545-42e1-8079-3fd231f9506e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:46:56.397" UserId="8357" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="It is about the same as the difference between «*я что-то помню*» and «*я чего-то помню*», or as the difference between «*я кое-что говорил*» and «*я кое-чего говорил*». In other words, it's minuscule and very changing depending on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="1ad44254-2a26-47df-aa6d-d2e9f76ad321" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:56:30.827" UserId="8365" Text="Over the last decade words with the root &quot;пиар&quot; (&quot;пиар-компания&quot;, &quot;пиар-технологии&quot;, &quot;пиар-акция&quot;, &quot;чёрный пиар&quot;, &quot;пиарить&quot;) became quit popular on Russian media. In this regard, I would be interested to know differences in use of &quot;пиар&quot; and &quot;пропаганда&quot; or &quot;реклама&quot;, and why words with the root &quot;пиар&quot; become so popular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="1ad44254-2a26-47df-aa6d-d2e9f76ad321" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:56:30.827" UserId="8365" Text="The Use of &quot;пиар&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="1ad44254-2a26-47df-aa6d-d2e9f76ad321" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:56:30.827" UserId="8365" Text="|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13839" RevisionGUID="dfe4dceb-0a8f-428a-9269-3a5664bc39a8" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:08:38.777" UserId="551" Text="Пропаганда is about wiew-of-life, it's not about a person or a company. This could be about something like 'our country is the greatest' or 'to be healthy you need to run 5 miles every day' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реклама is advertising - posters on building or in the transport, banners in the internet etc. It is obvious that a person or a company paid for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар also makes a person or a company more known - but in more subtle way. For instance a person may be known for organizing a music festival, or some special party each Valentine Day etc. So, it is not a straight-forward advertising, but a way to get people's attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черный пиар could be some kind of activity to create a negative impression of a person or a company, e.g. there could be a series of articles or mentioning in media that 'they don't spend money on environmental protection' or 'they payed bribes' etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32984" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="9bafc755-f06c-47c7-afb3-04214fa3e314" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:20:12.003" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;пиар&quot;, &quot;реклама&quot; and &quot;пропаганда&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13833" RevisionGUID="2fdb74f0-38c9-4a41-8822-277aee93c87a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:20:40.010" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="What's the difference here? I've seen both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я мало чего помню&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я мало что помню &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я много чего умею делать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я много что умею делать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я много что/чего видел&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use винительный and when родительный падеж? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="9bcbba9a-0c5f-406f-b46a-6fb31b9b697e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:11:09.263" UserId="8391" Text="If you want to make a question related to *possession*, when is it preferable to use * Чей/Чья ...?* and when is it better to use *Кого...?* ? Are both options grammatically correct? &#xA;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="9bcbba9a-0c5f-406f-b46a-6fb31b9b697e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:11:09.263" UserId="8391" Text="Differences between Чей/Чья and Кого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="9bcbba9a-0c5f-406f-b46a-6fb31b9b697e" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:11:09.263" UserId="8391" Text="|узус|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="5cf09089-d0de-4827-8cef-1b6f38979e8a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T20:23:37.537" UserId="8391" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="If you want to make a question related to *possession*, when is it preferable to use *Чей/Чья ...?* and when is it better to use *Кого...?* ? Are both options grammatically correct? &#xA;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32991" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13833" RevisionGUID="4eb61fe7-2df0-45c0-ab6b-5676a94c1382" CreationDate="2017-01-16T22:36:01.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/821123872128987137" />
  <row Id="32993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13838" RevisionGUID="95ba2372-6db9-4676-b663-fc2d9839c4f4" CreationDate="2017-01-17T01:36:01.897" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/821169172159856640" />
  <row Id="32995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13842" RevisionGUID="29b6a24a-4daf-43b1-9abb-aba4e0d46dbb" CreationDate="2017-01-17T03:18:26.837" UserId="4560" Text="**Чей/чья** is the only one you can use here. **Кого** in a possession-related question would be as much of a solecism as &quot;of whom&quot; instead of &quot;whose&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32996" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13662" RevisionGUID="824679f7-714d-49a0-9d70-0295fae860d1" CreationDate="2017-01-17T10:36:22.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/821305153382916096" />
  <row Id="32997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13843" RevisionGUID="85c2cd9e-ac48-4a3c-8c3b-dcae46ab50f5" CreationDate="2017-01-17T12:29:19.003" UserId="179" Text="The differences of the word's meanings are (with the definitions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пропаганда** (in English &quot;propaganda&quot; has exactly the same meaning as it has in Russian):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - *state or government lies* (it seems like this meaning the word has gained in recent years, because I cannot remember any example of it in literature etc.)&#xD;&#xA;  - *a systematic, organized complex of measures to spread ideas/ideology to the widest audience possible* (you can encounter occurrences of &quot;propaganda&quot; with this meaning in literature, in historical (like министерство пропаганды в Германии / the Ministry of Propaganda in Germany, отдел пропаганды в комитете Компартии / the Department of propaganda in a committee of the Communist Party etc.) and other contexts (like &quot;пропаганда здорового образа жизни / propaganda of the healthy life style&quot;, &quot;анти-табачная пропаганда / anti-tobacco propaganda&quot; etc.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пиар** (almost the same meaning as PR (Public Relations) in English, but often implies a negative attitude and usually is not used officially):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - *a complex of measures to promote something, gain popularity usually involving media. Or an instance of such a process*. Can be used about a person, company, product. This has been borrowed from English (PR). Usually:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - *it is not used officially*, that is you can hardly hear that a company has a department of &quot;пиар&quot;, generally this is called something like &quot;отдел связей с общественностью / прессой и т.п.&quot; (literally: the department of liaison with the press, public etc., though in English, as I can remember this is commonly called something like &quot;the Public Relations Department);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - *it does not involve sales*, that is you don't (usually) say &quot;пиар, чтобы продать товар&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - *it has a purpose to affect the general opinion of the audience about something*, not necessarily intended to entice the audience to do something immediately. For instance: a company paid for a commercial on a TV channel, this is called &quot;реклама&quot;, it is intended to prod the audience to buy the product. The company made a big investment somewhere, so that media covered this (or the company paid some journalist so they wrote something about it) this is &quot;пиар&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**реклама** (in Enlish there are at least two words corresponding to this: advertisement, a commercial)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *a complex of measures to promote something or an instance of such promotion* (like a TV commercial, newspaper advert, web site banner, advert in a bulletin board or on a light pole etc.). Usually this is about goods/services, businesses but can be of anything actually. Though it is very unlikely, that a government or state would be promoting their policy in such a way, which in its turn is done commonly via press-conferences, tv-shows on state-owned or affiliated media etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your second question about why words with &quot;пиар&quot; have gained popularity I can only guess. I think the reason is alike to one, which is behind the popularity of the words: логистика, менеджер, чернокожий etc. It can be that this words started to be used by people who use English a lot and then spread to other's vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13839" RevisionGUID="838eeea3-00e3-4e70-acaf-9032decae108" CreationDate="2017-01-17T15:33:21.430" UserId="551" Comment="More on пиар" Text="Пропаганда is about wiew-of-life, it's not about a person or a company. This could be about something like 'our country is the greatest' or 'to be healthy you need to run 5 miles every day' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реклама is advertising - posters on building or in the transport, banners in the internet etc. It is obvious that a person or a company paid for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар also makes a person or a company more known - but in more subtle way. For instance a person may be known for organizing a music festival, or some special party each Valentine Day etc. So, it is not a straight-forward advertising, but a way to get people's attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черный пиар could be some kind of activity to create a negative impression of a person or a company, e.g. there could be a series of articles or mentioning in media that 'they don't spend money on environmental protection' or 'they payed bribes' etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар is a Russian rendering of PR (пи-ар) acronym, which stands for Public Relations. As far as I know it has a different meaning in Russian than Public Relations in English. Its a professional jargon among people that are a professionals in promotion and advertising. It become popular maybe because it contains the (new to Russian language) idea of organized activity of making company or a person more known to a wide audience. Before only реклама existed, but it does not cover all the required meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар has no negative meaning by itself, but when someone wants to say 'they not so good as they look, they just want positive image' they say 'это пиар', or 'они пиарятся на помощи бедным' (they help poor just to have positive image, not because they care about poor people) then пиар has negative meaning of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13839" RevisionGUID="21e6d230-fbfe-4cb9-98d3-53defdf8a16f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T16:04:46.563" UserId="551" Comment="added 673 characters in body" Text="Пропаганда is about wiew-of-life, it's not about a person or a company. This could be about something like 'our country is the greatest' or 'to be healthy you need to run 5 miles every day' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реклама is advertising - posters on building or in the transport, banners in the internet etc. It is obvious that a person or a company paid for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар also makes a person or a company more known - but in more subtle way. For instance a person may be known for organizing a music festival, or some special party each Valentine Day etc. So, it is not a straight-forward advertising, but a way to get people's attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черный пиар could be some kind of activity to create a negative impression of a person or a company, e.g. there could be a series of articles or mentioning in media that 'they don't spend money on environmental protection' or 'they payed bribes' etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар is a Russian rendering of PR (пи-ар) acronym, which stands for Public Relations. As far as I know it has a different meaning in Russian than Public Relations in English. Its a professional jargon among people that are a professionals in promotion and advertising. It become popular maybe because it contains the (new to Russian language) idea of organized activity of making company or a person more known to a wide audience. Before only реклама existed, but it does not cover all the required meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар has no negative meaning by itself, but when someone wants to say 'they not so good as they look, they just want positive image' they say 'это пиар', or 'они пиарятся на помощи бедным' (they help poor just to have positive image, not because they care about poor people) then пиар has negative meaning of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of пиар since 1996 - as you can see it became very popular during last several years. One of the first printed occurrences goes back to 1998: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делал без причин, иногда даже во вред самому себе, своему, как бы сейчас сказали, «пиару» или «имиджу». [Генрих Боровик. [Послесловие к книге Дело Кольцова] (1989)] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Usage of пиар since 1996][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is one of the business-related words that become popular in post-USSR times like менеджер, проект, имидж, пиар, etc. that can be applied almost to any field of human activity (like art, architecture, technologies, literature and so on and so forth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fvx1v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13839" RevisionGUID="c6e1e26a-bebd-4916-9545-12b60b9f5b31" CreationDate="2017-01-17T16:34:41.507" UserId="551" Comment="edited body" Text="Пропаганда is about wiew-of-life, it's not about a person or a company. This could be about something like 'our country is the greatest' or 'to be healthy you need to run 5 miles every day' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реклама is advertising - posters on building or in the transport, banners in the internet etc. It is obvious that a person or a company paid for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар also makes a person or a company more known - but in more subtle way. For instance a person may be known for organizing a music festival, or some special party each Valentine Day etc. So, it is not a straight-forward advertising, but a way to get people's attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черный пиар could be some kind of activity to create a negative impression of a person or a company, e.g. there could be a series of articles or mentioning in media that 'they don't spend money on environmental protection' or 'they payed bribes' etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар is a Russian rendering of PR (пи-ар) acronym, which stands for Public Relations. As far as I know it has a different meaning in Russian than Public Relations in English. Its a professional jargon among people that are a professionals in promotion and advertising. It become popular maybe because it contains the (new to Russian language) idea of organized activity of making company or a person more known to a wide audience. Before only реклама existed, but it does not cover all the required meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар has no negative meaning by itself, but when someone wants to say 'they not so good as they look, they just want positive image' they say 'это пиар', or 'они пиарятся на помощи бедным' (they help poor just to have positive image, not because they care about poor people) then пиар has negative meaning of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of пиар since 1996 - as you can see it became very popular during last several years. One of the first printed occurrences goes back to 1989: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делал без причин, иногда даже во вред самому себе, своему, как бы сейчас сказали, «пиару» или «имиджу». [Генрих Боровик. [Послесловие к книге Дело Кольцова] (1989)] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Usage of пиар since 1996][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is one of the business-related words that become popular in post-USSR times like менеджер, проект, имидж, пиар, etc. that can be applied almost to any field of human activity (like art, architecture, technologies, literature and so on and so forth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fvx1v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="5bf2080a-33aa-454e-a259-078d1b856b9a" CreationDate="2017-01-17T18:54:04.823" UserId="6545" Text="There is this simple sentence I don't quite understand, grammatically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он думает, ты знаешь его брата.&#xD;&#xA;    He thinks you know his brother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So based on things like,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ivan's dog = The dog of Ivan&#xD;&#xA;    собака Ивана (nominative, genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that его is **genitive** (he 'owns' the 'him/brother'; in fact the possessive of он is его) and брата would be the object of 'to know', and hence **accusative**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I would write it as (but probably not standard?);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он думаетб, ты знаешь брата его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to check these case roles because masc. animate nouns have the same spelling in genitive and accusative cases (minus minority endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, его can be a possessive pronoun (genitive of он) or the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="5bf2080a-33aa-454e-a259-078d1b856b9a" CreationDate="2017-01-17T18:54:04.823" UserId="6545" Text="case confusion in &quot;...знашь его брата.&quot; - combined genitive and accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="5bf2080a-33aa-454e-a259-078d1b856b9a" CreationDate="2017-01-17T18:54:04.823" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="06749c04-e747-42a8-8766-3b99a642c643" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:20:00.070" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="There is this simple sentence I don't quite understand, grammatically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он думает, ты знаешь его брата.&#xD;&#xA;    He thinks you know his brother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So based on things like,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ivan's dog = The dog of Ivan&#xD;&#xA;    собака Ивана (nominative, genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that его is **genitive** (he 'owns' the 'him/brother'; in fact the possessive of он is его) and брата would be the object of 'to know', and hence **accusative**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I would write it as (but probably not standard?);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он думаетб, ты знаешь брата его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to check these case roles because masc. animate nouns have the same spelling in genitive and accusative cases (minus minority endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, его can be a possessive pronoun (genitive of он) or the accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="37c9913b-7b50-4635-9866-443237b64578" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:42:38.257" UserId="8397" Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**ТРAМП**][1] and **ТРУМП**. Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="37c9913b-7b50-4635-9866-443237b64578" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:42:38.257" UserId="8397" Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of &quot;TRUMP&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="37c9913b-7b50-4635-9866-443237b64578" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:42:38.257" UserId="8397" Text="|правописание|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13846" RevisionGUID="3563460e-6966-4011-b60d-cd7714ba0809" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:58:24.507" UserId="8398" Text="Сorrect Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump -ТРАМП." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13846" RevisionGUID="d83ab02c-9a50-46b6-8c46-5346568658ed" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:12:00.783" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Сorrect Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump - Трамп." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="98e40d11-7761-4e58-ab37-f24d680b3b8c" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:12:20.640" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**Трамп**][1] and **Трумп**. Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33011" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="8a505e46-98cf-49ae-bfec-278b7ba49e64" CreationDate="2017-01-17T20:42:14.710" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of &quot;Trump&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="3f0e97aa-f25a-4b16-950d-b846b86eed5d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:27:18.220" UserId="6725" Comment="Added question text from the OP's comment below and improved formatting" Text="There is this simple sentence I don't quite understand, grammatically;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он думает, ты знаешь его брата.&#xD;&#xA;    He thinks you know his brother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So based on things like,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ivan's dog = The dog of Ivan&#xD;&#xA;    собака Ивана (nominative, genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that `его` is **genitive** (he 'owns' the 'him/brother'; in fact the possessive of `он` is `его`) and `брата` would be the object of 'to know', and hence **accusative**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I would write it as (but probably not standard?);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он думает, ты знаешь брата его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just want to check these case roles because masc. animate nouns have the same spelling in genitive and accusative cases (minus minority endings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `его` can be a possessive pronoun (genitive of `он`) or the accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;**Is my assumption correct, that `его` is in the genitive and `брата` is in the accusative?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="3f0e97aa-f25a-4b16-950d-b846b86eed5d" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:27:18.220" UserId="6725" Comment="Added question text from the OP's comment below and improved formatting" Text="|грамматика|падежи|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="4351f303-7a84-430e-b4ba-e49ace781b38" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:33:04.813" UserId="8357" Text="No, it is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Брата*» is indeed in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But «*его*», as a third person possessive pronoun, is ever the same and does not change by case. That's a nice quirk in the Russian pronominal system that it is useful to be aware of: 1-st and 2-nd person possessive pronouns are, grammatically, adjectives, just like the similar words in the Romance languages, but 3-rd person possessive pronouns never decline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33015" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="88cbd81d-1cca-4bb4-a38f-762bc2b38654" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:35:48.663" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33016" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="407d56a3-6148-4653-91cb-d7873f102ca7" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:37:48.497" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Case confusion in &quot;...знашь его брата.&quot; - combined genitive and accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="3708a328-1385-4674-9b40-8feb5c15a814" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:46:39.643" UserId="8397" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|транслитерация|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13847" RevisionGUID="80d6fef5-c384-4e04-9a2b-9e756ec8cabd" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:50:08.103" UserId="8357" Comment="an update on etymology" Text="No, it is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Брата*» is indeed in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But «*его*», as a third person possessive pronoun, is ever the same and does not change by case. That's a nice quirk in the Russian pronominal system that it is useful to be aware of: 1-st and 2-nd person possessive pronouns are, grammatically, adjectives, just like the similar words in the Romance languages, but 3-rd person possessive pronouns never decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update*: **etymologically**, this pronoun does, of course, stem from the word «*он*» (gen. «*его*»), which, quite like a noun, declines in cases. In older literature, you would often find that 3-rd possessive pronouns are put after the word they modify, which is, of course, a trace of this origin («*сапог его весь промок*»). But now no-one would say off-hand that «*я отыскал телефон жены*» and «*я отыскал её телефон*» are grammatically parallel, just like no-one would ever utter «*я отыскал телефон её*» unless under haste etc, when the word order is influenced by something “extra-linguistical”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="7e90a87d-4949-49b9-ad2b-78788c698c2a" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:56:11.697" UserId="8397" Comment="Spell out for the cranky." Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**Трамп**][1] and **Трумп**. I had naively thought it might be the latter (I don't speak any Russian), and [Googling that][2] results in many clearly Trump-related hits, including the Trump &quot;card&quot; (sorry). Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="081cdf26-a2b2-4003-af3f-b418f984df9c" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:30:24.750" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 244 characters in body" Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**Трамп**][1] and **Трумп**. Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="86573046-a5df-44e5-be27-acebf4b00cfd" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:38:55.840" UserId="8397" Comment="Restore requested information" Text="hat is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**Трамп**][1] and **Трумп**. I had naively thought it might be the latter (I don't speak any Russian), and [Googling that][2] results in many clearly Trump-related hits, including the Trump &quot;card&quot; (sorry). Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="4aa6e532-5f5e-4472-b380-6ff9dc2fc857" CreationDate="2017-01-17T23:44:11.550" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 177 characters in body" Text="hat is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**Трамп**][1] and **Трумп**. Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13845" RevisionGUID="55a7bf52-e7f5-4e21-8c1e-7e2bf4be4324" CreationDate="2017-01-18T02:46:58.553" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="What is the correct Russian spelling of the last name of the US President-elect, Donald Trump? I've seen both [**Трамп**][1] and **Трумп**. Which is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трамп,_Дональд&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13848" RevisionGUID="f302756e-19b2-4aa9-8355-91af073e64fc" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:34:01.687" UserId="3680" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13848" RevisionGUID="f302756e-19b2-4aa9-8355-91af073e64fc" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:34:01.687" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13849" RevisionGUID="46ad0d4b-af92-4897-9134-de931ad4db93" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:34:01.687" UserId="3680" Text="Questions related to the correct name selection as well as about name spelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13849" RevisionGUID="46ad0d4b-af92-4897-9134-de931ad4db93" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:34:01.687" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="da56568d-a7ec-448a-88ee-7b114ad6ddc1" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:56:06.773" UserId="8406" Text="I was wondering how to use the -ичк on the english word for 'ball(-y)' (cutetesy form). Is it м'ячк?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="da56568d-a7ec-448a-88ee-7b114ad6ddc1" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:56:06.773" UserId="8406" Text="How to make -ичк form with м'яч?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="da56568d-a7ec-448a-88ee-7b114ad6ddc1" CreationDate="2017-01-18T15:56:06.773" UserId="8406" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="4ee293c6-32f3-45eb-a82f-ef75eccbeefa" CreationDate="2017-01-18T16:26:55.997" UserId="2473" Text="It's `мячик`, with `-ик` suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8588/what-do-you-add-to-a-word-to-make-it-cute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="81418c5e-f76e-4ab5-b326-8b8c3fdfd89d" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:51:52.813" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I was wondering how to use the -ичк on the English word for 'ball(-y)' (cutetesy form). Is it мячк?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="81418c5e-f76e-4ab5-b326-8b8c3fdfd89d" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:51:52.813" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="How to make -ичк form with мяч?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13852" RevisionGUID="decca568-2c83-43c1-83f6-41f8b6df7d1f" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:52:18.050" UserId="8407" Text="In Chekov's *The Duel*, the phrase &quot;almond-oily&quot; is mentioned three times:&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;My dear,&quot; she cried enthusiastically, on seeing Nadyezhda Fyodorovna, assuming an expression which all her acquaintances called &quot;almond-oily.&quot; &quot;My dear, how delightful that you have come! We'll bathe together -- that's enchanting!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;//&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She uttered these words with great solemnity and was herself overwhelmed by her solemn tone. Her face began quivering again; it assumed a soft almond-oily expression. She held out both hands to Nadyezhda Fyodorovna, who was overcome with alarm and confusion, and said in an imploring voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;//&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;We must have a little talk,&quot; Nadyezhda Fyodorovna read in a little note; she glanced at Marya Konstantinovna, who gave her an almond-oily smile and nodded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a student of Russian, but I am just curious whether 'almond-oily' is a strange or rough translation of a more elegant Russian expression meaning the same thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13852" RevisionGUID="decca568-2c83-43c1-83f6-41f8b6df7d1f" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:52:18.050" UserId="8407" Text="Translation of &quot;almond-oily&quot; in Chekov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13852" RevisionGUID="decca568-2c83-43c1-83f6-41f8b6df7d1f" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:52:18.050" UserId="8407" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13853" RevisionGUID="f886c5f6-fa5e-4c41-b95c-8278ce7d1b78" CreationDate="2017-01-18T18:04:31.783" UserId="242" Text="Well, actually you can just take the original text and see what is the word. It's actually `миндальный`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Дорогая моя! - сказала она восторженно, увидев  Надежду  Федоровну  и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придавая своему лицу выражение, которое все ее знакомые называли&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **миндальным**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Милая, как приятно,  что  вы  пришли!  Мы  будем  купаться  вместе  -  это очаровательно!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like a bad translation, the translator wasn't sure what will be the best translation so a word with the same rood've been chosen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about what this word actually means. &#xD;&#xA;It's something between being overly sweet and mawkish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's [also][1] a derivate verb `миндальничать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="b2f65b74-5fc7-4f12-9100-32b88b2488a9" CreationDate="2017-01-18T18:07:30.677" UserId="551" Text="Your first citation is a translation of this part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Дорогая моя! - сказала она восторженно, увидев  Надежду  Федоровну  и&#xD;&#xA;придавая своему лицу выражение, которое все ее знакомые называли **миндальным**.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Милая, как приятно,  что  вы  пришли!  Мы  будем  купаться  вместе  -  это&#xD;&#xA;очаровательно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almond-oily here stands for &quot;миндальный&quot; (almond). Миндальное выражение лица means &quot;sweet but insincere expression on one's face&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="3ee825d0-33ce-4098-bee0-e2ab5f87be76" CreationDate="2017-01-18T18:39:17.143" UserId="551" Comment="added 1336 characters in body" Text="Your first citation is a translation of this part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Дорогая моя! - сказала она восторженно, увидев  Надежду  Федоровну  и&#xD;&#xA;придавая своему лицу выражение, которое все ее знакомые называли **миндальным**.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Милая, как приятно,  что  вы  пришли!  Мы  будем  купаться  вместе  -  это&#xD;&#xA;очаровательно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almond-oily here stands for &quot;миндальный&quot; (almond). Миндальное выражение лица means &quot;sweet but insincere expression on one's face&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, on the other hand, there is a number of examples of usage in Leo Tolstoy's &quot;Anna Karenina&quot; (1878) where this does not mean &quot;sweet and incincere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его тихие успокоительные речи и улыбки действовали смягчающе успокоительно, как миндальное масло. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His calm and soft phrases and smiles acted softly and soothingly, as almond oil does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Если ты хочешь знать мое мнение, ― сказал Степан Аркадьич с тою же смягчающею, миндально-нежною улыбкой...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to know my opinion, - Stepan Arkadievich said with his soothing almondy-delicate smile...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples Tolstoy specially emphasizes that smile is &quot;soothing as almond-oil&quot;, so maybe at that time there were no &quot;insincere&quot; meaning in this expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, Checkov's Duel was written in 1891, and Russian Corpus has a citation of that time that uses &quot;миндальный&quot; in negative sense: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И странная вещь: чем ужаснее и печальнее было в то время положение бесправной крепостной массы, тем **миндальнее** и слащавее представлялось положение народа в литературе. [В. В. Огарков. Алексей Кольцов. Его жизнь и литературная деятельность (1891)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rough translation would be &quot;Strange thing: while life of poor people become more and more horrible, the literature of that time described it more and more shugary and almondy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe since Tolstoy times the expression shifted to mean &quot;insincere expression&quot;, and maybe translator kept in mind the Tolstoy's usage examples when came up with their &quot;almond-oily&quot; interpretation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="b7d4a675-78c8-4c5b-8598-5fa2bdca9463" CreationDate="2017-01-18T20:54:20.150" UserId="551" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Your first citation is a translation of this part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Дорогая моя! - сказала она восторженно, увидев  Надежду  Федоровну  и&#xD;&#xA;придавая своему лицу выражение, которое все ее знакомые называли **миндальным**.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Милая, как приятно,  что  вы  пришли!  Мы  будем  купаться  вместе  -  это&#xD;&#xA;очаровательно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almond-oily here stands for &quot;миндальный&quot; (almond). &quot;Миндальное выражение лица&quot; [nowadays means][1] &quot;sweet but insincere expression on one's face&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Миндальное выражение&#xD;&#xA;Книжн. Неодобр. О сладком, неискреннем выражении лица. БМС 1998, 104.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, on the other hand, there is a number of examples of usage in Leo Tolstoy's &quot;Anna Karenina&quot; (1878) where this does not mean &quot;sweet and insincere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его тихие успокоительные речи и улыбки действовали смягчающе успокоительно, как миндальное масло. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His calm and soft phrases and smiles acted softly and soothingly, as almond oil does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Если ты хочешь знать мое мнение, ― сказал Степан Аркадьич с тою же смягчающею, миндально-нежною улыбкой...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to know my opinion, - Stepan Arkadievich said with his soothing almondy-delicate smile...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples Tolstoy specially emphasizes that smile is &quot;soothing as almond-oil&quot;, so maybe at that time there were no &quot;insincere&quot; meaning in this expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, Checkov's Duel was written in 1891, and Russian Corpus has a citation of that time that uses &quot;миндальный&quot; in negative sense: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И странная вещь: чем ужаснее и печальнее было в то время положение бесправной крепостной массы, тем **миндальнее** и слащавее представлялось положение народа в литературе. [В. В. Огарков. Алексей Кольцов. Его жизнь и литературная деятельность (1891)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rough translation would be &quot;Strange thing: while life of poor people become more and more horrible, the literature of that time described it more and more shugary and almondy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe since Tolstoy times the expression shifted to mean &quot;insincere expression&quot;, and maybe translator kept in mind the Tolstoy's usage examples when came up with their &quot;almond-oily&quot; interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/15766/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13854" RevisionGUID="7d22a114-e7fc-4820-89a4-46ef8e8b3538" CreationDate="2017-01-18T21:28:56.730" UserId="551" Comment="added 1048 characters in body" Text="Your first citation is a translation of this part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Дорогая моя! - сказала она восторженно, увидев  Надежду  Федоровну  и&#xD;&#xA;придавая своему лицу выражение, которое все ее знакомые называли **миндальным**.  &#xD;&#xA;-- Милая, как приятно,  что  вы  пришли!  Мы  будем  купаться  вместе  -  это&#xD;&#xA;очаровательно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almond-oily here stands for &quot;миндальный&quot; (almond). &quot;Миндальное выражение лица&quot; [nowadays means][1] &quot;sweet but insincere expression on one's face&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Миндальное выражение&#xD;&#xA;Книжн. Неодобр. О сладком, неискреннем выражении лица. БМС 1998, 104.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, on the other hand, there is a number of examples of usage in Leo Tolstoy's &quot;Anna Karenina&quot; (1878) where this does not mean &quot;sweet and insincere&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Его тихие успокоительные речи и улыбки действовали смягчающе успокоительно, как миндальное масло. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; His gentle, soothing words and smiles were as soothing and softening as almond oil.  (Constance Garnett, 1911)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Если ты хочешь знать мое мнение, ― сказал Степан Аркадьич с тою же смягчающею, миндально-нежною улыбкой, с которой он говорил с Анной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;If you care to know my opinion,&quot; said Stepan Arkadyevitch with the same smile of softening, almond-oil tenderness with which he had been talking to Anna. (Constance Garnett, 1911)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples Tolstoy specially emphasizes that smile is &quot;soothing as almond-oil&quot;, so maybe at that time there were no &quot;insincere&quot; meaning in this expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, Checkov's Duel was written in 1891, and Russian Corpus has a citation of that time that uses &quot;миндальный&quot; in negative sense: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И странная вещь: чем ужаснее и печальнее было в то время положение бесправной крепостной массы, тем **миндальнее** и слащавее представлялось положение народа в литературе. [В. В. Огарков. Алексей Кольцов. Его жизнь и литературная деятельность (1891)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rough translation would be &quot;Strange thing: while life of poor people become more and more horrible, the literature of that time described it more and more shugary and almondy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, maybe since Tolstoy times the expression shifted to mean &quot;insincere expression&quot;, and maybe translator kept in mind the Tolstoy's usage examples when came up with their &quot;almond-oily&quot; interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This example also has no negative meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И с добрейшей улыбкой, голосом, который maman умела сделать мягче миндального масла, она говорила ему: ― А знаете, что я посоветовала бы вам попробовать. [Л. И. Веселитская (Микулич). Мимочка (1891)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And with kindest smile, with voice that maman could make softer that almond oil... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm convinced that in these texts 'миндальный' means 'soothing'. As for миндальничать - it has a lot of examples dating [back to 1849][2] and always with obvious negative connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/proverbs/15766/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EC%E8%ED%E4%E0%EB%FC%ED%E8%F7%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33047" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13852" RevisionGUID="17abe6cf-5116-41ae-a92f-73cf380a4791" CreationDate="2017-01-18T22:40:57.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/821849890791837696" />
  <row Id="33048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13843" RevisionGUID="5eef2dea-f0e6-46c9-b23c-09adc06886b9" CreationDate="2017-01-19T03:47:49.360" UserId="194" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The differences of the word's meanings are (with the definitions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пропаганда** (in English &quot;propaganda&quot; has exactly the same meaning as it has in Russian):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - *state or government lies* (it seems like this meaning the word has gained in recent years, because I cannot remember any example of it in literature etc.)&#xD;&#xA;  - *a systematic, organized complex of measures to spread ideas/ideology to the widest audience possible* (you can encounter occurrences of &quot;propaganda&quot; with this meaning in literature, in historical (like министерство пропаганды в Германии / the Ministry of Propaganda in Germany, отдел пропаганды в комитете Компартии / the Department of propaganda in a committee of the Communist Party etc.) and other contexts (like &quot;пропаганда здорового образа жизни / propaganda of the healthy life style&quot;, &quot;анти-табачная пропаганда / anti-tobacco propaganda&quot; etc.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**пиар** (almost the same meaning as PR (Public Relations) in English, but often implies a negative attitude and usually is not used officially):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - *a complex of measures to promote something, gain popularity usually involving media. Or an instance of such a process*. Can be used about a person, company, product. This has been borrowed from English (PR). Usually:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - *it is not used officially*, that is you can hardly hear that a company has a department of &quot;пиар&quot;, generally this is called something like &quot;отдел по связям с общественностью / прессой и т.п.&quot; (literally: the department of liaison with the press, public etc., though in English, as I can remember this is commonly called something like &quot;the Public Relations Department);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - *it does not involve sales*, that is you don't (usually) say &quot;пиар, чтобы продать товар&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - *it has a purpose to affect the general opinion of the audience about something*, not necessarily intended to entice the audience to do something immediately. For instance: a company paid for a commercial on a TV channel, this is called &quot;реклама&quot;, it is intended to prod the audience to buy the product. The company made a big investment somewhere, so that media covered this (or the company paid some journalist so they wrote something about it) this is &quot;пиар&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**реклама** (in Enlish there are at least two words corresponding to this: advertisement, a commercial)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *a complex of measures to promote something or an instance of such promotion* (like a TV commercial, newspaper advert, web site banner, advert in a bulletin board or on a light pole etc.). Usually this is about goods/services, businesses but can be of anything actually. Though it is very unlikely, that a government or state would be promoting their policy in such a way, which in its turn is done commonly via press-conferences, tv-shows on state-owned or affiliated media etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your second question about why words with &quot;пиар&quot; have gained popularity I can only guess. I think the reason is alike to one, which is behind the popularity of the words: логистика, менеджер, чернокожий etc. It can be that this words started to be used by people who use English a lot and then spread to other's vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33052" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="28890e68-14fe-4473-8411-5f99af56aff4" CreationDate="2017-01-19T10:46:19.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/822032434527170560" />
  <row Id="33053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13839" RevisionGUID="5b885393-a7c9-451b-bf9a-668699e0d023" CreationDate="2017-01-19T11:40:55.693" UserId="551" Comment="added 625 characters in body" Text="Пропаганда is about wiew-of-life, it's not about a person or a company. This could be about something like 'our country is the greatest' or 'to be healthy you need to run 5 miles every day' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реклама is advertising - posters on building or in the transport, banners in the internet etc. It is obvious that a person or a company paid for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар also makes a person or a company more known - but in more subtle way. For instance a person may be known for organizing a music festival, or some special party each Valentine Day etc. So, it is not a straight-forward advertising, but a way to get people's attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черный пиар could be some kind of activity to create a negative impression of a person or a company, e.g. there could be a series of articles or mentioning in media that 'they don't spend money on environmental protection' or 'they payed bribes' etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар is a Russian rendering of PR (пи-ар) acronym, which stands for Public Relations. As far as I know it has a different meaning in Russian than Public Relations in English. Its a professional jargon among people that are a professionals in promotion and advertising. It become popular maybe because it contains the (new to Russian language) idea of organized activity of making company or a person more known to a wide audience. Before only реклама existed, but it does not cover all the required meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар has no negative meaning by itself, but when someone wants to say 'they not so good as they look, they just want positive image' they say 'это пиар', or 'они пиарятся на помощи бедным' (they help poor just to have positive image, not because they care about poor people) then пиар has negative meaning of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of пиар since 1996 - as you can see it became very popular during last several years. One of the first printed occurrences goes back to 1989: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делал без причин, иногда даже во вред самому себе, своему, как бы сейчас сказали, «пиару» или «имиджу». [Генрих Боровик. [Послесловие к книге Дело Кольцова] (1989)] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Usage of пиар since 1996][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is one of the business-related words that become popular in post-USSR times like менеджер, проект, имидж, пиар, etc. that can be applied almost to any field of human activity (like art, architecture, technologies, literature and so on and so forth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, if we look on the examples of usage of пиар in 1990-ies, mostly they are connected with political parties. So, actually, at those times пиар (политический пиар) was a synonym for a &quot;пропаганда&quot; or &quot;агитация&quot; (&quot;предвыборный пиар&quot; = &quot;предвыборная агитация&quot;, &quot;пиар-команда&quot; = &quot;агитаторы&quot;), but those are Soviet words, so usage of пиар allowed to sound modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However even in those times you can find examples like &quot;после такого пиара клиенты стали обращаться в другой банк&quot;, &quot;Деревня и райцентр не имеют пиара&quot;,  &quot;адвокатский пиар, с помощью которого будируется общественное мнение в пользу обвиняемых&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fvx1v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13857" RevisionGUID="705e3617-7748-4389-9518-02eb39435a98" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:50:07.683" UserId="7239" Text="All of these verbs are based on the root `-гляд-`, mean something similar to &quot;look at/glance&quot; (`взгляд`), and are among the most commonly used words of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, they are all blurred together in my mind, despite the fact that they are seemingly not used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any suggestions for understanding and/or remembering the distinctions between these words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, since most of these seem to be derived by adding prefixes and the suffix `-ся` which in most cases I kind of understand, my confusion boils down to the following two core issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** What is the difference between the forms `глядеть`, `глянуть`, and `глядывать`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** What is the difference in meaning between the prefixes `вз-` and `вы-` for these verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. глядеть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. глянуть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. поглядеть   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. взглядывать   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. взглянуть   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. выглядеть     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. выглянуть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. заглядывать  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. оглядываться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10. заглянуть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 11. оглядеться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12. оглянуться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 13. разглядывать  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 14. поглядывать  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15. вглядываться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 16. вглядеться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 17. оглядывать  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18. оглянуть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19. оглядеть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20. разглядеть  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21. переглянуться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22. выглядывать  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 23. приглядеться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13857" RevisionGUID="705e3617-7748-4389-9518-02eb39435a98" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:50:07.683" UserId="7239" Text="How to remember the differences between all of the &quot;-гляд-&quot; verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13857" RevisionGUID="705e3617-7748-4389-9518-02eb39435a98" CreationDate="2017-01-19T12:50:07.683" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13857" RevisionGUID="9f90ae18-e880-48e0-906b-96797f66ec6c" CreationDate="2017-01-19T14:23:46.320" UserId="7239" Comment="added 2697 characters in body" Text="There are many verbs based on the root `-гляд-`, which all mean something similar to &quot;look at/glance&quot; (`взгляд`), and are among the most commonly used words of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, they are all blurred together in my mind, despite the fact that they are seemingly not used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any suggestions for understanding and/or remembering the distinctions between these words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** In particular,  my confusion boils down to the following two *core* issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** What is the difference between the forms `глядеть`, `глянуть`, and `глядывать`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** What is the difference in meaning between the prefixes `вз-` and `вы-` for these verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any answer that addresses only **1.** and **2.** above would be sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt:** For **1.** my guess is that the &quot;original&quot; imperfective/perfective pair was `глядеть/глянуть`, since `-нуть` seems to be a perfectivizing suffix. But then for some reason, instead of simply appending prefixes to this same imperfective/perfective pair, in some of the derived verbs, the `глядеть` was used as the perfective form, thus requiring the creation of a *lexeme* which was an imperfectivized version: `глядывать` (note that I am deliberately saying *lexeme*, and not word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus there seem, in general, to be two types of imperfective/perfective pairs associated with the root `гляд`: `(prefix)+глядывать/(prefix)+глядеть` and `(prefix)+глядеть/(prefix)+глянуть`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for **2.** I genuinely have no idea. The noun `взгляд` seems to mean _exactly_ the same thing as the root `-гляд-`, so I do not see at all how turning `взгляд` into the verbs `взглядывать/взглянуть` adds anything in terms of meaning compared to the original `глядеть/глянуть`. (Also the imperfective/perfective pair `взглядывать/взглянуть` does not follow either of the two patterns, `(prefix)+глядывать/(prefix)+глядеть` and `(prefix)+глядеть/(prefix)+глянуть`, I identified above, confusing me even further.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, why was the perfective form `глянуть` of `глядеть` ever necessary if there was already a simpler perfective form of `глядеть` built by prefixization (`поглядеть`)? Also, in addition to `глянуть` and `поглядеть`, which all make sense _somewhat_ as perfective forms of `глядеть`, how or why is `взглянуть` _also_ a perfective form of `глядеть` ([according to Wiktionary][1])?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then `поглядывать`, [in addition to][2] just `глядеть`, is also an imperfective form of `поглядеть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the `вы-` forms make absolutely no sense to me; not only do they not seem to mean anything different compared to `глядеть/глянуть=глядеть/поглядеть=глядеть/взглянуть`, but there are _all three_ forms: `выглядывать`, `выглядеть`, `выглянуть`, something which seemingly _should_ be impossible, since there are only two aspects in Russian, and not three, but according to Wiktionary, `выглядеть` is _both_ imperfective _and_ perfective. Even worse, _both_ `выглядеть` and `выглянуть` are perfective forms of `выглядывать`, again [according e.g. to Wiktionary][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:**&#xD;&#xA;Most of these words seem to be derived by adding prefixes and the suffix `-ся` which in most cases I kind of understand, to the above three forms (note that I am saying *words* -- the third is clearly not a separate individual word, I am saying *form*, i.e. a *lexeme*). Thus there is ***no*** need to explain all of the prefixes `по-`, `в-`, `раз-`, `пере-`, `о-`, `при-`, `за-`, etc. and how they apply in this case, nor any need to explain the suffix `-ся`. As explained in **2.**, the only prefixes which I am unable to distinguish in this context are `вы-` and `вз-` - neither seem to add any meaning compared to the unprefixed *lexemes* `глядеть`, `глянуть`, and `глядывать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="ec83124a-5156-466f-b5d4-858ac971fde0" CreationDate="2017-01-19T14:25:38.270" UserId="4903" Text="Often one can infer the meaning of the word in Russian by analyzing prefixes and suffixes. Because there are stable patterns.  However, one also needs to consult a dictionary, because there are so many exceptions. To better understand the words from the list, first let's look at the suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-деть** (as in _глядеть_) is used for prolonged actions, e.g. actions that took some period of time.  It's not necessarily a long period of time, but definitely not a momentary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-нуть** (as in _глянуть_) is used for short actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-дывать** (as in _глядывать_) is used for periodic actions.  Something that happens a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-ся** is a suffix for a reflexive verb. Which means that the action is performed on itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines above work maybe 80% of the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for differences between prefixes _вы-_ and _вз-_ it's better to consult a dictionary. There are not enough words in the provided list to build a pattern. And in other words, or other contexts the same prefixes may create a different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to emphasize again that it's important to consult the dictionary, because the general rules above do not explain the differences between _приглядеть_, _приглядеться_, _приглянуться_ and _приглядывать_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="a6cd495e-6f1a-4375-9cfc-55ad28fbd70a" CreationDate="2017-01-19T14:54:02.843" UserId="4903" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="Often one can infer the meaning of the word in Russian by analyzing prefixes and suffixes. Because there are stable patterns.  However, one also needs to consult a dictionary, because there are so many exceptions. To better understand the words from the list, first let's look at the suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-деть** (as in _глядеть_) is used for prolonged actions, e.g. actions that took some period of time.  It's not necessarily a long period of time, but definitely not a momentary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-нуть** (as in _глянуть_) is used for short actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-дывать** (as in _глядывать_) is used for periodic actions.  Something that happens a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-ся** is a suffix for a reflexive verb. Which means that the action is performed on itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines above work maybe 80% of the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATED:** As for differences between prefixes _вы-_ and _вз-_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вы-** carries the meaning of _out/outside_ in general. _Выглянуть_ - look outside. _Выглядывать_ - look outside periodically. _Выглядеть_ - appear to others (kind of outside of itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вз-** does not change the meaning significantly. _Взглянуть_ means about the same as _глянуть._ _Взглянуть_ may imply a turn of a head while glancing, or looking up, but not necessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to emphasize again that it's important to consult the dictionary, because the general rules above do not explain the differences between _приглядеть_, _приглядеться_, _приглянуться_ and _приглядывать_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="e2cf4be1-1d59-489b-b25b-9ce9bbba32c6" CreationDate="2017-01-19T15:01:29.253" UserId="4903" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="Often one can infer the meaning of the word in Russian by analyzing prefixes and suffixes. Because there are stable patterns.  However, one also needs to consult a dictionary, because there are so many exceptions. To better understand the words from the list, first let's look at the suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-деть** (as in _глядеть_) is used for prolonged actions, e.g. actions that took some period of time.  It's not necessarily a long period of time, but definitely not a momentary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-нуть** (as in _глянуть_) is used for short actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-дывать** (as in _глядывать_) is used for periodic actions.  Something that happens a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-ся** is a suffix for a reflexive verb. Which means that the action is performed on itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines above work maybe 80% of the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATED:** As for differences between prefixes _вы-_ and _вз-_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вы-** carries the meaning of _out/outside_ in general. _Выглянуть_ - look outside. _Выглядывать_ - look outside periodically. _Выглядеть_ - appear to others (kind of outside of itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вз-** does not change the meaning significantly. _Взглянуть_ means about the same as _глянуть._ _Взглянуть_ may imply a turn of a head while glancing, or looking up, but not necessarily. _Взглянуть_ is by far a more popular form than _глянуть_ [chart][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to emphasize again that it's important to consult the dictionary, because the general rules above do not explain the differences between _приглядеть_, _приглядеться_, _приглянуться_ and _приглядывать_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?env=alpha&amp;mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;t2=%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%2C%C2%A0%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="f7056dc4-1f91-45e9-8c38-9ac91041f539" CreationDate="2017-01-19T15:49:37.310" UserId="4903" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="Often one can infer the meaning of the word in Russian by analyzing prefixes and suffixes. Because there are stable patterns.  However, one also needs to consult a dictionary, because there are so many exceptions. To better understand the words from the list, first let's look at the suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-деть** (as in _глядеть_) is used for prolonged actions, e.g. actions that took some period of time.  It's not necessarily a long period of time, but definitely not a momentary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-нуть** (as in _глянуть_) is used for short actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-дывать** (as in _глядывать_) is used for periodic actions.  Something that happens a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-ся** is a suffix for a reflexive verb. Which means that the action is performed on itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines above work maybe 80% of the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATED:** As for differences between prefixes _вы-_ and _вз-_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вы-** carries the meaning of _out/outside_ in general. _Выглянуть_ - look outside. _Выглядывать_ - look outside periodically. _Выглядеть_ - appear to others (kind of outside of itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вз-** carries a meaning of moving upwards, and/or sudden actions; [more here][1]. But with the verbs using the root _-гляд-_ it does not change the meaning significantly. _Взглянуть_ means about the same as _глянуть._ _Взглянуть_ may imply a turn of a head while glancing, or looking up, but not necessarily. Additionally, _взглянуть_ is by far a more popular form than _глянуть_ [chart][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to emphasize again that it's important to consult the dictionary, because the general rules above do not explain the differences between _приглядеть_, _приглядеться_, _приглянуться_ and _приглядывать_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B7-&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?env=alpha&amp;mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;t2=%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%2C%C2%A0%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13858" RevisionGUID="e59438a4-7b40-469a-8306-035d9989c8e8" CreationDate="2017-01-19T15:56:15.240" UserId="4903" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Often one can infer the meaning of the word in Russian by analyzing prefixes and suffixes. Because there are stable patterns.  However, one also needs to consult a dictionary, because there are so many exceptions. To better understand the words from the list, first let's look at the suffixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-деть** (as in _глядеть_) is used for prolonged actions, e.g. actions that took some period of time.  It's not necessarily a long period of time, but definitely not a momentary action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-нуть** (as in _глянуть_) is used for short actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-дывать** (as in _глядывать_) is used for periodic actions.  Something that happens a few times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **-ся** is a suffix for a reflexive verb. Which means that the action is performed on itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guidelines above work maybe 80% of the time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATED:** As for differences between prefixes _вы-_ and _вз-_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вы-** carries the meaning of _out/outside_ in general. _Выглянуть_ - look outside. _Выглядывать_ - look outside periodically. _Выглядеть_ - appear to others (kind of outside of itself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **вз-** carries a meaning of moving upwards, and/or sudden actions; [more here][1]. But with the verbs using the root _-гляд-_ it does not change the meaning significantly. _Взглянуть_ means about the same as _глянуть._ _Взглянуть_ may imply a turn of a head while glancing, or looking up, but not necessarily. Additionally, _взглянуть_ is by far a more popular form than _глянуть_ [chart][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to emphasize again that it's important to consult the dictionary, because the general rules above do not fully explain the differences between _приглядеть_, _приглядеться_, _приглянуться_ and _приглядывать_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B7-&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?env=alpha&amp;mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;t2=%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%2C%C2%A0%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13859" RevisionGUID="2190b49e-8796-4d5b-84de-17d945f78766" CreationDate="2017-01-19T16:42:48.667" UserId="6539" Text="First of all there are pairs: imperfective-perfective.You should learn them in these pairs.Besides it might be useful to divide them into groups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. general meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Глядеть- глянуть** (to look, glance) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взглянуть** (to glance for a short time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глянуть-взглянуть -поглядеть are very close, and often interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heт, вы только гляньте (colloquial )/взгляните(neural )/поглядите(colloquial village talk)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**поглядывать-поглядеть** (to throw glances from time to time-to have a look)the imperfective form can be also interpreted as &quot;watch&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выглядеть**- (to look like)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как я выгляжу, ничего?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. inside-outside -in different directions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**заглядывать-заглянуть** (to look,glance inside, to make a short visit) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты бы заглянул ко мне чайку попить(visit). Загляни-ка в сумку, что там вкусненького.(inside)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выглядывать-выглянуть** (look outside, out of the window ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**оглядываться-оглянуться** often with назад (turn back and look) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И некогда нам оглянуться назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оглядываться-оглядеться**. Most often with вокруг.(to look around)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он огляделся по сторонам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**переглядываться-переглянуться**( to look at each other, exchange glances) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. to try to see something with a certain effort. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**разглядывать-разглядеть** (to thoroughly try to see) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он долго разглядывал /вглядывался в  фотографию. Это была она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вглядываться-вглядеться** (to look into something, often the distance or darkness trying to see )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**приглядываться-приглядеться** most often to something like surroundings or to someone in order to understand a person's character. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты сначала приглядись, как и что, а потом уже критикуй.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **оглядывать-оглядеть** (to thoroughly investigate, to study, to get a complete impression &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она почувствовала, что ее оглядывают с ног до головы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all these verbs can have more than one meaning, so **a good dictionary should be your guide**. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="057d6bb9-5347-4ad0-a888-a4c0e674b5bb" CreationDate="2017-01-19T17:28:47.877" UserId="551" Text="&gt; there are all three forms: выглядывать, выглядеть, выглянуть, something which seemingly should be impossible, since there are only two aspects in Russian, and not three, but according to Wiktionary, выглядеть is both imperfective and perfective. Even worse, both выглядеть and выглянуть are perfective forms of выглядывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are mixing several different words actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. выглядывал (was looking outside, imperfective) - выглянул (looked outside, perfective);&#xD;&#xA; 2. выглядывал (tried to see something, imperfective) - выглядел (managed to see something, perfective) (similar to высматривал - высмотрел);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лукавый татарский наездник, Мурзенко, сквозь щели глаз своих, успел **выглядеть** проводника в лицо и с того времени имел к нему полное доверие. [И. И. Лажечников. Последний Новик (1833)]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он осмотрелся, **выглядел** крикуна погорластее, собственноручно взял его за шиворот и приказал связать. [А. В. Амфитеатров. Отравленная совесть (1882-1893)]&#xD;&#xA; 3. выглядеть (to look like) - perfective only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proves that you cannot just reconstruct the meaning of the word based on its structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="8475361c-2347-4255-a75d-f65480fe9bdd" CreationDate="2017-01-19T17:34:05.410" UserId="551" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; there are all three forms: выглядывать, выглядеть, выглянуть, something which seemingly should be impossible, since there are only two aspects in Russian, and not three, but according to Wiktionary, выглядеть is both imperfective and perfective. Even worse, both выглядеть and выглянуть are perfective forms of выглядывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are mixing several different words actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. выглядывал (was looking outside, imperfective) - выглянул (looked outside, perfective);&#xD;&#xA; 2. выглядывал (tried to see something, imperfective) - выглядел (managed to see something, perfective) (similar to высматривал - высмотрел);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лукавый татарский наездник, Мурзенко, сквозь щели глаз своих, успел **выглядеть** проводника в лицо и с того времени имел к нему полное доверие. [И. И. Лажечников. Последний Новик (1833)]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он осмотрелся, **выглядел** крикуна погорластее, собственноручно взял его за шиворот и приказал связать. [А. В. Амфитеатров. Отравленная совесть (1882-1893)]&#xD;&#xA; 3. выглядеть (to look like) - perfective only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proves that you cannot just reconstruct the meaning of the word based on its structure - you need to use a good dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="916544dd-46d7-4ec5-8621-9f6c7ea5d5c7" CreationDate="2017-01-19T17:40:25.367" UserId="551" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="&gt; there are all three forms: выглядывать, выглядеть, выглянуть, something which seemingly should be impossible, since there are only two aspects in Russian, and not three, but according to Wiktionary, выглядеть is both imperfective and perfective. Even worse, both выглядеть and выглянуть are perfective forms of выглядывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are mixing several different words actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. выглядывал (was looking outside, imperfective) - выглянул (looked outside, perfective);&#xD;&#xA; 2. выглядывал (tried to see something, imperfective) - выглядел (managed to see something, perfective) (similar to высматривал - высмотрел) - quite rare case, however here the examples of its usage:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лукавый татарский наездник, Мурзенко, сквозь щели глаз своих, успел **выглядеть** проводника в лицо и с того времени имел к нему полное доверие. [И. И. Лажечников. Последний Новик (1833)]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он осмотрелся, **выглядел** крикуна погорластее, собственноручно взял его за шиворот и приказал связать. [А. В. Амфитеатров. Отравленная совесть (1882-1893)]&#xD;&#xA; 3. выглядеть (to look like) - perfective only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proves that you cannot just reconstruct the meaning of the word based on its structure - you need to use a good dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13861" RevisionGUID="9ac7c078-3b7d-4600-abb2-a340f45d486d" CreationDate="2017-01-19T18:06:29.480" UserId="8411" Text="Возможно, это некий вид **риторического параллелизма**: тождественного или сходного расположение элементов речи в смежных частях текста, которые, соотносясь, создают единый поэтический образ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33069" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="1ed44edb-29d5-4f37-b6d8-44007b60ce7a" CreationDate="2017-01-19T19:46:43.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/822168428488388608" />
  <row Id="33070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13862" RevisionGUID="1f3a846e-7117-4ea6-a806-3551178f2664" CreationDate="2017-01-19T20:01:10.880" UserId="8357" Text="I am speaking from my own experience, and only about the commas. Also, I am speaking in the most general way – which I still find useful, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference is that in Russian, punctuation is made according to how one's thought is built, and in English, it is made according to how one's thought is expressed. That is, in Russian the thought is divided in blocks according to the importance of its components for the completion of minimal ideas (correlations between things), and in English, such correlations are divided in blocks according to the importance of its blocks for the attention of the listener. In Russian, punctuation separates **statements of correlation between things**, and in English, it separates **units of the reader's attention**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the comma after “in English”, like in the previous sentence, is desirable in English and forbidden in Russian. The word “in English” is absolutely a part of the correlation that is named by the verb “separates”, and thus it couldn't be separated from the verb, if the text was in Russian. All other rules work like that, too. Say, the initial phrase in a letter (“Hi John!”) does not contain just one correlation of things (the address and the greeting are not a statement of correlation, as “hi” is no verb, and therefore we have two such “statements”), but it is still the same unit of attention, so it deserves no comma in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the same reason for the fact that the English punctuation is less strict: how one's thought is composed from the constituent ideas (one could say, propositions) is a more strict matter than how one's attention is divided over it. The second question permits a lot of leeway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness of the answer: most Russians punctuate their texts the English way, anyway. That's most annoying and sometimes hinders communication, but that's how it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13863" RevisionGUID="a4be3f78-b907-4ae2-81a1-9f5fc5e642cc" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:05:43.053" UserId="8357" Text="По-моему, в таких рекламных текстах самое главное значение “user experience” – это «что-то очень хорошее». :) В общем, когда интерфейс надо ругать или хвалить, то говорят о “user experience”… Потому что, понятное дело, интерфейс ругают или хвалят за интуитивность: насколько представления пользователя о выполнении задачи соответствуют тому, что программа реально делает… Воспоминания о таком соответствии или несоответствии — это и есть “experience”… Русского слова нет – есть только приближения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Философские» вещи вроде овеществлённых воспоминаний (Google: “an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone”) при переводе нужно просто опускать. По-русски «опыт» — это что-то такое, что прямо действует на принятие решений; а по-английски — ещё и что-то такое, что предназначено для простого воспоминания или для применения в качестве отвлечённой «идеи»: мысли, которую можно с чем-то сопоставить, куда-то прикрутить, сравнить с чем-то и т. п. Разница даже не в значении, а в предназначении слова: если во фразе “audition day is an enjoyable experience for any seven-year old” (взята из того же словаря) перевести буквально слово “experience”, то всё, в общем, нормально, только непонятно, зачем ребёнок использует этот опыт: какие решения он на его основе принимает. Потому ненатурально. С английской фразой такого недоумения не возникает: ясно, что он будет этот опыт *помнить*, и это главное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, когда надо переводить такие тексты, надо говорить о том, что есть, то есть об интерфейсе, о его интуитивности, и проч. В крайнем случае – действительно о впечатлениях, хотя они, конечно, – вещь подчинённая. О том, чего нет (всякая философия), говорить не надо. В качестве иллюстрации (предположим, что речь идёт именно о смартфонах):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экран смартфона-яблочника – сердце пользовательского интерфейса. Люди не только просматривают привлекательные тексты, графику и видео на экране, они и физически взаимодействуют с экраном-мультитачем, чтобы управлять приложениями…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласитесь, со словом «управлять» связаны те самые положительные ощущения, которые связаны и со словом “experience”. Управляемость! Это хорошо…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13863" RevisionGUID="2028479d-8dbc-42c6-bee7-ae2ed279f39a" CreationDate="2017-01-20T03:12:26.723" UserId="8357" Comment="добавление для полноты картины" Text="По-моему, в таких рекламных текстах самое главное значение “user experience” – это «что-то очень хорошее». :) В общем, когда интерфейс надо ругать или хвалить, то говорят о “user experience”… Потому что, понятное дело, интерфейс ругают или хвалят за интуитивность: насколько представления пользователя о выполнении задачи соответствуют тому, что программа реально делает… Воспоминания о таком соответствии или несоответствии — это и есть “experience”… Русского слова нет – есть только приближения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Философские» вещи вроде овеществлённых воспоминаний (Google: “an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone”) при переводе нужно просто опускать. По-русски «опыт» — это что-то такое, что прямо действует на принятие решений; а по-английски — ещё и что-то такое, что предназначено для простого воспоминания или для применения в качестве отвлечённой «идеи»: мысли, которую можно с чем-то сопоставить, куда-то прикрутить, сравнить с чем-то и т. п. Разница даже не в значении, а в предназначении слова: если во фразе “audition day is an enjoyable experience for any seven-year old” (взята из того же словаря) перевести буквально слово “experience”, то всё, в общем, нормально, только непонятно, зачем ребёнок использует этот опыт: какие решения он на его основе принимает. Потому ненатурально. С английской фразой такого недоумения не возникает: ясно, что он будет этот опыт *помнить*, и это главное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следовательно, когда надо переводить такие тексты, надо говорить о том, что есть, то есть об интерфейсе, о его интуитивности, и проч. В крайнем случае – действительно о впечатлениях, хотя они, конечно, – вещь подчинённая. О том, чего нет (всякая философия), говорить не надо. В качестве иллюстрации (предположим, что речь идёт именно о смартфонах):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Экран смартфона-яблочника – сердце пользовательского интерфейса. Люди не только просматривают привлекательные тексты, графику и видео на экране, они и физически взаимодействуют с экраном-мультитачем, чтобы управлять приложениями (даже если экран – вне поля зрения). …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Согласитесь, со словом «управлять» связаны те самые положительные ощущения, которые связаны и со словом “experience”. Управляемость! Это хорошо…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="a2f66d96-6d72-42a6-83e1-e8e342aa1a91" CreationDate="2017-01-20T10:24:14.540" UserId="8126" Text="what is the grammatical difference between **валютный курс** and **курс доллара** in the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) я хочу узнать **`валютный курс`**. (here, валютный is adjective and курс is a masculine noun)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) я хочу узнать **`курс доллара`**. (here, курс доллара is a noun phrase in genitive form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can we form the 1st sentence like the 2nd sentence and the 2nd sentence like the 1st one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When do we use the *adjective phrase* and the *noun phrase in genitive form*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="a2f66d96-6d72-42a6-83e1-e8e342aa1a91" CreationDate="2017-01-20T10:24:14.540" UserId="8126" Text="what is the grammatical difference between валютный курс and курс доллара?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="a2f66d96-6d72-42a6-83e1-e8e342aa1a91" CreationDate="2017-01-20T10:24:14.540" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13860" RevisionGUID="cf2ff6b7-2874-4b99-af21-0653bf1aa9d3" CreationDate="2017-01-20T10:54:44.197" UserId="551" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="&gt; there are all three forms: выглядывать, выглядеть, выглянуть, something which seemingly should be impossible, since there are only two aspects in Russian, and not three, but according to Wiktionary, выглядеть is both imperfective and perfective. Even worse, both выглядеть and выглянуть are perfective forms of выглядывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are mixing several different words actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. выглядывал (was looking outside, imperfective) - выглянул (looked outside, perfective);&#xD;&#xA; 2. выглядывал (tried to see something, imperfective) - выглядел (managed to see something, perfective) (similar to высматривал - высмотрел) - quite rare case, however here the examples of its usage:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лукавый татарский наездник, Мурзенко, сквозь щели глаз своих, успел **выглядеть** проводника в лицо и с того времени имел к нему полное доверие. [И. И. Лажечников. Последний Новик (1833)]  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он осмотрелся, **выглядел** крикуна погорластее, собственноручно взял его за шиворот и приказал связать. [А. В. Амфитеатров. Отравленная совесть (1882-1893)]&#xD;&#xA; 3. выглядеть (to look like) - imperfective only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This proves that you cannot just reconstruct the meaning of the word based on its structure - you need to use a good dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also Wiktionary entry on [выглядеть][1] ([eng][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13865" RevisionGUID="1d64d396-b8d1-4a7d-93fb-4b5adaab1d64" CreationDate="2017-01-20T11:31:48.107" UserId="4560" Text="Your questions are a bit vague, and also, I don't think **валютный курс** is a phrase that's likely to be used outside of an academic or professional discussion that's more about the notion of currency exchange rate itself than the rate of a particular currency of a particular point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to try to answer your questions anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we form the 1st sentence like the 2nd sentence and the 2nd sentence like the 1st one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and it depends, respectively. **Курс валюты** is fairly common, **курсы валют** even more so, though again it's more likely to refer to exchange rates in general or in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, I was about to say that unlike with the first phrase, **долларовый курс** is not the same as **курс доллара**, but then I checked with Google and was surprised. Apparently **долларовый курс** is seeing some use. This is new and weird to me. It's certainly something I'd never say (unless perhaps I was talking about the rate of some other currency expressed *in* dollars, but the examples I've found are clearly talking about USD/RUB). I'd still maintain **курс доллара** is the better phrase to use, I'm yet to hear anyone use **долларовый курс** in everyday spoken language, and I'm tempted to go into disgruntled purist mode and say that it's probably more of that strained artificial journalese that's been infesting everything; but it's probably wiser to seek a second opinion on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When do we use the adjective phrase and the noun phrase in genitive form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid there are simply no rules, only habits. Russian doesn't have something like the Germanic compound or the Semitic idafah; out of interest, I once took an English noun (&quot;fox&quot;) and found at least thirteen different, mostly non-interchangeable ways a simple compound — &quot;fox&quot; + another noun, as in &quot;fox hunt&quot; or &quot;fox fur&quot; — can be expressed in Russian. (Most of these are noun phrases with prepositions involving various oblique cases and sometimes prepositions, but compounding also exists in Russian, to a limited degree compared to English, which however makes it none the less mandatory where it just happens to be mandatory, as dictated by the established usage or precedent. &quot;Fox hater&quot; would require the occasionalism **лисоненавистник**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, it's not an issue: **автобусная остановка** and **остановка автобуса** are fairly interchangeable; but these are the exception rather than the rule. If there's any rule, it's that adjective phrases tend to be more fixed and stable: **сахарная вата** &quot;cotton candy&quot; vs. the ever-so-slightly more ad hoc **уровень сахара** &quot;sugar level&quot; (*вата сахара* or *сахарный уровень* would at best sound like you're being deliberately silly), but then again, the more important fact here is that **уровень** just happens to be a noun that doesn't &quot;like&quot; adjective phrases where it could do with a noun one. On the other hand, a noun like **шахта** is very noun-phrase-phobic, with a single notable exception that proves the rule. &quot;Coal mine&quot;, &quot;gold mine&quot;, &quot;uranium mine&quot; would be **угольная шахта**, **золотая шахта** and **урановая шахта**; *шахта угля*, etc. would be weird without even being funny. And the exception is **шахта лифта** &quot;elevator shaft&quot;; again, *лифтовая шахта* isn't something one would even think of saying. Similar to the whole ordeal of Russian stressed syllables, there are so many implicit rules here that it's actually simpler to say there are no rules, and you have to find out and follow established usage to be able to decide whether it will be an adjective phrase, a noun phrase, or the occasional compound. Just like, I'm afraid, with the famous and dreaded Chinese counting words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13865" RevisionGUID="af810daa-c864-43ca-a3fc-51435a35a8c1" CreationDate="2017-01-20T11:37:22.173" UserId="4560" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="Your questions are a bit vague, and also, I don't think **валютный курс** is a phrase that's likely to be used outside of an academic or professional discussion that's more about the notion of currency exchange rate itself than the rate of a particular currency of a particular point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to try to answer your questions anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we form the 1st sentence like the 2nd sentence and the 2nd sentence like the 1st one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes and it depends, respectively. **Курс валюты** is fairly common, **курсы валют** even more so, though again it's more likely to refer to exchange rates in general or in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, I was about to say that unlike with the first phrase, **долларовый курс** is not the same as **курс доллара**, but then I checked with Google and was surprised. Apparently **долларовый курс** is seeing some use. This is new and weird to me. It's certainly something I'd never say (unless perhaps I was talking about the rate of some other currency expressed *in* dollars, but the examples I've found are clearly talking about USD/RUB). I'd still maintain **курс доллара** is the better phrase to use, I'm yet to hear anyone use **долларовый курс** in everyday spoken language, and I'm tempted to go into disgruntled purist mode and say that it's probably more of that strained artificial journalese that's been infesting everything; but it's probably wiser to seek a second opinion on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When do we use the adjective phrase and the noun phrase in genitive form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid there are simply no rules, only habits. Russian doesn't have something like the Germanic compound or the Semitic idafah; out of interest, I once took an English noun (&quot;fox&quot;) and found at least thirteen different, mostly non-interchangeable ways a simple compound — &quot;fox&quot; + another noun, as in &quot;fox hunt&quot; or &quot;fox fur&quot; — can be expressed in Russian. (Most are noun phrases involving various oblique cases and sometimes prepositions, but compounding also exists in Russian, to a limited degree compared to English, which however makes it none the less mandatory where it just happens to be mandatory, as dictated by the established usage or precedent. &quot;Fox hater&quot; would require the occasionalism **лисоненавистник**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, it's not an issue: **автобусная остановка** and **остановка автобуса** are fairly interchangeable; but these are the exception rather than the rule. If there's any rule, it's that adjective phrases tend to be more fixed and stable: **сахарная вата** &quot;cotton candy&quot; vs. the ever-so-slightly more ad hoc **уровень сахара** &quot;sugar level&quot; (*вата сахара* or *сахарный уровень* would at best sound like you're being deliberately silly), but then again, the more important fact here is that **уровень** just happens to be a noun that doesn't &quot;like&quot; adjective phrases where it could do with a noun one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a noun like **шахта** is very noun-phrase-phobic, with a single notable exception that proves the rule. &quot;Coal mine&quot;, &quot;gold mine&quot;, &quot;uranium mine&quot; would be **угольная шахта**, **золотая шахта** and **урановая шахта**; *шахта угля*, etc. would be weird without even being funny. And the exception is **шахта лифта** &quot;elevator shaft&quot;; again, *лифтовая шахта* isn't something one would even think of saying. Similar to the whole ordeal of Russian stressed syllables, there are so many implicit rules here that it's actually simpler to say there are no rules, and you have to find out and follow established usage to be able to decide whether it will be an adjective phrase, a noun phrase, or the occasional compound. Just like, I'm afraid, with the famous and dreaded Chinese counting words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13866" RevisionGUID="bbce92b2-64e7-4064-b381-de857c31be78" CreationDate="2017-01-20T11:42:22.143" UserId="194" Text="The same as between &quot;the exchange rate&quot; and &quot;the rate of exchange&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="5d28ee97-d5e4-40da-9732-d11979d3f366" CreationDate="2017-01-20T12:48:14.907" UserId="8357" Comment="ещё пример на связанную тему" Text="Есть особенная разновидность поэтического творчества, которую я сейчас опишу. По-английски этот жанр называется “correlative poetry”; мне хотелось бы знать русское название.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть несколько кортежей из слов (в математическом смысле слова: кортеж — это конечный упорядоченный список заданной длины), и в каждом кортеже на каждой позиции слово играет семантическую роль, заданную номером позиции. Кортежи разнесены по строкам стихотворения (необязательно по всем строкам), и в каждой такой строке слова встречаются в той же последовательности, в которой они записаны в кортеж. Получается занятный эффект «соотносения», похожий на взаимосвязанности в численных отношениях (А относится к Б, как В относится к Г — то есть частное А/Б равно частному В/Г, и отсюда следует, что частное А/В равно частному Б/Г).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример такого стихотворения можно найти [здесь][1]. В оригинале (в испанском, а разъяснения — по-английски) это сонет; ниже я приведу подстрочный перевод. В данном случае кортежи — это тройки; первое слово каждой тройки относится к зверю, второе — к птице, а третье — к рыбе. Первая тройка — это среда обитания; вторая тройка — это, собственно, название существа и его способ передвижения; третья тройка — это место, которое существу приносит радость; а четвёртая — это условия, в которых обитает существо и которые оно покидает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой вопрос относится не к литературному приёму (довольно-таки специфическому), а к стихам, которые использованием такого приёма характеризуются. Стихи эти могут быть более или менее осмыслены, предназначаться для выражения одного или другого, но их основная черта и, можно сказать, цель существования — организация именно в такой форме, которую я описал. Слово «сонет» — того же рода: стихотворение, нарушающее определённые формальные требования (рифмовка, распределение мысли) перестаёт быть сонетом, чем бы оно ни было сверх того. Разве что вот эта форма — более специальная и более «игривая».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот подстрочник:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Ни в этих лесах (А1), ни в этих небесах (А2), ни в этой реке (А3)&#xD;&#xA;    не бежит зверь (Б1), не летит птица (Б2), рыба не плывёт (Б3),&#xD;&#xA;    которые не выслушают с полным вниманием&#xD;&#xA;    грустный голос моих грустных рыданий;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        и хотя бы даже и в расцвете лета&#xD;&#xA;    моя жалоба будет ветру доверена,&#xD;&#xA;    когда каждому из них милей всего их&#xD;&#xA;    свежая пещера (В1), зелёное дерево (В2), прохладный ручей (В3),&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        сочувствием движимы к моей жалобе,&#xD;&#xA;    оставляют они сумрак (Г1), ветку (Г2) и глубины (Г3),&#xD;&#xA;    как в старину — чтобы слышать сладостную песнь&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        того, что в лесах у Струмы&#xD;&#xA;    их держало тысячу веков. Вот сколько&#xD;&#xA;    владычествует моё горе и владычествовала его сладость!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*******&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Добавление**: наверное, надо мне указать, что *вдохновило* этот странный вопрос. Это фраза из романа Пиранделло («Покойный Маттиа Паскаль»):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ma egli aveva una erudizione tutta sua particolare, curiosa e&#xD;&#xA;bislacca. Era, per esempio, dottissimo in **bisticci**: conosceva la poesia fidenziana e la maccaronica, la burchiellesca e la leporeambica, e citava allitterazioni e annominazioni e **versi correlativi** e incatenati e retrogradi di tutti i poeti perdigiorni, e non poche rime balzane componeva egli stesso.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эти слова – из характеристики одного персонажа, домашнего учителя. Примерно перевести можно так (если по смыслу прицепливаться к оригиналу):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но его эрудиция была весьма своеобразная – причудливая и нескладная. Он, например, очень хорошо был знаком с **барочным стихосложением**: знал поэзию фиденцианскую и макароническую, буркьелловскую и лепореамбическую, читал вслух аллитерации и анноминации, **стихи соотносительные**, цепочечные и анациклические всех самых разных поэтов-пустословов, и немало странных стихотворений он составил сам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, слово «bisticci» означает, скорее, шуточное стихосложение. Пиранделло приводит и пример такой шутки. Перевести этот пример на русский язык можно, скажем, так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Помню, как-то раз в «Сан Роккино» он сто раз, наверное,&#xD;&#xA;    заставил нас повторить вот это своё «Эхо», обращаясь к&#xD;&#xA;    холму напротив: &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;         Кто украдкой погубит, бросит тело в овраг? &#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Враг).&#xD;&#xA;         Кто жестокой насмешкой поразит меня вдруг? &#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Друг).&#xD;&#xA;         Для кого мои слёзы – так, всего лишь потеха?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Эха).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В оригинале, правда, речь идёт о любви, да и эхо скорее сочувствует чтецу, чем насмехается над ним, но ведь неважно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         In cuor di donna quanto dura amore?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Ore).&#xD;&#xA;         Ed ella non mi amò quant'io l'amai?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Mai).&#xD;&#xA;         Or chi sei tu che sì ti lagni meco?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Eco).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         В сердце женском сколько длится любовь?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Пару часов).&#xD;&#xA;         Она меня не любила, как я её любил?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Никогда).&#xD;&#xA;         Но кто же ты – о, плачущий со мною?&#xD;&#xA;                                   — (Эхо).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2857099?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33082" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="89df3d0c-0af9-43e4-b97e-ddd1032ad602" CreationDate="2017-01-20T13:37:47.413" UserId="8357" Comment="question renamed: less ambiguous as to what the confusion is: more obvious for a passer-by whether it's useful" Text="Case confusion: 3-rd person possessive pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33083" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="89df3d0c-0af9-43e4-b97e-ddd1032ad602" CreationDate="2017-01-20T13:37:47.413" Comment="Proposed by 8357 approved by 3680, 4903 edit id of 830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="d53d086f-2134-4b0d-b7b2-f724bff7cf26" CreationDate="2017-01-20T14:01:08.333" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Знаешь его брата - is 'его' in genitive and 'брата' in accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33085" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="50891e43-3adf-4460-a694-2c69bb079fae" CreationDate="2017-01-20T14:25:00.777" UserId="4903" Comment="to disambiguate from a noun &quot;пропасть&quot;" Text="Usage of the verb пропасть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="905d19f1-7dd2-4926-995c-2f1f524c1b19" CreationDate="2017-01-20T19:37:01.753" UserId="8414" Text="Интересно было бы узнать больше об истории и этимологии  личных местомнений третьего лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помнится, я где-то читал, что они якобы происходят oт слова «оный». Как вы считаете?  Может быть, все как раз наоборот, я не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но как бы то ни было, можно заметить определенное сходство косвенных падежных форм местомнений с соответствующими окончаниями прилагатеьных. То есть,  всех форм кроме род-вин.  женского рода «ее», которая на первый взгляд ничего общего  с современным парадигом прил. окончаний не имеет, разве что она происходит от окончания им. падежда среднего рода. Но неужели такое возможно? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русской литературе XIX века нередко встречается слово «ея»,  соответствующее тогдашнему написанию окончания род. жен. «ыя». Правда, насколько я знаю, в то время оно употреблялось в основнoм только в письменной речи  и притом исключительно  как форма второго падежа, а, возможно, было время, когда все было по-другому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак,  хотелось бы узнать откуда взялось «ее» (и, если релевантно, как оно оттеснило «ея» ) . Слово «самоё» (т.е.  вин. жен. слова «сам») тут при чем?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="905d19f1-7dd2-4926-995c-2f1f524c1b19" CreationDate="2017-01-20T19:37:01.753" UserId="8414" Text="Откуда взялось «ее» и куда пропало «ея»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="905d19f1-7dd2-4926-995c-2f1f524c1b19" CreationDate="2017-01-20T19:37:01.753" UserId="8414" Text="|этимология|история-языка|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33089" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13840" RevisionGUID="ebba368c-51e5-4314-b6f1-54eddf1e29a5" CreationDate="2017-01-21T08:03:12.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/822716160403767297" />
  <row Id="33090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="3a8ea56b-ac30-4ec5-8614-829e257aa99a" CreationDate="2017-01-21T09:04:01.573" UserId="551" Comment="syntax" Text="Интересно было бы узнать больше об истории и этимологии  личных местоимений третьего лица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помнится, я где-то читал, что они якобы происходят от слова «оный». Как вы считаете?  Может быть, все как раз наоборот, я не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но как бы то ни было, можно заметить определенное сходство косвенных падежных форм местоимений с соответствующими окончаниями прилагательных. То есть,  всех форм кроме род-вин. женского рода «её», которая на первый взгляд ничего общего  с современным парадигом прил. окончаний не имеет, разве что она происходит от окончания им. падежа среднего рода. Но неужели такое возможно? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русской литературе XIX века нередко встречается слово «ея»,  соответствующее тогдашнему написанию окончания род. жен. «ыя». Правда, насколько я знаю, в то время оно употреблялось в основном только в письменной речи  и притом исключительно  как форма второго падежа, а, возможно, было время, когда все было по-другому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак,  хотелось бы узнать откуда взялось «её» (и, если релевантно, как оно оттеснило «ея») . Слово «самоё» (т.е. вин. жен. слова «сам») тут при чем?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33091" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="3a8ea56b-ac30-4ec5-8614-829e257aa99a" CreationDate="2017-01-21T09:04:01.573" UserId="551" Comment="syntax" Text="Откуда взялось местоимение «её» и куда пропало «ея»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="a2bc67cc-750b-4e61-bab7-888bfb85fdbb" CreationDate="2017-01-21T12:01:26.053" UserId="8421" Text="Should the O in Russian be pronounced as a short A (like a short A as in English)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="a2bc67cc-750b-4e61-bab7-888bfb85fdbb" CreationDate="2017-01-21T12:01:26.053" UserId="8421" Text="russian pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="a2bc67cc-750b-4e61-bab7-888bfb85fdbb" CreationDate="2017-01-21T12:01:26.053" UserId="8421" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="d4e7a82d-0dcf-49b2-bef2-b950cde2d768" CreationDate="2017-01-21T12:20:17.563" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Should the O in Russian be pronounced as a short A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13870" RevisionGUID="39ee5a43-c8fe-45ad-ab42-3e7f9160e4f0" CreationDate="2017-01-21T13:14:20.223" UserId="5008" Text="Yes, if unstressed and if you mean by &quot;short A&quot; both [ʌ] and [ə].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a mainstream dialect which became a norm through the course of years. Still there could be some local dialectal differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33097" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="9a3de17a-3380-4033-819c-090c878d8af9" CreationDate="2017-01-21T14:25:38.050" UserId="551" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13871" RevisionGUID="7abed769-2246-4281-ac77-68dfee21464f" CreationDate="2017-01-21T19:56:57.510" UserId="242" Text="To be more precise, after non-palatalized consonant pronunciation of unstressed &quot;o&quot; is reduced, this is called `аканье` (akanye) in Russian, it's quite an old phenomena which can be tracked back for at least 500 years. There's an article from wikipedia about this, and [this][1] particular quote is relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Russian (except for Northern dialects), /o/ and /a/ phonetically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merge in unstressed positions. If not preceded by a palatalized (soft)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant, these phonemes give [ɐ] (sometimes also transcribed as [ʌ])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the syllable immediately before the stress and in absolute&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-initial position.[6] In other unstressed locations, non-softened&#xD;&#xA;&gt; /o/ and /a/ are further reduced towards a short, poorly enunciated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ə]. After soft consonants, unstressed /o/ and /a/ are pronounced like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ɪ] in most varieties of Russian (see vowel reduction in Russian for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; details); this reduction is not considered a manifestation of akanye.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike Belarusian akanne, Russian akanye does not affect softened&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side node, actually in English we can encounter pretty mush same thing in a lot of dialects where, say, &quot;stop&quot; is pronounced as [stʌp].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akanye" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33099" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="99ad3c4c-2433-4e0c-a767-d2bb3c1bb7c5" CreationDate="2017-01-21T21:31:41.947" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Should the &quot;о&quot; in Russian be pronounced as a short &quot;a&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13872" RevisionGUID="51447748-945f-4ac4-a213-c4153feb095e" CreationDate="2017-01-21T21:49:49.130" UserId="1236" Text="Сведу всю вышеупомянутую информацию в один ответ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В праславянском языке не было личных местоимений 3-го лица, их роль выполняли различные указательные местоимения, самыми распространёнными из которых были &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**тъ** (**то**, **та**), склонявшиеся как **того**, **тому**, и т. д.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**онъ** (**оно**, **она**), склонявшиеся как **оного**, **оному**, и т. д.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***и** (***ѥ** [*je], ***ꙗ** [*ja]), склонявшиеся как **ѥго**, **ѥму**, и т. д.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень рано, похоже, что ещё в позднепраславянскую эпоху, местоимения **онъ** и ***и**, употреблявшиеся в одном значении, сливаются, образуя новое супплетивное местоимение, именительный падеж всех родов и чисел местоимения ***и** полностью перестаёт употребляться и заменяется именительным падежом местоимения **онъ** (ед. ч.: м. р. **онъ**, ср. р. **оно**, ж. р. **она**, мн. ч. м. р. **они**), остальные же падежи это новое местоимение сохраняет от ***и** (**ѥго**, **ѥму**, и т. д.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именительный падеж от ***и** (***ѥ** [*je], ***ꙗ** [*ja]) исчез так давно, что ни в каких письменных источниках он не зарегистрирован, его можно увидеть лишь в сочетании с частицей -же: иже (ѥже, ꙗже) – «который (которое, которая)». С другой стороны, **онъ** (**оно**, **она**) в значении личного местоимения стал отличаться ударением от того же местоимения в значении указательного, личное: онó, онá; указательное: óно, óна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В старославянском личное местоимение ж. р. в им. п. было ***ꙗ** [*ja], вин. п. - ѭ [jǫ], что должно было бы дать совр. *ю (что в точности соответствовало бы совр. окончаниям прилагательных: _велику-**ю**_), но оно не сохранилось, вместо него с развитием категории одушевленность-неодушевленность стал использовался род. п. этого же местоимения, ѥѩ [jeję], который и дал **ея**. Именно эту форму и использовал русский литературный письменный язык, ориентировавшийся на старославянскую/церковнославянскую орфографию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В устной речи, однако, издревле, примерно с XII-XIII в. использовалась форма **её**. Дело в том, что в общевосточнославянском языке род. п. от ***ꙗ** [*ja] был не ѥѩ [jeję], а **ѥѣ** [jejě]. Очень рано [ě] перешло в [e], которое в свою очередь было заменено на [о] по аналогии с твёрдыми вариантами склонения существительных и местоимений, так под влиянием *то*, *оно*, *само* возникают формы [mo'jo], [tvo'jo], [vsʲo], ср. украинские *моє*, *твоє*, *все*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходство падежных окончаний прилагательных с формами косвенных падежей местоимений 3-го лица объясняется тем, что к прилагательным в краткой форме добавлялись личные местоимения 3-го лица, образовывая определённую форму прилагательных, как бы с определённым артиклем, это называется [местоименные прилагательные][1], другое название – членные прилагательные, от них и происходят современные русские полные прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;——————————————————————————&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О происхождении формы **её** [можно почитать][2] в книге: Иванов В. В., «Историческая грамматика русского языка», 3-е изд., М., 1990&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– возникновение формы **её**: §199, стр. 283-284&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– замена [e] на [о]: §125, стр. 184&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– краткие и полные прилагательные, их окончания: §§205-213, стр. 291-300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9C.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.B0.D0.B3.D0.B0.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mling.ru/iazik/russe/gramm_hist.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33104" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13817" RevisionGUID="4deb3b19-56dc-4cac-8c6c-08eb1777eeaf" CreationDate="2017-01-21T23:04:35.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/822943002511425537" />
  <row Id="33105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13872" RevisionGUID="b63a4b6e-c9da-4d6b-ad94-add4f7c17ac0" CreationDate="2017-01-22T01:21:57.383" UserId="1236" Comment="An addition." Text="Сведу всю вышеупомянутую информацию в один ответ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В праславянском языке не было личных местоимений 3-го лица, их роль выполняли различные указательные местоимения, самыми распространёнными из которых были &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**тъ** (**то**, **та**), склонявшиеся как **того**, **тому**, и т. д.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**онъ** (**оно**, **она**), склонявшиеся как **оного**, **оному**, и т. д.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***и** (***ѥ** [*je], ***ꙗ** [*ja]), склонявшиеся как **ѥго**, **ѥму**, и т. д.;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очень рано, похоже, что ещё в позднепраславянскую эпоху, местоимения **онъ** и ***и**, употреблявшиеся в одном значении, сливаются, образуя новое супплетивное местоимение, именительный падеж всех родов и чисел местоимения ***и** полностью перестаёт употребляться и заменяется именительным падежом местоимения **онъ** (ед. ч.: м. р. **онъ**, ср. р. **оно**, ж. р. **она**, мн. ч. м. р. **они**), остальные же падежи это новое местоимение сохраняет от ***и** (**ѥго**, **ѥму**, и т. д.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именительный падеж от ***и** (***ѥ** [*je], ***ꙗ** [*ja]) исчез так давно, что ни в каких письменных источниках он не зарегистрирован, его можно увидеть лишь в сочетании с частицей -же: иже (ѥже, ꙗже) – «который (которое, которая)». С другой стороны, **онъ** (**оно**, **она**) в значении личного местоимения стал отличаться ударением от того же местоимения в значении указательного, личное: онó, онá; указательное: óно, óна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В старославянском личное местоимение ж. р. в им. п. было ***ꙗ** [*ja], вин. п. - ѭ [jǫ], что должно было бы дать совр. *ю (что в точности соответствовало бы совр. окончаниям прилагательных: _велику-**ю**_), но оно не сохранилось, вместо него с развитием категории одушевленность-неодушевленность стал использовался род. п. этого же местоимения, ѥѩ [jeję], который и дал **ея**. Именно эту форму и использовал русский литературный письменный язык, ориентировавшийся на старославянскую/церковнославянскую орфографию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В устной речи, однако, издревле, примерно с XII-XIII в. использовалась форма **её**. Дело в том, что в общевосточнославянском языке род. п. от ***ꙗ** [*ja] был не ѥѩ [jeję], а **ѥѣ** [jejě]. Очень рано [ě] перешло в [e], которое в свою очередь было заменено на [о] по аналогии с твёрдыми вариантами склонения существительных и местоимений, так под влиянием *то*, *оно*, *само* возникают формы [mo'jo], [tvo'jo], [vsʲo], ср. украинские *моє*, *твоє*, *все*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реформа правописания 1918 года всё поставила на свои места, мёртвое церковнославянское **ея** было отменено, а живое русское **её** стало орфографической нормой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сходство падежных окончаний прилагательных с формами косвенных падежей местоимений 3-го лица объясняется тем, что к прилагательным в краткой форме добавлялись личные местоимения 3-го лица, образовывая определённую форму прилагательных, как бы с определённым артиклем, это называется [местоименные прилагательные][1], другое название – членные прилагательные, от них и происходят современные русские полные прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;——————————————————————————&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О происхождении формы **её** [можно почитать][2] в книге: Иванов В. В., «Историческая грамматика русского языка», 3-е изд., М., 1990&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– возникновение формы **её**: §199, стр. 283-284&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– замена [e] на [о]: §125, стр. 184&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– краткие и полные прилагательные, их окончания: §§205-213, стр. 291-300&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9C.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.B0.D0.B3.D0.B0.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mling.ru/iazik/russe/gramm_hist.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33107" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="49e8016f-be4a-48b9-a20e-8b7cc4f16f3c" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:04:38.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/823033609405730816" />
  <row Id="33108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="5142e9c1-4ed4-4085-9575-cfe58d93e8fc" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:34:30.833" UserId="8365" Text="It seems the verb &quot;пропа'сть&quot; was originated from a noun &quot;про'пасть&quot;, which means a gulf, a deep narrow hole in a ground. For this reason, I think, &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is not an exact synonym of &quot;умереть&quot;. I would rather interpret this word as &quot;disappeared into nowhere&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13871" RevisionGUID="6c82a41c-4e98-4e0e-80cf-70e74e4209fb" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:44:08.550" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="To be more precise, after non-palatalized consonant pronunciation of unstressed &quot;o&quot; is reduced, this is called `аканье` (akanye) in Russian, it's quite an old phenomena which can be tracked back for at least 500 years. There's an article from wikipedia about this, and [this][1] particular quote is relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Russian (except for Northern dialects), /o/ and /a/ phonetically&#xD;&#xA;&gt; merge in unstressed positions. If not preceded by a palatalized (soft)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant, these phonemes give [ɐ] (sometimes also transcribed as [ʌ])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the syllable immediately before the stress and in absolute&#xD;&#xA;&gt; word-initial position.[6] In other unstressed locations, non-softened&#xD;&#xA;&gt; /o/ and /a/ are further reduced towards a short, poorly enunciated&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ə]. After soft consonants, unstressed /o/ and /a/ are pronounced like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [ɪ] in most varieties of Russian (see vowel reduction in Russian for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; details); this reduction is not considered a manifestation of akanye.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike Belarusian akanne, Russian akanye does not affect softened&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side node, actually in English we can encounter sort of same thing in a lot of dialects where, say, &quot;stop&quot; is pronounced as [stʌp].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akanye" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="2b2df605-e928-44c8-9fb2-c1757b23da29" CreationDate="2017-01-22T05:57:52.830" UserId="8365" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It seems the verb &quot;пропа'сть&quot; was originated from a noun &quot;про'пасть&quot;, which means a gulf, a deep narrow hole in a ground. For this reason, I think, &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is not an exact synonym of &quot;умереть&quot;. I would rather interpret this word as &quot;to be disappeared into nowhere&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33111" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13243" RevisionGUID="b3ae21ce-87dc-4892-afe3-78e33b7f0e9f" CreationDate="2017-01-22T11:16:30.340" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Usage of the verb &quot;пропа́сть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13868" RevisionGUID="b793c714-1a61-428d-9b71-984471dfc7b4" CreationDate="2017-01-22T14:07:44.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/823170284245159936" />
  <row Id="33114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13876" RevisionGUID="76d37a21-2cc2-4e00-9aa6-ae0c122fb65a" CreationDate="2017-01-22T16:58:46.820" UserId="8423" Text="What Brian Collins said is not correct. In colloquial Russian, it's perfectly fine to say &quot;Купил бананы?&quot; - &quot;Купил.&quot; ([you] bought bananas? [I] bought.), omitting the pronouns altogether. There's no ambiguity here, it's easily inferrable from the context. However, in written language, you usually prefer not to omit pronouns, because it sounds &quot;lazy&quot;, unfinished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13876" RevisionGUID="95864ae1-ca38-491d-b1c7-0f3546355679" CreationDate="2017-01-22T17:04:10.547" UserId="8423" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="What Brian Collins said is not correct. In colloquial Russian, it's perfectly fine to say &quot;Купил бананы?&quot; - &quot;Купил.&quot; ([you] bought bananas? [I] bought.), omitting the pronouns altogether. There's no ambiguity here, it's easily inferrable from the context. However, in written language, you usually prefer not to omit pronouns, because it sounds &quot;lazy&quot;, like you don't care." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="55b17fac-8e77-4762-9bbb-602bbd06f46e" CreationDate="2017-01-23T02:57:19.357" UserId="8365" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="It seems the verb &quot;пропа'сть&quot; was originated from a noun &quot;про'пасть&quot;, which means a gulf, a deep narrow hole in a ground. For this reason, I think, &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is not an exact synonym of &quot;умереть&quot;. I would rather interpret this word as &quot;to be disappeared into nowhere&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, frozen blossoms are quickly felled apart and disappeared.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="96a102df-6e88-45e0-82a4-74e2324cb7ec" CreationDate="2017-01-23T03:01:34.970" UserId="8365" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="The verb &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is shared the same origin with a noun &quot;про'пасть&quot;, which means a gulf, a deep narrow hole in a ground. For this reason, I think, &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is not an exact synonym of &quot;умереть&quot;. I would rather interpret this word as &quot;to be disappeared into nowhere&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, 'Цветы пропали от мороза' actually means that frozen blossoms are quickly felled apart and disappeared.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="c5972617-a273-4080-b0b9-8d759b29a176" CreationDate="2017-01-23T03:59:31.557" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verb &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is sharing the same origin with a noun &quot;про'пасть&quot;, which means a gulf, a deep narrow hole in a ground. For this reason, I think, &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is not an exact synonym of &quot;умереть&quot;. I would rather interpret this word as &quot;to be disappeared into nowhere&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, 'Цветы пропали от мороза' actually means that frozen blossoms are quickly felled apart and disappeared.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13874" RevisionGUID="91a198af-4aeb-4204-bd23-7850d09730a4" CreationDate="2017-01-23T12:54:52.117" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited body" Text="The verb &quot;пропа'сть&quot; shares the same origin with a noun &quot;про'пасть&quot;, which means a gulf, a deep narrow hole in a ground. For this reason, I think, &quot;пропа'сть&quot; is not an exact synonym of &quot;умереть&quot;. I would rather interpret this word as &quot;to disappear into nowhere&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, 'Цветы пропали от мороза' actually means that the frozen blossoms quickly fell apart and disappeared.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33122" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="49ddc781-8828-4381-9362-ab617c18e979" CreationDate="2017-01-23T22:15:38.627" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the grammatical difference between &quot;валютный курс&quot; and &quot;курс доллара&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="3c41b813-e007-401c-81d1-b6a5f0ce56a3" CreationDate="2017-01-24T12:46:31.537" UserId="8432" Text="I found it in one choir in Mussorgsky's Хованщина. The song goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плывёт, плывёт лебёдушка, **ладу, ладу**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плывёт навстречу лебедю, **ладу, ладу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.; the „ладу, ладу“ is regularly repeated at the end of every line. What does it mean? (And does it mean anything at all, or is it only an interjection like &quot;fa la la&quot; in English?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="3c41b813-e007-401c-81d1-b6a5f0ce56a3" CreationDate="2017-01-24T12:46:31.537" UserId="8432" Text="What does „ладу, ладу“ mean in a song?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="3c41b813-e007-401c-81d1-b6a5f0ce56a3" CreationDate="2017-01-24T12:46:31.537" UserId="8432" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="27dd229a-2f72-4c0d-846b-04045b1a6fcd" CreationDate="2017-01-24T15:13:22.973" UserId="551" Text="Actually there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. Name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада)&#xD;&#xA;3. A word that now lost its meaning that meant in the past &quot;a man&quot;, &quot;elder man&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="bcd859e4-588f-471e-9c52-77e2614d7593" CreationDate="2017-01-24T15:19:20.950" UserId="551" Comment="added 1137 characters in body" Text="Actually there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. A refrain based on a name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада) (or her male counterpart Lado (Ладо)). However many scientists think that this &quot;goddes&quot; was invented based on those refrains, since we don't know much about slavic mythology. &#xD;&#xA;3. A word that now lost its meaning that meant in the past &quot;a man&quot;, &quot;elder man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Согласно мнению Трубачёва, праслав. *lada восходит к индоевропейскому корню *aldh- «выросший, зрелый», который дал в германском aldi- «человек». Таким образом, первичным значением славянского слова он считает «старший, муж, мужчина» (ср. упоминание лад — возлюбленных мужей — в «Слове о полку Игореве»). Перенесение этого слова на женщину — вторично. В качестве сравнительного материала Трубачёвым привлекается литовское имя Aldona, которое может восходить к предполагаемому термину родства *alda(s) = др.-рус. лада при помощи суффикса -ona.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details see [Wikipedia][1] (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;[English article][2] is less detailed and says nothing about invention of a goddess name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)#.D0.9B.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_(goddess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="655870b3-f945-4469-be18-162f1df27262" CreationDate="2017-01-24T15:54:21.893" UserId="551" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Actually there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot; (I guess most scientists agree on this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A refrain based on a name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада) (or her male counterpart Lado (Ладо)). However many scientists think that this &quot;goddes&quot; was invented based on those refrains, since we don't know much about slavic mythology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A word that now lost its meaning that meant in the past &quot;a man&quot;, &quot;elder man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Согласно мнению Трубачёва, праслав. *lada восходит к индоевропейскому корню *aldh- «выросший, зрелый», который дал в германском aldi- «человек». Таким образом, первичным значением славянского слова он считает «старший, муж, мужчина» (ср. упоминание лад — возлюбленных мужей — в «Слове о полку Игореве»). Перенесение этого слова на женщину — вторично. В качестве сравнительного материала Трубачёвым привлекается литовское имя Aldona, которое может восходить к предполагаемому термину родства *alda(s) = др.-рус. лада при помощи суффикса -ona.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details see [Wikipedia][1] (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;[English article][2] is less detailed and says nothing about invention of a goddess name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)#.D0.9B.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_(goddess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="c40ef637-46c9-427a-8a43-9db04993298c" CreationDate="2017-01-24T16:04:58.720" UserId="551" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="In this song (and in many other folk songs) it's just a refrain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for it's origin there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nothing - it's just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot; (I guess most scientists agree on this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A refrain based on a name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада) (or her male counterpart Lado (Ладо)). However many scientists think that this &quot;goddes&quot; was invented based on those refrains, since we don't know much about slavic mythology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A word that now lost its meaning that meant in the past &quot;a man&quot;, &quot;elder man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Согласно мнению Трубачёва, праслав. *lada восходит к индоевропейскому корню *aldh- «выросший, зрелый», который дал в германском aldi- «человек». Таким образом, первичным значением славянского слова он считает «старший, муж, мужчина» (ср. упоминание лад — возлюбленных мужей — в «Слове о полку Игореве»). Перенесение этого слова на женщину — вторично. В качестве сравнительного материала Трубачёвым привлекается литовское имя Aldona, которое может восходить к предполагаемому термину родства *alda(s) = др.-рус. лада при помощи суффикса -ona.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details see [Wikipedia][1] (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;[English article][2] is less detailed and says nothing about invention of a goddess name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)#.D0.9B.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_(goddess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="0d02aa75-aa74-4600-9117-e37143b4deb5" CreationDate="2017-01-24T16:22:21.833" UserId="551" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="In this song (and in many other folk songs) it's just a refrain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for it's origin there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nothing - it's just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot; (I guess most scientists agree on this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A refrain based on a name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада) (or her male counterpart Lado (Ладо)). However many scientists think that this &quot;goddes&quot; was invented based on those refrains, since we don't know much about slavic mythology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A word that now lost its meaning that meant in the past &quot;a man&quot;, &quot;elder man&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Согласно мнению Трубачёва, праслав. *lada восходит к индоевропейскому корню *aldh- «выросший, зрелый», который дал в германском aldi- «человек». Таким образом, первичным значением славянского слова он считает «старший, муж, мужчина» (ср. упоминание лад — возлюбленных мужей — в «Слове о полку Игореве»). Перенесение этого слова на женщину — вторично. В качестве сравнительного материала Трубачёвым привлекается литовское имя Aldona, которое может восходить к предполагаемому термину родства *alda(s) = др.-рус. лада при помощи суффикса -ona.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway ладо/лада is also used in folk poetry meaning &quot;beloved&quot; or &quot;spouse&quot; (Ushakov's dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЛА́ДА, лады (нар.-поэт.).&#xD;&#xA;1. жен. Милая, возлюбленная, жена.&#xD;&#xA;2. муж. и жен. Милый, возлюбленный, мужск. Мой лада или моя лада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this connection makes sense, because лебедь (swan) and лебёдушка (pen) here are used to tell a &quot;love story&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details see [Wikipedia][1] (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;[English article][2] is less detailed and says nothing about invention of a goddess name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)#.D0.9B.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_(goddess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="b36cca96-b301-4ce8-a88d-80cdc6355bc3" CreationDate="2017-01-24T16:27:54.047" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 632 characters in body" Text="In this song (and in many other folk songs) it's just a refrain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for it's origin there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nothing - it's just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot; (I guess most scientists agree on this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A refrain based on a name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада) (or her male counterpart Lado (Ладо)). However many scientists think that this &quot;goddes&quot; was invented based on those refrains, since we don't know much about slavic mythology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway ладо/лада is also used in folk poetry meaning &quot;beloved&quot; or &quot;spouse&quot; (Ushakov's dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЛА́ДА, лады (нар.-поэт.).&#xD;&#xA;1. жен. Милая, возлюбленная, жена.&#xD;&#xA;2. муж. и жен. Милый, возлюбленный, мужск. Мой лада или моя лада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this connection makes sense, because лебедь (swan) and лебёдушка (pen) here are used to tell a &quot;love story&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details see [Wikipedia][1] (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;[English article][2] is less detailed and says nothing about invention of a goddess name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)#.D0.9B.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_(goddess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13880" RevisionGUID="cf7e9b9c-4f2b-430a-a8e7-516ecaccf06f" CreationDate="2017-01-24T16:32:55.367" UserId="551" Comment="deleted 632 characters in body" Text="In this song (and in many other folk songs) it's just a refrain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for it's origin there are several opinions what &quot;ладу&quot;, &quot;ладо&quot;, &quot;лада&quot;, &quot;дид-ладо&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Nothing - it's just a refrain, like &quot;fa-la-la&quot; (I guess most scientists agree on this)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. There is a word ладо/лада is also used in folk poetry meaning &quot;beloved&quot; or &quot;spouse&quot; (Ushakov's dictionary):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЛА́ДА, лады (нар.-поэт.).&#xD;&#xA; 1. жен. Милая, возлюбленная, жена.&#xD;&#xA; 2. муж. и жен. Милый, возлюбленный, мужск. Мой лада или моя лада. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this connection makes sense, because лебедь (swan) and лебёдушка (pen)  here are used to tell a &quot;love story&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. (rather popular, but incorrect) A refrain is based on a name of pagan goddess Lada (Лада) (or her male counterpart Lado (Ладо)). However most scientists think that this &quot;goddes&quot; was invented based on those refrains, since we don't know much about slavic mythology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details see [Wikipedia][1] (in Russian)&#xD;&#xA;[English article][2] is less detailed and says nothing about invention of a goddess name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F)#.D0.9B.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_(goddess)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13881" RevisionGUID="97e98dbd-cb00-4810-9ebf-c06489e8eea5" CreationDate="2017-01-24T16:50:45.877" UserId="6539" Text="Unfortunately **nobody can tell** for sure what the word **ладу** in the refrain means. It has been mentioned though that it's not connected with the goddess. What is well known is the fact that such refrains are used in three types of folk songs:**spring, summer and wedding** songs. That means they were devoted to some customs and traditions and were khorovod songs which included some movement to the music. Those words helped the rythm or the beat.Used in other parts of the song the word **лада** meant **dear, beloved**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13881" RevisionGUID="a585a40d-c591-4c21-8233-8f0224bf5fe7" CreationDate="2017-01-24T18:17:46.553" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately **nobody can tell** you for sure what the word **ладу** in the refrain means. It has been mentioned though that it's not connected with the goddess. What is well known is the fact that such refrains are used in three types of folk songs:**spring, summer and wedding** songs. That means they were devoted to some customs and traditions and were khorovod songs which included some movement to the music. Those words helped the rythm or the beat.Used in other parts of the song the word **лада** meant **dear, beloved**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13882" RevisionGUID="d8a9ddd5-1bf7-4369-805f-fb159b483cef" CreationDate="2017-01-24T23:13:46.803" UserId="8438" Text="How do you spell mister in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13882" RevisionGUID="d8a9ddd5-1bf7-4369-805f-fb159b483cef" CreationDate="2017-01-24T23:13:46.803" UserId="8438" Text="how to spell mister" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13882" RevisionGUID="d8a9ddd5-1bf7-4369-805f-fb159b483cef" CreationDate="2017-01-24T23:13:46.803" UserId="8438" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33153" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13882" RevisionGUID="38ca2f07-5400-4a80-8217-027008d5ebf2" CreationDate="2017-01-25T00:21:32.237" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33154" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="668cf92c-780e-46a0-bff0-4de34d13f5f0" CreationDate="2017-01-25T02:20:15.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/824079405504937984" />
  <row Id="33155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="c50047ce-2338-4c67-9436-c82f422d495b" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:59:36.320" UserId="3557" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="No. If you want just say &quot;I love you&quot;, you should use the pronoun &quot;Я люблю тебя&quot;. Omitting the pronoun here is marked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Люблю тебя&quot; sounds as if the phrase was unfinished. It is ok to omit pronouns if&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is an answer to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ты кого любишь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Люблю тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Что ты делаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чиню окно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Or if the sentence will be continued:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Люблю тебя за твою улыбку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Люблю тебя, красавица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the last sentence has an overtone of being a joke or just telling something already well known to her, it is not suitable if you want to make a confession or just to say you love her for the first time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33156" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2711" RevisionGUID="c50047ce-2338-4c67-9436-c82f422d495b" CreationDate="2017-01-25T07:59:36.320" Comment="Proposed by 3557 approved by 4903, 6097 edit id of 831" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13883" RevisionGUID="464f2380-9fd6-448b-a41b-1a1015c39ce1" CreationDate="2017-01-25T11:08:20.507" UserId="5423" Text="Does &quot;подруга&quot; mean girlfriend as in &quot;girl friend&quot;, ie a female friend, or as in &quot;girlfriend&quot;, a romantic interest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing a google image search for подруга seems to be getting matches for both types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13883" RevisionGUID="464f2380-9fd6-448b-a41b-1a1015c39ce1" CreationDate="2017-01-25T11:08:20.507" UserId="5423" Text="What kind of &quot;girlfriend&quot; is meant by &quot;подруга&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13883" RevisionGUID="464f2380-9fd6-448b-a41b-1a1015c39ce1" CreationDate="2017-01-25T11:08:20.507" UserId="5423" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13884" RevisionGUID="5a198531-afb8-4994-9153-3f651a1eea8a" CreationDate="2017-01-25T11:34:04.850" UserId="134" Text="&quot;Girlfriend&quot; and &quot;boyfriend&quot; are most usually conveyed in Russian as *девушка* и *парень* (or *молодой человек*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Подруга* usually means &quot;girlfriend&quot; as well but its meaning is somewhat less suggestive of a romantic relationship than that of *девушка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a male you do not call your female friend *подруга*, not without raising an eyebrow. Women, on the other hand, could refer their female friends as *моя подруга* (while using *моя девушка* would unequivocally imply romantic relationship with her).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to rule out any romantic component in describing your friendship, you should use *знакомая* (&quot;acquaintance&quot;) or *приятельница* (female equivalent of &quot;buddy&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13879" RevisionGUID="7bdff3b9-0576-4bce-a022-37e0012ff1b7" CreationDate="2017-01-25T11:35:42.323" UserId="8432" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="I found it in one choir in Mussorgsky's Хованщина. The song goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плывёт, плывёт лебёдушка, **ладу, ладу**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плывёт навстречу лебедю, **ладу, ладу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.; the „ладу, ладу“ is regularly repeated at the end of every line. What does it mean? (And does it mean anything at all, or is it only an interjection like &quot;fa la la&quot; in English?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E: Thank you both. Since they both are very good, I just accepted one randomly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13884" RevisionGUID="98aafa27-0f05-4478-8112-769a6e127485" CreationDate="2017-01-25T12:29:56.617" UserId="134" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Girlfriend&quot; and &quot;boyfriend&quot; are most usually conveyed in Russian as *девушка* and *парень* (or *молодой человек*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Подруга* usually means &quot;girlfriend&quot; as well but its meaning is somewhat less suggestive of a romantic relationship than that of *девушка*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a male you do not call your female friend *подруга*, not without raising an eyebrow. Women, on the other hand, could refer their female friends as *моя подруга* (while using *моя девушка* would unequivocally imply romantic relationship with her).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to rule out any romantic component in describing your friendship, you should use *знакомая* (&quot;acquaintance&quot;) or *приятельница* (female equivalent of &quot;buddy&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13850" RevisionGUID="607f46f5-89fc-4b9b-808d-a0a761521621" CreationDate="2017-01-25T17:08:35.263" UserId="8406" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I was wondering how to use the -ичк on the English word for 'ball(-y)' (cutesy form). Is it мячк?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13883" RevisionGUID="d696d7ba-d8a6-4446-a145-f634308a415e" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:22:33.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/824351774748377088" />
  <row Id="33172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13887" RevisionGUID="d96aedef-5c71-4e0d-b4cd-df4e32ac04b2" CreationDate="2017-01-25T21:25:42.900" UserId="8449" Text="When the girl uses this word for another girl, it always means a female friend.&#xD;&#xA;Used by man, it could have one of two values. Sometimes it's something between. But it definitely describes not-so-romantic relationships." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13869" RevisionGUID="0585cb9c-3be2-42d4-8b13-bd9b402005c4" CreationDate="2017-01-25T23:22:33.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/824397071503466497" />
  <row Id="33174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13857" RevisionGUID="8edfa5f6-c4bd-4ce1-ab91-4890cc09c38c" CreationDate="2017-01-26T08:22:35.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/824532975886991360" />
  <row Id="33175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13888" RevisionGUID="2e7b77c6-283b-46dc-b1aa-bba7af777bb9" CreationDate="2017-01-26T14:23:22.173" UserId="5622" Text="Can be any meaning depending upon context: one can use it when talking to others about his girlfriend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used by males has a connotation of long term relationship or a connotation of age of the couple (say 30+).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13889" RevisionGUID="80a12274-ef04-4918-9577-b06f2da5d419" CreationDate="2017-01-27T17:33:20.653" UserId="6682" Text="Например: &quot;He should listen to his mother, *for his own sake*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думал, что-to похоже: &quot;Он должен выслушивать его мать, чтобы спасать себя.&quot;, но это казалось слишком буквально, так как на английском течение должен быть более метафоричный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13889" RevisionGUID="80a12274-ef04-4918-9577-b06f2da5d419" CreationDate="2017-01-27T17:33:20.653" UserId="6682" Text="How to say &quot;for one's own sake&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13889" RevisionGUID="80a12274-ef04-4918-9577-b06f2da5d419" CreationDate="2017-01-27T17:33:20.653" UserId="6682" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13890" RevisionGUID="ec0f1e97-c865-4cb3-b33b-3df8e53518a4" CreationDate="2017-01-27T17:38:24.277" UserId="3680" Text="В данном контексте я бы перевел `...for his own sake` как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...для своего же блага&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А все вместе так:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он должен слушать свою мать ради своего же блага." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13890" RevisionGUID="47cdf639-3ffd-4019-a55b-ad118de08122" CreationDate="2017-01-27T17:42:22.603" UserId="3680" Comment="added the second option" Text="В данном контексте я бы перевел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...for his own sake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...для своего же блага&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А все вместе так:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он должен слушать свою мать ради своего же блага.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он должен слушаться мать ради своего же блага." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13891" RevisionGUID="01d7bdb0-c41b-4111-99c2-5dfd2ae1990b" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:57:27.283" UserId="242" Text="В 90% случаев, как мне кажется, вариант, предложенный Дмитрием, оптимален. Я бы только хотел дополнить, что в разговорной речи часто говорят просто что-то вроде:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он должен слушать свою мать себя же ради&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Себя же ради, ему бы слушать свою мать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13889" RevisionGUID="47c08666-d8c4-40c0-8e76-a9f43bc066a9" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:14:05.130" UserId="6682" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Например: &quot;He should listen to his mother, *for his own sake*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думал, что-to похоже: &quot;Он должен выслушивать свою мать, чтобы спасать себя.&quot;, но это казалось слишком буквально, так как на английском течение должен быть более метафоричный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13891" RevisionGUID="e276416e-ed3c-4955-9a54-ec5a3a341d13" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:14:52.577" UserId="242" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="В 90% случаев, как мне кажется, вариант, предложенный Дмитрием, оптимален. Я бы только хотел дополнить, что в разговорной речи часто говорят просто что-то вроде:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он должен слушать свою мать себя же ради.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Себя же ради, ему бы слушать свою мать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть слово `блага` пропускают. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13892" RevisionGUID="a7cd9c7c-31c4-4720-ac44-1c2ba74a5b90" CreationDate="2017-01-27T20:25:30.997" UserId="6539" Text="Обычно говорят:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;для/ради собственного/своего (же) блага или ради самого себя/ради себя самого. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При этом слово *самого* изменяется по родам(ради самой себя/ради себя самой).Можно еще короче-*ради себя*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13893" RevisionGUID="3e2d4568-fa86-49d8-af42-fadd9ed4fdd4" CreationDate="2017-01-27T21:50:07.473" UserId="8445" Text="My online Russian course gives me two examples of using что-нибудь. Он хочет что-нибудь попить. and Можно мне чего-нибудь попить? Why is the genitive used in the latter? When I tried to parse the sentence I would have expected accusative, not genitive. I see discussions of other uses of чего, but couldn't see how to apply those to this example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13893" RevisionGUID="3e2d4568-fa86-49d8-af42-fadd9ed4fdd4" CreationDate="2017-01-27T21:50:07.473" UserId="8445" Text="Use of чего-нибудь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13893" RevisionGUID="3e2d4568-fa86-49d8-af42-fadd9ed4fdd4" CreationDate="2017-01-27T21:50:07.473" UserId="8445" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13894" RevisionGUID="f1718337-7888-43cd-a022-ae276821d2e8" CreationDate="2017-01-28T06:46:38.617" UserId="6539" Text="You can use both, the Accusative (written speech) and the Genitive.(colloquial ).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Можно мне что‐нибудь/чего-нибудь попить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular sentence we can call it the Partitive Genitive which stands for a noun  that denotes divisible substances, for example, foodstuffs like молоко &quot;milk,&quot; and вода &quot;water.&quot; These substances can be measured (e.g., литр воды), quantified (e.g., немного молока) or otherwise portioned out (e.g., кусок хлеба) - hence, the name and the basic notion of the Partitive Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; One expects to use the genitive case with quantifying adverbs like много, мало, немного and in noun phrases where the head noun denotes a measurement, quantity, weight or portion, for example, стакан воды, чашка чаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative signifies the item itself or the whole item.&#xD;&#xA;The Partitive Genitive signifies &quot;some,&quot; &quot;a part,&quot; &quot;a little&quot; or &quot;a few.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13889" RevisionGUID="048a6e48-cf56-42cb-8c28-867af5e192d8" CreationDate="2017-01-28T08:33:33.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/825260513932300288" />
  <row Id="33191" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13864" RevisionGUID="9c824547-4ee4-4b6d-b7df-0700431d6757" CreationDate="2017-01-28T17:37:22.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/825397370292727808" />
  <row Id="33193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13896" RevisionGUID="1f7d536b-8ef7-4aba-b80d-d15431e268b6" CreationDate="2017-01-29T05:34:41.577" UserId="8359" Text="Russian surnames ending in -в used to be transliterated for English speakers with _ff_, e.g. &quot;Petroff&quot; and &quot;Prokofieff&quot;. Today _v_ seems more accepted. None of the various modern and historical Romanization systems listed in Wikipedia appear suggest _ff_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this an exception based on the sound's position at word end? I gather there is a phonological case for using the letter _f_, but apparently doing so is out of style in the age of formal standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which sort of romanization resulted in the _ff_ and when was it in use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13896" RevisionGUID="1f7d536b-8ef7-4aba-b80d-d15431e268b6" CreationDate="2017-01-29T05:34:41.577" UserId="8359" Text="When were names ending in -в romanized with -ff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13896" RevisionGUID="1f7d536b-8ef7-4aba-b80d-d15431e268b6" CreationDate="2017-01-29T05:34:41.577" UserId="8359" Text="|транслитерация|выбор-имени|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33196" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13896" RevisionGUID="797dd16f-3e40-4b2b-b637-ee5e209e6076" CreationDate="2017-01-29T06:53:43.610" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13899" RevisionGUID="83e0424b-d361-4ada-aabe-b3fe50102826" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:00:03.460" UserId="8474" Text="I am looking for a nickname/affectionate name for a character in a story that I am writing. I was considering basing it upon the word 'riddle' or 'puzzle' Are these the proper translations? Решето and загадка. Is there a diminutive form for each? I tried reading about how to choose the proper suffixes but my understanding of Russian is too limited to work it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13899" RevisionGUID="83e0424b-d361-4ada-aabe-b3fe50102826" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:00:03.460" UserId="8474" Text="Diminutive forms for nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13899" RevisionGUID="83e0424b-d361-4ada-aabe-b3fe50102826" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:00:03.460" UserId="8474" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13900" RevisionGUID="3cd231d7-36a0-4e3b-8c95-b636b98875b9" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:28:25.267" UserId="551" Text="Решето is a household item - a sieve. Better synonyms are загадка, головоломка, ребус, шарада. Diminutives are загадочка, головоломочка, ребусик, шарадочка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13900" RevisionGUID="ef1e143d-f032-40f2-b5ae-01be93e002e3" CreationDate="2017-01-30T21:19:33.540" UserId="551" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Решето is a household item - a sieve. Better synonyms are загадка, головоломка, ребус, шарада. Diminutives are загадочка, головоломочка, ребусик, шарадочка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for gender - only ребус is masculine noun, while загадка, шарада, головоломка are feminine nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13901" RevisionGUID="7df821b8-a799-4cc9-bd14-99e59ab38a90" CreationDate="2017-01-31T12:57:03.477" UserId="8481" Text="In addition to other answers (especially Quassnoi's) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. From time to time old-fashioned peoples (like grand parents)  can use '*подруга*' in meaning &quot;girlfriend&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - У него есть подруга (He has a girlfriend?)&#xD;&#xA; - Нет (No)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Also when you talking about specific women, you can use &quot;*подруга*&quot; in meaning GF:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Итак, Джулия... она твоя подруга? (So... Julia, is she your GF?)&#xD;&#xA;- Нет, просто друг. (No. Just a friend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Between man and woman &quot;*подруга*&quot; can means &quot;GF&quot; or &quot;friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Between woman and woman &quot;*подруга*&quot; will be always means &quot;friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. &quot;Подруга&quot; it's an undefined state. If you'd way &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Она моя подруга (She is my &lt;friend/GF&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually people would ask you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Девушка? (A girlfriend?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cause your relationship isn't clear for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. If you want to introduce a woman as a friend, it'll be better to say &quot;*Друг*&quot; (&quot;friend&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она мой друг. Мы друзья.  (She is my friend. We are friends)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33214" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13844" RevisionGUID="d3c57b53-29d4-4e7f-9c0c-d73c59f5cefa" CreationDate="2017-01-31T14:42:45.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/826440590149697536" />
  <row Id="33215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="5e0cfd62-3be5-4cc5-a969-084b78316a6a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:46:21.410" UserId="4267" Text="According to my non-native intuition, some Russian verbs like несу, передаю, etc. cannot be used with a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Что вы делаете?&#xD;&#xA;    -Мы несем ему книги.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    -Что вы делаете?&#xD;&#xA;    *-Мы несем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first statement is good, but the third statement is not (in my mind, at least). In other words, it seems to me that the verb нести requires an explicit direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? Are there dictionaries that identify these types of verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="5e0cfd62-3be5-4cc5-a969-084b78316a6a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:46:21.410" UserId="4267" Text="Are there any verbs in Russian that MUST be used with a direct object, i.e. they cannot be used intransitively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="5e0cfd62-3be5-4cc5-a969-084b78316a6a" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:46:21.410" UserId="4267" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33218" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="fb3b0013-c4c8-47c7-837c-2f9af4d76b17" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:55:50.623" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Are there any verbs in Russian that must be used with a direct object, i.e. they cannot be used intransitively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="cca4627c-7401-4da7-9949-43e7cbd105d8" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:59:05.863" UserId="4267" Comment="edited body" Text="According to my non-native intuition, some Russian verbs like несу, передаю, etc. cannot be used with a direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Что вы делаете?&#xD;&#xA;    -Мы несем ему книги.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    -Что вы делаете?&#xD;&#xA;    *-Мы несем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first statement is good, but the bare _мы несем_ is not (in my mind, at least). In other words, it seems to me that the verb нести requires an explicit direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? Are there dictionaries that identify these types of verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13903" RevisionGUID="30b65b0d-600f-4850-b443-4c0855a8d9a0" CreationDate="2017-01-31T20:23:13.563" UserId="242" Text="Well, to be strict, no, it's not the case. Consider following phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     - Чего это ты делаешь?&#xD;&#xA;     - Да вот, видишь, несу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See what happens here, person A sees that person B is doing something and asking what exactly. Person B is answering assuming that, while he is answering, person A can get the rest from the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess way too often it will be indeed clarified (несу книги, тащу мешок etc.) but it's not completely ungrammatical. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13904" RevisionGUID="bf7c9a0c-3c2b-4057-bfe4-b89697d93e7e" CreationDate="2017-01-31T21:07:17.403" UserId="6539" Text="Any transitive verb can be used without an object in a certain situation when you just don't name the object,but have it in mind. &#xD;&#xA;Consider the following situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы пьёте чай? Что,всё ещё пьёте?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33224" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="13904" RevisionGUID="0c3458a4-0611-40f6-86fe-606201b91ce9" CreationDate="2017-02-01T13:02:03.300" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13906" RevisionGUID="2d9c5a69-8b47-4148-94af-def2b75c3580" CreationDate="2017-02-01T20:22:54.527" UserId="7097" Text="Russian has transitive verbs, as many other languages, and, as many other languages, they can sometimes anyway happen without the object. Take есть (eat). It is transitive by nature, but you can say &quot;Я ем&quot; and be perfectly grammatical (pretty much as in English). So it's not the case. &#xD;&#xA;I can't comment, but the example with несу is highly contextual. Verbs нести, класть/положить and so on will normally require direct object. By &quot;normally&quot; here I understand &quot;always, unless highly specific situational context&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;To check you can go to gramota.ru, put the verb and see what type of verb is it (transitive or not) by proposed objects in the article. Although it won't say if it's 100% obligatory (also, I imagine, dictionaries don't cover the specific cases as the one with несу) http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;But this (together with the exmaples) will allow you to at least orient in Russian verbs. I hope =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="dc6c02bc-d988-4427-ba5d-9c8e22c4af69" CreationDate="2017-02-02T05:43:24.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/827029630926409730" />
  <row Id="33227" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="13904" RevisionGUID="8e9f4d77-d2b1-470a-89ab-a014711de563" CreationDate="2017-02-02T06:40:38.717" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13907" RevisionGUID="41bb665a-db04-4668-823b-88c8ce6032d8" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:05:41.750" UserId="8464" Text="Why would the ending &quot;-ого&quot; be used in the genitive of the adjective тихий (тихого) while the ending &quot;-его&quot; be used in the genitive of such an adjective as хороший (хорошего) since both adjectives end in an unstressed final stem consonant being one of (ж,ш,ч,щ,г,к,х)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33230" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13907" RevisionGUID="41bb665a-db04-4668-823b-88c8ce6032d8" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:05:41.750" UserId="8464" Text="Genitive ending" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33231" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13907" RevisionGUID="41bb665a-db04-4668-823b-88c8ce6032d8" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:05:41.750" UserId="8464" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33232" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13907" RevisionGUID="606fc7e9-4c9e-4888-907e-34a2d2f2b177" CreationDate="2017-02-02T16:18:38.380" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="Genitive ending: why тихий - тихого when хороший - хорошего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13908" RevisionGUID="dca2b37c-d07f-458a-a61c-20b19771cdd8" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:47:12.230" UserId="6539" Text="Lets consider the group of adjectives with the stress on the stem ending with **г, к, х**, and **ж, ш, ч, щ**.&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives with a stem ending in letters **к, г, х, ж, ш, ч, щ** have the masculine singular ending -ий (маленький - small), the feminine singular ending in -ая (маленькая), and the plural ending -ие (маленькие).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**BUT**:In the neuter singular such adjectives end in **-oe** after **г, к, х** (маленькое), and end in **-ee** after **ж, ш, ч, щ** if the stress is on the stem (свежее молоко - fresh milk) That's where the difference starts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The group with **г, к, х** will have the following endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Долгий, долгого, долгому.&#xD;&#xA;Мягкий, мягкого, мягкому. &#xD;&#xA;Тихий, тихого, тихому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other group with **ж, ш, ч, щ** will have the following endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хороший, хорошего, хорошему.&#xD;&#xA;Горячий, горячего, горячему.&#xD;&#xA;Свежий, свежего, свежему.&#xD;&#xA;Блестящий, блестящего, блестящему." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13909" RevisionGUID="4507f2d0-374e-4a34-9508-77c56f66ac5f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:54:48.040" UserId="8498" Text="I just heard someone talking about Putin propaganda techniques on BBC Radio 4 this morning...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And he mentioned an expression in a situation where &quot;both sides know they are lying&quot;... but they persist with the thing anyway, and neither side smiles or laughs... presumably this dates from Soviet times.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He applied it specifically to the MH17 tragedy: saying that Putin, RT and all the rest know full well that this plane was shot down by Eastern Ukrainian rebels, but persist with the fiction that this explanation has &quot;not been proven&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was something, possibly, to do with &quot;cow shit&quot; (maybe?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13909" RevisionGUID="4507f2d0-374e-4a34-9508-77c56f66ac5f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:54:48.040" UserId="8498" Text="Is there a Russian expression used when both sides know they are lying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13909" RevisionGUID="4507f2d0-374e-4a34-9508-77c56f66ac5f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T08:54:48.040" UserId="8498" Text="|сленг|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13910" RevisionGUID="0392e0a3-87ee-4bfc-89c8-81efb64a9e51" CreationDate="2017-02-03T11:05:31.053" UserId="4560" Text="The BBC did [this][1] a while ago, after which it can officially be considered the Russian language's mythmaker-in-chief. They took a colourless and generic Russian term for camouflage, маскировка, and simply made up some clandestine cultural significance around it. Failing to even translate the word correctly in the process (it does not mean &quot;a little masquerade&quot;, just &quot;masking&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly can't think of any expression that would match the description. &quot;Cow shit&quot; being a gender flip away from an English, and very specifically English, expression for lying, are you even sure Russian was the language in question? But then again, I won't be surprised if the Beeb have let their linguistic imagination run wild again. Now I'm curious to know the details myself, but nothing turns up on the BBC4 website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise &quot;never heard of it, don't trust the BBC&quot; isn't much of an answer, but I'm fairly confident I'm not missing any Russian idiomatics here, and if you provide more details I might at least be able to clear up what they got wrong this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13911" RevisionGUID="408848ac-9f11-46d4-a259-e3e3a61fc6c2" CreationDate="2017-02-03T11:30:43.583" UserId="8447" Text="This situation might be described with idiom *&quot;вешать лапшу на уши&quot;*. It's used to talk about outright and blatant lie or deliberately confusing statements. Also, *&quot;на уши&quot;* might sound somewhat similar to *&quot;cow shit&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also slang word *&quot;брехня&quot;*, which might be translated as *&quot;bullshit&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13910" RevisionGUID="2e1c512c-3cc1-4b55-9699-15857a75c1c1" CreationDate="2017-02-03T11:41:47.087" UserId="4560" Comment="added 393 characters in body" Text="The BBC did [this][1] a while ago, after which it can officially be considered the Russian language's mythmaker-in-chief. They took a colourless and generic Russian term for camouflage, маскировка, and simply made up some clandestine cultural significance around it. Failing to even translate the word correctly in the process (it does not mean &quot;a little masquerade&quot;, just &quot;masking&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I certainly can't think of any expression that would match the description. &quot;Cow shit&quot; being a gender flip away from an English, and very specifically English, expression for lying, are you even sure Russian was the language in question? But then again, I won't be surprised if the Beeb have let their linguistic imagination run wild again. Now I'm curious to know the details myself, but nothing turns up on the BBC4 website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise &quot;never heard of it, don't trust the BBC&quot; isn't much of an answer, but I'm fairly confident I'm not missing any Russian idiomatics here, and if you provide more details I might at least be able to clear up what they got wrong this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Tsumiman's **вешать лапшу на уши** is a good candidate, and the phonetic similarity to &quot;cow shit&quot; is an interesting theory I didn't think of. Perhaps I should've given the BBC greater benefit of the doubt despite their prior record. That said, the expression (literally &quot;hanging noodles on one's ears&quot;) does *not* necessarily imply a situation where &quot;both sides know they are lying&quot;. The *speaker* does know, but they don't have to be the person being lied to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13912" RevisionGUID="73edf754-b3c8-4417-8f46-74c5ecc3b745" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:35:16.393" UserId="8375" Text="Addition:&#xD;&#xA;Лад – old Russian word (maybe even Slavic word).&#xD;&#xA;**Лад** is not only about love. &#xD;&#xA;**Лад** also means peace, harmony, order, consent. All connected with the word **лад** means something good: verb поЛАДить (make peace, get along (with), get on (with), come to an understanding), adjective ЛАДный (harmonious).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13913" RevisionGUID="5ffebb03-4ecd-4572-b5e5-9c63d47dbec8" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:49:18.660" UserId="551" Text="Actually there are plenty idioms meaning &quot;to tell a lie&quot;. I suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Говорить) на голубом глазу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means &quot;To tell a lie with innocent look&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33242" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13828" RevisionGUID="6d51b490-8d63-4b18-a0cc-6ee36a1f6010" CreationDate="2017-02-03T14:52:54.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/827530305506537472" />
  <row Id="33243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13908" RevisionGUID="883965c9-786a-4c6a-b476-ff68e6b2a56a" CreationDate="2017-02-03T19:09:12.887" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Let's consider the group of adjectives with the stress on the stem ending with **г, к, х**, and **ж, ш, ч, щ**.&#xD;&#xA;The adjectives with a stem ending in letters **к, г, х, ж, ш, ч, щ** have the masculine singular ending -ий (маленький - small), the feminine singular ending in -ая (маленькая), and the plural ending -ие (маленькие).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**BUT**:In the neuter singular such adjectives end in **-oe** after **г, к, х** (маленькое), and end in **-ee** after **ж, ш, ч, щ** if the stress is on the stem (свежее молоко - fresh milk) That's where the difference starts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The group with **г, к, х** will have the following endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Долгий, долгого, долгому.&#xD;&#xA;Мягкий, мягкого, мягкому. &#xD;&#xA;Тихий, тихого, тихому.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other group with **ж, ш, ч, щ** will have the following endings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хороший, хорошего, хорошему.&#xD;&#xA;Горячий, горячего, горячему.&#xD;&#xA;Свежий, свежего, свежему.&#xD;&#xA;Блестящий, блестящего, блестящему." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13914" RevisionGUID="7cbfaa49-1be7-47db-a650-46b899f26635" CreationDate="2017-02-03T22:12:40.357" UserId="5288" Text="The Russian expression used when both sides *_know_* they are lying, and neither side smiling nor laughing is    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    делать хорошую мину при плохой игре&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;derived from card games." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13915" RevisionGUID="d7b77e1a-faac-43fe-93e9-0368a74b8d5f" CreationDate="2017-02-03T22:31:09.803" UserId="4903" Text="In the mentioned radio segment, [BBC 4][1] beginning at 1:09. The following words are mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * компромат (*kompromat*) - a short form for __discrediting materials__&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * маскировка (*maskirovka*) - a fairly innocuous word as mentioned by Nikolay, which means __masking__&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * враньё (*vranyo*) - which means __lies__, contrary to what Edward Lucas says the word has no connection to either &quot;bovine&quot;, or to &quot;excrement.&quot;  Also contrary to Edward Lucas, the word враньё does not imply that &quot;both sides&quot; either know about it, or both lie to each other.  It simply means &quot;lies&quot;, nothing more, nothing less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll avoid commenting on the rest of Mr. Lucas' speech about how &quot;враньё/lies&quot; is a lubricant of life in Soviet Union and Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08cbp1z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33246" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13907" RevisionGUID="3471cb6c-cde0-4ed9-8e07-f189c949ae04" CreationDate="2017-02-04T02:55:57.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/827712267605118977" />
  <row Id="33247" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8571" RevisionGUID="b6cad2f7-a18e-4c7d-b829-b4b7d51e0b84" CreationDate="2017-02-04T05:55:57.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/827757565060710400" />
  <row Id="33248" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12318" RevisionGUID="addb3f6f-4981-4f46-b48d-e7b3c5356d08" CreationDate="2017-02-04T08:55:58.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/827802868560359424" />
  <row Id="33249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="98568ad7-63d1-483e-b7a3-876538e3752c" CreationDate="2017-02-04T17:49:00.123" UserId="8353" Text="There's [an issue](http://meta.ru.stackoverflow.com/q/4720/213987) with translation into russian some strings from stack exchange login screen:&#xD;&#xA;[![XOXO][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;I've suggested neutral 'С уважением, команда Stack Exchange' ('WBR, SE team'), but more correct something like 'Чмоки, команда Stack Exchange' ([see urban dictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xoxo))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/apNYj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="98568ad7-63d1-483e-b7a3-876538e3752c" CreationDate="2017-02-04T17:49:00.123" UserId="8353" Text="Russian equivalent for &quot;XOXO&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="98568ad7-63d1-483e-b7a3-876538e3752c" CreationDate="2017-02-04T17:49:00.123" UserId="8353" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13917" RevisionGUID="0726ebd5-ad48-421a-888c-675af898e8b3" CreationDate="2017-02-04T18:40:24.910" UserId="134" Text="_Чмоки_ would sound too sarcastic and out of tune with the rest of the message (which itself is a bit too much of officialese to my taste, not sure if intentionally or not). That's a deliberate mockery unlike genuine &quot;hugs and kisses&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_С уважением_ is the safest option here, but if you really want to be a little bit more personal here (and you don't until you rewrite the rest of the message in the same style), something a little bit outdated like _с рабочим приветом_, _крепко обнимаем_, _жмём руку_ etc. would work too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33253" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="7d499615-f835-4698-ab87-f3fe76968d6a" CreationDate="2017-02-04T21:05:21.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/827986422527324160" />
  <row Id="33254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13918" RevisionGUID="4b90d953-1052-4cd5-9f31-f34d0e62dd7d" CreationDate="2017-02-05T04:18:22.180" UserId="310" Text="`Но вы держитесь`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, offering hugs and especially kisses is a strange affair when presented to a person you just kinda failed and whom you don't have romantic or close friendship involvement with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33255" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="79960ff4-3d66-4158-8683-8740483e0357" CreationDate="2017-02-05T06:05:20.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/828122317607862273" />
  <row Id="33257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="c6040ee4-fa5a-4f49-ba90-286f0d1c4721" CreationDate="2017-02-05T07:54:14.770" UserId="5423" Text="I'm a non-native speaker of Russian, and my given name is Andrew. Is it more normal to call myself &quot;Эндрю&quot;, which according to [Wiktionary][1] is the transliteration of my name, or &quot;Андрей&quot;, which is a cognate (ie an etymologically related word)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Andrew" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="c6040ee4-fa5a-4f49-ba90-286f0d1c4721" CreationDate="2017-02-05T07:54:14.770" UserId="5423" Text="As a non-native speaker, is it more normal to call myself &quot;Эндрю&quot; or &quot;Андрей&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="c6040ee4-fa5a-4f49-ba90-286f0d1c4721" CreationDate="2017-02-05T07:54:14.770" UserId="5423" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="b0f3afb3-6121-4c93-a78b-bc49f831e678" CreationDate="2017-02-05T08:19:44.523" UserId="1236" Text="If you call yourself &quot;Андрей&quot; you'll have tons of questions from everybody whether you have any Russian ancestry. It's typical for non-native speakers of Russian to call themselves with your real name, &quot;Эндрю&quot; in your case. Still, I knew a Vietnamese guy named Ha Hai Tan who called himself &quot;Толя&quot; (it's short from &quot;Анатолий&quot;). When I once asked him why he chose &quot;Толя&quot;, he said, &quot;Well, Tan – Толя, they sound very similar.&quot; )) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, call yourself with your real name &quot;Эндрю&quot; if you'd like to avoid such questions and surprised looks, or choose &quot;Андрей&quot; if you want them, or if you decided to convert to Russianhood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And actually, &quot;Эндрю&quot; is not a transliteration of &quot;Andrew&quot;, it is a transcription with the Russian letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="fe47c579-a084-4f27-b027-2900798786e8" CreationDate="2017-02-05T09:34:21.163" UserId="5582" Comment="fixed sum grammer :)" Text="There's [an issue](http://meta.ru.stackoverflow.com/q/4720/213987) with translation of some strings from Stack Exchange login screen into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;[![XOXO][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;I've suggested the neutral 'С уважением, команда Stack Exchange' ('WBR, SE team'), but  something like 'Чмоки, команда Stack Exchange' seems more correct ([see urban dictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xoxo)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/apNYj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33262" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="fe47c579-a084-4f27-b027-2900798786e8" CreationDate="2017-02-05T09:34:21.163" Comment="Proposed by 5582 approved by 310, 2060 edit id of 832" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="8439b3a1-fdc9-4cbd-b25d-b191c61575f3" CreationDate="2017-02-05T10:50:22.623" UserId="1147" Comment="substituted a more appropriate pronoun" Text="If you call yourself &quot;Андрей&quot; you'll have tons of questions from everybody whether you have any Russian ancestry. It's typical for non-native speakers of Russian to call themselves with their real name, &quot;Эндрю&quot; in your case. Still, I knew a Vietnamese guy named Ha Hai Tan who called himself &quot;Толя&quot; (it's short from &quot;Анатолий&quot;). When I once asked him why he chose &quot;Толя&quot;, he said, &quot;Well, Tan – Толя, they sound very similar.&quot; )) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, call yourself with your real name &quot;Эндрю&quot; if you'd like to avoid such questions and surprised looks, or choose &quot;Андрей&quot; if you want them, or if you decided to convert to Russianhood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And actually, &quot;Эндрю&quot; is not a transliteration of &quot;Andrew&quot;, it is a transcription with the Russian letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33264" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="8439b3a1-fdc9-4cbd-b25d-b191c61575f3" CreationDate="2017-02-05T10:50:22.623" Comment="Proposed by 1147 approved by -1 edit id of 833" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13920" RevisionGUID="09a4b1ae-2a78-4f37-b409-c976b40c3aeb" CreationDate="2017-02-05T10:50:22.623" UserId="1236" Comment="substituted a more appropriate pronoun" Text="If you call yourself &quot;Андрей&quot; you'll have tons of questions from everybody whether you have any Russian ancestry. It's typical for non-native speakers of Russian to call themselves with their real names, &quot;Эндрю&quot; in your case. Still, I knew a Vietnamese guy named Ha Hai Tan who called himself &quot;Толя&quot; (it's short from &quot;Анатолий&quot;). When I once asked him why he chose &quot;Толя&quot;, he said, &quot;Well, Tan – Толя, they sound very similar.&quot; )) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, call yourself with your real name &quot;Эндрю&quot; if you'd like to avoid such questions and surprised looks, or choose &quot;Андрей&quot; if you want them, or if you decided to convert to Russianhood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And actually, &quot;Эндрю&quot; is not a transliteration of &quot;Andrew&quot;, it is a transcription with the Russian letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33269" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13919" RevisionGUID="66e32cc2-2d8b-44c6-b7e3-85858477be7f" CreationDate="2017-02-05T21:07:10.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/828349268276740096" />
  <row Id="33270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13922" RevisionGUID="0d28ee48-eabc-4381-988e-14495bc889e8" CreationDate="2017-02-06T05:06:49.993" UserId="1640" Text="I would use the name you are most comfortable with. Andrew is easy to pronounce (as opposed to, say, [Jügderdemidiin Gürragchaa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCgderdemidiin_G%C3%BCrragchaa)), so the majority of Russians won't have a problem with it. Your name is part of your identity and I don't see, why you should adapt it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="14b5095f-6e9f-4c7b-a384-9dac834461b4" CreationDate="2017-02-06T09:48:42.320" UserId="8522" Text="Someone once told me there is a saying in Russian which basically translates to &quot;There are people, there are problems. There are no people, there are no problems&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know this saying and if so please can you tell me what it is in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="14b5095f-6e9f-4c7b-a384-9dac834461b4" CreationDate="2017-02-06T09:48:42.320" UserId="8522" Text="Tell me what this saying is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="14b5095f-6e9f-4c7b-a384-9dac834461b4" CreationDate="2017-02-06T09:48:42.320" UserId="8522" Text="|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13925" RevisionGUID="5020d8bf-e591-46bb-96f4-ca352b89abcd" CreationDate="2017-02-06T10:23:49.553" UserId="1097" Text="Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы.  &#xD;&#xA;[Wrongly attributed to Stalin: there is no evidence that he ever said or wrote something similar.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This phrase from the novel &quot;Children of the Arbat&quot; (1987) by Анатолий Наумович Рыбаков (1911 — 1998). As Stalin said about the execution of military experts in Tsaritsyn in 1918 : &quot;Death solves all problems. No person and no problem. &quot; Later, in his «Роман-воспоминание» (1997), Рыбаков wrote that the phrase Stalin &quot;possibly from someone heard, perhaps, he came up with.&quot; This was Stalin's principle. I just, it briefly formulated.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/encSlov/6/47.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="edb0d557-06c5-4de6-be0c-e5b71db1eefa" CreationDate="2017-02-06T11:57:19.243" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Someone once told me there is a saying in Russian which basically translates to&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;There are people, there are problems. There are no people, there are no problems&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know this saying and if so please can you tell me what it is in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="edb0d557-06c5-4de6-be0c-e5b71db1eefa" CreationDate="2017-02-06T11:57:19.243" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|перевод|phrase|saying|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13927" RevisionGUID="8a04beea-ff1d-40f9-8ce7-f4d6ed77b944" CreationDate="2017-02-06T12:20:07.167" UserId="5423" Text="In English, the relationship between &quot;artist&quot; and &quot;actor&quot; is fairly straightforward: an artist is someone involved in some form of creative art, whereas an actor is involved in acting, which is one form of creative art but not the only one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Russian word &quot;артист&quot; seems to be a lot more narrow than the English word &quot;artist&quot; - my beginner's handout just translates &quot;артист&quot; as &quot;actor&quot;, and &quot;артистка&quot; as actress, most of the google image search matches for артистка are for actors, and the English edition of Wiktionary has &quot;artist, actor, performer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between an &quot;артист&quot; and &quot;актёр&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13927" RevisionGUID="8a04beea-ff1d-40f9-8ce7-f4d6ed77b944" CreationDate="2017-02-06T12:20:07.167" UserId="5423" Text="What's the difference between &quot;артист&quot; and &quot;актёр&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13927" RevisionGUID="8a04beea-ff1d-40f9-8ce7-f4d6ed77b944" CreationDate="2017-02-06T12:20:07.167" UserId="5423" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13928" RevisionGUID="9e89ed17-6f2b-4854-8da5-ba0e2137f6ee" CreationDate="2017-02-06T13:11:02.473" UserId="5008" Text="_Актёр_ in Russian is used exclusively for theatre and/or movie actors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Артист_ is a more wide term which is appliable for actors, musicians, singers etc. Yet unlike in English (and contrary to its Latin root) it's less about &quot;involvement in some creative art&quot; and more about &quot;performance&quot;. So, for example, &quot;artist-painter&quot; is &quot;художник&quot; in Russian and never &quot;артист&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13929" RevisionGUID="58a2404e-1d47-4457-be15-570e6a89a441" CreationDate="2017-02-06T13:16:14.380" UserId="4560" Text="An **артист** is whoever appears in front of a live audience: singer, musician, *stage* actor, or circus performer. It's uncommon to use the word to refer to *screen* actors (or, for people who combine theatre and film work, to use it when specifically discussing their film career).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can say that a subset of **актёр** is also a subset of **артист**, the latter being a much larger set." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13930" RevisionGUID="9a4be854-96c0-4951-b2d8-2236739e2c3a" CreationDate="2017-02-06T13:47:34.327" UserId="134" Text="_Артист_ is a trade, someone who acts or performs for a living. In wider meaning, it's anyone capable of good acting, has an acting talent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Актёр_ is anyone who is acting in a movie or on the stage (but not a musician, magician or the like, so it's closer to English &quot;actor&quot;). If a person acts badly in their kid's school play because it's their turn, they are _актёр_ but hardly _артист_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine form, though, is almost always _актриса_ in both senses, except in set phrases like _народная артистка_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13930" RevisionGUID="369b16c0-6e02-4aee-b726-3428eec849eb" CreationDate="2017-02-06T13:55:51.430" UserId="134" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="_Артист_ is a trade, someone who acts or performs for a living. In wider meaning, it's anyone capable of good acting, has an acting talent. The main difference from the English &quot;artist&quot; is that the Russian term implies live performance, so it's not applicable to, say, a painter, architect or a fashion designer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Актёр_ is anyone who is acting in a movie or on the stage (but not a musician, magician or the like, so it's closer to English &quot;actor&quot;). If a person acts badly in their kid's school play because it's their turn, they are _актёр_ but hardly _артист_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine form, though, is almost always _актриса_ in both senses, except in set phrases like _народная артистка_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13930" RevisionGUID="aaf0b244-6393-40e2-b109-ace385ac68be" CreationDate="2017-02-06T14:43:50.540" UserId="134" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="_Артист_ is a trade, someone who acts or performs for a living. In wider meaning, it's anyone capable of good acting, has an acting talent. The main difference from the English &quot;artist&quot; is that the Russian term implies live performance, so it's not applicable to, say, a painter, architect or a fashion designer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Актёр_ is anyone who is acting in a movie or on the stage (but not a musician, magician or the like, so it's closer to English &quot;actor&quot;). If a person is acting badly in their kid's school play for the only reason it's their turn to act, they are _актёр_ but hardly _артист_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine form, though, is almost always _актриса_ in both senses, except in set phrases like _народная артистка_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33288" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="b9ca76ba-e729-4eda-a7ea-b21f2be5ba1d" CreationDate="2017-02-06T15:10:03.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/828621784706580486" />
  <row Id="33289" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="f52d9e97-3205-4cc0-895f-25fc5882293b" CreationDate="2017-02-06T18:10:16.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/828667137564741633" />
  <row Id="33291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13931" RevisionGUID="800b2c1f-8068-41dc-8290-1aa49a13684c" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:07:30.947" UserId="8527" Text="What will тихая be in feminine instrumentalis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morph.cgi?flags=endnnnnn&amp;root=config&amp;word=%F2%E8%F5%E0%FF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13931" RevisionGUID="800b2c1f-8068-41dc-8290-1aa49a13684c" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:07:30.947" UserId="8527" Text="тихая in fem.+instrumentalis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13931" RevisionGUID="800b2c1f-8068-41dc-8290-1aa49a13684c" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:07:30.947" UserId="8527" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13931" RevisionGUID="80e68cf4-5cf6-4909-ba12-5e6ce0a9132a" CreationDate="2017-02-06T21:15:40.307" UserId="8527" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What will тихая ночь be in feminine instrumentalis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morph.cgi?flags=endnnnnn&amp;root=config&amp;word=%F2%E8%F5%E0%FF&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33299" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13927" RevisionGUID="41933541-d82f-4796-ae59-80bf19f85272" CreationDate="2017-02-07T06:10:14.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/828848322928586752" />
  <row Id="33300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13933" RevisionGUID="dcef6b51-e094-44a5-b4c1-76f46edc3a40" CreationDate="2017-02-07T08:37:40.497" UserId="8529" Text="Самая простая конструкция, передающая смысл: &quot;both ... and practical&quot;, где первым вставляется удобное слово согласно контексту. Прилагательные об удовольствии не подходят во всех случаях, поскольку русское выражение тоже не всегда буквально. Сегодня в моем тексте про охранные сигнализации было удобно перевести &quot;both convenient and practical&quot;, когда речь шла об охранных барьерах, замаскированных под уличные фонари. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13934" RevisionGUID="87f239b9-fea6-4a66-82fd-b4f13f67f5e8" CreationDate="2017-02-07T17:45:14.727" UserId="4629" Text="You seem to be asking two separate questions here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there Russian verbs that cannot be used intransitively? - Yes, plenty. Надевать, снимать, изучать, ощупывать are just a few examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a transitive verb that cannot be used without an object? - Most likely, no. I am struggling to think of one. It seems as if one can always come up with a context where the transitive verb's object will be physically missing but undoubtedly implied. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13935" RevisionGUID="ffa0d01a-81fc-49fd-a104-ac840838bc50" CreationDate="2017-02-07T18:32:59.187" UserId="4629" Text="Actually I would argue that the masculine analogue of the -ичк suffix is -ишк, not -чик. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;мужик — мужичишка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;заяц — зайчишка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;холм — холмишко&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сыч — сычишко&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;мяч — мячишко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Symmetrically, the feminine form of -ик is -иц:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вода — водица&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кобыла — кобылица&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;небыль — небылица&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13936" RevisionGUID="4bf6600a-6e3e-4db2-8684-97d12120c586" CreationDate="2017-02-07T18:49:03.003" UserId="8530" Text="It will be `тихой ночью` in feminine instrumentalis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33304" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="b00dedcf-de61-4fec-a04c-8e57c007e05b" CreationDate="2017-02-07T21:13:29.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/829075634211155968" />
  <row Id="33305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="2037f102-a044-4f54-925b-39fcb67c559d" CreationDate="2017-02-08T00:16:47.993" UserId="6759" Text="My Russian teacher gave me an exercise in which I have to fill in a missing word. The only word available is заказать but it makes the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Хорошо, тогда я заказать на первое уху, а на второе пельмени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it should be &quot;я закажу&quot;. But searching for &quot;я заказать&quot; reveals a lot of sentences which start Могу ли я заказать... so perhaps this is just a shortened/colloquial version? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a valid sentence one could say, or is there a mistake in the exercise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="2037f102-a044-4f54-925b-39fcb67c559d" CreationDate="2017-02-08T00:16:47.993" UserId="6759" Text="Confused by я заказать in a sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="2037f102-a044-4f54-925b-39fcb67c559d" CreationDate="2017-02-08T00:16:47.993" UserId="6759" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13938" RevisionGUID="243f51b5-65a4-4608-836e-53ce9e4848af" CreationDate="2017-02-08T00:31:39.157" UserId="1236" Text="*Могу ли я заказать...* means &quot;May I order ...&quot; Note, that both in English and in Russian, &quot;I&quot; (я) refers to &quot;may&quot; (могу), not to &quot;order&quot; (заказать), the latter being in the infinitive in both languages, because if you change &quot;I&quot; to &quot;he&quot;, the verb &quot;order&quot; doesn't det the _-s_ suffix: &quot;May he order ...&quot;, and _not_ &quot;*May he orders ...&quot;. That's why you first variant, `я закажу` is correct, the predicate verb must agree in number and person with the subject (it's _я_ in your exercise), the variant with &quot;заказать&quot; is definitely wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="d1e31a00-4ebb-4265-91f4-7d0a4d642227" CreationDate="2017-02-08T04:08:34.800" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Хорошо, тогда я (заказать) закажу на первое уху, а на второе пельмени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is valid. It sounds like &quot;Well, then I will order fish soup for the first course (to start with) and meat dumplings for the main course.&quot; As if you have just chosen what to order and you are sure they have them. It can be the continuation of the previous discussion or doubts what to choose. The verb &quot;заказать &quot; agrees with the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Могу я заказать(=Can I order...) на первое уху, а на второе пельмени?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is also possible.  It is a polite form using a modal verb plus infinitive. The verb &quot;мочь&quot; agrees with the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы хотел заказать...(I'd ike to order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use any of them and some more to make an order. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13936" RevisionGUID="029260d7-cc9c-4db9-b181-d0382295fcd0" CreationDate="2017-02-08T07:48:07.307" UserId="7544" Comment="Added poetic meaning from comment" Text="It will be `тихой ночью` in feminine instrumentalis, `тихою` is a poetic form that is not normally used in everyday communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33311" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13936" RevisionGUID="029260d7-cc9c-4db9-b181-d0382295fcd0" CreationDate="2017-02-08T07:48:07.307" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 2060, 4629 edit id of 834" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33312" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13931" RevisionGUID="fb6a3d7e-18f2-49eb-b0ad-1c9525d97f39" CreationDate="2017-02-08T09:18:10.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/829258005770334211" />
  <row Id="33313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13938" RevisionGUID="2d6c1130-a8c4-4f0f-b9db-0e15023cf8a2" CreationDate="2017-02-08T12:43:54.277" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="*Могу ли я заказать...* means &quot;May I order ...&quot; Note, that both in English and in Russian, &quot;I&quot; (я) refers to &quot;may&quot; (могу), not to &quot;order&quot; (заказать), the latter being in the infinitive in both languages, because if you change &quot;I&quot; to &quot;he&quot;, the verb &quot;order&quot; doesn't get the _-s_ suffix: &quot;May he order ...&quot;, and _not_ &quot;*May he orders ...&quot;. That's why you first variant, `я закажу` is correct, the predicate verb must agree in number and person with the subject (it's _я_ in your exercise), the variant with &quot;заказать&quot; is definitely wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33314" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="fb8aaa43-514a-4525-bd4e-4dd06e4258ef" CreationDate="2017-02-09T03:18:32.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/829529892257677314" />
  <row Id="33315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13940" RevisionGUID="494bdf68-ac97-4e13-883e-4a05713bfe84" CreationDate="2017-02-09T16:45:29.863" UserId="3727" Text="It really depends on the level of your relationship with the person in question.&#xD;&#xA;Quite acceptable actually between very close friends, in my circle at least." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="51d02d69-3019-4e1f-9119-7b5008b530a7" CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:42:22.397" UserId="8357" Text="An example where «*Актёр*» is possible, and «*Артист*» is not is the name of the character in Gorky's “The Lower Depths”. The name refers to the past profession of the character who is now a good-for-nothing; what he did in that profession now matters not. You could still say «*он плохой артист*» about him, certainly, but that doesn't matter in the drama. His role in the drama is not to play tricks before the other characters, so he's not «*Артист*»; his role is to be a had-been who now does nothing. He is “someone who had a job once”. Which job? Well, an actor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example where «*артист*» is possible and «*актёр*» is not is a sentence like «*Ну, ты артист*», when someone makes some bold move or plays an advantageous (for them) trick in the eyes of the spectators. The word refers to the creative character of their trick, to how they form the reality around the others, most likely by deceiving someone or doing something that other people didn't expect, by doing actually one thing yet showing something else to people. But they don't work as actors and aren't even compared to such (the sentence doesn't mean “*you're like an actor*”, rather it means “*you did play it strong*”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is any reason to believe the word «*артист*» in the meaning «*художник*» (an artist of any kind, or even in the most generic sense of the word before you specify the creative art in question) is obsolete, as someone else suggested. This meaning is, indeed, literary; but so the subject is. It is literary to talk of art in the general sense. When a specific profession is implied, the generic aspects are not so important, and specific aspects are more telling for imagination of the users of the language, so another word that implies these aspects is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the conclusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When talking about plays or reading novels around (like on the radio), my conclusion is this: the denotation of the two words is the same, but they refer to different thoughts: either acting as a job, or creating an impression on the minds of spectators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) When not talking about playing dramas or reading novels aloud, «*актёр*» is out of question. In this case, you would commonly find a singer or a joke-monger (someone who tells jokes from the scene, like Altov or Zadornov) to be called an «*артист*».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Also, «*артист*» (more commonly, «*художник*») is a generic creator; when the case is not so generic, either word is usually substituted by the name of the specific profession («*писатель*», «*поэт*», «*композитор*», …)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13942" RevisionGUID="ce80586a-a64b-46ab-8bde-5bdf03b4ff15" CreationDate="2017-02-10T00:27:01.583" UserId="8357" Text="By the reasoning in the question, the Latin alphabet, as used for English, has a stroke order, too. If even the Japanese have it, surely the English have it, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the stroke order as a prescriptive concept has no importance whatsoever in Russian hand-writing. You just do whatever sticks to you naturally. Usually you just write the whole word in one stroke. Descriptively, you might like to study how that happens, but few people would care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, children might of course have — or not have, that ought to depend on the teacher, probably, — some special written aides that help to learn to write. As I recall, my writing aides weren't quite special and only consulted me on the shape of the letters, and so I never cared about the stroke order. For me, the stoke order is a foreign concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A letter's shape is just its image (on the background of the line's guiding rulers) and a note where is the letter's universal “way in”, and where is its universal “way out”. One attaches the “ways out” of the previous letters to the “ways in” of the next letters. How to manage *that*, I surely worked out by myself, as a kid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="f7cd2d0c-3a5a-4033-9ed5-2636f43b2d80" CreationDate="2017-02-10T00:32:53.580" UserId="8357" Comment="a typo" Text="An example where «*Актёр*» is possible, and «*Артист*» is not is the name of the character in Gorky's “The Lower Depths”. The name refers to the past profession of the character who is now a good-for-nothing; what he did in that profession now matters not. You could still say «*он плохой артист*» about him, certainly, but that doesn't matter in the drama. His role in the drama is not to play tricks before the other characters, so he's not «*Артист*»; his role is to be a had-been who now does nothing. He is “someone who had a job once”. Which job? Well, an actor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example where «*артист*» is possible and «*актёр*» is not is a sentence like «*Ну, ты артист*», when someone makes some bold move or plays an advantageous (for them) trick in the eyes of the spectators. The word refers to the creative character of their trick, to how they form the reality around the others, most likely by deceiving someone or doing something that other people didn't expect, by doing actually one thing yet showing something else to people. But they don't work as actors and aren't even compared to such (the sentence doesn't mean “*you're like an actor*”, rather it means “*you did play it strong*”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is any reason to believe the word «*артист*» in the meaning «*художник*» (an artist of any kind, or even in the most generic sense of the word before you specify the creative art in question) is obsolete, as someone else suggested. This meaning is, indeed, literary; but so the subject is. It is literary to talk of art in the general sense. When a specific profession is implied, the generic aspects are not so important, and specific aspects are more telling for imagination of the users of the language, so another word that implies these aspects is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the conclusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When talking about plays or reading novels aloud (like on the radio), my conclusion is this: the denotation of the two words is the same, but they refer to different thoughts: either acting as a job, or creating an impression on the minds of spectators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) When not talking about playing dramas or reading novels aloud, «*актёр*» is out of question. In this case, you would commonly find a singer or a joke-monger (someone who tells jokes from the scene, like Altov or Zadornov) to be called an «*артист*».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Also, «*артист*» (more commonly, «*художник*») is a generic creator; when the case is not so generic, either word is usually substituted by the name of the specific profession («*писатель*», «*поэт*», «*композитор*», …)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13943" RevisionGUID="9aa74922-1f94-4030-be7d-ab49858b5a82" CreationDate="2017-02-10T02:59:43.633" UserId="5448" Text="According to the explanatory dictionary&#xD;&#xA;(http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically meaning Артист - a person of any theatrical profession (singer, reciter, musician), in an obsolete value - close to &quot;Artist&quot; in English (painter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Актёр = actor, who stars or acts a part in a movie or the theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in a figurative sense they are synonymous, they both mean pretender, simulant, dissimulator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13943" RevisionGUID="d8b065e9-1a21-49fd-9970-776881c97118" CreationDate="2017-02-10T03:07:27.247" UserId="5448" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="According to the explanatory dictionary&#xD;&#xA;(http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically meaning Артист - a person of any scenic profession (singer, reciter, musician), in an obsolete value - close to &quot;Artist&quot; in English (painter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Актёр = actor, who stars or acts a part in a movie or the theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in a figurative sense they are synonymous, they both mean pretender, simulant, dissimulator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13939" RevisionGUID="37a6729b-35d5-4b2b-9898-3ccc966b9f06" CreationDate="2017-02-10T06:02:16.757" UserId="6539" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="&gt;Хорошо, тогда я (заказать) закажу на первое уху, а на второе пельмени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is valid. It sounds like &quot;Well, then I will order fish soup for the first course (to start with) and meat dumplings for the main course.&quot; As if you have just chosen what to order and you are sure they have them. It can be the continuation of the previous discussion or doubts what to choose. The verb &quot;заказать &quot; agrees with the subject.I think you didn't understand the task or it wasn't formulated properly. You had to fill in **the proper** form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Могу я заказать(=Can I order...) на первое уху, а на второе пельмени?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence is also possible.  It is a polite form using a modal verb plus infinitive. The verb &quot;мочь&quot; agrees with the subject. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы хотел заказать...(I'd ike to order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use any of them and some more to make an order. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13944" RevisionGUID="fe2ee70c-5e6a-4853-9aea-f1d98938c449" CreationDate="2017-02-10T06:19:16.513" UserId="8359" Text="Mariano Payeras, a Spanish priest, wrote in an 1822 diary entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a last courtesy our officers said goodbye to all the Russians who saluted us with four cannon shots, hat waving, and gestures, crying out to us three times _Vrra, vrra, vrra_, which means the same as our &quot;Adios&quot; [goodbye] according to the interpreter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What Russian word is represented by &quot;vrra&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13944" RevisionGUID="fe2ee70c-5e6a-4853-9aea-f1d98938c449" CreationDate="2017-02-10T06:19:16.513" UserId="8359" Text="&quot;Vrra&quot; is a hispanization of which Russian word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13944" RevisionGUID="fe2ee70c-5e6a-4853-9aea-f1d98938c449" CreationDate="2017-02-10T06:19:16.513" UserId="8359" Text="|транслитерация|лексикон|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13945" RevisionGUID="b125d901-c179-41a1-959f-e9de4638d8c3" CreationDate="2017-02-10T07:15:42.300" UserId="6223" Text="Hurrah!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Russian Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ура́ — восклицательное междометие, употребляющееся в качестве&#xD;&#xA;&gt; торжествующего восклицания, выражающего восторг, радость, общее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; воодушевление, а также в качестве боевого клича. Кроме русского,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существует и в других языках (нем. hurra, англ. hurrah (или huzzah,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hooah), фр. hurrah и мн. др.) На письме чаще всего выделяется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; восклицательным знаком." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13946" RevisionGUID="0fe058b7-43a3-424a-b4c1-bb00bc87e79f" CreationDate="2017-02-10T08:08:00.233" UserId="6539" Text="The salutation **Ура!Ура!Ура!** repeated three times is a usual greeting in the army used during parades, official meetings and performed by a chorus of military men. While being spoken the reverberation of voices makes it as if several sounds of **р-р** were pronounced. The interjection corresponds to the English &quot;Hooray! (Hurrah)&quot; expressing joy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13946" RevisionGUID="ae3b4a1b-3cbc-4e3b-950c-3f31450f0bb9" CreationDate="2017-02-10T08:19:55.087" UserId="6539" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="The salutation  **Ура!Ура!Ура!** repeated three times (троекратное ура) is a usual greeting in the army used during parades, official meetings and performed by a chorus of military men. While being spoken the reverberation of voices makes it as if several sounds of **р-р** were pronounced. The interjection corresponds to the English &quot;Hooray! (Hurrah)&quot; expressing joy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13941" RevisionGUID="cafd53b8-0147-425d-a845-82d53da6529c" CreationDate="2017-02-10T09:51:24.153" UserId="8357" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="An example where «*Актёр*» is possible, and «*Артист*» is not is the name of the character in Gorky's “The Lower Depths”. The name refers to the past profession of the character who is now a good-for-nothing; what he did in that profession now matters not. You could still say «*он плохой артист*» about him, certainly, but that doesn't matter in the drama. His role in the drama is not to play tricks before the other characters, so he's not «*Артист*»; his role is to be a had-been who now does nothing. He is “someone who had a job once”. Which job? Well, an actor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example where «*артист*» is possible and «*актёр*» is not is a sentence like «*Ну, ты артист*», when someone makes some bold move or plays an advantageous (for them) trick in the eyes of the spectators. The word refers to the creative character of their trick, to how they form the reality around the others, most likely by deceiving someone or doing something that other people didn't expect, by doing actually one thing yet showing something else to people. But they don't work as actors and aren't even compared to such (the sentence doesn't mean “*you're like an actor*”, rather it means “*you did play it strong*”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think there is any reason to believe the word «*артист*» in the meaning «*художник*» (an artist of any kind, or even in the most generic sense of the word before you specify the creative art in question) is obsolete, as someone else suggested. This meaning is, indeed, literary; but so the subject is. It is literary to talk of art in the general sense. When a specific profession is implied, the generic aspects are not so important, and specific aspects are more telling for imagination of the users of the language, so another word that implies these aspects is used («*писатель*», «*поэт*», «*скульптор*», «*композитор*»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the conclusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When talking about plays or reading novels aloud (like on the radio), my conclusion is this: the denotation of the two words is the same, but they refer to different thoughts: either acting as a job, or creating an impression on the minds of spectators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) When not talking about playing dramas or reading novels aloud, «*актёр*» is out of question. In this case, you would commonly find a singer or a joke-monger (someone who tells jokes from the scene, like Altov or Zadornov) to be called an «*артист*».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Also, «*артист*» (more commonly, «*художник*») has the sense “an artist qua artist, an artist in the generic sense of the word”. To express this sense, these two words are the only thing that the modern language has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="812525b2-ae47-4b6b-971f-0e3509e9a4fc" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:47:57.310" UserId="8543" Text="![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5aCcg.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/24JfG.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, my Russian teacher never taught me why such things happen... And I've encountered so many cases other than these examples bearing same problems. Can somebody explain when and why this happens? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="812525b2-ae47-4b6b-971f-0e3509e9a4fc" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:47:57.310" UserId="8543" Text="Genitive cases ending with -у(in this case, masculine, singular)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="812525b2-ae47-4b6b-971f-0e3509e9a4fc" CreationDate="2017-02-10T16:47:57.310" UserId="8543" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13948" RevisionGUID="49e843b6-d67a-4ada-92f4-d4aa84303cde" CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:04:41.280" UserId="2079" Text="These are so called lesser cases. `С боку на бок` - местный падеж.  `Брал меду` - отделительный падеж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13948" RevisionGUID="c4661337-b36f-46cd-8d0a-10d527b6d2a7" CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:15:45.090" UserId="2079" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="These are so called *lesser cases* (*малые падежи*). `С боку на бок` - *местный падеж*.  `Брал меду` - *отделительный падеж*, sometimes also called *количественно-отделительный падеж*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13948" RevisionGUID="9391bbcf-b7c5-4617-94dd-2b66d2ae2c81" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:04:25.057" UserId="2079" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="These are so called *lesser cases* (*малые падежи*). `С боку на бок` - *отложительный падеж*, or *исходный падеж* (ablative).  `Брал меду` - *отделительный падеж*, sometimes also called *количественно-отделительный падеж*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About lesser cases: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33335" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="13947" RevisionGUID="e6f9307d-8ec9-44cb-ad19-e6b2c6468f75" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:20:40.713" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[404],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13949" RevisionGUID="0bde5e36-f502-4745-9394-001de852534b" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:02:34.363" UserId="6816" Text="I have a construction&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... пят(-ь/-и/-ю) [adjective] [noun]&#xA;&#xA;I want to know which case the adjective should be in when the noun/number are in nominative, accusative, or oblique cases.&#xA;&#xA;I know the rules for 2, 3, and 4 as listed out here:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; While the noun in a nominative construction is in the genitive singular following два or две, an intervening adjective or adjectival participle will be in the genitive plural or nominative plural&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If два is in nominative case, the adjective will be nominative plural when the noun is feminine&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If два is in accusative case, the adjective will be nominative plural only if the noun is feminine inanimate&#xA;&#xA;but what are the rules for 5, 13, 22, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13949" RevisionGUID="0bde5e36-f502-4745-9394-001de852534b" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:02:34.363" UserId="6816" Text="Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13949" RevisionGUID="0bde5e36-f502-4745-9394-001de852534b" CreationDate="2017-02-11T00:02:34.363" UserId="6816" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13946" RevisionGUID="dc3d20d8-0f34-4f29-8c72-d9c5f49dd664" CreationDate="2017-02-11T03:41:31.307" UserId="1236" Comment="Spaces added." Text="The salutation  **Ура! Ура! Ура!** repeated three times (троекратное ура) is a usual greeting in the army used during parades, official meetings and performed by a chorus of military men. While being spoken the reverberation of voices makes it as if several sounds of **р-р** were pronounced. The interjection corresponds to the English &quot;Hooray! (Hurrah)&quot; expressing joy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13950" RevisionGUID="35c44f4f-515e-49fe-bf9d-30c74b282a15" CreationDate="2017-02-11T03:57:01.867" UserId="1236" Text="5 and more need Genitive plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 or 13 кошек / собак / бегемотов / слонов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it is a number more than 20 and it ends in 1, 2, 3, or 4, then the rules for 1, 2, 3, or 4 apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 кошка / собака / бегемот / слон&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22 or 23 or 24 кошки / собаки / бегемота / слона&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not forget that 1 and all other numbers more than 20 ending in 1 agree in gender with the items being counted, for masculine it is *один*, for feminine *одна*, and for neuter *одно*. 2 and numbers more than 20 ending in 2 have only two gender forms, *два* for masculine and neuter, *две* for feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13950" RevisionGUID="68367b3d-9cf2-4cbc-a187-60d5d15094e0" CreationDate="2017-02-11T04:26:04.473" UserId="1236" Comment="added 441 characters in body" Text="5 and more need Genitive plural: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5 or 13 кошек / собак / бегемотов / слонов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it is a number more than 20 and it ends in 1, 2, 3, or 4, then the rules for 1, 2, 3, or 4 apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 кошка / собака / бегемот / слон&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 22 or 23 or 24 кошки / собаки / бегемота / слона&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not forget that 1 and all other numbers more than 20 ending in 1 agree in gender with the items being counted, for masculine it is *один*, for feminine *одна*, and for neuter *одно*. 2 and numbers more than 20 ending in 2 have only two gender forms, *два* for masculine and neuter, *две* for feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put the whole expression Numeral+Noun into a case other than Nominative, then both the numeral and the noun are in the case you needed, the noun will be in plural if the numeral is not 1 or more than 20 ending in 1, in this case the noun is singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dative Case as an examle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пяти or тринадцати or двадцати двум кошкам / собакам / бегемотам / слонам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двадцати одной кошке / собаке / двадцати одному бегемоту / слону" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="752256ec-bb4b-4dfa-b08e-d37c73ef3fcf" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:24:15.380" UserId="8414" Text="В романе Пушкина «Дубровский» повествователь,  комментируя следующее письмо, написанное одним из персонажей,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Государь мой премилостивый,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Я до тех пор не намерен ехать в Покровское, пока не вышлете Вы мне псаря Парамошку с повинною; а будет моя воля наказать его или помиловать, а я терпеть шутки от Ваших холопьев не намерен, да и от Вас их не стерплю, потому что я не шут, а старинный дворянин. За сим остаюсь покорным ко услугам&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Андрей Дубровский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;говорит:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По нынешним понятиям об этикете письмо сие было бы весьма неприличным, но оно рассердило Кирила Петровича не странным слогом и расположением, но только своею сущностью&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А интересно, как вы думаете,  в чем именно заключалась  «странность»?  &#xD;&#xA;Перечитываю, перечитываю, а я еще ничего особенно старомодного в сравнении с основным текстом романа в этом письме так и не нашел. Такие тонкости, похоже, мне не уловить, а ведь бывают более существенные изменения в слоге, которые даже я замечаю, ну возьми хоть сумасшедший слог, которым написано определение суда страницы через три.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Быть может, все дело в слове «премилоствый»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="752256ec-bb4b-4dfa-b08e-d37c73ef3fcf" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:24:15.380" UserId="8414" Text="Странный слог А. Дубровского" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="752256ec-bb4b-4dfa-b08e-d37c73ef3fcf" CreationDate="2017-02-11T11:24:15.380" UserId="8414" Text="|история-языка|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13952" RevisionGUID="1c79e86f-fc3d-4b5a-83ef-8f400399b2fb" CreationDate="2017-02-11T13:46:46.147" UserId="551" Text="Возможно дело действительно в обращении. Они были [регламентированы][1] в зависимости от чинов и прочих заслуг. В частности, в переписке частные лица обращались следующим образом:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ко всем частным лицам — «милостивый государь» (при обращении к высшему), «милостивый государь мой» (к равному), «государь мой» (к низшему).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно перенос слова &quot;премилостивый&quot; в конец обращения делал его созвучным обращению &quot;государь мой&quot; (т.е. ставил автора выше адресата), а &quot;премилостивый&quot; вместо &quot;милостивый&quot; тоже делал правильную формулу &quot;милостивый государь мой&quot; размытой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;М. Ю. Лотман приводит такой пример щепетильного отношения к правильности обращения в письме: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вообще, этикет в письмах должен был соблюдаться с большой точностью. Известен случай, когда сенатор, приехавший с ревизией, в обращении к губернатору (а губернатор был из графов Мамоновых и славился своей гордостью) вместо положенного: «Милостивый государь!» — написал: «Милостивый государь мой!» Обиженный губернатор ответное письмо начал словами: «Милостивый государь мой, мой, мой!» — сердито подчеркнув неуместность притяжательного местоимения «мой» в официальном обращении. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13953" RevisionGUID="f66b1e4a-4fba-4fc6-98a0-56c6c86b4aa3" CreationDate="2017-02-11T13:54:09.543" UserId="8034" Text="When I tried to translate this phrase, I have found 'to combine pleasure with utility'. I like this variant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="29413400-d5a5-498a-a752-532ebf7079b9" CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:54:21.227" UserId="5423" Text="What's the difference between a университет and a институт? The former is translated as &quot;university&quot; and the latter as &quot;institute&quot; in both my textbook and on Wiktionary, but there's no explanation of the difference, and the two bring up similar images on Google image search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is specific to educational systems in Russophone countries, that's not a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="29413400-d5a5-498a-a752-532ebf7079b9" CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:54:21.227" UserId="5423" Text="Difference between университет and институт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="29413400-d5a5-498a-a752-532ebf7079b9" CreationDate="2017-02-12T04:54:21.227" UserId="5423" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13955" RevisionGUID="16e7933e-b6dd-4e56-b88e-22710e92d075" CreationDate="2017-02-12T07:44:30.667" UserId="5008" Text="In the Soviet Union &quot;_Институт_&quot; was a single-profile higher education institution. So, for example, if they had all the stuff like math, physics, law, philology, economics etc. they were called &quot;a university&quot; but if only, say, medicine, they were &quot;an institute&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first years of modern Russia many former &quot;institutes&quot; chose &quot;to upgrade&quot; themselves and became &quot;universities&quot; (or &quot;academies&quot;). So there are not too many of them left now. Therefore the term &quot;_Институт_&quot; (except if not related to a higher education at all) is used in two different meanings: (a) a real single-profile higher education institution as in Soviet times, which is mostly dead now, and (b) any modern university which was &quot;институт&quot; about 20-30 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13956" RevisionGUID="77543f0f-3aa9-44a8-ac49-eb7ee3aa95b1" CreationDate="2017-02-12T13:19:08.513" UserId="6539" Text="Институт, академия и университет are different official levels of certification of a higher educational establishment nowadays. First comes институт, then академия and the highest level is университет.&#xD;&#xA;Universities are supposed to provide better quality of education and additional educational services and they have more support from the state. They also do more research work. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33358" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13923" RevisionGUID="bc95396f-1607-4731-af44-cd49f4d0fc81" CreationDate="2017-02-12T17:38:25.830" UserId="551" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;There are no people, there are no problems&quot; - tell me what this saying is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13955" RevisionGUID="77d9d903-5151-4f62-90fd-c9b5f78f90a6" CreationDate="2017-02-12T18:01:29.197" UserId="7544" Comment="clarified the reason a bit" Text="In the Soviet Union &quot;_Институт_&quot; was a single-profile higher education institution. So, for example, if they had all the stuff like math, physics, law, philology, economics etc. they were called &quot;a university&quot; but if only, say, medicine, they were &quot;an institute&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first years of modern Russia many former &quot;institutes&quot; chose &quot;to upgrade&quot; themselves and became &quot;universities&quot; (or &quot;academies&quot;), sometimes really getting many new profiles, sometimes not. So there are not too many of them left now. Therefore the term &quot;_Институт_&quot; (except if not related to a higher education at all) is used in two different meanings: (a) a real single-profile higher education institution as in Soviet times, which is mostly dead now, and (b) any modern university which was &quot;институт&quot; about 20-30 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33360" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13955" RevisionGUID="77d9d903-5151-4f62-90fd-c9b5f78f90a6" CreationDate="2017-02-12T18:01:29.197" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 5008 edit id of 836" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33367" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13951" RevisionGUID="2f3ea62e-f1d6-4374-9647-5acf9091bb42" CreationDate="2017-02-13T03:39:57.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/830984830489866241" />
  <row Id="33368" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13944" RevisionGUID="9d0d48ab-f231-411d-a137-ee58970026f8" CreationDate="2017-02-13T06:45:50.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/831031613043662849" />
  <row Id="33369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13960" RevisionGUID="55d0d1a5-73c8-474f-96ab-3c03dc314cd4" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:43:40.897" UserId="8359" Text="In Russia, the place name &quot;Kamchatka&quot; at some point became a generalized means of referring to faraway, underresourced, or undesirable places (according to a couple of sources, such as the far rear of a classroom). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this usage begin? Why Kamchatka and not Kad'iak nor Ross, which are farther away? Is the reference still in use in the Russian language? Have Kamchatkans objected to this kind of usage of their place name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13960" RevisionGUID="55d0d1a5-73c8-474f-96ab-3c03dc314cd4" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:43:40.897" UserId="8359" Text="Use of &quot;Kamchatka&quot; to represent any poor, faraway place" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13960" RevisionGUID="55d0d1a5-73c8-474f-96ab-3c03dc314cd4" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:43:40.897" UserId="8359" Text="|сленг|idioms|places|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="047713d6-3747-4367-9f18-14ef47a0a073" CreationDate="2017-02-13T16:39:12.707" UserId="551" Text="Kamchatka since early years of 18 century was used as a place for sending politically disloyal people to exile. So, in the classroom a teacher sent bad pupils to the &quot;exile&quot; - to the rear seats of the classroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of using Камчатка as a synonym for any &quot;poor faraway place&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="e862f352-e19b-4f52-9c67-17112310dcfb" CreationDate="2017-02-13T17:21:42.060" UserId="551" Comment="added 657 characters in body" Text="Kamchatka since early years of 18 century was used as a place for sending politically disloyal people to exile. So, in the classroom a teacher sent bad pupils to the &quot;exile&quot; - to the rear seats of the classroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of using Камчатка as a synonym for any &quot;poor faraway place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why Kamchatka and not Kad'iak nor Ross, which are farther away? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of 'exile' meaning. There were other far places, however they implied exile+hard labor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the reference still in use in the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know there is no practice to send pupils to the rear of the classroom, however as a reference to the usage of the term in literature, it still can be used as a joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have Kamchatkans objected to this kind of usage of their place name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In those times - no, because it was colonization of Kamchatka at those times (much like Indians on American Wild West). So, locals (much like Indians) could not object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13962" RevisionGUID="1c3fe6c1-ba6b-44c0-bc20-8c275162a06d" CreationDate="2017-02-13T19:58:35.193" UserId="496" Text="I agree with Artemix in most things (but not all), just writing my own response to provide more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, in my opinion, (as Artemix already had said) Kamchatka does not have the meaning of a poor &quot;underresourced&quot; place. It just has a meaning of very faraway place. And (again agreeing with Artemix), when people were sent into exile to Kamchatka, - they were not subjected to hard labor. It was not a prison, just far-far distancing the person from the big cities. See, for example, [here][1]: exiled people were participating in scientific expeditions, or teaching natives literacy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was not economical, I guess, to keep labor camps on Kamchatka, there existed much closer places in Siberia where there was more police presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kamchatka as idiomatic expression means - student desks in the last row in a classroom. This assumes that there are at least 6 rows of desks, so from the last row students may not see well the chalkboard, and do not hear well the presenter in front of the board. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though, I don't agree with Artemix that pupils were only &quot;exiled&quot; to the last desks. They may well choose this place themselves because they like it - especially on a boring subject. In the last desks they could do whatever they wanted without teacher noticing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why other more far places not used as Kamchatka: Кадьяк (Kodiak island) is part of Alaska which was discovered approximately 80 years later (Kamchatka 1651, Alaska 1732) and was not much in the public ear to become an idiom. Fort Ross, California (est. 1808) - even later than Alaska and even less in public ear, I guess. And both places are in America - separated by ocean from continental part of Russia. The desks of the last row are not separated from other desks by any aisle, they are just far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/lisha-chinov-soslat-v-kamchatku" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13963" RevisionGUID="6dceb9a6-a55a-497d-8722-d25e5fd980e7" CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:35:45.610" UserId="6752" Text="I will provide my answers for some of your questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why Kamchatka and not Kad'iak nor Ross, which are farther away?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kamchatka is a well known region of Russia. I am sure it will be very hard to find a Russian person who does not know what is Kamchatka and where is it located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that most of the people who know about Kamchatka will not recognize such names as Kad'iak or Ross. I had to look these places up in the Wikipedia to see their location, because I did not recognize them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, use of Kamchatka is influenced by the widespread knowledge of the location of this region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the reference still in use in the Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per the [Russian dictionary][1] this definition was used only until 1917:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КАМЧАТКА, -и; ж.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Полуостров, расположенный на северо-востоке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; России.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Разг. В России до 1917 г.: Шутливое название задней парты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или нескольких задних парт в классе, на которые сажали самых плохих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учеников. Сидеть на камчатке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not uncommon to hear this word used in this definition today.  When I was in school (15 years ago) some of our teachers would use this word often by saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hey, Kamchatka, pay attention! Did you hear what I just said?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13964" RevisionGUID="6f430cda-8eff-4267-b660-e3351fb37b37" CreationDate="2017-02-14T01:35:22.777" UserId="6545" Text="It seems that the two 2-word phrases are only used in negative possession, e.g. &#xA;&#xA;     У меня не было плохого настроения. &#xA;     У меня нет плохого настроения. &#xA;     У меня не будет плохого настроения.&#xA;&#xA;Is this true?&#xA;&#xA;I believe the verb declines 'normally' in the positive (if I'm male), as well as other phrases, e.g.&#xA;&#xA;     У меня был плохое настроение. &#xA;     У меня плохое настроение. &#xA;     У меня будет плохое настроение.&#xA;&#xA;     Он не был в школе.&#xA;     Она не была в школе.&#xA;&#xA;etc..., that are not 'possession' types of sentences.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13964" RevisionGUID="6f430cda-8eff-4267-b660-e3351fb37b37" CreationDate="2017-02-14T01:35:22.777" UserId="6545" Text="When to use 'не было' and 'не будет' regardless of person, gender, or number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13964" RevisionGUID="6f430cda-8eff-4267-b660-e3351fb37b37" CreationDate="2017-02-14T01:35:22.777" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13964" RevisionGUID="4d0c1030-e419-4912-a687-c5320c0a59de" CreationDate="2017-02-14T02:08:42.830" UserId="4903" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="It seems that the two 2-word phrases are only used in negative possession, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     У меня не было плохого настроения. &#xD;&#xA;     У меня нет плохого настроения. &#xD;&#xA;     У меня не будет плохого настроения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the verb declines 'normally' in the positive (if I'm male), as well as other phrases, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     У меня было плохое настроение. &#xD;&#xA;     У меня плохое настроение. &#xD;&#xA;     У меня будет плохое настроение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Он не был в школе.&#xD;&#xA;     Она не была в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc..., that are not 'possession' types of sentences.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13965" RevisionGUID="1f66e13e-3a67-4852-80a3-51418e9e8ade" CreationDate="2017-02-14T02:22:18.050" UserId="115" Text="I can see how this can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не был в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;He was not at school&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него не было плохого настроения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is properly translated as &quot;He was not in a bad mood.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in general, the construction &quot;У него не было...&quot; followed by a noun in the genitive case is really the equivalent of &quot;He didn't have...&quot;  For example &quot;У него не было машины.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a car&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reason for this confusion is your particular example.  In English you can be in a mood, while in Russian you can have a mood. :)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13965" RevisionGUID="dcd7c7e2-1d64-4cff-a94f-72f28ee29214" CreationDate="2017-02-14T02:30:19.130" UserId="115" Comment="added 215 characters in body" Text="I can see how this can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не был в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;He was not at school&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него не было плохого настроения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is properly translated as &quot;He was not in a bad mood.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in general, the construction &quot;У него не было...&quot; followed by a noun in the genitive case is really the equivalent of &quot;He didn't have...&quot;  For example &quot;У него не было машины.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a car&quot;.  And yes, in the negative &quot;было&quot; is always neuter:  &quot;У него не было дома.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a house.&quot;  Notice that there actually no subject here: nothing is in the nominative case. These are the subject-less sentences that you see in Russian so often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the positive it has to agree in gender with the noun: &quot;У него была машина.&quot;  &quot;У него был дом&quot;.  Notice also that the noun is in the nominative case, and thus becomes the subject of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some of this confusion is because of your particular example.  In English you can be in a mood, while in Russian you can have a mood. :)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13965" RevisionGUID="23cc0e57-31f1-4844-af41-304384585fe5" CreationDate="2017-02-14T02:37:02.603" UserId="115" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="I can see how this can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не был в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;He was not at school&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него не было плохого настроения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is properly translated as &quot;He was not in a bad mood,&quot; but it literally means &quot;He did not have a bad mood&quot;.  In English you can be in a mood, but in Russian you have moods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the construction &quot;У него не было...&quot; followed by a noun in the genitive case is the equivalent of &quot;He didn't have...&quot;  For example &quot;У него не было машины.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a car&quot;.  And yes, in the negative &quot;было&quot; is always neuter:  &quot;У него не было дома.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a house.&quot;  Notice that there actually no subject here: nothing is in the nominative case. These are the subject-less sentences that you see in Russian so often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the positive it has to agree in gender with the noun: &quot;У него была машина.&quot;  &quot;У него был дом&quot;.  Notice also that the noun is in the nominative case, and thus becomes the subject of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13965" RevisionGUID="7790f295-5c48-426c-9bd7-ef8d5c7f03b7" CreationDate="2017-02-14T02:42:46.100" UserId="115" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I can see how this can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не был в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;He was not at school&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него не было плохого настроения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is properly translated as &quot;He was not in a bad mood,&quot; but it literally means &quot;He did not have a bad mood&quot;.  In English you can be in a mood, but in Russian you have moods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the construction &quot;У него не было...&quot; followed by a noun in the genitive case is the equivalent of &quot;He didn't have...&quot;  For example &quot;У него не было машины.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a car&quot;.  And yes, in the negative &quot;было&quot; is always neuter:  &quot;У него не было дома.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a house.&quot;  Notice that there actually no subject here: nothing is in the nominative case. These are the subject-less sentences that you see in Russian so often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the positive it has to agree in gender with the noun: &quot;У него была машина.&quot;  &quot;У него был дом&quot;.  Notice also that the noun is in the nominative case, and thus becomes the subject of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, verbs don't decline, they conjugate. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13965" RevisionGUID="59871756-3b44-43f0-81e7-2f03a46bf241" CreationDate="2017-02-14T03:19:40.880" UserId="115" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I can see how this can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он не был в школе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means &quot;He was not at school&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него не было плохого настроения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is properly translated as &quot;He was not in a bad mood,&quot; but it literally means &quot;He did not have a bad mood&quot;.  In English you can be in a mood, but in Russian you have moods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the construction &quot;У него не было...&quot; followed by a noun in the genitive case is the equivalent of &quot;He didn't have...&quot;  For example, &quot;У него не было машины.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a car&quot;.  And yes, in the negative &quot;было&quot; is always neuter:  &quot;У него не было дома.&quot; - &quot;He didn't have a house.&quot;  Notice that there is actually no subject here: nothing is in the nominative case. These are the subject-less sentences that you see in Russian so often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the positive it has to agree in gender with the noun: &quot;У него была машина.&quot;  &quot;У него был дом&quot;.  Notice also that the noun is in the nominative case, and thus becomes the subject of the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, verbs don't decline, they conjugate. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13960" RevisionGUID="66d61d8f-1648-4ead-83e3-816363232744" CreationDate="2017-02-14T04:31:01.447" UserId="8359" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In Russia, the place name &quot;Kamchatka&quot; at some point became a generalized means of referring to faraway, underresourced, or undesirable places (according to a couple of sources, this includes the far rear of a classroom). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When did this usage begin? Why Kamchatka and not Kad'iak nor Ross, which are farther away? Is the reference still in use in the Russian language? Have Kamchatkans objected to this kind of usage of their place name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="a6ea3601-b5ea-49fd-8e74-644d837543ce" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:03:07.707" UserId="8553" Text="I am very new to this forum . My mother language tamil(which consider too old language). While creating russian language did they got anywords or characters from tamil language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="a6ea3601-b5ea-49fd-8e74-644d837543ce" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:03:07.707" UserId="8553" Text="Did russian language brought any thing from tamil language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="a6ea3601-b5ea-49fd-8e74-644d837543ce" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:03:07.707" UserId="8553" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13967" RevisionGUID="2295bfe2-6771-418d-9beb-ead9d7b2a960" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:14:13.917" UserId="242" Text="Obviously nobody created Russian language, it's evolved from Slavic which evolved from some proto-Slavic which evolved from something that we call now [Proto-Indo-European][1] language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tamil is not PIE language, it belongs to widely recognized [Dravidian][2] family. It's an open issue how does this family related to the PIE but definitely the answer to you question is - no, there's no any slightest hint of Tamil influence on Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous word [borrowed][3] from Tamil is `катамаран` - I guess it's the only relatively widely Tamil word which is used for describing something not specific for Tamil-only context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="5c800745-f6a5-438b-80a7-aa493e5131b3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:16:15.243" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="My mother language is Tamil (which considered to be a very old language). While creating Russian language did they got any words or characters from Tamil language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33395" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="5c800745-f6a5-438b-80a7-aa493e5131b3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:16:15.243" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Did Russian language brought any thing from Tamil language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="5c800745-f6a5-438b-80a7-aa493e5131b3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T09:16:15.243" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13968" RevisionGUID="a441cab9-1a7e-4087-8d9b-d375d0600d40" CreationDate="2017-02-14T12:53:33.853" UserId="8554" Text="This idiom comes from schools. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is common that a map of Russian Federation is hanged on the right wall of a classroom, when facing blackboard. Because of this Kamchatka is near the desk, farthest from the blackboard and teacher. So Kamchatka became synonym for such a desk." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13967" RevisionGUID="1644a2e5-98a3-4e0c-bd68-e89a0d29b30e" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:21:23.410" UserId="4714" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Obviously nobody created the Russian language, it evolved from Slavic which evolved from some proto-Slavic which evolved from something that we now call [Proto-Indo-European][1] language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tamil is not PIE language, it belongs to a widely recognized [Dravidian][2] family. It's an open issue how this family is related to the PIE but definitely the answer to your question is - no, there's not the slightest hint of Tamil influence on Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most famous word [borrowed][3] from Tamil is `катамаран` - I guess it's the only relatively widely used Tamil word which is used for describing something not specific for Tamil-only context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13960" RevisionGUID="d1e549dc-a2cd-4ed1-8806-b350a036e376" CreationDate="2017-02-14T18:50:10.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/831576283335241728" />
  <row Id="33402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13963" RevisionGUID="5f903300-592f-4bb1-89b5-ffe0893b9b0a" CreationDate="2017-02-14T20:56:09.450" UserId="6752" Comment="Added data about definition usage" Text="I will provide my answers for some of your questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why Kamchatka and not Kad'iak nor Ross, which are farther away?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kamchatka is a well known region of Russia. I am sure it will be very hard to find a Russian person who does not know what is Kamchatka and where is it located.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that most of the people who know about Kamchatka will not recognize such names as Kad'iak or Ross. I had to look these places up in the Wikipedia to see their location, because I did not recognize them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, use of Kamchatka is influenced by the widespread knowledge of the location of this region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the reference still in use in the Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per the [Russian dictionary][1] &lt;del&gt;this definition was used only until 1917&lt;/del&gt; (see update):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; КАМЧАТКА, -и; ж.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Полуостров, расположенный на северо-востоке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; России.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Разг. В России до 1917 г.: Шутливое название задней парты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или нескольких задних парт в классе, на которые сажали самых плохих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учеников. Сидеть на камчатке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is not uncommon to hear this word used in this definition today.  When I was in school (15 years ago) some of our teachers would use this word often by saying something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hey, Kamchatka, pay attention! Did you hear what I just said?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The modern dictionary of Russian language that I have does not mention &quot;only until 1917&quot;, so it is perfectly valid to use this definition today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&amp;word=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33403" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13966" RevisionGUID="09fdd66d-4f4c-4178-a0d6-fc17c4cfc7dd" CreationDate="2017-02-15T03:50:57.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/831712376928010240" />
  <row Id="33404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13969" RevisionGUID="e6726d73-3d24-48be-bc69-16532e7e7cc1" CreationDate="2017-02-15T11:00:12.963" UserId="6938" Text="&gt; underresourced, or undesirable places&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot agree with this sentence. &quot;Камчатка&quot; often has no negative meaning, only &quot;far and/or hard to come area&quot;. It could be district of the township, detached by railways, or residential area of the city which is hard to arrive by the public transport." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13961" RevisionGUID="7579d0b0-2997-4b79-b9a8-ff68b3fcd22c" CreationDate="2017-02-15T13:47:46.363" UserId="551" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Kamchatka since early years of 18 century was used as a place for sending politically disloyal people to exile. So, in the classroom a teacher sent bad pupils to the &quot;exile&quot; - to the rear seats of the classroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of using Камчатка as a synonym for any &quot;poor faraway place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why Kamchatka and not Kad'iak nor Ross, which are farther away? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of 'exile' meaning. There were other far places that were not used for exile, or other ones that were used for more strict punishments (exile and hard labor in salt mines, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is the reference still in use in the Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know there is no practice to send pupils to the rear of the classroom, however as a reference to the usage of the term in literature, it still can be used as a joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Have Kamchatkans objected to this kind of usage of their place name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In those times - no, because it was colonization of Kamchatka at those times (much like Indians on American Wild West). So, locals (much like Indians) could not object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13970" RevisionGUID="92f2470c-9599-48dc-8830-8149ceb4c933" CreationDate="2017-02-15T19:21:06.097" UserId="3847" Text="These rules regarding cases and numbers are mind-numbing. The best way to assimilate these rules is to examine a large volume of sentences and texts so you can see how the rules are applied in context. You'll catch onto it soon enough. I subscribe to Learnwitholiver.com. There are probably other similar online resources, but I'm not aware of those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13964" RevisionGUID="da837acb-41c1-4520-909e-0240092090d0" CreationDate="2017-02-16T03:56:59.640" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/832076282229878784" />
  <row Id="33412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="762e836a-4223-4f93-b177-b2d74106351b" CreationDate="2017-02-16T09:42:16.480" UserId="5423" Text="On Duolingo, I just encountered the phrase &quot;Да, доброе утро.&quot;, which it translated as &quot;Yes, good morning.&quot;. Is that considered normal Russian, as if someone were seriously evaluating whether the morning was good or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the [discussion forum][1], and while someone asking about this got a lot of upvotes, they haven't received an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/ru/Phrases-1/3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="762e836a-4223-4f93-b177-b2d74106351b" CreationDate="2017-02-16T09:42:16.480" UserId="5423" Text="Is &quot;Да, доброе утро.&quot; normal Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="762e836a-4223-4f93-b177-b2d74106351b" CreationDate="2017-02-16T09:42:16.480" UserId="5423" Text="|phrase|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="17c7eba8-c3eb-40ee-ae3e-5af757c765ec" CreationDate="2017-02-16T09:49:11.430" UserId="5423" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="On Duolingo, I just encountered the phrase &quot;Да, доброе утро.&quot;, which it translated as &quot;Yes, good morning.&quot;. Is that considered normal Russian, as if someone were seriously evaluating whether the morning was good or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I checked the [discussion forum][1], and while someone asking about this got a lot of upvotes, they haven't received an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also [encountered][2] &quot;Да, до свидания!&quot;, which it translates as &quot;Yes, goodbye!&quot; which likewise doesn't make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/ru/Phrases-1/3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/ru/Phrases-1/4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13973" RevisionGUID="15c2fbe5-a68d-4655-b6cd-6de204ca0f52" CreationDate="2017-02-16T10:11:50.517" UserId="6097" Text="It makes no sense as a standalone sentence. One can definitely think of a situation in which these two sentences might sound normal or at least not unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(after a conversation)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ну, до свидания. (well, goodbye!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Да, до свидания. (yes, goodbye!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Does &quot;доброе утро&quot; mean &quot;good morning&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yes, good morning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13974" RevisionGUID="4736397f-3218-470b-b160-77c3c11d56e8" CreationDate="2017-02-16T13:47:54.653" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is that considered normal Russian, as if someone were seriously evaluating whether the morning was good or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, of course not. But &quot;да&quot; in Russian doesn't always mean plain &quot;yes&quot;. Here it probably stands for something like &quot;Oh, I almost forgot...&quot;. Such usage is quite normal in colloquial speech and is also directly mentioned in dictionaries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13975" RevisionGUID="5bef12c8-f11f-4374-813d-90fe790cd3a9" CreationDate="2017-02-16T13:48:28.213" UserId="5443" Text="An example where &quot;да&quot; answers a question, not related directly to &quot;доброе утро&quot;. The first speaker is not sure the usual greeting will be appropriate (imagine a phone call to a friend known to work hard on Friday evening). The answer sounds perfectly natural here:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ну как, ты уже выспался (проснулся, отоспался)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  — **Да, доброе утро.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Доброе утро.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly (to a departing guest waiting for a cab outside):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ну как, подъехало твоё [только что заказанное] такси?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — **Да, до свидания**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="e2108d3b-5696-46c8-ab1d-d8326cf5be9d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:19:02.800" UserId="3892" Text="In my favorite Russian podcast, [russianmypassion.com][1], the speaker said the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы говорим *баян*, когда кто-то пытается рассказать нам какую-то старую,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несмешную (ну, **уже** несмешную) шутку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time understanding the intended meaning of the parenthetical statement with **уже**. Could someone explain this usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianmypassion.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="e2108d3b-5696-46c8-ab1d-d8326cf5be9d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:19:02.800" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of уже" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="e2108d3b-5696-46c8-ab1d-d8326cf5be9d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:19:02.800" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13977" RevisionGUID="fe8021a7-4ea6-4518-8740-2473a07970ba" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:31:52.197" UserId="6725" Text="The whole sentence can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We say &quot;баян&quot;, when someone tries to tell us an old, unfunny (well, **already** unfunny) joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The joke may have been funny long time ago, when it first appeared, but now it is old, everyone knows it, and nobody laughs at it anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13977" RevisionGUID="b466b66f-34de-48f3-a794-c5f1c8c76f65" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:56:31.100" UserId="3892" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The whole sentence can be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We say &quot;баян&quot;, when someone tries to tell us an old, not funny (well, not funny **anymore**) joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The joke may have been funny long time ago, when it first appeared, but now it is old, everyone knows it, and nobody laughs at it anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13978" RevisionGUID="60fa233b-5ca4-440e-bac6-f0b3527e016d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T19:58:36.750" UserId="6725" Text="I found that the word [корунд][1] ([corundum][2]) also originates from Tamil language, though borrowed through European languages, not directly from Tamil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=BmJDDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT165&amp;lpg=PT165&amp;dq=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B4%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=KZ_p10aKk6&amp;sig=CeJqgYvNCx2-ADqzzfBXDHVRmX0&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjo_KGOsJXSAhWmNJoKHYtxA-0Q6AEIQjAH#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B4%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corundum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="2d26a4f7-32dd-426a-8702-78717aafa43d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T20:31:44.940" UserId="7239" Text="I have two flash cards giving imperfective/perfective pairs corresponding to the meaning &quot;to return&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - возвращаться/возвратиться&#xD;&#xA; - возвращаться/вернуться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was confusing me a lot, as well as making it difficult for me to remember how to best translate &quot;to return&quot;, so I tried to see if I could find any distinction between the two pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says for [возвратиться][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. return, come back&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for [вернуться][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. to return, to come back (from)  &#xD;&#xA;2. to revert (to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, another dictionary I checked (the DictBox app) said for возвратиться:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; come back return; regain, recover, join; revert&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for вернуться:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; return, be back, make back; cut back; retrace one's steps... return; come back; get back&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these two sources seem to offer conflicting interpretations, because the first seems to imply that возвратиться only has a directional/literal meaning of &quot;changing location to return/come back&quot; whereas вернуться has additional possible metaphorical interpretations/connotations, while the second source seems to imply that вернуться doesn't have any metaphorical interpretations while возвратиться does, i.e. the exact opposite of what the first source implies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the difference perhaps that one is unidirectional ([concrete verb][3]) and the other is multidirectional ([abstract verb][4])? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they exact synonyms? Or even if they sometimes do mean the same thing, do they ever mean different things? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what is the most common meaning/usage of each, and do these most common meanings/usages agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I am aware that I probably would not be confused if I were using better dictionaries. The best dictionaries seem to have entries in Russian, however, and I do not read Russian well enough yet to get much out of such dictionaries. This is one reason why I am trying to improve my understanding of the most commonly used words in Russian, so I can use such dictionaries and avoid these ambiguities -- right now it is something of a Catch 22 situation for me personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concrete_verb#English&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstract_verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="2d26a4f7-32dd-426a-8702-78717aafa43d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T20:31:44.940" UserId="7239" Text="What is the different between &quot;возвратиться&quot; and &quot;вернуться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="2d26a4f7-32dd-426a-8702-78717aafa43d" CreationDate="2017-02-16T20:31:44.940" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33428" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13954" RevisionGUID="fc3cf0c8-22e7-4c64-ac7f-06bba26348ab" CreationDate="2017-02-17T01:18:02.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/832398667990573056" />
  <row Id="33430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13980" RevisionGUID="f94cec90-217b-41d5-8438-fbbd7ef0a568" CreationDate="2017-02-17T06:13:22.950" UserId="5443" Text="The perfective form **возвратиться** has *exactly* the same meaning as **вернуться** *in the same context*. However, **возвратиться** has sufficiently limited usage: it's bookish/lofty style and it's mainly applicable to a *person's* comeback (almost never used with *things*). It is much more often found in pop songs than in colloquial speech. So if in doubt, it is always safe to use **вернуть(ся)**. Maybe the only case you *can't* ignore the form **возвратить(ся)** is its derivative form for passive voice: **быть возвращённым** (был возвращён, etc. - for both people and things) - it can't be derived from вернуть(ся)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="c847d866-048b-4e36-9380-91a64ef47a67" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:34:38.537" UserId="8571" Text="Привет всем,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;Че ты паришься&quot; mean? The only information I found on it was from &lt;http://www.lexiophiles.com/english/10-words-everybody-needs-to-know-before-going-to-russia-part-2&gt; which says it literally means &quot;why are you taking the steam bath&quot;. But it also mentions that there is a figurative meaning of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what the figurative meaning is, in other words, when a native speaker says this phrase, what is he intending to say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="c847d866-048b-4e36-9380-91a64ef47a67" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:34:38.537" UserId="8571" Text="что значит &lt;&lt;Че ты паришься&gt;&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="c847d866-048b-4e36-9380-91a64ef47a67" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:34:38.537" UserId="8571" Text="|сленг|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13982" RevisionGUID="dbfd078c-d4f0-42ba-abc2-808dfd0c07b4" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:42:12.987" UserId="8357" Text="Literally, with no ornamentation: *just look at his face, and you'll understand.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Морда*» is just a rude way to say «*a face*»: «*я ему морду набью*» = “*I'll smash his face*”. «*Я сделал морду кирпичом*» = “*I made a blank face*” (in response to something). Originally, it refers to an animal's “face” (a cat's, a dog's, a horse's, a lion's, anything), but when told about a human, it just means a human face, period. No other connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Price” refers to the possibility to make a judgment. Something is as valuable as it is useful in drawing conclusions. The woman states (by asking a rhetorical question, as you've been told by the others) that the looks of his face cost much in this “currency”, as these looks immediately evoke the right idea of him. Maybe, though, she has also *other* arguments than the looks of his face to draw the conclusion that he indeed likes to chase women. On this, she appears silent. In fact, she says she doesn't really understand what she thinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have (leaving stylistics aside):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right, I had no reason to do this. I've had no man since long before. If I go out with anyone, I will rather prefer this Russian: I've liked him for quite some time by now. He has something in him that makes him stand out among all other woman-chasers that court medical personnel. Although he's quite a woman-chaser, too: just look at his face, and you'll get that idea. His face is not the real reason, though; what is the reason, I don't yet understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last sentence, she probably refers to the reason she likes him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13982" RevisionGUID="aa718bbf-b214-4d57-a045-3a47157fdd82" CreationDate="2017-02-17T22:50:21.170" UserId="8357" Comment="bolded the part in question" Text="Literally, with no ornamentation: *just look at his face, and you'll understand.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Морда*» is just a rude way to say «*a face*»: «*я ему морду набью*» = “*I'll smash his face*”. «*Я сделал морду кирпичом*» = “*I made a blank face*” (in response to something). Originally, it refers to an animal's “face” (a cat's, a dog's, a horse's, a lion's, anything), but when told about a human, it just means a human face, period. No other connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Price” refers to the possibility to make a judgment. Something is as valuable as it is useful in drawing conclusions. The woman states (by asking a rhetorical question, as you've been told by the others) that the looks of his face cost much in this “currency”, as these looks immediately evoke the right idea of him. Maybe, though, she has also *other* arguments than the looks of his face to draw the conclusion that he indeed likes to chase women. On this, she appears silent. In fact, she says she doesn't really understand what she thinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have (leaving stylistics aside):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right, I had no reason to do this. I've had no man since long before. If I go out with anyone, I will rather prefer this Russian: I've liked him for quite some time by now. He has something in him that makes him stand out among all other woman-chasers that court medical personnel. Although he's quite a woman-chaser, too: **just look at his face, and you'll get that idea**. His face is not the real reason, though; what is the reason, I don't yet understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last sentence, she probably refers to the reason she likes him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13983" RevisionGUID="745cbc50-239a-4904-9085-f6dff2180089" CreationDate="2017-02-17T23:48:15.903" UserId="8357" Text="The rule of thumb is that «*и*» adds one thought to another, because these thoughts are just related and need to be thought together. In the basic case, the earlier thought is expressed as a clause, and the new thought is expressed as a clause, too, so we have have something in the form «*Ваня сделал то, и Таня сделала это*»; that is the case that corresponds to the English “*and*”. But actually the earlier thought can be anything, and that thought is often just implied, not expressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that role, the word can be used in a lot of very many places (before verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs…), that case you show is nothing special in this regard. In the case we have here, the additional thought is expressed just by a verb, not by a clause: there was slowing down, too. An example for a noun: «*Это и Таня сделала*». Here, the additional thought is that some statement refers to Tanya, too. The earlier thought was that someone else did that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My immediate interpretation was: “*I even slowed it down to 85% like you told me – that didn't help*”. Here, the “earlier thought” is “*you told me to slow it down to 85%*”. This interpretation doesn't have to be true, because the context, well, is lacking… But I think I explained the mechanics anyway. Look for related thoughts in the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13983" RevisionGUID="26b73efc-160b-495b-8543-0d606691569b" CreationDate="2017-02-17T23:54:28.647" UserId="8357" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The rule of thumb is that «*и*» adds one thought to another, because these thoughts are just related and need to be thought together. In the basic case, the earlier thought is expressed as a clause, and the new thought is expressed as a clause, too, so we have something in the form «*Ваня сделал то, и Таня сделала это*»; that is the case that corresponds to the English “*and*”. But actually the earlier thought can be anything, and that thought is often just implied, not expressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that role, the word can be used in a lot of very many places (before verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs…), that case you show is nothing special in this regard. In the case we have here, the additional thought is expressed just by a verb, not by a clause: there was slowing down, too. An example for a noun: «*Это и Таня сделала*». Here, the additional thought is that some statement refers to Tanya, too. The earlier thought was that someone else did that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My immediate interpretation was: “*I even slowed it down to 85% like you told me – that didn't help*”. Here, the “earlier thought” is “*you told me to slow it down to 85%*”. This interpretation doesn't have to be true, because the context, well, is lacking… But I think I explained the mechanics anyway. Look for related thoughts in the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="244701e1-31e5-4a9b-8ac9-2bc8b86b7236" CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:07:25.857" UserDisplayName="user8492" Text="I know that Russian is a very strong language in terms of word ordering. I like it pretty much. Yet, I came across that the verb ***быть*** changes in past tense sentence inversions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sentence  : До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе.    &#xD;&#xA;    Inversion : До завтрака на столе был хлеб и сыр.&#xD;&#xA;(2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sentence  : Многие дети были в парке.&#xD;&#xA;    Inversion : В парке было многие дети.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we figure out the change of ***были*** into ***был***, ***была*** or ***было***? What would we use in first example if they were not same gender of words, but mixed like ***хлеб и вода***? Could you please give more examples to make it clear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am just a learner, Feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes even in my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="244701e1-31e5-4a9b-8ac9-2bc8b86b7236" CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:07:25.857" UserDisplayName="user8492" Text="Word Order and Inversion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="244701e1-31e5-4a9b-8ac9-2bc8b86b7236" CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:07:25.857" UserDisplayName="user8492" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13985" RevisionGUID="e16bb24e-00aa-4a77-9e24-0913f55d55d7" CreationDate="2017-02-18T00:18:44.943" UserId="8357" Text="I read it as I connect «*вот*» with «*я*», and «*прям*» with «*уважаю*». I think you should not connect «*вот*» and «*прям*» in one unit. &quot;*Listen, I respect you so much, but…*”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“*Вот*&quot; with “*я*” is often used to introduce some statement that is going to be new or unexpected: «*я вот тебе скажу …*», “*я вот думаю …*”, and so on. Such introduction might also mean that the statement is awkward, and I'm somewhat shy to say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Прям*» means that you shouldn't really think he doesn't respect you. The closest explanation is “*plain*”: my respect is something plain, there is readily that and that to say about my respect, so don't be mistaken thinking I don't respect you; better listen to what I say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13986" RevisionGUID="ebecf294-bdd6-41ad-8529-68e7b3d5fa10" CreationDate="2017-02-18T01:00:36.423" UserId="5293" Text="It means something like &quot;Why are you worried?&quot; or even &quot;Why are you giving a sh*t?&quot; due to informality of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;Figurative meaning of &quot;париться&quot; comes from sweating while steam bathing like after hard job and means &quot;to worry&quot;,  &quot;to care&quot; or &quot;to have trouble&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also you can use it like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Не парься. (Don`t worry.)&#xD;&#xA; - Я запарился. (I'm tired, I'm worn out or something like that.)&#xD;&#xA; - У меня запара. (I've got troubles.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13987" RevisionGUID="165b9503-6087-4a37-ab4e-5e4a9431a1e3" CreationDate="2017-02-18T01:12:06.033" UserId="5293" Text="Can`t comment, so: you are actually missed something.  Both examples are not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentence  : До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе.    &#xD;&#xA;Inversion : До завтрака на столе был**и** хлеб и сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentence  : Многие дети были в парке.&#xD;&#xA;Inversion : В парке был**и** многие дети. or В парке было много детей. But second one has another meaning.&#xD;&#xA;In this sentences most valued word comes earlier. First sentence is about most children while second is more about park. Also it sounds like first about &quot;a park&quot;, while second about &quot;the park&quot;. It`s hard to explain and I can be wrong at this point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13987" RevisionGUID="99996ea6-740a-433b-b664-a749853e1959" CreationDate="2017-02-18T01:35:42.763" UserId="5293" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Can`t comment, so: you are actually missed something.  Both examples are not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sentence  : До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе.     &#xD;&#xA; - Inversion : Дозавтрака на столе был**и** хлеб и сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sentence  : Многие дети были в парке.&#xD;&#xA; - Inversion : В парке был**и** многие дети. or В парке было много&#xD;&#xA;   детей. But second one has another meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentences most valued word comes earlier. First sentence is about most children while second is more about park. Also it sounds like first about &quot;a park&quot;, while second about &quot;the park&quot;. It`s hard to explain and I can be wrong at this point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="bfdc9627-a80c-4553-a4cd-08e173bd574c" CreationDate="2017-02-18T01:45:10.983" UserDisplayName="user8492" Comment="edited body" Text="I know that Russian is a very strong language in terms of word ordering. I like it pretty much. Yet, I came across that the verb ***быть*** changes in past tense sentence inversions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sentence  : До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе.    &#xD;&#xA;    Inversion : До завтрака на столе был хлеб и сыр.&#xD;&#xA;(2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Sentence  : Многие дети были в парке.&#xD;&#xA;    Inversion : В парке было много детей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do we figure out the change of ***были*** into ***был***, ***была*** or ***было***? What would we use in first example if they were not same gender of words, but mixed like ***хлеб и вода***? Could you please give more examples to make it clear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am just a learner, Feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes even in my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13988" RevisionGUID="d8cbb217-685a-4836-8b92-1715f776e5f2" CreationDate="2017-02-18T05:38:57.980" UserId="6539" Text="It's a slang sentence for **&quot;Don't worry! It isn't worth it.&quot;** It reminds me of the song &quot;Don't worry, be happy!&quot; There's a more neutral synonym of that **&quot;Не заморачивайся&quot;** or &quot;Не морочь (себе) голову&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="9e148370-2920-4689-b13e-33d5eea9bc82" CreationDate="2017-02-18T06:43:31.177" UserId="6539" Text="Sometimes the agreement of verb predicates with subjects is governed by rather complex rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.   With two or more subjects and one predicate, the general rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   When the predicate follows the subjects, it is normally in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Книга и газета лежали на столе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   When the predicate precedes the subjects, it is usually in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На столе лежит книга и газета.&#xD;&#xA;В деревне послышался топот и крики. (Л. Толстой)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the plural can also used, especially if one of the nouns is in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из соседней комнаты слышались рыдание и крики.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (c)   When the subjects are **persons**, the predicate is in the **plural**, regardless of its position in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вечером пришли Павел и Иван.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   When the compound subject includes **много, немного, мало, сколько or столько**, the predicate is in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколько учеников пришло на урок?&#xD;&#xA;Много людей пришло на собрание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Многие люди ушли рано.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.   When the compound subject includes  **большинство, меньшинство, or несколько,** the predicate is either in the singular or (sometimes) in the plural&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Большинство учеников было отправлено в лагерь. &#xD;&#xA;Большинство этих писем пришло утром.&#xD;&#xA;Большинство учеников уехали в лагерь.&#xD;&#xA;За дверью находилось несколько человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:   When большинство or меньшинство function as independent subjects, the predicate must be in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меньшинство голосовало против.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.   When the subject is expressed by a numeral and noun, the following rules govern the agreement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   With one, the predicate is, of course, in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошла одна неделя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   With two, three, or four, the predicate is usually in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Три мальчика пришли утром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the **singular** predicate is used in **impersonal constructions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него было два чемодана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (с)   With numerals from five up, a subtle distinction is made, depending on whether the subject is thought of as an entity, or as consisting of separate units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, the predicate is in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошло пять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, the predicate is in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пять человек принесли подарки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people brought presents. (independent actions by different persons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is less obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В классе сидело десять учеников.&#xD;&#xA;Десять учеников сидели в классе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is a delicate matter, no longer confined to grammar &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;d)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Получено около сорока книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About forty books were received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там работало человек тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About thirty people worked there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (e)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses limitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Только шесть домов было построено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only six houses were built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пришло всего десять студентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only ten students came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (f)   When two nouns are joined by the preposition c, the predicate may be either in the singular or in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Муж с женой пошли на концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отец с детьми гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13987" RevisionGUID="d1fa164f-478c-47bc-8116-0ba37289c480" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:05:37.343" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Can`t comment, so: you are actually missed something.  Both examples are not correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sentence  : До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе.     &#xD;&#xA; - Inversion : До завтрака на столе был**и** хлеб и сыр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sentence  : Многие дети были в парке.&#xD;&#xA; - Inversion : В парке был**и** многие дети. or В парке было много&#xD;&#xA;   детей. But second one has another meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentences most valued word comes earlier. First sentence is about most children while second is more about park. Also it sounds like first about &quot;a park&quot;, while second about &quot;the park&quot;. It`s hard to explain and I can be wrong at this point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="cad738c4-7de6-4960-badd-7c7d9f40afc2" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:05:57.193" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Что значит &quot;Че ты паришься&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33453" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="82c7b8ae-8905-4c23-993f-3e3ca4be4534" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:06:56.513" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;вот прям&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13056" RevisionGUID="82c7b8ae-8905-4c23-993f-3e3ca4be4534" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:06:56.513" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33455" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13097" RevisionGUID="1ddf9f8c-a479-44b6-a00f-2547405495d4" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:08:26.163" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;одна морда чего стоит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33456" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="59db7e1a-820c-45b2-aa7c-191b48b9489c" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:12:07.043" UserId="8357" Comment="corrected the title, left the body alone: the title should show what the question is about" Text="Meaning of &quot;Что ни день&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33457" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13755" RevisionGUID="59db7e1a-820c-45b2-aa7c-191b48b9489c" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:12:07.043" Comment="Proposed by 8357 approved by 242 edit id of 837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="e9597f8c-1c64-4f63-bcf0-cb24cf13dc92" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:12:55.273" UserId="8357" Comment="added a translation for the most important part of the answer" Text="In the modern Russian vernacular, “*по ходу*” is used instead of “*похоже*” to mean “*probably*”. That's a new phenomenon, and I think that's ugly, too. “*Похоже*” is substituted by “*по ходу*” mostly by students, both in high schools and in higher education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=========================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В современном разговорном русском &quot;`по ходу`&quot; используется вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; в значении &quot;`вероятно`&quot;.  Это явление новое и, по-моему, уродливое.  &quot;`По ходу`&quot; вместо &quot;`похоже`&quot; говорят в основном школьники или студенты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На более правильном разговорном русском (если считать &quot;`слышь`&quot; правильным :) ) вышеприведённые предложения звучат так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слышь, сегодня лучше не попадайся на глаза шефу: он, похоже, озверел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из-за чего-то там.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, нас кинули!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ещё &quot;по ходу&quot; означает on the course. Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И рвутся аорты,&#xD;&#xA;    Но наверх - не сметь!&#xD;&#xA;    Там слева по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там справа по борту,&#xD;&#xA;    Там прямо по ходу&#xD;&#xA;    Мешает проходу&#xD;&#xA;    Рогатая смерть!&#xD;&#xA;(Владимир Высоцкий)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Речь идёт о гибнущей подводной лодке, которая не может всплыть, потому что на поверхности слишком много мин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец, &quot;`по ходу`&quot; может означать &quot;в процессе, во время осуществления чего-либо&quot; (https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83) Чаще всего употребляется &quot;`по ходу дела`&quot;.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И Райкин стал повсюду искать духи с этим запахом, по ходу дела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приобретая другие понравившиеся ароматы или просто изысканные флаконы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В общем, я решил, что сориентируюсь по ходу дела ― и был прав." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="e9597f8c-1c64-4f63-bcf0-cb24cf13dc92" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:12:55.273" Comment="Proposed by 8357 approved by 242 edit id of 838" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="2d2dd325-8002-4f3c-b37a-4e48a6af5dce" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:15:43.957" UserId="6539" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Sometimes the agreement of verb predicates with subjects is governed by rather complex rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.   With two or more subjects and one predicate, the general rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   When the predicate follows the subjects, it is normally in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Книга и газета лежали на столе.**До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   When the predicate precedes the subjects, it is usually in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На столе лежит книга и газета.&#xD;&#xA;В деревне послышался топот и крики. (Л. Толстой) &#xD;&#xA;**До завтрака на столе был сыр и хлеб.** &#xD;&#xA;However, the plural can also used, especially if one of the nouns is in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из соседней комнаты слышались рыдание и крики.	**До завтрака на столе были хлеб и сыр**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (c)   When the subjects are **persons**, the predicate is in the **plural**, regardless of its position in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вечером пришли Павел и Иван.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   When the compound subject includes **много, немного, мало, сколько or столько**, the predicate is in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколько учеников пришло на урок?&#xD;&#xA;Много людей пришло на собрание.**В парке было много детей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Многие люди ушли рано.**Многие дети были в парке.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.   When the compound subject includes  **большинство, меньшинство, or несколько,** the predicate is either in the singular or (sometimes) in the plural&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Большинство учеников было отправлено в лагерь. &#xD;&#xA;Большинство этих писем пришло утром.&#xD;&#xA;Большинство учеников уехали в лагерь.&#xD;&#xA;За дверью находилось несколько человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:   When большинство or меньшинство function as independent subjects, the predicate must be in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меньшинство голосовало против.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.   When the subject is expressed by a numeral and noun, the following rules govern the agreement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   With one, the predicate is, of course, in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошла одна неделя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   With two, three, or four, the predicate is usually in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Три мальчика пришли утром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the **singular** predicate is used in **impersonal constructions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него было два чемодана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (с)   With numerals from five up, a subtle distinction is made, depending on whether the subject is thought of as an entity, or as consisting of separate units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, the predicate is in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошло пять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, the predicate is in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пять человек принесли подарки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people brought presents. (independent actions by different persons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is less obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В классе сидело десять учеников.&#xD;&#xA;Десять учеников сидели в классе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is a delicate matter, no longer confined to grammar &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;d)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Получено около сорока книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About forty books were received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там работало человек тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About thirty people worked there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (e)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses limitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Только шесть домов было построено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only six houses were built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пришло всего десять студентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only ten students came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (f)   When two nouns are joined by the preposition c, the predicate may be either in the singular or in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Муж с женой пошли на концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отец с детьми гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="b18fd4af-3879-49cc-bb53-80ccf1d753b0" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:22:13.213" UserId="6539" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Sometimes the agreement of verb predicates with subjects is governed by rather complex rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.   With two or more subjects and one predicate, the general rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   When the predicate follows the subjects, it is normally in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Книга и газета лежали на столе.**До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   When the predicate precedes the subjects, it is usually in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На столе лежит книга и газета.&#xD;&#xA;В деревне послышался топот и крики. (Л. Толстой) &#xD;&#xA;**До завтрака на столе был сыр и хлеб.** &#xD;&#xA;However, the plural can also used, especially if one of the nouns is in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из соседней комнаты слышались рыдание и крики.	**До завтрака на столе были хлеб и сыр**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (c)   When the subjects are **persons**, the predicate is in the **plural**, regardless of its position in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вечером пришли Павел и Иван.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   When the compound subject includes **много, немного, мало, сколько or столько**, the predicate is in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколько учеников пришло на урок?&#xD;&#xA;Много людей пришло на собрание.**В парке было много детей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Многие люди ушли рано.**Многие дети были в парке.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.   When the compound subject includes  **большинство, меньшинство, or несколько,** the predicate is either in the singular or (sometimes) in the plural&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Большинство учеников было отправлено в лагерь. &#xD;&#xA;Большинство этих писем пришло утром.&#xD;&#xA;Большинство учеников уехали в лагерь.&#xD;&#xA;За дверью находилось несколько человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:   When большинство or меньшинство function as independent subjects, the predicate must be in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меньшинство голосовало против.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.   When the subject is expressed by a numeral and noun, the following rules govern the agreement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   With one, the predicate is, of course, in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошла одна неделя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   With two, three, or four, the predicate is usually in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Три мальчика пришли утром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the **singular** predicate is used in **impersonal constructions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него было два чемодана.**В парке было много детей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (с)   With numerals from five up, a subtle distinction is made, depending on whether the subject is thought of as an entity, or as consisting of separate units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, the predicate is in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошло пять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, the predicate is in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пять человек принесли подарки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people brought presents. (independent actions by different persons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is less obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В классе сидело десять учеников.&#xD;&#xA;Десять учеников сидели в классе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is a delicate matter, no longer confined to grammar &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;d)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Получено около сорока книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About forty books were received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там работало человек тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About thirty people worked there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (e)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses limitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Только шесть домов было построено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only six houses were built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пришло всего десять студентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only ten students came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (f)   When two nouns are joined by the preposition c, the predicate may be either in the singular or in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Муж с женой пошли на концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отец с детьми гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="ad3a0a27-98dd-420e-9dd7-f73ad7f76627" CreationDate="2017-02-18T09:34:29.090" UserId="6539" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Sometimes the agreement of verb predicates with subjects is governed by rather complex rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.   With two or more subjects and one predicate, the general rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   When the predicate follows the subjects, it is normally in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Книга и газета лежали на столе.**До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   When the predicate precedes the subjects, it is usually in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На столе лежит книга и газета.&#xD;&#xA;В деревне послышался топот и крики. (Л. Толстой) &#xD;&#xA;**До завтрака на столе был сыр и хлеб.** &#xD;&#xA;However, the plural can also be used, especially if one of the nouns is in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из соседней комнаты слышались рыдание и крики.	**До завтрака на столе были хлеб и сыр**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (c)   When the subjects are **persons**, the predicate is in the **plural**, regardless of its position in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вечером пришли Павел и Иван.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   When the compound subject includes **много, немного, мало, сколько or столько**, the predicate is in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколько учеников пришло на урок?&#xD;&#xA;Много людей пришло на собрание.**В парке было много детей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Многие люди ушли рано.**Многие дети были в парке.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.   When the compound subject includes  **большинство, меньшинство, or несколько,** the predicate is either in the singular or (sometimes) in the plural&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Большинство учеников было отправлено в лагерь. &#xD;&#xA;Большинство этих писем пришло утром.&#xD;&#xA;Большинство учеников уехали в лагерь.&#xD;&#xA;За дверью находилось несколько человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:   When большинство or меньшинство function as independent subjects, the predicate must be in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меньшинство голосовало против.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.   When the subject is expressed by a numeral and noun, the following rules govern the agreement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   With one, the predicate is, of course, in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошла одна неделя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   With two, three, or four, the predicate is usually in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Три мальчика пришли утром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the **singular** predicate is used in **impersonal constructions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него было два чемодана.**В парке было много детей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (с)   With numerals from five up, a subtle distinction is made, depending on whether the subject is thought of as an entity, or as consisting of separate units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, the predicate is in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошло пять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, the predicate is in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пять человек принесли подарки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people brought presents. (independent actions by different persons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is less obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В классе сидело десять учеников.&#xD;&#xA;Десять учеников сидели в классе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is a delicate matter, no longer confined to grammar &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;d)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Получено около сорока книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About forty books were received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там работало человек тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About thirty people worked there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (e)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses limitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Только шесть домов было построено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only six houses were built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пришло всего десять студентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only ten students came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (f)   When two nouns are joined by the preposition c, the predicate may be either in the singular or in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Муж с женой пошли на концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отец с детьми гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33463" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="7761350a-828f-4052-a52f-777e795952b4" CreationDate="2017-02-18T10:31:42.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/832900392061112320" />
  <row Id="33464" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="0a2f9da2-5b45-4666-9604-cedb4d389771" CreationDate="2017-02-18T10:41:15.947" UserId="551" Comment="More focused title, tags" Text="Verb быть in past tense sentence inversions: был, была or было?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13984" RevisionGUID="0a2f9da2-5b45-4666-9604-cedb4d389771" CreationDate="2017-02-18T10:41:15.947" UserId="551" Comment="More focused title, tags" Text="|выбор-слова|порядок-слов|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13985" RevisionGUID="a051eae5-abed-4ac0-80a1-84dee246e7b7" CreationDate="2017-02-18T10:49:59.970" UserId="8357" Comment="point clearer" Text="One should most likely connect «*вот*» with «*я*», and «*прям*» with «*уважаю*». I think you should not connect «*вот*» and «*прям*» in one unit. &quot;*Listen, I respect you so much, but…*”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“*Вот*&quot; with “*я*” is often used to introduce some statement that is going to be new or unexpected: «*я вот тебе скажу …*», “*я вот думаю …*”, and so on. Such introduction might also mean that the statement is awkward, and I'm somewhat shy to say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Прям*» means that you shouldn't really think he doesn't respect you. The closest explanation is “*plain*”: my respect is something plain, there is readily that and that to say about my respect, so don't be mistaken thinking I don't respect you; better listen to what I say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13990" RevisionGUID="b65ae6dd-40c7-49fe-9603-4bc6aad579ea" CreationDate="2017-02-18T13:36:32.683" UserId="8357" Text="Just translate it into correct Russian as «*кажется*»: «*мы по ходу не сдали эту лабораторную*» = «*кажется, мы не сдали эту лабораторную*» (“*I think we didn't pass this assignment*”). This strategy works very nicely for your examples, too: «*он, кажется, озверел из-за чего-то там*», «*кажется, нас кинули*» are exact matches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13982" RevisionGUID="d6052dc0-a53d-4698-83ce-e2372ff4a00c" CreationDate="2017-02-18T13:45:50.103" UserId="3892" Comment="I just polished it up a bit so that I can post it in my personal Russian reference." Text="Literally, with no ornamentation: *just look at his face, and you'll understand.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Морда*» is just a rude way of saying «*a face*»: «*я ему морду набью*» = “*I'll smash his face in*”. «*Я сделал морду кирпичом*» = “*I made a blank face*” (in response to something). Originally, it refers to an animal's “face” (a cat's, a dog's, a horse's, a lion's, anything), but when attributed to a person, it just means a human face, period. No other connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Price” refers to the possibility of making a judgment. Something is as valuable as it is useful in drawing conclusions. The woman states (by asking a rhetorical question, as you've been told by the others) that the look of his face is worth a lot in this “currency”, as these looks immediately evoke the right impression of him. Maybe, though, she also has *other* arguments besides his face to draw the conclusion that he indeed likes to chase women. On this, she appears silent. In fact, she says she doesn't really understand what she thinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have (leaving stylistics aside):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right, I had no reason to do this. I haven't had a man for a long time. If I go out with anyone, I would prefer this Russian: I've liked him for quite some time now. There's something about him that makes him stand out among all other womanizers that court the medical personnel. Although he's quite the womanizer, as well: **just look at his face, and you'll get that idea**. His face is not the real reason, though; what is the reason, I don't yet understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last sentence, she's probably referring to the reason she likes him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13982" RevisionGUID="c067f7e9-a624-4f65-84b9-1514adc41b06" CreationDate="2017-02-18T18:11:18.220" UserId="8357" Comment="it's a bad idea to miss something meaningful, anyway" Text="Literally, with no ornamentation: *just look at his face, and you'll understand.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Морда*» is just a rude way of saying «*a face*»: «*я ему морду набью*» = “*I'll smash his face in*”. «*Я сделал морду кирпичом*» = “*I made a blank face*” (in response to something). Originally, it refers to an animal's “face” (a cat's, a dog's, a horse's, a lion's, anything), but when attributed to a person, it just means a human face, period. No other connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Price” refers to the possibility of making a judgment. Something is as valuable as it is useful in drawing conclusions. The woman states (by asking a rhetorical question, as you've been told by the others) that the look of his face is worth a lot in this “currency”, as these looks immediately evoke the right impression of him. Maybe, though, she also has *other* arguments besides his face to draw the conclusion that he indeed likes to chase women. On this, she appears silent. In fact, she says she doesn't really understand what she thinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have (leaving stylistics aside):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Right, I had no reason to do this. I haven't had a man for a long time. Never since they killed Alberto, and that was a year ago. If I go out with anyone, I would prefer this Russian: I've liked him for quite some time now. There's something about him that makes him stand out among all other womanizers that court the medical personnel. Although he's quite the womanizer, as well: **just look at his face, and you'll get that idea**. His face is not the real reason, though; what is the reason, I don't yet understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last sentence, she's probably referring to the reason she likes him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="7066b83f-33a1-4db0-8299-35dff0d031e9" CreationDate="2017-02-18T20:48:27.013" UserId="8573" Text="My russian friend is teasing with his name. He says friends call him Danila but it is not his real name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He told me to substitute one letter in the name Danila to get it right but i have no idea how and which.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tried to google similar names but didnt find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me to find which letter do I substitute to find a valid male russian name?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="7066b83f-33a1-4db0-8299-35dff0d031e9" CreationDate="2017-02-18T20:48:27.013" UserId="8573" Text="Equivalents of the name Danila" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="7066b83f-33a1-4db0-8299-35dff0d031e9" CreationDate="2017-02-18T20:48:27.013" UserId="8573" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33473" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13981" RevisionGUID="0b7e8c8e-b5f7-496d-b650-3739af899c1f" CreationDate="2017-02-18T22:31:42.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/833081584244948992" />
  <row Id="33474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="462a5a6e-c3ee-48cc-9d7e-674263a38115" CreationDate="2017-02-19T01:42:17.323" UserId="8575" Text="When learning a new word is it important to learn all 12 forms(6cases for singular and plural) as well as the changing placement of stress in the word? Or should I just learn the nominative and my mind will start to fill in the gaps overtime? I need suggestions. I regularly try to be thorough in my studying, however I think in the end I end up not communicating as I should." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="462a5a6e-c3ee-48cc-9d7e-674263a38115" CreationDate="2017-02-19T01:42:17.323" UserId="8575" Text="How best to learn all forms of a new Russian word as well as where the stress needs to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="462a5a6e-c3ee-48cc-9d7e-674263a38115" CreationDate="2017-02-19T01:42:17.323" UserId="8575" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13993" RevisionGUID="0ba8d78b-2cd0-402c-b1d4-6c29f3da2e02" CreationDate="2017-02-19T02:13:04.283" UserId="8501" Text="If your goal is communication, it is not so important to learn all 12 forms just like in English it is not necessary to learn all the 12 tenses to communicate effectively.  It's more important to listen as much as you can, to as many sources as possible - TV, movies, live conversation, radio, podcasts. Take notes, hit replay, and repeat what you hear (check out [Эхо Москвы][1]- you can listen in slow motion &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; follow along with a transcription of interviews/talk shows).  You will learn that certain verbs are used in certain contexts, you will hear idiomatic expressions, and you will begin to understand the use of verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;After a while, instead of thinking which case you should use before you speak it will come out naturally as you will have heard it spoken before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, before you do this you should be definitely be aware of the different &lt;b&gt;types&lt;/b&gt; of verbs (regular and irregular) and &lt;b&gt; verb aspects &lt;/b&gt; - &lt;i&gt;perfective&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;imperfective&lt;/i&gt;.  Learning verb aspects cannot be stressed enough because they indicate if an action was completed successfully or is ongoing. To do this in English we use  auxiliary verbs like “had” and “have”.  I would suggest learning the perfective and imperfective forms of new verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://echo.msk.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13993" RevisionGUID="401e90eb-1183-44f4-af40-6b002009d900" CreationDate="2017-02-19T02:18:10.487" UserId="8501" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="If your goal is communication, it is not so important to learn all 12 forms just like in English it is not necessary to learn all the 12 tenses to communicate effectively.  It's more important to listen as much as you can to as many sources as possible - TV, movies, live conversation, radio, podcasts. Take notes, hit replay, and repeat what you hear (check out [Эхо Москвы][1]- you can listen to podcasts in slow motion &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; follow along with a transcription of interviews/talk shows).  Do this for an hour or two every day. You will learn that certain verbs are used in certain contexts, you will hear idiomatic expressions, and you will begin to understand the use of verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;After a while, instead of thinking which case you should use before you speak it will come out naturally as you will have heard it spoken before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, before you do this you should be definitely be aware of the different &lt;b&gt;types&lt;/b&gt; of verbs (regular and irregular), how they are declined, and &lt;b&gt; verb aspects &lt;/b&gt; - &lt;i&gt;perfective&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;imperfective&lt;/i&gt;.  Learning verb aspects cannot be stressed enough because they indicate if an action was completed successfully or is ongoing. To do this in English we use  auxiliary verbs like “had” and “have”.  I would suggest learning the perfective and imperfective forms of new verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference, one of the best textbooks I have come across is &lt;i&gt;[Using Russian, A Guide to Contemporary Usage][2]&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://echo.msk.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Using-Russian-Guide-Contemporary-Usage/dp/052154761X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13993" RevisionGUID="7499cfed-607b-4a67-bc93-2a01be545f92" CreationDate="2017-02-19T02:24:58.263" UserId="8501" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="If your goal is communication, it is not so important to learn all 12 forms just like in English it is not necessary to learn all the 12 tenses to communicate effectively.  It's more important to listen as much as you can to as many sources as possible - TV, movies, live conversation, radio, podcasts. Take notes, hit replay, and repeat what you hear (check out [Эхо Москвы][1]- you can listen to podcasts in slow motion &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; follow along with a transcription of interviews/talk shows).  Do this for an hour or two every day. You will learn that certain verbs are used in certain contexts, you will hear idiomatic expressions, and you will begin to understand the use of verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;After a while, instead of thinking which case you should use before you speak it will come out naturally as you will have heard it spoken before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main obstacles to communicating with verbs in Russian are verb aspect and knowing the context.  You should be definitely be aware of the different &lt;b&gt;types&lt;/b&gt; of verbs (regular and irregular), how they are declined, and &lt;b&gt; verb aspects &lt;/b&gt; - &lt;i&gt;perfective&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;imperfective&lt;/i&gt;.  Learning verb aspects cannot be stressed enough because they indicate if an action was completed successfully or is ongoing (я иду vs. я ходил / сходил / пошёл ). To do this in English we use  auxiliary verbs like “had” and “have”.  I would suggest learning the perfective and imperfective forms of new verbs.  Finally, don't get too discouraged when you start to learn Russian &lt;b&gt;verbs of motion&lt;/b&gt;.  This takes a while to get used to and you will gradually understand with time and practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference, one of the best textbooks I have come across is &lt;i&gt;[Using Russian, A Guide to Contemporary Usage][2]&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://echo.msk.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Using-Russian-Guide-Contemporary-Usage/dp/052154761X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13993" RevisionGUID="10effba1-e4da-411d-8de5-c129a1e3a799" CreationDate="2017-02-19T02:30:40.247" UserId="8501" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="If your goal is communication, it is not so important to learn all 12 forms just like in English it is not necessary to learn all the 12 tenses to communicate effectively.  It's more important to listen as much as you can to as many sources as possible - TV, movies, live conversation, radio, podcasts. Take notes, hit replay, and repeat what you hear (check out [Эхо Москвы][1]- you can listen to podcasts in slow motion &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; follow along with a transcription of interviews/talk shows).  Do this for an hour or two every day. You will learn that certain verbs are used in certain contexts, you will hear idiomatic expressions, and you will begin to understand the use of verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;After a while, instead of thinking which case you should use before you speak it will come out naturally as you will have heard it spoken before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main obstacles to communicating with verbs in Russian are verb aspect and verbal prefixes.  That said, you should be definitely be aware of the basics: the different &lt;b&gt;types&lt;/b&gt; of verbs (regular and irregular), how they are declined, the main &lt;b&gt;[verbal prefixes][2]&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt; verb aspects &lt;/b&gt; - &lt;i&gt;perfective&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;imperfective&lt;/i&gt;.  Learning verb aspects cannot be stressed enough because they indicate if an action was completed successfully or is ongoing (я иду vs. я ходил / сходил / пошёл ). To do this in English we use  auxiliary verbs like “had” and “have”.  I would suggest learning the perfective and imperfective forms of new verbs.  Finally, don't get too discouraged when you start to learn Russian &lt;b&gt;verbs of motion&lt;/b&gt;.  This takes a while to get used to and you will gradually understand with time and practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference, one of the best textbooks I have come across is &lt;i&gt;[Using Russian, A Guide to Contemporary Usage][3]&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://echo.msk.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.yearlyglot.com/finally-understand-those-russian-prefixes/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.amazon.com/Using-Russian-Guide-Contemporary-Usage/dp/052154761X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13993" RevisionGUID="cf732bea-5fb1-4982-a454-e350cdc005ee" CreationDate="2017-02-19T02:37:13.243" UserId="8501" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="If your goal is communication, it is not so important to learn all 12 forms just like in English it is not necessary to learn all the 12 tenses to communicate effectively.  It's more important to &lt;b&gt;listen&lt;/b&gt; as much as you can to as many sources as possible - TV, movies, live conversation, radio, podcasts. Take notes, hit replay, and repeat what you hear (check out [Эхо Москвы][1]- you can listen to podcasts in slow motion &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; follow along with a transcription of interviews/talk shows).  Do this for an hour or two every day. You will learn that certain verbs are used in certain contexts, you will hear idiomatic expressions, and you will begin to understand the use of verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;After a while, instead of thinking which case you should use before you speak it will come out naturally as you will have heard it spoken before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main obstacles to communicating with verbs in Russian are verb aspect and verbal prefixes.  That said, you should be definitely be aware of the basics: the different &lt;b&gt;types&lt;/b&gt; of verbs (regular and irregular), how they are declined, the main &lt;b&gt;[verbal prefixes][2]&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt; verb aspects &lt;/b&gt; - &lt;i&gt;perfective&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;imperfective&lt;/i&gt;.  Learning verb aspects cannot be stressed enough because they indicate if an action was completed successfully or is ongoing (я иду vs. я ходил / сходил / пошёл ). To do this in English we use  auxiliary verbs like “had” and “have”.  I would suggest learning the perfective and imperfective forms of new verbs.  Finally, don't get too discouraged when you start to learn Russian &lt;b&gt;verbs of motion&lt;/b&gt;.  This takes a while to get used to and you will gradually understand with time and practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your reference, one of the best textbooks I have come across is &lt;i&gt;[Using Russian, A Guide to Contemporary Usage][3]&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://echo.msk.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.yearlyglot.com/finally-understand-those-russian-prefixes/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.amazon.com/Using-Russian-Guide-Contemporary-Usage/dp/052154761X" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33482" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13979" RevisionGUID="8ab80162-24cd-49b1-ac8f-5335a2cf1129" CreationDate="2017-02-19T10:33:32.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/833263241451155457" />
  <row Id="33484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="c685bc03-9404-4409-93a6-17f0b21ee56a" CreationDate="2017-02-19T16:17:17.533" UserId="4238" Text="What is the meaning of the expression &quot;уж уволь,&quot; as found in the lyrics [of this Kino song, &quot;Malysh&quot;][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it something like &quot;G-d help me already&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How commonly is it used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFuje0tH7KI&amp;t=2m26s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="c685bc03-9404-4409-93a6-17f0b21ee56a" CreationDate="2017-02-19T16:17:17.533" UserId="4238" Text="Meaning of &quot;уж уволь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="c685bc03-9404-4409-93a6-17f0b21ee56a" CreationDate="2017-02-19T16:17:17.533" UserId="4238" Text="|перевод|выражения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="846faa1d-26f7-4e42-9885-62b7c901ee8c" CreationDate="2017-02-19T16:34:01.027" UserId="551" Text="&gt; Уж уволь, не могу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it means &quot;Sorry, but I can't&quot;. It sounds a bit outdated nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a second meaning in this definition &quot;let me avoid to do something unwanted&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **УВО́ЛИТЬ**, уволю, уволишь, совер., кого-что.&#xD;&#xA;1. (несовер. увольнять). Освободить (на время или окончательно) от выполнения каких-нибудь обязанностей. «От должности увольте вы меня!» Некрасов. Уволить с военной службы. Уволить в отпуск. Уволить в отставку. Уволить по сокращению штатов. Уволить из школы.  &#xD;&#xA;**2. Освободить, избавить от чего-нибудь** (неприятного; употр. обычно в форме просьбы; разг.). «Увольте нас от своего посещения… сейчас же.» А.Островский. «-Выкушайте еще чашечку! - Нет, увольте!» А.Островский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13995" RevisionGUID="ca0fe8d1-11a1-4ec8-b89c-758a5407487d" CreationDate="2017-02-19T16:39:04.290" UserId="551" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&gt; Уж уволь, не могу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it means &quot;Sorry, but I can't&quot;. It is a colloquial phrase and sounds a bit outdated nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a second meaning in this definition &quot;let me avoid to do something unwanted&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **УВО́ЛИТЬ**, уволю, уволишь, совер., кого-что.&#xD;&#xA;1. (несовер. увольнять). Освободить (на время или окончательно) от выполнения каких-нибудь обязанностей. «От должности увольте вы меня!» Некрасов. Уволить с военной службы. Уволить в отпуск. Уволить в отставку. Уволить по сокращению штатов. Уволить из школы.  &#xD;&#xA;**2. Освободить, избавить от чего-нибудь** (неприятного; употр. обычно в форме просьбы; **разг.**). «**Увольте нас** от своего посещения… сейчас же.» А.Островский. «-Выкушайте еще чашечку! - **Нет, увольте!**» А.Островский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Увольте нас** от своего посещения…&quot; - Please free us of your presense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;-Выкушайте еще чашечку! - **Нет, увольте!**&quot; - Drink one more cup! - No, thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13996" RevisionGUID="6264fdc8-2841-443e-8950-51120c47f4fe" CreationDate="2017-02-19T17:46:06.387" UserId="8357" Text="«*Уж уволь*» means the same as «*уволь*». «*Уж*», just like all other such words, is like an article in English: it is, strictly speaking, unnecessary, but it expresses some thoughts that the speaker semi-unconsciously comes along, that's why it's useful. Just the articles have more rules that govern their usage; the Russian words of this nature are less systematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, «*уж*» does not have to refer to the time of action; it may refer to having considered some thoughts. An example: «*уж выслушай меня, пожалуйста*» (~ “*okay; but please listen to me*”). Another example in the same line: «*уж я не думаю, что Петя мог так легко пролезть в танк*» — the word «*уж*» adds some ironic meaning to what's been said. Like “*I understand everything, but I don't think that*…”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In «*уж уволь, не могу*», the word «*уволь*» is a request: *don't make me do that, because I can't, anyway*. For its translation as “*sorry, but I can't*”, it's the word «*уж*» that adds the tone of an excuse. It comes to be: *I can't, really*…" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13985" RevisionGUID="589947b4-c69f-46fe-bf9a-7a09dff0b04c" CreationDate="2017-02-19T20:40:25.857" UserId="8357" Comment="added an example" Text="One should most likely connect «*вот*» with «*я*», and «*прям*» with «*уважаю*». I think you should not connect «*вот*» and «*прям*» in one unit. &quot;*Listen, I respect you so much, but…*”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“*Вот*&quot; with “*я*” is often used to introduce some statement that is going to be new or unexpected: «*я вот тебе скажу …*», “*я вот думаю …*”, and so on. Such introduction might also mean that the statement is awkward, and I'm somewhat shy to say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«*Прям*» means that you shouldn't really think he doesn't respect you. The closest explanation is “*plain*”: my respect is something plain, there is readily that and that to say about my respect, so don't be mistaken thinking I don't respect you; better listen to what I say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: «*Я прямо не знаю …*» — “*Really, I don't know …*” One might also translate: «*я тебя прям уважаю, но*» — “*I really respect you, but…*”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13998" RevisionGUID="2f04f39c-de3a-4da7-b4e7-c5ca42255818" CreationDate="2017-02-19T21:32:59.497" UserId="6539" Text="**Дании́л** (Дани́л, Дани́ла) — are different variations of the same name.So I think this is the name you are looking for.Даниил is the name of one of the prophets in the Bible. You need to change the last a into и . Friends can call him Данила,but officially he is Даниил." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="a6d00b9f-4058-428e-afb3-89b70a696d5a" CreationDate="2017-02-20T06:59:21.373" UserId="170" Text="Do I need commas around мол?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорил, что мол математики занимаются ерундой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="a6d00b9f-4058-428e-afb3-89b70a696d5a" CreationDate="2017-02-20T06:59:21.373" UserId="170" Text="Do I need commas around мол?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="a6d00b9f-4058-428e-afb3-89b70a696d5a" CreationDate="2017-02-20T06:59:21.373" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="ad317756-bc91-4802-aa8a-c489d2de6804" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:29:59.350" UserId="8553" Text="I want to pronounce and write a word hindustan. how to write in russian what is the equivalent word for H ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI: I am getting into first step of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="ad317756-bc91-4802-aa8a-c489d2de6804" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:29:59.350" UserId="8553" Text="Equivalent word for H in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="ad317756-bc91-4802-aa8a-c489d2de6804" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:29:59.350" UserId="8553" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14001" RevisionGUID="b843b167-9c96-4884-9662-7b29fa53a58a" CreationDate="2017-02-20T07:50:37.467" UserId="1236" Text="Russian has no special letter for the Latin letter `H`, in different words it is render differently, you have to consult a dictionary every time a proper name has `H`. The main ways it can be written are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Г`: _Гималаи_ &quot;the Himalayas&quot;, _Генри_ &quot;Henry&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- `Х`: _хинди_, _хиндустани_ &quot;Hindi, Hindustani (languages)&quot;, _Хайдарабад_ &quot;Hyderabad&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- `no letter at all`: _Индостан_ &quot;Hindustan (subcontinent)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14001" RevisionGUID="418d3dc1-4a21-4312-b073-6e34fffd6dbf" CreationDate="2017-02-20T08:26:26.060" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Russian has no special letter for the Latin letter `H`, in different words it is rendered differently, you have to consult a dictionary every time a proper name has `H`. The main ways it can be written are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Г`: _Гималаи_ &quot;the Himalayas&quot;, _Генри_ &quot;Henry&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- `Х`: _хинди_, _хиндустани_ &quot;Hindi, Hindustani (languages)&quot;, _Хайдарабад_ &quot;Hyderabad&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- `no letter at all`: _Индостан_ &quot;Hindustan (subcontinent)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14002" RevisionGUID="de9496cf-e360-4083-a6e0-5718c200b0df" CreationDate="2017-02-20T08:58:15.000" UserId="242" Text="Yes, usually if is [separated by commas][1] (by the way the term you need to know to make googling easier is &quot;обособление [запятыми]&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мол**, частица -Указывает на то, что говорящий передает чужие слова, чужое мнение или приводит свои слова, сказанные в другое время.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обособляется, сближаясь по значению с вводными словами, указывающими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на источник сообщения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another word used in the same context `дескать` and it is also separated by commas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?id=58_421&amp;layout=item" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14002" RevisionGUID="86318cd3-3161-4658-9ce0-4ebedc7e5209" CreationDate="2017-02-20T12:16:11.200" UserId="1097" Comment="typo fix" Text="Yes, usually it is [separated by commas][1] (by the way the term you need to know to make googling easier is &quot;обособление [запятыми]&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мол**, частица -Указывает на то, что говорящий передает чужие слова, чужое мнение или приводит свои слова, сказанные в другое время.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обособляется, сближаясь по значению с вводными словами, указывающими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на источник сообщения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another word used in the same context `дескать` and it is also separated by commas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?id=58_421&amp;layout=item" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33515" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="d4d450b2-ac3f-43d0-8113-b88d4f971b19" CreationDate="2017-02-20T17:27:20.873" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Do I need commas around &quot;мол&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="36b9fd9d-f7e2-49fd-8bc4-8e0875878dad" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:01:32.527" UserId="170" Text="What's the etymology of the Russian verb &quot;иметь&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is its root (&quot;-им-&quot; or &quot;-име-&quot;)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was the root's meaning originally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="36b9fd9d-f7e2-49fd-8bc4-8e0875878dad" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:01:32.527" UserId="170" Text="What's the etymology of the Russian verb &quot;иметь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="36b9fd9d-f7e2-49fd-8bc4-8e0875878dad" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:01:32.527" UserId="170" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14006" RevisionGUID="413b266a-0630-4ef2-8970-c24c2cc25818" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:41:15.057" UserId="242" Text="It's a PIE [root][1] *h₁em- ‎(“to take, distribute”) from which - as you can see from this [link][2] - were derived among other words, such as: Lithuanian im̃ti, Old Church Slavonic имѫ ‎(imǫ) and possibly Old Armenian իմանամ ‎(imanam). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Slavonic [form][3] *jьmǫ: jęti among other words [produced][4] `иметь`, `взять`, `снять`, `изъять`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/em%C5%8D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B7%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14006" RevisionGUID="a7928d23-ed1e-4038-8541-761adca9bc0c" CreationDate="2017-02-20T18:47:52.903" UserId="242" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="It's a PIE [root][1] *h₁em- ‎(“to take, distribute”) from which - as you can see from this [link][2] - were derived among other words, such as: Lithuanian im̃ti, Old Church Slavonic имѫ ‎(imǫ) and possibly Old Armenian իմանամ ‎(imanam). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Slavonic [form][3] *jьmǫ: jęti among other words [produced][4] `иметь`, `взять`, `снять`, `изъять`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually there's more - a lot of verbs ending with [-нять][5] share the same origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/em%C5%8D&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emo#Latin&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B7%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14007" RevisionGUID="f72e1275-508b-44fc-9953-540ad0bc9f42" CreationDate="2017-02-21T08:21:34.677" UserId="170" Text="Do you know of any idiomatic expression in Russian, the meaning or etymology of which is usually misinterpreted by non-Russian speakers? Is there such an expression in Russian that Russian speakers are already tired of explaining to foreigners that the meaning of it or its original meaning is not what they think.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One that comes to my mind is Nikita Khrushchev's &quot;Мы покажем вам кузькину мать!&quot; rendered by interpreters at the time as &quot;We will bury you all!&quot;, which was not really what the expression really meant. Do you know of any other such cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess it's a bit off-topic here - sorry about that)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14007" RevisionGUID="f72e1275-508b-44fc-9953-540ad0bc9f42" CreationDate="2017-02-21T08:21:34.677" UserId="170" Text="Any idiomatic expression in Russian commonly misinterpreted by non-Russian speakers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14007" RevisionGUID="f72e1275-508b-44fc-9953-540ad0bc9f42" CreationDate="2017-02-21T08:21:34.677" UserId="170" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33524" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14007" RevisionGUID="6fc3ec0c-5728-45a8-aae3-799a8c9619f7" CreationDate="2017-02-21T09:47:52.527" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33525" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14005" RevisionGUID="0e31f350-d614-470c-bd46-b2dc0433aac1" CreationDate="2017-02-21T10:41:39.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/833990059367997440" />
  <row Id="33526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14008" RevisionGUID="c71a49ff-1193-4666-a9ff-8d154508a62d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:20:30.993" UserId="5423" Text="What difference, if any, is there in meaning between &quot;фильм&quot; and &quot;кино&quot;? I've encountered кино before, but have just encountered фильм. A machine translation of the [Russian Wiktionary][1] suggests the фильм can mean the physical material used for a film, like in English, but it didn't indicate any other difference in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14008" RevisionGUID="c71a49ff-1193-4666-a9ff-8d154508a62d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:20:30.993" UserId="5423" Text="What's the difference between &quot;фильм&quot; and &quot;кино&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14008" RevisionGUID="c71a49ff-1193-4666-a9ff-8d154508a62d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:20:30.993" UserId="5423" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="d5a8d340-5085-46b2-908e-d91c387604ca" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:31:29.967" UserId="5605" Text="**кино́**&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;2. РАЗГ.Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов.&#xD;&#xA;Пойти в кино.&#xD;&#xA;3. РАЗГ.Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="6d489696-dce6-456f-bd90-505eba133740" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:53:23.000" UserId="5605" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="**Кино́**&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;2. РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (фильмов).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фильм** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — кино, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина — 1. **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14010" RevisionGUID="3b7fd052-9234-4fe0-861d-f5fa26c18002" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:58:16.227" UserId="6383" Text="Фильм is usually an artwork and sometimes a medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кино can be that too, but it could also refer to a general notion of cinematography or a place where you watch movies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- По телевизору показывают интересное кино / интересный фильм.&#xD;&#xA;- Пойдем в кино / Пойдем на фильм.&#xD;&#xA;- Что это за пленка у тебя в руках? Это мой фильм.&#xD;&#xA;- Цветное кино появилось в России в 19хх году." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="4bfd1867-f71b-4903-974e-d24f3585078e" CreationDate="2017-02-21T11:58:28.593" UserId="5605" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="**Кино́**&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;2. РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (фильмов).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фильм** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина — 1. **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; есть общее значение** (произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране), но **они не являются полными синонимами**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="a1e7ad02-99d3-472f-a4a5-5f8115d951de" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:10:34.347" UserId="5605" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="**Кино́**&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;2. РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (фильмов).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фильм** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина — 1. **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; есть общее значение** (произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The words &quot;cinema&quot; and &quot;movie&quot; have one the same value** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="10b945fa-244b-41ff-a42c-15427eb004df" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:18:19.893" UserId="5605" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="**Кино́**&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;2. РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (фильмов).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фильм** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина — 1. **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The words &quot;cinema&quot; and &quot;movie&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="5ad00edf-66ce-4d41-a07f-f8b1c736f287" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:24:35.887" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**Кино́**&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (фильмов).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фильм** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина — **1.** **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14011" RevisionGUID="b0471113-4844-41d6-bc2a-09fe3a49f075" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:26:11.717" UserId="4629" Text="Уволить (from *воля* [will, freedom]) — in modern Russian means *to dismiss*, *to fire* but still bears a strong connotation of *to excuse*. The most adequate translation of *Уволь(те) меня от этого* — may I be excused (rid) of that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *уж* can still mean *already* (like *уже*), here it is a modal particle and is used to reinforce a statement, playing the role of *please, do*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your expression means: *Please, do excuse me (from doing that)*. Or, more colloquially, *Let me not be involved already!* :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="47573b80-4d16-4c0b-8d59-076b4b648fc3" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:32:21.123" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (*фильмов*).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14011" RevisionGUID="bc04ed06-57af-452a-b2f3-43203fbbba5e" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:35:19.407" UserId="4629" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Уволить (from *воля* [will, freedom]) — in modern Russian means *to dismiss*, *to fire* but still bears a strong connotation of *to excuse*. The most adequate translation of *Уволь(те) меня от этого* — may I be excused (rid) of that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While *уж* can still mean *already* (like *уже*), here it is a modal particle and is used to reinforce a statement, playing the role of *please, do*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your expression means: *Please, do excuse me (from doing that)*. Or, more colloquially, *Let me not be involved already!* :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS Check out this useful piece:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://learningrussian.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/modal-particles/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="f3564ed3-becc-4243-802f-cde91611872c" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:39:18.193" UserId="5605" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Искусство съемки и воспроизведения на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; кинематограф (1 зн.); кинематография (1 зн.).&#xD;&#xA;Немое кино. Звуковое кино.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. **Помещение для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (*фильмов*).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Отдельное произведение киноискусства.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом мы видим, что**Значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the foregoing it follows that **the words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="49f50d4e-ddb8-4da7-9f24-a0b93c71603d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:52:49.883" UserId="5605" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Искусство съемки и воспроизведения* на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. ***Помещение* для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (*фильмов*)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. ***Произведение киноискусства*, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино. Научно-популярное кино**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Отдельное произведение киноискусства**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом мы видим, что**Значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the foregoing it follows that **the words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="ecfaad7b-09fc-43d8-9234-c372f5eba0e4" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:58:29.633" UserId="5605" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Искусство съемки и воспроизведения* на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. ***Помещение* для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (*фильмов*)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. ***Произведение киноискусства*, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино (документальный фильм). Научно-популярное кино (научно-популярный фильм)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** **Отдельное произведение киноискусства**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** **Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом мы видим, что **значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the foregoing it follows that **the words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="b0060daa-cd97-4523-9dce-29e3a7888440" CreationDate="2017-02-21T13:44:58.473" UserId="5605" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Искусство съемки и воспроизведения* на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. ***Помещение* для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (*фильмов*)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. ***Произведение киноискусства*, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное кино (документальный фильм). Научно-популярное кино (научно-популярный фильм)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Отдельное произведение киноискусства***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** ***Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом мы видим, что **значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the foregoing it follows that **the words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="936f8a4d-ed1e-41d8-8216-d8b83644dfff" CreationDate="2017-02-21T14:29:12.317" UserId="5605" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Искусство съемки и воспроизведения* на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. ***Помещение* для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (*фильмов*)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. **Произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.**&#xD;&#xA;Документальное ***кино*** (документальный ***фильм***). Научно-популярное ***кино*** (научно-популярный ***фильм***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — **кино**, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Отдельное произведение киноискусства***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** ***Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом мы видим, что **значения слов &quot;кино&quot; и &quot;фильм&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the foregoing it follows that **the words &quot;кино&quot; and &quot;фильм&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14009" RevisionGUID="0094dd55-3320-41fc-aba6-d6b62ed7989d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T14:40:46.050" UserId="5605" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="***Кино́***&#xD;&#xA;нескл., ср.&#xD;&#xA;[нем. Kino сокр. Kinematograph &lt; франц. cinématographe &lt; греч. kinema (род. kinematos) движение + grapho писать, рисовать]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Искусство съемки и воспроизведения*** на экране движущихся изображений, создающих впечатление живой действительности; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** РАЗГ. ***Помещение*** для публичной демонстрации кинофильмов (***фильмов***);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** РАЗГ. ***Произведение киноискусства***, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране.&#xD;&#xA;Документальное ***кино*** (документальный ***фильм***). Научно-популярное ***кино*** (научно-популярный ***фильм***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Фильм*** (англ. film — плёнка), а также — ***кино***, кинофильм, телефильм, кинокартина:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** ***Отдельное произведение киноискусства***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** ***Киноплёнка с отснятым на ней изображением и записью звука*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом мы видим, что **значения слов &quot;*кино*&quot; и &quot;*фильм*&quot; частично совпадают** (*произведение киноискусства, предназначенное для демонстрации на экране*), но **они не являются полными синонимами**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the foregoing it follows that **the words &quot;*кино*&quot; and &quot;*фильм*&quot; have a common value only in one case** (*a work of art, designed to display on the screen*), **but they are not full synonyms**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33547" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14008" RevisionGUID="f947f67c-7fb7-4ba4-8ba0-71a2c522dea4" CreationDate="2017-02-21T19:41:40.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/834125957279604736" />
  <row Id="33548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14012" RevisionGUID="dc088704-4285-48a8-bc68-595edd635e8f" CreationDate="2017-02-22T01:50:58.257" UserId="8591" Text="A lot of time I see the word &quot;возвратиться&quot; when I read some books and I do not usually use in a daily life a lot either compared to the word &quot;вернуться&quot;. Both words are correct and has a same meaning tho; the only thing is that you should know how to use in a proper way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14013" RevisionGUID="d4a0adc7-b277-48fe-9de9-dff7084c1461" CreationDate="2017-02-22T01:56:23.693" UserId="8591" Text="You could use that word in a very different way, but in a proper way; otherwise, your sentence looks weird. For example, you could say:&#xA;&#xA;Я бы хотел заказать .... - this means you are ordering right now&#xA;Я хотел заказать -  this sentence could also be used in a sentence in a present and/or past form, but again it depends on your sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14015" RevisionGUID="c556f569-f11c-45d0-9ff1-1a03fc30ac2e" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:22:37.437" UserId="8593" Text="&quot;Кино&quot; can mean a movie and a movie theater(depends on the context in which it is being used). &quot;Фильм&quot; basically means film or a movie. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14016" RevisionGUID="25915b78-9113-4cb8-a8f6-d511f412d4cb" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:27:39.880" UserId="8593" Text="I often hear &quot;ели ели&quot; but I haven't still had a clear meaning of that phrase. What does it mean? (Obviously, I'm not talking about &quot;eat eat&quot;). :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14016" RevisionGUID="25915b78-9113-4cb8-a8f6-d511f412d4cb" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:27:39.880" UserId="8593" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;ели ели&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14016" RevisionGUID="25915b78-9113-4cb8-a8f6-d511f412d4cb" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:27:39.880" UserId="8593" Text="|перевод|значения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14017" RevisionGUID="888ef5ec-43a7-46bb-983b-5843f61641f8" CreationDate="2017-02-22T14:40:16.550" UserId="81" Text="Most probably you misheard [&quot;еле-еле&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5) which means &quot;with great difficulty&quot;, &quot;scarcely&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a [reduplication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication) (intensified version) of [&quot;еле&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14017" RevisionGUID="d9ced55f-3567-491e-ab02-21b496951c06" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:10:11.120" UserId="81" Comment="added 1273 characters in body" Text="Most probably you misheard [&quot;еле-еле&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5) which means &quot;with great difficulty&quot;, &quot;scarcely&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a [reduplication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication) (intensified version) of [&quot;еле&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле-еле идет.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He's barely walking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the context, it's hard to tell for sure, though. There are other, less probable, options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [&quot;ели&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8) (&quot;ate&quot;) as a past form of [&quot;есть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D1.8C_I)  repeated several times to describe repeated actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ели, ели, ели и, наконец, все съели.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We ate and ate and ate until there's nothing left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ели&quot; as a plural of [&quot;eль&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C) allows somewhat surreal, but valid combinations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Одержимые новогодние ели](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343750/) ели празднующих.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Possessed christmas trees ate people enjoying the holidays.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полуживые от голода посреди Сибири они ели ели.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Half-dead from hunger in the middle of Siberia, they ate fir-trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. combination of &quot;еле&quot; and one of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детсадовцы еле ели кашу с комочками.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kindergardeners were barely able to eat a porridge with lumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people choose to emphasize &quot;е&quot; sound at the end of &quot;еле&quot;, but most of the times pronunciation in each of these cases is absolutely the same. You'll need to figure it out from context. Less likely options almost never occur in the real-life conversation between adequate adults.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14017" RevisionGUID="e14cb69a-2fbd-4456-bcf4-53e76abf4393" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:15:28.400" UserId="81" Comment="added 1273 characters in body" Text="Most probably you misheard [&quot;еле-еле&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5) which means &quot;with great difficulty&quot;, &quot;scarcely&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a [reduplication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication) (intensified version) of [&quot;еле&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он еле-еле идет.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He's barely even walking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the context, it's hard to tell for sure, though. There are other, less probable, options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [&quot;ели&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8) (&quot;ate&quot;) as a past form of [&quot;есть&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D1.8C_I)  repeated several times to describe repeated actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ели, ели, ели и, наконец, все съели.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; We ate and ate and ate until there's nothing left to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;ели&quot; as a plural of [&quot;eль&quot;](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C) allows somewhat surreal, but valid combinations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Одержимые новогодние ели](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343750/) ели празднующих.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Possessed christmas trees ate people enjoying the holidays.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Полуживые от голода посреди Сибири они ели ели.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Half-dead from hunger in the middle of Siberia, they ate fir-trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. combination of &quot;еле&quot; and one of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детсадовцы еле ели кашу с комочками.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kindergarteners were barely able to eat a porridge with lumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, people choose to emphasize &quot;е&quot; sound at the end of &quot;еле&quot;, but most of the times pronunciation in each of these cases is absolutely the same. You'll need to figure it out from context. Less likely options almost never occur in the real-life conversation between adequate adults.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14016" RevisionGUID="9bd0e6c6-ab8d-4824-ae57-650b23317e62" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:41:41.417" UserId="8593" Comment="added 97 characters in body; edited title" Text="I often hear &quot;ели ели&quot; but I haven't still had a clear meaning of that phrase. What does it mean? (Obviously, I'm not talking about &quot;eat eat&quot;). :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stated in the comments and answers, the phrase I meant was &quot;&quot;еле-еле&quot; and not &quot;ели ели&quot; . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33564" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14016" RevisionGUID="9bd0e6c6-ab8d-4824-ae57-650b23317e62" CreationDate="2017-02-22T15:41:41.417" UserId="8593" Comment="added 97 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;еле-еле&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14016" RevisionGUID="69071627-4548-4370-aa66-3e1738a97203" CreationDate="2017-02-23T10:43:28.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/834715291120697345" />
  <row Id="33568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="78dc119e-27ed-4e3b-996b-e6fab9385ad1" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:06:27.770" UserId="8600" Text="I know it sounds a stupid question but in english comics, if someone is calling a woman named &quot;Laura&quot; from afar, you write &quot;Lauraaaaaaa&quot;, with the last letter repeated.&#xD;&#xA;How do I do the same with &quot;Катя&quot; in russian?&#xD;&#xA;If I write &quot;Катяяяяяяя&quot; it seems like I am saying &quot;Katyayayayaya&quot; instead of &quot;Katyaaaaaaa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How do you do that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thankx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="78dc119e-27ed-4e3b-996b-e6fab9385ad1" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:06:27.770" UserId="8600" Text="How do I write a name of a person when it is called from far away" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="78dc119e-27ed-4e3b-996b-e6fab9385ad1" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:06:27.770" UserId="8600" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14019" RevisionGUID="b624349b-ed23-406e-a09c-9c051e8e4e72" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:13:46.517" UserId="6097" Text="If you write in Russian, you can write &quot;Катяяяяя&quot;. No one would read it as &quot;Катя-йа-йа-йа&quot;. &quot;Катяаааа&quot; looks unusual but can be used in situation when the last sound is transformed in a shout like &quot;Катяяяааааааа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you write in English you better write &quot;Katyaaaa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in Russian often the stressed vowel is shouted long too, not only the last one - so you can also write &quot;Каааатяяяя&quot; or &quot;Владииииимиииир&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14020" RevisionGUID="c9706c34-572c-47ff-a166-03929372359c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:13:54.697" UserId="8601" Text="&quot;Катяяяяя&quot; looks OK. You repeat a letter not a sound. я is a letter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also I find &quot;Катяяааааааа&quot; OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33574" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="21823f2f-3db7-4020-a25f-d0c4b7e7538c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:18:25.827" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33576" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="174c4699-fd70-425a-83fc-ec86f84f67ef" CreationDate="2017-02-23T11:18:33.690" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14022" RevisionGUID="8539fde2-dda2-4237-8185-3b3a2107a3d7" CreationDate="2017-02-23T12:51:00.867" UserId="242" Text="Well, actually I'm surprised with the answers given. As a native speaker I'd rather will stretch the stressed vowel, something like &quot;Ау, Каааааааатя! Ты где?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same rule will apply to any name. &#xD;&#xA;So now let's consider what happen if `я` is stressed, then actually indeed something like &quot;Ну Яяяяяяян, ну чего ты копаешься&quot;. So я (or ю - Юююююр) does not usually turned into &quot;йааааа&quot; (ой &quot;йуyyy&quot;) - it's just that it's pronounced that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ё' is slightly different story, it's quit often ommited but still you'd rather see &quot;ёёёёёёжик&quot;  or just &quot;ееееежик&quot; but never  &quot;йоооожик&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14019" RevisionGUID="db6f9ff4-e1db-4b23-b605-6a5714a437eb" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:24:34.470" UserId="6097" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="If you write in Russian, you can write &quot;Катяяяяя&quot;. No one would read it as &quot;Катя-йа-йа-йа&quot;. &quot;Катяаааа&quot; looks unusual but can be used in situation when the last sound is transformed in a shout like &quot;Катяяяааааааа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you write in English it's better to write &quot;Katyaaaa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in Russian often the stressed vowel is shouted long too, not only the last one - so you can also write &quot;Каааатяяяя&quot; or &quot;Владииииимиииир&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14023" RevisionGUID="246ca1dd-aa18-4269-9c17-5e277f832de0" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:34:47.570" UserId="4560" Text="That depends on whether you want the literary norm or something informal you could use, say, on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literary norm would be **Ка-а-атя-а-а**. Note the hyphen before each vowel repetition. I'm surprised no-one else brought it up. To answer your specific question, the modifying letters do revert to their non-modifier counterparts in repetitions (hence **Я-а-ана** and **Ю-у-ур!**). Keep the number of repetitions down to one or two. Three or four would mean it's *really* drawn-out. More than that means it's a children's story or the writer's got an amateurish fondness for typographic mannerisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In informal writing, **Кааатяяяя** is perfectly fine and you can hold down the key much more liberally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="67d66029-67df-4a07-b29e-df6df9c78bec" CreationDate="2017-02-24T11:09:57.940" UserId="-1" Comment="Capitalisation; remove unnecessary 'thanks'" Text="I know it sounds a stupid question but in English comics, if someone is calling a woman named &quot;Laura&quot; from afar, you write &quot;Lauraaaaaaa&quot;, with the last letter repeated.&#xD;&#xA;How do I do the same with &quot;Катя&quot; in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;If I write &quot;Катяяяяяяя&quot; it seems like I am saying &quot;Katyayayayaya&quot; instead of &quot;Katyaaaaaaa&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;How do you do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33583" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="67d66029-67df-4a07-b29e-df6df9c78bec" CreationDate="2017-02-24T11:09:57.940" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5605, 6097 edit id of 839" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14018" RevisionGUID="344192a5-eb62-4909-a433-180c39b25d8f" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:01:43.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/835127572920942592" />
  <row Id="33585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13989" RevisionGUID="6cd27cec-efd0-41c4-abf4-580d5dc5de09" CreationDate="2017-02-24T14:57:55.487" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="Sometimes the agreement of verb predicates with subjects is governed by rather complex rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. With two or more subjects and one predicate, the general rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   When the predicate follows the subjects, it is normally in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Книга и газета лежали на столе. **До завтрака хлеб и сыр были на столе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   When the predicate precedes the subjects, it is usually in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;На столе лежит книга и газета.&#xD;&#xA;В деревне послышался топот и крики. (Л. Толстой) &#xD;&#xA;**До завтрака на столе был сыр и хлеб.** &#xD;&#xA;However, the plural can also be used, especially if one of the nouns is in the **plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из соседней комнаты слышались рыдание и крики.	**До завтрака на столе были хлеб и сыр**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (c)   When the subjects are **persons**, the predicate is in the **plural**, regardless of its position in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вечером пришли Павел и Иван.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   When the compound subject includes **много, немного, мало, сколько or столько**, the predicate is in the **singular**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сколько учеников пришло на урок?&#xD;&#xA;Много людей пришло на собрание. **В парке было много детей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Многие люди ушли рано.**Многие дети были в парке.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3.   When the compound subject includes  **большинство, меньшинство, or несколько,** the predicate is either in the singular or (sometimes) in the plural&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Большинство учеников было отправлено в лагерь. &#xD;&#xA;Большинство этих писем пришло утром.&#xD;&#xA;Большинство учеников уехали в лагерь.&#xD;&#xA;За дверью находилось несколько человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:   When большинство or меньшинство function as independent subjects, the predicate must be in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Меньшинство голосовало против.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.   When the subject is expressed by a numeral and noun, the following rules govern the agreement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (a)   With one, the predicate is, of course, in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошла одна неделя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (b)   With two, three, or four, the predicate is usually in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Три мальчика пришли утром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the **singular** predicate is used in **impersonal constructions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него было два чемодана.**В парке было много детей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (с)   With numerals from five up, a subtle distinction is made, depending on whether the subject is thought of as an entity, or as consisting of separate units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, the predicate is in the singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прошло пять минут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, the predicate is in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пять человек принесли подарки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Five people brought presents. (independent actions by different persons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is less obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В классе сидело десять учеников.&#xD;&#xA;Десять учеников сидели в классе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the choice is a delicate matter, no longer confined to grammar &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;d)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Получено около сорока книг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About forty books were received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Там работало человек тридцать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About thirty people worked there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (e)   The predicate is in the singular when the subject expresses limitation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Только шесть домов было построено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only six houses were built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пришло всего десять студентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only ten students came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (f)   When two nouns are joined by the preposition c, the predicate may be either in the singular or in the plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Муж с женой пошли на концерт.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отец с детьми гулял в парке.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14024" RevisionGUID="08d3d740-3042-45de-b9b9-17baa54586d4" CreationDate="2017-02-24T19:45:26.377" UserId="7716" Text="My suggestion would be to learn the basic, nominative form, then take the cases one at a time, learning the endings (and contexts) for each as you go. Every book I've seen takes this approach and I can't imagine doing it differently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what stage you're at in your Russian, but if you're working on your own, my enthusiastic recommendation goes to Nicholas Brown's 'New Penguin Russian Course' - it's pretty inexpensive on Amazon, has an answer key, and gives the information you need at each step without overwhelming you. Its only real drawback is the lack of audio, you'll need to find that elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Listening to Эхо Москвы etc is great but if you're just starting out, don't let it discourage you - most of my students found it challenging even after 200 hours of classroom instruction. But finding music you like is a great way to tune your ear to the sounds and rhythm of the language. Успеха!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33589" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13999" RevisionGUID="2f0cc5c0-897e-48a8-b654-2cb3164b75ed" CreationDate="2017-02-25T02:02:03.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/835308847711551492" />
  <row Id="33590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="0931b9c9-9166-4350-b1b5-0a3315ae9292" CreationDate="2017-02-26T05:40:18.373" UserId="8612" Text="Ива́нович and Ивано́в,they are from the given name Ivan?Ивано́в is a surname,then what about Ива́нович?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="0931b9c9-9166-4350-b1b5-0a3315ae9292" CreationDate="2017-02-26T05:40:18.373" UserId="8612" Text="what is the difference between Ива́нович and Ивано́в?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="0931b9c9-9166-4350-b1b5-0a3315ae9292" CreationDate="2017-02-26T05:40:18.373" UserId="8612" Text="|выбор-слова|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14026" RevisionGUID="0bf37154-9d5b-4dd3-9d90-4c2105911e5e" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:48:14.810" UserId="6539" Text="**Иванович** in Сергей Иванович Иванов is a patronymic. Every Russian has got a name, a patronymic and a surname. They are used in all official papers. A patronymic means **the son/daughter of** and is formed from your father's name: Иванович is Ivan's son,Ивановна is Ivan's daughter.So Сергей Иванович had/has a father whose name was/is Иван.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The endings -ович,-евич,-ич are used to form patronymics for men. For women, the endings are -овна,-евна,-ична.(Петрович,Сергеевич,Ильич,Петровна,Сергеевна,Ильинична)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14027" RevisionGUID="43743252-9cad-4c9a-985c-4df006350c62" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:59:36.863" UserId="3812" Text="Предполагаю, что имеется ввиду склонность говорящего к пессимизму.&#xD;&#xA;Или же невнятная речь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14027" RevisionGUID="43743252-9cad-4c9a-985c-4df006350c62" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:59:36.863" UserId="3812" Text="Что значит &quot;жевать сопли&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14027" RevisionGUID="43743252-9cad-4c9a-985c-4df006350c62" CreationDate="2017-02-26T06:59:36.863" UserId="3812" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14028" RevisionGUID="03ef4b68-14a5-45eb-b063-cb571103c5d0" CreationDate="2017-02-26T08:16:32.897" UserId="8614" Text="Бездействовать, откладывать 'на потOм'. To Linger" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14029" RevisionGUID="a7fa1101-edd4-4baf-ac9d-8c2ad7382c1b" CreationDate="2017-02-26T10:01:12.543" UserId="6539" Text="Большой словарь русских поговорок (Мокиенко В.М.) дает несколько значений&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Неодобр. Говорить невнятно.2.. Жарг. мол., Разг. Неодобр. Действовать нерешительно. 3.. Прост. Быть невнимательным, рассеянным. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="9064337c-4e41-4823-bf85-2e137c822770" CreationDate="2017-02-26T13:45:11.447" UserId="8612" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Ива́нович and Ивано́в,they are from the given name Ivan?Ивано́в is a surname,then how about Ива́нович?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33607" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="0f2aa238-4035-4eb3-a305-03c310c03724" CreationDate="2017-02-26T15:10:55.123" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;Ива́нович&quot; and &quot;Ивано́в&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14033" RevisionGUID="ae32e2b7-a330-42ba-a301-00bb4fdf898a" CreationDate="2017-02-26T17:23:13.750" UserId="8617" Text="You can use it this way, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;Прекрати жевать сопли! Будь мужиком!&#xD;&#xA;Stop being a namby-pamby! Act like a man!&#xD;&#xA;Stop mollycoddling!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14034" RevisionGUID="80a81a76-275b-4f0a-8d41-9054f78f495f" CreationDate="2017-02-26T18:21:41.043" UserId="8617" Text="It is something in between &quot;like a tardigrade&quot; and &quot;struggle to&quot; or &quot;barely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She struggled to learn the poem by heart. Она еле-еле выучила стих наизусть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы еле убежали от копов. The cops barely got us busted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is barely breathing. Он еле дышит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы еле затащили елку в дом. We struggled to drag the christmas tree into the house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14036" RevisionGUID="0c78fa67-8ff9-4328-89f7-903e17640676" CreationDate="2017-02-26T18:39:28.370" UserId="8591" Text="Katya-a-a-a and Katy-ia-ia-ia are the same" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="eeec620d-939c-42c6-9439-4b7a7a47e8ad" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:16:26.537" UserId="8618" Text="Привет!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the meaning of this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какие планы при выигрыше?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about the use of the preposition при. Is it 'what are your plans *if* you win', or 'what are your plans *in order to* win'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="eeec620d-939c-42c6-9439-4b7a7a47e8ad" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:16:26.537" UserId="8618" Text="help with translation of a sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="eeec620d-939c-42c6-9439-4b7a7a47e8ad" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:16:26.537" UserId="8618" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33618" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14037" RevisionGUID="435d02e7-a2ba-482f-af38-21b9518675c1" CreationDate="2017-02-26T19:17:39.827" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14038" RevisionGUID="17d9a699-c9bd-4e71-b60e-2fb4915c810e" CreationDate="2017-02-26T20:02:46.023" UserId="8617" Text="Withdraw me from it or call me off it, or exclude me from it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14039" RevisionGUID="a5d119b6-a238-43ff-b66d-6b09e0091901" CreationDate="2017-02-26T20:43:04.273" UserId="8617" Text="&quot;Ну, вы держитесь, там&quot; would fit perfectly nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also add on this picture:&#xD;&#xA;http://my-files.ru/97p3yl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14040" RevisionGUID="9b2a9eeb-205b-470e-adb4-dfd967804432" CreationDate="2017-02-26T21:51:11.070" UserId="8568" Text="V.V. forgot to say, what the endings -ович,-евич,-ич beside of patronymic can be surname.   &#xD;&#xA;Usually it change stress **Ива́нович** vs **Ивано́вич** or **Си́дорович** vs **Сидоро́вич**, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example [Иванович Бранислав](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иванович,_Бранислав):   &#xD;&#xA;Бран́ислав — name  &#xD;&#xA;Ива́нович — surname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Петрович Борис Петрович](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Петрович,_Борис_Петрович):   &#xD;&#xA;Борис — name  &#xD;&#xA;Петрович — patronymic  &#xD;&#xA;Петрович — surname&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian standard orders are:  &#xD;&#xA;[surname] [name] [patronymic]  &#xD;&#xA;[surname] [name]  &#xD;&#xA;[name] [patronymic]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;But russian also use englishish order: [name] [surname] or [name] [patronymic] [surname]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **Александр Иванович** is usually **[name] [patronymic]**, but very rarely it can be **[name] [surname]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14040" RevisionGUID="5a02f39e-533c-42c4-8d3e-50a492b5cb63" CreationDate="2017-02-26T22:08:31.273" UserId="8568" Comment="edited body" Text="V.V. forgot to say, what the endings -ович,-евич,-ич beside of patronymic can be surname.   &#xD;&#xA;Usually it change stress **Ива́нович** vs **Ивано́вич** or **Си́дорович** vs **Сидоро́вич**, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example [Иванович Бранислав](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иванович,_Бранислав):   &#xD;&#xA;Брани́слав — name  &#xD;&#xA;Ива́нович — surname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Петрович Борис Петрович](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Петрович,_Борис_Петрович):   &#xD;&#xA;Борис — name  &#xD;&#xA;Петрович — patronymic  &#xD;&#xA;Петрович — surname&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian standard orders are:  &#xD;&#xA;[surname] [name] [patronymic]  &#xD;&#xA;[surname] [name]  &#xD;&#xA;[name] [patronymic]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;But russian also use englishish order: [name] [surname] or [name] [patronymic] [surname]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **Александр Иванович** is usually **[name] [patronymic]**, but very rarely it can be **[name] [surname]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="4c370c3e-6172-4b50-b422-065ba5f0599c" CreationDate="2017-02-26T23:21:38.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/835993254835412992" />
  <row Id="33625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14041" RevisionGUID="829dca9a-e6dc-482d-b8e6-648a65f0cfb3" CreationDate="2017-02-26T23:47:16.693" UserId="6816" Text="How do you translate a sentence like: &quot;Everything here has a lot of sugar&quot; when talking about a food product containing some ingredient. I assume &quot;Здесь у всего много сахара&quot; makes no sense and there is a separate syntax for saying &quot;has&quot; in a case like this where the subject in question *contains* the object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14041" RevisionGUID="829dca9a-e6dc-482d-b8e6-648a65f0cfb3" CreationDate="2017-02-26T23:47:16.693" UserId="6816" Text="Translation of &quot;has&quot; in certain scenario" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14041" RevisionGUID="829dca9a-e6dc-482d-b8e6-648a65f0cfb3" CreationDate="2017-02-26T23:47:16.693" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14042" RevisionGUID="a916b53f-4511-4419-9a43-38fecf845450" CreationDate="2017-02-26T23:53:32.797" UserId="3680" Text="I believe you could use `содержит` - a literal translation of `contains`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь все содержит много сахара." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14043" RevisionGUID="4febc4d5-02e5-4757-ae0a-73583632fa45" CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:16:21.873" UserId="8621" Text="Literal translation doesn't always yield proper usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    здесь во всем много сахара" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="0334e68e-46fa-4465-b809-e4f8df248bf3" CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:46:35.677" UserId="8620" Text="Based on a limited sample of native Russian-speaking friends, I've come to understand that the adverb  &quot;абсолютно&quot; used as a sentence-word in a response is synonymous with &quot;no&quot; as in:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;-- Неужели Вы врали?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Абсолютно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recently I've come to doubt that this usage is as widely understood as I thought, and it probably depends on context. I would appreciate some clarification and possibly some linguistic reference similar to this article https://refdb.ru/look/2896246-pall.html which, ironically, deals with a similar problem in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="0334e68e-46fa-4465-b809-e4f8df248bf3" CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:46:35.677" UserId="8620" Text="use of &quot;абсолютно&quot; as negative sentence-word response" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="0334e68e-46fa-4465-b809-e4f8df248bf3" CreationDate="2017-02-27T04:46:35.677" UserId="8620" Text="|узус|наречия|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14045" RevisionGUID="19133bf2-26b7-43ec-948c-3d07f6a13430" CreationDate="2017-02-27T06:27:03.543" UserId="5443" Text="The reply doesn't sound correct to me here (it should be smth. like **Безусловно** instead), it sounds as informal as &quot;*я вам абсолютно врал*&quot; (as if it were a literal  translation from English; proper version: **безусловно, я вам врал**). The word **абсолютно** is almost never used as an adverb *on its own* and is mainly combined with adjectives, e. g. **абсолютно голый** (*- Он что, был голый? - Абсолютно!*). And I can't think of an example, where *абсолютно* could be used as a reply confirming something negated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14046" RevisionGUID="6ccc018d-7237-4e10-bfc6-aa34e2b37d8c" CreationDate="2017-02-27T08:17:23.767" UserId="8607" Text="It can also be translated as: &quot;Во всём этом содержится много сахара&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14047" RevisionGUID="f75f5cc5-5523-4b28-b098-8bd7fc5069ac" CreationDate="2017-02-27T08:20:27.683" UserId="6539" Text="The adverb **абсолютно** doesn't have a negative connotation. It is a degree adverb meaning **полностью, совсем, совершенно** and can be used only in terms of confirmation either of positive or negative information. Consider the following examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. – Можно ли на него положиться?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Абсолютно.(positive) (– Is he a reliable person? - Absolutely/Sure.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.– Скажешь, это невозможно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Абсолютно.(negative) (You'd say It's impossible, right? - Absolutely.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14045" RevisionGUID="5e848695-10de-48e1-a779-b7fd90bae098" CreationDate="2017-02-27T08:22:55.810" UserId="5443" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="The reply doesn't sound correct to me here (it should be smth. like **Безусловно** instead), it sounds as informal as &quot;*я вам абсолютно врал*&quot; (as if it were a literal  translation from English; proper version: **безусловно, я вам врал**). The word **абсолютно** is almost never used as an adverb *on its own* and is mainly combined with adjectives, e. g. **абсолютно голый** (*- Он что, был голый? - Абсолютно!*)*. And I can't think of an example, where *абсолютно* could be used as a reply confirming something negated indirectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** *Such a short reply is also possible to a question with (абсолютно) **всё** or **ничего** (*not a verb*) in focus, since **абсолютно всё** и **абсолютно ничего** are correct combinations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Неужели ваша собака **всё** понимает?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Абсолютно (всё).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With direct negation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Он что, **ничего** не понял?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Абсолютно (ничего)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14047" RevisionGUID="8544737e-9bea-4097-b4ec-07fb3dffc077" CreationDate="2017-02-27T09:35:10.153" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The adverb **абсолютно** doesn't have a negative connotation. It is a degree adverb meaning **полностью, совсем, совершенно** and can be used only in terms of confirmation either of positive or negative information. Consider the following examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. – А он честный человек ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;– Абсолютно.(positive) (– Is he a reliable person? - Absolutely/Sure.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.– Скажешь, это невозможно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Абсолютно.(negative) (You'd say It's impossible, right? - Absolutely.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14048" RevisionGUID="c319887d-75c8-4132-bd84-3fa48418444a" CreationDate="2017-02-27T11:32:06.427" UserId="8622" Text="**Berries** are always used with a **singular form** (at least I can't remember any usage of plural form). The reason I assume because one berry has little value and we usally speak about many, then there is no need for both singulars and plurals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в ведре клубника (There are strawberries in the bucket)&#xD;&#xA; - пирог с вишней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless with **diminuitive** you can use **plural form**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - вишня &amp;rarr; вишенка (singular) &amp;rarr; вишенки (plural)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Assuming there are 5 cherries on the plate, you can say:  &#xD;&#xA;Съешь эти вишенки! == Съешь эту вишню!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Greengroceries and roots** is also used in **singular form**, but it is also possible to use plural for diminuitives:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- лук (dual name for root and herb)&#xD;&#xA;- укроп: пучок укропа&#xD;&#xA;- салат (letucce)&#xD;&#xA;- капуста (considered as greengrocery)&#xD;&#xA;- картофель: ведро котрофеля, but ведро картошки&#xD;&#xA;- морковь: в сумке морковь, but в сумке морковки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33639" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="db3af470-2fcc-40f7-92d4-da2ebd22373c" CreationDate="2017-02-27T11:58:58.580" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Use of &quot;абсолютно&quot; as negative sentence-word response" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14040" RevisionGUID="1498610f-2c9a-4a3f-8aea-376246e238b9" CreationDate="2017-02-27T14:04:54.893" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typos" Text="V.V. forgot to say, what the endings -ович,-евич,-ич beside of patronymic can be surname.   &#xD;&#xA;Usually it change stress **Ива́нович** vs **Ивано́вич** or **Си́дорович** vs **Сидоро́вич**, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example [Иванович Бранислав](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иванович,_Бранислав):   &#xD;&#xA;Брани́слав — name  &#xD;&#xA;Ива́нович — surname.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Петрович Борис Петрович](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Петрович,_Борис_Петрович):   &#xD;&#xA;Борис — name  &#xD;&#xA;Петрович — patronymic  &#xD;&#xA;Петрович — surname&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian standard orders are:  &#xD;&#xA;[surname] [name] [patronymic]  &#xD;&#xA;[surname] [name]  &#xD;&#xA;[name] [patronymic]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;But Russian also uses English order: [name] [surname] or [name] [patronymic] [surname]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **Александр Иванович** is usually **[name] [patronymic]**, but very rarely it can be **[name] [surname]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14049" RevisionGUID="888d7883-047a-4c46-8fcb-d294cd322203" CreationDate="2017-02-27T14:48:42.133" UserId="8617" Text="If about country in common or if you're surrounded by shelves in a supermarket:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Здесь/тут везде всё с сахаром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're holding a bun or a cookie you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь/тут слишком много сахара.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or as mentioned above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь все содержит много сахара." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14034" RevisionGUID="c0c6a33a-7f33-4e3f-8ed0-14fa4e30f557" CreationDate="2017-02-27T14:54:56.253" UserId="8617" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="It is something in between &quot;like a tardigrade&quot; and &quot;struggle to&quot; or &quot;barely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She struggled to learn the poem by heart. Она еле-еле выучила стих наизусть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы еле убежали от копов. The cops barely got us busted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He is barely breathing. Он еле дышит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы еле затащили елку в дом. We struggled to drag the Christmas tree into the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еле-еле душа в теле." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33643" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2215" RevisionGUID="3608cf55-5c81-46e6-90c5-a2da5b68409f" CreationDate="2017-02-27T15:06:14.827" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;лук&quot; is a mass noun while &quot;огурец&quot; is not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14050" RevisionGUID="6c310367-64a0-47b7-930c-cbd8730e33d4" CreationDate="2017-02-27T17:23:25.410" UserId="8617" Text="У меня в сумке огурец / кабачок / баклажан / артишок&#xD;&#xA;I would use plural if you asked:&#xD;&#xA;У меня в сумке огурцы / кабачки / баклажаны / артишоки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can say:&#xD;&#xA;Купи картошку, морковку, лук, укроп, петрушку, салат&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;Купи картошки и морковки.&#xD;&#xA; пучок укропа (this one sounds funny because it means ukrainian fan due to former events in the ukraine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More interesting is why редиска is a mass noun.&#xD;&#xA;Если хочешь съесть пару штук, то можно сказать &quot;дай мне пару редисок&quot; или &quot;дай мне несколько штук&quot;, но если покупаешь, тогда нужно сказать &quot;взвесьте полкилограмма редиски&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14051" RevisionGUID="c0504d45-b9df-4028-9f9b-c7c3b6a2281b" CreationDate="2017-02-27T18:06:29.353" UserId="8617" Text="Когда я возвращался домой, я пританцовывал/танцевал.  &#xD;&#xA;Когда я возвращался домой, я увидел чудовище.  &#xD;&#xA;Когда я вернулся домой, я побежал в туалет.  &#xD;&#xA;Когда я возвращал товар, менеджер плакал.  &#xD;&#xA;Когда я вернул товар, менеджер расплакался/начал плакать/заплакал.  &#xD;&#xA;Маша вернулась домой. - Masha have come home. / Masha came home.  &#xD;&#xA;Маша возвращалась домой. - Masha was coming/going home.  &#xD;&#xA;Аня не хотела возвращаться домой.  &#xD;&#xA;Аня не могла вернуться домой.  &#xD;&#xA;Возват товара не предусмотрен.  &#xD;&#xA;возвратно-поступательное движение = reciprocation  &#xD;&#xA;but reciprocate = двигаться вперед-назад  &#xD;&#xA;Возвратиться is of very seldom use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14052" RevisionGUID="ed1b7159-2476-4222-a6c1-bd13f92c3071" CreationDate="2017-02-27T18:35:40.543" UserId="8617" Text="...он, по ходу, озверел из-за чего-то там.  &#xD;&#xA;...he seems to be furious at something.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По ходу, нас кинули!  &#xD;&#xA;It looks like we got scammed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33648" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14041" RevisionGUID="3aa2f2ac-7b2e-4642-bd33-0c8c3737e870" CreationDate="2017-02-27T23:30:53.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/836357967662432256" />
  <row Id="33649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14053" RevisionGUID="6bcc29d5-ed56-4550-9d1d-cf501abe5060" CreationDate="2017-02-28T03:39:44.673" UserId="3892" Text="¿Is the use of **как раз** with a past imperfective synonymous with **только что** in the following example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **как раз** разгова́ривал с твое́й до́чкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was **just** having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it limitative in this sentence, i.e. *that's all I was doing!* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14053" RevisionGUID="6bcc29d5-ed56-4550-9d1d-cf501abe5060" CreationDate="2017-02-28T03:39:44.673" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretations of как раз" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14053" RevisionGUID="6bcc29d5-ed56-4550-9d1d-cf501abe5060" CreationDate="2017-02-28T03:39:44.673" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14054" RevisionGUID="36c6e6f3-be4b-4498-91fa-25d15ff2d159" CreationDate="2017-02-28T04:35:14.537" UserId="310" Text="It doesn't necessarily mean только что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It references previous discussion and means that the new fact is related to it and is convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. you won't begin talking with such a phrase, so I can infer that it's not the beginning of the discussion and that the daughter was already discussed and there probably were some plans regarding her and that the speaker has, conveniently, just had a chat with aforementioned daugter, probably on a related topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как раз&quot; also generally means &quot;just right&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14055" RevisionGUID="597eedb2-149e-4bc8-8da1-8a66df64a0d3" CreationDate="2017-02-28T08:45:32.050" UserId="179" Text="Yes, it is synonymous to &quot;только что&quot;, but it does not matter whether the past or present, imperfective  or perfective is present. As far as I can remember right now, it means a very close position, juxtaposition, coincidence of almost anything (subjects, actions, sizes, you name it) — literally and figuratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Я как раз разговаривал с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    I was just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Я как раз разговариваю с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    I am just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Эти ботинки как раз мне подходят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    These shoes are exactly/right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Будет ли солнце? Как раз наоборот, будет дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Will it be shiny? Exactly the opposite, it will be raining.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14025" RevisionGUID="46cc623a-f1f6-4e28-a689-e2dd1ae353c9" CreationDate="2017-02-28T11:32:49.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/836539650089050116" />
  <row Id="33655" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14053" RevisionGUID="8d5217d0-0887-4476-be94-b16d84d8999d" CreationDate="2017-02-28T12:48:50.203" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Interpretations of &quot;как раз&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14055" RevisionGUID="fb36de81-0085-44a4-a048-1d3ba123f505" CreationDate="2017-02-28T13:55:58.867" UserId="179" Comment="some explanations to the examples have been added" Text="Yes, it is synonymous to &quot;только что&quot;, but it does not matter whether the past or present, imperfective  or perfective is present. As far as I can remember right now, it means a very close position, juxtaposition, coincidence of almost anything (subjects, actions, sizes, you name it) — literally and figuratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the talk with someone's daughter ended right before these words were said/written, so they, the conversation and the words almost coincided:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Я как раз разговаривал с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    I was just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the talk with someone's daughter is going exactly at the moment when these words were said/written, so they, the conversation and the words coincided in time:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Я как раз разговариваю с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    I am just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the size of the shoes and the size of the speaker's feet coincided:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Эти ботинки как раз мне подходят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    These shoes are exactly/right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the fact or forecast of a rain coincided with implied weather opposite to the shiny weather:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Будет ли солнце? Как раз наоборот, будет дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Will it be shiny? Exactly the opposite, it will be raining.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14055" RevisionGUID="5082fa0c-4f35-4548-b2ac-2b1b868a988e" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:33:37.507" UserId="179" Comment="some particular use cases have been examplified" Text="Yes, it is synonymous to &quot;только что&quot;, but it does not matter whether the past or present, imperfective  or perfective is present. As far as I can remember right now, it means a very close position, juxtaposition, coincidence of almost anything (subjects, actions, sizes, you name it) — literally and figuratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the talk with someone's daughter ended right before these words were said/written, so they, the conversation and the words almost coincided:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Я как раз разговаривал с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    I was just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the talk with someone's daughter is going exactly at the moment when these words were said/written, so they, the conversation and the words coincided in time:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я как раз разговариваю с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the size of the shoes and the size of the speaker's feet coincided:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти ботинки как раз мне подходят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These shoes are exactly/right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the fact or forecast of a rain coincided with implied weather opposite to the shiny weather:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будет ли солнце? Как раз наоборот, будет дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will it be shiny? Exactly the opposite, it will be raining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, it's important to note, that *как раз* in some situations can be used with some words in a sentence omitted, but I'm not sure whether such cases are not part of a broader issue in speech, not related directly to &quot;как раз&quot;. In such situations the omitted/implied part of a sentence should be clear from the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word &quot;подходят&quot; has to be inferred:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ботинки? Как раз [подходят]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are the shoes? They fit fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word &quot;наоборот&quot; has to be inferred:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будет ли солнце? Как раз [наоборот] будет дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will it be shiny? Quite the opposite, it will be raining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это далеко? Как раз близко&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it far away? Right the opposite, it is near" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14055" RevisionGUID="f8514296-6d37-4f6a-a620-44e86f66c582" CreationDate="2017-02-28T14:38:45.840" UserId="179" Comment="some particular use cases have been examplified" Text="Yes, it is synonymous to &quot;только что&quot;, but it does not matter whether the past or present, imperfective  or perfective is present. As far as I can remember right now, it means a very close position, juxtaposition, coincidence of almost anything (subjects, actions, sizes, you name it) — literally and figuratively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the talk with someone's daughter ended right before these words were said/written, so they, the conversation and the words almost coincided:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Я как раз разговаривал с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    I was just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the talk with someone's daughter is going exactly at the moment when these words were said/written, so they, the conversation and the words coincided in time:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я как раз разговариваю с твое́й дочкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the size of the shoes and the size of the speaker's feet coincided:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти ботинки как раз мне подходят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These shoes are exactly/right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the fact or forecast of a rain coincided with implied weather opposite to the shiny weather:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будет ли солнце? Как раз наоборот, будет дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will it be shiny? Exactly the opposite, it will be raining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, it's important to note, that *как раз* in some situations can be used with some words in a sentence omitted, but I'm not sure whether such cases are not part of a broader issue in speech, not related directly to &quot;как раз&quot;. In such situations the omitted/implied part of a sentence should be clear from the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word &quot;подходят&quot; has to be inferred:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ботинки? Как раз [подходят]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How are the shoes? They fit fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the word &quot;наоборот&quot; has to be inferred:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будет ли солнце? Как раз [наоборот] будет дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Will it be shiny? Quite the opposite, it will be raining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; John: Это далеко; It is far away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Kate: (Нет,) как раз близко; (No,) right the opposite, it is near&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="95995909-54b9-402c-b79c-6af839162ac6" CreationDate="2017-02-28T17:33:00.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/836630292710453248" />
  <row Id="33660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14056" RevisionGUID="3438d7f1-703c-4289-941f-308d546a6f07" CreationDate="2017-02-28T18:36:46.253" UserId="8617" Text="&#xD;&#xA;    Я как раз разгова́ривал с твое́й до́чкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I was just having a talk with your daughter.&#xD;&#xA;or:  &#xD;&#xA;I have just spoken with your daughter.  &#xD;&#xA;Я как раз на днях разгова́ривал с твое́й до́чкой.  &#xD;&#xA;I have (just) spoken with your daughter recently.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я как раз заварил чай, как знал/как будто знал , что вы придете.  &#xD;&#xA;Эти трусы тебе как раз/в самый раз.  &#xD;&#xA;Лето пришло, а я как раз подстригся.  &#xD;&#xA;Это как раз то, что нужно.  &#xD;&#xA;Джейн испекла торт, а Джек как раз скачал лицензионную копию фильма.  &#xD;&#xA;Этот клоунский нос тебе как раз/в самый раз.  &#xD;&#xA;Когда Владимир пришел на остановку, автобус как раз подъехал.  &#xD;&#xA;Мне как раз не хватало одного рубля до миллиона, спасибо, что подарил.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="3e7edb13-8648-421d-a0df-07474db78083" CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:10:23.010" UserId="8259" Text="It may be locative or dative, i am not used to locative declensions but if it is dative, why should be it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="3e7edb13-8648-421d-a0df-07474db78083" CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:10:23.010" UserId="8259" Text="what is the declesion of `В лесу` in this phrase: &quot;В лесу Волк встретил Красную Шапочку&quot;? why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="3e7edb13-8648-421d-a0df-07474db78083" CreationDate="2017-02-28T21:10:23.010" UserId="8259" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33664" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="eba461b7-8ef1-4b45-b524-0b3852b2cc08" CreationDate="2017-03-01T00:32:37.587" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1630],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33665" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13972" RevisionGUID="d17fd040-daa8-445d-a109-97b12d38d965" CreationDate="2017-03-01T02:42:22.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/836768548131323904" />
  <row Id="33667" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="b81746b6-7caa-444c-b55f-595eaf465ef4" CreationDate="2017-03-01T08:32:43.130" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the declesion of `В лесу` in this phrase: &quot;В лесу Волк встретил Красную Шапочку&quot;? why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14058" RevisionGUID="7eea0eb3-5e51-40a7-b4da-7c4630ae2a15" CreationDate="2017-03-01T09:25:56.430" UserId="7117" Text="Наткнулся на фразу &quot;**Выставка фотографов**&quot;. Это вообще правильно? Так можно сказать, когда речь идёт о &quot;Выставке работ фотографов&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если так можно сказать, то почему? Ведь фраза меняет свой смысл. И как тогда сказать о выставке, на которой будут выставлены сами фотографы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33669" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14058" RevisionGUID="7eea0eb3-5e51-40a7-b4da-7c4630ae2a15" CreationDate="2017-03-01T09:25:56.430" UserId="7117" Text="Выставка фотографов, или Выставка фотографий?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33670" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14058" RevisionGUID="7eea0eb3-5e51-40a7-b4da-7c4630ae2a15" CreationDate="2017-03-01T09:25:56.430" UserId="7117" Text="|грамматика|узус|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14058" RevisionGUID="2928f6c5-486f-4662-b269-8d867f5895ef" CreationDate="2017-03-01T09:45:22.863" UserId="7117" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Наткнулся на фразу &quot;**Выставка фотографов**&quot;. Это вообще правильно? Так можно сказать, когда речь идёт о &quot;Выставке работ фотографов&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если так можно сказать, то почему? Ведь фраза меняет свой смысл. И как тогда сказать о выставке, на которой будут выставлены сами фотографы?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И даже, если так можно сказать, то грамотно ли это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14059" RevisionGUID="0d19e2ef-86aa-41a9-a1be-7a12561bdd3e" CreationDate="2017-03-01T10:33:06.753" UserId="1836" Text="Выставка фотографов — это выставка, на которой представлены фотографии определенных фотографов. Это выражение используется с каким-нибудь определением (например &quot;выставка молодых фотографов&quot; или &quot;выставка английских фотографов&quot;). Так же как говорят &quot;выставка художников&quot; (опять же, обычно с определением). Имеется в виду, что фотографии на выставке выбраны исходя из того кем они сделаны, в отличие от выставки фотографий (природы например, или жанровых фотографий), где выбор делается исходя из темы снимка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не вполне понятно что такое &quot;выставка на которой будут выставлены сами фотографы&quot;. Скорей всего это будут какие-то изображения фотографов, тогда это будет &quot;выставка восковых фигур фотографов&quot; (или или посмертных масок, или чего-нибудь еще)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14027" RevisionGUID="cd8223da-ad5f-4d8e-b54b-23b8a6df8b78" CreationDate="2017-03-01T11:45:22.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/836905197377105920" />
  <row Id="33674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14060" RevisionGUID="e14ea15c-6252-4316-a4ac-a72d8b9e262d" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:06:46.523" UserId="2079" Text="Выставка фотографов - это выставка, экспонатами на которой являются фотографы.  Например, фотографы сидят в клетках, а посетители их рассматривают.  В противном случае это выставка фотографий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14060" RevisionGUID="6ae69388-227a-4f0e-abd8-4c110890fc56" CreationDate="2017-03-01T12:13:46.530" UserId="2079" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="Выставка фотографов - это выставка, экспонатами на которой являются фотографы.  Например, фотографы сидят в клетках, а посетители их рассматривают.  Если же экспонатами являются фотографии, то это выставка фотографий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Выставка молодых фотографов&quot; - тоже неправильно. Правильно &quot;выставка работ молодых фотографов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Корпус русского языка находит в общей сложности 21 документ с выражением &quot;выставка фотографий&quot; (во всех падежах и обоих числах), но ни одного вхождения выражения &quot;выставка фотографов&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14059" RevisionGUID="6af90c5c-48fb-4f1a-b549-52a58b45c2fe" CreationDate="2017-03-01T14:10:28.317" UserId="1836" Comment="added 2214 characters in body" Text="Выставка фотографов — это выставка, на которой представлены фотографии определенных фотографов. Это выражение используется с каким-нибудь определением (например &quot;выставка молодых фотографов&quot; или &quot;выставка английских фотографов&quot;). Так же как говорят &quot;выставка художников&quot; (опять же, обычно с определением). Имеется в виду, что фотографии на выставке выбраны исходя из того кем они сделаны, в отличие от выставки фотографий (природы например, или жанровых фотографий), где выбор делается исходя из темы снимка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение &quot;выставка фотографов&quot; можно сравнить с выражением &quot;выставка художников&quot;. Конечно, чисто технически, можно решить что это выставка, экспонатами которой являются художники. Но неоднозначности подобного рода встречаются в любом языке, и подобная неоднозначность не обязательно означает что так говорить неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Выставка художников&quot; в поиске корпуса русского языка][1] дает 14 вхождений&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Выставка (?) художников&quot; там же][2] — 278 вхождений&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Выставка произведений (?) художников&quot;][3] — 0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Выставка работ (?) художников&quot;][4] — 0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Выставка картин (?) художников&quot;][5] — 0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E2%FB%F1%F2%E0%E2%EA%E0%20%F5%F3%E4%EE%E6%ED%E8%EA%EE%E2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%FB%F1%F2%E0%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=2&amp;lex2=%F5%F3%E4%EE%E6%ED%E8%EA&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=sas1_2&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=100&amp;spp=100&amp;spd=100&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=ngrams_3_lexgr&amp;sort=gr_freq&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%FB%F1%F2%E0%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EF%F0%EE%E8%E7%E2%E5%E4%E5%ED%E8%E9&amp;gramm2=&amp;flags2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=3&amp;lex3=%F5%F3%E4%EE%E6%ED%E8%EA%EE%E2&amp;gramm3=&amp;flags3=&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=sas1_2&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=100&amp;spp=100&amp;spd=100&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=ngrams_3_lexgr&amp;sort=gr_freq&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%FB%F1%F2%E0%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F0%E0%E1%EE%F2&amp;gramm2=&amp;flags2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=2&amp;lex3=%F5%F3%E4%EE%E6%ED%E8%EA%EE%E2&amp;gramm3=&amp;flags3=&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=sas1_2&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=100&amp;spp=100&amp;spd=100&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=ngrams_3_lexgr&amp;sort=gr_freq&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E2%FB%F1%F2%E0%E2%EA%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;flags1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EA%E0%F0%F2%E8%ED&amp;gramm2=&amp;flags2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=2&amp;lex3=%F5%F3%E4%EE%E6%ED%E8%EA%EE%E2&amp;gramm3=&amp;flags3=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14061" RevisionGUID="f6a7a4ab-ce59-4fac-b5fb-3a5cbc139818" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:15:16.320" UserId="8617" Text="И как тогда сказать о выставке, на которой будут выставлены сами фотографы?  &#xD;&#xA;Though the phrase is ambiguous, it is implied that photographers bring their art to gallery for exhibition, thus you'll have to explain if you talk about exhibition where the artists themselves are incarcerated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33679" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14058" RevisionGUID="ece02c33-9d74-4889-b935-c4ec04bd0c23" CreationDate="2017-03-02T08:54:58.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/837224700140994560" />
  <row Id="33680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="f6aac97c-cf5a-41b3-84e3-bd0d7f4c83e2" CreationDate="2017-03-02T14:59:44.917" UserId="8259" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="It may be locative or dative, i am not used to locative declensions but if it is dative, why should be it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is claimed to be duplicate, but i truly can not see the similarity between this question and the one appointed in the duplication claim. Because i am searching the grammatical aspect of this declension, i gave an example, but i do not want an example, i want to understand why this declension was used, where more it is used, and how it may be used in another cases. thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33686" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="4c50370c-124e-425b-974f-dc93a677e2f6" CreationDate="2017-03-03T08:03:39.087" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14063" RevisionGUID="0b8e804d-8fa8-4690-b943-c7adcc9ff6ba" CreationDate="2017-03-03T09:49:31.573" UserId="134" Text="This is locative indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a homograph of dative, however it differs in stress: locative is *лесу&amp;#x0301;* (*я гуляю в лесу&amp;#x0301;*), dative is *ле&amp;#x0301;су* (*я вышел к ле&amp;#x0301;су*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locative forms exist for a quite large, if limited, number of II and III declension nouns (those ending in a consonant or *-ь* in nominative), mostly having monosyllabic roots. Usually they designate something things can &quot;be in&quot;: enclosures (*лес, берег, тень*); containers (*шкаф, короб, гроб*); substances and materials (*мёд, пух, спирт*); states (*бой, бред, тишь*); some proper nouns (*Крым*, *Клин*, *Дон*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not any given noun has a locative is something you have to learn by heart, and some nouns can confuse even native Russian speakers: *пляж, мел, отпуск* all technically have locative, however, using the locative form of these nouns sounds quite peculiar to a modern Russian speaker's ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some homonyms have a locative in one meaning and don't have it in another: *мир* meaning &quot;world&quot; or &quot;peace&quot; does not have a locative; the same word meaning &quot;society&quot; or &quot;laity&quot; does have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used with the prepositions *в* and *на*, and, as the name suggests, mostly it means that something is &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot; the object: *гулять в лесу&amp;#x0301;; быть в раю&amp;#x0301;*. It can also have some secondary meanings: &quot;to be covered or treated with&quot; (*рыльце в пуху&amp;#x0301;; курица в меду&amp;#x0301;; настойка на спирту&amp;#x0301;*, etc., similar to English &quot;chicken in honey sauce&quot;), &quot;to play on&quot; (*играть на басу&amp;#x0301;*), &quot;to swear on&quot; (*клясться на крови&amp;#x0301;*) and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other meanings the prepositional is used with the same prepositions: *видеть в мёде источник богатства* (&quot;to see honey as a source of wealth*), *делать деньги на мехе* (&quot;to make money out of furs*) etc. In both cases above, *в* and *на* do not mean &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot; in their usual sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14048" RevisionGUID="af5bc867-c358-4caa-b91a-8ef5ae16d701" CreationDate="2017-03-03T13:41:23.307" UserId="8622" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="**Berries** are always used with a **singular form** (at least I can't remember any usage of plural form). The reason I assume because one berry has little value and we usally speak about many, then there is no need for both singulars and plurals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в ведре клубника (There are strawberries in the bucket)&#xD;&#xA; - пирог с вишней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless with **diminuitive** you can use **plural form**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - вишня &amp;rarr; вишенка (singular) &amp;rarr; вишенки (plural)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Assuming there are 5 cherries on the plate, you can say:  &#xD;&#xA;Съешь эти вишенки! == Съешь эту вишню!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Greengroceries and roots** is also used in **singular form**, but it is also possible to use plural for diminuitives:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- лук (dual name for root and herb)&#xD;&#xA;- укроп: пучок укропа&#xD;&#xA;- салат (letucce)&#xD;&#xA;- капуста (considered as greengrocery)&#xD;&#xA;- картофель: в ведре котрофель, but в ведре картофелины&#xD;&#xA;- морковь: в сумке морковь, but в сумке морковки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB! Картошка === картофель, though картофель from german Kartoffel, but картошка is more russian word.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14063" RevisionGUID="cf3f2015-bbab-467b-b577-15fba50c3ccf" CreationDate="2017-03-03T14:25:53.150" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="This is locative indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a homograph of dative, however it differs in stress: locative is *лесу&amp;#x0301;* (*я гуляю в лесу&amp;#x0301;*), dative is *ле&amp;#x0301;су* (*я вышел к ле&amp;#x0301;су*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locative forms exist for a quite large, if limited, number of II and III declension nouns (those ending in a consonant or *-ь* in nominative), mostly having monosyllabic roots. Usually they designate something things can &quot;be in&quot;: enclosures (*лес, берег, тень*); containers (*шкаф, короб, гроб*); substances and materials (*мёд, пух, спирт*); states (*бой, бред, тишь*); some proper nouns (*Крым*, *Клин*, *Дон*) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not any given noun has a locative is something you have to learn by heart, and some nouns can confuse even native Russian speakers: *пляж, мел, отпуск* all technically have locative, however, using the locative form of these nouns sounds quite peculiar to a modern Russian speaker's ear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some homonyms have a locative in one meaning and don't have it in another: *мир* meaning &quot;world&quot; or &quot;peace&quot; does not have a locative; the same word meaning &quot;society&quot; or &quot;laity&quot; does have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used with the prepositions *в* and *на*, and, as the name suggests, mostly it means that something is &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot; the object: *гулять в лесу&amp;#x0301;; быть в раю&amp;#x0301;*. It can also have some secondary meanings: &quot;to be covered or treated with&quot; (*рыльце в пуху&amp;#x0301;; курица в меду&amp;#x0301;; настойка на спирту&amp;#x0301;*, etc., similar to English &quot;chicken in honey sauce&quot;), &quot;to play on&quot; (*играть на басу&amp;#x0301;*), &quot;to swear on&quot; (*клясться на крови&amp;#x0301;*) and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other meanings the prepositional is used with the same prepositions: *видеть в мёде источник богатства* (&quot;to see honey as a source of wealth&quot;), *делать деньги на мехе* (&quot;to make money out of furs&quot;) etc. In both cases above, *в* and *на* do not mean &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot; in their usual sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14053" RevisionGUID="6de43048-b1d4-493a-9d8f-8c15e7e797af" CreationDate="2017-03-04T12:03:50.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/837997006966689794" />
  <row Id="33691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14064" RevisionGUID="73cab799-a68b-4495-9b5f-f7d9eaace5e2" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:28:20.640" UserId="194" Text="In plural, в слезАх - о слЁзах, в соплЯх - о сОплях, в слюнЯх - о слЮнях, на снастЯх - о снАстях, в страстЯх - о стрАстях also fixed form на сносЯх." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14064" RevisionGUID="5cb7f1e2-c0c5-4f90-ae3e-4a37488c1161" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:35:02.680" UserId="194" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="In plural, в слезАх - о слЁзах, в соплЯх - о сОплях, в слюнЯх - о слЮнях, в яслЯх - о Яслях, на снастЯх - о снАстях, в страстЯх - о стрАстях also fixed form на сносЯх." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="e0881958-3d3d-4b0e-8d97-406d85b79c61" CreationDate="2017-03-04T14:36:02.357" UserId="194" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    хвост в хвосте о хвосте&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;    плот на плоту о плоте&#xD;&#xA;    хмель во хмелю о хмеле&#xD;&#xA;    верх на верху о верхе&#xD;&#xA;    бас на басу о басе&#xD;&#xA;    спирт на спирту о спирте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    тишь в тишИ о тИши&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;    стрАсти в страстЯх о стрАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="432d945f-490b-42c9-a88c-98521ed56e6a" CreationDate="2017-03-04T20:55:37.593" UserId="194" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    хвост в хвосте о хвосте&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;    плот на плоту о плоте&#xD;&#xA;    хмель во хмелю о хмеле&#xD;&#xA;    верх на верху о верхе&#xD;&#xA;    бас на басу о басе&#xD;&#xA;    спирт на спирту о спирте&#xD;&#xA;    кон на кону о коне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine proper nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    тишь в тишИ о тИши&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;    стрАсти в страстЯх о стрАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14065" RevisionGUID="0a2ad539-4747-4471-b511-440aac222a0c" CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:39:25.473" UserId="7239" Text="This is somewhat related to a [previous question][1] of mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What does &quot;на&quot; mean in expressions relating to time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess had been that &quot;на&quot; used in expressions related to time somehow indicated that the action would occur after the amount of time in the accusative case following &quot;на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, such expressions appear to also occur in the past tense, which seems to indicate my attempt at interpretation is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples from my workbook are all sentences with perfective verbs. However, I don't think that could explain the meaning somehow, since that explains the difference between &quot;за+accusative&quot; and &quot;accusative&quot; for expressions involving time, unless &quot;за&quot; and &quot;на&quot; were synonymous in this context. That seems unlikely to me although I have no idea either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some exercises from my workbook involve explaining the meaning of sentences involving &quot;на&quot; and expressions of time. Examples are below which hopefully can clarify what I am confused about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На сколько времени вы приехали в Москву? Мы приехали в Москву на один год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он взял словарь на час. Он будет смотреть словарь час.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они приехали в Москву на месяц. Они будут в Москве месяц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я взял книгу на неделю. Она взяла журнал на один день. Они взяли магнитофон на вечер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они приехали в нашу страну на полгода. Туристы приехали в Ярославль на неделю. Она поехала в санаторий на месяц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13787/what-is-the-meaning-of-%D0%B7%D0%B0-in-expressions-relating-to-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14065" RevisionGUID="0a2ad539-4747-4471-b511-440aac222a0c" CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:39:25.473" UserId="7239" Text="What does &quot;на&quot; mean in expressions relating to time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14065" RevisionGUID="0a2ad539-4747-4471-b511-440aac222a0c" CreationDate="2017-03-05T14:39:25.473" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14066" RevisionGUID="e49075d9-bc4d-43de-8403-27e6348012e6" CreationDate="2017-03-05T15:13:48.753" UserId="2079" Text="First, the &quot;perfective + на&quot; is equivalent to English &quot;verb + for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он взял книгу на неделю - he borrowed a book for a week.&#xD;&#xA;Она уехал в Москву на месяц - she left to Moscow for a month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some action is done for its temporary consequences, the preposition `на` tells how long these consequences last (NOT how long the action itself lasts).  For example, if one borrows a book, he/she does it in order to posess a book for a while.  So `на` tells us how long he will posess a book.  If one is imprisoned (Russian: `он сел в тюрьму`, or `его посадили в тюрьму`, or just `его посадили`), the authorities do it in order to keep him in prison for some time, so `на` tells for how long they intend to keep him in prison (`его посадили на два года`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also навсегда - forever (i. e. `он уехал из России навсегда`), and на какое-то/некоторое время (i. e. `я решил на какое-то время уехать в Индию`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="8570112d-5f99-40c1-8437-30a933018cde" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:56:20.103" UserId="8656" Text="I've seen this used on the web as a translation for &quot;oh my God&quot; . Even though, as far as I know, there is a more literal translation (боже мой) which seems also to be in common use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ... what's the link between God and alcoholic drinks? Or, possibly, God and sticky tape (I'm not quite clear what sort of &quot;scotch&quot; is being referred to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a phrase widely used? What sort of situations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="8570112d-5f99-40c1-8437-30a933018cde" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:56:20.103" UserId="8656" Text="Can someone explain &quot;ой мой скотч&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="8570112d-5f99-40c1-8437-30a933018cde" CreationDate="2017-03-05T17:56:20.103" UserId="8656" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="dd0f231a-ad0c-4d59-bb8f-31bfe8b56802" CreationDate="2017-03-05T19:56:49.727" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I've seen this used on the web as a translation for &quot;oh my God&quot; . Even though, as far as I know, there is a more literal translation (боже мой) which seems also to be in common use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ... what's the link between God and alcoholic drinks? Or, possibly, God and sticky tape (I'm not quite clear what sort of &quot;scotch&quot; is being referred to)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a phrase widely used? What sort of situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="9945e7bc-298c-44f0-9926-5ef4eddd5884" CreationDate="2017-03-05T20:05:13.417" UserId="8318" Text="I've noticed a couple of patterns in regards to forming nouns from verbs. &#xA;&#xA;1) Removing the -ть from verbs ending in -бить/быть, -вить, чать and -ять and adding -тие (for example: разбить --&gt; разбитие, закрыть --&gt; закрытие). &#xA;*However, I've noticed that there are some exceptions with suffix -ние (e.g. Обожать --&gt; обожание). &#xA;&#xA;2) removing -ть from -дать verbs (e.g. выдать --&gt; выдача)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Can anyone help clear up the -ние / -тие distinction from the first question or help me work out simple formulas with remove verbal stems and adding suffixes?&#xA;Also, if you also know any way of formulating adjectives from either verbs or nouns I'd also appreciate this. &#xA;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="9945e7bc-298c-44f0-9926-5ef4eddd5884" CreationDate="2017-03-05T20:05:13.417" UserId="8318" Text="Forming Russian nouns from verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="9945e7bc-298c-44f0-9926-5ef4eddd5884" CreationDate="2017-03-05T20:05:13.417" UserId="8318" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|прилагательные|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14066" RevisionGUID="4d163e1e-ce69-4645-be3f-7a9296169cf6" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:30:55.350" UserId="2079" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="First, the &quot;perfective + на&quot; is equivalent to English &quot;verb + for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он взял книгу на неделю` - `he borrowed a book for a week`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Она уехала в Москву на месяц` - `she left to Moscow for a month`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some action is done for its temporary consequences, the preposition `на` tells how long these consequences last (NOT how long the action itself lasts).  For example, if one borrows a book, he/she does it in order to posess a book for a while.  So `на` tells us how long he will posess a book.  If one is imprisoned (Russian: `он сел в тюрьму`, or `его посадили в тюрьму`, or just `его посадили`), the authorities do it in order to keep him in prison for some time, so `на` tells for how long they intend to keep him in prison (`его посадили на два года`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also навсегда - forever (i. e. `он уехал из России навсегда`), and на какое-то/некоторое время (i. e. `я решил на какое-то время уехать в Индию`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="3a9211cb-5292-453e-9dfc-a9c7902d3684" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:48:42.197" UserId="8657" Text="There is a tipical construction that I do not know specially when concerning about movements, in which we use the preposition y instead of the subject? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="3a9211cb-5292-453e-9dfc-a9c7902d3684" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:48:42.197" UserId="8657" Text="What is &quot;у меня&quot; in &quot;после русския языка у меня будет химия&quot; why not &quot; после русского языка я буду в лекцию химия&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="3a9211cb-5292-453e-9dfc-a9c7902d3684" CreationDate="2017-03-05T22:48:42.197" UserId="8657" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14066" RevisionGUID="47ffdcab-c01c-47f1-afea-fbae3921a56b" CreationDate="2017-03-05T23:57:46.127" UserId="4629" Comment="typo" Text="First, the &quot;perfective + на&quot; is equivalent to English &quot;verb + for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он взял книгу на неделю` - `he borrowed a book for a week`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Она уехала в Москву на месяц` - `she left for Moscow for a month`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some action is done for its temporary consequences, the preposition `на` tells how long these consequences last (NOT how long the action itself lasts).  For example, if one borrows a book, he/she does it in order to posess a book for a while.  So `на` tells us how long he will posess a book.  If one is imprisoned (Russian: `он сел в тюрьму`, or `его посадили в тюрьму`, or just `его посадили`), the authorities do it in order to keep him in prison for some time, so `на` tells for how long they intend to keep him in prison (`его посадили на два года`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also навсегда - forever (i. e. `он уехал из России навсегда`), and на какое-то/некоторое время (i. e. `я решил на какое-то время уехать в Индию`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14071" RevisionGUID="68eb759d-fad5-4156-ab27-5fb37bf158e0" CreationDate="2017-03-06T00:07:31.320" UserId="4629" Text="The following article explains your subject rather well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/aa120199a.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14071" RevisionGUID="7734bc62-1f52-46f9-b4e3-39506ef13380" CreationDate="2017-03-06T00:16:53.903" UserId="4629" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="The following article explains your subject rather well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://masterrussian.com/aa120199a.shtml&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example, in particular, has a direct English analogy: *I have Chemistry after Russian* sounds quite regular." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33720" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13976" RevisionGUID="3a02cac7-2378-4a67-8751-d3d2a079fb40" CreationDate="2017-03-06T03:12:41.523" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/838588114968981504" />
  <row Id="33721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14073" RevisionGUID="e8a05a19-2714-47c2-8b42-a5e06a916132" CreationDate="2017-03-06T05:31:53.907" UserId="8658" Text="Гостеприимство is a readiness and willingness of a person to greet and feed the guests. &#xD;&#xA;Гостеприимство is a quality of a person or a nation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14074" RevisionGUID="63dfa5fd-8e54-4df5-b234-e8fa30f0fb57" CreationDate="2017-03-06T05:43:12.827" UserId="8658" Text="It is simply a kind of a joke. Russians tend to add new words into well-known proverbs and idioms. They would say &quot; о мой лук&quot; or &quot;о мой краб&quot; instead of a traditional experession just for fun. I very much remember my friend saying &quot;oi-oi-oi moi babUshki&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14075" RevisionGUID="8050b211-be21-49ab-a838-8c8062fe0015" CreationDate="2017-03-06T07:03:52.290" UserId="2383" Text="I am not sure if this is a proper place to post this question, but I was unable to find any better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There in software development, we tend to use Russian word “костыль” (crutch) to denote the solution, which is to prop the existing code up, not to fix the real cause of the problem. It’s wry and is usually used in a negative sense, like “I’ll put a crutch here for now, but when we are not in rush, it should be fixed properly.” The code behaves as a human being on their crutches: they walk somehow, but the observers fear they to drop down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: is “crutch” sounds legit in this context in English, and if not, is there any close analog of “костыль” in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14075" RevisionGUID="8050b211-be21-49ab-a838-8c8062fe0015" CreationDate="2017-03-06T07:03:52.290" UserId="2383" Text="Analog of IT term “костыль” in English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14075" RevisionGUID="8050b211-be21-49ab-a838-8c8062fe0015" CreationDate="2017-03-06T07:03:52.290" UserId="2383" Text="|сленг|software|it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14076" RevisionGUID="ba5812c7-5b0a-42f2-a21b-ec99d56b71c9" CreationDate="2017-03-06T07:58:31.347" UserId="6539" Text="The phrase *у меня есть* means possession =я имею (I have).Your sentence contain this phrase in the future tense *у меня будет* (I will have, I am having).The sentence should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После русского языка у меня будет химия(лекция по химии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use another verb to describe your action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После (урока) русского языка я пойду на лекцию по химии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Я буду на лекции&quot; is understandable too,but sounds a bit clumsy )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14076" RevisionGUID="7586076d-933a-40e7-bd81-000cc37fc9ef" CreationDate="2017-03-06T08:30:11.253" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The phrase *у меня есть* means possession =я имею (I have).Your sentence contain this phrase in the future tense *у меня будет* (I will have, I am having).The sentence should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После русского языка у меня будет химия (лекция по химии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use another verb to describe your action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После (урока) русского языка я пойду на лекцию по химии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Я буду на лекции&quot; is understandable too,but sounds a bit clumsy )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14077" RevisionGUID="8e19888f-2908-4722-8bf7-2ae8682e66fb" CreationDate="2017-03-06T09:48:38.207" UserId="8555" Text="I use &quot;dirty hack&quot; in such cases. I think that &quot;hack&quot; or &quot;workaround&quot; have not such negative connotations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33729" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14075" RevisionGUID="2156fa54-7439-4071-bb9d-4ee0a2e04103" CreationDate="2017-03-06T10:46:16.243" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14078" RevisionGUID="0425efbf-9c88-458f-8fa4-89527b7b48f4" CreationDate="2017-03-06T11:34:32.550" UserDisplayName="user8659" Text="There are following lines in a poem:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Observe what’s vivid&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vividness is self-selecting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word &quot;vivid&quot; is usually translated as &quot;яркий&quot;, &quot;ясный&quot;. What could be meaning of &quot;vividness&quot; in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14078" RevisionGUID="0425efbf-9c88-458f-8fa4-89527b7b48f4" CreationDate="2017-03-06T11:34:32.550" UserDisplayName="user8659" Text="What could be meaning and translation of the word &quot;vivid&quot; in this context: &quot;Vividness is self-selecting&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14078" RevisionGUID="0425efbf-9c88-458f-8fa4-89527b7b48f4" CreationDate="2017-03-06T11:34:32.550" UserDisplayName="user8659" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14076" RevisionGUID="398280f3-0cab-407c-aa4a-8e7dbcb2f5b4" CreationDate="2017-03-06T13:07:25.493" UserId="6539" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The phrase *у меня есть* means possession =я имею (I have).Your sentence contain@s this phrase in the future tense *у меня будет* (I will have, I am having).The sentence should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После русского языка у меня будет химия (лекция по химии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use another verb to describe your action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После (урока) русского языка я пойду на лекцию по химии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Я буду на лекции&quot; is understandable too,but sounds a bit clumsy )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14076" RevisionGUID="17472935-fa5b-4286-88e5-5fcf28707465" CreationDate="2017-03-06T14:02:26.953" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing, punctuation and mistakes corrected." Text="The phrase *у меня есть* means possession = *я имею* (I have). Your sentence contains this phrase in the future tense *у меня будет* (I will have, I am having). The sentence should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После русского языка у меня будет химия (лекция по химии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use another verb to describe your action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После (урока) русского языка я пойду на лекцию по химии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;Я буду на лекции&quot; is understandable too, but sounds a bit clumsy.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33735" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14078" RevisionGUID="cfd3c23a-a981-44ca-a923-101cf3c4e1dd" CreationDate="2017-03-06T16:43:01.530" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33737" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="c0dc508b-d7cf-4c48-ba37-db984158bf7b" CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:02:12.030" UserId="8657" Comment="edited title" Text="What is &quot;у меня&quot; in &quot;после русского языка у меня будет химия&quot; why not &quot; после русского языка я буду в лекцию химия&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14066" RevisionGUID="fa742c65-c342-4ce0-be3d-5952fde7809b" CreationDate="2017-03-06T20:15:33.163" UserId="2079" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="First, the &quot;verb + на&quot; is equivalent to English &quot;verb + for&quot;.  In Russian, the verb is perfective in most cases, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он взял книгу на неделю` - `he borrowed (lit. took) a book for a week`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Она уехала в Москву на месяц` - `she left for Moscow for a month`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Беру эту книгу на две недели` - `I borrow (lit. take) this book for two weeks`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some action is done for its temporary consequences, the preposition `на` tells how long these consequences intend to last (NOT how long the action itself lasts, NOT how long the consequences really last).  For example, if one borrows a book, he/she does it in order to posess a book for a while.  So `на` tells us how long he will posess a book.  If one is imprisoned (Russian: `он сел в тюрьму`, or `его посадили в тюрьму`, or just `его посадили`), the authorities do it in order to keep him in prison for some time, so `на` tells for how long they intend to keep him in prison (`его посадили на два года`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also навсегда - forever (i. e. `он уехал из России навсегда`), and на какое-то/некоторое время (i. e. `я решил на какое-то время уехать в Индию`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14079" RevisionGUID="5111caf6-bb18-47f4-80c8-f31049d13341" CreationDate="2017-03-06T21:49:17.193" UserId="4903" Text="Скотч (Scotch - trademarked by 3M) - clear tape that is used in the office and in school. It became an internet meme, as provided in a link by [Quassnoi][1].  Just like Americans like to say that duct tape can fix any problem, the clear tape can be used in the same way to fix anything.  Hence there is a notion that &quot;скотч&quot; is god, because of its omnipotence. The phrase &quot;о, мой скотч&quot; is a calque from English &quot;Oh, my god / omg&quot;, replacing &quot;god&quot; with &quot;скотч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative form is &quot;о скотче,&quot; similar to Russian &quot;о боже.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thisishorosho.ru/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14080" RevisionGUID="b7c2e353-b8b6-4463-856c-db35b286bb7e" CreationDate="2017-03-06T22:04:41.390" UserId="4903" Text="It may work the other way around.  If you see a noun with one of those endings, then you know that is derived from a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns were derived from verbs over a long period of time in different locations. That's why the patterns are slightly different. There is nothing in Russian language that prevents you from taking a verb **&quot;обожать&quot;** and make nouns **&quot;обожатие&quot;**, or **&quot;обожача&quot;**, instead of **&quot;обожание.&quot;**  For some long forgotten reason only one of those forms stayed in the language, but not the others.  For  example, there is an archaic word **&quot;выданье&quot;** which has a meaning similar to **&quot;выдача&quot;.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="ee7816be-ae62-4239-8835-0469858ffac5" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:02:00.827" UserId="5423" Text="I'm trying to understand how spelling works in Russian. Why does &quot;томат&quot; lack an &quot;o&quot; at the end, when some other words which I assume are derived from European loanwords, such as &quot;пианино&quot; or &quot;метро&quot;, have an &quot;о&quot; at the end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English edition of Wiktionary lacked etymology info for &quot;томат&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="ee7816be-ae62-4239-8835-0469858ffac5" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:02:00.827" UserId="5423" Text="Why is &quot;томат&quot; spelt without an &quot;o&quot; at the end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="ee7816be-ae62-4239-8835-0469858ffac5" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:02:00.827" UserId="5423" Text="|правописание|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14082" RevisionGUID="6fb195fd-5bdf-4c8f-a674-b25c12cef9dc" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:11:40.730" UserId="242" Text="Why on Earth it should be? Just because in other languages -ato ending are OK for nouns? Why `банан` and not `банана`? Or `кофе` but not `кофи`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is emotional part of an answer, and as of the facts - well, it was derived from French `tomate` (which is something mentioned in Russian wiktionary by the way)  where it was already pronounced pretty much the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the main question is why we are not pronouncing it like томатль - after all it was originally that way )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14082" RevisionGUID="746bf284-435f-4489-a6a8-5fb5462a2495" CreationDate="2017-03-07T01:29:13.510" UserId="242" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Why on Earth it should be? Just because in other languages -ato ending are OK for nouns? Why `банан` and not `банана`? Or `кофе` but not `кофи`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is emotional part of an answer, and as of the facts - well, it was derived from French `tomate` (which is something mentioned in [Russian wiktionary][1] by the way)  and in French it was already pronounced pretty much the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the main question is why we are not pronouncing it like томатль - after all it was originally that way )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33746" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14067" RevisionGUID="b6f4427f-4f51-4d98-bca6-0458857c8eef" CreationDate="2017-03-07T03:30:58.817" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/838955105290502148" />
  <row Id="33747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14066" RevisionGUID="a83c3afb-8ad3-4749-b339-7c357705a447" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:17:13.747" UserId="2079" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="First, the &quot;verb + на&quot; is equivalent to English &quot;verb + for&quot;.  In Russian, the verb is perfective in most cases, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он взял книгу на неделю` - `he borrowed (lit. took) a book for a week`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Она уехала в Москву на месяц` - `she left for Moscow for a month`.  &#xD;&#xA;`Беру эту книгу на две недели` - `I borrow (lit. take) this book for two weeks`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some action is done for its temporary consequences, the preposition `на` tells how long these consequences intend to last (NOT how long the action itself lasts, and usually not how long the consequences really last).  For example, if one borrows a book, he/she does it in order to posess a book for a while.  So `на` tells us how long he will posess a book.  If one is imprisoned (Russian: `он сел в тюрьму`, or `его посадили в тюрьму`, or just `его посадили`), the authorities do it in order to keep him in prison for some time, so `на` tells for how long they intend to keep him in prison (`его посадили на два года`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also навсегда - forever (i. e. `он уехал из России навсегда`), and на какое-то/некоторое время (i. e. `я решил на какое-то время уехать в Индию`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14080" RevisionGUID="136f8eaa-1715-4416-8b43-b13135d506d1" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:01:45.360" UserId="7544" Comment="Clarified the question, made it more clear that you CAN'T say &quot;обожача&quot; or &quot;обожатие&quot; now" Text="It may work the other way around.  If you see a noun with one of those endings, then you know that is derived from a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns were derived from verbs over a long period of time in different locations. That's why the patterns are slightly different. There is nothing in Russian language that would prevent you from taking a verb **&quot;обожать&quot;** a couple of ages ago and make nouns **&quot;обожатие&quot;**, or **&quot;обожача&quot;**, instead of **&quot;обожание.&quot;**  For some long forgotten reason only one of those forms stayed in the language, but not the others.  For  example, there is an archaic word **&quot;выданье&quot;** which has a meaning similar to **&quot;выдача&quot;**, but currently has a connotation of **&quot;to espouse a girl&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33749" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14080" RevisionGUID="136f8eaa-1715-4416-8b43-b13135d506d1" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:01:45.360" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 4903 edit id of 840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14079" RevisionGUID="23373766-e40e-49ea-bae6-796aeff71f6b" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:04:36.540" UserId="7544" Comment="Fixed case" Text="Скотч (Scotch - trademarked by 3M) - clear tape that is used in the office and in school. It became an internet meme, as provided in a link by [Quassnoi][1].  Just like Americans like to say that duct tape can fix any problem, the clear tape can be used in the same way to fix anything.  Hence there is a notion that &quot;скотч&quot; is god, because of its omnipotence. The phrase &quot;о, мой скотч&quot; is a calque from English &quot;Oh, my god / omg&quot;, replacing &quot;god&quot; with &quot;скотч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative form is &quot;О СКОТЧЕ,&quot; similar to Russian &quot;о Боже.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thisishorosho.ru/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33751" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14079" RevisionGUID="23373766-e40e-49ea-bae6-796aeff71f6b" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:04:36.540" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by -1 edit id of 841" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14079" RevisionGUID="53fe7bc7-98b8-4ccc-a8ec-cd064f4d3a69" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:04:36.540" UserId="4903" Comment="Fixed case" Text="Скотч (Scotch - trademarked by 3M) - clear tape that is used in the office and in school. It became an internet meme, as provided in a link by [Quassnoi][1].  Just like Americans like to say that duct tape can fix any problem, the clear tape can be used in the same way to fix anything.  Hence there is a notion that &quot;скотч&quot; is god, because of its omnipotence. The phrase &quot;о, мой скотч&quot; is a calque from English &quot;Oh, my god / omg&quot;, replacing &quot;god&quot; with &quot;скотч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative form is &quot;О Скотче,&quot; similar to Russian &quot;о Боже.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thisishorosho.ru/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14080" RevisionGUID="b695dcee-7d3a-4cb4-ab53-1bbdb4545b25" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:07:17.527" UserId="4903" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It may work the other way around.  If you see a noun with one of those endings, then you know that is derived from a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nouns were derived from verbs over a long period of time in different locations. That's why the patterns are slightly different. There is nothing in Russian language that would have prevented you from taking a verb **&quot;обожать&quot;** some centuries ago and make nouns **&quot;обожатие&quot;**, or **&quot;обожача&quot;**, instead of **&quot;обожание.&quot;**  For some long forgotten reason only one of those forms stayed in the language, but not the others.  For  example, there is an archaic word **&quot;выданье&quot;** which has a meaning similar to **&quot;выдача&quot;**, but currently has a connotation of **&quot;to betroth a daughter&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="284c5660-c44a-4914-ae27-6b3e25dcec00" CreationDate="2017-03-07T08:34:25.093" UserId="242" Comment="added 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm trying to understand how spelling works in Russian. Why does &quot;томат&quot; lack an &quot;o&quot; at the end, when some other words which I assume are derived from European loanwords, such as &quot;пианино&quot; or &quot;метро&quot;, have an &quot;о&quot; at the end?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English [edition][1] of Wiktionary lacked etymology info for &quot;томат&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="284c5660-c44a-4914-ae27-6b3e25dcec00" CreationDate="2017-03-07T08:34:25.093" UserId="242" Comment="added 79 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|этимология|правописание|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33758" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14065" RevisionGUID="f63916b8-a896-424e-bd88-0d119a1f362d" CreationDate="2017-03-07T09:31:00.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/839045708741296128" />
  <row Id="33759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14082" RevisionGUID="fcaa4037-127c-4947-8a5d-855d7afdc5c4" CreationDate="2017-03-07T15:45:34.863" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Why on Earth it should be? Just because in other languages -ato ending are OK for nouns? Why `банан` and not `банана`? Or `кофе` but not `кофи`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is emotional part of an answer, and as of the facts - well, it was derived from French `tomate` (which is something mentioned in [Russian wiktionary][1] by the way)  and in French it was already pronounced pretty much the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the main question is why we are not pronouncing it like `томатль` - after all it was originally that way )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33760" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14057" RevisionGUID="d1e14d5f-de6b-47f3-86ae-3c4c33a26add" CreationDate="2017-03-07T19:11:16.977" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9512],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2079,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user31264&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14083" RevisionGUID="93bd3ccf-2fcf-4de2-9bce-c704c000245f" CreationDate="2017-03-07T22:23:11.830" UserId="134" Text="Words get borrowed into the languages not necessarily from the languages they originated in, not necessarily keeping their meaning, not necessarily the way they originally sounded and not necessarily once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each separate case there is usually some kind of logic: e.g. you can trace step by step how Ancient Greek *ἐλέφας* (source of English &quot;elephant&quot;) ultimately became Russian *верблюд* (&quot;camel&quot;), or how *гиацинт* and *яхонт* are both from a common Greek source, but it's an ad-hoc logic every time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *томат, банан* etc., they were borrowed from French where they are pronounced them almost the say way as Russian, and *батат* is most probably from Neapolitan or other southern Italian idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words borrowed from Spanish either directly or through English (*торнадо, авокадо* etc.) are neuter and indeclinable, and keep the final *-о*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14083" RevisionGUID="1b0b7b2e-213a-4e73-b3fe-4fc2de396291" CreationDate="2017-03-07T23:01:48.687" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Words get borrowed into the languages not necessarily from the languages they originated in, not necessarily keeping their meaning, not necessarily the way they originally sounded and not necessarily once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In each separate case there is usually some kind of logic: e.g. you can trace step by step how Ancient Greek *ἐλέφας* (source of English &quot;elephant&quot;) ultimately became Russian *верблюд* (&quot;camel&quot;), or how *гиацинт* and *яхонт* are both from a common Greek source, but it's an ad-hoc logic every time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *томат, банан* etc., they were borrowed from French where they are pronounced in almost the same way as they are in Russian, and *батат* is most probably from Neapolitan or other southern Italian idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words borrowed from Spanish either directly or through English (*торнадо, авокадо* etc.) are neuter and indeclinable, and keep the final *-о*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="73aa5623-5ada-4cb9-9451-b8070898d3fe" CreationDate="2017-03-08T07:35:27.300" UserId="8664" Text="&quot;Выставка фотографов&quot; это сокращение от &quot;Выставка работ фотографов&quot;. Слово &quot;работ&quot; можно выкинуть без потери информативности (выставка чего еще может быть?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14084" RevisionGUID="a8d883cc-3d50-479e-a8a0-1e39117c871a" CreationDate="2017-03-08T09:39:45.127" UserId="8664" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="&quot;Выставка фотографов&quot;  — это сокращение от &quot;Выставка работ фотографов&quot;. Слово &quot;работ&quot; можно выкинуть без потери информативности (выставка чего еще может быть?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Выставка работ фотографов&quot; — это [плеоназм][1], стилистическая ошибка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33766" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14081" RevisionGUID="827497d6-5f97-4d3d-b79b-394ca897caeb" CreationDate="2017-03-09T09:42:27.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/839773364206075904" />
  <row Id="33771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14086" RevisionGUID="587282fd-4656-4443-a12c-1ff6f633d920" CreationDate="2017-03-09T17:44:52.447" UserId="6940" Text="Both these words have Greek origin, specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гиппократ** (Hippocrates) comes from *ίππος* (horse) + *κρατώ* (I hold) = The one who holds the horses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ипподром** (horse-race track) comes from *ίππος* (horse) + *δρόμος* (road/track).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word for horse, in original (polytonic) Greek is written as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ἵππος&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where over the *ι* there is an ascent and an aspirate: &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aspirate is the one that means an &quot;h&quot; has to be added in English to convey the original Greek sound (therefore &quot;**H**ippocrates&quot; in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian this (thick) &quot;h&quot; is turned into a &quot;**Г**&quot; (e.g. **H**amburger - **Г**амбургер). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why this is not the case with **Ипподром**?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PyxfV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14086" RevisionGUID="587282fd-4656-4443-a12c-1ff6f633d920" CreationDate="2017-03-09T17:44:52.447" UserId="6940" Text="Why Гиппократ BUT Ипподром?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14086" RevisionGUID="587282fd-4656-4443-a12c-1ff6f633d920" CreationDate="2017-03-09T17:44:52.447" UserId="6940" Text="|этимология|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14087" RevisionGUID="27e65a09-7db7-4a7d-add1-679c0f187cd2" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:06:19.783" UserId="242" Text="The word &quot;гипподром&quot; is [still used][1] as a historical term for ancient stadiums for horse racing. The reason for dropping &quot;г&quot; was French influence where &quot;h&quot; is not pronounced. French was heavily used by Russian aristocracy and actually a lot of words were borrowed in French spelling. Even English names, like Ньютон were stressed the way they are stressed in French. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of N-gram for usage of both гипподром and ипподром (both in old and new spelling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can answer - why in that case Гиппократ, not Иппократ? Behold the terrifying truth, it actually was that way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually Г-форм gained popularity gradually, throughout 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGqaw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJYo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14087" RevisionGUID="31a58191-19c9-4f6d-8689-a86cd0abf57e" CreationDate="2017-03-09T18:35:34.047" UserId="242" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;гипподром&quot; is [still used][1] as a historical term for ancient stadiums for horse racing. The reason for dropping &quot;г&quot; was French influence where &quot;h&quot; is not pronounced (and the word [hippodrome][2] is not an exception). French was heavily used by Russian aristocracy and actually a lot of words were borrowed in French spelling. Even English names, like Ньютон were stressed the way they are stressed in French. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of N-gram for usage of both гипподром and ипподром (both in old and new spelling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can answer - why in that case Гиппократ, not Иппократ? Behold the terrifying truth, it actually was that way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually Г-форм gained popularity gradually, throughout 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodrome&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGqaw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJYo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33776" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14086" RevisionGUID="a38bb8c5-a238-4c31-8c14-a2dbefdf4e1d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T20:01:46.940" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;Гиппократ&quot; but &quot;ипподром&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14087" RevisionGUID="5ba07ce2-e31d-4827-b48f-251e598ac0dd" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:17:11.863" UserId="242" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;гипподром&quot; is [still used][1] as a historical term for ancient stadiums for horse racing. The reason for dropping &quot;г&quot; was French influence where &quot;h&quot; is not pronounced (and the word [hippodrome][2] is not an exception). French was heavily used by Russian aristocracy and actually a lot of words were borrowed in French spelling. Even English names, like Ньютон were stressed the way they are stressed in French. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of N-gram for usage of both гипподром and ипподром (both in old and new spelling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can answer - why in that case Гиппократ, not Иппократ? Behold the terrifying truth, it actually was that way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually Г-форм gained popularity gradually, throughout 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this looks like more or less random, the same Greek root gave us `гиппопотам` which, to my knowledge, never've been spelled without `г-`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodrome&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGqaw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJYo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14087" RevisionGUID="8c1be96d-014d-4134-9a53-87dea1c5cf0d" CreationDate="2017-03-09T22:24:42.363" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The word &quot;гипподром&quot; is [still used][1] as a historical term for ancient stadiums for horse racing. The reason for dropping &quot;г&quot; was French influence where &quot;h&quot; is not pronounced (and the word [hippodrome][2] is not an exception). French was heavily used by Russian aristocracy and actually a lot of words were borrowed in French spelling. Even English names, like Ньютон were stressed the way they are stressed in French. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of N-gram for usage of both гипподром and ипподром (both in old and new spelling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can answer - why in that case Гиппократ, not Иппократ? Behold the terrifying truth, it actually was that way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So actually Г-форм gained popularity gradually, throughout 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me this looks like more or less random, the same Greek root gave us `гиппопотам` which, to my knowledge, never has been spelled without `г-`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodrome&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGqaw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJYo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33783" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14086" RevisionGUID="4494c685-5323-4994-abb9-39c99f23192d" CreationDate="2017-03-10T04:49:47.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/840062103700541440" />
  <row Id="33787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="9be046b2-def8-47b9-ba56-51df7a2fbf95" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:49.267" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://4.bp.blogspot.com/ with https://4.bp.blogspot.com/" Text="I suppose that everything long — *стоит*; everything horizontally-oriented (like laptop) — *лежит*. In some situations you need to remember word choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. One can say *чашка лежит на столе*, when it is lying on its side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![Чашка лежит на столе](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RqyImLpZwHA/S-peUizdQnI/AAAAAAAAAgw/uGVo3XV5aRo/s400/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F.JPG &quot;Чашка лежит на столе (на блюдце)&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In all other cases *чашка стоит*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A ball always *лежит на столе*. You cannot say *стоит* about a ball. It would mean that a ball is something steady, which it is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A closed laptop always *лежит на столе*, unless it is positioned on its side (by some miracle). If a laptop is open, it *стоит*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11517" RevisionGUID="c689ca34-10e4-4cd3-8d6e-4381864fd4a2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:49.400" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://s23.postimg.org/ with https://s23.postimg.org/" Text="Apologies if this question is not within the recognized scope of this forum.&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering what the below might be. Some kind of clock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![what is it?](https://s23.postimg.org/62yb44j6j/what_is_it.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT - Sorry for not giving more information. It was on the wall in a room of a formerly KGB-run hospital in Kiev. As it is not readily recognizable, I guess it may have some medical purpose.  &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; The frame is from the highly recommended documentary 'The English Surgeon'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33793" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14068" RevisionGUID="55e2da25-6d47-4493-bc1a-0357f861d3fa" CreationDate="2017-03-11T14:03:52.320" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/840563928824463360" />
  <row Id="33795" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13992" RevisionGUID="5f25f5da-9421-4392-9e40-f1085c21634d" CreationDate="2017-03-12T02:04:00.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/840745156622065664" />
  <row Id="33796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14090" RevisionGUID="2c48baa9-19f1-466a-89f8-2cdf88e8b7c8" CreationDate="2017-03-12T15:17:42.397" UserId="8676" Text="склизкий has some yucky undertone.  When we mention a slug we can say &quot;склизкий слизень&quot; for example. But in the article it mean slippery (because of North Novgorod dialect) and the word is not used as &quot;slippery&quot; in ordinary, colloquial conversations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33797" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="6830f8ad-ef72-458a-9375-572ee45f7d2e" CreationDate="2017-03-12T20:19:50.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/841020934341431298" />
  <row Id="33798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14044" RevisionGUID="441caf30-b298-414e-bb3e-81455a9f74d6" CreationDate="2017-03-13T05:20:08.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/841156905154301952" />
  <row Id="33799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="41ac3f63-597d-4b42-8947-ecaa2845b9a6" CreationDate="2017-03-13T06:31:05.353" UserId="8257" Text="The particle ли is put behind the verb, but the verb to be is omitted in present tense. If you want to say something like &quot;How do we know this is true?&quot;, how do you translate it to Russian? &quot;Как знать, это ли правда?&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="41ac3f63-597d-4b42-8947-ecaa2845b9a6" CreationDate="2017-03-13T06:31:05.353" UserId="8257" Text="Where to put ли if no verb is given?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="41ac3f63-597d-4b42-8947-ecaa2845b9a6" CreationDate="2017-03-13T06:31:05.353" UserId="8257" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14092" RevisionGUID="ef061460-8b00-45c0-a454-4074897a0bb7" CreationDate="2017-03-13T09:47:47.623" UserId="310" Text="&gt; Как знать, это ли правда?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, &quot;как узнать&quot;. &quot;Как знать&quot; is valid but means doubt: &quot;it's impossible to know&quot;. Why? Because you cant &quot;знать&quot; before you &quot;узнать&quot; and you're not doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как узнать, это ли правда?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, this is a valid form but rare, and it's a good translation. It means that there's several probable truths and you try to find &quot;the one&quot;. And you're asing &quot;is this one true&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just have something that is true or false, you will say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как узнать, правда ли это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is two valid uses of ли. So obviously you need to put `ли` infix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also put `ли` after both words in speech, but never before both words. Don't know why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14093" RevisionGUID="2d94dda2-2350-4d0e-bd43-deb8ed8e29b4" CreationDate="2017-03-13T10:43:25.860" UserId="6539" Text="This is a complex sentence with a yes/no question in a subordinate clause. &#xD;&#xA;We usually put an interrogative conjunction &quot;ли&quot; after the meaningful word, which bears the main information in the sentence, so the most common variant would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как знать (узнать), **правда** ли это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't know if it's true or nor, you want to know that, the stress is on the word &quot;правда&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как знать(узнать),**это** ли правда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible, but rarely used.&#xD;&#xA;Here the stress is on &quot;это&quot;.You want to know if this specific  information is true from several facts. This isn't a usual construction. We use it only in specific situations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="d2c3d432-9d6a-485f-b173-07cd2cea4487" CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:20:08.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/841292797764370432" />
  <row Id="33809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14093" RevisionGUID="f2ee9317-a97d-47e3-a857-00a25afc5b96" CreationDate="2017-03-13T18:45:48.063" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="This is a complex sentence with a yes/no question in a subordinate clause. &#xD;&#xA;We usually put an interrogative conjunction &quot;ли&quot; after the meaningful word, which bears the main information in the sentence, so the most common variant would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как знать (узнать), **правда** ли это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't know if it's true or not, you want to know that, the stress is on the word &quot;правда&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как знать(узнать),**это** ли правда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible, but rarely used.&#xD;&#xA;Here the stress is on &quot;это&quot;.You want to know if this specific  information is true from several facts. This isn't a usual construction. We use it only in specific situations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33810" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14091" RevisionGUID="be7587e8-7d91-49a1-8047-32094f51eea0" CreationDate="2017-03-13T20:20:07.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/841383392964931585" />
  <row Id="33811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14095" RevisionGUID="6aac38cd-c7c7-4f31-a299-290e9aa710a1" CreationDate="2017-03-13T20:33:54.120" UserId="2238" Text="Ли is Wackernagel's clitic, which means it goes after the first fully-stressed word of the sentence (not after the verb, as you say). It tends to move before itself the &quot;question's focus&quot; - if no specific focus is given, it's usually the predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мы узнаем, пришёл ли Вася? - How shall we know if Vasya came?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как мы узнаем, Вася ли пришёл? - How shall we know if it was Vasya who came?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your question, one should say &quot;Откуда нам знать, правда ли это?&quot; (More literally - &quot;Как нам знать, правда ли это?&quot;, but &quot;откуда&quot; (where from) sounds better)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14096" RevisionGUID="9cadb383-2c68-4ef6-93c0-dc24a2d7a4b1" CreationDate="2017-03-13T20:56:53.243" UserId="2238" Text="The Yoda speech is based on moving to the beginning of every sentence he topicalized item, the part which is considered most meaningful. &quot;Begun, the Clone Wars have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in Russian Yoda speech adjectives are (mostly) put after their nouns and genitives before their nouns (contrary to usual practice, somewhat Latin style). Prepositions, however, as Alexander Razorenov mentioned above, do not become postpositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, whereas the English scheme is &quot;Topic, Subject Predicate&quot; (if neither Subject nor Predicate is Topic itself), Russian can employ both that one and &quot;Topic, Predicate Subject&quot;, the second one is even more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, the Russian Yoda speech effect is probably less than the English one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14097" RevisionGUID="5d7587e8-912d-4956-81b0-fa278f2d9b10" CreationDate="2017-03-14T15:54:17.447" UserId="1958" Text="Согласно правилам (http://www.bibliotekar.ru/russkiy-yazik-2/122.htm), слова мужского рода во множественном числе в родительном падеже обычно имеют окончание -ов, а женского рода — обычно нулевое. Есть исключения для некоторых видов нарицательных слов (парных предметов, некоторых родов войск и национальностей, единиц измерения).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Между тем, чуть ли не все острова в родительном падеже имеют нулевое окончание: Мальдив, Канар, Мальвин, Курил (самое явное исключение — Гавайев). То же самое с горами: Карпат, Альп, Апеннин. То же с греческими городами: Афин, Фив, Сиракуз. Ещё Канн (вроде бы). Но: Сочей, Ессентук(ов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гипотеза про женский род не подходит: остров и город — мужского рода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По какой причине мы выбираем нулевое окончание?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14097" RevisionGUID="5d7587e8-912d-4956-81b0-fa278f2d9b10" CreationDate="2017-03-14T15:54:17.447" UserId="1958" Text="Почему у групповых топонимов в родительном падеже обычно нулевое окончание (Мальдив, Альп, Курил)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14097" RevisionGUID="5d7587e8-912d-4956-81b0-fa278f2d9b10" CreationDate="2017-03-14T15:54:17.447" UserId="1958" Text="|склонение|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="7246ba38-0da0-4f29-a2bf-9c4818d40a91" CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:30:09.210" UserId="7942" Text="Где узнать о правилах русского языка, актуальных на данный момент?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В инженерном деле когда речь идёт о формальностях, например о правилах исксственного языка (например для написания компьютерных программ), то люди создают спецификации. Этими спецификациями владеет или большие ассоциации такие как IEEE/ISO или большие и влиятельные организации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так вот где находится официальная спецификация, что считать верным, а что нет в рамках естественного языка который используется официально на территории Российского госудаства?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="7246ba38-0da0-4f29-a2bf-9c4818d40a91" CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:30:09.210" UserId="7942" Text="Где узнать о правилах русского языка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="7246ba38-0da0-4f29-a2bf-9c4818d40a91" CreationDate="2017-03-14T16:30:09.210" UserId="7942" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="6be366ec-72a6-470d-822f-d698b1e7c424" CreationDate="2017-03-14T17:10:27.573" UserId="3680" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Где узнать о правилах русского языка, актуальных на данный момент?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В инженерном деле когда речь идёт о формальностях, например о правилах искусственного языка (например для написания компьютерных программ), то люди создают спецификации. Этими спецификациями владеет или большие ассоциации такие как IEEE/ISO или большие и влиятельные организации.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так вот где находится официальная спецификация, что считать верным, а что нет в рамках естественного языка, который используется официально на территории Российского государства?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33821" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="6be366ec-72a6-470d-822f-d698b1e7c424" CreationDate="2017-03-14T17:10:27.573" UserId="3680" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Где узнать о правилах русского языка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33822" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14097" RevisionGUID="03caebd3-9a75-42f6-bd48-75ff117beb9f" CreationDate="2017-03-14T20:29:59.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/841748260205256704" />
  <row Id="33823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14099" RevisionGUID="34d59b83-12a3-4caa-add4-1a7ffc152212" CreationDate="2017-03-14T21:52:57.017" UserId="134" Text="Old Russian used endings *-ъ, -ь* for nouns with historical *-o* stem in gen. pl.: *изъ Варягъ въ Грѣкы*, *изъ Грѣкъ по Днепру*, *святыхъ отецъ* etc. This means the modern zero-ending in words like *татар, армян, грузин* etc. is the &quot;right&quot;, etymologically justified one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending *-овъ* was initially used only for the nouns with historical *-u* stem. There were but a handful of those nouns: *сынъ, волъ, домъ* and several others. The *-в-* in oblique cases of those nouns is the remnant of the *-u* in the stem, and we can still see it now fossilized in plural forms of *сын* (*сыновья, сыновей*) etc., in the adjective *домой* (*&lt; домови*, sg. dat. of *домъ*) and set phrases like *довлеет дневи злоба его*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the ending *-овъ* began to spill to the *-o* stem paradigm as well and has since almost entirely supplanted the zero-ending, most probably to better differentiate between sg. nom and pl. gen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As late as two hundred years ago *зуб, пуд, рог, месяц* were valid and widely used pl. gen. forms of respective nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero-ending survived mostly in words which did not have to differentiate between sg. nom. and pl. gen.: all neuter words (which end in *-о* or *-е* in sg. nom.), most words in *-ин* (*татарин, болгарин* etc.), pair nouns (*сапог, чулок* etc., which are rarely used in sg. at all) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is only a rule of thumb, and you have to learn the declension for each noun by heart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13949" RevisionGUID="b4330c91-cdb1-4768-bd8c-c6bcbc620145" CreationDate="2017-03-15T05:29:59.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/841884157215182849" />
  <row Id="33825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14100" RevisionGUID="ba9a48ab-5e5f-4de0-9a4c-82f8c0a5252d" CreationDate="2017-03-15T06:28:18.020" UserId="6539" Text="Имена собственные (географические и астрономические): Афины, Карпаты, Балканы, Лубны, Сокольники, Плеяды, Близнецы относятся к существительным, употребляющимся только во множественном числе, называются pluralia tantum.&#xD;&#xA;Они не имеют ни рода, ни склонения, потому что не имеют единственного числа, поэтому относить их к существительным мужского рода неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;Существительные, употребляющиеся только во множественном числе, склоняются по образцу 1-го, 2-го и 3-го склонения, причем образец склонения определяется по родительному падежу. Никаких правил на этот счет не существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В Р. п. у существительных могут быть представлены окончания: нулевое, -ов, -ей.&#xD;&#xA;I скл.: основное окончание — нулевое. &#xD;&#xA;II скл.: -ов/-ев, -ей, нулевое. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14102" RevisionGUID="d2fdfd76-2dd0-43b1-b552-a9f39f3d814e" CreationDate="2017-03-15T18:20:08.227" UserId="8617" Text="В русском языке нет спецификаций, в рамках естественного языка все познается на ходу/everything is figured out &quot;on the run&quot;. Все правила как в старых учебниках, так и новых одинаковы абсолютно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="6248eff3-4475-422f-9647-b14bfa2b92b0" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:44:25.423" UserId="8697" Text="Everything is in the title, sorry if I misspelled it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do Russian speakers call Vladimir Putin &quot;Vladimir Vladimirovitch&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="6248eff3-4475-422f-9647-b14bfa2b92b0" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:44:25.423" UserId="8697" Text="Why do Russian speakers call Vladimir Putin &quot;Vladimir Vladimirovitch&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="6248eff3-4475-422f-9647-b14bfa2b92b0" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:44:25.423" UserId="8697" Text="|выбор-имени|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="509785db-b3f4-4155-b4c1-2bf5289b6423" CreationDate="2017-03-15T22:12:09.100" UserId="8697" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Everything is in the title, sorry if I misspelled it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do Russian speakers call Vladimir Putin &quot;Vladimir Vladimirovich&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33835" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="509785db-b3f4-4155-b4c1-2bf5289b6423" CreationDate="2017-03-15T22:12:09.100" UserId="8697" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Why do Russian speakers call Vladimir Putin &quot;Vladimir Vladimirovich&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14105" RevisionGUID="c6293a3e-b187-4537-8e95-00f7ab159769" CreationDate="2017-03-16T10:49:01.523" UserId="8700" Text="Russian names have a First Name &quot;imya&quot; (Vladimir), second name &quot;otchestvo&quot; (Vladimirovich (the name of father)) and third name &quot;FAMILYa&quot; (Putin). (Sorry for my english, i speak russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14106" RevisionGUID="6e0fdf09-128a-4835-8fbd-25f5c2dea044" CreationDate="2017-03-16T13:44:55.463" UserId="4903" Text="A full Russian name consists of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * First name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Patronymic (derived from father's first name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Last name, also known as family name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian president's full name is: Vladimir (first name) Vladimirovich (patronymic) Putin (last name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following combinations of names are used in a formal environment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *First Patronymic Last* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin** - very formal&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *First Patronymic* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich** - moderately formal&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. *First Last* - **Vladimir Putin** - moderately formal, same as #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information on the order of Russian names is available here: [What order are the parts of a full Russian name in?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11598/what-order-are-the-parts-of-a-full-russian-name-in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14105" RevisionGUID="236347d0-0c54-461a-aa96-f14f641a5a51" CreationDate="2017-03-16T13:53:24.917" UserId="4903" Comment="Standardized capitalization. Removed the apology for speaking Russian :- )" Text="Russian names have a first name &quot;imya&quot; (Vladimir), second name &quot;otchestvo&quot; (Vladimirovich (the name of father)) and third name &quot;familiya&quot; (Putin)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33841" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11598" RevisionGUID="fc035765-72ac-404d-95d8-767bdd3412ca" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:03:21.817" UserId="4903" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-имени|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14106" RevisionGUID="b72d9443-14da-44d2-aa96-12557b8e5c0f" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:06:11.620" UserId="4903" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="A full Russian name consists of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * First name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Patronymic (derived from father's first name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Last name, also known as family name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian president's full name is: Vladimir (first name) Vladimirovich (patronymic) Putin (last name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following combinations of names are used in a formal environment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *First Patronymic Last* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin** - very formal&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *First Patronymic* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich** - moderately formal&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. *First Last* - **Vladimir Putin** - moderately formal, same level of formality as #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information on the order of Russian names is available here: [What order are the parts of a full Russian name in?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11598/what-order-are-the-parts-of-a-full-russian-name-in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13916" RevisionGUID="bbed4ae7-ef30-4734-8469-464fee2251d7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T14:42:20.343" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.ru.stackoverflow.com/ with https://ru.meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="There's [an issue](https://ru.meta.stackoverflow.com/q/4720/213987) with translation of some strings from Stack Exchange login screen into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;[![XOXO][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;I've suggested the neutral 'С уважением, команда Stack Exchange' ('WBR, SE team'), but  something like 'Чмоки, команда Stack Exchange' seems more correct ([see urban dictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xoxo)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas? ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/apNYj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9436" RevisionGUID="21c8c78f-f550-427f-bf9a-30f024944172" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:05:56.023" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.ru.stackoverflow.com/ with https://ru.meta.stackoverflow.com/" Text="I'm translating this into Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let us continue this discussion in chat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and considering three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This one seems more logical to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Предлагаю вам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This one emphasizes that I will also participate. But it sounds more like commercialese speech (канцелярит).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Предлагаю нам продолжить обсуждение в чате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Same friendliness, plus a clue about site mechanics, which allows copying all the comments into the newly created chat. What do you think of this one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Давайте перенесём обсуждение в чат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other nuances? What should I use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is StackExchange site interface, as you may have guessed already. Here's the original question: https://ru.meta.stackoverflow.com/q/1021/181472 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="fbd1311f-f623-407c-b0ab-d61186b010ed" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:50:53.807" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="Using the same structure in the [Chinese Resources question][1], this is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, [ask a question in our Meta][3], so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][4], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][5]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][6]: These are plugins that you install on your browser and that help you in different ways, such as providing word meanings, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - [Audiobooks][7]: Audio files where you hear a voice reading the book you've chosen.&#xD;&#xA; - [Books][8]: Books from Russian authors or translations.&#xD;&#xA; - [Dictionaries][9]: Stand-alone or dictionary files for you to use on your computer.&#xD;&#xA; - [Newspapers][10]: Famous or not services that provide news for Russia and the rest of the world... in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Online courses][11]: Free or paid services online that teach you the language through lessons.&#xD;&#xA; - [Podcasts][12]: Audio files that feature people speaking about the language or giving tips/lessons to learners.&#xD;&#xA; - [Television][13]: TV channels, shows in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Textbooks][14]: Grammar books that teach you the grammar of the language with theory and exercises.&#xD;&#xA; - [Websites][15]: Sites that give help for learning Russian. They give material, tips, hints, and various help for self-learners or regular students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/1120/43&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/835/71&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/836/71&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/837/71&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/838/71&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/839/71&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/71&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/841/71&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/842/71&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/843/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14106" RevisionGUID="5d73366b-7789-4690-828e-cbffe9ed81d0" CreationDate="2017-03-16T16:44:02.793" UserId="4903" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="A full Russian name consists of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * First name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Patronymic (derived from father's first name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Last name, also known as family name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian president's full name is: Vladimir (first name) Vladimirovich (patronymic) Putin (last name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following combinations of names are used in a formal environment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *First Patronymic Last* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin** - very formal&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *First Patronymic* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich** - moderately formal&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. *First Last* - **Vladimir Putin** - moderately formal, the same level of formality as #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information on the order of Russian names is available here: [What order are the parts of a full Russian name in?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11598/what-order-are-the-parts-of-a-full-russian-name-in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="4dbe9dc7-5dd8-45cf-8df5-1cd807b8829d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:16:10.543" UserId="7239" Text="For answers to my workbook, I wrote the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После уроков мы ходили в лабораторию к ***своему*** профессору.  &#xD;&#xA;В воскресенье мы поедем в гости к ***своим*** друзьям. Мы уже звонили ***своим*** друзьям и сказали им об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what the answer key to the workbook said was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После уроков мы ходили в лабораторию к ***нашему*** профессору.  &#xD;&#xA;В воскресенье мы поедем в гости к ***нашим*** друзьям. Мы уже звонили ***нашим*** друзьям и сказали им об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is it OK or preferred to use наш instead of свой when the subject is мы? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused because I believed it is correct/preferred to use свой instead of её (его, мой, твой) when the subject is она (он, я, ты). This all corresponds to the answers given for various exercises in my workbook's answer key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to using свой instead of наш when the subject is мы, I'm _also_ not sure about using свой instead of ваш (их) when the subject is вы (они).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the rule different for some reason for мы? Is this a mistake (repeated twice) in the answer key?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="4dbe9dc7-5dd8-45cf-8df5-1cd807b8829d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:16:10.543" UserId="7239" Text="When to not use свой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="4dbe9dc7-5dd8-45cf-8df5-1cd807b8829d" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:16:10.543" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14108" RevisionGUID="467a4282-0eba-4d79-9356-b0e1ccf026e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T17:19:48.080" UserId="8703" Text="Well, in Russia, your second name is your father's full name+vich/ovich&#xD;&#xA;For example, my name is Mikhail and my dad's name is vladimir (coincidentally). So, my full name is Mikhail Vladimirovich+family name. For females, the second name will have vna/ovna instead of vich/ovich. Hope this helps)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14109" RevisionGUID="395bba7f-1b8e-4234-9504-e990855f81e7" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:16:12.960" UserId="6539" Text="With the first and second persons, singular or plural, the use of свой is optional, but preferred :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я потерял свою книгу./Я потерял мою книгу&#xD;&#xA;Напишите свой адрес./ Напишите ваш адрес.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Свой should be used with the third person, singular or plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он потерял свою книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14110" RevisionGUID="9251d1b5-02d2-4b45-9b01-15af0d6a4ad2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:59:37.427" UserId="8705" Text="Часто есть сомнения о том, как правильно существительно будет писаться во множественном числе. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Корпуса или корпусы.&#xD;&#xA;Сервера или серверы.&#xD;&#xA;Конвееры, но ведь может быть и конвеера? Хотя понятно что это не верно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При чем я знаю, что как в примере со словом &quot;корпус&quot;, в зависимости от значения, будет и так и так. Так как же узнать какой вариант правильный? Есть ли вообще какое-то логическое правило, определяющее форму окончания? Спасибо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14110" RevisionGUID="9251d1b5-02d2-4b45-9b01-15af0d6a4ad2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:59:37.427" UserId="8705" Text="Каким правилом определяется какая буква, а или ы, будет во множественном числе существительного" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14110" RevisionGUID="9251d1b5-02d2-4b45-9b01-15af0d6a4ad2" CreationDate="2017-03-16T21:59:37.427" UserId="8705" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14109" RevisionGUID="855ff680-fd25-443e-9dbf-267e66c58b9e" CreationDate="2017-03-17T04:57:59.697" UserId="6539" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="With the first and second persons, singular or plural, the use of свой is optional, but preferred :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я потерял свою книгу./Я потерял мою книгу&#xD;&#xA;Напишите свой адрес./ Напишите ваш адрес.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Свой should be used with the third person, singular or plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он потерял свою книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По Розенталю:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Возможно синонимическое употребление притяжательных местоимений *мой-свой*,*твой-свой* и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я предаюсь моим мечтам (Пушкин).Я не потерплю в своем доме воров (Чехов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14109" RevisionGUID="9ceb482d-8eee-46ad-a454-60d813d5a43e" CreationDate="2017-03-17T05:07:47.867" UserId="6539" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="With the first and second persons, singular or plural, the use of свой is optional, but preferred :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я потерял свою книгу./Я потерял мою книгу&#xD;&#xA;Напишите свой адрес./ Напишите ваш адрес.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Свой should be used with the third person, singular or plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он потерял свою книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По Розенталю:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Возможно синонимическое употребление притяжательных местоимений *мой-свой*,*твой-свой* и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я предаюсь моим мечтам (Пушкин).Я не потерплю в своем доме воров (Чехов)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes possessive pronouns are redundant, because the situation itself clears up the matter (к нашим друзьям– к друзьям).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14111" RevisionGUID="afb97ce7-f5b9-4648-b229-71f62f82d76f" CreationDate="2017-03-17T07:45:34.033" UserId="5008" Text="Both forms are OK. Though there could be a (very) small difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian speakers often tend to use the word &quot;свой&quot; as exclusive term, while &quot;наш&quot; is inclusive. Let's consider the following situation: there are three persons: person A (speaker), person B (whom A talks to) and person C (who just keeps silence for a moment). So if A says &quot;to our friend&quot; what he really means? This is either the friend of A and C, or the friend of A, B and C altogether. IMO, it's a bit more natural in Russian to use form of &quot;свой&quot; in the first case, and the form of &quot;наш&quot; in the second one. Though even here it's not a strict rule. So if Russian speaker really needs to stress it's &quot;the friend of all of us&quot; he rather says &quot;наш с тобой друг&quot;, or &quot;наш общий друг&quot;, or something like that. Otherwise it's still a bit unclear as both forms could be used interchangeably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14112" RevisionGUID="0e9a51a9-dc90-4a45-b021-96fa7b1d24f4" CreationDate="2017-03-17T07:59:25.783" UserId="4833" Text="When _наш_ is used in the inclusive sense (that is, talking about our common professor), then it is not at all synonymous with _свой_ (which would imply the professor is ours but not yours). However, it is hard to know if which meaning is intended in your examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, these phrases would sound as natural without determiners, so you may safely skip them unless there is a risk for confusion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14113" RevisionGUID="90bc4823-10af-4ea1-97d8-e27927a465eb" CreationDate="2017-03-17T10:56:08.083" UserId="8361" Text="William, that's a preety hard question to answer, but i'll try to do my best,so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those tables look very accurate http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/pronouns.php. As well as those ones http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/possessive_pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty clear that the stadndard usage of those posessive pronouns will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда ты отдашь мне мою книгу?&#xD;&#xA;Я скоро отдам тебе твою книгу.&#xD;&#xA;Когда ты отдашь ей ее книгу?&#xD;&#xA;Когда ты отдашь ему его книгу?&#xD;&#xA;Нам нужна наша книга.&#xD;&#xA;Вам нужна ваша книга?&#xD;&#xA;And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it gets harder with &quot;one's own&quot;. As I would imagine, it's more for generalizing, say:&#xD;&#xA;Каждому нужна своя книга. (everybody needs his/her book)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT. NOT EXACTLY GENERALIZING. And this fact made me think that's gonna be hard to explain that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've come up with the thought that we tend to use &quot;свой&quot; in imperatives&#xD;&#xA;E.G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подними свою руку!&#xD;&#xA;Подними свои руки.&#xD;&#xA;Забери свою книгу.&#xD;&#xA;Иди к своему профессору! (we can say this way if we are irritated (for example if the person quotes the professor too often or anything) So it definitely has to do with emphasis&#xD;&#xA;Напишите свой адрес.&#xD;&#xA;Расскажите о своем брате. (but we can also say &quot;о вашем брате&quot;) Bearing in mind the examples from your book, I'd say that accosding to the rule, it is more correct to say &quot;вашем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;While you can never say under any sircumstances Расскажи о твоем брате. It is just plain wrong. So it is gonna be:&#xD;&#xA;Расскажи о своем брате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the next thing I'd like to pay your attention to will be the examples of the usage of possessive pronouns with the members of the family, and, say, with a word &quot;professor&quot; (I just decided to use this word because it is used in your textbook) So, now I'll try to provide you with examples of the usage of the words &quot;a sister&quot; and &quot;a professor&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Statements (со местоимениями &quot;моя&quot; и &quot;своя&quot;): Это моя сестра. Я люблю свою сестру. Я люблю нашу сестру (if it matters that there are some other siblins). Расскажи о моей сестре. Моя сестра ему нравится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions (с местоимениями &quot;твоя&quot; и &quot;своя&quot;) : Это твоя сестра? Ты любишь свою сестру? Ты любишь вашу сестру? Что бы ты мог сказать о своей сестре? Как думаешь, ему нравится твоя сестра?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sould say that looking at what I wrote above I'm like &quot;What the hell, there's no logic&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean posessive pronouns are soooo semantically tricky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But definitely I know where to use which and there's what I think:&#xD;&#xA;If you want to ask somebody about a person or an object that either is related to him/her or belongs to him/her, you use &quot;свой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Раскажи о своем велосипеде.&#xD;&#xA;Расскажи о своем брате.&#xD;&#xA;Расскажи о своей книге.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT.&#xD;&#xA;Расскажи о вашем профессоре. (because he/she teaches not only you, typically there's a group)&#xD;&#xA;Расскажите о вашей книге (because it's a polite form so you use plural) (or because you're asking several people)&#xD;&#xA;And so I can infer that свой is typically not used when you ask several people about the people related to them or the thing belonging to them.&#xD;&#xA;And that looks like the answer to your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOW ABOUT &quot;РАССКАЖИ О МОЕЙ СЕСТРЕ&quot;&#xD;&#xA;That seems pretty logic. because if you say &quot;расскажи о своей сестре&quot; that would mean &quot;tell about your sister&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOW ABOUT &quot;ЭТО ТВОЯ СЕСТРА?&quot; you can't ask &quot;Это своя сестра?&quot; cause that sounds conpletely illogic. But we do have a question &quot;Это свои?&quot; When for example you're at war and so you have &quot;your men&quot; and &quot;not your men&quot; who are &quot;свои&quot; и &quot;чужие&quot; respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now let's talk about a professor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a professor typically gives lectures to several people, as I've mentioned above and so it is preferable to say &quot;ваш&quot;, because if you say &quot;расскажи о своем профессоре&quot; that makes sense, but saying so you ignore the fact that he/she teaches other people as well (but it's ok to say so as I presume)&#xD;&#xA; So the examples would be&#xD;&#xA;statements: Наш профессор читает интересные лекции. Наш профессор хорошо преподает. Наш профессор ценит своих студентов.&#xD;&#xA;questions: Вы не могли бы расскать о вашем профессоре? Ваш профессор хорошо преподает? Ваш профессор ценит своих студентов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can probably ask why not &quot;его студентов&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;We can certainly use &quot;его студентов&quot; but in another context.&#xD;&#xA;We'll say&#xD;&#xA;Он любит своих студентов.&#xD;&#xA;Я люблю свою сестру.&#xD;&#xA;Он любит свою сестру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we word the sentence differently, we use &quot;его, ее, мою...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Его студентов обокрали. (кто-то обокрал)&#xD;&#xA;Мою сестру преследуют (кто-то преследует мою сестру)&#xD;&#xA;Иван любит его сестру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, it's ok to say &quot;Иван любит его сестру&quot; when talking about someone else's sister, it would be translated &quot;Ivan loves his(someone else's sister). But if you say &quot;Иван любит свою сестру&quot; that means that &quot;Ivan loves his(his own) sister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really hope that helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="d06577d1-6fb6-4801-adbd-32ddfbcc1929" CreationDate="2017-03-17T11:43:01.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/842702810911326210" />
  <row Id="33861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14114" RevisionGUID="6f1ab773-6871-4da4-82fb-5bc5e8b8ec18" CreationDate="2017-03-17T13:42:51.473" UserId="8708" Text="In short, as a native Russian, I should not but say that variant with &quot;О&quot; is right grammatically, vice verse &quot;Ах..еть&quot; is not: there is no such a prefix &quot;А-&quot; before root in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;It's better to *know* but *not use* this word, my friend." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14115" RevisionGUID="3a8d9b61-cb26-403d-81f7-dcc2e4ff543f" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:53:43.650" UserId="4600" Text="In addition to comprehensive answers provided above, I would like to add examples when nouns *хуй* and *пизда* (specifically in singular, nominative case) can be used to express negative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Хуй* can be used to denote failure to obtain something or strong refusal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Думаешь, они мне заплатили? А вот хуй!* - You think they paid me? Fuck no!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Хотел пойти погулять. Хуй там! Пошёл такой дождь, что пришлось вернуться.* - I wanted to go for a walk. Like fuck I could! It started raining so [hard], I had to go back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Хочешь денег? Хуй тебе!* You want some money [from me]? You get nothing, fuck you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пизда* means something broke, or there are inevitable grim consequences ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Моей машине пизда – двигатель сломался.* My car is fucked up, its engine is broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ну всё, урод, тебе пизда.* Game over asshole, [I] will fuck you up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он разозлил начальника, теперь ему пизда.* He made the boss angry, he's in deep shit now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there are stable combinations like *накрыться пиздой / пойти по пизде* - this usually describes a technical device that started to malfunction so seriously it can't be fixed. At least, not without much trouble:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Телевизор накрылся пиздой / Телевизор пошёл по пизде." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33863" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14110" RevisionGUID="29ef7b83-f8d9-4d45-99e3-4d72569e2699" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:42:59.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/842838698710503426" />
  <row Id="33864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14116" RevisionGUID="7eec5b19-0b58-4a73-8fb2-9cfbb1191c34" CreationDate="2017-03-17T22:50:22.773" UserId="8657" Text="The phrase is: &quot;Часто днём бегу в спортзал или в бассейн&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the author wants to emphasize on the action rather than where he does the action, he uses the places in nominative? I would expect from what I learned something similar to&#xD;&#xA;Я часто бегу в спортзале или в бассейне." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14116" RevisionGUID="7eec5b19-0b58-4a73-8fb2-9cfbb1191c34" CreationDate="2017-03-17T22:50:22.773" UserId="8657" Text="Why do not use prepositional case to indicate position in the following sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14116" RevisionGUID="7eec5b19-0b58-4a73-8fb2-9cfbb1191c34" CreationDate="2017-03-17T22:50:22.773" UserId="8657" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="336a603b-4ea5-4bb4-8a01-229ccc53a436" CreationDate="2017-03-18T00:00:01.713" UserId="6725" Text="To describe **location** where the action is performed, i.e. to answer the question **Где? (Where?)**, you need a construction &quot;`в/на` + noun in **prepositional** case&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бегаю в спортзале.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он плавает в бассейне.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я гуляю на улице.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Птица сидит на дереве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I run at the gym. He swims at the swimming pool. I walk in the street. A bird sits on the tree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you want to describe **direction** of an action, i.e. to answer the question **Куда? (Where to?)**, you need a construction &quot;`в/на` + noun in **accusative** case&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в спортзал.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он бежит в бассейн.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выхожу на улицу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кошка лезет на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I am going to the gym. He is running to the swimming pool. I go out into the street. A cat is climbing the tree.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14117" RevisionGUID="ed22a4f2-7b0d-43ab-afe6-8ac8ff604ab4" CreationDate="2017-03-18T00:06:14.410" UserId="6725" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="To describe **location** where the action is performed, i.e. to answer the question **Где? (Where?)**, you need a construction &quot;`в/на` + noun in **prepositional** case&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бегаю в спортзале.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он плавает в бассейне.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я гуляю на улице.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Птица сидит на дереве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I run at the gym. He swims at the swimming pool. I walk in the street. A bird sits on the tree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you want to describe **direction** of an action, i.e. to answer the question **Куда? (Where to?)**, you need a construction &quot;`в/на` + noun in **accusative** case&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в спортзал.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он бежит в бассейн.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выхожу на улицу.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кошка лезет на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I am going to the gym. He is running to the swimming pool. I go out into the street. A cat is climbing the tree.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example belongs to the second type (direction), that's why the nouns are in accusative (which is equal to nominative for these exact words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="ffbaafee-4208-43ba-9e30-2fccaaf28065" CreationDate="2017-03-18T00:43:12.837" UserId="7239" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="For answers to my workbook, I wrote the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После уроков мы ходили в лабораторию к ***своему*** профессору.  &#xD;&#xA;В воскресенье мы поедем в гости к ***своим*** друзьям. Мы уже звонили ***своим*** друзьям и сказали им об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what the answer key to the workbook said was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После уроков мы ходили в лабораторию к ***нашему*** профессору.  &#xD;&#xA;В воскресенье мы поедем в гости к ***нашим*** друзьям. Мы уже звонили ***нашим*** друзьям и сказали им об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is it OK or preferred to use наш instead of свой when the subject is мы? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused because I believed it is correct/preferred to use свой instead of её (его, мой, твой) when the subject is она (он, я, ты). This all corresponds to the answers given for various exercises in my workbook's answer key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to using свой instead of наш when the subject is мы, I'm _also_ not sure about using свой instead of ваш (их) when the subject is вы (они).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the rule different for some reason for мы? Is this a mistake (repeated twice) in the answer key?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** The book isn't even consistent in its convention; the following are also from it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В среду мы ходили в общежитие к ***своим*** друзьям. В среду мы были в общежитии у ***своих*** друзей. Летом они ездили на родину к ***своим*** родителям. Летом они ездили на родине у ***своих*** родителей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="440c88cd-f98f-4002-82cc-4a5cf6ffa951" CreationDate="2017-03-18T02:44:59.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/842929798452252672" />
  <row Id="33871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="752611bb-8282-44b1-b39e-785412cf35ab" CreationDate="2017-03-18T02:51:06.900" UserId="8712" Text="I want to get a tattoo with Lenin's quote &quot;кто кого опередит?&quot;  I was originally just going to do the first two words, but the Cyrillic lettering is so beautiful in the last word.  I've only seen the last word in a few of the references that I checked.  I want to know if it is more specific/elaborate or a full sentence with the third word included because my Russian language is very limited but I have a deep fascination with Russian history.  Any help would be appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="752611bb-8282-44b1-b39e-785412cf35ab" CreationDate="2017-03-18T02:51:06.900" UserId="8712" Text="Tattoo question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="752611bb-8282-44b1-b39e-785412cf35ab" CreationDate="2017-03-18T02:51:06.900" UserId="8712" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14119" RevisionGUID="a3fd1a82-7d8a-497d-8840-755c6e685159" CreationDate="2017-03-18T04:11:11.557" UserId="2079" Text="For a Russian, the verb `опередит` is close to the colloquial, moderately taboo, verb `пердит` (farts, singular first face of `пердеть`). You can even add a prefix о-, making a verb `опердит` (will fart on (somebody), or will fart all over (somebody), in third face singular).  Russians will laugh to this tatoo, because, changing one letter, it means &quot;who will fart on who&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that this semi-taboo verb existed in time of Lenin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `опередить` means to be first by scores (mostly in sports, games, and other competitions) or by time (in any environment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14121" RevisionGUID="074c3d34-ecb2-4bd7-b886-422292660b76" CreationDate="2017-03-18T04:33:44.480" UserId="1097" Text="Wiki: [Who, whom?][1] Кто кого?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is a Bolshevist principle or slogan which was formulated by Lenin in 1921.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lenin is supposed to have stated at the second All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments, on 17 October 1921,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Весь вопрос — кто кого опередит?&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The whole question is — who will overtake whom?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the tattoo, I suggest using a short version: `Кто кого?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who,_whom%3F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14122" RevisionGUID="705ae81c-8b2c-47a1-99f6-1bd64105d81d" CreationDate="2017-03-18T09:21:47.310" UserId="6725" Text="The verb `опережать/опередить` is quite neutral and common. It is derived from `перед` (*fore, front*) and means &quot;*to overtake, to be faster/ahead of smb.*&quot;. It is by no means taboo/offensive/colloquial/weird/obsolete, or in any other way inappropriate. You can safely use it on a tattoo, if you wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure about the historical context, but in general the meaning of `кто кого опередит` is more narrow than of simply `кто кого`. The first phrase literally means &quot;*who will be ahead of (faster than) whom*&quot;, and the last one - just &quot;*who will win whom*&quot;, not necessarily by being faster, but maybe stronger, smarter or something else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33880" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="0a2190b3-9a78-48b7-8738-048084643e2e" CreationDate="2017-03-18T13:26:48.107" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33881" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="e42a70f1-364d-4ae7-8c6b-f72cec0170cb" CreationDate="2017-03-18T14:17:37.293" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33882" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="482ccdbc-08b4-4b0f-b13b-799fcf71b597" CreationDate="2017-03-18T14:21:08.377" UserId="551" Comment="More focused title" Text="Is there a longer version of Lenin's quote &quot;кто кого опередит?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="43cd4744-a4cb-4a4d-b1a3-c5cac91cade7" CreationDate="2017-03-18T17:08:26.777" UserId="8713" Text="I need some help with this. Can you pls take a closer look if I did this ok?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Np хорóшие мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gp хорóших матерéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dp хорóшим матеря'м&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ap хорóших матерéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ip хорóшими матеря'ми&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lp хорóших матеря'х&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative animate " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="43cd4744-a4cb-4a4d-b1a3-c5cac91cade7" CreationDate="2017-03-18T17:08:26.777" UserId="8713" Text="хорошая мать declanation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="43cd4744-a4cb-4a4d-b1a3-c5cac91cade7" CreationDate="2017-03-18T17:08:26.777" UserId="8713" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="99535151-f42d-4f4f-be5e-eed080900268" CreationDate="2017-03-18T17:36:48.243" UserId="8713" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="I need some help with this. Can you pls take a closer look if I did this ok?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Np хорóшие мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gp хорóших матерéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dp хорóшим матеря'м&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ap хорóших матерéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ip хорóшими матеря'ми&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lp хорóших матеря'х&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative animate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ns хóрошая мáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gs хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ds хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As хорóшую мáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Ls хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative animate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="2d3b48f1-4d7e-4bd5-bbb8-3f6d2ff1db70" CreationDate="2017-03-18T17:55:33.090" UserId="8713" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I need some help with this. Can you pls take a closer look if I did this ok?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Np хорóшие мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gp хорóших матерéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dp хорóшим матеря'м&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ap хорóших матерéй&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ip хорóшими матеря'ми&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lp хорóших матеря'х&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative animate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ns хóрошая мáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gs хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ds хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As хорóшую мáть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is хорошей матерью&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Ls хорóшей мáтери&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative animate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="af53964b-c2a6-40d1-affa-49369a9e8746" CreationDate="2017-03-18T18:41:26.140" UserId="6725" Comment="edited title" Text="хорошая мать declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14124" RevisionGUID="03aec84f-db4d-4933-b0d0-c6b35423deed" CreationDate="2017-03-19T13:31:35.233" UserId="8617" Text="&quot;Свой&quot; is what belongs to you or relative to you, of your own and &quot;твой, наш, ее, их...&quot; means..something similar):  &#xD;&#xA;Уберите свою собаку от моих детей!  &#xD;&#xA;Уберите вашу собаку от моих детей!  - both possible  &#xD;&#xA;Ваша собака не кусается?  &#xD;&#xA;Забери свой компьютер из сервис-центра.  (your computer)  &#xD;&#xA;Заодно забери и мой компьютер из сервис-центра.  &#xD;&#xA;Его жену украли инопланетяне.  &#xD;&#xA;Он отдал инопланетянам свою жену сам.  &#xD;&#xA;Мой телефон не работает, дай мне свой.  &#xD;&#xA;Моя газета не читается, дай мне свою.  &#xD;&#xA;Моя газета потерялась, можно я почитаю твою?  &#xD;&#xA;У меня есть три сестры.  &#xD;&#xA;Я берегу своих сестер.  &#xD;&#xA;Моих сестер зовут 1,2,3.  &#xD;&#xA;Как зовут твою сестру?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Помоги мне найти свой телефон!  &#xD;&#xA;- Мой телефон у меня в кармане.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Помоги мне найти мой телефон!  &#xD;&#xA;- А где ты его видел в последний раз?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14125" RevisionGUID="0556dc2a-8563-4525-897c-a5d5514ccd19" CreationDate="2017-03-19T16:43:17.573" UserId="8716" Text="I want to send a card to a friend in Kazakhstan. The address as she once gave me is...&#xD;&#xA;`&#xD;&#xA;  Kostanai city, Abaya 9/1, 1 &quot;B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;`&#xD;&#xA;and I believe the postal code is 110005 (but may be wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my looking around online I think the address should be...&#xD;&#xA;`&#xD;&#xA;  Abaya 9/1, 1 &quot;B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  Костанай, Костанайский ОФ&#xD;&#xA;  Костанайская область&#xD;&#xA;  Kazakhstan (KZ)&#xD;&#xA;  110005&#xD;&#xA;`&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? What is &quot;Abaya&quot; in Cyrillic writing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance, Pedro" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14125" RevisionGUID="0556dc2a-8563-4525-897c-a5d5514ccd19" CreationDate="2017-03-19T16:43:17.573" UserId="8716" Text="Help with a Kazakh postal address" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14125" RevisionGUID="0556dc2a-8563-4525-897c-a5d5514ccd19" CreationDate="2017-03-19T16:43:17.573" UserId="8716" Text="|орфография|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14127" RevisionGUID="fcfdb0d3-94fb-4efc-a094-76a4345cae51" CreationDate="2017-03-19T18:28:53.307" UserId="8676" Text="Actually &quot;Abaya&quot; is written in Latin and it is correct. &#xD;&#xA;I think it should be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**110005 Abaya street 9/1, 1 &quot;B&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;Kostanay city,&#xD;&#xA;Kazakhstan**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but your version is correct too" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14125" RevisionGUID="c75c3088-a056-481e-a95e-1a5972284747" CreationDate="2017-03-19T18:41:38.667" UserId="551" Comment="Don't add signatures to your post - your user card is added automatically" Text="I want to send a card to a friend in Kazakhstan. The address as she once gave me is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Kostanai city, Abaya 9/1, 1 &quot;B&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I believe the postal code is 110005 (but may be wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my looking around online I think the address should be...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Abaya 9/1, 1 &quot;B&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;  Костанай, Костанайский ОФ   &#xD;&#xA;  Костанайская область   &#xD;&#xA;  Kazakhstan (KZ)  &#xD;&#xA;  110005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? What is &quot;Abaya&quot; in Cyrillic writing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33896" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="6b19fee3-5d20-4491-935b-5cb8581aa413" CreationDate="2017-03-19T18:45:04.627" UserId="551" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:551,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Artemix&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14128" RevisionGUID="250f8af4-1a49-4069-8b7e-03b8ac70b2af" CreationDate="2017-03-19T21:55:59.470" UserId="8718" Text="I was having a discussion with a Russian speaker, and he told me it's acceptable to use the present tense after a conditional clause with &quot;eсли бы&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought that whenever you used если бы, in the next clause you had to use the past tense and the бы to show the irreal state of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand, he's trying to tell me that to say something like: &quot;Если бы я его увидел, я рад.&quot; But I could've sworn that the only correct way to say this would've been &quot;Если бы я его увидел, я *был бы* рад.&quot; He insisted that both are correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14128" RevisionGUID="250f8af4-1a49-4069-8b7e-03b8ac70b2af" CreationDate="2017-03-19T21:55:59.470" UserId="8718" Text="Is past tense + бы mandatory in the clause following a conditional clause with &quot;если бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14128" RevisionGUID="250f8af4-1a49-4069-8b7e-03b8ac70b2af" CreationDate="2017-03-19T21:55:59.470" UserId="8718" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14129" RevisionGUID="05ab1177-9761-4e21-975e-44ccaa84dc14" CreationDate="2017-03-19T22:07:24.153" UserId="4560" Text="He's wrong. Following a conditional with a present-tense clause just isn't a thing. Not even colloquial, not even &quot;incorrect but common&quot;, quite the contrary, I can't imagine it even occurring to anyone to do that, however little attention to their syntax they were paying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14130" RevisionGUID="60f2a3d8-4d88-474c-a3c4-ac57c5da1d03" CreationDate="2017-03-20T06:48:37.833" UserId="8126" Text="Why is the adjective &quot;**главный**&quot; in neuter gender in the following sentence? `метод` and `результат` are masculine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; главное не метод, а результат." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14130" RevisionGUID="60f2a3d8-4d88-474c-a3c4-ac57c5da1d03" CreationDate="2017-03-20T06:48:37.833" UserId="8126" Text="Why is the adjective &quot;главное&quot; in neuter gender?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14130" RevisionGUID="60f2a3d8-4d88-474c-a3c4-ac57c5da1d03" CreationDate="2017-03-20T06:48:37.833" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14131" RevisionGUID="5238301e-bf75-4fa0-badb-785f68146e04" CreationDate="2017-03-20T07:34:18.583" UserId="5008" Text="Sometimes people in a live speech just omit &quot;был бы&quot;, so it might look like a present tense (as you should know null verb in Russian usually stands for present tense). But it's really just an elliptical construct. Fro example, &quot;Если бы я это сделал, то мне [был бы] конец&quot;. That's not a present tense but simply a way to eat out a few words in a sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14132" RevisionGUID="de646f3e-c21c-4fed-b329-8a4de533fc5f" CreationDate="2017-03-20T07:56:21.553" UserId="5008" Text="Here an adjective &quot;главный&quot; becomes a noun (the substantivation). The neuter form is chosen because &quot;the main thing&quot; (which it stands for) is a pure abstraction. It could also be, for example, &quot;Главное не победа, а участие&quot; - still neuter gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But of course the gender matters if you're talking about human beings or animals. For example, &quot;I'm the boss&quot; could be either &quot;Главный здесь я&quot; (masc.) or &quot;Главная здесь я&quot; (fem.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14133" RevisionGUID="f6d86993-4eee-4177-b5d3-1ee83c86e136" CreationDate="2017-03-20T08:33:17.973" UserId="134" Text="It's a nominalized adjective, similar to English &quot;orange is the new black&quot;, &quot;eat fresh&quot;, &quot;bowl of red&quot; etc. It acts as a subject in this sentence, and, therefore, does not have to agree in gender with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Modern Russian uses sg. neuter to form nominalized adjectives describing abstract or collective concepts: _былое_ (&quot;bygones&quot;), _приданое_ (&quot;dowry&quot;), _второе_ (&quot;main course&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian and Church Slavonic used pl. neuter for this purpose, ending on _-ая_ in nominative: _вселенная; преисподняя; святая святых; прочая, прочая, прочая_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14133" RevisionGUID="7ab23d7a-884d-4af6-b56d-f4e615aaebc9" CreationDate="2017-03-20T08:49:19.763" UserId="134" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="It's a nominalized adjective, similar to those in English &quot;orange is the new black&quot;, &quot;eat fresh&quot;, &quot;bowl of red&quot; etc. It acts as a subject in this sentence, and, therefore, does not have to agree in gender with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Modern Russian uses sg. neuter to form nominalized adjectives describing abstract or collective concepts: _былое_ (&quot;bygones&quot;), _приданое_ (&quot;dowry&quot;), _второе_ (&quot;main course&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian and Church Slavonic used pl. neuter for this purpose, ending on _-ая_ in nominative: _вселенная; преисподняя; святая святых; прочая, прочая, прочая_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14133" RevisionGUID="843ec262-2393-4cdb-ba53-9c65054fdac6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:34:13.983" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It's a nominalized adjective, similar to those in English &quot;orange is the new black&quot;, &quot;eat fresh&quot;, &quot;bowl of red&quot; etc. It acts as a subject in this sentence, and, therefore, does not have to agree in gender with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern Russian uses sg. neuter to form nominalized adjectives describing abstract or collective concepts: _былое_ (&quot;bygones&quot;), _приданое_ (&quot;dowry&quot;), _второе_ (&quot;main course&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian and Church Slavonic used pl. neuter for this purpose, ending in _-ая_ in nominative: _вселенная; преисподняя; святая святых; прочая, прочая, прочая_ etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12966" RevisionGUID="14526bd2-b2db-49b6-946a-4f86dc95782d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T10:18:35.677" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/" Text="You can [add a secondary keyboard layout in Windows][1] and do the same on your phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://superuser.com/questions/177305/using-multiple-keyboards-with-different-keyboard-layouts-in-windows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can buy Cyrillic stickers for the keys from eBay (though once you start you get used to the letter positions and won't need them after a while). It takes practice and is difficult at first, но это стоит того." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14134" RevisionGUID="f16b9e7c-394a-4fc8-b3af-edb9d92d6a6c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T11:04:51.953" UserId="8126" Text="I translated the sentence &quot;`You make me happy.`&quot; to Russian with an online translator. And it translated that as &quot;**ты делаешь меня счастливым.**&quot;. Why is the instrumental case necessary here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14134" RevisionGUID="f16b9e7c-394a-4fc8-b3af-edb9d92d6a6c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T11:04:51.953" UserId="8126" Text="Why is &quot;счастливый&quot; in instrumental case in the following sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14134" RevisionGUID="f16b9e7c-394a-4fc8-b3af-edb9d92d6a6c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T11:04:51.953" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14135" RevisionGUID="6af25911-fb3b-474b-9ba0-082b57db6008" CreationDate="2017-03-20T11:30:54.320" UserId="4560" Text="Instrumental is always used when talking about being or becoming, with the exception of the copula-less present tense and the shortened form of the adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я счастлив. Я студент. Я нервный.** *[sample adjective that has no short form]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я был счастлив. Я был студентом. Я был нервным.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я буду счастлив. Я буду студентом. Я буду нервным.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Быть счастливым. Быть студентом. Быть нервным.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я стал счастливым. Я стал студентом. Я стал нервным.** *[ditto **стану** and **становлюсь**]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Меня делают счастливым. Меня делают студентом. Меня делают нервным.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last example is, again, the same for all tenses and both aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some deviations from these patterns that come across as either bookish or colloquial, but generally, this is one of the core uses of the instrumental. In this function, it's similar (although far from identical) to the dedicated [essive case][1] found in Uralic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14136" RevisionGUID="bf82651b-82f0-4a09-9304-3d29bf91c1aa" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:12:46.803" UserId="1262" Text="In terms of [Aktionsart][1], there are two sub-aspects rendered by means of Russian Instrumental Case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one (that is, the Essive) is indeed similar to Essive in most Uralic languages (whenever a presence of sucha a lexical aspect is a case) and refers to a condition of non-permanent state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Essive aspect can normally be substituted by a shorter form of an Adjective (similar to that of Polish and not to be confused with archaic participle-like forms, e. g. *рад, приглашён, доступен*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я был счастливым =&gt; Я был счастлив / счастливый +* a noun.&#xD;&#xA;*Я буду счастливым. =&gt; Я буду счастлив / счастливый* + a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other sub-aspect is Transitive, referring to becoming and/or change. The Transitive sub-aspect cannot be substituted by a shorter adjective form and requires стать / становиться, сделаться. Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я стану счастлив. =&gt;* *** Я стану счастливый** (this just doesn't sound like a good Russian, with or without a nominal compliment). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14137" RevisionGUID="bb235692-4b55-489b-a5eb-cc11987df78a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:21:47.020" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="Is the sentence &quot;А чему она должна научиться?&quot; correct? (Should be &quot;and what must she learn?&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14137" RevisionGUID="bb235692-4b55-489b-a5eb-cc11987df78a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:21:47.020" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="Is &quot;А чему она должна научиться?&quot; correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14137" RevisionGUID="bb235692-4b55-489b-a5eb-cc11987df78a" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:21:47.020" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14138" RevisionGUID="732e7914-8cd7-4799-bc86-4903efd4d29d" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:40:43.930" UserId="4600" Text="Yes, this looks correct, meaning can be understood from English translation you provided pretty acurately. This can be used as a response to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Она пошла в школу с углублённым изучением английского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А чему она должна [там] научиться?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Не только грамматике, но и разговорной речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – She enrolled to school majoring in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – And what will she learn [there]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Not only grammar, but also speaking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Она не сможет работать, пока не пройдёт обучение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – А чему она должна научиться?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – She won't be able to work before she undergoes training.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – And what must she learn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14139" RevisionGUID="1719b25c-7f29-4332-8edd-a6bb8eb75df3" CreationDate="2017-03-20T15:50:38.590" UserId="194" Text="Consider English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is method which is important here, not the result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here &quot;important&quot; is related to &quot;it&quot;, not to &quot;method&quot;. Why do you think it should relate to method in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="e65bbf79-301c-4df2-85b4-50bf8f37de41" CreationDate="2017-03-20T16:31:04.973" UserId="6539" Text="The word &quot;главное&quot; in this sentence plays the part of a noun in the meaning &quot;the most important in general&quot; and is used in the neuter gender. This meaning is mentioned in some dictionaries (Кузнецов Толковый словарь and Малый академический словарь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гла́вное, -ого; ср. Несколько слов о самом главном. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When &quot;главное&quot; is a subject and there is no verb (a copular be) we put a dash after it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Главное – не метод,а результат. Главное – люди. Главное – не опоздать на поезд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a subject it doesn't depend on the other words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14141" RevisionGUID="bbc0749f-a51f-4bd4-b1b8-c2b35b844c1e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T16:52:58.313" UserId="8703" Text="Well, it sure does look correct... Actually, i use &quot;О&quot; to help myself in L.P. I.e: О хороших матерях. Good luck with your studies (Glad someone remembers us funky Russians...)!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="c6c220cf-6af2-4435-8824-a8cbb91ee229" CreationDate="2017-03-20T16:59:05.890" UserId="6539" Text="It would have been very comfortable to consider that we always have the past tense in both clauses in case of unreal condition. And it is correct in most cases. And you are right that there cannot be a present tense. But Russian is a tricky language sometimes and there can be other combinations. So we can't say that the past tense is mandatory. Here are several examples where either the if - clause or the main clause do not correspond the usual standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Я бы вас бросил, если бы не ваш идиотизм.&#xD;&#xA;2.Если б хоть ненадолго заставить его замолчать, можно было бы собраться с мыслями.&#xD;&#xA;3.Если бы мои родители могли предвидеть, во что выльется легкомысленный шаг отца, не бывать бы мне на тех футбольных матчах. [Е. Рубин. Пан или пропал. Жизнеописание (1999-2000)]&#xD;&#xA;4. Всё равно, если бы и догнала, при отце он со мной говорить не будет… &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14140" RevisionGUID="1cbcc7c7-2202-4316-942c-7c678a24640e" CreationDate="2017-03-20T19:58:47.557" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The word &quot;главное&quot; in this sentence plays the part of a noun in the meaning &quot;the most important in general&quot; and is used in the neuter gender. This meaning is mentioned in some dictionaries (Кузнецов Толковый словарь and Малый академический словарь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гла́вное, -ого; ср. Несколько слов о самом главном. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When &quot;главное&quot; is a subject and there is no verb (a copular be) we put a dash after it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Главное – не метод,а результат. Главное – люди. Главное – не опоздать на поезд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a subject it doesn't depend on  other words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14143" RevisionGUID="fa151603-c13b-431e-a72d-9a0eed9d87c6" CreationDate="2017-03-20T20:07:53.987" UserId="8617" Text="Думаю, со словом &quot;конвеер&quot; больше подходит &quot;ы&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;Все конвееры запущены.  &#xD;&#xA;Все сервера подключены.  &#xD;&#xA;Все корпуса изготовлены." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14144" RevisionGUID="d205845e-e7d8-4c24-a7f9-5ae29218fb73" CreationDate="2017-03-20T20:20:28.643" UserId="8617" Text="главное не метод, а результат.  &#xD;&#xA;it's not the method what is important, it's the result.  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;it's not about the method, it's about the result.&#xD;&#xA;главное не победа, а участие.  &#xD;&#xA;it's not the victory what is important, it's the participation.  &#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;it's not about the victory, it's about participation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33929" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14125" RevisionGUID="ee4901be-13ae-4cc4-9577-6dd3f0017dc2" CreationDate="2017-03-21T05:43:41.877" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14134" RevisionGUID="5c4004c8-beda-425b-a50e-78de059d2b04" CreationDate="2017-03-21T06:08:51.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/844068266356228097" />
  <row Id="33931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14145" RevisionGUID="8c5de929-d042-48a2-a1ee-fc76f2cfb8a3" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:35:14.917" UserId="8729" Text="I am new to Russian language and I have consulted several sources about this but can not get a clear picture about this. As a native speaker, what is the easiest way to identify which verb it is, where the root stops and what form it is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Летящий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;прочитавший&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;читаемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;прибежавший&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;работающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сделанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;гуляя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спросив" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14145" RevisionGUID="8c5de929-d042-48a2-a1ee-fc76f2cfb8a3" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:35:14.917" UserId="8729" Text="gerund or particip?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14145" RevisionGUID="8c5de929-d042-48a2-a1ee-fc76f2cfb8a3" CreationDate="2017-03-21T11:35:14.917" UserId="8729" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14145" RevisionGUID="2fafe7bb-3f60-4e06-b44d-da7b6e8e3ff0" CreationDate="2017-03-21T12:24:57.837" UserId="8729" Comment="re-phased the question so that those with low IQ and feel important do not think I look for someone that solves my home work" Text="I am new to Russian language and I have consulted several sources about this but can not get a clear picture about this. I am looking for a method on how to solve these type of questions (not that you solve this for me). Explain how to solve these type of questions. How do you go about when you identify what it is, what is the characteristic part?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;работающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сделанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;гуляя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спросив" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14145" RevisionGUID="0c4b3dd0-0ec6-4c5e-9769-9d7d8dfc3a30" CreationDate="2017-03-21T12:30:27.773" UserId="8729" Comment="re-phased the question so that those with low IQ and feel important do not think I look for someone that solves my home work" Text="I am new to Russian language and I have consulted several sources about this but can not get a clear picture about this. I am looking for a method on how to solve these type of questions (not that you solve this for me). Explain how to solve these type of questions. How do you go about when you identify what it is, what is the characteristic part? I listed the various cases I ran into. There might be some others I did not get exposed to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;работающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сделанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;гуляя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спросив" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14146" RevisionGUID="2d08b762-b59d-42ab-a6a9-9c6af68a9109" CreationDate="2017-03-21T13:39:16.993" UserId="1262" Text="***By their case endings, and, sometimes, by a word stress, that is:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. words ending by ***-ий;*** ***-ый*** or ***-ой*** could be either participles or adjectives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An implication of a transitive action required for the word to be a participle is usually expressed by a communicative ellipsis (so-called 'zero communication').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.1. When preceding by ***-н(н)-*** - that is, in words like  ***--нный (сделанный, отвеченный, приобретённый, купленный)*** they are, at 94% probability Past Tense Participles (Massculine Grammatical Gender). The exeptions are words like ***стеклянный, оловянный, деревянный, сонный, сезонный,  странный.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2. A word ending in ***-ный*** is most likely to be an Adjective (***жареный,  мраморный, раненый, купленый***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3. A word ending in ***-н(н)ий*** could be a Masculin Adjective and nothing else: ***синий, ранний, зимний.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.4. As for form ***-н(н)ой,*** there is a 93% probability that this is either Genitive or Instrumental Case of the same participle/adjective type as above in 1.1.-1.2 (save 1.3):  ***стеклянной, оловянной, деревянной, сонной, сезонной,  странной, жареной, мраморной, раненой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Judging by the fact that persons speaking Russian as their first native language are more prone to use Genitive whenever it's possible (and sometime even when it's impossible) when they learn a language with a Genitive-like case within its case system, such a form is more likely to be a Feminine Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*2. The Russian passive participles do differ by their grammatical genders, whilest the active participles (I suppose this is what you call 'Gerund') don't.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1. A word ending by ***-яя*** is 93% likely to be a 'Gerund' from a ***-ять?-ить-***ending verbs (***меняя, цепляя, примеряя, примиряя, извиняя, обвиняя***), but there is also a possibility that it could be a Feminine Adjective of the abovementioned 1.3 type: ***синяя, ранняя, зимняя.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1. A word ending by ***-ая*** could be either a 'Gerund' form of a  ***-ать-***ending verb (***думая, зная, отвечая***) or a Feminine Nominative Adjective / Participle: крупная, VS  (сделанный, отвеченный, приобретённый, купленный)*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1.1. When preceded by ***-нн-***, it's usually a participle: ***сделанная, отвеченная, приобретённая, купленная.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1.2. When preceded by ***-н-***, it's usually an adjective: ***жареная, раненая, мраморная, купленая.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1.3. The difference between a 'Gerund' and a 'Feminine Participle' is most frequently governed by presence / absence of **-н(н)-**. Thus, words like  ***продуманная, признанная, отвеченная, купленная, приобретённая, сделанная*** are 'Participles' while words like ***думая, зная, отвечая, покупая, приобретая, делая*** are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.2. Very seldom it could be a feminine loanword from Sanskrit (e. g.***самАя*** - not to be confused with a feminine form ***сАмая*** of superlative adjective ***самый***, sometimes also spelled ***самайя***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.3. A word ending by ***-ея*** is either a 'Gerund' from a ***-еть-***ending word (***смея, белея, зверея***) or a feminine noun/adjective (***змеЯ, ворожея, камея***) , or an Accusative form of a Single Masculine Animate Noun (***змЕя, чародея, злодея***). In the latter case, it is normally preceded by a transitive verb (or by an ellyptic context within a zero-communication structure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.4. A word ending in ***-ив*** is most likely to be an Active Participle of a Past Tense from an ***-ить-***ending verb: ***ответив, уложив.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.5. A word ending by ***-ев*** could be, in order of probability, either an Active Participle of the same type (***посмев, забелев, озверев***) or a Masculine Noun (***лев, зев***), or a short form of a masculine adjective (***левый***; in this case it is usually not followed by a noun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.6. Last, but not least, an **-ав** - ending word is either a masculine nominative for a  noun from a semi-archaic stock ending in -глав (***Триглав, псоглав, златоглав, etc.*** or an adverb ***стремглав***) or, again and most likely, a Past Tense PArticiple from a --ending verb: ***подумав, признав, сделав, сказав.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the letter Ё ё is rarely used in modern Russian writing, so the words ***приобретённый, приобретённая*** could be spelled as ***приобретенный, приобретенная.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14146" RevisionGUID="3ccdb3ed-c610-4a8e-9886-50e62da24ded" CreationDate="2017-03-21T13:46:59.927" UserId="1262" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="***By their case endings, and, sometimes, by a word stress, that is:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. words ending by ***-ий;*** ***-ый*** or ***-ой*** could be either participles or adjectives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An implication of a transitive action required for the word to be a participle is usually expressed by a communicative ellipsis (so-called 'zero communication').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.1. When preceding by ***-н(н)-*** - that is, in words like  ***--нный (сделанный, отвеченный, приобретённый, купленный)*** they are, at 94% probability Past Tense Participles (Massculine Grammatical Gender). The exeptions are words like ***стеклянный, оловянный, деревянный, сонный, сезонный,  странный.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2. A word ending in ***-ный*** is most likely to be an Adjective (***жареный,  мраморный, раненый, купленый***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3. A word ending in ***-н(н)ий*** could be a Masculin Adjective and nothing else: ***синий, ранний, зимний.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.4. As for form ***-н(н)ой,*** there is a 93% probability that this is either Genitive or Instrumental Case of the same participle/adjective type as above in 1.1.-1.2 (save 1.3):  ***стеклянной, оловянной, деревянной, сонной, сезонной,  странной, жареной, мраморной, раненой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Judging by the fact that persons speaking Russian as their first native language are more prone to use Genitive whenever it's possible (and sometime even when it's impossible) when they learn a language with a Genitive-like case within its case system, such a form is more likely to be a Feminine Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***2. The Russian passive participles do differ by their grammatical genders, whilest the active participles (I suppose this is what you call 'Gerund') don't.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1. A word ending by ***-яя*** is 93% likely to be a 'Gerund' from a ***-ять-/ -ить-*** ending verbs ( ***меняя, цепляя, примеряя, примиряя, извиняя, обвиняя*** ), but there is also a possibility that it could be a Feminine Adjective of the abovementioned 1.3 type: ***синяя, ранняя, зимняя.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1. A word ending by ***-ая*** could be either a 'Gerund' form of a  ***-ать-*** ending verb ( ***думая, зная, отвечая*** ) or a Feminine Nominative Adjective / Participle: adjectives ***крупная, купленая, жареная, мраморная, раненая***  VS   participles ***сделанный, отвеченный, приобретённый, купленный***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1.1. When preceded by ***-нн-***, it's usually a participle: ***сделанная, отвеченная, приобретённая, купленная.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1.2. When preceded by ***-н-***, it's usually an adjective: ***жареная, раненая, мраморная, купленая.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.1.3. The difference between a 'Gerund' and a 'Feminine Participle' is most frequently stated by presence / absence of **-н(н)-**. Thus, words like  ***продуманная, признанная, отвеченная, купленная, приобретённая, сделанная*** are 'Participles' while words like ***думая, зная, отвечая, покупая, приобретая, делая*** are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.2. Very seldom it could be a feminine loanword from Sanskrit (e. g.***самАя*** - not to be confused with a feminine form ***сАмая*** of superlative adjective ***самый***, sometimes also spelled ***самайя***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.3. A word ending by ***-ея*** is either a 'Gerund' from a ***-еть-*** ending word (***смея, белея, зверея***) or a feminine noun/adjective (***змеЯ, ворожея, камея***) , or an Accusative form of a Single Masculine Animate Noun (***змЕя, чародея, злодея***). In the latter case, it is normally preceded by a transitive verb (or by an ellyptic context within a zero-communication structure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.4. A word ending in ***-ив*** is most likely to be an Active Participle of a Past Tense from an ***-ить-***ending verb: ***ответив, уложив.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.5. A word ending by ***-ев*** could be, in order of probability, either an Active Participle of the same type (***посмев, забелев, озверев***) or a Masculine Noun (***лев, зев***), or a short form of a masculine adjective (***левый***; in this case it is usually not followed by a noun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.6. Last, but not least, an **-ав** - ending word is either a masculine nominative for a  noun from a semi-archaic stock ending in ***-глав*** (***Триглав, псоглав, златоглав, etc.*** or an adverb ***стремглав***) or, again and most likely, a Past Tense PArticiple from an -***ать***-ending verb: ***подумав, признав, сделав, сказав.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: the letter Ё ё is rarely used in modern Russian writing, so the words ***приобретённый, приобретённая*** could be spelled as ***приобретенный, приобретенная.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="39e67554-a1ac-4abc-b7ed-ef3b7dc3a4f0" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:05:56.427" UserId="8245" Text="всем привет, по русски пытаюсь выучить, если вы будете мне помочь то я буду очень рад!) вот всегда путаю и неправильно говорю вот эти слова, например: &#xD;&#xA;позвонить звонить&#xD;&#xA;отковырять ковырять&#xD;&#xA;проставить ставить&#xD;&#xA;пускают спускают&#xD;&#xA;увидеть видеть&#xD;&#xA;сменить менять&#xD;&#xA;поговорить говорить&#xD;&#xA;прописать писать&#xD;&#xA;заплатить оплатить&#xD;&#xA;и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;в каких ситуациях говорить эту а в каких эти??&#xD;&#xA; Заранее вам спасибо, и жду ваших ответов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="39e67554-a1ac-4abc-b7ed-ef3b7dc3a4f0" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:05:56.427" UserId="8245" Text="помогите мне пожалуйста!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="39e67554-a1ac-4abc-b7ed-ef3b7dc3a4f0" CreationDate="2017-03-21T14:05:56.427" UserId="8245" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33942" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="2a4c447b-4f67-4959-b193-2aa4c1f2212c" CreationDate="2017-03-21T16:24:06.567" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4600,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Taosique&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14130" RevisionGUID="628d78da-6aaf-4b74-b621-bf3011958338" CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:21:44.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/844252701881962498" />
  <row Id="33944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="d7d22275-c72b-410b-ab1d-45fbf2eca42e" CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:36:17.050" UserId="1262" Comment="Вынес конкретный вопрос в заголовок. Поправил оформление списка слов. Малые правки" Text="Пытаюсь научиться говорить по-русски, если вы мне поможете, то я буду очень рад! &#xD;&#xA;Всегда путаю и неправильно говорю вот эти слова: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; позвонить звонить  &#xD;&#xA;отковырять ковырять  &#xD;&#xA;проставить ставить  &#xD;&#xA;пускают спускают  &#xD;&#xA;увидеть видеть  &#xD;&#xA;сменить менять  &#xD;&#xA;поговорить говорить  &#xD;&#xA;прописать писать  &#xD;&#xA;и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В каких ситуациях говориятся первые, а в каких вторые? В чём разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первые - это в основном с приставками, вторые - без. В чём разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И в чём тогда разница между &quot;заплатить&quot; и &quot;оплатить&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Заранее вам спасибо, жду ваших ответов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33945" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="d7d22275-c72b-410b-ab1d-45fbf2eca42e" CreationDate="2017-03-21T18:36:17.050" UserId="1262" Comment="Вынес конкретный вопрос в заголовок. Поправил оформление списка слов. Малые правки" Text="В каких случаях употреблять &quot;позвонить&quot;, а в каких &quot;звонить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14148" RevisionGUID="1299a7d5-0291-4cae-9c25-7fb8f9b5810c" CreationDate="2017-03-21T20:36:03.843" UserId="6539" Text="работающий – работа/ть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сделанный – сдела/ть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;гуляя – гуля/ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спросив – спроси/ть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first point to distinguish between причастиями and деепричастиями and other parts of speech, such as nouns and adjectives is to find the verb from which they were formed (using a dictionary). Because in some cases it's impossible  &quot;оловянный&quot;,&quot;чародея&quot;,&quot;камея&quot;,&quot;мраморная&quot;,&quot;трехглав&quot;, you don't need further research. Then look at the suffix, which follows the stem, they are usually listed in textbooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У **действительных** причастий, находящихся в **настоящем** времени, суффиксы такие: **ущ/ющ** (танцующий, поющий), **ащ/ящ** (кричащий, летящий). У **страдательных** - **ем-** (колеблемый), **-ом-** (влекомый), **им**(зависимый). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда причастия стоят в **прошедшем** времени, отличать их будем также по залогу. **Действ**.прич. : **-вш-** (купивший),**ш** (выросший). **Страд.**прич. : **т-** (расколотый), **-енн-** (прокрученный), **-нн-** (вымерянный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Деепричастия** don't have voice,they have tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Наст.вр.**: **-а** (не спеша), **-я** (угадывая), **-учи** (будучи), **-ючи** (припеваючи). **Прошедшее время**: **-в** (сделав), **-вши**( не знавши).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the main rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14137" RevisionGUID="dfc9dca6-b43c-4332-904d-fd92ae49a486" CreationDate="2017-03-21T21:21:45.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/844298006434336768" />
  <row Id="33948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14142" RevisionGUID="a76e1473-d1e5-4b4f-9a26-8da1f0b4dd1a" CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:31:31.370" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It would have been very convenient to consider that we always have the past tense in both clauses in case of unreal condition. And it is correct in most cases. And you are right that there cannot be a present tense. But Russian is a tricky language sometimes and there can be other combinations. So we can't say that the past tense is mandatory. Here are several examples where either the if - clause or the main clause do not correspond the usual standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Я бы вас бросил, если бы не ваш идиотизм.&#xD;&#xA;2.Если б хоть ненадолго заставить его замолчать, можно было бы собраться с мыслями.&#xD;&#xA;3.Если бы мои родители могли предвидеть, во что выльется легкомысленный шаг отца, не бывать бы мне на тех футбольных матчах. [Е. Рубин. Пан или пропал. Жизнеописание (1999-2000)]&#xD;&#xA;4. Всё равно, если бы и догнала, при отце он со мной говорить не будет… &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14148" RevisionGUID="5dbdf46d-3d95-4f26-88bc-ff83af4a00d9" CreationDate="2017-03-22T04:51:53.817" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="работающий – работа/ть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;сделанный – сдела/ть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;гуляя – гуля/ть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спросив – спроси/ть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first point to distinguish between причастиями and деепричастиями and other parts of speech, such as nouns and adjectives is to **find the verb** from which they were formed (using a dictionary). Because in some cases it's impossible  &quot;оловянный&quot;,&quot;чародея&quot;,&quot;камея&quot;,&quot;мраморная&quot;,&quot;трехглав&quot;, you don't need further research. Then look at the suffix, which follows the stem, they are usually listed in textbooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У **действительных** причастий, находящихся в **настоящем** времени, суффиксы такие: **ущ/ющ** (танцующий, поющий), **ащ/ящ** (кричащий, летящий). У **страдательных** - **ем-** (колеблемый), **-ом-** (влекомый), **им**(зависимый). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда причастия стоят в **прошедшем** времени, отличать их будем также по залогу. **Действ**.прич. : **-вш-** (купивший),**ш** (выросший). **Страд.**прич. : **т-** (расколотый), **-енн-** (прокрученный), **-нн-** (вымерянный).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Деепричастия** don't have voice,they have tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Наст.вр.**: **-а** (не спеша), **-я** (угадывая), **-учи** (будучи), **-ючи** (припеваючи). **Прошедшее время**: **-в** (сделав), **-вши**( не знавши).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the main rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="24640036-145f-4bac-adc8-009f7e466ad3" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:31:06.817" UserId="4121" Text="Довольно часто в разговорной речи я слышу, что в побудительных фразах используются глаголы множественного числа первого лица настоящего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, контроллер в автобусе: *&quot;Садимся, не задерживаем рейс&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На приеме окулиста: *&quot;Смотрим на первую строчку. Читаем буквы вслух&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжках по грамматике описания этого явления не нашел. К какому наклонению следует относить эти глаголы к побудительному или изъявительному?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="24640036-145f-4bac-adc8-009f7e466ad3" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:31:06.817" UserId="4121" Text="Какое наклонение у глаголов в репликах &quot;Проходим!&quot;, &quot;Не задержимаемся!&quot; и т.д" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="24640036-145f-4bac-adc8-009f7e466ad3" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:31:06.817" UserId="4121" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="48048835-3af8-49f6-ae88-8b2cbd1a7090" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:45:26.553" UserId="4121" Comment="edited body" Text="Довольно часто в разговорной речи я слышу, что в побудительных фразах используются глаголы множественного числа первого лица настоящего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, контроллер в автобусе: *&quot;Садимся, не задерживаем рейс&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На приеме окулиста: *&quot;Смотрим на первую строчку. Читаем буквы вслух&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжках по грамматике описания этого явления не нашел. К какому наклонению следует относить эти глаголы к повелительному или изъявительному?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14150" RevisionGUID="19cb7cb5-b9e8-4910-be22-f7248a8c6abf" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:52:35.923" UserId="1236" Text="Это одна из форм повелительного наклонения. У него [много вариантов есть][1], «стоять!» (= инфинитиву), «встали!» (= прошедшему времени), «пойдём!», «пойдёмте!» (= формам будущего времени 1-го лица мн. ч.), «да здравствует!» (= настоящему времени 3-го лица ед. ч.), «помог бы ты мне!» (= форме условного наклонения), и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://uchim.org/russkij-yazyk/naklonenie-glagola" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14150" RevisionGUID="e0ccc6e8-75ed-43d2-9393-44c79c4d58b8" CreationDate="2017-03-22T14:59:05.490" UserId="1236" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="Это одна из форм [повелительного наклонения][1]. У него [много вариантов есть][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «стоять!» (= инфинитиву)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «встали!» (= прошедшему времени)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«пойдём!», «пойдёмте!» (= формам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будущего времени 1-го лица мн. ч.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«да здравствует!» (= настоящему времени 3-го лица ед. ч.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«помог бы ты мне!» (= форме условного наклонения)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«награди тебя Бог!» (обращение формой 2-го лица к 3-му лицу)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/russkiy-yazik-2/170.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://uchim.org/russkij-yazyk/naklonenie-glagola" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33959" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="fb74171d-b934-4162-9486-a63ed65a1e8e" CreationDate="2017-03-23T03:38:10.703" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1262,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manjusri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="33960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14149" RevisionGUID="f4c8bc8c-d323-4f30-a4ae-75ef032f3af3" CreationDate="2017-03-23T06:28:35.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/844798009510522880" />
  <row Id="33964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14147" RevisionGUID="6689c572-b4d7-4091-afe6-6ba24f2d50cc" CreationDate="2017-03-23T10:56:44.103" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Пытаюсь научиться говорить по-русски, если вы мне поможете, то я буду очень рад! &#xD;&#xA;Всегда путаю и неправильно говорю вот эти слова: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; позвонить звонить  &#xD;&#xA;отковырять ковырять  &#xD;&#xA;проставить ставить  &#xD;&#xA;пускают спускают  &#xD;&#xA;увидеть видеть  &#xD;&#xA;сменить менять  &#xD;&#xA;поговорить говорить  &#xD;&#xA;прописать писать  &#xD;&#xA;и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В каких ситуациях говорятся первые, а в каких вторые? В чём разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первые - это в основном с приставками, вторые - без. В чём разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И в чём тогда разница между &quot;заплатить&quot; и &quot;оплатить&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Заранее вам спасибо, жду ваших ответов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14153" RevisionGUID="3bb8433f-843b-4818-b43a-7995f4098d52" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:17:36.553" UserId="1262" Text="Так называемый &quot;[иклюзивный][1] [императив][2]&quot;, ещё одно наследие финно-угорских языков.&#xD;&#xA;Возможно и франкофонное влияние, но версия с инклюзивным императивом лично мне представляется более достоверной, т. к. в кругах, где используется такая форма, вряд ли ценится наследие именно франкофонной традиции. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть и собственно славянским явлением (по крайней мере, инклюзивный императив как самостоятельная категория [выделяется в балканских языках][3] - см. стр. 119), но в этом случае вновь встаёт вопрос славянской прародины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку в русской культуре важен статус в коммуникации и в разговорной речи повелительное обращение может рассматриваться как форма речевой агрессии, то &quot;инклюзивный императив&quot; - это своеобразная форма вежливого обращения. Впрочем, именно меня такая форма обращения обычно выбешивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это повелительное наклонение (императив).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/imperativ-v-raznostrukturnyh-yazykah-v-kontrastivno-tipologicheskom-plane&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://file:///C:/Users/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9/Desktop/bosniyskiy-horvatskiy-serbskiy---grammatika-s-sociolingvisticheskimi-kommentariyami.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14154" RevisionGUID="97d70f53-3826-4791-944a-ba7dca419570" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:42:49.553" UserId="1262" Text="Russian prepositions can express either motion/tramsition, or state (both evidential and non-evidential).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stumbling block is usually how to distinguish between a motion (or transition) and a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As prepositions, both ***на*** and ***в*** can be used to express either 'a  translative/motional or 'an existential' state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is expressed by a case ending (and a case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locative (AKA 'Prepositional') is normally used with 'existential' state, while Accusative suggests motion or transition. Cf: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я на химии*** (existential, Feminine Locative, non-evidential).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я на химию*** (motion, Feminine Accusative, non-evidential).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is a room called 'химия' between pals of a chemistry lab. A guy willing to express his literal acts or states would use phrases like:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;***Я в &quot;химию&quot;*** (motion, Feminine Accusative, evidential)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я в &quot;химии&quot;*** (existential, Feminine Locative, evidential)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, a possessive structure (e.g. phrases like 'I have', 'I own', etc.)  is always a structure of state. Hence, it is possible to say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***После русского языка я (буду) на лекции / на химии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ***После русского языка у меня будет химия***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***После русского языка я - на химию*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but not * ***После русского языка я буду в лекцию химия.***  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14155" RevisionGUID="b7d28ab0-0afd-4ec9-ada6-529d282426ea" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:52:44.690" UserId="1262" Text="The phrase ***Часто днём бегу в спортзал или в бассейн*** means a transition (translative) state emphasising the direction whereto a speaker is headed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase ***Часто днём бегу (better: бегаю) в спортзале или в бассейне*** means the location where the action of running is taking place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue itself deals with three non-explicit categories of [translativity][1], [existential][2] state and [evidentiality/non-evidentiality][3], which I have  explained in a response to [your other question][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_clause&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14070/what-is-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-in-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82-%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F-why-not-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D1%80%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14153" RevisionGUID="6e8e010a-c4fa-479a-a78a-fd20c9c51a72" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:30:31.613" UserId="4903" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="Так называемый &quot;[инклюзивный][1] [императив][2]&quot;, ещё одно наследие финно-угорских языков.&#xD;&#xA;Возможно и франкофонное влияние, но версия с инклюзивным императивом лично мне представляется более достоверной, т. к. в кругах, где используется такая форма, вряд ли ценится наследие именно франкофонной традиции. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть и собственно славянским явлением (по крайней мере, инклюзивный императив как самостоятельная категория [выделяется в балканских языках][3] - см. стр. 119), но в этом случае вновь встаёт вопрос славянской прародины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку в русской культуре важен статус в коммуникации и в разговорной речи повелительное обращение может рассматриваться как форма речевой агрессии, то &quot;инклюзивный императив&quot; - это своеобразная форма вежливого обращения. Впрочем, именно меня такая форма обращения обычно выбешивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это повелительное наклонение (императив).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/imperativ-v-raznostrukturnyh-yazykah-v-kontrastivno-tipologicheskom-plane&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://file:///C:/Users/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9/Desktop/bosniyskiy-horvatskiy-serbskiy---grammatika-s-sociolingvisticheskimi-kommentariyami.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14156" RevisionGUID="c8ac5fcf-3ff7-4bbd-b513-0db67588dd40" CreationDate="2017-03-24T06:01:21.590" UserId="6539" Text="В списке у нас первый глагол совершенного вида, второй несовершенного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позвонить – звонить&#xD;&#xA;отковырять – ковырять&#xD;&#xA;проставить – ставить&#xD;&#xA;спускают – пускают &#xD;&#xA;увидеть – видеть&#xD;&#xA;сменить – менять&#xD;&#xA;поговорить – говорить&#xD;&#xA;прописать – писать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем они отличаются? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаголы совершенного вида &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.описывают **завершенное действие** или то, которое **будет завершено** в будущем. Они не употребляются для действий, происходящих сейчас.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Завтра я поговорю с отцом. Ты позвонил другу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. относят действие к **определенному времени**, не могут описывать общие события.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Позвони ему завтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. описывают  результативные действия. Что‐то сделано или будет сделано.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прочитал всю книжку. (Книга прочитана). Я сменю рубашку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Действие обычно кратковременное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Посижу (немножко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Глаголы несовершенного вида&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. описывают незаконченное действие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Звоню, звоню – все без толку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Описывают, что вы делаете сейчас, обычно делали, обычно делаете, будете делать регулярно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю, что это правильно. И всегда говорил. И буду говорить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Показывают процесс, а не результат. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я читаю. Иногда хожу в кино. Я буду кататься на лыжах зимой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Действие более длительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я занимался весь вечер. Я буду слушать музыку еще часа два.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14157" RevisionGUID="9d0d9566-48bb-4f49-8842-ebdecdb0ea82" CreationDate="2017-03-24T10:32:03.983" UserId="8744" Text="You have the mistake here: Ns хóрошая мáть &#xD;&#xA;The right way is: Ns хoро'шая мáть &#xD;&#xA;And there will be like: Is хоро'шей ма`терью" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14153" RevisionGUID="6056343f-12e4-494f-a000-e65880339cea" CreationDate="2017-03-24T10:39:04.547" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Так называемый &quot;[инклюзивный][1] [императив][2]&quot;, ещё одно наследие финно-угорских языков.&#xD;&#xA;Возможно и франкофонное влияние, но версия с инклюзивным императивом лично мне представляется более достоверной, т. к. в кругах, где используется такая форма, вряд ли ценится наследие именно франкофонной традиции. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть и собственно славянским явлением (по крайней мере, инклюзивный императив как самостоятельная категория [выделяется в балканских языках][3] - см. стр. 119), но в этом случае вновь встаёт вопрос славянской прародины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку в русской культуре важен статус в коммуникации, а в разговорной речи повелительное обращение может рассматриваться как форма речевой агрессии, то &quot;инклюзивный императив&quot; - это своеобразная форма вежливого обращения. Впрочем, именно меня такая форма обращения обычно выбешивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, это повелительное наклонение (императив).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/imperativ-v-raznostrukturnyh-yazykah-v-kontrastivno-tipologicheskom-plane&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://vetarsabalkana.com/d/513918/d/bosniyskiy-horvatskiy-serbskiy---grammatika-s-sociolingvisticheskimi-kommentariyami.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33975" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14123" RevisionGUID="504ceb96-ba54-4b9d-abcd-dc785d4b978e" CreationDate="2017-03-24T11:11:28.303" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Declension of &quot;хорошая мать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33976" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14128" RevisionGUID="85fa1aa6-f202-4bbc-a4f8-df4dad301927" CreationDate="2017-03-24T12:37:53.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/845253335502520320" />
  <row Id="33977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="6eee6d95-d230-4942-9f2f-89898f80c698" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:48:33.110" UserId="6545" Text="First, there are not so many tags, right?&#xA;&#xA;Now, I notice two sentences;&#xA;&#xA;    Ему интересно учить русский язык.&#xA;    Learning Russian is interesting to him.&#xA;&#xA;    Он интересно учить русский язык.&#xA;    He learns Russian interestingly.&#xA;&#xA;I immediately notice that the pronoun Ему is in **dative** case when интересно is a *predicative*, but Он is in the **nominative** case when интересно is an *adverb*.&#xA;&#xA;Is this just a coincidence?&#xA;&#xA;It doesn't work so well in the following sentences so maybe in what follows the second sentence is meaningless.&#xA;&#xA;    На вечерах вам обычно скучно.&#xA;    The evenings are usually boring to them.&#xA;&#xA;    На вечерах они обычно скучно.&#xA;    They &lt;spend&gt; the evenings usually boringly.&#xA;&#xA;Where &lt; spend &gt; is obviously not there, so maybe the 2nd sentence doesn't make any sense. Can the second sentence mean anything as written?&#xA;&#xA;I notice that обычно is only an adverb, or the short form of the associated adjective. In all these sentences обычно is treated as an adverb, right?&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="6eee6d95-d230-4942-9f2f-89898f80c698" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:48:33.110" UserId="6545" Text="case of pronoun changes adverb to/from predicative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="6eee6d95-d230-4942-9f2f-89898f80c698" CreationDate="2017-03-24T22:48:33.110" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="2d2ae6f8-a9ad-4c33-9db4-5854e794652a" CreationDate="2017-03-24T23:01:05.730" UserId="6545" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="First, there are not so many tags, right?&#xA;&#xA;Now, I notice two sentences;&#xA;&#xA;    Ему интересно учить русский язык.&#xA;    Learning Russian is interesting to him.&#xA;&#xA;    Он интересно учить русский язык.&#xA;    He learns Russian interestingly.&#xA;&#xA;I immediately notice that the pronoun Ему is in **dative** case when интересно is a *predicative*, but Он is in the **nominative** case when интересно is an *adverb*.&#xA;&#xA;Is this just a coincidence?&#xA;&#xA;It doesn't work so well in the following sentences so maybe in what follows the second sentence is meaningless.&#xA;&#xA;    На вечерах вам обычно скучно.&#xA;    The evenings are usually boring to them.&#xA;&#xA;    На вечерах они обычно скучно.&#xA;    They &lt;spend&gt; the evenings usually boringly.&#xA;&#xA;Where &lt; spend &gt; is obviously not there, so maybe the 2nd sentence doesn't make any sense. Can the second sentence mean anything as written?&#xA;&#xA;I notice that обычно is only an adverb, or the short form of the associated adjective. In all these sentences обычно is treated as an adverb, right?&#xA;&#xA;Also, in sentence,&#xA;&#xA;    Я думаю, им скучно.&#xA;    I think they are boring.&#xA;&#xA;Скучно is a predicative, right? &#xA;&#xA;Would&#xA;&#xA;    Я думаю, они скучно.&#xA;&#xA;mean anything?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="f7a99efc-d3ba-45e6-a4f9-8827780ebde9" CreationDate="2017-03-25T05:02:42.933" UserId="4903" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="First, there are not so many tags, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I notice two sentences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ему интересно учить русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;    Learning Russian is interesting to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он интересно учит русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;    He learns Russian interestingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I immediately notice that the pronoun Ему is in **dative** case when интересно is a *predicative*, but Он is in the **nominative** case when интересно is an *adverb*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just a coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't work so well in the following sentences so maybe in what follows the second sentence is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На вечерах вам обычно скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    The evenings are usually boring to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На вечерах они обычно скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    They &lt;spend&gt; the evenings usually boringly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where &lt; spend &gt; is obviously not there, so maybe the 2nd sentence doesn't make any sense. Can the second sentence mean anything as written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that обычно is only an adverb, or the short form of the associated adjective. In all these sentences обычно is treated as an adverb, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я думаю, им скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    I think they are boring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скучно is a predicative, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я думаю, они скучно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mean anything?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14159" RevisionGUID="b8384765-7e1c-4dd0-b061-3527c89ed82a" CreationDate="2017-03-25T06:14:23.327" UserId="5008" Text="The Nominative case is the only thing which makes the noun to be the subject / the doer of an action. Any other case signifies that it's somehow thought to be an object / the passive side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the Dative says to us that it's not &quot;they&quot; who possess some attribute, but rather &quot;they&quot; are posessed / influenced by something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они скучны (or скучные) --&gt; They are boring (they have a quality of being boring to other people)  &#xD;&#xA;Им скучно --&gt; They feel boring (sort of &quot;the boredom affects them&quot;)  &#xD;&#xA;Они скучно --&gt; This has no sense unless it's the part of the larger sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14160" RevisionGUID="bacf829e-35b7-4174-872a-cd008a9f0574" CreationDate="2017-03-25T07:38:19.203" UserId="8747" Text="Первая группа (позвонить, отковырять) – завершенная форма глагола. Обычно так говорят об однократных действиях, которые нужно завершить.&#xD;&#xA;Вторая группа (звонить, ковырять) – это неопределенная форма. Так вы говорите о действиях, которые 1) делаете регулярно (простое время) или 2) в течение длительного времени (продолженное время).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По смыслу оплатить и заплатить – это одно и тоже. Но примеряется по-разному: оплатить что-то, ЗАплатить ЗА что-то.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14161" RevisionGUID="d5e008f1-2041-4389-9342-8c5f010c1098" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:15:36.427" UserId="4714" Text="I often see phrases such as—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;да ты не бойся, ты вспомни и т.п.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have yet to come across, in a grammar, an explanation of the use of these pronouns in such cases. What meaning do they add, and where can I read about this structure? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14161" RevisionGUID="d5e008f1-2041-4389-9342-8c5f010c1098" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:15:36.427" UserId="4714" Text="Use of pronoun ТЫ as particle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14161" RevisionGUID="d5e008f1-2041-4389-9342-8c5f010c1098" CreationDate="2017-03-25T10:15:36.427" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14162" RevisionGUID="480141ca-be9e-4d6a-b1f9-de8aaeefb2e4" CreationDate="2017-03-25T13:14:12.280" UserId="6725" Text="&quot;Ты&quot; (or &quot;вы&quot;, both plural and polite singular) here is not a particle, it's the subject of the sentence, which is usually omitted in neutral sentences. It adds a shade of familiarity and supportive, patronizing attitude towards the person you are talking to. This construction is acceptable (and widely used) wherever such attitude itself is appropriate. Once you've used it, the conversation gets less formal and more personal. Such sentences sound like either kindly advices or to-do instructions, pronounced in a patronizing tone. For example, mother can tell her little son (in mentor tone, she may be slightly irritated, because she has to repeat it every day, but not angry):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вань, ты руки-то помой после улицы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Vanya, wash your hands after playing outside!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or someone shows his pet snake to guests, who look pretty frightened, and says with a calming smile:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не волнуйтесь, она не ядовитая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't worry, it is not venomous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a husband says to his wife, who is going to file for divorce, in a calm and supportive, without any anger:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Маш, ты все-таки подумай еще раз, может еще не поздно все исправить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Masha, try to think once more, please, maybe it's still not too late to get it right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And about English translation, I wonder myself, how to express this properly in English. Any suggestions are welcome!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="a8e916e6-0818-45bf-8fdc-cd20dda0a01c" CreationDate="2017-03-25T15:48:42.873" UserId="6545" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="First, there are not so many tags, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I notice two sentences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ему интересно учить русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;    Learning Russian is interesting to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он интересно учит русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;    He learns Russian interestingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I immediately notice that the pronoun Ему is in **dative** case when интересно is a *predicative*, but Он is in the **nominative** case when интересно is an *adverb*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just a coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;It doesn't work so well in the following sentences so maybe in what follows the second sentence is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На вечерах вам обычно скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    The evenings are usually boring to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На вечерах они обычно скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    They &lt;spend&gt; the evenings usually boringly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where &lt; spend &gt; is obviously not there, so maybe the 2nd sentence doesn't make any sense. Can the second sentence mean anything as written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that обычно is only an adverb, or the short form of the associated adjective. In all these sentences обычно is treated as an adverb, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;**update** So the 2nd sentence here is wrong grammatically, according to @Vitaly.&#xA;_____________________&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я думаю, им скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    I think they are boring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скучно is a predicative, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я думаю, они скучно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mean anything?&#xA;&#xA;**update** So the 2nd sentence here is wrong grammatically, according to @Vitaly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14107" RevisionGUID="601a43bc-6183-4368-8c2d-4e6b793d1644" CreationDate="2017-03-25T18:38:00.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/845706347907891200" />
  <row Id="33991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="7afd85ad-80a6-4133-9241-ab68c53edb0e" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:01:22.750" UserId="8750" Text="[Note One](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y7ZNh.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;[Note two](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB1GC.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone please be kind enough to translate these two handwritten notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be very much appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thankyou." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="7afd85ad-80a6-4133-9241-ab68c53edb0e" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:01:22.750" UserId="8750" Text="Please help translate handwritten notes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="7afd85ad-80a6-4133-9241-ab68c53edb0e" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:01:22.750" UserId="8750" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="19a16098-7664-4801-9028-74f928926ef7" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:34:04.100" UserId="3680" Comment="images inlined" Text="Could someone please be kind enough to translate these two handwritten notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Note One](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y7ZNh.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![Note two](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB1GC.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be very much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="f4ac91b4-a9c4-4650-94af-4bd325e00922" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:38:16.240" UserId="8742" Text="I realize that a couple of questions have already been posted on this topic.  The ones I took a look at have been listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Non-numerical use of “один”**](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11506/non-numerical-use-of-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Я вижу + numeral + noun - governed by what case?**](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%D0%AF-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither specifically answered a question that was raised for me when I read the following in the book, [**_Master the Basics: Russian:_**](https://books.google.com/books/about/Master_the_Basics.html?id=ElY2i0ibj4EC) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**In Russian, the number &quot;one&quot; changes for gender -- it agrees with the noun which it qualifies.  Oddly enough, it also has a plural form which is used with nouns that exist only in the plural .... (p. 157)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then refers the reader back to a section that includes a list of words that are found in plural form only.  Using some of those words on the list as examples, the following is my interpretation of what they mean when paired with &quot;одни&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одни очки = one (pair of) glasses  &#xD;&#xA;одни брюки = one (pair of) trousers  &#xD;&#xA;одни ножницы = one (pair of) scissors**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all seems pretty straight forward, but then I come to words such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**кабычки (quotation marks)  &#xD;&#xA;скобки (parentheses)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I needed to convey &quot;one quotation mark,&quot; or &quot;one parenthesis?&quot;  If I add &quot;одни&quot; before the words above, am I conveying &quot;one quotation mark&quot; or &quot;one (pair of) quotations marks?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, with the following, does the addition of &quot;одни&quot; in front of the noun convey &quot;one election,&quot; &quot;one clock,&quot; and &quot;one funeral?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выборы (elections)  &#xD;&#xA;часы (clock, watch)  &#xD;&#xA;похороны (funeral)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I needed to specify &quot;a pair of watches,&quot; I suppose I could use &quot;пара часов.&quot;  Short of that, I am assuming that &quot;одни часы&quot; most commonly means &quot;one clock&quot; or &quot;one watch.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above is actually a bit of a side question that came up as I was organizing my thoughts for the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the word &quot;одни&quot; exclusively used for words that are only found in the plural?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a Russian would never use &quot;одни&quot; with a word found in both singular and plural, unless the meaning of &quot;some&quot; was intended, correct?  I've added some examples below and my interpretation of what they mean.  If I am wildly off mark, please let me know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**один мир = one world  &#xD;&#xA;один миры = some worlds**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одна женщина = one woman  &#xD;&#xA;одни женщины = some women**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одно окно = one window  &#xD;&#xA;одни окна = some windows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my understanding of how Russians use &quot;одни&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="f4ac91b4-a9c4-4650-94af-4bd325e00922" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:38:16.240" UserId="8742" Text="Can &quot;одни&quot; be paired with words that exist in both the singular and the plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="f4ac91b4-a9c4-4650-94af-4bd325e00922" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:38:16.240" UserId="8742" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14165" RevisionGUID="118a1d92-6326-482b-8b70-fa75f78361f5" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:43:49.073" UserId="3680" Text="We are not a bulk translation service. Please see [on-topic](http://russian.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help you with the translation, I've converted handwritten notes into the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я забочусь о своем здоровье: соблюдаю питьевой режим, ем полезную пищу.  &#xD;&#xA;Я забочусь о своем отдыхе: читаю, гуляю, хожу в кино, театры, музеи и на выставки, вышиваю, выжигаю по дереву, шью, создаю украшения и подарки своими руками, путешествую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я занимаюсь любимым делом: принимаю активное участие в организации и проведении мероприятий. Я организую мероприятия как лидер.&#xD;&#xA;Моя деятельность приносит мне достойное вознаграждение: более 28000 фунтов в год.&#xD;&#xA;Моя деятельность благостна для меня и процветания рода!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="970a7ce5-5953-41cb-a74f-73a418ffd09c" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:46:09.997" UserId="8742" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I realize that a couple of questions have already been posted on this topic.  The ones I took a look at have been listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Non-numerical use of “один”**](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11506/non-numerical-use-of-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Я вижу + numeral + noun - governed by what case?**](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%D0%AF-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither specifically answered a question that was raised for me when I read the following in the book, [**_Master the Basics: Russian:_**](https://books.google.com/books/about/Master_the_Basics.html?id=ElY2i0ibj4EC) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**In Russian, the number &quot;one&quot; changes for gender -- it agrees with the noun which it qualifies.  Oddly enough, it also has a plural form which is used with nouns that exist only in the plural .... (p. 157)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then refers the reader back to a section that includes a list of words that are found in plural form only.  Using some of those words on the list as examples, the following is my interpretation of what they mean when paired with &quot;одни&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одни очки = one (pair of) glasses  &#xD;&#xA;одни брюки = one (pair of) trousers  &#xD;&#xA;одни ножницы = one (pair of) scissors**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all seems pretty straightforward, but then I come to words such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**кабычки (quotation marks)  &#xD;&#xA;скобки (parentheses)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I needed to convey &quot;one quotation mark,&quot; or &quot;one parenthesis?&quot;  If I add &quot;одни&quot; before the words above, am I conveying &quot;one quotation mark&quot; or &quot;one (pair of) quotations marks?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, with the following, does the addition of &quot;одни&quot; in front of the noun convey &quot;one election,&quot; &quot;one clock,&quot; and &quot;one funeral?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выборы (elections)  &#xD;&#xA;часы (clock, watch)  &#xD;&#xA;похороны (funeral)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I needed to specify &quot;a pair of watches,&quot; I suppose I could use &quot;пара часов.&quot;  Short of that, I am assuming that &quot;одни часы&quot; most commonly means &quot;one clock&quot; or &quot;one watch.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above is actually a bit of a side question that came up as I was organizing my thoughts for the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the word &quot;одни&quot; exclusively used for words that are only found in the plural?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a Russian would never use &quot;одни&quot; with a word found in both singular and plural, unless the meaning of &quot;some&quot; was intended, correct?  I've added some examples below and my interpretation of what they mean.  If I am wildly off mark, please let me know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**один мир = one world  &#xD;&#xA;один миры = some worlds**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одна женщина = one woman  &#xD;&#xA;одни женщины = some women**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одно окно = one window  &#xD;&#xA;одни окна = some windows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my understanding of how Russians use &quot;одни&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="692ead61-8b58-4f06-90fa-101764ea24e4" CreationDate="2017-03-25T19:47:48.557" UserId="3680" Comment="typos fixed" Text="I realize that a couple of questions have already been posted on this topic.  The ones I took a look at have been listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Non-numerical use of “один”**](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11506/non-numerical-use-of-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Я вижу + numeral + noun - governed by what case?**](http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%D0%AF-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither specifically answered a question that was raised for me when I read the following in the book, [**_Master the Basics: Russian:_**](https://books.google.com/books/about/Master_the_Basics.html?id=ElY2i0ibj4EC) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**In Russian, the number &quot;one&quot; changes for gender -- it agrees with the noun which it qualifies.  Oddly enough, it also has a plural form which is used with nouns that exist only in the plural .... (p. 157)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then refers the reader back to a section that includes a list of words that are found in plural form only.  Using some of those words on the list as examples, the following is my interpretation of what they mean when paired with &quot;одни&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одни очки = one (pair of) glasses  &#xD;&#xA;одни брюки = one (pair of) trousers  &#xD;&#xA;одни ножницы = one (pair of) scissors**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all seems pretty straightforward, but then I come to words such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**кавычки (quotation marks)  &#xD;&#xA;скобки (parentheses)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I needed to convey &quot;one quotation mark,&quot; or &quot;one parenthesis?&quot;  If I add &quot;одни&quot; before the words above, am I conveying &quot;one quotation mark&quot; or &quot;one (pair of) quotations marks?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, with the following, does the addition of &quot;одни&quot; in front of the noun convey &quot;one election,&quot; &quot;one clock,&quot; and &quot;one funeral?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выборы (elections)  &#xD;&#xA;часы (clock, watch)  &#xD;&#xA;похороны (funeral)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I needed to specify &quot;a pair of watches,&quot; I suppose I could use &quot;пара часов.&quot;  Short of that, I am assuming that &quot;одни часы&quot; most commonly means &quot;one clock&quot; or &quot;one watch.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above is actually a bit of a side question that came up as I was organizing my thoughts for the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the word &quot;одни&quot; exclusively used for words that are only found in the plural?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a Russian would never use &quot;одни&quot; with a word found in both singular and plural, unless the meaning of &quot;some&quot; was intended, correct?  I've added some examples below and my interpretation of what they mean.  If I am wildly off mark, please let me know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**один мир = one world  &#xD;&#xA;одни миры = some worlds**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одна женщина = one woman  &#xD;&#xA;одни женщины = some women**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одно окно = one window  &#xD;&#xA;одни окна = some windows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my understanding of how Russians use &quot;одни&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14166" RevisionGUID="7ece6499-dd18-454f-8558-c61165861812" CreationDate="2017-03-25T20:00:51.483" UserId="3680" Text="There is another meaning of `одни + plural`. It means `only` in some contexts.  &#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одни женщины = women only.  &#xD;&#xA;В доме жили одни женщины = In the house there were only women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одни окна = only windows.  &#xD;&#xA;За день мы вымыли лишь одни окна = We've washed only windows for the day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14167" RevisionGUID="34f8450b-2cfb-4899-89d0-3f92be71126f" CreationDate="2017-03-25T20:41:25.053" UserId="4903" Text="In English language the same word can change it's role in the sentence.  For example, **&quot;cut&quot;** could be a verb, as in **&quot;to cut a tree&quot;**  It could be a noun **&quot;a paper cut&quot;**, or it could be an adjective as in **&quot;cut branches&quot;**. The role that the word plays in the sentence is determined by its position relative to other words in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian language the role of the word is determined by the word itself, i.e. by its suffixes. This role is NOT changed by word's position in a sentence, or other words.  For example, **&quot;интерес&quot;** - *a noun &quot;the interest&quot;*, or **&quot;интересный&quot;** - *an adjective &quot;interesting&quot;*, or **&quot;интересно&quot;** - *an adverb &quot;interestingly&quot;*, or **&quot;интересовать&quot;** - *a verb &quot;to interest&quot;*. There is nothing in the sentence that would change role of those words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes (infrequently) one word-form coincides with another.  For example, an adverb **&quot;интересно учить&quot;** is spelled the same as a short singular adjective in neuter gender **&quot;это изобретение интересно&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pattern that you probably noticed (I'm guessing here) in the sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ему** интересно **учить** русский язык. / [It is] interesting **to him** **to learn** Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Он** интересно **учит** русский язык. / **He** **learns** Russian interestingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is specifics of subject-less sentences. Because Russian language tends to drop the verb **&quot;to be&quot;**, one gets subject-less sentences. In the first pair of sentences **&quot;it is&quot;** is dropped in Russian translation.  However, **&quot;to him&quot;** translates into **&quot;ему&quot;**, infinitive **&quot;to learn&quot;** -&gt; **&quot;учить&quot;**.  **&quot;Интересно&quot;** is an adverb, but in this sentence it could be called a predicative adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second pair of sentences **&quot;He&quot;** translates as **&quot;он&quot;**, the verb **&quot;learns&quot;** translates into singular third-person **&quot;учит&quot;**. **&quot;интересно&quot;** is still an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a similar manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; им скучно = [It is] boring to them = they are bored&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a subject-less sentence, and pronoun is used in Dative case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14168" RevisionGUID="6f2447ed-6a5c-44d8-8e2e-ce7f605d6d64" CreationDate="2017-03-25T21:36:03.763" UserId="4600" Text="As for *скобки,* this is a regular noun and you can use it in singular: *одна скобка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last example for *одни* meaning *some* is valid **only** when coupled with contradistinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Одни женщины добры, другие - злы.* – Some women are kind, others are evil. **CORRECT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Некоторые женщины – добры.* – Some women are kind. **CORRECT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Одни женщины добры.* – **WRONG**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14168" RevisionGUID="0e926c9a-b048-4408-83a7-cfad885cf050" CreationDate="2017-03-25T21:42:12.230" UserId="4600" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="As for *скобки и кавычки,* these are regular nouns and you can use them in singular: *одна скобка, одна кавычка.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last example for *одни* meaning *some* is valid **only** when coupled with contradistinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Одни женщины добры, другие - злы.* – Some women are kind, others are evil. **CORRECT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Некоторые женщины – добры.* – Some women are kind. **CORRECT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Одни женщины добры.* – **WRONG**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34015" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14163" RevisionGUID="a1b7a072-7d6d-48b3-90ca-85acab95147d" CreationDate="2017-03-26T07:30:43.197" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14171" RevisionGUID="c30b5fd8-f81d-40f2-99b2-c27129fb6aab" CreationDate="2017-03-26T16:47:06.793" UserId="1262" Text="The word ***один*** (***одна, одно, одни***) changes according to a declention paradigm of a word it describes in any of its meanings (which rarely is used as an indefinite article in Western langauges). The meanings are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) some (as opposed to (an)other ones):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Одни люди умные, другие - не всегда.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. the usage of this word as an attribute for an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Одних людей ценят, других - не всегда.*** (Animate object)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Одни вещи ценят(ся), другие - не всегда.*** (Inanimate object).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) sheer, mere, only, nothing but, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Тут одни гастарбайтеры. Там один контрафакт.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for an attribute of a *pluralia tantum* noun, such as, e.g. ***одни ножницы***, it is never used in singular, because there no singular form of a pluralia tantum exists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Одни ножницы острые, другие - тупые.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***На прилавке - одни ножницы.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it was said, the words ***кавычки*** and ***скобки*** are not pluralia tantum in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="f4d4f0d9-9fa3-45c4-a077-7bb9e617af3f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T16:54:14.770" UserId="1262" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="First, there are not so many tags, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I notice two sentences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ему интересно учить русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;    Learning Russian is interesting to him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он интересно учит русский язык.&#xD;&#xA;    He learns Russian interestingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I immediately notice that the pronoun Ему is in **dative** case when интересно is a *predicative*, but Он is in the **nominative** case when интересно is an *adverb*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this just a coincidence?&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't work so well in the following sentences so maybe in what follows the second sentence is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На вечерах вам обычно скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    The evenings are usually boring to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    На вечерах они обычно скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    They &lt;spend&gt; the evenings usually boringly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where &lt; spend &gt; is obviously not there, so maybe the 2nd sentence doesn't make any sense. Can the second sentence mean anything as written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice that обычно is only an adverb, or the short form of the associated adjective. In all these sentences обычно is treated as an adverb, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**update** So the 2nd sentence here is wrong grammatically, according to @Vitaly.&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я думаю, им скучно.&#xD;&#xA;    I think they are boring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скучно is a predicative, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я думаю, они скучно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mean anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**update** So the 2nd sentence here is wrong grammatically, according to @Vitaly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14158" RevisionGUID="f4d4f0d9-9fa3-45c4-a077-7bb9e617af3f" CreationDate="2017-03-26T16:54:14.770" UserId="1262" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14172" RevisionGUID="cb747806-7edf-40dc-839b-aaf69273cddc" CreationDate="2017-03-27T01:24:31.527" UserId="4301" Text="I know that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- University professors are nearly always on вы with their students.&#xD;&#xA;- School-age children are always addressed as ты by adults.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at what stage in the education system does the switch from ты to вы happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14172" RevisionGUID="cb747806-7edf-40dc-839b-aaf69273cddc" CreationDate="2017-03-27T01:24:31.527" UserId="4301" Text="At what age are students addressed as вы instead of ты by their teachers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14172" RevisionGUID="cb747806-7edf-40dc-839b-aaf69273cddc" CreationDate="2017-03-27T01:24:31.527" UserId="4301" Text="|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14173" RevisionGUID="730178fb-3126-4a21-90c9-b3257b971aa9" CreationDate="2017-03-27T01:46:09.153" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; Так как же узнать какой вариант правильный?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посмотреть в словаре: [корпус][1], [договор][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точнее, это &quot;нормативный&quot;. А что еще может означать &quot;правильный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть ли вообще какое-то логическое правило, определяющее форму окончания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот что пишет по этому поводу Корней Чуковский в книге &quot;Живой как жизнь&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое же недоумение вызывала во мне новоявленная форма: выбора́&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (вместо вы́боры), договора́ (вместо догово́ры), лектора́ (вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ле́кторы). В ней слышалось мне что-то залихватское, бесшабашное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; забубенное, ухарское. Напрасно я утешал себя тем, что эту форму уже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давно узаконил русский литературный язык. — Ведь, — говорил я себе, —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще Ломоносов двести лет тому назад утверждал, что русские люди&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предпочитают окончание «а» «скучной букве» «и» в окончаниях слов:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; облака, острова, леса вместо облаки, островы, лесы. Кроме того, прошло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лет сто, а пожалуй, и больше, с тех пор, как русские люди перестали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорить и писать: домы, докторы, учители, профессоры, слесари,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; юнкеры, пекари, писари, флигели и охотно заменили их формами: дома́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учителя́, профессора́, слесаря́, флигеля́, юнкера́, пекаря́ и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало того: следующее поколение придало ту же залихватскую форму новым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десяткам слов, таким, как: бухгалтеры, томы, катеры, тополи, лагери,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дизели. Стали говорить и писать:бухгалтера́, тома́, катера́, тополя́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лагеря́, дизеля́ и т.д. Если бы Чехов, например, услышал слово тома́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он подумал бы, что речь идет о французском композиторе Амбруазе Тома́.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, довольно. Но нет. Пришло новое поколение, и я услыхал от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; него: шофера́, автора́, библиотекаря́, сектора́, прибыля́, отпуска́. И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще через несколько лет: выхода́, супа́, матеря́, дочеря́, секретаря́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плоскостя́, скоростя́, ведомостя́, возраста́, площадя́. III Всякий раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я приходил к убеждению, что протестовать против этих для меня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уродливых слов бесполезно. Я мог сколько угодно возмущаться, выходить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из себя, но нельзя же было не видеть, что здесь на протяжении столетия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит какой-то безостановочный стихийный процесс замены&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безударного окончания ы(и) сильно акцентированным окончанием а(я). И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кто же поручится, что наши правнуки не станут говорить и писать:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крана́, актера́, медведя́, желудя́. Наблюдая за пышным расцветом этой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ухарской формы, я не раз утешал себя тем, что эта форма завладевает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; главным образом такими словами, которые в данном профессиональном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (иногда очень узком) кругу упоминаются чаще всего: форма торта́&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существует только в кондитерских, супа́ — в ресторанных кухнях,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; площадя́ — в домовых управлениях, трактора́и скоростя́ — у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трактористов. Пожарные говорят: факела́. Электрики — кабеля́ и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; штепселя́. Певчие в «Спевке» Слепцова: концерта́, тенора́ (1863). Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; станем сейчас заниматься вопросом, желателен ли этот процесс или нет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об этом разговор впереди, а покуда нам важно отметить один&#xD;&#xA;&gt; многознаменательный факт: все усилия бесчисленных ревнителей чистоты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка остановить этот бурный процесс или хотя бы ослабить его до сих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пор остаются бесплодными. Если бы мне даже и вздумалось сейчас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; написать «то́мы Шекспира», я могу быть заранее уверенным, что в моей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; книге напечатают: «тома́ Шекспира», так как то́мы до того устарели,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что современный читатель почуял бы в них стилизаторство, жеманность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; манерничание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14174" RevisionGUID="4127a6d0-1d3b-43c3-8208-96891b41ae7d" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:01:36.097" UserId="2104" Text="Вот приказ Минобрнауки России &quot;Об утверждении списка грамматик, словарей и справочников, содержащих нормы современного русского литературного языка при его использовании в качестве государственного языка Российской Федерации&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/docs?layout=item&amp;id=16_12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Негусто, но хоть что-то.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14175" RevisionGUID="988684d7-3be5-404b-81dd-fbe78221ba7f" CreationDate="2017-03-27T02:12:35.223" UserId="2104" Text="From my personal experience the switch happens when the student leaves school (around the age of 17) and goes to university. It depends on individual teachers of course. Some school teachers might address senior schoolchildren as `вы` in an attempt to promote their self-esteem and sense of responsibility. University students may get an occasional `ты`, especially if they are misbehaving. :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14103" RevisionGUID="4966dfaa-9945-42ad-9e90-0d3b80f2bb21" CreationDate="2017-03-27T03:45:39.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/846206555787792384" />
  <row Id="34026" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14098" RevisionGUID="4b74acbd-c028-4a89-beb4-c92431036799" CreationDate="2017-03-27T15:46:01.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/846387842431533057" />
  <row Id="34027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14176" RevisionGUID="3a7d9554-e475-43e0-8e5a-ef903c06d406" CreationDate="2017-03-27T20:11:02.837" UserId="7239" Text="In my vocabulary list, I have two different forms for the perfective of `слышать` listed: `услышать` and `послышать`. I know I'm not imagining this, because a practice deck I found online also had both verbs (although it was very unclear from the example sentences contained in that deck what the difference between the two is supposed to be). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Are `послышать` and `услышать` exact synonyms, or are they not? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Which of the two should I memorize as the perfective form of `слышать`? Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** Are either `послышивать` or `послушивать` actual words, and if so, are either of the two the actual imperfective form of `послышать` (instead of `слышать`)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt:** I looked up the difference between the two, but the results were confusing to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the English version of wiktionary doesn't list `послышать` as a perfective form of `слышать` -- it only lists `услышать`. `послышать` doesn't even have an entry in the English wiktionary, although it does have an entry in the Russian wiktionary, викисловарь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But викисловарь lists `послышать` as being the perfective form of an entirely different verb: `послышивать`, for which it does not have an entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet [this Russian dictionary][1] seems to list `послышать` as being an exact synonym of `услышать`. I don't quite understand what meaning the example sentences are supposed to convey, however, so I could be wrong. [This dictionary][2], despite otherwise saying the same as the previous one, also says that the imperfective form of `послышать` is `послушивать`, instead of `послышивать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This dictionary][3] gives a very similar entry for `послышать` except that it doesn't mention `услышать` again in the item containing `почуять`, instead it says: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;перен. Почуять, почувствовать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this dictionary compiler][4], the difference seems to come down to whether one looks at the entry from Т.Ф. Ефремова's dictionary or the entry from Д.Н. Ушаков's dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/962158&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sovslov.ru/tolk/poslyiwatyt.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://xn----8sbauh0beb7ai9bh.xn--p1ai/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%8B%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Dal-term-31068.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14176" RevisionGUID="3a7d9554-e475-43e0-8e5a-ef903c06d406" CreationDate="2017-03-27T20:11:02.837" UserId="7239" Text="услышать or послышать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14176" RevisionGUID="3a7d9554-e475-43e0-8e5a-ef903c06d406" CreationDate="2017-03-27T20:11:02.837" UserId="7239" Text="|выбор-слова|одним-словом|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14177" RevisionGUID="74171384-ece2-463c-92fa-eb665a10193b" CreationDate="2017-03-27T21:00:39.000" UserId="4903" Text="There exist verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **слушать** - listen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **слышать** - hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their perfective forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * слушать - **послушать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * слышать - **услышать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Послушивать** (to listen periodically) is a valid word, however [Rusorpora][1] has only 4 examples of it being used.  The examples are dating between 1857 and 1930.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Послышать**, to my surprise, is a valid word. Ruscorpora has 142 examples of it being used as a perfective form of &quot;слышать&quot;, both in modern sources and old ones. But I never heard anyone using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a popular form **[послышаться][2]** which has multiple meanings. It is often used in phrases &quot;Мне послышалось&quot; = &quot;I think I heard it&quot;, and &quot;Тебе послышалось&quot; = &quot;You are wrong about hearing it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%8B%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14178" RevisionGUID="b16a5cbc-faf3-4164-90bc-87fa5babc31b" CreationDate="2017-03-27T21:16:24.320" UserId="97" Text="I don't think there is a simple age separation.  It all depends on surroundings, teachers, students, school/institution, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in the school, from which I graduated, all teachers addressed all students as _вы_ from 8th grade, that is, from about age 15 or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I started university, all university students (in my uni) were normally addressed by teachers as _вы_. At the same time, some people that I studied with at the uni said that they were never called _вы_ before starting the uni, that it, age 17 or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are ok to settle on a &quot;soft&quot; boundary, then I would say it's somewhere between 15 and 18 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside the education, there's no clear separation whatsoever and the circumstances will dictate _вы_ vs _ты_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34032" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14172" RevisionGUID="cd0b0d14-5a06-4bfd-9b07-e347162e708c" CreationDate="2017-03-27T21:49:03.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/846479201632948225" />
  <row Id="34033" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14176" RevisionGUID="4035b0d4-892f-4d39-9878-65a5cec41a2c" CreationDate="2017-03-28T09:42:51.847" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Услышать&quot; or &quot;послышать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14177" RevisionGUID="57e96653-4eba-4386-9a5e-86bdd47cd949" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:12:33.273" UserId="4903" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="There exist verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **слушать** - listen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * **слышать** - hear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their perfective forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * слушать - **послушать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * слышать - **услышать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Послушивать** (to listen periodically) is a valid word, however [Ruscorpora][1] has only 4 examples of it being used.  The examples are dating between 1857 and 1930.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Послышать**, to my surprise, is a valid word. [Ruscorpora][2] has 142 examples of it being used as a perfective form of &quot;слышать&quot;, both in modern sources and old ones. But I never heard anyone using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a popular form **[послышаться][3]** which has multiple meanings. It is often used in phrases &quot;Мне послышалось&quot; = &quot;I think I heard it&quot;, and &quot;Тебе послышалось&quot; = &quot;You are wrong about hearing it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EF%EE%F1%EB%FB%F8%E0%F2%FC&amp;gramm1=V&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%8B%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14179" RevisionGUID="e9d1fab5-39e2-49c6-af45-9972e5175322" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:31:16.633" UserId="2079" Text="Typically the transition happens when the student finishes the school. When he/she hands papers for entrance examinations to university, he/she is already called вы by the stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some high school students, especially in elite schools, are also called вы.  In some elite schools, all students are called вы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not a matter of age. If university student is 16 years old, he/she will be called вы. [William James Sidis][1], if he lived today in Russia, would be called вы as a student of Russian university. If a school student is 18, he would still be called ты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14180" RevisionGUID="ebe0c73e-ecc7-4b8d-ac3a-96ebd315de2a" CreationDate="2017-03-28T13:42:31.780" UserId="2079" Text="According to wikipedia, the [Russian Language Institute][1] (Институт русского языка имени В. В. Виноградова РАН) is the regulator for the Russian language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Language_Institute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34037" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14176" RevisionGUID="c2c3c37b-16ce-444a-ae56-9676bf96fe06" CreationDate="2017-03-29T03:57:44.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/846934372678815745" />
  <row Id="34038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14181" RevisionGUID="a51aec9b-c5c1-4726-ad23-6dc69c6a510f" CreationDate="2017-03-29T21:43:45.033" UserId="8762" Text="Here is my two cents on subject: одни could be also used as an adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вайолет думала, что **трое детей, одни в тесном туннеле**, с каминными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; щипцами в руках, может быть, окажутся более подготовленными к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неожиданностям, чем трое детей в тех же обстоятельствах с пустыми&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руками. [Лемони Сникет. Липовый лифт (А. Ставиская, 2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Violet was thinking that **three children alone in a dark hallway**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; holding fire tongs were perhaps a bit more prepared than three&#xD;&#xA;&gt; children alone in a dark hallway holding nothing at all. [Lemony&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snicket. The Erzatz Elevator (2001)].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of a film *Home alone* was also translated as Один дома, and here один is an adjective too. &#xD;&#xA;Speaking of films I'd like to mention one more filme title, to be exact, *Four weddings and a funeral*. In Russia it was called &quot;Четыре свадьбы и одни похороны&quot;. In here using &quot;одни&quot; was used in order to specify that there was only one funeral as a numeral.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14173" RevisionGUID="3d99d0d8-5164-4e08-8e4e-7381c7e9a39a" CreationDate="2017-03-30T12:37:59.023" UserId="2104" Comment="Добавил год написания книги &quot;Живой как жизнь&quot;." Text="&gt; Так как же узнать какой вариант правильный?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посмотреть в словаре: [корпус][1], [договор][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точнее, это &quot;нормативный&quot;. А что еще может означать &quot;правильный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть ли вообще какое-то логическое правило, определяющее форму окончания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот что пишет по этому поводу Корней Чуковский в книге &quot;Живой как жизнь&quot; (1961 г.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое же недоумение вызывала во мне новоявленная форма: выбора́&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (вместо вы́боры), договора́ (вместо догово́ры), лектора́ (вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ле́кторы). В ней слышалось мне что-то залихватское, бесшабашное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; забубенное, ухарское. Напрасно я утешал себя тем, что эту форму уже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давно узаконил русский литературный язык. — Ведь, — говорил я себе, —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще Ломоносов двести лет тому назад утверждал, что русские люди&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предпочитают окончание «а» «скучной букве» «и» в окончаниях слов:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; облака, острова, леса вместо облаки, островы, лесы. Кроме того, прошло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лет сто, а пожалуй, и больше, с тех пор, как русские люди перестали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорить и писать: домы, докторы, учители, профессоры, слесари,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; юнкеры, пекари, писари, флигели и охотно заменили их формами: дома́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учителя́, профессора́, слесаря́, флигеля́, юнкера́, пекаря́ и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало того: следующее поколение придало ту же залихватскую форму новым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десяткам слов, таким, как: бухгалтеры, томы, катеры, тополи, лагери,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дизели. Стали говорить и писать:бухгалтера́, тома́, катера́, тополя́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лагеря́, дизеля́ и т.д. Если бы Чехов, например, услышал слово тома́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он подумал бы, что речь идет о французском композиторе Амбруазе Тома́.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, довольно. Но нет. Пришло новое поколение, и я услыхал от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; него: шофера́, автора́, библиотекаря́, сектора́, прибыля́, отпуска́. И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще через несколько лет: выхода́, супа́, матеря́, дочеря́, секретаря́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плоскостя́, скоростя́, ведомостя́, возраста́, площадя́. III Всякий раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я приходил к убеждению, что протестовать против этих для меня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уродливых слов бесполезно. Я мог сколько угодно возмущаться, выходить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из себя, но нельзя же было не видеть, что здесь на протяжении столетия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит какой-то безостановочный стихийный процесс замены&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безударного окончания ы(и) сильно акцентированным окончанием а(я). И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кто же поручится, что наши правнуки не станут говорить и писать:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крана́, актера́, медведя́, желудя́. Наблюдая за пышным расцветом этой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ухарской формы, я не раз утешал себя тем, что эта форма завладевает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; главным образом такими словами, которые в данном профессиональном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (иногда очень узком) кругу упоминаются чаще всего: форма торта́&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существует только в кондитерских, супа́ — в ресторанных кухнях,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; площадя́ — в домовых управлениях, трактора́и скоростя́ — у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трактористов. Пожарные говорят: факела́. Электрики — кабеля́ и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; штепселя́. Певчие в «Спевке» Слепцова: концерта́, тенора́ (1863). Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; станем сейчас заниматься вопросом, желателен ли этот процесс или нет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об этом разговор впереди, а покуда нам важно отметить один&#xD;&#xA;&gt; многознаменательный факт: все усилия бесчисленных ревнителей чистоты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка остановить этот бурный процесс или хотя бы ослабить его до сих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пор остаются бесплодными. Если бы мне даже и вздумалось сейчас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; написать «то́мы Шекспира», я могу быть заранее уверенным, что в моей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; книге напечатают: «тома́ Шекспира», так как то́мы до того устарели,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что современный читатель почуял бы в них стилизаторство, жеманность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; манерничание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14182" RevisionGUID="131882d1-3955-449c-b70e-8dbf90a088ec" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:49:09.140" UserId="7239" Text="**Context:** My book says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The [copular verb][1] is absent in the present tense for a compound predicate and the noun [which is the [complement][2]] is in the nominative case. In the past and future tenses there must be a [copular verb][3] *быть (был, буду), стать (стал, стану)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the above says nothing about which case the noun should be in for the past or future tenses. The book, however, gives the following examples of correct usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой брат -- журналист.  &#xD;&#xA;Мой брат **был журналистом.**  &#xD;&#xA;Мой брат **будет журналистом.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1:** Does this mean that the following examples are *incorrect?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мой брат -- журналистом.  &#xD;&#xA;Мой брат был журналист.  &#xD;&#xA;Мой брат будет журналист.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**/Question 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure that the first sentence is incorrect, but I am not sure about the last two, because (1) I could have sworn I have seen sentences written with nominative in the past and future tenses, and (2) as mentioned above the book doesn't explicitly exclude the possibility of them being correct (in contrast to the first sentence, when it says that the noun must be in the nominative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2:** When in general is the instrumental used with complements or copular verbs? Only in the past or future? *Must* it be used in those cases, or is it also correct to use nominative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am especially confused because I did not know that the instrumental could be used with быть or стать in any tense -- I thought it was only used for this meaning with the verb называться in very formal writing. **/Question 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note:* I translated the passage from my book from German, so it may not be entirely correct. In particular, it uses the grammatical term &quot;[Prädikatsnomen][4]&quot; which I am not sure how to translate, although this is mostly because the meaning of the word &quot;predicate&quot; in English is ambiguous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[predicate complement][5]/ [subject complement][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copular_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.englishgrammar.org/copular-verbs/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.langenscheidt.com/german-english/praedikatsnomen&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/predicate-complements-2/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_complement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14182" RevisionGUID="131882d1-3955-449c-b70e-8dbf90a088ec" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:49:09.140" UserId="7239" Text="Case of complements in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14182" RevisionGUID="131882d1-3955-449c-b70e-8dbf90a088ec" CreationDate="2017-03-30T14:49:09.140" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14183" RevisionGUID="07070f78-a6ce-4a62-b239-6497283dfd6c" CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:10:46.043" UserId="1262" Text="Surprisingly, but - no! In a certain context, the first sentence is absolutely correct and is the only possible option. It can be used as a rhema-response (as opposed to a thema-response) to a [topic][1] question, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***- Мой брат*** [topic] ***работает карманником. А твой [[кем] работает]?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***- Мой брат - журналистом.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the past tense, both ***был журналистом*** and ***был журналист*** are correct. The difference is that ***быть + Instrumentalis*** is similar to a past perfective form (as a perfective action unrelated to a moment of utterance), while would be compared to a present-perfective structure in a language where such a distinction exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the future tense, some decades or a century ago the phrase with Nominative compliment ***[будет журналист]*** might be equally correct, but nowadays it sounds as a little bit obsolete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of Instrumental as a copular compliment is similar to that of [Essive][2] (a case of an impermanent state) in Balto-Fennic languages and can be regarded as a Fenno-Ugric substrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14184" RevisionGUID="59328ddc-7130-49ce-a7a6-c3bd87a71581" CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:21:13.777" UserId="2079" Text="You are right. &quot;`Мой брат -- журналистом.`&quot; is almost always incorrect and plain wrong.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;One exception which I can think about is skipping words when a sentence is repeated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Твой брат стал журналистом.&#xD;&#xA;    - Мой брат -- журналистом?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я стал писателем, а мой брат -- журналистом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one is a colloquial form expression the position: `Я здесь начальником`, `я на этом сайте админом`.  You can also say in nominative: `Я здесь начальник`, `я на этом сайте админ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your general question, you may want to read the following:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/62.htm#%D0%B7_02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, with `был/будет`, nominative may be used for permanent feature, while instrumental is used for temporary feature. For example, if journalism is his life-long occupancy, you can both say `он был журналист` and `он был журналистом`. If he just worked as a journalist at the moment, you must say `он был журналистом` " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14184" RevisionGUID="e72a97f2-808d-451d-bb1b-ce46c5c7d921" CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:31:30.650" UserId="2079" Comment="added 445 characters in body" Text="You are right. &quot;`Мой брат -- журналистом.`&quot; is almost always incorrect and plain wrong.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;One exception which I can think about is skipping words when a sentence is repeated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Твой брат стал журналистом.&#xD;&#xA;    - Мой брат -- журналистом?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я стал писателем, а мой брат -- журналистом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one is a colloquial form expression the position: `Я здесь начальником`, `я на этом сайте админом`.  You can also say in nominative: `Я здесь начальник`, `я на этом сайте админ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your general question, you may want to read the following:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/62.htm#%D0%B7_02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, with `был/будет`, nominative may be used for permanent feature, while instrumental is used for temporary feature. For example, if journalism is his life-long occupancy, you can both say `он был журналист` and `он был журналистом`. If he just worked as a journalist at the moment, you must say `он был журналистом`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example (from the play &quot;Тень&quot; by Евгений Шварц):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Жила на свете стрекоза,&#xD;&#xA;    Она была кокетка.    &lt;-- note the nominative of &quot;кокетка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Её прелестные глаза&#xD;&#xA;    Губили мух нередко.&#xD;&#xA;    Она любила повторять:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Не стоит голову терять&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the instrumental case (кокеткой) would still conserve the meter and rhyme, Schwartz used the nominative case, since &quot;кокетка&quot; was the permanent, even immanent, feature of the dragonfly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14184" RevisionGUID="98042471-987a-4989-acd2-b2492afc5616" CreationDate="2017-03-30T15:43:00.943" UserId="2079" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="You are right. &quot;`Мой брат -- журналистом.`&quot; is almost always incorrect and plain wrong.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;One exception which I can think about is skipping words when a sentence is repeated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Твой брат стал журналистом.&#xD;&#xA;    - Мой брат -- журналистом?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я стал писателем, а мой брат -- журналистом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one is a colloquial form expressing somebody's position: `Я здесь начальником`, `я на этом сайте админом`.  You can also say in nominative: `Я здесь начальник`, `я на этом сайте админ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your general question, you may want to read the following:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/62.htm#%D0%B7_02&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, with `был/будет`, nominative may be used for permanent feature, while instrumental is used for temporary feature. For example, if journalism was his life-long occupancy, you can both say `он был журналист` and `он был журналистом`. If he just worked as a journalist at the moment, you must say `он был журналистом`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example (from the play &quot;Тень&quot; by Евгений Шварц):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Жила на свете стрекоза,&#xD;&#xA;    Она была кокетка.    &lt;-- note the nominative of &quot;кокетка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Её прелестные глаза&#xD;&#xA;    Губили мух нередко.&#xD;&#xA;    Она любила повторять:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Не стоит голову терять&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the instrumental case (кокеткой) would still keep the meter and the rhyme, Schwartz used the nominative case, since &quot;кокетка&quot; was the permanent, even immanent, feature of the dragonfly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14185" RevisionGUID="9f9db214-5938-4e19-bd53-4266c41aaf6a" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:17:32.340" UserId="8769" Text="I am working on an art project that I would like to collect the hundreds of different transliterations of 「中文」 zhōng wén in Mandarin Chinese. (Pronunciation available here: https://translate.google.com/#zh-CN/de/中文)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I transliterate zhōng wén in Russian? (For example, &quot;zhong wen&quot; would be the closest pronunciation in English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14185" RevisionGUID="9f9db214-5938-4e19-bd53-4266c41aaf6a" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:17:32.340" UserId="8769" Text="How to transliterate 中文 in Mandarin pronunciation to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14185" RevisionGUID="9f9db214-5938-4e19-bd53-4266c41aaf6a" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:17:32.340" UserId="8769" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14186" RevisionGUID="652eed91-2d28-467f-ab32-ec95b00988e5" CreationDate="2017-03-30T17:32:31.427" UserId="1236" Text="Since the end of the 19th century, the traditional transliteration system of rendering Chinese words in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet is the so-called [Palladius system][1] named after Pyotr Ivanovich Kafarov (Пётр Ива́нович Кафа́ров), a Russian sinologist and monk who spent thirty years in China and was also known by his monastic name Palladius (Паллáдий). Actually, every Chinese syllable possible has a corresponding Palladius system equivalent, that Wikipedia article has the chart of the Pinyin ­– Cyrillic Palladius correspondences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is an easier way to do the transliteration, there in an [online converter][2], you enter either the Chinese characters or Pinyin there, press the &quot;Convert&quot; (Перевести) button, and you get it in Cyrillic Palladius. As for your word,「中文」zhōng wén, it is `чжунвэнь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillization_of_Chinese&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://palladius.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14183" RevisionGUID="17d28e17-cbf5-427f-b60a-f0a149756b4b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T18:54:35.247" UserId="1262" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Surprisingly, but - no! In a certain context, the first sentence is absolutely correct and is the only possible option. It can be used as a rhema-response (as opposed to a thema-response) to a [topic][1] question, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***- Мой брат*** [topic] ***работает карманником. А твой [[кем] работает]?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***- Мой брат - журналистом.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the past tense, both ***был журналистом*** and ***был журналист*** are correct. The difference is that ***быть + Instrumentalis*** is similar to a past perfective form (as a perfective action unrelated to a moment of utterance), while ***быть + Nominative***  would be compared to a present-perfective structure in a language where such a distinction exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the future tense, some decades or a century ago the phrase with Nominative compliment ***[будет журналист]*** might be equally correct, but nowadays it sounds as a little bit obsolete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of Instrumental as a copular compliment is similar to that of [Essive][2] (a case of an impermanent state) in Balto-Fennic languages and can be regarded as a Fenno-Ugric substrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34053" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14182" RevisionGUID="6960fa60-bf74-4cb0-9c27-dadff43afaf4" CreationDate="2017-03-30T22:14:46.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/847572837611311104" />
  <row Id="34054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14187" RevisionGUID="265caf50-eaab-431c-8c78-b53a8045e8d6" CreationDate="2017-03-31T01:47:33.787" UserId="8742" Text="Not too long ago, **I found a web page that gave instructions for adding accent marks to Cyrillic vowels.**  Unlike many other instructions I have seen, these were beautifully simple in that you typed the Cyrillic vowel first and then you used a key combination (of your own choosing) that would magically add the accent mark to the vowel.  **There was no need to set up some complicated macro or even use a key combination with a predesignated number code for a particular letter or symbol.**  It was incredibly simple and easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some strange reason, I did not favorite that page and have not been able to find it since.  I think it might have been a part of someone's personal blog, but either way, I would be grateful for anyone who might know what it is I am talking about and can either supply the instructions in an answer or provide the link to pages that do.  **I'm looking for a solution that works for Windows 7.**  Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14187" RevisionGUID="265caf50-eaab-431c-8c78-b53a8045e8d6" CreationDate="2017-03-31T01:47:33.787" UserId="8742" Text="Does anyone know of a simpler way to add accents to Cyrillic vowels than what is typically found online?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14187" RevisionGUID="265caf50-eaab-431c-8c78-b53a8045e8d6" CreationDate="2017-03-31T01:47:33.787" UserId="8742" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14188" RevisionGUID="60fc8610-6acd-47d7-8e7a-2a5b429e9922" CreationDate="2017-03-31T04:31:46.857" UserId="8742" Text="Like something on the tip of your tongue that you just can't stop thinking about, I continued to search for an answer to this.  Though I never found the page that had made everything so simple, I found a couple of pages that gave me enough hints to cobble together what I had in mind.  I'd add at least one of the links here, but since it isn't directly related to Russian or the Cyrillic alphabet, I'll just provide an explanation here.  **If you are using Windows 7, you should be able to access &quot;Symbols&quot; from your Insert tab.  I'll add some screenshots so you can know what I mean.  Key sections have been highlighted in green.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you'll want to go to your Insert tab and click on the dropdown box for **&quot;Symbols&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cclk2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From there, you'll want to click on **&quot;More Symbols...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFBma.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will open up a window for you that looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9CvMn.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how the **&quot;Combining Diacritical Marks&quot;** in the dropdown **&quot;Subset&quot;** menu has been highlighted.  You may find other accent marks that look like an acute accent mark, but this is the one you want.  (It is # **0301**, if you just want to type it into the field for character code to bring it up.)  You should already find that it has been given a predesignated shortcut key, but if you prefer another, select the button for Shortcut key and create your own.  ALT+Ctrl+э is what I chose for my shortcut.  You can choose any you like as long as it isn't already assigned to another character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you are ready to begin typing.  Make sure you are using the keyboard you want.  This will likely look different on different computers, but if you're using Windows 7 and MS Office 7, it might look something like the following at the bottom left and right of your screen (depending, of course, on how you have things configured):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4zdOf.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel certain you're about to use the correct keyboard, you can begin typing ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZijr.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've typed the letter that you'd like to put an accent on, press your shortcut key combination ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XjZEv.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and an accent should appear over the last letter you typed. You can continue typing without making any additional keyboard strokes ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fEfMw.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there you have it.  Hope this helped someone out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14188" RevisionGUID="c99ce173-4db0-4a97-a662-6cfeb3cd0928" CreationDate="2017-03-31T04:45:42.720" UserId="8742" Comment="added 814 characters in body" Text="Like something on the tip of your tongue that you just can't stop thinking about, I continued to search for an answer to this.  Though I never found the page that had made everything so simple, I found a couple of pages that gave me enough hints to cobble together what I had in mind.  I'd add at least one of the links here, but since it isn't directly related to Russian or the Cyrillic alphabet, I'll just provide an explanation here.  **If you are using Windows 7, you should be able to access &quot;Symbols&quot; from your Insert tab.  I'll add some screenshots so you can know what I mean.  Key sections have been highlighted in green.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you'll want to go to your Insert tab and click on the dropdown box for **&quot;Symbols&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cclk2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From there, you'll want to click on **&quot;More Symbols...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZFBma.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will open up a window for you that looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9CvMn.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how the **&quot;Combining Diacritical Marks&quot;** in the dropdown **&quot;Subset&quot;** menu has been highlighted.  You may find other accent marks that look like an acute accent mark, but this is the one you want.  (It is number **0301**, if you just want to type it into the field for character code to bring it up.)  You should already find that it has been given a predesignated shortcut key, but if you prefer another, select the button for Shortcut key and create your own.  ALT+Ctrl+э is what I chose for my shortcut.  You can choose any you like as long as it isn't already assigned to another character.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you are ready to begin typing.  Make sure you are using the keyboard you want.  This will likely look different on different computers, but if you're using Windows 7 and MS Office 7, it might look something like the following at the bottom left and right of your screen (depending, of course, on how you have things configured):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4zdOf.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel certain you're about to use the correct keyboard, you can begin typing ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tZijr.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've typed the letter that you'd like to put an accent on, press your shortcut key combination ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XjZEv.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and an accent should appear over the last letter you typed. You can continue typing without making any additional keyboard strokes ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fEfMw.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll have to do this a bit differently in **PowerPoint** (at least the MS Office 2007 version).  You won't be able to use a shortcut key, but you can access the same group of symbols, including the aforementioned #0301 character.  **What you will need to do is position your cursor immediately after the letter you want to accent and then insert it the long way -- pull up the Symbols box, find the character you need, and insert it.**  The character immediately preceding the cursor will become accented.  If you want to preserve formatting inside of the textboxes you've created in PowerPoint, this is likely the best way to do it.  I do not recommend copying and pasting a previously accented letter from Word, but go ahead and try it if you really want to.  I think you'll see what I mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there you have it.  Hope this helped someone out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14189" RevisionGUID="5a2d24db-3602-457c-bb99-ef522d3d7385" CreationDate="2017-03-31T04:46:08.873" UserId="2273" Text="In addition to the previous answer I would like to suggest the method described in [this blog][1]. This method does not use a separate program (MS Word) but uses a pre-installed software available on any Windows PC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Open a program called *Character Map* (It is located in Start-&gt;All Programs-&gt;Accessories-&gt;System Tools)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Group the character map by *Unicode Subrange* and Select *Combining Diacritical Marks* &#xD;&#xA; 3. Locate the *Combining Accute Accent* symbol and insert it after your letter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Character Map][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://alborisov.livejournal.com/15571.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xw24g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14190" RevisionGUID="b5df019c-e9d3-47d6-94cc-37c2c39a9731" CreationDate="2017-03-31T06:13:12.940" UserId="1236" Text="The easiest way to be able to put the accent marks is to install [Ilya Birman's typography layout][1]. Go there and press the big orange button &quot;Скачать для Виндоуса&quot; (Download for Windows). When you install it, putting the accent marks becomes very easy: you type a vowel letter, and then while holding the `Right Alt` and `Shift` keys you press the `? /` key twice and the accent mark appears above the vowel letter: а́, е́, и́, о́, у́, ы́, э́, ю́, я́. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you enter a Latin vowel letter in you English layout and then switch to Ilya Birman's typography layout, hold `Right Alt` and `Shift` keys and press the `? /` key twice, you get Latin letters with the acute accent as single symbols: á, é, ó, ý.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the accent/acute mark, that typography layout allows you to enter other diacritics: ä, à, â, ă, å, ã, ç, č.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ilyabirman.ru/projects/typography-layout/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="da594f99-862f-4c41-823f-50d591a709e7" CreationDate="2017-03-31T08:12:12.713" UserId="4714" Text="In many cases these words all translate to how much when paired with Настолько, так, столько. But I can't understand in what situations each one is used. Would someone be so kind to explain their use? Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example—&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю так хорошо как и ты— &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or is it better (настолько, насколько) or (столько, сколько) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="da594f99-862f-4c41-823f-50d591a709e7" CreationDate="2017-03-31T08:12:12.713" UserId="4714" Text="Differentiating use of — насколько, как, сколько" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="da594f99-862f-4c41-823f-50d591a709e7" CreationDate="2017-03-31T08:12:12.713" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="dce8e617-fd35-4161-916d-1c25640125b2" CreationDate="2017-03-31T09:14:00.090" UserId="4714" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="In many cases these words all translate to how much when paired with Настолько, так, столько. But I can't understand in what situations each one is used. Would someone be so kind to explain their use? Thanks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example—&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю это так же хорошо, как и ты, Маркус.—I know that as well as you, marcus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or is it better (настолько, насколько) or (столько, сколько) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the interchangeable? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13677" RevisionGUID="7bf03822-6b3a-4405-9420-a92219486f47" CreationDate="2017-03-31T09:16:34.360" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="1.The thing or idea following the expression **не то что... (а)** can be compared to something '*stronger*':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он от этого **не то что** *расстроился* [это можно было предположить или это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; само собой разумеется, но слишком мягко сказано], а (даже) *впал в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; депрессию*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar type of comparison can be found in this classical example (from Lermontov's poem): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, были люди наше время - **не то что** нынешнее племя: богатыри - не вы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.The expression **не то чтобы... (а/но)** can be used in the *opposite* case - to *soften* the literal sense of the words said just after that expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он от этого не то чтобы впал в депрессию [это было бы слишком сильно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сказано], а/но был всерьёз расстроен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second of your 2 examples is correct—but it would sound more natural with **a** instead of **но**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13671" RevisionGUID="4aacff27-744b-4a5b-984d-1106de8d47df" CreationDate="2017-03-31T09:17:23.017" UserId="4714" Comment="edited body" Text="A standard variation is `не то чтобы`. It sounds good. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Construction `не то что` is either very vernacular or does not exist (I haven't heard it before and to me it seems wrong)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14192" RevisionGUID="1e6fd6ca-ec37-4229-bcfd-6b7782a63500" CreationDate="2017-03-31T10:49:26.870" UserId="2104" Text="In your example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю это так же хорошо, как и ты, Маркус.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;changing `так` to `настолько` will still yield a grammatically correct sentence with almost the same meaning. `Настолько же` means 'to the same extent/amount'. It can be paired with `как` as above, or `насколько`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю это настолько же хорошо, как и ты, Маркус.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю это настолько же хорошо, насколько и ты, Маркус.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use `сколько` here. `Так` and `настолько` are pronomial adverbs, while `столько` is a pronomial numeral, so you can only use it in place of a numeral:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня **пять** яблок. - I've got five apples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня **столько же** яблок, сколько и у тебя. - I've got as many apples as you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14192" RevisionGUID="9f9d3dba-959f-4b12-baa9-0896f99e123a" CreationDate="2017-03-31T10:56:18.827" UserId="2104" Comment="`Как` seems to be the universal pair as it can match `сколько` as well:" Text="In your example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю это так же хорошо, как и ты, Маркус.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;changing `так` to `настолько` will still yield a grammatically correct sentence with almost the same meaning. `Настолько же` means 'to the same extent/amount'. It can be paired with `как` as above, or `насколько`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю это настолько же хорошо, как и ты, Маркус.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю это настолько же хорошо, насколько и ты, Маркус.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use `сколько` here. `Так` and `настолько` are pronomial adverbs, while `столько` is a pronomial numeral, so you can only use it in place of a numeral:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня **пять** яблок. - I've got five apples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня **столько же** яблок, сколько и у тебя. - I've got as many apples as you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Как` seems to be the universal pair as it can match `сколько` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня *столько же* яблок, *как* и у тебя. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14193" RevisionGUID="f82be166-d96d-486d-b28e-48edbad26254" CreationDate="2017-03-31T11:05:48.007" UserId="2104" Text="Use this tool to have accent marks added to whole paragraphs of text automatically: http://russiangram.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I created it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14194" RevisionGUID="b37928f0-6c07-4035-9dbe-14ab0bbd39e4" CreationDate="2017-03-31T11:34:46.350" UserId="2104" Text="This method only requires 5 key presses and no mousing around. You will need a keyboard with a numeric keypad to use it. Make sure NumLock is ON.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Type the vowel e.g. `а`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Press and hold the left Alt key.&#xD;&#xA;3. Type `769` on the numeric keypad.&#xD;&#xA;4. Release the Alt key. You should get: а́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get a smiley face or any other character instead, try using a different program. It worked for me in Word and in Charmap, but not in Notepad or Chrome unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="eb752a1a-c55d-4778-ab82-7bf6727290ae" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:48:54.927" UserId="7662" Text="Prompted by our [_Har to Be a God_ book challenge][1] on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflows chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. [I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, we're discussing the phrase now, not the title); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to &quot;Болит нога?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - can this form of a question be used in official or written Russian? How acceptable is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="eb752a1a-c55d-4778-ab82-7bf6727290ae" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:48:54.927" UserId="7662" Text="Is &quot;Трудно быть богом?&quot; a valid question in written (or official) Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="eb752a1a-c55d-4778-ab82-7bf6727290ae" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:48:54.927" UserId="7662" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="cc35d729-9a64-43f0-a446-34a84838f714" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:56:41.100" UserId="8626" Comment="Corrected typos, bolded for character limit " Text="Prompted by our [_Hard to Be a God_ book challenge][1] on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflow chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. [I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, we're discussing the phrase now, not the title); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to &quot;Болит нога?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - **can this form of a question be used in official or written Russian? How acceptable is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34076" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="cc35d729-9a64-43f0-a446-34a84838f714" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:56:41.100" Comment="Proposed by 8626 approved by 7662 edit id of 844" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14196" RevisionGUID="f68fdbab-a89c-46b9-83d8-478b20676955" CreationDate="2017-03-31T14:35:32.267" UserId="6163" Text="This form can be a question only if it is followed by an explicit question mark: &quot;Трудно быть богом?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, it is hardly perceived as a question, since the more usual form would include a particle: &quot;Трудно **ли** быть богом?&quot;, but the orignal title has no question mark, therefore, it can't be construed as a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Impersonal statement like that can't be formal.  To make it formal you need an addressee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Трудно **ли вам/ему/ей** быть богом?&quot; — and you need &quot;ли&quot; as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14197" RevisionGUID="392e8923-d532-474f-b120-6873687ee4a4" CreationDate="2017-03-31T14:36:35.257" UserId="4600" Text="First, *Трудно быть богом* is a statement, not a question unless finalized with a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your question - this form is quite acceptable but a bit informal. If used in scientific articles for example, *Трудно **ли** быть богом* is more preferable. Especially in indirect speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудно ли быть богом? (title)    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть богом – трудно. (title)    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудно быть богом? (title)    **INCORRECT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его, трудно ли быть богом.    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его, насколько трудно быть богом.    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его: &quot;Трудно быть богом?&quot;    **OK, INFORMAL/ARTISTIC**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его, трудно быть богом.    **INCORRECT**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14197" RevisionGUID="e4e4e0e3-dfa2-4d94-a2ba-4a1091bc752b" CreationDate="2017-03-31T14:43:57.670" UserId="4600" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="First, *Трудно быть богом* is a statement, not a question unless finalized with a question mark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your question - this form is quite acceptable but a bit informal. If used in scientific articles for example, *Трудно **ли** быть богом* is more preferable. Especially in indirect speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудно ли быть богом? (title)    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быть богом – трудно. (title)    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудно быть богом? (title)    **INCORRECT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его, трудно ли быть богом.    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила, трудно ли ему быть богом.    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его, насколько трудно быть богом.    **CORRECT, FORMAL**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его: «Трудно быть богом?»    **OK, INFORMAL/ARTISTIC**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она спросила его, трудно быть богом.    **INCORRECT**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="c87b08a7-1985-42b5-9714-597ff895c512" CreationDate="2017-03-31T15:46:56.737" UserId="8626" Comment="Official - formal" Text="Prompted by our [_Hard to Be a God_ book challenge][1] on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflow chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. [I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, we're discussing the phrase now, not the title); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to &quot;Болит нога?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - **can this form of a question be used in formal or written Russian? How acceptable is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34081" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="c87b08a7-1985-42b5-9714-597ff895c512" CreationDate="2017-03-31T15:46:56.737" UserId="8626" Comment="Official - formal" Text="Is &quot;Трудно быть богом?&quot; a valid question in written (or formal) Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34082" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="c87b08a7-1985-42b5-9714-597ff895c512" CreationDate="2017-03-31T15:46:56.737" Comment="Proposed by 8626 approved by 4600, 7662 edit id of 845" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="f3342679-b3f7-41ba-b983-dda6963c387a" CreationDate="2017-03-31T15:51:07.353" UserId="7662" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="Prompted by our [_Hard to Be a God_ book challenge][1]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflow chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. [I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, we're discussing the phrase now, not the title); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to &quot;Болит нога?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I [do know][4] that it requires a question mark at the end to be a real question, and I do know &quot;трудно ли быть богом?&quot; is much better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main concern is - **can this form of a question be used in formal or written Russian? How acceptable is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: __Everyone is welcome to participate! Ask your _Hard to be a God_ questions, and post good answers to others' questions!__&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413163#36413163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14198" RevisionGUID="5738d200-f88c-4167-a4e6-97ef1d4386ff" CreationDate="2017-03-31T17:25:20.703" UserId="2079" Text="In (written) Russian, any statement can be turned to question by adding the question mark. So, `Трудно быть богом?` is a correct question. `Трудно быть богом.` is a statement.  In book names, the period is often omitted, so if a book is called `Трудно быть богом` without the question mark, it is a statement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частица `ли` (as in the question `Трудно ли быть богом?`) is not required in direct questions, but without it, the style would be colloquial/informal rather than formal.  (In indirect questions like `Она спросила его, трудно ли быть богом.` it is required).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом` (book name) - statement.&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом?` (book name) - question&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом.` - statement.&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом?` - question, informal style&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно ли быть богом?` - question, formal style&#xD;&#xA;* `Она спросила его, трудно быть богом.` - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* `Она спросила его, трудно ли быть богом.` - correct, statement which contains indirect question&#xD;&#xA;* `` -" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="d4f0ae7d-6a19-4b5f-8d9a-0a4ed7b7428d" CreationDate="2017-03-31T17:33:30.923" UserId="7662" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Prompted by our [_Hard to Be a God_ book challenge][1]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflow chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. [I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, we're discussing the phrase now, not the title); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to `Болит нога?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I [do know][4] that it requires a question mark at the end to be a real question, and I do know `трудно ли быть богом?` is much better. __For the record__, Russian is my mother tongue. However, I don't have much experience with formal texts (haven't studied Russian since 7th grade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main concern is - **can this form of a question be used in formal or written Russian? How acceptable is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: __Everyone is welcome to participate! Ask your _Hard to be a God_ questions, and post good answers to others' questions!__&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413163#36413163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14198" RevisionGUID="2945bc96-3291-454e-ae6c-52a1e8dfc373" CreationDate="2017-03-31T17:39:13.637" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="In (written) Russian, any statement can be turned to question by adding the question mark. So, `Трудно быть богом?` is a correct question. `Трудно быть богом.` is a statement.  In book names, the period is often omitted, so if a book is called `Трудно быть богом` without the question mark, it is a statement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частица `ли` (as in the question `Трудно ли быть богом?`) is not required in direct questions, but without it, the style would be colloquial/informal rather than formal.  (In indirect questions like `Она спросила его, трудно ли быть богом.` it is required).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом` (book name) - statement&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом?` (book name) - question&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом.` - statement.&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно быть богом?` - question, informal style&#xD;&#xA;* `Трудно ли быть богом?` - question, formal style&#xD;&#xA;* `Она спросила его, трудно быть богом.` - incorrect&#xD;&#xA;* `Она спросила его, трудно ли быть богом.` - correct statement, which contains indirect question&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14185" RevisionGUID="5a549f5a-430b-45ad-817d-f9f90ffb1052" CreationDate="2017-03-31T22:32:18.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/847939637389787138" />
  <row Id="34089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="48d4dfbd-a6b4-44a9-a7a7-617b24c273c9" CreationDate="2017-04-01T08:02:50.867" UserId="7662" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Prompted by our [_Hard to Be a God_ book challenge][1]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflow chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, **we're discussing the phrase now, not the book title**); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to `Болит нога?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I [do know][4] that it requires a question mark at the end to be a real question, and I do know `трудно ли быть богом?` is much better. __For the record__, Russian is my mother tongue. However, I don't have much experience with formal texts (haven't studied Russian since 7th grade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main concern is - **can this form of a question be used in formal or written Russian? How acceptable is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: __Everyone is welcome to participate! Ask your _Hard to be a God_ questions, and post good answers to others' questions!__&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413163#36413163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="282c560a-c54b-4e56-9988-45dc642881d6" CreationDate="2017-04-01T10:46:34.030" UserId="8762" Text="I wonder if you know [this][1] site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slavenica.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="21ab76a9-c552-4ec6-be1e-815e16a63a4e" CreationDate="2017-04-01T15:59:28.677" UserId="8772" Text="I have been studying Russian for a while and have looked at a number of grammar books for Russian by I fail to see the nuance between 'по' and 'у'&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мой самолёт улетит...&#xD;&#xA;vs. &#xD;&#xA;Мой самолёт полетит...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="21ab76a9-c552-4ec6-be1e-815e16a63a4e" CreationDate="2017-04-01T15:59:28.677" UserId="8772" Text="What is the difference between the prefixes по and у in verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="21ab76a9-c552-4ec6-be1e-815e16a63a4e" CreationDate="2017-04-01T15:59:28.677" UserId="8772" Text="|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14201" RevisionGUID="cdd596b8-a3a6-477d-ba3d-3ee6dc46e2ef" CreationDate="2017-04-01T16:13:09.163" UserId="8772" Text="Google documents makes is relatively easy, although I don't like that Google docs doesn't seem to like ё.  To add accent marks to your vowels, position the cursor after the vowel in question, select &quot;Special Characters&quot; from the &quot;insert&quot; drop down menu.  Then select &quot;latin&quot; where you see &quot;Symbol&quot; and then scroll down to the accent marks need the bottom.  Once you have selected your first accent mark a button will appear for categories; select &quot;recent&quot; and you will have the accent mark you just used (I use the combining acute accent mark).  Then you can use the mouse to move the table out of the way then just move your cursor to the next vowel and click on the accent mark again.  You can move pretty quickly through the document one word at a time.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14199" RevisionGUID="132323ff-69fd-4103-870d-9958a0da8eb6" CreationDate="2017-04-01T17:19:35.750" UserId="551" Comment="Added example of how to put accents" Text="I wonder if you know [this][1] site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has many features including automatic accents:&#xD;&#xA;[![Automatic accents][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slavenica.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gb5JV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="4f79f9eb-5a9f-4d2d-87b0-47d47644f8f3" CreationDate="2017-04-01T18:32:36.047" UserId="1262" Text="As prefixes for motion verbs, ***у-*** usually emphasises on a place from which the motion starts, while ***по-*** makes emphasis on a trajectory of motion (implying that the destination is a subject to change, though such a distinction, that is, an uncertain route, is not mandatory). Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я скоро уеду.*** (The ellipsis topic is about the place from which the speaker is about to start)/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я уезжаю сегодня*** (Again, the speaker emphasises that (s)he is about to part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он уехал.*** (He is no more here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я скоро поеду.*** (I am having a destination to part in the nearmost future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я поеду сегодня*** (I am about to take a new route today; I am going to part to day and I want you to know that I have some destination, though it's not certain).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он поехал / поехавший.*** (He's crazy; he's out of common sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, ***Мой самолёт улетит...***  = My plane is to leave this place..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мой самолёт полетит...*** = My plane is about to fly along a trajectory (though it's not a definate one)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bot phrases suggest something a little bit extraodinary / unusual about the flight. To describe a regular flight, one might say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мой самолёт улетает /вылетает  /вылетел***... = My plane leaves this place (as it is usually supposed to fly)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34099" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="9a2eb3d4-87ef-46f4-a894-6473eee4e9c1" CreationDate="2017-04-01T20:29:57.550" UserId="7662" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;Трудно быть богом?&quot; (as in the title of the book) a valid question in written or formal Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14204" RevisionGUID="47eadc80-f3bb-43eb-85d6-a1def91d8394" CreationDate="2017-04-01T21:10:37.083" UserId="6539" Text="The prefix *По-* with verbs of motion has two main meanings&#xD;&#xA;1. Beginning of motion — perfective aspect. Что сделать?&#xD;&#xA;пойти,&#xD;&#xA;поехать,&#xD;&#xA;полететь,&#xD;&#xA;побежать,&#xD;&#xA;Куда? К кому? Where? To whom?&#xD;&#xA;**в, на,к** (prepositions used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл на работу.&#xD;&#xA;Машина поехала после остановки.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побежал.&#xD;&#xA;Самолет полетел в Москву. Я полечу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A little bit, for a short while, insignificantly– imperfective aspect. Что делать?&#xD;&#xA;походить,&#xD;&#xA;поездить,&#xD;&#xA;полетать,&#xD;&#xA;побегать&#xD;&#xA;Где? По чему? Where? Across what?&#xD;&#xA;по (the preposition used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я немного походил по парку.&#xD;&#xA;Такси поездило по городу и остановилось.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побегал и лёг спать.&#xD;&#xA;Птички полетали и сели на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *У-* means &#xD;&#xA;1 Somebody’s absence in the given place, departure from the place.&#xD;&#xA;уходить/уйти,&#xD;&#xA;уезжать/уехать&#xD;&#xA;Откуда? От кого?From where?From whom?&#xD;&#xA;иThe prefix *По-* with verbs of motion has two main meanings&#xD;&#xA;1. Beginning of motion — perfective aspect. Что сделать?&#xD;&#xA;пойти&#xD;&#xA;поехать&#xD;&#xA;полететь&#xD;&#xA;побежать&#xD;&#xA;Куда? К кому? Where? To whom?&#xD;&#xA;в, на, к (prepositions used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл на работу.&#xD;&#xA;Машина поехала после остановки.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побежал.&#xD;&#xA;Самолет полетел в Москву. Я полечу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A little bit, for a short while, insignificantly– imperfective aspect. Что делать?&#xD;&#xA;походить&#xD;&#xA;поездить&#xD;&#xA;полетать&#xD;&#xA;побегать&#xD;&#xA;Где? По чему? Where? Across what?&#xD;&#xA;по (the preposition used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я немного походил по парку.&#xD;&#xA;Такси поездило по городу и остановилось.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побегал и лёг спать.&#xD;&#xA;Птички полетали и сели на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *У-* means &#xD;&#xA;1 Somebody’s absence in the given place, departure from the place.&#xD;&#xA;уходить/уйти&#xD;&#xA;уезжать/уехать&#xD;&#xA;Откуда? От кого?From where?From whom?&#xD;&#xA;из, с, от(prepositions used after the verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы улетаем утром из Домодедово.&#xD;&#xA;Он улетел, но обещал вернуться.&#xD;&#xA;После каникул студенты снова уезжают из дома.&#xD;&#xA;з, с,от(prepositions used after the verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы улетаем утром из Домодедово.&#xD;&#xA;Он улетел, но обещал вернуться.&#xD;&#xA;После каникул студенты снова уезжают из дома.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14204" RevisionGUID="74729435-158f-49c3-b6d7-60b903952761" CreationDate="2017-04-02T04:26:40.087" UserId="6539" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The prefix *По-* with verbs of motion has two main meanings&#xD;&#xA;1. Beginning of motion — perfective aspect. Что сделать?(unidirectional)&#xD;&#xA;пойти,&#xD;&#xA;поехать,&#xD;&#xA;полететь,&#xD;&#xA;побежать,&#xD;&#xA;Куда? К кому? Where? To whom?&#xD;&#xA;**в, на,к** (prepositions used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл на работу.&#xD;&#xA;Машина поехала после остановки.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побежал.&#xD;&#xA;Самолет полетел в Москву. Я полечу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A little bit, for a short while, insignificantly– perfective aspect. Что сделать?(multidirectional)&#xD;&#xA;походить,&#xD;&#xA;поездить,&#xD;&#xA;полетать,&#xD;&#xA;побегать&#xD;&#xA;Где? По чему? Where? Across what?&#xD;&#xA;по (the preposition used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я немного походил по парку.&#xD;&#xA;Такси поездило по городу и остановилось.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побегал и лёг спать.&#xD;&#xA;Птички полетали и сели на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *У-* means &#xD;&#xA;1 Somebody’s absence in the given place, departure from the place.&#xD;&#xA;уходить/уйти,&#xD;&#xA;уезжать/уехать&#xD;&#xA;Откуда? От кого?From where?From whom?&#xD;&#xA;иThe prefix *По-* with verbs of motion has two main meanings&#xD;&#xA;1. Beginning of motion — perfective aspect. Что сделать?&#xD;&#xA;пойти&#xD;&#xA;поехать&#xD;&#xA;полететь&#xD;&#xA;побежать&#xD;&#xA;Куда? К кому? Where? To whom?&#xD;&#xA;в, на, к (prepositions used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл на работу.&#xD;&#xA;Машина поехала после остановки.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побежал.&#xD;&#xA;Самолет полетел в Москву. Я полечу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A little bit, for a short while, insignificantly– imperfective aspect. Что делать?&#xD;&#xA;походить&#xD;&#xA;поездить&#xD;&#xA;полетать&#xD;&#xA;побегать&#xD;&#xA;Где? По чему? Where? Across what?&#xD;&#xA;по (the preposition used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я немного походил по парку.&#xD;&#xA;Такси поездило по городу и остановилось.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побегал и лёг спать.&#xD;&#xA;Птички полетали и сели на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *У-* means &#xD;&#xA;1 Somebody’s absence in the given place, departure from the place.&#xD;&#xA;уходить/уйти&#xD;&#xA;уезжать/уехать&#xD;&#xA;Откуда? От кого?From where?From whom?&#xD;&#xA;из, с, от(prepositions used after the verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы улетаем утром из Домодедово.&#xD;&#xA;Он улетел, но обещал вернуться.&#xD;&#xA;После каникул студенты снова уезжают из дома.&#xD;&#xA;з, с,от(prepositions used after the verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы улетаем утром из Домодедово.&#xD;&#xA;Он улетел, но обещал вернуться.&#xD;&#xA;После каникул студенты снова уезжают из дома.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14204" RevisionGUID="1f8570a4-3cf3-4cd1-9fc4-c383a57c0535" CreationDate="2017-04-02T04:36:23.087" UserId="6539" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The prefix *По-* with verbs of motion has two main meanings&#xD;&#xA;1. Beginning of motion — perfective aspect. Что сделать?(unidirectional)&#xD;&#xA;пойти,&#xD;&#xA;поехать,&#xD;&#xA;полететь,&#xD;&#xA;побежать,&#xD;&#xA;Куда? К кому? Where? To whom?&#xD;&#xA;**в, на,к** (prepositions used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл на работу.&#xD;&#xA;Машина поехала после остановки.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побежал.&#xD;&#xA;Самолет полетел в Москву. Я полечу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A little bit, for a short while, insignificantly– perfective aspect. Что сделать?(multidirectional)&#xD;&#xA;походить,&#xD;&#xA;поездить,&#xD;&#xA;полетать,&#xD;&#xA;побегать&#xD;&#xA;Где? По чему? Where? Across what?&#xD;&#xA;по (the preposition used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я походил по парку немного. Птицы полетали и сели на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *У-* means &#xD;&#xA;1 Somebody’s absence in the given place, departure from the place.&#xD;&#xA;уходить/уйти&#xD;&#xA;уезжать/уехать&#xD;&#xA;Откуда? От кого?From where?From whom?&#xD;&#xA;из, с, от(prepositions used after the verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы улетаем утром из Домодедово.&#xD;&#xA;Он улетел, но обещал вернуться.&#xD;&#xA;После каникул студенты снова уезжают из дома.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14204" RevisionGUID="2cb6045a-ec8b-42df-8cc5-d30e2c4f78ee" CreationDate="2017-04-02T06:02:39.610" UserId="6539" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="The prefix *По-* with verbs of motion has two main meanings&#xD;&#xA;1. Beginning of motion — perfective aspect. Что сделать?(unidirectional)&#xD;&#xA;пойти,&#xD;&#xA;поехать,&#xD;&#xA;полететь,&#xD;&#xA;побежать,&#xD;&#xA;Куда? К кому? Where? To whom?&#xD;&#xA;**в, на,к** (prepositions used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл на работу.&#xD;&#xA;Машина поехала после остановки.&#xD;&#xA;Мальчик побежал.&#xD;&#xA;Самолет полетел в Москву. Я полечу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.	A little bit, for a short while, insignificantly– perfective aspect. Что сделать?(multidirectional)&#xD;&#xA;походить,&#xD;&#xA;поездить,&#xD;&#xA;полетать,&#xD;&#xA;побегать&#xD;&#xA;Где? По чему? Where? Across what?&#xD;&#xA;по (the preposition used after verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я походил по парку немного. Птицы полетали и сели на дерево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix *У-* means &#xD;&#xA;1 Somebody’s absence in the given place, departure from the place.&#xD;&#xA;уходить/уйти&#xD;&#xA;уезжать/уехать Imperfective/perfective, unidirectional.&#xD;&#xA;Откуда? От кого?From where?From whom?&#xD;&#xA;из, с, от(prepositions used after the verbs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы улетаем утром из Домодедово.&#xD;&#xA;Он улетел, но обещал вернуться.&#xD;&#xA;После каникул студенты снова уезжают из дома.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14203" RevisionGUID="27e14009-8941-44b0-9dfa-a3de5c583e82" CreationDate="2017-04-02T10:42:00.657" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As prefixes for motion verbs, ***у-*** usually emphasises on a place from which the motion starts, while ***по-*** makes emphasis on a trajectory of motion (implying that the destination is a subject to change, though such a distinction, that is, an uncertain route, is not mandatory). Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я скоро уеду.*** (The ellipsis topic is about the place from which the speaker is about to start)/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я уезжаю сегодня*** (Again, the speaker emphasises that (s)he is about to part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он уехал.*** (He is no more here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я скоро поеду.*** (I am having a destination to part in the nearmost future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я поеду сегодня*** (I am about to take a new route today; I am going to part today and I want to inform you that I have some destination, though it's not certain).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он поехал / поехавший.*** (He's crazy; he's out of common sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, ***Мой самолёт улетит...***  = My plane is to leave this place..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мой самолёт полетит...*** = My plane is about to fly along a trajectory (though it's not a definate one)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bot phrases suggest something a little bit extraodinary / unusual about the flight. To describe a regular flight, one might say something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мой самолёт улетает /вылетает  /вылетел***... = My plane leaves this place (as it is usually supposed to fly)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14194" RevisionGUID="72873b04-4960-41b8-9f9f-c8ff693d4332" CreationDate="2017-04-02T15:01:18.087" UserId="2104" Comment="Add: If you need a secondary stress mark, use `768`: фо̀тоотчёт, гѝдроэлѐктроста́нция." Text="This method only requires 5 key presses and no mousing around. You will need a keyboard with a numeric keypad to use it. Make sure NumLock is ON.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Type the vowel e.g. `а`.&#xD;&#xA;2. Press and hold the left Alt key.&#xD;&#xA;3. Type `769` on the numeric keypad.&#xD;&#xA;4. Release the Alt key. You should get: `а́`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get a smiley face or any other character instead, try using a different program. It worked for me in Word and in Charmap, but not in Notepad or Chrome unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need a secondary stress mark, use `768`: фо̀тоотчёт, гѝдроэлѐктроста́нция." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14205" RevisionGUID="8fc213d2-c615-4561-ac70-0b8a50155914" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:47:03.853" UserId="8780" Text="EN: I know that number 21 (in nominative) demands nominative singular (21 год) and, although number 22 (in nominative) would demand genitive singular from the upcoming noun (22 года), an adjective describing &quot;22 года&quot; would demand genitive plural. Thus, &quot;22 хороших года&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I have one doubt. What case do adjectives after &quot;21&quot; take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be 21 хороших год? 21 хорошего года? 21 хорошие год? Or none of the aforementioned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: And if 21 itself is declined - like двадцати одного (genitive), for example - do upcoming words all take genitive plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RU: Я знаю, что, после числа &quot;22&quot;, прилагательное принимает множественное число/родительный падеж, и имя &quot;год&quot; принимает единственное число/родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что, будет &quot;22 хороших года&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но, если число - 21, то какой падеж слова &quot;хороший&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;21 хорош(?) год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо за помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Если число 21 само употребляет склонение (родительный падеж - двадцати одного?), следующие слова употребляют ли множественное число/то склонение числа?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14205" RevisionGUID="8fc213d2-c615-4561-ac70-0b8a50155914" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:47:03.853" UserId="8780" Text="Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14205" RevisionGUID="8fc213d2-c615-4561-ac70-0b8a50155914" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:47:03.853" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34110" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14205" RevisionGUID="0f9d8a48-38ac-44e9-bac4-3a9a7ab793f4" CreationDate="2017-04-02T21:50:56.567" UserId="1236" Comment="Tags added" Text="|прилагательные|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14206" RevisionGUID="9f928a77-8c51-46ce-846b-5d42b0268339" CreationDate="2017-04-02T22:08:02.523" UserId="1236" Text="All the numerals ending in 1, *exept* for those that end in 11 (11, 111, 711, 1011, etc.), need the following noun in the Nominatve case singular. If there is also an attribute adjective, it agrees with the noun in gender, case, and number, that is the adjective will also be in the Nominatve case singular:&#xD;&#xA;а&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 good girl — одна хорошая девочка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good years — двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, here _both_ the numeral and the adjective are _attributes_ of the noun, so if we change the case of the noun, both the the numeral and the adjective get the same case as the noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nom.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gen.:** двадцати одного хорошего года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Dat.:** двадцати одному хорошему году&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Acc.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Instr.:** двадцатью одним хорошиим годом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prep.:** (о) двадцати одном хорошем годе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Locat.:** (в) двадцати одном хорошем году" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14206" RevisionGUID="a3b18230-dd56-428f-b415-9164b8edcb2f" CreationDate="2017-04-02T22:16:19.253" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="All the numerals ending in 1, *exept* for those that end in 11 (11, 111, 711, 1011, etc.), need the following noun in the Nominatve case singular. If there is also an attribute adjective, it agrees with the noun in gender, case, and number, that is the adjective will also be in the Nominatve case singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good girls — двадцать одна хорошая девочка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good years — двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, here _both_ the numeral and the adjective are _attributes_ of the noun, so if we change the case of the noun, both the the numeral and the adjective get the same case as the noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nom.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gen.:** двадцати одного хорошего года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Dat.:** двадцати одному хорошему году&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Acc.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Instr.:** двадцатью одним хорошиим годом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prep.:** (о) двадцати одном хорошем годе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Locat.:** (в) двадцати одном хорошем году" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14206" RevisionGUID="74ed4a6c-048f-444b-afad-2a43fe30b157" CreationDate="2017-04-02T22:21:32.493" UserId="1236" Comment="Typos corrected" Text="All the numerals ending in 1, *exept* for those that end in 11 (11, 111, 711, 1011, etc.), need the following noun in the Nominatve case singular. If there is also an attribute adjective, it agrees with the noun in gender, case, and number, that is the adjective will also be in the Nominatve case singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good girls — двадцать одна хорошая девочка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good years — двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, here _both_ the numeral and the adjective are _attributes_ of the noun, so if we change the case of the noun, both the numeral and the adjective get the same case as the noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nom.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gen.:** двадцати одного хорошего года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Dat.:** двадцати одному хорошему году&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Acc.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Instr.:** двадцатью одним хорошиим годом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prep.:** (о) двадцати одном хорошем годе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Locat.:** (в) двадцати одном хорошем году" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34114" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14200" RevisionGUID="b148d8a3-4bed-4851-a6a8-48eca32590d1" CreationDate="2017-04-02T22:52:28.827" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/848669490455904256" />
  <row Id="34119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14206" RevisionGUID="ba56e357-4c6a-40a1-af79-507a0d91d3ad" CreationDate="2017-04-03T11:15:15.037" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="All the numerals ending in 1, *exept* for those that end in 11 (11, 111, 711, 1011, etc.), need the following noun in the Nominatve case singular. If there is also an attribute adjective, it agrees with the noun in gender, case, and number, that is the adjective will also be in the Nominatve case singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good girls — двадцать одна хорошая девочка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 21 good years — двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, here _both_ the numeral and the adjective are _attributes_ of the noun, so if we change the case of the noun, both the numeral and the adjective get the same case as the noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Nom.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gen.:** двадцати одного хорошего года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Dat.:** двадцати одному хорошему году&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Acc.:** двадцать один хороший год&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Instr.:** двадцатью одним хорошим годом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Prep.:** (о) двадцати одном хорошем годе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Locat.:** (в) двадцати одном хорошем году" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="914f18f2-3fa9-4d55-9b6e-925a1103859c" CreationDate="2017-04-03T11:48:55.040" UserId="8780" Text="I know that there's not a very simple way to tell decimals in russian. Literally it would translate as &quot;X entire ones, X tenths/hundredths/etc.&quot;, where X is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, *0.1* becomes ноль целых, одна десятая. *0.01* becomes ноль целых, одна сотая. If I'm not mistaken that is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if I wanted to tell, colloquially, a number like *0.333333333333(...)*, that's to say, a number with an infinite amount of decimal places?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, could I tell the numerals components individually? Like &quot;ноль точка три три три три (...)&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="914f18f2-3fa9-4d55-9b6e-925a1103859c" CreationDate="2017-04-03T11:48:55.040" UserId="8780" Text="How to tell long decimal numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="914f18f2-3fa9-4d55-9b6e-925a1103859c" CreationDate="2017-04-03T11:48:55.040" UserId="8780" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14210" RevisionGUID="7cedc5e1-5b3e-4ff6-9b3f-7a506bbc7054" CreationDate="2017-04-03T12:28:55.773" UserId="4600" Text="I don't think there's any set rule, but as a native speaker I can advise the following options. First you have to know that in Russian the decimal separator is comma `,` (pronounced *запятая*, colloquially *и*), not period `.`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0,333... – *ноль и три, три, три [и так далее]...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0,333... – *ноль, запятая, три, три, три [и так далее]...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More scientific way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0,333... = 0,(3) – *ноль целых и три в периоде*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0,133... = 0,1(3) – *ноль, запятая, один и три в периоде*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34130" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="c179aed9-61bc-4dba-a38d-9e3d25dd0618" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:22:30.643" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="99672c03-77ff-41db-8993-6469bc1b9789" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:28:26.397" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="I know that there's not a very simple way to pronounce decimals in Russian. Literally it would translate as &quot;X entire ones, X tenths/hundredths/etc.&quot;, where X is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, *0.1* becomes ноль целых, одна десятая. *0.01* becomes ноль целых, одна сотая. If I'm not mistaken that is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if I wanted to pronounce, colloquially, a number like *0.333333333333(...)*, that's to say, a number with an infinite amount of decimal places?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, could I tell the numerals components individually? Like &quot;ноль точка три три три три (...)&quot;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="99672c03-77ff-41db-8993-6469bc1b9789" CreationDate="2017-04-03T13:28:26.397" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="How to pronounce long decimal numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14211" RevisionGUID="6f0d6d1e-9c86-4b28-a4ed-87d1b41877e4" CreationDate="2017-04-03T15:14:06.040" UserId="8782" Text="With grammatica.eu you simply cut and paste text and stress marks are automatically (and nearly instantaneously) placed. The program is not free, but definitely worth the price. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14173" RevisionGUID="6e4713ed-364c-4fa5-8083-0159c88d92d9" CreationDate="2017-04-03T21:30:46.027" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Так как же узнать какой вариант правильный?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Посмотреть в словаре: [корпус][1], [договор][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точнее, это &quot;нормативный&quot;. А что еще может означать &quot;правильный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть ли вообще какое-то логическое правило, определяющее форму окончания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот что пишет по этому поводу Корней Чуковский в книге &quot;Живой как жизнь&quot; (1961 г.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое же недоумение вызывала во мне новоявленная форма: выбора́&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (вместо вы́боры), договора́ (вместо догово́ры), лектора́ (вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ле́кторы). В ней слышалось мне что-то залихватское, бесшабашное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; забубенное, ухарское. Напрасно я утешал себя тем, что эту форму уже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давно узаконил русский литературный язык. — Ведь, — говорил я себе, —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще Ломоносов двести лет тому назад утверждал, что русские люди&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предпочитают окончание «а» «скучной букве» «и» в окончаниях слов:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; облака, острова, леса вместо облаки, островы, лесы. Кроме того, прошло&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лет сто, а пожалуй, и больше, с тех пор, как русские люди перестали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорить и писать: домы, докторы, учители, профессоры, слесари,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; юнкеры, пекари, писари, флигели и охотно заменили их формами: дома́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учителя́, профессора́, слесаря́, флигеля́, юнкера́, пекаря́ и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало того: следующее поколение придало ту же залихватскую форму новым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десяткам слов, таким, как: бухгалтеры, томы, катеры, тополи, лагери,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дизели. Стали говорить и писать:бухгалтера́, тома́, катера́, тополя́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лагеря́, дизеля́ и т.д. Если бы Чехов, например, услышал слово тома́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он подумал бы, что речь идет о французском композиторе Амбруазе Тома́.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, довольно. Но нет. Пришло новое поколение, и я услыхал от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; него: шофера́, автора́, библиотекаря́, сектора́, прибыля́, отпуска́. И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще через несколько лет: выхода́, супа́, матеря́, дочеря́, секретаря́,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плоскостя́, скоростя́, ведомостя́, возраста́, площадя́. III Всякий раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я приходил к убеждению, что протестовать против этих для меня&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уродливых слов бесполезно. Я мог сколько угодно возмущаться, выходить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из себя, но нельзя же было не видеть, что здесь на протяжении столетия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит какой-то безостановочный стихийный процесс замены&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безударного окончания ы(и) сильно акцентированным окончанием а(я). И&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кто же поручится, что наши правнуки не станут говорить и писать:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крана́, актера́, медведя́, желудя́. Наблюдая за пышным расцветом этой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ухарской формы, я не раз утешал себя тем, что эта форма завладевает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; главным образом такими словами, которые в данном профессиональном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (иногда очень узком) кругу упоминаются чаще всего: форма торта́&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существует только в кондитерских, супа́ — в ресторанных кухнях,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; площадя́ — в домовых управлениях, трактора́ и скоростя́ — у&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трактористов. Пожарные говорят: факела́. Электрики — кабеля́ и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; штепселя́. Певчие в «Спевке» Слепцова: концерта́, тенора́ (1863). Не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; станем сейчас заниматься вопросом, желателен ли этот процесс или нет,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об этом разговор впереди, а покуда нам важно отметить один&#xD;&#xA;&gt; многознаменательный факт: все усилия бесчисленных ревнителей чистоты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языка остановить этот бурный процесс или хотя бы ослабить его до сих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пор остаются бесплодными. Если бы мне даже и вздумалось сейчас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; написать «то́мы Шекспира», я могу быть заранее уверенным, что в моей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; книге напечатают: «тома́ Шекспира», так как то́мы до того устарели,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что современный читатель почуял бы в них стилизаторство, жеманность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; манерничание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14212" RevisionGUID="4946c1b5-d5ce-4b0a-a87b-661248105478" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:37:52.560" UserId="5818" Text="What did the phrases крестьянин из государственных and крестьянка из государственных mean in the [Russian Imperial Census](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census) of 1897? State-owned serfs had been [emancipated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861#Aftermath) long before, in 1866.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I search the Web for those exact phrases, in quotation marks, virtually all hits appear to be copied from the 1897 census. This suggests to me that these phrases are not naturally used in Russian, but were coined by the census administrators. On the other hand, the similar phrase государственные крестьяне occurs in many different contexts on the Web, but appears to always refer to a [state-owned serf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_serf), a status abolished in 1866.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1897 census applies крестьянин из государственных and крестьянка из государственных not only to people born before 1866, where they might possibly mean *former* state serf, but it also applies these phrases to people born long after 1866, including infants born shortly before the census was taken.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14212" RevisionGUID="4946c1b5-d5ce-4b0a-a87b-661248105478" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:37:52.560" UserId="5818" Text="What did крестьянин из государственных mean in the 1897 census?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14212" RevisionGUID="4946c1b5-d5ce-4b0a-a87b-661248105478" CreationDate="2017-04-04T16:37:52.560" UserId="5818" Text="|лексикон|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14213" RevisionGUID="2a990366-0ef1-463e-8a06-8654a24314fb" CreationDate="2017-04-04T18:01:29.277" UserId="1262" Text="Although the serfdom of state-owned workers had been abolished long before, the abolishon was not a one-moment-action revolutionary act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state-owned serfs were gradually introduced into their new status, partially by [a system of graduate payments][1] and partially by a system of state-employment commissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the status of state-owned serfs was not abolishet at once, their emancipation was happening step by step (and [not at equal pace everywhere along the Russian Empire][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the term refers to the same thing as before: state-owned serfs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/22431-kavelin-s-p-istoricheskiy-ocherk-pozemelnogo-ustroystva-gosudarstvennyh-krestyan-m-1912-trudy-obschestva-mezhevyh-inzhenerov-vyp-2#page/55/mode/inspect/zoom/4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14213" RevisionGUID="617b6204-c663-4a8f-a806-61397731c68f" CreationDate="2017-04-04T18:09:25.567" UserId="1262" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Although the serfdom of state-owned workers had been abolished long before, the abolition itself was not a one-moment-action revolutionary act. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state-owned serfs were gradually introduced into their new status, partially by [a system of graduate payments][1] to the government and partially by a system of state-employment commissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the status of state-owned serfs was not abolished at once, their emancipation was happening step by step (and [not at equal pace everywhere along the Russian Empire][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the term refers to the same thing as before: state-owned serfs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/22431-kavelin-s-p-istoricheskiy-ocherk-pozemelnogo-ustroystva-gosudarstvennyh-krestyan-m-1912-trudy-obschestva-mezhevyh-inzhenerov-vyp-2#page/55/mode/inspect/zoom/4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14213" RevisionGUID="6a22b969-49d0-40a0-9702-5d4c042992bb" CreationDate="2017-04-04T20:46:01.823" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Although the serfdom of state-owned workers had been abolished long before, the abolition itself was not a momentous revolutionary action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state-owned serfs were gradually introduced into their new status, partially by [a system of graduate payments][1] to the government and partially by a system of state-employment commissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the status of state-owned serfs was not abolished at once, their emancipation was happening step by step (and [not at equal pace everywhere along the Russian Empire][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the term refers to the same thing as before: state-owned serfs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/22431-kavelin-s-p-istoricheskiy-ocherk-pozemelnogo-ustroystva-gosudarstvennyh-krestyan-m-1912-trudy-obschestva-mezhevyh-inzhenerov-vyp-2#page/55/mode/inspect/zoom/4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14212" RevisionGUID="7604a11d-f0a5-4724-998a-0360356e710f" CreationDate="2017-04-05T04:17:23.940" UserId="5818" Comment="emphasized seeking interpretation for this exact phrase and not a similar one" Text="What did the phrases крестьянин из государственных and крестьянка из государственных mean in the [Russian Imperial Census](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census) of 1897? State-owned serfs had been [emancipated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861#Aftermath) long before, in 1866.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I search the Web for those exact phrases, in quotation marks, virtually all hits appear to be copied from the 1897 census. This suggests to me that these phrases are not naturally used in Russian, but were coined by the census administrators. On the other hand, the similar phrase государственные крестьяне occurs in many different contexts on the Web, but appears to always refer to a [state-owned serf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_serf), a status abolished in 1866.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1897 census applies крестьянин из государственных and крестьянка из государственных not only to people born before 1866, where they might possibly mean *former* state serf, but it also applies these phrases to people born long after 1866, including infants born shortly before the census was taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Is there any significance to the fact the census takers wrote крестьянин из государственных instead of the more common государственные крестьяне? Does their phrasing convey a sense that this is a slightly different status, or is it simply an alternative way to say the same thing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14213" RevisionGUID="3563f933-2ce1-426c-8e00-7486db95c99b" CreationDate="2017-04-05T06:32:43.943" UserId="1262" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="Although the serfdom of state-owned workers had been abolished long before, the abolition itself was not a momentous revolutionary action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state-owned serfs were gradually introduced into their new status, partially by [a system of graduate payments][1] to the government and partially by a system of state-employment commissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the status of state-owned serfs was not abolished at once, their emancipation was happening step by step (and [not at equal pace everywhere along the Russian Empire][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the term refers to the same thing as before: state-owned serfs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: It has just come up to my mind that the term could refer to a former status of the serfs - that is, 'a serf who originates from the state-owned class'; 'a descendent from the class', provided that there was no new name for the emancipated serfs. The ultimate solution should be based upon the context of the Empiral Decree, i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/22431-kavelin-s-p-istoricheskiy-ocherk-pozemelnogo-ustroystva-gosudarstvennyh-krestyan-m-1912-trudy-obschestva-mezhevyh-inzhenerov-vyp-2#page/55/mode/inspect/zoom/4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14213" RevisionGUID="b38ee828-ad27-4c14-b547-a4e252bbe07a" CreationDate="2017-04-05T06:40:58.470" UserId="1262" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Although the serfdom of state-owned workers had been abolished long before, the abolition itself was not a momentous revolutionary action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state-owned serfs were gradually introduced into their new status, partially by [a system of graduate payments][1] to the government and partially by a system of state-employment commissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the status of state-owned serfs was not abolished at once, their emancipation was happening step by step (and [not at equal pace everywhere along the Russian Empire][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the term refers to the same thing as before: state-owned serfs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** It has just come up to my mind that the term could refer to a former status of the serfs - that is, 'a serf who originates from the state-owned class'; 'a descendent from the class', provided that there was no new name for the emancipated serfs. The meaning of the Genitive case in this phrase could be similar to that oif [Exessive][3] in Votian, Finnish and Estonian. The ultimate solution should be based upon the context of the Imperial Decree, i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/22431-kavelin-s-p-istoricheskiy-ocherk-pozemelnogo-ustroystva-gosudarstvennyh-krestyan-m-1912-trudy-obschestva-mezhevyh-inzhenerov-vyp-2#page/55/mode/inspect/zoom/4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exessive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14215" RevisionGUID="1b318988-a6c3-4dcd-9689-141597c33207" CreationDate="2017-04-05T07:54:32.413" UserId="194" Text="This is designation of сословие (social estate). It is a status of a person, intermediate between class and caste. Like caste (but unlike class), social estate is legally formalized, but like class (but unlike caste), there are ways one can change social estate: via military service, exceptional merits, education, marriage, baptism etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian Empire there were a lot of different social estates: nobles, clerics, merchants (several categories), bourgeois (мещане), peasants, cossacks, aliens (non-Slavs except Jews), Jews etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it simply says the person belongs to the social estate &quot;state peasants&quot;, e.g, peasants working on state-owned land. The &quot;from&quot; word does not mean anything: for instance, &quot;bourgeois&quot; would be reflected as &quot;из мещан&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what social estate one belonged determined the rights of the person, for instance, whether he would be recruited to the army, the number of votes one had on the elections of different types etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14215" RevisionGUID="16d4e610-3b59-42e5-b23d-4c6fd0203d16" CreationDate="2017-04-05T07:59:47.467" UserId="194" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This is designation of сословие (social estate). It is a status of a person, intermediate between class and caste. Like caste (but unlike class), social estate is legally formalized, but like class (but unlike caste), there are ways one can change social estate: via military service, exceptional merits, education, marriage, baptism etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian Empire there were a lot of different social estates: nobles, clerics, merchants (several categories), bourgeois (мещане), peasants, cossacks, aliens (non-Slavs except Jews), Jews etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it simply says the person belongs to the social estate &quot;state peasants&quot;, e.g, peasants working on state-owned land. The &quot;from&quot; word does not mean anything: for instance, &quot;bourgeois&quot; would be reflected as &quot;из мещан&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what social estate one belonged determined the rights of the person, for instance, whether he could be recruited to the army, the number of votes one had on the elections of different types, where one can live and be admitted to the university etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social estates are common to all formerly slave-owning societies after massive emancipation of slaves: the former masters still want to have higher status in society and be separated from former slaves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14215" RevisionGUID="aa9c1e7e-7cb0-43f0-af52-33746bf30525" CreationDate="2017-04-05T08:05:20.043" UserId="194" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="This is designation of сословие (social estate). It is a status of a person, intermediate between class and caste. Like caste (but unlike class), social estate is legally formalized, but like class (but unlike caste), there are ways one can change social estate: via military service, exceptional merits, education, marriage, baptism etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian Empire there were a lot of different social estates: nobles, clerics, merchants (several categories), bourgeois (мещане), peasants, cossacks, aliens (non-Slavs except Jews), Jews etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it simply says the person belongs to the social estate &quot;state peasants&quot;, e.g, peasants working on state-owned land. The &quot;from&quot; word does not mean anything: for instance, &quot;bourgeois&quot; would be reflected as &quot;из мещан&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what social estate one belonged determined the rights of the person, for instance, whether he could be recruited to the army, the number of votes one had on the elections of different types, where one can live and be admitted to the university, what taxes one paid etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social estates are common to all formerly slave-owning societies after massive emancipation of slaves: the former masters still want to have higher status in society and be separated from former slaves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="ebf7dfb2-cf92-420d-8bc8-8c9a83808b82" CreationDate="2017-04-05T10:08:38.017" UserId="8788" Text="Как Вы считаете, уместна ли такая конструкция:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении 24 говорится: &quot;Родину надо защищать&quot;, - и это свидетельствует о патриотическом настрое Кузьмы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предложение от балды. Интересует именно сама схема. И если после цитаты авторское высказывание продолжить можно, то какие знаки препинания должны стоять? (В моем примере это &quot;,-&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всем неравнодушным спасибо))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="ebf7dfb2-cf92-420d-8bc8-8c9a83808b82" CreationDate="2017-04-05T10:08:38.017" UserId="8788" Text="Уместно ли продолжение речи автора после приведения цитаты?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="ebf7dfb2-cf92-420d-8bc8-8c9a83808b82" CreationDate="2017-04-05T10:08:38.017" UserId="8788" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14217" RevisionGUID="de753394-3e8e-4ee6-bcc7-062b9b6f1adb" CreationDate="2017-04-05T11:21:51.337" UserId="1836" Text="Насколько я помню, если исходное предложение выглядит, допустим так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Родину надо защищать&quot;, - и это свидетельствует о патриотическом настрое Кузьмы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То процитировать его можно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В предложении 24 говорится: «&quot;Родину надо защищать&quot;, - и это свидетельствует о патриотическом настрое Кузьмы.»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(виды кавычек можно поменять местами).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14219" RevisionGUID="58f35e78-f2f1-425a-a141-fe9c94b8d6f6" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:00:11.850" UserId="4903" Text="Предложенный вариант знаков препинания - правилен. Цитаты оформляются также как и прямая речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Когда авторский текст предшествует цитате, то он отделяется двоеточием. ***У М. Алигер есть строки: «Человеку надо очень мало, чтобы счастье выросло в полный рост».***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Когда авторский текст следует за цитатой, то он отделяется запятой с последующим тире. ***«Тот не писатель, кто не прибавил к зрению человека хотя бы немного зоркости», — сказал К. Паустовский.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении о Кузьме используются оба правила:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В предложении 24 говорится: «Родину надо защищать», — и это свидетельствует о патриотическом настрое Кузьмы.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Полный академический справочник под редакцией Лопатина. Знаки препинания при цитатах][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://orthographia.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14220" RevisionGUID="23c36f32-f4ba-4afe-a266-18ec776092b7" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:31:08.370" UserId="6676" Text="It doesn't match with the pronunciation of the letter in Russian at all. A transliteration closer to the spelling would be rather &quot;shj&quot;, &quot;sh' &quot; or something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, I've seen it transliterated like this in French (&quot;chtch&quot;) and German (&quot;schtsch&quot;) as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that so? Is it etymological?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14220" RevisionGUID="23c36f32-f4ba-4afe-a266-18ec776092b7" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:31:08.370" UserId="6676" Text="Why is щ transliterated as &quot;shch&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14220" RevisionGUID="23c36f32-f4ba-4afe-a266-18ec776092b7" CreationDate="2017-04-05T14:31:08.370" UserId="6676" Text="|произношение|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14221" RevisionGUID="ec49ac8f-e0a9-4ce3-9a2f-17aeeadba807" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:17:10.583" UserId="1236" Text="Let me quote my own [answer][1] to a related question, [Difference in pronunciation between “щ” and “шь”?][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As for `щ`, it is a **long** alveopalatal consonant, IPA symbol for it is [/ɕː/][3] (you can listen to the sound there, and there is also the [sound for the Russian word 'счастье'][4] [ˈɕːæsʲtʲjə] in which 'сч' is pronounced as 'щ'). Roughly speaking, in Standard Russian it is pronounced like the English 'shsh' in the phrase 'the dish she likes'. Some people pronounce `щ` as 'шч', but this pronunciation is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, that although now the standard pronunciation of `щ` is /ɕː/, it used to be pronounced as /ɕtɕ/ ant is still pronounced so by many people, that is why it is _traditionally_ transliterated as `shch` in English. Note, that when the Cyrillic script emerged in the 9th century, `щ` stood for the consonantal cluster [ɕtʲ], and later in Russian [ɕtʲ] &gt; [ɕtɕ] &gt; [ɕː]. Thus, the tranliteration of this letter as `shch` reflects the previous stage of its pronunciation which is dying out now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/difference-in-pronunciation-between-%D1%89-and-%D1%88%D1%8C/1722#1722&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B5.ogg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14221" RevisionGUID="d3428338-ed63-4969-a3fb-d9a4c290ebcf" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:28:43.950" UserId="1236" Comment="edited body" Text="Let me quote my own [answer][1] to a related question, [Difference in pronunciation between “щ” and “шь”?][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As for `щ`, it is a **long** alveopalatal consonant, IPA symbol for it is [/ɕː/][3] (you can listen to the sound there, and there is also the [sound for the Russian word 'счастье'][4] [ˈɕːæsʲtʲjə] in which 'сч' is pronounced as 'щ'). Roughly speaking, in Standard Russian it is pronounced like the English 'shsh' in the phrase 'the dish she likes'. Some people pronounce `щ` as 'шч', but this pronunciation is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, that although now the standard pronunciation of `щ` is /ɕː/, it used to be pronounced as /ɕtɕ/ and is still pronounced so by many people, that is why it is _traditionally_ transliterated as `shch` in English. Note, that when the Cyrillic script emerged in the 9th century, `щ` stood for the consonantal cluster [ɕtʲ], and later in Russian [ɕtʲ] &gt; [ɕtɕ] &gt; [ɕː]. Thus, the tranliteration of this letter as `shch` reflects the previous stage of its pronunciation which is dying out now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/difference-in-pronunciation-between-%D1%89-and-%D1%88%D1%8C/1722#1722&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B5.ogg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14215" RevisionGUID="62585e47-b3b2-4be3-a9ed-7d435e07fc3a" CreationDate="2017-04-05T17:45:30.127" UserId="194" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="This is designation of сословие (social estate). It is a status of a person, intermediate between class and caste. Like caste (but unlike class), social estate is legally formalized, but like class (but unlike caste), there are ways one can change social estate: via military service, exceptional merits, education, marriage, baptism etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian Empire there were a lot of different social estates: nobles (hereditary and non-hereditary), clerics, merited citizens, merchants (several categories), bourgeois (мещане), peasants, cossacks, aliens (non-Slavs except Jews), Jews etc. There were also разночинцы, the people who did not belong to any estate (for instance, children of non-hereditary nobles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it simply says the person belongs to the social estate &quot;state peasants&quot;, e.g, peasants working on state-owned land. The &quot;from&quot; word does not mean anything: for instance, &quot;bourgeois&quot; would be reflected as &quot;из мещан&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what social estate one belonged determined the rights of the person, for instance, whether he could be recruited to the army, be subject of corporal punishment, the number of votes one had on the elections of different types, where one can live and be admitted to the university, what taxes one paid etc. Some estates had their own courts to deal with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Social estates are common to all formerly slave-owning societies after massive emancipation of slaves: the former masters still want to have higher status in society and be separated from former slaves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14219" RevisionGUID="991964f6-0352-4869-9355-0edf8dcaa477" CreationDate="2017-04-05T17:51:40.987" UserId="4903" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Предложенный вариант знаков препинания - правилен. Цитаты оформляются так же, как и прямая речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Когда авторский текст предшествует цитате, то он отделяется двоеточием. ***У М. Алигер есть строки: «Человеку надо очень мало, чтобы счастье выросло в полный рост».***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Когда авторский текст следует за цитатой, то он отделяется запятой с последующим тире. ***«Тот не писатель, кто не прибавил к зрению человека хотя бы немного зоркости», — сказал К. Паустовский.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении о Кузьме используются оба правила:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В предложении 24 говорится: «Родину надо защищать», — и это свидетельствует о патриотическом настрое Кузьмы.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Полный академический справочник под редакцией Лопатина. Знаки препинания при цитатах][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://orthographia.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34165" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14220" RevisionGUID="f3bc7df8-faee-48b7-ba6b-e547f5090989" CreationDate="2017-04-05T20:06:23.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/849714855175229440" />
  <row Id="34166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14222" RevisionGUID="d63b03aa-0941-4e33-8653-166a1b9f77f2" CreationDate="2017-04-05T20:39:58.117" UserId="134" Text="Each 1897 census form had a usage guide on its back, which among other things read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Сословiе, состоянiе или званiе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здѣсь отмѣчается сокращенно то сословiе или званiе, къ которому приписываемое лицо относится по своему рожденiю или прежнему состоянiю или вновь прiобрѣтеннымъ правамъ, напр.: … крестьянинъ *непремѣнно с обозначенiем, какого онъ именно разряда*, напр.: изъ бывш. владѣльч., изъ бывш. государств., удѣльн., горнозаводск., и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *из государственных крестьян* means &quot;comes from a family of former state serfs&quot; indeed, with *бывших* (&quot;former&quot;) omitted for brevity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14223" RevisionGUID="12206214-bf70-4ff5-9b19-e465009ab4e2" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:57:39.197" UserId="8794" Text="I am wondering whether there is any difference between the present and past adverbial imperfective participles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читая книгу, я устал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Читав книгу, я устал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these mean “while reading the book, I grew tired.” Right? Is there any difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14223" RevisionGUID="12206214-bf70-4ff5-9b19-e465009ab4e2" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:57:39.197" UserId="8794" Text="Difference between present and past adverbial imperfective participles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14223" RevisionGUID="12206214-bf70-4ff5-9b19-e465009ab4e2" CreationDate="2017-04-06T13:57:39.197" UserId="8794" Text="|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14224" RevisionGUID="5abb9213-e048-4a38-bd05-3ed287438df7" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:18:30.613" UserId="7697" Text="I'm reading Tolstoy's Исповедь, and in the second chapter it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Двадцати шести лет я приехал после войны в Петербург и *сошелся* с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; писателями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Did he live together with other writers? What is the infinitive form of that word? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14224" RevisionGUID="5abb9213-e048-4a38-bd05-3ed287438df7" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:18:30.613" UserId="7697" Text="What does &quot;сошелся&quot; (or &quot;сошёлся&quot;?) mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14224" RevisionGUID="5abb9213-e048-4a38-bd05-3ed287438df7" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:18:30.613" UserId="7697" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14225" RevisionGUID="97d1f25f-e727-400f-809c-0b00d7042240" CreationDate="2017-04-06T14:59:35.917" UserId="3680" Text="No, he didn't live with other writers. In this context `сошелся` means just `met` (`встретился` / `познакомился`).  &#xD;&#xA;The infinive form of `сошелся` is `сойтись`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14225" RevisionGUID="31129756-505b-40c9-ac1a-73d89ec2dec8" CreationDate="2017-04-06T15:05:10.453" UserId="3680" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="No, he didn't live with other writers. This is a pretty old-style text. In this context `сошелся` means just `met` (`встретился` / `познакомился` / `подружился`).  &#xD;&#xA;The infinive form of `сошелся` is `сойтись`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14226" RevisionGUID="565137fd-c784-41cb-b37e-ca31e66fdae7" CreationDate="2017-04-06T15:06:09.593" UserId="8793" Text="to meet - *встретить, познакомиться, сойтись*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, *сошелся* means that he met writers and started having some kind of relationships, communicating and meeting up with them, you can even say that he started becoming a friend to them and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14227" RevisionGUID="38ac807a-0814-4570-a5cf-75da43293f94" CreationDate="2017-04-06T15:23:48.450" UserId="8793" Text="You can say there is no difference, but:&#xD;&#xA;The first one means that you are reading a book at the moment or you tell a story, which has already  happened , and use present tense to say things about a story.&#xD;&#xA;The second one means that you were reading a book in the past.  That's all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="a307853e-7ec0-4b8e-995e-10c90d67bca9" CreationDate="2017-04-06T17:17:06.650" UserId="6539" Text="1.Читая книгу, я устал.-Correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Читав книгу, я устал.-Incorrect. It should be 2.**Прочитав** книгу, я устал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Читав&quot; doesn't exist. If we consider the correct sentences, the first means that you got tired while reading (during the process).&quot;Прочитав&quot;means that the action was completed and you felt tired after you finished reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34179" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="ec7aba87-9476-4138-ba73-c4545ab983c5" CreationDate="2017-04-06T17:28:14.153" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14229" RevisionGUID="ac096693-8389-4c7d-9369-fb490732588c" CreationDate="2017-04-06T18:06:07.627" UserId="1236" Text="The Russian adverbial participles have _relative_ tense, that is, the present tense adverbial participles denote a secondary action which is _simultaneous_ with the main action of the sentence, and the past tense adverbial participles denote an action which was / is /will be _prior_ to the main action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this respect your first example is OK, &quot;I got tired *while* reading a book&quot;. The second example sounds strange, though. If you need to say &quot;I got tired _after_ reading a book&quot; or &quot;Having read a book, I got tired&quot;, then you should better use the past adverbial _perfective_ participle _прочитав_ and you will have a nice sentence. But if you do want to use the past adverbial _imperfective_ participle _читав_, then the sentence will mean the same as your first example, but it will sound too archaic, kind of 18th-century-style. In the Modern Russian, the past adverbial _imperfective_ participles are used mainly in the negative form, with the particle `не`, their positive forms are considered obsolete and are not used any more. Here are a couple of examples of Modern Russian sentences with the negative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И как многое пропадет для того, кто пришел слушать симфоническую поэму Рихарда Штрауса «Дон Кихот», никогда **не читав** романа Сервантеса...[ \[И. Л. Андроников. Разные грани // «Юность», 1970\]][1] — &quot;And how much will be lost for the one who came to listen to Richard Strauss' symphonic poem 'Don Quixote' **without having** ever **read** the novel by Cervantes...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она рвала его письма, **не читав** их. — She tore his letters **without having read** them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F7%E8%F2%E0%E2&amp;p=0&amp;docid=46060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34181" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="752244dc-39af-4c1b-85dc-7dfcd57c05e3" CreationDate="2017-04-06T19:13:12.230" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14228" RevisionGUID="e9408c19-7988-4e53-af7e-d2e668914d2b" CreationDate="2017-04-06T19:14:58.633" UserId="6539" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="1.Читая книгу, я устал.-Correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Читав книгу, я устал.-Incorrect. It should be 2.**Прочитав** книгу, я устал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Читав&quot; exists, but we don't say so. If we consider the correct sentences, the first means that you got tired while reading (during the process).&quot;Прочитав&quot;means that the action was completed and you felt tired after you finished reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34183" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14223" RevisionGUID="a937b7d1-c8b8-4f6b-a8f6-bb84d1cfe686" CreationDate="2017-04-06T20:06:22.643" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/850077240834625537" />
  <row Id="34184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14213" RevisionGUID="42c16bdd-720a-452c-af69-649658895804" CreationDate="2017-04-06T21:17:36.367" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="Although the serfdom of state-owned workers had been abolished long before, the abolition itself was not a momentous revolutionary action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state-owned serfs were gradually introduced into their new status, partially by [a system of graduate payments][1] to the government and partially by a system of state-employment commissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the status of state-owned serfs was not abolished at once, their emancipation was happening step by step (and [not at equal pace everywhere along the Russian Empire][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the term refers to the same thing as before: state-owned serfs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** It has just come up to my mind that the term could refer to a former status of the serfs - that is, 'a serf who originates from the state-owned class'; 'a descendent from the class', provided that there was no new name for the emancipated serfs. The meaning of the Genitive case in this phrase could be similar to that oif [Exessive][3] in Votian, Finnish and Estonian. The ultimate solution should be based upon the context of the Imperial Decree, I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/22431-kavelin-s-p-istoricheskiy-ocherk-pozemelnogo-ustroystva-gosudarstvennyh-krestyan-m-1912-trudy-obschestva-mezhevyh-inzhenerov-vyp-2#page/55/mode/inspect/zoom/4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exessive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="228d4424-2544-4c2f-9be3-6fc14c35b9cf" CreationDate="2017-04-06T22:43:50.107" UserId="8795" Text="What it means in russian &quot; ого ппц! милый.&quot; Imagine one girl write this as an answer to her friend who sent Justin Bieber video when he is singing in a car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="228d4424-2544-4c2f-9be3-6fc14c35b9cf" CreationDate="2017-04-06T22:43:50.107" UserId="8795" Text="Can ппц word use for a good manner ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="228d4424-2544-4c2f-9be3-6fc14c35b9cf" CreationDate="2017-04-06T22:43:50.107" UserId="8795" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14231" RevisionGUID="c0a34ea5-61ea-48e1-8c24-3f83eb655b7d" CreationDate="2017-04-06T23:07:15.200" UserId="2079" Text="There is an obscene word `пиздец` (from the obscene root `пизда` - cunt). According to wiktionary it means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1. (vulgar) extreme degree of anything.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;        1 000 000 — э́то пизде́ц ско́лько де́нег!‎ ― One million is hell of a lot of money!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    2. (vulgar, sometimes humorous) extremely undesirable situation&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    3. (vulgar) death, curtains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two euphemisms of this taboo word: `песец` (mostly for meanings 2 and 3) and `пипец` (also with slightly different spectrum of meanings). `Ппц` is short of `пипец` (like `thx` means `thanks`).  See https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BF%D1%86 for it meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence it means something like &quot;wow&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14233" RevisionGUID="cf5b0e43-7734-4147-a62f-0921d7a68402" CreationDate="2017-04-06T23:10:12.533" UserId="1236" Text="This `ппц` is an abbreviated way to write the word `пипéц` (pee-PETS) which is in its turn a euphemism for the word `пиздéц` (peez-DETS), an obscene way to say &quot;God damn!&quot; or &quot;Fucking shit!&quot; It's an exclamation and it has a wide range of meanings, a whole specter of them, begining with the expression of admiration and finishing with complete dislike, rejection, and condemnation of the subject matter. In any way, it expresses a strong emotion. In your sentence, it's admiration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14233" RevisionGUID="96e73912-78cd-4ec0-97c0-c65012624e18" CreationDate="2017-04-06T23:20:27.353" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This `ппц` is an abbreviated way to write the word `пипéц` (pee-PETS) which is in its turn a euphemism for the word `пиздéц` (peez-DETS), an obscene way to say &quot;God damn!&quot; or &quot;Fucking shit!&quot; It's an exclamation and it has a wide range of meanings, a whole spectrum of them, begining with the expression of admiration and finishing with complete dislike, rejection, and condemnation of the subject matter. In any way, it expresses a strong emotion. In your sentence, it's admiration." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14234" RevisionGUID="7319de61-3a0d-426f-954a-5bbc29aae74e" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:23:28.173" UserId="8798" Text="I was wondering if someone could translate this book title and also include the title in russian? I'm attempting to reference it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R9pwE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14234" RevisionGUID="7319de61-3a0d-426f-954a-5bbc29aae74e" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:23:28.173" UserId="8798" Text="Can someone translate this book title for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14234" RevisionGUID="7319de61-3a0d-426f-954a-5bbc29aae74e" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:23:28.173" UserId="8798" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14235" RevisionGUID="a2e89142-78ce-4116-ba95-1be340957eaf" CreationDate="2017-04-07T07:35:05.110" UserId="8793" Text="We are not a bulky translation service here. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can use Google or something to translate textes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English - &gt; ***Functions of a one variable.*** &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russian - &gt; ***Функции одного переменного.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14236" RevisionGUID="1433aaa3-f978-484c-a6ef-80e94f4f81f9" CreationDate="2017-04-07T08:29:50.997" UserId="8126" Text="Why is the declension of the verb is for feminine singular?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группа туристов **хотела** бы пообедать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't `группа туристов` plural here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14236" RevisionGUID="1433aaa3-f978-484c-a6ef-80e94f4f81f9" CreationDate="2017-04-07T08:29:50.997" UserId="8126" Text="Why is the declension of the verb is for feminine singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14236" RevisionGUID="1433aaa3-f978-484c-a6ef-80e94f4f81f9" CreationDate="2017-04-07T08:29:50.997" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14237" RevisionGUID="ab006806-6534-4211-9f91-5709350bd7e6" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:24:31.473" UserId="8687" Text="So, this word was entered in common lexicon after few seasons of a dumb TV sitcom &quot;Univer&quot;. It was been reguraliry pronounced by a silly person, Allochka. Then, if you will use in your speak the word ппц, your familiar have suspicted you in poor taste (and in dumb-TV-show addiction)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14238" RevisionGUID="31753d9d-f632-4cb4-9d75-7790abb99f30" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:40:59.507" UserId="242" Text="No, &quot;группа туристов&quot; is singular. The fact that group denotes a set of objects does not change the fact that the word itself is singular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;группа туристов заблудилась в лесу&quot; and &quot;группы туристов переходили вброд речку кто где&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example of seemingly more complicated constructs think of &quot;пара групп туристов&quot; - it's a couple of groups - and it's still singular )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="824b2b22-8edd-4014-9035-f9c1433df40c" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:41:47.323" UserId="8797" Comment="Adding photo" Text="What it means in russian &quot; ого ппц! милый.&quot; Imagine one girl write this as an answer to her friend who sent Justin Bieber video when he is singing in a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/00CFx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand here also full meaning of ого ппц! милый. Is that something like &quot; Woow, so cutee!!&quot; or what. Also, what this word used for in here -&gt; милый ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34203" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="824b2b22-8edd-4014-9035-f9c1433df40c" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:41:47.323" UserId="8797" Comment="Adding photo" Text="Can ппц word use for a good manner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34204" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="824b2b22-8edd-4014-9035-f9c1433df40c" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:41:47.323" Comment="Proposed by 8797 approved by 6097, -1 edit id of 846" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="4f6d2429-b88d-4e44-8cd5-610903578bff" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:41:47.323" UserId="242" Comment="Adding photo" Text="What it means in Russian &quot; ого ппц! милый.&quot; Imagine one girl write this as an answer to her friend who sent Justin Bieber video when he is singing in a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/00CFx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand here also full meaning of ого ппц! милый. Is that something like &quot; Woow, so cutee!!&quot; or what. Also, what this word used for in here -&gt; милый ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34207" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14234" RevisionGUID="af3a3af3-86f3-4e91-a9c2-7823c98b5923" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:43:00.417" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14216" RevisionGUID="aa20777a-21f8-46e7-a77d-1a6a275c3081" CreationDate="2017-04-07T09:44:52.510" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="Как Вы считаете, уместна ли такая конструкция:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении 24 говорится: &quot;Родину надо защищать&quot;, - и это свидетельствует о патриотическом настрое Кузьмы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предложение от балды. Интересует именно сама схема. И если после цитаты авторское высказывание продолжить можно, то какие знаки препинания должны стоять? (В моем примере это &quot;,-&quot; )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14239" RevisionGUID="5990f4a3-94ce-4c09-9ab8-15f548447273" CreationDate="2017-04-07T11:31:33.630" UserId="4560" Text="While Russian does [hesitate between singular and plural][1] with such collective nouns as **ряд, большинство, меньшинство, часть,** or **множество**, the word **группа** doesn't have the quasi-numeral, for lack of a better term, properties of the English &quot;group&quot;. In other words, it's thought of as an entity comprised of people, rather than a set of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14230" RevisionGUID="1173c9d3-f81c-4be3-94b5-882025b34db0" CreationDate="2017-04-07T13:16:29.843" UserId="1236" Comment="Image " Text="What it means in Russian &quot; ого ппц! милый.&quot; Imagine one girl write this as an answer to her friend who sent Justin Bieber video when he is singing in a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]:  https://i.stack.imgur.com/q80kG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to understand here also full meaning of ого ппц! милый. Is that something like &quot; Woow, so cutee!!&quot; or what. Also, what this word used for in here -&gt; милый ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14236" RevisionGUID="8a8c2288-7421-440a-b5ef-6284ec5fd12b" CreationDate="2017-04-07T23:18:43.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/850488035724713985" />
  <row Id="34212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14240" RevisionGUID="e083d236-bdee-4315-b338-f96e01206ada" CreationDate="2017-04-08T04:04:58.510" UserId="39" Text="I'd say `got together` is appropriate. Or `connected with` perhaps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34213" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14224" RevisionGUID="148cb1e1-098f-4478-984f-49ebc22ed92e" CreationDate="2017-04-09T11:27:19.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/851033778424348675" />
  <row Id="34215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14241" RevisionGUID="1f5de15f-2b90-49a9-962d-f096722c2aba" CreationDate="2017-04-09T16:24:22.763" UserId="8803" Text="Данные термины - Atmospheric penetration и Atmospheric removal - встречаются в англоязычной технической литературе, посвященной геоинформационным системам. Первый термин употребляется в следующем контексте:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coast lines and shores are well defined. It may be used to find textural and moisture characteristics of soils. Vegetation appears blue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А второй в таком:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This combination provides a &quot;natural-like&quot; rendition, while also penetrating atmospheric particles and smoke. Healthy vegetation will be a bright green and can saturate in seasons of heavy growth, grasslands will appear green, pink areas represent barren soil, oranges and browns represent sparsely vegetated areas....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не могу сообразить, каким должен быть их правильный перевод на русский язык. Буду признателен за советы!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14241" RevisionGUID="1f5de15f-2b90-49a9-962d-f096722c2aba" CreationDate="2017-04-09T16:24:22.763" UserId="8803" Text="Как правильно перевести на русский &quot;Atmospheric penetration&quot; и &quot;Atmospheric removal&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14241" RevisionGUID="1f5de15f-2b90-49a9-962d-f096722c2aba" CreationDate="2017-04-09T16:24:22.763" UserId="8803" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34218" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14241" RevisionGUID="3ae15f88-78cb-471b-bdc8-6074cb1445ec" CreationDate="2017-04-09T18:56:16.127" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14242" RevisionGUID="e2781837-59fb-405d-b5e0-d431f4ab46f5" CreationDate="2017-04-09T20:23:26.517" UserId="8804" Text="How do I say I have the same book? Is it:&#xD;&#xA;У меня есть такая же or та же книга. &#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between the 2 variants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14242" RevisionGUID="e2781837-59fb-405d-b5e0-d431f4ab46f5" CreationDate="2017-04-09T20:23:26.517" UserId="8804" Text="ТОТ ЖЕ - ТАКОЙ ЖЕ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14242" RevisionGUID="e2781837-59fb-405d-b5e0-d431f4ab46f5" CreationDate="2017-04-09T20:23:26.517" UserId="8804" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14243" RevisionGUID="b0f5b735-5892-489d-9e47-be5684deb0e1" CreationDate="2017-04-09T20:50:05.877" UserId="6539" Text="**Тот же (самый)** points to one object. (that very book)&#xD;&#xA;**Такой же** points to different but identical objects.(the same/the identical book). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Этот дом такой же,  как и тот (we are speaking about two houses)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это тот же самый дом (one house is described.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14244" RevisionGUID="29b68028-66f4-49f9-94ca-53ec92d71abe" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:10:59.290" UserId="8805" Text="Здравствуйте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— 14-го числа у меня будет суд.&#xD;&#xA;— Я думал, 10-го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужна ли запятая во втором предложении этого диалога? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14244" RevisionGUID="29b68028-66f4-49f9-94ca-53ec92d71abe" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:10:59.290" UserId="8805" Text="&quot;Я думал, 10-го&quot; или &quot;Я думал 10-го&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14244" RevisionGUID="29b68028-66f4-49f9-94ca-53ec92d71abe" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:10:59.290" UserId="8805" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14243" RevisionGUID="bc30d6e9-6cde-4e29-9b2c-f32df488c58f" CreationDate="2017-04-09T21:49:57.917" UserId="1236" Comment="Punctuation and spacing corrected." Text="**Тот же (самый)** points to one object (that very book).&#xD;&#xA;**Такой же** points to different but identical objects (the same/the identical book). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Этот дом такой же, как и тот. (we are speaking about two houses)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это тот же самый дом. (one house is described.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14244" RevisionGUID="3e1b250c-fc36-4d33-8f77-8c53a04795b0" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:55:06.040" UserId="8806" Comment="перенос починил" Text="Здравствуйте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— 14-го числа у меня будет суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Я думал, 10-го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужна ли запятая во втором предложении этого диалога? Как ёё объяснить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34229" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14244" RevisionGUID="3e1b250c-fc36-4d33-8f77-8c53a04795b0" CreationDate="2017-04-09T22:55:06.040" Comment="Proposed by 8806 approved by 1236, 6725 edit id of 847" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14246" RevisionGUID="ef33ec17-ff4c-4d51-94d4-9ccfa1235606" CreationDate="2017-04-10T00:23:20.770" UserId="2079" Text="С запятой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`«Я думал, 10-го»` - сокращение сложноподчинённого предложения `«Я думал, что у вас будет суд 10-го числа»`. В сложноподчинённом предложении нужна запятая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`«Я думал 10-го»` означало бы, что говорящий думал 10-го числа (а в другие дни, возможно, не думал)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14247" RevisionGUID="3b423094-47ad-4d17-9942-886902b642ca" CreationDate="2017-04-10T02:48:47.503" UserId="39" Text="I honestly don't know. Gave it some thought, but best i could come up with is `Roaring 90s`,`Dashing 90s`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those familiar with a term - what do you think?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14247" RevisionGUID="3b423094-47ad-4d17-9942-886902b642ca" CreationDate="2017-04-10T02:48:47.503" UserId="39" Text="Как сказать &quot;лихие девяностые&quot; на английском?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14247" RevisionGUID="3b423094-47ad-4d17-9942-886902b642ca" CreationDate="2017-04-10T02:48:47.503" UserId="39" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34234" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14212" RevisionGUID="17f43de0-24e3-4e3a-8680-4a13619b5dad" CreationDate="2017-04-10T05:33:39.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/851307164396343296" />
  <row Id="34235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14248" RevisionGUID="e33428b7-77cc-4d62-a514-7e01948c870f" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:29:05.740" UserId="1262" Text="Depending on a context, I'd choose between the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***no man's 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***wild wild 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***thrilling 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***threatening 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***mad 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***chaotic 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***naughty 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***nasty 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***crazy 90s***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34236" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14247" RevisionGUID="b3b45186-d158-4777-a4a7-1ea0e22180d9" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:29:43.747" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34237" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14242" RevisionGUID="a6d0d683-8a30-4051-9bc9-894e8e5296aa" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:30:30.593" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Тот же&quot; or &quot;такой же&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14242" RevisionGUID="1c9788ca-3dee-4b20-866b-d481012eca4e" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:33:40.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/851352466553794560" />
  <row Id="34239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14249" RevisionGUID="5f26e307-a3a8-4d3e-894f-265bcf0b0e41" CreationDate="2017-04-10T08:43:00.150" UserId="1262" Text="An object of the same quality is 'the same object'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня чёрная рубаха, и у тебя такая же.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Эта станция удобная, и та такая же.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Борщ холодный, и чай такой же.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples have the obvious (that is, spoken in phrases) qualities of the objects as topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An object to which to or more speakers refer is 'the very object':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня чёрная рубаха, а у тебя - та же.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Эта станция удобная, а та - та же.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Борщ холодный, а чай - тот же.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples given, the qualities of the objects are opposite to those spoken out in the beginning of the phrases. It is also implied that there is no change in quality of the objects mentioned in the second parts of phrases, or that they are not evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also put the adjectives from the first group of examples (similar qualities) into the second structure group and the phrases still would have the same meaning, but you cannot do it the other way round (that is, the adjectives are interchangeable in the second group only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, ***У меня есть такая же книга.*** = I have a book of the same (evident) qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня есть та же книга.*** = I have the same book as you have mentioned (and the book could be non-visible at the moment of speech)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14241" RevisionGUID="19cb787c-f565-4300-9c08-c4f0732b715b" CreationDate="2017-04-10T09:30:28.867" UserId="8803" Comment="added 486 characters in body" Text="Данные термины - Atmospheric penetration и Atmospheric removal - встречаются в англоязычной технической литературе, посвященной геоинформационным системам. Первый термин употребляется в следующем контексте:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coast lines and shores are well defined. It may be used to find textural and moisture characteristics of soils. Vegetation appears blue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А второй в таком:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This combination provides a &quot;natural-like&quot; rendition, while also penetrating atmospheric particles and smoke. Healthy vegetation will be a bright green and can saturate in seasons of heavy growth, grasslands will appear green, pink areas represent barren soil, oranges and browns represent sparsely vegetated areas....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не могу сообразить, каким должен быть их правильный перевод на русский язык. Буду признателен за советы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример где используются эти термины (the link which shows the usage of these two terms) - https://lv.eosda.com/?lat=38.71123&amp;lng=-101.96411&amp;z=8&amp;day=true&amp;s=Landsat8&amp;id=LC80320332017097LGN00&amp;cb=false&amp;b=SWIR2,SWIR1,NIR . Если нажать на восклицательный знак рядом с &quot;Atmospheric penetration&quot; или &quot;Atmospheric removal&quot;, то можно получить описания (if you press on exclamation mark near these two terms - Atmospheric penetration and Atmospheric removal - you will see their description). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14250" RevisionGUID="a3ee9211-e65d-4c43-af41-d39a9bcc7b56" CreationDate="2017-04-10T20:58:20.463" UserId="4301" Text="With verbs of motion like *ездить* you use *на* + prepositional case for means of transportation and *в* or *на* + accusative for destination, but with *билет* you use accusative for both. Is there a reason for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34243" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14250" RevisionGUID="a3ee9211-e65d-4c43-af41-d39a9bcc7b56" CreationDate="2017-04-10T20:58:20.463" UserId="4301" Text="Why ездить на самолёте but билет на самолёт?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34244" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14250" RevisionGUID="a3ee9211-e65d-4c43-af41-d39a9bcc7b56" CreationDate="2017-04-10T20:58:20.463" UserId="4301" Text="|словоупотребление|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="6cc73539-3508-451f-a99a-03775f682e38" CreationDate="2017-04-11T06:17:23.857" UserId="6319" Comment="I've fixed formatting and several typos" Text="I am a web-designer and I am working right now for a Russian client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to tell him that I will work now on the **layout** of the site.&#xD;&#xA;The translator give many options and don't know which is better in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you suggest to translate **layout** for webdesign and graphic design context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spasibo bolshoe!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34246" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="6cc73539-3508-451f-a99a-03775f682e38" CreationDate="2017-04-11T06:17:23.857" Comment="Proposed by 6319 approved by 1961 edit id of 848" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="ce25ab42-23a4-43c5-9b5c-6e67a60d9a53" CreationDate="2017-04-11T08:59:06.073" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I am a web-designer and I am working right now for a Russian client.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to tell him that I will work now on the **layout** of the site.&#xD;&#xA;The translator give many options and don't know which is better in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you suggest to translate **layout** for webdesign and graphic design context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34248" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="08a4aef4-586b-46c3-9eea-4c97c6931e82" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:14:45.400" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;layout&quot; in Russian (in Webdesign context)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34249" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14250" RevisionGUID="6da47b17-8659-4766-bc03-fa4b5f2f8c17" CreationDate="2017-04-11T12:17:04.687" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;ездить на самолёте&quot; but &quot;билет на самолёт&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14252" RevisionGUID="eeb21cf2-80c7-472d-ad43-cce1b402c779" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:20:21.030" UserId="1236" Text="The noun `билет` 'ticket' needs the prepositions `на`/`в` + a noun in the Accusative case, the preposition depends no what the ticket is used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• With kinds of transport `на` + Accusative is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на самолёт – airplane ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на поезд – train ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• With entertainment, sport, etc. events `на` + Accusative is used, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на концерт - concert ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на футбольный матч – ticket for a football match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• `в` + Accusative is used with the names of buildings where an entertainment events take place, like theater or cinema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет в театр – theater ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of the Accusative case is due to the fact that those expressions really denote the _destination_ where you will go with that ticket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And naturally, as @user31264 wrote in hiss comment, with planes you use `летать на самолёте`, not `ездить на самолёте`, because `ездить` means 'to travel on land transport', or 'to travel on a kind of transport', but in this latter case you dont specify the kind of transport. If a European says &quot;Я часто езжу в Нью-Йорк&quot; – &quot;I often go to New York,&quot; that would surely imply using either ship or plane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14253" RevisionGUID="9f8b4ee3-be73-4d5f-bfce-3b85fa01e633" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:21:31.230" UserId="8810" Text="Zach, what you ask is called &quot;Gerund&quot;. There are two functions of it in Russian: a perfective and an imperfective one. &#xD;&#xA;Читая книгу, я устал. - the imperfective g. denotes an action which is simultaneous to the action of the main verb, or one interrupts the other. &#xD;&#xA;**Про**чита**в** книгу, я устал. - the perfective g. describes an action which is completed prior to the action denoted by the main verb.&#xD;&#xA;The perfective gerund is formed from verbs in -ть (читать) by replacing the perfective infinitive ending by -в (про-чита-в)&#xD;&#xA;Most imperfective gerunds are formed by adding -я (-а after ж, ч, ш or щ) to the present-tense stem of the verb (чита-я)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14254" RevisionGUID="5a556e22-ee1c-43cf-b598-c9222b4fa763" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:21:51.013" UserId="4028" Text="This is the words spoken by the thin in Chekhov's &quot;Толстый и тонкий&quot;. Although the subject looks like &quot;Друг детства&quot;, which is a singular noun, the verb &quot;вышли&quot; is plural.  (Here, I omitted the insertion phrase &quot;можно сказать&quot; for simplicity.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the subject of this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14254" RevisionGUID="5a556e22-ee1c-43cf-b598-c9222b4fa763" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:21:51.013" UserId="4028" Text="What is the subject of the sentence &quot;Друг, можно сказать, детства и вдруг вышли в такие вельможи-с!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14254" RevisionGUID="5a556e22-ee1c-43cf-b598-c9222b4fa763" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:21:51.013" UserId="4028" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14253" RevisionGUID="71269891-1d25-4fab-9749-94947582a3d7" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:31:41.597" UserId="8810" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Zach, what you ask is called &quot;Gerund&quot;. There are two functions of it in Russian: a perfective and an imperfective one. &#xD;&#xA;Читая книгу, я устал. - the imperfective g. denotes an action which is simultaneous to the action of the main verb, or one interrupts the other. &#xD;&#xA;**Про**чита**в** книгу, я устал. - the perfective g. describes an action which is completed prior to the action denoted by the main verb.&#xD;&#xA;The perfective gerund is formed from verbs in -ть (читать) by replacing the perfective infinitive ending by -в (про-чита-в)&#xD;&#xA;Most imperfective gerunds are formed by adding -я (-а after ж, ч, ш or щ) to the present-tense stem of the verb (чита-я)&#xD;&#xA;Regarding prefix &quot;про-&quot; I cannot give a comprehensive explanation, unfortunately, it's not always the case one should add the prefix when forming the perfective gerund. &quot;Про-читав&quot; indicates the action is complete. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14255" RevisionGUID="467dc3bf-5f28-409c-a32b-f4ad5c5dd86b" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:38:10.983" UserId="2079" Text="The subject is missing, and it is `вы`. The full sentence would be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы друг, можно сказать, детства, и вдруг вышли в такие вельможи-с! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Тонкий called his friend `ты`, but when he discovered that his friend is тайный советник (rank 3 in the Russian Empire), while Тонкий himself is only коллежский ассесор (rank 8), he started to call his old friend `вы`, and add respectful &quot;-с&quot;.  Thats why his friend says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    — Ну, полно! — поморщился толстый.— Для чего этот тон? Мы с тобой друзья детства — и к чему тут это чинопочитание!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14255" RevisionGUID="e3120299-dbf2-4bae-b7db-952cf24cc03e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:56:58.483" UserId="2079" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="The subject is missing, and it is `вы`. The full sentence would be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вы друг, можно сказать, детства, и вдруг вышли в такие вельможи-с! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea that Тонкий called his friend `ты`, but when he discovered that his friend is тайный советник (rank 3 in the Russian Empire), while Тонкий himself is only коллежский ассесор (rank 8), he started to call his old friend `вы`, and add respectful &quot;-с&quot;.  That displeases his friend, who replies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    — Ну, полно! — поморщился толстый.— Для чего этот тон? Мы с тобой друзья детства — и к чему тут это чинопочитание!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14256" RevisionGUID="daf462f2-4a7d-4f70-ad1b-425a3bc51a47" CreationDate="2017-04-11T13:58:32.213" UserId="1236" Text="The subject here is `вы`. Your sentence is taken from a dialog:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я, ваше превосходительство... Очень приятно-с! Друг, можно сказать, детства и вдруг вышли в такие вельможи-с! Хи-хи-с.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ну, полно! — поморщился толстый.— Для чего этот тон? Мы с тобой друзья детства — и к чему тут это чинопочитание!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the _тонкий_, Porfiriy, is addresing his schoolmate Misha the _толстый_ with the polite 2nd person plural after having learned his schoolmate has already got a very high [rank of Privy Councilor][1] (тайный советник) equal to Lieutenant-General in the Army.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence itself is eliptical, it is a compound sentence consisting of two independent clauses connected with the conjunction `и`, and the subject pronouns in both of them are omitted. They can be easily reconstructed, though: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Вы —] друг … детства и вдруг [вы] вышли в такие вельможи-с!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Друг детства_ cannot be a direct address, since here Porfiriy is speaking very politely, he uses a [словоер][2] (the particle of reverence, `-c` at the very end of the sentence), and Privy Councilors could not be addressed with &quot;friend&quot; by those of lower ranks, &quot;Your Excellency&quot; (ваше превосходительство) was the way to address them which Porfiriy does in the next phrase he says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Councillor_(Russia)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14252" RevisionGUID="8bb9367e-672f-4113-b777-04c73ece981c" CreationDate="2017-04-11T14:46:28.460" UserId="1236" Comment="Typos corrected" Text="The noun `билет` 'ticket' needs the prepositions `на`/`в` + a noun in the Accusative case, the preposition depends on what the ticket is used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• With kinds of transport `на` + Accusative is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на самолёт – airplane ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на поезд – train ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• With entertainment, sport, etc. events `на` + Accusative is used, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на концерт - concert ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на футбольный матч – ticket for a football match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• `в` + Accusative is used with the names of buildings where an entertainment events take place, like theater or cinema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет в театр – theater ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of the Accusative case is due to the fact that those expressions really denote the _destination_ where you will go with that ticket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And naturally, as @user31264 wrote in his comment, with planes you use `летать на самолёте`, not `ездить на самолёте`, because `ездить` means 'to travel on land transport', or 'to travel on a kind of transport', but in this latter case you dont specify the kind of transport. If a European says &quot;Я часто езжу в Нью-Йорк&quot; – &quot;I often go to New York,&quot; that would surely imply using either ship or plane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14252" RevisionGUID="98c34690-056a-4285-9535-b0bc050e24b0" CreationDate="2017-04-11T14:51:58.223" UserId="1236" Comment="Typos corrected" Text="The noun `билет` 'ticket' needs the prepositions `на`/`в` + a noun in the Accusative case, the choice of a preposition depends on what the ticket is used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• With kinds of transport `на` + Accusative is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на самолёт – airplane ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на поезд – train ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• With entertainment, sport, etc. events `на` + Accusative is used, too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на концерт – concert ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет на футбольный матч – ticket for a football match&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;• `в` + Accusative is used with the names of buildings where entertainment events take place, like theater or cinema:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; билет в театр – theater ticket&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of the Accusative case is due to the fact that those expressions really denote the _destination_ where you will go with that ticket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And naturally, as @user31264 wrote in his comment, with planes you use `летать на самолёте`, not `ездить на самолёте`, because `ездить` means 'to travel on land transport', or 'to travel on a kind of transport', but in this latter case you dont specify the kind of transport. If a European says &quot;Я часто езжу в Нью-Йорк&quot; – &quot;I often go to New York,&quot; that would surely imply using either ship or plane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14255" RevisionGUID="ce0ee81a-8395-4891-8d05-4467c4543a96" CreationDate="2017-04-11T14:58:02.730" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The subject is missing, and it is `вы`. The full sentence would be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы друг, можно сказать, детства, и вдруг вышли в такие вельможи-с! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important for understanding the story that Тонкий initially called his friend `ты`, but when he discovered that his friend is now тайный советник (rank 3 in the Russian Empire), while Тонкий himself is only коллежский ассесор (rank 8), he started to call his old friend `вы`, and add respectful &quot;-с&quot;.  That displeases his friend, who replies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ну, полно! — поморщился толстый.— Для чего этот тон? Мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; друзья детства — и к чему тут это чинопочитание!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="2611a15b-bbf1-43a3-8d80-c58bd9ae181e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:49:01.820" UserId="8593" Text="How formal is the phrase &quot;ни фига себе&quot;? I know it is used to express shock but is it formal at all or something used just among friends?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="2611a15b-bbf1-43a3-8d80-c58bd9ae181e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:49:01.820" UserId="8593" Text="ни фига себе formality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="2611a15b-bbf1-43a3-8d80-c58bd9ae181e" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:49:01.820" UserId="8593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14259" RevisionGUID="7f3b042f-954f-48d4-be42-64850ee7509f" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:56:10.607" UserId="242" Text="It is highly unformal, it's colloquial but there are a lot of cases when it won't be accepted even in casual usage - say, at job one can imagine this saying to a coworker but there's a lot of workplaces that can be treated as democratic but this won't be accepted while talking with boss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among friends or close relatives though it's quite normal and almost never sounds rude. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look for more polite way to say the same, &quot;ничего себе&quot; or &quot;ну и ж ничего себе&quot; can be  a decent substitute.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34270" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="2ada3ecd-a9f1-414a-849f-3288194f9c25" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:56:42.923" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|этикет|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34271" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="2ada3ecd-a9f1-414a-849f-3288194f9c25" CreationDate="2017-04-11T15:56:42.923" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="How formal is the phrase &quot;ни фига себе&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14260" RevisionGUID="11e6d961-ab26-498c-bf46-2218c736853f" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:13:29.237" UserId="6539" Text="&quot; Ни фига себе&quot; is a colloquial expression, people consider it vulgar, it is used to describe different feelings, mainly surprise and admiration. ́&#xD;&#xA;It is informal and used between friends. There are several synonyms of this phrase, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чудеса да и только, ничего себе, подумать только, мать честная, вот тебе на, смотри пожалуйста, ну и ну, вот так так, ну что ты скажешь, вот так штука, вот тебе и раз, вот тебе и на, да что ты, удивительно, интересное кино!, вот тебе раз, надо же, да что вы.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34273" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14254" RevisionGUID="14edde94-831d-419e-99dc-f1844b7fc8d4" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:13:32.727" UserId="1236" Comment="Tag added" Text="|грамматика|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14259" RevisionGUID="832c729c-a8af-4211-a7d2-d941fcd15beb" CreationDate="2017-04-11T16:19:54.963" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It is highly unformal, it's colloquial but there are a lot of cases when it won't be accepted even in casual usage - say, at job one can imagine this saying to a coworker but there's a lot of workplaces that can be treated as democratic but this won't be accepted while talking with boss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among friends or close relatives though it's quite normal and almost never sounds rude. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look for more polite way to say the same, `ничего себе` or `ну и ничего [ж] себе` can be  a decent substitute (for a wider list please refere excellent answer of @V.V.).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14259" RevisionGUID="2595f33e-33e4-45cf-be56-09b5bea03601" CreationDate="2017-04-11T17:28:11.990" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="It is highly unformal, it's colloquial but there are a lot of cases when it won't be accepted even in casual usage - say, at job one can imagine this saying to a coworker but there's a lot of workplaces that can be treated as democratic but this won't be accepted while talking with boss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Among friends or close relatives though it's quite normal and almost never sounds rude. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look for more polite way to say the same, `ничего себе` or `ну и ничего [ж] себе` can be  a decent substitute (for a wider list please refer the excellent V.V's answer).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34276" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14254" RevisionGUID="0a5faf5d-a3e2-4930-ac6c-e4c11fcd2c45" CreationDate="2017-04-11T17:41:56.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/851852829404876800" />
  <row Id="34277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14260" RevisionGUID="5d23237b-0f8f-4e6e-a091-c27688e3bd2f" CreationDate="2017-04-11T20:19:19.363" UserId="6319" Comment="fix markup" Text="`Ни фига себе` is a colloquial expression, people consider it vulgar, it is used to describe different feelings, mainly surprise and admiration. It is informal and used between friends. There are several synonyms of this phrase, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * чудеса да и только;&#xD;&#xA; * ничего себе;&#xD;&#xA; * подумать только;&#xD;&#xA; * мать честная;&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе на;&#xD;&#xA; * смотри пожалуйста;&#xD;&#xA; * ну и ну;&#xD;&#xA; * вот так так;&#xD;&#xA; * ну что ты скажешь;&#xD;&#xA; * вот так;&#xD;&#xA; * штука;&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе и раз;&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе и на;&#xD;&#xA; * да что ты;&#xD;&#xA; * удивительно;&#xD;&#xA; * интересное кино!&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе раз;&#xD;&#xA; * надо же;&#xD;&#xA; * да что вы;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34278" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14260" RevisionGUID="5d23237b-0f8f-4e6e-a091-c27688e3bd2f" CreationDate="2017-04-11T20:19:19.363" Comment="Proposed by 6319 approved by 6539 edit id of 850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14261" RevisionGUID="7cb88285-4b4b-42eb-b80f-c2177cefcd01" CreationDate="2017-04-11T22:37:13.093" UserId="2079" Text="It is very informal. Here are similar expressions, with similar meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Ничего себе` - colloquial, but not obscene at all&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни фигá себе` - just a bit vulgar or rude.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни хренá себе` - slightly more rude.  For example, a boy at school would not use it when he talks with a teacher.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни хуя себе` - outright obscene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, `хрен` (lit. horseradish) is used as a common euphemism for хуй, because horseradish root resemble a penis.  In `ни фига` себе, `фиг` means a fig sign (generally it is called `фúга` or `кýкиш` in Russian, but in expressions like `ни фигá` or `фиг тебе`/`фиг вам`, it becomes male gender and reduced to `фиг`), it is called `фиг`.  The fig sign itself is pretty rude, but the word `фиг`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14261" RevisionGUID="27f28ba9-1523-4c6f-bf97-25a53ec42c05" CreationDate="2017-04-11T22:42:21.437" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It is very informal. Here are similar expressions, with similar meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Ничего себе` - colloquial, but not obscene at all&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни фигá себе` - just a bit vulgar or rude.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни хренá себе` - slightly more rude.  For example, a boy at school would not use it when he talks with a teacher.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни ху́я себе` - outright obscene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, `хрен` (lit. horseradish) is used as a common euphemism for хуй, because horseradish root resemble a penis.  In `ни фига` себе, `фиг` means a fig sign (generally it is called `фúга` or `кýкиш` in Russian, but in expressions like `ни фигá` or `фиг тебе`/`фиг вам`, it becomes male gender and reduced to `фиг`).  The fig sign itself is pretty rude, but the word `фиг` is not.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="ccfd9c7b-15aa-4979-b517-30a59ab65dfb" CreationDate="2017-04-12T04:14:33.547" UserId="4306" Text="Русская футбольная терминология естественно заимствована из английского. Многое было переведено на русский, многое русским освоено, кое-что продолжает существовать в обоих вариантах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть, однако, загадочное слово &quot;штанга&quot;. Вероятно, флотско-голландского происхождения (ср. [стеньга][1]). Для порядка уточняю, что англичане называют эту часть ворот post, а эту часть мачты - topmast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Собственно, вопрос: как эта штанга попала в футбольный лексикон?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="ccfd9c7b-15aa-4979-b517-30a59ab65dfb" CreationDate="2017-04-12T04:14:33.547" UserId="4306" Text="Гол!.. (нет) Штанга" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="ccfd9c7b-15aa-4979-b517-30a59ab65dfb" CreationDate="2017-04-12T04:14:33.547" UserId="4306" Text="|лексикон|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34286" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14250" RevisionGUID="d493eede-d605-4bca-9fed-fd8ec9703116" CreationDate="2017-04-12T05:42:00.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852034042639691776" />
  <row Id="34288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="95eb1c53-abc5-4272-b21c-728afb749c2c" CreationDate="2017-04-12T06:38:05.240" UserId="4306" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="Русская футбольная терминология естественно заимствована из английского. Многое было переведено на русский, многое русским освоено, кое-что продолжает существовать в обоих вариантах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть, однако, загадочное слово &quot;штанга&quot;. Вероятно, флотско-голландского происхождения (ср. [стеньга][1]). Для порядка уточняю, что англичане называют эту часть ворот post, а эту часть мачты - topmast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Собственно, вопрос: как эта штанга попала в футбольный лексикон?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS Уточнение на ответ __VV__:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если почитать источники 20х (Старостин) и 30х (Кассиль) годов, то станет ясно, что _штанга_ - устоявшися термин, наряду с пропавшими с те пор _беком_ и _хафбеком_ (к слову, _форвард_ и _голкипер_ все еще употребляются). Слово же _бомбардир_ (в русском языке со времен Петра) к футболу получает отношение не раньше 50х годов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7065" RevisionGUID="e71ce16f-42b6-486c-aa7e-da936e122a6e" CreationDate="2017-04-12T07:34:04.910" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russ.hashcode.ru/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, `извините` is used intensively nowadays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you can hear in colloquial Russian `извиняюсь` but that is officially &lt;s&gt;incorrect&lt;/s&gt; is not recommended although almost 90 people from 100 pronounce it instead of `извините`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;s&gt;`извиняюсь`&lt;/s&gt; is technically possible, but grammatically means &quot;I am being forgiven&quot; so practically that's not a use case because nobody says &quot;I forgive (myself)&quot; to somebody when acts wrongly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;to prove this point I quote the explanation from two Russian Language forums:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from hashcode.ru][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если Вы обращаетесь к тому, перед кем хотите извиниться, то это неправильно и с точки зрения этикета, и грамматически, ведь постфикс -СЯ образовался от возвратного местоимения &quot;Себя&quot; и его главное значение возвратное. Извиняюсь - извиняю себя (Ср.Умываюсь -умываю себя) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [from gramota.ru][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно: извини, извините или извиняюсь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Форма извиняюсь - разговорно-просторечная. Вот как писал о слове извиняюсь известный русский лингвист А. Селищев: «Со времени войны (1914 г.) в России вошел в широкое употребление словеcный знак вежливости-извинения &quot;извиняюсь&quot; (извиняюс). По основе и по форме это образование употреблялось и раньше. &quot;Опять тысячу раз извиняюсь, что сбиваюсь с прямой дороги в сторону&quot; - писал Гончаров. &quot;Извиняюсь, что не ответил никому до сих пор&quot; - в &quot;Дневнике писателя&quot; Достоевского. Отличие от теперешнего извиняюсь заключалось в том, что извиняюсь в речи Гончарова, Достоевского и других находилось в сочетании с другими словами в предложении и имело обычное реальное значение, - значение выражения извинения, искреннего, иногда глубокого раскаяния, что подчеркивалось словами &quot;1000 раз&quot; и т. п. Посредством этой формы извиняется и взволнованный чеховский дядя Ваня. &quot;Ну, ну, моя радость, простите... Извиняюсь (целует руку)&quot;. Совсем не по своему реальному и формальному значению теперешнее извиняюсь: оно употребляется отрывочно, вне сочетания с другими словами, служит формальным словесным знаком, произносимым при определенных обстоятельствах, - знаком, мало соответствующим этим обстоятельствам: полного значения просьбы здесь не выражается» (А. Селищев. Язык революционной эпохи. 1928). Написано давно, а актуально до сих пор.&#xD;&#xA;В современных толковых словарях форма извиняюсь также дана с пометой разг. (разговорное).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_in modern dictionaries this word is given with the status **spoken**_&#xD;&#xA;Правильно извини, извините, слово извиняюсь полного значения просьбы не выражает. Извиняюсь – это как «товарищ коллежский асессор».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правильно**&#xD;&#xA;**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct:**извини, извините.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that it's true that this word is old fashioned but nevertheless  this word is widely used nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/2798/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C-%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti/36_89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14264" RevisionGUID="28f5dfd4-e62e-4f12-903d-90d6d91bd3ad" CreationDate="2017-04-12T08:31:56.967" UserId="8821" Text="It's important to understand that russian sentences can have hidden subjects which are meant by the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люблю грозу в начале мая.  (Ф.И. Тютчев)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which equals to &quot;**Я** люблю грозу в начале мая&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or more complicated sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Умей творить из самых малых крох. (К.Д. Бальмонт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which equals to &quot;**Ты (должен)** уме**ть** творить из самых малых крох&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14264" RevisionGUID="df58d5ac-5746-4c98-8027-307d4b2d60c8" CreationDate="2017-04-12T09:08:57.807" UserId="8821" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="It's important to understand that russian sentences can have hidden subjects which are meant by the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люблю грозу в начале мая.  (Ф.И. Тютчев)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which equals to &quot;**Я** люблю грозу в начале мая&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or more complicated sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Умей творить из самых малых крох. (К.Д. Бальмонт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which equals to &quot;**Ты (должен)** уме**ть** творить из самых малых крох&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: Also if you can read in russian you can find more information about this phenomenon here: http://www.svetozar.ru/index/id/38639/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14265" RevisionGUID="7d43a43b-c067-4a2e-bd41-dda476229b8f" CreationDate="2017-04-12T10:31:04.017" UserId="8821" Text="В 90% случаев слово, которое начинается на &quot;Ш&quot; и имеет второй буквой согласную заимствовано из немецкого, в котором правила предполагают чтение первой S  в таком случае как Ш. Идем в google-translate, переключаем German-&gt;russian, вбиваем Stange и...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Translations of Stange&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; штанга - Stange, Hantel, Latte&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рейка - Leiste, Latte, Stange&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столб - Säule, Stange, Pfosten, Pfahl, Pfeiler, Mast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14143" RevisionGUID="b87321c7-1f32-48ca-890a-1ccf97901459" CreationDate="2017-04-12T12:08:34.263" UserId="-1" Comment="Серверы как мн. ч. считается более правильным вариантом. Улучшил правописание. " Text="Думаю, со словом «конвейер» больше подходит «ы»: конвейер&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все конвейеры запущены.  &#xD;&#xA;Все серверы подключены.  &#xD;&#xA;Все корпуса изготовлены." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34294" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14143" RevisionGUID="b87321c7-1f32-48ca-890a-1ccf97901459" CreationDate="2017-04-12T12:08:34.263" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 6097, 1836 edit id of 849" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14266" RevisionGUID="f1e15d39-4ba9-4f26-8d8d-d55d88654ef8" CreationDate="2017-04-12T12:11:26.833" UserId="134" Text="While most of Russian football terminology has been borrowed or calqued from English indeed, there are lots of terms which are either original Russian or borrowed or calqued from other languages: *ворота* (and *вратарь*), *одиннадцатиметровый, бровка, девятка, вне игры* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Штанга* is just one of them. It apparently has been borrowed from construction jargon, where it means a round hollow pole used in light-weight frame structures (such as a football goal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14260" RevisionGUID="cb3f0db5-8ecb-486b-b056-bcbfafe0f06c" CreationDate="2017-04-12T12:47:13.927" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="`Ни фига себе` is a colloquial expression, people consider it vulgar, it is used to describe different feelings, mainly surprise and admiration. It is informal and used between friends. There are several synonyms of this phrase, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * чудеса да и только;&#xD;&#xA; * ничего себе;&#xD;&#xA; * подумать только;&#xD;&#xA; * мать честная;&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе на;&#xD;&#xA; * смотри пожалуйста;&#xD;&#xA; * ну и ну;&#xD;&#xA; * вот так так;&#xD;&#xA; * ну что ты скажешь;&#xD;&#xA; * вот так штука;&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе и раз;&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе и на;&#xD;&#xA; * да что ты;&#xD;&#xA; * удивительно;&#xD;&#xA; * интересное кино!&#xD;&#xA; * вот тебе раз;&#xD;&#xA; * надо же;&#xD;&#xA; * да что вы;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="9f0f13f2-2dbc-4668-84f7-2f05c3d90594" CreationDate="2017-04-12T14:43:47.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852170388696125440" />
  <row Id="34298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14267" RevisionGUID="78f03d1c-e91e-439b-b08b-bcd8d7f6276d" CreationDate="2017-04-12T15:15:41.393" UserId="242" Text="На самом деле, хотя в стандартном немецком эта часть футбольных ворот называется (во множественном числе) Torfposten, в австрийском немецком они часто так и называются - штанги (Stangen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [цитата][1] из немецкой википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Österreich werden Torpfosten oft als Stangen bezeichnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В Австрии стойки часто называются штангами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианта два - в русском эту часть ворот стали называть штангами независимо от немцев или в русский оно пришло через те диалекты немецкого, где это тоже называлось штангой. Второй вариант по понятным причинам мне кажется более вероятным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается того, когда это называли штангой в немецком - я задал вопрос [на немецком стеке][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(Fu%C3%9Fball)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/36035/was-stangen-initially-used-more-often-for-football-gates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34299" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14262" RevisionGUID="bfc79053-7bae-4903-97f7-10c4b0e68d22" CreationDate="2017-04-12T15:17:54.913" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Гол!... - нет - штанга!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14267" RevisionGUID="8aad4dc2-d95c-4e30-9c63-9faae1cabe52" CreationDate="2017-04-12T15:53:09.637" UserId="242" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="На самом деле, хотя в стандартном немецком эта часть футбольных ворот называется (во множественном числе) Torfposten, в австрийском немецком они часто так и называются - штанги (Stangen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [цитата][1] из немецкой википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Österreich werden Torpfosten oft als Stangen bezeichnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В Австрии стойки часто называются штангами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианта два - в русском эту часть ворот стали называть штангами независимо от немцев или в русский оно пришло через те диалекты немецкого, где это тоже называлось штангой. Второй вариант по понятным причинам мне кажется более вероятным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается того, когда это называли штангой в немецком - я задал вопрос [на немецком стеке][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: на немецком стеке говорят, что штанга раньше говорили чаще. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(Fu%C3%9Fball)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/36035/was-stangen-initially-used-more-often-for-football-gates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14267" RevisionGUID="00f4c54d-6d7c-45da-b2be-884f382d9450" CreationDate="2017-04-12T16:42:50.947" UserId="242" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="На самом деле, хотя в стандартном немецком эта часть футбольных ворот называется (во множественном числе) Torfposten, в австрийском немецком они часто так и называются - штанги (Stangen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [цитата][1] из немецкой википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Österreich werden Torpfosten oft als Stangen bezeichnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В Австрии стойки часто называются штангами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианта два - в русском эту часть ворот стали называть штангами независимо от немцев (ну то есть ясно, что слово немецкое, но часть футбольных ворот так стали называть независимо в обоих языках) - или же в русский оно пришло через те диалекты немецкого, где это тоже называлось штангой. Второй вариант по понятным причинам мне кажется более вероятным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается того, когда это называли штангой в немецком - я задал вопрос [на немецком стеке][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: на немецком стеке говорят, что штанга раньше говорили чаще. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(Fu%C3%9Fball)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/36035/was-stangen-initially-used-more-often-for-football-gates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14267" RevisionGUID="4c549bcc-cffc-4ee6-9630-625854a49c8e" CreationDate="2017-04-12T19:26:05.797" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="На самом деле, хотя в стандартном немецком эта часть футбольных ворот называется (во множественном числе) Torfposten, в австрийском немецком они часто так и называются - штанги (Stangen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [цитата][1] из немецкой википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Österreich werden Torpfosten oft als Stangen bezeichnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В Австрии стойки часто называются штангами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианта два - в русском эту часть ворот стали называть штангами независимо от немцев (ну то есть ясно, что слово немецкое, но часть футбольных ворот так стали называть независимо в обоих языках) - или же в русский оно пришло через те диалекты немецкого, где это тоже называлось штангой. Второй вариант по понятным причинам мне кажется более вероятным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается того, когда это называли штангой в немецком - я задал вопрос [на немецком стеке][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: на немецком стеке говорят, что &quot;штанга&quot; раньше действительно говорили чаще. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(Fu%C3%9Fball)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/36035/was-stangen-initially-used-more-often-for-football-gates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14268" RevisionGUID="6cb45471-130e-4db0-8cbc-45137ddf3f71" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:12:44.927" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between the letter Е and Э?&#xD;&#xA;Based on my book are the same like E in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend (he's not a Russian native speaker) explained me that Э is consonant and Е is a wovel. Is that true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14268" RevisionGUID="6cb45471-130e-4db0-8cbc-45137ddf3f71" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:12:44.927" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between the letter Е and Э?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14268" RevisionGUID="6cb45471-130e-4db0-8cbc-45137ddf3f71" CreationDate="2017-04-12T22:12:44.927" UserId="6907" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14269" RevisionGUID="2358c8b8-4d70-474b-9692-ac6406ab5d3a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:09:39.703" UserId="5249" Text="Е is a composite sound. It consists of two sounds: Й + Э. Like Ю = Й + У&#xD;&#xA;And Я = Й + А" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14270" RevisionGUID="da9dc708-0509-4a80-a7e5-0581617742bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:29:46.547" UserId="4370" Text="What is the difference between prefixes об and по. For example облизать and полизать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14270" RevisionGUID="da9dc708-0509-4a80-a7e5-0581617742bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:29:46.547" UserId="4370" Text="difference between prefixes об and по" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14270" RevisionGUID="da9dc708-0509-4a80-a7e5-0581617742bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T00:29:46.547" UserId="4370" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14271" RevisionGUID="dd66455b-2a20-424e-bacb-e34350cecba1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T01:38:28.477" UserId="7544" Text="&quot;Е&quot; is read as two sounds if there is no consonant before it, as English letters YE in the word &quot;yes&quot;. If there is a consonant, it softens (consult your book on soft and hard sounds in Russian), and &quot;Е&quot; letter is read as &quot;E&quot; in English as in word &quot;epic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Э&quot; is read like english &quot;A&quot; in the word &quot;Apple&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12814" RevisionGUID="d9e346dc-e559-4935-80df-961dd1123274" CreationDate="2017-04-13T01:51:24.877" UserId="7544" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I have to admit it that cursive handwriting is very often of very bad quality, especially if made by someone who has to do a lot of paperwork as a part of his job. So it's totally OK if you struggle with undestanding it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different people often write the same letters completely differently, thus making the letters seem to be the same when they are not. Some occasionally write the same letter in 2 or even more different ways (for no reason). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice would be: practice on printed texts in *Italic fonts*. That should help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13801" RevisionGUID="433b96c5-ebc1-43a9-bfcf-e48103111030" CreationDate="2017-04-13T01:53:55.183" UserId="7544" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Недопустимое значение&quot; seems to be totally fine for what you have described. I don't see any problem. If you want to explain the reason of this value being invalid, you can explain it shortly, like &quot;Недопустимое значение: *(here goes the condition that makes it invalid)*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I don't see any real way of going with no explanation at all in your case, unless you explain it somewhere else, which in turn isn't going without an explanation. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34316" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14258" RevisionGUID="01ff0c4b-2b8a-439d-9267-94789ef880f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T05:55:55.303" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852399931767828481" />
  <row Id="34317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14272" RevisionGUID="c41abb7c-1243-422d-8a48-af75425e65a9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T10:11:35.210" UserId="1262" Text="Roughly said, ***об-*** means '[centered] around' and ***по-*** means 'along [and then to somewhere else]'. The difference is also in cases for adverbial complement - not  always but quite often, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дети облазили чердак.*** = The kids have investigated all the loft through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я обдумаю это.*** = I'll think about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Она обделала порог.*** = She shat around [all] the threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дети полазали на чердаке.*** = The kids has been investigating the loft [for a while].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я подумаю об этом.*** = I'll think about this [and then I'll shift to some other topic].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он поделал порог.*** = He's been making a threshold [for a while and then he switched to some other activity].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the difference is that ***об-*** refers to a non-literal meaning, while ***по-***  indicates the action as it is, thus making the meaning entirely different, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я обрёл смысл.*** = I've found [the supreme] meaning [of/in smth].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я побрёл своим путём.*** = I wended my way along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дым обволок кострище.*** = The smoke coated the fireplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Волк поволок ягнёнка в тёмный лес.*** = A wolf was taking a lamb into a dark forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дела обстоят хорошо.*** = The things / the circumstances are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Они постоят и пойдут.*** = They'll stand there for a while and then they'll part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the difference between ***облизать*** and ***полизать*** will be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Котёнок облизал сметану.*** = The kitten has licked [all the] sour creme [around].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Котёнок полизал сметану.*** = The kitten has licked some sour creme [for a while and then switched to some other activity]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14273" RevisionGUID="da5b33fe-da12-427a-8b86-addc8bae29c5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T10:26:02.637" UserId="1262" Text="The consonant resembling a vowel is ***З з*** (like number three), so your friend might inintentionally mistake the ***З з*** for ***Э э***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter ***Э э*** is closer to the first part [ε] in the diphtong from the English word  'care', while the Russian ***E e*** is closer to pronuciation of English E e in 'ten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel ***E e*** palatalises preceding consonants, while the vowel ***Э э*** doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the vowel ***E e*** is read as [j + e] after another vowel, a soft or a hard sign, and it is read as ***[i]*** in an unstressed position (***Если съехать в сьерру и съесть ежа, то едва ли сегодня***), whilest the letter ***Э э*** is always read as ***Э э***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14273" RevisionGUID="fea94b5b-8006-4a5d-ac34-328b27c934d7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T10:31:10.357" UserId="1262" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="The consonant letter *resembling* a vowel by itsform  is ***З з*** (like number three), so your friend might inintentionally mistake the ***З з*** for ***Э э***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter ***Э э*** is closer to the first part [ε] in the diphtong from the English word  'care', while the Russian ***E e*** is closer to pronuciation of English E e in 'ten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel ***E e*** palatalises preceding consonants, while the vowel ***Э э*** doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the vowel ***E e*** is read as [j + e] after another vowel, a soft or a hard sign, and it is read as ***[i]*** in an unstressed position (***Если съехать в сьерру и съесть ежа, то едва ли сегодня*** = ***[j'esli sjekhat'f s'jerru is'jest' jizha ta jidvali s'ivodn'ja]*** ), whilest the letter ***Э э*** is always read as ***Э э***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34320" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14244" RevisionGUID="92f820a7-8533-4d60-bc8c-303e9274f2af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T11:55:54.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852490525118693376" />
  <row Id="34321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="06c4d9f3-7513-4bd7-8f7f-53178dd8a2d9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="What are the syntactic and semantic constraints on the order of adjectival premodifiers in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, linguists and nonspecialist users of language alike generally agree that the order of premodifiers in a nominal phrase cannot be varied freely (please refer to [this question](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/what-is-the-rule-for-adjective-order) over at English Language &amp; Usage for more details). Similarly, as a native speaker of Russian, I certainly find the phrase **белый большой дом* ‘white big house’ to be infelicitous under most circumstances and would prefer *большой белый дом* ‘big white house’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have those rules been codified for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1604" RevisionGUID="45e6aaad-f773-4a68-aa94-104d6d497441" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text=" 1. No, in Russian, the phrase &quot;Я ничего понимаю&quot; is 100% incorrect, in all cases and under all circumstances. The phrases like &quot;ничего не&quot; are called, as you'vе already mentioned, double negation (`двойное отрицание`), and this linguistic phenomena [exists in other Slavic][1] languages, as well as in many other languages, both IE and non-IE. For example, in Polish, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the likewise single negation is also inappropriate. Moreover, in English, double negation [is also used][2] in some niche cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. This is, surprisingly, the most difficult part of the question. To my knowledge, you can use it with any verb which can be answer the question: &quot;Чего не [verb]?&quot;, &quot;Кого не [verb]?&quot; - not a big surprise, though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Sure, there are some examples. A classic example is, for instance, `не мог не` + verb, which means that the action indicated by the verb actually took place: &quot;Я не мог не заметить&quot;, &quot;Она не могла не влюбиться в него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=double%20negation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2433" RevisionGUID="38487179-2e7b-4b6e-8234-059421c2576e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="I spent a couple of hours googling the Internet to find support for my observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an interesting book called *[Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe][1]* on Google Books that answered my question .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some excerpts from it (highlights are mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One, which is relatively unproblematic to ascertain, is the **absence of inflectional futures**, which holds for all Germanic and Finno-Ugrian languages and for the majority of the **Slavic** ones; as well as for some more peripheral parts of Romance and for the non-Slavic languages in the Balkans. Another manifestation of a slightly more elusive kind is the tendency not to distinguish present and future time reference in any systematic way at all, be it inflectionally or periphrastically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also notes that different grammatical ways of conveying futurity found in the Slavic languages are a relatively recent invention:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly, there seems to be **no evidence of any grammaticalized future markings** in Finno-Ugrian. Furthermore, the area may also originally included **Slavic**. The different FTR devices found in **the Slavic languages** are, like the Germanic and Finno-Ugrian ones, **relatively recent**, with one exception: the use of the Perfective Present for future time reference, which, according to standard descriptions, goes back to Old Church Slavonic. However, there is good reason to doubt that this was a trait of Common Slavic. It is not in general found in the modern South Slavic languages, and there is some evidence that the link between the Perfective Present and future time reference was at least not fully developed in Old Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to expand on my above answer as there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and discontent in the comments about future tense in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also like to mention that I'm not trying to impose my view on anyone who prefers to disagree with it. It is indeed a very debatable question that can be looked at from different angles. If you'd like to read more about what should be considered tense, I think there are great posts on ELU *[Whose tense is it, anyway?][2]* and [*When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?*][3]. The things discussed there can be applied to Russian as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was asked in the comments to add more scientific sources to my answer so I will try to do it below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a nice write-up on the topic by [Cyril Babaev][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The present tense had not quite simple usage. Besides its direct meaning as the present action, it could be meaning also future actions, because there was no simple future in Common Slavic. Usually Indo-European languages have some suffixes to mark the future tense: -s- is one of the most frequent of them, existing in Baltic and Hellenic languages, -f- is used in some Celtic tongues. But Slavs unified present and future, and any verb could be used in the forms pointed above and mean the future event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to say that in the absence of future tense, the *aspects* took on the role of expressing futurity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Later Slavic languages, nevertheless, acquired a form of difference between future and present. The category of aspect (perfective and imperfective) possesses also the meaning of tense in Modern Slavic languages, and  imperfective verbs which denote the action which is still taking place go for the real present tense (Russian daju - I am giving, from Common Slavic *dajo.), while perfective verbs denoting the final action usually mean the future (Russian dam - I will give, from Common Slavic *damï). Scientists came to a conclusion that there were not such a distinction in Common Slavic. Even Old Church Slavonic, which was spoken in 7-10 centuries AD, much later than the Common language, was just starting distinguishing aspects as present and future, and still mixed them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the periphrastic &quot;быть&quot; type compound future, it arises from the lexical Common Slavic verb **byti* that means to *be(come)* and now it is used as an auxiliary verb to form future forms in most of the West and East Slavic languages. But &quot;быть&quot; is not the only verb that can be used to form compound future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Currently, *stati* can be used as an alternative form of a future tense auxiliary in all East Slavic languages, as in the Russian example from a poem by Lermontov. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stanu skazyvat’ ja skazku&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; begin(PRES.1SG) tell(INF) I story&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “I will (begin to) tell a story”  (Source: [The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, Balkan Slavic uses a descendant of the verb ‘to want’, instead of &quot;to be&quot;. That's because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nature of the future, necessarily uncertain and at varying distances ahead, means that the speaker may refer to future events with the modality either of probability (what the speaker expects to happen) or intent (what the speaker plans to make happen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, constructions like &quot;Я намерен/хочу/должен делать что-либо&quot; can all be used to express futurity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about you, but I think it is a little unfair that we see &quot;Я буду делать&quot; as a special &quot;future tense&quot; form, but &quot;Я стану делать&quot; is not viewed as such. But I don't want to provoke another debate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is 'how come Russian grammars talk about future tense if it's not there?' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I think that's because traditional grammars (also known as school grammar) are largely based on the principles of Latin grammar, not on current linguistic research in Russian. (This sentence was originally said about English, but I rephrased it for Russian, because I believe it gets the point across nicely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://books.google.com/books/about/Tense_and_Aspect_in_the_Languages_of_Eur.html?id=ZouSLQn6dX0C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/86812/whose-tense-is-it-anyway&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/grammar33.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001809/bookpart.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="102cf52c-1b2c-4b72-ae9b-6bf95a9937c9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="Perhaps you've noticed this before (every non-native speaker certainly has):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * носатый &#xD;&#xA;* волосатый&#xD;&#xA;* рогатый&#xD;&#xA;* усатый&#xD;&#xA;* хвостатый&#xD;&#xA;* полосатый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * губа&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* морда&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* рука&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* уша&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;* глаза&lt;b&gt;с&lt;/b&gt;тый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the pattern here? Is there one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you hurry to reject my very premise: I am of course perfectly aware that for some, or perhaps even many, of these, both alternatives exist (e.g. *хвостастый* is not unheard of, and *Глазатый* happily thrives at least as a family name). It's just that one always wins out considerably over the other. But is there any explanation for *which* one wins *when*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also aware of pairings such as *зубастый кит* vs. *зубатый кит*, which simply mean entirely different things. But again, is there a reason *why* they mean these things in that order&amp;nbsp;— and not exactly the other way round?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: is there any rhyme and reason behind some adjectives being created using &quot;-ст-&quot;, and others using a simple &quot;-т-&quot;? Or is this something like *-ic-* vs. *-ical-* in English, where [no clear pattern exists at all and everything is left entirely to chance](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6581/why-is-it-geometric-but-theoretical)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="56b575d6-9db8-4674-b4b4-0104c2af163d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="It is a copy of [my answer][1] at http://english.stackexchange.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Some variants: bluff, flossing, airs, grandstanding, peacockery, lugs. Bells and whistles, dress-off (for russian word &quot;понты&quot; which has a slightly different meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/145252/61716" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="4048252b-5eee-4c25-b254-d29b0440925a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="What SE is about translation from English to Russian ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian.SE ( Seems more for those who learn Russian )&#xD;&#xA;* There are Two English.SE&#xD;&#xA;  * http://ell.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  * https://english.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems this English SEs will ban me automatically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't learn Russian, I learn English. Is this SE for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8691" RevisionGUID="3e9a98ab-a0e3-4a80-b26c-a6560c9536e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="So, recently I've found out that my friends do not know word &quot;тачизла&quot; which I used in some casual context. This is a word from my childhood, I've heard it on the streets of my youth pretty often. Then I've realized that, indeed, postfix &quot;-изла&quot; is pretty untypical to Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Than I've found this question on English SE: [What is the meaning of joke “may it plizzle the cozizzle” in Futurama?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an excerpt from accepted answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snoop Dogg popularized the slang (in black culture in the US) of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adding the -izzle suffix (and sometimes infix) to various words. He&#xD;&#xA;&gt; does it in many songs, including Drop It Like It's Hot and Tha&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Shiznit. He also does it as a guest in other rappers' songs, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the intro to Dr. Dre's The Chronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is - what is the origin of word &quot;тачизла&quot;? Is &quot;-изла&quot; related somehow to English &quot;-izzle&quot; postfix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/242490/what-is-the-meaning-of-joke-may-it-plizzle-the-cozizzle-in-futurama?newsletter=1&amp;nlcode=31107%7C209c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8767" RevisionGUID="e81bbb70-f6a8-4e58-a343-947b39cc2b1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="The difference in English is discussed here:   &#xD;&#xA;[Is there any subtle difference between “to study” and “to learn”?](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19533/is-there-any-subtle-difference-between-to-study-and-to-learn)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are easily influenced by an opinion, that there is practically no difference in Russian. It would be untrue to say that. The best way to improve our solid knowledge is to treat yourself as a teacher. The best practice in teaching &quot;how to&quot;, IMHO, is to show by examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;to learn studying                                учиться учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm learning to study                            я учусь учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you learn studying                               ́учитесь учиться / учишься учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how psychologists study learning and studying    как психологи изучают обучение и изучение&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to study the learning process                    изучать учебный процесс&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;you will learn studying                          нау́читесь изучая&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;learn studying!                                  учи́тесь учиться!&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;to study learning                                изучать обучение&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What do students learn studying these words?     Чему научатся студенты, изучая эти слова?&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as you can see above, in Russian we have one root (or stem, if you prefer) &lt;b&gt;`уч`&lt;/b&gt; for both. We build a new verb with a prepositional prefix. E.g., &lt;b&gt;`из-`&lt;/b&gt; is a prefix that give us the new meaning &lt;b&gt;`out of`&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; учить -  &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;учать        to learn     - to study&#xD;&#xA; влечь -  &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;влечь        to draw (to) - draw out; extract&#xD;&#xA; дать  -  &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;дать         to give      - give forth, give out&#xD;&#xA; ложить - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;ложить       to lay       - to lay open (to lay the case)&#xD;&#xA; брать  - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;брать        to take      - to take up (What one thing to take up and master?)&#xD;&#xA; гнать  - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;гнать        to drive     - to drive out (drive a herd - drive out of doors) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----- not so furthered and linearly -----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; менять - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;менять      to change -&#xD;&#xA;                      - to exchange; to vary; to modify; + to betray, break one's oath &#xD;&#xA; бежать - &lt;b&gt;из&lt;/b&gt;бежать      to run -&#xD;&#xA;                      - to escape (officers had a narrow escape their car) &#xD;&#xA;                                + (had narrowly escaped arrest)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I humbly hope you see the pattern.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="969d32b8-dccf-452b-838d-9aa4cf744d5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to be relatively common knowledge that the name &quot;Красная Площадь,&quot; while translated in English as &quot;Red Square,&quot; does not actually mean &quot;Red Square&quot; in Russian, but rather &quot;Beautiful Square.&quot; However, I saw this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name Red Square does not originate from the pigment of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surrounding bricks (which, in fact, were whitewashed at certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; periods) nor from the link between the color red and communism.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rather, the name came about because the Russian word красная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (krasnaya), which means &quot;red,&quot; was applied to a small area between St.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basil's Cathedral, the Spassky Tower of the Kremlin, and the Lobnoe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mesto (place of execution), and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich officially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extended the name to the entire square**, which had previously been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called Pozhar, or &quot;burnt-out place&quot;, in reference to the fact that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several buildings had to be burned down to make place for the square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: [here][1] and [here][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an original source for that information and would be willing to dismiss it entirely. However, I would still wonder why in [seemingly every language][3]--including every other Slavic language--the name of the square is equivalent to &quot;Red&quot; Square--especially since in Russian, &quot;красный&quot; has a distinct tie with  прекрасный/красивый, and in a number of cases is still understood to mean that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there *any* chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know intellectually about its origins)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the latter: why does ~every other nation, including former Soviet and CIS countries, seem, according to their translations, to understand it as &quot;Red&quot; Square?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1488/what-is-the-first-recorded-appearance-of-the-mistranslation-red-square&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2931/when-did-%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C-begin-to-shift-from-beautiful-to-red &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.heesterbeek.net/Russia/Moscow/Moscow.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Square#Origin_and_name&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C#.D0.9F.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13345" RevisionGUID="7d9640d5-40f1-497c-b053-88ced1ec804f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="One sees a lot of discussion about a &quot;[new vocative case][1]&quot; in modern Russian; however, I am not asking about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this -- in the instances where only one of the six standard cases is used, which of the six is used to express the vocative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first guess would have been nominative, because they are similar. However, in German, for many expressions of a seemingly vocative nature, accusative is used instead: &quot;guten Morgen!&quot;, for example. And actually the same seems to be true in English (although there one would describe it as the objective case) -- &quot;[Lucky me!][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when an entirely different construction isn't used, which of the six standard cases are used to replace the vocative in modern Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/nouns2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/353255/are-there-fixed-phrases-where-i-or-me-are-used-unusually?noredirect=1#comment819480_353255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13385" RevisionGUID="340169cf-29ea-4070-86a1-04d681cd3ba5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:38:12.067" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/" Text="if i get [the meaning][1] of the phrase, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я согласен с этим дурачком   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the problem with this rendering is that it's not unisex&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to circumvent this limitation a unisex pejorative may be used, but the adjective is still gender specific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я согласен с этим чучелом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a more wordy but gender neurtal version would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы единомышленники с этим чучелом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/166704/why-does-im-with-stupid-have-a-positive-connotation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14267" RevisionGUID="fb347039-f5b0-4ac6-b5c9-9d9a66b39c94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:15.473" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://german.stackexchange.com/ with https://german.stackexchange.com/" Text="На самом деле, хотя в стандартном немецком эта часть футбольных ворот называется (во множественном числе) Torfposten, в австрийском немецком они часто так и называются - штанги (Stangen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [цитата][1] из немецкой википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Österreich werden Torpfosten oft als Stangen bezeichnet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В Австрии стойки часто называются штангами)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варианта два - в русском эту часть ворот стали называть штангами независимо от немцев (ну то есть ясно, что слово немецкое, но часть футбольных ворот так стали называть независимо в обоих языках) - или же в русский оно пришло через те диалекты немецкого, где это тоже называлось штангой. Второй вариант по понятным причинам мне кажется более вероятным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается того, когда это называли штангой в немецком - я задал вопрос [на немецком стеке][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: на немецком стеке говорят, что &quot;штанга&quot; раньше действительно говорили чаще. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(Fu%C3%9Fball)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/36035/was-stangen-initially-used-more-often-for-football-gates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="a6e51d6e-3f96-4f47-b475-11dd4f8471d6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:48:06.643" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chinese.stackexchange.com/ with https://chinese.stackexchange.com/" Text="Using the same structure in the [Chinese Resources question][1], this is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, [ask a question in our Meta][3], so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][4], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][5]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][6]: These are plugins that you install on your browser and that help you in different ways, such as providing word meanings, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - [Audiobooks][7]: Audio files where you hear a voice reading the book you've chosen.&#xD;&#xA; - [Books][8]: Books from Russian authors or translations.&#xD;&#xA; - [Dictionaries][9]: Stand-alone or dictionary files for you to use on your computer.&#xD;&#xA; - [Newspapers][10]: Famous or not services that provide news for Russia and the rest of the world... in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Online courses][11]: Free or paid services online that teach you the language through lessons.&#xD;&#xA; - [Podcasts][12]: Audio files that feature people speaking about the language or giving tips/lessons to learners.&#xD;&#xA; - [Television][13]: TV channels, shows in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Textbooks][14]: Grammar books that teach you the grammar of the language with theory and exercises.&#xD;&#xA; - [Websites][15]: Sites that give help for learning Russian. They give material, tips, hints, and various help for self-learners or regular students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/1120/43&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/835/71&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/836/71&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/837/71&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/838/71&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/839/71&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/71&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/841/71&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/842/71&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/a/843/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9528" RevisionGUID="37d66d6e-2028-445f-ad5c-ef354de82ddf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:35.257" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://ru.stackoverflow.com/ with https://ru.stackoverflow.com/" Text="In the [Stack Overflow for Russian (beta)](https://ru.stackoverflow.com/), you can see the phrase *на русском* in the title, which I'm sure means *in Russian*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure why the site expresses the phrase as `на русском`. Specifically, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It seems that `русском` looks like instrumental (not sure but just I guess), but why does `на` not take either prepositional or accusative, which I learned `на` should take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you mean *I speak Russian.*, you say *Я говорю по-русски.*. Is there any difference between the two word (`по-русски` and `на русском`)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13142" RevisionGUID="c5e94b78-6ca7-4033-bd37-2d70fb91a69e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:49.697" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://spanish.stackexchange.com/ with https://spanish.stackexchange.com/" Text="I sometimes see Russian people add some `)` to the end of sentences, and sometimes even many of them: `))))`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently [read][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Russian: `)))))))` is a loud laugh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder: what does it mean when it is just one of them `)`? And is it a loud laugh when it comes with multiple of them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/17219/ja-ja-ja-o-jajaja-para-re%C3%ADrse-en-internet#comment23205_17221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9317" RevisionGUID="0c17e354-e78b-4092-8958-512c9bab7fd5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:12.410" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ with https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/" Text="A claim has [turned up on the Linguistics SE][1] that **двумястами** and other such forms have two stressed syllables. I disagree; `-мя-` seems pre-emphatic to me here, and Wiktionary [is with me on this][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one thing the two-stresses theory may have going for it is that there are no other (standard) examples of pre-emphatic `/a/` failing to reduce to `[ɪ]` after a soft consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I can think of a test, but I'm not sure its result for me would be the same for most people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the test. With words that have a true secondary stress, the following cadence is possible at the end of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;...вагòноремóнтный завóд.&#xD;&#xA;   ___&#xD;&#xA;      \_____&#xD;&#xA;            \_________&#xD;&#xA;                      \_          &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I can only imagine saying something like **двумястами годами** with two pitch drops: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;...двумястами годами.&#xD;&#xA;   _______&#xD;&#xA;          \______&#xD;&#xA;                 \__&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I'm not entirely positive that *no-one ever* would say it with three drops:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;...двумястами годами.&#xD;&#xA;   ____&#xD;&#xA;       \__&#xD;&#xA;          \______&#xD;&#xA;                 \__&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— which would indicate that for this speaker, there is a secondary stress on `-мя-`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this occur? Are there any more arguments for either side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/12502/do-any-languages-use-suffixes-to-represent-place-value-in-numbers/12903?noredirect=1#comment34392_12903&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4116" RevisionGUID="6f549b91-84d6-43e7-a90d-dfd50130983e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:55:20.573" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/" Text="What SE is about translation from English to Russian ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Russian.SE ( Seems more for those who learn Russian )&#xD;&#xA;* There are Two English.SE&#xD;&#xA;  * https://ell.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  * https://english.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems this English SEs will ban me automatically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't learn Russian, I learn English. Is this SE for me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="132038ea-a081-406b-bb7e-4ee281b38ece" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [JAM already said][1], Russians prefer to **hint at their feelings instead of describing them**.  &#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying they're excited about new job, they'll say the job is friggin' awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use  words like `возбужден` (which usually refers to sexual arousal for most people and atom state for physics geeks) to express your excitement you're risking to sound either too formal and insincere or too cute and funny, in case people are aware you're just a learner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, this is what I as native Russian would say if I was to communicate your sentences.  &#xD;&#xA;This is rather informal so Queen wouldn't approve but that's how people speak in their 20's and 30's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###I'm very excited about my new job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кажется, я устроился в классное место.  &#xD;&#xA;(Seems like I landed an awesome job.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To an acuqaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я очень рад, что получил эту работу.  &#xD;&#xA;(I'm really glad I got this job.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###My trip to Europe was so exciting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В Европе было круто.  &#xD;&#xA;(It was cool in Europe.)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;**To an acquaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Поездка в Европу была потрясающей.  &#xD;&#xA;(The Europe trip was terrific.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Are you excited about going to the party?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To a friend**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты как, хочешь пойти?  &#xD;&#xA;(Hey, would you rather stay or go?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To an acquaintance**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Думаешь, будет хорошая вечеринка?    &#xD;&#xA;(Do you reckon it'll be a great party?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/25/67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="5f1b5931-c9c9-4b6c-8d15-488093c890ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow up to the question [Has кофе become neutral?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read somewhere on the web that it is now acceptable to write `заец` instead of `заяц`.  Not that I am going to do that, just like I am going to continue to use `кофе` as masculine.  Just curious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/128/has-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5-officially-become-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="d556aa49-4b97-4df5-ad67-36316d4c7484" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [Dima mentioned][1], the necessary condition is for each syllable to have one and exactly one vowel. But it's by far not sufficient. From [here](http://www.pshelp.narod.ru/lib/applicant/0002-007.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Законы слогоделения в разных языках и даже диалектах одного языка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неодинаковы. Например, представители севернорусского наречия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произнесут при скандировании слово “дружба” так: друж-ба. А&#xD;&#xA;&gt; представители южнорусского наречия – иначе: дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   В русском литературном языке деление на слоги опирается на **принцип восходящей звучности**. Это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначает, что звуки в слоге (незаконченом) располагаются от наименее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучного к наиболее звучному. Если звучность условно обозначить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цифрами, получится следующее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 – гласный звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 – сонорный согласный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звук, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1 – остальные (шумные) согласные звуки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разделение на слоги&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет производится по принципу восходящей звучности: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Трудности при разделении слова на слоги могут возникнуть при стечении согласных. При этом в русском литературном языке, опирающемся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на московское произношение, разделение на слоги будет осуществляться с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учетом следующего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    1. Если на границе слогов рядом оказались два шумных или два сонорных звука (кроме [j]), они относятся к последующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    2. Если в сочетании согласных первый [j], он всегда отходит к предшествующему гласному: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    3. В сочетании согласных, первым из которых является сонорный, а вторым – шумный, сонорный может отходить к предшествующему гласному:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in most cases it's a phonetic thing. You have to feel the pronunciation of the word, its phonetic division into syllables. Above are some good guidelines, but they require knowledge of phonetics and are not trivial to apply in practice. Also, note that the rules of hyphen (перенос, moving part of the word to the next line) are slightly different. If you're interested in them, [check][2] [out][3] [these][4] [links][5]. Hope this helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Per Alenanno's request, here's an attempt of translating the above source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rules of splitting a word into syllables are different not only between languages but also between different dialects of the same language. For example in North-Russian dialect, one would utter the word дружба as друж-ба, whereas in South-Russian it'd be дру-жба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the literary Russian language the splitting into syllables is based on the principle of increasing sonority. This means that the sounds in a syllable are arranged from least sonorous to most sonorous. If we denote sonority with numbers, we'll have the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3 - vowel sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 - sonorant consonant sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 - other (obstruent) consonant sounds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The splitting into syllables will be done according to the principle of increasing sonority: кни-га (1 2 3 - 1 3), и-на-че (3 - 2 3 - 1 3), по-ло-тно (1 3 - 2 3 - 1 2 3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Difficulties arise in case of consonant clusters. In literary Russian based on Moscow pronunciation, the splitting is done with consideration of the following rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If on the syllable border there are two sonorants sounds or two obstruents (except for й) they refer to the latter vowel. пу-шка, и-зба, во-лна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If the first in the consonant group is й, it refers to the previous vowel: вой-на, май-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In a consonant group where the first is a sonorant, and the second is an obstruent, the sonorant may join the preceeding vowel. кон-спект, Вол-га.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/139/47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Spel_Hyph.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/rules/?rub=perenos&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://shkola.lv/index.php?mode=cht&amp;chtid=660&amp;subid=141&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="620c3e01-eb37-4189-af7e-239bb16dc828" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Rather than trying to compile a list of proper nouns and loan-words with initial **Ы**, I'll try to present a more linguistical view on the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels /ы/ and /и/ are in the complementary distribution in the Russian language. Moscow Phonological School even asserted that /ы/ and /и/ are actually one phoneme:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку в русском языке, по мнению сторонников МФШ, отсутствуют фонетические положения, в которых встречались бы и звук [и], и [ы], то есть присутствие в некоторой позиции одного из этих звуков исключает возможность присутствия в ней другого, последователями школы делается вывод о том, что [и] и [ы] являются разновидностями одной фонемы: [ы] представляет собой вариацию фонемы &lt;и&gt;, обусловленную положением после твёрдого согласного. Таким образом, в парах, подобных _мыл_ — _мил_, единственное фонемное различие состоит в мягкости или твёрдости согласного, а не в гласных фонемах. — [Московская фонологическая школа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0#.D0.93.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if there are no minimal pairs on /ы/—/и/, the phonetic difference between these vowels is merely the assimilation of the preceding consonant: /ы/ follow hard consonants, /и/ follows soft (palatalized) ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, with no preceding consonant, only one of the variants can appear. Naturally, it's /и/, and /ы/ should thus be considered an allophone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an alternate view (of Leningrad Phonological School), see [shabunc's answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/717/119).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, in loanwords coming from languages where /ы/ _is_ a phoneme (take Kazakh, for example), the initial /ы/ is kept for the sake of transcription (same thing as **Ю** in _парашют_ ‘parachute’ to better render the French /y/ vowel, even though _-шю-_ is impossible in Russian words)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="56d1ee84-8646-4ac0-bf50-c200a1a2a820" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="A little of history in addition to the [answer by Quassnoi][1]. Indeed the ending *-с* is the severely reduced *сударь* ('sir'), which is in turn sometimes [considered][2] to be a contraction from *государь* (somewhat similar to 'my lord' in English). Being a trailing consonant in words, it was spelled as *-съ* in old Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the church-Slavonic language, each letter had its own name. For example, the first two letters of the alphabet, *а* and *б* were called *аз* and *буки* and gave the name to Russian alphabet—*азбука*. Similarly, letters *cъ* were called *слово* and *ер*, therefore this ending got the popular name *словоерс* [slɑvəˈjers].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spelling reform of 1917 (which is often connected to the socialistic revolution but was actually prepared by [Shakhmatov][3] much earlier) has removed the trailing *ъ*, and therefore in the modern typography old texts are printed with just *-с* at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ending was supposed to emphasize respect to the addressee. The revolution of 1917 &quot;made everyone equal&quot;, and the use of this ending was therefore discouraged. However many older people, especially from the higher society level (professors, doctors), continued using it—as a sort of a quiet protest against the changes, which made them equal to common people. This can be seen in many Soviet films.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/267/47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://coollingua.blogspot.de/2010/05/blog-post_20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Shakhmatov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="513806bd-b04f-4a5b-ab06-c3ff8a263c61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my [previous question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2), several answers mentioned different ways *здравствуйте* can be shortened, namely *здравствуй* and *здрасте*. Are these special cases, or is it common to shorten words like these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different languages tend to deal differently with optimising for speed. In Danish, we tend to abbreviate the word, skipping certain parts, but that is not strictly correct. In Spanish, they tend to carefully pronounce the words, but then they do it at dizzying speeds. Is this something like it for Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="485cf59e-35c6-40e8-84b9-c6b878ccce9c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I believe there is no &quot;correct&quot; answer to this question: too much depends on other qualities of a person in question, such as having &quot;a good ear&quot; to languages and knowing other Slavic tongues. As [already discussed][1], many Russians claim to understand Ukrainian and even Polish and Bulgarian, but practical experiments show that this is not a common place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having dealt with Church Slavonic a little, both written and spoken, I can say for myself that it is basically not understandable. In a church, people often understand it &quot;by context&quot; and would probably be unable to explain what a particular word means. But even more so, they are just used to express some feelings using particular words (prayers), and would be unable to express or understand anything else using the same vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical example is a traditional Easter greeting in Russia, *Христос воскресе!*. We do not say *Христос воскрес!* because it would immediately make it non-religious, which is an important aspect of this phrase. However in no other context would a normal person use the form *воскресе*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can compare this situation with the use of Latin in medicine. Although doctors traditionally study this language and even use it in daily practice, most of them would probably be unable to understand Horatius or Vergilius without translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/208/47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="55de4806-def6-4bf0-9392-52ffc1a0270b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="In schools, it is taught that Modern Russian has 6 cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Nominative (Именительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Genitive (Родительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dative (Дательный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Accusative (Винительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Instrumental (Творительный)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Prepositional (Предложный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here on RLU, there are mentions of other lesser-known cases that are perhaps not universally accepted as full-blown cases of Modern Russian, but sure have their peculiarities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Vocative(Звательный) and Neo-Vocative. (Mentioned in the question [Миш, Кать, Ань, пап, мам — what is it in an address?][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Partitive(Частичный). mentioned [in this answer][3] by myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the so-called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The Locative Case (Местный Падеж) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that is usually united with the Prepositional Case, but for many words differs in form. E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о лесе (Prep.) - в лесу(Loc.)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; о саде (Prep.) - в саду(Loc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what are other lesser-known cases? [A comment by Anixx][2] goes as far as to claim there are 15 cases in Russian. It would be interesting and useful to list them in one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/195/71&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#comment872_196&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/194/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%8E-vs-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8F-what-ending-is-correct/196#196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="130947a2-9414-4223-83fb-dd560aef3fc5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question comes from the discussion [here][1] and is a little bit geeky =)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was suggested that there may be a new case in Russian: Счетный (Numerative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an instance of this case, [Anixx][2] gave the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems to me that the word &quot;грамм&quot; is two different lexemes with different paradigms. These words mean different things in the examples above: one is a unit of weight and the other one is a mark on a scale. It is two different words, but both are in Genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First word: &quot;грамм&quot; - a unit of weight, Genitive: &quot;грамм&quot; (Alternative &quot;граммов&quot; is also possible, but in my opinion &quot;грамм&quot; sounds better).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second word: &quot;грамм&quot; - a mark on a scale, Genitive: &quot;граммов&quot; (&quot;грамм&quot; is not acceptable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: do you think that there is such case as Numerative? If yes, give more examples, if no, do you think that the separation of the word &quot;грамм&quot; on two lexemes is justified?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/409/185&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/194/anixx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="bddcc244-9797-40bd-b5f6-e97e4697f5e1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [When to use the genitive or the accusative in negative sentences](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/257/when-to-use-the-genitive-or-the-accusative-in-negative-sentences)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I've read somewhere that after a negation, the Genitive is more common for the object being negated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use the Genitive case and when the Accusative case? Or other cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose one rule is the Animated/Inanimated distinction, but I'd like the answers to shed some light on this too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="499" RevisionGUID="68c76320-dbe3-438e-828e-4727e7b27e0f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Following [the question about common feminine suffices for profession titles][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word `няня` has several meanings. According to [gramota.ru][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1.** Работница, занимающаяся уходом, присмотром за детьми (в семье, в детском саду, в яслях). &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Разг. Санитарка в лечебном учреждении. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you call a male `няня` in both cases? In documents or in common speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I would appreciate comments about similar cases: `горничная`,`медицинская сестра`. Is  `медбрат` common and official word in this case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/487/suffixes-for-feminine-professions-%D1%88%D0%B0-%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0-%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]:http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%ED%FF%ED%FF&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="401af3be-da5f-4793-9b96-756e6d318a39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Though it's perfectly valid to call women grammatically masculine names, the opposite is quite peculiar (see [this answer][1] of mine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sound neutral, the names of professions which lack gramatically masculine forms, are replaced by the synonyms, even if they are bulky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Помощник воспитателя* instead of *нянечка* (in a kindergarten)&#xD;&#xA;* *Санитар* instead of *нянечка* (in a hospital)&#xD;&#xA;* *Медицинский брат* instead of *медицинская сестра*&#xD;&#xA;* *Артист балета* instead of *балерина*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sidorenko in *Теоретические и практические материалы по морфологии современного русского языка* writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для называния лиц мужского пола, выполняющих соответствующую работу, иногда используются описательные обороты типа *артист (солист) балета, переписчик на машинке*. Могут быть использованы также новые слова с изменением основы: *дояр* от *доярка*, *уборщик* от *уборщица*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a male babysitter in a kindergarten you can use *воспитатель*, *младший воспитатель* or *помощник воспитателя*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a visiting male babysitter, you can use a loanword *бебиситтер* (which unequivocally means a visiting babysitter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/324/134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="b0411dc6-a758-4bd5-b47a-f88498652ddb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would say, it's really in the specific meaning a speaker wants to express. The words have an extremely close meaning, and in most cases can probably be exchanged. *Обрадовать* is a perfective aspect, and therefore, intuitively, it is applied when something has already happened or is expected to happen, and the fact of learning it brings joy. On the other hand, *порадовать* is an imperfective aspect, and carries exactly this meaning—of some process or action in progress. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ребёнок обрадовался мороженому* (the child has enjoyed an ice-cream) vs. *порадуй ребёнка, почитай ему* (give a child some pleasure, read him a book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [examples by Quassnoi][1] give a perfect illustration of this distinction: each sentence has some hint of the time scale. *Порадовать* would relate to a landscape or a new watch collection which will last for some time. *Неожиданно* and *спешу*, to the contrary, emphasize the suddenness of the news. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer the OP, in that particular example the two words would be interchangeable, though the meaning would be exactly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай, порадуй меня &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assumes some process of telling me a good news; I will feel the pleasure for some time during and after being told.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай, обрадуй меня&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assumes that right after having been told the good news, I'll be glad though this feeling may also be not really prolonged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/544/47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="648e33d4-f400-4662-95de-380012b5876c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Verbs have different aspect (see other questions on this forum about aspect, [this one][1] in particular).&#xD;&#xA;*читать* is an imperfect verb, it denotes a process in its development, an unfinished activity.&#xD;&#xA;*прочесть* is a perfect verb, it denotes a completed activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я читаю книгу. (читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am reading a book.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я прочел книгу. (прочесть)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've read the book (till the end).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда ты будешь читать книгу, которую я тебе подарил на день рождения? (читать)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When will you read the book I gave you for your birthday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда ты прочтешь книгу, которую я тебе подарил на день рождения? (прочесть) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When will you finish reading the book I gave you for your birthday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="1c089367-681a-49ab-b200-ccf8aa146e17" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is somewhat related to the [question][1] &quot;Is there a Russian analogue of British Council or Goethe-Institut&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All boils down to the fact that there does not exists such strong institution which can provide such contest on appropriate level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, in the year 2011 such contest has been conducted. So called &quot;[1-й][2] всемирный фестиваль русского языка&quot; (under МАПРЯЛ guidance), as far as I know, included, among other things, speech contest as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard about the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for link, provided by Roman Yankovsky, it's a little bit different story, since (correct me someone who knows this staff better, I might be wrong) major part of contestant were foreign pupils that had studied in russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/272/is-there-a-russian-analogue-of-british-council-or-goethe-institut/719#719&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/ru/news/common/news24075.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="63bd9531-18b4-422c-8bb2-783fea15f63f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Using the same structure in the [Chinese Resources question][1], this is a specifically created Community Wiki which gathers resources for learning Russian and [it has been approved by the Community itself][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be clear that **the resources are not written by one user or only by the mods, but by whoever wants to contribute.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just write in the appropriate answer/section. If you have concerns, questions, [ask a question in our Meta][3], so we don't clutter the comments, but you can link your meta question from the comments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions regarding such resources **are not allowed anymore**, and they will closed as a duplicate of this question, except for very specific and on topic requests (ask on Meta if you're unsure about your question). Follow the instructions made in the question about how to post, what can be posted, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Organization &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers have a type of resource **each**.&#xD;&#xA; - If possible, state whether the material is directed towards a **beginner**, **intermediate** or an **advanced** audience.&#xD;&#xA; - **Do not** include links that lead to illegal content or sites that host such content. If you see any, please **flag for moderator attention** and choose &quot;other&quot; so you can point us to the content. We'll delete it as soon as we see the flag.&#xD;&#xA; - [Both free and commercial resources are allowed][4], but make sure to include a note if they are. Remember the [rules about self-promotion][5]. Include also if registration is required.&#xD;&#xA; - Include links to the sites only, *don't post images*, they would take too much space.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: new rules could be added in the future.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;### Alphabetical Index &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Add-ons (browser)][6]: These are plugins that you install on your browser and that help you in different ways, such as providing word meanings, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - [Audiobooks][7]: Audio files where you hear a voice reading the book you've chosen.&#xD;&#xA; - [Books][8]: Books from Russian authors or translations.&#xD;&#xA; - [Dictionaries][9]: Stand-alone or dictionary files for you to use on your computer.&#xD;&#xA; - [Newspapers][10]: Famous or not services that provide news for Russia and the rest of the world... in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Online courses][11]: Free or paid services online that teach you the language through lessons.&#xD;&#xA; - [Podcasts][12]: Audio files that feature people speaking about the language or giving tips/lessons to learners.&#xD;&#xA; - [Television][13]: TV channels, shows in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - [Textbooks][14]: Grammar books that teach you the grammar of the language with theory and exercises.&#xD;&#xA; - [Websites][15]: Sites that give help for learning Russian. They give material, tips, hints, and various help for self-learners or regular students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/1120/43&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/q/190/71&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.meta.stackexchange.com/q/203/71&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/faq#promotion&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/834/71&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/835/71&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/836/71&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/837/71&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/838/71&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/839/71&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/71&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/841/71&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/842/71&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/843/71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="d9e07352-829b-43f3-9146-b1e613648af6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="With correction of some mistake it would be like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В чащах юга жил-был цитрус...—да, но фальшивый экземпляр!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And i would transliterate this frase like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - V chaschakh yuga zhil-byl tsitrus...--da, no falshiviy ekzemplyar!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway i think [Anixx][1] give very good answer for this question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/850/349" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="21fc7f52-46c7-4307-b981-cda0b861d188" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ну, во-первых, вы чуть-чуть заблуждаетесь. Правильная форма сложного предлога всегда  &quot;в продолжение&quot;, и его не стоит путать с существительным. &#xD;&#xA;[Цитата][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сложный предлог в продолжение, разумеется, также произошел от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложно-падежной формы существительного продолжение. Но в роли&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложного предлога употребляется застывшая форма винительного падежа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этого существительного (кого? что?) — именно поэтому на конце его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пишется -е. Пример: в продолжение недели мне нездоровилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть -  всё то же самое, что и, например, с использованием словосочетание &quot;в течение&quot; в качестве предлога. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается логики. Я (повторюсь в рамках данного стека) не так оптимистичен, как лингвист Зализняк с его верой в непоколебимые и чёткие законы развития языков. Но более чем вероятно, что это потому, что я знаю гораздо меньше уважаемого академика. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но смею предполагать, что частично такому кавардаку причина лежит в орфографической реформе, упразднившей, в том числе, букву &quot;ять&quot; ). В дореволюционной орфографии - в дательном и предложном падежах единственного числа существительных писалось &quot;ѣ&quot;: `о столѣ, въ/къ школѣ, о морѣ, о счастьѣ (а также о счастіи)`. При этом в именительном и винительном падежах писалось &quot;е&quot; `(гдѣ? — въ морѣ, но куда? — въ море)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Александр Исаевич Солженицын, будучи человеком с очень своеобразными взглядами на развитие русское языка (буквально никем не разделёнными), очень часто ошибался как в постановке своих лингвистических диагнозов, так и в предлагаемых методах лечения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это не отменяет дельности данной цитаты: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При нивелировке языка значительное разрушение потерпел предложный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж.  Уже упомянуто, как он пострадал от отмены &quot;ятя&quot;. В том же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; неосмысленном порыве всеобщего &quot;упрощения&quot; был срезан предложный падеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ещё одного обширного класса существительных - среднего рода с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончанием &quot;ье&quot;, стали писать предложные в точности как именительный и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; винительный: в Поволжье, в платье (без всякой логики сохранив&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложное &quot;и&quot; для случая полного окончания &quot;ие&quot;: в платии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тут впору вспомнить об [ответе уважаемого permeakra](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/903/242) )))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.etoze.ru/pravopisanie/v-prodoljenii-ili-v-prodoljenie-pravopisanie/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="47076121-54b5-436a-9a4f-f782920ce682" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This very question is inspired by the question &quot;[Are there words that can be spelled with both т and ф][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the answer states that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an interesting issue with the word `алгоритм`. Sometimes, in certain contexts, it's traditionally spelled as `алгорифм`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised, since I've never heard this word to be used in any context we can call common, even in sense of common for some very small community of people, say, for some very high specialized theoretics from St. Petersburg (as claims the author of the answer), or whoever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Is word `алгорифм` really used nowadays? Can we name this spelling traditional. Or has it been actually just some sporadic attempts of certain people, who tried to coin new term, but this has never been widely accepted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/219/are-there-words-that-can-be-spelled-with-both-%D1%82-and-%D1%84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="9b014aba-1248-4646-af87-b0402660acfd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I wonder how this usage of 2nd person verbs for 3rd person is called? Are these words still remain verbs or become [inflective interjections][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* А он возьми да и прыгни.&#xD;&#xA;* Отвязав мешок, уронил его на землю, а он как завопи.&#xD;&#xA;* Григорян, вот он, засуетился, затрясся, потом как завопи, угрожая мне выдворением...&#xD;&#xA;* Я и чуть расслабился - а зря, на светофоре это чудо вдруг как прыгни назад!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this is a special grammatical voice, similar to &quot;сообрази он вовремя...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/983/are-there-inflectives-in-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1001" RevisionGUID="6cf0a6c8-3fb6-4303-89ea-90688ccdfdbc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a follow up to [this question][0].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a Daniil Kharms short story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _ПЕТРОВ И КАМАРОВ_&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ПЕТРОВ:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Эй, Камаров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Давай ловить комаров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**КАМАРОВ:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Нет, я к этому еще не готов.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Давай лучше ловить котов!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here since Petrov is teasing Kamarov, I expect, the `котов` (cats, tomcats?) Kamarov's answer to be somehow related to `Петров`. But I'm not able to find any relation in between (I cannot read Russian at all, I'm simply using some translation tools and dictionaries to dig the meanings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain if there is an implied relation between the two?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[0]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/819/do-these-surnames-imply-anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="b03d221e-ce31-431e-a4f3-4347afc53ab2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question arises from a tangential discussion in this one: &lt;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/999/preposition-to-quote-%D0%B8%D0%B7-or-%D0%BE%D1%82-or-none-of-them&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the punctuation (comma, dash, brackets...), when does a subordinate clause acquires the same case of the noun it is refeering to? To get a more concrete idea, take as example some comments by @Yuri and @Quassnoi in the question above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand if one uses brackets in the following sentece, the subordinate *мой любимый роман* stays in nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф. Достоевского (мой любимый роман) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, instead, one uses a comma, the genitive is acquired by the subordinate sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Из «Преступления и наказания» Ф.Достоевского, моего любимого романа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: I was told, sometimes in Russian writing a dash, has the effect of an equal sign. How does these sentences look like if I use `-`? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="d3bd153c-3a06-478d-9280-403c38584f2b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Resources for learning Russian](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I am anxious to learn Russian. I am curious if is there is a popular textbook for student who are learning introduction to Russian ? What is the most popular method to learn it ? I am starting to learn a little bit about their Alphabet and their meaning. I took geography of the former Soviet Union when I was in college and learn about their geography relationship to the former country that was break up from the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advice me on which textbook is good to have and to learn ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="62ccea24-a9b2-446f-b23b-5cdd83655f86" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, you shouldn't. Moreover, it by all means incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;There exist only colloquial `врачиха` and `докторша`, but &quot;врачь&quot; is wrong and, as far as I know, never've been valid in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like you've asked whether the feminine form of `мяч` is `мячь` - the thing is [not all nouns exist][1] in feminine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1043/what-is-feminine-form-of-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%86/1044" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="273d17fb-aab8-4bf9-88e9-f547bfa2ebf4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am somehow bemused by the [sixteen cases](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases) of the Russian. On the other hand, I thought that there were only six kinds of declension. Perhaps these two facts are not contradictory, but the problem is that I am not aware of the difference between *case* and *declension*. During my only Russian course, I was given some declension tables with 6+6 endings: six endings for nominative, genitive, dative, acusative, instrumental and prepositional, plus six from their plurals.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can some (hopefully all) of the 16 cases in the aforementioned question be grouped, as to obey one of the six common declensions? If so, which cases obey which declension rules? If not, I'm afraid that one has to learn a 16+16 table." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1479" RevisionGUID="80c2ec4e-2715-48bb-ba02-630824a1dae3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Here's what Artemiy Lebedev, the (in?)famous designer, has to say about [quotation marks](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/104/). And a little more - [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/62/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, he also says, that the only correct forms of quotation marks in Russian writing/typography are these: «» and „“. They can be used interchangeably, but, as Yury correctly [states](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1476/560) they can be combined if you need to enclose something in quotation marks when the sentence itself is already quoted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of these quotes: &quot;&quot; is considered sloppy, excluding special cases, such as writing source code. They is common on the Internet, although it is not true that the correct form of quotation marks is inaccessible on the standard keyboard. They are just slightly harder to remember. :) Here's the list for Windows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+0171 = «&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+0187 = »&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+201E = „&#xD;&#xA;- Alt+201C = “&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, for the last two to work you need to change the registry and I never succeeded in making it work for me. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and there's yet another way - Ilya Birman's [typographic keyboard layout](http://ilyabirman.ru/projects/typography-layout/). It has all the symbols you may need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1533" RevisionGUID="bd5c55e7-a64c-4c73-a619-1785e1c280d3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are two basic rules to follow, and a thousand of complex ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The abbreviated word should be understandable to the reader. Thus, commonly known abbreviations are preferred. Try this [ru.wiktionary.org][1] link, or this [slovari.ru][2] one if you're not sure about your abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Abbreviations should be unambiguous in your context of speech. For example, if you say &quot;фил.&quot;, I'm not too sure if you actually mean &quot;философский&quot; (филос.) or &quot;филологический&quot; (филол.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For complex rules and for more abbreviations, see [the link][3] provided by @КуЪ in [his answer][4]. It seems like it covers a lot of rules and provides a good deal of examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%A3%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slovari.ru/default.aspx?p=266&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://artlib.osu.ru/Docs/gost/7.12-93.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1532/1264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="c5f379ac-eb96-4651-a21c-a1fb23748776" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm not sure if I need comma in the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю что сказать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю что вам сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me they seem to be similar to the phrases &quot;[Тут есть над чем подумать][1]&quot; &quot;Тут есть что посмотреть&quot; but the [ruscorpora.ru][2] search shows that many authors use comma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1581/496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=langust&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%ED%E5+%E7%ED%E0%FE+%F7%F2%EE+%F1%EA%E0%E7%E0%F2%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1710" RevisionGUID="7e22e500-9dd4-4320-bb42-113c7c31a330" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Resources for learning Russian](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in learning the Russian language. Where I live, there isn't any institution that teaches the Russian language (that's a big  problem). How can I start and have correct pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1787" RevisionGUID="fa396ffb-c368-45fb-82a8-6acd224e21b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="There was a small [discussion](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1768) between [texnic](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/47/texnic) and me about the appropriate way to denote tights - a classical question on forums related to Russian linguistics. As I do not consider myself an expert in Russian language, I would like to ask the community for their opinion, *preferably documented*. Maybe I was wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my reasons to prefer **колготки** over  **колготы** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **childhood stereotypes**: at school I was taught that the word **колготы** doesn't exist; however, sad experience showed me later that not every teacher knows their matter perfectly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **stylistical prejudices**: in my family and kindergarden (yes, again childhood =) )this word was used frequently, but with different stress - **колготЫ** (sometimes even **колготУшки** to rhyme with my name); this gave it а vernacular and stylistically colloquial tone - just like it happens with &quot;inner&quot; words that are made up inside a family and don't sound appropriate when you pronounce them in public;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  **frequency in dictionaries**: as I am not a linguist, I mostly refer to dictionaries written by Ожегов, Ушаков, or Даль (the latter certainly doesn't fit for this question). None of them shows the word колготы; **maybe somebody here has the Big Academic Dictionary?** On the internet while searching for occurence in dictionaries I have also found [this](http://otvety.google.ru/otvety/thread?tid=5b8706464e7bc79b&amp;pli=1), **while texnic found opposite information (i.e. this word [*can*](http://www.caretta-shop.ru/statall/19/stat58/) be found in modern dictionaries)**;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Google and StackExchange underline колготы with red;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I come up with more arguments, I'll add them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, to sum it up, is this strange word **колготы**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- dependent on geographical/cultural/demographic aspects; &#xD;&#xA;- stylistically neutral; &#xD;&#xA;- a common grammatical mistake that almost turned into a norm (like infamous **coffee** gender or stress in **заиндевелый**, **фольга** );&#xD;&#xA;- absolutely wrong (like **сосули** instead of **сосульки**);&#xD;&#xA;- just another topic where linguists can't come to a consensus?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1791" RevisionGUID="4da97e33-5f63-4014-b99e-bae47a9d9ff7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Although the word forms match dative letter-for-letter, the stress falls on another syllable, giving you a hint that something fishy is going on. Indeed, this is not dative: it is [*locative*][1], one of a lesser-known cases of Russian nouns. [According to Wikipedia][2], approximately 150 masculine nouns retain a distinct form for the locative case, used only after &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot;. These forms end in &quot;-у́&quot; or &quot;-ю́&quot;&#xD;&#xA;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лежать на снегу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоять на краю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/426&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_case#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1836" RevisionGUID="5474deaa-4225-4f2a-878b-485734d68b81" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yellow Sky provided a perfect answer for this specific phrase about the wife. I just want to start from generic meaning of `у меня` and then apply it to this particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only recently when I become better in English and got acquainted with French I realized how much Russian is fond of constructions with pronouns/nouns in objective cases (косвенных падежах) `мне`, `меня`, `у меня`, `ему`, `его`, `у него` where other languages would use subjective case. This constructions in Russian became an integral part of the language. For example, let's look at the simplest phrases which everybody learn first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English: My name is Alex. or I'm Alex.&#xD;&#xA;    French: Je m'appelle Alex. (I call myself Alex)&#xD;&#xA;    Russian: Меня зовут Алекс. (One calls me Alex)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English: He is 5 years old. &#xD;&#xA;    French: Il a 5 ans. (He has 5 years).&#xD;&#xA;    Russian: Ему 5 лет. (Kind of: There are 5 years to him.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    English: I have a sore throat.&#xD;&#xA;    French: J'ai mal à la gorge. (I have pain in my throat)&#xD;&#xA;    Russian: У меня болит горло. (Kind of: Throat hurts at me)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common feature of all these sentences is that the subject is switched from me/him to the other thing that becomes active, or the whole sentence becomes impersonal, like `It is sunny` instead of `The sun is shining` in English. In [this answer][1] I suggest that the literal translation of the constructions `у меня`, `у него` would be 'There is smth. in my/his world of perception'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two reasons of this phenomenon in Russian language. The first is mechanical: there is a developed system of grammatical cases, which is absent in other languages, and we do it just because we can. The second is probably cultural. From young age we are told `Я - последняя буква алфавита` (Я is the last letter of the alphabet). This is to say &quot;do not emphasize your person too much&quot; and literally &quot;do not say `я` too much&quot;. Maybe because of this a child would prefer to say &quot;мне хочется это пирожное&quot; instead of &quot;я хочу это пирожное&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now when you see how much these constructions are embedded in Russian language, how much they are an integral part of the language I hope you understand that a Russian native speaker couldn't help saying &quot;Какая ты *у меня* компактная!&quot; Just &quot;Какая ты компактная&quot; would sound unnatural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1024/496" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1911" RevisionGUID="f0571dbc-cc1a-4348-8499-a885b8aa8f1b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="After reading [texnic's answer][1] to my question https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1905/1329, I became curious about **why** Latin won over Greek in our Russian schools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Czech Republic we pronounce variable names according to the Greek tradition. So we say [ипсилон][2], not [игрек][3]. But what historical/demographic processes can determine the choice of transcription? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, why hasn't 'wai' [waɪ] settled down? Was it ever known in Russia? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1910/1329&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypsilon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1956" RevisionGUID="d22b5a0c-6878-4467-bf5e-93eaa6a26bc2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="For non-Russian-speakers it might be not so easy to detect the difference between words that are *almost* synonyms; for instance the difference between &quot;теперь&quot; и &quot;сейчас&quot; (cf. [this question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1062/what-is-the-difference-between-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8C-and-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81)).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would you use &quot;**опять**&quot;, when &quot;**еще раз**&quot; and when &quot;**снова**&quot;? (assuming, of course, that I'm not wrong and they are indeed (*almost*) synonyms)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2156" RevisionGUID="5491bf9a-4bdf-4ae3-af82-4484822978f3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As @ruskie.info and @Eugene S have [written][1], &quot;зарыта&quot; means buried. It's an adjective derived from the verb &quot;to bury&quot; and it is declined regularly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я зарыт&#xD;&#xA;* ты зарыт&#xD;&#xA;* он зарыт/**она зарыта**/оно зарыто&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мы зарыты&#xD;&#xA;* вы зарыты&#xD;&#xA;* они зарыты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2152/560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2270" RevisionGUID="93f1b57d-260d-45e2-8a90-997b76343652" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think that «отказ от прав» is very clumsy and «предупреждение» didn't cupture the sence thought even here (https://russian.stackexchange.com/) it used widely in cases where second choice is more appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="31a2a220-367a-46bf-84de-7e621c45aad1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="In short: angle-shaped Л is common to texts written by the hand (handwriting and block letters). In fact non-angle-shaped Л is not used at all in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For printed fonts non-angle-shaped Л is common (roughly 90% vs 10%), though it may be used for artistic effect or to add classic-style flavor to the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually angle-shaped Л is always used when you write block letters by the hand. It is because it is much simple to draw. (In fact, maybe this is the reason why &quot;hand written&quot; MS Comic Sans font looks unnatural to me, because they use Л instead of anlge-shaped letter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is how the children are taught to write this letter (taken from [question about italic т](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1552/why-does-italic-%D1%82-look-like-m/1554)):   &#xD;&#xA;![Школьные прописи][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian Wikipedia states that current non-angular shape of the letter was first introduced [back in 1840](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B) and later become very popular in Russian typographics. Though in many artistic fonts the angular-shaped letter is still used. For expample [here](http://www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/business-lynch/2013/03/18/) you can see the titles of Petersburg subway stations. Most of them use the angle-shaped letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a post about [shapes of Л](http://kak.ru/columns/typexperience/a11450/) by *Юрий Гордон*, the author of the book *Книга про буквы от Аа до Яя*. It is interesting to note that in most fonts when the angle-shaped Л is used, then Д also has such form. And when Л is more like П then Д also has similar form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for printed media - some academic books use fonts with angle-shaped letter, for example &quot;Литературные памятники&quot; series that was established back in 1951. Here is an example of covers of books printed in 2012, 1983 and 2011 (last one is from some other series):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1XAT.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5hpDV.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/C064A.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As seen in the street:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XvToh.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eG1sJ.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rzzys.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ET3z.png&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fonts with such letter were popular back in 50-s (because of Constructionism art movement that preferred simple geometric forms), so you can frequently see it on objects created in those times, or ones that have retro-design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hAWv1.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaJgd.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ixnIl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="09f2b6e3-0b22-4d7b-85e6-da58e32c094d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Aside from answering your personal phone, are there any other situations where it is considered appropriate to use **алло** when greeting someone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that because **алло** wasn't even mentioned in any of the answers to the question https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2/when-is-it-more-appropriate-to-use-%D0%B7%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5-rather-than-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82 that it's a very informal way of greeting someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not as informal as I'm thinking it is, would saying **алло** be considered a professional way to answer a phone call (e.g. answering a customer's call to a business)? Or, would this be similar to an in-person greeting where something like **Здравствуйте** should be used instead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2387" RevisionGUID="fdff64cd-6d81-4ed7-bfaa-b15f4e3f3152" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is not a criminal slang (especially just the spelling &quot;раён&quot;), though it has &quot;criminal roots&quot;. You can hear many people speak like that - taxi drivers, street sales persons, workers, etc. Most of them are not well-educated, so they do not know the right way to speak. Of course the criminals are also not educated, so when you imagine how criminals speak - they will certanly use incorrect forms of words and language constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for spelling &quot;раён&quot; sounds exactly as &quot;район&quot;, so &quot;ё&quot; is used here to emphasize the incorrectness of the speech, especially in the expression &quot;на раёне&quot; (and most likely the person speaking so will spell it incorrectly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;на&quot; - this preposition is often used in argots instead of &quot;в&quot;: &quot;на зоне&quot;, &quot;на больнице&quot;, &quot;на тюрьме&quot; (see this [answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2291/%d0%9c%d1%8b-%d0%b2%d1%81%d1%82%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8%d1%81%d1%8c-%d0%b2-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d1%82%d0%be-%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b2%d0%b8%d1%81%d0%b5-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-%d0%bc%d1%8b-%d0%b2%d1%81%d1%82%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8%d1%81%d1%8c-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%b0%d0%b2%d1%82%d0%be-%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b2%d0%b8%d1%81%d0%b5/2294#2294) by Quassnoi)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="af1f460c-5bb4-4cf3-83e9-6bf93646e7c0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Метель** is a starting point for all other terms. It is a name of a strong wind that carries snow horizontally, either picked from earth or the one that was falling but did not touched the ground. It is also used as a term in meteorology - all other words are expressed there as метель with different modifications (верховая, общая, слабая, сильная, сверхсильная, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вьюга** is a метель, but strong one. Most dictionaries define it as &quot;сильная метель, снежная буря&quot;. Wikipedia's [meteorogically-based article](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.B7.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F) that [dasblinkenlight](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/426/dasblinkenlight) posted a link to, defines вьюга in such way: &quot;вьюга - сильная, как правило, низовая метель&quot; (this means that usually snow is not falling from the sky).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Буран** is also a метель, but happens in steppes. It conforms with the origins of the word - it was borrowed from people that lived mostly in steppes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; БУРАН. Заимств. не позднее XVIII в. из тюрк. яз., где буран — суф. производное от бур &quot;крутить, сбивать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions it is synonym to strong метель, but in others the key feature of the буран is that it can happen even without falling snow - the wind just carries the snow from the ground with the clear sky. Looks like in your case &quot;буран со снегом&quot; is the latter case of usage of the word буран - it carries the snow from the ground, but &quot;со снегом&quot; tells that the snow is falling from the sky as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already referenced Wikipedia article, however, tells that &quot;буран - сильная общая метель в степи при низкой температуре&quot;, this definition conforms with буран's first case and even states it is so strong that one can't see the sky through the flying snow. Anyway, most sources agree that this word is used mostly in Asian part of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пурга** is similar to second case of буран - but it happens in forestless plains. It may also happen without falling snow and when the sky is clear. The word is borrowed from Finnish language and is used mostly in nothern part of Russia. The [Wiktionary's definition](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0) of the word is: &quot;сильная низовая метель, преимущественно возникающая в равнинных безлесных местностях *при вторжениях холодного воздуха*&quot;. This also means that the wind that causes this type of метель is always cold - colder that the general mass of the air. So, it is usual that someone describing the weather will use both пурга and холодный ветер in their speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also, that you can use both &quot;сильная метель&quot; and &quot;слабая метель&quot;, but I can hardly imagine &quot;слабая вьюга&quot;, &quot;слабый буран&quot;, &quot;слабая пурга&quot; (and so does Google as well). All these words can only be strong: &quot;сильная вьюга&quot;, &quot;сильная пурга&quot;, &quot;сильный буран&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="be275b51-0a62-4020-bf09-ee577dffdc63" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question was born from the discussion in comments under [this answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2397/97).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Чё_ is a slang/colloquial word, but does it mean _что_ or _чего_?  I believe that it's the equivalent of _что_, although it can't be substituted in all cases - and I used this in my answer to the linked question.  However another user stated that I was wrong and that the correct meaning is _чего_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which meaning is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** I was suggested that it can mean both, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чё тебе надо?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что тебе надо?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чего тебе надо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in this case I would say that in the last version (_чего тебе надо_), _чего_ is in itself is a colloquial from of _что_, hence can't be argued to be the meaning of _чё_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="794773fe-b54f-4217-8a23-5ee97863cdc6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I get that у меня is the most common pattern for showing ownership of things, say леопарда or самокат. What happens to the meaning were I to use Иметь instead? Does it mean the exact same thing? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([this Q seems to imply Иметь is for abstract things that &quot;have&quot; abstract things, like triangles *have* sides), so it isn't a dupe question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/881/the-usage-of-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="78046580-ad5f-418b-a5f7-127947d86713" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As D.Rosenthal puts it in his [famous guidebook](http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/59.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разговорный характер имеют также сочетания «у обоих ворот», «у обоих часов», не отвечающие грамматической норме, так как форма косвенного падежа образована от несуществующей начальной формы (нет формы именительного падежа «оба – обе ворота», «оба – обе часы» в связи с отсутствием категории рода у существительных, употребляющихся только в форме множественного числа). Возможная правка: у тех и у других ворот (часов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При слове часы (прибор) употребляется собирательное числительное (одни часы, двое часов) или добавляется слово штука (не хватает пяти штук часов). Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the best way would be to say &quot;у меня сломались и те, и другие часы&quot; or &quot;у меня сломались обе штуки часов&quot;. I have never heard anyone say the latter though and I'd never say it myself. But then again I never knew someone who was in such a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Myself, I'd say &quot;у меня сломались обе пары часов&quot;, although Rosenthal deems this as low colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add more proof, here's a couple of citations from literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Василий Гроссман. Жизнь и судьба:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У командира первой роты две пары часов на руке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Марк Алданов. Чертов мост:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... как он, заторопившись, посмотрит на левую пару часов (правой ведь нет) и немедленно простится с обиженным, недовольным видом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Встретились и поговорили:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какие-то сувениры, авторучки, радиоприемники, две пары часов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сергей Довлатов. Компромисс:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Потом разглядел две пары часов с металлическими браслетами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Блюма Зейгарник. Патопсихология:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так, например, при предъявлении карточки, на которой изображены три пары часов и монет, один из больных этой группы не соглашается исключить деньги...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Герман Матвеев. Зеленые цепочки:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он вернулся в свой кабинет и, положив обе пары часов на стол, повернулся к своему помощнику, который сидел в кресле около телефона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want to tell me that in all of these cases the authors mean &quot;four watches&quot; and &quot;six watches&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (probably even better) alternative is the one by [@Artemix](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2538/560): to use двое. Here's a [link](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=fol1&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E4%E2%EE%E5+%F7%E0%F1%EE%E2) to a search, showing that it does show up in literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to summarize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У меня сломались обе пары часов&quot;: not really correct, but colloquially used;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У меня сломались двое часов&quot;: okay, but doesn't 100% translate into &quot;both&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;У меня сломались обе штуки часов&quot;: preferable, although rarely used (at least from my experience)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="7d111161-f29e-4e5e-8d4f-4f39052c25a3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="In comments on dasblinkenlight's answer to the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2533/%D0%A3-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B8-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B8-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some write that две пары часов means 2 watches and три пары часов means 3 watches, while others write that these terms mean 4 watches and 6 watches. I'm not sure if the context of &quot;watches&quot; is the source of the conflict here, on account of часы having a plural appearance while referring to a single physical object. (Let's not take часы to mean &quot;hours&quot; for this question!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To clear up the situation, if that is possible, I'd like to know if native speakers who think две пары часов means 2 watches also think две пары книг and три пары книг mean 2 books and 3 books, rather than 4 books and 6 books.  (I have in mind, of course, that each book is counted just one time.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you think the meaning is 2 books and 3 books, then what do you think the purpose of the word пара is in those phrases, since две книги and три книги also mean 2 books and 3 books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Remark: This argument about whether две пары means 2 or 4 and три пары means 3 or 6 reminds me of the conflict in mathematics over whether the notation &lt;i&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/i&gt; for dihedral groups means a group of order *n* or 2&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;; some mathematicians interpret it one way and some interpret it the other way, but somehow they manage to get along. :)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="f22bb38c-9b5c-4508-914c-c27d35f839f2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="From the numerical point of view `пара` by itself may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **one** object: пара ножниц, пара щипцов, пара брюк;&#xD;&#xA; - **two** objects: пара яблок, пара апельсинов;&#xD;&#xA; - **one set** of objects: пара весел, пара перчаток, пара носок, пара платья (outdated nowadays, used to mean &quot;сюртук, брюки и жилет&quot;, see [here](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_fwords/25764/%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%90)), кофейная пара ([чашка и блюдце для кофе](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/es/42754/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0)), пара чаю ([порция чаю в двух чайниках для воды и для заварки чая](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/920402));&#xD;&#xA; - **two humans or animals acting together**: пара лошадей, пара танцоров, пара боксеров;&#xD;&#xA; - **small amount**: на пару слов, на пару минут, пожить пару дней, виделись пару раз, подкинь пару монет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a joke the &quot;small amount&quot; may mean even 5 objects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;ndash; Сбегай в магазин, возьми пару бутылок водки.  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это сколько?  &#xD;&#xA;  &amp;ndash; &quot;Пару&quot; &amp;ndash; это пять!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to `две пары`. Though mathematically it can be treated as a simple multiplication, though in language such saying has multiple additional aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use `десять` or `десяток` instead of `два` to highlight the difference. While Then `десять пар` means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as one object.** In our first example math works. In this case десять пар means exactly ten times more objects than before (ten objects): десять пар ножниц, десять пар щипцов, десять пар брюк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two objects.** In this case math works as well, but semantically it is implied that the objects are calculated by pairs for some reason (because of packaging, or because price is set for pair): `десять пар яблок` equals 20 apples, `десять пар апельсинов` equals 20 oranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as set of objects.** Here math works differently:&#xD;&#xA;  - `Она перемеряла десять пар туфель` - you cannot just multiply two by ten here. Though 20 shoes were used 10 of them are left ones and another 10 of them are right ones. You cannot take one shoe from first pair and combine it with another shoe from another pair easily.&#xD;&#xA;  - `Десять пар перчаток` - same as above - 20 objects, but left/right glove are different.&#xD;&#xA;  - `У меня десять пар одинаковых черных носок` - Maybe the only example when you can say that you have 20 socks, because usually there is no practical difference between 'right' and 'left' ones.&#xD;&#xA;  - `В гардеробе висят десять пар платья` - in this example mathematically you have 30 objects, but they cannot be treated as equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as two humans or animals acting together** - though you can abstractly say &quot;20 humans&quot; or &quot;20 animals&quot;, but in fact it is another example of &quot;пара as set&quot;. When something is done together, in most cases these pairs are matching each other by some criterion  (horses should be of equal sizes and strength, boxers should be in same weight category; dancing pair may or may not require one man and one woman, etc.). So in most cases you cannot mix the pair members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Пара as small amount** - you cannot use *пара as small amount* meaning in `десять пар минут` expression. Here it will mean `пара as grouping by two for counting`, so десять пар минут means 20 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to `две пары часов`. Here the word `пара` can mean `one`, `two` or `set`. The word `часы` may mean `clock` or `wrist/pocket watch` or `hours`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of **hours** `две пары часов` sounds quite weird by itself, because usually `пара часов` is used, which means `a couple of hours`, but `две пары часов` will have the meaning `four hours, grouped by two hours for some reason` (note that in universities `пара` stands for `two academic hours` - a study session in an educational institution consisting of two 45-minute periods).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of **clock** `пара` means exactly two clocks, so the meaning here is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Four clocks, that were grouped by two either for ease of counting, or because they form a set by their form, color, price, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though since for watches the result is quite different one would likely add &quot;настенных&quot; to disambiguate clocks and watches (две пары настенных часов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of **wrist/pocket watch** пара may mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Two watches (wrist or pocket ones) that are weared by a person. This is a colloquialism - most books on Literature Russian discourage usage `пара` in this meaning. As stated by Rosenthal: &quot;Выражение «пара часов» имеет просторечный характер&quot;. However, this expression follows a pattern for many other clothing items - пара очков, пара брюк, пара носок, пара перчаток, etc., so it does not sound weird for a person that have never heard such expression before. Anton Zuev listed a [numerous examples](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2542/551) of such sayings. One example from [ruscorpora.ru dates back to 1874](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EF%E0%F0%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%F7%E0%F1%FB&amp;gramm2=S&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=30): &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пришедшие под вечерок армяне «поддержали коммерцию», купив пару часов и несколько мелочей из сданных мною вещей, как то: цепочки нового золота, коробку слабителъных порошков, перочинные ножики, карандаши и т. под. [П. И. Огородников. Очерки Персии. Калейдоскоп шахруда. Персидское побережье Каспия. Перевал через Кузлук (1874)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is interesting to note that in this citation the pocket watches are described. According to Wikipedia wrist watches [become popular after World War I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch), because pocket watches were impractical on the battlefield. Before that time men, who carried pocket watches, were quoted as saying they would &quot;sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch&quot; (note this idea of &quot;watch as a piece of cloth&quot; connotation, though the citation itself is not russian of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Four watches, grouped by two for counting (see &quot;clocks&quot; example). I beleive that this is the only meaning that Literature Russian allowes. So, such phrase can only be used in a context where these watches are counted (in a shop, in a document, etc.). But since alternative meaning exists that has a very long usage history, I believe that you have a very low chanses of seing such expression in literature, because most editors will rephrase it to avoid ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, **две пары часов**, where `часы` means `watches` (and not `clocks` or `hours`) will always mean **two watches**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="b52c98db-a12e-4e6a-b3da-a2902425509a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question [How do I split a word into syllables?][1] and its answers are helpful if one speaks Russian. Unfortunately I do not speak Russian but need to hyphenate 'Churyumov-Gerasimenko' (there must be other possibilities besides the existing hyphen). Is there some on-line hyphenation tool or dictionary for Russian which provides hyphenation and has an English GUI?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/138/how-do-i-split-a-word-into-syllables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="50d3fbc0-525d-4aee-b88b-817bc2451a7d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As for difference between written and printed form of the letters, here is my personal experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I studied English handwriting to me the small letters k (looks like small R), r (is written backwards), s (looks like triangle), z (suddenly has a loop below the line) and the capital G (looks like Y), I (looks like Я), Q (a huge 2), S (big triangle), Z (doesn't look like Z at all) looked completely different from their printed counterparts. Maybe this is because they are &quot;optimized&quot; for fast writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it looks like as time goes by the printed letters may change, while handwritten ones stay almost the same. For example in this [answer about letter Л](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2332/551) you can see that its modern form become popular in 1840, while before that time printed and handwritten Л had the similar &quot;angle-shaped&quot; form similar to Greek Λ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another question was about difference between [printed т and hand-written *т*](https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1552/551). And looks like the difference is also has historical roots - both letters had almost the same shape before 1708 reform by Peter the Great. So, looks like handwriting is more conservative than printed fonts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about usage of handwriting. This is called a [cursive script](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive). According to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cursive, also known as script, joined-up writing, joint writing, running writing, or handwriting is any style of penmanship in which the symbols of the language are written in a conjoined and/or flowing manner, generally for the purpose of making writing faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In the Persian, Arabic, Latin, and Cyrillic alphabets, many or all letters in a word are connected, sometimes making a word one single complex stroke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, before the invention of a [typewriter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter) in 1860 it was the only way to compose a document. But even after that cursive was used in personal correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In USSR only official institutions and companies (and professional writers) typed their documents using typewriters, but even to prepare a long document it could be prepared first by the hand and then sent to &quot;машбюро&quot; a typing office. All the requests (e.g. for the vacation etc.) were written by the hand and never typed (you can sometimes meet this requirement even today - &quot;the request should be hand-written using blue ink&quot;). Also you could rare see the preprinted form where you should just fill in the gaps - usually you had to start from the blank page and write all the document yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To apply for a Ph.D. one had to write a Doctoral Dissertation which in printed form has several hundreds of pages - in 80'es this was made by the hand and then sent to a typing office where it was typed for several weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you try to write several pages in block letters - it will take enormous time and effort. The cursive is much faster and easier to write.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, when the computers and printers are widespread you don't have to write so much. But still in some areas computers are rare and you likely will have to write any documents there in old-fasioned way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian cursive letters (from [this answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1556/551)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An here is the English cursive. In Russian schools the pupils are also taught to write this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is interesting that in the US the cursive is almost extinct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On the 2006 SAT, a United States post-secondary education entrance exam, only 15 percent of the students wrote their essay answers in cursive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In 2012, the American states of Indiana and Hawaii announced that their schools will no longer be required to teach cursive &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XILCa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YsdPg.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GNqJY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="3702bb5e-a062-4245-9cbe-e3fbaefad578" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to get infinitive when only short passive participle is available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not (which is what I suppose), then how can I **minimize the usage of a dictionary** in order to get the infinitive? And which exceptions will I have to define externally in order to get it right? Probably I will even need to include extra rules for consonant/vowel alternation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The case when the short participle is ended with -ан is pretty easy for automatic processing : I just replace -ан with -ать. But for other patterns, there is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a question on this site about the choice of -t or -n pattern choice when forming passive participles. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1757/1329&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As one can see, the mapping   verb_infinitive -&gt; pattern is non-injective and surjective, so in order to determine the verb infinitive, I need extra resources.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2819" RevisionGUID="1ed34c94-5bed-4a87-887b-362d047318d6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Dima][1] is right, I would like to expand the answer a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The predicate agrees with the subject in person, number, and (in the past tense) in gender. Naturally, the subject must be in the Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first example, `Его ослепила молния`, is definitely personal, because the Feminine gender of the predicate explicitly points to `молния` being the subject, there is no other Feminine noun in the sentence, and `молния` is in the Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example, `Его ослепило молнией` must at once draw you attention by several obvious differences from the first one: 1. there in no noun or pronoun in the Nominative case in that sentence (no explicit candidate for the role of the subject); 2. the predicate is in Neuter gender, but there are no Neuter gender nouns (and no infinitives which also make predicate take the Neuter gender form). That means the Neuter gender subject is omitted, and there is only one such subject, `оно` (&quot;it&quot;), it is always omitted in Russian, and this is very typical of an impersonal sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/115/dima" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2821" RevisionGUID="ec1350fb-04f5-4842-9fc4-a216ad6d87b6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are situations when [two cases can be used interchangeably][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would still like to expand on the discussion of your original example. &quot;Прости меня.&quot; is a complete sentence, where &quot;меня&quot; is the direct object in accusative case. On the other hand &quot;прости мне&quot; is not a complete sentence. It is missing a direct object. It has to be &quot;прости мне [something]&quot;, such as &quot;прости мне мою грубость&quot; (&quot;forgive me my rudeness&quot;). Notice that once you add the direct object, it is again in accusative case, while &quot;мне&quot; is an indirect object in dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, this is exactly the same construction as &quot;дай мне книгу&quot;. &quot;книгу&quot; is the direct object in accusative, and &quot;мне&quot; is the indirect object in dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/direct-object-of-negated-verbs-takes-which-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="22441644-ed93-47a3-ba0b-8631e933bae2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Certain nouns that decline like adjectives are adjectival nouns where it is standard to suppress the noun, e.g. `ванная` is short for `ванная комната`, and it is not too hard to guess what the implicit noun is (if, say, one is an English speaker). On the other hand, in [this question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/996) KCd asked what implicit noun `запятая` modifies, and the answer seems to be, in modern Russian, nothing. Today I came across the word `набережная` and I am wondering the same question about it: is there an implicit noun that it modifies, and if so, what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a difference between `ванная` and `запятая` or `набережная` is that `ванная` can be used as an adjective, whereas `запятая` or `набережная` can only be used as nouns. Is it the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but cannot be used as adjectives simply have no implicit noun in modern Russian?  If this is not the case, what way is there to figure out what the implicit noun is? (And also for adjectival nouns in general.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also suggested in a reply to the same question of KCd that `запятая` is closer to an adverb than to an adjective.  It feels to me (from the point of view of an absolute novice) that the same is the case for `набережная`—might it be the case that nouns that decline like adjectives but are closer to adverbs than adjectives do not have implicit nouns (if, indeed, they do not) because there was nothing for them to modify historically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing I do not understand is that [this morphological analysis tool](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morphque.cgi?flags=kndnnnn) only gives plural declensions for `запятая` or `набережная`: what happened to the singular declensions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="1755163f-75bb-43f4-bf2f-ac0fd16a258e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Though the word **Биток** exists as a separate word (see below), this particular saying (набить битком) is similar to others like &quot;бежать бегом&quot; &quot;сидеть сиднем&quot;, &quot;волочь волоком&quot; (see more details [here](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1868/551)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form of word is tautological enforcement of the idea of packing something very tightly. &quot;Бежать бегом&quot; means &quot;run very fast&quot;, &quot;сидеть сиднем&quot; - sit without moving, &quot;волочь волоком&quot; - drag something very heavy without any other possible option to move it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a meaning of the word Биток itself, but all these meanings have nothing to do with your original saying:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бито́к**  &#xD;&#xA;I м. разг.&#xD;&#xA;Небольшая круглая котлета из рубленого мяса; биточек.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; II м. разг.&#xD;&#xA;Предмет (палка, бабка и т.п.), которым бьют при игре в городки, бабки и т.п.;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4161" RevisionGUID="03d1cfc6-91c5-4386-9976-4acd0c9e088a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Probably this is related to questions such as [this one][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] Russians prefer to hint at their feelings instead of describing them.&#xD;&#xA;Instead of saying they're excited about new job, they'll say the job is friggin' awesome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm looking forward to this meeting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;might be expressed somehow like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будет [...] встреча&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the brackets can contain a positive adjectiv of ones choice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is there a phrase which is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- more close to the english `looking forward to` &#xD;&#xA;- and used quite commonly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/23/3538" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4176" RevisionGUID="36916059-874d-4314-a31a-c3732b2e8c16" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="For teaching resources, you should look at [our resource page][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use a course book**&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that you go to any large bookshop and go through course books and find the one that you like the most. You should buy it (or maybe find it online) and follow it. All your students should have a copy of the book, or at least should keep the print-out pages you give them, because without it, students may feel lost and do not get a coherent learning experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most obvious advantages of following the course other people designed is that you already have texts, dialogues, exercises, vocabulary and grammar selected, explained and prepared for the needs of your students. For example, the book might introduce the locative case together with countries and continents names and questions like &quot;where are you from?&quot; and &quot;Where is the library&quot;, so you don't have to match grammar with fitting topics, come up with the rules you only know intuitively, find examples to illustrate your points, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You can always add your own material**&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to stick to everything they put in the book, and furthermore, you can add more texts or dialogues. If you do, be sure not to use more than 10-20 new words and 1-2 grammar elements per text. For dialogues this number is even lower, up to 8 words, I'd say, especially in the beginning of the course. Also, you should make your students learn dialogues by heart. Knowing phrases like &quot;Привет, меня зовут...&quot;, &quot;Как добраться до...&quot;, &quot;Тише едешь, дальше будешь&quot; and even &quot;Боже мой!&quot; will help immensely and will give the feeling that they can already say something in Russian, even though they do not really know what &quot;меня&quot; means and what case it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also add own exercises. You might need it if the book only contains translation exercises and you want your students to talk. Ask them to compose dialogues, describe things they see, like or know, ask each other for directions, make compliments to each other, etc., whatever fits the topic of your current chapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't give up on the written language**&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest that you don't give up on reading so easily, because while the Cyrillic alphabet may be difficult to learn, reading is the easiest way to maintain and improve the language. Also, learning new words without being able to write them down is tough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regular and easy lessons are best**&#xD;&#xA;And finally, short regular lessons are better than long, but sporadic ones. Without regularity, nothing will work out.&#xD;&#xA;Also, too little new material is better than too much. It is better to take things slowly and after 3 lessons ask your students if they like the pace and whether they'd prefer to do more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4227" RevisionGUID="ff44f248-90b2-453a-8992-92dca244866c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Подобный вопрос уже задавался: [Direct object of negated verbs takes which case?][1], и я сначала хотел оставить комментарий, но решил, что стоит продублировать ответ на русском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При переходных глаголах с отрицанием в одних случаях явно преобладает употребление родительного падежа дополнения, в других – употребление винительного падежа, в третьих – наблюдается факультативное их использование.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Падеж дополнения при переходных глаголах с отрицанием][1] (Розенталь Д.Э. и др. Справочник.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказал, что широко используется родительный падеж только в случаях 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 и 1.6, и даже в этих случаях в разговорной речи часто применяется винительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш пример - фразеологизм, пункт 1.6, т. о. падеж здесь - родительный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/2807/2060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4245" RevisionGUID="00583c04-ca25-4901-a311-c45a5b691046" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are there homographs in Russian that sound different [besides the stress][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. like &quot;read&quot; in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I will read (ee) that book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I have just read (e) that book&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I hope the answer to this question won't be just &quot;NO&quot; :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4232/homographs-that-differ-only-with-respect-to-a-stress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4250" RevisionGUID="a7291a2c-705e-41ac-9e57-a4284dc982a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, you will hardly find homographs that differ _only_ by stress. Stress position [may affect pronunciation](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/191/pronunciation-rules-for-%D0%BE-in-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%CC%81%D1%82%D1%8C) of all vowels in a word. So I will answer a question whether there are homographs with the stress on the same syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of loaned words where letter _е_ stands for non-iotated sound /ɛ/ and this case isn’t reflected in spelling in any way. And I can recall at least one word which can be misunderstood by this reason. _Те́ста_ may be read /'tɛstə/ (gen. of _тест_ — test) or /'tʲestə/ (gen. of _тесто_ — dough, pastry). The same applies to instr. _те́стом_, dat. _те́сту_ and prep. / loc. _в те́сте_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="23d38196-6260-4c48-bfc4-3f032c683997" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="`ё` can be changed to `е`, because the former is optional in the modern Russian. (*a text* in the more detailed part of [this answer][1] is a good example.)  &#xD;&#xA;If you really need such a list of words where `ё` is used take a look at this [Ё-vocabulary](http://www.yomaker.ru/yoslovar.htm). But if your aim is just to learn Russian you will find [this short list of words with `Ё`](http://bukva-yo.ru/spisok-slov.html) sufficient:  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;актёр&#xD;&#xA;бёдра*&#xD;&#xA;берёза&#xD;&#xA;бурёнка&#xD;&#xA;варёный&#xD;&#xA;вёдро*&#xD;&#xA;всё*&#xD;&#xA;вёрткий&#xD;&#xA;вёсны*&#xD;&#xA;вёсла*&#xD;&#xA;взлёт&#xD;&#xA;влёт&#xD;&#xA;вразлёт&#xD;&#xA;гранёный&#xD;&#xA;далёкий&#xD;&#xA;дёрн&#xD;&#xA;дирижёр&#xD;&#xA;ёж&#xD;&#xA;ёжик&#xD;&#xA;ёжиться&#xD;&#xA;ёлка&#xD;&#xA;ёмкость&#xD;&#xA;ёрничать&#xD;&#xA;жёлтый&#xD;&#xA;жёсткий&#xD;&#xA;жёсткость&#xD;&#xA;жжёный&#xD;&#xA;залёт&#xD;&#xA;зелёный&#xD;&#xA;зёрна*&#xD;&#xA;зёрнышко&#xD;&#xA;излёт&#xD;&#xA;калёный&#xD;&#xA;клеёнка&#xD;&#xA;клёв&#xD;&#xA;клёвый&#xD;&#xA;клён&#xD;&#xA;клёпка&#xD;&#xA;клёцки&#xD;&#xA;кнёдли&#xD;&#xA;ковёр*&#xD;&#xA;колёсный&#xD;&#xA;конёк&#xD;&#xA;костёр&#xD;&#xA;крёстный&#xD;&#xA;лёгкий&#xD;&#xA;лёгкость&#xD;&#xA;лёд&#xD;&#xA;лён&#xD;&#xA;лётчик&#xD;&#xA;овёс&#xD;&#xA;огонёк&#xD;&#xA;орёл&#xD;&#xA;осёдлый&#xD;&#xA;осёл&#xD;&#xA;отвёртка&#xD;&#xA;паникёр&#xD;&#xA;пелёнка&#xD;&#xA;пенёк&#xD;&#xA;пёрышко&#xD;&#xA;пёс&#xD;&#xA;пёстрый&#xD;&#xA;плёнка&#xD;&#xA;плёс&#xD;&#xA;поклёвка&#xD;&#xA;подённый&#xD;&#xA;подъём&#xD;&#xA;позёмка&#xD;&#xA;полёт&#xD;&#xA;полётный&#xD;&#xA;посёлок&#xD;&#xA;приём&#xD;&#xA;приёмка&#xD;&#xA;самолёт&#xD;&#xA;свёкор&#xD;&#xA;сгущёнка&#xD;&#xA;сгущёный&#xD;&#xA;сёгун&#xD;&#xA;сёдла*&#xD;&#xA;сёмга&#xD;&#xA;слёт&#xD;&#xA;съёмка&#xD;&#xA;таёжный&#xD;&#xA;телёнок&#xD;&#xA;тёмный&#xD;&#xA;трёхъярусный&#xD;&#xA;трёхколёсный&#xD;&#xA;трёхзвёздочный&#xD;&#xA;утёс&#xD;&#xA;шофёр&#xD;&#xA;четвёртый&#xD;&#xA;чёлка&#xD;&#xA;чёрствый&#xD;&#xA;чёрт*&#xD;&#xA;чёрточка&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* The words that will change their meaning if you write `е` instead of `ё`.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for verbs, [this][2] can be taken as a rule:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **§** В суффиксах и окончаниях глаголов, суффиксах отглагольных существительных, прилагательных и причастий после шипящих и `ч` под ударением пишется буква `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `стереж[ёшь]`, `стереж[ёт]`, `береж[ёшь]`, `береж[ёт]`, `жж[ёшь]`, `жж[ёт]`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ка`, `туш&lt;ён&gt;ый`, `сбереж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`, `сожж&lt;ённ&gt;ый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refer to the [cha's answer][3] as a guide to situations where `ё` change to `е` is mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4312/2199&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://russkiy-na-5.ru/rules/93&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4305/2199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="765f466a-29d4-4753-83fa-ba7bdb57cc3f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, both **йа** and **йо** are used in russian writing. They are used mostly in loaned words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Йа** (and its counterpart **ьа**) are used when transcribing foreign proper names only:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брайан, Гайана, Майами, Яньань&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Though I have found a neologism граб**ьа**рмия which is pronounced as &quot;грабь'армия&quot; without **я** in the middle of the word.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Йо** is used in such nouns as &#xD;&#xA;&gt; йог, йод, йота, майор, район, йогурт, майонез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of them have foreign origin, though some of them have appeared in Russian vocabulary for many years. For instance, *йота* is a name of a greek letter and is mentioned in phraseologism &quot;Ни на йоту&quot; which has been used for at least 200 years. Many proper nouns (like Майорка) use **йо** because of transcription rules (see [Stepan Stepanov's answer][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, sometimes **йо** can be a result of concatenating two words into one single word. Such words (like *самолёт*) have a structure **word1 + о + word2** (*самолёт = сам + о + лёт* - &quot;сам летает&quot;). If the first word ends on **й**, the resulting word will have a **йо**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _стро**йо**тряд = строй + отряд_ - строительный отряд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting case of **ё** being written in some other way is words like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бульон, почтальон, каньон, лосьон, сеньор, батальон, медальон, павильон, шампиньон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first glance it may seem that this is a case when **ё** after consonant softens the preceding consonant and from **йо** becomes **ьо**. But in fact that is not the case. **Йо** is still there, but is not written. In all these words **ьо** are pronounced as if it is written as **ьйо** or **ьё**: бул**ьйо**н, почтал**ьйо**н, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a bottom line, Russian language has no &quot;write as you hear&quot; concept. Though the orthography rules exist, they have many exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4317/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="57170277-aff4-4c66-b86d-ad3f2a6c6137" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="You are right, words &quot;чей\чья\чьё\чьи&quot; are interrogative pronouns similar to English &quot;whose&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the example that you gave, &quot;чьё-л&quot; is not the same as simply &quot;чьё&quot;; &quot;чьё-л&quot; is an abbreviation of &quot;чьё-либо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;чьё-либо&quot; is an indefinite pronoun in neutral gender. It is formed by adding a postfix &quot;либо&quot; to the interrogative pronoun &quot;чьё&quot;. It means &quot;somebody's&quot; and is used when the noun that it refers to is indefinite. For more explanation on pronouns with postfix либо, see [this question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/256/whats-the-difference-between-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BE-and-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possessive &quot;своё&quot; should indeed be used in this example! The correct way to translate `&quot;to turn one's attention to smth&quot;` is `&quot;обратить своё внимание на что-либо&quot;`. The use of &quot;чьё-либо&quot; is incorrect. `&quot;Обратить чьё-либо внимание на что-либо&quot;` means `&quot;to turn somebody's attention to something&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="7c1f4086-7207-41f1-be86-911dffe811ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This][1] answer  gives a short idea of using *human animate plural* forms, e. g. that they are used for persons only (?!). However, it's not quite clear, when they apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за стеной стоят пятеро женщин и трое мужчин.  &#xD;&#xA;за стеной стоят пять женщин и три мужчины.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;придут двое бизнесменов на встречу.  &#xD;&#xA;придут два бизнесмена на встречу.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Are these sentences grammatically and semantically correct?&#xD;&#xA;- What's the difference in meaning between using a number and the animate plural?&#xD;&#xA;- When can the animate plural be used? Is it always when it designates an animate being?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1684/3538" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="c03ef7c7-556f-4c3a-9caa-0cf7a766bae1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the word *покрывать* is a very close equivalent. Seems to be applicable to all four-legged animals. See [here][1] and [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пристраиваться* as suggested by [jwalker][3] is another option, though the exact meaning may be unclear depending on the situation. *Пристроиться* may very well mean just a cosy comfortable position. To achieve the sexual connotation, one would have to make sure to use it with *к* (to emphasize the direction) rather than *на*, *у* (location). So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пристроиться к его ноге&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rather than &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пристроиться у его ноги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why there is no clarity in this topic is probably that all sex-related topics in general have long been a taboo in the USSR. The same explains why the words used to describe sex to a large extent belong to profanity in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/ushakov/ush-abc/16/us350519.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/4278/47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="32145453-596f-49f5-9ca5-7f342c53ee0b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I highly recommend to read CocoPop's answer, since he is learning Russian, while most others are native speakers here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you may want to check out [Resources for learing Russian](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/840/551) for educational podcasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I think you can listen to audiobooks. Narrators won't speak as fast as actors in a movies. Or you can search for a book that is read slowly. Or you can find a software that slows down reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you'll be able to find a text version of the book and check if you understood correctly. And you'll also be able to check if the text is too hard for you to listen to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="cb4df533-db6b-4a06-bf9f-3121263dfaf5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="When talking about groups of people that share some idea it's not easy to find a &quot;true&quot; russian suffix that suites the task. The only pre-cristian beleiver I can recall is **волхв, ведун**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other kinds were called so by Russian cristians: **язычник, идолопоклонник**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some cristian sects like **иконоборец, старовер**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You may also want to see a [list of &quot;magic people&quot;](https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/2440/551) that we have here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most other religious movements have names borrowed from Western culture, so they have Latin, Greek, French, English, etc. suffixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, based on existing names of religious movements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Suffix -ит (каменит) is OK, because many such words were borrowed from Western culture.&#xD;&#xA;2. Most local names for such movements are usually based on several words made into one:&#xD;&#xA; * Старовер = старый + верить: верить по-старому (believe in old way);&#xD;&#xA; * Иконоборец = икона + бороть: бороться с иконами (fight against icons);&#xD;&#xA; * Идолопоклонник = идол + поклоняться: поклоняться идолам (praise the idols).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the second model looks interesting to you, then you may try to join some words to create your own like камневер (believer in stone), камнеискатель (stonesearcher), камнепоклонник (praiser of the stone), камневидец (the one who sees a stone), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;true&quot; russian suffixes - I think most of the meanings are already occupied, for instance Wiktionary reads that &quot;каменец&quot; is a [person that lives in cities like Камень-на-Оби, Каменка, Камень, etc.](http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="0432e906-144e-4032-b783-6cfda4f29a90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I checked https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6877/was-%D1%8E-ending-in-instrumental-mandatory-in-pushkins-times but I wonder how about using this ending today for adjectives, pronouns, etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What style or color does this give a text?&#xD;&#xA;2. Will it be hardly noticed or is it striking?&#xD;&#xA;3. Would it be strange to switch between `-ой / ей` and `-ою / -ею`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="d1a92fac-f755-4910-b653-0e37c32bc98f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is [this question][1] about надо and нужно, but how do &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***следует***, &#xD;&#xA;- ***должен***, &#xD;&#xA;- ***надо*** and &#xD;&#xA;- ***нужно*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;behave towards each other? For instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе следует купить новую лопату.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this sentence change, using the other verbs and what would be the order with respect to the strength of the order. Maybe there are also very common alternatives to these four verbs / cases. (The case ***Тебе нужна новая лопата*** can be omitted.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/usage-patterns-of-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE-vs-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE/1232#1232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="01c8658a-2e5c-4acc-8c66-15c2924825f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="В обсуждении вопроса о [переводе firmware](https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6965/551) на русский язык мнения о слове &quot;прошивка&quot; разделились. Кто-то утверждают что это слэнг, другие утверждают что это уже литературное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но у меня возник вопрос - каким образом слово &quot;прошивка&quot; стало обозначать программу, которая управляет устройством и которую не так-то просто поменять, хотя и можно это сделать затратив дополнительные усилия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, почему &quot;прошивка&quot;, что здесь &quot;шьется&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поиск слова прошивка в Национальном корпусе показывает что слово изначально было связано с шитьем и украшением одежды. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Затем это слово упоминается в смысле &quot;проделывание и обработка отверстий в металле&quot;, затем &quot;прожигание отверстий лазером в рубине&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Связано ли появление слова &quot;прошивка&quot; с проделыванием каких-либо отверстий для сохранения программы? Или с выжиганием лазером &quot;лишней&quot; электроники (контактов, транзисторов и т.п.)? Или оно каким-либо образом переосмысливает другой процесс из техники?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7415" RevisionGUID="13cbbff8-2026-4c00-92ab-f434adf74563" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The computer terms *login*/*logout* are commonly translated as *вход*/*выход* or *войти*/*выйти*. I am struggling however with the expressions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are not logged in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please login first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could translate the former as *вы не вошли*, but *вошли куда* (where)? The same with the latter: *Пожалуйста, сначала войдите* — again, enter what? In English, the verb *to log in* implies the computer environment. In Russian, the corresponding word *входить* has no such connotation. I could say *войти на сайт*, but that would be wrong again, since the user *is* already in my site, he should just log in. I am lost :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related question: [How to translate LOGIN and REGISTER?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7424" RevisionGUID="6958e873-847a-480a-8bd6-baff82a3339d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ни то, ни другое слово грамматике не противоречит: _казахскоязычный_ образовано соединением основ слов _казахский_ и _язык_, _казахоязычный_ — основ _казах_ и _язык_ (т. е. _язык казахов_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если посмотреть на то, как образуются подобные составные прилагательные для других языков и семей языков, то видно, что предпочтение ожидаемо отдается более короткому варианту без суффикса _-ск-_: _англоязычный_, _арабоязычный_, _германоязычный_, _грекоязычный_, _ивритоязычный_, _ираноязычный_, _испаноязычный_, _италоязычный_, _тюркоязычный_, _украиноязычный_, _финноязычный_, _японоязычный_ и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры обратного тоже существуют. Первым приходит в голову, разумеется, _русскоязычный_; и он легко об’ясним — мы могли бы сказать _*русоязычный_ в том случае, если бы могли сказать _язык руси_ (_русь_ как собирательное) или _язык русов_, но так мы не говорим¹.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Немецкоязычный_, а не _[немоязычный][1]_; _польскоязычный_, а не _*полеязычный_; _литовскоязычный_, а не _*литоязычный_ — вероятно, по сходной причине; нельзя также не отметить долю оксюморона в слове _немоязычный_. _Турецкоязычный_ — вероятно, для размежевания с вышеупомянутым словом _тюркоязычный_, что относится ко всей тюрской языковой семье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;¹ См. также вопрос [«Why Russians use adjective when speaking about their nation and nouns for the rest of the world?»][2]&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22&amp;hl=en&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7094/why-russians-use-adjective-when-speaking-about-their-nation-and-nouns-for-the-re" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7549" RevisionGUID="6c524d81-4355-410e-a2a7-e91c05c7a0c1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The literal meaning is &quot;*By* me there is a cat&quot;.  The preposition у indicates something nearby, e.g., у окна  = by the window. Every preposition requires the accompanying noun to have a definite case, and it just happens that nouns following у must be in the genitive case.  Don't try to reason out &quot;why&quot; you need the genitive after у. As von Neumann would say, don't try to understand it; just get used to it. So we use меня and окна after у since they are the genitive form of я and окно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to change the form of есть in this construction since it means &quot;there is&quot; and that's exactly what you're saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction у + genitive есть may seem like a complicated way to express possession if you compare it to English, but you shouldn't expect different languages to convey the same idea in the same way. There are other means of conveying possession in Russian with a grammatical construction that is closer to the English form (e.g., я имею право... = I have the/a right...), but the у + gen. construction is the standard idiomatic  method in ordinary circumstances. The usage of я имею is rare in everyday speech. See the question at https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/881/the-usage-of-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7722" RevisionGUID="29f96a74-bfad-4d5a-8d56-60f0755d4955" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The word [`Проводы`][1] means 'going away party', 'farewell', and may be translated as 'send-off'. &#xD;&#xA;As [@Nikolay Ershov][2] mentioned, Проводы is any farewell party for someone going away, not just to the army.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Проводы мужа в командировку.&#xD;&#xA;    Проводы детства.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example it matches another word — `Провод` (a wire), so it might confuse you. This word is spelled the same, but has different meaning and sounding (homograph?). In speech you can distinguish them by accent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    прОвод, проводА (a wire, wires)&#xD;&#xA;    прОводы (send-off)&#xD;&#xA;    на проводАх (on wires)&#xD;&#xA;    на прОводах (at send-off party)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(The stress is on capital letters.)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/4560/nikolay-ershov" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7945" RevisionGUID="b20f5656-2c83-412e-9f3c-a2f672bad261" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="`всё` can be spelled `все`, when it's possible to distinguish two words using available context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всё` (with `Ё`) is used when referring to neuter gender singular nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё время` (compare masculine `весь путь` and feminine `всю дорогу`), `забрызгал всё окно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё молоко` (compare feminine `вся вода`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`все` (with `Е`) is used when referring to plural nouns: `все студенты`, `все яблоки`, `все кирпичи`, `все тарелки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some idioms, like one you mentioned — `всё равно`,&#xD;&#xA;and  unchangeable expressions, like [`всё-таки`][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Substituting Ё with Е.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*jwalker posted a link to [this question about `Ё` and `Е`][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` can be substituted for `Е` in most words. It is not a rule but [`Ё` is not used very often][1] in printed texts. Usually, it's possible to distinguish when `Е` means `Ё` from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's highly recommended to use `Ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when needed to distinguish from the similar word with `Е`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `узнаем` (future tense) and `узнаём` (present tense)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `совершённый` (participle from verb `совершить`) and `совершенный` (adjective, meaning perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In dictionaries, textbook for language learners&#xD;&#xA;* In little-known and obscure words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic)#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="9a41ec52-1ca3-481b-8d02-c1aa803ef493" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="В [недавнем вопросе](https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/7816/551) о правильности написания слова &quot;блядь&quot; в комментариях разгорелась дискуссия по поводу этимологии этого слова. Были высказаны две версии заимствования. Например, что само это слово заимствовано из польского языка:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слово &quot;блядь&quot; происходит от польского &quot;błąd&quot;, что означает &quot;ошибка&quot;. В свою очередь błąd происходит от старославянского корня блѫдъ, который сохранился и в русском и в польском языке, однако польский вариант ближе всего к оригиналу и по произношению, и по смыслу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или даже из иврита (בלי יד):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оно происходит от слова на иврите, означающее &quot;женщина ходящая в одиночку&quot;. Многие русские бранные слова и слова криминального арго происходят из иврита. Причиной этому является то, что в девятнадцатом веке многие бандиты были евреями *(видимо имеется в виду в Одессе, где процветала контрабанда)* и пытались скрыть смысл своих разговоров от полицейских, многие из которых понимали идиш, но не знали иврит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какая из этих версий верна?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: Google Translate переводит &quot;ивритский&quot; вариант как &quot;без рук&quot;, без каких-либо намеков на &quot;женщину&quot;, так что этот вариант происхождения вызывает большие сомнения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8010" RevisionGUID="69e798f5-760c-444c-8719-57ce1b60ff6f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Unlike English, Russian can have adverbs as predicatives. I agree with [@alamar][1] about &quot;Я видно&quot; и &quot;Он замечательно&quot;, but as for &quot;Мне нужно&quot; I can explain it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нужно&quot; means &quot;needed&quot;, and it is a whole clause by itself meaning &quot;[it is] needed&quot;, both &quot;it&quot; and &quot;is&quot; are omitted in Russian. &quot;Мне&quot; is &quot;for me&quot;, so &quot;Мне нужно&quot; is translated word-for-word &quot;for me it is needed&quot;, which actually mean &quot;I need&quot;, that is how this phrase is working in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/310/alamar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8068" RevisionGUID="e0101a00-4ba0-4fbf-80c8-1b4edbb879c9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. You may be confusing two phenomena here, and the fact that both are described using the term &quot;possession&quot; does not help at all. Let's see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Мой* дом = *My* house = The house which belongs to *me*. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The possession here is  expressed by the possessive pronoun *мой* — 1st person, masculine, singular (and, incidentally, Nominative). So far so good.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; *Мой* отец = *My* father. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Of course my father doesn't *belong* to me but the grammatical meaning is still the same. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Okay. Now let's look at the Genitive where it, according to textbooks, shows possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дом *отца* = The house *of father* = father's house.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; *Отец* takes Genitive *отца* to express the fact that the house belongs to the father. That's what they mean when they talk about that &quot;possession&quot; function of Genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So what happens if it's the house of *my* father? Well, *father* should obviously take Genitive as we just saw. But the possessive pronoun *мой* **must** agree in case with its object. So *мой отец* becomes *моего отца*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Дом *моего отца* = the house of *my father*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The possessive pronoun *мой/моего* means that we are talking about *my* father, i.e. the father who &quot;belongs&quot; to **me**. The Genitive case of *my father* has nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about *my* father but expresses the fact that the house in question belongs to that very old man (who by a totally unrelated twist of circumstances belongs to me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I hope this relieves the confusion of *possessive* pronouns in Genitive (&quot;possessive&quot;) case. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Expressing possession is just one, and I daresay by far not the main, function of Genitive. Briefly, and very generally, cases are part of the government system used by Russian (and almost completely lost by e.g. English) where different verbs and prepositions require their dependent nouns to take specific forms (see also what @Yellow Sky says on prepositions below). You'll certainly learn a lot more about this phenomenon in your class. But for now I'd just discourage you from believing that those simplified explanations of the cases' functions are 100% accurate or indeed exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. To make life a lot easier, you'll only need to learn how to decline *мой, твой, свой, наш* and *ваш*. *Его, её* and *их* look the same in all cases, genders and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Possessive pronouns may be said to describe quality (well, sort of), so the ones which do decline do so very much like adjectives. Just wait till you know how to decline adjectives and you will see how similarly the possessive pronouns decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. In your *I met my cat* example the reflexive possessive pronoun *свой* must replace the normal possessive pronoun because it refers to the subject pronoun *я*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Finally, you may find this old post by @CocoPop helpful: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7011/cases-taken-by-verbs/7012#7012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8151" RevisionGUID="91516f7d-e296-4ff8-8d05-c276bbaa3c6a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Это один из нестандартных падежей. Их названия и классификация могут различаться в разных источниках. Например, &quot;местно-временной падеж&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8169" RevisionGUID="a4f71a92-e879-49af-926a-cdf74fbfee36" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Option 1: use &quot;[активные причастия](http://www.interword.se/Syntax/Lektionsmaterial/GVOZDEV/m/stil529.htm) (прошедшего времени)&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Левой рукой она придерживала тонкий ремешок сумочки со стразами, всё время `болтавшейся` на боку и `стремившейся` свалиться с плеча.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, they can be considered bookish by many, and, they rarely used in International Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2: split up the long sentence. See [Avi Gordon's answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8164/4817)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8224" RevisionGUID="68feaa8c-76e6-4f0c-ad4c-43e5bda508d6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The translation by @[user4419802][1] is absolutely correct, still it is practically impossible to understand what it means without knowing what the lawsuit and the meme mentioned in it are. Let me tell the story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2005 a Russian band made a [video][2] that contained the phrase “бей бабу по ебалу” (‘hit women into their faces’ expressed in obscene words). Later, in 2008, in a Russian social network a meme appeared, it was [the portrait][3] of a stylish Russian rock’n’roll singer [Valeri Syutkin][4] in the Obama election campaign altered colors with the abbreviation ’BBPE’ which is the abbreviation of the above rude phrase transliterated into the Latin alphabet. The image was used in the social networks to troll [camwhores][5]. And later, in December 2014, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media of the Russian Federation applied to the court with a lawsuit against the Internet encyclopedia Lurkmore to make the encyclopedia delete [the article][5] about that BBPE meme, explaining that Syutkin cannot bear his mom's distress when she learned what her son's portrait is used for. However, the court rejected the claim, and another meme appeared, the one you are asking about. The image shows the [Дореволюцiонный Совѣтчикъ][6] – The Pre-Revolution Adviser – also a meme, an aristocratic-looking guy speaking the pre-1917 aristocratic archaic language using the old spelling. ‘The electrical telegraph’ obviously means ‘the Internet’, and the meme mentioned there is the BBPE image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can see that to understand the text the understanding of at least four other Internet memes is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWubYiNhluc&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lurkmore.so/images/b/b8/BBPE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Syutkin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://lurkmore.to/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D0%94%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%86i%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%A3%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%8A&amp;es_sm=93&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=OuzlVMvfBOL7ywPc9oK4DQ&amp;ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8255" RevisionGUID="b83852ab-a2c3-4e67-ac57-1c968a4918a1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Can someone recommend a Windows program runnable offline that allows Russian characters to be typed and then cut-and-pasted into other programs, such as for example a text editor or browser?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like, for example, to take part in a chat room where some of the conversation is in Russian and some is in English, and to be able to contribute in both languages more or less on the fly without having to have a second browser window open to run a keyboard program that's online and therefore dependent on its website's accessibility. I'd also like to be able to compose text documents using both languages - again, switching back and forth fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A program that allows you to type on an onscreen keyboard using a mouse will be fine. One that lets you use your hardware keyboard will also be fine - in fact even better - so long as switching back to English-language keyboard use is quick and unfiddly - for example, if the Russian language facility only works if the program's window is active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found a few programs that run online, such as [this](http://www.apronus.com/internet/ruskey.htm), [this](http://winrus.com/keyboard.htm) and [this](http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/russian.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also looked at [this question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7397/typing-russian-on-an-english-keyboard) and the answers to it, but my question is different because I do not want to change my operating system settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any help with this! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8307" RevisionGUID="933c4b23-5d71-41f5-a3b1-5cb8aec36223" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Перефразируя известное высказывание Фрэнка Заппы о разговорах про музыку, можно сказать, что и говорить о запахах — это всё равно что танцевать об архитектуре. Запахи называются по объекту или веществу их издающему, а все прилагательные, описывающие запахи, являются сугубо субъективными, один и тот же запах может одному человеку казаться родным и вызывающим тёплые воспоминания о детстве, другому же он может казаться неприятным и настораживающим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насчёт сильного запаха я согласен с [Anixx][1], но вот что резкий запах часто неприятный, с этим можно поспорить, не говоря уже о том, что кошки вообще-то не пахнут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из лесу струёй бил **резкий запах** тающего снега, прелых листьев. [Юрий Коваль. Лесник Булыга (1985)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, это какой-то особый, более **резкий запах**, но он настолько приятный и раздражающий, что возле булочной слюна наполняет рот. [Полина Барскова. Черный свет: проблема темноты в блокадном Ленинграде // «Неприкосновенный запас», 2010][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночью **резкий запах моря** добивал далеко вглубь земли, утром я нырял в маске, летал над песочными полями… [Александр Терехов. Каменный мост (1997-2008)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Странный **резкий запах** идет от него ― смолистый, густой, веселый, ошеломительный запах-дурман. [Дина Рубина. На солнечной стороне улицы (1980-2006)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резкий – это такой, который режет, вызывает сильные чувства, а уж какими эти чувства могут быть, тут всё зависит от того, кто этот запах воспринимает (слышит? чует?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Острый запах не обязательно связан с опасностью, не всегда настораживающий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В доме поселился непривычный **острый запах младенца**. [Михаил Шишкин. Всех ожидает одна ночь (1993-2003)][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или: «Иду лесом к речке ― **острый запах земляники**: метрах в десяти (свидетельство вашего звериного обоняния) за кочкой поляна ― вот такие ягоды, как лаком облитые, ослепительные. [Анатолий Найман, Галина Наринская. Процесс еды и беседы. 100 кулинарных и интеллектуальных рецептов // «Октябрь», 2003][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако, в большинстве случаев (не буду приводить [цитаты][8]) острым называют запах ассоциирующийся с кислым или солёным вкусом – запах пота, дыма, сгоревшего пороха, летучих веществ – лаков, красок, аммиака, бензина, лекарств.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И ещё раз хотел бы сказать, всё, связанное с запахами, глубоко субъективно. Возможно, у дегустаторов есть специальная терминология для описания запахов, но в обычной речи и в художественной литературе один и тот же запах могут описывать совершенно разными прилагательными, часто диаметрально противоположными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/194/anixx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=84598&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=45210&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=20985&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%F0%E5%E7%EA%E8%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;p=1&amp;docid=20743&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CE%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;p=1&amp;docid=20822&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CE%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;docid=46366&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%CE%F1%F2%F0%FB%E9%20%E7%E0%EF%E0%F5&amp;p=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8504" RevisionGUID="c3eac6a8-6c81-4e99-9516-a9a011746871" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's hard to imagine exact replacement for *женат* or *замужем* in homosexual case. I think most neutral construction (for both men and women) would use a verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы поженились. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More elaborated answer: [https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8158/4630][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8158/4630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8544" RevisionGUID="ca764074-3f89-416e-b022-c074609906f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Both are correct. It's just that two different cases are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just like &quot;хочу чай&quot; and &quot;хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;хочу сок&quot; и &quot;хочу соку&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Это называется количественно-отделительный падеж, он же партитив. &#xD;&#xA;Его можно спутать с родительным, но тем не менее это отдельный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Всё дело в том, что есть как бы такие падежи, которые не универсальны, а используются только в каком-то ограниченном наборе конструкций. Подробнее  - [What are the lesser known Russian cases?][1] и [тут][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;О партитиве можно почитать [тут][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/all/cases/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8611" RevisionGUID="bc3f2d6f-ce05-4d03-8db3-c9afcf846716" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As noted Shady_arc: '*I think, your &quot;а вот&quot; - question is sure related ( [this one](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4619/what-is-the-function-of-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-in-this-sentence) )*'&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Я равнодушен к холоду,`&lt;kbd&gt;а вот&lt;/kbd&gt;`жары не переношу.` — **exactly the same**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В примере, кроме частицы `вот`, еще один интересный случай. Для слова `жара` будет предпочтительнее старая книжная норма, которая требовала родительный падеж перед глаголом с отрицанием. Однако возможна и вариация : [`Зато смородина жару не любит`](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=100&amp;spd=20&amp;seed=16914&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E6%E0%F0%F3%20%ED%E5&amp;docid=32131) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; В данном примере, `Я равнодушен к холоду, а вот жар́у не переношу.` Однако доводом против здесь будет омонимия, связанная с иным ударением, `ж́ару не переношу`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вариативность родительного и винительного падежей: &lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаша.        (I did not take the pencil.)&#xD;&#xA;  Я не брал карандаш.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8712" RevisionGUID="87132c31-f2e1-456c-adfe-cc4077dc1561" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I started typing in Cyrillic a week ago, using Google Translate's keyboard option (so I've got a different question from [this one][1]). However, I've been downgraded from a touch-typist in English and Japanese to a hunt and peck typist for Cyrillic. When using Google Translate's keyboard, I'm especially confused by the fact that the keyboard contains more columns of letters than an English alphabet keyboard has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I learn to touch-type in Cyrillic? Solutions which are flexible in which language's Cyrillic is being taught would be useful, because I've discovered different languages [have different layouts][2] - Russian Cyrillic has &quot;йцукен&quot; for qwerty, while Mongolian Cyrillic has &quot;фцужэн&quot; for qwerty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/7397/5423&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JCUKEN" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8740" RevisionGUID="f2967d7a-4748-495e-ad76-8ef028657079" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was curious whether common brands like Apple or Google are considered to be part of the Russian language or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is said to complete something in Russian, is Google, Apple и FreeBSD a fair game, or is it Гугл, Эппл и [Фри-Би-Эс-Ди](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8736/how-do-you-translate-freebsd-into-russian)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8750" RevisionGUID="ac9a45fd-d54a-4b2c-b2af-0438253d5089" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="A follow-up question from https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8736/how-do-you-translate-freebsd-into-russian, what is the rule that makes New York have a hyphen when written in proper Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8809" RevisionGUID="df5a9d0c-860d-45a9-a099-c85a46a1b111" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="**`Мне хочется воды`** is exactly `*I am in a state of*`  thirstyness, a physiological state (that implies a psychological) corresponding to a strong need of water&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right from the English phrase we can see why there is genetive, because &quot;of smth&quot; has direct corresponding with Russian Gen.                                                 &#xD;&#xA;                                             &#xD;&#xA;The `хочется` is very special verb. It sets a person in a certain complex state in virtue of his perceiving.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;мне чудится сон                  Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне делается операция            Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется танцев                  Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне видится образ                Nom&#xD;&#xA;мне хочется моря, песка, солнца     Gen&#xD;&#xA;мне слышится песня               Nom&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a certain sense in `мне хочется воды` there *is* a subject, a psychological state only I know I am in. This subject you may consider (in English, like weather verbs) as included, &quot;It's needing; (my state of the need of ...)&quot;, where in the place of &quot;need&quot; can be placed smth with &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.academic.ru/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C/ru/en/&quot; title=&quot;хотеть&quot;&gt;25+ meanings in English&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу воды` vs `мне хочется воды` is an inappropriate analogous. When we say `Я хочу ...` we mean, first, &quot;I am needing smth&quot;, but `мне хочется ...` is &quot;I am feeling ... (state of “being” in the present)&quot; and &quot;I am aware of this state&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу` is an analogous `Я делаю`. Thus in `мне делается операция` the noun `операция` is a word in Nominative, and there is huge number of examples with such verbs. It's something that we consciously try to do, whereas a psychological state is something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[As you say](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8805/%d0%92%d0%be%d0%b4%d1%8b-in-the-expression-%d0%bc%d0%bd%d0%b5-%d1%85%d0%be%d1%87%d0%b5%d1%82%d1%81%d1%8f-%d0%b2%d0%be%d0%b4%d1%8b#comment19581_8807), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there are ... reflexive verbs accepting objects in accusative and that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `хотеться`, one of them, takes an object in animate accusative or in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inanimate genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more examples `хотеться_praes + N_accu` without the connection with in/animate, so it is fully literate.  [Proof](https://www.google.com.ua/search?num=30&amp;hl=ru&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%8E%22&amp;oq=%22%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%8E%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to show that there are `хотеться_praes + Noun_instr`. Examples with a context [the first](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=uVonAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BC%22&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BC%22 &quot;обстреливают нас всех вместе, а умираем мы все же врозь, и никому не хочется первым.&quot;) , [the second](https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=%D1%81+%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE+%E2%80%95+%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5.+%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83.&amp;num=20&amp;safe=off&amp;tbm=bks&amp;oq=%D1%81+%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE+%E2%80%95+%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5.+%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%BF%D0%BE+%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83. &quot;с любым животным необходимо ― терпение. Иногда хочется багром по дыхалу.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8837" RevisionGUID="5caa5869-c1e0-426c-ae26-bc691c0cfac7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Answering how looks like an idea what the difference is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in geometry, we are able to build the diagonal in the given square when trying to solve a puzzle, the rebuilded &quot;figure of speech&quot; shall be allowed to us too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, we reorder the first sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Subject-Verb Agreement = SVA&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;             SVA                          SVA  &#xD;&#xA;          ┌──◄─►──┐                    ┌──◄─►─────────┐&#xD;&#xA;       Ветер   свалил   деревья.      (Он), ветер,  свалил  деревья.&#xD;&#xA;      └─subj─┘    │     └──obj─┘      └───subj────┘&#xD;&#xA;                  │        ▲&#xD;&#xA;                  └────────┘&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;then the second:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;where is&#xD;&#xA;subject?    SVA                            SVA &#xD;&#xA; ?? ────────◄─►──┐                      ┌──◄─►─────────┐&#xD;&#xA;       Ветром  свалило  деревья.      (Оно) ветром свалило деревья.&#xD;&#xA;                  │    └──obj──┘        │&#xD;&#xA;                  │        ▲            │&#xD;&#xA;                  └────────┘         virtual&#xD;&#xA;                                       subj&#xD;&#xA;                            ╒═══════════════════════╕&#xD;&#xA;                               omission of personal &#xD;&#xA;                             pronoun, but only `Оно`&#xD;&#xA;                                 does apply here.&#xD;&#xA;                            ╘═══════════════════════╛&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We cannot go into the inquiry whether here `Оно` belong to mystics or metaphisics, but **semantically**, and this is allowed by grammar, **there is always be a virtual subject.** Let us be &quot;unphilosophical&quot; but practical, it just work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; And finally, there is a vivid difference in terms of process.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;     (Оно)   ветром   свалило   деревья.&#xD;&#xA;    └──┬──┘ └───┬──┘ └───┬───┘ └───┬───┘&#xD;&#xA;       │   instrument    │       object&#xD;&#xA;    subject           process&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ветер   свалил   деревья.&#xD;&#xA;   └──┬──┘ └───┬──┘ └───┬──┘&#xD;&#xA;    subject process   object&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth looking at [Vasil's answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8836/5288), the direction it gives could be used as an additional explanation of the meanings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8862" RevisionGUID="a14e9e52-250b-4d6c-9ee0-43ca18bcaceb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Вопрос содержит ложную дихотомию. Ответ должен это учитывать. &#xD;&#xA;Как вообще такой вопрос  мог возникнуть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Дано три слова &lt;kbd&gt;в&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;современный&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;время&lt;/kbd&gt;. Необходимо построить согласованное сочетание слов в предложном падеже. Некто получил два варианта, **Z** и **Y**. Естественно, у него возникли два правомерных вопроса:    &#xD;&#xA;а) они взаимозаменяемы? и    &#xD;&#xA;б) тот вопрос-дихотомия, который и оказался в OP: *Why **Z** and not **Y**?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Далее еще хуже. Наш Некто не увидел, что он получил сочетания слов в двух разных падежах **Z**=acc и **Y**=prep, и он заключает, основываясь на ложном положении о существовании одновременно **Z** и **Y**, как различных форм в одном падеже (т.е. основываясь на противоречии), что между **Z** и **Y** можно произвольно выбирать. Скажем, только **Y**. Или наоборот. Причина для такого произвола? Ну, возможно, такая: это не звучит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Анализируя далeе, как такая ошибка вообще могла возникнуть, в самом начале, в пункте **1.**, можно прийти к выводу, что и для генерации грамматики, и для проверки эквивалентности ее результатов, а именно **Z** и **Y**, был использован неподходящий метод, например, постановка какого-то вопроса. Скорее всего, `В ком?/в чем?`, или, что намного хуже, `когда?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Чтобы избежать тавтологии,  мы далее заменим прилагательное в условии пункта **1**: &lt;kbd&gt;в&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;прошлый&lt;/kbd&gt;, &lt;kbd&gt;время&lt;/kbd&gt;. Итак, наш Некто получил два варианта: **Z**=&quot;в прошлое время&quot; и **Y**=&quot;в прошлом времени&quot;. Далее, наш Некто не сумел различить их вопросом `в ком?/в чем?`, заключив, что оба стоят в одном предложном падеже. А если их нельзя различить, то их можно заменять. Очевидно, что наш Некто полагался на свой собственный слух или чутьё, вместо знания жёсткой грамматики. У взрослых людей это бывает среди эмигрантов, лет через пять у них притупляется чувство родного языка, это заметно при разговоре с ними. У них появляются ошибки в речи и на письме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. В ответах [эту дихотомию даже поддержали](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8861/5288), что дескать, `в + Noun_acc.` можно заменить(!) на `в + Noun_prep`. Это сопровождается примером, что такой заменой стали бы сочетания слов `&quot;в прошлый год&quot; &lt;=&gt; &quot;в прошлом году&quot;`, `&quot;в прошлую неделю&quot; &lt;=&gt; &quot;на прошлой неделе&quot;.` Основанием для выбора было предложено взять категории архаичности, или устарелости. Правда, там не приводилось содержательных примеров полных предложений, с заменой винительного падежа на предложный, так что это утверждение осталось бессодержательным. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я утверждаю, в русском языке такая замена невозможна. Поэтому здесь ложная дихотомия. Трудно представить, что такой язык вообще существует, в котором возможно в предложении грамматически выделенный &quot;объект&quot; заменить на грамматически выделенное &quot;место действия&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для желающих попробовать заменить  Винительный на Предложный в предложении, вот пример:    &#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Я капнул три капли в стеклянный стакан.&quot;*    &#xD;&#xA;Сочетание слов в предложном падеже: *&quot;в стеклянном стакане&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ниже, на простом примере показано, как работает грамматическая связь в русском языке. И почему вопрос *&quot;Why **Z** and not **Y**?&quot;* является ложной дихотомией. Оба, **Z** и **Y**, правильны, сочетаются в разных падежах, и не взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;we shall consider examples&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; ... потому что, потеряв веру в современное общество, ...&#xD;&#xA;            ...  потеряв себя в современном обществе, ... &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We have to get rid of these examples: *временное время, общественное общество, столичная столица, водочная водка, ...* **.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a direct object (i.e. in the accusative case):&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;            &#xD;&#xA;потеряв веру, в кого? / во что? &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Acc.&lt;/b&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And here we have the place where the action is performed, for which reason it is prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt; потеряв себя, в ком?  / в чем?  &lt;b&gt;Answer is in the Prep.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is:    &#xD;&#xA;both cases are completely compatible with the Russian grammar. *Общество, время, эпоха, интервал, мгновение ...*, it doesn't matter, what a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't hard to find examples of how to use this interesting word `время` )) in the prepositional case, just look at phrases   &#xD;&#xA;[`в античном времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22),&#xD;&#xA;[`в прошлом времени`](https://www.google.ru/search?num=30&amp;biw=1278&amp;bih=715&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22#newwindow=1&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=%22%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%22)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8885" RevisionGUID="0cf5d70b-e51d-4df7-9971-d04d64c9f5d4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This answer will be given to the second part of the OP question, specifically for the English native speakers, as opposite to the languages Latin, Russian, etc., with &lt;i&gt;D&lt;/i&gt;eclension and &lt;i&gt;C&lt;/i&gt;onjugation including all forms of the reflexive and personal pronoun (let's call it the &lt;i&gt;DC-&lt;/i&gt;language).  This is the standard and often repeating confusion regards of the question &quot;**why is no subject-pronoun used in that sentence?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is not always the case when two subjects does correspond to given two pronouns and one verb.    &#xD;&#xA;**&lt;sub&gt;Quick Example 1:&lt;/sub&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  And... um... he, he was standing there. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have we two subjects for given verb &quot;be&quot; there, or have we none? Have we any subject at all? Yes, we have. Is it the first or second one? If the second pronoun is the subject, what is the precise role and functions of the remaining one? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the DC-language, there is no grammatical need for a related subject pronoun, if a form of a given verb has such grammatical properties reflected in the morphology of the verb, that it unambiguously pointed out at the unique pronoun. Hence the two examples were given by me: `&quot;Подели небо поровну&quot;`, instead of `&quot;Ты подели небо поровну&quot;.` The pronoun &quot;Ты&quot; is completely unnecessary, from the grammatically point of view.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&lt;sub&gt;Quick Example 2:&lt;/sub&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  I am not going to give myself up.&#xD;&#xA;             Не дамся.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the DC-language, &quot;where is it&quot; and &quot;who is the subject&quot;, what tense, perfectiveness, and other grammatical values can be packed tightly, fulfilled, literally, in one word.  So, in the DC-language, when reader has received this information expressed in an extra word, this word is to become for him the amplification particle. In English, it is &quot;um... he, ...&quot; from the example 1. As a vivid example in Russian, look at the phrase [&quot;да нет&quot;, where  'да' is not 'yes' but an unstressed particle emphasizing 'нет'](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1734/what-does-the-phrase-%d0%94%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b5%d1%82-mean). What a meaning speaker is amplifying, depends on the context. `&quot;Я не дамся&quot;` is emphasizing, in the DC-language, that it is namely Me, not You. `&quot;Ты подели небо&quot;` give us the same additional point, namely You, not Me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing specifically related to the lyrics domain. It's everyday usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9012" RevisionGUID="74400e14-7a23-49d4-a94d-3207e4527e73" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="How the particle &lt;kbd&gt;бы&lt;/kbd&gt; logically works.&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;           they told about pure logical condition&#xD;&#xA;           irrespective of the time&#xD;&#xA;   ┌────────┴──────────┐&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я был богат, я бы не работал. &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я был богат, я бы не работал. &#xD;&#xA;   └────────┬──────────┘&#xD;&#xA;          they told narrowed, about logical condition&#xD;&#xA;          on scene in the past&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;               (1)                 (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌─────┴───────┐&#xD;&#xA;    Если бы я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1), it hardly implies the (2), &#xD;&#xA;    irrespective of the time,&#xD;&#xA;    and scenes (1),(2) may be different.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;               (1)                 (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌─────┴───────┐    &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я изучал медицину, я был бы врач.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1) on scene in the past, the (2) arises logically from the (1),  &#xD;&#xA;    and the (2) is irrespective of the time,&#xD;&#xA;    and scenes (1),(2) may be different.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;               (1)                   (2)  &#xD;&#xA;    ┌───────────┴────────────┐┌───────┴───────┐     &#xD;&#xA;    Если    я изучал медицину, я был    врачом.&#xD;&#xA;    supposed the (1) on scene in the past, &#xD;&#xA;    the fact is that the (2) is the fact &#xD;&#xA;    in the same scene.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;The sentence given in the OP  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Если меня здесь не было, я бы не хотел изучать русский язык.&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;is logically equivalent to &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Если [object] здесь [verb], then ... .   &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the sentence is, in particular, equivalent to &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;Если деревья свалило ветром, then ... .&lt;/pre&gt; &#xD;&#xA;we need only take a look at my [answer here][1], to illustrate a point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80-vs-%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC/8837#8837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9031" RevisionGUID="5a596a03-39c7-4d16-9f2e-c76d6f6fceb8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The dative case (по-русски дательный падеж, от слова `дать, давать`) is a grammatical case generally used to indicate the noun to which something is given, i.e. to *addressee, destination*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  One of the scheme is `Noun + to + Noun`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;  a gift to one's friend &#xD;&#xA;     подарок другу&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  or, addressee/destination expressed by lexical meaning&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    we have got to like it&#xD;&#xA;   это должно нам нравиться&#xD;&#xA;               \&#xD;&#xA;                \__ Dative&#xD;&#xA; &lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might rewrite the sentence             &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;        Ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA;       Где ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;    Где это ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;  Где это оно ему быть.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning here is practically the same, but the full sentences with a subject abbreviated to subjectless    &#xD;&#xA; `Где ему быть`.   &#xD;&#xA;See also [my answer][1] for subjectless sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8829/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80-vs-%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC/8837#8837&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot think about the whole sentence as `Where can it/she/he be? or Where is //he?` because its short form. Actually, it has two meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;a) где ему быть               -- unsure, where is //he; in some place.&#xD;&#xA;                                 You have supposed the scene to be there, where is //he.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;б) где ему быть (кем-то, чем-то, каким-то)   -- to be someone,  to come from,  &#xD;&#xA;          └───────────────┬───────────────┘     be a match (for), to think they are like.&#xD;&#xA;                      = стать&#xD;&#xA;                        несов.: становиться&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9068" RevisionGUID="660fe68e-fc59-481e-b0cb-d6be55a81d28" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was very pleased to discover Pushkin's *Дружба* on [Russian StackExchange][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что дружба? Лeгкий пыл похмелья,  What is friendship? A slight fire of the carousal,&#xD;&#xA;    Обиды вольный разговор,           The insult's unrestrained talk,&#xD;&#xA;    Обмен тщеславия, безделья         An interchange of vanity and idleness,&#xD;&#xA;    Иль покровительства позор.        Or favour's stain.&#xD;&#xA;(translation from [user4419802][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help to improve the way I read the poem. Specifically :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) is there any record available online ? I only found [this one][3] but the music bothers me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Are the following accents correctly placed ? What's the accentuation of безделья ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Что дру́жба? Ле́гкий пыл похме́лья,&#xD;&#xA;    Оби́ды во́льный разгово́р,&#xD;&#xA;    Обме́н тщесла́вия, безделья&#xD;&#xA;    Иль покрови́тельства позо́р.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) What's the rythmic pattern of the poem ? Is there a law explaining how each verse has to be cut in several parts ? Where are the [caesurae][4] ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8346/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-by-pushkin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHV9pkCyR0Q&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesura" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="648c4d3c-e042-41b6-b704-0ef63892ed85" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; If I try I can figure out individual words, but they talk so fast that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I can't get it all connected (still not past the &quot;translating it word&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by word&quot; phase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a teacher didn’t tell you about the fact that there are 2 classes of languages, one take **a predominantly consonants approach** (*русский*), and at the other end is the vowels approach (*English*), that's the problem. *Русский, польский, болгарский, сербский...* these languages belong to the consonants approach. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure **You cannot hear/understand up to 60% of the consonants spoken.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Факты:   &#xD;&#xA;В русском (и современном греческом) гласных фонем всего 6. Согласных фонем 34. В русском гласные не различаются по долготе/краткости. Согласные -- главная сигнальная система.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Английский: 21 фонема гласных, 25 согласных. Гласные -- главная сигнальная система.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вторая сигнальная система в русском это ударение. К примеру, поставим неверное ударение на последний открытый слог в слове `рыба`. Мы получим два почти не различимых на слух звуковых ряда:&#xD;&#xA;[(confusing &quot;как гриб́ы?&quot; for &quot;как рыб́ы?&quot;, and saying they are good when I clearly have no mushrooms on my plate)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь рекомендовали фильмы, не думаю, что фильмы это хорошее средство для тренировки на слух каждодневного разговорного русского. В фильмах разговорный язык — искусственный. Пишут сценарий, далее фильмы озвучивают по фразам, эти фразы начитывают с текста, и любую фразу произносят заново, если что-то не так. Даже если в фразы вставляют междометия, вводные, просторечные слова, это всё равно читается с текста. Это имитация разговорного. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фильмы, действительно, помогут вам узнать, **как говорить правильно**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это едва ли поможет вам тренировать на слух ежедневный русский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я предлагаю слушать радио. Попробуйте. Найдите знакомые фразы в тексте, и послушайте, **как они звучат в непринужденной речи**. Я потратил своё время, написал субтитры, чтобы дать почувствовать, как мы говорим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=911     &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, мы так говорим! :)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Понедельник, 6 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.46=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Эльвира Хасаншина -- ведущая этой программы. Здравствуйте,&#xD;&#xA;        Эльвира (И Сергей Доренко. Доброе утро)&#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Чили - чемпионы Южной Америки, поздравляю&#xD;&#xA;=1.18=  Чилийских слушателей, чилийкослушателей... не пониманию, &#xD;&#xA;=1.22=  'Тор', 'Тор' у вас опечатка &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Не каждый может иметь миллионы, но каждый может стремиться &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  пишет 'Кличко и В'.&#xD;&#xA;=1.28=  Были в субботу в Новосибирском зоопарке &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Там больше нет слонов и жирафов &#xD;&#xA;=1.33=  детям понравилось, а я расстроился &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Сообщает Денис Гудков, спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;=1.37=  Пишите нам на Говорит-Москва-точка-ру,&#xD;&#xA;=1.39=  Говорит-Москва-точка-ру, написать в эфир&#xD;&#xA;=1.41=  а также на sms +7 925 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8, 8 8 8 8 9 4 и 8&#xD;&#xA;=1.50=  и лента в Твитере &quot;Говорит МСК&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=1.53=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию&#xD;&#xA;=1.56=  о смерти певца&#xD;&#xA;=1.58=  Представитель Макаревича опроверг информацию о смерти.&#xD;&#xA;=2.02=  (и об этом он сказал нам) Да, он сообщил об этом&#xD;&#xA;=2.05=   радиостанции &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  Константин Петров нам пишет &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  ссылаясь на нас же&#xD;&#xA;=2.10=  а, так вот же, значит, вы уже знаете что&#xD;&#xA;=2.14=  был взломан, вероятно, взломан&#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  эээ... сайт, э фестиваля э, эт, Грушинского&#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  (Грушинского) Грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  взломан и на заглавной странице&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  провисело довольно долго сообщение о&#xD;&#xA;=2.25=  том, что убит Макаревич&#xD;&#xA;=2.27=  значит, представитель певца только что&#xD;&#xA;=2.29=  врл... в интервью радиостанции &quot;Говорит-Москва&quot;&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  опроверг, опроверг это м... сообщение&#xD;&#xA;=2.34=  вероятно, с... сайт грушинского фестиваля&#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  был взломан, ну или кто-то пошутил [? с самолетом ?]&#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  какой-то пьяный админ, что-то такое... &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и так далее. Понимаете, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ээ... скажите, пожалуйста,&#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  Макара похоронил... нет, нет, именно грушинский фестиваль&#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  ээ... похоронил Макара&#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  вероятно, хакер.&#xD;&#xA;=2.53=  Но теперь мы знаем, что...&#xD;&#xA;=2.55=  и вообще говоря, это было похоже на... ..&#xD;&#xA;=2.59=  на хакерскую выходку, несмотря на то, что они&#xD;&#xA;=3.01=  и, в, они проникли на заглавную  страницу,&#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  это было похоже, потому что&#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  если бы это произошло в действительности,&#xD;&#xA;=3.09=  то конечно, МВД бы рапортовало, &#xD;&#xA;=3.11=  и так далее, и так далее,&#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  понимаешь, так что, так что... &#xD;&#xA;=3.13=  (да, и информационные агенства)&#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  конечно-конечно-конечно, но ничего не было.&#xD;&#xA;=3.16=  скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры -- ЗНАЧИТ -- или нет?&#xD;&#xA;=3.20=  Вот у меня вопрос. Простой. &#xD;&#xA;=3.22=  Вообще говоря, слова -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.24=  Дела  -- значат? Символы -- значат?&#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  (Значат.) Значат? (Конечно.) &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  (Они потому наверное, и символы)&#xD;&#xA;=3.30=  Вообще, всё значат. Всё -- значат.&#xD;&#xA;=3.34=  (Да) ну правда...&#xD;&#xA;=3.35=  (я считаю, что да)&#xD;&#xA;=3.37=  Давайте, давайте проголосуем.&#xD;&#xA;=3.38=  Скажите пожалуйста, поступок Земфиры,&#xD;&#xA;=3.39=  я понимаю, что это пятничное, но в субботу, как вы знаете,&#xD;&#xA;=3.41=  она взорвала нам мозг, и&#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  э, я для себя думал,&#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  поступок Земфиры -- значит?&#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  вообще говоря,&#xD;&#xA;=3.50=  следует ли, поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;=3.51=  с флагом Украины придавать значение?&#xD;&#xA;=3.54=  Да -- 134 21 35&#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  Нет -- 134 21 36&#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  следует ли поступку Земфиры&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;podcast.govoritmoskva.ru/?p=905    &#xD;&#xA;«Подъём» 2015-07-03 &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;=0.30=  С.ДОРЕНКО: 9 часов 6 минут. Пятница, 3 июля. &#xD;&#xA;=0.45=  Здравствуй, великий город! Здравствуйте все! &#xD;&#xA;        Даррррррррррррррррррррррр... радио &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;.... &#xD;&#xA;        &quot;Говорит Москва&quot;! &#xD;&#xA;=1.11=  Анастасия Оношко -- ведущая этой программы. (И Сергей &#xD;&#xA;        Доренко. Доброе утро, Сергей.) Здравствуйте, Анастасия. &#xD;&#xA;        Доброе утро. &#xD;&#xA;=1.15=  Говорит 'ДерзкийЮрец'... Доброе утро, говорит 96-ой   &#xD;&#xA;=1.20=  А... это Степан &#xD;&#xA;=1.21=  а я люблю 'Шнура' придаёт... признаётся &#xD;&#xA;=2.24=  Алексей &#xD;&#xA;=1.25=  так говорит 'МСК' в твитере.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.26=  а... м... ещё... &#xD;&#xA;=1.27=  хорошее ли у вас настроение спрашивает 'дабл ю вай джей' &#xD;&#xA;=1.31=  Да! всегда хорошее! Всг... конечно... &#xD;&#xA;=1.34=  всегда хорошее... &#xD;&#xA;=1.35=  Что написано у вас на майке? &#xD;&#xA;=1.36=  На моей майке написано, что я мусор. &#xD;&#xA;=1.38=  (Да) прочитай (под... под прикрытием полиции, наппп...)&#xD;&#xA;=1.40=  написано, что я мусор под прикрытием.  &#xD;&#xA;=1.42=  Для резиденции свердловского губернатора&#xD;&#xA;=1.45=  заказали шторы за 700 тысяч рублей&#xD;&#xA;=1.47=  (там кабинет такой) &#xD;&#xA;=1.48=  (на два с половиной метра) ну видите, он видимо &#xD;&#xA;=1.49=  большой очень &#xD;&#xA;=1.51=  активисты движения 'За Честные Закупки' обнаружили &#xD;&#xA;=1.52=  на сайте госзакупок заказ на шторы &#xD;&#xA;=1.55=  для резиденции губернатора &#xD;&#xA;=1.57=  Свердловской области. Общая сумма которого &#xD;&#xA;=1.59=  составила 700 тысяч рублей &#xD;&#xA;=2.01=  согласно документации к аукциону&#xD;&#xA;=2.03=  шторы в кабинет руководителя размером &#xD;&#xA;=2.04=  три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.06=  ах, подожди-ка, (я говорю) ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.07=  мамочка! (так мы проводим секвестор бюджета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.08=  так это всего... &#xD;&#xA;=2.09=  так это всего одни шторы, это на одно окно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.13=  это на одно окно, одно! &#xD;&#xA;=2.15=  (я думаю, это площадь кабинета) &#xD;&#xA;=2.16=   да нет же, три на два с половиной метра &#xD;&#xA;=2.19=  всего &#xD;&#xA;=2.20=  (площадь шторы) шторы, &#xD;&#xA;=2.21=  и за них 700 тысяч рублей. Они должны быть&#xD;&#xA;=2.23=  изготовлены из 100% полиэстера &#xD;&#xA;=2.26=  с бархатными портьерами &#xD;&#xA;=2.28=  и с карнизом из декоративного багета&#xD;&#xA;=2.31=  ах, как это прелестно! (да) закуплено на 700 тысяч рублей (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.35=  (да) мда &#xD;&#xA;=2.36=  а, подожди, ээээ... &#xD;&#xA;=2.37=  на одно окно 136... &#xD;&#xA;=2.38=  не понимаю, не понимаю,  &#xD;&#xA;=2.41=  да, но это историческое здание &#xD;&#xA;=2.42=  и это исторические шторы &#xD;&#xA;=2.44=  ты подумай об этом сейчас &#xD;&#xA;=2.46=  когда ты говоришь а просвещении, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.48=  не э, э... (о сокращении количества) а ты говоришь &#xD;&#xA;=2.50=  о просвещении, &#xD;&#xA;=2.51=  о музеях, &#xD;&#xA;=2.52=  ведь ты радеешь за просвещение (да)&#xD;&#xA;=2.54=  за музеи, (да) &#xD;&#xA;=2.56=  а когда здание губернатора... &#xD;&#xA;=2.57=  это в Свердловской области? (в Свердловской области) &#xD;&#xA;=2.58=  я был у него, я был у Росселя&#xD;&#xA;=3.00=  еще в гостях, ты помнишь эту историю? Я тебе&#xD;&#xA;=3.02=  рассказывал, когда Газманов... &#xD;&#xA;=3.03=  (что-то такое...) Газманова &#xD;&#xA;=3.04=  Газманова не пустили (рассказывали) Газманова не &#xD;&#xA;=3.05=  пустили завтракать в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.06=  из-за того что там ел я &#xD;&#xA;=3.08=  (нет) я тебе рассказывал, &#xD;&#xA;=3.10=  (я уже забыла, расскажите ещё раз, пожалуйста) &#xD;&#xA;=3.12=  я был в гостях у Росселя &#xD;&#xA;=3.14=  у него был какой то юбилей, &#xD;&#xA;=3.15=  может, может быть, может быть сто лет, &#xD;&#xA;=3.17=  или сто пятьдесят ему было лет... &#xD;&#xA;=3.19=  ээ, и, в этот момент, в этот момент &#xD;&#xA;=3.21=  меня поселили в гостинице &#xD;&#xA;=3.23=  и, когда я явился к завтраку (да) &#xD;&#xA;=3.26=  ээ, то, &#xD;&#xA;=3.27=   мм, значит, &#xD;&#xA;=3.28=  вдруг я услышал, когда за спиною за моей,  &#xD;&#xA;=3.31=  когда я съедал салатик, &#xD;&#xA;=3.32=  из помидорчиков, &#xD;&#xA;=3.33=  за спиною за моей, я услышал скандал (возник) &#xD;&#xA;=3.36=  мне стало теперь ясно, да, как она возня, скандал, пфф, &#xD;&#xA;=3.40=  и, ээ, ээ, злобное шипение: 'нет нельзя! нет нельзя!', &#xD;&#xA;=3.43=  'не велено пускать', &#xD;&#xA;=3.44=  ии, наконец, &#xD;&#xA;=3.45=  ээ, когда я &#xD;&#xA;=3.47=  спросил, спросил официанта: &#xD;&#xA;=3.48=  'скажите пожалуйста, &#xD;&#xA;=3.49=  что за глупая возня, какая-то, которая мне портит аппетит?'&#xD;&#xA;=3.53=  Они сказали: ээ&#xD;&#xA;=3.55=  Это Газманов, певец Газманов, рвётся &#xD;&#xA;=3.57=  позавтракать. Я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=3.59=  'Какая грязь!' &#xD;&#xA;=4.00=  А что, а почему, он не такой же? &#xD;&#xA;=4.02=  (а утренний голод, он такой) Я тебе хочу сказать, &#xD;&#xA;         нет, я сказал: &#xD;&#xA;=4.04=  &quot;хорошо, а почему? &#xD;&#xA;=4.05=  А что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;=4.07=  А что, вот же столы, столы, столы...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.08=  там был большой зал (да, да) &#xD;&#xA;=4.10=  они сказали: &#xD;&#xA;=4.11=  'дело в том, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.12=  принято решение, что пока вы не &#xD;&#xA;=4.14=  позавтракали, чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.15=  чтобы не нарушать ваш покой, &#xD;&#xA;=4.17=  эээ... (они думали, что Газманов бросится у вас брать...) &#xD;&#xA;=4.18=  никого не пускать, &#xD;&#xA;=4.20=  никого не... они думали что &#xD;&#xA;=4.22=  (бросится у Вас брать интервью) &#xD;&#xA;=4.23=  нет, что &#xD;&#xA;=4.24=  Газманов ворвётся в, в зал завтрака, с криком: &#xD;&#xA;=4.27=  'Москва!!! Гремят колокола!!!' (понятно) что-нибудь такое...&#xD;&#xA;=4.29=  а я тут ку[шать] изволил...    &#xD;&#xA;=4.31=  (эскадрон моих мыслей шальных)&#xD;&#xA;=4.34=  абсолютно верно...&#xD;&#xA;=4.36=  я подошел лично к дверце, к этой, которая пускала в зал&#xD;&#xA;=4.39=  (Вы открыли, Вы впустили его?) &#xD;&#xA;=4.40=  я сказал администратору, этой пылкой женщине, лет 45-ти &#xD;&#xA;=4.44=  (как к тореодору, впускают быка)&#xD;&#xA;=4.45=  я сказал, я оказал: &quot;прошу вас, пожалуйста&quot; &#xD;&#xA;=4.48=  я считаю это неправильным &#xD;&#xA;=4.51=  я считаю это неправильно, [? помиловались ?] &#xD;&#xA;=4.53=  что за элитарность? &#xD;&#xA;=4.54=  я готов... &#xD;&#xA;=4.56=  я готов с этим пая... ну я готов... (тем более это Газманов...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6742/how-can-i-improve-my-listening-comprehension/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9105" RevisionGUID="432e649b-af68-4af5-b123-9ddcbdbc28b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Based on your [additional question][1], there is a special (old-fashioned) way of writting dates that is currently used [on a tombstones and railroad equipment][2]. For instance, here's how May, 4 2006 will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![May, 4 2006](https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/a/b/5abba376587f0c922887165abd20acc6.png).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in case of April 17, 2015 it will look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;b&gt;    17 &#xD;&#xA; 20 -- 15 &#xD;&#xA;    IV &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/9091/551&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9113" RevisionGUID="24883f8c-d51b-4b51-af08-b788d8c26ec7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I read in [Pushkin][1]'s *[Дружба][2]* the word **&quot;легкий&quot;**, an adjective meaning &quot;slight&quot;. There's even [an interesting thread][3] on Russian S.E. about the modern pronouciation of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noticed two ways to write it : either **легкий** (as Puskin did) either **лёгкий** as [modern dictionaries do][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence my questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) which phonological/orthographic shift explains both spellings ? I can't see anything helpfull in [the Wikipedia article dedicated to the reforms of Russian orthography][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) how was the word was pronouced at Pushkin's times ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help would be appreciated !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9068/about-pushkins-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-how-to-read-it&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/4103/how-to-pronounce-%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9114" RevisionGUID="0c74a88d-f3f8-4623-ac50-58c44a124c80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Letter ё is optional, it is usially replaced by е. We have a number of questions about this letter on this site, for example: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/6770/551,&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/1465/551,  https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4304/551. In short, letter ё is always used only in dictionaries, text for beginners and children, uncommon foreign words (like geographical names) and in cases when difference between word with ё and е is not obvious from the context (like небо (sky) and нёбо (roof of mouth)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For modern reader it is definetely лёгкий. As for Pushkin times - I'm not sure what was the pronounciation at those times. Usually you notice the difference when two words stand at the end of the verse and should be rhymed (like Ольга/фольга pair which currently have different stresses, but at the beginning of the XX century both words had a stress on a first syllable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even when two words happen at the end of a poem's line, it is hard to tell should those words be pronounced with ё or with е. A [long article about letter ё][1] has the following example (by academic Vinogradov) of Pushkin's Poltava:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тесним мы шведов рать за ратью;  &#xD;&#xA;Темнеет слава их **знамен**,  &#xD;&#xA;И бога брани благодатью  &#xD;&#xA;Наш каждый шаг **запечатлен**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Vinogradov here both words are likely using &quot;е&quot; (знам**е**н/запечатл**е**н), but we cannot tell for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example where there is е and not ё is verses from Krylov's fable &quot;Лебедь, Щука и Рак&quot; (example from [Wikipedia article][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда в товарищах согласья нет —  &#xD;&#xA;На лад их дело не пойдет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, in Krylov's times пойдет was pronounced as е as can be seen from the rhymed нет/пойдет. Interestingly, in modern textbook for pupils пойдет in this verse is written using ё: пойд**ё**т.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Looks like it was pronounced as л**е**гкий in Pushkin times. According to [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81#.D0.98.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.8F) the letter **ё**'s was printed for a first time in 1795. Before that time a number of letter combinations served to resemble this sound (о, ьо, їô, ió, ио). However Google Books has a book printed in 1792, which is entitled [&quot;Новый **легкий** и самый безопасый способ лѣчения чесотки&quot;][3]. If it has to be pronounced as ё there should be one of this combinations used: о, ьо, їô, ió, ио. Since it is not so, it has to be read as &quot;е&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gramota.ru/class/istiny/istiny_7_jo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81#.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.B4.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2_XVII.E2.80.94XIX_.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Xa9iAAAAcAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9178" RevisionGUID="da297b9c-ee0c-4835-8857-d6dc68f3b64f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="У меня в голове хаос, и я уже не знаю, что и как.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня в школе учили, что в составном сказуемом всегда используется краткая форма прилагательного, и я всегда использовал краткую форму. В другом месте я прочитал, что краткая форма означает временное свойство чего-то, но это так и осталось для меня неясным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А недавно мне [здесь][1] ответили, что могут быть ещё и другие отличия, не совпадающие с тем, о чём я выше писал. Примеры я понимаю, а общий принцип - нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь для меня всё это кажется совсем непонятным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что по существу? Когда я должен использовать краткую форму, а когда полную?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Краткая форма:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крыса была примечательна. Она была для меня хороша. Решение было очень просто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Полная:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крыса была примечательная/примечательной. Она была для меня хорошая/хорошей. Решение было очень простое/простым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE/9127#9127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9236" RevisionGUID="e9651acc-c6e0-4141-a7cf-6902bd91b8f9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, the literal translation is not really &quot;the car near me&quot;; a better match would be the French *la voiture chez moi*. (Shameless plug for [my long answer about the semantics of the possessive *у*][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, and more to the point, the simple answer is &quot;no&quot; and the complicated one is *very* complicated. As a basic phrase, **моя машина** is decidedly *not* interchangeable with **у меня машина**. However, the line starts to get blurred when more information is added to the message; thus it's much more idiomatically correct to express &quot;my car is old&quot; as **машина у меня старая** than as **моя машина старая**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather hard (though not impossible) to imagine a context in which someone would say **Это у меня машина** instead of **Это моя машина**. Perhaps if the *машина* in question was some kind of a steampunk monstrosity not immediately recognisable as a car, or if it was a &quot;pretend&quot; car that a child has made out of, I don't know, sofa pillows. Yes, there are some super-subtle rules involved in such seemingly simple word choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic goes something like this: **у меня** can (in fact, must) replace the possessive pronoun when the sentence is about what the thing I own is *like*, rather than what it *is*. Which is why for **Это у меня машина**, I had to come up with such outlandish examples: they had to involve the &quot;carness&quot; of something that fundamentally isn't a car. Stick with **это моя машина** if you want to err on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vernacular Russian taken to the extreme sometimes flaunts such constructions as **у меня у сестры свадьба через две недели** &quot;my sister's getting married in two weeks&quot;. That kind of syntax is generally frowned upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7867/%D1%83-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD-by-him-is-a-suitcase/7868#7868" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9264" RevisionGUID="0ae63644-888f-49b8-b2f4-95ee96c87ca3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="What I got from reading [this](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/392/what-is-the-understanding-of-church-slavonic-among-russian-native-speakers) is that the Russian recension of Church Slavonic (церковнославянский язык) is probably not terribly difficult to understand, at least generally, for an educated Russian. However, it is most certainly not modern Russian and thus would require dedicated study to understand completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question, then, is this: How are Russian Orthodox priests educated with regards to the Russian recension of Church Slavonic? Do they learn it in the same way one might learn Latin or Ancient Greek (though with more attention to pronunciation than those languages typically receive)--i.e., rigorously studying the grammar and vocabulary? Or are they mainly just taught how to correctly pronounce it, with comprehension being merely an afterthought?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious if the (majority of) priests are essentially just reciting these texts without necessarily comprehending them, or if they're actually fluent in the language and could, at least theoretically, read or compose religious new texts in it that they haven't memorized through repetition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By extension, when they study scripture, do they read in Church Slavonic or modern Russian? Since services are in CS, I suppose one should assume the priests understand the language they're speaking, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe that they are simply reciting the prayers in CS but actually do all their Bible study in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they actually do study the language's grammar and vocabulary and such in a rigorous manner, does anyone know what textbook(s) they use to do so? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9285" RevisionGUID="250b0d47-4488-4fb7-9480-abd5acfc6536" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This would be [discussion about в/во prepositions][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`во хмелю`, `хмель` is not a verb here but a noun meaning `hop`. The whole phrase `во хмелю` means `he is drunk`.&#xD;&#xA;It is hardly used in big cities, most likely only in a country side. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`с похмелья` means `he has a hang-over`.&#xD;&#xA;Another variation of this:&#xD;&#xA;`У тебя похмелье?` / `Ты с похмелья?` - `У него похмелье` / `Он с похмелья`. Which basically have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/986/prepositions-%D0%B2-and-%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9287" RevisionGUID="53284673-0629-4c44-9b8f-d130232e1b94" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&quot;Хмель&quot; is just a plant (Humulus) which is used in brewing. So this word has yet another meaning (быть во хмелю = &quot;to be in Humulus&quot; = to be drunk; although this phrase sounds a little archaic - probably you've encountered it in a book; people rarely say so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Похмелье&quot; has the same root as &quot;хмель&quot; yet in modern language (due to the part &quot;по-&quot; = &quot;после&quot; = &quot;after&quot;) it usually means &quot;hangover&quot; (i.e. &quot;after Humulus&quot;). Yet a couple of hundreds years ago it meant something else, actually - &quot;carousal&quot;. Read this topic on a subject - https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8346/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0-by-pushkin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about a grammar. &quot;С похмелья&quot; is a genitive case. &quot;Во хмелю&quot; is a (rare) locative case (like &quot;в лесу&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9288" RevisionGUID="78e2578e-8e80-40b3-8f85-17993e6e2d02" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="*Во хмелю* is [Locative case][1]. I never encountered it being used with хмель. Possibly it means the person is drunk. The standard meaning would be the person is in the brushwood of хмель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1630/what-are-some-examples-of-nouns-that-end-in-%D1%83-in-prepositional-case/7373#7373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9352" RevisionGUID="886652bb-d525-4e9e-9905-499cb8b6e0b5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a related question here, [“Они братья” but “Это упражнения” - why different pronouns?][1], see my answer there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, the English construction `this is / these are` are always rendered as `это` irrespective of the gender and number of the thing named, the same goes about `it is / they are`, if the thing named is non-living:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is my car. – Это моя машина. (Feminine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is my house. – Это мой дом. (Masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is my window. – Это моё окно. (Neuter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are my cars / houses / windows. – Это мои машины / дома / окна. (Plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Это` inflects according to the gender, number, and case of the following noun only when it is an _attribute_ to that following noun and forms a noun phrase with it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car – Эта машина (Feminine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This house – Этот дом (Masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This window – Это окно. (Neuter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These cars / houses / windows – Эти машины / дома / окна. (Plural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But note, these latter are noun _phrases_, they can function only as elliptical sentences or as parts of a longer complete sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7657/%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F-but-%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-why-different-pronouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="d0c88530-fdb3-4d6c-a302-ba9b3d8cc5f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I asked an earlier question, https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9342/is-there-a-vocabulary-list-comparable-to-basic-english, and @Avtokod gave a gem of an answer saying basically, &quot;You don't want the most common 1000 Russian words; you want a grasp of how suffixes and prefixes create clusters of words.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm making a separate base question for the obvious followup question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where on the web can I best research the suffixes, prefixes, and other important things I did not know to ask for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9521" RevisionGUID="dff4ae28-8c1c-4356-9273-8020c60995ef" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am trying to understand the difference between the words &quot;пытаться&quot; and &quot;стараться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the dictionaries that are available both mean &quot;try&quot; or &quot;attempt&quot; something, but in slightly different senses, which I am unable to work out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer][1] to a related question claims that the words are synonymous. But it doesn't seem like that according to my dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][2] seem to be a duplicate of mine, but it is in Russian and I am yet not proficient enough to understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/6711/5929&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/9121/5929&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="70df30e5-4fd6-4e51-839e-2f65d1d1c888" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="`Русском` is prepositional. Masculine adjective prepositionals look like noun instrumentals. The instrumental here would be `русским`. The difference between *на* and *по-* with languages [has been asked about here][1]. In this particular case, `по-русски` would have been, at least theoretically, ambiguous — with an alternative reading of &quot;Stack Exchange, Russian-style&quot; — while `на русском` can only refer to the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8037/%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/8038" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="6c896458-3a05-49d2-8e4f-36cc65bff471" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The only difference is the way of writing the word. In modern written Russian it is quite often acceptable to write **е** instead of **ё**, especially when there is no confusion in meaning, and **ребенок** is unambiguous. Read more in related questions: &quot;[Using written е instead of ë][1]&quot;, &quot;[Is 'ё' a distinct letter, or is it just 'е' with a diaeresis][2]?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1465/is-%D1%91-a-distinct-letter-or-is-it-just-%D0%B5-with-a-diaeresis?lq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="7f52a7f9-d9af-44bb-841c-ad6386dbf834" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Interesting to note that '**столь**' in the quote you give cannot be replaced with '**так**', but would require '**такой**' instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference in meaning between '**столь**' and '**так**' does not really exist.  Both are adverbs in the use where they are synonyms, but keep in mind that '**столь**' (or its full prototype '**настолько**') can be used to modify adverbs as well as adjectives, but '**так**' turns into '**такой**' (такая, такое) with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples.  Italics designate adjectives&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я Вас любил **так** искренно, **так** нежно...  &#xD;&#xA;Не **столь** *страшен* грипп, как его осложнения.  &#xD;&#xA;Вы **столь** *забывчивы*, сколь незабвенны.  &#xD;&#xA;Голос у нее ***такой*** *тихий*, ***такой*** *нежный*, ***такой*** *невинный*...  &#xD;&#xA;Опять выглянуло солнышко, да ***такое*** *весёлое*, яркое!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As [Quassnoi][1] points out (thank you!), with shortened adjectives the shortened form of '**такой**' ('*такая*', '*такое*') -- '**так**' -- is used:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Начался штурм города, и **так** силён был натиск армии семерых вождей...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/134/quassnoi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="426d8f49-1fc7-4e3e-871d-7b84aa296602" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Как правильно заметил @[Victor Bazarov][1], это древнерусская форма глагола «быть» в первом лице множественного числа настоящего времени, совр. рус. «мы есть». На самом деле, правильно было бы сказать _есмы́_, ст.сл. _ѥсмъ_, в _есмы́_ окончание -мы под воздействием местоимения «мы», но и форма «есмя» была широко распространена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваша цитата не совсем точна и не полна, вот её [правильный вид][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А жаловати есмя своих холопей волны, а и казнити волны же есми были.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как можно заметить, второй раз написано уже не «есмя», а «есми», что, в принципе, характерно для уровня грамотности московских писцов XV века. Оба эти слова являются вспомогательными глаголами и относятся к причастию «были» (в др.-рус. языке формы глагола на -л были причастиями), т. е. «есмя были», что является формой одного из прошедших времён, перфекта, от глагола «быти», как в современном английском «have been», и на современный русский переводится «[мы] были», современное русское прошедшее время происходит от древнерусского перфекта, формы настоящего времени глагола «быть» в современном русском перестали употребляться, а старые причастия на -л начали восприниматься как формы глагола прошедшего времени, хотя они до сих пор изменяются по родам, что характерно для причастия, а не глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом, перевод этого предложения такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А жаловать своих холопов мы всегда были вольны, вольны были и казнить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5915/victor-bazarov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Hx58WrRwnhgC&amp;pg=PT151&amp;lpg=PT151&amp;dq=%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B,%20%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=v-8mvsTWaB&amp;sig=BnjMSBhMNosxOog-4dpBtrfv_vE&amp;hl=uk&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CDoQ6AEwBWoVChMI-YPUm4uayAIVgxIsCh0JHwaa#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%2C%20%D0%B0%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%B6%D0%B5&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10911" RevisionGUID="575def84-15d4-42a5-b1c7-89cb826a4b80" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="There are many [Russian words that are indeclinable](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_indeclinable_nouns).  So it's simply: *Я былa в Мальмё.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For foreign city names specifically, you can take some of the wisdom on&#xD;&#xA; [this question on the declension of foreign person names](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7223/non-russian-names-to-decline-or-not-to-decline).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fairly exact rules on the intonation and final ending combinations that make a word indeclinable, and some exceptions, and some disagreement in some edge cases if we actually look at the data descriptively.  (They tend to be foreign words, abbreviations etc.)  But for a language learner I think it does not make sense to focus more than minimal effort on learning the rules explicitly - just see the examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10979" RevisionGUID="fa3657ee-ea5c-4422-99d0-b17637ac618a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="You can see [here][1] a list of some words derived from the same root meaning &quot;to fuck&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the meanings span from &quot;face&quot; to trick, joke, annoy, good, bad, hit, flee, leave, show off etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6826/why-does-%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE-mean-a-face-and-%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-mean-to-fuck/6827#6827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11054" RevisionGUID="a449f0cf-5905-4b85-8cba-2796be987a26" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="If the father's name ends in _-й_ (like _Андре**й**_, _Серге**й**_, _Тимофе**й**_, _Никола**й**_, etc.), the masculine form of the patronymic ends in an unstressed _-евич_ [jɪvɪtʃ], e.g. _Андреевич_ [ənˈdrejɪvɪtʃ]. In this case in the colloquial language this _-евич_ [jɪvɪtʃ] can be shortened/reduced to _-[й]ич_ [(j)ɪtʃ] with the final _-й_ of the father's name dropping out or not, depending on the speaker, so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Андреевич_ [ənˈdrejɪvɪtʃ] &gt; _Андре[й]ич_ [ənˈdre(j)ɪtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Николаевич_ [nɪkəˈlɑjɪvɪtʃ] &gt; _Никола[й]ич_ [nɪkəˈlɑ(j)ɪtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the father's name ends in another consonant (like *Степа**н***, _Кири**лл**_, _Вади**м**_, etc.), then the masculine form of the patronymic ends in an unstressed _-ович_ [əvɪtʃ], e.g. _Степанович_ [stɪ'pɑnəvɪtʃ]. In this case in the colloquial language this _-ович_ [əvɪtʃ] can be shortened/reduced to _-ыч_ [ɨtʃ], so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Степанович_ [stɪ'pɑnəvɪtʃ] &gt;  _Степаныч_ [stɪ'pɑnɨtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Кириллович_ [kɪ'riləvɪtʃ] &gt; _Кирилыч_ [kɪ'rilɨtʃ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, however, does not apply to some names, e.g. although _Оле**г**_ ends in a consonant, you can hardly hear somebogy saying _*Олегыч_, since the sound combination _гы_ is normally not found in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, _Петрович_ has no reduced form, since _Пётр_ is a monosyllabic name and the suffix _-ович_ is stressed in it, so it cannot be reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some names have irregular colloquial patronymics mentioned by [Schullz][1] and [user4419802][2] in the comments to the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Алексáндрович_ &gt; _Сáныч_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Михáйлович_ &gt; _Михáлыч_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Пáвлович_ &gt; _Пáлыч_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/6131/schullz&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/5008/user4419802" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11137" RevisionGUID="475c945d-4691-409b-b277-175af92d9d04" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Правильна ли грамматически фраза &quot;Она учит русский язык&quot;. Тут - https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9546/use-of-dative-after-учить-etc - &#xD;&#xA;прилагательное &quot;русский&quot; склоняется. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11237" RevisionGUID="4a5bf352-f9b9-400f-9b09-0612e85063fe" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As of writing this question, there are two questions here on the difference of those two words. [The first one][1] has a quite extensive answer and [the second one][2], unfortunately, just a short answer that addresses only the example given there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite confident I understood the difference, but I've noticed something that hasn't been explicitly mentioned and therefore I'd like to clarify whether my understanding is correct or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Какой* seems to be the counterpart to the English interrogative pronoun *what* and German *was*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What** is your favorite color?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Was** ist deine Lieblingsfarbe?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какой** твой любимый цвет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Который* seems to be the counterpart to the English interrogative pronoun *which* and German *welcher*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blue or red — **Which** color is more beautiful?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blau oder Rot — **Welche** Farbe ist schöner?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Синий или кра́сный — **Который** цвет более красивый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I right or would *какой* also be correct in the second sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few side notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Который* is, of course, also a relative pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm aware that in a different context the English word *what* is translated as *что*.  &#xD;&#xA;  &quot;What is it?&quot; =&gt; &quot;что это?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/4388/109&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/10836/109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11436" RevisionGUID="eaefa60f-0c14-4592-8962-1fa90e295581" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, a side note: unlike most other languages, you don't use *имею* in Russian unless there's a reason to. See this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C-vs-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-for-physical-things/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания ей не верить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, *имею* (or *быть* in proximal possessive sense) does not govern genitive when positive, but does when negative. That's how the language works. It is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть + nom.* (or *я имею + acc.*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня нет* (or *я не имею*) *+ gen.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня нет основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is negative, hence the object is in genitive, hence it is singular, and the whole sentence means &quot;I don't have a reason&quot;; or you can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть основания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is positive, hence the object is in nominative, hence it is plural. This means &quot;I have (my) reasons&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11454" RevisionGUID="d30cb700-7cb5-4bc8-a092-df5b20c6c765" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems to be relatively common knowledge that the name &quot;Красная Площадь,&quot; while translated in English as &quot;Red Square,&quot; does not actually mean &quot;Red Square&quot; in Russian, but rather &quot;Beautiful Square.&quot; However, I saw this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name Red Square does not originate from the pigment of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surrounding bricks (which, in fact, were whitewashed at certain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; periods) nor from the link between the color red and communism.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Rather, the name came about because the Russian word красная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (krasnaya), which means &quot;red,&quot; was applied to a small area between St.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Basil's Cathedral, the Spassky Tower of the Kremlin, and the Lobnoe&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mesto (place of execution), and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich officially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extended the name to the entire square**, which had previously been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called Pozhar, or &quot;burnt-out place&quot;, in reference to the fact that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; several buildings had to be burned down to make place for the square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: [here][1] and [here][2].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find an original source for that information and would be willing to dismiss it entirely. However, I would still wonder why in [seemingly every language][3]--including every other Slavic language--the name of the square is equivalent to &quot;Red&quot; Square--especially since in Russian, &quot;красный&quot; has a distinct tie with  прекрасный/красивый, and in a number of cases is still understood to mean that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there *any* chance that the name given for Красная Площадь was actually intended to mean &quot;red&quot;? (i.e., that the story that most people believe--of the epithet for St. Basil's Cathedral carrying over to the rest of the square--is not true?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you had to generalize, do Russians today hear/understand the name as &quot;Red Square&quot; or &quot;Beautiful Square&quot; (regardless of what they know intellectually about its origins)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the latter: why does ~every other nation, including former Soviet and CIS countries, seem, according to their translations, to understand it as &quot;Red&quot; Square?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1488/what-is-the-first-recorded-appearance-of-the-mistranslation-red-square&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closely related: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2931/when-did-%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C-begin-to-shift-from-beautiful-to-red &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.heesterbeek.net/Russia/Moscow/Moscow.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Square#Origin_and_name&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C#.D0.9F.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11480" RevisionGUID="af5e2645-c484-485d-bfd6-7d5836bfc6da" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="These are short and full forms of adjective respectively. Roughly speaking, short adjectives are confined to predicative (almost) exclusively, except really archaic texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also want to look at [this](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-or-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0/9127#9127) and [this](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9178/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BC) question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11509" RevisionGUID="36682ec8-3ea8-47bb-8ec3-e0910edf8e70" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&quot;Вот он я&quot; is a fixed grammatical construction which means &quot;look, here I am&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;A female person would say &quot;вот она я&quot; and a group of people — &quot;Вот они мы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also answers to this question: [What's the difference between “вот” and “здесь”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11494/whats-the-difference-between-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-and-%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11596" RevisionGUID="c65c1cb8-699a-4ec3-87bc-8944dc9f5ba4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; У нас оста́лось то́лько не́сколько свобо́дных мест&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is *несколько*, not *мест* (see this question: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11505/why-the-verb-is-singular-in-this-sentence).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мест* is in plural because *несколько* (and other collective numerals) govern plural genitive for their arguments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Е́сли хоти́те, вы мо́жете взять два отде́льных ме́ста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, numerals *два, три, четыре* govern singular genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while the noun should be in **singular** genitive, the adjective which modifies it should be either in **plural** genitive or **plural** nominative (nominative is preferred for the female nouns, genitive for masculine and neuter nouns).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that those sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __Можете взять два отдельных места__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можете взять два отдельные места&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можете взять две отдельных ложи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; __Можете взять две отдельные ложи__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could all be used, though those in bold are preferred stylistically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11619" RevisionGUID="465ff6d3-4ede-4b8a-9b0f-7092e421d8f6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yep, as already is told in comments, &quot;т&quot; is usually standing for t[θ] in modern Russian (though we have Фёдор vs. Theodor, Коринф vs. Corinth). But behold, here I present you a universal algorithm for resolving issues of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Choose one celebrity with this name. In our case, let's go with Keith Richards.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Find [an article][1] about this person in English wikipedia. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Choose the same article in other language. In our case, [in Russian][2].&#xD;&#xA; 4. Check out how the name is translated.&#xD;&#xA; 5. If still not sure (no irony, for historical reasons name of particular person could be transliterated differently), repeat starting from step 1 with choosing some different celebrity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenode, word algorithm itself is a nice example of how &quot;ф&quot;-tradition was changed by &quot;т&quot;-tradition. No that long ago there [was][3] alternative spelling for `алгоритм`, `алгорифм`, but now it is completely obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Richards&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D1%81,_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/921/can-i-encounter-a%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BC-nowadays-in-any-context-and-in-past" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11759" RevisionGUID="05de97fb-dbb9-4b47-a74d-ef209af6c75e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="From duolingo.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A TRICKY ASPECT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You may have spotted so far that the examples have all been the one-directional versions of 'go' and that they are all past or future. Well, here's where it may get confusing. When they have a prefix attached, the one- and two- directional versions of 'go' convey aspect rather than 'directionality'. This probably makes more sense with an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я перехожу мост - I am crossing the bridge/I cross the bridge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я перейду мост - I will cross the bridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read [this][1] and other answers already, but I am quite uncertain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How would one differentiate then between e. g.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Tomorrow I will go to Dima and I will cross this bridge.* and &#xD;&#xA;- *Next month I start to go to school and en route I will cross this bridge.***?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**By context and signal words?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Does it mean somehow there is no directionality for prefixed words in present and future?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/8595/5477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11761" RevisionGUID="f466f419-9950-45ce-82a4-db255073ebff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question has already been asked [here][1], but it lacks some authoritative sources there. I once stumbled upon a source saying that in case with a territory it is correct to say &quot;на&quot; (&quot;на Руси&quot;, &quot;на Кубани&quot;, &quot;на Урале&quot;), and in case with a separate state, it is correct to say &quot;в&quot; (&quot;в Японии&quot;, &quot;в Ираке&quot;, &quot;в России&quot;, &quot;в Италии&quot;) with some exceptions of some island states when saying &quot;на&quot; can also be okay (&quot;на Кипре&quot;, &quot;на Ямайке&quot;, &quot;на Мальте&quot;). I can't find that source now, but I suspect that it was written long before this war in Ukraine, and even long before Ukraine became a separate state. And it looks like saying &quot;на Украине&quot;, though quite against the above-mentioned rule, still seems to be okay - as a kind of exception to the rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone cite an authoritative source specifically addressing this case of &quot;на Украине vs. в Украине&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7978/why-do-some-say-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5-and-others-%D0%B2-%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5-and-what-is-correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="d5786237-f094-432d-a9f0-901cc22876ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Similar to one of my [previous posts](https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/12190/6816), I am wondering what case is used for nouns preceded by numbers of different nature (when there is some discrepancy over which number, or an approximation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because numbers like 1 or 21 are different from numbers like 2, 3, and 4, which are, in turn, different from the rest in which case is used (any, s. gen., and pl. gen., respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex. 1: один или два (год?)(года?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex. 2: три или пять (года?)(лет?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which way is correct? Is there more than one correct way?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="52488065-e9cd-47df-ad85-f42a64ec7d2a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I understand the declension of что --  it's inanimate/неодушевлённый, so of course it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: что&#xD;&#xA;Acc: что&#xD;&#xA;Gen: чего&#xD;&#xA;Dat: чему&#xD;&#xA;Inst: чем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise  кто is animate/одушевлённый, so it should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom: кто&#xD;&#xA;Acc: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Gen: кoго&#xD;&#xA;Dat: кoму&#xD;&#xA;Inst: кем&#xD;&#xA;Prep: кoм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically just modified versions of the standard masculine adjective declension pattern (somewhat like the declension of &quot;день&quot; -- the nominative is irregular, but everything else is normal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if что is inanimate, then shouldn't also &quot;ничто&quot; be inanimate/неодушевлённый? And yet &quot;ничто&quot; always seems to be declined as if it were *animate*/одушевлённый (кто and никто don't have this consistency issue, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have noticed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ничего&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is almost always used for the *accusative* form of ничто, even though I would have only expected it to  be used for the genitive form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Here are some (probably incorrect) examples of what I am talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не возможно делать эту задачу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;but/а  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не возможно делать ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Here is a related question on this website which phrases the issue better than I do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/direct-object-of-negated-verbs-takes-which-case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this website:][1] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In &quot;proper&quot; Russian, the direct object of the negated verb is supposed to be put into the genitive case regardless of gender. This doesn't always happen in speech, but it is nonetheless recommended, particularly in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently this is also an issue in other Slavic languages: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/all-slavic-languages-genitive-after-negated-verbs.710336/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And apparently it is also a very complicated issue in Russian, since there has been much linguistic research (apparently for even more than a century) into when and why the genitive is sometimes used for the direct objects of negated verbs, and it seems like basically there are no hard-and-fast rules and whatever rules exist are rapidly changing over time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/SLS06_handout.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.academia.edu/5479874/Changing_semantic_factors_in_case_selection_Russian_evidence_from_the_last_two_centuries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature of Russian might explain why genitive is usually listed before accusative in declension tables written in Russian, since the genitive is in some cases associated with direct objects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked my native-speaker friend about this, they gave one answer, then decided that answer was wrong, gave the opposite answer, and then admitted that they don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the accusative is used always for direct objects in other languages, and it is used sometimes for the direct objects of negated verbs in Russian, and there is no 100% rule mandating that the genitive must be used for such direct objects, I think I am probably just going to always use the accusative for the direct object, regardless of whether the verb is negated or not, and let the chips fall where they may. It doesn't seem like there is any practical advantage to using two different cases for direct objects anyway, whereas there are many obvious disadvantages to such a system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ielanguages.com/russian2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12588" RevisionGUID="afc275ee-e724-4b4a-bfd0-3c1743d7e473" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Литературной нормой является использование родительного падежа (потому что винительный падеж &quot;занят&quot; постфиксом -ся), однако для одушевленных предметов винительный падеж тоже допускается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда вы говорите &quot;не бойся собаку&quot; - вы подразумеваете, что собака имеет некоторую близость к вам. Это может быть &quot;родственная&quot; близость - в том случае если это ваша собака; либо же это может быть близость &quot;географическая&quot; - если собака рядом с вами, вы на нее показываете и говорите что эту конкретную собаку не надо бояться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование винительного падежа для неодушевленного предмета обычно означает олицетворение (литературный прием). Также винительный падеж может использоваться для процедуры (&quot;я боюсь маникюр&quot;) - лично для меня звучит дико, но автор исследования таких примеров, по-видимому, накопал достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;PS Спасибо [Andrey Chernyakhovskiy](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/2284/andrey-chernyakhovskiy) за [ссылку на исследование](http://diplomba.ru/work/76639)  в комментарии." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="a384c490-127f-43be-8fad-ef0267f47e1e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Translation of an [answer in Russian][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of [Partitive][2] ([частичного падежа](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2)). It is rarely used in Russian, usually with nouns that mean food or drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить воды (not all the water, but some water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поесть хлеба (some bread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпить коньяку (some cognac)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partitive usually matches Genitive case, but most masculine nouns like чай (tea), коньяк (cognac), бензинчик (gasoline), etc., have two forms of Partitive:  чая/чаю, коньяка/коньяку, бензинчика/бензинчику. Both variants are correct, but second one (that matches Dative case) is colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in second case, in a sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно мне ещё чая/чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both variants are correct, because Partitive is used. However in case of &quot;Я бы не отказался от чашки чая&quot; the noun should be in Genitive case and so the correct form should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я бы не отказался от чашки чая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/196/551&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="ce230493-3da4-4cc1-83a0-55518c56579f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a colloquialism close to &quot;_nothing to live for_&quot;, yet its literal meaning is &quot;nothing to live by&quot; which is an Instrumental case, so here we use &quot;_нечем_&quot; which is an Instrumental case of a pronoun &quot;_нечего_&quot;. On the other hand, _ничего_ is Genitive case of _ничто_, so it shouldn't be used here by two causes: wrong pronoun and wrong case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the difference between _ничто_ и _нечего_: &quot;_ничто_&quot; is like &quot;void-object&quot;, while &quot;_нечего_&quot; is &quot;no object&quot;. So &quot;_жить ничем_&quot; means &quot;to live for Nothing, to live for Zero&quot;, while &quot;_жить нечем_&quot; is &quot;to have no reason to live&quot; (or, sometimes, &quot;to have no money to live&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning case usage &quot;_ничто_&quot; vs. &quot;_ничего_&quot;, you may want to look at this question: [Why “ничего” and not “ничто”?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12444/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%83-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE-why-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-and-not-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12870" RevisionGUID="95faecd5-7647-447f-99f3-c1d71f8c694e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="We hardly say &quot;Я иду на театр&quot;, but I think it's possible to say both &quot;Она ушла _на_ балет&quot; - &quot;She went _to_ ballet&quot; (meaning a performance) and &quot;Она ушла _в_ балет&quot; - &quot;She went _for_ ballet&quot; (meaning an occupation, like in &quot;Её тренер предлагал тяжёлую атлетику, но она ушла в балет&quot; - &quot;Her coach has suggested heavy lifting, but she went for ballet&quot;).  Note however that in second case &quot;ballet&quot; means the whole enterprise/form of art/whatever you call it, and thus may not qualify as the &quot;same&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I wrote it, Matt gave a much better example [above][1]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/12869/7515" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12894" RevisionGUID="1f355078-1a33-411b-8c69-1f7630e4e355" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="When do you use ```про``` and when ```о```? (about). Are they synonyms in all contexts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I discovered https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/52/usage-of-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE-instead-of-%D0%BE?rq=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13011" RevisionGUID="8b21b3e9-be21-4838-bc3a-e0e2d4b594b1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="- Using outdated word -- some people might think it funny&#xD;&#xA;- avoiding second &quot;чтобы&quot; in the same sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But overall it doesn't make much sense for me in this case. You know, stylistics is a thing to be &quot;served&quot; for one's personal taste. Neither &quot;лишь&quot;, nor &quot;дабы&quot; has something humourous by itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [What are the advanced Russian words якобы and дабы?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12284/what-are-the-advanced-russian-words-%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B-and-%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%8B)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13030" RevisionGUID="76872622-c48c-430b-b291-87ffec55b5fa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is related https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7903/how-to-address-a-female-friend, although somewhat different in its focus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, the following is true:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the speaker is female, then &quot;подруга&quot; means &quot;friend&quot; and &quot;друг&quot; means &quot;boyfriend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the speaker is male, then &quot;друг&quot; means &quot;friend&quot; and &quot;подруга&quot; means &quot;girlfriend&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Is the above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the answers to the other question, it seems like the only way to refer to friends of the opposite gender is via their name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** So is there no way to talk about the relationship in the third person, i.e. no translation of &quot;So-and-so [of the opposite gender of the speaker] is my friend&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is particularly important to me because I don't want to offend my friends by accidentally telling other people incorrectly/falsely that we are in a romantic relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** How do people refer to romantic partners of the same gender in Russian? Or is non-heterosexuality sufficiently taboo in all Russian-speaking societies that people never acknowledge such relationships or develop words to refer to them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4.** How to translate, without ambiguity, in all possible cases, &quot;platonic friend&quot; and &quot;romantic partner&quot; into Russian? Как правильно описать все отношения по-русски?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really expect a satisfying answer to this question, since the exact same problem exists in German and I have never heard a satisfying answer to that question either. I suppose it is also worth noting that in English some women refer to their platonic female friends as &quot;girlfriend&quot;, although I imagine this usage has declined with the normalization of non-heterosexual relationships in English-speaking countries, or at least in the United States." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13075" RevisionGUID="0b4b09eb-4e84-4f26-a605-2d06dca82ace" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="As far as I understand, &quot;ч&quot; is always soft. The letter &quot;ь&quot; usually denotes that the preceding letter is soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two facts together seem to imply that the combination &quot;чь&quot; (just like &quot;щь&quot;) would/should always be redundant, and thus never used or replaced by &quot;ч&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, one sees this letter combination in the pronouns &quot;чьё/чья/чьи&quot; -- I have not seen it anywhere else in the Russian language although I do not presume to have a wide vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the reason why this letter combination exists in these three words historical? Or does it actually affect the pronunciation of the words? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Say compared to &quot;чё/ча/чи&quot; -- of course because of the spelling rule &quot;чя&quot; is illegal but such a combination would be redundant anyway since the vowel following &quot;ч&quot; is always soft.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sort of related: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1030/%D1%87%D1%91-or-%D1%87%D0%BE-which-is-the-correct-spelling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13106" RevisionGUID="2bf3a0d1-589d-484e-b7d4-32353e129f20" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="In this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1670/От-До-and-С-ВНа-disambiguation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there is answers to most of my questions. However, the use of к is left out..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen things like, &quot;(I have a meeting/I talk) from six until eight in the morning.&quot; -&gt; &quot;(У меня встреча/Я говорю) с/от шести к/до восеми утра.&quot; with genitive forms of the numbers, and с and к together, or от and до together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what about using к?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13130" RevisionGUID="940f528e-e596-4f6d-962b-73e625e10e00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="For instance, I have the impression that the phrase &quot;on the toilet&quot; translates to &quot;в туалете&quot; or &quot;на унитазе&quot;, but that switching &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot; between either of these two phrases would be incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My workbook (задачник) has a list of about 50 or so set phrases with &quot;в&quot; and &quot;на&quot;, which I have made flashcards of, and I have added some more, like &quot;на пустыре&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a comprehensive list of these phrases somewhere so I could complete my flashcards?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related questions: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9244/%D0%B2-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5, https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11441/difference-between-%D0%BD%D0%B0-and-%D0%B2-in-clothing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13200" RevisionGUID="d38d6614-6f43-44fc-bec1-74c11755bec7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="In addition to all other answers, here is the list of other derogatory terms created in the same manner. First I thought it is rather new invention, but remembered at least one example from USSR times (лимита), so it has longer history. All these terms mean &quot;a group of people&quot; or &quot;a person, typical example of a group of people&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Темнота́** - comes from &quot;темный человек&quot; - ignorance, backwardness&#xD;&#xA; - **Простота́** - can be used both for silliness; innocence - &quot;Ваня, Ваня, простота - купил лошадь без хвоста&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **[Лимита́][1]** - comes from Soviet term &quot;лимитчик&quot; - a unskilled worker, that got a &quot;[лимитная прописка][2]&quot; (allowance to work in a city, existed from 50ies till 80ies) because they were needed by factories or other organizations in the city, while most locals had a good education. These persons had limited rights compared to other citizens and wanted to get full registration (e.g. by marriage). Looks like this phenomenon become a big problem around 1971.&#xD;&#xA; - **Гопота́** - comes from [гопник][3] - &quot;pejorative term and a social slur used in Russia, post-Soviet countries, and Israel to refer to aggressive young lower-class suburban male dwellers (usually under 30 years of age) coming from families of poor education and income&quot;. Гопник is rather old word (at least 50 years older than лимитчик), but it is unclear to me when гопота first appeared.&#xD;&#xA; - **Быдлота** - comes from [быдло][4] - &quot;(derogatory) rabble; uncultured or stupid people&quot;. Seems like this is rather new term, since it does not appear in Ruscorpora and Wiktionary at all.&#xD;&#xA; - **Школота́** - comes from &quot;школьник&quot; - this is internet-era term, which describes an internet user (most of the time it is a teenager) that posts meaningless messages on forums, etc. full of excitement or hatred (like 'xxx sucks!' or 'yyy is awesome!').&#xD;&#xA; - **[Мразота][5]** - comes from &quot;мразь&quot; -  scum of the earth.&#xD;&#xA; - Also there are number of words that describe poor people: **беднота**, **нищета**, **голота**, **босота**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it is possible, that &quot;чернота&quot; is built using the same scheme and will mean &quot;a person from group черные with possible derogatory connotation&quot;. It is interesting to note, however, that in Russia &quot;черный&quot; is in fact derogatory term, but not for africans, but for people that come from Caucasus region (see [this answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/2774/551)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopnik&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://argo.academic.ru/3180/%D0%BC%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13204" RevisionGUID="0460da81-ba25-49ad-a391-9ef249e5d467" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This a follow-up to a previous question of mine, because I realized that the phenomenon is more general: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13068/parts-of-speech-in-the-question-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%B9-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Why is the word order for such questions sometimes like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;это -- (*adjectival pronoun*) (*noun*)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. &quot; (*subject*) -- (*predicate*)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example, &quot;Это -- твоё письмо?&quot; &quot;Это -- ваш преподаватель?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but other times the word order is inverted, in a way which seems illogical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(*adjectival pronoun*) это (*noun*)?    &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. &quot;(*predicate part 1*) (*subject*) (*predicate part 2*)?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for example, &quot;Чей это карандаш?&quot; &quot;Какой это журнал?&quot; &quot;Какой он студент?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More  context:** Wouldn't a word order like &quot;Это -- чей карандаш?&quot; &quot;Это -- какой журнал?&quot; &quot;Он -- какой студент?&quot; be (1) more consistent (2) more logical? Or even &quot;Чей карандаш -- это?&quot; &quot;Какой журнал -- это?&quot; &quot;Какой студент -- он?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And why does this &quot;splitting&quot; of phrases involving adjectival pronouns happen only when the adjectival pronoun is in the predicate? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not seem to happen when it is in the subject. For example &quot;Какой журнал лежит там?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we had the same type of splitting that occurs elsewhere, it seems like we would have something like &quot;Какой лежит там журнал?&quot; instead, which is clearly illogical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13206" RevisionGUID="e15c0ebd-d3db-4a04-a5e0-0465d9d6298a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I would like you to read the answers on this question which seems to be similar to yours https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13147/order-of-adverbs-and-position-of-subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order in a Russian sentence is very flexible. You shouldn't compare it to the English one.Both **чей это карандаш?&quot; and &quot; это чей карандаш?** would work.The third variant **чей карандаш это?** is also possible and grammatical but it emphasizes the word &quot;это&quot;, not &quot;карандаш&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sentences with copula verbs are very flexible.The same can be done with action verbs.I think I should mark the stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**какой** журнал лежит там? **Какой** там лежит журнал? **Какой** лежит журнал там? Журнал там **какой** лежит? Журнал там лежит **какой**? **Лежит**1  там **какой**2 журнал?(the meaning is slightly different &quot;is there any magazine?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; But if we stress &quot;какой&quot;,the meaning is the same as in the previous sentences. &#xD;&#xA;All sentences are fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13296" RevisionGUID="f77c6fbf-a618-4047-868f-3f9123865f71" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Debates around the group of words &#xD;&#xA;&gt;нельзя, можно, надо, жаль, пора, грех, стыд, неохота, больно ( в безличных предложениях)etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;have been going since 1928, when Щерба Л.В. wrote his article «О частях речи в русском языке».(&quot;Word classes in Russian ). He said it's difficult to refer these words to any of the existing &quot;parts of speech &quot;. He called them &quot;a category of state&quot;(**категория состояния**). Some linguists call them &quot;predicatives&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Предикативы**--особая группа слов, стоящая &#xD;&#xA;вне традиционной системы частей речи и обозначающих нединамическое состояние. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This term has no official status.&#xD;&#xA;This terminology is often criticized because it can be confused with sentence  constituents (subject, predicate, etc) Other linguists refer these words to a special category of **adverbs** or even &quot;**modal adverbs**&quot;. For more information see &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12826/%d0%9d%d0%b0%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%87%d0%b8%d0%b5-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-%d0%ba%d1%80%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%8f-%d1%84%d0%be%d1%80%d0%bc%d0%b0/12831?s=1|0.2090#12831" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13450" RevisionGUID="359769e1-39e8-4ad6-ac41-5b23230ace6c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="You're on the right track, but the meaning is more abstract than &quot;friends list&quot;; it's more like the &quot;state of being a friend&quot; in general. Compare **записать в члены общества**, **вывести в генералы**, etc. It seems to be one of the &quot;lesser cases&quot; in Russian (like the partitive-genitive **выпить чаю** and the locative-prepositional **в снегу**). I might call it translative-accusative but that's just my own ad hoc term. It's been discussed here: [What form is “в гости”?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12649/what-form-is-%D0%B2-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13851" RevisionGUID="c424f55c-94e7-4ad6-8457-20065aeeeacc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's `мячик`, with `-ик` suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8588/what-do-you-add-to-a-word-to-make-it-cute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13948" RevisionGUID="7602230b-004a-4d80-8644-a569cf46365d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="These are so called *lesser cases* (*малые падежи*). `С боку на бок` - *отложительный падеж*, or *исходный падеж* (ablative).  `Брал меду` - *отделительный падеж*, sometimes also called *количественно-отделительный падеж*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About lesser cases: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14065" RevisionGUID="b5b58949-6104-48de-b038-261a43a1de7a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is somewhat related to a [previous question][1] of mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What does &quot;на&quot; mean in expressions relating to time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess had been that &quot;на&quot; used in expressions related to time somehow indicated that the action would occur after the amount of time in the accusative case following &quot;на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, such expressions appear to also occur in the past tense, which seems to indicate my attempt at interpretation is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The examples from my workbook are all sentences with perfective verbs. However, I don't think that could explain the meaning somehow, since that explains the difference between &quot;за+accusative&quot; and &quot;accusative&quot; for expressions involving time, unless &quot;за&quot; and &quot;на&quot; were synonymous in this context. That seems unlikely to me although I have no idea either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some exercises from my workbook involve explaining the meaning of sentences involving &quot;на&quot; and expressions of time. Examples are below which hopefully can clarify what I am confused about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На сколько времени вы приехали в Москву? Мы приехали в Москву на один год.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он взял словарь на час. Он будет смотреть словарь час.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они приехали в Москву на месяц. Они будут в Москве месяц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я взял книгу на неделю. Она взяла журнал на один день. Они взяли магнитофон на вечер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они приехали в нашу страну на полгода. Туристы приехали в Ярославль на неделю. Она поехала в санаторий на месяц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13787/what-is-the-meaning-of-%D0%B7%D0%B0-in-expressions-relating-to-time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14106" RevisionGUID="9fd60d17-7e6e-475b-9859-0684532e3c17" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="A full Russian name consists of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * First name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Patronymic (derived from father's first name)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Last name, also known as family name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian president's full name is: Vladimir (first name) Vladimirovich (patronymic) Putin (last name).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following combinations of names are used in a formal environment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. *First Patronymic Last* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin** - very formal&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. *First Patronymic* - **Vladimir Vladimirovich** - moderately formal&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. *First Last* - **Vladimir Putin** - moderately formal, the same level of formality as #2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information on the order of Russian names is available here: [What order are the parts of a full Russian name in?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11598/what-order-are-the-parts-of-a-full-russian-name-in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14155" RevisionGUID="04b25c1e-a966-4bd1-92b5-d6296cee3533" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="The phrase ***Часто днём бегу в спортзал или в бассейн*** means a transition (translative) state emphasising the direction whereto a speaker is headed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase ***Часто днём бегу (better: бегаю) в спортзале или в бассейне*** means the location where the action of running is taking place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue itself deals with three non-explicit categories of [translativity][1], [existential][2] state and [evidentiality/non-evidentiality][3], which I have  explained in a response to [your other question][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_clause&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14070/what-is-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-in-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D1%83-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82-%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F-why-not-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D1%80%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="856fd304-42d8-43b2-8c8a-70e7cef80ab2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="I realize that a couple of questions have already been posted on this topic.  The ones I took a look at have been listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Non-numerical use of “один”**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11506/non-numerical-use-of-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Я вижу + numeral + noun - governed by what case?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%D0%AF-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither specifically answered a question that was raised for me when I read the following in the book, [**_Master the Basics: Russian:_**](https://books.google.com/books/about/Master_the_Basics.html?id=ElY2i0ibj4EC) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**In Russian, the number &quot;one&quot; changes for gender -- it agrees with the noun which it qualifies.  Oddly enough, it also has a plural form which is used with nouns that exist only in the plural .... (p. 157)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It then refers the reader back to a section that includes a list of words that are found in plural form only.  Using some of those words on the list as examples, the following is my interpretation of what they mean when paired with &quot;одни&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одни очки = one (pair of) glasses  &#xD;&#xA;одни брюки = one (pair of) trousers  &#xD;&#xA;одни ножницы = one (pair of) scissors**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all seems pretty straightforward, but then I come to words such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**кавычки (quotation marks)  &#xD;&#xA;скобки (parentheses)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if I needed to convey &quot;one quotation mark,&quot; or &quot;one parenthesis?&quot;  If I add &quot;одни&quot; before the words above, am I conveying &quot;one quotation mark&quot; or &quot;one (pair of) quotations marks?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, with the following, does the addition of &quot;одни&quot; in front of the noun convey &quot;one election,&quot; &quot;one clock,&quot; and &quot;one funeral?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выборы (elections)  &#xD;&#xA;часы (clock, watch)  &#xD;&#xA;похороны (funeral)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I needed to specify &quot;a pair of watches,&quot; I suppose I could use &quot;пара часов.&quot;  Short of that, I am assuming that &quot;одни часы&quot; most commonly means &quot;one clock&quot; or &quot;one watch.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the above is actually a bit of a side question that came up as I was organizing my thoughts for the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the word &quot;одни&quot; exclusively used for words that are only found in the plural?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, a Russian would never use &quot;одни&quot; with a word found in both singular and plural, unless the meaning of &quot;some&quot; was intended, correct?  I've added some examples below and my interpretation of what they mean.  If I am wildly off mark, please let me know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**один мир = one world  &#xD;&#xA;одни миры = some worlds**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одна женщина = one woman  &#xD;&#xA;одни женщины = some women**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**одно окно = one window  &#xD;&#xA;одни окна = some windows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my understanding of how Russians use &quot;одни&quot; correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14165" RevisionGUID="bde8e10a-e893-4a36-b207-a9a853d57d78" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="We are not a bulk translation service. Please see [on-topic](https://russian.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help you with the translation, I've converted handwritten notes into the following text:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я забочусь о своем здоровье: соблюдаю питьевой режим, ем полезную пищу.  &#xD;&#xA;Я забочусь о своем отдыхе: читаю, гуляю, хожу в кино, театры, музеи и на выставки, вышиваю, выжигаю по дереву, шью, создаю украшения и подарки своими руками, путешествую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я занимаюсь любимым делом: принимаю активное участие в организации и проведении мероприятий. Я организую мероприятия как лидер.&#xD;&#xA;Моя деятельность приносит мне достойное вознаграждение: более 28000 фунтов в год.&#xD;&#xA;Моя деятельность благостна для меня и процветания рода!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14221" RevisionGUID="c4d69fb9-ba85-4fe6-bf54-90e3c9d523a2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:56:33.767" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/" Text="Let me quote my own [answer][1] to a related question, [Difference in pronunciation between “щ” and “шь”?][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As for `щ`, it is a **long** alveopalatal consonant, IPA symbol for it is [/ɕː/][3] (you can listen to the sound there, and there is also the [sound for the Russian word 'счастье'][4] [ˈɕːæsʲtʲjə] in which 'сч' is pronounced as 'щ'). Roughly speaking, in Standard Russian it is pronounced like the English 'shsh' in the phrase 'the dish she likes'. Some people pronounce `щ` as 'шч', but this pronunciation is considered obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, that although now the standard pronunciation of `щ` is /ɕː/, it used to be pronounced as /ɕtɕ/ and is still pronounced so by many people, that is why it is _traditionally_ transliterated as `shch` in English. Note, that when the Cyrillic script emerged in the 9th century, `щ` stood for the consonantal cluster [ɕtʲ], and later in Russian [ɕtʲ] &gt; [ɕtɕ] &gt; [ɕː]. Thus, the tranliteration of this letter as `shch` reflects the previous stage of its pronunciation which is dying out now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/difference-in-pronunciation-between-%D1%89-and-%D1%88%D1%8C/1722#1722&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1719/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B5.ogg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8897" RevisionGUID="dfd1ac02-724f-497e-a5ca-2e2fd8f533fc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:13.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rus.stackexchange.com/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="Приблизительность и точность к вашему вопросу относятся лишь косвенно. Вопрос скорее о месте предлога в словосочетании. Предлог - это по сути отделённая часть слова, которая стоит перед ним. Если слово с предлогом является главным в словосочетании, то зависимые от него слова могут стоять перед предлогом: *он шёл через* **большой лиственный лес**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Главным в словосочетании *три дня* является числительное, поэтому предлог стремится к нему. Чаще всего, если зависимое слово не выражено прилагательным, то его перед предлогом стараются не ставить (отсюда резь в ухе), но правилами это не запрещено, поэтому возможны оба сочетания, но более благозвучное *дня через три*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда когда подобный вопрос обсуждался на русскоязычном форуме, со мной были согласны не все. Аргументы обеих сторон можно посмотреть по [ссылке][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/34484/%D0%9D%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0/34491#34491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9455" RevisionGUID="9b58d36a-36de-4b64-850d-b6ac9f188ba3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:13.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rus.stackexchange.com/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="Согласно информации о правописании бесприставочных прилагательных и причастий с `-н-` и `-нн-`, которую я нашел в Интернете, прилагательные должны писаться с `-н-`, а причастия - с `-нн-`. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    чищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    чищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(например, [здесь][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В то же время, появление приставки приводит к тому, что и прилагательное пишется с `-нн-`, за исключением приставки `не-`, которая, согласно найденным мною правилам, на правописание `-н-`/`-нн-` не влияет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда я делаю вывод, что орфографически правильными должны являться обе формы с приставкой `не-`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    нечищеный - прилагательное&#xD;&#xA;    нечищенный - причастие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прав ли я? Я замечаю, в частности, что программа проверки правописания в Google Chrome принимает слова `чищеный`, `чищенный` и `нечищеный`, но отвергает слово `нечищенный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если поведение Chrome верно, то какие правила я упустил в своих рассуждениях? Существует ли в русском языке слово `нечищенный`? И если нет, то почему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/48622/%D0%92-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5-%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%9D%D0%9D%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11287" RevisionGUID="a11afa41-d52b-4cf1-8fa8-35a6b34cf0cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:13.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rus.stackexchange.com/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="На соседнем сайте [ответили][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правила есть. Но в полном виде они весьма сложные. Полностью их можно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; найти в &quot;Орфоэпическом словаре&quot; под редакцией Аванесова,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сопроводительная статья. Там разбору посвящено несколько абзацев,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перепечатывать сюда нет никакой возможности. Обратите внимание, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о/об может управлять как винительным, так и предложным падежом,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; правила употребления о/об там разные. Кстати, если еще вариат &quot;обо&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;обо что&quot;, &quot;обо всем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/5240/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D0%BE%D0%B1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="8a4b9829-477a-43b9-92ca-aad083c22297" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:13.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rus.stackexchange.com/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is a good [answer][1] on rus.stackexchange.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Годовой - получающийся к концу года, в итоге за год; рассчитанный на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; год (доход, прибыль, убытки, расходы, собрание, оценка, подшивка;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запас чего-л., задание и т.п.). *I.e. something that is a result of a year, appears at the end of the year or is calculated for one year.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Годичный - продолжающийся, длящийся в течение года (курс чего-л.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аспирантура, стажировка, командировка, цикл чего-л. и т.д.). *I.e. something that takes place over the course of one year.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, *&quot;годовая экспедиция&quot;* is clearly incorrect in this context, even though it is quite frequently used by the media. It should be **&quot;годичная экспедиция&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that *годичный* also meant &quot;annual&quot; formerly, and there are some idioms that still use it with this meaning, most notably in conjunction with terms like &quot;assembly&quot; or &quot;conference&quot;: *Годичная научная конференция РАУ*, *Годичное собрание Общества физиологов растений России*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/25369/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%B6%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="e1e7d774-a124-4325-904f-5e3b049d627a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:13.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rus.stackexchange.com/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="There is no difference in meaning. &quot;Во рту&quot; can be pronounced easier then &quot;В рту&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Follow this rule: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/416895/Предлог-в-или-во&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If word  starts with two consonants and word consists of one syllable, preposition &quot;в&quot; becomes &quot;во&quot;. (example: &quot;во рту&quot;, &quot;во мне&quot;, &quot;во сне&quot;, но &quot;в слезах&quot;, &quot;в сновидениях&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;2. If word starts with two consonants and one of them is &quot;в&quot;: во власти, во внушении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13791" RevisionGUID="3a7da5aa-d2ff-4091-8e05-253cde1e8f75" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:00:13.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://rus.stackexchange.com/ with https://rus.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; Мне нужно &lt;выбрать&gt; двоих из них.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata [двое](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=78866)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выберу троих из вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See lemmata ['трое'](http://opencorpora.org/dict.php?act=edit&amp;id=350318)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next: четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would you normally use the regular number if it is higher than 7? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heard it's not normal to use collectives after 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See gramota.ru: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=274656&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Q: В словарях зафиксированы собирательные числительные &quot;восьмеро&quot;, &quot;девятеро&quot;, &quot;десятеро&quot;. Насколько употребительны именно эти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные в современном языке? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A: Они малоупотребительны в начальной форме, но частотны в косвенных падежах: нет восьмерых, девятерых, десятерых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [topic about 30](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/24631/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%85-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Собирательные числительные — это замкнутая группа слов: двое, трое,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро, восьмеро, девятеро, десятеро; в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разговорной речи образуются и числительные типа одиннадцатеро,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двенадцатеро (но не двадцатеро, тридцатеро). Собирательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числительные называют количество, понимаемое как нечто целостное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; единое.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Современный русский литературный язык / Под ред. П. А. Леканта — М.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2009г.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="8a3c36a6-dd43-492e-a92c-84a7793b9b23" CreationDate="2017-04-13T13:01:18.863" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://literature.stackexchange.com/ with https://literature.stackexchange.com/" Text="Prompted by our [_Hard to Be a God_ book challenge][1]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; on [Literature SE][2], we've been trying to gather some attention by posting to relevant chat rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting discussion sparked in the Russian Stack Overflow chat: a user mentioned that it is ambiguous whether the original title of the book (*Трудно быть богом*) is a question or a statement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I replied][3] that this form is most often used for statements, and is unlikely to be used as a question (to be clear, **we're discussing the phrase now, not the book title**); however, it occurred to me that this could be used as a question in spoken language, similar to `Болит нога?`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I [do know][4] that it requires a question mark at the end to be a real question, and I do know `трудно ли быть богом?` is much better. __For the record__, Russian is my mother tongue. However, I don't have much experience with formal texts (haven't studied Russian since 7th grade).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main concern is - **can this form of a question be used in formal or written Russian? How acceptable is it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: __Everyone is welcome to participate! Ask your _Hard to be a God_ questions, and post good answers to others' questions!__&lt;/sub&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/q/650/11&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://literature.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413071#36413071&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36413163#36413163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14273" RevisionGUID="670dea1c-3cf6-482e-9d88-a469dac55d1c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T16:13:30.280" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The consonant letter *resembling* a vowel by its form  is ***З з*** (like number three), so your friend might inintentionally mistake the ***З з*** for ***Э э***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter ***Э э*** is closer to the first part [ε] in the diphtong from the English word  'care', while the Russian ***E e*** is closer to pronuciation of English E e in 'ten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel ***E e*** palatalises preceding consonants, while the vowel ***Э э*** doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the vowel ***E e*** is read as [j + e] after another vowel, a soft or a hard sign, and it is read as ***[i]*** in an unstressed position (***Если съехать в сьерру и съесть ежа, то едва ли сегодня*** = ***[j'esli sjekhat'fs'jerru is'jest' jizha tajidvali s'ivodn'ja]*** ), whilest the letter ***Э э*** is always read as ***Э э***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34505" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14187" RevisionGUID="8e0c3851-c890-41f3-bd1f-2ac8a12cef24" CreationDate="2017-04-13T17:58:34.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852581791512883201" />
  <row Id="34506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14274" RevisionGUID="869bd0a3-697e-464c-89ab-d6ca1cce35ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T18:00:01.460" UserDisplayName="user8827" Text="Would someone be able to translate this letter I found. Some of the characters I just don't recognise, I've been learning using typed letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's a little rude by the way..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14274" RevisionGUID="869bd0a3-697e-464c-89ab-d6ca1cce35ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T18:00:01.460" UserDisplayName="user8827" Text="Could someone translate this handwritten letter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14274" RevisionGUID="869bd0a3-697e-464c-89ab-d6ca1cce35ae" CreationDate="2017-04-13T18:00:01.460" UserDisplayName="user8827" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14276" RevisionGUID="0ff13ec9-4e6b-4c3d-8278-24ccefa88779" CreationDate="2017-04-13T19:34:43.397" UserId="4903" Text="Russian letter 'Е' sounds differently when it's the first letter of a word, or when it follows a consonant in the middle of a word. Letter 'Э' sounds the same in any part of the word. Both letters are vowels. As pointed out by manjusri, your friend could have mistaken 'З' (Z) with 'Э' (Е).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the beginning of a word **'Е'** sounds similar to **'ye'** in English 'yes'. Here are some examples: [ель (jelʹ)][1], [есть (jestʹ)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the middle of the word letter **'Е'** softens the preceding consonant and sound similar to **'e'** in English 'yes'. here are some more examples: [мел (mel)][3], [лев (lev)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Letter **'Э'** sounds similar to **'e'** in English words 'bed, bet, ten'.  Here are some examples: [это (eto)][5], [эгоист (egoist)][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All links contain audio samples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2#Pronunciation_2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14274" RevisionGUID="64b3a99d-9f8b-4a62-b0dc-1ef9c7c32c37" CreationDate="2017-04-13T20:39:45.530" UserDisplayName="user8827" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Would someone be able to translate this letter I found. Some of the characters I just don't recognise, I've been learning using typed letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's a little rude by the way...![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NLHAH.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14270" RevisionGUID="bf963614-0b0c-47fc-99bf-c670a09db297" CreationDate="2017-04-13T21:00:16.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852627520524603392" />
  <row Id="34514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14261" RevisionGUID="26b76e14-7f83-44ae-8851-c3a79b612cdd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T22:53:32.973" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It is very informal. Here are similar expressions, with similar meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Ничего себе` - colloquial, but not obscene at all&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни фигá себе` - just a bit vulgar or rude.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни хренá себе` - slightly more rude.  For example, a boy at school would not use it when he talks with a teacher.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни ху́я себе` - outright obscene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, `хрен` (lit. horseradish) is used as a common euphemism for хуй, because horseradish root resembles a penis.  In `ни фига` себе, `фиг` means a fig sign (generally it is called `фúга` or `кýкиш` in Russian, but in expressions like `ни фигá` or `фиг тебе`/`фиг вам`, it becomes male gender and reduced to `фиг`).  The fig sign itself is pretty rude, but the word `фиг` is not.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14277" RevisionGUID="47d69b84-92b1-462a-aa85-be20e398df35" CreationDate="2017-04-13T23:24:32.877" UserId="7371" Text="Since stackexchange is not a simple translation service, here is this letter in typed letters, so you could translate it by yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алкоголь Скорая *Алкоголь (stroke through)* Антон.  &#xD;&#xA;А тема очень уж проста  &#xD;&#xA;Пиюу я с чистого листа  &#xD;&#xA;Антохы парень просто класс  &#xD;&#xA;И про него сейчас рассказ  &#xD;&#xA;Решил немного выпить пива да  &#xD;&#xA;И вор какая ерунда  &#xD;&#xA;что скажем по секрету  &#xD;&#xA;закинули в карету  &#xD;&#xA;Антоху в скорой помощи&#xD;&#xA;Теперь желудок полощи  &#xD;&#xA;А так по сути и конец  &#xD;&#xA;Ну ваш Антоха молодец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this helps you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14277" RevisionGUID="0d1cbc20-6716-4d95-bf0e-b63f430c75e6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T23:31:32.773" UserId="7371" Comment="edited body" Text="Since stackexchange is not a simple translation service, here is this letter in typed letters, so you could translate it by yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Алкоголь Скорая *Алкоголь (stroke through)* Антон.  &#xD;&#xA;А тема очень уж проста  &#xD;&#xA;Пишу я с чистого листа  &#xD;&#xA;Антоха парень просто класс  &#xD;&#xA;И про него сейчас рассказ  &#xD;&#xA;Решил немного выпить пива да  &#xD;&#xA;И вот какая ерунда  &#xD;&#xA;что скажем по секрету  &#xD;&#xA;закинули в карету  &#xD;&#xA;Антоху в скорой помощи&#xD;&#xA;Теперь желудок полощи  &#xD;&#xA;А так по сути и конец  &#xD;&#xA;Ну ваш Антоха молодец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope this helps you " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14276" RevisionGUID="bf1f3e79-3728-4203-aae3-ef8e4f3d03a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T23:34:59.453" UserId="4903" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Russian letter 'Е' sounds differently when it's the first letter of a word, or when it follows a consonant in the middle of a word. Letter 'Э' sounds the same in any part of the word. Both letters are vowels. As pointed out by manjusri, your friend could have mistaken 'З' (Z) with 'Э' (Е).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the beginning of a word **'Е'** sounds similar to **'ye'** in English 'yes'. Here are some examples: [ель (jelʹ)][1], [есть (jestʹ)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the middle of the word letter **'Е'** softens the preceding consonant and sounds similar to **'e'** in English 'yes'. here are some more examples: [мел (mel)][3], [лев (lev)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Letter **'Э'** sounds similar to **'e'** in English words 'bed, bet, ten'.  Here are some examples: [это (eto)][5], [эгоист (egoist)][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All links contain audio samples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2#Pronunciation_2&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34519" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14268" RevisionGUID="1e18cdb7-23ae-46cb-b0e0-60147c90f82d" CreationDate="2017-04-14T06:05:01.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852764612491493379" />
  <row Id="34520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14274" RevisionGUID="a4e61709-36a8-4cf5-9495-7cb8765cc1a8" CreationDate="2017-04-14T09:25:04.663" UserDisplayName="user8827" Comment="deleted 110 characters in body" Text="Would someone be able to translate this letter I found. Some of the characters I just don't recognise, I've been learning using typed letters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="a048164a-6742-40c3-b4e5-31995ed23533" CreationDate="2017-04-14T11:19:38.317" UserId="8831" Text="I'm very new to learning Russian and I was wondering if the word ест has different meanings? I thought it meant eat, but then noticed it was being used in different contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgive the simplicity of my question, as I say I am just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34522" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="a048164a-6742-40c3-b4e5-31995ed23533" CreationDate="2017-04-14T11:19:38.317" UserId="8831" Text="&quot;ест&quot; eat or have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34523" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="a048164a-6742-40c3-b4e5-31995ed23533" CreationDate="2017-04-14T11:19:38.317" UserId="8831" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14279" RevisionGUID="24312661-a6d9-4474-a15b-a23931490ac4" CreationDate="2017-04-14T11:42:22.033" UserId="134" Text="There are two verbs in Russian which are homonymous in one of their forms: it's *есть* meaning &quot;to eat&quot; (infinitive) and *есть* meaning &quot;(he) is&quot; (third person singular present from *быть* &quot;to be&quot;). These verbs are not cognates (meaning they are not connected etymologically), they just happen to be homonyms in that one form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language exhibits a phenomenon called &quot;proximal possession&quot;: a common way to express a concept of &quot;someone having something&quot; is saying, literally, &quot;at someone there is something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть машина* would mean &quot;I have a car&quot;, or, literally, &quot;there is a car at me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, the word *ест* does not mean anything other than &quot;(he) eats&quot;. However, its infinitive form, *есть* &quot;to eat&quot;, has a homonym with a sense of &quot;having&quot; indeed, though it's not its primary meaning and it's only a homonym in one particular form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть овощи полезно для здоровья // Eating vegetables is good for your health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него в холодильнике есть овощи // He has some veggies in his fridge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14280" RevisionGUID="977be98f-cd69-40e0-a86e-29fb4e650c45" CreationDate="2017-04-14T11:49:38.777" UserId="1262" Text="The form ***ест*** ((s)he eats) is always Thir Person Present Tense Singular from the verb ***есть*** and so forever shall it be. It is therefore very different from the  form ***есть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Yes, the Palatalisation (that nowadays unpronounced soft sign at the end of the verb) does matter in Russian phonetics).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, again, the form ***есть*** is a homonym for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) infinitive form of ***есть*** (to eat) and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Third Person Present Tense Singular copula verb ***есть*** ('to be', but also used as 'to have' in 'A has B'-type structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in fact you have to distingwish between all the three (unless you will additionally want to know why in certain structures of A-has-B-type Russian speakers prefer to use this form and in other cases of the same structures they omit the verb completely, e.g. what is a difference between the phrases '***У меня есть машина***'; '***У меня - машина***' and '***Машина - у меня***').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14273" RevisionGUID="151bfd9b-8288-4984-9306-5cee7c1dba6e" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:03:51.077" UserId="1262" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="The consonant letter *resembling* a vowel by its form  is ***З з*** (like number three), so your friend might inintentionally mistake the ***З з*** for ***Э э***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letter ***Э э*** is closer to the first part [ε] in the diphtong from the English word  'care', while the Russian ***E e*** is closer to pronuciation of English E e in 'ten' as a shorter version of E e in Swedish *sedan* or *mer*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel ***E e*** palatalises preceding consonants, while the vowel ***Э э*** doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the vowel ***E e*** is read as [j + e] after another vowel, a soft or a hard sign, and it is read as ***[i]*** in an unstressed position (***Если съехать в сьерру и съесть ежа, то едва ли сегодня*** = ***[j'esli sjekhat'fs'jerru is'jest' jizha tajidvali s'ivodn'ja]*** ), whilest the letter ***Э э*** is always read as ***Э э***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14281" RevisionGUID="82526a42-19e5-460d-89df-d3f131b3d6a2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:19:43.223" UserId="5423" Text="Less than 2 years after asking this question, I ended up doing a beginner's course in Russian. I started learning Russian about 6 months after I finished getting some beginner's lessons for Mongolian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't very successful in learning Mongolian or how to pronounce it, but I can't recall any differences in pronunciation of individual letters between the two languages per se. The main challenges I recall having during the Russian course was learning how to handle lots of consonants together, such as &quot;Здравствуйте&quot;, and rules about how pronunciation works, such as unstressed vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the knowledge I had of Cyrillic before doing the Russian course, I wouldn't know how to pronounce Russian words correctly, but I'd be able to tell what English-language word they were related to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that though I didn't notice a difference in individual letters, the two languages sound fairly different. Mongolian has been [described][1] as &quot;listening to two cats hiss and spit at each other until one of them throws up&quot;, and the only qualification I'd add to that is that I think it's a very beautiful hissing and spitting, while Russian sounds like your average European language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://drvalfarmer.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/mongolian-language.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14279" RevisionGUID="d3a08082-c90b-49cb-8c7c-b68cf3dfdd85" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:20:28.887" UserId="134" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="There are two verbs in Russian which are homonymous in one of their forms: it's *есть* meaning &quot;to eat&quot; (infinitive) and *есть* meaning &quot;(he) is&quot; (third person singular present from *быть* &quot;to be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs are not cognates (meaning they are not connected etymologically), they just happen to be homonyms in that one form and only in Russian, not even the most closely related Belorussian and Ukrainian. Before the spelling reform on 1918 they were not even homographs: they were *есть* &quot;(he) is&quot; and *ѣсть* &quot;to eat&quot;, reflecting the historical difference in vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language exhibits a phenomenon called &quot;proximal possession&quot;: a common way to express a concept of &quot;someone having something&quot; is saying, literally, &quot;at someone there is something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть машина* would mean &quot;I have a car&quot;, or, literally, &quot;there is a car at me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, the word *ест* does not mean anything other than &quot;(he) eats&quot;. However, its infinitive form, *есть* &quot;to eat&quot;, has a homonym with a sense of &quot;having&quot; indeed, though it's not its primary meaning and it's only a homonym in one particular form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть овощи полезно для здоровья // Eating vegetables is good for your health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него в холодильнике есть овощи // He has some veggies in his fridge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14282" RevisionGUID="6d1a7d5c-2d64-410f-8270-2dcd3622c46c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:29:59.910" UserId="5423" Text="When not referring to the actual Mongolian currency, what nuances does the term &quot;тугрик&quot; have, if any?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, does it imply that the currency is weak?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14282" RevisionGUID="6d1a7d5c-2d64-410f-8270-2dcd3622c46c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:29:59.910" UserId="5423" Text="What nuances does the term &quot;тугрик&quot; have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14282" RevisionGUID="6d1a7d5c-2d64-410f-8270-2dcd3622c46c" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:29:59.910" UserId="5423" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34532" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="a2197c20-fb07-499e-816a-5ad491da6485" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:44:21.620" UserId="8831" Comment="editing spelling" Text="&quot;есть&quot; eat or have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14283" RevisionGUID="ca0bdd50-b50e-49dc-8f83-7f585c1edb6e" CreationDate="2017-04-14T12:52:35.153" UserId="134" Text="It usually metaphorically means &quot;some obscure local currency&quot;, hardly known and hardly usable outside the country of origin; &quot;some kind of monetary surrogate of limited use and circulation&quot; (such as chits, company store vouchers, in-game currency in online games etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's close in meaning to English &quot;monopoly money&quot; or &quot;funny money&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В портах, куда мы заходили, нам выдавали ― донги или еще какие тугрики. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не стал говорить Владимиру, что местные тугрики тоже называются долларами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут надо заметить, что в Мексике местные тугрики обозначают таким же значком, как доллары" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="6e7c4eb2-0ba6-4653-b6ab-12160bd56e84" CreationDate="2017-04-14T16:08:08.123" UserId="8831" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm very new to learning Russian and I was wondering if the word есть has different meanings? I thought it meant eat, but then noticed it was being used in different contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forgive the simplicity of my question, as I say I am just starting out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14272" RevisionGUID="b2281f86-f814-4959-a2e2-49f187fee2d2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T17:02:25.597" UserId="1262" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Roughly said, ***об-*** means '[centered] around' and ***по-*** means 'along [and then to somewhere else]'. The difference is also in cases for adverbial complement - not  always but quite often, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дети облазили чердак.*** = The kids have investigated all the loft through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я обдумаю это.*** = I'll think about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Она обделала порог.*** = She shat around [all] the threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дети полазали на чердаке.*** = The kids has been investigating the loft [for a while].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я подумаю об этом.*** = I'll think about this [and then I'll shift to some other topic].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он поделал порог.*** = He's been making a threshold [for a while and then he switched to some other activity].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the difference is that ***об-*** refers to a non-literal meaning, while ***по-***  indicates the action as it is, thus making the meaning entirely different, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я обрёл смысл.*** = I've found [the supreme] meaning [of/in smth]. NB: the ***об-*** is regarded by some researchers as a part of the stem, but the stem actually is a historical cognate of Lithuanian *ràsti* and  *surė̃sti* (acc. to Fasmer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я побрёл своим путём.*** = I wended my way along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дым обволок кострище.*** = The smoke coated the fireplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Волк поволок ягнёнка в тёмный лес.*** = A wolf was taking a lamb into a dark forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дела обстоят хорошо.*** = The things / the circumstances are OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Они постоят и пойдут.*** = They'll stand there for a while and then they'll part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the difference between ***облизать*** and ***полизать*** will be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Котёнок облизал сметану.*** = The kitten has licked [all the] sour creme [around].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Котёнок полизал сметану.*** = The kitten has licked some sour creme [for a while and then switched to some other activity]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="caad06ae-39e2-4219-8d49-3029f2791f64" CreationDate="2017-04-14T17:12:02.490" UserId="1262" Text="The term as a reference to exotic currency was widepread during times of Soviet international contracts. Since nineties, the meaning became broader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonosemantically and similar to [cockney rhyming slang][1], the term implies a joking attitude (towards the topic, the situation, the curency, goods, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context it can refer not just to an exotic monetary unit, but to Russian roubles or more usual currency as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Есть тугрики?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай тугрики!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34539" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14270" RevisionGUID="703d4ac1-b049-422c-ba53-cfa1bfc68bc2" CreationDate="2017-04-14T17:45:30.763" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between prefixes &quot;об&quot; and &quot;по&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14279" RevisionGUID="89ee1ca4-fe42-4eab-9412-c6fa82124932" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:33:29.723" UserId="134" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="There are two verbs in Russian which are homonymous in one of their forms: it's *есть* meaning &quot;to eat&quot; (infinitive) and *есть* meaning &quot;(he) is&quot; (third person singular present from *быть* &quot;to be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs are not cognates (meaning they are not connected etymologically), they just happen to be homonyms in that one form and only in Russian, not even the most closely related Belorussian and Ukrainian. Before the spelling reform of 1918 they even were not homographs: they were spelled as *есть* &quot;(he) is&quot; and *ѣсть* &quot;to eat&quot;, respectively, the spellings using historically different root vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language exhibits a phenomenon called &quot;proximal possession&quot;: a common way to express a concept of &quot;someone having something&quot; is saying, literally, &quot;at someone there is something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть машина* would mean &quot;I have a car&quot;, or, literally, &quot;there is a car at me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, the word *ест* does not mean anything other than &quot;(he) eats&quot;. However, its infinitive form, *есть* &quot;to eat&quot;, has a homonym with a sense of &quot;having&quot; indeed, though it's not its primary meaning and it's only a homonym in one particular form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть овощи полезно для здоровья // Eating vegetables is good for your health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него в холодильнике есть овощи // He has some veggies in his fridge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14284" RevisionGUID="96c337ba-c229-49ca-baef-0d0ac03b7cdc" CreationDate="2017-04-14T20:33:55.433" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The term as a reference to exotic currency was widepread during times of Soviet international contracts. Since nineties, the meaning became broader. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonosemantically and similar to [cockney rhyming slang][1], the term implies a joking attitude (towards the topic, the situation, the currency, goods, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context it can refer not just to an exotic monetary unit, but to Russian roubles or more usual currency as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Есть тугрики?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай тугрики!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34542" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14278" RevisionGUID="047bc0c3-4450-4ee4-a53a-0ab0b825b909" CreationDate="2017-04-14T21:06:06.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/852991373468893184" />
  <row Id="34544" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14282" RevisionGUID="7a369657-c7a1-4383-89e8-0f0ad68bb134" CreationDate="2017-04-15T03:08:29.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/853082572993245184" />
  <row Id="34546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="b830fd58-55f3-47c2-92f1-54dc0f20d0cd" CreationDate="2017-04-15T09:20:10.657" UserId="6074" Text="Вчера я отдал свою швейную машину. Предупреждал женщину, которой я ее дал, что она очень тяжела. Она ответила, что »Своя ноша не тяжела«. Как это понимать? Она объяснила этот пословице, но Я его не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I gave my sewing machine away. I warned the lady I gave it to that it was heavy. She answered, &quot;Своя ноша не тяжела&quot;. How to understand that phrase? She tried to explain it to me but I didn't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="b830fd58-55f3-47c2-92f1-54dc0f20d0cd" CreationDate="2017-04-15T09:20:10.657" UserId="6074" Text="What does &quot;Своя ноша не тяжела&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="b830fd58-55f3-47c2-92f1-54dc0f20d0cd" CreationDate="2017-04-15T09:20:10.657" UserId="6074" Text="|пословицы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14286" RevisionGUID="229bfe87-d4b9-44f5-9dc2-13b7d889bc8b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T10:48:43.877" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Своя ноша не тяжела или Своя ноша не тянет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a proverb that means &quot;What is done for yourself is not hard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Even if it is really a hard job." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14286" RevisionGUID="77fa5a52-4ec8-486c-90e0-7dc4a965d9dd" CreationDate="2017-04-15T11:09:11.937" UserId="6539" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="&gt;Своя ноша не тяжела или Своя ноша не тянет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a proverb that means &quot;What is done for yourself is not hard&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Even if it is really a hard job.&#xD;&#xA;Just to add the English equivalent &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;A burden of one's own choice is not felt&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14288" RevisionGUID="808aa87e-e276-4c04-aaf4-76a2606e097f" CreationDate="2017-04-15T15:25:36.287" UserId="8849" Text="A: &quot;What happened?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;B: &quot;You tell me!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы скажй?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14288" RevisionGUID="808aa87e-e276-4c04-aaf4-76a2606e097f" CreationDate="2017-04-15T15:25:36.287" UserId="8849" Text="How to say &quot;You tell me!&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14288" RevisionGUID="808aa87e-e276-4c04-aaf4-76a2606e097f" CreationDate="2017-04-15T15:25:36.287" UserId="8849" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14289" RevisionGUID="d6871787-8f99-4263-8ebd-6b8b81ffa8ce" CreationDate="2017-04-15T15:46:13.530" UserId="3680" Text="I'd translate it as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сами скажите!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сам скажи!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вы/Ты&quot; instead of &quot;Сами&quot; is acceptable too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14290" RevisionGUID="6c338fd8-cb00-42a1-b38b-31a616d9cccf" CreationDate="2017-04-15T17:58:09.470" UserId="2079" Text="In Russian, there is an expression &quot;а это ты мне скажи&quot;/&quot;а это вы мне скажите&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14291" RevisionGUID="abe32e67-ea55-4088-a842-5f6c1355656b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:09:03.867" UserId="8850" Text="I am trying to make sense of Goncharov's signature as it appears [in this book][1]. Although I am familiar with the cyrillic alphabet in print, I am unable to see Goncharov's name there. Is it really there or is it something else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.org/stream/polnoesobranies04goncgoog?ui=embed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14291" RevisionGUID="abe32e67-ea55-4088-a842-5f6c1355656b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:09:03.867" UserId="8850" Text="Goncharov's signature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14291" RevisionGUID="abe32e67-ea55-4088-a842-5f6c1355656b" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:09:03.867" UserId="8850" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14292" RevisionGUID="e6753517-6b1e-4970-815b-5158946efe53" CreationDate="2017-04-15T18:58:00.843" UserId="6539" Text="In Russian if we are angry we can just reply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;–Что случилось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;–Он/она еще спрашивает! Это ты скажи.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14293" RevisionGUID="4967a802-bd36-4cdf-85a5-122802d75fe0" CreationDate="2017-04-15T21:27:34.667" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Although I am familiar with the cyrillic alphabet in print&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian handwritten script is quite different from a printed one, just like it's in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is it really there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, his signature is rather clear. It's &quot;**I**&quot; followed by a dot (i.e. Ivan) and &quot;**Gonchar**&quot; with some curly tail (probably &quot;ov&quot; yet merely unreadable as it's normal with signatures) which also provide a closure of the first letter &quot;G&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14294" RevisionGUID="e9d75fc0-8cee-4c8e-84ea-0a7290783765" CreationDate="2017-04-16T00:07:34.987" UserId="8852" Text="As a native speaker I understand it as just a slang term for &quot;money&quot;, similar to &quot;капуста&quot;, not sure that teenagers are using it, probably adult audience is more inclined to use it ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="3ddb2ef8-c80f-42ac-a93c-1022aa229925" CreationDate="2017-04-16T07:31:37.413" UserId="6074" Comment="A few corrections" Text="Вчера я отдал свою швейную машину. Предупреждал женщину, которой я ее дал, что она очень тяжела. Она ответила, что «Своя ноша не тяжела». Как это понимать? Она объяснила этот пословице, но я его не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I gave my sewing machine away. I warned the lady I gave it to that it was heavy. She answered, &quot;Своя ноша не тяжела&quot;. How to understand that phrase? She tried to explain it to me but I didn't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34572" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14291" RevisionGUID="b1c50056-a9c8-4782-b810-918af23057ca" CreationDate="2017-04-16T09:11:49.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/853536396644110336" />
  <row Id="34573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14295" RevisionGUID="f3c19bcb-bdc2-46a1-8cd2-a8715ec7c242" CreationDate="2017-04-16T18:59:07.210" UserId="6816" Text="When I play online games I often hear people who have just connected say what sounds like &quot;Меня слышно?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I think this means &quot;Can you hear me?&quot; because they want to know if their microphone works. However, this seems like incorrect grammar.&#xA;&#xA;Is this a set phrase or am I misinterpreting what they are saying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14295" RevisionGUID="f3c19bcb-bdc2-46a1-8cd2-a8715ec7c242" CreationDate="2017-04-16T18:59:07.210" UserId="6816" Text="Meaning of &quot;Меня слышно?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14295" RevisionGUID="f3c19bcb-bdc2-46a1-8cd2-a8715ec7c242" CreationDate="2017-04-16T18:59:07.210" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14296" RevisionGUID="d3fdd024-b687-496d-996e-5175b76b3184" CreationDate="2017-04-16T20:50:11.547" UserId="1262" Text="Yes, this is a set phrase and - no, you are right in your interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure itself is an ellipsis with an omitted quasi-ergative subject in Dative (elliptical topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(Всем)   (ли)     меня     слышно?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***All-DAT INTERROG me-ACC heard-NEUT***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The commentary on the topic is an archaic form of participle, which in modern Russian is formally similar to adverbs (cf. ***можно, нужно, важно, видно, слышно*** VS ***осторожно, возможно, рано, поздно,*** etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other samples of similar structure (I am not sure whether it is productive or not):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Можно Вас? / Вам можно / нельзя.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кого (не) нужно (по)звать)?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Его / Ему (не) видно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нас / Нам (не) слышно.***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some structures, however, are possible only in quasi-ergative forms (unless they contain an elliptical verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мне рано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Тебе поздно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Каждому понятно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Всем ясно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Им обидно.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="cf77ac9d-abf9-4eb1-ac19-54cd4962c72c" CreationDate="2017-04-16T20:51:12.937" UserId="5600" Comment="Corrected grammar and phrasing." Text="Вчера я отдал свою швейную машинку. Предупредил женщину, которой я ее дал, что она очень тяжела. Она ответила, что «Своя ноша не тяжела». Что это значит? Она объяснила эту пословицу, но я её не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I gave my sewing machine away. I warned the lady I gave it to that it was heavy. She answered, &quot;Своя ноша не тяжела&quot;. How to understand that phrase? She tried to explain it to me but I didn't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34578" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="cf77ac9d-abf9-4eb1-ac19-54cd4962c72c" CreationDate="2017-04-16T20:51:12.937" Comment="Proposed by 5600 approved by -1 edit id of 855" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="0305a590-c0ed-4daf-98c5-eb06bcf83cc6" CreationDate="2017-04-16T20:51:12.937" UserId="1262" Comment="Corrected grammar and phrasing." Text="Вчера я отдал свою швейную машинку. Предупредил женщину, которой я ее дал, что она очень тяжела. Она ответила, что «Своя ноша не тяжела». Как это понимать? Она объяснила эту пословицу, но я её не понял.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yesterday I gave my sewing machine away. I warned the lady I gave it to that it was heavy. She answered, &quot;Своя ноша не тяжела&quot;. How to understand that phrase? She tried to explain it to me but I didn't understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14279" RevisionGUID="156d59c7-56b3-4299-b458-7245b2f16cd8" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:08:54.873" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="There are two verbs in Russian which are homonymous in one of their forms: it's *есть* meaning &quot;to eat&quot; (infinitive) and *есть* meaning &quot;(it) is&quot; (third person singular present from *быть* &quot;to be&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These verbs are not cognates (meaning they are not connected etymologically), they just happen to be homonyms in that one form and only in Russian, not even the most closely related Belorussian and Ukrainian. Before the spelling reform of 1918 they even were not homographs: they were spelled as *есть* &quot;(it) is&quot; and *ѣсть* &quot;to eat&quot;, respectively, the spellings using historically different root vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language exhibits a phenomenon called &quot;proximal possession&quot;: a common way to express a concept of &quot;someone having something&quot; is saying, literally, &quot;at someone there is something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть машина* would mean &quot;I have a car&quot;, or, literally, &quot;there is a car at me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering your question, the word *ест* does not mean anything other than &quot;(he) eats&quot;. However, its infinitive form, *есть* &quot;to eat&quot;, has a homonym with a sense of &quot;having&quot; indeed, though it's not its primary meaning and it's only a homonym in one particular form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть овощи полезно для здоровья // Eating vegetables is good for your health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него в холодильнике есть овощи // He has some veggies in his fridge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14285" RevisionGUID="e61b6ae3-67c8-4bcb-9726-30191d03106e" CreationDate="2017-04-17T09:18:18.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/853900414206574592" />
  <row Id="34588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14296" RevisionGUID="106b5bc0-412a-4c74-938f-e9c224d90b71" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:55:00.003" UserId="1262" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is a set phrase and - no, you are right in your interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure itself is an ellipsis with an omitted quasi-ergative subject in Dative (elliptical topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(Всем)   (ли)     меня     слышно?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***All-DAT INTERROG me-ACC heard-NEUT***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The commentary on the topic is an archaic form of participle, which in modern Russian is formally similar to adverbs (cf. ***можно, нужно, важно, видно, слышно*** VS ***осторожно, возможно, рано, поздно,*** etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other samples of similar structures (I am not sure whether they are  productive or not):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Можно Вас? / Вам можно / нельзя.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кого (не) нужно (по)звать)?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Его / Ему (не) видно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нас / Нам (не) слышно.***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some structures, however, are possible only in quasi-ergative forms (unless they contain an elliptical verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мне рано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Тебе поздно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Каждому понятно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Всем ясно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Им обидно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кому-то завидно.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14298" RevisionGUID="cdbcf583-e3d3-4430-a63b-f9867c3bbf95" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:07:43.923" UserId="8856" Text="    &quot;Ничто не причина&quot; – пишет Лев Николаевич – &quot;Все это только совпадение...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14298" RevisionGUID="cdbcf583-e3d3-4430-a63b-f9867c3bbf95" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:07:43.923" UserId="8856" Text="Правильно ли оформлена цитата?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14298" RevisionGUID="cdbcf583-e3d3-4430-a63b-f9867c3bbf95" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:07:43.923" UserId="8856" Text="|пунктуация|цитата|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34592" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14195" RevisionGUID="cf98d036-481a-4ab6-9eb4-ad410d104cc4" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:18:17.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/853945710051545088" />
  <row Id="34593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14299" RevisionGUID="4aca5b59-548e-4d62-946e-a4bb1c6d486d" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:26:48.313" UserId="134" Text="&gt; &amp;laquo;Ничто не причина, — пишет Лев Николаевич. — Всё это только совпадение…&amp;raquo;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., *Справочник по правописанию…*, §121:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Если авторские слова стоят внутри прямой речи, выделяемой кавычками, то последние ставятся только в начале и в конце прямой речи и не ставятся между прямой речью и авторскими словами, например: *«Я могу читать, — первый опять заговорил Петрусь, — и скоро выучусь писать пером»* (Короленко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Если на месте разрыва прямой речи должна была стоять точка, то перед авторскими словами ставятся запятая и тире, а после них – точка и тире; вторая часть прямой речи начинается с прописной буквы. Например: *«Их распустили до приговора, — сказал дворник. — Объявят завтра, в девять вечера»* (Трифонов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ibid, §124:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Цитаты заключаются в кавычки. Если цитата оформляется как прямая речь, т.е. сопровождается словами автора, приводящего её, то применяются соответствующие правила пунктуации (см. §119–122).&#xD;&#xA;…&#xD;&#xA;*«Мне кажется, что стиль перевода не будет нарушен, — пишет Корней Чуковский, — если мы в меру и с тактом будем в своем переводе передавать иностранные пословицы и поговорки русскими, особенно в тех случаях, когда буквальный перевод неуклюж и многословен».*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34594" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14274" RevisionGUID="9c6776e3-53e4-4b49-8615-22ae066fdaae" CreationDate="2017-04-17T12:43:44.980" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14276" RevisionGUID="61cace7b-5cc5-4993-a45b-22d4fce191c8" CreationDate="2017-04-17T17:12:13.987" UserId="4903" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Russian letter 'Е' sounds differently when it's the first letter of a word, or when it follows a consonant in the middle of a word. Letter 'Э' sounds the same in any part of the word. Both letters are vowels. As pointed out by manjusri, your friend could have mistaken 'З' (Z) with 'Э' (Е).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Letter **'Э'** sounds similar to **'e'** in English words 'bed, bet, ten'.  Here are some examples: [это (eto)][1], [эгоист (egoist)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the beginning of a word **'Е'** sounds similar to **'ye'** in English 'yes'. Here are some examples: [ель (jelʹ)][3], [есть (jestʹ)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the middle of the word letter **'Е'** softens the preceding consonant and sounds similar to **'e'** in English 'yes'. here are some more examples: [мел (mel)][5], [лев (lev)][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Sometimes, letter 'Е' is pronounced exactly like letter 'Э'.  That happens in words borrowed from foreign languages: [проект (proekt)][7], [модель (modеlʹ)][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All links contain audio samples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2#Pronunciation_2&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14276" RevisionGUID="21e55943-a8a3-4dbb-ab9e-7bac422a7391" CreationDate="2017-04-17T17:25:41.217" UserId="4903" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Russian letter 'Е' sounds differently when it's the first letter of a word, or when it follows a consonant in the middle of a word. Letter 'Э' sounds the same in any part of the word. Both letters are vowels. As pointed out by manjusri, your friend could have mistaken 'З' (Z) with 'Э' (Е).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Letter **'Э'** sounds similar to **'e'** in English words 'bed, bet, ten'.  Here are some examples: [это (eto)][1], [эгоист (egoist)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the beginning of a word **'Е'** sounds similar to **'ye'** in English 'yes'. Here are some examples: [ель (jelʹ)][3], [есть (jestʹ)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * In the middle of the word letter **'Е'** softens the preceding consonant and sounds similar to **'e'** in English 'yes'. here are some more examples: [мел (mel)][5], [лев (lev)][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Sometimes, letter 'Е' is pronounced exactly like letter 'Э'.  That often happens in words borrowed from foreign languages: [проект (proekt)][7], [модель (modеlʹ)][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All links contain audio samples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8D%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2#Pronunciation_2&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14300" RevisionGUID="22781a3e-9bfd-488d-9b1a-9f570feae2c1" CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:07:09.163" UserId="8859" Text="No literal translation possible, because there are different answers depending on context. E.g. if that answering person expresses equal confusion, it must be a  an unrelated phrase in Russian with similar meaning, like &quot;Сам не знаю&quot;, &quot;А что ты у меня спрашиваешь?&quot;, &quot;А черт его знает&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If answer  implies that talking person believes that asking person knows more than them, possible  answers would be closer to English original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ты еще спрашиваешь!                     (you are asking?)&#xD;&#xA;- Ты еще и спрашиваешь!  (empasized form)  (And you _are_ asking?)&#xD;&#xA;- Это ты мне скажи, что случилось.  (You tell me what did happen?)&#xD;&#xA;- Это у тебя надо спросить!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14300" RevisionGUID="348ebfe4-bf06-4c04-b0ab-c9b4d8063188" CreationDate="2017-04-18T06:13:46.843" UserId="8859" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="No literal translation possible, because there are different answers depending on context. E.g. if that answering person expresses equal confusion, it must be a  an unrelated phrase in Russian with similar meaning, like &quot;Сам не знаю&quot;, &quot;А что ты у меня спрашиваешь?&quot;, &quot;А черт его знает&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If answer  implies that talking person believes that asking person knows more than them, possible  answers would be closer to English original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ты еще спрашиваешь!                     (you are asking?)&#xD;&#xA;- Ты еще и спрашиваешь!  (empasized form)  (And you _are_ asking?)&#xD;&#xA;- Это ты мне скажи, что случилось.  (You tell me what did happen?)&#xD;&#xA;- Это у тебя надо спросить! (You're one who must be questioned)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To situation described in comment, first variant is closest, if B also knows that A related to  event in question. Last two, if B just suspects it and confronts A" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14301" RevisionGUID="18c5422e-e3d5-43bf-b797-df07388e0121" CreationDate="2017-04-19T06:23:35.433" UserId="8859" Text="Impersonal sentences ALWAYS express  elemental, unconscious, passive nature of action or state. Second sentence can be transformed into personal one in form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Деревья были свалены ветром.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Trees are felled by wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning of impersonal sentence is just same as of passive form. In most cases impersonal sentences should be translated as passive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Меня сбило с ног.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    I was knocked down. \\ I've been thrown off my feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One may argue that one should use `повалило` and `повалены` as more appropriate verb that have only that exact meaning, without being homophonic to a form of verb `свалять` (roll up, knead). In real life cases, the verb `повалить`, translated to English with relatively rarely used verb `to fell` (not to be confused with past tense of `to fall`), is actually more frequently used in this situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14296" RevisionGUID="b8bbcd4d-9320-44aa-a080-1432edfd1352" CreationDate="2017-04-19T10:05:25.220" UserId="1262" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Yes, this is a set phrase and - no, you are right in your interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure itself is an ellipsis with an omitted quasi-ergative subject in Dative (elliptical topic):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(Всем)   (ли)     меня     слышно?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***All-DAT INTERROG me-ACC heard-NEUT***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The commentary on the topic is an archaic form of participle, which in modern Russian is formally similar to adverbs (cf. ***можно, нужно, важно, видно, слышно*** VS ***осторожно, возможно, рано, поздно,*** etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other samples of similar structures (I am not sure whether they are  productive or not):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Можно Вас? / Вам можно / нельзя.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кого (не) нужно (по)звать)?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Его / Ему (не) видно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нас / Нам (не) слышно.***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some structures, however, are possible only in quasi-ergative forms (unless they contain an elliptical verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мне рано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Тебе поздно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Каждому понятно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Всем ясно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Им обидно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(Не) каждому дано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кому-то завидно.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14302" RevisionGUID="3439cecf-38ff-455f-ba08-b7fc9b5c7a5a" CreationDate="2017-04-19T10:31:51.220" UserId="1262" Text="Apart from being neutral and/or emphasising the subconsciopus perception, the words with neutrum verbs (another type of quasi-[ergative][1] structure in Russian) work as sentences with [dummy pronouns][2] in European languages (French, English and German) except that the dummy pronoun is elliptical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure emphasises the active nature of non-living agent (placed apart from the context and/or rhema of the saying) and it can be both transitive and intransitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Светало.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Прояснилось.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of 'elliptical quasi-ergative structures' work both in Present and Past tenses, where the Present Tense is rendered through the Past Passive Participle of archaic type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Глаза заволошены / заволокло дымкой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Горло стянуто / стянуло сухостью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Грудь сдавлена / сдавило тяжестью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Пламя окутано / окутало тьмой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Небо озарено / озарило луной.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Горизонт освещен / осветило багровым закатом.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ночь разлита / разлило невидимой рукой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ум охвачен / охватило прозрачностью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14302" RevisionGUID="0ca07ff2-4458-46ef-af9b-1bc1dcefd4ab" CreationDate="2017-04-19T10:38:54.483" UserId="1262" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="Apart from being neutral and/or emphasising the subconsciopus perception, the words with neutrum verbs (another type of quasi-[ergative][1] structure in Russian) work as sentences with [dummy pronouns][2] in European languages (French, English and German) except that the dummy pronoun is elliptical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure emphasises the active nature of non-living agent (placed apart from the context and/or rhema of the saying) and it can be both reflexive and non-reflexive verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Светало.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Прояснилось.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs from participles, while non-perfective verbs are more likely to from quasi-ergative structures with neutrum verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Решено.*** vs ***Решилось.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Прояснено / Разъяснено.*** vs ***Прояснилось.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of 'elliptical quasi-ergative structures' work both in Present and Past tenses, where the Present Tense is rendered through the Past Passive Participle of archaic type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Глаза заволошены / заволокло дымкой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Горло стянуто / стянуло сухостью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Грудь сдавлена / сдавило тяжестью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Пламя окутано / окутало тьмой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Небо озарено / озарило луной.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Горизонт освещен / осветило багровым закатом.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ночь разлита / разлило невидимой рукой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ум охвачен / охватило прозрачностью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14302" RevisionGUID="6cd06a5f-dd99-4a34-bc07-6d3d0a48a145" CreationDate="2017-04-19T10:46:14.750" UserId="1262" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="Apart from being neutral and/or emphasising the subconsciopus perception, the words with neutrum verbs (another type of quasi-[ergative][1] structure in Russian) work as sentences with [dummy pronouns][2] in European languages (French, English and German) except that the dummy pronoun is elliptical (non-[evidential][3]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure emphasises the active nature of non-living agent (placed apart from the context and/or rhema of the saying) and it can be both reflexive and non-reflexive verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Светало.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Прояснилось.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs from participles, while non-perfective verbs are more likely to from quasi-ergative structures with neutrum verbs, but this is not mandatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Решено.*** vs ***Решилось.*** (both derive from a perfective verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Прояснено / Разъяснено.*** vs ***Прояснилось.*** (imperfective VS perfective)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of 'elliptical quasi-ergative structures' work both in Present and Past tenses, where the Present Tense is rendered through the Past Passive Participle of archaic type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Глаза заволошены / заволокло дымкой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Горло стянуто / стянуло сухостью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Грудь сдавлена / сдавило тяжестью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Пламя окутано / окутало тьмой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Небо озарено / озарило луной.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Горизонт освещен / осветило багровым закатом.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ночь разлита / разлило невидимой рукой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ум охвачен / охватило прозрачностью.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the difference is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Деревья свалил ветер*** =&gt; The sentence describes evidential cause / state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Деревья свалило ветром***  =&gt; The sentence descrives non-evidential cause / state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Thanks to Fenno-Ugric languages.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14261" RevisionGUID="cbe03f62-e98f-41bb-9e1d-745e0dbdb3ea" CreationDate="2017-04-19T10:56:41.827" UserId="2079" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="It is very informal. Here are similar expressions, with similar meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Ничего себе` - colloquial, but not obscene at all&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни фигá себе` - just a bit vulgar or rude.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни хренá себе` - slightly more rude.  For example, a boy at school would not use it when he talks with a teacher.&#xD;&#xA; - `Ни хуя себе` - (the stress is on `я`) outright obscene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, `хрен` (lit. horseradish) is used as a common euphemism for хуй, because horseradish root resembles a penis.  In `ни фига` себе, `фиг` means a fig sign (generally it is called `фúга` or `кýкиш` in Russian, but in expressions like `ни фигá` or `фиг тебе`/`фиг вам`, it becomes male gender and reduced to `фиг`).  The fig sign itself is pretty rude, but the word `фиг` is not.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14304" RevisionGUID="8e6693d3-5da9-42e8-a476-604a7d23ac9b" CreationDate="2017-04-19T15:41:51.137" UserId="7736" Text="When I type Pushkin into google translate, it returns &quot;Пушкин&quot;. On the other hand, when I look at [english wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin), it says &quot;Пу́шкин&quot;. [Russian wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) also has &quot;Пу́шкин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should be used in an English publication? Should the APA-LC be Pushkin or  Pу́shkin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14304" RevisionGUID="8e6693d3-5da9-42e8-a476-604a7d23ac9b" CreationDate="2017-04-19T15:41:51.137" UserId="7736" Text="Is Pushkin Пу́шкин or Пушкин ? Does the у́ matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14304" RevisionGUID="8e6693d3-5da9-42e8-a476-604a7d23ac9b" CreationDate="2017-04-19T15:41:51.137" UserId="7736" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14305" RevisionGUID="f858eac7-b89d-4472-8fea-391878bfa3eb" CreationDate="2017-04-19T15:53:50.723" UserId="1236" Text="That dash above the **у́** is called &quot;stress accent&quot;. Wikipedia marks stress accent in the names of its articles. Such stress accents are not written in most of the Russian texts, they are used mostly in encyclopedias, dictionaries, Russian textbooks ans sometimes in books for children. The stress on **y** means that it is this vowel sound which is the loudest and longest in the word, in Russian you pronounce _Пушкин_ as POOSH-kin. Again, in usual texts those stress accents are _not_ used. Note that later in the Russian Wikipedia article no stress accent is put." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14305" RevisionGUID="58ff4b36-0063-4316-9fd7-49359645c47d" CreationDate="2017-04-19T15:59:39.177" UserId="1236" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="That dash above the **у́** is called &quot;stress accent&quot;. Wikipedia marks stress accent in the names of its articles. Such stress accents are not written in most of the Russian texts, they are used mostly in encyclopedias, dictionaries, Russian textbooks ans sometimes in books for children. The stress on **y** means that it is this vowel sound which is the loudest and longest in the word, in Russian you pronounce _Пушкин_ as POOSH-kin. Again, in usual texts those stress accents are _not_ used. Note that later in the Russian Wikipedia article no stress accent is put. In English the standart spelling of that surname is `Pushkin`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="75c13aed-2add-47ac-9ed5-0f9209cb21d7" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:09:15.797" UserId="3728" Text="I am wondering if there is a Russian equivalent of the English idiom `&quot;A fool and his money are soon parted&quot;`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="75c13aed-2add-47ac-9ed5-0f9209cb21d7" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:09:15.797" UserId="3728" Text="Is there a translation of &quot;A fool and his money are soon parted&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="75c13aed-2add-47ac-9ed5-0f9209cb21d7" CreationDate="2017-04-19T17:09:15.797" UserId="3728" Text="|перевод|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34628" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14304" RevisionGUID="1cde08d0-5da8-40f2-9273-592d78e448d3" CreationDate="2017-04-19T18:50:46.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/854769258810757121" />
  <row Id="34629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14309" RevisionGUID="91ad3907-8611-4679-8bde-5bc1df474644" CreationDate="2017-04-19T20:46:32.497" UserId="8865" Text="I'd say &quot;Я у тебя хотел(а) спросить&quot;. It's quite popular answer.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14310" RevisionGUID="df917cee-e5f9-457d-9288-1f822ec94c65" CreationDate="2017-04-19T23:23:49.370" UserId="8867" Text="anyone can help me to understand what is the translation of words in a box that I draw a circle on it in the following KitKat Picture into English? (what is the words top of 5% in English)? it's so strange for me to read it because my native is Spanish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;any idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/75J40.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14310" RevisionGUID="df917cee-e5f9-457d-9288-1f822ec94c65" CreationDate="2017-04-19T23:23:49.370" UserId="8867" Text="One Crayz but nice to underestand on KitKat Choclate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14310" RevisionGUID="df917cee-e5f9-457d-9288-1f822ec94c65" CreationDate="2017-04-19T23:23:49.370" UserId="8867" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14311" RevisionGUID="e2e3b7c3-4560-4070-a56b-67ef9ceb0aaf" CreationDate="2017-04-20T00:02:30.313" UserId="1262" Text="The answer is simple;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***на порцию*** = per portion / por cada ración;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ккал*** = kcal (a unit of energetical value of food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Trivia: in Ukranian (another East-Slavic language) the words kit-kat could be understood as 'cat the executioner' (gato el verdugo).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14312" RevisionGUID="357fe63b-273e-4191-b228-22623e8f7ade" CreationDate="2017-04-20T00:13:21.470" UserId="1262" Text="Here is a list of proverbs meaning roughly 'it is not worth to be stupid'. I'd vote for the last one as the closest Russian equivalent of the English idiom you have mentioned - though the first one might match some meaning of the phrase as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурак деньги напоказ носит.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дураки о добыче спорят, а умные разделили ее.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурень и дом сожжет, так огню рад.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурак дом построил, а умница купил.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурак торгует, когда базар кончится.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дураки да нищие не родом ведутся, а кому Б-г даст.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дураку все копейка.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, but not least, you can also use the not-so-delicate and less classical, but nontheless explicit ***Недолго музыка играла*** (sometimes followed by ***недолго фраер танцевал***). This phrase can be used in a broader conext." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14311" RevisionGUID="4fabffd9-6f33-4a0e-8287-90363f037058" CreationDate="2017-04-20T00:18:46.323" UserId="1262" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="The answer is simple;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***на порцию 23,5 г*** = per portion of 23,5 g / por cada ración de 23,5 g;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ккал*** = kcal (a unit of energetical value of food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Trivia: in Ukranian (another East-Slavic language) the words kit-kat could be understood as 'cat the executioner' (gato el verdugo).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14312" RevisionGUID="522ea904-4204-4cb7-bb61-7171cced4c88" CreationDate="2017-04-20T00:23:25.480" UserId="1262" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Here is a list of proverbs meaning roughly 'it is not worth being a fool'. I'd vote for the last one as the closest Russian equivalent of the English idiom you have mentioned - though the first one might match some meaning of the phrase as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурак деньги напоказ носит.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дураки о добыче спорят, а умные разделили ее.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурень и дом сожжет, так огню рад.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурак дом построил, а умница купил.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дурак торгует, когда базар кончится.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дураки да нищие не родом ведутся, а кому Б-г даст.*** (though here 'дурак' means rather 'mad' than 'a fool'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дураку все копейка.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, but not least, you can also use the not-so-delicate and less classical, but nontheless explicit ***Недолго музыка играла*** (sometimes followed by ***недолго фраер танцевал***). This phrase can be used in a broader conext." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14313" RevisionGUID="8dd72107-46fa-4521-a8ed-251e60aca789" CreationDate="2017-04-20T07:58:24.563" UserId="5443" Text="In numerous Russian books this English idiom (its sense: &quot;*Дурак легко расстаётся с деньгами*&quot;)  is compared with the Russian proverb: &quot;**У дурака в горсти дыра**&quot;. An example of such a book: *Пословицы и поговорки - &#xD;&#xA;английские, немецкие, французские с русским переводом (Энтраст Трейдинг, Москва 2015).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page:&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=A7nYCQAAQBAJ&amp;hl=ru&amp;pg=PA11&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;ots=mRzKWAIIUY&amp;sig=ACfU3U28TmxXWPOptmFAuwRawvK62wHw0g&amp;w=1280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34639" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14310" RevisionGUID="4ba71bef-51d3-4b6d-9d36-71071928f673" CreationDate="2017-04-20T10:30:20.917" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14314" RevisionGUID="23e3146b-781a-467d-9cf3-993efad12b68" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:03:41.477" UserId="8871" Text="Есть похожие слова, это hardware и software. Как перевести их достаточно очевидно, но imageware?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14314" RevisionGUID="23e3146b-781a-467d-9cf3-993efad12b68" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:03:41.477" UserId="8871" Text="Как можно перевести Imageware на русский?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14314" RevisionGUID="23e3146b-781a-467d-9cf3-993efad12b68" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:03:41.477" UserId="8871" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14315" RevisionGUID="8732aa0e-8c8b-4790-bce6-c13138fa9ba2" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:21:59.853" UserId="1262" Text="***Выбирайте:*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;видеометрика&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;визуальное ПО&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;система распознавания образов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;система визуального распознавания&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;визуальное оснащение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;образ-система&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;имидж-оборудование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;образ-оборудование&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;система образов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;система оптики&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;система образ-вид&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14316" RevisionGUID="4238166e-0261-4468-984f-759f97197928" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:25:44.730" UserId="7239" Text="**Question:** Can someone explain what the difference between `посмеяться` and `засмеяться` is? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both have `смеяться` (to laugh) as their imperfective form, so I am really confused about what the difference might be -- usually perfective verbs with different meanings have different imperfective forms, yet not this time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both verbs appear in my flashcards of the most common verbs in Russian, and I am unsure of what to write in order to remember the difference between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt:** Here is my working hypothesis for now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`засмеяться` - to laugh only in the sense of &quot;to begin laughing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`посмеяться` - to laugh in any other sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be corroborated by the following lines of evidence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Wiktionary articles for [`засмеяться`][1] and [`посмеяться`][2].&#xD;&#xA;- These [internet flashcards][3] I found, which define `засмеяться` as &quot;to start laughing&quot; and `посмеяться` as &quot;to laugh, to chuckle&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- Most of the google image results for `засмеяться` say &quot;попробуй не засмеяться&quot; which I would translate as &quot;try not to (begin) laugh(ing)&quot; while a lot of the google image results for `посмеяться` are &quot;демотиваторы для посмеяться&quot; which I would translate as &quot;demotivators for laughing (but not necessarily beginning to laugh)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [this dictionary][4] translates both verbs as simply meaning &quot;to laugh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://quizlet.com/96048786/quiz-2-flash-cards/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.eudict.com/?lang=ruseng&amp;word=%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C,%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F,%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14316" RevisionGUID="4238166e-0261-4468-984f-759f97197928" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:25:44.730" UserId="7239" Text="What is the difference between посмеяться and засмеяться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14316" RevisionGUID="4238166e-0261-4468-984f-759f97197928" CreationDate="2017-04-20T16:25:44.730" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14317" RevisionGUID="4d227ad1-b6e7-4415-ae4f-5615116a4450" CreationDate="2017-04-20T17:26:30.137" UserId="6097" Text="You are almost right. &quot;Засмеяться&quot; indeed means &quot;to start, to begin to laugh&quot;. But &quot;посмеяться&quot; means &quot;to laugh for a short period of time&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;&quot;Я посмеялся&quot; - I laughed (but I don't laugh any more now). &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34650" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14314" RevisionGUID="7195c026-d64f-4c01-b4d7-9c9cd818a379" CreationDate="2017-04-20T17:31:04.323" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14318" RevisionGUID="551fe8ff-46ae-41d3-bd6c-0b25196a6b00" CreationDate="2017-04-20T17:31:32.430" UserId="134" Text="One of Russian language treats is that it can convey the finest nuance of the verb's aspect (how does the state or action described by the verb develop in time) morphologically rather than analytically (meaning changing a single word using prefixes and suffixes rather than building a phrase out of many words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These nuances sometimes cannot be explained very well in other languages in a few words, and mostly are not even that significant. It's just that Russian works this way, the same way you have to use definite and indefinite articles with nouns in English or have to add evidential markers to verbs in Quechua (this means that in Quechua you can't state a fact without expressing the way you learned about it; you can't just say &quot;that horse is black&quot;, you can only say &quot;I saw that horse was black&quot; or &quot;I think that horse is black&quot; or &quot;that horse is black they say&quot;). This is just how language works and in fact most of the time you can omit those details in translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, there are lots of perfective verbs formed from this root: *засмеяться, посмеяться, рассмеяться, пересмеяться, отсмеяться, усмеяться* etc., all with basic sense of laughing but focusing on different aspects of how does the laughing develop in time. Some of the prefixes have more or less established meaning (you can tell the aspect from looking at the prefix); others are ad-hoc and you just have to learn that form by heart to be able to use it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, *засмеяться* focuses on the beginning of laughing indeed and at the same time is the &quot;default&quot; perfective form of the verb meaning to &quot;laugh&quot;: if you ask a Russian to put *я смеюсь* in future, most would say *я засмеюсь* (Russian forms simple future tense by replacing an imperfective verb with perfective). This is what is used by default to convey the meaning of &quot;laugh&quot; when the grammar requires a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Музыка стихла. В наступившей тишине кто-то засмеялся. // The music faded. Someone's laugh broke the silence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думал, она заплачет. Нет, она не заплакала, она засмеялась… // I thought she would cry. But she didn't cry, she laughed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Посмеяться* is a more specific word, it focuses on first starting the laugh then ending it. It could be translated as &quot;to have had a laugh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оба посмеялись, как это бывает в таких случаях у мужчин. // They both have had a laugh, as it is customary between men on such occasions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И командировочный опять посмеялся, глядя на Нюру. // And the business trip man had a laugh again looking at Nyura." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34652" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14314" RevisionGUID="7195c026-d64f-4c01-b4d7-9c9cd818a379" CreationDate="2017-04-20T17:31:04.323" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="Как можно перевести &quot;imageware&quot; на русский?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14319" RevisionGUID="6173c4c0-83ef-4cf8-b85a-0f08bf6df6c9" CreationDate="2017-04-20T17:39:26.633" UserId="6539" Text="Посмеяться means 1)to **laugh for some time** or 2) if you have an object or a person **to laugh at, to joke, to mock at someone**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы посмеялись его шутке. Посмеяться над анекдотом.&#xD;&#xA;Посмеяться над чувствами влюбленного.  Посмеяться над приятелем.  Она посмеялась надо мной и была, наверное, права.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Засмеяться means to **start laughing** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он услышал анекдот и засмеялся." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14320" RevisionGUID="500052e2-8a48-423b-b4b5-bf12e53ade31" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:37:58.047" UserId="8859" Text="Нужен контекст для перевода. Вообще это торговая марка,  вид программного обеспечения, в оригинале вроде бы Canon.  Если и становится нарицательным, то только в очень  специфическом контексте, устойчивого перевода в некоторых случаях нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Hardware может означать любое оборудование, детали, скобяной товар и прочие технические  аналоги (durable equipment, gear, paraphernalia, equipment). Hardware - это не только оборудование, но  замок для двери, коробка гвоздей  и снаряжение надетое на Вас. Hardware store в прошлом бы переводилось как скобяная лавка, сейчас скорее это может быть и хозяйственный магазин, и магазин торгующий каким-то оборудованием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software - это укрепившийся сленг построенный по аналогии с Hardware. Есть еще firmware и wetware - а как ЭТО вы переведете? wetware в оригинале было придумано фантастами для обозначения биологических машин или имплантатов, а сейчас так иногда обозначают все продукты биоинженерии. Vaporware - единственное слово из этого семейства, переводимое однозначно: &quot;мыльный пузырь&quot;, фиктивный, несуществующий продукт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14320" RevisionGUID="0a1c12ee-797f-454d-99d3-21a29bb5e306" CreationDate="2017-04-20T20:43:21.517" UserId="8859" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Нужен контекст для перевода. Вообще это торговая марка,  вид программного обеспечения, в оригинале вроде бы Canon.  Если и становится нарицательным, то только в очень  специфическом контексте, устойчивого перевода в некоторых случаях нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Hardware может означать любое оборудование, детали, скобяной товар и прочие технические  аналоги (durable equipment, gear, paraphernalia, equipment). Hardware - это не только оборудование, но  замок для двери, коробка гвоздей  и снаряжение надетое на Вас. Hardware store в прошлом бы переводилось как скобяная лавка, сейчас скорее это может быть и хозяйственный магазин, и магазин торгующий каким-то оборудованием или инструментом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Software - это укрепившийся сленг построенный по аналогии с Hardware. Есть еще firmware и wetware - а как ЭТО вы переведете? wetware в оригинале было придумано фантастами для обозначения биологических машин или имплантатов, а сейчас так иногда обозначают все продукты биоинженерии. Vaporware - единственное слово из этого семейства, переводимое однозначно: &quot;мыльный пузырь&quot;, фиктивный, несуществующий продукт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34656" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14306" RevisionGUID="8b13ca5d-2579-4f2d-ad6e-e17d271aab66" CreationDate="2017-04-20T21:56:08.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/855178294437609472" />
  <row Id="34658" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14314" RevisionGUID="6f60db48-0533-485f-89e2-96fc0dadf688" CreationDate="2017-04-21T08:10:48.170" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14319" RevisionGUID="10a92385-2428-4c18-8ecd-1c1cdd3024a1" CreationDate="2017-04-21T12:03:13.007" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Посмеяться means 1)to **laugh for some time** or 2) if you have an object or a person **to laugh at, to joke, to mock at someone**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы посмеялись его шутке. Посмеяться над анекдотом.&#xD;&#xA;Посмеяться над чувствами влюбленного.  Посмеяться над приятелем.  Она посмеялась надо мной и была, наверное, права.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Засмеяться means to **start laughing** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он услышал анекдот и засмеялся.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14321" RevisionGUID="9f483977-94e3-48bd-8d11-780a10a8a8a2" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:13:46.457" UserId="8126" Text="I couldn't understand why &quot;`зуб`&quot; is in genitive case(`зубов`) in the following sentence. What is the grammatical explanation for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у меня в два раза больше зубов,чем у тебя." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14321" RevisionGUID="9f483977-94e3-48bd-8d11-780a10a8a8a2" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:13:46.457" UserId="8126" Text="Why is &quot;зуб&quot; in genitive case in the following comparison?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14321" RevisionGUID="9f483977-94e3-48bd-8d11-780a10a8a8a2" CreationDate="2017-04-21T13:13:46.457" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14322" RevisionGUID="c1435775-e7d9-46db-9f9d-28dbdc5722ea" CreationDate="2017-04-21T14:13:25.330" UserId="6097" Text="The explanation is very simple - you must use genitive after *больше* and *меньше* as well as after *много* and *мало* or telling an exact number (*у меня десять пальцев и сто тысяч волос*). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34665" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14316" RevisionGUID="ccbc7688-9ad7-4838-b8b9-5a98f1e770f7" CreationDate="2017-04-21T16:05:52.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/855452534646984704" />
  <row Id="34666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14323" RevisionGUID="1a4e2e5a-b856-46b9-bc5f-201b1d479cc1" CreationDate="2017-04-21T21:01:52.940" UserId="2079" Text="Words which describe inexact quality govern genitive plural: много котов, мало котов, больше котов, чем у тебя, немного котов, несколько котов, столько же котов, сколько у вас котов...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words which describe number also govern genitive plural unless then end by 1,2,3,4, but not 11,12,13,14: 8 котов, 112 котов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, quantors есть коты, некоторые коты, все коты govern nominative plural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14324" RevisionGUID="f4e7cef9-abfa-4aaf-8a87-fc71f0c3c9b5" CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:53:48.557" UserId="4306" Text="Дорогая передача!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must confess that until recently I never read any of Vysotsky in print. Doing so for the first time I've stumbled upon these lines, and I was immensely surprised. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Но на происки и бредни&#xD;&#xA;       Сети есть у нас, и бредни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the word `Сети` is absolutely artificial and makes no sense. I bet he meant SETI, as in `Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, is there an authoritative manuscript of this poem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Спорт-Лото ждет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14324" RevisionGUID="f4e7cef9-abfa-4aaf-8a87-fc71f0c3c9b5" CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:53:48.557" UserId="4306" Text="Сети у нас есть, или SETI?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14324" RevisionGUID="f4e7cef9-abfa-4aaf-8a87-fc71f0c3c9b5" CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:53:48.557" UserId="4306" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14324" RevisionGUID="414e7bc3-11de-4869-a91a-04b08186f8fa" CreationDate="2017-04-22T08:03:59.453" UserId="4306" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Дорогая передача!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must confess that until recently I never read any of Vysotsky in print. Doing so for the first time I've stumbled upon these lines, and I was immensely surprised. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Но на происки и бредни&#xD;&#xA;       Сети есть у нас, и бредни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the word `Сети` is absolutely artificial and makes no sense. I bet he meant [SETI][1], as in `Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, is there an authoritative manuscript of this poem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С уваженьем. Дата, подпись.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14325" RevisionGUID="a4ac92bf-afed-4853-9aa8-520578c2d14d" CreationDate="2017-04-22T09:57:50.873" UserId="6602" Text="There is a word play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Но на происки и бредни` — `For intrigues and ravings`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Сети есть у нас, и бредни` — `We have nets and drag-nets`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first line `бредни` (from `бред` — *delirium*) means *silly twaddle, ravings*, while in the second line it's about fisherman tackles: [сеть][1] (*net*) and [бредень][2] (*drag-net*), which figurative can be used by authors of the letter to fight with that fraud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14325" RevisionGUID="75a657f8-dca8-4598-802c-616f90f41cc5" CreationDate="2017-04-22T10:10:39.737" UserId="6602" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There is a word play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Но на происки и бредни` — `For intrigues and ravings`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Сети есть у нас, и бредни` — `We have nets and drag-nets`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first line `бредни` (from `бред` — *delirium*) means *silly twaddle, ravings*, while in the second line it's about fisherman tackles: [сеть][1] (*net*) and [бредень][2] (*drag-net*), which figurative can be used by authors of the letter to fight with that fraud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="6efd2c7f-5cf9-4ccd-8c32-54164e15ec12" CreationDate="2017-04-22T15:20:47.370" UserId="8859" Text="It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **бредни** in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense speeches* got only plural form in that meaning. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="173ad14e-eb72-46ff-8fd2-eb885f88a08d" CreationDate="2017-04-22T15:26:40.840" UserId="8859" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **бредни** in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense speeches* got only plural form in that meaning. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не сделали скандала - literally, we didn't created  a scandal.  Ideom suggesting &quot;We didn't produced anything sensational&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="e0e77824-469e-45dc-964c-1b6aa1415f54" CreationDate="2017-04-22T15:40:38.023" UserId="8859" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **бредни** in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense speeches* got only plural form in that meaning. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не сделали скандала - literally, we didn't created  a scandal.  Ideom suggesting &quot;We didn't produced anything sensational&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: иноверы, изуверцы. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="019f1db3-a697-436e-807f-4fd6339ac6a2" CreationDate="2017-04-22T15:48:27.420" UserId="8859" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **бредни** in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense speeches* got only plural form in that meaning. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не сделали скандала - literally, we didn't created  a scandal.  Ideom suggesting &quot;We didn't produced anything sensational&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: иноверы, изуверцы. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="dae8d49a-ef12-4ae6-823e-5923eeaf5e8e" CreationDate="2017-04-22T16:02:12.197" UserId="8859" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **бредни** in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense speeches* got only plural form in that meaning. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не сделали скандала - literally, we didn't created  a scandal.  Ideom suggesting &quot;We didn't produced anything sensational&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: иноверы, изуверцы. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of most obscure jokes here is that they have lead doctor by last name Марголис. At same time patients supposedly are overreacting (hence this &quot;letter&quot;) to the documentary series directed and presented by Марголис, Александр Давидович, who was kind of celebrity in USSR.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="2cbe4991-2b20-47f3-b326-1e534c6ddfd1" CreationDate="2017-04-22T16:09:04.787" UserId="8859" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) plural **бредни**, singular **бредня**  in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense*. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы не сделали скандала - literally, we didn't created  a scandal.  Ideom suggesting &quot;We didn't produced anything sensational&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: иноверы, изуверцы. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of most obscure jokes here is that they have lead doctor by last name Марголис. At same time patients supposedly are overreacting (hence this &quot;letter&quot;) to the documentary series directed and presented by Марголис, Александр Давидович, who was kind of celebrity in USSR.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="5826418d-b787-4ba0-ba32-8169e11c8356" CreationDate="2017-04-22T16:14:47.667" UserId="8859" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) plural **бредни**, singular **бредня**  in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense*. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы не сделали скандала** - literally, *we didn't created a scandal*.  It's an idiom suggesting *&quot;We didn't produced anything sensational*&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next verse: **бермутят** - portmanteau of *Bermuda* and **мутить** - *to roil*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: **иноверы, изуверцы**. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of most obscure jokes here is that they have lead doctor by last name **Марголис**. At same time patients supposedly are overreacting (hence this &quot;letter&quot; is written) to the documentary series directed and presented by *Марголис, Александр Давидович*, who was kind of celebrity in USSR.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="46e0fe3a-fc3b-46bb-bf62-253690789175" CreationDate="2017-04-22T16:24:23.893" UserId="8859" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) plural **бредни**, singular **бредня**  in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense*. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы не сделали скандала** - literally, *we didn't created a scandal*.  It's an idiom suggesting *&quot;We didn't produced anything sensational*&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next verse: **бермутят** - portmanteau of *Bermuda* and **мутить** - *to roil*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: **иноверы, изуверцы**. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of most obscure jokes here is that they have lead doctor by last name **Марголис**. At same time patients supposedly are overreacting (hence this &quot;letter&quot; is written) to the documentary series directed and presented by *Марголис, Александр Давидович*, who was kind of celebrity in USSR. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**и с номерочком на ноге** - with a tag on foot. Curiously, tags  attached to foot only after triage  in field hospital (marking hopeless patients) or to already dead patient, e.g. in morgue.&#xD;&#xA;**Канатчикова дача** - unofficial name of psychiatric asylum №1 in Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Спортлото**&quot; - totalizator that had TV representation in USSR. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="7333fd80-38fe-4d0c-b533-fd80c3c2ec65" CreationDate="2017-04-22T16:32:29.750" UserId="8859" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) plural **бредни**, singular **бредня**  in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense*. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы не сделали скандала** - literally, *we didn't created a scandal*.  It's an idiom suggesting *&quot;We didn't produced anything sensational*&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next verse: **бермутят** - portmanteau of *Bermuda* and **мутить** - *to roil*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: **иноверы, изуверцы**. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Orinal words are изуверы (sadists) and иноверцы (infidels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of most obscure jokes here is that they have lead doctor by last name **Марголис**. At same time patients supposedly are overreacting (hence this &quot;letter&quot; is written) to the documentary series directed and presented by *Марголис, Александр Давидович*, who was kind of celebrity in USSR. Title of series **Очевидное невероятное** (Obviously impossible) became a common term to describe some discussions related to paranormal mysteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**и с номерочком на ноге** - with a tag on foot. Curiously, tags  attached to foot only after triage  in field hospital (marking hopeless patients) or to already dead patient, e.g. in morgue.&#xD;&#xA;**Канатчикова дача** - unofficial name of psychiatric asylum №1 in Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Спортлото**&quot; - totalizator that had TV representation in USSR. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34682" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14324" RevisionGUID="f9ce5e79-37dc-4828-bbfd-965d19d1291c" CreationDate="2017-04-22T19:12:21.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/855861851875405829" />
  <row Id="34683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14327" RevisionGUID="4c9f4399-d84b-4895-a5ff-a60d6c5d358c" CreationDate="2017-04-23T00:55:13.153" UserId="2079" Text="Нет. Сети и бредни - рыбацкие инструменты. Тут отсылка к выражению &quot;прочесывать/проходить/ловить частым/широким/мелким бреднем&quot;. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Наловили мелким бреднем. Призыв в армию Таджикистана перевыполнен`  - заголовок статьи об успешном призыве в армию Таджикистана&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мелким бреднем по «мелким» взяточникам` - заголовок статьи об арестах мелких взяточников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Широким бреднем. Назарбаев предложил создать &quot;Мировую сеть по борьбе с терроризмом&quot;` - заголовок статьи об инициативе Нурсултана Назарбаева по борьбе с терроризмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ловля лохов частым бреднем.` - заголовой статьи о сомнительной страховой компании, рекламирующей свои услуги сомнитметодами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, аббревиатура SETI в 1977 году была практически неизвестна в СССР." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14327" RevisionGUID="924a0455-2aa7-47e5-9e01-c1bd639375b7" CreationDate="2017-04-23T01:06:11.430" UserId="2079" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="Я хочу добавить, что тут отсылка к выражению &quot;прочесывать/проходить/ловить частым/широким/мелким бреднем&quot;. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Наловили мелким бреднем. Призыв в армию Таджикистана перевыполнен`  - заголовок статьи об успешном призыве в армию Таджикистана&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мелким бреднем по «мелким» взяточникам` - заголовок статьи об арестах мелких взяточников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Широким бреднем. Назарбаев предложил создать &quot;Мировую сеть по борьбе с терроризмом&quot;` - заголовок статьи об инициативе Нурсултана Назарбаева по борьбе с терроризмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ловля лохов частым бреднем.` - заголовок статьи в блоге о сомнительной страховой компании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бредни в русском языке - метафорический инструмент, которым кого-то ловят (в приведённых примерах - лохов, призывников, террористов, взяточников).  Рыболовные сети - другой метафорический инструмент для примерно того же: есть выражения вроде &quot;попасться в чьи-то сети&quot;, &quot;широко раскинуть сети&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14327" RevisionGUID="b751796d-ce01-4482-9bcf-65b1d805402b" CreationDate="2017-04-23T01:23:59.297" UserId="2079" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Я хочу добавить, что тут отсылка к выражению &quot;прочесывать/проходить/ловить частым/широким/мелким бреднем&quot;. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Наловили мелким бреднем. Призыв в армию Таджикистана перевыполнен`  - заголовок статьи об успешном призыве в армию Таджикистана&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мелким бреднем по «мелким» взяточникам` - заголовок статьи об арестах мелких взяточников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Широким бреднем. Назарбаев предложил создать &quot;Мировую сеть по борьбе с терроризмом&quot;` - заголовок статьи об инициативе Нурсултана Назарбаева по борьбе с терроризмом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ловля лохов частым бреднем.` - заголовок статьи в блоге о сомнительной страховой компании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бредень в русском языке - метафорический инструмент, которым кого-то ловят (в приведённых примерах - лохов, призывников, террористов, взяточников).  Рыболовные сети - другой метафорический инструмент для примерно того же: есть выражения вроде &quot;попасться в чьи-то сети&quot;, &quot;широко раскинуть сети&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14326" RevisionGUID="1c54d5e3-46df-4ae0-9775-c42692095620" CreationDate="2017-04-23T08:43:25.180" UserId="8859" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="A fair warning, that poem slowly descends into nonsense genre toward end, so it is really hard to understand (did you tried to understand  *The Hunting of the Snark*?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сети*** It's сеть  (eng. net) in plural form. By the way other synonyms, like  network  shall be translated as сеть too,  but in this case author meant fisherman's net. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other word is homgraphic\homophonic pun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) plural **бредни**, singular **бредня**  in meaning of *twaddle*, *ravings*, *nonsense*. By it's own source, that word is a pun that became a dictionary word, a natural portmanteau of  бред — *delirium* and verbs *брести* - wade, wander, *забрести* -  to become disoriented.&#xD;&#xA;2) **бредни** as plural of бредень - *drag-net*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way it is a very complex, informal slang filled poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогая передача! Во субботу, чуть не плача,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся Канатчикова дача к телевизору рвалась,&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо чтоб поесть, помыться у колодца и забыться,&#xD;&#xA;    Вся безумная больница у экрана собралась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Говорил, ломая руки, краснобай и баламут&#xD;&#xA;    Про бессилие науки перед тайною Бермуд,&#xD;&#xA;    Все мозги разбил на части, все извилины заплел,&#xD;&#xA;    И канатчиковы власти колят нам второй укол.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Уважаемый редактор, может лучше про реактор, а?&#xD;&#xA;    Про любимый лунный трактор? Ведь нельзя же, год подряд&#xD;&#xA;    То тарелками пугают, дескать, подлые, летают,&#xD;&#xA;    То у вас собаки лают, то у вас руины говорят.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы кое в чем поднаторели, мы тарелки бьем весь год&#xD;&#xA;    Мы на них уже собаку съели, если повар нам не врет,&#xD;&#xA;    А медикаментов груды мы в унитаз, кто не дурак,&#xD;&#xA;    Вот это жизнь, а вдруг Бермуды. Вот те раз. Нельзя же так!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Это их худые черти бермутят воду во пруду,&#xD;&#xA;    Это все придумал Черчиль в восемнадцатом году.&#xD;&#xA;    Мы про взрывы, про пожары сочиняли ноту ТАСС,&#xD;&#xA;    Тут примчались санитары и зафиксировали нас.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Тех, кто был особо боек, прикрутили к спинкам коек.&#xD;&#xA;    Бился в пене параноик, как ведьмак на шабаше:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Развяжите полотенцы, иноверы, изуверцы.&#xD;&#xA;    Нам бермуторно на сердце и бермутно на душе&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Сорок душ посменно воют, раскалились добела.&#xD;&#xA;    Вот как сильно беспокоят треугольные дела,&#xD;&#xA;    Все почти с ума свихнулись, даже кто безумен был,&#xD;&#xA;    И тогда главврач Маргулис телевизор запретил.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Вон он, змей, в окне маячит, за спиною штепсель прячет&#xD;&#xA;    Подал знак кому-то, значит: &quot;Фельдшер, вырви провода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;    И нам осталось уколоться и упасть на дно колодца,&#xD;&#xA;    И там пропасть на дне колодца, как в Бермудах - навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Ну а завтра спросят дети, навещая нас с утра:&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Папы, что сказали эти кандидаты в доктора?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы ответим нашим чадам правду - им не все равно,&#xD;&#xA;    Удивительное рядом, но оно - запрещено.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    А вон дантист-надомник, Рудик,у него приемник &quot;Грюндиг&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Он его ночами крутит, ловит, контра, ФРГ&#xD;&#xA;    Он там был купцом по шмуткам и подвинулся рассудком,&#xD;&#xA;    А к нам попал в волненьи жутком и с растревоженным&#xD;&#xA;    Желудком, и с номерочком на ноге.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Он прибежал взволнован крайне и сообщеньем нас потряс,&#xD;&#xA;    Будто наш уже научный лайнер в треугольнике погряз.&#xD;&#xA;    Сгинул, топливо истратив, весь распался на куски,&#xD;&#xA;    Но двух безумных наших братьев подобрали рыбаки.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Те, кто выжил в катаклизме, пребывают в пессимизме,&#xD;&#xA;    Их вчера в стеклянной призме к нам в больницу привезли.&#xD;&#xA;    И один из них, механик, рассказал, сбежав от нянек,&#xD;&#xA;    Что бермудский многогранник - незакрытый пуп земли.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Что там было, как ты спасся? Каждый лез и приставал,&#xD;&#xA;    Но механик только трясся и чинарики стрелял.&#xD;&#xA;    Он то плакал, то смеялся, то щетинился как еж,&#xD;&#xA;    Он над нами издевался. Ну сумасшедший, что возьмешь?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Взвился бывший алкоголик, матерщинник и крамольник,&#xD;&#xA;    Говорит: &quot;Надо выпить треугольник. На троих его, даешь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    Разошелся - так и сыплет: &quot;Треугольник будет выпит.&#xD;&#xA;    Будь он параллелепипед, будь он круг, едрена вошь!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Пусть безумная идея - не решайте сгоряча,&#xD;&#xA;    Отвечайте нам скорее через доку главврача.&#xD;&#xA;    С уваженьем, дата, подпись. Отвечайте нам, а то,&#xD;&#xA;    Если вы не отзоветесь мы напишем в &quot;Спортлото&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rare sound record  of it sung by author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmy0HGq0iSY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About verse you was looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы не сделали скандала, нам вождя недоставало.&#xD;&#xA;    Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков.&#xD;&#xA;    Но на происки и бредни сети есть у нас и бредни,&#xD;&#xA;    И не испортят нам обедни злые происки врагов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы не сделали скандала** - literally, *we didn't created a scandal*.  It's an idiom suggesting *&quot;We didn't produced anything sensational*&quot;. нам вождя недоставало - we lacked a leader (chief). Настоящих буйных мало, вот и нету вожаков -  a compound elliptic phrase, *real mad people are rare, thus no leader(alpha) (present)* First line uses *вождь* (political leader, chief), second line uses *вожак* which may be attributed to *leader of the pack*, e.g. alpha wolf, but also can be used  in meaning of *leader*. Kind of rebellious suggestion that one should be truly mad to be a leader :P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next verse: **бермутят** - portmanteau of *Bermuda* and **мутить** - *to roil*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in text you'll find: **иноверы, изуверцы**. That's not dictionary words, it's a pun, based on mangling words together, creating two portmanteau words. Original words are изуверы (pl. of *изувер* - extremely cruel person, old meaning - religious fanatic) and иноверцы (pl. of *иноверец* - people of different religion, infidels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of most obscure jokes here is that they have lead doctor by last name **Марголис**. At same time patients supposedly are overreacting (hence this &quot;letter&quot; is written) to the documentary series directed and presented by *Марголис, Александр Давидович*, who was kind of celebrity in USSR. Title of series **Очевидное невероятное** (Obviously impossible) became a common term to describe some discussions related to paranormal mysteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**и с номерочком на ноге** - with a tag on foot. Curiously, tags  attached to foot only after triage  in field hospital (marking hopeless patients) or to already dead patient, e.g. in morgue.&#xD;&#xA;**Канатчикова дача** - unofficial name of psychiatric asylum №1 in Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Спортлото**&quot; - totalizator that had TV representation in USSR. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14321" RevisionGUID="bf26ffa9-21bc-4fda-9463-e80375dad539" CreationDate="2017-04-23T13:16:46.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856134756144222208" />
  <row Id="34691" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14298" RevisionGUID="91d38f3c-dd2e-4967-ae4e-5b56e192163c" CreationDate="2017-04-23T16:20:38.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856181026112122880" />
  <row Id="34695" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14295" RevisionGUID="d70901d2-6c10-43e0-b64e-96c6b1116399" CreationDate="2017-04-24T04:29:16.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856364391251496960" />
  <row Id="34700" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14205" RevisionGUID="d298235a-28f1-4233-b798-1ea597222613" CreationDate="2017-04-24T07:29:14.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856409681203539969" />
  <row Id="34707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14331" RevisionGUID="51c6ce4f-ade9-4038-a371-8da0e935e209" CreationDate="2017-04-24T12:40:51.957" UserId="310" Text="In Soviet times, foreign organization names would likely be translated into Russian and then abbreviated by their Russian name. For example, `International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)` is still `МАГАТЭ` in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So even if SETI is to be referenced in this song, it would probably be `Поиск Внеземного Разума` and not `СЕТИ`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34708" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14191" RevisionGUID="b949d708-fb32-4be2-9c76-198230f9db98" CreationDate="2017-04-24T13:31:53.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856500948906147841" />
  <row Id="34709" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14209" RevisionGUID="5d68f3b6-77d4-40ec-92b6-8d0007dc990c" CreationDate="2017-04-24T16:32:00.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856546272655925252" />
  <row Id="34710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14332" RevisionGUID="858f407e-7f78-446e-a1c3-bdb3b34dad23" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:01:50.630" UserId="8888" Text="&quot;*more teeth*&quot; and &quot;*less teeth*&quot; in Russian is like in English &quot;*number **of** teeth*&quot; using **of**. Like if in English you would say &quot;*more of teeth*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And word **of** indicates that the next word is in genitive case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="df10405c-3f91-4354-a05d-e9af3f526ce3" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:45:51.780" UserId="6907" Text="Is there a difference between болен and зоболел or they are just synonyms? The context is &quot;I am sick&quot;. (Я болен vs. Я зоболел)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="df10405c-3f91-4354-a05d-e9af3f526ce3" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:45:51.780" UserId="6907" Text="Is there a difference between болен and зоболел?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="df10405c-3f91-4354-a05d-e9af3f526ce3" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:45:51.780" UserId="6907" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14334" RevisionGUID="f97a2ed9-144e-48b1-a0d9-ff46de7312b9" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:51:37.750" UserId="1836" Text="Grammatically, &quot;болен&quot; — is imperfect form (like &quot;I'm ill&quot;) while &quot;заболел&quot; is perfect (like &quot;I've caught cold&quot;). Also &quot;болен&quot; is used in more serious or chronical cases, so if you want to tell your team that you want a sick-day, better choice would be &quot;заболел&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="daba3583-650e-4e6f-a208-51ad5db8690b" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:52:23.597" UserId="1836" Comment="corrected &quot;зоболел&quot; -&gt; &quot;заболел&quot;" Text="Is there a difference between болен and заболел or they are just synonyms? The context is &quot;I am sick&quot;. (Я болен vs. Я заболел)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="daba3583-650e-4e6f-a208-51ad5db8690b" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:52:23.597" UserId="1836" Comment="corrected &quot;зоболел&quot; -&gt; &quot;заболел&quot;" Text="Is there a difference between болен and заболел?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="69d78ba0-f3b8-4968-8dd8-2d4c80ff013f" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:57:01.250" UserId="6907" Text="In English we have to put capital later in the following cases: &#xD;&#xA;* Beginning of sentence&#xD;&#xA;* Names (people or places)&#xD;&#xA;* Pronoun first-person singular (I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the rules for capital letters in Russian language comparing to these three rules in English? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="69d78ba0-f3b8-4968-8dd8-2d4c80ff013f" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:57:01.250" UserId="6907" Text="When is it necessary to use capital later in the beginning of the sentence in Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="69d78ba0-f3b8-4968-8dd8-2d4c80ff013f" CreationDate="2017-04-25T11:57:01.250" UserId="6907" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14336" RevisionGUID="23a39afb-5b1a-47f3-a7c5-5eda802de57d" CreationDate="2017-04-25T12:04:02.660" UserId="1836" Text="Basically, capital letter is required in the beginning of a sentence and in names (people, places, books, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a tricky case with singular &quot;вы&quot;, which can be capitalized to show respect (note that plural &quot;вы&quot; is capitalized only in the beginning of a sentence). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with multi-word names (e.g. name of a book), only first letter is capitalized, not first letter of each word as in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14336" RevisionGUID="6728ba80-6e4e-46a6-b181-353bb0228e46" CreationDate="2017-04-25T12:11:42.837" UserId="1836" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="Basically, capital letter is required in the beginning of a sentence and in names (people, places, books, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a tricky case with singular &quot;вы&quot;, which can be capitalized to show respect (note that plural &quot;вы&quot; is capitalized only in the beginning of a sentence). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with multi-word names (e.g. name of a book), only first letter is capitalized, not first letter of each word as in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference with English will be that not everything that considered to be a name in English is considered to be a name in Russian. For example, names of languages and nations and  are *not* capitalized in Russian. I think it might have to do something with most of those being adjectives in Russian (though it's just an opinion)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34722" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="48f5ea6d-86b3-41cc-8d25-bbe8f593d66c" CreationDate="2017-04-25T12:56:44.990" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14337" RevisionGUID="e39b2100-e192-44cf-9b3d-b5fdb880ea14" CreationDate="2017-04-25T14:15:06.383" UserId="1262" Text="Personal pronoun ***I*** is never capitalised (unless positioned at the beginning of a sentence): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я изучаю китайский язык, и чем больше я его изучаю, тем больше у меня вопросов.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Names of countries are capitalised, but not names of nations and/or languages (it used to be so a couple of centuries ago, but not nowadays). Forms of address and titles are not capitalised, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Из всех языков, пани и панство, мадам, мадмуазели, месье, леди, джентльмены, дамы, господа и товарищи, мне наименее симпатичны английский и русский, а из всех известных мне людей наименее вежливы в обиходе - носители советского русского.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Days of weeks and months are not capitalised:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сегодня - вторник, двадцать пятое апреля.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract nouns (mainly those capitalised in modern English to imitate archaic style and/or to express 'philosophical uniqueness' of the concept they are referring to, or those normally capitalised in 'capitalisation boom' of the 17th-18th centuries following [Hart][1]'s recommendation are not capitalised, either):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Относительная истина не противоречит абсолютной истине.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for words for G-d, deities and religious holidays / events, their capitalisation is guarded either by the rules applied for personal names or by a writer's personal beliefs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hart_%28spelling_reformer%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14338" RevisionGUID="642e9b9f-a040-4e7e-8144-61db05eba640" CreationDate="2017-04-25T14:26:48.490" UserId="1262" Text="Grammatically, ***болен*** is a noun on a bordeline between a Participle and an Adjective (from ***больной / болеть***) and ***заболел*** is a perfective verb (***заболеть***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is personal attitude / modality, as Alissa has already pointed out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other difference is that ***болен*** (as most of other shortened adjectives) are used for closing a topic, whereas ***заболел*** suggests further communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34725" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="f0f1f93a-7ee0-4597-80e5-e811b61b8c50" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:33:21.790" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/856954301188636672" />
  <row Id="34726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="d198262a-c47d-4718-abd3-f0e9cd780fb7" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:40:14.000" UserId="-1" Comment="&quot;later&quot; to letter; format; grammar" Text="In English we have to use a capital letter in the following cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Beginning of sentence&#xD;&#xA;* Names (people or places)&#xD;&#xA;* Pronoun first-person singular (I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the rules for capital letters in Russian language comparing to these three rules in English? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34727" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="d198262a-c47d-4718-abd3-f0e9cd780fb7" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:40:14.000" UserId="-1" Comment="&quot;later&quot; to letter; format; grammar" Text="When is it necessary to use a capital letter in the beginning of the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34728" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="d198262a-c47d-4718-abd3-f0e9cd780fb7" CreationDate="2017-04-25T19:40:14.000" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 6907 edit id of 858" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14338" RevisionGUID="85fc3ef0-bea0-45c8-9d0b-331c10e5cc19" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:05:08.320" UserId="1262" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="Grammatically, ***болен*** is a noun on a bordeline between a Participle and an Adjective (from ***больной / болеть*** and in this sense it is close to [verbal nouns][1] in English) and ***заболел*** is a perfective verb (***заболеть***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is personal attitude / modality, as Alissa has already pointed out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other difference is that ***болен*** (as most of other shortened adjectives) are used for closing a topic, whereas ***заболел*** suggests further communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAVerbalNoun.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14340" RevisionGUID="c45326e7-3890-4db5-a563-8b2a2ad00c95" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:44:37.810" UserId="6907" Text="I have friend (girl) and she's too jealous. I just want to mention her in Russian language that I have another friends  (girls) and she cannot avoid me to be with them, especially when she's not my girlfriend and we're (and we were) not couple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I tell her &quot;у миня ест ишо подруги&quot; then she'll not understand, because подруги can be males or females while I want to tell her that I have another friends - girls and she has to accept it as they should do the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I tell her &quot;миня ест ишо девушки&quot; she'll understand that I mean to female friends and not girlfriends? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14340" RevisionGUID="c45326e7-3890-4db5-a563-8b2a2ad00c95" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:44:37.810" UserId="6907" Text="How to refer to female friends in plural form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14340" RevisionGUID="c45326e7-3890-4db5-a563-8b2a2ad00c95" CreationDate="2017-04-26T01:44:37.810" UserId="6907" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14341" RevisionGUID="39b5045f-b62b-4faf-92fc-805856fa7273" CreationDate="2017-04-26T04:42:16.450" UserId="6539" Text="Друзья are &quot;friends&quot;, either male or female or both. The sentence is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня есть ещё друзья.(I have got other friends of both gender).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подруги are female friends.The word doesn't necessarily mean they are all your girls. They can be just friends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;девушка&quot; or &quot;моя девушка&quot; shows that the girl is special. She is your girlfriend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14342" RevisionGUID="c194fe3a-d67e-489c-a3cf-decc0785829d" CreationDate="2017-04-26T07:07:35.523" UserId="8893" Text=" 1. In most cases they are synonyms. &#xD;&#xA; 2. Я болен means I am **sick at the&#xD;&#xA;    moment**. (*I am sick*) &#xD;&#xA; 3. Я заболел means I **wasn't sick before**,&#xD;&#xA;    but now I am (*I got sick*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -You don't look well. How are you?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я болен.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Why didn't you come to the party? Everybody was waiting for you!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я заболел." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14343" RevisionGUID="e91612c8-1ae9-4b61-ab47-38be1b2a5d6b" CreationDate="2017-04-26T07:24:08.630" UserId="8893" Text="*У меня есть еще друзья* - I have other friends (girls and/or boys)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть еще друзья-девушки* - I have other female friends&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть еще подруги* - I have other female friends (**Beware!** This may sound like they are all your girlfriends)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня есть еще девушки* - I have other girlfriends (You are in relationship with several girls)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34737" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14335" RevisionGUID="66c823c1-8b68-4704-8204-aa6af5dcf378" CreationDate="2017-04-26T07:33:34.417" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/857135548405821440" />
  <row Id="34738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14344" RevisionGUID="0ca41d4a-6478-4de6-b416-21cf4c103133" CreationDate="2017-04-26T08:12:45.297" UserId="8896" Text="When I was being adopted from an orphanage my mom claims that on several occasions, when calling for my little brother I called him by a nickname. I don't know how to spell the word or what it means I just know how to say it. I would call him something along the lines of Sideosha. That's the only way I can think to spell it as that is how it's pronounced. Any help would be greatly appreciated as it's been driving me nuts for years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14344" RevisionGUID="0ca41d4a-6478-4de6-b416-21cf4c103133" CreationDate="2017-04-26T08:12:45.297" UserId="8896" Text="I need the correct spelling/ description of a Russian word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14344" RevisionGUID="0ca41d4a-6478-4de6-b416-21cf4c103133" CreationDate="2017-04-26T08:12:45.297" UserId="8896" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14345" RevisionGUID="2135d052-3a88-4fe6-93ec-c00a8bc9ac0e" CreationDate="2017-04-26T08:17:55.480" UserId="8895" Text="Most probably, the name is Seryozha (Серёжа), which is the diminutive of Sergey (Сергей)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34743" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14344" RevisionGUID="f77e6462-9d5f-4472-9ac6-78a879367b8e" CreationDate="2017-04-26T08:54:57.640" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the Russian name closest to &quot;Sideosha&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14340" RevisionGUID="1487c80a-e52f-4cc5-9542-cebadbbdf53d" CreationDate="2017-04-26T08:56:55.353" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I have friend (girl) and she's too jealous. I just want to mention her in Russian language that I have another friends  (girls) and she cannot avoid me to be with them, especially when she's not my girlfriend and we're (and we were) not couple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if I tell her &quot;у меня есть ещё подруги&quot; then she'll not understand, because подруги can be males or females while I want to tell her that I have another friends - girls and she has to accept it as they should do the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I tell her &quot;у меня есть ещё девушки&quot; she'll understand that I mean to female friends and not girlfriends? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14164" RevisionGUID="f1f871a1-e1ce-4af6-aeee-003b313a24f3" CreationDate="2017-04-26T10:33:35.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/857180851465060352" />
  <row Id="34747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14346" RevisionGUID="d636737a-a3a0-4c71-a343-fd9c2685a8c3" CreationDate="2017-04-26T12:20:23.320" UserId="6986" Text="Another (admittedly less likely) possibility would be that the name is a diminutive form of [Сидор][1]. While I'm not aware of a standardized diminutive form for that name, kids make up the darndest things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14347" RevisionGUID="ec047087-d38b-4b9a-857a-783e2cb1be87" CreationDate="2017-04-26T16:00:24.123" UserId="8518" Text="no different. Example: &quot;Она посмеялась&quot; = &quot;Она засмеялась&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34750" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14344" RevisionGUID="55ee10b7-855e-4234-a3fc-ebd55b8cb4f1" CreationDate="2017-04-26T16:37:38.340" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/857272467349438465" />
  <row Id="34751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="3b71cdf8-6018-4da8-adda-1dab7dd5624c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T22:16:08.427" UserId="4828" Text="In English, I like to say &quot;as in&quot; a lot. It sounds a little less formal than &quot;For instance&quot; and less pretentious, and means something slightly different than &quot;E.G.&quot; What is a general approximation of &quot;as in&quot; in Russian? This is the type of thing automated translators mangle horribly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus sub-question: What category of phrases would &quot;as in&quot; fall under so I can research further such idioms in Russian. I am tempted to search for &quot;rhetorical phrases&quot; or some such, but that hasn't gotten me quite what I'm looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="3b71cdf8-6018-4da8-adda-1dab7dd5624c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T22:16:08.427" UserId="4828" Text="For is the Russian equivalent of the phrase &quot;as in&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="3b71cdf8-6018-4da8-adda-1dab7dd5624c" CreationDate="2017-04-26T22:16:08.427" UserId="4828" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="72f8ec3f-903b-4e81-8985-15fa770413f5" CreationDate="2017-04-26T22:26:57.097" UserId="4828" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="In English, I like to say &quot;as in&quot; a lot. It sounds a little less formal than &quot;For instance&quot; and less pretentious, and means something slightly different than &quot;E.G.&quot; What is a general approximation of &quot;as in&quot; in Russian? This is the type of thing automated translators mangle horribly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be &quot;I would like a job. As in actual employment, not a gig&quot; or in &quot;You are talking about bologna? as in the city, or the delicious meat snack?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus sub-question: What category of phrases would &quot;as in&quot; fall under so I can research further such idioms in Russian. I am tempted to search for &quot;rhetorical phrases&quot; or some such, but that hasn't gotten me quite what I'm looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14349" RevisionGUID="fc772b5b-d2d3-4b0a-a727-9b28771ea0aa" CreationDate="2017-04-26T23:07:38.110" UserId="8888" Text="In colloquial I would say &quot;(ну) типа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;You are talking about bologna? as in the city, or the delicious meat snack?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ты говоришь о Болоньи? Типа о городе или о вкусной мясной еде?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A: Do you like chocolate?&#xD;&#xA;    B: Like...as in?&#xD;&#xA;    A: As in love.&#xD;&#xA;    B: Yeah, sure, I love chocolate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A: Тебе нравится шоколад?&#xD;&#xA;    B: Нравится...типа как?&#xD;&#xA;    A: Типа любишь.&#xD;&#xA;    B: Да, конечно, я люблю шоколад!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14350" RevisionGUID="5cdbafda-d389-4e43-ad9e-1488eb1851a4" CreationDate="2017-04-26T23:25:46.737" UserId="8888" Text="Tell her&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    У меня много друзей. Среди них есть девушки. &#xD;&#xA;meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I have many friends. There are females among them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty neutral sentence. She will not react dramatically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="b4d0ed6b-1264-4ed5-9714-ef42a47686f8" CreationDate="2017-04-27T06:14:17.010" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;То есть.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Хочу найти работу. То есть настоящую работу, не халтурку какую-нибудь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты сказал &quot;Болонья&quot;? То есть город или мясное блюдо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pronounced as one word with the stress on &quot;то&quot; and is often abbreviated to &quot;т.е.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would class it as a conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14352" RevisionGUID="1d6c6566-1976-4b5c-9828-937ee8402415" CreationDate="2017-04-27T06:57:05.040" UserId="6539" Text="You should see the topic &quot;союзы&quot;. I can suggest several suitable variants, from neutral to colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хочу найти работу. **Как то/То есть/а именно/в смысле** настоящую работу, не подработку на время.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Как то, то есть, a именно,в смысле** &#xD;&#xA;Synonyms (also can be used):&#xD;&#xA;   другими словами, иными словами, иначе говоря." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="58ae7a5e-655d-40d1-b214-ed4192d6925b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T12:08:25.683" UserId="8895" Comment="Grammar, capitalization" Text="In English, I like to say &quot;as in&quot; a lot. It sounds a little less formal than &quot;For instance&quot; and less pretentious, and means something slightly different than &quot;e.g.&quot; What is the general approximation of &quot;as in&quot; in Russian? This is the type of thing automated translators mangle horribly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example would be &quot;I would like a job. As in actual employment, not a gig&quot; or in &quot;You are talking about Bologna? As in the city, or the delicious meat snack?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus sub-question: what category of phrases would &quot;as in&quot; fall under so I can research further such idioms in Russian. I am tempted to search for &quot;rhetorical phrases&quot; or something similar, but that hasn't gotten me quite what I'm looking for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34761" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="58ae7a5e-655d-40d1-b214-ed4192d6925b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T12:08:25.683" UserId="8895" Comment="Grammar, capitalization" Text="What is the Russian equivalent of the phrase &quot;as in&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34762" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="58ae7a5e-655d-40d1-b214-ed4192d6925b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T12:08:25.683" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 1836, 6725 edit id of 859" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14349" RevisionGUID="46ccf3da-df92-4f56-937d-b74fd467c420" CreationDate="2017-04-27T12:08:41.140" UserId="8895" Comment="Capitalization, commas" Text="In colloquial I would say &quot;(ну) типа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;You are talking about Bologna? As in the city, or the delicious meat snack?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Ты говоришь о Болонье? Типа, о городе или о вкусной мясной еде?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A: Do you like chocolate?&#xD;&#xA;    B: Like...as in?&#xD;&#xA;    A: As in love.&#xD;&#xA;    B: Yeah, sure, I love chocolate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A: Тебе нравится шоколад?&#xD;&#xA;    B: Нравится...типа как?&#xD;&#xA;    A: Типа любишь.&#xD;&#xA;    B: Да, конечно, я люблю шоколад!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34764" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14349" RevisionGUID="46ccf3da-df92-4f56-937d-b74fd467c420" CreationDate="2017-04-27T12:08:41.140" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 1836, 6725 edit id of 860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14353" RevisionGUID="9d52b941-cd68-41e0-93ed-13537d34e2b2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T14:48:06.697" UserId="170" Text="Can Russian preposition &quot;на&quot; be used with any other country name besides Ukraine (&quot;Украина&quot;)? Or is it like only in case with Ukraine it is correct to say &quot;на&quot; instead of &quot;в&quot; (that is &quot;на Украине&quot; instead of &quot;в Украине&quot;)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14353" RevisionGUID="9d52b941-cd68-41e0-93ed-13537d34e2b2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T14:48:06.697" UserId="170" Text="Can Russian preposition &quot;на&quot; be used with any other country name besides Ukraine (&quot;Украина&quot;)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14353" RevisionGUID="9d52b941-cd68-41e0-93ed-13537d34e2b2" CreationDate="2017-04-27T14:48:06.697" UserId="170" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14354" RevisionGUID="f0482c08-2f37-42fa-b0dc-ecd5e0896d86" CreationDate="2017-04-27T14:55:49.583" UserId="8905" Text="The only other one I know of the top of my head is Cuba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14354" RevisionGUID="b398c111-9e19-4cc2-9869-cedbc2c5efea" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:00:34.813" UserId="8905" Comment="Added better explanation" Text="The other ones that I know of the top of my head are Cuba and Taiwan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those are islands, so there could be a relationship there, since &quot;на&quot; can mean &quot;on&quot; such expressions might be implied to mean &quot;on (island of) Cuba&quot; but that's a speculation on my part" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="c996400a-5a24-4546-8962-3e2993c1dfd9" CreationDate="2017-04-27T18:49:16.263" UserId="8859" Text="На Руси&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's a legal preposition for locations, but rarely used for countries, rather for some toponymes, e.g. на Волге, because it's also на реке - at river. Cuba and Taiwain are islands and  &quot;on&quot; island is to be на острове. Ukraine  only seems to be a rare case, but it isn't.. due the old meaning of country's name was derived from term  оукраина, that existed in medieval times. Basicly it is something close to a fief. In Emperial time name of Ukraine was Малороссия, but it was generally called украина, wich slowly took over as a name of  province. By the way, the theory that name means окраина (province,  border, distant area) is considered methodologically incorrect. Regardless, both locations would require preposition на." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="c9162685-2a33-4373-8908-0e8daad65a2e" CreationDate="2017-04-27T19:25:28.583" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="На Руси.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a legal preposition for locations, but rarely used for countries, rather for some toponyms, e.g. на Волге, because it's also на реке - at river. Cuba and Taiwan are islands and  &quot;on&quot; island is to be на острове. Ukraine  only seems to be a rare case, but it isn't.. due the old meaning of country's name was derived from term  оукраина, that existed in medieval times. Basically it is something close to a fief. In Imperial time name of Ukraine was `Малороссия`, but it was generally called `Украина`, which slowly took over as a name of  province. By the way, the theory that name means окраина (province,  border, distant area) is considered methodologically incorrect. Regardless, both locations would require preposition на." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="0f1212fb-8c55-4487-95c0-da484919c882" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:47:23.583" UserId="6686" Text="Why is &quot;такое&quot; always neutral in the phrase &quot;Что такое...?&quot; (no matter what noun follows.) Also, what does the phrase mean? &quot;How is... like?&quot; Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="0f1212fb-8c55-4487-95c0-da484919c882" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:47:23.583" UserId="6686" Text="Why is &quot;такое&quot; always neutral in the phrase &quot;Что такое...?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="0f1212fb-8c55-4487-95c0-da484919c882" CreationDate="2017-04-27T22:47:23.583" UserId="6686" Text="|перевод|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14358" RevisionGUID="e401ad15-af11-4bf0-bdc5-4b41cb14f9e1" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:12:17.470" UserId="6907" Text="How to say &quot;I want to enjoy&quot; in a correct way? Is it correct to say &quot;Я хочу насладиться&quot;? I saw [the table][1] and I've confused. Which form should I choose from that table for &quot;to + verb&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TjRm3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14358" RevisionGUID="e401ad15-af11-4bf0-bdc5-4b41cb14f9e1" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:12:17.470" UserId="6907" Text="How to say &quot;I want to enjoy&quot; in a correct way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14358" RevisionGUID="e401ad15-af11-4bf0-bdc5-4b41cb14f9e1" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:12:17.470" UserId="6907" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14359" RevisionGUID="7771b266-6a6f-4174-b7ff-e560ded6712b" CreationDate="2017-04-28T03:13:41.657" UserId="6539" Text="The verb &quot;хотеть&quot; requires either a subordinate clause or an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я хочу, чтобы ты мне помог. Я хочу петь, танцевать, **наслаждаться** жизнью. Иду на концерт, хочу **насладиться** творчеством этого музыканта.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наслаждаться is an imperfective infinitive, насладиться is a perfective infinitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34785" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14348" RevisionGUID="7bac260e-9bd3-4a38-a9d7-c9085ec1a7f8" CreationDate="2017-04-28T04:42:32.893" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/857817284840128512" />
  <row Id="34786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14360" RevisionGUID="979674be-5e52-4912-be77-3bcee74890ad" CreationDate="2017-04-28T05:26:32.040" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Also, what does the phrase mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If simply &quot;**Что такое?**&quot; then it means &quot;**What happened?**&quot; If &quot;**Что такое X?**&quot; then it stands for &quot;**What is (the meaning, usage, appliance etc. of) X?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may think the word &quot;такое&quot; isn't really an attribute of &quot;X&quot; but rather a vague counterpart of &quot;is&quot; (or more precisely it's like &quot;What _object_ is X?&quot;). Remember that the Russians (almost) never say &quot;что есть X?&quot;, and saying just &quot;что Х?&quot; is very ambiguous (does it mean &quot;What do you mean by X?&quot;, or &quot;X doesn't matter&quot;, or &quot;What happened about X?&quot;, and so on). So the logic insists on having some additional word here, and this word must be as neutral (gender) as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14360" RevisionGUID="6dcd0a50-16d7-4f01-a520-e1543dea0821" CreationDate="2017-04-28T06:02:29.003" UserId="5008" Comment="added 590 characters in body" Text="&gt;Also, what does the phrase mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If simply &quot;**Что такое?**&quot; then it means &quot;**What happened?**&quot; If &quot;**Что такое X?**&quot; then it stands for &quot;**What is (the meaning, usage, appliance etc. of) X?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may think the word &quot;такое&quot; isn't really an attribute of &quot;X&quot; but rather a vague counterpart of &quot;is&quot; (or more precisely it's like &quot;What _object_ is X?&quot;). Remember that the Russians (almost) never say &quot;что есть X?&quot;, and saying just &quot;что Х?&quot; is very ambiguous (does it mean &quot;What do you mean by X?&quot;, or &quot;X doesn't matter&quot;, or &quot;What happened about X?&quot;, and so on). So the logic insists on having some additional word here, and this word must be as neutral (gender) as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering this from grammatical point of view, &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun (not an adjective!) which must be put in the neutral gender, as we're talking about some inanimate object. The logic is quite clear: the question &quot;What is X?&quot; assumes the answer of a kind &quot;X is Y&quot;, and here &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun used in place of that (yet) unknown &quot;Y&quot;. But which gender is &quot;Y&quot;? You may expect the animate nouns to keep gender the same in any &quot;X is Y&quot; sentence. But it's not the case with inanimate ones where the gender is a pure grammatical abstraction. So the neutral gender comes to help as usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14360" RevisionGUID="0c1da996-17fa-40da-9d70-101c2149c5aa" CreationDate="2017-04-28T06:11:21.660" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Also, what does the phrase mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If simply &quot;**Что такое?**&quot; then it means &quot;**What happened?**&quot; If &quot;**Что такое X?**&quot; then it stands for &quot;**What is (the meaning, usage, appliance etc. of) X?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may think the word &quot;такое&quot; isn't really an attribute of &quot;X&quot; but rather a vague counterpart of &quot;is&quot; (or more precisely it's like &quot;What _thing_ is X?&quot;). Remember that the Russians (almost) never say &quot;что есть X?&quot;, and saying just &quot;что Х?&quot; is very ambiguous (does it mean &quot;What do you mean by X?&quot;, or &quot;X doesn't matter&quot;, or &quot;What happened about X?&quot;, and so on). So the logic insists on having some additional word here, and this word must be as neutral (gender) as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering this from grammatical point of view, &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun (not an adjective!) which must be put in the neutral gender, as we're talking about some inanimate object. The logic is quite clear: the question &quot;What is X?&quot; assumes the answer of a kind &quot;X is Y&quot;, and here &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun used in place of that (yet) unknown &quot;Y&quot;. But which gender is &quot;Y&quot;? You may expect the animate nouns to keep gender the same in any &quot;X is Y&quot; sentence. But it's not the case with inanimate ones where the gender is a pure grammatical abstraction. So the neutral gender comes to help as usual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14355" RevisionGUID="5f8c26c4-7700-4e19-92ca-786dde21a62f" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:03:49.810" UserId="8859" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="На Руси.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a legal preposition for locations, but rarely used for countries, rather for some toponyms, e.g. на Волге, because it's also на реке - at river. Cuba and Taiwan are islands and  &quot;on&quot; island is to be на острове. Ukraine  only seems to be a rare case, but it isn't.. due the old meaning of country's name. It was derived from term  оукраина, that existed in medieval times. Basically it is something close to a fief. In Imperial time name of Ukraine was `Малороссия`, but it was generally called `украина` without specified name (a common term at that time, e.g. Ростовская украина), which slowly took over as a name of  province and was capitalized. By the way, the theory that name means окраина (province,  border, distant area) is considered methodologically incorrect. Regardless, both locations would require preposition на." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14359" RevisionGUID="137d6e6c-0ad1-49b8-9e21-f5fe104e255a" CreationDate="2017-04-28T09:19:20.687" UserId="6539" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="The verb &quot;хотеть&quot; requires either a subordinate clause or an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я хочу, чтобы ты мне помог. Я хочу петь, танцевать, **наслаждаться** жизнью. Иду на концерт, хочу **насладиться** творчеством этого музыканта.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наслаждаться is an imperfective verb in the form of the infinitive, насладиться is a perfective verb.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14361" RevisionGUID="1890ce2e-1e08-4fa5-bca1-4c62bb2ea498" CreationDate="2017-04-28T09:24:13.773" UserId="2079" Text="Because `что` effectively has neutral gender. `Что произошло`, `что упало` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, `кто` effectively had masculine gender, e. g. `кто родил и жалеет, что не сделал аборт`[1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7266/which-form-of-past-tense-should-be-used-when-the-gender-of-the-speaker-is-unknow/7267#7267 ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14351" RevisionGUID="ddc0370c-e32a-4f8c-ba65-9db55f177e9a" CreationDate="2017-04-28T11:14:40.587" UserId="2104" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&quot;То есть.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Хочу найти работу. То есть настоящую работу, не халтурку какую-нибудь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты сказал &quot;Болонья&quot;? То есть город или мясное блюдо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is pronounced as one word with the stress on &quot;то&quot; and is often abbreviated to &quot;т.е.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would class it as a conjunction (союз).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14360" RevisionGUID="3bd9dc8a-aa0f-4ee0-ada4-7708c6e52f88" CreationDate="2017-04-28T12:56:51.897" UserId="5008" Comment="added 560 characters in body" Text="&gt;Also, what does the phrase mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If simply &quot;**Что такое?**&quot; then it means &quot;**What happened?**&quot; If &quot;**Что такое X?**&quot; then it stands for &quot;**What is (the meaning, usage, appliance etc. of) X?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may think the word &quot;такое&quot; isn't really an attribute of &quot;X&quot; but rather a vague counterpart of &quot;is&quot; (or more precisely it's like &quot;What _thing_ is X?&quot;). Remember that the Russians (almost) never say &quot;что есть X?&quot;, and saying just &quot;что Х?&quot; is very ambiguous (does it mean &quot;What do you mean by X?&quot;, or &quot;X doesn't matter&quot;, or &quot;What happened about X?&quot;, and so on). So the logic insists on having some additional word here, and this word must be as neutral (gender) as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering this from grammatical point of view, &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun (not an adjective!) which must be put in the neutral gender, as we're talking about some inanimate object. The logic is quite clear: the question &quot;What is X?&quot; assumes the answer of a kind &quot;X is Y&quot;, and here &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun used in place of that (yet) unknown &quot;Y&quot;. But which gender is &quot;Y&quot;? You may expect the animate nouns to keep gender the same in any &quot;X is Y&quot; sentence. But it's not the case with inanimate ones where the gender is a pure grammatical abstraction. So the neutral gender comes to help as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Okay, animate/inanimate dichotomy is perhaps somewhat misleading here. Although in Russian we do not normally use constructs such as &quot;What is he?&quot;, still there are cases when it's possible to put &quot;what&quot; along with animate nouns/notions/names etc. This could be something like &quot;What is a human being?&quot; type of &quot;abstract&quot; question, or even intentional derogatory form, and so on. Anyway, when you ask in Russian &quot;what&quot;-type of question, you expect the answer to be effectively genderless, and so the pronoun &quot;такой&quot; should be put into the neuter gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14363" RevisionGUID="6e5ead76-7d21-440d-bd0b-29cc4bcb5085" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:50:15.423" UserId="4903" Text="It depends on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If you want to enjoy intangible things like weather, vacation, spring (the season), then a better form is: &quot;***Я хочу радоваться*** солнцу / отпуску / весне...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you want to enjoy an object, such as, a book, a song, a video game, a movie. When you watch a movie in the evening, or read a book over a weekend. You may use: &quot;***Я хочу насладиться*** книгой / фильмом / музыкой...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If you want to enjoy something over and over again. For example, you want to enjoy music every day of your life, or you want to tell your loved one that you want enjoy every day of your future life together. Then you may use: &quot;***Я хочу наслаждаться*** музыкой.&quot; Or &quot;***Я хочу наслаждаться*** тобой всю оставшуюся жизнь.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If you want enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment, they you may say: &quot;***Я хочу наслаждений.***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first three cases one uses an infinitive verb form after &quot;хочу&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14363" RevisionGUID="db8a678c-d32f-4495-9482-d718387a3354" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:55:17.807" UserId="4903" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It depends on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If you want to enjoy intangible things like weather, vacation, spring (the season), then a better form is: &quot;***Я хочу радоваться*** солнцу / отпуску / весне...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you want to enjoy an object, such as, a book, a song, a video game, a movie. When you watch a movie in the evening, or read a book over a weekend. You may use: &quot;***Я хочу насладиться*** книгой / фильмом / музыкой...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If you want to enjoy something over and over again. For example, you want to enjoy music every day of your life, or you want to tell your loved one that you want enjoy every day of your future life together. Then you may use: &quot;***Я хочу наслаждаться*** музыкой.&quot; Or &quot;***Я хочу наслаждаться*** каждым днём моей жизни с тобой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If you want enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment, they you may say: &quot;***Я хочу наслаждений.***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first three cases one uses an infinitive verb form after &quot;хочу&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14363" RevisionGUID="c6439d06-7bc9-45bb-9467-e6f634130ffb" CreationDate="2017-04-28T20:25:34.357" UserId="4903" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It depends on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. If you want to enjoy intangible things like weather, vacation, spring (the season), then a better form is: &quot;***Я хочу радоваться*** солнцу / отпуску / весне...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. If you want to enjoy an object, such as, a book, a song, a video game, a movie. When you watch a movie in the evening, or read a book over a weekend. You may use: &quot;***Я хочу насладиться*** книгой / фильмом / музыкой...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If you want to enjoy something over and over again. For example, you want to enjoy music every day of your life, or you want to tell your loved one that you want to enjoy every day of your future life together. Then you may use: &quot;***Я хочу наслаждаться*** музыкой.&quot; Or &quot;***Я хочу наслаждаться*** каждым днём моей жизни с тобой.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. If you want enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment, then you may say: &quot;***Я хочу наслаждений.***&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first three cases one uses an infinitive verb form after &quot;хочу&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14359" RevisionGUID="a0d60e48-6a5d-4c91-b628-d055a888b9d4" CreationDate="2017-04-29T05:19:47.973" UserId="6539" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The verb **хотеть** requires either a subordinate clause or an infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я хочу, чтобы ты мне помог. &#xD;&#xA;Я хочу петь, танцевать, **наслаждаться** жизнью. &#xD;&#xA;Иду на концерт, хочу **насладиться** творчеством этого музыканта.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наслаждаться is an imperfective verb in the form of the infinitive, насладиться is a perfective verb.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34802" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14358" RevisionGUID="c6766fb6-fa48-4978-8baa-d854b8b085a4" CreationDate="2017-04-29T07:56:57.520" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/858228597630390272" />
  <row Id="34803" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="1826752c-23f0-4193-b81a-ed21b953a689" CreationDate="2017-04-29T13:57:15.107" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/858319267946737666" />
  <row Id="34804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14364" RevisionGUID="0375fd8b-d829-4d9e-a5ae-d9583e4983b5" CreationDate="2017-04-29T14:50:06.037" UserId="8915" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YdNLN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure who he is does anyone know? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14364" RevisionGUID="0375fd8b-d829-4d9e-a5ae-d9583e4983b5" CreationDate="2017-04-29T14:50:06.037" UserId="8915" Text="Does anyone know the name of the Russian person here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14364" RevisionGUID="0375fd8b-d829-4d9e-a5ae-d9583e4983b5" CreationDate="2017-04-29T14:50:06.037" UserId="8915" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="190e2616-e98c-4fb5-9e4a-5691c825c602" CreationDate="2017-04-29T15:21:05.893" UserId="1262" Text="The robbers' characters from the cartoon &quot;По следам бременских музыкантов&quot; ([On the Trail of the Bremen Town Musicians][1]) are, in turn, relicas of the physical appearance of the three criminals from the 60's comedy &quot;Кавказская пленница&quot; ([Kidnapping Caucasian Style][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The prototype movie characters][3] (in Russian) represented at the cartoon cadre are known as (from seer's left to right) Trus (The Coward), Byvalyi (The Pro) and Balbes (The Fool) respectively. Since 60s, they are present in many Russian humorous folk stories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Fool's character is played by [Yury Nikoolin][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia: in the cartoon, when the robbers sing 'We Don't Want To Live It Another Way', The Coward starts stuttering on syllables 'yu - ra', which is a conversational form of the name Yury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Trail_of_the_Bremen_Town_Musicians&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping,_Caucasian_Styl&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81,_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81_%D0%B8_%D0%91%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Nikulin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="6027b770-bbe5-410b-90be-2e780e3ac04b" CreationDate="2017-04-29T19:00:48.617" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The robbers' characters from the cartoon &quot;По следам бременских музыкантов&quot; ([On the Trail of the Bremen Town Musicians][1]) are, in turn, relicas of the physical appearance of the three criminals from the 60's comedy &quot;Кавказская пленница&quot; ([Kidnapping Caucasian Style][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The prototype movie characters][3] (in Russian) represented at the cartoon cadre are known as (from seer's left to right) Trus (The Coward), Byvalyi (The Pro) and Balbes (The Fool) respectively. Since 60s, they are present in many Russian humorous folk stories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Fool's character is played by [Yury Nickoolin][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia: in the cartoon, when the robbers sing 'We Don't Want To Live It Another Way', The Coward starts stuttering on syllables 'yu - ra', which is a conversational form of the name Yury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Trail_of_the_Bremen_Town_Musicians&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping,_Caucasian_Styl&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81,_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81_%D0%B8_%D0%91%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Nikulin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14365" RevisionGUID="3168a157-7079-48ef-8d71-ec668cfc9fba" CreationDate="2017-04-29T19:09:24.043" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The robbers' characters from the cartoon &quot;По следам бременских музыкантов&quot; ([On the Trail of the Bremen Town Musicians][1]) are, in their turn, the replicas of the physical appearance of the three criminals from the 60's comedy &quot;Кавказская пленница&quot; ([Kidnapping Caucasian Style][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The prototype movie characters][3] (in Russian) represented at the cartoon cadre are known as (from seer's left to right) Trus (The Coward), Byvalyi (The Pro) and Balbes (The Fool) respectively. Since 60s, they are present in many Russian humorous folk stories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Fool's character is played by [Yury Nikoolin][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia: in the cartoon, when the robbers sing 'We Don't Want To Live It Another Way', The Coward starts stuttering on syllables 'yu - ra', which is a conversational form of the name Yury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Trail_of_the_Bremen_Town_Musicians&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping,_Caucasian_Styl&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81,_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81_%D0%B8_%D0%91%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Nikulin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="33682d9c-bca6-4046-9aa9-2c9a5fd8c7c7" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:24:48.623" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Why is &quot;такое&quot; always neuter in the phrase &quot;Что такое...?&quot; (no matter what noun follows.) Also, what does the phrase mean? &quot;How is... like?&quot; Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34812" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14357" RevisionGUID="33682d9c-bca6-4046-9aa9-2c9a5fd8c7c7" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:24:48.623" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Why is &quot;такое&quot; always neuter in the phrase &quot;Что такое...?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14360" RevisionGUID="6fb27e74-080f-4fb1-adcf-d8b53b4a68d6" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:27:32.600" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;Also, what does the phrase mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If simply &quot;**Что такое?**&quot; then it means &quot;**What happened?**&quot; If &quot;**Что такое X?**&quot; then it stands for &quot;**What is (the meaning, usage, appliance etc. of) X?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you may think the word &quot;такое&quot; isn't really an attribute of &quot;X&quot; but rather a vague counterpart of &quot;is&quot; (or more precisely it's like &quot;What _thing_ is X?&quot;). Remember that the Russians (almost) never say &quot;что есть X?&quot;, and saying just &quot;что Х?&quot; is very ambiguous (does it mean &quot;What do you mean by X?&quot;, or &quot;X doesn't matter&quot;, or &quot;What happened about X?&quot;, and so on). So the logic insists on having some additional word here, and this word must be as neutral (gender) as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering this from grammatical point of view, &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun (not an adjective!) which must be put in the neuter gender, as we're talking about some inanimate object. The logic is quite clear: the question &quot;What is X?&quot; assumes the answer of a kind &quot;X is Y&quot;, and here &quot;такое&quot; is a pronoun used in place of that (yet) unknown &quot;Y&quot;. But which gender is &quot;Y&quot;? You may expect the animate nouns to keep gender the same in any &quot;X is Y&quot; sentence. But it's not the case with inanimate ones where the gender is a pure grammatical abstraction. So the neuter gender comes to help as usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. Okay, animate/inanimate dichotomy is perhaps somewhat misleading here. Although in Russian we do not normally use constructs such as &quot;What is he?&quot;, still there are cases when it's possible to put &quot;what&quot; along with animate nouns/notions/names etc. This could be something like &quot;What is a human being?&quot; type of &quot;abstract&quot; question, or even intentional derogatory form, and so on. Anyway, when you ask in Russian &quot;what&quot;-type of question, you expect the answer to be effectively genderless, and so the pronoun &quot;такой&quot; should be put into the neuter gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14361" RevisionGUID="362d44e7-b229-4a24-9957-e7c0461b15b2" CreationDate="2017-04-29T21:29:37.353" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Because `что` effectively is neuter in gender. `Что произошло`, `что упало` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, `кто` effectively is masculine in gender, e. g. `кто родил и жалеет, что не сделал аборт`[1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7266/which-form-of-past-tense-should-be-used-when-the-gender-of-the-speaker-is-unknow/7267#7267 ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="8fae8f0e-efa7-40fd-9c04-b1152ca6010c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:46:15.927" UserId="8917" Text="I know that &quot;это звучит ужасно' means &quot;that sounds terrible&quot; but how do you say: &quot;You sound German/Russian/American&quot; et cetera in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="8fae8f0e-efa7-40fd-9c04-b1152ca6010c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:46:15.927" UserId="8917" Text="How do you say: &quot;You sound German&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="8fae8f0e-efa7-40fd-9c04-b1152ca6010c" CreationDate="2017-04-29T23:46:15.927" UserId="8917" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14367" RevisionGUID="d1e353bd-287e-4674-bec4-1a805f8c9c38" CreationDate="2017-04-30T00:24:35.097" UserId="4560" Text="People don't generally &quot;sound&quot; in Russian; using **звучать** here would suggest an absurd notion that the speaker themself is a sound. **Ты говоришь как немец** (male) / **немка** (female) is one way to say it, but it's ambiguous in that it can also be understood as &quot;you say the kinds of things a German would say&quot;. You can rephrase it more directly as **У тебя немецкий акцент** (or **немецкий выговор**), but that doesn't quite have the tentativeness of &quot;You sound German&quot;. What I would probably say in this situation is something like: **А ты немец/немка? На слух похоже.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may look like a surprising amount of complications but it reflects a cultural difference, in that accents are less of a thing in Russia than they are in the English-speaking world. Most Russians can only very vaguely tell one accent from another, not only foreign, but regional ones as well—which are, in themselves, if not less prominent in Russian then at least something that's less common for people to listen for. Also, as &quot;accents&quot; are a subject that comes with a lot of stereotyping that's only considered offensive when it's invoked on a personal level, &quot;You sound X&quot; is a thing people are more likely to politely shy away from saying—hence the lack of a streamlined expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34819" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14353" RevisionGUID="df129d1c-0666-4999-ba3b-3b718598801f" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:05:53.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/858683830928068608" />
  <row Id="34820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="6ecb0757-80d8-4ec3-8690-adfc2fa751db" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:49:42.640" UserId="6907" Text="What is the equal idiom for &quot;enjoy it!&quot; in Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to get it by dictioneries and googling but it's not clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="6ecb0757-80d8-4ec3-8690-adfc2fa751db" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:49:42.640" UserId="6907" Text="What is the equal idiom for &quot;enjoy it!&quot; in Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="6ecb0757-80d8-4ec3-8690-adfc2fa751db" CreationDate="2017-04-30T14:49:42.640" UserId="6907" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="8cc72505-d734-4198-8b1a-ae5b8e4d1198" CreationDate="2017-04-30T15:46:07.537" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Оторвись, оттопыпырься&quot; (slang). &quot;Отлично провести время!&quot; (neutral). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14371" RevisionGUID="1ad8e563-13ef-48ca-8639-f7ce807701a5" CreationDate="2017-04-30T18:03:01.073" UserId="7307" Text="There's no generic way to &quot;enjoy&quot; something in Russian. The construction is action-dependent. Namely: is the enjoyable thing being eaten, smoked, worn, spent (as in time or money), etc? The closest I can give to a recipe is to take the action verb and modify it with some &quot;positive&quot; adverb such as приятно/полезно. Alternatively, you can take the construction suggested above (say, &quot;Отлично провести время!&quot;) and indicate where you wish this enjoyment to take place: за едой, на уроках, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14372" RevisionGUID="fc7de339-0b41-4fe4-a780-5d1cd979a401" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:29:21.560" UserId="1262" Text="In Russian a person can hardly sound like a national language speaker (but not like a person having any emotional state). So there are two different options: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you want to emphasise the non-living object of perception (e.g. the sound of speech), I suggest the same archaic participle forms ending in ***-но***; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Как (будто) по-немецки сказано / сказал(а).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like (as if) by-German-MODUS.ADV. said-PAST.P.-NEUT.SG. / said--0-MASC.SG.PAST (FEM.SG.PAST)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2. The more simple structures would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2.1 ***Как (будто) немцем сказано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like (as if) a German-MASC.SG.INSTR. said-NEUT.SG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2.2. ***Как (будто) немкой сказано.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like (as if) a German-FEM.SG.INSTR. said-PAST.P.-NEUT.SG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2.4. ***Как (будто)  немец сказал.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like (as if) a German-MASC.SG.INSTR. said-0-MASC.SG.PAST&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.2.5. ***Как (будто)  немка сказала.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like (as if) a German-FEM.SG.INSTR. said-FEM.SG.PAST&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3. With the verb, you can also add some ***ты*** and ***это***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3.1. ***Ты это как будто немец (немка) сказал(а).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.3.2. ***Ты как будто немец (немка) это сказал(а).***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Alternatively, if you want to emphasise the verb, you could use the ***звучать*** with ***это***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это звучит как будто / словно (сказано) по-немецки.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, ***Это звучит*** goes well with any structure from 1.2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ***звучать*** and an address a person present at the moment of conversation don't go well together because ***звучать*** implies non-evidentiality, whilest ***ты*** is usually addressed to a visible person present at the moment of a communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14373" RevisionGUID="4b59fe1d-bbaf-4450-96bb-a1dd91677ea2" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:51:04.930" UserId="4301" Text="Suppose, for example, that a new verb `снапчатовать` (&quot;to snapchat&quot;) was coined in Russian. Would Russian speakers agree on what the perfective form of this verb should be? Is that generally the case for all new verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14373" RevisionGUID="4b59fe1d-bbaf-4450-96bb-a1dd91677ea2" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:51:04.930" UserId="4301" Text="Do Russian speakers consistently produce the same perfective form for a new verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14373" RevisionGUID="4b59fe1d-bbaf-4450-96bb-a1dd91677ea2" CreationDate="2017-04-30T19:51:04.930" UserId="4301" Text="|перевод|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14374" RevisionGUID="e1c520cb-04fe-4295-a032-9dd1e4ce7893" CreationDate="2017-04-30T20:34:28.047" UserId="1262" Text="Well, judgung by the most answers and comments here, the Russian speakers hardly agree on *anything*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the Russian grammar, it is naturally polycentric (that is, the grammar comprises a number of variative norms and modalities, while many speakers and - alas! - even some language teachers believe it should be monocentric (just like a former empire), with a norm for something like a kind of modal RP (whatever this sort of an abomination might in a real life be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of many modalities (I believe the imperfective form would be closer to already existing ***чатиться*** and look like ***снап-чатить***) the perfective forms are also various due to different prefixes encoding different event structures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***поснапчатить / поснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***заснапчатить / заснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***расснапчатить / расснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***обснапчатить / обспапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***оснапчатить / оснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наснапчатить / наснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***доснапчатить / доснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выснапчатить / выснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***соснапчатить / соснапчатовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only regular perfective form is a (quasi)participle of a perfective kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ***снапчатено***  / ***снапчатовано***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(but such forms are mostly near-archaic and I doubt their productivity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14375" RevisionGUID="dda1342d-ae50-4318-9e33-dc2f41515d57" CreationDate="2017-04-30T21:27:56.477" UserId="8922" Text="**Наслаждайся**, &lt;= Literal: the closest generic equivalent.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Получи удовольствие**, &lt;= Literal: not exact equivalent (verbose), but depends on the context&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Удовлетворись**, &lt;= Literal: sounds more sarcastic, but, depends on the context.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Подавись** &lt;= Not literal: angry. literally: Сhoke on it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14378" RevisionGUID="f97ae550-ec99-44fe-be67-98e0e79c695b" CreationDate="2017-04-30T21:54:59.820" UserId="2238" Text="There would be no consensus for most new verbs yet for verbs with -овать four main models are possible:&#xD;&#xA;1)Biaspectual verb (like казнить): same forms used for both aspects;&#xD;&#xA;2)Imperfective pair: снапчатовать used as perfective verb, снапчатовывать as imperfective;&#xD;&#xA;3)-ну-pair: снапчатовать used as imperfective verb, снапчатнуть as perfective (unlikely in this case I suppose though can't quickly explain why);&#xD;&#xA;4)Perfective prefix: снапчатовать used as imperfective verb, поснапчатовать as perfective. There are, as mentioned above, other perfectivising prefixes, but the Vey-Schooneveld effect paradigm and similar teachings would predict по- as the default, purely perfective one for most verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14379" RevisionGUID="3f7b4b08-fdfe-4e16-995e-d78876e32c94" CreationDate="2017-04-30T22:11:40.450" UserId="8922" Text="Can't find time for it, but there is an english equivalent phrase:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Can't get my hands on it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14382" RevisionGUID="75337dbf-fa65-47e6-aefb-ff6f58fc37d3" CreationDate="2017-04-30T22:27:24.750" UserId="8922" Text="Literally &quot;Pump up&quot;, but it's used as &quot;Upgrade&quot;, &quot;Increase&quot; or &quot;Improve&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14383" RevisionGUID="5a60c6f5-7158-4e36-9197-c7161ad565fa" CreationDate="2017-04-30T22:32:21.787" UserId="8922" Text="It's like in english, you would say: &quot;is it?&quot;, &quot;isn't it?&quot;, or &quot;hasn't&quot;, etc.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For example: You were shopping yesterday. Weren't you?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, &quot;Weren't you?&quot;, means &quot;Что ли?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14385" RevisionGUID="e356a3bb-6e06-4b09-bb5d-ddd629ff1d32" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:08:03.963" UserId="8922" Text="Вы, - it's a consequence of french invasion to Russia. After Napoleon, many french words and sayings became common in Russia.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Before french invasion, in Russia, it used to be always Ты (just like an english You), even when you addressed the King or the God. Вы, was used only, when you addressed more, then one.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In french, you use plural version, when you address somebody, who you want to show a respect and when you address more, then one person. They popularized it in Russia.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there is actually a movement to get back to the source. Many people, especially recently, started to say Ты, even to whom they respect. I, personally, started doing the opposite - saying Вы to whom I don't respect. Often Вы, sounds cringy, then respectful in our times, especially, that it is a foreign construct, that Russians outlived and trying to get it out of their system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14386" RevisionGUID="088da77f-a4d9-4ed4-a195-abd8d462d27f" CreationDate="2017-04-30T23:13:31.317" UserId="8922" Text="It's rather a well known english meaning by Russians, than the same meaning in Russian.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I.e., most Russians know this englshism, but it came from english-speaking inet and it doesn't, necessarily has any meaning in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14388" RevisionGUID="03770b2e-3c36-4a80-b93e-b41b460e5e78" CreationDate="2017-05-01T01:17:23.420" UserId="8922" Text="Акция - is an englishism, that is being misused everywhere. While Russian language has it's own words, stupid people keep using foreign substitutes.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In your question's case, it means 'sale' - 'раcпродажа', or 'discount' - 'скидка'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14389" RevisionGUID="9677d8f3-b9a1-4253-bba3-71d325e8c6f2" CreationDate="2017-05-01T01:24:13.647" UserId="8922" Text="It can be translated as come in. Literally, it means: come through. Come through is used, not &quot;when you visit an official person&quot;, as was stated in one of the posts, but it just means as you are passing through the doorway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="5c7494f2-e148-42d7-85ea-0ec57021e8a2" CreationDate="2017-05-01T01:27:48.843" UserId="8922" Text="It's just a misspelled word вообще. Usually, used, in similar cases, as english 'actually'. For example: 'Actually, I didn't mean it.', 'It's your turn, actually.', etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14391" RevisionGUID="1d1dfac8-a932-4c0e-b124-774ac478443c" CreationDate="2017-05-01T01:48:31.233" UserId="8922" Text="Драже is not a Russian word. It's some foreign word (sounds like french), used by companies, making candies, that most people don't know the meaning of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14392" RevisionGUID="c9572fb9-ed65-453a-99ff-7d521ad246be" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:09:08.323" UserId="8922" Text="Russian idiom with means redundant is 'Масло масленное', literally in english: 'Buttery butter'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14393" RevisionGUID="7516f35f-c8c5-4cb2-b838-5bbab347f807" CreationDate="2017-05-01T02:32:29.343" UserId="8922" Text="'со значительными утратами, до': 'with substantial damage, up to'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14394" RevisionGUID="3d0afdcc-56ba-430c-8d22-44ab0d33442b" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:03:33.893" UserId="8922" Text="It's not only for adults, it is used in gym class by gym teachers to school students. Also, it's a common phrase, that they say on the morning TV, when they show exercises program and 'становись' doesn't mean 'line up', because it is singular and can be said to one person. It means 'stand up' or 'get up', so &quot;На зарядку становись&quot; means &quot;Get up for the morning exercises&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14395" RevisionGUID="07a5f56e-e2d2-4ff3-88f8-a2c5fc277444" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:14:06.263" UserId="8922" Text="&quot;I want to enjoy&quot; is something, that you want to do in the future, so you should use the word from the first column (future - будущее).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я хочу насладиться&quot; is correct, but rarely used and sounds cheesy. The common saying is: &quot;Я хочу получить удовольствие&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14397" RevisionGUID="0bc80702-8169-484c-afe7-693324cd21c9" CreationDate="2017-05-01T07:28:43.230" UserId="8922" Text="**Он болен** &lt;= He is sick,&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Он заболел** &lt;= He became sick" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14391" RevisionGUID="7abf3265-0717-4ab5-ab69-d66175b755d5" CreationDate="2017-05-01T08:09:12.363" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="Драже is not a Russian word. It's some foreign word (sounds like French), used by companies, making candies, that most people don't know the meaning of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14390" RevisionGUID="ff776b59-fca2-413c-84d1-1dc8cbffb313" CreationDate="2017-05-01T08:10:46.633" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="It's just a misspelled word вообще. Usually, used, in similar cases, as English 'actually'. For example: 'Actually, I didn't mean it.', 'It's your turn, actually.', etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14388" RevisionGUID="8c8fc274-c5bd-4ba9-b251-0598916fab80" CreationDate="2017-05-01T08:12:33.740" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Акция - is an Angicism that is being misused everywhere. While Russian language has it's own words, stupid people keep using foreign substitutes.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In your question's case, it means 'sale' - 'раcпродажа', or 'discount' - 'скидка'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14378" RevisionGUID="8440e5b9-e208-4f6c-b6d4-d2ef7a82fa2f" CreationDate="2017-05-01T10:31:50.540" UserId="1236" Comment="Text formating improved." Text="There would be no consensus for most new verbs yet for verbs with -овать four main models are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Biaspectual verb (like *казнить*): same forms used for both aspects;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Imperfective pair: *снапчатовать* used as perfective verb, *снапчатовывать* as imperfective;&#xD;&#xA; 3. *-ну*-pair: *снапчатовать* used as imperfective verb, *снапчатнуть* as perfective (unlikely in this case I suppose though can't quickly explain why);&#xD;&#xA; 4. Perfective prefix: *снапчатовать* used as imperfective verb, *поснапчатовать* as perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, as mentioned above, other perfectivising prefixes, but the Vey-Schooneveld effect paradigm and similar teachings would predict *по-* as the default, purely perfective one for most verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14398" RevisionGUID="3e48f426-ca11-485e-babf-ea45a2eadf18" CreationDate="2017-05-01T13:36:25.827" UserId="1262" Text="Oh, the problem of enjoyment in a language lacking verbs *to enjoy*, *to like* and *to need*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equivalent depends on a context. If you want to be sarcastic, you just say ***Удачи!*** in an appropriate tone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to wish something pleasant, you just use a structure like 'have a nice / enjoyable + smth!''. In other words, you have to specify what is 'it' you wish an addressee to enjoy. The structure is not so simple to a native English speaker, e. g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Приятных           уроков!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;nice-GEN.PL.MASC. lesson-GEN.PL.MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Приятной          зарплаты!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;good-GEN.SG.FEM. salary-GEN.SG.MASC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Приятного               воскресенья!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;enjoyable-GEN.SG.NEUT.  Sunday-GEN.SG.NEUT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With words referring to *it* as a time unit or as an event, the adjective ***приятный*** is interchangable with ***счастливый***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Счастливого              воскресения!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;enjoyable-GEN.SG.NEUT.   resurrection-GEN.SG.NEUT." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14371" RevisionGUID="e053eaf1-30c2-4619-a721-644be2bd8f17" CreationDate="2017-05-01T13:42:26.440" UserId="1262" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="There's no generic way to &quot;enjoy&quot; something in Russian. The construction is action-dependent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Namely, it depends on the properties of the action; is the enjoyable thing being eaten, smoked, worn, spent (as in time or money), etc? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I can give as a recipe is to take the action verb and modify it with some &quot;positive&quot; adverb such as приятно/полезно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you can take the construction suggested above (say, &quot;Отлично провести время!&quot;) and indicate where you wish this enjoyment to take place: за едой, на уроках, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34864" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="14371" RevisionGUID="071d4d94-ed5f-4ad7-b31e-03730bb4a6a5" CreationDate="2017-05-01T14:03:33.823" UserId="7307" Comment="Rollback to [1ad8e563-13ef-48ca-8639-f7ce807701a5]" Text="There's no generic way to &quot;enjoy&quot; something in Russian. The construction is action-dependent. Namely: is the enjoyable thing being eaten, smoked, worn, spent (as in time or money), etc? The closest I can give to a recipe is to take the action verb and modify it with some &quot;positive&quot; adverb such as приятно/полезно. Alternatively, you can take the construction suggested above (say, &quot;Отлично провести время!&quot;) and indicate where you wish this enjoyment to take place: за едой, на уроках, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34867" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14373" RevisionGUID="bd0fdb4d-600a-4896-8ede-647b2a6c2cfc" CreationDate="2017-05-01T23:16:10.180" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/859184700144922625" />
  <row Id="34869" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14364" RevisionGUID="fb29301a-a2a2-43cd-870d-9339a29e1c6d" CreationDate="2017-05-02T08:01:05.703" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="6f51ce80-0c8b-4daa-ab73-4855d3a9e228" CreationDate="2017-05-02T08:20:26.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/859321669655154688" />
  <row Id="34871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14375" RevisionGUID="5bb1899a-1144-4ab5-bbac-c660b44093d1" CreationDate="2017-05-02T09:36:50.573" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Наслаждайся**, - (literal) the closest generic equivalent.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Получи удовольствие**, - (literal) not exact equivalent (verbose), but depends on the context&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Удовлетворись**, - (literal)sounds more sarcastic, but, depends on the context.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Подавись** - (not literal) angry. literally: Сhoke on it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="3c088119-d20c-4175-b83d-86824e12502c" CreationDate="2017-05-02T12:05:26.357" UserId="6907" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="What is the equal idiom for &quot;enjoy it!&quot; in Russian language?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contexts for example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;We are in camp now.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;we are walking in the city center now.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to get it by dictioneries and googling but it's not clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34878" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8523" RevisionGUID="e135a1ef-e057-48e6-90eb-d0275fb9d7b8" CreationDate="2017-05-02T14:46:02.910" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What exactly does &quot;вопще&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14400" RevisionGUID="a34b01a2-79f4-475b-bc86-023f43014440" CreationDate="2017-05-02T15:27:41.057" UserId="2104" Text="Different Russian speakers may come up with different perfectives for the same verb (new or not) and there is a good chance that listeners will recognise the original verb and the perfectiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the abundance of ways to form a perfective that Russian offers, a new verb is likely to have more than one perfective. But the choice is not random and will often appeal to an existing verb with a similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an IT professional, I tend to use a lot of English loanwords. Some of them have expanded beyond the industry and even made their way into dictionaries. Let's take a look at a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гу́глить** 'to google' – *perf*. погу́глить, нагу́глить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Погу́глить (compare to поиска́ть, посмотре́ть): Погу́гли его имя! – Google his name!&#xD;&#xA; - Нагу́глить (compare to найти́): Смотри́, что я нагу́глила! – Look what I’ve found (online)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фо́рвардить** 'to forward an email' – *perf*. отфо́рвардить / форвардну́ть.&#xD;&#xA;Compare отфо́рвардить to отпра́вить, отосла́ть ‘to send’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Форвардни́ мне его имейл! – Forward his email to me.&#xD;&#xA; - Сейчас отфо́рваржу! – Forwarding now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above two examples could easily have been a dialogue where one speaker uses one perfective form and the other replies with a different perfective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кли́кать** 'to click' - *perf*. кли́кнуть.&#xD;&#xA;In this case there already was (and still is) a verb with exactly the same spelling (кли́кать) but a different meaning, 'to call'. So the new verb just assumed the existing verb's grammar, including the perfective, with the exception of present forms such as кли́чет in favour of кли́кает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Комми́тить** 'to commit source code' – *perf*. закомми́тить / комми́тнуть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Закомми́ть свои изменения в бранч! – Commit your changes to the branch!&#xD;&#xA; - Подожди́, сейчас закомми́чу! – Hang on, committing now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Апгре́йдить** 'to upgrade computer hardware' – *perf*. проапгре́йдить, заапгре́йдить, апгре́йдить: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Комп ка́ждый день пла́чет: «Апгре́йдь меня!» – My computer is begging for an upgrade.  &#xD;&#xA;Here the verb is perceived as bi-aspectual with апгре́йдить being used as both perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Кому́-то пора́ проапгре́йдить мозги́! – Someone’s brains need an upgrade!  &#xD;&#xA;The prefix про- appeals to such verbs as прочи́стить, промы́ть ‘to clean, wash thoroughly’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Мой друг заапгре́йдил Де́вушку 1.0 до Жены́ 1.0. – My friend has upgraded his Girlfriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0 (google it, it's fun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, here are the most common ways of forming a perfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Treat the verb as bi-aspectual. This is very common in verbs ending in -и́ровать, -ова́ть: легализи́ровать, легализова́ть, ликвиди́ровать, рационализи́ровать but can also be found in more traditional verbs: казни́ть, жени́ть. Your **снапчатова́ть** could easily fall into this category.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the suffix -ну: кли́кнуть, комми́тнуть, пеленгова́ть – пеленгану́ть, **снапчатова́ть – снапчатану́ть**.&#xD;&#xA; - Add a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is where the fun begins. How do we know what prefix to add? There is a good dozen of them in Russian and they tend to modify the original verb’s meaning. Take писа́ть ‘to write’ as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - написа́ть ‘to write’ (as in to write a book, a poem, a song…) i.e. it’s about creativity.&#xD;&#xA; - записа́ть ‘to write down’, ‘to record’ i.e. it’s about copying from one medium to another.&#xD;&#xA; - вписа́ть ‘to fill in’ e.g. впиши́те своё и́мя ‘fill in your name’&#xD;&#xA; - подписа́ть ‘to sign’, ‘to underwrite’&#xD;&#xA; - списа́ть ‘to copy’ (another student’s work)&#xD;&#xA; - дописа́ть ‘to finish writing’ &#xD;&#xA; - etc (omitted for brevity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which of the above should we consider the perfective of писа́ть? Linguists came up with a test whereby they ask Russian speakers to use a given verb in a context of mandatory imperfectivization ([ситуа́ция обяза́тельной имперфектива́ции][1]). One such context is «не (де́лай)» or «не на́до (де́лать)». To make the test more natural, a respondent might be asked to talk the experimenter out of something. E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Experimenter: Я хочу́ *записа́ть* э́тот реце́пт. – I want to write down this recipe.&#xD;&#xA; - Respondent: Не на́до *запи́сывать*, он у меня́ есть. – No need to write it down, I already have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having done this for multiple prefixes, we might get answers such as these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - записа́ть ви́део =&gt; не на́до запи́сывать ви́део (not *не на́до записа́ть ви́део)&#xD;&#xA; - вписа́ть =&gt; не на́до впи́сывать (not *не на́до вписа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - подписа́ть =&gt; не на́до подпи́сывать (not *не на́до подписа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - списа́ть =&gt; не на́до спи́сывать (not *не на́до списа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - дописа́ть =&gt; не на́до допи́сывать (not *не на́до дописа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - написа́ть кни́гу =&gt; не на́до писа́ть кни́гу (not *не на́до написа́ть кни́гу and not *не на́до написывать кни́гу)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see, only написа́ть has писа́ть as its imperfective counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;It’s a good test but the downside is whether two verbs form an aspectual pair becomes a matter of opinion. Especially for a newly coined verb, opinions may differ (проапгрейдить / заапгрейдить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another interesting example of a difference of opinion. The English Wiktionary [says][2] the perfective for гу́глить is погу́глить, while the Russian Wiktionary [says][3] it has no perfective («Соответствующего глагола совершенного вида нет»). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer barely scratches the surface of Russian aspectology. Aspect in Russian is intertwined with semantics and semantics is nearly as deep as the language itself. For the curious and the brave-hearted, I recommend this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A.A. Zaliznyak, A.D. Shmelyov. Types of aspectual connections.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dialog-21.ru/en/digest/2001/articles/zaliznyak/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34891" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14366" RevisionGUID="8df824ac-ad29-4b57-b790-017072d539f9" CreationDate="2017-05-02T21:10:03.400" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/859515350303600643" />
  <row Id="34895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="0bfe0c5c-d7c9-4702-9c32-6efe0dc383fa" CreationDate="2017-05-03T01:39:33.737" UserId="8939" Text="I'm learning a song/piano piece (by the now departed English comedy duo [Flanders &amp; Swann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders_and_Swann)) known simply as The Hippopotamus Song.  A good example recording of this song is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjnOj9O16_I); if you listen through it you'll notice that the second chorus is supposedly sung in Russian. I do not know Russian, so I'm not even sure that they aren't faking it, but I would, at the least, like to be able to reproduce the effect myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my request is that (assuming it's in genuine Russian) someone provide a direct transcription, a word-for-word translation to English, and a non-English-accent phonetic transliteration.  If it's not genuine, please let me know and I can just do my best to copy the recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="0bfe0c5c-d7c9-4702-9c32-6efe0dc383fa" CreationDate="2017-05-03T01:39:33.737" UserId="8939" Text="Hippopotamus Song (Flanders &amp; Swann) - Russian Chorus Translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="0bfe0c5c-d7c9-4702-9c32-6efe0dc383fa" CreationDate="2017-05-03T01:39:33.737" UserId="8939" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14404" RevisionGUID="9dfa323a-8de2-4ce5-8f51-6893de92eb17" CreationDate="2017-05-03T02:27:16.007" UserId="8922" Text="It all sounded gibberish, except for one phrase, that I've caught &quot;лучшее средство&quot; - &quot;best remedy&quot; or &quot;best cure&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14405" RevisionGUID="36e4faaa-645b-4ace-9a98-bd0b85ebcb79" CreationDate="2017-05-03T07:28:00.870" UserId="4560" Text="&gt; Грязь, грязь, чудная грязь,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лучшее средство как кожная мазь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так возьми свою даму&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и поведи её в яму,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и там мы окунемся в чудную грязь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fairly close to the English chorus earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ['grʲæsʲ 'grʲæsʲ 'tɕudnəjə 'grʲæsʲ] // mud mud wonderful mud &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ['lutʂəjə 'srʲetstvə kɐk 'koʐnəjə 'masʲ] // best remedy as skin ointment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[the grammar's a bit awkward here, but could just be strained to fit the meter]* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [tək vɐzʲ'mʲi svɐ'ju 'damu] // so take your lady&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [i pəvʲɪ'dʲi jɪ'jo 'vjamu] // and take/lead her to pit/hollow &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [i 'tam mɨ ɐ'kunʲəmsʲə 'ftɕudnuju 'grʲæsʲ] // and there we will_dip into wonderful mud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[weird stress pattern in **окунемся**; archaic? plain incorrect?]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14405" RevisionGUID="6f7fda51-1963-4e70-a74f-e93fb695ba0b" CreationDate="2017-05-03T07:52:25.087" UserId="4560" Comment="added 694 characters in body" Text="&gt; Грязь, грязь, чудная грязь,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лучшее средство как кожная мазь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так возьми свою даму&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и поведи её в яму,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и там мы окунемся в чудную грязь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fairly close to the English chorus earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ['grʲæsʲ 'grʲæsʲ 'tɕudnəjə 'grʲæsʲ] // mud mud wonderful mud &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The singer isn't de-voicing that final /zʲ/ enough. Maybe not the first time when the two words are repeated back to back and a voiced consonant follows, but for the rest, it should just become [sʲ], no middle ground there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ['lutʂəjə 'srʲetstvə kɐk 'koʐnəjə 'masʲ] // best remedy as skin ointment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammar's a bit awkward here, but could just be strained to fit the metre. The &quot;tch&quot; cluster in the middle of the first word is a bit too soft, but it could be how some Russians actually said it half a century ago (but then again your audience might not know that, and it will come across as foreign). That final /zʲ/ isn't de-voiced enough, again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [tək vɐzʲ'mʲi svɐ'ju 'damu] // so take your lady&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [i pəvʲɪ'dʲi jɪ'jo 'vjamu] // and take/lead her to pit/hollow &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [i 'tam mɨ ɐ'kunʲəmsʲə 'ftɕudnuju 'grʲæsʲ] // and there we will_dip into wonderful mud&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very non-dental [t] at the beginning is probably the most foreign sound in this otherwise fairly good rendition. Make that [t] as &quot;French&quot; or &quot;Spanish&quot; as you can instead. A weird stress pattern in **окунемся** (ought to be **окунёмся**); archaic? plain incorrect? greater poetic licence than what would fly these days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34901" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="47597510-8be7-4dfd-87b5-4943a9d0a3bf" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:11:22.533" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14406" RevisionGUID="e07b7590-af2b-4c9e-9a35-a7e3ad0bf90c" CreationDate="2017-05-03T08:59:16.647" UserId="310" Text="`короче` может также использоваться для `быкования`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, pressuring you to accept something at the threat of &quot;or else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Works best when combined with past tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Короче, собрал вещи и вышел отсюда` would mean &quot;pick up your belongings and leave *now*, end of discussion&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34904" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14340" RevisionGUID="466565a0-c4f2-4a93-a26c-8381c3a1dcce" CreationDate="2017-05-03T09:10:08.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/859696564713000960" />
  <row Id="34905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14407" RevisionGUID="bca580c6-519e-4a9f-a9b5-3896f50b9dfe" CreationDate="2017-05-03T15:57:13.677" UserId="4600" Text="There's an important difference in meaning. **Болен** and **больной** can be used to say &quot;mad&quot;, &quot;inadequate&quot; while **заболел** is never used for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ты болен?!* — Are you mad?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Больной придурок!* — Sick bastard!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ты заболел?!* — Have you become ill?! (e.g. caught a cold, flu etc., I'm worried about your health)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Этот] придурок заболел!* — This idiot became ill. (e.g. caught a cold, flu etc. and now we have problems because of his absence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14408" RevisionGUID="632340bf-f54c-47ca-b439-36031198ed86" CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:39:50.633" UserId="2099" Text="..., стать **соблюдателем** существующего порядка и охранником международных правил, или стать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something better to say this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14408" RevisionGUID="632340bf-f54c-47ca-b439-36031198ed86" CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:39:50.633" UserId="2099" Text="Why my `Pages ` grammar check `соблюдателем` with red underline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14408" RevisionGUID="632340bf-f54c-47ca-b439-36031198ed86" CreationDate="2017-05-03T22:39:50.633" UserId="2099" Text="|грамматика|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14409" RevisionGUID="a43ee1bc-2fe3-4951-9a5e-137366ee0693" CreationDate="2017-05-04T00:23:30.963" UserId="8946" Text="There's no such word &quot;соблюдатель&quot;. You may say &quot;стать блюстителем существующего порядка и охранником международных правил&quot; if you mean one who makes others obey the order (&quot;блюститель порядка&quot; is sometimes used as a synonym for &quot;policeman&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14410" RevisionGUID="23b74cb2-8dc6-4684-b5ab-adc5d1788dd5" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:04:30.230" UserId="8895" Text="You could also consider using one of the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стать сторонником&#xD;&#xA; - стать (рьяным) приверженцем&#xD;&#xA; - стать адептом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14410" RevisionGUID="b84ca73f-4d7b-4371-b1be-fb6359415b2e" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:12:42.833" UserId="8895" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="You could also consider using one of the following options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стать сторонником&#xD;&#xA; - стать (рьяным) приверженцем&#xD;&#xA; - стать поборником&#xD;&#xA; - стать адептом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14411" RevisionGUID="2b81d9ec-a4ba-4e61-97a9-87184a1464e3" CreationDate="2017-05-04T06:30:37.283" UserId="8617" Text="In general, generally speaking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14400" RevisionGUID="4d686ce0-4baa-4445-ba52-1df0a7a1ff35" CreationDate="2017-05-04T09:38:40.923" UserId="2104" Comment="Add a few stress marks." Text="Different Russian speakers may come up with different perfectives for the same verb (new or not) and there is a good chance that listeners will recognise the original verb and the perfectiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the abundance of ways to form a perfective that Russian offers, a new verb is likely to have more than one perfective. But the choice is not random and will often appeal to an existing verb with a similar meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an IT professional, I tend to use a lot of English loanwords. Some of them have expanded beyond the industry and even made their way into dictionaries. Let's take a look at a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гу́глить** 'to google' – *perf*. погу́глить, нагу́глить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Погу́глить (compare to поиска́ть, посмотре́ть): Погу́гли его имя! – Google his name!&#xD;&#xA; - Нагу́глить (compare to найти́): Смотри́, что я нагу́глила! – Look what I’ve found (online)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Фо́рвардить** 'to forward an email' – *perf*. отфо́рвардить / форвардну́ть.&#xD;&#xA;Compare отфо́рвардить to отпра́вить, отосла́ть ‘to send’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Форвардни́ мне его имейл! – Forward his email to me.&#xD;&#xA; - Сейчас отфо́рваржу! – Forwarding now!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above two examples could easily have been a dialogue where one speaker uses one perfective form and the other replies with a different perfective form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кли́кать** 'to click' - *perf*. кли́кнуть.&#xD;&#xA;In this case there already was (and still is) a verb with exactly the same spelling (кли́кать) but a different meaning, 'to call'. So the new verb just assumed the existing verb's grammar, including the perfective, with the exception of present forms such as кли́чет in favour of кли́кает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Комми́тить** 'to commit source code' – *perf*. закомми́тить / комми́тнуть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Закомми́ть свои́ измене́ния в бранч! – Commit your changes to the branch!&#xD;&#xA; - Подожди́, сейча́с закомми́чу! – Hang on, committing now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Апгре́йдить** 'to upgrade computer hardware' – *perf*. проапгре́йдить, заапгре́йдить, апгре́йдить: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Комп ка́ждый день пла́чет: «Апгре́йдь меня!» – My computer is begging for an upgrade.  &#xD;&#xA;Here the verb is perceived as bi-aspectual with апгре́йдить being used as both perfective and imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Кому́-то пора́ проапгре́йдить мозги́! – Someone’s brains need an upgrade!  &#xD;&#xA;The prefix про- appeals to such verbs as прочи́стить, промы́ть ‘to clean, wash thoroughly’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Мой друг заапгре́йдил Де́вушку 1.0 до Жены́ 1.0. – My friend has upgraded his Girlfriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0 (google it, it's fun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, here are the most common ways of forming a perfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Treat the verb as bi-aspectual. This is very common in verbs ending in -и́ровать, -ова́ть: легализи́ровать, легализова́ть, ликвиди́ровать, рационализи́ровать but can also be found in more traditional verbs: казни́ть, жени́ть. Your **снапчатова́ть** could easily fall into this category.&#xD;&#xA; - Add the suffix -ну: кли́кнуть, комми́тнуть, пеленгова́ть – пеленгану́ть, **снапчатова́ть – снапчатану́ть**.&#xD;&#xA; - Add a prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is where the fun begins. How do we know what prefix to add? There is a good dozen of them in Russian and they tend to modify the original verb’s meaning. Take писа́ть ‘to write’ as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - написа́ть ‘to write’ (as in to write a book, a poem, a song…) i.e. it’s about creativity.&#xD;&#xA; - записа́ть ‘to write down’, ‘to record’ i.e. it’s about copying from one medium to another.&#xD;&#xA; - вписа́ть ‘to fill in’ e.g. впиши́те своё и́мя ‘fill in your name’&#xD;&#xA; - подписа́ть ‘to sign’, ‘to underwrite’&#xD;&#xA; - списа́ть ‘to copy’ (another student’s work)&#xD;&#xA; - дописа́ть ‘to finish writing’ &#xD;&#xA; - etc (omitted for brevity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which of the above should we consider the perfective of писа́ть? Linguists came up with a test whereby they ask Russian speakers to use a given verb in a context of mandatory imperfectivization ([ситуа́ция обяза́тельной имперфектива́ции][1]). One such context is «не (де́лай)» or «не на́до (де́лать)». To make the test more natural, a respondent might be asked to talk the experimenter out of something. E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Experimenter: Я хочу́ *записа́ть* э́тот реце́пт. – I want to write down this recipe.&#xD;&#xA; - Respondent: Не на́до *запи́сывать*, он у меня́ есть. – No need to write it down, I already have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having done this for multiple prefixes, we might get answers such as these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - записа́ть ви́део =&gt; не на́до запи́сывать ви́део (not *не на́до записа́ть ви́део)&#xD;&#xA; - вписа́ть =&gt; не на́до впи́сывать (not *не на́до вписа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - подписа́ть =&gt; не на́до подпи́сывать (not *не на́до подписа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - списа́ть =&gt; не на́до спи́сывать (not *не на́до списа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - дописа́ть =&gt; не на́до допи́сывать (not *не на́до дописа́ть)&#xD;&#xA; - написа́ть кни́гу =&gt; не на́до писа́ть кни́гу (not *не на́до написа́ть кни́гу and not *не на́до напи́сывать кни́гу)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see, only написа́ть has писа́ть as its imperfective counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;It’s a good test but the downside is whether two verbs form an aspectual pair becomes a matter of opinion. Especially for newly coined verbs, opinions may differ (проапгрейдить / заапгрейдить).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another interesting example of a difference of opinion. The English Wiktionary [says][2] the perfective for гу́глить is погу́глить, while the Russian Wiktionary [says][3] it has no perfective («Соответствующего глагола совершенного вида нет»). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer barely scratches the surface of Russian aspectology. Aspect in Russian is intertwined with semantics and semantics is nearly as deep as the language itself. For the curious and the brave-hearted, I recommend this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A.A. Zaliznyak, A.D. Shmelyov. Types of aspectual connections.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dialog-21.ru/en/digest/2001/articles/zaliznyak/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34918" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14408" RevisionGUID="7bda912e-1354-4a5d-8d7f-a1943e3a5d9e" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:13:57.103" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;соблюдатель&quot; a valid word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34919" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14333" RevisionGUID="239f09c4-cc6b-48e3-ba0a-c816f351477c" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:14:15.257" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a difference between &quot;болен&quot; and &quot;заболел&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34920" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7765" RevisionGUID="e97edd90-90b8-4fd9-87cf-a3a29e029d72" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:14:53.290" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;драже&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14403" RevisionGUID="e379ed1f-c611-4f74-9c86-1adf99a78649" CreationDate="2017-05-05T00:38:57.453" UserId="8939" Comment="Added summary of motives for question and research completed." Text="I'm learning a song/piano piece (by the now departed English comedy duo [Flanders &amp; Swann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders_and_Swann)) known simply as The Hippopotamus Song.  A good example recording of this song is [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjnOj9O16_I); if you listen through it you'll notice that the second chorus is supposedly sung in Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with Russian, but am interested in learning about the particular usage of it in this song.  As I was aware that the Russian chorus wasn't quite a literal translation of the English one, I was curious to find out what it literally meant so I could enjoy any extra jokes that had been thrown in.  I did a fairly thorough internet search for an actual transcription of the Russian chorus, but was unable to find anything more than a phonetic transcription which I would have been capable of doing myself.  I had equally little success with Google Translate (aside from the word &quot;mud&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my request is that (assuming it's in genuine Russian) someone provide a direct transcription, a word-for-word translation to English, and a non-English-accent phonetic transliteration.  If it's not genuine, please let me know and I can just do my best to copy the recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="e1052fd3-986d-442d-bdf0-b02b6b33c8dd" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:16:38.320" UserId="2099" Text="This title from [Environment Magazine][1], my version is `сначала расти, очистить позже`, but fell not good. Does here a fixed expression in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/May%202007/Rock-abstract.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="e1052fd3-986d-442d-bdf0-b02b6b33c8dd" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:16:38.320" UserId="2099" Text="How to traslate into Russian &quot;`Grow First, Clean Up Later?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="e1052fd3-986d-442d-bdf0-b02b6b33c8dd" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:16:38.320" UserId="2099" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14413" RevisionGUID="46ba8a93-a880-4b9d-a021-9ecb9f75c2b0" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:46:29.380" UserId="8895" Text="&quot;Первым делом - рост, чистота потом&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14414" RevisionGUID="2405302f-7302-4f2a-aa89-48baf684a002" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:48:07.297" UserId="242" Text="First, even for phrases this short the literal translation could be not the best option. &quot;Clean up&quot; is indeed can be translated &quot;очистить(ся)&quot;, but in Russian this verb has subtle yet noticeable differences in usage. &quot;Сначала вырасти, а уж потом очиститься&quot; is valid but sound slightly artificial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сперва - рост, а уж потом - экологичность&quot; is essentially  what this title is about. &quot;Первым делом&quot; proposes by Vadim Land is even better. &quot;Первым делом - рост, а экологичность - потом&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="4566aab8-4d36-4552-9c59-d5025e01bbbe" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:48:17.987" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="This title from [Environment Magazine][1], my version is `сначала расти, очистить позже`, but fell not good. Does here a fixed expression in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/May%202007/Rock-abstract.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="36adce7d-5d87-479d-b8f9-41c8a1d85e24" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:54:38.800" UserId="8895" Comment="Grammar improvements" Text="This title is from [Environment Magazine][1], my version is `сначала расти, очистить позже`, but that doesn't feel good. Is there a fixed expression in Russian for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/May%202007/Rock-abstract.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34930" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="36adce7d-5d87-479d-b8f9-41c8a1d85e24" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:54:38.800" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 2099 edit id of 861" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34931" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="006b7054-7b52-486c-bc6a-2c26ea0194b6" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:55:48.710" UserId="8895" Comment="Minor typo fixed" Text="How to translate into Russian &quot;Grow First, Clean Up Later?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34932" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="006b7054-7b52-486c-bc6a-2c26ea0194b6" CreationDate="2017-05-05T11:55:48.710" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 2099 edit id of 862" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14415" RevisionGUID="b5841112-cc57-46c3-ae4f-c65867f094a9" CreationDate="2017-05-05T15:58:40.107" UserId="8958" Text="Сначала - рост, потом - детали.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14416" RevisionGUID="4d52ac15-44be-4c2b-8b2b-a5483337c9de" CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:48:55.413" UserId="2104" Text="Literal translations don't seem to work well here. Here's a few options that to me sound more natural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Экономика или экология?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Из грязи в князи?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;А убирать кто будет?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34935" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14412" RevisionGUID="0fd2dad7-3776-4678-87f0-b4f530e29c73" CreationDate="2017-05-06T00:12:26.517" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/860648412630351873" />
  <row Id="34936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="2d79efed-c841-48ef-8d42-61d8a530a09e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:41:49.730" UserId="8844" Text="In Russian you say &quot;ja govorim po-russki&quot; to say I speak Russian. What does the &quot;po&quot; mean there? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="2d79efed-c841-48ef-8d42-61d8a530a09e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:41:49.730" UserId="8844" Text="What does the &quot;Po&quot; in front of russki mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="2d79efed-c841-48ef-8d42-61d8a530a09e" CreationDate="2017-05-06T05:41:49.730" UserId="8844" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14418" RevisionGUID="14bebd88-2958-484d-a565-25c795e2a1c0" CreationDate="2017-05-06T08:36:10.597" UserId="5008" Text="First of all, &quot;ja govorim&quot; is wrong (though it may be ok in other Slavic languages, such as Serbian). In Russian it could only be &quot;_я говорю_&quot; (_ja govorju_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, as &quot;по-&quot; is written together with the rest of the word (the dash doesn't matter here), it means that grammatically it's considered to be simply a prefix, which is used to form adverbs out of adjectives and possessive pronouns, e.g.: _по-хорошему_, _по-моему_, _по-английски_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &quot;_по-русски_&quot; is just the word &quot;Russian&quot; used as an adverb. You may also think it as something close to &quot;Russian way&quot;, &quot;as Russians&quot; or anything like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this question is also related to: [“На английском” or “по-английски”?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8037/%D0%9D%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC-or-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14419" RevisionGUID="db3345d2-bb1e-4b1c-a8aa-32dbeb666dd2" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:16:05.593" UserId="4560" Text="First of all, like Matt pointed out, it's *ja govorju*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Po* is (or in this case, was) a preposition used here in its original meaning of &quot;after/following&quot; (its primary meaning in modern Russian is &quot;over/across [a surface or medium]&quot;). It's not technically a preposition anymore, as *po-russki* has long solidified as an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curiously enough, though, it solidified in a form that would've been considered bad grammar in the Middle Ages. *Po-russki* blends together what were historically two different expressions: *po rus’sku*, &quot;after the Russian [way/fashion]&quot; — cf. modern Polish *po polsku* — and *rus’sky*, meaning &quot;with [those things that are] Russian&quot;, cf. modern Czech *česky*. Slovak is another &quot;offender&quot; here with its similarly fused-together *po slovensky*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you're wondering how &quot;those things that are&quot; got into something as simple-sounding as *rus’sky*/*russki*: this is the now-defunct instrumental case of the (also now-defunct) *russka(ja)*, a nounless adjective that looks feminine singular but is actually neuter plural. It's the same nounless neuter plural that was extensively used in Ancient Greek and Latin. (It's how we got words like *agenda*, literally something like &quot;the to-be-dones&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="c60d2b30-1f9a-41d7-907e-093f2ae1a6df" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:38:20.287" UserId="6097" Comment="Corrected punctuation " Text="In Russian you say &quot;ja govoryu po-russki&quot; to say &quot;I speak Russian&quot;. What does the &quot;po&quot; mean there? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34942" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="c60d2b30-1f9a-41d7-907e-093f2ae1a6df" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:38:20.287" UserId="6097" Comment="Corrected punctuation " Text="What does the &quot;по&quot; in front of &quot;русски&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34943" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="fcf0051e-dd4e-4d22-90a4-6a9df8f15f77" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:38:45.180" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="In &quot;По-русски&quot; - what does &quot;по&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="9aea26f0-cbed-4bd0-b33b-f1ce2d7eab6d" CreationDate="2017-05-06T10:33:53.727" UserId="242" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="In Russian you say &quot;я говорю по-русски&quot; (ya govoryu po-russki) to say &quot;I speak Russian&quot;. What does the &quot;по&quot; mean there? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="4641a2ca-f9b7-4c74-9c53-299590833c25" CreationDate="2017-05-06T18:15:26.510" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/860920958617604096" />
  <row Id="34946" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14417" RevisionGUID="ad08fd89-b410-45f2-961d-cb64d02fafe5" CreationDate="2017-05-06T18:24:35.860" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="In &quot;по-русски&quot; - what does &quot;по&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14408" RevisionGUID="fcfdcc47-cb79-44fb-805a-4eecd7341d95" CreationDate="2017-05-06T21:15:26.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/860966255880286212" />
  <row Id="34949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14420" RevisionGUID="f2a368a9-7ec8-4f76-9f2e-17ce6044d10a" CreationDate="2017-05-07T11:38:23.743" UserId="2099" Text="[Inclusive growth][1] is an economic term, I tried to translate as `инклузивное развитие` or `включительное развитие`, but not sure because search engines give me very few results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome any suggestions, Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_growth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14420" RevisionGUID="f2a368a9-7ec8-4f76-9f2e-17ce6044d10a" CreationDate="2017-05-07T11:38:23.743" UserId="2099" Text="How to translate `Inclusive growth` into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14420" RevisionGUID="f2a368a9-7ec8-4f76-9f2e-17ce6044d10a" CreationDate="2017-05-07T11:38:23.743" UserId="2099" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14420" RevisionGUID="58e101b1-3204-48b3-b3ec-08ce06e4202c" CreationDate="2017-05-07T11:39:30.253" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="[Inclusive growth][1] is an economic term, I tried to translate as `инклузивное развитие` or `включительное развитие`, but not sure because search engines give me very few results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_growth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14421" RevisionGUID="fa64e00b-e5ae-4d22-8a66-948ef3c014cd" CreationDate="2017-05-07T12:55:07.837" UserId="2104" Text="*Инклюзи́вный рост/разви́тие*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got these numbers of hits in Google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;инклюзивный рост&quot; 4450&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;инклюзивное развитие&quot; 3320&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;включающий рост&quot; 643&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Инклюзивный рост&quot; and &quot;инклюзивное развитие&quot; seem to refer to the term in question while &quot;включающий рост&quot; and &quot;включающее развитие&quot; are mostly combinations of the participle of &quot;включать&quot; followed by &quot;рост/развитие&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few usage examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *&quot;Сегодня экономисты на Западе пользуются понятием inclusive growth — включающий рост, дающий возможность наблюдать, как изменяется экономическое положение отдельных социальных групп или регионов страны.&quot;* ([link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *ИНКЛЮЗИВНЫЙ УСТОЙЧИВЫЙ РОСТ: ПРИОРИТЕТЫ, ИНДИКАТОРЫ, МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ОПЫТ, ПОТЕНЦИАЛ СОГЛАСОВАНИЯ С МОДЕЛЬЮ РЕИНДУСТРИАЛИЗАЦИИ* ([link][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *&quot;Инклюзивное развитие&quot; - главная тема Боаоского азиатского форума-2011* ([link][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kommersant.ru/doc/3049213&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://group-global.org/ru/publication/66990-inklyuzivnyy-ustoychivyy-rost-prioritety-indikatory-mezhdunarodnyy-opyt-potencial&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://russian.cntv.cn/program/news_ru/20110414/103308.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14422" RevisionGUID="7fcd5b86-b380-47cd-a386-d5124551b970" CreationDate="2017-05-07T16:18:20.430" UserId="2079" Text="Google scholar находит `инклюзивный рост` и `инклюзивное развитие` почти поровну (81 и 82 текста, соответственно)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Включающий рост&quot; находится в 19 текстах, но все или почти все тексты совершенно не о том. Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для него характерен широкий спектр эруптивной активности, включающий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рост экструзивных куполов и их разрушение последующими взрывами разной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; силы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Речь идёт о вулкане.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34962" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14118" RevisionGUID="1ded0e93-5eb9-4b26-90b3-78ad0ab37167" CreationDate="2017-05-08T21:30:03.990" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/861694712385875968" />
  <row Id="34963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14424" RevisionGUID="b5341a2f-3682-4c05-9c81-f3280970cc77" CreationDate="2017-05-08T23:43:30.383" UserId="6807" Text="Вали кулём - потом разберём. . .&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="009b1337-161a-4e84-aad6-76d257a7b8cb" CreationDate="2017-05-09T02:58:12.707" UserId="6722" Text="I am reading *Улитка на cклоне*, and one of the characters is called **Домарощинер**. In Alan Meyers' English translation, he is called **hausbotcher**. I see how one gets &quot;Haus&quot; from &quot;Дом&quot;, but where is &quot;botcher&quot; coming from? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="009b1337-161a-4e84-aad6-76d257a7b8cb" CreationDate="2017-05-09T02:58:12.707" UserId="6722" Text="How to translate Домарощинер, one of the characters found in the novel Улитка на cклоне?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="009b1337-161a-4e84-aad6-76d257a7b8cb" CreationDate="2017-05-09T02:58:12.707" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14426" RevisionGUID="4f0a9cb8-07cf-47f6-81be-779692b56139" CreationDate="2017-05-09T03:53:34.807" UserId="4903" Text="***Домарощинер*** is a variation of a Russian adjective ***доморощенный*** (literally grown-at-home).  The latter means self-made, but crude and unprofessional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one starts with ***botched-at-home***, then he can arrive at ***Hausbotcher*** after a few modifications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34968" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="d9add861-da8e-424c-9b0f-4e75aff034ce" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:04:02.477" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34969" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="502f2e10-dfeb-412a-9be4-287c1fc9a539" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:04:19.867" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="34970" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="7d67940b-bc4b-4556-93b9-7bdf0888f372" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:05:08.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;Домарощинер&quot; is translated as as Hausbotcher?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="7d67940b-bc4b-4556-93b9-7bdf0888f372" CreationDate="2017-05-09T08:05:08.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="I am reading *[Улитка на cклоне][1]*, and one of the characters is called **Домарощинер**. In Alan Meyers' English translation, he is called **hausbotcher**. I see how one gets &quot;Haus&quot; from &quot;Дом&quot;, but where is &quot;botcher&quot; coming from? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="04409c35-1665-44c0-a6eb-fa43e062fdc7" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:47:41.453" UserId="2085" Text="So I had to translate this sentence and I thought it'd be just У меня нет времени за это, but I have a lot of trouble when using certain prepositions. In this case for example, I would have no idea whether to use за or для, so my first question is which one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that для is supposed to mean more like &quot;for the purpose of&quot; but I couldn't tell in this particular sentence, are they interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is, Google Translate uses the preposition на in the sentence I have time for this, and I don't understand why. I only know this preposition to be used as in/on. And &quot;for&quot; only when used with time to mean &quot;for the duration of&quot; a certain amount of time. So am I missing a meaning here as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="04409c35-1665-44c0-a6eb-fa43e062fdc7" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:47:41.453" UserId="2085" Text="&quot;I don't have time for this&quot; preposition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="04409c35-1665-44c0-a6eb-fa43e062fdc7" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:47:41.453" UserId="2085" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14428" RevisionGUID="d8dd9c61-aa53-4261-9410-081859ca9897" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:56:41.343" UserId="4714" Text="I'm having difficulty understanding what the difference is between sentences of this sort—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Да к тому же еще Дядя Федор наступать начал.&quot; (начал наступать) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Давай мы лучше узнаем, где он разговаривать научился.&quot; (научился разговаривать)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What role does inversion play here. I know this is conversational style, but does anyone want to take a guess at what the equivalent in English would be? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14428" RevisionGUID="d8dd9c61-aa53-4261-9410-081859ca9897" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:56:41.343" UserId="4714" Text="Word order with infinitives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14428" RevisionGUID="d8dd9c61-aa53-4261-9410-081859ca9897" CreationDate="2017-05-09T09:56:41.343" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14429" RevisionGUID="92eec8c4-a186-4dcf-ad22-53f2087a4e7c" CreationDate="2017-05-09T10:12:19.027" UserId="8895" Text="Both &quot;на это&quot; or &quot;для этого&quot; would be appropriate here, although you would encounter the first one more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the phrase 'to spend time **on** something'. The Russian phrase actually means &quot;У меня нет времени *[, чтобы потратить его]* на это&quot; ('I don't have time [to spend it] on that')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14430" RevisionGUID="74b46623-d5c2-4c18-8ac5-67dbbd350d94" CreationDate="2017-05-09T11:04:42.480" UserId="8895" Text="This kind of inversion is not only conversational, but also commonly used in fiction and poetry to put accent on the action performed rather than the subject, thus making the whole sentence more emotional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Где ты научился разговаривать?&quot;* may as likely be a neutral or an emotional question, while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Где ты разговаривать научился?&quot;* clearly implies that the speaker is surprised or puzzled by the fact of his opponent being able to talk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that using passive voice would be the best, although quite clumsy, attempt to approximately match that, e.g. 'Let's better figure out when his talking skills were learned' as opposed to 'Let's better figure out when he learned to talk'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14430" RevisionGUID="7764383d-7f17-4f7b-858b-eca7a388c3ff" CreationDate="2017-05-09T11:13:50.460" UserId="8895" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="This kind of inversion is not only conversational, but also commonly used in fiction and poetry to put accent on the action performed rather than the subject, thus making the whole sentence more emotional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Где ты научился разговаривать?&quot;* may as likely be a neutral or an emotional question, while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Где ты разговаривать научился?&quot;* clearly implies that the speaker is surprised or puzzled by the fact of his opponent being able to talk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that using passive voice would be the best, although quite clumsy, attempt to approximately match that without going Yoda-style, e.g. *'Let's better figure out when his talking skills were learned'* as opposed to *'Let's better figure out when he learned to talk'*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14429" RevisionGUID="15a4d483-cb61-4b7b-a700-f82f1740c7c0" CreationDate="2017-05-09T11:15:24.737" UserId="8895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Both &quot;на это&quot; and &quot;для этого&quot; would be appropriate here, although you would encounter the first one more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the phrase 'to spend time **on** something'. The Russian phrase actually means &quot;У меня нет времени *[, чтобы потратить его]* на это&quot; ('I don't have time [to spend it] on that')." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="985eea3e-346c-4139-b32a-349229ced75b" CreationDate="2017-05-09T12:08:49.177" UserId="8895" Comment="Minor formatting." Text="So I had to translate this sentence and I thought it'd be just `У меня нет времени за это`, but I have a lot of trouble when using certain prepositions. In this case for example, I would have no idea whether to use `за` or `для`, so my first question is which one is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that `для` is supposed to mean more like &quot;for the purpose of&quot; but I couldn't tell in this particular sentence, are they interchangeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My second question is, Google Translate uses the preposition `на` in the sentence I have time for this, and I don't understand why. I only know this preposition to be used as in/on. And &quot;for&quot; only when used with time to mean &quot;for the duration of&quot; a certain amount of time. So am I missing a meaning here as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34983" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="985eea3e-346c-4139-b32a-349229ced75b" CreationDate="2017-05-09T12:08:49.177" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 2085 edit id of 864" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14430" RevisionGUID="e9d51eaf-1faf-4d77-a4b8-11ec5fa8972e" CreationDate="2017-05-09T13:23:15.530" UserId="8895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This kind of inversion is not only conversational, but also commonly used in fiction and poetry to put accent on the action performed rather than the subject, thus making the whole sentence more emotional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Где ты научился разговаривать?&quot;* may as likely be a neutral or an emotional question, while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Где ты разговаривать научился?&quot;* clearly implies that the speaker is surprised or puzzled by the fact of his opponent being able to talk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that using passive voice would be the best, although quite clumsy, attempt to approximately match that without going Yoda-style, e.g. *'Let's better figure out where his talking skills were learned'* as opposed to *'Let's better figure out where he learned to talk'*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="b6eba20f-5999-41d5-9f5a-da3b0a6e4069" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:24:18.143" UserId="8808" Text="What would be a good translation of the word &quot;backstory,&quot; specifically when talking about a character in literature? I was thinking `предыстория` but I'm not sure if it has the right connotations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="b6eba20f-5999-41d5-9f5a-da3b0a6e4069" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:24:18.143" UserId="8808" Text="A good translation for &quot;backstory&quot; of a character?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="b6eba20f-5999-41d5-9f5a-da3b0a6e4069" CreationDate="2017-05-09T22:24:18.143" UserId="8808" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14434" RevisionGUID="7631b4ed-ba6b-4509-bf43-c225c0ff0ad7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T08:52:38.207" UserId="1836" Text="Actualy, предыстория is absolutely fine here. Literally предыстория is something that is before a story (or history). And I cannot remember any connotations that could make it not suitable here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="127cefc2-779e-4091-bf4f-cc739c5386e4" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:07:23.060" UserId="8126" Text="In the following sentence, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- why don't we use the infinitive - `играть`? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is the logic behind `игре`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я Учу игре на гитаре." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="127cefc2-779e-4091-bf4f-cc739c5386e4" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:07:23.060" UserId="8126" Text="What is the grammatical explanation behind &quot;игре&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="127cefc2-779e-4091-bf4f-cc739c5386e4" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:07:23.060" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|инфинитив|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14436" RevisionGUID="351542e2-fd95-4b5e-8884-a877bf8ff6b7" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:18:21.127" UserId="6097" Text="The verb &quot;учить&quot; in the meaning &quot;to teach, to instruct&quot; can be used with instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу игре на гитаре - I teach how to play guitar *(literally: I teach playing on guitar)*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу английскому языку - I teach English language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34999" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="df2bd5d8-56b6-40d1-8e41-59bd293e2424" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:49:47.600" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я учу игре на гитаре&quot; - why &quot;игре&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35000" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="df2bd5d8-56b6-40d1-8e41-59bd293e2424" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:49:47.600" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="|грамматика|падежи|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14436" RevisionGUID="95752409-7ca4-4da5-ad0f-85960df72b55" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:56:55.600" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The verb &quot;учить&quot; in the meaning &quot;to teach, to instruct&quot; can be used with dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу игре на гитаре - I teach how to play guitar *(literally: I teach playing on guitar)*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу английскому языку - I teach English language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14437" RevisionGUID="46345f3a-a53c-40de-9a5a-2a54159c2cd1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T11:21:10.707" UserId="8453" Text="Встретилось словосочетание &quot;нарезные балки&quot;, мне нужно его перевести на английский, но чтобы перевести, нужно понять. В интернете встречается очень мало результатов поиска по &quot;нарезная балка&quot;, однако &quot;разрезная балка&quot; довольно часто. Возможно правильно назвать балку &quot;разрезной&quot;, нежели &quot;нарезной&quot; - это вообще одно и то же?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот здесь нарезная:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На данный момент популярны многопролётные, консольные, однопролётные и нарезные металлические балки. Невзирая на такое разнообразие балок, по популярности с большим отрывом идёт именно нарезная металлическая балка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А [здесь][1] разрезная:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разрезная балка - это балка имеющая две опоры и перекрывающая один&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пролет. А неразрезная балка - это та балка, которая имеет несколько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; опор и перекрывающая несколько пролетов. От качества изготовления&#xD;&#xA;&gt; балки и ее установки, зависит прочность  и устойчивость здания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://2stroy.ru/help/160/492.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14437" RevisionGUID="46345f3a-a53c-40de-9a5a-2a54159c2cd1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T11:21:10.707" UserId="8453" Text="Как правильно &quot;разрезная&quot; или &quot;нарезная&quot; балка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14437" RevisionGUID="46345f3a-a53c-40de-9a5a-2a54159c2cd1" CreationDate="2017-05-10T11:21:10.707" UserId="8453" Text="|перевод|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35005" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14437" RevisionGUID="d2639e8c-1b6b-40b1-9b9a-4d633dc2fb7b" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:15:25.887" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Как правильно разрезная или нарезная балка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14438" RevisionGUID="e1548cce-a547-4651-a4c6-31a583e04456" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:33:52.883" UserId="6539" Text="Ничего в балках не понимаю,но, даже,судя по вашим цитатам, это разные вещи. И вот еще одна цитата, говорящая о том же.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разрезной балкой называют ту, которая перекрывает только **один** пролет и имеет пару опор. А нарезная многопролетная балка это та, которая перекрывает **несколько** пролетов и имеет также несколько опорных точек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14439" RevisionGUID="ccaeb949-54b0-46f5-af84-71864c37cdbe" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:42:58.417" UserId="1262" Text="The logic of choice between verb compliment VS noun compliment is two-fold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a choice between a noun and a verb (in a language where such a choice is possible) depends on a speaker's modal attitude towards an action described by a noun or a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a speaker regards the action as something pleasant or likable, or that what (s)he would like to be continued, (s)he is most probably to use a verb (this doesn't always work as a rule for languages where a choice of a verbal or a nominal form is grammatically mandatory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a speaker has and idea of the action described as of neutral or less pleasant or likable, (s)he is most likely to use a noun (also comprising adjectives in its broader sense).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, in Russian language the logic is based on Fenno-Ugric substrate. Both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both ***Учу(сь) игре на гитаре*** and ***Учу(сь) играть на гитаре*** are equally grammatical. The difference is a) like in the first example and b) specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific difference is that Russian Dative could be compared to Fenno-Baltic [Ablative][1] or [Illative][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, nominal and verbal complements in this structure (I am not sure if there are other examples of it apart from those with ***учить***) are usually mutually interchangeable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Учу резьбе по дереву.*** =&gt; ***Учу (вы)резать по дереву.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Учу ковке металла.*** =&gt; ***Учу ковать металл.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Учу французкому.*** =&gt; ***Учу говорить по-французски.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, however, the forms are not interchangeable. This usually happends when a nominal compliment (also comprising adjectives in its broader sense) takes a predicative form, or that of an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Учу быть собой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Учу хорошему / плохому / вредному / полезному.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14438" RevisionGUID="852f7107-62e1-4437-885e-8e7c2a237f79" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:45:48.080" UserId="6539" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Ничего в балках не понимаю,но, даже,судя по вашим цитатам, это разные вещи. И вот еще одна цитата, говорящая о том же.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разрезной балкой называют ту, которая перекрывает только **один** пролет и имеет пару опор. А нарезная многопролетная балка это та, которая перекрывает **несколько** пролетов и имеет также несколько опорных точек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuous stringer дает мультитран." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14440" RevisionGUID="76ac8263-3f54-44b2-8cc7-cb0c2b90f2ca" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:50:00.113" UserId="1262" Text="***Предыстория*** is usually referred to events, not biographies. Here I would suggest something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***прошлое героя***  (is interchangeable with the other two, ***герой*** can be used for shows and literature)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***история персонажа*** (is interchangeable with the other two, ***персонаж*** can be used for literature but not for shows)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***биография действующего лица*** (interchangeable with the previous two and less common, ***действующее лицо*** can be used for shows only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14436" RevisionGUID="52ef8e9e-dcfe-4ac2-99ee-4138feff6f27" CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:06:55.290" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected." Text="The verb &quot;учить&quot; in the meaning &quot;to teach, to instruct&quot; can be used with dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу игре на гитаре - I teach how to play guitar *(literally: I teach playing the guitar)*.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу английскому языку - I teach the English language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14441" RevisionGUID="2f2ba5c1-5691-409a-b025-3af3d5bdcb79" CreationDate="2017-05-10T14:43:20.947" UserId="8973" Text="&quot;Сначала рост, затем совершенствование?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14440" RevisionGUID="2b8b43fc-53e0-4b4e-be06-174a3da0fc36" CreationDate="2017-05-10T18:29:13.093" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="***Предыстория*** is usually referred to events, not biographies. Here I would suggest something like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***прошлое героя***  (is interchangeable with the other two, ***герой*** can be used for shows and literature)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***история персонажа*** (is interchangeable with the other two, ***персонаж*** can be used for shows and for literature)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***биография действующего лица*** (interchangeable with the previous two and less common, ***действующее лицо*** can be used for shows only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35014" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14437" RevisionGUID="34d7144f-cfc5-476a-9ddc-e44326541a55" CreationDate="2017-05-10T23:17:43.817" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Как правильно - разрезная или нарезная балка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14437" RevisionGUID="37301821-1a29-4a7a-b13f-6746a6bf666f" CreationDate="2017-05-11T00:36:02.350" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/862466289952018433" />
  <row Id="35016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14438" RevisionGUID="18ad78e5-0129-454f-a5cc-699330478710" CreationDate="2017-05-11T09:18:45.890" UserId="6539" Comment="added 547 characters in body" Text="Ничего в балках не понимаю,но, даже,судя по вашим цитатам, это разные вещи. И вот еще одна цитата, говорящая о том же.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разрезной балкой называют ту, которая перекрывает только **один** пролет и имеет пару опор. А нарезная многопролетная балка это та, которая перекрывает **несколько** пролетов и имеет также несколько опорных точек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuous stringer дает мультитран.&#xD;&#xA;Еще цитата &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Простейшими конструктивными элементами и одновременно простейшими горизонтальной и вертикальной конструктивными системами являются балка и стойка (столб, колонна). Балка представляет собой прямой брус, опирающийся на две или более количества опор. Балка, свободно лежащая на двух опорах, перекрывающая один пролет, называется разрезной; балка, перекрывающая несколько пролетов, т.е. лежащая на многих опорах, называется нарезной многопролетной; балка, заделанная в опору одним концом и свободная на другом, называется консолью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14442" RevisionGUID="c9ab8ff6-d6cb-4afa-9189-65a1f0cb6136" CreationDate="2017-05-11T16:13:43.613" UserId="1262" Text="Тут важно уточнить, к какому времени и ареалу относится слово, восходящее к протоиндоевропейскому [h₂ŕ̥tḱos][1]. С течением времени названия одних животных переходят на других (например, слова &quot;берлога&quot; как &quot;логово бера&quot; и &quot;бирюк&quot; восходят к одной основе, но &quot;бирюком&quot; чаще называют волка-одиночку, чем медведя; также восходят к общей протооснове, например, и слова &quot;бык&quot; и &quot;пчела&quot;, хотя это разные животные и разные корни современного языка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассмотрим параллели в индоевропейских языках, а также в финно-угорских, где заимствования консервируются (либо, по ностратической гипотезе, существуют когнаты). Для древнегреческого это будет слово ***ἄρκτος*** (арктос, отсюда же - имя и персонаж [Аркад][2]), армянское [***arjer***], множество [(прото)иранских когнатов][3] с начальным согласным х. Для древнегреческих диалектов положение придыхательного х перед согласными было факультативно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В финно-угорских языках это ***ош*** на коми (языке, сохранившем изрядную долю значений и заимствований из древнерусских слов), прибалтийские ***karhu*** (более близкое к индоевропейской форме по причине финнно-славянских соответствий), ***ohto*** и ***otso***. У коми (а также множества палеосибирских народов) существовал культ солнечного медведя. Вероятно, у славян медведь (в отличие от волка) также был солнечным божеством.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исходя из параллелей с финно-угорскими заимствованиями (когнатами?), индо-иранскими и древнегреческим, армянским языками, а также - [исключения для закона R.U.K.I. в славянских языках][4], ***в начале слова должен быть звук х***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее - звук, средний между а и о (шва).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Затем - эр (из протоевропейского ретрофлексивного д), эс (как соответствие прибалтийско-финским в когнатах и(ли) заимстованиях из предков балто-славяно-германских языков - да, есть факты, позволяющие постулировать родство финно-угорских и индоевропейских наречий), плюс-минус ещё шва.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В итоге получаем слово [Хър(ъ)съ][5] - вряд ли имя божества было заимствовано из индоиранского пантеона. Когнаты: [хорт][6] (вспомним метонимию слова  &quot;бирюк&quot;), [Хортица][7] (топоним с неопределёной этимологией). Возможный когнат (как исключение из закона Педерсена) - фамилия Щорс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82%C5%95%CC%A5t%E1%B8%B1os&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hr%CC%A5t%C4%89%C3%A1s&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruki_sound_law&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://izbakurnog.historic.ru/enc/item/f00/s19/a001984.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14442" RevisionGUID="a691fb0c-2ba6-4c91-a5ce-37afba90c432" CreationDate="2017-05-11T18:46:39.980" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="Тут важно уточнить, к какому времени и ареалу относится слово, восходящее к протоиндоевропейскому [h₂ŕ̥tḱos][1]. С течением времени названия одних животных переходят на других (например, слова &quot;берлога&quot; как &quot;логово бера&quot; и &quot;бирюк&quot; восходят к одной основе, но &quot;бирюком&quot; чаще называют волка-одиночку, чем медведя; также восходят к общей протооснове, например, и слова &quot;бык&quot; и &quot;пчела&quot;, хотя это разные животные и разные корни современного языка).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рассмотрим параллели в индоевропейских языках, а также в финно-угорских, где заимствования консервируются (либо, по ностратической гипотезе, существуют когнаты). Для древнегреческого это будет слово ***ἄρκτος*** (арктос, отсюда же - имя и персонаж [Аркад][2]), армянское [***arǰer***], множество [(прото)иранских когнатов][3] с начальным согласным х. Для древнегреческих диалектов положение придыхательного х перед согласными было факультативно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В финно-угорских языках это ***ош*** на коми (языке, сохранившем изрядную долю значений и заимствований из древнерусских слов), прибалтийские ***karhu*** (более близкое к индоевропейской форме по причине финнно-славянских соответствий), ***ohto*** и ***otso***. У коми (а также множества палеосибирских народов) существовал культ солнечного медведя. Вероятно, у славян медведь (в отличие от волка) также был солнечным божеством.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исходя из параллелей с финно-угорскими заимствованиями (когнатами?), индо-иранскими и древнегреческим, армянским языками, а также - [исключения для закона R.U.K.I. в славянских языках][4], ***в начале слова должен быть звук х***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Далее - звук, средний между а и о (шва).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Затем - эр (из протоевропейского ретрофлексивного д), эс (как соответствие прибалтийско-финским в когнатах и(ли) заимстованиях из предков балто-славяно-германских языков - да, есть факты, позволяющие постулировать родство финно-угорских и индоевропейских наречий), плюс-минус ещё шва.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В итоге получаем слово [Хър(ъ)съ][5] - вряд ли имя божества было заимствовано из индоиранского пантеона. Когнаты: [хорт][6] (вспомним метонимию слова  &quot;бирюк&quot;), [Хортица][7] (топоним с неопределёной этимологией). Возможный когнат (как исключение из закона Педерсена) - фамилия Щорс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%82%C5%95%CC%A5t%E1%B8%B1os&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hr%CC%A5t%C4%89%C3%A1s&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruki_sound_law&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://izbakurnog.historic.ru/enc/item/f00/s19/a001984.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14443" RevisionGUID="89eba99d-7a0a-42a1-91be-11a365268638" CreationDate="2017-05-11T20:00:21.960" UserId="115" Text="&quot;Я учу играть на гитаре&quot; is grammatical, but sounds a bit awkward to me. The sentence feels like it is missing an object: &quot;Я учу `его` играть на гитаре&quot; - &quot;I am teaching him to play the guitar&quot; sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would use the dative when saying that I teach how to play the guitar in general, and the infinitive when saying that I am teaching somebody how to play the guitar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="0901cb68-dfaa-42b3-9e32-9c44d1bcc56d" CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:56:45.340" UserId="6686" Text="This is a screen shot from Tchaikovsky's Harmony textbook:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vf1dE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the pre-reform orthography? If someone learns modern Russian, how difficult will it be to understand such paragraphs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="0901cb68-dfaa-42b3-9e32-9c44d1bcc56d" CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:56:45.340" UserId="6686" Text="Which kind of Russian language is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="0901cb68-dfaa-42b3-9e32-9c44d1bcc56d" CreationDate="2017-05-12T00:56:45.340" UserId="6686" Text="|история-языка|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="449280b1-b769-4246-806b-d563231f63cf" CreationDate="2017-05-12T02:15:37.327" UserId="1236" Text="Yes, it's Russian in the pre-reform orthography. The reform was in 1918, so this is just a hundred years old Russian, it's easy to understand, just as it's easy to understand a hundred years old English. The main difference from the Modern Russian is the use of some letters which were removed from the alphabet in 1918, they were substituded with other letters. To convert such a text into the modern Russian orthography, there are 3 steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. remove all the `ъ`, &quot;hard signs&quot;, at the end of the words, e.g. `объ` → `об`;&#xD;&#xA; 2. substitute the obsolete letters with modern ones:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѣ` → `е`, e.g. `разумѣется` → `разумеется`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `i` and `ѵ` → `и`, e.g. `ученіе` → `учение`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѳ` → `ф`, e.g. `Ѳедор` → `Федор`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Note, your sample passage has no `ѵ` or `ѳ`, but still they were used, although rarely._&#xD;&#xA; 3. substitute the adjective endings:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-аго` → `-ого`, e.g. `образуемаго` → `образуемого`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-яго` → `-его`, e.g. `синяго` → `синего`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, endings `-ыя, -ія` → `-ые, -ие`, and the pronoun `ея` → `её`, these are also not found in you sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all, you get a text in the Modern Russian orthography. To make it still more simple, there is an [online converter][1] which can convert whole texts between the two orthographies, to and fro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slavenic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="1790a0a3-2c8a-440b-a648-ab393cc42fdc" CreationDate="2017-05-12T02:22:15.187" UserId="1236" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's Russian in the pre-reform orthography. The reform was in 1918, so this is just a hundred years old Russian, it's easy to understand, just as it's easy to understand a hundred years old English. The main difference from the Modern Russian is the use of some letters which were removed from the alphabet in 1918, they were substituded with other letters. To convert such a text into the modern Russian orthography, there are 3 steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. remove every `ъ`, &quot;hard sign&quot;, at the end of the words, e.g. `объ` → `об`;&#xD;&#xA; 2. substitute the obsolete letters with modern ones:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѣ` → `е`, e.g. `разумѣется` → `разумеется`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `i` and `ѵ` → `и`, e.g. `ученіе` → `учение`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѳ` → `ф`, e.g. `Ѳедор` → `Федор`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Note, your sample passage has no `ѵ` or `ѳ`, but still they were used, although rarely._&#xD;&#xA; 3. substitute the adjective endings:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-аго` → `-ого`, e.g. `образуемаго` → `образуемого`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-яго` → `-его`, e.g. `синяго` → `синего`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, endings `-ыя, -ія` → `-ые, -ие`, and the pronoun `ея` → `её`, these are also not found in you sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all, you get a text in the Modern Russian orthography. To make it still more simple, there is an [online converter][1] which can convert whole texts between the two orthographies, to and fro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slavenic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35025" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="0fe87033-9e12-4fcc-b806-8a35fec4231e" CreationDate="2017-05-12T07:26:01.573" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What kind of Russian orthography is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="d945ae1e-0cf1-4a86-aea0-547028f27ec6" CreationDate="2017-05-12T12:37:41.403" UserId="8980" Comment="Fix spelling" Text="Yes, it's Russian in the pre-reform orthography. The reform was in 1918, so this is just a hundred years old Russian. It's easy to understand, just as it's easy to understand a hundred years old English. The main difference from the Modern Russian is the use of some letters, which were removed from the alphabet in 1918. They were substituted with other letters. In order to convert such a text into the modern Russian orthography, you have to follow 3 steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. remove every `ъ`, &quot;hard sign&quot;, at the end of the words, e.g. `объ` → `об`;&#xD;&#xA; 2. substitute the obsolete letters with modern ones:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѣ` → `е`, e.g. `разумѣется` → `разумеется`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `i` and `ѵ` → `и`, e.g. `ученіе` → `учение`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѳ` → `ф`, e.g. `Ѳедор` → `Федор`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Note, your sample passage has no `ѵ` or `ѳ`, but still they were used, although rarely._&#xD;&#xA; 3. substitute the adjective endings:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-аго` → `-ого`, e.g. `образуемаго` → `образуемого`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-яго` → `-его`, e.g. `синяго` → `синего`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, endings `-ыя, -ія` → `-ые, -ие`, and the pronoun `ея` → `её`, these are also not found in you sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all. You get a text in the Modern Russian orthography. To make it still more simple, there is an [online converter][1], which can convert whole texts between the two orthographies, to and from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slavenic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35029" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="d945ae1e-0cf1-4a86-aea0-547028f27ec6" CreationDate="2017-05-12T12:37:41.403" Comment="Proposed by 8980 approved by 1236 edit id of 865" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14444" RevisionGUID="19715f14-be4b-4889-b6d5-3fff0a6ff568" CreationDate="2017-05-12T12:40:08.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/863010905445072896" />
  <row Id="35031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14446" RevisionGUID="ffa3d698-daf6-4e3f-be17-9e99735a3214" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:26:36.933" UserId="8859" Text="Вспомнился сопромат...  Со специальности (и тех. перевода) помню, что именно continuous girder и continuous stringer. И те и другие являются continuous beams,  а так же collector beams. Это горизонтальные балки, имеющие более чем две опоры. Разница в том, что stringer опираются на girders, в то время как последние могут быть ненарезными, вторые как правило нарезные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реально stringer используется гораздо реже как слово в значении балка в сочетании с continuous, так как правило они являются нарезными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14445" RevisionGUID="71909a50-23b6-4cb9-ae4f-100bbafe057e" CreationDate="2017-05-12T13:43:53.810" UserId="1236" Comment="More information added." Text="Yes, it's Russian in the pre-reform orthography. The reform was in 1918, so this is just a hundred years old Russian. It's easy to understand, just as it's easy to understand a hundred years old English. The main difference from the Modern Russian is the use of some letters, which were removed from the alphabet in 1918. They were substituted with other letters. In order to convert such a text into the modern Russian orthography, you have to follow 3 steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. remove every `ъ`, &quot;hard sign&quot;, at the end of the words, e.g. `объ` → `об`;&#xD;&#xA; 2. substitute the obsolete letters with modern ones:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѣ` → `е`, e.g. `разумѣется` → `разумеется`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `i` and `ѵ` → `и`, e.g. `ученіе` → `учение`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `ѳ` → `ф`, e.g. `Ѳедор` → `Федор`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Note, your sample passage has no `ѵ` or `ѳ`, but still they were used, although rarely._&#xD;&#xA; 3. substitute the adjective endings:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-аго` → `-ого`, e.g. `образуемаго` → `образуемого`&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;`-яго` → `-его`, e.g. `синяго` → `синего`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, endings `-ыя, -ія` → `-ые, -ие`, and the pronoun `ея` → `её`, these are also not found in you sample.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all. You get a text in the Modern Russian orthography. To make it still more simple, there is an [online converter][1], which can convert whole texts between the two orthographies, to and from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. I've just noticed that the text does have an adjective with the ending `-ія`, that is why `шаткія` → `шаткие`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://slavenic.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14446" RevisionGUID="11389a64-53e7-4d4c-89af-c8f5a894f4dd" CreationDate="2017-05-12T14:30:55.990" UserId="8859" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="Вспомнился сопромат...  Со специальности (и тех. перевода) помню, что именно continuous girder и continuous stringer. И те и другие являются continuous beams,  а так же collector beams. Это горизонтальные балки, имеющие более чем две опоры. Разница в том, что stringer опираются на girders, в то время как последние могут быть &quot;ненарезными&quot; - разрезными, вторые как правило нарезные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реально stringer используется гораздо реже как слово в значении балка в сочетании с continuous, так как правило они являются нарезными.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно что-то непонятно, но &quot;нарезной&quot; и &quot;неразрезной&quot; в этом случае с инженерной точки зрения - полные синонимы. ГОСТом установлен термин &quot;многопролетная неразрезная балка&quot;, однако термин &quot;нарезная&quot; балка продолжает встречаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14447" RevisionGUID="fc3e515d-655f-4418-8d28-caa946c01036" CreationDate="2017-05-12T17:42:42.063" UserId="8983" Text="&gt; Есть есть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have something to eat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть нет, есть пить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There is nothing to eat, there is something to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Есть blah, blah?` You can translate as `&quot;Is there blah blah?&quot;` or `&quot;Do you have blah blah ?&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14443" RevisionGUID="e2d09e1b-f054-4784-b0ba-237e6af7d56f" CreationDate="2017-05-12T19:00:20.930" UserId="115" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="&quot;Я учу играть на гитаре&quot; is grammatical, but sounds a bit awkward to me. The sentence feels like it is missing an object: &quot;Я учу `его` играть на гитаре&quot; - &quot;I am teaching him to play the guitar&quot; sounds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would use the dative when saying that I teach how to play the guitar in general, and the infinitive when saying that I am teaching somebody how to play the guitar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;Come to think of it, if you use `преподавать`, which is the other word for &quot;teach&quot;, then it may sound better, and you can use the nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю игру на гитаре.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я преподаю вождение машины. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="6074a334-38ab-4740-b5ca-42509a5c6242" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:06:55.300" UserId="6907" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the words in Russian sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня (sivodnya).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="6074a334-38ab-4740-b5ca-42509a5c6242" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:06:55.300" UserId="6907" Text="Why is the letter г in some of the words in Russian pronounced differently as it should be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="6074a334-38ab-4740-b5ca-42509a5c6242" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:06:55.300" UserId="6907" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="6dc38d18-40d7-4fb4-ae1b-90ba1516cfb7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:16:07.753" UserId="6907" Text="I have 3 questions about the same words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1**. Is there a difference between **эго** and **это** or the are the same? &#xD;&#xA; (I've noticed that the uses of both is almost in the same context, and I suspect that they are synonyms.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **3**. In addition, I'm not sure if the letter **г** in this case is pronounced the same as the letter **т**, and then эго and это are pronounced the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **4.** Is it considered a mistake to write **его** and **ето** instead of **эго** and **это**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="6dc38d18-40d7-4fb4-ae1b-90ba1516cfb7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:16:07.753" UserId="6907" Text="Is there a difference between эго and это or the are the same?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="6dc38d18-40d7-4fb4-ae1b-90ba1516cfb7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:16:07.753" UserId="6907" Text="|произношение|правописание|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14450" RevisionGUID="cf324d6d-05c2-480a-b239-75348b07b9a7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T22:52:52.013" UserId="2079" Text="These are two completely different words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Эго` is a noun which means ego. In most cases, it means a (usually boosted) sense of self-importance, for example `у него непомерно раздутое эго`. In Russian, эго in such meaning has negative connotations. Sometimes эго means Freudian or philosophical concept of ego.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Это` means it. (There are other, similar, meanings.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, `это` is mistyped as `эго`, as a typo. Often the source of the typo is a computer recognition error. Since г and т are visually similar, and both words do exist, a recognition software can easily confuse between the two words.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Но эго как раз тот случай, когда интуиция обманывает. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an obvious typo (should be `это`)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="3d502f69-ce55-44e6-9a18-6b5119dd4e14" CreationDate="2017-05-12T23:42:13.250" UserId="6907" Comment="edited body" Text="I have 2 questions about the same words: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1**. Is there a difference between **эго** and **это** or the are the same? &#xD;&#xA; (I've noticed that the uses of both is almost in the same context, and I suspect that they are synonyms.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **2**. In addition, I'm not sure if the letter **г** in this case is pronounced the same as the letter **т**, and then эго and это are pronounced the same. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14451" RevisionGUID="df1bc772-7e11-415a-aa57-0d682175b7b7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T23:45:50.463" UserId="6907" Text="Is it considered a mistake to write **е**го and **е**то instead of **э**го and **э**то?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found it many times when people change between the letters е and э in this words, and I'm no sure if it's mistake or just a matter of style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14451" RevisionGUID="df1bc772-7e11-415a-aa57-0d682175b7b7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T23:45:50.463" UserId="6907" Text="Is it considered a mistake to write его and ето instead of эго and это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14451" RevisionGUID="df1bc772-7e11-415a-aa57-0d682175b7b7" CreationDate="2017-05-12T23:45:50.463" UserId="6907" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="eb486565-0343-4f90-ad0c-dff5bfdb7232" CreationDate="2017-05-12T23:47:42.483" UserId="6907" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the words in Russian sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="4200960f-689b-4c62-a8da-fd959956a2ac" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:01:45.603" UserId="1262" Text="Historical phonetics, I guess. In some southern dialects of Modern Russian, the letter ***Г г*** is still pronounced as [γ] almost in any position (as in modern Ukrainian). For some times, the Russian koine was a mix of competing dialects without a unified standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend resulted in interesting competition between the phonems [g] and [h/γ] in times of [Derzhavin][1] and [Lomonosov][2]. Namely, in words for 'spiritual' and 'high' lexis (such as ***Б-г***, ***ангелы, богатство*** and ***господа***) the trend was to pronounce the letter ***Г г*** as [h/γ], the former variety matching the intervocal position. The unified modern way to pronounce ***Б-г*** as [boχ] is a  relic of that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend went as far as proposals for two different letters for two distinct sounds made by [Trediakovsky][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details, see [the humorous poem by Lomonosov][4] of that time (in modern orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, the intervocal [γ] developed into [v] (as it was the case with some Frankish loanwords into French, where intervocal [γ] became [w] or [v]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any combination of ***-ого*** and ***-его*** for a Genitive Masculine Singular is pronounced as [-óva /-ava] or [-éva/-iva] respectively, whether with a stressed vowel or not, and the only exception is the word ***много*** [mnóga].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrila_Derzhavin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Trediakovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=17074" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14453" RevisionGUID="977081eb-a7ac-4ca9-bdea-fe14ceb26bcf" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:16:26.383" UserId="1262" Text="Yes, because E e at a beginning of a word is heard as [je]. Morover,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***это*** = this / it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***эго*** = Ego (as in Freudian personality theory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't ever seen ***ето*** written instead of ***это*** by a native speaker who doesn't speak a diealect (and no [dialect][1] except of St. Petersburgs or Moscovian as regarded as a pestegious variety of speech by natives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, you may stumble upon ***энто*** and even ***енто***, but they are also regarded by native speakers as abominations of illeteracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_dialects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14454" RevisionGUID="92a6dbce-0ac4-4b3a-9806-3726922c4a37" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:19:02.247" UserId="1236" Text="The Russian orthography is based on morphological-historical principles, which means it tries to write down morphemes the same way all the time and keep the historical spellings of the morphemes (the latter is the main feature of the English spelling, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **Г** read as **B** is an example of historical spelling. It is found only in the *genitive case of masculine and neuter gender forms* of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - pronouns: _его, моего, этого, того, всего, чего, кого, какого_&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives: _маленького, синего, зелёного_&#xD;&#xA; - participles: _написанного, взятого_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that all the rest of the Slavic languages have the sound [g] in those forms, it is only in Russian that [g] changed to [v] in those genitive case endings. Still, the Russian orthography keeps the traditional spelling with **Г**. Perhaps the reason for this is that in the dialect of Moscow which was later taken as the basis for Standard Russian [g] changed to [v] no earlier than in the 17th century, that is quite recently. The reason why the change occurred is the fact that bisyllabic unstressed endings tend to weaken: [оgо] &gt; [оо] &gt; [оvо] — first [g] dropped out and then the [epenthetic][1] [w] &gt; [v] appeared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word ***сегодня*** in which the **Г** read as **B** is in the middle of the word and not in the ending, that is also a trick of orthography. ***Cегодня*** is an adverb which is actually a frozen noun phrase _сего дня_ &quot;[on] this day&quot;, in which both words are in the genitive case, _сего_ being the genitive case singular masculine form of the archaic demonstrative pronoun _сей_ &quot;this&quot; which is now is not used, it got substituted by _этот_. Writing adverbs that appeared from free phrases as a single word without spaces or hyphens is typical of Russian: _вперёд_ (forward) &lt; _в перёд_ (to front), _завтра_ (tomorrow) &lt; _за утро_ (after morning), etc. As you can see, even with ***сегодня*** it is in the ending that **Г** is read as **B**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that when I say &quot;ending&quot; that means a grammatical ending, not just the last sounds of the word. In Russian there are some words that end in /evo/, but nevertheles are spelled with ***B*** because that /evo/ is not an ending of the genitive case, for example _марево_ ['ma.rʲi.və] &quot;haze, mirage&quot;. In this word the root is _марев-_ and _-o_ is the *nominative* case singular neuter ending. Once in a Latvian newspaper in Russian I saw an add that started with _ДЁШЕГО!_ which means &quot;Cheap!&quot; and is pronounced ['dʲo.ʂɪ.və]. That is really a funny mistake since the word must actually be spelled _дёшево_ because it is not in the genitive case. The root of the word is _дёшев-_ and _-o_ is the suffix that turns adjectives into adverbs. Remember, not every Russian word that ends in [və] is written with ***Г***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epenthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="bca6eb6c-d6a1-4bfa-a965-81f7082fb92c" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:19:43.240" UserId="1262" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Historical phonetics, I guess. In some southern dialects of Modern Russian, the letter ***Г г*** is still pronounced as [γ] almost in any position (as in modern Ukrainian). For some times, the Russian koine was a mix of competing dialects without a unified standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend resulted in interesting competition between the phonems [g] and [h/γ] in times of [Derzhavin][1] and [Lomonosov][2]. Namely, in words for 'spiritual' and 'high' lexis (such as ***Б-г***, ***ангелы, богатство*** and ***господа***) the trend was to pronounce the letter ***Г г*** as [h/γ], the former variety matching the intervocal position. The unified modern way to pronounce ***Б-г*** as [boχ] is a  relic of that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend went as far as proposals for two different letters for two distinct sounds made by [Trediakovsky][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details, see [the humorous poem by Lomonosov][4] of that time (in modern orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, the intervocal [γ] developed into [v] (as it was the case with some Frankish loanwords into French, where intervocal [γ] became [w] or [v]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, in addition to ***сегодня*** any combination of ***-ого*** and ***-его*** for a Genitive Neutrum / Masculine Singular is pronounced as [-óva /-ava] or [-éva/-iva] respectively, whether with a stressed vowel or not, and the only exception is the word ***много*** [mnóga].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrila_Derzhavin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Trediakovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=17074" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14454" RevisionGUID="69c6cb63-fd8e-4c2c-af11-3aece8f519ea" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:29:33.080" UserId="1236" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="The Russian orthography is based on morphological-historical principles, which means it tries to write down morphemes the same way all the time and keep the historical spellings of the morphemes (the latter is the main feature of the English spelling, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **Г** read as **B** is an example of historical spelling. It is found only in the *genitive case of masculine and neuter gender forms* of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - pronouns: _его, моего, этого, того, всего, чего, кого, какого_;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives: _маленького, синего, зелёного_;&#xD;&#xA; - participles: _написанного, взятого_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that all the rest of the Slavic languages have the sound [g] in those forms, it is only in Russian that [g] changed to [v] in the genitive case endings. Still, the Russian orthography keeps the traditional spelling with **Г**. Perhaps the reason for this is that in the dialect of Moscow which was later taken as the basis for Standard Russian [g] changed to [v] no earlier than in the 17th century, that is quite recently. The reason why the change occurred is the fact that bisyllabic unstressed endings tend to weaken: [оgо] &gt; [оо] &gt; [оvо] — first [g] dropped out and then the [epenthetic][1] [w] &gt; [v] appeared. This trend originated in the Northern Russian dialects and can also be traced in some Pomeranian Lechitic dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word ***сегодня*** in which the **Г** read as **B** is in the middle of the word and not in the ending, that is also a trick of orthography. ***Cегодня*** is an adverb which is actually a frozen noun phrase _сего дня_ &quot;[on] this day&quot;, in which both words are in the genitive case, _сего_ being the genitive case singular masculine form of the archaic demonstrative pronoun _сей_ &quot;this&quot; which is not used any more, it got substituted by _этот_. Writing adverbs that appeared from free phrases as a single word without spaces or hyphens is typical of Russian: _вперёд_ (forward) &lt; _в перёд_ (to front), _завтра_ (tomorrow) &lt; _за утро_ (after morning), etc. As you can see, even with ***сегодня*** it is in the ending that **Г** is read as **B**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that when I say &quot;ending&quot; that means a grammatical ending, not just the last sounds of the word. In Russian there are some words that end in /evo/, but nevertheles are spelled with ***B*** because that /evo/ is not an ending of the genitive case, for example _марево_ ['ma.rʲi.və] &quot;haze, mirage&quot;. In this word the root is _марев-_ and _-o_ is the *nominative* case singular neuter ending. Once in a Latvian newspaper in Russian I saw an add that started with _ДЁШЕГО!_ which means &quot;Cheap!&quot; and is pronounced ['dʲo.ʂɪ.və]. That is really a funny mistake since the word must actually be spelled _дёшево_ because it is not in the genitive case. The root of the word is _дёшев-_ and _-o_ is the suffix that turns adjectives into adverbs. Remember, not every Russian word that ends in [və] is written with ***Г***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epenthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14454" RevisionGUID="f7a1ef69-5265-4679-9a6c-99d51ca02d4c" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:38:48.037" UserId="1236" Comment="Typos corrected" Text="The Russian orthography is based on morphological-historical principles, which means it tries to write down morphemes the same way all the time and keep the historical spellings of the morphemes (the latter is the main feature of the English spelling, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **Г** read as **B** is an example of historical spelling. It is found only in the *genitive case of masculine and neuter gender forms* of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - pronouns: _его, моего, этого, того, всего, чего, кого, какого_;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives: _маленького, синего, зелёного_;&#xD;&#xA; - participles: _написанного, взятого_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that all the rest of the Slavic languages have the sound [g] in those forms, it is only in Russian that [g] changed to [v] in the genitive case endings. Still, the Russian orthography keeps the traditional spelling with **Г**. Perhaps the reason for this is that in the dialect of Moscow which was later taken as the basis for Standard Russian [g] changed to [v] no earlier than in the 17th century, that is quite recently. The reason why the change occurred is the fact that bisyllabic unstressed endings tend to weaken: [оgо] &gt; [оо] &gt; [оvо] — first [g] dropped out and then the [epenthetic][1] [w] &gt; [v] appeared. This trend originated in the Northern Russian dialects and can also be traced in some Pomeranian Lechitic dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word ***сегодня*** in which the **Г** read as **B** is in the middle of the word and not in the ending, that is also a trick of orthography. ***Cегодня*** is an adverb which is actually a frozen noun phrase _сего дня_ &quot;[on] this day&quot;, in which both words are in the genitive case, _сего_ being the genitive case singular masculine form of the archaic demonstrative pronoun _сей_ &quot;this&quot; which is not used anymore, it got substituted by _этот_. Writing adverbs that appeared from free phrases as a single word without spaces or hyphens is typical of Russian: _вперёд_ (forward) &lt; _в перёд_ (to front), _завтра_ (tomorrow) &lt; _за утро_ (after morning), etc. As you can see, even with ***сегодня*** it is in the genitive case ending that **Г** is read as **B**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that when I say &quot;ending&quot; that means a grammatical ending, not just the last sounds of the word. In Russian there are some words that end in /evo/, but nevertheles are spelled with ***B*** because that /evo/ is not an ending of the genitive case, for example _марево_ ['ma.rʲi.və] &quot;haze, mirage&quot;. In this word the root is _марев-_ and _-o_ is the *nominative* case singular neuter ending. Once in a Latvian newspaper in Russian I saw an add that started with _ДЁШЕГО!_ which means &quot;Cheap!&quot; and is pronounced ['dʲo.ʂɪ.və]. That is really a funny mistake since the word must actually be spelled _дёшево_ because it is not in the genitive case. The root of the word is _дёшев-_ and _-o_ is the suffix that turns adjectives into adverbs. Remember, not every Russian word that ends in [və] is written with ***Г***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epenthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14454" RevisionGUID="cab7aedd-0d0b-474d-86b1-066e62037bfc" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:48:38.773" UserId="1236" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The Russian orthography is based on morphological-historical principles, which means it tries to write down morphemes the same way all the time and keep the historical spellings of the morphemes (the latter is the main feature of the English spelling, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **Г** read as **B** is an example of historical spelling. It is found only in the *genitive case of masculine and neuter gender forms* of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - pronouns: _его, моего, этого, того, всего, чего, кого, какого_;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives: _маленького, синего, зелёного_;&#xD;&#xA; - participles: _написанного, взятого_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that all the rest of the Slavic languages have a [g]-type sound in those forms, it is only in Russian that [g] changed to [v] in the genitive case endings. Still, the Russian orthography keeps the traditional spelling with **Г**. Perhaps the reason for this is that in the dialect of Moscow which was later taken as the basis for Standard Russian [g] changed to [v] no earlier than in the 17th century, that is quite recently. The reason why the change occurred is the fact that bisyllabic unstressed endings tend to weaken: [оgо] &gt; [оо] &gt; [оvо] — first [g] dropped out and then the [epenthetic][1] [w] &gt; [v] appeared. This trend originated in the Northern Russian dialects and can also be traced in some Pomeranian Lechitic dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word ***сегодня*** in which the **Г** read as **B** is in the middle of the word and not in the ending, that is also a trick of orthography. ***Cегодня*** is an adverb which is actually a frozen noun phrase _сего дня_ &quot;[on] this day&quot;, in which both words are in the genitive case, _сего_ being the genitive case singular masculine form of the archaic demonstrative pronoun _сей_ &quot;this&quot; which is not used anymore, it got substituted by _этот_. Writing adverbs that appeared from free phrases as a single word without spaces or hyphens is typical of Russian: _вперёд_ (forward) &lt; _в перёд_ (to front), _завтра_ (tomorrow) &lt; _за утро_ (after morning), etc. As you can see, even with ***сегодня*** it is in the genitive case ending that **Г** is read as **B**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that when I say &quot;ending&quot; that means a grammatical ending, not just the last sounds of the word. In Russian there are some words that end in /evo/, but nevertheles are spelled with ***B*** because that /evo/ is not an ending of the genitive case, for example _марево_ ['ma.rʲi.və] &quot;haze, mirage&quot;. In this word the root is _марев-_ and _-o_ is the *nominative* case singular neuter ending. Once in a Latvian newspaper in Russian I saw an add that started with _ДЁШЕГО!_ which means &quot;Cheap!&quot; and is pronounced ['dʲo.ʂɪ.və]. That is really a funny mistake since the word must actually be spelled _дёшево_ because it is not in the genitive case. The root of the word is _дёшев-_ and _-o_ is the suffix that turns adjectives into adverbs. Remember, not every Russian word that ends in [və] is written with ***Г***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epenthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14454" RevisionGUID="cddd4d61-2573-47a0-b946-317a379161c1" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:55:54.933" UserId="1236" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The Russian orthography is based on morphological-historical principles, which means it tries to write down morphemes the same way all the time and keep the historical spellings of the morphemes (the latter is the main feature of the English spelling, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **Г** read as **B** is an example of historical spelling. It is found only in the *genitive case of masculine and neuter gender forms* of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - pronouns: _его, моего, этого, того, всего, чего, кого, какого_;&#xD;&#xA; - adjectives: _маленького, синего, зелёного_;&#xD;&#xA; - participles: _написанного, взятого_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point is that all the rest of the Slavic languages have a [g]-type sound in those forms, it is only in Russian that [g] changed to [v] in the genitive case endings. Still, the Russian orthography keeps the traditional spelling with **Г**. Perhaps the reason for this is that in the dialect of Moscow which was later taken as the basis for Standard Russian [g] changed to [v] no earlier than in the 17th century, that is quite recently. The reason why the change occurred is the fact that bisyllabic unstressed endings tend to weaken: [оgо] &gt; [оо] &gt; [оvо] — first [g] dropped out and then the [epenthetic][1] [w] &gt; [v] appeared. This trend originated in the Northern Russian dialects and can also be traced in some Pomeranian Lechitic dialects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word ***сегодня*** in which the **Г** read as **B** is in the middle of the word and not in the ending, that is also a trick of orthography. ***Cегодня*** is an adverb which is actually a frozen noun phrase _сего дня_ &quot;[on] this day&quot;, in which both words are in the genitive case, _сего_ being the genitive case singular masculine form of the archaic demonstrative pronoun _сей_ &quot;this&quot; which is not used anymore, it got substituted by _этот_. Writing adverbs that appeared from free phrases as a single word without spaces or hyphens is typical of Russian: _вперёд_ (forward) &lt; _в перёд_ (to front), _завтра_ (tomorrow) &lt; _за утро_ (after morning), etc. As you can see, even with ***сегодня*** it is in the genitive case ending that **Г** is read as **B**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that when I say &quot;ending&quot; that means a grammatical ending, not just the last sounds of the word. In Russian there are some words that end in /evo/, but nevertheles are spelled with ***B*** because that /evo/ is not an ending of the genitive case, for example _марево_ ['ma.rʲi.və] &quot;haze, mirage&quot;. In this word the root is _марев-_ and _-o_ is the *nominative* case singular neuter ending. Once in a Latvian newspaper in Russian I saw an add that started with _ДЁШЕГО!_ which means &quot;Cheap!&quot; and is pronounced ['dʲo.ʂɪ.və]. That is really a funny mistake since the word must actually be spelled _дёшево_ because it is not in the genitive case. The root of the word is _дёшев-_ and _-o_ is the suffix that turns adjectives into adverbs. Remember, not every Russian word that ends in [və] is written with ***Г***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*With animate nouns the accusative case coincides with the genitive case, so everything which was said above about the genitive case is valid for the accusative case animate, too.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epenthesis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="3cec7fe8-3612-4598-852f-34d523f667b6" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:55:51.423" UserId="6907" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the Russian words sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35059" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="3cec7fe8-3612-4598-852f-34d523f667b6" CreationDate="2017-05-13T03:55:51.423" UserId="6907" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is the letter г in some of the Russian words pronounced differently as it should be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14455" RevisionGUID="e0517eb2-cca4-4abd-a0ee-ce502f42f80f" CreationDate="2017-05-13T05:58:55.477" UserId="1262" Text="My intuition is that perhaps you meant ***его*** (as a Single Genitive Case of ***он(о)***) instead of ***эго***, which is more likely to be 'used almost in the same context' as ***это***, or perhaps   ***него***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences shall be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***это*** (Gen. Sg. ***этого*** [étava]) = a) demonstrative pronoun (or b) neutrum descriptive pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) ***Это мелафон.*** = This is a mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) ***Это слово - из фантастического фильма.*** = This word [comes] from a sci-fi movie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf: ***Этот мелафон не работает / выключен.*** = This mind-reading device is off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***его*** [(j)ivó] = Gen. Sg. of ***он*** (he =&gt; him) or ***это*** (it), used most often as a case of direct (*animate*, in case of ***он***) object, or as b) Partitive Genitive, or as c) Possessive Genitive, or :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) ***Вижу его.*** = I see him / it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) ***Его там нет.*** = He is not there (lit. it's like 'There is no him there').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) ***Это - его.*** = This belongs to him / This is his (lit. = ...of him).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***него*** [nivó]  = Gen.Sg.2 , used most often with prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это - для / от него.*** = This is for / from him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Этого*** = Gen. Sg. of ***это*** or ***этот*** (both as demonstrative and descriptive pronoun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня этого нет. / Это у меня.*** = I don't have it/this/that.// I have it/this/that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples (try to deduce to which type of usage each form is related): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Этот мелафон - у меня.*** = I have (got) this/that mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У него этого варианта нет.***  = He doesn't have this/that/such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У него этого нет.*** = He doesn't have this/that/it. = ***У него его нет.*** = He doesn't have this/that/it / He is not at his place (chez lui).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня его нет.*** = I don't have this/that/it. / He is not at my place (chez moi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suppose that perhaps you meant the interchangeability of **это** VS **его** in the sub-category of 2. a) and 2.b types (direct objects and existential sentences). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, the interchangeability between **это** and **его** occurs in a case of Masculine (Inanimate) nouns.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14449" RevisionGUID="d6c24b19-88fa-4f80-8e05-2b3ee5e6d4e9" CreationDate="2017-05-13T11:09:31.243" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a difference between &quot;эго&quot; and &quot;это&quot; or the are the same?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35062" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14451" RevisionGUID="689dc9d1-acc4-4e4f-8088-cf66687e880b" CreationDate="2017-05-13T11:09:45.883" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it considered a mistake to write &quot;его&quot; and &quot;ето&quot; instead of эго and это?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35065" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="3b06a09c-ee65-4431-a78d-95593a267a27" CreationDate="2017-05-13T18:56:34.913" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is the letter &quot;г&quot; in some of the Russian words pronounced differently as it should be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14453" RevisionGUID="ea7cc6d6-94c4-45e9-9179-17bbda47f7c6" CreationDate="2017-05-13T22:20:19.547" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Yes, because E e at a beginning of a word is heard as [je]. Moreover,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***это*** = this / it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***эго*** = Ego (as in Freudian personality theory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't ever seen ***ето*** written instead of ***это*** by a native speaker who doesn't speak a dialect (and no [dialect][1] except for St. Petersburgs or Moscovian is regarded as a prestigious variety of speech by natives). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, you may stumble upon ***энто*** and even ***енто***, but they are also regarded by native speakers as abominations of illiteracy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_dialects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35067" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14453" RevisionGUID="ea7cc6d6-94c4-45e9-9179-17bbda47f7c6" CreationDate="2017-05-13T22:20:19.547" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 6725, 1262 edit id of 866" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="4a1cd456-98e2-408c-97b8-2f0d921825b1" CreationDate="2017-05-13T22:34:28.447" UserId="1262" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Historical phonetics, I guess. In some southern dialects of Modern Russian, the letter ***Г г*** is still pronounced as [ɣ] almost in any position (as in modern Ukrainian). For some times, the Russian koine was a mix of competing dialects without a unified standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend resulted in interesting competition between the phonems [g] and [h/ɣ] in times of [Derzhavin][1] and [Lomonosov][2]. Namely, in words for 'spiritual' and 'high' lexis (such as ***Б-г***, ***ангелы, богатство*** and ***господа***) the trend was to pronounce the letter ***Г г*** as [h/γ], the former variety matching the intervocal position. The unified modern way to pronounce ***Б-г*** as [boχ] is a  relic of that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend went as far as proposals for two different letters for two distinct sounds made by [Trediakovsky][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details, see [the humorous poem by Lomonosov][4] of that time (in modern orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, the intervocal [ɣ] developed into [v] (as it was the case with some Frankish loanwords into French, where intervocal [ɣ] became [w] or [v]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, in addition to ***сегодня*** any combination of ***-ого*** and ***-его*** for a Genitive Neutrum / Masculine Singular is pronounced as [-óva /-ava] or [-éva/-iva] respectively, whether with a stressed vowel or not, and the only exception I can think of now is the word ***много*** [mnóga].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrila_Derzhavin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Trediakovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=17074" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14452" RevisionGUID="486f0e0e-dea8-49e8-ae7a-412d720ea69d" CreationDate="2017-05-13T22:39:59.510" UserId="1262" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Historical phonetics, I guess. In some southern dialects of Modern Russian, the letter ***Г г*** is still pronounced as [ɣ] almost in any position (as in modern Ukrainian). For some times, the Russian koine was a mix of competing dialects without a unified standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend resulted in interesting competition between the phonems [g] and [h/ɣ] in times of [Derzhavin][1] and [Lomonosov][2]. Namely, in words for 'spiritual' and 'high' lexis (such as ***Б-г***, ***ангелы, богатство*** and ***господа***) the trend was to pronounce the letter ***Г г*** as [h/γ], the former variety matching the intervocal position. The unified modern way to pronounce ***Б-г*** as [boχ] is a  relic of that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trend went as far as proposals for two different letters for two distinct sounds made by [Trediakovsky][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details, see [the humorous poem by Lomonosov][4] of that time (in modern orthography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, the intervocal [ɣ] developed into [v] (as it was the case with some Frankish loanwords into French, where intervocal [ɣ] became [w] or [v]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, in addition to ***сегодня*** any combination of ***-ого*** and ***-его*** for a Genitive Neutrum / Masculine Singular is pronounced as [-óva /-ava] or [-éva/-iva] respectively, whether with a stressed vowel or not, and the only exception I can think of now is the words of ***много*** [mnóga]-type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrila_Derzhavin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Trediakovsky&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=17074" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14455" RevisionGUID="fa922a58-ff14-42c9-8205-c87f9d212c34" CreationDate="2017-05-13T22:47:26.840" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="My intuition is that perhaps you meant ***его*** (as a Single Genitive Case of ***он(о)***) instead of ***эго***, which is more likely to be 'used almost in the same context' as ***это***, or perhaps   ***него***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences shall be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***это*** (Gen. Sg. ***этого*** [étava]) = a) demonstrative pronoun (or b) neutrum descriptive pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) ***Это миелофон.*** = This is a mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) ***Это слово - из фантастического фильма.*** = This word [comes] from a sci-fi movie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf: ***Этот миелофон не работает / выключен.*** = This mind-reading device is off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***его*** [(j)ivó] = Gen. Sg. of ***он*** (he =&gt; him) or ***это*** (it), used most often as a case of direct (*animate*, in case of ***он***) object, or as b) Partitive Genitive, or as c) Possessive Genitive, or :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) ***Вижу его.*** = I see him / it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) ***Его там нет.*** = He is not there (lit. it's like 'There is no him there').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) ***Это - его.*** = This belongs to him / This is his (lit. = ...of him).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***него*** [nivó]  = Gen.Sg.2 , used most often with prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это - для / от него.*** = This is for / from him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Этого*** = Gen. Sg. of ***это*** or ***этот*** (both as demonstrative and descriptive pronoun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня этого нет. / Это у меня.*** = I don't have it/this/that.// I have it/this/that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples (try to deduce to which type of usage each form is related): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Этот миелофон - у меня.*** = I have (got) this/that mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У него этого варианта нет.***  = He doesn't have this/that/such an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У него этого нет.*** = He doesn't have this/that/it. = ***У него его нет.*** = He doesn't have this/that/it / He is not at his place (chez lui).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня его нет.*** = I don't have this/that/it. / He is not at my place (chez moi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suppose that perhaps you meant the interchangeability of **это** VS **его** in the sub-category of 2. a) and 2.b types (direct objects and existential sentences). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, the interchangeability between **это** and **его** occurs in a case of Masculine (Inanimate) nouns.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14456" RevisionGUID="b92d9c19-f7a4-4d0e-ae0e-ea1fba1962a0" CreationDate="2017-05-14T00:04:12.487" UserId="2238" Text="For the given words the correct Russian spelling is &quot;его&quot; (unless you meant &quot;эго&quot; as in Freud's Ego, yep) and &quot;это&quot;, as the first word has initial j and jэ is shown as е. The prima facie correct Ukrainian spelling if it had the words would be єго (in reality - його) and это (in reality - це).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is an interesting issue with the е and э letters. е is supposed to mean jэ or 'э (э after a &quot;soft&quot; - palatalized - consonant) but in many recent loanwords it is used instead of э, and, as Sergey Slepov mentioned, this can be the source of using э instead of е and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the word-initial э sound is pronounced diversely - some speakers use the more close sound as if it were after a soft consonant, others use the more open sound as the one used after hard (non-palatalized) consonants. This can also induce some problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="c2d68309-65ae-4b2d-8c94-9ecdc4bff5a5" CreationDate="2017-05-14T03:46:35.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/863601409022976000" />
  <row Id="35073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="0b293f1c-6e17-4884-abc2-fd5d2b7717a3" CreationDate="2017-05-14T10:39:15.563" UserId="8991" Text="When I use the verb 'быть' in the present, the predicate takes the nominative case, as in 'Я - высокий.' But when I change the tense, I sometimes feel I should use the instrumental instead (so 'Я был высокий' vs 'Я был высоким'). In what cases do I use each?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="0b293f1c-6e17-4884-abc2-fd5d2b7717a3" CreationDate="2017-05-14T10:39:15.563" UserId="8991" Text="Precidate taking instrumental case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="0b293f1c-6e17-4884-abc2-fd5d2b7717a3" CreationDate="2017-05-14T10:39:15.563" UserId="8991" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14458" RevisionGUID="3e09a3dd-8e5c-4cd8-9177-8b4a2749ce3e" CreationDate="2017-05-14T11:23:06.910" UserId="6649" Text="`Я был высоким` is grammar correct option because we can ask `я был (в прошлом) кем? - высоким человеком` and instrumental case asking the same questions `Кем? Чем?`&#xD;&#xA;But the first option also can be used in speaking and writing, so it's not mistake just nuance. Also you can use short form like: `Бунин был смел, честен в своих убеждениях.`&#xD;&#xA;As you can see there is no ending at all `смел (ый / ым)`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14459" RevisionGUID="769ea71e-0de1-4e6a-81e1-9d95f6aa036d" CreationDate="2017-05-14T12:44:23.680" UserId="1262" Text="In short, your question seems to be a duplicate of the other one that [had been previously asked][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quotation from my answer to the previous one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The difference is that быть + Instrumentalis is similar to a past perfective form (as a perfective action unrelated to a moment of utterance), while быть + Nominative would be compared to a present-perfective structure in a language where such a distinction exists.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***As for the future tense, some decades or a century ago the phrase with Nominative compliment [будет журналист] might be equally correct, but nowadays it sounds as a little bit obsolete.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The usage of Instrumental as a copular compliment is similar to that of [Essive][2] (a case of an impermanent state) in Balto-Fennic languages and can be regarded as a Fenno-Ugric substrate.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14182/case-of-complements-in-russian/14183#14183&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14460" RevisionGUID="ad1bca6e-a45d-4aca-86b7-ac7c2a8bd695" CreationDate="2017-05-14T12:54:30.073" UserId="1262" Text="In short, Accusative goes for a direct object (e.g. an object without a preposition, AKA the object itself), and Instrumental goes for an indirect object (that is, an [non-living] object with a preposition, AKA a compliment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, almost any English structure of the type 'to do smth with smth' can be rendered into Russian like ***(с)делать что-нибудь + Instrumental***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cut the meat by a knife. =&gt; ***(Я) режу мясо ножом.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I measure the water by a cup. =&gt; ***(Я) (от)меряю воду чашкой.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am busy with some business. =&gt; ***(Я) занят делом.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I count the money with a calculator. =&gt; ***(Я) считаю деньги калькулятором.***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14455" RevisionGUID="9f74dcbd-b090-45f3-baaf-ebcf1edbe7fb" CreationDate="2017-05-14T16:00:10.487" UserId="1262" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="My intuition is that perhaps you meant ***его*** (as a Single Genitive Case of ***он(о)***) instead of ***эго***, which is more likely to be 'used almost in the same context' as ***это***, or perhaps   ***него***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences shall be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***это*** (Gen. Sg. ***этого*** [étava]) = a) demonstrative pronoun (or b) neutrum descriptive pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) ***Это миелофон.*** = This is a mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) ***Это слово - из фантастического фильма.*** = This word [comes] from a sci-fi movie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf: ***Этот миелофон не работает / выключен.*** = This mind-reading device is off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***его*** [(j)ivó] = Gen. Sg. of ***он*** (he =&gt; him) or ***это*** (it), used most often as a case of direct (*animate*, in case of ***он***) object, or as b) Partitive Genitive, or as c) Possessive Genitive, or :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) ***Вижу его.*** = I see him / it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) ***Его там нет.*** = He is not there (lit. it's like 'There is no him there').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) ***Это - его.*** = This belongs to him / This is his (lit. = ...of him).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***него*** [nivó]  = Gen.Sg.2 , used most often with prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это - для / от него.*** = This is for / from him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Этого*** = Gen. Sg. of ***это*** or ***этот*** (both as demonstrative and descriptive pronoun):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня этого нет. / Это у меня.*** = I don't have it/this/that.// I have it/this/that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples (try to deduce to which type of usage each form is related): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Этот миелофон - у меня.*** = I have (got) this/that mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У него этого миелофона нет.***  = He doesn't have this/that/such a mind-reading device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У него этого нет.*** = He doesn't have this/that/it. = ***У него его нет.*** = He doesn't have this/that/it / He is not at his place (chez lui).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня его нет.*** = I don't have this/that/it. / He is not at my place (chez moi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I suppose that perhaps you meant the interchangeability of **это** VS **его** in the sub-category of 2. a) and 2.b types (direct objects and existential sentences). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, the interchangeability between **это** and **его** occurs in a case of Masculine (Inanimate) nouns.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="c927ed38-c46a-4e3c-9101-fd1e9e09fe3b" CreationDate="2017-05-14T18:52:25.713" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/863829369231470593" />
  <row Id="35081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14461" RevisionGUID="183a317d-316c-4c60-8730-532694da20c6" CreationDate="2017-05-14T19:18:40.500" UserId="4714" Text="Everyone here is making the translation too quirky and context specific. It translates to— &quot;I (my hands) haven't gotten (around) to do(ing) it&quot; доходить--to reach, get to X. We say exactly the same thing in English, minus the hands. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="774efe6f-a511-48e8-b0cc-d65a70b67617" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:18:59.990" UserId="8553" Text="My curiosity i have started learning russian . while i read some articles they specified same meaning for different word . Can any one clarify my doubt and guide me in right path? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="774efe6f-a511-48e8-b0cc-d65a70b67617" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:18:59.990" UserId="8553" Text="What is the difference between Мои , Моя,Мой And dom and doma?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="774efe6f-a511-48e8-b0cc-d65a70b67617" CreationDate="2017-05-15T13:18:59.990" UserId="8553" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="3534846c-6ad0-4250-adaf-f445ee1afd00" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:22:08.090" UserId="7239" Text="Based on observations, the following seems to be the simplest pattern in which the prepositions, are used. My questions about this pattern consist of two parts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** If I used this pattern, how often would you estimate that I would make the right choice of в/во, с/со, к/ко, e.g. 40% of the time, or maybe even 60%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** What are the most frequently occurring counterexamples to this pattern? I.e. not *all* counterexamples, because I imagine there are many, but maybe the first two *most frequent* ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Add an о to the end of the preposition с в к whenever it precedes a word beginning with two consonants, the first of which is either the consonant itself of its voiced/unvoiced partner (the pairs are в/ф, з/с, г/к). `во вторник, во франции, со зрением, со словами, ко граду, ко класти`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Otherwise, don't add an о to the end of the preposition. `в воскресенье, с солнцем, к кому, в гражданин, с Французского, к планктону`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Exception: the preposition precedes some form of я: e.g. `ко мне, со мной`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because Russian learners are often told that во, со, ко are used &quot;to make pronunciation of consonant clusters&quot; easier. However, that simply isn't true in general, because в, с, к are simply unchanged before the vast majority of consonant clusters. So I tried to make up the following rule that is more accurate (even if not entirely accurate) but still fairly simple to understand/remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** These issues are addressed in these three questions [(1)][1][(2)][2][(3)][3][(4)][4] on this website. However, they give (for me, who is just beginning to learn this) way too many counterexamples, and most of which do not seem like they are used often, e.g. in set phrases I have never heard of, or with words I have never heard of, or with very obscure grammatical cases which existed in Proto-Indo-European but which are almost entirely extinct in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer only one or two counterexamples, and counterexamples such that (1) someone is likely to hear and use them frequently (at least once per week), (2) any native speaker, educated or otherwise, is likely to immediately pick up on the difference.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/3027/%D0%BA-vs-%D0%BA%D0%BE-preposition&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13372/%D1%81%D0%BE-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BC-vs-%D1%81-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/986/prepositions-%D0%B2-and-%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12496/what-is-the-difference-between-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83-and-%D0%B2-%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="3534846c-6ad0-4250-adaf-f445ee1afd00" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:22:08.090" UserId="7239" Text="Is this rule for в/во, с/со, к/ко generally correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="3534846c-6ad0-4250-adaf-f445ee1afd00" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:22:08.090" UserId="7239" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14465" RevisionGUID="67635e48-a4f0-4e9f-980a-b9631af70ad2" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:32:26.087" UserId="3713" Text="Мои, моя, мой - are just conjugation of Мое; they are plural, feminine, &#xD;&#xA;masculine respectively.&#xD;&#xA;A full table of those conjugations you can see [wiktionary, мой](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/мой )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дом - is just a construction, house  &#xD;&#xA;Дома - mean at home, or plural form of Дом. The difference is in context and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Дóма - at home  &#xD;&#xA;* Домá - homes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14465" RevisionGUID="b40ee828-7457-4f52-8281-64f6f4afb9c9" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:50:37.973" UserId="3713" Comment="add table" Text="Мои, моя, мой - are just conjugation of Мое; they are plural, feminine, &#xD;&#xA;masculine respectively.&#xD;&#xA;A full table of those conjugations you can see [wiktionary, мой](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/мой)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one of the possessive pronouns - мой, твой, свой, ваш, наш, его, её, их  &#xD;&#xA;It just has to be memorized&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(source of the picture, as I found it, is one of pinterest, but I can't link to it, because I need to have account there, which I do not, and the link will be useless for not pinterest users)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дом - is just a construction, house  &#xD;&#xA;Дома - mean at home, or plural form of Дом. The difference is in context and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Дóма - at home  &#xD;&#xA;* Домá - homes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/coYo0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14465" RevisionGUID="fdb84951-687e-456b-b38b-ab6666b4eea1" CreationDate="2017-05-15T17:56:21.970" UserId="3713" Comment="add table; tip" Text="Мои, моя, мой - are just conjugation of Мое; they are plural, feminine, &#xD;&#xA;masculine respectively.&#xD;&#xA;A full table of those conjugations you can see [wiktionary, мой](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/мой)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is one of the possessive pronouns - мой, твой, свой, ваш, наш, его, её, их  &#xD;&#xA;It just has to be memorized and having a small card where they are written helps.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(source of the picture, as I found it, is one of pinterest, but I can't link to it, because I need to have account there, which I do not, and the link will be useless for not pinterest users)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дом - is just a construction, house  &#xD;&#xA;Дома - mean at home, or plural form of Дом. The difference is in context and emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Дóма - at home  &#xD;&#xA;* Домá - homes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/coYo0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35094" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="3ed2a21d-f1e6-47e1-a1e1-a8a8c93c9572" CreationDate="2017-05-15T18:55:51.883" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/864192621828243456" />
  <row Id="35095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14466" RevisionGUID="714d60de-c855-43d4-8fcf-b84f7a072fba" CreationDate="2017-05-15T19:26:06.490" UserId="9001" Text="Apart from &quot;ко мне&quot; и &quot;со мной&quot; there are other exceptions from the part of the rule about &quot;the consonant itself of its voiced/unvoiced partner&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-со всеми - with everyone else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-во многом -  to a large extent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-ко всему [прочему] - 	to make things worse &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-со вкусом -  tastefully&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all common expressions. Not sure if I use them every week, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="740c0a48-fd0e-458d-97cf-3ca298c446d8" CreationDate="2017-05-15T23:43:44.697" UserId="6907" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the Russian words sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* е**г**о  (for example:  его семья) = pronounced as if it is written: е**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35098" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14451" RevisionGUID="5e4b699a-1241-4d28-9e6f-178f6699769d" CreationDate="2017-05-16T03:55:49.103" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/864328506217566210" />
  <row Id="35099" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="242c22be-9a2f-4eac-a80a-b618520c77c7" CreationDate="2017-05-16T05:54:51.690" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8449],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35100" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="e808e665-754d-4182-8132-5c3146474aa2" CreationDate="2017-05-16T05:55:15.647" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="When do I use &quot;мой&quot; и &quot;моя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="7caca253-6d74-443c-b38e-a9b0fc3f5184" CreationDate="2017-05-16T05:56:07.627" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="My curiosity I have started learning Russian. While i read some articles they specified same meaning for different word. Can any one clarify my doubt and guide me in right path? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35102" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14462" RevisionGUID="7caca253-6d74-443c-b38e-a9b0fc3f5184" CreationDate="2017-05-16T05:56:07.627" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;мои&quot; , &quot;моя&quot;, &quot;мой&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14432" RevisionGUID="f405b731-ec56-4c2e-81e2-e73dec08c043" CreationDate="2017-05-16T06:55:49.857" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/864373807871647745" />
  <row Id="35104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="083f1334-9d78-44fd-b223-a66e868cae61" CreationDate="2017-05-16T10:48:44.820" UserId="8895" Comment="Capitalization, grammar" Text="Based on observations, the following seems to be the simplest pattern in which the prepositions, are used. My questions about this pattern consist of two parts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** If I used this pattern, how often would you estimate that I would make the right choice of в/во, с/со, к/ко, e.g. 40% of the time, or maybe even 60%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** What are the most frequently occurring counterexamples to this pattern? I.e. not *all* counterexamples, because I imagine there are many, but maybe the first two *most frequent* ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Add an о to the end of the preposition с в к whenever it precedes a word beginning with two consonants, the first of which is either the consonant itself of its voiced/unvoiced partner (the pairs are в/ф, з/с, г/к). `во вторник, во Франции, со зрением, со словами, ко граду`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Otherwise, don't add an о to the end of the preposition. `в воскресенье, с солнцем, к кому, в гражданина, с французского, к планктону`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Exception: the preposition precedes some form of я: e.g. `ко мне, со мной`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because Russian learners are often told that во, со, ко are used &quot;to make pronunciation of consonant clusters&quot; easier. However, that simply isn't true in general, because в, с, к are simply unchanged before the vast majority of consonant clusters. So I tried to make up the following rule that is more accurate (even if not entirely accurate) but still fairly simple to understand/remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** These issues are addressed in these four questions [(1)][1][(2)][2][(3)][3][(4)][4] on this website. However, they give (for me, who is just beginning to learn this) way too many counterexamples, and most of which do not seem like they are used often, e.g. in set phrases I have never heard of, or with words I have never heard of, or with very obscure grammatical cases which existed in Proto-Indo-European but which are almost entirely extinct in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer only one or two counterexamples, and counterexamples such that (1) someone is likely to hear and use them frequently (at least once per week), (2) any native speaker, educated or otherwise, is likely to immediately pick up on the difference.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/3027/%D0%BA-vs-%D0%BA%D0%BE-preposition&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13372/%D1%81%D0%BE-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BC-vs-%D1%81-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/986/prepositions-%D0%B2-and-%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12496/what-is-the-difference-between-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83-and-%D0%B2-%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35105" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="083f1334-9d78-44fd-b223-a66e868cae61" CreationDate="2017-05-16T10:48:44.820" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 6539, -1 edit id of 867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14464" RevisionGUID="e7b3923b-5fd2-4eb3-884d-9cb2b0e0ab99" CreationDate="2017-05-16T10:48:44.820" UserId="7239" Comment="Capitalization, grammar" Text="Based on observations, the following seems to be the simplest pattern in which the prepositions, are used. My questions about this pattern consist of two parts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** If I used this pattern, how often would you estimate that I would make the right choice of в/во, с/со, к/ко, e.g. 40% of the time, or maybe even 60%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** What are the most frequently occurring counterexamples to this pattern? I.e. not *all* counterexamples, because I imagine there are many, but maybe the first two *most frequent* ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Add an о to the end of the preposition с в к whenever it precedes a word beginning with two consonants, the first of which is either the consonant itself of its voiced/unvoiced partner (the pairs are в/ф, з/с, г/к). `во вторник, во Франции, со зрением, со словами, ко граду, ко книге`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Otherwise, don't add an о to the end of the preposition. `в воскресенье, с солнцем, к кому, в гражданина, с французского, к планктону`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Exception: the preposition precedes some form of я: e.g. `ко мне, со мной`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask because Russian learners are often told that во, со, ко are used &quot;to make pronunciation of consonant clusters&quot; easier. However, that simply isn't true in general, because в, с, к are simply unchanged before the vast majority of consonant clusters. So I tried to make up the following rule that is more accurate (even if not entirely accurate) but still fairly simple to understand/remember.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** These issues are addressed in these four questions [(1)][1][(2)][2][(3)][3][(4)][4] on this website. However, they give (for me, who is just beginning to learn this) way too many counterexamples, and most of which do not seem like they are used often, e.g. in set phrases I have never heard of, or with words I have never heard of, or with very obscure grammatical cases which existed in Proto-Indo-European but which are almost entirely extinct in modern Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer only one or two counterexamples, and counterexamples such that (1) someone is likely to hear and use them frequently (at least once per week), (2) any native speaker, educated or otherwise, is likely to immediately pick up on the difference.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/3027/%D0%BA-vs-%D0%BA%D0%BE-preposition&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13372/%D1%81%D0%BE-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BC-vs-%D1%81-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/986/prepositions-%D0%B2-and-%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12496/what-is-the-difference-between-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83-and-%D0%B2-%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="e25d9383-5bbd-4d51-ae60-56da3de92ba0" CreationDate="2017-05-16T15:38:05.120" UserId="1262" Text="For most adjectives, a basic ground form to derive the rest in a paradigm seems to be that of Masculine Singular and they therefore can be divided into ***-ый,*** ***-ой***  and -***ий***-types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically and stylistically, the shortened adjectives seem to be more archaic and related to a higher / poetic style. This comprises both relative and qualitative adjectives (although not possessive ones), even the adjectives of ***-ой***-type (though these seem to be less productive). [The shortened forms of adjectives (especially those derived from relative 'ancestors') are then usually to be post-positioned, but now I skip this nuance for the sake of the completeness].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***зелено яблоко &lt;=&gt; зелёное яблоко (зелёный)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) солев  холм  &lt;=&gt;    солевой холм***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) челюстнен скат &lt;=&gt; челюстной скат (= контур)*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(?) рдян ог(о)нь  &lt;=&gt;   рдяной огонь***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий кит*** &lt; = &gt; ????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not mentioning here the arcaic and poetic combined formes, such as ***зелено-яблоко*** and ***рдян-огнь***, because the usage of ***-*** in Russian since, say, the 17th century seems to be the other topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntaxically, the shortened forms mostly convey a meaning of perfective utterance: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Яблоко зелено. Пол стеклянен. Огонь багрян.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened adjectives of the -***ий***-types? They seem to be non-productive, but is it a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some adjectives (mainly relative) the shortened forms are imaginable, eg. ***мужний, братний, весенний, зимний*** can be imagined as *мужен, *братнен, *весенен and зимнен (at least, as elements of compund words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened forms of relative adjectives ending in -ний? Some are imaginable (e.g. those from ***давний,*** ***давнишний, давешний, вышний, внешний***) but the others are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To mention a few;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***верхний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***крайний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сторонний*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***дольний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вороний***, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="e25d9383-5bbd-4d51-ae60-56da3de92ba0" CreationDate="2017-05-16T15:38:05.120" UserId="1262" Text="Productivity of short adjectives derived from those of -ний type" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="e25d9383-5bbd-4d51-ae60-56da3de92ba0" CreationDate="2017-05-16T15:38:05.120" UserId="1262" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="eb4e54c4-d7ba-424a-98f1-85cf75cda9f2" CreationDate="2017-05-16T15:43:35.303" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="For most adjectives, a basic ground form to derive the rest in a paradigm seems to be that of Masculine Singular and they therefore can be divided into ***-ый,*** ***-ой***  and -***ий***-types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically and stylistically, the shortened adjectives seem to be more archaic and related to a higher / poetic style. This comprises both relative and qualitative adjectives (although not possessive ones), even the adjectives of ***-ой***-type (though these seem to be less productive). [The shortened forms of adjectives (especially those derived from relative 'ancestors') are then usually to be post-positioned, but now I skip this nuance for the sake of the completeness].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***зелено яблоко &lt;=&gt; зелёное яблоко (зелёный)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) солев  холм  &lt;=&gt;    солевой холм***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) челюстнен скат &lt;=&gt; челюстной скат (= контур)*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(?) рдян ог(о)нь  &lt;=&gt;   рдяной огонь***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий кит*** &lt; = &gt; ????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not mentioning here the arcaic and poetic combined formes, such as ***зелено-яблоко*** and ***рдян-огнь***, because the usage of ***-*** in Russian since, say, the 17th century seems to be the other topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntaxically, the shortened forms mostly convey a meaning of perfective utterance: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Яблоко зелено. Пол стеклянен. Огонь багрян.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened adjectives of the -***ий***-types? They seem to be non-productive, but is it a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some adjectives (mainly relative) the shortened forms are imaginable, eg. ***мужний, братний, весенний, зимний*** can be imagined as *мужен, *братнен, *весенен and *зимнен (at least, as elements of compound words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened forms of relative adjectives ending in -ний? Some are imaginable (e.g. those from ***давний,*** ***давнишний, давешний, вышний, внешний***) but the others are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To mention a few;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***верхний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***крайний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сторонний*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***дольний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вороний***, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="e92d3ae5-78bd-4e36-acfe-44b373e6debc" CreationDate="2017-05-16T17:17:42.907" UserId="1262" Comment="edited body" Text="For most adjectives, a basic ground form to derive the rest in a paradigm seems to be that of Masculine Singular and they therefore can be divided into ***-ый,*** ***-ой***  and -***ий***-types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically and stylistically, the shortened adjectives seem to be more archaic and related to a higher / poetic style. This comprises both relative and qualitative adjectives (although not possessive ones), even the adjectives of ***-ой***-type (though these seem to be less productive). [The shortened forms of adjectives (especially those derived from relative 'ancestors') are then usually to be post-positioned, but now I skip this nuance for the sake of the completeness].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***зéлено яблоко &lt;=&gt; зелёное яблоко (зелёный)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) сóлев холм  &lt;=&gt;    солевой холм***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) челюстнен скат &lt;=&gt; челюстной скат (= контур)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***рдян ог(о)нь  &lt;=&gt;   рдяной огонь***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий кит*** &lt; = &gt; ????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not mentioning here the arcaic and poetic combined formes, such as ***зелено-яблоко*** and ***рдян-огнь***, because the usage of ***-*** in Russian since, say, the 17th century seems to be the other topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntaxically, the shortened forms mostly convey a meaning of perfective utterance: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Яблоко зелено. Пол стеклянен. Огонь багрян.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened adjectives of the -***ий***-types? They seem to be non-productive, but is it a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some adjectives (mainly relative) the shortened forms are imaginable, eg. ***мужний, братний, весенний, зимний*** can be imagined as *мужен, *братнен, *весенен and *зимнен (at least, as elements of compound words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened forms of relative adjectives ending in -ний? Some are imaginable (e.g. those from ***давний,*** ***давнишний, давешний, вышний, внешний***) but the others are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To mention a few;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***верхний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***крайний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сторонний*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***дольний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ворóний***, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35112" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14457" RevisionGUID="a3f84bc4-c6dc-4154-9008-ab6bd9903fd9" CreationDate="2017-05-16T17:56:23.420" UserId="1236" Comment="edited title" Text="Predicate taking instrumental case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="95632e33-e966-42e4-9a56-e3ab9e60f6f6" CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:35:40.483" UserId="1262" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="For most adjectives, a basic ground form to derive the rest in a paradigm seems to be that of Masculine Singular and they therefore can be divided into ***-ый,*** ***-ой***  and -***ий***-types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically and stylistically, the shortened adjectives seem to be more archaic and related to a higher / poetic style. This comprises both relative and qualitative adjectives (although not possessive ones), even the adjectives of ***-ой***-type (though these seem to be less productive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [The shortened forms of adjectives (especially those derived from relative 'ancestors') are then usually to be post-positioned, but now I deliberately skip this nuance for the sake of the completeness].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***зéлено яблоко &lt;=&gt; зелёное яблоко (зелёный)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) сóлев холм  &lt;=&gt;    солевой холм***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***(*?) челюстнен скат &lt;=&gt; челюстной скат (= контур)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***рдян ог(о)нь  &lt;=&gt;   рдяной огонь***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий кит*** &lt; = &gt; ????&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not mentioning here the archaic and poetic combined formes, such as ***зелено-яблоко*** and ***рдян-огнь***, because the usage of ***-*** in Russian since, say, the 17th century seems to be the other topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Syntaxically, the shortened forms mostly convey a meaning of perfective utterance: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Яблоко зелено. Пол стеклянен. Огонь багрян.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened adjectives of the -***ий***-types? They seem to be non-productive, but is it a later development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some adjectives (mainly relative) the shortened forms are imaginable, eg. ***мужний, братний, весенний, зимний*** can be imagined as *мужен, *братнен, *весенен and *зимнен (at least, as elements of compound words). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the shortened forms of relative adjectives ending in ***-ний***? Some are imaginable (e.g. those derived from ***давний,*** ***давнишний, давешний, вышний, внешний***) but the others are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To mention a few;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***синий***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***верхний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***крайний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сторонний*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***дольний***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ворóний***, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14468" RevisionGUID="d331b78c-ea7f-4e4b-8717-fbc4ddfb4c44" CreationDate="2017-05-16T19:56:28.037" UserId="2104" Text="Adjectives in -ий are not that different from other adjectives when it comes to producing short forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кит синь, вода синя, море сине&quot; - those are quite normal short forms of синий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Верхний, крайний, сторонний and дольний (did you mean дальний?) are all relative adjectives and hence do not have short forms (although they are potentially possible: верхен, крайен, сторонен, дален.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворóний is a possessive adjective and -ий is not an ending in the morphological sense. Ворóний has a null ending. Other examples of words with the same declension type: заячий, лисий, третий, весь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive adjectives are a subclass of relative adjectives and hence do not have short or comparative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальний has a near-synonym далёкий which is qualitative and does have short forms: далёк, далека, далеко, далеки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, only qualitative adjectives have short, comparative and superlative forms, regardless of their morphological structure (-ий, -ый, -ой). And that makes sense: something can be more or less blue but something cannot be more or less 'top' (верхний). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qualitative/relative are two ends of a scale and not a binary classification. E.g. апельсиновый is normally relative (to orange) but one can say, for the sake of a pun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это наиапельсиновейший напиток в мире!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14468" RevisionGUID="5d50a160-d5fa-4a66-aa97-848f82fcdaec" CreationDate="2017-05-16T20:03:45.560" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Adjectives in -ий are not that different from other adjectives when it comes to producing short forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кит синь, вода синя, море сине&quot; - those are quite normal short forms of синий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Верхний, крайний, сторонний and дольний (did you mean дальний?) are all relative adjectives and hence do not have short forms (although they are potentially possible: верхен, крайен, сторонен, дален.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворóний is a possessive adjective and -ий is not an ending in the morphological sense. Ворóний has a null ending. Other examples of words with the same declension type: заячий, лисий, третий, весь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive adjectives are a subclass of relative adjectives and hence do not have short or comparative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальний has a near-synonym далёкий which is qualitative and does have short forms: далёк, далека, далеко, далеки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, only qualitative adjectives have short, comparative and superlative forms, regardless of their declension type (-ий, -ый, -ой, null). And that makes sense: something can be more or less blue but something cannot be more or less 'top' (верхний). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qualitative/relative are two ends of a scale and not a binary classification. E.g. апельсиновый is normally relative (to orange) but one can say, for the sake of a pun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это наиапельсиновейший напиток в мире!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35116" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14425" RevisionGUID="a6f2a98c-c5fc-451b-94b1-47cd368624c2" CreationDate="2017-05-16T21:58:25.487" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/864600952774569985" />
  <row Id="35119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14468" RevisionGUID="b6160c7f-747e-41de-952f-394d5e389bda" CreationDate="2017-05-17T20:40:31.273" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="Adjectives in -ий are not that different from other adjectives when it comes to producing short forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кит синь, вода синя, море сине&quot; - those are quite normal short forms of синий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Верхний, крайний, сторонний and дольний (did you mean дальний?) are all relative adjectives and hence do not have short forms (although they are potentially possible: верхен, краен, сторонен, дален).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ворóний is a possessive adjective and -ий is not an ending in the morphological sense. Ворóний has a null ending. Other examples of words with the same declension type: заячий, лисий, третий, весь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive adjectives are a subclass of relative adjectives and hence do not have short or comparative forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальний has a near-synonym далёкий which is qualitative and does have short forms: далёк, далека, далеко, далеки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, only qualitative adjectives have short, comparative and superlative forms, regardless of their declension type (-ий, -ый, -ой, null). And that makes sense: something can be more or less blue but something cannot be more or less 'top' (верхний). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Qualitative/relative are two ends of a scale and not a binary classification. E.g. апельсиновый is normally relative (to orange) but one can say, for the sake of a pun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это наиапельсиновейший напиток в мире!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35121" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14435" RevisionGUID="b41694f5-917e-4bc1-872b-6c1a6f0251e9" CreationDate="2017-05-18T03:58:25.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/865053937136795648" />
  <row Id="35122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14470" RevisionGUID="5519725f-1703-41e6-adc3-e2e7f3214794" CreationDate="2017-05-18T09:25:32.743" UserId="9001" Text="If you are intersted in looking-up theoretical proper shortened forms of Russian adjectives, online dictionaries might come in handy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example you can use an online version of Zaliznyak's dictionary or the Wiktionary (I surmise that the latter is based on the former):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.morfologija.ru/словоформа/братний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/братний&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have just two remarks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- as these are formal dictionaries  they follow formal grammar, so no shortened forms of relative adjectives;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- many of the shortened forms listed in these dictionaries look awkward and are barely used in the modern written or spoken language (i.e. shortened forms of крайний, ближний etc.; N.B. крайне as in &quot;крайне плохой&quot; is an adverb)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35123" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14467" RevisionGUID="d2dcb83e-aa7c-49eb-a563-fe2ab0d90eab" CreationDate="2017-05-18T09:58:28.107" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/865144545696256000" />
  <row Id="35125" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14427" RevisionGUID="7420b1a1-2ae3-40f2-859c-5b2c4a505aeb" CreationDate="2017-05-19T03:58:31.067" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/865416349027151875" />
  <row Id="35126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14471" RevisionGUID="09772a9c-032a-457f-bbda-5926d2f09b6c" CreationDate="2017-05-19T06:50:21.490" UserId="6539" Text="Perhaps this info might be interesting. &#xD;&#xA;Краткие прилагательные – особые несклоняемые, предикативные формы **качественных** прилагательных. &#xD;&#xA;I have found examples on the ruscorpora.ru &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вода была ласково-спокойна и **весело-синя**, светлея лишь косыми гладкими полосами в местах течения и переходя в густо-синий глубокий цвет на горизонте. [А. И. Куприн. Гранатовый браслет (1911)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как **синя** ночь для человека, отошедшего от костра, и как красна голая дорожка на освещенном зеленом лугу; конечно, эти явления, хотя и без анализа их, издавна знакомы людям. [К. С. Петров-Водкин. Моя повесть. Часть 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ветер был виден, он был **синь**, он рвал воду и нес ее с собой по воздуху, и вода кипела. [Б. А. Пильняк. Заволочье (1925)]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тогда была луна, снег был **синь**, горы и глетчеры уходили во мглу, снег сыпался и звенел, казалось под луной, что эти люди на луне, ― скелет «Свердрупа» распух от инея. [Б. А. Пильняк. Заволочье (1925)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Залив был **синь**. И камни, грея спины, &#xD;&#xA;На жарком солнце спали под горой. &#xD;&#xA;[И. А. Бунин. Бог полдня (1908.08.12)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какие прилагательные **не имеют кратких форм**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большинство прилагательных в русском языке имеют и полную, и краткую форму. К словам-исключениям, у которых есть **только полная** форма, относятся:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Прилагательные с уменьшительно-ласкательными суффиксами и суффиксами, несущими подчеркнуто объективно суждение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; темненький, широченный, крохотный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Некоторые названия цветов &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;оливковый, малиновый, шоколадный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Прилагательные, называющие масти животных&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;вороной, пегий, гнедой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Качественные прилагательные с суффиксами -ск-, -н-, -ов-(-ев-), образованные от относительных прилагательных &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;товарищеский, ручной, вековой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Отглагольные прилагательные, образованные при помощи суффикса -л- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;бывалый, прошлый, талый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Некоторые многозначные прилагательные образуют краткую форму **только к одному из значений**. Так, например, у прилагательного фальшивый краткая форма есть при употреблении слова в значении «неискренний» – фальшивые чувства – чувства фальшивы, тогда как в значении «ненастоящий, поддельный» не  употребляется краткая форма – фальшивая купюра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Только в краткой форме употребляются прилагательные &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; горазд, надобен, должен, рад, одинехонек/одинешенек, маловат, радехонек /радешенек, великоват и другие.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="ab44dd95-6214-4dd1-8c54-e0be0d42a5b9" CreationDate="2017-05-19T08:43:20.990" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Пойди принеси воды, зайди купи хлеба, сядь посиди, приди взгляни, попробуй разберись. Или&#xD;&#xA; Пойти разобраться, зайти купить, попробовать найти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо ли их разделять запятой? Думаю, что не надо. Но хотелось бы правила из достоверного источника. И как это явление называется? Явно не однородные члены предложения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="ab44dd95-6214-4dd1-8c54-e0be0d42a5b9" CreationDate="2017-05-19T08:43:20.990" UserId="6539" Text="Как называется явление, когда два глагола стоят рядом в одной форме" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="ab44dd95-6214-4dd1-8c54-e0be0d42a5b9" CreationDate="2017-05-19T08:43:20.990" UserId="6539" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="e6bdee53-5108-4773-ad19-ebd947d3b75a" CreationDate="2017-05-19T08:51:18.080" UserId="6539" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="&gt;Пойди принеси воды, зайди купи хлеба, сядь посиди, приди взгляни, попробуй разберись. Или&#xD;&#xA; Пойти разобраться, зайти купить, попробовать найти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо ли их разделять запятой? Думаю, что не надо. Но хотелось бы правила из достоверного источника. И как это явление называется? Явно не однородные члены предложения. С инфинитивом, наверное, второй, как дополнение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14473" RevisionGUID="d6b5589a-36d9-42d9-9a22-5294d0cbe850" CreationDate="2017-05-19T10:00:39.310" UserId="9001" Text="В случае, когда два глагола стоят в &lt;b&gt;одинаковой форме&lt;/b&gt;, причем одно указывает способ, а второе цель действия, имеет место &lt;b&gt;осложненное глагольное сказуемое&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Запятые в этом случае не ставятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[dic.academic.ru](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lingvistic/996/%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14474" RevisionGUID="7ef2f8bf-242c-475d-84ab-69850938e8f3" CreationDate="2017-05-19T10:01:04.750" UserId="5443" Text="Конструкции с такими двойными глаголами иногда относят к *сериальным конструкциям* (соотв., **явление сериализации**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Рассказы о сновидениях: Корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса, под ред. Кибрика и Подлесской, &quot;Языки славянских культур&quot;, Москва 2009)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.ru/books?id=WavJAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA249&amp;lpg=PA249&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=LHURxDKYJZ&amp;sig=vMst6aun2baYKRsJNNFCkpkC-00&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiR3-6P1vvTAhUGjiwKHSiPDq4Q6AEIQzAG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14475" RevisionGUID="226d44ec-cf0f-4317-89d2-8221af688ae1" CreationDate="2017-05-19T14:25:17.307" UserId="242" Text="В дополнение к предыдущим ответам - в большинстве случаев я бы не стал писать запятую, даже если бы мне предъявили самые, самые авторитетные источники, солидные и в кожаных переплётах. Кроме правил есть ещё и здравый смысл. Стоит отметить, тем не менее, что в ряде случаев запятая грамматически уместна, но меняет смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравните:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо пойти купить хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужен переходник, но так лень его доставать. Ведь это же надо куда-то пойти, купить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@YellowSky прав, когда говорит, что между двумя глаголами можно поставить союз &quot;и&quot; - в обоих случаях можно заменить на &quot;пойти и купить&quot;. Но по смыслу в первом случае это не перечисление, не последовательная цепочка действий (как во втором случае), а как бы цельное действие, пусть даже и выполненное в несколько приёмов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приди взгляни на него! Смотри он что учудил опять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А ты туда приди, взгляни на него молча, и пусть ему станет стыдно. &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14475" RevisionGUID="f59580cb-f911-401a-be93-e8bdc2b4a88c" CreationDate="2017-05-19T14:32:07.077" UserId="242" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="В дополнение к предыдущим ответам - в большинстве случаев я бы не стал писать запятую, даже если бы мне предъявили самые, самые авторитетные источники, солидные и в кожаных переплётах. Кроме правил есть ещё и здравый смысл. Стоит отметить, тем не менее, что в ряде случаев запятая грамматически уместна, но меняет смысл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравните:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо пойти купить хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужен переходник, но так лень его доставать. Ведь это же надо куда-то пойти, купить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@YellowSky прав, когда говорит, что между двумя глаголами можно поставить союз &quot;и&quot; - в обоих случаях можно заменить на &quot;пойти и купить&quot;. Но по смыслу в первом случае это не перечисление, не последовательная цепочка действий (как во втором случае), а как бы цельное действие, пусть даже и выполненное в несколько приёмов. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ещё примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приди взгляни на него! Смотри он что учудил опять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А ты туда приди, взгляни на него молча, и пусть ему станет стыдно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что я предложил бы такое эмпирическое правило:&#xD;&#xA;Если по смыслу между глаголами уместно вставить &quot;а потом&quot; - ставьте запятую. Если нет - не ставьте. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35136" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="a5bde0b8-557f-4036-a605-4b740e12a962" CreationDate="2017-05-19T15:58:29.460" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/865597535745966081" />
  <row Id="35137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14476" RevisionGUID="ff1780c8-6ea6-46ed-a886-e60f9d65fffc" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:58:43.287" UserId="10290" Text="So the plural form of this is 'львы́'? Wikipedia does not indicate that this is irregular. Are there other nouns that follow this pattern, or some sort of rule to help me remember this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14476" RevisionGUID="ff1780c8-6ea6-46ed-a886-e60f9d65fffc" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:58:43.287" UserId="10290" Text="Declension of 'ле́в'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14476" RevisionGUID="ff1780c8-6ea6-46ed-a886-e60f9d65fffc" CreationDate="2017-05-19T16:58:43.287" UserId="10290" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14478" RevisionGUID="c8abef7e-585e-4a52-8276-c149852cf959" CreationDate="2017-05-19T20:03:51.793" UserId="1262" Text="It's not irregular. The mobile vowel is a typical phenomenon for [almost] any masculine singular, consisting of two syllables, starting with a singular consonant and taking ***-и/-ы*** (and not ***-а*** / ***-я***) as a plural marker. The syllable structure is either ***CVC(ь)***, ***CVCVC(ь)*** or, as some user had put it above, ***CVCъ*** (historically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one-syllable words are tricky about mobile vowels to predict, but for most polysyllabic words of these types with ***-ок,*** ***-ень*** or ***-ец*** you can be 99% sure that they have a mobile vowel within.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is,  the following forms are rather 'usual' than 'exceptional'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отец =&gt; отцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ловец =&gt; ловцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***малец  =&gt; мальцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***палец  =&gt; пальцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***лоб =&gt; лбы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***лёд =&gt; льды***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***огонь =&gt; огни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***камень =&gt; камни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***песок =&gt; пески***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***лоток =&gt; лотки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***каток =&gt; катки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***носок =&gt; носки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кусок =&gt; куски***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***селезень  =&gt; селезни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***слизень  =&gt; слизни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'regular' forms are in fact more exceptional, cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пирог =&gt; пироги***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***порог =&gt; пороги*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***олень =&gt; олени***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пароль =&gt; пароли***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пол =&gt; полы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14478" RevisionGUID="b25bec4c-ea65-4a13-a600-d7305428e582" CreationDate="2017-05-19T20:09:22.113" UserId="1262" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="It's not irregular. The mobile vowel is a typical phenomenon for [almost] any masculine singular, non-loan word consisting of two syllables, starting with a singular consonant and taking ***-и/-ы*** (and not ***-а*** / ***-я***) as a plural marker. The syllable structure is either ***CVC(ь)***, ***CVCVC(ь)*** or, as some user had put it above, ***CVCъ*** (historically). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one-syllable words are tricky about mobile vowels to predict, but for most polysyllabic words of these types with ***-ок,*** ***-ень*** or ***-ец*** you can be 99% sure that they have a mobile vowel within.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is,  the following forms are rather 'usual' than 'exceptional'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отец =&gt; отцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ловец =&gt; ловцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***малец  =&gt; мальцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***палец  =&gt; пальцы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***лоб =&gt; лбы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***лёд =&gt; льды***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***огонь =&gt; огни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***камень =&gt; камни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***песок =&gt; пески***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***лоток =&gt; лотки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***каток =&gt; катки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***носок =&gt; носки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кусок =&gt; куски***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***селезень  =&gt; селезни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***слизень  =&gt; слизни***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'regular' forms are in fact more exceptional, cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пирог =&gt; пироги***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***порог =&gt; пороги*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***олень =&gt; олени***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пароль =&gt; пароли***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пол =&gt; полы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14474" RevisionGUID="96a82979-29d0-4f22-938b-ae9ab78577dc" CreationDate="2017-05-20T00:56:06.700" UserId="1097" Comment="link formatted" Text="Конструкции с такими двойными глаголами иногда относят к *сериальным конструкциям* (соотв., **явление сериализации**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Рассказы о сновидениях: Корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса, под ред. Кибрика и Подлесской, &quot;Языки славянских культур&quot;, Москва 2009*][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=WavJAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA249&amp;lpg=PA249&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=LHURxDKYJZ&amp;sig=vMst6aun2baYKRsJNNFCkpkC-00&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiR3-6P1vvTAhUGjiwKHSiPDq4Q6AEIQzAG" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14480" RevisionGUID="dbdef8e1-562a-4454-81b7-b0c0602cb9e6" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:49:46.567" UserId="6907" Text="What is the common translation for '**afternoon**' in Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked the dictionary and I found *many options* which some of them seems to be incorrect at all. Look at the attached picture. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vbZRZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35150" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14480" RevisionGUID="dbdef8e1-562a-4454-81b7-b0c0602cb9e6" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:49:46.567" UserId="6907" Text="What is the translation of &quot;afternoon&quot; in Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35151" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14480" RevisionGUID="dbdef8e1-562a-4454-81b7-b0c0602cb9e6" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:49:46.567" UserId="6907" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14481" RevisionGUID="38b81338-e4c5-4627-ba6a-a6cc30bc855f" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:52:45.877" UserId="6907" Text="Which **on line dictionaries** is considered the best and accurate for **English-Russian** (and vise versa) translations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate makes a lot of mistakes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14481" RevisionGUID="38b81338-e4c5-4627-ba6a-a6cc30bc855f" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:52:45.877" UserId="6907" Text="Which free on line dictionaries is considered the best for English-Russian (and vise versa) translations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14481" RevisionGUID="38b81338-e4c5-4627-ba6a-a6cc30bc855f" CreationDate="2017-05-20T05:52:45.877" UserId="6907" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35155" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14428" RevisionGUID="91fe7b09-0c7c-4999-b143-515df098c0ed" CreationDate="2017-05-20T06:58:30.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/865824033673183232" />
  <row Id="35156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14482" RevisionGUID="8e026d29-c4c0-4a1f-bd3a-bf2c27a63b3c" CreationDate="2017-05-20T08:53:11.157" UserId="5443" Text="**Вторая половина дня** is OK. **In** the afternoon - &quot;**во второй половине дня**&quot; (this part of day usually excludes evening) or - in less formal context - &quot;**днём**&quot; (this just excludes morning and evening). *Пополудни* is mainly used to specify time (functions as 'PM/p.m.'), e. g. **в два часа пополудни** (at 2:00 PM)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14483" RevisionGUID="ed81b280-b08d-4bd3-b370-30f069270281" CreationDate="2017-05-20T10:05:07.883" UserId="1262" Text="For terminology, I prefer (in order of descending reliability) [ru.wikipedia.org][1], [wiktionary.org and][2], last but not least, [multitran.ru][3] (I generally mistrust 'hive-mind platforms', though-- especially those in Russian language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For corpus samples, I normally accept [linguee.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google.translate is often [funny][5] (but it can be improved).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wikipedia.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://linguee.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://tjournal.ru/43919-google-translate-goes-crazy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14483" RevisionGUID="27beda8b-4cc5-4554-b9ae-bd0cada6f64b" CreationDate="2017-05-20T11:11:39.817" UserId="1262" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="For terminology, I prefer (in order of descending reliability) [ru.wikipedia.org][1], [wiktionary.org and][2], last but not least, [multitran.ru][3] (I generally mistrust 'hive-mind platforms', though-- especially those in Russian language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For corpus samples, I normally accept [linguee.ru][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google.translate is often [funny][5] (but it can be improved).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://linguee.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://tjournal.ru/43919-google-translate-goes-crazy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="32d08a8e-3c6e-4d8b-9129-a93f322e5152" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:16:34.600" UserId="9027" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bRSOP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend of russian sent me a book and wrote sth on the last page on it, you know that the russian handwritting is hard to recongnize,would you please tell me the meaning of it please ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35160" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="32d08a8e-3c6e-4d8b-9129-a93f322e5152" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:16:34.600" UserId="9027" Text="What is the exact meaing of the russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35161" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="32d08a8e-3c6e-4d8b-9129-a93f322e5152" CreationDate="2017-05-21T03:16:34.600" UserId="9027" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14485" RevisionGUID="283d38ba-04ca-4739-94da-21f5bdd4fe38" CreationDate="2017-05-21T05:28:36.333" UserId="5443" Text="It's 'With best wishes from Dmitry (Di-ma /in Chinese characters/)'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14486" RevisionGUID="31619a51-2de7-4558-bfb6-7cc2eed83968" CreationDate="2017-05-21T05:29:31.743" UserId="6539" Text="Your friend's name is Дмитрий. That's the last word &quot;от Дмитрия&quot;. The first two are &quot;С наилучшими пожеланиями от Дмитрия.&quot; Since the site doesn't provide translation services, I will stop here. Hope you can find out the meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14487" RevisionGUID="e47eea4d-8d6f-4020-a56d-829aaf615a0f" CreationDate="2017-05-21T05:37:11.350" UserId="6539" Text="Well, I never use one dictionary. Lingvo-online.ru or lingvo.ua., wooordhunt.ru., dict.academic.ru.,multitran.ru. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14485" RevisionGUID="9f8e4f63-083a-459b-b00c-dfcecd5d586b" CreationDate="2017-05-21T05:39:21.790" UserId="5443" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="It's '*With best wishes from Dmitry* (*Di-yi-ma* /in Chinese characters/)'. Original text: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С наилучшими пожеланиями от Дмитрия (迪已马)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35166" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14480" RevisionGUID="79901b6f-7081-435a-a4fc-5fdfbddaf8cb" CreationDate="2017-05-21T07:04:37.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/866187960580009985" />
  <row Id="35167" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="2f21477d-68f3-4ec2-89bf-dd7c734aa3e6" CreationDate="2017-05-21T08:14:52.193" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14438" RevisionGUID="35721bb2-bdba-45eb-acf4-8ea3a501c4c9" CreationDate="2017-05-21T14:16:00.543" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Ничего в балках не понимаю,но, даже,судя по вашим цитатам, это разные вещи. И вот еще одна цитата, говорящая о том же.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Разрезной балкой называют ту, которая перекрывает только **один** пролет и имеет пару опор. А нарезная многопролетная балка это та, которая перекрывает **несколько** пролетов и имеет также несколько опорных точек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuous stringer дает мультитран.&#xD;&#xA;Еще цитата &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Простейшими конструктивными элементами и одновременно простейшими горизонтальной и вертикальной конструктивными системами являются балка и стойка (столб, колонна). Балка представляет собой прямой брус, опирающийся на две или более количества опор. Балка, свободно лежащая на двух опорах, перекрывающая один пролет, называется разрезной; балка, перекрывающая несколько пролетов, т.е. лежащая на многих опорах, называется нарезной многопролетной; балка, заделанная в опору одним концом и свободная на другом, называется консолью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14488" RevisionGUID="1b0e89f2-9309-4a3e-b5f0-39ebf7a15f81" CreationDate="2017-05-22T02:55:34.710" UserId="4028" Text="It seems to me that **на ней** in this context replaces **на крючке**.  If so, why is the feminine pronoun **она** substituted for the masculine noun **крючок**?  Or, if not, what does **на ней** replace?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14488" RevisionGUID="1b0e89f2-9309-4a3e-b5f0-39ebf7a15f81" CreationDate="2017-05-22T02:55:34.710" UserId="4028" Text="What is &quot;на ней&quot; in the sentence &quot;Посмотрели на крючок и увидели на ней рыбью губу&quot; appearing in Chekhov's short story &quot;Рыбья любовь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14488" RevisionGUID="1b0e89f2-9309-4a3e-b5f0-39ebf7a15f81" CreationDate="2017-05-22T02:55:34.710" UserId="4028" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14489" RevisionGUID="8cab439c-2e70-4af0-8dde-1ea5c45e03bf" CreationDate="2017-05-22T03:29:24.373" UserId="6539" Text="That is a typo. Because some lines higher, you can find a masculine pronoun referred to крючок. It should be &quot;и увидели на нём &quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14490" RevisionGUID="12f0a569-7ae7-40bc-a806-f3acdaa34137" CreationDate="2017-05-22T06:30:46.420" UserId="9032" Text="I have been trying (я старался) to answer this question myself over the years.  Here's what I came up with:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я попробую = I will try - i.e. give it a go (проба = a trial, a sample)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я постараюсь = I will try - i.e. make an effort, be diligent (старание = diligence, effort)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я попытаюсь = I will try - i.e. give it everything, torture myself to do it (пытать = to torture)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14491" RevisionGUID="e5fec6a7-2767-4a50-9c10-1d0279037ecd" CreationDate="2017-05-22T08:48:24.037" UserId="1262" Text="My first thought also had been a possibility of a typo. But then, a typo would be corrected in later published versions of the tale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because Russian shares a lot of features with topic languages, let's consider the context. And the context suggests some topics of gender ambiguity (which is more than just grammatical gender or just an occasional usage of masculine pro feminine). Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***...полная тетя, прежде чем войти в воду, минут пять сидела на камне и, самодовольно поглаживая себя, говорила: «И в кого я такой слон [M] уродилась [F]? Даже глядеть страшно».***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the example of 'gender mismatch' is not just in the sentence you quote. Then, we see the example with the quote you gave:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Посмотрели на крючок [M] и увидели на ней [F] рыбью губу.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last, but not least, this 'gender mismatch' takes its crescendo in the following passage, wich can be read as a travesty of a travesty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Безумный карась принял его за Соню Мамочкину, подплыл к нему и нежно поцеловал его в спину.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore my answer to your question together with a comment on a preceding answer would be as follows: the word ***ней*** refers to a feminine noun ***удочка*** and it is a stylistical trait suggesting gender ambiguity (both in grammatical and social senses)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14489" RevisionGUID="1720ba79-49e2-4764-aeb4-366fe60bff36" CreationDate="2017-05-22T09:31:03.023" UserId="6539" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="That is a typo. Because some lines higher, you can find a masculine pronoun referred to крючок. It should be &quot;и увидели на нём &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И, полный решимости, только слегка побледнев, он подплыл к крючку **Соня** и взял его в рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you another typo in the same story. They are the author's typos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14489" RevisionGUID="70043061-404c-4cd6-b064-53f62fd90cf5" CreationDate="2017-05-22T09:44:33.673" UserId="6539" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="That is a typo. Because some lines higher, you can find a masculine pronoun referred to крючок. It should be &quot;и увидели на нём &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И, полный решимости, только слегка побледнев, он подплыл к крючку **Соня** и взял его в рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you another typo in the same story. They are the author's typos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А я подражаю дамам. Быть может даже, я сам дама и только скрываюсь под мужским псевдонимом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after reading these lines, I am inclined to think he did it on purpose. Just as a stylistic device. Gender-play." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14489" RevisionGUID="033a3875-7aac-4c8e-b811-655e1c08e7ce" CreationDate="2017-05-22T10:52:11.973" UserId="6539" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="That is a typo. Because some lines higher, you can find a masculine pronoun referred to крючок. It should be &quot;и увидели на нём &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И, полный решимости, только слегка побледнев, он подплыл к крючку **Соня** и взял его в рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you another typo in the same story. They are the author's typos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А я подражаю дамам. Быть может даже, я сам дама и только скрываюсь под мужским псевдонимом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after reading these lines, I am inclined to think he did it on purpose. Just as a stylistic device. Gender-play. He wrote this story as a parody on women's stories about nothing and included typos intentionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14492" RevisionGUID="792727d4-bd1f-472f-83e8-65653a870f76" CreationDate="2017-05-22T11:45:15.533" UserId="1262" Text="In addition to what has been said here, one can try (можно постараться) to come op with even less obligatory modalities. Both  ***стараться*** and ***пытаться***  can be regarded as verbs of indefinite commitment, though this semantical trait is not obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Е. g. one can dodge obligationbs with phrases like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***посмотрим***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***подумаю***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[смотря] по обстоятельствам***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***как пойдёт***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***как фишка / карта ляжет***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***как звёзды сложатся***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basicaly, any future forms with ***по-*** can be rendered as a future of uncertainb modality (indefinate commitment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14489" RevisionGUID="e744a5f8-9136-4a42-92dd-24367b5bab2e" CreationDate="2017-05-22T16:04:43.413" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="That is a typo. Because some lines higher, you can find a masculine pronoun referred to крючок. It should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1&quot;и увидели на нём &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.И, полный решимости, только слегка побледнев, он подплыл к крючку **Соня** и взял его в рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is another typo in the same story. They are the author's typos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А я подражаю дамам. Быть может даже, я сам дама и только скрываюсь под мужским псевдонимом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after reading these lines, I am inclined to think he did it on purpose. Just as a stylistic device. Gender-play. He wrote this story as a parody on women's stories about nothing and included typos intentionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="acf7fd99-89b2-400a-abca-27508e32ef3a" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:18:01.080" UserId="9035" Text="There are a number of nouns formed by prepending _само_ to the action that that thing does: _самолет_, _самовар_, or even the relatively unattested _самодвижущийся_. Are there other examples of this pattern in commonly used nouns? What other self-_verb_-ing things exist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="acf7fd99-89b2-400a-abca-27508e32ef3a" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:18:01.080" UserId="9035" Text="Other nouns formed by prepending _само_ to an action" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="acf7fd99-89b2-400a-abca-27508e32ef3a" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:18:01.080" UserId="9035" Text="|существительные|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35187" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="152481f7-fe0c-4f2a-a2c7-969aaefae3e4" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:20:43.210" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1262,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manjusri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5443,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex_ander&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="011ae516-69c5-444f-9035-2006ef98e492" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:33:52.867" UserId="9035" Comment="clarification" Text="There are a number of nouns formed by prepending _само_ to the action that that thing does that are very common: _самолет_, _самовар_, Other similar formations, like  _самодвижущийся_, are uncommon. Are there other examples of this pattern where a synonym with this prefix exists, but is not the most common way to refer to a noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14494" RevisionGUID="d9d411a4-9cc7-4977-b63a-82a85ec703a9" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:43:11.153" UserId="1262" Text="To mention a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гусли-самогуды***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокат***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокрутка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокритичность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодурство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоволка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоход***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоубийство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодвижущийся***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самореклама***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самопрезентация***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодисциплина***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самовлюблённость***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуверенность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуважение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14494" RevisionGUID="6e348cfd-d0ad-4fab-87ca-de36fc01d4ed" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:47:15.593" UserId="1262" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="To mention a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гусли-самогуды***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокат***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокрутка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокритичность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодурство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоволка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоход***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоубийство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодвижущийся***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самореклама***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самопрезентация***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодисциплина***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самовлюблённость***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуверенность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуважение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. So if we take both 'noun' and 'adjective' as 'nouns' then yes, I think the nouns are more frequent, though we can produce from the list verbs like ***самоуби(ва)ться,*** ***самопрезенто(ва)ться*** and ***самодурствовать,*** of which the latter is the most common and stylistically neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14494" RevisionGUID="eb6d2ca9-fbb2-4879-8769-f134a89a5fd1" CreationDate="2017-05-22T20:56:26.883" UserId="1262" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="To mention a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гусли-самогуды***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самострел***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самопальный***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокат***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокрутка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокритичность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодурство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоволка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоход***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоубийство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодвижущийся***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самореклама***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самопрезентация***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодисциплина***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самовлюблённость***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуверенность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуважение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. So if we take both 'noun' and 'adjective' as 'nouns' then yes, I think the nouns are more frequent, though we can produce from the list verbs like ***самоуби(ва)ться,*** ***самопрезенто(ва)ться*** and ***самодурствовать,*** of which the latter is the most common and stylistically neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14494" RevisionGUID="4e0bd830-8f56-4107-b839-f26f42be54e8" CreationDate="2017-05-22T21:02:04.063" UserId="1262" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="To mention a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гусли-самогуды***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самострел***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самопальный***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокат***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокрутка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самокритичность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодурство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самомнение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоволка***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоход***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоубийство***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодвижущийся***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самореклама***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самопрезентация***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самодисциплина***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самовлюблённость***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуверенность***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***самоуважение***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc. So if we take both 'noun' and 'adjective' as 'nouns' then yes, I think the nouns are more frequent, though we can produce from the list verbs like ***самоуби(ва)ться,*** ***самопрезенто(ва)ться*** and ***самодурствовать,*** of which the latter is the most common and stylistically neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And nearly any word from the list above (which can still be added up with more items) can be transformed into an adjective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14493" RevisionGUID="0cdfb867-1bcc-4a21-893f-6166ebc52e08" CreationDate="2017-05-22T21:10:11.483" UserId="9035" Comment="clarification 2" Text="There are a number of nouns formed by prepending _само_ to the action that that thing does that are very common: _самолет_, _самовар_. Other similar formations, like  _самодвижущийся_, are uncommon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other examples of this pattern where a synonym with this prefix exists, but is not the most common way to refer to a noun? Is there any distinction that can be drawn between types of nouns that prefer the _само_-prefixed synonym over those that don't (assuming both exist)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35194" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14488" RevisionGUID="14b5868c-ad88-4ab9-8cec-313812d1edcd" CreationDate="2017-05-23T01:22:49.030" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/866826716966158336" />
  <row Id="35195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14489" RevisionGUID="41441079-1f43-40a5-bc70-c87170bfbb5c" CreationDate="2017-05-23T05:49:30.917" UserId="6539" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="That is a typo. Because some lines higher, you can find a masculine pronoun referred to крючок. It should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1&quot;и увидели на нём &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2.И, полный решимости, только слегка побледнев, он подплыл к крючку **Соня** и взял его в рот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is another typo in the same story. They are the author's typos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А я подражаю дамам. Быть может даже, я сам дама и только скрываюсь под мужским псевдонимом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And after reading these lines, I am inclined to think he did it on purpose. Just as a stylistic device or literary device. Gender-play. He wrote this story as a parody on women's stories about nothing and included typos intentionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35196" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="b7b0f62f-b22c-4865-a845-fb6b097e14e8" CreationDate="2017-05-23T07:22:56.490" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/866917345507377153" />
  <row Id="35197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="98a02b27-666f-4bbf-9fb0-20ffa7007d98" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:56.713" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="There is a paragraph in [this post][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And finally, login throttling: that is, setting a time delay between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempts after N failed attempts (yes, DoS attacks are still possible,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but at least they are far less likely and a lot more complicated to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pull off).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know what does it mean, so I need no explanations. I have the only one question: is there a specific term in Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/549/the-definitive-guide-to-form-based-website-authentication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="8139fd0a-0b13-4d18-8402-30ab1ad29aa0" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:25:43.420" UserId="5758" Text="Можно ли использовать слово &quot;категорически&quot; во фразе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо категорически думать о смене поставщика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В том смысле, что это должно выражать бескомпромиссность предложения, что бездействию не может быть оправдания?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="8139fd0a-0b13-4d18-8402-30ab1ad29aa0" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:25:43.420" UserId="5758" Text="Можно ли использовать слово &quot;категорически&quot; во фразе &quot;надо категорически думать о...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="8139fd0a-0b13-4d18-8402-30ab1ad29aa0" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:25:43.420" UserId="5758" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="bc841166-b00d-4167-a15a-b307bed4f9fc" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:45:58.200" UserId="5758" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Можно ли использовать слово &quot;категорически&quot; во фразе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо категорически думать о смене поставщика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В том смысле, что это должно выражать бескомпромиссность предложения, что бездействию не может быть оправдания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** @Taosique заметил, что вышеупомянутая фраза звучит косно. Возможно, более корректная, хотя смысл несколько другой (&quot;менять&quot;/&quot;думать о смене&quot;, хотя как можно менять и не подумать...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Категорически надо менять поставщика." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="da9c8609-ece3-4675-8130-2490bc1b4fdd" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:51:27.133" UserId="5758" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Можно ли использовать слово &quot;категорически&quot; во фразе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо категорически думать о смене поставщика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В том смысле, что это должно выражать бескомпромиссность предложения, что бездействию не может быть оправдания?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** @Taosique заметил, что вышеупомянутая фраза звучит косно. Возможно, более корректная, хотя смысл несколько другой (&quot;менять&quot;/&quot;думать о смене&quot;, хотя как можно менять и не подумать...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Категорически надо менять поставщика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или ещё такой вариант:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Категорически надо думать о смене поставщика." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14496" RevisionGUID="baafee40-a11a-46ac-be72-1a89d170b1a2" CreationDate="2017-05-23T14:57:06.463" UserId="4903" Text="Поиск в корпусе русского языка показывает, что и комбинация [&quot;Категорически + надо + глагол&quot;](http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%ED%E0%E4%EE&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%EA%E0%F2%E5%E3%EE%F0%E8%F7%E5%F1%EA%E8&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=V&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=), и комбинация [&quot;Надо + категорически + глагол&quot;](http://search2.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%EA%E0%F2%E5%E3%EE%F0%E8%F7%E5%F1%EA%E8&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=%ED%E0%E4%EE&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=&amp;gramm3=V&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=) используются крайне редко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гораздо более популярны структуры использующие синонимы слова &quot;категорически&quot;: &quot;решительно&quot;, &quot;безусловно&quot;. Я бы лично заменил &quot;категорически&quot; одним из синонимов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14497" RevisionGUID="f24bedc3-3a1c-42cc-b71f-8bb9d2474a8e" CreationDate="2017-05-23T19:39:47.400" UserId="9037" Text="С наилучшими пожеланиями от Дмитрия  (迪已马)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35206" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14484" RevisionGUID="58a21470-0ecd-40c0-8548-a8aef8c688b7" CreationDate="2017-05-23T20:49:03.123" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14495" RevisionGUID="e49c86b7-5308-4a26-82c7-bdfee7adef8c" CreationDate="2017-05-24T10:28:56.723" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/867326542808043520" />
  <row Id="35208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14498" RevisionGUID="40c8b27b-4b1e-48db-9a34-43c31bbae8f6" CreationDate="2017-05-24T14:10:30.513" UserId="7239" Text="The dictionaries I could find did not agree on whether the perfective form of the (imperfective) verb `курить` is either: (i) `закурить` or (ii) `покурить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct perfective partner for `курить`? Is it [`закурить`][1], [`покурить`][2], or neither?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the answer might, in some sense, be neither, because both `закурить` and `покурить` have &quot;imperfectivizations&quot;, [`закуривать`][3] and [`покуривать`][4], respectively, [both of which are hyponyms][5] of `курить`. ([Definition of hyponym][6], a word which I learned today -- [по-русски][7].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus one might expect that both `закурить` and `покурить` would be hyponyms of a &quot;perfective partner of `курить`&quot; if such a verb actually existed (it seems not to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, [perfective verbs formed by adding the prefix `по-` sometimes are restricted to the specific meaning of &quot;a little, for a while&quot;][8], while [perfective verbs formed by adding the prefix `за-` sometimes are restricted to the specific meaning of &quot;to begin to&quot;][9]. This appears to be the case for `покуривать/покурить` and `закуривать/закурить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I should add as a caveat that I am *assuming* that `покуривать` does correspond in meaning to `покурить`, even though Wiktionary does not say this explicitly (it does say explicitly that the corresponding statement is true for `закуривать` and `закурить`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** Here is a [related previous question of mine][10]. For `смеяться`, the `по-` and `за-` perfectivizing prefixes seem to have the same meaning as for `курить`, yet nevertheless `посмеиваться` and `засмеиваться` do not correspond in meaning to `посмеяться` and `засмеяться` according to one of the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.93.D0.B8.D0.BF.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BC.D1.8B&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyponym&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-#Prefix_2&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0-#Prefix&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14316/what-is-the-difference-between-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-and-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14498" RevisionGUID="40c8b27b-4b1e-48db-9a34-43c31bbae8f6" CreationDate="2017-05-24T14:10:30.513" UserId="7239" Text="What is the correct perfective partner for курить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14498" RevisionGUID="40c8b27b-4b1e-48db-9a34-43c31bbae8f6" CreationDate="2017-05-24T14:10:30.513" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14498" RevisionGUID="c8ec6c9c-9f71-482c-aa6d-d1f2c7a82345" CreationDate="2017-05-24T14:20:01.540" UserId="7239" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="The dictionaries I could find did not agree on whether the perfective form of the (imperfective) verb `курить` is either: (i) `закурить` or (ii) `покурить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct perfective partner for `курить`? Is it [`закурить`][1], [`покурить`][2], or neither?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the answer might, in some sense, be neither, because both `закурить` and `покурить` have &quot;imperfectivizations&quot;, [`закуривать`][3] and [`покуривать`][4], respectively, [both of which are hyponyms][5] of `курить`. ([Definition of hyponym][6], a word which I learned today -- [по-русски][7].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus one might expect that both `закурить` and `покурить` would be hyponyms of a &quot;perfective partner of `курить`&quot; if such a verb actually existed (it seems not to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, [perfective verbs formed by adding the prefix `по-` sometimes are restricted to the specific meaning of &quot;a little, for a while&quot;][8], while [perfective verbs formed by adding the prefix `за-` sometimes are restricted to the specific meaning of &quot;to begin to&quot;][9]. This appears to be the case for `покуривать/покурить` and `закуривать/закурить`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I should add as a caveat that I am *assuming* that `покуривать` does correspond in meaning to `покурить`, even though Wiktionary does not say this explicitly (it does say explicitly that the corresponding statement is true for `закуривать` and `закурить`). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also since `покуривать` is apparently colloquial, I may be misleading myself by considering it too much. (I.e. maybe `по-` is just a perfectivizing prefix with *no* specialization in meaning for `курить` ([definition 1][8]), and those who use the colloquial term `покуривать` *misunderstand* ([definition 3][8]) the use of the `по-` prefix for `курить`, which maybe also explains why `покуривать` has not become a formally accepted word.) Wiktionary does say that покуривать has *no* perfective partner [(1)][10][(2)][11].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** Here is a [related previous question of mine][12]. For `смеяться`, the `по-` and `за-` perfectivizing prefixes seem to have the same meaning as for `курить`, yet nevertheless `посмеиваться` and `засмеиваться` do not correspond in meaning to `посмеяться` and `засмеяться` according to one of the answerers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.93.D0.B8.D0.BF.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BC.D1.8B&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyponym&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE-#Prefix_2&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0-#Prefix&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#Derived_terms&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Verb&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14316/what-is-the-difference-between-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-and-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14499" RevisionGUID="77e08451-bee8-46d2-98a6-fe0b22413bae" CreationDate="2017-05-24T14:21:10.037" UserId="2079" Text="Думаю, что нет. Посмотрел в Корпусе последние по времени 140 вхождений слова `категорически`.  `Категорически думать`, или `категорически намереваться`, или чего-то эквивалентного по смыслу там нет.  Категорически можно: запрещать, отказываться, отвергать, требовать, быть против кого-либо или чего-либо. Также слово &quot;категорически&quot; часто употребляется с частицей или приставкой не, и один раз со словом `нет`: `здесь что-то категорически не так`, `она категорически не умела` и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Изредка встречаются выражения, противоположные перечисленным: `категорически одобряю`, `категорически за`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом картина вырисовывается вот какая. Категорическими бывают: отношение к чему-то (отрицательное или, гораздо реже, положительное); выражение этого отношения (`категорически отрицаю`); императивы (требования, запреты); что-то отрицательное (`категорически не умела`, `категорически не так`).  Действия, кроме перечисленных, категорическими не бывают." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="b7a08ebd-8674-4a59-8d6f-1a22b066e65b" CreationDate="2017-05-24T15:44:23.430" UserId="2104" Text="Roughly speaking, everything said of смеяться [here](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14318/2104) is true for курить. Покуривать means to smoke once in a while, on and off. Закуривать means 'be in the process of lighting up (a cigarette)', the imperfective of закурить 'to light up a cigarette', 'to begin to smoke'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14501" RevisionGUID="dea94e2b-7ebb-4257-ba6b-e8c804a25b9f" CreationDate="2017-05-24T20:51:58.637" UserId="6350" Text="While studying Russian, I encountered two words which both seem to translate to '(he/she/it) moves' or '(he/she/it) is moving': двигается and движется. Some Internet research (e.g. [this page](http://difficulties.academic.ru/44) which I can barely read) showed me that they're both conjugations of двигаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference between them at all? If yes, in which situations should I prefer one over the other? And are there more words with a similar characteristic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14501" RevisionGUID="dea94e2b-7ebb-4257-ba6b-e8c804a25b9f" CreationDate="2017-05-24T20:51:58.637" UserId="6350" Text="Difference between двигается and движется" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14501" RevisionGUID="dea94e2b-7ebb-4257-ba6b-e8c804a25b9f" CreationDate="2017-05-24T20:51:58.637" UserId="6350" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14500" RevisionGUID="39c2941c-5dbe-4006-a19d-81058f8da851" CreationDate="2017-05-24T22:12:56.053" UserId="2104" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="Roughly speaking, everything said of смеяться [here](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14318/2104) is true for курить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покуривать means to smoke once in a while, on and off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Закуривать means 'to be in the process of lighting up (a cigarette)', the imperfective of закурить 'to light up (a cigarette)', 'to start smoking'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прикурить means 'to light up a cigarette against someone else's lit up cigarette'. The imperfective is прикуривать, 'to be in the process of ...' You get the idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14503" RevisionGUID="09c7cb04-086b-41e9-9af8-50699ed5a40a" CreationDate="2017-05-24T23:28:00.067" UserId="4903" Text="Indeed both words ***двигается*** and ***движется*** have the same meaning - &quot;to move&quot;. Here is a rule of thumb that works 90% of the time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **If you speak of body movement, or movement of body parts, you can use either form:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Медведь двигается в берлоге. / Медведь движется в берлоге. *The bear moves in his den.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Ноги двигаются. / Ноги движутся. *Legs are moving.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **If you speak of inanimate objects, use the form &quot;движется&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Поезд движется к станции. *A train runs towards station.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Машины движутся по шоссе.  *Cars are running on a highway.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="99713fb8-666f-4790-9d7a-02771149e245" CreationDate="2017-05-25T04:54:12.257" UserId="6539" Text="The verb двигаться belongs to the group of избыточные глаголы. They have parallel formf in the present tense, in the imperative, and participles and деепричастия. These forms can differ stylistically and in meaning. &#xD;&#xA;The verb двигаться has got the following meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Находиться в движении, перемещаться, направляться. –To be on the move, in the process of moving. Both forms are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На Москву движется /двигается ураган. Нефтяное пятно движется/двигается  в сторону Испании.&#xD;&#xA; В Японское море со скоростью 45 метров в секунду движется тайфун «Чатаан» &#xD;&#xA;Мы движемся / двигаемся в ногу со временем &#xD;&#xA; Автомобиль движется / двигается (= перемещается, передвигается) быстрее поезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Трогаться в путь, отправляться.To start movement, depart. Only двигается &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пора двигаться в дорогу;&#xD;&#xA;Машина двигается с места; Поезд двигается в путь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Шевелиться (слегка двигаться), изменять положение тела. To move a little, to change the position of the body. Both forms are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Руки фокусника движутся / двигаются с необыкновенной быстротой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Обладать способностью движения. To be able to move, can move. Only двигаются &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ноги не двигаются (не может ступить, идти куда-нибудь); Экспериментальный поезд двигается без машиниста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Перен. содействовать развитию чего-либо, побуждать, руководить. figurative (about non-material nouns) : To help development, to evoke, to lead. Only движется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Поиск ответа на этот сложнейший вопрос движет развитие современной биологии.  Научная мысль движется все быстрее.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="60b49cd3-445f-44aa-9b56-d4afc91fac83" CreationDate="2017-05-25T06:20:02.660" UserId="6539" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="The verb двигаться belongs to the group of избыточные глаголы. They have parallel formf in the present tense, in the imperative, and participles and деепричастия. These forms can differ stylistically and in meaning. &#xD;&#xA;The verb двигаться has got the following meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Находиться в движении, перемещаться, направляться. –To be on the move, in the process of moving. Both forms are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На Москву движется /двигается ураган. Нефтяное пятно движется/двигается  в сторону Испании.&#xD;&#xA; В Японское море со скоростью 45 метров в секунду движется тайфун «Чатаан» &#xD;&#xA;Мы движемся / двигаемся в ногу со временем &#xD;&#xA; Автомобиль движется / двигается (= перемещается, передвигается) быстрее поезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Трогаться в путь, отправляться.To start movement, depart. Only двигается &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пора двигаться в дорогу;&#xD;&#xA;Машина двигается с места; Поезд двигается в путь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Шевелиться (слегка двигаться), изменять положение тела. To move a little, to change the position of the body. Both forms are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Руки фокусника движутся / двигаются с необыкновенной быстротой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Обладать способностью движения. To be able to move, can move. Only двигаются &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ноги не двигаются (не может ступить, идти куда-нибудь); Экспериментальный поезд двигается без машиниста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Перен. содействовать развитию чего-либо, побуждать, руководить. figurative (about non-material nouns) : To help development, to evoke, to lead. Only движется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Поиск ответа на этот сложнейший вопрос движет развитие современной биологии.  Научная мысль движется все быстрее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When both forms are possible, двигается is preferred. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14501" RevisionGUID="300a0cc9-1bff-40c3-8b6c-7b440071736e" CreationDate="2017-05-25T07:34:57.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/867645145642151936" />
  <row Id="35227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="2e9b251b-6e5a-48cf-9262-f406e1f7a2db" CreationDate="2017-05-25T10:28:54.270" UserId="6350" Comment="typo corrected, formatting" Text="The verb двигаться belongs to the group of избыточные глаголы. They have parallel forms in the present tense, in the imperative, and participles and деепричастия. These forms can differ stylistically and in meaning. &#xD;&#xA;The verb двигаться has got the following meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Находиться в движении, перемещаться, направляться. –To be on the move, in the process of moving. Both forms are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На Москву движется /двигается ураган. Нефтяное пятно движется/двигается  в сторону Испании.&#xD;&#xA; В Японское море со скоростью 45 метров в секунду движется тайфун «Чатаан» &#xD;&#xA;Мы движемся / двигаемся в ногу со временем &#xD;&#xA; Автомобиль движется / двигается (= перемещается, передвигается) быстрее поезда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Трогаться в путь, отправляться.To start movement, depart. Only двигается &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пора двигаться в дорогу;&#xD;&#xA;Машина двигается с места; Поезд двигается в путь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Шевелиться (слегка двигаться), изменять положение тела. To move a little, to change the position of the body. Both forms are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Руки фокусника движутся / двигаются с необыкновенной быстротой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Обладать способностью движения. To be able to move, can move. Only двигаются &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ноги не двигаются (не может ступить, идти куда-нибудь); Экспериментальный поезд двигается без машиниста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Перен. содействовать развитию чего-либо, побуждать, руководить. figurative (about non-material nouns) : To help development, to evoke, to lead. Only движется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Поиск ответа на этот сложнейший вопрос движет развитие современной биологии.  Научная мысль движется все быстрее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When both forms are possible, двигается is preferred. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35228" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14504" RevisionGUID="2e9b251b-6e5a-48cf-9262-f406e1f7a2db" CreationDate="2017-05-25T10:28:54.270" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 6539 edit id of 868" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14492" RevisionGUID="7054caf4-a514-4475-9feb-4b2525b635f1" CreationDate="2017-05-25T12:13:00.710" UserId="7239" Comment="spelling, and other minor changes to reach the 10 character limit" Text="In addition to what has been said here, one can try (можно постараться) to come up with even less obligatory modalities. Both  ***стараться*** and ***пытаться***  can be regarded as verbs of indefinite commitment, though this semantical trait is not obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Е.g. one can dodge obligations with phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***посмотрим***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***подумаю***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***[смотря] по обстоятельствам***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***как пойдёт***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***как фишка / карта ляжет***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***как звёзды сложатся***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any future forms with ***по-*** can be rendered as a future of uncertain modality (indefinite commitment)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35231" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14492" RevisionGUID="7054caf4-a514-4475-9feb-4b2525b635f1" CreationDate="2017-05-25T12:13:00.710" Comment="Proposed by 7239 approved by 1262 edit id of 869" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14505" RevisionGUID="c7bb80c2-e516-463d-978a-9e6ca6ab5722" CreationDate="2017-05-25T14:00:26.013" UserId="1262" Text="In addition to the nuances listed above, the difference is, roughly, that ***двигается*** means 'to move at one's own position or place' and ***движется*** means 'to move as related to some other position or place'. See the above examples with ***медведь*** and also cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дело двигается с мёртвой точки.*** = emphasis on beginning of the action, the situation and its change;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дело движется с мёртвой точки.*** = emphasis on targeted goal of the action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14506" RevisionGUID="ebb0c91b-639a-4880-9546-fc1ff562b035" CreationDate="2017-05-25T14:07:04.340" UserId="1262" Text="The trick is that Russian perfective conveys much more aspects than just perfectiveness/imperfectiveness, and therefore, as opposed to Germanic languages,  multiple versions of perfective prefixes are possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, the closest substitute for Germanic / Occidental perfectives would be ***вы-*** (or ***до-***) for the verb in its transitional and ***по-*** (as a perfective prefix 'by default') in its intransitional sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Она выкурила сигарету / папиросу / самокрутку / цигарку / сигару / трубку / кальян / косяк.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он покурил.***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14503" RevisionGUID="67ee66b4-0298-4bf1-9366-6b9d7fea77bc" CreationDate="2017-05-25T14:45:09.553" UserId="4903" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="Indeed both words ***двигается*** and ***движется*** have the same meaning - &quot;to move&quot;. Here is a rule of thumb that works 90% of the time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATED:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you speak of body movement, or movement of body parts, you can use either form, but they may differ in meaning. **Двигается** focuses on movement of body limbs. **Движется** focuses on movement in space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Танцор двигается. / Танцор движется. *The dancer moves.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хищник двигается бесшумно. / Хищник движется по лесу. *A predator moves silently. / A predator moves through the woods*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you speak of inanimate objects, use the form **движется**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поезд движется к станции. *A train runs towards station.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Машины движутся по шоссе.  *Cars are running on a highway.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14503" RevisionGUID="18129863-8b85-4903-b654-b7511408908d" CreationDate="2017-05-25T14:50:15.790" UserId="4903" Comment="added 163 characters in body; added 5 characters in body" Text="Indeed both words ***двигается*** and ***движется*** have the same meaning - &quot;to move&quot;. Here is a rule of thumb that works 90% of the time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATED:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If you speak of body movement, or movement of body parts, you can use either form. However, they may differ in meaning. **Двигается** focuses on movement of body limbs. **Движется** focuses on movement in space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Танцор двигается как робот. / Танцор движется по площадке. *A dancer moves as a robot. / A dancer moves on podium.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хищник бесшумно двигается. / Хищник движется по лесу. *A predator moves silently. / A predator moves through the woods*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you speak of inanimate objects, use the form **движется**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поезд движется к станции. *A train runs towards station.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Машины движутся по шоссе.  *Cars are running on a highway.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35241" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14481" RevisionGUID="609e9ef9-a26f-4113-877c-1b81190a6e9c" CreationDate="2017-05-25T22:44:59.527" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/867874162550988800" />
  <row Id="35242" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14476" RevisionGUID="2f012349-c83a-45c5-8629-f13e49eba8ca" CreationDate="2017-05-26T04:47:29.137" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/867965387182227456" />
  <row Id="35243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14507" RevisionGUID="043f315d-3b9d-41fe-bba9-d58e375d2bbf" CreationDate="2017-05-26T10:59:14.837" UserId="6539" Text="I think every verb with a prefix mentioned above has its own pair &quot;perfective -imperfective&quot; and that's the main drawback.  Consider the pairs : выкурить – выкуривать, закурить – закуривать, прикурить – прикуривать, покурить – покуривать, докурить– докуривать, etc. &#xD;&#xA;So what about курить? It doesn't have a prefix. It is imperfective. If we are looking for a perfective form,  there shouldn't be any prefix either. That would be logical. The pair is the following &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Курить – курнуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;― Вовк. Дай курнуть! (И что за удовольствие ловить на мушку?) [Владимир Маканин. Кавказский пленный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бормотание прекратилось, потом Великий закряхтел, распрямляясь (к дождю у него по-прежнему ломило поясницу), и шагнул к нам. ― Табачку курнуть, ― сказал он. ― Ох, и препроклятое это дело… прав был батюшка, когда на улицах курить не велел… себе вред, иным соблазн… [Андрей Лазарчук, Михаил Успенский. Посмотри в глаза чудовищ (1996)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Клубится ленивый дымок. Прохор вышел на воздух курнуть. Звездный свет закрыт тучами. [В. Я. Шишков. Угрюм-река. Ч. 5-8 (1913-1932)]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8523" RevisionGUID="277331d2-ea47-4298-9556-005baf3a7a53" CreationDate="2017-05-26T13:47:35.410" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/868101309131608064" />
  <row Id="35245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="064ed0bf-477c-4952-b01e-80a497fba2b7" CreationDate="2017-05-26T13:48:55.837" UserId="4753" Comment="refined wording" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как вы относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Parties in Courtship and Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жених***--a suitor, an betrothed man, a bridegroom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***невеста***--a betrothed woman, a bride&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруг***--a spouse (male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруга***--a spouse (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***спутник жизни***--a spouse of either sex; literally a life companion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гражданский брак***--strictly speaking: a marriage entered into in a civil ceremony; informally: living together without marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking (take care since this can also refer to procuring of prostitutes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руки и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="5d22e1d2-6eda-437a-9835-46c6d8bcae83" CreationDate="2017-05-26T13:58:18.823" UserId="4753" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как вы относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Parties in Courtship and Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жених***--a suitor, an betrothed man, a bridegroom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***невеста***--a betrothed woman, a bride&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруг***--a spouse (male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруга***--a spouse (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***спутник жизни***--a spouse of either sex; literally a life companion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гражданский брак***--strictly speaking: a marriage entered into in a civil ceremony; informally: living together without marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking (take care since this can also refer to procuring of prostitutes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руку и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложение руки и сердце***---the offer of heard and hand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35248" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14498" RevisionGUID="388ddd2d-7a49-409b-b79f-2fd362fe878c" CreationDate="2017-05-26T22:47:42.367" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/868237233878429697" />
  <row Id="35250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="b04ba945-605e-41e8-9954-f4457c82922f" CreationDate="2017-05-27T11:17:19.363" UserId="7239" Text="As far as I can tell `добраться` means &quot;to get to (somewhere/place)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, since it's a reflexive verb, in order to take an additional &quot;object&quot;, it needs to have a preposition following it. (Unless one has a special-purpose adverb, as in the case of `добраться домой`). It is unclear to me which preposition is better used here, `к` or `до`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, `добраться к` and `добраться до` both seem to be synonymous to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Question:** Which is better to use: `добраться к` or `добраться до`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of whether to use `к` or `до` does not seem to depend on the type of destination. I have seen both `добраться к нам` and `добраться до нас` to mean &quot;to reach us/arrive at where we are&quot;, i.e. for arriving at a place defined by some person/people's presence there. I have also seen both used for arriving at a place defined intrinsically, i.e. by name but not by a person's presence or absence there, e.g. `добраться к аэропорту` and `добраться до аэропорта`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Compare: `Она ходила к нам, поэтому она была у нас` and `Она ходила в аэропорт, поэтому она была в аэропорту` -- the different types of locations demand different prepositions.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `добраться` is new to me, and I don't think it is as likely that I will use it correctly in the future if I don't learn it with a corresponding preposition. But I am not sure which phrase would be better to put on my flash cards: `добраться к` or `добраться до`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="b04ba945-605e-41e8-9954-f4457c82922f" CreationDate="2017-05-27T11:17:19.363" UserId="7239" Text="Which is better to use: &quot;добраться к&quot; or &quot;добраться до&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="b04ba945-605e-41e8-9954-f4457c82922f" CreationDate="2017-05-27T11:17:19.363" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|предлоги|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14509" RevisionGUID="fda152c3-f5e5-4814-83d0-84fbae5cdd76" CreationDate="2017-05-27T13:22:50.610" UserId="194" Text="Двигается has wider meaning. It may mean moving one's limbs or jerk while движется means moving in direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Танк двигается means the tank is moving its turret or somehow other way showing motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Танк движется means the tank in driving." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="477346be-1757-4a16-938d-a32a93f6a1ad" CreationDate="2017-05-27T14:24:06.310" UserId="6350" Comment="capitalization" Text="I traveled to Kyiv and Berdichev many years ago, and couldn't understand anything when listening to Ukrainians talking to each other. I couldn't even pick the subjects of their conversations. Though when they spoke to me, I could understand quite a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had somewhat similar experience when listening to Scottish people, but could understand much more, and at least would get what they're talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think that Ukrainian is more different than Russian, compared to Scottish vs English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35257" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="477346be-1757-4a16-938d-a32a93f6a1ad" CreationDate="2017-05-27T14:24:06.310" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680, 4714 edit id of 872" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="b3c9471e-0054-4846-98ae-f95c3af2d353" CreationDate="2017-05-27T14:24:22.040" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="My Russian friend is teasing with his name. He says friends call him Danila, but it is not his real name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He told me to substitute one letter in the name Danila to get it right, but I have no idea how and which.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to Google similar names, but I didn't find it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me to find which letter do I substitute to find a valid male Russian name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35259" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13991" RevisionGUID="b3c9471e-0054-4846-98ae-f95c3af2d353" CreationDate="2017-05-27T14:24:22.040" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680, 4714 edit id of 870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="6a9f429b-0dbd-4b74-a8c7-4d5f5a0c84e8" CreationDate="2017-05-27T14:24:27.380" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections, formatting" Text="I noticed an acceptable alternative of the first person singular verb ending.&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. this is just an abbreviation or changes the meaning&#xD;&#xA;2. is associated to aspect, &#xD;&#xA;3. is associated to verbs of motion,&#xD;&#xA;4. has analogues in other persons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я бегу  - я бегаю" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="6a9f429b-0dbd-4b74-a8c7-4d5f5a0c84e8" CreationDate="2017-05-27T14:24:27.380" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680, 4714 edit id of 871" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14508" RevisionGUID="8f48f76b-d2bd-4c7b-b954-011adb563226" CreationDate="2017-05-27T19:50:39.160" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/868555064767635456" />
  <row Id="35263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14510" RevisionGUID="500dd615-b7cc-404a-a12d-0e231c0f6360" CreationDate="2017-05-27T22:19:58.260" UserId="2104" Text="The exact semantic difference eludes me but one thing is for sure: **добраться до** is 30 times as frequent as **добраться к** according to [ruscorpora.ru][1]. So use **до** and you'll be right 30:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ruscorpora.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35264" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="58baf855-9aa3-47c4-9f3c-d5dcb206e156" CreationDate="2017-05-28T04:52:53.953" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/868691525810749440" />
  <row Id="35266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14511" RevisionGUID="b9be0abc-1622-4a44-a531-28f3f0f4d7a2" CreationDate="2017-05-28T09:14:53.477" UserId="1262" Text="By default and when required, a verb with a prefix is used in a same-topic utterance with an existing modern preposition similar to a prefix (unless semantics and/or usage require it to be otherwise). Not sure if with works with inanimate complements only or otherwise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Зайти за деньгами.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Набрести на клад.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Довести до ума.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With your examples, both options are correct, but there are some different nuances of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***к нам*** means spatially a location 'where we are' in a sense similar to the French *'chez nous'* (a place where we abide and which is ours);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***до нас*** means spatially a location 'where we are' in a sense 'a place where we are located now and which is not ours'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference seems to work with animate compliments only. E. g. one cannot say about inanimate complements * ***'дойти к двери'*** or * '***дойти к городу***' (but the rare or ipossible usage of can also be explained by the aforementioned nuances as well). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14512" RevisionGUID="8e3bcbb3-d8a5-4c2e-b0c4-05784fa66dd5" CreationDate="2017-05-28T09:41:44.523" UserId="7239" Text="[Foreign learners are often taught that Russian verbs always come in aspectual pairs][1], with the perfective verb formed from the imperfective verb either by changing the stem or adding a prefix. The two verbs are supposed to be synonymous in every way, except that one is perfective and the other is imperfective. If the perfective verb is formed from the imperfective verb by adding a prefix, the fact that the two are synonymous means that the prefix must be &quot;semantically empty&quot;, i.e. have no meaning or effect on the meaning of the word, and just denote that the verb is perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Do such verbs actually exist? In other words, are there perfective verbs formed by adding a prefix to an imperfective verb, for which the prefix *does not mean anything*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example that is commonly given is писать and написать. However, some authors argue that even in these cases the prefix isn't actually semantically neutral, but that it &quot;overlaps&quot; with the meaning of the original imperfective verb in such a way that it de facto doesn't affect the meaning. A monograph detailing this hypothesis can be found [here][2] or [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So ideally an answer to this question would in part address the answerer's opinion about the validity of the &quot;overlap hypothesis&quot;. I.e. whether it makes more sense as a learner to focus on &quot;aspectual pairs&quot; as opposed to more general &quot;aspectual clusters&quot; (for which there might not be a one-to-one correspondence between imperfective and perfective verbs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** (totally unnecessary to read, unless you're really curious)  &#xD;&#xA;Thinking about this question was motivated by [this answer][4] to another question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That answer mentions biaspectual verbs, which challenge to some extent the idea of Russian verbs as always belong to aspectual pairs. On the other hand, most research shows that the majority of biaspectual verbs are foreign borrowings, so the argument could be made that most simply have not been present in the language long enough to develop full aspectual characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what seems to me even more problematic to the aspectual partner model are imperfective verbs which don't have a single &quot;all-encompassing&quot; perfective partner. Instead there exist multiple perfective versions, each formed by adding a different prefix, and with a different meaning. I have asked at least two questions already on this site about these verbs, [here][5] (курить) and [here][6] (смеяться), which also motivates in large part this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such verbs can be interpreted somewhat so as to rectify the aspectual partner model, namely by interpreting the imperfective verb as actually being biaspectual, and forming imperfectivizations from each of its various hyponymous perfectivizations, and interpreting each resulting imperfective/perfective pair as a derived aspectual pairs. However, as with the examples of посмеиваться and засмеиваться, this interpretation seems somewhat forced, since the imperfectivizations are often rarely to never used or don't have the same original meaning as the perfective verbs they were supposed to be derived from. See also [this question][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linguist Janda writes, for example [here][8], that Russian verbs are more naturally interpreted as belonging to &quot;aspectual clusters&quot; than &quot;aspectual partnerships&quot;, in contradiction to the grammar usually taught to foreign learners. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest seeming counterexample to such an idea are those imperfective verbs who, unlike the examples of курить and смеяться mentioned above, form perfective verbs using so-called &quot;empty prefixes&quot;, i.e. prefixes devoid of any semantic content, but just signal that the verb is to have the perfective aspect instead of the imperfective aspect. For example, писать and написать. Such examples seem to also be the greatest motivation behind the &quot;aspectual pair&quot; model usually taught to foreign learners, since the model works most neatly and cleanly for such verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to explain this, Janda and others have advanced the &quot;overlap hypothesis&quot;, which claims that most, if not all, of so-called &quot;empty prefixes&quot; for perfectivizing verbs actually *do* have semantic content -- it is just that the semantic content of the prefix &quot;overlaps&quot; with the meaning of the original imperfective verb in such a way that it does not restrict the meaning of the resulting perfective verb, i.e. leads to a synonymous rather than hyponymous verb, despite _not_ being semantically void/empty. They have written about this in a monograph explained in detail [here][9], with some explanation of the methodology found [here][10]. Other sources explaining the hypothesis: [(1)][11][(2)][12][(3)][13].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More related questions: [(1)][14][(2)][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/pedagogical_eng.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/linguistics/Why_Russian_Aspectual_Prefixes_Aren%27t_Empty&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/25198&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14400/7239&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14498/what-is-the-correct-perfective-partner-for-%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14316/what-is-the-difference-between-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-and-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9367/old-dead-or-nonexistent-imperfectives-of-some-verbs&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gi43csLZWoEJ:www.unc.edu/~lajanda/divjakvolume.doc%20&amp;cd=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/book.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/methodology_eng.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/5581/article.pdf?sequence=3&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00806765.2012.740247?journalCode=ssla20&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33418512_The_semantics_of_the_so-called_empty_prefix_vy-_in_natural_perfective_verbs_in_the_Russian_language&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2159/do-russian-prefixes-embody-event-structures&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11745/the-concept-behind-prefixes-verbs-in-the-russian-language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14512" RevisionGUID="8e3bcbb3-d8a5-4c2e-b0c4-05784fa66dd5" CreationDate="2017-05-28T09:41:44.523" UserId="7239" Text="Are there truly &quot;empty&quot; perfectivizing prefixes in Russian? (aspectual clusters versus aspectual pairs)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14512" RevisionGUID="8e3bcbb3-d8a5-4c2e-b0c4-05784fa66dd5" CreationDate="2017-05-28T09:41:44.523" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы|вид|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="9a098f8d-a0a4-4ef2-8eae-0908add4a8b2" CreationDate="2017-05-28T11:32:12.687" UserId="7402" Text="If I am бел**ый** человек and my wife is бел**ая** and наше молоко бел**ое**...  This much I think I understand quite well!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with гатов I am mystefied. Я гатов and my wife, гатова and the milk, not гатов**ое** but merely гатов**о**.  She says гатов is not an adjective but something else... so can someone kindly explain to me what part of speech &quot;гатов&quot; is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="9a098f8d-a0a4-4ef2-8eae-0908add4a8b2" CreationDate="2017-05-28T11:32:12.687" UserId="7402" Text="Help me understand why Молоко гатово and not Молоко гатовое" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="9a098f8d-a0a4-4ef2-8eae-0908add4a8b2" CreationDate="2017-05-28T11:32:12.687" UserId="7402" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14514" RevisionGUID="2973a44e-72a2-4ae6-9efa-50fe173ed683" CreationDate="2017-05-28T12:51:58.667" UserId="2104" Text="**Гото́в, гото́ва, гото́во, гото́вы** are short forms of the adjective **гото́вый**. Short forms are used mainly as the predicate in a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Снег бел. - The snow is white. (бе́лый)&#xD;&#xA; - Ты уве́рен? - Are you sure? (уве́ренный)&#xD;&#xA; - Ты прав. - You are right. (пра́вый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adjectives are only used in their short forms: **рад** (glad), **до́лжен** (must)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14515" RevisionGUID="613ff2af-e028-4618-af14-9ba4306edad6" CreationDate="2017-05-28T12:57:21.820" UserId="6539" Text="Готов / готова/готово/ готовы are short forms of adjectives (готовый, -ая, -ое, -ые). Full forms are used attributively, describing a noun. Short forms are used predicatively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;готовое платье (a ready-made dress), платье готово (the dress is ready)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14511" RevisionGUID="1c87432d-be75-4a15-a242-039f33e2a94b" CreationDate="2017-05-28T13:07:44.563" UserId="1262" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="By default and when required, a verb with a prefix is used in a same-topic utterance with an existing modern preposition similar to a prefix (unless semantics and/or usage require it to be otherwise). Not sure if with works with inanimate complements only or otherwise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Зайти за деньгами.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Набрести на клад.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Довести до ума.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With your examples, both options are correct, but there are some different nuances of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***к нам*** means spatially a location 'where we are' in a sense similar to the French *'chez nous'* (a place where we abide and which is ours);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***до нас*** means spatially a location 'where we are' in a sense 'a place where we are located now and which is not ours'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference seems to work with animate compliments only. E. g. one cannot say about inanimate complements * ***'дойти к двери'*** or * '***дойти к городу***' (but the rare or possible usage of ***дойти + к*** can also be explained by the aforementioned nuances as well). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14516" RevisionGUID="0172f5c8-7e2e-4aa7-8ea6-6db91e9a1adc" CreationDate="2017-05-28T13:26:21.593" UserId="1262" Text="Well, they are never ***гатовы*** (unless you use Belorussian) but rather ***готовы***. Semantically, this form is a cross-breed between an adjective and a participle. Some centuries ago all adjectives used to have both shortened and elongated forms, now this system is less regular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can face the same difference with ***нужен, должен, уверен, рад, прав,*** etc. They are not exactly participles nor adjectives, but a cross-breed of a kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shortened forms (in Neutrum) are used in a one-word sentence, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Можно?*** = Can [I]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нужно?*** = [Is it] necessary? [Does [someone / the speaker / the addressee]] have to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Готово!*** = [It's] ready! Done!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between ***готово*** and ***готовое*** is that the shortened form used as a kind of perfective (a completed action and/or quality related to a moment of speech), whilest an elongated form refers to an abstract quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35277" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14512" RevisionGUID="b95697b3-34cf-430a-8393-c9b86855c2ef" CreationDate="2017-05-28T14:00:50.413" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/868829419527434240" />
  <row Id="35278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="49100963-5b51-435d-aa83-fea2d37c7800" CreationDate="2017-05-28T14:25:50.600" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="If I am бел**ый** человек and my wife is бел**ая** and наше молоко бел**ое**...  This much I think I understand quite well!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with готов I am mystified. Я готов and my wife, готова and the milk, not готов**ое** but merely готов**о**.  She says готов is not an adjective but something else... so can someone kindly explain to me what part of speech &quot;готов&quot; is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35279" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="49100963-5b51-435d-aa83-fea2d37c7800" CreationDate="2017-05-28T14:25:50.600" UserId="5008" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Help me understand why Молоко готово and not Молоко готовое" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14517" RevisionGUID="ef8dc0e2-cc3a-483f-8c7f-e68e14a7b1e6" CreationDate="2017-05-28T15:16:32.203" UserId="5008" Text="Well, first of all, there is a bunch of dual-aspect verbs, i.e. perfective and imperfective at the same time. See, for example, [wiktionary:Двувидовые глаголы](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%94%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B). They are prefixless, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, there are some perfective verbs which do not add anything to the meaning of its imperfective pair, except the completeness of the action. The most obvious example, in my opinion, is _делать_ - _сделать_ (and, yes, _с_ is a prefix here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the existence (or non-existence) of such &quot;neutral&quot; verb doesn't change anything about the ability to produce &quot;specialized&quot; perfective versions. Say, _поделать_ and _заделать_ are nothing worse than _покурить_ and _закурить_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer is yes, if we really need an &quot;empty&quot; perfective verb then some of its prefixed form may take such part as well. But &quot;an aspectual cluster&quot;, or whatever you may call it, still exists, while &quot;an aspectual pair&quot;, in my opinion, might only be a special case of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In order to explain this, Janda and others have advanced the &quot;overlap hypothesis&quot;, which claims that most, if not all, of so-called &quot;empty prefixes&quot; for perfectivizing verbs actually do have semantic content&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that seems reasonable, as an &quot;empty&quot; prefix may also be &quot;non-empty&quot; when &quot;pasted&quot; to a different verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="4064b227-fc46-44b2-aa87-805d9f1784b7" CreationDate="2017-05-28T17:06:06.893" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/868876044996149248" />
  <row Id="35285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14519" RevisionGUID="dca4df3a-b102-4932-97d6-fc3a9d3e9766" CreationDate="2017-05-28T21:50:37.927" UserId="9051" Text="Болен can be used as a noun to mean illness. It's also used as a short-form adjective (Он болен. Она больна.) We would translate он заболел as he got sick." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14520" RevisionGUID="6525ba83-85d3-4029-84f4-6a356fdc5aea" CreationDate="2017-05-29T01:27:14.953" UserId="170" Text="Is there any rule in Russian on how to put stresses on last names in conjugation, precisely in Accusative? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the right way of saying: про Ш**а**рия or про Шари**я**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looked logical to me that since &quot;-я&quot; is merely an ending of Accusative and is not found in the base form (Nominative) &quot;Шарий&quot;, the stress should remain on the letter, which is not an ending; however, the owner of this last name has recently claimed that the right way is &quot;про Шари**я**&quot; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsSERuc_tnc&amp;t=118s), which surprised me quite a lot.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14520" RevisionGUID="6525ba83-85d3-4029-84f4-6a356fdc5aea" CreationDate="2017-05-29T01:27:14.953" UserId="170" Text="&quot;Про ШАрия&quot; or &quot;Про ШариЯ&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14520" RevisionGUID="6525ba83-85d3-4029-84f4-6a356fdc5aea" CreationDate="2017-05-29T01:27:14.953" UserId="170" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14520" RevisionGUID="4abce835-0cd7-4d95-90be-e2d9763eced1" CreationDate="2017-05-29T01:38:07.943" UserId="170" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="Is there any rule in Russian on how to put stresses on last names in conjugation, precisely in Accusative? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the right way of saying: про Ш**а**рия or про Шари**я**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looked logical to me that since &quot;-я&quot; is merely an ending of Accusative and is not found in the base form (Nominative) &quot;Шарий&quot;, the stress should remain on the letter, which is not an ending (&quot;Камар**о**в&quot; - &quot;про Камар**о**ва&quot;, &quot;Г**у**сев&quot; - &quot;про Г**у**сева&quot;, &quot;П**у**тин&quot; - &quot;про П**у**тина&quot;, &quot;Жегл**о**в&quot; - &quot;про Жегл**о**ва&quot;); however, the owner of this last name has recently claimed that the right way is &quot;про Шари**я**&quot; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsSERuc_tnc&amp;t=118s), which surprised me quite a lot.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="0b7c66ed-a567-4680-9ba8-29f6250eb86e" CreationDate="2017-05-29T05:56:03.440" UserId="1262" Text="Yes, a personal name retains the initial stress position. A stress position depends largely on a 'country of origin' of a personal name. The rule works also with loan words, e.g. a lot of personal Latin or latinized names retain their initial position of a stressed syllable, which, for most -***ий***-ending two-syllable words of anciet origin, is a first one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кáссий - о Кáссие***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Клáвдий - о Клáвдии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дáрий - о Дáрии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the surname ***[Шарий][1]*** is a Ukrainian one with a stressed ***и*** and is thus close to Russian adjectives of the types ***вторóй, малóй, литóй, святóй***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The shift from o to i seems to be typical archaic trait for Ukrainian as a proof for Balto-German-Slavic protounity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, an owner of a name should be given a priority in defining its stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form is therefore ***про ШарИя***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C.D1.8F_.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.BE.D1.84.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14522" RevisionGUID="d5a928e1-0075-4580-b1de-c1258f01aab1" CreationDate="2017-05-29T05:57:20.810" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, there are plenty of Russian names and common words where the stress shifts to the ending in Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Карамзи́н - Карамзина́&#xD;&#xA; - Лопухи́н - Лопухина́&#xD;&#xA; - стол - стола́&#xD;&#xA; - хвасту́н - хвастуна́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all words above have stress on the last syllable in Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the right way of saying: про Ш**а**рия or про Шари**я**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the guy prefers to be called Шар**и**й. In this case the rules of Russian stress do allow a shift to the ending. And yes, there are rules in the placement of Russian stress, it is not completely random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3ynNOoGiA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14522" RevisionGUID="3a6064e5-5d05-42bf-b40b-e367dbe2433b" CreationDate="2017-05-29T06:03:16.543" UserId="2104" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Yes, there are plenty of Russian names and common words where the stress shifts to the ending in Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Карамзи́н - Карамзина́&#xD;&#xA; - Лопухи́н - Лопухина́&#xD;&#xA; - Гришкове́ц - Гришковца́&#xD;&#xA; - молоде́ц - молодца́&#xD;&#xA; - стол - стола́&#xD;&#xA; - хвасту́н - хвастуна́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all words above have stress on the last syllable in Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the right way of saying: про Ш**а**рия or про Шари**я**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the guy prefers to be called Шар**и**й. In this case the rules of Russian stress do allow a shift to the ending. And yes, there are rules in the placement of Russian stress, it is not completely random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3ynNOoGiA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="9651078b-5e19-4cf2-855d-65df7b74f6aa" CreationDate="2017-05-29T06:18:16.240" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, a personal name retains the initial stress position. A stress position depends largely on a 'country of origin' of a personal name. The rule works also with loan words, e.g. a lot of personal Latin or latinized names retain their initial position of a stressed syllable, which, for most -***ий***-ending two-syllable words of anciet origin, is a first one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кáссий - о Кáссие***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Клáвдий - о Клáвдии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дáрий - о Дáрии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the surname ***[Шарий][1]*** is a Ukrainian one with a stressed ***и*** and is thus close to Russian adjectives of the types ***вторóй, малóй, литóй, святóй***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The shift from o to i seems to be typical archaic trait for Ukrainian as a proof for Balto-German-Slavic proto-unity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, an owner of a name should be given a priority in defining its stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form is therefore ***про ШарИя***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C.D1.8F_.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.BE.D1.84.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="4629d772-d3b9-40c3-a8e5-16cca2b25d20" CreationDate="2017-05-29T06:26:08.720" UserId="1262" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Yes, a personal name often retains its initial stress position. A stress position depends largely on a 'country of origin' of a personal name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule works also with loan words, e.g. a lot of personal Latin or latinized names retain their initial position of a stressed syllable, which, for most -***ий***-ending two-syllable words of anciet origin, is a first one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кáссий - о Кáссии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дáрий - о Дáрии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Клáвдий - о Клáвдии***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the surname ***[Шарий][1]*** is a Ukrainian one with a stressed ***и*** and is thus close to Russian adjectives of the types ***вторóй, малóй, литóй, святóй***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The shift from o to i seems to be typical archaic trait for Ukrainian as a proof for Balto-German-Slavic proto-unity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, an owner of a name should be given a priority in defining its stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form is therefore ***про ШарИя***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C.D1.8F_.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.BE.D1.84.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14523" RevisionGUID="c166824d-ba4f-4162-b208-f61aad63c000" CreationDate="2017-05-29T08:00:08.803" UserId="8034" Text="Complicated question. I read, that linguists even haven different opinion on whether it is correct to consider perfective and imperfective verbs as different forms of the same verb or as different verbs with some similar meaning...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think for beginner learners &quot;aspectual pairs&quot; are much more relevant. They need to understand situations in which they use this or that aspect, as well as to learn a big list of new words (perfectives). If you offer them &quot;clusters&quot; it will just make too much mess for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, for some verbs (from my point of view) there is sense to learn several (but not all) variants from the beginning (for example: говорить - поговорить/сказать), as they are quite common: Я поговорил с врачём. Он сказал, что теперь я здоров. Or &quot;я уже поел&quot; vs. &quot;я съел пиццу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, prefixes often have some meaning, but we often have other imperfective pairs for these ones.&#xD;&#xA;писать - на**писать**, приписывать - при**писать**, переписывать - пере**писать**, дописывать - до**писать**, выписывать - вы**писать**, вписывать - в**писать**, записывать - за**писать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clusters are good for advanced learners to better understand these different meanings, to make their speech richer. For beginners it will just be a shock, while in most situations they can express their idea with just писать or написать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35298" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14520" RevisionGUID="8c08b365-406e-44ea-aefc-c775f2017d35" CreationDate="2017-05-29T08:10:23.870" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Про Шария&quot; - где ставить ударение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35299" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="579c5a28-ba03-489a-acae-7139e3f50a4a" CreationDate="2017-05-29T08:10:45.697" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Help me understand why &quot;молоко&quot; готово and not &quot;молоко готовое&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14521" RevisionGUID="f48a58f7-1cbc-42f7-a73a-ce5f20c38000" CreationDate="2017-05-29T09:37:19.110" UserId="1262" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Yes, a personal name often retains its initial stress position. A stress position depends largely on a 'country of origin' of a personal name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule works also with loan words, e.g. a lot of personal Latin or latinized names retain their initial position of a stressed syllable, which, for most -***ий***-ending two-syllable words of anciet origin, is a first one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Кáссий - о Кáссии / про Кáссия***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дáрий - о Дáрии / про Дáрия***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Клáвдий - о Клáвдии / про Клáвдия***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the surname ***[Шарий][1]*** is a Ukrainian one with a stressed ***и*** and is thus close to Russian adjectives of the types ***вторóй, малóй, литóй, святóй***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The shift from o to i seems to be typical archaic trait for Ukrainian as a proof for Balto-German-Slavic proto-unity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, an owner of a name should be given a priority in defining its stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form is therefore ***про ШарИя***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C.D1.8F_.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.BE.D1.84.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35301" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14520" RevisionGUID="38e65353-b3e4-4a8e-b6d9-e57595f52691" CreationDate="2017-05-29T17:06:12.960" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/869238458509926402" />
  <row Id="35302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14524" RevisionGUID="6f3bed74-569e-4cf3-bf2f-5c7362f177b8" CreationDate="2017-05-29T17:07:46.413" UserId="9054" Text="I used to speak with a Russian speaker and she used to repeat something 3 times after she said something bad, it sounded like &quot;steraï steraï steraï&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;If you see what I'm talking about, can you help me writing it in Russian ? Thanks a lot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14524" RevisionGUID="6f3bed74-569e-4cf3-bf2f-5c7362f177b8" CreationDate="2017-05-29T17:07:46.413" UserId="9054" Text="Expression that means sorry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14524" RevisionGUID="6f3bed74-569e-4cf3-bf2f-5c7362f177b8" CreationDate="2017-05-29T17:07:46.413" UserId="9054" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14522" RevisionGUID="df7d7fb8-29c5-420d-baf3-4f920e8e832d" CreationDate="2017-05-29T20:18:22.123" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="Yes, there are plenty of Russian names and common words where the stress shifts to the ending in Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Карамзи́н - Карамзина́&#xD;&#xA; - Лопухи́н - Лопухина́&#xD;&#xA; - Гришкове́ц - Гришковца́&#xD;&#xA; - молоде́ц - молодца́&#xD;&#xA; - хвасту́н - хвастуна́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all words above have stress on the last syllable in Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the right way of saying: про Ш**а**рия or про Шари**я**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the guy prefers to be called Шар**и**й. In this case the rules of Russian stress do allow a shift to the ending. And yes, there are rules in the placement of Russian stress, it is not completely random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3ynNOoGiA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14522" RevisionGUID="b7af749f-9f4f-4252-8337-ea95219ee13b" CreationDate="2017-05-29T21:57:18.547" UserId="2104" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="Yes, there are plenty of Russian names and common words where the stress shifts to the ending in Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Карамзи́н – Карамзина́&#xD;&#xA; - Зализня́к – Зализняка́&#xD;&#xA; - Гришкове́ц – Гришковца́ (with the fleeting vowel _-e-_ dropped)&#xD;&#xA; - кузне́ц – кузнеца́ ('blacksmith')&#xD;&#xA; - врач – врача́ ('doctor')&#xD;&#xA; - бегу́н – бегуна́ ('runner')&#xD;&#xA; - коро́ль – короля́ ('king')&#xD;&#xA; - кома́р – комара́ ('mosquito')&#xD;&#xA; - лев – льва́ ('lion', with the fleeting _-е-_ dropped and _-ь-_ inserted)&#xD;&#xA; - орёл – орла́ ('eagle', with the fleeting _-ё-_ dropped)&#xD;&#xA; - Христо́с – Христа́ (with _-ос_ dropped which is a feature unique to this word).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all words above have stress on the last syllable in Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What's the right way of saying: про Ш**а**рия or про Шари**я**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, the guy prefers to be called Шар**и**й. In this case the rules of Russian stress do allow a shift to the ending (буга́й - бугая́). And yes, there are rules in the placement of Russian stress, it is not completely random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3ynNOoGiA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14523" RevisionGUID="a0804912-38f2-46e3-bd73-c3ee313951fc" CreationDate="2017-05-30T08:26:54.840" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Complicated question. I read, that linguists even haven different opinion on whether it is correct to consider perfective and imperfective verbs as different forms of the same verb or as different verbs with some similar meaning...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think for beginner learners &quot;aspectual pairs&quot; are much more relevant. They need to understand situations in which they use this or that aspect, as well as to learn a big list of new words (perfectives). If you offer them &quot;clusters&quot; it will just make too much mess for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, for some verbs (from my point of view) there is sense to learn several (but not all) variants from the beginning (for example: говорить - поговорить/сказать), as they are quite common: Я поговорил с врачом. Он сказал, что теперь я здоров. Or &quot;я уже поел&quot; vs. &quot;я съел пиццу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, prefixes often have some meaning, but we often have other imperfective pairs for these ones.&#xD;&#xA;писать - на**писать**, приписывать - при**писать**, переписывать - пере**писать**, дописывать - до**писать**, выписывать - вы**писать**, вписывать - в**писать**, записывать - за**писать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clusters are good for advanced learners to better understand these different meanings, to make their speech richer. For beginners it will just be a shock, while in most situations they can express their idea with just писать or написать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14525" RevisionGUID="1f15b699-df41-4016-acc7-b965f619223c" CreationDate="2017-05-30T11:07:12.127" UserId="8895" Text="It could be the superstitional &quot;тьфу-тьфу-тьфу&quot;, or even &quot;чур-чур-чур&quot; as in &quot;чур меня&quot;, both often accompanied by spitting over one's left shoulder. The first option is more common to encounter, while the second one matches the pronunciation better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14525" RevisionGUID="2d1de654-33a8-4f5c-a552-71e82700d1ee" CreationDate="2017-05-30T11:15:52.117" UserId="8895" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="It could be the superstitional &quot;тьфу-тьфу-тьфу&quot;, or even &quot;чур-чур-чур&quot; as in &quot;чур меня&quot;, both often accompanied by spitting over one's left shoulder. The first option is more common to encounter, while the second one matches the pronunciation better, but, nevertheless, both have been traditionally aimed at protecting the speaker against unholy forces." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14526" RevisionGUID="0d6cbb09-4484-4ec1-9b61-94b774e2707b" CreationDate="2017-05-30T11:33:51.553" UserId="5443" Text="A hypothesis: it could be **про**(**сти**, про)(**сти**, **про**)сти (forgive, forgive, forgive), where the unstressed **о** sounds like **a**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14513" RevisionGUID="cc01d14f-1f22-4dce-a3df-dea0d682bf9f" CreationDate="2017-05-30T11:42:23.280" UserId="7402" Comment="refined the quotes" Text="Help me understand why &quot;молоко готово&quot; and not &quot;молоко готовое&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14516" RevisionGUID="d44b8c80-2357-46a4-8a38-e81a2a4c813e" CreationDate="2017-05-30T12:09:35.607" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="Semantically, this form is a cross-breed between an adjective and a participle. Some centuries ago all adjectives used to have both shortened and elongated forms, now this system is less regular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can face the same difference with ***нужен, должен, уверен, рад, прав,*** etc. They are not exactly participles nor adjectives, but a cross-breed of a kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shortened forms (in Neutrum) are used in a one-word sentence, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Можно?*** = Can [I]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нужно?*** = [Is it] necessary? [Does [someone / the speaker / the addressee]] have to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Готово!*** = [It's] ready! Done!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between ***готово*** and ***готовое*** is that the shortened form used as a kind of perfective (a completed action and/or quality related to a moment of speech), whilest an elongated form refers to an abstract quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="dfd474a7-950a-41e0-94fa-4c8fdbc8e0da" CreationDate="2017-05-30T12:48:54.460" UserId="7945" Text="There is a slang English phrase &quot;young blood&quot; which can be used in place of &quot;you&quot;.  When a person speaks to someone who is significantly younger, and wants to indicate that something this younger person did or is in the act of doing is immature and nonsensical, they can address the younger person as &quot;young blood&quot;.  Typically this phrase implies that the two people don't know each other intimately, like a parent and their child.  Watch up to 3:06 of &quot;Uncle Drew: Part 1&quot; on youtube for example use cases of &quot;young blood&quot;.  How would you say &quot;young blood&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="dfd474a7-950a-41e0-94fa-4c8fdbc8e0da" CreationDate="2017-05-30T12:48:54.460" UserId="7945" Text="как сказать &quot;young blood&quot; на русском" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="dfd474a7-950a-41e0-94fa-4c8fdbc8e0da" CreationDate="2017-05-30T12:48:54.460" UserId="7945" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14528" RevisionGUID="64cb77c2-a530-40a1-8c98-9b483f854d54" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:22:19.287" UserId="242" Text="It depends on level on the level how harsh ones want to side. If the intention is just to indicate that somebody is too young and incompetent but by no means to offend, then `молодо-зелено` will be the best choice, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодо-зелено, ты бы научился сначала токарным станком пользоваться а потом уж лез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If speaker doesn't care too much about being offensive, `щенок` (pl. щенки) or `молокосос` (pl. молокососы) can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's (quite rude) [phrase][1] `молоко на губах не обсохло`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in you case I'd rather go with, `молодёжь` like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодёжь, ну что, сразимся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used exactly when you are slightly ironical but actually friendly.&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes it's stressed differently - `мóлодежь` just to sound bit more ironical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="e9b90cdb-ee0f-4e9f-bf4c-3c24aa429495" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:22:43.240" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35318" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="e9b90cdb-ee0f-4e9f-bf4c-3c24aa429495" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:22:43.240" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="Как сказать &quot;young blood&quot; по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14528" RevisionGUID="ed05d8e8-936f-4b6b-bc1b-abae6bb4ebc3" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:27:47.573" UserId="242" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="It depends on level on the level how harsh ones want to side. If the intention is just to indicate that somebody is too young and incompetent but by no means to offend, then `молодо-зелено` will be the best choice, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодо-зелено, ты бы научился сначала токарным станком пользоваться а потом уж лез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If speaker doesn't care too much about being offensive, `щенок` (pl. щенки, literally, a puppy) or [`молокосос`][1] (pl. молокососы, literally, a milk-sucker) can be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's (quite rude) [phrase][2] `молоко на губах не обсохло`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in you case I'd rather go with, `молодёжь` like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодёжь, ну что, сразимся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used exactly when you are slightly ironical but actually friendly.&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes it's stressed differently - `мóлодежь` just to sound bit more ironical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing for sure - you should never ever try to translated it literally, since &quot;молодая кровь&quot; (or &quot;свежая кровь&quot;) in Russian means something almost exactly different. It's about some fresh power, some younger and healthier forces that community needs to continue to evolve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14528" RevisionGUID="0ed439f2-adb6-4cb3-a3e6-8370a4d23265" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:33:48.527" UserId="242" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="It depends on the level of how harsh ones want to side. If the intention is just to indicate that somebody is too young and incompetent but by no means to offend, then `молодо-зелено` will be the best choice, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодо-зелено, ты бы научился сначала токарным станком пользоваться а потом уж лез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If speaker doesn't care too much about being offensive, `щенок` (pl. щенки; literally, a puppy), [`молокосос`][1] (pl. молокососы, literally; a milk-sucker) or [`сопляк`][2] can be used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's (quite rude) [phrase][3] `молоко на губах не обсохло`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in you case I'd rather go with `молодёжь`, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодёжь, ну что, сразимся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used exactly when you are slightly ironical but actually friendly.&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes it's stressed differently - `мóлодежь` just to sound bit more ironical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing for sure - you should never ever try to translated it literally, since &quot;молодая кровь&quot; (or &quot;свежая кровь&quot;) in Russian means something almost exactly different. It's about some fresh power, some younger and healthier forces that community needs to continue to evolve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35321" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14524" RevisionGUID="1b9e2cb5-0f0b-4b48-aa01-6dee0f442765" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:09:43.950" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/869556432689143808" />
  <row Id="35322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="26dcedfe-16d7-4d14-b478-fc9e08e5ae3f" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:11:59.253" UserId="9058" Text="I'd hope to add a &quot;thumb rule&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a meme pattern there, &quot;Long cat is long&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=longcat&#xD;&#xA;How should we tell it in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct translation would be &quot;Длинный кот - длинный&quot;, (with dash substituting for omitted есть/is verb) but that is quite unnatural, spelling that makes me stress my tongue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we can repeat ourselves, switching to complex sentences: &quot; Длинный кот, он - длинный&quot; ~ &quot;(speaking of a) Long cat, it is long&quot;. Which is more verbose but in my opinion is easier to let out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically this is translated as &quot;Длинный кот - такой длинный&quot; aka &quot;Long cat is so long&quot;, but that conveys a significantly different mood, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to my opinion, the most easy to say and most faithful to the language way would be using short adjectives: &quot;Длинный кот длиннен&quot; with the last word fusing two words &quot;is long&quot; in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another domain: obsolete language idioms, stemming from Middle Ages folklore. Example a semi-rhymed puzzle: &quot;Красна девица // сидит в темнице, // а коса - на улице&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example the old idiom &quot;красна девица&quot; is naturally spelled with short adjective. Full adjective and modern word - &quot;красная девушка&quot; - can potentially confuse your listeners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На миру и смерть красна&quot; is another example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14529" RevisionGUID="e800ee78-45a3-4f7a-8adf-8704be664c51" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:17:00.123" UserId="9058" Comment="added 492 characters in body" Text="I'd hope to add a &quot;thumb rule&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a meme pattern there, &quot;Long cat is long&quot;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=longcat&#xD;&#xA;How should we tell it in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct translation would be &quot;Длинный кот - длинный&quot;, (with dash substituting for omitted есть/is verb) but that is quite unnatural, spelling that makes me stress my tongue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we can repeat ourselves, switching to complex sentences: &quot; Длинный кот, он - длинный&quot; ~ &quot;(speaking of a) Long cat, it is long&quot;. Which is more verbose but in my opinion is easier to let out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically this is translated as &quot;Длинный кот - такой длинный&quot; aka &quot;Long cat is so long&quot;, but that conveys a significantly different mood, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to my opinion, the most easy to say and most faithful to the language way would be using short adjectives: &quot;Длинный кот длиннен&quot; with the last word fusing two words &quot;is long&quot; in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also another domain: obsolete language idioms, stemming from Middle Ages folklore. Example a semi-rhymed puzzle: &quot;Красна девица // сидит в темнице, // а коса - на улице&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example the old idiom &quot;красна девица&quot; is naturally spelled with short adjective. Full adjective and modern word - &quot;красная девушка&quot; - can potentially confuse your listeners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На миру и смерть красна&quot; is another example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiki says old Slavic language only had short adjectives, and the full adjectives were developed in Russian language later when it forked from Pra-Slavic family. Perhaps it is true, when I hear other Slavic languages (Serbian, Polish, etc) it seems ot me they exactly only use short adjectives :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14528" RevisionGUID="b4beae7e-5ea4-43d3-9ff4-d2b9800a4c20" CreationDate="2017-05-30T14:43:49.337" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It depends on the level of how harsh ones want to sound. If the intention is just to indicate that somebody is too young and incompetent but by no means to offend, then `молодо-зелено` will be the best choice, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодо-зелено, ты бы научился сначала токарным станком пользоваться а потом уж лез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If speaker doesn't care too much about being offensive, `щенок` (pl. щенки; literally, a puppy), [`молокосос`][1] (pl. молокососы, literally; a milk-sucker) or [`сопляк`][2] can be used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's (quite rude) [phrase][3] `молоко на губах не обсохло`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in you case I'd rather go with `молодёжь`, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодёжь, ну что, сразимся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used exactly when you are slightly ironical but actually friendly.&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes it's stressed differently - `мóлодежь` just to sound bit more ironical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing for sure - you should never ever try to translated it literally, since &quot;молодая кровь&quot; (or &quot;свежая кровь&quot;) in Russian means something almost exactly different. It's about some fresh power, some younger and healthier forces that community needs to continue to evolve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14528" RevisionGUID="6c9a5cdd-e675-43fb-8e01-abd2f8f7828c" CreationDate="2017-05-30T18:02:59.320" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It depends on the level of how harsh ones want to sound. If the intention is just to indicate that somebody is too young and incompetent but by no means to offend, then `молодо-зелено` will be the best choice, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодо-зелено, ты бы научился сначала токарным станком пользоваться, а потом уж лез. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If speaker doesn't care too much about being offensive, `щенок` (pl. щенки; literally, a puppy), [`молокосос`][1] (pl. молокососы, literally; a milk-sucker) or [`сопляк`][2] can be used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's (quite rude) [phrase][3] `молоко на губах не обсохло`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in you case I'd rather go with `молодёжь`, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эх, молодёжь, ну что, сразимся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is used exactly when you are slightly ironical but actually friendly.&#xD;&#xA;Also, sometimes it's stressed differently - `мóлодежь` just to sound bit more ironical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing for sure - you should never ever try to translated it literally, since &quot;молодая кровь&quot; (or &quot;свежая кровь&quot;) in Russian means something almost exactly different. It's about some fresh power, some younger and healthier forces that community needs to continue to evolve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BB%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14530" RevisionGUID="485f4221-ef05-4e4b-b488-d25864454a3f" CreationDate="2017-05-31T05:05:09.007" UserId="9063" Text="I'm using Pimsleur to teach myself Russian and I've had &quot;skol'ko ya dojun&quot; stuck in my head. I can't remember what lesson I heard it in. All I know is that &quot;skol'ko&quot; means &quot;how much.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I'm not great at the Cyrillic alphabet so I don't know how to properly type it, and if I did I could just put it into Google translate and solve all my problems!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14530" RevisionGUID="485f4221-ef05-4e4b-b488-d25864454a3f" CreationDate="2017-05-31T05:05:09.007" UserId="9063" Text="What does skol'ko ya dojun mean (I'm not sure how to spell this using the Cyrillic alphabet)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14530" RevisionGUID="485f4221-ef05-4e4b-b488-d25864454a3f" CreationDate="2017-05-31T05:05:09.007" UserId="9063" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14531" RevisionGUID="741fd530-a867-4b2c-aa5e-c2b4b82ef7b2" CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:44:55.603" UserId="104" Text="Известно, что после тренировки, особенно после длительной паузы, мышцы несколько дней болят. Как называется это явление? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ребята, я с вами не выйду гулять. У меня ??? после тренировки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14531" RevisionGUID="741fd530-a867-4b2c-aa5e-c2b4b82ef7b2" CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:44:55.603" UserId="104" Text="Как называется боль в мышцах после тренировки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14531" RevisionGUID="741fd530-a867-4b2c-aa5e-c2b4b82ef7b2" CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:44:55.603" UserId="104" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14532" RevisionGUID="b1e43158-e68f-4aaf-8ed2-ba23acfffb84" CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:46:10.807" UserId="6319" Text="`сынок` - is very close, especially, when there is no family ties at all. But it is a little bit *offensive*.&#xA;As an addition, you could use something like: `учись, сынок, папа покажет` ≈ `look, young blood, daddy show you how to do it`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14533" RevisionGUID="1518b3b5-d413-4b14-a25e-0605d97dee4a" CreationDate="2017-05-31T10:51:25.383" UserId="242" Text="Я не знаю, насколько это научно верно употребляемое слово, но в разговорной речи очень часто используется слово [`крепатура`][1] - так  называют любые болезненные ощущения после большой физической нагрузки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sportwiki.to/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14533" RevisionGUID="6688268d-e773-433a-862d-d07a87bad21c" CreationDate="2017-05-31T13:20:35.480" UserId="242" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Я не знаю, насколько это слово корректно с научной, медицинской точки зрения, но в разговорной речи очень часто используется слово [`крепатура`][1] - так  называют любые болезненные ощущения после большой физической нагрузки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sportwiki.to/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14530" RevisionGUID="ed563b10-a297-4273-b09e-caa6ab23c627" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:37:03.520" UserId="4903" Comment="Changed transliterated words to a commonly accepted spelling." Text="I'm using Pimsleur to teach myself Russian and I've had &quot;skol'ko ya dolzhen&quot; stuck in my head. I can't remember what lesson I heard it in. All I know is that &quot;skol'ko&quot; means &quot;how much.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I'm not great at the Cyrillic alphabet so I don't know how to properly type it, and if I did I could just put it into Google translate and solve all my problems!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35337" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14530" RevisionGUID="ed563b10-a297-4273-b09e-caa6ab23c627" CreationDate="2017-05-31T16:37:03.520" UserId="4903" Comment="Changed transliterated words to a commonly accepted spelling." Text="What does &quot;skol'ko ya dolzhen&quot; mean (I'm not sure how to spell this using the Cyrillic alphabet)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14534" RevisionGUID="fd1104c9-2ad2-4763-b341-115ab3658dda" CreationDate="2017-05-31T19:51:42.340" UserId="9065" Text="Сколько я должен? *[skol'ko ya dolzhen]* &#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;How much do I owe you?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the Pimsleur course this phrase should appear at lesson №10-15." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14532" RevisionGUID="e02589ba-9690-4be9-900c-4174f1f68325" CreationDate="2017-05-31T23:04:28.297" UserId="6319" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="`сынок` - is very close, especially, when there is no family ties at all. But it is a little bit *offensive*.&#xA;Example: `учись, сынок, папа покажет` ≈ `look, young blood, daddy show you how to do it`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35340" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14524" RevisionGUID="439cd4bd-fda7-4784-b1a7-a884fe1614d5" CreationDate="2017-06-01T12:27:56.253" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Expression that means &quot;sorry&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35341" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14531" RevisionGUID="ef5bac82-5839-470e-95a9-366a7263312c" CreationDate="2017-06-01T14:12:15.473" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/870281844004200450" />
  <row Id="35342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14535" RevisionGUID="921632e1-ced0-485d-85c2-0f2e51665d91" CreationDate="2017-06-01T20:01:13.807" UserId="9037" Text="&gt; Ребята, я с вами не выйду гулять. У меня миалгия после тренировки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так называют это явление врачи." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14536" RevisionGUID="91ecfb14-4a4b-4a8e-837f-bd6b37c5aacf" CreationDate="2017-06-01T20:08:32.627" UserId="9037" Text="steraï steraï steraï or `Стирай, Стирай, Стирай` I think she want's you earse something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="25886703-826a-409d-b550-c7189c1f0b39" CreationDate="2017-06-02T05:54:33.597" UserId="8359" Text="![Zhe][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Zhe][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be a Ж?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two hundred years ago a young, literate Russian immigrant to Mexico claimed his cattle [brand][4]. Usually these were just Latin letters, with some flourish or packed together, or else a couple of lines and curves combined into a small fanciful figure. We have the above rude images, redrawn an unknown number of times, from a younger [record][3] at the state capital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brand doesn't stand out much unless you think it looks like being a Ж and an inside joke by the only Russian speaker in the community. I know the Ж is not usually written quite this way, but it's hard for me to exclude the possibility that it be one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could Ж in some way relate to livestock, or to his immigrant status? Other suggested interpretations are more than welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y8YPe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NvxX9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://library.ucsc.edu/sites/default/files/Cattle%20Brand%20Images_0.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_branding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="25886703-826a-409d-b550-c7189c1f0b39" CreationDate="2017-06-02T05:54:33.597" UserId="8359" Text="&quot;Ж&quot; as a Mexican cattle brand" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="25886703-826a-409d-b550-c7189c1f0b39" CreationDate="2017-06-02T05:54:33.597" UserId="8359" Text="|выбор-имени|фонетика|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35347" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14537" RevisionGUID="539a04e0-ac58-4fea-91d0-6a7b25472f6d" CreationDate="2017-06-02T06:59:17.827" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14538" RevisionGUID="eb8189b9-891f-46f3-90b6-535145bfa58c" CreationDate="2017-06-02T08:53:32.463" UserId="9071" Text="It could be &quot;стирай&quot; indeed. All people are different and have their own, so to speak, traditions. Some people say &quot;тьфу-тьфу-тьфу&quot;, some people prefer to use the phrase &quot;типун мне на язык&quot;, maybe she likes to say &quot;стирай&quot; when she wants to &quot;erase&quot; some bad thoughts and statements so they don't come true. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14539" RevisionGUID="c78fdb82-7513-4e39-9dc2-ed8d43c6db7e" CreationDate="2017-06-02T10:16:52.783" UserId="8034" Text="I guess, the most neutral word is the adjective `зелёный` (green). I would use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он совсем ещё зелёный!` - Mean, he doesn't have enough experience!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say even it to a person you don't know well:&#xD;&#xA;`Какой же вы/ты ещё зелёный!` Or `Вы /ты ещё совсем зелёный.` &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It doesn't sound offensive or so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14541" RevisionGUID="5d9f6852-87ca-490a-b3b8-c6662e67ad17" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:47:22.787" UserId="9073" Text="In the below image, the two characters underlined don't seem to have a match in the [character map program][1] I'm using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest matches I can find are п and д, respectively.  Are these indeed the matches, and if so, are those in the image perhaps archaic, obsolete, or simply an alternate form of those letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. This text was the heading to a music score of Sergei Rachmaninoff's famous [Prelude in C♯ Minor][3], Op. 3 No. 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Character_Map&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DXTvp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ReverseLookup/252092" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14541" RevisionGUID="5d9f6852-87ca-490a-b3b8-c6662e67ad17" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:47:22.787" UserId="9073" Text="Alternate shapes of cyrillic letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14541" RevisionGUID="5d9f6852-87ca-490a-b3b8-c6662e67ad17" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:47:22.787" UserId="9073" Text="|история-языка|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14542" RevisionGUID="25eeda2f-e08c-40fb-8621-f321f009228f" CreationDate="2017-06-02T18:00:55.070" UserId="4903" Text="The word prelude &quot;прелюдия&quot; is printed with an older font.  Hence glyphs are slightly different from the modern fonts.  In the future you can check such glyphs against the table of [Old Cyrillic alphabet](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0#.D0.90.D0.B7.D0.B1.D1.83.D0.BA.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.86.D1.8B) Just keep in mind that many letters from the old alphabet are obsolete now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, you can pick a font in the character map program on your system that has &quot;Old&quot;, or &quot;Antiqua&quot; in its name.  It may have similar glyphs. For example &quot;Bookman Old Style&quot; does" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14542" RevisionGUID="c1274cc5-d394-4f05-8c4c-db946b3bdd2c" CreationDate="2017-06-02T18:09:23.570" UserId="4903" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The word prelude &quot;прелюдия&quot; is printed with an older font.  Hence glyphs are slightly different from the modern fonts.  In the future you can check such glyphs against the table of [Old Cyrillic alphabet](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0#.D0.90.D0.B7.D0.B1.D1.83.D0.BA.D0.B0_.D0.BA.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D1.86.D1.8B). Just keep in mind that many letters from the old alphabet are obsolete now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, you can pick a font in the character map program on your system that has &quot;Old&quot;, or &quot;Antiqua&quot; in its name.  It may have similar glyphs. For example, &quot;Bookman Old Style&quot; does." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14543" RevisionGUID="38651f23-51c7-4396-b562-1b7a7a8b11d3" CreationDate="2017-06-02T19:46:02.527" UserId="9074" Text="The bulgarian is the closest slavic language to russian so if you want to start russian for a second language you can try bulgarian.(Of course you can say the bulgarian is the closest one if you seperate the ukrainian and belarussian but they both originate from big mother Russia so if you learn one of those first you are basically 80-90% there otherwise if you want to study something not as simillar as russian try bulgarian it's 40-50% alike)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35358" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14527" RevisionGUID="e2db4abf-3d8d-4d68-8f25-78e80b97e52d" CreationDate="2017-06-03T08:26:45.973" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/870919673692528640" />
  <row Id="35359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="213dfeca-3635-4ad0-ba05-eb58859aadf4" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:03:14.513" UserId="9076" Text="Don't play with fire, it is dangerous!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Не играть с огонём, это опаснаый! (This was what I translated.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Не играй с огнём, это опасно! (This was from a native speaker.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How did играть (I believe this is a nominative case) becomes играй?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there any different between these two spellings, огонём &amp; огнём? Why one of them is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How did опаснаый (nominative case?) becomes опасно? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. : I only learn all the cases for pronouns/nouns for the Russian grammar. However, I would love to know more about the others. Thank you for helping me out! Have a nice day! (:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="213dfeca-3635-4ad0-ba05-eb58859aadf4" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:03:14.513" UserId="9076" Text="Russian Cases, Grammar &amp; огонём vs огнём" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="213dfeca-3635-4ad0-ba05-eb58859aadf4" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:03:14.513" UserId="9076" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14545" RevisionGUID="b4338de9-a7f2-40de-9489-5e5c37d156de" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:27:37.910" UserId="242" Text=" 1. `играй` is the [imperative mood][1] form that is used for making command and requests. &#xD;&#xA; 2. огонём does not exist, the only correct form is `огнём`.&#xD;&#xA; 3. опаснаый does not exist, the only correct form is `опасный` from which [`опасно`][2] is derived. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="9b557362-1ec7-4bd0-b369-099a02ae7355" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:28:01.177" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 181 characters in body" Text="Don't play with fire, it is dangerous!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Не играть с огонём, это опаснаый! (This was what I translated.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Не играй с огнём, это опасно! (This was from a native speaker.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How did играть (I believe this is a nominative case) becomes играй?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is there any different between these two spellings, огонём &amp; огнём? Why one of them is correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How did опаснаый (nominative case?) becomes опасно? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14545" RevisionGUID="91af481b-0bfa-4619-8a7d-1ce134af754b" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:35:34.840" UserId="242" Comment="added 1076 characters in body" Text=" 1. `играй` is the [imperative mood][1] form that is used for making command and requests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. огонём does not exist, the only correct form is `огнём` - the middle o is dropped. How can you learn that? You can check the article at [wiktionary][2]. See the phrase &quot;тип склонения 2*b по классификации А. А. Зализняка&quot;? Zaliznyak is a Russian linguists who made an attempt to classify all possible inclinations that exist in Russian. So, what does 2*b means? Let's [check][3], so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **2** — слова с основой на мягкий согласный (тюлень, искатель, цапля, Дуня, горе, поле; весенний)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **b** — ударение всегда вне основы, если кроме основы вообще что-либо есть (топор, похвала, вещество, родной)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Звездочка при цифре** означает чередование в основе беглой гласной с нулём (1*a, 3*a и т. п.; платок, кошка, сердце)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's how you basically can figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. опаснаый does not exist, the only correct form is `опасный` from which [`опасно`][4] is derived. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14545" RevisionGUID="b77f4953-82f8-4a91-8f86-7a74fa256b38" CreationDate="2017-06-03T10:41:32.217" UserId="242" Comment="added 1076 characters in body" Text=" 1. `играй` is the [imperative mood][1] form that is used for making command and requests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. огонём does not exist, the only correct form is `огнём` - the middle o is dropped - when vowel behaves like that it's called `беглая гласная`.&#xD;&#xA; How can you learn that? You can check the article at [wiktionary][2]. See the phrase &quot;тип склонения 2*b по классификации А. А. Зализняка&quot;? Zaliznyak is a Russian linguists who made an attempt to classify all possible inclinations that exist in Russian. So, what does 2*b means? Let's [check][3], so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **2** — слова с основой на мягкий согласный (тюлень, искатель, цапля, Дуня, горе, поле; весенний)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **b** — ударение всегда вне основы, если кроме основы вообще что-либо есть (топор, похвала, вещество, родной)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Звездочка при цифре** означает чередование в основе беглой гласной с нулём (1*a, 3*a и т. п.; платок, кошка, сердце)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's how you basically can figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. опаснаый does not exist, the only correct form is `опасный` from which [`опасно`][4] is derived. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35366" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14541" RevisionGUID="e22657da-0633-460f-8f1b-261a505d8aa8" CreationDate="2017-06-03T14:32:38.987" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/871011751478915074" />
  <row Id="35367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="fdc5acb9-5eb9-47fb-8601-29a24f2c34d0" CreationDate="2017-06-03T16:08:23.087" UserId="1262" Text="1) The [prohibitive form][1] (Ru) with an infinitive (***не*** + the infinitive) is more official and is used in a colloquial speech as a form of rude impersonal command only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не играть с огнём. =&gt; Не играй с огнём.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не дразнить собаку. =&gt; Не дразни собаку.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basycally, any verb of the ***-ать*** type changes into its imperative mode by the same algorythm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не дела***+***ть*** ***ничего***. =&gt; ***Не дела***+***й*** ***ничего***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не отдава***+***ть*** ***деньги.*** =&gt; ***Не отдава***+***й***  ***деньги***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не счита***+***ть*** ***деньги***. =&gt; ***Не счита***+***й***  ***деньги***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The difference in forms *** *огонём / огнём*** is related to [another question previously asked by a different user about 'ghost vowels'][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)By default, a neutrum form of an adjective is required in a sentence similar to that with '[dummy pronouns][3]' in most Western languages (those of 'it/that's great'-type, or as a predicate complement for a verb (that is, whenever a topic of a sentence is expressed by an infinitive, in phrases of 'to-live-is-to-love'-type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ending for a neutrum nominative singular form of an adective is ***-o***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это опасная игра. = Это опасно. = Играть так - опасно / Опасно так играть.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это важное дело. = Это важно. = Делать так - важно. / Важно так делать. / Важно делать так.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это обидная дразнилка.  = Это обидно. =  Дразнить так - обидно / Обидно так дразнить.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это большой счёт. = Это много. = Считать столько будет много. = Много будет так считать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это большая отдача / большой результат. = Это много и хорошо. = Отда(ва)ть столько - много и хорошо. = Много и хорошо будет столько отда(ва)ть.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14476/declension-of-%D0%BB%D0%B5%CC%81%D0%B2/14478#14478&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="493c3c3d-51ff-4fb9-8b05-2c02fb7ee8a5" CreationDate="2017-06-03T16:14:57.927" UserId="1262" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="***1)*** The [prohibitive form][1] (Ru) with an infinitive (***не*** + the infinitive) is more official and is used in a colloquial speech as a form of rude impersonal command only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не играть с огнём. =&gt; Не играй с огнём.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не дразнить собаку. =&gt; Не дразни собаку.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basycally, any verb of the ***-ать*** type changes into its singular imperative mode by the same algorythm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не дела***+***ть*** ***ничего***. =&gt; ***Не дела***+***й*** ***ничего***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не отдава***+***ть*** ***деньги.*** =&gt; ***Не отдава***+***й***  ***деньги***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не счита***+***ть*** ***деньги***. =&gt; ***Не счита***+***й***  ***деньги***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***2)*** The difference in forms *** *огонём / огнём*** is related to [another question previously asked by a different user about 'ghost vowels'][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***3)*** By default, a neutrum form of an adjective is required in a sentence similar to that with '[dummy pronouns][3]' in most Western languages (those of 'it/that's great'-type, or as a predicate complement for a verb (that is, whenever a topic of a sentence is expressed by an infinitive, in phrases of 'to-live-is-to-love'-type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The universal neutrum ending for a singular neutrum form of any adective is ***-o***. Technically, the resulting form is a [modal] adverb, but Russian doesn't distinguish between these two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это опасная игра. = Это опасно. = Играть так - опасно / Опасно так играть.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это важное дело. = Это важно. = Делать так - важно. / Важно так делать. / Важно делать так.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это обидная дразнилка.  = Это обидно. =  Дразнить так - обидно / Обидно так дразнить.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это большой счёт. = Это много. = Считать столько будет много. = Много будет так считать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это большая отдача / большой результат. = Это много и хорошо. = Отда(ва)ть столько - много и хорошо. = Много и хорошо будет столько отда(ва)ть.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14476/declension-of-%D0%BB%D0%B5%CC%81%D0%B2/14478#14478&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14547" RevisionGUID="ea5c85e0-4f3f-47d6-9fe5-a05ffbc68dae" CreationDate="2017-06-03T21:01:06.867" UserId="1262" Text="OK, here is my answer with more than a two-years' delay. In general, no letter (even in a reputedly 'phonetic' writing system) gives absolutely exact sound representation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in two languages/dialects sharing a same alphabet (cf. e.g. English, French and Finnish Vs, or Brittish vs American intervocal Ts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even vocal systems of Bulgarian vs Russian do differ (and, yes, Bulgarian is easier to read and to understand as compared to Polish or Eastern Slavic languages, but that's my own experience and experiences do differ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, after some lessons in Mongolian you might very soon observe that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The ***Лл*** is pronounced more like Innuit Ll, Welsh and Spanish LL [λ] rather than as it is in Russian;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) consonants are articulated harder than in Russian (like in Bulgarian phonetic system indeed; closer to some Arabic emphatic [d], [kh], [tt], etc.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) unlike in Russian and Hungarian, and like in Finnish, a combination of two same subsequent vowel letters  means a long vowel of same quality; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) a short vowel at the end of a word is treated as ***Ъ ъ*** in pre-revolutionary Imperial Russian (that is, remains unpronounced; that is, Mongolian *байна* sounds more like [bain] not like [baina]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) ***Р р*** sounds softer at the end of a word (well, in a closed syllable at least) and is closer to Swedish Rr;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) unstressed O o in Mongolian is still always [o] while in Russian it is pronounced closer to [a].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, of cause, not like reading in Japanese knowing some Chinese, or reading  Sanskrit/Hindi knowing some Devanagari script, but these nuances do matter. Hope this will help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14546" RevisionGUID="716d2d1f-5102-40c9-9d23-c7f95a31a294" CreationDate="2017-06-03T21:09:32.950" UserId="1262" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="***1)*** The [prohibitive form][1] (Ru) with an infinitive (***не*** + the infinitive) is more official and is used in a colloquial speech as a form of rude impersonal command only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не играть с огнём. =&gt; Не играй с огнём.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не дразнить собаку. =&gt; Не дразни собаку.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, any verb of the ***-ать*** type changes into its singular imperative mode by the same algorythm:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не дела***+***ть*** ***ничего***. =&gt; ***Не дела***+***й*** ***ничего***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не отдава***+***ть*** ***деньги.*** =&gt; ***Не отдава***+***й***  ***деньги***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Не счита***+***ть*** ***деньги***. =&gt; ***Не счита***+***й***  ***деньги***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***2)*** The difference in forms *** *огонём / огнём*** is related to [another question previously asked by a different user about 'ghost vowels'][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***3)*** By default, a neutrum form of an adjective is required in a sentence similar to that with '[dummy pronouns][3]' in most Western languages (those of 'it/that's great'-type, or as a predicate complement for a verb (that is, whenever a topic of a sentence is expressed by an infinitive, in phrases of 'to-live-is-to-love'-type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The universal neutrum ending for a singular neutrum form of any adjective is ***-o***. Technically, the resulting form is a[n modal] adverb, but Russian doesn't distinguish between these two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это опасная игра. = Это опасно. = Играть так - опасно / Опасно так играть.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это важное дело. = Это важно. = Делать так - важно. / Важно так делать. / Важно делать так.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это обидная дразнилка.  = Это обидно. =  Дразнить так - обидно / Обидно так дразнить.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это большой счёт. = Это много. = Считать столько будет много. = Много будет так считать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это большая отдача / большой результат. = Это много и хорошо. = Отда(ва)ть столько - много и хорошо. = Много и хорошо будет столько отда(ва)ть.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14476/declension-of-%D0%BB%D0%B5%CC%81%D0%B2/14478#14478&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="11554bec-fb3b-4888-9ddd-de00c138c354" CreationDate="2017-06-03T21:41:22.100" UserId="6545" Text="In the title of this question, a sentence I saw on www.russianforfree.com/text-russian-bear.php, equated the two. I did see that a couple of the sentences were not good translations, even to me, but in the equivalence above, what is the &quot;на&quot; for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar sentence in the same story talks about how bears also like mushrooms and berries (in the forest) and can... &quot;...и могут напасть на человека.&quot; In this sentence, I can see how people would be in the accusative case, but in this case I always though &quot;на&quot; and &quot;в&quot; were to indicate motion towards, e.g. &quot;...в шкоду...&quot; or &quot;...на поле...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see two cases, in the same little exercise, of this preposition....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="11554bec-fb3b-4888-9ddd-de00c138c354" CreationDate="2017-06-03T21:41:22.100" UserId="6545" Text="Russian people resemble bears very much. =?= Русские люди очень похожи на медведей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="11554bec-fb3b-4888-9ddd-de00c138c354" CreationDate="2017-06-03T21:41:22.100" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="84857b82-6f07-47ef-a686-b618e30b1fb9" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:20:43.603" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="In the title of this question, a sentence I saw on www.russianforfree.com/text-russian-bear.php, equated the two. I did see that a couple of the sentences were not good translations, even to me, but in the equivalence above, what is the &quot;на&quot; for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar sentence in the same story talks about how bears also like mushrooms and berries (in the forest) and can... &quot;...и могут напасть на человека.&quot; In this sentence, I can see how people would be in the accusative case, but in this case I always though &quot;на&quot; and &quot;в&quot; were to indicate motion towards, e.g. &quot;...в шкоду...&quot; or &quot;...на поле...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see two cases, in the same little exercise, of this preposition.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="f50d65b3-30ac-412a-a52c-5bf111897cd8" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:28:39.913" UserId="6545" Comment="clarification" Text="From http://www.russianforfree.com/text-russian-bear.php, I saw two sentences I did not know what the preposition was for - why is it included in each case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Русские люди очень похожи на медведей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Russian people resemble bears very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar sentence in the same story talks about how bears also like mushrooms and berries (in the forest) and can... &quot;...и могут напасть на человека.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они делают это с осторожностью, так как медведи тоже очень любят ягоды &#xD;&#xA;    и могут напасть на человека.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    They do it carefully because bears love berries too, and they can attack &#xD;&#xA;    a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, I can see how people would be in the accusative case, but in this case I always though &quot;на&quot; and &quot;в&quot; were to indicate motion towards, e.g. &quot;...в шкоду...&quot; or &quot;...на поле...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I do not know why this preposition is included at all. Is it something similar to using &quot;Ha&quot; for playing an instrument, or &quot;B&quot; for playing in a sports team?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this is clear..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35378" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="f50d65b3-30ac-412a-a52c-5bf111897cd8" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:28:39.913" UserId="6545" Comment="clarification" Text="What is the use of &quot;Ha&quot; in these two sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14549" RevisionGUID="1e98d533-17e4-48a5-9cd7-112a180ff4df" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:32:03.917" UserId="6097" Text="In Russian, as well as in English, prepositions can be used in very different situations and can have many meanings. &#xA;&#xA;So &quot;to resemble smth&quot; is not translated as simply &quot;походить&quot; but as &quot;походить **на** кого-либо/что-либо&quot;. You cannot omit &quot;на&quot;! Same thing with &quot;нападать&quot;. It's always &quot;нападать **на** кого-либо/что-либо&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;Such information is always given in dictionaries and you must learn it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14549" RevisionGUID="9b46b37c-f32f-48b4-92d5-5112cc64f5b5" CreationDate="2017-06-03T22:41:37.217" UserId="6097" Comment="added 292 characters in body" Text="In Russian, as well as in English, prepositions can be used in very different situations and can have many meanings. &#xA;&#xA;So &quot;to resemble smth&quot; is not translated as simply &quot;походить&quot; but as &quot;походить **на** кого-либо/что-либо&quot;. You cannot omit &quot;на&quot;! Same thing with &quot;нападать&quot;. It's always &quot;нападать **на** кого-либо/что-либо&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;Such information is always given in dictionaries and you must learn it. &#xA;&#xA;An example in opposite direction to make it more clear: it would be wrong to translate &quot;слушать радио&quot; as &quot;to listen the radio&quot; because in English you listen **to** something or somebody, so it's &quot;to listen to the radio&quot; although you don't have any preposition in Russian in this sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35381" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8671" RevisionGUID="93e84c17-3135-4f15-86a4-be1835b2eb17" CreationDate="2017-06-03T23:32:42.440" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/871147661570838533" />
  <row Id="35383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14550" RevisionGUID="c4b055d9-86cd-4a16-ba2d-6509a4e3c3f9" CreationDate="2017-06-04T05:49:39.290" UserId="8593" Text="It's just the dynamics of languages. For example, `I'm going to school` in Russian translates as `Я иду в школу`. Now one may ask, why isn't there, the article, 'a' or 'the' in the English version. Though, they can be included, excluding them doesn't make your sentence wrong. By practicing, you get to know when to include an article and when not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14551" RevisionGUID="6de16d2b-e85e-4efb-8038-6abb1bbbba1e" CreationDate="2017-06-04T06:06:04.340" UserId="8593" Text="Three 'rules' that might help you in the future. If you see two lines inclined to each other like the 'Л' in your image without any horizontal line between them, then it is an &quot;L&quot;. If the horizontal line is in the middle of the letter, then it is an &quot;A&quot;. Lastly, if the horizontal line is towards the bottom of the lines, then it is a &quot;D&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="d09ec89f-e666-4f69-bab4-cfd2874277c6" CreationDate="2017-06-04T06:20:05.867" UserId="6545" Comment="corrections e.g. spelling, etc." Text="From http://www.russianforfree.com/text-russian-bear.php, I saw two sentences I did not know what the preposition was for - why is it included in each case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Русские люди очень похожи на медведей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Russian people resemble bears very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar sentence in the same story talks about how bears also like mushrooms and berries (in the forest) and can... &quot;...и могут напасть на человека.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Они делают это с осторожностью, так как медведи тоже очень любят ягоды &#xD;&#xA;    и могут напасть на человека.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    They do it carefully because bears love berries too, and they can attack &#xD;&#xA;    a person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, I can see how people would be in the accusative case, but in this case I always thought &quot;на&quot; and &quot;в&quot; were to indicate motion towards, e.g. &quot;...в школу...&quot; or &quot;...на поле...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I do not know why this preposition is included at all. Is it something similar to using &quot;Ha&quot; for playing an instrument, or &quot;B&quot; for playing in a sports team?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this is clear..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14547" RevisionGUID="1ce6f3bd-169f-4f6a-b762-f4e872687417" CreationDate="2017-06-04T07:20:11.043" UserId="1262" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="OK, here is my answer with almost a two-years' delay. In general, no letter (even in a reputedly 'phonetic' writing system) gives absolutely exact sound representation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in two languages/dialects sharing a same alphabet (cf. e.g. English, French and Finnish Vs, or Brittish vs American intervocal Ts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even vocal systems of Bulgarian vs Russian do differ (and, yes, Bulgarian is easier to read and to understand as compared to Polish or Eastern Slavic languages, but that's my own experience and experiences do differ, too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, after some lessons in Mongolian you might very soon observe that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The ***Лл*** is pronounced more like Innuit Ll, Welsh and Spanish LL [λ] rather than as it is in Russian;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) consonants are articulated harder than in Russian (like in Bulgarian phonetic system indeed; closer to some Arabic emphatic [d], [kh], [tt], etc.);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) unlike in Russian and Hungarian, and like in Finnish, a combination of two same subsequent vowel letters  means a long vowel of same quality; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) a short vowel at the end of a word is treated as ***Ъ ъ*** in pre-revolutionary Imperial Russian (that is, remains unpronounced; that is, Mongolian *байна* sounds more like [bain] not like [baina]);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) ***Р р*** sounds softer at the end of a word (well, in a closed syllable at least) and is closer to Swedish Rr;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) unstressed O o in Mongolian is still always [o] while in Russian it is pronounced closer to [a].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is, of cause, not like reading in Japanese knowing some Chinese, or reading  Sanskrit/Hindi knowing some Devanagari script, but these nuances do matter. Hope this will help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="c98379f4-3643-43af-92ee-d32e4c16fef2" CreationDate="2017-06-04T17:28:54.653" UserId="1262" Text="Both на and в can be used to describe a motion, but the former is similar to Balto-Fennic [Allative][2] (evident motion and/or destination), while the latter is more like [Illative][3] case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of ***на*** + Accusative is, in fact, similar to Approximative in Vepsian or [Komi][1] (Russian text, English summary) or to Allative in most Balto-Fennic languages (evident motion of a subject and/or evident destination complement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, just like in a case with the Allative, the overtones are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former example fits a non-evident type of ***похоже + на*** + Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Похоже на правду. На фейк не похоже. Стиль &quot;Манараги&quot; Сорокина местами похож на лесковский.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from ***походить***, the other verbs requiring such a strucrture in Approximative meaning shall be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жаловаться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***молиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кидаться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сетовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***нарезать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наставить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other types of evident action are usually translated as 'to do smth for a sake of smb/smth'. To mention a few verbs of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***склоняться на [чью-либо] сторону***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***драться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***стараться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***работать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***писать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***валить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***назначить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наметить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***играть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***переносить (встречу и т. п.)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***давать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***тратить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for  (the latter sub-type), it is mostly like a literal meaning of approximative and causative motion  (with ***на*** reduplicated as prefix and a preposition):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***переносить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***послать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отправить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наткнуться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***накрыть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***налить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***набрести***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***нанести***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***накинуться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***и так далее...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kirj.ee/public/Linguistica_Uralica/2011/issue_3/ling-2011-3-191-198.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="e93080e7-662a-4b4c-9720-2aecaeb948fe" CreationDate="2017-06-04T17:38:16.313" UserId="1262" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="Both ***на*** and ***в*** can be used to describe a motion, but the former is similar to Balto-Fennic [Allative][2] (evident motion and/or destination), while the latter is more like [Illative][3] case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of ***на*** + Accusative is, in fact, similar to Approximative in Vepsian or [Komi][1] (Russian text, English summary) or to Allative in most Balto-Fennic languages (evident motion of a subject and/or evident destination complement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, just like in a case with the Allative, the overtones are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former example fits a non-evident type of ***похоже + на*** + Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Похоже на правду. На фейк не похоже. Стиль &quot;Манараги&quot; Сорокина местами похож на лесковский.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from ***походить***, the other verbs requiring such a strucrture in Approximative meaning shall be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жаловаться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***молиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кидаться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сетовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***нарезать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наставить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other types of evident action are usually translated as 'to do smth for a sake of smb/smth[, where ***на*** with Accusative describe a beneficiant, a goal or a reason of an action. To mention a few verbs of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***склоняться на [чью-либо] сторону***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***драться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***стараться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***работать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***списать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***валить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***назначить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наметить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***играть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***знать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***смотреть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***глядеть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***коситься***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***таращиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пялиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***уставиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вылупиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кричать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***орать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ругаться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наехать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***переносить (встречу и т. п.)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***давать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***тратить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наложить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for  the latter sub-type, it is mostly like a literal meaning of approximative and causative motion  (with ***на*** reduplicated as prefix and a preposition):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***переносить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***послать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отправить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***положить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наткнуться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***накрыть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***налить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***набрести***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***нанести***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гнать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***накинуться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***и так далее...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kirj.ee/public/Linguistica_Uralica/2011/issue_3/ling-2011-3-191-198.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14552" RevisionGUID="a1ec625b-c21c-49fa-a25a-26a44f4fab2e" CreationDate="2017-06-04T17:44:01.893" UserId="1262" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="Both ***на*** and ***в*** can be used to describe a motion, but the former is similar to Balto-Fennic [Allative][2] (evident motion and/or destination), while the latter is more like [Illative][3] case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of ***на*** + Accusative is, in fact, similar to *Approximative* in Vepsian or [Komi][1] (Russian text, English summary) or to Allative in most Balto-Fennic languages (evident motion of a subject and/or evident destination complement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, just like in a case with the Allative, the overtones are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former example fits a non-evident type of ***похоже + на*** + Accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Похоже на правду. На фейк не похоже. Стиль &quot;Манараги&quot; Сорокина местами похож на лесковский.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from ***походить***, the other verbs requiring such a strucrture in Approximative meaning shall be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жаловаться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***молиться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сетовать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***нарезать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наставить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other types of evident action are usually translated as 'to do smth for a sake of smb/smth[, where ***на*** with Accusative describe a beneficiant (B), an object (O), a goal (G), an evaluation (E) or a reason (R) of an action. To mention a few verbs of this type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***склоняться на [чью-либо] сторону*** (B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***драться*** (G)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***стараться*** (R)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***работать*** (B,R)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***списать*** (R, B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***валить*** (O, R)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***назначить*** (G)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наметить*** (G)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***играть*** (O, G)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***знать*** (E)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***смотреть*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***глядеть*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***коситься*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***таращиться*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***пялиться*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***уставиться*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вылупиться*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кричать*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***орать*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ругаться*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***кидаться*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наехать*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***переносить (встречу и т. п.)*** (G)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***давать*** (G)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***тратить*** (G/B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наложить*** (O)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for  the latter sub-type, it is mostly like a literal meaning of approximative and causative motion  (with ***на*** reduplicated as prefix and a preposition):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***переносить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***послать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отправить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***положить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***наткнуться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***накрыть***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***налить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***набрести***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***нанести***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гнать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***накинуться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***и так далее...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kirj.ee/public/Linguistica_Uralica/2011/issue_3/ling-2011-3-191-198.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allative_case&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illative_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14509" RevisionGUID="906fbb0f-35a7-49cf-a2b2-f973909d1612" CreationDate="2017-06-04T19:16:49.577" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections " Text="Двигается has a wider meaning. It may mean moving one's limbs or jerk, while движется means moving in a direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Танк двигается means the tank is moving its turret, or somehow showing motion in another way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Танк движется means the tank is driving." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35392" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14509" RevisionGUID="906fbb0f-35a7-49cf-a2b2-f973909d1612" CreationDate="2017-06-04T19:16:49.577" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 4714 edit id of 873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35394" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14548" RevisionGUID="70b3b466-8ff2-4449-b0a3-461e52267080" CreationDate="2017-06-05T08:37:19.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/871647106473365504" />
  <row Id="35395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14553" RevisionGUID="9bc0ed84-b7ad-4a3e-92c7-dffd51b12d33" CreationDate="2017-06-05T08:46:12.010" UserId="5008" Text="Well, prepositions too often follow the verbs in some obscure and unpredictable way, depending on hardly explainable historical and etymological reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in case of &quot;_нападать на_&quot; it's very very clear, as this verb in fact means (or, better to say, it meant) _to fall on_, i.e. it originally denoted a sort of a &quot;take ground&quot; attack, which in fact is what many animals, including aforementioned bears, do. So from the etymological point of view &quot;_на_&quot; is still about a direction here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning &quot;_походить на_&quot;, it's much harder to decipher this one. I guess it's kind of &quot;stepping _on_ someone else's steps&quot;, but I can't find any proof of this claim at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14545" RevisionGUID="7f0024e8-4ee6-4fe0-a48b-112e454f3af9" CreationDate="2017-06-05T11:46:52.150" UserId="9085" Comment="Two misprints correction. Rephrase an awkward sentence" Text=" 1. `играй` is the [imperative mood][1] form that is used for making command and requests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. огонём does not exist, the only correct form is `огнём` - the middle o is dropped - when vowel behaves like that it's called `беглая гласная`.&#xD;&#xA; How can you learn that? You can check the article at [wiktionary][2]. See the phrase &quot;тип склонения 2*b по классификации А. А. Зализняка&quot;? Zaliznyak is a Russian linguist who made an attempt to classify all possible inclinations that exist in Russian. So, what does 2*b mean? Let's [look it up][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **2** — слова с основой на мягкий согласный (тюлень, искатель, цапля, Дуня, горе, поле; весенний)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **b** — ударение всегда вне основы, если кроме основы вообще что-либо есть (топор, похвала, вещество, родной)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Звездочка при цифре** означает чередование в основе беглой гласной с нулём (1*a, 3*a и т. п.; платок, кошка, сердце)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's how you basically can figure it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. опаснаый does not exist, the only correct form is `опасный` from which [`опасно`][4] is derived. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35397" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14545" RevisionGUID="7f0024e8-4ee6-4fe0-a48b-112e454f3af9" CreationDate="2017-06-05T11:46:52.150" Comment="Proposed by 9085 approved by 242 edit id of 874" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35398" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="0bdcb58f-1ccb-408d-8ef5-f427049839ed" CreationDate="2017-06-05T20:37:19.093" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/871828298535510016" />
  <row Id="35399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="62145a5d-f9db-4223-ba47-5fd9f696dda3" CreationDate="2017-06-06T15:28:51.137" UserId="4753" Comment="incorporated suggestion from @abatishchev" Text="I am answering this question even though it is old because it seems to me that though there are already several interesting answers, none of them is simple and direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in -нибудь refer casually to something unknown to the speaker. Words ending with -либо mean something unknown to the speaker, no matter what that might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь--someone or other&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;кто-либо--anyone at all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-нибудь--ever, someday (usually in the future)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-либо--at any time whatsoever (usually in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@FlashCactus says that -либо sounds more official. But this is not a mere matter of style. It is because -либо conveys an idea which officials often need to convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at a dinner party you might be asked:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Были ли вы когда-нибудь в России?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Have you ever been to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But customs or immigration official might ask:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Совершили ли вы когда-либо неразрешеный въезд на территорию Российской федерации?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Have you at any time entered the Russian Federation without permission?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="84e71d4d-6ea3-42f9-b9f5-ca74c0f99649" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:07:51.737" UserId="6907" Text="What is the correct form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Какая** модель это?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Какой** модель это?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite sure that the correct form is &quot;Какой модель это?&quot; but google translate - translate &quot;which model is it&quot; into &quot;**Какая** модель это?&quot; and I'm afraid maybe I'm not right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gPoS9m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="84e71d4d-6ea3-42f9-b9f5-ca74c0f99649" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:07:51.737" UserId="6907" Text="&quot;Какая модель это?&quot; or &quot;Какой модель это&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14554" RevisionGUID="84e71d4d-6ea3-42f9-b9f5-ca74c0f99649" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:07:51.737" UserId="6907" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14555" RevisionGUID="37e99d29-61b2-4ee0-b3e2-bcd638eb9ae5" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:19:24.103" UserId="6907" Text="Why do the word &quot;**четверг**&quot; sounds as &quot;**четвергх**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;I've notice that people don't pronounce it as it's written. Isn't it? If it is, what is the reason for that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. We already had [here a post][1] about the sounds of the Russian letter **г** which sometimes sounds like в (see there), but in this case the letter **г** sounds like **х**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14448/why-is-the-letter-%D0%B3-in-some-of-the-russian-words-pronounced-differently-as-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14555" RevisionGUID="37e99d29-61b2-4ee0-b3e2-bcd638eb9ae5" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:19:24.103" UserId="6907" Text="Why do the word &quot;четверг&quot; sounds as &quot;четвергх&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14555" RevisionGUID="37e99d29-61b2-4ee0-b3e2-bcd638eb9ae5" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:19:24.103" UserId="6907" Text="|произношение|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14556" RevisionGUID="c3bd6919-1455-4b78-8495-6c9783c3d544" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:32:41.080" UserId="9092" Text="модель is a feminine noun (IIIrd declension, f words ending with -ь) so the right adjective would be какая as it goes with модель." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14557" RevisionGUID="6c41e042-b0e4-4a12-b52e-90e4164046e9" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:33:15.507" UserId="6539" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;Словоформы слова &quot;модель&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;модель	→	модель – существительное, **жен. р.**, именительный. п., ед. ч.&#xD;&#xA;└	модель – существительное, жен. р., винительный п., ед. ч.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Часть речи: существительное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственное число	Множественное число&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Им.	модель	модели&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рд.	модели	моделей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дт.	модели	моделям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вн.	модель	модели&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тв.	моделью	моделями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пр.	модели. моделях &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this information on the site morfologija.ru Грамматический словарь русского языка online. The word is feminine, so какая модель is correct. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="632abd6c-0bc5-4add-b20e-f513b061c2d4" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:39:25.523" UserId="4714" Text="With structures such as the following how do we decide whether кто should be instrumental or nominative—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кем бы он ни был &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто бы он ни был&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="632abd6c-0bc5-4add-b20e-f513b061c2d4" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:39:25.523" UserId="4714" Text="кем бы он ни был OR кто бы он ни был" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="632abd6c-0bc5-4add-b20e-f513b061c2d4" CreationDate="2017-06-06T19:39:25.523" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14559" RevisionGUID="5da538e2-4ed5-4584-b514-7cba9a1c139a" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:10:39.763" UserId="6539" Text="Consonants in Russian (and in all other languages) are either voiced or voiceless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consonants in each pair below are pronounced in exactly the same manner, the only difference being in the presence or absence of vibration in the vocal cords:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voiced	Voiceless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в	ф&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;г	к&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;з	с&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;б	п&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;д	т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ж	ш&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian pronunciation, **all voiced consonants at the end of the word are pronounced like their voiceless counterparts**. This phenomenon is also called **consonant assimilation, or devoicing of consonants**.&#xD;&#xA;Devoicing also occurs when a voiced consonant is in front of a voiceless consonant. The voiced consonant in this position will be pronounced like its voiceless counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Четверг [четверк]. If you hear х instead of к,  it's regional pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14560" RevisionGUID="8e687400-dae0-4d6b-8e3f-4187aa42c978" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:21:44.497" UserId="242" Text=" An excellent question which in my opinion has an answer, it's just the difference is quite tricky to grasp. Any time you can ask &quot;кем он является&quot; instead of &quot;кто он&quot;, you can use &quot;кем&quot; in your phrase as well, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Не стремись облапошить ближнего своего, кто бы они ни был – православный, иудей, мусульманин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; -  Не стремись облапошить ближнего своего, кем бы они ни был – православным, иудеем, мусульманином. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both perfectly valid, it's just that first one is more likely to encounter (just because &quot;он явлется иудеем&quot; is less frequent then &quot;он иудей&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, say, let's consider following pair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Любого руководителя, кем бы они ни был, они просто скинут. &#xD;&#xA; - Любого руководителя, кто бы они ни был, они просто скинут. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, both valid, which one depends on context: Любого руководителя, кем бы они ни был [отличным продажником, незаменимым управленцем, опытным кризис-менеджером], они просто скинут. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любого руководителя, кто бы они ни был [Иван Петрович, Николай Иванович или даже Пётр Алексеевич], они просто скинут. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="e852b662-8033-4cbe-8b69-a11ff5032703" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:22:14.603" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Кем бы он ни был&quot; or &quot;кто бы он ни был&quot; - which one to choose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14561" RevisionGUID="9eac02ef-4c86-4134-8eec-da85db2d4de9" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:31:12.493" UserId="242" Text="Well, what you seems to hear is actually an evidence of so called &quot;явления придыхательности глухих согласных&quot; (aspiration of voiceless consonant). It's not х it's more close to the phonetic [h] (like in English hen). In some cases (usually before other voiceless consonant) in casual speech there vowel can gain some level of aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, pronounce following words and take attention to how they sound (the potentially aspirated vowel is marked):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мо**п**с&#xD;&#xA; - Бе**т**ховен&#xD;&#xA; - ке**к**с&#xD;&#xA; - а**б**сен**т**&#xD;&#xA; - тор**г**&#xD;&#xA; - мор**г**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of why it's not indicated somehow in spelling - well, there's not such thing like 100% precise, one-to-one correspondence between phonetics and  orthography. One reason for that - some of phonemes a very specific, some a relatively rare, some a very subtle (I doubt majority of Russian speakers even realize they are aspirating anything). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14561" RevisionGUID="23cb0b5c-b65f-4d28-954d-b7b9f0c6f4b4" CreationDate="2017-06-06T20:38:10.170" UserId="242" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Well, while V.V is not wrong about voicelessness, there's actually something else out there. What you seem to hear is actually an evidence of so called &quot;явления придыхательности глухих согласных&quot; (aspiration of voiceless consonant). It's not х it's more close to the phonetic [h] (like in English hen). In some cases (usually before other voiceless consonant) in casual speech there consonant can gain some level of aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, pronounce following words and take attention to how they sound (the potentially aspirated vowel is marked):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мо**п**с&#xD;&#xA; - Бе**т**ховен&#xD;&#xA; - ке**к**с&#xD;&#xA; - а**б**сен**т**&#xD;&#xA; - тор**г**&#xD;&#xA; - мор**г**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of why it's not indicated somehow in spelling - well, there's not such thing like 100% precise, one-to-one correspondence between phonetics and  orthography. One reason for that - some of phonemes a very specific, some a relatively rare, some a very subtle (I doubt majority of Russian speakers even realize they are aspirating anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you'll try nevertheless to come up with &quot;precise&quot; orthography you'll fail for both because words are not pronounced the same very way buy all the speakers, second, pronunciation changes with time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested to find out more, check out, for instance, [this][1] article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lraber.asj-oa.am/5247/1/73.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14563" RevisionGUID="01b2ced0-8c44-4aeb-9137-9bc49f991122" CreationDate="2017-06-06T22:44:11.780" UserId="1262" Text="In fact, you can be sure only about grammatical gender of abstract nouns derived from adjectives and ending in ***-сть***; they are 99,999% feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grammatical genders of other words ending in the soft sign are better to be learned by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form is therefore ***какая + модель***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14564" RevisionGUID="f71d2e2c-5c1c-4f6e-af78-1ebe8546e6f6" CreationDate="2017-06-07T04:59:12.887" UserId="5443" Text="&quot;**Кто** бы он ни был&quot; tends to mean '**no matter who he is**' (in person or by position), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот человек, **кто** бы он ни был, (даже если это сам генеральный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; директор или рекомендованный нам Иван Иваныч) не сможет решить нашу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проблему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while &quot;**кем** бы он ни был&quot; is close to '**whatever kind of person he is**' (e.g. by profession).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человеку, у которого столько родственников, оставшихся в США, не дадут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; туристическую визу, **кем** бы он ни был (по профессии, положению в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обществе, какие бы достоинства у него ни нашлись).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version with **кто** is often possible to use in either meaning while the version with **кем** is more limited in usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14565" RevisionGUID="f81c32b7-f018-4c20-a2e9-1fa06ffe3ae7" CreationDate="2017-06-07T05:14:40.313" UserId="1262" Text="  Interesting, never noticed that properly. What is heard, however, doesn't resemble the regular [x].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the reasons are the same as with Б-г pronounced as [***бох***]: [historical phonetics][1], competive norms (fricative 'Southern' [g] VS modern 'standard' [g].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if it works with ***порог, пирог*** and, say, ***рог*** in standard (not 'Southern') pronunciation as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14452/1262" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="90df96ad-ed2e-4e6c-8fd0-b1b0c9e59ec3" CreationDate="2017-06-07T05:39:41.547" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/872327179178315781" />
  <row Id="35425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14566" RevisionGUID="86d7c17a-3570-4c43-b5ff-150b4b6583f4" CreationDate="2017-06-07T09:14:13.290" UserId="4714" Text="I am quite confused about the word order in sentences of the following type—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Как бы ни складывалась жизнь христианина***, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в какое бы ни жил он время** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и ***к какому сословию бы ни принадлежал***, он не избежит одного - борьбы с плотским человеком, в сущности, своим я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What dictates the word order in the bolded sections? For example why, in the second one, is Время so far away from какое, while in the third one сословие is beside какой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a standard word order for such constructions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько бы ни старался **Барак Обама**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько бы **Барак Обама** ни старался" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14566" RevisionGUID="86d7c17a-3570-4c43-b5ff-150b4b6583f4" CreationDate="2017-06-07T09:14:13.290" UserId="4714" Text="Concessive phrases and word order--of the type &quot;Сколько бы ни... и.тп&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14566" RevisionGUID="86d7c17a-3570-4c43-b5ff-150b4b6583f4" CreationDate="2017-06-07T09:14:13.290" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14567" RevisionGUID="0c9bda0f-4db3-435f-8dcb-ce031e4f9355" CreationDate="2017-06-07T09:24:24.723" UserId="9072" Text="There is no strict rule and no &quot;Correct&quot; word order in such cases. The only thing I can get from top of my mind - the &quot;asking&quot; word (`Как`, `Сколько`, `в какое`, `к какому`) is always on the first place. And that's all. For your first example valid orders would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Как бы ни складывалась жизнь христианина&#xD;&#xA; - Как бы жизнь христианина ни складывалась&#xD;&#xA; - Как ни складывалась бы жизнь христианина&#xD;&#xA; - Как жизнь христианина ни складывалась бы (not really super-correct variation, but you will be understood)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14568" RevisionGUID="ecc0703a-d2cb-48e0-a313-343ef113e307" CreationDate="2017-06-07T09:34:34.620" UserId="9072" Text="When native ukrainians speak russian, they usually pronounce `Г` as `Гх`. There is two close letters in ukrainian alphabet: `Г` IPA for which is `/ɦ/`, and `Ґ`, IPA for is `/g/`. So russians have manner to imitate that accent from time to time, when its not immitated , `Г` sounds more like `К`, as V.V. stated. The difference here from the post that you linked, is that in official speech you should spell `г` in words `Сегодня`, `Ничего` as `в`, just as `ч` as `ш` in `что`, but in official speech, you should very clearly pronounce `г` at the end of ther words `четверг`, `морг`, and so on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14561" RevisionGUID="53881009-93d2-466f-80eb-67a6ef8adb38" CreationDate="2017-06-07T10:40:40.020" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, while V.V is not wrong about voicelessness, there's actually something else out there. What you seem to hear is actually an evidence of so called &quot;явления придыхательности глухих согласных&quot; (aspiration of voiceless consonant). It's not х it's more close to the phonetic [h] (like in English hen). In some cases (usually before other voiceless consonant) in casual speech there consonant can gain some level of aspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, pronounce following words and take attention to how they sound (the potentially aspirated vowel is marked):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - мо**п**с&#xD;&#xA; - Бе**т**ховен&#xD;&#xA; - ке**к**с&#xD;&#xA; - а**б**сен**т**&#xD;&#xA; - тор**г**&#xD;&#xA; - мор**г**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of why it's not indicated somehow in spelling - well, there's not such thing like 100% precise, one-to-one correspondence between phonetics and  orthography. One reason for that - some of phonemes a very specific, some a relatively rare, some a very subtle (I doubt majority of Russian speakers even realize they are aspirating anything). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you'll try nevertheless to come up with &quot;precise&quot; orthography you'll fail for both because words are not pronounced the same very way by all the speakers, second, pronunciation changes with time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested to find out more, check out, for instance, [this][1] article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lraber.asj-oa.am/5247/1/73.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14569" RevisionGUID="34d3a226-1a1c-4258-b3af-44d1f41074d7" CreationDate="2017-06-07T12:27:46.593" UserId="9094" Text="`тока позже` could be like &quot;but/only later&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;`да, тока позже`like `yes, but/only later`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;examples of right form  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.linguee.com/english-russian/search?source=auto&amp;query=%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B6%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14570" RevisionGUID="73e342fb-39d6-4487-afcb-08eca20469c3" CreationDate="2017-06-07T12:31:24.967" UserId="4560" Text="Would you describe it as [-rx] or as [-rkʰ]? If it's the first, it's not just a **четверг** thing, but a Southern pronunciation feature where the final /г/ is pronounced [x] instead of simply devoicing to [k]. (**Бог** is the only example common to all Russian accents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's the second, it's just the final [-k] becoming more breathy in that particular word-final cluster. [k] and what can sound like a mild [kʰ] are pretty much freely varied in Russian; I don't think the latter even qualifies as an allophone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14560" RevisionGUID="58fe121b-613a-4262-93cd-357f59f1e9df" CreationDate="2017-06-07T14:30:14.133" UserId="242" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text=" An excellent question which in my opinion has an answer, it's just the difference is quite tricky to grasp. Any time you can ask &quot;кем он является&quot; instead of &quot;кто он&quot;, you can use &quot;кем&quot; in your phrase as well, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Не стремись облапошить ближнего своего, кто бы они ни был – православный, иудей, мусульманин&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; -  Не стремись облапошить ближнего своего, кем бы они ни был – православным, иудеем, мусульманином. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both perfectly valid, it's just that first one is more likely to encounter (just because &quot;он явлется иудеем&quot; is less frequent then &quot;он иудей&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, say, let's consider following pair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Любого руководителя, кем бы они ни был, они просто скинут. &#xD;&#xA; - Любого руководителя, кто бы они ни был, они просто скинут. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, both valid, which one to use depends on context: Любого руководителя, кем бы они ни был [отличным продажником, незаменимым управленцем, опытным кризис-менеджером], они просто скинут. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любого руководителя, кто бы они ни был [Иван Петрович, Николай Иванович или даже Пётр Алексеевич], они просто скинут. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14555" RevisionGUID="e6a9ba4b-09c7-4911-a4ea-3057c926ed26" CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:31:14.153" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected." Text="Why does the word &quot;**четверг**&quot; sound as &quot;**четвергх**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that people don't pronounce it as it's written, do they? If they don't, what is the reason for that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. We already had [here a post][1] about the sounds of the Russian letter **г** which sometimes sounds like в (see there), but in this case the letter **г** sounds like **х**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14448/why-is-the-letter-%D0%B3-in-some-of-the-russian-words-pronounced-differently-as-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35435" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14555" RevisionGUID="e6a9ba4b-09c7-4911-a4ea-3057c926ed26" CreationDate="2017-06-07T17:31:14.153" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected." Text="Why does the word &quot;четверг&quot; sound as &quot;четвергх&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14559" RevisionGUID="400c8616-5690-4ed0-8aec-ab66de5fbcc9" CreationDate="2017-06-07T19:14:37.303" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Consonants in Russian (and in all other languages) are either voiced or voiceless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consonants in each pair below are pronounced in exactly the same manner, the only difference being in the presence or absence of vibration in the vocal cords:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voiced	Voiceless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;в	ф&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;г	к&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;з	с&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;б	п&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;д	т&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ж	ш&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian pronunciation, **all voiced consonants at the end of the word are pronounced like their voiceless counterparts**. This phenomenon is also called **devoicing of consonants**.&#xD;&#xA;Devoicing also occurs when a voiced consonant is in front of a voiceless consonant(**consonant assimilation**). The voiced consonant in this position will be pronounced like its voiceless counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Четверг [четверк]. If you hear х instead of к,  it's regional pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14472" RevisionGUID="6f7745a7-ed78-47b7-bbfd-c1a803d66874" CreationDate="2017-06-08T05:40:14.427" UserId="6539" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="&gt;Пойди принеси воды, зайди купи хлеба, сядь посиди, приди взгляни, попробуй разберись. Или&#xD;&#xA; Пойти разобраться, зайти купить, попробовать найти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Надо ли их разделять запятой? Думаю, что не надо. Но хотелось бы правила из достоверного источника. И как это явление называется? Явно не однородные члены предложения. С инфинитивом, наверное, второй, как дополнение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same in English or related https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/113680/imperative-with-go-go-do-something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35439" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14566" RevisionGUID="5cc29c47-39b3-4193-9fc6-402b0b41d325" CreationDate="2017-06-08T05:42:32.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/872690284676730881" />
  <row Id="35440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8496" RevisionGUID="745e05a0-fe14-415d-bc2b-91bf570139e1" CreationDate="2017-06-08T17:48:02.467" UserId="4903" Comment="Replaced &quot;Slavonian&quot; with correct spelling &quot;Slavonic&quot;" Text="The spelling &quot;г&quot; is due to old pronounce. But in modern Russian we usually say &quot;Бох&quot; due to Church Slavonic (although in Church Slavonic spelling the word still ends in &quot;гъ&quot;). Also sometimes people say &quot;Бок&quot; but this is thought to be an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="63446395-a071-4007-b134-f4121e2fd857" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:00:57.337" UserId="6907" Text="Is there any difference between **не надо** and **неножно**? If there is, what is it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;A Pizza delivery guy comes to my home and brings pizza. Its cost is 650 руб and I give him 700 руб. Now he wants to give me the change and I want to tell him that there is no need for that. What would you choose? (**не надо** / **неножно** + Спасибо)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="63446395-a071-4007-b134-f4121e2fd857" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:00:57.337" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between ненадо and неножно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="63446395-a071-4007-b134-f4121e2fd857" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:00:57.337" UserId="6907" Text="|выбор-слова|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="080838c0-635d-44c8-aae2-1cd0fbff0953" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:01:59.130" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there any difference between **не надо** and **не нужно**? If there is, what is it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;A Pizza delivery guy comes to my home and brings pizza. Its cost is 650 руб and I give him 700 руб. Now he wants to give me the change and I want to tell him that there is no need for that. What would you choose? (**не надо** / **не нужно**)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35445" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="080838c0-635d-44c8-aae2-1cd0fbff0953" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:01:59.130" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;не надо&quot; and &quot;не нужно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14572" RevisionGUID="12aeaac8-da9e-46ce-bee8-19f2e34f94b5" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:12:15.267" UserId="242" Text="`Нужно` is slightly less casual and more bookish, so, while phrases &quot;Ой, Вась, может не нужно тут нам голову-то морочить&quot; is completely OK but native speaker most probably will use `на надо`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, professor most likely will not say during a lecture 'В творчестве этого поэта надо различать три этапа' but rather `нужно`.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also `необходимо` which is even more (sort of) high-style than `нужно` but understandably not used with &quot;не&quot; - double negation is just not a typical for Russian (so, you can use &quot;необходимо&quot; instead of &quot;нужно&quot;, but not &quot;не необходимо&quot; instead of &quot;не нужно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it looks like that `надо` is slowly but steadily overpowering &quot;нужно&quot; even in official usage.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14572" RevisionGUID="937de77e-faac-43a6-a70c-879b88038eb5" CreationDate="2017-06-08T18:29:13.397" UserId="242" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="`Нужно` is slightly less casual and more bookish, so, while phrases &quot;Ой, Вась, может не нужно тут нам голову-то морочить&quot; is completely OK but native speaker most probably will use `на надо`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, professor most likely will not say during a lecture 'В творчестве этого поэта надо различать три этапа' but rather `нужно`.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also `необходимо` which is even more (sort of) high-style than `нужно` but understandably not used with &quot;не&quot; - double negation is just not a typical for Russian (so, you can use &quot;необходимо&quot; instead of &quot;нужно&quot;, but not &quot;не необходимо&quot; instead of &quot;не нужно&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it looks like that `надо` is slowly but steadily overpowering &quot;нужно&quot; even in official usage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, answering specifically the last part of your question, I'd go with &quot;Спасибо большое, сдачи не надо&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="8565b5d1-ba49-449d-a10b-e1dabab90350" CreationDate="2017-06-08T19:01:21.017" UserId="6907" Comment="edited body" Text="Is there any difference between **не надо** and **не нужно**? If there is, what is it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;A pizza delivery guy comes to my home and brings pizza. Its cost is 650 руб and I give him 700 руб. Now he wants to give me the change and I want to tell him that there is no need for that. What would you choose? (**не надо** / **не нужно**)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="c23b4257-bb75-4167-98d2-cc163f99a204" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:13:26.127" UserId="6318" Text="В данной выпускной работе анализируются методы обеспечение безопасности веб сайтов. Помимо этого, структуре веб сайтов, существующих уязвимости в этом анализируются, предложена методы обеспечение безопасности с помощью существующих механизмов, устроив  атака на основе уязвимость маленького веб сайта.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="c23b4257-bb75-4167-98d2-cc163f99a204" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:13:26.127" UserId="6318" Text="Правильно составлено ли это приложение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="c23b4257-bb75-4167-98d2-cc163f99a204" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:13:26.127" UserId="6318" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14575" RevisionGUID="d5b23fba-a00d-4a9a-93d1-0321c726191a" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:27:34.940" UserId="3680" Text="Нет.  &#xD;&#xA;Честно говоря, я даже не понимаю о чем идет речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильный вариант первого предложения:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В данной выпускной работе анализируются методы обеспечени**я** безопасности веб-сайтов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дальше совершенно непонятно, увы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="481ce768-6941-475e-9bd4-af0513ffb730" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:35:21.870" UserId="6318" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="В данной выпускной работе анализируются методы обеспечение безопасности веб сайтов. Помимо этого, структуре веб сайтов, существующих уязвимости в этом анализируются, предложена методы обеспечение безопасности с помощью существующих механизмов, устроив  атака на основе уязвимость маленького веб сайта.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this graduation work, methods of ensuring Web sites security are analyzed. And also, structure of Web sites, existing vulnerabilities in it, attacked on the basis of vulnerability of small web site and proposed methods  of ensuring security of Web site using existing mechanisms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14575" RevisionGUID="980250de-d091-47ad-9fb2-499fc0b1599c" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:45:34.320" UserId="3680" Comment="update" Text="Нет.  &#xD;&#xA;Честно говоря, я даже не понимаю о чем идет речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильный вариант первого предложения:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В данной выпускной работе анализируются методы обеспечени**я** безопасности веб-сайтов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the rest, according to the English text:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В частности, анализируется структура веб-сайта и его уязвимости путем атаки, основанной на уязвимости небольшого веб-сайта, а также предлагаются методы обеспечения безопасности веб-сайта с использованием существующих механизмов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35456" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="ebc28bea-aa8a-4cb6-a457-93487e0ecf9c" CreationDate="2017-06-08T20:52:26.120" UserId="6097" Comment="fixed spelling " Text="Правильно составлено ли это предложение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35457" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14574" RevisionGUID="8aa056af-0966-4dc0-8e34-7c6b36757922" CreationDate="2017-06-08T21:04:38.790" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14576" RevisionGUID="17b2d313-b684-40b7-82f8-35631751475a" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:04:02.620" UserId="9099" Text="On some site I was on months ago (I can't recall), it says that &quot;очень приятно&quot; is &quot;nice to meet you&quot; and I've heard a native Russian use that phrase. But, I've also used the Nemo app a bit and it says that &quot;приятно познакомиться&quot; is &quot;nice to meet you&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Are they the same? Does it matter? Is there a formality difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14576" RevisionGUID="17b2d313-b684-40b7-82f8-35631751475a" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:04:02.620" UserId="9099" Text="What's the difference between очень приятно and приятно познакомиться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14576" RevisionGUID="17b2d313-b684-40b7-82f8-35631751475a" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:04:02.620" UserId="9099" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14577" RevisionGUID="6744aab6-c832-4003-9f98-229148bac02b" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:12:01.830" UserId="242" Text="Yes, in a colloquial speech both forms are interchangeable, [`очень приятно`][1]  is just a shortened form for &quot;очень приятно познакомиться&quot; and it's completely acceptable to say whenever and whosever hand you shake the very first time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35462" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14576" RevisionGUID="233e437a-cc7a-49f5-90e5-ecedfcd68490" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:12:29.560" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;очень приятно&quot; and &quot;приятно познакомиться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="c5a87ad9-c1db-4bd8-b296-f793f97eaeee" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:39:21.973" UserId="1556" Text="[In an earlier question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/how-could-i-have-gotten-the-cyrillic-spelling-of-vladyka), I was misusing Google translate to try to get the spelling of a word, and I was pointed to http://translit.cc which would directly furnish spelling instead of trying to guess a preimage in English that would translate in Russian to Владыка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am wondering about transliteration from modern Russian to Church Slavonic, or if that's not available transliteration from modern English to Slavonic. The LMGTFY-grade answer I'd anticipate is to simply change like letters for like, as a transliteration between alphabets rather than a transliteration between completely separate languages. However, I'd like to avoid beginner's mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a tool comparable to http://translit.cc, or should I just replace modern letters with ancient precursors and trust the naive approach?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="c5a87ad9-c1db-4bd8-b296-f793f97eaeee" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:39:21.973" UserId="1556" Text="How can I transliterate a name in modern Russian characters to Slavonic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="c5a87ad9-c1db-4bd8-b296-f793f97eaeee" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:39:21.973" UserId="1556" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35466" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="f1a690a5-6bf0-479e-9fd7-1e86aafaa25a" CreationDate="2017-06-08T22:55:50.847" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35467" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14571" RevisionGUID="43c9ad73-ae2b-48f0-99e7-bd9b622e0400" CreationDate="2017-06-09T02:47:01.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/873008500238102528" />
  <row Id="35468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14579" RevisionGUID="1136b56a-1aaa-4b66-9658-8811903e4f3d" CreationDate="2017-06-09T07:05:12.173" UserId="4432" Text="What is an idiomatic way to say when entering a restaurant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A table for two, please?&#xD;&#xA; - A table for one, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14579" RevisionGUID="1136b56a-1aaa-4b66-9658-8811903e4f3d" CreationDate="2017-06-09T07:05:12.173" UserId="4432" Text="Asking for a table" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14579" RevisionGUID="1136b56a-1aaa-4b66-9658-8811903e4f3d" CreationDate="2017-06-09T07:05:12.173" UserId="4432" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14580" RevisionGUID="6109bd92-1fdb-4ebb-bd63-6a2ae1601d17" CreationDate="2017-06-09T07:36:52.420" UserId="242" Text="Well, usually you are asked: &quot;Сколько вас будет?&quot; (how many there will be?)&#xD;&#xA;to which you can reply: &quot;Нас [будет] двое/трое/четверо&quot; etc. or &quot;я [буду] один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If nobody  is asking you but you still want to indicated it somehow, then go with &quot;Найдётся/есть ли/мне нужен  столик для/на одного/двух/трёх?&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35472" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="0f7c8580-4c3d-493b-9477-53652e721c94" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:47:02.550" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/873099102766026752" />
  <row Id="35473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14580" RevisionGUID="bf33c22d-7b25-4712-b724-94f23158ebc4" CreationDate="2017-06-09T10:20:18.227" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Well, usually you are asked: &quot;Сколько вас будет?&quot; (how many of you?)&#xD;&#xA;to which you can reply: &quot;Нас [будет] двое/трое/четверо&quot; etc. or &quot;я [буду] один&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If nobody  is asking you but you still want to indicated it somehow, then go with &quot;Найдётся/есть ли/мне нужен  столик для/на одного/двух/трёх?&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14580" RevisionGUID="40da4c24-ca46-4973-bf15-1ceaf1ff8182" CreationDate="2017-06-09T10:34:19.813" UserId="2104" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Well, usually you are asked: &quot;Ско́лько вас бу́дет?&quot; (how many of you?)&#xA;to which you can reply: &quot;Нас [бу́дет] дво́е/тро́е/че́тверо/пя́теро/ше́стеро/се́меро/во́семь/де́вять/де́сять&quot; etc. or &quot;я [бу́ду] оди́н&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;If nobody is asking you but you still want to indicate it somehow, then go with &quot;Найдётся/есть ли/мне ну́жен сто́лик для/на одного́/двои́х/трои́х/четверы́х/пятеры́х/шестеры́х/семеры́х/восьмеры́х?&quot; etc. or &quot;на двух/трёх/четверы́х/пять/шесть/семь/во́семь/де́вять челове́к&quot;. The last option is easier to remember and scales better for large(r) numbers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="44ac122e-3b36-45cb-96b7-1cc3d1dbe1af" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:34:57.950" UserId="1556" Comment="added 879 characters in body" Text="[In an earlier question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/how-could-i-have-gotten-the-cyrillic-spelling-of-vladyka), I was misusing Google translate to try to get the spelling of a word, and I was pointed to http://translit.cc which would directly furnish spelling instead of trying to guess a preimage in English that would translate in Russian to Владыка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am wondering about transliteration from modern Russian to Church Slavonic, or if that's not available transliteration from modern English to Slavonic. The LMGTFY-grade answer I'd anticipate is to simply change like letters for like, as a transliteration between alphabets rather than a transliteration between completely separate languages. However, I'd like to avoid beginner's mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a tool comparable to http://translit.cc, or should I just replace modern letters with ancient precursors and trust the naive approach?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**--Clarification--**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the hopes of allowing this question to be reopened, I am adding what I put as a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, English speakers who do not know Russian refer to the language of traditional Russian worship as &quot;Slavonic&quot; / &quot;Old Slavonic&quot; / &quot;Church Slavonic.&quot; Native Russian speakers invariably, in my experience, say &quot;Russian.&quot; I've read the Bible three times through in modern Russian and I'm chewing my way through the Slavonic, and the language is identifiably Russian. The linguistic distance between the Slavonic Bible on the one hand and a modern Russian translation on the other is about twice the distance between the KJV and the NIV, and the KJV is universally called English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know several Russian Orthodox, and all of them to my knowledge would place a question about old and new forms of Russian alphabet under the heading of the Russian language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35476" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="51a37e6e-bbb0-48d7-80ea-59397b435733" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:41:16.237" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1262,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manjusri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4600,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Taosique&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14578" RevisionGUID="6283efcc-7d5a-45df-864f-74079ad08486" CreationDate="2017-06-09T11:48:06.747" UserId="1556" Comment="Added further details and counterexample." Text="[In an earlier question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/how-could-i-have-gotten-the-cyrillic-spelling-of-vladyka), I was misusing Google translate to try to get the spelling of a word, and I was pointed to http://translit.cc which would directly furnish spelling instead of trying to guess a preimage in English that would translate in Russian to Владыка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am wondering about transliteration from modern Russian to Church Slavonic, or if that's not available transliteration from modern English to Slavonic. The LMGTFY-grade answer I'd anticipate is to simply change like letters for like, as a transliteration between alphabets rather than a transliteration between completely separate languages. However, I'd like to avoid beginner's mistakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a tool comparable to http://translit.cc, or should I just replace modern letters with ancient precursors and trust the naive approach?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**--Clarification--**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the hopes of allowing this question to be reopened, I am adding what I put as a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, English speakers who do not know Russian refer to the language of traditional Russian worship as &quot;Slavonic&quot; / &quot;Old Slavonic&quot; / &quot;Church Slavonic.&quot; Native Russian speakers invariably, in my experience, say &quot;Russian.&quot; I've read the Bible three times through in modern Russian and I'm chewing my way through the Slavonic, and the language is identifiably Russian. The linguistic distance between the Slavonic Bible on the one hand and a modern Russian translation on the other is about twice the distance between the KJV and the NIV, and the KJV is universally called English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know several Russian Orthodox, and all of them to my knowledge would place a question about old and new forms of Russian alphabet under the heading of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further evidence, you might see [a Russian video of the tale of Peter and Fevronia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXaSUmd4iJs&amp;t=58s). After an initial animation showing an acronym in modern Russian letters, all the Russian that appears on the screen (the title of the video, a banner, people's names, etc.) are deliberately written in the Slavonic alphabet. The language of the video is modern Russian (plus English subtitles), but in Russian and in general there are times where it makes sense to Russians to write Russian content in the Slavonic alphabet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14581" RevisionGUID="4aa5250b-70e6-43f9-9099-f422b24a9a9b" CreationDate="2017-06-09T14:29:19.443" UserId="4903" Text="Church Slavonic is a separate language that uses a superset of Russian alphabet.  Hence transliteration from Russian to Church Slavonic will be the exact copy of the original Russian message, since every letter in the Russian alphabet is the same in Church Slavonic alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you simply need the effect of using a different font, as they did in the cartoon about Peter and Fevronia, then you can use one of the publicly available fonts. You can look at fonts listed here: [Church Slavonic Fonts](http://www.irmologion.ru/fonts.html) I, personally, like the first one, at the top of the page (Irmologion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to change spelling of Russian words to make them look older. Then you can either use pre-reform spelling converter as discussed here: [What kind of Russian orthography is this?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-kind-of-russian-orthography-is-this), or translate it into Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you really want to write text in Church Slavonic language. Then you need to learn that new language: dictionary, grammar, etc.  Church Slavonic can be written either using one of the fonts above, or using [Roman Cyrillic Std font](http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/aksl/schrift/romancyrillicstd.htm). Roman Cyrillic Std supports many of the additional letters that are needed to work with older texts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14581" RevisionGUID="6fb9f6f1-3cdc-4e55-8717-d25f53c3f2b5" CreationDate="2017-06-09T14:44:29.577" UserId="4903" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Church Slavonic is a separate language that uses a superset of Russian alphabet.  Hence transliteration from Russian to Church Slavonic will be the exact copy of the original Russian message, since every letter in the Russian alphabet is the same in Church Slavonic alphabet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you simply need the effect of using a different font, as they did in the cartoon about Peter and Fevronia, then you can use one of the publicly available fonts. You can look at fonts listed here: [Church Slavonic Fonts](http://www.irmologion.ru/fonts.html) I, personally, like the first one, at the top of the page (Irmologion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to change spelling of Russian words to make them look &quot;older&quot;. Then you can either use pre-reform spelling converter as discussed here: [What kind of Russian orthography is this?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-kind-of-russian-orthography-is-this), or translate it into Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you really want to write text in Church Slavonic language. Then you need to learn that language: dictionary, grammar, etc.  Church Slavonic can be written either using one of the fonts above, or using [Roman Cyrillic Std font](http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/aksl/schrift/romancyrillicstd.htm). Roman Cyrillic Std supports many of the additional letters that are needed to work with older texts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14579" RevisionGUID="0cb755b0-cf7b-4486-a148-4b30ff6a6a34" CreationDate="2017-06-09T14:47:04.813" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/873189709362679808" />
  <row Id="35481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="7aed597a-927e-49ca-8eef-8a8136199e91" CreationDate="2017-06-09T15:45:26.567" UserId="4753" Comment="formatting" Text="I am answering this question even though it is old because it seems to me that though there are already several interesting answers, none of them is simple and direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in -нибудь refer casually to something unknown to the speaker. Words ending with -либо mean something unknown to the speaker, no matter what that might be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь--someone or other&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;кто-либо--anyone at all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-нибудь--ever, someday (usually in the future)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-либо--at any time whatsoever (usually in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@FlashCactus says that -либо sounds more official. But this is not a mere matter of style. It is because -либо conveys an idea which officials often need to convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at a dinner party you might be asked:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Были ли вы когда-нибудь в России?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you ever been to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But customs or immigration official might ask:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Совершили ли вы когда-либо неразрешеный въезд на территорию Российской федерации?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you at any time entered the Russian Federation without permission?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="0fea7fe7-5311-40ba-97c8-063b2fde8532" CreationDate="2017-06-09T16:26:24.190" UserId="4753" Comment="more clarification" Text="I am answering this question even though it is old because it seems to me that though there are already several interesting answers, none of them is simple and direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words ending in -нибудь refer casually to something unknown to the speaker which we might choose to mention. Words ending with -либо add the thought of &quot;at all&quot; or &quot;whatsoever&quot; and so call for strict interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кто-нибудь--anyone, someone or other&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;кто-либо--anyone at all&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-нибудь--ever, someday (usually in the future)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;когда-либо--at any time whatsoever (usually in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@FlashCactus says that -либо sounds more official. But this is not a mere matter of style. It is because -либо conveys an idea which officials often need to convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, at a dinner party you might be asked:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Были ли вы когда-нибудь в России?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you ever been to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have made any significant visits to Russian, this information may be helpful. But a customs or immigration official might ask:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Совершили ли вы когда-либо неразрешеный въезд на территорию Российской федерации?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Have you at any time entered the Russian Federation without permission?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The official is enforcing strict rules. He needs to know about all visits, even those you do not consider important.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="a94f7db8-b9d1-4889-a020-3062dd08c201" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:58:33.663" UserId="9100" Text="What does mean &quot;разверзлись хляби небесные?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="a94f7db8-b9d1-4889-a020-3062dd08c201" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:58:33.663" UserId="9100" Text="Что есть хляби?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="a94f7db8-b9d1-4889-a020-3062dd08c201" CreationDate="2017-06-10T15:58:33.663" UserId="9100" Text="|этимология|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="7cd6b2b4-516e-4b8b-b57b-ce04ee341b2e" CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:17:26.473" UserId="242" Text="Well in Bible it means heavy raining of epic proportions, but this word could, as of now, is known basically due to this particular phrase (and actually is used in Bible few more times). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian хлѩбь stands for `водопад` (waterfall), `стремнина` (rapids), generally speaking, some fierce and turbulent flow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this definition [here][1]. Here's a screenshot (it's easier to do rather then retype in modern spelling, also losing some context):[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/doc/sreznevskijT-Ja.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/anIlZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="3f444391-bc83-4506-b60b-713c716fbcb0" CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:28:58.883" UserId="242" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Well in Bible it means heavy raining of epic proportions, but this word could, as of now, is known basically due to this particular phrase (and actually is used in Bible few more times). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian хлѩбь stands for `водопад` (waterfall), `стремнина` (rapids), generally speaking, some fierce and turbulent flow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this definition [here][1]. Here's a screenshot (it's easier to do rather then retype in modern spelling, also losing some context):[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to mention that in modern Russian &quot;разверлись хлюби небесные&quot; could be used, though this usage is way to rare, in a joking context - when talking of bad weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/doc/sreznevskijT-Ja.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/anIlZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35493" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="340dca3f-1703-4454-b0b5-41a4ac11a0a6" CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:30:56.630" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="1e965c89-2c95-4c4b-a965-97e185360028" CreationDate="2017-06-10T16:52:18.797" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Well in the Bible it means heavy raining of epic proportions, but this word could, as of now, is known basically due to this particular phrase (and actually is used in the Bible few more times). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian хлѩбь stands for `водопад` (waterfall), `стремнина` (rapids), generally speaking, some fierce and turbulent flow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this definition [here][1]. Here's a screenshot (it's easier to do rather then retype in modern spelling, also losing some context):[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to mention that in modern Russian &quot;разверлись хлюби небесные&quot; could be used, though this usage is way to rare, in a joking context - when talking of bad weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/doc/sreznevskijT-Ja.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/anIlZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="5f4730a4-f80c-40cc-a668-0cec7d7ff780" CreationDate="2017-06-10T17:55:29.640" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/873599513256226816" />
  <row Id="35502" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14583" RevisionGUID="da9ee3fc-8704-440b-99a4-f198880baf6a" CreationDate="2017-06-10T20:35:59.780" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Что есть &quot;хляби&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35503" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14576" RevisionGUID="a1e60ff1-85c9-46c1-807c-4a060e6c4582" CreationDate="2017-06-11T05:56:47.457" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/873781034130788352" />
  <row Id="35504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="88817627-cf58-43e0-9d43-a7f74b9e0d06" CreationDate="2017-06-11T19:43:42.373" UserId="6545" Text="In the sentence, &#xA;&#xA;&quot;But that's not true.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I see a translation as &#xA;&#xA;&quot;Но **э**то не пр**а**вда.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I know 'пр**а**вда' is feminine so it seems that the '**э**то' being used is the indeclinable particle, and not the adjective (or else, if the translation is correct, it would have used '**э**та for the nominative case).&#xA;&#xA;How can one tell/know which word to use - the indeclinable particle, or the declinable special adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="88817627-cf58-43e0-9d43-a7f74b9e0d06" CreationDate="2017-06-11T19:43:42.373" UserId="6545" Text="Which это? Particle or Special Adjective/Pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="88817627-cf58-43e0-9d43-a7f74b9e0d06" CreationDate="2017-06-11T19:43:42.373" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14587" RevisionGUID="1b3bf742-62c7-4f29-90c3-815dac0e18e9" CreationDate="2017-06-11T20:13:47.003" UserId="2104" Text="_Э́то_ is the subject in this case, it does not need to agree with _пра́вда_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Э́то ма́льчик. It's / that's / this is a boy.&#xD;&#xA;- Э́то де́вочка. It's / that's / this is a girl.&#xD;&#xA;- Э́то молоко́.  It's / that's / this is milk.&#xD;&#xA;- Э́то гру́ши.   These / Those are pears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used attributively, the pronoun needs to agree with the attributed noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Э́тот ма́льчик ве́жливый.  This boy is polite.&#xD;&#xA; - Э́та де́вочка симпати́чная. This girl is cute.&#xD;&#xA; - Э́то молоко́ горя́чее. This milk is hot.&#xD;&#xA; - Э́ти гру́ши спе́лые. These pears are ripe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14588" RevisionGUID="1bab0ad1-7d4c-491c-b4d1-5f9595551b27" CreationDate="2017-06-11T20:28:01.700" UserId="9001" Text="If English **that** plays the role of the subject or object, then it will be translated to indeclinable **это** particle. If it is an adjective (determiner), then it shall be translated to a declinable pronoun **тот** (with forms тот, та, то, те) or **этот** (with forms этот, эта, это, эти)*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not true - Это не [есть] правда (or literally это не есть правдивое) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like that - Я не люблю это&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That truth - Та правда or Эта правда" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="ce949b67-9f18-4c39-80b3-c1621c420e21" CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:45:57.223" UserId="115" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Well in the Bible it means heavy raining of epic proportions, but this word could, as of now, is known basically due to this particular phrase (and actually is used in the Bible few more times). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian хлѩбь stands for `водопад` (waterfall), `стремнина` (rapids), generally speaking, some fierce and turbulent flow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this definition [here][1]. Here's a screenshot (it's easier to do rather then retype in modern spelling, also losing some context):[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to mention that in modern Russian &quot;разверзлись хлюби небесные&quot; could be used, though this usage is way to rare, in a joking context - when talking of bad weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/doc/sreznevskijT-Ja.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/anIlZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14589" RevisionGUID="4c064cb7-176a-4265-b030-995a55dadb43" CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:53:14.503" UserId="115" Text="This is a quote from the Bible referring to the flood. The English version from The New American Standard Bible is &quot;...and the floodgates of the sky were opened.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14590" RevisionGUID="0bbb6174-651b-47ca-8de1-11538cdc42a7" CreationDate="2017-06-12T01:05:01.233" UserId="9107" Text="There's something I've stumbled upon recently -- music by Аквариум and Борис Гребенщиков, which I listen to through Amazon Prime. [This][1] is their website with lyrics to the songs.  I've learned several of the songs, and lots of vocabulary and usage along with it, such as Поезд в Огне.  Amazon also has the spoken Russian New Testament with dramatization.  Also, there's music by Владимир Высоцкий such as Москва Одесса. You could also pick up works by some famous authors such as Солженицын ([Один день Ивана Денисовича][2]).  Anyway, just keep pounding on it.  Improvement will come gradually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.planetaquarium.com/discography/songs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lib.ru/PROZA/SOLZHENICYN/ivandenisych.txt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14588" RevisionGUID="1ff282c0-a617-4e39-8e71-817a8f43a7f0" CreationDate="2017-06-12T08:50:10.653" UserId="9001" Comment="Removed a misleading example" Text="If English **that** plays the role of the subject or object, then it will be translated to indeclinable **это** particle. If it is an adjective (determiner), then it shall be translated to a declinable pronoun **тот** (with forms тот, та, то, те) or **этот** (with forms этот, эта, это, эти)*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not true - Это не [есть] правда &lt;del&gt;(or literally это не есть правдивое)&lt;/del&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like that - Я не люблю это&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That truth - Та правда or Эта правда" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14555" RevisionGUID="494e935e-509a-4d24-8546-7c857ee04d79" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:04:06.763" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/874190562575908864" />
  <row Id="35514" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="35ead931-517b-4f8f-aecb-11306669cd57" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35515" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8971" RevisionGUID="94681a31-f208-41bc-8c56-9de5b9658055" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35516" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8973" RevisionGUID="9ba7d151-c46a-44ca-b0d3-8ae370c5f623" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35517" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8977" RevisionGUID="f8e50661-42be-40b0-bc83-5b1d34239987" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35518" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8979" RevisionGUID="e0b0f91c-b285-4083-b5de-5fe382ece525" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35519" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8986" RevisionGUID="39cee6d7-ae90-4124-8342-2444b674397f" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35520" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8993" RevisionGUID="951c9a88-b0d6-4038-9647-145e4dafb93e" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35523" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9089" RevisionGUID="6297e4f0-6819-46ec-b116-c18b93dfbb69" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35524" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="9104" RevisionGUID="4dbd61c0-ce63-47a0-8430-8082394cb19d" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35525" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="13178" RevisionGUID="c7d9fcd8-9626-4039-9a7f-c743e460f8f9" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35526" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="14590" RevisionGUID="8cab45da-42bf-405f-8dfa-2941a2366e61" CreationDate="2017-06-12T09:10:57.823" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="35527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14584" RevisionGUID="9dcb047c-ad44-4867-aa8b-1217c7530b15" CreationDate="2017-06-12T13:35:47.667" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typo" Text="Well in the Bible it means heavy raining of epic proportions, but this word could, as of now, is known basically due to this particular phrase (and actually is used in the Bible few more times). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian хлѩбь stands for `водопад` (waterfall), `стремнина` (rapids), generally speaking, some fierce and turbulent flow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this definition [here][1]. Here's a screenshot (it's easier to do rather then retype in modern spelling, also losing some context):[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to mention that in modern Russian &quot;разверзлись хлюби небесные&quot; could be used, though this usage is way too rare, in a joking context - when talking of bad weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://etymolog.ruslang.ru/doc/sreznevskijT-Ja.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/anIlZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="97256075-be81-4aa9-a870-d216ec2b5e80" CreationDate="2017-06-12T17:42:25.840" UserId="9100" Text="Most common usage I have seen for the angling utility дурилка, it is referenced to be made of cardboard which possible would attract fish after getting wet, maybe similar to bread crumbs; but are others materials possible, too? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="97256075-be81-4aa9-a870-d216ec2b5e80" CreationDate="2017-06-12T17:42:25.840" UserId="9100" Text="What are other possible materials for дурилка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="97256075-be81-4aa9-a870-d216ec2b5e80" CreationDate="2017-06-12T17:42:25.840" UserId="9100" Text="|словоупотребление|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35531" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14591" RevisionGUID="de3a7c2b-d3c0-472d-9a38-a4eed90b5e28" CreationDate="2017-06-12T17:53:31.697" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14592" RevisionGUID="44ebaf8a-4684-46ce-af71-d39eeee77755" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:34:15.830" UserId="9603" Text="Also, is there a difference between прокойной ночи and добрый/доброе ночи?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14592" RevisionGUID="44ebaf8a-4684-46ce-af71-d39eeee77755" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:34:15.830" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between доброе, добрый and доброй?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14592" RevisionGUID="44ebaf8a-4684-46ce-af71-d39eeee77755" CreationDate="2017-06-12T22:34:15.830" UserId="9603" Text="|узус|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14593" RevisionGUID="1b93ed41-4953-4a73-a3b4-ed8d8830675e" CreationDate="2017-06-13T04:37:27.210" UserId="6539" Text="What we wish before going to bed is &quot;спокойной ночи&quot;(good night but to be precise &quot;quiet night&quot;. &quot;Доброй ночи&quot; (&quot;kind &quot; meaning &quot;good and quiet &quot;) is the same but to my mind sounds poetically. But perhaps it's personal.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is an abbreviation from Я желаю вам/тебе спокойной/доброй ночи. So желаю (чего?)+genitive case " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14593" RevisionGUID="976faa8d-5bc0-460c-a03e-06fa70110a68" CreationDate="2017-06-13T04:42:37.033" UserId="6539" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="What we wish before going to bed is **спокойной ночи** (good night but to be precise &quot;quiet night&quot;). **Доброй ночи** (&quot;kind &quot; meaning &quot;good and quiet &quot;) is the same but to my mind sounds poetically. But perhaps it's personal.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is an abbreviation from Я желаю вам/тебе спокойной/доброй ночи. So желаю (чего?)+ **genitive case**(добрая ночь nominative– доброй ночи genitive )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14593" RevisionGUID="383d7c02-ddcb-45c6-80ba-4eda20652ccc" CreationDate="2017-06-13T04:47:38.973" UserId="6539" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="What we wish before going to bed is **спокойной ночи** (good night but to be precise &quot;quiet night&quot;). **Доброй ночи** (&quot;kind &quot; meaning &quot;good and quiet &quot;) is the same, but to my mind sounds poetically. But perhaps it's personal.&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is an abbreviation from &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я желаю вам/тебе спокойной/доброй ночи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So желаю (чего?)+ **genitive case** (добрая ночь nominative – доброй ночи genitive)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14592" RevisionGUID="471541e3-2bb8-4c5a-aee2-7e10470085c6" CreationDate="2017-06-13T07:03:03.000" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Also, is there a difference between &quot;спокойной ночи&quot; and &quot;доброй ночи&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14594" RevisionGUID="1bf0b109-4c06-4fc5-823d-db148ef61bed" CreationDate="2017-06-13T07:08:10.663" UserId="9072" Text="usage of `Добрый` and `Доброе` depends on the gender of the noun, which this adjective agrees to. For example `Утро` is of neutral gender (`Оно моё утро`), so we should use `Доброе`, but `День` is of masculine gender (`Он мой день`), so we use `Добрый`. `Доброй` is slightly more complicated, as V.V. already stated, it is in genitive case with feminine noun. To summarize, please take a look at this table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;               | Masculine | Feminine | Neutral |&#xD;&#xA;    Nominative |  Добрый   |  Добрая  | Доброе  |&#xD;&#xA;    Genitive   |  Доброго  |  Доброй  | Доброго |&#xD;&#xA;I should note, that usage of `Доброго дня`, `Доброго вечера` is allowed, but `Добрая ночь` is incorrect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35540" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14592" RevisionGUID="80b3a4ca-4ab7-4ea0-8637-a1641a92e44d" CreationDate="2017-06-13T10:27:43.757" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="e84fb739-9d8d-489d-baea-c936f398b800" CreationDate="2017-06-13T12:33:34.357" UserId="9100" Text="Sometimes they say &quot;offer salt &amp; bread&quot; to present as welcome; there is also деловая колбаса - business sausage? - what do they mean exactly and can you say &quot;предложить деловую колбасу&quot; analog to &quot;предложить хлеб и соль&quot; on business occasions? (and as symbol for willingness for a good deal, because of the &quot;offer&quot; - предложение&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="e84fb739-9d8d-489d-baea-c936f398b800" CreationDate="2017-06-13T12:33:34.357" UserId="9100" Text="Предложить деловую колбасу - should be served on business occasions to show respect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="e84fb739-9d8d-489d-baea-c936f398b800" CreationDate="2017-06-13T12:33:34.357" UserId="9100" Text="|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35544" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="5308d53f-2f3a-459f-943f-5546cc8ec51c" CreationDate="2017-06-13T12:35:16.393" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35545" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="c3edff78-d926-4f2c-83c3-228e054a65fb" CreationDate="2017-06-14T06:17:21.603" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/874873374257938432" />
  <row Id="35546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="dcde3393-e739-4a7e-a413-5234b2b7c395" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:40:19.347" UserId="9100" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="Sometimes they say &quot;offer salt &amp; bread&quot; to present as welcome; there is also деловая колбаса - business sausage? - what do they mean exactly and can you say &quot;предложить деловую колбасу&quot; analog to &quot;предложить хлеб и соль&quot; on business occasions? (and as symbol for willingness for a good deal, because of the &quot;offer&quot; - предложение&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the relationship of these terms, there is a phrase &quot;all what is in the stove, on table swords&quot; (I do not know the context why swords are important, maybe because of &quot;who comes with a sword, will die from a sword&quot;) but if in ancient time they took bread out of the stove, nowadays you would take from refrigerator a sausage, probably for scientists the doctor sausage (докторская) and for business people the business one (деловая). The pejorative connotation with sausage is more clear on example of &quot;sausage emigration&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="ea6f9afc-a501-4ed8-8040-50dd40dd473a" CreationDate="2017-06-14T08:45:28.840" UserId="9100" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="Sometimes they say &quot;offer salt &amp; bread&quot; to present as welcome; there is also деловая колбаса - business sausage? - what do they mean exactly and can you say &quot;предложить деловую колбасу&quot; analog to &quot;предложить хлеб и соль&quot; on business occasions? (and as symbol for willingness for a good deal, because of the &quot;offer&quot; - предложение&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the relationship of these terms, there is a phrase &quot;all what is in the stove, on table swords&quot; (I do not know the context why swords are important, maybe because of &quot;who comes with a sword, will die from a sword&quot;) but if in ancient times they took bread out of the stove, nowadays you would take from refrigerator a sausage, probably for scientists the doctor sausage (докторская) and for business people the business one (деловая). The pejorative connotation with sausage is more clear on example of &quot;sausage emigration&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="56b7d5e5-eb8c-4fee-8202-4d235fd43a2d" CreationDate="2017-06-14T10:57:41.927" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Sometimes they say &quot;offer salt &amp; bread&quot; to present as welcome; there is also деловая колбаса - business sausage? - what do they mean exactly and can you say &quot;предложить деловую колбасу&quot; analog to &quot;предложить хлеб и соль&quot; on business occasions? (and as symbol for willingness for a good deal, because of the &quot;offer&quot; - предложение&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain the relationship of these terms, there is a phrase &quot;all what is in the stove, on table swords&quot; (I do not know the context why swords are important, maybe because of &quot;who comes with a sword, will die from a sword&quot;) but if in ancient times they took bread out of the stove, nowadays you would take from refrigerator a sausage, probably for scientists the doctor sausage (докторская) and for business people the business one (деловая). The pejorative connotation with sausage is more clear on example of &quot;sausage emigration&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35549" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="15c8d986-cbe5-40e6-9ca3-13809f81b8b4" CreationDate="2017-06-14T10:57:49.167" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14596" RevisionGUID="dd56caca-46a5-422d-98fe-0a1a53edc6d4" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:48:02.547" UserId="9076" Text="I am told to use propositional case with the names of the months to define time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I am confused as I can't seem to find how.&#xD;&#xA;For example, how did Сентябрь becomes в Сентябре? Декабрь to в Декабре? Май to в Мае? Август to в Августе? Right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May I know how to construct this? Or is it just simply change the endings into &lt;&lt;е&gt;&gt;? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14596" RevisionGUID="dd56caca-46a5-422d-98fe-0a1a53edc6d4" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:48:02.547" UserId="9076" Text="How to use prepositional case to define time? (Months)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14596" RevisionGUID="dd56caca-46a5-422d-98fe-0a1a53edc6d4" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:48:02.547" UserId="9076" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14597" RevisionGUID="527182b8-a79f-4fc0-93b5-f6ac8757e24f" CreationDate="2017-06-14T13:59:04.200" UserId="242" Text="Check out, for instance, [following reference][1], where you can find a lot of information about Russian prepositional. Here's a quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Время и условие**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кроме пространственных значений предложный падеж может выражать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значение Времени: в детстве, в мае, на прошлой неделе, на рассвете,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при царе, при встрече, при каждом удобном случае, по приезде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, you use prepositional with moths when you saying when - so &quot;в январе&quot;, &quot;в феврале&quot;, &quot;в марте&quot; - and so on - luckily they all are inclined the same way - so indeed all end with &quot;-e&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6#232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14598" RevisionGUID="c94fcf01-cfc8-4dfd-9e2b-860390291fc6" CreationDate="2017-06-14T14:13:00.420" UserId="2104" Text="1. If the month name ends with Й or Ь, remove the last letter.&#xA;2. Add the ending -е.&#xA;3. Add the preposition в.&#xA;&#xA;Note that month names are not capitalised in Russian.&#xA;&#xA; - Янва́рь - в январе́&#xA; - Май - в ма́е&#xA; - А́вгуст - в а́вгусте.&#xA;&#xA;In январе́, феврале́, сентябре́, октябре́, ноябре́ and декабре́ the stress shifts to the ending. For other months it stays put." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14599" RevisionGUID="c0d0ebc1-ce53-4653-9e54-3b4f6110def8" CreationDate="2017-06-14T14:54:12.690" UserId="9115" Text="Деловая колбаса is a slang phrase, which ironically describes a person who is trying to look or behaves like as serious business man (or just tries to look like an overloaded with more serious tasks).&#xD;&#xA;It often applicable for kids, who behave like adults, I would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do, actually, with a sausage itself.&#xD;&#xA;It will look very funny if you'll present &quot;деловая колбаса&quot; as a welcome :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;докторская колбаса&quot; has nothing to do with scientists or doctors. It's just a well known brand of relatively cheap sausage in Soviet Union. If someone uses this term nowadays, he probably refer to soviet union times in some case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="4c1440e6-f0f6-48fb-b110-3fcbfc7c5309" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:36:27.527" UserId="4753" Text="While &quot;деловая колбаса&quot; does mean &quot;business sausage&quot;, it is not a sausage served at business meetings. Instead it is a parody of the phrase &quot;деловой человек&quot; (businessman). The picture it presents is of a sausage which has risen from the plate to put on a business suit and go out into the world with a briefcase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say of someone &quot;Он--деловая колбаса&quot; whe mean that he is parodying the behavior of busy people doing important work as a way of making himself seem more important. You might say this of a child who sees his play as important tasks. Or you might say it of a person who tries to impress others by taking and making &quot;important phone calls&quot; at social events such as dinner parties.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14602" RevisionGUID="c87c6e6c-09dd-438d-bb23-19fa099e571b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:41:36.290" UserId="7239" Text="There is a dialog in my workbook, which goes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Ты каждый день ходишь в бассейн?  - Нет, я хожу через день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get the first sentence, and why one should use the abstract ходить instead of the concrete идти there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't understand is what the second sentence is saying. My thought was that it was supposed to say &quot;I haven't went in a day&quot; or &quot;I am going to go a day from now&quot;, so I thought that one should write иду or пойду -- but instead the correct answer is to write хожу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** So why is an abstract verb of motion appropriate in that context? How does it represent a repeated action or a motion without a specified direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key words, I am guessing, are через день, but I don't understand what the phrase is supposed to connote in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14602" RevisionGUID="c87c6e6c-09dd-438d-bb23-19fa099e571b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:41:36.290" UserId="7239" Text="Is this how to say &quot;every other day&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14602" RevisionGUID="c87c6e6c-09dd-438d-bb23-19fa099e571b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T15:41:36.290" UserId="7239" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|phrase|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="92ef357b-9b51-4c5e-b331-6ced668a4272" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:02:22.527" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, через день means every other day. The verb ходить is appropriate here as it denotes a repetitive action, as opposed to идти which denotes a continuous action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14604" RevisionGUID="f2df10ae-1613-461d-9e1a-45ff33ff6086" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:04:38.470" UserId="134" Text="*Через день* is a set phrase which means &quot;every other day&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say *через два дня* (&quot;every third day&quot;), *через три дня* (&quot;every fourth day&quot;) etc., however, to avoid ambiguity, phrases like those are usually worded as *через два дня на третий* or *день через два*, or just *раз в три дня*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Через день* can also mean &quot;in a day&quot; (hence the ambiguity) and usage of an iterative (*ходить* instead of *идти*) helps to resolve this ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я хожу в бассейн через день // I go swimming at the pool every other day&#xD;&#xA;* Я хожу в бассейн через три дня на четвёртый // I go swimming at the pool every fourth day&#xD;&#xA;* Я пойду в бассейн через день // In a day I'm going to go swimming at the pool&#xD;&#xA;* Я пойду в бассейн через три дня // In three days I'm going to go swimming at the pool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="699bbe05-ee00-4848-87b1-146620b43d93" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:48:37.963" UserId="1236" Text="In the &quot;Техника – молодежи&quot; magazine, №5 1977, there is a sci-fi story translated from English, &quot;A Task for Emmy&quot;, it is about a super-computer called &quot;Эмми&quot;. The story has a phrase that puzzled me, &quot;тысячи **милей** ее проводов&quot;. All my dictionaries (Dahl, Ushakov, Ozhegov, Zaliznyak) say &quot;миля&quot; is the 1st declension soft variant, that is the genitive case plural should be &quot;миль&quot;, like &quot;пуля – пуль&quot;. What is that &quot;милей&quot; form? Can that be an archaic/regional variant? Or is it just a mere typo or the translator's mistake? I have been reading &quot;Техника – молодежи&quot; for all my life and so far I have never seen even a single typo in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jq3Cr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="699bbe05-ee00-4848-87b1-146620b43d93" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:48:37.963" UserId="1236" Text="Can noun &quot;миля&quot; have Gen. Pl. form &quot;милей&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="699bbe05-ee00-4848-87b1-146620b43d93" CreationDate="2017-06-14T16:48:37.963" UserId="1236" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14606" RevisionGUID="76d0c1f8-cb96-4982-977c-7b1d7b90251f" CreationDate="2017-06-14T17:15:15.233" UserId="9116" Text="It is indeed not grammatical. It may be a regional form from the place the author was from, but not standard Russian. By the way, Google search has got 162 for &quot;тысяча милей&quot; whilst  20k for &quot;тысяча миль&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14601" RevisionGUID="027ea929-e32d-4884-99d8-19c9c7f00078" CreationDate="2017-06-14T17:56:26.213" UserId="4753" Comment="typo" Text="While &quot;деловая колбаса&quot; does mean &quot;business sausage&quot;, it is not a sausage served at business meetings. Instead it is a parody of the phrase &quot;деловой человек&quot; (businessman). The picture it presents is of a sausage which has risen from the plate to put on a business suit and go out into the world with a briefcase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say of someone &quot;Он--деловая колбаса&quot; we mean that he is parodying the behavior of busy people doing important work as a way of making himself seem more important. You might say this of a child who sees his play as important tasks. Or you might say it of a person who tries to impress others by taking and making &quot;important phone calls&quot; at social events such as dinner parties.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14607" RevisionGUID="e453e544-fae7-4819-81d4-7c4483e8f043" CreationDate="2017-06-14T18:41:25.620" UserId="2079" Text="Below is what I found on line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Ну ты – деловая колбаса!» Сегодня в этом обращении слышится некоторое&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пренебрежение к товарищу, чересчур озабоченному кипучей деятельностью.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но многие старожилы помнят, что и в самом деле была в своё время такая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колбаса. Не верите? А я не сомневаюсь, я видела, продавалась она в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гастрономе, что на улице Плюснина. Колбаса эта была недорогая, как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорили тогда хозяйки, «бумажная», лежала она в витрине рядом с тоже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дешёвой «Ливерной». Вкуснейшие «Докторская», «Русская» и прочие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; немногочисленные сорта колбас из «благородных» гордо располагались в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдельной витрине. Брали «Деловую» и «Ливерную» в основном мужики –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; граммов по двести на закуску к «маленькой» или женщины – на корм котам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и собакам, откуда её второе, народное название «собачья радость». Нам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; детям, тоже хотелось попробовать эту самую «Деловую», но так и не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; удалось... А ведь интересно, какая же она была на вкус?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35573" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="e2de922a-d70f-4461-8255-f230c4325406" CreationDate="2017-06-14T21:28:01.723" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/875102550525177857" />
  <row Id="35574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14608" RevisionGUID="d1aa29f0-44a7-4554-ba94-8e0d3002a139" CreationDate="2017-06-14T21:53:33.553" UserId="242" Text="Well, it feels almost like cheating but once again Google Ngram Viewer [turns out][1] to be a nice research tool at least for getting started:[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's actually pretty clear that `милей` never was as popular as `миль`. Which is actually kinda strange, since there's no obvious reason for this. In wiktionary it is [mentioned][3], that in Zaliznyak's classification `миля` belongs to [type 2a][4] - that means &quot;слова с основой на мягкий согласный, ударение всегда на основу&quot; - but, say `тюлень`, `олень` or even pretty rare `киль`  do not follow that pattern. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%2C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DYQay.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14609" RevisionGUID="4fbfaffb-13d8-4fac-a936-2ecb0525a357" CreationDate="2017-06-14T23:02:24.033" UserId="242" Text="While answers provided are correct, let me mention another possible phrasing which is also perfectly valid though indeed used not that frequent: `каждый второй день`, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Робинзон Крузо каждый второй день пополняет запасы питьевой воды из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; источника, каждый третий день собирает фрукты и каждый пятый день&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ходит на охоту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, this pattern can be used to indicate some action that is taken every third day, every fourth etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="cba46ac4-a6be-4e9a-874c-8b648fc755b0" CreationDate="2017-06-15T06:27:30.993" UserId="1499" Text="It’s a wide used term and has its own article in wiki: [Cognitive shift][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, I failed to find something better than this awkward &quot;изменения в осознании&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_shift" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="cba46ac4-a6be-4e9a-874c-8b648fc755b0" CreationDate="2017-06-15T06:27:30.993" UserId="1499" Text="How to say &quot;cognitive shift&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="cba46ac4-a6be-4e9a-874c-8b648fc755b0" CreationDate="2017-06-15T06:27:30.993" UserId="1499" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14611" RevisionGUID="17949b8b-3500-4f8d-9583-18e2387d9f29" CreationDate="2017-06-15T07:08:02.353" UserId="9072" Text="In more colloquial terms it could be translated as `Сдвиг по фазе`, but that is closer to insanity, not just any shift in any direction. I think it could be translated literally - `Когнитивный сдвиг`. There are lots of adopted words in russian nowadays. You may want to search some professional psychologic literature for a more precise translation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14613" RevisionGUID="eb45f475-6ab5-4348-ae29-f704c20509da" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:29:21.503" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; The key words, I am guessing, are через день, but I don't understand what the phrase is supposed to connote in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: я перепрыгнул **через** камень - I jumped **over** a stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such phrases &quot;через&quot; conveys an idea of some 'obstacle' to be skipped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;хожу через [один] день&quot; is conveying that after you visited the place, the next day would be an obstacle to skip over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like those mentioned above &quot;через два дня&quot; and &quot;через три дня&quot; conveying that after each visit next two or three days are again considered a nuisance to be skipped over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a native English speaker, but maybe you can translate your phrase as &quot;No, I am attending the pool *skipping* next (after visits) day(s)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So why is an abstract verb of motion appropriate in that context? How does it represent a repeated action or a motion without a specified direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you are not talking of any specific visit. You are not asking &quot;who was you pool on last Tuesday going?&quot;, you are not telling &quot;When you depart for the pool, take the umbrella, skies are clouded&quot;, you do not mean any specific visit in itself. What you are querying about is the general pattern of behavior, a schedule of all visits without stressing any specific one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, within the example with a &quot;focused&quot; verb &quot;Я пойду через день&quot; by @shabunc the meaning of &quot;через&quot; also can be conveyed via skipping: &quot;I will first skip the tomorrow day and then I will be going the day after skipped tomorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a word &quot;чересполосица&quot; :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35584" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14602" RevisionGUID="16dbdb40-382a-4310-90dd-7f297a6ef00e" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:33:22.510" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/875285090938613760" />
  <row Id="35585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14613" RevisionGUID="f5f40268-a4c3-481e-8e32-8596fe23434e" CreationDate="2017-06-15T09:34:52.490" UserId="9058" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="&gt; The key words, I am guessing, are через день, but I don't understand what the phrase is supposed to connote in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: я перепрыгнул **через** камень - I jumped **over** a stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such phrases &quot;через&quot; conveys an idea of some 'obstacle' to be skipped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;хожу через [один] день&quot; is conveying that after you visited the place, the next day would be an obstacle to skip over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like those mentioned above &quot;через два дня&quot; and &quot;через три дня&quot; conveying that after each visit next two or three days are again considered a nuisance to be skipped over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a native English speaker, but maybe you can translate your phrase as &quot;No, I am attending the pool *skipping* next (after visits) day(s)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So why is an abstract verb of motion appropriate in that context? How does it represent a repeated action or a motion without a specified direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you are not talking of any specific visit. You are not asking &quot;how was you pool session on the last Tuesday going?&quot;, you are not suggesting &quot;When you depart for the pool, take the umbrella, skies are clouded&quot;, you do not mean any specific visit in itself. What you are querying about is the general pattern of behavior, a schedule of all visits without stressing any specific one. Here &quot;ходить&quot; is rather &quot;to attend&quot; than &quot;to go&quot; or &quot;to reach&quot; or &quot;to move&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, within the example with a &quot;focused&quot; verb &quot;Я пойду через день&quot; by @shabunc the meaning of &quot;через&quot; also can be conveyed via skipping: &quot;I will first skip the tomorrow day and then I will be going the day after skipped tomorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a word &quot;чересполосица&quot; :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14607" RevisionGUID="60c03a27-e878-46d0-ada3-1f95706a2df5" CreationDate="2017-06-15T13:34:11.840" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Below is what I found online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Ну ты – деловая колбаса!» Сегодня в этом обращении слышится некоторое&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пренебрежение к товарищу, чересчур озабоченному кипучей деятельностью.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но многие старожилы помнят, что и в самом деле была в своё время такая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; колбаса. Не верите? А я не сомневаюсь, я видела, продавалась она в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гастрономе, что на улице Плюснина. Колбаса эта была недорогая, как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорили тогда хозяйки, «бумажная», лежала она в витрине рядом с тоже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дешёвой «Ливерной». Вкуснейшие «Докторская», «Русская» и прочие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; немногочисленные сорта колбас из «благородных» гордо располагались в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отдельной витрине. Брали «Деловую» и «Ливерную» в основном мужики –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; граммов по двести на закуску к «маленькой» или женщины – на корм котам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и собакам, откуда её второе, народное название «собачья радость». Нам,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; детям, тоже хотелось попробовать эту самую «Деловую», но так и не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; удалось... А ведь интересно, какая же она была на вкус?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35594" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="c1284ca3-a1a2-4d94-b306-6b1038cdb564" CreationDate="2017-06-15T15:12:29.877" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14616" RevisionGUID="5d9da6e3-8c64-4f38-87fa-e7019910b574" CreationDate="2017-06-15T18:33:47.257" UserId="6545" Text="I saw this sentence in Charles E Townsend's, *Continuing with Russian*,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Он**а** х**о**чет ем**у**нр**а**виться. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; She wants him to like her (in general).&#xA;&#xA;and I wondered where the 'her' was. If it was a little more complicated, like,&#xA;&#xA;&gt; They want him to like her.&#xA;&#xA;what would it be. Where would the 'they' and the 'her' go? Would the answers to these questions be;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Он**а** х**о**чет ем**у** нр**а**виться он**а**.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; She wants him to like her (in general).&#xA;&#xA;and;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Он**и** хот**я**т ем**у** нр**а**виться он**а**.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; They want him to like her.&#xA;&#xA;I realized the first example probably leaves 'her' out because it's implied, but an answer to both would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14616" RevisionGUID="5d9da6e3-8c64-4f38-87fa-e7019910b574" CreationDate="2017-06-15T18:33:47.257" UserId="6545" Text="&quot;She wants him to like her.&quot; - Where is &quot;her&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14616" RevisionGUID="5d9da6e3-8c64-4f38-87fa-e7019910b574" CreationDate="2017-06-15T18:33:47.257" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14617" RevisionGUID="bf9b9d56-ce7b-47bc-8383-a50d66dd0b5b" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:35:47.363" UserId="2104" Text="There simply isn't a grammatical spot to stick 'her' into. You would have to use a separate clause:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; They want him to like her.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Они хотят, чтобы она ему понравилась.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14618" RevisionGUID="aa0b9e11-ab27-485c-8447-6d5a19de5f18" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:40:26.973" UserId="6539" Text="The short answer is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она хочет ему нравиться/понравиться. Они хотят, чтобы она ему понравилась.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have another verb, the situation doesn't cause any difficulty. &#xD;&#xA;Say, &quot;She wants him to buy her a ring.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она хочет, чтобы он купил ей кольцо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они хотят, чтобы она ему понравилась.(The same structure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the first sentence we don't use this long structure,because the subject of the main sentence coincides with the subject in the subordinate clause. So we use &quot;Она хочет ему нравиться/понравиться &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14619" RevisionGUID="ff686460-154b-460c-a3ee-b65e8ecce59e" CreationDate="2017-06-15T19:45:38.760" UserId="242" Text="Well, the thing is that when we translate something from one language to another there's no such thing like one-to-one correspondence between the structure of the phrase. Verb can be translated as adjective, adjective can be translated as a noun, something can be dropped, something could be added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be honest, regarding this, your question is actually fundamentally invalid in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, actually, in this particular case, well, with some verbs it's possible to construct something similar, with `her`, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Она хочет, чтобы он её любил.&#xD;&#xA; - Она хочет, чтобы он её понимал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some verbs - just like with нравился it's not the case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14620" RevisionGUID="1085eef9-e132-4742-bb6c-654495e3d0ef" CreationDate="2017-06-15T20:00:57.077" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;Her&quot; isn't implied, there's just no need for it. **Она хочет ему нравиться** literally translates to &quot;She wants to be liked by him&quot;. Hyper-literally, something like &quot;she wants to disposition herself to him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With &quot;them&quot;, the only way to word it is **Они хотят, чтобы она ему нравилась**, literally &quot;they want that she be liked by him&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14616" RevisionGUID="3fa1142a-37f3-4ef8-87ff-12659e61780f" CreationDate="2017-06-15T20:01:17.720" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typo" Text="I saw this sentence in Charles E Townsend's, *Continuing with Russian*,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он**а** х**о**чет ем**у** нр**а**виться. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She wants him to like her (in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I wondered where the 'her' was. If it was a little more complicated, like,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They want him to like her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what would it be. Where would the 'they' and the 'her' go? Would the answers to these questions be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он**а** х**о**чет ем**у** нр**а**виться он**а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She wants him to like her (in general).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он**и** хот**я**т ем**у** нр**а**виться он**а**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They want him to like her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realized the first example probably leaves 'her' out because it's implied, but an answer to both would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14621" RevisionGUID="ac254a60-afc7-4fe3-91e9-a5bf2a772c3e" CreationDate="2017-06-15T22:18:55.357" UserId="134" Text="This sentence is quite tricky to translate into Russian indeed because Russian words for &quot;to want&quot; and &quot;to like&quot; don't work like their English counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we consider several other English sentences with exactly same grammar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * They teach her to beat him&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * They send her to kill him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, they could be translated into Russian simply as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Они учат её бить его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Они отправляют её убить его&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, which are perfectly grammatical if somewhat peculiar (or not, depending on context) Russian statements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because English verbs &quot;to teach (someone to do something)&quot; and &quot;to send (someone to do something)&quot; are trivalent, meaning they can have three arguments (&quot;they, her, to beat&quot; or &quot;they, her, to kill&quot;); and verbs &quot;to beat&quot; and &quot;to kill&quot; are bivalent, that is having two arguments (&quot;she, him&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same holds for Russian verbs *учить (кого-то делать что-то), отправлять (кого-то делать что-то), бить (кого-то)* and *убивать (кого-то)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not the case for the verbs *нравиться* and *хотеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Хотеть* in Russian is bivalent. You cannot &quot;want someone to do something&quot; in Russian, only &quot;want someone&quot; or &quot;want something&quot;. If you are about to say that you want ALICE to FOO in Russian, you in fact say &quot;I want something&quot;, and this &quot;something&quot; is the situation where ALICE does FOO. You use a subjunctive sentence: &quot;I want so that ALICE did FOO&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Нравиться* is tricky too, because it's, first, reflexive, and, second, impersonal. It's exactly the same grammar as in Spanish *me gustan las manzanas* (&quot;myself taste the apples&quot;) for English &quot;I like apples&quot;. So Russian for &quot;he likes her&quot; would be *ему нравится она*, which grammatically is &quot;to him wills herself she&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, again, is not something a Russian speaker would analyze when speaking. It's just a way to tell this in Russian, in the same way as it is in Spanish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we combine the two verbs above, we'll get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они хотят, чтобы она ему нравилась&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, making a subjunctive sentence for &quot;he liked her&quot; and using that as a single possible object for *хотеть*, &quot;to want&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="a841b6e8-5c42-4668-9778-d865aa68f8b6" CreationDate="2017-06-16T03:40:44.803" UserId="3502" Text="I'd start with books. I consider it the easiest thing to learn in the &quot;read &lt; write &lt; listen &lt; speak&quot; hierarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;even classic childrens book use &quot;high&quot; words for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you've found your first reproducible problem. Now go debug it. Read the books online an install some translator extension (e.g. Yandex Translate https://element.yandex.ru/translate) so that you can get instant translation for any unknown word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35606" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="14622" RevisionGUID="602256e5-536a-433b-827f-78c767c67fa1" CreationDate="2017-06-16T03:40:44.803" UserId="3502" />
  <row Id="35607" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14616" RevisionGUID="5137fabb-0127-4b1a-b320-b1a76d71b7d4" CreationDate="2017-06-16T09:40:52.000" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/875649363141210112" />
  <row Id="35608" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14610" RevisionGUID="8ac6d045-4177-420e-ba85-134a96ad45bd" CreationDate="2017-06-16T12:40:52.487" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/875694664577372160" />
  <row Id="35615" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8967" RevisionGUID="8cfef7d9-d311-4779-83e0-e1707e7d538d" CreationDate="2017-06-16T14:55:38.560" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Been learning Russian for 10 years, still can't understand my wife when she talks with her friends, what to do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14625" RevisionGUID="027ee53f-8614-4c76-8b74-713c360d0ae0" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:32:56.150" UserId="7330" Text="I would expect an instrumental case, for example with preposition c, but why use preposition y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо большое!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14625" RevisionGUID="027ee53f-8614-4c76-8b74-713c360d0ae0" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:32:56.150" UserId="7330" Text="``я не хочу у вас жить, когда я буду в Москве`` Why use у вас in order to mean ``with you``?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14625" RevisionGUID="027ee53f-8614-4c76-8b74-713c360d0ae0" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:32:56.150" UserId="7330" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14625" RevisionGUID="aef34807-9657-4ae8-9003-deb05fa9378f" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:51:19.930" UserId="242" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited title" Text="In the phrase &quot;Я не хочу у вас жить, когда я буду в Москве&quot; I would expect an instrumental case, for example with preposition `c`, but why actually preposition `y` is used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35620" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14625" RevisionGUID="aef34807-9657-4ae8-9003-deb05fa9378f" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:51:19.930" UserId="242" Comment="added 59 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Я не хочу у вас жить&quot; - why &quot;у вас&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14626" RevisionGUID="bd45bda8-03cc-4918-97c1-40b27e17c6e0" CreationDate="2017-06-16T15:57:23.760" UserId="242" Text="The verb `жить` can be used to answer the question - 'С кем ты будешь жить?' (with whom you well leave) - in that case indeed it will be &quot;я не хочу с вами жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question is &quot;у кого ты будешь жить?&quot; (roughly, to live at somebody's [place]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;жить с&quot; and &quot;жить у&quot; is that the first one is something more fundamental. &quot;Жить с кем-то&quot; -  implies some sort of long-term relationships of some kind - like &quot;жить с родителями&quot;, &quot;жить с девушкой&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;жить у девушки&quot;, &quot;жить у родителей&quot;, that's both grammatically correct and used form, but, however, when you are talking about some shirt-term event, say you want to visit your uncle, you'll probably will say something like &quot;Я поживу у дяди пару недель&quot;, but &quot;Я поживу с дядей пару недель&quot; will sound slightly off to Russian speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14626" RevisionGUID="ef9313eb-5466-4c84-ac86-349f7702350c" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:06:43.763" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verb `жить` can be used to answer the question - 'С кем ты будешь жить?' (with whom will you leave?) - in that case indeed it will be &quot;я не хочу с вами жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question is &quot;у кого ты будешь жить?&quot; (roughly, at whose [place] you gonna live). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;жить с&quot; and &quot;жить у&quot; is that the first one is something more fundamental. &quot;Жить с кем-то&quot; -  implies some sort of long-term relationships of some kind - like &quot;жить с родителями&quot;, &quot;жить с девушкой&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;жить у девушки&quot;, &quot;жить у родителей&quot;, that's both grammatically correct and used form, but, however, when you are talking about some shirt-term event, say you want to visit your uncle, you'll probably will say something like &quot;Я поживу у дяди пару недель&quot;, but &quot;Я поживу с дядей пару недель&quot; will sound slightly off to Russian speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14626" RevisionGUID="9ae9d1ec-ffb6-4e6c-ac8f-b8cd44a411aa" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:18:01.460" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verb `жить` can be used to answer the question - 'С кем ты будешь жить?' (with whom will you leave?) - in that case indeed it will be &quot;я не хочу с вами жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question is &quot;у кого ты будешь жить?&quot; (roughly, at whose [place] you gonna live). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;жить с&quot; and &quot;жить у&quot; is that the first one is something more fundamental. &quot;Жить с кем-то&quot; -  implies some sort of long-term relationships of some kind - like &quot;жить с родителями&quot;, &quot;жить с девушкой&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;жить у девушки&quot;, &quot;жить у родителей&quot;, that's both grammatically correct and used form, but, however, when you are talking about some shirt-term event, say you want to visit your uncle, you'll probably will say something like &quot;Я жил у дяди пару недель&quot;, but &quot;Я жил с дядей пару недель&quot; will sound slightly off to Russian speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's form &quot;пожить у кого-то&quot; (but not &quot;пожить с кем-то&quot;) - the &quot;по-&quot; suffix here indicates some short action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14626" RevisionGUID="e71984bd-25af-447b-bcad-7bed35756a50" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:09:13.057" UserId="242" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The verb `жить` can be used to answer the question - 'С кем ты будешь жить?' (with whom will you leave?) - in that case indeed it will be &quot;я не хочу с вами жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question is &quot;у кого ты будешь жить?&quot; (roughly, at whose [place] you gonna live). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;жить с&quot; and &quot;жить у&quot; is that the first one is something more fundamental. &quot;Жить с кем-то&quot; -  implies some sort of long-term relationships of some kind - like &quot;жить с родителями&quot;, &quot;жить с девушкой&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;жить у девушки&quot;, &quot;жить у родителей&quot;, that's both grammatically correct and used form, but, however, when you are talking about some shirt-term event, say you want to visit your uncle, you'll probably will say something like &quot;Я жил у дяди пару недель&quot;, but &quot;Я жил с дядей пару недель&quot; will sound slightly off to Russian speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's form &quot;пожить у кого-то&quot; (but rather not &quot;пожить с кем-то&quot;) - the &quot;по-&quot; suffix here indicates some short action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14627" RevisionGUID="c5c4e2a8-4712-44a7-abcc-4d4f32227005" CreationDate="2017-06-16T19:23:02.807" UserId="9133" Text="it means no possibility of doing in whatever reason" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14628" RevisionGUID="ce5f50c8-8da3-4c00-9258-bea579468b26" CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:40:05.763" UserId="5584" Text="1. I have read in several places online that it would be wrong to use the terms &quot;soft vowels&quot; and &quot;hard vowels&quot;, and instead it's more correct to call them vowels which indicate a preceding soft/hard consonant. Would you agree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those writers seems to say that actually both groups of the vowels are the same vowels, they simply indicate that the preceding consonant will be pronounce in either soft or hard way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well it sounds right to me with `а, о, у, э` versus `я, ё, ю, е`, but not with `ы` in which the vowel itself sounds different than `и`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your opinion on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When pronouncing `я, ё, ю, е` in a word, it sounds like in the soft case there is a /y/ that comes after (or with) the consonant, (or before a &quot;hard&quot; vowel). But in the case of `и` - not really (I am not sure about if there is a /y/ in that case), and also I have seen that it's compared to &quot;ee&quot; in the English &quot;sheep&quot; which has no /y/ after /sh/. Why don't they transliterate it as &quot;yee&quot;, if they say that `я` is pronounced as &quot;ya&quot;? What is the right pronunciation of `и` in `ничего` - nyichyevo or nichyevo (or neither)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In the &quot;hard&quot; vowels `а, о, у, э` it seems like that the vowel itself is sharp and distinct (like in Spanish), not &quot;rounded&quot;. But not in `ы`. What is the reason for this &quot;inconsistency&quot;? I would expect a hard vowel to sound like &quot;ee&quot; in the English &quot;sheep&quot;. But it does not. And on the contrary, `и` which is more sharp and distinct is a &quot;soft&quot; vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is your opinion on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14628" RevisionGUID="ce5f50c8-8da3-4c00-9258-bea579468b26" CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:40:05.763" UserId="5584" Text="Correct pronounciation of vowels and soft/hard consonants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14628" RevisionGUID="ce5f50c8-8da3-4c00-9258-bea579468b26" CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:40:05.763" UserId="5584" Text="|произношение|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14628" RevisionGUID="35f84af0-43c2-4bdc-aea1-8672829f2dab" CreationDate="2017-06-16T21:49:19.230" UserId="5584" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|узус|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14629" RevisionGUID="86f4abe7-9555-4949-b2bb-3bf01cafee10" CreationDate="2017-06-16T22:13:24.327" UserId="4560" Text="1. `и` and `ы` don't have a [minimal pair][1] that doesn't also involve a soft/hard contrast of the preceding consonant; therefore scholars consider them allophones of the same phoneme. That said, they're (for the most part) historically unrelated; `ы` tends to be a reflex of early Proto-Slavic (or Proto-Balto-Slavic, my chronology is shaky here) `ū`, whereas `и` was either always `i` or comes from diphthongs such as `ei`. The cases where `и` and `ы` themselves trade places are few and of a later origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using Y to convey Russian palatalisation is something I find very clumsy (not just because it erases the **полю/полью** distinction, but also because it's a very poor pronunciation guide), but it's a firmly established convention. Either way, the main reason is that, unlike the other &quot;soft&quot; vowels, `и` is not &quot;yi&quot;, or &quot;yee&quot;, word-initially (except in minor dialects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;That's just... like... your opinion, man.&quot; I'm not sure I understand what you mean by &quot;rounded&quot; if `о` and `у` are &quot;unrounded&quot; under this classification. Umlaut? It has a very limited allophonic occurrence in Russian (`ю` and `я` between two soft consonants), and I wouldn't at all describe `ы` as an umlauted vowel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14630" RevisionGUID="9f43be6c-1448-4606-aa75-2c4b71300a6b" CreationDate="2017-06-16T23:50:19.433" UserId="9092" Text="I've been taught that у and к both translate to &quot;at&quot; (as in `chez` in French). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;У меня есть книга&quot; = &quot;At me, there's a book&quot; = &quot;I have a book&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я к врачу иду.&quot; = &quot;I go at the doctor&quot;/&quot;Je vais chez le docteur&quot; = &quot;I'm going to the doctor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then, how do we choose? I came across this sentence:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я не хочу жить у вас&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I wondered why we could not say &quot;к вам&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there specific rules for у/к? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Саша" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14630" RevisionGUID="9f43be6c-1448-4606-aa75-2c4b71300a6b" CreationDate="2017-06-16T23:50:19.433" UserId="9092" Text="When to use у or к?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14630" RevisionGUID="9f43be6c-1448-4606-aa75-2c4b71300a6b" CreationDate="2017-06-16T23:50:19.433" UserId="9092" Text="|предлоги|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14631" RevisionGUID="3fe9bd4c-561c-414f-8fa7-06f2106123d7" CreationDate="2017-06-17T02:15:35.937" UserId="4560" Text="You've been taught wrong. **К** means &quot;to&quot; or &quot;towards&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14630" RevisionGUID="d85443f9-abc1-4310-9994-051c1abe38a0" CreationDate="2017-06-17T02:43:11.187" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="I've been taught that у and к both translate to &quot;at&quot; (as in `chez` in French). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;У меня есть книга&quot; = &quot;At me, there's a book&quot; = &quot;I have a book&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я к врачу иду.&quot; = &quot;I go at the doctor&quot;/&quot;Je vais chez le docteur&quot; = &quot;I'm going to the doctor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then, how do we choose? I came across this sentence:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я не хочу жить у вас&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I wondered why we could not say &quot;к вам&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there specific rules for у/к? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="d7b9ef8f-e404-4413-a6af-0594c8ed6807" CreationDate="2017-06-17T03:17:33.917" UserId="242" Text="A-ha-ha, I recall a French comedy calls &quot;Viens chez moi, j'habite chez une copine&quot; so it gives a hint why this question comes to your mind at all. Once again, never made assumptions on how something is supposed to be structured in one language just because it's the way it's structured in some other language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even closely-related languages can approach the very basic concepts in a very different grammatical way. See what happens here, the French &quot;chez&quot; corresponds in some cases to &quot;to&quot;, and in Russian in some cases English &quot;to&quot; corresponds to &quot;у&quot; and in some cases to &quot;к&quot; - and you make a false assumption that from that follows that phrase &quot;я не хочу жить к вам&quot; can have sense - but it just does not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages do not function this way. There's no sense in your question. Well, there is some in that sense that one can speculate on how things turned out this particular way providing some comparative linguistic context, but practically - finding analogies in your native language when learning new one is a slippery slope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you just need to learn what verbs are used with what preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14630" RevisionGUID="186ee230-f4d3-49cd-9bca-2e14c1e71c05" CreationDate="2017-06-17T03:20:06.797" UserId="242" Comment="added 193 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've been taught that у and к both translate to &quot;at&quot; (as in `chez` in French). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;У меня есть книга&quot; = &quot;At me, there's a book&quot; = &quot;I have a book&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я к врачу иду.&quot; = &quot;I go at the doctor&quot;/&quot;Je vais chez le docteur&quot; = &quot;I'm going to the doctor.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then, how do we choose? I came across [this sentence][1]:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я не хочу жить у вас&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I wondered why we could not say &quot;к вам&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there specific rules for у/к? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14625/%D0%AF-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%83-%D1%83-%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81-%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-why-%D1%83-%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35638" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14630" RevisionGUID="186ee230-f4d3-49cd-9bca-2e14c1e71c05" CreationDate="2017-06-17T03:20:06.797" UserId="242" Comment="added 193 characters in body; edited title" Text="When to use &quot;у&quot; or &quot;к&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14627" RevisionGUID="7a4c1b57-25df-4b72-8121-4bfbd674723c" CreationDate="2017-06-17T03:35:05.317" UserId="496" Comment="added 15 characters in body; added 8 characters in body" Text="It means no possibility of doing something planned due to whatever reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14632" RevisionGUID="af0d631e-c7fc-4b75-b203-9640b6cce911" CreationDate="2017-06-17T03:38:05.890" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="A-ha-ha, I recall a French comedy calls &quot;Viens chez moi, j'habite chez une copine&quot; so that gives an idea why this question comes to your mind at all. Once again, never made assumptions on how something is supposed to be structured in one language just because it's the way it's structured in some other language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even closely-related languages can approach the very basic concepts in a very different grammatical way. See what happens here, the French &quot;chez&quot; corresponds in some cases to &quot;to&quot;, and in Russian in some cases English &quot;to&quot; corresponds to &quot;у&quot; and in some cases to &quot;к&quot; - and you make a false assumption that from that follows that phrase &quot;я не хочу жить к вам&quot; can have sense - but it just does not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Languages do not function this way. There's no sense in your question. Well, there is some in that sense that one can speculate on how things turned out this particular way providing some comparative linguistic context, but practically - finding analogies in your native language when learning new one is a slippery slope. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you just need to learn what verbs are used with what preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35641" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="1b133278-7b33-46bf-9dc4-e47d7324787a" CreationDate="2017-06-17T07:26:23.747" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="486e3df2-9268-4268-956c-39bbcc3410fb" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:22:54.303" UserId="9076" Text="Is there a way to tell which are feminine or masculine if most nouns end with &lt;&lt;ь&gt;&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="486e3df2-9268-4268-956c-39bbcc3410fb" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:22:54.303" UserId="9076" Text="Genders - Nouns with &lt;&lt;ь&gt;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="486e3df2-9268-4268-956c-39bbcc3410fb" CreationDate="2017-06-17T13:22:54.303" UserId="9076" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="22b13aff-7be9-4c14-9207-2052e657afc8" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:24:31.867" UserId="9076" Text="Consonants:&#xA; &#xA;- ж, ш, ц, ч, щ (Hissing Sounds) &#xA;- л, р, б, в, г, д, м, н, з (Resonant Sounds) &#xA;- х, п, к, т, ф, с (Voiceless) &#xA;&#xA;7-Letters Spelling Rule:&#xA;&#xA; - г, к, х, ж, ш, щ, ч &#xA;&#xA;Just to confirm the letters so that I can fully understand how to construct the 6 cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="22b13aff-7be9-4c14-9207-2052e657afc8" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:24:31.867" UserId="9076" Text="Are These Consonants &amp; 7-Letters Spelling Rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="22b13aff-7be9-4c14-9207-2052e657afc8" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:24:31.867" UserId="9076" Text="|согласные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35654" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14635" RevisionGUID="f0edff3f-2d71-4a29-a005-1a206d7906e6" CreationDate="2017-06-17T18:10:46.140" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14456" RevisionGUID="595b5701-6de8-4782-8cd4-f37e800411f9" CreationDate="2017-06-17T20:41:29.303" UserId="2238" Comment="edited body" Text="For the given words the correct Russian spelling is &quot;его&quot; (unless you meant &quot;эго&quot; as in Freud's Ego, yep) and &quot;это&quot;, as the first word has initial j and jэ is shown as е. The prima facie correct Ukrainian spelling if it had the words would be єго (in reality - його) and ето (in reality - це).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is an interesting issue with the е and э letters. е is supposed to mean jэ or 'э (э after a &quot;soft&quot; - palatalized - consonant) but in many recent loanwords it is used instead of э, and, as Sergey Slepov mentioned, this can be the source of using э instead of е and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the word-initial э sound is pronounced diversely - some speakers use the more close sound as if it were after a soft consonant, others use the more open sound as the one used after hard (non-palatalized) consonants. This can also induce some problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="bf6b9f7b-6e0c-4d27-92e1-f007119f5c47" CreationDate="2017-06-17T21:03:13.573" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a way to tell which are feminine or masculine if most nouns end with &quot;ь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35657" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="bf6b9f7b-6e0c-4d27-92e1-f007119f5c47" CreationDate="2017-06-17T21:03:13.573" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Genders - Nouns with &quot;ь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14636" RevisionGUID="629f3d7d-ecb7-4788-b7e0-0769ede7f87b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:30:41.327" UserId="1262" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Any noun ending in ***-нь*** and meaning a physical entity that is not a part of a larger whole/not dependent on the other object is most likely a masculine (whence ***тень, сень*** and ***голень*** are exceptions - just like ***дребедень*** and the like, including swearing register):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***камень, огонь, конь, кремень, кистень, пельмень***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any name for an actor / occupation  / instrument ending in -рь (a cognate to English -er in words like *maker, doer,* etc.) is masculine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***царь, ларь, фонарь, пономарь, пахарь***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any name of a month is masculine: ***январь, февраль, апрель,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any noun ending in ***-сть*** and derived from an adjective is 99.9 % feminine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***радость, гадость, милость, сладость, старость,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also comprises the words meaning quality and derived from an adjective, but having other than ***-сть***-ending forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***зелень, синь, глубь, зыбь***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14637" RevisionGUID="512c94af-5ea2-4f7c-9439-8b985c694632" CreationDate="2017-06-17T22:58:50.777" UserId="1262" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The choice depends on semantics and semantics are to be defined by a case + preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, when we speak about a non-motional state, we usew y (= *près de, au côté de; proche de; chez; voisinant*) we say :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня есть/имеется вопрос.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я живу у друзей.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ключи - у соседей.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У кабинета врача - очередь.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we speak about motion or actions addressed to other persons, we use ***к*** (à; pour; vers; chez):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня к тебе есть/имеется вопрос.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я живу у друзей, к ним ходят соседи.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ключи - у соседей, а эти ключи к замку не подходят.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У кабинета - очередь к врачу.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, ***к*** in is more like *à*, not like *chez* (which in French stands both for a state and a motion/direction towards somebody's place).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14638" RevisionGUID="88721559-54b3-4474-a676-05bc1eb0c884" CreationDate="2017-06-17T23:09:06.390" UserId="1262" Text="Historically, ***надо*** is similar to а past participle form (cf. *English -de*, Spanish *-d@* and Swedish *-d(e) / -t*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нужно***, in turn, represents a cluster of historically ***-нъ***-ending words which in modern Russian are at a borderline between an adjective and a participle (cf. English *driven*, *striken*, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both forms are related to Proto-Germanic [naudiz][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, both forms are also related to German *nehmen* and Dutch *niemen*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word stems are preserved in modern Russian interjections:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***на!*** = here you are! / Take it! (lit. 'you-take-it!', often with a less friendly / respective connotation) and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ну!*** = give it (away)! I'm waiting / I agree / come on / yep, ok (lit. 'I-take-it' or 'let me take it'), used with a somewhat more friendly emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the overtones would be like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***не надо*** = It is not needed 'from your part / point of view / for/from you'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***не нужно*** = it is not needed from my part / point of view / for/from me'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most native speakers would not care about the difference, anyway, or would not explain it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS The proverbial etymology of ***надо*** as a form of ***надобно*** doesn't stand any etymological scrutiny not just because words starting with ***на-*** in general were  very unlucky when interpreted by Vasmer and Co, but also because such an etymology doesn't explain the sound alteration in ***надо*** and ***нужно***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, stating that -до is not a suffix but a part of stem one has to admit the same for words like ***чудо, стадо*** and ***говядо.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/naudiz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14618" RevisionGUID="fbf77cab-e585-40cc-8388-deb3f5fc7db3" CreationDate="2017-06-18T05:53:47.130" UserId="6539" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="The short answer is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она хочет ему нравиться/понравиться. Они хотят, чтобы она ему понравилась.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have another verb, the situation doesn't cause any difficulty. &#xD;&#xA;Say, &quot;She wants him to buy her a ring.&quot;In order to translate it we use a sentence with a subordinate clause,whenever we have an infinitive as an object in the English sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она хочет, чтобы он купил ей кольцо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они хотят, чтобы она ему понравилась.(The same structure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the first sentence we don't use this long structure,because the subject of the main sentence coincides with the subject in the subordinate clause. So we use &quot;Она хочет ему нравиться/понравиться &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14603" RevisionGUID="ef665853-e467-4996-9490-97caf652c3c8" CreationDate="2017-06-18T08:09:01.917" UserId="2104" Comment="Made Russian words bold." Text="Yes, **через день** means every other day. The verb **ходить** is appropriate here as it denotes a repetitive action, as opposed to **идти** which denotes a continuous action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14626" RevisionGUID="a3a5f076-e223-472d-9e25-b84e48f336a7" CreationDate="2017-06-18T08:15:39.500" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The verb `жить` can be used to answer the question - 'С кем ты будешь жить?' (with whom will you live?) - in that case indeed it will be &quot;я не хочу с вами жить&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question is &quot;у кого ты будешь жить?&quot; (roughly, at whose [place] you gonna live). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between &quot;жить с&quot; and &quot;жить у&quot; is that the first one is something more fundamental. &quot;Жить с кем-то&quot; -  implies some sort of long-term relationships of some kind - like &quot;жить с родителями&quot;, &quot;жить с девушкой&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;жить у девушки&quot;, &quot;жить у родителей&quot;, that's both grammatically correct and used form, but, however, when you are talking about some shirt-term event, say you want to visit your uncle, you'll probably will say something like &quot;Я жил у дяди пару недель&quot;, but &quot;Я жил с дядей пару недель&quot; will sound slightly off to Russian speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's form &quot;пожить у кого-то&quot; (but rather not &quot;пожить с кем-то&quot;) - the &quot;по-&quot; suffix here indicates some short action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14636" RevisionGUID="68ab09a5-f616-4e22-b334-6477a79abdab" CreationDate="2017-06-18T08:34:04.880" UserId="1262" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="a) Any noun ending in ***-нь*** and meaning a physical entity that is not a part of a larger whole/not dependent on the other object is most likely a masculine (whence ***тень, сень*** and ***голень*** are exceptions - just like ***дребедень*** and the like, including swearing register):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***камень, огонь, конь, кремень, кистень, пельмень***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Any name for an actor / occupation  / instrument ending in ***-рь*** (a cognate to English *-er* in words like *maker, doer,* etc.) is masculine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***царь, ларь, фонарь, пономарь, пахарь***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Any name of a month is masculine: ***январь, февраль, апрель,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d) Any noun ending in ***-тель*** and meaning an occupation or a status of doer/maker (that is, a noun derived from a verb) is masculine (a feminine form is constructed by adding ***-ница*** to a masculine form):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***учитель, предводитель, изготовитель, родитель, свидетель***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e) Any noun ending in ***-сть*** and derived from an adjective is 99.9 % feminine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***радость, гадость, милость, сладость, старость,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f) This also comprises the words meaning quality and derived from an adjective, but having other than ***-сть***-ending forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***зелень, синь, глубь, зыбь, блажь, дурь***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14639" RevisionGUID="9eebc10a-5e4b-4ea6-9c95-44e85df8bc06" CreationDate="2017-06-18T09:49:01.980" UserId="194" Text="Я не хочу у вас жить = I do not want to live at yours. (that is in his/her home but maybe agree to live together in a hotel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не хочу с вами жить = I do not want to live with you. (in any place, including a hotel or dormitory)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13141" RevisionGUID="d58f59b5-edb1-44db-970d-f8e583624d94" CreationDate="2017-06-18T15:48:49.820" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="It is cognate of English *let*, comes from PIE root lee̯- meaning allow, idle, lazy, inactive. English words &quot;left&quot;, &quot;leave&quot;, Russian лень &quot;lazyness&quot; are of the same root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare PIE forms ***lee̯nos*** &quot;quiet&quot;, ***lee̯u̯os*** &quot;left&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14640" RevisionGUID="dbf4f8d3-2962-4ca1-b517-5ae20c423c18" CreationDate="2017-06-18T22:18:20.240" UserId="242" Text="In [an excellent][1] XIX century book &quot;Филологические наблюдения протоиерея Г. Павского над составом русского языка&quot; found by @YellowSky - can not be more grateful to him for this than I am! -  following rules are listed (page 332, spelling and some words modified by me to be in concordance with modern language):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Если существительное, кончающееся на `ь`, есть собирательное или изображает отвлечённые качества, состояния или действия, то оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит к числу женских. Таковы существительные: `чернь`, `знать`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Русь`, `учь` (this one is an obsolete word); `дрянь`, `дичь`, `высь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `даль`, `брань`, `дурь`, `блажь`, `скорбь` и т.п. Сюда относятся все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имена отглагольные, кончающиеся на `ь` и имена переделанные из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действительных и страдательных причастий, кончающихся на --`-ль`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `-нь`, `-ть`, например - `честь`, `власть`, `весть`, `речь`, `помощь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `память`, `быль`, `прибыль`, `ткань`, `бить`. Все производные имена,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кончающиеся на `-знь`, `-снь`, `-ость`, `-есть`, `-ель`, `-овь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `-вь`, `-явь`, `-евь`, `-адь`, `-ежь`, тоже принадлежат к числу имён&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женских,    например `болезнь`, `песнь` (obsolete, modern form песня),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `казнь`, `мудрость`, `гордость`, `горесть`, `свирель`,    `любовь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `морковь`, `кровь`, вервь (obsolete, now верёвка), `ветвь`, `хоругвь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `рухлядь`, `тетрадь`, `площадь`, `молодёжь`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Если существительное, оканчивающееся `ь` означает одушевлённое существо женского пола, то оно женского рода, например, `мать`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `дочь`, `свекровь`, `лань`, `нетель` (a rare word for cow that hasn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave birth so far).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Собственные имена областей и рек тоже рода женского, например, `Сибирь`, `Казань`, `Астрахань`, `Волынь`, `Шелонь`, `Припять` и так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все прочие имена, кончающиеся на `ь` и не имеющие этих трёх примет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; остаются неопределёнными в отношении к их роду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal advise would be not trying to memorize any rules of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;The thing is that if something is feminine or masculine in, say, 80% of cases, you still need to remember all the &quot;exceptions&quot; which can consist a long list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=89NUAAAAcAAJ&amp;rdid=book-89NUAAAAcAAJ&amp;rdot=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14640" RevisionGUID="0ddfc04f-c951-4ad3-9c2c-6cafb9061c8c" CreationDate="2017-06-18T22:25:20.050" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In [an excellent][1] XIX century book &quot;Филологические наблюдения протоиерея Г. Павского над составом русского языка&quot; found by @YellowSky - can not be more grateful to him for this than I am! -  following rules are listed (page 332, spelling and some words modified by me to be in concordance with modern language):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Если существительное, кончающееся на `ь`, есть собирательное или изображает отвлечённые качества, состояния или действия, то оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит к числу женских. Таковы существительные: `чернь`, `знать`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Русь`, `учь` (this one is an obsolete word); `дрянь`, `дичь`, `высь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `даль`, `брань`, `дурь`, `блажь`, `скорбь` и т.п. Сюда относятся все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имена отглагольные, кончающиеся на `ь` и имена переделанные из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действительных и страдательных причастий, кончающихся на --`-ль`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `-нь`, `-ть`, например - `честь`, `власть`, `весть`, `речь`, `помощь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `память`, `быль`, `прибыль`, `ткань`, `бить`. Все производные имена,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кончающиеся на `-знь`, `-снь`, `-ость`, `-есть`, `-ель`, `-овь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `-вь`, `-явь`, `-евь`, `-адь`, `-ежь`, тоже принадлежат к числу имён&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женских,    например `болезнь`, `песнь` (obsolete, modern form песня),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `казнь`, `мудрость`, `гордость`, `горесть`, `свирель`,    `любовь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `морковь`, `кровь`, вервь (obsolete, now верёвка), `ветвь`, `хоругвь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `рухлядь`, `тетрадь`, `площадь`, `молодёжь`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Если существительное, оканчивающееся `ь` означает одушевлённое существо женского пола, то оно женского рода, например, `мать`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `дочь`, `свекровь`, `лань`, `нетель` (a rare word for cow that hasn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave birth so far).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Собственные имена областей и рек тоже рода женского, например, `Сибирь`, `Казань`, `Астрахань`, `Волынь`, `Шелонь`, `Припять` и так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все прочие имена, кончающиеся на `ь` и не имеющие этих трёх примет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; остаются неопределёнными в отношении к их роду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal adviсe would be not trying to memorize any rules of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;The thing is that if something is feminine or masculine in, say, 80% of cases, you still need to remember all the &quot;exceptions&quot; which can consitute a long list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=89NUAAAAcAAJ&amp;rdid=book-89NUAAAAcAAJ&amp;rdot=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14640" RevisionGUID="fbd8573b-b1c4-4806-bb6b-ffe46c4b877c" CreationDate="2017-06-18T22:39:48.860" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In [an excellent][1] XIX century book &quot;Филологические наблюдения протоиерея Г. Павского над составом русского языка&quot; found by @YellowSky - can not be more grateful to him for this than I am! -  following rules are listed (page 332, spelling and some words modified by me to be in concordance with modern language):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Если существительное, кончающееся на `ь`, есть собирательное или изображает отвлечённые качества, состояния или действия, то оно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит к числу женских. Таковы существительные: `чернь`, `знать`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Русь`, `учь` (this one is an obsolete word); `дрянь`, `дичь`, `высь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `даль`, `брань`, `дурь`, `блажь`, `скорбь` и т.п. Сюда относятся все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имена отглагольные, кончающиеся на `ь` и имена переделанные из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действительных и страдательных причастий, кончающихся на --`-ль`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `-нь`, `-ть`, например - `честь`, `власть`, `весть`, `речь`, `помощь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `память`, `быль`, `прибыль`, `ткань`, `бить`. Все производные имена,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кончающиеся на `-знь`, `-снь`, `-ость`, `-есть`, `-ель`, `-овь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `-вь`, `-явь`, `-евь`, `-адь`, `-ежь`, тоже принадлежат к числу имён&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женских,    например `болезнь`, `песнь` (obsolete, modern form песня),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `казнь`, `мудрость`, `гордость`, `горесть`, `свирель`,    `любовь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `морковь`, `кровь`, `вервь` (obsolete, now верёвка), `ветвь`, `хоругвь`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `рухлядь`, `тетрадь`, `площадь`, `молодёжь`.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Если существительное, оканчивающееся `ь` означает одушевлённое существо женского пола, то оно женского рода, например, `мать`,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `дочь`, `свекровь`, `лань`, `нетель` (a rare word for cow that hasn't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gave birth so far).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Собственные имена областей и рек тоже рода женского, например, `Сибирь`, `Казань`, `Астрахань`, `Волынь`, `Шелонь`, `Припять` и так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все прочие имена, кончающиеся на `ь` и не имеющие этих трёх примет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; остаются неопределёнными в отношении к их роду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal adviсe would be not trying to memorize any rules of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;The thing is that if something is feminine or masculine in, say, 80% of cases, you still need to remember all the &quot;exceptions&quot; which can constitute a long list. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=89NUAAAAcAAJ&amp;rdid=book-89NUAAAAcAAJ&amp;rdot=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14641" RevisionGUID="61ab5157-cc3f-4716-a140-da581d560cea" CreationDate="2017-06-18T22:53:06.843" UserId="2104" Text="These rules are worth memorising because they have no or few exceptions (all exceptions listed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **-ость/-есть** are feminine: **ра́дость, бо́дрость, со́весть, сверхтеку́честь**. I found only two exceptions to this rule: **гость** and **тесть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **чь, шь, жь, щь** are feminine: **дочь, ночь, мышь, ложь, по́мощь**. There are no exceptions to this rule as it's an orthographic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **-итель/-атель** are masculine: **учи́тель, созда́тель, бомбомета́тель.** There are no exceptions to this rule that are worth remembering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules and exceptions were confirmed by consulting Zaliznyak's &quot;Grammatical dictionary&quot;. They cover 75% off all nouns ending in **-ь**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14641" RevisionGUID="dbe0fa70-2290-4d4a-952f-5eb709fac5b1" CreationDate="2017-06-18T23:21:42.007" UserId="2104" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text=" * Words ending in **-ость/-есть** are feminine: **ра́дость, бо́дрость, со́весть, сверхтеку́честь**. I found only two exceptions to this rule: **гость** and **тесть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **-итель/-атель** are masculine: **учи́тель, созда́тель, бомбомета́тель.** There are no exceptions to this rule that are worth remembering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **-чь, -шь, -жь, -щь** are feminine: **дочь, ночь, мышь, ложь, по́мощь**. There are no exceptions to this rule as it's an orthographic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules are worth memorising because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * They cover 75% of all nouns ending in **-ь** (as per Zaliznyak's &quot;Grammatical dictionary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA; * They don't require you to know the meaning of a word, only its dictionary form.&#xD;&#xA; * They have no or few exceptions (all exceptions listed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="eda3e636-6d2c-467f-85dd-3f3d8dfb06ed" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:10:41.500" UserId="9076" Text="I learnt that the form of the number changes according to the gender of the noun. &#xA;&#xA;Пример :&#xA;Одна ручка (жен.) &#xA;Две ручка (жен.) &#xA;&#xA;Question : How do I construct the form of the number for три, четыре, пять etc.? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="eda3e636-6d2c-467f-85dd-3f3d8dfb06ed" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:10:41.500" UserId="9076" Text="How Do I Construct Numerals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="eda3e636-6d2c-467f-85dd-3f3d8dfb06ed" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:10:41.500" UserId="9076" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14643" RevisionGUID="50431bf5-0006-4162-a597-d019b0a59481" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:30:39.433" UserId="8895" Text="With quantities of 10n + 1, use the single nominative: `одна/девяносто одна/сто сорок одна ручка`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With quantities of 10n + 2, 3, or 4, use the single genitive: `тридцать две/двести девяносто три/четыреста четыре ручки`;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;With any other quantities, including zero, use the plural genitive: `ноль/восеиь/сто пятнадцать ручек`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14644" RevisionGUID="36de0086-0884-4d63-8643-a710e03c2571" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:37:19.863" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Пример : Одна ручка (жен.) Две ручка (жен.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually _Две ручк**и**_, as the noun also changes appropriately (here it's in plural form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I construct the form of the number for три, четыре, пять etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only numbers _один_ (1) and _два_ (2) are changed (and also numbers ending in 1 or 2, except 11 and 12, e.g. 21, 42 etc.). 3, 4, ..., 9 are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you have to teach only the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    один стол (masc.) - одна комната (fem.) - одно окно (n.) - одни стулья (pl.)&#xD;&#xA;    два стола (masc.) - две комнаты (fem.) ... два &quot;everything else&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    три ... &quot;everything else&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14643" RevisionGUID="674ffa05-85a4-4ff0-bfb9-352fd98617fe" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:38:26.587" UserId="2079" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="With quantities of 10n + 1, except for 100n + 11, use the single nominative: `одна/девяносто одна/сто сорок одна ручка`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With quantities of 10n + 2, 3, or 4, use the single genitive: `тридцать две/двести девяносто три/четыреста четыре ручки`;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;With any other quantities, including zero, use the plural genitive: `ноль/восеиь/сто пятнадцать ручек`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14644" RevisionGUID="677e0bff-7753-4ab9-ba19-825f5ba4bf2a" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:42:48.537" UserId="5008" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="&gt;Пример : Одна ручка (жен.) Две ручка (жен.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually _Две ручк**и**_, as the noun also changes appropriately (here it's in plural form).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How do I construct the form of the number for три, четыре, пять etc.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only numbers _один_ (1) and _два_ (2) are changed (and also numbers ending in 1 or 2, except 11 and 12, e.g. 21, 42 etc.). 3, 4, ..., 9 are not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you have to teach only the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    один стол (masc.) - одна комната (fem.) - одно окно (n.) - одни стулья (pl.)&#xD;&#xA;    два стола (masc.) - две комнаты (fem.) ... два &quot;everything else&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    три ... &quot;everything else&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    (btw. &quot;один&quot; also means &quot;only&quot;, so &quot;одни стулья&quot; pretty much reads as &quot;only chairs&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14643" RevisionGUID="d05e22a6-904d-4238-89a0-ae0fe965748b" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:44:20.117" UserId="8895" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="With quantities of 10n + 1, except for 100n + 11, use the single nominative: `одна/девяносто одна/сто сорок одна ручка`, but `тысяча пятьсот одиннадцать ручек`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With quantities of 10n + 2, 3, or 4, use the single genitive: `тридцать две/двести девяносто три/четыреста четыре ручки`;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;With any other quantities, including zero, use the plural genitive: `ноль/восеиь/сто пятнадцать ручек`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14645" RevisionGUID="b64ce5bc-e8bc-47a0-a3b5-ef98258ee472" CreationDate="2017-06-19T07:51:44.963" UserId="2079" Text=" - Nominative: одна ручка, две(три,четыре) ручки (genitive singular),&#xD;&#xA;   пять ручек (genitive plural) &#xD;&#xA; - Genitive: одной ручки (genitive   singular), двух(трёх, четырёх, пяти) ручек (genitive plural), пяти ручек (genitive plural) &#xD;&#xA; - Dative: одной ручке (dative singular),&#xD;&#xA;   двум(трём, четырём, пяти) ручкам (dative plural) &#xD;&#xA; - Accusative: одну&#xD;&#xA;   ручку (accusative singular), две(три, четыре) ручки (genitive&#xD;&#xA;   singular), пять ручек (genitive plural)&#xD;&#xA; - Accusative for animate: одну&#xD;&#xA;   кошку (accusative singular), двух(трёх, четырёх) кошек (genitive&#xD;&#xA;   plural), пять кошек (genitive plural)&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental: одной ручкой&#xD;&#xA;   (instrumental singular), двумя (тремя, четырьмя, пятью) ручками&#xD;&#xA;   (instrumental plural)&#xD;&#xA; - Prepositional: об одной ручке (prep. singular),&#xD;&#xA;   o двух (трёх, четырёх, пяти) ручках (prep. plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also how the numericals declense in each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14645" RevisionGUID="c5915211-5e2e-4932-86b1-2dfa325525d8" CreationDate="2017-06-19T08:01:23.960" UserId="2079" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text=" - Nominative: одна ручка, две(три,четыре) ручки (genitive singular),&#xD;&#xA;   пять ручек (genitive plural) &#xD;&#xA; - Genitive: одной ручки (genitive   singular), двух(трёх, четырёх, пяти) ручек (genitive plural), пяти ручек (genitive plural) &#xD;&#xA; - Dative: одной ручке (dative singular),&#xD;&#xA;   двум(трём, четырём, пяти) ручкам (dative plural) &#xD;&#xA; - Accusative for inanimate: одну ручку (accusative singular), две(три, четыре) ручки (genitive singular), пять ручек (genitive plural)&#xD;&#xA; - Accusative for animate: одну&#xD;&#xA;   кошку (accusative singular), двух(трёх, четырёх) кошек (accusative plural=genitive plural), пять кошек (accusative plural=genitive plural)&#xD;&#xA; - Instrumental: одной ручкой&#xD;&#xA;   (instrumental singular), двумя (тремя, четырьмя, пятью) ручками&#xD;&#xA;   (instrumental plural)&#xD;&#xA; - Prepositional: об одной ручке (prep. singular),&#xD;&#xA;   o двух (трёх, четырёх, пяти) ручках (prep. plural).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also how the numericals declense in each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;miracles&quot; happen only when the phrase is either in nominative or in accusative for inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14643" RevisionGUID="f540d41c-0d29-449c-b78a-e2f404ae4768" CreationDate="2017-06-19T08:21:43.200" UserId="2079" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="With quantities of 10n + 1, except for 100n + 11, use the single nominative: `одна/девяносто одна/сто сорок одна ручка`, but `тысяча пятьсот одиннадцать ручек`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With quantities of 10n + 2, 3, or 4, except for 100n + 12, 13, or 14 use the single genitive: `тридцать две/двести девяносто три/четыреста четыре ручки`;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;With any other quantities, including zero, use the plural genitive: `ноль/восеиь/сто пятнадцать ручек`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="aec51ebe-2716-4ac1-b070-2dce6fc40fae" CreationDate="2017-06-19T09:32:27.817" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="I learnt that the form of the number changes according to the gender of the noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример :&#xD;&#xA;Одна ручка (жен.) &#xD;&#xA;Две ручка (жен.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question : How do I construct the form of the number for три, четыре, пять etc.? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35688" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="aec51ebe-2716-4ac1-b070-2dce6fc40fae" CreationDate="2017-06-19T09:32:27.817" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I construct numerals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14641" RevisionGUID="e2bcc10f-43b8-4077-9874-e82a0c2b9f1a" CreationDate="2017-06-19T10:01:38.957" UserId="2104" Comment="added 585 characters in body" Text="A bit late to the party but I still feel my answer would be useful. You might find the rules listed in the other two answers problematic as they have lots of exceptions and they often require some knowledge about the word: whether it's an abstract noun, whether **-арь** is a suffix or part of the stem etc. So I set out to find if there were any hard and fast rules that you could apply without looking up the word and that had no or very few exceptions. I wrote an adhoc program that queried  the well-known Zaliznyak's &quot;Grammatical Dictionary of Russian&quot; and here is what I found:&#xA;&#xA; * Words ending in **-ость/-есть** are feminine: **ра́дость, бо́дрость, со́весть, сверхтеку́честь**. I found only two exceptions to this rule: **гость** and **тесть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **-итель/-атель** are masculine: **учи́тель, созда́тель, бомбомета́тель.** There are no exceptions to this rule that are worth remembering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Words ending in **-чь, -шь, -жь, -щь** are feminine: **дочь, ночь, мышь, ложь, по́мощь**. There are no exceptions to this rule as it's an orthographic rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These rules are worth memorising because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * They cover 75% of all nouns ending in **-ь** (as per Zaliznyak's &quot;Grammatical dictionary&quot;).&#xD;&#xA; * They don't require you to know the meaning of a word, only its dictionary form.&#xD;&#xA; * They have no or few exceptions (all exceptions listed).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="e492373c-f6f1-41bf-ab80-61449f295adf" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:39:58.217" UserId="8289" Text="Вчера я шел в магази курить хлеб.     Вчера я пошел в магази курить хлеб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translate the first as &quot;Yesterday I was going to the store to buy bread,&quot; you need a further clause in English such as &quot;..and I feel down.&quot; If such a clause is not necessary in Russian what is a possible translation that makes sense in English? Natasha's site once had this:  Вчера я шел в магази. Я купил .... (I forget what it was.)  Why not &quot;я пошел?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="e492373c-f6f1-41bf-ab80-61449f295adf" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:39:58.217" UserId="8289" Text="What is the difference between шел and пошел in the following sentences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="e492373c-f6f1-41bf-ab80-61449f295adf" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:39:58.217" UserId="8289" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="c7c6581f-12d0-4123-a448-4e065381a4e8" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:49:17.407" UserId="242" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Вчера я шел в магазин купить хлеб.&#xD;&#xA; - Вчера я пошел в магазин купить хлеб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translate the first as &quot;Yesterday I was going to the store to buy bread,&quot; you need a further clause in English such as &quot;..and I feel down.&quot; If such a clause is not necessary in Russian what is a possible translation that makes sense in English? Natasha's site once had this:  Вчера я шел в магазин. Я купил .... (I forget what it was.)  Why not &quot;я пошел?&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35697" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14634" RevisionGUID="913e41ba-7d79-45c5-80d4-af7a6eae6142" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:55:14.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/876876040873922560" />
  <row Id="35698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14649" RevisionGUID="d03cff39-b8a6-4dfb-a908-1f0fc28b2e53" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:55:49.913" UserId="242" Text="Actually you are right, congrats for understanding Russian that deep. in first case native speaker indeed will expect some second part, something like &quot;я шёл в магазин и увидел огромную ворону&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one want to indicate the action itself he/she will probably use &quot;пошёл/пошла в магазин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase that you've mentioned is just clumsy but that happens in colloquial speech. Just like you heard sometimes some grammar inconsistencies in English usage. Somebody was just inaccurate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13709" RevisionGUID="eab633fe-635c-42ed-ab31-57b543b1d20f" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:57:00.777" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Well your assumption is slightly wrong. Correct feminine form of `я вижу кота` is `я вижу кошку`, so it it exactly like for negation `я не вижу кота`/`я не вижу кошку`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, it is the other way around, it's the form `я не вижу кошку` has an alternative form `я не вижу кошки`. So what you have notice is indeed something that exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know it's not that simple, it's not about feminine nouns, there are actually *some set* of rules when one should use accusative or genitive with some set of *verbs in negative*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote (and actually you can find [there][1] a big, yet not full, set of rules I've mentioned):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудность заключается в том, что в одних случаях тот или иной падеж&#xD;&#xA;&gt; является предпочтительным, а в других существует равная возможность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребления как родительного, так и винительного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what you have noticed is exactly about some words that can be used in both cases. It's hard to me to provide a complete list of such words (or rules by which they are generated) but as of counter-example for your hypothesis: (non-feminine and non-animate) `я не нашёл здание` /` не нашёл здания`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other counter-examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Вчерашнего дня не воротишь / вчерашний день не воротишь.&#xD;&#xA; - Не учуял запах газа / не учуял запаха газа. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though indeed good point, I guess this should be investigated.&#xD;&#xA;Here are even [more][2] rules about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/67-otr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rosental-book.ru/styli_xlv.html#sect201" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35700" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="f2096772-8966-443a-8c55-9f61173e0773" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:58:05.840" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я шёл в магазин&quot; или &quot;я пошёл в магазин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14643" RevisionGUID="8494f44d-0420-477b-a580-9bd03fa315ef" CreationDate="2017-06-19T18:59:52.090" UserId="8895" Comment="edited body" Text="With quantities of 10n + 1, except for 100n + 11, use the single nominative: `одна/девяносто одна/сто сорок одна ручка`, but `тысяча пятьсот одиннадцать ручек`;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With quantities of 10n + 2, 3, or 4, except for 100n + 12, 13, or 14 use the single genitive: `тридцать две/двести девяносто три/четыреста четыре ручки`;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;With any other quantities, including zero, use the plural genitive: `ноль/восемь/сто пятнадцать ручек`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14648" RevisionGUID="f5e0d754-e935-4e67-bdde-d9b0a68cd8cf" CreationDate="2017-06-20T00:55:16.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/876966644135931906" />
  <row Id="35714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14652" RevisionGUID="ac4b277d-ff60-4cb0-86eb-5328e1fbc90e" CreationDate="2017-06-20T01:42:43.497" UserId="6907" Text="I am reading now a book about Russian language (The big silver book of Russian language p. 2) and it's written there that when people want to talk to new people then they should say the sentence: &quot;Давайте будем на ты&quot;. I've never came across it. Is it indeed done? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ты** is  the  informal  usage  for  you.  It  is  used  with  family &#xD;&#xA;&gt; members,  children,  close friends,  and  pets.  When  Russians  wish &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to  speak  informally  to  one  another  for  the first time, they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say, “ **Давайте будем на ты**  .”&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The  Russian  has  two  forms  for  you.  They  vary  according  to &#xD;&#xA;&gt; formality  and  number.Тыis informal singular, **вы** is formal singular&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and both formal and informal plural. **Вы** is the marker of formality,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; politeness, and seniority. Whenever you are in doubtabout  which  form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to  use,  err  on  the  side  of  caution  and  use  the  polite  form&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (**Вы**) unless you are speaking to a child or a pet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14652" RevisionGUID="ac4b277d-ff60-4cb0-86eb-5328e1fbc90e" CreationDate="2017-06-20T01:42:43.497" UserId="6907" Text="&quot;Давайте будем на ты&quot; - a useful sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14652" RevisionGUID="ac4b277d-ff60-4cb0-86eb-5328e1fbc90e" CreationDate="2017-06-20T01:42:43.497" UserId="6907" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14625" RevisionGUID="1ce4bbed-9ee8-4bd2-b6e7-4560a98992ea" CreationDate="2017-06-20T03:55:14.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/877011934696144896" />
  <row Id="35718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14653" RevisionGUID="f2862ca2-5edb-4e19-b15b-4fc689f91e33" CreationDate="2017-06-20T06:36:59.913" UserId="242" Text="**Yes.** &quot;Давайте будем на ты&quot;, is a well known and standard phrase. You can also say &quot;давай будем на ты&quot; to emphasize the fact that you are very inclined to be less formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other standard forms are: &quot;Давай[те]/Может [сразу]/[перейдём] на ты?&quot; or &quot;можно на ты [сразу]/[уже]?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14654" RevisionGUID="82a277c6-a5e3-4d33-86b4-7391f17b5c77" CreationDate="2017-06-20T06:40:16.643" UserId="2079" Text="Yes, absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not suggest to say &quot;`*давай* будем на ты`&quot;, because this seems rude to me. You start to call your vis-a-vis &quot;ты&quot; before she/he gave her/his consent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common expression is `предлагаю перейти на ты`. This expression avoids using either ты or вы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14654" RevisionGUID="2435f8c5-4f9c-416c-a925-68055a201e05" CreationDate="2017-06-20T06:44:49.653" UserId="242" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Yes, absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not suggest to say &quot;`*давай* будем на ты`&quot;, because this seems rude to me. You start to call your vis-a-vis &quot;ты&quot; before she/he gave her/his consent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another common expression is `предлагаю перейти на ты`. This expression avoids using either ты or вы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14653" RevisionGUID="fbf51ba2-8453-4c3a-a933-28ad4fc402a6" CreationDate="2017-06-20T06:45:25.380" UserId="242" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="**Yes.** &quot;Давайте будем на ты&quot;, is a well known and standard phrase. You can also say &quot;давай будем на ты&quot; to emphasize the fact that you are very inclined to be less formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other standard forms are: &quot;Давай[те]/Может [сразу]/[перейдём] на ты?&quot; or &quot;можно на ты [сразу]/[уже]?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth to know also the verb &quot;тыкать&quot;. It's a colloquial term for referring someone by &quot;ты&quot;. You can here something like &quot;Ничего, что я тыкаю? Мы ж всего день знакомы&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35723" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14605" RevisionGUID="37d89f01-2537-49b2-9db7-e4bc85dc4eeb" CreationDate="2017-06-20T06:56:21.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/877057514533261312" />
  <row Id="35726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14655" RevisionGUID="85cc5f69-fdf3-4888-81f4-830f49aab65a" CreationDate="2017-06-20T09:12:07.493" UserId="5443" Text="&gt; Вчера я шёл в магазин. Я купил ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence is possible on its own, but it *doesn't combine* with the second one (there must be **пошёл** or **ходил** instead of шёл). Why? The meaning in case of **шёл** is 'I was walking towards the store/shop (in order to buy something)'. The *expected story* just after it is that something happened *on the way* (e. g. I met a friend), while the result of going to the shop (I bought something) sounds unnatural. The version with **пошёл** typically describes a *sequence of events* (then I bought something, etc.) and another possiible version using **ходил** is about *'where I was (what I was doing)'* at the time mentioned (yesterday)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35727" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14595" RevisionGUID="fa8f4f53-9a7d-4039-8c64-4fafdc3c15c8" CreationDate="2017-06-20T10:04:37.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/877104892992794624" />
  <row Id="35728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14653" RevisionGUID="362b793b-b12b-4fee-9eeb-b3eef94b2fa8" CreationDate="2017-06-20T11:29:59.240" UserId="242" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="**Yes.** &quot;Давайте будем на ты&quot;, is a well known and standard phrase. You can also say &quot;давай будем на ты&quot; to emphasize the fact that you are very inclined to be less formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other standard forms are: &quot;Давай[те]/Может [сразу]/[перейдём] на ты?&quot; or &quot;можно на ты [сразу]/[уже]?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth to know also the verb &quot;тыкать&quot;. It's a colloquial term for referring someone by &quot;ты&quot;. You can here something like &quot;Ничего, что я тыкаю? Мы ж всего день знакомы&quot;. The verb &quot;тыкать&quot; has homonym which translated as &quot;to poke&quot; and should not be confused with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14599" RevisionGUID="1789624c-2687-41a8-a629-affc59b5e384" CreationDate="2017-06-20T13:47:23.407" UserId="6097" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&quot;*Деловая колбаса*&quot; is a slang phrase, which ironically describes a person who is trying to look or behaves like as serious business man (or just tries to look like an overloaded with more serious tasks).&#xD;&#xA;It often applicable for kids, who behave like adults, I would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has nothing to do, actually, with a sausage itself.&#xD;&#xA;It will look very funny if you'll present &quot;деловая колбаса&quot; as a welcome :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;*докторская колбаса*&quot; has nothing to do with scientists or doctors. It's just a well known brand of relatively cheap sausage in Soviet Union. If someone uses this term nowadays, he probably refers to Soviet Union times in some case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="09cb78ec-2897-45f4-9e96-819013bda69b" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:19:45.020" UserId="7239" Text="I noticed recently that there are many verbs derived from ехать by adding prefixes, such as уехать or доехать, which are all perfective, and whose imperfective forms are created by add the prefix to the iterative/frequentative form of ехать, езжать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1:** why are there no verbs formed by modifying ездить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt:** My guess was that this is because ездить is abstract while ехать is concrete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that makes no sense as an explanation, because while ходить is abstract, and идти is concrete, there are verbs formed by adding prefixes to ходить, but there are not any formed by adding prefixes to идти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And to make things even more confusing, despite the fact that both ходить and ехать are imperfective verbs, the verbs formed by adding prefixes to ходить are imperfective, while those formed by adding prefixes to ехать are perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2:** Why doesn't ходить form perfective verbs when adding prefixes, with the imperfective forms created by adding the same prefix to the iterative/frequentive form of ходить, хаживать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It gets even more confusing if one also compares how verbs are formed for возить/везти/носить/нести when adding prefixes, but I will stop here for now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** ехать/ездить/ходить/идти can all be translated to mean &quot;to go&quot;, but ездить and ходить are abstract, ехать and идти are concrete, ходить and идти usually mean by foot (walking), while ехать and ездить usually mean by vehicle (traveling). All four are imperfective, not perfective verbs. My question is ***not*** about what these verbs mean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="09cb78ec-2897-45f4-9e96-819013bda69b" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:19:45.020" UserId="7239" Text="Why are there verbs derived from ехать and ходить but not ездить or идти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="09cb78ec-2897-45f4-9e96-819013bda69b" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:19:45.020" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы|словообразование|приставки|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35734" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="9e81afc0-fa27-4c08-88eb-bf05c8fad5c7" CreationDate="2017-06-20T15:25:32.917" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="ece45fa1-ba5c-4dc7-be2b-6e0efd576b51" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:02:25.620" UserId="7239" Comment="deleted 947 characters in body; edited title" Text="I noticed recently that there are many verbs derived from ехать by adding prefixes, such as уехать or доехать, which are all perfective, and whose imperfective forms are created by add the prefix to the iterative/frequentative form of ехать, езжать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 1:** why are there no verbs formed by modifying ездить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Attempt:** My guess was that this is because ездить is abstract while ехать is concrete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that makes no sense as an explanation, because while ходить is abstract, and идти is concrete, there are verbs formed by adding prefixes to ходить, but there are not any formed by adding prefixes to идти." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35736" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="ece45fa1-ba5c-4dc7-be2b-6e0efd576b51" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:02:25.620" UserId="7239" Comment="deleted 947 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why are there verbs derived from ехать but not ездить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="e147eef6-b58f-4e59-b454-e91d7490112d" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:04:00.750" UserId="7239" Text="Despite the fact that both ходить and ехать are imperfective verbs, the verbs formed by adding prefixes to ходить are imperfective, while those formed by adding prefixes to ехать are perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question 2:** Why doesn't ходить form perfective verbs when adding prefixes, with the imperfective forms created by adding the same prefix to the iterative/frequentive form of ходить, хаживать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(It gets even more confusing if one also compares how verbs are formed for возить/везти/носить/нести when adding prefixes, but I will stop here for now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="e147eef6-b58f-4e59-b454-e91d7490112d" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:04:00.750" UserId="7239" Text="Why are there verbs derived from ходить, but not идти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="e147eef6-b58f-4e59-b454-e91d7490112d" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:04:00.750" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы|словообразование|приставки|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35740" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="8ab0b644-8284-47c0-8100-38fb4204820c" CreationDate="2017-06-20T16:06:19.530" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14658" RevisionGUID="f86c2b06-dd57-40e2-8dfb-8fd4f626d449" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:07:54.860" UserId="9144" Text="How to say &quot;which one&quot; in russian (feminine - example: for dresses &quot;Which one should i buy?&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14658" RevisionGUID="f86c2b06-dd57-40e2-8dfb-8fd4f626d449" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:07:54.860" UserId="9144" Text="How to say &quot;which one&quot; in russian (feminine - example: for dresses &quot;Which one should i buy?&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14658" RevisionGUID="f86c2b06-dd57-40e2-8dfb-8fd4f626d449" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:07:54.860" UserId="9144" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14659" RevisionGUID="ab6f9288-ea48-4f6a-b425-225bdd2501cb" CreationDate="2017-06-20T18:28:17.287" UserId="134" Text="It's *которое*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Какое* and *которое* are quite similar in meaning, but the latter is not an open-ended question, it assumes a choice out of several possibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Какое платье мне купить? // What dress should I buy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A valid answer might be &quot;a long one&quot;, &quot;a red one&quot; or &quot;this one&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Которое платье мне купить? // Which dress should I buy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question assumes the buyer has several dresses to choose from and needs to pick one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14642" RevisionGUID="e1ea2faa-d656-4c44-9876-97943fc77f58" CreationDate="2017-06-20T19:04:37.417" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/877240789281239040" />
  <row Id="35748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14661" RevisionGUID="ab1b77e4-b3ad-43a6-b931-91ce7f3673c4" CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:06:29.780" UserId="1262" Text="Well,  a dress as ***платье*** is indeed not a Feminine but a Neutrum word, because it ends in ***-е*** (like the rest of -***е***, -***о*** and -***у***-ending Neutrum words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then, we have ***одежда***, which is less gender-specific socioculturally but is a Feminine word indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to practice some mental acrobatics with Gander/Case/Definite-Indefinite/Animate-Inanimate criteria, you should observe the options for each pair in each case (depending on Animate-Inanimate opposition, an object in Masculine gender could be either in Genitive-like or in Accusative form):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine: ***какой/который*** (Inanimate) или ***какого/которого*** (Animate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neutrum: ***какое / которое***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine: ***какую / которую***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to the objects cases only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An easier and universal construction (which could sound to a native speaker a little bit strange due to its modality of being non-evident/indefinite) is ***Что за...?***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Что за платье / куклу вуду/ сотрудника / компьютер тебе взять?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14662" RevisionGUID="0a0b00a8-eb0e-4b20-a265-5c4d69d72bdc" CreationDate="2017-06-20T20:26:45.300" UserId="1262" Text="To start with, here is [a brief introduction][1] into the aspectual system of Russian verbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the main aspectual pairs shall be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;habitual - iterative: ***ездить - ехать***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;perfect - imperfect : ***поехать - ехать/ездить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;progressive - non-progressive: ***поехать/ехать - поездить/ездить***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***ездить*** is habitual, imperfective, non-progressive, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ***ехать*** is iterative, imperfective, progressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I cannot think of an imperfect motion verb in Russian that would also be habitual + progressive or iterative and non-progressive at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it might seem to be natural to suppose that a conventional language logic saldom offers an idea of an action that would be pefect and non-progressive, but there are such verbs in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g. ***поездить*** is a perfective and non-progressive (whether it's iterative or not is out of the scope of my answer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/3302/1686" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14657" RevisionGUID="7d5e9538-62c7-4fcd-9098-19d32b501589" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:04:38.760" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/877286093221232640" />
  <row Id="35752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="5deac99d-926c-4864-9268-cb67cf3d81fd" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:07:47.750" UserId="6141" Text="I am trying to come up with some search heuristics for Russian first names and it would speed up the process if I could eliminate searching through certain names.  There's obvious letters that could I can skip (Q, X) but being able to skip more common letters would speed things up.  Would I miss any major names by skipping C?  Any other good letters to skip?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="5deac99d-926c-4864-9268-cb67cf3d81fd" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:07:47.750" UserId="6141" Text="Do any transliterated Russian names begin with the letter C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="5deac99d-926c-4864-9268-cb67cf3d81fd" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:07:47.750" UserId="6141" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14664" RevisionGUID="8b0a2dfe-8c09-49e0-88de-7910ad2c7b5c" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:13:49.543" UserId="242" Text="Well, the majority of Russian names have Greek or Jewish origin, but well, that is the state of things for centuries, so let consider them Russian. In that case, there's at least one common Russian name (originally Greek), `Кирилл`, which is usually transliterated with 'C' - [Cyril][1]. While it can be transliterated also as Kirill, Kiryl, Kirillos, Kyrylo, Kiril - the C-form is the most accepted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, you'll miss at least one popular name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14664" RevisionGUID="a4d2a097-f4be-4679-9950-601eddc0e2eb" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:53:51.213" UserId="242" Comment="added 846 characters in body" Text="Well, the majority of Russian names have Greek or Jewish origin, but well, that is the state of things for centuries, so let consider them Russian. In that case, there's at least one common Russian name (originally Greek), `Кирилл`, which is usually transliterated with 'C' - [Cyril][1]. While it can be transliterated also as Kirill, Kiryl, Kirillos, Kyrylo, Kiril - the C-form is the most accepted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer your question, you'll miss at least one popular name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** @SomeWittyUsername has a very reasonable point that Cyril can be treated rather as a corresponding western name rather than a transliteration. Well, I tend to agree. If you take some modern Russian celebrity, you'll see that it's most likely will referred as [Kirill][2] -&#xD;&#xA; - but! - however, you'll still [encounter Cyril][3] form a lot. It's a bit tricky to tell apart &quot;real&quot; transliteration and the forms constantly used. Since the question is about not missing somebody Russian in some non-Russian language list - `Cyril` still should be kept in mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, historical figures of Russian origin are usually still referred with C-form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Serebrennikov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://rusreality.com/2017/05/24/the-head-of-the-bolshoi-theatre-wrote-a-letter-to-putin-from-for-interrogation-serebrennikov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14665" RevisionGUID="9b5f519f-9336-444c-b5e2-154af2b0112c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:21:32.520" UserId="6816" Text="I can't seem to find a translation for &quot;everyone's&quot; as in &quot;They took everyone's phones.&quot; Is there a word for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14665" RevisionGUID="9b5f519f-9336-444c-b5e2-154af2b0112c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:21:32.520" UserId="6816" Text="Translation for &quot;everyone's&quot;/&quot;everybody's&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14665" RevisionGUID="9b5f519f-9336-444c-b5e2-154af2b0112c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T02:21:32.520" UserId="6816" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14666" RevisionGUID="00afd52b-d951-4544-a97f-6e84075203e1" CreationDate="2017-06-21T04:02:49.880" UserId="6539" Text="We usually translate &quot;everyone/everybody &quot; either &quot;все&quot; or &quot;каждый&quot; meaning the whole group or each person separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Телефоны отобрали у всех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждому дали книгу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14667" RevisionGUID="583cd95b-10bd-4738-b04d-3d8c985fe304" CreationDate="2017-06-21T05:12:56.800" UserId="7239" Text="[Both this website][1] and my grammar workbook state that the meaning of по- in the verbs пойти and поехать is to indicate the beginning (but not necessarily the completion) of an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I thought that they were just (empty) perfectivizing prefixes, to the extent that поехать and пойти can even be used as the perfectives for ездить and ходить respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** So if one uses поехать or пойти, can one infer that the action has been (will be) completed, or just that the action began (will begin), without knowing anything about the final results/consequences of that action?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, if I say: `Она пошла на работу` do I mean, (1) she left for work (began the process of going to work) or (2) she left for and arrived at work, i.e. completed her journey to work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e., does по- here mean (1) the action was begun or (2) the action was completed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://learnrussian.rt.com/grammar-tables/verbs-of-motion-with-prefixes/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14667" RevisionGUID="583cd95b-10bd-4738-b04d-3d8c985fe304" CreationDate="2017-06-21T05:12:56.800" UserId="7239" Text="Meaning of prefix по- in verbs поехать and пойти" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14667" RevisionGUID="583cd95b-10bd-4738-b04d-3d8c985fe304" CreationDate="2017-06-21T05:12:56.800" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы|вид|приставки|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14668" RevisionGUID="aa13439c-1ea6-4530-83dd-e72424db13c1" CreationDate="2017-06-21T05:33:06.490" UserId="6539" Text="There are lots of verbs with prefixes derived from **идти**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;войти, найти, пойти, сойти, прийти, уйти, подойти, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these verbs &quot;и&quot; changes to -й- and -дт- changes to  original -т- ( The original form was &quot;ити&quot;). There was a form &quot;придти&quot;, which is obsolete now and we use прийти instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb has the form приду (not прийду), придешь, придут in the future tense omitting the letter й. But other verbs войду, пойду, уйду, подойду don't drop it.&#xD;&#xA;In the past tense there is a form шёл, шла, шло, шли and with the corresponding prefixes we have пошёл, сошёл, вышел, перешёл, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14669" RevisionGUID="6d46d06f-4263-4d9d-b07d-40dc066afb8e" CreationDate="2017-06-21T05:42:23.087" UserId="2104" Text="In your example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она пошла на работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means (1) the action was begun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can mean 'She just left for work' or 'She started a new job / resumed her job' [after a break].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can easily imagine a situation where&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она пошла на работу, но попала в пробку и вернулась домой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'She left for work, but got stuck in traffic and came back home.'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14670" RevisionGUID="72792b75-b60f-4dab-a61b-04ffd897858c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T05:53:00.297" UserId="8961" Text="With motional verbs, prefix по means beginning of motion. Inversal case would have the prefix при, when ending the motion (arriving to some place)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14671" RevisionGUID="c858be40-291d-4743-9b9f-c5b405d2e10b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T06:32:09.383" UserId="6539" Text="As I have mentioned, &#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;&gt;заездить, изъездить, наездить, объездить, выездить, поездить, проездить, съездить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; are the verbs derived from **ездить**. Some of them have an imperfective pair in a certain meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, ездить is a multidirectional verb (going in different directions or several times). Ехать is a unidirectional verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выездить/объездить лошадь – выезжать/объезжать  лошадь (verbs concerning the tamining of horses ). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The pair выезжать – выехать (to leave, depart) has a different meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Объездить /объехать весь мир (to travel worldwide ) doesn't have a pair.&#xD;&#xA;Заездить, though originated from the same source, doesn't  have an imperf. pair ( to torture ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  And I believe it's really confusing, because verbs have lots of meanings and different perf/imperf. pairs. Each time people should consult a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14670" RevisionGUID="869fc621-dc2f-4ac1-8d43-7d8eece45e9d" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:04:11.097" UserId="8961" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="With motional verbs, prefix **по** means beginning of motion. Inversal case would have the prefix **при**, when ending the motion (arriving to some place)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14672" RevisionGUID="6224397d-f38a-4f50-9079-7195f9650b0d" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:05:59.850" UserId="4600" Text="**Short answer:** normally transliterated Russian names cannot start with `C`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:** sometimes the name bearer can change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a law ([Приложение N 6 к Приказу ФМС от 26.03.2014 N 211][1]) that explicitly states how Cyrillic names should be transliterated in Russian-issued foreign passports. However, it also states that applicant may have their name registered in other transliteration variant if they provide an official document (e.g. a passport issued under older rules, by foreign country's authority etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also some people prefer to use more &quot;westernized&quot; variants of their names (especially in social networks):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Клавдия** → *Claudia* (instead of *Klavdiya*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Клара** → *Clara* (instead of *Klara*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may also apply to foreign citizens of Russian descent, a notable example is Russian-Estonian [Климент Иванов (Clement Ivanov)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial `C` aside, there are also other interesting cases. Famous boxer **Владимир Кличко** spent most of his career in Germany and was promoted there, so he choose his name to be written in German translit: *Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Klitschko.* This variant passed on into all official sources. A counterexample is another famous boxer **Костя Цзю,** known internationally as *Kostya Tszyu,* which is closer to traditional Latin translitertion of Russian. As he is of Korean descent, he may have chosen to be written *Ju* (주) but obviously preferred not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://base.garant.ru/70705606/#block_289&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppey" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14673" RevisionGUID="ecccf60b-0863-49f7-80d4-c13a2b0739b1" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:18:34.723" UserId="7239" Text="возить/везти/носить/нести are all imperfective verbs meaning &quot;to carry&quot;, возить/носить are abstract, везти/нести are concrete, возить/везти are by vehicle, and носить/нести are by foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this regard they are similar to ездить/ехать/ходить/идти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one makes prefixed verbs to alter the meaning of &quot;to carry&quot;, возить/носить are often (always?) treated like imperfective, and везти/нести are treated like the perfective counterparts of возить/носить, despite the fact that везти/нести are imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify what I mean, here are some examples:  &#xD;&#xA;при**возить**/при**везти** (imperfective/perfective -- to bring here by vehicle)  &#xD;&#xA;при**носить**/при**нести** (imperfective/perfective -- to bring here on foot)  &#xD;&#xA;от**носить**/от**нести** (imperfective/perfective -- to refer)   &#xD;&#xA;произ**носить**/произ**нести** (imperfective/perfective -- to pronounce)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Why are the behaviors of the verbs возить/везти/носить/нести so different between the unprefixed and prefixed verbs? Is there a historical reason for this perhaps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or are we supposed to understand that abstract verbs naturally replace imperfective verbs and concrete verbs naturally replace perfective verbs in some contexts? If so, then why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why aren't there two imperfective/perfective verb pairs, one abstract, one concrete, e.g. привозывать/привозить and привеживать/привезти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14673" RevisionGUID="ecccf60b-0863-49f7-80d4-c13a2b0739b1" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:18:34.723" UserId="7239" Text="Why are возить/везти and носить/нести related as they are in prefixed verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14673" RevisionGUID="ecccf60b-0863-49f7-80d4-c13a2b0739b1" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:18:34.723" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы|словообразование|приставки|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14672" RevisionGUID="1ef8a881-6f42-4b45-8192-5a03246be486" CreationDate="2017-06-21T08:18:38.433" UserId="4600" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="**Short answer:** normally transliterated Russian names cannot start with `C`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:** sometimes the name bearer can change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a law ([Приложение N 6 к Приказу ФМС от 26.03.2014 N 211][1]) that explicitly states how Cyrillic names should be transliterated in Russian-issued foreign passports. However, it also states that applicant may have their name registered in other transliteration variant if they provide an official document (e.g. a passport issued under older rules, by foreign country's authority etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also some people prefer to use more &quot;westernized&quot; variants of their names (especially in social networks):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Константин** → *Constantin* (instead of *Konstantin*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Клавдия** → *Claudia* (instead of *Klavdiya*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Клара** → *Clara* (instead of *Klara*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may also apply to foreign citizens of Russian descent, a notable example is Russian-Estonian [Климент Иванов (Clement Ivanov)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial `C` aside, there are also other interesting cases. Famous boxer **Владимир Кличко** spent most of his career in Germany and was promoted there, so he choose his name to be written in German translit: *Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Klitschko.* This variant passed on into all official sources. A counterexample is another famous boxer **Костя Цзю,** known internationally as *Kostya Tszyu,* which is closer to traditional Latin translitertion of Russian. As he is of Korean descent, he may have chosen to be written *Ju* (주) but obviously preferred not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://base.garant.ru/70705606/#block_289&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppey" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14658" RevisionGUID="dc3bbd4d-12cd-44fb-8ed6-f1afbf16e09b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T10:21:29.407" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;which one&quot; in Russian (feminine - example: for dresses &quot;Which one should i buy?&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35775" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14658" RevisionGUID="dc3bbd4d-12cd-44fb-8ed6-f1afbf16e09b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T10:21:29.407" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="How to say &quot;which one&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="a6a56c21-c5b8-47b5-b8b3-06e632bbc031" CreationDate="2017-06-21T13:13:20.033" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/877514772127911937" />
  <row Id="35777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14674" RevisionGUID="28d6022a-f895-49e5-8764-f8d9dbb7d926" CreationDate="2017-06-21T16:15:34.813" UserId="9058" Text="In the given question &quot;Which one should i buy?&quot; I would separately focus on two words, &quot;one&quot; and &quot;should&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ONE&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answers given suggest the full phrase &quot;Which of the dresses ...&quot;. However in casual speech repeating the topic every now and then often feels excessive, that is why &quot;one&quot; is used instead of &quot;dress&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the informality level, upon how close are relations and how recent was last mentioning of the topic (like, if you were to the shop month ago - no one would understand which &quot;one&quot; was meant. OTOH going out of the dressing room holding a pack of dresses makes the topic obvious), there can be few options more or less verbose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какое из них купить? - Which [one] of them to buy?&#xD;&#xA;Какое покупаем? - Which [one] are we buying?&#xD;&#xA;Ну и какое?/Ну и которое? - So [in the end] which one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какое/которое split.&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are very close, so hard to draw the line. For me the &quot;который&quot; pronoun has a slightly different shade, as I feel it. It hints that there is some pressing need, some task to do with one dress, but you do not know which one. Like &quot;Did you washed that your dress clean?&quot; &quot;Which one?&quot; - &quot;Ты отстирала своё платье?&quot; &quot;Какое именно?&quot;/&quot;Которое?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Or like leaving a dress-room with a pack and met with &quot;Still i think the dress bears an unreasonable pricetag...&quot; you can demand clearance &quot;Which one&quot; - &quot;Которое?&quot;. There is a fixed and readily available list of thing, and you have to point into it. Like Quassnoi's comment with &quot;которое из двух&quot; - there is an immediate list of two options, stop hesitating and put your finger upon one of the rows!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But personally in a general surfing around the shop and looking here and there, and maybe deciding to buy nothing or buy pants instead of dress - in such a blurry situation &quot;кoторое&quot; would feel a bit unnatural, a bit too specific, a bit too focused, demanding. Again, in such a surf-around there is not fixed and specific list to point your finger. There is some general idea of dresses suiting better or worse. So, &quot;какое&quot; would feel more natural for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SHOULD&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;shall&quot; verb, as I heard, is a very demanding one. To the point in British English today even I/We is often used with &quot;will&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i'd start with softer options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какое платье мне лучше купить?&quot; - &quot;Which dress would I better buy?&quot; - asking for an advice rather than order.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какое лучше купить?&quot; - the more conversational, informal shortened phrase. Assuming the contexts is immediately available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Какое [платье] покупаем?&quot; - &quot;Which dress we are buying now?&quot;. Considers the purchase as a joint activity. The wallet is not necessarily shared, but the time and opinions they were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;should I buy&quot; is somewhat demanding an order. Like a family in a ties section. The husband can get a bit annoyed &quot;All those shades look the same color to me. I see no difference. If you, sweetheart, can tell them from one another, stop trying 1000 shades of gray, just show me which damned one tie should I bye, and I accept your taste and your judgment.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(В конце концов...) (Ну и всё-таки,..) какое (же) платье мне купить?&#xD;&#xA;Or even &quot;...мне покупать?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it sounds to me like &quot;...мне надлежит купить?&quot; - &quot;...I ought to buy?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;...какое же платье ты мне скажешь купить?&quot; - &quot;...you would tell me to buy?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a casual non-stressed situation, i'd &quot;soften&quot; the &quot;buy&quot; verb by &quot;лучше&quot; (just want you non-binding opinion) or by plural inclination (we are together in this activity). The direct indefinite-tense &quot;мне купить&quot; would sound annoyed to my ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14675" RevisionGUID="ca2cbab4-9065-4509-8d50-f730e5e37bd2" CreationDate="2017-06-21T17:30:19.547" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; привозывать/привозить and привеживать/привезти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I got your idea, you want there be some fixed root(stem?) and some uniform setoff suffixes and endings(post suffixes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a hypothesis that it maybe always is the case, or once was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;воз/вез looks like the same root with volatile vowel (чередующаяся гласная).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we would take возить/везти pair, and the difference remained is -ить and -ти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next thing to try would be morphologic deconstruction of those words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I open http://ya.ru and look for &quot;разбор слова на части&quot; (он же морфологический или морфемный разбор). The top 4 links follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://vnutrislova.net/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80/%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%83/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C - claims to have &quot;algorithmic&quot; deconstruction, so it does not depend upon vocabularies, but computer heuristic might span wrong results.&#xD;&#xA;2. http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?morph_word=%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD&amp;word - works nice, but don't forget to choose &quot;морфемика&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;3. http://sostavslova.ru/search/?text=%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C - don't work for me. Very slow and in the end you get a list of related words, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;4. http://morphemeonline.ru/В/возить - again, very slow. But their homepage lists a number of paper books on Russian words morphology :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, in &quot;везти&quot; word all the working services see &quot;вез&quot; root with &quot;ти&quot; ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;возить&quot; word services #1 and #2 see &quot;воз&quot; root with &quot;и&quot; suffix and &quot;ть&quot; ending. Historically &quot;-ть&quot; is merely a shortened &quot;-ти&quot;, I think. You may say &quot;возити&quot; and you would sound funny archaic, but it would be understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #4 service thinks &quot;воз&quot; and &quot;и&quot; are both roots! And &quot;ть&quot; is suddenly a suffix. I wonder.... Looks like some &quot;off-by-one&quot; bug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to wrap things up, with воз-и-ть and вез-ти you have a very close roots, to the point that I personally feel them the same root with alternating vowel, an almost the same ending, and then there is the different between empty suffix and &quot;и&quot; suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wanted the uniform rule of constructing words here, didn't you? :-D&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14675" RevisionGUID="b2096a43-9d6e-4025-9c74-2f2a35e2f918" CreationDate="2017-06-21T17:38:50.400" UserId="9058" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="&gt; привозывать/привозить and привеживать/привезти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I got your idea, you want there be some fixed root(stem?) and some uniform setoff suffixes and endings(post suffixes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a hypothesis that it maybe always is the case, or once was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;воз/вез looks like the same root with volatile vowel (чередующаяся гласная).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we would take возить/везти pair, and the difference remained is -ить and -ти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next thing to try would be morphologic deconstruction of those words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I open http://ya.ru and look for &quot;разбор слова на части&quot; (он же морфологический или морфемный разбор). The top 4 links follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. http://vnutrislova.net/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80/%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%83/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C - claims to have &quot;algorithmic&quot; deconstruction, so it does not depend upon vocabularies, but computer heuristic might span wrong results.&#xD;&#xA;2. http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?morph_word=%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD&amp;word - works nice, but don't forget to choose &quot;морфемика&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA;3. http://sostavslova.ru/search/?text=%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C - don't work for me. Very slow and in the end you get a list of related words, nothing more.&#xD;&#xA;4. http://morphemeonline.ru/В/возить - again, very slow. But their homepage lists a number of paper books on Russian words morphology :-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, in &quot;везти&quot; word all the working services see &quot;вез&quot; root with &quot;ти&quot; ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;возить&quot; word services #1 and #2 see &quot;воз&quot; root with &quot;и&quot; suffix and &quot;ть&quot; ending. Historically &quot;-ть&quot; is merely a shortened &quot;-ти&quot;, I think. You may say &quot;возити&quot; and you would sound funny archaic, but it would be understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The #4 service thinks &quot;воз&quot; and &quot;и&quot; are both roots! And &quot;ть&quot; is suddenly a suffix. I wonder.... Looks like some &quot;off-by-one&quot; bug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to wrap things up, with воз-и-ть and вез-ти you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * a very close roots, to the point that I personally feel them the same root with alternating vowel,&#xD;&#xA; * an almost the same ending,&#xD;&#xA; * and then there is the only significant difference left: empty suffix or &quot;и&quot; suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wanted the uniform rule of constructing words here, didn't you? :-D&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14676" RevisionGUID="999972e1-57b9-454f-b01a-681757755f33" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:39:57.133" UserId="7330" Text="If этой refers to the current week, wat does the verbs in the past tense mean or imply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14676" RevisionGUID="999972e1-57b9-454f-b01a-681757755f33" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:39:57.133" UserId="7330" Text="&quot;на этой неделе, я было дома, никуда не ездила&quot; is this some past structure or the этой here refers to some week that already happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14676" RevisionGUID="999972e1-57b9-454f-b01a-681757755f33" CreationDate="2017-06-21T18:39:57.133" UserId="7330" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14677" RevisionGUID="fdd547ef-318e-4ce0-b0c1-b22db538cfb8" CreationDate="2017-06-21T19:16:21.440" UserId="9152" Text="At first, let me to correct your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На этой неделе я была дома, никуда не ездила&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Cause &quot;Я был&quot; if I'm male and &quot;Я была&quot; if I'm female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;На этой неделе я сижу дома&quot; it means that you are sitting right now (like present continuous in English. example: &quot;Today I'm sitting home.&quot;). It starts at Monday (Sunday, not matter) and ends at Sunday.&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;На этой неделе я сидел/сидела дома&quot; it means that you were at home last week. Like today is Saturday, you are going to the cinema, but whole week between Monday and Friday you sat home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14678" RevisionGUID="76759198-15ab-45c3-901f-9d2e7467e48c" CreationDate="2017-06-21T20:57:33.260" UserId="6097" Text="Let's draw a timeline: &#xA;&#xA;Beginning of this week/month/year - - - - - now - - - - - End of this week/month/year&#xA;&#xA;Using the past tense you cover the time span from the beginning until now: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я была дома. &#xA;&#xA;This means that you were staying at home from Monday till now (today).&#xA;&#xA;Using the future tense you cover the time from now until the end:&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я буду дома. &#xA;&#xA;This means that you are going to stay at home from now till Sunday. &#xA;&#xA;Using the present you are talking about the whole time from the beginning to the end:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я (сижу) дома - I stay at home this week. &#xA;&#xA;Normally you use the past tense near the end of the time scale and the future near the beginning. &quot;На этой неделе я буду дома&quot; being said on Friday would be very unusual. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14679" RevisionGUID="c1a124a5-a20c-4837-b91a-73cfb7f9cc1a" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:05:09.207" UserId="4903" Text="Thе words in each of the two groups are considered to have the same stem. However, for historical reasons, a single stem may have multiple forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Russian Derivational Dictionary ([volume 1](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R489part1.pdf), pages 94-96), there are 6 different forms of stem ***воз***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - зана**важ**ивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **вез**ти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - под**вёз**ший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - уна**вож**енный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **воз**ить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - об**оз**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same dictionary shows 5 forms of stem **нос** ([volume 3](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R489part3.pdf), pages 401-404):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - вы**наш**ивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нес**ти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - при**нёс**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нос**ить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нош**ение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14679" RevisionGUID="bf38ed5c-6567-47c5-8a02-6f607bd7064b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:26:46.457" UserId="4903" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="Thе words in each of the two groups are considered to have the same stem. However, for historical reasons, a single stem may have multiple forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Russian Derivational Dictionary ([volume 1](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R489part1.pdf), pages 94-96), there are 6 different forms of stem ***воз***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - зана**важ**ивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **вез**ти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - под**вёз**ший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - уна**вож**енный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **воз**ить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - об**оз**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same dictionary shows 5 forms of stem **нос** ([volume 3](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R489part3.pdf), pages 401-404):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - вы**наш**ивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нес**ти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - при**нёс**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нос**ить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нош**ение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the words in your examples are related - they share the same stem.  Prefixes change the meaning of the word and sometimes change very significantly.  You found some examples, but there are many more.  There are some general patterns that help you understand the meaning of the word. You may understand a word, because you know the stem and the prefix, but often enough you need to consult a dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14678" RevisionGUID="feef206f-3cad-4ae8-8dce-0b75ad7b7a14" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:29:38.257" UserId="6097" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Let's draw a timeline: &#xA;&#xA;Beginning of the current week/month/year - - - - - now - - - - - End of the current week/month/year&#xA;&#xA;Using the past tense you cover the time span from the beginning until now: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я была дома. &#xA;&#xA;This means that you were staying at home from Monday till now (today).&#xA;&#xA;Using the future tense you cover the time from now until the end:&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я буду дома. &#xA;&#xA;This means that you are going to stay at home from now till Sunday. &#xA;&#xA;Using the present you are talking about the whole time from the beginning to the end:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я (сижу) дома - I stay at home this week. &#xA;&#xA;Normally you use the past tense near the end of the time scale and the future near the beginning. &quot;На этой неделе я буду дома&quot; being said on Friday would be very unusual. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="2d2e7bfe-bf14-4050-8fa5-dc3d0daaa2ab" CreationDate="2017-06-22T03:33:51.857" UserId="9155" Text="There is a [tool][1] used by artists called *blending stump* (in English) or *tortillon* (in French). But I cannot find the word for it in Russian. This is how they look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortillon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tQvjp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="2d2e7bfe-bf14-4050-8fa5-dc3d0daaa2ab" CreationDate="2017-06-22T03:33:51.857" UserId="9155" Text="What is the Russian word for &quot;blending stump&quot; (artist's tool)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="2d2e7bfe-bf14-4050-8fa5-dc3d0daaa2ab" CreationDate="2017-06-22T03:33:51.857" UserId="9155" Text="|словарь|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14676" RevisionGUID="0a7ba0ba-c6bb-49d5-a796-ef1ccb50657b" CreationDate="2017-06-22T04:06:57.983" UserId="4753" Comment="typos, added &quot;being&quot; for clarity (and to satisfy minimum edit length)" Text="If этой refers to the current week, what does the verb being in the past tense mean or imply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35792" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14676" RevisionGUID="0a7ba0ba-c6bb-49d5-a796-ef1ccb50657b" CreationDate="2017-06-22T04:06:57.983" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 4903, 6539 edit id of 877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14677" RevisionGUID="63bbe540-a51e-4072-ada3-014afd4ff818" CreationDate="2017-06-22T04:07:47.250" UserId="4753" Comment="Corrected &quot;Cause&quot; to &quot;Because&quot;, fixed pronoun usage" Text="At first, let me to correct your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На этой неделе я была дома, никуда не ездила.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Because &quot;Я был&quot; if I'm male and &quot;Я была&quot; if I'm female.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;На этой неделе я сижу дома&quot; it means that you are sitting right now (like present continuous in English. Example: &quot;Today I'm sitting home.&quot;). It starts on Monday (or Sunday, it doesn't matter) and ends on Sunday.&#xD;&#xA;If you say &quot;На этой неделе я сидел/сидела дома&quot; it means that you were at home last week. Like today is Saturday, you are going to the cinema, but for a whole week between Monday and Friday you sat home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35794" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14677" RevisionGUID="63bbe540-a51e-4072-ada3-014afd4ff818" CreationDate="2017-06-22T04:07:47.250" Comment="Proposed by 4753 approved by 4903, 6539 edit id of 876" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14681" RevisionGUID="2864a1ca-0c71-4243-add9-54046182e324" CreationDate="2017-06-22T04:21:17.900" UserId="6539" Text="It's called &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;blending stump&#xD;&#xA;Искусство: растушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Универсальный англо-русский словарь. Академик.ру. 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from th verb растушевывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14681" RevisionGUID="27eb6a40-0b31-4070-9127-1f0d13e1f7a6" CreationDate="2017-06-22T04:26:44.837" UserId="6539" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="It's called Растушка, растушовка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;blending stump&#xD;&#xA;Искусство: растушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Универсальный англо-русский словарь. Академик.ру. 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from th verb растушевывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;РАСТУШКА — и (чаще) РАСТУШОВКА, растушовки, жен. (спец.). 1. только ед. Действие по гл. растушевать растушевывать. 2. Скрученная из бумаги или другого мягкого материала заостренная палочка для тушовки (живоп. спец.). Толковый словарь Ушакова. Д.Н. Ушаков.… …   Толковый словарь Ушакова&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14682" RevisionGUID="0045c457-46b2-4d0f-9bc0-10740066e597" CreationDate="2017-06-22T07:23:13.543" UserId="2238" Text="As for other letters for skipping - H (with the same exclusion of Western correlates - Genrikh/Henry, etc.), and W (again, Vilyam/Uilyam/William can be an exclusion, but then, it's not quite a major Russian name anyway). Russian words with Cyrillic Х are to be given with Kh not H (Khariton, Khruschev, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14678" RevisionGUID="e41b8370-4e6f-4304-860f-9922eaf441e7" CreationDate="2017-06-22T09:09:18.480" UserId="6097" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Let's draw a timeline: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Beginning of the current - - - - - now - - - - - End of the current &#xD;&#xA;         week/month/year            (or today)        week/month/year&#xD;&#xA;Using the past tense you cover the time span from the beginning until now: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я была дома. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you were staying at home from Monday till now (today).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the future tense you cover the time from now until the end:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я буду дома. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that you are going to stay at home from now till Sunday. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the present you are talking about the whole time from the beginning to the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На этой неделе я (сижу) дома - I stay at home this week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally you use the past tense near the end of the time scale and the future near the beginning. &quot;На этой неделе я буду дома&quot; being said on Friday would be very unusual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14681" RevisionGUID="e55f00e6-7318-43b7-a96b-6c91f9aedd1f" CreationDate="2017-06-22T14:13:13.090" UserId="6539" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="It's called Растушка, растушовка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;blending stump&#xD;&#xA;Искусство: растушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Универсальный англо-русский словарь. Академик.ру. 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from th verb растушевывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;РАСТУШКА — и (чаще) РАСТУШОВКА, растушовки, жен. (спец.). 1. только ед. Действие по гл. растушевать растушевывать. 2. Скрученная из бумаги или другого мягкого материала заостренная палочка для тушовки (живоп. спец.). Толковый словарь Ушакова. Д.Н. Ушаков.… …   Толковый словарь Ушакова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Растушёвка – это в общем-то частный случай штриховки. После нанесения штрихов, используя свойства графита карандаша и свой инструмент для растушевки (растушку) , штрихи как бы размазывают до получения однородного тона. &#xD;&#xA;Держать растушку при работе надо под углом и ни в коем случае не перпендикулярно плоскости листа. Лучше всего аналогом бумажной (замшевой) скрученной растушки будет служить кусок натуральной винной пробки заточенной на конус или клином с тонким рабочим концом. Также в качестве растушки можно использовать кусочек ватки, ватную палочку, кусок мягкой бумаги, свернутый на конус и т. п. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14681" RevisionGUID="891008d9-9e83-408d-ae85-5cc8f58659ac" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:54:17.950" UserId="6539" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="It's called Растушка, растушовка/растушёвка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;blending stump&#xD;&#xA;Искусство: растушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Универсальный англо-русский словарь. Академик.ру. 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from th verb растушевывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;РАСТУШКА — и (чаще) РАСТУШОВКА, растушовки, жен. (спец.). 1. только ед. Действие по гл. растушевать растушевывать. 2. Скрученная из бумаги или другого мягкого материала заостренная палочка для тушовки (живоп. спец.). Толковый словарь Ушакова. Д.Н. Ушаков.… …   Толковый словарь Ушакова&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Растушёвка – это в общем-то частный случай штриховки. После нанесения штрихов, используя свойства графита карандаша и свой инструмент для растушевки (растушку) , штрихи как бы размазывают до получения однородного тона. &#xD;&#xA;Держать растушку при работе надо под углом и ни в коем случае не перпендикулярно плоскости листа. Лучше всего аналогом бумажной (замшевой) скрученной растушки будет служить кусок натуральной винной пробки заточенной на конус или клином с тонким рабочим концом. Также в качестве растушки можно использовать кусочек ватки, ватную палочку, кусок мягкой бумаги, свернутый на конус и т. п. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="3f68a989-90c4-409c-a40d-f44ad9df9817" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:56:47.717" UserId="9160" Text="Какой самый удачный синоним у слова «прозрачный» в таком контексте?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это повышает уровень прозрачности процессов и экономит время на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; взаимодействие между участниками." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="3f68a989-90c4-409c-a40d-f44ad9df9817" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:56:47.717" UserId="9160" Text="Синоним слова «прозрачный» в значении «понятный и честный»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="3f68a989-90c4-409c-a40d-f44ad9df9817" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:56:47.717" UserId="9160" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14686" RevisionGUID="15732b70-322d-465f-a3d4-295be4f5581f" CreationDate="2017-06-22T17:25:48.620" UserId="4903" Text="Согласно [Linguee](http://www.linguee.com/english-russian/search?source=auto&amp;query=transparency+level) английское **transparency level** переводится несколькими способами:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **уровень прозрачности** - очень распространено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **открытость** - распространено гораздо реже&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -  **транспарентность** - распространённый перевод, но лично мне не нравится" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14687" RevisionGUID="85d7f53e-8ec7-4ca5-a1a1-2258f5a46b06" CreationDate="2017-06-22T17:27:00.683" UserId="242" Text="Дело в том, что стопроцентные синонимы хоть редко, но существуют, но тогда ваш вопрос лишён смысла - зачем менять одно слово на другое, условно говоря, неотличимое от него?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова же, частично пересекающиеся по значению, которые, к тому же могут зависеть от контекста - для слова прозрачный это может быть и `открытый` и `простой`, и `наглядный` и (для любителей умных слов) `транспарентный` - но ни одно из них не лучше в этом конкретном предложении. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;прозрачный&quot; тут очень к месту употреблено и моим ответом будет - никакой синоним не самый удачный, чтобы вы под &quot;удачным&quot; не подразумевали. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14687" RevisionGUID="4fea38f3-ec4a-4f15-ade9-81fd6d1d7bdd" CreationDate="2017-06-22T17:35:09.940" UserId="242" Comment="added 570 characters in body" Text="Дело в том, что стопроцентные синонимы хоть редко, но существуют, но тогда ваш вопрос лишён смысла - зачем менять одно слово на другое, условно говоря, неотличимое от него?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова же, частично пересекающиеся по значению, которые, к тому же могут зависеть от контекста - для слова прозрачный это может быть и `открытый` и `простой`, и `наглядный` и (для любителей умных слов) `транспарентный` - но ни одно из них не лучше в этом конкретном предложении. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово &quot;прозрачный&quot; тут очень к месту употреблено и моим ответом будет - **никакой синоним не самый удачный**, чтобы вы под &quot;удачным&quot; не подразумевали. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же перед вами стоит задача избавиться по каким-то причинам от какого-то слова в принципе (ну, например, в тексте оно уже несколько раз употреблялось, мало ли), то иногда решение этой проблемы кроется в применении чуть более радикальных средств, чем замена синонимом - можно перекроить предложение целиком, но оставить тот же смысл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, вместо &quot;повышает уровень прозрачности процессов&quot; можно сказать что-нибудь (опять-таки, в зависимости от контекста): &quot;улучшает контролируемость процессов&quot; или &quot;помогает упросить механизмы контроля процессов&quot; и так далее. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35815" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14685" RevisionGUID="6beac198-7c48-49fb-81ec-dad87f1dc1fa" CreationDate="2017-06-22T17:42:16.983" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="f8d83e8a-a919-4497-bb78-b7ac7eb313ee" CreationDate="2017-06-22T18:42:40.527" UserId="4753" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. It does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. Our hero cannot find the&#xD;&#xA;letter until he gets home. His arrival is therefor expressed by a verb&#xD;&#xA;(пришёл) in the perfective. Because only unidirectional motion&#xD;&#xA;produces progress (a change in location), perfective verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;must also be unidirectional.&#xD;&#xA;                                                                                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="917a4dad-91ed-4945-976f-f04cc86747e3" CreationDate="2017-06-22T19:23:52.133" UserId="4753" Comment="added explicit appeal to logic" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. It does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. Our hero cannot find the&#xD;&#xA;letter until he gets home. His arrival is therefor expressed by a verb&#xD;&#xA;(пришёл) in the perfective. Because only unidirectional motion&#xD;&#xA;produces progress (a change in location), perfective verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;must also be unidirectional. Logic requires it.&#xD;&#xA;                                                                                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="84984e3c-6286-4c0d-b2f9-45bf18d18632" CreationDate="2017-06-22T21:06:45.190" UserId="6907" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the Russian words sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* е**г**о  (for example:  его семья) = pronounced as if it is written: е**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* лва толсто**г**о = Lva Tolsto**v**a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="949f1505-9bc5-4a50-8828-d1356bc400f1" CreationDate="2017-06-22T21:10:37.767" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the Russian words sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* е**г**о  (for example:  его семья) = pronounced as if it is written: е**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* Льва Толсто**г**о = Lva Tolsto**v**a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="b7967e49-faf8-43c4-9e8a-79fde3be9862" CreationDate="2017-06-22T22:06:21.250" UserId="4753" Comment="modified assertion about role of logic" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. It does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. Our hero cannot find the&#xD;&#xA;letter until he gets home. His arrival is therefor expressed by a verb&#xD;&#xA;(пришёл) in the perfective. Because only unidirectional motion&#xD;&#xA;produces progress (a change in location), perfective verbs of motion&#xD;&#xA;must also be unidirectional. The two concepts are logicaly linked.&#xD;&#xA;                                                                                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35821" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="56cafb09-155a-4ee9-b233-c6993d043089" CreationDate="2017-06-23T01:18:54.280" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/878059756199579649" />
  <row Id="35822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="b0e68322-505c-4d83-aa42-949faf98a50d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:11:55.737" UserId="9076" Text="Noun number :&#xA;&#xA;https://youtu.be/3qa8U-PmVU8&#xA;&#xA;I used this video to help with my study but I couldn't seem to understand the difference and the usage. However, I saw some similarities with nominative plural case. &#xA;&#xA;If you didn't want to watch the whole video, maybe this can give you an idea.&#xA;&#xA;1st group :&#xA;&#xA;1. Mas. nouns ending in a hard consonant. &#xA;2. Fem. nouns ending in -а. &#xA;&#xA;{Forms (plural) : +ы }&#xA;&#xA;Пример :&#xA;&#xA;стол → столы &#xA;&#xA;Улица →Улицы &#xA;&#xA;Questions : &#xA;&#xA;1. What is the usage? (When to use?)&#xA;2. Are noun number and nominative plural case the same? If not, what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="b0e68322-505c-4d83-aa42-949faf98a50d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:11:55.737" UserId="9076" Text="What is the Difference Between Noun Number and Nominative Plural Case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="b0e68322-505c-4d83-aa42-949faf98a50d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:11:55.737" UserId="9076" Text="|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35825" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="82a03975-7698-4729-a5c9-af93500011e2" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:18:39.203" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="ef3d2c73-4686-43df-a932-c1bf3f5f7f91" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:23:04.750" UserId="9076" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="Noun number :&#xA;&#xA;https://youtu.be/3qa8U-PmVU8&#xA;&#xA;I used this video to help with my study but I couldn't seem to understand the difference and the usage. However, I saw some similarities with nominative plural case. &#xA;&#xA;If you didn't want to watch the whole video, maybe this can give you an idea.&#xA;&#xA;1st group :&#xA;&#xA;1. Mas. nouns ending in a hard consonant. &#xA;2. Fem. nouns ending in -а. &#xA;&#xA;{Forms (plural) : +ы }&#xA;&#xA;Пример :&#xA;&#xA;стол → столы &#xA;&#xA;Улица →Улицы &#xA;&#xA;Question : &#xA;&#xA;1. Are noun number and nominative plural case the same? If not, what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35827" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="5b7fcea3-8893-45b4-81e0-d085c58cd6ba" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:23:56.573" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="9137cc20-dd21-4e1a-8e3e-5ee68411d86b" CreationDate="2017-06-23T08:24:12.600" UserId="242" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Noun number :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/3qa8U-PmVU8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used this video to help with my study but I couldn't seem to understand the difference and the usage. However, I saw some similarities with nominative plural case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you didn't want to watch the whole video, maybe this can give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st group :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Mas. nouns ending in a hard consonant. &#xD;&#xA;2. Fem. nouns ending in -а. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{Forms (plural) : +ы }&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пример :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;стол → столы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Улица →Улицы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Are noun number and nominative plural case the same? If not, what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="e4b9186e-02b5-47d7-bd91-f27b5f80e77c" CreationDate="2017-06-23T11:48:48.610" UserId="4753" Comment="improved explanation of why unprefixed unidirectional verbs of motion are imperfective" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. It does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. His unidirectional motion toward his home was continued until he arrived. Because he arrived he was able to find the letter. Here we see that the verb прийти expresses an idea (arrival) which advances narratives. This makes it a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the distinction between making progress (which идти does) and advancing the narrative (which прийти does). A character's physical progress on his journey does not advance the narrative to the next step until he reaches some defined goal. The goal is specified by adding a prefix such as при-, у-, от-, об-, с-, на-, до- etc. Since these prefixes are prepositions, they define a physical reference for when the motion is sufficient to advance the narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectivity of a motion verb requires both these elements: the motion must make progress, and it must reach or pass a goal post. By doing so it produces an effect which advances the narrative to the next step. Only prefixed unidirectional motion verbs provide both elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion define the goal, but because they describe aimless, circular, or repeated motion, they do not move the character to a specific location for the next step of the narrative. While &quot;Анна пришла в школу.&quot; places Anna at the school for the next stage of the action, &quot;Анна ходила в школу.&quot; does not. Now she could be anywhere. Thus, prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion cannot be perfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="6b34a426-596b-4706-af53-b3c50cbed390" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:30:21.227" UserId="9164" Text="I'm learning Russian but find myself in a position where I can't express myself quite often. I can't find the proper phrase for my question, any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="6b34a426-596b-4706-af53-b3c50cbed390" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:30:21.227" UserId="9164" Text="What's a polite way to ask if you can continue the conversation in english?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="6b34a426-596b-4706-af53-b3c50cbed390" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:30:21.227" UserId="9164" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35833" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="d7183044-7ac6-4814-8d04-e93e1ee6d19a" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:41:58.940" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's a polite way to ask if you can continue the conversation in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35834" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="661f4c91-1b1f-413d-8bc6-0cc0cdc43310" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:42:43.340" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35835" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="b2febe5e-31a9-4da6-aab2-ed241b62a4bd" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:47:18.980" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14691" RevisionGUID="6bd507e8-b680-42f0-89b2-eb87cef2c9b4" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:49:55.603" UserId="242" Text="I was very inclined to close your question but let's the community decide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are asking about a variety of possible phrases, this make this already quite suspicious and bring this question to the edge of being off-topic. On the other hand, well, I can imagine somebody will ask about how to say that you are in love with someone - still lot of options, but can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you want to talk with someone in English - just switch to English and apologize for not being able to continue in Russian. Imagine that person does not know English as well. Any phrase like &quot;извините, я только учу русский, давайте продолжим общаться на английском&quot; can lead to a situation where you'll find your self listening even more Russian you don't understand. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14691" RevisionGUID="516cf4d4-4e5a-4c98-87d1-b0193df8cd6a" CreationDate="2017-06-23T12:55:23.720" UserId="242" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="I was very inclined to close your question but I guess in this case it's better for a community to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are asking about a variety of possible phrases, this make this already quite suspicious and bring this question to the edge of being off-topic. On the other hand, well, I can imagine somebody will ask about how to say that you are in love with someone - still lot of options, but can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you want to talk with someone in English - just switch to English and apologize for not being able to continue in Russian. Imagine that person does not know English as well. Any phrase like &quot;извините, я только учу русский, давайте продолжим общаться на английском&quot; (yes, you can use that phrase) can lead to a situation where you'll find your self listening even more Russian you don't understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ну и в общем, там выходит, что так не получится...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: Извини, я плохо понимаю, давай дальше по-английски.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ой, а я не знаю английского. Но можем попробовать по-грузински. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you've waisted some time and didn't made thing easier neither for you nor for your companion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14691" RevisionGUID="108d84f2-b148-4f28-8f1e-e7c2af800625" CreationDate="2017-06-23T13:01:20.783" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I was very inclined to close your question but I guess in this case it's better for a community to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are asking about a variety of possible phrases, this make this already quite suspicious and bring this question to the edge of being off-topic. On the other hand, well, I can imagine somebody will ask about how to say that you are in love with someone - still lot of options, but can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you want to talk with someone in English - just switch to English and apologize for not being able to continue in Russian. Imagine that person does not know English as well. Any phrase like `&quot;извините, я только учу русский, давайте продолжим общаться на английском&quot;` (yes, you can use that phrase) can lead to a situation where you'll find your self listening even more Russian you don't understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ну и в общем, там выходит, что так не получится...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: Извини, я плохо понимаю, давай дальше по-английски.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ой, а я не знаю английского. Но можем попробовать по-грузински. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you've waisted some time and didn't made thing easier neither for you nor for your companion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14691" RevisionGUID="bef35d50-4dad-4939-85c0-47436a854ef2" CreationDate="2017-06-23T13:04:21.073" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was very inclined to close your question but I guess in this case it's better for a community to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are asking about a variety of possible phrases, this make this already quite suspicious and bring this question to the edge of being off-topic. On the other hand, well, I can imagine somebody will ask about how to say that you are in love with someone - still lot of options, but can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you want to talk with someone in English - just switch to English and apologize for not being able to continue in Russian. Imagine that person does not know English as well. Any phrase like `&quot;извините, я только учу русский, давайте продолжим общаться на английском&quot;` (yes, you can use that phrase) can lead to a situation where you'll find your self listening even more Russian you don't understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ну и в общем, там выходит, что так не получится...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: Извини, я плохо понимаю, давай дальше по-английски.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ой, а я не знаю английского. Но можем попробовать по-грузински. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you've wasted some time and didn't made thing easier neither for you nor for your companion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14679" RevisionGUID="4826e53e-21c9-4e59-93e3-b262870f7073" CreationDate="2017-06-23T13:17:59.967" UserId="4903" Comment="edited body" Text="Thе words in each of the two groups are considered to have the same root. However, for historical reasons, a single root may have multiple forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Russian Derivational Dictionary ([volume 1](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R489part1.pdf), pages 94-96), there are 6 different forms of root ***воз***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - зана**важ**ивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **вез**ти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - под**вёз**ший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - уна**вож**енный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **воз**ить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - об**оз**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same dictionary shows 5 forms of root **нос** ([volume 3](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R489part3.pdf), pages 401-404):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - вы**наш**ивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нес**ти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - при**нёс**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нос**ить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **нош**ение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the words in your examples are related - they share the same root.  Prefixes change the meaning of the word and sometimes change very significantly.  You found some examples, but there are many more.  There are some general patterns that help you understand the meaning of the word. You may understand a word, because you know the root and the prefix, but often enough you need to consult a dictionary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="966ee17c-179a-4879-9657-5217afd82cb9" CreationDate="2017-06-23T13:25:27.857" UserId="4903" Comment="Corrected a typo" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. It does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. His unidirectional motion toward his home was continued until he arrived. Because he arrived he was able to find the letter. Here we see that the verb прийти expresses an idea (arrival) which advances narratives. This makes it a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the distinction between making progress (which идти does) and advancing the narrative (which прийти does). A character's physical progress on his journey does not advance the narrative to the next step until he reaches some defined goal. The goal is specified by adding a prefix such as при-, у-, от-, об-, с-, на-, до- etc. Since these prefixes are prepositions, they define a physical reference for when the motion is sufficient to advance the narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectivity of a motion verb requires both these elements: the motion must make progress, and it must reach or pass a goal post. By doing so it produces an effect which advances the narrative to the next step. Only prefixed unidirectional motion verbs provide both elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion define the goal, but because they describe aimless, circular, or repeated motion, they do not move the character to a specific location for the next step of the narrative. While &quot;Анна пришла в школу.&quot; places Anna at the school for the next stage of the action, &quot;Анна ходила в школу.&quot; does not. Now she could be anywhere. Thus, prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion cannot be perfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14691" RevisionGUID="6dd34083-fb89-4917-825d-de0d35034f3d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T13:28:49.457" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 59 characters in body" Text="I was very inclined to close your question but I guess in this case it's better for a community to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are asking about a variety of possible phrases, this make this already quite suspicious and bring this question to the edge of being off-topic. On the other hand, well, I can imagine somebody will ask about how to say that you are in love with someone - still lot of options, but can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you want to talk with someone in English - just switch to English and apologize for not being able to continue in Russian. Imagine that person does not know English as well. Any phrase like `&quot;извините, я только учу русский, давайте продолжим общаться на английском&quot;` (yes, you can use that phrase) can make things complicated for no reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ну и в общем, там выходит, что так не получится...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: Извини, я плохо понимаю, давай дальше по-английски.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ой, а я не знаю английского. Но можем попробовать по-грузински. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you've wasted some time and didn't made thing easier neither for you nor for your companion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14691" RevisionGUID="08872d08-cc9c-4fef-8b6a-bf950d914a32" CreationDate="2017-06-23T14:30:06.270" UserId="242" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I was very inclined to vote for closing your question but I guess in this case it's better for a community to decide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you are asking about a variety of possible phrases, this make this already quite suspicious and bring this question to the edge of being off-topic. On the other hand, well, I can imagine somebody will ask about how to say that you are in love with someone - still lot of options, but can be answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if you want to talk with someone in English - just switch to English and apologize for not being able to continue in Russian. Imagine that person does not know English as well. Any phrase like `&quot;извините, я только учу русский, давайте продолжим общаться на английском&quot;` (yes, you can use that phrase) can make things complicated for no reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine following dialogs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ну и в общем, там выходит, что так не получится...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: Извини, я плохо понимаю, давай дальше по-английски.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Somebody: Ой, а я не знаю английского. Но можем попробовать по-грузински. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - You: what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, you've wasted some time and didn't made thing easier neither for you nor for your companion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14692" RevisionGUID="fe78178c-8cc2-459f-8291-2b4dcfcacea3" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:22:27.957" UserId="8593" Text="How does &quot;I will make it up to you&quot; translate into Russian. I tried translating it online but no luck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14692" RevisionGUID="fe78178c-8cc2-459f-8291-2b4dcfcacea3" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:22:27.957" UserId="8593" Text="Translation of &quot;Make it up to you&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14692" RevisionGUID="fe78178c-8cc2-459f-8291-2b4dcfcacea3" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:22:27.957" UserId="8593" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35847" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14692" RevisionGUID="bea9304e-83d6-499b-9b9b-2d2a5a945cd6" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:25:54.740" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14692" RevisionGUID="a542dfa1-2a63-46b8-9ff0-84e29ccb180d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:35:41.657" UserId="8593" Comment="Question updated" Text="How does &quot;I will make it up to you&quot; translate into Russian. I tried translating it online but no luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per the comment, &quot;I will make it up to you&quot; in English is used when the speaker promises to do something for the listener and isn't able to fulfill that promise so out of regret, the speaker decides to correct his/her wrong by doing something for the listener to show that he/she is sorry for not fulfilling his/her promise. In short, &quot;making up&quot; for the wrong committed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35849" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14692" RevisionGUID="05674bbb-a432-4c5b-82fd-df14cb266bf1" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:35:58.117" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14693" RevisionGUID="1b900ddf-0c29-4d5c-8da8-4c78e062ce4f" CreationDate="2017-06-23T19:54:02.423" UserId="134" Text="Depending on the context, it could be *загладить вину*, *исправиться*, *вернуть любезность* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per your example, it's more of *загладить вину*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * А другое письмо, очень длинное, было подписано инициалами. Там бесконечно смаковалась тема твоей ноги и желание загладить вину // And there was another one, from a person who signed with their initials: a long letter, they went on and on about your leg and how they wanted to make it up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * От Дугласа я тоже заработал хорошую взбучку и осознал, что должен загладить вину. // Douglas also gave me quite the tongue lashing and I have come to realize that I must make it up to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14694" RevisionGUID="a60b7aa2-9f0c-4a3f-8763-2b681e474f4a" CreationDate="2017-06-23T20:51:31.457" UserId="242" Text="@Quassnoi's answer is correct but I'd like to mention another specific Russian expression which is used exactly for the cases like this - &quot;реабилитироваться в чьих-то глазах&quot; - literally &quot;to rehabilitate in someone's eyes&quot;, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знаешь, я всё пиво выпила, но чтобы как-то реабилитироваться в твоих глазах, вот, я сидр купила. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the verb &quot;реабилитироваться&quot; is used relatively rare, this phrase is surprisingly pretty widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14694" RevisionGUID="ce8e6979-1cf4-4e5f-97e1-5714e7ad2d4d" CreationDate="2017-06-23T21:35:39.753" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The answer provided so far is correct but I'd like to mention another specific Russian expression which is used exactly for the cases like this - &quot;реабилитироваться в чьих-то глазах&quot; - literally &quot;to rehabilitate in someone's eyes&quot;, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знаешь, я всё пиво выпила, но чтобы как-то реабилитироваться в твоих глазах, вот, я сидр купила. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the verb &quot;реабилитироваться&quot; is used relatively rare, this phrase is surprisingly pretty widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14694" RevisionGUID="51ffb0e0-17a1-4215-8d69-49541654edb4" CreationDate="2017-06-23T22:19:47.350" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="The answer provided so far is correct but I'd like to mention another specific Russian expression which is used exactly for the cases like this - `реабилитироваться в чьих-то глазах` - literally &quot;to rehabilitate in someone's eyes&quot;, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знаешь, я всё пиво выпила, но чтобы как-то реабилитироваться в твоих глазах, вот, я сидр купила. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the verb &quot;реабилитироваться&quot; is used relatively rare, this phrase is surprisingly pretty widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14695" RevisionGUID="ac56a900-b81c-49f9-b305-e535a4f81f0d" CreationDate="2017-06-24T06:24:46.730" UserId="9076" Text="I found these from the instrumental case and they are in brackets such as :&#xA;Армией (-ею) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14695" RevisionGUID="ac56a900-b81c-49f9-b305-e535a4f81f0d" CreationDate="2017-06-24T06:24:46.730" UserId="9076" Text="What do -ою, -ёю, -ею mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14695" RevisionGUID="ac56a900-b81c-49f9-b305-e535a4f81f0d" CreationDate="2017-06-24T06:24:46.730" UserId="9076" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14696" RevisionGUID="f27196f8-bf86-47fa-b1d5-94bea8d9a352" CreationDate="2017-06-24T07:28:17.073" UserId="5008" Text="If a feminine noun in the Instrumental case singular ends in &quot;-ой&quot;, &quot;-ёй&quot; or &quot;-ей&quot; then it also has an alternative form (also the Instrumental case singular, of course) ending in &quot;-ою&quot;, &quot;-ёю&quot; or &quot;-ею&quot; respectively. This is a regular stuff, so not all dictionaries even mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the modern language the forms ending in &quot;-ою&quot;/&quot;-ёю&quot;/&quot;-ею&quot; are rarely used except poetry and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also feminine nouns ending (in the Nominative case) in the non-stressed &quot;-ия&quot;, such as mentioned above &quot;армия&quot;, are _almost never_ put into this &quot;alternative form&quot;, because of a discordance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="1b6d7f05-c5fc-4556-993d-c906588eaa31" CreationDate="2017-06-24T10:50:47.757" UserId="2104" Text="In Russian, you'd rather say what it is that your going to do to make the person feel better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извини, что опоздал. Я сегодня угощаю!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry I was late. The dinner's on me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it a bit more generic you can promise to do 'something nice' for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сделаю тебе что-нибудь приятное [, чтобы загладить вину].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll do something nice to make it up for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, you could also ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне сделать, чтобы ты меня простил(а)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What shall I do to make it up for you?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="bf08fbc6-dce0-4f22-9452-7e4db4a3023e" CreationDate="2017-06-24T11:05:09.270" UserId="2104" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="In English,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I'll make it up for you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, you'd rather say what it is that your going to do to make the person feel better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извини, что опоздал. Я сегодня угощаю!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry I was late. The dinner's on me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it a bit more generic you can promise to do 'something nice' for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сделаю тебе что-нибудь приятное [, чтобы загладить вину].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll do something nice to make it up for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, you could also ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне сделать, чтобы ты меня простил(а)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What shall I do to make it up for you?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14697" RevisionGUID="1441af79-9a1b-44fb-8699-7452e2bf2afe" CreationDate="2017-06-24T11:15:46.753" UserId="2104" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="In English,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I'll make it up for you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, you'd rather say what it is that your going to do to make the person feel better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извини́, что опозда́л. Я сего́дня угоща́ю!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sorry I was late. The dinner's on me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it a bit more generic you can promise to do 'something nice' for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сде́лаю тебе́ что-нибу́дь прия́тное [, что́бы загла́дить вину́].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll do something nice to make it up for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, you could also ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что мне сде́лать, что́бы ты меня́ прости́л(а)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What shall I do to make it up for you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14698" RevisionGUID="4dd050a5-5784-43b3-a747-9f69ddf56137" CreationDate="2017-06-24T12:09:55.827" UserId="9100" Text="In literature, I can read some type of earlier-times custom, that women машут платочком to say goodbye (waive with scarf?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which piece of fabric did they waive and is there a special hidden original meaning - in Russian, many things have symbolic meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14698" RevisionGUID="4dd050a5-5784-43b3-a747-9f69ddf56137" CreationDate="2017-06-24T12:09:55.827" UserId="9100" Text="Махать платочком - which specifically and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14698" RevisionGUID="4dd050a5-5784-43b3-a747-9f69ddf56137" CreationDate="2017-06-24T12:09:55.827" UserId="9100" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35865" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14673" RevisionGUID="216bb650-b55c-4ca2-982b-0241ca6d335c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T16:20:29.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/878649035690823682" />
  <row Id="35866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="75b3324e-e06d-4776-a49c-1fa905fbb153" CreationDate="2017-06-24T17:30:41.760" UserId="4753" Comment="&quot;cannot be perfective&quot; -&gt; &quot;are seldom perfective&quot; since it seems there are some exceptions" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. It does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, this is imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. His unidirectional motion toward his home was continued until he arrived. Because he arrived he was able to find the letter. Here we see that the verb прийти expresses an idea (arrival) which advances narratives. This makes it a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the distinction between making progress (which идти does) and advancing the narrative (which прийти does). A character's physical progress on his journey does not advance the narrative to the next step until he reaches some defined goal. The goal is specified by adding a prefix such as при-, у-, от-, об-, с-, на-, до- etc. Since these prefixes are prepositions, they define a physical reference for when the motion is sufficient to advance the narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectivity of a motion verb requires both these elements: the motion must make progress, and it must reach or pass a goal post. By doing so it produces an effect which advances the narrative to the next step. Only prefixed unidirectional motion verbs provide both elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion define the goal, but because they describe aimless, circular, or repeated motion, they do not move the character to a specific location for the next step of the narrative. While &quot;Анна пришла в школу.&quot; places Anna at the school for the next stage of the action, &quot;Анна ходила в школу.&quot; does not. Now she could be anywhere. Thus, prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion are seldom perfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14699" RevisionGUID="e695ad26-3c6e-4a5c-a534-c00395674711" CreationDate="2017-06-24T17:47:29.557" UserId="9001" Text="As other people mentioned in comments, платочек is a handkerchief. It is a a usual thing in Russia to waive a hand or some piece of apparel (e.g. a hat) to the person leaving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of a woman I can imagine that she had used the handkerchief to dab her eyes and then waived the thing she had in hands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="f8a3e934-fc56-43ef-80df-7935b3a6617c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T18:23:43.197" UserId="9100" Text="Usuallly this saying seems to mean that somebody has significant (esp. political or state service?) career achievements. &#xA;The connotation is not quite clear however.&#xA;&#xA;What is its original source - were/are there other meanings as well? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="f8a3e934-fc56-43ef-80df-7935b3a6617c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T18:23:43.197" UserId="9100" Text="Origins of большая шишка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="f8a3e934-fc56-43ef-80df-7935b3a6617c" CreationDate="2017-06-24T18:23:43.197" UserId="9100" Text="|connotation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14701" RevisionGUID="bc465f76-37cc-4ba6-854d-c5c6e4a53a21" CreationDate="2017-06-24T19:23:35.960" UserId="6539" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Шишка (иноск. ирон.) человѣкъ вліятельный, выскочившій въ люди (**намекъ на замѣтную шишку, выскачившую на лицѣ**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ср. Ого, франтъ, франтъ! — говорилъ Бондыревъ. — Ну, а мы братъ, по деревенскому омужичились... А ты, видно, шишка, въ гору пошелъ!...&#xD;&#xA;Н. Крашенинниковъ. Въ уголкѣ. 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source is a phraseological dictionary dated from the 19 century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Русская мысль и речь. Свое и чужое. Опыт русской фразеологии. Сборник образных слов и иносказаний. Т.Т. 1—2. Ходячие и меткие слова. Сборник русских и иностранных цитат, пословиц, поговорок, пословичных выражений и отдельных слов. СПб., тип. Ак. наук.. М. И. Михельсон. 1896—1912.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="4edb8c63-d90a-49c9-af09-a94bdf390762" CreationDate="2017-06-24T20:39:26.960" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Usuallly this saying seems to mean that somebody has significant (esp. political or state service?) career achievements. &#xD;&#xA;The connotation is not quite clear however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is its original source - were/are there other meanings as well? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="4edb8c63-d90a-49c9-af09-a94bdf390762" CreationDate="2017-06-24T20:39:26.960" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Origins of &quot;большая шишка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14702" RevisionGUID="d48ddae0-4c29-411a-9c96-1901bf59fa1a" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:28:36.313" UserId="242" Text="В книге Павла Зарубина &quot;Тёмные и светлые стороны русской жизни&quot; (1872-го года издания) есть такая цитата:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коренная шишка называется самый передний бурлак из всей артели, которая лямками тянет бичеву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[В книге][1] &quot;Очерки русского быта&quot; Ивана Прыжова, русского [этнографа][2], читаем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Что вы теперь будете делать? – спросила она у бурлаков. – Ужинать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ли?» – «Ужинать?! – зарычал шишка – главный мученик, который&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянет лямку впереди всех&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот другая [цитата][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; От кормы судна к берегу тянутся бечевы, в которые впрягают­ся лошади.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Барку тащат девять лошадей. Впереди идет коренная - «шишка», а за ней&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четыре пары, од­на за другой. Сбоку бредут погонщики лошадей -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; коноводы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В простонародном языке у слова шишка было много значений - от холмика, от выступа на шлеме и до коренника, корневой лошади, тянущей груз. Я не берусь предполагать, что именно это значение (лидер группы) было иронично переосмысленно и превратилось в `важную шишку` или `большую шишку`, но замечу, что, например, с такими словами как &quot;альфа-самец&quot; или даже &quot;передовик производства&quot; такое ироничное переосмысление имело место быть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, &quot;важная шишка&quot; в значении крупный чин закрепилось относительно поздно, в последней четверти 19-го века. Этимология от шишки на лбу тем не менее мне представляется сомнительной - когда говорят о важной/большой шишке никто не подразумевает, что высокое положение в обществе было достигнуто быстро, речь только о самом факте высокого положения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скорее просто и в случае шишки на лбу, и в случае важной шишки - это переносное от чего-то выдающегося на общем фоне (и одновременно довольно смешного, нелепого). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rusinst.ru/docs/books/I.G.Pryjov-Ocherki_russkogo_byta.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://turpotveri.ru/kraevedenie/596-vyshnevoloczkaya-vodnaya-sistema.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14702" RevisionGUID="fa69e118-6d94-4037-9860-d418b4860608" CreationDate="2017-06-24T21:36:10.147" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="В книге Павла Зарубина &quot;Тёмные и светлые стороны русской жизни&quot; (1872-го года издания) есть такая цитата:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коренная шишка называется самый передний бурлак из всей артели, которая лямками тянет бичеву.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[В книге][1] &quot;Очерки русского быта&quot; Ивана Прыжова, русского [этнографа][2], читаем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Что вы теперь будете делать? – спросила она у бурлаков. – Ужинать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ли?» – «Ужинать?! – зарычал шишка – главный мученик, который&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянет лямку впереди всех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот другая [цитата][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; От кормы судна к берегу тянутся бечевы, в которые впрягают­ся лошади.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Барку тащат девять лошадей. Впереди идет коренная - «шишка», а за ней&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четыре пары, од­на за другой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В простонародном языке у слова шишка было много значений - от холмика, от выступа на шлеме и до коренника, корневой лошади, тянущей груз. Я не берусь предполагать, что именно это значение (лидер группы) было иронично переосмысленно и превратилось в `важную шишку` или `большую шишку`, но замечу, что, например, с такими словами как &quot;альфа-самец&quot; или даже &quot;передовик производства&quot; такое ироничное переосмысление имело место быть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, &quot;важная шишка&quot; в значении крупный чин закрепилось относительно поздно, в последней четверти 19-го века. Этимология от шишки на лбу тем не менее мне представляется сомнительной - когда говорят о важной/большой шишке никто не подразумевает, что высокое положение в обществе было достигнуто быстро, речь только о самом факте высокого положения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скорее просто и в случае шишки на лбу, и в случае важной шишки - это переносное от чего-то выдающегося на общем фоне (и одновременно довольно смешного, нелепого). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rusinst.ru/docs/books/I.G.Pryjov-Ocherki_russkogo_byta.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://turpotveri.ru/kraevedenie/596-vyshnevoloczkaya-vodnaya-sistema.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14690" RevisionGUID="4ff92f21-bb06-4b1b-8634-dd17ba5743cd" CreationDate="2017-06-25T04:20:33.087" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/878830244261752832" />
  <row Id="35877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14663" RevisionGUID="ce7dd93a-c31a-4dfc-aa2c-cfc8d9c120ba" CreationDate="2017-06-25T19:22:53.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/879057323758694400" />
  <row Id="35878" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14652" RevisionGUID="3094be67-936b-47bc-99f0-de3ca97a5d1b" CreationDate="2017-06-26T01:22:56.113" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/879147934125895680" />
  <row Id="35880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="7589a927-333b-41cb-8524-508e7b136e37" CreationDate="2017-06-26T03:18:07.593" UserId="9171" Text="I searching for kotlin word definition, probably someone with russian language experience can help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the definition of 'Kotlin' word? (Котлин?)&#xD;&#xA;It's related to Kotlin Island? What the history behind this island and the name kotlin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="7589a927-333b-41cb-8524-508e7b136e37" CreationDate="2017-06-26T03:18:07.593" UserId="9171" Text="What the definition of 'Kotlin' word? (Котлин?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="7589a927-333b-41cb-8524-508e7b136e37" CreationDate="2017-06-26T03:18:07.593" UserId="9171" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35885" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14665" RevisionGUID="12a438de-f73b-445b-87d4-b2780f673894" CreationDate="2017-06-26T07:22:58.733" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/879238541510889472" />
  <row Id="35886" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="194229f2-a135-4416-9e44-bb7b7f1c2e63" CreationDate="2017-06-26T08:37:54.383" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="3d0e8504-ca9a-4ca9-9bee-e100748aa807" CreationDate="2017-06-26T08:50:18.050" UserId="242" Text="**This is not specifically Russian.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's][1] quote from wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the late 18th century white handkerchiefs were waved, generally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by women (men usually waved their hats), to demonstrate approval at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public events such as processions or political rallies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with headdress (which also called `платок` in Russian) nor with Russian traditions apart from fashion among westernized circles of Russian aristocracy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the linguistic part of the question - there's no symbolic meaning of any kind, it's just that in modern Russian &quot;махать платочком&quot; has ironical (yet this irony of a kindly nature) connotation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты вот уедешь на поезде, а я буду стоять на пероне и махать платочком. И вся рыдать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="992e74e0-ea78-4dc0-a87b-36fc73f735e7" CreationDate="2017-06-26T08:55:46.220" UserId="242" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="**This is not specifically Russian.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's][1] quote from wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the late 18th century white handkerchiefs were waved, generally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by women (men usually waved their hats), to demonstrate approval at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public events such as processions or political rallies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with headdress (which also called `платок` in Russian) nor with Russian traditions apart from fashion among westernized circles of Russian aristocracy. Even more specifically - Russian aristocracy was under a heavy French influence - and you can a lot of references for waving handkerchief in the French literature of XIXth century.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the linguistic part of the question - there's no symbolic meaning of any kind, it's just that in modern Russian &quot;махать платочком&quot; has ironical (yet this irony of a kindly nature) connotation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты вот уедешь на поезде, а я буду стоять на пероне и махать платочком. И вся рыдать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="80ab5bd6-25bc-4c9f-8804-b4f2f2ae4cc1" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:01:39.717" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**This is not specifically Russian.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's][1] quote from wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the late 18th century white handkerchiefs were waved, generally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by women (men usually waved their hats), to demonstrate approval at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public events such as processions or political rallies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with headdress (which also called `платок` in Russian) nor with Russian traditions apart from fashion among westernized circles of Russian aristocracy. Even more specifically - Russian aristocracy was under a heavy French influence - and you can a lot of references for waving handkerchief in the French literature of XIXth century.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the linguistic part of the question - there's **no symbolic meaning of any kind**, it's just that in modern Russian &quot;махать платочком&quot; has ironical (yet this irony of a kindly nature) connotation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты вот уедешь на поезде, а я буду стоять на пероне и махать платочком. И вся рыдать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14706" RevisionGUID="060f56c4-ef66-4a3f-a962-f045b99f82a9" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:05:54.377" UserId="7239" Text="As far as I understand, the letter &quot;ё&quot; is used to write the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; *only* when the corresponding &quot;о&quot; is stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In почтальо́н we have &quot;ьо&quot; and the &quot;о&quot; is also stressed -- so isn't this the perfect place to write &quot;ё&quot; instead? Why is this not done? (In particular, what is the point of the letter &quot;ё&quot; if it is not used in all of the situations where it could be used? Why not just always write &quot;ьо&quot; instead?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14706" RevisionGUID="060f56c4-ef66-4a3f-a962-f045b99f82a9" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:05:54.377" UserId="7239" Text="Why isn't почтальо́н spelled почталён?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14706" RevisionGUID="060f56c4-ef66-4a3f-a962-f045b99f82a9" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:05:54.377" UserId="7239" Text="|правописание|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14705" RevisionGUID="f7d5b959-210b-467b-88fb-26a39d3cba18" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:07:06.400" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**This is not specifically Russian.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's][1] quote from wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From the late 18th century white handkerchiefs were waved, generally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by women (men usually waved their hats), to demonstrate approval at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; public events such as processions or political rallies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with neither headdress (which also called `платок` in Russian) nor with Russian traditions apart from fashion among westernized circles of Russian aristocracy. Even more specifically - Russian aristocracy was under a heavy French influence - and you can a lot of references for waving handkerchief in the French literature of XIXth century.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the linguistic part of the question - there's **no symbolic meaning of any kind**, it's just that in modern Russian &quot;махать платочком&quot; has ironical (yet this irony of a kindly nature) connotation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты вот уедешь на поезде, а я буду стоять на пероне и махать платочком. И вся рыдать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="ca2f6e08-2eda-4d5d-8cf6-fb2bbaa8283c" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:09:10.940" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are three effects to be considered there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. prefixing the vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="248defd6-483c-4507-88c5-79b0546e9fea" CreationDate="2017-06-26T09:16:48.573" UserId="9058" Comment="added 744 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are three effects to be considered there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. prefixing the vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the vowel pairs а/я, о/ё, э/е, ы/и, у/ю are mixing #2 and #3.&#xD;&#xA;When a vowel stands on its own or follows another vowel, then ё would sound more like йo. When following a consonant, the vowel blends in, softening it, instead of prefixing with &quot;й&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However both options do NOT add the separating pause, which is the hallmark of hard/soft marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, почтальон is not pronounced as почталён, but as a почталь-pause-ён.&#xD;&#xA;This pause makes putting the soft mark required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may ask why isn't it then written as почтальён instead. Well, soft vowels do not typically written after soft sign. Hard vowel is written and it inherits its softness from the now softened consonant before it (despite being separated by a pause)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14708" RevisionGUID="7ada661a-d99c-464e-ad21-f664e2d8b007" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:32:39.080" UserId="134" Text="The sounds *[ɵ]/[jɵ]*, which are now denoted by the letter *ё*, were not present in Church Slavonic and a letter to denote them was not there in Cyrillic before late XVIII century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the time it was introduced there had already been a tradition of conveying *[jɵ]* as *iо* or, rarely, *ьо* (after consonants) in loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native Russian words which feature those sounds have emerged from Slavic words with *[ɛ]/[jɛ]*: *житьё &lt; житие, питьё &lt; питие* etc., so they use the newly created letter *ё* which was deliberately made &quot;backwards compatible&quot; with the Church Slavonic letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcription systems which have emerged after the introduction of *ё* and don't have to rely on tradition do sometimes use *ё*: *Eyjafjallajökull &gt; Эйяфьядлайёкюдль, 吉原 (Yoshiwara) &gt; Ёсивара, 연평도 (Yeonpyeongdo) &gt; Ёнпхёндо* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian phonetics does not allow a back vowel (*а, у, ы, э, о*) after a soft consonant, so this distinction between *ьо/йо* and *ё* is purely traditional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="a71eb1d6-d368-4845-9aa7-08ab31f19ad8" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:39:27.863" UserId="242" Text="This is an example of folk etymology - but this is actually completely wrong. To start with even if it was derived from котёл - in Russian it would hardly end up as Kotlin - it's just that `-lin` ening is not typical at all. It's way, way too germanic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there's a trade contract between Novgorod Republic and Hanseatic League dated back to XIIIth century - and the island Kotlin is mentioned their under the name &quot;Ketlingen&quot;. You can find more information about that particular document [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically it still [can][2] be related to &quot;котёл&quot; (but it's still very suspicious, and even if it is - the XVIIIth century myth is still an anecdote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На старинных шведcких картах, хранящихся в архивах Стокгольма, остров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; надписан как Kettusaari - фин. 'лисий остров'. В договоре великого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; князя Ярослава с немецкими и голландскими послами, 1207 г., название&#xD;&#xA;&gt; записано в переосмысленной форме Ketlingen (ниж.-нем. Kettel 'котел',&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ingen сложный формант, употребительный в нем. названиях селений). В Новгородских грамотах XIII в. Котлинг, позже о. Котлин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, programming language was called Kotlin as a reference to both Kotlin being island near Saint Petersburg and the language itself being a competitor to Java - which is also named after an island. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eu.spb.ru/images/centres/respub/novgorodica/Skvairs_Novgorodica.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://world.lib.ru/k/kolibaba_s_n/top90.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14680" RevisionGUID="7ff9143f-b863-46fd-8393-1b26b52a5d7d" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:41:48.007" UserId="9155" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There is a [tool][1] used by artists called *blending stump* (in English) or *tortillon* (in French). But I cannot find the word for it in Russian. This is how they (tools) look like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortillon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tQvjp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="2636aecf-eccd-4a77-9285-4fcc014e8e5c" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:45:25.477" UserId="242" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="Deriving `Котлин` from `котёл` is an example of folk etymology - but this is actually completely wrong. To start with even if it was derived from котёл - in Russian it would hardly end up as Kotlin - it's just that `-lin` ening is not typical at all. It's way, way too germanic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there's a trade contract between Novgorod Republic and Hanseatic League dated back to XIIIth century - and the island Kotlin is mentioned their under the name &quot;Ketlingen&quot;. You can find more information about that particular document [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically it still [can][2] be related to &quot;котёл&quot; (but it's still very suspicious, and even if it is - the XVIIIth century myth is still an anecdote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На старинных шведcких картах, хранящихся в архивах Стокгольма, остров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; надписан как Kettusaari - фин. 'лисий остров'. В договоре великого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; князя Ярослава с немецкими и голландскими послами, 1207 г., название&#xD;&#xA;&gt; записано в переосмысленной форме Ketlingen (ниж.-нем. Kettel 'котел',&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ingen сложный формант, употребительный в нем. названиях селений). В Новгородских грамотах XIII в. Котлинг, позже о. Котлин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, Finnish people called this island `Keettusaari`, then (probably through Swedish) this end up as `Ketlingen` in Dutch and German sources and was borrowed by Novgorod Republic as `Котлинг` (Kotling) which evolved to just `Kotlin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, programming language was called Kotlin as a reference to both Kotlin being island near Saint Petersburg and the language itself being a competitor to Java - which is also named after an island. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eu.spb.ru/images/centres/respub/novgorodica/Skvairs_Novgorodica.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://world.lib.ru/k/kolibaba_s_n/top90.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="98c3eb98-8714-4c93-8d78-f40ca2edfbd1" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:48:28.630" UserId="9058" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are three effects to be considered there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. prefixing the vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the vowel pairs а/я, о/ё, э/е, ы/и, у/ю are mixing #2 and #3.&#xD;&#xA;When a vowel stands on its own or follows another vowel, then ё would sound more like йo. When following a consonant, the vowel blends in, softening it, instead of prefixing with &quot;й&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However both options do NOT add the separating pause, which is the hallmark of hard/soft marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, почтальон is not pronounced as почталён, but as a почталь-pause-ён.&#xD;&#xA;This pause makes putting the soft mark required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may ask why isn't it then written as почтальён instead. Well, soft vowels do not typically written after soft sign. Hard vowel is written and it inherits its softness from the now softened consonant before it (despite being separated by a pause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation samples of syllables with separating pause and with blending..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто там? Почта**льон** Печкин&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cOuYb40ac&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx6gUVTSPBU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Старый к**лён**, старый к**лён**, старый к**лён** стучит в окно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://pesnifilm.ru/load/devchata/staryj_klen_quot_devchata_quot/83-1-0-415&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14708" RevisionGUID="5e25d149-eddb-475b-aa50-edad842c6ad1" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:50:13.897" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The sounds *[ɵ]/[jɵ]*, which are now denoted by the letter *ё*, were not present in Church Slavonic and a letter to denote them was not there in Cyrillic before late XVIII century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the time it was introduced there had already been a tradition of conveying *[jɵ]* as *iо* or, rarely, *ьо* (after consonants) in loanwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native Russian words which feature those sounds have emerged from Slavic words with *[ɛ]/[jɛ]*: *житьё &lt; житие, питьё &lt; питие* etc., so they use the newly created letter *ё* which was deliberately made &quot;backwards compatible&quot; with the Church Slavonic letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transcription systems which have emerged after the introduction of *ё* and don't have to rely on tradition do sometimes use *ё*: *Eyjafjallajökull &gt; Эйяфьядлайёкюдль, 吉原 (Yoshiwara) &gt; Ёсивара, 연평도 (Yeonpyeongdo) &gt; Ёнпхёндо* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian phonetics does not allow a back vowel (*а, у, ы, э, о*) after a soft consonant, so this distinction between *ьо/йо* and *ьё/ё* is purely traditional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="56143837-4044-4e48-90a4-38b61dc94e8f" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:55:41.470" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body; edited title" Text="I searching for &quot;kotlin&quot; word definition, probably someone who knows Russiancan help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does 'Kotlin' mean? &#xD;&#xA;It's related to Kotlin Island? What the history behind this island and the name kotlin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35903" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="56143837-4044-4e48-90a4-38b61dc94e8f" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:55:41.470" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body; edited title" Text="Origin of &quot;Котлин&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="a810115e-cf2a-443b-8c0a-8db8d0b0fde0" CreationDate="2017-06-26T10:58:57.333" UserId="9058" Comment="added 642 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are three effects to be considered there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. prefixing the vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the vowel pairs а/я, о/ё, э/е, ы/и, у/ю are mixing #2 and #3.&#xD;&#xA;When a vowel stands on its own or follows another vowel, then ё would sound more like йo. When following a consonant, the vowel blends in, softening it, instead of prefixing with &quot;й&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However both options do NOT add the separating pause, which is the hallmark of hard/soft marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, почтальон is not pronounced as почталён, but as a почталь-pause-ён.&#xD;&#xA;This pause makes putting the soft mark required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may ask why isn't it then written as почтальён instead. Well, soft vowels do not typically written after soft sign. Hard vowel is written and it inherits its softness from the now softened consonant before it (despite being separated by a pause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЛЁН or кЛЁН are sounded with no gap and no й, but immediate blending of the vowel into a softened consonant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;почтаЛЬОН is sounded with the gap, and because of the gap - with &quot;й&quot; sound. Yeah, it is mixed up a bit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * on one hand, the process of softening the consonant is &quot;jumping over&quot; the gap and softens &quot;o&quot; vowel into de facto &quot;ё&quot; (in sounding, not in writing!). &#xD;&#xA; * on another hand, the gap makes the vowel &quot;standing on its own&quot; which forces й-prefixing, like if the vowel would start the word or would follow another vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, rather convoluted scheme. Gap is ignored for one process but is abided by for another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation samples of syllables with separating pause and with blending..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто там? Почта**льон** Печкин&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cOuYb40ac&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx6gUVTSPBU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Старый к**лён**, старый к**лён**, старый к**лён** стучит в окно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://pesnifilm.ru/load/devchata/staryj_klen_quot_devchata_quot/83-1-0-415&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="798454d5-0f8a-4d12-a301-584a984026eb" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:04:57.967" UserId="9058" Comment="added 642 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are three effects to be considered there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. prefixing the vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound (iotation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the vowel pairs а/я, о/ё, э/е, ы/и, у/ю are mixing #2 and #3.&#xD;&#xA;When a vowel stands on its own or follows another vowel, then ё would sound more like йo. When following a consonant, the vowel blends in, softening it, instead of prefixing with &quot;й&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However both options do NOT add the separating pause, which is the hallmark of hard/soft marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, почтальон is not pronounced as почталён, but as a почталь-pause-ён.&#xD;&#xA;This pause makes putting the soft mark required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may ask why isn't `почтальОн` then written as `почтальЁн` instead. Well, soft vowels are not typically written after soft sign. Hard vowel is written there traditionally, and it inherits its softness from the now softened consonant before it (despite being separated by a pause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To contrast it, `ЛЁН` or `кЛЁН` are sounded with no gap and no `й`, but immediate blending of the vowel into a softened consonant `Л'`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почтаЛЬОН is` sounded with the gap, and because of the gap - with `й` sound. Yeah, it is mixed up a bit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * on one hand, the process of softening the consonant is &quot;jumping over&quot; the gap and softens &quot;o&quot; vowel into de facto &quot;ё&quot; (in sounding, not in writing!). &#xD;&#xA; * on another hand, the gap makes the vowel &quot;standing on its own&quot; which forces й-prefixing, like if the vowel would start the word or would follow another vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, rather convoluted scheme. Gap is ignored for one process but is abided by for another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation samples of syllables with separating pause and with blending..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто там? Почта**льон** Печкин&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cOuYb40ac&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx6gUVTSPBU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Старый к**лён**, старый к**лён**, старый к**лён** стучит в окно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://pesnifilm.ru/load/devchata/staryj_klen_quot_devchata_quot/83-1-0-415&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="f6baf9c9-3334-4fdc-b6bc-6f2d9d4b4270" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:06:17.823" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="8527628e-a226-4802-8adb-e6ff7e7f38b0" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:07:42.680" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Deriving `Котлин` from `котёл` is an example of folk etymology - and actually, it's completely wrong. To start with even if it was derived from котёл - in Russian it would hardly end up as Kotlin - it's just that `-lin` ening is not typical at all. It's way, way too germanic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there's a trade contract between Novgorod Republic and Hanseatic League dated back to XIIIth century - and the island Kotlin is mentioned their under the name &quot;Ketlingen&quot;. You can find more information about that particular document [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically it still [can][2] be related to &quot;котёл&quot; (but it's still very suspicious, and even if it is - the XVIIIth century myth is still an anecdote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На старинных шведcких картах, хранящихся в архивах Стокгольма, остров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; надписан как Kettusaari - фин. 'лисий остров'. В договоре великого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; князя Ярослава с немецкими и голландскими послами, 1207 г., название&#xD;&#xA;&gt; записано в переосмысленной форме Ketlingen (ниж.-нем. Kettel 'котел',&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ingen сложный формант, употребительный в нем. названиях селений). В Новгородских грамотах XIII в. Котлинг, позже о. Котлин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, Finnish people called this island `Keettusaari`, then (probably through Swedish) this end up as `Ketlingen` in Dutch and German sources and was borrowed by Novgorod Republic as `Котлинг` (Kotling) which evolved to just `Kotlin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, programming language was called Kotlin as a reference to both Kotlin being island near Saint Petersburg and the language itself being a competitor to Java - which is also named after an island. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eu.spb.ru/images/centres/respub/novgorodica/Skvairs_Novgorodica.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://world.lib.ru/k/kolibaba_s_n/top90.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="1caac7c5-d0b3-4e09-9637-64d5d3778b71" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:32:19.857" UserId="9058" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are separate, while in practice related, effects to be considered there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. softening of the vowel ( back &quot;hard&quot; vowels like `Ы` are matching forward &quot;soft&quot; vowels like `И` )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. prefixing the &quot;soft&quot; vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound (iotation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the vowel pairs а/я, о/ё, э/е, ы/и, у/ю while primary are representing #3 typically have a consequences of effecting either #2 or #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a &quot;soft&quot; vowel stands on its own or follows another vowel, then ё would sound more like йo. When following a consonant, the soft vowel blends in, softening the consonant, instead of prefixing its own sound with &quot;й&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However both options #2 and #4 do NOT add the separating pause (#1), which is the hallmark of hard/soft marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, почтальон is not pronounced as почталён, but as a почталь-pause-ён.&#xD;&#xA;This pause makes putting the soft mark required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may ask why isn't `почтальОн` then written as `почтальЁн` instead. Well, soft vowels are not typically written after soft sign. Hard vowel is written there traditionally, and it inherits its softness from the now softened consonant before it (despite being separated by a pause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To contrast it, `ЛЁН` or `кЛЁН` are sounded with no gap and no `й`, but immediate blending of the vowel into a softened consonant `Л'`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почтаЛЬОН is` sounded with the gap, and because of the gap - with `й` sound. Yeah, it is mixed up a bit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * on one hand, the process of softening the consonant is &quot;jumping over&quot; the gap and softens &quot;o&quot; vowel into de facto &quot;ё&quot; (in sounding, not in writing!). &#xD;&#xA; * on another hand, the gap makes the vowel &quot;standing on its own&quot; which forces й-prefixing, like if the vowel would start the word or would follow another vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, rather convoluted scheme. Gap is ignored for one process but is abided by for another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would stress the tongue a real lot to blend hard consonant sound with following soft vowel sound, or soft consonant with a hard vowel. It just does not work out without injecting a separating pause (which in turn would effect soft vowels to regain their Й sound prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation samples of syllables with separating pause and with blending..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто там? Почта**льон** Печкин&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cOuYb40ac&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx6gUVTSPBU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Старый к**лён**, старый к**лён**, старый к**лён** стучит в окно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://pesnifilm.ru/load/devchata/staryj_klen_quot_devchata_quot/83-1-0-415&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14707" RevisionGUID="97d6fcb1-9567-4dfe-bbd7-60efd0886ea4" CreationDate="2017-06-26T11:59:22.453" UserId="9058" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; &quot;the same sound as &quot;ьо&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. There are separate, while in practice related, effects to be considered there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. short pause after the consonant before the vowel. The separation between two sounds. Prevention of blending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. softening of the consonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. softening of the vowel ( back &quot;hard&quot; vowels like `Ы` are matching front &quot;soft&quot; vowels like `И` )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. prefixing the &quot;soft&quot; vowel sound with short &quot;й&quot; sound (iotation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;hard mark&quot; and &quot;soft mark&quot; (Ъ and Ь) primary purpose is #1 - making a pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the &quot;soft mark&quot; also softens the consonant, unlike the &quot;hard mark&quot;, but this does not remove the pause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the vowel pairs а/я, о/ё, э/е, ы/и, у/ю while primary are representing #3 typically have a consequences of effecting either #2 or #4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a &quot;soft&quot; vowel stands on its own or follows another vowel, then ё would sound more like йo. When following a consonant, the soft vowel blends in, softening the consonant, instead of prefixing its own sound with &quot;й&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However both options #2 and #4 do NOT add the separating pause (#1), which is the hallmark of hard/soft marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, почтальон is not pronounced as почталён, but as a почталь-pause-ён.&#xD;&#xA;This pause makes putting the soft mark required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you may ask why isn't `почтальОн` then written as `почтальЁн` instead. Well, soft vowels are not typically written after soft sign. Hard vowel is written there traditionally, and it inherits its softness from the now softened consonant before it (despite being separated by a pause).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To contrast it, `ЛЁН` or `кЛЁН` are sounded with no gap and no `й`, but immediate blending of the vowel into a softened consonant `Л'`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`почтаЛЬОН is` sounded with the gap, and because of the gap - with `й` sound. Yeah, it is mixed up a bit: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * on one hand, the process of softening the consonant is &quot;jumping over&quot; the gap and softens &quot;o&quot; vowel into de facto &quot;ё&quot; (in sounding, not in writing!). &#xD;&#xA; * on another hand, the gap makes the vowel &quot;standing on its own&quot; which forces й-prefixing, like if the vowel would start the word or would follow another vowel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, rather convoluted scheme. Gap is ignored for one process but is abided by for another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would stress the tongue a real lot to blend hard consonant sound with following soft vowel sound, or soft consonant with a hard vowel. It just does not work out without injecting a separating pause (which in turn would effect soft vowels to regain their Й sound prefix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronunciation samples of syllables with separating pause and with blending..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто там? Почта**льон** Печкин&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cOuYb40ac&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx6gUVTSPBU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Старый к**лён**, старый к**лён**, старый к**лён** стучит в окно&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://pesnifilm.ru/load/devchata/staryj_klen_quot_devchata_quot/83-1-0-415&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14709" RevisionGUID="ece05f5e-f7a9-47b6-a68f-31b7e8ec7b0b" CreationDate="2017-06-26T13:24:27.480" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Deriving `Котлин` from `котёл` is an example of folk etymology - and actually, it's completely wrong. To start with even if it was derived from котёл - in Russian it would hardly end up as Kotlin - it's just that `-lin` ening is not typical at all. It's way, way too germanic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there's a trade agreement between Novgorod Republic and Hanseatic League dated back to XIIIth century - and the island Kotlin is mentioned their under the name &quot;Ketlingen&quot;. You can find more information about that particular document [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically it still [can][2] be related to &quot;котёл&quot; (but it's still very suspicious, and even if it is - the XVIIIth century myth is still an anecdote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На старинных шведcких картах, хранящихся в архивах Стокгольма, остров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; надписан как Kettusaari - фин. 'лисий остров'. В договоре великого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; князя Ярослава с немецкими и голландскими послами, 1207 г., название&#xD;&#xA;&gt; записано в переосмысленной форме Ketlingen (ниж.-нем. Kettel 'котел',&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ingen сложный формант, употребительный в нем. названиях селений). В Новгородских грамотах XIII в. Котлинг, позже о. Котлин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, Finnish people called this island `Keettusaari`, then (probably through Swedish) this end up as `Ketlingen` in Dutch and German sources and was borrowed by Novgorod Republic as `Котлинг` (Kotling) which evolved to just `Kotlin`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, programming language was called Kotlin as a reference to both Kotlin being island near Saint Petersburg and the language itself being a competitor to Java - which is also named after an island. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eu.spb.ru/images/centres/respub/novgorodica/Skvairs_Novgorodica.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://world.lib.ru/k/kolibaba_s_n/top90.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35911" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14706" RevisionGUID="e646a18b-df6e-4f31-a3eb-348f71547f39" CreationDate="2017-06-26T16:33:17.073" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/879377030340653056" />
  <row Id="35912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14710" RevisionGUID="b8814049-e81e-4779-bdd5-b14e6416a2b3" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:15:02.350" UserId="194" Text="почтальон is pronounced [поч'тал'й'он]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;почталён would be pronounced [поч'тал'он] which is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;почтальён would be pronounced the same way as почтальон. The reason why it is not spelled this way is because the letter ё is usually not used in foreign words. The reason possibly is that the ё is often spelled without diacritics, as е, so this may create a confusion on how to pronounce the word (not with this word of course but as a general rule).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14710" RevisionGUID="4fbd3f44-4469-4649-8b92-c7b93a8c0afc" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:21:39.067" UserId="194" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="**почтальон** is pronounced [поч'тал'й'он]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**почталён** would be pronounced [поч'тал'он] which is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**почтальён** would be pronounced the same way as **почтальон**. The reason why it is not spelled this way is because the letter ё is usually not used in foreign words. The reason possibly is that the ё is often spelled without diacritics, as е, so this may create a confusion on how to pronounce the word (not with this word of course but as a general rule). The word came from German *Postilion*, from French *postillon*, from Italian *postiglione*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14710" RevisionGUID="925301c8-473d-4f2c-a8ca-dd225833bf1f" CreationDate="2017-06-26T18:50:09.810" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**почтальон** is pronounced [поч'тал'й'он]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**почталён** would be pronounced [поч'тал'он] which is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**почтальён** would be pronounced the same way as **почтальон**. The reason why it is not spelled this way is because the letter ё is usually avoided in foreign words. The reason possibly is that the ё is often spelled without diacritics, as е, so this may create a confusion on how to pronounce the word (not with this word of course but as a general rule). The word came from German *Postilion*, from French *postillon*, from Italian *postiglione*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14711" RevisionGUID="5368c53d-f8da-43ed-a4f9-e9d23ea8aeaa" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:07:00.970" UserId="6350" Text="As a member of [Charcoal HQ](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/11540/charcoal-hq), I get to see a lot of strange messages from across the entire Stack Exchange network. Today, [this 'answer'](https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/73906) was posted on our sister site [&#xD;&#xA;Русский язык](https://rus.stackexchange.com/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; флуд_________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing was posted three days ago [here](https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/73634), (probably) by another user, so apparently it means something. Google Translate says &quot;flood&quot;, but I have yet to see somebody post an English message with just the word &quot;flood&quot; in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both answers were deleted rather quickly, which suggests me they were probably posted by trolls." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14711" RevisionGUID="5368c53d-f8da-43ed-a4f9-e9d23ea8aeaa" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:07:00.970" UserId="6350" Text="What does &quot;флуд&quot; mean (on Stack Exchange)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14711" RevisionGUID="5368c53d-f8da-43ed-a4f9-e9d23ea8aeaa" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:07:00.970" UserId="6350" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14712" RevisionGUID="d5c38576-f028-4820-920b-d8dc34964e03" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:17:49.830" UserId="242" Text="It's an example of a word which belongs to a quite interesting class of words - words of English origin which are user completely different in non-English language - or just forgotten.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually derived from English &quot;flood&quot; and it is a slang word which initially meant [specific form][1] of DDoS attack -  in Russian it evolved for describing any kind of huge chunks of user generated content - basically off-topic. Something like flame but not necessarily even debatable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat_flood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14712" RevisionGUID="dffd661b-1135-4771-8a7c-e2c94b6cf199" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:30:47.990" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="It's an example of a word which belongs to a quite interesting class of words – words of English origin which are used in a completely different way in non-English languages – or just forgotten.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually derived from English &quot;flood&quot; and it is a slang word which initially meant a [specific form][1] of DDoS attack – in Russian it evolved for describing any kind of huge chunks of user generated content – basically off-topic. Something like flame, but not necessarily even debatable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat_flood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35920" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14712" RevisionGUID="dffd661b-1135-4771-8a7c-e2c94b6cf199" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:30:47.990" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 878" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14712" RevisionGUID="1adb1f61-9c04-4bfc-b1b8-8fedab66a1c8" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:31:35.380" UserId="242" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="It's an example of a word which belongs to a quite interesting class of words – words of English origin which are used in a completely different way in non-English languages – or just forgotten.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually derived from English &quot;flood&quot; and it is a slang word which initially meant a [specific form][1] of DDoS attack – in Russian it evolved for describing any kind of huge chunks of user generated content – basically off-topic. Something like flame, but not necessarily even debatable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a quite popular verb `флудить` which is, well, to flood :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat_flood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35922" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14711" RevisionGUID="3945e6a7-7b63-451e-b5b3-3742310c09b8" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:34:46.887" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What does &quot;флуд&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35923" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14711" RevisionGUID="3945e6a7-7b63-451e-b5b3-3742310c09b8" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:34:46.887" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14713" RevisionGUID="bc8e6673-be0e-46f9-9ddc-f65aadc48346" CreationDate="2017-06-26T20:48:31.510" UserId="3528" Text="To add to the already posted answers, I'd like to point out that the statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;when people want to talk to new people then they should say the sentence ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not exactly true. It sounds as if your book suggests that *whenever* people talk to new people, they *should* say this sentence &amp;mdash; but that isn't so. You can never ever say this when you've just met new people and started talking to them, because that would be rude. It's only appropriate when you've been communicating at least for some time, and you feel that you and your vis-à-vis have established a certain rapport that allows for less formal relationship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14712" RevisionGUID="24203b64-65af-4de9-896c-f92a682c488a" CreationDate="2017-06-26T21:09:47.377" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's an example of a word which belongs to a quite interesting class of words – words of English origin which are used in a completely different way in non-English languages – or just forgotten.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually derived from English &quot;flood&quot; and it is a slang word which initially meant a [specific form][1] of DDoS attack – in Russian it evolved for describing any kind of huge chunks of user generated content – basically off-topic. Something like flame, but not necessarily even debatable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a quite popular verb `флуди́ть` which is, well, to flood :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat_flood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14712" RevisionGUID="3f519c2f-32fe-4ed1-8881-031bf9ad583c" CreationDate="2017-06-27T07:38:17.250" UserId="242" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="It's an example of a word which belongs to a quite interesting class of words – words of English origin which are used in a completely different way in non-English languages – or just forgotten.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually derived from English &quot;flood&quot; and it is a slang word which initially meant a [specific form][1] of DDoS attack – in Russian it evolved for describing any kind of huge chunks of user generated content – basically off-topic. Something like flame, but not necessarily even debatable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a quite popular verb `флуди́ть` which is, well, to flood :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** it turns out a lot of people pronounce it like флу́дить, stressing the first syllable. Personally me happened to hear only the first form but I easily can accept that this word is pronounced this way or another. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat_flood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="d9dff849-9e74-4077-8f35-b095faa47d9a" CreationDate="2017-06-27T08:42:45.617" UserId="9180" Text="I'm a native Russian speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that comes to mind when I hear &quot;[флуд][1]&quot; is the meaning of &quot;idle, meaningless talk&quot;. The concept is similar to &quot;flaming&quot;, but it's milder, does not necessarily imply bad intentions (maybe a person doing that simply likes to talk a lot) and can be used humorously to denote any kind of prolonged Internet banter.&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, &quot;[флу́дер][2] is online slang for &quot;chatterbox&quot;, a person who writes many messages without bringing any value to the the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the term may have originated from the name of a  DDoS attack, that is *not* the first meaning that comes to mind when people hear that word and few people even know the word's origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word on its own is NOT abusive or offensive and I would strongly suggest to exercise extreme caution banning people merely for using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp_slang.academic.ru/253/%D1%84%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://comp_slang.academic.ru/254/%D1%84%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14716" RevisionGUID="85e44419-ca9a-426e-96c3-a08a16e712ca" CreationDate="2017-06-27T09:05:33.460" UserId="9182" Text="It's a term used mainly on internet forums.  &#xD;&#xA;It is used as alternative to the words `spam`, `off-topic`, `flame`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="a71fb26e-d417-4746-b1f8-3fd95383fc41" CreationDate="2017-06-27T09:31:53.977" UserId="9180" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="I'm a native Russian speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that comes to mind when I hear &quot;[флуд][1]&quot; is the meaning of &quot;idle, meaningless talk&quot;. The concept is similar to &quot;flaming&quot;, but it's milder, does not necessarily imply bad intentions (perhaps the person doing it simply likes to talk a lot) and can be used humorously to denote any kind of prolonged Internet banter.&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, &quot;[флу́дер][2] is online slang for &quot;chatterbox&quot;, a person who writes many messages without bringing any value to the the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the term may have originated from the name of a  DDoS attack, that is *not* the first meaning that comes to mind when people hear that word and few people are even aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word on its own is NOT abusive or offensive and I would strongly suggest to exercise extreme caution banning people merely for using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp_slang.academic.ru/253/%D1%84%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://comp_slang.academic.ru/254/%D1%84%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14715" RevisionGUID="ecece9c2-cb4d-42b4-9e33-9595a41433c7" CreationDate="2017-06-27T09:41:03.180" UserId="9180" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm a native Russian speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that comes to mind when I hear &quot;[флуд][1]&quot; is the meaning of &quot;idle, meaningless talk&quot;. The concept is similar to &quot;flaming&quot;, but it's milder, does not necessarily imply bad intentions (perhaps the person doing it simply likes to talk a lot) and can be used humorously to denote any kind of prolonged Internet banter.&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, &quot;[флу́дер][2]&quot; is online slang for &quot;chatterbox&quot;, a person who writes many messages without bringing any value to the the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the term may have originated from the name of a  DDoS attack, that is *not* the first meaning that comes to mind when people hear that word and not many are even aware of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word on its own is NOT abusive or offensive and I would strongly suggest to exercise extreme caution banning people merely for using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://comp_slang.academic.ru/253/%D1%84%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://comp_slang.academic.ru/254/%D1%84%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14718" RevisionGUID="cf70ee51-df8a-4f9a-a8e3-9ef6b259d362" CreationDate="2017-06-27T14:04:03.727" UserId="9185" Text="`Я шёл в магазин` is used when you want to tell what happened to you when you was _travelling to_ the shop. `Ходил` is like present simple in English. It means a repeating action, for example: `я ходил в спортивную школу 2 года`. `Пошёл в магазин` usually does NOT allow any explaining of the process when you are walking or travelling to the shop, instead, it is followed by telling about what happened _in_ the shop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35944" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14711" RevisionGUID="c406e7f1-cad8-4def-b907-56d38256a731" CreationDate="2017-06-28T01:42:19.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/879877587715190784" />
  <row Id="35946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14719" RevisionGUID="f4a9b767-b93c-4cfa-9110-feeab0a1f944" CreationDate="2017-06-28T14:24:55.523" UserId="9194" Text="Я шел в магазин is past continuous.&#xD;&#xA;Я пошел в магазин - is Present Perfect.&#xD;&#xA;I am simplifying here, because russian tenses don't match the English ones.  For that reason Я пошел в магазин  could very well be used in the past sense as well: Вчера я пошел в магазин." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="d01026fe-872b-4bfc-8432-0052591abf66" CreationDate="2017-06-28T14:31:24.813" UserId="4753" Comment="fixed typo in URL" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called Live From Moscow (now out of print). Years later I needed compact case tables for a class, but could not find anything, so I made my own in OpenOffice Writer. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the download link at the top right for the ODT version. This is what you want it you wish to make modifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart above is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Case%20Charts%20Simplified.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="ddc95012-7177-463b-b75b-811f06314972" CreationDate="2017-06-28T14:45:08.303" UserId="4753" Comment="added more explanation of the second link" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called Live From Moscow (now out of print). Years later I needed compact case tables for a class, but could not find anything, so I made my own in OpenOffice Writer. Here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the &quot;ODT&quot; link at the top right of the page. This is for downloading the original Openoffice document which is useful if you would like to change the formatting to suit your preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart above is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Case%20Charts%20Simplified.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart presents the three main noun and adjective declensions. For each declenions only one set of endings is given. The spelling rules are presented separately. Some learners will find this easier to memorize." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="d5ff0a35-b7e4-4442-bc5d-aff144f5ecdd" CreationDate="2017-06-28T15:37:45.413" UserId="4753" Comment="rewording here and there for clarity" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. Thus, it does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative (or argument).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us explain by starting with an imperfective example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. The speaker's unidirectional motion toward his home was continued until he arrived. Because he arrived he was able to find the letter. Here we see that the verb прийти expresses an idea (arrival) which advances narratives. Its ability to express such an idea is what makes it a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the distinction between making progress (which идти does) and advancing the narrative (which прийти does). A character's physical progress on his journey does not advance the narrative to the next step until it fulfils some defined goal. The goal is specified by adding a prefix such as при-, у-, от-, об-, с-, на-, до- etc. Since these prefixes are prepositions, they define a physical reference for determining when the motion is sufficient to advance the narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectivity of a motion verb requires both these elements: the motion must make progress, and it must reach or pass a goal post. By doing so it produces an effect which advances the narrative to the next step. Only prefixed unidirectional motion verbs provide both elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion define the goal, but because they describe aimless, circular, or repeated motion, they do not move the character to a specific location for the next step of the narrative. While &quot;Анна пришла в школу.&quot; places Anna at the school for the next stage of the action, &quot;Анна ходила в школу.&quot; does not. Now she could be anywhere, quite possibly at home. Thus, prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion are seldom perfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12865" RevisionGUID="2c8bbcff-bddb-4087-9538-bf535766a0e8" CreationDate="2017-06-28T15:43:31.603" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Are &quot;dear&quot; and &quot;deer&quot;, or &quot;drag&quot; and &quot;drug&quot; related in English? No they are not. It's just happens sometime that some words sounds similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Дорога&quot; is related to &quot;дёрн&quot; (turf), &quot;драть&quot; (tear), &quot;дёргать&quot; and &quot;дерево&quot; (tree) and initially meant something like a path in a forest. Surprisingly, &quot;дорога&quot; is related to English verb drag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you can find out more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Происходит от индоевроп. *dorgh- (связано с дёргать и означает «продранное в лесу пространство»); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of &quot;дорогой&quot;, it's related to English word &quot;dear&quot;, [here's][2] a quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle English *dere*, from Old English *dēore*, from Proto-Germanic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *diurijaz. Cognate with Dutch *duur* ‎(“costly, precious”), German teuer ‎(“costly, precious”), Icelandic *dýr* ‎(“expensive”), Norwegian *dyr*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Swedish *dyr* ‎(“expensive”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dear" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14720" RevisionGUID="7c00b410-a77d-4081-97b6-391db8f289e6" CreationDate="2017-06-28T16:54:00.657" UserId="9100" Text="I have seen somewhere they use it not in terms you could think you would do with tooth paste.. or in Siberia, related to a physiological process..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the example is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А конкурентов выдавят на мороз&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Russian mafia way of doing business?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14720" RevisionGUID="7c00b410-a77d-4081-97b6-391db8f289e6" CreationDate="2017-06-28T16:54:00.657" UserId="9100" Text="Meaning of &quot;выдавить на мороз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14720" RevisionGUID="7c00b410-a77d-4081-97b6-391db8f289e6" CreationDate="2017-06-28T16:54:00.657" UserId="9100" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="3c242ee4-6360-4ba0-bb19-93716aab5d32" CreationDate="2017-06-28T17:26:50.323" UserId="242" Text="There's no such idiom in Russian, my guess would be that this is just a typo - `выставить на мороз` (literally to put out into the frost) - which is indeed used - it's applicable both to animated and unanimated noun -  so you can equally say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я выставил на мороз жаркое - пусть хоть немного остынет&#xD;&#xA; - Я сейчас вас выставлю на мороз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for animated nouns one can say - `выгнать на мороз` (to expel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I encourage you to use google (or other search engine) - no hidden irony, it's just that it can help immediately to see that something just does not exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xayg3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="9942232e-3fd7-465a-b035-4d43f33625d6" CreationDate="2017-06-28T17:36:35.983" UserId="242" Comment="added 361 characters in body" Text="There's no such idiom in Russian, my guess would be that this is just a typo - `выставить на мороз` (literally to put out into the frost) - which is indeed used - it's applicable both to animated and unanimated noun -  so you can equally say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я выставил на мороз жаркое - пусть хоть немного остынет&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я сейчас вас выставлю на мороз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this can be used for torture, this phrase per se does not bear any criminal or sadistic connotations. There's a phrase `выставить за дверь` - and `выставить за мороза` is constructed in a similar way - or well, the other way around.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for animated nouns one can say - `выгнать на мороз` (to expel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I encourage you to use google (or other search engine) - no hidden irony, it's just that it can help immediately to see that something just does not exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: Also, it's worth to mention that there's a rare term `выдавило на морозе` - it's about motor oil that sort of sipped out during cold weather, like in phrase &quot;Выдавило масло на морозе&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xayg3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="5652cb91-4aa3-4640-b0f1-32709f5383eb" CreationDate="2017-06-28T17:51:00.973" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There's no such idiom in Russian, my guess would be that this is just a typo - `выставить на мороз` (literally to put out into the frost) - which is indeed used - it's applicable both to animated and unanimated noun -  so you can equally say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я выставил на мороз жаркое - пусть хоть немного остынет&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я сейчас вас выставлю на мороз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this can be used for torture, this phrase per se does not bear any criminal or sadistic connotations. There's a phrase `выставить за дверь` - and `выставить на мороз` is constructed in a similar way - or well, the other way around.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for animated nouns one can say - `выгнать на мороз` (to expel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I encourage you to use google (or other search engine) - no hidden irony, it's just that it can help immediately to see that something just does not exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: Also, it's worth to mention that there's a rare term `выдавило на морозе` - it's about motor oil that sort of sipped out during cold weather, like in phrase &quot;Выдавило масло на морозе&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xayg3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35961" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="8092" RevisionGUID="11367da1-994d-4b23-8f2c-33798bbc885b" CreationDate="2017-06-28T18:32:48.110" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14723" RevisionGUID="497e4ecc-2909-4789-a619-fb281a75381f" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:05:07.227" UserId="9198" Text="Rather than a typo, I would call it a mixed metaphor - squeezing used as a metaphor for applying whatever tactics to reduce your competitors' ability to compete, and the frost part implying that these competitors won't like the situation they'll end up in. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14720" RevisionGUID="572c32fb-0f70-4e46-9f21-ccc66bd8df37" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:22:35.607" UserId="9100" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="I have seen somewhere they use it not in terms you could think you would do with tooth paste.. or in Siberia, related to a physiological process..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the example is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;А конкурентов выдавят на мороз&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Russian mafia way of doing business?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;http://fritzmorgen.livejournal.com/1065051.html#cutid1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DO12U.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I must admit there is just one place so far where it has been used, so metaphor or a typo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35965" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14703" RevisionGUID="c082d208-6072-417b-b5b3-62f61f58bfd4" CreationDate="2017-06-28T19:54:20.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/880152405517774851" />
  <row Id="35966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="25e71cc2-183f-4532-91b4-e468a2f30056" CreationDate="2017-06-28T20:22:51.637" UserId="242" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="There's no such idiom in Russian, my guess would be that this is just a typo - `выставить на мороз` (literally to put out into the frost) - which is indeed used - it's applicable both to animated and unanimated noun -  so you can equally say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я выставил на мороз жаркое - пусть хоть немного остынет&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я сейчас вас выставлю на мороз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this can be used for torture, this phrase per se does not bear any criminal or sadistic connotations. There's a phrase `выставить за дверь` - and `выставить на мороз` is constructed in a similar way - or well, the other way around.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for animated nouns one can say - `выгнать на мороз` (to expel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I encourage you to use google (or other search engine) - no hidden irony, it's just that it can help immediately to see that something just does not exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Also, it's worth to mention that there's a rare term `выдавило на морозе` - it's about motor oil that sort of sipped out during cold weather, like in phrase &quot;Выдавило масло на морозе&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** So, when the exact quote is provided, it turns out that it's `выдавливание на мороз`. Once again, not an idiom but rather an author-specific figure of speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xayg3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14721" RevisionGUID="bae61cd2-182c-4ae7-9b23-b3918c416c4b" CreationDate="2017-06-28T21:45:11.857" UserId="242" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="**This turns out to be an actual usage but it's by no means an idiom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no such idiom in Russian, my guess was that this is just a typo - `выставить на мороз` (literally to put out into the frost) - which is indeed used - it's applicable both to animated and unanimated noun -  so you can equally say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я выставил на мороз жаркое - пусть хоть немного остынет&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я сейчас вас выставлю на мороз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this can be used for torture, this phrase per se does not bear any criminal or sadistic connotations. There's a phrase `выставить за дверь` - and `выставить на мороз` is constructed in a similar way - or well, the other way around.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for animated nouns one can say - `выгнать на мороз` (to expel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I encourage you to use google (or other search engine) - no hidden irony, it's just that it can help immediately to see that something just does not exist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Also, it's worth to mention that there's a rare term `выдавило на морозе` - it's about motor oil that sort of sipped out during cold weather, like in phrase &quot;Выдавило масло на морозе&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** So, when the exact quote is provided, it turns out that it's `выдавливание на мороз`. Once again, not an idiom but rather an author-specific figure of speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xayg3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="b573273e-a4d0-4431-8ad0-66c0cb3b74ce" CreationDate="2017-06-29T06:11:58.507" UserId="1943" Text="I realize that this isn't a question about the Russian language, but I just saw this video of Mr. Putin making some kind of ceremonial entrance into the Kremlin.  He walks up this long stairway lined with soldiers holding their rifles at the salute, and as he walks through, each soldier holds his head back with their faces cocked towards him, tracking him.  What is the significance of this gesture, and/or what is it called?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Fqfl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="b573273e-a4d0-4431-8ad0-66c0cb3b74ce" CreationDate="2017-06-29T06:11:58.507" UserId="1943" Text="What is this odd military salute-like gesture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="b573273e-a4d0-4431-8ad0-66c0cb3b74ce" CreationDate="2017-06-29T06:11:58.507" UserId="1943" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14727" RevisionGUID="a49a80ab-3533-4137-801d-f7aa74f93de6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:24:53.510" UserId="8126" Text="When we form a noun phrase, we use either adjectives or genitive case. For &#xD;&#xA;example;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; красная машина -&gt; feminine adjective + feminine noun (red car)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; цвет цветка -&gt; nominative case + genitive case (color of flower)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across this phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`аэропорт Домодедово`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation of this phrase is `airport` **of** `Domodedovo`.&#xD;&#xA;So we need to use genitive case. But `Домодедово` is not in genitive case. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14727" RevisionGUID="a49a80ab-3533-4137-801d-f7aa74f93de6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:24:53.510" UserId="8126" Text="What is the case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14727" RevisionGUID="a49a80ab-3533-4137-801d-f7aa74f93de6" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:24:53.510" UserId="8126" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35984" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="e6547c61-9b22-47f2-ac6d-300a338cb592" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:36:28.953" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5008,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Matt&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14728" RevisionGUID="2ff39e9c-27c6-43d2-8781-90ad4bb5939e" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:43:50.757" UserId="5008" Text="The rules about toponyms and such are a bit complicated and not too consistent in general. But, as a rule of thumb, Genitive case signifies that an object belongs or somehow dedicated to another one. E.g. _улица Моцарта_, _площадь Революции_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here we have an airport _of Moscow_ named Domodedovo because of its location, while _Аэропорт Домодедова_, as you propose, would naturally be understood as an airport of town Domodedovo." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="df88def0-77b5-4a3d-ac04-ef3b19bcf150" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:52:46.670" UserId="1943" Comment="Made it into a question more suited for Russian Language Stackexchange" Text="Is there a word or phrase in Russian for this particular salute-like gesture? I recall reading a book written by Viktor Suvorov where he described soldiers recognizing a high officer with an expression he referred to as &quot;devouring him with their eyes&quot;.  I had always wondered what that meant, but these soldiers are making this very distinctive expressive salute-like movement, and I suspect that this is what he meant.  Can someone confirm this, and if so, tell me what the Russian word or words for it is? This is from a video of Mr. Putin making some kind of ceremonial entrance into the Kremlin.  He walks up this long stairway lined with soldiers holding their rifles at the salute, and as he walks through, each soldier holds his head back with their faces cocked towards him, tracking him.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Fqfl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14729" RevisionGUID="fb3d68cd-214a-4ee2-b5bb-5e550b7352fd" CreationDate="2017-06-29T07:56:48.343" UserId="134" Text="*Домодедово* is the proper name of the airport, which is technically called *Москва (Домодедово)*. It's not an &quot;airport serving Domodedovo&quot; (although it does serve it among other cities of course), it's an airport called &quot;Domodedovo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were speaking about, say, &quot;Domodedovo government&quot; (*администрация Домодедова*) or &quot;Domodedovo police&quot; (*полиция Домодедова*), we would have used genitive indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, lately, Russian tends to drop declination of names in *-ово, -ево, -ино, -ыно* to avoid confusion with masculine names in oblique cases (*в Пушкине* could mean both &quot;in Pushkin, Leningrad oblast&quot; and &quot;in Pushkino, Moscow oblast&quot;). So you can hear and read *администрация Домодедово* and *полиция Домодедово* just as often nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14729" RevisionGUID="f1a998c4-4183-4ddb-a225-c7b232214f56" CreationDate="2017-06-29T08:03:30.107" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="*Домодедово* is the proper name of the airport, which is technically called *Москва (Домодедово)*. It's not an &quot;airport serving Domodedovo&quot; (although it does serve it among other cities of course), it's an airport called &quot;Domodedovo&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were speaking about, say, &quot;Domodedovo government&quot; (*администрация Домодедова*) or &quot;Domodedovo police&quot; (*полиция Домодедова*), we would have used genitive indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, lately, Russian tends to drop declination of names in *-ово, -ево, -ино, -ыно* to avoid confusion with masculine names in oblique cases (*в Пушкине* could mean both &quot;in Pushkin, St. Petersburg&quot; and &quot;in Pushkino, Moscow oblast&quot;). So you can hear and read *администрация Домодедово* and *полиция Домодедово* just as often nowadays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35989" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="1ab4f9fe-3d2e-4ac6-b92f-a48ff2599fa1" CreationDate="2017-06-29T08:05:14.207" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="35990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14730" RevisionGUID="b527611b-1afd-4b5d-9c20-1bf8cbaf34bc" CreationDate="2017-06-29T08:38:52.200" UserId="134" Text="This is *воинское приветствие* (&quot;military salute&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When standing in present arms position, the military salute is performed by assuming position of attention, looking the senior in the face and turning one's head as the senior moves. No hand gestures are made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The military regulations require that the military salute is conveyed &quot;in a precise and dashing manner&quot; (*чётко и молодцевато*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14731" RevisionGUID="1a80a93b-1603-4f59-b014-a0b74800526d" CreationDate="2017-06-29T09:03:00.437" UserId="9158" Text="&quot;Ravnenie na&quot; Равнение на... &#xD;&#xA;Something like &quot;alignment to&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means all soldiers must look at a certain mark, most common are Alignment to the left / right / tribune / commander. You can see this on military parades a lot. Here's an example https://focus.ua/files/images/0/-87397.jpg Soldiers here were given a command to align to tribune and salute the president. Note how some soldiers look straight forward, the 1st soldier in each row is in charge of keeping the distance between rows, others follow his lead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="d8446677-997d-402f-9ee8-c5cb127c50ad" CreationDate="2017-06-29T11:00:14.753" UserId="9201" Text="I found &quot;bserossijskij sunod&quot; and I know that sunod is an old russian word for synod. Today it seems to be sinod. But what does that &quot;bserossijskij&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35993" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="d8446677-997d-402f-9ee8-c5cb127c50ad" CreationDate="2017-06-29T11:00:14.753" UserId="9201" Text="What does &quot;bserossijskij&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35994" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="d8446677-997d-402f-9ee8-c5cb127c50ad" CreationDate="2017-06-29T11:00:14.753" UserId="9201" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14733" RevisionGUID="39f4b4f5-0581-456a-b85e-ffb457e5575c" CreationDate="2017-06-29T11:04:25.247" UserId="9058" Text="I think you (or your-source) misspelled it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it should be Всероссийский. Not Б but В.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning all-Russian, Russia-wide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another option, your source used Latin glyphs similar to Cyrillic glyphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;like &quot;u&quot; is similar to &quot;и&quot; and capital &quot;b&quot; - &quot;B&quot; is same as capital &quot;в&quot; - &quot;В&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14734" RevisionGUID="5ea1d650-0663-4a62-b932-99038ee69e92" CreationDate="2017-06-29T11:37:45.560" UserId="242" Text="Both answers provided are correct, I just want to mention that actually the borrowed word &quot;салют&quot; and derived from it &quot;салютовать&quot;, though getting obsolete, still exist in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one says &quot;салютовать&quot; to Russian speaker this is more about firing, raising hand to the head (there's also an informal verb `козырнуть` for this) - but still, technically what we see can be counted as `отдавать салют`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14734" RevisionGUID="e6b0ed4e-d58d-417b-a9a4-b1447714d515" CreationDate="2017-06-29T11:53:57.700" UserId="242" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Both answers provided seems to me to be correct, I just want to mention that actually the borrowed word &quot;салют&quot; and derived from it &quot;салютовать&quot;, though getting obsolete, still exist in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one says &quot;салютовать&quot; to Russian speaker this is more about firing, raising hand to the head (there's also an informal verb `козырнуть` for this) - but still, technically what we see can be counted as `отдавать салют`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14735" RevisionGUID="f4ff8d6e-3539-47b5-8f72-c85a7db41f19" CreationDate="2017-06-29T13:45:20.570" UserId="9076" Text="How can I change nouns into adjectives? &#xA;Ветер → Ветреный &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35999" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14735" RevisionGUID="f4ff8d6e-3539-47b5-8f72-c85a7db41f19" CreationDate="2017-06-29T13:45:20.570" UserId="9076" Text="Changing nouns into adjectives (ignore this question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36000" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14735" RevisionGUID="f4ff8d6e-3539-47b5-8f72-c85a7db41f19" CreationDate="2017-06-29T13:45:20.570" UserId="9076" Text="|прилагательные|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36001" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14735" RevisionGUID="ed4f214e-1a48-4835-bce3-541df2ac164c" CreationDate="2017-06-29T14:08:02.790" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36003" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="fdf2d880-3301-436a-b803-d85c16596680" CreationDate="2017-06-29T20:01:55.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/880516700692779008" />
  <row Id="36004" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14727" RevisionGUID="0317d6dd-007b-40d9-abb6-f963a80e0eb8" CreationDate="2017-06-29T22:26:48.607" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Aэропорт &quot;Домодедово&quot; - why not genitve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36005" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14727" RevisionGUID="7bb36c13-9479-49d8-9fe6-fc78402c8e20" CreationDate="2017-06-29T23:04:26.910" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/880562633753022468" />
  <row Id="36006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14736" RevisionGUID="faadbe54-321f-477a-adb9-6dff9455a6e8" CreationDate="2017-06-30T00:29:27.520" UserId="9203" Text="![Мой ПК: Ну На*ер](https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/865103304199557896/5380B6C1BAFF60124C0D2E78FFF86EEF6F682046/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone please explain to me what this meme is saying? I know it's not very serious, but I genuinely want to know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14736" RevisionGUID="faadbe54-321f-477a-adb9-6dff9455a6e8" CreationDate="2017-06-30T00:29:27.520" UserId="9203" Text="What does this image say?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14736" RevisionGUID="faadbe54-321f-477a-adb9-6dff9455a6e8" CreationDate="2017-06-30T00:29:27.520" UserId="9203" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14737" RevisionGUID="b4a3a649-d4b0-43ad-a27c-5190ea241ea1" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:19:59.213" UserId="9118" Text="Top: &quot;My PC&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Bottom: can be translated like &quot;F*ck this&quot; or &quot;to hell with it&quot;. Meaning, scared of even trying, with these PC specs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36010" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14735" RevisionGUID="1d7cefd9-8f79-49b8-9f35-90be355f0e83" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:51:08.050" UserId="9076" Comment="edited title" Text="Changing nouns into adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="1100ac48-8316-4ee8-80fa-425ac4a8e116" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:55:21.627" UserId="9076" Text="Is there an easier or fun way that I could memorise the cases endings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="1100ac48-8316-4ee8-80fa-425ac4a8e116" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:55:21.627" UserId="9076" Text="Memorising Cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="1100ac48-8316-4ee8-80fa-425ac4a8e116" CreationDate="2017-06-30T01:55:21.627" UserId="9076" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="bb0d4e8f-5bee-439f-af73-5f18b351f19c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T03:44:55.527" UserId="9100" Text="Not sure if there is a better way, but what you ask seems to be a challenge which has been explored in the Russian teaching community - how to help foreign students to memorize case endings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one  article I have found for you, they offer a couple of systematic tables based partly on an assumptions learning can happen through attributing cases to already well-known phrases, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(masculine, neuter      adjectives + nouns SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;2. Genitive **ПриятнОГО  аппетитА!**&#xD;&#xA;3. Dative **ДорогОМУ  другУ на память!**&#xD;&#xA;5. Instrumental **С  НовЫМ  годОМ!**&#xD;&#xA;6. Prepositional **Я на седьмОМ  небЕ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While they do not proceed like this in all declinations, maybe you build on that somehow with your own examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Костюк Нина Александровна&#xD;&#xA;НЕКОТОРЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ  РКИ  НА  НАЧАЛЬНОМ ЭТАПЕ  (как запомнить падежные окончания)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8E%D0%BA-%D0%9D.A.-%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%98-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="f35153b0-79db-49b9-8413-9f4e56cece7a" CreationDate="2017-06-30T04:54:39.173" UserId="9100" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Not sure if there is a better way, but what you ask seems to be a challenge which has been explored in the Russian teaching community - how to help foreign students to memorize case endings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one  article I have found for you, they offer a couple of systematic tables based partly on an assumptions learning can happen through attributing cases to already well-known phrases, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(masculine, neuter      adjectives + nouns SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Genitive **ПриятнОГО  аппетитА!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Dative **ДорогОМУ  другУ на память!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Instrumental **С  НовЫМ  годОМ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Prepositional **Я на седьмОМ  небЕ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While they do not proceed like this in all declinations, maybe you build on that somehow with your own examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Костюк Нина Александровна&#xD;&#xA;НЕКОТОРЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ  РКИ  НА  НАЧАЛЬНОМ ЭТАПЕ  (как запомнить падежные окончания)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://ip-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8E%D0%BA-%D0%9D.A.-%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%98-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="dd7a34af-2cc8-4047-8f61-89344718d3b7" CreationDate="2017-06-30T04:59:22.973" UserId="1097" Comment="link formatted" Text="Not sure if there is a better way, but what you ask seems to be a challenge which has been explored in the Russian teaching community - how to help foreign students to memorize case endings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one  article I have found for you, they offer a couple of systematic tables based partly on an assumptions learning can happen through attributing cases to already well-known phrases, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(masculine, neuter      adjectives + nouns SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Genitive **ПриятнОГО  аппетитА!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Dative **ДорогОМУ  другУ на память!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Instrumental **С  НовЫМ  годОМ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Prepositional **Я на седьмОМ  небЕ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While they do not proceed like this in all declinations, maybe you build on that somehow with your own examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Костюк Нина Александровна  &#xD;&#xA;[НЕКОТОРЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ  РКИ  НА  НАЧАЛЬНОМ ЭТАПЕ  (как запомнить падежные окончания)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ip-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8E%D0%BA-%D0%9D.A.-%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%98-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="a115eac0-3631-40de-ac53-0695f245b9ce" CreationDate="2017-06-30T07:26:53.460" UserId="9100" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Not sure if there is a better way, but what you ask seems to be a challenge which has been explored in the Russian teaching community - how to help foreign students to memorize case endings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one  article I have found for you, they offer a couple of systematic tables based partly on an assumptions learning can happen through attributing cases to already well-known phrases, like (note: caps are to designate endings, not stressed syllables):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(masculine, neuter      adjectives + nouns SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Genitive **ПриятнОГО  аппетитА!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Dative **ДорогОМУ  другУ на память!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Instrumental **С  НовЫМ  годОМ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Prepositional **Я на седьмОМ  небЕ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While they do not proceed like this in all declinations, maybe you build on that somehow with your own examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Костюк Нина Александровна  &#xD;&#xA;[НЕКОТОРЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ  РКИ  НА  НАЧАЛЬНОМ ЭТАПЕ  (как запомнить падежные окончания)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ip-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8E%D0%BA-%D0%9D.A.-%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%98-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14742" RevisionGUID="9e619827-3cc8-4c7c-b4a0-ef4270c947bd" CreationDate="2017-06-30T07:38:32.147" UserId="4600" Text="I remember a verse from kids' magazine *Трамвай:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **И:** Шла весной по льду *свинь**я,*** ей попалась *полынь**я.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Р:** Плюх! Торчит из *полынь**и*** только хвостик от *свинь**и.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д:** Мы — скорее к *полынь**е,*** мы хотим помочь *свинь**е.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В:** Сами чуть не в *полынь**ю,*** но спасли-таки *свинь**ю.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Т:** Недовольны мы *свинь**ёй:*** разве шутят с *полынь**ёй?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **П:** Вспоминайте о *свинь**е,*** чтоб не плавать в *полынь**е.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14743" RevisionGUID="f9728787-e769-4be7-8bc9-69f1a1088fa4" CreationDate="2017-06-30T08:25:05.893" UserId="242" Text="I'm not sure with easier - I'm a strong proponent of not trying to memorize any kind of rules but rather phrases in a whole - just like child don't know anything about grammar but speaks, makes mistakes and gradually makes them less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, let me start with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. If the feminine or masculine noun ends with `-a`, it changes to `-e`, like in `мама` → `маме&#xD;&#xA; 1. If the feminine or masculine none ends with `-я`, it changes to `-и` like in `дядя` → `дяде` &#xD;&#xA; 1. For all the rest nouns of masculine and neuter gender which ends with palatalized (soft) consonant or with a vowel, -ю is added, like in `конь` →`коню`.&#xD;&#xA; 1. For all the rest nouns of masculine and neuter gender, `-у` is added, like in `сон` → `сну`. Be warned though that vowel (as you can see from previous example) can be dropped -or added - and there's anything you can do but memorize such words.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Finally, all the rest nouns of feminine - that is, all nouns ending with `-ь` - `-и`is added instead, like in - `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns from #1-2 belongs to the so-called first declension group - let's nouns from #1 and #2 be 1a and 1b accordingly, from #3-4 - to the second one (so, 2a and 2b), and #5 is actually about nouns that belong to the third such group. There are also group called `разносклоняемые`, which are basically exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, let's move further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Instrumental**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-ой`, `мама` → `мамой`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-eй`, `дядя` → `дядей`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a,  ending changes to `-ом`, `сон`→ `сном`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2b,  ending changes to `-eм`/`-ём`,`море` → `морем`; `конь` → `конём`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3, ending changes to `-ю`, `боль` → `болью`&#xD;&#xA; 1. Bunch of exceptions ending with `-ей`, `-ею`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prepositional**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-е`, `мама` → `маме`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-и` or `-е`, `дядя` → `дяде` but `линия` → `линией`  &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a, 2b ending changes to `-е`, `сон`→ `сне`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2 ending with `-ие`, changes to `-ии`, like in `сочинение` → `сочинении`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2 ending with `ий` - changes to `ии`, like in `гений` → `гении`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3 + exceptions, ending changes to `-и`, `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-ы`, `мама` → `мамы`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-eй`, `дядя` → `дяди`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a,  ending changes to `-a`, `сон`→ `снa`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2b,  ending changes to `-a`,`море` → `моря`; `конь` → `коня`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3, ending changes to `-и`, `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accusative**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-у`, `мама` → `маму`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-ю`, `дядя` → `дядю`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a,  ending changes to `-a`, `сон`→ `снa`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2b,  ending changes to `-я`,`море` → `моря`; `конь` → `коня`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3, ending changes to `-и`, `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is simplified as much as possible. Just like I've said, there are some exceptions, there are some obsolete endings that still can be use, there are some variations for animate and inanimate nouns. Finally, of course, you need to memorize rules for plural as well. But this is that exactly rare case when I believe that it's better to have a separate answer on this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14743" RevisionGUID="54714524-f0fd-43e1-9550-b9965dfa52d1" CreationDate="2017-06-30T08:42:02.517" UserId="242" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure with easier - I'm a strong proponent of not trying to memorize any kind of rules but rather phrases in a whole - just like child don't know anything about grammar but speaks, makes mistakes and gradually makes them less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Honestly, there's no fun way to learn language.**&#xD;&#xA;But may be just listing some basic list of rules will be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, let me start with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. If the feminine or masculine noun ends with `-a`, it changes to `-e`, like in `мама` → `маме&#xD;&#xA; 1. If the feminine or masculine none ends with `-я`, it changes to `-и` like in `дядя` → `дяде` &#xD;&#xA; 1. For all the rest nouns of masculine and neuter gender which ends with palatalized (soft) consonant or with a vowel, -ю is added, like in `конь` →`коню`.&#xD;&#xA; 1. For all the rest nouns of masculine and neuter gender, `-у` is added, like in `сон` → `сну`. Be warned though that vowel (as you can see from previous example) can be dropped -or added - and there's anything you can do but memorize such words.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Finally, all the rest nouns of feminine - that is, all nouns ending with `-ь` - `-и`is added instead, like in - `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns from #1-2 belongs to the so-called first declension group - let's nouns from #1 and #2 be 1a and 1b accordingly, from #3-4 - to the second one (so, 2a and 2b), and #5 is actually about nouns that belong to the third such group. There are also group called `разносклоняемые`, which are basically exceptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, let's move further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Instrumental**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-ой`, `мама` → `мамой`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-eй`, `дядя` → `дядей`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a,  ending changes to `-ом`, `сон`→ `сном`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2b,  ending changes to `-eм`/`-ём`,`море` → `морем`; `конь` → `конём`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3, ending changes to `-ю`, `боль` → `болью`&#xD;&#xA; 1. Bunch of exceptions ending with `-ей`, `-ею`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prepositional**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-е`, `мама` → `маме`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-и` or `-е`, `дядя` → `дяде` but `линия` → `линией`  &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a, 2b ending changes to `-е`, `сон`→ `сне`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2 ending with `-ие`, changes to `-ии`, like in `сочинение` → `сочинении`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2 ending with `ий` - changes to `ии`, like in `гений` → `гении`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3 + exceptions, ending changes to `-и`, `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-ы`, `мама` → `мамы`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-eй`, `дядя` → `дяди`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a,  ending changes to `-a`, `сон`→ `снa`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2b,  ending changes to `-a`,`море` → `моря`; `конь` → `коня`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3, ending changes to `-и`, `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Accusative**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. 1a, `-a` changes to `-у`, `мама` → `маму`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 1b, `-я` changes to `-ю`, `дядя` → `дядю`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 2a,  ending changes to `-a`, `сон`→ `снa`, &#xD;&#xA; 1. 2b,  ending changes to `-я`,`море` → `моря`; `конь` → `коня`&#xD;&#xA; 1. 3, ending changes to `-и`, `боль` → `боли`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is simplified as much as possible. Just like I've said, there are some exceptions, there are some obsolete endings that still can be use, there are some variations for animate and inanimate nouns. Finally, of course, you need to memorize rules for plural as well. But this is that exactly rare case when I believe that it's better to have a separate answer on this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36026" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14736" RevisionGUID="79f94afc-1ad8-4f0e-97d7-fe8b3928bdc2" CreationDate="2017-06-30T08:44:13.250" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1236,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yellow Sky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36032" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="8d2b36b8-0560-4740-9f31-694b089012a6" CreationDate="2017-06-30T08:52:43.943" UserId="9100" Comment="changed misleading wording of the title to make it correspond to the question body" Text="Memorising Cases' Endings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36033" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="8d2b36b8-0560-4740-9f31-694b089012a6" CreationDate="2017-06-30T08:52:43.943" Comment="Proposed by 9100 approved by 2104, 6097 edit id of 879" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14739" RevisionGUID="08f4bd05-79c9-4835-a8d6-04da65353390" CreationDate="2017-06-30T09:28:51.443" UserId="9100" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Not sure if there is a better way, but what you ask seems to be a challenge which has been explored in the Russian teaching community - how to help foreign students to memorize case endings?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this one  article I have found for you, they offer a couple of systematic tables based partly on an assumptions learning can happen through attributing cases to already well-known phrases, like (note: caps are to designate endings, not stressed syllables):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(masculine, neuter      adjectives + nouns SINGULAR)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Genitive **ПриятнОГО  аппетитА!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Dative **ДорогОМУ  другУ на память!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Instrumental **С  НовЫМ  годОМ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Prepositional **Я на седьмОМ  небЕ!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While they do not proceed like this with all declinations, maybe you build on that somehow with your own examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Костюк Нина Александровна  &#xD;&#xA;[НЕКОТОРЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ  РКИ  НА  НАЧАЛЬНОМ ЭТАПЕ  (как запомнить падежные окончания)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://ip-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8E%D0%BA-%D0%9D.A.-%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%98-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.docx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14745" RevisionGUID="54a9d911-dd65-42b5-96a8-f80dee361e57" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:28:06.207" UserId="242" Text="Just wanted to add my two cents on this. Even though nominalization of adjectives is something that not that exotic to Russian - a lot of quite used words evolved that way - speaking of ethnonym it's indeed almost the only example of such derivation. But it's not unique! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's at least one another Russian ethnonym derived from adjective - there's a small group of Turkic people who turned into christianity, so called [кряшены][1]. This actually is derived from `крещённые` (baptized). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of whether this exists in other languages - well, look up for ethnonym nominalisation and you'll find some examples - but this is better to be asked at Linguistics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14745" RevisionGUID="63204c7e-6b03-4da1-aac8-adbe61771bab" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:34:10.640" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Just wanted to add my two cents on this. Even though nominalization of adjectives is something that not that exotic to Russian - a lot of quite used words evolved that way - speaking of ethnonym it's indeed almost the only example of such derivation. But it's not unique! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's at least one another Russian ethnonym derived from adjective - there's a small group of Turkic (Tatar) people who turned into christianity, so called [кряшены][1]. This actually is derived from `крещённые` (baptized). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of whether this exists in other languages - well, look up for ethnonym nominalisation and you'll find some examples - but this is better to be asked at Linguistics SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="e5b80266-846c-465b-96a6-5541efd077bd" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:49:03.583" UserId="9207" Text="The other day I heard a friend of mine speaking Russian to her mom on the phone, and she said, &lt;&lt;да, она очень nice&gt;&gt;, switching to English for the last word. When I asked her about it, she said that по-русски she would have said &lt;&lt;хорошая&gt;&gt; but that this wouldn't necessarily refer to her disposition specifically like &quot;nice&quot; does, and is more cumbersome. So two questions:&#xA;1) is it becoming colloquially acceptable to use &quot;nice&quot; in Russian? And&#xA;2) are there other situations like this where a borrowing is coming to replace a Russian word in certain situations (due to increased specificity)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="e5b80266-846c-465b-96a6-5541efd077bd" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:49:03.583" UserId="9207" Text="&lt;&lt;Очень nice&gt;&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="e5b80266-846c-465b-96a6-5541efd077bd" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:49:03.583" UserId="9207" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="53ab725e-8845-499e-a018-3ffdb9c3e5fb" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:39:33.067" UserId="242" Text="Well, it's definitely a slang nowhere even near gaining any traction. Yes, true, some younger (ha-ha) hipsters use it, but I'd rather claim that some of soviet hippies slang was more widely adopted.&#xA;&#xA;I'm not trying to neglect any kind of foreign influence, this happens a lot in any language, it's just that &quot;найс&quot; de-facto is not there yet, if it will be at all.&#xA;&#xA;The same social group uses such borrowings as &quot;харассить&quot;, &quot;абьюзить&quot;, &quot;фан&quot; - but still, time will tell whether this hype will change the language.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="3bb31363-5f35-4203-81c8-fdd6ea95d84c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:45:03.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="The other day I heard a friend of mine speaking Russian to her mom on the phone, and she said, &quot;да, она очень найс&quot;, switching to English (nice) for the last word. When I asked her about it, she said that по-русски she would have said &lt;&lt;хорошая&gt;&gt; but that this wouldn't necessarily refer to her disposition specifically like &quot;nice&quot; does, and is more cumbersome. So two questions:&#xA;1) is it becoming colloquially acceptable to use &quot;nice&quot; in Russian? And&#xA;2) are there other situations like this where a borrowing is coming to replace a Russian word in certain situations (due to increased specificity)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36045" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="3bb31363-5f35-4203-81c8-fdd6ea95d84c" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:45:03.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Очень найс&quot; - is it a valid Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="0f6e4d05-2282-4098-856d-1351ade3c554" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:47:36.230" UserId="242" Comment="added 209 characters in body; added 161 characters in body" Text="Well, it's definitely a slang nowhere even near gaining any traction. Yes, true, some younger (ha-ha) hipsters use it, but I'd rather claim that some of soviet hippies slang was more widely adopted. I'm mentioning hippies mainly because their slang also was heavily influenced by English, like, &quot;хайратый&quot; (from &quot;hair&quot;), герла (from &quot;girl&quot;), шузы (shoes) etc.&#xA;&#xA;I'm not trying to neglect any kind of foreign influence, this happens a lot in any language, it's just that &quot;найс&quot; de-facto is not there yet, if it will be at all.&#xA;&#xA;The same social group uses such borrowings as &quot;харассить&quot;, &quot;абьюзить&quot;, &quot;фан&quot; - but still, time will tell whether this hype will change the language.&#xA;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - that happened a lot throughout the history of Russian. Some words, like &quot;серьёзный&quot;, &quot;юзер&quot;, &quot;киллер&quot; co-exist in Russian with alongside with their &quot;pure&quot; analogues.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="b1dc9081-6b33-4a73-8d23-dab35241419e" CreationDate="2017-06-30T19:53:44.790" UserId="242" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Well, it's definitely a slang nowhere even near gaining any traction enough to claim it is a widely-accepted colloquial word. Yes, true, some younger (ha-ha) hipsters use it, but I'd rather claim that some of soviet hippies slang was more widely adopted. I'm mentioning hippies mainly because their slang also was heavily influenced by English, like, &quot;хайратый&quot; (from &quot;hair&quot;), герла (from &quot;girl&quot;), шузы (shoes) etc.&#xA;&#xA;I'm not trying to neglect any kind of foreign influence, this happens a lot in any language, it's just that &quot;найс&quot; de-facto is not there yet, if it will be at all.&#xA;&#xA;The same social group uses such borrowings as &quot;харассить&quot;, &quot;абьюзить&quot;, &quot;фан&quot; - but still, time will tell whether this hype will change the language.&#xA;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - that happened a lot throughout the history of Russian. Some words, like &quot;серьёзный&quot;, &quot;юзер&quot;, &quot;киллер&quot; co-exist in Russian with alongside with their &quot;pure&quot; analogues.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14748" RevisionGUID="ef599a42-6583-4105-84b7-45d8e97037d3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T20:29:47.053" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Is it becoming colloquially acceptable to use &quot;nice&quot; in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, as far as I can tell, it's not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word would probably be not understood by Russian speakers not speaking English and living outside English speaking environment (that is majority or the Russian speakers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct borrowing of adjectives (without adapting them to Russian paradigm) is not characteristic for Russian at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of words in Russian which can be used to convey the meaning of &quot;nice person&quot;: *милый, любезный, приятный* etc., each of them having its own specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since both your friend and her mother are apparently bilingual in both English and Russian, your friend used the first suitable word in either language to cross her mind (most probably because she met the woman she was talking about in an English-speaking environment) and didn't bother with adapting it for Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there other situations like this where a borrowing is coming to replace a Russian word in certain situations (due to increased specificity)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as soon as there appears a concept worth distinguishing with a separate word, the word emerges in the language, either through borrowing or in any other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Russian for &quot;pastry&quot; is *пирожное*, a word which was coined in XIX century, first as a collective noun only. A certain type of pastry was at first called *английский хлеб*, but when it become popular enough to deserve a term on its own, it was named with a loanword *кекс* (from &quot;cakes&quot;). Both muffins and cupcakes used to be called that, however, later, as they gained popularity in Russia, they came to be known as *маффин* and *капкейк* in Russian as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, all verbs and adjectives borrowed from other languages are adapted to Russian paradigms: *парковаться*, *джинсовый* etc. If the loanwords are hard to adapt to Russian as adjectives or verbs, they become nouns and are used analytically: *цвет хаки* &quot;khaki&quot;, *читать рэп* &quot;to rap&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="f647fee9-15e5-46d4-8bdb-f5b0730caad3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T21:40:03.733" UserId="242" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Well, it's definitely a slang nowhere even near gaining any traction enough to claim it is a widely-accepted colloquial word. Yes, true, some younger (ha-ha) hipsters use it, but I'd rather claim that some of soviet hippies slang was more widely adopted. I'm mentioning hippies mainly because their slang also was heavily influenced by English, like, &quot;хайратый&quot; (from &quot;hair&quot;), герла (from &quot;girl&quot;), шузы (shoes) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not trying to neglect any kind of foreign influence, this happens a lot in any language, it's just that &quot;найс&quot; de-facto is not there yet, if it will be at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same social group uses such borrowings as &quot;харассить&quot;, &quot;абьюзить&quot;, &quot;фан&quot; - but still, time will tell whether this hype will change the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - that happened a lot throughout the history of Russian. Some words, like &quot;серьёзный&quot;, &quot;юзер&quot;, &quot;киллер&quot; co-exist in Russian with alongside with their &quot;pure&quot; counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="f757567c-a0e1-4c32-b494-6458929ae168" CreationDate="2017-06-30T22:25:46.323" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Well, it's definitely a slang nowhere even near gaining any traction enough to claim it is a widely-accepted colloquial word. Yes, true, some younger (ha-ha) hipsters use it, but I'd rather claim that some of soviet hippies slang was more widely adopted. I'm mentioning hippies mainly because their slang also was heavily influenced by English, like, &quot;хайратый&quot; (from &quot;hair&quot;), герла (from &quot;girl&quot;), шузы (shoes) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not trying to neglect any kind of foreign influence, this happens a lot in any language, it's just that &quot;найс&quot; de-facto is not there yet, if it will be at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same social group uses such borrowings as &quot;харассить&quot;, &quot;абьюзить&quot;, &quot;фан&quot; - but still, time will tell whether this hype will change the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - that happened a lot throughout the history of Russian. Some words, like &quot;серьёзный&quot;, &quot;юзер&quot;, &quot;киллер&quot; co-exist in Russian alongside with their &quot;pure&quot; counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36051" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="f55448a9-bf1b-4683-9819-cae0a238f854" CreationDate="2017-07-01T00:19:10.167" UserId="9207" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Очень найс&quot; - is it valid Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36052" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14738" RevisionGUID="f0d48a36-b28f-4b9a-9066-bc3816548c72" CreationDate="2017-07-01T17:22:06.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/881201257712582656" />
  <row Id="36054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="fa682e80-c264-44d4-ad20-bbeca757dded" CreationDate="2017-07-02T06:45:42.250" UserId="9076" Text="Can someone help me figure out what do the letters in the brackets means? &#xA;&#xA;http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Summary%20Tables/NounAdjective%20Endings_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="fa682e80-c264-44d4-ad20-bbeca757dded" CreationDate="2017-07-02T06:45:42.250" UserId="9076" Text="Noun and Adjective Case Endings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="fa682e80-c264-44d4-ad20-bbeca757dded" CreationDate="2017-07-02T06:45:42.250" UserId="9076" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="5632eb0a-f68d-415e-86a1-985c61c64da2" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:20:29.837" UserId="9076" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Can someone help me figure out what do the letters outside and inside the brackets means? How do I read them? &#xA;&#xA;http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Summary%20Tables/NounAdjective%20Endings_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14751" RevisionGUID="5d9366c7-39c1-4cba-abf1-ffd770eefe6a" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:39:43.810" UserId="9076" Text="Can someone show me the declension for мать in all the cases plurals? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14751" RevisionGUID="5d9366c7-39c1-4cba-abf1-ffd770eefe6a" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:39:43.810" UserId="9076" Text="III Склонение plurals for мать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14751" RevisionGUID="5d9366c7-39c1-4cba-abf1-ffd770eefe6a" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:39:43.810" UserId="9076" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14752" RevisionGUID="07eb99c6-f44b-4326-b4ce-c2f3d13876e8" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:43:51.677" UserId="2104" Text="As it says under the table, &quot;Soft variants of all endings are given in parenthesis.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words can be either 'hard' (первый) or 'soft' (синий) meaning they consistently take either hard or soft endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;hard    soft&#xD;&#xA;первый  синий&#xD;&#xA;первого синего&#xD;&#xA;первому синему&#xD;&#xA;первым  синим&#xD;&#xA;первом  синем&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a 'mixed' class (e.g. лёгкий, большой) which is just like 'hard' except for endings whose fist letter is и/ы; in these cases they are 'soft', i.e. take the -и endings, not -ы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;hard    soft   mixed&#xD;&#xA;первый  синий  лёгкий&#xD;&#xA;первого синего лёгкого&#xD;&#xA;первому синему лёгкому&#xD;&#xA;первым  синим  лёгким&#xD;&#xA;первом  синем  лёгком&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14753" RevisionGUID="fd2c06d3-466e-4d58-86fe-3293f02c81de" CreationDate="2017-07-02T07:53:51.180" UserId="6539" Text="Им.ма'тери&#xD;&#xA;Род.матере'й&#xD;&#xA;Дат.матеря'м&#xD;&#xA;Вин.матере'й,&#xD;&#xA;Тв.матеря'ми,&#xD;&#xA;Предл.о матеря'х.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the declension of the word мать(singular)– матери (plural )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36065" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14750" RevisionGUID="be7a1b46-79b9-450a-a3bf-c7018af7113a" CreationDate="2017-07-02T09:08:03.113" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14754" RevisionGUID="c524e16c-5d21-4ed1-8796-f6b43963b6e2" CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:28:50.267" UserId="242" Text="While @Matt is right and those forms became obsolete at the end of XIX century, however, there are some forms that you still can encounter it in casual usage. It's very rare, it wouldn't be oversimplification to say - always stick to new endings (`-ой`, `-ей`, `-ью` instead of `-ою`, `-ею`, `-ию`), still, don't be surprised if you'll heard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты с головою, что ли, не дружишь совсем? (instead of c `головой`)&#xD;&#xA; - Ты куда ты с непокрытой головою на мороз?&#xD;&#xA; - Ты рукою себе помог!&#xD;&#xA; - C дядею пока посиди, мы через час будем. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's difficult to google this though because, apart from this being rare  , in media this just won't be acceptable and in written language native speaker would just use the correct form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, once again, not to contradict Matt - this is only about very small set of short popular words, like `тётя`, `дядя`, `рука`, `нога`, `река` etc. With `армией` you'll never hear `армиею`.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36067" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14746" RevisionGUID="346ef209-f289-424d-a89f-bc3fb5352794" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:24:29.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/881564243820236801" />
  <row Id="36068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="63953652-4fb7-4047-b331-b1fec782f29e" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:32:53.797" UserId="242" Text="Well, the only irregularity here is that, `мать` - changes to `матер` - and then just a regular suffix added - the same one what we have in `боль`, `тетрадь`, `соль` -  that is, all feminine nouns ending at `-ь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words traditionally are classified as belonging to the 3rd declension, which in plural has following endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Nom.* `-и` (obsolete `-я`)&#xD;&#xA; - *Gen.* `-ей`&#xD;&#xA; - *Acc.* `-ей` &#xD;&#xA; - *Dat.* `-ям`&#xD;&#xA; - *Inst.* `-ями` &#xD;&#xA; - *Prep.* `-ях`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification is pretty rough though, and Russian linguist Zaliznyak came up with a more [precise classification][1] which is de-facto pretty much adopted by the linguistics community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this classification, word `мать` belongs to `8e^` category, where:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - the number eight corresponds to the 3rd in traditional classification&#xD;&#xA; - letter `e` indicates that for any case except nominative the suffix is stressed, not the root &#xD;&#xA; - the `^` symbol indicates that this particular noun still has some kind of peculiar properties. In our particular case, it's exactly `мат` → `матер`  transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can stop you from asking a question about declension of any Russian word you are interested in? **Refer to [the Russian wiktionary][2]** (this information quite often is omitted in the English one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="5af6f76c-2139-41dd-af15-4da5822183b1" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:50:10.433" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, the only irregularity here is that `мать` - changes to `матер` - and then just a regular suffix added - the same one what we have in `боль`, `тетрадь`, `соль` -  that is, all feminine nouns ending at `-ь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words traditionally are classified as belonging to the 3rd declension, which in plural has following endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Nom.* `-и` (obsolete `-я`)&#xD;&#xA; - *Gen.* `-ей`&#xD;&#xA; - *Acc.* `-ей` &#xD;&#xA; - *Dat.* `-ям`&#xD;&#xA; - *Inst.* `-ями` &#xD;&#xA; - *Prep.* `-ях`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification is pretty rough though, and Russian linguist Zaliznyak came up with a more [precise classification][1] which is de-facto pretty much adopted by the linguistics community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this classification, word `мать` belongs to `8e^` category, where:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - the number eight corresponds to the 3rd in traditional classification&#xD;&#xA; - letter `e` indicates that for any case except nominative the suffix is stressed, not the root &#xD;&#xA; - the `^` symbol indicates that this particular noun still has some kind of peculiar properties. In our particular case, it's exactly `мат` → `матер`  transformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can stop you from asking a question about declension of any Russian word you are interested in? **Refer to [the Russian wiktionary][2]** (this information quite often is omitted in the English one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36070" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14751" RevisionGUID="c068e4d5-2cc2-4310-bc51-9ec468284b18" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:50:43.913" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Declension of `мать` in plural" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14755" RevisionGUID="6019cfbb-7d59-4685-afb1-be1c3aa4248b" CreationDate="2017-07-02T17:58:53.373" UserId="242" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Well, the only irregularity here is that `мать` - changes to `матер` - and then just a regular suffix added - the same one what we have in `боль`, `тетрадь`, `соль` -  that is, all feminine nouns ending at `-ь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words traditionally are classified as belonging to the 3rd declension, which in plural has following endings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Nom.* `-и` (obsolete `-я`)&#xD;&#xA; - *Gen.* `-ей`&#xD;&#xA; - *Acc.* `-ей` &#xD;&#xA; - *Dat.* `-ям`&#xD;&#xA; - *Inst.* `-ями` &#xD;&#xA; - *Prep.* `-ях`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This classification is pretty rough though, and Russian linguist Zaliznyak came up with a more [precise classification][1] which is de-facto pretty much adopted by the linguistics community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this classification, word `мать` belongs to `8e^` category, where:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - the number eight corresponds to the 3rd in traditional classification&#xD;&#xA; - letter `e` indicates that for any case except nominative the suffix is stressed, not the root &#xD;&#xA; - the `^` symbol indicates that this particular noun still has some kind of peculiar properties. In our particular case, it's exactly `мат` → `матер`  transformation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, there's other example of **8e^** - `дочь` in plural becomes `дочери`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can stop you from asking a question about declension of any Russian word you are interested in? **Refer to [the Russian wiktionary][2]** (this information quite often is omitted in the English one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EHz83.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14720" RevisionGUID="a585504d-e29a-4ce0-acd6-3cf0dec1da53" CreationDate="2017-07-03T05:24:30.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/881745442614251520" />
  <row Id="36073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14747" RevisionGUID="4546e7ce-fce7-4a18-b485-c2dbf7b21551" CreationDate="2017-07-03T09:02:42.737" UserId="242" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Well, it's definitely a slang nowhere even near gaining any traction enough to claim it is a widely-accepted colloquial word. Yes, true, some younger (ha-ha) hipsters use it, but I'd rather claim that some of soviet hippies slang was more widely adopted. I'm mentioning hippies mainly because their slang also was heavily influenced by English, like, &quot;хайратый&quot; (from &quot;hair&quot;), герла (from &quot;girl&quot;), шузы (shoes) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not trying to neglect any kind of foreign influence, this happens a lot in any language, it's just that &quot;найс&quot; de-facto is not there yet, if it will be at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same social group uses such borrowings as &quot;харассить&quot;, &quot;абьюзить&quot;, &quot;фан&quot; (from &quot;fun&quot;) - but still, time will tell whether this hype will change the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - that happened a lot throughout the history of Russian. Some words, like &quot;серьёзный&quot;, &quot;юзер&quot;, &quot;киллер&quot; co-exist in Russian alongside with their &quot;pure&quot; counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36074" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14732" RevisionGUID="3d73f91f-a769-4898-92df-3ee9d2c4c52a" CreationDate="2017-07-03T11:24:31.797" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/881836044961931264" />
  <row Id="36075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="f9424a33-6b72-40a1-b8ca-c4067c2a0cb1" CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:16:33.597" UserId="4753" Comment="clarification of &quot;progress&quot;" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies physical progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. Thus, it does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative (or argument).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us explain by starting with an imperfective example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. The speaker's unidirectional motion toward his home was continued until he arrived. Because he arrived he was able to find the letter. Here we see that the verb прийти expresses an idea (arrival) which advances narratives. Its ability to express such an idea is what makes it a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the distinction between making progress (which идти does) and advancing the narrative (which прийти does). A character's physical progress on his journey does not advance the narrative to the next step until it fulfils some defined goal. The goal is specified by adding a prefix such as при-, у-, от-, об-, с-, на-, до- etc. Since these prefixes are prepositions, they define a physical reference for determining when the motion is sufficient to advance the narrative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectivity of a motion verb requires both these elements: the motion must make progress, and it must reach or pass a goal post. By doing so it produces an effect which advances the narrative to the next step. Only prefixed unidirectional motion verbs provide both elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion define the goal, but because they describe aimless, circular, or repeated motion, they do not move the character to a specific location for the next step of the narrative. While &quot;Анна пришла в школу.&quot; places Anna at the school for the next stage of the action, &quot;Анна ходила в школу.&quot; does not. Now she could be anywhere, quite possibly at home. Thus, prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion are seldom perfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14688" RevisionGUID="5c8f1cea-0b5a-421d-8513-5f5145c548f0" CreationDate="2017-07-03T14:25:32.303" UserId="4753" Comment="Its-&gt;this" Text="Let's take a step back and look at two interrelated concepts: the two kinds of motion expressed by Russian verbs of motion and the two aspects of verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unprefixed verbs of motion are all imperfective. That means that they refer to motion which was, is, or will be *taking place* at the time named. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я иду в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я буду идти в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I will be walking to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs of motion come in two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unidirectional (which you call concrete):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл в магазин.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was on my way to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я шёл с рынка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I was walking from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies purposeful motion leading to a predictable change in the traveler's location. It implies physical progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multidirectional (which you call abstract):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ходил по магазинам.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I visited the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ходить describes motion in various unspecified directions, it is difficult to say where it leaves the traveler. Thus, it does not imply progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this related to the question of which which motion verbs become perfective when prefixed? Remember that the perfective aspect of a verb refers to an action or event which the narrator wishes to portray as completed and as advancing his narrative (or argument).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us explain by starting with an imperfective example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы пили молоко и пели песни.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We were drinking milk and singing songs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this may have been a fun way to spend an evening (or not), it does not take the plot in any obvious direction. This statement does not prepare the listener for any new developement of the plot. Compare this to the following perfective statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пришёл домой и нашёл письмо от адвоката.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I got home and found a letter from a lawyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have clear narrative progression. The speaker's unidirectional motion toward his home was continued until he arrived. Because he arrived he was able to find the letter. Here we see that the verb прийти expresses an idea (arrival) which advances narratives. The ability to express such an idea (rather than some morphological feature) is what makes it a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the distinction between making progress (which идти does) and advancing the narrative (which прийти does). A character's physical progress on his journey does not advance the narrative to the next step until it fulfils some defined goal. The goal is specified by adding a prefix such as при-, у-, от-, об-, с-, на-, до- etc. These prefixes are prepositions doing double duty. They specify a relationship to physical objects (such as persons or landmarks) which the motion is to achieve. Reaching such a defined point turns the motion into a perfected fact able to advance the narrative to the next step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfectivity of a motion verb requires both these elements: the motion must make progress, and it must reach or pass a goal post. By doing so it produces an effect which advances the narrative to the next step. Only prefixed unidirectional motion verbs provide both elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion define the goal, but because they describe aimless, circular, or repeated motion, they do not move the character to a specific location for the next step of the narrative. While &quot;Анна пришла в школу.&quot; places Anna at the school for the next stage of the action, &quot;Анна ходила в школу.&quot; does not. Now she could be anywhere, quite possibly at home. Thus, prefixed multidirectional verbs of motion are seldom perfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="eccf21b3-8bde-4de1-a40a-831305e8d7aa" CreationDate="2017-07-04T14:53:19.067" UserId="7215" Text="Every source I can find of the lyrics of *Тополиный пух* claims that the song contains the following line near the beginning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И беспечной птицей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, «беспечной» is declined in the genitive case, which makes sense in the context of the English translation of the lyrics that I found (&quot;[and] like a carefree bird&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, «птицей» appears to be declined in the instrumental. Why is this the case? Doesn't this break the agreement between the adjective and the noun (as well as not making much sense—&quot;with a bird&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that this is simply a transcription error that someone made and every other website copied, as the genitive of птица, птицы, sounds similar (and I can't tell from the audio which one is actually being sung). Additionally, -ей seems to be a common genitive case ending, but it's just the wrong one for птица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I know next to nothing about the Russian language, so I'm not sure whether any of this is accurate. Is this simply an error in the written lyrics, or is there a reason to use the instrumental case for the noun here (or am I wrong about its being in the instrumental at all)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="eccf21b3-8bde-4de1-a40a-831305e8d7aa" CreationDate="2017-07-04T14:53:19.067" UserId="7215" Text="Why is the instrumental case of «птица» used in these song lyrics («И беспечной птицей»)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="eccf21b3-8bde-4de1-a40a-831305e8d7aa" CreationDate="2017-07-04T14:53:19.067" UserId="7215" Text="|грамматика|падежи|склонение|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="c6fafc47-3fde-4bd7-8c31-98999e594889" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:25:18.570" UserId="242" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Every source I can find of the lyrics of *Тополиный пух* claims that the song contains the following line near the beginning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И беспечной птицей в небо улетаешь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, «беспечной» is declined in the genitive case, which makes sense in the context of the English translation of the lyrics that I found (&quot;[and] like a carefree bird&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, «птицей» appears to be declined in the instrumental. Why is this the case? Doesn't this break the agreement between the adjective and the noun (as well as not making much sense—&quot;with a bird&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that this is simply a transcription error that someone made and every other website copied, as the genitive of птица, птицы, sounds similar (and I can't tell from the audio which one is actually being sung). Additionally, -ей seems to be a common genitive case ending, but it's just the wrong one for птица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I know next to nothing about the Russian language, so I'm not sure whether any of this is accurate. Is this simply an error in the written lyrics, or is there a reason to use the instrumental case for the noun here (or am I wrong about its being in the instrumental at all)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14759" RevisionGUID="97e1e2ca-fb31-4690-a9cc-95262fe6291e" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:33:30.323" UserId="242" Text="&quot;И беспечной птицей&quot; is actually an instrumental case - it answers the question &quot;Улетаешь кем?&quot; - птицей. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better understand why it is so, think of this phrase as of something with hidden verb which is not used but sort of is implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Улетаешь *[прикинувшись/обернувшись/cтав]* кем? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are actually some other phrases constructed similarly, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сейчас волком завою от тоски. (I'm about to howl [like a -&gt; becoming] a wolf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still you just need to memorize how verbs are governed.&#xD;&#xA;After all, why, say `обернувшись лисой`, not just `обернуться в лису`? &#xD;&#xA;With whatever tricky explanation we'll come, it's just that we need to learn it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14759" RevisionGUID="7c074e9f-52b9-4027-96aa-382101537ed5" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:41:21.357" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="&quot;И беспечной птицей&quot; is indeed in an instrumental case - it answers the question &quot;Улетаешь кем?&quot; - птицей. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better understand why it is so, think of this phrase as of something with hidden verb which is not used but sort of is implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Улетаешь *[прикинувшись/обернувшись/cтав]* кем? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are actually some other phrases constructed similarly, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сейчас волком завою от тоски. (I'm about to howl [like a -&gt; becoming] a wolf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still you just need to memorize how verbs are governed.&#xD;&#xA;After all, why, say `обернувшись лисой`, not just `обернуться в лису`? &#xD;&#xA;With whatever tricky explanation we'll come, it's just that we need to learn it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's no contradiction between the adjective and the noun** in instrumental case - actually adjective is also in instrumental." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14759" RevisionGUID="accc384c-5010-4a48-90e1-3f256a6470d2" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:48:18.587" UserId="242" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="&quot;И беспечной птицей&quot; is indeed in an instrumental case - it answers the question &quot;Улетаешь кем?&quot; - птицей. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better understand why it is so, think of this phrase as of something with hidden verb which is not used but sort of is implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Улетаешь *[прикинувшись/обернувшись/cтав]* кем? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are actually some other phrases constructed similarly, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сейчас волком завою от тоски. (I'm about to howl [like a -&gt; becoming] a wolf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still you just need to memorize how verbs are governed.&#xD;&#xA;After all, why, say `обернувшись лисой`, not just `обернуться в лису`? &#xD;&#xA;With whatever tricky explanation we'll come, it's just that we need to learn it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's no contradiction between the adjective and the noun** in instrumental case - actually adjective is also in instrumental - @Abakan got it covered right in the comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14760" RevisionGUID="9d3f4ced-9d5d-4a36-bef4-befae0719fce" CreationDate="2017-07-04T15:48:49.920" UserId="134" Text="It is instrumental case indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the functions of instrumental in Russian is conveying sense of similarity. Usually it can be replaced with an analytical construct with *как* (&quot;like&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Время летит стрелою (*как стрела*) // Time flies like an arrow&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я волком (*как волк*) бы выгрыз бюрократизм // I'd tear like a wolf at bureaucracy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian adverbs ending in *-ски, -цки* (*по-английски, по-дурацки, мастерски*) etc. are in fact remnants of the same paradigm in Old Russian: they are nothing else than adjectives in what used to be m. pl. inst. in Old Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14700" RevisionGUID="88272506-234f-4f1b-a588-d6664113bb9c" CreationDate="2017-07-04T17:38:22.230" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/882292513280851969" />
  <row Id="36094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14761" RevisionGUID="a8245a79-d822-4f28-8ca1-5305b4ddc249" CreationDate="2017-07-04T17:41:53.990" UserId="4753" Text="The line is correct and makes sense as written:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И беспечной птицей в небо улетаешь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While &quot;беспечной&quot; *could* be genitive, if you refer to a conjugation chart you will see that this form is also prepositional, dative, or instrumental. You have to look at the context to resolve the ambiguity. Since it modifies &quot;птицей&quot; which is unambiguously instrumental, &quot;беспечной&quot; resolves to instrumental to match. So, there is no agreement problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing &quot;птицей&quot; to &quot;птицы&quot; as you propose would indeed put it in the genitive case, but the resulting sentence would no longer mean &quot;like a carefree bird&quot;. Instead it would be &quot;of a carefree bird&quot; which would not make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor does &quot;беспечной птицей&quot; mean &quot;with a carefree bird&quot;. That would be &quot;с беспечной птицей&quot;. The preposition &quot;с&quot; is necessary to convey &quot;with&quot; in the sense of &quot;together&quot;. So, the person addressed is not flying off in the company of a carefree bird.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the preposition &quot;с&quot;, the instrumental case has two main uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. To indicate that the noun so declined is an instrument or means used to accomplish the action&#xD;&#xA; 2. To indicate that the noun is the name of a role being played&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So either the bird is a vehicle used to fly away into the sky, or the person flying away is playing the role of a carefree bird. I am guessing that in this context the second option is the most likely. Therefore the literal translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And as a carefree bird [thou] art flying away into the sky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian text the &quot;thou&quot; is omitted, but we can infer it from &quot;улетаешь&quot;, &quot;art flying away&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36095" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="ec0f300f-5862-4771-9f64-d21f94257c51" CreationDate="2017-07-04T20:06:11.380" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="«И беспечной птицей» - why instrumental?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14759" RevisionGUID="289666d6-d373-4749-a4b5-9e1d52d63521" CreationDate="2017-07-05T06:12:05.540" UserId="242" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="&quot;И беспечной птицей&quot; is indeed in an instrumental case - it answers the question &quot;Улетаешь кем?&quot; - птицей. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better understand why it is so, think of this phrase as of something with hidden verb which is not used but sort of is implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Улетаешь *[прикинувшись/обернувшись/cтав]* кем? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are actually some other phrases constructed similarly, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Сейчас волком завою от тоски. (I'm about to howl [like a -&gt; becoming] a wolf)&#xD;&#xA; - Клубы дыма незатейливой вереницей спиралек улетают куда-то ввысь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still you just need to memorize how verbs are governed.&#xD;&#xA;After all, why, say `обернувшись лисой`, not just `обернуться в лису`? &#xD;&#xA;With whatever tricky explanation we'll come, it's just that we need to learn it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's no contradiction between the adjective and the noun** in instrumental case - actually adjective is also in instrumental - @Abakan got it covered right in the comment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36097" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14758" RevisionGUID="d506751b-d017-4dad-8271-a4a02ef18188" CreationDate="2017-07-05T08:39:48.117" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/882519365526138880" />
  <row Id="36098" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8956" RevisionGUID="7dbc1de0-b5f6-4630-938a-c2390e339a95" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:48:59.373" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Имеет четырёх сыновей&quot; - why genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="d89afd45-e495-4283-8331-4e70345ed8d7" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:50:21.870" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="In the sentence &quot;Истории двух девушек, которые поняли, что терпеть не могут отца и мать&quot;, why aren't &quot;отца и мать&quot;  in accusative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36100" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="d89afd45-e495-4283-8331-4e70345ed8d7" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:50:21.870" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Tерпеть не могут отца и мать&quot; - why not accusative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36101" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13782" RevisionGUID="d89afd45-e495-4283-8331-4e70345ed8d7" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:50:21.870" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|падежи|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14762" RevisionGUID="13428aae-3450-445a-8980-0d6a5c5fea23" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:56:24.950" UserId="242" Text="The part about cases is already answered, I just want to add that actually most probably you don't need to try to translate as `живое исполнение` at all. It's a valid Russian but in colloquial speech you'd rather hear `вживую`, so, the phrase will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне больше нравится, когда играют вживую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я предпочитаю, когда вживую исполняют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36103" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="98a9e363-df6c-4759-be9f-08f7d5fac004" CreationDate="2017-07-05T13:57:19.500" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;предпочитаю&quot; + &quot;живое исполнение&quot; - which case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14763" RevisionGUID="eeb64f35-a855-4326-81d8-5ce8efd0f31a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:51:41.737" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between **бон вояж** and **Доброго пути**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend is going from city to city (about 10 hours far) I want to wish her a good wish for her journey. Which one is more common and understandable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14763" RevisionGUID="eeb64f35-a855-4326-81d8-5ce8efd0f31a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:51:41.737" UserId="6907" Text="бон вояж vs. Доброго пути" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14763" RevisionGUID="eeb64f35-a855-4326-81d8-5ce8efd0f31a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T14:51:41.737" UserId="6907" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14764" RevisionGUID="3aa79f73-353e-4570-9686-8a6b0f3edc60" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:11:36.480" UserId="2104" Text="Бон вояж is too 18th century. You'll be much better off with Счастли́вого пути́! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14765" RevisionGUID="af4d327b-7d7f-44bd-9515-3b445deecf8f" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:38:30.383" UserId="242" Text="`Bon voyage` (or `Бон вояж`, whatever) is a French phrase which the majority of native speakers will be very confused to hear - **it's just not used**. A big amount of people even won't understand you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stick to one from following list:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - доброго пути&#xD;&#xA; - счастливого пути&#xD;&#xA; - хорошей дороги&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам добраться&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам доехать / долететь&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14765" RevisionGUID="d08619cf-fd65-4f4d-bdb5-d53e78258fd4" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:48:38.203" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="`Bon voyage` (or `Бон вояж`, whatever) is a French phrase which the majority of native speakers will be very confused to hear - **it's just not used**. A big amount of people won't even understand you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stick to one from following list:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - доброго пути&#xD;&#xA; - счастливого пути&#xD;&#xA; - хорошей дороги&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам добраться&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам доехать / долететь&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36110" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14763" RevisionGUID="6c9ab1ba-ea38-46f6-b99a-1fb3ba7d60ab" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:49:11.107" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Бон вояж&quot; vs.&quot;Доброго пути&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36111" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14763" RevisionGUID="6c9ab1ba-ea38-46f6-b99a-1fb3ba7d60ab" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:49:11.107" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|выбор-слова|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14765" RevisionGUID="94a7bbed-f805-4df6-9b64-8d8d71ed32d7" CreationDate="2017-07-05T15:59:03.917" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="`Bon voyage` (or `Бон вояж`, whatever) is a French phrase which the majority of native speakers will be very confused to hear - **it's just not used**. A big amount of people won't even understand you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stick to one from following list:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - доброго пути&#xD;&#xA; - счастливого пути&#xD;&#xA; - хорошей дороги&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам добраться&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам доехать / долететь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of @Sergey-Slepov comment, it's very difficult to say whether it was adopted or not just because Russian aristocracy just was able easily to switch to French - and then &quot;bon voyage&quot; of course could be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian though to my knowledge it was never widely adopted. &#xD;&#xA;Some times it was used with slightly different meaning like [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, &quot;сделать бон вояж&quot; is to make a nice trip.&#xD;&#xA;[Here][3]'s another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто в аферисты, кто в пеструшки /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускается на авантаж /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зато в самой Москве старушки /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желают в Вяшку бон-вояж (want to make a trip to Vyashka). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.de/books?id=dwSPBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA321&amp;lpg=PA321&amp;dq=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2kRA1HipwE&amp;sig=LNPmLRlZRSRhcvDk_A-bKn6WqQQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidneKkv_LUAhUGWRQKHdm9BAc4ChDoAQgyMAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R1FSG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=IGhGAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA151&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;dq=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fF098OxHAi&amp;sig=KsLFPaNLc-J2A2PMBAk5IMjphBQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidneKkv_LUAhUGWRQKHdm9BAc4ChDoAQgoMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Grgs2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14765" RevisionGUID="71b74ee3-5959-49c0-87af-3214243c1a83" CreationDate="2017-07-05T16:04:09.450" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="`Bon voyage` (or `Бон вояж`, whatever) is a French phrase which the majority of native speakers will be very confused to hear - **it's just not used**. A big amount of people won't even understand you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stick to one from following list:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - доброго пути&#xD;&#xA; - счастливого пути&#xD;&#xA; - хорошей дороги&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам добраться&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам доехать / долететь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of @Sergey-Slepov comment, it's very difficult to say whether it was adopted or not just because Russian aristocracy just was able easily to switch to French - and then &quot;bon voyage&quot; of course could be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian though to my knowledge it was never widely adopted. &#xD;&#xA;Some times it was used with slightly different meaning like [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, &quot;сделать бон вояж&quot; is to make a nice trip.&#xD;&#xA;[Here][3]'s another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто в аферисты, кто в пеструшки /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускается на авантаж /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зато в самой Москве старушки /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желают в Вяшку бон-вояж (want to make a trip to Vyashka). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even in this particular meaning (which, again, is not a wish of a nice trip but rather the trip itself) is obsolete and not used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.de/books?id=dwSPBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA321&amp;lpg=PA321&amp;dq=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2kRA1HipwE&amp;sig=LNPmLRlZRSRhcvDk_A-bKn6WqQQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidneKkv_LUAhUGWRQKHdm9BAc4ChDoAQgyMAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R1FSG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=IGhGAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA151&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;dq=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fF098OxHAi&amp;sig=KsLFPaNLc-J2A2PMBAk5IMjphBQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidneKkv_LUAhUGWRQKHdm9BAc4ChDoAQgoMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Grgs2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="5560b7d6-6a6e-46c2-90bc-fa9ed99a9f71" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:01:28.513" UserId="8359" Text="I am seeking the etyomology of the name of the peninsula, Kamchatka. The only explanation I have found is in the old book &quot;A shooting trip to Kamchatka&quot;, which suggests that it comes from a term meaning &quot;uneven or rough&quot; (possibly _камчатый_, which Google translates as &quot;scalloped&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the explanation substantiated? Who gave it the name and to describe which feature? Was the peninsula so named before the Kamchatka River and the Kamchadal people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="5560b7d6-6a6e-46c2-90bc-fa9ed99a9f71" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:01:28.513" UserId="8359" Text="Origin of name &quot;Kamchatka&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="5560b7d6-6a6e-46c2-90bc-fa9ed99a9f71" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:01:28.513" UserId="8359" Text="|этимология|places|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="219dcca2-3fc1-45aa-bd9c-9ad990ba35ef" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:06:05.693" UserId="242" Text="**Nobody knows.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's an river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="f37c1e49-4d3e-442b-9f40-dfac93945660" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:17:06.803" UserId="242" Comment="added 913 characters in body" Text="**Nobody knows.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's an river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fact though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/ origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="f5fe3382-7416-47d6-91c5-6c30b7643ff3" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:22:45.187" UserId="242" Comment="added 913 characters in body" Text="**Nobody knows.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's an river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fact though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/Koryak/Itelmen/etc. origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="1bb6bb2f-f62b-4a58-9ebd-5838eb4db813" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:27:50.303" UserId="242" Comment="added 913 characters in body" Text="**Nobody knows.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's an river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fact though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of `Kamchatka` we have is a dutch map, dated back to 1687 and based on some Russian sources. &#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` (kamchadal) came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century.&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/Koryak/Itelmen/etc. origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="5c46c71f-709b-456f-82b6-571b1723755e" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:39:28.297" UserId="242" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="**Nobody knows.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's an river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fact though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of `Kamchatka` we have is a dutch map, dated back to 1687 and based on some Russian sources. &#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` (kamchadal) came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century.&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/Koryak/Itelmen/etc. origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`, which is a Russian word of turkic origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="7b4fae18-874a-4825-b80b-6285418d39c0" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:45:55.583" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Nobody knows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's an river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fact though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of `Kamchatka` we have is a dutch map, dated back to 1687 and based on some Russian sources. &#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` (kamchadal) came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century.&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/Koryak/Itelmen/etc. origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`, which is a Russian word of turkic origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="8a8eea16-4b97-4c41-a51a-155ddeffc5ee" CreationDate="2017-07-05T17:51:32.693" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Nobody knows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's a river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fact though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of `Kamchatka` we have is a dutch map, dated back to 1687 and based on some Russian sources. &#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` (kamchadal) came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century.&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/Koryak/Itelmen/etc. origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`, which is a Russian word of turkic origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14767" RevisionGUID="8068bc1e-7e99-4668-8b7c-240d41043720" CreationDate="2017-07-05T18:02:17.083" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Nobody knows**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, this whole peninsula was named so because there's a river called `Камчатка`, but [according][1] to wikipedia (and other sources actually) there are literally dozens of version from where this name came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some facts though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - First evidence of `Kamchatka` we have is a dutch map, dated back to 1687 and based on some Russian sources. &#xD;&#xA; - Ethnonym `камчадал` (kamchadal) came to usage not earlier that at at the very end of XVIIth century.&#xD;&#xA; - There was a Russian `землепроходец` (sort of pioneer) [Иван Камчатый][2] (Ivan Kamchatyj) and from his name `Камчатка` was derived. The funny part is that actually nobody knows as well whether he reached the peninsula at all - though he traveled a lot through Siberia and Far East.&#xD;&#xA; - There are versions that this name is actually of Yakut/Tatar/Uygur/Koryak/Itelmen/etc. origin&#xD;&#xA; - There is a version that it's derived from a name of a specific regional animal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever of the of versions is correct it most probably **has nothing to do with Russian language** though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of (highly doubtful) `Иван Камчатый` version - `камчатый` is an adjective, it's about something made of special fabric [called][3] `камка`, which is a Russian word of turkic origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="63698a6c-f059-4623-865c-177656c9e62a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T18:55:31.613" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Как правильно писать? &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Говорит (?) да&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Говорит (?) любит&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&#xA;-его спросили, что он будет : чай или кофе&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;-говорит (?) чай" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="63698a6c-f059-4623-865c-177656c9e62a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T18:55:31.613" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Знаки препинания" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="63698a6c-f059-4623-865c-177656c9e62a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T18:55:31.613" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14769" RevisionGUID="ad4af448-f336-46ca-9dca-384ba361f389" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:12:57.457" UserId="1236" Text="There is a hypothesis that the toponym _Kamchatka_ has its origin in the [Ainu language][1]. The original inhabitants of Southern Kamchatka, Sakhalin island, Kuril and Japanese islands were the Ainu people, most toponyms in the Southern Kamchatka, Kuril islands, and many toponyms on the Japanese islands are of Ainu origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In his book [&quot;Курильско-Камчатский диалект айнского языка&quot;][2] (The Kuril-Kamchatka Dialect of the Ainu Language), Александр Акулов (Alexander Akulov) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также само название Камчатка, похоже, является словом айнского происхождения, поскольку в нем в финальной позиции виден тот же компонент *ka*, что и в проанализированных выше топонимах; судя по всему слово Камчатка состоит из следующих элементов: *kam* «простираться» + *cak* «взрываться» + *ka* «место» таким образом, изначально топоним, вероятно, выглядел как *Kamcakka* и означал «простирающаяся [и] взрывающаяся местность».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, the name *Kamchatka* appears to be a word of Ainu origin, since in it the same component *ka* is found in the final position, as in the toponyms analyzed above. Apparently, the word *Kamchatka* consists of the following elements: *kam* &quot;stretch&quot; + *cak* &quot;explode&quot; + *ka* &quot;place&quot;, so originally the toponym probably looked like *Kamcakka* and meant &quot;stretching [and] exploding terrain.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Exploding&quot; refers to the fact that there are many volcanoes and geyser on the Kamchatka peninsula.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ridero.ru/books/kurilsko-kamchatskii_dialekt_ainskogo_yazyka/read/#textpreview" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36129" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="c492e105-0375-40b8-98cb-efa871751e75" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:29:53.093" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="757f2f09-34d0-4f96-ab70-b23b95fa885a" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:38:57.157" UserDisplayName="user9230" Comment="added 87 characters in body; added 5 characters in body" Text="Как правильно писать? &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Он говорит,  что любит (здесь косвенная речь, но как поступить, если опустить &quot;что&quot;?) &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Говорит (?) любит&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Говорит (?) да&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&#xA;-его спросили, что он будет : чай или кофе&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;-говорит (?) чай" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="fe823c45-cc72-4240-bc30-7e79b27e123f" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:46:56.693" UserId="242" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Возьмём фразу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорит, что любит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь косвенная речь, но как поступить, если опустить &quot;что&quot;, нужно ли ставить какой-то знак препинания в фразах на месте вопросительного знака, и если нужно - то какой? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Говорит (?) любит.&#xD;&#xA; - Говорит (?) да.&#xD;&#xA; - Говорит (?) чай. *(его спросили, что он будет, чай или кофе)* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36132" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="b8b1f01a-3403-48ec-9196-00f7a5035d5f" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:48:05.960" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36133" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="fe823c45-cc72-4240-bc30-7e79b27e123f" CreationDate="2017-07-05T19:46:56.693" UserId="242" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="&quot;Говорит [что] любит&quot; - нужна ли запятая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14770" RevisionGUID="b638521e-6a9b-4ab6-9a2f-dff96e6b7089" CreationDate="2017-07-05T20:00:14.460" UserId="242" Text="Тут **нужна запятая**. Вы правильно заметили, &quot;что&quot; попросту пропущено (как и &quot;он&quot;), но это не отменяет того факта, что это - сложноподчинённое и обособляется запятой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но правила также **допускают и** интонационное **тире**. &#xD;&#xA;В справочнике Розенталя читаем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тире ставится для интонационного отделения главной части&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложноподчиненного предложения от придаточной. Чаще всего тире&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляется в тех случаях, когда главной части предшествует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И это на самом деле очень не плохой критерий, можно ли тут поставить тире.&#xD;&#xA;Вот посмотрите, в приведённый вами примерах части можно переставить местами:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Чай — говорит. &#xD;&#xA; - Любит — говорит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немножко нам неудачный пример достался, потому что со словом &quot;говорит&quot; кажется, что это вообще прямая речь, которую надо обособлять иначе, но идея такая: если можно переставить местами, то можно и обособить интонационно дефисом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в целом дефис будет предпочтительней только если сложное предложение содержит ещё какую-то часть, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Говорит — любит, а сам на других заглядывается!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец, знак препинания **может быть опущен**, если нужно передать стремительность живой, разговорной речи, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Она:* Вась, ну любишь меня, любишь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он:* Говорю люблю, отстань наконец!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="82425c4d-afbc-42dc-ad49-97fe167d9726" CreationDate="2017-07-05T21:33:43.907" UserId="9232" Text="Which is correct for saying that I am good (feeling) if someone says how are you? (Как ты) &#xA;Я хорошо &#xA;Я хорошая" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="82425c4d-afbc-42dc-ad49-97fe167d9726" CreationDate="2017-07-05T21:33:43.907" UserId="9232" Text="Which form of 'good' do I use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="82425c4d-afbc-42dc-ad49-97fe167d9726" CreationDate="2017-07-05T21:33:43.907" UserId="9232" Text="|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36138" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="3c210788-fc31-422b-9cce-b7c0ed070cbd" CreationDate="2017-07-05T21:52:55.860" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36139" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="43d9af85-bb7f-475d-b264-86163f3ec977" CreationDate="2017-07-05T22:03:28.707" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="71046006-91c2-4f41-85ea-1f7cea18973c" CreationDate="2017-07-05T22:04:00.857" UserId="242" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Which is correct for saying that I am good (feeling) if someone says how are you? (Как ты):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я хорошо  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Я хорошая" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36141" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14698" RevisionGUID="48d3de47-21cb-435d-8e2e-68e566f50c69" CreationDate="2017-07-05T23:40:32.597" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/882746044831944705" />
  <row Id="36142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="6aa8a1f1-8eb6-4b18-9dc6-deaa028f1eb9" CreationDate="2017-07-05T23:49:40.103" UserId="8359" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="I am seeking the etyomology of the name of the peninsula, Kamchatka. The only explanation I have found is in the old book &quot;A shooting trip to Kamchatka&quot;, which suggests that it comes from a term meaning &quot;uneven or rough&quot; (possibly _камчатый_, which Google translates as &quot;crenate&quot; or &quot;scalloped&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the explanation substantiated? Is the name's origin Russian anyway? Who named it, and to describe which feature? Was the peninsula so named before the Kamchatka River and the Kamchadal people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14770" RevisionGUID="01cb78e8-bf76-4fed-8f7f-5f6e5faf77a1" CreationDate="2017-07-06T09:06:21.337" UserId="242" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Тут **нужна запятая**. Вы правильно заметили, &quot;что&quot; попросту пропущено (как и &quot;он&quot;), но это не отменяет того факта, что предложение это - сложноподчинённое и обособляется запятой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но правила также **допускают и** интонационное **тире**. &#xD;&#xA;В справочнике Розенталя читаем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тире ставится для интонационного отделения главной части&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложноподчиненного предложения от придаточной. Чаще всего тире&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляется в тех случаях, когда главной части предшествует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И это на самом деле очень неплохой критерий, можно ли тут поставить тире.&#xD;&#xA;Вот посмотрите, в приведённый вами примерах части можно переставить местами:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Чай — говорит. &#xD;&#xA; - Любит — говорит. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Немножко нам неудачный пример достался, потому что со словом &quot;говорит&quot; кажется, что это вообще прямая речь, которую надо обособлять иначе, но идея такая: если можно переставить местами, то можно и обособить интонационно дефисом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но в целом дефис будет предпочтительней только если сложное предложение содержит ещё какую-то часть, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Говорит — любит, а сам на других заглядывается!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наконец, знак препинания **может быть опущен**, если нужно передать стремительность живой, разговорной речи, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Она:* Вась, ну любишь меня, любишь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он:* Говорю люблю, отстань наконец!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14774" RevisionGUID="d3015360-409f-4927-bd57-dbd2e98eb572" CreationDate="2017-07-06T10:13:58.050" UserId="9236" Text="The correct form would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мне хорошо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian doesn't use the &quot;be&quot; verb for expressing emotional state, such as English or French. So, the adverb хорошо is correct grammatically. However, this expresses &quot;I have a good feeling right now&quot; and the answer is not the common to expect to this rather casual question. Usually, people would answer &quot;All is good&quot; or similar, i.e:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Все хорошо (good)&#xD;&#xA; - Все отлично (great)&#xD;&#xA; - Все в порядке (in order)&#xD;&#xA; - Все нормально (normal)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14775" RevisionGUID="160524a0-0e03-4047-a8b1-c36eda8f65bb" CreationDate="2017-07-06T10:19:44.953" UserId="2104" Text="Just 'хорошо́' will do:&#xA;&#xA; - Как ты?&#xA; - Хорошо́!&#xA;&#xA;You could also say 'Всё хорошо́' (All good) or 'У меня́ всё хорошо́' (All good with me).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14775" RevisionGUID="43511375-6669-4aeb-8e54-056017d92a5f" CreationDate="2017-07-06T10:45:08.863" UserId="2104" Comment="added 244 characters in body" Text="Я хорошо́. Or just 'хорошо́':&#xA;&#xA; - Как ты?&#xA; - Хорошо́!&#xA;&#xA;This works for both men and women, no need to decline for gender &#xA;&#xA;The reason we use an adverb here and not an adjective is because а verb is implied:&#xA;&#xA;Я [живу́/чу́вствую себя́] хорошо́.&#xA;I [live/feel] well.&#xA;&#xA;And a verb requires an adverb.&#xA;&#xA;You can also say 'Всё хорошо́' (All good) or 'У меня́ всё хорошо́' (All good with me).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="f48f2abb-7c34-4c30-a706-ce9016ec0f5c" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:01:42.720" UserId="242" Text="There is a well known phrase &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; which is sort of caustic version of &quot;good riddance&quot;. There's also a common knowledge that this phrase initially meant something exactly the opposite from what it means now, namely, it was sort of Russian &quot;Bon voyage&quot;. And then this original meaning gradually faded away and finally what was actually the ironical rethinking became the main usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is I'm failing to find any sources on this being true - there's no evidence of &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; ever used as some positive wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be - when exactly this phrase came to usage and what exactly it meant back then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="f48f2abb-7c34-4c30-a706-ce9016ec0f5c" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:01:42.720" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Скатертью дорога&quot; - was it ever a positive thing indeed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="f48f2abb-7c34-4c30-a706-ce9016ec0f5c" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:01:42.720" UserId="242" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="a425562a-6551-453c-969d-fbc7cec31caf" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:06:41.877" UserId="4753" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am fine.&quot; or &quot;I am well.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. The two possible intended meanings can be conveyed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё зорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в парадке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; was describing the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;I am good.&quot; can mean &quot;I am kind.&quot; For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я тебе очень добрый/добрая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am very kind to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to moral qualities: &quot;добрдетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я парядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="7d21b315-4bfe-41e4-823f-f580e60fce76" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:11:52.297" UserId="4753" Comment="clarified when &quot;good&quot; means &quot;kind&quot;" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am fine.&quot; or &quot;I am well.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. The two possible intended meanings can be conveyed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё зорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в парадке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; was describing the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;I am good.&quot; can mean &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я тебе очень добрый/добрая.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am very kind to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добрдетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я парядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="3e323cff-c45b-4b98-905e-8f9c2aa31fbb" CreationDate="2017-07-06T16:24:00.930" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am fine.&quot; or &quot;I am well.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. The two possible intended meanings can be conveyed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё хорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в порядке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; was describing the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;I am good.&quot; can mean &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я тебе очень добрый/добрая.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am very kind to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добрдетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я парядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36161" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="61ff8c92-ae2c-46ca-ad49-c33ce42d3084" CreationDate="2017-07-06T17:45:57.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/883019197768445953" />
  <row Id="36162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="1699d4be-9b18-4bb8-89b9-ac08d9172762" CreationDate="2017-07-06T18:28:30.247" UserId="8050" Comment="I just corrected the spelling of the Russian words." Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am fine.&quot; or &quot;I am well.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. The two possible intended meanings can be conveyed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё хорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в порядке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; was describing the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, &quot;I am good.&quot; can mean &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я очень добр/добра к тебе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I am very kind to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добрдетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я парядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36163" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="1699d4be-9b18-4bb8-89b9-ac08d9172762" CreationDate="2017-07-06T18:28:30.247" Comment="Proposed by 8050 approved by 4753 edit id of 880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="92d67706-5e8b-4bfc-9fa1-64adb6ddb916" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:15:08.920" UserId="8742" Text="During a [**Duolingo**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duolingo) Russian lesson the other day, I translated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;My place is at home,&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Моё место домой,&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the answer given was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Моё место дома.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Google search seems to indicate that both are legitimate sentences, but my version -- using **&quot;домой&quot;** instead of **&quot;дома&quot;** -- does not seem to be used very often.  Does anybody know what the differences are between these two versions of this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="92d67706-5e8b-4bfc-9fa1-64adb6ddb916" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:15:08.920" UserId="8742" Text="Are &quot;домой&quot; and &quot;дома&quot; interchangeable and if not, what's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="92d67706-5e8b-4bfc-9fa1-64adb6ddb916" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:15:08.920" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14780" RevisionGUID="307c563b-eb43-4506-82b4-1d7ce4e3b835" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:19:35.237" UserId="242" Text="No, they are not interchangeable at all.`Домой` is &quot;to home&quot; (like in&#xD;&#xA; &quot;going to home&quot;), and `дома` is &quot;at home&quot; (like in &quot;staying at home&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &quot;моё место дома&quot; is indeed correct, cause it answer the question &quot;where is my place&quot;? At home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can just memorize this form the way they are but at some stage of learning Russian it's just inevitable to need to learn more about Russian [cases][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14780" RevisionGUID="03b3845a-c7e6-42e7-adf9-119644c4d89e" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:25:38.683" UserId="242" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="No, they are not interchangeable at all.`Домой` is &quot;to home&quot; (like in&#xD;&#xA; &quot;going to home&quot;), and `дома` is &quot;at home&quot; (like in &quot;staying at home&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &quot;моё место дома&quot; is indeed correct, cause it answer the question &quot;where is my place&quot;? At home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can just memorize this form the way they are but at some stage of learning Russian it's just inevitable to need to learn more about Russian [cases][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See there are no cases in modern English at all (only some traces like &quot;who&quot;/&quot;whom&quot;/&quot;whose&quot;) but you just know what's the difference between &quot;at home&quot;, &quot;by home&quot;, &quot;to home&quot; etc. - it's just something you've actually memorized - some of information that is passed by prepositions in English is passed by the cases. It's just the way it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it's even more tricky, technically, &quot;домой&quot; and &quot;дома&quot; are adverbs, not nouns, so it's not correct to talk of cases but actually those are historically just &quot;frozen&quot; forms of nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14780" RevisionGUID="e3c58c81-80aa-4fbc-9b5e-7bc89d6be59a" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:31:35.933" UserId="242" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="No, they are not interchangeable at all.`Домой` is &quot;to home&quot; (like in&#xD;&#xA; &quot;going to home&quot;), and `дома` is &quot;at home&quot; (like in &quot;staying at home&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &quot;моё место дома&quot; is indeed correct, cause it answer the question &quot;where is my place&quot;? At home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can just memorize this form the way they are but at some stage of learning Russian it's just inevitable to need to learn more about Russian [cases][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See there are no cases in modern English at all (only some traces like &quot;who&quot;/&quot;whom&quot;/&quot;whose&quot;) but you just know what's the difference between &quot;at home&quot;, &quot;by home&quot;, &quot;to home&quot; etc. - it's just something you've actually memorized - some of information that is passed by prepositions in English is passed by the cases. It's just the way it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it's even more tricky, technically, &quot;домой&quot; and &quot;дома&quot; are adverbs, not nouns, so it's not correct to talk of cases but actually those are historically just &quot;frozen&quot; forms of noun [`дом`][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Cases&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14780" RevisionGUID="92c438a1-afb6-42f7-8708-95f8c7d1e95d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T19:39:25.270" UserId="242" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="No, they are not interchangeable at all.`Домой` is &quot;to home&quot; (like in&#xD;&#xA; &quot;going to home&quot;), and `дома` is &quot;at home&quot; (like in &quot;staying at home&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &quot;моё место дома&quot; is indeed correct, cause it answer the question &quot;where is my place&quot;? At home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can just memorize this form the way they are but at some stage of learning Russian it's just inevitable to need to learn more about Russian [cases][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See there are no cases in modern English at all (only some traces like &quot;who&quot;/&quot;whom&quot;/&quot;whose&quot;) but you just know what's the difference between &quot;at home&quot;, &quot;by home&quot;, &quot;to home&quot; etc. - it's just something you've actually memorized - some of information that is passed by prepositions in English is passed by the cases. It's just the way it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it's even more tricky, technically, &quot;домой&quot; and &quot;дома&quot; are adverbs, not nouns, so it's not correct to talk of cases but actually those are historically just &quot;frozen&quot; forms of noun [`дом`][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, to introduce even more confusion, those are &quot;frozen&quot; form of so called [smaller][3] cases - one that are not used for all nouns but there are some remnants of ancient, richer than modern, conjugation system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, just accept it the way it is ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Cases&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14780" RevisionGUID="66c8f74b-b230-49fb-8f86-c31773275556" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:00:34.617" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="No, they are not interchangeable at all.`Домой` is &quot;to home&quot; (like in&#xD;&#xA; &quot;going to home&quot;), and `дома` is &quot;at home&quot; (like in &quot;staying at home&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &quot;моё место дома&quot; is indeed correct, because it answers the question &quot;where is my place&quot;? At home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can just memorize this form the way they are but at some stage of learning Russian it's just inevitable to need to learn more about Russian [cases][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See there are no cases in modern English at all (only some traces like &quot;who&quot;/&quot;whom&quot;/&quot;whose&quot;) but you just know what's the difference between &quot;at home&quot;, &quot;by home&quot;, &quot;to home&quot; etc. - it's just something you've actually memorized - some of information that is passed by prepositions in English is passed by the cases. It's just the way it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it's even more tricky, technically, &quot;домой&quot; and &quot;дома&quot; are adverbs, not nouns, so it's not correct to talk of cases but actually those are historically just &quot;frozen&quot; forms of noun [`дом`][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, to introduce even more confusion, those are &quot;frozen&quot; form of so called [smaller][3] cases - one that are not used for all nouns but there are some remnants of ancient, richer than modern, conjugation system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, just accept it the way it is ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Cases&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14781" RevisionGUID="00fff222-b963-4291-b749-e8229a89df84" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:04:53.040" UserId="8742" Text="I have noticed that the plural of some animate nouns sounds very similar to its plural accusative.  Here are some examples from [**Forvo**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvo) so you can hear what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**писатели**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**писателей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**соседи**](https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**соседей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**короли**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**королей**](https://forvo.com/search/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**жители**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**жителей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**председатели**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**председателей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following pairings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**цари**](https://forvo.com/word/%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**царей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**гости**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**гостей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**врачи**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**врачей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**секретари**](https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**секретарей**](https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do detect a difference in pronunciation, which makes me wonder if the differences in pronunciation are due to variations in the speaker or variations in the pronunciation of the word itself.  Forvo is fantastic, but it is powered by people and though pronunciations are subjected to a voting system that is only open to native speakers, it is not forced to meet any rigorous standards by accredited institutions.  In English, I can go to any number of good, free, online dictionaries that will pronounce the word in English and feel reasonably certain that the pronunciation is correct.  I don't have that guarantee with Forvo, but based off the English I've heard on it, it's pretty darn good.  Not being a native speaker of Russian, I'm taking it on good faith that these pronunciations are as true to the prescribed dictionary pronunciations as they can get.  Are there any native Russian speakers who can give their assessment of the Russian recordings at Forvo?  Or know of a free, online, _authoritative_ resource that provides pronunciations of Russian words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This next and final example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**герой**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9/#ru)  &#xD;&#xA;[**герои**](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8/#ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;diverges a bit from the above-- it compares the masculine singular with the masculine plural -- but these, too, sound very similar to me.  Is there a distinct difference that native Russians hear between these two as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to sum up/recap, do these pairings, including the pair above, also sound the same to native Russian speakers or do they detect a difference between the two and one who is learning the language simply needs to train their ear better to detect the difference?  Or, is it possible that these words do have distinctive pronunciations but the speakers in some of these Forvo recordings aren't using precise pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14781" RevisionGUID="00fff222-b963-4291-b749-e8229a89df84" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:04:53.040" UserId="8742" Text="Should there be a detectable difference in pronunciation between masculine animate plural nominative nouns whose plural accusative ends in &quot;ей?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14781" RevisionGUID="00fff222-b963-4291-b749-e8229a89df84" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:04:53.040" UserId="8742" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36175" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="3e0e1dba-c94e-4252-8aab-0e8602e742fd" CreationDate="2017-07-06T20:19:40.393" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Скатертью дорога&quot; - was it ever a positive thing after all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14780" RevisionGUID="6596974d-b661-4a9b-bd91-d62ed5732dbe" CreationDate="2017-07-06T21:33:55.160" UserId="2104" Comment="Fixed English. &quot;To home&quot; NEVER means &quot;toward home&quot; in English. I would drop the part about cases. Adverbs don't have cases, period. Not even 'smaller cases'. But thanks for the link though!" Text="No, they are not interchangeable at all. `Домой` means &quot;home, homeward&quot; (as in&#xD;&#xA; &quot;go home&quot;), and `дома` means &quot;at home&quot; (as in &quot;stay at home&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &quot;моё место дома&quot; is indeed correct, because it answers the question &quot;where is my place&quot;? At home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can just memorize these forms the way they are but at some stage of learning Russian it's just inevitable to need to learn more about Russian [cases][1].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See there are no cases in modern English at all (only some traces like &quot;who&quot;/&quot;whom&quot;/&quot;whose&quot;) but you just know what's the difference between &quot;at home&quot;, &quot;by home&quot;, &quot;to home&quot; etc. - it's just something you've actually memorized - some of information that is passed by prepositions in English is passed by the cases. It's just the way it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it's even more tricky, technically, &quot;домой&quot; and &quot;дома&quot; are adverbs, not nouns, so it's not correct to talk of cases but actually those are historically just &quot;frozen&quot; forms of noun [`дом`][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, to introduce even more confusion, those are &quot;frozen&quot; form of so called [smaller][3] cases - one that are not used for all nouns but there are some remnants of ancient, richer than modern, conjugation system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, just accept it the way it is ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Grammar/Cases&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14782" RevisionGUID="bee1cc4c-00c1-4dc8-9d9a-9ea94996366d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T23:00:31.633" UserId="2104" Text="In the second group the ending is stressed and pronounced more clearly. In the first group the ending is not stressed and thus is less discernible. Depending on the speaker, the rate of speech and other factors, unstressed vowels can be weakened to almost nothing. In an extreme case you could get [псатли] for писатели. Also note that an unstressed Е sounds almost like И in Russian which takes an unstressed -ЕЙ even closer to -И.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have listened to the Forvo readings and they sound like they were done by regular people trying to speak clearly at a normal rate (which may be too fast for a beginner).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wait, there is an odd one: a recording for королей (by Mshak) clearly says короли. I had to convince myself that it actually says королей. And the ending is stressed too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is quite possible that at some rate of speech -И and -ЕЙ can become indistinguishable even to a native Russian speaker. I guess same can be said of герой/герои." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14783" RevisionGUID="88debf8a-4003-4f13-887d-1e58070a1c2e" CreationDate="2017-07-07T02:23:05.090" UserId="9118" Text="From &quot;Словарь русской фразеологии. Историко-этимологический справочник&quot; by А.К.Бирих, В.М.Мокиенко, Л.И.Степанова (it doesn't say &quot;when&quot; but explains the original meaning):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally have seen it used in its original (positive) sense a couple of times in folk tales. There's also a similar (but really rare) expression &quot;зеркалом дорога&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mo5A0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="746a8214-0310-45a0-aca2-7843745e4f9f" CreationDate="2017-07-07T06:55:02.020" UserId="242" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="There is a well known phrase &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; which is sort of caustic version of &quot;good riddance&quot;. There's also a common knowledge that this phrase initially meant something exactly the opposite from what it means now, namely, it was sort of Russian &quot;Bon voyage&quot;. And then this original meaning gradually faded away and finally what was actually the ironical rethinking became the main usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is I'm failing to find any sources on this being true - there's no evidence of &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; ever used as some positive wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be - when exactly this phrase came to usage and what exactly it meant back then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the earliest reference I was able to find. This is from a play written by Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov, who lived at the end of XVIIIth - beginning of XIXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурылом:** Любовь чума в семье, в которой девок много&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лестигон:** Любви счастливый путь, и скатертью дорога!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually already quite ironical. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="ecf25fdd-b4c5-4d73-a2c5-f8a6a27d8866" CreationDate="2017-07-07T07:59:20.993" UserId="242" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="There is a well known phrase &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; which is sort of caustic version of &quot;good riddance&quot;. There's also a common knowledge that this phrase initially meant something exactly the opposite from what it means now, namely, it was sort of Russian &quot;Bon voyage&quot;. And then this original meaning gradually faded away and finally what was actually the ironical rethinking became the main usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is I'm failing to find any sources on this being true - there's no evidence of &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; ever used as some positive wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be - when exactly this phrase came to usage and what exactly it meant back then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the earliest reference I was able to find. This is from a play written by Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov, who lived at the end of XVIIIth - beginning of XIXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурылом:** Любовь чума в семье, в которой девок много&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лестигон:** Любви счастливый путь, и скатертью дорога!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually already quite ironical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In phraseological dictionary &quot;Ходячiя и мѣткiя слова&quot;(Mikhelson, modern orthography &quot;Ходячие и меткие слова&quot; one can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positive wish meaning is not mentioned at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zekjU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aov7W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="f1ed8460-04f2-4d9b-b1e6-4dbb5c352a7e" CreationDate="2017-07-07T08:08:14.187" UserId="242" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="There is a well known phrase &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; which is sort of caustic version of &quot;good riddance&quot;. There's also a common knowledge that this phrase initially meant something exactly the opposite from what it means now, namely, it was sort of Russian &quot;Bon voyage&quot;. And then this original meaning gradually faded away and finally what was actually the ironical rethinking became the main usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is I'm failing to find any sources on this being true - there's no evidence of &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; ever used as some positive wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be - when exactly this phrase came to usage and what exactly it meant back then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the earliest reference I was able to find. This is from a play written by Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov, who lived at the end of XVIIIth - beginning of XIXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурылом:** Любовь чума в семье, в которой девок много&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лестигон:** Любви счастливый путь, и скатертью дорога!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually already quite ironical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In phraseological dictionary &quot;Ходячiя и мѣткiя слова&quot;(Mikhelson, modern orthography &quot;Ходячие и меткие слова&quot; one can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positive wish meaning is not mentioned at all. In comments there are some examples of positive usage dating back to XIXth century. While those are nice finds, that by itself proves nothing. For instance, this could be a later development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zekjU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aov7W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="da0ac000-e085-4269-882c-d1a869457384" CreationDate="2017-07-07T08:22:30.083" UserId="242" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="There is a well known phrase &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; which is sort of caustic version of &quot;good riddance&quot;. There's also a common knowledge that this phrase initially meant something exactly the opposite from what it means now, namely, it was sort of Russian &quot;Bon voyage&quot;. And then this original meaning gradually faded away and finally what was actually the ironical rethinking became the main usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is I'm failing to find any sources on this being true - there's no evidence of &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; ever used as some positive wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be - when exactly this phrase came to usage and what exactly it meant back then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the earliest reference I was able to find. This is from a play written by Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov, who lived at the end of XVIIIth - beginning of XIXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурылом:** Любовь чума в семье, в которой девок много&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лестигон:** Любви счастливый путь, и скатертью дорога!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually already quite ironical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In phraseological [dictionary][1] &quot;Ходячiя и мѣткiя слова&quot;(Mikhelson, modern orthography &quot;Ходячие и меткие слова&quot; one can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positive wish meaning is not mentioned at all. In comments there are some examples of positive usage dating back to XIXth century. While those are nice finds, that by itself proves nothing. For instance, this could be a later development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://enc.biblioclub.ru/encyclopedia/98574_Hodyachie_i_metkie_slova&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zekjU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aov7W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14776" RevisionGUID="30b03084-d90c-44c1-8718-4a645e3ed81b" CreationDate="2017-07-07T09:35:37.547" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There is a well known phrase &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; which is sort of caustic version of &quot;good riddance&quot;. There's also a common knowledge that this phrase initially meant something exactly the opposite from what it means now, namely, it was sort of Russian &quot;Bon voyage&quot;. And then this original meaning gradually faded away and finally what was actually the ironical rethinking became the main usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is I'm failing to find any sources on this being true - there's no evidence of &quot;скатертью дорога&quot; ever used as some positive wish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question would be - when exactly this phrase came to usage and what exactly it meant back then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the earliest reference I was able to find. This is from a play written by Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov, who lived at the end of XVIIIth - beginning of XIXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурылом:** Любовь чума в семье, в которой девок много&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Лестигон:** Любви счастливый путь, и скатертью дорога!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's actually already quite ironical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In phraseological [dictionary][1] &quot;Ходячiя и мѣткiя слова&quot;(Mikhelson, in modern orthography &quot;Ходячие и меткие слова&quot;) one can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positive wish meaning is not mentioned at all. In comments there are some examples of positive usage dating back to XIXth century. While those are nice finds, that by itself proves nothing. For instance, this could be a later development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://enc.biblioclub.ru/encyclopedia/98574_Hodyachie_i_metkie_slova&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zekjU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aov7W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36184" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="82054ee3-7c92-448d-b04e-6ae10122d6fa" CreationDate="2017-07-08T11:48:13.917" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/883653949617840128" />
  <row Id="36185" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="f7ccbbf7-0dd9-4f24-94d6-0132a1258c9e" CreationDate="2017-07-08T18:28:51.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14785" RevisionGUID="d688bd60-a5ce-45d3-b044-a9e3b435d08b" CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:39:11.417" UserId="194" Text="Yes, there is difference in pronounciation, the words that have &quot;й&quot; at the end, have the [й'] sound at the end (IPA [j]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to герой vs герои, their phonetic transcription is [г'ирой'] and [г'ирой'и] respectively, so there is difference again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14786" RevisionGUID="8a315c80-88cf-4a7a-903b-cf2ebb9e2b2f" CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:46:05.600" UserId="194" Text="Я хорошо - ungrammatical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хорошая - means &quot;I am a good female person&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14658" RevisionGUID="25cb40da-8c7e-4f50-86c4-3345cbf0fc3f" CreationDate="2017-07-08T22:59:53.367" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/883822977418117120" />
  <row Id="36190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14787" RevisionGUID="8e13bf8f-ee2d-4742-9e37-36256500e342" CreationDate="2017-07-09T16:28:52.690" UserId="179" Text="I suppose, your confusion stems from the fact, that in English different use cases of &quot;home&quot; can be translated to Russian as either &quot;домой&quot; or &quot;дома&quot;. Like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I'm going home&quot; — &quot;Я иду домой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;I'm home (at last)&quot; — &quot;Я дома (наконец-то)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian &quot;дом**о**й&quot; and &quot;д*о*ма&quot; are absolutely different words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;дом**о**й&quot; means a direction to home and answers to the question &quot;where&quot; in English, **but &quot;куда&quot; in Russian**, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- это дорога домой — this is a road to home&#xD;&#xA;- я иду домой — I'm going home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;д**о**ма&quot; means a place, location and also answers to the question &quot;where&quot; in English, **but &quot;где&quot; in Russian**, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- я дома — I'm home&#xD;&#xA;- мое место дома — my place is at home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is they are not interchangeable and the only correct translation for &quot;My place is at home&quot; is &quot;мое место дома&quot;, except a case, where the phrase &quot;my place&quot; means one's home itself, like &quot;do you have a TV at your place&quot;. But in that case the phrase &quot;My place is at home&quot; would look very strange in and of itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="ffd5ad77-cb72-49a3-9eb6-fab5f8c19801" CreationDate="2017-07-09T18:05:58.963" UserId="7239" Text="Is the following correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Whenever `в + (винительный падеж)` is used to mean something, `из` is *always* used to mean the opposite.&#xD;&#xA; - Whenever `на + (винительный падеж)` is used to mean something,   &#xD;&#xA;`с + (родительный падеж)` is _always_ used to mean the opposite.&#xD;&#xA; - Whenever `к` is used to mean something, `от` is _always_ used to mean the opposite. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. am I correct in understanding that `в + (вин.) / из`, `на + (вин.)/с + (род.)`, and `к/от` are exact antonyms of each other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question isn't about when to use a certain pair (which is complicated, but I believe I mostly have the rules down for that), just whether each is a valid antonym pair, as I have inferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="ffd5ad77-cb72-49a3-9eb6-fab5f8c19801" CreationDate="2017-07-09T18:05:58.963" UserId="7239" Text="Are these prepositions (&quot;of motion&quot;) exact antonyms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="ffd5ad77-cb72-49a3-9eb6-fab5f8c19801" CreationDate="2017-07-09T18:05:58.963" UserId="7239" Text="|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14789" RevisionGUID="810913c0-331b-4de4-a85c-21aa169aab4d" CreationDate="2017-07-09T20:48:20.307" UserId="7544" Text="As a native speaker, I couldn't find any exception quickly. I can presume that what you have written is true, those prepositions can be called &quot;exact antonyms&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="75fef5ad-4d41-41a2-ba32-8d30df54b932" CreationDate="2017-07-10T02:09:42.610" UserId="6907" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the Russian words sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* е**г**о  (for example:  его семья) = pronounced as if it is written: е**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* Льва Толсто**г**о = Lva Tolsto**v**a&#xD;&#xA;* хорошо**г**о дня = harosho**v**o dnya &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="6730a366-2f1b-419d-8c3a-3a23b3bded1d" CreationDate="2017-07-10T06:14:55.380" UserId="7239" Text="It's commonly taught that the difference between ходить/идти and ездить/ехать (and between their prefixed derivations) is that the former connotes movement by foot and the latter connotes movement using a vehicle as the means of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my workbook, whenever the moving subject is a vehicle itself, verbs based on ходить/идти  are always used, instead of those based on ездить/ехать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус подошёл к остановке` even though I would say `Автобус подъехал к остановке`.  &#xD;&#xA;Or `Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` even though I would say `Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` But if the subject is `пассажиры на автобусе` suddenly the workbook and I are in agreement, e.g. `пассажиры на автобусе подъехал к остановке`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Is this correct? Why? Vehicles don't walk, and they don't even have feet to walk. And if a vehicle is moving, it is because someone is causing it to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many times my book will refer to the motion corresponding to a trip across a city, involving multiple means of transportation and walking between them, using verbs based on ходить/идти instead of ездить/ехать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Is this correct either? If it is, then how can one distinguish trips where the person walked the entire way from trips when one used vehicular means of transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were correct, reductio ad absurdum wouldn't it mean that we should almost never use the verbs based on ездить/ехать, because it is impossible to get to or from _any_ means of vehicular transportation without walking somewhat (unless you were born on a bus and spend your entire life on that bus without ever leaving, or something like that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="6730a366-2f1b-419d-8c3a-3a23b3bded1d" CreationDate="2017-07-10T06:14:55.380" UserId="7239" Text="In Russian, do vehicles walk? And can one walk across the city using the bus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="6730a366-2f1b-419d-8c3a-3a23b3bded1d" CreationDate="2017-07-10T06:14:55.380" UserId="7239" Text="|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14792" RevisionGUID="d8d837b4-0159-4d4a-a427-174da1048362" CreationDate="2017-07-10T07:36:00.580" UserId="8893" Text="If you refer to the dictionary, you we'll see that `ходить`has **a lot of** meanings. The clock also  walks in russian, and it doesn't mean it has legs or walks on its hands. :) The words almost never have 100% match in their meanings in different languages. The context details are always important. All your examples are correct, and can be both used in general case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of passangers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке` - obliously, on the bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подъехали к остановке` - on a vehicle ( or bicyles, or skis )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подошли к остановке` - only on foot (walked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of bus (possible contexts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How much time does it take to get to the center on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` - **estimated travel time**, the bus is not actually moving&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How long have we been going on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` - **the bus is actually moving**, in this meaning you can not use `ходить/идти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="9d70a8ef-8337-49e8-8391-a8069e3e746a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T08:24:59.120" UserId="7239" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="It's commonly taught that the difference between ходить/идти and ездить/ехать (and between their prefixed derivations) is that the former connotes movement by foot and the latter connotes movement using a vehicle as the means of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my workbook, whenever the moving subject is a vehicle itself, verbs based on ходить/идти  are always used, instead of those based on ездить/ехать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус подошёл к остановке` even though I would say `Автобус подъехал к остановке`.  &#xD;&#xA;Or `Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` even though I would say `Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` But if the subject is `пассажиры на автобусе` suddenly the workbook and I are in agreement, e.g. `пассажиры на автобусе подъехал к остановке`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Is this correct? Why? Vehicles don't walk, and they don't even have feet to walk. And if a vehicle is moving, it is because someone is causing it to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many times my book will refer to the motion corresponding to a trip across a city, involving multiple means of transportation and walking between them, using verbs based on ходить/идти instead of ездить/ехать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: `Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр... Мы вошли в автобус... Мы доехали на автобусе до центра. В центре мы вышли из автобуса. Все вошли в театр.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Is this correct either? If it is, then how can one distinguish trips where the person walked the entire way from trips when one used vehicular means of transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were correct, reductio ad absurdum wouldn't it mean that we should almost never use the verbs based on ездить/ехать, because it is impossible to get to or from _any_ means of vehicular transportation without walking somewhat (unless you were born on a bus and spend your entire life on that bus without ever leaving, or something like that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36204" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="6e35f350-987e-44e1-ab4b-045e51eb2a35" CreationDate="2017-07-10T08:52:41.500" UserId="9058" Comment="приставка - prefix - is a part WITHIN the word, not separated from it :-)" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36205" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="6e35f350-987e-44e1-ab4b-045e51eb2a35" CreationDate="2017-07-10T08:52:41.500" Comment="Proposed by 9058 approved by 7239 edit id of 881" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14793" RevisionGUID="d6895550-1b89-407f-92e3-c12ed5f48d4a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:03:38.870" UserId="194" Text="This depends on your definition of antonym. Consider for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К трапу шла ковровая дорожка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; От трапа шла ковровая дорожка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning essentially the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14794" RevisionGUID="e359ac0e-cb48-498e-8f90-16d9fa9db49d" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:09:21.193" UserId="6097" Text="1. Yes, it is correct. Asking &quot;why?&quot; make no sense, because &quot;идти&quot; just means a lot of things. That's how languages work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идёт дождь/снег - it is raining/snowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идёт дым - there's smoke (over there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гроссмейстер сходил конём - The grand master moved the knight (chess). &#xD;&#xA;*And note - it's a Knight in English but only a Horse in Russian. Please don't ask why :)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта рубашка ему идёт - this shirt suits him well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes, this is corect too. But &quot;Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр&quot; does not mean &quot;yesterday we walked to the Bolshoy theatre&quot;. It's more like &quot;we were in the theatre yesterday&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it clear that you **walked** the whole way, you can add &quot;пешком&quot; which means &quot;by foot&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14795" RevisionGUID="a7fd49dd-9899-49ff-bea5-0bac8cc4a6e8" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:43:39.233" UserId="1236" Text="In Russian, practically every kind of vehicle can _ходить_. It is very easy to tell if the sentence is about actual walking on foot or about a vehicle moving. If the subject of the sentence is a person/people, then it is about actual walking on foot, like in `Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр.` If the subject of the sentence is a name of a vehicle, then it is about a vehicle moving, like in `Автобус подошёл к остановке`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is when the sentence is about sailors, they tend to use _ходить_ in the meaning of _to sail_. In this case the destination is a port, or a continent, or a sea/ocean, or a country that has an acces to a sea, like in `В прошлом году мы ходили в Японию.` It is easy to tell the sentence is about a sailor because one cannot walk to Japan which is situated on an archipelago. When a non-sailor says _плавать_ (to sail) to a Russian sailor, the sailor will typically be offended and will correct the non-sailor by quoting the famous sailors' proverb, `Говно плавает, а корабль/моряк ходит.` (lit. &quot;Shit floats, a ship/sailor walks.&quot; In Russian, 'to sail', 'to float', and 'to swim' are all called with the same verb _плавать_). Note the word _судо**ход**ство_, 'navigation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one can _ходить_ only on a ship, like `Я ходил на разных судах.` (I sailed different ships), it is wrong to say `* Я хожу на автобусе.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14795" RevisionGUID="a6feb5dd-71c9-46c7-a2e0-0a8a9ef179b1" CreationDate="2017-07-10T09:48:40.643" UserId="1236" Comment="Typos corrected" Text="In Russian, practically every kind of vehicle can _ходить_. It is very easy to tell if the sentence is about actual walking on foot or about a vehicle moving. If the subject of the sentence is a person/people, then it is about actual walking on foot, like in `Все вошли в театр.` If the subject of the sentence is a name of a vehicle, then it is about a vehicle moving, like in `Автобус подошёл к остановке`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception is when the sentence is about sailors, they tend to use _ходить_ in the meaning of _to sail_. In this case the destination is a port, or a continent, or a sea/ocean, or a country that has an access to a sea, like in `В прошлом году мы ходили в Японию.` It is easy to tell the sentence is about a sailor because one cannot walk to Japan which is situated on an archipelago. When a non-sailor says _плавать_ (to sail) to a Russian sailor, the sailor will typically be offended and will correct the non-sailor by quoting the famous sailors' proverb, `Говно плавает, а корабль/моряк ходит.` (lit. &quot;Shit floats, a ship/sailor walks.&quot; In Russian, 'to sail', 'to float', and 'to swim' are all called with the same verb _плавать_). Note the word _судо**ход**ство_, 'navigation.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, one can _ходить_ only on a ship, like `Я ходил на разных судах.` (I sailed different ships), it is wrong to say `*Я хожу на автобусе.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="d2d75bbc-4312-4a52-ab21-ecc29663c28a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T10:11:59.377" UserId="7239" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's commonly taught that the difference between ходить/идти and ездить/ехать (and between their prefixed derivations) is that the former connotes movement by foot and the latter connotes movement using a vehicle as the means of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my workbook, whenever the moving subject is a vehicle itself, verbs based on ходить/идти  are always used, instead of those based on ездить/ехать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус подошёл к остановке` even though I would say `Автобус подъехал к остановке`.  &#xD;&#xA;Or `Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` even though I would say `Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` But if the subject is `пассажиры на автобусе` suddenly the workbook and I are in agreement, e.g. `пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** Is this correct? Why? Vehicles don't walk, and they don't even have feet to walk. And if a vehicle is moving, it is because someone is causing it to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many times my book will refer to the motion corresponding to a trip across a city, involving multiple means of transportation and walking between them, using verbs based on ходить/идти instead of ездить/ехать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: `Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр... Мы вошли в автобус... Мы доехали на автобусе до центра. В центре мы вышли из автобуса. Все вошли в театр.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Is this correct either? If it is, then how can one distinguish trips where the person walked the entire way from trips when one used vehicular means of transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were correct, reductio ad absurdum wouldn't it mean that we should almost never use the verbs based on ездить/ехать, because it is impossible to get to or from _any_ means of vehicular transportation without walking somewhat (unless you were born on a bus and spend your entire life on that bus without ever leaving, or something like that)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14792" RevisionGUID="eb253db9-4920-4d37-89ee-9125f2c9857c" CreationDate="2017-07-10T10:26:27.110" UserId="8893" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="If you refer to the dictionary, you we'll see that `ходить`has **a lot of** meanings. The clock also  walks in russian, and it doesn't mean it has legs or walks on its hands. :) The words almost never have 100% match in their meanings in different languages. The context details are always important. All your examples are correct, and can be both used in general case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of passangers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке` - obliously, on the bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подъехали к остановке` - on a vehicle ( or bicyles, or skis )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подошли к остановке` - only on foot (walked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of bus (possible contexts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How much time does it take to get to the center on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` - **estimated travel time**, the bus is not actually moving&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How long have we been going on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` - **the bus is actually moving**, in this meaning you can not use `ходить/идти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус подошел к остановке.` - **the bus is at the bus stop**, the passengers can get on the bus now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to add that `Автобус подъехал к остановке.`(**the bus came to the bus stop**) is still a valid option. &#xD;&#xA;The difference is that we emphasize the fact of movement when using `ехать`. Please, note this difference is usually unimportant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="b6f09969-ce9f-4392-b9e6-9d6b517e7f72" CreationDate="2017-07-10T10:51:55.903" UserId="9247" Text="All the examples in your textbook is correct, mainly because the word &quot;**ход**&quot; basically means &quot;*move/motion/process*&quot; (&quot;**движение**&quot;) (do not mistake it with &quot;**ходьба**&quot; - &quot;*walking*&quot;), and better representation of Russian words &quot;**ходить/идти**&quot; is English &quot;*go*&quot;, and that's why russians applying words/verbs connected with this notion to everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In connection to the journey:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In your example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; you must say &quot;**доехали/подъехали**&quot;, because there was specifically pointed that people arrived in the bus. Without such pointer (about means of transportation) you can use either &quot;**подъехали**&quot; or &quot;**подошли**&quot;. There are no real restrictions about it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In reference to mail (letters, packages, anything): &quot;**почта пришла**&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Common phrase &quot;**дошло / дошло наконец-то**&quot; - &quot;*(i/you/anyone) got it / finally got it*&quot; (could be used as a question: &quot;**Дошло?**&quot; - &quot;*Do you get it?*&quot;);&#xD;&#xA; - Seasons: &quot;**лето пришло**&quot;, &quot;**подходит осень**&quot;, &quot;**а скоро и зима придёт**&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - All the water transport &quot;**ходит**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - Time:  &quot;**пришло время (для)**&quot; - &quot;*it's time (to)*&quot;. Clock that works is &quot;**идущие часы**&quot;, not-working - &quot;**стоящие/остановившиеся часы**&quot;, sometimes you can meet word &quot;**ходики**&quot; - it's also a watch;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**Ход событий**&quot; - &quot;*course of events*&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is really a lot of meanings/applyings of the word &quot;**ход**&quot; in russian language, I highly doubt that anyone can touch all of the aspects of its usage. If you want, check up all the info about word in the link below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cood luck with further learning.:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="96066e63-fc92-47c5-b323-dc26df374b5f" CreationDate="2017-07-10T11:15:51.540" UserId="9247" Comment="edited body" Text="All the examples in your textbook is correct, mainly because the word &quot;**ход**&quot; basically means &quot;*move/motion/process*&quot; (&quot;**движение**&quot;) (do not mistake it with &quot;**ходьба**&quot; - &quot;*walking*&quot;), and better representation of Russian words &quot;**ходить/идти**&quot; is English &quot;*go*&quot;, and that's why russians applying words/verbs connected with this notion to everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In connection to the journey:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In your example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; you must say &quot;**доехали/подъехали**&quot;, because there was specifically pointed that people arrived in the bus. Without such pointer (about means of transportation) you can use either &quot;**подъехали**&quot; or &quot;**подошли**&quot;. There are no real restrictions about it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In reference to mail (letters, packages, anything): &quot;**почта пришла**&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Common phrase &quot;**дошло / дошло наконец-то**&quot; - &quot;*(i/you/anyone) got it / finally got it*&quot; (could be used as a question: &quot;**Дошло?**&quot; - &quot;*Do you get it?*&quot;);&#xD;&#xA; - Seasons: &quot;**лето пришло**&quot;, &quot;**подходит осень**&quot;, &quot;**а скоро и зима придёт**&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - All the water transport &quot;**ходит**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - Time:  &quot;**пришло время (для)**&quot; - &quot;*it's time (to)*&quot;. Clock that works is &quot;**идущие часы**&quot;, not-working - &quot;**стоящие/остановившиеся часы**&quot;, sometimes you can meet word &quot;**ходики**&quot; - it's also a watch;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**Ход событий**&quot; - &quot;*course of events*&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is really a lot of meanings/applyings of the word &quot;**ход**&quot; in russian language, I highly doubt that anyone can touch all of the aspects of its usage. If you want, check up all the info about word in the link below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with further learning.:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14797" RevisionGUID="814dbbaa-9cde-4da5-906a-80d97a166408" CreationDate="2017-07-10T11:24:48.370" UserId="6539" Text="That's a difficult problem when we have such multimeaningful verbs like &quot;go&quot;. But you can always find an answer in the Russian -English dictionary. Languages use different idioms for movement, especially for means of transport. Our pupils are often surprised to hear that English -speaking people &quot;take a bus, catch a bus&quot;,whereas we садимся в автобус, or even на автобус. Those are different images. There lots of funny pictures based on such expressions and poems.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь идет и не проходит, дождь, дождь,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь идет– хотя не ходит, дождь, дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Мы ходили в кино, (whenever the meaning is &quot;visit, attend &quot;, you say ходили.) Ездили is also possible whenever you mention the means of transport you used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр. Времени было в обрез, поэтому поехали на такси.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автобус подошел быстро. Мы сели и поехали.&#xD;&#xA;The bus идет, people едут на нем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14796" RevisionGUID="d2c49484-3ada-48c7-adb8-1f3d6acf9d06" CreationDate="2017-07-10T11:27:38.507" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected." Text="All the examples in your textbook are correct, mainly because the word &quot;**ход**&quot; basically means &quot;*move/motion/process*&quot; (&quot;**движение**&quot;) (do not mistake it with &quot;**ходьба**&quot; - &quot;*walking*&quot;), and better representation of Russian words &quot;**ходить/идти**&quot; is English &quot;*go*&quot;, and that's why Russians apply words/verbs connected with this notion to everything.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In connection to the journey:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;In your example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt; you must say &quot;**доехали/подъехали**&quot;, because it was specifically pointed that people arrived in the bus. Without such a pointer (about means of transportation) you can use either &quot;**подъехали**&quot; or &quot;**подошли**&quot;. There are no real restrictions about it.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In reference to mail (letters, packages, anything): &quot;**почта пришла**&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - Common phrase &quot;**дошло / дошло наконец-то**&quot; - &quot;*(i/you/anyone) got it / finally got it*&quot; (could be used as a question: &quot;**Дошло?**&quot; - &quot;*Do you get it?*&quot;);&#xD;&#xA; - Seasons: &quot;**лето пришло**&quot;, &quot;**подходит осень**&quot;, &quot;**а скоро и зима придёт**&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - All the water transport &quot;**ходит**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - Time:  &quot;**пришло время (для)**&quot; - &quot;*it's time (to)*&quot;. The clock that works is &quot;**идущие часы**&quot;, not-working - &quot;**стоящие/остановившиеся часы**&quot;, sometimes you can meet the word &quot;**ходики**&quot; - it's also a clock;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;**Ход событий**&quot; - &quot;*course of events*&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is really a lot of meanings/applyings of the word &quot;**ход**&quot; in the Russian language, I highly doubt that anyone can touch all of the aspects of its usage. If you want, check up all the info about the word in the link below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with further learning.:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14798" RevisionGUID="d0475a22-74f0-4821-826e-c41e49cd2f6a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T12:05:39.967" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14798" RevisionGUID="d0475a22-74f0-4821-826e-c41e49cd2f6a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T12:05:39.967" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14799" RevisionGUID="10e0fe01-995d-42d9-bec7-686afa3470f0" CreationDate="2017-07-10T12:05:39.967" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14799" RevisionGUID="10e0fe01-995d-42d9-bec7-686afa3470f0" CreationDate="2017-07-10T12:05:39.967" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14797" RevisionGUID="0b8dc81f-958a-4a99-9c46-d8be3cd9cdeb" CreationDate="2017-07-10T12:15:36.117" UserId="6539" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="That's a difficult problem when we have such multimeaningful verbs like &quot;go&quot;. But you can always find an answer in the Russian -English dictionary. Languages use different idioms for movement, especially for means of transport. Our pupils are often surprised to hear that English -speaking people &quot;take a bus, catch a bus&quot;,whereas we садимся в автобус, or even на автобус. Those are different images. There lots of funny pictures based on such expressions and poems.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь идет и не проходит, дождь, дождь,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь идет– хотя не ходит, дождь, дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Мы ходили в кино, (whenever the meaning is &quot;visit, attend &quot;, you say ходили.) Ездили is also possible whenever you mention the means of transport you used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр. Времени было в обрез, поэтому поехали на такси.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автобус подошел быстро. Мы сели и поехали.&#xD;&#xA;The bus идет, people едут на нем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is nothing wrong if you say. Машина подошла /подъехала быстро. Both options would be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14792" RevisionGUID="a97efb1b-3e00-4c09-88ab-f4cb1e0dc81e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:01:26.203" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="If you refer to the dictionary, you'll see that `ходить`has **a lot of** meanings. The clock also walks in Russian, and it doesn't mean it has legs or walks on its hands. :) The words almost never have 100% match in their meanings in different languages. The context details are always important. All your examples are correct, and can be both used in general case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of passengers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке` - obviously, on the bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подъехали к остановке` - on a vehicle ( or bicycles, or skis )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подошли к остановке` - only on foot (walked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of bus (possible contexts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How much time does it take to get to the center on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` - **estimated travel time**, the bus is not actually moving&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How long have we been going on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` - **the bus is actually moving**, in this meaning you can not use `ходить/идти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус подошел к остановке.` - **the bus is at the bus stop**, the passengers can get on the bus now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to add that `Автобус подъехал к остановке.`(**the bus came to the bus stop**) is still a valid option. &#xD;&#xA;The difference is that we emphasize the fact of movement when using `ехать`. Please, note this difference is usually unimportant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36222" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14792" RevisionGUID="a97efb1b-3e00-4c09-88ab-f4cb1e0dc81e" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:01:26.203" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 6097, 8893 edit id of 882" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14801" RevisionGUID="77a1137a-f56b-4dc2-ae7a-826d6085978a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:24:29.250" UserId="9256" Text="While I agree with the most answers here, I suggest to take a look from a historical perspective. The verb &lt;code&gt;ходить&lt;/code&gt; (to walk) is older than &lt;code&gt;ехать&lt;/code&gt; (to drive/to ride). Hence the former has much broader range of meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's take a look at various means of transportation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boats always &lt;code&gt;ходят&lt;/code&gt; (walking)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trains almost always &lt;code&gt;ходят&lt;/code&gt; (walking). There is only a narrow set of situations where trains are allowed to &lt;code&gt;ехать&lt;/code&gt; (to drive/to ride). Example - &quot;&lt;code&gt;поезд едет по рельсам&lt;/code&gt;&quot; - &quot;train rides on rails&quot;. Note that there is no specific destination, direction or schedule implied - it is only about the riding process itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horse drawn carriages &lt;code&gt;ездят&lt;/code&gt; (driving/riding)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you see, if we progress from trains and carriages to trams and buses, a confusion ensues. Newer vehicles have features of both trains and carriages, so as a result, the language has a mixture of applicable verbs. Generally, the verb &quot;&lt;code&gt;ходить&lt;/code&gt;&quot; wins wherever a bus can be directly compared to a train. &quot;&lt;code&gt;Автобус идет по расписанию&lt;/code&gt;&quot; - &quot;The bus goes on schedule&quot;. But buses have a considerable leeway with &quot;&lt;code&gt;ехать&lt;/code&gt;&quot; (to drive/to ride). &quot;&lt;code&gt;Автобус едет по расписанию&lt;/code&gt;&quot; - &quot;The bus drives on schedule&quot; is also an acceptable form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in either case, when we talk about the passengers and not the trains/buses themselves, &lt;code&gt;ехать&lt;/code&gt; is the correct word. &quot;&lt;code&gt;Мы едем на поезде&lt;/code&gt;&quot; - &quot;We ride on a train&quot;, but never &quot;&lt;code&gt;Мы идем на поезде&lt;/code&gt;&quot; - &quot;We go (walk) on a train&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other example (&lt;code&gt;Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр&lt;/code&gt; - Yesterday we went to Bolshoy theater) is actually a completely different beast. The verb &lt;code&gt;ходить&lt;/code&gt; here actually means &quot;to attend&quot; and not the means of transportation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14802" RevisionGUID="a32653e7-8e91-4621-b518-d6936ad0a9cc" CreationDate="2017-07-10T20:32:11.037" UserId="9259" Text="As Russian myself, I think it has something to do with the SPEED of moving/transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;1) It's correct. &quot;Vehicles don't walk, and they don't even have feet to walk.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;It just means that bus had the speed of somebody with feet during the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, ships are walking as well (and yes, they don't have feet either). But most of the Russians incorrectly use verb &quot;swim&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) How can one distinguish trips where the person walked the entire way from trips when one used vehicular means of transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's usually clear from the context, based on distance. When phrase is talking about some event like birthday or theater performance then it's more like &quot;went&quot;, which has undefined meaning of transportation as well; only the fact &quot;being there&quot; matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36228" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14790" RevisionGUID="791da8b7-8b3e-43de-a669-2a81d844aa58" CreationDate="2017-07-11T02:01:53.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/884593555209048064" />
  <row Id="36229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14797" RevisionGUID="33d1fa73-b560-4adb-87bb-bf62897f2d1a" CreationDate="2017-07-11T03:38:10.790" UserId="6539" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="That's a difficult problem when we have such multimeaningful verbs like &quot;go&quot;. But you can always find an answer in the Russian -English dictionary. Languages use different idioms for movement, especially for means of transport. Our pupils are often surprised to hear that English -speaking people &quot;take a bus, catch a bus&quot;,whereas we садимся в автобус, or even на автобус. Those are different images. There lots of funny pictures based on such expressions and poems.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь идет и не проходит, дождь, дождь,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дождь идет– хотя не ходит, дождь, дождь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Мы ходили в кино, (whenever the meaning is &quot;visit, attend &quot;, you say ходили.) Ездили is also possible whenever you mention the means of transport you used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вчера мы ходили в Большой театр. Времени было в обрез, поэтому поехали на такси.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автобус подошел быстро. Мы сели и поехали.&#xD;&#xA;The bus идет, people едут на нем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is nothing wrong if you say. Машина подошла /подъехала быстро. Both options would be relevant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more point is when we talk about how long it takes for a bus to cover some distance, we also say идет.We mean in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Автобус до Чертовиц идет два часа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we talk about a certain bus which is in motion and we participate in it, we say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы едем уже два часа." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14803" RevisionGUID="ccc339f8-8b30-4e75-a41e-8cb3c14aca3e" CreationDate="2017-07-11T04:00:51.260" UserId="9118" Text="Ходить/идти can have different meanings, not all of them are &quot;to walk&quot;. It often means &quot;to move&quot;, &quot;to transport [itself]&quot;, in the most general sense. Therefore, автобус подошёл к остановке is correct, it doesn't mean the bus walked to the bus stop, it means the bus moved itself to the bus stop, no need to say more, we all know how it is with the buses. Автобус подъехал к остановке is also correct, the only difference is that it makes the nuance of how vehicles move themselves around a bit more explicit. So, an автобус can both подойти and подъехать, the same meaning. A пассажир, though, by himself can only подойти (walk). In &quot;пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке&quot; it feels that only подъехали can be used, because &quot;пассажир подошел&quot; gives an image of a passenger walking, all by himself. However, it is OK to say &quot;моряки на яхте подошли к острову&quot;, that is sort of professional slang, although widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ходить/идти may also mean something like &quot;to visit&quot;, &quot;to attend&quot;: пойти в театр, пойти в туалет, ходить в школу, etc. Speaking literally, to transport yourself into the facility in order to use the facility for its intended purpose. Therefore, &quot;я ходил в театр&quot; does not tell anything about my means of transportation: I might have walked, rode a taxi, flew a helicopter, even. No way to distinguish from that phrase alone. Why would there be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it really that different from English &quot;go&quot;, &quot;walk&quot; and &quot;attend&quot;, for example? They can also be used interchangeably in some context, but not always. And you can go to a theater on foot or by bus, and that, too, would be indistinguishable, unless directly specified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if by &quot;why?&quot; you're asking &quot;where's logic in all that?&quot; - there's little to none, unfortunately, as with any other natural language. If by &quot;why?&quot; you're asking &quot;how do I know which verb to use?&quot; - that comes only with practice and experience, unfortunately, as with any other natural language. No single answer on StackExchange, nor a single textbook paragraph, however brilliant, will enlighten you enough to achieve the ultimate understanding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14792" RevisionGUID="f5ef8606-3964-45c2-b61d-3b52e28fb0ac" CreationDate="2017-07-11T14:40:55.880" UserId="8893" Comment="added an example" Text="If you refer to the dictionary, you'll see that `ходить`has **a lot of** meanings. The clock also walks in Russian, and it doesn't mean it has legs or walks on its hands. :) The words almost never have 100% match in their meanings in different languages. The context details are always important. All your examples are correct, and can be both used in general case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of passengers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры на автобусе подъехали к остановке` - obviously, on the bus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подъехали к остановке` - on a vehicle ( or bicycles, or skis )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пассажиры подошли к остановке` - only on foot (walked)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of bus (possible contexts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How much time does it take to get to the center on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус идёт 20 минут до центра.` - **estimated travel time**, the bus is not actually moving&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*- How long have we been going on the bus?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус едет 20 минут до центра.` - **the bus is actually moving**, in this meaning you can not use `ходить/идти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус подошел к остановке.` - **the bus is at the bus stop**, the passengers can get on the bus now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to add that `Автобус подъехал к остановке.`(**the bus came to the bus stop**) is still a valid option. &#xD;&#xA;The difference is that we emphasize the fact of movement when using `ехать`. Please, note this difference is usually unimportant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Автобус ходит по расписанию.` - **the bus goes on schedule**, but today the bus is on servicing, and the passengers are waiting in vain. Another example: `Я хожу в школу.` In both examples, `Ходить` is **to change location in the most general sense**. Credits to [@Arioch][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14790/in-russian-do-vehicles-walk-and-can-one-walk-across-the-city-using-the-bus/14792?noredirect=1#comment30042_14792" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14804" RevisionGUID="c4f4c5ce-f5de-44f7-8b41-715b21f2061a" CreationDate="2017-07-11T15:37:07.650" UserId="2104" Text="Simply think of go/ride in English. That's pretty much the distinction between идти/ехать with a bit broader range of things you can ride which includes not just horses, bicycles and scooters but also bigger things like cars, buses and trains. I.e. to ride something in Russian, you don't have to have it between your legs. ;-) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, in American English one can 'ride a bus' and sometimes the bus can 'ride' on its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.proz.com/kudoz/English/linguistics/1518802-the_bus_is_riding.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we're not that different! Your textbook is overcomplicating things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36234" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14788" RevisionGUID="4c922197-eb97-4cd6-8d73-db642f40879e" CreationDate="2017-07-11T17:03:27.350" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/884820441667297280" />
  <row Id="36235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14805" RevisionGUID="4434a9f5-0ea7-4ac7-bbfe-1539f6239ce9" CreationDate="2017-07-11T21:41:17.987" UserId="9268" Text="The difference between these is usually very clear for native speakers but we get tired by the end of the word sometimes and drop the volume, especially when there is no another word after:) Also, Forvo used to cut recordings short sometimes, at least in the past. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14804" RevisionGUID="32ece365-c7da-47a2-838d-f7f971944aa9" CreationDate="2017-07-12T20:55:58.100" UserId="2104" Comment="added 4123 characters in body" Text="&gt; In Russian, do vehicles walk? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Walking vehicles][1] do. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 'идти́' and 'е́хать' is *almost* that between 'go' and 'ride'. Whenever you have doubts as to which one to use, make these changes to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Идти́/ходи́ть -&gt; go.&#xD;&#xA;  - Е́хать/е́здить -&gt; ride.&#xD;&#xA;  - Russian -&gt; English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then use your knowledge of English to answer the question. Let's see how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?** This translates to ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```This train goes to Liverpool Street.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Э́тот по́езд идёт до Ливерпу́ль-Стрит.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The boy goes to school.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Ма́льчик хо́дит в шко́лу.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'ride' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The girl is riding her bike.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Де́вочка е́дет на велосипе́де.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Notice the preposition на which is required.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The only difference between Russian and English here is a broader range of things Russians can ride which includes not just horses, bicycles and scooters but also bigger things like cars, buses and trains. I.e. to ride something in Russian, you don't have to have it between your legs. ;-) The reasoning is: &quot;If it carries you while you're on top of it / in it, then you are riding it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'ride' in English?** Sometimes they do! Apparently, in American English one can 'ride a bus' and sometimes the bus can 'ride' on its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.proz.com/kudoz/English/linguistics/1518802-the_bus_is_riding.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This might be a bit of a stretch for English but in Russian you would often see wheely things that just 'ride along' (е́дут / е́здят).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Авто́бус е́дет в депо́.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The bus is going to the depot.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If vehicles can both go and ride, how do you know when to use which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'go' (идти́, ходи́ть) when speaking of transport that runs on a schedule, is on duty or has a set route or destination. In English we would say 'runs' or 'operates' to convey this meaning. This works for buses, trams, trains, ferries and ships but not airplanes, jets or rockets which 'fly' instead (лета́ть / лете́ть). I wonder what verb they will use when space transportation becomes mainstream. It might take after 'ship' which 'goes' (Э́тот кора́бль идёт на Марс?) or 'rocket' which flies (Э́та раке́та лети́т на Луну́?)&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'ride' (е́хать, е́здить) otherwise for all things with wheels and 'float' (плыть / пла́вать) for all water transport, including submarines. As already mentioned in other answers and comments, seamen frown upon плыть / пла́вать; they prefer ходи́ть instead: кора́бль хо́дит. That's their way of showing that they are always on duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, now that we know these rules, which of the two sentences below is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **хо́дит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **е́здит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Lit.* Between these cities **runs** an electric train.)&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Proper English:* There is a bus service running between these cities.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хо́дит** is much more appropriate here because **е́здит** would give an impression of the train just 'riding around' in different directions with no particular purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to your question. Which of these two is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **идёт** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **е́дет** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, **идёт** is more preferable as buses normally run on a schedule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус подошёл к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус подъе́хал к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say both are correct. Whether or not the bus pulling in to a stop is part of its set route is a judgement call, so either can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```Вчера́ мы ходи́ли в Большо́й теа́тр... Мы вошли́ в авто́бус... Мы дое́хали на авто́бусе до це́нтра. В це́нтре мы вы́шли из авто́буса. Всё|Все вошли́ в теа́тр.```&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that sounds like a grammatically and logistically correct description of a theatre visit. You *could* say ```Вчера́ мы е́здили в Большо́й теа́тр``` if you really wanted to stress the fact that you needed a ride to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Key takeaway__: идти́ / ходи́ть = go, not walk; it *can* mean walk e.g. учи́ться ходи́ть = learn to walk, so you were not taught entirely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can one walk across the city using the bus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if it's a [walking bus][2]. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_vehicle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14804" RevisionGUID="fb37dd57-d46e-42f0-88c8-23dbfcad1d6e" CreationDate="2017-07-12T21:36:38.823" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; In Russian, do vehicles walk? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Walking vehicles][1] do. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 'идти́' and 'е́хать' is *almost* that between 'go' and 'ride'. Whenever you have doubts as to which one to use, make these changes to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Идти́/ходи́ть -&gt; go.&#xD;&#xA;  - Е́хать/е́здить -&gt; ride.&#xD;&#xA;  - Russian -&gt; English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then use your knowledge of English to answer the question. Let's see how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?** This translates to ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```This train goes to Liverpool Street.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Э́тот по́езд идёт до Ливерпу́ль-Стрит.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The boy goes to school.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Ма́льчик хо́дит в шко́лу.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'ride' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The girl is riding her bike.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Де́вочка е́дет на велосипе́де.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Notice the preposition на which is required.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The only difference between Russian and English here is a broader range of things Russians can ride which includes not just horses, bicycles and scooters but also bigger things like cars, buses and trains. I.e. to ride something in Russian, you don't have to have it between your legs. ;-) The reasoning is: &quot;If it carries you while you're on top of it / in it, then you are riding it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'ride' in English?** Sometimes they do! Apparently, in American English one can 'ride a bus' and sometimes the bus can 'ride' on its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.proz.com/kudoz/English/linguistics/1518802-the_bus_is_riding.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This might be a bit of a stretch for English but in Russian you would often see wheely things that just 'ride along' (е́дут / е́здят).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Авто́бус е́дет в депо́.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The bus is going to the depot.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If vehicles can both go and ride, how do you know when to use which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'go' (идти́, ходи́ть) when speaking of transport that runs on a schedule, is on duty or has a set route or destination. In English we would say 'runs' or 'operates' to convey this meaning. This works for buses, trams, trains, ferries and ships but not airplanes, jets or rockets which 'fly' instead (лета́ть / лете́ть). I wonder what verb they will use when space transportation becomes mainstream. It might take after 'ship' which 'goes' (Э́тот кора́бль идёт на Марс?) or 'rocket' which flies (Э́та раке́та лети́т на Луну́?)&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'ride' (е́хать, е́здить) otherwise for all things with wheels and 'float' (плыть / пла́вать) for all water transport, including submarines. As already mentioned in other answers and comments, seamen frown upon плыть / пла́вать; they prefer ходи́ть instead: кора́бль хо́дит. That's their way of showing that they are always on duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, now that we know these rules, which of the two sentences below is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **хо́дит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **е́здит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Lit.* Between these cities **runs** an electric train.)&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Proper English:* There is a bus service running between these cities.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хо́дит** is much more appropriate here because **е́здит** would give an impression of the train just 'riding around' in different directions with no particular purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to your question. Which of these two is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **идёт** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **е́дет** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, **идёт** is more preferable as buses normally run on a schedule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус подошёл к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус подъе́хал к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say both are correct. Whether or not the bus pulling in to a stop is part of its set route is a judgement call, so either can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```Вчера́ мы ходи́ли в Большо́й теа́тр... Мы вошли́ в авто́бус... Мы дое́хали на авто́бусе до це́нтра. В це́нтре мы вы́шли из авто́буса. Все вошли́ в теа́тр.```&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that sounds like a grammatically and logistically correct description of a theatre visit. You *could* say ```Вчера́ мы е́здили в Большо́й теа́тр``` if you really wanted to stress the fact that you needed a ride to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Key takeaway__: идти́ / ходи́ть = go, not walk; it *can* mean walk e.g. учи́ться ходи́ть = learn to walk, so you were not taught entirely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can one walk across the city using the bus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if it's a [walking bus][2]. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_vehicle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14779" RevisionGUID="5ad7ac7b-352f-4b4a-b984-d8cfcea7ced7" CreationDate="2017-07-12T23:05:39.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/885273981233713152" />
  <row Id="36245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14804" RevisionGUID="247b76be-a182-4f75-98e1-991b39c36236" CreationDate="2017-07-13T10:54:58.830" UserId="2104" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; In Russian, do vehicles walk? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Walking vehicles][1] do. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 'идти́' and 'е́хать' is *almost* that between 'go' and 'ride'. Whenever you have doubts as to which one to use, make these changes to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Идти́/ходи́ть -&gt; go.&#xD;&#xA;  - Е́хать/е́здить -&gt; ride.&#xD;&#xA;  - Russian -&gt; English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then use your knowledge of English to answer the question. Let's see how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?** This translates to ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```This train goes to Liverpool Street.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Э́тот по́езд идёт до Ливерпу́ль-Стрит.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The boy goes to school.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Ма́льчик хо́дит в шко́лу.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'ride' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The girl is riding her bike.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Де́вочка е́дет на велосипе́де.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Notice the preposition на which is required.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The only difference between Russian and English here is a broader range of things Russians can ride which includes not just horses, bicycles and scooters but also bigger things like cars, buses and trains. I.e. to ride something in Russian, you don't have to have it between your legs. ;-) The reasoning is: &quot;If it carries you while you're on top of it / in it, then you are riding it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'ride' in English?** Sometimes they do! Apparently, in American English one can 'ride a bus' and sometimes the bus can 'ride' on its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.proz.com/kudoz/English/linguistics/1518802-the_bus_is_riding.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This might be a bit of a stretch for English but in Russian you would often see wheely things that just 'ride along' (е́дут / е́здят).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Авто́бус е́дет в депо́.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The bus is going to the depot.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If vehicles can both go and ride, how do you know when to use which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'go' (идти́, ходи́ть) when speaking of transport that runs on a schedule, is on duty or has a set route or destination. In English we would say 'runs' or 'operates' to convey this meaning. This works for buses, trams, trains, ferries and ships but not airplanes, jets or rockets which 'fly' instead (лета́ть / лете́ть). I wonder what verb they will use when space transportation becomes mainstream. It might take after 'ship' which 'goes' (Э́тот кора́бль идёт на Марс?) or 'rocket' which flies (Э́та раке́та лети́т на Луну́?)&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'ride' (е́хать, е́здить) otherwise for all things with wheels and 'float' (плыть / пла́вать) for all water transport, including submarines. As already mentioned in other answers and comments, seamen frown upon плыть / пла́вать; they prefer ходи́ть instead: кора́бль хо́дит. That's their way of showing that they are always on duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, now that we know these rules, which of the two sentences below is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **хо́дит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **е́здит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Lit.* Between these cities **runs** an electric train.)&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Proper English:* There is a train service running between these cities.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хо́дит** is much more appropriate here because **е́здит** would give an impression of the train just 'riding around' in different directions with no particular purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to your question. Which of these two is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **идёт** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **е́дет** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, **идёт** is more preferable as buses normally run on a schedule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус подошёл к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус подъе́хал к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say both are correct. Whether or not the bus pulling in to a stop is part of its set route is a judgement call, so either can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```Вчера́ мы ходи́ли в Большо́й теа́тр... Мы вошли́ в авто́бус... Мы дое́хали на авто́бусе до це́нтра. В це́нтре мы вы́шли из авто́буса. Все вошли́ в теа́тр.```&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that sounds like a grammatically and logistically correct description of a theatre visit. You *could* say ```Вчера́ мы е́здили в Большо́й теа́тр``` if you really wanted to stress the fact that you needed a ride to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Key takeaway__: идти́ / ходи́ть = go, not walk; it *can* mean walk e.g. учи́ться ходи́ть = learn to walk, so you were not taught entirely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can one walk across the city using the bus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if it's a [walking bus][2]. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_vehicle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14808" RevisionGUID="2083d044-e9dd-4ebc-8396-7c4488213198" CreationDate="2017-07-13T14:01:26.493" UserId="8893" Text="At present `Скатертью дорога` has **only negative connotation**. In positive context this phrase mostly sounds outdated and can rarely be used.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By saying `Скатертью дорога` about a person the speaker demonstrats he's relieved that the person's gone and he was annoyed with the person's presence before and he means no harm, but have no desire to meet that person again. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14809" RevisionGUID="11cc413f-fcef-4462-a641-5b0758aae42b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T17:06:12.930" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Какие знаки следует поставит в следующих предложениях:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1. Когда Вам удобно (?) в понедельник или вторник? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Когда Вам удобно (?) в понедельник? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. Скидка будет составлять 20% или 30% (?) зависит от выбранного товара" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14809" RevisionGUID="11cc413f-fcef-4462-a641-5b0758aae42b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T17:06:12.930" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Расстановка знаков препинания" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14809" RevisionGUID="11cc413f-fcef-4462-a641-5b0758aae42b" CreationDate="2017-07-13T17:06:12.930" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36250" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14751" RevisionGUID="bf306cce-40a6-4ebf-826b-e9c3eb3f56f2" CreationDate="2017-07-13T17:07:57.960" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/885546352171556864" />
  <row Id="36251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14804" RevisionGUID="bccf6eb7-0e8f-4b79-83e0-718367be6bd3" CreationDate="2017-07-13T18:26:27.877" UserId="2104" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; In Russian, do vehicles walk? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Walking vehicles][1] do. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between 'идти́' and 'е́хать' is *almost* that between 'go' and 'ride'. Whenever you have doubts as to which one to use, make these changes to your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Идти́/ходи́ть -&gt; go.&#xD;&#xA;  - Е́хать/е́здить -&gt; ride.&#xD;&#xA;  - Russian -&gt; English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and then use your knowledge of English to answer the question. Let's see how this works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?** This translates to ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```This train goes to Liverpool Street.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Э́тот по́езд идёт до Ливерпу́ль-Стрит.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'идти́/ходи́ть' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'go' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The boy goes to school.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Ма́льчик хо́дит в шко́лу.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do people 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do people 'ride' in English?** Of course they do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The girl is riding her bike.```&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   ```Де́вочка е́дет на велосипе́де.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   (Notice the preposition на which is required.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The only difference between Russian and English here is a broader range of things Russians can ride which includes not just horses, bicycles and scooters but also bigger things like cars, buses and trains. I.e. to ride something in Russian, you don't have to have it between your legs. ;-) The reasoning is: &quot;If it carries you while you're on top of it / in it, then you are riding it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Do vehicles 'е́хать/е́здить' in Russian?**  ```--&gt;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   **Do vehicles 'ride' in English?** Sometimes they do! Apparently, in American English one can 'ride a bus' and sometimes the bus can 'ride' on its own:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.proz.com/kudoz/English/linguistics/1518802-the_bus_is_riding.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   This might be a bit of a stretch for English but in Russian you would often see wheely things that just 'ride along' (е́дут / е́здят).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```Авто́бус е́дет в депо́.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   ```The bus is going to the depot.```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If vehicles can both go and ride, how do you know when to use which?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'go' (идти́, ходи́ть) when speaking of transport that runs on a schedule, is on duty or has a set route or destination. In English we would say 'runs' or 'operates' to convey this meaning. This works for buses, trams, trains, ferries and ships but not airplanes, jets or rockets which 'fly' instead (лета́ть / лете́ть). I wonder what verb they will use when space transportation becomes mainstream. It might take after 'ship' which 'goes' (Э́тот кора́бль идёт на Марс?) or 'rocket' which flies (Э́та раке́та лети́т на Луну́?)&#xD;&#xA;  - Use 'ride' (е́хать, е́здить) otherwise for all things with wheels and 'float' (плыть / пла́вать) for all water transport, including submarines. As already mentioned in other answers and comments, seamen frown upon плыть / пла́вать; they prefer ходи́ть instead: кора́бль хо́дит. That's their way of showing that they are always on duty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, now that we know these rules, which of the two sentences below is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **хо́дит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - Ме́жду э́тими города́ми **е́здит** электри́чка.&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Lit.* Between these cities **runs** an electric train.)&#xD;&#xA;  - (*Proper English:* There is a train service running between these cities.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хо́дит** is much more appropriate here because **е́здит** would give an impression of the train just 'riding around' in different directions with no particular purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now on to your question. Which of these two is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **идёт** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **е́дет** 20 мину́т до це́нтра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, **идёт** is more preferable as buses normally run on a schedule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **подошёл** к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Авто́бус **подъе́хал** к остано́вке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say both are correct. Whether or not the bus pulling in to a stop is part of its set route is a judgement call, so either can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ```Вчера́ мы ходи́ли в Большо́й теа́тр... Мы вошли́ в авто́бус... Мы дое́хали на авто́бусе до це́нтра. В це́нтре мы вы́шли из авто́буса. Все вошли́ в теа́тр.```&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is this correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, that sounds like a grammatically and logistically correct description of a theatre visit. You *could* say ```Вчера́ мы е́здили в Большо́й теа́тр``` if you really wanted to stress the fact that you needed a ride to get there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Key takeaway__: идти́ / ходи́ть = go, not walk; it *can* mean walk e.g. учи́ться ходи́ть = learn to walk, so you were not taught entirely wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can one walk across the city using the bus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if it's a [walking bus][2]. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_vehicle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="2f290b3e-9fbc-41c3-97aa-c60f7b386dd4" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:39:35.613" UserId="4714" Text="What is the logic behind these adverbs? I'm trying to get a more literal understating of why they are in the accusative feminine and why the preposition в or за is used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="2f290b3e-9fbc-41c3-97aa-c60f7b386dd4" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:39:35.613" UserId="4714" Text="Theory behind structures like--/впустую/ вплотную/ зачастую/ вправду" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="2f290b3e-9fbc-41c3-97aa-c60f7b386dd4" CreationDate="2017-07-13T20:39:35.613" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14811" RevisionGUID="b1018fd8-2f78-42bd-bbe8-24c0b5b690ce" CreationDate="2017-07-14T07:04:43.980" UserId="9282" Text="Adverbs are unchangeable parts of speech. The word *вправду* doesn't exist in russian. I guess you meant *взаправду*. There is no any logic in using specific prepositions. Because the words *впустую, вплотную* can not be used with the preposition *за* like the word *зачастую* can not be used with the preposition *в*. You just need to remember its meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14812" RevisionGUID="e3dfda01-b4ff-4102-9ec9-fa0bff1e47b8" CreationDate="2017-07-14T07:10:23.260" UserId="9282" Text="1. Когда вам удобно? В понедельник или вторник?&#xD;&#xA;2. Когда вам удобно? В понедельник?&#xD;&#xA;3. It looks like a dialog. So:&#xD;&#xA;- Скидка будет составлять 20% или 30%? &#xD;&#xA;- Зависит от выбранного товара. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd better change the first sentence. Скидка будет 20% или 30%? You don't need to use the word составлять in this case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14811" RevisionGUID="6aad894b-edd2-4106-965d-6cefcd7d05cd" CreationDate="2017-07-14T07:17:45.983" UserId="9282" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Adverbs are unchangeable parts of speech. The word *вправду* doesn't exist in russian. I guess you meant *взаправду*. There is no any logic in using specific prefixes. Because the words *впустую, вплотную* can not be used with the prefix *за* like the word *зачастую* can not be used with the prefix *в*. You just need to remember its meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14813" RevisionGUID="5e43d933-5dc3-4a81-81ac-aa120d6a8681" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:13:17.273" UserId="6539" Text="Мы имеем уточняющее обстоятельство времени (в двух первых примерах), которые отделяются запятой (по Розенталю). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда вам удобно, в понедельник или во вторник? Когда вам удобно, в понедельник?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второе предложение не очень понятно. Допустим, что это говорит один человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скидка составит 20-30%, в зависимости от выбранного товара.(уточнение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно разделить на два предложения, подчеркнуть разговорный характер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14813" RevisionGUID="508a7c53-dfa9-4304-85e7-50d690997b19" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:18:05.610" UserId="6539" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Мы имеем уточняющее обстоятельство времени (в двух первых примерах), которые отделяются запятой (по Розенталю). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда вам удобно, в понедельник или во вторник? Когда вам удобно, в понедельник?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вам удобно в понедельник или во вторник? В понедельник или во вторник вам удобно?(Варианты).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второе предложение не очень понятно. Допустим, что это говорит один человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скидка составит 20-30%, в зависимости от выбранного товара.(уточнение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно разделить на два предложения, подчеркнуть разговорный характер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36264" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="ae795c99-5834-4103-a5ee-1da90ae02353" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:48:00.840" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36265" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="254ef19f-5e9e-4bb0-92d2-dbe9ecec9718" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:48:14.337" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="e90fe271-646d-4202-98fb-f2ed5b6e48ae" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:56:20.507" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="What is the logic behind these adverbs? I'm trying to get a more literal understating of why they are in the accusative feminine and why the preposition &quot;в&quot; or &quot;за&quot; is used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14815" RevisionGUID="128e458d-b334-45f5-9948-abb66602a9b1" CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:31:19.270" UserId="9287" Text="Adverbs do not have Case in Russian. They actually have zero ending, *-у* or *-ую* is a suffix. *в-* or *за-* is a prefix not a preposition. It's just used to form adverbs and I don't see any literal meaning in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14816" RevisionGUID="8d39e5ca-bfa0-4859-98a4-2d33b6aebc52" CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:51:04.460" UserId="9001" Text="The adverbs you listed follow actually two different patterns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. в + adjective (&lt;I&gt; впустую&lt;/I&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. в + noun (&lt;I&gt; вправду&lt;/I&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one has perhaps developed in some way  from the second, but I can't say how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the second pattern, I can shed some light on it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;в&lt;/b&gt; + &lt;b&gt;smth&lt;/b&gt; (&lt;I&gt;accusative&lt;/I&gt;) has the meaning &lt;b&gt;for the sake of smth&lt;/b&gt;, &lt;b&gt;in order to do smth&lt;/b&gt;, &lt;b&gt;in order to form (make up) smth up&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such constructions are rarely used in today's language. Most of them has transformed into adverbs, but some still keep its original state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;во исполнение&lt;/b&gt; - in order to implement, in order to form an implementation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;в продолжение&lt;/b&gt; - in order to continue, in order to form a continuation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;во избежание&lt;/b&gt; - in order to avoid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &lt;b&gt;вправду&lt;/b&gt; means &lt;b&gt;in order to make truth&lt;/b&gt;. &lt;I&gt;Я и вправду опоздал на поезд&lt;/I&gt; - &lt;I&gt;I have really missed the train (the fact that I have missed the train makes the sentence true.)&lt;/I&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14815" RevisionGUID="c45ce6eb-53cd-4c83-ba57-1702e85c26f3" CreationDate="2017-07-14T09:53:14.827" UserId="9287" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Adverbs do not have Case in Russian. Actually they have no ending, *-у* or *-ую* is a suffix. *в-* or *за-* is a prefix not a preposition. It's just used to form adverbs and I don't see any literal meaning in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14817" RevisionGUID="acea7452-3c42-4196-adcd-30412fab320d" CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:00:25.290" UserId="9213" Text="Вот говорят:&#xD;&#xA;Кошка *окотилась* (родился котёнок).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Собака - *ощенилась* (родился щенок).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лошадь *ожеребилась* (родился жеребенок).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Корова *отелилась* (родился телёнок).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как быть с китами, овцами и медведями?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14817" RevisionGUID="acea7452-3c42-4196-adcd-30412fab320d" CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:00:25.290" UserId="9213" Text="Тайна рождения китов, овец и медведей" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14817" RevisionGUID="acea7452-3c42-4196-adcd-30412fab320d" CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:00:25.290" UserId="9213" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14818" RevisionGUID="4f882cec-e760-408e-87bd-10af7128d60b" CreationDate="2017-07-14T11:00:42.887" UserId="2104" Text="Словообразование - штука нерегулярная. То, что есть *белеть, чернеть, синеть и зеленеть*, не значит, что есть *фиолетоветь*.&#xA;&#xA;Просто: *родился китенок, ежонок* и т.д. Овцы, как правильно уже заметили, ягнятся." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14818" RevisionGUID="3acd3937-46f4-4b8a-97ce-dcfd8270836f" CreationDate="2017-07-14T17:36:30.513" UserId="2104" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="Словообразование - штука нерегулярная. То, что есть *белеть, чернеть, синеть и зеленеть*, не значит, что есть *фиолетоветь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Просто: *родился китенок, ежонок* и т.д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Овцы, как правильно уже заметили, [ягнятся](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/918810) и почему-то еще и [котятся](http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/901174)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14819" RevisionGUID="71d4c058-cfa7-44be-9b7f-e9d53208b6c3" CreationDate="2017-07-14T20:06:51.980" UserId="4560" Text="It's highly likely that most of these were formed after this had already grammaticalised as a way to form adverbs, so they don't really have a literal reading. The original adverbs formed this way (maybe even a single one) probably did make sense. Maybe there was a feminine noun that got lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **вовсю** also belongs on this list, while **вправду** doesn't really." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14819" RevisionGUID="9d69eca2-2be6-4c8a-b0bc-57c0f40e33b8" CreationDate="2017-07-14T20:19:59.530" UserId="4560" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="It's highly likely that most of these were formed after this had already grammaticalised as a way to form adverbs, so they don't really have a literal reading. The original adverbs formed this way (maybe even a single one) probably did make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe there was a feminine noun that got lost. Or maybe this isn't feminine singular accusative at all, but obsolete dual locative. Dual body parts are certainly likely candidates for omitted nouns, though what particular ones were originally referred to, and with what adjectives, is hard to tell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that **вовсю** also belongs on this list, while **вправду** doesn't really." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36277" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14817" RevisionGUID="28d428df-0701-471b-a7d0-6bcf32094309" CreationDate="2017-07-15T08:13:46.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/886136693425754112" />
  <row Id="36278" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14810" RevisionGUID="c4c18f4f-b8ae-4d48-a955-bb985993de83" CreationDate="2017-07-15T11:13:46.367" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/886181992361893888" />
  <row Id="36279" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="637c32cf-4261-415a-8f2c-e0a5824a5fff" CreationDate="2017-07-15T14:21:13.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="e51dc2ee-fba0-41f2-9ab9-fbbeabc49fde" CreationDate="2017-07-15T15:14:43.023" UserId="6545" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="In the sentence, &#xA;&#xA;&quot;But that's not true.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I see a translation as &#xA;&#xA;&quot;Но **э**то не пр**а**вда.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I know 'пр**а**вда' is feminine so it seems that the '**э**то' being used is the indeclinable particle, and not the adjective (or else, if the translation is correct, it would have used '**э**та for the nominative case).&#xA;&#xA;How can one tell/know which word to use - the indeclinable particle, or the declinable special adjective?&#xA;&#xA;___&#xA;&#xA;I know this is older, but I think this ties in well with the original question... How do you determine the subject, or object, of some difficult sentences. For instance,&#xA;&#xA;'Чьи это вещи?' (Here это is indeclinable particle) or&#xA;&#xA;'Чьи эти вещи?'&#xA;&#xA;What do each mean? Which words are the subject? Which are the object? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14586" RevisionGUID="110fa41b-34ed-41f1-8c89-ef0a1ccaf0e3" CreationDate="2017-07-15T15:31:42.630" UserId="6545" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="In the sentence, &#xA;&#xA;&quot;But that's not true.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I see a translation as &#xA;&#xA;&quot;Но **э**то не пр**а**вда.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I know 'пр**а**вда' is feminine so it seems that the '**э**то' being used is the indeclinable particle, and not the adjective (or else, if the translation is correct, it would have used '**э**та for the nominative case).&#xA;&#xA;How can one tell/know which word to use - the indeclinable particle, or the declinable special adjective?&#xA;&#xA;___&#xA;&#xA;I know this is older, but I think this ties in well with the original question... How do you determine the subject, or object, of some difficult sentences, e.g. this question sentence. For instance,&#xA;&#xA;'Чьи это вещи?' (Here это is indeclinable particle) or&#xA;&#xA;'Чьи эти вещи?'&#xA;&#xA;What do each mean? Which words are the subject? Which are the object? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36285" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14656" RevisionGUID="74716156-d376-438e-a0f3-1b19796dc710" CreationDate="2017-07-16T02:14:06.093" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/886408567879647233" />
  <row Id="36286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="38873591-b904-4cb3-b01d-28378ae8bf29" CreationDate="2017-07-16T05:15:30.130" UserId="8742" Text="A while back, I noticed that &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; is &quot;**сосе́ди**&quot; in the nominative plural and that &quot;**чёрт**&quot; becomes &quot;**че́рти**.&quot;  With &quot;**чёрт**,&quot; my guess is that the &quot;**ё**&quot; affects the following letters, but with &quot;**сосе́ди**,&quot; I have no idea why it isn't spelled &quot;**сосе́ды**&quot; like other words that end in a &quot;**д**&quot; (e.g., под -&gt; поды́, вид -&gt; ви́ды, ряд -&gt; ряды́, наро́д -&gt; наро́ды).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize there are many exceptions to the various Russian rules concerning spelling (as well as other types of declension and various aspects of grammatical structure).  The ones that are completely different but seem to follow a pattern (e.g., those that take а/я instead of ы/и, those that drop letters, ...) I've been taking in stride, but because these two words here seem to flip the one rule on its head, my curiosity has been piqued a bit more than other exceptions to the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap/wrap up, is my speculation about &quot;**чёрт**&quot; correct or way off mark?  Was the word &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; once spelled differently (&quot;**сосе́дь**&quot; perhaps?). If anyone has any insight into these two words, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge with us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="38873591-b904-4cb3-b01d-28378ae8bf29" CreationDate="2017-07-16T05:15:30.130" UserId="8742" Text="Is there a reason why &quot;чёрт&quot; and &quot;сосе́д&quot; don't decline for nominative plural according to standard Russian spelling rules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="38873591-b904-4cb3-b01d-28378ae8bf29" CreationDate="2017-07-16T05:15:30.130" UserId="8742" Text="|правописание|дореформенная-орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="599d5a06-8969-458a-b447-31ef381bff2f" CreationDate="2017-07-16T05:20:49.647" UserId="8742" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="A while back, I noticed that &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; is &quot;**сосе́ди**&quot; in the nominative plural and that &quot;**чёрт**&quot; becomes &quot;**че́рти**.&quot;  With &quot;**чёрт**,&quot; my guess is that the &quot;**ё**&quot; affects the following letters, but with &quot;**сосе́ди**,&quot; I have no idea why it isn't spelled &quot;**сосе́ды**&quot; like other words that end in a &quot;**д**&quot; (e.g., под -&gt; поды́, вид -&gt; ви́ды, ряд -&gt; ряды́, наро́д -&gt; наро́ды).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize there are many exceptions to the various Russian rules concerning spelling (as well as other types of declension and various aspects of grammatical structure).  The ones that are completely different but seem to follow a pattern (e.g., those that take а/я instead of ы/и, those that drop letters, ...) I've been taking in stride, but because these two words here seem to flip the one rule on its head, my curiosity has been piqued a bit more than other exceptions to the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap/wrap up, is my speculation about &quot;**чёрт**&quot; correct or way off mark?  Was the word &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; once spelled differently (&quot;**сосе́дь**&quot; perhaps?). Or is is it something much more basic that I am just now noticing -- the &quot;**д**&quot; in &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; is preceded by a &quot;е&quot; and it, like the &quot;**ё**&quot; in &quot;**чёрт**&quot; affects the following letters in a similar way (turning them soft).  If anyone has any insight into these two words, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge with us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="942353e0-a5f4-437d-a723-73b3d906db7b" CreationDate="2017-07-16T05:36:33.640" UserId="8742" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="A while back, I noticed that &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; is &quot;**сосе́ди**&quot; in the nominative plural and that &quot;**чёрт**&quot; becomes &quot;**че́рти**.&quot;  With &quot;**чёрт**,&quot; my guess is that the &quot;**ё**&quot; affects the following letters, but with &quot;**сосе́ди**,&quot; I have no idea why it isn't spelled &quot;**сосе́ды**&quot; like other words that end in a &quot;**д**&quot; (e.g., под -&gt; поды́, вид -&gt; ви́ды, ряд -&gt; ряды́, наро́д -&gt; наро́ды).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize there are many exceptions to the various Russian rules concerning spelling (as well as other types of declension and various aspects of grammatical structure).  The ones that are completely different but seem to follow a pattern (e.g., those that take а/я instead of ы/и, those that drop letters, ...) I've been taking in stride, but because these two words here seem to flip the one rule on its head, my curiosity has been piqued a bit more than other exceptions to the rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap/wrap up, is my speculation about &quot;**чёрт**&quot; correct or way off mark?  Was the word &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; once spelled differently (&quot;**сосе́дь**&quot; perhaps?). Or is is it something much more basic that I am just now noticing -- the &quot;**д**&quot; in &quot;**сосе́д**&quot; is preceded by a &quot;е&quot; and it, like the &quot;**ё**&quot; in &quot;**чёрт**&quot; affects the following letters in a similar way (turning them soft).  Then again, that would not explain the plural of &quot;**отве́т**&quot; (отве́ты), &quot;**след**&quot; (следы́) and others like them.  So, if anyone has any insight into these two words, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge with us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14822" RevisionGUID="17d1c7cb-29b1-4483-8d84-014a73a9fd7e" CreationDate="2017-07-16T11:01:43.600" UserId="134" Text="_Сосед_ and _чёрт_ are the only nouns in modern Russian that retained the old Russian nominative plural form, so in a sense they are the only &quot;correct&quot; nouns with the historical _-о_ stem. All others use the old accusative form in nominative. It used to be _сосѣди_ (pl. nom.) / _сосѣды_ (pl. acc.) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words which retained the old plural nominative are _один/одни, сам/сами, он/они_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As recently as 150 years ago forms like _раб/раби, холоп/холопи_ and the adjective _рад/ради_ (&quot;glad&quot;) were still in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36292" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="8a013bc5-cb8f-4752-b27d-60cd1ae90ad7" CreationDate="2017-07-16T16:51:56.103" UserId="134" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14823" RevisionGUID="f8757d2c-8a2a-42a4-9bdf-f12e72623bd2" CreationDate="2017-07-17T11:20:44.217" UserId="9300" Text="It is neither г nor x. It is something between г and x, like г in Belarusian or in Ukrainian. Yes, this sound doesn't exist in Russian as a single letter, but it may appear in some words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36294" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14821" RevisionGUID="0df4a845-28a5-48dc-88ce-7a444c5e11d0" CreationDate="2017-07-18T05:15:40.800" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/887179038556540928" />
  <row Id="36296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14824" RevisionGUID="46a90ed7-d78b-47d4-bd89-7ff3d6b73966" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:15:39.140" UserId="9308" Text="I was wondering which is the correct form. радио or ра́дио ? I mean I've seen people writing both of them. And I've also seen many letters with this accent above the a. Is it necessary? Which spelling is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14824" RevisionGUID="46a90ed7-d78b-47d4-bd89-7ff3d6b73966" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:15:39.140" UserId="9308" Text="радио or ра́дио" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14824" RevisionGUID="46a90ed7-d78b-47d4-bd89-7ff3d6b73966" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:15:39.140" UserId="9308" Text="|правописание|существительные|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14825" RevisionGUID="00d215fb-c677-42a6-924d-46423c8492a9" CreationDate="2017-07-19T18:20:21.763" UserId="4903" Text="Both forms are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;accent&quot; is a stress mark.  Stress marks are omitted in most books. They are printed in books for beginner readers, and in words where a change of stress would change the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="43917206-b65a-44fe-ab7d-816529ebc2e8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T23:33:21.347" UserId="6545" Text="I'm wondering if there is any distinctions to be made regarding meaning  or use when deciding whether to use `в/на + accusative` or `к + dative`.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="43917206-b65a-44fe-ab7d-816529ebc2e8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T23:33:21.347" UserId="6545" Text="Motion towards something or someone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="43917206-b65a-44fe-ab7d-816529ebc2e8" CreationDate="2017-07-19T23:33:21.347" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36303" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14781" RevisionGUID="a8c69d7a-0ec1-4b3b-bfed-dca633ccb79b" CreationDate="2017-07-20T02:33:35.283" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/887863022990917633" />
  <row Id="36304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="c8b82f2a-1b5f-4903-8c6f-b9f6331f0044" CreationDate="2017-07-20T06:25:33.600" UserId="6545" Comment="added 729 characters in body" Text="I'm wondering if there is any distinctions to be made regarding meaning or use when deciding whether to use `в/на + accusative` or `к + dative`. This is in regards to motion towards.&#xA;___&#xA;&#xA;From a suggestion in comments,&#xA;&#xA;For preposition к,&#xA;&#xA;    к • (+ dative case)&#xA;&#xA;    1.) to, toward &#xA;&#xA;    к дому — to the house&#xA;&#xA;    к бра́ту ― to (my) brother&#xA;&#xA;    ко мне — to me&#xA;&#xA;    2.) (time): by, for&#xA;&#xA;    ко вторнику — by Tuesday, for Tuesday&#xA;&#xA;and for preposition в,&#xA;&#xA;    в •&#xA;&#xA;    1.) (location) in, at, on (+ prepositional case)&#xA;&#xA;    Он в теа́тре ― He’s at (in) the theater.&#xA;&#xA;    2.) (direction) to, into (+ accusative case)&#xA;&#xA;    Он идёт в теа́тр ― He’s going to (into) the theater.&#xA;&#xA;    3.) (time) at, in, on (+ accusative case)&#xA;&#xA;    в три часа́ ― at three o’clock&#xA;&#xA;    в пя́тницу ― on Friday&#xA;&#xA;    4.) per&#xA;&#xA;    три ра́за в день ― three times per day&#xA;&#xA;(Courtesy of www.Wiktionary.org)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14827" RevisionGUID="3ec635ae-d26a-45bf-9fd7-6b3f842c10c5" CreationDate="2017-07-20T07:12:41.453" UserId="5427" Text="Здравствуйте. Никогда не встречал такого выражения, по контексту вроде бы со значением &quot;сразу не увидел&quot; или &quot;прозевал&quot; (например, просматривая список).&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли примеры использования этого выражения в художественной литературе?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14827" RevisionGUID="3ec635ae-d26a-45bf-9fd7-6b3f842c10c5" CreationDate="2017-07-20T07:12:41.453" UserId="5427" Text="&quot;не по глазам было&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14827" RevisionGUID="3ec635ae-d26a-45bf-9fd7-6b3f842c10c5" CreationDate="2017-07-20T07:12:41.453" UserId="5427" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36308" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="a623c0af-65e1-4241-bde9-8a1dec691d3c" CreationDate="2017-07-20T09:18:22.297" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="943405da-a6a9-4bb6-bfae-332586cc789b" CreationDate="2017-07-20T10:52:49.273" UserId="242" Text="Это очень интересная находка. Похоже, изначально это была редкая форма-аналог выражения &quot;не по зубам&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Голубые глазки][1]&quot; (Михаил Михайлов, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ты сама не возьмёшься?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, Анна Карловна, не могу: не по глазам -- мелко очень. А непременно надо к пятнице?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Куплеты из водевилей][2]&quot; (Николай Павлов, первая треть 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё звезды я считал, бывало \ Но мне они не по глазам \ Учился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я, а т[enter link description here][2]олку мало, \ Не поклониться ли звездам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Воспоминания о 1812-м годе][3]&quot; (Пётр Вяземский, первая половина 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  К чему такое презрение к читателям, как будто им не по глазам и не по росту картины более величавые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас же это скорее &quot;не по нраву&quot;, &quot;не нравится&quot;. И действительно, похоже в этом значении оно употребляется в Сибири. Вот [цитата][4] из стихотворения сибирской поэтессы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то бывает, милый, не по глазам  средь чепуховин  вечных,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; беловоронных…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/m/mihajlow_m_l/text_0050.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/p/pawlow_n_f/text_0070.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://az.lib.ru/w/wjazemskij_p_a/text_1240.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stihi.ru/2011/08/23/1353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="66123a26-fb15-433f-b945-43c8f7d79527" CreationDate="2017-07-20T12:21:24.890" UserId="4753" Comment="not two recent meanings, but three" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am well&quot;, &quot;I am fine.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. These meanings can be conveyed thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё хорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в порядке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; described the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still earlier, &quot;I am good.&quot; meant &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я очень добр/добра к тебе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добрдетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я парядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14827" RevisionGUID="0676b8db-4b61-46d0-8f9d-77e38ab2a137" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:39:00.903" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Не по глазам - что это значит?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14827" RevisionGUID="0676b8db-4b61-46d0-8f9d-77e38ab2a137" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:39:00.903" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|значения|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14824" RevisionGUID="e288f980-e977-40b9-8d51-fb5b19596083" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:39:38.697" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Радио&quot; or &quot;ра́дио&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36314" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="3d6d369a-00db-4935-b4ba-980e67b98455" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:40:32.313" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronounciation of &quot;Бог&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="77018b33-3a5e-473b-8020-c893c43ebd18" CreationDate="2017-07-20T13:55:23.993" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="Это очень интересная находка. Похоже, изначально это была редкая форма-аналог выражения &quot;не по зубам&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Голубые глазки][1]&quot; (Михаил Михайлов, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ты сама не возьмёшься?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, Анна Карловна, не могу: не по глазам -- мелко очень. А непременно надо к пятнице?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Куплеты из водевилей][2]&quot; (Николай Павлов, первая треть 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё звезды я считал, бывало \ Но мне они не по глазам \ Учился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я, а толку мало, \ Не поклониться ли звездам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Воспоминания о 1812-м годе][3]&quot; (Пётр Вяземский, первая половина 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  К чему такое презрение к читателям, как будто им не по глазам и не по росту картины более величавые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас же это скорее &quot;не по нраву&quot;, &quot;не нравится&quot;. И действительно, похоже в этом значении оно употребляется в Сибири. Вот [цитата][4] из стихотворения сибирской поэтессы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то бывает, милый, не по глазам  средь чепуховин  вечных,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; беловоронных…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/m/mihajlow_m_l/text_0050.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/p/pawlow_n_f/text_0070.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://az.lib.ru/w/wjazemskij_p_a/text_1240.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stihi.ru/2011/08/23/1353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14799" RevisionGUID="d6410906-37e5-4d7f-b4dd-8f581f5142b4" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:06:21.407" UserId="6350" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="For questions about verbs of movement, e.g. ходить and ездить." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36317" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14799" RevisionGUID="d6410906-37e5-4d7f-b4dd-8f581f5142b4" CreationDate="2017-07-20T15:06:21.407" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 6725, 2104 edit id of 883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="a3d8dddc-2348-4bb8-9767-0e2f2e4a7b0d" CreationDate="2017-07-20T16:06:59.653" UserId="242" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Это очень интересная находка. Похоже, изначально это была редкая форма-аналог выражения &quot;не по зубам&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Голубые глазки][1]&quot; (Михаил Михайлов, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ты сама не возьмёшься?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, Анна Карловна, не могу: не по глазам -- мелко очень. А непременно надо к пятнице?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Куплеты из водевилей][2]&quot; (Николай Павлов, первая треть 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё звезды я считал, бывало \ Но мне они не по глазам \ Учился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я, а толку мало, \ Не поклониться ли звездам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Воспоминания о 1812-м годе][3]&quot; (Пётр Вяземский, первая половина 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  К чему такое презрение к читателям, как будто им не по глазам и не по росту картины более величавые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас же это ещё иногда с уклонов в &quot;не по нраву&quot;, &quot;не нравится&quot;. И действительно, похоже в выражение это употребляется в Сибири. Вот [цитата][4] из стихотворения сибирской поэтессы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то бывает, милый, не по глазам  средь чепуховин  вечных,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; беловоронных…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/m/mihajlow_m_l/text_0050.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/p/pawlow_n_f/text_0070.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://az.lib.ru/w/wjazemskij_p_a/text_1240.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stihi.ru/2011/08/23/1353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="99e996f7-62ac-40f7-9e73-e909721af9c9" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:13:23.157" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="According to Russian Wikipedia, the first meaning of `Красная` was `Beautiful` because of the Saint Basil Cathedral building. It used the old East Slavonic meaning of the word. When the Red Revolution occurred, this meaning was replaced to just the name of the color, which actually is a constricted inheritance of the previous meaning (for Russian language!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36320" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="99e996f7-62ac-40f7-9e73-e909721af9c9" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:13:23.157" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4903, 5605 edit id of 886" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="8d8d3c28-5045-4bcf-a09c-6d0df51c7374" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:13:39.507" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="It isn't shifted. &quot;Red&quot; *is* &quot;beautiful&quot; (but may be &quot;painted&quot; or &quot;coloured&quot;) in old Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Красна ягодка, красна девица, красна (not краснаЯ) площадь - &#xD;&#xA;red raspberry, red girl, red square - all is beautiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Крас-ота, крас-ивый, крас-ный, крас-ка, крас-ить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have many different meanings for many words. I'm not a history or philology specialist, but for me there are 3 definitions from old years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. really beautiful,&#xD;&#xA;2. really red, maybe coloured, maybe from the red colour of the Kremlin&#xD;&#xA;3. unknown or lost definition of 'red' (blood from execution of criminals, red pavement bricks, beautiful things in the market, abundance of red clothing on the market...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36322" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="8d8d3c28-5045-4bcf-a09c-6d0df51c7374" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:13:39.507" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4903, 5605 edit id of 885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8496" RevisionGUID="9db8cf2a-4c0a-43d6-8b67-6408bafad27c" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:13:55.147" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="The spelling &quot;г&quot; is due to old pronunciation. But in modern Russian, we usually say &quot;Бох&quot; due to Church Slavonic (although in Church Slavonic spelling the word still ends in &quot;гъ&quot;). Also sometimes people say &quot;Бок&quot;, but this is thought to be an error." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36324" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8496" RevisionGUID="9db8cf2a-4c0a-43d6-8b67-6408bafad27c" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:13:55.147" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4903, 5605 edit id of 884" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2933" RevisionGUID="779542e0-aa76-4717-9cc4-b7b6550a76ef" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:14:09.793" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="I think back to my Russian history class and I don't recall that even Russians considered the Red Square to be &quot;Beautiful Square&quot;. At different times in history it was called by other names, but around late 1600 it was named Red Square. I remember reading old Russian сказки where the term was used &quot;красная девица&quot; which meant &quot;Beautiful Girl&quot;. So I'm not sure if it was ever known outside of Russia an Beautiful Square, but even inside Russia it has been treated as &quot;Red&quot; square for a long time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider, during the &quot;Red revolution&quot; some names were changed, and the government &quot;rewrote&quot; some history and what people call things. So unless you find really old Russians and ask them, I'm not sure who can help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36326" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2933" RevisionGUID="779542e0-aa76-4717-9cc4-b7b6550a76ef" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:14:09.793" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4903, 5605 edit id of 887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="98f32e7a-23b7-4d52-b1e0-a90911c7c83f" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:47:56.313" UserId="6545" Comment="clarification" Text="I'm a little confused what the difference between `в/на + accusative` and `к + dative`, when constructing a sentence to approach/move towards/motion towards something. Specifically, in the below two examples, number 1.) for preposition к and number 2.) for preposition в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a suggestion in comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For preposition к,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    к • (+ dative case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1.) to, toward &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    к дому — to the house&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    к бра́ту ― to (my) brother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ко мне — to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2.) (time): by, for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ко вторнику — by Tuesday, for Tuesday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for preposition в,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в •&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1.) (location) in, at, on (+ prepositional case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он в теа́тре ― He’s at (in) the theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2.) (direction) to, into (+ accusative case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он идёт в теа́тр ― He’s going to (into) the theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3.) (time) at, in, on (+ accusative case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в три часа́ ― at three o’clock&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в пя́тницу ― on Friday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4.) per&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    три ра́за в день ― three times per day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Courtesy of www.Wiktionary.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36328" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="98f32e7a-23b7-4d52-b1e0-a90911c7c83f" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:47:56.313" UserId="6545" Comment="clarification" Text="Motion towards something or someone using different prepositions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14828" RevisionGUID="1b72d82f-1bb8-475d-a1d0-f6032777c5fc" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:50:50.357" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Это очень интересная находка. Похоже, изначально это была редкая форма-аналог выражения &quot;не по зубам&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Голубые глазки][1]&quot; (Михаил Михайлов, 1855)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Ты сама не возьмёшься?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, Анна Карловна, не могу: не по глазам -- мелко очень. А непременно надо к пятнице?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Куплеты из водевилей][2]&quot; (Николай Павлов, первая треть 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё звезды я считал, бывало \ Но мне они не по глазам \ Учился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я, а толку мало, \ Не поклониться ли звездам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[Воспоминания о 1812-м годе][3]&quot; (Пётр Вяземский, первая половина 19-го века)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  К чему такое презрение к читателям, как будто им не по глазам и не по росту картины более величавые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сейчас же это ещё иногда с уклоном в &quot;не по нраву&quot;, &quot;не нравится&quot;. И действительно, похоже в выражение это употребляется в Сибири. Вот [цитата][4] из стихотворения сибирской поэтессы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то бывает, милый, не по глазам  средь чепуховин  вечных,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; беловоронных…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/m/mihajlow_m_l/text_0050.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/p/pawlow_n_f/text_0070.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://az.lib.ru/w/wjazemskij_p_a/text_1240.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.stihi.ru/2011/08/23/1353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="84ac1ffa-d0e8-46f1-9d7e-fc0cffd13cf3" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:53:12.740" UserId="6545" Comment="clarification" Text="I'm a little confused what the difference between `в/на + accusative` and `к + dative`, when constructing a sentence to approach/move towards/motion towards something. Specifically, in the below two examples, number 1.) for preposition к and number 2.) for preposition в.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Arioch answers, is it just that they both mean a motion towards something but that в means that the something was entered? (I realize he/she basically answered my question, but to keep it viable for a question that others may use I kept it worded as a question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a suggestion in comments,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For preposition к,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    к • (+ dative case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1.) to, toward &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    к дому — to the house&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    к бра́ту ― to (my) brother&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ко мне — to me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2.) (time): by, for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ко вторнику — by Tuesday, for Tuesday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for preposition в,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в •&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1.) (location) in, at, on (+ prepositional case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он в теа́тре ― He’s at (in) the theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2.) (direction) to, into (+ accusative case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он идёт в теа́тр ― He’s going to (into) the theater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3.) (time) at, in, on (+ accusative case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в три часа́ ― at three o’clock&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    в пя́тницу ― on Friday&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4.) per&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    три ра́за в день ― three times per day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Courtesy of www.Wiktionary.org)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36331" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="84ac1ffa-d0e8-46f1-9d7e-fc0cffd13cf3" CreationDate="2017-07-20T18:53:12.740" UserId="6545" Comment="clarification" Text="Motion towards something or someone (w/ or w/o entering) using different prepositions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14829" RevisionGUID="89f27b70-0baa-4056-bb62-6c54eb887f7a" CreationDate="2017-07-21T00:28:46.670" UserId="8719" Text="Is Aliosha a name by itself or just a way the relatives and friends of a child or boy whose name is Alekséi  may refer to him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we are at it, where I can find a list of Russian names and the typical variations of the names that apply when the individual named thus is young? I heard once of a certain connection 'twixt the names Vladimir and Volodya...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me thank you in advance for your insightful replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14829" RevisionGUID="89f27b70-0baa-4056-bb62-6c54eb887f7a" CreationDate="2017-07-21T00:28:46.670" UserId="8719" Text="What's the relationship between the names &quot;Alekséi&quot; and &quot;Aliosha&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14829" RevisionGUID="89f27b70-0baa-4056-bb62-6c54eb887f7a" CreationDate="2017-07-21T00:28:46.670" UserId="8719" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14829" RevisionGUID="d29c3974-4fd4-467a-955d-aa8b5c78ea9f" CreationDate="2017-07-21T01:26:15.803" UserId="8719" Comment="edited body" Text="Is Aliosha a name by itself or just a way the relatives and friends of a child or boy whose name is Alekséi  may refer to him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we are at it, where I can find a list of Russian names and the typical variations of the names that apply when the individual thus named is young? I heard once of a certain connection 'twixt the names Vladimir and Volodya...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me thank you in advance for your insightful replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="9600ce60-3e49-4c65-adfe-2a58e8249925" CreationDate="2017-07-21T01:43:43.983" UserId="4753" Comment="fixed spelling error" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am well&quot;, &quot;I am fine.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. These meanings can be conveyed thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё хорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в порядке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; described the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still earlier, &quot;I am good.&quot; meant &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я очень добр/добра к тебе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добрдетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я порядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14830" RevisionGUID="34b1ef06-8038-472b-afa2-0ac2cd31a146" CreationDate="2017-07-21T02:44:08.310" UserId="9118" Text="Алёша is a diminutive form of Алексей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of names and their different forms (although it's too comprehensive for its own good, as a result most of the names there are WTF-level obscure):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/info/petr/imsm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36338" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14826" RevisionGUID="a06eba52-a708-49aa-88e7-08f82b714f1b" CreationDate="2017-07-21T09:37:12.260" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36339" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="700eca98-0e34-4bd6-b71b-383e0791e715" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:06:45.640" UserId="3892" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a locative for words not ending in a consonant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14775" RevisionGUID="467ecb9b-65dc-4dbc-b1d4-46a0580da27b" CreationDate="2017-07-21T11:31:10.580" UserId="2104" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Я – хорошо́. Or just 'хорошо́':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Как ты?&#xD;&#xA; - Хорошо́!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works for both men and women, no need to decline for gender &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason we use an adverb here and not an adjective is because а verb is implied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я [живу́/чу́вствую себя́] хорошо́.&#xD;&#xA;I [live/feel] well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a verb requires an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also say 'Всё хорошо́' (All good) or 'У меня́ всё хорошо́' (All good with me).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36341" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14829" RevisionGUID="acf2a143-875f-445e-aaca-a675f29cb91c" CreationDate="2017-07-21T17:41:03.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/888453784044617728" />
  <row Id="36342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="30c1cd8f-e95a-4a52-ae3e-907c75af6a2a" CreationDate="2017-07-21T17:57:13.233" UserId="4753" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am well&quot;, &quot;I am fine.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. These meanings can be conveyed thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё хорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в порядке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; described the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; The expressions &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (I am a good female.) and &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; (I [did something] well.) would be boasting (though nobody actually uses these expressions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still earlier, &quot;I am good.&quot; meant &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я очень добр/добра к тебе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добродетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я порядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14777" RevisionGUID="0b8b6754-af73-4143-9691-2cb1c6acef86" CreationDate="2017-07-21T18:20:14.000" UserId="4753" Comment="clarified evaluation of &quot;Я хорошо.&quot;" Text="The phrase &quot;I am good.&quot; in English has many meanings. You are looking for the most modern of them. The Russian translations which you propose convey an earlier meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the last two decades here in New English people have started to say &quot;I am good.&quot; instead of &quot;I am well&quot;, &quot;I am fine.&quot; or even instead of &quot;I do not need anything.&quot; Though the grammar is dubious, these expressions are understood. These meanings can be conveyed thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё хорошо. (I am fine.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня всё в порядке. (I am OK, not hurt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего мне не надо. (I do not need anything.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, in the late 20th century &quot;I am good.&quot; was understood in line with its literal meaning: &quot;good&quot; described the quality of &quot;I&quot;. A person who had just completed a feat of skill might boast &quot;I am good!&quot; Your suggestion &quot;Я хорошая&quot; (&quot;I am a good.&quot;, spoken by a female) might be seen as an attempt to achieve this boasting meaning. &quot;Я хорошо.&quot; also sounds like a boast, though it is missing a verb. Unless the context clearly supplies one, it must be included. For example, one could say &quot;Я пою хорошо.&quot; (&quot;I sing well.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still earlier, &quot;I am good.&quot; meant &quot;I am kind.&quot;, especially in 19th century novels. For example: &quot;I am very good to you.&quot; would be &quot;Я очень добр/добра к тебе.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, &quot;good&quot; can refer to adherence to moral standards: &quot;добродетельная женшина&quot; (a good woman), or Eliza Dolittle's &quot;It's a good girl I am!&quot; (Я порядочная девушка!).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14831" RevisionGUID="fde87e5d-f0af-4840-95ee-323b1f4f1e33" CreationDate="2017-07-21T21:32:43.947" UserId="293" Text="Buses do walk, but only when:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - describing it in abstract terms (&quot;this bus goes to Bolshoy Theatre?&quot; - &quot;Этот автобус идёт до Большого Театра&quot;) - i.e. the question is whether its scheduled path supposed to go there, rather than specific motion of the vehicle.&#xD;&#xA; - talking about departure/arrival of a scheduled transport, e.g. public transport - &quot;автобус пришёл на 5 минут позже&quot; (the bus arrived 5 minutes late), &quot;я пришёл к остановке, а автобус уже ушёл&quot; (I came to the bus stop, but the bus has already left). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same goes for trains, trams, metro, and any other means of public transportation. &quot;Твой поезд уже ушёл&quot; - &quot;your train has already left&quot; - also used as generic description of being too late for something, to the point that there's no hope for fixing the situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ships are a tricky case, as professional seamen like to insist a ship always ходит (&quot;walks&quot;), and never плывет/плавает (&quot;swims&quot;) but if you're not talking to one of them, it's ok to say корабль плывет/отплыл/приплыл. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you describe somebody arriving/leaving in a private car or bus, you'd say он приехал/уехал - he has arrived/left. In English, it is the same as above, but in Russian in this context пришёл would mean arrived on foot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the above context you say приехал instead of пришёл about, e.g., train or public bus, you will be understood, but it would sound a bit weird. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, ходить/идти is frequently used to describe scheduled, organized, paced movement (in addition to regular walking, i.e. using one's feet for locomotion) - e.g. clocks also &quot;walk&quot; (часы идут), mail &quot;walks&quot; (почта пришла, посылка пришла по почте) - that includes email btw, and also for weather - снег идёт, дождь прошёл. When once sees this verb, one should not think of only walking on foot, but also going, visiting, attending, etc.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14832" RevisionGUID="b2dc327b-1f38-40c8-bfef-8e8d65d1c079" CreationDate="2017-07-21T21:56:30.677" UserId="293" Text="&gt; Whenever к is used to mean something, от is always used to mean the opposite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some meanings, but not all of them. E.g. consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы должны закончить этот проект к октябрю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Литий относится к щелочным металлам.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она носит платья от Кардена.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can say also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она носит платья к Кардену.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But those two would not be the opposite (in fact, in some, somewhat tortured, understanding of the situation, it may actually mean the same thing - that Cardin took part in manufacturing the dresses). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, second and third examples also broadly mean the same - classification, even though the former is by chemical properties and the latter is by brand. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="5c06ed42-46e2-4f4a-9ecc-2dbae8bc4d4f" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:05:47.153" UserId="1836" Text="Большая часть собственно в заголовке. Скульптор — очень общее слово, и скорей ассоциируется со статуями (которые большие, в полный рост, или если даже бюсты которые вроде небольшие, но все равно в натуральную величину). А есть ли слово для людей которые лепят (или ваяют) именно небольшие статуэтки (1:10 и меньше)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="5c06ed42-46e2-4f4a-9ecc-2dbae8bc4d4f" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:05:47.153" UserId="1836" Text="Есть ли специльное слово обозначающее скульптора, который делает только статуэтки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="5c06ed42-46e2-4f4a-9ecc-2dbae8bc4d4f" CreationDate="2017-07-22T01:05:47.153" UserId="1836" Text="|выбор-слова|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14834" RevisionGUID="9d3e0ac9-5ac8-4bcd-bbc7-ce95d5754a08" CreationDate="2017-07-22T02:14:48.193" UserId="242" Text="Наиболее близкое к искомому идеалу слово - `резчик`.&#xD;&#xA;У этого слова есть смежное значение - резчик по дереву, он не обязательно вырезает статуэтки, а, например, создаёт деревянные узоры. Тем не менее, человека, который занимается  только созданием статуэток назовут резчиком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Пример][1] использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Японии со средних веков до периода Мэйдзи сложились школы резчиков&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прикладных фигурок-нэцкэ и комнатных статуэток окимоно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но &quot;резчик&quot; - это всё-так больше про дерево, про кость, может быть, про камень. Создателя стеклянных статуэток можно назвать стеклодувом, специализирующемся на [миниатюрной пластике][2], глиняных - мастером художественной керамики, металлически - мастером художественной ковки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какого-то универсального слова мне не известно (что, разумеется, не значит, что его в принципе не существует - но это маловероятно ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36351" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="9a3d7770-325a-4caa-ae23-1cc9b1a92505" CreationDate="2017-07-22T02:18:35.220" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Есть ли специальное слово обозначающее скульптора, который делает только статуэтки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14834" RevisionGUID="0684e6c0-5c99-4490-974d-6509d1809133" CreationDate="2017-07-22T02:23:45.523" UserId="242" Comment="added 766 characters in body" Text="Наиболее близкое к искомому идеалу слово - `резчик`.&#xD;&#xA;У этого слова есть смежное значение - резчик по дереву, он не обязательно вырезает статуэтки, а, например, создаёт деревянные узоры. Тем не менее, человека, который занимается  только созданием статуэток назовут резчиком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Пример][1] использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Японии со средних веков до периода Мэйдзи сложились школы резчиков&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прикладных фигурок-нэцкэ и комнатных статуэток окимоно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но &quot;резчик&quot; - это всё-так больше про дерево, про кость, может быть, про камень. Создателя стеклянных статуэток можно назвать стеклодувом, специализирующемся на [миниатюрной пластике][2], глиняных - мастером / кузнецом художественной керамики (керамистом), металлически - мастером художественной ковки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какого-то универсального слова мне не известно (что, разумеется, не значит, что его в принципе не существует - но это маловероятно ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем-то, тут дело ещё и в том, что люди, скажем, делающие керамические статуэтки редко делали только их - например, они делали ещё посуду. Есть очень &quot;канцеляритское&quot;, официозное понятие [художник декоративно-прикладного искусства][3], из которого получается чуть менее официозное - `художник-прикладник` (или даже просто - `прикладник`). Этот термин тоже уместен, если мы говорим о скульпторе, специализирующемся исключительно на малой форме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14834" RevisionGUID="674cdb3b-c624-466c-ad91-9381c2ca4bfe" CreationDate="2017-07-22T02:37:29.343" UserId="242" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Наиболее близкое к искомому идеалу слово - `резчик`.&#xD;&#xA;У этого слова есть смежное значение - резчик по дереву, он не обязательно вырезает статуэтки, а, например, создаёт деревянные узоры. Тем не менее, человека, который занимается  только созданием статуэток назовут резчиком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Пример][1] использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Японии со средних веков до периода Мэйдзи сложились школы резчиков&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прикладных фигурок-нэцкэ и комнатных статуэток окимоно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но &quot;резчик&quot; - это всё-так больше про дерево, про кость, может быть, про камень. Создателя стеклянных статуэток можно назвать стеклодувом, специализирующемся на [миниатюрной пластике][2], глиняных - мастером / кузнецом художественной керамики (керамистом), металлически - мастером художественной ковки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какого-то универсального слова мне не известно (что, разумеется, не значит, что его в принципе не существует - но это маловероятно ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем-то, тут дело ещё и в том, что люди, скажем, делающие керамические статуэтки редко делали только их - например, они делали ещё посуду. Есть очень &quot;канцеляритское&quot;, официозное понятие [художник декоративно-прикладного искусства][3], из которого получается чуть менее официозное - `художник-прикладник` (или даже просто - `прикладник`). Этот термин тоже уместен, если мы говорим о скульпторе, специализирующемся исключительно на малой форме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, комбинированный термин `скульптор-прикладник` (как противопоставление `скульптору-монументалисту`) тоже существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36354" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="29d5c902-90ac-4756-8ea6-f3cbc6479f49" CreationDate="2017-07-22T02:38:23.117" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Скульптор, делающий только статуэтки - как его назвать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="7c394c18-d812-4cb8-9918-d27e92b230aa" CreationDate="2017-07-22T10:31:12.040" UserId="6350" Comment="capitalization" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short Russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest Russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][20] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Learn to speak Russian][18] - Russian learning site that provides a lot of helpful lessons and other information, including original course from beginning to confident level, and original books. The blog of Russian-1000words.pw contains a lot of different information on Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-1000words.pw&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://russian.morpheem.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14834" RevisionGUID="4035003f-7980-4aae-b4cb-ccd08173ce87" CreationDate="2017-07-22T10:41:32.220" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Наиболее близкое к искомому идеалу слово - `резчик`.&#xD;&#xA;У этого слова есть смежное значение - резчик по дереву, он не обязательно вырезает статуэтки, а, например, создаёт деревянные узоры. Тем не менее, человека, который занимается  только созданием статуэток назовут резчиком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Пример][1] использования:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Японии со средних веков до периода Мэйдзи сложились школы резчиков&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прикладных фигурок-нэцкэ и комнатных статуэток окимоно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но &quot;резчик&quot; - это всё-так больше про дерево, про кость, может быть, про камень. Создателя стеклянных статуэток можно назвать стеклодувом, специализирующемся на [миниатюрной пластике][2], глиняных - мастером / кузнецом художественной керамики (керамистом), металлических - мастером художественной ковки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какого-то универсального слова мне не известно (что, разумеется, не значит, что его в принципе не существует - но это маловероятно ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В общем-то, тут дело ещё и в том, что люди, скажем, делающие керамические статуэтки редко делали только их - например, они делали ещё посуду. Есть очень &quot;канцеляритское&quot;, официозное понятие [художник декоративно-прикладного искусства][3], из которого получается чуть менее официозное - `художник-прикладник` (или даже просто - `прикладник`). Этот термин тоже уместен, если мы говорим о скульпторе, специализирующемся исключительно на малой форме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, комбинированный термин `скульптор-прикладник` (как противопоставление `скульптору-монументалисту`) тоже существует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="2154b0d9-aa7c-48cb-91f6-56dc2c0e7b7a" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:01:44.160" UserId="6350" Comment="capitalization" Text="In this document, [Il verbo russo: il problema dell'aspetto][1]&lt;sup&gt;**1**&lt;/sup&gt;, there is a nice analysis, but since it's Italian, I'll translate it for you. I'll also include parts from other sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the lexical-grammatical point of view, the Russian verbs are divided into three classes: aspectual, transitive/intransitive and personal/impersonal.* Let's take only the first one for this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The verbs that belong to the aspectual class, are divided into two additional categories: verbs that possess whatever limitation in terms of space/time/other and verbs that have no such limitations.* Some examples are (taken from the document:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **писать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing without any limitations of time.&#xD;&#xA; - **написать**: *&quot;to write&quot;*, writing bringing that act to completion.&#xD;&#xA; - **гулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, without limitations.&#xD;&#xA; - **погулять**: *&quot;to stroll, to walk, to wander&quot;*, do the same action but for a while (the limitation is present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two aspects are called *Perfective*, in Russian **совершенный вид** (СВ), and *Imperfective*, **несовершенный вид** (НСВ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The Russian language, unlike other languages, conveys the additional meanings and other information using the verbs' aspects.* For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Я писал письмо**: НСВ, process, duration.&#xD;&#xA; - **Я написал письмо**: СВ, reaching the act completion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's get to the different features of these two aspects (the terms in the document are not easily translatable, so I'll try to express them with common expressions. If someone finds mistakes, feel free to comment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Imperfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action being performed by the subject.*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *actions that are repeated* (you usually add adverbs to indicate this like **иногда, часто, регулярно, каждый день,** etc.).&#xD;&#xA; 3. durative action.&#xD;&#xA; 4. *describing an action that doesn't reach completion.*&#xD;&#xA; 5. *it describes the try of reaching a result.*&#xD;&#xA; 6. *describing an action but including the opposite one*. The classic example for this is: **Кто-то открывал окно** — Somebody opened the window. But a possible implication would be &quot;The room changed air (thanks to someone opening the window), but the window is now closed.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 7. *describing an action that hasn't being brought to completion*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Perfective**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *describing an action, but highlighting its result and above all, the **wanted** result.* For example **Я прочитал книгу.** I read a book (and I finished it).&#xD;&#xA; 2. *describes many repeated actions but summarized*: **Каждому сказал своё.**&#xD;&#xA; 3. *inchoative action*: it describes an action at the moment of its start, such as in **он закричал.** (he started to shout). Or бежать, *&quot;to run&quot;* and побежать, *&quot;to start running&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The classification is much more complicated, because we'd need to include: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the verbs describing motion (which deserve a completely separated book) like идти/ходить, etc...&#xD;&#xA; 2. The fact that not all verbs change aspect because of a prefix but also changing other parts: отвечать/ответить&#xD;&#xA; 3. Some verbs don't just change aspect but also meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Tenses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperfective is present in *past, present and future*, *infinitive* and *imperative*. The perfective only for the *future. The present usually describes a current action or something that happens regularly, and so the perfective is not fit to describe this kind of action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Future*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **composite future**: *буду + imperfective infinitive* (habit, repetitiveness)&#xD;&#xA; - **simple future**: *perfective verb, present conjugation* (unique action, not repeated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Infinitive*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **with phasic verbs**&lt;sup&gt;**2**&lt;/sup&gt;: usually the imperfective is adopted.&#xD;&#xA; - **to desire, to want, to promise**: with verbs like these, both perfective and imperfective can be used (also with negation). The imperfective shows the hope/will that the action has a regular or repeated follow-up. The perfective just for a single event. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Imperative*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the perfective refers to:&#xD;&#xA;   - a single request, that should be done in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;   - a compulsory, peremptory request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the imperfective, instead refers to:&#xD;&#xA;   - negative requests (Don't do this!)&#xD;&#xA;   - a request to start a certain action.&#xD;&#xA;   - an invitation in order to make the subject keep doing the action after some hesitation.&#xD;&#xA;   - an invitation in order to make the subject perform an action in the desired way.&#xD;&#xA;   - a courtesy request (like favor, I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**1**: The Russian verb: the aspect problem&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**2**: See comments. &quot;phasic&quot; was hard to translate in this case. A better word might exist.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/982/1/Lingua%20russa%202%20-%20Verc.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36358" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="2154b0d9-aa7c-48cb-91f6-56dc2c0e7b7a" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:01:44.160" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 71 edit id of 891" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="4f28f3a0-4a05-4383-a42f-50cb038ef52a" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:03:32.667" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="The most informal way to say goodbye is &quot;Пока&quot;, cognate to Italian &quot;ciao&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;До свидания&quot; is totally OK, and this is just like you use the &quot;How are you&quot; greeting in English – just a formal way to mark a specific situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More close to &quot;see you&quot; is &quot;увидимся&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;This actually means that persons involved in conversation are saying goodbye to each other (попрощались друг с другом) and that they most probably will meet in the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36360" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="4f28f3a0-4a05-4383-a42f-50cb038ef52a" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:03:32.667" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="5f300c76-7606-40dc-b6e9-fb39f7b4f8aa" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:03.227" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Some words of Greek descent use ф as corresponding to the Greek θ, while some use т. The former I think tend to be loaned earlier. However, in &quot;Brothers Karamazov&quot; I have found Mitya using the word эфика. The footnotes stated &quot;He probably meant этика&quot;, however, the spelling эфика would be correct when transliterating θ to ф.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it an example of a word with alternative spellings? Are there many such words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36362" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="5f300c76-7606-40dc-b6e9-fb39f7b4f8aa" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:03.227" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Are there words that can be spelled with both т and ф?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36363" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="5f300c76-7606-40dc-b6e9-fb39f7b4f8aa" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:03.227" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by -1 edit id of 890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="8ca3db6d-a0b7-403b-9b61-65119e444394" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:03.227" UserId="242" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Some words of Greek descent use ф as corresponding to the Greek θ, while some use т. The former I think tend to be loaned earlier. However, in &quot;Brothers Karamazov&quot; I have found Mitya using the word &quot;эфика&quot;. The footnotes stated &quot;He probably meant этика&quot;, however, the spelling &quot;эфика&quot; would be correct when transliterating θ to ф.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it an example of a word with alternative spellings? Are there many such words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="9e62f33a-69ca-408d-932a-a78fb8a49ac9" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:08.760" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Can anyone explain the difference between the following sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *&quot;Чашка лежит на столе&quot;* vs. *&quot;Чашка стоит на столе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;2. *&quot;Мяч лежит на столе&quot;* vs. *&quot;Мяч стоит на столе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;3. *&quot;Лэптоп лежит на столе&quot;* vs. *&quot;Лэптоп стоит на столе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I should use the first one and when the second one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36366" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="9e62f33a-69ca-408d-932a-a78fb8a49ac9" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:08.760" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 888" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="791aad7e-acd1-46d4-b215-3e6f3fb0b9ea" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:17.040" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Practice shows that it is perfectly acceptable to say `До свидания` regardless of whether you think you'll actually see them again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it ... you can't possibly know if you'll see them again, you may.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the person is terminally ill, I believe it's still OK to say `До свидания`, implying that you'll meet them again in the afterlife at some point in the future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36368" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="379" RevisionGUID="791aad7e-acd1-46d4-b215-3e6f3fb0b9ea" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:17.040" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 894" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="d355bb6f-2276-41e9-98cc-52e4a0c69d77" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:33.820" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="Could you please explain what this means, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Руки не доходят посмотреть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="d355bb6f-2276-41e9-98cc-52e4a0c69d77" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:33.820" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="&quot;Руки не доходят посмотреть&quot; - what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36371" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4089" RevisionGUID="d355bb6f-2276-41e9-98cc-52e4a0c69d77" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:33.820" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="ca5c9843-893e-4567-951b-df9eb1925da9" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:38.170" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="In Russia &quot;*до свиданья*&quot; can be used in either case of terminating the communication. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a voice or tete-a-tete conversation, then &quot;*до свиданья*&quot; will have different meanings depending on the intonation. These meanings include (but are not limited to) friendly &quot;*see you later*&quot;, &quot;*hope to see you soon*&quot; etc., or a disappointed &quot;*hope to never see you again*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36373" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="ca5c9843-893e-4567-951b-df9eb1925da9" CreationDate="2017-07-22T11:04:38.170" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 892" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14835" RevisionGUID="1c8605be-9662-4921-9c73-edba333b27f1" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:07:06.180" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Есть предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты говорил, что прочитал первую книги этого автора **(?)** будешь читать следующие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой знак следует поставить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14835" RevisionGUID="1c8605be-9662-4921-9c73-edba333b27f1" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:07:06.180" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Постановка знака препинания" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14835" RevisionGUID="1c8605be-9662-4921-9c73-edba333b27f1" CreationDate="2017-07-22T19:07:06.180" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14836" RevisionGUID="80ad5784-a9be-481b-a09b-8184f25de513" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:19:13.997" UserId="9317" Text="I'm trying to figure out how numerals agree with adjectives and nouns... @_@&#xD;&#xA;I've found this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Я нашла тридцать шесть старые газеты&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it is correct... Shouldn't it be:&#xD;&#xA;Я нашла тридцать шесть старых газет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;старые газеты is in accusative case... I know that газета is an inanimate noun, but shouldn't numerals from пять up be followed by nouns and adjectives in genitive plural case?&#xD;&#xA;Or do I still have to observe the difference between animate/inanimate nouns? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for my terrible explanation (probably dued to my poor english)... still, I hope someone can help me clearing this doubt!&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your attention! :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14836" RevisionGUID="80ad5784-a9be-481b-a09b-8184f25de513" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:19:13.997" UserId="9317" Text="Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14836" RevisionGUID="80ad5784-a9be-481b-a09b-8184f25de513" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:19:13.997" UserId="9317" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14837" RevisionGUID="f4dddccc-a394-4338-b7ee-12114ac162c8" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:29:48.650" UserId="6539" Text="You understand everything correctly. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нашла старые газеты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we observe the rule of the accusative for inanimate nouns. But when you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нашла тридцать шесть старых газет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be genitive plural because of &quot;шесть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%d0%af-%d0%b2%d0%b8%d0%b6%d1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14837" RevisionGUID="9607be86-6c17-4d9d-b9c1-db78a90e0255" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:35:33.170" UserId="6539" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="You understand everything correctly. The first sentence is incorrect.(Я нашла тридцать шесть #старые газеты#).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нашла *старые газеты*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we observe the rule of the accusative for inanimate nouns. But when you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нашла тридцать шесть *старых газет*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be genitive plural because of &quot;шесть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%d0%af-%d0%b2%d0%b8%d0%b6%d1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14837" RevisionGUID="bfddb816-c7a6-4c5f-9916-4bc6b11e2b8d" CreationDate="2017-07-22T20:41:04.270" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You understand everything correctly. The first sentence is incorrect.(Я нашла тридцать шесть #старые газеты#).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нашла **старые газеты**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we observe the rule of the accusative for inanimate nouns. But when you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нашла тридцать шесть **старых газет**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be genitive plural because of &quot;шесть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read more here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13618/%d0%af-%d0%b2%d0%b8%d0%b6%d1%83-numeral-noun-governed-by-what-case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14835" RevisionGUID="1a7a2241-c3ce-4195-a65e-96f0793c8d9f" CreationDate="2017-07-22T21:17:08.350" UserDisplayName="user9230" Comment="missprint" Text="Есть предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты говорил, что прочитал первую книгу этого автора **(?)** будешь читать следующие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой знак следует поставить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14838" RevisionGUID="12559ff5-1c34-4c5c-bfae-94d0d599ee51" CreationDate="2017-07-22T23:50:18.570" UserId="6938" Text="You should use &quot;прощай&quot; only if you want to stress that you will never (really never!) meet again. It could be deemed to be rudeness or threat. I recommend never use &quot;прощай&quot; if you unsure.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It could be used at the end of the romantic relationship. Or if you or another person should die shortly. Or your familiar is going to move to the far place and you don't expect to see it again.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;До свидания&quot;, &quot;всего хорошего&quot;, &quot;всего доброго&quot; is usually used at the end of the conversation (regardless will you meet again or not). You could use &quot;удачи&quot; as less formal form (but still appropriate in many cases). &quot;Пока&quot; is used in informal conversations (mostly with friends).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of another forms: &quot;до встречи&quot; (if you are going to meet again), &quot;ещё увидимся&quot; (less formal form of the same), maybe &quot;созвонимся&quot; (if you are going to chat via phone), even &quot;спишемся&quot; (if you are going to communicate via email/IM), &quot;давай&quot; (like &quot;пока&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Often couple of phrases is combined, e.g. &quot;Ну пока, удачи&quot;, or &quot;Давай, ещё увидимся&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14839" RevisionGUID="6bd14611-1e59-4cb2-91df-3a2e7b296962" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:16:17.137" UserId="6539" Text="Надо поставить точку в конце косвенной речи и начать новое предложение с заглавной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты говорил, что прочитал первую книгу этого автора. Будешь читать следующие?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда это будет нормальная речь. Я,возможно,вызову некоторое недовольство, но хочу обратить ваше внимание, что предложение содержит законченную мысль. Первая мысль о том, что человек прочитал первую книгу. Вторая – интерес о продолжении чтения. Нельзя весь текст тянуть в одно предложение." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="2556e07c-64b3-4fef-a079-6265d9b99652" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:02.097" UserId="6350" Comment="capitalization" Text="I'm an Argentinian with an Ukranian last name, originally written Явтушенко. My Russian father and grandmother are dead (and they didn't have a clue of its meaning, they weren't Ukranian speakers). I know that the ending шенко is very common in Ukraine, but that, in addition to a song called &quot;Where do you go, Явтуше?&quot; (partially translated) is all I know.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot for anything you can tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7723" RevisionGUID="2556e07c-64b3-4fef-a079-6265d9b99652" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:02.097" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 2060, 6539 edit id of 897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="ceefc6b3-3dda-4f2a-afbc-dadb078819bc" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:12.570" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="It is a very interesting question indeed.  &#xD;&#xA;The answer by shabunc is also very good. For example, I did not know that &quot;Пока&quot; was introduced at Korney Chukovsky's time - the beginning of the 20th century. I thought it always existed :-). And I did not know also about his attitude to the introduction of this word then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember when &quot;давай&quot; instead of &quot;до свидания&quot; or &quot;пока&quot; was introduced. It was at the end of 1970s - beginning of 80s. I remember how I myself started to use it. My understanding of its meaning was bullet number 4 in shabunc's list, i.e. motivational. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with more formal expressions of goodbye like &quot;прощай&quot; (almost never used), &quot;до свидания&quot;, &quot;счастливо&quot;, and even &quot;пока&quot; is that they have too much pathos for certain situations. When you part with a good friend casually, you do not want to show too much senses but at the same time you want to finish your conversation on a positive note. Something like wishing him/her good luck but without too much pathos. Here &quot;давай&quot; comes into play with a hand wave for example. Давай goes (to my mind, at least that is what I was thinking when I was using it) as shortening of &quot;давай, будь здоров&quot;, &quot;давай, наслаждайся жизнью&quot;, &quot;давай, делай что задумал&quot;, or if I may mix Russian and English &quot;давай, continue with your life&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is that давай in motivational meaning (used as a soft motivation in Russian) conveys some positive attitude to the person who it is addressed to. Something like &quot;I believe you can do it.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I used/use it personally I do not think about &quot;давай прощаться&quot;, &quot;давай руку&quot;, &quot;давай пять&quot; or &quot;давай-давай&quot;. But it is just me. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36389" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1485" RevisionGUID="ceefc6b3-3dda-4f2a-afbc-dadb078819bc" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:12.570" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 2060, 6539 edit id of 895" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="4ac99f2b-07c6-487b-af8f-48af38b4f9c0" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:17.307" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="I took Russian in university and can talk a little. A few days ago my Russian friend lost his keys and I wanted to sarcastically say &quot;nice job&quot; in Russian, but I didn't really know what was the proper thing to say and said &quot;*хорошая работа*&quot;. He laughed at me for saying that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- What is the proper thing to say? &#xD;&#xA;- Is there a usual noun or slang for such an incident?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36391" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="4ac99f2b-07c6-487b-af8f-48af38b4f9c0" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:17.307" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 2060, 6539 edit id of 898" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2172" RevisionGUID="bf9f7625-9a8e-4183-9e30-8df4692d7f13" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:32.827" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="I do not fully agree with the previous replies. The phrase *Я ничего не понимаю* is not a double negation. Double negation means that the final meaning of the phrase becomes positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Example: *Я **не** смогла **не** думать об этом* (I **didn't** manage **not** to think about it) = Я **подумала** (I **thought** about it). This **is** double negation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If *Я ничего не понимаю* (I understand nothing) was a double negation, it would mean *Я понимаю* (I understand), which is not the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have a normal negation, the trick is with the word **ничего** (the negative pronounce). This word, and other pronouns starting with &quot;ни-&quot; (никто, никого, ничто, ничего) when used together with negations, add more emphasis to the negative sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36393" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2172" RevisionGUID="bf9f7625-9a8e-4183-9e30-8df4692d7f13" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:32.827" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 2060, 6539 edit id of 899" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="e3a07b48-961c-4c5c-99e7-ebadd2fcbea8" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:56.617" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="You are actually asking a very, very interesting question. I believe that, among others, exactly such questions should be explored by modern linguists. As far as I know, nobody knows for sure, when and how exactly this form came to usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only list here all common hypotheses, but it is important to understand that none of them is scientific, i.e. proved by any kind of statistical data. To be more exigent, such estimates can be listed as examples of so-called &quot;[folk etymology][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The most popular opinion is this form is derived from `давай прощаться`. &#xD;&#xA; - Some claim that this is derived from `давай руку`, but I have strong doubts about this. As opposed to `давай лапу`, it is less common in Russian to say something like this to human.&#xD;&#xA; - Some claim that this is derived from `давай пять`. I wonder why in that case the final form is not &quot;Дай&quot;, since actually it is way more common to say `дай пять`, not `давай`.&#xD;&#xA; - The form `давай` by itself is used as a motivation (&quot;давай, сделай это!&quot;, &quot;давай, Вася!!!&quot;), so `давай` can be a shortened form of `давай пока` and/or famous `Давай, до свидания`. The most funny part of this is that `пока` actually is also a relatively new form of farewell. Korney Chukovsky [wrote][2]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Помню, как страшно я был возмущен, когда молодые люди, словно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сговорившись друг с другом, стали вместо до свиданья говорить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; почему-то пока.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The doubled form `давай-давай` is used to ask somebody to act quicker. By analogy with `пока-пока` one can used `давай-давай` for saying goodbye when he/she is in a hurry: &quot;Давай-давай, Оль, я побежала уже на работу&quot;. And the shortened form &quot;давай&quot; had been used in same meaning: &quot;Давай, мне пора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I don't know why, but, to my knowledge, the word `давай` with this meaning is one of  the most popular Russian word among non-native speakers. Moreover, it is quite popular among those who even don't know Russian. I've encountered this usage in Сentral Asia, in the Caucasus and among Estonians and Lithuanian people. The second such word is `вообще` :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/BOOKS/LANG/LANG_1.HTM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36395" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1477" RevisionGUID="e3a07b48-961c-4c5c-99e7-ebadd2fcbea8" CreationDate="2017-07-23T04:19:56.617" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 2060, 6539 edit id of 896" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14829" RevisionGUID="58189c73-6362-47d9-88ab-5488bb9e4a4f" CreationDate="2017-07-23T05:26:27.843" UserId="8719" Comment="edited body" Text="Is Aliosha a name by itself or just a way the relatives and friends of a child or boy whose name is Alekséi  may refer to him?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we are at it, where can I find a list of Russian names and the typical variations of the names that apply when the individual thus named is young? I heard once of a certain connection 'twixt the names Vladimir and Volodya...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me thank you in advance for your insightful replies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="830b7e78-cf21-44ae-b581-97e92a96a387" CreationDate="2017-07-23T11:07:36.110" UserId="6938" Text="&quot;Никогда&quot;, &quot;нигде&quot; and similar words don't make negation by themselves. And they shouldn't be used without negation (&quot;не&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception: short answers, like:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ты выйдешь за меня [замуж]?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Никогда! (Short version of: Я никогда не выйду за тебя)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of &quot;всё/ничего&quot; with/without &quot;не&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Я всё знаю - &quot;I know everything&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Я ничего не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Я всё не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;, could be used only as answer to question like &quot;Что ты не знаешь?&quot;, it sounds emotionally;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Я не всё знаю - I do not know everything (e.g. I start studying but not finished it yet);&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Я ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Я не ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Я не ничего не знаю - rarely used, means &quot;I know something&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Я не всё не знаю - sounds childish, meaning is the same as previous.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="7d821a7c-a2c4-45e1-8d05-6e0fcaea82a9" CreationDate="2017-07-23T12:04:24.220" UserId="6938" Comment="added 631 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; understandable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Никогда&quot;, &quot;нигде&quot; and similar words don't make negation by themselves, they are used in conjustion with negation (&quot;не&quot;).&lt;br&gt;And they shouldn't be used without negation!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception: short answers, like:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ты выйдешь за меня [замуж]?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Никогда! (Short version of &quot;Я никогда не выйду за тебя&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of &quot;всё/ничего&quot; with/without &quot;не&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Я всё знаю - &quot;I know everything&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Я ничего не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Я всё не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;, could be used only as answer to question like &quot;Что ты не знаешь?&quot;, it sounds emotionally;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Я не всё знаю - I do not know everything (e.g. I start studying but not finished it yet);&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Я ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Я не ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Я не ничего не знаю - rarely used, means &quot;I know something&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Я не всё не знаю - sounds childish, meaning is the same as previous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does this construction ничего/никого... не + глагол apply for any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verb? (I've heard &quot;Я ничего не вижу&quot; итд.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general yes (but &quot;Я ничего не иду&quot; is nonsense because we cannot go something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, we have one more use case for &quot;ничего не&quot; (vulgar tongue):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Что ты такой ленивый? (Why are you so lazy?)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ничего я не ленивый! (I'm not lazy!)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do there exist examples where this apparent double negation actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means something affirmative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double negation means affirmation in Russian. But &quot;никогда не&quot; isn't a double negation as mentioned before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="cf7cf65d-a58b-47bb-bf86-0d44ebb32ee2" CreationDate="2017-07-23T12:16:13.280" UserId="6938" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="&gt; Is &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; understandable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Никогда&quot;, &quot;нигде&quot; and similar words don't make negation by themselves, they are used in conjustion with negation (&quot;не&quot;).&lt;br&gt;And they shouldn't be used without negation!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception: short answers, like:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ты выйдешь за меня [замуж]?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Никогда! (Short version of &quot;Я никогда не выйду за тебя&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of &quot;всё/ничего&quot; with/without &quot;не&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Я всё знаю - &quot;I know everything&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Я ничего не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Я всё не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;, could be used only as answer to question like &quot;Что ты не знаешь?&quot;, it sounds emotionally;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Я не всё знаю - I do not know everything (e.g. I start studying but not finished it yet);&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Я ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Я не ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Я не ничего не знаю - rarely used, means &quot;I know something&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Я не всё не знаю - sounds childish, meaning is the same as previous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does this construction ничего/никого... не + глагол apply for any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verb? (I've heard &quot;Я ничего не вижу&quot; итд.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general yes (but &quot;Я ничего не иду&quot; is nonsense because we cannot go something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, we have one more use case for &quot;ничего не&quot; (vulgar tongue):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Что ты такой ленивый? (Why are you so lazy?)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ничего я не ленивый! (I'm not lazy!)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be used with verb as well:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Почему ты нагрубил тёте? (Why was you rude to aunt)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ничего я не грубил! (I wasn't rude!)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do there exist examples where this apparent double negation actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means something affirmative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double negation means affirmation in Russian. But &quot;никогда не&quot; isn't a double negation as mentioned before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36406" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14827" RevisionGUID="b27de335-36a0-40e0-95eb-0892777a1bbd" CreationDate="2017-07-23T13:39:25.270" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/889117749691154432" />
  <row Id="36407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="40c3ae1b-119c-487c-a625-02303b0ccf6e" CreationDate="2017-07-23T15:55:21.960" UserId="6991" Text="Jim Kovpak wrote an article _A Quick and Dirty Guide to Russian_ that frequently references 'Russian being an extremely hard language and even natives make mistakes speaking it', but never really builds up on that or gives any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard that many Russian youth and some adults say _&quot;Христос воскрес!&quot;_ instead of _Христос воскресе!_ for Easter, but I don't feel like that counts because this is more so Church Slavonic influences of Russian and not mistakes in Russian proper. &#xD;&#xA;Learning Russian for a while now and only making marginal progress, I found this topic rather encouraging and inspires me to keep learning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="40c3ae1b-119c-487c-a625-02303b0ccf6e" CreationDate="2017-07-23T15:55:21.960" UserId="6991" Text="What mistakes do native Russians make in their own language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="40c3ae1b-119c-487c-a625-02303b0ccf6e" CreationDate="2017-07-23T15:55:21.960" UserId="6991" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14845" RevisionGUID="d1da528d-beab-49ce-9f1d-f183309fbf58" CreationDate="2017-07-23T16:29:43.567" UserId="6938" Text="Some examples:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Ложить&quot; instead if &quot;класть&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Wrong accentuation, e.g. &quot;зво́нит/звони́т&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;Одеть&quot; instead of &quot;надеть&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;Хорошее кофе&quot; instead of &quot;хороший кофе&quot; (indeed both forms are legal now);&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 5. &quot;Ихний&quot;, &quot;ейный&quot; and similar nonexistent words;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 6. &quot;Сколько время&quot; instead of &quot;сколько времени&quot;.&lt;br&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14843" RevisionGUID="1323b1de-b301-40ec-bc59-5a2d5974fb06" CreationDate="2017-07-23T16:38:24.433" UserId="6938" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Is &quot;Я ничего понимaю&quot; understandable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Никогда&quot;, &quot;нигде&quot; and similar words don't make negation by themselves, they are used in conjustion with negation (&quot;не&quot;).&lt;br&gt;And they shouldn't be used without negation!&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception: short answers like:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ты выйдешь за меня [замуж]?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Никогда! (Short version of &quot;Я никогда не выйду за тебя&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of &quot;всё/ничего&quot; with/without &quot;не&quot;:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Я всё знаю - &quot;I know everything&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Я ничего не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Я всё не знаю - &quot;I know nothing&quot;, could be used only as answer to question like &quot;Что ты не знаешь?&quot;, it sounds emotionally;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Я не всё знаю - I do not know everything (e.g. I start studying but not finished it yet);&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Я ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Я не ничего знаю - incorrect;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Я не ничего не знаю - rarely used, means &quot;I know something&quot;;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Я не всё не знаю - sounds childish, meaning is the same as previous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does this construction ничего/никого... не + глагол apply for any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verb? (I've heard &quot;Я ничего не вижу&quot; итд.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general yes (but &quot;Я ничего не иду&quot; is nonsense because we cannot go something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, we have one more use case for &quot;ничего не&quot; (vulgar tongue):&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Что ты такой ленивый? (Why are you so lazy?)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ничего я не ленивый! (I'm not lazy!)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be used with verb as well:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Почему ты нагрубил тёте? (Why was you rude to aunt?)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; — Ничего я не грубил! (I wasn't rude!)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do there exist examples where this apparent double negation actually&#xD;&#xA;&gt; means something affirmative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double negation means affirmation in Russian. But &quot;никогда не&quot; isn't a double negation as mentioned before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14846" RevisionGUID="f9f97669-7652-44b4-af2e-c55f8b13e837" CreationDate="2017-07-23T17:06:17.273" UserId="4560" Text="**Христос воскрес** really is a borderline case since it's correct Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for actual &quot;mistakes&quot; — let's first establish what we consider a mistake. I'm going to disregard popular prescriptivist tics such as the crusade against *одеть пальто* (insisting on **надеть пальто**), and other examples that are considered jarring and &quot;uncultured&quot; on the questionable premise that everyday language is a thing that can and should be regulated. Let's limit ourselves with those cases where the speaker is clearly aiming for the formal/literary register while breaking some of its expected norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of such mistakes have to do with misplaced stress, such as *дóговор* instead of **договóр**, and with oblique cases of large numerals: by far not all native speakers will get through **тысячей семьюстами шестьюдесятью** without stumbling or using the wrong ending somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others are more specific:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Не* instead of **ни** in &quot;whatever/whoever/wherever&quot; constructions. Since they sound the same except in one case, with the past tense of **быть**, this mostly only results in spelling mistakes, but you do also get *что бы это нé было* instead of **что бы это ни было**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Lack of agreement of verbal adverb phrases with the subject of the main clause. Often exemplified with **Проезжая мимо станции, с меня слетела шляпа** (a shortened and slightly paraphrased quote from a story by Chekhov, where it's used deliberately for comedic effect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A duplicate *бы* somewhere down the line in a long subordinate clause that already began with **чтобы**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *Обоих*/*обоим* where **обеих**/**обеим** is expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Similar to the previous item: using the forms **двое**, **трое**, etc. with female-only groups. (Not currently a prominent part of our gendered language debates that I'm aware of, but one can certainly expect calls for retiring this distinction at some point. For now, it's bad grammar.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Genitive instead of dative with **согласно** &quot;according to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just the ones I could think of off the top of my head; I don't also want to veer into what's no longer issues of pure grammar rather than style, such as people mixing up **неприкасаемый** and **неприкосновенный**, or arguing whether **другая альтернатива** is or isn't a tautology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36413" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="489be899-333e-4d43-8cb9-79dfae05c5cb" CreationDate="2017-07-23T17:41:28.423" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="b948c0d6-2bb3-48bd-b692-6f3fdb8b997d" CreationDate="2017-07-23T18:19:53.673" UserId="6991" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Jim Kovpak wrote an article _A Quick and Dirty Guide to Russian_ that frequently references 'Russian being an extremely hard language and even natives make mistakes speaking it', but never really builds up on that or gives any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard that many Russian youth and some adults say _&quot;Христос воскрес!&quot;_ instead of _Христос воскресе!_ for Easter, but I don't feel like that counts because this is more so Church Slavonic influences of Russian and not mistakes in Russian proper. I'm mostly interested in mistakes that become so common they become part of the standardised language, like how in American English the pronunciation of Stephen as _Steffen_ is now a commonality, even if proscribed or saying 'vice-a-versa'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learning Russian for a while now and only making marginal progress, I found this topic rather encouraging and inspires me to keep learning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36415" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14771" RevisionGUID="9d9ea571-69b5-45ec-b119-31c7a5ca2528" CreationDate="2017-07-23T22:40:05.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/889253815920230400" />
  <row Id="36419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="ddee9d22-dbcb-4e94-b7da-60f562cd3d35" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:32:14.057" UserId="9210" Comment="added a dictionary" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][2], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][4], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][5], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][6], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA; - [Пиздец!][7] - Russian-English slang dictionary | Словарь русского мата и неформального языка&#xD;&#xA; - [Словарь молодёжного сленга](http://teenslang.ru) - explanatory slang dictionary (the idea is similar to urbandictionary.com).&#xD;&#xA; - [Open Russian](https://en.openrussian.org) - English-Russian and German-Russian dictionary with examples, declension and stressmarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lurkmore.to&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.russki-mat.net/e/Russian.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36420" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="ddee9d22-dbcb-4e94-b7da-60f562cd3d35" CreationDate="2017-07-24T05:32:14.057" Comment="Proposed by 9210 approved by 6539, 4714 edit id of 900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14849" RevisionGUID="4bca1c4b-e564-4abd-9e13-9fcb6c9bf351" CreationDate="2017-07-24T08:48:16.410" UserId="9058" Text="&quot;В&quot; = &quot;in&quot; (or &quot;into&quot;). It means you finally end withIN, INside some place or process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;К&quot; = &quot;to&quot; (but without &quot;into&quot;). It means you finally come close to some anchor, but you remain separated, not overlapping in space, just close enough to communicate, work together, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wanting a (rather rude) rule of thumb? Imagine a wife telling her husband &quot;come to me&quot; or &quot;come into me&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the differences between the two processes implied? Both &quot;geospatial&quot; difference (how close/far and how distinctly/vaguely end point is positioned), some vague interconnection/intimacy/weaving difference, ability/inability of several actors finishing the same process at the same time, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That i believe would hold the same with most cases of using those movement/process prepositions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13618" RevisionGUID="7b7482bf-e2e3-4a56-8613-b21d6c8a5b67" CreationDate="2017-07-24T10:23:40.927" UserId="62" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14833" RevisionGUID="08f2d296-cba4-4717-a902-0319a2cd7013" CreationDate="2017-07-24T13:41:58.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/889480780711215104" />
  <row Id="36427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14850" RevisionGUID="d55760b8-9b4b-472c-abac-e93d25eabf4d" CreationDate="2017-07-25T01:04:16.797" UserId="9332" Text="by the way, while *nowadays* Aliosha is a diminutive form of Aleksei, back in the day, centuries ago, it used to be name in itself, check out this wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyosha_Popovich][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;talking about lists of names, to be honest, it's impossible to put up one that will cover all the possibilities.. name in Russian changes depending on voice, intonation, other feelings that require inserting suffixes and prefixes, the length you've know the person, closeness to them, and many other factors.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyosha_Popovich" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="52b18fd9-e823-4c2a-be3d-1eef5980c49d" CreationDate="2017-07-25T08:49:50.640" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body; edited title" Text="Jim Kovpak wrote an article _A Quick and Dirty Guide to Russian_ that frequently references 'Russian being an extremely hard language and even natives make mistakes speaking it', but never really builds up on that or gives any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard that many Russian youth and some adults say _&quot;Христос воскрес!&quot;_ instead of _Христос воскресе!_ for Easter, but I don't feel like that counts because this is more so Church Slavonic influences of Russian and not mistakes in Russian proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in words which are not used in the real language the way the dictionaries and style guides prescribe them to be used, like how in American English the pronunciation of Stephen as _Steffen_ is now a commonality, even if proscribed; or saying 'vice-a-versa'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36433" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="52b18fd9-e823-4c2a-be3d-1eef5980c49d" CreationDate="2017-07-25T08:49:50.640" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are there outdated prescriptive norms in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36434" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="969d9980-1a1d-41aa-948f-6d522bf68de4" CreationDate="2017-07-25T08:49:53.600" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6725,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Lara&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14851" RevisionGUID="661090f0-a2d2-43b9-a878-c30fe020187b" CreationDate="2017-07-25T12:00:05.073" UserId="8411" Text="&gt; I'm mostly interested in **words** which are not used in the real language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the way the dictionaries and style guides prescribe them to be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, there are a lot of them, especially in journalism and in emerging areas which have a lot of loan words, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *нелицеприятный* is used as *unpleasant* but means *objective*&#xD;&#xA; - *линейка* is used as *(model) line* but means a *ruler*&#xD;&#xA; - *усугубить* is used as *worsen* but means *intensify* with no negative meaning&#xD;&#xA; - *эскпертиза* is used as *knowledge* due to blending with its English counterpart&#xD;&#xA; - *бизнесы* is more often used in plural" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="f207a878-2c54-4945-9353-2ab76f63bd29" CreationDate="2017-07-25T15:49:04.020" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Jim Kovpak wrote an article _A Quick and Dirty Guide to Russian_ that frequently references 'Russian being an extremely hard language and even natives make mistakes speaking it', but never really builds up on that or gives any examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard that many Russian youth and some adults say _&quot;Христос воскрес!&quot;_ instead of _Христос воскресе!_ for Easter, but I don't feel like that counts because this is more so Church Slavonic influences of Russian and not mistakes in Russian proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in words which are not used anymore the way the dictionaries and style guides prescribe them to be used, like how in American English the pronunciation of Stephen as _Steffen_ is now a commonality, even if proscribed; or saying 'vice-a-versa'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36441" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14768" RevisionGUID="dd8136a7-c9d0-484c-a764-2299cf9c106d" CreationDate="2017-07-25T16:42:20.637" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/889888559238438913" />
  <row Id="36442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14851" RevisionGUID="9e1b71a2-ac7a-4889-926d-5acd8bf04a06" CreationDate="2017-07-25T17:19:38.800" UserId="8411" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; I'm mostly interested in **words** which are not used in the real language&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the way the dictionaries and style guides prescribe them to be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, there are a lot of them, especially in journalism and in emerging areas which have a lot of loan words, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *нелицеприятный* is used as *unpleasant* but means *objective*&#xD;&#xA; - *усугубить* is used as *worsen* but means *intensify* with no negative meaning&#xD;&#xA; - *линейка* is used as *(model) line* but means a *ruler*&#xD;&#xA; - *эскпертиза* is used as *knowledge* due to blending with its English counterpart&#xD;&#xA; - *бизнесы* is more often used in plural" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="b872d84a-4aa6-4ef9-89b8-a26b1b602550" CreationDate="2017-07-25T18:07:12.693" UserId="190" Comment="teenslang.ru doesn't exist since summer 2016" Text="## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][1], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][2], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][3], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][4], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][5], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][6], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA; - [Пиздец!][7] - Russian-English slang dictionary | Словарь русского мата и неформального языка&#xD;&#xA; - [Open Russian][8] - English-Russian and German-Russian dictionary with examples, declension and stressmarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dic.academic.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gramota.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://lurkmore.to&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.multitran.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.russki-mat.net/e/Russian.php&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.openrussian.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="7a0bbebd-8c66-4eb9-904c-61774a9a10b1" CreationDate="2017-07-25T21:44:51.223" UserId="8742" Text="I recently wrote the following sentence as a practice exercise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы можем спать на по́ле.  &#xD;&#xA;We can sleep on the floor.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After writing it, I learned that **&quot;по́ле&quot; should be &quot;полу́&quot;** and that &quot;полу́&quot; is in the locative case.  I had already done some reading on the locative case previously, but clearly I need more practice before I consistently and accurately assess the need for it.  Be that as it may, it made me take a look at all the cases that the word &quot;пол&quot; can take.  In the process, I learned that not all nouns have a need for a locative case.  For example, &quot;по́ле&quot; (field) does not appear to have a locative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Is there a list of nouns that do take the locative case?  And is there any rhyme or reason to it?  I ask this because if there is any sort of pattern to it, why would something like a &quot;floor&quot; need locative case, but not a &quot;field?&quot;  If anyone happens to have either a list of nouns with a locative case or know of some sort of rule that helps one identify the types of nouns that would require it, what a helpful resource that would be._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing I noticed, however, is that &quot;пол&quot; has a prepositional case, something I am assuming all Russian nouns have.  (If there are any that do not, please enlighten me.)  The thing is, I cannot come up with an example of when it would be used and all the examples I've seen of the prepositional case for &quot;по́ле&quot; are clearly referring to a &quot;field&quot; and not a &quot;floor.&quot;  **Is there ever a time when one uses по́ле to refer to the floor?**  And if so, could you provide some examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="7a0bbebd-8c66-4eb9-904c-61774a9a10b1" CreationDate="2017-07-25T21:44:51.223" UserId="8742" Text="Is there ever a time when one uses по́ле to refer to the floor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="7a0bbebd-8c66-4eb9-904c-61774a9a10b1" CreationDate="2017-07-25T21:44:51.223" UserId="8742" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="1bea0ee9-8871-4fce-a36b-771a0230f4a1" CreationDate="2017-07-25T21:51:27.010" UserId="8742" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently wrote the following sentence as a practice exercise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We can sleep on the floor.  &#xD;&#xA;Мы можем спать на по́ле.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After writing it, I learned that **&quot;по́ле&quot; should be &quot;полу́&quot;** and that &quot;полу́&quot; is in the locative case.  I had already done some reading on the locative case previously, but clearly I need more practice before I consistently and accurately assess the need for it.  Be that as it may, it made me take a look at all the cases that the word &quot;пол&quot; can take.  In the process, I learned that not all nouns have a need for a locative case.  For example, &quot;по́ле&quot; (field) does not appear to have a locative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Is there a list of nouns that do take the locative case?  And is there any rhyme or reason to it?  I ask this because if there is any sort of pattern to it, why would something like a &quot;floor&quot; need locative case, but not a &quot;field?&quot;  If anyone happens to have either a list of nouns with a locative case or know of some sort of rule that helps one identify the types of nouns that would require it, what a helpful resource that would be._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing I noticed, however, is that &quot;пол&quot; has a prepositional case, something I am assuming all Russian nouns have.  (If there are any that do not, please enlighten me.)  The thing is, I cannot come up with an example of when it would be used and all the examples I've seen of the prepositional case for &quot;по́ле&quot; are clearly referring to a &quot;field&quot; and not a &quot;floor.&quot;  **Is there ever a time when one uses по́ле to refer to the floor?**  And if so, could you provide some examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14854" RevisionGUID="3b6331d5-abac-4e18-a65c-faad7ee05a12" CreationDate="2017-07-25T21:58:52.177" UserId="134" Text="Sure, with any preposition except *в* or *на*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * … богатым было и внутреннее убранство церкви: старики упоминали о паркетном поле и хрустальном паникадиле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * При наливном поле она устанавливается с целью компенсировать расширения бетона при нагреве, чтобы избежать его растрескивания." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14854" RevisionGUID="4ada6cc0-f3cd-4e5d-bc20-b53dd4807c7e" CreationDate="2017-07-25T22:04:13.027" UserId="134" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Sure, with any preposition except *в* or *на*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * … богатым было и внутреннее убранство церкви: старики упоминали о паркетном поле и хрустальном паникадиле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * При наливном поле она (_демпферная лента_) устанавливается с целью компенсировать расширения бетона при нагреве, чтобы избежать его растрескивания." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="77d9e885-f883-4f39-bbc5-f28264e2a427" CreationDate="2017-07-26T00:45:02.110" UserId="8742" Text="I recently came upon the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим мира.  &#xD;&#xA;We want peace.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that went through my head was, _This must be one of those animate masculine nouns that declines for the accusative case._  Wanting to be sure, I decided to look it up on a declension table and discovered that my assumption was wrong.  The word &quot;мир&quot; does not decline for accusative case and the role &quot;мира&quot; plays in this sentence is that of a noun in the genitive case.  So, I started to plug and play various nouns after the phrase &quot;I want&quot; (not just the masculine inanimate), and have come to the conclusion that &quot;мир&quot; declines into the genitive because it is an uncountable noun and thereby conveys the notion of &quot;I want (some) peace.&quot;  This then also explains these constructs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим воздуха.  &#xD;&#xA;We want (some) air.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим воды.  &#xD;&#xA;We want (some) water.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим мяса.  &#xD;&#xA;We want (some) meat.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_All of the nouns in the sentences above are in the genitive case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After experimenting with various words, I've come to other observations about use of the genitive in lieu of the accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This appears to happen most often, if not exclusively, with uncountable nouns.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Just because a genitive declension was chosen doesn't necessarily mean that an accusative declension couldn't have been chosen instead.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. If you see the use of a genitive declension instead of the accusative, you can assume that some sort of notion of &quot;some&quot; or &quot;some of&quot; is being conveyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Favoring the genitive over the accusative is not a given for all uncountable nouns.  (The word for &quot;mustard&quot; -- горчица -- is a good example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Using the genitive declension over the accusative may be more common with some words.  In addition to my observation that this happens a lot with uncountable nouns, within that subset there may be tendencies to do this with some uncountable nouns but not others which may verge on the point of being something akin to a &quot;fixed phrase.&quot;  (Can any native or near fluent Russian speakers provide any examples of this?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. The gender of an uncountable noun is irrelevant.  Uses of the genitive over the accusative can be seen across the genders.  In this post, I inadvertently managed to provide examples of all three genders -- мир (masculine), вода (feminine), and мясо (neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't mean to do this when I started drafting up this question, but between what I've already read/learned and intertwining that with some personal observations, I may have answered some of my own questions.  Even so, it's always best to get feedback from others when you're trying to make sense of something, so I've decided to leave this as is in the hopes that those more knowledgeable about the Russian language can support/refute/add to what I've observed and/or recommend some helpful resources on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="77d9e885-f883-4f39-bbc5-f28264e2a427" CreationDate="2017-07-26T00:45:02.110" UserId="8742" Text="Why do some nouns take the genitive case instead of the accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="77d9e885-f883-4f39-bbc5-f28264e2a427" CreationDate="2017-07-26T00:45:02.110" UserId="8742" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14856" RevisionGUID="c80728f9-5a12-4f1a-bd03-b3ca747b0483" CreationDate="2017-07-26T02:47:00.523" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; 1. This appears to happen most often, if not exclusively, with uncountable nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, bearing in mind that some uncountable nouns can be used as countable to denote fixed quantities of the uncountable version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Два пи́ва, пожа́луйста! - Two beers please!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In Russian you can ask for two, three or four beers, but not five or six, sadly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Just because a genitive declension was chosen doesn't necessarily mean that an accusative declension couldn't have been chosen instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it could but that would change the meaning slightly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Нале́й воды́. - Pour some water.&#xD;&#xA; - Нале́й во́ду. - Pour the water (e.g. all water from a bottle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If you see the use of a genitive declension instead of the accusative, you can assume that some sort of notion of &quot;some&quot; or &quot;some of&quot; is being conveyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Favoring the genitive over the accusative is not a given for all uncountable nouns. (The word for &quot;mustard&quot; -- горчи́ца -- is a good example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice is quite regular for all uncountable nouns and depends on the sense that you want to convey. True, you would often hear &quot;Дай горчи́цу&quot; (Acc.) because the *mustard-pot* (горчи́чница) is implied. You *could* say &quot;Дай горчи́цы&quot; but that would mean you're asking the person to give you *some* mustard. And how do you expect them to do it? It's probably not what you want. You just want the pot so you can have *some* of the mustard: попро́бовать горчи́цы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Using the genitive declension over the accusative may be more common with some words. In addition to my observation that this happens a lot with uncountable nouns, within that subset there may be tendencies to do this with some uncountable nouns but not others which may verge on the point of being something akin to a &quot;fixed phrase.&quot; (Can any native or near fluent Russian speakers provide any examples of this?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure. I'd like to see some examples myself!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The gender of an uncountable noun is irrelevant. Uses of the genitive over the accusative can be seen across the genders. In this post, I inadvertently managed to provide examples of all three genders -- мир (masculine), вода́ (feminine), and мя́со (neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, even in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Пое́сть грибо́в. - Eat (some) mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA; - Съесть все грибы́. - Eat (all of) the mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14856" RevisionGUID="fc664aac-3315-4fea-b979-e62b5174f0e5" CreationDate="2017-07-26T03:23:51.113" UserId="2104" Comment="added 677 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. This appears to happen most often, if not exclusively, with uncountable nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, bearing in mind that some uncountable nouns can be used as countable to denote fixed quantities of the uncountable version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Два пи́ва, пожа́луйста! - Two beers please!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In Russian you can ask for two, three or four beers, but not five or six, sadly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One notable exception to the 'uncountable exclusivity' is the verb ждать 'to wait' where the genitive case expresses uncertainty about whether you are going to get what you are waiting for and the accusative case expresses expectation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ждать авто́буса. - Wait for a bus (any bus).&#xD;&#xA; - Ждать авто́бус. - Wait for the bus (that you are expecting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Жду отве́та! - Write back soon! (set phrase, literally: I am waiting for a response).&#xD;&#xA; - Жду отве́т че́рез час! - I am expecting an answer in an hour!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Just because a genitive declension was chosen doesn't necessarily mean that an accusative declension couldn't have been chosen instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it could but that would change the meaning slightly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Нале́й воды́. - Pour some water (uncountable).&#xD;&#xA; - Нале́й во́ду. - Pour the water (e.g. all water from a bottle, i.e. countable: 1 water = 1 bottle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. If you see the use of a genitive declension instead of the accusative, you can assume that some sort of notion of &quot;some&quot; or &quot;some of&quot; is being conveyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Favoring the genitive over the accusative is not a given for all uncountable nouns. (The word for &quot;mustard&quot; -- горчи́ца -- is a good example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice is quite regular for all uncountable nouns and depends on the sense that you want to convey. True, you would often hear &quot;Дай горчи́цу&quot; (Acc.) because the *mustard-pot* (горчи́чница) is implied. You *could* say &quot;Дай горчи́цы&quot; but that would mean you're asking the person to give you *some* mustard. And how do you expect them to do it? It's probably not what you want. You just want the pot so you can have *some* of the mustard: попро́бовать горчи́цы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Using the genitive declension over the accusative may be more common with some words. In addition to my observation that this happens a lot with uncountable nouns, within that subset there may be tendencies to do this with some uncountable nouns but not others which may verge on the point of being something akin to a &quot;fixed phrase.&quot; (Can any native or near fluent Russian speakers provide any examples of this?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure. I'd like to see some examples myself!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ждать у мо́ря пого́ды? It's a set phrase but grammatically it is in line with what was said about ждать above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. The gender of an uncountable noun is irrelevant. Uses of the genitive over the accusative can be seen across the genders. In this post, I inadvertently managed to provide examples of all three genders -- мир (masculine), вода́ (feminine), and мя́со (neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, even in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Пое́сть грибо́в. - Eat (some) mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA; - Съесть все грибы́. - Eat (all of) the mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36455" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14844" RevisionGUID="250a567f-c1ee-4669-be9f-500890dbbc63" CreationDate="2017-07-26T13:47:03.897" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/890206836980318208" />
  <row Id="36456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="52e1f486-9e81-48b7-ab9b-839bc3b71d17" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:18:21.993" UserId="4903" Text="The examples in the question are neither in Genitive case, nor in Accusative case.  They are in a lesser know *Partitive case.*  Please see this excellent answer: [What are the lesser known Russian cases?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/404/what-are-the-lesser-known-russian-cases)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes nouns in Partitive case coincide with their forms in Genitive case, but sometimes they have their own form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чай / tea** —  Genitive:  *чая;* Accusative: *чай;* Partitive: *чаю.* — ***Налейте чаю.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сахар / sugar** —  Genitive:  *сахара;* Accusative: *сахар;* Partitive: *сахару.* —  ***Насыпьте сахару.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Воздух / air** —  Genitive:  *воздуха;* Accusative: *воздух;* Partitive: *воздуха.* —  ***Хочу воздуха.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вода/ water** —  Genitive:  *воды;* Accusative: *воду;* Partitive: *воды.* — ***Плесните воды.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such examples where in English one would say: &quot;I want *some water/some tea/some sugar/some peace/etc.*&quot;, in Russian one would use Partitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="226c984c-c7f2-42e9-a45e-464ff0384e21" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:30:44.753" UserId="4903" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The examples in the question are neither in Genitive case, nor in Accusative case.  They are in a lesser know *Partitive case.*  Please see this excellent answer: [What are the lesser known Russian cases?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/4903)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes nouns in Partitive case coincide with their forms in Genitive case, but sometimes they have their own form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чай / tea** —  Genitive:  *Нет чая;* Accusative: *Я люблю чай;* Partitive: *Налейте чаю.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сахар / sugar** —  Genitive:  *Нет сахара;* Accusative: *Я люблю сахар;* Partitive: *Насыпьте сахару.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Воздух / air** —  Genitive:  *Без воздуха;* Accusative: *Мне нужен воздух;* Partitive: *Хочу воздуха.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вода/ water** —  Genitive:  *Из воды;* Accusative: *Включите воду;* Partitive: *Плесните воды.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Горчица / mustard** —  Genitive:  *Нет горчицы;* Accusative: *Купите горчицу;* Partitive: *Намажьте горчицы.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such examples where in English one would say: &quot;I want *some water/some tea/some sugar/some peace/etc.*&quot;, in Russian one would use Partitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="2677afef-a8e7-44c0-81e6-fc1b8d991d7b" CreationDate="2017-07-26T20:38:50.760" UserId="4903" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="The examples in the question are neither in Genitive case, nor in Accusative case.  They are in a lesser know *Partitive case.*  Please see this excellent answer: [What are the lesser known Russian cases?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/4903)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes nouns in Partitive case coincide with their forms in Genitive case, but sometimes they have their own form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чай / tea** —  Genitive:  *Нет чая;* Accusative: *Я люблю чай;* Partitive: *Налейте стакан чаю.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сахар / sugar** —  Genitive:  *Нет сахара;* Accusative: *Я люблю сахар;* Partitive: *Насыпьте ложку сахару.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Воздух / air** —  Genitive:  *Без воздуха;* Accusative: *Мне нужен воздух;* Partitive: *Хочу хоть глоток воздуха.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вода/ water** —  Genitive:  *Из воды;* Accusative: *Включите воду;* Partitive: *Плесните немного воды.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Горчица / mustard** —  Genitive:  *Нет горчицы;* Accusative: *Купите горчицу;* Partitive: *Возьмите ложку горчицы.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such examples where in English one would say: &quot;I want *some water/some tea/some sugar/some peace/etc.*&quot;, in Russian one would use Partitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14858" RevisionGUID="fa822257-5da7-4129-adeb-326e49f294c6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T04:15:33.440" UserId="6545" Text="In *Russian in an Easy Way* I came across two sentences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Мне б**у**дет ст**ы**дно, I will feel ashamed. (?)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. Мне б**у**дет дос**а**дно, I will feel frustrated. (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I wonder why буду wasn't used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know есть has some weird behavior, e.g. the negative genation нет = не есть, etc, but I don't feel this is related even if it has есть in it, but no нет in it...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is not related to https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13692/Завтра-нас-здесь-не-будет-why-нас-not-we?rq=1 ? (PS I will edit this out if not)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14858" RevisionGUID="fa822257-5da7-4129-adeb-326e49f294c6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T04:15:33.440" UserId="6545" Text="Two &quot;dative&quot;/&quot;feelings&quot; sentences but use 3rd person singular future" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14858" RevisionGUID="fa822257-5da7-4129-adeb-326e49f294c6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T04:15:33.440" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14859" RevisionGUID="44d9e4c4-32fe-4120-bc9f-b0a2a046f3b4" CreationDate="2017-07-27T06:16:12.457" UserId="134" Text="Russian does not normally use adjectives to convey the meaning of &quot;ashamed&quot; or &quot;frustrated&quot;. These adjectives (_пристыженный_ and _раздосадованный_) do exist but they are only really used when there's no other way around it, say if you need to stick an adjective in a long row of other adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, Russian uses impersonal constructs which literally mean &quot;it will be shameful to me&quot; or &quot;it will be frustrating to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has some of these too: &quot;it hurts&quot;, &quot;it seems&quot;, &quot;it occurs&quot;, but they are much more widespread in Russian: _мне холодно_ (&quot;I'm cold&quot;), _мне страшно_ (&quot;I'm afraid&quot;), _мне весело_ (&quot;I'm having fun&quot;) etc. are your first shots at conveying their respective meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these constructs don't even have a personal equivalent: you can say _я замерз_ for &quot;I'm cold&quot; or _я боюсь_ for &quot;I'm afraid&quot; but there's no easy way around _мне жарко_ &quot;I'm hot&quot; or _мне больно_ &quot;I'm in pain&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14860" RevisionGUID="4ceede77-1004-47cd-baf9-bda0e5e79876" CreationDate="2017-07-27T06:17:29.707" UserId="2079" Text="Это [безличные предложения][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such sentences are about something which just happens to a person or object without his/her/its participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could alternatively express it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я буду стыдиться.&#xD;&#xA;    Я буду досадовать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But such sentences are rare, and unusual. The most natural way in Russian to talk about such feelings is безличные предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="2dbea179-6c49-4f46-b551-c8ec39c9faf9" CreationDate="2017-07-27T10:31:28.903" UserId="194" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Masculine nouns that have locative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снег в снегу о снеге&#xD;&#xA;    дым в дыму о дыме&#xD;&#xA;    хвост в хвосте о хвосте&#xD;&#xA;    лес в лесу о лесе&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    бал на балу о бале&#xD;&#xA;    плац на плацу о плаце&#xD;&#xA;    ров во рву о рве&#xD;&#xA;    берег на берегу о береге&#xD;&#xA;    мир в миру о мире (here мир means &quot;life outside church&quot;, in the meaning of peace and world, locative is not used)&#xD;&#xA;    стог в стогу о стоге&#xD;&#xA;    долг в долгу о долге&#xD;&#xA;    вид на виду о виде&#xD;&#xA;    пруд в пруду о пруде&#xD;&#xA;    день на дню о дне&#xD;&#xA;    нос в носу о носе&#xD;&#xA;    глаз в глазу о глазе&#xD;&#xA;    таз в тазу о тазе&#xD;&#xA;    паз в пазу о пазе&#xD;&#xA;    воз на возу о возе&#xD;&#xA;    ряд в ряду о ряде&#xD;&#xA;    век на веку о веке&#xD;&#xA;    строй в строю о строе&#xD;&#xA;    бред в бреду о бреде&#xD;&#xA;    ветер на ветру о ветре&#xD;&#xA;    мел в мелу о меле&#xD;&#xA;    тыл в тылу о тыле&#xD;&#xA;    пол на полу о поле&#xD;&#xA;    пыл в пылу о пыле&#xD;&#xA;    бой в бою о бое&#xD;&#xA;    ход на ходу о ходе&#xD;&#xA;    жар в жару о жаре&#xD;&#xA;    стыд в стыду о стыде&#xD;&#xA;    быт в быту о быте&#xD;&#xA;    пир на пиру о пире&#xD;&#xA;    рот во рту о рте&#xD;&#xA;    пар на пару о паре&#xD;&#xA;    дух на духу о духе &#xD;&#xA;    мост на мосту о мосте&#xD;&#xA;    борт на борту о борте&#xD;&#xA;    год в году о годе&#xD;&#xA;    час в часу о часе&#xD;&#xA;    бег на бегу о беге&#xD;&#xA;    лёт на лету о лёте (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    порт в порту о порте&#xD;&#xA;    аэропорт в аэропорту об аэропорте&#xD;&#xA;    пот в поту о поте&#xD;&#xA;    жир в жиру о жире&#xD;&#xA;    род в роду о роде&#xD;&#xA;    сад в саду о саде&#xD;&#xA;    зад в заду о заде&#xD;&#xA;    шкаф в шкафу о шкафе&#xD;&#xA;    полк при полку о полке&#xD;&#xA;    мозг в мозгу о мозге&#xD;&#xA;    лёд на льду о льде&#xD;&#xA;    сук на суку о суке&#xD;&#xA;    раз на разу о разе&#xD;&#xA;    рай в раю о рае&#xD;&#xA;    угол в углу об угле&#xD;&#xA;    бор в бору о боре&#xD;&#xA;    свет на свету о свете&#xD;&#xA;    вес на весу о весе&#xD;&#xA;    дом на дому о доме&#xD;&#xA;    гроб в гробу о гробе&#xD;&#xA;    чад в чаду о чаде&#xD;&#xA;    хлев в хлеву о хлеве&#xD;&#xA;    край на краю о крае&#xD;&#xA;    вал на валу о вале&#xD;&#xA;    повод на поводу о поводе&#xD;&#xA;    луг на лугу о луге&#xD;&#xA;    бок на боку о боке&#xD;&#xA;    мех в меху о мехе&#xD;&#xA;    пух в пуху о пухе&#xD;&#xA;    пост на посту о посте&#xD;&#xA;    скок на скаку о скоке (Prepositional is not generally used)&#xD;&#xA;    ад в аду об аде&#xD;&#xA;    плот на плоту о плоте&#xD;&#xA;    хмель во хмелю о хмеле&#xD;&#xA;    верх на верху о верхе&#xD;&#xA;    бас на басу о басе&#xD;&#xA;    спирт на спирту о спирте&#xD;&#xA;    кон на кону о коне&#xD;&#xA;    квас на квасу о квасе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine proper nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Крым в Крыму о Крыме&#xD;&#xA;    Клин в Клину о Клине&#xD;&#xA;    Дон на Дону о Доне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative (difference in the stress):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    тень в тенИ о тЕни&#xD;&#xA;    грязь в грязИ о грЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    пыль в пылИ о пЫли&#xD;&#xA;    грудь в грудИ о грУди&#xD;&#xA;    сень в сенИ о сЕни&#xD;&#xA;    ночь в ночИ о нОчи&#xD;&#xA;    даль в далИ о дАли&#xD;&#xA;    мель на мелИ о мЕли&#xD;&#xA;    сеть в сетИ о сЕти&#xD;&#xA;    печь в печИ о пЕчи&#xD;&#xA;    кровь в кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;    ось на осИ об Оси&#xD;&#xA;    рысь на рысИ о рЫси&#xD;&#xA;    связь в связИ о свЯзи&#xD;&#xA;    тишь в тишИ о тИши&#xD;&#xA;    кровь на кровИ о крОви&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine nouns that have locative forms in plural (difference in the stress and е-ё):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    слЁзы в слезАх о слЁзах&#xD;&#xA;    сОпли в соплЯх о сОплях&#xD;&#xA;    слЮни в слюнЯх о слЮнях&#xD;&#xA;    Ясли в яслЯх о Яслях&#xD;&#xA;    слАсти в сластЯх о слАстях&#xD;&#xA;    стрАсти в страстЯх о стрАстях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36466" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1630" RevisionGUID="bad211d7-6c52-4aa3-ad36-381421524851" CreationDate="2017-07-27T11:50:08.497" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36467" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1631" RevisionGUID="1b4e15bc-554c-4350-aa48-963f8f3278af" CreationDate="2017-07-27T11:50:08.497" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36468" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1632" RevisionGUID="d5451424-29f1-4b9c-9b73-309070eee00b" CreationDate="2017-07-27T11:50:08.497" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36469" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1638" RevisionGUID="5c18e2e1-eb1c-4d11-893d-21bd92de25ff" CreationDate="2017-07-27T11:50:08.497" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36470" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7373" RevisionGUID="3283dd63-4776-4f3a-8657-6282ecb857c6" CreationDate="2017-07-27T11:50:08.497" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="8fbb7f1e-d4d2-4833-b6d4-b84ae59c63cb" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:18:47.257" UserId="4903" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The examples in the question are neither in Genitive case, nor in Accusative case.  They are in a lesser know *Partitive case.*  Please see this excellent answer: [What are the lesser known Russian cases?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/4903)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most nouns in Partitive case have the same forms as in Genitive case, but sometimes there is a different form for Partitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чай / tea** —  Genitive:  *Нет чая;* Accusative: *Я люблю чай;* Partitive: *Налейте стакан чаю.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сахар / sugar** —  Genitive:  *Нет сахара;* Accusative: *Я люблю сахар;* Partitive: *Насыпьте ложку сахару.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Воздух / air** —  Genitive:  *Без воздуха;* Accusative: *Мне нужен воздух;* Partitive: *Хочу хоть глоток воздуха.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вода/ water** —  Genitive:  *Из воды;* Accusative: *Включите воду;* Partitive: *Плесните немного воды.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Горчица / mustard** —  Genitive:  *Нет горчицы;* Accusative: *Купите горчицу;* Partitive: *Возьмите ложку горчицы.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such examples where in English one would say: &quot;I want *some water/some tea/some sugar/some peace/etc.*&quot;, in Russian one would use Partitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="9325c37e-3817-4d7b-b6ed-04a3558d3b3d" CreationDate="2017-07-27T13:30:53.843" UserId="4903" Comment="added 512 characters in body" Text="The examples in the question are neither in Genitive case, nor in Accusative case.  They are in a lesser know *Partitive case.*  Please see this excellent answer: [What are the lesser known Russian cases?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/4903)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most nouns in Partitive case have the same forms as in Genitive case, but sometimes there is a different form for Partitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чай / tea** —  Genitive:  *Нет чая;* Accusative: *Я люблю чай;* Partitive: *Налейте стакан чаю.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сахар / sugar** —  Genitive:  *Нет сахара;* Accusative: *Я люблю сахар;* Partitive: *Насыпьте ложку сахару.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Воздух / air** —  Genitive:  *Без воздуха;* Accusative: *Мне нужен воздух;* Partitive: *Хочу хоть глоток воздуха.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вода/ water** —  Genitive:  *Из воды;* Accusative: *Включите воду;* Partitive: *Плесните немного воды.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Горчица / mustard** —  Genitive:  *Нет горчицы;* Accusative: *Купите горчицу;* Partitive: *Возьмите ложку горчицы.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such examples where in English one would say: &quot;I want *some water/some tea/some sugar/some peace/etc.*&quot;, in Russian one would use Partitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the words which have a form in Partitive case that is different from from Genitive: [Русские существительные с разделительным падежом](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%81_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%BC)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="0b5a1934-0b0c-44c0-b2c9-b3fd21109bee" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:18:31.567" UserId="5" Text="There are way too many negations for me to grasp the meaning of this phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нигде так не лбюбят русских туристов как нигде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="0b5a1934-0b0c-44c0-b2c9-b3fd21109bee" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:18:31.567" UserId="5" Text="What is the meaning of: нигде так не лбюбят русских туристов как нигде" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="0b5a1934-0b0c-44c0-b2c9-b3fd21109bee" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:18:31.567" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="31faa24f-7e34-46c3-a360-ca811ec1768a" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:27:52.833" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="There are way too many negations for me to grasp the meaning of this phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нигде так не любят русских туристов как нигде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36478" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="31faa24f-7e34-46c3-a360-ca811ec1768a" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:27:52.833" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What is the meaning of: нигде так не любят русских туристов как нигде" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14862" RevisionGUID="af1c5fe2-2e37-4517-827c-0a351c27facb" CreationDate="2017-07-27T14:46:59.980" UserId="6097" Text="**Short:** the meaning is &quot;Nobody loves Russian tourists&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a humoristically paradox sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's replace the last word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде так не любят русских туристов, как в Париже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is quite simple: *Nowhere Russian tourists are loved as much as in Paris*. The first part implies; that Russian tourists are loved everywhere, and the ending says, that despite that they are love everywhere, they are loved at most in Paris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, looking at the original sentence: *Nowhere Russian tourists are loved so much as nowhere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a standard construction and is used quite often:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде я не чувствую себя так хорошо, как в горах - Nowhere I feel so good as in mountains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никуда я не ездил так часто, как на море - Nowhere I travelled so often, as to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто тебя не любит так, как я - No one loves you as much as I do.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14862" RevisionGUID="e3dec33a-542b-4a18-9599-5299505f85da" CreationDate="2017-07-27T15:07:50.853" UserId="9058" Comment="-ed, semicomma" Text="**Short:** the meaning is &quot;Nobody loves Russian tourists&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a humoristically paradox sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's replace the last word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде так не любят русских туристов, как в Париже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is quite simple: *Nowhere Russian tourists are loved as much as in Paris*. The first part implies that Russian tourists are loved everywhere, and the ending says, that while they are loved everywhere, in Paris they are loved yet better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, looking at the original sentence: *Nowhere Russian tourists are loved so much as nowhere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a standard construction and is used quite often:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде я не чувствую себя так хорошо, как в горах - Nowhere I feel so good as in mountains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никуда я не ездил так часто, как на море - Nowhere I travelled so often, as to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто тебя не любит так, как я - No one loves you as much as I do.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36481" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14862" RevisionGUID="e3dec33a-542b-4a18-9599-5299505f85da" CreationDate="2017-07-27T15:07:50.853" Comment="Proposed by 9058 approved by 6097 edit id of 902" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14864" RevisionGUID="72c8bf29-6c32-49a0-817d-496a49ebf6c3" CreationDate="2017-07-27T18:03:48.320" UserId="1958" Text="Why hands?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is: &quot;I'm so overwhelmed with stuff to do, that I'm just grabbing next closest things and *that* particular thing lays too far from my hands (its turn still not come)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14858" RevisionGUID="a9ee9e6a-a799-409c-b705-948e32f31416" CreationDate="2017-07-27T19:51:40.457" UserId="6545" Comment="The link wound up having no relevance to the original question." Text="In *Russian in an Easy Way* I came across two sentences;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Мне б**у**дет ст**ы**дно, I will feel ashamed. (?)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. Мне б**у**дет дос**а**дно, I will feel frustrated. (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and I wonder why буду wasn't used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know есть has some weird behavior, e.g. the negative genation нет = не есть, etc, but I don't feel this is related even if it has есть in it, but no нет in it...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14862" RevisionGUID="64efc1fe-fd0f-46ec-9949-f0a4807667be" CreationDate="2017-07-27T23:06:36.557" UserId="3892" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="**Short:** the meaning is &quot;Nobody loves Russian tourists&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a humoristically paradoxical sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's replace the last word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде так не любят русских туристов, как в Париже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is quite simple: *Nowhere are Russian tourists loved as much as in Paris*. The first part implies that Russian tourists are loved everywhere, and the ending says that while they are loved everywhere, in Paris they are loved even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, looking at the original sentence: *Nowhere are Russian tourists loved as much as nowhere.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a standard construction and is used quite often:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нигде я не чувствую себя так хорошо, как в горах - Nowhere do I feel as good as in the mountains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никуда я не ездил так часто, как на море - Nowhere have I traveled as often as to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто тебя не любит так, как я - No one loves you as much as I do.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4115" RevisionGUID="ee7c5b31-251d-4a12-83a1-c616a06f480b" CreationDate="2017-07-27T23:16:17.473" UserId="3892" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="As was written above, &quot;руки не доходят посмотреть&quot; means  &quot;Cannot find time to watch&quot;, but there is an accent like &quot;Well, I want to watch it, but when I have the time, I have something with higher priority to watch, or something distracts me&quot; not &quot;I Can't find the time to watch anything, so I didn't watch this thing.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general it's used when you have time to watch movies and rest, and you want to watch this movie, but somehow you didn't yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as to &quot;walking hands,&quot; first of all &quot;доходить&quot; is the perfective form of &quot;ходить,&quot; so it is closer to &quot;get to.&quot; And &quot;доходить&quot; has a rather wide range of meanings: in different cases it can be translated as &quot;to understand,&quot; &quot;to be done,&quot; &quot;to rise&quot; (to an amount)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="ec81e2bd-8dfe-4214-8727-fc75657bb49a" CreationDate="2017-07-28T02:15:42.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/890757625201209344" />
  <row Id="36490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14857" RevisionGUID="03beec29-737e-4d5d-95dd-ad65f898ed74" CreationDate="2017-07-28T15:15:11.340" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The examples in the question are neither in Genitive case, nor in Accusative case.  They are in a lesser know *Partitive case.*  Please see this excellent answer: [What are the lesser known Russian cases?](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/405/4903)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most nouns in Partitive case have the same forms as in Genitive case, but sometimes there is a different form for Partitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чай / tea** —  Genitive:  *Нет чая;* Accusative: *Я люблю чай;* Partitive: *Налейте стакан чаю.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сахар / sugar** —  Genitive:  *Нет сахара;* Accusative: *Я люблю сахар;* Partitive: *Насыпьте ложку сахару.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Воздух / air** —  Genitive:  *Без воздуха;* Accusative: *Мне нужен воздух;* Partitive: *Хочу хоть глоток воздуха.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вода/ water** —  Genitive:  *Из воды;* Accusative: *Включите воду;* Partitive: *Плесните немного воды.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Горчица / mustard** —  Genitive:  *Нет горчицы;* Accusative: *Купите горчицу;* Partitive: *Возьмите ложку горчицы.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such examples where in English one would say: &quot;I want *some water/some tea/some sugar/some peace/etc.*&quot;, in Russian one would use Partitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the words which have a form in Partitive case that is different from Genitive: [Русские существительные с разделительным падежом](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%81_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%BC)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36491" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14858" RevisionGUID="ffd4f8e4-64a0-49f1-9761-5acfada6c5dc" CreationDate="2017-07-28T23:16:45.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/891074978845798401" />
  <row Id="36492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14865" RevisionGUID="6173d48d-6051-4706-8b43-0e03546f698a" CreationDate="2017-07-29T16:56:10.960" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Какой знак следует поставит? &#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Это называется (?) надежда.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Здесь всё ясно:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Это называется надеждОЙ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14865" RevisionGUID="6173d48d-6051-4706-8b43-0e03546f698a" CreationDate="2017-07-29T16:56:10.960" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Тире после части предложения с &quot;это&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14865" RevisionGUID="6173d48d-6051-4706-8b43-0e03546f698a" CreationDate="2017-07-29T16:56:10.960" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36495" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="c97e1578-e0ea-41ab-adbf-0342ac18eba3" CreationDate="2017-07-29T17:22:35.713" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/891348239852740609" />
  <row Id="36496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14866" RevisionGUID="4bbe948d-87fe-4c2a-a761-d7631b194cd7" CreationDate="2017-07-31T08:37:02.200" UserId="9058" Text="Тире - это пропущенный глагол есть/суть (глагол быть в настоящем времени). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама - один из родителей.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама есть один из родителей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Верёвка есть вервие простое.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Верёвка - вервие простое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мухоморы - грибы с красными шляпками с белыми точками.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мухоморы суть грибы с красными шляпками с белыми точками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Конечно, это - не единственная возможная функция тире в русском языке, но в контексте вопроса - именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там где пропущенного глагола есть/суть нет - не нужно и тире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это называется &quot;надежда&quot;. - нормально      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это называется - &quot;надежда&quot;. =&gt; Это называется есть &quot;надежда&quot;. - ненормально&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это называется надеждОЙ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, аналогично можно написaть в не-именительном падеже, что &quot;мама является однИМ из родителей&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14866" RevisionGUID="c72053d9-667b-4195-a8ba-22e3924d26a8" CreationDate="2017-07-31T08:47:41.057" UserId="9058" Comment="падежи одинаковые" Text="Тире - это пропущенный глагол есть/суть (глагол быть в настоящем времени). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама - один из родителей.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мама есть один из родителей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Верёвка есть вервие простое.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Верёвка - вервие простое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мухоморы - грибы с красными шляпками с белыми точками.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мухоморы суть грибы с красными шляпками с белыми точками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Конечно, это - не единственная возможная функция тире в русском языке, но в контексте вопроса - именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Там где пропущенного глагола есть/суть нет - не нужно и тире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это называется &quot;надежда&quot;. - нормально      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это называется - &quot;надежда&quot;. =&gt; Это называется есть &quot;надежда&quot;. - ненормально&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это называется надеждОЙ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кстати, аналогично можно написaть в творительном падеже, что &quot;мама является однИМ из родителей&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14867" RevisionGUID="70e76df7-88a5-4ee1-87c1-c72a939d6484" CreationDate="2017-07-31T08:52:37.960" UserId="9210" Text="Завидеть - to see from or at a great distance. It's a very rarely used word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Он убежа́л, завидев полице́йского. - He ran away at the sight of the policeman.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="9eba05b0-987d-44cc-8bd9-445b4ab0fae4" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:35:09.593" UserId="5" Text="- жыть: ленин жил, жив, будет жить&#xD;&#xA;- мыть: раму мыл, мою, буду мыть&#xD;&#xA;- быть: я был, ______, буду? &lt;-- what comes here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="9eba05b0-987d-44cc-8bd9-445b4ab0fae4" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:35:09.593" UserId="5" Text="будь: был бычу буду" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="9eba05b0-987d-44cc-8bd9-445b4ab0fae4" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:35:09.593" UserId="5" Text="|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36502" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="bc87094c-b6b0-4f2d-9093-97b5f6836b8b" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:56:31.367" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36503" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="bf0f0237-7299-4dc9-8e50-ef60bea68994" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:56:55.493" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="2aa0c2f5-e658-402e-ad45-fb442de7586d" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:57:38.193" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text=" - жить: Ленин жил, жив, будет жить.&#xD;&#xA; - мыть: Раму мыл, мою, буду мыть.&#xD;&#xA; - быть: Я был, ____, буду?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36505" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="2aa0c2f5-e658-402e-ad45-fb442de7586d" CreationDate="2017-07-31T18:57:38.193" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="Будь: был бычу буду" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14869" RevisionGUID="9c235e1d-4a6c-4296-94bd-3dc996d294b3" CreationDate="2017-07-31T19:00:28.267" UserId="4903" Text="The verb &quot;быть&quot; in present tense becomes &quot;есть&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я был, я есть, буду**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb **есть** has a limited usage in modern Russian but when used, it can refer to any person or number [быть - Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="5d271bd0-2879-4807-ab0c-5678a59b33a0" CreationDate="2017-07-31T19:36:44.730" UserId="5" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text=" - жить: Ленин жил, жив, будет жить.&#xD;&#xA; - мыть: Раму мыл, мою, буду мыть.&#xD;&#xA; - быть: Я был, ____, буду быть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36512" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14853" RevisionGUID="944391c2-fb68-4796-81de-c63437cdba6a" CreationDate="2017-08-01T08:25:41.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/892300288224370690" />
  <row Id="36514" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14868" RevisionGUID="8744b33f-51f1-4bbd-835d-9af2cc73e7ac" CreationDate="2017-08-01T17:25:48.890" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/892436212534960128" />
  <row Id="36522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="7148d366-584d-4b86-a538-ee325288242c" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:33:21.293" UserId="4903" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="How do I know when should I use мне или меня &#xD;&#xA;тебе тебя?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14872" RevisionGUID="f85ac684-07a6-434c-852e-99a077a1bed7" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:42:23.787" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Есть правило: &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Тире ставится в неполном предложении, составляющем часть сложного&#xA;&gt; предложения, когда пропущенный член (обычно сказуемое)&#xA;&gt; восстанавливается из предыдущей части фразы и в месте пропуска&#xA;&gt; делается пауза: Ермолай стрелял, как всегда, победоносно; я — довольно&#xA;&gt; плохо&#xA;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Вопрос: ставится ли тире, если время глагола отличается? &#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Например: Я был на работе, а сейчас [?] в автошколе. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14872" RevisionGUID="f85ac684-07a6-434c-852e-99a077a1bed7" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:42:23.787" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="Тире при пропуске сказуемого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14872" RevisionGUID="f85ac684-07a6-434c-852e-99a077a1bed7" CreationDate="2017-08-02T15:42:23.787" UserDisplayName="user9230" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14873" RevisionGUID="fad6367a-885b-4b76-a1f8-9ad9d62f7680" CreationDate="2017-08-03T14:32:25.943" UserId="4903" Text="Тире может ставиться, а может не ставиться. Критерием является наличие или отсутствие паузы в речи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Тире ставится при пропущенном члене предложения и наличии паузы (как уже замечено @user907860). Даже если пропущенный член отличается по времени, падежу и т.п. Главное, что пропущенный член **восстанавливается.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идти дальше через трясину было опасно, оставаться — тоже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него в глазах — как бы поскорее отделаться от меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Тире не ставится при отсутствии паузы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Алёша смотрел на них, а они на него. *(Достоевский)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Егорушка долго оглядывал его, а он Егорушку. *(Чехов)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Д.Э. Розенталь](http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=93)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14874" RevisionGUID="b6e806c5-c827-4493-b559-7d80aed9d70a" CreationDate="2017-08-06T08:59:15.447" UserId="9372" Text="Here are the positive examples taken from &quot;Фразеологический словарь русского языка&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Феклуша. Милая девушка, все-то ты за работой! Что делаешь, милая?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаша. Хозяина в дорогу собираю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Феклуша. Аль едет куда свет наш?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаша. Едет.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Феклуша. Надолго, милая, едет?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Глаша. Нет, ненадолго.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Феклуша. Ну, скатертью ему дорога!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Островский, Гроза (1859)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Счастливо оставаться,  ваше  степенство!.. Путь вам чистый, дорога&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скатертью!..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Мельников-Печерский, В лесах (1874)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ведь твое дело молодое, не то что наше, стариковское: на все четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стороны скатертью дорога.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Мамин-Сибиряк, Приваловские миллионы (1883)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B0_(%D0%9E%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/m/melxnikowpecherskij_p/text_0050.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://az.lib.ru/m/maminsibirjak_d/text_0010.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="44bc76a4-74b7-49cf-8b0b-a0a3c453369a" CreationDate="2017-08-07T05:33:45.323" UserId="8359" Text="As I read it, this passage from O.E.Naumova's &quot;Irkutskaya Eparkiya&quot; (1996) says that the bishop of Irkutsk sent some monks on [Vitus Bering's Second Kamchatka Expedition][1]. The word Damascene or its derivatives come up twice, but it doesn't seem to be about steel nor cloth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who or what here was of Damascus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![book text][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Expedition&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I5xyA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="44bc76a4-74b7-49cf-8b0b-a0a3c453369a" CreationDate="2017-08-07T05:33:45.323" UserId="8359" Text="Is there really anything Damascene about Vitus Bering and Bishop Innocent of Irkutsk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="44bc76a4-74b7-49cf-8b0b-a0a3c453369a" CreationDate="2017-08-07T05:33:45.323" UserId="8359" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14876" RevisionGUID="382b0161-1489-43b7-b65f-aec24b502b1f" CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:05:26.630" UserId="8895" Text="Here, `Дамаскин` is the surname of a member of Bering's expedition (a hieromonk), and has nothing to do with Damascus in this context (at least without looking at the surname's etymology). Keep in mind that in Russian, unlike English, proper adjectives referring to places are never capitalized (with the exception of being included in institution names, e.g. `Дамасский университет`), so a regular reference to something Damascene would be `дамасский` or `дамасская (сталь)`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14877" RevisionGUID="da66cd80-b573-4cd8-a6f8-95b6036df857" CreationDate="2017-08-07T07:06:54.347" UserId="6539" Text="Дамаскин is the name(or a surname ) of the monk from Valaam monastery who was invited by V.Bering to his expedition among six monks. The surname originated from the ancient city Damask (the citizen of Damask ). The most famous bearer of this surname was Иоанн Дамаскин, who came from that city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14407" RevisionGUID="723ff60b-34e5-4bf7-9563-635acbb29e9d" CreationDate="2017-08-07T08:44:06.043" UserId="4600" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="There's an important difference in meaning. **Болен** and **больной** can be used to say &quot;mad&quot;, &quot;nuts&quot; while **заболел** is never used for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ты болен?!* — Are you mad?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Больной придурок!* — Sick bastard!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Ты заболел?!* — Have you become ill?! (e.g. caught a cold, flu etc., I'm worried about your health)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Этот] придурок заболел!* — This idiot became ill. (e.g. caught a cold, flu etc. and now we have problems because of his absence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14878" RevisionGUID="8d9fcce0-4e82-4cf6-b677-37bc33ba7841" CreationDate="2017-08-07T09:41:50.690" UserId="134" Text="*Дамаскин* is a Russian last name, one of a large class of so called &quot;seminary surnames&quot; (*семинарские фамилии*) that many Russians bear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those surnames were given upon graduation from the seminary to members of clergy coming from lower estates (peasantry, urban commoners etc.), who were originally entitled to no surname or whose original surnames were deemed not worthy of a person of cloth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common seminary surnames originate from the Christian holidays (*Успенский, Преображенский, Троицкий, Введенский* etc.) or the saints' names (*Богословский, Борисоглебский, Анненский*), but there is a large strata of surnames originating from places and names mentioned in the Bible (*Голгофский, Елеонский, Иорданский*), or just seminary nicknames translated to Latin or Greek (*Велосипедов* &quot;one with fast feet&quot;, *Собриевский* &quot;a sober one&quot;, *Аедоницкий* &quot;nightingale&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дамаскин* is just one of those names, which was given either to the member of Bering's expedition or one of his ancestors upon graduation from the seminary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14878" RevisionGUID="5e827a12-b5f1-4c7c-ad37-b44cb5a637ae" CreationDate="2017-08-07T10:01:49.180" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="*Дамаскин* is a Russian last name, one of a large class of so called &quot;seminary surnames&quot; (*семинарские фамилии*) that many Russians bear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those surnames were given upon graduation from the seminary to members of clergy coming from lower estates (peasantry, urban commoners etc.), who were originally entitled to no surname or whose original surnames were not deemed befitting a man of the cloth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common seminary surnames originate from the Christian holidays (*Успенский, Преображенский, Троицкий, Введенский* etc.) or the saints' names (*Богословский, Борисоглебский, Анненский*), but there is a large strata of surnames originating from places and names mentioned in the Bible (*Голгофский, Елеонский, Иорданский*), or just seminary nicknames translated to Latin or Greek (*Велосипедов* &quot;one with fast feet&quot;, *Собриевский* &quot;a sober one&quot;, *Аедоницкий* &quot;nightingale&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дамаскин* is just one of those names, which was given either to the member of Bering's expedition or one of his ancestors upon graduation from the seminary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="0715a663-e665-4b56-995a-d32cdbdbcec2" CreationDate="2017-08-07T16:25:52.200" UserId="8359" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="As I read it, this passage from O.E.Naumova's &quot;Irkutskaya Eparkiya&quot; (1996) says that the bishop of Irkutsk sent some monks on [Vitus Bering's Second Kamchatka Expedition][1]. The word Damascene or its derivatives come up twice, but it doesn't seem to be about steel nor cloth nor Middle Eastern people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who or what here was of Damascus?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![book text][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Expedition&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I5xyA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="85259d95-555a-4ffd-b294-d54497bcdd78" CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:47:26.650" UserId="6545" Text="I can't think of an example, the following doesn't make sense, I think(?), &#xA;&#xA;    Куда ты пошёл, когда ты читаешь газеты?&#xA;&#xA;but illustrates my question. Are there times when context dictates mixing verbal aspects in a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="85259d95-555a-4ffd-b294-d54497bcdd78" CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:47:26.650" UserId="6545" Text="Can one mix aspect in a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="85259d95-555a-4ffd-b294-d54497bcdd78" CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:47:26.650" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="72d460ad-81f9-4cca-a486-2c80d4824c06" CreationDate="2017-08-07T18:55:14.423" UserId="6545" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I can't think of an example, the following doesn't make sense, I think(?), &#xA;&#xA;    Куда ты пошёл, когда ты читаешь газеты?&#xA;&#xA;but illustrates my question. Are there times when context dictates mixing verbal aspects in a sentence?&#xA;&#xA;PS. A related question is.... Is mixing tense in English analogous to mixing aspect in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="f16f02fb-28b0-4b0d-9b53-4fb85e7b8364" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:03:39.153" UserId="6545" Comment="added 181 characters in body; edited body" Text="I can't think of an example, the following doesn't make sense, I think(?), &#xA;&#xA;    Куда ты пошёл, когда ты читаешь газеты?&#xA;&#xA;but illustrates my question. Are there times when context dictates mixing verbal aspects in a sentence?&#xA;&#xA;PS.  For example. If I wanted to say that I start reading the paper, but not finish my action, after going to the office, would it be;&#xA;&#xA;    Я читал газету, когда я пошёл в офис.&#xA;&#xA;PPS. &#xA;A related question is.... Is mixing tense in English analogous to mixing aspect in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14879" RevisionGUID="13106337-1bba-4a9a-aebb-77a9583cdd48" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:08:41.657" UserId="6545" Comment="edited body" Text="I can't think of an example, the following doesn't make sense, I think(?), &#xA;&#xA;    Куда ты пошёл, когда ты читаешь газеты?&#xA;&#xA;but illustrates my question. Are there times when context dictates mixing verbal aspects in a sentence?&#xA;&#xA;PS.  For example. If I wanted to say that I start reading the paper, but not finish my action, after going to the office, would it be;&#xA;&#xA;    Я читал газеты, когда я пошёл в офис.&#xA;&#xA;PPS. &#xA;A related question is.... Is mixing tense in English analogous to mixing aspect in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14880" RevisionGUID="4877ec6c-08bf-4d0e-a534-a22bb19ec2f4" CreationDate="2017-08-07T19:52:52.723" UserId="134" Text="Not sure what exactly are you asking, but yes, you can mix aspects in a single sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ещё когда я ходил (impf.) в школу, я записался (pf.) в шахматный кружок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ты идёшь (impf.) в магазин, чтобы купить (pf.) вино&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ах, как хочется (impf.) вернуться (pf.), ах, как хочется (impf.) ворваться (pf.) в городок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I wanted to say that I start reading the paper, but not finish my action, after going to the office&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have been to the office and back and now you are reading your paper, it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сходил в офис, а теперь читаю газету.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14881" RevisionGUID="be809b36-37ed-4469-8a18-0ad6f5842f89" CreationDate="2017-08-08T06:37:38.693" UserId="2104" Text="**Конечно** is normally pronounced with [ш] for **ч** to mean 'of course' and with [ч] to mean 'finite': множество конечно, 'the set is finite'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14878" RevisionGUID="2be1a6d9-4ee8-41c3-b54f-12851446dc5d" CreationDate="2017-08-08T09:15:25.590" UserId="134" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="*Дамаскин* is a Russian last name, one of a large class of so called &quot;seminary surnames&quot; (*семинарские фамилии*) that many Russians bear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those surnames were given upon graduation from the seminary to members of clergy coming from lower estates (peasantry, urban commoners etc.), who were originally entitled to no surname or whose original surnames were not deemed befitting a man of the cloth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common seminary surnames originate from the Christian holidays (*Успенский, Преображенский, Троицкий, Введенский* etc.) or the saints' names (*Богословский, Борисоглебский, Анненский*), but there is a large strata of surnames originating from places and names mentioned in the Bible (*Голгофский, Елеонский, Иорданский*), or just seminary nicknames translated to Latin or Greek (*Велосипедов* &quot;one with fast feet&quot;, *Собриевский* &quot;a sober one&quot;, *Аедоницкий* &quot;nightingale&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дамаскин* is just one of those names&lt;strike&gt;, which was given either to the member of Bering's expedition or one of his ancestors upon graduation from the seminary&lt;/strike&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon further reading I've discovered that name mentioned in the book is most probably not the last name *Дама&amp;#769;скин* but rather the monastic name *Дамаски&amp;#769;н* (Damascene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All above about the seminary surnames still holds, it just does not apply to the person in question :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14882" RevisionGUID="d8e1c8b9-61cc-4941-9c7f-7b56d3167b29" CreationDate="2017-08-09T05:25:08.417" UserId="9385" Text="First off, I know that swearing is bad, and that most well-to-do people don't swear. However I'm writing a story with a Russian soldier, and I usually put her swearing into Russian so as to not be immediately offensive to English readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the word that I'm needing is *&quot;fuckers&quot;*. To put it in context, the line is: *&quot;How does it feel to burn—just like all the people on all the planets you [fuckers] glassed?&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the right word that I would need for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14882" RevisionGUID="d8e1c8b9-61cc-4941-9c7f-7b56d3167b29" CreationDate="2017-08-09T05:25:08.417" UserId="9385" Text="Swearing insult (language used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14882" RevisionGUID="d8e1c8b9-61cc-4941-9c7f-7b56d3167b29" CreationDate="2017-08-09T05:25:08.417" UserId="9385" Text="|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14875" RevisionGUID="4b1f706c-77e3-4fc2-9b06-160272f2f6e7" CreationDate="2017-08-09T05:48:40.797" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/895159876606984192" />
  <row Id="36556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14883" RevisionGUID="3e02e460-3405-490b-bf0f-e6809b6c12ef" CreationDate="2017-08-09T07:43:29.737" UserId="6097" Text="I think &quot;*суки*&quot; would go good in this situation. It is plural of &quot;[сука][1]&quot; which means &quot;*female dog*&quot; but also has a meaning &quot;*bitch*&quot; and can be applied not only to female persons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14884" RevisionGUID="5421b299-7319-46c8-81cf-ce61a7f47a86" CreationDate="2017-08-09T08:40:22.283" UserId="9058" Text="Just take explicit-language-aware translations of Hollywood war movies and look at situations what would suit you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two lists of movies and download link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://oper.ru/trans/?pp - &quot;proper translations&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* https://oper.ru/trans/?bi - &quot;parody translations&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* http://subtitry.ru/subtitles/?translator=Goblin - subtitles downloading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first link gives you list of movies you might want to look into.&#xD;&#xA;The second - the list of movies you definitely need to stay away from, in the context of this work.&#xD;&#xA;The third - should let you download subtitles to the movies you selected and read them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14884" RevisionGUID="02b77532-f26c-4742-adc6-eacd1f63b809" CreationDate="2017-08-09T08:46:52.050" UserId="9058" Comment="added 567 characters in body" Text="Just take explicit-language-aware translations of Hollywood war movies and look at situations what would suit you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two lists of movies and download link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://oper.ru/trans/?pp - &quot;proper translations&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* https://oper.ru/trans/?bi - &quot;parody translations&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* http://subtitry.ru/subtitles/?translator=Goblin - subtitles downloading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first link gives you list of movies you might want to look into.&#xD;&#xA;The second - the list of movies you definitely need to stay away from, in the context of this work.&#xD;&#xA;The third - should let you download subtitles to the movies you selected and read them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, still you would have to make her language consistent with her cultural background, with her past. Because expletives can be translated rather vague, and if you would pick different style, different semantic cloud expletives - it would sound chaotic and weird for her personality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When Barry Longyear was writing a novel about blinded woman, he not only lived few weeks with eyes covered, he also allegedly wrote a full bio of that woman, that was scrapped later, but that provided all the details and nuances he needed in the published novel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14882" RevisionGUID="a0b3de20-661d-4141-a0ea-3c3414fd8f03" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:49:42.537" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14885" RevisionGUID="9bca98ba-8d0d-40e3-a631-c112cb48a1a7" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:52:02.560" UserId="242" Text="I'd go with `уёбки` (singular [`уёбок`][1]) or `уебаны` (singular [`уебан`][2]) - this is exactly something like fuckers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's comparably more neutral than `ебанат`, there's also word [`долбоёб`][3] but it's more like `stupid fucker`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [`мудила`][4] but it's more like stupid asshole or douchebag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;уёбок&quot;, definitely &quot;уёбок&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D1%91%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%91%D0%B1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14885" RevisionGUID="18f9c74f-8c64-4ab5-a238-c37884c4f14f" CreationDate="2017-08-09T11:00:09.433" UserId="242" Comment="added 409 characters in body" Text="**It's `уёбок` or `ушлёпок`.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with `уёбки` (singular [`уёбок`][1]) or `уебаны` (singular [`уебан`][2]) - this is exactly something like fuckers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's comparably more neutral than `ебанат`, there's also word [`долбоёб`][3] but it's more like `stupid fucker`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [`мудила`][4] but it's more like stupid asshole or douchebag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;уёбок&quot;, definitely &quot;уёбок&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if want to use something similar but less abusive (because the root `ебать` from which `уёбок` is derived is highly offensive and not acceptable in the majority of cases, **it's not like `fuck`** in that sense) - use [`ушлёпок`][5] - this is exactly the same but you can use is, say, on TV without risk being ostracized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D1%91%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%91%D0%B1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36562" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14882" RevisionGUID="8d0c8098-1b39-4d2a-ae11-7a0d298ee21c" CreationDate="2017-08-09T11:02:47.177" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How to say &quot;fuckers&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14882" RevisionGUID="8d0c8098-1b39-4d2a-ae11-7a0d298ee21c" CreationDate="2017-08-09T11:02:47.177" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm writing a story with a Russian soldier, and I usually put her swearing into Russian so as to not be immediately offensive to English readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the word that I'm needing is *&quot;fuckers&quot;*. To put it in context, the line is: *&quot;How does it feel to burn—just like all the people on all the planets you [fuckers] glassed?&quot;* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the right word that I would need for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="2c34bcc9-01f8-4041-afe2-b511a03666d2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:21:36.670" UserId="6911" Text="Привет,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем можно заменить сообщение: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Авторизация заблокированна** Пожалуйста, подождите 60 секунд&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; на что-то более мягкое и короткое ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что-то вроде гугловского &quot;Эх, вот незадача ...&quot;, но это уже используется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="2c34bcc9-01f8-4041-afe2-b511a03666d2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:21:36.670" UserId="6911" Text="Как можно перефразировать это сообщение на что-то более мягкое и короткое?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="2c34bcc9-01f8-4041-afe2-b511a03666d2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:21:36.670" UserId="6911" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="e3a72396-8b5d-4784-8b26-f372aa0f72f2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:22:54.303" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Привет,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем можно заменить сообщение: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Авторизация заблокирована** Пожалуйста, подождите 60 секунд&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; на что-то более мягкое и короткое ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что-то вроде гугловского &quot;Эх, вот незадача ...&quot;, но это уже используется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36568" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="9b29f858-88d6-4601-9290-9e3f98e16a65" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:40:36.427" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="750913e1-2561-4ff3-9810-c77ec0dc4bd1" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:03:37.153" UserId="6911" Comment="added 238 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Привет,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как можно укоротить сообщение: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Авторизация заблокирована** Пожалуйста, подождите 60 секунд&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;так, чтобы сохранился смысл и &quot;уважение&quot; к читающему ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во всех вариантах, которые я мог придумать, исчезает важная информация, которая присутствует в каждом слове исходного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, слово **Авторизация** можно заменить на **Вход**, но вход куда ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например **блокировать** можно заменить на **запрещён**, но не значит ли это, что навсегда ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36570" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="750913e1-2561-4ff3-9810-c77ec0dc4bd1" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:03:37.153" UserId="6911" Comment="added 238 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Как можно перефразировать это сообщение на что-то более короткое?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36571" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="750913e1-2561-4ff3-9810-c77ec0dc4bd1" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:03:37.153" UserId="6911" Comment="added 238 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36572" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="23cab0ac-f479-477b-ab3c-ba4452684fe2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:04:53.363" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="c9dc0de4-6a0a-42b7-bef0-12212b73eec1" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:10:34.763" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Как можно укоротить сообщение: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Авторизация заблокирована** Пожалуйста, подождите 60 секунд&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;так, чтобы сохранился смысл и &quot;уважение&quot; к читающему ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во всех вариантах, которые я мог придумать, исчезает важная информация, которая присутствует в каждом слове исходного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, слово **Авторизация** можно заменить на **Вход**, но вход куда ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например **блокировать** можно заменить на **запрещён**, но не значит ли это, что навсегда ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14885" RevisionGUID="90a1e577-df1b-432e-8ca0-69ff3a6a75a0" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:25:43.977" UserId="3892" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**It's `уёбок` or `ушлёпок`.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd go with `уёбки` (singular [`уёбок`][1]) or `уебаны` (singular [`уебан`][2]) - this is exactly something like fuckers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's comparably more neutral than `ебанат`, there's also word [`долбоёб`][3] but it's more like `stupid fucker`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also [`мудила`][4] but it's more like stupid asshole or douchebag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;уёбок&quot;, definitely &quot;уёбок&quot; :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if want to use something similar but less abusive (because the root `ебать` from which `уёбок` is derived is highly offensive and not acceptable in the majority of cases, **it's not like `fuck`** in that sense) - use [`ушлёпок`][5] - this is exactly the same but you can use it, say, on TV without the risk of being ostracized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D1%91%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%91%D0%B1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36575" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="6710131b-44b5-4f1c-b9b7-bd774a144182" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:04:27.873" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Авторизация заблокирована&quot; - можно ли сказать то же самое короче?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36576" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14886" RevisionGUID="6710131b-44b5-4f1c-b9b7-bd774a144182" CreationDate="2017-08-09T14:04:27.873" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14887" RevisionGUID="e04eed27-8b26-48ff-ab0b-83270d918a52" CreationDate="2017-08-09T15:56:52.963" UserId="9387" Text="&quot;Доступ закрыт&quot; по смысловой нагрузке тоже подойдет и короче чем &quot;Авторизация заблокирована&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14888" RevisionGUID="f7dbbcb5-0ae6-4b35-85af-c1507c9ce604" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:47:59.020" UserId="334" Text="The people above try to get a rough translation, while in this situation I would look for an equivalent, not exact translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with one of the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;somewhat mild variations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Сволочи (literally: any person causing a lot of trouble for no good reason)&#xD;&#xA; * Гады (similar meaning in modern language, but was used to mean &quot;snakes and their biological relatives&quot;) &#xD;&#xA; * Ублюдки (literally: bastards, but derogatory as well)&#xD;&#xA; * Идиоты (just idiots, fitting if the effect was unexpected)&#xD;&#xA; * Нелюди (literally: non-people, used for people with completely screwed or absent moral compass)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obscene variants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Мудаки (derived from муды - balls. Male balls. May be used both for stupid and bitchy person)&#xD;&#xA;* Долбоёбы (derived from ебать : to fuck. Mostly used for fantastic idiots)&#xD;&#xA;* Уебаны/Уёбки (similar to above, but is well suited for people with very screwed morality as well)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Please, note: obscenities in russian are considered to be obscenities: they are 'beep'ed on tv and are not allowed in civil settings. Refined people never use them, and even unrefined people do not use them in formal settings. Very few people would use obscenities in formal settings, and this is not considered acceptable. A truly refined person should be able to make opponent cry from understanding of own low place in life without obscenities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14889" RevisionGUID="c5b24e3d-f9b1-4afe-93cd-e4413bb309aa" CreationDate="2017-08-10T02:43:11.890" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;Твари&quot; or &quot;мрази&quot; are the best words I can think of. Neither of them are truly obscene, though. The genitalia-derived obscenities offered in other answers have something comical about them, not something you would seriously call a strong and dangerous enemy who has glassed so many planets (unless you want to portray the situation with a degree of humor). When you call a person something like &quot;уёбок&quot; or &quot;долбоёб&quot;, the nuance is that he is a somewhat inept person, doing his bad things at least partially out of stupidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't refrain from offering my very valuable opinion on the matter in general. I am a native speaker of Russian with semi-decent English. I also speak enough Japanese to get by. I like cursing (yes, in all three languages) and often do, but can't remember ever using a curse from a language foreign to the one I am speaking at the moment. That would just feel sooo awkward. The grammar is different, the phrase composition is usually different enough so that there's simply no good place to insert a foreign curse into. The way you [are trying to] pronounce &quot;corresponding&quot; sounds in different languages is also different, should I pronounce it like I would in English, e. g. &quot;moo duck&quot;, or the plain Russian &quot;мудак&quot; will do? Switching takes enough time and mental effort to kick you out of the flow. The closest thing to your example I can imaging myself saying is something like: &quot;What are you doing, you... you... *[struggling to remember the word &quot;faggot&quot; for a second and failing]*... пидор!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, &quot;Clockwork Orange&quot; is not a good counter-example, what's described there is a sub-cultural phenomenon of taking a very limited subset of foreign words and adapting them to English grammar and phonetics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14891" RevisionGUID="870cd7cb-16b1-4f8a-a2f2-215c84ac31b7" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:31:20.530" UserId="9207" Text="I was pretty sure I understood this rule pretty well, but I had a confusing incident that made me question my understanding. &#xA;&#xA;I was auditing a session of a nighttime Russian language class for adults (I think the students were between 24 and 40 years old). I also am an adult in that age range. I assumed since I had never met any of the other students before, I should address them with вы. However when I did so the professor (native Russian) was instantly adamant that I use ты instead, and no one seemed surprised by this. Can someone explain why ты would be appropriate in this instance and вы inappropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14891" RevisionGUID="870cd7cb-16b1-4f8a-a2f2-215c84ac31b7" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:31:20.530" UserId="9207" Text="Ты versus вы confusion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14891" RevisionGUID="870cd7cb-16b1-4f8a-a2f2-215c84ac31b7" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:31:20.530" UserId="9207" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14892" RevisionGUID="16aa2814-b0c8-4c92-b875-db37775e34d6" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:47:43.087" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Вы&quot; is indeed the polite form of you - in the majority of cases if one don't know somebody, `вы` will be always preferable. That does not, however, mean that `ты`-form is unacceptable in some cases - and communicating with fellow students in a language-learning classes belongs perfectly well to such cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most probably your teacher just wanted you all feel more relaxed, to have a friendlier atmosphere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, keep in mind that some Russian speakers, who still speak Russian perfectly well but live in English-speaking countries tend to use `ты` instead of `вы` in all cases. This is also something worth to take into consideration. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14891" RevisionGUID="ae06826b-7780-494e-8755-54c00c4756bf" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:48:07.037" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was pretty sure I understood this rule pretty well, but I had a confusing incident that made me question my understanding. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was auditing a session of a nighttime Russian language class for adults (I think the students were between 24 and 40 years old). I also am an adult in that age range. I assumed since I had never met any of the other students before, I should address them with вы. However when I did so the professor (native Russian) was instantly adamant that I use ты instead, and no one seemed surprised by this. Can someone explain why ты would be appropriate in this instance and вы inappropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36589" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14891" RevisionGUID="ae06826b-7780-494e-8755-54c00c4756bf" CreationDate="2017-08-14T09:48:07.037" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Ты&quot; versus &quot;вы&quot; confusion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36590" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12718" RevisionGUID="7c2faec2-45e8-4806-90a6-3bd78dc3a112" CreationDate="2017-08-14T10:26:38.670" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How to differntiate with &quot;кого&quot; и &quot;кому&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14893" RevisionGUID="a3232072-c55f-412d-a9a4-c4bb976fe38b" CreationDate="2017-08-14T11:20:39.637" UserId="9058" Text="* thou ( ты ) implies close relations, not intimate, but quite friendly, transcending from official co-working into personal realm and safe zones. Camaraderie. &#xD;&#xA;* you ( вы ) implies somewhat cold official relations. You work together in some area, but other than that you keep &quot;proper&quot; society-normal communications level of civilized strangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare it to full/diminished forms of personal names, like Николай/Коля, Мария/Маша. Depending on persons relations different names would fit better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, some societies may like to stress their &quot;brotherhood&quot;, &quot;we are one gang&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;While other societies may stress how they are not pushing their peers into &quot;safety zone&quot; of each other, how they are focused in the token activity and do not &quot;push their nose&quot; in you personal activities outside of the scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no one true answer, this point happens to ignite holy wars among native speakers too. Somewhere sharing &quot;safe zones&quot; would be frowned upon, somewhere it would be explicit distancing form others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Personally I had that weird experience with my father's peer, who complained to my father I was informally addressing him via thou and simple name, breaking the proper boundaries. So I started calling him properly, via you/n+p. Few days later he complained again, about my weirdiness. Guess like when his &quot;appreciate my position and age&quot; ego was satisfied, the alienation in proper addressing forms started bugging him in turn. Or maybe he was just moody person. Anyway, in that interaction I switched to staying on &quot;society approved&quot; polite safe ground ever since._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more situation, especially around women, is that there is a trait referring elder persons by explicitly polite means, like using &quot;вы&quot; or even using name+patronymics instead of name alone. Some persons feel like polite ways of addressing is intentionally or not stressing their aging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14894" RevisionGUID="bc3f5fc7-efb6-48b5-b758-4011e9c22d35" CreationDate="2017-08-14T12:40:44.453" UserId="2104" Text="These is nothing unusual about asking someone if they want to switch to ты soon after an initial exchange of courtesy language using вы. It's like when someone calls you Mr. or Dr. and you say &quot;Oh, just call me Paul&quot; (or whatever you first name is). It's normally the older person who suggests this. The usual way of saying it is: Может быть, (перейдем) на ты? - Конечно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14889" RevisionGUID="65845c0b-4efc-4eef-810d-44903fb5acaa" CreationDate="2017-08-14T14:17:03.613" UserId="9213" Comment="formatting" Text="&quot;*Твари*&quot; or &quot;*мрази*&quot; are the best words I can think of. Neither of them are truly obscene, though. The genitalia-derived obscenities offered in other answers have something comical about them, not something you would seriously call a strong and dangerous enemy who has glassed so many planets (unless you want to portray the situation with a degree of humor). When you call a person something like &quot;*уёбок*&quot; or &quot;*долбоёб*&quot;, the nuance is that he is a somewhat inept person, doing his bad things at least partially out of stupidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't refrain from offering my very valuable opinion on the matter in general. I am a native speaker of Russian with semi-decent English. I also speak enough Japanese to get by. I like cursing (yes, in all three languages) and often do, but can't remember ever using a curse from a language foreign to the one I am speaking at the moment. That would just feel sooo awkward. The grammar is different, the phrase composition is usually different enough so that there's simply no good place to insert a foreign curse into. The way you [are trying to] pronounce &quot;corresponding&quot; sounds in different languages is also different, should I pronounce it like I would in English, e. g. &quot;moo duck&quot;, or the plain Russian &quot;мудак&quot; will do? Switching takes enough time and mental effort to kick you out of the flow. The closest thing to your example I can imaging myself saying is something like: &quot;What are you doing, you... you... *[struggling to remember the word &quot;faggot&quot; for a second and failing]*... *пидор*!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, &quot;Clockwork Orange&quot; is not a good counter-example, what's described there is a sub-cultural phenomenon of taking a very limited subset of foreign words and adapting them to English grammar and phonetics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36594" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14889" RevisionGUID="65845c0b-4efc-4eef-810d-44903fb5acaa" CreationDate="2017-08-14T14:17:03.613" Comment="Proposed by 9213 approved by 1836, 9118 edit id of 904" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14888" RevisionGUID="14d73d8f-1132-417b-a35d-c12b01c08126" CreationDate="2017-08-14T17:08:08.083" UserId="9213" Comment="formatting" Text="The people above try to get a rough translation, while in this situation I would look for an equivalent, not exact translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would go with one of the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;somewhat mild variations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Сволочи** (literally: any person causing a lot of trouble for no good reason)&#xD;&#xA; * **Гады** (similar meaning in modern language, but was used to mean &quot;snakes and their biological relatives&quot;) &#xD;&#xA; * **Ублюдки** (literally: bastards, but derogatory as well)&#xD;&#xA; * **Идиоты** (just idiots, fitting if the effect was unexpected)&#xD;&#xA; * **Нелюди** (literally: non-people, used for people with completely screwed or absent moral compass)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;obscene variants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Мудаки** (derived from муды - balls. Male balls. May be used both for stupid and bitchy person)&#xD;&#xA;* **Долбоёбы** (derived from ебать : to fuck. Mostly used for fantastic idiots)&#xD;&#xA;* **Уебаны/Уёбки** (similar to above, but is well suited for people with very screwed morality as well)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Please, note: obscenities in russian are considered to be obscenities: they are 'beep'ed on tv and are not allowed in civil settings. Refined people never use them, and even unrefined people do not use them in formal settings. Very few people would use obscenities in formal settings, and this is not considered acceptable. A truly refined person should be able to make opponent cry from understanding of own low place in life without obscenities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36596" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14888" RevisionGUID="14d73d8f-1132-417b-a35d-c12b01c08126" CreationDate="2017-08-14T17:08:08.083" Comment="Proposed by 9213 approved by 5605, 1836 edit id of 903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="fe18bec8-3319-4733-8172-b76211632d28" CreationDate="2017-08-15T00:57:58.330" UserId="8918" Text="Why do people say я никто instead of я не никто . It really confuses because I learned that everything needs double negation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="fe18bec8-3319-4733-8172-b76211632d28" CreationDate="2017-08-15T00:57:58.330" UserId="8918" Text="Russian negation singular grammar. How do you say in Russian:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="fe18bec8-3319-4733-8172-b76211632d28" CreationDate="2017-08-15T00:57:58.330" UserId="8918" Text="|грамматика|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14897" RevisionGUID="5aa83c61-679c-47af-862c-bc5c1a7e4187" CreationDate="2017-08-15T01:40:49.947" UserId="194" Text="In classes of constant composition it is usual to use ты as a rule. But this is because the students are usually young. When the class includes post-30 y.o. adults, using ты may be unacceptable and offensive. So, your case is somewhat borderline and depends on the age of your classmates. Addressing a 24 y.o. classmate as ты is totally acceptable and natural, but addressing someone of 40 would be somewhat weird and may be considered offensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on how the person **wants** to look like, their clothing style, etc: whether they want look younger or more solid, aged. It may be advised in some cases to address the students in the same class differently, depending on their age and/or their attitude towards their age (which you can detect from their clothing style)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14897" RevisionGUID="6fde8685-d5a0-4636-bd13-d3be334f8ec2" CreationDate="2017-08-15T01:47:52.863" UserId="194" Comment="added 436 characters in body" Text="In classes of constant composition it is usual to use ты as a rule. But this is because the students are usually young. When the class includes post-30 y.o. adults, using ты may be unacceptable and offensive. So, your case is somewhat borderline and depends on the age of your classmates. Addressing a 24 y.o. classmate as ты is totally acceptable and natural, but addressing someone of 40 would be somewhat weird and may be considered offensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on how the person **wants** to look like, their clothing style, etc: whether they want look younger or more solid, aged. It may be advised in some cases to address the students in the same class differently, depending on their age and/or their attitude towards their age (which you can detect from their clothing style).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inappropriately using ты brings familiarity and may indicate that you think the person is younger than they want to look like and on par with yourself, so addressing a professor this way is inappropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inappropriately using вы brings distance and may indicate that you think the person is older than they want to look like. This may be offensive to young women, for instance and sounds unfriendly if they want to befriend you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14898" RevisionGUID="254726f3-7739-4947-a2ed-afee99e7ccbb" CreationDate="2017-08-15T02:22:42.497" UserId="194" Text="Another example I can come with is the word **бог** &quot;god&quot;. In the sense of Christian God it can be pronounced with either plosive or fricative g, but in the sense of a polytheistic religion, like Ancient Greek one, it is always pronounced with plosive g." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14899" RevisionGUID="1126af56-42ee-4e51-a0d2-f92004cae9b0" CreationDate="2017-08-15T03:02:20.343" UserId="6539" Text="Because there's no verb. Whenever you have got a verb, you make it negative.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ничего не сделал. Он никому ничего не сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with the verb &quot;to be&quot;it's different. You say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are nobody and your name is &quot;nothing&quot;. Ты никто, и твое имя «ничто».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put a negation (ты не &quot;никто&quot;), the meaning changes and becomes positive (you aren't &quot;nobody&quot;, you are &quot;somebody&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36607" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="4534dc65-e684-409e-a9a1-13505f17c62c" CreationDate="2017-08-15T06:27:38.410" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why do people say &quot;я никто&quot;, not &quot;я не никто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="4534dc65-e684-409e-a9a1-13505f17c62c" CreationDate="2017-08-15T06:27:38.410" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why do people say `я никто` instead of `я не никто`. It really confuses because I learned that everything needs double negation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14901" RevisionGUID="0b9ace34-b436-4f97-b4ff-349e4155fdca" CreationDate="2017-08-15T11:12:20.267" UserId="9058" Text="I'd clarify a bit V.V.'s answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) There IS a verb, it is omitted and implied, indeed, but structurally speaking it is there, even if invisible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proper way to write down your examples would be &quot;я - никто&quot; &amp; &quot;я - не никто&quot;. Note long dash (тире) added - it denotes a spelling pause, that takes place of the omitted is/are verb (3rd person present tense &quot;to be&quot;, есть/суть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14866/9058&#xD;&#xA;* https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14873/9058&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The double negation propagates from a negated verb to the noun it controls, but not backwards! The omitted implied verb here is non-negated. Just replace the dash with the verb itself. It would sound archaic and weird, but is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* я - никто =&gt; я / есть / никто&#xD;&#xA;* я - не никто =&gt; я / есть / не никто &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negation falls to the noun, not to the verb. The verb itself stays positive. So no negated verb to trigger the double negation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="8652dabe-cd06-4b04-a3e0-f1e0a120758e" CreationDate="2017-08-15T11:50:28.243" UserId="5870" Comment="remove redundant text" Text="There are way too many negations for me to grasp the meaning of this phrase: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нигде так не любят русских туристов как нигде&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36615" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="8652dabe-cd06-4b04-a3e0-f1e0a120758e" CreationDate="2017-08-15T11:50:28.243" Comment="Proposed by 5870 approved by 5 edit id of 905" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="1547076d-7a6c-483f-972f-5482350791bc" CreationDate="2017-08-15T12:21:54.640" UserId="5870" Comment="remove thanks" Text="I recently came upon the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим мира.  &#xD;&#xA;We want peace.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that went through my head was, _This must be one of those animate masculine nouns that declines for the accusative case._  Wanting to be sure, I decided to look it up on a declension table and discovered that my assumption was wrong.  The word &quot;мир&quot; does not decline for accusative case and the role &quot;мира&quot; plays in this sentence is that of a noun in the genitive case.  So, I started to plug and play various nouns after the phrase &quot;I want&quot; (not just the masculine inanimate), and have come to the conclusion that &quot;мир&quot; declines into the genitive because it is an uncountable noun and thereby conveys the notion of &quot;I want (some) peace.&quot;  This then also explains these constructs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим воздуха.  &#xD;&#xA;We want (some) air.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим воды.  &#xD;&#xA;We want (some) water.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы хотим мяса.  &#xD;&#xA;We want (some) meat.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_All of the nouns in the sentences above are in the genitive case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After experimenting with various words, I've come to other observations about use of the genitive in lieu of the accusative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This appears to happen most often, if not exclusively, with uncountable nouns.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Just because a genitive declension was chosen doesn't necessarily mean that an accusative declension couldn't have been chosen instead.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;3. If you see the use of a genitive declension instead of the accusative, you can assume that some sort of notion of &quot;some&quot; or &quot;some of&quot; is being conveyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Favoring the genitive over the accusative is not a given for all uncountable nouns.  (The word for &quot;mustard&quot; -- горчица -- is a good example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Using the genitive declension over the accusative may be more common with some words.  In addition to my observation that this happens a lot with uncountable nouns, within that subset there may be tendencies to do this with some uncountable nouns but not others which may verge on the point of being something akin to a &quot;fixed phrase.&quot;  (Can any native or near fluent Russian speakers provide any examples of this?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. The gender of an uncountable noun is irrelevant.  Uses of the genitive over the accusative can be seen across the genders.  In this post, I inadvertently managed to provide examples of all three genders -- мир (masculine), вода (feminine), and мясо (neuter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't mean to do this when I started drafting up this question, but between what I've already read/learned and intertwining that with some personal observations, I may have answered some of my own questions.  Even so, it's always best to get feedback from others when you're trying to make sense of something, so I've decided to leave this as is in the hopes that those more knowledgeable about the Russian language can support/refute/add to what I've observed and/or recommend some helpful resources on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36617" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14855" RevisionGUID="1547076d-7a6c-483f-972f-5482350791bc" CreationDate="2017-08-15T12:21:54.640" Comment="Proposed by 5870 approved by 1836, 6097 edit id of 906" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36618" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14861" RevisionGUID="ef6454a8-ff06-4662-9827-6a59e5ae7bb6" CreationDate="2017-08-15T12:30:56.283" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;нигде так не любят русских туристов как нигде&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="c4b54fe9-5982-4702-b7ee-44bf055002e4" CreationDate="2017-08-15T16:24:26.277" UserId="9404" Text="I just started learning Russian. I know it's just going to take me forever if I have to learn every single individual conjugation for every single verb (except for irregulars). I haven't been able to find a guide detailing rules on conjugating them online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by 'conjugating' them is being able to obtain the forms of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Georgian, if I know how to say the first person singular form of a verb of type 1 to 3, I can predict all the other forms (in the present screeve) because there's a rule for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering in Russian if there's a way to be able to go from the infinitive to the forms that would be used after personal pronouns, я, ты, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw [this][1]&#xD;&#xA; but it only contains instructions on how to conjugate to the &quot;я&quot; form. I want to know how to conjugate to all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8216/verb-conjugation-with-pronoun-%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do this in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="c4b54fe9-5982-4702-b7ee-44bf055002e4" CreationDate="2017-08-15T16:24:26.277" UserId="9404" Text="Is there a rule for conjugating Russian verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="c4b54fe9-5982-4702-b7ee-44bf055002e4" CreationDate="2017-08-15T16:24:26.277" UserId="9404" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14903" RevisionGUID="5dfa7914-1639-4798-84a1-a58bce31d542" CreationDate="2017-08-15T17:13:47.067" UserId="2104" Text="In his &quot;Grammatical Dictionary of Russian&quot;, Andrey Zaliznyak has devised a model that breaks up Russian verbs into 16 conjugation classes. I would rank this model highest in regard to completeness/complexity. Deviations from those 16 classes are rare and are listed explicitly in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus for most verbs you would only need to memorise their class to be able to derive all forms from the infinitive. That's if you're really into memorising rules. Here is a [Wiktionary article][1] on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you want to get fluent, you will need lots of practise. That's how we learn our first language: by example. And don't be afraid of making mistakes, as long as there is someone to correct them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you need a conjugation table for a particular verb, look it up in Wiktionary,  e.g. [жить][2]. Pay attention to the stress marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Russian_verbs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="996c7377-eef3-4c56-8dc3-a8a1ff9345b1" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:10:22.440" UserId="6350" Comment="wrong word corrected" Text="I just started learning Russian. I know it's just going to take me forever if I have to learn every single individual conjugation for every single verb (except for irregulars). I haven't been able to find a guide detailing rules on conjugating them online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by 'conjugating' them is being able to obtain the forms of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Georgian, if I know how to say the first person singular form of a verb of type 1 to 3, I can predict all the other forms (in the present tense) because there's a rule for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering in Russian if there's a way to be able to go from the infinitive to the forms that would be used after personal pronouns, я, ты, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw [this][1] but it only contains instructions on how to conjugate to the &quot;я&quot; form. I want to know how to conjugate to all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8216/verb-conjugation-with-pronoun-%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do this in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36624" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="996c7377-eef3-4c56-8dc3-a8a1ff9345b1" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:10:22.440" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 2104, -1 edit id of 907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="7d6eba07-dcb3-4e62-a0cb-5a62da8713a5" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:10:22.440" UserId="9404" Comment="wrong word corrected" Text="I just started learning Russian. I know it's just going to take me forever if I have to learn every single individual conjugation for every single verb (except for irregulars). I haven't been able to find a guide detailing rules on conjugating them online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by 'conjugating' them is being able to obtain the forms of the word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Georgian, if I know how to say the first person singular form of a verb of type 1 to 3, I can predict all the other forms (in the present screeve) because there's a rule for it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering in Russian if there's a way to be able to go from the infinitive to the forms that would be used after personal pronouns, я, ты, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw [this][1] but it only contains instructions on how to conjugate to the &quot;я&quot; form. I want to know how to conjugate to all forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8216/verb-conjugation-with-pronoun-%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to do this in Russian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36626" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="449dea57-fc57-45ca-9eb1-5dbf25967556" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:20:57.770" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36627" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="14903" RevisionGUID="91858a94-e3d2-4fa4-b0d8-c64de609e736" CreationDate="2017-08-15T19:20:57.770" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="36628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14899" RevisionGUID="ec8feb9e-4e92-4640-9f43-b1c8ec773e9f" CreationDate="2017-08-15T20:23:10.977" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Because there's no verb. Whenever you have got a verb, you make it negative.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ничего не сделал. Он никому ничего не сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with the verb &quot;to be&quot;it's different. You say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You are nobody and your name is &quot;nothing&quot;. Ты никто, и твое имя — «ничто».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put a negation (ты не &quot;никто&quot;), the meaning changes and becomes positive (you aren't &quot;nobody&quot;, you are &quot;somebody&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14902" RevisionGUID="919e7496-56d7-4d30-9a47-c41023fbb996" CreationDate="2017-08-16T00:09:14.960" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/897611170592542720" />
  <row Id="36636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14906" RevisionGUID="d18a9020-c0cf-40ff-8adc-ea5183c3fa0d" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:47:07.977" UserId="7690" Text="You cannot reliably predict the present tense endings from the infinitive, although there are tendencies: if the infinitive is in -ать, then the conjugation is likely (but not always!) -аю, -аешь, -ает, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, apart from very irregular verbs (есть, дать and their derivatives), learning the first and second person singular forms is enough to know the rest. So for every verb, I suggest you learn these two forms alongside the nominative, and with some experience you will begin to see patterns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36637" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="14906" RevisionGUID="91486145-da00-44b6-8406-6ad08c3352ac" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:47:07.977" UserId="7690" />
  <row Id="36638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14907" RevisionGUID="4edab98e-4e19-4a30-bdba-734c689e11b3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:52:16.670" UserId="7690" Text="If you accept proper nouns, then there is **того** (genitive of тот, with г pronounced [v]) and **Того** (Togo, the country)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14909" RevisionGUID="f61f8b9b-e5c8-46ac-bc34-93fdde796723" CreationDate="2017-08-16T17:19:51.127" UserId="9406" Text="Unfortunately, even though verbs like д**е**лать, ставл**я**ть, говор**и**ть have conjugation rules, as you have seen, there are many irregular verbs. I &#xD;&#xA;strongly recommend you to identify and learn by heart all what you cannot infer from a rule (not only with verbs, but also with declensions), which at first is going to be a lot, but gradually it is going to become easier. It is somewhat annoying, but that is the only way to avoid keeping mistakes just because you thought you could guess a specific conjugation out of a rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to extract the most with the least, I recommend you to always learn a verb with the conjugations for present tense: I, you and they; e.g. for д**е**лать: д**е**лаю, д**е**лаешь, д**е**лают. Why three and not two, as some dictionaries show? Consider хот**е**ть: хоч**у**, х**о**чешь, хот**я**т (no apparent way to guess the third person plural!). You should also check the past tense. Normally you may guess it without difficulties usign the rule, but in certain cases, either the form of the conjugation (e.g. идт**и** -&gt; ш**ё**л, шел**а**, шел**о** шел**и**) or stress (e.g. брать -&gt; бр**а**л, брал**а**, бр**а**ло, бр**а**ли) may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules for active present, passive present, active past participles, but you may also have to check these forms in order to identify irregularities. Compare active past participle сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**лавший, идт**и** -&gt; ш**е**дший.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards passive past participle, I consider it to be the most difficult one, as there is no rule for it (compare сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**ланный, спрос**и**ть -&gt; спр**о**шенный). At most, you may see that sometimes it is a kind of combination of 2nd person perfective future tense, and 1st person imperfective tense. For example consider: предупред**и**ть (perfective) -&gt; предупред**и**шь (2nd person), предупрежд**а**ть (imperfective) -&gt; предупрежд**а**ю. The participle is предупрежд**ё**нный. Note that it kind of takes the 2nd person conjugation of the perfective form and it takes the &quot;жд&quot; element from the 1st person of the imperfective form. Normally (99 percent of the cases), when you see this phenomenon, you may notice that the stress is the same as the 2nd person of the perfective verb, as you see in предупред**и**шь, предупрежд**ё**нный (notice that in this case stressed &quot;е&quot; may turn to &quot;ё&quot;). Another pattern is пост**а**вить (perfective), пост**а**вишь (2nd person), ставл**я**ть (imperfective), ставл**я**ю (1st person). The participle is пост**а**вленный (notice the stress being similar to ст**а**вишь and the &quot;вл&quot; taken from the imperfective 1st person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two patterns are often to be seen in verbs whose perfective form end in ить, the ones of the 2nd conjugation. For the verbs of the 1st conjugation you  will find a rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend you to learn this participle by heart (if it exists) every time you learn a verb, as though it were another new word for you. You will see that eventually you are going to be able to guess it accurately, but that is going to take a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs can be obtained with rules, but you should also check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some verbs that may be helpful are: д**е**лать, ставл**я**ть, пост**а**вить, говор**и**ть, сказ**а**ть, пок**а**зывать, идт**и**, ход**и**ть, езж**а**ть, **е**хать, лет**е**ть, лет**а**ть, нест**и**, нос**и**ть, вест**и**, вод**и**ть, везт**и**, воз**и**ть, предупрежд**а**ть, предупред**и**ть, спрос**и**ть, прост**и**ть, кл**а**сть, полож**и**ть, пл**а**вать, пл**ы**ть, б**е**гать, беж**а**ть, забир**а**ть, забр**а**ть, импорт**и**ровать, верн**у**ть. These ones may give you a lot of patterns, and many other verbs derive from many of these verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would recommend you wiktionary for looking for the conjugation tables, which are in most cases (practically always) correct. I would also recommend you (only seen in Android, no idea about iOS) Oxford Russian - English dictionary, where you may easily find &#xD;&#xA;the conjugations of 1st, 2nd person, which are nice for a quick review; despite the cost, it is very useful. There is also in Android an application that contains the conjugations of many useful verbs. The drawbacks are that it is not free (yet there is a free version with less verbs) and that it has the translations in Spanish, but it is no problem, as the application has a Cyrillic keyboard to look for the verbs. The name of the application is &quot;Verbos Rusos Pro&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36642" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="14909" RevisionGUID="f99bb9f9-593f-4d0b-866d-6da2c57ba5c8" CreationDate="2017-08-16T17:19:51.127" UserId="9406" />
  <row Id="36643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14909" RevisionGUID="6a6945eb-1b4a-48c3-838b-9877366acf1c" CreationDate="2017-08-17T05:34:26.810" UserId="9406" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, even though verbs like д**е**лать, ставл**я**ть, говор**и**ть have conjugation rules, as you have seen, there are many irregular verbs. I &#xD;&#xA;strongly recommend you to identify and learn by heart all what you cannot infer from a rule (not only with verbs, but also with declensions), which at first is going to be a lot, but gradually it is going to become easier. It is somewhat annoying, but that is the only way to avoid keeping mistakes just because you thought you could guess a specific conjugation out of a rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to extract the most with the least, I recommend you to always learn a verb with the conjugations for present tense: I, you and they; e.g. for д**е**лать: д**е**лаю, д**е**лаешь, д**е**лают. Why three and not two, as some dictionaries show? Consider хот**е**ть: хоч**у**, х**о**чешь, хот**я**т (no apparent way to guess the third person plural!). You should also check the past tense. Normally you may guess it without difficulties usign the rule, but in certain cases, either the form of the conjugation (e.g. идт**и** -&gt; ш**ё**л, шел**а**, шел**о** шел**и**) or stress (e.g. бр**а**ть -&gt; бр**а**л, брал**а**, бр**а**ло, бр**а**ли) may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules for active present, passive present, active past participles, but you may also have to check these forms in order to identify irregularities. Compare active past participle сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**лавший, идт**и** -&gt; ш**е**дший.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards passive past participle, I consider it to be the most difficult one, as there is no rule for it (compare сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**ланный, спрос**и**ть -&gt; спр**о**шенный). At most, you may see that sometimes it is a kind of combination of 2nd person perfective future tense, and 1st person imperfective tense. For example consider: предупред**и**ть (perfective) -&gt; предупред**и**шь (2nd person), предупрежд**а**ть (imperfective) -&gt; предупрежд**а**ю. The participle is предупрежд**ё**нный. Note that it kind of takes the 2nd person conjugation of the perfective form and it takes the &quot;жд&quot; element from the 1st person of the imperfective form. Normally (99 percent of the cases), when you see this phenomenon, you may notice that the stress is the same as the 2nd person of the perfective verb, as you see in предупред**и**шь, предупрежд**ё**нный (notice that in this case stressed &quot;е&quot; may turn to &quot;ё&quot;). Another pattern is пост**а**вить (perfective), пост**а**вишь (2nd person), ставл**я**ть (imperfective), ставл**я**ю (1st person). The participle is пост**а**вленный (notice the stress being similar to ст**а**вишь and the &quot;вл&quot; taken from the imperfective 1st person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two patterns are often to be seen in verbs whose perfective form end in ить, the ones of the 2nd conjugation. For the verbs of the 1st conjugation you  will find a rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend you to learn this participle by heart (if it exists) every time you learn a verb, as though it were another new word for you. You will see that eventually you are going to be able to guess it accurately, but that is going to take a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs can be obtained with rules, but you should also check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some verbs that may be helpful are: д**е**лать, ставл**я**ть, пост**а**вить, говор**и**ть, сказ**а**ть, пок**а**зывать, идт**и**, ход**и**ть, езж**а**ть, **е**хать, лет**е**ть, лет**а**ть, нест**и**, нос**и**ть, вест**и**, вод**и**ть, везт**и**, воз**и**ть, предупрежд**а**ть, предупред**и**ть, спрос**и**ть, прост**и**ть, кл**а**сть, полож**и**ть, пл**а**вать, пл**ы**ть, б**е**гать, беж**а**ть, забир**а**ть, забр**а**ть, импорт**и**ровать, верн**у**ть. These ones may give you a lot of patterns, and many other verbs derive from many of these verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would recommend you wiktionary for looking for the conjugation tables, which are in most cases (practically always) correct. I would also recommend you (only seen in Android, no idea about iOS) Oxford Russian - English dictionary, where you may easily find &#xD;&#xA;the conjugations of 1st, 2nd person, which are nice for a quick review; despite the cost, it is very useful. There is also in Android an application that contains the conjugations of many useful verbs. The drawbacks are that it is not free (yet there is a free version with less verbs) and that it has the translations in Spanish, but it is no problem, as the application has a Cyrillic keyboard to look for the verbs. The name of the application is &quot;Verbos Rusos Pro&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14909" RevisionGUID="b2c3522e-5026-4e6a-9edf-1bd6b0dff4e2" CreationDate="2017-08-17T09:43:44.977" UserId="2104" Comment="Corrected non-existing verbs like ставлять, езжать to read ставить, ездить." Text="Unfortunately, even though verbs like д**е**лать, ставл**я**ть, говор**и**ть have conjugation rules, as you have seen, there are many irregular verbs. I &#xD;&#xA;strongly recommend you to identify and learn by heart all what you cannot infer from a rule (not only with verbs, but also with declensions), which at first is going to be a lot, but gradually it is going to become easier. It is somewhat annoying, but that is the only way to avoid keeping mistakes just because you thought you could guess a specific conjugation out of a rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to extract the most with the least, I recommend you to always learn a verb with the conjugations for present tense: I, you and they; e.g. for д**е**лать: д**е**лаю, д**е**лаешь, д**е**лают. Why three and not two, as some dictionaries show? Consider хот**е**ть: хоч**у**, х**о**чешь, хот**я**т (no apparent way to guess the third person plural!). You should also check the past tense. Normally you may guess it without difficulties usign the rule, but in certain cases, either the form of the conjugation (e.g. идт**и** -&gt; ш**ё**л, шл**а**, шл**о**, шл**и**) or stress (e.g. бр**а**ть -&gt; бр**а**л, брал**а**, бр**а**ло, бр**а**ли) may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules for active present, passive present, active past participles, but you may also have to check these forms in order to identify irregularities. Compare active past participle сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**лавший, идт**и** -&gt; ш**е**дший.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards passive past participle, I consider it to be the most difficult one, as there is no rule for it (compare сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**ланный, спрос**и**ть -&gt; спр**о**шенный). At most, you may see that sometimes it is a kind of combination of 2nd person perfective future tense, and 1st person imperfective tense. For example consider: предупред**и**ть (perfective) -&gt; предупред**и**шь (2nd person), предупрежд**а**ть (imperfective) -&gt; предупрежд**а**ю. The participle is предупрежд**ё**нный. Note that it kind of takes the 2nd person conjugation of the perfective form and it takes the &quot;жд&quot; element from the 1st person of the imperfective form. Normally (99 percent of the cases), when you see this phenomenon, you may notice that the stress is the same as the 2nd person of the perfective verb, as you see in предупред**и**шь, предупрежд**ё**нный (notice that in this case stressed &quot;е&quot; may turn to &quot;ё&quot;). Another pattern is пост**а**вить (perfective), пост**а**вишь (2nd person), ст**а**вить (imperfective), ст**а**влю (1st person). The participle is пост**а**вленный (notice the stress being similar to ст**а**вишь and the &quot;вл&quot; taken from the imperfective 1st person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two patterns are often to be seen in verbs whose perfective form end in ить, the ones of the 2nd conjugation. For the verbs of the 1st conjugation you  will find a rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend you to learn this participle by heart (if it exists) every time you learn a verb, as though it were another new word for you. You will see that eventually you are going to be able to guess it accurately, but that is going to take a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs can be obtained with rules, but you should also check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some verbs that may be helpful are: д**е**лать, ст**а**вить, пост**а**вить, говор**и**ть, сказ**а**ть, пок**а**зывать, идт**и**, ход**и**ть, **е**здить, **е**хать, лет**е**ть, лет**а**ть, нест**и**, нос**и**ть, вест**и**, вод**и**ть, везт**и**, воз**и**ть, предупрежд**а**ть, предупред**и**ть, спрос**и**ть, прост**и**ть, кл**а**сть, полож**и**ть, пл**а**вать, пл**ы**ть, б**е**гать, беж**а**ть, забир**а**ть, забр**а**ть, импорт**и**ровать, верн**у**ть. These ones may give you a lot of patterns, and many other verbs derive from many of these verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would recommend you wiktionary for looking for the conjugation tables, which are in most cases (practically always) correct. I would also recommend you (only seen in Android, no idea about iOS) Oxford Russian - English dictionary, where you may easily find &#xD;&#xA;the conjugations of 1st, 2nd person, which are nice for a quick review; despite the cost, it is very useful. There is also in Android an application that contains the conjugations of many useful verbs. The drawbacks are that it is not free (yet there is a free version with less verbs) and that it has the translations in Spanish, but it is no problem, as the application has a Cyrillic keyboard to look for the verbs. The name of the application is &quot;Verbos Rusos Pro&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14903" RevisionGUID="75a38f39-94dc-459c-ad88-291baaa41203" CreationDate="2017-08-17T09:45:23.043" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="In his &quot;Grammatical Dictionary of Russian&quot;, Andrey Zaliznyak proposed a model that breaks up Russian verbs into 16 conjugation classes. I would rank this model highest in regard to completeness/complexity. Deviations from those 16 classes are rare and are listed explicitly in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus for most verbs you would only need to memorise their class to be able to derive all forms from the infinitive. That's if you're really into memorising rules. Here is a [Wiktionary article][1] on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you want to get fluent, you will need lots of practise. That's how we learn our first language: by example. And don't be afraid of making mistakes, as long as there is someone to correct them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you need a conjugation table for a particular verb, look it up in Wiktionary,  e.g. [жить][2]. Pay attention to the stress marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Russian_verbs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="e7a45e73-9fdb-4aaf-ae27-e4d15040a6e7" CreationDate="2017-08-17T10:05:58.893" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Я видел, что ‹‹ибо›› значит ‹‹потому что›› или ‹‹так как››. Как можно употреблять это слово?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14909" RevisionGUID="21609a86-dbc0-45a9-bbe8-a98e4ec75449" CreationDate="2017-08-17T15:39:29.393" UserId="9406" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, even though verbs like д**е**лать, составл**я**ть, говор**и**ть have conjugation rules, as you have seen, there are many irregular verbs. I &#xD;&#xA;strongly recommend you to identify and learn by heart all what you cannot infer from a rule (not only with verbs, but also with declensions), which at first is going to be a lot, but gradually it is going to become easier. It is somewhat annoying, but that is the only way to avoid keeping mistakes just because you thought you could guess a specific conjugation out of a rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to extract the most with the least, I recommend you to always learn a verb with the conjugations for present tense: I, you and they; e.g. for д**е**лать: д**е**лаю, д**е**лаешь, д**е**лают. Why three and not two, as some dictionaries show? Consider хот**е**ть: хоч**у**, х**о**чешь, хот**я**т (no apparent way to guess the third person plural!). You should also check the past tense. Normally you may guess it without difficulties usign the rule, but in certain cases, either the form of the conjugation (e.g. идт**и** -&gt; ш**ё**л, шл**а**, шл**о**, шл**и**) or stress (e.g. бр**а**ть -&gt; бр**а**л, брал**а**, бр**а**ло, бр**а**ли) may change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rules for active present, passive present, active past participles, but you may also have to check these forms in order to identify irregularities. Compare active past participle сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**лавший, идт**и** -&gt; ш**е**дший.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As regards passive past participle, I consider it to be the most difficult one, as there is no rule for it (compare сд**е**лать -&gt; сд**е**ланный, спрос**и**ть -&gt; спр**о**шенный). At most, you may see that sometimes it is a kind of combination of 2nd person perfective future tense, and 1st person imperfective tense. For example consider: предупред**и**ть (perfective) -&gt; предупред**и**шь (2nd person), предупрежд**а**ть (imperfective) -&gt; предупрежд**а**ю. The participle is предупрежд**ё**нный. Note that it kind of takes the 2nd person conjugation of the perfective form and it takes the &quot;жд&quot; element from the 1st person of the imperfective form. Normally (99 percent of the cases), when you see this phenomenon, you may notice that the stress is the same as the 2nd person of the perfective verb, as you see in предупред**и**шь, предупрежд**ё**нный (notice that in this case stressed &quot;е&quot; may turn to &quot;ё&quot;). Another pattern is пост**а**вить (perfective), пост**а**вишь (2nd person), ст**а**вить (imperfective), ст**а**влю (1st person). The participle is пост**а**вленный (notice the stress being similar to ст**а**вишь and the &quot;вл&quot; taken from the imperfective 1st person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two patterns are often to be seen in verbs whose perfective form end in ить, the ones of the 2nd conjugation. For the verbs of the 1st conjugation you  will find a rule.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend you to learn this participle by heart (if it exists) every time you learn a verb, as though it were another new word for you. You will see that eventually you are going to be able to guess it accurately, but that is going to take a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs can be obtained with rules, but you should also check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some verbs that may be helpful are: д**е**лать, составл**я**ть, ст**а**вить, говор**и**ть, сказ**а**ть, пок**а**зывать, идт**и**, ход**и**ть, **е**здить, приезж**а**ть, **е**хать, лет**е**ть, лет**а**ть, нест**и**, нос**и**ть, вест**и**, вод**и**ть, везт**и**, воз**и**ть, предупрежд**а**ть, предупред**и**ть, спрос**и**ть, прост**и**ть, кл**а**сть, полож**и**ть, пл**а**вать, пл**ы**ть, б**е**гать, беж**а**ть, забир**а**ть, забр**а**ть, импорт**и**ровать, верн**у**ть. These ones may give you a lot of patterns, and many other verbs derive from many of these verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I would recommend you wiktionary for looking for the conjugation tables, which are in most cases (practically always) correct. I would also recommend you (only seen in Android, no idea about iOS) Oxford Russian - English dictionary, where you may easily find &#xD;&#xA;the conjugations of 1st, 2nd person, which are nice for a quick review; despite the cost, it is very useful. There is also in Android an application that contains the conjugations of many useful verbs. The drawbacks are that it is not free (yet there is a free version with less verbs) and that it has the translations in Spanish, but it is no problem, as the application has a Cyrillic keyboard to look for the verbs. The name of the application is &quot;Verbos Rusos Pro&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="04c325d8-59fe-4458-8070-e221cc83a086" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:56:48.817" UserId="8742" Text="I recently stumbled upon the following over in the English Language &amp; Usage StackExchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**What is a good synonym for “badass” that would be usable in a high school setting?**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23368/what-is-a-good-synonym-for-badass-that-would-be-usable-in-a-high-school-settin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth be told, I stumbled upon it because after looking high and low for an equivalent to this word in Russian, my searches took me to a lot of different places.  Initially, I went to Reverso and found the following [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/a+bad+ass) and [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/badass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засранец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**куртой**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задира**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мордоплюй**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**плохой парень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**черт возьми**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**отпадная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**еще тот говнюк**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked for each of these in Google's image search, but few, if any, gave me a warm and fuzzy that they were equivalents to the English.  I was expecting to see [**men like you find in the movie 300**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKXTiXT_8E), [**Daniel Craig in (whether in a [**tux**](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fuploads%2F1463%2F1815c8d0-7122-0134-cdcc-0aec1efe63a9.gif%3Fw%3D740%26h%3D556%26fit%3Dmax%26auto%3Dformat&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F188744-why-daniel-craig-shouldnt-play-james-bond-again-even-if-he-does-want-to&amp;docid=S9JOX6-VNpGdiM&amp;tbnid=76EGbW-AdIjzxM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw..i&amp;w=402&amp;h=302&amp;bih=1082&amp;biw=2133&amp;q=james%20bond%20working%20out&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8) or [**sweats**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN099Xu-QRU)) a Bond movie, or [**Jean Claude van Damme in anything**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5fQruNbTs).  But that isn't exactly what showed up.  (See for yourself, if you'd like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that I wasn't necessarily looking for the &quot;high school&quot; equivalent of the word, but using the English post as an example or guide, if you could comment on the relative potential level to offend with any of the words above or any you add, that would be a plus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for equivalents of any kind -- those reserved exclusively for males, those for females,* and those that can be applied to both genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you need a visual here, I'm referring to women like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Jennifer Lawrence as Catniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK_CQfcLlL4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angelie Jolie as Lara Croft in the Tombraider series or as [**Evelyn in Salt**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTGRsKLqkGM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton in Atomic Blonde**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUube1pSC0)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="04c325d8-59fe-4458-8070-e221cc83a086" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:56:48.817" UserId="8742" Text="What are some good Russian equivalents for the word &quot;badass?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="04c325d8-59fe-4458-8070-e221cc83a086" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:56:48.817" UserId="8742" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="156e2243-036b-4b43-8797-87000d0f84d3" CreationDate="2017-08-18T07:14:43.610" UserId="8742" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I recently stumbled upon the following over in the English Language &amp; Usage StackExchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**What is a good synonym for “badass” that would be usable in a high school setting?**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23368/what-is-a-good-synonym-for-badass-that-would-be-usable-in-a-high-school-settin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth be told, I stumbled upon it because after looking high and low for an equivalent to this word in Russian, my searches took me to a lot of different places.  Initially, I went to Reverso and found the following [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/a+bad+ass) and [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/badass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засранец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**куртой**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задира**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мордоплюй**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**плохой парень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**черт возьми**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**отпадная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**еще тот говнюк**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked for each of these in Google's image search, but few, if any, gave me a warm and fuzzy that they were equivalents to the English.  I was expecting to see [**men like you find in the movie 300**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKXTiXT_8E), Daniel Craig in a Bond movie (whether in a [**tux**](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fuploads%2F1463%2F1815c8d0-7122-0134-cdcc-0aec1efe63a9.gif%3Fw%3D740%26h%3D556%26fit%3Dmax%26auto%3Dformat&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F188744-why-daniel-craig-shouldnt-play-james-bond-again-even-if-he-does-want-to&amp;docid=S9JOX6-VNpGdiM&amp;tbnid=76EGbW-AdIjzxM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw..i&amp;w=402&amp;h=302&amp;bih=1082&amp;biw=2133&amp;q=james%20bond%20working%20out&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8) or [**sweats**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN099Xu-QRU)), or [**Jean Claude van Damme in anything**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5fQruNbTs).  But that isn't exactly what showed up.  (See for yourself, if you'd like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that I wasn't necessarily looking for the &quot;high school&quot; equivalent of the word, but using the English post as an example or guide, if you could comment on the relative potential level to offend with any of the words above or any you add, that would be a plus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for equivalents of any kind -- those reserved exclusively for males, those for females,* and those that can be applied to both genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you need a visual here, I'm referring to women like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Jennifer Lawrence as Catniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK_CQfcLlL4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft in the Tombraider series or as [**Evelyn in Salt**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTGRsKLqkGM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton in Atomic Blonde**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUube1pSC0)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14912" RevisionGUID="3d421a86-bdd5-42cd-b45b-b8fe45ebe4ec" CreationDate="2017-08-18T08:33:24.207" UserId="242" Text="In some cases the best match would be `сорвиголова`. It's quite often translated to English as [madcap][1] but don't be put off by this, this translation is not precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Сорвиголова` is exactly a badass - somebody who just boldly ignores dangers and perils, easily risks his own life, not an villain but hardly can be called a person of high morale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Jack Sparrow is definitely `сорвиголова`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of words and phrase you've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `отпадная`, `чёрт возьми` are just wrong (the last one is actually just an exclamation, sort of &quot;god damn it&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - `засранец`, `говнюк` are just morons, not badasses (&quot;тот ещё говнюк&quot; is &quot;such a moron&quot;, you can not use is in a sentence just like this - &quot;пять тех ещё говнюков пытались отнять у неё кошелёк)&#xD;&#xA; - `мордоплюй` is about somebody being insolent, impudent, rude. &#xD;&#xA; - `крутой` is more of a tough person.&#xD;&#xA; - `задира` is close to &quot;bully&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `плохой парень` is well, just a bad guy. &#xD;&#xA; - `плохиш` (mentioned in a comment) - well, it has very ironical connotation and it's more about somebody who've ate all your chocolate without permission - but it's definitely not a badass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14912" RevisionGUID="2bdbf5b3-0ca6-4aab-81cc-987bf80b86a9" CreationDate="2017-08-18T08:41:13.413" UserId="242" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="In some cases the best match would be `сорвиголова`. It's quite often translated to English as [madcap][1] but don't be put off by this, this translation is not precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Сорвиголова` is exactly a badass - somebody who just boldly ignores dangers and perils, easily risks his own life, not an villain but hardly can be called a person of high morale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Jack Sparrow is definitely `сорвиголова`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another word, [`оторва`][2] which in some context means exactly badass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А в камере было человек десять фронтовиков ― наших и власовцев, все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ребята отчаюги, оторвы, где только ни воевали, ― так они чуть не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загрызли этого профессора, рассвирепели&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, however this meaning is de-facto quite obsolete - `оторва` in it's main modern meaning is more about a woman being a badass, so it's less general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of words and phrase you've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `отпадная`, `чёрт возьми` are just wrong (the last one is actually just an exclamation, sort of &quot;god damn it&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - `засранец`, `говнюк` are just morons, not badasses (&quot;тот ещё говнюк&quot; is &quot;such a moron&quot;, you can not use is in a sentence just like this - &quot;пять тех ещё говнюков пытались отнять у неё кошелёк)&#xD;&#xA; - `мордоплюй` is about somebody being insolent, impudent, rude. &#xD;&#xA; - `крутой` is more of a tough person.&#xD;&#xA; - `задира` is close to &quot;bully&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `плохой парень` is well, just a bad guy. &#xD;&#xA; - `плохиш` (mentioned in a comment) - well, it has very ironical connotation and it's more about somebody who've ate all your chocolate without permission - but it's definitely not a badass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14912" RevisionGUID="3f4cff05-95d6-48b0-900b-53786b07d321" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:42:31.420" UserId="242" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="In some cases the best match would be `сорвиголова`. It's quite often translated to English as [madcap][1] but don't be put off by this, this translation is not precise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Сорвиголова` is exactly a badass - somebody who just boldly ignores dangers and perils, easily risks his own life, not an villain but hardly can be called a person of high morale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Jack Sparrow is definitely `сорвиголова`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another word, [`оторва`][2] which in some context means exactly badass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А в камере было человек десять фронтовиков ― наших и власовцев, все&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ребята отчаюги, оторвы, где только ни воевали, ― так они чуть не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загрызли этого профессора, рассвирепели&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays, however this meaning is de-facto quite obsolete - `оторва` in it's main modern meaning is more about a woman being a badass, so it's less general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of words and phrase you've found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `отпадная`, `чёрт возьми` are just wrong (the last one is actually just an exclamation, sort of &quot;god damn it&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - `засранец`, `говнюк` are just morons, not badasses (&quot;тот ещё говнюк&quot; is &quot;such a moron&quot;, you can not use is in a sentence just like this - &quot;пять тех ещё говнюков пытались отнять у неё кошелёк)&#xD;&#xA; - `мордоплюй` is about somebody being insolent, impudent, rude (it's an obsolete synonym of `нахал`)&#xD;&#xA; - `крутой` is more of a tough person.&#xD;&#xA; - `задира` is close to &quot;bully&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `плохой парень` is well, just a bad guy. &#xD;&#xA; - `плохиш` (mentioned in a comment) - well, it has very ironical connotation and it's more about somebody who've ate all your chocolate without permission - but it's definitely not a badass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="541e1893-92af-450d-969e-c6810cfc7506" CreationDate="2017-08-18T09:43:24.170" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently stumbled upon the following over in the English Language &amp; Usage StackExchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**What is a good synonym for “badass” that would be usable in a high school setting?**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23368/what-is-a-good-synonym-for-badass-that-would-be-usable-in-a-high-school-settin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth be told, I stumbled upon it because after looking high and low for an equivalent to this word in Russian, my searches took me to a lot of different places.  Initially, I went to Reverso and found the following [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/a+bad+ass) and [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/badass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засранец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**крутой**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задира**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мордоплюй**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**плохой парень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**черт возьми**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**отпадная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**еще тот говнюк**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked for each of these in Google's image search, but few, if any, gave me a warm and fuzzy that they were equivalents to the English.  I was expecting to see [**men like you find in the movie 300**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKXTiXT_8E), Daniel Craig in a Bond movie (whether in a [**tux**](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fuploads%2F1463%2F1815c8d0-7122-0134-cdcc-0aec1efe63a9.gif%3Fw%3D740%26h%3D556%26fit%3Dmax%26auto%3Dformat&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F188744-why-daniel-craig-shouldnt-play-james-bond-again-even-if-he-does-want-to&amp;docid=S9JOX6-VNpGdiM&amp;tbnid=76EGbW-AdIjzxM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw..i&amp;w=402&amp;h=302&amp;bih=1082&amp;biw=2133&amp;q=james%20bond%20working%20out&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8) or [**sweats**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN099Xu-QRU)), or [**Jean Claude van Damme in anything**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5fQruNbTs).  But that isn't exactly what showed up.  (See for yourself, if you'd like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that I wasn't necessarily looking for the &quot;high school&quot; equivalent of the word, but using the English post as an example or guide, if you could comment on the relative potential level to offend with any of the words above or any you add, that would be a plus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for equivalents of any kind -- those reserved exclusively for males, those for females,* and those that can be applied to both genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you need a visual here, I'm referring to women like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Jennifer Lawrence as Catniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK_CQfcLlL4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft in the Tombraider series or as [**Evelyn in Salt**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTGRsKLqkGM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton in Atomic Blonde**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUube1pSC0)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="b4227d44-5439-4eea-bec2-ce92639655a2" CreationDate="2017-08-18T10:28:51.597" UserId="8742" Comment="added 529 characters in body" Text="I recently stumbled upon the following over in the English Language &amp; Usage StackExchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**What is a good synonym for “badass” that would be usable in a high school setting?**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23368/what-is-a-good-synonym-for-badass-that-would-be-usable-in-a-high-school-settin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth be told, I stumbled upon it because after looking high and low for an equivalent to this word in Russian, my searches took me to a lot of different places.  Initially, I went to Reverso and found the following [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/a+bad+ass) and [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/badass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засранец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**крутой**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задира**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мордоплюй**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**плохой парень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**черт возьми**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**отпадная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**еще тот говнюк**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked for each of these in Google's image search, but few, if any, gave me a warm and fuzzy that they were equivalents to the English.  I was expecting to see [**men like you find in the movie 300**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKXTiXT_8E), Daniel Craig in a Bond movie (whether in a [**tux**](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fuploads%2F1463%2F1815c8d0-7122-0134-cdcc-0aec1efe63a9.gif%3Fw%3D740%26h%3D556%26fit%3Dmax%26auto%3Dformat&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F188744-why-daniel-craig-shouldnt-play-james-bond-again-even-if-he-does-want-to&amp;docid=S9JOX6-VNpGdiM&amp;tbnid=76EGbW-AdIjzxM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw..i&amp;w=402&amp;h=302&amp;bih=1082&amp;biw=2133&amp;q=james%20bond%20working%20out&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8) or [**sweats**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN099Xu-QRU)), or [**Jean Claude van Damme in anything**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5fQruNbTs).  But that isn't exactly what showed up.  (See for yourself, if you'd like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that I wasn't necessarily looking for the &quot;high school&quot; equivalent of the word, but using the English post as an example or guide, if you could comment on the relative potential level to offend with any of the words above or any you add, that would be a plus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for equivalents of any kind -- those reserved exclusively for males, those for females,* and those that can be applied to both genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you need a visual here, I'm referring to women like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Jennifer Lawrence as Catniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK_CQfcLlL4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft in the Tombraider series or as [**Evelyn in Salt**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTGRsKLqkGM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton in Atomic Blonde**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUube1pSC0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Additional Note:_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those of you who may still be thinking of answering this, I later stumbled upon this English site here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Power Thesaurus**](https://www.powerthesaurus.org/badass)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might have still had great difficulty tracking down some of the 121 synonyms that were listed, and seriously doubt I would have also been able to get the nuance in meaning that shabunc has already provided, but if you did want to contribute and add something that hasn't already been posted, it might give you some ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="b965dff7-d510-4f8f-a59a-94ff1599aead" CreationDate="2017-08-18T10:35:55.527" UserId="8742" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I recently stumbled upon the following over in the English Language &amp; Usage StackExchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**What is a good synonym for “badass” that would be usable in a high school setting?**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23368/what-is-a-good-synonym-for-badass-that-would-be-usable-in-a-high-school-settin)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truth be told, I stumbled upon it because after looking high and low for an equivalent to this word in Russian, my searches took me to a lot of different places.  Initially, I went to Reverso and found the following [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/a+bad+ass) and [**here**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/badass):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**засранец**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**крутой**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задира**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мордоплюй**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**плохой парень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**черт возьми**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**отпадная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**еще тот говнюк**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked for each of these in Google's image search, but few, if any, gave me a warm and fuzzy that they were equivalents to the English.  I was expecting to see [**men like you find in the movie 300**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKXTiXT_8E), Daniel Craig in a Bond movie (whether in a [**tux**](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flovelace-media.imgix.net%2Fuploads%2F1463%2F1815c8d0-7122-0134-cdcc-0aec1efe63a9.gif%3Fw%3D740%26h%3D556%26fit%3Dmax%26auto%3Dformat&amp;imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F188744-why-daniel-craig-shouldnt-play-james-bond-again-even-if-he-does-want-to&amp;docid=S9JOX6-VNpGdiM&amp;tbnid=76EGbW-AdIjzxM%3A&amp;vet=10ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw..i&amp;w=402&amp;h=302&amp;bih=1082&amp;biw=2133&amp;q=james%20bond%20working%20out&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj78rTikuDVAhUS-GMKHb7RDo8QMwhVKCMwIw&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8) or [**sweats**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN099Xu-QRU)), or [**Jean Claude van Damme in anything**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5fQruNbTs).  But that isn't exactly what showed up.  (See for yourself, if you'd like.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also add that I wasn't necessarily looking for the &quot;high school&quot; equivalent of the word, but using the English post as an example or guide, if you could comment on the relative potential level to offend with any of the words above or any you add, that would be a plus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I am looking for equivalents of any kind -- those reserved exclusively for males, those for females,* and those that can be applied to both genders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you need a visual here, I'm referring to women like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Jennifer Lawrence as Catniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK_CQfcLlL4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft in the Tombraider series or as [**Evelyn in Salt**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTGRsKLqkGM)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton in Atomic Blonde**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUube1pSC0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Additional Note:_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those of you who may still be thinking of answering this, I later stumbled upon this English site here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Power Thesaurus entry for &quot;badass&quot;**](https://www.powerthesaurus.org/badass)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I might have still had great difficulty tracking down some of the 121 synonyms that were listed, and seriously doubt I would have also been able to get the nuance in meaning that shabunc has already provided, but if you did want to contribute and add something that hasn't already been posted, it might give you some ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36662" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14911" RevisionGUID="d69aeb2b-dcdf-4421-8baf-a8a0fa2f3188" CreationDate="2017-08-18T15:18:48.277" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/898564843296374784" />
  <row Id="36663" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14896" RevisionGUID="3503a8b0-aa32-4766-b7b9-d80fad10e338" CreationDate="2017-08-19T09:18:58.327" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/898836676960768000" />
  <row Id="36664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14913" RevisionGUID="00b1a7f2-9bd2-4dfd-a798-e5a8acdcdb5a" CreationDate="2017-08-19T14:41:21.720" UserId="7483" Text="I have been chatting with someone for a while now and she used the phrase “ты мой золотой” we have met before but currently we are in different country. My question is what does this phrase stand for? I know the meaning of the words. It says you are my gold but I don’t quite get what does she mean? Anyone care to explain pls? Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14913" RevisionGUID="00b1a7f2-9bd2-4dfd-a798-e5a8acdcdb5a" CreationDate="2017-08-19T14:41:21.720" UserId="7483" Text="Phrase meaning “ты мой золотой”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14913" RevisionGUID="00b1a7f2-9bd2-4dfd-a798-e5a8acdcdb5a" CreationDate="2017-08-19T14:41:21.720" UserId="7483" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|одним-словом|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14914" RevisionGUID="5b6bede7-c029-4399-a4a0-76dc16fdf658" CreationDate="2017-08-19T18:11:53.283" UserId="9029" Text="This phrase can have a wide range of meanings, in general it has an old-fashioned connotation and is often used by women of older generation as they speak to a younger collocutor and want to say how they like her/him, with shades of condescension, patronage, tenderness, gratitude. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mentioned it literally means &quot;you are my gold&quot;, with variant &quot;*ты мое золотце*&quot;, gold means as usual something valuable, dear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mother can say this to her child, if it helped her/did something useful, what she did not awaited it could do&#xD;&#xA; - Grandmother can thank this way in general any younger person who helped her&#xD;&#xA; - Of course the expression can be used by any person with footsie connotation, as a joke, to ironically express aforementioned condescension, patronage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8495" RevisionGUID="bd4a3292-bebf-40d3-8a3c-d6e76cfa34f6" CreationDate="2017-08-19T18:44:38.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="1a0951b0-d553-4930-b25e-5a977a920807" CreationDate="2017-08-19T22:49:15.250" UserId="8742" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](http://i.imgur.com/eeTyqFv.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This then made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screen shot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="1a0951b0-d553-4930-b25e-5a977a920807" CreationDate="2017-08-19T22:49:15.250" UserId="8742" Text="Can anyone clear up some discrepancies between rules for numeral+adjective+noun agreement for 2/3/4 and actual usage (as found through e-sources)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="1a0951b0-d553-4930-b25e-5a977a920807" CreationDate="2017-08-19T22:49:15.250" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|прилагательные|существительные|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="176ada07-a976-4f25-ac0b-0e17543aa38b" CreationDate="2017-08-19T22:58:22.643" UserId="8742" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](http://i.imgur.com/eeTyqFv.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; are quite possibly in the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screen shot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="05be2578-4843-4e6b-a084-5b37a7d44b2a" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:07:17.177" UserId="8742" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](http://i.imgur.com/eeTyqFv.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screen shot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="c55aca03-7f04-4639-a578-66362f79e0a2" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:44:17.867" UserId="8742" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules listed at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screen shot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="57af85f7-1fea-4099-96d3-536effb8066c" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:49:21.093" UserId="8742" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules listed at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about rules regarding the declension of adjectives and nouns after a numeral and which have been echoed in similar posts, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Either way, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screen shot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="87b509b0-b872-4a1e-afba-c80ddb091397" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:52:48.930" UserId="3892" Text="What does it imply when someone describes or refers to another person as **хитровыебанный**? Is it a compliment or an insult? Also, what syllable is it stress on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="87b509b0-b872-4a1e-afba-c80ddb091397" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:52:48.930" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of хитровы*банный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="87b509b0-b872-4a1e-afba-c80ddb091397" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:52:48.930" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="42f738e9-e177-47d5-8ac9-70199ea5aafa" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:56:27.867" UserId="8742" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules listed at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about rules regarding the declension of adjectives and nouns after a numeral and which have been echoed in similar posts, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Irrespective of that minor detail, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screen shot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="f7989546-bde5-4aed-b9a4-7aed820571d6" CreationDate="2017-08-19T23:59:01.133" UserId="8742" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules listed at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about rules regarding the declension of adjectives and nouns after a numeral and which have been echoed in similar posts, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Irrespective of that minor detail, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screenshot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?  And does the Russian language have anything similar to the [**Real Academia Español**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some of these questions seem a bit picayune, but if what I’ve observed is due to elective variance, it all just makes me wonder how matters like this are settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have your ear, **does this number rule — the one applied to the adjective that comes between the number and the noun — apply to animate nouns in actual usage**?  I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, in addition to the posts I’ve already mentioned, I have been to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="e984a05a-37a8-4504-9129-b0722e9aad41" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:35:16.660" UserId="8742" Comment="deleted 1399 characters in body" Text="Can anyone clear up some discrepancies between rules for numeral+adjective+noun agreement for 2/3/4 and actual usage (as found through e-sources)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](http://i.imgur.com/eeTyqFv.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screenshot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have visited the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="b1c9e1d3-691e-43e8-96ae-de4be9c3fa8a" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:48:54.080" UserId="8742" Text="The rule I refer to is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_For numeral + adjective + noun in genitive case structures where the numeral-noun-adjective phrase is serving in a nominative case (e.g., **the three little pigs** went to the market):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective that is placed between the numeral and the noun is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is why I ask the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;) + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="b1c9e1d3-691e-43e8-96ae-de4be9c3fa8a" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:48:54.080" UserId="8742" Text="Does the Russian numeral rule for the adjective that comes between the number and the noun (see below) apply to animate nouns in actual usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="b1c9e1d3-691e-43e8-96ae-de4be9c3fa8a" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:48:54.080" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|прилагательные|существительные|числительные|одушевлённость|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="55d2896a-40ff-4b6b-bcfa-ccdf56b2643d" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:51:19.460" UserId="8742" Comment="edited body" Text="Can anyone clear up some discrepancies between rules for numeral+adjective+noun agreement for 2/3/4 and actual usage (as found through e-sources)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screenshot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have visited the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="2f812af1-0155-4b45-812c-fc77953deb93" CreationDate="2017-08-20T00:55:21.417" UserId="8742" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="The rule I refer to is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_For numeral + adjective + noun in genitive case structures where the numeral-noun-adjective phrase is serving in a nominative case (e.g., **the three little pigs** went to the market):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective that is placed between the numeral and the noun is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is why I ask the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two (using both and &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;)* + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*I suppose I could have also attempted combinations with &quot;three&quot; or &quot;four,&quot; but assumed that if I was having difficulty with just the numeral &quot;two,&quot; that the road to discovery would only roll downhill from there._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14918" RevisionGUID="3bcd974e-0515-4bfb-a01b-a46c51ee24c3" CreationDate="2017-08-20T01:02:33.217" UserId="8742" Text="Some of the questions I’ve asked in other posts might come across as a bit picayune.  Some of these questions involve observations of what might entail elective variance between written rules of usage for the Russian language and actual usage.  How are situations like this settled when it comes to professional translation where egos and different experiences and levels of education might be involved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this really just depend on who is doing the translation (e.g., the in-house rules for a translation company)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any standard, reputable publications or institutions of authority that translators or linguists and teachers of the Russian language typically turn to over points of contention on usage?  For example, the Spanish have the [**Real Academia Española**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola) (an institution that serves as an authority on matters pertaining to the Spanish language).  Does the Russian language have anything similar to this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14918" RevisionGUID="3bcd974e-0515-4bfb-a01b-a46c51ee24c3" CreationDate="2017-08-20T01:02:33.217" UserId="8742" Text="What publications or institutions govern proper usage of the Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14918" RevisionGUID="3bcd974e-0515-4bfb-a01b-a46c51ee24c3" CreationDate="2017-08-20T01:02:33.217" UserId="8742" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="a1b51fd0-77cb-4c97-b20d-519d1f226058" CreationDate="2017-08-20T01:42:03.503" UserId="8742" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Can anyone clear up some discrepancies between rules for numeral+adjective+noun agreement for 2/3/4 and actual usage (as found through e-sources)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screenshot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have visited the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14919" RevisionGUID="e72e67f3-59cf-4679-8450-b523506d2b20" CreationDate="2017-08-20T04:59:01.220" UserId="8742" Text="I found a couple of threads after posting this that somewhat touch on this subject.  I don't know why they didn't show up for me when I conducted my initial search.  I may have overlooked them.  However, rather than add an addendum to a long post, I'll try to summarize and synthesize them for an answer.  Truth be told, they might be a bit too advanced for the level of the post I wrote.  I am referring mainly to this thread here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**How to decline adjectives modifying feminine nouns after 2, 3, 4?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/511/how-to-decline-adjectives-modifying-feminine-nouns-after-2-3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post contains a comment with a link to another post that I now see is a bit irrelevant to my question(s), so I've omitted it, but you can access it by going to the link above.  I'm referring here to an answer by [**Quassnoi**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/134/quassnoi) and I quote from it a bit later in this answer but most of it is unrelated to this post here.  What follows are three points that address my question(s) in this thread.  Please don't construe my attempt to answer my own question as a sign that I am not also interested in answers from others, especially those who can do so with specifics/details/cited sources.  Most of my attempt here will be much broader in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The general rules laid out at the top of the post that starts my discussion thread here should suffice in most situations.  How do I know that?  I don't.  All I can tell you is that I've seen that rule in a pretty reputable Russian textbook and have seen several examples of where that rule is applied.  Those that don't follow those rules appear to be the exception rather than the rule, but I haven't queried the entire Russian lexicon or even a scientifically measured portion of it (e.g., the first 100 most common Russian adjectives and nouns and all the many permutations of how they could combine with &quot;2,&quot; &quot;3,&quot; and &quot;4&quot;).  It could be done, but it would take me a lot of time and I suspect that I would discover what the Russian textbook _ТРОЙКА_ has already provided me with its rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the thread titled, &quot;How to decline adjectives ...&quot; (the one I mention earlier in this answer), the author of it (KCd) refers to the number-adjective-noun rules for feminine nouns.  To refresh, it is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KCd writes (paraphrasing a source):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три различных стороны).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help visualize this and corroborate it, I've added a screenshot from Wiktionary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wRYb1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is good information to have, but it doesn't explain to me why I've seen so many instances of &quot;две мировых войны.&quot;  You can see from the image below that even though the form of the plural changes from nominative to genitive, the stress stays the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eRWOL.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, although the stress from nominative plural to genitive plural does not change, both words (сторона and война) have a change of stress between singular and plural.  Is it possible that the source KCd refers to is actually referring to stress changes between the singular and plural forms of the word?  I suppose it is possible, but doubtful.  I get the impression КСd is quoting from it directly.  The source isn't mentioned, so I can't try to find a copy online.  (Even if it exists, it could very well be in Russian, not a bad thing, but my Russian is not nearly good enough for accurate interpretation of Russian grammar books.)  I'll ask about it after posting this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All speculations aside, allow me to move on to my third and final bullet of knowledge on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) This comes from Quassnoi's answer.  A large part of it was in Russian, and, after using Google Translate, I realized that it doesn't actually address my question except for one thing and that is what was said in reference to a rule he was citing from a book by [**Dietmar Rosenthal**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietmar_Rosenthal) titled, [**Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати.**](http://royallib.com/book/rozental_ditmar/spravochnik_po_pravopisaniyu_i_literaturnoy_pravke_dlya_rabotnikov_pechati.html) In reference to the rule referenced from the book, Quassnoi writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**This rule is not strict and is often violated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perhaps, _that_ can be said of any rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="ff0e10aa-9d11-4762-b532-5598f12d6475" CreationDate="2017-08-20T05:04:11.283" UserId="8742" Comment="deleted 150 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules list at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screenshot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have visited the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14919" RevisionGUID="c67730f2-4db5-4588-8373-c0f7d0ba97b8" CreationDate="2017-08-20T05:05:58.437" UserId="8742" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I found a couple of threads after posting this that somewhat touch on this subject.  I don't know why they didn't show up for me when I conducted my initial search.  I may have overlooked them.  However, rather than add an addendum to a long post, I'll try to summarize and synthesize them for an answer.  Truth be told, they might be a bit too advanced for the level of the post I wrote.  I am referring mainly to this thread here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**How to decline adjectives modifying feminine nouns after 2, 3, 4?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/511/how-to-decline-adjectives-modifying-feminine-nouns-after-2-3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post contains a comment with a link to another post that I now see is a bit irrelevant to my question(s), so I've omitted it, but you can access it by going to the link above.  I'm referring here to an answer by [**Quassnoi**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/134/quassnoi) and I quote from it a bit later in this answer but most of it is unrelated to this post here.  What follows are three points that address my question(s) in this thread.  Please don't construe my attempt to answer my own question as a sign that I am not also interested in answers from others, especially those who can do so with specifics/details/cited sources.  Most of my attempt here will be much broader in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The general rules laid out at the top of the post that starts my thread here (Can anyone clear up ...?) should suffice in most situations.  How do I know that?  I don't.  All I can tell you is that I've seen that rule in a pretty reputable Russian textbook and have seen several examples of where that rule is applied.  Those that don't follow those rules appear to be the exception rather than the rule, but I haven't queried the entire Russian lexicon or even a scientifically measured portion of it (e.g., the first 100 most common Russian adjectives and nouns and all the many permutations of how they could combine with &quot;2,&quot; &quot;3,&quot; and &quot;4&quot;).  It could be done, but it would take me a lot of time and I suspect that I would discover what the Russian textbook _ТРОЙКА_ has already provided me with its rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the thread titled, &quot;How to decline adjectives ...&quot; (the one I mention earlier in this answer), the author of it (KCd) refers to the number-adjective-noun rules for feminine nouns.  To refresh, it is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KCd writes (paraphrasing a source):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три различных стороны).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help visualize this and corroborate it, I've added a screenshot from Wiktionary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wRYb1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is good information to have, but it doesn't explain to me why I've seen so many instances of &quot;две мировых войны.&quot;  You can see from the image below that even though the form of the plural changes from nominative to genitive, the stress stays the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eRWOL.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, although the stress from nominative plural to genitive plural does not change, both words (сторона and война) have a change of stress between singular and plural.  Is it possible that the source KCd refers to is actually referring to stress changes between the singular and plural forms of the word?  I suppose it is possible, but doubtful.  I get the impression КСd may actually be quoting from it directly.  The source isn't mentioned, so I can't try to find a copy online.  (Even if it exists, it could very well be in Russian, not a bad thing, but my Russian is not nearly good enough for accurate interpretation of Russian grammar books.)  I'll ask about it after posting this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All speculations aside, allow me to move on to my third and final bullet of knowledge on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) This comes from Quassnoi's answer.  A large part of it was in Russian, and, after using Google Translate, I realized that it doesn't actually address my question except for one thing and that is what was said in reference to a rule he was citing from a book by [**Dietmar Rosenthal**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietmar_Rosenthal) titled, [**Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати.**](http://royallib.com/book/rozental_ditmar/spravochnik_po_pravopisaniyu_i_literaturnoy_pravke_dlya_rabotnikov_pechati.html) In reference to the rule referenced from the book, Quassnoi writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**This rule is not strict and is often violated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perhaps, _that_ can be said of any rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36694" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14918" RevisionGUID="69a49d60-ba0a-4625-8870-834b16a0d5fd" CreationDate="2017-08-20T08:21:35.493" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[272],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36695" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="c2e907ea-8b4c-41d8-bf4e-f12acbf1ced2" CreationDate="2017-08-20T11:51:10.790" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="36696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14920" RevisionGUID="131bdd8d-0ee7-499c-87b3-0a21e789747a" CreationDate="2017-08-20T12:50:17.973" UserId="2104" Text="**Both nominative plural and genitive plural adjectives can be used with feminine nouns. Nominative plural is preferred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lisa, you are not the first to notice this variation (and well done spotting it!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources use language such as 'usually', 'more often', 'genitive is preferred', etc. when describing this phenomenon. Here is a quote from Rosenthal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §193. Определение при существительном, зависящем от числительных два,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чаще** ставится в форме именительного падежа (или совпадающего с ним&#xD;&#xA;&gt; винительного при неодушевленных существительных) множественного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: _две большие комнаты выходили окнами в сад; купила четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фарфоровые чашки; на изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (А.Н. Толстой); _По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (М. Бубеннов). При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога **возможны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; варианты**; ср.: _на две равные части – по две столовых ложки_. Если формы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительного падежа множественного числа существительных женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода отличаются по ударению от формы родительного падежа единственного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числа (ср.: _го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́_), то определение в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рассматриваемой конструкции **обычно** ставится в родительном падеже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множественного числа: _две высоких горы, две крупных слезы_. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе_ (Горький); _Две сильных мужских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки подхватили ее_ (А. Коптяева). На выбор формы определения **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказать влияние форма сказуемого; ср.: _Разыграны три золотые медали. –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разыграно три золотых медали._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold emphasis was added by me to highlight the use of the 'variative' language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Let me know if this needs translating to English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another quote from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Граудина, Ицкович, Катлинская. Грамматическая правильность русской речи. Стилистический словарь вариантов. М., 2001:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «При существительных жен. рода прилагательное в описываемых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конструкциях **может** выступать в форме как родительного, так и им.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа, ср.: _две новых книги, две смежных комнаты, три столовых ложки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — три оригинальные статьи, две основные задачи, три столовые ложки_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма род. падежа **предпочитается** в тех случаях, когда форма им. падежа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мн. числа существительного отличается по ударению от формы, зависящей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от числительного: _три высоких горы_ (ср. _высокие горы_), _две русых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косы_ (ср. _русые косы_). Для других случаев некоторые пособиях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рекомендуют формы им. падежа — по-видимому, из стремления разграничить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежную форму прилагательного при существительных, с одного стороны,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужского и среднего, а с другой — жен. рода. Но практически при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных жен. рода (с указанным выше ограничением, связанным с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; особенностями ударения) **возможны** обе формы прилагательного».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are the scans of the relevant pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 32][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 33][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sources claim that genitive plural should be used for the adjective when the noun differs in genitive singular and nominative plural. But that contradicts your Google NGram research and a few Google searches that I've just done (using quotes to match exact phrases):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировые войны&quot; 120000&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировых войны&quot; 49100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высокие горы&quot; 5980&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высоких горы&quot; 638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новые игры&quot; 18700&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новых игры&quot; 3040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинные косы&quot; 3830&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинных косы&quot; 1150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I would conclude that nominative plural is preferred in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ym9xM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KVq5D.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14921" RevisionGUID="8180ca7e-e442-4ee0-abfa-390f0e5d22ed" CreationDate="2017-08-20T15:28:49.900" UserId="9029" Text="In general the word `хитровыебанный` has the same meaning as `хитрый` (cunning, tricky, sly), but being obscene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed by @DK in commentar, it can be translated as `smart-ass`, but this word can not only be used regarding a person, for instance one can say `хитровыебанным способом`, what means `in a tricky/clever way`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14921" RevisionGUID="357f9d62-cae2-4a83-a9d1-c018ba621496" CreationDate="2017-08-20T15:35:57.890" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="In general the word **хитровыебанный**has the same meaning as **хитрый** (cunning, tricky, sly), but obscene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed by @DK in his comment, it can be translated as &quot;smart-ass,&quot; but this word isn't only used to describe people, for instance one can say &quot;хитровыебанным способом,&quot; which means &quot;in a tricky/clever way.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14921" RevisionGUID="9850efef-d2b9-40ae-9b2c-aa9929053eab" CreationDate="2017-08-20T15:37:46.687" UserId="9029" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In general the word **хитровыебанный** has the same meaning as **хитрый** (cunning, tricky, sly), but obscene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed by @DK in his comment, it can be translated as &quot;smart-ass,&quot; but this word isn't only used to describe people, for instance one can say &quot;хитровыебанным способом,&quot; which means &quot;in a tricky/clever way.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14920" RevisionGUID="be669491-590d-4f3e-890d-90c2e0f9e7c3" CreationDate="2017-08-20T17:39:00.930" UserId="2104" Comment="added 972 characters in body" Text="**Both nominative plural and genitive plural adjectives can be used with feminine nouns. Nominative plural is preferred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lisa, you are not the first to notice this variation (and well done spotting it!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources use language such as 'usually', 'more often', 'genitive is preferred', etc. when describing this phenomenon. Here is a quote from Rosenthal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §193. Определение при существительном, зависящем от числительных два,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чаще** ставится в форме именительного падежа (или совпадающего с ним&#xD;&#xA;&gt; винительного при неодушевленных существительных) множественного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: _две большие комнаты выходили окнами в сад; купила четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фарфоровые чашки; на изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (А.Н. Толстой); _По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (М. Бубеннов). При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога **возможны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; варианты**; ср.: _на две равные части – по две столовых ложки_. Если формы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительного падежа множественного числа существительных женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода отличаются по ударению от формы родительного падежа единственного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числа (ср.: _го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́_), то определение в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рассматриваемой конструкции **обычно** ставится в родительном падеже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множественного числа: _две высоких горы, две крупных слезы_. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе_ (Горький); _Две сильных мужских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки подхватили ее_ (А. Коптяева). На выбор формы определения **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказать влияние форма сказуемого; ср.: _Разыграны три золотые медали. –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разыграно три золотых медали._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold emphasis was added by me to highlight the use of the 'variative' language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Let me know if this needs translating to English.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another quote from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Граудина, Ицкович, Катлинская. Грамматическая правильность русской речи. Стилистический словарь вариантов. М., 2001:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «При существительных жен. рода прилагательное в описываемых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конструкциях **может** выступать в форме как родительного, так и им.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа, ср.: _две новых книги, две смежных комнаты, три столовых ложки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — три оригинальные статьи, две основные задачи, три столовые ложки_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма род. падежа **предпочитается** в тех случаях, когда форма им. падежа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мн. числа существительного отличается по ударению от формы, зависящей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от числительного: _три высоких горы_ (ср. _высокие горы_), _две русых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косы_ (ср. _русые косы_). Для других случаев некоторые пособиях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рекомендуют формы им. падежа — по-видимому, из стремления разграничить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежную форму прилагательного при существительных, с одного стороны,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужского и среднего, а с другой — жен. рода. Но практически при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных жен. рода (с указанным выше ограничением, связанным с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; особенностями ударения) **возможны** обе формы прилагательного».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are the scans of the relevant pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 32][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 33][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sources claim that genitive plural should be used for the adjective when the noun differs in genitive singular and nominative plural. But that contradicts your Google NGram research and a few Google searches that I've just done (using quotes to match exact phrases):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировые войны&quot; 120000&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировых войны&quot; 49100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высокие горы&quot; 5980&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высоких горы&quot; 638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новые игры&quot; 18700&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новых игры&quot; 3040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинные косы&quot; 3830&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинных косы&quot; 1150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I would conclude that nominative plural is preferred in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a third source to support the same viewpoint, the fundamental Русская грамматика, [Volume 2, §1817, page 57][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Если в сочетание с числительным входит су­ществительное жен. р.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; то нормальны обе формы прилагательного — и им. и род. п.: _две молодые&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женщины — две молодых женщины, какие-то четыре девочки — каких-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четыре девочки, обе дворовые собаки — обе дворовых собаки, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большие избы — четыре больших избы, две женских руки — две женские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки; На счету у нашей команды четыре золотых и три серебряные медали_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (газ.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the last example that uses both nominative and genitive in the same sentence!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all I could find on the subject in the two volumes. No mention of which form is preferred. I guess the authors, being wise people, followed the rule &quot;to err less often, say less&quot; or &quot;my tongue is my enemy&quot; (Язык мой — враг мой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ym9xM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KVq5D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lukashevichus.info/knigi/russk_gramm_sl_shvedova_2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14919" RevisionGUID="629e9433-c60e-4ee9-83e6-70d224761397" CreationDate="2017-08-20T18:43:19.170" UserId="8742" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I found a couple of threads after posting this that somewhat touch on this subject.  I don't know why they didn't show up for me when I conducted my initial search.  I may have overlooked them.  However, rather than add an addendum to a long post, I'll try to summarize and synthesize them for an answer.  Truth be told, they might be a bit too advanced for the level of the post I wrote.  I am referring mainly to this thread here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**How to decline adjectives modifying feminine nouns after 2, 3, 4?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/511/how-to-decline-adjectives-modifying-feminine-nouns-after-2-3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post contains a comment with a link to another post that I now see is a bit irrelevant to my question(s), so I've omitted it, but you can access it by going to the link above.  I'm referring here to an answer by [**Quassnoi**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/134/quassnoi) and I quote from it a bit later in this answer but most of it is unrelated to this post here.  What follows are three points that address my question(s) in this thread.  Please don't construe my attempt to answer my own question as a sign that I am not also interested in answers from others, especially those who can do so with specifics/details/cited sources.  Most of my attempt here will be much broader in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The general rules laid out at the top of the post that starts my thread here (Can anyone clear up ...?) should suffice in most situations.  How do I know that?  I don't.  All I can tell you is that I've seen that rule in a pretty reputable Russian textbook and have seen several examples of where that rule is applied.  Those that don't follow those rules appear to be the exception rather than the rule, but I haven't queried the entire Russian lexicon or even a scientifically measured portion of it (e.g., the first 100 most common Russian adjectives and nouns and all the many permutations of how they could combine with &quot;2,&quot; &quot;3,&quot; and &quot;4&quot;).  It could be done, but it would take me a lot of time and I suspect that I would discover what the Russian textbook _ТРОЙКА_ has already provided me with its rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the thread titled, &quot;How to decline adjectives ...&quot; (the one I mention earlier in this answer), the author of it (KCd) refers to the number-adjective-noun rules for feminine nouns.  To refresh, it is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KCd writes (paraphrasing a source):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три различных стороны).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help visualize this and corroborate it, I've added a screenshot from Wiktionary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wRYb1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is good information to have, but it doesn't explain to me why I've seen so many instances of &quot;две мировых войны.&quot;  You can see from the image below that even though the form of the plural changes from nominative to genitive, the stress stays the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eRWOL.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, although the stress from nominative plural to genitive plural does not change, both words (сторона and война) have a change of stress between singular and plural.  Is it possible that the source KCd refers to is actually referring to stress changes between the singular and plural forms of the word?  I suppose it is possible, but doubtful.  I get the impression КСd may actually be quoting from it directly.  The source isn't mentioned, so I can't try to find a copy online.  (Even if it exists, it could very well be in Russian, not a bad thing, but my Russian is not nearly good enough for accurate interpretation of Russian grammar books.)  I'll ask about it after posting this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All speculations aside, allow me to move on to my third and final bullet of knowledge on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) This comes from Quassnoi's answer.  A large part of it was in Russian, and, after using Google Translate, I realized that it doesn't actually address my question except for one thing and that is what was said in reference to a rule he was citing from a book by [**Dietmar Rosenthal**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietmar_Rosenthal) titled, [**_Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати_.**](http://royallib.com/book/rozental_ditmar/spravochnik_po_pravopisaniyu_i_literaturnoy_pravke_dlya_rabotnikov_pechati.html) In reference to the rule referenced from the book, Quassnoi writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**This rule is not strict and is often violated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perhaps, _that_ can be said of any rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="1462e1ce-e87e-4c64-8f4a-d53ba2b9332e" CreationDate="2017-08-20T18:46:27.760" UserId="8742" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="While trying to augment my knowledge on Russian numerals with regard to how they combine with nouns and adjectives, I paid a visit to [**Reverso**](http://www.reverso.net) after learning that any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: For those of you who have yet to learn this, it may help you to know that rules of [**animacy**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy) do not apply to this rule because rules of animacy only apply to the accusative case in Russian.  The rules listed at the top of this post refer to numeral-noun phrases in the nominative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, while going through sentences at Reverso, looking for good examples, I kept coming across combinations that confused me because they did not seem to be adhering to the rules I placed at the top of this post.  Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Три маленьких бабочки смотрят на тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Three little butterflies looking at you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Потому что у меня есть три маленьких буквы для тебя.  &#xD;&#xA;Because I've got three little letters for you.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought that I might have just stumbled upon a couple of less than standard translations at Reverso, but then I went to search Russian web pages via Google's search engine.  (Initially, I tried Google's Ngram, but this didn't yield anything.)  What I discovered, via a search of Russian web pages, somewhat surprised me.  Though there was clearly more evidence of these types of constructs according to the rules I laid out above there was still quite a few that did not seem to be following it.  See the image below for the details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SYaS6.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_After thinking about this a bit more, I see now that the numbers for &quot;три маленьких буквы&quot; quite possibly indicate the use of the accusative case._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This made me rather curious, so I returned to the Ngram and ran a few other searches.  You’ll find visual representations of those searches below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IFGr5.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DCv09.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the searches involving masculine or neuter nouns were quite consistent, but not so with the feminine noun — война.  Is this presence of using genitive plural for the adjective between a numeral and its noun (as in “две мировых войны) just an indicator of bad writing (somewhat implausible) or is something else going on?  If the noun “война” were an _animate noun,_ I suppose one could make a case that instances of “две мировых войны” must be examples of where it is in the accusative case, but it is my understanding that only things like people and animals are considered “animate” and wouldn’t “два” then take the form of “двух” (instead of “две”)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, what I found via searches seems to contradict what I now have come to understand about this rule and have seen echoed in a similar post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here’s a screenshot of the part that is germane to this post:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Of0BI.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, wouldn’t “два” then be “две” if the noun was feminine (regardless of whether it was in nominative or accusative case)?  I guess it’s possible that whoever wrote it is just using “два” in its default/base form.  Regardless, the rule seems to correspond with what I find in one of Wiktionary’s declension charts.  Here’s an annotated screenshot so you can see what I mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lJXrb.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_This declension chart seems rather similar to other charts I’ve seen — where “ые” is listed for the nominative plural and accusative inanimate plural and “ых” for genitive, prepositional, and accusative animate plural._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve added the declension chart for “два” to assist with understanding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f1fF9.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_It doesn’t help that the rows for “animate” and “inanimate” have been flipped — in the chart for “мировой” “animate” is listed before “inanimate.”  In this chart, you have the opposite, but I hope it helps just the same._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the feminine noun example I used earlier:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**две мировых войны  &#xD;&#xA;две мировые войны**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another theory I have is that this is perhaps some sort of intentional literary style intended to, perhaps, make some sort of statement about the “animacy” a war may have.  Or am I way off base there?  Another theory is that at one time it was acceptable to use “**две** мировых войны” for the genitive case (instead of &quot;**двух**&quot;).  But wouldn’t you then have to change “войны” to “войн”?  Would love to have your thoughts on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point in my inquiry, I decided to stop speculating and just post this question here to see if anyone might have an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just to recap in more general terms, are these patterns I've observed due to any recent changes in the Russian language or is it more due to the differences that tend to develop between formal writing and less formal writing?  Or are they just mistakes/flukes/anomalies that a beginning student shouldn’t pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have visited the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Five + adjective + noun — what case is adj in?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13949/five-adjective-noun-what-case-is-adj-in)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals and cases - why in this sentence the adjective is in plural form?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11623/numerals-and-cases-why-in-this-sentence-the-adjective-is-in-plural-form/11624#11624)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Numerals changing the case of adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7335/numerals-changing-the-case-of-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Agreement of numerals, adjectives and nouns**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14836/agreement-of-numerals-adjectives-and-nouns)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Двадцать один хорош(?) год - declension after number 21**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14205/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-declension-after-number-21)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but none of them really seem to address my latest point(s) of confusion about the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic.  Please cite a source(s) in your answer, if it makes sense to do so and it is not too inconvenient.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14922" RevisionGUID="88185458-f3c3-4b1d-a091-d7286a2b1f3f" CreationDate="2017-08-20T21:17:49.803" UserId="9416" Text="Yes, this rule applies to animate nouns as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/3/4 + старых/молодых + мужчины/мальчика/солдата for masculine or neuter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2/3/4 + старые/молодые + женщины/девушки/кошки for feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For feminine nouns you can also use the construction for masculine or neuter nouns (genitive plural) 2/3/4 + старых/молодых + женщины/девушки/кошки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't be a mistake, but nominative plural (старые/молодые) is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works for inanimate nouns too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="ac7a11c4-6908-48b6-9602-3fabbdca2c7c" CreationDate="2017-08-20T22:00:10.750" UserId="9417" Text="I'm extremely confused...&#xD;&#xA;Why is the following sentence wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брат Адама любит Москвы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the rules, to form the genitive case for feminine nouns one should replace **a** with **ы**, but clearly that's not the case here... why is that? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="ac7a11c4-6908-48b6-9602-3fabbdca2c7c" CreationDate="2017-08-20T22:00:10.750" UserId="9417" Text="Genitive Case - soft question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14923" RevisionGUID="ac7a11c4-6908-48b6-9602-3fabbdca2c7c" CreationDate="2017-08-20T22:00:10.750" UserId="9417" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14924" RevisionGUID="10e1fbb6-21b9-42bc-8643-f5c62f435a6e" CreationDate="2017-08-21T05:24:31.623" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Why is the following sentence wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you must use the Accusative case here. I.e. &quot;_Брат Адама любит **Москву**_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @AlexVB noted, in a _negative_ sentence you may use any of two cases, that is, both &quot;_Брат Адама не любит **Москву**_&quot; (Acc.) and &quot;_Брат Адама не любит **Москвы**_&quot; (Gen.) are OK. But in a positive sentence there's no alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of a mistake is probably the fact that Genitive and Accusative do coincide for animated nouns. But note that &quot;_Москва любит **брата Адама**_&quot; is grammatically the Accusative case, although the Genitive is spelt absolutely the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14925" RevisionGUID="6f342547-1b44-417a-ad26-d795678ca645" CreationDate="2017-08-21T10:22:38.170" UserId="5443" Text="It depends. In the nominative case it's definitely бо**х**. The consonant -г- is pronounced close to Ukrainian -**хг**- in set expressions like &quot;*Слава богу!*&quot; (Dative) or &quot;*Ступай с богом!*&quot; (Instrumental), &quot;*Проси у бога милости*&quot; (Genitive), where бог is in *Christian* sense; however it is often reduced to the simple -**г**-. It's usually typical -**г**- in plural (бо**г**и, бо**г**ами, бо**г**ам, бо**г**ов...) or if it's about a **pagan** god (бо**г**а, бо**г**у, бо**г**ом, о бо**г**е - except the Nominative case - still бо**х**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36710" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="0c36b2cd-15dd-407d-8455-ef0138400334" CreationDate="2017-08-21T15:54:46.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of хитровыебанный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36711" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="05e6c5c1-91d7-46c2-84fb-45a27f800339" CreationDate="2017-08-21T19:19:28.773" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;хитровыебанный&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8822" RevisionGUID="b6cf461e-d75d-4acc-a6aa-918e78426b22" CreationDate="2017-08-22T08:48:42.007" UserId="5405" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Слово &quot;ибо&quot; относится почти исключительно к книжной речи и в разговорном стиле, если и употребляют, то, как правило, в ироничном ключе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В книжной речи, особенно религиозного характера, предлог ибо по прежнему встречается и воспринимается вполне органично. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Прости им, **ибо** не ведают что творят&quot; - [Лука 23;34]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И брата он убил ради ее спасенья, **ибо** ему казалось нетерпимым, чтобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нежнейшая, без злобы, женщина страдала от тяжелейшей надменности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; супруга. [Т. Тархов. Меж двух времен. Хроники Уильяма Шекспира //&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Наука и жизнь», 2006]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другие примеры употребления предлога &quot;ибо&quot; можно посмотреть на сайте [&quot;Нацкорпус&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В целом, в непосредственном общении, не являясь носителем языка, слово лучше не употреблять, так как он вряд ли будет уместным. При написании научного или публицистического текста предлог употреблять можно, но в меру. Если текст религиозного характера, то можно смело заменять на &quot;ибо&quot; все &quot;так как&quot; и &quot;потому что&quot;, следя только за отсутствием тавтологии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search-beta.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E8%E1%EE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="e8be79db-731c-4288-8da0-060795d0f39c" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:27:02.577" UserId="7451" Text="My friend (St. Petersburg born and raised) recently got a tattoo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![БОШЕТУНМАЙ tattoo][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked him what *БОШЕТУНМАЙ* (&quot;Boshhetunmai&quot;) meant, and he said it was the refrain from a song which very much impressed him in his youth, the 1986 hit [*Бошетунмай* by Кино][3] (Kino) in the album *Группа крови* (&quot;Blood Group&quot;). You can hear Kino singing this word, in context, at ~2m22s in the linked video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this word mean? My friend claims it is, on its face, nonsense, and Kino refused to unequivocally define it until the day he died. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's roughly in accord with [the Wikipedia.ru history of the word][4], though automatic translation to English&amp;sup1; is very rough, fragmented, and hard to follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интервью с В. Цоем, Мурманское ТВ, апрель 1989 г. (Interview with V. Tsoi, Murmansk TV, April 1989):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А что такое «Бошетунмай»?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Это секрет.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He answers: &quot;It's a secret&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интервью с В. Цоем, «РИО» № 19, 1988 (Interview with V. Tsoi, &quot;RIO&quot; No. 19, 1988):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Откуда взялось слово «Бошетунмай»? Сам придумал?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, не сам. Есть несколько разных версий возникновения этого слова.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А у тебя какая?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Классическая. Просто такое вот волшебное слово.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, he answers &quot;It's word with many interpretations. Mine is: it's classical. Just such a magic word&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Георгий Гурьянов так трактует это выражение (Georgy Guryanov so interpreted this expression):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — О-о-о… Бошетунмай — это отдельная история. Была такая группа «Ю би фоти» — реггей, британский «нью вейв». Они приехали к нам в Ленинград, мы ходили на их концерт, слушали их песню, даже исполняли её сами. А у них же всё вокруг марихуаны и косяков. Виктор под впечатлением всего этого написал реггей-песню. А «бошетунмай» — это одно из наших названий этого продукта. Скорее это всё Тимур придумал, у него был круг друзей, которые говорили между собой, что человек, который бросил это курить, продался. Соответственно, когда предлагалось курнуть, говорили: «Давай, не продадимся». Так не продавались, не продавались, а потом для конспирации перевели слово на китайский язык. Он был очень модным. Слово взяли из разговорника. «Не продаваться» — это глагол… Никто значения этого слова до сих пор и не знает, м.б. лучше и не знать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much harder to follow in English, but it seems he concludes the word means &quot; 'Do not sell' as a verb ... nobody knows the meaning of this word until now. It is better not to know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the the creators of the word did not assign it a meaning, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a native speaker, the man on the street, encountered *Бошетунмай*, never having heard the song, would it be meaningful to him? What would he interpret it to mean?&#xD;&#xA;- If not, does the word have any allusions, references, either in whole, or in part, which lend it shades of meaning from morphology or phonology alone&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- If not, does it have any assonances, consonances, rhymes, or other similarities to other common words which would create links in the hearer's or reader's mind?&#xD;&#xA;- Would it consistently provoke any emotion or constellation of emotions in native speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, without familiarity with the Kino song, is this word complete nonsense? If not, what does it mean, or what associations would it create in the mind of a native speaker? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;sup1; &lt;sub&gt;Forgive me, I only speak English. I won't be able to understand answers or comments in Russian or any other non-English language. Of course you are free to speak among yourselves in any language you like, but addressing me won't be effective in anything but English.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxxZl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D5TX6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yog3lgCui7g&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=142&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="e8be79db-731c-4288-8da0-060795d0f39c" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:27:02.577" UserId="7451" Text="What does &quot;Бошетунмай&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="e8be79db-731c-4288-8da0-060795d0f39c" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:27:02.577" UserId="7451" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="8856d5f8-2e4a-4a8f-9abb-af00a1a10a65" CreationDate="2017-08-22T16:35:22.093" UserId="7451" Comment="edited body" Text="My friend (St. Petersburg born and raised) recently got a tattoo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![БОШЕТУНМАЙ tattoo][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked him what *БОШЕТУНМАЙ* (&quot;Boshhetunmai&quot;) meant, and he said it was the refrain from a song which very much impressed him in his youth, the 1986 hit [*Бошетунмай* by Кино][3] (Kino) in the album *Группа крови* (&quot;Blood Group&quot;). You can hear Kino singing this word, in context, at ~2m22s in the linked video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this word mean? My friend claims it is, on its face, nonsense, and Kino refused to unequivocally define it until the day he died. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's roughly in accord with [the Wikipedia.ru history of the word][4], though automatic translation to English&amp;sup1; is very rough, fragmented, and hard to follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интервью с В. Цоем, Мурманское ТВ, апрель 1989 г. (Interview with V. Tsoi, Murmansk TV, April 1989):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А что такое «Бошетунмай»?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Это секрет.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He answers: &quot;It's a secret&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интервью с В. Цоем, «РИО» № 19, 1988 (Interview with V. Tsoi, &quot;RIO&quot; No. 19, 1988):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Откуда взялось слово «Бошетунмай»? Сам придумал?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, не сам. Есть несколько разных версий возникновения этого слова.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А у тебя какая?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Классическая. Просто такое вот волшебное слово.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, he answers &quot;It's word with many interpretations. Mine is: it's classical. Just such a magic word&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Георгий Гурьянов так трактует это выражение (Georgy Guryanov so interpreted this expression):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — О-о-о… Бошетунмай — это отдельная история. Была такая группа «Ю би фоти» — реггей, британский «нью вейв». Они приехали к нам в Ленинград, мы ходили на их концерт, слушали их песню, даже исполняли её сами. А у них же всё вокруг марихуаны и косяков. Виктор под впечатлением всего этого написал реггей-песню. А «бошетунмай» — это одно из наших названий этого продукта. Скорее это всё Тимур придумал, у него был круг друзей, которые говорили между собой, что человек, который бросил это курить, продался. Соответственно, когда предлагалось курнуть, говорили: «Давай, не продадимся». Так не продавались, не продавались, а потом для конспирации перевели слово на китайский язык. Он был очень модным. Слово взяли из разговорника. «Не продаваться» — это глагол… Никто значения этого слова до сих пор и не знает, м.б. лучше и не знать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much harder to follow in English, but it seems he concludes the word means &quot; 'Do not sell' as a verb ... nobody knows the meaning of this word until now. It is better not to know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the the creators of the word did not assign it a meaning, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a native speaker, the man on the street, encountered *Бошетунмай*, never having heard the song, would it be meaningful to him? What would he interpret it to mean?&#xD;&#xA;- If not, does the word have any allusions, references, either in whole, or in part, which lend it shades of meaning from morphology or phonology alone?&#xD;&#xA;- If not, does it have any assonances, consonances, rhymes, or other similarities to other common words which would create links in the hearer's or reader's mind?&#xD;&#xA;- Would it consistently provoke any emotion or constellation of emotions in native speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, without familiarity with the Kino song, is this word complete nonsense? If not, what does it mean, or what associations would it create in the mind of a native speaker? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;sup1; &lt;sub&gt;Forgive me, I only speak English. I won't be able to understand answers or comments in Russian or any other non-English language. Of course you are free to speak among yourselves in any language you like, but addressing me won't be effective in anything but English.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxxZl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D5TX6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yog3lgCui7g&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=142&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14928" RevisionGUID="c85e8ae5-8009-495d-8755-3b5160f7a8d8" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:26:19.723" UserId="8742" Text="I was creating a [**Memrise**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memrise) course for Russian the other day and as I was collecting audio files from [**Forvo**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvo) to add to it, I came upon this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**крити́ческий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when I make a course, I add a field for the word with its accent marks so I can get into the habit of correctly pronouncing the word (rather than guessing). This word, however, gave me a bit of cognitive dissonance because it doesn't appear that it is pronounced according to how dictionaries place the stress mark.  I can't think of any examples right now, but if I'm not mistaken, this has happened once or twice with a couple of other Russian words.  Below are some examples of different pronunciations of **крити́ческий**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**крити́ческий** from Forvo](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**крити́ческий** from Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither sound as if the stress is being placed on that second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following video, however, the pronunciation does match the stress I see in the dictionaries I've visited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Наступает критический момент...**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9GIwG2FdEg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately this dichotomy between what I see listed in the dictionary and pronunciations I find at Forvo and elsewhere are few and far between.  Nevertheless, does anyone know of a resource, similar to Forvo, that provides free online audio recordings of Russian?  I often tend to focus on resources that were created in English with an English-speaking user in mind, but I realize there may be quite a few additional resources in the native language that I may just not have exposed myself to yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for your thoughts on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14928" RevisionGUID="c85e8ae5-8009-495d-8755-3b5160f7a8d8" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:26:19.723" UserId="8742" Text="&quot;Критический&quot;: How should it be prounounced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14928" RevisionGUID="c85e8ae5-8009-495d-8755-3b5160f7a8d8" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:26:19.723" UserId="8742" Text="|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14928" RevisionGUID="ab175de0-9b86-468a-98b9-95eb32632f36" CreationDate="2017-08-22T17:38:48.413" UserId="8742" Comment="added 501 characters in body" Text="I was creating a [**Memrise**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memrise) course for Russian the other day and as I was collecting audio files from [**Forvo**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvo) to add to it, I came upon this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**крити́ческий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, when I make a course, I add a field for the word with its accent marks so I can get into the habit of correctly pronouncing the word (rather than guessing). This word, however, gave me a bit of cognitive dissonance because it doesn't appear that it is pronounced according to how dictionaries place the stress mark.  I can't think of any examples right now, but if I'm not mistaken, this has happened once or twice with a couple of other Russian words.  Below are some examples of different pronunciations of **крити́ческий**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**крити́ческий** from Forvo](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**крити́ческий** from Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither sound as if the stress is being placed on that second syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following video, however, the pronunciation _does_ match the stress I see in the dictionaries I've visited:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Наступает критический момент...**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9GIwG2FdEg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately this dichotomy between what I see listed in the dictionary and pronunciations I find at Forvo and elsewhere are few and far between.  Nevertheless, does anyone know of a resource, similar to Forvo, that provides free online audio recordings of Russian?  I often tend to focus on resources that were created in English with an English-speaking user in mind, but I realize there may be quite a few additional resources in the native language that I may just not have exposed myself to yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of any such resource, can anyone tell me how most people pronounce this word -- **критический** -- even if it differs from what is indicated by dictionaries.  Also, if you have a good Russian dictionary that shows a different stress mark than what I found at Wiktionary (and [**WordReference**](http://www.wordreference.com/ruen/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9) and [**PONS**](http://en.pons.com/translate?q=critical&amp;l=enru&amp;in=&amp;lf=en)), please add that to your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for your thoughts on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36726" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="9ae6dec3-7ae8-4853-8193-d18c55c9ca23" CreationDate="2017-08-22T18:46:33.410" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36727" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="a18c88e8-8fb4-4d57-b934-cbce5d32b463" CreationDate="2017-08-22T21:36:01.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/900109326559399940" />
  <row Id="36728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14929" RevisionGUID="c6fc7027-8415-473c-8e84-8cce8f5747f8" CreationDate="2017-08-23T05:43:37.293" UserId="2086" Text="I think it depends on the depth of context/ meaningfulness of her heart's intentions, she may show her afection this way, along the lines of &quot;You're my sweetie/ such a sweetheart/ darling/ You're my guy/my dear/ You're my precious&quot;... or not, we'd need to read the whole message history to gauge what's what, lol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36729" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="0e4be6d1-abae-4166-8c6c-a1ca85d405a0" CreationDate="2017-08-23T10:39:15.773" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4903,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14930" RevisionGUID="0ba15c5b-7f07-4d17-8e5e-fb3c88a6adb4" CreationDate="2017-08-23T20:21:32.733" UserId="4560" Text="I love questions like these, they uncover small quirks that even most native speakers aren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is on the second syllable, and sounds like it. There's more at play at Forvo and Wiktionary, though; it's subtle, modern, and I don't think they teach that. There's often a sort of quasi-stress — *qualitatively* different from regular Russian stress — in the first word that comes after a pause. Any pause. Starting an utterance, picking up mid-sentence, or as in this case, pronouncing a standalone word. And the curious thing is, the more &quot;clear&quot; the speaker is trying to sound, the more likely they are to put that quasi-stress on the first syllable. You can hear it most clearly in loud, cheery PSAs: ***При*глаша́ем на нашу выставку!** Less markedly, some newscasters do that, something like: **отвечая на вопросы журналистов, представитель компании** *[small pause]* ***за*яви́л:** *[soundbite]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your two samples, it's that thing — ***кри*ти́ческий** — drowning out the &quot;real&quot; stress, which never shifts anywhere. In the movie scene, **критический** comes mid-utterance, and that's how it's &quot;meant&quot; to sound in the absence of any other factors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14930" RevisionGUID="41c158a0-2b9e-4115-b021-66175776cbe9" CreationDate="2017-08-23T21:17:07.270" UserId="4560" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="I love questions like these, they uncover small quirks that even most native speakers aren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is on the second syllable, and sounds like it. There's more at play at Forvo and Wiktionary, though; it's subtle, modern, and I don't think they teach that. There's often a sort of quasi-stress — *qualitatively* different from regular Russian stress — on the first syllable of a word that comes after a pause. Any pause. Starting an utterance, picking up mid-sentence, or as in this case, pronouncing a standalone word. And the curious thing is, the more &quot;clear&quot; the speaker is trying to sound, the more likely they are to put that quasi-stress on the first syllable. You can hear it most clearly in loud, cheery PSAs: ***При*глаша́ем на нашу выставку!** Less markedly, some newscasters do that, something like: **отвечая на вопросы журналистов, представитель компании** *[small pause]* ***за*яви́л:** *[soundbite]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your two samples, it's that thing — ***кри*ти́ческий** — drowning out the &quot;real&quot; stress, which never shifts anywhere. In the movie scene, **критический** comes mid-utterance, and that's how it's &quot;meant&quot; to sound in the absence of any other factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: somehow forgot to mention it's on the first syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="3418ad30-10ba-4398-84ed-85d41695533f" CreationDate="2017-08-23T21:41:23.670" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/900473064873394177" />
  <row Id="36733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14930" RevisionGUID="9ed4def0-b35c-4f9f-a6a3-1d48eb27c82f" CreationDate="2017-08-23T22:22:52.423" UserId="4560" Comment="actually no, I didn't forget. just the first time" Text="I love questions like these, they uncover small quirks that even most native speakers aren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stress is on the second syllable, and sounds like it. There's more at play at Forvo and Wiktionary, though; it's subtle, modern, and I don't think they teach that. There's often a sort of quasi-stress — *qualitatively* different from regular Russian stress — on the first syllable of a word that comes after a pause. Any pause. Starting an utterance, picking up mid-sentence, or as in this case, pronouncing a standalone word. And the curious thing is, the more &quot;clear&quot; the speaker is trying to sound, the more likely they are to put that quasi-stress on the first syllable. You can hear it most clearly in loud, cheery PSAs: ***При*глаша́ем на нашу выставку!** Less markedly, some newscasters do that, something like: **отвечая на вопросы журналистов, представитель компании** *[small pause]* ***за*яви́л:** *[soundbite]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your two samples, it's that thing — ***кри*ти́ческий** — drowning out the &quot;real&quot; stress, which never shifts anywhere. In the movie scene, **критический** comes mid-utterance, and that's how it's &quot;meant&quot; to sound in the absence of any other factors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36735" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8818" RevisionGUID="e8b387e3-648a-45c9-8b46-57192e637661" CreationDate="2017-08-24T06:41:33.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/900609002937221120" />
  <row Id="36736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14916" RevisionGUID="1956610b-bb39-4316-b288-eb012e04b0e6" CreationDate="2017-08-24T18:11:34.880" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="What does it imply when someone describes or refers to another person as **хитровыебанный**? Is it a compliment or an insult? Also, what syllable is the stress on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="278e2eb4-ecb9-4662-8331-d61be0970dfa" CreationDate="2017-08-24T19:01:54.510" UserId="242" Text="**The answer provided is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You can not say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just nor right. You can not substitute `хитрый` by `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just a obscene rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's more close (but not equivalent to) to an obscene version of kludgy in it's &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - it's about plan that was actually conceived as clever, tricky but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14932" RevisionGUID="2afe4381-e7a8-4c71-bad5-d9e38cf4d207" CreationDate="2017-08-24T20:14:35.847" UserId="242" Text="OK, I've waited enough and while nobody's answering this, I will do it myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a native speaker with no knowledge of song will hear &quot;Бошетунмай&quot; this will mean nothing to him. As of allusions and references, this sounds slightly &quot;turkic&quot; (or Tartar) - but that's basically it, nothing more specific. Any popular rhyming word you can think of - like &quot;сарай&quot;, &quot;каравай&quot; - still give you no hint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of provoking emotion - no. It does not sound harsh, it does not sound aggressive, it's pretty neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude - this word has nothing to do with Russian language, it's a completely made up word and only Viktor Tsoi knows what it exactly means - if it does mean anything at all. It's as much Russian as, say, Kid Rock's Bawitdaba is an English word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14933" RevisionGUID="52d0f86c-6fc6-4e01-9249-72736adfe20d" CreationDate="2017-08-24T20:23:00.260" UserId="5288" Text="&gt; *Lisa Beck&gt;* does anyone know of a resource, similar to Forvo, that provides free online audio recordings of Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Youtube&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Lisa Beck&gt;* if you have a good Russian dictionary that shows a different stress mark ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Automatic, involuntary speech will be the good Russian source to check where is actually the Russians make stress and how they pronounce words by motor reflex activity when no thought involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/zSZBapE7v4k?t=4m28s ну это &lt;kbd&gt;критически&lt;/kbd&gt; важный навык   &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/gkcGPPS6yY8?t=4m19s так как это &lt;kbd&gt;критически&lt;/kbd&gt; сокращает срок её службы   &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/rt3up3BwCcE?t=59s для использования на &lt;kbd&gt;критически&lt;/kbd&gt; важных объектах   &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/HjIWl7ES_B0?t=24s для проверки теории &lt;kbd&gt;критически&lt;/kbd&gt; необходимо найти доказательства   &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/2LhvYcpLZk0?t=1m4s при этом &lt;kbd&gt;критически&lt;/kbd&gt; важно составить список конкурентов   &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/VZ4sNPYAJJQ?t=2m1s если показатели спермограммы &lt;kbd&gt;критически&lt;/kbd&gt; снижены, то    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, you can identify for yourself which syllable of the word has been stressed or accented, making your own decision without interference from advisors (native speakers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14932" RevisionGUID="c88a1982-1351-45e1-bfa8-88dd4f6d73a0" CreationDate="2017-08-24T21:09:13.570" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="OK, I've waited enough and while nobody's answering this, I will do it myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a native speaker with no knowledge of song will hear &quot;Бошетунмай&quot; this will mean nothing to him. As of allusions and references, this sounds slightly, vaguely &quot;turkic&quot; (or Tatar) - but that's basically it, nothing more specific. Any popular rhyming word you can think of - like &quot;сарай&quot;, &quot;каравай&quot; - still give you no hint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of provoking emotion - no. It does not sound harsh, it does not sound aggressive, it's pretty neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude - this word has nothing to do with Russian language, it's a completely made up word and only Viktor Tsoi knows what it exactly means - if it does mean anything at all. It's as much Russian as, say, Kid Rock's Bawitdaba is an English word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="3859643b-bfc3-4dee-bc01-26beb5362f16" CreationDate="2017-08-24T23:47:59.433" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="**The answer accepted is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You can not say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just nor right. You can not substitute `хитрый` by `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just a obscene rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's more close (but not equivalent to) to an obscene version of kludgy in it's &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - it's about plan that was actually conceived as clever, tricky but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="7a90a72f-4e29-45de-9380-6398feab557a" CreationDate="2017-08-25T00:35:23.460" UserId="3892" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="**The answer accepted is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You cannot say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just not right. You cannot substitute `хитрый` with `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just an obscene, rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's closer (but not equivalent) to an obscene version of kludgy in the sense of &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at the phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - this refers to a plan that was actually cleverly or trickily conceived, but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="0a17c79d-340f-4240-974f-2072da830e89" CreationDate="2017-08-25T03:15:16.890" UserId="242" Comment="added 629 characters in body" Text="**The answer accepted is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You cannot say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just not right. You cannot substitute `хитрый` with `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just an obscene, rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's closer (but not equivalent) to an obscene version of kludgy in the sense of &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at the phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - this refers to a plan that was actually cleverly or trickily conceived, but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** As of `какой-то хитровыебанный хуй` - well, it's more like someone tried to say `какой-то хитрожопый хуй` (which is literally smart-ass) but was to excited to calmly and thoroughly analyze all the possibilities in order to choose the right word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two google searches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can use `хитровыебанный` for referring person (like `хитровыебанный пацан`, it's still not a direct analogue of `хитрый` but rather of someone dodgy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjqo8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gkhEy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="101bb6ee-55f8-4cb7-864c-d32015f2ca32" CreationDate="2017-08-25T03:20:08.697" UserId="3892" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**The answer accepted is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You cannot say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just not right. You cannot substitute `хитрый` with `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just an obscene, rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's closer (but not equivalent) to an obscene version of kludgy in the sense of &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at the phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - this refers to a plan that was actually cleverly or trickily conceived, but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** As for `какой-то хитровыебанный хуй` - well, it's more like someone tried to say `какой-то хитрожопый хуй` (which is literally smart-ass) but was too worked up to calmly and thoroughly analyze all the possibilities in order to choose the right word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two google searches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can use `хитровыебанный` to refer to a person (like `хитровыебанный пацан,` it's still not a direct analogue for `хитрый,` but rather for someone dodgy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjqo8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gkhEy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="fca44eaf-2e7b-4bac-801a-0f32ff83d73f" CreationDate="2017-08-25T03:23:24.403" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="**The answer accepted is wrong.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You cannot just say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just not right. You cannot substitute `хитрый` with `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just an obscene, rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's closer (but not equivalent) to an obscene version of kludgy in the sense of &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at the phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - this refers to a plan that was actually cleverly or trickily conceived, but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** As for `какой-то хитровыебанный хуй` - well, it's more like someone tried to say `какой-то хитрожопый хуй` (which is literally smart-ass) but was too worked up to calmly and thoroughly analyze all the possibilities in order to choose the right word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two google searches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can use `хитровыебанный` to refer to a person (like `хитровыебанный пацан,` it's still not a direct analogue for `хитрый,` but rather for someone dodgy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjqo8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gkhEy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14931" RevisionGUID="f0bf2ef6-261e-4030-9de7-9201ec3bd087" CreationDate="2017-08-25T03:38:37.443" UserId="242" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="It's wrong to say that it's just obscene version of `хитрый` - it way more subtle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хитровыебанный` is by no means `хитрый`. You cannot just say `хитровыебанный мужик` instead of `хитрый мужик` - this is just not right. You cannot substitute `хитрый` with `хитровыебанный` in the majority of cases - it's not just an obscene, rude form of sly or tricky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's closer (but not equivalent) to an obscene version of kludgy in the sense of &quot;awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look, for instance, at the phrase - `xитровыебанный план` - this refers to a plan that was actually cleverly or trickily conceived, but turns out to be overcomplicated and not necessarily effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** As for `какой-то хитровыебанный хуй` - well, it's more like someone tried to say `какой-то хитрожопый хуй` (which is literally smart-ass) but was too worked up to calmly and thoroughly analyze all the possibilities in order to choose the right word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two google searches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While you can use `хитровыебанный` to refer to a person (like `хитровыебанный пацан,` it's still not a direct analogue for `хитрый,` but rather for someone dodgy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yjqo8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gkhEy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14928" RevisionGUID="d78e8c7b-913a-45e7-a276-f88960867058" CreationDate="2017-08-26T15:49:00.090" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/901471546354618368" />
  <row Id="36756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14935" RevisionGUID="1d345715-2d3c-4f4a-bdc6-626f23c5437f" CreationDate="2017-08-27T06:52:48.103" UserId="8742" Text="I recently learned that possessive pronouns are not used as often in Russian as they are in English and, therefore, this implies that a translation into English with a logical possessive might be better if the context indicates that one is implied.  This was actually brought to my attention via a Duolingo lesson in which the correct answer for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**Пока брат читает, я работаю.**](https://www.duolingo.com/comment/11722364) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;was&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;While my brother is reading, I am working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was actually almost finished reading the comments in a discussion thread linked to the prompt you see above, and about to move on, when I came upon the following comment toward the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In English, singular countable nouns are usually used with some kind of modifier (either 'a', 'or 'the', or 'my'/other possessive pronouns). In Russian, singular nouns don't require modifiers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;When the modifier is omited in English, it means 'brother' is used like a name, to refer to a specific brother and not just 'a brother' is general. This is not what the Russian sentence means, so that's why just 'brother' is not accepted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raised some questions for me, such as can be found in the post I wrote in reply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Do Russians ever use &quot;brother&quot; similarly?  In other words, do Russians ever use &quot;brother&quot; or any other family member as a name?  And, if so, how is the distinction made?  (More importantly, how are English students of Russian to know the difference?)  Would it, perhaps, ever be capitalized as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;Пока Брат читает, я работаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I know I have seen &quot;Big Brother&quot; as in &quot;a person or organization exercising total control over people's lives&quot; is sometimes (but not always) spelled with capital letters as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt;**Большой Брат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I actually tried to investigate this a bit via digital means.  [**What I found with Google's Ngram**](https://goo.gl/cJ3WYi) didn't help much and an advanced search of Russian pages did seem to indicate that some might capitalize it from time to time, but the practice appears to be rather limited and somewhat arbitrary.  I did some further research in this regard and discovered some things that I will add in an answer to this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most of the posts in that thread are a year old, I wasn't too sure if I would get a reply or get one relatively soon, so I thought I'd post it over here since the Russian Language StackExchange has proven to be one of the more active forums I've visited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To be realistic, I understand that this question may seem somewhat insignificant, and surely, not knowing the answer to this question isn't likely to move a person's mastery of Russian ahead by leaps and bounds, but every little drop in the bucket of Russian language knowledge is incrementally beneficial.  So, if you are a native or fluent speaker of Russian and have any thoughts on this, please share them with us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14935" RevisionGUID="1d345715-2d3c-4f4a-bdc6-626f23c5437f" CreationDate="2017-08-27T06:52:48.103" UserId="8742" Text="Are words for family members (e.g., &quot;брат,&quot; &quot;сестра,&quot; ...) ever used as names, and, if so, is the word then capitalized (as it would be in English)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14935" RevisionGUID="1d345715-2d3c-4f4a-bdc6-626f23c5437f" CreationDate="2017-08-27T06:52:48.103" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14936" RevisionGUID="d3f52e9a-f036-4ab4-8291-48c089ee73b9" CreationDate="2017-08-27T06:52:48.103" UserId="8742" Text="##**The short answer**&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is “no.”  Russian writers do not appear to capitalize a word for a family member even when it is used as a name.  This is true whether directly addressing the family member or not (or adding a modifier like &quot;little/big&quot; or &quot;younger/older&quot;), and true whether or not it is translated into English as &quot;my brother&quot; or simply &quot;brother.&quot;  Here are some examples from [**Reverso**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;We're just trying to have a peaceful drink over here, brother.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Мы тут пытается спокойно посидеть, брат.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;We've been through a lot, big brother.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Мы прошли через многое, большой брат.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;I will bring you back, my brother, I promise.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я воскрешу тебя, брат, обещаю.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;... while my brother is eating corpses, he is not my brother&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;... &quot;'пока брат ест трупы, он мне не брат', ...&quot;**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_This last example is not from Reverso but from an informБЮРО online article titled, &quot;Уехавшая в Одессу жительница Акмолинской области называет свою мать трупоедкой.&quot;_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only one legitimate exception I can think of, where &quot;брат&quot; is capitalized in such instances are those in which &quot;brother&quot; begins the sentence as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;Brother threatened to cut off my ears so I'd never hear Chopin again.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Брат угрожал отрезать мне уши, чтобы я никогда не слушала больше Шопена.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you may also find other exceptions as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;Bless me, Brother, for I have acted against the example of the Gods.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Благословите меня, Брат, ибо я поступал вопреки наставлениям Богов.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this last example seems to be the exception and not a rule/standard/common practice and you're bound to find others similar to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Other forms of address: honorifics**&#xD;&#xA;I also took a look at what examples could be found via a Google search and was immediately reminded that, in English, we sometimes capitalize the word “brother” when referring to monks as in the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“Brother Kevin looped his arm around Andrew’s neck, while Brother Joshua quickly followed.”**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_By the way, the example above comes from a book titled,_ Enclosure: A Trappist Tale.  _I have only read a few lines of it and, well, let’s just say it goes beyond what most might consider “brotherly love” and very much ventures into what some, if not many, would consider racy, progressive (and/or even seditious), but it provides a good example of what I’m trying to teach here linguistically._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“Jack sat up, interested now, while Brother lay down and put one arm over his eyes.”**  &#xD;&#xA;_—From_ [**Brother, Brother,**](https://goo.gl/ucQ6Fv) _p. 14_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My cursory search on Russian monks did not rule out that they, too, are not also referred to as “brothers” and addressed as “Brother __________” (or “Брат __________”), but I did not quickly find any evidence that they are addressed or referred to in this way.  After doing some searches with &quot;сестра,&quot; however (see below), I suspect they can be (even though I haven't always seen &quot;брат&quot; capitalized in such instances).  I would think that there is some sort of standard protocol on such a thing, but my access to authoritative sources on the Russian language is somewhat limited due to various factors (a language barrier for starters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be that as it may, in English, this use of “brother” to refer to a member of a religious order can also be seen with its female counterpart — sister— and can extend beyond the honorifics used for traditional houses of religion.  If the following example is any indicator, this appears to be true for the Russian language as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;Yes, put those away before Sister Constance sees you.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Спрячь это, пока Сестра Констанция не увидела.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_I can’t be 100% certain because I’ve never seen the show and am relying on a [**Wikia FANDOM**](http://www.wikia.com/about) page here, but [**Sister Constance**](http://orange-is-the-new-black.wikia.com/wiki/Sister_Constance) appears to be a nun who occasionally appears in a show called [**Orange is the New Black.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other, less traditionally religious examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;And will be as long as the Sister of the Dark lives.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;И будет пока Сестра Тьмы жива.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;Они жили тихой жизнью пока Сестры света не похитители ее.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;They were living a quiet life until the Sisters of the Light abducted her.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A capitalized “сестра” can also refer to what is known in British English as “a senior female nurse, typically in charge of a ward,” as in the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;I thought they were rabid until Nurse Crane filled me in.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я думал, это бешенство, пока сестра Крейн не просветила меня.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**The fraternity kind of brother**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve also read that Brother, when capitalized, can also refer to a member of a fraternity, but having met some fraternity brothers in my college days, I would have to say that I believe this usage is archaic if not dying out.  Although, I do believe I’ve seen a couple of books where this appeared to be a part of the dialogue.  However, it seemed that this was something that might have been in use at one time at older, established, private universities such as one of the Ivy Leagues.  I could be wrong, but I don’t recall any of the fraternity brothers I met ever addressing one another as “Brother ____________.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**A bit on vocatives**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, siblings (and I assume other family members and the like) are not capitalized even when used as names and even when used as a vocative (unless the vocative is used in an exclamatory way or starts the sentence/phrase/expression).  This finding was limited to what Google’s Ngram and search of Russian web pages indicates where I only tested this with [**“брате,”**](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82#Declension_3) but I suspect similar results would be found for other family members.  Furthermore, some web pages I encountered seem to back this up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**“Recall also Pushkin’s «Что тебе надобно, старче?» … (‘What do you need, old man?’) …”  &#xD;&#xA;_**—From [**&quot;Is There a Vocative Case in Russian?&quot;**](http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/morphology/case/vocative-case-russian.html)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Odds and ends regarding the capitalization of words for family members**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you might also capitalize a family member in circumstances where there is more than one and you are referring to them by number or letter (e.g., Brother #4 or Brother D).  I’m not entirely sure one would do that in Russian and my guess is that common practice would be to keep the word lowercase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With or without the preceding examples, I realize that some native English speakers may not fully be aware of all the many conventions for capitalizing (or not) one’s various family members.  For a decent discussion thread that goes into somewhat more depth on this, I recommend the following from the English Language &amp; Usage StackExchange:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Capitalization of “sister” and “brother”**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/172615/capitalization-of-sister-and-brother)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cultural aspects regarding the use of the word “brother,” you may want to visit this one also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Use of “brother” in non-family and non-religious contexts**](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47541/use-of-brother-in-non-family-and-non-religious-contexts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn’t deal with the issue of capitalization but touches on other aspects that may or may not be relevant to the Russian language.  Regardless, both Russian and English speakers, of which this forum may have several, might benefit from reading it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_The following is something of an aside, but I felt it relevant enough to add here:_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mentioned in my question that I also sometimes see “big brother” capitalized in Russian.  This is true even when it has not been in English (and typically wouldn’t be when not used as a name).  This is true whether referring to one’s older brother or a surveillance state.  Keep in mind that the examples that follow these next ones (and the ones that preceded it) are direct copy from Reverso and stray from the literal a bit here and there even when it doesn’t seem necessary to do so.  I found this to be true of the next couple of examples, especially:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;As all you know, George is my big brother.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Как вы знаете, Джордж - мой Старший Брат.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;You saw watchtower as big brother and you turned away.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Ты думал, что Сторожевая Башня это Большой Брат, поэтому и отвернулся.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even then, there are exceptions as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**&quot;I could be a Big Brother.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я могу быть 'старшим братом'&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##**Final conclusions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To recap briefly, family members are not capitalized in Russian even if being used as a name for someone and not a noun.  In English, it would be technically more correct to write, “While Brother reads” rather than “While brother reads,” but you could conceivably see examples of both.  An example of correct usage in English (again, from Reverso) is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**We don't have the time to wait for Brother's graduation.&quot;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Нам некогда ждать, пока брат окончит школу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the relative prevalence is of instances where possession is implied and where it is not, I could not tell you.  In fact, I do see a lot of examples on Reverso where a possessive pronoun _is_ used before a word denoting a family member, so if you use it, you don't run the risk of not being understood and it is unlikely that it will even sound odd to a native Russian.  Having said that, it does appear that this lack of a possessive pronoun seems to occur more when the noun representing the family member comes after the following words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пока  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;как  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or the following prepositions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;за, к, с&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or immediately follows a verb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*It looks as if the possessive pronoun might be more likely to be dropped in instances where the word for the family member is in the dative, prepositional, and/or quite possibly the instrumental._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these are just observations from what I've seen at Reverso, and, for the sake of full disclosure, mainly based off of the word &quot;сестра,&quot; so I can't be certain that this observation is true in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps someone out there who might have a similar or related question and if you are a native or fluent Russian speaker or teach it to others and you have something to add or disagree with anything I’ve written, please post a comment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="7fcea6a4-fcd8-49ba-a9ca-514e44a96b1c" CreationDate="2017-08-27T09:20:23.413" UserId="194" Text="There is no common name or surname in Russian that would councide with word for brother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if used as a proper name (for instance, nickname), it definitely would be capitalized. There is no way to distinguish a proper name from a normal noun in speech, only in writing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14937" RevisionGUID="04fb480b-dd2c-4db9-bd77-2106ebcfd049" CreationDate="2017-08-27T09:26:45.840" UserId="194" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="There is no common name or surname in Russian that would councide with word for brother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if used as a proper name (for instance, nickname), it definitely would be capitalized. In ambiguous cases you always can use possessive pronouns, and I think it is in general better way of expression when using terms for relatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose there is society ruled by Mother and one wants to refer to his own mother. He definitely would say &quot;моя мать&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14938" RevisionGUID="bc2bf3da-186e-46ea-b76d-487039a82ec6" CreationDate="2017-08-27T14:01:21.927" UserId="179" Text="First, you should be aware, that in the todays world, with all these information/communication devices out there, there are numerous ways one can use words, sentences etc. And for such specific cases there can be great &quot;diversity&quot; in usage. That is, if you see somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes, put those away before Sister Constance sees you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Спрячь это, пока **Сестра** Констанция не увидела.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say from my personal experience, that usually we don't capitalize such words in such cases. But that doesn't mean, that everyone does the same. This specific case was possible, I'm 100% sure of this, due to translation from English, the translator probably decided to leave the capitalized word as it was in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we need to get rid of ambiguity with the word name. In Russian, we usually use the word (имя) &quot;name&quot; only (there might be some exceptions, I'll add them, if I recall any) in reference to a person's first name, to a thing's (like a ship) name and rarely to a nickname or last name. We usually don't use &quot;имя&quot; even for names of cities/villages etc, we use the word &quot;название&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, that if any word (including the words for family members), is being used as a first/last name, nickname it must always be capitalized. The word Брат can be a foreign first/last name, a nickname and in these cases it must be capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the word (any word, not even specifically one for a family member) is used as an address, not a first name, then it has not to be capitalized. [The item from english.stackexchange][1], provided by you, mentions such cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. **Hi, Mom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in Russian, this would be an ordinary address, not a name, as here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Привет, мам*/ Hi, Mom&#xD;&#xA;- *Здравия желаю, товарищ сержант*/ Hello, sergeant (probably this should be capitalized too)&#xD;&#xA;- *Откройте двери, водитель автобуса*/ Open the door, bus driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the second point summarized: if the word is being used as a **first/last name, nickname it should be capitalized**. Otherwise, if the word is being used only *in place of a name, like an address, a &quot;position&quot; in some monastical order or whatever, then it should not be capitalized*, unless its capitalization is required by some other rule, like it's the first word of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third point, is that in Russian, as a general rule of thumb, we capitalize only words, which are some sort of proper names, like: Иван, Солнце (when it used as the name of the star, that is *Отправить миссию на Солнце*, but *на небе светит солнце*, город Москва, крейсер Москва, Государственная Дума, Московский физико-технический интститут etc. We don't capitalize many things, which are capitalized in English: (I — я, Russian — русский, Admiral Nimitz — адмирал Нимиц, the Parliament (when it refers to a specific parliament) — парламент, President Trump — президент Трамп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fourth point, which is related to the words, which refer to family members. In sort of informal slang, they are often used as address even to people, who are not family members in that situation. This use can be considered offensive by many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не убивай, брат [из к/ф &quot;Брат&quot;][2], cannot recall any other example&#xD;&#xA;- Эх, мать, давай споем&#xD;&#xA;- Отец, есть сигарета? (the word &quot;отец&quot; wouldn't be capitalized, if it wasn't the first one in the sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/172615/capitalization-of-sister-and-brother&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y3k3-CVkOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14938" RevisionGUID="115bb2f4-6bc6-4243-a95c-11432765c6f9" CreationDate="2017-08-27T14:27:37.927" UserId="179" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="First, you should be aware, that in the todays world, with all these information/communication devices out there, there are numerous ways one can use words, sentences etc. And for such specific cases there can be great &quot;diversity&quot; in usage. That is, if you see somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes, put those away before Sister Constance sees you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Спрячь это, пока **Сестра** Констанция не увидела.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say from my personal experience, that usually we don't capitalize such words in such cases. But that doesn't mean, that everyone does the same. This specific case was possible, I'm 100% sure of this, due to translation from English, the translator probably decided to leave the capitalized word as it was in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we need to get rid of ambiguity with the word name. In Russian, we usually use the word (имя) &quot;name&quot; only (there might be some exceptions, I'll add them, if I recall any) in reference to a person's first name, to a thing's (like a ship) name and rarely to a nickname or last name. We usually don't use &quot;имя&quot; even for names of cities/villages etc, we use the word &quot;название&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, that if any word (including the words for family members), is being used as a first/last name, nickname it must be capitalized. The word Брат can be a foreign first/last name, a nickname and in these cases it must be capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the word (any word, not even specifically one for a family member) is used as an address, not a first name, then it has not to be capitalized. [The item from english.stackexchange][1], provided by you, mentions such cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. **Hi, Mom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in Russian, this would be an ordinary address, not a name, as here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Привет, мам*/ Hi, Mom&#xD;&#xA;- *Здравия желаю, товарищ сержант*/ Hello, sergeant (probably this should be capitalized too)&#xD;&#xA;- *Откройте двери, водитель автобуса*/ Open the door, bus driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the second point summarized: if the word is being used as a **first/last name, nickname it should be capitalized**. Otherwise, if the word is being used only *in place of a name, like an address, a &quot;position&quot; in some monastical order or whatever, then it should not be capitalized*, unless its capitalization is required by some other rule, like it's the first word of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third point, is that in Russian, as a general rule of thumb, we capitalize only words, which are some sort of proper names, like: Иван, Солнце (when it used as the name of the star, that is *Отправить миссию на Солнце*, but *на небе светит солнце*, город Москва, крейсер Москва, Государственная Дума, Московский физико-технический интститут etc. We don't capitalize many things, which are capitalized in English: (I — я, Russian — русский, Admiral Nimitz — адмирал Нимиц, the Parliament (when it refers to a specific parliament) — парламент, President Trump — президент Трамп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fourth point, which is related to the words, which refer to family members. In sort of informal slang, they are often used as address even to people, who are not family members in that situation. This use can be considered offensive by many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не убивай, брат [из к/ф &quot;Брат&quot;][2], cannot recall any other example&#xD;&#xA;- Эх, мать, давай споем&#xD;&#xA;- Отец, есть сигарета? (the word &quot;отец&quot; wouldn't be capitalized, if it wasn't the first one in the sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/172615/capitalization-of-sister-and-brother&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y3k3-CVkOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14938" RevisionGUID="dbbcabdf-98e6-4b71-8084-d0ecff9c4a1c" CreationDate="2017-08-27T14:51:45.357" UserId="179" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="First, you should be aware, that in the todays world, with all these information/communication devices out there, there are numerous ways one can use words, sentences etc. And for such specific cases there can be great &quot;diversity&quot; in usage. That is, if you see somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes, put those away before Sister Constance sees you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Спрячь это, пока **Сестра** Констанция не увидела.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say from my personal experience, that usually we don't capitalize such words in such cases. But that doesn't mean, that everyone does the same. This specific case was possible, I'm 100% sure of this, due to translation from English, the translator probably decided to leave the capitalized word as it was in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we need to get rid of ambiguity with the word name. In Russian, we usually use the word (имя) &quot;name&quot; only (there might be some exceptions, I'll add them, if I recall any) in reference to a person's first name, full name (first (optionally the middle one) and last together) , to a thing's (like a ship) name and rarely to a nickname or last name. We usually don't use &quot;имя&quot; even for names of cities/villages etc, we use the word &quot;название&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, that if any word (including the words for family members), is being used as a first/last name, nickname it must be capitalized. The word Брат can be a foreign first/last name, a nickname and in these cases it must be capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the word (any word, not even specifically one for a family member) is used as an address, not a first name, then it has not to be capitalized. [The item from english.stackexchange][1], provided by you, mentions such cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. **Hi, Mom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in Russian, this would be an ordinary address, not a name, as here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Привет, мам*/ Hi, Mom&#xD;&#xA;- *Здравия желаю, товарищ сержант*/ Hello, sergeant (probably this should be capitalized too)&#xD;&#xA;- *Откройте двери, водитель автобуса*/ Open the door, bus driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the second point summarized: if the word is being used as a **first/last name, nickname it should be capitalized**. Otherwise, if the word is being used only *in place of a name, like an address, a &quot;position&quot; in some monastical order or whatever, then it should not be capitalized*, unless its capitalization is required by some other rule, like it's the first word of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third point, is that in Russian, as a general rule of thumb, we capitalize only words, which are some sort of proper names, like: Иван, Солнце (when it used as the name of the star, that is *Отправить миссию на Солнце*, but *на небе светит солнце*, город Москва, крейсер Москва, Государственная Дума, Московский физико-технический интститут etc. We don't capitalize many things, which are capitalized in English: (I — я, Russian — русский, Admiral Nimitz — адмирал Нимиц, the Parliament (when it refers to a specific parliament) — парламент, President Trump — президент Трамп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fourth point, which is related to the words, which refer to family members. In sort of informal slang, the words (мать, отец, брат, сестра, **only their full variants**, not diminutive ones like папа, мама, ма, па, сестренка and so on) are often used as address even to people, who are not family members in that situation. This use can be considered offensive by many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не убивай, брат [из к/ф &quot;Брат&quot;][2], cannot recall any other example&#xD;&#xA;- Эх, мать, давай споем&#xD;&#xA;- Отец, есть сигарета? (the word &quot;отец&quot; wouldn't be capitalized, if it wasn't the first one in the sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/172615/capitalization-of-sister-and-brother&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y3k3-CVkOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14938" RevisionGUID="7dcfd5ac-0e9c-4b0b-8df9-ec9202fb883f" CreationDate="2017-08-27T15:06:36.110" UserId="179" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="First, you should be aware, that in the todays world, with all these information/communication devices out there, there are numerous ways one can use words, sentences etc. And for such specific cases there can be great &quot;diversity&quot; in usage. That is, if you see somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes, put those away before Sister Constance sees you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Спрячь это, пока **Сестра** Констанция не увидела.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say from my personal experience, that usually we don't capitalize such words in such cases. But that doesn't mean, that everyone does the same. This specific case was possible, I'm 100% sure of this, due to translation from English, the translator probably decided to leave the capitalized word as it was in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we need to get rid of ambiguity with the word name. In Russian, we usually use the word (имя) &quot;name&quot; only (there might be some exceptions, I'll add them, if I recall any) in reference to a person's first name, full name (first (optionally the middle one) and last together) , to a thing's (like a ship) name and rarely to a nickname or last name. We usually don't use &quot;имя&quot; even for names of cities/villages etc, we use the word &quot;название&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, that if any word (including the words for family members), is being used as a first/last name, nickname it must be capitalized. The word Брат can be a foreign first/last name, a nickname and in these cases it must be capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the word (any word, not even specifically one for a family member) is used as an address and is not a first name or other proper name, then it has not to be capitalized. [The item from english.stackexchange][1], provided by you, mentions such cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. **Hi, Mom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in Russian, this would be an ordinary address, not a name, as here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Привет, мам*/ Hi, Mom&#xD;&#xA;- *Здравия желаю, товарищ сержант*/ Hello, sergeant (probably this should be capitalized too)&#xD;&#xA;- *Откройте двери, водитель автобуса*/ Open the door, bus driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the second point summarized: if the word is being used as a **first/last name, nickname it should be capitalized**. Otherwise, if the word is being used only *in place of a name, like an address, a &quot;position&quot; in some monastical order or whatever, then it should not be capitalized*, unless its capitalization is required by some other rule, like it's the first word of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third point, is that in Russian, as a general rule of thumb, we capitalize only words, which are some sort of proper names, like: Иван, Солнце (when it used as the name of the star, that is *Отправить миссию на Солнце*, but *на небе светит солнце*, город Москва, крейсер Москва, Государственная Дума, Московский физико-технический интститут etc. We don't capitalize many things, which are capitalized in English: (I — я, Russian — русский, Admiral Nimitz — адмирал Нимиц, the Parliament (when it refers to a specific parliament) — парламент, President Trump — президент Трамп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fourth point, which is related to the words, which refer to family members. In sort of informal slang, the words (мать, отец, брат, сестра, **only their full variants**, not diminutive ones like папа, мама, ма, па, сестренка and so on) are often used as address even to people, who are not family members in that situation. This use can be considered offensive by many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не убивай, брат [из к/ф &quot;Брат&quot;][2], cannot recall any other example&#xD;&#xA;- Эх, мать, давай споем&#xD;&#xA;- Отец, есть сигарета? (the word &quot;отец&quot; wouldn't be capitalized, if it wasn't the first one in the sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/172615/capitalization-of-sister-and-brother&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y3k3-CVkOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14938" RevisionGUID="b2dd5a91-8e69-463a-a279-f7f7dbab7cb4" CreationDate="2017-08-27T17:06:38.500" UserId="179" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="First, you should be aware, that in the todays world, with all these information/communication devices out there, there are numerous ways one can use words, sentences etc. And for such specific cases there can be great &quot;diversity&quot; in usage. That is, if you see somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Yes, put those away before Sister Constance sees you.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Спрячь это, пока **Сестра** Констанция не увидела.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say from my personal experience, that usually we don't capitalize such words in such cases. But that doesn't mean, that everyone does the same. This specific case was possible, I'm 100% sure of this, due to translation from English, the translator probably decided to leave the capitalized word as it was in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we need to get rid of ambiguity with the word name. In Russian, we usually use the word (имя) &quot;name&quot; only (there may be some exceptions, I'll add them, if I recall any) in reference to a person's first name, full name (first (optionally the middle one) and last together) , to a thing's (like a ship) name and rarely to a nickname or last name. We usually don't use &quot;имя&quot; even for names of cities/villages etc, we use the word &quot;название&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means, that if any word (including the words for family members), is being used as a first/last name, nickname it must be capitalized. The word Брат can be a foreign first/last name, a nickname and in these cases it must be capitalized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if the word (any word, not even specifically one for a family member) is used as an address and is not a first name or other proper name, then it has not to be capitalized. [The item from english.stackexchange][1], provided by you, mentions such cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mom and Dad are capitalized when they're used in place of names, e.g. **Hi, Mom**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in Russian, this would be an ordinary address, not a name, as here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Привет, мам*/ Hi, Mom&#xD;&#xA;- *Здравия желаю, товарищ сержант*/ Hello, sergeant (probably this should be capitalized too)&#xD;&#xA;- *Откройте двери, водитель автобуса*/ Open the door, bus driver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is the second point summarized: if the word is being used as a **first/last name, nickname it should be capitalized**. Otherwise, if the word is being used only *in place of a name, like an address, a &quot;position&quot; in some monastical order or whatever, then it should not be capitalized*, unless its capitalization is required by some other rule, like it's the first word of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third point, is that in Russian, as a general rule of thumb, we capitalize only words, which are some sort of proper names, like: Иван, Солнце (when it used as the name of the star, that is *Отправить миссию на Солнце*, but *на небе светит солнце*, город Москва, крейсер Москва, Государственная Дума, Московский физико-технический интститут etc. We don't capitalize many things, which are capitalized in English: (I — я, Russian — русский, Admiral Nimitz — адмирал Нимиц, the Parliament (when it refers to a specific parliament) — парламент, President Trump — президент Трамп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the fourth point, which is related to the words, which refer to family members. In sort of informal slang, the words (мать, отец, брат, сестра, **only their full variants**, not diminutive ones like папа, мама, ма, па, сестренка and so on) are often used as address even to people, who are not family members in that situation. This use can be considered offensive by many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не убивай, брат [из к/ф &quot;Брат&quot;][2], cannot recall any other example&#xD;&#xA;- Эх, мать, давай споем&#xD;&#xA;- Отец, есть сигарета? (the word &quot;отец&quot; wouldn't be capitalized, if it wasn't the first one in the sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/172615/capitalization-of-sister-and-brother&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y3k3-CVkOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14939" RevisionGUID="5b1d7a68-866d-458f-82c2-039b79767bea" CreationDate="2017-08-28T17:53:44.297" UserId="7483" Text="Now i have been reading the word “ вообще &quot; too much and in most cases it’s something negative or not good, for example “ я вообще не буду писать &quot; and so on. However recently it was and for the first time used in a good way for example “Ты у меня вообще молодец” what does вообще mean in this phrase exactly? And how i can use it correctly? Thanks&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36768" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14939" RevisionGUID="5b1d7a68-866d-458f-82c2-039b79767bea" CreationDate="2017-08-28T17:53:44.297" UserId="7483" Text="The word “вообще &quot; and it’s usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36769" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14939" RevisionGUID="5b1d7a68-866d-458f-82c2-039b79767bea" CreationDate="2017-08-28T17:53:44.297" UserId="7483" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14940" RevisionGUID="d3f16c8a-fe5d-452e-b949-cb8777962f70" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:15:10.850" UserId="2104" Text="The way it's used in your examples, it's just an intensifier that can be rendered with 'at all', 'absolutely':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'I'm not going to write anything **at all**.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial usage that corresponds to meaning #4 in the [Wikipedia article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase &quot;Ты у меня вообще молодец&quot; can be read as &quot;**Generally/usually** you are a good person&quot; (meaning #1 or #2, with молодец emphasised) or &quot;You are a **really** good person&quot; (meaning #4, with вообще emphasised).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The apocalypse of the colloquial meaning is the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, ты ваще!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning 'you're so cool!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14941" RevisionGUID="f6c849e4-25fe-4e0f-b6f0-a850763bc4d1" CreationDate="2017-08-28T19:15:13.027" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Вообще&quot; is a very common word, with a range of meanings. It is often a parasite.&#xD;&#xA;[Вообще][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. generally, in general&#xD;&#xA;2. always, usually&#xD;&#xA;3. altogether, on the whole&#xD;&#xA;4. at all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first example “я вообще не буду писать” has a meaning &quot;at all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Your second example “Ты у меня вообще молодец” has a meaning &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;There are other meanings as well, for example &quot;Hу, вообще!&quot; means &quot;This is crazy!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use this word, be careful with any other meaning than &quot;generally/in general&quot;. As a clue, &quot;Вообще&quot; in this meaning can be safely interchanged with &quot;Вообще-то&quot;. For comparison, if we modify your second example to &quot;Ты у меня вообще-то молодец&quot;, that would significantly change the meaning, from &quot;You are always great&quot; to &quot;Usually, you are great&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14942" RevisionGUID="6907866e-d471-4606-b0b1-972ad6190bf3" CreationDate="2017-08-28T23:49:50.237" UserId="9441" Text="If I began an action, failed it, and was unable to ever do it again, my action would be completed (but it would be completed in a way that I wouldn't expect). Would I use the perfective aspect for this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14942" RevisionGUID="6907866e-d471-4606-b0b1-972ad6190bf3" CreationDate="2017-08-28T23:49:50.237" UserId="9441" Text="Is the perfective aspect used to indicate failure?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14942" RevisionGUID="6907866e-d471-4606-b0b1-972ad6190bf3" CreationDate="2017-08-28T23:49:50.237" UserId="9441" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36775" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14935" RevisionGUID="91b07ced-5dec-418a-87d3-f2a600783569" CreationDate="2017-08-29T00:52:39.297" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/902333136931086336" />
  <row Id="36776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14943" RevisionGUID="d4b84313-5c40-4ee6-998d-859df2c101a7" CreationDate="2017-08-29T02:06:31.223" UserId="2079" Text="Imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он поступал в университет, но не поступил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я когда-то учился играть на пианино. Так и не смог научиться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14944" RevisionGUID="0bbae18d-4311-4a16-bc17-35dc54905318" CreationDate="2017-08-29T04:32:40.873" UserId="6539" Text="You should use a perfective verb no matter in what way your action was completed. The negative sense of your failure doesn't affect the meaning of completion. It is a result. You just use a negative form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Снесла курочка яичко.Дед бил,бил – не разбил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14940" RevisionGUID="44907d23-187e-4abc-81d9-a459e4cc5392" CreationDate="2017-08-29T06:18:45.233" UserId="2104" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="The way it's used in your examples, it's just an intensifier that can be rendered with 'at all', 'absolutely':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'I'm not going to write anything **at all**.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial usage that corresponds to meaning #4 in the [Wiktionary article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase &quot;Ты у меня вообще молодец&quot; can be read as &quot;**Generally/usually** you are a good person&quot; (meaning #1 or #2, with молодец emphasised) or &quot;You are a **really** good person&quot; (meaning #4, with вообще emphasised).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, ты **ваще**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can mean 'You're so cool!' or 'You are an idiot!' depending on context. Compare to 'You are crazy!' in English which can be good crazy or not so good crazy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ultimately, on its own,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ваще!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can mean 'Wow!', 'Cool!', etc or 'What a mess!' again depending on context and the way it's said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14945" RevisionGUID="0a87e19e-2bce-492c-83d3-05e35bcd6efe" CreationDate="2017-08-29T10:01:00.933" UserId="5008" Text="Well, if there's a result then it's perfective. But note two points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Quite often you have to use several verbs to describe all your started/completed/failed actions. Then it's quite possible you have to mix perfective and imperfective forms together. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Я там был, мёд-пиво пил, по усам текло, в рот не попало_ --&gt; I was (impf.) there, I had (impf.) mead and beer, it ran (impf.) through my mustache, but it didn't get (perf.) into my mouth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Sometimes you have no real result, but rather a sentence &quot;results&quot; in some state and/or repeatable action. Then it's imperfective, of course. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Порой не верится, друзья, но всё-таки бывает_ --&gt; Sometimes it's hard to believe (impf.), my friends, but it happens (impf.) anyway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14946" RevisionGUID="2bc6c72d-356b-4e82-8b44-4c166b912fc9" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:17:50.933" UserId="9443" Text="1 - Твои собаки едят яблоки?&#xD;&#xA;2 - У тебя собаки едят яблоки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi, my Russian learning app showed me the second one for &quot;Do your dogs eat apples?&quot;.But, I am also learning from another source.From that source I know that I can say Твои before plural nouns and that we can just ask questions with the right intonations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which one is true? Can I also ask like the first sentence I formed or is only the second sentence the right way to ask it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14946" RevisionGUID="2bc6c72d-356b-4e82-8b44-4c166b912fc9" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:17:50.933" UserId="9443" Text="Which one is true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14946" RevisionGUID="2bc6c72d-356b-4e82-8b44-4c166b912fc9" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:17:50.933" UserId="9443" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14947" RevisionGUID="7d9b9902-ce8c-4208-a2f0-583c7ff735ab" CreationDate="2017-08-29T11:53:16.727" UserId="9058" Text="The second option is &quot;easier on the tongue&quot;, sounds more casual and natural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But both are correct. However there is a slight difference of meanings, that almost never matters, but in some specific situations may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, the second option reads like &quot;Do dogs at yours (your place, under your supervision, etc) eat apples?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, it is the same. If a dog lives in your house - then it most probably is your dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But imagine some shelter, or pets hotel, where both owner's owns dogs and temporary cared for dogs are staying. In this rather specific situation there might be a suspense that the place owner treats his dogs and dogs trusted to him differently. In such a situation, the 2nd option would imply all the dogs, while the 1st option would imply only owned dogs apart from dogs in custody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;Чем у тебя собак кормят?&quot; and &quot;А чем ты своих собак кормишь?&quot; - &quot;What meal is fed to the dogs at yours?&quot; vs &quot;What meal do you feed to your own dogs?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14947" RevisionGUID="6b801ef1-cac4-4162-9c16-2fdbb37b0db4" CreationDate="2017-08-29T12:05:21.977" UserId="9058" Comment="added 579 characters in body" Text="Both are correct phrases. In casual speech they would most probably convey the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option is &quot;easier on the tongue&quot;, sounds more casual and natural. Not much different, very close, but if out of context, i'd rather chosen second way to express myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there is a slight difference in their meanings, that almost never matters, in casual chat, but in some specific situations may do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, the second option reads like &quot;Do dogs at yours (your place, under your supervision, etc) eat apples?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, it is the same. If a dog lives in your house - then it most probably is your dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But imagine some shelter, or pets hotel, where both owner's own dogs and temporary cared for dogs are staying. In this rather specific situation there might be a suspense that the place owner treats his dogs and dogs trusted to him differently. In such a situation, the 2nd option would imply all the dogs, while the 1st option would imply only owned dogs apart from dogs in custody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;Чем у тебя собак кормят?&quot; and &quot;А чем ты своих собак кормишь?&quot; - &quot;What meal is fed to the dogs at yours?&quot; vs &quot;What meal do you feed to your own dogs?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when such a phrase arrives in the middle of a long discussion, it inherits the history and phraseology already established. Like, if we are both dog fans, and we just went for half an hour discussing &quot;your dogs&quot; vs &quot;my dogs&quot;, then the 1st option would have more chances to be chosen. Because it would refer to the previously kind of coined &quot;my dogs&quot; and &quot;your dogs&quot; notions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="dfa23fa2-d9d2-4863-a374-386c4db47a08" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:22:48.897" UserId="9443" Text="I'm a little bit confused here.Duolingo says &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; is &quot;The girl has everything&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However... If &quot;девочка&quot; is &quot;girl&quot; and &quot;девочки&quot; is &quot;girls&quot; can't we translate the sentence as &quot;The girls have everything&quot;? Or is this some kind of an exception?![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XO1X2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit : I guess, it does the same thing for other sentences too.It said &quot;The woman has cats&quot; for &quot;У женщины есть кошки&quot; .I'm really lost here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="dfa23fa2-d9d2-4863-a374-386c4db47a08" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:22:48.897" UserId="9443" Text="Why is &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; singular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="dfa23fa2-d9d2-4863-a374-386c4db47a08" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:22:48.897" UserId="9443" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="448258af-0d6d-4466-9dcc-c5615d275e4f" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:28:10.310" UserId="9443" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I'm a little bit confused here.Duolingo says &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; is &quot;The girl has everything&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However... If &quot;девочка&quot; is &quot;girl&quot; and &quot;девочки&quot; is &quot;girls&quot; can't we translate the sentence as &quot;The girls have everything&quot;? Or is this some kind of an exception?![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XO1X2.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit : I guess, it does the same thing for other sentences too.It said &quot;The woman has cats&quot; for &quot;У женщины есть кошки&quot; .I'm really lost here.Wasn't женщины = women and женщина = woman.Also кошки is plural too, but the sentence is still singular!?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14949" RevisionGUID="98f88a60-3708-4534-bea4-5e7343706e59" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:42:34.433" UserId="4560" Text="**У тебя** is more natural in Russian, and generally something you can hardly ever go wrong with. There's no difference if it's a statement or a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't sound like the most obvious way to say it, consider the fact that in English, too, there's more to the &quot;your&quot; in &quot;your dogs&quot; than meets the eye. Namely: apart from indicating possession/relation, it's also a kind of stand-in for &quot;the&quot;. What I mean by that is, in English, you always expect *some* word to go in front of &quot;dogs&quot; when they're &quot;definite&quot; dogs. Whether it's &quot;the dogs&quot;, &quot;your dogs&quot;, or &quot;Jane's dogs&quot;. And so the &quot;your&quot; part is in that slot in the sentence which you expect to just be ticked off in passing, without putting a lot of emphasis on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not so in Russian, where you can just say **Собаки едят яблоки?** to mean both &quot;do dogs eat apples?&quot; and &quot;do *the* dogs eat apples?&quot; Therefore adding **твои** in front of **собаки** actually feels like you're adding something, and therefore giving it some significance, pushing the whole thing slightly towards: &quot;those dogs of yours, do they eat apples?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the thing about **у тебя** is, it sort of applies to the whole of the sentence. Think something like, &quot;do the dogs eat apples on you?&quot; — which doesn't sound quite right in English, but the same general figure of speech is quite natural and neutral in Russian. Therefore, **у тебя** doesn't really emphasise whose dogs they are in a way that would require some justification in context, as with **твои** (say, &quot;those dogs you're breeding/genetically engineering, do they eat apples?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У тебя** is a lightweight, in-passing addition because you never really don't expect it. It works with pretty much any statement. You can say **У меня Рим победил Карфаген**, literally ~&quot;Rome has defeated Carthage on me&quot;, and there's at least one context in which it would make perfect sense: &quot;I'm at the point in the history book I'm reading where Rome has defeated Carthage&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that made sense. Arioch's answer probably deserves the checkmark, I'm just here with some follow-up ramblings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14949" RevisionGUID="927da8dc-8fd1-4d8f-bd98-d66f58c0bf1f" CreationDate="2017-08-29T13:49:20.433" UserId="4560" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="**У тебя** is more natural in Russian, and generally something you can hardly ever go wrong with. There's no difference if it's a statement or a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't sound like the most obvious way to say it, consider the fact that in English, too, there's more to the &quot;your&quot; in &quot;your dogs&quot; than meets the eye. Namely: apart from indicating possession/relation, it's also a kind of stand-in for &quot;the&quot;. What I mean by that is, in English, you always expect *some* word to go in front of &quot;dogs&quot; when they're &quot;definite&quot; dogs. Whether it's &quot;the dogs&quot;, &quot;your dogs&quot;, or &quot;Jane's dogs&quot;. And so the &quot;your&quot; part is in that slot in the sentence which you expect to just be ticked off in passing, without putting a lot of emphasis on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not so in Russian, where you can just say **Собаки едят яблоки?** to mean both &quot;do dogs eat apples?&quot; and &quot;do *the* dogs eat apples?&quot; Therefore adding **твои** in front of **собаки** actually feels like you're adding something, and therefore giving it some significance, pushing the whole thing slightly towards: &quot;those dogs of yours, do they eat apples?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the thing about **у тебя** is, it sort of applies to the whole of the sentence. Think something like, &quot;do the dogs eat apples on you?&quot; — which doesn't sound quite right in English, but the same general figure of speech is quite natural and neutral in Russian. Therefore, **у тебя** doesn't really emphasise whose dogs they are in a way that would require some justification in context, as with **твои** (say, &quot;those dogs you're breeding/genetically engineering, do they eat apples?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У тебя** is a lightweight, in-passing addition because you never really don't expect it. It works with pretty much any statement. You can say **У меня Рим победил Карфаген**, literally ~&quot;Rome has defeated Carthage on me&quot;, and there's at least one context in which it would make perfect sense: &quot;I'm at the point in the history book I'm reading where Rome has defeated Carthage&quot;. You can think of **у меня**, **у тебя**, etc. as a way of &quot;possessing&quot; entire events, rather than their individual subjects or objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that made sense. Arioch's answer probably deserves the checkmark, I'm just here with some follow-up ramblings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14950" RevisionGUID="dc308b9a-ace3-4f71-bfa8-da7726be95f2" CreationDate="2017-08-29T14:05:55.800" UserId="4753" Text="No, &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; does not mean &quot;The girls have everything&quot;. The literal word-for-word translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У by the side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;девочки of the little girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;есть is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;всё everthing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see why the verb is singular, we can rearange the sentence into subject, verb order familiar to English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё есть у девочки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is всё (everything), not девочки (of the little girl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duolingo requires the student to translate using good style in the target language. Frequently this requires a rewording of the sentence. These rewordings can completely alter its grammatical structure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14950" RevisionGUID="a431e8b3-e78b-4683-be5a-bcccf8b2b127" CreationDate="2017-08-29T14:19:03.217" UserId="4753" Comment="typo" Text="No, &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; does not mean &quot;The girls have everything&quot;. The literal word-for-word translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У by the side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;девочки of the little girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;есть is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;всё everthing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see why the verb is singular, we can rearange the sentence into the subject, verb order familiar to English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё есть у девочки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is всё (everything), not девочки (of the little girl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duolingo requires the student to translate using good style in the target language. Frequently this requires a rewording of the sentence. This required rewording frequently completely alters its grammatical structure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14939" RevisionGUID="0fe79386-bd62-47d1-89ff-2207d0e04ea4" CreationDate="2017-08-29T14:21:56.587" UserId="4903" Comment="Capitalized &quot;I&quot;" Text="Now I have been reading the word “ вообще &quot; too much and in most cases it’s something negative or not good, for example “ я вообще не буду писать &quot; and so on. However recently it was and for the first time used in a good way for example “Ты у меня вообще молодец” what does вообще mean in this phrase exactly? And how I can use it correctly? Thanks&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36801" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14946" RevisionGUID="5c75c24c-a81e-4f4c-bafa-a17cf54e8f47" CreationDate="2017-08-29T17:41:20.450" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Твои собаки едят&quot; or &quot;у тебя собаки едят&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8443" RevisionGUID="350b1e31-990d-48a5-a913-2b6d1a3e5cbb" CreationDate="2017-08-29T18:26:56.860" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Russian does have an imperfective verb meaning &quot;to be&quot; (*быть*) and it even can be conjugated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я есмь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты еси&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он, она, оно есть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы есмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы есьте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; они суть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, though in modern language personal forms (except for the 3rd sg., and, more rarely, 3rd pl.) are only used  in grand style rhetoric (which in Russian heavily utilizes Church Slavonic constructs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that an average Russian speaker does not even perceive the personal forms, except for 3rd persons', as verbs at all, but rather as parts of several idioms (*ой ты гой еси, добрый молодец*; *аз есмь царь* etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, like Hebrew and some other languages, uses a so called zero copula in present. This means that no words are used to link a subject with predicate in present: phrases like *я русский* (&quot;I am Russian&quot;), *она красивая* (&quot;she is pretty&quot;) etc. only have the subject and the predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for the past and future actual copulas are used, also forms of *быть*: *я был молодым* (&quot;I was young&quot;), *вы будете старыми* (&quot;you will be old&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of *быть* might be used as a copula in present for emphatic puproses: *они и есть победители* (&quot;it's them who are the winners&quot;). In spoken language, 3-rd person singular form (*есть*) is used for all persons and numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, since Russian has proximal possession (i.e. &quot;to have&quot; in Russian is expressed as &quot;to be at someone/something&quot;), 3rd sg. of *быть* (*есть*) can also be used to translate &quot;to have&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *У меня есть собака* / I have a dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Есть ли жизнь на Марсе?* / Is there life on Mars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14952" RevisionGUID="f0d8aecf-cabf-42d6-a9df-7657e6c93d69" CreationDate="2017-08-29T19:19:30.910" UserId="6539" Text="You should be aware of the fact that the structure &quot;у кого-то есть что‐то &quot;actually means &quot;кто‐то имеет что‐то &quot;. Thus if you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочки есть все.=Девочка имеет все.=The girl(one) has everything. &#xD;&#xA;Plural :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочек есть все=Девочки имеют все.=The girls have everything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14952" RevisionGUID="7cfbb0e5-f3b2-4946-a164-98ac22d92434" CreationDate="2017-08-29T19:59:52.490" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing corrected, е changed to ё." Text="You should be aware of the fact that the structure &quot;у кого-то есть что‐то &quot;actually means &quot;кто‐то имеет что‐то &quot;. Thus if you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочки есть всё. = Девочка имеет всё. = The girl (one) has everything. &#xD;&#xA;Plural :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочек есть всё. = Девочки имеют всё. = The girls have everything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14952" RevisionGUID="f57c63ed-2940-4378-9237-25dac64ec10e" CreationDate="2017-08-29T20:00:37.787" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing corrected, е changed to ё." Text="You should be aware of the fact that the structure &quot;у кого-то есть что‐то &quot;actually means &quot;кто‐то имеет что‐то &quot;. Thus if you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочки есть всё. = Девочка имеет всё. = The girl (one) has everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plural :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочек есть всё. = Девочки имеют всё. = The girls have everything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="64da1c9a-75b2-4548-9716-d48b1d4661be" CreationDate="2017-08-29T20:13:00.750" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="I am currently learning the Russian language, and was quite intrigued by how they treat articles (they basically disregard/imply them). However, the word &quot;is&quot; is not stated to be an article, yet seems to be implied. The only potential word for &quot;is&quot; I can find is when I ask Google Translate and it returns 'является'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is strange, for example: to say &quot;the ball is red&quot; we would say 'мяч красный'. Notice how this does not have 'является', it actually directly translates to &quot;ball red&quot; yet is (or can be?) translated &quot;the ball is red&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;I would like to know the exact usage rules regarding &quot;is&quot;, when (or if) 'является' is (or should be) used, etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36807" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14946" RevisionGUID="7d5b35c3-077d-4f7d-9dda-d3e53a1b57b8" CreationDate="2017-08-30T00:53:04.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/902695628492419073" />
  <row Id="36808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14950" RevisionGUID="7efc1dc8-3b63-4b57-8c65-f5ea44742b1f" CreationDate="2017-08-30T08:02:34.073" UserId="6097" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="No, &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; does not mean &quot;The girls have everything&quot;. The literal word-for-word translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У - by the side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;девочки - of the little girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;есть - is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;всё - everthing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see why the verb is singular, we can rearange the sentence into the subject, verb order familiar to English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё есть у девочки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is всё (everything), not девочки (of the little girl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duolingo requires the student to translate using good style in the target language. Frequently this requires a rewording of the sentence. This required rewording frequently completely alters its grammatical structure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="351dd599-78df-41dc-9927-205f868dee81" CreationDate="2017-08-30T14:55:45.953" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. It is a form of &quot;быть&quot; (to be). In most cases Russian speakers consider it unnecessary to write or pronounce this word. In writing they generally represent the implied &quot;есть&quot; with a dash: &quot;Мяч--красный.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do sometimes write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; for emphasis or clarity. For example, if they were arguing about the color of the ball one of them might insist: &quot;Мяч есть красный.&quot; This moves the meaning toward: &quot;The ball really is red.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Present Tense Forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present tense forms of &quot;быть&quot; other than &quot;есть&quot; are so seldom needed that they are all but forgotten. A few places where they are still encountered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иисус сказал ему: Я **есмь** путь и истина и жизнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jesus said to him: I **am** the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In discussions of philisophy. Here is an except from Nina Guchinskaya's translation of Martin Heidegger's 1935 lecture &quot;Introduction to Metaphysics&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но сегодня говорят «мы». Нынче эпоха самоутверждения масс, а не личностей. Мы **есмы**. Какое бытие называем мы в этой фразе? Мы говорим также: окна **суть**, камни **суть**. Заключает ли это высказывание («мы **есмы**») в себе утверждение наличности множества «я»? А как обстоит дело с «я был» и «мы были», с бытием в прошедшем? Ушло ли оно от нас? Или мы **есмы** как раз то, чем мы были? И не станем ли мы как раз тем, что мы **есмы**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But today we say &quot;we&quot;. This is the era for self-afirmation of the multitude rather than the individual. We **are**. To what sort of being do we refer by this phrase? We say also: The windows **are**. The stones **are**. Does the utterance &quot;We **are**&quot; imply that there is a multiplicity of &quot;I&quot;? And what about &quot;I was&quot; and &quot;We were&quot;, what about existence in the past. Has it left us? Or is it that we **are** that which we were? And is it not that we will become that which we **are**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a poetic or archaic effect is desired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, брат, где ты еси?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Brother, Where Art Thou? (film title)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Avoiding &quot;Is&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;is&quot; is a favorite of English speakers. They have found ways to express all sorts of ideas by using &quot;is&quot; to attach labels to things are by declaring that they exist. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The meeting **is** in that building over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian speaker this sounds odd. He might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Собрание **проводится** в этом здании вон там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that rather than declaring that the meeting **is** he has chosen a 'real' verb. He says that the meeting &quot;is being conducted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another 'real' verb you can use is &quot;представлять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **представляет** угрозу мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **poses** a thread to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When to Use &quot;Является&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about &quot;является&quot;. This is another 'real' verb which can be used instead of &quot;есть&quot; in certain cases. The word that comes after it is always in the instrumental case. The word &quot;является&quot; has no exact English translation. It literally means &quot;to appear on the scene as&quot; something. It conveys the idea that under the circumstances which exists, one person or thing acts in a particular role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can change change the last example to read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **явлается** угрозой мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate this literally in a way that makes sense. This may be close:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **is on the scene** as a threat to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in English &quot;is a threat&quot;, &quot;poses a threat&quot;, or &quot;constitutes&quot; a threat, are good ways to express this idea, they are different expresions. None of them is a translation of &quot;является&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кто является директором этого завода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who is the director of this plant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сообщил что сосед является террористом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He informed that his neighor is a terrorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian speakers often use &quot;является&quot; instead of &quot;есть&quot; in these sentences because &quot;is&quot; here conveys something more than mere existence. A suit may simple be navy blue, but being a director or a terrorist involves more. They have to be on the spot and do what directors and terrorists do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time the word &quot;есть&quot; should be ommited. It is sometimes used for emphasis or clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe skilled Russian speakers. Note their use of 'real verbs' instead of forms of быть. Fight the urge to constantly say what things &quot;are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch for uses of &quot;является&quot;. Get a feel for when people and circumstances are seen as &quot;showing up&quot; in a role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13129" RevisionGUID="5e09699e-c530-4277-add4-5ff7180530d7" CreationDate="2017-08-30T19:29:32.817" UserId="4753" Comment="Addressed Annix's criticisms" Text="The Russian word for &quot;is&quot; is &quot;есть&quot;. The infintive form is &quot;быть&quot; (to be). Modern Russian speakers do not generally write or pronounce it when it is used as a linking verb. Rather than &quot;Он есть мой брать&quot; they would say &quot;Он мой брать&quot;. They do write and pronounce &quot;есть&quot; to assert that something is present or to ask whether it is present. For example: &quot;У меня есть брат. У тебя тоже есть брат?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Present Tense Forms**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present tense forms of &quot;быть&quot; other than &quot;есть&quot; are so seldom needed that they are all but forgotten. A few places where they are still encountered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Иисус сказал ему: Я **есмь** путь и истина и жизнь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Jesus said to him: I **am** the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In discussions of philisophy. Here is an except from Nina Guchinskaya's translation of Martin Heidegger's 1935 lecture &quot;Introduction to Metaphysics&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но сегодня говорят «мы». Нынче эпоха самоутверждения масс, а не личностей. Мы **есмы**. Какое бытие называем мы в этой фразе? Мы говорим также: окна **суть**, камни **суть**. Заключает ли это высказывание («мы **есмы**») в себе утверждение наличности множества «я»? А как обстоит дело с «я был» и «мы были», с бытием в прошедшем? Ушло ли оно от нас? Или мы **есмы** как раз то, чем мы были? И не станем ли мы как раз тем, что мы **есмы**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But today we say &quot;we&quot;. This is the era for self-afirmation of the multitude rather than the individual. We **are**. To what sort of being do we refer by this phrase? We say also: The windows **are**. The stones **are**. Does the utterance &quot;We **are**&quot; imply that there is a multiplicity of &quot;I&quot;? And what about &quot;I was&quot; and &quot;We were&quot;, what about existence in the past. Has it left us? Or is it that we **are** that which we were? And is it not that we will become that which we **are**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a poetic or archaic effect is desired:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О, брат, где ты еси?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;O Brother, Where Art Thou? (film title)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Avoiding &quot;Is&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;is&quot; is a favorite of English speakers. They have found ways to express all sorts of ideas by using &quot;is&quot; to attach labels to things are by declaring that they exist. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The meeting **is** in that building over there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian speaker this sounds odd. He might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Собрание **проводится** в этом здании вон там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that rather than declaring that the meeting **is** he has chosen a 'real' verb. He says that the meeting &quot;is being conducted&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another 'real' verb you can use is &quot;представлять&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **представляет** угрозу мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **poses** a thread to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When to Use &quot;Является&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about &quot;является&quot;. This is another 'real' verb which can be used instead of &quot;есть&quot; in certain cases. The word that comes after it is always in the instrumental case. The word &quot;является&quot; has no exact English translation. It literally means &quot;to appear on the scene as&quot; something. It conveys the idea that under the circumstances which exists, one person or thing acts in a particular role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can change change the last example to read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Терроризм **явлается** угрозой мировому сообществу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to translate this literally in a way that makes sense. This may be close:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Terrorism **is on the scene** as a threat to world society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in English &quot;is a threat&quot;, &quot;poses a threat&quot;, or &quot;constitutes&quot; a threat, are good ways to express this idea, they are different expresions. None of them is a translation of &quot;является&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кто является директором этого завода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who is the director of this plant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сообщил что сосед является террористом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He informed that his neighor is a terrorist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian speakers often use &quot;является&quot; instead of &quot;есть&quot; in these sentences because &quot;is&quot; here conveys something more than mere existence. A suit may simple be navy blue, but being a director or a terrorist involves more. They have to be on the spot and do what directors and terrorists do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time the word &quot;есть&quot; should be ommited. It is sometimes used for emphasis or clarification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observe skilled Russian speakers. Note their use of 'real verbs' instead of forms of быть. Fight the urge to constantly say what things &quot;are&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch for uses of &quot;является&quot;. Get a feel for when people and circumstances are seen as &quot;showing up&quot; in a role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14953" RevisionGUID="51b37262-4c50-4333-8ba8-c3c504f792af" CreationDate="2017-08-30T22:26:35.727" UserId="9437" Text="Ran into this situation when trying to order fabric. Can colours in Russian take a noun form, or must it always be noun + цвет? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, if you were to name multiple colours, would you have to pluralise them all (example a) below) or would it be okay to use each in singular with only цвета in plural (example b)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Мне нравятся красные, коричневые, и желтые цвета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)  Мне нравятся красный, коричневый и желтый цвета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does having the colour names in plural give a different connotation, like that you enjoy a variety of different shades within that category? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14953" RevisionGUID="51b37262-4c50-4333-8ba8-c3c504f792af" CreationDate="2017-08-30T22:26:35.727" UserId="9437" Text="Colours as nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14953" RevisionGUID="51b37262-4c50-4333-8ba8-c3c504f792af" CreationDate="2017-08-30T22:26:35.727" UserId="9437" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14954" RevisionGUID="3d690860-5a68-4d12-b63d-85c993fccf76" CreationDate="2017-08-30T22:50:06.697" UserId="9256" Text="Some colors do have their noun counterparts, some do not. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - красный - краснота&#xD;&#xA; - синий - синева&#xD;&#xA; - зеленый - зелень&#xD;&#xA; - оранжевый - оранжевость (can use, but it's not really a proper word)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however, nouns are not neutral in their meaning. For example, you can use adjective &quot;зеленый&quot; to describe any green object, but the noun &quot;зелень&quot; has a primary meaning &quot;green vegetation&quot;, so referring to something as &quot;зелень&quot; may be seen as a metaphor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your examples, when you use singulars (красный, коричневый и желтый), you are referring to pure colors (&quot;I like colors red, brown and yellow&quot;). When you use plurals (красные, коричневые, и желтые) you are referring to shades of those colors (&quot;I like reddish, brownish and yellowish colors&quot;); proper word for referring to them would be &quot;тона&quot;, not &quot;цвета&quot; (&quot;Мне нравятся красные, коричневые, и желтые тона&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14955" RevisionGUID="e1f549be-4f72-452b-81d6-8cb41d16b803" CreationDate="2017-08-31T09:17:55.777" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; Can colours in Russian take a noun form, or must it always be noun + цвет? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, usually colour adjectives can be used as nouns. Though it might get ambiguous, and then explicit specification &quot;цвет&quot; better be added to resolve the ambiguity. Because, &quot;цвет&quot; is not the only notion those adjectives may represent when used as nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would it be okay to use each in singular with only цвета in plural &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both phrases are correct, but there is nuancing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does having the colour names in plural give a different connotation, like that you enjoy a variety of different shades within that category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these your examples you better keep the &quot;цвет(а)&quot; specifications, especially if you are like in some shop offering you many different goods. Because without the clarifying, explicitly spelled noun, it might be perceived that you refer to some goods in that shop, that colours are adjectives hinting at the shop offers. Like dresses, or shoes or window blinds or whatever coloured there may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are in the middle of conversation and you were discussing exactly them colours. Then adjectives would inherits that context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- А какие цвета тебе нравятся ?&#xD;&#xA;- Мне нравятся красный, коричневый и желтый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English that reference would probably be made explicit. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Which colours do you like more?&#xD;&#xA;- I like red, brown and yellow **ones**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you want to *start* the colours topic, with no prior context, then you better use middle-gender singular forms of the adjectives, implying uncountable vague categories like &quot;это&quot; and &quot;всё&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Посоветуй, что бы тебе подарить на день рожденья?&#xD;&#xA;- Сам решай. Но вообще, мне нравится красное, коричневое и жёлтое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note how &quot;нрaвиться&quot; verb here switched itself to singular form, because uncountable &quot;всё&quot; is implied here, though not spelled out explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a rule of thumb, you may think that colour adjectives are still adjectives, but very often they imply some &quot;invisible&quot; noun or pronoun following them. Just think which noun or pronoun would be natural to omit in the given context, and which noun or pronoun your listeners would infer from your phrase. If that is obvious and the situation is informal - then the (pro-)noun would naturally be omitted and only the colour adjective(s) be spelled out. If the situation is formal or there is a possible ambiguity to be resolved then you better spell them both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old jokes about Civil War:  &quot;Красные придут - грабят. Белые придут - грабят&quot; or &quot;Бей белых пока не покраснеют! Бей красных пока не побелеют!&quot;. In this joke referred are Red Army and White Guards, however they are referred as &quot;people&quot;, &quot;soldiers&quot; or like that. Like &quot;blacks&quot; about negroid people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you see, colour adjectives MAY be used as nouns, but that would not necessarily be colours themselves those noun-adjectives would mean. It could pretty well be any other notions and nouns implied, providing they can be meaningfully distinguished by some associated colours in the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14956" RevisionGUID="cc2806af-47c9-4708-8949-a706192f536f" CreationDate="2017-08-31T10:31:12.307" UserId="6807" Text="&quot;Всё&quot; has only singular form, similar to &quot;fish&quot; in English. Compare: a girl has a fish. Two girls **have** plenty of fish. Or, **have** all the fish. (Though maybe one can use &quot;fishes&quot; for aquarium fish)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14957" RevisionGUID="5c653834-3389-4013-aa73-e06cce4375fd" CreationDate="2017-08-31T12:48:32.780" UserId="3892" Text="I realize that in the following passage, the conjunction **a** is interpretable as and. If I were translating this into Russian from English, I would have forgone the conjunction altogether and written two separate sentences. Otherwise, I would have naturally opted for **и** as my first choice to render **and** since it's the more logical and accessible form for me as a non-native Russian user. (In English we only have one &quot;and&quot; and **и** is the first form we're taught when we learn Russian, so it's my go-to conjunction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are **a** and **и** perfectly interchangeable with the meaning **and**, or is there a distinguishing nuance at play that I don't know of? If so, does it apply to both the written and spoken form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как много талантливых и чудесных людей бывает у нас в гостях, **а** вчера&#xD;&#xA;&gt; к нам зашла фотограф Евгения, со своей очаровательной дочкой Алёной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14957" RevisionGUID="5c653834-3389-4013-aa73-e06cce4375fd" CreationDate="2017-08-31T12:48:32.780" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of the conjunction &quot;a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14957" RevisionGUID="5c653834-3389-4013-aa73-e06cce4375fd" CreationDate="2017-08-31T12:48:32.780" UserId="3892" Text="|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14958" RevisionGUID="0084bf18-696b-4eb1-a08a-25de82053399" CreationDate="2017-08-31T13:10:30.177" UserId="1688" Text="The conjunction _а_ most commonly has the meaning of contrast or opposition, similar to _but_ in the English language. In your example though it means something close to &quot;_for example_&quot; or &quot;_for instance_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14956" RevisionGUID="067627e5-9bfc-4b7d-9ab8-cf0656034d3c" CreationDate="2017-08-31T18:09:51.197" UserId="6807" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;Всё&quot; has only singular form, similar to &quot;fish&quot; in English. Compare: a girl **has** a fish. Two girls **have** plenty of fish. Or, **have** all the fish. (Though maybe one can use &quot;fishes&quot; for aquarium fish)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14959" RevisionGUID="f7b23f92-a6cc-4695-8f05-0c6321f39de5" CreationDate="2017-08-31T18:45:52.817" UserId="9453" Text="Слово **ибо** сейчас нигде не употребляется, использование его имеет только сленговый характер в разговорной речи. В единственном его возможном применении **ибо нефиг** - эта фраза может произнесена после того, как некто совершил какое-то дерзкое действие, которое было запрещено и за это поплатился (травма, штраф, утрата). Например: &quot;Сосед ремонтировал машину и сломал двигатель&quot;, &quot;Неудивительно, **ибо нефиг** лезть туда, в чём не разбираешься&quot;. В некоторых старых текстах и в редких книгах это слово обозначает **потому что**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14959" RevisionGUID="ce068222-d3c7-4e0b-9c48-bc2ff89c9ef2" CreationDate="2017-08-31T18:52:39.933" UserId="9453" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="Слово **ибо** сейчас нигде не употребляется, его использование имеет только слэнговый характер в разговорной речи. В единственно возможном применении **ибо нефиг** эта фраза может произнесена после того, как некто совершил какое-то дерзкое действие, которое было запрещено и за это поплатился (травма, штраф, утрата). Например: &quot;Сосед ремонтировал машину и сломал двигатель&quot;, &quot;Неудивительно, **ибо нефиг** лезть туда, в чём не разбираешься&quot;. В этом диалоге использование **ибо нефиг** обосновано тем, что фраза легче произносится и имеет саркастический оттенок. Если заменить **ибо нефиг** на фразу **потому что не стоило** в диалоге, то вторая реплика будет звучать чересчур книжно, к тому же она будет иметь такой же смысл, если из неё удалить слово **ибо**, именно поэтому применение слова **ибо** - исключительно саркастическое, как связующее слово оно не используется нигде и никогда ни в разговоре, ни в литературе. В некоторых старых текстах и в редких книгах это слово обозначает **потому что**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14960" RevisionGUID="7b0ce71b-5814-4c6c-9df4-c3b4fb4446a7" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:03:57.470" UserId="9453" Text="**Пуся**, также уменьшительно-ласкательное **пусечка** - обращение к детям или к любимому человеку. Происходит от слова &quot;ути-пути&quot; - это говорят ребёнку, который ещё в детской кроватке, обычно ему дают игрушку со словами &quot;ути-пути&quot;, чтобы ребёнок засмеялся и перестал плакать. Когда он перестаёт плакать, говорят &quot;ах ты моя пусечка (или **пуся**)&quot;. Буквально обозначает то же самое, что и лапа или **лапочка** - то же самое, что и **прелесть**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14961" RevisionGUID="e606c23b-79f7-452c-9e59-ca9daf1a7f37" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:15:10.363" UserId="9453" Text="&quot;вольны&quot; - это слово из польского, в переводе &quot;разрешено&quot;, &quot;жаловать&quot; - &quot;жалеть&quot;, &quot;**есмя**&quot; - &quot;**если**&quot;. Буквальный перевод это фразы таков:&#xD;&#xA;*Если жалеть своих холопов разрешено, то и казнить тоже.*&#xD;&#xA;В переводе на русский эта фраза звучит так:&#xD;&#xA;*Своих холопов имею право как похвалить, так и казнить.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14962" RevisionGUID="ed9833fe-c3ca-46bc-aefe-d8259873e3cf" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:27:16.333" UserId="4560" Text="**А** and **и** are not even *im*perfectly interchangeable; they're not interchangeable at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But first things first; the whole thing looks a little off to me as a single sentence. I took the liberty of finding the entire paragraph, and I see what happened now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Друзья, как здорово взглянуть на свою любимую библиотеку со стороны! Как много талантливых и чудесных людей бывает у нас в гостях, а вчера к нам зашла фотограф Евгения, со своей очаровательной дочкой Алёной. &#xD;&#xA;Спасибо Евгении за хорошие отзывы о Бартеневке, ждем в гости еще!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making the paragraph flow correctly in the reader's inner ear was the writer's priority, so they wanted to avoid both an exclamation mark and an ellipsis after **в гостях**, because they're both too &quot;strong&quot; as it were. But they didn't spot the less obvious choice which I think captures it just right: comma followed by dash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как много талантливых и чудесных людей бывает у нас в гостях, — а вчера к нам зашла фотограф Евгения, со своей очаровательной дочкой Алёной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comma after **Евгения** is technically incorrect, as was pointed out in the comments, but intonationally, again, it makes a lot of sense. Punctuation rules are often at odds with how you'd naturally segment a sentence in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway: this is an over-specific and thus very unhelpful example if you want to learn about **а** vs. **и**, because the **а** here doesn't really connect anything, despite the punctuation making it look like it does. It's more of an introductory **а** that doesn't go beyond its own clause, only extending to the right, as it were, and bordered off on the left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**И**, in this case, would also have been an introductory **и** with no real *syntactic* connection to what preceded it; but like in most cases, since **а** and **и** are not interchangeable, **и** would have changed the meaning significantly: to &quot;yesterday, *too,* a photographer named Yevgeniya stopped by&quot;. As it is, with **а**, I'm not sure you even have to translate the **а**. It doesn't have a real English equivalent. A lot certainly do come to mind — &quot;say, yesterday...&quot;, or &quot;thus yesterday...&quot;, or &quot;speaking of which, yesterday...&quot; – but as far as I can tell, a person writing and *thinking* in English would likely just say &quot;yesterday&quot; right away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14961" RevisionGUID="19f5d6c5-7ada-4b90-b925-ef1c0e4af4c2" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:30:38.060" UserId="9453" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="&quot;вольны&quot; - это слово wolny из польского, в переводе &quot;свободно, бесплатно&quot; в данном контексте - &quot;разрешено без ограничений&quot;, так как это мутация слова неграмотными писарями польского слова dozwolone - &quot;разрешённый&quot;, &quot;жаловать&quot; - żałować &quot;сожалеть&quot; - такая же грамматическая ошибка, потому что переводчик неграмотный и посчитал &quot;сожалеть&quot; и &quot;жалеть&quot; одно и то же по смыслу, &quot;**есмя**&quot; - jesteśmy &quot;**мы есть**&quot;, &quot;же&quot; - перепутано с że - &quot;что&quot;, на самом деле смысл - też - &quot;тоже, также&quot;. Буквальный перевод это фразы таков:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мы можем жалеть своих холопов, но и казнить тоже.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В переводе на русский эта фраза звучит так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мы имеем право своих холопов хвалить, а также имеем право их казнить.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14963" RevisionGUID="685204cd-f69f-4e18-9616-18c96ea8084b" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:35:42.280" UserId="9453" Text="&quot;**вообще**&quot; - полностью соответствует английскому &quot;**at all**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14963" RevisionGUID="da940fea-a5c9-4cb8-876d-f9261f4dbc0f" CreationDate="2017-08-31T19:51:28.407" UserId="9453" Comment="added 542 characters in body" Text="&quot;**вообще**&quot; - полностью соответствует английскому &quot;**at all**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты у меня вообще молодец = You are my very well-done boy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь слово &quot;вообще&quot; - это усилитель слова &quot;молодец&quot;, переводится как &quot;очень&quot;. Логика в этой фразе отсутствует напрочь. Есть несколько фраз со словом &quot;вообще&quot; как усилителем:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты что, вообще дурак? = Are you really dumb?&#xD;&#xA;    Кто это вообще сделал? = Who did it? Really.&#xD;&#xA;    Куда вообще это поставить? = Where do I put it? Huh?&#xD;&#xA;    Кто ты вообще такой? = What the hell you are.&#xD;&#xA;    Ну вообще... = Wow! Indeed?&#xD;&#xA;    Вообще не понимаю. = I don't understand even quite a bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14964" RevisionGUID="89a5149e-64f0-470a-8d3f-73539b56f686" CreationDate="2017-08-31T20:02:42.123" UserId="9453" Text="It happens often when a native speaker can't find words to express their thoughts quite fast and accurate because Russian language is extremely complex and it requires a lot of words to describe a simple thing. We often stumble and start thinking before we said something. Often it is not grammatically correct or even not accurate what we say. I often don't understand what people are saying too. The best polite question would be &quot;Могу я разговаривать на английском с вами?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14965" RevisionGUID="c0569a8f-708c-4ffe-b9dd-645fe89cc44d" CreationDate="2017-08-31T20:18:00.223" UserId="9453" Text="    a) Мне нравятся красные, коричневые, и желтые цвета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is you like all shades of each colour you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    b) Мне нравятся красный, коричневый и желтый цвета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gramatically correct is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне нравится красный, коричневый и желтый цвет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;No any logic here, it's one of thousands rules of the language.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is you like only three exact colours: red, brown, and yellow, not their other tones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14966" RevisionGUID="a75df28f-6a23-497f-916f-f6a4b2c0f497" CreationDate="2017-08-31T21:29:43.600" UserId="6539" Text="Типовые предложения с союзом &quot;а&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;There are three main types of sentences with the conjunction &quot;а&quot; &#xD;&#xA;1.with opposition (противопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорите, что хотите, а человек он хороший.&#xD;&#xA;Виноват не я, а ты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Matching (сопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл домой, а он остался.&#xD;&#xA;Я убирала комнату, а они мне помогали&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often observe discrepancy of the parts of the sentence (несоответствие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дело к весне, а мороз всё жёстче&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Connection (Присоединение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За деревней было поле, а за полем начинался лес.&#xD;&#xA;Он занят, а потому и не пойдёт в театр.&#xD;&#xA;Что делаешь сегодня? А завтра?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ефремова the meanings are just the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Употр. при соединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их противопоставление или сопоставление. 2. Употр. при присоединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их очередность или временную последовательность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rusgram.ru describes the same points, but gives a very interesting introduction to the topic. They say that &quot;а&quot; can show the absence of control of the subject over the action, or &quot;unexpectedness &quot;.(союзы с компонентом отсутствия контроля а, но).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ее пригласили, а она не пришла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our sentence, I believe that we have &quot;connection &quot; here, the meaning is &quot;and&quot;, but if we wanted to translate it into English, we would say, &quot;for example&quot; just to show the importance of this visit but &quot;and&quot; is also suitable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14953" RevisionGUID="cfe44e02-1b72-4d3f-aeb4-5df868de88dd" CreationDate="2017-09-01T00:51:48.380" UserId="9437" Comment="fixed mistake" Text="Ran into this situation when trying to order fabric. Can colours in Russian take a noun form, or must it always be adjective + цвет? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, if you were to name multiple colours, would you have to pluralise them all (example a) below) or would it be okay to use each in singular with only цвета in plural (example b)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Мне нравятся красные, коричневые, и желтые цвета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)  Мне нравятся красный, коричневый и желтый цвета.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does having the colour names in plural give a different connotation, like that you enjoy a variety of different shades within that category? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14919" RevisionGUID="b66823ed-f794-4146-a107-09efeb313bbc" CreationDate="2017-09-01T02:49:18.193" UserId="8742" Comment="deleted 701 characters in body" Text="I found a couple of threads after posting this that somewhat touch on this subject.  I don't know why they didn't show up for me when I conducted my initial search.  I may have overlooked them.  However, rather than add an addendum to a long post, I'll try to summarize and synthesize them for an answer.  Truth be told, they might be a bit too advanced for the level of the post I wrote.  I am referring mainly to this thread here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**How to decline adjectives modifying feminine nouns after 2, 3, 4?**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/511/how-to-decline-adjectives-modifying-feminine-nouns-after-2-3-4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That post contains a comment with a link to another post that I now see is a bit irrelevant to my question(s), so I've omitted it, but you can access it by going to the link above.  I'm referring here to an answer by [**Quassnoi**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/134/quassnoi) and I quote from it a bit later in this answer but most of it is unrelated to this post here.  What follows are three points that address my question(s) in this thread.  Please don't construe my attempt to answer my own question as a sign that I am not also interested in answers from others, especially those who can do so with specifics/details/cited sources.  Most of my attempt here will be much broader in scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The general rules laid out at the top of the post that starts my thread here (Can anyone clear up ...?) should suffice in most situations.  How do I know that?  I don't.  All I can tell you is that I've seen that rule in a pretty reputable Russian textbook and have seen several examples of where that rule is applied.  Those that don't follow those rules appear to be the exception rather than the rule, but I haven't queried the entire Russian lexicon or even a scientifically measured portion of it (e.g., the first 100 most common Russian adjectives and nouns and all the many permutations of how they could combine with &quot;2,&quot; &quot;3,&quot; and &quot;4&quot;).  It could be done, but it would take me a lot of time and I suspect that I would discover what the Russian textbook _ТРОЙКА_ has already provided me with its rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In the thread titled, &quot;How to decline adjectives ...&quot; (the one I mention earlier in this answer), the author of it (KCd) refers to the number-adjective-noun rules for feminine nouns.  To refresh, it is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Any adjectives placed between the numeral and the noun must be in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KCd writes (paraphrasing a source):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... this rule is &quot;normally&quot; true if the noun has the same stress in genitive singular and nominative plural ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**... if the noun has different stress in genitive singular and nominative plural then the adjective is &quot;normally&quot; genitive plural (e.g., три различных стороны).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help visualize this and corroborate it, I've added a screenshot from Wiktionary:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wRYb1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is good information to have, but it doesn't explain to me why I've seen so many instances of &quot;две мировых войны.&quot;  You can see from the image below that even though the form of the plural changes from nominative to genitive, the stress stays the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eRWOL.jpg)  &#xD;&#xA;_Note how the stress from genitive singular to nominative plural changes, which is what KCd is referring to._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) This comes from Quassnoi's answer.  A large part of it was in Russian, and, after using Google Translate, I realized that it doesn't actually address my question except for one thing and that is what was said in reference to a rule he was citing from a book by [**Dietmar Rosenthal**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietmar_Rosenthal) titled, [**_Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке для работников печати_.**](http://royallib.com/book/rozental_ditmar/spravochnik_po_pravopisaniyu_i_literaturnoy_pravke_dlya_rabotnikov_pechati.html) In reference to the rule referenced from the book, Quassnoi writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**This rule is not strict and is often violated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perhaps, _that_ can be said of any rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36837" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14953" RevisionGUID="5accfeac-9ba9-4f34-85b0-07ec990a428d" CreationDate="2017-09-01T04:02:39.837" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/903468117459845133" />
  <row Id="36838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="82bc779b-a5e2-43b6-aca8-f678282c231a" CreationDate="2017-09-01T04:37:48.690" UserId="8742" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The rule I refer to is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_For numeral + adjective + noun in genitive case structures where the numeral-noun-adjective phrase is serving in a nominative case (e.g., **the three little pigs** went to the market):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adjective that is placed between the numeral and the noun is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the genitive plural if the singular form of the noun is masculine or neuter**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**in the nominative plural if the singular form of the noun is feminine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [**_ТРОЙКА_, section 15.2, p. 486**](https://books.google.com/books?id=AAJZPRNYU_MC&amp;pg=PA118&amp;dq=%22troika%22%22nominative+plural%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwio9JbWguTVAhVB3GMKHcQSCu8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22troika%22%22nominative%20plural%22&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Side Note: If you cannot access the link above (where you'll have to click &quot;Next&quot; a few times before you get to the correct page), the following is also from the book (although I added a few personal touches to enhance the learning process):_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3Jh0L.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is why I ask the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tried a number of different combinations with &quot;два&quot; + adjective + noun in genitive singular, both with Google's Ngram and search engine and little to nothing has materialized.  I've tried the Russian equivalents of &quot;two&quot; (using both &quot;два&quot; and &quot;две&quot;)* + young/old + men/women/girls/boys/soldiers to no avail (with the exception of “два хороших мальчика” where I found a mere 1,050 Google total hits — not thousands of or millions of). When I compare frequencies of various English words to Russian words and then this exact phrase, it leads me to believe that there are other, more common ways of saying things like two good boys, three new cars, four little kittens, et cetera.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*I suppose I could have also attempted combinations with &quot;three&quot; or &quot;four,&quot; but assumed that if I was having difficulty with just the numeral &quot;two,&quot; that the road to discovery would only roll downhill from there._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge on this topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14966" RevisionGUID="d3b579cc-31c0-42d8-b9a6-c7f46519ff7f" CreationDate="2017-09-01T05:56:05.963" UserId="6539" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Типовые предложения с союзом &quot;а&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;There are three main types of sentences with the conjunction &quot;а&quot; &#xD;&#xA;1.with opposition (противопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорите, что хотите, а человек он хороший.(You can say whatever you wish,but he is a nice man.)&#xD;&#xA;Виноват не я, а ты.(It's me, who is guilty, not you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Matching (сопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл домой, а он остался.&#xD;&#xA;Я убирала комнату, а они мне помогали&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often observe discrepancy of the parts of the sentence (несоответствие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дело к весне, а мороз всё жёстче&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Connection (Присоединение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За деревней было поле, а за полем начинался лес.&#xD;&#xA;Он занят, а потому и не пойдёт в театр.&#xD;&#xA;Что делаешь сегодня? А завтра?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ефремова the meanings are just the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Употр. при соединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их противопоставление или сопоставление. 2. Употр. при присоединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их очередность или временную последовательность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rusgram.ru describes the same points, but gives a very interesting introduction to the topic. They say that &quot;а&quot; can show the absence of control of the subject over the action, or &quot;unexpectedness &quot;.(союзы с компонентом отсутствия контроля а, но).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ее пригласили, а она не пришла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our sentence, I believe that we have &quot;connection &quot; here, the meaning is &quot;and&quot;, but if we wanted to translate it into English, we would say, &quot;for example&quot; just to show the importance of this visit but &quot;and&quot; is also suitable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14966" RevisionGUID="0ff576bf-03ac-4c59-a740-504e3a325167" CreationDate="2017-09-01T06:22:54.973" UserId="6539" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Типовые предложения с союзом &quot;а&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;There are three main types of sentences with the conjunction &quot;а&quot; &#xD;&#xA;1.with opposition (противопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорите, что хотите, а человек он хороший.(You can say whatever you wish,but he is a nice man.)&#xD;&#xA;Виноват не я, а ты.(It's me, who is guilty, not you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Matching (сопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл домой, а он остался.(I went home, but /whereas he stayed.&#xD;&#xA;Я убирала комнату, а они мне помогали(I was cleaning the room and they were helping me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often observe discrepancy of the parts of the sentence (несоответствие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дело к весне, а мороз всё жёстче(Spring ia coming, but/meanwhile the frosts are becoming more severe )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Connection (Присоединение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За деревней было поле, а за полем начинался лес.&#xD;&#xA;Он занят, а потому и не пойдёт в театр.&#xD;&#xA;Что делаешь сегодня? А завтра?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ефремова the meanings are just the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Употр. при соединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их противопоставление или сопоставление. 2. Употр. при присоединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их очередность или временную последовательность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rusgram.ru describes the same points, but gives a very interesting introduction to the topic. They say that &quot;а&quot; can show the absence of control of the subject over the action, or &quot;unexpectedness &quot;.(союзы с компонентом отсутствия контроля а, но).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ее пригласили, а она не пришла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our sentence, I believe that we have &quot;connection &quot; here, the meaning is &quot;and&quot;, but if we wanted to translate it into English, we would say, &quot;for example&quot; just to show the importance of this visit but &quot;and&quot; is also suitable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14966" RevisionGUID="534d0dac-5751-4f71-96e9-c33fcb8eb83b" CreationDate="2017-09-01T06:30:28.450" UserId="6539" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Типовые предложения с союзом &quot;а&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;There are three main types of sentences with the conjunction &quot;а&quot; &#xD;&#xA;1.with opposition (противопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорите, что хотите, а человек он хороший.(You can say whatever you wish,but he is a nice man.)&#xD;&#xA;Виноват не я, а ты.(It's me, who is guilty, not you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Matching (сопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл домой, а он остался.(I went home, but /whereas he stayed.&#xD;&#xA;Я убирала комнату, а они мне помогали(I was cleaning the room and they were helping me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often observe discrepancy of the parts of the sentence (несоответствие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дело к весне, а мороз всё жёстче(Spring ia coming, but/meanwhile the frosts are becoming more severe )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Connection (Присоединение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За деревней было поле, а за полем начинался лес.(There was a field behind the village and the forest was behind the field )&#xD;&#xA;Он занят, а потому и не пойдёт в театр.(He is busy, and he won't go to the theatre with us.)&#xD;&#xA;Что делаешь сегодня? А завтра?(What are you doing today? And tomorrow? )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ефремова the meanings are just the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Употр. при соединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их противопоставление или сопоставление. 2. Употр. при присоединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их очередность или временную последовательность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rusgram.ru describes the same points, but gives a very interesting introduction to the topic. They say that &quot;а&quot; can show the absence of control of the subject over the action, or &quot;unexpectedness &quot;.(союзы с компонентом отсутствия контроля а, но).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ее пригласили, а она не пришла.(She was invited, but surprisingly she didn't come)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our sentence, I believe that we have &quot;connection &quot; here, the meaning is &quot;and&quot;, but if we wanted to translate it into English, we would say, &quot;for example&quot; just to show the importance of this visit but &quot;and&quot; is also suitable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14966" RevisionGUID="6f207d10-36c9-46df-bf28-79f4ba287565" CreationDate="2017-09-01T06:46:58.170" UserId="6539" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Типовые предложения с союзом &quot;а&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;There are three main types of sentences with the conjunction &quot;а&quot; &#xD;&#xA;1.with opposition (противопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорите, что хотите, а человек он хороший.(You can say whatever you wish,but he is a nice man.)&#xD;&#xA;Виноват не я, а ты.(It's me, who is guilty, not you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Matching (сопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл домой, а он остался.(I went home, but /whereas he stayed.&#xD;&#xA;Я убирала комнату, а они мне помогали(I was cleaning the room and they were helping me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often observe discrepancy of the parts of the sentence (несоответствие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дело к весне, а мороз всё жёстче(Spring ia coming, but/meanwhile the frosts are becoming more severe )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Connection (Присоединение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За деревней было поле, а за полем начинался лес.(There was a field behind the village and the forest was behind the field )&#xD;&#xA;Он занят, а потому и не пойдёт в театр.(He is busy, and he won't go to the theatre with us.)&#xD;&#xA;Что делаешь сегодня? А завтра?(What are you doing today? And tomorrow? )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ефремова the meanings are just the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Употр. при соединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их противопоставление или сопоставление. 2. Употр. при присоединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их очередность или временную последовательность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rusgram.ru describes the same points, but gives a very interesting introduction to the topic. They say that &quot;а&quot; can show the absence of control of the subject over the action, or &quot;unexpectedness &quot;.(союзы с компонентом отсутствия контроля а, но).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ее пригласили, а она не пришла.(She was invited, but surprisingly she didn't come)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our sentence, I believe that we have &quot;connection &quot; here, the meaning is &quot;and&quot;, but if we wanted to translate it into English, we would say, &quot;for example&quot; just to show the importance of this visit but &quot;and&quot; is also suitable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...for example /and (what a pleasant surprise! ) Jane, the photographer, with her charming daughter..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36843" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14948" RevisionGUID="a1695520-75da-46dd-8931-87562b69d217" CreationDate="2017-09-01T07:03:35.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/903513648542441474" />
  <row Id="36844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14955" RevisionGUID="80bdd474-dacd-4d2b-8668-67e8be8672e1" CreationDate="2017-09-01T08:19:27.800" UserId="9058" Comment="typo fix" Text="&gt; Can colours in Russian take a noun form, or must it always be noun + цвет? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, usually colour adjectives can be used as nouns. Though it might get ambiguous, and then explicit specification &quot;цвет&quot; better be added to resolve the ambiguity. Because, &quot;цвет&quot; is not the only notion those adjectives may represent when used as nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would it be okay to use each in singular with only цвета in plural &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both phrases are correct, but there is nuancing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does having the colour names in plural give a different connotation, like that you enjoy a variety of different shades within that category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these your examples you better keep the &quot;цвет(а)&quot; specifications, especially if you are like in some shop offering you many different goods. Because without the clarifying, explicitly spelled noun, it might be perceived that you refer to some goods in that shop, that colours are adjectives hinting at the shop offers. Like dresses, or shoes or window blinds or whatever coloured there may be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are in the middle of conversation and you were discussing exactly them colours. Then adjectives would inherits that context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- А какие цвета тебе нравятся ?&#xD;&#xA;- Мне нравятся красный, коричневый и желтый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English that reference would probably be made explicit. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Which colours do you like more?&#xD;&#xA;- I like red, brown and yellow **ones**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you want to *start* the colours topic, with no prior context, then you better use middle-gender singular forms of the adjectives, implying uncountable vague categories like &quot;это&quot; and &quot;всё&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Посоветуй, что бы тебе подарить на день рожденья?&#xD;&#xA;- Сам решай. Но вообще, мне нравится красное, коричневое и жёлтое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note how &quot;нрaвиться&quot; verb here switched itself to singular form, because uncountable &quot;всё&quot; is implied here, though not spelled out explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a rule of thumb, you may think that colour adjectives are still adjectives, but very often they imply some &quot;invisible&quot; noun or pronoun following them. Just think which noun or pronoun would be natural to omit in the given context, and which noun or pronoun your listeners would infer from your phrase. If that is obvious and the situation is informal - then the (pro-)noun would naturally be omitted and only the colour adjective(s) be spelled out. If the situation is formal or there is a possible ambiguity to be resolved then you better spell them both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old jokes about Civil War:  &quot;Красные придут - грабят. Белые придут - грабят&quot; or &quot;Бей белых, пока не покраснеют! Бей красных, пока не побелеют!&quot;. In these jokes referred are Red Army and White Guards, however they are referred as &quot;people&quot;, &quot;soldiers&quot; or like that. Like &quot;blacks&quot; about negroid people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you see, colour adjectives MAY be used as nouns, but that would not necessarily be colours themselves those noun-adjectives would mean. It could pretty well be any other notions and nouns implied, providing they can be meaningfully distinguished by some associated colours in the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14966" RevisionGUID="bca86022-217e-4459-81f0-49fb786d9cf8" CreationDate="2017-09-01T13:02:09.947" UserId="1097" Comment="edited body" Text="Типовые предложения с союзом &quot;а&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;There are three main types of sentences with the conjunction &quot;а&quot; &#xD;&#xA;1.with opposition (противопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Говорите, что хотите, а человек он хороший.(You can say whatever you wish,but he is a nice man.)&#xD;&#xA;Виноват я, а не ты.(It's me, who is guilty, not you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Matching (сопоставление)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я пошёл домой, а он остался.(I went home, but /whereas he stayed.&#xD;&#xA;Я убирала комнату, а они мне помогали(I was cleaning the room and they were helping me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We often observe discrepancy of the parts of the sentence (несоответствие)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дело к весне, а мороз всё жёстче(Spring ia coming, but/meanwhile the frosts are becoming more severe )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Connection (Присоединение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За деревней было поле, а за полем начинался лес.(There was a field behind the village and the forest was behind the field )&#xD;&#xA;Он занят, а потому и не пойдёт в театр.(He is busy, and he won't go to the theatre with us.)&#xD;&#xA;Что делаешь сегодня? А завтра?(What are you doing today? And tomorrow? )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Ефремова the meanings are just the same:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Употр. при соединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их противопоставление или сопоставление. 2. Употр. при присоединении предложений или членов предложения, указывая на их очередность или временную последовательность. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rusgram.ru describes the same points, but gives a very interesting introduction to the topic. They say that &quot;а&quot; can show the absence of control of the subject over the action, or &quot;unexpectedness &quot;.(союзы с компонентом отсутствия контроля а, но).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ее пригласили, а она не пришла.(She was invited, but surprisingly she didn't come)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Returning to our sentence, I believe that we have &quot;connection &quot; here, the meaning is &quot;and&quot;, but if we wanted to translate it into English, we would say, &quot;for example&quot; just to show the importance of this visit but &quot;and&quot; is also suitable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...for example /and (what a pleasant surprise! ) Jane, the photographer, with her charming daughter..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14967" RevisionGUID="b0d73aca-412e-4503-a3bf-23e80b76302d" CreationDate="2017-09-01T20:25:23.313" UserId="9459" Text="As a native speaker, I shortly pounded on both options, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- две мировые войны&#xD;&#xA;- две мировых войны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, from my feeling of the language, consistently prefer the first option in all examples. The only exception might be if the noun is not in the nominative. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Две мировые войны — больше, чем достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;- Он прошел две мировые войны. / Он прошел две мировых войны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I prefer the second option, but it's declination and not usage per se. Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a funny side note, possibly somewhat related is the old Moscow theater pronunciation, seen in old Soviet films, from, like 50s and in some public talks, like in _some_ songs by Vysotsky, when he (debatably on purpose) tries to sound more intelligent. They mangle -ая in -ыя in adjectives, there are also [some further cases][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be a similar effect to what you are observing: the natural change in the language, that was sort of kept on purpose in an elitist group. In your case it might be rather the folk language, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pishu-pravilno.livejournal.com/215773.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="f72e183e-88e9-40b4-992e-75474df1abd8" CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:32:48.547" UserId="8359" Text="The term _промышленник_ used to describe individuals seeking furs and the employees of 1700s and 1800s fur companies such as Shelikhov-Golikov, Kiselev Bros., and the Russian-American Company. Befitting such a broad term, those workers were involved in a variety of business activities not limited to trapping and trading for furs, but also including punitive attacks on natives and the management of enslaved hunters. Some of them held shares or part shares in the fur expeditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this exotic context and the passage of two centuries, the word does not mean quite the same thing today. My question is about its implications at the time the fur companies were operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Did the term imply that промышленники were risking their own capital on the venture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Were sailors for the fur companies also considered промышленники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Members of which Imperial social classes were eligible to become промышленники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="f72e183e-88e9-40b4-992e-75474df1abd8" CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:32:48.547" UserId="8359" Text="промышленники working for the fur companies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="f72e183e-88e9-40b4-992e-75474df1abd8" CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:32:48.547" UserId="8359" Text="|этимология|лексикон|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14969" RevisionGUID="169ceddb-c501-4194-8d10-8cad4de5786c" CreationDate="2017-09-01T22:37:13.900" UserId="9459" Text="My gut feeling (native speaker reporting) is that `промышленники` is here used not in the modern sense. This is about a bit dated language, right? The action of somewhat industrial hunting is older Russian is called `промысел`. Hence, these people were hunters, not entrepreneurs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14970" RevisionGUID="741ebce5-e05d-488f-bb60-90fcd65cecc8" CreationDate="2017-09-01T23:11:00.837" UserId="9459" Text="For those searching for examples on the internet. There is a quite common typo/mispronounciation/misconcept between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `вообще` == &quot;at all&quot;, weasel word&#xD;&#xA;- `в общем` == &quot;in general&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- `вобщем` (incorrect spelling)&#xD;&#xA;- `ваще` (jargonism from `вообще`).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14971" RevisionGUID="1ebe9f60-292b-4ba2-9262-d25f87236799" CreationDate="2017-09-01T23:17:26.177" UserId="9459" Text="A side note. `О`/`об` might be a bit more formal, compare with typical titles of scholary works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;О _корчевании корней_&quot;, &quot;К вопросу о _корчевании корней_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- But never &quot;Про _корчевание корней_&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reasonable English translations would be &quot;On _lorem impus_&quot;, &quot;Revisiting _lorem ipsum_&quot;, maybe even &quot;Towards _lorem ipsum_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14972" RevisionGUID="bed7a2d8-d66d-4f36-82fa-691957057670" CreationDate="2017-09-02T00:07:09.397" UserId="9459" Text="Trying to explain this around gets me to &quot;sophisticated in a convoluted and bad manner&quot;, but in a quite obscene language. &quot;Smart ass&quot;, mentioned above, is probably the best short English translation, but it is much more derogatory in Russian. This is that famous Russian cursing on an intermediate level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An obligatory remark: this is not the kind of language that should be printed in books or spoken on any level above informal communication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14973" RevisionGUID="0e8780fc-b4d7-4795-a787-7e0f4d27536a" CreationDate="2017-09-02T00:19:25.583" UserId="9459" Text="I think that the most direct English counterpart is &quot;thus&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also used in written language only and mostly for pretence or fake pathos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="6b28a731-a6a1-4934-a1be-b4c00075747b" CreationDate="2017-09-02T05:55:38.310" UserId="8359" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="The term _промышленник_ used to describe individuals seeking furs and the employees of 1700s and 1800s fur companies such as Shelikhov-Golikov and the Russian-American Company. Befitting such a broad term, those workers were involved in a variety of business activities not limited to trapping and trading for furs, but also including punitive attacks on natives and the management of enslaved hunters. Some of them held shares or part shares in the fur expeditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this exotic context and the passage of two centuries, the word does not mean quite the same thing today. My question is about its implications at the time the fur companies were operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Did the term imply that промышленники were risking their own capital on the venture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Were sailors for the fur companies also промышленники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* промышленники were members of which Imperial social classes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14976" RevisionGUID="d83c78e1-94bc-43e0-9642-6d63ff36c462" CreationDate="2017-09-02T12:45:12.753" UserId="5008" Text="The word _промышленник_ is derived from the word _промысел_ which means both (1)_hunting/fishing_ and (2)_handcraft_. And, in fact, it was used in both meanings (professional hunter and craftsman) for a long time (at least, midst of the XIX century), until it was totally replaced with (1)_промысловик_, and (2)_ремесленник_ (derived from _ремесло_, which is another word for handcraft). So only then (and it was the time of the capitalist industrialization in Russia too) the word _промышленник_ became the (almost) exclusive meaning of _an industrialist / business person_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. No, because in the XVIII century the word _промышленник_ still retained its primary meaning (a worker), even though, in some context, it could also mean a business owner;&#xD;&#xA;2. No, except if they were directly involved in hunting (which is quite possible, I say);&#xD;&#xA;3. Just commoners. I believe, if some merchant had a big share in a such company in the XVIII century, then he still was simply &quot;a merchant&quot;, and not &quot;промышленник&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14977" RevisionGUID="29d2c78b-dd22-4bd9-a311-90a849ebd9b8" CreationDate="2017-09-02T20:11:20.603" UserId="9100" Text="In my understanding, &quot;вялотекущая&quot; means having a slow flux. This you would literally associate with rather with a river, but no - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. вялотекущая шизофрения - ОK&#xD;&#xA; 2. вялотекущая река - NOT OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? I understand that language can be quite irrational, but my question is - maybe in this special case there is indeed some crazy logic behind these cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14977" RevisionGUID="29d2c78b-dd22-4bd9-a311-90a849ebd9b8" CreationDate="2017-09-02T20:11:20.603" UserId="9100" Text="What is the logic behind &quot;вялотекущая&quot; attachable to an illness but not to a river?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14977" RevisionGUID="29d2c78b-dd22-4bd9-a311-90a849ebd9b8" CreationDate="2017-09-02T20:11:20.603" UserId="9100" Text="|semantics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14978" RevisionGUID="4e8d9002-ef9f-4106-9e8d-36ae51c60d70" CreationDate="2017-09-02T21:00:17.527" UserId="4560" Text="Ever heard of wholes being greater than the sums of their parts? Crazy, huh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вялотекущая** is not the same as **вяло текущая**. The former is a medical term and was coined (or, if you like, glued together) as such. **Вяло текущая река** is fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36869" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14957" RevisionGUID="9c04888a-6f6f-4c17-805c-42e68e4f206c" CreationDate="2017-09-03T04:09:36.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/904194640244609024" />
  <row Id="36870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14979" RevisionGUID="4dfe8603-b93f-4073-b970-c6e47620d171" CreationDate="2017-09-03T11:07:37.653" UserId="9459" Text="As a native speaker, I confirm the _actual_ stress is on second `и`, критИческий. What might confuse you is that the first `и` is also &quot;a bit&quot; stressed. So it's more like крИт**И**ческий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14980" RevisionGUID="71c5c5d6-367f-459b-8fde-b48974927504" CreationDate="2017-09-03T11:12:01.870" UserId="9459" Text="Eugene already mentioned it. The rule of a thumb is that `ё` always gets stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, it can image a pun where изображЁн (depicted) is pronounced similar to обезобрАжен (mutilated), i.e. изобрАжен or изобрАжён. Well, it's really hard to write a word with `ё` without meaning to stress this letter, for a pun you might even want to change `ё` to `е`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="7e0d9d38-1bdf-467f-9ff7-d759b998e8b8" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:03:45.033" UserId="8359" Comment="edited title" Text="Промышленники working for the fur companies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="7e0d9d38-1bdf-467f-9ff7-d759b998e8b8" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:03:45.033" UserId="8359" Comment="edited title" Text="The term _промышленник_described individuals seeking furs and the employees of 1700s and 1800s fur companies such as Shelikhov-Golikov and the Russian-American Company. Those workers were involved in a variety of business activities not limited to trapping and trading for furs, but also including punitive attacks on natives and the management of enslaved hunters. Some of them held shares or part shares in the fur expeditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this exotic context and the passage of two centuries, the word does not mean quite the same thing today. My question is about its implications at the time the fur companies were operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Did the term imply that промышленники were risking their own capital on the venture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Were sailors for the fur companies also промышленники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* промышленники were members of which Imperial social classes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36875" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="bf405dc7-31c9-487b-a7c1-ef6bc9bed0f5" CreationDate="2017-09-03T16:35:13.050" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Промышленники&quot; working for the fur companies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="d8b64b14-d6c6-44ea-8bf5-cd1d39f6343a" CreationDate="2017-09-04T13:36:20.730" UserId="9467" Text="I understand the meaning of the component words, but what does the phrase mean and how is it used?  From an internet search it seems to mean something akin to we will find our reward in heaven." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="d8b64b14-d6c6-44ea-8bf5-cd1d39f6343a" CreationDate="2017-09-04T13:36:20.730" UserId="9467" Text="What does the phrase увидеть небо в алмазах mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="d8b64b14-d6c6-44ea-8bf5-cd1d39f6343a" CreationDate="2017-09-04T13:36:20.730" UserId="9467" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14982" RevisionGUID="d3967859-22a0-4210-8a6b-cc3b8f3a81d7" CreationDate="2017-09-04T14:57:49.160" UserId="242" Text="It's about expectations of changes for the better, of hopes to succeed in foreseeable future, most likely ungrounded hopes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was popularized in Chekhov's [&quot;Uncle Vanya&quot;][1], one of the most famous plays in the world. Actually most likely it was invented by Chekhov, though this should be verified, that's why I'm carefully using &quot;popularized&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's exact [quote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы отдохнем! Мы услышим ангелов, мы увидим все небо в алмазах, мы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; увидим, как все зло земное, все наши страдания потонут в милосердии,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которое наполнит собою весь мир, и наша жизнь станет тихою, нежною,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сладкою, как ласка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like it happens quite often with other pathetic and romantic phrases it was later ironically rethought. For [instance][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Я  думал,  русские  женщина  горячие&quot;,  -  беспардонно  заявил  он, придымливая шестую сигару.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;Я те устрою небо в алмазах&quot;, - злобно пообещала Марина.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But keep in mind that though this phrase is most likely known by native speaker, it's usage quite limited.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Vanya&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/LITRA/CHEHOW/vanya.txt_with-big-pictures.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lib.ru/WELLER/marina.txt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36883" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="dc22e82b-a863-4363-8d66-747c30c5c4b4" CreationDate="2017-09-04T16:24:11.910" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What does the phrase &quot;увидеть небо в алмазах mean&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14983" RevisionGUID="9c3f056d-8699-4613-957d-b10e84387f97" CreationDate="2017-09-04T18:37:56.370" UserId="9443" Text="I'm studying with duolingo and this is the first time I saw this kind of &quot;in&quot; usage with &quot;У меня ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always see it like &quot; ... в ...&quot;.Can you explain this to me in terms of both grammar and colloquial speech aspects?Thanks in advance :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14983" RevisionGUID="9c3f056d-8699-4613-957d-b10e84387f97" CreationDate="2017-09-04T18:37:56.370" UserId="9443" Text="&quot;Они живут у меня дома&quot; and &quot;Они живут в мой дом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14983" RevisionGUID="9c3f056d-8699-4613-957d-b10e84387f97" CreationDate="2017-09-04T18:37:56.370" UserId="9443" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36892" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="daa31a2d-d6da-45bf-9d59-e53a85dbba97" CreationDate="2017-09-04T23:34:09.973" UserId="9471" Comment="54" />
  <row Id="36893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="100f96d5-3a26-4a1d-a249-de43baac4922" CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:19:13.223" UserId="9472" Text="I've been watching a television show in Russian and I notice that several of the characters keep calling each other by their full names (first name and surname), where in English they would've just used first names, title, or salutation + surname.&#xA;&#xA;Is this an accurate reflection of how names are commonly used in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="100f96d5-3a26-4a1d-a249-de43baac4922" CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:19:13.223" UserId="9472" Text="In Russian is it more appropriate to refer to someone by their full name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="100f96d5-3a26-4a1d-a249-de43baac4922" CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:19:13.223" UserId="9472" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14983" RevisionGUID="ce87f59f-0643-4c4f-a036-3688364ed36b" CreationDate="2017-09-05T03:21:42.637" UserId="9443" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="Edit : My question is about preposition &quot;IN&quot; not about the verb &quot;have&quot; as you suggested.Can you open it again, please?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm studying with duolingo and this is the first time I saw this kind of &quot;in&quot; preposition usage as &quot;У меня ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always see it like &quot; ... в ...&quot;.Can you explain this to me in terms of both grammar and colloquial speech aspects?Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14986" RevisionGUID="0a31caac-74d3-4c55-9661-5e940e83490e" CreationDate="2017-09-05T04:14:53.347" UserId="9473" Text="No, it's not. The most common way to call each other in Russian is by name only. If person is older and/or you want to (have to) be polite (with your teacher, your boss, customer), you must use their name + middle name (father's name). But it's not necessary if other person is okay with name only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And about show. It's hard to say why they're using full names, it depends on the situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="b7677f40-926e-48bd-b803-77cc85fab1ae" CreationDate="2017-09-05T05:53:15.173" UserId="5584" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;It's a work in progress&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="b7677f40-926e-48bd-b803-77cc85fab1ae" CreationDate="2017-09-05T05:53:15.173" UserId="5584" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;It's a work in progress&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="b7677f40-926e-48bd-b803-77cc85fab1ae" CreationDate="2017-09-05T05:53:15.173" UserId="5584" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14766" RevisionGUID="ea1a243f-7c0b-4f6f-ae5a-4722c6a20364" CreationDate="2017-09-05T05:55:06.053" UserId="8359" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="I am seeking the etyomology of the name of the peninsula, Kamchatka. The only explanation I have found is in the old book &quot;A shooting trip to Kamchatka&quot;, which suggests that it comes from a term meaning &quot;uneven or rough&quot; (possibly _камчатый_, which Google translates as &quot;crenate&quot; or &quot;scalloped&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the explanation substantiated? Is the name's origin Russian anyway? Who named it, and to describe which feature? Was the peninsula so named before the Kamchatka River?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14988" RevisionGUID="84af150c-c25c-400f-a8dc-81e3f11bfe17" CreationDate="2017-09-05T06:54:48.523" UserId="9473" Text="&quot;Работа в процессе&quot;, &quot;работа ведется&quot;, &quot;я работаю над этим&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is work?    - Как работа?&#xD;&#xA;- In progress.    - В процессе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14988" RevisionGUID="f24694df-bbfd-41c6-a427-c4c75f3217bc" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:23:45.630" UserId="9473" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&quot;Работа в процессе выполнения&quot;, &quot;работа ведется&quot;, &quot;я работаю над этим&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How is work?    - Как работа?&#xD;&#xA;- In progress.    - В процессе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="b157177f-e179-4654-880b-79db584367f0" CreationDate="2017-09-05T07:59:33.430" UserId="5584" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;It's a [work in progress][1]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/work-in-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14989" RevisionGUID="87a398ec-705b-4792-8f5a-f18918ba6a3d" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:28:20.130" UserId="242" Text="Referring for someone close by a last name is something that happens quite often - especially if these are romantic relations (but not necessarily). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, wife can tell his husband: &quot;Что-то ты, Будников, юлишь&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;A boy can tell a girl: &quot;Клинкова, а пойдём в кино вечером&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question though it seems not to be the case, using first name plus last name in a casual speech sounds unnatural, so @notChosen is not wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody says: &quot;Иван Никифоров, приходи ко мне на день рождения&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also, no offense but American tv series is the last source I'd recommend as a Russian-learning resource. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14990" RevisionGUID="0512c608-51d2-4193-b1dd-d53baa44928c" CreationDate="2017-09-05T08:53:05.870" UserId="4560" Text="&gt; Тут ещё ничего не готово&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут пока ничего не окончательно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут всё ещё очень сырое&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of those fits in some contexts, and doesn't fit in others; none would work if you're talking about, say, learning a language. I don't think there's an expression that's as one-size-fits-all as &quot;It's a work in progress&quot; (which I feel other answerers have been interpreting too literally)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36911" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="ea59b7bb-9538-4973-a877-f075e218e3c8" CreationDate="2017-09-05T10:16:36.883" UserId="4769" Comment="improved title" Text="What does the phrase &quot;увидеть небо в алмазах&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36912" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="ea59b7bb-9538-4973-a877-f075e218e3c8" CreationDate="2017-09-05T10:16:36.883" Comment="Proposed by 4769 approved by 1836, 6097 edit id of 908" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14989" RevisionGUID="ceeb4634-cc1b-4a43-bf86-552ffaaffbbf" CreationDate="2017-09-05T10:21:52.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Referring for someone close by a last name is something that happens quite often - especially if these are romantic relations (but not necessarily). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, wife can tell his husband: &quot;Что-то ты, Будников, юлишь&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;A boy can tell a girl: &quot;Клинкова, а пойдём в кино вечером&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question though it seems not to be the case, using first name plus last name in a casual speech sounds unnatural, so @notChosen is not wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody says: &quot;Иван Никифоров, приходи ко мне на день рождения&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also, no offense but American TV series is the last source I'd recommend as a Russian-learning resource. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14992" RevisionGUID="0b270deb-b3fa-4b4d-aab6-05034ef871ad" CreationDate="2017-09-05T10:27:54.547" UserId="9474" Text="Like it was answered above, if the person is older or you want to be polite you should use Name + Middle Name. In common cases we use just Name.&#xD;&#xA;But it's really noticed many times that in non-russian TV shows or movies etc there is Name + Family Name (i.e. full name) used for so called russian characters  what does sound really strange to native russian speakers :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14989" RevisionGUID="08b4759f-dd0b-48a3-91e5-3132919f8509" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:41:22.680" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Referring for someone close by a last name is something that happens quite often - especially if these are romantic relations (but not necessarily). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, wife can tell her husband: &quot;Что-то ты, Будников, юлишь&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;A boy can tell a girl: &quot;Клинкова, а пойдём в кино вечером&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question though it seems not to be the case, using first name plus last name in a casual speech sounds unnatural, so @notChosen is not wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody says: &quot;Иван Никифоров, приходи ко мне на день рождения&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also, no offense but American TV series is the last source I'd recommend as a Russian-learning resource. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="0738d798-abdb-4efc-8d15-dc37d7c993f7" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:46:50.963" UserId="242" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;It's a [work in progress][1]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this question self-sufficient, the definition of &quot;work in progress&quot; is &quot;an unfinished project that is still being added to or developed&quot;. Usually it is supposed that it is developed slower than it's supposed to be developed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/work-in-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14993" RevisionGUID="3a0606b0-30e5-4dc9-aca5-1e2a0566dd99" CreationDate="2017-09-05T11:53:34.810" UserId="242" Text="Just to clarify - because it's not obvious from the question it&#xD;&#xA;There's a word which is specifically about building construction in progress - [&quot;долгострой&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When finishing some building project - building, bridge or road takes more and more time and still far from being finished - it's exactly `долгострой`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quit often it's used not only about building. It can be used for describing state of software development (like [here][2] - &quot;Долгострой в разработке ПО: о проблемах управления требованиями&quot;) or some political reforms - than it's [&quot;политический долгострой&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, this term is not universal. The closest you can get is &quot;затянувшаяся работа&quot; or &quot;незапланированно долго затянувшаяся работа&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://habrahabr.ru/company/docsvision/blog/265559/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=5AQIDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT88&amp;lpg=PT88&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-nfQzv6ARO&amp;sig=ZO8rabQ3FfHtjx94t689J8PCNCM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYzfKZ_Y3WAhVMcRQKHbzkA_kQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14994" RevisionGUID="bc290d2f-598b-4ddd-b4e1-6f310ebc5637" CreationDate="2017-09-05T12:24:32.823" UserId="242" Text="You question does not make sense. In Russian we do have cases - generally speaking any noun can be declined by cases. Also in Russian we have plural, this is well, another grammatical category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A noun in the plural form also is declined by cases.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, when somebody tell you that, for instance, `дом` in plural is `дома`, or plural for `девочка` is `девочки`, actually he / she means that it is the form of plural in nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**By default plurals are described in nominative declension**. &#xD;&#xA;So yes, it's still unclear what you are asking, but if I understand correctly your question the answer is yes, it's completely the same. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14994" RevisionGUID="fd19626e-cbe8-44ed-a795-819da9697a39" CreationDate="2017-09-05T12:36:12.670" UserId="242" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="You question does not make sense. In Russian we do have cases - generally speaking any noun can be declined by cases. Also in Russian we have plural, this is well, another grammatical category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A noun in the plural form also is declined by cases.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, when somebody tell you that, for instance, `дом` in plural is `дома`, or plural for `девочка` is `девочки`, actually he / she means that it is the form of plural in nominative case. But actually you have also `домами`, `домах`, `девочками`, `девочках` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**By default plurals are described in nominative declension**. &#xD;&#xA;So yes, it's still unclear what you are asking, but if I understand correctly your question the answer is yes, it's completely the same. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14993" RevisionGUID="2ceee8b0-24ee-402b-83b4-b62432317bdb" CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:03:15.717" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Just to clarify - because it's not obvious from the question it&#xD;&#xA;There's a word which is specifically about building construction in progress - [&quot;долгострой&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When finishing some building project - building, bridge or road takes more and more time and still far from being finished - it's exactly `долгострой`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quit often it's used not only about building. It can be used for describing state of software development (like [here][2] - &quot;Долгострой в разработке ПО: о проблемах управления требованиями&quot;) or some political reforms - than it's [&quot;политический долгострой&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, this term is not universal. The closest you can get is `затянувшаяся работа` or `незапланированно долго затянувшаяся работа`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://habrahabr.ru/company/docsvision/blog/265559/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=5AQIDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT88&amp;lpg=PT88&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-nfQzv6ARO&amp;sig=ZO8rabQ3FfHtjx94t689J8PCNCM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYzfKZ_Y3WAhVMcRQKHbzkA_kQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36922" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14981" RevisionGUID="870b16a8-80dd-46bf-8e8d-82868be9fbd5" CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:14:53.607" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/905056642303221760" />
  <row Id="36923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14995" RevisionGUID="7c9ad265-25b3-432b-ab5d-19d815fadfd5" CreationDate="2017-09-05T14:31:53.840" UserId="4903" Text="The second sentence should be **&quot;Они живут в моём доме.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Они живут у меня дома** - means *&quot;They live at my home.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Они живут в моём доме** - means *&quot;They live at my house.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use the first sentence to point that you and others share the same living space.  You can use the second one to say that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You and others are living in the same apartment building, but have different apartments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You and others are living in the same detached house.  But then the first sentence is used more often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14993" RevisionGUID="64fb6309-6e6e-49fc-8374-a08501adf798" CreationDate="2017-09-05T14:34:34.700" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Just to clarify - because it's not obvious from the question it&#xD;&#xA;There's a word which is specifically about building construction in progress - [&quot;долгострой&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When finishing some building project - building, bridge or road takes more and more time and still far from being finished - it's exactly `долгострой`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often it's used not only about building. It can be used for describing state of software development (like [here][2] - &quot;Долгострой в разработке ПО: о проблемах управления требованиями&quot;) or some political reforms - than it's [&quot;политический долгострой&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, this term is not universal. The closest you can get is `затянувшаяся работа` or `незапланированно долго затянувшаяся работа`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://habrahabr.ru/company/docsvision/blog/265559/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=5AQIDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT88&amp;lpg=PT88&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-nfQzv6ARO&amp;sig=ZO8rabQ3FfHtjx94t689J8PCNCM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYzfKZ_Y3WAhVMcRQKHbzkA_kQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="b4f6bb3d-04af-4958-b811-6615d6630748" CreationDate="2017-09-05T16:28:19.790" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;It's a [work in progress][1]&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this question self-sufficient, the definition of &quot;work in progress&quot; is &quot;an unfinished project that is still being added to or developed&quot;. Usually it is supposed that it is developed slower than expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/work-in-progress" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14996" RevisionGUID="eff473e1-da40-416a-b7da-9313b030d976" CreationDate="2017-09-05T16:42:24.657" UserId="9256" Text="[Я не волшебник, я ещё только учусь][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I am not a sorcerer, I'm still learning&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original meaning, it was stressing more humility than unfinished work, but since then it has become more related to the latter than the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Скоро только кошки родятся][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Only kittens are got to be born quick&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the meaning is &quot;This should take longer than you think&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9,_1945)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14993" RevisionGUID="47a3eb4a-8b85-40fd-9dbe-b55e2ac1387e" CreationDate="2017-09-05T17:28:13.997" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body" Text="There's a word which is specifically about building construction in progress - [&quot;долгострой&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When finishing some building project - building, bridge or road takes more and more time and still far from being finished - it's exactly `долгострой`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quite often it's used not only about building. It can be used for describing state of software development (like [here][2] - &quot;Долгострой в разработке ПО: о проблемах управления требованиями&quot;) or some political reforms - than it's [&quot;политический долгострой&quot;][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, this term is not universal. The closest you can get is `затянувшаяся работа` or `незапланированно долго затянувшаяся работа`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://habrahabr.ru/company/docsvision/blog/265559/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=5AQIDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT88&amp;lpg=PT88&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-nfQzv6ARO&amp;sig=ZO8rabQ3FfHtjx94t689J8PCNCM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYzfKZ_Y3WAhVMcRQKHbzkA_kQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14997" RevisionGUID="cc0dbc48-5021-482d-9a4c-0de3af6e89bd" CreationDate="2017-09-05T18:58:08.283" UserId="4481" Text="In an informal situation, you can use a citation from the [old cartoon][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стрижка только начата!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the cartoon, a lion wanted to cut hairs, but he was very impatient. He asked several times is the work finished. A crane (the hairdresser) answered each time &quot;Not ready yet&quot;, and finally said `Стрижка только начата!`, what made the lion angry.  &#xD;&#xA;This phrase literally means &quot;I've just begun&quot;, and is very famous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30jcqtXrqI8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="aac5bbb9-79f5-46c7-873f-7bba6597ea35" CreationDate="2017-09-05T23:24:42.067" UserId="9472" Comment="added 321 characters in body; added 26 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="I've been watching a television show with scenes in Russian and I notice that several of the characters keep calling each other by their full names (first name and middle or surname), where in English they would've just used first names, title, or salutation + surname.&#xA;&#xA;Here is an example from Season 2 Episode 7 (while practicing beating a polygraph):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Igor:** Do you live and work at the Soviet embassy?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Nina:** Yes.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Igor:** Do you trust me Nina Sergeevna?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Nina:** No.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Is this an accurate reflection of how names are commonly used in Russian?&#xA;&#xA;*Update:* I believe they are using the first name and middle name, not first name and last name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="c5b45038-31f9-4b74-848f-74b7955413e3" CreationDate="2017-09-06T02:55:23.807" UserId="9472" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="I've been watching a television show with scenes in Russian and I notice that several of the characters keep calling each other by their full names (first name and middle or surname), where in English they would've just used first names, title, or salutation + surname.&#xA;&#xA;Here is an example from Season 2 Episode 7 (while practicing beating a polygraph):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Igor:** Do you live and work at the Soviet embassy?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Nina:** Yes.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Igor:** Do you trust me Nina Sergeevna?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Nina:** No.&#xA;&#xA;Next episode, the Russian Rezidentura (Ambassador) is speaking to his 3rd in command on stealing Stealth bomber plans:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Arkady**: And how do we know if it will fall out of the sky?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Igor**: I don't think we will know, Arkady  Ivanovich.&#xA;&#xA;Is this an accurate reflection of how names are commonly used in Russian?&#xA;&#xA;*Update:* I believe they are using the first name and middle name, not first name and last name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="f090e96e-f356-4504-b682-fbdb17052847" CreationDate="2017-09-06T03:15:28.140" UserId="9472" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I've been watching a television show with scenes in Russian and I notice that several of the characters keep calling each other by their full names (first name and middle or surname), where in English they would've just used first names, title, or salutation + surname.&#xA;&#xA;Here is an example from Season 2 Episode 7 (while practicing beating a polygraph):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Igor:** Do you live and work at the Soviet embassy?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Nina:** Yes.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Igor:** Do you trust me Nina Sergeevna?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Nina:** No.&#xA;&#xA;Next episode, the Russian Rezident (Ambassador) is speaking to his 3rd in command on stealing Stealth bomber plans:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Arkady**: And how do we know if it will fall out of the sky?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; **Igor**: I don't think we will know, Arkady  Ivanovich.&#xA;&#xA;Is this an accurate reflection of how names are commonly used in Russian?&#xA;&#xA;*Update:* I believe they are using the first name and middle name, not first name and last name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="a298abd4-9f4a-49d6-ad7d-7a806aee38de" CreationDate="2017-09-06T05:58:52.150" UserId="9405" Text="Действующий и будущий регуляторы отрасли — Минфин и ЦБ — согласовали проект реформы аудита в России.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from an article from kommersant.ru, why are the adjectives at the start in nominal singular form. Why aren't they действующие и будущие? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="a298abd4-9f4a-49d6-ad7d-7a806aee38de" CreationDate="2017-09-06T05:58:52.150" UserId="9405" Text="Russian adjectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="a298abd4-9f4a-49d6-ad7d-7a806aee38de" CreationDate="2017-09-06T05:58:52.150" UserId="9405" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14999" RevisionGUID="a390f704-712a-41c9-9f1a-b424f526f016" CreationDate="2017-09-06T06:39:14.127" UserId="9473" Text="That's because Минфин is действующий регулятор отрасли and ЦБ is будущий регулятор отрасли. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**At this moment** Ministry of Finance is responsible for audit activity.&#xD;&#xA;But Central bank will get this function from Ministry **in the future**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36936" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="7b266853-94e7-4a92-a55b-7a1b79b884ab" CreationDate="2017-09-06T06:59:34.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="&quot;Действующий и будущий регуляторы&quot; - why not &quot;действующие и будущие&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36937" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="7b266853-94e7-4a92-a55b-7a1b79b884ab" CreationDate="2017-09-06T06:59:34.510" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15000" RevisionGUID="60c923dc-a164-425a-a8da-30fb74c4a3b5" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:05:25.163" UserId="2104" Text="That's short for &quot;действующий регулятор и будущий регулятор&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;It's a perfectly valid and quite widely used construct in Russian. &#xA;E.g. &quot;a blue pencil and a green pencil&quot; (синий карандаш и зелёный карандаш) can be shortened to &quot;синий и зелёный карандаши&quot; which I don't think is possible in English (&quot;a blue and a green pencils&quot;?). It's a kind of ellipsis where the noun is omitted after the first adjective. More examples to give you a better feel for the construct (they may sound contrived - that's because they are):&#xA;&#xA; - Старший и младший братья = the elder brother and the younger brother.&#xA;&#xA; - Новая и старая дороги = the new road and the old road.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14989" RevisionGUID="60e82acd-7995-471b-a9fa-cbe4d986e3ea" CreationDate="2017-09-06T08:19:58.443" UserId="242" Comment="added 247 characters in body; added 71 characters in body" Text="Referring for someone close by a last name is something that happens quite often - especially if these are romantic relations (but not necessarily). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, wife can tell her husband: &quot;Что-то ты, Будников, юлишь&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;A boy can tell a girl: &quot;Клинкова, а пойдём в кино вечером&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question though it seems not to be the case, using first name plus last name in a casual speech sounds unnatural, so @notChosen is not wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody says: &quot;Иван Никифоров, приходи ко мне на день рождения&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Also, no offense but American TV series is the last source I'd recommend as a Russian-learning resource. &#xA;&#xA;UPD: OK, now when exact excerpts are provided it's obvious that it's not about surname but rather than about using first name + [patronymic][1].&#xA;&#xA;Then **answer is actually yes**, it's an okay usage. This is quite common way to politely refer to somebody.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic?wprov=sfsi1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15001" RevisionGUID="4369b481-d857-4f22-a36d-4f0f87cd0c8c" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:55:52.887" UserId="9128" Text="It seems that your confusion stems from an inadequate translation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Они живут у меня дома.* means 'They are staying with me' or 'They are living at my place'. The emphasis is on me and my household. They are a part of my household.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Они живут в моём доме.* means 'They live in the same building as I do'. The emphasis is on the building. We do not know whether they are part of my household or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition ***y*** has [the following meanings in Russian](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- near, next to (около, рядом с ◆ Жить у моря./ to live near the sea);&#xD;&#xA;- from (от ◆ Узнать у друзей./ to learn (to get to know about something) from friends)&#xD;&#xA;- possession (обозначает владельца ◆ У меня есть./ I have...[I am the owner of...] )&#xD;&#xA;- indication of a part of a whole (обозначает часть целого ◆ Ножка у стула./a leg of a chair)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general meaning of the preposition ***в*** is 'inside'. For other meanings please consult your grammar book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These prepositions are not interchangeable and convey different relationships with an object. However, translations to other languages may not reflect these differences for one reason or another. Often times it is related to collocations used in a translation target language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15002" RevisionGUID="d967cef5-74b1-4f81-91c9-95b09ebae7d9" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:04:04.030" UserId="7544" Text="Most of Russians address their friends by using only first names (Dmitriy, Ivan), but in their short forms (Dima, Vanya respectively). When calling their name, a special form equal to the plural genetive form is frequently used as &quot;vocative case&quot; (Дим, Вань). It is never appropriate to use this form in official documents or when addressing someone who you don't know very well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If addressing someone officially, you should use the full form of the first name plus middle name (Vasiliy Ivanovich), and it is very official as of now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less official way is to address someone by only the full form of the first name (Dmitriy, Vasiliy, Ivan). This can be used, for example, when calling your ensurance company, or when talking to your colleague that you don't know well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An a bit archaic way to address someone is to just call their last name (Serov, Vertinskiy), but it is not actively used right now. Normally it is impolite to call someone by their last name, it cannot be used with someone of higher position than you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*All of the forms can actually be used in jest by friends: someone I know for 25 years can suddenly address me as &quot;Dmitriy Vladimirovich&quot;, but it does not make this a usual way to address friends.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15003" RevisionGUID="58c1867a-019b-4717-b898-cad7f951a178" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:10:01.170" UserId="7544" Text="There is no exact synonym. There are many ways to indicate work in progress &quot;ведётся работа&quot; (work is being done), &quot;мы работаем над этим&quot; (we are working on this), &quot;проблему уже изучают наши специалисты&quot; (our specialists are already investigating the problem) are all likely the thing you need, but there is no set expressions not implying something else. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15004" RevisionGUID="a0cf9189-8174-4734-88f2-eb6d0abd14ce" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:12:36.373" UserId="242" Text="Actually the word &quot;соответственно&quot; is omitted, which is perfectly valid per se but make it complicates understanding for a non-native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of this phrase like of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Действующий и будущий регуляторы отрасли — Минфин и ЦБ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***соответственно*** — согласовали проект реформы аудита в России.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can be translated to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Present and soon-to-be industry controllers - Minfin and CB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***accordingly***  ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15004" RevisionGUID="5857d195-0dbc-4752-a8f2-4ea6a477026f" CreationDate="2017-09-06T15:37:23.790" UserId="242" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="The thing is that in this particular case the word `соответственно` is omitted, which is perfectly valid per se but it complicates understanding for a non-native speaker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of this phrase like of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Действующий и будущий регуляторы отрасли — Минфин и ЦБ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***соответственно*** — согласовали проект реформы аудита в России.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which can be translated to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Present and soon-to-be industry controllers - Minfin and CB&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***accordingly***  ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="9969f772-fbc4-4094-9665-20c6785251c0" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:15:00.840" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/905464359073316864" />
  <row Id="36946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="b855534c-b738-4869-b287-ca9176c00a98" CreationDate="2017-09-06T16:44:52.420" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Действующий и будущий регуляторы отрасли — Минфин и ЦБ — согласовали проект реформы аудита в России.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from an article from kommersant.ru, why are the adjectives at the start in nominal singular form. Why aren't they `действующие` и `будущие`? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15005" RevisionGUID="446c86e3-e933-4643-87bd-4d6398d95642" CreationDate="2017-09-06T18:14:34.313" UserId="9256" Text="There are number of ways of addressing people, and they are all appropriate in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. FIRST NAME only - &quot;Иван, подойди сюда&quot; - not formal, very common form of address between people with some familiarity - relatives, friends, colleagues. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 2. LAST NAME only - &quot;Иванов, подойди сюда&quot; - more formal, common form of address in larger groups (class, military unit, etc.). Implies formality and NO particular respect. To imply respect, one has to use rank/position with the last name (&quot;Капитан Иванов&quot;, &quot;Токарь Петров&quot;);&#xD;&#xA; 3. LAST NAME + FIRST NAME - &quot;Сидоров Иван, ваша очередь&quot; - Very formal, traditional. This is not like people are usually addressed, but this is how names typically appear in lists. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 4. FIRST NAME + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Сидоров, подойдите сюда&quot; - formal, but not very formal. This is how people usually present themselves. Often used in larger groups when first name is not sufficient and last name has to be added to it;&#xD;&#xA; 5. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC - &quot;Иван Иванович, подойдите сюда&quot; - very traditional, not formal, implies respect. Common to address older people, or people with seniority (supervisor, teacher). This form is virtually never used between younger people. It it usually happens that younger speaker would address older one as &quot;FN + P&quot;, but the older one would call the younger one by the first name only;&#xD;&#xA; 6. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Иванович Сидоров, ваша очередь&quot; - traditional, respectful, even somewhat ceremonial. People would not call each other like that in a dialogue, but would refer to a lesser known third person in this form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15005" RevisionGUID="69f00b4c-1fdb-4dd7-9dcd-e855041669e1" CreationDate="2017-09-06T20:00:15.373" UserId="9256" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="There are number of ways of addressing people, and they are all appropriate in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. FIRST NAME only - &quot;Иван, подойди сюда&quot; - not formal, very common form of address between people with some familiarity - relatives, friends, colleagues. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 2. LAST NAME only - &quot;Иванов, подойди сюда&quot; - more formal, common form of address in larger groups (class, military unit, etc.). Implies formality and NO particular respect. To imply respect, one has to use rank/position with the last name (&quot;Капитан Иванов&quot;, &quot;Токарь Петров&quot;). There are also niche uses - for example between kids in a class, or sometimes even between spouses. In those niches, Last Name Only form is informal and respect-neutral;&#xD;&#xA; 3. LAST NAME + FIRST NAME - &quot;Сидоров Иван, ваша очередь&quot; - Very formal, traditional. This is not like people are usually addressed, but this is how names typically appear in lists. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 4. FIRST NAME + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Сидоров, подойдите сюда&quot; - formal, but not very formal. This is how people usually present themselves. Often used in larger groups when first name is not sufficient and last name has to be added to it;&#xD;&#xA; 5. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC - &quot;Иван Иванович, подойдите сюда&quot; - very traditional, not formal, implies respect. Common to address older people, or people with seniority (supervisor, teacher). This form is virtually never used between younger people. It it usually happens that younger speaker would address older one as &quot;FN + P&quot;, but the older one would call the younger one by the first name only;&#xD;&#xA; 6. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Иванович Сидоров, ваша очередь&quot; - traditional, respectful, even somewhat ceremonial. People would not call each other like that in a dialogue, but would refer to a lesser known third person in this form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="f83d61c2-33c2-489e-bc3a-af0135b385d7" CreationDate="2017-09-06T22:18:40.010" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The term _промышленник_ described individuals seeking furs and the employees of 1700s and 1800s fur companies such as Shelikhov-Golikov and the Russian-American Company. Those workers were involved in a variety of business activities not limited to trapping and trading for furs, but also including punitive attacks on natives and the management of enslaved hunters. Some of them held shares or part shares in the fur expeditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this exotic context and the passage of two centuries, the word does not mean quite the same thing today. My question is about its implications at the time the fur companies were operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Did the term imply that промышленники were risking their own capital on the venture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Were sailors for the fur companies also промышленники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* промышленники were members of which Imperial social classes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36951" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14998" RevisionGUID="808db0c5-c6a0-45db-b2b2-b2b9838b49ce" CreationDate="2017-09-07T04:18:51.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/905646519222542338" />
  <row Id="36952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15006" RevisionGUID="c902a705-f28a-41ea-af52-edf20ea45acc" CreationDate="2017-09-07T12:05:52.533" UserId="9128" Text="I watched the video and found it a bit confusing even for a native speaker. She is trying to explain rules for forming plurals in the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Judging from the content of the video, what you are referring to as 'noun number' is simply singular and plural forms. Thus, for the purposes of this particular lesson noun number and nominative plural form are the same. However, you should not forget that Russian uses cases, therefore, plural forms change depending on a case. But, I suppose, it was going to be explained in further lessons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these pages provide a better explanation of the rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson11_main.php&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit2/GramUnit2_1.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15007" RevisionGUID="6468af4a-1cdd-4841-ab20-da7850b9926c" CreationDate="2017-09-07T14:31:57.600" UserId="8432" Text="In Rachmaninov's Vespers, I stumbled upon this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ныне отпущаеш**и** раба Твоего...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should mean &quot;Now you dismiss your servant&quot;. (It's a quote from Bible, that's how I know.) What baffles me here is the -и ending that I marked in bold. I would be expecting &quot;отпущаеш**ь**&quot; instead. Where does that -и come from? Is it just an archaic ending no longer in use? (Since it's a biblical quote, it could very well be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S.: I don't really know Russian. I understand it just by being able to read Cyrillic and relate to my native language of Czech, which happens to be Slavic as well. Hence I'm sorry if I missed something basic in here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15007" RevisionGUID="6468af4a-1cdd-4841-ab20-da7850b9926c" CreationDate="2017-09-07T14:31:57.600" UserId="8432" Text="Where does the -и ending in &quot;Ныне отпущаеши...&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15007" RevisionGUID="6468af4a-1cdd-4841-ab20-da7850b9926c" CreationDate="2017-09-07T14:31:57.600" UserId="8432" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15008" RevisionGUID="6da1eec8-fe05-484a-9ccd-86d0aeb5a72f" CreationDate="2017-09-07T14:39:41.837" UserId="242" Text="**Yes it's the archaic form**. In Old Russian (as well in Church Slavonic, which influenced Russian greatly but was a different language - just saying, it's actually irrelevant here) - If was the form for the second person (one that is used with `ты`) - roughly speaking where we now have `шь` in modern Russian it was `ши` in Old Russian (or [Old East Slavic][1], whatever you name it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_East_Slavic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H3muv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15008" RevisionGUID="a9d0cd10-e112-402d-8124-b259539c8c0b" CreationDate="2017-09-07T14:45:47.980" UserId="242" Comment="removed passage about Church Slavonic because actually it was -си there as far as I remember" Text="**Yes it's the archaic form**. In Old Russian - Iе was the form for the second person (one that is used with `ты`) - roughly speaking where we now have `шь` in modern Russian it was `ши`. in Old Russian (or [Old East Slavic][1], whatever you name it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side-note, when I was a kid and first time heard &#xD;&#xA;[`Камо грядеши`][3] it sounded very exotic and unfamiliar to me, my first thought was even this is, don't know, Japanese or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_East_Slavic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H3muv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE_%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15007" RevisionGUID="124e721b-d20a-4107-9f2f-8680e356a13d" CreationDate="2017-09-07T16:19:20.073" UserId="242" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="In Rachmaninov's [Vespers][1], I stumbled upon this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ныне отпущаеш**и** раба Твоего...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which should mean &quot;Now you dismiss your servant&quot;. (It's a quote from Bible, that's how I know.) What baffles me here is the -и ending that I marked in bold. I would be expecting &quot;отпущаеш**ь**&quot; instead. Where does that -и come from? Is it just an archaic ending no longer in use? (Since it's a biblical quote, it could very well be.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S.: I don't really know Russian. I understand it just by being able to read Cyrillic and relate to my native language of Czech, which happens to be Slavic as well. Hence I'm sorry if I missed something basic in here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.belcanto.ru/or-rachmaninov-bdenie.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15005" RevisionGUID="addfebca-9633-41ab-a7d3-2fa784fc2d9a" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:03:36.227" UserId="9256" Comment="added 631 characters in body" Text="There are number of ways of addressing people, and they are all appropriate in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. FIRST NAME only - &quot;Иван, подойди сюда&quot; - not formal, very common form of address between people with some familiarity - relatives, friends, colleagues. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 2. LAST NAME only - &quot;Иванов, подойди сюда&quot; - more formal, common form of address in larger groups (class, military unit, etc.). Implies formality and NO particular respect. To imply respect, one has to use rank/position with the last name (&quot;Капитан Иванов&quot;, &quot;Токарь Петров&quot;). There are also niche uses - for example between kids in a class, or sometimes even between spouses. In those niches, Last Name Only form is informal and respect-neutral;&#xD;&#xA; 3. LAST NAME + FIRST NAME - &quot;Сидоров Иван, ваша очередь&quot; - Very formal, traditional. This is not like people are usually addressed, but this is how names typically appear in lists. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 4. FIRST NAME + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Сидоров, подойдите сюда&quot; - formal, but not very formal. This is how people usually present themselves. Often used in larger groups when first name is not sufficient and last name has to be added to it;&#xD;&#xA; 5. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC - &quot;Иван Иванович, подойдите сюда&quot; - very traditional, not formal, implies respect. Common to address older people, or people with seniority (supervisor, teacher). This form is virtually never used between younger people. It it usually happens that younger speaker would address older one as &quot;FN + P&quot;, but the older one would call the younger one by the first name only;&#xD;&#xA; 6. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Иванович Сидоров, ваша очередь&quot; - traditional, respectful, even somewhat ceremonial. People would not call each other like that in a dialogue, but would refer to a lesser known third person in this form;&#xD;&#xA; 7. LAST NAME + FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC - &quot;Сидоров Иван Иванович, ваша очередь&quot; - less used variation of #6 (FN + P + LN). Typical for official use, in lists and documents, this form of address is never used in common conversation;&#xD;&#xA; 8. DIMINUTIVE FIRST NAME - &quot;Ваня, подойди сюда&quot; - typical form of address for children, relatives and close friends. Never used in official language (unless diminutive form is the legal name), and if used outside the appropriate range of use (to address a lesser known colleague, for example), can be considered offensive. Autocratic bosses may have a tendency to call their subordinates by DFN;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15008" RevisionGUID="8f4c4741-8f11-4df2-9284-42dc1f3ee599" CreationDate="2017-09-07T17:59:03.230" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**Yes it's the archaic form**. In Old Russian it had been the form for the second person (one that is used with `ты`) - roughly speaking where we now have `шь` in modern Russian it was `ши`. in Old Russian (or [Old East Slavic][1], whatever you name it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side-note, when I was a kid and first time heard &#xD;&#xA;[`Камо грядеши`][3] it sounded very exotic and unfamiliar to me, my first thought was even this is, don't know, Japanese or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_East_Slavic&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H3muv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE_%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15005" RevisionGUID="2ca36fb1-51da-4aba-a2e6-02bee0ce810f" CreationDate="2017-09-08T16:42:59.300" UserId="9256" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="There are number of ways of addressing people, and they are all appropriate in different situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. FIRST NAME only - &quot;Иван, подойди сюда&quot; - not formal, very common form of address between people with some familiarity - relatives, friends, colleagues. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 2. LAST NAME only - &quot;Иванов, подойди сюда&quot; - more formal, common form of address in larger groups (class, military unit, etc.). Implies formality and NO particular respect. To imply respect, one has to use rank/position with the last name (&quot;Капитан Иванов&quot;, &quot;Токарь Петров&quot;). There are also niche uses - for example between kids in a class, or sometimes even between spouses. In those niches, Last Name Only form is informal and respect-neutral;&#xD;&#xA; 3. LAST NAME + FIRST NAME - &quot;Сидоров Иван, ваша очередь&quot; - Very formal, traditional. This is not like people are usually addressed, but this is how names typically appear in lists. Does not imply respect or disrespect;&#xD;&#xA; 4. FIRST NAME + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Сидоров, подойдите сюда&quot; - formal, but not very formal. This is how people usually present themselves. Often used in larger groups when first name is not sufficient and last name has to be added to it;&#xD;&#xA; 5. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC - &quot;Иван Иванович, подойдите сюда&quot; - very traditional, not formal, implies respect. Common to address older people, or people with seniority (supervisor, teacher). This form is virtually never used between younger people. It it usually happens that younger speaker would address older one as &quot;FN + P&quot;, but the older one would call the younger one by the first name only;&#xD;&#xA; 6. FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC + LAST NAME - &quot;Иван Иванович Сидоров, ваша очередь&quot; - traditional, respectful, even somewhat ceremonial. People would not call each other like that in a dialogue, but would refer to a lesser known third person in this form;&#xD;&#xA; 7. LAST NAME + FIRST NAME + PATRONYMIC - &quot;Сидоров Иван Иванович, ваша очередь&quot; - less used variation of #6 (FN + P + LN). Typical for official use, in lists and documents, this form of address is never used in common conversation;&#xD;&#xA; 8. DIMINUTIVE FIRST NAME - &quot;Ваня, подойди сюда&quot; - typical form of address for children, relatives and close friends. Never used in official language (unless diminutive form is the legal name), and if used outside the appropriate range of use (to address a lesser known colleague, for example), can be considered offensive. Autocratic bosses may have a tendency to call their subordinates by DFN;&#xD;&#xA; 9. PATRONYMIC only - &quot;Иваныч, подойди сюда&quot; - informal, familiar, appropriate form for older people to address each other, but only well-known ones and not close relatives. Never used officially. Also it is important to notice that in this case shortened patronymics are used: &quot;Иваныч&quot;, not &quot;Иванович&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36963" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15007" RevisionGUID="fd2607ec-0111-414b-a7d6-f03123e095be" CreationDate="2017-09-08T19:20:38.863" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/906235850987581440" />
  <row Id="36964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14985" RevisionGUID="5311e19b-bf4c-4f90-9b99-7fcf8cc3a9a9" CreationDate="2017-09-08T22:20:39.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/906281151316332545" />
  <row Id="36965" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14987" RevisionGUID="43e8cee4-9616-466c-aade-81830fbdaae5" CreationDate="2017-09-09T04:21:11.350" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/906371882760499200" />
  <row Id="36966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15009" RevisionGUID="4bce39b8-840a-479a-892f-ae2f549be236" CreationDate="2017-09-09T13:25:07.053" UserId="9485" Text="По имени (Пётр) и отчеству (Иванович) мы обращаемся к более старшим по возрасту, должности, к малознакомым людям. Это можно наблюдать в образовательных учреждениях, при обращении ученика к учителю. &#xA;По полному имени (Пётр) обращаются к человеку крайне редко, приоритетнее по имени и отчеству (Пётр Иванович).&#xA;По краткому имени (Петя) мы обращаемся к родным (но маму, папу и бабушку называем мамой, папой и бабушкой, а не по имени), к близким, друзьям, младшим по возрасту." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="304a40f0-2c4f-4152-9ff8-44f2c5afd08e" CreationDate="2017-09-10T03:12:51.263" UserId="8359" Text="San Francisco, Сан-Франциско in Russian, is a Spanish name meaning &quot;Saint Francis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Сан in the city name is a direct phonetic adoption, but the Франциско differs from the Spanish in the inclusion of the Ц. It seems to me that with  modern transliteration norms the city's name would be spelled Сан-Франсиско.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the Ц came from the Italian name of the saint himself, Francesco d'Assisi, already adopted as Франциск Ассизский. Still, at least for the modern Italian pronunciation, a Ч seems a better match than the Ц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the Ц get into these names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="304a40f0-2c4f-4152-9ff8-44f2c5afd08e" CreationDate="2017-09-10T03:12:51.263" UserId="8359" Text="The Ц in Сан-Франциско" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="304a40f0-2c4f-4152-9ff8-44f2c5afd08e" CreationDate="2017-09-10T03:12:51.263" UserId="8359" Text="|правописание|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15011" RevisionGUID="51a9e7e5-e309-4f3d-9989-602a1be0367b" CreationDate="2017-09-10T11:44:10.450" UserId="242" Text="As you can notice nobody calls in Russian Francesco d'Assisi Франческо д'Ассизи - and I'm not saying this in ironical way. For instance, Leonardo da Vinci is indeed called `Леонардо да Винчи`. The thing is that traditions of transliterating names are not straightforward - some names are transliterated more or less at they &quot;are&quot;, some names - do not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This holds true even for the name originally coming from the same languages. For instance, in Russian we refer French kings named Henri as `Генрих` though actually one rather can expect them to be named `Анри`. The same with `Карл` - who quite often were actually Charles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time we have `Эркюль Пуаро`, not Геркулес Пуаро. Or `Артюр Рембо`, but not Артур Рембо. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because names of some historical persons come for us through some other mediator language. In case of `Карл` and `Генрих` it obviously was German. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `Франциск` it was actually Latin - in Latin it's Franciscus - strictly speaking we don't know for sure how `ci` is supposed to be read in Latin. In fact, even in modern Italian to my knowledge there are some dialects where `c` in `ci` is pronounced rather as /t͡s/ than /tɕ/. There are different traditions of pronouncing Latin words - one of them to pronounce `сi` as /t͡si/ - and this is actually a German tradition of Latin pronunciation. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia [article][1] dedicated to this issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically German school of pronunciation of Latin words was widely adopted in Russia. This how San Francisco ended to be `Сан-Франциско` in Russian. It comes from that times when even Francis Drake who's now `Френсис Дрейк` was referred as:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XVw7H.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnSvs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="8cb11bad-a50d-4e74-a2cc-c7bb4aa9a3b4" CreationDate="2017-09-10T11:48:58.193" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;ц&quot; in &quot;Сан-Франциско&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="a38f4f8b-350b-4e23-8516-5a984b9d7f12" CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:21:22.920" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13643" RevisionGUID="2911300e-3748-46cf-81d3-0701fcdac3cc" CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:22:01.657" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Слово Париж пришло в современный русский через польский, в котором оно звучит (ну, практически) так же  - Paryż. Гипотеза @user31264 не выдерживает критики и проходит по разряду любительской этимологии. И например, у чехов слово Парид - Paříž - ř уж никак не объяснить &quot;потому что так франки на самом деле произносили&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть полуапокрифическая гипотеза, что первые карты Франции на территории восточной Европы были отпечатаны в Чехии и в названии столицы была опечатка - и слово читалось как Париш, а потом ш превратилось в ж. Мне не удалось найти каких-то серьёзных научных источников, эту гипотезу подтверждающих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честный ответ - я не знаю почему именно &quot;ж&quot;, но всё равно не вижу ничего удивительного в том, что Paris читается как  Париж, потому что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - нередко заимствованное слово не читается по правилам оригинального языка, и немые согласные вдруг читаются.&#xD;&#xA; - произношение продолжает эволюционировать в обоих языка - и из которого заимствовали и в который заимствовали.&#xD;&#xA; - озвончение для славянских языков не редкость.&#xD;&#xA; - переход з в ж не редкость.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну вот сложилось так исторически. Там в комментах правильно написали, что возможно это из итальянского аффриката `дж` получилось западнославянское `ж`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="01619c3a-b0a3-407f-9761-2178cdf4fa79" CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:26:55.950" UserId="7864" Comment="missing closing parenthesis; other minor edits" Text="I want to teach some small group Russian language (they know only &quot;kartoshka&quot;, &quot;babushka&quot;, &quot;Natasha&quot; etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, my question is not related to &quot;how to learn&quot; Russian, but &quot;how to teach&quot; - I suppose there are resources and plans to begin from, but I failed to find something structured. The primary goal is speaking, so the alphabet can be covered later. As you see, I use &quot;can&quot; because I have no plan for what to teach and when. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions and teaching schedules would be welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36975" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="01619c3a-b0a3-407f-9761-2178cdf4fa79" CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:26:55.950" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 5605, 6725 edit id of 909" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36976" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4160" RevisionGUID="740877b3-f397-4f47-8d36-98169aeb2212" CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:32:13.877" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="36977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15011" RevisionGUID="04eae5cb-6aaf-488b-aff3-3db6aef87054" CreationDate="2017-09-10T12:32:52.253" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As you can notice nobody calls in Russian Francesco d'Assisi Франческо д'Ассизи - and I'm not saying this in ironical way. For instance, Leonardo da Vinci is indeed called `Леонардо да Винчи`. The thing is that traditions of transliterating names are not straightforward - some names are transliterated more or less at they &quot;are&quot;, some names - do not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This holds true even for the name originally coming from the same source language. For instance, in Russian we refer French kings named Henri as `Генрих` though actually one rather can expect them to be named `Анри`. The same with `Карл` - who quite often were actually Charles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time we have `Эркюль Пуаро`, not Геркулес Пуаро. Or `Артюр Рембо`, but not Артур Рембо. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because names of some historical persons come for us through some other mediator language. In case of `Карл` and `Генрих` it obviously was German. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `Франциск` it was actually Latin - in Latin it's Franciscus - strictly speaking we don't know for sure how `ci` is supposed to be read in Latin. In fact, even in modern Italian to my knowledge there are some dialects where `c` in `ci` is pronounced rather as /t͡s/ than /tɕ/. There are different traditions of pronouncing Latin words - one of them to pronounce `сi` as /t͡si/ - and this is actually a German tradition of Latin pronunciation. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia [article][1] dedicated to this issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically German school of pronunciation of Latin words was widely adopted in Russia. This how San Francisco ended to be `Сан-Франциско` in Russian. It comes from that times when even Francis Drake who's now `Френсис Дрейк` was referred as:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XVw7H.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnSvs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15012" RevisionGUID="0c6c447e-234d-4112-b3e2-dc0a3075cdbf" CreationDate="2017-09-10T16:06:48.333" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="Why is &quot;До&quot; sometimes said as &quot;da&quot; (in 'До скорого') but sometimes as &quot;do&quot; (as in 'до свидания'). Is there a rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15012" RevisionGUID="0c6c447e-234d-4112-b3e2-dc0a3075cdbf" CreationDate="2017-09-10T16:06:48.333" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="Multiple pronunciation of До" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15012" RevisionGUID="0c6c447e-234d-4112-b3e2-dc0a3075cdbf" CreationDate="2017-09-10T16:06:48.333" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15013" RevisionGUID="73b1ed97-067e-4a0a-9109-9004cc9c30be" CreationDate="2017-09-10T16:18:48.717" UserId="4560" Text="The two-degree vowel reduction model ignores word boundaries for prepositions. In **до ско́рого**, the preposition is treated as a pre-emphatic syllable, and so becomes [dɐ]; in **до свида́ния**, it's a plain unstressed syllable, hence [də].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can carry stress, ['do], when semantically emphasised: **факты надо было проверять *до* публикации** &quot;[you] should've fact-checked *before* publishing&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15014" RevisionGUID="cefb509b-4e9d-430a-80e1-35594b48d890" CreationDate="2017-09-10T16:33:35.413" UserId="2104" Text="**До** is pronounced exactly the same in 'до ско́рого' and 'до свида́ния'. As @Nikolay_Ershov already mentioned, prepositions are normally treated as part of the following word, as far as stress and vowel reduction are concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in a deliberately slow and clear speech (as that of a teacher) prepositions can be singled out and bear stress of their own: до́ свида́ния. Then **до** will sound like the stressed [do] and not a reduced [də]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15015" RevisionGUID="7a57ca21-483d-4534-978a-004f4b37f280" CreationDate="2017-09-10T17:32:47.593" UserId="242" Text="The rule is simple - unstressed 'o' in modern Russian is not pronounced as [o] but rather as [a] or [ɐ] or [ə] - well, roughly speaking to &quot;a&quot;. It's a special case of vowel reduction in Russian and this special case even has a separate name - it's called [&quot;аканье&quot;][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other answers provided gave a nice overview of when it can still be pronounced closer to &quot;до&quot; - but it will be an excusable simplification - at least for beginners - to stick to &quot;o&quot; -&gt; &quot;a&quot; rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36984" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15012" RevisionGUID="51e48a0d-27f9-4e7a-a994-787fac388ffc" CreationDate="2017-09-10T17:55:39.123" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Multiple pronunciation of &quot;до&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="a9935399-9bce-4f71-a610-2d4121d38d5a" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:02:09.987" UserId="9119" Text="&gt;Какое количество национальностей проживает ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я встречается это предложение и у меня есть вопрос. Это неправильно написить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое количество национальностей проживают.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;потому что количество относится к многим объектам или народам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="a9935399-9bce-4f71-a610-2d4121d38d5a" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:02:09.987" UserId="9119" Text="сопряжение глагола с существительным неопределенного количества" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="a9935399-9bce-4f71-a610-2d4121d38d5a" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:02:09.987" UserId="9119" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="0574b265-3149-44d9-8536-b3594375f61b" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:26:06.303" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="&gt;Какое количество национальностей проживает ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я встречается это предложение и у меня есть вопрос. Это неправильно написать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое количество национальностей проживают.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;потому что количество относится к многим объектам или народам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36989" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="0574b265-3149-44d9-8536-b3594375f61b" CreationDate="2017-09-10T19:26:06.303" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Cопряжение глагола с существительным неопределенного количества" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15015" RevisionGUID="91d0186f-2e61-44e7-8c9d-1c0e22936d01" CreationDate="2017-09-10T22:00:35.130" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The rule is simple - **unstressed `o` in modern Russian is not pronounced as [o] but rather as [a]** or [ɐ] or [ə] - well, roughly speaking as &quot;a&quot;. It's a special case of vowel reduction in Russian and this special case even has a separate name - it's called [&quot;аканье&quot;][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other answers provided gave a nice overview of when it can still be pronounced closer to &quot;до&quot; - but it will be an excusable simplification - at least for beginners - to stick to &quot;o&quot; -&gt; &quot;a&quot; rule. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15018" RevisionGUID="2f57e7e1-017c-490c-a22a-6be04efc0c05" CreationDate="2017-09-11T09:14:50.663" UserId="242" Text="Strictly speaking, actually the correct form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каково количество национальностей, проживающих в ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But `каково` de-facto it's admittedly getting slightly obsolete, so I can imagine one can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сколько национальностей проживает в ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;though `какое количество национальностей проживает` is also acceptable. As of &quot;какое количество национальностей проживают&quot; - well, yes, I can not claim that you'll never see phrase built this way but it would be a clear indicator that author's is far from mastering an expertise in writing in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="22ad51bc-0601-4cd7-befb-58065d449fec" CreationDate="2017-09-11T13:54:10.790" UserId="4903" Comment="Changed Russian spelling and grammar mistakes" Text="&gt;Какое количество национальностей проживает...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я встречал это предложение и у меня есть вопрос. Правильно ли писать:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое количество национальностей проживают...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;потому что количество относится ко многим объектам или народам?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37000" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="868249de-15b7-4023-91e7-8ddddfaa2c6a" CreationDate="2017-09-11T16:17:20.080" UserId="8359" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is there a Ц in &quot;Сан-Франциско&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37001" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15012" RevisionGUID="2c4c1b37-7df0-4821-9cf7-95260ffb6671" CreationDate="2017-09-11T22:29:34.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/907370557934628864" />
  <row Id="37002" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="aa65fc51-4756-4a34-8127-4250f43505ba" CreationDate="2017-09-12T16:38:21.390" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is there a &quot;ц&quot; in &quot;Сан-Франциско&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="aa65fc51-4756-4a34-8127-4250f43505ba" CreationDate="2017-09-12T16:38:21.390" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="San Francisco, Сан-Франциско in Russian, is a Spanish name meaning &quot;Saint Francis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Сан in the city name is a direct phonetic adoption, but the Франциско differs from the Spanish in the inclusion of the `ц`. It seems to me that with  modern transliteration norms the city's name would be spelled Сан-Франсиско.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the `ц` came from the Italian name of the saint himself, Francesco d'Assisi, already adopted as Франциск Ассизский. Still, at least for the modern Italian pronunciation, a Ч seems a better match than the `ц`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the `ц` get into these names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37004" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="14689" RevisionGUID="cd350ca3-c744-4626-9204-706ebd2c1570" CreationDate="2017-09-13T00:53:58.250" UserId="-1" Comment="54" />
  <row Id="37006" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="d6bbd38d-90bd-4883-83bc-d3e43463d6ac" CreationDate="2017-09-13T16:31:02.873" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/908005108629286912" />
  <row Id="37011" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15016" RevisionGUID="03ad2102-eca4-41ee-9b59-16f7a83eecec" CreationDate="2017-09-13T22:31:05.643" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/908095717725675522" />
  <row Id="37012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15020" RevisionGUID="d0a82dbb-b3cf-49cd-a104-e2deeed62cce" CreationDate="2017-09-13T23:18:07.543" UserId="9500" Text="The rule is which form of a noun specific preposition requires. The preposition &quot;у&quot; requires genetive case of a noun. That is девочки/девочек for girl/girls." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15021" RevisionGUID="c3abc472-e128-4553-b65c-29650b2f7a77" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:15:23.817" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="For me the pronunciation of some words that are ending on 'ы' sound like they are ending on 'э', like 'газеты' or 'журналы' but others don't like 'столы'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this, do we say always 'э' when it 'ы' is unstressed and at the end of the word? Otherwise we say 'ы'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15021" RevisionGUID="c3abc472-e128-4553-b65c-29650b2f7a77" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:15:23.817" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="Words ending with 'ы'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15021" RevisionGUID="c3abc472-e128-4553-b65c-29650b2f7a77" CreationDate="2017-09-14T10:15:23.817" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15022" RevisionGUID="fbfbad51-6740-4e9a-9cf6-5c3958fca463" CreationDate="2017-09-14T13:39:07.297" UserId="242" Text="Well, it's easy to check. So, you are saying  that `ы` sound like `э` so why not just substitute and repeat two-three times, loud and clear: `газетэ` and `журналэ`. Does it sound right to you - well, it's clearly not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you do actually here is that `ы` is reduced when it's not under stressed (like in столы) - you hear a very short vowel which is still not `э` nevertheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether we can treat this vowel as short `ы` it's subject to discussion - it's complicated - in fact there are some linguists who don't believe we have such phoneme in Russian (they claim it to be just an indicator that preceding consonant is non-palatalized), some others don't agree with them - check out [this question][1] for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what we can state though is that reduced variables are that short that it's extremely hard to tell them apart, that's for sure. It's similar to how `жена` sort of sounds like `жына` with a very short `ы`. Or `и`. Or `э` - you got the idea :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/132/is-there-a-word-that-starts-with-%D1%8B/141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15022" RevisionGUID="9620d049-02a1-41a9-865e-05f52096d45a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T14:53:57.063" UserId="1688" Comment="fixed some typos" Text="Well, it's easy to check. So, you are saying  that `ы` sound like `э` so why not just substitute and repeat two-three times, loud and clear: `газетэ` and `журналэ`. Does it sound right to you - well, it's clearly not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you do actually hear is that `ы` is reduced when it's not under stress (like in столы) - you hear a very short vowel which is still not `э` nevertheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether we can treat this vowel as short `ы` is subject to discussion - it's complicated - in fact there are some linguists who don't believe we have such phoneme in Russian (they claim it to be just an indicator that preceding consonant is non-palatalized), some others don't agree with them - check out [this question][1] for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what we can state though is that reduced variables are so short that it's extremely hard to tell them apart, that's for sure. It's similar to how `жена` sort of sounds like `жына` with a very short `ы`. Or `и`. Or `э` - you got the idea :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/132/is-there-a-word-that-starts-with-%D1%8B/141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37018" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15022" RevisionGUID="9620d049-02a1-41a9-865e-05f52096d45a" CreationDate="2017-09-14T14:53:57.063" Comment="Proposed by 1688 approved by 242 edit id of 910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15022" RevisionGUID="a17de5c5-d7c9-4588-a211-e81e1a212755" CreationDate="2017-09-14T14:54:25.647" UserId="242" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Well, it's easy to check. So, you are saying  that `ы` sound like `э` so why not just substitute and repeat two-three times, loud and clear and *slowly*: `газетэ` and `журналэ`. Does it sound right to you - well, it's clearly not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you do actually hear is that `ы` is reduced when it's not under stress (like in столы) - you hear a very short vowel which is still not `э` nevertheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether we can treat this vowel as short `ы` is subject to discussion - it's complicated - in fact there are some linguists who don't believe we have such phoneme in Russian (they claim it to be just an indicator that preceding consonant is non-palatalized), some others don't agree with them - check out [this question][1] for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what we can state though is that reduced variables are so short that it's extremely hard to tell them apart, that's for sure. It's similar to how `жена` sort of sounds like `жына` with a very short `ы`. Or `и`. Or `э` - you got the idea :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/132/is-there-a-word-that-starts-with-%D1%8B/141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15023" RevisionGUID="a3b4e587-2f5f-40d5-bd38-909b3b326a75" CreationDate="2017-09-14T23:23:37.753" UserId="8742" Text="I recently came upon the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Он занят.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I usually do when I come across a verb I'm not familiar with, I look it up to find out what the infinitive for it is.  I usually use Wiktionary and this time was no different.  What confused me is what I found at Wiktionary, an image of which you will find below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/U72bU.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, &quot;занят&quot; is not listed (because it is not a conjugation of a verb).  So then, I got to thinking that &quot;занят&quot; was an adjective, but the closest adjective I could find was &quot;занятой.&quot;  I decided to take a look at its declension chart, thinking that perhaps &quot;занят&quot; might be a short form of &quot;занятой.&quot;  As you can see from the chart, I was wrong:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OFv3J.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_I was a bit confused looking at that chart because it says, &quot;no short forms&quot; at the top, but clearly one is shown for the feminine.  Is this correct, and if so, are there many adjectives in Russian that only have a feminine short form?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By this point, I was even more puzzled by this word, so I set it aside and came back to it later.  This time around, I stumbled upon another similar adjective that also means &quot;busy&quot; -- занятый.  And this time, I found the word in the declension chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mfCHP.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now I know that &quot;занят&quot; is one of those past participles that can be used as an adjective, but still one question remains: **What is the difference between &quot;занятый&quot; and &quot;занятой&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15023" RevisionGUID="a3b4e587-2f5f-40d5-bd38-909b3b326a75" CreationDate="2017-09-14T23:23:37.753" UserId="8742" Text="What is the difference between &quot;занятый&quot; and &quot;занятой&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15023" RevisionGUID="a3b4e587-2f5f-40d5-bd38-909b3b326a75" CreationDate="2017-09-14T23:23:37.753" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15024" RevisionGUID="b288898b-df40-49c0-979e-7858cdbf7110" CreationDate="2017-09-15T00:07:11.777" UserId="9459" Text="Answering purely from my language feeling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `занятый` is occupied. As in, he has a lot of things to do now.&#xD;&#xA;- `занятой` has a feel of colloquial or regional speech, but also a a feel of permanency. He is _always_ occupied.&#xD;&#xA;- Consider also that there is a further way of saying it: `он занят`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for infinitive, `занять` means not only being occupied, but also &quot;to loan&quot;. You might want to look up if the subject is &quot;alive&quot;, i.e. does it answer the question &quot;who&quot; or &quot;what&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37024" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14977" RevisionGUID="7c41c300-839a-4ca4-9ad3-2e77e15449e0" CreationDate="2017-09-15T07:31:15.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/908594040836444161" />
  <row Id="37025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15022" RevisionGUID="a95b42fa-70f1-4748-8bc2-bf9b0c0b42df" CreationDate="2017-09-15T07:41:59.227" UserId="242" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="Well, it's easy to check. So, you are saying  that `ы` sound like `э` so why not just substitute and repeat two-three times, loud and clear and *slowly*: `газетэ` and `журналэ`. Does it sound right to you - well, it's clearly not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you do actually hear is that `ы` is reduced when it's not under stress (like in столы) - you hear a very short vowel which is still not `э` nevertheless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In fact there's a name for that particular vowel - it's called** [**шва**][2]. In Russian it exists only in this ultrashort form that one can hear only in unstressed form - that's the reason why this vowel, which is actually one of the most frequent in Russian is not well known - native speakers just don't realize they pronounce it at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether we can treat this vowel as sort of short `ы` or `э` is subject to discussion - it's complicated - in fact there are some linguists who don't believe we have such phoneme in Russian (they claim it to be just an indicator that preceding consonant is non-palatalized), some others don't agree with them - check out [this question][1] for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what we can state though is that reduced variables are so short that it's extremely hard to tell them apart, that's for sure. It's similar to how `жена` sort of sounds like `жына` with a very short `ы`. Or `и`. Or `э` - you got the idea :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/132/is-there-a-word-that-starts-with-%D1%8B/141&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15025" RevisionGUID="639faf07-8e66-4e48-af61-e1c1b9855068" CreationDate="2017-09-15T08:06:38.273" UserId="2104" Text="There are quite a few similar adjective pairs in Russian: ра́звитый/развито́й, запа́сный/запасно́й, языко́вый/языково́й, etc.&#xA;&#xA;Занято́й means 'busy' and за́нятый means 'occupied' or 'borrowed'. &#xA;&#xA;A lot of people use заня́ть, за́нятый to mean 'lend', 'lent' but this meaning is new and is not recognised by dictionaries.&#xA;&#xA;The conjugation table for занять is not complete and only lists the full form of the past participle: за́нятый. The short forms are за́нят, занята́, за́нято, за́няты.&#xA;&#xA;Most adjectives ending in -ой don't have short forms: голубо́й, делово́й. That's why Wiktionary says занято́й has no short forms. But that's not quite true. Being close to за́нятый,  за́нятой|занято́й sort of borrowed short forms from за́нятый and thus to say 'I'm busy' you would use:&#xA;&#xA; * Я за́нят, if you are a man and&#xA; * Я занята́, if you are a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15025" RevisionGUID="f301a40a-19a8-4806-ba40-182d46a0cd97" CreationDate="2017-09-15T08:38:41.727" UserId="2104" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="There are quite a few similar adjective pairs in Russian: ра́звитый/развито́й, запа́сный/запасно́й, вре́менный/временно́й, etc.&#xA;&#xA;Both запа́сный and запасно́й mean the same thing, 'spare'.&#xA;&#xA;Вре́менный means 'temporary' and временно́й means 'temporal', 'time-related'.&#xA;&#xA;Занято́й means 'busy' and за́нятый means 'occupied' or 'borrowed'. &#xA;&#xA;A lot of people use заня́ть, за́нятый to mean 'lend', 'lent' but this meaning is new and is not recognised by dictionaries.&#xA;&#xA;The conjugation table for занять is not complete and only lists the full form of the past participle: за́нятый. The short forms are за́нят, занята́, за́нято, за́няты.&#xA;&#xA;Most adjectives ending in -ой don't have short forms: голубо́й, делово́й. That's why Wiktionary says занято́й has no short forms. But that's not quite true. Being close to за́нятый,  за́нятой|занято́й sort of borrowed short forms from за́нятый and thus to say 'I'm busy' you would use:&#xA;&#xA; * Я за́нят, if you are a man and&#xA; * Я занята́, if you are a woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15025" RevisionGUID="b3746258-a3e6-4975-ae9b-e48d59a634de" CreationDate="2017-09-15T09:21:14.203" UserId="2104" Comment="added 799 characters in body" Text="There are quite a few similar adjective pairs in Russian: ра́звитый/развито́й, запа́сный/запасно́й, вре́менный/временно́й, etc.&#xA;&#xA;Both запа́сный and запасно́й mean the same thing, 'spare'.&#xA;&#xA;Вре́менный means 'temporary' and временно́й means 'temporal', 'time-related'.&#xA;&#xA;Занято́й means 'busy' and за́нятый means ' taken' or 'borrowed'. &#xA;&#xA; *  Ме́сто за́нято. - The seat is taken.&#xA;&#xA;A lot of people use заня́ть, за́нятый to mean 'lend', 'lent' but this meaning is new and is not recognised by dictionaries.&#xA;&#xA;Most adjectives ending in -ой don't have short forms: голубо́й, делово́й. That's why Wiktionary says занято́й has no short forms. But that's not quite true. Being close to за́нятый,  занято́й sort of borrowed short forms from за́нятый and thus to say 'I'm busy' you would use:&#xA;&#xA; * Я за́нят, if you are a man and&#xA; * Я занята́, if you are a woman.&#xA;&#xA;The conjugation table for заня́ть is not complete and only lists the full form of the past participle: за́нятый. The short forms are за́нят, занята́, за́нято, за́няты, just like for the adjective.&#xA;&#xA;Since most words forming an -ый/-ой pair have similar or related meanings, one may wonder how did занято́й and за́нятый get to means such different things, 'busy' and 'borrowed'? If you look close enough, you nay see that the archetypal meaning of all - нять verbs is 'to take', with the various prefixes denoting more concrete ways of taking:&#xA;&#xA; * снять - to take off,&#xA; * подня́ть - to pick up,&#xA; * поня́ть - to understand, to grasp the meaning of something &#xA; * заня́ть - to borrow,&#xA; * приня́ть - to accept, etc&#xA;&#xA;So when we say &#xA;&#xA;* Он за́нят рабо́той.&#xA;&#xA;Literally we say 'he is taken by work' which just means he is busy working. &#xA;&#xA;If the above is not confusing enough for you, note that за́нятой is also feminine genitive of за́нятый. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15025" RevisionGUID="ef17e62d-16de-41d8-9cb0-645a3d992bbc" CreationDate="2017-09-15T12:35:25.673" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text="There are quite a few similar adjective pairs in Russian: ра́звитый/развито́й, запа́сный/запасно́й, вре́менный/временно́й, etc.&#xA;&#xA;Both запа́сный and запасно́й mean the same thing, 'spare'.&#xA;&#xA;Вре́менный means 'temporary' and временно́й means 'temporal', 'time-related'.&#xA;&#xA;Занято́й means 'busy' and за́нятый means ' taken' or 'borrowed'. &#xA;&#xA; *  Ме́сто за́нято. - The seat is taken.&#xA;&#xA;A lot of people use заня́ть, за́нятый to mean 'lend', 'lent' but this meaning is new and is not recognised by dictionaries.&#xA;&#xA;Most adjectives ending in -ой don't have short forms: голубо́й, делово́й. That's why Wiktionary says занято́й has no short forms. But that's not quite true. Being close to за́нятый,  занято́й sort of borrowed short forms from за́нятый and thus to say 'I'm busy' you would use:&#xA;&#xA; * Я за́нят, if you are a man and&#xA; * Я занята́, if you are a woman.&#xA;&#xA;The conjugation table for заня́ть is not complete and only lists the full form of the past participle: за́нятый. The short forms are за́нят, занята́, за́нято, за́няты, just like for the adjective.&#xA;&#xA;Since most words forming an -ый/-ой pair have similar or related meanings, one may wonder how did занято́й and за́нятый get to means such different things, 'busy' and 'borrowed'? If you look close enough, you may see that the archetypal meaning of all -нять verbs is 'to take', with the various prefixes denoting more concrete ways of taking:&#xA;&#xA; * снять - to take off,&#xA; * подня́ть - to pick up,&#xA; * поня́ть - to understand, to grasp the meaning of something &#xA; * заня́ть - to borrow,&#xA; * приня́ть - to accept, etc&#xA;&#xA;So when we say:&#xA;&#xA;* Он за́нят рабо́той.&#xA;&#xA;Literally we say 'he is taken by work' which just means he is busy working. &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15026" RevisionGUID="43e0626c-ab50-4aad-807a-96fbb57dc928" CreationDate="2017-09-16T01:26:28.147" UserId="8742" Text="While doing an exercise in the Russian textbook [**_ТРОЙКА_**](https://goo.gl/H5GdTS), I came upon the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Этот велоcипед на 100 долларов дешевле, чем тот велосипед.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This bicycle is cheaper than that bicycle by 100 dollars.)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*The book doesn't actually provide a translation; what you see is my best translation of the Russian you see above it._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exercise just uses numerals, so I didn't really have to worry about declension (other than whether or not &quot;доллар&quot; should be &quot;доллар,&quot; &quot;доллара,&quot; or &quot;долларов,&quot; but if you keep reading, you'll see that I question this later on).  As I was doing the exercise, I got to wondering how I would say these sentences I was creating.  **Specifically, I was wondering how you decline the numeral.**  My first instinct is to think that this requires the prepositional case because there is no movement here and as I understand it, the preposition &quot;на&quot; only takes one of either of those two cases -- the accusative or the prepositional.  I could not find this specifically stated with regard to this &quot;на&quot; plus numeral construct, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I am also unsure of the case that &quot;доллар&quot; should take.**  It's my understanding that for all cases other than the nominative and accusative, the case for the adjective (or in this case numeral acting as adjective) and the noun that follows it, simply follow ordinary rules for case declension.  But, I have not read or seen that specifically with this construction using &quot;на,&quot; and clearly, the example from the book is not using it (otherwise it would be &quot;на 100 долларах,&quot; correct?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have come to this forum to see if someone here can clear up the confusion on this for me.  I'm even going to type up a few sentences using the long form of the numeral to see if my assumptions are correct.  Those examples follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Эта книга на одном долларе дешевле, чем та книга.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This book is cheaper than that book by one dollar.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Эта сковорода на пятнадцати долларах дешевле, чем та сковорода.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This frying pan is cheaper than that frying pan by fifteen dollars.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Этот совок на двенадцати долларах дешевле, чем тот совок.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This dustpan is cheaper than that dustpan by twelve dollars.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это радио на ста долларах дешевле, чем то радио.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This radio is cheaper than that radio by one hundred dollars.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Эта микроволновка на двухстах долларах дешевле, чем та микроволновка.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This microwave is cheaper than that microwave by two hundred dollars.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Эта плита на тысяче* пятистах долларах дешевле, чем та плита.**  &#xD;&#xA;(This oven is cheaper than that oven by one thousand, five hundred dollars.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_*I am assuming that both &quot;тысяча&quot; and &quot;пятьсот&quot; require declension._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is my understanding of this construct correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, I appreciate any answers to this question, especially since the practical applications of a construct like this are likely to be a bit higher than most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15026" RevisionGUID="43e0626c-ab50-4aad-807a-96fbb57dc928" CreationDate="2017-09-16T01:26:28.147" UserId="8742" Text="What case do numbers take in constructions where they are preceded by &quot;на&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15026" RevisionGUID="43e0626c-ab50-4aad-807a-96fbb57dc928" CreationDate="2017-09-16T01:26:28.147" UserId="8742" Text="|склонение|предлоги|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15027" RevisionGUID="23f5e3b5-fa79-4ba6-9a9d-21924d75b66e" CreationDate="2017-09-16T03:49:07.740" UserId="1236" Text="After **на** you've got to put the following _numeral_ into the **accusative case**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun that follows the numeral is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the **accusative case singular** if the numeral ends in 1 except for those that end in 11 (i.e. after 1, 21, 31, 41 ... 101, 121, 131, etc.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Этот велоcипед на 1 (один) доллар дешевле, чем тот велосипед.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В этом доме на 1 (одно) окно меньше, чем в том доме.***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В этом классе на 1 (одну) девочку меньше, чем в том классе.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В этом классе на 1 (одного) мальчика меньше, чем в том классе.***&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in the **genitive case *singular*** after the numerals ending in 2, 3, 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Этот велоcипед на 2 (два) доллара дешевле, чем тот велосипед.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В этом классе на 2 (две) девочки меньше, чем в том классе.*** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the **genitive case *plural*** after the the rest of the numerals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Этот велоcипед на 6 (шесть) долларов дешевле, чем тот велосипед.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***В этом классе на 6 (шесть) девочек меньше, чем в том классе.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the nominative and accusative case of the Russian numerals are the same except when they end in 1, but not in 11. Here, with the inanimate masculine and neuter nouns like _доллар_ or _окно_ numeral 1 has its **acc.**=**nom.** (один/одно), with the animate masculine nouns have their **acc.**=**gen.** (одного), and the animate feminine nouns it has a special **acc.** form, одну.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15028" RevisionGUID="de77a82d-9170-42b7-9ade-9ff4ff6cc772" CreationDate="2017-09-16T04:03:33.920" UserId="6539" Text="That's a very interesting question. Itried to analyse the sentence and I came to the following conclusions. First, if you want to be sure what case is used, try to use a noun in the same construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100 долларов=сумма. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;На сколько /на какую **сумму** (accusative ) один велосипед дороже другого?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now it's clear that the numeral takes the accusative case &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на один,одно,одну, два,две,три, четыре, сто, тысячу,пятьсот etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for nouns they always depend on the previous numeral &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на один рубль,доллар, на два/три/четыре рубля,доллара(genitive singular),пять/шесть/сто/пятьсот/тысячу рублей, долларов (genetive plural )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's all. As simple as that.Your first example is correct. But all other examples need correction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эта плита на тысячу пятьсот (accusative ) долларов (genitive plural) дешевле, чем та." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15028" RevisionGUID="a77799b4-4e09-4cb7-b864-037794c0112f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T04:09:34.450" UserId="6539" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="That's a very interesting question. Itried to analyse the sentence and I came to the following conclusions. First, if you want to be sure what case is used, try to use a noun in the same construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100 долларов=сумма. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;На сколько /на какую **сумму** (accusative ) один велосипед дороже другого?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now it's clear that the numeral takes the accusative case &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на один,одного,одно,одну, два,две,три, четыре, сто, тысячу,пятьсот etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for nouns they always depend on the previous numeral &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на один рубль,доллар, на два/три/четыре рубля,доллара(genitive singular),пять/шесть/сто/пятьсот/тысячу рублей, долларов (genitive plural )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's all. As simple as that.Your first example is correct. But all other examples need correction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Эта плита на тысячу пятьсот (accusative ) долларов (genitive plural) дешевле, чем та." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15029" RevisionGUID="7acd0ebf-c3a4-4894-8d4f-1c61330e5f03" CreationDate="2017-09-16T06:14:38.393" UserId="8742" Text="I've known the Russian word **&quot;много&quot;** for some time now, **&quot;намного&quot;** a little less long, and **&quot;гораздо&quot;** only very recently.  I am now beginning to wonder if there are any subtle differences between them or any situations in which you would not use one or the other(s).  As far as I can tell, of the three, &quot;много&quot; is, far and away, the most common, followed by &quot;намного&quot; and then &quot;гораздо.&quot;  Also, are any more formal/colloquial than the other(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15029" RevisionGUID="7acd0ebf-c3a4-4894-8d4f-1c61330e5f03" CreationDate="2017-09-16T06:14:38.393" UserId="8742" Text="Are there any major differences between &quot;много,&quot; &quot;намного,&quot; and &quot;гораздо&quot; or are they completely interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15029" RevisionGUID="7acd0ebf-c3a4-4894-8d4f-1c61330e5f03" CreationDate="2017-09-16T06:14:38.393" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15030" RevisionGUID="c3e61c67-ebe2-4bf9-b6a4-e11ae0dff0d4" CreationDate="2017-09-16T07:37:58.190" UserId="1236" Text="**&quot;Много&quot;** means both 'many' and 'much' when they are used before nouns, in Russian there's no difference between these two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*много друзей* - 'many friends';&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*много денег* - 'much money'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, **&quot;намного&quot;** and **&quot;гораздо&quot;** both mean 'much', but not in the meaning I mentioned above. They are used before adjectives in the comparative degree and mean enhancing the quality named by the adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намного/гораздо сильнее* - 'much stronger'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намного/гораздо быстрее* - 'much faster'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намного/гораздо больше* - 'much bigger', 'much more'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's practically no difference between **&quot;намного&quot;** and **&quot;гораздо&quot;**, but their difference from **&quot;много&quot;** is substantial. As for me, **&quot;гораздо&quot;** sounds a bit more colloquial than **&quot;намного&quot;** which is neutral, but that can be subjective. And you're right, **&quot;намного&quot;** is used more often than **&quot;гораздо&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15030" RevisionGUID="9ca977be-ca31-4889-8b08-818a558584d2" CreationDate="2017-09-16T07:52:46.307" UserId="1236" Comment="A little addition" Text="**&quot;Много&quot;** means both 'many' and 'much' when they are used before nouns, in Russian there's no difference between these two words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*много друзей* - 'many friends';&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*много денег* - 'much money'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, **&quot;намного&quot;** and **&quot;гораздо&quot;** both mean 'much', but not in the meaning I mentioned above. They are used before adjectives in the comparative degree and mean enhancing the quality named by the adjective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намного/гораздо сильнее* - 'much stronger'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намного/гораздо быстрее* - 'much faster'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*намного/гораздо больше* - 'much bigger', 'much more'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's practically no difference between **&quot;намного&quot;** and **&quot;гораздо&quot;**, they are practically complete synonyms, but their difference from **&quot;много&quot;** is substantial. As for me, **&quot;гораздо&quot;** sounds a bit more colloquial than **&quot;намного&quot;** which is neutral, but that can be subjective. And you're right, **&quot;намного&quot;** is used more often than **&quot;гораздо&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15031" RevisionGUID="dd80c020-6073-428e-bad9-ddb913c3f64f" CreationDate="2017-09-16T09:33:08.420" UserId="242" Text="Just to add up something to the given answer. While &quot;гораздо&quot; and &quot;намного&quot;  are indeed almost identical, sometime first word is more appropriate to use.&#xA;&#xA;It's better not to use &quot;намного&quot; with words with the same root and antonyms. &#xA;&#xA;So forms like &quot;гораздо многообразней&quot;  or &quot;гораздо меньше&quot; are preferable compared to &quot;намного многообразней&quot; or &quot;намного меньше&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15031" RevisionGUID="6a34e3ec-3146-4773-8f60-2b0a080dc5a8" CreationDate="2017-09-16T09:42:45.073" UserId="242" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Just to add up something to the given answer. While &quot;гораздо&quot; and &quot;намного&quot;  are indeed almost identical, sometime first word is more appropriate to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better not to use &quot;намного&quot; with words with the same root and antonyms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So forms like `гораздо многообразней`  or `гораздо меньше` are preferable compared to `намного многообразней` - this sounds tautological - or `намного меньше` - this can sound confusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15033" RevisionGUID="1ce8a925-62b9-4cf5-af69-e293b29b4e06" CreationDate="2017-09-17T07:53:28.213" UserId="8742" Text="I have a lot to learn about Russian verb usage and structure, but at least I've been introduced and somewhat understand the difference between the perfective and imperfective aspect of a verb.  Early on, I came across something that encouraged learning each imperfective aspect of a verb along with its perfective counterpart, saw the good sense in that, and have been trying to apply that advice ever since.  Because of this, **I had thought that every verb in the Russian language had an imperfective and perfective pairing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That all changed today when I went to look up the word [**&quot;значить.&quot;**](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian)  Having been one of the first words I learned in Russian, I've never bothered to look it up, but when I looked it up in Wiktionary today, I noticed that Wiktionary, which is usually pretty thorough, did not provide any perfective counterpart for this verb.  Does this mean it doesn't have one?  And if so, are there many verbs in Russian that don't have an aspectual pairing?  In other words do many verbs in Russian have just an imperfective aspect or perfective aspect, but not both?  Is there a list somewhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15033" RevisionGUID="1ce8a925-62b9-4cf5-af69-e293b29b4e06" CreationDate="2017-09-17T07:53:28.213" UserId="8742" Text="Do all verbs in Russian have both an imperfective and perfective aspect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15033" RevisionGUID="1ce8a925-62b9-4cf5-af69-e293b29b4e06" CreationDate="2017-09-17T07:53:28.213" UserId="8742" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15034" RevisionGUID="33e46622-43bf-47c2-9374-9945f5160af1" CreationDate="2017-09-17T14:03:07.923" UserId="1236" Text="There aren't many Russian verbs without a perfective counterpart. This site discourages asking and answering posts about making word lists, so I will just name some of those verbs and try to define what they have in common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you know, perfective verbs name actions that are seen as either having a beginning, `|→`, e.g. _пойти_ ('to start going, to depart, to set off') or having an end, `→|`, e.g. _прийти_ ('to come and stay, to arrive'). But if we look at the meaning of the verb _значить_ 'to mean', we can see it designates a state which does not have any beginning or end, or, if it can even have one, it is irrelevant in 99.99% of cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other &quot;perfectless&quot; verbs are also of this kind, they usually have existential meaning, they name the states which are timeless or eternal, without borders in time. Here are some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **находиться** 'to be situated': Остров Шри-Ланка находится возле Индии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **состоять (из)** 'to consist (of)': Молекулы состоят из атомов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **существовать** 'to exist': Существует несколько изотопов водорода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **являться** 'to be': Осьминог является моллюском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of these verbs have many meanings, and in other meanings they do have perfective counterparts. For example, *находиться* can also mean 'to be found (after having been lost); ', and in this meaning its perfective pair is *найтись*, like in _Ну что, ваша собака нашлась?_ 'Well, have you found your [lost] dog?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15034" RevisionGUID="034b7d77-55fc-49a3-b383-65742d802ea7" CreationDate="2017-09-17T14:27:21.390" UserId="1236" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There aren't many Russian verbs without a perfective counterpart. This site discourages asking and answering posts about making word lists, so I will just name some of those verbs and try to define what they have in common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you know, perfective verbs name actions that are seen as either having a beginning, `|→`, e.g. _пойти_ ('to start going, to depart, to set off') or having an end, `→|`, e.g. _прийти_ ('to come and stay, to arrive'). But if we look at the meaning of the verb _значить_ 'to mean', we can see it designates a state which does not have any beginning or end, or, if it can even have one, it is irrelevant in 99.99% of cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other &quot;perfectveless&quot; verbs are also of this kind, they usually have existential meaning, they name the states which are timeless or eternal, without borders in time. Here are some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **находиться** 'to be situated': Остров Шри-Ланка находится возле Индии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **состоять (из)** 'to consist (of)': Молекулы состоят из атомов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **существовать** 'to exist': Существует несколько изотопов водорода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **являться** 'to be': Осьминог является моллюском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of these verbs have many meanings, and in other meanings they do have perfective counterparts. For example, *находиться* can also mean 'to be found (after having been lost); ', and in this meaning its perfective pair is *найтись*, like in _Ну что, ваша собака нашлась?_ 'Well, have you found your [lost] dog?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15034" RevisionGUID="e6c18e73-2642-4a4a-b582-3000a7879799" CreationDate="2017-09-17T16:58:38.713" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There aren't many Russian verbs without a perfective counterpart. This site discourages asking and answering posts about making word lists, so I will just name some of those verbs and try to define what they have in common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you know, perfective verbs name actions that are seen as either having a beginning, `|→`, e.g. _пойти_ ('to start going, to depart, to set off') or having an end, `→|`, e.g. _прийти_ ('to come and stay, to arrive'). But if we look at the meaning of the verb _значить_ 'to mean', we can see it designates a state which does not have any beginning or end, or, if it can even have one, it is irrelevant in 99.99% of cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other &quot;perfectiveless&quot; verbs are also of this kind, they usually have existential meaning, they name the states which are timeless or eternal, without borders in time. Here are some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **находиться** 'to be situated': Остров Шри-Ланка находится возле Индии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **состоять (из)** 'to consist (of)': Молекулы состоят из атомов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **существовать** 'to exist': Существует несколько изотопов водорода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **являться** 'to be': Осьминог является моллюском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of these verbs have many meanings, and in other meanings they do have perfective counterparts. For example, *находиться* can also mean 'to be found (after having been lost); ', and in this meaning its perfective pair is *найтись*, like in _Ну что, ваша собака нашлась?_ 'Well, have you found your [lost] dog?'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37056" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15033" RevisionGUID="a57e872e-1582-4b1a-9025-f75c361393f2" CreationDate="2017-09-17T22:36:48.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/909546708459229184" />
  <row Id="37060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15025" RevisionGUID="7c76a1b1-c6eb-40dc-9c8b-02ec10e1fdce" CreationDate="2017-09-18T08:03:33.477" UserId="2104" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="There are quite a few similar adjective pairs in Russian: ра́звитый/развито́й, запа́сный/запасно́й, вре́менный/временно́й, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both запа́сный and запасно́й mean the same thing, 'spare'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вре́менный means 'temporary' and временно́й means 'temporal', 'time-related'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Занято́й means 'busy' and за́нятый means 'taken' or 'borrowed'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *  Ме́сто за́нято. - The seat is taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of people use заня́ть, за́нятый to mean 'lend', 'lent' but this meaning is new and is not recognised by dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most adjectives ending in -ой don't have short forms: голубо́й, делово́й. That's why Wiktionary says занято́й has no short forms. But that's not quite true. Being close to за́нятый,  занято́й sort of borrowed short forms from за́нятый and thus to say 'I'm busy' you would use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Я за́нят, if you are a man and&#xD;&#xA; * Я занята́, if you are a woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation table for заня́ть is not complete and only lists the full form of the past participle: за́нятый. The short forms are: за́нят, занята́, за́нято, за́няты, just like for the adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most words forming an -ый/-ой pair have similar or related meanings, one may wonder how did занято́й and за́нятый get to mean such different things, 'busy' and 'borrowed'? If you look close enough, you may see that the archetypal meaning of all -нять verbs is 'to take', with the various prefixes denoting more concrete ways of taking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * снять - to take off,&#xD;&#xA; * подня́ть - to pick up,&#xD;&#xA; * поня́ть - to understand, to grasp the meaning of something &#xD;&#xA; * заня́ть - to borrow,&#xD;&#xA; * приня́ть - to accept, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он за́нят рабо́той.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally we say 'he is taken by work' which just means he is busy working. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15036" RevisionGUID="cca49846-dcec-4f42-ac5f-17a8a3e49a5f" CreationDate="2017-09-18T10:02:51.223" UserId="6097" Text="There are some verbs that do not have imperfective counterpart: f.e. *уцелеть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some verbs that do not have perfective counterpart: *находиться, существовать* (s. the other answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are some verbs that need context to become imperfective or perfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **обследовать**: Врач уже обследовал меня (perfective). Врач обследовал меня целых три часа (imperfective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **жениться**: В прошлом месяце я женился (perfective). Он женился каждые два года (imperfective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*These lists are not exaustive, there are only verbs I could think of now.* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15037" RevisionGUID="9fa256e4-8822-4d98-bf45-c7a14e375802" CreationDate="2017-09-18T10:56:54.257" UserId="47" Text="A colleague of mine asked me to record the text of the prayer for her band to learn. I want to make sure I do it right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the words «да святится имя Твое» — is the last letter е or ё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15037" RevisionGUID="9fa256e4-8822-4d98-bf45-c7a14e375802" CreationDate="2017-09-18T10:56:54.257" UserId="47" Text="e/ё in Our Farther" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15037" RevisionGUID="9fa256e4-8822-4d98-bf45-c7a14e375802" CreationDate="2017-09-18T10:56:54.257" UserId="47" Text="|произношение|буква-ё|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15038" RevisionGUID="b3232b7c-f5df-4d3e-b9f5-c06b495b82c0" CreationDate="2017-09-18T11:32:47.930" UserId="9001" Text="In the church they traditionally pronounce it with &quot;е&quot;: https://youtu.be/-cueR_3HVR0 (1:25)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15038" RevisionGUID="f9baf88c-b780-484f-9206-cf6425ce2d79" CreationDate="2017-09-18T11:47:59.230" UserId="9001" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="In the church they traditionally pronounce it with &quot;е&quot;: https://youtu.be/-cueR_3HVR0 (1:25).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, Wikipedia has an &lt;a href=&quot;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88&quot;&gt;entry&lt;/a&gt; for this. There you can find several versions of the text (from ancient to modern Russian) with е/ё explicitly marked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37067" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15037" RevisionGUID="287c39ab-f7cd-4693-8ca2-0a0c7b6def62" CreationDate="2017-09-18T12:30:47.160" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="«Да святится имя Твое» or «Да святится имя Твоё»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15039" RevisionGUID="49124367-81bc-4409-9e06-eb3d1d412cdf" CreationDate="2017-09-18T12:42:37.380" UserId="242" Text="The liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church is not Russian but [Church Slavonic][1]. Church Slavonic is a codified version of [Old Church Slavonic][2], which technically is not even a direct ancestor of Russian but noticeably [influenced][3] Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there's no such thing like &quot;ё&quot;. Technically «да святится имя Твое» is a valid Russian phrase and the same time a valid Old Church Slavonic. In letter case it's pronounced with stressed `е`. If you say it in Russian it's perfectly valid to say &quot;твоё&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally though it's pronounced as 'твое' by people close to church but not necessarily even knowing Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15039" RevisionGUID="799cf607-9cc9-4537-9da7-9fc7b808ebe3" CreationDate="2017-09-18T12:58:37.457" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church is not Russian but [Church Slavonic][1]. Church Slavonic is a codified version of [Old Church Slavonic][2], which technically is not even a direct ancestor of Russian but noticeably [influenced][3] Russian.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic there's no such thing like &quot;ё&quot;. Technically «да святится имя Твое» is a valid Russian phrase and the same time a valid Old Church Slavonic. In the latter case it's pronounced with stressed `е`. If you say it in Russian it's perfectly valid to say &quot;твоё&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally though it's pronounced as 'твое' by people close to church but not necessarily even knowing Church Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15040" RevisionGUID="8e624241-af38-4f7f-abd7-5db2bd559ae7" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:44:27.327" UserId="5818" Text="In English one writes a label in plural if the answer might possibly be plural, even if it happens to be singular in the actual instance, as in “Houses: 1.” Is this how labels are typically written in Russian? Which case is used? Is the genitive plural used for a label like that, or does the genitive in a label imply English “of” the same as it does in a sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m trying to translate this modern transcription of an 1897 document (presumably « » indicates a direct quote and the rest is a summary):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В переписных листах Первой всеобщей переписи населения Российской империи 1897 года значится семья Иванова Ивана Ивановича, проживавшая в собственном дворе (во дворе жилых строений – 1, «построено и крыто – деревом»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the genitive plural of жилых строений imply that (a) there was more than one residential structure in the homestead, of which the Ivanov family owned the first one (and other families owned the others), or (b) there no implication that there is more than one structure: there might be one or might be more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov family is listed in the first general population census of the Russian Empire in 1897. They owned their own residence. (Of the residential structures in the homestead: they lived in the 1st, which was built and roofed with wood.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or (c) жилых строений is a label asking how many structures there are, and the answer is 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov family is listed in the first general population census of the Russian Empire in 1897. They owned their own residence. (Residential structures in the homestead: 1, built and roofed with wood.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15040" RevisionGUID="8e624241-af38-4f7f-abd7-5db2bd559ae7" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:44:27.327" UserId="5818" Text="Case and number of words in a label (as opposed to words in a sentence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15040" RevisionGUID="8e624241-af38-4f7f-abd7-5db2bd559ae7" CreationDate="2017-09-18T14:44:27.327" UserId="5818" Text="|падежи|склонение|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15041" RevisionGUID="1e58eebe-39e3-4b77-a83b-91d4cdf5950c" CreationDate="2017-09-18T15:09:07.257" UserId="2104" Text="It's (c). &quot;Жилых строений:&quot; is a label and &quot;1&quot; is the exact quantity. Yes, genitive plural is normally used for such labels, e.g.&#xA;&#xA; * Ножей: 2 (два)&#xA; * Вилок: 2 (две)&#xA; * Ложек: 1 (одна)&#xA; * Ножниц: 1 (одни)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15041" RevisionGUID="f2c8b233-9c80-44ab-aa7e-252b239efb20" CreationDate="2017-09-18T15:22:48.897" UserId="2104" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="It's (c). &quot;Жилых строений:&quot; is a label and &quot;1&quot; is the exact quantity. Yes, genitive plural is normally used for the noun. However, the numeral is in the nominative, agreeing with the noun in gender and number, e.g.&#xA;&#xA; * Ножей: 2 (два)&#xA; * Вилок: 2 (две)&#xA; * Ложек: 1 (одна)&#xA; * Ножниц: 1 (одни)&#xA;&#xA;**Ножницы** (scissors) are _pluralia tantum_ and thus **один** has to be plural as well (**одни**). Remarkable, isn't it? Russian has plural for the numeral 'one'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15042" RevisionGUID="30920da0-7d57-4da0-8a60-341a084e403f" CreationDate="2017-09-18T15:25:13.153" UserId="9443" Text="Свою (his accusative?)&#xD;&#xA;Его (his) - его + something = his something?&#xD;&#xA;Нем (him) - я думаю о нем ? (prepositional him?)&#xD;&#xA;Него (genitive) - у него ....&#xD;&#xA;Ему (dative) - ему один лет (it's the only use I saw)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- What kind of his is Его? Why do we have to use свою while saying &quot;Он любит свою маму&quot; because свою is accusative &quot;his&quot;? If it is what is его then?&#xD;&#xA;2- Can't we say он двадцать лет, instead of ему? Would it sound weird?&#xD;&#xA;note (i'm studying with duolingo, it doesn't exactly give any thorough explanation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15042" RevisionGUID="30920da0-7d57-4da0-8a60-341a084e403f" CreationDate="2017-09-18T15:25:13.153" UserId="9443" Text="Свою, его, него, ему (difference?, I'm lost here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15042" RevisionGUID="30920da0-7d57-4da0-8a60-341a084e403f" CreationDate="2017-09-18T15:25:13.153" UserId="9443" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15043" RevisionGUID="fabebdcd-8d75-4341-b00a-afbfc1b8a668" CreationDate="2017-09-18T16:09:48.920" UserId="4560" Text="That's a lot of things packed into one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You can also say **я люблю свою маму**, or **ты любишь свою маму**. **Свой** is the universal reflexive. It means &quot;the sentence subject's own&quot;. **Он любит его маму** would mean &quot;he (e.g. John) loves his (e.g. Pete's) mom&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **он двадцать лет** would be an unfinished statement: &quot;for twenty years, he...&quot; You can't say &quot;he's twenty&quot; this way for the same reason you can't say &quot;him is twenty&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh and by the way, **ему один год**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both **его** and **него** can be genitive as well as accusative. The **н-** has nothing to do with case; it appears after a preposition. The reason is similar to how &quot;an eke name&quot; turned into &quot;a nickname&quot;, or &quot;mine Ed&quot; =&gt; &quot;my Ned&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Proto-Slavic prepositions **\*kъn** &quot;to&quot; and **\*sъn** &quot;with&quot; became **\*kъ** and **\*sъ**, but kept their old forms before third-person pronouns; this led to things like **\*kъn jemu** &quot;to him&quot; and **\*sъn jimъ** &quot;with him&quot; being reinterpreted as **\*kъ njemu** and **\*sъ njimъ**, and then, much like with &quot;Ned&quot; and &quot;Nelly&quot;,  it was generalised to *every* occurrence of those pronoun forms after a preposition, even the ones that didn't have that disappearing N." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15042" RevisionGUID="87990dc6-3602-4a6d-8c8d-225d2e36058c" CreationDate="2017-09-18T16:37:05.967" UserId="9443" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Свою (his accusative?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его (his) - его + something = his something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нем (him) - я думаю о нем ? (prepositional him?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Него (genitive) - у него ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ему (dative) - ему один лет (it's the only use I saw)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- What kind of his is Его? Why do we have to use свою while saying &quot;Он любит свою маму&quot; because свою is accusative &quot;his&quot;? If it is what is его then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- Can't we say он двадцать лет, instead of ему? Would it sound weird?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;note (i'm studying with duolingo, it doesn't exactly give any thorough explanation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37080" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15042" RevisionGUID="8f9027a8-af47-4344-a4a1-e8827f70f1d3" CreationDate="2017-09-18T16:51:51.457" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Свою, его, него, ему - what's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37082" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15040" RevisionGUID="7526bd69-9437-4a06-940f-03e8332186de" CreationDate="2017-09-18T22:46:41.013" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/909911580246204416" />
  <row Id="37083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15044" RevisionGUID="f1857f92-53dd-4021-ac59-1ce1080511d9" CreationDate="2017-09-19T05:04:12.797" UserId="9119" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;Свой is generally translated as &quot;own&quot; i.e. &lt;&lt;Я люблю **своя** кошка&gt;&gt; - &quot;I love **my own** cat&quot;. It almost always refers to the subject of the *clause* owning the modified object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is required for third person when the subject owns the object in the clause. (Don't use её, его, or их if the subject owns the object) and is interchangeable in first and second person with мой, ваш, and наш. It is preffered with Ты instead of твой but use of твой is not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Be careful in multi-clause sentences* because it always refers to the subject of the clause it is in, not any other clause. i.e. &lt;&lt;Она забыла, где **её** кошка&gt;&gt; calls for её not своя in the second clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It declines the same as мой. i.e своего is the genitive. See the declension table under the wiktionary entry. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9#Declension_2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No you cannot say он двадцать лет. Russian doesn't state age in this manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15047" RevisionGUID="ebecff8b-4262-4139-b2cd-282f81e2c220" CreationDate="2017-09-19T07:56:06.657" UserId="5584" Text="Is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ты хорошо понимаешь **по**-английски?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ты хорошо понимаешь английский?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen (1) in some Russian books I came across through an [online search][1], but literally it does not make sense (although it might be a phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen Russians use (2) a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both? If so, what is the difference in the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15047" RevisionGUID="ebecff8b-4262-4139-b2cd-282f81e2c220" CreationDate="2017-09-19T07:56:06.657" UserId="5584" Text="Понимаешь по-английски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15047" RevisionGUID="ebecff8b-4262-4139-b2cd-282f81e2c220" CreationDate="2017-09-19T07:56:06.657" UserId="5584" Text="|idioms|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15047" RevisionGUID="1055f172-6cef-4df2-8005-c02a8114b8b1" CreationDate="2017-09-19T08:01:30.833" UserId="5584" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ты хорошо понимаешь **по**-английски?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Ты хорошо понимаешь английский?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen (1) in some Russian books I came across through an [online search][1], but literally it does not make sense (although it might be a phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen Russians use (2) a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which one is correct?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both? If so, what is the difference in the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15049" RevisionGUID="63a4ede2-ec97-416b-97f0-3244bcad4e92" CreationDate="2017-09-19T08:07:08.427" UserId="6097" Text="Both is correct and there is no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first means literally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you understand (*something written or spoken*) in English well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second means&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you understand English (*language*) well?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15049" RevisionGUID="191b6ac5-5fe3-49d8-a6f1-bb6649c1fe72" CreationDate="2017-09-19T08:09:33.830" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Both are correct and there is no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first means literally&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you understand (*something written or spoken*) in English well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second means&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you understand English (*language*) well?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15050" RevisionGUID="68bd0206-b316-4011-92d2-7733e43992d3" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:21:40.577" UserId="194" Text="По-английски means &quot;the English way&quot;, по-стортивному means &quot;the sport way/style&quot; по-дружески means &quot;the friendly way/style&quot;, по-военному means &quot;the military way/style&quot;, по-братски means &quot;the brothery way&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;Ты хорошо понимаешь по-английски?&quot; literally means &quot;Do you understand [something said/wrttten] the English way well?&quot; while &quot;Ты хорошо понимаешь английский?&quot; means &quot;Do you understand English [language] well?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15050" RevisionGUID="32df8d0c-af61-4565-ab81-7668a91f4d23" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:28:52.093" UserId="194" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="По-английски means &quot;the English way&quot;, по-стортивному means &quot;the sport way/style&quot; по-дружески means &quot;the friendly way/style&quot;, по-военному means &quot;the military way/style&quot;, по-братски means &quot;the brothery way&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;Ты хорошо понимаешь по-английски?&quot; literally means &quot;Do you understand [something said/wrttten] the English way well?&quot; while &quot;Ты хорошо понимаешь английский?&quot; means &quot;Do you understand English [language] well?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-английски can mean other things done in English way as well &quot;он ушёл по-английски&quot; literally means &quot;he went away in English style&quot; but ideomatically it means &quot;he went away without saying goodbye&quot;. Мясо по-французски means &quot;meat prepared in French style&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37099" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15047" RevisionGUID="8f5ac089-7aa5-4bb5-bec6-1cb3ea2b813e" CreationDate="2017-09-19T11:05:41.350" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[8037],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15050" RevisionGUID="0ef87327-7f8e-4543-b918-b8de87a84cdb" CreationDate="2017-09-19T14:09:02.430" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typos" Text="По-английски means &quot;the English way&quot;, по-спортивному means &quot;the sport way/style&quot; по-дружески means &quot;the friendly way/style&quot;, по-военному means &quot;the military way/style&quot;, по-братски means &quot;the brotherly way&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;Ты хорошо понимаешь по-английски?&quot; literally means &quot;Do you understand [something said/wrttten] the English way well?&quot; while &quot;Ты хорошо понимаешь английский?&quot; means &quot;Do you understand English [language] well?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По-английски can mean other things done in English way as well &quot;он ушёл по-английски&quot; literally means &quot;he went away in English style&quot; but ideomatically it means &quot;he went away without saying goodbye&quot;. Мясо по-французски means &quot;meat prepared in French style&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14950" RevisionGUID="32b615a1-81dc-4267-8bb4-c5180e96627b" CreationDate="2017-09-19T15:35:02.730" UserId="4753" Comment="changed second &quot;frequently&quot; to &quot;often&quot; so that sentence will read better" Text="No, &quot;У девочки есть всё&quot; does not mean &quot;The girls have everything&quot;. The literal word-for-word translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У - by the side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;девочки - of the little girl&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;есть - is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;всё - everthing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see why the verb is singular, we can rearange the sentence into the subject, verb order familiar to English speakers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё есть у девочки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject of the sentence is всё (everything), not девочки (of the little girl).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Duolingo requires the student to translate using good style in the target language. Frequently this requires a rewording of the sentence. This required rewording often completely alters its grammatical structure.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15051" RevisionGUID="22463371-a9d2-4651-8e57-68568c886bf9" CreationDate="2017-09-19T17:06:54.123" UserId="9517" Text="Let us consider the sentence:&quot;John is washing his car.&quot; Whose car is it? John's? Another man? We do not know. Of couse, wa may say &quot;his own car&quot; to emphasize whose car is it, but in Russian it does not need. If it is his own car we say: &quot;Джон моет свою машину.&quot;, if it is another man's car we say: &quot;Джон моет его машину&quot;. Both &quot;его&quot; и &quot;свою&quot; is translated &quot;his&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15052" RevisionGUID="1fb9590b-5968-4b21-9845-0b5a222cd5d5" CreationDate="2017-09-19T17:41:27.927" UserId="9517" Text="**Хитровыебанный** is a filty word and it does not have the same meaning as **хитрый.** **Хитровыебанный** means tricky and extremely complicated, more than it is required at the moment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15051" RevisionGUID="1af7dbc5-2f31-4df3-9e9b-d6fbf1f4a497" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:44:57.820" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Let us consider the sentence: &quot;John is washing his car.&quot; Whose car is it? John's? Another man? We do not know. Of course, we may say &quot;his own car&quot; to emphasize whose car is it, but in Russian this is not needed. If it is his own car we say: &quot;Джон моет свою машину.&quot;, if it is another man's car we say: &quot;Джон моет его машину&quot;. Both &quot;его&quot; and &quot;свою&quot; are translated as &quot;his&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37106" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15051" RevisionGUID="1af7dbc5-2f31-4df3-9e9b-d6fbf1f4a497" CreationDate="2017-09-19T18:44:57.820" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 242 edit id of 911" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37107" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15037" RevisionGUID="b34a987e-c731-40ef-89f4-77c5de2538ac" CreationDate="2017-09-19T19:49:09.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/910229290599505920" />
  <row Id="37108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15044" RevisionGUID="b0b275ba-cc3f-4c31-8b8d-0c022e07a9e8" CreationDate="2017-09-20T02:35:46.480" UserId="1097" Comment="неверный падеж" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;Свой is generally translated as &quot;own&quot; i.e. «Я люблю **свою** кошку» - &quot;I love **my own** cat&quot;. It almost always refers to the subject of the *clause* owning the modified object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is required for third person when the subject owns the object in the clause. (Don't use её, его, or их if the subject owns the object) and is interchangeable in first and second person with мой, ваш, and наш. It is preffered with Ты instead of твой but use of твой is not wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Be careful in multi-clause sentences* because it always refers to the subject of the clause it is in, not any other clause. i.e. «Она забыла, где **её** кошка» calls for её not своя in the second clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It declines the same as мой. i.e своего is the genitive. See [the declension table][1] under the wiktionary entry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No you cannot say **он двадцать лет.** Russian doesn't state age in this manner. Correct form: **ему двадцать лет.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9#Declension_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15023" RevisionGUID="aa377903-be25-42c5-832b-8fd498018afe" CreationDate="2017-09-20T07:49:10.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/910410489636769792" />
  <row Id="37111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14952" RevisionGUID="3bbf03cc-ccda-4713-bdb6-161b59f26946" CreationDate="2017-09-20T19:43:30.817" UserId="6539" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="You should be aware of the fact that the structure &quot;у кого-то есть что‐то &quot;actually means &quot;кто‐то имеет что‐то &quot;. Thus if you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Singular:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочки есть всё. = Девочка имеет всё. = The girl (one) has everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plural :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У девочек есть всё. = Девочки имеют всё. = The girls have everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this list of prepositions and cases might be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Именительный &#xD;&#xA; кто? что? &#xD;&#xA;Родительный&#xD;&#xA; от, до, из, без, у, для,&#xD;&#xA;около, с, вокруг, после, кроме&#xD;&#xA; кого? чего?&#xD;&#xA;Дательный&#xD;&#xA; к, по &#xD;&#xA; кому? чему? &#xD;&#xA;Винительный&#xD;&#xA; в, на, за, про, через &#xD;&#xA;кого? что? &#xD;&#xA;Творительный &#xD;&#xA; с, со, за, под, над, между, перед &#xD;&#xA;кем? чем? &#xD;&#xA;Предложный&#xD;&#xA; о, об, в, на, при &#xD;&#xA; о ком? о чём&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15053" RevisionGUID="0185029f-7caa-4ff4-b52c-ca5c3c65e46c" CreationDate="2017-09-20T20:20:51.993" UserId="7764" Text="Consider the first line of the famous song Катюша:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Расцветали яблони и груши&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this line roughly translates to &quot;Apples and pears were blossoming&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However, the plural noun &quot;apples&quot; in Russian is usually яблоки, not яблони as found in the song.&#xD;&#xA;What's the difference between яблоки and яблони?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps яблони is better translated to something like an uncounted noun &quot;apple&quot;, as in &quot;Apple and pear were blossoming&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15053" RevisionGUID="0185029f-7caa-4ff4-b52c-ca5c3c65e46c" CreationDate="2017-09-20T20:20:51.993" UserId="7764" Text="How is яблони different from яблоки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15053" RevisionGUID="0185029f-7caa-4ff4-b52c-ca5c3c65e46c" CreationDate="2017-09-20T20:20:51.993" UserId="7764" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15054" RevisionGUID="2df512d1-0caa-4192-bb46-e6df17c1a194" CreationDate="2017-09-20T20:28:25.720" UserId="9119" Text="I think Яблони refers to the *apple tree* while Яблока refers the the *apple*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15054" RevisionGUID="cda74647-e71a-44be-a839-8fbfd35c452a" CreationDate="2017-09-21T03:59:30.927" UserId="1097" Comment="typo fix" Text="I think **яблони** refers to the *apple trees* while **яблоки** refers to the *apples*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="b8628315-d282-4871-9b64-66c22b27814e" CreationDate="2017-09-21T17:40:23.263" UserId="8249" Text="Как известно, can't be bothered может переводиться как *лениться что-либо делать*, либо *не иметь желания*, либо *наплевать (She probably can't be bothered)* и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В песне Burn It Down группы Daughter [есть][1] строки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now the world is only white noise  &#xD;&#xA;Frequencies that I can't understand  &#xD;&#xA;**I can't be bothered with the teachers  &#xD;&#xA;Always trying to shape the way I act**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне интересно: как лучше или даже как правильно перевести выделенные строки?&#xD;&#xA;*Мне наплевать*__(?)__ *на учителей* (или, если посмотреть на контекст, *умников, менторов*)*, вечно лезущих в мою жизнь*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/daughter/burnitdown.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="b8628315-d282-4871-9b64-66c22b27814e" CreationDate="2017-09-21T17:40:23.263" UserId="8249" Text="I can't be bothered with the teachers — что это значит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="b8628315-d282-4871-9b64-66c22b27814e" CreationDate="2017-09-21T17:40:23.263" UserId="8249" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="cc5f27c3-e9a2-40c7-94c2-41a84316aac9" CreationDate="2017-09-21T17:56:37.953" UserId="8249" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Как известно, can't be bothered может переводиться как *лениться что-либо делать*, либо *не иметь желания*, либо *наплевать (She probably can't be bothered)* и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В песне Burn It Down группы Daughter [есть][1] строки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now the world is only white noise  &#xD;&#xA;Frequencies that I can't understand  &#xD;&#xA;**I can't be bothered with the teachers  &#xD;&#xA;Always trying to shape the way I act**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне интересно: как лучше или даже как правильно перевести выделенные строки?&#xD;&#xA;*Мне наплевать*__(?)__ *на учителей* (или, если посмотреть на контекст, *умников*)*, вечно лезущих в мою жизнь*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/daughter/burnitdown.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37123" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="53c58762-eb02-492a-9d91-6270cc3d1812" CreationDate="2017-09-21T19:15:40.843" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="eefbbee3-125d-4fb7-83d9-a856e78946d0" CreationDate="2017-09-21T21:39:34.863" UserId="8249" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Как известно, can't be bothered может переводиться как *лениться что-либо делать*, либо *не иметь желания*, либо *наплевать (She probably can't be bothered)* и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В песне Burn It Down группы Daughter [есть][1] строки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now the world is only white noise  &#xD;&#xA;Frequencies that I can't understand  &#xD;&#xA;**I can't be bothered with the teachers  &#xD;&#xA;Always trying to shape the way I act**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне интересно: как лучше или даже как правильно перевести выделенные строки?&#xD;&#xA;*Мне наплевать*__(?)__ *на учителей* (или, если посмотреть на контекст, *умников*)*, вечно лезущих в мою жизнь*? &#xA;&#xA;В моем переводе мне «не нравится» то, что, возможно, верным переводом будет не «наплевать», а что-нибудь другое, о чем я не знаю и о чем не пишут доступные мне словари.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/daughter/burnitdown.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15059" RevisionGUID="0e7dd142-aee8-4ef7-8d0e-1b1eba422c19" CreationDate="2017-09-22T05:44:15.993" UserId="9437" Text="As the title asks, what is the difference in usage between пи́ща and еда? Is one just a more formal version of the other? Are there any people/situations to which you could not usually apply one or the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15059" RevisionGUID="0e7dd142-aee8-4ef7-8d0e-1b1eba422c19" CreationDate="2017-09-22T05:44:15.993" UserId="9437" Text="Difference in usage between пи́ща and еда" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15059" RevisionGUID="0e7dd142-aee8-4ef7-8d0e-1b1eba422c19" CreationDate="2017-09-22T05:44:15.993" UserId="9437" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15060" RevisionGUID="11217892-aa87-48a2-9b2d-155165fea8d2" CreationDate="2017-09-22T07:16:55.217" UserId="9001" Text="I would say that **пища** is not just more formal, but its usage is limited to written language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are several widely used expressions with the word (and you cannot use **еда** here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **пища для ума/размышлений** - a problem worth to think over&#xD;&#xA; - **духовная пища** - something feeding your spiritual development&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more common word for **food**, which can be used both in formal and informal contexts, is **продукты [питания]** (always in plural)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15061" RevisionGUID="7ae66264-5abe-4b22-a759-2bf6e90c6967" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:27:07.973" UserId="8895" Text="`Еда` is more colloquial than `пища`, and is generally only used to refer to the stuff eaten by humans. If talking about e.g. dog/cat/cattle food, one should use `корм` instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `еда` is more of a generalized concept of edibles than  a pointer to something specific. If, for instance, you'd like to say, 'Let's go grab some food', the correct phrase would run along the lines of &quot;Давай купим что-нибудь **поесть**/**съестное**&quot;, not &quot;Давай купим еду&quot;. The phrase 'I like this food' would translate to something like &quot;Мне нравится это **блюдо**&quot;, or probably lack a direct reference at all: &quot;Мне очень вкусно/понравилось&quot;. &quot;Chinese food&quot; would be &quot;китайская **кухня**&quot; (cuisine), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, of course, one *can* say, e.g., &quot;Мне нравится эта еда&quot;, but it will sound somewhat childish and not 'well-bred'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, `еда` may refer to the process of eating, as in &quot;Во время еды не разговаривай&quot; or &quot;Мы потратили полчаса на еду&quot;. This is probably the most commonly encountered usage of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пища`, on the other hand, is more formal, but, much like `еда`, is used as a general concept, not denoting anything in particular. As noted by AlexVB, you'll find the word in all kinds of metaphorical and allegorical idioms as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15062" RevisionGUID="71d6ca6d-c084-4d91-9aec-a2009340a200" CreationDate="2017-09-22T10:30:51.607" UserId="5443" Text="The aspects of difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Пища** из more formal version of **еда** in the meaning 'food'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Unlike пища, **еда** can be used *directly* in the meaning '**having meals**'. e. g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - (разговаривать) во время **еды**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *formal* (medical, dietological) version of &quot;**еда**&quot; here would be &quot;**приём пищи**&quot; (&quot;во время приёма пищи&quot;), not simply &quot;пища&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Unlike &quot;еда&quot;, &quot;**пища**&quot; can be used idiomatically (*пища для размышлений, пища для ума, пища для сплетен*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Пища** is a *more abstract* word than еда and is related to what people or species living somewhere eat typically (пища панд - бамбук), not in a current situation (еда у путников /или у их собаки/ закончилась).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Adjectives**, derived from the two words, have *different meanings*. **Пища -&gt; пищевой** (intended for usage as food ingredient, permitted to have contact with food - about a material, etc. somehow related to food). **Еда -&gt; съедобный** (=edible; idiomatically, having fair taste)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15063" RevisionGUID="69930715-b46f-41fb-b895-c4fd4041611b" CreationDate="2017-09-22T20:08:42.510" UserId="9256" Text="Еда means food, **meal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пища means food, **nourishment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While often synonyms, you can think of the difference between &quot;meal&quot; and &quot;nourishment&quot; to understand the difference between &quot;еда&quot; and &quot;пища&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15064" RevisionGUID="cea88424-995a-4222-8462-b1b2a3d1815a" CreationDate="2017-09-22T22:41:16.490" UserId="9119" Text="So, I am answering a question asking for a definition of самобытная культура.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The definition I have given Это культура, которая была в регионе до того как другие [там были]. The action [там были] being implied. Is it appropriate to imply action in this manner in Russian as it is in English? How does use of implied action differ between English and Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is до того как an appropriate way to say before in this context and does it require an explicit action when used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15064" RevisionGUID="cea88424-995a-4222-8462-b1b2a3d1815a" CreationDate="2017-09-22T22:41:16.490" UserId="9119" Text="Use of implied actions and до того как" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15064" RevisionGUID="cea88424-995a-4222-8462-b1b2a3d1815a" CreationDate="2017-09-22T22:41:16.490" UserId="9119" Text="|перевод|грамматика|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15065" RevisionGUID="8534d64d-6058-491f-9883-fd857404b099" CreationDate="2017-09-23T08:06:51.920" UserId="9001" Text="You cannot omit an action in that manner in Russian. You sentence may be rearranged using до + genitive construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это культура, которая была в регионе [до|раньше] других.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you do not use auxiliary verbs (like **do**) in present or past tense, so when in English you may say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**- Did you go to the theater?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**- I did.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you either answer simply **yes/no** or you can imply subject:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**- Ты ходил в театр?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**- Да.**&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;**- Ходил.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15066" RevisionGUID="5a432fc0-c159-4012-b5e2-451bbdf35b52" CreationDate="2017-09-23T12:50:49.457" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, Russian uses &quot;implied actions&quot; (ellipsis) quite extensively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Дени́с лю́бит кра́сное вино́, а О́льга [лю́бит] бе́лое [вино́].&#xD;&#xA; * Дени́с лю́бит футбо́л, а О́льга - нет [не лю́бит].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the way you've built your sentence, it just doesn't work that way. You used a conjunction (до того́ как) to join a clause (кото́рая была́ в регио́не) and a nominal (други́е). If you use a preposition instead, it works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Э́то культу́ра, кото́рая была́ в регио́не **до** други́х.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even better to use 'ра́ньше' (a comparative adverb):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Э́то культу́ра, кото́рая была́ в регио́не **ра́ньше** други́х.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English version works only because 'before' is both a preposition and a conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * ...before others.&#xD;&#xA; * ...before others were there.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;To illustrate why it's important, let's take a look at this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * John finished in time because Ann helped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't just take away the verb (helped). It won't work. But if you change the conjunction (because) to a preposition (because of / thanks to), it works:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * John finished in time **because of** Ann.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37150" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15059" RevisionGUID="164f6339-aab4-4380-aba5-3f97043199d6" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:51:32.143" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;пи́ща&quot; and &quot;еда&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15060" RevisionGUID="e0b66aaa-7516-41af-9953-3b220918bf94" CreationDate="2017-09-24T07:46:37.853" UserId="9119" Comment="fixed grammar and added clarifying translation" Text="I would say that **пища** is not just more formal, but also that its usage is limited to written language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are several widely used expressions with the word (and you cannot use **еда** here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **пища для ума/размышлений** - a problem worthy of consideration - &quot;food for thought&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **духовная пища** - something feeding your spiritual development&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more common word for **food**, which can be used both in formal and informal contexts, is **продукты [питания]** (always in plural)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37152" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15060" RevisionGUID="e0b66aaa-7516-41af-9953-3b220918bf94" CreationDate="2017-09-24T07:46:37.853" Comment="Proposed by 9119 approved by 9001 edit id of 913" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15021" RevisionGUID="061af1e9-01f8-4102-81b6-4cbd75f5d206" CreationDate="2017-09-24T08:27:08.957" UserId="9119" Comment="Fixed grammar and punctuation for clarity." Text="For me, the pronunciation of some words that end with 'ы' sound like they end with 'э', like 'газеты' or 'журналы', but others don't, like 'столы'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this? Do we say always 'э' when it 'ы' is unstressed and at the end of the word? Would we otherwise say 'ы'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37154" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15021" RevisionGUID="061af1e9-01f8-4102-81b6-4cbd75f5d206" CreationDate="2017-09-24T08:27:08.957" Comment="Proposed by 9119 approved by 8725 edit id of 912" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15067" RevisionGUID="a619c92b-7d45-43d1-94c7-888de3d65009" CreationDate="2017-09-24T12:39:43.523" UserId="1262" Text="1.At first, both ***пища*** &amp; ***еда*** seem to be interchangeable, but this is a wrong assomption, since they are [almost] interchangeable only in phrases like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я даю животным пищу.*** [sounds not quite natural]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я даю животным еду.*** [sounds ok]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я даю детям еду.*** [sounds ok]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я даю детям пищу.*** [sounds ok]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Stylistically ***пища*** is more official, neutral, conservative and distant  than ***еда***, especially in coined expressions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сейчас в больнице время приёма пищи*. (one never would say * ***Сейчас в больнице время приёма еды*** ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Будет день, будет и пища*** (never * ***Будет день, будет и еда***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Аппетит приходит во время еды*** (one would never say * ***Аппетит приходит во время пищи***, because the overall tone of the saying is close / friendly, non-distant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Morphologically (and semantically), ***пища*** is more likely to comprise the act of cooking / modifying a food, or, to put it in other words, ***пища*** is more about a prepared food whilst ***еда*** is more about an action (from an eater's point of view);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Книга о вкусной и здоровой пище*** (and never * ***Книга о вкусной и здоровой еде***) - a title for classical Soviet cooking guide from the 1950s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***За едой мы (не) разговариваем*** (hardly * ***За пищей мы (не) разговариваем***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Cognitively, as the action names, ***пища*** refers to an indefinate / non-evidential action, whilst ***еда*** is more likely to signify a definate and evidential event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Это - на еду / для еды*** (saying * ***Это - на пищу / Для пищи*** is improbable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я уже заказал еду*** (and definately not * ***Я уже заказал пищу***, not even in official context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Mind the words ***питание*** and ***блюдо*** as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37156" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15059" RevisionGUID="c6391e50-f3d1-45d4-bdcf-901ab5bb8625" CreationDate="2017-09-24T17:11:25.597" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/912001536913534976" />
  <row Id="37157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15068" RevisionGUID="5a33b843-1afa-4ca6-8cf9-9e0a02e6f911" CreationDate="2017-09-24T18:14:03.673" UserId="5584" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;[**spread yourself too thin**][1]&quot;, which is often used in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Try not to spread yourself too thin.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [The Free Dictionary][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **spread yourself too thin**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; to try to do too many things at the same time, so that you cannot give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enough time or attention to any of them.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Example: I realised I'd been spreading myself too thin so I resigned&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as secretary of the golf club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/spread+too+thin&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15068" RevisionGUID="5a33b843-1afa-4ca6-8cf9-9e0a02e6f911" CreationDate="2017-09-24T18:14:03.673" UserId="5584" Text="What are Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;spread yourself too thin&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15068" RevisionGUID="5a33b843-1afa-4ca6-8cf9-9e0a02e6f911" CreationDate="2017-09-24T18:14:03.673" UserId="5584" Text="|выражения|idioms|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15069" RevisionGUID="fd8ea1b9-5545-4966-a091-9f320a66f135" CreationDate="2017-09-24T19:28:34.190" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;**Распыляться**&#xD;&#xA;2. Разг. Одновременно заниматься многим, не сосредоточиваясь на чём-л. одном; разбрасываться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Не распыляйся&quot; means exactly the same &quot;to do many things at the same time not paying much attention to any of them. The verb is formed from &quot;пыль&quot; which is translated as &quot;dust&quot;.We also say &quot;Не разбрасывайся по мелочам&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15070" RevisionGUID="a97947de-a4df-4ef1-8d73-9be69bd385f3" CreationDate="2017-09-24T23:04:51.763" UserId="1262" Text="Referring to speach, the possible set phrase could also be ***растекаться мыслью***/(from ***растекаться мысью) по древу*** , which is 'to run one's thought / oneself as as a squirrel along a tree, ***мысь*** being an Old Slavic for 'squirrel'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively and more conversational-like one can also use a coinage ***без (лишней) воды*** (lit. 'without (too much) water'), e.g. one of the closest translations of your request would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай только без лишней воды.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15063" RevisionGUID="d53110cf-0506-4728-8d39-d35580d1227c" CreationDate="2017-09-25T02:32:31.323" UserId="9256" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Еда means food, **meal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пища means food, **nourishment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While these two words are often synonyms, you can think of the difference between &quot;meal&quot; and &quot;nourishment&quot; to understand the difference between &quot;еда&quot; and &quot;пища&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15070" RevisionGUID="3872cd15-00c4-43d4-9b97-c979df36163b" CreationDate="2017-09-25T04:06:39.797" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Referring to speech, the possible set phrase could also be ***растекаться мыслью***/(from ***растекаться мысью) по древу*** , which is 'to run one's thought / oneself as a squirrel along a tree, ***мысь*** being an Old Slavic for 'squirrel'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively and more conversational-like one can also use a coinage ***без (лишней) воды*** (lit. 'without (too much) water'), e.g. one of the closest translations of your request would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай только без лишней воды.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, both phrases are applicable in reference to speech (not to actions) only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15071" RevisionGUID="3204f03e-4813-4e46-bb27-73812559b1b8" CreationDate="2017-09-25T04:48:28.503" UserId="9473" Text="I'm not sure there is an exact translation for &quot;spread yourself too thin&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;But I can suggest the close ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не пытайся угнаться за двумя зайцами (from proverb &quot;За двумя зайцами погонишься, ни одного не поймаешь&quot; - &quot;If you run after two hares, you will catch neither&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Не пытайся усидеть на двух стульях (just like &quot;Between two stools you fall to the ground&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15072" RevisionGUID="42a9828d-62c6-4e51-b823-feb07acdcf37" CreationDate="2017-09-25T04:49:53.107" UserId="9537" Text="За двумя зайцами погонишься - ни одного не поймаешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you try to chase for two rabbits - you won't catch any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty simple to understand, don't try to do many things at once, or you will fail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15071" RevisionGUID="468b9478-4404-435a-a4be-6e14de1adf16" CreationDate="2017-09-25T04:53:37.407" UserId="9473" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm not sure there is an exact translation for &quot;spread yourself too thin&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;But I can suggest the close ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Не пытайся угнаться за двумя зайцами (from proverb &quot;За двумя зайцами погонишься, ни одного не поймаешь&quot; - &quot;If you run after two hares, you will catch neither&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;- Не пытайся усидеть на двух стульях (just like &quot;Between two stools one falls to the ground&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15068" RevisionGUID="3f7ce0fb-9a31-410a-ae1f-dd9871b1c7ed" CreationDate="2017-09-25T05:17:07.617" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/912184165939974144" />
  <row Id="37169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15073" RevisionGUID="339472fc-b253-4a97-b3d9-459f76d0a68f" CreationDate="2017-09-25T11:56:11.873" UserId="1640" Text="Your best bet is probably the expression with the rabbits mentioned in other answers. If the goals that a person pursues are contradictory or mutually exclusive, you can use the expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И капитал приобрести, и невинность соблюсти (acquire capital while staying innocent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an obscene version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть, и нах..й сесть (eat the fish and sit on someone's penis at the same time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the etymology of this expression. It's most frequently used when person A thinks that person B attempts to screw A over (get benefits at A's expense). It is also used when someone wants to do something (like buy a cheap product), but does not take into account (or take responsibility for) the consequences (the fact it is likely to break soon). In the latter form it is close to the meaning of spreading yourself too thin (action: doing many things simultaneously, consequence: less results than if the person focused on one thing)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37170" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15064" RevisionGUID="6e404c3f-faa4-40e9-bd2c-58855fff5004" CreationDate="2017-09-25T14:23:12.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/912321591060639744" />
  <row Id="37175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15075" RevisionGUID="f6e07634-06ad-4d19-a39f-d4defc7ca14a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:26:30.177" UserId="4714" Text="Which case is used in the first word, and why? What is the grammatical logic behind the use of this particular case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-Темным-темно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-давным-давно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15075" RevisionGUID="f6e07634-06ad-4d19-a39f-d4defc7ca14a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:26:30.177" UserId="4714" Text="Which case is used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15075" RevisionGUID="f6e07634-06ad-4d19-a39f-d4defc7ca14a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T21:26:30.177" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37178" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="9d435ae9-03d9-4b60-ae17-4a5fd7519848" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:00:01.627" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1262,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manjusri&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="a3420647-a49f-4055-9ccf-3c67a87fd66a" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:26:20.917" UserId="2104" Comment="added 703 characters in body" Text="Take the action they are doing and add &quot;отли́чного/прия́тного&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! =&#xD;&#xA;  Я собира́юсь в путеше́ствие с друзья́ми - Отли́чного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Я путеше́ствую с друзья́ми - Отли́чного/прия́тного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are in camp now.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы разби́ли ла́герь. - Прия́тного о́тдыха!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are walking in the city center now.&quot; - it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы гуля́ем по це́нтру го́рода. - Прия́тной прогу́лки!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to say &quot;Enjoy your meal&quot; is &quot;Прия́тного аппети́та!&quot;. I miss being able to say that because it's not used as frequently in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Have a good time&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Оторви́сь там, оттопы́рься&quot; (slang). &#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Отли́чно провести́ вре́мя!&quot; (neutral). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="1a0f4458-ad2a-4bd0-ac81-cc74c1ef7464" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:32:01.887" UserId="2104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Take the action they are about to enjoy and add &quot;отли́чного/прия́тного&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! =&#xD;&#xA;  Я собира́юсь в путеше́ствие с друзья́ми - Отли́чного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Я путеше́ствую с друзья́ми - Отли́чного/прия́тного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are in camp now.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы разби́ли ла́герь. - Прия́тного о́тдыха!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are walking in the city center now.&quot; - it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы гуля́ем по це́нтру го́рода. - Прия́тной прогу́лки!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to say &quot;Enjoy your meal&quot; is &quot;Прия́тного аппети́та!&quot;. I miss being able to say that because it's not used as frequently in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Have a good time&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Оторви́сь там, оттопы́рься&quot; (slang). &#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Отли́чно провести́ вре́мя!&quot; (neutral). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="4f1fef1c-0a4b-4312-b021-4b4a94559efa" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:37:15.373" UserId="2104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Take the action they are about to enjoy and add &quot;отли́чного/прия́тного&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! =&#xD;&#xA;  Я собира́юсь в путеше́ствие с друзья́ми - Отли́чного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Я путеше́ствую с друзья́ми - Отли́чного/прия́тного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are in camp now.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы в ла́гере. - Прия́тного о́тдыха!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are walking in the city center now.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы гуля́ем по це́нтру го́рода. - Прия́тной прогу́лки!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will test your ability to take a verb and form a noun. Not always trivial. Or sometimes the action is implied, e.g. what are they doing in the camp? - Having a rest, отдыха́ют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to say &quot;Enjoy your meal&quot; is &quot;Прия́тного аппети́та!&quot;. I miss being able to say that because it's not used as frequently in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Have a good time&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Оторви́сь там, оттопы́рься&quot; (slang). &#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Отли́чно провести́ вре́мя!&quot; (neutral). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="5b9bfad7-efa0-41b9-80a6-411c2dc03991" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:39:21.620" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the idiom for &quot;enjoy it!&quot; in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contexts for example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;We are in the camp now.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* &quot;We are walking in the city center now.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried dictionaries and googling but it's not clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37183" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14368" RevisionGUID="5b9bfad7-efa0-41b9-80a6-411c2dc03991" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:39:21.620" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the idiom for &quot;enjoy it!&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="74f3443a-c6ee-48d5-83cd-887e4965b0ec" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:47:56.020" UserId="2104" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="Take the action they are about to enjoy and add &quot;отли́чного/прия́тного&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! =&#xD;&#xA;  Я собира́юсь в путеше́ствие с друзья́ми - Отли́чного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Я путеше́ствую с друзья́ми - Отли́чного/прия́тного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are in camp now.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы в ла́гере. - Прия́тного о́тдыха!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are walking in the city center now.&quot; - Enjoy it! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы гуля́ем по це́нтру го́рода. - Прия́тной прогу́лки!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will test your ability to take a verb and form a noun. Not always trivial. Or sometimes the action is implied, e.g. what are they doing in the camp? - Having a rest, отдыха́ют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to say &quot;Enjoy your meal&quot; is &quot;Прия́тного аппети́та!&quot;. I miss being able to say that because it's not used as frequently in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Have a good time&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Оторви́сь там, оттопы́рься&quot; (slang). &#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Отли́чно провести́ вре́мя!&quot; (neutral). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наслажда́йся / наслажда́йтесь&quot; is a *calque* of English &quot;enjoy it&quot; and definitely **not** the idiomatic way to say it although some people do use it, usually in a sarcastic way.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15076" RevisionGUID="4cddb465-49ca-465f-b9a9-04b48ffadcfd" CreationDate="2017-09-25T22:58:37.783" UserId="242" Text="Well, there's no case at all - those are just adverbs with reduplication. It's not that in words such as `темным-темно`,`светлым-светло`, `давным-давно`, `старым-старо`, `пьяным-пьяно` we&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Reduplication][1], whether with word repeated exactly or slightly changed it a very common thing for a lot of languages, and [Russian][2] is no exception for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using reduplication for intensification is also something very common. As of changing the root - it's not necessarily even has to be related to any grammatical category (such as cases) at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like asking what exactly from the grammatical standpoint is `shm` in `fancy-shmancy`. The other thing is that we actually can try to come up with some etymological explanation of how exactly we end up with this forms for exactly this particular adverbs, but not some other ones (why not &quot;холодным-холодно&quot; for example).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a good overview of inflected reduplication in Russian but my guess would be that, anyways, this would be a better fit for Linguistics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication_in_the_Russian_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37187" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15075" RevisionGUID="dc4e813d-e16f-478c-b495-c451ef496c46" CreationDate="2017-09-25T23:07:03.820" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Темным-темно&quot; - which case is used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15076" RevisionGUID="d8275308-9f0f-44b4-ba0d-1991edd3cc40" CreationDate="2017-09-25T23:08:43.613" UserId="242" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Well, there's no case at all - those are just adverbs with reduplication. It's not that in words such as `темным-темно`,`светлым-светло`, `давным-давно`, `старым-старо`, `пьяным-пьяно` we&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Reduplication][1], whether with word repeated exactly or slightly changed it a very common thing for a lot of languages, and [Russian][2] is no exception for this. In fact, I can even claim that this is one of the most old and universal features that human languages share. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using reduplication for intensification is also something very common. As of changing the root - it's not necessarily even has to be related to any grammatical category (such as cases) at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like asking what exactly from the grammatical standpoint is `shm` in `fancy-shmancy`. The other thing is that we actually can try to come up with some etymological explanation of how exactly we end up with this forms for exactly this particular adverbs, but not some other ones (why not &quot;холодным-холодно&quot; for example).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of a good overview of inflected reduplication in Russian but my guess would be that, anyways, this would be a better fit for Linguistics SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication_in_the_Russian_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37192" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15053" RevisionGUID="4e61a7d8-d54a-4697-8f4f-7a16b245d07a" CreationDate="2017-09-26T05:23:12.547" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/912548084244189184" />
  <row Id="37196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15075" RevisionGUID="e56c343b-8575-46c6-80c0-4b9a8bc7370c" CreationDate="2017-09-26T07:35:23.100" UserId="6097" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Which case is used in the first word, and why? What is the grammatical logic behind the use of this particular case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Темным-темно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. давным-давно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15081" RevisionGUID="0ed898dc-8c43-4081-adb4-784d9c324613" CreationDate="2017-09-26T09:44:15.147" UserId="4815" Text="**Хитровыебанный** is just `Хитрый` (cunning, tricky, sly) - with shade of admiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like: *he's so cunning/smart - look at him!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern context: my US friendess used to say similar about former Russian Ambassador to US - [Kislyak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kislyak) the same :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15082" RevisionGUID="b44fcf77-cd92-4957-9ace-0140adab2a7f" CreationDate="2017-09-26T11:47:56.717" UserId="9547" Text="не колышат - близко по смыслу и по образности" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15082" RevisionGUID="48a61296-7617-47a0-98e4-8d557d7d3fc2" CreationDate="2017-09-26T12:11:46.313" UserId="6097" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Не колышат&quot; - близко по смыслу и по образности" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15082" RevisionGUID="ff0bfc37-501e-4741-960c-2afab8ca3889" CreationDate="2017-09-26T15:48:33.563" UserId="9547" Comment="clarified meaning" Text="&quot;Не колышат&quot; - близко по смыслу и по образности&#xD;&#xA;upd:&#xD;&#xA;can't be bothered несет смысл (urbandictionary: When you really aren't in the mood to do something, generally because you are tired, feeling lazy or it's not important)&#xD;&#xA;Возможные переводы по смыслу:&#xD;&#xA;не до того &#xD;&#xA;недосуг&#xD;&#xA;нет желания заниматься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Исходное предложение содержит элипсис&#xD;&#xA;I can't be bothered with (paying attention to) the teachers&#xD;&#xA;Always trying to shape the way I act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перевод &quot;не колышат&quot; сохраняет неформальный стиль и передает отношение к учителям и к их поучениям&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15083" RevisionGUID="8d94928a-e24c-49b2-b858-6aee8bb6c828" CreationDate="2017-09-26T17:34:02.667" UserId="9119" Text="I encountered the word while reading a Russian article about media. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если не сказать ее агитлисток.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to find a translation for it by search engine. I assume it is derogatory in the sense of propaganda from context but I am just guessing. Can someone provide a better sense of the word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15083" RevisionGUID="8d94928a-e24c-49b2-b858-6aee8bb6c828" CreationDate="2017-09-26T17:34:02.667" UserId="9119" Text="What is the meaning and origin of «агитлисток»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15083" RevisionGUID="8d94928a-e24c-49b2-b858-6aee8bb6c828" CreationDate="2017-09-26T17:34:02.667" UserId="9119" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15084" RevisionGUID="6c028fe5-bb68-41c0-8c69-06d72ca67b19" CreationDate="2017-09-26T18:15:18.897" UserId="3680" Text="`Агитлисток` is a shortened form of `Агитационный листок`.  &#xD;&#xA;Literally this could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agitational sheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or (depending on context)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Propaganda leaflet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15085" RevisionGUID="a4699b84-3628-43de-a8c0-f4fa9259f8e4" CreationDate="2017-09-26T20:00:12.027" UserId="134" Text="Historically, it's instrumental case, or rather, one of the numerous usage of the instrumental in Russian: the emphatic instrumental (*творительный усиления*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used with adverbs (*давным-давно, полным-полно*), nouns (*дурак дураком, змея змеёй*), adjectives (*белым-бела, черным-черна*) and even verbs (*есть поедом, слыхом не слыхать* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I failed to find a conclusive reasoning behind this, but I have a strong gut feeling that it's linked to the infinitive absolute, a Semitic construct which had been calqued into Greek and later to Church Slavonic when translating the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * от­ дрéва же, éже разумѣ́ти дóброе и лукáвое, не снѣ́сте от­ негó: а въ óньже áще дéнь снѣ́сте от­ негó, *смéртiю ýмрете* (= &quot;thou shalt surely die&quot; in KJV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * áще же *злóбою озлóбите* я́, и воз­стенáв­ше возопiю́тъ ко мнѣ́, *слýхомъ услы́шу* глáсъ и́хъ (= &quot;thou afflict them in any wise&quot;, &quot;I will surely hear their cry&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15085" RevisionGUID="a2f12196-57e2-412e-9e61-e8c5723f68e1" CreationDate="2017-09-26T20:23:28.787" UserId="134" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Historically, it's instrumental case, or rather, one of the numerous usages of the instrumental in Russian: the emphatic instrumental (*творительный усиления*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used with adverbs (*давным-давно, полным-полно*), nouns (*дурак дураком, змея змеёй*), adjectives (*белым-бела, черным-черна*) and even verbs (*есть поедом, слыхом не слыхивать* etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I failed to find a conclusive reasoning behind this, but I have a strong gut feeling that it's linked to the infinitive absolute, a Semitic construct which had been calqued into Greek and later to Church Slavonic when translating the Bible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * от­ дрéва же, éже разумѣ́ти дóброе и лукáвое, не снѣ́сте от­ негó: а въ óньже áще дéнь снѣ́сте от­ негó, *смéртiю ýмрете* (= &quot;thou shalt surely die&quot; in KJV, literally &quot;you will die with a death&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * áще же *злóбою озлóбите* я́, и воз­стенáв­ше возопiю́тъ ко мнѣ́, *слýхомъ услы́шу* глáсъ и́хъ (= &quot;thou afflict them in any wise&quot;, &quot;I will surely hear their cry&quot;; literally &quot;you will afflict them with an affliction&quot;, &quot;I will hear them with my hearing&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="09cfdb86-d436-4e2e-85e7-502396b3c523" CreationDate="2017-09-26T21:36:55.537" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как известно, can't be bothered может переводиться как *лениться что-либо делать*, либо *не иметь желания*, либо *наплевать (She probably can't be bothered)* и т. д. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В песне Burn It Down группы Daughter [есть][1] строки:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now the world is only white noise  &#xD;&#xA;Frequencies that I can't understand  &#xD;&#xA;**I can't be bothered with the teachers  &#xD;&#xA;Always trying to shape the way I act**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне интересно: как лучше или даже как правильно перевести выделенные строки?&#xD;&#xA;*Мне наплевать*__(?)__ *на учителей* (или, если посмотреть на контекст, *умников*)*, вечно лезущих в мою жизнь*? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моем переводе мне «не нравится» то, что, возможно, верным переводом будет не «наплевать», а что-нибудь другое, о чем я не знаю и о чем не пишут доступные мне словари.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/daughter/burnitdown.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37211" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15056" RevisionGUID="09cfdb86-d436-4e2e-85e7-502396b3c523" CreationDate="2017-09-26T21:36:55.537" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как перевести &quot;can't be bothered with&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15086" RevisionGUID="7d2bbc0c-6405-48fe-b0e8-ec6000bd38dc" CreationDate="2017-09-27T04:53:29.650" UserId="3595" Text="&quot;Girls have everything&quot; would be &quot;у девочек есть все.&quot; In your phrase &quot;девочки&quot; is not plural of &quot;девочка.&quot; It's a form of a word that doesn't  have a direct analog English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15087" RevisionGUID="dd028e34-838b-4666-bb31-ea8da875e0ea" CreationDate="2017-09-27T09:13:46.980" UserId="5443" Text="Если ознакомиться с полным текстом, то похоже, что лирическую героиню всё настолько беспокоит (информационный хаос, советчики норовят учить, приятель покинул и т. д.), что ей хочется сжечь всё вокруг, начав с собственного дома. По этому смыслы вроде &quot;меня не пронять учителям&quot; вряд ли отсюда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мир только белым шумом мучит,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В его частотах - непонятки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Достало, что все вечно учат,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В каких вести себя мне рамках.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...................&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Гори же всё, гори огнём - к чертям собачьим!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14369" RevisionGUID="6fca3c7f-6636-4d7e-b5bb-0d2f9e9bcfb8" CreationDate="2017-09-27T10:09:41.503" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Take the action they are about to enjoy and add &quot;отли́чного/прия́тного&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm going to travel with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy! =&#xD;&#xA;  Я собира́юсь в путеше́ствие с друзья́ми - Отли́чного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;I'm traveling with my friends.&quot; - Enjoy! = &#xD;&#xA;  Я путеше́ствую с друзья́ми - Отли́чного/прия́тного путеше́ствия!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are in camp now.&quot; - Enjoy! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы в ла́гере. - Прия́тного о́тдыха!&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;We are walking in the city center now.&quot; - Enjoy! = &#xD;&#xA;  Мы гуля́ем по це́нтру го́рода. - Прия́тной прогу́лки!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will test your ability to take a verb and form a noun. Not always trivial. Or sometimes the action is implied, e.g. what are they doing in the camp? - Having a rest, отдыха́ют.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to say &quot;Enjoy your meal&quot; is &quot;Прия́тного аппети́та!&quot;. I miss being able to say that because it's not used as frequently in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Have a good time&quot; would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Отли́чно провести́ вре́мя!&quot; (neutral). &#xD;&#xA; * &quot;Оторви́сь там, оттопы́рься&quot; (slang). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наслажда́йся / наслажда́йтесь&quot; is a *calque* of the English &quot;Enjoy!&quot; and definitely **not** the idiomatic way to say it. Although some people do use it, usually in a sarcastic way.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37220" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15042" RevisionGUID="94a1649d-529d-47fd-9b67-13c208b6856d" CreationDate="2017-09-27T13:50:30.440" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11220],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37221" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15083" RevisionGUID="70e8d6b6-90c6-45c2-8261-5c1f0c3b9648" CreationDate="2017-09-27T17:28:57.293" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/913093112007938048" />
  <row Id="37224" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15075" RevisionGUID="4a9e4682-39a1-4fc3-9406-822eb60be70f" CreationDate="2017-09-27T23:29:20.857" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/913183808161271808" />
  <row Id="37225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15090" RevisionGUID="a848f12e-722a-4047-9966-565a02f21196" CreationDate="2017-09-28T05:03:33.900" UserId="4238" Text="OK. I am NOT an expert speaker. However, I have noticed this a bit for negatives: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the thing comes with a SINGULAR/SINGLE-INSTANCE direct object or other&#xD;&#xA;   precisor, it may well get a perfective in the past.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, the default is imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - And Russians are adept at dodging this question entirely by putting&#xD;&#xA;   it in the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples (all from real Russian):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты не ответила на них ни слова. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты не отвечал на телефонные звонки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пишу тебе уже десятое письмо, а ты не отвечаешь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15091" RevisionGUID="308e9fdf-8e3c-41f1-9ed1-103c07530ae4" CreationDate="2017-09-28T05:11:40.353" UserId="9562" Text="&gt; Теперь мир для меня просто шум,  &#xD;&#xA;Бессмысленные частоты.  &#xD;&#xA;Мне безразличны те, кто поучают,  &#xD;&#xA;Всегда стараясь указать, как мне себя вести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added &quot;для меня&quot; (&quot;for me&quot;) that isn't in the original, but is silently implied and sounds better by meaning and by rhythm. The version without it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мир - просто шум&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also omitted &quot;white&quot;, as &quot;white noise&quot; is more of a technical term in Russian with little to no meaning for a kid. If a close literal translation is desired, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мир - просто белый шум&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that I can't understand - means &quot;make no sense to me&quot;, &quot;meaningless&quot;, therefore &quot;Бессмысленные&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't be bothered - the meaning here is &quot;I don't care&quot;, &quot;they mean nothing to me&quot;, thus best translating as &quot;Мне безразличны&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the teachers - &quot;teachers&quot; here are not &quot;instructors&quot;, but rather those with an unsolicited advice or guidance. The proper verb here is not &quot;учить&quot;, but &quot;поучать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always trying - this is straight forward &quot;Всегда стараясь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to shape - here means &quot;to project their way&quot;, essentially like &quot;to tell&quot; or &quot;to show&quot;, but not as a suggestion, but rather a demand, although not as strong as &quot;to make&quot;. The best equivalent here is &quot;to show&quot; that, as a suggestion, is &quot;показать&quot;, which is not applicable here, but, as a demand or forceful influence, is &quot;указать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the way I act - straight forward &quot;как мне себя вести&quot;  that fits nicely by the meaning, feeling and rhythm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation retains the meaning and even emphasizes that the &quot;noise&quot; is the instructions of the unsolicited teachers, that is the substantial connection and transition from the first and the second parts. It is also very literally close and has the proper rhythm making it sound as poetry, but not just word-by-word translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15091" RevisionGUID="a207f163-4e94-4a74-9228-8a4287586ece" CreationDate="2017-09-28T05:17:22.687" UserId="9562" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; Теперь мир для меня просто шум,  &#xD;&#xA;Бессмысленные частоты.  &#xD;&#xA;Мне безразличны те, кто поучают,  &#xD;&#xA;Всегда стараясь указать, как мне себя вести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added &quot;для меня&quot; (&quot;for me&quot;) that isn't in the original, but is silently implied and sounds better by meaning and by rhythm. The version without it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мир - просто шум&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also omitted &quot;white&quot;, as &quot;white noise&quot; is more of a technical term in Russian with little to no meaning for a kid. If a close literal translation is desired, then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теперь мир - просто белый шум&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that I can't understand - means &quot;make no sense to me&quot;, &quot;meaningless&quot;, therefore &quot;Бессмысленные&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't be bothered - the meaning here is &quot;I don't care&quot;, &quot;they mean nothing to me&quot;, thus best translating as &quot;Мне безразличны&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with the teachers - &quot;teachers&quot; here are not &quot;instructors&quot;, but rather those with an unsolicited advice or guidance. The proper verb here is not &quot;учить&quot;, but &quot;поучать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always trying - this is straight forward &quot;Всегда стараясь&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to shape - here means &quot;to project their way&quot;, essentially like &quot;to tell&quot; or &quot;to show&quot;, except not as a suggestion, but rather a demand, although not as strong as &quot;to make&quot;. The best equivalent here is &quot;to show&quot; that, as a suggestion, is &quot;показать&quot;, which is not applicable here, but, as a demand or forceful influence, is &quot;указать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the way I act - straight forward &quot;как мне себя вести&quot;  that fits nicely by the meaning, feeling and rhythm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation retains the meaning and even emphasizes that the &quot;noise&quot; is the instructions of the unsolicited teachers, that is the substantial connection and transition from the first and the second parts. It is also very literally close and has the proper rhythm making it sound as poetry, but not just word-by-word translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15092" RevisionGUID="d422d194-8ace-4c8d-9efa-f83ef6cfa664" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:23:01.033" UserId="9566" Text="I hear this term in hardbass a lot. &quot;Kolbaser&quot; literally means sausage maker, but refers to something completely different. What is the exact meaning of this term and why does it mean what it means? Is it because the suffix &quot;-baser&quot;, referring to the bass of the music? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XS Project - &quot;Bochka, Bass, Kolbaser&quot; - I found a translation online&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5uzc3U8Qhc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;XS Project - &quot;Kolbasa&quot; - would be cool if someone could translate this song as well ;)&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw4Ui6SsFOs&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15092" RevisionGUID="d422d194-8ace-4c8d-9efa-f83ef6cfa664" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:23:01.033" UserId="9566" Text="Why does колбасер &quot;Sausage maker&quot; mean someone who raves or hardbasser?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15092" RevisionGUID="d422d194-8ace-4c8d-9efa-f83ef6cfa664" CreationDate="2017-09-28T15:23:01.033" UserId="9566" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15093" RevisionGUID="e81e37b0-85bd-4fea-b7a6-2d24a7384afa" CreationDate="2017-09-28T16:13:11.787" UserId="9058" Text="1. There is now any specific word for sausage-maker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. this -er ending in kolbaser is clearly mimicking English, so it is of latest after-Perestroika times. While &quot;колбаса&quot; word is much more old. If there would be a really Russian word for sausage-trader or sausage-craftman it would probably be built with -nik suffix instead. Колбасник. Just like мясник (butcher, from мясо=meat), кукурузник (derogatory nickname for Khrushev for his policy of enforcing American corn in USSR). Or maybe -shchik like in старьевщик (collector/reseller of OLD things). Or -chik as in грузчик (load runner). But not -er. This is clearly a pattern from West." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15093" RevisionGUID="a1529b4d-07da-4f38-902c-ae8b9b6fdb70" CreationDate="2017-09-28T16:19:23.763" UserId="9058" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="1. There is now any specific word for sausage-maker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. this -er ending in kolbaser is clearly mimicking English, so it is of latest after-Perestroika times. While &quot;колбаса&quot; word is much more old. If there would be a really Russian word for sausage-trader or sausage-craftman it would probably be built with -nik suffix instead. Колбасник. Just like мясник (butcher, from мясо=meat), кукурузник (derogatory nickname for Khrushev for his policy of enforcing American corn in USSR). Or maybe -shchik like in старьевщик (collector/reseller of OLD things). Or -chik as in грузчик (load runner). But not -er. This is clearly a pattern from West.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. there is a jargon verb колбаситься, literally to sausage oneself. It was referring some music parties, where lot of physical actions and heavily crowded rooms were over comfort and sound quality. Maybe it somehow relates to English &quot;jamming&quot; term. While &quot;jamming&quot; does not seems to imply getting squeezed as in &quot;taffic jam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Such kinds of dancing clubs, night loud music parties for youth, they are also western post-Perestroika influence. So it is natural that the person who does oneself or maybe causes other to start колбаситься, would be named by a new-made noun, build from the new-made verb using English -er pattern. Afteralд everything American and European was very trendy in 1990-s. And West-style night dancings surely were focal points for wannabe-Westerners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. However, no matter what etymology of that verb is, it practically has no relation to the колбаса as a food (sausage). Neither does &quot;колбасер&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15093" RevisionGUID="86be1027-263d-4be1-978e-8744be1cf2a2" CreationDate="2017-09-28T16:32:51.950" UserId="9058" Comment="added 511 characters in body" Text="1. There is now any specific word for sausage-maker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. this -er ending in kolbaser is clearly mimicking English, so it is of latest after-Perestroika times. While &quot;колбаса&quot; word is much more old. If there would be a really Russian word for sausage-trader or sausage-craftman it would probably be built with -nik suffix instead. Колбасник. Just like мясник (butcher, from мясо=meat), кукурузник (derogatory nickname for Khrushev for his policy of enforcing American corn in USSR). Or maybe -shchik like in старьевщик (collector/reseller of OLD things). Or -chik as in грузчик (load runner). But not -er. This is clearly a pattern from West.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. there is a jargon verb колбаситься, literally to sausage oneself. It was referring some music parties, where lot of physical actions and heavily crowded rooms were over comfort and sound quality. Maybe it somehow relates to English &quot;jamming&quot; term. While &quot;jamming&quot; does not seems to imply getting squeezed as in &quot;taffic jam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Such kinds of dancing clubs, night loud music parties for youth, they are also western post-Perestroika influence. So it is natural that the person who does oneself or maybe causes other to start колбаситься, would be named by a new-made noun, build from the new-made verb using English -er pattern. Afteralд everything American and European was very trendy in 1990-s. And West-style night dancings surely were focal points for wannabe-Westerners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. However, no matter what etymology of that verb is, it practically has no relation to the колбаса as a food (sausage). Neither does &quot;колбасер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;w.r.t. lyrics I only found this http://webkind.ru/text/94567214_5126008p995356038_text_pesni_nas-vstavlyaet-kolbasa.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы колбасим до утра&#xD;&#xA;    Нас встaвляет колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Нас вставляет колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Колба- колба- колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Скорость колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Скорость нас вставляет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This heavily uses drug addicts and dancing addicts slang, so I would hardly make good translation of it. but there is also nothing to translate. They in different forms convey how they like to колбаситься faster and faster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15093" RevisionGUID="2ce5864f-1db1-404d-8dbc-f84dfe152fb6" CreationDate="2017-09-28T16:41:01.380" UserId="9058" Comment="added 633 characters in body" Text="1. There is now any specific word for sausage-maker. Колбасер does not, did not and never could mean it in common general Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. this -er ending in kolbaser is clearly mimicking English, so it is of latest after-Perestroika times. While &quot;колбаса&quot; word is much more old. If there would be a really Russian word for sausage-trader or sausage-craftman it would probably be built with -nik suffix instead. Колбасник. Just like мясник (butcher, from мясо=meat), кукурузник (derogatory nickname for Khrushev for his policy of enforcing American corn in USSR). Or maybe -shchik like in старьевщик (collector/reseller of OLD things). Or -chik as in грузчик (load runner). But not -er. This is clearly a pattern from West.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. there is a jargon verb колбаситься, literally to sausage oneself. It was referring some music parties, where lot of physical actions and heavily crowded rooms were over comfort and sound quality. Maybe it somehow relates to English &quot;jamming&quot; term. While &quot;jamming&quot; does not seems to imply getting squeezed as in &quot;taffic jam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Such kinds of dancing clubs, night loud music parties for youth, they are also western post-Perestroika influence. So it is natural that the person who does oneself or maybe causes other to start колбаситься, would be named by a new-made noun, build from the new-made verb using English -er pattern. Afteralд everything American and European was very trendy in 1990-s. And West-style night dancings surely were focal points for wannabe-Westerners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. However, no matter what etymology of that verb is, it practically has no relation to the колбаса as a food (sausage). Neither does &quot;колбасер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;w.r.t. lyrics I only found this http://webkind.ru/text/94567214_5126008p995356038_text_pesni_nas-vstavlyaet-kolbasa.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы колбасим до утра&#xD;&#xA;    Нас встaвляет колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Нас вставляет колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Колба- колба- колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Скорость колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Скорость нас вставляет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This heavily uses drug addicts and dancing addicts slang, so I would hardly make good translation of it. but there is also nothing to translate. They in different forms convey how they like to колбаситься faster and faster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, &quot;колбаса&quot; here is retrofitted from the said slang verb, meaning here the process when many people are &quot;sausaging&quot; themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вставляет&quot; probably means &quot;rushing&quot; as in &quot;....the feeling you get on smoke when the top of your neck feels like it's going into the back of your head.&quot;, see pp.109/110 at [Gift of Wings][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=InUpHgnif58C&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109&amp;dq=richard%20bach%20gift%20of%20wings%20neck&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=RoBaj8KAkv&amp;sig=hE44tDkRBFBVPENE1INYWc3pOms&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiF-oedqMjWAhXqJZoKHYUEC_UQ6AEIXDAN#v=onepage&amp;q=richard%20bach%20gift%20of%20wings%20neck&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15095" RevisionGUID="a69af267-8509-40bc-9abf-469756abb14c" CreationDate="2017-09-28T17:22:29.093" UserId="4238" Text="I had known &quot;чувак,&quot; but recently ran into &quot;норм чувак&quot; and was a bit lost, and neither Multitran nor russki-mat.net helped. It sounds to me like some kind of stoner cri-du-coeur. Could someone explain it, especially &quot;норм&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15095" RevisionGUID="a69af267-8509-40bc-9abf-469756abb14c" CreationDate="2017-09-28T17:22:29.093" UserId="4238" Text="&quot;Норм чувак&quot; meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15095" RevisionGUID="a69af267-8509-40bc-9abf-469756abb14c" CreationDate="2017-09-28T17:22:29.093" UserId="4238" Text="|значения|выражения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15096" RevisionGUID="e203ce6a-aa44-4f28-8503-a43353f0f170" CreationDate="2017-09-28T17:31:04.527" UserId="134" Text="It's a contraction of *нормально* (&quot;okay, alright&quot;). The phrase means &quot;it's OK dude&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same phenomenon as &quot;totesing&quot; in English (contracting words so that you get &quot;totes&quot;, &quot;sis&quot;, &quot;appreesh&quot; etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37243" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15021" RevisionGUID="e843091a-d0fe-4eec-aa35-43fe544438df" CreationDate="2017-09-28T17:34:22.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/913456863584374787" />
  <row Id="37244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15093" RevisionGUID="84857003-7f52-4dff-9596-74757b5a0756" CreationDate="2017-09-28T20:04:05.443" UserId="9058" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="1. There is no any specific word for sausage-maker. Колбасер does not, did not and never could mean it in common general Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. this -er ending in kolbaser is clearly mimicking English, so it is of latest after-Perestroika times. While &quot;колбаса&quot; word is much more old. If there would be a really Russian word for sausage-trader or sausage-craftman it would probably be built with -nik suffix instead. Колбасник. Just like мясник (butcher, from мясо=meat), кукурузник (derogatory nickname for Khrushev for his policy of enforcing American corn in USSR). Or maybe -shchik like in старьевщик (collector/reseller of OLD things). Or -chik as in грузчик (load runner). But not -er. This is clearly a pattern from West.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. there is a jargon verb колбаситься, literally to sausage oneself. It was referring some music parties, where lot of physical actions and heavily crowded rooms were over comfort and sound quality. Maybe it somehow relates to English &quot;jamming&quot; term. While &quot;jamming&quot; does not seems to imply getting squeezed as in &quot;taffic jam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Such kinds of dancing clubs, night loud music parties for youth, they are also western post-Perestroika influence. So it is natural that the person who does oneself or maybe causes other to start колбаситься, would be named by a new-made noun, build from the new-made verb using English -er pattern. Afteralд everything American and European was very trendy in 1990-s. And West-style night dancings surely were focal points for wannabe-Westerners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. However, no matter what etymology of that verb is, it practically has no relation to the колбаса as a food (sausage). Neither does &quot;колбасер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;w.r.t. lyrics I only found this http://webkind.ru/text/94567214_5126008p995356038_text_pesni_nas-vstavlyaet-kolbasa.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы колбасим до утра&#xD;&#xA;    Нас встaвляет колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Нас вставляет колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Колба- колба- колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Скорость колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Скорость нас вставляет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This heavily uses drug addicts and dancing addicts slang, so I would hardly make good translation of it. but there is also nothing to translate. They in different forms convey how they like to колбаситься faster and faster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, &quot;колбаса&quot; here is retrofitted from the said slang verb, meaning here the process when many people are &quot;sausaging&quot; themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вставляет&quot; probably means &quot;rushing&quot; as in &quot;....the feeling you get on smoke when the top of your neck feels like it's going into the back of your head.&quot;, see pp.109/110 at [Gift of Wings][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=InUpHgnif58C&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109&amp;dq=richard%20bach%20gift%20of%20wings%20neck&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=RoBaj8KAkv&amp;sig=hE44tDkRBFBVPENE1INYWc3pOms&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiF-oedqMjWAhXqJZoKHYUEC_UQ6AEIXDAN#v=onepage&amp;q=richard%20bach%20gift%20of%20wings%20neck&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15093" RevisionGUID="40e65568-a8e5-48a2-b8bb-0ba69ab773b2" CreationDate="2017-09-28T20:10:02.517" UserId="9058" Comment="typos" Text="1. There is no any specific word for sausage-maker. Колбасер does not, did not and never could mean it in common general Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. this -er ending in kolbaser is clearly mimicking English, so it is of latest after-Perestroika times. While &quot;колбаса&quot; word is much more old. If there would be a really Russian word for sausage-trader or sausage-craftsman it would probably be built with -nik suffix instead. Колбасник. Just like мясник (butcher, from мясо=meat), кукурузник (derogatory nickname for Khrushev for his policy of enforcing American corn in USSR). Or maybe -shchik like in старьевщик (collector/reseller of OLD things). Or -chik as in грузчик (load runner). But not -er. This is clearly a pattern from West.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. there is a jargon verb колбаситься, literally to sausage oneself. It was referring some music parties, where lot of physical actions and heavily crowded rooms were over comfort and sound quality. Maybe it somehow relates to English &quot;jamming&quot; term. While &quot;jamming&quot; does not seem to imply getting squeezed as in &quot;taffic jam&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Such kinds of dancing clubs, night loud music parties for youth, they are also western post-Perestroika influence. So it is natural that a person who does oneself (or maybe causes others to) start колбаситься, would be named by that new-made noun, build from this new-made verb using English -er pattern. Afterall everything American and European was very trendy in 1990-s. And West-style night dancings surely were focal points for wannabe-Westerners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. However, no matter what etymology of that verb is, it practically has no relation to the колбаса as food (sausage). Neither does &quot;колбасер&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;w.r.t. lyrics I only found this http://webkind.ru/text/94567214_5126008p995356038_text_pesni_nas-vstavlyaet-kolbasa.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мы колбасим до утра&#xD;&#xA;    Нас встaвляет колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Нас вставляет колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Колба- колба- колбаса.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Скорость колбаса&#xD;&#xA;    Скорость нас вставляет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This heavily uses drug addicts and dancing addicts slang, so I would hardly make good translation of it. but there is also nothing to translate. They in different forms convey how they like to колбаситься faster and faster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, &quot;колбаса&quot; here is retrofitted from the said slang verb, meaning here the process when many people are &quot;sausaging&quot; themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вставляет&quot; probably means &quot;rushing&quot; as in &quot;....the feeling you get on smoke when the top of your neck feels like it's going into the back of your head.&quot;, see pp.109/110 at [Gift of Wings][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=InUpHgnif58C&amp;pg=PA109&amp;lpg=PA109&amp;dq=richard%20bach%20gift%20of%20wings%20neck&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=RoBaj8KAkv&amp;sig=hE44tDkRBFBVPENE1INYWc3pOms&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiF-oedqMjWAhXqJZoKHYUEC_UQ6AEIXDAN#v=onepage&amp;q=richard%20bach%20gift%20of%20wings%20neck&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15097" RevisionGUID="626a276a-5fba-4b10-b7aa-149aba5c795b" CreationDate="2017-09-28T20:16:35.817" UserId="7336" Text="Is it a `Норм чувак` **(1)** or `Норм, чувак` **(2)** (the latter has comma, which means addressing to `чувак`)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a first variant `Норм` is a short form of `нормальный` (`acceptable`, `satisfactory`, `good`), the second one is a short form of `нормально` (`it is ok`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **(1)** may be translated as `He is good dude` in context of mentioning someone. And **(2)** may be translated as `It is ok dude`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT! :) When someone chats with you via IM/SMS, then to shorten his/her phrase (or just due to the laziness) comma might be skipped and `Норм, чувак` may be written as `Норм чувак`. :) And you can guess this only from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope I didn't confuse you. :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15098" RevisionGUID="f00635ef-2c7e-43f4-a3fc-1b12bb41195f" CreationDate="2017-09-29T12:26:18.473" UserId="5423" Text="I recently found out that Pripyat has/had a place called Дворец культуры Энергетик (Palace of Culture Energetik). The phrase reminded me of the German term &quot;kulturelle Energetik&quot;, which was used by Wilhelm Ostwald according to the book &quot;Scientific Babel&quot; by Michael D. Gordon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;культуры Энергетик&quot; a commonly used set phrase, derived from the German &quot;kulturelle Energetik&quot;, or was this just a once-off combination of two unrelated words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15098" RevisionGUID="f00635ef-2c7e-43f4-a3fc-1b12bb41195f" CreationDate="2017-09-29T12:26:18.473" UserId="5423" Text="Is &quot;культуры Энергетик&quot; a set phrase based on the German &quot;kulturelle Energetik&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15098" RevisionGUID="f00635ef-2c7e-43f4-a3fc-1b12bb41195f" CreationDate="2017-09-29T12:26:18.473" UserId="5423" Text="|этимология|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15099" RevisionGUID="dc4eecd5-4f23-4775-8b33-38f62dcf62dc" CreationDate="2017-09-29T12:54:37.510" UserId="4560" Text="No. Not even remotely. The set phrase is **дворец культуры**, and **«Энергетик»** should properly be in quotes as it's the name of that particular [Palace of Culture][1]. An **энергетик** is a person, a power engineer. Naming things after members of a prevalent local profession was common in the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Kulturelle Energetik&quot; would be **культурная энергетика**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15100" RevisionGUID="195ebca2-8df3-4416-b8b4-bf7684d8dc50" CreationDate="2017-09-29T13:01:30.673" UserId="134" Text="*Энергетик* here is a proper name, with correct punctuation it should have been *Дворец культуры &quot;Энергетик&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Энергетик* means &quot;power systems engineer&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In USSR, it was common to name local things after trades prevalent in the area: there are sports teams with names such as *Металлург* (&quot;Metallurgist&quot;), *Металлист* (&quot;Metalworker&quot;), *Химик* (&quot;Chemist&quot;); palaces of culture named *Текстильщик* (&quot;Textile maker&quot;), *Горняк* (&quot;Ore miner&quot;) etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15090" RevisionGUID="546522ed-ef19-4107-9430-c539290e9ff1" CreationDate="2017-09-29T15:57:40.143" UserId="4238" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="OK. I am NOT an expert speaker. However, I have noticed this a bit for negatives: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If the thing comes with a SINGULAR/SINGLE-INSTANCE (maybe I want to say &quot;semelfactive&quot;) direct object or other&#xD;&#xA;   precisor, it may well get a perfective in the past.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, the default is imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - And Russians are adept at dodging this question entirely by putting&#xD;&#xA;   it in the present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples (all from real Russian):  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты не ответила на них ни слова. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты не отвечал на телефонные звонки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пишу тебе уже десятое письмо, а ты не отвечаешь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15101" RevisionGUID="63a4d9f6-27db-41c1-b702-41baaf05e822" CreationDate="2017-09-29T17:34:46.140" UserId="8359" Text="About 1814 the Russian-American Company renamed an old ship, called &quot;Il'men&quot; or &quot;Il'mena&quot; in works written in English. Ильмень is of course [a famous lake][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boris Dralyuk suggested to Susan Morris that obvious confusion between the spellings could be down to distinction between the nominative and genitive cases. I do have one reference to it in the Russian language, but this spelling appears to be yet a third case:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПРОБЛЕМ А УЧАСТИЯ АНТИПАТРА БАРАНОВА В ЭКСПЕДИЦИИ НА «ИЛЬМЕНЕ» У КАЛИФОРНИЙСКИХ БЕРЕГОВ В 1814-1815 ГГ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct name of the ship? Is the nominative case the one that should be used to refer to it in other languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15101" RevisionGUID="63a4d9f6-27db-41c1-b702-41baaf05e822" CreationDate="2017-09-29T17:34:46.140" UserId="8359" Text="What is the correct name of the ship, Il'men or Il'mena?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15101" RevisionGUID="63a4d9f6-27db-41c1-b702-41baaf05e822" CreationDate="2017-09-29T17:34:46.140" UserId="8359" Text="|выбор-имени|other-languages|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15102" RevisionGUID="94760b19-8332-40bf-851f-a22ed86bf8c0" CreationDate="2017-09-29T18:13:51.293" UserId="134" Text="Correct name of the ship is Il'menа (*Ильмена*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ilmena was a legendary Slavic women, after whom, as the legend holds, the lake Ilmen was named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the nominative forms should be used when borrowing Russian words, however, for the other languages, your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Russian, when borrowing Latin words of 3rd declension, uses genitive as the main form and drops the endings, so that Cicero becomes *Цицерон &lt; Ciceron(is)*, Venus is *Венера &lt; Vener(is)*, atlas (in architecture) is *атлант &lt; atlant(is)* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15102" RevisionGUID="263ac985-16d0-45ae-9c7d-6321e97f0d35" CreationDate="2017-09-29T18:51:24.577" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="The correct name of the ship is Il'menа (*Ильмена*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ilmena was a legendary Slavic woman, after whom, as the legend holds, the lake Ilmen was named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the nominative forms should be used when borrowing Russian words, however, for other languages, your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, Russian, when borrowing Latin words of 3rd declension, uses genitive as the main form and drops the endings, so that Cicero becomes *Цицерон &lt; Ciceron(is)*, Venus is *Венера &lt; Vener(is)*, atlas (in architecture) is *атлант &lt; atlant(is)* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15101" RevisionGUID="dd4a94c5-20af-457b-b5b2-a12eb73d8119" CreationDate="2017-09-29T19:57:26.043" UserId="8359" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="About 1814 the Russian-American Company renamed an old ship, called &quot;Il'men&quot; or &quot;Il'mena&quot; in works written in English. Ильмень is of course [a famous lake][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boris Dralyuk suggested to Susan Morris that obvious confusion between the spellings could be down to distinction between the nominative and genitive cases. I do have one reference to it in the Russian language, but this spelling appears to be yet a third case:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПРОБЛЕМ А УЧАСТИЯ АНТИПАТРА БАРАНОВА В ЭКСПЕДИЦИИ НА «ИЛЬМЕНЕ» У КАЛИФОРНИЙСКИХ БЕРЕГОВ В 1814-1815 ГГ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct name of the ship? Is the nominative case the one that should be used to refer to it in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37260" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15098" RevisionGUID="7709fa8a-dc3e-443d-be33-74e6f0b404e2" CreationDate="2017-09-29T20:38:27.843" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/913865579345391616" />
  <row Id="37261" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15095" RevisionGUID="80985840-aa1e-4531-90bf-1c54d43a1dd4" CreationDate="2017-09-29T23:38:36.193" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/913910912855265281" />
  <row Id="37262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15103" RevisionGUID="1f47cfbb-95a3-40ba-ac17-ac5058272c2f" CreationDate="2017-09-29T23:42:56.800" UserId="2244" Text="На «Ильмене» (prepositional case IIRC) is exactly the same form for nominative &quot;Ильмен&quot; and &quot;Ильмена&quot;, so I bet this is the source of confusion. It is not possible to figure out the nominative from the prepositional in this case purely grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could surmise that a ship's name would be female, &quot;Ильмена&quot;, although sometimes (at least in Russia) warships have male name. Indeed, this article - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Илмера - says it's &quot;Ильмена&quot; (бриг «Ильмена»)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15099" RevisionGUID="6ba512c0-2857-4949-b26b-efc53cffbb1f" CreationDate="2017-09-30T00:44:14.580" UserId="8359" Comment="less insulting" Text="No. The set phrase is **дворец культуры**, and **«Энергетик»** should properly be in quotes as it's the name of that particular [Palace of Culture][1]. An **энергетик** is a person, a power engineer. Naming things after members of a prevalent local profession was common in the USSR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Kulturelle Energetik&quot; would be **культурная энергетика**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37264" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15099" RevisionGUID="6ba512c0-2857-4949-b26b-efc53cffbb1f" CreationDate="2017-09-30T00:44:14.580" Comment="Proposed by 8359 approved by 4560 edit id of 914" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37265" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="a61c816b-abf1-446f-a87e-a88e7c75815d" CreationDate="2017-10-01T04:42:19.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="37266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15104" RevisionGUID="9cf76fec-1f77-4d47-8483-13abbc771b72" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:27:09.607" UserId="8742" Text="I often don't see the Russian adverb **&quot;уже&quot;** translated into English.  I'll give you some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Скоро уже начало марта.  &#xD;&#xA;The beginning of March is soon.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Example above is from Duolingo's Russian for English Speaker's Course_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, as I tried to find some good examples, I mostly saw sentences that, with more context _could have_ added an &quot;already&quot; to the sentence without any drastic change in meaning, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И тебе уже пора уже зарегиться там.  &#xD;&#xA;And it's time for you to get out there.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И тебе уже пора уже зарегиться там.  &#xD;&#xA;The future has arrived, and the future is now.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bigger mystery is when **&quot;уже&quot;** is paired with **&quot;скоро&quot;** (as in the first example).  Here are some others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.  &#xD;&#xA;No, I'm still at work, but I'll be home soon.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И так, скоро уже закончим.  &#xD;&#xA;It won't take much longer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ну что там, скоро уже?  &#xD;&#xA;Well, how long do I have to wait?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Скоро уже ты получишь полную свободу.  &#xD;&#xA;In due time, you'll have your freedom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Examples above are from Reverso's Context Dictionary_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these somewhat idiomatic expressions that one simply must get used to and through repeated exposure and practice will feel more natural to an English speaker?  Or can the &quot;уже&quot; be omitted?  Would these sentences sound odd to a native speaker of Russian if they were to be omitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15104" RevisionGUID="9cf76fec-1f77-4d47-8483-13abbc771b72" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:27:09.607" UserId="8742" Text="Why is the Russian adverb &quot;уже&quot; not always translated into English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15104" RevisionGUID="9cf76fec-1f77-4d47-8483-13abbc771b72" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:27:09.607" UserId="8742" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15104" RevisionGUID="d420fbe3-9aca-49a0-b831-9a6fddb43285" CreationDate="2017-10-02T08:32:33.807" UserId="8742" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="I often don't see the Russian adverb **&quot;уже&quot;** translated into English.  I'll give you some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Скоро уже начало марта.  &#xD;&#xA;The beginning of March is soon.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Example above is from [**Duolingo's Russian for English Speaker's Course**](https://www.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, as I tried to find some good examples, I mostly saw sentences that, with more context _could have_ added an &quot;already&quot; to the sentence without any drastic change in meaning, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И тебе уже пора уже зарегиться там.  &#xD;&#xA;And it's time for you to get out there.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И тебе уже пора уже зарегиться там.  &#xD;&#xA;The future has arrived, and the future is now.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bigger mystery is when **&quot;уже&quot;** is paired with **&quot;скоро&quot;** (as in the first example).  Here are some others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.  &#xD;&#xA;No, I'm still at work, but I'll be home soon.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И так, скоро уже закончим.  &#xD;&#xA;It won't take much longer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ну что там, скоро уже?  &#xD;&#xA;Well, how long do I have to wait?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Скоро уже ты получишь полную свободу.  &#xD;&#xA;In due time, you'll have your freedom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Examples above are from [**Reverso's Context Dictionary**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/russian-english/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE+%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these somewhat idiomatic expressions that one simply must get used to and through repeated exposure and practice will feel more natural to an English speaker?  Or can the &quot;уже&quot; be omitted?  Would these sentences sound odd to a native speaker of Russian if they were to be omitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15105" RevisionGUID="d8d167ca-7361-4dd4-8828-0e11f1785533" CreationDate="2017-10-02T09:44:00.523" UserId="8895" Text="In the second part of your examples, **уже** can also be mostly translated as **already**. Note that the Context Dictionary's examples are not literal translations and therefore differ from the original sentences both in tone and in word choice. If you were to translate them as closely to original as possible, you'd get the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.* -- *No, I'm still at work, but **soon** I'll **already** be heading home.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Итак, скоро уже закончим. -- That said, we'll **already** have finished **soon**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Ну что там, скоро уже?* -- *Well, is it over **yet**?* (literally, 'is it soon yet?', referring to the end of the action taking place)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Скоро уже ты получишь полную свободу.* -- ***Soon** you'll **already** be completely free.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уже** adds a tone of reassurance to **скоро**, as if to confirm that the action in progress won't take long to complete indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15105" RevisionGUID="d08f1a2d-3484-401a-8ef5-fdeea447d8fc" CreationDate="2017-10-02T09:49:31.840" UserId="8895" Comment="edited body" Text="In the second part of your examples, **уже** can mostly also be translated as **already**. Note that the Context Dictionary's examples are not literal translations and therefore differ from the original sentences both in tone and in word choice. If you were to translate them as closely to original as possible, you'd get the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.* -- *No, I'm still at work, but **soon** I'll **already** be heading home.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Итак, скоро уже закончим. -- That said, we'll **already** have finished **soon**.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Ну что там, скоро уже?* -- *Well, is it over **yet**?* (literally, 'is it soon yet?', referring to the end of the action taking place)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Скоро уже ты получишь полную свободу.* -- ***Soon** you'll **already** be completely free.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уже** adds a tone of reassurance to **скоро**, as if to confirm that the action in progress won't take long to complete indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15106" RevisionGUID="1a738e56-7f62-4c9a-9f93-f0be89ea8630" CreationDate="2017-10-02T09:49:43.557" UserId="6539" Text="&quot;Уже&quot; can be an adverb and an intensifying particle. &#xD;&#xA;As a particle it doesn't bear any meaning but is used with words denoting time to stress their duration. &#xD;&#xA;All your examples are connected with &quot;time&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;You can leave out &quot;уже&quot; and the sentence becomes neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скоро начало марта.(neutral soon)&#xD;&#xA;Скоро уже начало марта.(very soon or shows your expectation of spring )&#xD;&#xA;И тебе пора зарегиться там.&#xD;&#xA;И тебе пора уже зарегиться там.(&quot;уже пора&quot; is not quite &quot;high time&quot; (давно пора), but is still stronger than &quot;пора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And it's time for you to get out there.&#xD;&#xA;Нет, я еще на работе, но скоро поеду домой(neutral facts)&#xD;&#xA;Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.(very soon or expressing how eager he is about going home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не видеться уже несколько лет. Не спать уже третьи сутки.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15107" RevisionGUID="55431642-96ac-4618-9c8f-7f568a87915a" CreationDate="2017-10-02T09:51:46.453" UserId="9001" Text="Technically, it is sometimes an adverb and sometimes a particle. While as an adverb it expresses completeness, as a particle it emphasizes big amount of something (time, quantity etc.) and shows your impatience or annoyance with the fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can omit the particle in most cases and it won't change the meaning, but the sentence will lose some flavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скоро **уже** ты получишь полную свободу. - Soon you'll have your freedom **at last**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Давай,] сделай это уже! - [Come on,] do it at last (shows impatience).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потратил **уже** 200 доллларов. - I have already spent 200 dollar [on it] (the point is not that you have spent the money, but that you have spent that lot and you are not comfortable with that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я **уже** давно не ходил в театр. - It was long ago, when I was in a theater last time (you regret this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15106" RevisionGUID="c60f899d-68a5-4686-8188-1f2ff62fddca" CreationDate="2017-10-02T10:36:32.247" UserId="6539" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="&quot;Уже&quot; can be an adverb and an intensifying particle. &#xD;&#xA;As a particle it doesn't bear any meaning but is used with words denoting time to stress their duration. &#xD;&#xA;All your examples are connected with &quot;time&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;You can leave out &quot;уже&quot; and the sentence becomes neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скоро начало марта.(neutral soon)&#xD;&#xA;Скоро уже начало марта.(very soon or shows your expectation of spring )&#xD;&#xA;И тебе пора зарегиться там.&#xD;&#xA;И тебе пора уже зарегиться там.(&quot;уже пора&quot; is not quite &quot;high time&quot; (давно пора), but is still stronger than &quot;пора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And it's time for you to get out there.&#xD;&#xA;Нет, я еще на работе, но скоро поеду домой(neutral facts)&#xD;&#xA;Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.(very soon or expressing how eager he is about going home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не видеться уже несколько лет. Не спать уже третьи сутки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian is full of emotions. ™Whereas &quot;скоро&quot; is neutral, &quot;уже скоро&quot;includes &quot;скоро&quot;plus anticipation, eagerness and expectation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15107" RevisionGUID="2f74b73a-961f-4e29-9272-b708fa498eaa" CreationDate="2017-10-02T11:05:54.613" UserId="9001" Comment="added examples" Text="Technically, it is sometimes an adverb and sometimes a particle. While as an adverb it expresses completeness, as a particle it emphasizes big amount of something (time, quantity etc.) and shows your impatience or annoyance with the fact or excitation about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can omit the particle in most cases and it won't change the meaning, but the sentence will lose some flavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скоро **уже** ты получишь полную свободу. - Soon you'll have your freedom **at last**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Давай,] сделай это **уже**! - [Come on,] do it at last (shows impatience).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потратил **уже** 200 доллларов. - I have already spent 200 dollar [on it] (the point is not that you have spent the money, but that you have spent that lot and you are not comfortable with that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потратил **уже** 200 долларов! - I have already spent 200 dollar [on it] (and proud about that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я **уже** давно не ходил в театр. - It was long ago, when I was in a theater last time (you regret this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37276" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15026" RevisionGUID="9c580993-6886-4d4a-8148-53db25cf2532" CreationDate="2017-10-02T11:41:42.770" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/914817665558044673" />
  <row Id="37277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15108" RevisionGUID="7fd79a06-fc64-419b-a146-8574cdd5b97b" CreationDate="2017-10-02T11:52:49.273" UserId="8742" Text="I've noticed that constructions with **&quot;надо&quot;** tend to use a perfective form of a verb.  Is there some sort of loose grammar rule dictating this?  Or does it just depend on context?  For example, can I use either one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо помыть четыре кошки.  &#xD;&#xA;I need to wash four cats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо мыть четыре кошки.  &#xD;&#xA;I need to wash four cats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience with Russian thus far is that its meanings are often quite precise, so I can't imagine that the two sentences above mean exactly the same thing, but I've seen &quot;надо&quot; paired with both (and the English translations for each), but have not yet seen any sort of pattern that distinguishes &quot;надо помыть&quot; from &quot;надо мыть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a visit to Wiktionary, I now know that the construct &quot;не надо&quot; is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**used in combination with imperfective infinitive verbs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that doesn't fully explain all the instances I've seen of &quot;надо&quot; paired with imperfective infinitives.  Here's an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Безусловно, перед едой надо мыть руки.  &#xD;&#xA;Sure. Everyone washes their hands.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Example from Reverso's search results for sentences with [**&quot;надо мыть&quot;**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/russian-english/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE+%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C) in them._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always I appreciate any insight you can provide and want to stress that I'd love to see answers that also go beyond the two examples given above and discuss any details that might pertain to &quot;надо&quot; + verb constructions in a more general sense but are still relevant to this question.  To start with, what part of speech do Russian linguists/grammarians assign to &quot;надо&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I've been to the following discussion threads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Difference between нужно и надо**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12790/difference-between-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Usage patterns of “надо” vs. “нужно”**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/usage-patterns-of-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE-vs-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they answer the questions I've asked in this post, I didn't see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15108" RevisionGUID="7fd79a06-fc64-419b-a146-8574cdd5b97b" CreationDate="2017-10-02T11:52:49.273" UserId="8742" Text="Do &quot;надо&quot; constructions tend to pair with perfective verbs and if so, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15108" RevisionGUID="7fd79a06-fc64-419b-a146-8574cdd5b97b" CreationDate="2017-10-02T11:52:49.273" UserId="8742" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15109" RevisionGUID="de1de5c6-0bdc-4f5e-b7a1-30b9cf66af24" CreationDate="2017-10-02T12:25:14.067" UserId="310" Text="I think, perfective means once, imperfective means continued or repeated action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне надо помыть четыре кошки.&#xD;&#xA;    I need to wash four cats, and once it's done I'm all set.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне надо мыть четырёх кошек.&#xD;&#xA;    I need to wash four cats once in a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use perfective (you can't make sure all four cats will be available next time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;не надо&quot; isn't paired with perfective verbs usually since it doesn't make sense to start the process if you should not have it completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are counterexamples in question form, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне помыть апельсин? Не надо!&#xD;&#xA;    Should I wash this orange? Please don't!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15110" RevisionGUID="301f2ae1-5f7a-45fe-be9c-052177cf8419" CreationDate="2017-10-02T12:26:10.187" UserId="6097" Text="You use perfective verbs when you talk about task that you have to complete once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо помыть четыре кошки *(и потом я могу отдыхать)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you use imprefective verbs when you talk about tasks that you do on regular basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо мыть четыре кошки *(каждую неделю)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед едой *(каждый раз)* надо мыть руки. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15107" RevisionGUID="94f909c5-d852-46ed-b2ea-a2d77411d342" CreationDate="2017-10-02T14:23:45.117" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="Technically, it is sometimes an adverb and sometimes a particle. While as an adverb it expresses completeness, as a particle it emphasizes a big amount of something (time, quantity etc.) and shows your impatience or annoyance with the fact or excitation about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can omit the particle in most cases and it won't change the meaning, but the sentence will lose some flavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скоро **уже** ты получишь полную свободу. - Soon you'll have your freedom **at last**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Давай,] сделай это **уже**! - [Come on,] do it at last (shows impatience).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потратил **уже** 200 долларов. - I have already spent 200 dollar [on it] (the point is not that you have spent the money, but that you have spent that much and you are not comfortable with that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потратил **уже** 200 долларов! - I have already spent 200 dollar [on it] (and proud about that).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я **уже** давно не ходил в театр. - It was long ago, when I was in a theater last time (you regret this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37283" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15107" RevisionGUID="94f909c5-d852-46ed-b2ea-a2d77411d342" CreationDate="2017-10-02T14:23:45.117" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 1836, 9001 edit id of 915" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15111" RevisionGUID="ca0fabbe-7b28-4a82-9866-f6018f045fb0" CreationDate="2017-10-02T15:28:33.710" UserId="9588" Text="Мне надо помыть четыре кошки means I need to start and complete the washing. In opposite, Мне надо мыть четыре кошки may mean I have to start but I do not have to completely wash them. I might start for example to wash but do it partly. That's why &quot;не надо&quot; is usually used with imperfective infinitives: one should not start the action at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15112" RevisionGUID="a06f4043-8bcf-4c31-be7e-d7fec5e36d33" CreationDate="2017-10-02T15:31:13.933" UserId="9586" Text="Sometimes you can use &quot;надо&quot; with the imperfect form to express the continuity of the process. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо вымыть посуду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sort of &quot;future perfect&quot;, meaning we're interested in the result)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо быть в хорошей форме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sort of future/present continuous, i.e. we're interested in the process)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15110" RevisionGUID="5d7cea19-ca75-4797-b6b0-128d9f2a2665" CreationDate="2017-10-02T19:46:37.913" UserId="-1" Comment="Improve grammar and wording" Text="You use perfective verbs when you are talking about a task that you have to complete once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо помыть четыре кошки *(и потом я могу отдыхать)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you use imperfective verbs when you are talking about tasks that you do on a regular basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо мыть четыре кошки *(каждую неделю)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед едой *(каждый раз)* надо мыть руки. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37287" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15110" RevisionGUID="5d7cea19-ca75-4797-b6b0-128d9f2a2665" CreationDate="2017-10-02T19:46:37.913" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 310, 6097 edit id of 916" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15113" RevisionGUID="c82df0a9-c3b1-4866-8e5d-141de1f240b9" CreationDate="2017-10-02T21:28:44.370" UserId="9595" Text="It's not &quot;помыть четыре кошки&quot;, it's &quot;помыть четырех кошек&quot;, because 'cat' is an animate. People and animals are animate, so you need to account for that in the *accusative* case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у одушевленных существительных женского рода окончания будут:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нулевое или –ей, например: женщины- женщин, студентки - студенток,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; матери – матерей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При этом если два согласных стоят рядом, в винительном падеже между&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ними для благозвучия появляются гласные «о» или «е», как:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белки- белок, девушки – девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny thing is that this example is about the girls (девушек), but the case is exactly the same: faminine + animate - кош*ек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might wish to use the examples of ... and complete exercises here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lingq.com/lesson/2-vinitelnyi-padezh-mnozhestvennogo-chisla-354761/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надо&quot; can be used both in perfective and imperfective infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, мне надо накормить тех четырех кошек, их хозяйка до завтра не вернется.&#xD;&#xA;I think I should feed those four cats. Their owner will not be back till tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне теперь надо кормить этих четырех кошек, а у меня своих дел полно!&#xD;&#xA;Now I have to feed these four cats, and I have other things to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's exactly the same meaning as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мне придется кормить этих четырех кошек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in both cases it's not clear, are we talking about feeding for  indefinite period of time, or just one meal. It can only be clear from the context, not from the fact it's imperfective infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надо брать себе чужих кошек, и все будет в порядке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't take responsibility for cats you don't own and you will be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне обязательно нужно покормить этих четырех кошек до 15:00, иначе они разнесут дом по щепочке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have to feed the four cats before 3PM (TODAY), otherwise they will turn the house into chips!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it's definitely about just one meal, the verb is in the perfective form, and *today* is not needed in Russian variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С кошками надо быть добрее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got to be nice with cats!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15113" RevisionGUID="12c3ecc9-d7da-458a-aca5-783be4d808ed" CreationDate="2017-10-02T21:38:04.050" UserId="9595" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's not &quot;помыть четыре кошки&quot;, it's &quot;помыть четырех кошек&quot;, because 'cat' is an animate. People and animals are animate, so you need to account for that in the *accusative* case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у одушевленных существительных женского рода окончания будут:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нулевое или –ей, например: женщины- женщин, студентки - студенток,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; матери – матерей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При этом если два согласных стоят рядом, в винительном падеже между&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ними для благозвучия появляются гласные «о» или «е», как:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белки- белок, девушки – девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny thing is that this example is about the girls (девушек), but the case is exactly the same: faminine + animate - кош*ек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might wish to use the examples of ... and complete exercises here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lingq.com/lesson/2-vinitelnyi-padezh-mnozhestvennogo-chisla-354761/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надо&quot; can be used both in perfective and imperfective infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, мне надо накормить тех четырех кошек, их хозяйка до завтра не вернется.&#xD;&#xA;I think I should feed those four cats. Their owner will not be back till tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне теперь надо кормить этих четырех кошек, а у меня своих дел полно!&#xD;&#xA;Now I have to feed these four cats, and I have other things to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's exactly the same meaning as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мне придется кормить этих четырех кошек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in both cases it's not clear, are we talking about feeding for  indefinite period of time, or just one meal. It can only be clear from the context, not from the fact it's imperfective infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надо брать себе чужих кошек, и все будет в порядке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't take responsibility for cats you don't own and you will be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне обязательно надо покормить этих четырех кошек до 15:00, иначе они разнесут дом по щепочке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have to feed the four cats before 3PM (TODAY), otherwise they will turn the house into chips!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it's definitely about just one meal, the verb is in the perfective form, and *today* is not needed in Russian variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С кошками надо быть добрее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got to be nice with cats!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15113" RevisionGUID="9d6a5cec-ae63-47b9-863c-1057a9e99725" CreationDate="2017-10-02T21:43:59.773" UserId="9595" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's not &quot;помыть четыре кошки&quot;, it's &quot;помыть четырех кошек&quot;, because 'cat' is an animate. People and animals are animate, so you need to account for that in the *accusative* case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у одушевленных существительных женского рода окончания будут:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нулевое или –ей, например: женщины- женщин, студентки - студенток,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; матери – матерей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При этом если два согласных стоят рядом, в винительном падеже между&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ними для благозвучия появляются гласные «о» или «е», как:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белки- белок, девушки – девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny thing is that this example is about the girls (девушек), but the case is exactly the same: faminine + animate - кош*ек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might wish to use the examples of ... and complete exercises here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lingq.com/lesson/2-vinitelnyi-padezh-mnozhestvennogo-chisla-354761/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надо&quot; can be used both in perfective and imperfective infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, мне надо накормить тех четырех кошек, их хозяйка до завтра не вернется.&#xD;&#xA;I think I should feed those four cats. Their owner will not be back till tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is perfective form, we are talking about one occurrence of meal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне теперь надо кормить этих четырех кошек, а у меня своих дел полно!&#xD;&#xA;Now I have to feed these four cats, and I have other things to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's exactly the same meaning as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мне придется кормить этих четырех кошек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in both imperfective infinitive usage cases it's not clear, are we talking about feeding for  indefinite period of time, or just one meal. It can only be clear from the context, not from the fact it's imperfective infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надо брать себе чужих кошек, и все будет в порядке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't take responsibility for cats you don't own and you will be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне обязательно надо покормить этих четырех кошек до 15:00, иначе они разнесут дом по щепочке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have to feed the four cats before 3PM (TODAY), otherwise they will turn the house into chips!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it's definitely about just one meal, the verb is in the perfective form, and *today* is not needed in Russian variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С кошками надо быть добрее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got to be nice with cats!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15114" RevisionGUID="56400d92-8200-483f-b334-3d07dd4e812f" CreationDate="2017-10-03T00:37:24.707" UserId="9602" Text="*Надо + imperfective* emphasizes the process (I have to *work on this*) while *надо + perfective* has an emphasis on the result and what follows (I have to *get it done*). The reason for that can differ, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Certainty or lack thereof about job size:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо помыть кошек, и тогда я смогу пойти обедать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to *make sure [all the] cats are clean* then I’ll be able to have dinner.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо мыть кошек, пока кошки не кончатся.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to *occupy myself with washing* [some] cats until I run out of cats.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Job being one-off or being part of one’s life:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо помыть кошек, чтобы не пачкали мебель.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to *make sure cats are clean* [once and for all] so they don’t stain the furniture.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо мыть кошек ежедневно.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have to *occupy myself with washing* [those mud-loving] cats every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus perfective forms are more common after *надо*. After *не надо* it makes no sense to use perfective: “I don’t need to *do* X” is OK, while emphasizing “I don’t need to *achieve* X” would be strange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15103" RevisionGUID="3e614dca-d5a1-4f20-b60b-37a91b67083c" CreationDate="2017-10-03T01:30:19.597" UserId="2244" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="На «Ильмене» (prepositional case IIRC) is exactly the same form for nominative &quot;Ильмен&quot; and &quot;Ильмена&quot;, so I bet this is the source of confusion. It is not possible to figure out the nominative from the prepositional in this case purely grammatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could surmise that a ship's name would be female, &quot;Ильмена&quot;, although sometimes, at least in Russian, warships have male names (&quot;врагу не сдается наш гордый Варяг&quot;). Indeed, this article - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Илмера - says it's &quot;Ильмена&quot; (бриг «Ильмена»)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15110" RevisionGUID="52f4b134-b6b2-412d-85c4-912d602c3a76" CreationDate="2017-10-03T08:53:45.070" UserId="6097" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You use perfective verbs when you are talking about a task that you have to complete once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо помыть четырёх кошкек *(и потом я могу отдыхать)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you use imperfective verbs when you are talking about tasks that you do on a regular basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо мыть четырёх кошкек *(каждую неделю)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед едой *(каждый раз)* надо мыть руки. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15110" RevisionGUID="d45e29e1-47da-47e4-a742-07d7d2f3371f" CreationDate="2017-10-03T15:02:33.863" UserId="1162" Comment="Fixing typo in &quot;кошек&quot;" Text="You use perfective verbs when you are talking about a task that you have to complete once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо помыть четырёх кошек *(и потом я могу отдыхать)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you use imperfective verbs when you are talking about tasks that you do on a regular basis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне надо мыть четырёх кошек *(каждую неделю)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед едой *(каждый раз)* надо мыть руки. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37296" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15110" RevisionGUID="d45e29e1-47da-47e4-a742-07d7d2f3371f" CreationDate="2017-10-03T15:02:33.863" Comment="Proposed by 1162 approved by 6097 edit id of 917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15115" RevisionGUID="a013e789-4a78-472e-af50-bdfd9c0e1316" CreationDate="2017-10-04T08:01:58.607" UserId="9611" Text="Довольно часто стали попадаться в речи и в письме эти выражения. Примеры употребления:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Одержал победу на характере»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Принял решение на эмоциях»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Совершил поступок на кураже»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд, эти выражения (в особенности «на характере») звучат довольно просторечно и убого. Что «говорят» нормы русского языка про такие обороты? Допустимы ли они, или их следует перефразировать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15115" RevisionGUID="a013e789-4a78-472e-af50-bdfd9c0e1316" CreationDate="2017-10-04T08:01:58.607" UserId="9611" Text="Допустимы ли выражения &quot;на эмоциях&quot; и &quot;на характере&quot; с точки зрения норм русского языка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15115" RevisionGUID="a013e789-4a78-472e-af50-bdfd9c0e1316" CreationDate="2017-10-04T08:01:58.607" UserId="9611" Text="|стилистика|грамотность|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15116" RevisionGUID="ac3b6cd1-a9c3-42ee-bab6-cd82c836d63b" CreationDate="2017-10-04T10:16:17.293" UserId="242" Text="Этот ответ приходится давать часто, но поскольку вопросы-то разные - а ответ один и тот же - я не думаю, что можно такие вопросы закрывать. Возможно, впрочем, имеет это обсудить с комьюнити и модифицировать правила. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну так вот - есть фактическое применение каких-то грамматических конструкций и фразеологизмов - и это фактическое применение существует без оглядки на какие-то бы ни было нормативные нормы. Как неоднократно уже отмечалось на этом стеке - единого регулятора русского языка не существует, но даже если б он существовал - это не отменило бы реального словоупотребления. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Говорят `на районе`? Да, говорят. `На измене` говорят, `на стиле` говорят. &#xD;&#xA;Это просто факт. Мы его можем констатировать. Другое дело, что так же мы, как наблюдатели, можем констатировать и тот факт, что это всё часть разговорного языка (и часто молодёжного сленга, например) - но в газете, официальном документе эти формы не употребляются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все приведённые вами примеры легальны хотя бы потому, что существуют. &#xD;&#xA;Более того, их применение куда менее маргинально, чем это может показаться. Говорим же мы `на честном слове`, например. `На одном кураже далеко не уедешь` - тоже вполне литературная фраза. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15106" RevisionGUID="bc2e88a8-5353-4fbb-9672-6427d0b00971" CreationDate="2017-10-04T15:22:09.150" UserId="6539" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&quot;Уже&quot; can be an adverb and an intensifying particle. &#xD;&#xA;As a particle it doesn't bear any meaning but is used with words denoting time to stress their duration. &#xD;&#xA;All your examples are connected with &quot;time&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;You can leave out &quot;уже&quot; and the sentence becomes neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скоро начало марта.(neutral soon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скоро уже начало марта.(very soon or shows your expectation of spring )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И тебе пора зарегиться там.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И тебе пора уже зарегиться там.(&quot;уже пора&quot; is not quite &quot;high time&quot; (давно пора), but is still stronger than &quot;пора&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And it's time for you to get out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нет, я еще на работе, но скоро поеду домой(neutral facts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.(very soon or expressing how eager he is about going home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не видеться уже несколько лет. Не спать уже третьи сутки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian is full of emotions. ™Whereas &quot;скоро&quot; is neutral, &quot;уже скоро&quot;includes &quot;скоро&quot;plus anticipation, eagerness and expectation. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37304" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15108" RevisionGUID="29c96b5a-cc5b-4f93-8a82-cbe864780bb7" CreationDate="2017-10-04T20:49:51.003" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/915680383970275330" />
  <row Id="37305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15117" RevisionGUID="b5ed6c0a-4809-407d-8984-05d2bb05f23d" CreationDate="2017-10-05T05:03:08.980" UserId="8359" Text="Животноводство (from Животные) describes animal husbandry and particularly cattle-raising. From how long ago is it attested?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15117" RevisionGUID="b5ed6c0a-4809-407d-8984-05d2bb05f23d" CreationDate="2017-10-05T05:03:08.980" UserId="8359" Text="How early is Животноводство attested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15117" RevisionGUID="b5ed6c0a-4809-407d-8984-05d2bb05f23d" CreationDate="2017-10-05T05:03:08.980" UserId="8359" Text="|словоупотребление|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15117" RevisionGUID="df311b18-efc1-443b-affb-4ffbdf95e94c" CreationDate="2017-10-05T09:28:24.493" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="`Животноводство` (from `животные`) describes animal husbandry and particularly cattle-raising. From how long ago is it attested?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15117" RevisionGUID="df311b18-efc1-443b-affb-4ffbdf95e94c" CreationDate="2017-10-05T09:28:24.493" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="How early is &quot;животноводство&quot; attested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15119" RevisionGUID="9673687c-1116-478c-aed8-aeaa202ef93b" CreationDate="2017-10-05T10:16:35.730" UserId="242" Text="Well, this kind of terms - I mean, terms for describing some branch of economical activity as a whole -  usually came to active usage when economical statistics became a thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, more or less like in the rest of the Europe this happened in the second part of XVIII century. One of the first economic entities in Russian Empire was, to my knowledge [&quot;Free Economic Society&quot;][1] (in Russian, [&quot;Императорское Вольное экономическое общество&quot;][2]) which published a [magazine][3] dedicated to descriptive economic statistics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this magazine you won't find `животноводство`, but, however you can easily find `скотоводство` - this word has been used from the very beginning, as early as in [1765][4] you can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дѣлать вѣрные опыты, касающееся додомостроительства, земледѣлія, береженія и размноженія лѢсовъ, **скотоводства**, рыбныхъ  и звѣриныхъ  промысловъ, горныхъ дѣлъ, мануфактуръ, всякикъ  рукодѣлій и прочаго.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically the term `скотоводство` is narrower than `животноводство` since it only about livestock but de-facto `скотоводство` was widely used (in fact, it's still widely used) throughout XIXth century while `животноводство` gradually become more frequently used at the end of XIXth - beginning of XXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an [article][7] in famous &quot;Энциклопедический Словарь Ф.А.Брокгауза и И.А.Ефрона&quot; about `Зоотехния` (there was an attempt to use this word as more scientific but it never became popular - though `зоотехник` is still used), in this article we can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас эти названия переводят словом &quot;животноводство&quot;, а несколько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десятков лет тому назад, нынешняя З. называлась просто скотоводством&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Viehzucht).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Economic_Society&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://veorus.ru/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/1765/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msgs3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/24nEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vehi.net/brokgauz/all/042/42398.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15119" RevisionGUID="8b3b47de-9417-4cda-ade2-cbb3ac72e798" CreationDate="2017-10-05T10:34:01.417" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Well, this kind of terms - I mean, terms for describing some branch of economical activity as a whole -  usually came to active usage when economical statistics became a thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, more or less like in the rest of the Europe this happened in the second part of XVIII century. One of the first economic entities in Russian Empire was, to my knowledge [&quot;Free Economic Society&quot;][1] (in Russian, [&quot;Императорское Вольное экономическое общество&quot;][2]) which published a [magazine][3] dedicated to descriptive economic statistics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this magazine you won't find `животноводство`, but, however you can easily find `скотоводство` - this word has been used from the very beginning, as early as in [1765][4] you can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дѣлать вѣрные опыты, касающееся додомостроительства, земледѣлія, береженія и размноженія лѢсовъ, **скотоводства**, рыбныхъ  и звѣриныхъ  промысловъ, горныхъ дѣлъ, мануфактуръ, всякикъ  рукодѣлій и прочаго.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically the term `скотоводство` is narrower than `животноводство` since it only about livestock but de-facto `скотоводство` was widely used (it's actually still widely used) throughout XIXth century while `животноводство` gradually become more frequently used at the end of XIXth - beginning of XXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an [article][7] in famous &quot;Энциклопедический Словарь Ф.А.Брокгауза и И.А.Ефрона&quot; about `Зоотехния` (there was an attempt to use this word as more scientific but it never became popular - though `зоотехник` is still used), in this article we can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас эти названия переводят словом &quot;животноводство&quot;, а несколько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десятков лет тому назад, нынешняя З. называлась просто скотоводством&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Viehzucht).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Economic_Society&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://veorus.ru/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/1765/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msgs3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/24nEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vehi.net/brokgauz/all/042/42398.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15119" RevisionGUID="328ec2dd-864e-4fce-800a-b2a8f75745bb" CreationDate="2017-10-05T10:43:59.877" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Well, this kind of terms - I mean, terms for describing some branch of economical activity as a whole -  usually came to active usage when economical statistics became a thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, more or less like in the rest of the Europe this happened in the second part of XVIII century. One of the first economic entities in Russian Empire was, to my knowledge, [&quot;Free Economic Society&quot;][1] (in Russian, [&quot;Императорское Вольное экономическое общество&quot;][2]) which published a [magazine][3] dedicated to descriptive economic statistics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this magazine you won't find `животноводство`, but, however you can easily find `скотоводство` - this word has been used from the very beginning, as early as in [1765][4] you can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дѣлать вѣрные опыты, касающееся додомостроительства, земледѣлія, береженія и размноженія лѢсовъ, **скотоводства**, рыбныхъ  и звѣриныхъ  промысловъ, горныхъ дѣлъ, мануфактуръ, всякикъ  рукодѣлій и прочаго.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically the term `скотоводство` is narrower than `животноводство` since it only about livestock but de-facto `скотоводство` was widely used (it's actually still widely used) throughout XIXth century while `животноводство` gradually become more frequently used at the end of XIXth - beginning of XXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an [article][7] in famous &quot;Энциклопедический Словарь Ф.А.Брокгауза и И.А.Ефрона&quot; about `Зоотехния` (there was an attempt to use this word as more scientific but it never became popular - though `зоотехник` is still used), in this article we can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас эти названия переводят словом &quot;животноводство&quot;, а несколько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десятков лет тому назад, нынешняя З. называлась просто скотоводством&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Viehzucht).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Economic_Society&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://veorus.ru/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/1765/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msgs3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/24nEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vehi.net/brokgauz/all/042/42398.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37315" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15115" RevisionGUID="47d27813-251d-4bc1-88e0-04b9cc867b86" CreationDate="2017-10-05T11:49:51.790" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/915906880068825088" />
  <row Id="37316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15119" RevisionGUID="0a05fd95-7f1a-4b80-943f-de4087f49848" CreationDate="2017-10-05T12:49:39.020" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Well, this kind of terms - I mean, terms for describing some branch of economical activity as a whole -  usually came to active usage when economical statistics became a thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, more or less like in the rest of the Europe this happened in the second part of XVIII century. One of the first economic entities in Russian Empire was, to my knowledge, [&quot;Free Economic Society&quot;][1] (in Russian, [&quot;Императорское Вольное экономическое общество&quot;][2]) which published a [magazine][3] dedicated to descriptive economic statistics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this magazine you won't find `животноводство`, but, however you can easily find `скотоводство` - this word has been used from the very beginning, as early as in [1765][4] you can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дѣлать вѣрные опыты, касающееся додомостроительства, земледѣлія, береженія и размноженія лѢсовъ, **скотоводства**, рыбныхъ  и звѣриныхъ  промысловъ, горныхъ дѣлъ, мануфактуръ, всякикъ  рукодѣлій и прочаго.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically the term `скотоводство` is narrower than `животноводство` since it only about livestock but de-facto `скотоводство` was widely used  throughout XIXth century (and it's actually still widely used) while `животноводство` gradually become more frequently used at the end of XIXth - beginning of XXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an [article][7] in famous &quot;Энциклопедический Словарь Ф.А.Брокгауза и И.А.Ефрона&quot; about `Зоотехния` (there was an attempt to use this word as more scientific but it never became popular - though `зоотехник` is still used), in this article we can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас эти названия переводят словом &quot;животноводство&quot;, а несколько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десятков лет тому назад, нынешняя З. называлась просто скотоводством&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Viehzucht).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Economic_Society&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://veorus.ru/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/1765/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msgs3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/24nEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vehi.net/brokgauz/all/042/42398.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37317" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4377" RevisionGUID="901977e9-34f4-449d-8e98-471aff7cf112" CreationDate="2017-10-05T14:19:20.547" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37318" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="8e2e353b-5ecc-457a-af0e-11429972868e" CreationDate="2017-10-05T14:19:59.470" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37320" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15117" RevisionGUID="5195e583-76cd-4642-9a92-c0d2511c4a5a" CreationDate="2017-10-05T14:49:51.790" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/915952178266812419" />
  <row Id="37321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15119" RevisionGUID="a343f916-f60c-41e8-9a1e-0bf018fd88f3" CreationDate="2017-10-05T17:35:27.233" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Well, this kind of terms - I mean, terms for describing some branch of economical activity as a whole -  usually came to active usage when economical statistics became a thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, more or less like in the rest of the Europe this happened in the second half of XVIII century. One of the first economic entities in Russian Empire was, to my knowledge, [&quot;Free Economic Society&quot;][1] (in Russian, [&quot;Императорское Вольное экономическое общество&quot;][2]) which published a [magazine][3] dedicated to descriptive economic statistics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this magazine you won't find `животноводство`, but, however you can easily find `скотоводство` - this word has been used from the very beginning, as early as in [1765][4] you can find:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дѣлать вѣрные опыты, касающееся додомостроительства, земледѣлія, береженія и размноженія лѢсовъ, **скотоводства**, рыбныхъ  и звѣриныхъ  промысловъ, горныхъ дѣлъ, мануфактуръ, всякикъ  рукодѣлій и прочаго.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically the term `скотоводство` is narrower than `животноводство` since it only about livestock but de-facto `скотоводство` was widely used  throughout XIXth century (and it's actually still widely used) while `животноводство` gradually become more frequently used at the end of XIXth - beginning of XXth century:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an [article][7] in famous &quot;Энциклопедический Словарь Ф.А.Брокгауза и И.А.Ефрона&quot; about `Зоотехния` (there was an attempt to use this word as more scientific but it never became popular - though `зоотехник` is still used), in this article we can read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас эти названия переводят словом &quot;животноводство&quot;, а несколько&#xD;&#xA;&gt; десятков лет тому назад, нынешняя З. называлась просто скотоводством&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Viehzucht).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Economic_Society&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://veorus.ru/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8B-%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%8D%D0%BE/1765/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/msgs3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/24nEP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.vehi.net/brokgauz/all/042/42398.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15121" RevisionGUID="65d522d5-7caf-400d-ab1a-b0d5d427be36" CreationDate="2017-10-06T10:32:57.057" UserId="9541" Text="As native Russian speaker, i'd like to point out that &quot;скоро&quot; and &quot;скоро уже&quot; make no difference in practical spoken language, but &quot;уже скоро&quot; can be used to show that you are looking forward expecting something to happen/do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37327" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15104" RevisionGUID="1d8a5095-bdc1-496d-9b64-280bb10803d4" CreationDate="2017-10-07T05:52:17.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/916541669394272256" />
  <row Id="37328" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14968" RevisionGUID="2c396c24-a7c0-4868-900f-591a46622f32" CreationDate="2017-10-07T14:52:17.163" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/916677563854082049" />
  <row Id="37329" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14983" RevisionGUID="b17b86dc-2562-40a1-99f0-42c00c8122f6" CreationDate="2017-10-07T17:52:17.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/916722863213817857" />
  <row Id="37331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15122" RevisionGUID="d023d4cb-ee49-48eb-a389-7196969378a7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T04:17:29.677" UserId="8359" Text="This is the 1840s confirmation record of a Russian convert to Catholicism. The names of his parents back in Kamchatka, probably orally reported to the Spanish-speaking priest who wrote in the register book, are recognizably Russian except for the word that resembles _Macorís_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any similar name or surname. Is it after all Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Confirmation record][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Jose Bolcoff [Осип Волков]. Son of Jacobo Bolcoff [Яков Волков] and Ana **Macorís** [_?_]. Godfather Francisco Soria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EkTjh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15122" RevisionGUID="d023d4cb-ee49-48eb-a389-7196969378a7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T04:17:29.677" UserId="8359" Text="Is there any Russian surname similar to Macorís?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15122" RevisionGUID="d023d4cb-ee49-48eb-a389-7196969378a7" CreationDate="2017-10-08T04:17:29.677" UserId="8359" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37334" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15122" RevisionGUID="e9fe22a6-9033-423b-a9ad-d18067a7bd6b" CreationDate="2017-10-08T11:11:40.590" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37342" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14939" RevisionGUID="564978fd-6068-4fad-ab2b-01b9d584cbc6" CreationDate="2017-10-11T02:58:27.567" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/917947474580471810" />
  <row Id="37343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15125" RevisionGUID="b95eb88b-b337-470c-b731-4171edd6a1c0" CreationDate="2017-10-11T03:40:20.223" UserId="3848" Text="While there are [several][1] [ways][2] to use the word (e.g. good, well, OK). Once you separate each word it'd read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Хорошо! Всё будет хорошо!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Good! Everything will be good!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a more colloquial English equivalent example would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well! All is well!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's a popular Russian song with that title by [ВЕРКА СЕРДЮЧКА - ВСЕ БУДЕТ ХОРОШО][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE%20%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;oq=%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3.2.0i71k1l4.0.0.0.323954.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6BcZ_kz5fN8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Am5AEPHd6k" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37344" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8592" RevisionGUID="e3a56335-5d55-4b87-9165-76a74d0d3b7c" CreationDate="2017-10-11T06:15:48.247" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15126" RevisionGUID="b26f6e42-8131-4a11-9b8f-aa9e07ec9387" CreationDate="2017-10-11T06:51:34.220" UserId="4432" Text="Can one explain why the adjective *толст**ый*** appears in the name of the famous writer as *Толст**ой***, i e with a different ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15126" RevisionGUID="b26f6e42-8131-4a11-9b8f-aa9e07ec9387" CreationDate="2017-10-11T06:51:34.220" UserId="4432" Text="толстый and Толстой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15126" RevisionGUID="b26f6e42-8131-4a11-9b8f-aa9e07ec9387" CreationDate="2017-10-11T06:51:34.220" UserId="4432" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15127" RevisionGUID="973b24cb-84ce-4680-ace8-0ea3368f51f0" CreationDate="2017-10-11T08:51:41.093" UserId="5008" Text="Russian adjectives may end in either _-ый/-ий_ or _-ой_ (the latter is always stressed), so it's OK to have also surnames ending in _-ой_, such as _Мостовой_. However, it's unclear why _Толстой_ and several other names (_Грязной_, _Дикой_ etc.) were formed using _-ой_ instead of the proper ending of a corresponding adjective (_толстый_, _грязный_, _дикий_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most natural explanation could be the influence of some archaic and/or dialect form. At least for the word _толстый_, such dialect form (_толстой_) [indeed exists](https://vasmer.lexicography.online/%D1%82/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37349" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15126" RevisionGUID="113f00ea-5221-4fda-9b12-1724e8914722" CreationDate="2017-10-11T11:11:19.373" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Толстой&quot; and &quot;толстый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15127" RevisionGUID="5a67b69f-3d92-4aa9-b593-1ae12cc210f5" CreationDate="2017-10-11T12:21:21.057" UserId="5008" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Russian adjectives may end in either _-ый/-ий_ or _-ой_ (the latter is always stressed), so it's OK to have also surnames ending in _-ой_, such as _Мостовой_. However, it's unclear why _Толстой_ and several other names (_Грязной_, _Дикой_ etc.) were formed using _-ой_ instead of the proper ending of a corresponding adjective (_толстый_, _грязный_, _дикий_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the most natural explanation could be the influence of some archaic and/or dialect form. At least for the word _толстый_, such dialect form (_толстой_) [indeed exists](https://vasmer.lexicography.online/%D1%82/%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B9). However, it could also happen that the surname was changed deliberately, so it didn't match the adjective &quot;fat&quot; anymore, as @Arioch suggested in the comments. I'm not aware of any authoritative source on that matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15128" RevisionGUID="ffe95820-238d-4719-b08a-79d5d5580719" CreationDate="2017-10-11T17:45:34.677" UserId="9256" Text="Yes, &quot;-ой&quot; ending is an archaic form of Russian adjectives, which was largely discontinued by the end of XVIII century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя в славенском языке мужеские прилагательные имена множественного числа в именительном падеже кончатся на и, однако из того не следует, чтобы в великороссийском языке имели они такое же окончение, ибо славенский язык от великороссийского ничем столько не разнится, как окончениями речений. Например, по-славенски единственные прилагательные мужеские именительные падежи кончатся на ый и ій -- богатый, старій, синій, а по-великороссийски кончатся на ой и ей -- богатой, старшей, синей. По-славенски: сынов_о_мъ, дѣломъ, руцѣ, мене, пихомъ, кланяхуся, по-великороссийски: сыновьямъ, дѣламъ, руки, меня, (мы) пили, (они) кланялись. Таким же образом и множественные прилагательные мужеские в именительном падеже славенские разны от великороссийских.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;М. В. Ломоносов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примечания на предложение о множественном окончении прилагательных имен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1746&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15130" RevisionGUID="9fb9fb0d-bce6-4af1-972b-1861dec9d558" CreationDate="2017-10-12T12:12:50.193" UserId="5375" Text="What is the correct way to stress the Russian surname Иванов? I have seen both Ивано́в and Ива́нов. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15130" RevisionGUID="9fb9fb0d-bce6-4af1-972b-1861dec9d558" CreationDate="2017-10-12T12:12:50.193" UserId="5375" Text="Pronunciation of Иванов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15130" RevisionGUID="9fb9fb0d-bce6-4af1-972b-1861dec9d558" CreationDate="2017-10-12T12:12:50.193" UserId="5375" Text="|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15131" RevisionGUID="453db0cc-14c5-479d-8ade-97ac3307a2ac" CreationDate="2017-10-12T12:31:21.877" UserId="2104" Text="Ивано́в is much more common although some Ivanovs prefer to be called Ива́нов. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15132" RevisionGUID="be3a9d76-79cd-49f6-a04d-03a79ca660ab" CreationDate="2017-10-12T15:12:12.587" UserId="9058" Text="I would say, if you are sure Ива́нов is a surname - then it most probably not Russian one but some West-Slavic (Bulgarian?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even more probable, that Ива́нов was not surname, it was a genitive case of plural of Иван first name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ива́н =&gt; Ива́ны =&gt; Ива́нов&#xD;&#xA;* John =&gt; Johns =&gt; of Johns&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15133" RevisionGUID="ef57210c-08b7-49cd-b9e4-d99e4543de8b" CreationDate="2017-10-12T22:09:19.897" UserId="6907" Text="What is &quot;[spiral binding machine][1]&quot; called in Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*n.b. it is also known as &quot;comb binding machine&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been searching googling and I didn't find answer. My purpose is to find the translation in order to find one in Ukrainian web-store which sells it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.ua/search?biw=1366&amp;bih=662&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;q=spiral%20binding%20machine&amp;oq=spiral%20binding%20ma&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i67k1j0l2j0i67k1j0l6.126808.126972.0.129070.2.2.0.0.0.0.158.288.0j2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.285....0.ACR--zy8iVA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QQ2M3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37365" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15133" RevisionGUID="ef57210c-08b7-49cd-b9e4-d99e4543de8b" CreationDate="2017-10-12T22:09:19.897" UserId="6907" Text="What is &quot;spiral binding machine&quot; called in Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37366" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15133" RevisionGUID="ef57210c-08b7-49cd-b9e4-d99e4543de8b" CreationDate="2017-10-12T22:09:19.897" UserId="6907" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15134" RevisionGUID="b41f3671-dc48-46ca-81cc-4fd72c518c90" CreationDate="2017-10-13T02:13:21.930" UserId="9641" Text="Переплетная машина, брошюровщик, переплетчик" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15135" RevisionGUID="9c4a6e3a-10c6-4a05-aba0-bb37271003ef" CreationDate="2017-10-13T15:59:24.967" UserId="9644" Text="In a word вороб**ьи**, for example, и sounds like **y**ee. Otherwise, if there is no **ь** infront of it, there is no **y** sound. Just like with я, ё, ю, е, actually. &#xD;&#xA;In the word **ни**ть &quot;ни&quot; sounds like in &quot;**nee**d&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15128" RevisionGUID="1b82f5bb-ec15-415b-a4d3-28747ff4602e" CreationDate="2017-10-13T21:52:32.540" UserId="9256" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Yes, &quot;-ой&quot; ending is an archaic form of Russian adjectives, which was largely discontinued by the end of XVIII century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя в славенском языке мужеские прилагательные имена множественного числа в именительном падеже кончатся на и, однако из того не следует, чтобы в великороссийском языке имели они такое же окончение, ибо славенский язык от великороссийского ничем столько не разнится, как окончениями речений. Например, по-славенски единственные прилагательные мужеские именительные падежи кончатся на ый и ій -- богатый, старій, синій, а по-великороссийски кончатся на ой и ей -- богатой, старшей, синей. По-славенски: сынов_о_мъ, дѣломъ, руцѣ, мене, пихомъ, кланяхуся, по-великороссийски: сыновьямъ, дѣламъ, руки, меня, (мы) пили, (они) кланялись. Таким же образом и множественные прилагательные мужеские в именительном падеже славенские разны от великороссийских.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;М. В. Ломоносов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примечания на предложение о множественном окончении прилагательных имен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1746&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another article that touches this subject: [О текстологии «Евгения Онегина»][1]. Apparently, by 1830s old forms were mostly discontinued, but they still could see occasional use in literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/critics/s09/s09-249-.htm?cmd=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="ee6d6b83-b0b5-4ca8-87e2-2aa0d61a3101" CreationDate="2017-10-13T22:02:44.203" UserId="3892" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="``что-то`` would be normally used when the speaker has no knowledge of what the object is, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    кажется, я что-то вижу - I think I see something&#xD;&#xA;    что-то не так - something is not right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` would be used to name one unknown item that belongs to a category/set:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    дай мне что-нибудь [выпить] - give me something [to drink] - from a set of drinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``что-нибудь`` also replaces ``что-то`` in questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Ты что-нибудь видишь? - Do you see anything?&#xD;&#xA;    - Да, что-то вижу - Yes, I see something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``кое-что`` is generally synonymous to ``что-то``, but can be used to express eagerness on the part of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - У меня кое-что для тебя есть! - I have something for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;``нечто`` is a deprecated form of ``что-то``, but now has an additional meaning of surprise/excitement, in this meaning it can be translated as ``thing``:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Это нечто удивительное! - This is [something] wonderful! / This is a wonderful thing!&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Он просто нечто - He's just so cool/great (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15126" RevisionGUID="40101f5f-a50c-4997-9ef7-980c6c9b7174" CreationDate="2017-10-14T06:06:12.223" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/919081886231793664" />
  <row Id="37373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15136" RevisionGUID="2480e597-628b-4856-b168-19d64e007bf8" CreationDate="2017-10-14T12:00:14.953" UserId="194" Text="Что-то = simply &quot;something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spotted something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нечто = **something** in bold. Something surprising, unexpected, stunning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spotted **something**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что = something I know what but will not say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spotted something, but this is secret.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15134" RevisionGUID="3710554d-44a6-40df-8aa0-d5f67717eab1" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:39:21.847" UserId="6907" Comment="made it clearer" Text="There are 3 options:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. Переплетная машина&#xD;&#xA;2. брошюровщик&#xD;&#xA;3. переплетчик" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37375" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15134" RevisionGUID="3710554d-44a6-40df-8aa0-d5f67717eab1" CreationDate="2017-10-14T17:39:21.847" Comment="Proposed by 6907 approved by 5605, 6725 edit id of 918" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37376" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15133" RevisionGUID="2c5ed334-e1ab-4eed-8092-d822af5dcdb7" CreationDate="2017-10-14T18:06:12.357" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/919263080533676033" />
  <row Id="37377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15137" RevisionGUID="aea67ee1-2c4a-4af3-9617-cd56e8b34916" CreationDate="2017-10-15T13:37:30.960" UserId="7209" Text="Несмотря на наличие &quot;литературных&quot; переводов данных строк, хотелось бы отметить, что в них слегка изменён оттенок выражения слов оригинальной песни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;лениться&quot; - не хотеть что-либо делать, при этом подразумевается что на это нет весомой причины&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не иметь желания&quot; - не хотеть что-либо делать, при этом подразумевается, что на это может быть причина (например, плохое настроение)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;наплевать&quot; - быть безразличным к чему-либо (осознанно или нет), выражение имеет негативный оттенок и не рекомендуется использовать, например, в литературных текстах&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не колышат&quot; - совершенно обратное слову &quot;bothered&quot; - не беспокоит, безразлично (синоним &quot;наплевать&quot;). Так же не рекомендуется использовать в литературных текстах и интеллектуальных диалогах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тексте песни, скорее, говорится о том, что её &quot;беспокоят&quot; (original - bother), то есть отвлекают не важными для неё вещами, которыми она не хотела бы заниматься (в данный момент), и\или которые вызывают у неё грусть\печаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I can't be bothered&quot; - дословно &quot;я не могу беспокоиться&quot;. Говорится о том, что она не хочет быть обеспокоенной. То есть, она понимает, что сейчас её беспокоят, но не хочет, чтобы это продолжалось; она устала от этого. Подобные фразы обычно не используются в устной речи, но используются во внутреннем диалоге с самим собой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;teachers always trying to shape the way I act&quot; - дословно &quot;учителя, которые всегда пытаются указывать мне, как вести себя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Комбинируя две основные части предложения с использованием &quot;with&quot; получаем, что исполнительница ведёт диалог с собой - &quot;Я не хочу больше быть обеспокоенной действиями учителей, которые всегда пытаются указывать мне, как вести себя&quot;. То есть она хочет жить своей жизнью и принимать решения самостоятельно. Данные выражения подразумевают глубокие душевные переживания, глубокую печаль, депрессию." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15137" RevisionGUID="9bffa055-6fb2-46a1-940a-dc064562bb9c" CreationDate="2017-10-15T13:48:40.847" UserId="7209" Comment="Add brief summary" Text="Несмотря на наличие &quot;литературных&quot; переводов данных строк, хотелось бы отметить, что в них слегка изменён оттенок выражения слов оригинальной песни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;лениться&quot; - не хотеть что-либо делать, при этом подразумевается что на это нет весомой причины&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не иметь желания&quot; - не хотеть что-либо делать, при этом подразумевается, что на это может быть причина (например, плохое настроение)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;наплевать&quot; - быть безразличным к чему-либо (осознанно или нет), выражение имеет негативный оттенок и не рекомендуется использовать, например, в литературных текстах&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не колышат&quot; - совершенно обратное слову &quot;bothered&quot; - не беспокоит, безразлично (синоним &quot;наплевать&quot;). Так же не рекомендуется использовать в литературных текстах и интеллектуальных диалогах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тексте песни, скорее, говорится о том, что её &quot;беспокоят&quot; (original - bother), то есть отвлекают не важными для неё вещами, которыми она не хотела бы заниматься (в данный момент), и\или которые вызывают у неё грусть\печаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I can't be bothered&quot; - дословно &quot;я не могу беспокоиться&quot;. Говорится о том, что она не хочет быть обеспокоенной. То есть, она понимает, что сейчас её беспокоят, но не хочет, чтобы это продолжалось; она устала от этого. Подобные фразы обычно не используются в устной речи, но используются во внутреннем диалоге с самим собой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;teachers always trying to shape the way I act&quot; - дословно &quot;учителя, которые всегда пытаются указывать мне, как вести себя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Комбинируя две основные части предложения с использованием &quot;with&quot; получаем, что исполнительница ведёт диалог с собой - &quot;Я не хочу больше беспокоиться\переживать из-за учителей, которые всегда пытаются указывать мне, как вести себя&quot;. То есть она хочет жить своей жизнью и принимать решения самостоятельно. Данные выражения подразумевают глубокие душевные переживания, глубокую печаль, депрессию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резюмируя,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;can't be bothered with” = &quot;не могу переживать из-за&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15137" RevisionGUID="e4c286b4-973f-4a9a-8b87-6764506352be" CreationDate="2017-10-15T13:55:06.363" UserId="7209" Comment="Add additional alternative word" Text="Несмотря на наличие &quot;литературных&quot; переводов данных строк, хотелось бы отметить, что в них слегка изменён оттенок выражения слов оригинальной песни.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;лениться&quot; - не хотеть что-либо делать, при этом подразумевается что на это нет весомой причины&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не иметь желания&quot; - не хотеть что-либо делать, при этом подразумевается, что на это может быть причина (например, плохое настроение)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;наплевать&quot; - быть безразличным к чему-либо (осознанно или нет), выражение имеет негативный оттенок и не рекомендуется использовать, например, в литературных текстах&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;не колышат&quot; - совершенно обратное слову &quot;bothered&quot; - не беспокоит, безразлично (синоним &quot;наплевать&quot;). Так же не рекомендуется использовать в литературных текстах и интеллектуальных диалогах.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;достало&quot; - (= &quot;надоело&quot;), имеет слегка агрессивный оттенок, не выражает депрессии или печали. Разговорное выражение, не рекомендуется использовать в литературных текстах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В тексте песни, скорее, говорится о том, что её &quot;беспокоят&quot; (original - bother), то есть отвлекают не важными для неё вещами, которыми она не хотела бы заниматься (в данный момент), и\или которые вызывают у неё грусть\печаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I can't be bothered&quot; - дословно &quot;я не могу беспокоиться\переживать&quot;. Говорится о том, что она не хочет быть обеспокоенной\переживать. То есть, она понимает, что сейчас её беспокоят, но не хочет, чтобы это продолжалось; она устала от этого. Подобные фразы обычно не используются в устной речи, но используются во внутреннем диалоге с самим собой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;teachers always trying to shape the way I act&quot; - дословно &quot;учителя, которые всегда пытаются указывать мне, как вести себя&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Комбинируя две основные части предложения с использованием &quot;with&quot; получаем, что исполнительница ведёт диалог с собой - &quot;Я не хочу больше беспокоиться\переживать из-за учителей, которые всегда пытаются указывать мне, как вести себя&quot;. То есть она хочет жить своей жизнью и принимать решения самостоятельно. Данные выражения подразумевают глубокие душевные переживания, глубокую печаль, депрессию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резюмируя,&#xD;&#xA;&quot;can't be bothered with” = &quot;не могу переживать из-за&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15138" RevisionGUID="0ce5b58e-b9c4-4294-8712-e1ae16d29136" CreationDate="2017-10-15T19:42:37.297" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="I have questions regarding the sentence: &quot;I'm interested in Russian culture especially in 'The Mighty Handful' &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are names for organizations or groups like &quot;могучая кучка&quot; indeclinable or not?&#xD;&#xA;2. Would &quot;Я заинтересован в русской культуре особенно могучая кучка&quot; or &quot;Я заинтересован в русской культуре особенно мощной кучке&quot; be correct? Why is it dative case and not accusative (культуру)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15138" RevisionGUID="0ce5b58e-b9c4-4294-8712-e1ae16d29136" CreationDate="2017-10-15T19:42:37.297" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="Are names for organizations indeclinable or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15138" RevisionGUID="0ce5b58e-b9c4-4294-8712-e1ae16d29136" CreationDate="2017-10-15T19:42:37.297" UserDisplayName="user8725" Text="|грамматика|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15139" RevisionGUID="96aefed7-bd34-46f0-bad6-8ab2b223466c" CreationDate="2017-10-15T20:34:05.607" UserId="1236" Text="First of all, &quot;***Я заинтересован в + Prepositional case***&quot; (&quot;в культуре&quot; is actually Prepositional, not Dative) is a business term, that is, you are interested in something because you will get profit from it. The neutral way to translate &quot;I'm interested in X&quot; into Russian is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;***Я интересуюсь + Instrumental case***&quot;: Я интересуюсь культурой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;***Меня интересует + Nominative case***&quot;: Меня интересует культура.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the names of artistic groups, associations and organizations are written in quotation marks and begin with a capital letter, like this: ***«Могучая кучка»***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, naturally, such names, like all the proper names, are declined. That is why your sentence can be translated into Russian in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я интересуюсь русской культурой, особенно «Могучей кучкой».* — Both objects are in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Меня интересует русская культура, особенно «Могучая кучка».* — What was indirect objects becomes subjects here, in the Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the second variant is easier since no case adjutments are needed. While you are at a beginner level, I'd recommend to use that 2nd variant to say &quot;I'm interested in X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And remember, if a verb has two or more homogeneous objects, they must be in the same case, not the way you wrote it in the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15139" RevisionGUID="210207ed-feea-4de4-884c-1825ebd81a52" CreationDate="2017-10-15T21:24:11.480" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="First of all, &quot;***Я заинтересован в + Prepositional case***&quot; (&quot;в культуре&quot; is actually Prepositional, not Dative) is a business term, that is, you are interested in something because you will get profit from it. The neutral way to translate &quot;I'm interested in X&quot; into Russian is:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;***Я интересуюсь + Instrumental case***&quot;: Я интересуюсь культурой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;***Меня интересует + Nominative case***&quot;: Меня интересует культура.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, the names of artistic groups, associations and organizations are written in quotation marks and begin with a capital letter, like this: ***«Могучая кучка»***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, naturally, such names, like all the proper names, are declined. That is why your sentence can be translated into Russian in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я интересуюсь русской культурой, особенно «Могучей кучкой».* — Both objects are in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Меня интересует русская культура, особенно «Могучая кучка».* — What was indirect objects becomes subjects here, in the Nominative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the second variant is easier since no case adjustments are needed. While you are at a beginner level, I'd recommend to use that 2nd variant to say &quot;I'm interested in X&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And remember, if a verb has two or more homogeneous objects, they must be in the same case, not the way you wrote it in the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15140" RevisionGUID="a3582f7e-79b9-45c2-a706-028583b55db0" CreationDate="2017-10-15T23:16:25.057" UserId="9654" Text="To be short:&#xD;&#xA;Все - means &quot;everyone&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Всё - &quot;everyting&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But there is a lot of exeptions.&#xD;&#xA;You say &quot;все&quot; about something u can caunt. &quot;У меня есть все чашки&quot; - &quot;I have all the cups&quot;&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;And you say &quot;всё&quot; about something u cannot count. &quot;Я выпил всё молоко&quot;- &quot;I drank all the milk&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37386" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15130" RevisionGUID="8238a906-03d2-4a53-91b2-1216d9afbba1" CreationDate="2017-10-16T06:08:47.963" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/919807315024465921" />
  <row Id="37387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15132" RevisionGUID="3f6d20b7-cee1-44e2-a574-deaec0a51bb2" CreationDate="2017-10-16T09:09:11.650" UserId="9058" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="I would say, if you are sure Ива́нов is a surname - then it most probably not Russian one but some West-Slavic (Bulgarian?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even more probable, that Ива́нов was not surname, it was a genitive case of plural of Иван first name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ива́н =&gt; Ива́ны =&gt; Ива́нов&#xD;&#xA;* John =&gt; Johns =&gt; of Johns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD by Yellow Sky: Ива́нов can also be a nominative case singular possessive adjective, like мамин, Серёжин, etc. Cf. &quot;Ива́нов день&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15141" RevisionGUID="49b4721a-357d-4217-8992-e130ec7ad1ac" CreationDate="2017-10-16T12:37:09.573" UserId="7716" Text="I'm familiar with how -ехать is used to form perfective motion verbs with directional prefixes: приехать, уехать, etc.; and how ездить can be used to form perfectives with non-directional prefixes: съездить, поездить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: can об- – with the sense of 'going everywhere in a place' be considered directional and non-directional both? I'm wondering about examples like these: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я вот, например, хотел объехать весь земной шар.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она объехала почти весь мир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and these: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я был в Америке, Израиле, объездил всю Европу…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Марио был агрономом, многолетним советником ООН по агрокультуре, объездил весь мир...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a nuance I'm missing between объехать and объездить here, or can they be used more or less interchangeably?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15141" RevisionGUID="49b4721a-357d-4217-8992-e130ec7ad1ac" CreationDate="2017-10-16T12:37:09.573" UserId="7716" Text="объехать vs. объездить for the sense of traveling all over a place?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15141" RevisionGUID="49b4721a-357d-4217-8992-e130ec7ad1ac" CreationDate="2017-10-16T12:37:09.573" UserId="7716" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15142" RevisionGUID="6beb3699-300d-42e4-a4f5-7e4593b03f82" CreationDate="2017-10-16T13:16:29.527" UserId="6539" Text="The verbs &quot;объехать&quot; and &quot;объездить&quot; are **absolute  synonyms** only in one meaning : &quot; to visit different places&quot; – побывать перебывать в разных местах.&#xD;&#xA;In this meaning they are interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы объехали /объездили весь свет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15143" RevisionGUID="6e6dc1e3-9dcc-45cb-b099-7a5a9e15338f" CreationDate="2017-10-16T14:35:39.737" UserId="7939" Text="The verbs &quot;объехать&quot; and &quot;объездить&quot; are **not absolute** synonyms,&#xD;&#xA;and they are not completely interchangeable (imho).&#xD;&#xA;There is a nuance (at least for me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Объехать&quot; might mean &quot;to visit different places in one travel&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Филеас Фогг объехал весь мир за 80 дней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Объездить&quot; means &quot;to visit different places in separate travels,&#xD;&#xA;with various directions&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я был в Америке, Израиле, объездил всю Европу…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means I had many separate voyages to different places in Europe,&#xD;&#xA;returning home between them. Or at least I have stayed&#xD;&#xA;in different places for substantial periods,&#xD;&#xA;so I do not consider these travels as a single ride.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15144" RevisionGUID="c1d7caff-ab62-49b6-b59f-aa94500d9834" CreationDate="2017-10-16T14:52:54.500" UserId="5443" Text="**Объездить** is a bit *stronger* word, often belonging to the expression &quot;**объездить** (изъездить, исколесить) **вдоль и поперёк**&quot;. Some dictionaries (like Ushakov's one) mark it as '*colloquial*' - anyway, **объездить** is less formal than the neutral **объехать** and usually means to visit those places *not just once*, to travel *intensively*, while объехать typically means '*to have been in every part* of some big region (maybe just once and even maybe by the end of one's life)'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15142" RevisionGUID="ded2d0c1-ba8c-4bdf-a51b-668c4f59bd0c" CreationDate="2017-10-16T15:28:01.380" UserId="6539" Comment="added 933 characters in body" Text="The verbs &quot;объехать&quot; and &quot;объездить&quot; are **absolute  synonyms** only in one meaning : &quot; to visit different places&quot; – побывать перебывать в разных местах.&#xD;&#xA;In this meaning they are interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы объехали /объездили весь свет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник:&#xD;&#xA;**Малый академический словарь русского языка**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;объездить&#xD;&#xA;-езжу, -ездишь; прич. страд. прош. объезженный, -жен, -а, -о; сов., перех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(несов. объезжать2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**То же, что объехать (в 3 знач.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;объехать&#xD;&#xA;-еду, -едешь; повел. нет; сов., перех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(несов. объезжать1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. также без доп.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проехать вокруг кого-, чего-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;{Вася:} Как разбойники раза два кругом острова объедут, и все атаман глядит в трубу подзорную. А. Островский, Горячее сердце.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проехать стороной, минуя кого-, что-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Объехать камень.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;□&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я надеялся объехать слободу благополучно. Пушкин, Капитанская дочка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отец сердито упрекал кучера за то, что он вовремя не объехал задержавшую их партию {арестантов}. Л. Толстой, Воскресение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ездя, побывать всюду, во многих местах, странах.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Помнишь, ты хотел после книг объехать чужие края, чтоб лучше знать и любить свой? И. Гончаров, Обломов.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15146" RevisionGUID="5094ff50-7e1d-43ec-8832-e0928bba1bb4" CreationDate="2017-10-16T16:07:45.417" UserId="1688" Text="To me there seems to be a stronger _continuity_ aspect in _объездить_ vs. _объехать_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Филеас Фогг объехал весь мир за 80 дней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would translate into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Phileas Fogg has travelled around the world in eighty days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(as a single event) while &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я [...] объездил всю Европу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would instead be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have/had been travelling around all Europe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(over multiple events)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15148" RevisionGUID="7d2d8fc3-5a95-4501-8d2e-f14eb4ce3d82" CreationDate="2017-10-17T04:20:42.733" UserId="8359" Text="What was the Imperial Russian term for a mixed-race Siberian person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historical background: As Russia expanded eastward, many mixed children were born to native women and Russian men. Near the end of this process, the Russian-American Company imported the Spanish term _criollo_, &quot;descendant of persons not native to the New World&quot;, as _креол_ to describe such children in its colonies. The creoles were a distinct social estate with different rights than either of their parents (perhaps one инородцы and one сельские обыватели) had. According to Lydia Black's &quot;Russians in Alaska&quot; (pp. 215), _креол_ was never used or applied outside of Alaska. Reading that, I started to wonder what other terms it had replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15148" RevisionGUID="7d2d8fc3-5a95-4501-8d2e-f14eb4ce3d82" CreationDate="2017-10-17T04:20:42.733" UserId="8359" Text="What were the original half-Russian Siberians called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15148" RevisionGUID="7d2d8fc3-5a95-4501-8d2e-f14eb4ce3d82" CreationDate="2017-10-17T04:20:42.733" UserId="8359" Text="|синонимы|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15149" RevisionGUID="579fbef9-33d1-48d6-b127-0dc149a78a6c" CreationDate="2017-10-17T05:53:28.767" UserId="6436" Text="I have been constructing sentences lately using with `раньше`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later on, I came across with the word `прежде` which I find similar at some point while I was searching for example sentences. For example, I came across with these sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он раньше курил. // He used to smoke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прежде курил. // In the Tatoeba, it is translated the same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to know their differences and at least, provide an example sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15149" RevisionGUID="579fbef9-33d1-48d6-b127-0dc149a78a6c" CreationDate="2017-10-17T05:53:28.767" UserId="6436" Text="Difference between &quot;прежде&quot; или &quot;раньше&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15149" RevisionGUID="579fbef9-33d1-48d6-b127-0dc149a78a6c" CreationDate="2017-10-17T05:53:28.767" UserId="6436" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15151" RevisionGUID="daeafec3-c8d1-4800-8272-4a3ed7622140" CreationDate="2017-10-17T07:47:30.273" UserId="8895" Text="The difference is quite subtle due to the two words being very close synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**'Прежде'** is used to point out the difference between the current situation and the one observed before (**'he used to smoke last time I met him, but now he doesn't'**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**'Раньше'**, on the other hand, simply means 'earlier' as in 'at some point back in time', but, nevertheless, is sometimes also used to mean 'прежде'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if translated fully, the two sentences would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он прежде курил&quot;: *Before*, he used to smoke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он раньше курил&quot;: *Earlier*, he used to smoke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15152" RevisionGUID="76907d98-393f-48f8-a93c-fcc0566ceef6" CreationDate="2017-10-17T08:19:26.317" UserId="9653" Text="I'm learning Russian. In the tutorial they say:&#xA;&#xA;Витя дома &#xA;&#xA;meaning&#xA;&#xA;Victor is at home&#xA;&#xA;Also they say:&#xA;&#xA;Витя в Токио&#xA;&#xA;Meaning Victor is at Tokyo&#xA;&#xA;So why are they using в at one place and not using в at another place?&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15152" RevisionGUID="76907d98-393f-48f8-a93c-fcc0566ceef6" CreationDate="2017-10-17T08:19:26.317" UserId="9653" Text="When to use в and when not to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15152" RevisionGUID="76907d98-393f-48f8-a93c-fcc0566ceef6" CreationDate="2017-10-17T08:19:26.317" UserId="9653" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15153" RevisionGUID="9e6b43b3-c5b8-4f55-85e1-7809b259200d" CreationDate="2017-10-17T08:35:25.877" UserId="8895" Text="'**Дома**' is a locative adverb, much like e.g. '**наверху**' or '**внизу**', and, as such, does not require a preposition. Actually, in colloquial English, one can also say 'I'm home' to state the fact of arriving there, also making the word 'home' an adverb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15154" RevisionGUID="259f7e8a-554e-4fcf-8420-1d1f4e63cdcc" CreationDate="2017-10-17T08:50:52.780" UserId="6539" Text="In your examples &quot;Раньше и прежде&quot; are synonyms in the meaning of **&quot;used to&quot;**.  The difference is in usage. Whereas &quot;раньше&quot; is **neutral**,  &quot;прежде &quot; is considered to be **&quot;bookish&quot;** and is often met in literature. &#xD;&#xA;In English they are translated He used to smoke(both раньше и прежде)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Раньше время было другое. (Neutral )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прежде времена другие были.(Bookish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Прежде has one more meaning &quot;сначала, сперва(first)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Прежде думай, потом говори.(First think, then speak)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="b4a0801b-63cf-4352-b103-41405fef41b4" CreationDate="2017-10-17T10:07:59.077" UserId="9653" Text="I want to imply **but**&#xA;&#xA;Now, **a** can mean both **and** and **but**&#xA;&#xA;And, **но** also means **but**&#xA;&#xA;So, when should I use **a** and when should I use **но**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="b4a0801b-63cf-4352-b103-41405fef41b4" CreationDate="2017-10-17T10:07:59.077" UserId="9653" Text="To imply **but** when should I use **а** and when should I use **но**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="b4a0801b-63cf-4352-b103-41405fef41b4" CreationDate="2017-10-17T10:07:59.077" UserId="9653" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15156" RevisionGUID="0e381a7b-03a9-45c2-b180-1784653e6c55" CreationDate="2017-10-17T10:26:11.557" UserId="242" Text="There's no such thing like &quot;Siberian person&quot; - Siberia is huge, really huge and was populated by very different people with different history, culture and genetical heritage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there never was a single term universally used. Well, there's a word [&quot;полукровка&quot;][1] but it was used in context of any racial or ethnical mixup. Also keep in mind that it's de-facto shifting to being offensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Russia do not has any special diversified terminology like `самбо`, `метисы`, `креолы`, `мулаты` which can be used for multiethnic people of some Russian origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that quite often Russian settlers mixed with local people - and new ethnic groups came to existence. In Transbaikal region there were so-called [`гураны`][2], in Yakutia there were so-called [`якутяне`][3] (nowadays this term is used to designated the population of Yakutia as a whole). There were so-called [`албазинцы`][4], who ethnically were more Chinese but culturally - mix between Russian and Chinese culture. There were [`камчадалы`][5], there were [`чалдоны`][6], actually this list can be amended with dozens of other words of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all this words are purely of historical interest and were more about culture rather than race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="19b4a9a2-dffd-48a3-b3d9-0a725563bdad" CreationDate="2017-10-17T10:32:41.570" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to imply **but**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, **a** can mean both **and** and **but**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, **но** also means **but**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when should I use **a** and when should I use **но**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37429" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="19b4a9a2-dffd-48a3-b3d9-0a725563bdad" CreationDate="2017-10-17T10:32:41.570" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="To imply &quot;but&quot; when should I use &quot;а&quot; and when should I use &quot;но&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15152" RevisionGUID="f34b7e80-0837-4dd3-8e80-547e553554e5" CreationDate="2017-10-17T11:36:23.350" UserId="6097" Comment="formatting and typo" Text="I'm learning Russian. In the tutorial they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Витя дома&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Victor is at home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also they say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Витя в Токио&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Victor is in Tokyo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why are they using в at one place and not using в at another place?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15157" RevisionGUID="01119272-2730-4956-81bc-7fbe18c2836f" CreationDate="2017-10-17T12:08:16.660" UserId="8895" Text="- '**а**' can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - to juxtapose contrasting statements referring to the same subject category (with the meaning of 'and' or 'while'). The test here is that you can easily swap the statements without changing the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Васе семь лет, **а** Диме - восемь. --- Vasya is seven **and/while** Dima is eight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Слон большой, **а** мышь - маленькая. --- The elephant is big **and/while** the mouse is small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Мы уезжаем в понедельник, **а** возвращаемся в пятницу. --- We depart on Monday **and** return on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  - to join statements with a one-way logical connection between them (the second statement implies the first one, but not vice versa). Here, '**а**' is interchangeable with '**but**'. You can test this case by trying to replace 'but' with 'however'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Жить хорошо, **а/но** хорошо жить - еще лучше. --- Life is good **and/but/however** good life is even better.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Если ты ей не позвонишь, то она обидится, **а/но** это совсем не то, чего тебе бы хотелось. --- If you don't call her, she'll be offended, **but/however** that's not what you'd want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;- '**но**' always means 'but/however', joining contrasting statements that refer to different subject categories and do not imply each other:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Вася и Дима учатся в одном классе, **но** Дима старше. -- Vasya and Dima are classmates, **but/however** Dima is older.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15157" RevisionGUID="4bc8f4e8-7bec-4c6b-8217-0063c8c46acc" CreationDate="2017-10-17T12:14:59.333" UserId="8895" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="- '**а**' can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - to juxtapose contrasting statements referring to the same subject category (with the meaning of 'and' or 'while'). The test here is that you can easily swap the statements without changing the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Васе семь лет, **а** Диме - восемь. --- Vasya is seven **and/while** Dima is eight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Слон большой, **а** мышь - маленькая. --- The elephant is big **and/while** the mouse is small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Мы уезжаем в понедельник, **а** возвращаемся в пятницу. --- We depart on Monday **and** return on Friday.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  - to join statements with a one-way logical connection between them (the second statement implies the first one, but not vice versa). Here, '**а**' is interchangeable with '**but**'. You can test this case by trying to replace 'but' with 'however'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Жить хорошо, **а/но** хорошо жить - еще лучше. --- Life is good **and/but/however** good life is even better.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Если ты ей не позвонишь, то она обидится, **а/но** это совсем не то, чего тебе бы хотелось. --- If you don't call her, she'll be offended, **but/however** that's not what you'd want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;- '**но**' always means 'but/however', joining contrasting statements that refer to different subject categories and do not imply each other:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Вася и Дима учатся в одном классе, **но** Дима старше. -- Vasya and Dima are classmates, **but/however** Dima is older.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;   Хотел вчера дописать рассказ, **но** не смог. --- Wanted to finish the tale yesterday, **but** couldn't.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15148" RevisionGUID="b631e89a-644c-4ba6-9cc4-d846719ef9be" CreationDate="2017-10-17T15:34:05.527" UserId="8359" Comment="plural terms" Text="What were the Imperial Russian terms for a mixed-race Siberian person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historical background: As Russia expanded eastward, many mixed children were born to native women and Russian men. Near the end of this process, the Russian-American Company imported the Spanish term _criollo_, &quot;descendant of persons not native to the New World&quot;, as _креол_ to describe such children in its colonies. The creoles were a distinct social estate with different rights than either of their parents (perhaps one инородцы and one сельские обыватели) had. According to Lydia Black's &quot;Russians in Alaska&quot; (pp. 215), _креол_ was never used or applied outside of Alaska. Reading that, I started to wonder what other terms it had replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15160" RevisionGUID="66bd9380-8595-4b39-a83c-d26aa9304cfd" CreationDate="2017-10-17T20:20:50.470" UserId="8591" Text="You cannot say: &quot;Он прежде курил&quot;. I do not think this word goes well along with that particular sentence. You could say something like: Прежде чем покурить дорогой сигарет, он позвони другу насчет книги- He called his friend regarding a book before he smoked an expensive cigarette. &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15161" RevisionGUID="bee96a2d-fe60-43f8-9f17-21ce34103aca" CreationDate="2017-10-18T12:00:38.640" UserId="242" Text="`Дома` is &quot;at house&quot;, `в доме` is &quot;in the house&quot; - this just should be memoized. There are no other such cases, since &quot;дома&quot; is quite special word in this aspect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote, there's also form `на дому` (and this is actually real example of locative) - it's about having some work-related practice at home, like &quot;Врач принимает на дому&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37453" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15152" RevisionGUID="f489d0a2-4fe9-46de-a1eb-92a360543095" CreationDate="2017-10-18T13:51:37.943" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="When to use &quot;в&quot; and when not to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37454" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15148" RevisionGUID="3a1371bb-bb4e-4696-b61e-1e43859a872d" CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:11:34.760" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/920713984415862792" />
  <row Id="37455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15156" RevisionGUID="86d57427-129c-46bf-ba6e-408f881f5d96" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:32:26.447" UserId="179" Comment="various grammatic corrections" Text="There's no such thing like &quot;Siberian person&quot; - Siberia is huge, really huge and was populated by very different people with different history, culture and genetic heritage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there never was a single term universally used. Well, there's a word [&quot;полукровка&quot;][1] but it was used in context of any racial or ethnic mix-up. Also keep in mind that it's de-facto shifting to being offensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Russia does not have any special diversified terminology like `самбо`, `метисы`, `креолы`, `мулаты` which can be used for multi-ethnic people of some Russian origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that quite often Russian settlers mixed with local people - and new ethnic groups came to existence. In Transbaikal region there were so-called [`гураны`][2], in Yakutia there were so-called [`якутяне`][3] (nowadays this term is used to designated the population of Yakutia as a whole). There were so-called [`албазинцы`][4], who ethnically were more Chinese, but culturally — a mix between the Russian and Chinese cultures. There were [`камчадалы`][5], there were [`чалдоны`][6], actually this list can be amended with dozens of other words of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all this words are purely of historical interest and were more about culture, rather than race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37456" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15156" RevisionGUID="86d57427-129c-46bf-ba6e-408f881f5d96" CreationDate="2017-10-18T19:32:26.447" Comment="Proposed by 179 approved by 242 edit id of 920" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37457" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15149" RevisionGUID="b4730cb7-8efd-4d70-a93b-9e4e4c899981" CreationDate="2017-10-18T21:11:35.100" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/920759284266389504" />
  <row Id="37458" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="14525" RevisionGUID="d6a64d77-343d-4207-9830-2f58237e3c63" CreationDate="2017-10-19T09:06:38.467" UserId="8895" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37459" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="14525" RevisionGUID="a3cfed0f-cb89-4722-a16c-d1e25aad90b9" CreationDate="2017-10-19T09:06:47.353" UserId="8895" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15132" RevisionGUID="9a2a588a-a778-490a-802d-438c3e7b4d57" CreationDate="2017-10-19T09:07:08.863" UserId="9058" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I would say, if you are sure Ива́нов is a surname - then it most probably not Russian one but some West-Slavic (Bulgarian?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even more probable, that Ива́нов was not surname, it was a genitive case of plural of Иван first name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ива́н =&gt; Ива́ны =&gt; Ива́нов&#xD;&#xA;* John =&gt; Johns =&gt; of Johns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD by Yellow Sky: Ива́нов can also be a nominative case singular possessive adjective (John's), like мамин, Серёжин, etc. Cf. &quot;Ива́нов день&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15162" RevisionGUID="388a96a4-307b-4e71-b6da-b0928e575bc0" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:05:06.443" UserId="3503" Text="Are &quot;*перекрестье*&quot; and &quot;*перекрестие*&quot; two different words with different meanings? Or are they two variants of the same word? Can they be used interchangeably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15162" RevisionGUID="388a96a4-307b-4e71-b6da-b0928e575bc0" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:05:06.443" UserId="3503" Text="&quot;перекрестье&quot; vs. &quot;перекрестие&quot; — what's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15162" RevisionGUID="388a96a4-307b-4e71-b6da-b0928e575bc0" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:05:06.443" UserId="3503" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="b7d3fda3-f53a-4b00-9f9c-4f2180fd73f5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:06:33.770" UserId="8895" Comment="Marked the question with an additional tag." Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="b7d3fda3-f53a-4b00-9f9c-4f2180fd73f5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:06:33.770" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 9653 edit id of 921" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15163" RevisionGUID="e5e16f8a-a413-4fb1-98a1-4967c6a08c4a" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:46:15.170" UserId="3848" Text="&gt; перекре́стие, -я (в оптике)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refers to optics, such as cross hairs in a gun optical scope&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перекре́стье, -я, р. мн. -тий &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refers to an intersection of something or something that forms a cross.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;src: http://orfo.ruslang.ru/search/word&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;src: https://www.efremova.info/word/perekrestje.html#.Wei6iIZrxYg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15164" RevisionGUID="5f675e70-98e7-42f5-9502-c44ece4ee1e6" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:47:19.803" UserId="8895" Text="They have exactly the same meaning. In written Russian, nouns ending in *'-тие'* or *'-лие'* are often changed to use *'-ье'* instead for a poetic, sublime, or 'old-fashioned' effect: *призванье*, *долголетье*, *страданье*, *тренье*, *понятье*, etc. - however, you won't encounter those in nowadays speech very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reverse substitution can sometimes be observed in nouns ending in *'-ье'*: *похмелие*, *веселие*, *понятие*, although one will typically find such usage only in pre-20th-century written sources or in texts mimicking those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15165" RevisionGUID="db7f0e32-4497-421d-8548-852f4a1dd6df" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:54:28.040" UserId="242" Text="Words ending with '-ие' such `перекрестие`, `мерцание`, `создвездие` and so on quite often have alternative form ending with `-ье`, like in `перекрестье`, `мерцанье`, `созвездье`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generally speaking, `-ье` form is either obsolete and/or used in colloquial speech.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer provided is strictly speaking wrong. Let's refer to the [link][1] provided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перекре́стье&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ср. разг.** Место пересечения чего-л. То, что имеет форму креста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this is just a colloquial form. &#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that for some words there's indeed a tendency to designate different things - like `воскресенье` for Sunday and `воскресение` for the Resurrection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be we are facing the same kind of process with `перекрестье` and `перекрестие` but I'd rather say they **this words are interchangeable but `перекрестие` is preferable**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.efremova.info/word/perekrestje.html#.Wei7bhOCxp9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37470" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15162" RevisionGUID="5dbe6c10-2dbf-447f-acd9-963cef2d35c5" CreationDate="2017-10-19T14:55:44.483" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Перекрестье&quot; vs. &quot;перекрестие&quot; — what's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15165" RevisionGUID="9c8f92b4-a989-485c-8c6b-22c54f3649e2" CreationDate="2017-10-19T15:03:39.507" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Words ending with '-ие' such `перекрестие`, `мерцание`, `создвездие` and so on quite often have alternative form ending with `-ье`, like in `перекрестье`, `мерцанье`, `созвездье`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generally speaking, `-ье` form is either poetic, obsolete and/or used in colloquial speech.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer provided is strictly speaking wrong. Let's refer to the [link][1] provided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перекре́стье&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ср. разг.** Место пересечения чего-л. То, что имеет форму креста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this is just a colloquial form. &#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that for some words there's indeed a tendency to designate different things - like `воскресенье` for Sunday and `воскресение` for the Resurrection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be we are facing the same kind of process with `перекрестье` and `перекрестие` but I'd rather say they **this words are interchangeable but `перекрестие` is preferable**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.efremova.info/word/perekrestje.html#.Wei7bhOCxp9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15164" RevisionGUID="150391e1-c8ba-466d-a588-f17f6565cdfc" CreationDate="2017-10-19T15:11:34.633" UserId="8895" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="They have exactly the same meaning. In written Russian, nouns ending in *'-вие'*, *'-тие'* or *'-лие'* are often changed to use *'-ье'* instead for a poetic, sublime, or 'old-fashioned' effect: *призванье*, *долголетье*, *страданье*, *тренье*, *понятье*, *бесправье*. - however, you won't encounter those in nowadays speech very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reverse substitution can sometimes be observed in nouns ending in *'-ье'*: *похмелие*, *веселие*, *бездорожие*, although one will typically find such usage only in pre-20th-century written sources or in texts mimicking those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15165" RevisionGUID="e087f858-2c14-41d0-8b8e-dc068012422b" CreationDate="2017-10-19T15:13:18.260" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Words ending with '-ие' such `перекрестие`, `мерцание`, `создвездие` and so on quite often have alternative form ending with `-ье`, like in `перекрестье`, `мерцанье`, `созвездье`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Generally speaking, `-ье` form is either poetic, obsolete and/or used in colloquial speech.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer provided is strictly speaking wrong. Let's refer to the [link][1] provided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перекре́стье&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ср. разг.** Место пересечения чего-л. То, что имеет форму креста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this is just a colloquial form. &#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that for some words there's indeed a tendency to designate different things - like `воскресенье` for Sunday and `воскресение` for the Resurrection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be we are facing the same kind of process with `перекрестье` and `перекрестие` but I'd rather say they **these words are interchangeable but `перекрестие` is preferable**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.efremova.info/word/perekrestje.html#.Wei7bhOCxp9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15164" RevisionGUID="c77378ce-9a0f-4517-a1a5-1f233ba61591" CreationDate="2017-10-19T17:46:11.177" UserId="8895" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="They have exactly the same meaning. In written Russian, nouns ending in *'-вие'*, *'-тие'* or *'-лие'* are often changed to use *'-ье'* instead for a poetic, sublime, or 'old-fashioned' effect: *призванье*, *долголетье*, *страданье*, *тренье*, *понятье*, *бесправье*. - however, you won't encounter those in nowadays speech very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reverse substitution can sometimes be observed in some nouns ending in *'-ье'*: *похмелие*, *веселие*, *бездорожие*, although one will typically find such usage only in pre-20th-century written sources or in texts mimicking those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37475" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15162" RevisionGUID="7f2359cf-ef87-4c05-bf05-aa046d1e0360" CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:14:44.140" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/921077166053437442" />
  <row Id="37476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15166" RevisionGUID="11fab0a3-e4fd-4603-8bd0-5f622c52c498" CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:25:35.287" UserId="170" Text="повернись - повернитесь - повернуться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ложись - ложитесь - ложиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оглянись - оглянитесь - оглянуться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;успокойся - успокойтесь - успокоиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;уймись - уймитесь - ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15166" RevisionGUID="11fab0a3-e4fd-4603-8bd0-5f622c52c498" CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:25:35.287" UserId="170" Text="The infinitive of &quot;уймитесь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15166" RevisionGUID="11fab0a3-e4fd-4603-8bd0-5f622c52c498" CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:25:35.287" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15167" RevisionGUID="73d1ba9e-b3bb-4d1d-8792-6037408c6d9b" CreationDate="2017-10-19T18:29:08.763" UserId="242" Text="It's &quot;[уняться][1]&quot;. Well, usually the answer supposed to be somewhat wider, but in this particular case that's virtually all that can be said)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/уняться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15167" RevisionGUID="00021fc5-15a2-401d-82f6-b67d92bd0cad" CreationDate="2017-10-19T21:11:46.507" UserId="242" Comment="added 579 characters in body" Text="It's &quot;[уняться][1]&quot;. Well, usually the answer supposed to be somewhat wider, but in this particular case that's virtually all that can be said)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** To make this answer slightly more informative, here's what worth to me mentioned. There's a bunch of verbs in Russian - [`понять`][2], [`занять`][3], `нанять`, `унять` etc. that have form with -йм: `пойми`, `займи`, `найми`, `уйми`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically this is because `нять` is derived from Proto-Slavic `jęti`, which also reconstructed in form `*jьmǫ`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Curious relevant fact: `понять` and `поймать` are actually related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/уняться&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15155" RevisionGUID="e37074d1-291a-4e95-987f-3dbdc77f073b" CreationDate="2017-10-20T03:14:40.173" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/921213044667150336" />
  <row Id="37482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13839" RevisionGUID="99ae3d95-ec07-4b76-89e2-03989781c961" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:02:31.727" UserId="8895" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Пропаганда is about view-of-life, it's not about a person or a company. This could be about something like 'our country is the greatest' or 'to be healthy you need to run 5 miles every day' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Реклама is advertising - posters on buildings or in the transport, banners in the internet etc. It is obvious that a person or a company paid for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар also makes a person or a company more known - but in more subtle way. For instance a person may be known for organizing a music festival, or some special party each Valentine Day etc. So, it is not a straight-forward advertising, but a way to get people's attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Черный пиар could be some kind of activity to create a negative impression of a person or a company, e.g. there could be a series of articles or mentioning in media that 'they don't spend money on environmental protection' or 'they payed bribes' etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар is a Russian rendering of PR (пи-ар) acronym, which stands for Public Relations. As far as I know it has a different meaning in Russian than Public Relations in English. Its a professional jargon among people that are a professionals in promotion and advertising. It become popular maybe because it contains the (new to Russian language) idea of organized activity of making company or a person more known to a wide audience. Before only реклама existed, but it does not cover all the required meanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пиар has no negative meaning by itself, but when someone wants to say 'they are not so good as they look, they just want a positive image' they say 'это пиар', or 'они пиарятся на помощи бедным' (they help poor just to have positive image, not because they care about poor people) then пиар has negative meaning of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of пиар can be traced back to 1996 - as you can see it became very popular during last several years. One of the first printed occurrences goes back to 1989: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Делал без причин, иногда даже во вред самому себе, своему, как бы сейчас сказали, «пиару» или «имиджу». [Генрих Боровик. [Послесловие к книге «Дело Кольцова»] (1989)] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Usage of пиар since 1996][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is one of the business-related words that become popular in post-USSR times like менеджер, проект, имидж, etc. that can be applied almost to any field of human activity (like art, architecture, technologies, literature and so on and so forth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, if we look on the examples of usage of пиар in 1990-ies, mostly they are connected with political parties. So, actually, at those times пиар (политический пиар) was a synonym for a &quot;пропаганда&quot; or &quot;агитация&quot; (&quot;предвыборный пиар&quot; = &quot;предвыборная агитация&quot;, &quot;пиар-команда&quot; = &quot;агитаторы&quot;), but those are Soviet words, so usage of пиар allowed to sound modern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However even in those times you can find examples like &quot;после такого пиара клиенты стали обращаться в другой банк&quot;, &quot;Деревня и райцентр не имеют пиара&quot;,  &quot;адвокатский пиар, с помощью которого будируется общественное мнение в пользу обвиняемых&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fvx1v.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="3d184c23-1385-4ba5-a13f-5fc66e6bfc11" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:19:18.057" UserId="8895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In an audio course of Russian language I heard several times &quot;Я видел Петербурга&quot;. Does this mean that geographical names are animate nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37484" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13821" RevisionGUID="f9583a01-3ae8-47df-bcb3-fdde3252b992" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:26:15.467" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;Петербург&quot; an animate noun? I heard &quot;Я видел Петербурга&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15140" RevisionGUID="beefff2c-c36d-4bb5-8149-ef24beaa6b84" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:33:13.207" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections, formatting" Text="To be short:  &#xD;&#xA;Все - means &quot;everyone&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Всё - &quot;everyting&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are a lot of exceptions.  &#xD;&#xA;You say &quot;все&quot; about something you can count. &quot;У меня есть все чашки&quot; - &quot;I have all the cups&quot;;  &#xD;&#xA;And you say &quot;всё&quot; about something you cannot count. &quot;Я выпил всё молоко&quot;- &quot;I drank all the milk&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37486" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15140" RevisionGUID="beefff2c-c36d-4bb5-8149-ef24beaa6b84" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:33:13.207" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 8895 edit id of 919" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15138" RevisionGUID="13d68907-4f35-4200-94f9-085bcc8a0bc4" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:39:07.310" UserId="8895" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I have questions regarding the sentence: &quot;I'm interested in Russian culture, especially in 'The Mighty Handful'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are names for organizations or groups like &quot;Могучая кучка&quot; indeclinable or not?&#xD;&#xA;2. Would «Я заинтересован в русской культуре, особенно &quot;Могучая кучка&quot;» or «Я заинтересован в русской культуре, особенно &quot;Могучей кучке&quot;» be correct? Why is it dative case and not accusative (культуру)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37488" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15130" RevisionGUID="368a2631-7896-4714-820c-9552964b68e9" CreationDate="2017-10-20T06:39:51.437" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;Иванов&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37489" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7944" RevisionGUID="f2c1c9e1-4124-4dbc-8d28-f03cc5b06fbe" CreationDate="2017-10-20T07:49:41.473" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;всё&quot; and &quot;все&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="f8706422-5c18-4b0e-8f28-34c401da86f0" CreationDate="2017-10-20T23:24:32.127" UserId="9603" Text="I rarely hear благодаря, so I was wondering under which circumstances would one use that word? Are these two interchangeable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="f8706422-5c18-4b0e-8f28-34c401da86f0" CreationDate="2017-10-20T23:24:32.127" UserId="9603" Text="What is the difference between благодаря and спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="f8706422-5c18-4b0e-8f28-34c401da86f0" CreationDate="2017-10-20T23:24:32.127" UserId="9603" Text="|словоупотребление|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15169" RevisionGUID="367b7839-b255-4d73-9ae6-4c2d33d630f8" CreationDate="2017-10-21T01:16:46.883" UserId="3502" Text="&quot;I need to get those cats washed&quot;. - perfective&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I have to wash those cats [every day].&quot; - imperfective&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37496" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15166" RevisionGUID="08b4df09-134d-4a1a-8a00-db853255c9dd" CreationDate="2017-10-21T12:17:43.900" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/921712099243503617" />
  <row Id="37502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="9d4b10af-239a-4d9a-a214-a7af062538d5" CreationDate="2017-10-22T03:09:51.590" UserId="5600" Comment="Corrected 'благодаря' to ''благодарю." Text="I rarely hear *благодарю*, so I was wondering under which circumstances would one use that word? Are *благодарю* and *спасибо* interchangeable? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="9d4b10af-239a-4d9a-a214-a7af062538d5" CreationDate="2017-10-22T03:09:51.590" UserId="5600" Comment="Corrected 'благодаря' to ''благодарю." Text="What is the difference between благодарю and спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37504" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="9d4b10af-239a-4d9a-a214-a7af062538d5" CreationDate="2017-10-22T03:09:51.590" Comment="Proposed by 5600 approved by 9603 edit id of 922" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15171" RevisionGUID="4104763b-5780-4d17-bdaa-d95699be80f3" CreationDate="2017-10-22T05:01:09.433" UserId="9594" Text="They are interchangeable to a certain degree. `Благодарю` is much more formal. In some cases, it might also be considered more polite. This being said, `Спасибо` is absolutely &quot;safe&quot; and polite in any situation. When in doubt, I would suggest using `Спасибо`, as `Благодарю` may sound a bit awkward, outdated or even sarcastic (in certain contexts).&#xD;&#xA;`Спасибо` could be translated as both `Thank you` and `Thanks`, while `Благодарю` only as `Thank you`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Благодарю is still widely used in some fixed phrases like `&quot;Благодарю за внимание&quot;` (`Thank you for your attention`)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15172" RevisionGUID="84bf931c-21b7-41ab-bd76-993191d4f305" CreationDate="2017-10-22T09:37:42.757" UserId="9037" Text="&quot;все&quot; means everything, anything, everybody, everyone, anyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;всё&quot; means all&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Всем пока&quot; goodbye everyone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Всё готово&quot; all done" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37508" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="2ec6ca79-3ef6-48de-bb8c-e85a306b52f5" CreationDate="2017-10-22T12:18:12.633" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/922074607108153344" />
  <row Id="37514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15173" RevisionGUID="b377e328-2231-47e2-a186-687058a5bb55" CreationDate="2017-10-22T17:27:32.743" UserId="9459" Text="A small addendum about substitution and context. In texts for _language learners_ `ё` should always be used. However, if you look into texts by native speakers, esp. into somewhat literature-based texts for native speakers, `ё` is mostly replaced with an `е`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if a literature example from a non-adapted book does not make sense, consider thinking if a `ё` replacement did not take place. Basing on above examples, if you see&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вася выпил все молоко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this is actually a `всё молоко`, but a native speaker is expected to infer this from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37518" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15138" RevisionGUID="f7e67981-b558-48b0-b2b1-f60a564faf0a" CreationDate="2017-10-23T00:19:44.700" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/922256187659300864" />
  <row Id="37519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="97ca3c76-8558-49c5-afda-ba9f18916918" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:19:27.240" UserId="9603" Text="I don't really understand when to use each so generally I use the latter but I was wondering...&#xD;&#xA;Is it ok to use the former with people you just met?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="97ca3c76-8558-49c5-afda-ba9f18916918" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:19:27.240" UserId="9603" Text="What is the difference between я люблю and мне нравится?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="97ca3c76-8558-49c5-afda-ba9f18916918" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:19:27.240" UserId="9603" Text="|словоупотребление|word-order|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15175" RevisionGUID="ca58454a-4f78-40a8-a0fe-66e189e12d24" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:37:10.060" UserId="9118" Text="Generally, &quot;я люблю&quot; is just a stronger, more definite version of &quot;мне нравится&quot;. When it is about things, foods, occupations etc., they are more or less interchangeable, e. g. both &quot;Мне нравится запах напалма по утрам&quot; and &quot;Я люблю запах напалма по утрам&quot; are OK, the former is more like just stating a fact, the latter is a bit stronger and more passionate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to people and relationship, it's basically same as above, but with the additional nuance of being permanent and exclusive. For example, &quot;Мне нравятся Катя, Маша и Таня.&quot; (e.g. I kinda like all three of them somewhat) vs. &quot;Я люблю Таню.&quot; (e.g. she is *the one*, it's more like the confession of love, not to be used lightly). &quot;Я люблю&quot; also usually also bears sexual (and/or matrimonial) implications, if you want to use something strong but without those, you could say &quot;Я обожаю ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a native speaker says &quot;I love you&quot; to a person he just met, that person would probably be a little scared. However, the perception may vary between different sub-cultural groups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15175" RevisionGUID="a0a9b476-db4e-45e8-89d2-4f0005630b81" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:43:24.343" UserId="9118" Comment="typo, clarification" Text="Generally, &quot;я люблю&quot; is just a stronger, more definite version of &quot;мне нравится&quot;. When it is about things, foods, occupations etc., they are more or less interchangeable, e. g. both &quot;Мне нравится запах напалма по утрам&quot; and &quot;Я люблю запах напалма по утрам&quot; are OK, the former is more like just stating a fact, the latter is a bit stronger and more passionate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to people and relationship, it's basically same as above, but with the additional nuance of being permanent and exclusive. For example, &quot;Мне нравятся Катя, Маша и Таня.&quot; (e.g. I kinda like all three of them somewhat) vs. &quot;Я люблю Таню.&quot; (e.g. she is *the one*, it's more like the confession of love, not to be used lightly). &quot;Я люблю&quot; also usually bears sexual (and/or matrimonial) implications, if you want to use something strong but without those, you could say &quot;Я обожаю ...&quot; Obviously, a lot depends on the context as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a native speaker says &quot;I love you&quot; to a person he just met, that person would probably be a little scared. However, the perception may vary between different sub-cultural groups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37524" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15168" RevisionGUID="3759bf58-c310-47a1-af5f-7c2f7574904b" CreationDate="2017-10-23T08:53:13.723" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;благодарю&quot; and &quot;спасибо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37525" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="2db6962b-d86f-4308-816c-f206a44ffa4e" CreationDate="2017-10-23T09:37:28.127" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;я люблю&quot; and &quot;мне нравится&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15176" RevisionGUID="6619e47e-cfa4-47ef-af1e-21ad2879e0bd" CreationDate="2017-10-23T14:48:06.263" UserId="8895" Text="Basically, you should distinguish the phrases 'I like/love *smth in general*' from 'I like/love *this particular thing*'. As @Headcrab said, &quot;люблю&quot; denotes a settled and durable feeling, while &quot;нравится&quot; can refer to both deep and superficial feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love flowers [in general]. -- *Мне нравятся цветы* / *Я люблю цветы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love **this kind of** flowers -- *Мне нравятся такие цветы* / *Я люблю такие цветы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love **these** [particular] flowers -- *Мне нравятся эти цветы* only. *Я люблю эти цветы* would imply that this specific bunch of flowers has been standing there for a long time, with the speaker admiring it every now and then and probably falling in love with it :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the common English phrase 'I love it!' (&quot;Мне нравится!&quot; only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With verbs, both words can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love to travel. -- *Я люблю путешествовать* / *Мне нравится путешествовать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, keep in mind that '**would like/love to**' would usually be translated using **want** and **enjoy**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to travel. -- *Я хотел бы отправиться в путешествие*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to travel. -- *Я бы с удовольствием отправился в путешествие*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15176" RevisionGUID="c432ab06-0b8a-433d-8b9e-17800c5de9d9" CreationDate="2017-10-23T14:55:45.050" UserId="8895" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Basically, you should distinguish the phrases 'I like/love *smth in general*' from 'I like/love *this particular thing*'. As @Headcrab said, &quot;люблю&quot; denotes a settled and durable feeling, while &quot;нравится&quot; can refer to both deep and superficial feelings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love flowers [in general]. -- *Мне нравятся цветы* / *Я люблю цветы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love **this kind of** flowers -- *Мне нравятся такие цветы* / *Я люблю такие цветы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love **these** [particular] flowers -- *Мне нравятся эти цветы* only. *Я люблю эти цветы* would imply that this specific bunch of flowers has been standing there for a long time, with the speaker admiring it every now and then and probably falling in love with it :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to the common English phrase 'I love it!' (&quot;Мне нравится!&quot; only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, using &quot;люблю&quot; with a first-time acquaintance should definitely be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With verbs, both words can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like/love to travel. -- *Я люблю путешествовать* / *Мне нравится путешествовать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, keep in mind that '**would like/love to**' would usually be translated using **want** and **enjoy**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to travel. -- *Я хотел бы отправиться в путешествие*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to travel. -- *Я бы с удовольствием отправился в путешествие*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37529" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="f1628d85-6498-46b8-9658-a16c1d10aed0" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:05:40.873" UserId="8895" Comment="Added a proper tag" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37530" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15166" RevisionGUID="b167689e-6306-43d2-a113-abe91e7ea16a" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:07:05.023" UserId="8895" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37531" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15130" RevisionGUID="dc3b1b65-fd2d-4f24-8769-cf95add78f12" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:09:11.863" UserId="8895" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|выбор-имени|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15177" RevisionGUID="da134815-bcca-45a9-9b10-d696709c7f75" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:30:31.620" UserId="9657" Text="I was listening to song `Играть, чтобы жить`, by `Павел Пламенев`. Something is really bothering me in the lyrics. I understand the song well, vocabulary is not a problem for me here. Except this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты сам себе сказал:&#xD;&#xA;    - Встать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shouldn't it be...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты сам себе сказал:&#xD;&#xA;    - Встань!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all it is an imperative, there is even an exclamation mark, isn't it? What do I am missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15177" RevisionGUID="da134815-bcca-45a9-9b10-d696709c7f75" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:30:31.620" UserId="9657" Text="Встань or Встать: which conjugation is correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15177" RevisionGUID="da134815-bcca-45a9-9b10-d696709c7f75" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:30:31.620" UserId="9657" Text="|глаголы|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15178" RevisionGUID="c8b35a58-63d9-4b6e-953d-0b1684f16125" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:46:07.090" UserId="242" Text="Both forms are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Встань&quot; - is for &quot;[you,] stand up!&quot; - it's the imperative form. &quot;Встать!&quot; is the infinitive form that also can be used in modern Russian as an imperative. The difference is that infinitive imperative is more command-like, hard and generally speaking more offensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A policemen can shout out: &quot;Встать!&quot;, but mother would tell her son: &quot;Встань&quot;. A lover can ask: &quot;Смотри мне в глаза&quot;, a detective can yell at the suspect:  &quot;В глаза мне смотреть!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other difference is the `встань` is for a singular you (&quot;ты&quot; in Russian), for referring group of people - or just being polite - one should use 'встаньте'. &quot;Встать&quot; is correct both for &quot;ты&quot; and &quot;вы&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37536" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15177" RevisionGUID="3eac75b0-1df1-4761-9aad-5578c791302b" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:50:27.410" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Встань&quot; or &quot;встать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15178" RevisionGUID="7c0b46bc-00f2-4f66-8126-a3f87f81dd52" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:56:30.257" UserId="242" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="Both forms are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Встань&quot; - is for &quot;[you,] stand up!&quot; - it's the imperative form. &quot;Встать!&quot; is the infinitive form that also can be used in modern Russian as an imperative. The difference is that infinitive imperative is more command-like, hard and generally speaking more offensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A policemen can shout out: &quot;Встать!&quot;, but mother would tell her son: &quot;Встань&quot;. A lover can ask: &quot;Смотри мне в глаза&quot;, a detective can yell at the suspect:  &quot;В глаза мне смотреть!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other difference is the `встань` is for a singular you (&quot;ты&quot; in Russian), for referring group of people - or just being polite - one should use 'встаньте'. &quot;Встать&quot; is correct both for &quot;ты&quot; and &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** as of what's the difference between `встать` and `вставать` - this is perfectly covered [here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/difference-between-%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-and-%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37538" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="7746878a-d974-41be-8956-d16f05f749d3" CreationDate="2017-10-23T15:58:09.937" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;вставать&quot; and &quot;встать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15178" RevisionGUID="47d8a783-a060-4b1b-b30f-1172c9702277" CreationDate="2017-10-23T16:07:02.490" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Both forms are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Встань&quot; - is for &quot;[you,] stand up!&quot; - it's the imperative form. &quot;Встать!&quot; is the infinitive form that also can be used in modern Russian as an imperative. The difference is that infinitive imperative is more command-like, hard and generally speaking more offensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A policemen can shout out: &quot;Встать!&quot;, but mother would tell her son: &quot;Встань&quot;. A lover can ask: &quot;Смотри мне в глаза&quot;, a detective can yell at the suspect:  &quot;В глаза мне смотреть!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other difference is the `встань` is for a singular you (&quot;ты&quot; in Russian), for referring group of people - or just being polite - one should use `встаньте`. &quot;Встать&quot; is correct both for &quot;ты&quot; and &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** as of what's the difference between `встать` and `вставать` - this is perfectly covered [here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/difference-between-%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-and-%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="f43e8091-4af0-4856-aa5c-1c5dea4ee8c2" CreationDate="2017-10-23T16:07:09.243" UserId="2104" Comment="Correct grammar. " Text="*Встать* and *вставать* are an aspectual pair (**видовая пара**) where *встать* is perfective and *вставать* is imperfective; otherwise their meaning is the same.  Their past forms (singular masculine) are *встал* and *вставал*, their future forms (singular first person) are *встану* and *буду вставать*.  In the present time, they are the same (встаю/встаём/встаёшь/встаёте/встаёт/встают).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Встать* denotes a one-time action and *вставать* denotes a repeating action. For example, you can say &quot;я вставал каждое утро&quot;, but not &quot;я встал каждое утро&quot;, which is gramatically incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, *встать* means a simple action, *вставать* means an action with internal structure.  For instance, &quot;надо встать&quot; refers to a physical action of standing up or raising from the bed. &quot;Надо вставать&quot; means that one needs to get up, which takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Waking up somebody, the correct verb is &quot;вставай(те)&quot;, not &quot;встань(те)&quot;, because a sleeping person cannot raise immediately, the process takes time.&#xD;&#xA;* But &quot;Я встану завтра в 7 утра&quot;, &quot;завтра мне надо встать в 7 утра&quot; - because the process of getting up will/should be finished at 7.  Similarly, &quot;я вчера встал в 7 утра&quot;, because at 7am you already finished the process of getting up.  &quot;Я вчера вставал в 7 утра&quot; means, if anything, that at 7am you were in bed making heroic efforts to get up.&#xD;&#xA;* When doing physical exercises, &quot;встань(те)&quot; (встали, встать) is the correct verb, because it refers to a physical movement.&#xD;&#xA;* When sitting in a train, &quot;вставай, мы приехали&quot; means that the train is at the destination station, and you ask the person to stand up, but before it he may put his book into the bag, for example.  &quot;Встань&quot; in the train means that you want him to stand up immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не вставать!&quot; is an order prohibiting to stand up.  &quot;Не встать&quot; is a phrase, not a sentence, meaning that it is impossible to stand up or get up (due to weariness, wounds, absence of space to stand up, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a colloquial phrase &quot;умереть, не встать&quot; (&quot;упасть, не встать&quot;, &quot;не встать&quot;) which means &quot;very funny&quot;, &quot;LOLMAO&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="9642c438-08fa-403a-b8e0-ee201405f473" CreationDate="2017-10-23T16:18:25.280" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="That's it, specifically in the sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не встать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не вставать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they exactly the same, what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15179" RevisionGUID="f971ee52-f8bf-4e19-867c-d8731c25f234" CreationDate="2017-10-25T02:21:29.747" UserId="9603" Text="Can someone explain the correct pronunciation of &quot;o&quot;? (I know it may vary but maybe there's some rule of thumb that I can take advantage of).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take **just** the word *мост* for example, it seems that &quot;*o*&quot; is pronounced as *o*, but when you combine it with *на* as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *на мосту*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation starts to sound like &quot;a&quot;, is this because of the dative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, can we generalize this? Like, can I say that whenever you get the dative case of a noun the first &quot;*o*&quot; is pronounced as *a*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15179" RevisionGUID="f971ee52-f8bf-4e19-867c-d8731c25f234" CreationDate="2017-10-25T02:21:29.747" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;о&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15179" RevisionGUID="f971ee52-f8bf-4e19-867c-d8731c25f234" CreationDate="2017-10-25T02:21:29.747" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37546" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15179" RevisionGUID="76673499-8a82-4d58-8f5d-e4d4c36d3c6e" CreationDate="2017-10-25T08:34:47.703" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7261],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9058,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Arioch&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37548" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15177" RevisionGUID="4b688930-43c7-43fc-bd49-2773b3459696" CreationDate="2017-10-25T21:31:17.563" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/923300958309826560" />
  <row Id="37549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12816" RevisionGUID="965618a1-4821-4d7b-8009-77ed75d6c332" CreationDate="2017-10-26T03:53:00.187" UserId="7544" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="To put it simpler, I will try to link both finitive and infinitive forms of a verb with tenses that you would use in English language.&#xD;&#xA;Notice that this probably applies to any of such a pair of words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuous and Perfect Continuous tenses all would be translated through the useof imperfective form (**вставать**, **делать**). Such as &quot;I am standing up right now!&quot; (&quot;Я **встаю** прямо сейчас!&quot;) or &quot;I will be standing up when you come in.&quot; (&quot;Я **буду вставать**, когда ты войдёшь.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the Perfect tenses, as you would guess, are translated with the perfective form, &quot;**встать**, **сделать**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Simple (Indefinite) tenses, it is not that &quot;simple&quot;. :) Present Indefinite I can clearly link to the imperfective form, I couldn't come up with any examples of the opposite. For example, (&quot;I [wake up/leave my bed] at 7 a.m. every day.&quot;, &quot;Я каждый день **встаю** в 7 утра&quot;). With Past and Future Indefinite tenses you should check if you can substitute this tense for any other without losing the meaning. Let's call it &quot;defining&quot; an Indefinite tense. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &quot;I will do my homework&quot;. &quot;**Делать**&quot; or &quot;**сделать**&quot;? Let's &quot;define&quot; it! Perhaps, you can rephrase it in Continuous form? For example: &quot;I will be doing my homework&quot;. Then use &quot;Я буду **делать** домашнее задание&quot;. Can you use Perfect tense, for example, &quot;I will have done my homework by Monday&quot;? &quot;Я **сделаю** домашнюю работу к понедельнику&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can, go ahead and use the instructions provided above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If even this doesn't help, try to understand if the action itself is spoken about as finished or unfinished. It is very important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck with your learning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37550" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="3dda76d7-d5fa-49b1-baca-834028344aac" CreationDate="2017-10-26T06:31:20.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/923436865813995520" />
  <row Id="37551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15180" RevisionGUID="f589c467-cca7-4669-83ff-8aa4c56b0690" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:40:46.543" UserId="9694" Text="&gt; Такой ответ покозание человека вникающего детали, то есть, такой человек будут досконально разбираться в рабочих вопросах. **Способность подвергать вещи сомнению осмыслению очень важная черта которая ценит работодателю.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the last sentence in the passage correctly formed ? If yes, how should it be interpreted into english? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15180" RevisionGUID="f589c467-cca7-4669-83ff-8aa4c56b0690" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:40:46.543" UserId="9694" Text="meaning of the sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15180" RevisionGUID="f589c467-cca7-4669-83ff-8aa4c56b0690" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:40:46.543" UserId="9694" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14536" RevisionGUID="78e760bd-50f2-464c-b21f-7e0ad942131c" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:55:02.970" UserId="8895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="steraï steraï steraï or `Стирай, Стирай, Стирай` I think she wants you to erase something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37555" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15180" RevisionGUID="b01982cc-274a-419d-bc4e-f4b13f327bcc" CreationDate="2017-10-26T12:55:59.810" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1836,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alissa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15180" RevisionGUID="062991c9-4e2e-4ed0-ab52-e426c689026e" CreationDate="2017-10-26T13:11:40.303" UserId="9694" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="&gt; Такой ответ, покозание человека вникающего детали, то есть, такой человек будут досконально разбираться в рабочих вопросах. **Способность подвергать вещи сомнению осмыслению очень важная черта которая ценит работодателю.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the last sentence in the passage correctly formed ? If yes, what is the object and the verb in that expression - **подвергать вещи сомнению осмыслению** - does the verb **подвергать** relate to the noun **сомнению** or **осмыслению** ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37557" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14915" RevisionGUID="922a03d9-9bf0-455b-b502-63ed373a0aee" CreationDate="2017-10-26T18:32:06.400" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/923618253095784448" />
  <row Id="37562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="37c02111-7635-42a3-a729-3b871e6c1e41" CreationDate="2017-10-27T08:12:57.393" UserId="8895" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to pronounce and write the word 'Hindustan'. What is the equivalent letter for 'H'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI: I am getting into first step of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37563" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="14000" RevisionGUID="37c02111-7635-42a3-a729-3b871e6c1e41" CreationDate="2017-10-27T08:12:57.393" UserId="8895" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited title" Text="Equivalent letter for H in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7945" RevisionGUID="2f1730a2-b870-4675-b665-9b4a26ac0298" CreationDate="2017-10-27T09:26:31.367" UserId="2148" Comment="add stress marks where needed, improve description of узна{ё,е}м" Text="`всё` can be spelled `все`, when it's possible to distinguish two words using available context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всё` (with `Ё`) is used when referring to neuter gender singular nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё время` (compare masculine `весь путь` and feminine `всю дорогу`), `забрызгал всё окно`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `всё молоко` (compare feminine `вся вода`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`все` (with `Е`) is used when referring to plural nouns: `все студенты`, `все яблоки`, `все кирпичи`, `все тарелки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are some idioms, like one you mentioned — `всё равно`,&#xD;&#xA;and  unchangeable expressions, like [`всё-таки`][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Substituting Ё with Е.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*jwalker posted a link to [this question about `Ё` and `Е`][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ё` can be substituted for `Е` in most words. It is not a rule but [`Ё` is not used very often][1] in printed texts. Usually, it's possible to distinguish when `Е` means `Ё` from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's highly recommended to use `Ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when needed to distinguish from the similar word with `Е`, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `узна́ем` (future tense first person plural of `узнать`) and `узнаём` (present tense first person plural of `узнавать`)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * `совершённый` (participle from verb `совершить`) and `совершенный` (adjective, meaning perfect)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In dictionaries, textbooks for language learners&#xD;&#xA;* In little-known, obscure, and loanwords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Links&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on English wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;* [всё on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91)&#xD;&#xA;* [весь on Russian wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic)#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%91-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/using-written-%D0%B5-instead-of-%C3%AB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15182" RevisionGUID="517172cf-d6e9-4a6c-86a0-e1c87d07306c" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:23:21.030" UserId="170" Text="Why is it &quot;девяностОлетний&quot;, but &quot;сорокАлетний&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't it like the linking vowels in Russian are only &quot;о&quot; and &quot;е&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15182" RevisionGUID="517172cf-d6e9-4a6c-86a0-e1c87d07306c" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:23:21.030" UserId="170" Text="Why is it &quot;девяностОлетний&quot;, but &quot;сорокАлетний&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15182" RevisionGUID="517172cf-d6e9-4a6c-86a0-e1c87d07306c" CreationDate="2017-10-28T02:23:21.030" UserId="170" Text="|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15183" RevisionGUID="18d80771-c10d-4382-b73b-d472579e9477" CreationDate="2017-10-28T05:38:01.590" UserId="1027" Text="These are the rules for declining composits with the first numeral root. &#xD;&#xA;We use the genitive in this case but not a connecting vowel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Одиннадцать → одиннадцат**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Двадцать → двадцат**и**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тридцать → тридцат**и**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сорок → сорок**а**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пятьдесят → пятидесят**и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шестьдесят → шестидесят**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Семьдесят → семидесят**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Восемьдесят → восьмидесят**и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxceptions: *один (одн**о**летний), девяносто (девян**о**столетний), сто (ст**о**летний), тысяча (тысяч**е**летний)*. In these cases we use connecting vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sourse: Розенталь, «Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке» (М. , 1978), стр. 37, пункт 6." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15183" RevisionGUID="a12dec84-f854-479f-9524-ddb72dfa2235" CreationDate="2017-10-28T05:47:22.373" UserId="1027" Comment="edited body" Text="These are the rules for declining composits with the first numeral root. &#xD;&#xA;We use the genitive in this case but not a connecting vowel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Одиннадцать → одиннадцат**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Двадцать → двадцат**и**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тридцать → тридцат**и**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сорок → сорок**а**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пятьдесят → пятидесят**и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шестьдесят → шестидесят**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Семьдесят → семидесят**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Восемьдесят → восьмидесят**и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxceptions: *один (одн**о**летний), девяносто (девян**о**столетний), сто (ст**о**летний), тысяча (тысяч**е**летний)*. In these cases we use connecting vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sourse: Розенталь, «Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке» (М. , 1978), 37 page, 6 point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15183" RevisionGUID="bf306419-2cc8-43a7-b414-c067471f03f7" CreationDate="2017-10-28T11:20:49.397" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="These are the rules for declining composits with the first numeral root. &#xD;&#xA;We use the genitive in this case but not a connecting vowel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Одиннадцать → одиннадцат**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Двадцать → двадцат**и**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тридцать → тридцат**и**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сорок → сорок**а**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пятьдесят → пятидесят**и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шестьдесят → шестидесят**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Семьдесят → семидесят**и** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Восемьдесят → восьмидесят**и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еxceptions: *один (одн**о**летний), девяносто (девяност**о**летний), сто (ст**о**летний), тысяча (тысяч**е**летний)*. In these cases we use connecting vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sourse: Розенталь, «Справочник по правописанию и литературной правке» (М. , 1978), 37 page, 6 point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37571" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15182" RevisionGUID="c5052173-57ae-420a-82d2-cd05bfe3b763" CreationDate="2017-10-28T18:45:16.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/924346341970587648" />
  <row Id="37572" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14917" RevisionGUID="8ad1884d-1f14-4595-a0b1-8d1df7790969" CreationDate="2017-10-29T15:47:56.090" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/924664101279760384" />
  <row Id="37573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15156" RevisionGUID="09e01ce9-85cf-45ff-8d82-469f5d1480ea" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:53:25.577" UserId="9705" Comment="fixed info about Yakut+Russian" Text="There's no such thing like &quot;Siberian person&quot; - Siberia is huge, really huge and was populated by very different people with different history, culture and genetic heritage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there never was a single term universally used. Well, there's a word [&quot;полукровка&quot;][1] but it was used in context of any racial or ethnic mix-up. Also keep in mind that it's de-facto shifting to being offensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Russia does not have any special diversified terminology like `самбо`, `метисы`, `креолы`, `мулаты` which can be used for multi-ethnic people of some Russian origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that quite often Russian settlers mixed with local people - and new ethnic groups came to existence. In Transbaikal region there were so-called [`гураны`][2], in Yakutia there were so-called [`якутяне`][3] (nowadays this term is used to designated the population of Yakutia as a whole). In modern times, a person who have one Yakut parent and one Russian parent is called [`сахаляр`][7]. There were so-called [`албазинцы`][4], who ethnically were more Chinese, but culturally — a mix between the Russian and Chinese cultures. There were [`камчадалы`][5], there were [`чалдоны`][6], actually this list can be amended with dozens of other words of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all this words are purely of historical interest and were more about culture, rather than race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37574" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15156" RevisionGUID="09e01ce9-85cf-45ff-8d82-469f5d1480ea" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:53:25.577" Comment="Proposed by 9705 approved by 5605, 242 edit id of 924" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="8707e8e4-bb94-4a52-aa75-51b628df8876" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:53:33.487" UserId="8895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="How the grammar works: how different forms of the same word can be used, what they mean, how they are composed into phrases or sentences. Use this tag with or without a more precise one (check out &quot;morphology&quot;, &quot;syntax&quot;, &quot;word-order&quot;, and tags for different parts of speech (&quot;nouns&quot;) and grammatical categories (&quot;cases&quot;))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37576" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="8707e8e4-bb94-4a52-aa75-51b628df8876" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:53:33.487" Comment="Proposed by 8895 approved by 242 edit id of 923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15156" RevisionGUID="3de93742-2b5d-4edf-a4d6-19669a7f2530" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:54:26.517" UserId="242" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="There's no such thing like &quot;Siberian person&quot; - Siberia is huge, really huge and was populated by very different people with different history, culture and genetic heritage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there never was a single term universally used. Well, there's a word [&quot;полукровка&quot;][1] but it was used in context of any racial or ethnic mix-up. Also keep in mind that it's de-facto shifting to being offensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Russia does not have any special diversified terminology like `самбо`, `метисы`, `креолы`, `мулаты` which can be used for multi-ethnic people of some Russian origin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that quite often Russian settlers mixed with local people - and new ethnic groups came to existence. In Transbaikal region there were so-called [`гураны`][2], in Yakutia there were so-called [`якутяне`][3] (nowadays this term is used to designated the population of Yakutia as a whole). In modern times, a person who have one Yakut parent and one Russian parent is called [`сахаляр`][7]. There were so-called [`албазинцы`][4], who ethnically were more Chinese, but culturally — a mix between the Russian and Chinese cultures. There were [`камчадалы`][5], there were [`чалдоны`][6], actually this list can be amended with dozens of other words of this kind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But almost all of these words are purely of historical interest and were more about culture, rather than race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="528388f1-8ced-410d-b143-b0dd540ec00b" CreationDate="2017-10-30T05:52:49.810" UserId="7349" Text="It seems both words can translate to &quot;department&quot;, &quot;college&quot;, or &quot;school&quot;, and each of those English words refers to some division of a higher educational institution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one distinguish the usage of these two words, especially in the Russian education system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="528388f1-8ced-410d-b143-b0dd540ec00b" CreationDate="2017-10-30T05:52:49.810" UserId="7349" Text="What is the difference between кафедра and факультет?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="528388f1-8ced-410d-b143-b0dd540ec00b" CreationDate="2017-10-30T05:52:49.810" UserId="7349" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15185" RevisionGUID="5fa47f51-9649-4314-9e13-54098175048e" CreationDate="2017-10-30T05:54:43.663" UserId="9213" Text="The &quot;Кафедра&quot; is a part of &quot;Факультет&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This unit, which deals with a deeper study of the issue.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For example, in the physics department there can be a department of electrodynamics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(На физическом факультете может быть кафедра электродинамики)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37585" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="c43c271a-61c1-4289-bafd-cd1cdadc2de0" CreationDate="2017-10-30T06:04:12.603" UserId="9213" Comment="add a tag for question" Text="|выбор-слова|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37586" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="c43c271a-61c1-4289-bafd-cd1cdadc2de0" CreationDate="2017-10-30T06:04:12.603" Comment="Proposed by 9213 approved by 7349 edit id of 925" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="4b4937c8-cd52-410d-966f-7b3ec84136ab" CreationDate="2017-10-30T09:05:15.497" UserId="170" Text="&gt; -- Не знаю куда мне пойти, на правый берег или на левый.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Да какая разница, на правый или на левый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need these commas here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="4b4937c8-cd52-410d-966f-7b3ec84136ab" CreationDate="2017-10-30T09:05:15.497" UserId="170" Text="Commas in alternative questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="4b4937c8-cd52-410d-966f-7b3ec84136ab" CreationDate="2017-10-30T09:05:15.497" UserId="170" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15187" RevisionGUID="62e17b4a-657a-454e-a747-f058f46e0deb" CreationDate="2017-10-30T09:37:22.267" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, those commas are required. Rosenthal:&#xA;&#xA;§ 22. Уточняющие члены предложения&#xA;&#xA;Обособляются (выделяются запятыми, реже — тире) слова и словосочетания, уточняющие смысл предшествующих слов (уточнение — это переход от более широкого понятия к более узкому). Чаще всего уточняются обстоятельства и определения.&#xA;&#xA;1. Уточняющие обстоятельства места: Там, ниже, мох тощий, кустарник седой (П.); Внизу, в тени, шумел Дунай (Тютч.); Илья Ильич учился в Верхлёве, верстах в пяти от Обломовки, у тамошнего управляющего немца Штольца (Гонч.); Прямо противкордона, на том берегу, всё было пусто(Л. Т.); В предместье, около боен,выли собаки (Ч.); Несколько в стороне от гуся, на матрасике, лежал белый кот (Ч.); Вверху, над вершинами дубов,где ровно синела глубина неба, собирались облака (Бун.); За рекою, в розовеющем небе, ярко сверкала вечерняя звезда (М. Г.);В Крыму, в Мисхоре, прошлым летом я сделал изумительное открытие (Купр.);На хуторе, в трёх верстах от деревушки Соломенной, разведчики оставили лошадей и пошли пешком (Ф.); Шагах в десяти от входа в туннель, у самого шоссе, стоял одинокий домик (Н. О.); Недалеко, в направлении станицы Ольгинской,привычно перекатывались звуки орудийной стрельбы (Перв.); Справа, у подножия сопок, расстилалось большое поле (Чак.); Дорога раздваивается, и неизвестно, куда идти дальше — прямо или налево.&#xA;&#xA;Нередко уточняющие обстоятельства места выстраиваются в ряд, образуют цепочку: Впереди, далеко, на том берегу туманного моря, виднелись выступающие лесистые холмы (Л. Т.);Вокруг по левому берегу, в полуверсте от воды, на расстоянии семи-восьми вёрст одна от другой,расположились станицы (Л. Т.); Вдруг на повороте реки, впереди, под тёмными горами, мелькнул огонёк(Кор.); Шагах в шести от Челкаша, у тротуара, на мостовой,прислонясь спиной к тумбочке, сидел молодой парень (М. Г.); В пространнойнизине, справа, до самого хребта,отвернувшегося в сторону и затерявшегося в мутно-серой дали, виднелся лес (Ф.); Даже сюда, через озеро, за километр, вместе с горячим воздухом, доносился гул и треск (Гайд.);Тут же, возле амбара, прямо на снегу,раздевались (Ш.).&#xA;&#xA;В зависимости от смысла одни и те же слова могут рассматриваться или не рассматриваться как уточняющее обстоятельство. Ср.:&#xA;&#xA;Впереди на дороге толпились люди (т. е. в передней части дороги). — Впереди, на дороге, толпились люди (т. е. сама дорога находилась впереди);&#xA;&#xA;Далеко в лесу раздавались удары топора(слушатель находится в лесу). — Далеко, в лесу, раздавались удары топора(слушатель находится вне леса);&#xA;&#xA;Дети расположились на поляне между кустами (поляна окружена кустами, а на самой поляне их нет). — Дети расположились на поляне, между кустами (кусты находятся на самой поляне). -&#xA;&#xA;К уточняющим обстоятельствам относятся названия районов, областей и т. п., обозначающие местонахождение поселков, деревень и т. д., а также указания в адресах: В деревне Уваровке,Петровского района, Калужской области, состоялся праздник урожая; Посёлок Новые Горки, Щёлковского района, Московской области, находится недалеко от станции Болшево; Москва, улица Плющиха, д. 38, кв. 2.&#xA;&#xA;Но: Школа № 4 Талдомского района Московской области — необособленное несогласованное определение.&#xA;&#xA;Обычно уточняющий член предложения ограничивает объем понятия, выраженного уточняемым членом предложения: Вниз у, под железной сетью воздушной дороги, в пыли и грязи мостовых, безмолвно возятся дети(М. Г.) — уточняющие члены расположены по нисходящей градации, т. е. последующий уточняет значение предыдущего. Но бывают случаи, когда уточняющий член по выражаемому им понятию шире, чем уточняемый: Я лежална кровати, в незнакомой горнице, и чувствовал большую слабость (П.); Я слышал эти рассказы под Аккерманом, в Бессарабии, на морском берегу (М. Г.).&#xA;&#xA;2. Уточняющие обстоятельствавремени: Япроснулся поздно, часу в пятом пополудни (Акс.); Мыотправились и бродили долго, до вечера(Т.); В полдень, в ясную, солнечную погоду, ничего нельзя вообразить печальнее этой развалины (Т.); Это было глубокой осенью, в холодный и сумрачный день (Дост.); Один раз,перед вечером, ногаец-ямщик плетью указал из-за туч на горы (Л. Т.); Теперь же, после половодья, это была река саженей в шесть (Ч.); Всю ночь, до петушиного рассвета, мерил Чапаев карту (Фурм.); Сейчас, поздней осенью,когда я живу в Москве, шкатулка стоит там одна в пустых нетопленых комнатах (Пауст.); Летом, вечернимизорями, на вершину кургана слетает из подоблачья степной беркут (Ш.).&#xA;&#xA;Если при наличии двух обстоятельств времени второе из них не служит для ограничения понятия, выраженного первым, то оно не является уточняющим и запятая между обстоятельствами не ставится: Заседание кафедры состоитсязавтра в шесть часов вечера (ср.:3автра, в шесть часов вечера,состоится заседание кафедры).&#xA;&#xA;3. Уточняющие обстоятельстваобраза действия: Он встряхнул кудрями и самоуверенно, почти с вызовом, глянул вверх, на небо (Т.); И о душе своей заботился солидно, по-барски, и добрые дела творил не просто, а с важностью (Ч.); Он наивно, по-детски, вытер пальцами глаза (Л. Т.);Тихо, с боязнью, она говорила ему что-то странное (М. Г.); Она озорно, по-девичьи, взглянула на него снизу вверх(Фед.); На покривившемся стогу уныло,по-сиротски, примостилась ворона (Ф.);Бабы зашумели все сразу, в один голос, не давая Давыдову и слова молвить (Ш.);Только так, среди травы, цветов,пшеницы, и могла начаться наша река Ворша (Сол.); Он был тщательно, до розового лоска на щеках, выбрит (Ант.);Вот так, походя, вопрос не решить.&#xA;&#xA;4. Уточняющие определения со значением цвета, размера, возраста и т. д.:Ещё одно, последнее, сказанье — и летопись окончена моя (П.); Кой-где выглянули женские, большей частью старушечьи, головы (Т.); Ихсопровождал небольшой плотненький человечек с флегматичным, почти заспанным, лицом (Т.); Только узкая,саженей в триста, полоса плодородной земли составляет владение казаков (Л. Т.);Пьер, с раннего утра уже стянутый внеловком, сделавшемся ему узким,дворянском мундире, был в залах (Л. Т.);Пройдя какую-то пустую, без жителей, деревню, эскадрон опять поднялся на гору (Л. Т.); Горбоносый камнелом расправил усы и бородубелыми, в извёстке, руками (М. Г.);Вдали высилось тёмно-красное,цвета сырого мяса, здание фабрики(М. Г.); На площадку классного вагона вышел человек в чёрной — до ворота застёгнутой — гимнастёрке (А. Т.); Через минуту три истребителя один за другим поднялись в голубоватый, как бы перламутровый, воздух (Кат.); Гвардейцы шли во весь рост, широкой цепью, попёстрому — малиновому, лиловому, зелёному — клеверному полю (Кат);Высокий, на мачте, фонарь помог Глебу разглядеть его серое, небритое, со впадинами на щеках, лицо (Леон.); Она со страхом смотрела на дедовы руки в коричневых, глиняного цвета,старческих веснушках (Ш.); Он увидел на белой шапке кургана невдалеке рдяно-жёлтую, с огнистым отливом, лису(Ш.); Катер шёл, всё время подвигаясь в чёрной, почти чернильного цвета,тени (Сим.); Глаза не слепил уже белый,с отсветами заката, снег; Вдали, у Никольских ворот, виднелась высокая— трубой — соболья шапка боярина(А. Т.); А они такие свеженькие,чистенькие, без единого пятнышка,на земле, значит, так вот и лежали?(Фед.); Вошла молодая, лет семнадцати, девушка (Купр.); Надублёной от жёлтого загара шее собирались толстые, в палец, складки(Лид.); Толстые, гвардейского сукна,штаны уж никак не шли ни мастеровому, ни батраку (Кат.); Гаврик со всех сторон осмотрел маленького гимназиста вдлинной, до пят, шинели (Кат.); Нацыпочках прошёл в горницу, разделся, бережно повесил праздничные, с лампасами, шаровары (Ш.); Из-подкрутого, волчьего склада, лысеющего лба он бегло оглядел комнату (Ш.); По соседним, без дверей, заляпанным светлым комнатам загрохотали, приближаясь, шаги (Пан.); Это был посёлок за городом на голом, без деревца, без кустика, низком месте (Пан.); Это был молодой мужчина невысокого роста, с малозаметными усиками, в простой, в полоску, рубахе с резинками на рукавах (Сол.); Возникаетособая, технического порядка, пауза; Пассажир вошёл с оригинальным,под крокодиловую кожу, чемоданом; Каждое из этих явлений имеет свои, присущие только ему, особенности; С её, всё-таки не блестящим, здоровьем следует больше беречь себя.&#xA;&#xA;Уточняющие определения могут конкретизировать общее значение местоимений этот, тот, такой, каждый, один (в значении местоимения) и т. п.: Хотелось отличиться перед этим,дорогим для меня, человеком (М. Г.); Затем удивила Дашу «доморощенность» всего этого, так нашумевшего, дерзновения (А. Т.); Эти, не всегда твёрдые и стройные, стихотворные строки писала рука, твёрдая, как сталь(Сим.); Между ними давно уже установились те, чисто формальные, отношения, которые так обычны между двумя родственниками (М. Г.); Чичиков немного озадачился таким, отчасти резким, определением (Г.); Каждому,приехавшему и пришедшему, они должны были найти и указать место для ночлега (Ч.); Ни одного, ни санного, ни человеческого, ни звериного, следа не было видно (Л. Т.); Произошло нечто,столь необычное в мире, что всё бывалое, привычное будто заколебалось в своей власти над жизнью (Фед.).&#xA;&#xA;Но если определительный оборот, стоящий после указательного местоимения, тесно примыкает к нему и не имеет значения уточнения, то. он не отделяется запятой от этого местоимения: Эти недавно построенные дома уже полностью заселены [см. § 18].&#xA;&#xA;Уточняющие определения могут присоединяться посредством подчинительных союзов:Неодолимая, хотя и тихая, сила увлекала меня (Т.); Актуальная, даже если не совсем новая, тема заслуживает внимания; Пожертвовать прошлым радиодной, пусть и дорогой, встречи он не решался; Следует отметить, что этаинтересная, потому что ещё никем не разработанная, тема выбрана именно молодым исследователем.&#xA;&#xA;Но если определение, присоединяемое подчинительным союзом, является однородным по отношению к предшествующему определению и не носит характера уточнения (смыслового и интонационного), то после него запятая не ставится: Перед нами поставленатрудная, зато интересная задача [см.§ 12, п. 6]. Разграничение этих случаев зависит от воли пишущего.&#xA;&#xA;Примечания: 1. Писатели-классики иногда выделяли запятыми в качестве уточняющего определения причастный оборот, стоящий поcле однородного определения-прилагательного. Например, у И. С. Тургенева: Он устроил большую, полотном покрытую, купальню; В ста шагах от мельницы находился маленький, со всех сторон открытый, навес; Из особенной, мною сперва не замеченной, конюшни вывели Павлина. В настоящее время такая пунктуация встречается редко [см. § 10].&#xA;&#xA;2. Уточняющий характер придают высказыванию слова вернее, точнее, иначе, скорее и т. п. Однако следующие за ними члены предложения не обособляются, так как указанные слова, имеющие значение вводных (точнее, вернее, иначе по смыслу равнозначны словосочетаниямточнее говоря, вернее говоря, иначе говоря), сами выделяются запятыми: Его доброта,вернее, его великодушие тронуло меня — сказуемое согласовано с ближайшим предшествующим словом, от которого оно не может быть отделено запятой; Совсем недавно, точнее, в последнем номере журнала была опубликована статья аналогичного содержания; Песец, иначе полярная лисица, ценится за свой мех(здесь иначе в значении ‘то есть’; но: Мальчика нужно вовремя остановить, иначе он такого натворит — здесь иначе выступает в функции противительного союза); Следует дополнить, скорее, уточнить приведённые в отчёте данные.&#xA;&#xA;Слово скорее не выделяется запятыми, если употреблено в значениях: а) ‘лучше сказать’: Павел Петрович медленно похаживал взад и вперёд по столовой… произнося какое-нибудь замечание или скорее восклицание, вроде «а! эге! гм!» (Т.); Его не удивил, а скорее обрадовал этот вопрос; Пасмурный, скорее сумрачный, день; б) ‘лучше’, ‘охотнее’: Она скорее согласилась бы умереть, чем поделиться властью с другой хозяйкой (Т.).&#xA;&#xA;В роли уточняющего может выступать сочетание слов более того: Было бы глупостью, более того, безумием упустить такой случай; Он глубоко уважал своего друга, более того — восхищался им.&#xA;&#xA;3. Возможно уточнение без вводящих слов: Растения были спасены — политы.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15187" RevisionGUID="5c2e9d8b-138c-4229-8d73-27399800f176" CreationDate="2017-10-30T09:59:33.120" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 11276 characters in body; added 65 characters in body" Text="Yes, those commas are required. Rosenthal:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; § 22. Уточняющие члены предложения&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Обособляются (выделяются запятыми, реже — тире) слова и словосочетания, уточняющие смысл предшествующих слов (уточнение — это переход от более широкого понятия к более узкому). Чаще всего уточняются обстоятельства и определения.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. Уточняющие обстоятельства места: Там, ниже, мох тощий, кустарник седой (П.); Внизу, в тени, шумел Дунай (Тютч.); Илья Ильич учился в Верхлёве, верстах в пяти от Обломовки, у тамошнего управляющего немца Штольца (Гонч.); Прямо противкордона, на том берегу, всё было пусто (Л. Т.); [...]&#xA;&#xA;In your examples the word being clarified (уточняемое слово) is куда. In the second example it is implied (Да какая разница куда, ...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15187" RevisionGUID="fa9daceb-f4a9-458b-9dd2-27f788eb0fb7" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:18:06.550" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, those commas are required. Rosenthal:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; § 22. Уточняющие члены предложения&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Обособляются (выделяются запятыми, реже — тире) слова и словосочетания, уточняющие смысл предшествующих слов (уточнение — это переход от более широкого понятия к более узкому). Чаще всего уточняются обстоятельства и определения.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. Уточняющие обстоятельства места: Там, ниже, мох тощий, кустарник седой (П.); Внизу, в тени, шумел Дунай (Тютч.); Илья Ильич учился в Верхлёве, верстах в пяти от Обломовки, у тамошнего управляющего немца Штольца (Гонч.); Прямо противкордона, на том берегу, всё было пусто (Л. Т.); [...]&#xA;&#xA;In your examples the word being clarified (уточняемое слово) is куда. In the second example it is implied: Да какая разница [куда], ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15131" RevisionGUID="06867a4a-985b-48df-a7c1-6d90e20b16ae" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:25:02.253" UserId="2104" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="`Ивано́в` is much more common although some Ivanovs prefer to be called `Ива́нов`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the possessive adjective `ива́нов` (Ivan's): `Ива́нов день` (Kupala Night)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15187" RevisionGUID="ce7aad0a-e63f-4c4e-86d0-33ac1f14c47a" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:54:29.080" UserId="2104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Yes, those commas are required. Rosenthal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 22. Уточняющие члены предложения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обособляются (выделяются запятыми, реже — тире) слова и словосочетания, уточняющие смысл предшествующих слов (уточнение — это переход от более широкого понятия к более узкому). Чаще всего уточняются обстоятельства и определения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Уточняющие обстоятельства места: Там, ниже, мох тощий, кустарник седой (П.); Внизу, в тени, шумел Дунай (Тютч.); Илья Ильич учился в Верхлёве, верстах в пяти от Обломовки, у тамошнего управляющего немца Штольца (Гонч.); Прямо против кордона, на том берегу, всё было пусто (Л. Т.); [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your examples the word being clarified (уточняемое слово) is куда. In the second example it is implied: Да какая разница [куда], ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1664" RevisionGUID="469d140d-6dad-4805-8558-810230d8a763" CreationDate="2017-10-30T10:59:12.880" UserId="2104" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure if I need a comma in the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю что сказать.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю что вам сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me they seem to be similar to the phrases &quot;[Тут есть над чем подумать][1]&quot; &quot;Тут есть что посмотреть&quot; but the [ruscorpora.ru][2] search shows that many authors use commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/1581/496&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=langust&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%ED%E5+%E7%ED%E0%FE+%F7%F2%EE+%F1%EA%E0%E7%E0%F2%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37596" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="45e7e1ef-ba7b-4f27-922d-cda5bced9915" CreationDate="2017-10-30T11:01:33.633" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;кафедра&quot; and &quot;факультет&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15185" RevisionGUID="4601c8e9-f681-4eaa-82f1-44fc421d50f1" CreationDate="2017-10-30T12:26:02.103" UserId="9213" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The &quot;Кафедра&quot; is a part of &quot;Факультет&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This unit, which deals with a deeper study of the issue.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For example, in the physics department there can be a subdepartment of electrodynamics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(На физическом факультете может быть кафедра электродинамики)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="f1a9bc9a-9bf5-4e63-a97b-daf9a4b5d89e" CreationDate="2017-10-30T13:39:05.970" UserId="9213" Comment="add tag to question" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37599" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="f1a9bc9a-9bf5-4e63-a97b-daf9a4b5d89e" CreationDate="2017-10-30T13:39:05.970" Comment="Proposed by 9213 approved by 170 edit id of 926" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37600" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="9ee7dcd8-b5c2-472f-8a22-461cca0def37" CreationDate="2017-10-30T13:39:46.843" UserId="170" Comment="edited title" Text="Commas in questions with two options" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37601" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15184" RevisionGUID="5cd129bb-11f9-4dff-bff5-8f6ce99256e0" CreationDate="2017-10-31T15:53:04.097" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/925390169137647617" />
  <row Id="37602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15188" RevisionGUID="7f1b74b7-2fe2-4554-93ac-02ed4498e953" CreationDate="2017-11-02T04:58:59.810" UserId="6545" Text="I came across this exercise (pg 191 in Russian in an Easy Way if that helps) where it talk about the Olympics.&#xA;&#xA;One sentence is: &#xA;&#xA;    Зимние игры называют Белой Олимпиадой.&#xA;&#xA;I understand the verb as 'to call, name' followed by the instrumental case. But it sounds like the 'winter games' are calling something the 'white Olympics'. If they are being called that why not use себя, or a reflexive verb or the dative case....?&#xA;&#xA;I hope I provided enough context, but if not here is a pic of the page (it is at the end):&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8CaEr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15188" RevisionGUID="7f1b74b7-2fe2-4554-93ac-02ed4498e953" CreationDate="2017-11-02T04:58:59.810" UserId="6545" Text="Calling a proper noun with называть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15188" RevisionGUID="7f1b74b7-2fe2-4554-93ac-02ed4498e953" CreationDate="2017-11-02T04:58:59.810" UserId="6545" Text="|глаголы|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15189" RevisionGUID="ec3d5a3e-c709-4e72-b982-60d19c9ba480" CreationDate="2017-11-02T05:52:04.767" UserId="2104" Text="I understand where your confusion comes from (the verb seemingly agrees with the preceding noun), but to most native speakers it is obvious that this sentence has no subject, or the subject is implied to be 'they' or 'everyone':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зимние игры [они/все] называют Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb называть takes two compliments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называть &lt;кого-либо/что-либо (Accusative)&gt; &lt;кем-либо/чем-либо (Instrumental)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to call  &quot;something&quot; &quot;something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зимние игры` fill the accusative case slot in your sentence. To make this more obvious, one could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олимпиаду называют зимними играми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `Олимпиаду` is in the Accusative and `зимними играми` is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15190" RevisionGUID="3a992fb4-c9bc-41f7-827b-9fe43e6656d8" CreationDate="2017-11-02T06:43:40.577" UserId="9606" Text="It is the same as &quot;they call it the White Olympics&quot;.&#xA;In addition to other answer I'd like to note that this form is always used with plural form of the verb называть. So it's easy to distinct two different cases if you use some singular or uncountable object like:&#xA;&#xA;Нефть называют чёрным золотом.&#xA;They call oil the &quot;black gold&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;OR&#xA;&#xA;Америку называют страной свободных людей.&#xA;America is a country of free men, they say.&#xA;&#xA;Here you can clearly see that plural называют is not to express an action of &quot;oil&quot; entity.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15188" RevisionGUID="bb36cb9b-b25f-48e3-91c9-127ef7e0670d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T08:19:59.427" UserId="8895" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I came across this exercise (pg 191 in Russian in an Easy Way if that helps) where it talks about the Olympics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One sentence is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Зимние игры называют Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the verb as 'to call, name' followed by the instrumental case. But it sounds like the 'winter games' are calling something the 'white Olympics'. If they are being called that why not use себя, or a reflexive verb or the dative case....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I provided enough context, but if not here is a pic of the page (it is at the end):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8CaEr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15191" RevisionGUID="00b838fd-98dc-4db5-b242-4e28949d494c" CreationDate="2017-11-02T09:27:30.387" UserId="6539" Text="I think you gave an answer to your own question while asking. You just wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But it sounds like the 'winter games' are calling **something** the 'white Olympics'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you are quite right that зимние игры называют could act as a subject and a verb in the sentence, but the verb requires a direct object, that very &quot;something &quot;. If there's no object the sentence sounds weird. &#xD;&#xA;So **зимние игры** here is a **direct object** in the **impersonal sentence**.  They call winter games... This is a popular way to render passive voice in Russian while translating from English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15192" RevisionGUID="323f26aa-5b16-4a71-84c7-ca0db6b79c1d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T09:37:51.347" UserId="4600" Text="Sentences ***without subject*** with verbs in plural form accusative case are used in formal texts to describe sort of widespread common knowledge. Grammatically this implies an omitted subject like *все / люди / они.* Usually this is translated to English using passive voice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Москву также ***называют*** Белокаменной. — The city of Moscow is also called &quot;The White-stone One&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плетёные корзины ***изготовляют*** из ветвей ивы. — Wicker baskets are made of willow branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот праздник ***отмечают*** в конце лета. — This holiday is celebrated at the end of summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; После окончания ремонта инструмент тщательно ***чистят***. — After completion of repair works the instrument[s] should be thoroughly cleaned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15193" RevisionGUID="338db813-c279-45a6-9130-4df652c4ecf4" CreationDate="2017-11-02T12:17:02.713" UserId="9712" Text="The only useful meaning for &quot;Siberian person&quot; is a person who have lived in Siberia for a long time or has been born there (often in context to be proud of he does not afraid of cold or he has a strong spirit). In Russian the term Siberian person is `сибиряк` - for men and `сибирячка` - for women. About ethnic group it can be said that the person is for example half-Russian or half-Chinese - `наполовину русский` or `наполовину китаец`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be where some terms that locals can used for specific half-Russian person but they are not spread much(i live in central region and can remember none) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And term `полукровка` is almost in fantasy context - for example Harry Potter is well-known `полукровка`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15190" RevisionGUID="4fac5aa8-0bc3-4457-a65c-04fa3ce1d6c1" CreationDate="2017-11-02T12:41:07.607" UserId="4903" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="It is the same as &quot;they call it the White Olympics&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In addition to other answer I'd like to note that this form is always used with plural form of the verb называть. So it's easy to distinguish two different cases if you use some singular or uncountable object like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нефть называют чёрным золотом. *They call oil the &quot;black gold&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Америку называют страной свободных людей. *America is a country of free men, they say.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can clearly see that plural называют is not to express an action of &quot;oil&quot; entity.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15194" RevisionGUID="c7512062-797c-4f37-807e-316a9ab6ce7f" CreationDate="2017-11-02T13:03:24.223" UserId="9712" Text="`Благодарю` it is almost like `спасибо` but a bit you are wearing a top hat and a walking stick. Person considered to have a unique style(if he always use this word), be a bit fancy, or just formal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15195" RevisionGUID="39c58ef7-97d7-422e-a699-fb32f613260e" CreationDate="2017-11-02T13:39:58.103" UserId="9653" Text=" **вот** means **behold**&#xA;&#xA;But, **вот офис** means **here is office**&#xA;&#xA;So why **вот** is having different meanings in different places?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15195" RevisionGUID="39c58ef7-97d7-422e-a699-fb32f613260e" CreationDate="2017-11-02T13:39:58.103" UserId="9653" Text="Implementation of the word &quot;вот&quot; in different places" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15195" RevisionGUID="39c58ef7-97d7-422e-a699-fb32f613260e" CreationDate="2017-11-02T13:39:58.103" UserId="9653" Text="|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15196" RevisionGUID="ea4c6d3e-2a14-40ef-8516-715f2f955eee" CreationDate="2017-11-02T14:46:13.307" UserId="9712" Text="When you want to point on something or somebody `вот офис` - here is the office(point to office with your hand or say at the end of excursion), `вот зефир` - here is the marshmallow(point to marshmallow with your hand or give somebody a plate with marshmallow), `вот эта девушка` here is the girl(show the girl on a smartphone), `вот возьми чашку в шкафу` - take the cap in the cupboard(point to the cupboard with hand). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an amplification(may be this meaning is not much different from the first) `а вот мой пирог вкуснее` or `вот мой пирог вкуснее` - and my pie is more tasty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a filler word at the and of **any** sentence, but it is treated as if you are bad speaker or a kid: `Я голодный. Вот.` - i am hungry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вот ты сказал не правду сейчас` - you have lied now. You can say this without `Вот` and `сейчас` or use only one of them - the are amplifiers at this case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15196" RevisionGUID="2137e581-f129-4f51-88b9-34c249ef3608" CreationDate="2017-11-02T14:57:12.040" UserId="9712" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="When you want to point on something or somebody `вот офис` - here is the office(point to office with your hand or say at the end of excursion), `вот зефир` - here is the marshmallow(point to marshmallow with your hand or give somebody a plate with marshmallow), `вот эта девушка` here is the girl(show the girl on a smartphone), `вот возьми чашку в шкафу` - take the cap in the cupboard(point to the cupboard with hand).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an amplification(may be this meaning is not much different from the first) `а вот мой пирог вкуснее` or `вот мой пирог вкуснее` - and my pie is more tasty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a filler word at the and of **any** sentence, but it is treated as if you are bad speaker or a kid: `Я голодный. Вот.` - i am hungry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вот ты сказал не правду сейчас` - you have lied now. You can say this without `Вот` and `сейчас` or use only one of them - the are amplifiers at this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also `Пожалуйста внимание. Вот наш новый программист` - Attention please, here is our new programmer (two persons have entered the room with coworkers) and `вот наш новый программист сказал что ты не прав` - and our new programmer said that you are wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15198" RevisionGUID="3b7fc9a4-5d93-4542-a8f9-c1882faa9a5d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T15:21:55.830" UserId="9712" Text="If you will say `Вяло текущая река` in the context of river, say, standing on the bank of river - your friends may consider you to be a witty person. I think i should remember this for a good reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15199" RevisionGUID="af3017f7-50c2-4801-858f-3174fe398552" CreationDate="2017-11-02T15:43:20.687" UserId="9712" Text="Because it is very special tool most people does not know what it is or how it is called and i think in different regions it can be called differently. But me and everybody i know call it `растушка`. And i think there is not much difference in these words `растушка` and `растушовка`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15200" RevisionGUID="3d6b7acc-c72a-47b6-9c62-1cb909c69ea8" CreationDate="2017-11-02T16:07:27.147" UserId="9712" Text="I think there is no consensus about translation yet and everybody try on their own. I have faced with `всеобъемлющий` (and have accepted this for me) it has 3 470 search results on google. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15201" RevisionGUID="4ecfe4ba-e557-4001-b7be-037d4071b645" CreationDate="2017-11-02T16:19:58.450" UserId="8929" Text="The use of the verb &quot;называют&quot; without a subject is extremely common, with the meaning of &quot;they call...&quot; or &quot;some people call...&quot;. The inversion of the verb with the object is also common in this context. In Russian the word order is more flexible than in English: we tend to put the *topic* of the sentence first, even when it differs from the grammatical subject. (Here the *grammatical* subject is &quot;they&quot; or &quot;some people&quot;, but the sentence is not really about the people: it is about the &quot;winter games&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of this verb without the first object is, on the other hand, extremely uncommon to the point of being borderline ungrammatical - as it does not really make sense to provide a name without specifying the object being named.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is true that *technically* this sentence could be read in two ways, but one meaning is really much more natural than the other. Russian speakers are used to word order inversions; so when they try to figure out whether &quot;Зимние игры&quot; is in fact a nominative or an accusative (as it could be both), its position at the beginning of the sentence is not necessarily the first cue that they consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one tried to avoid this ambiguity (even though, as I said, there is really no need to), one could indeed say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Зимние игры называются Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the the two formulations have different nuances of meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I would translate the original sentence as &quot;**They** call the winter games the White Olympiad&quot;, or maybe even &quot;**Some people** call...&quot;. This leaves room for the possibility that other people prefer to use a different name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The other one, though, I would translate it as &quot;The winter games **are called** the White Olympiad&quot;. That's just what their name is, period; there is no subjectivity involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="661573cf-bdca-4433-95cf-1b1e01baf01d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T19:30:21.713" UserId="9603" Text="As far as I understand they both mean &quot;go&quot;, but I'd like to know when I should use each. Are these words interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="661573cf-bdca-4433-95cf-1b1e01baf01d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T19:30:21.713" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between ходить and идти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="661573cf-bdca-4433-95cf-1b1e01baf01d" CreationDate="2017-11-02T19:30:21.713" UserId="9603" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15203" RevisionGUID="356d7bce-a31b-44ac-8d62-7957c3f3b114" CreationDate="2017-11-02T20:13:52.660" UserId="5008" Text="1. &quot;_Ходить_&quot; is a repetitive action, while &quot;_идти_&quot; is not. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я _иду_ в гости --&gt; I go visiting  &#xD;&#xA;Кто _ходит_ в гости по утрам, тот поступает мудро --&gt; One who (is used to / often) goes visiting in the mornings, does a smart thing (just kidding)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Both verbs have also other usages, which are not interchangeable in any way. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;_Идёт_ дождь --&gt; It rains  &#xD;&#xA;Пол _ходит_ ходуном --&gt; The floor shakes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15204" RevisionGUID="9e3372a1-a47b-44f5-8eb1-9a69ccc8040a" CreationDate="2017-11-02T21:28:43.083" UserId="9594" Text="While Matt's answer is almost correct, his examples are a bit off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases the difference is the same as between Simple and Continuous tenses in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в школу - I'm on my way to school (technically it's &quot;I'm going&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to school&quot;, but this latter sounds a bit weird)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хожу в школу - I go to school &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идёт дождь - It is raining  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пол ходит ходуном - The floor is saggy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="ae02eea9-f900-4b4e-aea5-f5408758dbef" CreationDate="2017-11-03T07:18:33.627" UserId="8895" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|глаголы|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15205" RevisionGUID="e0d93556-80f7-463a-a1ad-b371b8ed25c4" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:40:43.383" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between возле, около and близ?&#xD;&#xA;They both translate to **near**, but I suppose there's a proper context for each of these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15205" RevisionGUID="e0d93556-80f7-463a-a1ad-b371b8ed25c4" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:40:43.383" UserId="9603" Text="Difference between возле, около and близ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15205" RevisionGUID="e0d93556-80f7-463a-a1ad-b371b8ed25c4" CreationDate="2017-11-03T09:40:43.383" UserId="9603" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15205" RevisionGUID="23d84247-e99a-4c39-aba1-6e4e4694df52" CreationDate="2017-11-03T10:05:13.073" UserId="9603" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="What's the difference between возле, около and близ?&#xD;&#xA;They all translate to **near**, but I suppose there's a proper context for each of these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15206" RevisionGUID="d2bbc8ce-b4a0-4000-8805-cb1c455668f0" CreationDate="2017-11-03T10:35:19.513" UserId="8895" Text="- `возле` means *'next to/by/near some physical entity'*: возле дома, возле машины, возле города.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `около` has the same meaning in general, but can additionally have connotation of *'around/approximately/about'* when referring to quantities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Водитель уже ждал нас около (возле) машины. The driver was already waiting for us by the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Давай встретимся около двух часов дня. Let's meet around two o'clock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  В банке оставалось около литра воды. There was about a litre of water remaining in the jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `близ` is rather bookish, and is generally used in fiction when speaking about locations: *близ города, близ этого места*. One won't encounter it standalone in everyday speech, although several common adjectives stem from it: &quot;близлежащий&quot; (&quot;nearby&quot;), &quot;близкий&quot; (&quot;close to&quot;), and &quot;ближний&quot; (&quot;close&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15206" RevisionGUID="0f7a235a-bb30-4bb4-b9b5-62a08510d303" CreationDate="2017-11-03T10:40:57.537" UserId="8895" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="- `возле` means *'next to/by/near some physical entity'*: возле дома, возле машины, возле города.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `около` has the same meaning in general, but can additionally have connotation of *'around/approximately/about'* when referring to quantities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Водитель уже ждал нас около (возле) машины. The driver was already waiting for us by the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Давай встретимся около двух часов дня. Let's meet around two o'clock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  В банке оставалось около литра воды. There was about a litre of water remaining in the jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `близ` is rather bookish, and is generally used in fiction when speaking about locations (*близ города, близ этого места*). Additionally, it assumes some extra distance to the subject, unlike 'next to', so 'near' is the correct counterpart here. One won't encounter it standalone in everyday speech, although several common adjectives stem from it: &quot;близлежащий&quot; (&quot;nearby&quot;), &quot;близкий&quot; (&quot;close to&quot;), and &quot;ближний&quot; (&quot;close&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15206" RevisionGUID="fcae4ede-fc62-4587-ae79-9a115c4e72c7" CreationDate="2017-11-03T10:47:20.483" UserId="8895" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="- `возле` means *'next to/by/near some physical entity'*: возле дома, возле машины, возле города.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `около` has the same meaning in general, but can additionally have connotation of *'around/approximately/about'* when referring to quantities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Водитель уже ждал нас около (возле) машины. The driver was already waiting for us by the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Давай встретимся около двух часов дня. Let's meet around two o'clock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  В банке оставалось около литра воды. There was about a litre of water remaining in the jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Also, consider the idiomatic expression &quot;ходить вокруг да около&quot; (&quot;to wander around and about the matter without actually getting into that&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `близ` is rather bookish, and is generally used in fiction when speaking about locations (*близ города, близ этого места*). Additionally, it assumes some extra distance to the subject, unlike 'next to', so 'near' is the correct counterpart here. One won't encounter it standalone in everyday speech, although several common adjectives stem from it: &quot;близлежащий&quot; (&quot;nearby&quot;), &quot;близкий&quot; (&quot;close to&quot;), and &quot;ближний&quot; (&quot;close&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15207" RevisionGUID="c247fe72-cbd0-465d-aa54-39a41d4778cd" CreationDate="2017-11-03T11:07:01.460" UserId="8034" Text="Иду in one direction, from A to B&#xD;&#xA;Хожу in two or more directins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;1) Сейчас я иду на работу (one way, from home to work).&#xD;&#xA;2) Я каждый день хожу на работу. (from home to work, then from work to home, there and back)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Недавно ребёнок научился ходить. (as child can go in any direction, not only to the north or south)&#xD;&#xA;2) Когда я шел на рынок, я встретил Мишку. (I went only one way, from home to the market, when I met him).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Обычно в школу Маша идёт с мамой, а из школы с бабушкой. (In one direction she goes with mother, in other with granny).&#xD;&#xA;2) Она ходит в школу каждый день. (to the school, then back home, then to the school again...)&#xD;&#xA;And so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15208" RevisionGUID="ad4bd55a-01c0-43b0-8ff9-852205dee94c" CreationDate="2017-11-03T12:47:13.770" UserId="4432" Text="One more difference is: ходить is used if the expression concerns the ability to walk; then идти is not appropriate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15209" RevisionGUID="fe3776a9-a1cc-4c75-8b67-e55810343a7a" CreationDate="2017-11-03T19:40:15.597" UserId="4306" Text="They are pretty much orthogonal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Факультет is a partition of the body of students; it loosely equates to a major, or a school of a big U. Each факультет teaches a specific curriculum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кафедра is a partition of the body of teachers. The same кафедра (e.g. foreign languages, or general physics, or philosophy) teaches students of every факультет which requires it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37644" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="ff1c0ed4-929a-4a6c-b6b1-0ef152b76851" CreationDate="2017-11-03T21:33:23.647" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference &quot;between&quot; ходить and &quot;идти&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15196" RevisionGUID="bcdeff80-41aa-419f-b5e5-a4786b02d418" CreationDate="2017-11-03T23:36:20.117" UserId="4903" Comment="capitalized I" Text="When you want to point on something or somebody `вот офис` - here is the office(point to office with your hand or say at the end of excursion), `вот зефир` - here is the marshmallow(point to marshmallow with your hand or give somebody a plate with marshmallow), `вот эта девушка` here is the girl(show the girl on a smartphone), `вот возьми чашку в шкафу` - take the cap in the cupboard(point to the cupboard with hand).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an amplification(may be this meaning is not much different from the first) `а вот мой пирог вкуснее` or `вот мой пирог вкуснее` - and my pie is more tasty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a filler word at the and of **any** sentence, but it is treated as if you are bad speaker or a kid: `Я голодный. Вот.` - I am hungry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вот ты сказал не правду сейчас` - you have lied now. You can say this without `Вот` and `сейчас` or use only one of them - the are amplifiers at this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also `Пожалуйста внимание. Вот наш новый программист` - Attention please, here is our new programmer (two persons have entered the room with coworkers) and `вот наш новый программист сказал что ты не прав` - and our new programmer said that you are wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15196" RevisionGUID="c9939a81-7a82-4c35-be8d-553a5950fcfb" CreationDate="2017-11-04T07:57:55.487" UserId="4833" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="When you want to point on something or somebody `вот офис` - here is the office (point to office with your hand or say at the end of excursion), `вот зефир` - here is the marshmallow (point to marshmallow with your hand or give somebody a plate with marshmallow), `вот эта девушка` here is the girl (show the girl on a smartphone), `вот, возьми чашку в шкафу` - take the cap in the cupboard (point to the cupboard with hand).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an amplification (maybe this meaning is not much different from the first) `а вот мой пирог вкуснее` or `вот мой пирог вкуснее` - and my pie is more tasty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a filler word at the end of **any** sentence, but it is treated as if you are bad speaker or a kid: `Я голодный. Вот.` - I am hungry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вот ты сказал неправду сейчас` - you have lied now. You can say this without `Вот` and `сейчас` or use only one of them - the are amplifiers at this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also `Пожалуйста, внимание. Вот наш новый программист` - Attention please, here is our new programmer (two persons have entered the room with coworkers) and `вот наш новый программист сказал, что ты не прав` - and our new programmer said that you are wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="589c23dd-0f1e-4af4-aed0-d1b77d13d46c" CreationDate="2017-11-04T13:46:46.450" UserId="9603" Text="So, IIRC девушка can mean both *girl(of any age)* or *girlfriend* (I'm not entirely sure of this so feel free to call me out), but what about Подруга? Can I safely replace девушка by Подруга? Which of these should I use if I'm talking about a coworker of mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="589c23dd-0f1e-4af4-aed0-d1b77d13d46c" CreationDate="2017-11-04T13:46:46.450" UserId="9603" Text="Difference between девушка , девочка and Подруга" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="589c23dd-0f1e-4af4-aed0-d1b77d13d46c" CreationDate="2017-11-04T13:46:46.450" UserId="9603" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15213" RevisionGUID="1ccf83d7-9547-4e2f-95ef-4b4b322c7338" CreationDate="2017-11-04T15:09:31.713" UserId="242" Text="[`Подруга`][1] is a feminine of &quot;a friend&quot;, `друг` and can mean, depending on context, both: either just a friend or a girlfriend. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`Девушка`][2] is a girl from the age of puberty to the womanhood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`Девочка`][3] is just a child girl. Sometimes woman recognize themselves as `девочки` (&quot;ну мы же девочки, нам можно плакать&quot;) but this is nothing but a figure of speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words have different meaning and while they are related, they are by no means interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15213" RevisionGUID="4a5576c5-0c4c-422b-8890-2fb2408c697c" CreationDate="2017-11-04T15:15:49.890" UserId="242" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="[`Подруга`][1] is a feminine of &quot;a friend&quot;, `друг` and can mean, depending on context, both: either just a friend or a girlfriend (though this is figurative). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`Девушка`][2] is a girl from the age of puberty to the womanhood. The other meaning is `girlfriend` indeed but keep in ming that this can not be used to talk about dating someone who is in, say, forties (which can be easily done in English) - this will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`Девочка`][3] is just a child girl. Sometimes woman recognize themselves as `девочки` (&quot;ну мы же девочки, нам можно плакать&quot;) but this is nothing but a figure of speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words have different meaning and while they are related, they are by no means interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15213" RevisionGUID="2716d001-1515-4fb0-a195-407a2c36a0a6" CreationDate="2017-11-04T15:21:35.890" UserId="242" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="[`Подруга`][1] is a feminine of &quot;a friend&quot;, `друг` and can mean, depending on context, both: either just a friend or a girlfriend (though this is figurative and obsolete). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`Девушка`][2] is a girl from the age of puberty to the womanhood. The other meaning is `girlfriend` indeed but keep in ming that this can not be used to talk about dating someone who is in her, say, forties (which can be easily done in English) - this will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[`Девочка`][3] is just a child girl. Sometimes woman recognize themselves as `девочки` (&quot;ну мы же девочки, нам можно плакать&quot;) but this is nothing but a figure of speech. The other meaning would be someone close to english `babe` (&quot;моя хорошая девочка&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words have different meaning and while they are related, they are by no means interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37660" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="1fa74955-47f2-4b50-92ac-aa80dd7bd65e" CreationDate="2017-11-04T17:25:14.170" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;девушка&quot;, &quot;девочка&quot; and &quot;подруга&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37661" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15188" RevisionGUID="f72c464e-6f0a-42a5-8b47-7f247f32fb39" CreationDate="2017-11-04T19:01:34.387" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/926887159021428736" />
  <row Id="37662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15214" RevisionGUID="979da2b9-280c-48d1-8d7f-d426233cc961" CreationDate="2017-11-04T20:31:05.853" UserId="9722" Text="Запятая неуместна, скорее лучше поставить тире, предложение бессоюзное, и вторая часть , в некотором роде, вытекает из первой. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15189" RevisionGUID="f8535cac-34b3-4cda-9433-5fd5d9e85cf5" CreationDate="2017-11-05T19:48:10.220" UserId="4833" Comment="fixed a typo (compliment vs complement)" Text="I understand where your confusion comes from (the verb seemingly agrees with the preceding noun), but to most native speakers it is obvious that this sentence has no subject, or the subject is implied to be 'they' or 'everyone':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зимние игры [они/все] называют Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb называть takes two complements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называть &lt;кого-либо/что-либо (Accusative)&gt; &lt;кем-либо/чем-либо (Instrumental)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to call  &quot;something&quot; &quot;something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зимние игры` fill the accusative case slot in your sentence. To make this more obvious, one could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олимпиаду называют зимними играми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `Олимпиаду` is in the Accusative and `зимними играми` is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15189" RevisionGUID="88107d89-cd22-471f-ac5c-84abb21bf575" CreationDate="2017-11-06T08:11:49.737" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1777 characters in body" Text="I understand where your confusion comes from: the verb seemingly agrees with the preceding noun which you mistook for the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is actually of a special kind called [неопределённо-личные предложения][1] (&quot;indefinite person sentences&quot;). They have no subject and the verb is in the third person plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В зале **поют**. - There is singing in the hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **сказали** принести это сюда. - I was told to bring it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **принесли** эту книгу. - Someone brought me this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему здесь всегда **рады**. - He is always welcome here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is not mentioned because it is not important. There are a few ways to render such sentences into English (which normally requires a subject): using the passive voice ('I was told'), using an indefinite pronoun ('someone') or restructuring the sentence, see above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the predicate is plural, it bears no indication of number. E.g. if you are told:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проходите, вас **ждут**. - Please come in, they are waiting for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this phrase alone, you can't deduce how many people are waiting for you, it could be one. Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что делать, если **говорят**, что **любят**, но замуж не **берут**? - What do I do if I'm told that I'm loved but never get proposed to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite of the plural, it is obvious that the person does not want to marry many people at once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зимние игры **называют** Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the `называют` with no subject is a common way to say how something is called. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb называть takes two complements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называть &lt;кого-либо/что-либо (Accusative)&gt; &lt;кем-либо/чем-либо (Instrumental)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to call  &quot;something&quot; &quot;something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зимние игры` fill the accusative case slot in your sentence. To make this more obvious, one could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олимпиаду называют зимними играми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `Олимпиаду` is in the Accusative and `зимними играми` is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is also [безличные предложения][2] (impersonal sentences) which are slightly different from &quot;indefinite-person&quot; sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="9d77458a-4383-4171-bcf2-f74f87746be0" CreationDate="2017-11-06T08:50:43.590" UserId="8895" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="So, IIRC 'девушка' can mean both 'girl' (of any age) or 'girlfriend' (I'm not entirely sure of this so feel free to call me out), but what about 'подруга'? Can I safely replace 'девушка' with 'подруга'? Which of these should I use if I'm talking about a coworker of mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15189" RevisionGUID="8ba4849e-59ae-49e1-b536-13ae06b5f155" CreationDate="2017-11-06T09:39:45.240" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I understand where your confusion comes from: the verb seemingly agrees with the preceding noun which you mistook for the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is actually of a special kind called [неопределённо-личные предложения][1] (&quot;indefinite person sentences&quot;). They have no subject and the verb is in the third person plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В зале **поют**. - There is singing in the hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **сказали** принести это сюда. - I was told to bring it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **принесли** эту книгу. - Someone brought me this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему здесь всегда **рады**. - He is always welcome here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is not mentioned because it is not important. There are a few ways to render such sentences into English (which normally requires a subject): using the passive voice ('I was told'), using an indefinite pronoun ('someone') or restructuring the sentence, see above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the predicate is plural, it bears no indication of number. E.g. if you are told:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проходите, вас **ждут**. - Please come in, they are waiting for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this phrase alone, you can't deduce how many people are waiting for you, it could be one. Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что делать, если **говорят**, что **любят**, но замуж не **берут**? - What do I do if I'm told that I'm loved but never get proposed to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite of the plural, it is obvious that the person does not want to marry many people at once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зимние игры **называют** Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `называют` with no subject is a common way to say how something is called. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb `называть` takes two complements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называть &lt;кого-либо/что-либо (Accusative)&gt; &lt;кем-либо/чем-либо (Instrumental)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to call  &quot;something&quot; &quot;something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зимние игры` fill the accusative case slot in your sentence. To make this more obvious, one could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олимпиаду называют зимними играми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `Олимпиаду` is in the Accusative and `зимними играми` is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is also [безличные предложения][2] (impersonal sentences) which are slightly different from &quot;indefinite-person&quot; sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37668" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15188" RevisionGUID="6d698b51-4bc1-4137-8e39-14dfec48e0f2" CreationDate="2017-11-06T15:03:12.427" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Calling a proper noun with &quot;называть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15215" RevisionGUID="7d83f71f-c6cc-4ed8-9a7b-8ada73f85032" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:16:53.913" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15215" RevisionGUID="7d83f71f-c6cc-4ed8-9a7b-8ada73f85032" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:16:53.913" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15216" RevisionGUID="31cdd451-2ccb-4575-8fd5-daa6c5dbd417" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:16:53.913" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15216" RevisionGUID="31cdd451-2ccb-4575-8fd5-daa6c5dbd417" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:16:53.913" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15217" RevisionGUID="187298f7-ef43-4ef9-957a-951d7cd7fb74" CreationDate="2017-11-06T19:17:29.967" UserId="9653" Text="In my book the meaning of **как дела?** is given as **how are you?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the meaning of **как у тебя дела?** is given as **how are you?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which one should I use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15217" RevisionGUID="187298f7-ef43-4ef9-957a-951d7cd7fb74" CreationDate="2017-11-06T19:17:29.967" UserId="9653" Text="&quot;Как дела?&quot; and &quot;как у тебя дела?&quot; which one to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15217" RevisionGUID="187298f7-ef43-4ef9-957a-951d7cd7fb74" CreationDate="2017-11-06T19:17:29.967" UserId="9653" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15218" RevisionGUID="54d2c787-f589-4c82-95fd-839ad9b24223" CreationDate="2017-11-06T19:33:48.590" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Как дела?&quot; can be roughly translated as &quot;How are things?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Как **у тебя** дела?&quot; -&gt; &quot;How are things **with you**?&quot;&#xA;&#xA;So the one is just a shorter version of the other.&#xA;&#xA;There is also the polite version: &quot;Как **у вас** дела?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15218" RevisionGUID="20078ec9-421d-4b9e-aa24-12522f8334d8" CreationDate="2017-11-06T20:34:02.810" UserId="2104" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="&quot;Как дела?&quot; can be roughly translated as &quot;How are things?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как **у тебя** дела?&quot; -&gt; &quot;How are things **with you**?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one is just a shorter version of the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the polite version: &quot;Как **у вас** дела?&quot;. For more background on the **тебя/вас** distinction, see [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/213/2104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15219" RevisionGUID="494a10c6-800a-4328-b201-35d8376cdea8" CreationDate="2017-11-07T04:24:39.620" UserId="194" Text="Вот is an adverb, can be usually translated as &quot;here&quot;, but usually does not have the meaning of physical proximity as &quot;тут&quot; and &quot;здесь&quot;, but rather means the thing in question is in the range of sight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15220" RevisionGUID="96a67bc7-ae18-4fe7-aa71-b7b93bc5f103" CreationDate="2017-11-07T09:27:59.807" UserId="9731" Text="Formally, that type of sentence is known as неопределённо-личные предложения (&quot;indefinite person sentences&quot;) and are typical for Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;However, for an English speaking person it'll be easier to think of them as &quot;implicit subject sentences&quot;. And indeed, you come across them in English as well.&#xD;&#xA;Consider this short dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;Remember John? Spoke to him recently. (Do you remember John? I spoke to him recently&quot; or &quot;We spoke to him recently&quot;). In this example the subject is contextual or implicit.&#xD;&#xA;By the same token&#xD;&#xA;Зимние игры называют Белой Олимпиадой are meant to say Зимние игры (они) называют Белой Олимпиадой or Зимние игры (люди) называют Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;One final point and it's about the trap of Russian cases.&#xD;&#xA;As you correctly pointed out Белой Олимпиадой out is Instrumental (Ablative) case. However Зимние игры is NOT in Nominative case (and therefore it is not subject). It is in Accusative case and as it's here same as Nominative case it can only be determined from the context.&#xD;&#xA;In English with its rigid structure the sentence must start with subject, which by definition is always in Nominative case. In Russian determination of the case is the key to understanding nouns in a sentence are related to each other by their case, not by any particular order. Thus you could just as easily say Называют Зимние игры Белой Олимпиадой or Белой Олимпиадой называют Зимние игры.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15189" RevisionGUID="929413c2-9ca9-448a-b830-5a3b887950e4" CreationDate="2017-11-07T10:44:49.200" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I understand where your confusion comes from: the verb seemingly agrees with the preceding noun which you mistook for the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is actually of a special kind called [неопределённо-личные предложения][1] (&quot;indefinite person sentences&quot;). They have no subject and the verb is in the third person plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В зале **поют**. - There is singing in the hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **сказали** принести это сюда. - I was told to bring it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **принесли** эту книгу. - Someone brought me this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему здесь всегда **рады**. - He is always welcome here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is not mentioned because it is not important. There are a few ways to render such sentences into English (which normally requires a subject): using the passive voice ('I was told'), using an indefinite pronoun ('someone') or restructuring the sentence, see above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the predicate is plural, it bears no indication of number. E.g. if you are told:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проходите, вас **ждут**. - Please come in, they are waiting for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this phrase alone, you can't deduce how many people are waiting for you, it could be one. Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что делать, если **говорят**, что **любят**, но замуж не **берут**? - What do I do if I'm told that I'm loved but never get proposed to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite of the plural, it is obvious that the person does not want to marry many people at once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зимние игры **называют** Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `называют` with no subject is a common way to say what something is called. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb `называть` takes two complements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называть &lt;кого-либо/что-либо (Accusative)&gt; &lt;кем-либо/чем-либо (Instrumental)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to call  &quot;something&quot; &quot;something&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зимние игры` fill the accusative case slot in your sentence. To make this more obvious, one could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олимпиаду называют зимними играми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `Олимпиаду` is in the Accusative and `зимними играми` is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is also [безличные предложения][2] (impersonal sentences) which are slightly different from &quot;indefinite-person&quot; sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37681" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15217" RevisionGUID="a1290280-1a6a-46e5-8adf-0cdb246b5d48" CreationDate="2017-11-07T16:07:52.957" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/927930612211769344" />
  <row Id="37682" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="dc4c27ed-759e-4514-8785-e826c13b6bbc" CreationDate="2017-11-08T04:09:52.850" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/928112308823392256" />
  <row Id="37683" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="492465c9-6252-4415-ab75-c116a9e66c5c" CreationDate="2017-11-08T07:09:56.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/928157622993408000" />
  <row Id="37684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15221" RevisionGUID="4261b13e-9097-4313-8ea5-1f854b2929a3" CreationDate="2017-11-08T11:40:41.200" UserId="9736" Text="'как дела?' is more like a polite way to start a conversation, compare to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how are you doing? fine, and you? i'm ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'как у тебя дела?' shows more interest in the actual state of things of a person you have a conversation with. The difference is subtle, yet I think it exists." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37685" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15205" RevisionGUID="f4933303-5331-4f97-83ef-7eed9036d42d" CreationDate="2017-11-08T13:09:52.807" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/928248203987779584" />
  <row Id="37692" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15186" RevisionGUID="677f80a5-429d-445c-93c8-3e7c65236434" CreationDate="2017-11-10T01:13:06.747" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/928792599284060161" />
  <row Id="37693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="a7bb0732-ef07-44a7-b228-8b96667f8849" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:06:50.663" UserId="6141" Text="Not sure how to correctly write this--as one word, separate?  Do I retain the apostrophe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="a7bb0732-ef07-44a7-b228-8b96667f8849" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:06:50.663" UserId="6141" Text="What is the correct way to transliterate O'Neil or a similar name?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="a7bb0732-ef07-44a7-b228-8b96667f8849" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:06:50.663" UserId="6141" Text="|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37696" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="e71f3bf5-f320-48e8-a7b3-68ebc10c3561" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:07:36.330" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37697" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="b9fcfc32-f710-4332-85f3-aacec2195709" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:11:13.243" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="a138bc50-6f20-471b-8068-16baae86868c" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:11:42.140" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Not sure how to correctly write this - as one word, separate?  Do I retain the apostrophe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15224" RevisionGUID="bb93d03e-65c7-4c22-b745-ce53a57e1cb2" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:17:17.633" UserId="242" Text="Usually the apostrophe in personal names retains, so we have in translation [Юджин О'Нил][1], [Шакил О'Нил][2] and actually a lot of other [`О'Нил`][3]s. The same about Жанна Д'Арк (or д'Арк) or Габриеле Д’Аннунцио (or д’Аннунцио) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what you'll see in newspapers and books. In official documents it could be more tricky though. I won't be surprised that there are no regulations about this particular case so say some O'Neil will decide to become a Russian citizen he can be written just as `О-Нил`. Bureaucracy is a bureaucracy so I can imagine some stubborn official - but this has nothing to do with Russian language, so let it be )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB,_%D0%AE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB,_%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15224" RevisionGUID="763fe395-087e-4765-a0ac-1af39cbb61e0" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:22:23.727" UserId="242" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Usually the apostrophe in personal names retains, so we have in translation [Юджин О'Нил][1], [Шакил О'Нил][2] and actually a lot of other [`О'Нил`][3]s. The same about Жанна Д'Арк (or д'Арк) or Габриеле Д’Аннунцио (or д’Аннунцио) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what you'll see in newspapers and books. In official documents it could be more tricky though. I won't be surprised that there are no regulations about this particular case so say some O'Neil will decide to become a Russian citizen he can be written just as `О-Нил`. Bureaucracy is a bureaucracy so I can imagine some stubborn official (check out for instance, [this post][4]) - but this has nothing to do with Russian language, so let it be )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB,_%D0%AE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB,_%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.virtualireland.ru/showthread.php?t=51840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15224" RevisionGUID="e51798f2-b3f0-4270-ade6-8cd776d6eb5e" CreationDate="2017-11-10T17:44:04.070" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Usually the apostrophe in personal names retains, so we have in translation [Юджин О'Нил][1], [Шакил О'Нил][2] and actually a lot of other [`О'Нил`][3]s. The same about Жанна Д'Арк (or д'Арк) or Габриеле Д’Аннунцио (or д’Аннунцио) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what you'll see in newspapers and books. In official documents it could be more tricky though. I won't be surprised that there are no regulations about this particular case so say some O'Neil will decide to become a Russian citizen he can be written just as О-Нил or О\`Нил. Bureaucracy is a bureaucracy so I can imagine some stubborn official (check out for instance, [this post][4]) - but this has nothing to do with Russian language, so let it be )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB,_%D0%AE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB,_%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%E2%80%99%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.virtualireland.ru/showthread.php?t=51840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15225" RevisionGUID="02b275d0-0706-47d4-9298-415a30a42071" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:16:55.920" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у папа семь собак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у папа есть семь собак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both sentences used? When can I omit *есть*? On a daily basis which of these would you use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15225" RevisionGUID="02b275d0-0706-47d4-9298-415a30a42071" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:16:55.920" UserId="9603" Text="When can I omit the word есть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15225" RevisionGUID="02b275d0-0706-47d4-9298-415a30a42071" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:16:55.920" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15225" RevisionGUID="077e3a12-2596-44d1-8aaf-e37a9aa2928f" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:36:26.753" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What's the difference between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у попа семь собак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у попа есть семь собак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both sentences used? When can I omit *есть*? On a daily basis which of these would you use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37707" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15225" RevisionGUID="077e3a12-2596-44d1-8aaf-e37a9aa2928f" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:36:26.753" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="When can I omit the word &quot;есть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15225" RevisionGUID="9bb18ab5-cb9f-4015-b0a5-0d7eb9907308" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:39:13.293" UserId="9603" Comment="edited body" Text="What's the difference between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у папы семь собак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у папы есть семь собак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both sentences used? When can I omit *есть*? On a daily basis which of these would you use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15226" RevisionGUID="9ff109d9-a8c1-4f80-a001-ef186961e597" CreationDate="2017-11-10T20:59:03.813" UserId="242" Text="In this particular case it would not be an oversimplification to say that this forms are interchangeable and one can easily encounter in casual usage, say, `у меня есть две кошки` and `у меня две кошки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind though that there still can be differences in usage Compare `у меня есть пистолет` and `у меня пистолет!`. First is more of a statement, an admission of the fact that one possesses a gun, so it's closer gotta gun &quot;I have a gun&quot;. Second phrase is closer to notification, in some cases a warning if you mind (so this phrase can be translated as &quot;I gotta gun!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in a hostage situation the Russian-speaking terrorist will most likely shout out: &quot;У меня граната&quot; rather than &quot;у меня есть граната&quot;. Most likely but not necessarily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the form &quot;у меня + noun&quot; can indicate possession in a figurative way, like in &quot;у него грипп&quot; or &quot;у меня такая усталость&quot;. Phrases &quot;у него есть грипп&quot; or &quot;у меня есть такая усталость&quot; are non-existent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15223" RevisionGUID="cbdda6d8-bb2a-470e-8feb-8095627d92c2" CreationDate="2017-11-10T22:14:30.620" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/929110040472059904" />
  <row Id="37714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15227" RevisionGUID="84b68f2f-c104-4eea-98af-2facc65d9b32" CreationDate="2017-11-12T19:05:30.503" UserId="5375" Text="Can foreign names be used as a basis for patronymics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, for example, an Englishman whose first name is Donald becomes a citizen of Russia and has a son there, will that son have the patronymic Доналдович? And does François' son become Франсуасович? Etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15227" RevisionGUID="84b68f2f-c104-4eea-98af-2facc65d9b32" CreationDate="2017-11-12T19:05:30.503" UserId="5375" Text="Does Russian have patronymics of foreign names?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15227" RevisionGUID="84b68f2f-c104-4eea-98af-2facc65d9b32" CreationDate="2017-11-12T19:05:30.503" UserId="5375" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15228" RevisionGUID="4a58df91-dc4c-432f-b9d8-1f430cda2e37" CreationDate="2017-11-12T19:41:01.070" UserId="2079" Text="Absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, almost every document about a person includes a patronym, so everyone needs it.  If your father has foreign name, you still have a patronym. If your father is unknown, your mother decides about your patronym soon after your birth. If she doesn't know the father's name, she may give you her patronym. If a baby is found, and nobody knows who was his father or mother, they give him some random patronym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Harry Kasparov (Гарри Каспаров) has English/American name Гарри. It is not a Russian name.  Each of his sons is Гарриевич, and each of his daughters is Гарриевна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are many Russians who are ethnic Georgeans, Armenians etc, and their fathers had non-Russian names.  All these Russians have patronyms.  For example, Абе́л Ге́зевич Аганбегя́н (Abel Aganbegyan), who is ethnic Armenian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15228" RevisionGUID="79aa3f05-7664-4b16-946c-e9502c750dac" CreationDate="2017-11-12T19:43:44.470" UserId="2104" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, almost every document about a person includes a patronymic, so everyone needs it.  If your father has foreign name, you still have a patronymic. If your father is unknown, your mother decides about your patronymic soon after your birth. If she doesn't know the father's name, she may give you her patronymic. If a baby is found, and nobody knows who was his father or mother, they give him some random patronymic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Harry Kasparov (Гарри Каспаров) has English/American name Гарри. It is not a Russian name.  Each of his sons is Гарриевич, and each of his daughters is Гарриевна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are many Russians who are ethnic Georgeans, Armenians etc, and their fathers had non-Russian names.  All these Russians have patronyms.  For example, Абе́л Ге́зевич Аганбегя́н (Abel Aganbegyan), who is ethnic Armenian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15228" RevisionGUID="e37439ce-8db3-456d-a213-3715be7be605" CreationDate="2017-11-12T20:27:57.677" UserId="2104" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, almost every document about a person includes a patronymic, so everyone needs it.  If your father has foreign name, you still have a patronymic. If your father is unknown, your mother decides about your patronymic soon after your birth. If she doesn't know the father's name, she may give you her patronymic. If a baby is found, and nobody knows who was his father or mother, they give him some random patronymic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Harry Kasparov (Гарри Каспаров) has English/American name Гарри. It is not a Russian name.  Each of his sons is Гарриевич, and each of his daughters is Гарриевна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are many Russians who are ethnic Georgians, Armenians etc, and their fathers had non-Russian names.  All these Russians have patronymics.  For example, Абе́л Ге́зевич Аганбегя́н (Abel Aganbegyan), who is ethnic Armenian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15228" RevisionGUID="0486a78c-d929-47d2-971a-e11ac9586374" CreationDate="2017-11-12T21:18:11.083" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, almost every document about a person includes a patronymic, so everyone needs it.  If your father has foreign name, you still have a patronymic. If your father is unknown, your mother gives you some patronymic soon after your birth. If she doesn't know the father's name, she may give you her own patronymic. If a baby is found, and nobody knows who is his father or mother, they give him some random patronymic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Harry Kasparov (Гарри Каспаров) has English/American name Гарри. It is not a Russian name.  Each of his sons is Гарриевич, and each of his daughters is Гарриевна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are many Russians who are ethnic Georgians, Armenians etc, and their fathers had non-Russian names.  All these Russians have patronymics.  For example, Абе́л Ге́зевич Аганбегя́н (Abel Aganbegyan), who is ethnic Armenian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="98ffdafd-8561-4e05-b222-4cb39195a4af" CreationDate="2017-11-13T12:33:55.573" UserId="8895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="- сегодня&#xD;&#xA;- ныне&#xD;&#xA;- в настоящее время &#xD;&#xA;- нынче&#xD;&#xA;- в наше время&#xD;&#xA;- в наши дни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the [ngram][1] shows `в наше время / в наши дни` are rather seldom. Maybe they are somewhat profound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'd like to know how `сегодня, нынче, ныне и настоящее время` differ. Do they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%2C%D0%B2+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8+%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%2C%D0%B2+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%2C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F&amp;year_start=1750&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B5%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%20%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B5%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F%3B%2Cc0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37725" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12367" RevisionGUID="97d98ba5-0ef9-4d07-b728-181dde9c10eb" CreationDate="2017-11-13T12:59:31.237" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="How would you say 'overthink' in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37726" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15227" RevisionGUID="b425b9e1-d8b2-42c4-b161-f8bd95cabbb1" CreationDate="2017-11-13T13:21:27.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/930063059363794945" />
  <row Id="37727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15229" RevisionGUID="f15de5f9-d1d8-4763-832b-52bbd4505b75" CreationDate="2017-11-13T14:13:51.747" UserId="242" Text="In colloquial speech it's acceptable to use `заморачиваться` or `загоняться` (more slang), so one can say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не заморачивайся слишком уж, тут главное чтобы работа была сделана. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не загоняйся, главное - сделать работу. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15229" RevisionGUID="acd578ff-7ae4-4df2-966f-8bef19484bd1" CreationDate="2017-11-13T14:19:17.260" UserId="242" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="Basically `чересчур замороченный` is exactly `too overthinked`- it's just that unlike `overthinked`, `замороченный` is acceptable only in colloquial speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in some cases it's acceptable to use `заморачиваться` or `загоняться` (more slang), so one can say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не заморачивайся слишком уж, тут главное чтобы работа была сделана. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не загоняйся, главное - сделать работу. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15230" RevisionGUID="69777907-5d0f-4ee2-a237-1f92fd137413" CreationDate="2017-11-13T14:37:29.637" UserId="5998" Text="I know how to use possessive pronouns in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Это моя книга.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know how to describe a person's possession:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Это книга подруги.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do I combine two persons, such as in this example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I want to give this book to my girlfriend's mother.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what to search for. How is this called in linguistic terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which linguistic cases do I use here for the words ``girlfriend`` and ``mother``?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess would have been:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Я хочу подарить эту книгу маме моей подруги (на Рождество).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15230" RevisionGUID="69777907-5d0f-4ee2-a237-1f92fd137413" CreationDate="2017-11-13T14:37:29.637" UserId="5998" Text="How to say &quot;give to my girlfriend's mother&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15230" RevisionGUID="69777907-5d0f-4ee2-a237-1f92fd137413" CreationDate="2017-11-13T14:37:29.637" UserId="5998" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15231" RevisionGUID="c479a27a-f3bd-4d29-86a5-f181384dac54" CreationDate="2017-11-13T14:44:54.797" UserId="242" Text="You guess is absolutely correct, technically there's an other valid option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу подарить эту книгу подругиной маме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while this is grammaticaly valid talking of specifically word `подруга` it's very unlikely one will choose second form over the first one - `подругиной` sounds clumsy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've mentioned this because in some cases, for instance, with personal names, it's exactly the opposite, second form, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу подарить эту книгу Лениной маме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is more preferable than&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу подарить эту книгу маме Лены. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15232" RevisionGUID="5a95e6e1-f3ae-494b-acf7-afe6248e65bc" CreationDate="2017-11-13T15:31:47.810" UserId="2104" Text="Your guess is both grammatically  correct and idiomatic:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу́ подари́ть э́ту кни́гу ма́ме мое́й подру́ги (на Рождество́).&#xA;&#xA;You used the genitive case for both ма́ма and подру́га.&#xA;&#xA;Nowadays most people prefer де́вушка to say girlfriend. Thus your sentence would be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу́ подари́ть э́ту кни́гу ма́ме мое́й де́вушки.&#xA;&#xA;If you get married, you'll be entitled to call her mother тёща. Mentioning just this word alone to a Russian (or Google) can get you lots of jokes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15233" RevisionGUID="c9b72449-cff2-4cd7-91a0-94132c258b34" CreationDate="2017-11-13T16:17:21.740" UserId="9603" Text="What is the right way to stress the word **часа**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen both *ча́са* and *часа́*, is there a special case for each?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15233" RevisionGUID="c9b72449-cff2-4cd7-91a0-94132c258b34" CreationDate="2017-11-13T16:17:21.740" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;часа&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15233" RevisionGUID="c9b72449-cff2-4cd7-91a0-94132c258b34" CreationDate="2017-11-13T16:17:21.740" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15235" RevisionGUID="d7ada07a-e2ff-4732-ae06-c65ab24bbbb5" CreationDate="2017-11-13T16:45:03.820" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;What is the right way to stress the word часа?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;right&quot; one is _ча́са_, however, the most frequently used combinations, such as, _two hours_, _three hours_, _four hours_ and _a quarter of an hour_ all require the stress shift: _два / три / четыре / четверть часа́_. So this word is a bit tricky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15231" RevisionGUID="cc48c933-3848-4a65-87e3-1114b7e82b04" CreationDate="2017-11-13T17:24:29.373" UserId="242" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="You guess is absolutely correct, technically there's an other valid option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу подарить эту книгу подругиной маме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But while this is grammaticaly valid talking of specifically word `подруга` it's very unlikely one will choose second form over the first one - `подругиной` sounds clumsy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've mentioned this because in some cases, for instance, with personal names, it's exactly the opposite, second form, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу подарить эту книгу Лениной маме.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is more preferable compared to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу подарить эту книгу маме Лены. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15228" RevisionGUID="756b0932-c410-46e1-8b5a-ac8600dbe0bf" CreationDate="2017-11-13T17:51:20.647" UserId="2079" Comment="added 616 characters in body" Text="Absolutely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russia, almost every document about a person includes a patronymic, so everyone needs it.  If your father has foreign name, you still have a patronymic. If your father is unknown, your mother gives you some patronymic soon after your birth. If she doesn't know the father's name, she may give you her own patronymic. If a baby is found, and nobody knows who is his father or mother, they give him some random patronymic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Harry Kasparov (Гарри Каспаров) has English/American name Гарри. It is not a Russian name.  Each of his sons is Гарриевич, and each of his daughters is Гарриевна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there are many Russians who are ethnic Georgians, Armenians etc, and their fathers had non-Russian names.  All these Russians have patronymics.  For example, Абе́л Ге́зевич Аганбегя́н (Abel Aganbegyan), who is ethnic Armenian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per comments by Danila Smirnov and Tzakrevskiy, if a child with rights to Russian citizenship is born in a country that does not use patronymics, he/she does not receive a patronymic when applying for the Russian citizenship. However, Danila Smirnov writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just happen to know someone who was born in another country and did not have a patronymic in his birth certificate when he was registered for Russian citizenship. When he got his passport at 14 years, he had a dash in his &quot;patronymic&quot; field. On the other hand, it did cause some problems, so he had to legally change his name to get one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15232" RevisionGUID="b1a2307c-3468-44c5-9a81-ecea541998e0" CreationDate="2017-11-13T17:54:41.770" UserId="2104" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Your guess is both grammatically  correct and idiomatic:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу́ подари́ть э́ту кни́гу ма́ме мое́й подру́ги (на Рождество́).&#xA;&#xA;You used the dative case for ма́ма -&gt; ма́ме 'to mother' and the genitive case for подру́га -&gt; подру́ги 'of girlfriend.'&#xA;&#xA;Nowadays most people prefer де́вушка to say girlfriend. Thus your sentence would be:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу́ подари́ть э́ту кни́гу ма́ме мое́й де́вушки.&#xA;&#xA;If you get married, you'll be entitled to call her mother тёща. Mentioning just this word alone to a Russian (or Google) can get you lots of jokes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15230" RevisionGUID="6e50254b-24f4-4f3b-826b-1c7f404727c5" CreationDate="2017-11-13T19:12:50.063" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15232" RevisionGUID="b293384c-bad4-4d98-874b-6ef1b55b2b87" CreationDate="2017-11-13T19:22:02.283" UserId="2104" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Your guess is both grammatically  correct and idiomatic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу́ подари́ть э́ту кни́гу ма́ме мое́й подру́ги (на Рождество́).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You used the dative case for ма́ма -&gt; ма́ме 'to mother' and the genitive case for подру́га -&gt; подру́ги 'of girlfriend.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can stack up genitives to describe more complex relations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подру́га бра́та однокла́ссника мое́й сестры́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My sister's classmate's brother's girlfriend OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The girlfriend of the bother of the classmate of my sister&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays most people prefer де́вушка to say girlfriend. Thus your sentence would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хочу́ подари́ть э́ту кни́гу ма́ме мое́й де́вушки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get married, you'll be entitled to call her mother тёща. Mentioning just this word alone to a Russian (or Google) can get you lots of jokes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15237" RevisionGUID="62219772-dfb2-47ac-9df6-29a5f3485718" CreationDate="2017-11-13T20:18:41.980" UserId="9759" Text="As a native Russian speaker, I wanted to drop a couple of comments...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Девушка` means &quot;girlfriend&quot; if and only if it comes with a possessive (pro)noun, for example: &quot;моя девушка&quot;, &quot;Васина девушка&quot;, &quot;Девушка брата&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the obsolescence of `подруга` with the semantics of &quot;girlfriend&quot;, I would rather disagree. A wise and cautious man keeps the word in his vocabulary. He would use it when he is not yet comfortable calling her &quot;моя девушка&quot;. She will be somewhat unhappy to hear you call her &quot;подруга&quot;, but may actually respect you more. That basically builds another barrier on her way to your resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15238" RevisionGUID="691bb20c-a7b7-44bf-9969-b7823267322d" CreationDate="2017-11-14T18:35:21.357" UserId="9603" Text="Alright, this might sound stupid but I've been wanting to ask this for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes simultaneously pronouncing each word separately and quickly is  bloody difficult (or rather, weird), so I was wondering if it's ok to combine some of the words.&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I pronounce **В это** as **вэто**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm asking only because, usually I do make a *quick pause* when pronouncing this kind of sentence and I'm not sure whether that's good or bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15238" RevisionGUID="691bb20c-a7b7-44bf-9969-b7823267322d" CreationDate="2017-11-14T18:35:21.357" UserId="9603" Text="Combining words for pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15238" RevisionGUID="691bb20c-a7b7-44bf-9969-b7823267322d" CreationDate="2017-11-14T18:35:21.357" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15239" RevisionGUID="b6bb43b4-215c-47b3-8e9a-ea7dac19328a" CreationDate="2017-11-14T20:03:33.497" UserId="9594" Text="I think it's perfectly fine not to make a pause there. Unless you want to emphasize, `в это` is pronounced as 'вэто' or even 'вэта', `в то` is reduced to 'фто'. Actually, I think most (if not all) prepositions can be pronounced without a pause with `это`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15230" RevisionGUID="3954a12d-70bf-47c1-962d-107228e9d146" CreationDate="2017-11-15T01:21:41.873" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/930606699446263809" />
  <row Id="37762" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15233" RevisionGUID="11ab28b5-f5ad-4158-b42d-9b81060ddc99" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:21:38.240" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/930742579641180162" />
  <row Id="37763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15241" RevisionGUID="7061690b-8620-47c7-9708-701040eb8841" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:33:03.723" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; Can I pronounce **в это** as **вэто**?&#xA;&#xA;That's how you *should* pronounce it, unless you want to sound like a voice synthesiser. In Russian (and in English) normally there are no pauses or glottal stops between words separated by spaces. Unlike German or, say, Chinese, Russian speech just flows. Most frequently one pauses to think or to breathe in more air to keep them going. There are no joiner consonants like the (British) English -r- in *I saw it* or the French -t- in *Ya-t-il*. But there can be glottal stops e.g. **в Росии и Ирландии** can be pronounced with a glottal stop before **и**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15241" RevisionGUID="5822ce53-6f2d-4f0f-9ea8-7054b8556157" CreationDate="2017-11-15T10:36:28.723" UserId="6097" Comment="typo" Text="&gt; Can I pronounce **в это** as **вэто**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's how you *should* pronounce it, unless you want to sound like a voice synthesiser. In Russian (and in English) normally there are no pauses or glottal stops between words separated by spaces. Unlike German or, say, Chinese, Russian speech just flows. Most frequently one pauses to think or to breathe in more air to keep them going. There are no joiner consonants like the (British) English -r- in *I saw it* or the French -t- in *Ya-t-il*. But there can be glottal stops e.g. **в России и Ирландии** can be pronounced with a glottal stop before **и**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15244" RevisionGUID="9d986f31-015a-4398-b3e4-4fa869cc07db" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:03:01.853" UserId="9785" Text="Which one - какой именно? (Какой конкретно?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15245" RevisionGUID="e590983a-4d9b-41c6-844d-5adecd4ffe93" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:15:46.827" UserId="9785" Text="&quot;Дай свой голос&quot; - is not correct, because &quot;дай&quot; means something we can really, physically give. We can say &quot;Проголосуй&quot; (прогосуйте) or &quot;Отдай свой голос&quot; (отдай свой голос за нового кандидата)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15246" RevisionGUID="75ba4a34-61a3-4221-bc6c-b15c4d140827" CreationDate="2017-11-15T17:27:46.677" UserId="9785" Text="Их можно заменять в большинстве случаев. Краткие прилагательные произошли от глаголов, а позже появились полные прилагательные. Разница, в общем случае, бывает в интонации, в эмоциях. Например: ты очень красивый - это произность дольше, поэтому здесь может быть какое-то чувство. Ты очень красив - звучит слегка небрежно. Однако разница редко бывает заметна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15247" RevisionGUID="26dba34a-2e01-4b1e-80a9-ef872ef2f71f" CreationDate="2017-11-15T18:56:12.830" UserId="3847" Text="Я хочу дать эту книгу матери моей девушки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15248" RevisionGUID="f959a76a-58e3-4ede-9d81-4ae8cccf84b4" CreationDate="2017-11-15T19:31:50.160" UserId="3847" Text="Ectb is generally used where English applies the indefinite article to the noun, 'a or an'. Where English would apply the definite article 'the' Ectb is usually omitted. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Y доктора есть телефон.       The doctor has a telephone&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть словарь?          Who has a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого словарь?               Who has the dictionary&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15249" RevisionGUID="c4e15f86-e962-447e-bd27-fe0f2f0e5688" CreationDate="2017-11-15T19:37:55.013" UserId="9603" Text="How am I supposed to pronounce **отпуска**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen both *о́тпуска* and *отпуска́*. My dictionary is kinda ambiguous so I'm struggling with this one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15249" RevisionGUID="c4e15f86-e962-447e-bd27-fe0f2f0e5688" CreationDate="2017-11-15T19:37:55.013" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of отпуска" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15249" RevisionGUID="c4e15f86-e962-447e-bd27-fe0f2f0e5688" CreationDate="2017-11-15T19:37:55.013" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15248" RevisionGUID="fc2041c1-efd6-470f-851c-c2774270bbc7" CreationDate="2017-11-15T19:40:42.640" UserId="3847" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Ectb is generally used where English applies the indefinite article to the noun, 'a or an'. Where English would apply the definite article 'the' Ectb is usually omitted. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Y доктора есть телефон.       The doctor has a telephone&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть словарь?          Who has a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого словарь?               Who has the dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With numerals the word ectb is generally omitted.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15248" RevisionGUID="9cab0fa7-fda7-463e-ba23-83dd170c9ad5" CreationDate="2017-11-15T19:58:51.337" UserId="3847" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Ectb is generally used where English applies the indefinite article to the object, 'a or an'. Where English would apply the definite article 'the' ectb is usually omitted. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Y доктора есть телефон.       The doctor has a telephone&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть словарь?          Who has a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого словарь?               Who has the dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With numerals the word ectb is generally omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example: у папы семь собок is generally used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15250" RevisionGUID="8fcdbbee-8137-43dd-86c4-c63397a245a4" CreationDate="2017-11-15T20:04:50.370" UserId="1236" Text="_Óтпуска_ is the **Genitive** case **singular** of _óтпуск_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня давно не было óтпуска. – I haven't got a vacation for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Отпускá_ is the **Nominative** and **Accusative** case **plural** of _óтпуск_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Друзья рассказали мне, как они провели свои отпуска. – My friends told me how they had spent their vacations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15250" RevisionGUID="9b9b4bc1-c560-44d5-bb07-556294926b41" CreationDate="2017-11-15T20:11:04.153" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="_Óтпуска_ is the **Genitive** case **singular** of _óтпуск_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня давно не было óтпуска. – I haven't got a vacation for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Отпускá_ is the **Nominative** and **Accusative** case **plural** of _óтпуск_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Друзья рассказали мне, как они провели свои отпускá. – My friends told me how they had spent their vacations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37782" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15249" RevisionGUID="d02e7bac-5116-4abd-b013-d8670f1f480a" CreationDate="2017-11-16T01:34:34.747" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;отпуска&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15248" RevisionGUID="0072b627-8624-4606-91e2-73a9e23645e6" CreationDate="2017-11-16T01:47:53.783" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="`Есть` is generally used where English applies the indefinite article to the object, 'a or an'. Where English would apply the definite article 'the' `есть` is usually omitted. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У доктора есть телефон.       The doctor has a telephone&#xD;&#xA;У кого есть словарь?          Who has a dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У кого словарь?               Who has the dictionary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With numerals the word ectb is generally omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example: у папы семь собок is generally used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37784" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15249" RevisionGUID="7066cacf-c7ec-42df-a812-b267e4ee89c0" CreationDate="2017-11-16T10:21:59.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/931105058367959041" />
  <row Id="37793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15252" RevisionGUID="822f7612-7d1f-4722-b1a4-4eca54c50878" CreationDate="2017-11-16T15:34:14.617" UserId="9788" Text="A possible option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я хочу подарить эту книгу моей (будущей) тёще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I want to give this book to my future mother in law.) It may sound a bit kinky, but uses the feature of Russian that in-laws can be called by one word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15254" RevisionGUID="f3276949-9d35-433d-a1ef-393fa7adf4bc" CreationDate="2017-11-17T17:45:04.107" UserId="8206" Text="What is the meaning of word завцеха? I encountered in Vysockij's song Dialog u televizora and most attempts to search for the word on the web lead to this song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ой, Вань, умру от акробатиков!&#xD;&#xA;    Смотри, как вертится, нахал!&#xD;&#xA;    Завцеха наш товарищ Са́тюков&#xD;&#xA;    Недавно в клубе так скакал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was it her boss from the factory who was dancing in such a way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15254" RevisionGUID="f3276949-9d35-433d-a1ef-393fa7adf4bc" CreationDate="2017-11-17T17:45:04.107" UserId="8206" Text="What is the meaning of word завцеха?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15254" RevisionGUID="f3276949-9d35-433d-a1ef-393fa7adf4bc" CreationDate="2017-11-17T17:45:04.107" UserId="8206" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15255" RevisionGUID="4c983a5b-e1e9-47aa-a674-6212cf3afaa9" CreationDate="2017-11-17T18:09:18.263" UserId="2079" Text="Зав - сокращение от заведующий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Завцеха - заведующий цехом.  Неправильный падеж (правильно &quot;завцехом&quot;) - следствие низкого образовательного уровня персонажа.  Слово &quot;завцеха&quot; образовано по образцу &quot;замдиректора&quot; (заместитель директора)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15255" RevisionGUID="a0d15378-fab1-4e6a-a8cc-47444e3c4cbd" CreationDate="2017-11-17T18:14:51.357" UserId="2079" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="Зав - сокращение от заведующий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Завцеха - заведующий цехом.  Неправильный падеж (правильно &quot;завцехом&quot;) - следствие низкого образовательного уровня персонажа.  Слово &quot;завцеха&quot; образовано по образцу &quot;замдиректора&quot; (заместитель директора).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Цех - &quot;производственное помещение или отдельное сооружение, оснащённое станками, другим оборудованием; производственное подразделение заводов и фабрик, выполняющее определённую функцию или выпускающее определённую категорию продукции, реже — небольшое самостоятельное производственное предприятие.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, завцеха is a head of a departament at factory.  Probably, it is a factory in food processing industry.  In other industries, the same position is called начальник цеха." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15255" RevisionGUID="065532a9-c861-4278-b3a2-a4f4d861d7b0" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:23:42.840" UserId="2079" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Зав - сокращение от заведующий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Завцеха - заведующий цехом.  Неправильный падеж (правильно &quot;завцехом&quot;) - следствие низкого образовательного уровня персонажа.  Слово &quot;завцеха&quot; образовано по образцу &quot;замдиректора&quot; (заместитель директора).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Цех - &quot;производственное помещение или отдельное сооружение, оснащённое станками, другим оборудованием; производственное подразделение заводов и фабрик, выполняющее определённую функцию или выпускающее определённую категорию продукции, реже — небольшое самостоятельное производственное предприятие.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, завцеха is a head of a factory department.  In this case, it is a &quot;fifth sewing factory&quot; where Zina works.  In most cases, this position at garment factory is called начальник цеха, but заведующий цехом is also used occasionally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15256" RevisionGUID="6f1a82fb-e29e-4723-b6f6-42aa129a29c6" CreationDate="2017-11-17T21:19:35.347" UserId="6545" Text="maybe my title needs some with but I use Wiktionary a lot for declensions, etc and I often see two forms for feminine instrumental adjectives, but my textbook only ever uses, typically, the 'first' one... &#xA;&#xA;For example, https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9 for который, or for какой. The same problem for me exists with singular instrumental for nouns like книга - https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0#Russian&#xA;&#xA;Thank you for some explanation regarding these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15256" RevisionGUID="6f1a82fb-e29e-4723-b6f6-42aa129a29c6" CreationDate="2017-11-17T21:19:35.347" UserId="6545" Text="Often 2 variants of feminine instrumental...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15256" RevisionGUID="6f1a82fb-e29e-4723-b6f6-42aa129a29c6" CreationDate="2017-11-17T21:19:35.347" UserId="6545" Text="|местоимения|терминология|composite-nouns|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15256" RevisionGUID="06ef82ac-2250-4af6-aedd-7bb17d04e34f" CreationDate="2017-11-17T22:06:43.843" UserId="6545" Comment="apparently clarification was needed..." Text="maybe my title needs some work... but I use Wiktionary a lot for declensions, etc and I often see two forms for feminine instrumental adjectives, but my textbook only ever uses, typically, the 'first' one... &#xA;&#xA;For example, https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9 for который, or for какой. &#xA;&#xA;    который -&gt; fem. instr. -&gt; кото́рой, кото́рою&#xA;    какой -&gt; fem. instr. -&gt; како́й, како́ю&#xA;&#xA;The same problem for me exists with singular instrumental for nouns like книга - https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0#Russian&#xA;&#xA;    какой -&gt;  sing. instr. -&gt; кни́гой, кни́гою&#xA;&#xA;**Why are there two forms in these and many other words? What is the reason? When is each used?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15257" RevisionGUID="644eb354-f322-49ae-ad32-b879a5bca200" CreationDate="2017-11-18T04:58:16.417" UserId="4560" Text="The `-ою`/`-ею` forms are older and sound archaic/poetic. `-ой`/`-ей` is the modern form, reflecting the same trend towards loss of semantically weak final vowels that turned `-ти` infinitives into `-ть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of **ею**, the instrumental of the pronoun **она** which *some* prescribe as the preferred literary norm since **ей** is easily confused with the dative form, no `-ою`/`-ею` form is ever mandatory or preferred; in fact, unless there's a clear intent at mimicking an older literary style, these forms should probably be avoided. And even in actual older texts, you'll likely find it in free variation with `-ой`/`-ей`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15257" RevisionGUID="4d35c472-13c6-4fd5-9658-ba1914048f19" CreationDate="2017-11-18T05:03:27.890" UserId="4560" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The `-ою`/`-ею` forms are older and sound archaic/poetic. `-ой`/`-ей` is the modern form, reflecting the same trend towards loss of semantically weak final vowels that turned `-ти` infinitives into `-ть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of **ею**, the instrumental of the pronoun **она** which *some* prescribe as the preferred literary norm since **ей** is easily confused with the dative form, no `-ою`/`-ею` form is ever mandatory or preferred; in fact, unless there's a clear intent at mimicking an older literary style, these forms should probably be avoided. And even in actual older texts, you'll likely find them in free variation with `-ой`/`-ей`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15258" RevisionGUID="3c51334d-2583-41b7-922c-9e4f7c2e4ea7" CreationDate="2017-11-18T05:27:36.740" UserId="6539" Text="The usual ending of feminine adjectives in the instrumental is -ой or -ей. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Летом мы лакомились **вкусной** ягодой.&#xD;&#xA;Вода была горячей-прегорячей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine adjectives can have the ending -ою,-ею in the instrumental case.(вариантные окончания). They are usef mainly in poetry, folklore or bookish style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Берёзы **жёлтою** резьбой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Блестят в лазури голубой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И. Бунин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Под сосною **зеленою** спать положите вы меня.( Песня «Калинка»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the noun also uses the same poetic ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15259" RevisionGUID="f2aa4479-baf5-4515-9675-cda02c6928f5" CreationDate="2017-11-18T17:45:31.620" UserId="9603" Text="Given the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мы любим нашу семью&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that one can also write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  мы любим свою семью&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I always replace *нашу* with *свою*? Is the former more formal than the latter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15259" RevisionGUID="f2aa4479-baf5-4515-9675-cda02c6928f5" CreationDate="2017-11-18T17:45:31.620" UserId="9603" Text="Interchangeability of свою and нашу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15259" RevisionGUID="f2aa4479-baf5-4515-9675-cda02c6928f5" CreationDate="2017-11-18T17:45:31.620" UserId="9603" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15260" RevisionGUID="45cd7d7a-9147-4c53-b674-52af48dbe113" CreationDate="2017-11-18T18:14:00.450" UserId="9795" Text="It's strange that only the last phrase caused the question. The text has many similar grammatical constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Олимпийские игры проводят один раз в 4 года = (Они) (!) проводят Олимпийские игры один раз в 4 года = Олимпийские игры проводятСЯ один раз в  4 года.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) На стадионе поднимают белый олимпийский флаг = (Они) поднимают на стадионе белый олимпийский флаг = На стадионе поднимается белый олимпийский флаг&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Эти соревнования организуют летом и зимой = (Они) организуют эти соревнования летом и зимой = Эти соревнования организуются летом и зимой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Зимние игры называют Белой Олимпиадой = (Они) называют зимние игры Белой Олимпиадой = Зимние игры называются Белой Олимпиадой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15261" RevisionGUID="8da3e4cd-5336-492b-a4ed-4e839b4e469f" CreationDate="2017-11-18T19:18:36.253" UserId="9001" Text="In this particular example there is a subtle difference which may matter or not depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы любим нашу семью. -  We altogether love our family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мы любим свою семью. - Each of us loves his family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter case by &quot;us&quot; you can imply not the members of your family, but members of your group (ethnic, religious, political etc.), each loving his particular family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15256" RevisionGUID="a8037a1a-c3ef-4785-9762-95f9dd5e2b46" CreationDate="2017-11-18T22:25:11.870" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/932011833497710592" />
  <row Id="37821" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15259" RevisionGUID="0e2edc55-b095-4107-87cc-113d9f9f8085" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:10:21.500" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11220],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="37822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15263" RevisionGUID="f12f0d67-e570-44f8-980e-af27e703c795" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:44:44.380" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between these two?&#xD;&#xA;Is *мама* considered &quot;childish&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37823" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15263" RevisionGUID="f12f0d67-e570-44f8-980e-af27e703c795" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:44:44.380" UserId="9603" Text="Difference between Мать and Мама?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37824" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15263" RevisionGUID="f12f0d67-e570-44f8-980e-af27e703c795" CreationDate="2017-11-19T00:44:44.380" UserId="9603" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15264" RevisionGUID="c0848fec-305e-46b0-bde6-e35a3a2f9e8a" CreationDate="2017-11-19T10:32:16.020" UserId="9795" Text="1) В течение всего времени...&#xD;&#xA;2) Мы увлеклись игрой. Время текло незаметно.&#xD;&#xA;3) Ничто не нарушало размеренного течения его жизни.&#xD;&#xA;4) Его жизнь текла размеренно и спокойно.&#xD;&#xA;5) Врач рассказал, как протекает болезнь пациента&#xD;&#xA;6) Процессы, протекающие в атмосфере...&#xD;&#xA;7) Переговоры протекали трудно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15265" RevisionGUID="188491a4-ad0d-4c31-911d-6175b754161d" CreationDate="2017-11-19T10:46:47.670" UserId="8895" Text="Not at all. 'Мать' is 'mother', 'мама' is 'mom' and 'мамочка' is 'mommy' respectively, with word preference following the same rules (formal vs. informal) as in English. Usually, the way one refers to their own parents when talking about them (мама/папа vs. мать/отец) quite clearly indicates the actual closeness of their relationship and the level of comfort within the family. Children always use мама/папа no matter what. &#xA;&#xA;In official context or when talking about non-human subjects, 'мать' is always used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15264" RevisionGUID="64e9b107-a182-4cbc-a5b3-9bda0b8a9aa1" CreationDate="2017-11-19T10:58:41.833" UserId="9795" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;1) Мы увлеклись игрой. Время текло незаметно.&#xD;&#xA;2) Ничто не нарушало размеренного течения его жизни.&#xD;&#xA;3) Его жизнь текла размеренно и спокойно.&#xD;&#xA;4) Врач рассказал, как протекает болезнь пациента&#xD;&#xA;5) Процессы, протекающие в атмосфере...&#xD;&#xA;7) Переговоры протекали трудно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Течь, протекать&quot; is property of water, time, any process. Disease is  a process too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15265" RevisionGUID="b4bda6a0-d3cd-41d1-8b4a-03b84ed465da" CreationDate="2017-11-19T10:59:07.883" UserId="8895" Comment="added 94 characters in body; added 9 characters in body" Text="Not at all. &quot;Мать&quot; is &quot;mother&quot;, &quot;мама&quot; is &quot;mom&quot;, and &quot;мамочка&quot; is 'mommy' respectively, with word preference following the same rules (formal vs. informal) as in English. Usually, the way one refers to their own parents when talking about them (&quot;мама&quot;/&quot;папа&quot; vs. &quot;мать&quot;/&quot;отец&quot;) quite clearly indicates the actual closeness of their relationship and the level of comfort within the family. Less intelligent folks may even go as low as &quot;мамка&quot;/&quot;батя&quot;, but those are almost derogatory. Children always use мама/папа no matter what. &#xA;&#xA;In official context or when talking about non-human subjects, 'мать' is always used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15263" RevisionGUID="27cd58c6-56fe-4383-8336-e9fc75d7b667" CreationDate="2017-11-19T17:28:04.413" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;мать&quot; and &quot;мама&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15266" RevisionGUID="d6bdb212-d4a3-4f0d-aa2b-9443daf8bf6a" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:37:37.417" UserId="9603" Text="It feels like the latter is more specific... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one should I use when addressing a high-school student?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15266" RevisionGUID="d6bdb212-d4a3-4f0d-aa2b-9443daf8bf6a" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:37:37.417" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between ученица and студентка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15266" RevisionGUID="d6bdb212-d4a3-4f0d-aa2b-9443daf8bf6a" CreationDate="2017-11-19T18:37:37.417" UserId="9603" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15267" RevisionGUID="83b2d0b9-ca4b-4915-9933-4c1eb90e784a" CreationDate="2017-11-19T19:10:06.823" UserId="6097" Text="Ученица goes to school, студентка goes to university, high school etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15268" RevisionGUID="84c4a22a-3aa8-499d-8cb9-1fd232bc04d9" CreationDate="2017-11-19T19:23:57.337" UserId="8895" Text="&quot;Ученица&quot; is either a school pupil or an attendee of extra-curriculum studies, e.g. a language course or a subject taught by a private teacher, and &quot;студентка&quot; is a high school/university student only, meaning that the two cannot be interchanged. Therefore, a professor would say &quot;мои студентки&quot;, but a school teacher &quot;мои ученицы&quot;. Actually, &quot;ученица&quot; is simply anyone whom one trains or explains material to.&#xA;&#xA;Before 1917, there was also the term &quot;институтка&quot;, used to refer to students of Russian female high schools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37835" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15266" RevisionGUID="07a7c102-d530-4912-b05b-b48fe0885deb" CreationDate="2017-11-19T22:18:59.327" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;ученица&quot; and &quot;студентка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15269" RevisionGUID="53deab19-96fe-450e-940e-47a22a964efa" CreationDate="2017-11-20T13:43:35.303" UserId="7674" Text="*`ученик/ца`* is anyone who's formally learning/studying something, who's *`учится`*, either a theory or a skill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Russian culture addressing a person using terms designating their occupation isn't normally practised (an exception would be addressing a driver of a regular bus or a minibus, the proverbial and the notorious *`маршрутка`*, as *`Водитель!`*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus whether she's a schoolgirl, a student or anyone else, a girl is normally addressed with *`Девушка!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you're her coeval more or less, a very informal and a kind of playful way would be *`Подруга!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addressing her from a position of a much older person, *`Девочка!`* can be used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15269" RevisionGUID="505cab8a-3f83-4362-a27f-01dd0c76ebe3" CreationDate="2017-11-20T13:50:02.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="*`ученик/ца`* is anyone who's formally learning/studying something, who's *`учится`*, either a theory or a skill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in Russian culture addressing a person using terms designating their occupation isn't normally practised (an exception would be addressing a driver of a regular bus or a minibus, the proverbial and the notorious *`маршрутка`*, as *`Водитель!`*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus whether she's a schoolgirl, a student or anyone else, a young woman is normally addressed with *`Девушка!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you're her coeval more or less, a very informal and a kind of playful way would be *`Подруга!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addressing her from a position of a much older person, *`Девочка!`* can be used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15270" RevisionGUID="f0fbc4c6-73a5-461f-8688-6fe27443eed5" CreationDate="2017-11-20T14:19:58.410" UserId="2079" Text="Ученица is a girl who studies at school.  Almost all of them are 6-17 years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Студентка is a girl/woman who studies in higher education institution.  Most of them are 17-22 years old, some are older.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For техникум, both terms are used.  Sometimes, students under 18 are called ученики/ученицы, while students 18 or older are called студенты/студентки.  But the most common term for an adult who studis neither in school nor in a higher education institution is учащийся/учащаяся.  For military courses, a student is called курсант." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15269" RevisionGUID="ffc37560-020e-4d1a-a9d9-aa3c3a50fd7d" CreationDate="2017-11-20T16:23:57.867" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="*`ученик/ца`* is anyone who's formally learning/studying something, who's *`учится`*, either a theory or a skill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in modern Russian culture addressing a person using terms designating their occupation isn't normally practised (an exception would be addressing a driver of a regular bus or a minibus, the proverbial and the notorious *`маршрутка`*, as *`Водитель!`*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus whether she's a schoolgirl, a student or anyone else, a young woman is normally addressed with *`Девушка!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you're her coeval more or less, a very informal and a kind of playful way would be *`Подруга!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addressing her from a position of a much older person, *`Девочка!`* can be used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15260" RevisionGUID="f835ae33-37c2-4497-bb5d-0dc66f6f5c6d" CreationDate="2017-11-20T19:01:29.890" UserId="9795" Comment="edited body" Text="It's strange that only the last phrase caused the question. The text has many similar grammatical constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Олимпийские игры проводят один раз в 4 года = (Они) (!) проводят Олимпийские игры один раз в 4 года = Олимпийские игры проводЯТСЯ один раз в  4 года.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) На стадионе поднимают белый олимпийский флаг = (Они) поднимают на стадионе белый олимпийский флаг = На стадионе поднимается белый олимпийский флаг&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Эти соревнования организуют летом и зимой = (Они) организуют эти соревнования летом и зимой = Эти соревнования организуются летом и зимой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Зимние игры называют Белой Олимпиадой = (Они) называют зимние игры Белой Олимпиадой = Зимние игры называются Белой Олимпиадой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15271" RevisionGUID="873c5966-ccc1-4ab1-b112-6d4a2c456f99" CreationDate="2017-11-20T20:12:50.087" UserId="9795" Text="1) В русском языке нет слова &quot;заместо&quot; :).  Только &quot;вместо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2) Примеры отличаются друг от друга тем, что варианты с краткими прилагательными — это речь образованного человека. &#xD;&#xA;Чего нельзя сказать про  &quot;эти книги популярные среди читателей&quot;, и &quot;ее внешность привлекательная&quot;. Но слышать подобные фразы приходится часто.Слышать и читать на форумах в Интернете. В книгах их нет,  потому что книги редактируются" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15268" RevisionGUID="39060558-6bd9-4502-8651-aed85d68de31" CreationDate="2017-11-21T09:57:21.760" UserId="8895" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ученица&quot; is either a school pupil or an attendee of extra-curriculum studies, e.g. a language course or a subject taught by a private teacher, and &quot;студентка&quot; is a university student only, meaning that the two cannot be interchanged. Therefore, a professor would say &quot;мои студентки&quot;, but a school teacher &quot;мои ученицы&quot;. Actually, &quot;ученица&quot; is simply anyone whom one trains or explains material to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before 1917, there was also the term &quot;институтка&quot;, used to refer to students of Russian female high schools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="71f25c26-e94e-46e6-a252-a13a800cfe3f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T11:19:19.643" UserId="7864" Comment="minor edits; replaced 'untagged' with tag 'литература'" Text="If I naively translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Дай, Никита, мне одеться:   &#xD;&#xA;В митрополии звонят.   &#xD;&#xA;  (*Александр Сергеевич Пушкин,  март 1821—1822*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot apreciate the literary value of these verses. Pushkin is said to have had a servant called precisely *Nikita*; then it makes sense he calls him to bring him clothes. Then I don't know what sort of place *митрополия* is, can it be precisely located? And could I translate the last line as *in (the) Metropolija sounds/they call*.? Or does it mean the *metropoly*, a specific big city?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37844" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="71f25c26-e94e-46e6-a252-a13a800cfe3f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T11:19:19.643" UserId="7864" Comment="minor edits; replaced 'untagged' with tag 'литература'" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37845" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11255" RevisionGUID="71f25c26-e94e-46e6-a252-a13a800cfe3f" CreationDate="2017-11-21T11:19:19.643" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 8895, 3680 edit id of 929" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="8b0b15df-781e-4974-b674-b16db273fe34" CreationDate="2017-11-21T11:19:24.303" UserId="7864" Comment="replaced 'untagged' with tags 'grammar' and 'verbs'" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37847" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13902" RevisionGUID="8b0b15df-781e-4974-b674-b16db273fe34" CreationDate="2017-11-21T11:19:24.303" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 8895, 3680 edit id of 928" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15216" RevisionGUID="8f606434-eb09-4a38-a30b-3ca0e7bccee9" CreationDate="2017-11-21T21:00:36.997" UserId="6350" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="This is a special tag that is designed to be used only by the system for questions that have had all of their other tags removed. Do not add this tag to existing questions, it is reserved for use by the system to identify posts with no valid tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37849" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15216" RevisionGUID="8f606434-eb09-4a38-a30b-3ca0e7bccee9" CreationDate="2017-11-21T21:00:36.997" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680, 4903 edit id of 927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15264" RevisionGUID="ebb67dfc-5f8c-4168-8b12-760778fbc3c9" CreationDate="2017-11-22T07:57:46.843" UserId="9795" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="1) Мы увлеклись игрой. Время текло незаметно.&#xD;&#xA;2) Ничто не нарушало размеренного течения его жизни.&#xD;&#xA;3) Его жизнь текла размеренно и спокойно.&#xD;&#xA;4) Врач рассказал, как протекает болезнь пациента&#xD;&#xA;5) Процессы, протекающие в атмосфере...&#xD;&#xA;7) Переговоры протекали трудно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Течь, протекать&quot; is property of water, time, any process. Disease is  a process too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;вяло&quot; has distant relatives: &quot;вянуть&quot;,  &quot;увядание&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;An adverb &quot;вяло&quot; can only refer to the actions of an animate subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Он вяло улыбнулся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он вяло махнул рукой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Камень катится вяло&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15264" RevisionGUID="6a766633-c9c0-4301-8406-08c4a5d9df34" CreationDate="2017-11-22T08:40:43.600" UserId="9795" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="1) Мы увлеклись игрой. Время текло незаметно.&#xD;&#xA;2) Ничто не нарушало размеренного течения его жизни.&#xD;&#xA;3) Его жизнь текла размеренно и спокойно.&#xD;&#xA;4) Врач рассказал, как протекает болезнь пациента&#xD;&#xA;5) Процессы, протекающие в атмосфере...&#xD;&#xA;7) Переговоры протекали трудно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Течь, протекать&quot; is property of water, time, any process. Disease is  a process too.&#xD;&#xA;...............&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word ВЯЛО has &quot;distant relatives&quot;:  ВЯНУТЬ,  УВЯДАНИЕ.&#xD;&#xA;An adverb &quot;вяло&quot; can only refer to the actions of an animate subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Он вяло улыбнулся — ОК&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он вяло махнул рукой — ОК&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Камень катится вяло  — not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ветер дует вяло — not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Река течет вяло — not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some time nоw there is phrase &quot;вялотекущий процесс&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But it is only suitable for social or biological processes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15264" RevisionGUID="eaf9b776-052d-437f-9b87-c8b339af6e85" CreationDate="2017-11-22T08:46:58.433" UserId="9795" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="1) Мы увлеклись игрой. Время текло незаметно.&#xD;&#xA;2) Ничто не нарушало размеренного течения его жизни.&#xD;&#xA;3) Его жизнь текла размеренно и спокойно.&#xD;&#xA;4) Врач рассказал, как протекает болезнь пациента&#xD;&#xA;5) Процессы, протекающие в атмосфере...&#xD;&#xA;7) Переговоры протекали трудно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Течь, протекать&quot; is property of water, time, any process. Disease is  a process too.&#xD;&#xA;...............&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word ВЯЛО has &quot;distant relatives&quot;:  ВЯНУТЬ,  УВЯДАНИЕ.&#xD;&#xA;An adverb &quot;вяло&quot; can only refer to the actions of an animate subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Он вяло улыбнулся — ОК&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он вяло махнул рукой — ОК&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Камень катится вяло  — not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ветер дует вяло — not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Река течет вяло — not OK&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some time nоw there is a phrase &quot;вялотекущий процесс&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But it is only suitable for social or biological processes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37854" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11750" RevisionGUID="cafeee9c-56eb-4388-ae0e-9ef8ec980d3c" CreationDate="2017-11-22T10:17:36.787" UserId="7864" Comment="untagged question; added tag 'этимология' (etymology)" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37855" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11750" RevisionGUID="cafeee9c-56eb-4388-ae0e-9ef8ec980d3c" CreationDate="2017-11-22T10:17:36.787" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 4903, 8895 edit id of 931" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37856" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="de9ecc9e-6392-4869-b3e5-69c33ac8544f" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:18:55.333" UserId="7864" Comment="untagged question; added tag 'правописание' (spelling)" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37857" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12945" RevisionGUID="de9ecc9e-6392-4869-b3e5-69c33ac8544f" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:18:55.333" Comment="Proposed by 7864 approved by 4903, 8895 edit id of 930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11801" RevisionGUID="38c5d545-abd7-41ee-8f8f-7ca49113edd0" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:33:21.477" UserId="8895" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="The following lyrics are taken from &quot;Диалог у телевизора&quot;. My understanding is that the woman talking to Вань wants him to buy her this shirt that she saw; so, **сваргань** would be referring to this shirt. This word **сваргань** seems to be related to the verb &quot;сварганить&quot;, which in my dictionary translates &quot;to botch, bungle&quot;. So my question is, does **сваргань** mean something that is botched or hastily made? Also, is this word used in &quot;everyday&quot; Russian; if so, can you give an example on how you as a Russian speaker would use **сваргань**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Ой! Вань! Гляди-кось, попугайчики!&#xD;&#xA;Нет, я, ей-богу, закричу!..&#xD;&#xA;А это кто в короткой маечке?&#xD;&#xA;Я, Вань, такую же хочу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В конце квартала — правда, Вань, —&#xD;&#xA;Ты мне такую же **сваргань**...&#xD;&#xA;Ну что &quot;отстань&quot;, всегда &quot;отстань&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;Обидно, Вань!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11801" RevisionGUID="38c5d545-abd7-41ee-8f8f-7ca49113edd0" CreationDate="2017-11-22T12:33:21.477" UserId="8895" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;сваргань&quot; from the song &quot;Диалог у телевизора&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15272" RevisionGUID="783193fe-42a3-419f-ae05-3de22b68f9ce" CreationDate="2017-11-22T21:21:47.643" UserId="9811" Text="I think походить in its two distinct meanings seems to be rather line the French aller which denotes movement but also the abstract concept of being." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15269" RevisionGUID="e4f4a2e8-8221-4774-952d-db08f323836e" CreationDate="2017-11-22T21:52:51.240" UserId="7674" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="*`ученик/ца`* is anyone who's formally learning/studying something, who's *`учится`*, either a theory or a skill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in modern Russian culture addressing a person using terms designating their occupation isn't normally practised (an exception would be addressing a driver of a regular bus or a minibus, the proverbial and the notorious *`маршрутка`*, as *`Водитель!`*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus whether she's a schoolgirl, a student or anyone else, a young woman is normally addressed with *`Девушка!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you're her coeval more or less, a very informal and a kind of playful way would be *`Подруга!`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;addressing her from a position of a much older person, *`Девочка!`* can be used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;incidentally and unbeknownst to me the author had earlier already inquired regarding the exact same set of terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15212/difference-between-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0-and-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37862" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15266" RevisionGUID="d0bbb3e3-47ec-401b-a6dc-5e6ac1e113ad" CreationDate="2017-11-23T01:36:43.707" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/933509585012486145" />
  <row Id="37864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15273" RevisionGUID="0122988d-edef-4d7c-b58d-cd972ce334c0" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:10:32.373" UserId="9001" Text="If you are interested in the logic, you may consider the verbs **сойти за** (and related adjective **схожий**) and **проходить как**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic here is probably similar to that of the English phrase **pass as/for** and may be related to the process of security pass control (hence **password**): if you look like the right person you may go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this is my personal opinion and not a result of a scientific research." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15274" RevisionGUID="3e25f2bf-c090-4460-acbe-a64eab582098" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:30:15.773" UserId="9813" Text="When we talk about one hour, in the genitive case we use *ча́са*. For example: &quot;Не прошло и *ча́са*, как ты пришел&quot;. If we talk about several hours, in the nominative case we use *часа́*. For example: &quot;Три *часа́* прошли незаметно&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15275" RevisionGUID="ae1fe1c3-8483-47cf-bfdb-9730b13c3abc" CreationDate="2017-11-23T08:45:50.930" UserId="9814" Text="&quot;Мать&quot; is used in business speech and documents, but &quot;мама&quot; is used in everyday speech and when we talk with the mother or talking about her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15276" RevisionGUID="a55e0445-ab58-4f04-9a23-804ba9282c35" CreationDate="2017-11-23T10:28:21.720" UserId="9808" Text="&quot;Мать&quot; is used in everyday speech too. For example, my mother often call herself  &quot;мать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;As usual, first word of child is &quot;мама&quot;. I think, it is easy to say.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15277" RevisionGUID="e52b2e71-673c-4901-a220-d6648f61dbad" CreationDate="2017-11-23T12:07:16.260" UserId="6370" Text="Wiktionary often has very helpful entries on declension and stress patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [the entry for час][1], you can see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Declension of час (inan masc-form hard-stem **accent-c** ***irreg***) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *After numbers ending with 2, 3 or 4 (except for those ending with 12, 13 or 14), the stress of the genitive singular moves to the last syllable: два **часа́**, два́дцать три **часа́**, со́рок четы́ре* ***часа́***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you click on the Declension pane to reveal its contents, you will see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                singular      plural&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    genitive	ча́са, часа́△   часо́в&#xD;&#xA;    ...&#xD;&#xA;    △ Irregular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [the page about stress patterns][2], you can find this pattern for type c:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                            ... c        ...&#xD;&#xA;    In nom/gen/dat/pre sg   ... stem     ...&#xD;&#xA;    In acc sg               ... stem     ...&#xD;&#xA;    In ins sg               ... stem     ...&#xD;&#xA;    In nom pl               ... ending   ...&#xD;&#xA;    In gen/dat/ins/pre pl   ... ending   ...&#xD;&#xA;    ————————————————————————————————————————&#xD;&#xA;    example                 ... слой     ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find a long list of nouns that follow the same stress pattern [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;You can find a shorter list of nouns that have an irregular genitive singular [here][4]. If you cross-reference these lists, you can discover that the following words follow the same irregular pattern as час, and for the same reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [ряд][5]&#xD;&#xA;* [шаг][6]&#xD;&#xA;* [шар][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Russian_stress_patterns_-_nouns&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_nouns_with_accent_pattern_c&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_nouns_with_irregular_genitive_singular&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4#Declension&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B3#Declension&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%80#Declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15278" RevisionGUID="99ae159d-e575-4d93-b0bf-89df2c6fd22d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T12:07:34.013" UserId="4599" Text="What's the difference between **основной** and **основный**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They both seem to translate to &quot;basic&quot;, although the first one seems to be more common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15278" RevisionGUID="99ae159d-e575-4d93-b0bf-89df2c6fd22d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T12:07:34.013" UserId="4599" Text="Difference between «основной» and «основный»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15278" RevisionGUID="99ae159d-e575-4d93-b0bf-89df2c6fd22d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T12:07:34.013" UserId="4599" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15279" RevisionGUID="b5380922-8f36-473a-bf96-baa2b138a69d" CreationDate="2017-11-23T12:21:26.207" UserId="9001" Text="**Основный** with stress on the second syllable is used only as technical or scientific term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Основная нить - beam thread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Основный оксид - basic oxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Основной** is a regular word meaning **main, central, fundamental, basic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15104" RevisionGUID="2357dc55-e13a-4e72-832f-f9bf46537a25" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:27:57.223" UserId="8742" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I often don't see the Russian adverb **&quot;уже&quot;** translated into English.  I'll give you some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Скоро уже начало марта.  &#xD;&#xA;The beginning of March is soon.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Example above is from [**Duolingo's Russian for English Speaker's Course**](https://www.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly enough, as I tried to find some good examples, I mostly saw sentences that, with more context _could have_ added an &quot;already&quot; to the sentence without any drastic change in meaning, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И тебе уже пора уже зарегиться там.  &#xD;&#xA;And it's time for you to get out there.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Будущее уже началось, будущее уже сейчас.  &#xD;&#xA;The future has arrived, and the future is now.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bigger mystery is when **&quot;уже&quot;** is paired with **&quot;скоро&quot;** (as in the first example).  Here are some others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Нет, я еще на работе, но cкоро уже буду ехать домой.  &#xD;&#xA;No, I'm still at work, but I'll be home soon.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**И так, скоро уже закончим.  &#xD;&#xA;It won't take much longer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Ну что там, скоро уже?  &#xD;&#xA;Well, how long do I have to wait?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Скоро уже ты получишь полную свободу.  &#xD;&#xA;In due time, you'll have your freedom.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Examples above are from [**Reverso's Context Dictionary**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/russian-english/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE+%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these somewhat idiomatic expressions that one simply must get used to and through repeated exposure and practice will feel more natural to an English speaker?  Or can the &quot;уже&quot; be omitted?  Would these sentences sound odd to a native speaker of Russian if **&quot;уже&quot;** were to be omitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15108" RevisionGUID="ed37c980-f14c-4b81-9833-a95168ec5339" CreationDate="2017-11-23T20:40:42.237" UserId="8742" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I've noticed that constructions with **&quot;надо&quot;** tend to use a perfective form of a verb.  Is there some sort of loose grammar rule dictating this?  Or does it just depend on context?  For example, can I use either one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо помыть четыре кошки.  &#xD;&#xA;I need to wash four cats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне надо мыть четыре кошки.  &#xD;&#xA;I need to wash four cats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience with Russian thus far is that its meanings are often quite precise, so I can't imagine that the two sentences above mean exactly the same thing, but I've seen &quot;надо&quot; paired with both (and the English translations for each), even though I have not yet seen any sort of pattern that distinguishes &quot;надо помыть&quot; from &quot;надо мыть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a visit to Wiktionary, I now know that the construct &quot;не надо&quot; is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**used in combination with imperfective infinitive verbs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but that doesn't fully explain all the instances I've seen of &quot;надо&quot; paired with imperfective infinitives.  Here's an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Безусловно, перед едой надо мыть руки.  &#xD;&#xA;Sure. Everyone washes their hands.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Example from Reverso's search results for sentences with [**&quot;надо мыть&quot;**](http://context.reverso.net/translation/russian-english/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE+%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C) in them._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always I appreciate any insight you can provide and want to stress that I'd love to see answers that also go beyond the two examples given above and discuss any details that might pertain to &quot;надо&quot; + verb constructions in a more general sense but are still relevant to this question.  To start with, what part of speech do Russian linguists/grammarians assign to &quot;надо&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I've been to the following discussion threads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Difference between нужно и надо**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12790/difference-between-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Usage patterns of “надо” vs. “нужно”**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/usage-patterns-of-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE-vs-%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they answer the questions I've asked in this post, I didn't see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14920" RevisionGUID="7f7d813a-20f2-4fd4-8a2a-f2c11251c684" CreationDate="2017-11-24T00:11:23.833" UserId="2104" Comment="An English translation added" Text="**Both nominative plural and genitive plural adjectives can be used with feminine nouns. Nominative plural is preferred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lisa, you are not the first to notice this variation (and well done spotting it!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources use language such as 'usually', 'more often', 'genitive is preferred', etc. when describing this phenomenon. Here is a quote from Rosenthal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §193. Adjective-noun agreement following numerals two, three and four&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In such constructs the adjective modifying a feminine noun **most often** appears in the nominative case (or the accusative case with inanimate nouns), plural. E.g.: *две большие комнаты выходили окнами в сад; купила четыре фарфоровые чашки; на изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры* (А.Н. Толстой); *По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев* (М. Бубеннов). When the noun phrase is preceded by a preposition, both nominative/accusative and genitive are **possible**: *на две равные части – по две столовых ложки*. If the nominative plural of the feminine noun differs from its genitive singular in stress (*го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́*), then **usually** genitive plural is preferred for the adjective: _две высоких горы, две крупных слезы_. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе_ (Горький); _Две сильных мужских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки подхватили ее_ (А. Коптяева). The choice of the adjective form **can** be affected by the form of the predicate: _Разыграны три золотые медали. –&#xD;&#xA;Разыграно три золотых медали._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is mine. Here is the Russian original: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §193. Определение при существительном, зависящем от числительных два,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чаще** ставится в форме именительного падежа (или совпадающего с ним&#xD;&#xA;&gt; винительного при неодушевленных существительных) множественного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: _две большие комнаты выходили окнами в сад; купила четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фарфоровые чашки; на изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (А.Н. Толстой); _По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (М. Бубеннов). При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога **возможны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; варианты**; ср.: _на две равные части – по две столовых ложки_. Если формы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительного падежа множественного числа существительных женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода отличаются по ударению от формы родительного падежа единственного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числа (ср.: _го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́_), то определение в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рассматриваемой конструкции **обычно** ставится в родительном падеже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множественного числа: _две высоких горы, две крупных слезы_. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе_ (Горький); _Две сильных мужских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки подхватили ее_ (А. Коптяева). На выбор формы определения **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказать влияние форма сказуемого; ср.: _Разыграны три золотые медали. –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разыграно три золотых медали._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold emphasis was added by me to highlight the use of the 'variative' language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another quote from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Граудина, Ицкович, Катлинская. Грамматическая правильность русской речи. Стилистический словарь вариантов. М., 2001:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «При существительных жен. рода прилагательное в описываемых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конструкциях **может** выступать в форме как родительного, так и им.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа, ср.: _две новых книги, две смежных комнаты, три столовых ложки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — три оригинальные статьи, две основные задачи, три столовые ложки_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма род. падежа **предпочитается** в тех случаях, когда форма им. падежа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мн. числа существительного отличается по ударению от формы, зависящей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от числительного: _три высоких горы_ (ср. _высокие горы_), _две русых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косы_ (ср. _русые косы_). Для других случаев некоторые пособиях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рекомендуют формы им. падежа — по-видимому, из стремления разграничить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежную форму прилагательного при существительных, с одного стороны,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужского и среднего, а с другой — жен. рода. Но практически при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных жен. рода (с указанным выше ограничением, связанным с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; особенностями ударения) **возможны** обе формы прилагательного».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are the scans of the relevant pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 32][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 33][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sources claim that genitive plural should be used for the adjective when the noun differs in genitive singular and nominative plural. But that contradicts your Google NGram research and a few Google searches that I've just done (using quotes to match exact phrases):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировые войны&quot; 120000&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировых войны&quot; 49100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высокие горы&quot; 5980&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высоких горы&quot; 638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новые игры&quot; 18700&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новых игры&quot; 3040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинные косы&quot; 3830&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинных косы&quot; 1150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I would conclude that nominative plural is preferred in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a third source to support the same viewpoint, the fundamental Русская грамматика, [Volume 2, §1817, page 57][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Если в сочетание с числительным входит су­ществительное жен. р.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; то нормальны обе формы прилагательного — и им. и род. п.: _две молодые&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женщины — две молодых женщины, какие-то четыре девочки — каких-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четыре девочки, обе дворовые собаки — обе дворовых собаки, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большие избы — четыре больших избы, две женских руки — две женские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки; На счету у нашей команды четыре золотых и три серебряные медали_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (газ.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the last example that uses both nominative and genitive in the same sentence!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all I could find on the subject in the two volumes. No mention of which form is preferred. I guess the authors, being wise people, followed the rule &quot;to err less often, say less&quot; or &quot;my tongue is my enemy&quot; (Язык мой — враг мой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ym9xM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KVq5D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lukashevichus.info/knigi/russk_gramm_sl_shvedova_2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37878" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15263" RevisionGUID="47e7c3bb-82fc-4e42-b6fb-4aec94d8c452" CreationDate="2017-11-24T07:38:48.650" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/933963092798689280" />
  <row Id="37879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15280" RevisionGUID="749ca5d5-db31-4d65-b162-3de7f914ae64" CreationDate="2017-11-24T19:18:41.300" UserId="7716" Text="I've sometimes explained it like this: ездить, like ходить, водить, and others, is a multidirectional verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most multidirectional verbs can take a **directional** prefix (в-, вы-, при-, у-, etc.) to form an imperfective that has a nuance of direction: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;входить 'to enter,' приводить 'to bring,' уносить 'to carry/take away,' etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ездить is unusual in that it's **not** used with **directional** prefixes; instead, with directional prefixes we use the stem -езжать:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;въезжать 'to drive/ride in,' приезжать 'to arrive,' уезжать 'to depart'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But: ездить **can** be used with prefixes that aren't being used in a directional sense:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;поспать 'take a nap,' почитать 'read for a while,' поездить 'drive/ride around for a while'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets trickier when a single prefix can have more than one meaning: про- as a directional prefix meaning 'through' or 'past,' vs. про- in the sense of 'doing something for all of a certain time period.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the **directional** meaning, use -езжать;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждый раз, когда я проезжаю через Москву,... 'Every time I drive through Moscow...'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the **temporal** meaning, use ездить:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Кстати, на Ford я проездил почти неделю, но все равно регулярно ошибался и вместо двери открывал окно. 'By the way, I drove the Ford for almost a week, but still kept messing up and opening the window instead of the door.'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;V.V.'s interesting examples above (like выездить for taming a horse) can fall into this category of non-directional usage.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15281" RevisionGUID="81b5465e-50c4-4a75-afa0-e873826d18f1" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:12:01.083" UserId="9817" Text="Я слушал лекцию на русском и услышал цитату из Эпиктета: *&quot;Человек - это душонка, обременённая трупом.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как перевести слово **душонка** на английский? В чём отличие этого слова от слова &quot;душа&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15281" RevisionGUID="81b5465e-50c4-4a75-afa0-e873826d18f1" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:12:01.083" UserId="9817" Text="English translation and meaning for a word &quot;душонка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15281" RevisionGUID="81b5465e-50c4-4a75-afa0-e873826d18f1" CreationDate="2017-11-25T17:12:01.083" UserId="9817" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37885" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15281" RevisionGUID="f07fd663-6896-4ee1-b34c-638080779038" CreationDate="2017-11-25T18:48:56.857" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="English translation and meaning of the word &quot;душонка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15283" RevisionGUID="417fc59b-8207-4fb0-b638-65b79e8128b7" CreationDate="2017-11-25T19:07:44.547" UserId="8895" Text="The best match would be &quot;a miserable/pitiful/worthless soul&quot;, as to express contempt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15283" RevisionGUID="87bc4066-d86f-4a54-b996-b6661f52f432" CreationDate="2017-11-25T19:21:48.017" UserId="8895" Comment="added 167 characters in body; added 15 characters in body" Text="The best match would be &quot;a miserable/pitiful/worthless soul&quot;, as to express contempt. In the quote, this form of the word &quot;душа&quot; has been used to make the contrast between the pettiness of the soul and the massiveness of its burden (&quot;the corpse&quot;) even more grotesque." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15284" RevisionGUID="c748c5bd-7e12-4517-890b-b6f809fc3699" CreationDate="2017-11-25T19:54:18.003" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;You are a little soul, carrying a corpse.&#xD;&#xA;Fragment xxvi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Golden Sayings of Epictetus	Edit&#xD;&#xA;as translated by Hastings Crossley&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an English translation from Greek by a professional translator. The difference between душа and душонка is that the second one carries a negative or perhaps a derogatory connotation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15285" RevisionGUID="3a0a44ef-599b-4948-b140-26c0dba17a14" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:16:13.563" UserId="7674" Text="A suffix `-онка` appended to a root ending with `Ч/Ш/К/Х` of feminine nouns always impart a word either a diminutive or derogatory connotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рубаха/рубашка - рубашонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`мошна - мошонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рука/ручка - ручонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`юбка/обочка - юбчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`дева/девка/девочка - девчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`книга/книжка - книжонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`малец/мальчик - мальчонка` (here the form is feminine but the gender is still masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a suffix `-онок` also derives masculine noun with these same connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сука - сучонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`белка - бельчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`заяц/зайка - зайчонок`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15285" RevisionGUID="975f1d61-0572-40f4-badf-9b919c0bb090" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:21:45.813" UserId="7674" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="A suffix `-онк(а)` appended to a root ending with `Ч/Ш/К/Х` of feminine (and rarely masculine) nouns always impart a word either a diminutive or derogatory connotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рубаха/рубашка - рубашонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`мошна - мошонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рука/ручка - ручонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`юбка/обочка - юбчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`дева/девка/девочка - девчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`книга/книжка - книжонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`река/речка - речонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`старуха/старушка - старушонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`малец/мальчик - мальчонка` (here the form is feminine but the gender is still masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a suffix `-онок` also derives masculine noun with these same connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сука - сучонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`белка - бельчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`заяц/зайка/зайчик - зайчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`кроль/кролик - крольчонок`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15285" RevisionGUID="84fa7413-ffc5-4d2c-ab3f-1868ab5fe6e5" CreationDate="2017-11-26T08:05:33.397" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="A suffix `-онк(а)` appended to a root ending with `Ч/Ш/К/Х` of feminine (and rarely masculine) nouns always impart a word either a diminutive or derogatory connotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рубаха/рубашка - рубашонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`мошна - мошонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рука/ручка - ручонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`юбка/обочка - юбчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`дева/девка/девочка - девчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`книга/книжка - книжонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`река/речка - речонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`старуха/старушка - старушонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`малец/мальчик - мальчонка` (here the form is feminine but the gender is still masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a suffix `-онок` also derives masculine noun with these same connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сука - сучонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`бочка - бочонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`белка - бельчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`заяц/зайка/зайчик - зайчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`кроль/кролик - крольчонок`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15279" RevisionGUID="bcbb3a5b-977d-490d-b610-76ea2e755f75" CreationDate="2017-11-26T10:10:20.880" UserId="1097" Comment="put stresses on syllables" Text="**Оснóвный** with stress on the second syllable is used only as technical or scientific term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оснóвная нить - beam thread&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оснóвный оксид - basic oxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Основнóй** is a regular word meaning **main, central, fundamental, basic**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37894" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15238" RevisionGUID="97dc637d-e357-40c3-a1eb-c42ef5b4c015" CreationDate="2017-11-26T10:44:59.750" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/934734724689551360" />
  <row Id="37895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15286" RevisionGUID="52e8af6a-076f-4d65-b27c-c0f5f493e183" CreationDate="2017-11-26T11:03:02.177" UserId="8742" Text="Occasionally I see a reference to categorized noun declensions (e.g., first, second, third).  I would imagine some question whether or not learning about such declensions is essential to learning the Russian language, but it does appear that this categorization of declensions is being taught in this way to some students and I'd like to be able to more fully understand the questions or comments written about such declensions.  However, I haven't had much luck in finding anything truly helpful.  I find references to such resources few and far between and not all that comprehensive.  I have visited the following thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Order of declensions (склонения)**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/289/order-of-declensions-%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%bb%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it was very good.  I even visited some of the links listed in it, but it appears that the only references I can find with noun declension categories that categorize nouns, for the most part, are for those in singular form.  Are there any for those found in plural form only (like the word &quot;люди&quot;)?  And in the absence of any pre-established categorization of the declensions of nouns found in plural form only, has anyone reading this discovered or noticed any particular patterns (e.g., plural nouns ending in __, are usually __ in the genitive plural)?  Or is there just not enough of them to bother creating rules and categories for?  In a quick glance of the [**Top 500 Russian Nouns**](http://masterrussian.com/vocabulary/common_nouns.htm), as listed at MasterRussian.com,  I think I only saw a couple of nouns that appear to be in plural form only (i.e., денги, сутки).  Based off of this, I presume that the number of Russian nouns found in plural form only is less than 1 percent and quite likely very difficult to make generalizations about or categorize.  But if any do exist, especially if they are online and free, please share them with us.  (Ideally, there's some sort of online dictionary or database that allows me to type in a word and returns with information that includes what declension category the word belongs to.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, while I am at it, does anyone know the history of teaching the Russian language with respect to the teaching of noun declensions by category?  Is this something that was popular at one time but has fallen into disuse for some reason?  Is this method of teaching Russian still in use and/or more popular in countries that use a case system (e.g., Germany)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I decided to post this question here after reading a comment someone had made in a discussion thread in Duolingo's [**Russian for English Speakers**](https://www.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online) course.  One of the users asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is &quot;люди&quot; a third declension noun when &quot;человек&quot; is first declension? How can one tell that its genitive plural should be &quot;людей&quot; and not &quot;люд&quot; or &quot;людов&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can link to the thread below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Is &quot;люди&quot; a third declension noun ...?**](https://www.duolingo.com/comment/12625939$comment_id=21921822)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15286" RevisionGUID="52e8af6a-076f-4d65-b27c-c0f5f493e183" CreationDate="2017-11-26T11:03:02.177" UserId="8742" Text="Does anyone know of any good resource(s) that categorize the declensions of Russian plurals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15286" RevisionGUID="52e8af6a-076f-4d65-b27c-c0f5f493e183" CreationDate="2017-11-26T11:03:02.177" UserId="8742" Text="|склонение|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15286" RevisionGUID="a2b62bc3-6020-430e-8b65-f0012383a1f7" CreationDate="2017-11-26T11:08:30.250" UserId="8742" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Occasionally I see a reference to categorized noun declensions (e.g., first, second, third).  I would imagine some question whether or not learning about such declensions is essential to learning the Russian language, but it does appear that this categorization of declensions is being taught in this way to some students and I'd like to be able to more fully understand the questions or comments written about such declensions.  However, I haven't had much luck in finding anything truly helpful.  I find references to such resources few and far between and not all that comprehensive.  I have visited the following thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Order of declensions (склонения)**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/289/order-of-declensions-%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%bb%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it was very good.  I even visited some of the links listed in it, but it appears that the only references I can find with noun declension categories that categorize nouns, for the most part, are for those in singular form.  Are there any for those found in plural form only (like the word &quot;люди&quot;)?  And in the absence of any pre-established categorization of the declensions of nouns found in plural form only, has anyone reading this discovered or noticed any particular patterns (e.g., plural nouns ending in __, are usually __ in the genitive plural)?  Or is there just not enough of them to bother creating rules and categories for?  In a quick glance of the [**Top 500 Russian Nouns**](http://masterrussian.com/vocabulary/common_nouns.htm), as listed at MasterRussian.com,  I think I only saw a couple of nouns that appear to be in plural form only (i.e., денги, сутки).  Based off of this, I presume that the number of Russian nouns found in plural form only is less than 1 percent and quite likely very difficult to make generalizations about or categorize.  But if any do exist, especially if they are online and free, please share them with us.  (Ideally, there's some sort of online dictionary or database that allows me to type in a word and returns with information that includes what declension category the word belongs to.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, while I am at it, does anyone know the history of teaching the Russian language with respect to the teaching of noun declensions by category?  Is this something that was popular at one time but has fallen into disuse for some reason?  Is this method of teaching Russian still in use and/or more popular in countries that use a case system (e.g., Germany)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I decided to post this question here after reading a comment someone had made in a discussion thread in Duolingo's [**Russian for English Speakers**](https://www.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online) course.  One of the users asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is &quot;люди&quot; a third declension noun when &quot;человек&quot; is first declension? How can one tell that its genitive plural should be &quot;людей&quot; and not &quot;люд&quot; or &quot;людов&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can link to the thread below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Is &quot;люди&quot; a third declension noun ...?**](https://www.duolingo.com/comment/12625939$comment_id=21921822)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any resources you can share or insight you can provide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15287" RevisionGUID="8ccf51c0-84da-485d-b62e-8b25dfb1d846" CreationDate="2017-11-26T12:09:12.433" UserId="2104" Text="Plural endings are mostly the same across all three declension types with the exception of the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive plural is indeed very irregular. My five year old son (Russian being his first language) still makes lots of mistakes in this form (кораблёв, лодков, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a few general patterns to help you choose the ending (-ов/-ей or null):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If nominative singular ends in **-ь** or a sibilant (ж/ш/щ/ч), then genitive plural will end in **-ей**: корабль - кораблей, конь - коней, ночь - ночей, мать - матерей, нож - ножей, мяч - мячей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Those ending in -а in singular nominative will likely have a null ending in genitive plural: рука - рук, сторона - сторон, сила - сил, девушка - девушек, тройка - троек. Some of these with the stem ending in a soft or sibilant have variants with *-ей*: свеча - свеч/свечей, доля - доль/долей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Neuter nouns (ending in **-о/-е/-ё**) normally get a null ending: дело - дел, окно - окон,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The rest are likely to get the ending **-ов/-ев/-ёв** which is probably the largest category: стол - столов, дом - домов, месяц - месяцев, герой - героев, соловей - соловьёв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there are lots of odd ones like волос - волос, глаз - глаз, человек - человек/людей, яйцо - яиц, etc. which have to be memorised separately. I'm only mentioning these because they are high-frequency words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the most generic rules. I'll stop here because otherwise this answer can get too involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I've written an [article about Russian declension][1] but it's in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://morpher.ru/Russian/Noun.aspx#genplur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15287" RevisionGUID="e96b4afd-9025-4495-9529-6fece942629e" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:00:53.857" UserId="2104" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="Plural endings are mostly the same across all three declension types with the exception of the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive plural is indeed very irregular. My five year old son (Russian being his first language) still makes lots of mistakes in this form (кораблёв, лодков, варежков, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a few general patterns to help you choose the ending (-ов/-ей or null):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If nominative singular ends in **-ь** or a sibilant (ж/ш/щ/ч), then genitive plural will end in **-ей**: кора́бль - корабле́й, конь - коне́й, ночь - ноче́й, мать - матере́й, нож - ноже́й, мяч - мяче́й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Those ending in -а in singular nominative will likely have a null ending in genitive plural: рука́ - рук, сторона́ - сторо́н, си́ла - сил, де́вушка - де́вушек, тро́йка - тро́ек. Some of these with the stem ending in a soft or sibilant have variants with *-ей*: свеча́ - свеч/свече́й, до́ля - доль/доле́й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Neuter nouns (ending in **-о/-е/-ё**) normally get a null ending: де́ло - дел, окно́ - о́кон, кре́сло - кре́сел, зда́ние - зда́ний, копьё - ко́пий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The rest are likely to get the ending **-ов/-ев/-ёв** which is probably the largest category: стол - столо́в, дом - домо́в, ме́сяц - ме́сяцев, геро́й - геро́ев, солове́й - соловьёв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there are lots of odd ones like во́лос - воло́с, глаз - глаз, челове́к - челове́к/люде́й, яйцо́ - яи́ц, etc. which have to be memorised separately. I'm only mentioning these because they are high-frequency words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the most generic rules. I'll stop here because otherwise this answer can get too involved. Let me know in the comments if you'd like it to be expanded to include smaller groups of nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I've written an [article about Russian declension][1] but it's in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://morpher.ru/Russian/Noun.aspx#genplur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15288" RevisionGUID="48867c40-dd51-42c2-b9d9-04d4abf274ae" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:10:06.183" UserId="7674" Text="Declension group is usually mentioned in grammatical dictionaries articles for nouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular they're indicated in the articles of https://ru.wiktionary.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of declensions by word are provided by quite a few websites of the Runet ([just a random search][1]) but i'm not sure if any of them lists the actual declension group as well besides the actual declension table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, `деньги` doesn't only exist in plural form, as there's its usable singular form `деньга`, although admittedly not too actively usable, but isn't completely obsolete either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=lbkaWtL1DIzewQKK_oCYDA&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;oq=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1l2j0i22i30i19k1l2.2773.5560.0.6196.16.14.0.0.0.0.360.1646.0j9j0j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.10.1637.0..0j46j0i46k1.0.TTNj_rIPiFA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15287" RevisionGUID="7036baff-f600-4960-93e7-5a58bf3d5ce6" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:10:36.713" UserId="2104" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Plural endings are mostly the same across all three declension types with the exception of the genitive case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive plural is indeed very irregular. My five year old son (Russian being his first language) still makes lots of mistakes in this form (кораблёв, лодков, варежков, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a few general patterns to help you choose the ending (-ов/-ей or null):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If nominative singular ends in **-ь** or a sibilant (ж/ш/щ/ч), then genitive plural will end in **-ей**: кора́бль - корабле́й, конь - коне́й, ночь - ноче́й, мать - матере́й, нож - ноже́й, мяч - мяче́й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Those ending in **-а/-я** in singular nominative will likely have a null ending in genitive plural: рука́ - рук, сторона́ - сторо́н, си́ла - сил, де́вушка - де́вушек, тро́йка - тро́ек, баня - бань. Some of these with the stem ending in a soft or sibilant have variants with *-ей*: свеча́ - свеч/свече́й, до́ля - доль/доле́й, дя́дя - дя́дей, ю́ноша - ю́ношей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Neuter nouns (ending in **-о/-е/-ё**) normally get a null ending: де́ло - дел, окно́ - о́кон, кре́сло - кре́сел, зда́ние - зда́ний, копьё - ко́пий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The rest are likely to get the ending **-ов/-ев/-ёв** which is probably the largest category: стол - столо́в, дом - домо́в, ме́сяц - ме́сяцев, геро́й - геро́ев, солове́й - соловьёв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there are lots of odd ones like во́лос - воло́с, глаз - глаз, челове́к - челове́к/люде́й, яйцо́ - яи́ц, etc. which have to be memorised separately. I'm only mentioning these because they are high-frequency words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the most generic rules. I'll stop here because otherwise this answer can get too involved. Let me know in the comments if you'd like it to be expanded to include smaller groups of nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I've written an [article about Russian declension][1] but it's in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://morpher.ru/Russian/Noun.aspx#genplur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15285" RevisionGUID="a10f20c3-879a-45ed-b226-10e629eca523" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:16:23.477" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="A suffix `-онк(а)` appended to a root ending with `К-Ч/Х-Ш/Г-Ж` of feminine (and rarely masculine) nouns always impart a word either a diminutive or derogatory connotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рубаха/рубашка - рубашонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`мошна - мошонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рука/ручка - ручонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`юбка/обочка - юбчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`дева/девка/девочка - девчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`книга/книжка - книжонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`река/речка - речонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`старуха/старушка - старушонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`малец/мальчик - мальчонка` (here the form is feminine but the gender is still masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a suffix `-онок` also derives masculine noun with these same connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`сука - сучонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`бочка - бочонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`белка - бельчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`заяц/зайка/зайчик - зайчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`кроль/кролик - крольчонок`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15288" RevisionGUID="a9db232f-79e7-4575-95a1-de30c03a4d6e" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:32:48.883" UserId="7674" Comment="added 513 characters in body" Text="Declension group is usually mentioned in grammatical dictionaries articles for nouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular they're indicated in the articles of https://ru.wiktionary.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of declensions by word are provided by quite a few websites of the Runet ([just a random search][1]) but i'm not sure if any of them lists the actual declension group as well besides the actual declension table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, `деньги` doesn't only exist in plural form, as there's its usable singular form `деньга`, although admittedly not too actively usable, but isn't completely obsolete either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to figure out possible declension group of a given word it might be worthwhile recalling any familiar words built after the same pattern as there're good chances that they will inflect identically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example in the case of `люди`, there's a morphologically identical word  `груди` which unlike `люди` does have a singular form `грудь`, and unsurprisingly plural forms of both words inflect identically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's true for even `бигуди` as well despite shift in the word stress to the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For `сутки` a suitable guide would be `утки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=lbkaWtL1DIzewQKK_oCYDA&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;oq=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1l2j0i22i30i19k1l2.2773.5560.0.6196.16.14.0.0.0.0.360.1646.0j9j0j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.10.1637.0..0j46j0i46k1.0.TTNj_rIPiFA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15288" RevisionGUID="7764cbc1-62a1-43d9-ad7b-e444fb609c90" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:40:11.470" UserId="7674" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Declension group is usually mentioned in grammatical dictionaries articles for nouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular they're indicated in the articles of https://ru.wiktionary.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of declensions by word are provided by quite a few websites of the Runet ([just a random search][1]) but i'm not sure if any of them lists the actual declension group as well besides the actual declension table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, `деньги` doesn't only exist in plural form, as there's its usable singular form `деньга`, although admittedly not too actively usable, but isn't completely obsolete either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to figure out possible declension group of a given word it might be worthwhile recalling any familiar words built after the same pattern as there're good chances that they will inflect identically (this is the way i imagine how children learn the language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example in the case of `люди`, there's a morphologically identical word  `груди` which unlike `люди` does have a singular form `грудь`, and unsurprisingly plural forms of both words inflect identically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's true for even `бигуди` as well despite shift in the word stress to the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For `сутки` a suitable guide would be `утки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=lbkaWtL1DIzewQKK_oCYDA&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;oq=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1l2j0i22i30i19k1l2.2773.5560.0.6196.16.14.0.0.0.0.360.1646.0j9j0j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.10.1637.0..0j46j0i46k1.0.TTNj_rIPiFA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15288" RevisionGUID="a1cb17c6-59f8-4e69-8b23-8388e854bcd6" CreationDate="2017-11-26T13:52:11.270" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Declension group is usually mentioned in grammatical dictionaries articles for nouns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular they're indicated in the articles of https://ru.wiktionary.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lists of declensions by word are provided by quite a few websites of the Runet ([just a random search][1]) but i'm not sure if any of them lists the actual declension group as well besides the declension table&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, `деньги` doesn't only exist in plural form, as there's its usable singular form `деньга`, admittedly not too actively usable, but isn't completely obsolete either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to figure out possible declension group of a given word it might be worthwhile recalling any familiar words built after the same pattern as there're good chances that they will inflect identically (this is the way i imagine how children learn the language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example in the case of `люди`, there's a morphologically identical word  `груди` which unlike `люди` does have a singular form `грудь`, and unsurprisingly plural forms of both words inflect identically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's true for even `бигуди` as well despite shift in the word stress to the last syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For `сутки` a suitable guide would be `утки`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=lbkaWtL1DIzewQKK_oCYDA&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;oq=%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1l2j0i22i30i19k1l2.2773.5560.0.6196.16.14.0.0.0.0.360.1646.0j9j0j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.10.1637.0..0j46j0i46k1.0.TTNj_rIPiFA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37907" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15281" RevisionGUID="eab9c08c-c344-4f82-824b-8c1364fcc772" CreationDate="2017-11-26T14:45:45.817" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15289" RevisionGUID="0be8aa3c-3139-4f0a-82f5-44da1b30fca3" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:49:08.960" UserId="9540" Text=" I need to know if задница is slang and/or offensive. Or is it appropriate in polite conversation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15289" RevisionGUID="0be8aa3c-3139-4f0a-82f5-44da1b30fca3" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:49:08.960" UserId="9540" Text="Is the word задница vulgar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15289" RevisionGUID="0be8aa3c-3139-4f0a-82f5-44da1b30fca3" CreationDate="2017-11-26T18:49:08.960" UserId="9540" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15290" RevisionGUID="1e8454e4-924b-46a7-a901-5cd4e81ded1d" CreationDate="2017-11-26T19:19:50.073" UserId="7674" Text="It's not offensive (unless used as a designation for a person) and not slang but vulgar it is, not quite as `жопа` оr worse, but enough to be avoided in a polite conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead some literary/medical/anatomical terms are preferred or naming it with euphemisms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15290" RevisionGUID="1462a919-78a5-4274-96c4-2bac44cf19c8" CreationDate="2017-11-26T19:37:32.500" UserId="7674" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="It's not offensive (unless used as a designation for a person) and not slang but vulgar it is, not quite as `жопа` оr worse, but enough to be avoided in a polite conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead some literary/medical/anatomical terms are preferred or naming it with euphemisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not tagged as vulgar in the dictionary unlike `жопа` https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/задница&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But any of the usage examples can't be considered polite or decent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15290" RevisionGUID="773cd935-b8df-42df-93b0-7ce13a8171ab" CreationDate="2017-11-26T19:44:34.687" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's not offensive (unless used as a designation for a person) and not slang but vulgar it is, not quite as `жопа` оr worse, but enough to be avoided in a polite conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead some literary/medical/anatomical terms are preferred or naming it with euphemisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not tagged as vulgar in the dictionary unlike `жопа` https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/задница&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But none of the usage examples can be considered polite or decent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15286" RevisionGUID="b4cece3b-795f-470c-83c8-17fa77b6618f" CreationDate="2017-11-26T21:00:32.347" UserId="8742" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Occasionally I see a reference to categorized noun declensions (e.g., first, second, third).  I would imagine some question whether or not learning about such declensions is essential to learning the Russian language, but it does appear that this categorization of declensions is being taught in this way to some students and I'd like to be able to more fully understand the questions or comments written about such declensions.  However, I haven't had much luck in finding anything truly helpful.  I find references to such resources few and far between and not all that comprehensive.  I have visited the following thread:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Order of declensions (склонения)**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/289/order-of-declensions-%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%bb%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and it was very good.  I even visited some of the links listed in it, but it appears that the only references I can find with noun declension categories that categorize nouns, for the most part, are for those in singular form.  Are there any for those found in plural form only (like the word &quot;люди&quot;)?  And in the absence of any pre-established categorization of the declensions of nouns found in plural form only, has anyone reading this discovered or noticed any particular patterns (e.g., plural nouns ending in __, are usually __ in the genitive plural)?  Or is there just not enough of them to bother creating rules and categories for?  In a quick glance of the [**Top 500 Russian Nouns**](http://masterrussian.com/vocabulary/common_nouns.htm), as listed at MasterRussian.com,  I think I only saw a couple of nouns that appear to be in plural form only (i.e., деньги, сутки).  Based off of this, I presume that the number of Russian nouns found in plural form only is less than 1 percent and quite likely very difficult to make generalizations about or categorize.  But if any do exist, especially if they are online and free, please share them with us.  (Ideally, there's some sort of online dictionary or database that allows me to type in a word and returns with information that includes what declension category the word belongs to.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, while I am at it, does anyone know the history of teaching the Russian language with respect to the teaching of noun declensions by category?  Is this something that was popular at one time but has fallen into disuse for some reason?  Is this method of teaching Russian still in use and/or more popular in countries that use a case system (e.g., Germany)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, I decided to post this question here after reading a comment someone had made in a discussion thread in Duolingo's [**Russian for English Speakers**](https://www.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online) course.  One of the users asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is &quot;люди&quot; a third declension noun when &quot;человек&quot; is first declension? How can one tell that its genitive plural should be &quot;людей&quot; and not &quot;люд&quot; or &quot;людов&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can link to the thread below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Is &quot;люди&quot; a third declension noun ...?**](https://www.duolingo.com/comment/12625939$comment_id=21921822)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any resources you can share or insight you can provide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15291" RevisionGUID="bd989969-0897-4bf6-b3d5-4b5137656957" CreationDate="2017-11-26T23:47:20.447" UserDisplayName="user9822" Text="Please see the screenshot ([original](https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master/1091)) with my question inscribed: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vDfsy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15291" RevisionGUID="bd989969-0897-4bf6-b3d5-4b5137656957" CreationDate="2017-11-26T23:47:20.447" UserDisplayName="user9822" Text="What semantic notions underlie 'to see, show' and 'order'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15291" RevisionGUID="bd989969-0897-4bf6-b3d5-4b5137656957" CreationDate="2017-11-26T23:47:20.447" UserDisplayName="user9822" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15292" RevisionGUID="bc028824-e88e-49e1-84fc-f02af75459a6" CreationDate="2017-11-26T23:58:01.920" UserId="9823" Text="It's not exactly polite and it can be offensive depending on the context (e.g. `подними свою задницу и сделай что-нибудь` = `get off your ass and do something`), but it's not vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15293" RevisionGUID="e3c3e1cb-97e1-4604-81f7-23fea1810eb1" CreationDate="2017-11-27T05:18:47.240" UserId="9824" Text="The verb *ukazat* (*указать*, *указывать*) comes from the noun *указ* which means decree, ruling. This was typically used for decrees issued by Tsars. Thus, the original meaning of *указать* is to give **order**/direction to do something or to behave in a certain way. Nowadays this meaning is often used within family context, for example a teenage child fed up with parents' orders might say to them &quot;кончайте мне указывать!&quot; (&quot;stop telling me what to do!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the more common meaning of *указать* is to show, demonstrate, point someone to something specific or some detail within a wider area, especially when that someone is seeking the detail. For example, the police may bring a robbery victim in front of several suspects and ask the victim to *указать* (**show**/point to) the one who robbed him. Or a criminal may, while interrogated, *указать* (**show**/reveal/disclose) his accomplices. Or one may *указать* the location of the treasure on the Treasure Island map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of &quot;to **see**&quot; is no more relevant in this context than the fact that the person being showed something can / supposed to see it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15290" RevisionGUID="d2ce613d-3a97-4177-b183-e1ab27aea6ad" CreationDate="2017-11-27T07:44:44.847" UserId="8895" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's not offensive (unless used as a designation for a person) and not slang but vulgar it is, not quite like `жопа` оr worse, but enough to be avoided in a polite conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead some literary/medical/anatomical terms are preferred or naming it with euphemisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not tagged as vulgar in the dictionary unlike `жопа` https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/задница&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But none of the usage examples can be considered polite or decent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15289" RevisionGUID="169f9dc1-1b24-47cc-9992-0ec502d27cdd" CreationDate="2017-11-27T07:52:07.360" UserId="8895" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I need to know if &quot;задница&quot; is slang and/or offensive. Or is it appropriate in polite conversation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37922" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15289" RevisionGUID="169f9dc1-1b24-47cc-9992-0ec502d27cdd" CreationDate="2017-11-27T07:52:07.360" UserId="8895" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Is the word &quot;задница&quot; vulgar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15294" RevisionGUID="6658eec1-1c02-46ce-9966-a5b34ca317b9" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:04:01.547" UserId="7674" Text="`Указ` is a type of a formal order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real life example: when a master orders (`приказывает` or `даёт указание/приказ`) a servant or a slave to do something he might indicate that with a gesture of finger pointing (`указывает`) to the side as if **showing** (`показывает`) what he must do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gesture of finger pointing can be interpreted as drawing someone's attention to the object being pointed at, and so **showing** them that object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian `index finger` is `указательный палец`, because it's used for pointing at (`указывать`) things and as it were reveal them to others, or **show**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to semantic link with **to see**, to me it seems rather weak. Other than the fact that `seeing` could result from `indicating/pointing at/showing` it could be said that the verb `видеться`, a cognate of `видеть`,  is synonym of the verb `казаться`, itself a cognate of `указ`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15294" RevisionGUID="2025ae54-055f-4379-8766-0bd59e786a88" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:10:53.160" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="`Указ` is a type of a formal order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real life example: when a master orders (`приказывает` or `даёт указание/приказ`) a servant or a slave to do something he might indicate that with a gesture of finger pointing (`указывает`) to the side as if **showing** (`показывает`) what he must do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gesture of finger pointing can be interpreted as drawing someone's attention to the object being pointed at, and so **showing** them that object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian as in English `index finger` is `указательный палец`, because it's used for indicating/pointing at (`указывать`) things and as it were revealing them to others, or **showing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to semantic link with **to see**, to me it seems rather weak. Other than the fact that `seeing` could result from `indicating/pointing at/showing` it could be said that the verb `видеться`, a cognate of `видеть`,  is synonym of the verb `казаться`, itself a cognate of `указ`, and that another way of saying `покажи!` (show me) could be `дай посмотреть!` (let me see).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15294" RevisionGUID="6e443d27-3e28-4369-99d4-ba5e207b1383" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:16:02.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="`Указ` is a type of a formal order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real life example: when a master orders (`приказывает` or `даёт указание/приказ`) a servant or a slave to do something he might indicate that with a gesture of finger pointing (`указывает`) to the side as if **showing** (`показывает`) what he must do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gesture of finger pointing can be interpreted as drawing someone's attention to the object being pointed at, and so **showing** them that object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian as in English `index finger` is `указательный палец`, because it's used for indicating/pointing at (`указывать`) things and as it were revealing them to others, or **showing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to semantic link with **to see**, to me it seems rather weak. Other than the fact that `seeing` could result from `indicating/pointing at/showing` it could be said that the verb `видеться`, a cognate of `видеть`,  is a synonym of the verb `казаться`, itself a cognate of `указ`, and that another way of saying `покажи!` (**show** me) might be `дай/позволь посмотреть!` (let me **see**).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15294" RevisionGUID="b17c059a-6330-4f26-9292-ca784e6fe4c0" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:22:10.360" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="`Указ` is a type of a formal order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real life example: when a master orders (`приказывает` or `даёт указание/приказ`) a servant or a slave to do something he might indicate that with a gesture of finger pointing (`указывает`) to the side as if **showing** (`показывает`) what he must do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gesture of finger pointing can be interpreted as drawing someone's attention to the object being pointed at, and so **showing** them that object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian as in English `index finger` is `указательный палец`, because it's used for indicating/pointing at (`указывать`) things and as it were revealing them to others, or **showing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to semantic link with **to see**, to me it seems rather weak. Other than the fact that `seeing` could result from `indicating/pointing at/showing` it could be said that the verb `видеться`, a cognate of `видеть`,  is a synonym of the verb `казаться`, itself a cognate of `указ`, and that another way of saying `по-каж-и!` (**show** me) might be `дай/позволь по-смотр-еть!` (let me **see**/have a **look**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15294" RevisionGUID="b076f65a-4317-4a2f-9f9c-0b40d0d66765" CreationDate="2017-11-27T09:35:30.063" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="`Указ` is a type of a formal order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real life example: when a master orders (`приказывает` or `даёт указание/приказ`) a servant or a slave to do something he might indicate that with a gesture of finger pointing (`указывает`) to the side as if **showing** (`показывает`) what he must do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gesture of finger pointing can be interpreted as drawing someone's attention to the object being pointed at, and so **showing** them that object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian as in English `index finger` is `указательный палец`, because it's used for indicating/pointing at (`указывать`) things and as it were revealing them to others, or **showing**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to semantic link with **to see**, to me it seems rather weak. Other than the fact that `seeing` could result from `indicating/pointing at/showing` it could be said that the verb `видеться`, a cognate of `видеть`,  is a synonym of the verb `казаться`, itself a cognate of `указ`, and that another way of saying `по-каж-и!` (**show** me) might be `дай/позволь по-смотр-еть!` (let me **see**/let me have a **look**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37928" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15291" RevisionGUID="7861e01b-6d61-4936-935c-8ba7e7b0b08a" CreationDate="2017-11-27T11:02:33.617" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15295" RevisionGUID="ea7c9da5-4787-45c8-8a8c-632f7423c323" CreationDate="2017-11-27T12:35:30.893" UserId="5443" Text="Some ways of moving from rudeness towards politeness in case referring to that body part can't be avoided:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *попа* - a direct reference, often used in conversation with children or with a patient about an upcoming injection (informally; medically formal is &quot;укол в ягодицу&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2. *мягкое место* - used to describe comic situations, etc. - with some friendly irony&#xD;&#xA;3. *(то, что) пониже спины* (slightly informal, neutral reference)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15296" RevisionGUID="550ce056-5c0d-4b5e-8c75-80ca88f3d92c" CreationDate="2017-11-27T13:08:50.860" UserId="9606" Text="As others mentioned, `задница` is not an extremely rude word. You can hear it quite often in television (in a movie or TV series), but you should never use it in polite conversation, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more examples about referring to that part of a body:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`пятая точка` - neutral word, one of the best ways to mention it in the polite conversation. Even teachers sometimes use this in schools jokingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`попец` - good word to use in friendly conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Серёг, подвинься немного, ты своим *попцом* все печенья сейчас раздавишь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15297" RevisionGUID="d82b690d-ab00-4321-91b7-0ac9149858fb" CreationDate="2017-11-27T15:27:10.240" UserId="1212" Text="The part of the body was considered a bit improper to mention. And the word was considered as the a decent way to speak about an indecent part of body. As all these decent euphemisms, it too, started to transgress into becoming rude, had already got a touch of being funny and a little bit rude in the first half of 20th century, but didn't become an indecent word. And, I think, never will, for the subject itself is no more considered indecent in the contemporary life and language, and even the most rude form becomes acceptable in and by the cultural speech, TV, literature and even poems for children, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Жопа есть, а слова - нет?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, now the word &quot;задница&quot; is not indecent or improper even a little bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15298" RevisionGUID="4240d988-f8d1-4e25-853d-6fb368678ff5" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:01:13.587" UserId="5375" Text="Is it acceptable in modern Russian to address a person as &quot;господин Смирнов&quot; / &quot;госпожа Смирнова&quot;? Or does that sound weird, outdated, or perhaps condescending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15298" RevisionGUID="4240d988-f8d1-4e25-853d-6fb368678ff5" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:01:13.587" UserId="5375" Text="Is господин and госпожа acceptable words in modern Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15298" RevisionGUID="4240d988-f8d1-4e25-853d-6fb368678ff5" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:01:13.587" UserId="5375" Text="|словоупотребление|социолингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15299" RevisionGUID="3d57e837-f875-4571-a47e-28ebcb288339" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:30:55.880" UserId="9459" Text="Short answer: It is fully equivalent to Mr./Ms. nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: typing..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15299" RevisionGUID="0b2e0c13-be05-47d3-a24b-5b4b109ef530" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:40:27.497" UserId="9459" Comment="typesetting" Text="*Short answer:* It is fully equivalent to Mr./Ms. nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer:* `Господин`/`госпожа` is a modern polite address, to be combined with the _last name_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Господин Иванов!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible polite address is also first name + patronymic if you know it. It's more polite, but also somewhat closer. Not a clerk to a customer, but business partners to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Иванович!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It _was_ not acceptable in the Soviet times because of the &quot;bourgeois&quot; connotations, as it was the address in tsar era. Soviet times had `товарищ` (i.e. the over-used &quot;commrade&quot;) and `гражданин`/`гражданка` (&quot;citizen&quot;, used rather in unique circumstances when the addressed person &quot;was not a commrade&quot;,  i.e. that how a coroner could address the murderer suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Товарищ Сидоров!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still somewhat in use is `гражданин`/`гражданка`, as it has no &quot;communist&quot; connotation, although quite special, even if not in the above sense. When in doubt, use `господин`/`госпожа`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To call out someone on the streat (&quot;hey, you!&quot;, &quot;excuse me!&quot;, etc.) use `молодой человек`/`девушка`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушка, вы обронили билет!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15300" RevisionGUID="5d1a64bd-2743-4136-b84b-712ad1a791bf" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:49:07.113" UserId="9603" Text="Generally voiced consonants become unvoiced when they're at the end of a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **д**  is pronounced   **т**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **б** is pronounced **п**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **в** is pronounced **ф**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **г** is pronounced **к**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ж** is pronounced **ш**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **з** is pronounced **с**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any exceptions to this rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15300" RevisionGUID="5d1a64bd-2743-4136-b84b-712ad1a791bf" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:49:07.113" UserId="9603" Text="Voiced consonants at the end of words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15300" RevisionGUID="5d1a64bd-2743-4136-b84b-712ad1a791bf" CreationDate="2017-11-27T20:49:07.113" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15301" RevisionGUID="b98c3134-1f71-4063-97bb-e366a9056ab2" CreationDate="2017-11-27T21:21:05.550" UserId="2104" Text="No.&#xA;&#xA;Unless you want to 'spell out' a word. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15301" RevisionGUID="00afc3c1-3b89-4096-9093-0968a0cdc242" CreationDate="2017-11-27T21:26:32.973" UserId="2104" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="No.&#xA;&#xA;Unless you want to 'spell out' a word, e.g. you could say Глеб with the voiced Б. This is the most common way of explaining how something is written, rather than spelling out individual letters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15301" RevisionGUID="cb7923c4-a82b-4b43-a442-581bf87a1621" CreationDate="2017-11-27T21:37:48.837" UserId="2104" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="No.&#xA;&#xA;Unless you want to 'spell out' a word, e.g. you could say Глеб with the voiced Б. This is the most common way of explaining how something is written, rather than spelling out individual letters.&#xA;&#xA;Oh, one other exception, a rather important one: if the next word starts with a voiced consonant, then the final consonant also becomes voiced, even if it was unvoiced: кот был, код был both have [д], while кот стал, код стал both have [т] before [с]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15301" RevisionGUID="048433d9-18cb-4fc9-b2e3-2073841d0865" CreationDate="2017-11-27T23:12:48.490" UserId="2104" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="Yes, if the next word starts with a voiced consonant (of those you listed), then the final consonant also becomes voiced, even if it was unvoiced: **кот был, код был** both have [д], while **кот стал, код стал** both have [т] before [с]. This only happens in continuous speech, when there is no pauses between the two words. See [Final-obstruent devoicing][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voicing and devoicing happens not only at word boundaries, but also at morpheme boundaries. E.g. in **посадка** the Д sounds like a Т and **сделка** is pronounced with an initial [з-]. See [Оглушение согласных][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you want to 'spell out' a word, you could say e.g. **Глеб** with the voiced Б. This is the most common way of explaining how something is written, rather than spelling out individual letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final-obstruent_devoicing#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://megabook.ru/article/%D0%9E%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15302" RevisionGUID="37fc0b43-66dc-4eca-b637-863a33e30a5b" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:57:05.390" UserId="9603" Text="What is the right way to pronounce **большую**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wiktionary][1] mentions both *бо́льшую* and &#xD;&#xA;[*большу́ю*][2], what's the difference between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a special case that you just have to live with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15302" RevisionGUID="37fc0b43-66dc-4eca-b637-863a33e30a5b" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:57:05.390" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of большую" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15302" RevisionGUID="37fc0b43-66dc-4eca-b637-863a33e30a5b" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:57:05.390" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15303" RevisionGUID="66303e68-4e56-49c7-8678-cb0ea8128078" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:22:49.390" UserId="179" Text="1. Больш**а**я (with the emphasis on the &quot;а&quot;) — is the adjective &quot;big&quot; for feminine nouns, like больш**а**я победа (a big victory, a big win), больш**а**я машина (a big car) etc. больш**у**ю in this case is the word больш**а**я in the genitive or instrumental case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Б**о**льшая (with the emphasis on the &quot;о&quot;) — is a bit complicated. Roughly speaking, it's an equivalent of the word &quot;bigger&quot; in English, but with considerable catches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it's used only when referring to something feminine, which/who is bigger out of several other things: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which car should I buy? Take a bigger one. -&gt; Какую машину стоит мне купить? Возьми б**о**льшую. &#xD;&#xA; - it's not used when comparing these things directly (as one can see, there is no word б**о**льшая in that case):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car is bigger, than that one. -&gt; Эта машина **больше** той&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**NOT** Эта машина б**о**льшая той&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word больш**у**ю in case 2 is the word б**о**льшая in the genitive or instrumental case, likewise in case 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarize, **both ways are correct**, because the words are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all the cases of this kind (больш**а**я — б**о**льшая), here is the list (the adjectives here also have to be declined properly, this is only their initial form in the nominative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - больш**о**й (big) / б**о**льший (roughly &quot;bigger&quot;) — adjectives to use with the masculine nouns&#xD;&#xA; - больш**а**я (big) / б**о**льшая (roughly &quot;bigger&quot;) — adjectives to use with the feminine nouns&#xD;&#xA; - больш**о**е (big) / б**о**льшее (roughly &quot;bigger&quot;) — adjectives to use with the so-called &quot;middle gender&quot; nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15304" RevisionGUID="5a5818d2-02b3-4e06-b7d0-701eff2ae904" CreationDate="2017-11-29T06:00:12.260" UserId="5443" Text="A compact explanation. These are two words of different *meaning* and *stress position* which doesn't vary with cases. Depending on case/gender, the two words may differ in *spelling*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Большо́й** (-ая, fem.) means **big**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льший** (-ая, fem.) means **the bigger** (one/part - of whatever is available).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льшую** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of *бо́льший* and **большу́ю** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of большо́й (the spelling *coincides* for female). The spelling here (fem. + singular) will differ for cases *other than* nominative/accusative: **большо́й/бо́льшей**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15304" RevisionGUID="96b4dfdf-7a08-4a47-980c-0dc10cd07f2a" CreationDate="2017-11-29T06:23:53.633" UserId="5443" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A compact explanation. These are two words of different *meaning* and *stress position* which doesn't vary with cases. Depending on case/gender, the two words may differ in *spelling*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Большо́й** (-а́я, fem.) means **big**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льший** (-ая, fem.) means **the bigger** (one/part - of whatever is available).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льшую** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of *бо́льшая* and **большу́ю** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of больша́я (the spelling in the accusative/nominative *coincides* for female). The spelling here (fem. + singular) will differ for cases *other than* nominative/accusative: **большо́й/бо́льшей**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15304" RevisionGUID="a3639be5-4856-462d-9f40-6a5f2f4c9a48" CreationDate="2017-11-29T08:14:52.730" UserId="5443" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="A compact explanation. These are two words of different *meaning* and *stress position* which doesn't vary with cases. Depending on case/gender, the two words may differ in *spelling*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Большо́й** (-а́я, fem.) means **big**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льший** (-ая, fem.) means **the bigger** (one/part - of whatever is available).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льшую** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of *бо́льшая* and **большу́ю** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of больша́я (the spelling in the accusative/nominative *coincides* for female). The spelling here (fem. + singular) will differ for cases *other than* nominative/accusative: **большо́й/бо́льшей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the *stress position* always corresponds to the initial adjective's *meaning*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37953" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15298" RevisionGUID="ec4c3daf-c20d-479b-af53-914426384f98" CreationDate="2017-11-29T10:29:04.883" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;господин&quot; and &quot;госпожа&quot; acceptable words in modern Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15285" RevisionGUID="968c7501-de44-45c9-ac2a-c2f8d06932b8" CreationDate="2017-11-29T15:48:55.110" UserId="7674" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="A suffix `-онк(а)` appended to a root ending with `К-Ч/Х-Ш/Г-Ж` of feminine (and rarely masculine) nouns always impart a word either a diminutive or derogatory connotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рубаха/рубашка - рубашонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`мошна - мошонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рука/ручка - ручонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`юбка/обочка - юбчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`дева/девка/девочка - девчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`книга/книжка - книжонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`река/речка - речонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`старуха/старушка - старушонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`малец/мальчик - мальчонка` (here the form is feminine but the gender is still masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a suffix `-онок` also derives masculine noun with these same connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`сука - сучонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`бочка - бочонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`белка - бельчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`заяц/зайка/зайчик - зайчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`кроль/кролик - крольчонок`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15304" RevisionGUID="d8f03b52-11ca-4e1a-8859-419631e6a775" CreationDate="2017-11-29T17:45:55.803" UserId="5443" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="A compact explanation. These are two words of different *meaning* and *stress position* which doesn't vary with cases. Depending on case/gender, the two words may differ in *spelling*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Большо́й** (-а́я, fem.) means **big**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льший** (-ая, fem.) means **the bigger** (one/part - of whatever is available).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бо́льшую** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of *бо́льшая* and **большу́ю** is the accusative case (fem. gender, singular) of больша́я (the spelling in the accusative/nominative *coincides* for feminine). The spelling here (fem. + singular) will differ for cases *other than* nominative/accusative: **большо́й/бо́льшей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the *stress position* always corresponds to the initial adjective's *meaning*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15305" RevisionGUID="fd2f9d63-c265-4d3e-86f6-6a497413a3e5" CreationDate="2017-11-29T21:07:19.637" UserId="9603" Text="I'm having a **very** hard time understanding this pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to assume that **ый** sounds like *ey* in *hey* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the word *сильный* for instance,&#xD;&#xA;the pronunciation on [forvo][1] is slightly different than the one on [wiktionary][2] , which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9/#ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15305" RevisionGUID="fd2f9d63-c265-4d3e-86f6-6a497413a3e5" CreationDate="2017-11-29T21:07:19.637" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;ый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15305" RevisionGUID="fd2f9d63-c265-4d3e-86f6-6a497413a3e5" CreationDate="2017-11-29T21:07:19.637" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15306" RevisionGUID="0747db3b-8a92-4c49-9b3a-c9fbaccfd796" CreationDate="2017-11-29T21:57:07.443" UserId="9863" Text="All three of forvo are correct, while Wiktionary sounds as сильн**и**й.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Hey* does not sound to me as a safe replacement of *ый*. As far as I know, the sound Ы does not exist in English. Have a look at this nice lesson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB61Fi1LluY " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15307" RevisionGUID="ebf1476e-4114-4d37-94ee-ff21c82969cd" CreationDate="2017-11-29T21:58:55.623" UserId="7674" Text="Only the last phoneme in `-ый` is similar to `ey` in `hey`, but not the entire syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely clear what part of the syllable is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The divergence may be due to difference in expression of different speakers, without proper effort in articulation (like in fluent speech) it may sound as just `-ы` without `-й`, which at this position is very short anyway (not without a reason the letter is named &quot;short И&quot;), getting reduced because the word stress is far removed from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't notice it being pronounced as `-ий` in the clips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15307" RevisionGUID="b9419d4e-9bac-4cde-a9b5-112b9def5f50" CreationDate="2017-11-29T22:08:39.753" UserId="7674" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Only the last phoneme in `-ый` is similar to `ey` in `hey`, but not the entire syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely clear what part of the syllable is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The divergence may be due to difference in expression of different speakers, without proper effort in articulation (like in fluent speech) it may sound as just `-ы` without `-й`, which at this position is very short anyway (not without a reason the letter is named &quot;short И&quot;), getting reduced because the word stress is far removed from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't notice it being pronounced as `-ий` in the clips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're trying to understand how `ы` is to be properly pronounced, i'd suggest taking notice of how English `duh` interjection is pronounced, because its vowel is quite close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15307" RevisionGUID="d009c0ca-9bf6-4d77-926a-0fd734898eb7" CreationDate="2017-11-29T22:16:09.640" UserId="7674" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Only the last phoneme in `-ый` is similar to `ey` in `hey`, but not the entire syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely clear what part of the syllable is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The divergence may be due to difference in expression of different speakers, without proper effort in articulation (like in fluent speech) it may sound as just `-ы` without `-й`, which at this position is very short anyway (not without a reason the letter is named &quot;short И&quot;), getting reduced because the word stress is far removed from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't notice it being pronounced as `-ий` in the clips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word contains both vowels с**И**льн**Ы**й and in the Wiktionary clip difference in their pronunciation is apparent. `И` softens consonants which precede it, whereas in the clip `Н` before `-ый` isn't softened, which would be the case had the ending been pronounced as `-ий`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're trying to understand how `ы` is to be properly pronounced, i'd suggest taking notice of how English `duh` interjection is pronounced, because its vowel is quite close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15308" RevisionGUID="e88ec1c0-4b62-43e6-ba25-db0173557421" CreationDate="2017-11-30T00:02:34.200" UserId="9863" Text="I would say господин/госпожа are very rarely used nowadays! I could only remember Что? Где? Когда? TV show as an example. In most cases when you say Mr./Ms. we say First Name + Patronymic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15309" RevisionGUID="3da8214c-cb5f-4283-8f01-d9938448ddee" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:40:50.053" UserId="6141" Text="I'm wondering how to translate this Star Wars quotation.   Both &quot;force&quot; and &quot;strong&quot; are сила/сильный.  So I'm wondering how to translate the n a way that's not repetitive.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15309" RevisionGUID="3da8214c-cb5f-4283-8f01-d9938448ddee" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:40:50.053" UserId="6141" Text="&quot;The force is strong with this one&quot; --перевод" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15309" RevisionGUID="3da8214c-cb5f-4283-8f01-d9938448ddee" CreationDate="2017-11-30T03:40:50.053" UserId="6141" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15307" RevisionGUID="4a758d7d-4fcc-4a0e-a6c5-bda20d586a2a" CreationDate="2017-11-30T08:45:40.230" UserId="7674" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Only the last phoneme in `-ый` is similar to `ey` in `hey`, but not the entire syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely clear what part of the syllable is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The divergence may be due to difference in expression of different speakers, without proper effort in articulation (like in fluent speech) it may sound as just `-ы` without `-й`, which at this position is very short anyway (not without a reason the letter is named &quot;short И&quot;), getting reduced because the word stress is far removed from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't notice it being pronounced as `-ий` in the clips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word contains both vowels с**И**льн**Ы**й and in the Wiktionary clip difference in their pronunciation is apparent. `И` softens consonants which precede it (save for `Ц`, which in combination `ЦИ` is pronounced as `ЦЫ`) whereas in the clip `Н` before `-ый` isn't softened, which would be the case had the ending been pronounced as `-ий`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're trying to understand how `ы` is to be properly pronounced, i'd suggest taking notice of how English `duh` interjection is pronounced, because its vowel is quite close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15310" RevisionGUID="38533460-d2bc-40ad-8f5c-46c416bae504" CreationDate="2017-11-30T08:48:37.207" UserId="7674" Text="Normally requests for translation are considered off-topic here, but anyway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `strong` indicates a great(er) degree/amount of `force`, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сила его велика**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15310" RevisionGUID="dae769c2-2643-4d47-9fbf-70e4cc0b7a56" CreationDate="2017-11-30T09:03:23.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Normally requests for translation are considered off-topic here, but anyway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `strong` indicates a great(er) degree/amount of `force`, not strength in the literal sense, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сила его велика**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37973" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15309" RevisionGUID="ce9d39b4-88a1-47fa-8f20-77a6c993812c" CreationDate="2017-11-30T11:41:52.460" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="37974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15307" RevisionGUID="b56582e0-f8a0-4d18-ac4c-dde02abadf2f" CreationDate="2017-11-30T12:58:28.687" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Only the last phoneme in `-ый` is similar to `ey` in `hey`, but not the entire syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not entirely clear what part of the syllable is a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The divergence may be due to difference in expression of different speakers, without proper effort in articulation (like in fluent speech) it may sound as just `-ы` without `-й`, which at this position is very short anyway (not without a reason the letter is named &quot;short И&quot;), getting reduced because the word stress is far removed from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't notice it being pronounced as `-ий` in the clips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word contains both vowels с**И**льн**Ы**й and in the Wiktionary clip difference in their pronunciation is apparent. `И` softens consonants which precede it (save for `Ц/Ж/Ш`, which in combination `ЦИ/ЖИ/ШИ` are pronounced as `ЦЫ/ЖЫ/ШЫ`) whereas in the clip `Н` before `-ый` isn't softened, which would be the case had the ending been pronounced as `-ий`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're trying to understand how `ы` is to be properly pronounced, i'd suggest taking notice of how English `duh` interjection is pronounced, because its vowel is quite close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13205" RevisionGUID="5b950012-1cd7-4770-bac7-6167651ca2f9" CreationDate="2017-11-30T22:23:22.380" UserId="4714" Comment="edited body" Text="Question words almost always come at the beginning. And if English is your native language then it's useful to think how we would ask such a question. What kind of student is he? In many cases the order is exactly opposite (because important info comes at the end of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;What kind of Student is he?&quot; He is less important than student, so it comes before студент.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какой он студент?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15303" RevisionGUID="ba683ac1-aa36-41d0-8d87-e25c35fea740" CreationDate="2017-12-01T00:14:11.230" UserId="179" Comment="correct the wrong name of the case" Text="1. Больш**а**я (with the emphasis on the &quot;а&quot;) — is the adjective &quot;big&quot; for feminine nouns, like больш**а**я победа (a big victory, a big win), больш**а**я машина (a big car) etc. больш**у**ю in this case is the word больш**а**я in the genitive or accusative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Б**о**льшая (with the emphasis on the &quot;о&quot;) — is a bit complicated. Roughly speaking, it's an equivalent of the word &quot;bigger&quot; in English, but with considerable catches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it's used only when referring to something feminine, which/who is bigger out of several other things: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which car should I buy? Take a bigger one. -&gt; Какую машину стоит мне купить? Возьми б**о**льшую. &#xD;&#xA; - it's not used when comparing these things directly (as one can see, there is no word б**о**льшая in that case):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car is bigger, than that one. -&gt; Эта машина **больше** той&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**NOT** Эта машина б**о**льшая той&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word больш**у**ю in case 2 is the word б**о**льшая in the genitive or instrumental case, likewise in case 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarize, **both ways are correct**, because the words are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize all the cases of this kind (больш**а**я — б**о**льшая), here is the list (the adjectives here also have to be declined properly, this is only their initial form in the nominative case):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - больш**о**й (big) / б**о**льший (roughly &quot;bigger&quot;) — adjectives to use with the masculine nouns&#xD;&#xA; - больш**а**я (big) / б**о**льшая (roughly &quot;bigger&quot;) — adjectives to use with the feminine nouns&#xD;&#xA; - больш**о**е (big) / б**о**льшее (roughly &quot;bigger&quot;) — adjectives to use with the so-called &quot;middle gender&quot; nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15312" RevisionGUID="e5478ef8-55ae-4bc1-a61d-0e27ced57792" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:19:42.200" UserId="3892" Text="In a chat about an annoying user (I believe in Russian you would call her a тролл), I came across the following comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну остаётся только **забить на неё**, мне кажется, её только подстегивает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; то, что с ней тут **цацкаются**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not knowing what some of the words meant, I posted it on a language app asking for a translation. A Russian native gave me a rough rendition in questionable English, which I in turn translated into *good* English, according to the original context, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The only thing left to do is to ignore her. I think it only encourages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; her when people make such a fuss over her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the Russians insist that this is incorrect. Could someone please indicate if there are an inaccuracies in my translation and what I'm missing? One of the critiques is that the English register is too mild. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15312" RevisionGUID="e5478ef8-55ae-4bc1-a61d-0e27ced57792" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:19:42.200" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of завить and цацкаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15312" RevisionGUID="e5478ef8-55ae-4bc1-a61d-0e27ced57792" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:19:42.200" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15312" RevisionGUID="8c774d02-2602-44b7-93ac-b97789fb1260" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:35:05.943" UserId="6097" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="In a chat about an annoying user (I believe in Russian you would call her a *тролль*), I came across the following comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну остаётся только **забить на неё**, мне кажется, её только подстегивает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; то, что с ней тут **цацкаются**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not knowing what some of the words meant, I posted it on a language app asking for a translation. A Russian native gave me a rough rendition in questionable English, which I in turn translated into *good* English, according to the original context, as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The only thing left to do is to ignore her. I think it only encourages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; her when people make such a fuss over her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the Russians insist that this is incorrect. Could someone please indicate if there are an inaccuracies in my translation and what I'm missing? One of the critiques is that the English register is too mild. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37982" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15312" RevisionGUID="8c774d02-2602-44b7-93ac-b97789fb1260" CreationDate="2017-12-01T13:35:05.943" UserId="6097" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Interpretation of &quot;забить&quot; and &quot;цацкаться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="b077c3b8-4bd6-4331-a5e6-bfb472ed6aa0" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:15:10.470" UserId="7674" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian uses colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="ec48a19f-591c-4c62-8c4f-604c458e93f5" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:19:51.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian uses colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a closer equivalent could probably look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, f.. her, she's just getting a kick out of the fact that everyone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here is wet nursing/mincing their words with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15314" RevisionGUID="c326e19a-49bb-4ecd-995a-6b0a6c0182da" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:23:07.203" UserId="9814" Text="I suppose the first part of the sentence has a good translation, but the second part I would translate like **when people take care of her too much** instead of **when people make such a fuss over her**, because in the Russian dictionaries ***цацкаться*** (the infinitive of the word ***цацкаются***) means ***to take care of someone too much.***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="cf3ec63a-e0b0-4eab-8094-3b0452535993" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:26:42.740" UserId="7674" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian phrase includes colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`цацка` is `a toy`, so on this basis the meaning of the verb may be derived, not exactly `играться` but within that semantic field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a closer equivalent could probably look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, f.. her, she's just getting a kick out of the fact that everyone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here is wet nursing/mincing their words with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="5ef4a175-cc3e-4a52-8000-673d52867a5e" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:33:31.820" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian phrase includes colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`цацка` is a derogatory name for `a toy`, so on this basis the meaning of the verb may be derived, not exactly `играться` but within that semantic field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a closer equivalent could probably look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, f.. her, she's just getting a kick out of the fact that everyone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here is wet nursing/mincing their words with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="f1d294c9-76fc-48ca-9363-3d371acf686e" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:43:39.563" UserId="7674" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian phrase includes colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`цацка` is a derogatory name for `a toy`, so on this basis the meaning of the verb may be derived, not exactly `играться` but within that semantic field, for example `to be lenient with`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a closer equivalent could probably look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, f.. her, she's just getting a kick out of the fact that everyone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here is wet nursing/mincing their words with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="7f7c5569-6eea-4691-980c-53b89b58c0e2" CreationDate="2017-12-01T14:54:06.660" UserId="7674" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian phrase includes colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`цацка` is a derogatory name for `a toy`, so on this basis the meaning of the verb may be derived, not exactly `играться` but within that semantic field, for example `to be lenient with`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is mostly used disapprovingly to describe systematic toleration of bad/uncivil behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a closer equivalent could probably look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, f.. her, she's just getting a kick out of the fact that everyone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here is wet nursing/mincing their words with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15313" RevisionGUID="a176968f-94c6-4f0c-bbfa-05872d028c84" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:16:57.957" UserId="7674" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct, more in the meaning than in the vocabulary, because the vocabulary of the Russian phrase includes colloquialisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Забить на...` is a shorthand or a more decent version of `забить х.. (profanity) на...`, which is very offensive, basically `to not give a f... about`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забей на него! - F... him! (as imperative)&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Забей на это! - F... that! (as imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Цацкаться` (as well as `панькаться`) is `to wet-nurse`, `to molly-coddle` as per [Multitran][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`цацка` is a derogatory name for `a toy`, so on this basis the meaning of the verb may be derived, not exactly `играться` but within that semantic field, for example `to be lenient with`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is mostly used disapprovingly to describe systematic toleration of bad/uncivil behavior and timid attempts at thwarting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a closer equivalent could probably look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Well, f.. her, she's just getting a kick out of the fact that everyone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; here is wet nursing/mincing their words with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%F6%E0%F6%EA%E0%F2%FC%F1%FF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15315" RevisionGUID="1c01d4f0-e25f-42e4-80e8-749b5ffa5928" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:41:46.207" UserId="9128" Text="The translation, indeed, sounds a bit too mild, however, the general meaning is correct. The author of the original Russian comment uses derogatory language (but note, not the [Russian mat](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mat_(Russian_profanity)), while your translation is much politer and misses emotional aspect and negative connotations of '*забить на неё*' and '*цацкаться*'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'*цацкаться*' indeed means to take care of someone too much, however, there is a connotation of spoiling the object of care by giving too much attention to it. It is close to a childcare observed in case of helicopter parents in their extreme version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a closer translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing we can do is to stop giving a shit about her. I believe that our fussing over her only encourages her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15315" RevisionGUID="f5546a0e-1dd2-4df8-bffd-238e882a1e38" CreationDate="2017-12-01T15:51:56.333" UserId="9128" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The translation, indeed, sounds a bit too mild, however, the general meaning is correct. The author of the original Russian comment uses derogatory language (but note, not the [Russian mat](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mat_(Russian_profanity))), while your translation is much politer and misses emotional aspect and negative connotations of '*забить на неё*' and '*цацкаться*'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'*цацкаться*' indeed means to take care of someone too much, however, there is a connotation of spoiling the object of care by giving too much attention to it. It is close to a childcare observed in case of helicopter parents in their extreme version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a closer translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing we can do is to stop giving a shit about her. I believe that our fussing over her only encourages her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15316" RevisionGUID="5bf51f54-8933-44df-8202-232c707ec022" CreationDate="2017-12-01T16:32:23.587" UserId="7716" Text="For more precision, we can say that obstruents (like the consonants you mention) devoice; but resonants (м, н, л, р) are exceptions in that they don't devoice in final position: so там, он, вал, and вор all end in voiced consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's admittedly a bit of a simplification - Jaye Padgett has a [paper][1] where he mentions disagreement about the degree of devoicing of resonants, in section 2.3. But my sense is that's the overall tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В is kind of marginal in that it does devoice in final position, but it doesn't cause voicing of a preceding consonant: свой [svoj], not *[zvoj].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/528-0702/528-0702-PADGETT-0-0.PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15317" RevisionGUID="1a25b4aa-baf2-4c30-8d49-6fca8f50c915" CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:43:55.310" UserId="4629" Text="I wouldn't say is necessarily should have something to do with science or technology. It's much simpler. &quot;Оснóвный&quot; means &quot;related to оснóва&quot; (base, bottom, foundation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation of основнóй above is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7747" RevisionGUID="95ac61f0-21ab-4630-a70b-27393a060ef1" CreationDate="2017-12-01T18:48:13.520" UserId="4629" Comment="edited body" Text="I daresay *бедолага* is not 100% synonymous to *бедняга*. Yes, both are used when one takes pity on someone. However, I think I can put my finger on at least two slight differences in usage. Firstly, *бедняга* is more likely to be used in a situation where the object has been unlucky in a particular isolated situation, whereas *бедолага* better describes someone who is frequently or, as it were, systemically unlucky. Secondly, *бедолага* seems to be more pertinent in an unfortunate situation which, from the speaker's point of view, is either not too serious and certainly not dramatic or may even be resolved with a certain amount of effort. Thus, it bears a shade of ironic attitude to the sufferer. *Бедняга*, on the other hand, will almost certainly be the only choice in situations of someone losing a close relative or a friend and such like. *Бедолага* is hardly acceptable in such situations and may be perceived as insensitive if not insulting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The excerpt from a song by Vladimir Vysotsky offered by Dmitry Ilukhin eloquently illustrates the certain gravitation of *бедолага* to humorous contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Updated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid I missed the second part of the question.&#xD;&#xA;*Бедняга* -- the word used to express taking pity on someone -- is likely to have derived from *бедняк* (literally, *a poor man*). If I remember correctly, *бедняк* still occurs in XIX century's literature with the meaning *pitiful*. Apparently, at some point *бедняк* spawned out *бедняга* using a fairly frequent way of jargon word formation employing the suffix *-ага*/*-яга* (see *трудящийся* &gt; *трудяга*, *работящий* &gt; *работяга*, *симпатичный* &gt; *симпатяга*, *милый* &gt; *миляга*) which took over the meaning *pitiful*. &#xD;&#xA;I am not entirely sure how *бедолага* came into existence. I seem to vaguely remember coming across the word *бедован* and can imagine the transformation *бедован* &gt; *бедовага* &gt; *бедолага* but that would be an absolute speculation. I hope this question catches some proper linguist's eye." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15318" RevisionGUID="bdaf7d8c-3284-4f7f-8e4f-f6b2525bd266" CreationDate="2017-12-01T19:08:19.920" UserId="9896" Text="&gt; есть ли другие слова, в которых количество слогов больше количества&#xD;&#xA;&gt; писанных гласных?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну, также - в зависимости от того как произносить - &quot;мяу&quot;. По крайней мере кошки мяукают односложно )&#xD;&#xA;Ну, из заимствованных - модное нынче &quot;ресепшн&quot; - явно 3 слога." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15113" RevisionGUID="39c488e6-3305-4c3b-9e9b-17869fdbd5bc" CreationDate="2017-12-01T21:07:17.540" UserId="3892" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="It's not &quot;помыть четыре кошки&quot;, it's &quot;помыть четырех кошек&quot;, because 'cat' is animate. People and animals are animate, so you need to account for that in the *accusative* case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у одушевленных существительных женского рода окончания будут:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нулевое или –ей, например: женщины- женщин, студентки - студенток,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; матери – матерей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При этом если два согласных стоят рядом, в винительном падеже между&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ними для благозвучия появляются гласные «о» или «е», как:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Белки- белок, девушки – девушек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Funny thing is that this example is about girls (девушек), but the concept is exactly the same: feminine + animate - кош*ек*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might wish to use the examples of ... and complete exercises here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lingq.com/lesson/2-vinitelnyi-padezh-mnozhestvennogo-chisla-354761/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Надо&quot; can be used with both a perfective and imperfective infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, мне надо накормить тех четырех кошек, их хозяйка до завтра не вернется.&#xD;&#xA;I think I should feed those four cats. Their owner will not be back till tomorrow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the perfective form, we are talking about one occurrence of a feeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне теперь надо кормить этих четырех кошек, а у меня своих дел полно!&#xD;&#xA;Now I have to feed these four cats, and I have other things to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's exactly the same meaning as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теперь мне придется кормить этих четырех кошек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in neither case of imperfective infinitive usage is it clear whether we are talking about feeding for an indefinite period of time, or just one meal. It can only be made clear from the context, not from the fact that it's an imperfective infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надо брать себе чужих кошек, и все будет в порядке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't take responsibility for cats you don't own and you will be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне обязательно надо покормить этих четырех кошек до 15:00, иначе они разнесут дом по щепочке!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have to feed the four cats before 3PM (TODAY), otherwise they will turn the house into chips!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case it's definitely about just one feeding, the verb is in the perfective form, and *today* is not necessary in the Russian variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С кошками надо быть добрее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got to be nice to cats!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="7410d4ae-357e-40bf-a77e-1725a13f2280" CreationDate="2017-12-01T21:30:57.697" UserId="4833" Comment="Spelling" Text="Смотря что считать слогом. Согласно [Википедии][1] (выделение моё),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слог — это минимальная фонетико-фонологическая единица,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характеризующаяся наибольшей акустико-артикуляционной слитностью своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонентов, то есть входящих в него звуков. **Слог не имеет связи с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; формированием и выражением смысловых отношений. Это чисто&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносительная единица.** В слоге группируются звуки разной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звучности, наиболее звучные — слогообразующие, остальные — неслоговые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, если проще, всё сводится к тому, по какой метрике, собственно, измерять эту звучность. «Школ» слогоделения существует несколько, в вышеупомянутой статье дан хороший обзор основных. Давайте попробуем провести какой-то начальный анализ в рамках каждого подхода.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Экспираторная теория слога* Если совсем коротко, теория заключается в том, что сколько выдохов («сколько дрогнула свеча»), столько и слогов. Поднесите ладонь к лицу и произнесите «смысл» — в среднем «по палате» получится, скажем так, полтора слога; всё зависит ещё и от личных особенностей произношения — уровень экспрессии у всех разный, у некоторых на «cл» тоже получается слабый, но всё таки поддающийся детектированию выдох. Эта теория неоднократно подвергалась критике, было найдено множество контпримеров, так что она устарела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Сонорная теория слога* под слогом понимает сочетание более сонорного (звучного) звука с менее сонорным. Тут мы опять попадаем в ловушку необходимости давать чёткие определения — что есть сонорность? Например, под это определение могут не попадать [звонкие шумные][2]. Тут филологи сломали немало копий вообще и в отношении русского языка в частности. Языковед Рубен Аванесов (чьи работы в рамках этой теории считаются наиболее проработанными) создал целую теорию о закономерностях подъёмов и падений звучания, которую нет тут смысла излагать всю, конечно, но согласно этой теории в слове «смысл» два слога, но может быть и один — смотря как произносить. Кстати, по иронии судьбы Аванесов большую часть своей жизни был практически глух, что нисколько не умаляет его лингвистических заслуг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Теория [мускульного] напряжения* утверждает, что границей слога является те участки речи, при которых работа мышц артикуляционного аппарата максимальна. В рамках этой теории слово «смысл» всё-таки двухслоговое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я завершу этот далеко не полный список упоминанием того факта, что есть теории, пытающиеся в той или иной мере комбинировать подходы всех вышеупомянутых (и не упомянутых) школ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;От себя я замечу, что я не филолог, поэтому споры эти мне казались всегда очень умозрительными и даже ещё более бессмысленными, чем знаменитый спор ленинградской и московской фонетических школ о существовании звука «ы» в русском. Потому что у звукораспознавания, в отличие от слогоразделения, есть вполне понятный и «осязаемый» практический аспект. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается других примеров таких «проблемных» слов, то «ау» и «сплав», упомянутые в той же статье в Википедии — хорошие кандидаты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.km.ru/referats/79F5998AFB324194A44AEDF78E698575#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15319" RevisionGUID="70dc6f6f-9e4a-43cd-af16-fa022166d30a" CreationDate="2017-12-02T04:36:55.097" UserId="8359" Text="Church Slavonic texts often appear in a particular old style of script. The lettering is related to Glagolitic and Blackletter (Gothic) in its parallel-line construction and dense packing. It does not seem to share much of the Uncial heritage of modern Cyrillic writing. A very jaunty skew occurs on the &quot;O&quot; in order to form it from two long lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the name of this old type of lettering?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![font sample][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![website section heading][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![orthodox icon][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTUhQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mTSpa.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SIcah.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38002" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15319" RevisionGUID="70dc6f6f-9e4a-43cd-af16-fa022166d30a" CreationDate="2017-12-02T04:36:55.097" UserId="8359" Text="Church Slavonic lettering style" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38003" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15319" RevisionGUID="70dc6f6f-9e4a-43cd-af16-fa022166d30a" CreationDate="2017-12-02T04:36:55.097" UserId="8359" Text="|история-языка|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15320" RevisionGUID="b0ca2281-d60a-44d3-92d4-67d62db4fb3e" CreationDate="2017-12-02T08:42:38.097" UserId="7674" Text="If i'm not mistaken it must be `титульный шрифт` (from the obsolete `титул` - title, since it was used to inscribe book/chapter titles), or `титульная вязь`, which i'm not sure is an accurate name because it only becomes `вязь` when the letters are combined into ligatures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15320" RevisionGUID="c54c242c-3f4c-4c10-9c50-81f322d1f419" CreationDate="2017-12-02T09:01:00.230" UserId="7674" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="If i'm not mistaken it must be `титульный шрифт` (from the obsolete `титул` - title, since it was used to inscribe book/chapter titles), or `титульная вязь`, which i'm not sure is an accurate name because it only becomes `вязь` when the letters are combined into ligatures. And i suppose it's based on `устав`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15320" RevisionGUID="e67324be-0cb7-4d88-aa36-3ad0877c6f41" CreationDate="2017-12-02T11:51:58.020" UserId="7674" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="If i'm not mistaken it must be `титульный шрифт` (from the obsolete `титул` - title, since it was used to inscribe book/chapter titles), or `титульная вязь`, which i'm not sure is an accurate name because it only becomes `вязь` when the letters are combined into ligatures or in other decorative ways. And i suppose it's based on `устав`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15299" RevisionGUID="72afc64c-bc0c-43d4-850e-42f7981e3f83" CreationDate="2017-12-02T12:51:59.943" UserId="4769" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="*Short answer:* It is fully equivalent to Mr./Ms. nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Long answer:* `Господин`/`госпожа` is a modern polite address, to be combined with the _last name_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Господин Иванов!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible polite address is also first name + patronymic if you know it. It's more polite, but also somewhat closer. Not a clerk to a customer, but business partners to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сергей Иванович!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It _was_ not acceptable in the Soviet times because of the &quot;bourgeois&quot; connotations, as it was the address in tsar era. Soviet times had `товарищ` (i.e. the over-used &quot;comrade&quot;) and `гражданин`/`гражданка` (&quot;citizen&quot;, used rather in unique circumstances when the addressed person &quot;was not a comrade&quot;,  i.e. that how a coroner could address the murderer suspect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Товарищ Сидоров!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still somewhat in use is `гражданин`/`гражданка`, as it has no &quot;communist&quot; connotation, although quite special, even if not in the above sense. When in doubt, use `господин`/`госпожа`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To call out someone on the street (&quot;Hey, you!&quot;, &quot;Excuse me!&quot;, etc.) use `молодой человек`/`девушка`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушка, вы обронили билет!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38008" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15299" RevisionGUID="72afc64c-bc0c-43d4-850e-42f7981e3f83" CreationDate="2017-12-02T12:51:59.943" Comment="Proposed by 4769 approved by 8895, 5605 edit id of 932" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15321" RevisionGUID="6736b509-c0d8-426a-9c7a-9b5959a83f88" CreationDate="2017-12-02T23:50:46.807" UserId="9603" Text="So recently I came across this word and I noticed that it's actually pronounced *коне**ш**но*. I thought I was missing something but the &quot;[voiced consonants rule][1]&quot;, does not mention the letter **ч** being pronounced as **ш**. Does this always happen when **ш** comes before **н**  or is this word special?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15300/voiced-consonants-at-the-end-of-words?noredirect=1#comment31423_15300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15321" RevisionGUID="6736b509-c0d8-426a-9c7a-9b5959a83f88" CreationDate="2017-12-02T23:50:46.807" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of конечно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15321" RevisionGUID="6736b509-c0d8-426a-9c7a-9b5959a83f88" CreationDate="2017-12-02T23:50:46.807" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15322" RevisionGUID="ac3fd16f-f3b8-47f3-9bb4-417dcc6f0841" CreationDate="2017-12-03T02:15:09.730" UserId="9128" Text="[*A Comprehensive Russian Grammar*](http://www.politicalavenue.com/languageschool/Russian%20Language%20Learning%20Pack%20(Updated)/43.A%20Comprehensive%20Russian%20Grammar%20(Blackwell).pdf) by T. Wade gives a rule for the pronunciation of -чн-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **The pronunciation of -чн-**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) -чн- is pronounced [ʃn] in certain words (конéчно [kʌˈnɛʃnə] ‘of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; course’, нарóчно ‘on purpose’, очéчник ‘spectacle case’, прáчечная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘laundry’, скýчно ‘boring’, яичница ‘fried eggs’), as well as in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patronymics Ильинична ‘Ilinichna’, Сáввична ‘Savvichna’ and Никитична&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Nikitichna’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) However, the pronunciation [ʧn] is used in more ‘learned’ words&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as áлчный [ˈalʧntj] ‘greedy’, античный ‘ancient’ добáвочный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘additional’, and конéчный ‘ultimate’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) -чн- is pronounced either as [ʃn] or [ʧn] in бýлочная ‘bakery’ and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молóчная ‘dairy’. Коричневый ‘brown’ is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note* Ч is also pronounced [ʃ] in что ‘that’ and чтóбы ‘in order to’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule describes the Standard Russain based on Moscow pronunciation. Regional pronunciations may differ. For example, in [Saint Petersburg](https://www.verbling.com/articles/post/the-differences-between-russian-from-moscow-and-russian-from-st-petersburg-552ee4b35afee0982a1a82ff) people, especially older generation, would say конечно with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes specifically to конечно in Moscow dialect, a choice between [ʧn] and [ʃn] also depends on [a specific meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'surely' is pronounced with [ʃn];&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'final' is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15322" RevisionGUID="66acc769-79b0-4c3d-93a1-d438e4594c3c" CreationDate="2017-12-03T04:49:36.893" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[*A Comprehensive Russian Grammar*](http://www.politicalavenue.com/languageschool/Russian%20Language%20Learning%20Pack%20(Updated)/43.A%20Comprehensive%20Russian%20Grammar%20(Blackwell).pdf) by T. Wade gives a rule for the pronunciation of -чн-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **The pronunciation of -чн-**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) -чн- is pronounced [ʃn] in certain words (конéчно [kʌˈnɛʃnə] ‘of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; course’, нарóчно ‘on purpose’, очéчник ‘spectacle case’, прáчечная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘laundry’, скýчно ‘boring’, яичница ‘fried eggs’), as well as in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patronymics Ильинична ‘Ilinichna’, Сáввична ‘Savvichna’ and Никитична&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Nikitichna’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) However, the pronunciation [ʧn] is used in more ‘learned’ words&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as áлчный [ˈalʧntj] ‘greedy’, античный ‘ancient’ добáвочный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘additional’, and конéчный ‘ultimate’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) -чн- is pronounced either as [ʃn] or [ʧn] in бýлочная ‘bakery’ and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молóчная ‘dairy’. Коричневый ‘brown’ is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note* Ч is also pronounced [ʃ] in что ‘that’ and чтóбы ‘in order to’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule describes the Standard Russain based on Moscow pronunciation. Regional pronunciations may differ. For example, in [Saint Petersburg](https://www.verbling.com/articles/post/the-differences-between-russian-from-moscow-and-russian-from-st-petersburg-552ee4b35afee0982a1a82ff) people, especially older generation, would say конечно with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes specifically to конечно in Moscow dialect, a choice between [ʧn] and [ʃn] also depends on [a specific meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'surely' is pronounced with [ʃn];&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'bounded' is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15319" RevisionGUID="17c6322d-7996-4bd6-9d75-1d87a58ca345" CreationDate="2017-12-03T05:05:39.383" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/937186041873817600" />
  <row Id="38016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15322" RevisionGUID="6ed564eb-9642-4b88-b6aa-f18341028a40" CreationDate="2017-12-03T06:34:35.913" UserId="9128" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="[*A Comprehensive Russian Grammar*](http://www.politicalavenue.com/languageschool/Russian%20Language%20Learning%20Pack%20(Updated)/43.A%20Comprehensive%20Russian%20Grammar%20(Blackwell).pdf) by T. Wade gives a rule for the pronunciation of -чн-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **The pronunciation of -чн-**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) -чн- is pronounced [ʃn] in certain words (конéчно [kʌˈnɛʃnə] ‘of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; course’, нарóчно ‘on purpose’, очéчник ‘spectacle case’, прáчечная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘laundry’, скýчно ‘boring’, яичница ‘fried eggs’), as well as in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patronymics Ильинична ‘Ilinichna’, Сáввична ‘Savvichna’ and Никитична&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Nikitichna’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) However, the pronunciation [ʧn] is used in more ‘learned’ words&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as áлчный [ˈalʧntj] ‘greedy’, античный ‘ancient’ добáвочный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘additional’, and конéчный ‘ultimate’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) -чн- is pronounced either as [ʃn] or [ʧn] in бýлочная ‘bakery’ and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молóчная ‘dairy’. Коричневый ‘brown’ is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note* Ч is also pronounced [ʃ] in что ‘that’ and чтóбы ‘in order to’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule describes the Standard Russain based on Moscow pronunciation. Regional pronunciations may differ. For example, in [Saint Petersburg](https://www.verbling.com/articles/post/the-differences-between-russian-from-moscow-and-russian-from-st-petersburg-552ee4b35afee0982a1a82ff) people, especially older generation, would say конечно with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes specifically to конечно in Moscow dialect, a choice between [ʧn] and [ʃn] also depends on [a specific meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'surely' is pronounced with [ʃn];&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'final' or 'limited' is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15322" RevisionGUID="75525d73-755c-4cd1-a431-5a964f6d7161" CreationDate="2017-12-03T06:42:12.857" UserId="9128" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="[*A Comprehensive Russian Grammar*](http://www.politicalavenue.com/languageschool/Russian%20Language%20Learning%20Pack%20(Updated)/43.A%20Comprehensive%20Russian%20Grammar%20(Blackwell).pdf) by T. Wade gives a rule for the pronunciation of -чн-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  **The pronunciation of -чн-**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) -чн- is pronounced [ʃn] in certain words (конéчно [kʌˈnɛʃnə] ‘of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; course’, нарóчно ‘on purpose’, очéчник ‘spectacle case’, прáчечная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘laundry’, скýчно ‘boring’, яичница ‘fried eggs’), as well as in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; patronymics Ильинична ‘Ilinichna’, Сáввична ‘Savvichna’ and Никитична&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘Nikitichna’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) However, the pronunciation [ʧn] is used in more ‘learned’ words&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as áлчный [ˈalʧntj] ‘greedy’, античный ‘ancient’ добáвочный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘additional’, and конéчный ‘ultimate’.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) -чн- is pronounced either as [ʃn] or [ʧn] in бýлочная ‘bakery’ and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; молóчная ‘dairy’. Коричневый ‘brown’ is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Note* Ч is also pronounced [ʃ] in что ‘that’ and чтóбы ‘in order to’.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule describes the Standard Russain based on Moscow pronunciation. Regional pronunciations may differ. For example, in [Saint Petersburg](https://www.verbling.com/articles/post/the-differences-between-russian-from-moscow-and-russian-from-st-petersburg-552ee4b35afee0982a1a82ff) people, especially older generation, would say конечно with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes specifically to конечно in Moscow dialect, a choice between [ʧn] and [ʃn] also depends on [a specific meaning](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'surely' is pronounced with [ʃn];&#xD;&#xA;- конечно as 'finite' or 'limited' is pronounced with [ʧn].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15323" RevisionGUID="97f35a63-274d-4845-a42f-f6864ff85d51" CreationDate="2017-12-03T09:31:31.277" UserId="7674" Text="Except `конечно` and `что` pretty much every word containing `-чн/чт-` can  (and many must) be legitimately pronounced without transition to `ш`, and while `конеЧно` and `Что` being pronounced literally are perceived as acceptable albeit uncommon, pronunciation of `поШта`, `обыШный` instead of `поЧта`, `обыЧный`, or `тоШный`, `лиШный` instead of `тоЧный`, `лиЧный` etc. not only militates against normative pronunciation but creates difficulties in communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the rule of thumb would be pronunciation of these phonemes as they're written. While `конечно` and `что` can be simply memorized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="9f8ecd01-5909-42f6-99fa-d8846490af8a" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:02:24.507" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="9f8ecd01-5909-42f6-99fa-d8846490af8a" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:02:24.507" UserId="9603" Text="Difference between Извините and Простите?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="9f8ecd01-5909-42f6-99fa-d8846490af8a" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:02:24.507" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15325" RevisionGUID="ff69d2f1-6870-4f00-8afc-b5797caaa441" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:42:23.147" UserId="7674" Text="As far as frequency is concerned `извините` is used more frequently in everyday speech. `Простите` is more literary and may sound pretentious. In movies it can be heard far more often than i hear it in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the meaning is concerned, my feeling is that `простите` tends to be loaded with greater burden of guilt, whereas `извините` is a more formal element of polite speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15325" RevisionGUID="d5f42cbe-0eba-41d0-8468-649bc337eba5" CreationDate="2017-12-03T14:48:20.460" UserId="7674" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="As far as frequency is concerned `извините` is used more frequently in everyday speech. `Простите` is more literary and may sound pretentious. In movies it can be heard far more often than i hear it in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the meaning is concerned, my feeling is that `простите` tends to be loaded with greater burden of guilt, whereas `извините` is a more formal element of polite speech, even though it's a cognate of the word `вина`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15326" RevisionGUID="c78074cb-8124-4ce6-bc3c-342287aaf4a9" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:11:21.360" UserId="9926" Text="Does this phrase have Russian equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15326" RevisionGUID="c78074cb-8124-4ce6-bc3c-342287aaf4a9" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:11:21.360" UserId="9926" Text="Too many cooks spoil the broth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15326" RevisionGUID="c78074cb-8124-4ce6-bc3c-342287aaf4a9" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:11:21.360" UserId="9926" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15327" RevisionGUID="cfaed868-d185-4e5d-94d9-b648dec9b217" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:13:13.687" UserId="9921" Text="Yes: У семи нянек дитя без глазу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15220" RevisionGUID="c32bed7f-fc78-4cee-b118-256c8c5a1e19" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:26:01.283" UserId="9128" Comment="formatting" Text="Formally, that type of sentence is known as неопределённо-личные предложения (&quot;indefinite person sentences&quot;) and are typical for Slavic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for an English speaking person, it'll be easier to think of them as &quot;implicit subject sentences&quot;. And indeed, you come across them in English as well.&#xD;&#xA;Consider this short monologue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Remember John? Spoke to him recently. (Do you remember John? I spoke to him recently&quot; or &quot;We spoke to him recently&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example the subject is contextual or implicit. By the same token&#xD;&#xA;Зимние игры называют Белой Олимпиадой are meant to say Зимние игры (они) называют Белой Олимпиадой or Зимние игры (люди) называют Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final point and it's about the trap of Russian cases.&#xD;&#xA;As you correctly pointed out Белой Олимпиадой out is Instrumental (Ablative) case. However, Зимние игры is NOT in Nominative case (and therefore it is not subject). It is in Accusative case and as it's here same as Nominative case it can only be determined from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, with its rigid structure, a sentence must start with a subject, which by definition is always in Nominative case. In Russian, determination of the case is the key to understanding relations between nouns in a sentence. The order of words is less important than their case. Thus you could just as easily say Называют Зимние игры Белой Олимпиадой or Белой Олимпиадой называют Зимние игры.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38030" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15220" RevisionGUID="c32bed7f-fc78-4cee-b118-256c8c5a1e19" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:26:01.283" Comment="Proposed by 9128 approved by 5605, 3680 edit id of 933" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15325" RevisionGUID="1b09f829-37b0-44e8-bfe0-9cf3b812f417" CreationDate="2017-12-03T16:46:18.433" UserId="7674" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="As far as frequency is concerned `извините` is used more frequently in everyday speech. `Простите` is more literary and may sound pretentious. In movies it can be heard far more often than i hear it in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the meaning is concerned, my feeling is that `простите` tends to be loaded with greater sense of guilt and so express deeper remorse, whereas `извините` is a more formal element of polite speech, even though it's a cognate of the word `вина`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15328" RevisionGUID="2081ace1-cf57-48c1-a174-a4e321c87b13" CreationDate="2017-12-03T18:35:26.273" UserId="9929" Text="See also [English Grammar online site][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/writing/comma?08&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Old McDonald had a pig and a dog and a cow and a horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, a comma before &quot;и&quot; (&quot;and&quot;) is required:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Старый Макдональд имел свинью, и собаку, и корову, и лошадь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15329" RevisionGUID="f01b9dbe-cbe9-4688-a682-916ce696098d" CreationDate="2017-12-03T21:04:35.913" UserId="9931" Text="**простите** - means &quot;I confirm that I did something wrong. It's my mistake. Please, forgive me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;**извините** - means &quot;May be, I did something wrong. But I'm sorry just for yor feelings, not for my actions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**извините** are like &quot;Ok. It's sad to be on your place, if my actions make you sad. But, generally, this is not in my responsibility zone. It's just your feelings, and I really didn't want to harm it.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38034" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="1bd8f939-8582-4d06-a418-e0db5ea18894" CreationDate="2017-12-03T23:07:03.860" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/937458187019739136" />
  <row Id="38035" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="82b98773-1c7d-4613-bb29-98c6bb8b3f3d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T08:46:07.177" UserId="6412" Comment="changed tag to match the question" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38036" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="82b98773-1c7d-4613-bb29-98c6bb8b3f3d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T08:46:07.177" Comment="Proposed by 6412 approved by 8895, 4600 edit id of 936" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15330" RevisionGUID="4f56d178-3da0-4e30-a4bf-790d9cebbd4c" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:13:03.113" UserId="9579" Text="I was trying to explain to someone the English phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He couldn't hold his alcohol (also liquor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that one becomes drunk very easily. Are there any Russian idioms/expressions that are roughly equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15330" RevisionGUID="4f56d178-3da0-4e30-a4bf-790d9cebbd4c" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:13:03.113" UserId="9579" Text="He couldn't hold his alcohol. Russian variants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38039" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15330" RevisionGUID="4f56d178-3da0-4e30-a4bf-790d9cebbd4c" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:13:03.113" UserId="9579" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15331" RevisionGUID="4f8ec33e-40fa-48ab-9d4e-d19806391ca7" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:25:36.193" UserId="242" Text="There's a `не умеет пить` but it this is more with a stress on the fact that one behaves badly / inappropriately even when supposedly he/she hadn't drinked that much. Like in phrase (found in Internet):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж не умеет пить. То есть если выпьет больше одного бокала, скажем,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вина или пива (водку не пьет), становится полным идиотом, дурачком и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мудаком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More neutral would be to say just `быстро пьянеет` (or, more casual, `быстро напивается`) - getting drank fast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38041" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15324" RevisionGUID="c732d2a9-a422-4c5a-bd80-ae680aaf1f5d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:26:50.387" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;извините&quot; and &quot;простите&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38042" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15326" RevisionGUID="da0b7dca-5a40-444b-be69-ffa888980d6d" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:27:46.923" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38043" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7579" RevisionGUID="c2bd754f-6aeb-4d7c-b2c1-eba71a321e64" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38044" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7580" RevisionGUID="8ac884bf-8376-4c58-87f6-2c562a95c9e0" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38045" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7591" RevisionGUID="5b30a1ac-f64e-4114-834d-758fe269ca44" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38046" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7598" RevisionGUID="2927c273-efa6-472f-a682-a1e9c42e689e" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38047" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7622" RevisionGUID="f2581783-089f-49f5-a5a9-a8789264ebf9" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38048" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="7650" RevisionGUID="285b0c97-c12a-47de-a5af-17e24685b7c5" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38050" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="13862" RevisionGUID="4a594f81-2588-4422-aff5-6b9f215993f9" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38051" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="15328" RevisionGUID="a4ed2fc8-e8d3-4b30-b032-72fef0620755" CreationDate="2017-12-04T16:28:00.620" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="38052" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15321" RevisionGUID="bfaed9d7-0fcf-4315-b26e-d763f2091ecd" CreationDate="2017-12-04T17:07:25.003" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/937730066573905920" />
  <row Id="38053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15332" RevisionGUID="8b8defcb-b862-4c23-ad3b-322d9c5f13c4" CreationDate="2017-12-04T18:05:01.887" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; От одного запаха [спиртного] пьянеет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just throwing it there.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15333" RevisionGUID="d6f9d7a3-ad88-49e1-aa1b-834cae27daa9" CreationDate="2017-12-04T18:08:28.243" UserId="9931" Text="**Его/её быстро &quot;развозит&quot;.** - He becomes drunk very fast. (Here is allegory to dirt road under rain).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ему/ей и капли хватит напиться.** - One drop of alcohol, and he/she will be drunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Слабенький попался. (Слабенькая попалась)** - Weak constitution human that easy affected to alcohol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ему и пробочку понюхать хватит.** - Smell a cork - and he's done!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15334" RevisionGUID="d12f5a5a-5c4b-4398-a3dd-98f9415e1e39" CreationDate="2017-12-04T19:59:25.317" UserId="4903" Text="This group of fonts may not have a specific name, other than Church-Slavonic fonts. Such fonts usually support other features of Church-Slavonic language, such as extra letters and diacritics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often enough it's not only a different font, but also a different language. In the icon that you provided in the question, the inscription at the top says: ***&quot;РЕЧЕ ГДЬ СВОИМ УЧЕИКОМ&quot;.*** The spelled out form (Гдь -&gt; Господь, учеиком -&gt; учеником)  is ***Рече Господь своим учеником* / Says God to his disciples.** As you can see from the grammar, it's not Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another [example of text](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwmZ0X8TCLyaRFFKcUFXOU5xTmc/edit) in Church Slavonic. It has an upper case narrow &quot;O&quot; in the title line, lower case narrow &quot;o&quot; in the second line, broad capital &quot;O&quot; in the third line, and lower case &quot;omega&quot; in the third line. Church-Slavonic has multiple glyphs for sound &quot;O&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are [some more fonts](http://www.irmologion.ru/fonts.html) that can be used for Church-Slavonic publications.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15334" RevisionGUID="ace472dd-7269-42f4-89ae-932ae4cfa7ff" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:07:10.063" UserId="4903" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This group of fonts may not have a specific name, other than Church-Slavonic fonts. Such fonts usually support other features of Church-Slavonic language, such as extra letters and diacritics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often enough it's not only a different font, but also a different language. In the icon that you provided in the question, the inscription at the top says: ***&quot;РЕЧЕ ГДЬ СВОИМЪ УЧЕИКОМ&quot;.*** The spelled out form (Гдь -&gt; Господь, учеиком -&gt; учеником)  is ***Рече Господь своимъ учеником* / Says God to his disciples.** As you can see from the grammar, it's not Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another [example of text](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwmZ0X8TCLyaRFFKcUFXOU5xTmc/edit) in Church Slavonic. It has an upper case narrow &quot;O&quot; in the title line, lower case narrow &quot;o&quot; in the second line, broad capital &quot;O&quot; in the third line, and lower case &quot;omega&quot; in the third line. Church-Slavonic has multiple glyphs for sound &quot;O&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are [some more fonts](http://www.irmologion.ru/fonts.html) that can be used for Church-Slavonic publications.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15334" RevisionGUID="f1986bcb-b2ad-45a4-b8df-a1152da78dba" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:13:33.927" UserId="4903" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This group of fonts may not have a specific name, other than Church-Slavonic fonts. Such fonts usually support other features of Church-Slavonic language, such as extra letters and diacritics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often enough it's not only a different font, but also a different language. In the icon that you provided in the question, the inscription at the top says: ***&quot;РЕЧЕ ГДЬ СВОИМЪ УЧЕИКОМ&quot;.*** The spelled out form (Гдь -&gt; Господь, учеиком -&gt; учеником)  is ***Рече Господь своимъ учеником* / Says God to his disciples.** As you can see from the grammar, it's not Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another [example of text](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwmZ0X8TCLyaRFFKcUFXOU5xTmc/edit) in Church Slavonic. It has an upper case narrow &quot;O&quot; in the title line, lower case narrow &quot;o&quot; in the second line, broad capital &quot;O&quot; in the third line, and lower case &quot;omega&quot; in the third line. Church-Slavonic has multiple glyphs for sound &quot;O&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are [some more fonts](http://www.irmologion.ru/fonts.html) that can be used for Church-Slavonic publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**АНАЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ ОБОЗРЕНИЕ** formatted in Church Slavonic font is probably meant to create *&quot;faux antique&quot;* effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15335" RevisionGUID="70b3ed48-6a37-459f-bd26-5132e9f4402e" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:38:23.117" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between **азбука** and **алфавит**?&#xD;&#xA;My book is constantly using the former, however most of the videos I found use алфавит. Is **азбука** still used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15335" RevisionGUID="70b3ed48-6a37-459f-bd26-5132e9f4402e" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:38:23.117" UserId="9603" Text="Difference between азбука and алфавит" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15335" RevisionGUID="70b3ed48-6a37-459f-bd26-5132e9f4402e" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:38:23.117" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15334" RevisionGUID="601d6994-8e22-40fb-b41b-401638500920" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:47:40.700" UserId="4903" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="This group of fonts may not have a specific name, other than Church-Slavonic fonts. Such fonts usually support other features of Church-Slavonic language, such as extra letters, diacritics, titles and superscripts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often enough it's not only a different font, but also a different language. In the icon that you provided in the question, the inscription at the top says: ***&quot;РЕЧЕ ГДЬ СВОИМЪ УЧЕИКОМ&quot;.*** The spelled out form (Гдь -&gt; Господь, учеиком -&gt; учеником)  is ***Рече Господь своимъ учеником* / Says God to his disciples.** As you can see from the grammar, it's not Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another [example of text](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwmZ0X8TCLyaRFFKcUFXOU5xTmc/edit) in Church Slavonic. It has an upper case narrow &quot;O&quot; in the title line, lower case narrow &quot;o&quot; in the second line, broad capital &quot;O&quot; in the third line, and lower case &quot;omega&quot; in the third line. Church-Slavonic has multiple glyphs for sound &quot;O&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are [some more fonts](http://www.irmologion.ru/fonts.html) that can be used for Church-Slavonic publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**АНАЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ ОБОЗРЕНИЕ** formatted in Church Slavonic font is probably meant to create *&quot;faux antique&quot;* effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15336" RevisionGUID="2a6ea891-3018-4c76-9bbc-7337e9f37343" CreationDate="2017-12-04T20:48:34.097" UserId="7674" Text="In essence these are supposed to be synonyms, as both terms are created out of names of alphabet characters - on the one hand `азбука` out of `А - азъ` and `Б - буки` (names of the letters in the pre-reform Russian alphabet) and on the other hand `Alpha + Beta` correspondingly. The first is a native Russian word (i suppose) whereas the second is obviously borrowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in modern language `alphabet` is used to denote `alphabet` proper while `азбука` is a name for a type of colorful children textbook (or another auxiliary material) which teaches `alphabet`. You can get an idea if you Google search images with the term `азбука`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15189" RevisionGUID="02e8b6cb-3b73-40f3-857b-efbcb2d5a348" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:01:22.073" UserId="2104" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="I understand where your confusion comes from: the verb seemingly agrees with the preceding noun which you mistook for the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is actually of a special kind called [неопределённо-личные предложения][1] (&quot;indefinite person sentences&quot;). They have no subject and the verb is in the third person plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В зале **поют**. - There is singing in the hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **сказали** принести это сюда. - I was told to bring it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **принесли** эту книгу. - Someone brought me this book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему здесь всегда **рады**. - He is always welcome here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The subject is not mentioned because it is not important. There are a few ways to render such sentences into English (which normally requires a subject): using the passive voice ('I was told'), using an indefinite pronoun ('someone') or restructuring the sentence, see above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the predicate is plural, it bears no indication of number. E.g. if you are told:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проходите, вас **ждут**. - Please come in, they are waiting for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this phrase alone, you can't deduce how many people are waiting for you, it could be one. Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что делать, если **говорят**, что **любят**, но замуж не **берут**? - What do I do if I'm told that I'm loved but never get proposed to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite of the plural, it is obvious that the person does not want to marry many people at once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зимние игры **называют** Белой Олимпиадой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using `называют` with no subject is a common way to say what something is called. The subject (who is doing the calling) is not important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb `называть` takes two complements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; называть &lt;кого-либо/что-либо (Accusative)&gt; &lt;кем-либо/чем-либо (Instrumental)&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to call &amp;lt;something&amp;gt; &amp;lt;something&amp;gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Зимние игры` fill the accusative case slot in your sentence. To make this more obvious, one could also say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Олимпиаду называют зимними играми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here `Олимпиаду` is in the Accusative and `зимними играми` is in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. There is also [безличные предложения][2] (impersonal sentences) which are slightly different from &quot;indefinite-person&quot; sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15336" RevisionGUID="6a172bc8-12e5-40ab-ac45-afab80e2b290" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:02:29.983" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="In essence these are supposed to be synonyms, as both terms are derived out of names of alphabet characters - on the one hand `азбука` out of `А - азъ` and `Б - буки` (names of the letters in the pre-reform Russian alphabet) and on the other hand `Alpha + Beta` correspondingly. The first is a native Russian word (i suppose) whereas the second is obviously borrowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in modern language `alphabet` is used to denote `alphabet` proper while `азбука` is a name for a type of colorful children textbook (or another auxiliary material) which teaches `alphabet`. You can get an idea if you Google search images with the term `азбука`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15336" RevisionGUID="f7a3337a-bee0-4ce6-a5b4-eef76f82832f" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:16:06.833" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In essence these are supposed to be synonyms, as both terms are derived out of names of alphabet characters - on the one hand `азбука` out of `А - азъ` and `Б - буки` (names of the letters in the pre-reform Russian alphabet) and on the other hand `Alpha + Beta` correspondingly. The first is a native Russian word (i suppose) whereas the second is obviously borrowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in modern language `алфавит` is used to denote `alphabet` proper while `азбука` is a name for a type of colorful children textbook (or another auxiliary material) which teaches `alphabet`. You can get an idea if you Google search images with the term `азбука`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15337" RevisionGUID="8f36a859-7256-45d3-9ae5-5b01ba8a4a86" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:30:43.610" UserId="62" Text="I once read in a book for Russians about writing in English that the purpose of a comma in written English is to help the reader, while the purpose of a comma in written Russian is to demonstrate to the reader that the writer knows the rules for using commas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38070" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="15337" RevisionGUID="04bbed25-c40a-49ee-915e-0089eb58b0c4" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:30:43.610" UserId="62" />
  <row Id="38071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14920" RevisionGUID="5a64bb88-e0d6-454a-a019-2b4f08bcefb7" CreationDate="2017-12-04T21:56:03.303" UserId="2104" Comment="added 749 characters in body" Text="**Both nominative plural and genitive plural adjectives can be used with feminine nouns. Nominative plural is preferred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lisa, you are not the first to notice this variation (and well done spotting it!). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most sources use language such as 'usually', 'more often', 'genitive is preferred', etc. when describing this phenomenon. Here is a quote from Rosenthal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §193. Adjective-noun agreement following numerals two, three and four&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In such constructs the adjective modifying a feminine noun **most often** appears in the nominative case (or the accusative case with inanimate nouns), plural. E.g.: *две большие комнаты выходили окнами в сад; купила четыре фарфоровые чашки; на изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры* (А.Н. Толстой); *По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев* (М. Бубеннов). When the noun phrase is preceded by a preposition, both nominative/accusative and genitive are **possible**: *на две равные части – по две столовых ложки*. If the nominative plural of the feminine noun differs from its genitive singular in stress (*го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́*), then **usually** genitive plural is preferred for the adjective: _две высоких горы, две крупных слезы_. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе_ (Горький); _Две сильных мужских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки подхватили ее_ (А. Коптяева). The choice of the adjective form **can** be affected by the form of the predicate: _Разыграны три золотые медали. –&#xD;&#xA;Разыграно три золотых медали._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation is mine. Here is the Russian original: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; §193. Определение при существительном, зависящем от числительных два,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; три, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. При существительных женского рода в указанных условиях определение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чаще** ставится в форме именительного падежа (или совпадающего с ним&#xD;&#xA;&gt; винительного при неодушевленных существительных) множественного числа.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Например: _две большие комнаты выходили окнами в сад; купила четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фарфоровые чашки; на изгороди из трех жердей сидели три женские фигуры_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (А.Н. Толстой); _По этим дорогам двигаются две большие колонны немцев_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (М. Бубеннов). При наличии перед всем оборотом предлога **возможны&#xD;&#xA;&gt; варианты**; ср.: _на две равные части – по две столовых ложки_. Если формы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительного падежа множественного числа существительных женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода отличаются по ударению от формы родительного падежа единственного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числа (ср.: _го́ры – горы́, слёзы – слезы́_), то определение в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рассматриваемой конструкции **обычно** ставится в родительном падеже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; множественного числа: _две высоких горы, две крупных слезы_. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Три серых струны натянулись в воздухе_ (Горький); _Две сильных мужских&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки подхватили ее_ (А. Коптяева). На выбор формы определения **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оказать влияние форма сказуемого; ср.: _Разыграны три золотые медали. –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разыграно три золотых медали._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The bold emphasis was added by me to highlight the use of the 'variative' language.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another quote from&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Граудина, Ицкович, Катлинская. Грамматическая правильность русской речи. Стилистический словарь вариантов. М., 2001:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;In these constructs feminine nouns **can** have both genitive and nominative determiners, e.g.: *две новых книги, две смежных комнаты, три столовых ложки — три оригинальные статьи, две основные задачи, три столовые ложки.* Genitive is **preferred** when the nominative form of the noun is different from its genitive in stress: _три высо́ких горы́_ (cf. _высо́кие го́ры_), _две ру́сых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косы́_ (cf. _ру́сые ко́сы_). For other cases some textbooks recommend the nominative – possibly, trying to differentiate feminine nouns from masculine and neuter nouns. But in reality feminine nouns **can** take dependent adjectives of either form, taking into account the stress-related limitations we have just pointed out.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian original:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «При существительных жен. рода прилагательное в описываемых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конструкциях **может** выступать в форме как родительного, так и им.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежа, ср.: _две новых книги, две смежных комнаты, три столовых ложки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — три оригинальные статьи, две основные задачи, три столовые ложки_.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Форма род. падежа **предпочитается** в тех случаях, когда форма им. падежа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мн. числа существительного отличается по ударению от формы, зависящей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от числительного: _три высо́ких горы́_ (ср. _высо́кие го́ры_), _две ру́сых&#xD;&#xA;&gt; косы́_ (ср. _ру́сые ко́сы_). Для других случаев некоторые пособия&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рекомендуют формы им. падежа — по-видимому, из стремления разграничить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падежную форму прилагательного при существительных, с одного стороны,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужского и среднего, а с другой — жен. рода. Но практически при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных жен. рода (с указанным выше ограничением, связанным с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; особенностями ударения) **возможны** обе формы прилагательного».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are the scans of the relevant pages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 32][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Page 33][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sources claim that genitive plural should be used for the adjective when the noun differs in genitive singular and nominative plural. But that contradicts your Google NGram research and a few Google searches that I've just done (using quotes to match exact phrases):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировые войны&quot; 120000&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две мировых войны&quot; 49100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высокие горы&quot; 5980&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две высоких горы&quot; 638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новые игры&quot; 18700&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две новых игры&quot; 3040&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинные косы&quot; 3830&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;две длинных косы&quot; 1150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I would conclude that nominative plural is preferred in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a third source to support the same viewpoint, the fundamental Русская грамматика, [Volume 2, §1817, page 57][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Если в сочетание с числительным входит су­ществительное жен. р.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; то нормальны обе формы прилагательного — и им. и род. п.: _две молодые&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женщины — две молодых женщины, какие-то четыре девочки — каких-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; четыре девочки, обе дворовые собаки — обе дворовых собаки, четыре&#xD;&#xA;&gt; большие избы — четыре больших избы, две женских руки — две женские&#xD;&#xA;&gt; руки; На счету у нашей команды четыре золотых и три серебряные медали_&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (газ.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the last example that uses both nominative and genitive in the same sentence!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's all I could find on the subject in the two volumes. No mention of which form is preferred. I guess the authors, being wise people, followed the rule &quot;to err less often, say less&quot; or &quot;my tongue is my enemy&quot; (Язык мой — враг мой).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ym9xM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KVq5D.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://lukashevichus.info/knigi/russk_gramm_sl_shvedova_2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15338" RevisionGUID="ba7b9cd5-7d28-487f-b90a-a2c62c67c677" CreationDate="2017-12-04T23:42:24.983" UserId="242" Text="In addition to the correct answer provided I just want to add that `азбука` can be used to indicate something very basic, the most fundamental laws, like in following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Это просто настолько азбучная истина, что я даже не думал тебе это как-то дополнительно разъяснять. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Азбука хорошего настроения - никогда не поддаваться унынию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not say `это же просто алфавитная истина` or `алфавит хорошего вкуса` instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15339" RevisionGUID="83e0b09e-2f2c-4bd9-8e8b-c5d446c00d70" CreationDate="2017-12-05T03:27:18.363" UserId="9948" Text="you may be also interested in кириллическая вязь [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mUJTn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15336" RevisionGUID="05c5e6e4-82f5-4693-9e63-6d745a7d9576" CreationDate="2017-12-05T06:23:31.467" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In essence these are supposed to be synonyms, as both terms are derived from names of alphabet characters - on the one hand `азбука` out of `А - азъ` and `Б - буки` (names of the letters in the pre-reform Russian alphabet) and on the other hand `Alpha + Beta` correspondingly. The first is a native Russian word (i suppose) whereas the second is obviously borrowed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in modern language `алфавит` is used to denote `alphabet` proper while `азбука` is a name for a type of colorful children textbook (or another auxiliary material) which teaches `alphabet`. You can get an idea if you Google search images with the term `азбука`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15331" RevisionGUID="c3d059ff-e8d3-4536-aa46-e6c7058f7ce7" CreationDate="2017-12-05T09:59:50.567" UserId="-1" Comment="Improved English" Text="There's a `не умеет пить` but it this is more with a stress on the fact that one behaves badly / inappropriately even when supposedly he/she hadn't drunk that much. Like in the following phrase (found in Internet):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муж не умеет пить. То есть если выпьет больше одного бокала, скажем,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вина или пива (водку не пьет), становится полным идиотом, дурачком и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мудаком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more neutral way would be to just say `быстро пьянеет` (or, more casual, `быстро напивается`) - getting drunk fast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38076" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15331" RevisionGUID="c3d059ff-e8d3-4536-aa46-e6c7058f7ce7" CreationDate="2017-12-05T09:59:50.567" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 242 edit id of 937" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38077" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15335" RevisionGUID="6e1d3000-d5d2-4e90-ab4b-2bfe153610a6" CreationDate="2017-12-05T10:00:07.963" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;азбука&quot; and &quot;алфавит&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15330" RevisionGUID="7e87a6e8-6fa4-4618-883d-834db426bf74" CreationDate="2017-12-05T11:05:48.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="He couldn't hold his alcohol - hot to say it in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38079" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15330" RevisionGUID="ea5c1653-79e4-4280-b988-948d84f309f5" CreationDate="2017-12-05T14:09:33.190" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="He couldn't hold his alcohol - how to say it in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15338" RevisionGUID="5284fb3d-e99a-488b-b41e-0e44e1ec9a4f" CreationDate="2017-12-05T15:26:20.590" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="In addition to the correct answer provided I just want to add that `азбука` can be used to indicate something very basic, the most fundamental laws, like in following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Это просто настолько азбучная истина, что я даже не думал тебе это как-то дополнительно разъяснять. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Азбука хорошего настроения - никогда не поддаваться унынию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not say `это же просто алфавитная истина` or `алфавит хорошего настроения` instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38081" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7740" RevisionGUID="749182ca-98ba-452e-b071-80bd283a763f" CreationDate="2017-12-05T15:54:20.577" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Proper usage of &quot;бедолага&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15340" RevisionGUID="17f56114-9757-4714-bb61-e251d6bd07c3" CreationDate="2017-12-05T20:07:06.543" UserId="676" Text="Как правильно указывать род деятельности программиста с привязкой к языку программирования?  &#xD;&#xA;Например, для подписи под текстом, письмом, отзывом, цитатой и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Иван Петров, С++ программист &#xD;&#xA; 1. Иван Петров, программист С++" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15340" RevisionGUID="17f56114-9757-4714-bb61-e251d6bd07c3" CreationDate="2017-12-05T20:07:06.543" UserId="676" Text="«С++ программист» или «программист С++»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15340" RevisionGUID="17f56114-9757-4714-bb61-e251d6bd07c3" CreationDate="2017-12-05T20:07:06.543" UserId="676" Text="|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15341" RevisionGUID="c5c9356b-c327-4c69-9f26-4c9d614bcbf7" CreationDate="2017-12-05T21:48:48.957" UserId="242" Text="Если выбирать из двух вариантов, я бы выбрал &quot;С++ программист&quot;. Потому что &quot;программист Java&quot;, &quot;программист Python&quot;, &quot;программист PHP&quot; звучат коряво - они построены по аналогии с &quot;тракторист Петя&quot;, &quot;космонавт Вова&quot; но при этом наполнение у них совсем другое. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но я не стал бы выбирать из двух вариантов, второй очень корявый, первый - фактически калька с английского (С++ developer) - хоть и общепринятая. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы написал:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист (C++, Perl)&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист на С++&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист (специализация - С++)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15341" RevisionGUID="c7a9c27e-c546-4daa-8934-066692814d04" CreationDate="2017-12-05T22:29:07.910" UserId="242" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Если выбирать из двух вариантов, я бы выбрал &quot;С++ программист&quot;. Потому что &quot;программист Java&quot;, &quot;программист Python&quot;, &quot;программист PHP&quot; звучат коряво - они построены по аналогии с &quot;программист ЭВМ&quot;, &quot;администратор БД&quot; но при этом наполнение у них совсем другое - ведь программист ЭВМ - это программист электронных вычислительных машин, а администратор БД - администратор баз данных. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но я не стал бы выбирать из двух вариантов, второй очень корявый, первый - фактически калька с английского (С++ developer) - хоть и общепринятая. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы написал:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист (C++, Perl)&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист на С++&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист (специализация - С++)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15342" RevisionGUID="594e027e-2b5a-4ddd-b7f3-93ae398b0f06" CreationDate="2017-12-05T23:22:53.590" UserId="2104" Text="Я бы написал:&#xA;&#xA; - программист на С++&#xA; - программист на Java&#xA; - Java-программист&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15343" RevisionGUID="8117dd09-d5bc-4f0d-b418-3ed2c272b700" CreationDate="2017-12-05T23:26:25.720" UserId="4714" Text="In Constructions of the type КАК БЫ НЕ..., what exactly does the &quot;не&quot; add to the phrase. I'm looking for a literal interpretation from those of you that know both English and Russian at a very high level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я боюсь, как бы он не забыл зайти в аптеку. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правительство боится, как бы этот закон не привел к увлечению бюджетных мест. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a literal translation of these sentences, and why do we need &quot;не&quot; at all? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15343" RevisionGUID="8117dd09-d5bc-4f0d-b418-3ed2c272b700" CreationDate="2017-12-05T23:26:25.720" UserId="4714" Text="Construction—Как бы не...—Why is &quot;НЕ&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15343" RevisionGUID="8117dd09-d5bc-4f0d-b418-3ed2c272b700" CreationDate="2017-12-05T23:26:25.720" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15342" RevisionGUID="de120156-d4b1-4d30-9c7b-ee0891fb9e90" CreationDate="2017-12-05T23:55:19.193" UserId="2104" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="Я бы написал:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист на С++&#xD;&#xA; - Иван Петров, программист на Java и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравните:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- игра на пианино - пианист&#xD;&#xA;- игра на гитаре - гитарист и т.д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но если специального слова нет, то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- игра на бубне - игрок на бубне&#xD;&#xA;- программирование на С++ - программист на С++&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15344" RevisionGUID="1fca4a91-82d5-4513-85ef-0ba8cc42b22c" CreationDate="2017-12-06T01:01:20.087" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Как бы не&quot; is a traditional construct that is often utilized to convey negative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look into the details of your example.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Правительство боится, как бы этот закон не привел к увлечению бюджетных мест.&quot; - &quot;The government is afraid that this law can lead to the increase of subsidized enrollment(?)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's see if we can drop the &quot;не&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Правительство боится, как бы этот закон привел к увлечению бюджетных мест.&quot; - this phrase is clumsy and its meaning is unclear. Why? Because the word &quot;боится&quot; implies **negative** meaning - but the particle &quot;не&quot; is missing, so we are not sure what exactly the government is afraid of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if we change the negative verb into a **neutral** one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Правительство *думает*, как бы этот закон не привел к увлечению бюджетных мест.&quot; - &quot;The government is thinking that this law can lead to the undesired increase of subsidized enrollment&quot;. This new phrase is pretty close in meaning to the original one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Правительство *думает*, как бы этот закон привел к увлечению бюджетных мест.&quot; - &quot;The government is thinking how to make this law to increase the subsidized enrollment&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see, now dropping the &quot;не&quot; completely changed the meaning!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как бы так&quot; - &quot;That's the way it is&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как бы не так&quot; - &quot;No way!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15345" RevisionGUID="f66b6159-9125-4a40-84e9-084047762dc2" CreationDate="2017-12-06T05:10:30.383" UserId="1236" Text="The presence of the particle _бы_ suggests it is the conditional mood. This mood has several meanings, and since here there is no actual condition (like _if_ or _when_), it has **desiderative** meaning, that is it expresses what we whish. Keeping this in mind, it becomes much more clear why _не_ is used in such constructions: the word _whish_ is implied but not expressed openly, other verbs are used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in _Я боюсь, как бы он не забыл зайти в аптеку_, the verb _боюсь_ does not mean actual fear or awe, but it is the hope that he will **not** forget to visit the drug store. That is the implied meaning of this sentence is actually _Я **надеюсь**, что **он не забудет** зайти в аптеку._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in such sentences the second part expresses the desirable state of things in which the unwanted situation does **not** occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15345" RevisionGUID="9682e7fe-fcd2-4ee8-bd8b-5a14a21623c7" CreationDate="2017-12-06T05:21:55.403" UserId="1236" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="The presence of the particle _бы_ suggests it is the conditional mood. This mood has several meanings, and since here there is no actual condition (like _if_ or _when_), it has **desiderative** meaning, that is it expresses our desire, what we _whish_. Keeping this in mind, it becomes much more clear why _не_ is used in such constructions: the word _whish_ is implied but not expressed openly, other verbs are used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in _Я боюсь, как бы он не забыл зайти в аптеку_, the verb _боюсь_ does not mean actual fear or awe, but it is the hope that he will **not** forget to visit the drug store. That is the implied meaning of this sentence is actually _Я **надеюсь**, что **он не забудет** зайти в аптеку._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in such sentences the second part expresses the desirable state of things in which the unwanted situation does **not** occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38097" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15343" RevisionGUID="32a72afd-343c-435f-808c-5087b1c77613" CreationDate="2017-12-06T08:52:36.853" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Construction—Как бы не...—Why &quot;не&quot; is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15347" RevisionGUID="084e2e54-065a-4aef-8161-9aba00bbec2a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T13:21:12.490" UserId="9603" Text="[I've been told][1] that **о** is pronounced as **а**  when it's not stressed, however  the word **лаборато́рия** [is actually pronounced][2] as **лабо́рато́рия** , why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7261/when-is-the-letter-o-pronounced-as-a&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F/#ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15347" RevisionGUID="084e2e54-065a-4aef-8161-9aba00bbec2a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T13:21:12.490" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of лаборатория" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15347" RevisionGUID="084e2e54-065a-4aef-8161-9aba00bbec2a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T13:21:12.490" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15347" RevisionGUID="6649c5d6-3577-43d1-98d5-792f2008125f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T13:34:28.097" UserId="9603" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="[I've been told][1] that **о** is pronounced as **а**  when it's not stressed, however  the word **лаборато́рия** [is actually pronounced][2]  **лабо́рато́рия** , why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/7261/when-is-the-letter-o-pronounced-as-a&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F/#ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15348" RevisionGUID="acd370a2-a62f-417e-b923-a11f7338efbb" CreationDate="2017-12-06T13:49:20.880" UserId="7674" Text="Not really, it's indeed to be and is being pronounced as `лАбАрАтОрия` or in Moscow pronunciation as can be heard in some of the clips `лАбрАтОрия`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15349" RevisionGUID="499c0835-1c86-42c1-9b7b-02e4e3907c04" CreationDate="2017-12-06T14:19:42.470" UserId="1236" Text="The word _лаборатория_ [is pronounced][1] as [ləbərɐˈtorʲɪjə] and it has only one stressed vowel sound. The effect you hear is due to the fact that the [ə] of the first letter 'O' really sounds more like [o] than like [a] because [ə] is not as open a sound as [a].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F#Pronunciation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15350" RevisionGUID="5c02cbe1-dfa0-456c-8247-f95c1d5f3c1f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T17:46:34.820" UserId="5224" Text="In English we have many ways to respond to a question or statement.  What are some informal ways to do his in Russian other than да or нет?&#xA;&#xA;Examples:&#xA;“Yep”, “Nope”&#xA;“Yea”, “Nah”&#xA;“Yay”, “Nay” (old English)&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15350" RevisionGUID="5c02cbe1-dfa0-456c-8247-f95c1d5f3c1f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T17:46:34.820" UserId="5224" Text="Informal Acknowledgments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15350" RevisionGUID="5c02cbe1-dfa0-456c-8247-f95c1d5f3c1f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T17:46:34.820" UserId="5224" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15351" RevisionGUID="2a9c1728-d202-4ef7-af89-f7de7fa12976" CreationDate="2017-12-06T18:51:41.430" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Да&quot; can be replaced with &quot;Ага&quot; or &quot;Угу&quot;, or sometimes &quot;Так&quot;, or, when the question is about presence or existence of something, or the conversation is military-style - &quot;Есть!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Нет&quot; can be shortened to &quot;Не&quot;, or, when the question is about presence or existence of something - &quot;Нету&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38116" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15343" RevisionGUID="83c48ecf-bfe7-4fd7-9440-c0b292b2c8a5" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:23:02.473" UserId="4714" Comment="edited title" Text="Construction—Как бы не...—Why is &quot;не&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15352" RevisionGUID="a5c52c5e-e2bd-447c-a785-bf86e427b597" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:29:11.720" UserId="7674" Text="Wishing to say `Да` sarcastically to mean `in fact no` when responding to a question or implicitly disagreeing with a statement one can pronounce it as `До-о-о`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playful way to say `Нет` is `Неа`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15353" RevisionGUID="9d7ec335-73d5-4247-a202-fdaac2d0f21a" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:43:57.837" UserId="9931" Text="Опять под дождь попал, бедолага? (to kid or animal or younger friend that had been unlucky to walk under rain)&#xD;&#xA;Этот бедолага пережил шторм, но остался без груза и команды. (about ship that survives a storm)&#xD;&#xA;Без семьи, без дома, без надежды на светлое будущее. Экий он всё же бедолгага. (sad story of a man that lost his famyly, his house and all hopes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедолага - тот, кто претерпел от жизни многие беды, тот, кто был сломлен судьбой и пережил множество БЕД.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедняга - близок по значению к бедолаге, но воспринимается мягче.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедолага вызывает больше жалости.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедняк - просто бедный, нищий человек, не обязательно упавший духом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедолагу отличает именно плачевное состояние его духа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедолага склонен к отчаянию или глубокой депрессии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тогда как бедняк может быть весел, будучи жизнелюбивым, но не способным или не желающим прикладывать усилия для улучшения своего материального положения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедолага - часто жертва обстоятельств (СИЛА ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедняга - чаще страдает от собственных неудачных НАЧИНАНИЙ (НЕУДАЧНАЯ ИНИЦИАТИВА).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бедняк - страдает от собственного НЕДЕЯНИЯ (НЕСПОСОБНОСТЬ или НЕЖЕЛАНИЕ ДЕЙСТВОВАТЬ)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15352" RevisionGUID="232c28a0-3d5b-4985-9b23-4466a1f492a1" CreationDate="2017-12-06T19:54:01.603" UserId="7674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Wishing to say `Да` sarcastically to mean `in fact no` when responding to a question or implicitly disagreeing with a statement one can pronounce it as `До-о-о`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playful way to say `Нет` is `Неа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like in Ebonics `нет` can be expressed with interjection `uh uh` which sounds similar to `Неа`. Sadly Russian doesn't have a phonetic representation for it and i don't think it's formally recognized as a valid semantic unit despite being in active use. I guess until it's put in writing it doesn't exist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15352" RevisionGUID="06587de0-745f-4745-809e-938d19b6e714" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:02:03.403" UserId="7674" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="Wishing to say `Да` sarcastically to mean `in fact no` when responding to a question or implicitly disagreeing with a statement one can pronounce it as `До-о-о`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playful way to say `Нет` is `Неа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like in Ebonics `нет` can be expressed with interjection [`uh uh`][1] which sounds similar to `Неа`. Sadly Russian doesn't have a phonetic representation for it and i don't think it's formally or widely recognized as a valid semantic unit despite being in active use. I guess until it's put in writing it doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/sounds/20160317/uh_uh--1_gb_1.mp3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15352" RevisionGUID="63db8991-a50f-497b-a5bd-257e6c7d6f04" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:07:37.793" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Wishing to say `Да` sarcastically to mean `in fact no` when responding to a question or implicitly disagreeing with a statement one can pronounce it as `До-о-о`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playful way to say `Нет` is `Неа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like in Ebonics `нет` can be expressed with interjection [`uh uh`][1] which sounds similar to `Неа`. Sadly Russian doesn't have a phonetic representation for it and i don't think it's formally or widely recognized as a valid semantic unit despite being in active use. I guess until it's put into writing it doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/sounds/20160317/uh_uh--1_gb_1.mp3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15352" RevisionGUID="90a88d03-5488-44db-a8ac-9785a3dfe76c" CreationDate="2017-12-06T20:38:25.733" UserId="7674" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Wishing to say `Да` sarcastically to mean `in fact no` when responding to a question or implicitly disagreeing with a statement one can pronounce it as `До-о-о`. With inquiring intonation `До-о-о?` means emphasized disbelief or fake amazement `oh really?`, `no shit`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playful way to say `Нет` is `Неа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like in Ebonics `нет` can be expressed with interjection [`uh uh`][1] which sounds similar to `Неа`. Sadly Russian doesn't have a phonetic representation for it and i don't think it's formally or widely recognized as a valid semantic unit despite being in active use. I guess until it's put into writing it doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/sounds/20160317/uh_uh--1_gb_1.mp3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15354" RevisionGUID="1f129fbf-b1ee-40a2-a18f-8cadf0c583bf" CreationDate="2017-12-06T21:21:35.473" UserId="9931" Text="Means &quot;**Yes**&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;Да. Ага. Угу. Аха. Так. Окей. Хорошо. Отлично. Так и быть. Согласен. Конечно! Бесспорно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means &quot;**No**&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;Нет. Не. Неа. Нетушки. Не пойдёт. Не согласен. Против. Ни за что. &quot;Ага, конечно!&quot; &quot;Не дождётесь!&quot; &quot;Дудки!&quot; Забудь об этом! Нёу. Отнюдь! Увы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15352" RevisionGUID="75a8914a-b5fa-4247-8b97-c2bd9613a00b" CreationDate="2017-12-06T21:48:46.127" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Wishing to say `Да` sarcastically to mean `in fact no` when responding to a question or implicitly disagreeing with a statement one can pronounce it as `До-о-о`. With inquiring intonation `До-о-о?` means emphasized disbelief or fake amazement `oh really?`, `no shit`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playful or encouraging way to say `Нет` is `Неа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like in Ebonics `нет` can be expressed with interjection [`uh uh`][1] which is reminiscent of `Неа`. Sadly Russian doesn't have a phonetic representation for it and i don't think it's formally or widely recognized as a valid semantic unit despite being in active use. I guess until it's put into writing it doesn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/sounds/20160317/uh_uh--1_gb_1.mp3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15355" RevisionGUID="8b65d477-a81d-4dbd-8f6b-6abee32c4f7f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:32:00.720" UserId="8614" Text="OT. In Russian, да AND нет can even complement each other. &quot;Да, нет.&quot; - is an absolutely correct, complete sentence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38126" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15343" RevisionGUID="408e96e5-ef1e-43fc-954e-57d570386bb6" CreationDate="2017-12-06T23:14:44.350" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/938547282089332738" />
  <row Id="38127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15356" RevisionGUID="e4c5258f-f0a9-48b1-bd87-703f34033e43" CreationDate="2017-12-07T00:34:26.277" UserId="9976" Text="Wikipedia claims that the expression И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть is equivalent to &quot;having your cake and eating it too&quot;, literally translated to wanting to eat a fish without first catching it from the waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It references a footnote however, that says that: this is a euphemism for a common vulgar expression и рыбку съесть, и на хуй сесть first used by Alexander Pushkin in a private letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if it is then ok to use И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть, or will it be offensive? Note that the context is rather formal, but I would like to include this phrase in Russian (the rest of the work is in English). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15356" RevisionGUID="e4c5258f-f0a9-48b1-bd87-703f34033e43" CreationDate="2017-12-07T00:34:26.277" UserId="9976" Text="Have your cake and eat it too - Equivalent Expression in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15356" RevisionGUID="e4c5258f-f0a9-48b1-bd87-703f34033e43" CreationDate="2017-12-07T00:34:26.277" UserId="9976" Text="|словоупотребление|сленг|phrase|formality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15345" RevisionGUID="283bb1e6-51c8-4d50-9d27-48c034b33537" CreationDate="2017-12-07T02:34:55.403" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The presence of the particle _бы_ suggests it is the conditional mood. This mood has several meanings, and since here there is no actual condition (like _if_ or _when_), it has **desiderative** meaning, that is it expresses our desire, what we _wish_. Keeping this in mind, it becomes much more clear why _не_ is used in such constructions: the word _wish_ is implied but not expressed openly, other verbs are used instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in _Я боюсь, как бы он не забыл зайти в аптеку_, the verb _боюсь_ does not mean actual fear or awe, but it is the hope that he will **not** forget to visit the drug store. That is, the implied meaning of this sentence is actually _Я **надеюсь**, что **он не забудет** зайти в аптеку._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, in such sentences the second part expresses the desirable state of things in which the unwanted situation does **not** occur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15348" RevisionGUID="27479e31-2272-4b46-bbf2-e214472982c3" CreationDate="2017-12-07T02:39:16.517" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body; added 2 characters in body" Text="Not really, it's indeed to be, and is, pronounced `лАбАрАтОрия` or in the Moscow pronunciation as can be heard in some of the clips `лАбрАтОрия`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15357" RevisionGUID="720f2044-0c65-4b78-b4f1-5949a31db7e4" CreationDate="2017-12-07T07:43:55.287" UserId="2104" Text="Take your pick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Убить одним выстрелом двух зайцев (Kill two rabbits in one shot) &#xD;&#xA; - (Дать) и вашим, и нашим (Please one's friends and enemies) &#xD;&#xA; - Сидеть на двух стульях (Sit on two chairs)&#xD;&#xA; - Объять необъятное (Embrace the unembracable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one you quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a classic proverb. There is nothing inherently offensive about it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15357" RevisionGUID="aff153fa-2879-4bfa-ae5b-127cd5a79379" CreationDate="2017-12-07T07:54:42.700" UserId="2104" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Take your pick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Убить одним выстрелом двух зайцев (Kill two rabbits in one shot) &#xD;&#xA; - (Дать) и вашим, и нашим (Please one's friends and enemies) &#xD;&#xA; - Сидеть на двух стульях (Sit on two chairs)&#xD;&#xA; - Объять необъятное (Embrace the unembracable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two are normally used in the negative sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На двух стульях не усидишь (You can't sit on two chairs)&#xD;&#xA; - Нельзя объять необъятное (You can't embrace the unembracable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one you quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a classic proverb. There is nothing inherently offensive about it. It would make a nice epigraph.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38134" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15356" RevisionGUID="ce70c383-ae94-41c0-a909-f952223e3b8c" CreationDate="2017-12-07T11:17:30.837" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/938729174667354112" />
  <row Id="38136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15358" RevisionGUID="fd63bd12-52dc-41ff-83d6-371005244be1" CreationDate="2017-12-07T14:51:54.043" UserId="5443" Text="1. The sense of the expression. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the sentence in question is a clearly **pessimistic transformation** of this optimistic one (where **не** directly negates the verb): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надеюсь, он ***не** забудет* зайти в аптеку. (I hope he won't forget to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; visit the drugstore.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original version expresses **uncertainty** based on some possibility of things going wrong:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боюсь, **как бы** он **не** забыл зайти в аптеку.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm afraid he might forget to visit the drugstore.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm afraid that maybe he'll have forgotten to visit the drugstore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Form of the expression and how negation **не** works in Russian version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical English translation doesn't use direct negation, present in the Russian expression. But what is the negation **не** aimed at? Despite its position right before the verb, it **does not directly negate** its meaning but refers to *unwanted* (or *unexpected* - in similar cases of doubtful speculation) *possibility* of its action. It seems possible to give a *close-in-sense* isolated expression where **не** negates the action of an *additional* verb, while the existing verb stays **in the affirmative** (considering **не** originally didn't directly negate it):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как бы... **не**... ~ (мне) **не** хотелось бы, чтобы...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works here independently of the emphasizing addition **Я боюсь** (I'm afraid):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Я боюсь вот чего:) **не** *хотелось бы, чтобы* он забыл зайти в аптеку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correspondingly, an English version of the above can be given with a similar direct negation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I'm afraid,) *I would **not** want him to somehow* forget to visit the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drugstore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15359" RevisionGUID="3da15df0-b562-47c6-a3a9-cfbb47af9b50" CreationDate="2017-12-07T18:57:53.583" UserId="9931" Text="If I understod right, the opposite for &quot;**Have your cake and eat it too**&quot; is &quot;**Сапожник без сапог**&quot;. It illustrates a situation, when man have a some talent or skill and does not use it for his own profit. The same: &quot;**Зарывать таланты в землю**&quot; - do not use your own talents\skills\resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May be this sentence will be close to &quot;**Have your cake and eat it too**&quot;: &quot;**На Бога надейся, да и сам не плошай**&quot; - have a trust in a help from God in your business, but make your own work at 100%, only then you will succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15360" RevisionGUID="2f091b74-21ff-4bce-a69c-7e5cad3cc9f9" CreationDate="2017-12-07T19:48:22.400" UserId="2079" Text="&quot;**нельзя быть немножко беременной**&quot; or &quot;**нельзя быть наполовину беременной**&quot; (when there is a choice between two radically different options, attempts to try something intermediate would not work)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit rude expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **и невинность соблюсти, и дитя приобрести**&#xD;&#xA;* **и честь соблюсти, и капитал приобрести**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15360" RevisionGUID="9fd8b44d-4af1-4d4d-bece-d4d20a66eecb" CreationDate="2017-12-07T19:54:57.520" UserId="2079" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&quot;**нельзя быть немножко беременной**&quot; or &quot;**нельзя быть наполовину беременной**&quot; (выбор между двумя противоположными альтернативами. Попытка выбрать что-то промежуточное или невозможна, или приведёт к одной из них.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit rude expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **и невинность соблюсти, и дитя приобрести**&#xD;&#xA;* **и честь соблюсти, и капитал приобрести**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15361" RevisionGUID="ae27dfbe-5228-42bd-9a66-7baae95f9e8f" CreationDate="2017-12-08T05:35:38.750" UserId="9118" Text="Both sides lying to each other, knowing it, yet keep lying with straight faces? The word for that is &quot;дипломатия&quot; (diplomacy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an idiomatic expression &quot;врёт и не краснеет&quot; (&quot;to tell a lie without blushing&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15362" RevisionGUID="16094a2e-f532-4c97-9eb5-f56aeb45e5b7" CreationDate="2017-12-08T05:55:31.763" UserId="9979" Text="Я программист, думаю некие мои мысли будут полезны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обычно, в названии языка программирования нет специальных знаков, кроме латинских букв, поэтому пишут и произносят через дефис.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - PHP-программист&#xD;&#xA; - Ruby-программист&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Часто говорят *разработчик* вместо *программист*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15285" RevisionGUID="d379cd84-f12b-4d11-b0b4-7fbf8a78cfd6" CreationDate="2017-12-08T16:05:12.377" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="A suffix `-онк(а)` appended to a root ending with `К-Ч/Х-Ш/Г-Ж` of feminine (and rarely masculine) nouns always impart a word either a diminutive or derogatory connotation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рубаха/рубашка - рубашонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`мошна - мошонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`рука/ручка - ручонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`юбка/обочка - юбчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`дева/девка/девочка - девчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`книга/книжка - книжонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`река/речка - речонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`старуха/старушка - старушонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`тысяча - тысчонка`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`малец/мальчик - мальчонка` (here the form is feminine but the gender is still masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a suffix `-онок` also derives masculine noun with these same connotations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`собака/собачка - собачонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`сука - сучонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`бочка - бочонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`белка - бельчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`заяц/зайка/зайчик - зайчонок`&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;`кроль/кролик - крольчонок`&lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15363" RevisionGUID="d7869314-cb17-4dc0-ba2e-fa5cb3bfdeeb" CreationDate="2017-12-08T18:56:04.207" UserId="6722" Text="I just finished reading an article entitled &quot;Олигархократия&quot; (https://vz.ru/opinions/2014/5/27/688692.html) The author quips that governments are formed quite simply: «кто палку взял – тот и капрал» или, по выражению автора XVII в. Ивана Тимофеева, **«не сущий царь, а чрез подобство наскакающий на царство»**. I understand the meaning of the second quote primarily from the quote preceding it; however, I am unable to find a translation of the word **подобство**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15363" RevisionGUID="d7869314-cb17-4dc0-ba2e-fa5cb3bfdeeb" CreationDate="2017-12-08T18:56:04.207" UserId="6722" Text="Meaning of word подобство" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15363" RevisionGUID="d7869314-cb17-4dc0-ba2e-fa5cb3bfdeeb" CreationDate="2017-12-08T18:56:04.207" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="bebdaef4-5a5e-460b-8a55-42021369d8d4" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:07:16.800" UserId="7674" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor) isn't a genuine king (anointed by god) but only a semblance of one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am only able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15365" RevisionGUID="9d28e488-fbbb-4675-b4d0-3c26ef0c6b99" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:07:57.370" UserId="6539" Text="Подобство is an old Russian word originating from the 11-13th centuries meaning подобие, сходство (similarity, likeness,resemblance ). Сущий means настояший (real).He is not a real ruler but only looks like him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="c2370bd6-70d5-4b57-8dae-1a1280cbd451" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:27:24.690" UserId="7674" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor) isn't a genuine king (anointed by god) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am only able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="8b2c26f0-19b8-400e-b2d0-12110155f26b" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:34:44.430" UserId="7674" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor) isn't a genuine king (anointed by god) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally am only able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="beb2e030-9ee1-4472-a6ed-8f720e99356b" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:41:19.617" UserId="7674" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In another article][2] about Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen by god) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.drevlit.ru/texts/t/timofeev_pred.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="d8c75675-6a38-4c92-8c49-a4a197989085" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:51:38.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen by god) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="d0676f76-72b5-41e5-8be2-9879b292dd38" CreationDate="2017-12-08T20:58:12.547" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="4ef108ad-7425-4256-aec3-f188d44c136f" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:04:25.167" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="6dff2054-bcf6-4a7a-9311-b2bb95ce2c4d" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:19:53.530" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses of the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally or is written with an error in the Timofeev's manuscript. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="8fb2ed2c-7b4d-47f5-b4a3-c5c08d326659" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:32:20.180" UserId="7674" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses of the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally or is written with an error in the Timofeev's manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems plausible because of the word `через` which mean `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="447ab7fd-b5a2-4a62-8d17-b3e71cf73983" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:44:19.247" UserId="7674" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to derive this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses of the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally or is written with an error in the Timofeev's manuscript.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems plausible because of the word `через` which means `through`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="554340e5-911e-46dd-97d6-3722f36c84b3" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:52:55.940" UserId="9603" Text="What's the right way to pronounce **объясняет**? My guess would be something like '**обшсняет**' (I'm having a hard time with the hard sign). This is word is somewhat similar to **Eichhörnchen** by the way, it's actually real subtle. I'd appreciate an English word with an equivalent sound as an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="554340e5-911e-46dd-97d6-3722f36c84b3" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:52:55.940" UserId="9603" Text="Pronunciation of объясняет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="554340e5-911e-46dd-97d6-3722f36c84b3" CreationDate="2017-12-08T21:52:55.940" UserId="9603" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15367" RevisionGUID="0ea9c873-bcc6-4044-9360-947837bec6d0" CreationDate="2017-12-08T22:12:14.280" UserId="7674" Text="I'd suggest to divide it into two separate parts, the prefix `об-` pronounced as `аб-` and `-ясняет` pronounced as `йисьняит`. Try you pronounce them separately, then combine the two parts back together - `aбйисняит`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe `ш` you hear because of the sound `j` subtly present in the phoneme `й`, but it's by far not as voiced as in the German `-ig`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I unfortunately can't think of any similar sounding word in English. Well, may be `object` which in Russian is also spelled with the &quot;hard sign&quot; following the combination `об` - `объект` (pronounced `абйект`), only that in this word it's not a prefix (at least not of Russian origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15367" RevisionGUID="061d6543-80c8-4eaa-9396-f85ddb97ea83" CreationDate="2017-12-08T22:18:52.203" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'd suggest to divide it into two separate parts, the prefix `об-` pronounced as `аб-` and `-ясняет` pronounced as `йисьняит`. Try you pronounce them separately, then combine the two parts back together - `aбйисьняит`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe `ш` you hear because of the sound `j` subtly present in the phoneme `й`, but it's by far not as voiced as in the German `-ig`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I unfortunately can't think of any similar sounding word in English. Well, may be `object` which in Russian is also spelled with the &quot;hard sign&quot; following the combination `об` - `объект` (pronounced `абйект`), only that in this word it's not a prefix (at least not of Russian origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15368" RevisionGUID="bd1cbfac-9b70-4ead-b506-5e067ec5a127" CreationDate="2017-12-08T23:18:07.743" UserId="2104" Text="**ub-yis-NIA-it** (with NIA stressed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ub** as in pub &#xD;&#xA; - **yis** as in yeast &#xD;&#xA; - **NIA** has *one* vowel sound (not a diphthong): a soft N followed by A&#xD;&#xA; - **it** as in it :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can think of the Ъ as the **y** sound in **yes** or **yeast**. Same goes for Ь in front of a vowel: бульон, пасьянс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might like this website: http://russiangram.com It transcribes Russian words using English spelling rules. It doesn't do vowel reduction yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38163" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="8a787e0d-688b-4fff-b88f-ee60c0d17483" CreationDate="2017-12-08T23:29:29.800" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;объясняет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15367" RevisionGUID="4db12f9d-afce-4140-b2fe-a182f03ff548" CreationDate="2017-12-09T08:06:12.117" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="I'd suggest to divide it into two separate parts, the prefix `об-` pronounced as `аб-` and `-яснЯет` pronounced as `йисьнЯит`. Try you pronounce them separately, then combine the two parts back together - `aбйисьнЯит`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe `ш` you hear because of the sound `j` subtly present in the phoneme `й`, but it's by far not as voiced as in the German `-ig`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I unfortunately can't think of any similar sounding word in English. Well, may be `object`, and only because in Russian it is also spelled with the &quot;hard sign&quot; following the combination `об` - `объЕкт` (pronounced `абйЕкт`), only that in this word it's not a prefix (at least not of Russian origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="e104fe6c-e452-4bd7-83ed-48bd4944e56b" CreationDate="2017-12-09T12:11:14.637" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to infer this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally, is written with an error in the Timofeev's manuscript, or the two words are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems plausible because of the word `через` which means `through`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="d3fe26f8-25c0-4373-8158-6457aba54cdf" CreationDate="2017-12-09T12:16:34.627" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to a modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to infer this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally, is written with an error in the Timofeev's manuscript, or the two words are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation seems plausible because of the word `через` which means `through`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="d1250644-a348-41a5-9952-8576a210084d" CreationDate="2017-12-09T13:34:04.017" UserId="7674" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko it's read [![подобство][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][2] to a modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to infer this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][3] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally, is spelled erroneously in the Timofeev's manuscript, or the two words are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation, counterintuitive though it is, seems plausible because of the word `через` which means `through`, `because of`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred and continues to occur nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="32f6c9b3-8f25-43ea-bb88-6c039d6ae857" CreationDate="2017-12-09T16:47:23.130" UserId="7674" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko or [HERE][1] it's read [![подобство][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][3] to a modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to infer this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][4] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally, is spelled erroneously in the Timofeev's manuscript, or the two words are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation, counterintuitive though it is, seems plausible because of the word `через` which means `through`, `because of`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred and continues to occur nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://azbyka.ru/spravochniki/slovar.php?page=260&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38169" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15363" RevisionGUID="a832ec86-ec3c-41cb-b135-bba57eb9fb13" CreationDate="2017-12-09T18:16:17.093" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of word &quot;подобство&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="8b62aa9e-4dab-4a95-91e0-2adb2a3e72cc" CreationDate="2017-12-09T19:09:38.200" UserId="7674" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko or [HERE][1] it's read [![подобство][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the monograph of K. Reznikov &quot;Myths and facts of Russian history&quot; the phrase is given [in the following context][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главный идеолог тех времен, Тимофеев, различает царей «истиньишихъ и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; природныхъ» и **царей по внешнему подобию — «чрезъ подобство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наскакающихъ на царство»**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][3] to a modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to infer this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of his work][5] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally, is spelled erroneously in the Timofeev's manuscript, or the two words are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation, counterintuitive though it is, seems possible due to the presence of the preposition `через` which means `through`, `because of`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred and continues to occur nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://azbyka.ru/spravochniki/slovar.php?page=260&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1022722/6/Reznikov_-_Mify_i_fakty_russkoy_istorii._Ot_liholetya_Cmuty_do_imperii_Petra.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15330" RevisionGUID="f227ec05-924d-4a91-b411-525a1d64ee42" CreationDate="2017-12-10T02:31:53.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/939684059839696896" />
  <row Id="38172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15364" RevisionGUID="eab3bd6d-66ac-4c5d-ad15-7ed684567f67" CreationDate="2017-12-10T08:01:16.120" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="On page 442 of the Complete dictionary of Church Slavonic by Gregory Dyachenko or [HERE][1] it's read [![подобство][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the monograph of K. Reznikov &quot;Myths and facts of Russian history&quot; the phrase is given [in the following context][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главный идеолог тех времен, Тимофеев, различает царей «истиньишихъ и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; природныхъ» и **царей по внешнему подобию — «чрезъ подобство&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наскакающихъ на царство»**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the introduction][3] to a modern publication of Ivan Timofeev's work the phrase is quoted in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тимофеев считает истинными царями Грозного и Федора Ивановича — царей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наследственных и венчанных на царство, и Михаила Федоровича Романова —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; царя, избранного всей землей. Иное дело, по Тимофееву, Борис Годунов, самозванец. Шуйский — &quot;не истинные&quot; цари. Они получили престол не по наследству и не по избранию всей земли, а по своей воле. **Это — люди, &quot;через подобство наскакающие на царство&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrase may be understood in such a way that a person (the impostor/usurper) isn't a genuine king (anointed/chosen) and only due to semblance (to one) seizes kingdom/throne. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally would only be able to infer this meaning, it's not immediately apparent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the actual body of Ivan Timofeev's work][5] translated into modern Russian this phrase seems to have been rendered as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а о других и о тех, **которые без благословения и незаконно наскакивали&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на царство**, ясно, что для них будет отдельный от благих суд.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the light of this rendering which uses the word `незаконно`, i might venture to **speculate** that the word `подобство` may in fact mean `a crime` or an `immoral act`, because in Ukrainian there's a word `нэподобство` meaning `indecency`, `disgrace`, `reproachable behavior`. Sure enough it has a negating prefix, but it may have lacked it originally, is spelled erroneously in the Timofeev's manuscript, or the two words are synonyms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This explanation, counterintuitive though it is considering the word's root having nothing to do with impropriety, seems possible due to the presence of the preposition `через` which means `through`, `because of`, `owing to`. To usurp a throne `owing to semblance [to a king]` sounds odder than `owing to a crime`, which is how it usually historically occurred and continues to occur nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTW the linked article is terrible if i may add)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://azbyka.ru/spravochniki/slovar.php?page=260&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GpDju.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/framepred.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1022722/6/Reznikov_-_Mify_i_fakty_russkoy_istorii._Ot_liholetya_Cmuty_do_imperii_Petra.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Timofeev/frametext1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15367" RevisionGUID="8c967bf1-833e-4f82-ba02-6370903bdd19" CreationDate="2017-12-10T21:52:17.377" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'd suggest to divide it into two separate parts, the prefix `об-` pronounced as `аб-` and `-яснЯет` pronounced as `йисьнЯит`. Try to pronounce them separately, then combine the two parts back together - `aбйисьнЯит`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe `ш` you hear because of the sound `j` subtly present in the phoneme `й`, but it's by far not as voiced as in the German `-ig`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I unfortunately can't think of any similar sounding word in English. Well, may be `object`, and only because in Russian it is also spelled with the &quot;hard sign&quot; following the combination `об` - `объЕкт` (pronounced `абйЕкт`), only that in this word it's not a prefix (at least not of Russian origin).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15335" RevisionGUID="a7007e6c-788d-4cdc-98e1-217c9daf0230" CreationDate="2017-12-11T11:32:43.160" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/940182552240971776" />
  <row Id="38175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6947" RevisionGUID="64ef5e5d-fe41-4fab-bb20-b12dac219a6c" CreationDate="2017-12-11T13:18:42.047" UserId="3892" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In your example both can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are indeed quite close in meaning. However, mind the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;означать&quot; cannot be used to express &quot;to be important&quot;: we only ever use &quot;Это много для меня значит&quot; = &quot;It means a lot to me&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;означать&quot; is not used in &quot;вот что значит&quot;: Вот что значит настоящая любовь! ~ &quot;That's what true love is!&quot; or something like that. It shows how special, important something is (as an explanation for what is happening).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, they are somewhat unequal in how they are used in their meaning &quot;to be tantamount to&quot; (&quot;Defeat means death&quot;). Though, they are both used in this meaning, so this may indeed be just a matter of style or usage with nouns/verbal phrases (&quot;Пессимизм означает крушение всех иллюзий.&quot;/&quot;Противиться року — значит противиться самому себе&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally do not like how &quot;означать&quot; sounds with infinitives, i.e. &quot;X means to see only what you want to&quot; vs &quot;Y means true happiness&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15365" RevisionGUID="164bda44-1c4b-46e8-8fa9-2ef47fa2c3ab" CreationDate="2017-12-11T13:25:40.090" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="Подобство is an old Russian word originating from the 11-13th centuries meaning подобие, сходство (similarity, likeness,resemblance ). Сущий means настояший (real).He is not a real ruler but only looks like one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="6b433c85-448c-4b8b-9369-14362f75de5a" CreationDate="2017-12-11T21:29:40.600" UserId="9762" Text="How would you translates this sentence: &quot;Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov was the director of Burnt by the Sun&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I thought it would be:&#xA; &quot; &lt;&lt;Утомленные солнцем&gt;&gt; директора - Никита Сергеевич Михалов &quot;&#xA;&#xA;Or is it:&#xA; &quot;Директор  &lt;&lt;Утомленных солнц&gt;&gt; - Никита Сергеевич Михалов &quot;&#xA;&#xA;Большое спасибо!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="6b433c85-448c-4b8b-9369-14362f75de5a" CreationDate="2017-12-11T21:29:40.600" UserId="9762" Text="Need help with declining sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="6b433c85-448c-4b8b-9369-14362f75de5a" CreationDate="2017-12-11T21:29:40.600" UserId="9762" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="65ba0d7f-f770-43fb-b805-781fa4619693" CreationDate="2017-12-11T22:00:03.867" UserId="9762" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="How would you translates this sentence: &quot;Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov the director of Burnt by the Sun&quot;&#xA;&#xA;I thought it would be:&#xA; &quot; &lt;&lt;Утомленные солнцем&gt;&gt; директора - Никита Сергеевич Михалов &quot;&#xA;&#xA;Or is it:&#xA; &quot;Директор  &lt;&lt;Утомленных солнц&gt;&gt; - Никита Сергеевич Михалов &quot;&#xA;&#xA;Большое спасибо!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15370" RevisionGUID="2b10cc4e-7fb7-4955-b257-8ac9daf62032" CreationDate="2017-12-11T22:04:56.040" UserId="7674" Text="It's the second one, well, almost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Режиссёр (фильма) &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot; Никита Сергеевич Михалков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15370" RevisionGUID="5abf00d7-f8a7-442b-a237-a186eb8b8fac" CreationDate="2017-12-11T22:11:42.153" UserId="7674" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="It's the second one, well, almost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Режиссёр (фильма) &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot; Никита Сергеевич Михалков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for it to be the first one (with correct declension of the name as `Никиты Сергеевича Михалкова`) the English sentence must look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot; by the director Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15370" RevisionGUID="14866420-fefb-424e-ac9a-1f914996ca89" CreationDate="2017-12-11T22:24:56.240" UserId="7674" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="It's the second one, well, almost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Режиссёр (фильма) &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot; Никита Сергеевич Михалков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version with dash necessitates the verb **to be** in the English sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov **IS** the director of &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for it to be the first one (with correct declension of the name as `Никиты Сергеевича Михалкова`) the English sentence must look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot; by the director Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38185" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15350" RevisionGUID="46e5a426-3ad1-4e5a-9cc4-066acb8ad733" CreationDate="2017-12-11T23:33:08.460" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/940363853279395840" />
  <row Id="38186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15370" RevisionGUID="645ffcf9-24ad-40d2-9944-1faaa42fb675" CreationDate="2017-12-12T08:03:16.050" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It's the second one, well, almost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Режиссёр фильма &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot; Никита Сергеевич Михалков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version with dash necessitates the verb **to be** in the English sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov **IS** the director of &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for it to be the first one (with correct declension of the name as `Никиты Сергеевича Михалкова`) the English sentence must look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot; by the director Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15370" RevisionGUID="9cb4f38f-906b-4908-8d66-4690339cfd86" CreationDate="2017-12-12T09:35:22.583" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's the second one, well, almost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Режиссёр фильма &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot; Никита Сергеевич Михалков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version with dash necessitates the verb **`to be`** in the English sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov **IS** the director of &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for it to be the first one however (with correct declension of the name as `Никиты Сергеевича Михалкова`) the English sentence must look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Burnt by the Sun&quot; by the director Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15347" RevisionGUID="d4ee9f88-68f3-44b0-bdbc-eac232ec09a0" CreationDate="2017-12-12T11:33:12.563" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/940545064153108480" />
  <row Id="38189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15340" RevisionGUID="d9290afc-e7b9-45d4-86a8-ec400cb4af24" CreationDate="2017-12-12T23:35:13.123" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/940726763092660224" />
  <row Id="38190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15371" RevisionGUID="b7a99669-7e08-479e-8627-a63911fc502a" CreationDate="2017-12-13T01:49:57.283" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;И волки сыты, и овцы целы.&quot; (The wolfs are fed, yet the sheep are not harmed.) Often used as a metaphor of two mutually exclusive goals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="909276e9-6612-4615-8605-82c75b405ec6" CreationDate="2017-12-13T03:19:06.857" UserId="9603" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="What's the right way to pronounce **объясняет**? My guess would be something like '**обшсняет**' (I'm having a hard time with the hard sign). This is word is somewhat similar to &quot;**Eichhörnchen**&quot; by the way, it's actually real subtle. I'd appreciate an English word with an equivalent sound as an example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15212" RevisionGUID="bd3140db-7a15-4ccd-b6b7-a13c470d909c" CreationDate="2017-12-13T03:20:26.530" UserId="9603" Comment="edited body" Text="So, IIRC &quot;девушка&quot; can mean both &quot;girl&quot; (of any age) or &quot;girlfriend&quot; (I'm not entirely sure of this so feel free to call me out), but what about 'подруга'? Can I safely replace 'девушка' with 'подруга'? Which of these should I use if I'm talking about a coworker of mine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15305" RevisionGUID="7fd15a44-b146-4e1c-803a-b2e5c431aaac" CreationDate="2017-12-13T03:22:57.267" UserId="9603" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm having a **very** hard time understanding this pronunciation.&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to assume that **ый** sounds like *ey* in *hey* ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the word *сильный* for instance,&#xD;&#xA;the pronunciation on [forvo][1] is slightly different than the one on [wiktionary][2], which one is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9/#ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15174" RevisionGUID="8bfb3f1c-a38e-44a7-94ac-d82367d98bad" CreationDate="2017-12-13T03:24:31.167" UserId="9603" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I don't really understand when to use each so generally I use the latter but I was wondering,&#xD;&#xA;is it ok to use the former with people you just met?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15233" RevisionGUID="e2899fd6-a27a-4f09-bfe9-81977a44c617" CreationDate="2017-12-13T03:27:14.130" UserId="9603" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="What is the right way to stress the word *часа*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen both *ча́са* and *часа́*, is there a special case for each?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15372" RevisionGUID="57efd896-874a-41d0-81ee-63b33d525b2c" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:31:10.797" UserId="426" Text="&quot;Час&quot; is one of several masculine nouns that retained the old &quot;dual number&quot; pronunciation. Stress shifts from &quot;ча́са&quot; to &quot;часа́&quot; when the word is used in combination with 2, 3, 4, and compound numbers that require declension of 2, 3, and 4 (e.g. 23, 3002, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in situations when stress shifts to the last syllable the unstressed &quot;а&quot; is pronounced as [i], for example &quot;два часа&quot; is pronounced as [dvɑ ʧisə], not as [dvɑ ʧɑsə]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15374" RevisionGUID="e968592e-5b77-44d1-b250-583d78b16be3" CreationDate="2017-12-14T06:44:52.717" UserId="8359" Text="In A.A. Istomin's article _Проблема участия Антипатра Баранова в экспедиции на «Иль­мене» у калифорнийских берегов в 1814-1815 гг._:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О том, что Волков - &quot;креол&quot;, ктому же плохо знающий русский язык (&quot;малое сведение его в рос­сийском языке&quot;), сообщает Л.А.Гагемейстер, непосредственно раз­говаривавший с ним во время визита в Сан-Франциско в 1817г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that Gagemeister criticized Volkov's language skills, but was the implication that Volkov was still learning Russian, that he never spoke Russian, that he was out of practice in Russian, that he spoke a low register of Russian, or what?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15374" RevisionGUID="e968592e-5b77-44d1-b250-583d78b16be3" CreationDate="2017-12-14T06:44:52.717" UserId="8359" Text="&quot;малое сведение его в рос­сийском языке&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15374" RevisionGUID="e968592e-5b77-44d1-b250-583d78b16be3" CreationDate="2017-12-14T06:44:52.717" UserId="8359" Text="|грамматика|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15375" RevisionGUID="88390cf6-7c8c-4c9f-8b98-cdd75e13228b" CreationDate="2017-12-14T07:45:38.893" UserId="5510" Text="You can read what is &quot;Creole&quot; or &quot;креол&quot; [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_peoples). In 19th century people who had both Alaska and Russian roots were called Creole people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So probably Volkov could speak Russian because one of his parents was Russian. But his language was not truly correct or full. This is my understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He was not learning Russian. May be he spoke Russian better in his childhood and forgot the language in the time which the author describes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15376" RevisionGUID="200a1627-a0a5-4885-90d8-d5f746f4bda0" CreationDate="2017-12-14T08:55:07.617" UserId="6097" Text="The only information which was said to us is that Volkov had bad skills in the Russian. &quot;*Сведение*&quot; is a synonym for &quot;*знание*&quot; here. There is no other implication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15374" RevisionGUID="1bdfe0a0-1b58-4122-9a63-c0ab1fd623d2" CreationDate="2017-12-14T09:45:30.033" UserId="8895" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In A.A. Istomin's article _Проблема участия Антипатра Баранова в экспедиции на «Иль­мене» у калифорнийских берегов в 1814-1815 гг._:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О том, что Волков - &quot;креол&quot;, к тому же плохо знающий русский язык (&quot;малое сведение его в рос­сийском языке&quot;), сообщает Л.А.Гагемейстер, непосредственно раз­говаривавший с ним во время визита в Сан-Франциско в 1817г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that Gagemeister criticized Volkov's language skills, but was the implication that Volkov was still learning Russian, that he never spoke Russian, that he was out of practice in Russian, that he spoke a low register of Russian, or what?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15377" RevisionGUID="a3485a72-42b5-4d5e-af85-510dfb9bcbbd" CreationDate="2017-12-14T11:28:06.660" UserId="7674" Text="The passage may be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; who's mastery of Russian was poor/who spoke Russian poorly (spoke Russian little)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;that's about as detailed as it gets, explanation of reasons for his poor Russian lie beyond the scope of the statement and probably need to be sought elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15378" RevisionGUID="61f5a75b-e9a0-4f54-ab0a-5987e967ac49" CreationDate="2017-12-14T12:18:43.210" UserId="5443" Text="The quote from Istomin's article is in *proper/modern* Russian, except for the smaller quote from **Гагемейстер** in brackets (&quot;*малое сведение его в рос­сийском языке*&quot; ~ his poor knowledge of Russian) which needed a previous explanation in modern Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *к тому же плохо знающий русский язык* =~ who was not a good Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; speaker at that" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15377" RevisionGUID="1c73f890-0900-4147-82dc-940e7164287a" CreationDate="2017-12-14T14:08:50.870" UserId="8895" Comment="edited body" Text="The passage may be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose mastery of Russian was poor/who spoke Russian poorly (spoke little Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about as detailed as it gets, explanation of reasons for his poor Russian lie beyond the scope of the statement and probably need to be sought elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15365" RevisionGUID="279b5d50-e0a6-4e92-b8c0-05d1b8882a4f" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:10:54.300" UserId="9128" Comment="spelling, translation" Text="Подобство is an old Russian word originating from the 11-13th centuries meaning подобие, сходство (similarity, likeness, resemblance). Сущий means настоящий (real, genuine). He is not a real ruler but only looks like one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38211" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15365" RevisionGUID="279b5d50-e0a6-4e92-b8c0-05d1b8882a4f" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:10:54.300" Comment="Proposed by 9128 approved by 8895, 6539 edit id of 939" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="09f5a7b8-36e6-4d9c-bce6-b424320f0f7d" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:11:49.313" UserId="6350" Comment="it's a *declarative* sentence, declining means something different" Text="How would you translate this sentence: &quot;Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov the director of Burnt by the Sun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought it would be:&#xD;&#xA; &quot; &lt;&lt;Утомленные солнцем&gt;&gt; директора - Никита Сергеевич Михалов &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it:&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Директор  &lt;&lt;Утомленных солнц&gt;&gt; - Никита Сергеевич Михалов &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большое спасибо!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38213" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="09f5a7b8-36e6-4d9c-bce6-b424320f0f7d" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:11:49.313" UserId="6350" Comment="it's a *declarative* sentence, declining means something different" Text="Need help with declarative sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38214" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="09f5a7b8-36e6-4d9c-bce6-b424320f0f7d" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:11:49.313" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 8895, 6539 edit id of 938" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15350" RevisionGUID="bcf869b5-ec7c-44fd-9880-84bd6d83dff4" CreationDate="2017-12-14T16:57:08.210" UserId="5224" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In English we have many ways to respond to a question or statement.  What are some informal ways to do this in Russian other than да or нет?&#xA;&#xA;Examples:&#xA;“Yep”, “Nope”&#xA;“Yea”, “Nah”&#xA;“Yay”, “Nay” (old English)&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15377" RevisionGUID="2123dbba-6b9c-4727-8bb7-48d77da18eac" CreationDate="2017-12-14T18:29:00.680" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The passage may be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; whose mastery of Russian was poor/who spoke Russian poorly (spoke little Russian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's about as detailed as it gets, explanation of reasons for his poor Russian lies beyond the scope of the statement and probably needs to be sought elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15363" RevisionGUID="573d5f4a-10d5-43f7-b9d9-9e6a31cd0528" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:44:44.983" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/941589832811384832" />
  <row Id="38219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15379" RevisionGUID="6df8b5b4-51d1-49f9-8e09-564547e25fc2" CreationDate="2017-12-15T09:36:14.563" UserId="3502" Text="*Everything below is on a very weak, nuanced level. Don't treat that as a strong rule.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;по-X&quot; often means &quot;X-like&quot; or &quot;like-X do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;читаю по-японски&quot;, &quot;понимаю по-японски&quot; imply some *action* on your part to perform. You're doing something that Japanese do. You're *acting* like Japanese do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я слушаю по-японски&quot; in its simplest meaning is more *passive*. &quot;Слушаю&quot; does not 100% imply &quot;понимаю&quot;. It's perfectly fine to say &quot;Слушаю, но ничего не понимаю.&quot;. So, you're not *doing* anything specifically Japanese. Anyone can listen to Japanese [language|music].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if there was some particular way, the Japanese are perceived to do the listening, you could use &quot;слушаю по-японски&quot;. That would relate your action to the Japanese culture, but not to the Japanese language per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example**:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я слушаю по-японски - внимательно и не перебивая.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15381" RevisionGUID="e80feb16-8f8f-40e9-a10e-8ad28c0e4751" CreationDate="2017-12-15T10:03:37.207" UserId="3502" Text="&gt;it sounds like the 'winter games' are calling something the 'white Olympics'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it sounds like this until you read the next part and see that the case does not match. Then you go back and re-parse.&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;Olympic games&quot; are inanimate, so you should have suspected something is wrong as soon as you read &quot;называют&quot;, which implies animate subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;why not use себя, or a reflexive verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These variants can be valid, but they're stronger. They imply the name is the true name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*olympic games held in winter are called &quot;White Olympics&quot;* - a true name for the games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you cannot say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Winter Olympics&quot; are called &quot;White Olympics&quot;* - name redefinition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not consider &quot;White Olympics&quot; the &quot;true name&quot; (I've never heard them called that), so I won't use the reflexive verb here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know that at least some people call &quot;Winter Olympics&quot; the &quot;White Olympics&quot;, so I'd write &quot;Зимние Игры *иногда* называют Белой Олимпиадой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I understand this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="06f43f82-89b9-429a-aa53-f6142731147b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:11:58.763" UserId="9995" Text="I'm reading one of the russian foltales&#xD;&#xA;but I don't know what Krutchina means&#xD;&#xA;It's written &quot;Krutchina(sorrow)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a surname with a meaning 'sorrow'?&#xD;&#xA;Please answer quickly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="06f43f82-89b9-429a-aa53-f6142731147b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:11:58.763" UserId="9995" Text="what does krutchina mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="06f43f82-89b9-429a-aa53-f6142731147b" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:11:58.763" UserId="9995" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15383" RevisionGUID="417a8c7b-895d-477d-9189-97c88116535c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:31:21.970" UserId="5605" Text="Кручина не имя и не фамилия. Кручина - это имя существительное со значением &quot;грусть, тоска, печаль&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://xn----8sbauh0beb7ai9bh.xn--p1ai/%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15383" RevisionGUID="b3495c49-0d0d-46c2-9eda-6ab579075aab" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:37:25.880" UserId="5605" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Кручина не имя и не фамилия. Кручина - это имя существительное, используемое в русском фольклоре, со значением &quot;грусть, тоска, печаль&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://xn----8sbauh0beb7ai9bh.xn--p1ai/%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="8b4bb7d4-8d19-47a4-a92e-5268b8d38144" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:42:52.837" UserId="4481" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I'm reading one of the russian foltales but I don't know what Krutchina means. It's written &quot;Krutchina (sorrow)&quot;. Is it a surname with a meaning 'sorrow'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38228" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="8b4bb7d4-8d19-47a4-a92e-5268b8d38144" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:42:52.837" Comment="Proposed by 4481 approved by 5605, 6097 edit id of 940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15384" RevisionGUID="3a39e38d-5252-458f-ab99-a96eba40de14" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:46:20.800" UserId="4629" Text="&quot;José Antonio Bolcoff (1794–1866) was born Osip Volkov in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Siberia. Working for the Russian-American Company, Bolcoff was captured on shore by the Spanish in 1815. He quickly assimilated into the Spanish culture, and was given the name José Antonio Bolcof. Bolcoff traveled with Governor Pablo Vicente de Solá, acting as an interpreter. In 1822, Bolcoff settled in Branciforte and married María Candida Castro, grantee of Rancho Refugio. Bolcoff was alcade of Branciforte in 1833. In 1833, Bolcoff was granted the one square league Rancho San Augustin, and moved his family to the rancho and built an adobe. In 1839, Bolcoff replaced Francisco Soto as administrator of Mission Santa Cruz.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_San_Agustin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bolcoff's biography snippets I managed to find do not clarify his poor comand of Russian. One of the possibilities is that, having not been sufficiently literate in the first place, he stopped using Russian fairly early in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a direct quotation I came across:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Переводчик наш Осип Волков живет у его в доме и, как видно, пользуется отличною доверенностию. Я спросил его, чем приличнее услужить губернатору в будущее время? И он сказал, что-нибудь из вещей интересных и что возмет даже и звонкою монетою. Будучи в С.-Барбаре, я вызывался ему, что в Монтерее без его повысили пошлины и в С.-Круз взыскали и за деньги. «Да, – отвечал он, – это так должно!», и после сего отзыва я замолчал.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Reisen/XIX/1800-1820/Issl_russ_tich_ok_XIX/41-60/50.phtml?id=4142&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference &quot;креол&quot; may be misleading. Here is how Брокгауз и Ефрон define it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Креол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(от испанского criollo) — в обширном смысле слова каждый родившийся в стране индивидуум чужой расы. Поэтому в американских колониях родившиеся там негры не смешанной крови, в противоположность привезенным, называются К. (в Бразилии — Negro de nacao). В тесном смысле К. называются в прежних французских, испанских и португальских колониях Америки, а также Африки (Гвинея) и Остиндии, местные уроженцы чисто европейской крови (sangre azul), в противоположность родившимся в Европе эмигрантам, которые в бывшей испанской Америке называются чапетонами, в Мехике обыкновенно — гачупинами, в Бразилии — Portuguezes legitimos или Filhos do reino. В Бразилии белые местные уроженцы прозвали себя Brasileiros. Ср. Oelsner-Monomerque, &quot;Der Kreole&quot; (Б., 1848).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15383" RevisionGUID="1ccf369d-ee3c-4cf5-b95e-47f4bd78773c" CreationDate="2017-12-15T12:47:02.313" UserId="5605" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Кручина не имя и не фамилия. Кручина - это имя существительное, используемое в русском фольклоре, со значением &quot;грусть, тоска, печаль&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кручина&quot; is not a name and not a surname. &quot;Кручина&quot; is a noun that is used in Russian folklore, meaning &quot;sorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://xn----8sbauh0beb7ai9bh.xn--p1ai/%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15385" RevisionGUID="b2eda06e-5edd-4957-beae-dd0acbcd6ec7" CreationDate="2017-12-15T13:04:13.967" UserId="4629" Text="Кручина may well be a surname (e.g., https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87), albeit in a folktale it most likely means &quot;sorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of context could help..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15386" RevisionGUID="717fb466-d974-4f3a-8774-05f47df8f7c1" CreationDate="2017-12-15T13:29:04.817" UserId="4629" Text="Depending of the surrounding context (if any) it should be either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Режиссёр фильма &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot; Никита Сергеевич Михалков.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никита Сергеевич Михалков, режиссёр фильма &quot;Утомлённые солнцем&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="6929749b-d2b2-4e58-9106-b039d72ca1b8" CreationDate="2017-12-15T14:15:18.367" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm reading one of the russian folktales but I don't know what Krutchina means. It's written &quot;Krutchina (sorrow)&quot;. Is it a surname with a meaning 'sorrow'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14927" RevisionGUID="c9631597-4d12-41ea-b8f9-4bde51b23d88" CreationDate="2017-12-15T18:08:00.830" UserId="7451" Comment="correct format of final quote (separate dialog into lines)" Text="My friend (St. Petersburg born and raised) recently got a tattoo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![БОШЕТУНМАЙ tattoo][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked him what *БОШЕТУНМАЙ* (&quot;Boshhetunmai&quot;) meant, and he said it was the refrain from a song which very much impressed him in his youth, the 1986 hit [*Бошетунмай* by Кино][3] (Kino) in the album *Группа крови* (&quot;Blood Group&quot;). You can hear Kino singing this word, in context, at ~2m22s in the linked video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this word mean? My friend claims it is, on its face, nonsense, and Kino refused to unequivocally define it until the day he died. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's roughly in accord with [the Wikipedia.ru history of the word][4], though automatic translation to English&amp;sup1; is very rough, fragmented, and hard to follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интервью с В. Цоем, Мурманское ТВ, апрель 1989 г. (Interview with V. Tsoi, Murmansk TV, April 1989):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А что такое «Бошетунмай»?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Это секрет.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He answers: &quot;It's a secret&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интервью с В. Цоем, «РИО» № 19, 1988 (Interview with V. Tsoi, &quot;RIO&quot; No. 19, 1988):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Откуда взялось слово «Бошетунмай»? Сам придумал?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Нет, не сам. Есть несколько разных версий возникновения этого слова.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — А у тебя какая?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Классическая. Просто такое вот волшебное слово.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roughly, he answers &quot;It's word with many interpretations. Mine is: it's classical. Just such a magic word&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Георгий Гурьянов так трактует это выражение (Georgy Guryanov so interpreted this expression):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — О-о-о… Бошетунмай  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — это отдельная история. Была такая группа «Ю би фоти»  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — реггей, британский «нью вейв». Они приехали к нам в Ленинград, мы ходили на их концерт, слушали их песню, даже исполняли её сами. А у них же всё вокруг марихуаны и косяков. Виктор под впечатлением всего этого написал реггей-песню. А «бошетунмай»  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — это одно из наших названий этого продукта. Скорее это всё Тимур придумал, у него был круг друзей, которые говорили между собой, что человек, который бросил это курить, продался. Соответственно, когда предлагалось курнуть, говорили: «Давай, не продадимся». Так не продавались, не продавались, а потом для конспирации перевели слово на китайский язык. Он был очень модным. Слово взяли из разговорника. «Не продаваться»  &#xD;&#xA;— это глагол… Никто значения этого слова до сих пор и не знает, м.б. лучше и не знать.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much harder to follow in English, but it seems he concludes the word means &quot; 'Do not sell' as a verb ... nobody knows the meaning of this word until now. It is better not to know.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the the creators of the word did not assign it a meaning, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If a native speaker, the man on the street, encountered *Бошетунмай*, never having heard the song, would it be meaningful to him? What would he interpret it to mean?&#xD;&#xA;- If not, does the word have any allusions, references, either in whole, or in part, which lend it shades of meaning from morphology or phonology alone?&#xD;&#xA;- If not, does it have any assonances, consonances, rhymes, or other similarities to other common words which would create links in the hearer's or reader's mind?&#xD;&#xA;- Would it consistently provoke any emotion or constellation of emotions in native speakers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, without familiarity with the Kino song, is this word complete nonsense? If not, what does it mean, or what associations would it create in the mind of a native speaker? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;sup1; &lt;sub&gt;Forgive me, I only speak English. I won't be able to understand answers or comments in Russian or any other non-English language. Of course you are free to speak among yourselves in any language you like, but addressing me won't be effective in anything but English.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxxZl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D5TX6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yog3lgCui7g&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=142&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15381" RevisionGUID="343fae82-69e2-4dfe-930a-4b9e4b9843bd" CreationDate="2017-12-16T01:36:40.150" UserId="3502" Comment="added 2236 characters in body" Text="&gt;it sounds like the 'winter games' are calling something the 'white Olympics'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it sounds like this until you read the next part and see that the case does not match. Then you go back and re-parse.&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;Olympic games&quot; are inanimate, so you should have suspected something is wrong as soon as you read &quot;называют&quot;, which implies animate subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;why not use себя, or a reflexive verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These variants can be valid, but they're stronger. They imply the name is the true name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*olympic games held in winter are called &quot;White Olympics&quot;* - a true name for the games.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you cannot say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Winter Olympics&quot; are called &quot;White Olympics&quot;* - name redefinition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not consider &quot;White Olympics&quot; the &quot;true name&quot; (I've never heard them called that), so I won't use the reflexive verb here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know that at least some people call &quot;Winter Olympics&quot; the &quot;White Olympics&quot;, so I'd write &quot;Зимние Игры *иногда* называют Белой Олимпиадой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I understand this proposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Updates**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases the specific action &quot;называть&quot; needs to be performed by someone [alive]. How can a stone or a game call something something? There are very similar verbs that do not need an animated subject: &quot;Игры вызывают радость.&quot; (Games bring the joy.) Bringing the joy is something that a subject can perform even being inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;inanimate objects can always do things, if only in a make believe story&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's true. &quot;Труба зовёт в бой&quot; (&quot;Trumpet/bugle calls to battle&quot;) is perfectly fine. Each ambiguity has some more common and less common parsing. If you want to use the less common meaning you need to &quot;justify&quot; it by adding details that highlight your logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Video games *take* all your time.&quot; - I get it.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Olympic games *steal* all attention&quot; - I get it.&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Olympic Games *name* the White Games&quot; - sort of grammatically correct, but what exactly does that mean?&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Olympic Games *define* White Games as sport games that are played on a white field.&quot; or &quot;Olympic Games *name* White Games the best sport.&quot; - grammatically correct, but what exactly do you mean by &quot;Olympic Games *define*&quot; or &quot;Olympic Games *name*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The incompatibility between inanimate subject and &quot;называют&quot; does not extend to the reflexive form &quot;называются&quot;. It seems to me that the &quot;Inanimate Subject + Reflexive Verb&quot; expressions are most often understood as passive. The specific reflexive form &quot;называются&quot; is now biased towards passive connotations even when the subject is animate. &quot;Называют себя&quot; ~= &quot;call themselves&quot;, but &quot;называются&quot; ~= &quot;are called&quot; (even though these were the same words in the beginning.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parsing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Игры&quot; =&gt; Inanimate (Nominative Subject OR Accusative Object);&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;называют&quot; =&gt; commonly needs animate subject =&gt; &quot;Inanimate_Subject&quot; parsing of &quot;игры&quot; is unlikely, the likely parsing is &quot;Inanimate_Object in an indefinite-personal sentence&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. &quot;белой олимпиадой&quot; =&gt; not Genitive case (not &quot;Subject calls object &lt;name&gt;.&quot;) =&gt; Likely parsing is &quot;Object is called name&quot;, but still not 100% sure - it could still be &quot;Subject defines &lt;name&gt; as description.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. End of sentence =&gt; &quot;Subject defines name as description.&quot; parsing is broken. This leaves the &quot;Object is called name&quot; variant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38240" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="dfe2d810-04a9-467d-8b8b-5887e70f6603" CreationDate="2017-12-16T02:48:56.167" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/941862677114220545" />
  <row Id="38243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15388" RevisionGUID="11c821da-6103-44af-a073-250ba21ed65c" CreationDate="2017-12-17T16:18:26.987" UserId="5224" Text="In English is is rare to use the noun &quot;language&quot; when describing them.  It is most common to name the language as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Engl **-ish**&#xD;&#xA; - Span **-ish**&#xD;&#xA; - French&#xD;&#xA; - Russi **-an**&#xD;&#xA; - Germ **-an**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it acceptable/common/comfortable to name these without the trailing word &quot;язык?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. Английский without &quot;Английский язык&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15388" RevisionGUID="11c821da-6103-44af-a073-250ba21ed65c" CreationDate="2017-12-17T16:18:26.987" UserId="5224" Text="Describe a Language Without the Noun for &quot;Language&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15388" RevisionGUID="11c821da-6103-44af-a073-250ba21ed65c" CreationDate="2017-12-17T16:18:26.987" UserId="5224" Text="|существительные|other-languages|суффиксы|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15389" RevisionGUID="5e1a979e-d42d-490f-9ac9-bee0d3051c7b" CreationDate="2017-12-17T16:47:10.307" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, absolutely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Он знает английский. = He knows English.&#xD;&#xA;  * Она предпочитает русский. = She prefers Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that language names or nationalities are not capitalised in Russian. Neither are months or days or the week." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15388" RevisionGUID="b35469f0-f946-4e44-88f9-6b2e9b9dc4ca" CreationDate="2017-12-17T16:48:46.893" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="In English is rare to use the noun &quot;language&quot; when describing them.  It is most common to name the language as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Engl **-ish**&#xD;&#xA; - Span **-ish**&#xD;&#xA; - French&#xD;&#xA; - Russi **-an**&#xD;&#xA; - Germ **-an**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it acceptable/common/comfortable to name these without the trailing word &quot;язык?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. Английский without &quot;язык&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15388" RevisionGUID="9420c9c0-400a-43ac-8f7f-8b9058a2d6a0" CreationDate="2017-12-17T18:36:12.227" UserId="5224" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In English it is rare to use the noun &quot;language&quot; when describing them.  It is most common to name the language as such:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Engl **-ish**&#xD;&#xA; - Span **-ish**&#xD;&#xA; - French&#xD;&#xA; - Russi **-an**&#xD;&#xA; - Germ **-an**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it acceptable/common/comfortable to name these without the trailing word &quot;язык?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. Английский without &quot;язык&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="f417b24b-edb2-402e-8052-b6cb08a6dc78" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:47:07.367" UserId="9620" Text="[![the first paragraph is from the website ***Learnrussian.rt*** &#xD;&#xA;. It says that the prefix **&quot;по&quot;**  with a multidirectional verb still gives an ***imperfective***  ,whereas The second paragraph from the textbook ***Schaum's Outlines of Russian Grammar*** says it makes the verb ***perfective*** . which of them is correct?&#xD;&#xA;**Also , Does &quot;по&quot; ,if added, exclude the multidirectional verb of motion from this group ?**&#xD;&#xA;][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C7yNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="f417b24b-edb2-402e-8052-b6cb08a6dc78" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:47:07.367" UserId="9620" Text="Prefixed verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="f417b24b-edb2-402e-8052-b6cb08a6dc78" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:47:07.367" UserId="9620" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38254" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15388" RevisionGUID="c6ac9a42-ab10-4580-b08a-10962b9932ed" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:50:52.820" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/942497345182236672" />
  <row Id="38255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="3d9f8d34-deeb-40fd-b8df-1df2be5f8495" CreationDate="2017-12-17T20:52:01.827" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The first paragraph is from the website ***Learnrussian.rt***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says that the prefix **&quot;по&quot;**  with a multidirectional verb still gives an ***imperfective***, whereas the second paragraph from the textbook ***Schaum's Outlines of Russian Grammar*** says it makes the verb ***perfective***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of them is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also, does &quot;по&quot;, if added, exclude the multidirectional verb of motion from this group?**[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C7yNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="0568466c-7aa9-49ed-8800-91c1cb3d6c4a" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:00:21.183" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The first paragraph is from the website ***Learnrussian.rt*** says that the prefix **&quot;по&quot;**  with a multidirectional verb still gives an ***imperfective***, whereas the second paragraph from the textbook ***Schaum's Outlines of Russian Grammar*** says it makes the verb ***perfective***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of them is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also, does &quot;по&quot;, if added, exclude the multidirectional verb of motion from this group?**[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C7yNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15392" RevisionGUID="57a5ade9-b457-45d9-bb59-dd9933d86f4e" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:04:50.267" UserId="7674" Text="The explanation under the table is correct, while the explanation of the paragraph 2 of the table is erroneous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15392" RevisionGUID="0c64850f-375f-46fa-bddf-12b1ae6a34fa" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:10:08.170" UserId="7674" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="The explanation under the table is correct, while the explanation of the paragraph 2 of the table is erroneous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgshp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="08925674-0abb-40e4-982f-55b30cb77486" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:22:15.650" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The first paragraph is from the website ***Learnrussian.rt*** and says that the prefix **&quot;по&quot;**  with a multidirectional verb still gives an ***imperfective***, whereas the second paragraph from the textbook ***Schaum's Outlines of Russian Grammar*** says it makes the verb ***perfective***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of them is correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also, does &quot;по&quot;, if added, exclude the multidirectional verb of motion from this group?**[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C7yNc.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15393" RevisionGUID="3ebd42cd-d345-403e-88be-83f3844c5934" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:38:39.347" UserId="9459" Text="A linguist might answer this better. I hope, I got this right. I am answering from pure language feeling, as a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I cannot help but observe myself is that those &quot;adjectively&quot; looking nouns originate from describing the situations, where the noun is partially lost already, but can be reconstructed in the hindsight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- улица Подвальная (in older cities): modern speaker might understand this as &quot;cellar street&quot;, but it's actually `под вальная`, it was a street following the city walls.&#xD;&#xA;- ванная vs. ванная комната&#xD;&#xA;- столовая – same issue&#xD;&#xA;- набережная — similar to подвальная, `на берегу`&#xD;&#xA;- парадная (oh hello St. Petersburg, old friend), `парадная лестница`, as mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ellipsis is quite strong in Russian, why say the original noun if it's clear anyway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15392" RevisionGUID="7989b87d-d931-4adc-b7d0-10f5a56f62ff" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:44:11.953" UserId="7674" Comment="added 687 characters in body" Text="The explanation under the table is correct, while the explanation of the paragraph 2 of the table is erroneous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgshp.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;A copy of an answer from the comments:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;the verb `ходить` may also be understood as an ordinary verb if it implies motion in a certain direction and then its perfective aspect is `сходить`, like in phrases `я (с)ходил в кино/на концерт`, `он (с)ходил к врачу`, the context or the following preposition tells you about the connotation of the verb, but multidirectional ones remain so regardless of the prefix, one cannot turn a phrase `я ходил ПО квартире` into perfective by saying `я СХОДИЛ по квартире`, only `ПОходил` because of the preposition `ПО (квартире)`, but the perfective version of the phrase `я ходил НА квартиру` is `я СХОДИЛ на квартиру`&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="1ab09c8b-6d4f-467c-9f36-e49437c90f8d" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:47:05.833" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Aspects of motion verbs with prefix &quot;по-&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15392" RevisionGUID="f344262b-0974-4795-ba72-015fa9fa7613" CreationDate="2017-12-17T21:51:53.527" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The explanation under the table is correct, while the explanation of the paragraph 2 of the table is erroneous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgshp.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;A copy of an answer from the comments:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;the verb `ходить` may also be understood as an ordinary verb if it implies motion in a certain direction and then its perfective aspect is `сходить`, like in phrases `я (с)ходил в кино/на концерт`, `он (с)ходил к врачу`, the context or the preposition of the direct object tells you about the connotation of the verb, but multidirectional ones remain so regardless of the prefix, one cannot turn a phrase `я ходил ПО квартире` into perfective by saying `я СХОДИЛ по квартире`, only `ПОходил` because of the preposition `ПО (квартире)`, but the perfective version of the phrase `я ходил НА квартиру` is `я СХОДИЛ на квартиру`&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15392" RevisionGUID="9f1e8e7c-cde3-4d06-8d75-324ebe48080f" CreationDate="2017-12-17T22:12:47.470" UserId="7674" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="The explanation under the table is correct, while the explanation of the paragraph 2 of the table is erroneous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgshp.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;A copy of an answer from the comments:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;the verb `ходить` may also be understood as an ordinary verb if it implies motion in a certain direction and then its perfective aspect is `сходить`, like in phrases `я (с)ходил в кино/на концерт`, `он (с)ходил к врачу`, the context or the preposition of the direct object tells you about the connotation of the verb, but multidirectional ones remain so regardless of the prefix, one cannot turn a phrase `я ходил ПО квартире` into perfective by saying `я СХОДИЛ по квартире`, only `ПОходил` because of the preposition `ПО (квартире)`, but the perfective version of the phrase `я ходил НА квартиру` is `я СХОДИЛ на квартиру` if it's a one-off action, if however it means paying multiple visits to an apartment during some time the perfective phrase will be `я ПОХОДИЛ на квартиру`&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15394" RevisionGUID="62aef809-f3e9-4ad9-a226-27ef02748799" CreationDate="2017-12-18T08:37:43.057" UserId="5443" Text="Neither paragraph in the *first* source says that the prefix **-по** MAKES a *verb* *perfective* of *imperfective* (imperfective *aspect* there seems to just refer to continuous action - for a while, etc.). Also, unlike the *second* source, it does not introduce the idea of 'multidirectional verb' allegedly turned into perfective by **-по**, which is *not true* (at least. it doesn't happen all the time), e. g. compare **походить** (*perfective* verb) and **похаживать**  (*imperfective* verb). So, the *second* source should have been more careful in conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15394" RevisionGUID="9c19afb6-9bc7-4c44-a485-c4cb75bf4351" CreationDate="2017-12-18T08:56:25.993" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="Neither paragraph in the *first* source says that the prefix **-по** MAKES a *verb* *perfective* or *imperfective* (imperfective *aspect* there seems to just refer to continuous action - for a while, etc.). Also, unlike the *second* source, it does not introduce the idea of 'multidirectional verb' allegedly turned into perfective by **-по**, which is *not true* (at least. it doesn't happen all the time), e. g. compare **походить** (*perfective* verb) and **похаживать**  (*imperfective* verb). So, the *second* source should have been more careful in conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15394" RevisionGUID="bd53bf7b-c382-442e-ad07-2c214437bbd7" CreationDate="2017-12-18T09:11:30.050" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="Neither paragraph in the *first* source says that the prefix **по-** MAKES a *verb* *perfective* or *imperfective* (imperfective *aspect* there seems to just refer to continuous action - for a while, etc.). Also, unlike the *second* source, it does not introduce the idea of 'multidirectional verb' allegedly turned into perfective by **по-**, which is *not true* (at least, it doesn't happen all the time), e. g. compare **походить** (*perfective* verb) and **похаживать**  (*imperfective* verb). So, the *second* source should have been more careful in conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15389" RevisionGUID="433ef2e7-5ed7-4739-94a6-3d1b692e6221" CreationDate="2017-12-18T11:45:10.330" UserId="2104" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Yes, it is quite common in conversational speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Он знает английский. = He knows English.&#xD;&#xA;  * Она предпочитает русский. = She prefers Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that language names or nationalities are not capitalised in Russian. Neither are months or days or the week." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15357" RevisionGUID="dcd5b864-620d-47da-b65c-a9c55a1c3c4f" CreationDate="2017-12-18T11:59:59.280" UserId="10000" Comment="Corrected English spelling" Text="Take your pick:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Убить одним выстрелом двух зайцев (Kill two rabbits with one shot) &#xD;&#xA; - (Дать) и вашим, и нашим (Please one's friends and enemies) &#xD;&#xA; - Сидеть на двух стульях (Sit on two chairs)&#xD;&#xA; - Объять необъятное (Embrace the unembraceable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two are normally used in the negative sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - На двух стульях не усидишь (You can't sit on two chairs)&#xD;&#xA; - Нельзя объять необъятное (You can't embrace the unembraceable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one you quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a classic proverb. There is nothing inherently offensive about it. It would make a nice epigraph.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38270" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15357" RevisionGUID="dcd5b864-620d-47da-b65c-a9c55a1c3c4f" CreationDate="2017-12-18T11:59:59.280" Comment="Proposed by 10000 approved by 8895, 5605 edit id of 941" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15369" RevisionGUID="f00547b5-6799-4fd1-b62e-633806e895f8" CreationDate="2017-12-18T14:50:55.810" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/942769148588826626" />
  <row Id="38273" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="e81d5491-3bc4-4182-8c26-24e7f7972105" CreationDate="2017-12-18T15:36:59.650" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15395" RevisionGUID="8e488cb2-6e0f-418b-abe8-3beef1d5e1f1" CreationDate="2017-12-19T03:15:55.050" UserId="9603" Text="What is the difference between **дай мне** and **дайте мне**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15395" RevisionGUID="8e488cb2-6e0f-418b-abe8-3beef1d5e1f1" CreationDate="2017-12-19T03:15:55.050" UserId="9603" Text="дай мне vs дайте мне" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15395" RevisionGUID="8e488cb2-6e0f-418b-abe8-3beef1d5e1f1" CreationDate="2017-12-19T03:15:55.050" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15396" RevisionGUID="bef2150a-5be5-4012-9f0e-587139e7a341" CreationDate="2017-12-19T04:44:14.980" UserId="5443" Text="The first imperative can be used when addressing a single person whom you usually call **ты** (a child or somebody close enough to you). The second version is applicable to somebody you call **вы** or to multiple listeners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15396" RevisionGUID="30fe0ac0-d271-46c7-8cfb-2002c7e29f80" CreationDate="2017-12-19T04:50:46.980" UserId="5443" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="The first imperative can be used when addressing a single person whom you usually call **ты** (a child or somebody close enough to you). The second version is applicable to somebody you call **вы** (in most such cases you also add **пожалуйста** for politeness, '*please*') or to multiple listeners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15397" RevisionGUID="6d998e09-c954-4049-ba96-fcd832ce313b" CreationDate="2017-12-19T06:34:06.740" UserId="7223" Text="Мне встретилась фраза *&quot;Рояль должен быть исчезнут&quot;*, и мне стало интересно как правильно классифицировать в ней глагол *&quot;исчезнуть&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если бы измененное значение глагола было распространенным - это был бы неологизм образованный семантической деривацией, но это всего лишь авторская придумка. Но как окказионализм его тоже классифицировать не получается, потому что доступные мне источники описывают окказионализм исключительно как новое слово построенное по правилам словообразования, а новый смысл существующего слова под определение окказионализма не подходит." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15397" RevisionGUID="6d998e09-c954-4049-ba96-fcd832ce313b" CreationDate="2017-12-19T06:34:06.740" UserId="7223" Text="Существует ли понятие семантического окказионализма, а если нет то как его правильно назвать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15397" RevisionGUID="6d998e09-c954-4049-ba96-fcd832ce313b" CreationDate="2017-12-19T06:34:06.740" UserId="7223" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38282" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15302" RevisionGUID="92ced0d0-ab05-44bd-96cf-334c26e72e4b" CreationDate="2017-12-19T08:51:03.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/943040971503226880" />
  <row Id="38283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15398" RevisionGUID="e94378ee-a745-4fa1-a9f5-92020e581a56" CreationDate="2017-12-19T09:14:56.773" UserId="7674" Text="я конечно не филолог и не лингвист, но посмотреть могу 8^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [здесь][1], например, речь идёт о таких понятиях, как &quot;*переходность*&quot; и &quot;*лабильность*&quot; глаголов. &quot;Переходность&quot; в смысле способности быть переходными, каковым стал глагол `исчезнуть` в приведённой фразе. А &quot;*лабильность*&quot; - это способность глаголов быть как переходными, так и непереходными без формальных изменений, точно как в случае приведённой фразы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В другой просмотренной [литературе][2] процесс изменения глаголами их формы между переходной и непереходной называется &quot;*лабилизацией*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стало быть глагол `исчезнут` в приведённой фразе можно, вероятно, классифицировать как &quot;*лабилизированный, в страдательном залоге*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://publications.hse.ru/chapters/102333542&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=JlyTCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hj97BYadOk&amp;sig=i_cMzr6LTnbDXXm6qD6dlTcuTD4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj1m7CC3ZXYAhXBYlAKHcBCB5kQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15398" RevisionGUID="12cf39bc-f7a4-451e-80be-f1b6c43df4fd" CreationDate="2017-12-19T09:22:02.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="я конечно не филолог и не лингвист, но посмотреть могу 8^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [здесь][1], например, речь идёт о таких понятиях, как &quot;*переходность*&quot; и &quot;*лабильность*&quot; глаголов. &quot;Переходность&quot; в смысле способности быть переходными, каковым стал глагол `исчезнуть` в приведённой фразе. А &quot;*лабильность*&quot; в смысле способности глаголов быть как переходными, так и непереходными без формальных изменений, точно как в случае приведённой фразы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В другой просмотренной [литературе][2] процесс изменения формы глаголов между переходной и непереходной называется &quot;*лабилизацией*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стало быть глагол `исчезнут` в приведённой фразе можно, вероятно, классифицировать как &quot;*призвольно лабилизированный, в страдательном залоге*&quot;. Это, конечно, не научная классификация, а всего лишь попытка её произвести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://publications.hse.ru/chapters/102333542&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=JlyTCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hj97BYadOk&amp;sig=i_cMzr6LTnbDXXm6qD6dlTcuTD4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj1m7CC3ZXYAhXBYlAKHcBCB5kQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15398" RevisionGUID="6eb86fc5-41ea-4909-b7ef-bee40563aa62" CreationDate="2017-12-19T10:00:27.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 861 characters in body" Text="я конечно не филолог и не лингвист, но посмотреть могу 8^)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот [здесь][1], например, речь идёт о таких понятиях, как &quot;*переходность*&quot; и &quot;*лабильность*&quot; глаголов. &quot;Переходность&quot; в смысле способности быть переходными, каковым стал глагол `исчезнуть` в приведённой фразе. А &quot;*лабильность*&quot; в смысле способности глаголов быть как переходными, так и непереходными без формальных изменений, точно как в случае приведённой фразы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В другой просмотренной [литературе][2] процесс изменения формы глаголов между переходной и непереходной называется &quot;*лабилизацией*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стало быть глагол `исчезнут` в приведённой фразе можно, вероятно, классифицировать как &quot;*призвольно лабилизированный, в страдательном залоге*&quot;. Это, конечно, не научная классификация, а всего лишь попытка её произвести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покопавшись ещё в [литературе][3], нашёл термин &quot;*[семантический сдвиг][4]*&quot; (хотя и без его связи с явлением лабильности глаголов) которому приведённый пример может удовлетворять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://publications.hse.ru/chapters/102333542&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=JlyTCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=hj97BYadOk&amp;sig=i_cMzr6LTnbDXXm6qD6dlTcuTD4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj1m7CC3ZXYAhXBYlAKHcBCB5kQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=7U7TAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA342&amp;lpg=PA342&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=RxT-1ffGVX&amp;sig=zLfs6B800BzVGyTZgEGp2jfFyWo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYrc7a5pXYAhWSLlAKHeF8AWYQ6AEISzAF#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38286" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15395" RevisionGUID="47ac9956-05f0-49de-a036-56c9759b42d1" CreationDate="2017-12-19T10:34:26.580" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|повелительное-наклонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38287" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15395" RevisionGUID="47ac9956-05f0-49de-a036-56c9759b42d1" CreationDate="2017-12-19T10:34:26.580" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="&quot;Дай мне&quot; vs &quot;дайте мне&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15399" RevisionGUID="ee4f2bec-ae56-490a-a312-39fef92fcaab" CreationDate="2017-12-19T11:45:35.397" UserId="5443" Text="Используется понятие **грамматического** (морфологического) **окказионализма**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Статья: &quot;Грамматические окказионализмы в авторском тексте&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://narfu.ru/university/library/books/1058.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Семантический окказионализм* означает другое:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://studfiles.net/preview/383843/page:7/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15400" RevisionGUID="499b4a03-395f-4853-ad9c-95ff9d939188" CreationDate="2017-12-19T12:43:15.453" UserId="2104" Text="Historically there were two **ни** particles, one of them meant &quot;и не&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Он не ел и не пил. -&gt; Он не ел, ни пил. -&gt; Он ни ел, ни пил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meant (and still does) &quot;any&quot;, &quot;whichever&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Кто бы ни был&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни на есть&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни день, то новости. И т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [this talk][1] by A. A. Zalizniak. The link points to 39:20 where the discussion of **ни** begins but I recommend watching the whole lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGcD1ACbZo&amp;t=2360s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15372" RevisionGUID="5858de7f-2997-4990-8721-9f47e63e39ad" CreationDate="2017-12-19T14:40:10.780" UserId="426" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Час&quot; is one of several masculine nouns that retained the old &quot;dual number&quot; pronunciation. Stress shifts from &quot;ча́са&quot; to &quot;часа́&quot; when the word is used in combination with 2, 3, 4, and compound numbers that require declension of 2, 3, and 4 (e.g. 23, 3002, and so on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in situations when stress shifts to the last syllable the unstressed &quot;а&quot; is pronounced as [i], for example &quot;два часа&quot; is pronounced as [dvɑ ʧisɑ], not as [dvɑ ʧɑsɑ]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15400" RevisionGUID="7e9f3340-6207-4a26-9efc-d6eacd265689" CreationDate="2017-12-19T15:21:39.480" UserId="2104" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="**Не** is normally used for negation:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; * Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Не** хотите ли присесть?&#xD;&#xA; * Закурить **не** найдется?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **ни**, there are actually two particles, one used for negation (on its own or with **не**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Ни рыба, ни мясо&#xD;&#xA; * Ни нашим, ни вашим&#xD;&#xA; * Ни шагу назад!&#xD;&#xA; * Никто не забыт, ничто не забыто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning &quot;any&quot;, &quot;every&quot;, &quot;whichever&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Где бы я ни был, куда б я ни шел, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда-нибудь, что-нибудь, etc (here **ни** merged with **будь** but retained the meaning).&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни на есть, какой ни на есть, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни день, то новости. Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is this **ни** that appears in **Кто бы ни был**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [this talk][1] by A. A. Zalizniak. The link points to 39:20 where the discussion of **ни** begins but I recommend watching the whole lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGcD1ACbZo&amp;t=2360s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15400" RevisionGUID="508ca077-b655-41c3-8eb8-637cff900648" CreationDate="2017-12-20T11:15:03.297" UserId="2104" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The particle **не** is normally used for negation:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; * Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Не** хотите ли присесть?&#xD;&#xA; * Закурить **не** найдется?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **ни**, there are actually two particles, one used for negation (on its own or with **не**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Ни рыба, ни мясо&#xD;&#xA; * Ни нашим, ни вашим&#xD;&#xA; * Ни шагу назад!&#xD;&#xA; * Никто не забыт, ничто не забыто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning &quot;any&quot;, &quot;every&quot;, &quot;whichever&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Где бы я ни был, куда б я ни шел, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда-нибудь, что-нибудь, etc (here **ни** merged with **будь** but retained the meaning).&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни на есть, какой ни на есть, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни день, то новости. Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is this **ни** that appears in **Кто бы ни был**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [this talk][1] by A. A. Zalizniak. The link points to 39:20 where the discussion of **ни** begins but I recommend watching the whole lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGcD1ACbZo&amp;t=2360s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15400" RevisionGUID="d55f7270-2513-4a1c-a6b0-9be5d5239b1a" CreationDate="2017-12-20T11:22:44.450" UserId="2104" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The particle **не** is normally used for negation:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; * Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for phrases like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Не** хотите ли присесть? (Would you like to sit down?)&#xD;&#xA; * Закурить **не** найдется? (Got a spare smoke?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **ни**, there are actually two particles, one used for negation (on its own or with **не**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Ни рыба, ни мясо&#xD;&#xA; * Ни нашим, ни вашим&#xD;&#xA; * Ни шагу назад!&#xD;&#xA; * Никто не забыт, ничто не забыто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning &quot;any&quot;, &quot;every&quot;, &quot;whichever&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Где бы я ни был, куда б я ни шел, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда-нибудь, что-нибудь, etc (here **ни** merged with **будь** but retained the meaning).&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни на есть, какой ни на есть, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда ни глянь, как ни старайся, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни день, то новости. Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is this **ни** that appears in **Кто бы ни был.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [this talk][1] by A. A. Zalizniak. The link points to 39:20 where the discussion of **ни** begins but I recommend watching the whole lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGcD1ACbZo&amp;t=2360s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38295" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15289" RevisionGUID="3ff01c69-70f6-4b04-85d4-ac2689f992c0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T14:53:33.607" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/943494586701402112" />
  <row Id="38296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="5161587f-631a-441d-8b1a-b0baad34e9ab" CreationDate="2017-12-20T17:54:07.343" UserId="10014" Text="hi this is my first question here...  &#xD;&#xA;what is the difference between &quot;исползовать-ся&quot; and &quot;употреблять&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do we use the first one and when the later?  &#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="5161587f-631a-441d-8b1a-b0baad34e9ab" CreationDate="2017-12-20T17:54:07.343" UserId="10014" Text="исползовать-ся and употреблять" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="5161587f-631a-441d-8b1a-b0baad34e9ab" CreationDate="2017-12-20T17:54:07.343" UserId="10014" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15402" RevisionGUID="e9411c89-52ac-42a6-8faf-002345c063a0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T17:58:02.073" UserId="10015" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bz3z0.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The below image was listed in a book a wishes and I was hoping someone could help me translate it.  I think it begins with &quot;Want a new year to start....&quot;  but can't figure out the rest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15402" RevisionGUID="e9411c89-52ac-42a6-8faf-002345c063a0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T17:58:02.073" UserId="10015" Text="Can some one help translate the Russian Cursive in the image below" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15402" RevisionGUID="e9411c89-52ac-42a6-8faf-002345c063a0" CreationDate="2017-12-20T17:58:02.073" UserId="10015" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15404" RevisionGUID="d69b65cc-df0c-4db6-8075-90adae25e128" CreationDate="2017-12-20T19:06:27.750" UserId="7674" Text="**`исполЬзоваться`** is a reflexive verb, which means it doesn't have a direct object (is intransitive) and denotes an action being experienced by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инструмент&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; используется&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; в работе - a tool **is (being) used** in the works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`употреблять`** is an active verb which can have an object (is transitive) and denotes an action being performed by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; употребляю&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; много чеснока&lt;sup&gt;*dir.object*&lt;/sup&gt; - i **consume** a lot of garlic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use cases of the verb **`исполЬзоваться`** are identical to those of the past participle of the verb `to use` -&gt; `to be used`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Употреблять`** is mainly utilized to denote consumption (food, medicines, substances), usage of objects for specific purpose and/or accomplishment of a certain objective evident from the context and introduced with the preposition `для`, `c целью`, as well as usage of words/language/vocabulary (as in `в общении с женщинами я мат не употребляю`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][1] in the Wiktionary has a pretty exhaustive in my opinion  set of use case examples for the verb **`употреблять`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15404" RevisionGUID="616defa0-ef73-4ee6-9f0b-3d9883798770" CreationDate="2017-12-20T19:20:14.533" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**`исполЬзоваться`** is a reflexive verb, which means it doesn't have a direct object (is intransitive) and denotes an action being experienced by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инструмент&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; используется&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; в работе - a tool **is (being) used** in the works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`употреблять`** is an active verb which can have an object (is transitive) and denotes an action being performed by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; употребляю&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; много чеснока&lt;sup&gt;*dir.object*&lt;/sup&gt; - i **consume** a lot of garlic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use cases of the verb **`исполЬзовать`** are identical to those of the the verb `to use`, and of the verb **`исполЬзоватьСЯ`** - of its past participle `to be used`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Употреблять`** is mainly utilized to denote consumption (food, medicines, substances), usage of objects for specific purpose and/or accomplishment of a certain objective evident from the context and introduced with the preposition `для`, `c целью`, as well as usage of words/language/vocabulary (as in `в общении с женщинами я мат не употребляю`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][1] in the Wiktionary has a pretty exhaustive in my opinion  set of use case examples for the verb **`употреблять`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15404" RevisionGUID="4c4535c9-8d4b-4399-9799-663cf7ee826d" CreationDate="2017-12-20T20:07:37.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**`исполЬзоваться`** is a reflexive verb, which means it doesn't have a direct object (is intransitive) and denotes an action being experienced by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инструмент&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; используется&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; в работе - a tool **is (being) used** in the works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`употреблять`** is an active verb which can have an object (is transitive) and denotes an action being performed by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; употребляю&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; много чеснока&lt;sup&gt;*dir.object*&lt;/sup&gt; - i **consume** a lot of garlic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use cases of the verb **`исполЬзовать`** are identical to those of the the verb `to use`, and of the verb **`исполЬзоватьСЯ`** - of its past participle `to be used`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Употреблять`** is mainly utilized to denote consumption (food, medicines, substances), usage of objects for specific purpose and/or accomplishment of a certain objective evident from the context or explicitly introduced with  prepositions `для`, `c целью`, as well as usage of words/language/vocabulary (as in `в общении с дамами я мат не употребляю`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][1] in the Wiktionary has a pretty exhaustive in my opinion  set of use case examples for the verb **`употреблять`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15404" RevisionGUID="a13b9c52-367b-4296-99f0-b824ce180777" CreationDate="2017-12-20T20:59:40.360" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**`исполЬзоваться`** is a reflexive verb, which means it doesn't have a direct object (is intransitive) and denotes an action being experienced by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инструмент&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; используется&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; в работе - a tool **is (being) used** in the works&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`употреблять`** is an active verb which can have an object (is transitive) and denotes an action being performed by the subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я&lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt; употребляю&lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt; много чеснока&lt;sup&gt;*dir.object*&lt;/sup&gt; - i **consume** a lot of garlic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use cases of the verb **`исполЬзовать`** are identical to those of the the verb `to use`, and of the verb **`исполЬзоватьСЯ`** - to those of its past participle `to be used`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Употреблять`** is mainly utilized to denote consumption (food, liquids, medicines, substances), usage of objects for specific purpose and/or accomplishment of a certain objective evident from the context or explicitly introduced with  prepositions `для`, `c целью`, as well as usage of words/language/vocabulary (as in `в общении с дамами я мат не употребляю`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][1] in the Wiktionary has a pretty exhaustive in my opinion  set of use case examples for the verb **`употреблять`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15371" RevisionGUID="26d4eb7b-d33e-4f1a-8a1d-b4a01a982b35" CreationDate="2017-12-20T21:28:26.727" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&quot;И волки сыты, и овцы целы.&quot; (The wolves are fed and the sheep are safe.) Often used as a metaphor of two mutually exclusive goals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="6f06d89f-6e62-48a9-85a2-e02f20059bc4" CreationDate="2017-12-21T07:22:15.517" UserId="8895" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="hi this is my first question here...  &#xD;&#xA;what is the difference between &quot;исползоваться&quot; and &quot;употреблять&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do we use the first one and when the later?  &#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="6f06d89f-6e62-48a9-85a2-e02f20059bc4" CreationDate="2017-12-21T07:22:15.517" UserId="8895" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="&quot;использоваться&quot; and &quot;употреблять&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38310" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15402" RevisionGUID="09aed226-aac6-46a5-a9d9-e239cccc78fe" CreationDate="2017-12-21T07:25:41.193" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="Can someone help translate the Russian Cursive in the image below" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38311" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15402" RevisionGUID="a6930579-c0f5-44fa-8c9c-4a7df2a108de" CreationDate="2017-12-21T09:35:26.570" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="3c39522d-52ef-4e73-b19a-c8bbe088c68f" CreationDate="2017-12-21T11:40:37.123" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|вид|приставка-по|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38313" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="d9da3a18-5daa-4db0-8d37-1319e2b16fde" CreationDate="2017-12-21T11:40:59.873" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|приставка-по|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15392" RevisionGUID="7417a187-5f36-4c39-98e4-56314301a333" CreationDate="2017-12-21T14:01:42.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="The explanation under the table is correct, while the explanation of the paragraph 2 of the table is erroneous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;A copy of an answer from the comments:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;the verb `ходить` may also be understood as an ordinary verb if it implies motion in a certain direction and then its perfective aspect is `сходить`, like in phrases `я (с)ходил в кино/на концерт`, `он (с)ходил к врачу`, the context or the preposition of the direct object tells you about the connotation of the verb, but multidirectional ones remain so regardless of the prefix, one cannot turn a phrase `я ходил ПО квартире` into perfective by saying `я СХОДИЛ по квартире`, only `ПОходил` because of the preposition `ПО (квартире)`, but the perfective version of the phrase `я ходил НА квартиру` is `я СХОДИЛ на квартиру` if it's a one-off action, if however it means paying multiple visits to an apartment during some time the perfective phrase will be `я ПОХОДИЛ на квартиру`&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A more detailed explanation of differences between perfective verbs with prefixes `по-` and `с-` can be found [HERE][2] &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bgshp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13063/difference-between-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-and-%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38317" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13063" RevisionGUID="1fe1c481-3e23-4f4b-a957-7595d63ccd76" CreationDate="2017-12-21T14:02:57.003" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|вид|приставка-по|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38318" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15202" RevisionGUID="384d9565-1359-45e5-9deb-0253493774c5" CreationDate="2017-12-21T14:30:35.760" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;ходить&quot; and &quot;идти&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="0cf94b54-91bb-42bf-bb33-54c3df0607ab" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:06:21.730" UserId="10014" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="hi this is my first question here...  &#xD;&#xA;what is the difference between &quot;исползоваться&quot; and &quot;употреблять&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do we use the first one and when the latter?  &#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="db8075fc-2c53-475b-a0ea-65301f246c9e" CreationDate="2017-12-21T18:06:10.373" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="hi this is my first question here...  &#xD;&#xA;what is the difference between &quot;использоваться&quot; and &quot;употреблять&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do we use the first one and when the latter?  &#xD;&#xA;thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15405" RevisionGUID="ffa9dd22-0bb3-4157-b8fb-2052a442b884" CreationDate="2017-12-21T20:26:26.827" UserId="1262" Text="The fact that von Hagemeister was a Baltic German born into a gentry family and composed his diaries in German, Russian, English, French, Spanish and Portuguese doesn't tell much about validity of his language skills evalutaion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volkoff and von Hagemeister met in 1817, while Khlebnikoff's reference to Volkoff as to an interpreter is dated by 1820, which means that Volkoff's skill were at least still passable for a conversation with Khlebnikoff in 1820.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the language Khlebnikov uses is filled with misspellings and many a calque from Western European languages, which was 'an aristocratic Russian', a form of the language with numerous grammatical and/or orthographical mistakes, but still understandable and recognisible as a legitimate form of Russian throughout the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that Hagemeister could use much better form of Russian himself (a German accent is still regardered as a 'legitimate mockery' by many native Russian speakers, but during his hispanophonic days his Russian mihgt undergo the same noticeable changes under the Spanish influence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, both Khlebnikov and Volkoff could speak more or less equally 'creolised' form of Russian (not necessary with any distortion, but rather with equal level of 'illegitimate mockery' of the language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take as a starting point for our conclusion an idea that in those days a Russian nationality was defined by a language mastering, this possibly could explain why Volkoff was described as a 'creole with a low language competence' by von Hagemeister, another person who perhaps spoke equally 'creolised' Russian... or was just trying to put some airs on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="e341edbc-16dc-4c96-be19-cb3a7edbc5e2" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:01:08.353" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Меня зовут Фёдор&quot; и &quot;Меня Фёдором звать&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought that the Nominal case (&quot;Фёдор&quot;) is more appropriate for names and the Instrumental (&quot;Фёдором&quot;) is for nicknames, but later I came across other examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/js7tT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="e341edbc-16dc-4c96-be19-cb3a7edbc5e2" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:01:08.353" UserId="170" Text="Difference between &quot;Меня зовут Фёдор&quot; и &quot;Меня звать Фёдором&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="e341edbc-16dc-4c96-be19-cb3a7edbc5e2" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:01:08.353" UserId="170" Text="|падежи|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="7b2a74e9-020f-40e3-bab6-30719129c87c" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:48:25.423" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|выбор-имени|звать|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38327" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="356f56f6-cd7c-42e8-9b64-04dfb731037d" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:48:56.170" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[13403],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38330" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13403" RevisionGUID="53b58512-3354-43cf-8659-d5ad23719c8a" CreationDate="2017-12-21T21:52:47.437" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|глаголы|звать|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="92aeca6e-4bb1-4fe5-9e16-ddebd5c38c57" CreationDate="2017-12-21T23:22:15.753" UserId="170" Comment="added 485 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Меня зовут Фёдор&quot; и &quot;Меня Фёдором звать&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought that the Nominal case (&quot;Фёдор&quot;) is more appropriate for names and the Instrumental (&quot;Фёдором&quot;) is for nicknames, but later I came across other examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: My question is not about WHY sometimes it is Nominal and at other times Instrumental, but rather about WHAT THE DIFFERENCE between these two usages is. So, it is not a direct duplicate of **[Regarding case usage with звать][2]**, none of the three current answers of which are answering my question here (some comments come close, but not the answers).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/js7tT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13403/regarding-case-usage-with-%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15406" RevisionGUID="cca31536-94fb-40cc-905f-8d087b421095" CreationDate="2017-12-21T23:30:15.890" UserId="170" Comment="added 485 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;Меня зовут Фёдор&quot; и &quot;Меня Фёдором звать&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;At first I thought that the Nominal case (&quot;Фёдор&quot;) is more appropriate for names and the Instrumental (&quot;Фёдором&quot;) is for nicknames, but later I came across other examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: My question is not about WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO SUBJECTS in a Nominal constructions like &quot;Меня зовут Анна&quot;, &quot;Меня зовут Фёдор&quot;, etc. My question is about WHAT THE DIFFERENCE is between these two usages, that is, between &quot;зовут Фёдор&quot; and &quot;звать Фёдором&quot;. So, it is not a direct duplicate of **[Regarding case usage with звать][2]**, none of the three current answers of which are answering my question here (some comments come close, but not the answers).    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/js7tT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13403/regarding-case-usage-with-%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15405" RevisionGUID="fdeb8ff1-604c-475e-9009-a4eabf2966b0" CreationDate="2017-12-22T14:40:06.090" UserId="1262" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="The fact that von Hagemeister was a Baltic German born into a gentry family and composed his diaries in German, Russian, English, French, Spanish and Portuguese doesn't tell much about validity of his language skills evalutaion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volkoff and von Hagemeister met in 1817, while Khlebnikoff's reference to Volkoff as to an interpreter is dated by 1820, which means that Volkoff's skills were at least still passable for his interpreting services and a conversation with Khlebnikoff in 1820.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the language Khlebnikov uses is filled with misspellings and many a calque from Western European languages, which was 'an aristocratic Russian', a form of the language with numerous grammatical and/or orthographical mistakes, but still understandable and recognisible as a legitimate form of Russian throughout the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that Hagemeister could use much better form of Russian himself (a German accent is still regardered as a 'legitimate mockery' by many native Russian speakers), but while Volkoff had spent decades within the Spanish-speaking community, his Russian,. just like Khlebnikoff's, mihgt undergo the same noticeable changes under the Spanish influence during his hispanophonic days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, both Khlebnikov and Volkoff could speak more or less equally 'creolised' form of Russian (not necessary with any distortion, but rather with equal level of 'illegitimate mockery' of the language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take as a starting point for our conclusion an idea that in those days a Russian nationality was defined by a language mastering, this possibly could explain why Volkoff was described as a 'creole with a low language competence' by von Hagemeister, another person who perhaps spoke equally 'creolised' Russian... or was just trying to put on some airs of a language connaisseur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15401" RevisionGUID="f9e76a8c-1a74-488f-999f-5a6ac8e5178b" CreationDate="2017-12-23T02:09:48.997" UserId="4903" Comment="removed unnecessary greeting" Text="What is the difference between &quot;использоваться&quot; and &quot;употреблять&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do we use the first one and when the latter?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38340" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15397" RevisionGUID="b734656a-43a4-4dbb-9aea-1585d1d58a11" CreationDate="2017-12-23T06:02:22.207" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/944448071559254017" />
  <row Id="38341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15409" RevisionGUID="7471dede-9dc9-4eea-aadb-2fe90b7228c6" CreationDate="2017-12-23T08:25:00.567" UserId="9540" Text="I could only find десяток and девяток. What is the range of numbers from 1 to 10 for this numeric form? Is десяток merely a declined form for десятка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15409" RevisionGUID="7471dede-9dc9-4eea-aadb-2fe90b7228c6" CreationDate="2017-12-23T08:25:00.567" UserId="9540" Text="десяток and its class of numeric forms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15409" RevisionGUID="7471dede-9dc9-4eea-aadb-2fe90b7228c6" CreationDate="2017-12-23T08:25:00.567" UserId="9540" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15405" RevisionGUID="1bfdc993-98c7-4321-a498-8b9a4f33f211" CreationDate="2017-12-23T09:42:33.843" UserId="1262" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="The fact that von Hagemeister was a Baltic German born into a gentry family and composed his diaries in German, Russian, English, French, Spanish and Portuguese doesn't tell much about validity of his language skills evalutaion targeted at other Russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volkoff and von Hagemeister met in 1817, while Khlebnikoff's reference to Volkoff as to an interpreter is dated by 1820, which means that Volkoff's skills were at least still passable for his interpreting services and a conversation with Khlebnikoff in 1820.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the language Khlebnikov uses is filled with misspellings and many a calque from Western European languages, which was 'an aristocratic Russian', a form of the language with numerous grammatical and/or orthographical mistakes, but still understandable and recognisible as a legitimate form of Russian throughout the Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that Hagemeister could use much better form of Russian himself (a German accent is still regardered as a 'legitimate mockery' by many native Russian speakers), but while Volkoff had spent decades within the Spanish-speaking community, his Russian, just like Khlebnikoff's, mihgt undergo the same noticeable changes under the Spanish influence during his hispanophonic days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, both Khlebnikov and Volkoff could speak more or less equally 'creolised' form of Russian (not necessary with any distortion, but rather with equal level of 'illegitimate mockery' of the language).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take as a starting point for our conclusion an idea that in those days a Russian nationality was defined mainly by a language mastering, this possibly could explain why Volkoff was described as a 'creole with a low language competence' by von Hagemeister, another person who perhaps spoke equally 'creolised' Russian... or was just trying to put on some airs of a language connaisseur." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15410" RevisionGUID="22eadaa8-0f0a-47ed-999f-85feaf21eeb3" CreationDate="2017-12-23T10:10:21.410" UserId="5443" Text="**Девяток** is a declined form (feminine *девятка* -&gt; plural *девятки* -&gt; genitive case *девяток*), while **десяток** has its own meaning (ten pieces of smth.) and just *coincides* in spelling with that form (*десятка* in plural + in genitive case). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meaning and form of *десяток*, there's **no** *range of numbers*, it is only possible to mention **пара** (inform. 2 pieces, две штуки), **пяток** (very informally, пять штук, 5 pieces you buy), **полдюжины** (obsolete, 6 штук) - that's all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13196/express-ten-in-russian-difference-between-%d0%b4%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%8f%d1%82%d1%8c-%d0%b4%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%8f%d1%82%d0%ba%d0%b0-%d0%b4%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%8f%d1%82%d0%be%d0%ba" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15411" RevisionGUID="3f9a2513-809c-4571-93cb-73ec5f53d005" CreationDate="2017-12-23T11:49:53.743" UserId="7674" Text="For groups of **animate objects** Russian employs the name of the corresponding digit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пятёрка** всадников&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**тройка** друзей&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;великолепная **семёрка**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;except for `единица` аnd `двойка`, and for a group of 10 beings `десяток` will rather be used instead of `десятка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although admittedly it has limited use confined to a set of familiar or tested cases. Not every such phrase will sound natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15411" RevisionGUID="a0bdc215-efa3-4fc2-abf5-9d07775bf47c" CreationDate="2017-12-23T12:16:53.463" UserId="7674" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="For groups of **animate objects of one kind/category** Russian employs the name of the corresponding digit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пятёрка** всадников&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**тройка** друзей&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;великолепная **семёрка**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;except for `единица` аnd `двойка`, and for a group of 10 beings `десяток` will rather be used instead of `десятка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although admittedly it is more of a literary form and has limited use confined to a set of familiar or tested cases. Not every such phrase will sound natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15411" RevisionGUID="73950bf4-e11f-4d54-89f3-6152a6d964b4" CreationDate="2017-12-23T12:23:04.903" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="For groups of **animate objects of one kind/category** Russian employs the name of the corresponding digit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пятёрка** всадников&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**тройка** друзей&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;великолепная **семёрка**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;except for `единица` аnd `двойка` (because there's `пара`), and for a group of 10 beings `десяток` will rather be used instead of `десятка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although admittedly it is more of a literary form and has limited use confined to a set of familiar or tested cases. Not every such phrase will sound natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15412" RevisionGUID="77e2da79-8303-4253-a8fd-5d27a0ecf459" CreationDate="2017-12-23T13:18:52.263" UserId="9459" Text="Same appearance, not always same meaning. Such forms and similar number designations have often special uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Единица — mostly as _oldisch_ worst school grade, from &quot;1&quot;, obviously. Also: a unit. _Боевая единица_ – a military unit.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Двойка - again, the worst currently used school grade. _Can_ be used as &quot;pair of something&quot;, but there is also `пара`, as mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Тройка - triplet. Mostly the three horses in a row in the same carriage. I bet, you have seen the pictures. _Эх тройка, птица-тройка, куда же ты так несешься?_&#xD;&#xA; 4. Четверка - quadruple.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Пятерка. Both 4 and 5 can be perceived as school grades that go up to 5. I think, there is a chain of markets called &quot;Пятерочка&quot;, a dimutive. I perceive simply `пятерка` depending on context either as best grade or a group of five. Also a money bill of 5.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Шестерка. Has a derogatory meaning of a smallish criminal helper from the criminal argo, wide spread in the 90s and somewhat established in the informal conversational language. Before that, aside from, &quot;a group of six&quot;, the 210**6** model of Lada. Mentioned above: oldisch spoken language: `полдюжины`, that's of quantity only.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Семерка. A group of seven, the number seven, I recall no extra meanings. there was a cheap alcoholic brewage in Soviet time called 777, so `три семерки`.  &#xD;&#xA; 8. Восьмерка. Dito.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Девятка. Dito, maybe also the 9 at a shooting exercise.&#xD;&#xA; 10. Десятка. Dito, also with shooting. Also a money bill of value 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know spontanously no such construct with 11. 12 is `дюжина`, there is also 13 — `чертова дюжина`, although more conversational. 20 with `двадцатка` and 50 with `пятидесятка` is for me purely a money bill designations, and not those of a written language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 50 — пятьдесят, but also `полста`, esp. in military radio exchange.&#xD;&#xA;* 100 — стольник (money), also `сотка` – rather in designations, but also for money: _А потом сотки подтянулись, так мы и выжили._ (on appearance of СУ-100 on the battlefield); _— Почем пластинка Битлов? / — Сотка!_ (from bootleg music trade in 60s-70s); сто грамм, стопка — a vodka dosage.&#xD;&#xA;* 500 — пятьсот, but also полтысячи.&#xD;&#xA;* 1000 — тысяча, _very old, not in modern language:_ тьма, _modern jargon:_ штука, esp. of money, somewhat oldisch jargon, unsure: `кусок`.&#xD;&#xA;* 1 000 000 — миллион, _jargon:_ лимон&#xD;&#xA;* 1 000 000 000 — миллиард, _jargon:_ лярд." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15413" RevisionGUID="08c6fd29-fdec-4f90-b250-087acd4967fc" CreationDate="2017-12-23T13:36:42.197" UserId="9459" Text="To give you a feel of the difference in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an intended diminutive in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый человек необходимо приносит пользу, будучи употреблен на своем&#xD;&#xA;&gt; месте.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.inpearls.ru/665418&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has the touch of consumerism towards people, which was probably the intended pun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: [Козьма Прутков][1] is a collective pseudonym that coined satire and also abstruse and humorous aphorisms. The actual idea of the saying is apparently from Sun Tsu, the correct wording is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый человек приносит пользу, когда занимается своим делом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D1%80%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15414" RevisionGUID="06d26ee8-a2c0-411e-9dfd-e509410c4f06" CreationDate="2017-12-23T19:41:49.310" UserId="1262" Text="The group nouns for animate sentient beings are as follows (governed by Plural Genitive and works with Neutrum and Masculine words only): ***двое, трое, четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро.*** Then there are more productive adverbial forms (like ***вдвоём, вшестером, всемером, ввосьмером,*** etc., but I guess they might be a little bit outside from the scope of your question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Feminine nouns, usual [Slavic Counting][1] is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The group nouns for both animate (regardless on whether sentient or not) and inanimate objects are as follows: ***пара*** (***двойка*** is usually applied either as a word for a school mark or a suit type), ***тройка, четвёрка, пятёрка, шестёрка, семёрка, восьмёрка, девятка, десяток,*** there is no specific word for eleven objects, then come ***дюжина*** (12), ***двадцатка*** (20), ***тридцатка*** (30), then there is a gap for 40 followed by ***пол-сотни*** (50) and ***сотня*** (100). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, standard compound nouns are applied (NB: the post-decimal numbers 2 and 1 should correlate in genders, e. g. ***сорок один год***, ***сорок одна лошадь***, ***сорок одно окно***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2364/special-treatment-for-plural-forms-depending-on-number-of-objects-where-does-i" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15415" RevisionGUID="810edf6a-2493-4b8b-8004-ff1460da9e2d" CreationDate="2017-12-23T23:06:55.070" UserId="10026" Text="1. __вариантов__ или __варианта__? Или можно использовать обе вариации?  &#xD;&#xA;2. Нужна ли запятая перед __что__?&#xD;&#xA;3. Можно ли использовать __один__, или грамматически верно использовать только __единственный__?&#xD;&#xA;4. Нужна ли запятая перед __кто__?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15415" RevisionGUID="810edf6a-2493-4b8b-8004-ff1460da9e2d" CreationDate="2017-12-23T23:06:55.070" UserId="10026" Text="&quot;Я один кто не знал, что вариантов у итогового теста два?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15415" RevisionGUID="810edf6a-2493-4b8b-8004-ff1460da9e2d" CreationDate="2017-12-23T23:06:55.070" UserId="10026" Text="|прилагательные|существительные|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15416" RevisionGUID="0a7744e1-0d9f-4cd9-ab8d-ea4bc0fa479a" CreationDate="2017-12-23T23:32:01.377" UserId="1262" Text="В целом - пример разговорного современного языка, на границе литературной нормы, однако есть работающие правила:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. вариантов (множественное неопределённое, сопоставимое с неопределенным артиклем в западных языках, ср. &quot;Есть ключи?&quot; &quot;Найдутся места?&quot; и так далее). В приближенном к литературной норме возможно только &quot;варианта&quot;, без указания на определенность-неопределенность (и(ли) очевидность-неочевидность).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Нужна (перед подчиненным компонентом сложносоставного сложноподчиненного предложения).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Допускаются оба варианта, в сниженном регистре также возможно &quot;(Это) только я, кто...&quot; и &quot;Я (тут) один такой, кто...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Нужна (перед союзным словом)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15417" RevisionGUID="55c47d0b-a4c9-4fb5-92f5-221d72ee8924" CreationDate="2017-12-24T04:37:06.180" UserId="8460" Text="In a quotation in English, the period goes inside the quotation marks; in Russian, outside the quotation marks. (But an exclamation point and a question mark still go inside.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;No pain, no gain.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* «У попа была собака»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38358" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="15417" RevisionGUID="1f717de9-68d6-4647-b999-eee899206433" CreationDate="2017-12-24T04:37:06.180" UserId="8460" />
  <row Id="38359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15418" RevisionGUID="cda3ab4d-5fe9-4aef-8a05-c3f2bc794350" CreationDate="2017-12-24T05:25:44.440" UserId="6539" Text="По-русски мы говорим так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Интересно, я один не знал, что у теста два **варианта** (только я не знал, я единственный не знал )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможен вариант с инверсией &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;..., что **вариантов** у теста два.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Кто**&quot; показывает, что это калька с иностранного языка. В русском —лишнее (redundant ). Запятые перед придаточными нужны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15419" RevisionGUID="bb367787-4c33-4ec1-a07d-292df784af30" CreationDate="2017-12-24T11:33:31.893" UserId="9406" Text="Is there a site that contains the declensions for all cases of russian words and that shows which vowel has the accent? Is there an equivalent to Duden German dictionary, but for Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used Wiktionary, which has accurate information most of the times, but for some irregular words I cannot verify if the declensions are correct or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15419" RevisionGUID="bb367787-4c33-4ec1-a07d-292df784af30" CreationDate="2017-12-24T11:33:31.893" UserId="9406" Text="Site with declension of words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15419" RevisionGUID="bb367787-4c33-4ec1-a07d-292df784af30" CreationDate="2017-12-24T11:33:31.893" UserId="9406" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15420" RevisionGUID="aa0e787f-552e-4e1c-a483-438ab69f9240" CreationDate="2017-12-24T12:01:03.333" UserId="5443" Text="1. При имеющемся порядке слов - &quot;**вариантов**&quot;(... имеется вот сколько:) два. В случае же прямого указания количества требуется согласование с числительным:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я *один* (один *я*) не знал, что у итогового теста два **варианта**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the emphasized word is shown in italics)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Запятая нужна - для отделения *придаточного предложения*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3/4. См. возможный вариант с &quot;один&quot; в п. 1; исходная фраза неверна (она сконструирована искусственно или переведена - по-русски так не говорят, &quot;кто&quot; здесь излишне). Возможен вариант с &quot;единственный вместо &quot;один&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я единственный не знал, что вариантов у итогового теста два?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно без того и другого:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Выходит,) только я не знал, что вариантов у итогового теста два?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38365" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15419" RevisionGUID="922d643c-c9c8-44a0-9501-755381574e68" CreationDate="2017-12-24T14:03:35.997" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38368" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15374" RevisionGUID="81bf6a0c-7836-4315-b5fd-951de926dbed" CreationDate="2017-12-24T18:06:31.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/944992698381062144" />
  <row Id="38369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15414" RevisionGUID="4a2c780a-3d5f-4851-95cd-b60a8e41810b" CreationDate="2017-12-24T19:00:14.070" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The group nouns for animate sentient beings are as follows (governed by Plural Genitive and works with Neutrum and Masculine words only): ***двое, трое, четверо, пятеро, шестеро, семеро.*** Then there are more productive adverbial forms (like ***вдвоём, вшестером, всемером, ввосьмером,*** etc., but I guess they might be a little bit outside of the scope of your question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Feminine nouns, usual [Slavic Counting][1] is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The group nouns for both animate (regardless on whether sentient or not) and inanimate objects are as follows: ***пара*** (***двойка*** is usually applied either as a word for a school mark or a suit type), ***тройка, четвёрка, пятёрка, шестёрка, семёрка, восьмёрка, девятка, десяток,*** there is no specific word for eleven objects, then come ***дюжина*** (12), ***двадцатка*** (20), ***тридцатка*** (30), then there is a gap for 40 followed by ***пол-сотни*** (50) and ***сотня*** (100). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, standard compound nouns are applied (NB: the post-decimal numbers 2 and 1 should correlate in genders, e. g. ***сорок один год***, ***сорок одна лошадь***, ***сорок одно окно***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2364/special-treatment-for-plural-forms-depending-on-number-of-objects-where-does-i" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15382" RevisionGUID="0e74a406-25ab-42df-97d1-cf7cbae6a8ce" CreationDate="2017-12-25T00:09:05.990" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/945083944348864512" />
  <row Id="38371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15391" RevisionGUID="a672b525-865e-418e-8e7b-616f31acea03" CreationDate="2017-12-25T06:10:32.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/945174905133420545" />
  <row Id="38372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15422" RevisionGUID="114e260e-ecf8-427a-9567-c343185d4dbe" CreationDate="2017-12-25T08:05:15.553" UserId="7674" Text="Кроме того, что, как тут уже сказали, **`кто`** в этом предложении звучит плеонастично, или неуклюже, для того, чтобы фраза звучала более по-русски его можно заменить на **`который`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я один, который не знал..?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15423" RevisionGUID="e06e955c-1eda-4690-a072-40fae67b27aa" CreationDate="2017-12-25T14:10:40.493" UserId="3892" Text="I always that this meant That's right! -or- Exactly! In response to someone coming up with a correct answer or statement. However, recently, I had the following exchange, in which it was intimated that I misused it: &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;**СОБЕСЕДНИК:** Привет! У меня вопрос: &quot;Proper nouns are normally invariant for number: most are singular, but a few, referring for instance to mountain ranges or groups of islands, are plural (e.g. Hebrides)&quot; &quot;invariant for number&quot; значит неизменны, в единственном или множественном числе. Я правильно понимаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я:** Вот именно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**СОБЕСЕДНИК:** Только по-русски лучше сказать «Именно!». Если употреблять это слово. А лучше, если хочется сказать что-то необычное, ну то есть не просто «да, правильно», сказать «В точку!» (это как попасть точно в цель, такое значение).&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;That led me to think that I've been misusing Вот именно for a long time. So my question is When *do* you use it? What was wrong with my use of it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15423" RevisionGUID="e06e955c-1eda-4690-a072-40fae67b27aa" CreationDate="2017-12-25T14:10:40.493" UserId="3892" Text="Usage of Вот именно!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15423" RevisionGUID="e06e955c-1eda-4690-a072-40fae67b27aa" CreationDate="2017-12-25T14:10:40.493" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15423" RevisionGUID="d0bf8000-f550-40ab-986c-2856a1658980" CreationDate="2017-12-25T14:20:20.413" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I always thought this meant That's right! -or- Exactly! In response to someone coming up with a correct answer or statement. However, recently, I had the following exchange, in which it was intimated that I misused it: &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;**СОБЕСЕДНИК:** Привет! У меня вопрос: &quot;Proper nouns are normally invariant for number: most are singular, but a few, referring for instance to mountain ranges or groups of islands, are plural (e.g. Hebrides)&quot; &quot;invariant for number&quot; значит неизменны, в единственном или множественном числе. Я правильно понимаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я:** Вот именно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**СОБЕСЕДНИК:** Только по-русски лучше сказать «Именно!». Если употреблять это слово. А лучше, если хочется сказать что-то необычное, ну то есть не просто «да, правильно», сказать «В точку!» (это как попасть точно в цель, такое значение).&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;That led me to think that I've been misusing Вот именно for a long time. So my question is When *do* you use it? What was wrong with my use of it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15424" RevisionGUID="d63476f9-f46e-4c71-b7a4-0a964ead816e" CreationDate="2017-12-25T14:45:17.387" UserId="9001" Text="The **вот** particle adds a grumbling tone to the expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Опять на обед капуста, лучше бы мяса дали!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вот именно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Cabbage again. I'd like some meat much better!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- My though exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also sound a bit sarcastic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Уже 11, пора мне вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вот именно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- It's 11 already. Time for me to get up from bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Nice of you to remember that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **именно** alone will not have these connotations if said in neutral (not grumbling or sarcastic) tone of voice, but anyway it sounds old fashioned to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15305" RevisionGUID="308514eb-1472-4079-8540-0e637c7e9b52" CreationDate="2017-12-25T15:10:31.647" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/945310795465986049" />
  <row Id="38379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15424" RevisionGUID="1b5b2a68-c8ea-40ae-ba62-e8a6f1862605" CreationDate="2017-12-25T15:20:22.740" UserId="9001" Comment="one more example" Text="The **вот** particle adds a grumbling tone to the expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Опять на обед капуста, лучше бы мяса дали!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вот именно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Cabbage again. I'd like some meat much better!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- My though exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also sound a bit sarcastic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Уже 11, пора мне вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вот именно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- It's 11 already. Time for me to get up from bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Nice of you to remember that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **именно** alone will not have these connotations if said in neutral (not grumbling or sarcastic) tone of voice, but anyway it sounds old fashioned to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Именно так** -  is a formal and polite way to express that you're totally agree/support what was just said." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15425" RevisionGUID="6f873237-32df-48db-a9c4-83159402fbd6" CreationDate="2017-12-25T16:08:39.103" UserId="7674" Text="In short, **`Вот именно!`** isn't meant to be a response to a question, but a form of unsolicited approval of a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to bear a grumbling tone, especially if said with proper intonation, for example with enthusiastic one, in which case it has connotations of **`See? THAT'S what i'm talking about!`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15425" RevisionGUID="670b5440-9895-43ce-85cc-3aa6884783bf" CreationDate="2017-12-25T16:13:55.387" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="In short, **`Вот именно!`** isn't meant to be a response to a question, but a form of unsolicited approval of a statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't have to bear a grumbling tone, it can be expressed enthusiastically, in which case it has connotations of **`See? THAT'S what i'm talking about!`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15426" RevisionGUID="49e7a1bf-e9ee-45d6-bba5-ca7da2d520c3" CreationDate="2017-12-25T16:32:47.613" UserId="5443" Text="You misused it, but the version **именно!** wouldn't improve the answer: it's just a colloquial simplification of **вот именно!** or **именно так!** in the meaning of confirmation, and that simplification doesn't belong to sophisticated style of speech (it's an *incomplete* expression). The expression **вот именно!** is suitable when you hear a correct judgment and want to use it for making your own point on its basis. If you just want to approve someone's point, **именно так!** is better since it never expresses irony, which is possible with **вот именно!**. Another suggestion (&quot;*да, правильно*&quot;) was correct. You could also answer that question &quot;*Безусловно!*&quot;, &quot;*Конечно*&quot;, &quot;*Совершенно верно*&quot;.  &quot;**В точку!**&quot; would better fit a situation where the other person has just made an unexpectedly good guess. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15298" RevisionGUID="b59c088a-0202-49c2-8362-8d878fd85fe3" CreationDate="2017-12-26T21:15:53.540" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/945765130704424960" />
  <row Id="38384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15312" RevisionGUID="8cb450a7-dd4f-448f-b35f-1e7219962072" CreationDate="2017-12-27T00:18:19.053" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/945811039521837058" />
  <row Id="38385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15424" RevisionGUID="f9c82aee-731d-4493-be9f-9ad0fb661429" CreationDate="2017-12-27T08:59:44.750" UserId="4833" Comment="Typo" Text="The **вот** particle adds a grumbling tone to the expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Опять на обед капуста, лучше бы мяса дали!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вот именно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Cabbage again. I'd like some meat much better!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- My thought exactly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also sound a bit sarcastic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Уже 11, пора мне вставать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Вот именно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- It's 11 already. Time for me to get up from bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-- Nice of you to remember that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **именно** alone will not have these connotations if said in neutral (not grumbling or sarcastic) tone of voice, but anyway it sounds old fashioned to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Именно так** -  is a formal and polite way to express that you're totally agree/support what was just said." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14448" RevisionGUID="f39fdd0f-d428-4404-bdd7-8f121ae12e42" CreationDate="2017-12-27T12:11:20.170" UserId="6907" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="We all agree that the letter **г** in Russian is equal to **G** in English. &#xD;&#xA;But Why does the letter г in some of the Russian words sound different as it should be? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * се**г**одня = pronounced as if it is written: се**в**одня .&#xD;&#xA;* ниче**г**о = pronounced as if it is written: ниче**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* е**г**о  (for example:  его семья) = pronounced as if it is written: е**в**о. &#xD;&#xA;* Льва Толсто**г**о = Lva Tolsto**v**a&#xD;&#xA;* хорошо**г**о дня = harosho**v**o dnya &#xD;&#xA;* для того что = Dela to**v**o chto &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to see more examples of this phenomenon, and I'll add them here -in the question- later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hxE98m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15428" RevisionGUID="b9ececa4-97c8-4310-a8f7-67c9fd813ead" CreationDate="2017-12-27T23:35:35.060" UserId="2191" Text="I know that the general way of saying ‘let him/her/them’ is «пусть он/она/они» and the general way of saying ‘let us’ is «давай(те)». (‘General’ meaning that I'm aware that sometimes when translated, the verb is used in the appropriate form and the word ‘let’ is omitted; I am referring to instances apart from these.) What is the general way of saying ‘let + me/you’? I'm not sure if it involves some form of «позволить» and how generally «позволить» can be used to say ‘let [someone]’. Or would it be better to rephrase the sentence to avoid using the word ‘let’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15428" RevisionGUID="b9ececa4-97c8-4310-a8f7-67c9fd813ead" CreationDate="2017-12-27T23:35:35.060" UserId="2191" Text="How does one say ‘let + me/you’ in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15428" RevisionGUID="b9ececa4-97c8-4310-a8f7-67c9fd813ead" CreationDate="2017-12-27T23:35:35.060" UserId="2191" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15429" RevisionGUID="b8858dbd-9342-4714-bd23-356db12fad40" CreationDate="2017-12-28T03:20:37.657" UserId="4560" Text="Tough question because the English &quot;let&quot; is an intersection of several constructions in Russian, and one probably can't avoid asking &quot;which 'let'&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it's not **позволить**. It can be, but only in a handful of hyper-formal contexts, and in general you're better off thinking of **позволить** as to &quot;allow&quot; or &quot;enable&quot; rather than &quot;let&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In everyday speech, you can safely use **давай** or plural/formal **давайте** with &quot;me&quot; and &quot;you&quot;; just include the pronoun. For a less abstract &quot;how about this is what happens next&quot; and more of a literal &quot;let&quot;, you can use **дай(те)**, which is even more informal but also has an undertone of asking permission." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="6bb5c448-6561-48a2-9c8f-f1cf41189c60" CreationDate="2017-12-28T08:20:17.263" UserId="7674" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15432" RevisionGUID="4ae89c63-8aa0-46ee-9b72-776b873ea1da" CreationDate="2017-12-28T11:37:08.803" UserId="5008" Text="Well, anyway, **let** us begin at the beginning. The word &quot;**let**&quot; may mean the following (and totally different) things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **A proposal**. Translated as &quot;**давай(те)&quot; + future tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let us go somewhere&quot; - &quot;давай(те) сходим куда-нибудь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: &quot;давай(те)&quot; could be omitted, so the informal things become more informal, while the formal things become even more formal. For example, &quot;Let us suppose&quot; - &quot;Давайте предположим&quot; (a mixture of common and formal speech, typical &quot;lecturer&quot; tone), or just &quot;Предположим&quot; (neutrally formal, like in a book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **An indifference** (let it be / I don't mind / I don't care). Translated as &quot;**Пусть**&quot; or &quot;**Пускай&quot; + present tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let things go&quot; - &quot;Пускай всё идёт своим чередом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **A rhetorical request**. Typically translated as **&quot;Позвольте&quot;** or **&quot;Разрешите&quot; + infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let me recall that...&quot; - &quot;Позвольте напомнить, что...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: obviously, it belongs to a purely formal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **An order** or **persistent request**. Not translated, i.e. **imperative** only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let him go&quot; - &quot;Отпусти(те) его&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: as usual, an order differs from a request by tone, and by using the word &quot;please&quot; and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **A polite request** (May I...). Well, now we're entering the jungle of a speech etiquette, so we have first to ask if &quot;**let**&quot; is really a polite request in English. How big is the difference between &quot;Let me help you&quot; and &quot;May I help you?&quot;, or &quot;May I come through?&quot; and &quot;Let me come through&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the most common and simple way in Russian to form a polite request is to use **&quot;Можно&quot; + infinitive** (also note that it's a question, so it directly corresponds to &quot;May I?&quot; type of sentences). However, the more direct approach with **&quot;Дай(те)&quot; + infinitive** (which is much more like &quot;Let me...&quot;) is generally also acceptable (at least if you don't forget to add &quot;please&quot;). So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;May I come through?&quot; - &quot;Можно пройти?&quot;; &quot;Let me come through&quot; - &quot;Дайте пройти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering usage of &quot;**Позвольте**&quot; in a live speech, it's definitely an option if you want to sound more like a gentleman, and many people actually say it, but it's not a first choice by any means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are specific use cases, where the construction &quot;**Let + verb**&quot; is used in place of a single verb, which also usually correspond to a single verb in Russian, e.g. &quot;Let know&quot; - &quot;Сообщить&quot; (although here it's also possible: &quot;Дать знать&quot;), &quot;Let fall&quot; - &quot;Уронить&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15432" RevisionGUID="48389bb4-e2c5-49cf-93c8-0656d65f138b" CreationDate="2017-12-28T11:43:26.950" UserId="5008" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Well, anyway, **let** us begin at the beginning. The word &quot;**let**&quot; may mean the following (and totally different) things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **A proposal**. Translated as &quot;**давай(те)&quot; + future tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let us go somewhere&quot; - &quot;давай(те) сходим куда-нибудь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: &quot;давай(те)&quot; could be omitted, so the informal things become more informal, while the formal things become even more formal. For example, &quot;Let us suppose&quot; - &quot;Давайте предположим&quot; (a mixture of common and formal speech, typical &quot;lecturer&quot; tone), or just &quot;Предположим&quot; (neutrally formal, like in a book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **An indifference** (let it be / I don't mind / I don't care). Translated as &quot;**Пусть**&quot; or &quot;**Пускай&quot; + present tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let things go&quot; - &quot;Пускай всё идёт своим чередом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **A rhetorical request**. Typically translated as **&quot;Позвольте&quot;** or **&quot;Разрешите&quot; + infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let me recall that...&quot; - &quot;Позвольте напомнить, что...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: obviously, it belongs to a purely formal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **An order** or **persistent request**. Not translated, i.e. **imperative** only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let him go&quot; - &quot;Отпусти(те) его&quot;. (BTW. If you really mean &quot;let him go, because I don't care&quot;, you should say &quot;Пускай уходит&quot;, see (2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: as usual, an order differs from a request by tone, and by using the word &quot;please&quot; and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **A polite request** (May I...). Well, now we're entering the jungle of a speech etiquette, so we have first to ask if &quot;**let**&quot; is really a polite request in English. How big is the difference between &quot;Let me help you&quot; and &quot;May I help you?&quot;, or &quot;May I come through?&quot; and &quot;Let me come through&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the most common and simple way in Russian to form a polite request is to use **&quot;Можно&quot; + infinitive** (also note that it's a question, so it directly corresponds to &quot;May I?&quot; type of sentences). However, the more direct approach with **&quot;Дай(те)&quot; + infinitive** (which is much more like &quot;Let me...&quot;) is generally also acceptable (at least if you don't forget to add &quot;please&quot;). So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;May I come through?&quot; - &quot;Можно пройти?&quot;; &quot;Let me come through&quot; - &quot;Дайте пройти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering usage of &quot;**Позвольте**&quot; in a live speech, it's definitely an option if you want to sound more like a gentleman, and many people actually say it, but it's not a first choice by any means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are specific use cases, where the construction &quot;**Let + verb**&quot; is used in place of a single verb, which also usually correspond to a single verb in Russian, e.g. &quot;Let know&quot; - &quot;Сообщить&quot; (although here it's also possible: &quot;Дать знать&quot;), &quot;Let fall&quot; - &quot;Уронить&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="1a0d8e71-e6d8-458b-aedb-d3cc6cbd830f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T11:49:25.590" UserId="7674" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти (меня)` *along with* `Дай (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - Отпусти (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15432" RevisionGUID="3608ecbc-65a3-4b0a-8046-1a89eb106cbd" CreationDate="2017-12-28T11:51:22.267" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Well, anyway, **let** us begin at the beginning. The word &quot;**let**&quot; may mean the following (and totally different) things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **A proposal**. Translated as &quot;**давай(те)&quot; + future tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let us go somewhere&quot; - &quot;давай(те) сходим куда-нибудь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: &quot;давай(те)&quot; could be omitted, so the informal things become more informal, while the formal things become even more formal. For example, &quot;Let us suppose&quot; - &quot;Давайте предположим&quot; (a mixture of common and formal speech, typical &quot;lecturer&quot; tone), or just &quot;Предположим&quot; (neutrally formal, like in a book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **An indifference** (let it be / I don't mind / I don't care). Translated as &quot;**Пусть**&quot; or &quot;**Пускай&quot; + present tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let things go&quot; - &quot;Пускай всё идёт своим чередом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **A rhetorical request**. Typically translated as **&quot;Позвольте&quot;** or **&quot;Разрешите&quot; + infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let me recall that...&quot; - &quot;Позвольте напомнить, что...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: obviously, it belongs to a purely formal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **An order** or **persistent request**. Not translated, i.e. **imperative** only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let him go&quot; - &quot;Отпусти(те) его&quot;. (BTW. If you really mean &quot;let him go, because I don't care&quot;, you should say &quot;Пускай уходит&quot;, see (2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: as usual, an order differs from a request by tone, and by using the word &quot;please&quot; and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **A polite request** (May I...). Well, now we're entering the jungle of a speech etiquette, so we have first to ask if &quot;**let**&quot; is really a polite request in English. How big is the difference between &quot;Let me help you&quot; and &quot;May I help you?&quot;, or &quot;May I come through?&quot; and &quot;Let me come through&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the most common and simple way in Russian to form a polite request is to use **&quot;Можно&quot; + infinitive** (also note that it's a question, so it directly corresponds to &quot;May I?&quot; type of sentences). However, the more direct approach with **&quot;Дай(те)&quot; + infinitive** (which is much more like &quot;Let me...&quot;) is generally also acceptable (at least if you don't forget to add &quot;please&quot;). So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;May I come through?&quot; - &quot;Можно пройти?&quot;; &quot;Let me come through&quot; - &quot;Дайте пройти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering usage of &quot;**Позвольте**&quot; in a live speech, it's definitely an option if you want to sound more like a gentleman, and many people actually say it, but it's not a first choice by any means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are specific use cases, where the construction &quot;**Let + verb**&quot; is used to denote a single action, which usually correspond to a single verb in Russian, e.g. &quot;Let know&quot; - &quot;Сообщить&quot; (although here it's also possible: &quot;Дать знать&quot;), &quot;Let fall&quot; - &quot;Уронить&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15433" RevisionGUID="b50fde52-2858-435d-8a17-c7ac8e76d209" CreationDate="2017-12-28T12:27:14.203" UserId="1262" Text="The verb is not fully translatable into Russian, because in English it primarily conveys both the meaning of a suggestion (imperative, including 2nd and 3rd persons) as well as an ask for a permission, while in Russian the permissive and imperative roles are different, plus there are subtler connotations of ***lest***. The main  possible structures as ranged from higher to lower speech registers would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Позволь(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative), or  ***Позволь(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)*** + analytical future tense for negative imperative and synthetical future tense for affirmative ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте нам не вовевать. Позвольте нам успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, мы не будем воевать. Позвольте, мы успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can also be used for contradictions (especially with ***но***), also in Present:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, но ведь вы-то воюете!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can be usually dropped off with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is never used in the 2nd person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Разреши(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им) + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative)***, or ***Разреши(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)+*** a synthetic future (positive statement) or analytical future (negative statement); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите нам успокоиться. Разрешите нам (не) воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите, мы успокоимся. Разрешите, мы (не) будем воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms are never used with 2ns person, either.&#xD;&#xA;This verb cannot be used in contradictory connotations.&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can also be omitted with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***Дай(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive or synthetical future form (never used in negative forms);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те) (нам, ему, ей, им) успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те) успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The simpler form, goes as imperative with any person and tense, for negative and positive statements alike;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те) мы (мы, он(и/-а)*** + (durative) infinitive or any form of a future tense;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай успокаиваться. Давай не (будем) воевать. Давай успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те) вы успокоитесь. Давай(те) вы не будете / ты не будешь воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ***Пусть*** + any form of a future tense describes any form of indirect (that is, non-evidential) imperative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Путь мы успокоимся. Пусть мы не будем воевать. Пусть ты успокоишься. Пусть ты не будешь воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The modal structures of let-me-go!-type are usually rendered by occasional verbs or structures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me go! = ***(От)пусти!*** / ***Отвянь! Отдзынь!,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's go! = ***Начали! Начинаем! Поехали! Понеслась! Вперёд! Идём!***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's get it! = ***Давай-давай! Так (и надо)!*** ***Эшкере !*** (the latter is used as a loan interjection in teenage speech)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15433" RevisionGUID="0fc5a3fe-0504-4c1a-9399-3d4b77f11f33" CreationDate="2017-12-28T12:32:30.173" UserId="1262" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="The verb is not fully translatable into Russian, because in English it primarily conveys both the meaning of a suggestion (imperative, including 2nd and 3rd persons) as well as an ask for a permission, while in Russian the permissive and imperative roles are different, plus there are subtler connotations of ***lest***. The main  possible structures as ranged from higher to lower speech registers would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Позволь(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative), or  ***Позволь(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)*** + analytical future tense for negative imperative and synthetical future tense for affirmative ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте нам не вовевать. Позвольте нам успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, мы не будем воевать. Позвольте, мы успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can also be used for contradictions (especially with ***но***), also in Present:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, но ведь вы-то воюете!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can be usually dropped off with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is never used in the 2nd person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Разреши(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им) + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative)***, or ***Разреши(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)+*** a synthetic future (positive statement) or analytical future (negative statement); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите нам успокоиться. Разрешите нам (не) воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите, мы успокоимся. Разрешите, мы (не) будем воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms are never used with 2ns person, either.&#xD;&#xA;This verb cannot be used in contradictory connotations.&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can also be omitted with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***Дай(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive or synthetical future form (never used in negative forms);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те) (нам, ему, ей, им) успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те) успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The simpler form, goes as imperative with any person and tense, for negative and positive statements alike;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те) мы (мы, он(и/-а)*** + (durative) infinitive or any form of a future tense;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай успокаиваться. Давай(,) не (будем) воевать. Давай успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те)(,) вы успокоитесь. Давай(те)(,) вы не будете / ты не будешь воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ***Пусть*** + any form of a future tense describes any form of indirect (that is, non-evidential) imperative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Путь мы (не) успокоимся. Пусть мы (не) будем воевать. Пусть ты (не) успокоишься. Пусть ты (не) будешь воевать. Пусть они (не) успокоятся. Пусть они (не) будут воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The modal structures of let-me-go!-type are usually rendered by occasional verbs or structures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me go! = ***(От)пусти!*** / ***Отвянь! Отдзынь!,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's go! = ***Начали! Начинаем! Поехали! Понеслась! Вперёд! Идём!***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's get it! = ***Давай-давай! Так (и надо)!*** ***Эшкере !*** (the latter is used as a loan interjection in teenage speech)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="ddcddebf-10f8-44a7-a010-ca4f832a7a47" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:02:03.147" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай(те) мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* elements in parenthesis are provisional&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти (меня)` *along with* `Дай (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - Отпусти (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="5b4dbdde-81c7-4fb7-8c39-fdb35702803f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T13:11:17.967" UserId="7674" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай(те) мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* elements in parenthesis are provisional&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of (or the only correct) translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти (меня)` *along with* `Дай (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - Отпусти (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="925863aa-0ea5-4ae6-958a-c6209ba367ce" CreationDate="2017-12-28T15:00:23.253" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай(те) мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* elements in parentheses are provisional&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of (or the only correct) translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти (меня)` *along with* `Дай (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - Отпусти (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="329508fb-9a32-4dab-a2ef-d236cf96f6da" CreationDate="2017-12-28T15:06:48.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай(те) мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* elements in parentheses are provisional&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of (or the only correct) translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти (меня)` *along with* `Дай (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - (От)Пусти (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="18eafd02-f0f8-4fc2-8ff6-b039134f921c" CreationDate="2017-12-28T16:08:17.577" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай(те) мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* elements in parentheses are provisional&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or unnecessary familiarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of (or the only correct) translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти(те) (меня)` *along with* `Дай(те) (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - (От)Пусти(те) (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15434" RevisionGUID="a1752e36-97aa-4a8d-9f9e-a36232c70acc" CreationDate="2017-12-28T16:15:30.183" UserId="10049" Text="My 5 cents (мои 5 копеек).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of a email message in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hi Helen,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *yesterday I've received a parcel from you. Thank you for it!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Привет Елена!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вчера я получил посылку от тебя. Спасибо!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that English version uses comma in the first line, and the second line starts in lower case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38413" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="15434" RevisionGUID="8d0259b3-6ca2-4ef6-be2a-f20759447256" CreationDate="2017-12-28T16:15:30.183" UserId="10049" />
  <row Id="38414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15435" RevisionGUID="804d8df4-96a9-4a98-b0d3-fe19e84bcc52" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:37:00.277" UserId="4714" Text="Dictionaries say that they are synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my question is what shades of meaning, and in what cases, would you use one over the other? Or, perhaps, are they completely identical in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15435" RevisionGUID="804d8df4-96a9-4a98-b0d3-fe19e84bcc52" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:37:00.277" UserId="4714" Text="Difference in meaning between &quot;по счастью and к счастю&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15435" RevisionGUID="804d8df4-96a9-4a98-b0d3-fe19e84bcc52" CreationDate="2017-12-28T17:37:00.277" UserId="4714" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15436" RevisionGUID="d5f28eef-b0fe-488e-926d-ac5922c15db8" CreationDate="2017-12-28T19:20:29.503" UserId="7674" Text="Stylistic shades are very light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`По счастью`** is more colloquial and as per my feeling has the undertone of appeal to life circumstances, which aren't purely accidental or miraculous, to greater predictability and expectancy, as it were, of the 'luck'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's more often than not is used with verbs in the Present tense, whereas **`к счастью`** tends to accompany verbs in the Past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Corpus of Russian language **`по счастью`** gives only [965][1] entries versus [6 907][2] for **`к счастью`**. You're welcome to follow the links to review the actual texts they're used in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EF%EE%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15433" RevisionGUID="574caab3-ca81-42fa-9f13-77d4663133fa" CreationDate="2017-12-28T19:53:59.733" UserId="1262" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The verb is not fully translatable into Russian, because in English it primarily conveys both the meaning of a suggestion (imperative, including 2nd and 3rd persons) as well as an ask for a permission, while in Russian the permissive and imperative roles are different, plus there are subtler connotations of ***lest***. The main  possible structures as ranged from higher to lower speech registers would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Позволь(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative), or  ***Позволь(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)*** + analytical future tense for negative imperative and synthetical future tense for affirmative ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте нам не вовевать. Позвольте нам успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, мы не будем воевать. Позвольте, мы успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can also be used for contradictions (especially with ***но***), also in Present:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, но ведь вы-то воюете!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can be usually dropped off with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is never used in the 2nd person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Разреши(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им) + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative)***, or ***Разреши(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)+*** a synthetic future (positive statement) or analytical future (negative statement); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите нам успокоиться. Разрешите нам (не) воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите, мы успокоимся. Разрешите, мы (не) будем воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms are never used with 2ns person, either.&#xD;&#xA;This verb cannot be used in contradictory connotations.&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can also be omitted with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***Дай(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive or synthetical future form (never used in negative forms);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те) (нам, ему, ей, им) успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те), успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The simpler form, goes as imperative with any person and tense, for negative and positive statements alike;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те) мы (мы, он(и/-а)*** + (durative) infinitive or any form of a future tense;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай успокаиваться. Давай(,) не (будем) воевать. Давай успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те)(,) вы успокоитесь. Давай(те)(,) вы не будете / ты не будешь воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ***Пусть*** + any form of a future tense describes any form of indirect (that is, non-evidential) imperative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Путь мы (не) успокоимся. Пусть мы (не) будем воевать. Пусть ты (не) успокоишься. Пусть ты (не) будешь воевать. Пусть они (не) успокоятся. Пусть они (не) будут воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The modal structures of let-me-go!-type are usually rendered by occasional verbs or structures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me go! = ***(От)пусти!*** / ***Отвянь! Отдзынь!,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's go! = ***Начали! Начинаем! Поехали! Понеслась! Вперёд! Идём!***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's get it! = ***Давай-давай! Так (и надо)!*** ***Эшкере !*** (the latter is used as a loan interjection in teenage speech)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15436" RevisionGUID="57f6e508-73f1-44e2-8cbe-10427df1109f" CreationDate="2017-12-28T20:30:27.623" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Stylistic shades are very light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`По счастью`** is more colloquial and as per my feeling has the undertone of appeal to life circumstances, which aren't purely accidental or miraculous, to greater predictability and expectancy, as it were, of the 'luck'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it more often than not is used with verbs in the Present tense, whereas **`к счастью`** tends to accompany verbs in the Past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Corpus of Russian language **`по счастью`** only gives [965][1] entries versus [6 907][2] for **`к счастью`**. You're welcome to follow the links to review the actual texts they're used in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EF%EE%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15437" RevisionGUID="1acf3f54-dda4-4f0f-866d-24fc39d3c1ee" CreationDate="2017-12-28T21:00:25.870" UserId="1070" Text="Ляшевская (2016) ссылается на диссертацию Леблана (LeBlanc, 2010) и приводит следующую классификацию значений приставки по- для глаголов совершенного вида:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.	Результативное (‘do X to completion’): поблагодарить;&#xD;&#xA;2.	Делимитативное (‘do X for a while’): пожадничать;&#xD;&#xA;3.	Аттенуативное (‘do a little bit of X’): поразвлечь;&#xD;&#xA;4.	Дистрибутивное (‘do X across all objects’): позакрывать;&#xD;&#xA;5.	Игрессивное (‘begin to do X’): подуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В сноске 12 на странице 398 Ляшевская также упоминает о шестом значении, прерывисто-смягчительном, которое относится только к глаголам несовершенного вида: побаливать.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15438" RevisionGUID="3230f9c9-fdcc-4248-868a-e09065ecba60" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:47:26.247" UserId="7764" Text="I recently wrote an email in which I wanted to thank to people and wrote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо болшгое, оба вас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was described as &quot;scatalogical&quot; by one of the recipients who suggested instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вам обоим, большое спасибо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly puzzled by &quot;обоим&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Based on the use of &quot;Вам&quot;, it's apparent that the suggestion uses the dative case, but I've never seen обо declined as обоим.&#xD;&#xA;Is обоим correct in the sense that a school teacher would have their students use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15438" RevisionGUID="3230f9c9-fdcc-4248-868a-e09065ecba60" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:47:26.247" UserId="7764" Text="Does обо turn into обоим in the dative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15438" RevisionGUID="3230f9c9-fdcc-4248-868a-e09065ecba60" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:47:26.247" UserId="7764" Text="|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15439" RevisionGUID="bd7fe8ba-7577-43a8-89d4-c4273244ba8b" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:58:42.607" UserId="6686" Text="I have two questions about expressions of number of people in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Once when buying tickets at кассы, I heard the expression &quot;три взрослых&quot;. I thought with numbers 2-4, we use the genitive singular form. So why is it not &quot;три взрослого&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Another time when me and my friends entered a restaurant, I heard the waiter say &quot;четверых&quot;, which I guess is the genitive form of &quot;четверо&quot;. Can anyone explain to me why we use the genitive case here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15439" RevisionGUID="bd7fe8ba-7577-43a8-89d4-c4273244ba8b" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:58:42.607" UserId="6686" Text="Expression of number of people" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15439" RevisionGUID="bd7fe8ba-7577-43a8-89d4-c4273244ba8b" CreationDate="2017-12-28T23:58:42.607" UserId="6686" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15440" RevisionGUID="b7dae0d6-1dc4-451d-964e-00f074a7e0d6" CreationDate="2017-12-29T05:36:03.423" UserId="2104" Text="Firstly, both = **оба**, not **обо**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the dative of **оба** is **обоим**: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0#Declension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **вам обоим** is the correct expression of `to both of you'. I would put the original phrase this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Большое спасибо вам обоим.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15441" RevisionGUID="87f0a23d-f06a-456e-9609-76f30c5346df" CreationDate="2017-12-29T05:47:30.430" UserId="2104" Text=" 1. The 'genitive singular' rule only applies to nouns. For adjectives (or nouns declines like adjectives e.g. запята́я) it's genitive or nominative *plural*: два взро́слых биле́та, два ста́рых дру́га, две мировы́х войны́. On the choice between the genitive and the nominative for adjectives, see [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You normally ask for a table *for* a number of people: сто́лик *на* четверы́х, пожа́луйста! The preposition **на** calls for an accusative which matches the genitive for animate nouns/numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14915/can-anyone-clear-up-some-discrepancies-between-rules-for-numeraladjectivenoun?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15441" RevisionGUID="c209fcce-29f7-45d2-ac3c-09fc1fbac3b2" CreationDate="2017-12-29T05:53:08.157" UserId="2104" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text=" 1. The 'genitive singular' rule only applies to nouns. For adjectives (or nouns declines like adjectives e.g. запята́я) it's genitive or nominative *plural*: два взро́слых биле́та, два ста́рых дру́га, две мировы́х войны́. On the choice between the genitive and the nominative for adjectives, see [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You normally ask for a table *for* a number of people: сто́лик *на* четверы́х, пожа́луйста! The preposition **на** calls for an accusative which matches the genitive for animate nouns/numerals. (In your case the waiter might have preempted your request with &quot;Сто́лик на четверы́х?&quot;) If you are asked: Сколько вас? (How many of you?), you reply in the nominative: че́тверо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14915/can-anyone-clear-up-some-discrepancies-between-rules-for-numeraladjectivenoun?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15441" RevisionGUID="1003d40a-946a-4767-b0e1-2fbb6ca6b0bb" CreationDate="2017-12-29T05:59:00.333" UserId="2104" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text=" 1. The 'genitive singular' rule only applies to nouns. For adjectives (or nouns that decline like adjectives e.g. запята́я) it's genitive or nominative *plural*: два взро́слых биле́та, два ста́рых дру́га, две мировы́х войны́. On the choice between the genitive and the nominative for adjectives, see [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You normally ask for a table *for* a number of people: сто́лик *на* четверы́х, пожа́луйста! The preposition **на** calls for an accusative which matches the genitive for animate nouns/numerals. (In your case the waiter might have preempted your request with &quot;Сто́лик на четверы́х?&quot;) If you are asked: Сколько вас? (How many of you?), you reply in the nominative: че́тверо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14915/can-anyone-clear-up-some-discrepancies-between-rules-for-numeraladjectivenoun?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15442" RevisionGUID="fac3e070-d872-43ee-a0ac-80f6eec1e39c" CreationDate="2017-12-29T06:24:07.687" UserId="5443" Text="**По счастью** tends to mean **по счастливой случайности** (thanks to *unexpectedly* good luck) while **к счастью** is universally used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дуэль, по счастью, окончилась благополучно. (А. Куприн, Поединок.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15431" RevisionGUID="6117456b-4894-4c95-99c2-a8074e690a9b" CreationDate="2017-12-29T07:43:59.117" UserId="7674" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="To expand a little on Nikolay's answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquially **`let me`** is **`дай(те) мне`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me see -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) посмотреть / Дай(те)(-ка) я посмотрю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me pass -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) пройти / Дай(те)(-ка) я пройду *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me think -&gt; Дай(те)(-ка) (мне) подумать / Дай(те)(-ка) я подумаю *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* elements in parentheses are provisional&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it may sound impolite if it implies some action to be taken by the addressee and not just giving their consent, and if the situation doesn't warrant impoliteness or overfamiliarity **`разреши(те)`** can be used instead. The particle **`-ка`** softens the phrase so can be added to the verb to make it sound less categorical and more amiable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some fixed expressions with **`let`** have a variant of (or the only correct) translation using a specific verb in imperative mood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me in - `(В)Пусти(те) (меня)` *along with* `Дай(те) (мне) за-/войти`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let me go - (От)Пусти(те) (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don't let me down - Не подведи(те) (меня)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15436" RevisionGUID="822b40f8-9e2c-4663-8d4c-4dd250edb7c3" CreationDate="2017-12-29T07:55:51.030" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Stylistic shades are very light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`По счастью`** is more colloquial and as per my feeling has the undertone of appeal to life circumstances, which aren't purely accidental or miraculous, to greater predictability and expectancy, as it were, of the 'luck'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it seems more often than not it's used with verbs in the Present tense, whereas **`к счастью`** tends to accompany verbs in the Past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Corpus of Russian language **`по счастью`** only gives [965][1] entries versus [6 907][2] for **`к счастью`**. You're welcome to follow the links to review the actual texts they're used in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EF%EE%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15443" RevisionGUID="0b112712-82d9-4d5a-b2fc-008fe09843ef" CreationDate="2017-12-29T08:18:46.667" UserId="7674" Text="You seem to have interpreted `спасибо` as implying a transitive verb which requires Accusative case for inanimate objects, kind of like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарю [что?] вы *(instead of [кого?] вас)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just have to be memorized that **`спасибо`** alone corresponds with Dative case, probably because it implies the verb **`говорить (спасибо) кому?`**, so your phrase essentially means **`(Говорю) спасибо большое (кому? Dative)`** - **`вам обоим`**. `Oба` always *follows prepositions*, like in English `you both` instead of `both of you`, but precedes nouns and adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15443" RevisionGUID="c523013e-0f3c-418b-979c-d4dd75b82d9d" CreationDate="2017-12-29T08:36:07.477" UserId="7674" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="You seem to have interpreted `спасибо` as implying a transitive verb which requires Accusative case for inanimate objects, kind of like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарю [что?] вы *(instead of [кого?] вас)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just have to be memorized that **`спасибо`** alone corresponds with Dative case, probably because it implies the verb **`говорить (спасибо) кому?`**, so your phrase essentially means **`(Говорю) спасибо большое (кому? Dative)`** - **`вам обоим`**. `Oба` always *follows prepositions*, like in English `you both` instead of `both of you`, i.e. `вы оба; вам обоим`, but *precedes nouns and adjectives*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rearrangement of the phrase by the addresse was unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15434" RevisionGUID="c466ae54-b311-4524-8bd2-9420de62dbec" CreationDate="2017-12-29T08:39:41.760" UserId="10049" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="My 5 cents (мои 5 копеек).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of a email message in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Hi Helen,*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *yesterday I've received a parcel from you. Thank you for it!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Привет, Елена!*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вчера я получил посылку от тебя. Спасибо!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that English version uses comma in the first line, and the second line starts in lower case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15443" RevisionGUID="16651e48-4c96-441e-8a48-594f943b8ba6" CreationDate="2017-12-29T11:44:23.310" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="You seem to have interpreted `спасибо` as implying a transitive verb which requires Accusative case for inanimate objects, kind of like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарю [что?] вы *(instead of [кого?] вас)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just have to be memorized that **`спасибо`** alone corresponds with Dative case, probably because it implies the verb **`говорить (спасибо) кому?`**, so your phrase essentially means **`(Говорю) спасибо большое (кому? Dative)`** - **`вам обоим`**. `Oба` always *follows prepositions*, like in English `you both` instead of `both of you`, i.e. `вы оба; вам обоим`, but *precedes nouns and adjectives*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rearrangement of the phrase by the addresse was unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15443" RevisionGUID="a11be223-1559-4eb7-8ba0-0e56062c5b2f" CreationDate="2017-12-29T11:50:47.647" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="You seem to have interpreted `спасибо` as implying a transitive verb (by analogy with `to thank`) which requires Accusative case for inanimate objects, kind of like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарю [что?] вы *(instead of [кого?] вас)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just have to be memorized that **`спасибо`** alone corresponds with Dative case, probably because it implies the verb **`говорить (спасибо) кому?`**, so your phrase essentially means **`(Говорю) спасибо большое (кому? Dative)`** - **`вам обоим`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Oба` always *follows prepositions*, like in English `you both` instead of `both of you`, i.e. `вы оба; вам обоим`, but *precedes nouns and adjectives*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vehicle for memorization of the Dative case it's useful to treat `спасибо` as `my thanks go TO`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rearrangement of the phrase by the addresse was unnecessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15444" RevisionGUID="707534dc-54e8-4565-828d-8b7a60773cb2" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:14:57.943" UserId="9540" Text="Is this correct grammar? Мы пели. ('We sang' with the word 'songs' or 'a song' missing but implied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38440" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15444" RevisionGUID="707534dc-54e8-4565-828d-8b7a60773cb2" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:14:57.943" UserId="9540" Text="Is an object obligatory for a transitive verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38441" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15444" RevisionGUID="707534dc-54e8-4565-828d-8b7a60773cb2" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:14:57.943" UserId="9540" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15443" RevisionGUID="3f8fd9b5-dcf3-4e60-8076-c6d8ddfa66f4" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:17:10.160" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="You seem to have interpreted `спасибо` as implying a transitive verb (by analogy with `to thank`) which requires Accusative case for inanimate objects, kind of like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарю [что?] вы *(instead of [кого?] вас)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just have to be memorized that **`спасибо`** alone corresponds with Dative case, probably because it implies the verb **`говорить (спасибо) кому?`**, so your phrase essentially means **`(Говорю) спасибо большое (кому? Dative)`** - **`вам обоим`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Oба` always *follows pronouns*, like in English `you both` instead of `both of you`, i.e. `вы оба; вам обоим`, but *precedes nouns and adjectives*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vehicle for memorization of the Dative case it's useful to treat `спасибо` as `my thanks go TO`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**HERE**][1] you can look up declensions. Make sure that the word is spelled correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rearrangement of the phrase by the addressee was unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?word=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="cb1319a5-2a7d-43d7-b3ac-449729f80a07" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:22:45.130" UserId="7674" Text="Absolutely. It's the same in English, isn't it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15443" RevisionGUID="56905283-acf4-4fe4-ba58-07592bf20857" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:24:46.693" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="You seem to have interpreted `спасибо` as implying a transitive verb (by analogy with `to thank`) which requires Accusative case as applied to inanimate objects, kind of like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Благодарю *[что?]* вы *(instead of [кого?] вас)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just have to be memorized that **`спасибо`** alone corresponds with Dative case, probably because it implies the verb **`говорить (спасибо) кому?`**, so your phrase essentially means **`(Говорю) спасибо большое (кому? Dative)`** - **`вам обоим`**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Oба` always *follows pronouns*, like in English `you both` instead of `both of you`, i.e. `вы оба; вам обоим`, but *precedes nouns and adjectives*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vehicle for memorization of the Dative case it's useful to treat `спасибо` as `my thanks go TO`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**HERE**][1] you can look up declensions. Make sure that the word is spelled correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rearrangement of the phrase by the addressee was unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://udarenieru.ru/index.php?word=on" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="b2a25396-2bab-4c45-9e87-0b59a0b50ca4" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:27:54.887" UserId="7674" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Absolutely. It's the same in English, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as necessity of the object is concerned, i guess some verbs (or verbs in certain forms) do require it, but can't think of a good illustrative example right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A murky example would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вскапывал - I spaded" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="04381e6b-f5d1-4b46-a9a9-787361400a21" CreationDate="2017-12-29T12:33:14.210" UserId="7674" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Absolutely. It's the same in English, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as necessity of the object is concerned, some verbs (or verbs in certain forms) do require it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вскапывал - I spaded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я мыл - I washed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it depends on the predictability of the object. `Sing` one only can `songs`, whereas `spade` and `wash` one can anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time `читать` doesn't require direct object despite a variety of sources one may read." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="fd2561c8-29c0-4140-8ff2-53764b737093" CreationDate="2017-12-29T13:46:23.543" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Yes it's correct. It's the same in English, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as necessity of the object is concerned, some verbs (or verbs in certain forms) do require it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вскапывал - I spaded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я мыл - I washed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it depends on the predictability of the object. `Sing` one only can `songs`, whereas `spade` and `wash` one can anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time `читать` doesn't require direct object despite a variety of sources one may read." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="b374569e-af62-47bf-af82-99c6b8599837" CreationDate="2017-12-29T14:05:38.403" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Yes it's correct. It's the same in English, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as necessity of the object is concerned, some verbs (or verbs in certain forms) do require it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я мыл - I washed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поднимал - I lifted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вскапывал - I spaded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **по**вскапывал - I spaded (a little/for some time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sounds right even without an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess necessity of an object is inherent to the semantics of a verb and governed by habitual patterns of its usage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="d25eda77-ebcb-499b-afcd-7f0df3098732" CreationDate="2017-12-29T14:15:59.767" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Yes it's correct. It's the same in English, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as necessity of the object is concerned, some verbs (or verbs in certain forms) do require it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я мыл - I washed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поднимал - I lifted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вскапывал - I spaded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я красил - I painted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **по**вскапывал - I spaded (a little/for some time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sound right even without an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess necessity of an object is inherent to the semantics of a verb and governed by habitual patterns of its usage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15445" RevisionGUID="b332879d-5356-4632-810a-fb07add26639" CreationDate="2017-12-29T14:21:52.167" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Yes it's correct. It's the same in English, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as necessity of the object is concerned, some verbs (or verbs in certain forms) do require it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я мыл - I washed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поднимал - I lifted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вскапывал - I spaded&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я красил - I painted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **по**вскапывал - I spaded (a little/for some time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sound right even without an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess necessity of an object is inherent to the semantics of a verb and governed by habitual patterns of its usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs seem to require it a lot more often that the imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15442" RevisionGUID="862b2c4d-607d-4c79-86eb-da00e4ccf19f" CreationDate="2017-12-29T14:42:35.903" UserId="5443" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="**По счастью** tends to mean **по счастливой случайности** (thanks to *unexpectedly* good luck) while **к счастью** is universally used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дуэль, по счастью, окончилась благополучно. (А. Куприн, Поединок.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even clearer illustration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По счастью, близко тут журавль случился. (И. Крылов, Волк и журавль.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="dbcac61a-6c43-43b0-a3f4-335699bfb3d4" CreationDate="2017-12-29T17:59:05.377" UserId="10052" Text="If you take a look on Google book YIaMDAAAQBAJ, first line of page 191, you'll read &quot;..., что объективной реальности вообще не сушествует&quot;: why is реальность in its genitive form ?? Shouldn't it be nominative (&quot;объективная реальность вообще не сушествует&quot;), as here реальность is the subject of verb сушествует ??&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Seb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="dbcac61a-6c43-43b0-a3f4-335699bfb3d4" CreationDate="2017-12-29T17:59:05.377" UserId="10052" Text="Why a genitive here, and not nominative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="dbcac61a-6c43-43b0-a3f4-335699bfb3d4" CreationDate="2017-12-29T17:59:05.377" UserId="10052" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15441" RevisionGUID="65d19ccd-6339-445f-ba19-1a1d9173a5c1" CreationDate="2017-12-29T18:09:30.147" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text=" 1. The 'genitive singular' rule only applies to nouns. For adjectives (or nouns that decline like adjectives e.g. запята́я) it's genitive or nominative *plural*: два взро́слых биле́та, два ста́рых дру́га, две мировы́х войны́. On the choice between the genitive and the nominative for adjectives, see [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You normally ask for a table *for* a number of people: сто́лик *на* четверы́х, пожа́луйста! The preposition **на** calls for an accusative which matches the genitive for animate nouns/numerals. (In your case the waiter might have preempted your request with &quot;Сто́лик на четверы́х?&quot;) If you are asked: Ско́лько вас? (How many of you?), you reply in the nominative: че́тверо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14915/can-anyone-clear-up-some-discrepancies-between-rules-for-numeraladjectivenoun?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15436" RevisionGUID="1866d68c-adb2-474b-ab3d-32b024ba353d" CreationDate="2017-12-29T18:51:30.700" UserId="7674" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Stylistic shades are very light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`По счастью`** is more colloquial and as per my feeling has the undertone of appeal to life circumstances, which aren't purely accidental or miraculous , to greater predictability and expectancy, as it were, of the 'luck' (although [Alex_ander][1] here thinks otherwise, so the connotations aren't all that palpable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it seems more often than not to be used with verbs in the Present tense, whereas **`к счастью`** tends to accompany verbs in the Past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Corpus of Russian language **`по счастью`** only gives [965][2] entries versus [6 907][3] for **`к счастью`**. You're welcome to follow the links to review the actual texts they're used in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/15442/7674&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EF%EE%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%20%F1%F7%E0%F1%F2%FC%FE%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15447" RevisionGUID="c67bc4f0-35bf-4189-970d-147cdb4902d8" CreationDate="2017-12-29T19:07:28.603" UserId="7674" Text="This is a type of sentence which is called impersonal (subjectless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please [take a look][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With negation of the verb `существовать` this form of sentence is especially common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also a normative pattern for negation of the verb `быть`. While `there's me` is translated as `я есть`, `there's no me` is translated as `меня нет` where `меня` is Genitive of `я`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English `there's (no) me` is also a [subjectless type of sentence][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit15/GramUnit15_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb#In_English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15447" RevisionGUID="d04d9b62-dfd2-4e46-8f7a-ae52f88a97f2" CreationDate="2017-12-29T21:35:42.707" UserId="7674" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="This is a type of sentence which is called impersonal (subjectless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please [take a look][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With negation of the verb `существовать` this form of sentence is especially common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also a normative pattern for negation of the verb `быть`. While `there's me` is translated as `я есть`, `there's no me` is translated as `меня нет` where `меня` is Genitive of `я`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English `there's (no) me` is also a [subjectless type of sentence][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit15/GramUnit15_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb#In_English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15435" RevisionGUID="38d01608-246f-4f81-aee5-a6fc2b6be0d9" CreationDate="2017-12-30T00:31:25.203" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/946901499510231040" />
  <row Id="38462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="2ff544fb-b28c-4915-82a3-885d96d2140e" CreationDate="2017-12-30T04:12:01.233" UserId="9603" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="If you take a look at the book *YIaMDAAAQBAJ*, in the first line of page 191, you'll read:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;..., что объективной реальности вообще не сушествует&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is **реальность** in its genitive form? Shouldn't it be nominative:&#xD;&#xA; (&quot;*объективная реальность вообще не сушествует*&quot;), as here **реальность** is the subject of verb сушествует?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Seb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38463" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="2ff544fb-b28c-4915-82a3-885d96d2140e" CreationDate="2017-12-30T04:12:01.233" Comment="Proposed by 9603 approved by 7674, -1 edit id of 942" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="dace3ae2-b772-4f71-80b3-393eabbcc19f" CreationDate="2017-12-30T04:12:01.233" UserId="1097" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="If you take a look at the book [«Верховный алгоритм: Как машинное обучение изменит наш мир»][1], in the first line of page 191, you'll read:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;..., что объективной реальности вообще не существует&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is **реальность** in its genitive form? Shouldn't it be nominative:&#xD;&#xA; (&quot;*объективная реальность вообще не существует*&quot;), as here **реальность** is the subject of verb существует?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;Seb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=YIaMDAAAQBAJ&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;pg=PA191#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15428" RevisionGUID="57c93389-c499-484c-bcd6-b808fae15df8" CreationDate="2017-12-30T06:59:52.523" UserId="2191" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I know that the general way of saying ‘let him/her/them’ is «пусть он/она/они» and the general way of saying ‘let us’ is «давай(те)». (‘General’ meaning that I'm aware that sometimes when translated, the verb is used in the appropriate form and the word ‘let’ is omitted; I am referring to instances apart from these.) What is the general way of saying ‘let me/you’? I'm not sure if it involves some form of «позволить» and how generally «позволить» can be used to say ‘let [someone]’. Or would it be better to rephrase the sentence to avoid using the word ‘let’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38466" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15428" RevisionGUID="57c93389-c499-484c-bcd6-b808fae15df8" CreationDate="2017-12-30T06:59:52.523" UserId="2191" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How does one say ‘let me/you’ in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15432" RevisionGUID="6e89d496-c7b9-4e69-be1e-539addd10fc7" CreationDate="2017-12-30T09:25:33.030" UserId="5008" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Well, anyway, **let** us begin at the beginning. The word &quot;**let**&quot; may mean the following (and totally different) things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **A proposal**. Translated as &quot;**давай(те)**&quot; **+ future tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let us go somewhere&quot; - &quot;давай(те) сходим куда-нибудь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: &quot;давай(те)&quot; could be omitted, so the informal things become more informal, while the formal things become even more formal. For example, &quot;Let us suppose&quot; - &quot;Давайте предположим&quot; (a mixture of common and formal speech, typical &quot;lecturer&quot; tone), or just &quot;Предположим&quot; (neutrally formal, like in a book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **An indifference** (let it be / I don't mind / I don't care). Translated as &quot;**Пусть**&quot; or &quot;**Пускай**&quot; **+ present tense**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let things go&quot; - &quot;Пускай всё идёт своим чередом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **A rhetorical request**. Typically translated as **&quot;Позвольте&quot;** or **&quot;Разрешите**&quot; **+ infinitive**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let me recall that...&quot; - &quot;Позвольте напомнить, что...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: obviously, it belongs to a purely formal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **An order** or **persistent request**. Not translated, i.e. **imperative** only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;Let him go&quot; - &quot;Отпусти(те) его&quot;. (BTW. If you really mean &quot;let him go, because I don't care&quot;, you should say &quot;Пускай уходит&quot;, see (2)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: as usual, an order differs from a request by tone, and by using the word &quot;please&quot; and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **A polite request** (May I...). Well, now we're entering the jungle of a speech etiquette, so we have first to ask if &quot;**let**&quot; is really a polite request in English. How big is the difference between &quot;Let me help you&quot; and &quot;May I help you?&quot;, or &quot;May I come through?&quot; and &quot;Let me come through&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMO, the most common and simple way in Russian to form a polite request is to use **&quot;Могу**&quot; (or &quot;**Можно**&quot;) **+ infinitive**, or, alternatively, &quot;**Можно**&quot; **+ future tense** (also note that it's a question, so it directly corresponds to &quot;May I?&quot; type of sentences). However, the more direct approach with **&quot;Дай(те)**&quot; **+ infinitive** (which is much more like &quot;Let me...&quot;) is generally also acceptable (at least if you don't forget to add &quot;please&quot;). So we have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &quot;May I come through?&quot; - &quot;Можно пройти?&quot;; &quot;Let me come through&quot; - &quot;Дайте пройти&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering usage of &quot;**Позвольте**&quot; in a live speech, it's definitely an option if you want to sound more like a gentleman, and many people actually say it, but it's not a first choice by any means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are specific use cases, where the construction &quot;**Let + verb**&quot; is used to denote a single action, which usually correspond to a single verb in Russian, e.g. &quot;Let know&quot; - &quot;Сообщить&quot; (although here it's also possible: &quot;Дать знать&quot;), &quot;Let fall&quot; - &quot;Уронить&quot;, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15433" RevisionGUID="e3501e3e-3e20-4499-8310-64aa77a0bc8b" CreationDate="2017-12-30T10:23:51.537" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The verb is not fully translatable into Russian, because in English it primarily conveys both the meaning of a suggestion (imperative, including 2nd and 3rd persons) as well as an ask for a permission, while in Russian the permissive and imperative roles are different, plus there are subtler connotations of ***lest***. The main  possible structures as ranged from higher to lower speech registers would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ***Позволь(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative), or  ***Позволь(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)*** + analytical future tense for negative imperative and synthetical future tense for affirmative ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте нам не вовевать. Позвольте нам успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, мы не будем воевать. Позвольте, мы успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb can also be used for contradictions (especially with ***но***), also in Present:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Позвольте, но ведь вы-то воюете!***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can be usually dropped off with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is never used in the 2nd person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. ***Разреши(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им) + infinitive (also in Negative Imperative)***, or ***Разреши(те), я (мы, он(и/-а)+*** a synthetic future (positive statement) or analytical future (negative statement); &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите нам успокоиться. Разрешите нам (не) воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Разрешите, мы успокоимся. Разрешите, мы (не) будем воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms are never used with 2ns person, either.&#xD;&#xA;This verb cannot be used in contradictory connotations.&#xD;&#xA;The pronouns can also be omitted with infinitives, but not with personal forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. ***Дай(те) мне (нам, ему, ей, им)*** + infinitive or synthetical future form (never used in negative forms);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те) (нам, ему, ей, им) успокоиться.***&#xD;&#xA;***Дай(те), успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The simpler form, goes as imperative with any person and tense, for negative and positive statements alike;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те), мы (мы, он(и/-а)*** + (durative) infinitive or any form of a future tense;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Давай успокаиваться. Давай(,) не (будем) воевать. Давай, успокоимся.***&#xD;&#xA;***Давай(те)(,) вы успокоитесь. Давай(те)(,) вы не будете / ты не будешь воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. ***Пусть*** + any form of a future tense describes any form of indirect (that is, non-evidential) imperative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Пусть мы (не) успокоимся. Пусть мы (не) будем воевать. Пусть ты (не) успокоишься. Пусть ты (не) будешь воевать. Пусть они (не) успокоятся. Пусть они (не) будут воевать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. The modal structures of let-me-go!-type are usually rendered by occasional verbs or structures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me go! = ***(От)пусти!*** / ***Отвянь! Отдзынь!,*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's go! = ***Начали! Начинаем! Поехали! Понеслась! Вперёд! Идём!***, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's get it! = ***Давай-давай! Так (и надо)!*** ***Эшкере !*** (the latter is used as a loan interjection in teenage speech)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38469" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15428" RevisionGUID="c3aedc02-5c66-4d2a-a2c7-bdfd4c2993df" CreationDate="2017-12-31T00:33:50.913" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/947264499689705473" />
  <row Id="38470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15423" RevisionGUID="a91de116-0ed1-481c-bb79-dfaf1b4e4d43" CreationDate="2017-12-31T12:35:02.953" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/947445995432005632" />
  <row Id="38474" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15435" RevisionGUID="c3603b79-c7a8-44bc-97bd-d3ef78b718b4" CreationDate="2018-01-02T12:27:07.583" UserId="8895" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference in meaning between &quot;по счастью&quot; and &quot;к счастью&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15450" RevisionGUID="a267ef50-838f-4a38-b79f-f2eab463dd78" CreationDate="2018-01-02T21:03:56.430" UserId="9603" Text="Why some masculine nouns, like **кофе**, are treated as neuter? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15450" RevisionGUID="a267ef50-838f-4a38-b79f-f2eab463dd78" CreationDate="2018-01-02T21:03:56.430" UserId="9603" Text="Why some masculine nouns are usually tretead as neuter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15450" RevisionGUID="a267ef50-838f-4a38-b79f-f2eab463dd78" CreationDate="2018-01-02T21:03:56.430" UserId="9603" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15451" RevisionGUID="0a42230f-03fb-46dd-91d5-8627c6f47ec1" CreationDate="2018-01-02T22:25:42.353" UserId="115" Text="Кофе is a loanword and a special case. It is grammatically masculine, but it ends in -е, which is consistent with the neuter gender in Russian. So, many native speakers incorrectly use it as though it is neuter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15452" RevisionGUID="f9c10449-15bf-49dd-aa5e-d9122cc0cffe" CreationDate="2018-01-03T03:10:56.443" UserId="10057" Text="Which of the two is the right term to say when saying goodbye to someone, &quot;всего доброго&quot; or &quot;всего хорошего&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;(I know there are many other terms for &quot;goodbye&quot;, or &quot;all the best&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;I usually say &quot;всего доброго&quot; to older people, and I find that many will be quick to answer &quot;всего хорошего&quot; sounding more like they are correcting me, instead of just answer back with &quot;you too&quot; or &quot;всего доброго&quot;&#xA;&#xA;So my question is, am I saying the wrong one? Should I be saying &quot;всего хорошего&quot; instead? Or is it that people are simply answering without thinking that it's different then what I just said?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15452" RevisionGUID="f9c10449-15bf-49dd-aa5e-d9122cc0cffe" CreationDate="2018-01-03T03:10:56.443" UserId="10057" Text="&quot;всего доброго&quot; or 'всего хорошего&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15452" RevisionGUID="f9c10449-15bf-49dd-aa5e-d9122cc0cffe" CreationDate="2018-01-03T03:10:56.443" UserId="10057" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38482" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15452" RevisionGUID="3a199200-7b2b-4da4-ba7f-517dcbfa14be" CreationDate="2018-01-03T04:55:44.323" UserId="10057" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;всего доброго&quot; or &quot;всего хорошего&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15453" RevisionGUID="95e7fbef-b517-4673-8fd9-7723744feaf0" CreationDate="2018-01-03T10:15:02.030" UserId="4560" Text="I'm in my mid-thirties, I always say **всего доброго**, and I have the impression it's generally the more common one, but I can't say I've been paying attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's definitely nothing wrong with **всего доброго**. For what it's worth, my first association with **всего хорошего** is a once-popular Soviet song (from way before my time) where it's used passive-aggressively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сняла решительно пиджак наброшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казаться гордою хватило сил,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему сказала я: - Всего хорошего, -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А он прощения не попросил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably doesn't matter much; the point is, for **всего доброго**, I can't think of even such inconsequential baggage it may have. So they're probably answering without thinking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15453" RevisionGUID="4a399f36-8f0c-4443-a4c0-d48477d26df6" CreationDate="2018-01-03T10:24:49.890" UserId="4560" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="I'm in my mid-thirties, I always say **всего доброго**, and I have the impression it's generally the more common one, but I can't say I've been paying attention. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's definitely nothing wrong with **всего доброго**. For what it's worth, my first association with **всего хорошего** is a once-popular Soviet song (from way before my time) where it's used passive-aggressively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сняла решительно пиджак наброшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казаться гордою хватило сил,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему сказала я: - Всего хорошего, -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А он прощения не попросил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That probably doesn't matter much; the point is, for **всего доброго**, I can't think of even such inconsequential baggage it may have. So they're probably answering without thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. An afterthought: if you speak with an accent, perhaps it's precisely because they want to *avoid* sounding like they're correcting or phonetically &quot;one-upping&quot; you, that they say something different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15454" RevisionGUID="dc7ecbfb-5f90-4ebe-b794-624e3a923641" CreationDate="2018-01-03T11:39:31.123" UserId="7674" Text="To my ear **`всего доброго`** sounds a bit higher in register than **`всего хорошего`** and so i myself make sure to not use it in everyday speech. Not to speak of the fact that the expression itself in either of the variants isn't particularly colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people who reply with the different variant maybe do so in order to not sound repetitive, just for the sake of variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again to get the idea of what's more acceptable (and in which contexts) it might be useful to review instances of either of the phrases in the Corpus of Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you should switch to another variant, the difference between them isn't that critical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38486" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15415" RevisionGUID="c9e61c82-193f-4fb8-b3e9-47662a2b9375" CreationDate="2018-01-03T12:40:51.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/948534620659863552" />
  <row Id="38487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15447" RevisionGUID="47acfbab-6af7-42ba-948b-3660a38a9a23" CreationDate="2018-01-03T13:45:36.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="This is a type of sentence which is called impersonal (subjectless).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please [take a look][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With negation of the verb `существовать` this form of sentence is especially common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also a normative pattern for negation of the verb `быть (бывать)`. While `there's me` is translated as `я есть`, `there's no me` is translated as `меня нет` where `меня` is Genitive of `я`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English `there's (no) me` is also a [subjectless type of sentence][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/Rufe/Lessons/Course1/Grammar/GramUnit15/GramUnit15_2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb#In_English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15452" RevisionGUID="6ffcdf11-6fe0-4991-b7d6-aa6e790f7b8b" CreationDate="2018-01-03T14:53:08.707" UserId="10057" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Which of the two is the right term to say when saying goodbye to someone, &quot;**всего доброго**&quot; or &quot;**всего хорошего**&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;(I know there are many other terms for &quot;goodbye&quot;, or &quot;all the best&quot;)&#xA;&#xA;I usually say &quot;**всего доброго**&quot; to older people, and I find that many will be quick to answer &quot;**всего хорошего**&quot; sounding more like they are correcting me, instead of just answer back with &quot;you too&quot; or &quot;**всего доброго**&quot;&#xA;&#xA;So my question is, am I saying the wrong one? Should I be saying &quot;**всего хорошего**&quot; instead? Or is it that people are simply answering without thinking that it's different then what I just said?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38489" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15446" RevisionGUID="95af5ba8-74d9-4c8d-8256-c7e68208d2fd" CreationDate="2018-01-03T19:29:43.670" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|abessive-case|genitive-negative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38490" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="220a5047-9466-45f6-a7f2-2e18aa385339" CreationDate="2018-01-03T19:29:46.927" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|abessive-case|genitive-negative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15455" RevisionGUID="26bb5807-1307-4e54-b0fe-461c9c86c301" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:02:41.040" UserId="4903" Text="Coffee was originally borrowed as [**&quot;кофей&quot;,**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%B9) similar to **&quot;чай&quot;.** It was a masculine noun.  Over time it lost the final &quot;й&quot; and became &quot;кофе&quot;. It looked like a neuter noun, but the rules required it to be treated as a masculine one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, in 2009, [grammar rules were officially relaxed](https://www.pravda.ru/society/01-09-2009/322376-slovar-0/) (the link is in Russian).  You can either treat it as a masculine, or as a neuter noun. Now phrases *&quot;черное кофе&quot; / black coffee* and *&quot;горячее кофе&quot; / hot coffee* are considered to be grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15455" RevisionGUID="90fdef9f-7a90-4711-9f96-5e2d1371dfa9" CreationDate="2018-01-03T21:21:54.940" UserId="4903" Comment="edited body" Text="Coffee was originally borrowed as [**&quot;кофий&quot;,**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B9) similar to **&quot;чай&quot;.** It was a masculine noun.  Over time it lost the final &quot;й&quot; and became &quot;кофе&quot;. It looked like a neuter noun, but the rules required it to be treated as a masculine one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, in 2009, [grammar rules were officially relaxed](https://www.pravda.ru/society/01-09-2009/322376-slovar-0/) (the link is in Russian).  You can either treat it as a masculine, or as a neuter noun. Now phrases *&quot;черное кофе&quot; / black coffee* and *&quot;горячее кофе&quot; / hot coffee* are considered to be grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15400" RevisionGUID="c530df50-7b2f-44e6-8668-667d13402819" CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:24:04.297" UserId="2104" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="The particle **не** is normally used for negation:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; * Не пойман - не вор. ([If one is] not caught, [then one is] not a thief.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **ни**, there are actually two homonymic particles, one used for negation (on its own or with **не**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Ни рыба, ни мясо&#xD;&#xA; * Ни нашим, ни вашим&#xD;&#xA; * Ни шагу назад!&#xD;&#xA; * Никто не забыт, ничто не забыто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning &quot;any&quot;, &quot;every&quot;, &quot;whichever&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Где бы я ни был (wherever I am), куда б я ни шёл (wherever I go), etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда-нибудь (somewhere), что-нибудь (something), etc (here **ни** merged with **будь** but retained the meaning).&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни на есть, какой ни на есть, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда ни глянь (wherever you look), как ни старайся (however hard you try), etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни день, то новости. (Every day there's news.) Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is this **ни** that appears in **Кто бы ни был.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [this talk][1] by A. A. Zalizniak. The link points to 56:37 where the discussion of **ни** (meaning &quot;any&quot;) begins but I recommend watching the whole lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGcD1ACbZo&amp;t=3397s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15400" RevisionGUID="ee876068-ebc8-42f4-b2b0-8dbca16a231a" CreationDate="2018-01-04T01:31:30.943" UserId="2104" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="The particle **не** is normally used for negation:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; * Не пойман - не вор. ([If one is] not caught, [then one is] not a thief.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **ни**, there are actually two homonymic particles, one used for negation (on its own or with **не**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Ни рыба, ни мясо&#xD;&#xA; * Ни себе, ни людям&#xD;&#xA; * Ни шагу назад! (Not a step backwards!)&#xD;&#xA; * Никто не забыт, ничто не забыто. (No one is forgotten, nothing is forgotten.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other meaning &quot;any&quot;, &quot;every&quot;, &quot;whichever&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Где бы я ни был (wherever I am), куда б я ни шёл (wherever I go), etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда-нибудь (somewhere), что-нибудь (something), etc (here **ни** merged with **будь** but retained the meaning).&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни на есть, какой ни на есть, etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Куда ни глянь (wherever you look), как ни старайся (however hard you try), etc.&#xD;&#xA; * Что ни день, то новости. (Every day there's news.) Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is this **ни** that appears in **кто бы то ни был** ('whoever it may be').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [this talk][1] by A. A. Zalizniak. The link points to 56:37 where the discussion of **ни** (meaning &quot;any&quot;) begins but I recommend watching the whole lecture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGcD1ACbZo&amp;t=3397s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15455" RevisionGUID="fc746400-6527-44c9-bb4d-4753ae910fe9" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:10:40.443" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 223 characters in body" Text="For a long time grammar rules required &quot;кофе&quot; to be treated as a masculine noun. Recently, in 2009, [grammar rules were officially relaxed](https://www.pravda.ru/society/01-09-2009/322376-slovar-0/) (the link is in Russian).  You can either treat it as a masculine, or as a neuter noun. Now phrases *&quot;черное кофе&quot; / black coffee* and *&quot;горячее кофе&quot; / hot coffee* are considered to be grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38498" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="15455" RevisionGUID="204d7947-c181-45a9-a9fa-f00fec45016e" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:15:21.227" UserId="4903" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4903,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38499" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="15455" RevisionGUID="bba86a08-029b-4f97-9799-b82cc4b5a1ed" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:16:29.373" UserId="4903" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4903,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15455" RevisionGUID="5a5f4a36-a55a-491f-9c7a-021880ef0375" CreationDate="2018-01-04T15:20:18.693" UserId="4903" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="It is unclear why the word that looks like a neuter noun and initially in 1700s was used as a neuter noun, later became a masculine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a long time grammar rules required &quot;кофе&quot; to be treated as a masculine noun. &#xD;&#xA; Recently, in 2009, [grammar rules were officially relaxed](https://www.pravda.ru/society/01-09-2009/322376-slovar-0/) (the link is in Russian).  You can either treat it as a masculine, or as a neuter noun. Now phrases *&quot;черное кофе&quot; / black coffee* and *&quot;горячее кофе&quot; / hot coffee* are considered to be grammatically correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38501" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15450" RevisionGUID="e196527a-072d-426c-9d86-4f01e160e1dd" CreationDate="2018-01-04T20:42:26.127" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2686],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38502" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15452" RevisionGUID="be31d15a-6c1c-42ef-a690-54846c3983db" CreationDate="2018-01-05T03:46:48.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/949124999486558208" />
  <row Id="38503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15456" RevisionGUID="618fdcaf-5c85-42ae-8d9a-f6800e455f65" CreationDate="2018-01-05T09:08:08.670" UserId="5998" Text="I would like to translate this sentence to Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The doors of the [beduin] tents slammed open and shut in the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the verbs `хло́пнуть` and `захло́пнуть` for shutting or slamming a door. Though, to me, it seems like both terms mean closing a door rather than opening it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **I would like to emphasize that the doors did both (open and close)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I am using this sentence, which has a slightly different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Двери палаток так хлопнули на ветру, что всё загремело." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15456" RevisionGUID="618fdcaf-5c85-42ae-8d9a-f6800e455f65" CreationDate="2018-01-05T09:08:08.670" UserId="5998" Text="How to say &quot;slam a door open/shut&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15456" RevisionGUID="618fdcaf-5c85-42ae-8d9a-f6800e455f65" CreationDate="2018-01-05T09:08:08.670" UserId="5998" Text="|глаголы|phrase|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15457" RevisionGUID="b5f38588-14cb-4ca4-8104-6c070e0a3d84" CreationDate="2018-01-05T10:33:14.280" UserId="5443" Text="Дверцы палаток то распахивались, то захлопывались от ветра (на ветру)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15458" RevisionGUID="83718f07-09ba-4fbb-b49b-192f3213e113" CreationDate="2018-01-05T10:53:01.907" UserId="2104" Text="Двери палаток хлопали[, открываясь и закрываясь,] на ветру. &#xA;&#xA;Note that хлопнули is a single-event verb whereas хлопали is a multi-event verb which is probably what you wanted.&#xA;&#xA;I think you used &quot;open and shut&quot; only to emphasize the repetiveness of the slamming. In Russian you can safely drop &quot;открываясь и закрываясь&quot; because repetitiveness is already expressed by хлопали." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15459" RevisionGUID="e125e98d-23f2-45b2-9dee-4c1982f08c48" CreationDate="2018-01-05T11:21:01.443" UserId="1236" Text="As opposed to the languages that need to use at least formal objects with their transitive verbs, like in Japanese you cannot simply say &quot;I'm eating&quot;, you need an object, usually it's the formal object &quot;rice&quot;, &quot;I'm eating&quot; is expressed as &quot;I'm eating rice&quot; irrespective of what food you're actually eating, in Russian no formal or necessary objects are needed. If it's clear from the context what you're eating, or it's not important what you're eating, &quot;Я ем&quot; or even simply &quot;Ем&quot; are perfectly correct sentences, answering both the question &quot;Are you eating now?&quot; and also &quot;Do you eat {name of food}?&quot; The same goes for the rest of the transitive verbs, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Germanic languages typically need formal parts of the sentence, like &quot;*It* can *well* be true&quot; in which *it* is the formal subject and *well* is a formal adverbial modifier, Russian usually *does not* need any formal parts of the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15461" RevisionGUID="6f405b7b-9463-48cc-987b-fcecdfd182c2" CreationDate="2018-01-05T18:54:35.887" UserId="9459" Text="You can go with a description. `Двери стучали на ветру.` (Or: `Дверь стучала на ветру` for singular.) This basically focuses on the doors producing the sound and not being shut or open, but it's obvious that doors produce a clapping sound by closing themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue is if your tents really have _doors_ or the entry blocking device is called different. Compare `полы шатра`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My `стучали` above implies hard doors, of wood or something. If it's fabric, I'd say `хлопали`, e.g. `Полотнища палаток хлопали на ветру`, `паруса хлопали от порывов ветра`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15458" RevisionGUID="9a825120-b0bb-4608-8b5c-01fe063ab458" CreationDate="2018-01-05T19:06:19.770" UserId="2104" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="&gt; Двери палаток хлопали, открываясь и закрываясь  от ветра. &#xA;&#xA;Note that хлопнули is a single-event verb whereas хлопали is a multi-event verb which is probably what you wanted.&#xA;&#xA;I think you used &quot;open and shut&quot; only to emphasize the repetitiveness of the slamming. In Russian you can safely drop &quot;открываясь и закрываясь&quot; because repetitiveness is already expressed by хлопали. Thus you can simply say :&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Двери палаток хлопали от ветра. &#xA;&#xA;Or &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ветер хлопал дверьми палаток.&#xA;&#xA;Which sounds a bit more fiction-like, if that's what you are writing. &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="aed08c19-4a3d-45f5-bb6c-f2f725296716" CreationDate="2018-01-05T22:14:19.270" UserId="6545" Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, can't combine &quot;bold&quot; with &quot;code&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вая к**о**мнату иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нным гост**е**й н**о**вым к**о**мнате.&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;(nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вым к**о**мнате.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v.) Is there a restriction on the verb пок**а**зывать to only work with animate objects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the definition of the verb in wiktionary.com, but maybe there is a problem there too... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="aed08c19-4a3d-45f5-bb6c-f2f725296716" CreationDate="2018-01-05T22:14:19.270" UserId="6545" Text="&quot;dative verb&quot; показывать and direct &amp; indirect objects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="aed08c19-4a3d-45f5-bb6c-f2f725296716" CreationDate="2018-01-05T22:14:19.270" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|дательный-падеж|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="1a7203ef-efc2-45a5-b49e-a164fed44298" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:10:27.930" UserId="6545" Comment="clean up" Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, can't combine &quot;bold&quot; with &quot;code&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вая к**о**мнату иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нным гост**е**й н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v.) Is there a restriction on the verb пок**а**зывать to only work with animate objects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the definition of the verb in wiktionary.com, but maybe there is a problem there too... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="44e9848f-3c1d-46bc-a39b-45638f1cf535" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:17:26.290" UserId="6545" Comment="misspelled a word" Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, can't combine &quot;bold&quot; with &quot;code&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вую к**о**мнату иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нным гост**е**й н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v.) Is there a restriction on the verb пок**а**зывать to only work with animate objects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the definition of the verb in wiktionary.com, but maybe there is a problem there too... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15464" RevisionGUID="31bddb52-9c97-4207-8ca2-ebf8f662dfb2" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:17:38.080" UserId="7674" Text="The verb **`показываете`** is in fact **imperfective** as verbs in Present tense (in Russian at least) can't be perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the source of your confusion is the two ways of using the verb `to show` in English. Namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**`to show smbd smth`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**`to show smbd TO smth`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian they are not translated entirely identically: 1. is as `показывать`, whereas 2. is as `провожать (in order to show)`, `повести показать`, `делать экскурсию по`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in the second instance it may be translated as `показывать` as well due to lack of one word equivalent in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having in mind the instance 1, the translations of the sentences would have to look as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) I show the new room to the foreign guests - Я показываю нов**ую**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; комнат**у** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; иностранн**ым** гост**ям** &lt;sup&gt;Dat.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) I show the foreign guests to the new room - Я показываю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; иностранн**ых** гост**ей** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; нов**ой** комнат**е**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Dat.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can notice in Accusative (as direct object) and in Dative (as  indirect object) both collocations `новая комната` and `иностранные гости` have different finals, indicating their case declension and syntactic role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence however doesn't make sense in Russian because it says that you show foreign guests to a room, that is `show a group of people to an inanimate object`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the translation to make sense the English sentence is to be construed based on the second meaning of `to show` (point 2 above), in which case the translation would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) I show the foreign guests to the new room - Я веду иностранн**ых** гост**ей** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; показать (им) нов**ую** комнат**у** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds clumsy in Russian, because such phrase isn't very idiomatic for the language.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="e4c0d6b3-6834-47b4-a3df-b463be868c94" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:19:07.193" UserId="6545" Comment="spelling again" Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, can't combine &quot;bold&quot; with &quot;code&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вую к**о**мнату иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нных гост**е**й н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v.) Is there a restriction on the verb пок**а**зывать to only work with animate objects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the definition of the verb in wiktionary.com, but maybe there is a problem there too... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="2d47a109-8772-4a69-9ad2-baa5ad85bdcd" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:21:36.357" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, can't combine &quot;bold&quot; with &quot;code&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вую к**о**мнату иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нных гост**е**й н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вым к**о**мнате. (nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;v.) Is there a restriction on the verb пок**а**зывать to only work with animate objects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up the definition of the verb in wiktionary.com, but maybe there is a problem there too... &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15464" RevisionGUID="40072893-df54-4712-9ee6-e3cd71427d4b" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:23:11.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="The verb **`показываете`** is in fact **imperfective** as verbs in Present tense (in Russian at least) can't be perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the source of your confusion is the two ways of using the verb `to show` in English. Namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**`to show smbd smth`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**`to show smbd TO smth`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian they are not translated entirely identically: 1. is as `показывать`, whereas 2. is as `провожать (in order to show)`, `повести показать`, `делать экскурсию по`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in the second instance it may be translated as `показывать` as well due to lack of one word equivalent in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having in mind specifically the instance 1, the translations of the sentences would have to look as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) I show the new room to the foreign guests - Я показываю нов**ую**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; комнат**у** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; иностранн**ым** гост**ям** &lt;sup&gt;Dat.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) I show the foreign guests to the new room - Я показываю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; иностранн**ых** гост**ей** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; нов**ой** комнат**е**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Dat.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can notice in Accusative (as direct object) and in Dative (as  indirect object) both collocations `новая комната` and `иностранные гости` have different finals, indicating their case declension and syntactic role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence however doesn't make sense in Russian because it says that you show foreign guests to a room, that is `show a group of people to an inanimate object`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the translation to make sense the English sentence is to be construed based on the second meaning of `to show` (point 2 above), in which case the translation would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) I show the foreign guests to the new room - Я веду иностранн**ых** гост**ей** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; показать (им) нов**ую** комнат**у** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds clumsy in Russian, because such phrase isn't very idiomatic for the language.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="41d93542-1f41-4c08-9f47-65bf181c696a" CreationDate="2018-01-05T23:33:49.443" UserId="6545" Comment="removed a question that was not so connected to the main question. Added prepositions, maybe" Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(sorry, can't combine &quot;bold&quot; with &quot;code&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вую к**о**мнату (к?) иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нных гост**е**й (К?) н**о**вой к**о**мнате. (accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вой к**о**мантии. (nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think all these 4 questions are interrelated and I think the answer could be very short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15465" RevisionGUID="7fc7fb7e-01dc-47be-875f-ee9a2490922e" CreationDate="2018-01-06T07:33:36.117" UserId="2104" Text="**1a** is correct, no `к` is needed (`к` is needed with motion verbs: `я иду́ к дру́гу` vs. `я дарю́ дру́гу`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is in the question itself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Како́му го́стю вы пока́зываете но́вые карти́ны?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just replace the question word `како́му` with `иностра́нный`, keeping the dative case ending (-ому):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иностра́нному го́стю вы пока́зываете но́вые карти́ны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a perfectly valid Russian sentence. All that's left is changing the person: вы пока́зываете -&gt; я пока́зываю:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иностра́нному го́стю я пока́зываю но́вые карти́ны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could stop there but one final touch could be moving the dative object (иностра́нному го́стю) to the end of the sentence to make it sound more neutral:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пока́зываю но́вые карти́ны иностра́нному го́стю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering the question in English and translating back to Russian is the wrong way to go. You are bringing in idiosyncrasies of English that a Russian would never have thought of when answering that question. The grammatical structure was already given to you in the question and your job was just to substitute the right words, keeping the cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This method also trains the right reflexes: it is hard-wired into every Russian brain to use the same case when answering a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Како́му го́стю нра́вятся карти́ны?&#xD;&#xA; - Иностра́нному.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Кому́ Росси́я продала́ Аля́ску?&#xD;&#xA; - Аме́рике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering with just `иностра́нный` or `Аме́рика` would sound awkward, as if you were answering a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in your answer, `карти́ны` suddenly became `ко́мнаты`. Who knows what else might get lost in translation? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15464" RevisionGUID="e2f6a1b5-b94a-47f4-b6eb-e7788e321762" CreationDate="2018-01-06T08:05:27.927" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The verb **`показываете`** is in fact **imperfective** as verbs in Present tense (in Russian at least) can't be perfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the source of your confusion is the two ways of using the verb `to show` in English. Namely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.**`to show smbd smth`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**`to show smbd TO smth`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian they are not translated entirely identically: 1. is as `показывать`, whereas 2. is as `провожать (in order to show)`, `повести показать`, `делать экскурсию в/на/по`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in the second instance it may be translated as `показывать` as well due to lack of one word equivalent in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having in mind specifically the instance 1, the translations of the sentences would have to look as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) I show the new room to the foreign guests - Я показываю нов**ую**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; комнат**у** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; иностранн**ым** гост**ям** &lt;sup&gt;Dat.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) I show the foreign guests to the new room - Я показываю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; иностранн**ых** гост**ей** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; нов**ой** комнат**е**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Dat.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can notice in Accusative (as direct object) and in Dative (as  indirect object) both collocations `новая комната` and `иностранные гости` have different finals, indicating their case declension and syntactic role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence however doesn't make sense in Russian because it says that you show foreign guests to a room, that is `show a group of people to an inanimate object`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the translation to make sense the English sentence is to be construed based on the second meaning of `to show` (point 2 above), in which case the translation would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) I show the foreign guests to the new room - Я веду иностранн**ых** гост**ей** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt; показать (им) нов**ую** комнат**у** &lt;sup&gt;Acc.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds clumsy in Russian, because such phrase isn't very idiomatic for the language.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15463" RevisionGUID="d02c9164-1a3c-4962-8b45-91831923ffa7" CreationDate="2018-01-06T08:56:43.123" UserId="6097" Comment="Formatting " Text="I'm supposed to answer the following question with the word in parenthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Как**о**му г**о**стю вы пок**а**зываете н**о**вые карт**и**ны? (иностр**а**нный)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I see that the perfective verb, пок**а**зываете, is transitive and that I can answer the question in two ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1.) I register/show the new room to the foreign guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1a.) Я пок**а**зываю н**о**вую к**о**мнату (к?) иностр**а**нным гост**я**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2.) I register/show the foreign guests to the new room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2a.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нных гост**е**й (К?) н**о**вой к**о**мнате. (accusative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2b.) Я пок**а**зываю иностр**а**нные г**о**сти н**о**вой к**о**мантии. (nominative/dative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/lessons/lesson13_main.php asserts, &quot;The Russian dative case is used to represent the indirect object. This is the person or thing that receives the main object.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, &quot;to call - звонить&quot;, where the recipient of the call (the main object) is in dative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in these two sentence choices, I can very well see the room and the guests as being interchanged in their roles as &quot;main object&quot; or &quot;indirect object&quot;, and hence their formation in either the accusative or the dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.) Is my interpretation in the last paragraph correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ii.) As neither are subjects (room/guests - subject is &quot;I&quot;) the 2b) isn't correct, right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iii.) Does this specific case truly have two choices or am I making a mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iv.) What are the correct translations of the sentences 1.) and 2.)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think all these 4 questions are interrelated and I think the answer could be very short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15466" RevisionGUID="2687ffff-4b3e-46f1-ace5-783bf90ca24c" CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:44:46.377" UserId="3892" Text="I recently read a piece of text that was translated into Russian by a very reputable translator. In it, a couple was at a party when someone asked the husband what he thought of a new legislature. The wife, knowing that this would send the husband into an endless political tangent, said (in the English version) Oh boy! Here we go... The Russian translation was: Ну вот... понеслась душа в рай! To me, this would seem like &quot;I've died and gone to heaven!&quot;, which would the opposite of what the wife meant according to the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for your help :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15466" RevisionGUID="2687ffff-4b3e-46f1-ace5-783bf90ca24c" CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:44:46.377" UserId="3892" Text="Interpretation of Понеслась душа в рай!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15466" RevisionGUID="2687ffff-4b3e-46f1-ace5-783bf90ca24c" CreationDate="2018-01-06T18:44:46.377" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15468" RevisionGUID="2ce04103-c358-47a5-ba90-8877f1bbd1d4" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:28:10.330" UserId="3680" Text="The root word of that translation is the word `понеслась`.  &#xD;&#xA;There are number of similar phrases based on this word having the same meaning, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Понеслась` душа в рай.&#xD;&#xA;* `Понеслась` моча по трубам.&#xD;&#xA;* `Понеслась` пизда по кочкам (this is obscene, I'm sorry).&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;* And just `Понеслась`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15469" RevisionGUID="9a15f936-c37b-41a9-9200-a037003d6a9e" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:34:01.140" UserId="7674" Text="The idiom in this context means something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He's now gotten into his element&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in negative sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15468" RevisionGUID="fcc17540-d651-433f-aebd-73de2c692bd5" CreationDate="2018-01-06T19:42:14.410" UserId="3680" Comment="added translation" Text="The root word of that translation is the word `понеслась`.  &#xD;&#xA;There are number of similar phrases based on this word having the same meaning, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Понеслась` душа в рай.&#xD;&#xA;* `Понеслась` моча по трубам.&#xD;&#xA;* `Понеслась` пизда по кочкам (this is obscene, I'm sorry).&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;* And just `Понеслась`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `Понеслась` could be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Here we go.&#xD;&#xA;* Let's start the party.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15470" RevisionGUID="fde46c17-55a8-45a4-b255-fb5117cf4bc9" CreationDate="2018-01-06T20:07:09.917" UserId="1262" Text="It's not opposite. The meaning is metaphorical, implying that the speaker (or an acting person) is as much attracted to the topic - or an acting person to an object of an action or to an action as such - as a soul is attracted to a paradise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the maeaning cannot be entirely negative. It could be ironical, disrespectful and/or patronizing - as it is the case with the usage of 'Amen' in a sense of 'say no more' - but never entirely negative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15471" RevisionGUID="c9c037a3-ccc8-4d58-bc5b-df246920cda2" CreationDate="2018-01-07T00:30:15.617" UserId="10073" Text="In American English the standard term seems to be 'whole wheat flour', while in British English it seems that whole meal and whole wheat are used interchangeably (or perhaps whole meal refers to coarse whole wheat flour).&#xD;&#xA;How would 'whole wheat flour' be written on Russian flour products? Or how would you ask for it in a Russian supermarket? &#xD;&#xA;When I search on some Chinese retail sites I've seen products labelled &quot;пшеничная мука&quot; being listed in Chinese as 'whole wheat flour' but from what I can gather it only means 'wheat flour' in Russian. Is that the same as 'whole wheat flour' in English?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15471" RevisionGUID="c9c037a3-ccc8-4d58-bc5b-df246920cda2" CreationDate="2018-01-07T00:30:15.617" UserId="10073" Text="What is the equivalent of 'whole wheat flour' in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15471" RevisionGUID="c9c037a3-ccc8-4d58-bc5b-df246920cda2" CreationDate="2018-01-07T00:30:15.617" UserId="10073" Text="|перевод|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15472" RevisionGUID="7add2448-54bb-43fe-b2b5-3bf817e29bdb" CreationDate="2018-01-07T04:55:27.270" UserId="6602" Text="The equivalent &quot;vulgar&quot; term will be [цельнозерновая мука][1] (whole-grain flour). More proper term will be **обойная мука**, while any one or both of these terms [may be present on a package][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;tbm=isch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38540" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15456" RevisionGUID="586f92c2-5898-4322-99e6-72aa95737065" CreationDate="2018-01-07T09:51:55.783" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/949941660338749440" />
  <row Id="38541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="11e62466-99f2-45f8-9b98-41c6d0bad2b3" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:05:52.977" UserId="10076" Text="I've come across я состоянии плавать, I can (am able) to swim, and я способен, I can (am able)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are both of these used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="11e62466-99f2-45f8-9b98-41c6d0bad2b3" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:05:52.977" UserId="10076" Text="Я состоянии vs я способен?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="11e62466-99f2-45f8-9b98-41c6d0bad2b3" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:05:52.977" UserId="10076" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="57e77955-5a8d-478f-a57b-7725c5e19828" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:08:06.907" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've come across я **в** состоянии плавать, I can (am able) to swim, and я способен, I can (am able)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are both of these used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="57e77955-5a8d-478f-a57b-7725c5e19828" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:08:06.907" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Я в состоянии vs я способен?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15474" RevisionGUID="7902c831-49dc-4cb0-895c-b492c913dd48" CreationDate="2018-01-07T20:15:42.960" UserId="7674" Text="I'd say that **`я способен`** can mean both general physical ability and momentary one, **`я в состоянии`** on the other hand refers mainly to momentary ability, to translate the sentence literally `I'm being in a state/position fit for swimming`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the distinction is very slim to be decisive in the choice of expression.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="fb7a1948-ac21-4580-9595-74ee93ba6989" CreationDate="2018-01-07T21:36:29.980" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, *управление* is the correct term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question would translate as *Каково управление этого глагола?*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15475" RevisionGUID="e7705135-2b51-44d3-8ac3-34f6e3990ff6" CreationDate="2018-01-07T22:36:26.580" UserId="1262" Text="Semantically, ***быть в состоянии*** refers to an evident state and/or an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***быть способен / способным*** refers to non-evident condition and/or action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, ***быть в состоянии*** always requires an infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ***Я в состоянии съесть ещё полтазика оливье, выпить ещё пол-литра, потанцевать ещё полчаса и ещё раз проголосовать на выборах. Я в состоянии отвечать за себя. Я в состоянии ехать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***быть способным*** ***(способен)*** + ***на*** + *A Noun in Accusative* exists in two variations (with the adjective either in Instrumental or Nominative, for details, see Instrumental Compliment), never to be used with an infinitive; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я способен на ответственные поступки. Я способен на пьянки и танцы.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***быть способным (*способен)*** + a noun is in many situations interchangeable with ***оказаться способным/способен*** and conveys a modality of a new topic (a sort of revelation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interchangeability is not, however, complete, as ***быть способным (*способен)*** is never used with definite or single-time actuions, or actions of a higher register. Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я способен на ответственность***. * ***Я способен на поездку***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я оказался способен / способным на ответственность.***&#xD;&#xA;***Я оказался способен / способным на поездку.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The indefinite/non-evidential actions (NB: the indefiniteness is expressed by plural) go with this structure perfectly well, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я способен на разговоры. Я способен на поездки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of the structure are intercheangeable with ***мочь*** + infinitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15476" RevisionGUID="60d1de5f-d271-4f2e-9785-c17608b731f6" CreationDate="2018-01-07T23:11:54.693" UserId="2104" Text="Assuming that these sentences were preceded with 'him' claiming that he had not been inside that building, I suggest the following translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I confronted him with the fact, that I've seen him entering the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я возразил ему, сказав, что видел, как он входил в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Возразить` means 'to object, to retort' and it's weaker than 'to confront'. The closest expression I can think of would be `дать отпор` but it's a bit outdated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я дал ему отпор, сказав, что видел, как он входил в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could also use `загнать в угол` 'to corner' but obviously the meaning is a bit different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я загнал его в угол, сказав, что видел, как он входил в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the above, I would stick with `возразить`, `возражение`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was confronted with the fact, that somebody has seen him entering the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В ответ он получил возражение в виде того факта, что его видели входящим в здание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15477" RevisionGUID="f63aa98b-80e3-4739-9cf0-0083af675f76" CreationDate="2018-01-07T23:27:40.267" UserId="1262" Text="I think we could deal just with adverbs or quasiadverbal structures combined with ***Ho*** in beginning of a phrase, e. g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Но я сказал ему, что, напротив / на самом деле /фактически / видел, как он заходил/заходит в здание.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Но кто-то /на самом деле /фактически /, напротив, /  видел, как он заходил/заходит в здание.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15470" RevisionGUID="03099c90-126d-47a1-8c6b-99b38c5c2c68" CreationDate="2018-01-07T23:28:57.923" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It's not opposite. The meaning is metaphorical, implying that the speaker (or an acting person) is as much attracted to the topic - or an acting person to an object of an action or to an action as such - as a soul is attracted to a paradise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the meaning cannot be entirely negative. It could be ironical, disrespectful and/or patronizing - as it is the case with the usage of 'Amen' in a sense of 'say no more' - but never entirely negative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38552" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15471" RevisionGUID="e75f6848-3d6b-4eb8-94dd-05ee6c880ece" CreationDate="2018-01-08T03:57:08.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/950214763337994240" />
  <row Id="38554" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15300" RevisionGUID="73cdd07d-3c5e-4f0d-9d73-68fdf519dd3f" CreationDate="2018-01-08T16:02:26.993" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/950397292808458241" />
  <row Id="38556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15478" RevisionGUID="9b438e79-0096-44e8-b289-4a9bc04fecec" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:26:29.993" UserId="4511" Text="What is the difference between these two words ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15478" RevisionGUID="9b438e79-0096-44e8-b289-4a9bc04fecec" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:26:29.993" UserId="4511" Text="Difference between &quot;парнем&quot; and &quot;любовником&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15478" RevisionGUID="9b438e79-0096-44e8-b289-4a9bc04fecec" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:26:29.993" UserId="4511" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15479" RevisionGUID="aa37fe2f-9d81-4c8b-ab6a-05d7517f292c" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:35:46.960" UserId="115" Text="Парень is a boyfriend. Любовник is a lover. Любовник usually implies an illicit affair, where one or both participants are married." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15480" RevisionGUID="7305f2bd-ff14-4c37-80c2-8824205b2aae" CreationDate="2018-01-08T21:34:41.987" UserId="1262" Text="***Парень*** (a cognate to Lithuanian ***berniukas***) makes an emphasis on the relationship while ***любовник*** makes emphasis on love-making:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У неё есть парень / нет парня. А парень-то у тебя, подруга, есть?*** - the phrases are usually withing a scale of socially acceptible / polite talks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it's ok to ask a girl you hardly know or don't know at all;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У тебя есть парень?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not ok to ask her &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У тебя есть любовник?***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15482" RevisionGUID="63f3ff0a-b9f2-4b5f-ac92-9894152d9767" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:34:21.527" UserId="242" Text="One thing surprisingly not mentioned so far (and one most important one) is that `парень` is way narrower, it's **not** like boyfriend in modern English - in non-ironical way it's applicable only for young people. A student can introduce her boyfriend: &quot;Это мой парень&quot;, someone in late thirties will sound actually more comical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Любовник` is not a boyfriend as well. One will sound, again, intentionally funny if will introduce his/her boyfriend/girlfriend as `любовник`/`любовница`. It's about some ongoing relationships which are most likely kept in secret, implies that one, if not both of participant is married. At least this relationships are unofficial in a wide sense of the term &quot;unofficial&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the fact that both terms not fully equivalent to boyfriend is the reason why in colloquial slang word `бойфренд` gains more and more traction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38566" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15466" RevisionGUID="36135510-57d9-4430-9b7e-190d9f8878a3" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:36:51.137" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Interpretation of &quot;Понеслась душа в рай!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38567" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15478" RevisionGUID="cd646503-2a99-46f1-b919-f2d6c9db32f0" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:37:23.307" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;парнем&quot; and &quot;любовник&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15482" RevisionGUID="e4cf89b2-3b8d-4ff6-b147-cc03924c7a88" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:40:03.767" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="One thing surprisingly not mentioned so far (and one most important one) is that `парень` is way narrower, it's **not** like boyfriend in modern English - in non-ironical way it's applicable only for younger people. A student can introduce her boyfriend: &quot;Это мой парень&quot;, someone in late thirties will sound actually more comical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Любовник` is not a boyfriend as well. One will sound, again, intentionally funny if will introduce his/her boyfriend/girlfriend as `любовник`/`любовница`. It's about some ongoing relationships which are most likely kept in secret, implies that one, if not both of participant is married. At least this relationships are unofficial in a wide sense of the term &quot;unofficial&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, the fact that both terms not fully equivalent to boyfriend is the reason why in colloquial slang word `бойфренд` gains more and more traction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38571" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15478" RevisionGUID="7a2dc7ce-3b0e-4778-ba86-df1aa89f0f1d" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:44:17.377" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;парень&quot; and &quot;любовник&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="c1588ce9-a6d2-4baf-8338-29a2fdfcf1ab" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:48:53.490" UserId="7018" Text="I use Google to translate 2 sentences involving 2 cities (Liman-Лиман, Kamyzyak-Камызяк): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The distance from Liman to Kamyzyak. &#xD;&#xA;    The distance between Liman and Kamyzyak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Расстояние от Лиман до Камызяка.&#xD;&#xA;    Расстояние между Лиманом и Камызяком.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google changed the city names to different forms. Is there a way to avoid the name change? I learned Russian in high school and have forgotten 99% what my teacher taught me. Can I make some short cuts to avoid name change? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Расстояние Лиман - Камызяк ...&#xD;&#xA;    Расстояние (Лиман - Камызяк) ...&#xD;&#xA;    Расстояние: Лиман - Камызяк&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="c1588ce9-a6d2-4baf-8338-29a2fdfcf1ab" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:48:53.490" UserId="7018" Text="City name change when used in sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="c1588ce9-a6d2-4baf-8338-29a2fdfcf1ab" CreationDate="2018-01-08T23:48:53.490" UserId="7018" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38575" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="81818aa0-71d4-4096-b5ae-cfa3747b3206" CreationDate="2018-01-09T00:03:34.277" UserId="7018" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7018,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tony&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38576" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="e4f2247c-5d77-455a-abb1-91d96e284dff" CreationDate="2018-01-09T00:04:35.117" UserId="7018" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7018,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tony&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38577" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="653d36ca-8977-4dc2-b375-d789d21c9625" CreationDate="2018-01-09T00:12:13.810" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38578" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="32333c54-5b5e-41d4-9085-8d7eec04766e" CreationDate="2018-01-09T00:12:51.567" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15484" RevisionGUID="5ddb5c3b-4e32-4e1a-8abd-c0225638f5cf" CreationDate="2018-01-09T00:16:23.550" UserId="242" Text="Well, &quot;is it possible&quot; heavily depends on what you actually want to achieve. If you intention is to have some sort of summary data, something like report, then you an go with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман-Казымяк, расстояние N км&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not the case and report-like approach is not an option, to sound natural you still need to know and use cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15484" RevisionGUID="a5e42bdd-3ed1-455a-9f97-91fc820f9493" CreationDate="2018-01-09T01:38:42.797" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Well, &quot;is it possible&quot; heavily depends on what you actually want to achieve. If you intention is to have some sort of summary data, something like report, then you an go with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман-Казымяк, расстояние N км&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If report-like approach happens to be not an option, to sound natural you still need to know and use cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15480" RevisionGUID="71175f43-d0ee-4dd0-b600-8db4bf4aa7fb" CreationDate="2018-01-09T03:42:54.593" UserId="1262" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="***Парень*** (a cognate to Lithuanian ***berniukas***) makes an emphasis on the relationship while ***любовник*** makes emphasis on love-making:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У неё есть парень / нет парня. А парень-то у тебя, подруга, есть?*** - the phrases are usually within a scale of socially acceptible / polite talks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it's ok to ask a girl you hardly know or don't know at all;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У тебя есть парень?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's not ok to ask her &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У тебя есть любовник?***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15484" RevisionGUID="6e7fd80c-0b79-4f74-8391-d3c094adcf7d" CreationDate="2018-01-09T07:16:24.117" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Well, &quot;is it possible&quot; heavily depends on what you actually want to achieve. If you intention is to have some sort of summary data, something like report, then you can go with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман-Казымяк, расстояние N км&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If report-like approach happens to be not an option, to sound natural you still need to know and use cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15484" RevisionGUID="85ef2cc6-45cb-4e00-bc48-8e24159b0313" CreationDate="2018-01-09T08:34:49.400" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Well, &quot;is it possible&quot; heavily depends on what you actually want to achieve. If you intention is to have some sort of summary data, something like report, then you can go with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман-Казымяк, расстояние N км&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If report-like approach is not an option, to sound natural you still need to know and use cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15485" RevisionGUID="b5cfe22d-268f-4bd4-bb32-03474664b7f4" CreationDate="2018-01-09T08:59:15.830" UserId="2104" Text="Google did the right thing: the change is required for the sentence to be grammatically correct. If you don't apply the change, the generated sentence would sound like &quot;the distance between he and she&quot; instead of the grammatically correct &quot;the distance between him and her&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;You can make this change automatically using this web service: &#xA;&#xA;http://ws3.morpher.ru/russian/declension?s=Лиман" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15474" RevisionGUID="ad03d5fe-2624-46af-b751-d7e4dd167638" CreationDate="2018-01-09T11:11:48.540" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1054 characters in body" Text="***The short answer***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that **`я способен`** can mean both general physical ability and momentary one, **`я в состоянии`** on the other hand refers mainly to momentary ability, to translate the sentence literally `I'm being in a state/position fit for swimming`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the distinction is very slim to be decisive in the choice of expression.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The long answer***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth pointing out that for the phrase **`я способен`** :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A)** &#xD;&#xA;1. The sense of *momentary ability* would usually be conveyed by *perfective verbs* (except for *verbs of motion* - see paragraph **B)**), i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `у`видеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по`жертвовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And  a sense of *general ability* - with *imperfective verbs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен видеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен жертвовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** 1. With the *verbs of motion* the meaning of *momentary ability* is conveyed by their *unidirectional variant* in both *perfective* and *imperfective aspects*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен плыть &lt;sup&gt;Uni imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по/от/пере/за/под`плыть &lt;sup&gt;Uni perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Perfective aspect* of *multidirectional verbs* conveys this meaning as well, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по`плавать &lt;sup&gt;Multi perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `с`бегать &lt;sup&gt;Multi perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it sounds somewhat odd and is almost never used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The meaning of *general ability* with *motion verbs* is indicated by their *multidirectional variant* in *imperfective aspect*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен плавать &lt;sup&gt;Multi imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен ходить &lt;sup&gt;Multi imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15474" RevisionGUID="bc4d01e9-ed21-4a6f-9e57-71935d335b57" CreationDate="2018-01-09T11:27:16.720" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="***The short answer***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that **`я способен`** can mean both general physical ability and momentary one, **`я в состоянии`** on the other hand refers mainly to momentary ability, to translate the sentence literally `I'm being in a state/position fit for swimming`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the distinction is very slim to be decisive in the choice of expression with respect to *momentary ability*.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The long answer***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth pointing out that for the phrase **`я способен`** :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A)** &#xD;&#xA;1. The sense of *momentary ability* would usually be conveyed by *perfective verbs* (except for *verbs of motion* - see paragraph **B)**), i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `у`видеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по`жертвовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And  a sense of *general ability* - with *imperfective verbs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен видеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен жертвовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** 1. With the *verbs of motion* the meaning of *momentary ability* is conveyed by their *unidirectional variant* in both *perfective* and *imperfective aspects*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен плыть &lt;sup&gt;Uni imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по/от/пере/за/под`плыть &lt;sup&gt;Uni perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Perfective aspect* of *multidirectional verbs* conveys this meaning as well, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по`плавать &lt;sup&gt;Multi perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `с`бегать &lt;sup&gt;Multi perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it sounds somewhat odd and is almost never used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The meaning of *general ability* with *motion verbs* is indicated by their *multidirectional variant* in *imperfective aspect*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен плавать &lt;sup&gt;Multi imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен ходить &lt;sup&gt;Multi imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38591" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="043d2cc2-b6cb-4ff8-a2b2-78f4b301c095" CreationDate="2018-01-09T12:40:56.100" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я в состоянии&quot; vs &quot;я способен&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15474" RevisionGUID="62bbd9a5-faea-4b6f-a3d7-8cc9f376922b" CreationDate="2018-01-09T12:48:31.833" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="***The short answer***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that **`я способен`** can mean both general physical ability and momentary one, **`я в состоянии`** on the other hand refers mainly to momentary ability, to translate the sentence literally `I'm being in a state/position fit for swimming`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the distinction is very slim to be decisive in the choice of expression with respect to *momentary ability*.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***The long answer***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth pointing out that for the phrase **`я способен`** :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A)** &#xD;&#xA;1. The sense of *momentary ability* would usually be conveyed by *perfective verbs* (except for *verbs of motion* - see paragraph **B)**), i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `у`видеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по`жертвовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And  a sense of *general ability* - with *imperfective verbs*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен видеть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен жертвовать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** 1. With the *verbs of motion* the meaning of *momentary ability* is conveyed by their *unidirectional variant* in both *perfective* and *imperfective aspects*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен плыть &lt;sup&gt;Uni imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по/от/пере/за/под`плыть &lt;sup&gt;Uni perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Perfective aspect* of *multidirectional verbs* conveys this meaning as well, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `по`плавать &lt;sup&gt;Multi perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен `с`бегать &lt;sup&gt;Multi perf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it sounds somewhat odd and is almost never used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The meaning of *general ability* with *motion verbs* is indicated by their *multidirectional variant* in *imperfective aspect*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен плавать &lt;sup&gt;Multi imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я способен бегать &lt;sup&gt;Multi imperf.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15486" RevisionGUID="2098c4bc-e54a-410e-89a1-0f08cfbe8e50" CreationDate="2018-01-09T14:16:17.003" UserId="5998" Text="I want to express that *I had a short night*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Night* is a feminine noun, so I would decline the adjective accordingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя ночь была короткая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that short forms exist and can be applied, when used predicatively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя ночь была коротка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what Google Translate suggests as well and - it is usually right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, on-line a also found this version quite often:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя ночь была короткой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a grammatical perspective, I would use either `короткая` or `коротка`. But since `короткой` is also used a lot of times, I wonder which version is correct or more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To make things even worse:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I translate &quot;*The weather was cold.*&quot;, Google Translate suggests this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода была холодной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though `погода` is also a feminine noun, in this case the ending `-ой` is suggested. I know that Google is by far not a perfect translator, but still, this confuses me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15486" RevisionGUID="2098c4bc-e54a-410e-89a1-0f08cfbe8e50" CreationDate="2018-01-09T14:16:17.003" UserId="5998" Text="Declension of adjectives in conjunction with the verb быть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15486" RevisionGUID="2098c4bc-e54a-410e-89a1-0f08cfbe8e50" CreationDate="2018-01-09T14:16:17.003" UserId="5998" Text="|перевод|прилагательные|склонение|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15487" RevisionGUID="edb75feb-9871-4316-ad09-4b7b1334a2f5" CreationDate="2018-01-09T15:18:06.823" UserId="242" Text="Literal translation are not applicable in plenty of cases. One can help you to decline `ночь` and conjugate `быть` properly but the real answer is that it's better to be translated like: &quot;Я [cегодня] плохо спал&quot; or &quot;мне плохо / мало спалось&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15478" RevisionGUID="8fdf2c8a-1257-4c60-8131-6fa7d5348090" CreationDate="2018-01-09T16:03:54.443" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/950760047147126787" />
  <row Id="38598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15488" RevisionGUID="d5944072-a27d-4cec-884a-0611ebf43517" CreationDate="2018-01-09T18:09:30.780" UserId="9589" Text="Foregoing the issue of your choice of words (as I don’t know what you are trying to convey), the difference between endings here is purely stylistic, as they are both perfectly correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two scream ‘literary’:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода была холодна&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночь была коротка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While these two will be by far more common in everyday speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода была холодной&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночь была короткой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15489" RevisionGUID="23fd40c2-0899-4804-a7c1-eaa6b6c8957e" CreationDate="2018-01-09T18:19:24.523" UserId="134" Text="&gt; I wonder which version is correct or more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the past and future forms of *быть*, both nominative and instrumental can be used, with the present form nominative only, with the infinitive instrumental only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This feature of Russian is regarded a Polonism by some authors (Polish does use instrumental even in present with *быть*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old Russian used dative in this position, which is fossilized in some set phrases (*не до жиру, быть бы живу*), however, this had later changed to instrumental, either by analogy with *становиться, делаться, казаться* etc., or through Polish influence (or both)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15475" RevisionGUID="189fdb8d-a42d-443b-b094-d558bb854ebc" CreationDate="2018-01-09T18:30:41.513" UserId="1262" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Semantically, ***быть в состоянии*** refers to an evident state and/or an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***быть способен / способным*** refers to non-evident condition and/or action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically, ***быть в состоянии*** always-- well, *nearly always* requires an infinitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ***Я в состоянии съесть ещё полтазика оливье, выпить ещё пол-литра, потанцевать ещё полчаса и ещё раз проголосовать на выборах. Я в состоянии отвечать за себя. Я в состоянии ехать.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***быть способным*** ***(способен)*** + ***на*** + *A Noun in Accusative* exists in two variations (with the adjective either in Instrumental or Nominative, for details, see Instrumental Compliment), never to be used with an infinitive; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я способен на ответственные поступки. Я способен на пьянки и танцы.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***быть способным (*способен)*** + a noun is in many situations interchangeable with ***оказаться способным/способен*** and conveys a modality of a new topic (a sort of revelation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interchangeability is not, however, complete, as ***быть способным (*способен)*** is never used with definite or single-time actuions, or actions of a higher register. Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я способен на ответственность***. * ***Я способен на поездку***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я оказался способен / способным на ответственность.***&#xD;&#xA;***Я оказался способен / способным на поездку.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The indefinite/non-evidential actions (NB: the indefiniteness is expressed by plural) go with this structure perfectly well, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я способен на разговоры. Я способен на поездки***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of the structure are intercheangeable with ***мочь*** + infinitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38601" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15486" RevisionGUID="306a0961-76bb-40d7-b1dc-2bdc0d2ba83d" CreationDate="2018-01-09T18:31:45.450" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Declension of adjectives in conjunction with the verb &quot;быть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15490" RevisionGUID="a05669b3-5a58-4c9c-812d-cc881ac8c83f" CreationDate="2018-01-09T18:54:38.123" UserId="1262" Text="Well, it's great that you recognise the as a Fem. Sg. Instrumental. In my opinion, the difference between Instrumental Vs Nominative predicate in Russian is a difference between perfected (non-present tempus) and imperfected aspects of the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former is [similar to essive][1] predicate in Estonian and Finnish languages. Cf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня была длинная ночь*** (the statement is related to the moment of the utterance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня ночь была длинной*** (the nocturnal longitude is irrelevant for the moment);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня длинная ночь*** (present tense, since no possibility to use it instrumental - but it's possible in Polish);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***У меня будет длинная ночь*** (non-evidentiality, irrelevance for the moment);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ночь у меня будет длинной*** (the focus of the utterance is concentraded on the nocturnal longitude again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in Polish, the Russian instrumental predicate can be used with a personal form of copula ***быть***, but because this verb is used only in past and future tenses, the genitive рredicate is never used in Russian in its present tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of regularity of this pattern, I think it goes back to common Slavic roots, just like a shortened form of the adjectives. It also expresses temporal modality, together with definatenes/indefinatenes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ночь (у меня) была длинна*** (indefinite, non-evidential quality, hence the lofty supramundane overtones);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Моя ночь длинна*** (indefinite, hence, non-evidential).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Ночь у меня будет длинна***. (indefinite future, hence it sounds improbable and a bit dramatic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shortened forms are never used in instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15491" RevisionGUID="b6f24200-331d-40e8-aa17-8ca3a758e610" CreationDate="2018-01-09T18:56:59.247" UserId="7755" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман и Камызяк &lt;находятся&gt; в N км. друг от друга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**находятся** can be ommited &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман и Камызяк разделяют N км.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it would be more like natural language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15491" RevisionGUID="0a322b59-e89f-431b-bb00-5a20310e01a5" CreationDate="2018-01-09T19:03:25.267" UserId="7755" Comment="deleted 81 characters in body" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман и Камызяк &lt;находятся&gt; в N км. друг от друга&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**находятся** can be ommited &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38605" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15486" RevisionGUID="f3b5656d-0765-466f-8b1b-23fcc1ee9e29" CreationDate="2018-01-09T19:03:56.123" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/950805353226276871" />
  <row Id="38606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="a30ad9b0-0fe8-408c-bb24-5f92c43a1e74" CreationDate="2018-01-09T20:34:41.697" UserId="10088" Text="The term whataboutery means &quot;Protesting at hypocrisy; responding to criticism by accusing one's opponent of similar or worse faults&quot; (wikipedia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I found is the whole phrase&#xD;&#xA;В огороде бузина, а в Киеве — дядька&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better translation for this, apart from the fact that whataboutery is a logical fallacy and as such could be translated with a general term as софизм or демагогия" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="a30ad9b0-0fe8-408c-bb24-5f92c43a1e74" CreationDate="2018-01-09T20:34:41.697" UserId="10088" Text="How to translate whataboutery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="a30ad9b0-0fe8-408c-bb24-5f92c43a1e74" CreationDate="2018-01-09T20:34:41.697" UserId="10088" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15493" RevisionGUID="66eedf5b-9937-4cd3-a607-6b157bc94e89" CreationDate="2018-01-09T21:19:09.023" UserId="7674" Text="I guess there's no concise equivalent in Russian and for a reason as this rhetorical vehicle was known to be mainly employed by the Soviet side of the Cold War in response to Western (American) criticism and accusations, so it's anglophones who found a name for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're [some suggestions][1] in Multitran&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=whataboutism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15493" RevisionGUID="2ab2d7f8-db7c-47e3-af0b-8a8f194e264a" CreationDate="2018-01-09T21:26:26.337" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I guess there's no concise equivalent in Russian and for a reason as this rhetorical vehicle was known to be mainly employed by the Soviet side of the Cold War in response to Western (American) criticism and accusations, so it's anglophones who coined a term for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're [some suggestions][1] in Multitran:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***перекладывание вины на других***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***засыпание оппонента встречными обвинениями***&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***критика в ответ на критику***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=whataboutism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15494" RevisionGUID="8a99bd1d-4833-4a74-9ac5-aa64403f2a21" CreationDate="2018-01-09T21:29:40.300" UserId="242" Text="**Какнасчётизм**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a joke term, quite rare yet actually used (about 2 thousands usages [found][1] by Yandex, about 1 thousand [by Google][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's quote from wikipedia about [this particular term][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Метод какнасчётизма также вошёл и в советский фольклор в форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; анекдота:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Скажите, какова средняя заработная плата рабочего в СССР? — …А у вас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; негров линчуют!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's example of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  В связи с этим в Великобритании начали говорить о возвращении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;какнасчетизма&quot;, сопровождающем &quot;откат к авторитарному укладу&quot;, пишет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; газета &quot;The Financial Times&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.ru/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15495" RevisionGUID="c3082aee-90dc-4503-9bef-416de4b01b4c" CreationDate="2018-01-09T21:31:45.907" UserId="6097" Text=" On Russian Wikipedia &quot;какнасчётизм&quot; [is used][1]. A very popular phrase in this context is &quot;[а у вас негров линчуют][2]&quot;, however it does not suit as a term. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/А_у_вас_негров_линчуют" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38613" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="ce9663ac-d3f0-478f-9942-c9185a919775" CreationDate="2018-01-09T21:32:58.753" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How to translate &quot;whataboutery&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15496" RevisionGUID="6996b7ca-1689-4129-8fed-ea1dba33c44c" CreationDate="2018-01-10T01:02:44.957" UserId="1839" Text="You don't use possessives in Russian the same way as you do in English. We often express possession by using the genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teacher's book = книга учителя   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; John's car = машина Джона&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context, you can sometimes say &quot;телефон каждого (человека)&quot; to mean &quot;everyone's phone&quot;. For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Телефон каждого (человека) может быть прослушан. = Everyone's phone&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be bugged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But Russian doesn't use possessives as much as English. For example, you normally say &quot;Я почистил зубы&quot; (= I brushed **my** teeth.), and **not** &quot;Я почистил &lt;strike&gt;мои/свои&lt;/strike&gt; зубы.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You often use the structure &quot;*у меня/у тебя/у него* etc.&quot; instead of possessive pronouns in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** болит шея. = **My** neck hurts.     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У неё** сломалась машина. = **Her** car broke down.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У него** украли бумажник. = **His** wallet got stolen.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** зазвонил телефон. = **My** phone started ringing.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; They took **everyone's** phones. = (Они) **у всех** забрали телефоны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15497" RevisionGUID="e3b92e54-92f4-46a6-8253-c99979c24fba" CreationDate="2018-01-10T11:11:18.440" UserId="5443" Text="Looks like **ночь** and **погода** cases are apples and oranges. The most common versions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночь была коротк**ой** (they woke me up in the middle of the night and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; took me to my workplace)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночь была коротк**а** (it seemed short to both of us)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; погода была хорош**ая** (that day; 25:1 vs хорош**ей**, by the results from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ruscorpora.ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible reason of that difference. The versions короткой/хорошей express qualities of things that *don't exist anymore* (or at least no more keep that quality), while the versions короткая/хорошая express qualities of things that *might still exist* and even keep their quality. The particular night is definitely gone, so much more likely it's коротк**ой**, while some weather still exists and it might be as good as it was at the time of interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of weather (which always somehow exists) much comes from the nature of *weather*. But things can also depend on **context**, so here's an example about people (cases of *noun* vary here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её отец был лётч**ик** (who left the family long ago but most likely still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; serves as a pilot).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Её отец был лётчик**ом** (who died as a hero or changed his profession).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Bottom line*: much depends on the current existence / non-existence of things (or state of things)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38620" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="1d7bcfc1-37af-4c81-ab36-cb3d6df7b3d5" CreationDate="2018-01-10T16:31:45.667" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="fdad0b55-ac68-4e25-afeb-2b26d77fa264" CreationDate="2018-01-10T16:32:14.983" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="To cut a short story long, I've been trying to learn Russian for some time, and having had little success with the normal courses (I have a memory like a sieve), I thought I'd try to learn by translating and speaking poems.  I've chosen Shakespeare's Hamlet Soliloquy (Monolog) in the Pasternak translation, and I'm using the Smoktunovsky and Vysotsky performances for pronunciation.  I've discovered that Messrs Google, Babel and co may be fine for a rough translation, but they can fall very short of the mark in translating the actual sense and meaning of Russian.  I particularly hate it when they are smart enough to recognize that it's Hamlet but dumb enough to spout the English version (not the original Klingon), which differs significantly from the Pasternak translation (at least, as far as I can make out!).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I've managed (I think) to make sense of most of the Pasternak, but there are a few phrases that I just can't find a reasonable interpretation for.  The first of these is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скончаться. Сном забыться.  Уснуть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got Уснуть (sleep), but &quot;To fade away, a forgotten dream&quot;, as my best guess for  Скончаться. Сном забыться, just doesn't seem right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be grateful if somebody could provide me with an idea of what they actually *mean* in context. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15499" RevisionGUID="38819beb-35d6-4aa2-af28-b98d5cb6021c" CreationDate="2018-01-10T17:18:00.670" UserId="4903" Text="This answer is not about declension of adjectives, but about idiomatic translations of &quot;I had a short night&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some options to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Я мало спал [сегодня/прошлой ночью]** - I didn't get much sleep [last night].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Я не выспался [сегодня]** - I didn't get enough sleep [last night].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Мне не дали выспаться** - My sleep was interrupted (either by waking up early, or bothering intermittently through the night).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Я поздно лёг/уснул [прошлой ночью]** - I went to bed late [last night].&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15500" RevisionGUID="326d595e-d31b-46ea-b436-5b8412f5f94a" CreationDate="2018-01-11T01:31:48.857" UserId="10092" Text="I'm looking for a Russian idiom which would be the closest analog of &quot;crown jewel&quot; as in, for instance, &quot;the crown jewel of my collection&quot;. I'm not satisfied with &quot;главное украшение&quot; since that's hardly an idiom." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15500" RevisionGUID="326d595e-d31b-46ea-b436-5b8412f5f94a" CreationDate="2018-01-11T01:31:48.857" UserId="10092" Text="Russian equivalent of the idiom &quot;crown jewel&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15500" RevisionGUID="326d595e-d31b-46ea-b436-5b8412f5f94a" CreationDate="2018-01-11T01:31:48.857" UserId="10092" Text="|перевод|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15501" RevisionGUID="ae687da9-d2e7-48a5-9628-663d0f5e4a15" CreationDate="2018-01-11T01:41:24.140" UserId="242" Text="It almost complete equivalent, it's `жемчужина`, like in `жемчужина коллекции`. Here's an example of real-life usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Один из коллекционеров марок в Красноярске выставил на продажу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жемчужину своей коллекции – оригинал марки, выпущенной еще во времена&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Российской Империи в 1914 году.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Настоящей жемчужиной выставки является картина «Поклонение волхвов»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15503" RevisionGUID="56c90570-630c-4b0d-9763-2bd0c7c57a1b" CreationDate="2018-01-11T05:17:12.503" UserId="10093" Text="Literaly first mean &quot;In condition&quot;&#xD;&#xA;I in condition [([to do])]&#xD;&#xA;Я в состоянии (be able to) сделать это сам&#xD;&#xA;Он в состоянии (in conditon)  алкогольного опьянения&#xD;&#xA;Находясь в состоянии алкогольного опьянения (будучи пьяным when he drunked)&#xD;&#xA;человек не способен (not able to) управлять транспортом. (He is not in condition for do it but he can (he's able to))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я русский поэтому мне тяжело это объяснять на английском. Надеюсь понятно написал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15505" RevisionGUID="dacdf782-bcaa-44d2-b027-cd4e89ea8699" CreationDate="2018-01-11T07:37:13.260" UserId="8895" Text="When speaking about the most spectacular/important part of a multi-part event (say, a circus show act) or its most anticipated participant, e.g. a speaker on a conference, it can also be *&quot;гвоздь программы&quot;*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*«Газета &quot;Нью-Йорк Таймс&quot; отметила, что &quot;Умирающий лебедь&quot; стал настоящим гвоздем программы».*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15505" RevisionGUID="2e4c6cd5-415e-4201-8045-a961b26c2fe8" CreationDate="2018-01-11T07:42:18.057" UserId="8895" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="When speaking about the most spectacular/important part of a multi-part event (say, a circus show act) or its most anticipated participant, e.g. a speaker on a conference, it can also be *&quot;гвоздь программы&quot;*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*«Газета &quot;Нью-Йорк Таймс&quot; отметила, что &quot;Умирающий лебедь&quot; стал настоящим гвоздем программы».*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*«Гвоздем выставочной программы стали боевые машины воздушно-десантных войск».*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15484" RevisionGUID="212c78f1-0c6f-487f-9c1a-69ed93c82921" CreationDate="2018-01-11T13:30:42.723" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Well, &quot;is it possible&quot; heavily depends on what you actually want to achieve. If you intention is to have some sort of summary data, something like report, then you can go with: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лиман — Казымяк, расстояние N км&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If report-like approach is not an option, to sound natural you still need to know and use cases. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15482" RevisionGUID="3ccce8b8-59c2-41f5-a8bd-6f77535058d1" CreationDate="2018-01-11T15:44:16.430" UserId="-1" Comment="simplified" Text="One thing surprisingly not mentioned so far (and one most important one) is that `парень` is way narrower, it's **not** like boyfriend in modern English - in non-ironical way it's applicable only for younger people. A student can introduce her boyfriend: &quot;Это мой парень&quot;, someone in late thirties will sound actually more comical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Любовник` is not a boyfriend either. One will sound unintentionally funny if they introduce their boyfriend/girlfriend as `любовник`/`любовница`. The word is used to describe a relationship that is often kept in secret. It also implies that either one or both of the participants are married. `любовник`/`любовница` relationships are unofficial in a wide sense of the term &quot;unofficial&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that both terms are not fully equivalent to boyfriend is the reason why in colloquial slang word `бойфренд` gains more and more traction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38639" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15482" RevisionGUID="3ccce8b8-59c2-41f5-a8bd-6f77535058d1" CreationDate="2018-01-11T15:44:16.430" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 242 edit id of 944" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="7a976736-8b47-4459-855c-1718135f47ad" CreationDate="2018-01-11T18:05:04.097" UserId="10088" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="The term **whataboutery** means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Responding to criticism by accusing one's opponent of similar or worse fault*s&quot; ([wikipedia][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I found is the whole phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В огороде бузина, а в Киеве — дядька&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better translation for this, apart from the fact that whataboutery is a logical fallacy and as such could be translated with a general term as *софизм* or *демагогия*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38641" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15500" RevisionGUID="0b62be6b-db0a-43c4-9380-62285f634c89" CreationDate="2018-01-12T04:08:06.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/951667074329403392" />
  <row Id="38642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15506" RevisionGUID="40ae6088-bf91-4c99-a7b4-6b919190eb32" CreationDate="2018-01-12T05:30:25.303" UserId="10103" Text="эта картина - **венец** моей коллекции" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15507" RevisionGUID="289d09aa-d1d6-47c8-81ba-942babbe8fb9" CreationDate="2018-01-12T11:49:26.130" UserId="10105" Text="Consider the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В 1955-1991 годы Польша являлась участником Варшавского договора.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct grammatical form of the numerals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят пятый - тысяча девятьсот девяносто первый годы Польша являлась участником Варшавского договора.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something else? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15507" RevisionGUID="289d09aa-d1d6-47c8-81ba-942babbe8fb9" CreationDate="2018-01-12T11:49:26.130" UserId="10105" Text="What is the correct way to write down these numerals with words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15507" RevisionGUID="289d09aa-d1d6-47c8-81ba-942babbe8fb9" CreationDate="2018-01-12T11:49:26.130" UserId="10105" Text="|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15508" RevisionGUID="0d33465d-169e-4bed-9372-b120e192acc6" CreationDate="2018-01-12T12:30:24.643" UserId="6097" Text="&gt; С (одна) тысяча девятьсот пятьдесять пятого по (одна) тысяча девятьсот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; девяносто первый год Польша была участником Варшавского договора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. &quot;*В 1955-1991 годы*&quot; is ungrammatical. But since it's not really clear what the correct form of &quot;год&quot; in this case would be, usually &quot;*в 1955-1991 **гг**.*&quot; is used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15507" RevisionGUID="1a5eb7b2-0018-4510-b33c-d401a93d2b70" CreationDate="2018-01-12T12:31:15.390" UserId="6097" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Consider the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В 1955-1991 годы Польша являлась участником Варшавского договора.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the correct grammatical form of the numerals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;В тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят пятый - тысяча девятьсот девяносто первый годы Польша являлась участником Варшавского договора.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or something else? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15508" RevisionGUID="26aec264-510c-4d39-90b3-7bd16f97e707" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:32:37.097" UserId="10109" Comment="added meaninng of abbreviation" Text="&gt; С (одна) тысяча девятьсот пятьдесять пятого по (одна) тысяча девятьсот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; девяносто первый год Польша была участником Варшавского договора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. &quot;*В 1955-1991 годы*&quot; is ungrammatical. But since it's not really clear what the correct form of &quot;год&quot; in this case would be, usually &quot;*в 1955-1991 **гг**.*&quot; is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in that case *&quot;гг.&quot;* will stands for *&quot;годах&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38649" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15508" RevisionGUID="26aec264-510c-4d39-90b3-7bd16f97e707" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:32:37.097" Comment="Proposed by 10109 approved by 6097 edit id of 945" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="f27a24a5-cf14-4806-bd0c-48bb1b773063" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:32:45.277" UserId="9603" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Most of the pronunciation rules and their peculiarities are available at [Wiktionary.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38651" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="f27a24a5-cf14-4806-bd0c-48bb1b773063" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:32:45.277" Comment="Proposed by 9603 approved by 4903, 6097 edit id of 935" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15508" RevisionGUID="d02f977f-9958-480e-b0dd-c03bc8cb03ee" CreationDate="2018-01-12T14:34:59.453" UserId="6097" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="&gt; С (одна) тысяча девятьсот пятьдесять пятого по (одна) тысяча девятьсот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; девяносто первый год Польша была участником Варшавского договора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. &quot;*В 1955-1991 годы*&quot; is ungrammatical. But since it's not really clear what the correct form of &quot;год&quot; in this case would be, usually &quot;*в 1955-1991 **гг**.*&quot; is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such cases *&quot;гг.&quot;* stands for plural of &quot;*год*&quot; in a suitable declination (*годах, годы, etc*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15508" RevisionGUID="64aec89a-d553-4a74-bc30-48c8ae103488" CreationDate="2018-01-12T18:15:16.223" UserId="2060" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; С (одна) тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят пятого по (одна) тысяча девятьсот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; девяносто первый год Польша была участником Варшавского договора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. &quot;*В 1955-1991 годы*&quot; is ungrammatical. But since it's not really clear what the correct form of &quot;год&quot; in this case would be, usually &quot;*в 1955-1991 **гг**.*&quot; is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such cases *&quot;гг.&quot;* stands for plural of &quot;*год*&quot; in a suitable declination (*годах, годы, etc*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15509" RevisionGUID="6c807d1a-31ee-4048-91f9-e63ac69c2811" CreationDate="2018-01-13T06:15:04.037" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Не **слишком** у меня **много** памятных вещей из детства. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that &quot;не слишком&quot; and &quot;не ... много&quot; both mean more or less the same thing. Which makes me wonder what is the function of this seemingly redundant adverb &quot;слишком&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you say just as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не у меня **много** памятных вещей из детства. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15509" RevisionGUID="6c807d1a-31ee-4048-91f9-e63ac69c2811" CreationDate="2018-01-13T06:15:04.037" UserId="8672" Text="Is the adverb &quot;слишком&quot; necessary in &quot;не слишком ... много ...&quot;? What is its function?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15509" RevisionGUID="6c807d1a-31ee-4048-91f9-e63ac69c2811" CreationDate="2018-01-13T06:15:04.037" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15510" RevisionGUID="e3adf2e8-6859-40d7-a939-5ea4dc750848" CreationDate="2018-01-13T06:36:52.913" UserId="2079" Text="No, you cannot. `Не у меня много памятных вечеров из детства` means `It is not me who has many memorable childhood evenings`.  You could say `не много у меня памятных вечеров из детства`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15511" RevisionGUID="0ab7e21b-fdf1-41a6-ace6-c2b1200c6a18" CreationDate="2018-01-13T06:50:53.757" UserId="5443" Text="It's neither necessary nor redundant: **не (слишком) много** = **not (too) many**. It just softens the expression *не много* (not many). However, you can't just remove **слишком** from the original sentence due to particular word order: in your suggested version, the meaning has changed dramatically into: **It's not me (it's somebody else) who has many things keeping memories of childhood.** To keep the correct meaning without **слишком**, you need to change the *word order*. e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не (слишком) много** у меня памятных вещей из детства.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Памятных вещей из детства у меня **не (слишком) много**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar Russian phrase which could replace *не слишком много*: **не так уж много**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не (так уж) много** у меня памятных вещей из детства.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Памятных вещей из детства у меня **не (так уж) много**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="29afe333-041b-468e-89d4-4bede5b4c65e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:27:10.080" UserId="10115" Text="Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас? Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; не удобно использовать когда хотите называть эту группу. Также, когда хотите назвать одного человека, которого жил в Союзе, тоже неуклюжно сказать &quot;Человек из бывшего Союза.&quot; Должно быть одно слово для этого. Мы с друзямы используем слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за того, что я начинал это слово так использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot; это человек, который верить в систему коммунизма, и это слово не очень приличное.  Но мне &quot;совок&quot; звучит правильно, потому-что слово начинается с частью &quot;советский,&quot; и конец как существительное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="29afe333-041b-468e-89d4-4bede5b4c65e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:27:10.080" UserId="10115" Text="Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="29afe333-041b-468e-89d4-4bede5b4c65e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:27:10.080" UserId="10115" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="2dd0ff33-e3b8-4dd0-a61a-5f970b5c76f2" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:36:59.210" UserId="7674" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (более примитивный вариант) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называют сейчас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="045a6016-557e-4654-9acd-a3aff0f58e8c" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:42:35.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называют сейчас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="aa588b13-2dad-4220-a9b1-ce9bf2ec8ea2" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:49:05.933" UserId="7674" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику и стилистику:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называют сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; **неу**добно использовать **,** когда хотите **назвать** эту группу. Также, когда хотите назвать одного человека, котор**ЫЙ** жил в Союзе, ***фраза*** &quot;Человек из бывшего Союза&quot; ***звучит*** неуклюж**Е**. Должно быть одно слово для этого. Мы с друзям**И** используем слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за того, что я начинал это слово так использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot; это человек, который вери**т** в систему коммунизма, и это слово не очень приличное. Но ***на мой взгляд*** &quot;совок&quot; звучит правильно, **потому что** слово начинается ***с сочетания букв, как в слове*** &quot;советский&quot;**,** ***и имеет окончание существительного***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="3c39ea61-3bb3-4735-8118-ae7f381e4546" CreationDate="2018-01-13T14:55:37.653" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику и стилистику:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называю**т** сейчас?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; **неу**добно использовать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **,** когда хотите **назвать** эту группу. Также, когда хотите назвать одного человека, котор**ЫЙ** жил в Союзе, ***фраза*** &quot;Человек из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бывшего Союза&quot; ***звучит*** неуклюж**Е**. Должно быть одно слово для&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этого. Мы с друзям**И** используем слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; того, что я начинал это слово так использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это человек, который вери**т** в систему коммунизма, и это слово не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; очень приличное. Но ***на мой взгляд*** &quot;совок&quot; звучит правильно,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **потому что** слово начинается ***с сочетания букв, как в слове*** &quot;советский&quot;**,** ***и имеет окончание существительного***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="16139828-b3b1-407e-a2ea-e91d0df7c869" CreationDate="2018-01-13T15:11:05.043" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как людей из бывшего Союза называют сейчас? Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; неудобно использовать, когда хотите называть эту группу. Также, когда хотите назвать одного человека, которого жил в Союзе, тоже неуклюжно сказать &quot;Человек из бывшего Союза.&quot; Должно быть одно слово для этого. Мы с друзьями используем слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за того, что я начинал это слово так использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot; это человек, который верит в систему коммунизма, и это слово не очень приличное.  Но мне &quot;совок&quot; звучит правильно, потому что слово начинается с частью &quot;советский,&quot; и конец как существительное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38667" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="16139828-b3b1-407e-a2ea-e91d0df7c869" CreationDate="2018-01-13T15:11:05.043" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как людей из бывшего Союза называют сейчас?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="ba985561-a321-4ed9-a88c-ca99164cc460" CreationDate="2018-01-13T15:12:20.270" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику и стилистику:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;либо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называю**т** сейчас?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; **неу**добно использовать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **,** когда хотите **назвать** эту группу. Также, когда хотите назвать одного человека, котор**ЫЙ** жил в Союзе, ***фраза*** &quot;Человек из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бывшего Союза&quot; ***звучит*** неуклюж**Е**. Должно быть одно слово для&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этого. Мы с друз**Ь**ям**И** используем слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; того, что я начинал это слово так использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это человек, который вери**т** в систему коммунизма, и это слово не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; очень приличное. Но ***на мой взгляд*** &quot;совок&quot; звучит правильно,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **потому что** слово начинается ***с сочетания букв, как в слове*** &quot;советский&quot;**,** ***и имеет окончание существительного***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38669" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="2a975ec6-e7e5-4bc0-87a2-354faf82a713" CreationDate="2018-01-13T21:47:22.047" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="9798fffe-3b77-465a-98bc-303ce767095e" CreationDate="2018-01-13T21:52:36.630" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="fb9c0b86-cbb1-4bed-b46b-502a431be592" CreationDate="2018-01-13T22:15:51.027" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1008 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15509" RevisionGUID="f989982f-e546-474f-bf38-44d2160f4b8a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T07:18:42.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/952439816792297472" />
  <row Id="38673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15514" RevisionGUID="a069fbc4-2c06-41a3-8bb5-4eecf6294623" CreationDate="2018-01-14T09:16:08.717" UserId="10076" Text="I've learned that when using for, when meaning benefit from, you would use для + gen. But I've also just learned на благо, meaning the same thing. Are they synonyms? How are they different? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15514" RevisionGUID="a069fbc4-2c06-41a3-8bb5-4eecf6294623" CreationDate="2018-01-14T09:16:08.717" UserId="10076" Text="&quot;for the benefit of&quot;, на благо vs для?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15514" RevisionGUID="a069fbc4-2c06-41a3-8bb5-4eecf6294623" CreationDate="2018-01-14T09:16:08.717" UserId="10076" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15514" RevisionGUID="64fdda49-df2c-4c2d-9d0e-839ae16589c1" CreationDate="2018-01-14T09:50:22.427" UserId="6097" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I've learned that when using &quot;*for*&quot;, when meaning &quot;*benefit from*&quot;, you would use &quot;*для* + gen&quot;. But I've also just learned &quot;*на благо*&quot;, meaning the same thing. Are they synonyms? How are they different? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15515" RevisionGUID="35a7d9ac-9387-4962-b80c-2857f1b4bbbb" CreationDate="2018-01-14T10:20:03.860" UserId="7674" Text="Translation of **`for the benefit of`** as **`на благо/пользу`**, **`для/ради блага/пользы`** is more accurate than the simple **`для`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, context is important, and so due to stylistic differences between languages there could be cases where **`для`** would fit better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the difference is concerned, it's much the same as the difference between their English counterparts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Для`** has a purely utilitarian purpose and meaning, denoting satisfaction of some type of need. **`На благо/пользу`**, **`для/ради блага/пользы`** specifically stress the benefit expected from such satisfaction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15515" RevisionGUID="c021c60a-33cc-4d31-bcfc-b9fb28487250" CreationDate="2018-01-14T10:26:27.783" UserId="7674" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="Translation of **`for the benefit of`** as **`на благо/пользу`**, **`для/ради блага/пользы`** is more accurate than the simple **`для`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, context is important, and so due to stylistic differences between the languages there could be cases where **`для`** would fit better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as the difference in meaning is concerned, it's much the same as the difference between that of their English counterparts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Для`** has a purely utilitarian purpose and meaning, denoting satisfaction of some type of need or requirement. **`На благо/пользу`**, **`для/ради блага/пользы`** specifically stress the benefit expected from such satisfaction. And they sound rather solemn and exalted so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The two mentioned phrases differ in the way they interact with their indirect object in a sentence. If you're interested in details, please put a note in the comments and i'll expand the answer.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="b79fad6a-4938-4fa0-8752-f8213d709d71" CreationDate="2018-01-14T11:34:06.403" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1089 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику и стилистику (наведите курсор для просмотра):&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Как людей из бывшего Союза называютсья сейчас?&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;правильно либо&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;либо&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называю**т** сейчас?&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; **неу**добно использовать , когда&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! хотите назвать эту группу. Также, когда хотите **назвать** одного&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! человека, котор**ЫЙ** жил в Союзе, ***фраза*** &quot;Человек из бывшего Союза&quot; ***звучит***&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! неуклюж**Е**. Должно быть одно слово для этого. Мы с друз**Ь**ям**И** используем&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за того, что я начинал это слово так&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot; это человек, который верит в систему&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! коммунизма, и это слово не очень приличное. Но ***на мой взгляд*** &quot;совок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! звучит правильно, **потому что** слово начинается ***с сочетания букв, как в&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! слове*** &quot;советский&quot;, ***и имеет окончание существительного***.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15516" RevisionGUID="bdc8aeee-eb2c-4dc9-8cce-f04ee13087ad" CreationDate="2018-01-14T11:35:04.830" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Хотя, полагаю, скромностью мы не отличаемся...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you can use the phrase &quot;not exactly&quot; to humorously express the idea of &quot;far from&quot; or &quot;hardly&quot;, as in: &quot;we are not exactly {= far from} known for being modest&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the sentence stands now, I suppose it does not convey this idea. I wonder how you should paraphrase it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15516" RevisionGUID="bdc8aeee-eb2c-4dc9-8cce-f04ee13087ad" CreationDate="2018-01-14T11:35:04.830" UserId="8672" Text="How to express the idea of &quot;not exactly&quot; humorously?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15516" RevisionGUID="bdc8aeee-eb2c-4dc9-8cce-f04ee13087ad" CreationDate="2018-01-14T11:35:04.830" UserId="8672" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15516" RevisionGUID="2c8031d5-1f51-46aa-aa28-8015301a14e2" CreationDate="2018-01-14T11:43:38.307" UserId="8672" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="&gt;Хотя, полагаю, скромностью мы не отличаемся...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you can use the phrase &quot;not exactly&quot; to humorously express the idea of &quot;far from&quot; or &quot;hardly&quot;, as in: &quot;we are not exactly {= far from} known for being modest&quot;. It's almost tantamount to saying: &quot;we're well-known for bragging about stuff&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way the sentence stands now, I suppose it does not convey this idea. I wonder how you should paraphrase it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15517" RevisionGUID="bf53be0d-a5a2-48a8-b9b3-20fd8e4d1141" CreationDate="2018-01-14T14:23:21.747" UserId="1262" Text="Interesting, I never thought *hardly* could take humorous modalities in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, English humour differs from the Russian one (as usually emotions among different languages do), and mild irony doesn't usually work in the latter. Here are some options in different registeres, from official/high and down to conversational;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Называть себя скромными было бы слишком/слишком нескромно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность нам чужда.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мы чураемся (своей/собственной) скромности.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Своей скромности мы стесняемся / Мы стесняемся собственной скромности.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нам стыдно, что мы такие скромные.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Извините за скромность.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность - это не для нас / это не про нас.*** (a cliche)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность - это не наше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность - это лишнее.*** (with a disapproving modality; usually said to a third person in a questioning modality)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15518" RevisionGUID="8ef49902-be92-40e8-abcc-36c43b2c6c14" CreationDate="2018-01-14T14:30:09.820" UserId="1262" Text="Considering the context of your presumably fantastic novel, where the character is addressing an alien life form, I guess the best option would be **пидорасы** (lit. **homos**, or **faggots**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15517" RevisionGUID="45cbc8c1-5074-4344-9db7-ab3207571815" CreationDate="2018-01-14T14:34:08.883" UserId="1262" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="Interesting, I never thought *hardly* could take humorous modalities in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, English humour differs from the Russian one (as usually emotions among different languages do), and mild irony doesn't usually work in the latter. Here are some options in different registeres, from official/high and down to conversational;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Называть себя скромными было бы слишком/слишком нескромно.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность нам чужда.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мы чураемся (своей/собственной) скромности.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Своей скромности мы стесняемся / Мы стесняемся собственной скромности.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Нам стыдно, что мы такие скромные.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Извините за скромность.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность - это не для нас / это не про нас.*** (a cliche)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность - это не наше.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Скромность - это лишнее.*** (with a disapproving modality; usually said to a third person in a questioning modality, see also on 'we' / 'us' as a second person pronoun).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: In my opinion, the most exact version of 'we are not exactly/far from known for being modest' would be ***Скромностью мы [определённо / точно] не славимся / не отличаемся.*** (higher register / lower register)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15518" RevisionGUID="93543015-2790-4196-bc51-a85a283a4dfe" CreationDate="2018-01-14T14:48:16.350" UserId="1262" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="Considering the context of your presumably fantastic novel, where the character is addressing an alien life form, I guess the best option would be **пидорасы** (lit. **homos**, or **faggots**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since you are writing about a female character, I think a recently developed feministic swearing **хуемрази** (**ед. ч. &quot;хуемразь&quot;,** literally smth like 'dick-bastards' or 'dick-creatures') would do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, again, we don't know much about the races and sexes (if any) of her addressees--" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15519" RevisionGUID="ccf64cdf-58d7-4753-bdf2-911e2adbb67f" CreationDate="2018-01-14T16:08:15.473" UserId="7674" Text="Not exactly humorously, but ironically and with a modicum of smug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя, полагаю, мы не то чтобы уж очень/черезчур/страшно скромные  &#xD;&#xA;Хотя, полагаю, не такие уж мы (прям(о)) и скромные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have a more closely related English equivalents, but for the collocation in question they will do as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15513" RevisionGUID="8c302173-ada1-49b6-8c14-f2a45aae15ab" CreationDate="2018-01-14T16:34:28.190" UserId="7674" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Варианты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Граждане бывшего СССР&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие граждане СССР &lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские люди (*более примитивный вариан*т) &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Бывшие советские &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Граждане СНГ (*хотя СНГ существует больше на бумаге, чем в действительности*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насколько мне известно, на русском стандартного термина не существует, возможно потому, что у самих бывших граждан СССР, в отличие от иностранцев, нет необходимости называть себя в третьем лице.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Совки&quot; это конечно оскорбительно, тем более, что не все бывшие граждане СССР соответствуют этому определению.&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;И, пользуясь случаем, поправлю вашу грамматику и стилистику (наведите курсор для просмотра):&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Как люд&lt;strike&gt;ей&lt;/strike&gt; из бывшего Союза называют&lt;strike&gt;сья&lt;/strike&gt; сейчас?&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;правильно либо&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Как люд**И** из бывшего Союза называют**СЯ** сейчас?&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;либо&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Как люд**ЕЙ** из бывшего Союза называю**Т** сейчас?&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! &lt;sup&gt;Фразу &quot;Люди из бывшего Советского Союза&quot; **неу**добно использовать , когда&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! хотите назвать эту группу. Также, когда хотите **назвать** одного&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! человека, котор**ЫЙ** жил в Союзе, ***фраза*** &quot;Человек из бывшего Союза&quot; ***звучит***&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! неуклюж**Е**. Должно быть одно слово для этого. Мы с друз**Ь**ям**И** используем&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! слово &quot;совок,&quot; но это просто из-за того, что я начинал это слово так&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! использовать. Я знаю, что &quot;совок&quot; это человек, который верит в систему&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! коммунизма, и это слово не очень приличное. Но ***на мой взгляд*** &quot;совок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! звучит правильно, **потому что** слово начинается ***с сочетания букв, как в&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! слове*** &quot;советский&quot;, ***и имеет окончание существительного***.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15519" RevisionGUID="b7ba12c7-f411-48d4-9290-9c295713ff6a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T18:29:48.460" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Not exactly humorously, but ironically and with a modicum of smug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя, полагаю, (что) мы не то чтобы уж очень/черезчур/страшно скромные  &#xD;&#xA;Хотя, полагаю, (что) не такие уж мы `(прям(о)) и`/`(прям(о)) все из себя` скромные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have a more closely related English equivalents, but for the collocation in question they will do as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15519" RevisionGUID="9903a466-8a16-42e7-ba39-3a3c607f6892" CreationDate="2018-01-14T18:36:59.427" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Not exactly humorously, but ironically and with a modicum of smug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя, полагаю, (что) мы не то чтобы уж `очень`/`черезчур`/`страшно`* скромные   &#xD;&#xA;Хотя, полагаю, (что) не такие уж мы (прям(о)) `и`/`все из себя`* скромные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* alternatives&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have a more closely related English equivalents, but for the collocation in question they will do as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38692" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15512" RevisionGUID="cb692738-a1b0-4561-83cb-e01684f0e04a" CreationDate="2018-01-14T19:22:01.763" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/952621845068513280" />
  <row Id="38693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15519" RevisionGUID="4ab01a09-c95d-4206-827d-1aff1e347fc8" CreationDate="2018-01-14T20:28:03.553" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Not exactly humorous, but with irony and a modicum of smug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя, полагаю, (что) мы не то чтобы уж `очень`/`чересчур`/`страшно`* скромные   &#xD;&#xA;Хотя, полагаю, (что) не такие уж мы (прям(о)) `и`/`все из себя`* скромные&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* alternatives&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have a more closely related English equivalents, but for the collocation in question they will do as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15520" RevisionGUID="211d4bdf-b1c2-4c5d-8d37-b9ce999e5a39" CreationDate="2018-01-15T04:39:47.753" UserId="5443" Text="I think it's *possible* to deny 'exactness' in Russian, with a similar effect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скромность, полагаю, **не вполне** нам свойственна.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скромность, полагаю, **не главное** наше достоинство.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наша скромность, полагаю, **не всегда** бывает заметна.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Скромность, которой мы так славимся, я полагаю, нам **не всегда** удаётся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проявить.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наше природное стремление к скромности, я бы сказал, **не во всех&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случаях** достигает цели." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15521" RevisionGUID="c2ce64a0-5679-41ca-8bde-3135ac142ca5" CreationDate="2018-01-15T05:47:43.213" UserId="9118" Text="I think, the most literal and universal match would be ***&quot;не особенно&quot;***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Мы, вообще-то, **не особенно** скромные.&quot;* - literally means &quot;we are not particularly modest&quot;, the implied meaning usually is &quot;not modest at all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Learning Russian isn't exactly easy&quot; =&gt; *&quot;Русский язык **не особенно** лёгок в изучении&quot;* (literally &quot;not particularly but still kinda easy&quot;, but we probably meant to say &quot;not easy at all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also &quot;[что-либо] **не является сильной стороной** [чего-либо или кого-либо]&quot; or &quot;[что-либо] **не является** [чьей-либо] **сильной стороной**&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Скромность **не является** моей **сильной стороной**&quot;* (literally &quot;not my strong side&quot;, the implied meaning is &quot;not present among my sides at all&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Комфорт водителя **не является сильной стороной** трактора &quot;Беларусь&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;не относится к сильным сторонам&quot; instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Комфорт водителя **не относится к сильным сторонам** трактора &quot;Беларусь&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use that speaking about the Russian language, as in the example above, but the sentence gets really clumsy and somewhat unnatural: &quot;Лёгкость в изучении **не является сильной стороной (не относится к сильным сторонам)** русского языка.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15522" RevisionGUID="58af2a07-a540-430d-bc64-79ca99258bd2" CreationDate="2018-01-15T06:17:39.113" UserId="6539" Text="I would like to show you the difference in translation of the same word and to prove that everything depends on the context. And there's no unique solution. You can analyse the following examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Not exactly what I had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;**Не совсем то**, что я имел в виду.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.We are not exactly imbeciles in money matters.&#xD;&#xA;Что касается денег, то мы **не такие уж** дураки в этих делах.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It's not exactly a cultural center like Paris.&#xD;&#xA;Это место **не назовёшь** культурным центром вроде Парижа.  ☰  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. He's not exactly a grub. &#xD;&#xA;Он **не особенно** корпит над учебниками.  ☰ ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. We're not exactly driving fast. &#xD;&#xA;Я **бы не сказал**, что мы быстро едем.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. She's not exactly a workaholic. &#xD;&#xA;На работе она **точно не** горит.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Heavy metal is not exactly my bag. *&#xD;&#xA;Тяжелый рок - это **не для меня**.  ☰&#xD;&#xA; ☰&#xD;&#xA;8. I'm not exactly mad about this job. &#xD;&#xA;Я **не в восторге** от этой работы.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. They're not exactly killing themselves. &#xD;&#xA;Они **не слишком** утруждают себя.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. She's not exactly what you call stupid. &#xD;&#xA;Я **не хочу сказать, что** она глупа.  ☰&#xD;&#xA; ☰&#xD;&#xA;11. He's not exactly a jerk but comes close. &#xD;&#xA;Он **не то чтобы** дурак, но что-то в этом роде.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15522" RevisionGUID="c6a1eaed-2d88-4a09-bcdc-0d5655fea82c" CreationDate="2018-01-15T07:14:02.857" UserId="6539" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="I would like to show you the difference in translation of the same word and to prove that everything depends on the context. And there's no unique solution. You can analyse the following examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Not exactly what I had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;**Не совсем то**, что я имел в виду.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.We are not exactly imbeciles in money matters.&#xD;&#xA;Что касается денег, то мы **не такие уж** дураки в этих делах.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It's not exactly a cultural center like Paris.&#xD;&#xA;Это место **не назовёшь** культурным центром вроде Парижа.  ☰  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. He's not exactly a grub. &#xD;&#xA;Он **не особенно** корпит над учебниками.  ☰ ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. We're not exactly driving fast. &#xD;&#xA;Я **бы не сказал**, что мы быстро едем.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. She's not exactly a workaholic. &#xD;&#xA;На работе она **точно не** горит.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Heavy metal is not exactly my bag. *&#xD;&#xA;Тяжелый рок - это **не для меня**.  ☰&#xD;&#xA; ☰&#xD;&#xA;8. I'm not exactly mad about this job. &#xD;&#xA;Я **не в восторге** от этой работы.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. They're not exactly killing themselves. &#xD;&#xA;Они **не слишком** утруждают себя.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. She's not exactly what you call stupid. &#xD;&#xA;Я **не хочу сказать, что** она глупа.  ☰&#xD;&#xA; ☰&#xD;&#xA;11. He's not exactly a jerk but comes close. &#xD;&#xA;Он **не то чтобы** дурак, но что-то в этом роде.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your sentence, I would say &quot;Ну, от скромности мы не умрем...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38699" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15516" RevisionGUID="ef676e01-41b1-47ab-82c5-5ab0689de99e" CreationDate="2018-01-15T07:22:01.810" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/952803040364507137" />
  <row Id="38700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15521" RevisionGUID="5ec98b26-e1ca-42c2-a9e5-945acb531e37" CreationDate="2018-01-15T11:21:21.133" UserId="9118" Comment="brace" Text="I think, the most literal and universal match would be ***&quot;не особенно&quot;***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Мы, вообще-то, **не особенно** скромные.&quot;* - literally means &quot;we are not particularly modest&quot;, the implied meaning usually is &quot;not modest at all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Learning Russian isn't exactly easy&quot; =&gt; *&quot;Русский язык **не особенно** лёгок в изучении&quot;* (literally &quot;not particularly but still kinda easy&quot;, but we probably meant to say &quot;not easy at all&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also &quot;[что-либо] **не является сильной стороной** [чего-либо или кого-либо]&quot; or &quot;[что-либо] **не является** [чьей-либо] **сильной стороной**&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Скромность **не является** моей **сильной стороной**&quot;* (literally &quot;not my strong side&quot;, the implied meaning is &quot;not present among my sides at all&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Комфорт водителя **не является сильной стороной** трактора &quot;Беларусь&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;не относится к сильным сторонам&quot; instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Комфорт водителя **не относится к сильным сторонам** трактора &quot;Беларусь&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use that speaking about the Russian language, as in the example above, but the sentence gets really clumsy and somewhat unnatural: &quot;Лёгкость в изучении **не является сильной стороной (не относится к сильным сторонам)** русского языка.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15523" RevisionGUID="a29dfcb0-c290-426c-9b92-32de1eeeed0d" CreationDate="2018-01-15T18:27:07.527" UserId="9256" Text="Есть еще выражение &quot;Из республик&quot;, которое достаточно часто применяется к приезжим из бывшего СССР (но не России), причем переехавшим уже после распада СССР. Выражение это имеет немного пренебрежительную и даже унизительную окраску в отношении тех, к кому оно применяется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15522" RevisionGUID="928bafab-8af3-407b-bd25-b7c58d3944e9" CreationDate="2018-01-15T18:48:57.840" UserId="6539" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="I would like to show you the difference in translation of the same word and to prove that everything depends on the context. And there's no unique solution. You can analyse the following examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Not exactly what I had in mind.&#xD;&#xA;**Не совсем то**, что я имел в виду.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.We are not exactly imbeciles in money matters.&#xD;&#xA;Что касается денег, то мы **не такие уж** дураки в этих делах.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. It's not exactly a cultural center like Paris.&#xD;&#xA;Это место **не назовёшь** культурным центром вроде Парижа.  ☰  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. He's not exactly a grub. &#xD;&#xA;Он **не особенно** корпит над учебниками.  ☰ ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. We're not exactly driving fast. &#xD;&#xA;Я **бы не сказал**, что мы быстро едем.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. She's not exactly a workaholic. &#xD;&#xA;На работе она **точно не** горит.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Heavy metal is not exactly my bag. *&#xD;&#xA;Тяжелый рок - это **не для меня**.  ☰&#xD;&#xA; ☰&#xD;&#xA;8. I'm not exactly mad about this job. &#xD;&#xA;Я **не в восторге** от этой работы.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9. They're not exactly killing themselves. &#xD;&#xA;Они **не слишком** утруждают себя.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. She's not exactly what you call stupid. &#xD;&#xA;Я **не хочу сказать, что** она глупа.  ☰&#xD;&#xA; ☰&#xD;&#xA;11. He's not exactly a jerk but comes close. &#xD;&#xA;Он **не то чтобы** дурак, но что-то в этом роде.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your sentence, I would say &quot;Ну, от скромности мы не умрем...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated &quot;We are not exactly to die from modesty...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15524" RevisionGUID="3445207d-ac69-44c3-83b2-978e35e8b3dc" CreationDate="2018-01-15T20:47:16.433" UserId="10122" Text="Здравствуйте, I have begun to study Russian and I would like to know if these sentences are grammatically correct and naturally phrased?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Студе́нты посеща́ют шко́лу в оживлённом го́роде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мои́ носки́ лежа́т на полу́, потому́ что я сли́шком лени́в, что́бы забра́ть их.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еле́на в ста́ром кинотеа́тре; она́ смо́трит фильм «До́ктор Жива́го» со свои́м дру́гом, Катей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вчера́, он ду́мал об изуче́нии кита́йского языка́, но я сказа́л ему́ откла́дывать реше́ние до утра́, потому́ что я ду́маю э́то сли́шком сло́жный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15524" RevisionGUID="3445207d-ac69-44c3-83b2-978e35e8b3dc" CreationDate="2018-01-15T20:47:16.433" UserId="10122" Text="Are these sentences phrased correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15524" RevisionGUID="3445207d-ac69-44c3-83b2-978e35e8b3dc" CreationDate="2018-01-15T20:47:16.433" UserId="10122" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38706" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15524" RevisionGUID="9fa75ba7-d6e2-4c5d-bf6b-9caebafde181" CreationDate="2018-01-15T20:47:47.663" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38707" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15507" RevisionGUID="246a478d-a588-4ba4-96a4-0f993aec78f5" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:22:25.143" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/953074928357650433" />
  <row Id="38708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15525" RevisionGUID="2d7be491-d16b-4cb4-a4d1-8d35581ded44" CreationDate="2018-01-16T07:33:48.307" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;И речи быть не может.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that this phrase as a whole means &quot;it's out of the question&quot;, but its sentence construction has me puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Does this separated phrase &quot;быть ... может&quot; come from &quot;может быть / perhaps&quot;? If so, why this word order?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Does this Russian sentence literally translate as &quot;And discussions, not maybe&quot;? And does it somehow have the meaning of &quot;out of the question&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Об охоте **не может быть и речи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;О переходе **не может быть и речи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. I assume these two sentences mean &quot;About something, it's out of the question&quot;, and I wonder they are the more standard word order of this expression? But still, I cannot figure out why the literal translation &quot;Not maybe and discussions&quot; is to be interpreted as &quot;out of the question&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15525" RevisionGUID="2d7be491-d16b-4cb4-a4d1-8d35581ded44" CreationDate="2018-01-16T07:33:48.307" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse the expression &quot;И речи быть не может&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15525" RevisionGUID="2d7be491-d16b-4cb4-a4d1-8d35581ded44" CreationDate="2018-01-16T07:33:48.307" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15526" RevisionGUID="2f5ad61f-fe4e-4278-a255-f7d2cedff56b" CreationDate="2018-01-16T08:11:01.150" UserId="8895" Text="A1. Both &quot;быть может&quot; and &quot;может быть&quot; indeed mean 'perhaps/maybe', although those phrases are completely unrelated to &quot;и речи быть не может&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A2. The phrase does mean *'smth. is out of the question'*. The literal translation would sound Yoda-style: '(About smth,) talk can there not be' :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A3. &quot;И речи быть не может&quot;, with the stress placed on &quot;речи&quot;, sounds somewhat more categorical than &quot;не может быть и речи&quot;, although the latter is strong as well. The emotional difference between the two can be approximated as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Об охоте не может быть и речи* - *Hunting is out of the question.*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Об охоте и речи быть не может* - *Under no circumstances can hunting be considered*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you'll mostly encounter &quot;И речи быть не может!&quot; as a standalone exclamation, answering an earlier question or suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`- Папа, я возьму твою скрипку?&#xD;&#xA; - И речи быть не может!&#xD;&#xA;`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15527" RevisionGUID="fe4f165b-f221-497f-a101-f1a55a162f74" CreationDate="2018-01-16T09:03:27.273" UserId="10125" Text="Вопрос 1. В русском языке встречаются выражения &quot;и речи быть не может&quot; и &quot;не может быть и речи&quot;. Они взаимозаменяемые и означают одно и то же. &quot;быть ... может&quot; и &quot;может быть&quot;- это одно и тоже, просто изменён порядок слов.&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 2. &quot;Быть может&quot; и &quot;может быть&quot;, в данном случае, имеют значение не &quot;perhaps&quot;, а &quot;возможность/вероятность того, что какое-то событие/действие/условие выполнится&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гончие заболели, поэтому об охоте **не может быть и речи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О переходе через перевал **не может быть и речи**. Ночью выпало много снега.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 3. &quot;Не может быть и речи&quot; - это исторически сложившаяся форма выражения. Чаще всего это выражение имеет смысл, слова &quot;невозможно (impossible)&quot;. Если разбирать выражение дословно, то оно значит, что &quot;не имеет даже смысла начинать разговор, о чём-то, потому что это невозможно/бессмысленно&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15527" RevisionGUID="845d7c67-4c34-4db3-bcb9-03fa1c89e21c" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:07:43.670" UserId="10125" Comment="added 936 characters in body" Text="Q1. Russian has 2 expressions &quot;и речи быть не может&quot; and &quot;не может быть и речи&quot; which means the same thing and they are interchangeable. &quot;быть ... может&quot; and &quot;может быть&quot; are the same, but in a different word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. &quot;Быть ... может&quot; and &quot;может быть&quot; in this situation means not &quot;perhaps&quot;, but &quot;possibility /probability of event/action/condition will be fulfilled&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гончие заболели, поэтому об охоте **не может быть и речи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О переходе через перевал **не может быть и речи**. Ночью выпало много снега.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. &quot;Не может быть и речи&quot; is a historically formed form of expression. More often it means &quot;impossible&quot;. Literally the expression means that it's pointless to start talk because it's impossible (too difficult or forbidden) to perform action/condition and this will be meaningless talk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Sorry for my bad English.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 1. В русском языке встречаются выражения &quot;и речи быть не может&quot; и &quot;не может быть и речи&quot;. Они взаимозаменяемые и означают одно и то же. &quot;быть ... может&quot; и &quot;может быть&quot;- это одно и тоже, просто изменён порядок слов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 2. &quot;Быть может&quot; и &quot;может быть&quot;, в данном случае, имеют значение не &quot;perhaps&quot;, а &quot;возможность/вероятность того, что какое-то событие/действие/условие выполнится&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Гончие заболели, поэтому об охоте **не может быть и речи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О переходе через перевал **не может быть и речи**. Ночью выпало много снега.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 3. &quot;Не может быть и речи&quot; - это исторически сложившаяся форма выражения. Чаще всего это выражение имеет смысл, слова &quot;невозможно (impossible(too difficult or forbidden))&quot;. Если разбирать выражение дословно, то оно значит, что &quot;не имеет даже смысла начинать разговор, о чём-то, потому что выполнить действие/условие невозможно/(слишком сложно) и об этом бессмысленно говорить&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15528" RevisionGUID="b7964e4b-376f-4217-a4b7-88609f8ff6bd" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:23:55.787" UserId="2079" Text="First, `и речи быть не может` is an idiom. You cannot say, for example, `и речи не может быть` or `и разговора быть не может`. It means &quot;out of question&quot;. See more [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows is an attempt to parse this idiom and explain why did it get this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such sentences, initial `и` does NOT mean &quot;and&quot;.  Being synonymous with `даже`, it makes &quot;не&quot; very strong.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - И слушать не хочу! - I don't even want to listen!&#xD;&#xA; - И спрашивать не буду!  I am not even going to ask!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of such sentences is `и` + verb or verb phrase in indefinite + `не` + хочу/буду/желаю/собираюсь/намерен etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Может быть&quot; means possibility. &quot;Не может быть&quot;, therefore, means impossibility. For example, the title *The World That Couldn't Be* (a sci-fi short story by Clifford Simak) had been translated as *Мир, которого не может быть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Быть не может` is similar to `не может быть`, but stronger. As is common in Russian, the order of words is changed to emphasize the last word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Речь`, in this expression, is used in it's old meaning of &quot;talking&quot;. Today речь word is not used in this meaning, except for this specific expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, this translates to &quot;I am not going even to discuss this&quot; or &quot;even to discuss this is absolutely impossible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://context.reverso.net/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8+%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15529" RevisionGUID="631a7da3-d6ff-4caa-bea8-579c9429fc21" CreationDate="2018-01-16T10:42:52.700" UserId="5443" Text="*Literally*, **об этом не может быть и речи** translates as '**it even cannot be spoken of** [*not to say about doing it*]' (**и** works like '**even**' here). The phrase denies the slightest possibility of doing something and thus expresses a strong **refusal**. In your example sentences, it works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not only shall not we go hunting,) it [*hunting*] even cannot be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not only shall he cross the highway here,) it [his *crossing here*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even cannot be discussed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15529" RevisionGUID="0546d25e-dc2e-438b-8331-09069bbdc2b8" CreationDate="2018-01-16T13:01:39.960" UserId="5443" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="*Literally*, **об этом не может быть и речи** translates as '**it even cannot be spoken of** [*not to say about doing it*]' (**и** works like '**even**' here). The phrase denies the slightest possibility of doing something and thus expresses a strong **refusal**. In your example sentences, it works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not only shall not we go hunting,) it [*hunting*] even cannot be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Not only shall not he cross the highway here,) it [his *crossing here*]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even cannot be discussed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15528" RevisionGUID="4b7b7ae4-fd6e-4847-973c-260d4a44d7ca" CreationDate="2018-01-16T15:26:50.630" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 58 characters in body" Text="First, `и речи быть не может` or `не может быть и речи` is an idiom. It means &quot;out of question&quot;. See more [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What follows is an attempt to parse this idiom and explain why did it get this meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such sentences, initial `и` does NOT mean &quot;and&quot;.  Being synonymous with `даже`, it makes &quot;не&quot; very strong.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - И слушать не хочу! - I don't even want to listen!&#xD;&#xA; - И спрашивать не буду!  I am not even going to ask!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure of such sentences is `и` + verb or verb phrase in indefinite + `не` + хочу/буду/желаю/собираюсь/намерен etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Может быть&quot; means possibility. &quot;Не может быть&quot;, therefore, means impossibility. For example, the title *The World That Couldn't Be* (a sci-fi short story by Clifford Simak) had been translated as *Мир, которого не может быть*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Быть не может` is similar to `не может быть`, but stronger. As is common in Russian, the order of words is changed to emphasize the last word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Речь`, in this expression, is used in it's old meaning of &quot;talking&quot;. Today речь word is not used in this meaning, except for this specific expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Together, this translates to &quot;I am not going even to discuss this&quot; or &quot;even to discuss this is absolutely impossible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://context.reverso.net/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8+%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15530" RevisionGUID="a4581c6d-50ba-47b3-899d-8678871e4fd8" CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:39:58.433" UserId="7894" Text="Without being given a specific context, can one tell the difference between &quot;Я хочу&quot; and &quot;Мне хочется&quot;? I have already seen [this question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11290/хотеть-versus-impersonal-хотеться), but it didn't answer mine, which is more about a general distinction between both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make my question more precise, I have been told by some Russian friends that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Я хочу&quot; is used to express a strong desire for something concrete and real, which will most probably be fulfilled in the near future&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Мне хочется&quot; is used to express a wish, something that one would like to happen but not necessarily in the near future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there anything (dictionary, book, etc.) backing my friends' feeling/theory?&#xD;&#xA;2. If this feeling/theory is right, then what would be the difference between &quot;Мне хочется&quot; and &quot;Я хотел бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15530" RevisionGUID="a4581c6d-50ba-47b3-899d-8678871e4fd8" CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:39:58.433" UserId="7894" Text="Difference between &quot;Я хочу&quot; and &quot;Мне хочется&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15530" RevisionGUID="a4581c6d-50ba-47b3-899d-8678871e4fd8" CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:39:58.433" UserId="7894" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15531" RevisionGUID="b452ac93-3745-4f90-ba54-6e95e42976dc" CreationDate="2018-01-16T20:45:13.063" UserId="310" Text="`Мне хочется` usually means that you're not doing whatever you're wanting in near future (but invite everybody else to help you with fulfilling the wish in question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу пойти погулять` - I want to go for a walk, and probably already putting hat on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мне хочется пойти погулять` - I would like to go for a walk, but something prevents it right now - maybe something I need to do before, maybe somebody doesn't let me to, maybe there's some objective reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15532" RevisionGUID="6497cec2-46ef-48f3-a4f4-423ec9fea062" CreationDate="2018-01-16T21:01:01.207" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я **сумею** о себе позаботиться. --- {суметь}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но нет ничего такого, с чем мы не **смогли** бы справиться, да? --- {смочь}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both &quot;суметь + infinitive&quot; and &quot;смочь  + infinitive&quot; means &quot;be able to do something&quot; or &quot;manage to do something&quot;, but I wonder if they are simply interchangeable in the two sentences above? Or do they carry nuances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15532" RevisionGUID="6497cec2-46ef-48f3-a4f4-423ec9fea062" CreationDate="2018-01-16T21:01:01.207" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;суметь + infinitive&quot; differ in usage from &quot;смочь + infinitive&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15532" RevisionGUID="6497cec2-46ef-48f3-a4f4-423ec9fea062" CreationDate="2018-01-16T21:01:01.207" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15533" RevisionGUID="38810976-5a5f-43d9-90ff-9165bd385b6f" CreationDate="2018-01-16T21:05:35.800" UserId="7674" Text="You certainly weren't misled by your Russian friends, the difference is in urgency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Мне хочется`** can be translated as **`I have a wish/desire`**  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я хочу`** - as **`I want/wish/desire`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I get the connotations of these English phrases right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15534" RevisionGUID="21a36c20-eb4b-4250-ad91-0cd88a793457" CreationDate="2018-01-16T21:14:50.047" UserId="7674" Text="By and large they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One slight difference they may have is that **`я сумею`** implies ability exercised  in spite of any obstacles or adverse circumstances, it has a resilience undertone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`я смогу`** just indicates general ability without going into any further specifics as to the mode of exercising it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15530" RevisionGUID="b0703b68-171c-4a34-ba87-69f42fd37f70" CreationDate="2018-01-16T21:53:32.317" UserId="7894" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Without being given a specific context, can one tell the difference between &quot;Я хочу&quot; and &quot;Мне хочется&quot;? I have already seen [this question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/11290/хотеть-versus-impersonal-хотеться), but it didn't answer mine, which is more about a general distinction between both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make my question more precise, I have been told by some Russian friends that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Я хочу&quot; is used to express a strong desire for something concrete and real, which will most probably be fulfilled in the near future&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Мне хочется&quot; is used to express a wish, something that one would like to happen but not necessarily in the near future&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is there anything (dictionary, book, etc.) backing my friends' feeling/theory?&#xD;&#xA;2. **If this feeling/theory is right, then what would be the difference between &quot;Мне хочется&quot; and &quot;Я хотел бы&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15537" RevisionGUID="b7a13402-232e-47b1-8aaa-20a6309742d7" CreationDate="2018-01-17T00:17:23.420" UserId="496" Text="Although all the previous answers are correct I would like (мне хочется) to bring closer attention to the following difference of these two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне хочется - means that the person saying this phrase does not fully take responsibility for this desire. For example, physiological needs: мне хочется есть, пить, спать ... (can be translated to English as 'I want to eat/drink/sleep' but also can be translated, at least for 'eat', 'I feel like something' (usually said with the gesture of hand rotating around the tummy). It can be not physiological too. For example, &quot;Мне хочется верить, что это не так.&quot; - I almost have to/made to believe, that this is not true. It is not your choice, there is an urge which is difficult to resist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - usually implies conscious desire to which you commit. Я хочу научиться играть на флейте. (I want to learn how to play flute) - expresses kind of your commitment to learn playing flute in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - is also a more generic expression. It also can be used for physiological needs. When you say &quot;я хочу&quot; you do not specify whether you want it automatically or by your own choice.  &#xD;&#xA;If somebody is a foreigner and does not know the nuances of language, they can say the generic phrase &quot;я хочу&quot; in all above situations and they will be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the examples where it kind of 'beats me' that such a basic phrase in Russian needs long explanation in English. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15537" RevisionGUID="a9d82323-72c3-4a42-adb4-52687a05ef6f" CreationDate="2018-01-17T00:24:09.133" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Although all the previous answers are correct I would like (мне хочется) to bring closer attention to the following difference of these two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне хочется - means that the person saying this phrase does not fully take responsibility for this desire. For example, physiological needs: мне хочется есть, пить, спать ... (can be translated to English as 'I want to eat/drink/sleep' but also can be translated, at least for 'eat', 'I feel like something' (usually said with the gesture of hand rotating around the tummy). It can be not physiological too. For example, &quot;Мне хочется верить, что это не так.&quot; - I almost have to/made to believe that this is not true. It is not your choice, there is an urge which is difficult to resist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - usually implies conscious desire to which you commit. Я хочу научиться играть на флейте. (I want to learn how to play flute) - expresses kind of your commitment to learn playing flute in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - is also a more generic expression. It also can be used for physiological needs. When you say &quot;я хочу&quot; you do not specify whether you want it automatically or by your own choice.  &#xD;&#xA;If somebody is a foreigner and does not know the nuances of language, they can say the generic phrase &quot;я хочу&quot; in all above situations and they will be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the examples where it kind of 'beats me' that such a basic phrase in Russian needs long explanation in English. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15537" RevisionGUID="52f78652-5c60-44d7-8c39-92ae0781dea3" CreationDate="2018-01-17T00:43:38.417" UserId="496" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Although all the previous answers are correct I would like (мне хочется) to bring closer attention to the following difference of these two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне хочется - means that the person saying this phrase does not fully take responsibility for this desire. For example, physiological needs: мне хочется есть, пить, спать ... (can be translated to English as 'I want to eat/drink/sleep' but also can be translated, at least for 'eat', 'I feel like something' (usually said with the gesture of hand rotating around the tummy). It can be not physiological too. For example, &quot;Мне хочется верить, что это не так.&quot; - I almost have to/made to want to believe that this is not the case. It is not your choice, there is an urge, which is difficult to resist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - usually implies conscious desire to which you commit. Я хочу научиться играть на флейте. (I want to learn how to play flute) - expresses kind of your commitment to learn playing flute in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - is also a more generic expression. It also can be used for physiological needs. When you say &quot;я хочу&quot; you do not specify whether you want it automatically or by your own choice.  &#xD;&#xA;If somebody is a foreigner and does not know the nuances of language, they can say the generic phrase &quot;я хочу&quot; in all above situations and they will be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the examples where it kind of 'beats me' that such a basic phrase in Russian needs long explanation in English. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15537" RevisionGUID="b444a35f-8e82-4d46-b32f-606296764d69" CreationDate="2018-01-17T00:50:32.257" UserId="496" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Although all the previous answers are correct I would like (мне хочется) to bring closer attention to the following difference of these two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне хочется - means that the person saying this phrase does not fully take responsibility for this desire. For example, physiological needs: мне хочется есть, пить, спать ... (can be translated to English as 'I want to eat/drink/sleep' but also can be translated, at least for 'eat', 'I feel like something' (usually said with the gesture of hand rotating around the tummy). It can be not physiological too. For example, &quot;Мне хочется верить, что это не так.&quot; - I almost have to/made to want to believe that this is not the case. It is not your choice, there is an urge, which is difficult to resist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - usually implies conscious desire to which you commit. Я хочу научиться играть на флейте. (I want to learn how to play flute) - expresses kind of your commitment to learn playing flute in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - is a more generic expression. It also can be used for physiological needs. When you say &quot;я хочу&quot; you do not specify whether you want it automatically or by your own choice.  &#xD;&#xA;If somebody is a foreigner and does not know the nuances of language, they can say the generic phrase &quot;я хочу&quot; in all above situations and they will be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the examples where it kind of 'beats me' that such a basic phrase in Russian needs long explanation in English. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15537" RevisionGUID="9bb4840b-dd26-4cc6-9293-6a4902c8322d" CreationDate="2018-01-17T00:58:34.543" UserId="496" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Although all the previous answers are correct I would like (мне хочется) to bring closer attention to the following difference of these two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне хочется - means that the person saying this phrase does not fully take responsibility for this desire. For example, physiological needs: мне хочется есть, пить, спать ... (can be translated to English as 'I want to eat/drink/sleep' but also can be translated, at least for 'eat', 'I feel like something' (usually said with the gesture of hand rotating around the tummy). It can be not physiological too. For example, &quot;Мне хочется верить, что это не так.&quot; - I almost have to/made to want to believe that this is not the case. It is not your choice, there is an urge, which is difficult to resist. I guess a good translation for мне хочется in English would be feel impulse. But хочется is weaker than impulse. Impulse = сильно хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - usually implies conscious desire to which you commit. Я хочу научиться играть на флейте. (I want to learn how to play flute) - expresses kind of your commitment to learn playing flute in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - is a more generic expression. It also can be used for physiological needs. When you say &quot;я хочу&quot; you do not specify whether you want it automatically or by your own choice.  &#xD;&#xA;If somebody is a foreigner and does not know the nuances of language, they can say the generic phrase &quot;я хочу&quot; in all above situations and they will be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the examples where it kind of 'beats me' that such a basic phrase in Russian needs long explanation in English. :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15534" RevisionGUID="43df6d9f-4ba7-4e1e-8667-483bccd4ab29" CreationDate="2018-01-17T08:29:56.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="By and large they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One slight difference they may have is in that **`я сумею`** implies ability exercised  in spite of any obstacles or adverse circumstances, it has a resilience undertone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`я смогу`** just indicates general ability without going into any further specifics as to the mode of exercising it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15538" RevisionGUID="ddad3e59-5a03-44cf-bc95-64a7bf8302a9" CreationDate="2018-01-17T10:21:29.743" UserId="1262" Text="In my opinion, the primary difference is not about 'resiliance VS general ability' but rather between ***суметь*** as 'repeating actions' (iterative) VS ***смочь*** as momentary action.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Most of Russian prefixes usually make a perfective form, which can be iterative or momentary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically, ***суметь*** comes from ***уметь*** - 'to know how to' - and ***смочь*** goes back to ***мочь*** (may &amp;/or can); therefore it's possible to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я смогу дойти.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я смогу ходить.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я смогу гулять.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я смогу погулять.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Я смогу прогуляться.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but not (or possible just under some specific circumstances) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я сумею дойти.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я сумею ходить.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я сумею гулять.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я сумею погулять.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ***Я сумею пpогуляться.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that verbs like ***жить, ходить, играть, дышать*** or ***гулять*** and most of their prefixised forms have habitual connotations, which don't quite get along well with iterative infinitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15539" RevisionGUID="c60cc3cc-1163-4f45-a3b8-f7faeddd88ce" CreationDate="2018-01-17T10:33:47.717" UserId="7894" Text="My learning book for Russian gives the two following example sentences about conditional:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Он сказал бы&#xD;&#xA;- Мы бы хотели&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: can we put interchangeably &quot;бы&quot; before or after the verb it &quot;qualifies&quot;? Is the meaning anyhow affected by the position of &quot;бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15539" RevisionGUID="c60cc3cc-1163-4f45-a3b8-f7faeddd88ce" CreationDate="2018-01-17T10:33:47.717" UserId="7894" Text="Position of &quot;бы&quot; when forming conditional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15539" RevisionGUID="c60cc3cc-1163-4f45-a3b8-f7faeddd88ce" CreationDate="2018-01-17T10:33:47.717" UserId="7894" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15540" RevisionGUID="99ac1627-4de4-423e-8a4d-f15f9c6b386a" CreationDate="2018-01-17T11:14:05.910" UserId="3680" Text="Most often the particle `бы` takes either the second place in the sentence, or the place after the predicate. More info: [rusgram.ru (in Russian)](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#31).  &#xD;&#xA;The meaning isn't affected by the position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15541" RevisionGUID="0f4a6b95-ff8d-4821-a0f4-b9b9886de306" CreationDate="2018-01-17T11:14:19.110" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;can we put interchangeably &quot;бы&quot; before or after the verb it &quot;qualifies&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the reduced form &quot;б&quot; cannot follow a verb, i.e. &quot;Я б сказал...&quot; is right, but &quot;Я сказал б...&quot; is wrong;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;бы&quot; is [enclitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic#Enclitic), so it always must follow _some_ word; in particular, this leaves only single option if a subject is omitted, or if using a reverse word order: &quot;Сказал бы я...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the meaning anyhow affected by the position of &quot;бы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's an arbitrary choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15541" RevisionGUID="816eb9f8-aea9-4294-a141-c1f98bdaf58a" CreationDate="2018-01-17T11:21:26.427" UserId="5008" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="&gt;can we put interchangeably &quot;бы&quot; before or after the verb it &quot;qualifies&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the reduced form &quot;б&quot; cannot follow a verb, i.e. &quot;Я б сказал...&quot; is right, but &quot;Я сказал б...&quot; is wrong (well, in fact, it's even not about verb/pronoun, but rather about vowel/consonant distinction, so &quot;о**н** **б** сказал&quot; is wrong, while &quot;она сказал**а** **б**&quot; is OK);&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;бы&quot; is [enclitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic#Enclitic), so it always must follow _some_ word; in particular, this leaves only single option if a subject is omitted, or if using a reverse word order: &quot;Сказал бы я...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the meaning anyhow affected by the position of &quot;бы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's an arbitrary choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15541" RevisionGUID="323b2792-98ad-4c8b-9e5c-bd00b9a95c05" CreationDate="2018-01-17T11:28:13.723" UserId="5008" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="&gt;can we put interchangeably &quot;бы&quot; before or after the verb it &quot;qualifies&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the reduced form &quot;б&quot; cannot follow a consonant, so it cannot be put after a verb in a masculine form, i.e. &quot;**Я** **б** сказал...&quot; is right, but &quot;Я сказа**л** **б**...&quot; is wrong (however, &quot;она сказал**а** **б**&quot; is OK);&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;бы&quot; is [enclitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic#Enclitic), so it always must follow _some_ word; in particular, this leaves only single option if a subject is omitted, or if using a reverse word order: &quot;Сказал бы я...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the meaning anyhow affected by the position of &quot;бы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's an arbitrary choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15541" RevisionGUID="5f49707e-4988-4b6c-b913-1b3edbceee5e" CreationDate="2018-01-17T11:35:32.007" UserId="5008" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="&gt;can we put interchangeably &quot;бы&quot; before or after the verb it &quot;qualifies&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the reduced form &quot;**б**&quot; cannot follow a consonant, so, in particular, it cannot stand after a verb in a masculine form, i.e. &quot;**Я** **б** сказал...&quot; is right, while &quot;Я сказа**л** **б**...&quot; is wrong (however, &quot;Я сказал**а** **б**&quot; is still OK);&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;**бы**&quot; is [enclitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic#Enclitic), so it always must follow _some_ word; in particular, this leaves only single option if a subject is omitted, or if using a reverse word order: &quot;Сказал бы я...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the meaning anyhow affected by the position of &quot;бы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's an arbitrary choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15533" RevisionGUID="9bcf1851-7d81-433f-94f6-c969819145a4" CreationDate="2018-01-17T11:48:27.410" UserId="7674" Comment="added 384 characters in body" Text="You certainly weren't misled by your Russian friends, the difference is in urgency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Мне хочется`** can be translated as **`I have a wish/desire`**  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я хочу`** - as **`I want/wish/desire`**&#xD;&#xA;**`Я хотел бы`** - as **`I would like (to)`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I get the connotations of these English phrases right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my ear the difference between **`Мне хочется`** and **`Я хотел бы`** is in register with the latter being of a higher one, which is the case for conjunctive in English as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also **`Мне хотелось бы`** which is largely identical in meaning to **`Я хотел бы`** (with slightly lesser urgency) but still more refined in register as it sounds less egotistic and passionate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15533" RevisionGUID="ae5a4767-0441-48e2-a90e-e91aa6fcb929" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:20:24.450" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You certainly weren't misled by your Russian friends, the difference is in urgency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Мне хочется`** can be translated as **`I have a wish/desire`**  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я хочу`** - as **`I want/wish/desire`**  &#xD;&#xA;**`Я хотел бы`** - as **`I would like (to)`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I get the connotations of these English phrases right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my ear the difference between **`Мне хочется`** and **`Я хотел бы`** is in register with the latter being of a higher one, which is the case for conjunctive in English as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also **`Мне хотелось бы`** which is largely identical in meaning to **`Я хотел бы`** (with slightly lesser urgency) but still more refined in register as it sounds less egotistic and passionate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15541" RevisionGUID="0e25d353-fefc-4b31-99da-22c57dc08036" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:21:05.507" UserId="2104" Comment="Fix English articles." Text="&gt;can we put interchangeably &quot;бы&quot; before or after the verb it &quot;qualifies&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the reduced form &quot;**б**&quot; cannot follow a consonant, so, in particular, it cannot stand after a verb in the masculine form, i.e. &quot;**Я** **б** сказал...&quot; is right, while &quot;Я сказа**л** **б**...&quot; is wrong (however, &quot;Я сказал**а** **б**&quot; is still OK);&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;**бы**&quot; is an [enclitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic#Enclitic), so it must always follow _some_ word; in particular, this leaves only a single option if a subject is omitted, or if using the reverse word order: &quot;Сказал бы я...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is the meaning anyhow affected by the position of &quot;бы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's an arbitrary choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15531" RevisionGUID="4642a20e-54dd-440c-9edb-4b2009caf7a2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T17:47:52.383" UserId="310" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="`Мне хочется` usually means that you're not doing whatever you're wanting in near future (but invite everybody else to help you with fulfilling the wish in question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу пойти погулять` - I want to go for a walk, and probably already putting hat on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Мне хочется пойти погулять` - I would like to go for a walk, but something prevents it right now - maybe something I need to do before, maybe somebody doesn't let me to, maybe there's some objective reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хотел бы погулять` - Someone is preventing it right now, but their verdict can be appealed, and that's what you are doing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="cdb446a1-a515-407f-9fe6-ca16113150fb" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:34:19.663" UserId="10132" Text="What does &quot;delvaya kalbasa&quot; mean in Russian? (Sorry if my transcription is terrible!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="cdb446a1-a515-407f-9fe6-ca16113150fb" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:34:19.663" UserId="10132" Text="Delvaya kalbasa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="cdb446a1-a515-407f-9fe6-ca16113150fb" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:34:19.663" UserId="10132" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15543" RevisionGUID="059d46d7-02af-40be-b20f-f737c86435cd" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:54:33.717" UserId="7894" Text="My understanding is that the general rule regarding the pronunciation of &quot;a&quot; in Russian is that it is pronounced [a] (IPA notation). However, in certain cases, it can be pronounced as &quot;и&quot;, for example in &quot;Чапыгин&quot; or &quot;Чапаева&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is the following: *does a rule exist about &quot;a&quot; being pronounced as &quot;и&quot;? If not, is there a list of words in which this is the case?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15543" RevisionGUID="059d46d7-02af-40be-b20f-f737c86435cd" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:54:33.717" UserId="7894" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15543" RevisionGUID="059d46d7-02af-40be-b20f-f737c86435cd" CreationDate="2018-01-17T18:54:33.717" UserId="7894" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15544" RevisionGUID="c5eeede8-0b4e-4dd0-af1b-bc10a72cd2db" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:30:14.450" UserId="7674" Text="It is **&quot;delavaya kalbasa&quot;** literally **`a busy sausage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wiktionary][1] tells it's an ironic designation for a person who's always busy with something, who's demonstrably busy, the Web indicates that it could also be a businessman/woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jNmRK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15545" RevisionGUID="b914bf91-5d1f-4dec-af27-b382200176a7" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:30:31.900" UserId="242" Text="The distinction between, say, `Чапаев` and `Чипаев` is subtle yet exists if you pronounce it slowly enough. The phenomena you've encountered (one that `a` and `и` are getting almost indistinguishable from each other when pronounced in word quickly) is called vowel reduction and the vowel you actually here is ca[extra-short vowel][1] and in some form it is a thing in many - if not all - languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from [Russian article on extra-short vowels][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть два вида сверхкратких гласных:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Появились «из ниоткуда» на стыке большого количества согласных, чтобы    это сочетание можно было удобнее произнести: «Мистер Твистер&#xD;&#xA;&gt; / Бывший    минист(ъ)р…» (Самуил Маршак, знаком (ъ) отмечена явно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прописанная в    стихотворном размере редуцированная).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Уменьшились из обычной безударной гласной — так, слово красота при    определённом произношении редуцируется до `красъта`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question falls into case #2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-short&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38762" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="1c313ee0-e1c3-4bf5-8ecf-2c6eaf26e169" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:33:59.260" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15545" RevisionGUID="ee2385ef-35b5-42c1-9a3d-cc3d3b3e7f48" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:38:36.163" UserId="242" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="Let's start with a small exercise. Say slowly, for instance, `Чапаев`, then `Чипаев`, `Чепаев`, then `Чупаев`, at last, say, `Чопаев`. Now say all these words again but quickly, like, very quickly - but actually casual speech can be very quick. See, the difference has gone, they all sound practically the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phenomena you've encountered (one that vowels are getting almost indistinguishable from each other when pronounced in word quickly) is called vowel reduction and the vowel you actually here is ca[extra-short vowel][1] and in some form it is a thing in many - if not all - languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from [Russian article on extra-short vowels][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть два вида сверхкратких гласных:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Появились «из ниоткуда» на стыке большого количества согласных, чтобы    это сочетание можно было удобнее произнести: «Мистер Твистер&#xD;&#xA;&gt; / Бывший    минист(ъ)р…» (Самуил Маршак, знаком (ъ) отмечена явно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прописанная в    стихотворном размере редуцированная).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Уменьшились из обычной безударной гласной — так, слово красота при    определённом произношении редуцируется до `красъта`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question falls into case #2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-short&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38764" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="8e8c4bde-983f-43ce-86ff-f36dcd91fabd" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:39:25.663" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="6f2a3351-c0bd-488b-93cc-3595608fa3c2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:44:08.220" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does &quot;delovaya kolbasa&quot; mean in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15542" RevisionGUID="6f2a3351-c0bd-488b-93cc-3595608fa3c2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:44:08.220" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body; edited title" Text="Delovaya kolbasa" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15546" RevisionGUID="d25d77f1-d872-478b-91bc-a0f89aad5a62" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:46:50.383" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, the rule exists and dictates that any vowel except for [у] that follows a soft consonant in an unstressed position is reduced to something between [э] and [и]:&#xA;&#xA;    часы [чисы]&#xA;    яйцо [йийцо]&#xA;    лечо &#xA;    река&#xA;    счастливый&#xA;&#xA;Source: М.В. Панов. Русская фонетика &#xA;&#xA;In Russian [й], [ч] and [щ] are always soft. Other consonants are soft if followed by я, е, ё, и, ю, ь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15547" RevisionGUID="31c8719a-92bd-4e4f-afa7-cd21babfdadf" CreationDate="2018-01-17T19:59:32.943" UserId="242" Text="While the answer provided is absolutely correct, it's not necessarily about somebody being pretentiously busy. &quot;Деловая колбаса&quot; can be applicable in many circumstances and is a rough equivalent of &quot;you such a clever/smart guy/ass&quot; said ironically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a daughter can suggest her father to leave her all the candies in exchange to butter and father can say: &quot;Ну ты и деловая колбаса&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15546" RevisionGUID="38b920ec-0496-4bea-963b-68cb44395ad9" CreationDate="2018-01-17T20:34:58.487" UserId="2104" Comment="added 825 characters in body" Text="Yes, the rule exists and dictates that any vowel except for [у] that follows a soft consonant in an unstressed position is reduced to something between [э] and [и]:&#xA;&#xA;    часы́ [чисы]&#xA;    яйцо́ [йийцо]&#xA;    ле́чо [лече]&#xA;    река́ [рика]&#xA;    счастли́вый [щистливый]&#xA;    её  [йийо]&#xA;&#xA;Source: М.В. Пано́в. Ру́сская фоне́тика &#xA;&#xA;In particular, this makes the words чистота́ (cleanliness) and частота́ (frequency) homophones while the respective adjectives чи́стый (clean) and ча́стый (frequent) have distinct pronunciations because the **а** in ча́стый is stressed.&#xA;&#xA;In Russian [й], [ч] and [щ] are always soft. Other consonants are soft if followed by я, е, ё, и, ю, or ь.  For the purposes of applying this rule we can ignore и (because it becomes a weak и but still an и), ю (because it gives the sound [у] which is an exception) and ь because its not a vowel. So practicality speaking we should be looking out for words containing unstressed я and е, including those at the beginning of a word.&#xA;&#xA;The letter ё is almost always stressed. It can be unstressed in compound words e.g. трёхмерный (three-dimensional) which *can* be said without a secondary stress in which case the rule in question will apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15548" RevisionGUID="751d103b-810d-4baf-b7ce-7fce64473ba2" CreationDate="2018-01-17T22:04:25.793" UserId="1262" Text="The meaning varies slightly depending on both intonation and position of the particle. The nuances are however not perceived by native speakers themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By and large, the enclitic put into hierachial commentary on the sentence topic places the following part of the sentence into conditional modality, e. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он сказал бы.*** (a conditional ellipsis with a reference to smth said earlier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Он бы сказал.*** (an emphasis on conditionality of the action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сказал бы он.*** (the actor emphasised).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Сказал он бы.*** (an ellipsis / incomplete phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мы бы хотели.*** (the action is emphasised as conditional).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Мы хотели бы.*** (an ellipsis / incomplete phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Хотели бы мы.*** (the actors are emphasised).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Хотели мы бы.*** (an ellipsis / incomplete phrase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a final position, the particle can provide conditional modality for the preceding phrase as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38771" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15543" RevisionGUID="355a430c-d760-4665-bd61-480296154047" CreationDate="2018-01-18T01:38:06.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/953803653051281408" />
  <row Id="38772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15537" RevisionGUID="5ab08c25-092b-40a3-bbea-c83f84d8ac8c" CreationDate="2018-01-18T03:07:54.007" UserId="496" Comment="added 1382 characters in body" Text="Although all the previous answers are correct I would like (мне хочется) to bring closer attention to the following difference of these two phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне хочется - means that the person saying this phrase does not fully take responsibility for this desire. For example, physiological needs: мне хочется есть, пить, спать ... (can be translated to English as 'I want to eat/drink/sleep' but also can be translated, at least for 'eat', 'I feel like something' (usually said with the gesture of hand rotating around the tummy). It can be not physiological too. For example, &quot;Мне хочется верить, что это не так.&quot; - I almost have to/made to want to believe that this is not the case. It is not your choice, there is an urge, which is difficult to resist. I guess a good translation for мне хочется in English would be feel impulse. But хочется is weaker than impulse. Impulse = сильно хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - usually implies conscious desire to which you commit. Я хочу научиться играть на флейте. (I want to learn how to play flute) - expresses kind of your commitment to learn playing flute in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу - is a more generic expression. It also can be used for physiological needs. When you say &quot;я хочу&quot; you do not specify whether you want it automatically or by your own choice.  &#xD;&#xA;If somebody is a foreigner and does not know the nuances of language, they can say the generic phrase &quot;я хочу&quot; in all above situations and they will be understood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the examples where it kind of 'beats me' that such a basic phrase in Russian needs long explanation in English. :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хотел бы - is more straightforward case. It is [сослагательное (aka условное) наклонение][1] in Russian, which is more or less directly corresponds to English [conditional mood][2]. In Russian it is formed by adding particle _бы_ to the verb in past tense: хотел бы, сделали бы. In English - by adding _would_ in front of _bare infinitive_: would want, would do. The meaning is similar in both languages: the action of the verb will take place only, if some conditions are fulfilled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: _бы_ and _would_ in both languages are used for softening the statement. ([See here (in Russian)][3]). Direct translation of 'я хотел бы' would be 'I would want' but 'I would like' is more commonly used. &#xD;&#xA;Я хочу открыть окно. I want to open the window. (When you ask it in a room with other guy sitting close to the window) would sound more blunt than я хотел бы открыть окно. I would like to open the window (assuming the continuation _if you do not mind_).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_mood#English&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15549" RevisionGUID="c819ac7e-02e4-4625-9fb8-000377049384" CreationDate="2018-01-18T04:31:38.660" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Стало **понятно**, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that when the verb &quot;стать&quot; is used in the sense of &quot;become ...&quot;,  the instrumental case follows. According to [Wiki][1], however,  the instrumental case of the adjective &quot;понятный&quot; is listed as &quot;поня́тным&quot;, and &quot;понятно&quot; seems to be its shortened form, whatever its case is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder if this shortened form &quot;понятно&quot; applies to all cases of the adjective &quot;понятный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15549" RevisionGUID="c819ac7e-02e4-4625-9fb8-000377049384" CreationDate="2018-01-18T04:31:38.660" UserId="8672" Text="What is the case of the adjective &quot;понятно&quot; in the phrase &quot;Стало понятно, что ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15549" RevisionGUID="c819ac7e-02e4-4625-9fb8-000377049384" CreationDate="2018-01-18T04:31:38.660" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15549" RevisionGUID="0e97826e-996f-4e05-8791-ab9746bf6a75" CreationDate="2018-01-18T04:40:16.903" UserId="8672" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="&gt;Стало **понятно**, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that when the verb &quot;стать&quot; is used in the sense of &quot;become ...&quot;,  the instrumental case follows. According to [Wiki][1], however,  the instrumental case of the adjective &quot;понятный&quot; is listed as &quot;поня́тным&quot;, and &quot;понятно&quot; seems to be its shortened form, whatever its case is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder if this shortened form &quot;понятно&quot; applies to all cases of the adjective &quot;понятный&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is it more common to use &quot;понятно&quot; than &quot;поня́тным&quot;  in conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38777" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15549" RevisionGUID="0e97826e-996f-4e05-8791-ab9746bf6a75" CreationDate="2018-01-18T04:40:16.903" UserId="8672" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="What is the case of the shortened adjective &quot;понятно&quot; in &quot;Стало понятно, что ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15550" RevisionGUID="31cd3d18-9903-43c6-830b-bf4ebe1e9a5a" CreationDate="2018-01-18T06:46:38.313" UserId="9001" Text="**Понятно** is either a shortened form of adjective or an adverb (there is support for both theories), but neither adverbs nor shortened adjectives have cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Стало понятным** is rarely used in everyday speech, but it is a valid expression and you may find it in written texts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15551" RevisionGUID="14e26800-02eb-47a6-bef2-be153ded61d7" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:11:35.950" UserId="134" Text="This is not a shortened adjective here, this is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually adverbs like this are conveyed using adjectives or &quot;to feel + adv.&quot; in English (_ему одиноко_ &quot;he's feeling lonely&quot;, _ему холодно_ &quot;he's cold&quot;) etc., however English does not have a passive version of &quot;to understand&quot;, so it might not indeed be obvious that _понятно_ here is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs with close meanings, like _стало ясно_ &quot;it became clear&quot;, _стало очевидно_ &quot;it became obvious&quot; etc. might make this pattern more clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So _понятно_ here is an adverb, and as an adverb it does not decline or agree in number and gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar constructs, where _понятно_ is a true adjective: _математика стала ему понятной (понятна)_. Here, the full form adjective is in instrumental and the short form one is in nominative, and they both agree in gender with the noun they define.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15552" RevisionGUID="9a85ff6a-9aa7-4a6d-bbfe-2864981a1b91" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:46:32.223" UserId="6539" Text="The word &quot;понятно&quot; in your example is called &quot;категория состояния&quot;(category of state).It's a certain word class, which has similar semantic, syntactic and morphological qualities. The main of them are : 1. In the sentence it functions as an impersonal predicate. 2. The meaning isn't an action, but a state. 3.It doesn't change (no gender, no case,etc.) 4. And in the form it looks like a noun, an adjective or an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Грустно и тяжело** было видеть ее в столь нелегком положении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verbs &quot;делаться, становиться, стать, быть&quot; show us that this is &quot;категория состояния&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда я ее слушал, мне становилось грустно; Мне сделалось неловко.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Such words don't modify (don't belong to) any other word class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.Она глядела **грустно** (an adverb –здесь наречие определяет глагол). 2. Лицо девушки было **грустно**  (a short adjective, can also be &quot;грустным&quot;-- в данном случае краткое прилагательное определяет существительное)  3.Девушке было **грустно** (category of state категория состояния)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more here:&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12826/%d0%9d%d0%b0%d1%80%d0%b5%d1%87%d0%b8%d0%b5-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-%d0%ba%d1%80%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%ba%d0%b0%d1%8f-%d1%84%d0%be%d1%80%d0%bc%d0%b0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13291/what-part-of-speech-is-%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bb%d1%8c%d0%b7%d1%8f/13296?s=2|17.6329#13296&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15553" RevisionGUID="fb291f01-cc1a-4d8c-aaeb-4ca4483ffcea" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:49:40.703" UserId="7894" Text="According to my Russian learning book, short adjectives are formed by taking the root of the adjective and adding:&#xA;&#xA;- -ø for male (null ending)&#xA;- -a for female&#xA;- -o for neutral&#xA;&#xA;Thus, the adjective *красивый, -ая, -ое* will give the following three short adjectives: *красив, красива, красиво*.&#xA;&#xA;My book also mentions that short adjectives are often used after *так* and *как*.&#xA;&#xA;- - - -&#xA;&#xA;**My question is:** in the expression *Как хорошо!*, what is the word class of the word *хорошо*, and why? I’ve heard many times that it is an adverb in this case, but what I see in my learning book would lead me to say that it’s a short adjective (also because one can say *Какой хороший*, which is then the long form)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15553" RevisionGUID="fb291f01-cc1a-4d8c-aaeb-4ca4483ffcea" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:49:40.703" UserId="7894" Text="Word class of “хорошо” in “Как хорошо”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15553" RevisionGUID="fb291f01-cc1a-4d8c-aaeb-4ca4483ffcea" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:49:40.703" UserId="7894" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15554" RevisionGUID="f7567fa2-7cd2-4116-9c8b-f22aa2852ddb" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:25:11.070" UserId="7674" Text="**`Как хорошо!`** is an impersonal (subjectless) sentence and the role of `хорошо` is indeed adverbial, it answers the question `how?` and not `which?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На улице `темно` - **It**'s dark outside  &#xD;&#xA;Было `интересно` - **It** was interesting  &#xD;&#xA;Вчера `похолодало` - **It** got colder yesterday  &#xD;&#xA;Проводить время одному `скучно` - **It**'s boring to spend time alone  &#xD;&#xA;Крышу `сорвало` ветром - The roof got torn off with the wind  &#xD;&#xA;Ему `стало` легче - He got/felt better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15554" RevisionGUID="655d31b0-b15d-46a8-bf57-d8234f885177" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:31:05.260" UserId="7674" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="**`Как хорошо!`** is an impersonal (subjectless) sentence and the role of `хорошо` is indeed adverbial, it answers the question `how?` and not `which?`. But predicates in these sentences assume neutral gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На улице `темно` - **It**'s dark outside  &#xD;&#xA;Было `интересно` - **It** was interesting  &#xD;&#xA;Вчера `похолодало` - **It** got colder yesterday  &#xD;&#xA;Проводить время одному `скучно` - **It**'s boring to spend time alone  &#xD;&#xA;Крышу `сорвало` ветром - The roof got torn off with the wind  &#xD;&#xA;Ему `стало` легче - He got/felt better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15554" RevisionGUID="03186139-2834-4794-b52a-59e3b0c98431" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:38:23.327" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**`Как хорошо!`** is an impersonal (subjectless) sentence and the role of `хорошо` is indeed adverbial, it answers the question `how?` and not `which?`. But predicates in these sentences do assume neutral gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На улице `темно` - **It**'s dark outside  &#xD;&#xA;Было `интересно` - **It** was interesting  &#xD;&#xA;Вчера `похолодало` - **It** got colder yesterday  &#xD;&#xA;Проводить время одному `скучно` - **It**'s boring to spend time alone  &#xD;&#xA;Крышу `сорвало` ветром - The roof got torn off with the wind  &#xD;&#xA;Ему `стало` легче - He got/felt better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15546" RevisionGUID="ea941b8d-fa7d-4fe0-b253-fe53e7fb6605" CreationDate="2018-01-18T08:50:40.277" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="Yes, the rule exists and dictates that any vowel except for [у] that follows a soft consonant in an unstressed position is reduced to something between [э] and [и]:&#xA;&#xA;    часы́ [чисы]&#xA;    яйцо́ [йийцо]&#xA;    ле́чо [лече]&#xA;    река́ [рика]&#xA;    счастли́вый [щисливый]&#xA;    её   [йийо]&#xA;&#xA;Source: М.В. Пано́в. Ру́сская фоне́тика &#xA;&#xA;In particular, this makes the words чистота́ (cleanliness) and частота́ (frequency) homophones while the respective adjectives чи́стый (clean) and ча́стый (frequent) have distinct pronunciations because the **а** in ча́стый is stressed.&#xA;&#xA;In Russian [й], [ч] and [щ] are always soft. Other consonants are soft if followed by я, е, ё, и, ю, or ь.  For the purposes of applying this rule we can ignore и (because it becomes a weak и but still an и), ю (because it gives the sound [у] which is an exception) and ь because its not a vowel. So practicality speaking we should be looking out for words containing unstressed я and е, including those at the beginning of a word.&#xA;&#xA;The letter ё is almost always stressed. It can be unstressed in compound words e.g. трёхмерный (three-dimensional) which *can* be said without a secondary stress in which case the rule in question will apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15555" RevisionGUID="106a48d0-e0c7-47df-a5ef-5b9ddb67b6f9" CreationDate="2018-01-18T09:52:20.927" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Понятно&quot; is translated as _understandabe_, so _стало понятно_ is simply '[It] became understandable'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15549" RevisionGUID="0b006626-9d69-4fab-b0b2-3448e13ff4c8" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:08:30.717" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|наречия|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15553" RevisionGUID="8aec8a7a-fcbe-411e-b4e7-59a84593423f" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:08:52.507" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="According to my Russian learning book, short adjectives are formed by taking the root of the adjective and adding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- -ø for male (null ending)&#xD;&#xA;- -a for female&#xD;&#xA;- -o for neutral&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the adjective *красивый, -ая, -ое* will give the following three short adjectives: *красив, красива, красиво*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My book also mentions that short adjectives are often used after *так* and *как*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is:** in the expression *Как хорошо!*, what is the word class of the word *хорошо*, and why? I’ve heard many times that it is an adverb in this case, but what I see in my learning book would lead me to say that it’s a short adjective (also because one can say *Какой хороший*, which is then the long form)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38791" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15553" RevisionGUID="8aec8a7a-fcbe-411e-b4e7-59a84593423f" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:08:52.507" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|грамматика|наречия|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15545" RevisionGUID="48537fd3-540d-42f3-888f-d4ab2fa70718" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:30:53.550" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Let's start with a small exercise. Say slowly, for instance, `Чапаев`, then `Чипаев`, `Чепаев`, then `Чупаев`, at last, say, `Чопаев`. Now say all these words again but quickly, like, very quickly - but actually casual speech can be very quick. See, the difference has gone, they all sound practically the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phenomena you've encountered (one that vowels are getting almost indistinguishable from each other when pronounced in word quickly) is called vowel reduction and the vowel you actually here is ca[extra-short vowel][1] and in some form it is a thing in many (yet, not in all)languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from [Russian article on extra-short vowels][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть два вида сверхкратких гласных:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Появились «из ниоткуда» на стыке большого количества согласных, чтобы    это сочетание можно было удобнее произнести: «Мистер Твистер&#xD;&#xA;&gt; / Бывший    минист(ъ)р…» (Самуил Маршак, знаком (ъ) отмечена явно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прописанная в    стихотворном размере редуцированная).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Уменьшились из обычной безударной гласной — так, слово красота при    определённом произношении редуцируется до `красъта`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question falls into case #2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-short&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15556" RevisionGUID="169b2b49-6930-4d1a-b172-7a63519013b8" CreationDate="2018-01-18T15:02:18.733" UserId="6097" Text="Depending on context &quot;*хорошо*&quot; may be an adverb and a short adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an adverb describing conditions or states: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как хорошо! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне хорошо - I feel good&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на улице стало хорошо - it (the weather) became good/nice outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a short adjective when describing objects and other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вино хорошо - wine is good&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Представление было хорошо - the presentation/performacne was good&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Honestly speaking, &quot;хороший&quot; is used not very often in its short form so both examples don't sound really natural.*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15557" RevisionGUID="f569ef59-6c47-4e1a-8834-8dc2d66c089e" CreationDate="2018-01-18T17:08:40.173" UserId="5468" Text="What is the best translation for &quot;revision&quot; or &quot;review&quot; (of material for exams) in Russian? Google Translate offers &quot;пересмотр&quot; but I thought it might be &quot;повторение&quot; -- I saw that word as a section heading in a textbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15557" RevisionGUID="f569ef59-6c47-4e1a-8834-8dc2d66c089e" CreationDate="2018-01-18T17:08:40.173" UserId="5468" Text="How to say &quot;revision&quot; (for exams) in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15557" RevisionGUID="f569ef59-6c47-4e1a-8834-8dc2d66c089e" CreationDate="2018-01-18T17:08:40.173" UserId="5468" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15557" RevisionGUID="0fe0fcfe-7d9d-4bb9-a4f1-8843ef87d800" CreationDate="2018-01-18T17:29:46.150" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="What is the best translation for &quot;revision&quot; or &quot;review&quot; (of material for exams) in Russian? Google Translate offers &quot;пересмотр&quot; but I thought it might be &quot;повторение&quot; -- I saw that word as a section heading in a textbook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15559" RevisionGUID="8ab1de0d-c543-4e1c-af5c-1e8a8034470e" CreationDate="2018-01-18T17:39:16.057" UserId="1262" Text="The total process is named ***подготовка к экзаменам*** and can be either by a student or by a teacher, or by the both parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same for ***повторение***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What a student does alone repeating everything possible in a nearly mad state of mind is called ***зубрёжка***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tiny creatively design things used to bring what remained outside of the student's memory with an object of secret and occasional peeping to write it down during a test  are usually called ***шпаргалки*** (AKA ***шпоры***, plural nominative)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15547" RevisionGUID="3485d6d6-2ca4-43f8-ad89-c1e8ea59ed34" CreationDate="2018-01-18T18:48:39.280" UserId="4714" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="While the answer provided is absolutely correct, it's not necessarily about somebody being pretentiously busy. &quot;Деловая колбаса&quot; can be applicable in many circumstances and is a rough equivalent of &quot;you are such a clever/smart guy/ass&quot; said ironically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, a daughter can suggest to her father to leave her all the candies in exchange for butter and her father can say: &quot;Ну ты и деловая колбаса&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15560" RevisionGUID="763ee97e-5dc4-4089-9269-c2532c1dc596" CreationDate="2018-01-18T19:21:14.870" UserId="2104" Text="Here is a word-for-word translation:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;      Не может быть и    речи    об    этом&#xA;&#xA;There may  not be   even talking about it&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;This should answer Q1 and Q2.&#xA;&#xA;Q3: the word order is not important. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15559" RevisionGUID="e20e4258-89f7-4b25-ae99-94f233b9304f" CreationDate="2018-01-18T21:19:18.793" UserId="1262" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The total process is named ***подготовка к экзаменам*** and can be done either by a student or by a teacher, or by the both parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same for ***повторение***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What a student does alone repeating everything possible in a nearly mad state of mind is called ***зубрёжка***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tiny creatively design things used to bring what remained outside of the student's memory with an object of secret and occasional peeping to write it down during a test  are usually called ***шпаргалки*** (AKA ***шпоры***, plural nominative)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15559" RevisionGUID="174797e5-4c38-4f22-8c43-c764d65bb1c3" CreationDate="2018-01-19T06:54:14.787" UserId="1262" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The total process is named ***подготовка к экзаменам*** and can be done either by a student or by a teacher, or by the both parties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same for ***повторение***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What a student does alone repeating everything possible in a nearly mad state of mind is called ***зубрёжка***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tiny creatively designed things used to bring what remained outside of the student's memory with an object of secret and occasional peeping to write it down during a test  are usually called ***шпаргалки*** (AKA ***шпоры***, plural nominative)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15561" RevisionGUID="67799e8e-375e-4b1d-b591-06a6be736bb9" CreationDate="2018-01-19T17:24:31.907" UserId="10140" Text="I've heard &quot;в бошке&quot; during a singing class, one was referring to a head, or part of it. What does it exactly mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15561" RevisionGUID="67799e8e-375e-4b1d-b591-06a6be736bb9" CreationDate="2018-01-19T17:24:31.907" UserId="10140" Text="What means башо́к?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15561" RevisionGUID="67799e8e-375e-4b1d-b591-06a6be736bb9" CreationDate="2018-01-19T17:24:31.907" UserId="10140" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15562" RevisionGUID="7c8292b6-9d7a-47a7-b5ba-7b471bce71e3" CreationDate="2018-01-19T17:30:41.357" UserId="3680" Text="The plural form of word `башка` (head [*slang*]) is `бошки` or `башки`.  &#xD;&#xA;In genitive it becomes `башок`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15563" RevisionGUID="340b0edf-3de1-4992-aeb6-7a43de490654" CreationDate="2018-01-19T18:34:07.740" UserId="7674" Text="Dmitry is right, in Russian this is the meaning. But it's rude and offensive. Its offensiveness is especially pronounced in its plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word originates from Turk languages where it incidentally also means `a head` both as a body part and as a chief (person)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15563" RevisionGUID="e8d6b384-3624-4631-bbb6-22a83cbc2994" CreationDate="2018-01-19T18:48:57.553" UserId="7674" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Dmitry is right, in Russian this is the meaning. But it's rude and offensive. Its offensiveness is particularly pronounced in its plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word originates from Turk languages where the origin word incidentally also means `a head` both as a body part and as a chief (person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of drugs usage `башка/бошка` is a slang name for cannabis female flower **head**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15562" RevisionGUID="9ca0a1f2-d0f2-4826-9239-06b342457a76" CreationDate="2018-01-19T18:49:47.937" UserId="3680" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="The plural form of word `башка` (head [*slang*]) is `бошки` or `башки`.  &#xD;&#xA;In genitive it becomes `башок`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `башка` has a Turkic root `баш` that means a head.  &#xD;&#xA;I don't know any other meanings of this word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15562" RevisionGUID="91166ffe-ed3b-4ad7-8b95-4dd0cf83cd09" CreationDate="2018-01-19T19:00:48.430" UserId="3680" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The plural form of word `башка` (head [*slang*]) is `бошки` or `башки`.  &#xD;&#xA;In genitive it becomes `бошек` or `башок`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `башка` has a Turkic root `баш` that means a head.  &#xD;&#xA;I don't know any other meanings of this word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15563" RevisionGUID="ad3e219c-50cc-46d1-bb0b-6c1e137b3b88" CreationDate="2018-01-19T19:22:45.790" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Dmitry is right, in Russian this is the meaning. But it's rude and offensive. Its offensiveness is particularly pronounced in its plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word originates from Turkic languages where the origin word incidentally also means `a head` both as a body part and as a chief (person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of drugs usage `башка/бошка` is a slang name for cannabis female flower **head**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15564" RevisionGUID="a4c6ab6f-6978-4bfa-9506-8ea36cb5c2e8" CreationDate="2018-01-19T20:33:24.007" UserId="9863" Text="Пересмотр has a different meaning with the notion of changing mind on something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15563" RevisionGUID="33e63891-0ee0-46b5-a26b-a6cc119eb68b" CreationDate="2018-01-19T21:08:18.833" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Dmitry is right, in Russian this is the meaning. But it's rude and offensive. Its disdainful connotations are particularly pronounced in its plural form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word originates from Turkic languages where the origin word incidentally also means `a head` both as a body part and as a chief (person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of drugs usage `башка/бошка` is a slang name for cannabis female flower **head**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15557" RevisionGUID="8b07ef95-d112-4162-9bb7-e2fa4dcd446b" CreationDate="2018-01-20T04:44:10.243" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/954575252381630464" />
  <row Id="38817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15565" RevisionGUID="2ce94574-c8fc-44d9-ac34-d4ac39ac2ad8" CreationDate="2018-01-20T07:22:38.550" UserId="2079" Text="Except for what Dmitry wrote, this word also exists in a drug slang. It means &quot;готовая к употреблению шишка конопли&quot; (cannabis bump ready to use) or &quot;семенная коробочка опийного мака&quot; (boll poppy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15565" RevisionGUID="d553a826-6b3a-44b3-9af8-398dd98d9d9f" CreationDate="2018-01-20T07:30:18.583" UserId="2079" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Except for what Dmitry wrote, the word `бошка` also exists in the drug slang. It means &quot;готовая к употреблению шишка конопли&quot; (cannabis bump ready to use) or &quot;семенная коробочка опийного мака&quot; (boll poppy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15566" RevisionGUID="2ffdcad3-680d-4958-8da5-76591954b41d" CreationDate="2018-01-20T08:09:43.260" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Не за **тем** я ... , чтобы ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this construction, &quot;тем&quot; is used as a kind of placeholder word for the clause &quot;чтобы ...&quot;, correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The description in [Wiki][1] seems to suggest that the preposition &quot;за&quot; used in the sense of &quot;**for** (the purpose of)&quot; takes the accusative case, not the instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder why you need to use the instrumental &quot;**тем**&quot; here instead of the accusative &quot;**то**&quot;, when the intended meaning of &quot;за&quot; is clearly &quot;for&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15566" RevisionGUID="2ffdcad3-680d-4958-8da5-76591954b41d" CreationDate="2018-01-20T08:09:43.260" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the instrumental &quot;тем&quot;, not the accusative &quot;то&quot; in &quot;Не за тем я ... , чтобы ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15566" RevisionGUID="2ffdcad3-680d-4958-8da5-76591954b41d" CreationDate="2018-01-20T08:09:43.260" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15567" RevisionGUID="ebf6d397-89ad-49db-84bc-03ef7400cb19" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:04:29.293" UserId="6539" Text="**Не затем, чтобы** is a conjunction meaning **not with the purpose of** (synonym of не для того)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассказывал об этом не затем (не для того), чтобы вызвать в нас простое любопытство. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем величал я себя паладином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем ведь и ты приходила ко мне,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только рыдать над потухшим камином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только плясать при умершем огне!&#xD;&#xA;(Блок А.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way,  if you mean a preposition plus a pronoun, &#xD;&#xA;the preposition за can be used with the accusative and the instrumental as well. See the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с родительным падежом – без, вокруг, для, из, от, у, с; &#xD;&#xA;с дательным падежом – к, благодаря, согласно, вопреки, наперекор, навстречу, по;&#xD;&#xA; с винительным падежом – сквозь, про, несмотря, через, в, на, под, **за**; &#xD;&#xA;с творительным падежом – над, перед, между, **за**, под, с; &#xD;&#xA;с предложным падежом – о, при, в, на." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15567" RevisionGUID="05bff646-a82f-4816-9a55-279b9a6678c8" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:34:30.743" UserId="6539" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="**Не затем, чтобы** is a conjunction,colloquial or old-fashioned, meaning **not with the purpose of** (synonym of не для того, чтобы )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассказывал об этом не затем (не для того), чтобы вызвать в нас простое любопытство. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем величал я себя паладином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем ведь и ты приходила ко мне,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только рыдать над потухшим камином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только плясать при умершем огне!&#xD;&#xA;(Блок А.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way,  if you mean a preposition plus a pronoun, &#xD;&#xA;the preposition за can be used with the accusative and the instrumental as well. See the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с родительным падежом – без, вокруг, для, из, от, у, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с дательным падежом – к, благодаря, согласно, вопреки, наперекор, навстречу, по;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; с винительным падежом – сквозь, про, несмотря, через, в, на, под, **за**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с творительным падежом – над, перед, между, **за**, под, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с предложным падежом – о, при, в, на." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15567" RevisionGUID="a00d73a2-78e4-4cee-936c-a0d4fe279955" CreationDate="2018-01-20T09:43:08.720" UserId="6539" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="**Не затем, чтобы** (не за тем, чтобы) is a conjunction,colloquial or old-fashioned, meaning **not with the purpose of** (synonym of не для того, чтобы )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассказывал об этом не затем (не для того), чтобы вызвать в нас простое любопытство. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем величал я себя паладином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем ведь и ты приходила ко мне,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только рыдать над потухшим камином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только плясать при умершем огне!&#xD;&#xA;(Блок А.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way,  if you mean a preposition plus a pronoun, &#xD;&#xA;the preposition за can be used with the accusative and the instrumental as well. See the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с родительным падежом – без, вокруг, для, из, от, у, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с дательным падежом – к, благодаря, согласно, вопреки, наперекор, навстречу, по;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; с винительным падежом – сквозь, про, несмотря, через, в, на, под, **за**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с творительным падежом – над, перед, между, **за**, под, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с предложным падежом – о, при, в, на." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15567" RevisionGUID="79c93fad-dccc-4f2a-8646-6bba21dc775e" CreationDate="2018-01-20T10:04:09.303" UserId="6539" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="**Не затем, чтобы** (не за тем, чтобы) is a conjunction,colloquial or old-fashioned, meaning **not with the purpose of** (synonym of не для того, чтобы )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассказывал об этом не затем (не для того), чтобы вызвать в нас простое любопытство. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем величал я себя паладином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем ведь и ты приходила ко мне,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только рыдать над потухшим камином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только плясать при умершем огне!&#xD;&#xA;(Блок А.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way,  if you mean a preposition plus a pronoun, &#xD;&#xA;the preposition за can be used with the accusative and the instrumental as well. See the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с родительным падежом – без, вокруг, для, из, от, у, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с дательным падежом – к, благодаря, согласно, вопреки, наперекор, навстречу, по;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; с винительным падежом – сквозь, про, несмотря, через, в, на, под, **за**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с творительным падежом – над, перед, между, **за**, под, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с предложным падежом – о, при, в, на.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, затем, чтобы should be written like this, for separate writing there's another conjunction **с тем, чтобы**, but in reality ruscorpora has lots of examples with a &quot;не за тем, чтобы.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="4c227816-8551-4001-9ab2-fcbf31308e65" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:01:52.427" UserId="7674" Text="`за тем, чтобы..../за тем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="b479abbc-8fbc-48c6-96d8-b949fb26c479" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:10:13.070" UserId="7674" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="`за тем, чтобы..../за тем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не затем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="62e79afe-c877-406a-8572-631611cbc82e" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:20:45.150" UserId="7674" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="`за тем, чтобы..../за тем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не затем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15569" RevisionGUID="59634ba1-f4c2-40db-b495-88baa74330e5" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:22:00.347" UserId="10143" Text="I want to translate some applied linguistic (and others uncommon) words from Italian to Russian which I didn't find on Internet: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. *Pragmatic annotation*&#xD;&#xA; 2. *Elicited* from this phrase &quot;*We have chosen to analyze the questioning strategy by comparing the data of two types of task oriented dialogues. The first one is **elicited** through the &quot;Map Task&quot; technique and another with the &quot;Difference test&quot; technique.*&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**elicited** means extraction of the dialogue (with one of the two techniques)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3. *idiosyncratic* from this phrase: *&quot;Each of us adopts strategies based on **idiosyncratic** characteristics and on the basis of social, cultural and situational factors.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**idiosyncratic** : The term can also be applied to symbols or words. Idiosyncratic symbols mean one thing for a particular person, as a blade could mean war, but to someone else, it could symbolize a surgery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to those who will answer me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15569" RevisionGUID="59634ba1-f4c2-40db-b495-88baa74330e5" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:22:00.347" UserId="10143" Text="Translating linguistic terminology into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15569" RevisionGUID="59634ba1-f4c2-40db-b495-88baa74330e5" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:22:00.347" UserId="10143" Text="|терминология|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15570" RevisionGUID="1c5dcb04-ff8d-406f-b29d-f3229be892bb" CreationDate="2018-01-20T16:53:17.567" UserId="2104" Text=" 1. Pragmatic annotation = Прагматическая аннотация&#xD;&#xA; 2. Data elicited through... = Данные, полученные посредством... (followed by Genitive)&#xD;&#xA; 3. idiosyncratic = [идиосинкратический][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15571" RevisionGUID="22a92a20-7539-46b4-8e2b-ef6b19ffcdd8" CreationDate="2018-01-20T17:27:49.727" UserId="1262" Text="1. Since 'annotation' [refers to][1] 'a pragmatic meaning in spoken text', and since '' is usually used in Russian academic language as a term for 'summary', I believe the terms '***прагматическая атрибуция***' or '***прагматическая дистрибуция***' would work better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In this context the word *elicited* can also be rendered by a noun ***выдержка***, e. g. 'The first one is elicited through the... ' = &quot;***Первое - выдержка, полученная посредством***...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/summaries/323.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="876b244b-c6ce-46d6-a220-3461899bcddc" CreationDate="2018-01-20T18:31:45.567" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="`затем, чтобы..../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не затем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не затем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="f1d2f3d5-709f-44ec-83fd-2823b66893a0" CreationDate="2018-01-20T18:37:23.913" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**`Затем`** in modern Russian formally isn't comprised of a preposition and a pronoun `за + тем`, but is a solid word which serves as conjunction (a question of its etymology is indeed intriguing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`затем, чтобы..../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не затем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не затем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="1f7da942-e2ee-4985-9aee-9d323c47346e" CreationDate="2018-01-20T18:43:38.190" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="db598357-a25e-4c7f-bfc9-23a1e7953b10" CreationDate="2018-01-20T18:53:29.260" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 51 characters in body" Text="**`За`** with Instumental satisfies purpose and is mainly used with the meaning of getting something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** with Accusative satisfies reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="8b3d31c3-3e0f-481a-9677-81ffb55cbb19" CreationDate="2018-01-20T19:00:04.480" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="**`За`** with Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** with Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="e23a8cca-6cc6-4776-88c6-5a0d22d53a06" CreationDate="2018-01-20T19:32:48.337" UserId="7674" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="**`За`** with Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** with Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="ae3f88cd-2f15-435d-a00e-56bb9210312e" CreationDate="2018-01-20T19:39:20.757" UserId="7674" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; added 74 characters in body" Text="**`За`** with Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying in order to work for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** with Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence / I love you not because you're beautiful, but because you're intelligent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="9f9c70e2-fa6f-4064-a96f-48d6fe680012" CreationDate="2018-01-20T19:44:56.800" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**`За`** with Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying just to be working for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** with Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence / I love you not because you're beautiful, but because you're intelligent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="d607037e-43ea-4e62-993e-3a938ceef0ae" CreationDate="2018-01-21T08:09:58.270" UserId="7674" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="**`За`** + Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets  &#xD;&#xA;В очереди **за** билет**ами** я стоял `за пожилой женщиной` - In the tickets line I was behind an old lady&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying just to be working for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** + Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence / I love you not because you're beautiful, but because you're intelligent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="3f4efbdd-8bc4-4608-9115-a9b92bfc4042" CreationDate="2018-01-21T11:23:00.010" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**`За`** + Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets  &#xD;&#xA;В очереди **за** билет**ами** я стоял `за пожилой женщиной` - In the line for tickets I was behind an old lady&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за тем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за тем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не за тем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying just to be working for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** + Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence / I love you not because you're beautiful, but because you're intelligent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15575" RevisionGUID="4b116af0-bf17-484e-b1d5-5a743f02a303" CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:10:21.997" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Ммм... **пожалуй**, я продолжу делать то, что хочу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;пожалуй&quot; means more than just &quot;perhaps&quot; and conveys a sense of reluctance, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm gonna keep doing what I love, **I guess**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: **Well, I might as well** keep doing what I love." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15575" RevisionGUID="4b116af0-bf17-484e-b1d5-5a743f02a303" CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:10:21.997" UserId="8672" Text="Does &quot;пожалуй&quot; always convey a sense of reluctance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15575" RevisionGUID="4b116af0-bf17-484e-b1d5-5a743f02a303" CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:10:21.997" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15576" RevisionGUID="c09e15f3-c44d-4a6f-a3b3-99bc7a49913d" CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:36:08.577" UserId="5370" Text="It does not really include it by itself. &#xD;&#xA;But you can add reluctance with intonation. And in modern Russian it's often used in that context, but it's not up to word. Any of your usage examples are suitable.&#xD;&#xA;Russian is a very intonation-depending language, so that... depends. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15578" RevisionGUID="cba61d45-0a0c-4d6a-8a27-bef85d648f46" CreationDate="2018-01-21T13:41:25.860" UserId="242" Text="To my knowledge, it does not. In any dictionary it's defined more or less like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выражает допущение, возможность чего-либо (то же, что «наверное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вероятно, может быть»), а также некоторую предпочтительность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какого-либо действия (то же, что «лучше»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sentences like: &quot;Я, пожалуй, не пойду туда&quot; there's no slightest hint on being reluctant - it's exactly the opposite, it's closed to definitely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that in phrases like: &quot;Ну, я, пожалуй, пойду?&quot; one want to show out of politeness his/her full determination to leave but not necessarily he or she wants to, so there's a tint of reluctance.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="5fab7767-577c-4611-b8dd-ab5960c75c2f" CreationDate="2018-01-21T14:26:55.830" UserId="7674" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between few choices but still do opt for one of them not being completely convinced it's the right one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically its akin to `всё-таки - still`, only that `всё-таки` makes the fact of making choice much more obvious and their use cases differ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15567" RevisionGUID="678df88f-d23a-4007-9cae-7d4ad6e25a46" CreationDate="2018-01-21T15:54:00.243" UserId="6539" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="**Не затем, чтобы** (не за тем, чтобы) is a conjunction,colloquial or old-fashioned, meaning **not with the purpose of** (synonym of не для того, чтобы )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он рассказывал об этом не затем (не для того), чтобы вызвать в нас простое любопытство. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем величал я себя паладином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не затем ведь и ты приходила ко мне,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только рыдать над потухшим камином,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы только плясать при умершем огне!&#xD;&#xA;(Блок А.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way,  if you mean a preposition plus a pronoun, &#xD;&#xA;the preposition за can be used with the accusative and the instrumental as well. See the table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с родительным падежом – без, вокруг, для, из, от, у, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с дательным падежом – к, благодаря, согласно, вопреки, наперекор, навстречу, по;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; с винительным падежом – сквозь, про, несмотря, через, в, на, под, **за**; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с творительным падежом – над, перед, между, **за**, под, с; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;с предложным падежом – о, при, в, на.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Formally, затем, чтобы should be written like this, for separate writing there's another conjunction **с тем, чтобы**, but in reality ruscorpora has lots of examples with a &quot;не за тем, чтобы.&quot; Затем, чтобы (за тем, чтобы) means purpose, за то, что means reason. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="0a469732-8e7f-4713-a6d2-5d943c93aa83" CreationDate="2018-01-21T16:12:16.057" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically its akin to `всё-таки - still`, only that `всё-таки` makes the fact of making choice much more obvious and their use cases differ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="b7124dc2-ed99-461a-ab4e-7c13767730ad" CreationDate="2018-01-21T16:13:05.490" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**`За`** + Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets  &#xD;&#xA;В очереди **за** билет**ами** я стоял `за пожилой женщиной` - In the line for tickets I was behind an old lady&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`затем, чтобы.../затем..., чтобы` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не затем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не затем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying just to be working for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** + Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то, что .../за то..., что` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence / I love you not because you're beautiful, but because you're intelligent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="891ac696-431d-45ba-b850-b787a5fd8c64" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:07:00.103" UserId="7674" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's translated as **`rather`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `пожалуй`, останусь - No, I'll `rather` stay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically its akin to `всё-таки - still` and `скорее - rather`, only that `всё-таки` and `скорее` make the fact of choosing much more obvious and would be used if there has been a significant deliberation about what course of action to take." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="8f0bfb72-5de4-4c13-a57c-c6936065a350" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:21:09.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's translated as **`rather`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `пожалуй`, останусь - No, I'll `rather` stay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically its akin to `скорее - rather` and `всё-таки - still`, only that `скорее` and `всё-таки` make the fact of choosing much more obvious and would be used if there has been prior discussion or deliberation, known to the interlocutor, about what course of action to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `всё-таки`, остаюсь - No, `still` I'm staying&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="a5adc007-a6af-4fa2-bc7a-d39e9d57b5db" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:29:23.777" UserId="7674" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's translated as **`rather`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `пожалуй`, останусь - No, I'll `rather` stay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ммм... пожалуй, я продолжу делать то, что хочу. - Erm... I will rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continue doing what I like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically its akin to `скорее` also `rather` and `всё-таки - still`, only that `скорее` and `всё-таки` make the fact of choosing much more obvious and would be used if there has been prior discussion or deliberation, known to the interlocutor, about what course of action to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `всё-таки`, остаюсь - No, `still` I'm staying&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="d087e228-288c-430c-8237-a1a347ea24d7" CreationDate="2018-01-21T19:39:04.847" UserId="7674" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's translated as **`rather`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `пожалуй`, останусь - No, I'll `rather` stay  &#xD;&#xA;**OR**  &#xD;&#xA;-Да, я, `пожалуй`, иду с вами - Yes, I'll `rather` go with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ммм... пожалуй, я продолжу делать то, что хочу. - Erm... I will rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continue doing what I like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically its akin to `скорее` also `rather` and `всё-таки - still`, only that `скорее` and `всё-таки` make the fact of choosing much more obvious and would be used if there has been prior discussion or deliberation, known to the interlocutor, about what course of action to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `всё-таки`, остаюсь - No, `still` I'm staying  &#xD;&#xA;**OR**  &#xD;&#xA;-Да, я, `всё-таки`, иду с вами - Yes, I'm `still` coming with you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15581" RevisionGUID="b5561b48-42dd-4919-a513-681928e3d7d3" CreationDate="2018-01-21T20:23:02.723" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Это в **его** духе. / Это в **её** духе. / Это в **их** духе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is a figurative expression with the meaning of &quot;it sounds like him/her/them&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(**в** = followed by the prepositional case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(**его**/**её**/**их** = genitive case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(**духе** = prepositional singular case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;их&quot; is plural, so shouldn't you say &quot;Это в их **духах**&quot; with the prepositional plural case instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Why is it incorrect to say &quot;Это в **тебя** духе&quot; оr &quot;Это в **вас** духе&quot; to mean &quot;that sounds like you&quot;? Even though they share the same construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15581" RevisionGUID="b5561b48-42dd-4919-a513-681928e3d7d3" CreationDate="2018-01-21T20:23:02.723" UserId="8672" Text="Figurative expression &quot;Это в его духе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15581" RevisionGUID="b5561b48-42dd-4919-a513-681928e3d7d3" CreationDate="2018-01-21T20:23:02.723" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15582" RevisionGUID="681b4a7f-e4b2-488a-b2e4-269a0c410dfb" CreationDate="2018-01-21T21:09:46.770" UserId="7674" Text="1. It's incorrect because `их` isn't a demonstrative pronoun for `дух`, but a possessive pronoun of people to whom `дух` belongs so to speak. It's also incorrect because `в smbd's духе`, where `дух` is in singular form, is a fixed idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это в их духе - This is in their spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's incorrect because the idiom requires possessive pronoun for `дух`, while `тебя`, `вас` etc. are inflected personal pronouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15582" RevisionGUID="1c61d6c8-03e2-4c33-bdef-c7b7a8b2fb3c" CreationDate="2018-01-21T21:26:56.880" UserId="7674" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="1. It's incorrect because `их` isn't a demonstrative pronoun for `дух`, but a possessive pronoun of people to whom `дух` belongs so to speak. It's also incorrect because `в smbd's духе`, where `дух` is in singular form, is a fixed idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это в их духе - This is in their spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's incorrect because the idiom requires possessive pronoun for `дух`, while `тебя`, `вас` etc. are inflected personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns of the 3d person `их/его/её` (their/his/her) derive from Genitive of personal pronouns `они/он/она`, but as all other possessive pronouns answer the question `чей?` and not `кого?` and grammatically are similar to adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus `в духе` (чьём?) `их/его/вашем`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38871" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15581" RevisionGUID="250f4107-288c-4f2a-a36b-3e45f2bd09b3" CreationDate="2018-01-21T21:32:59.313" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|притяжательные-местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15582" RevisionGUID="cb659ad9-a1e2-4000-a01c-1b56e31dbac8" CreationDate="2018-01-21T21:37:18.937" UserId="7674" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="1. It's incorrect because `их` isn't a demonstrative pronoun for `дух`, but a possessive pronoun of people to whom `дух` belongs so to speak. It's also incorrect because `в smbd's духе`, where `дух` is in singular form, is a fixed idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это в их духе - This is in their spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's incorrect because the idiom requires possessive pronoun for `дух`, while `тебя`, `вас` etc. are inflected personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns of the 3d person `их/его/её` (their/his/her) derive from Genitive of personal pronouns `они/он/она`, but as all other possessive pronouns answer the question `чей?` and not `кого?` and grammatically are similar to adjectives except that unlike the rest of them these 3 don't inflect to match the case of the noun they describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus `в духе` (чьём?) `их/его/вашем`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15583" RevisionGUID="7da52ba2-c284-458d-82a1-3c577f247d95" CreationDate="2018-01-21T21:46:00.843" UserId="6539" Text="Это в **моем,твоем, его, её, нашем, вашем, их** духе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an idiom. Meaning &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's **my, your, his, her, our, their** manner/way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it's an idiom, the noun духе doesn't change, but it has a possessive pronoun. Меня, тебя aren't possessive pronouns, so you cannot use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15582" RevisionGUID="debef04e-43ed-4cb3-ab9b-39be8fe6d9cb" CreationDate="2018-01-21T21:58:25.573" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="1. It's incorrect because `их` isn't a demonstrative pronoun for `дух`, but a possessive pronoun of people to whom `дух` belongs so to speak. It's also incorrect because `в smbd's духе`, where `дух` is in singular form, is a fixed idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это в их духе - This is in their spirit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's incorrect because the idiom requires possessive pronoun for `дух`, while `тебя`, `вас` etc. are inflected personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive pronouns of the 3d person `их/его/её` (their/his/her) derive from Genitive of personal pronouns `они/он/она`, but as all other possessive pronouns answer the question `чей?` and not `кого?` and *grammatically are similar to adjectives* except that unlike the rest of them these 3 don't inflect to match the case of the noun they describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus `в духе` (чьём?) `их/его/вашем`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="4c75fa60-2581-4fd8-a295-1beab62e254a" CreationDate="2018-01-21T22:11:34.533" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's translated as **`rather`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `пожалуй`, останусь - No, I'll `rather` stay  &#xD;&#xA;**OR**  &#xD;&#xA;-Да, я, `пожалуй`, иду с вами - Yes, I'll `rather` go with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ммм... пожалуй, я продолжу делать то, что хочу. - Erm... I will rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continue doing what I like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically it's akin to `скорее` also `rather` and `всё-таки - still`, only that `скорее` and `всё-таки` make the fact of choosing much more obvious and would be used if there has been prior discussion or deliberation, known to the interlocutor, about what course of action to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `всё-таки`, остаюсь - No, `still` I'm staying  &#xD;&#xA;**OR**  &#xD;&#xA;-Да, я, `всё-таки`, иду с вами - Yes, I'm `still` coming with you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15584" RevisionGUID="91c1f4ad-f381-4a03-9612-9d614bfc7b88" CreationDate="2018-01-22T06:26:58.610" UserDisplayName="user10152" Text="**What is the best translation into Russian of the common English expression &quot;Quality over quantity&quot;?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found any answers on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15584" RevisionGUID="91c1f4ad-f381-4a03-9612-9d614bfc7b88" CreationDate="2018-01-22T06:26:58.610" UserDisplayName="user10152" Text="Best translation for &quot;Quality over quantity&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15584" RevisionGUID="91c1f4ad-f381-4a03-9612-9d614bfc7b88" CreationDate="2018-01-22T06:26:58.610" UserDisplayName="user10152" Text="|перевод|выражения|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15585" RevisionGUID="3f392859-4be7-41c7-9a21-4eeae7cb9018" CreationDate="2018-01-22T06:54:21.513" UserId="6539" Text="We usually say, &quot;Качество превыше всего&quot; (Quality is above everything )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15585" RevisionGUID="f533ecf5-06bf-4512-b2c0-e017fc2a9007" CreationDate="2018-01-22T06:59:35.347" UserId="6539" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="We usually say, &quot;Качество превыше всего&quot; (Quality is above everything ).&#xD;&#xA;You can also say, &quot;Я предпочитаю качество количеству&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15586" RevisionGUID="e37a3dfb-e40b-4c37-a707-14ecc657867a" CreationDate="2018-01-22T09:05:38.870" UserId="7674" Text="To modify a little V.V.'s suggestion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Качество превыше количества&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное не количество, а качество   &#xD;&#xA;Не количество главное, а качество&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15579" RevisionGUID="a2fb7dc6-9579-4b48-951f-3189fdd40bcc" CreationDate="2018-01-22T09:15:17.647" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**`Пожалуй`** implies being presented with several options from which you choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use **`пожалуй`** when i'm kind of hesitant and conflicted between a few choices but still do opt for one of them without being completely convinced it's the right or the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's translated as **`rather`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `пожалуй`, останусь - No, I'll `rather` stay  &#xD;&#xA;**OR**  &#xD;&#xA;-Да, я, `пожалуй`, иду с вами - Yes, I'll `rather` go with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To translate your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ммм... пожалуй, я продолжу делать то, что хочу. - Erm... I will rather&#xD;&#xA;&gt; continue doing what I like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically it's akin to `скорее` (also `rather`) and `всё-таки` (`still`), only that `скорее` and `всё-таки` make the fact of choosing much more obvious and would be used if there has been prior discussion or deliberation, known to the interlocutor, about what course of action to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ну так ты идёшь с нами или остаёшься? - So do you come along or stay here?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Нет, я, `всё-таки`, остаюсь - No, `still` I'm staying  &#xD;&#xA;**OR**  &#xD;&#xA;-Да, я, `всё-таки`, иду с вами - Yes, I'm `still` coming with you&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15586" RevisionGUID="fd4dff01-1264-455e-b564-e4be321a0535" CreationDate="2018-01-22T09:19:02.060" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="To modify a little V.V.'s suggestion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Качество превыше количества&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;оr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное не количество, а качество   &#xD;&#xA;Не количество главное, а качество&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if they're the best though.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15587" RevisionGUID="55806cc6-d2ff-4a2b-9fba-7de19b2e165b" CreationDate="2018-01-22T09:19:47.990" UserId="1097" Text="Лучше меньше, да лучше. ([В. И. Ленин][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B5,_%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15584" RevisionGUID="0b588c99-3dbe-4a8f-a2bd-9b7c37a44c66" CreationDate="2018-01-22T09:27:51.483" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="What is the best translation into Russian of the common English expression &quot;Quality over quantity&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found any answers on the internet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15561" RevisionGUID="b8f6c88a-ae89-4ec4-ae09-d60ac9281743" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:21:20.260" UserId="8895" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've heard &quot;в бошке&quot; during a singing class, one was referring to the head, or a part of it. What does it exactly mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15561" RevisionGUID="b8f6c88a-ae89-4ec4-ae09-d60ac9281743" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:21:20.260" UserId="8895" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does &quot;башо́к&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15568" RevisionGUID="0986583d-c297-4f26-a39f-f472ed79cb41" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:45:10.223" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**`За`** + Instumental (besides other uses) satisfies purpose and is used to convey meaning of getting something (overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ходил **за** хлеб**ом** - I went to buy some bread     &#xD;&#xA;Я два часа простоял в очереди **за** билет**ами** - I spent two hours in a line to get tickets  &#xD;&#xA;В очереди **за** билет**ами** я стоял `за пожилой женщиной` - In the line for tickets I was behind an old lady&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`затем..., чтобы.../затем, чтобы...` answers the question `зачем?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не затем** я 10 лет учился, **чтобы** работать за гроши / Я 10 лет учился **не затем, чтобы** работать за гроши - I've spent 10&#xD;&#xA;&gt; years studying not in order to work for peanuts / I didn't spend 10 years studying just to be working for peanuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`За`** + Accusative (besides other uses) satisfies reason (also overlooked in the Wiktionary article)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`за то..., что.../за то, что ...` answers the question `за что?` and is a construction for adverbial adjunct of reason&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не за то**, я тебя люблю, **что** ты красива, а за то, что умна / Я тебя люблю **не за то, что** ты красива, а за то, что умна - It's not your beauty which i love you for, but your intelligence / I love you not because you're beautiful, but because you're intelligent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38890" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15566" RevisionGUID="5f517542-39bb-4e0d-a6c9-fe563d691a54" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:48:03.337" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15543" RevisionGUID="fef73a5c-098a-45f5-8580-72f0efe2abdb" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:50:12.977" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38892" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15366" RevisionGUID="35af973e-223a-411c-aef9-ffa9c5a9798f" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:54:07.477" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15545" RevisionGUID="81ddbcc5-84b0-4f73-a7a5-b3b26afc52fa" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:58:47.657" UserId="6187" Comment="copy editing" Text="Let's start with a small exercise. Say slowly, for instance, `Чапаев`, then `Чипаев`, `Чепаев`, then `Чупаев`, at last, say, `Чопаев`. Now say all these words again but quickly, like, very quickly - but actually casual speech can be very quick. See, the difference has gone, they all sound practically the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phenomenon you've encountered (of vowels becoming almost indistinguishable from each other when pronounced quickly) is called vowel reduction and the vowel you have here is called an [extra-short vowel][1] and in some form it is a thing in many (but not all) languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from a [Russian article on extra-short vowels][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке есть два вида сверхкратких гласных:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Появились «из ниоткуда» на стыке большого количества согласных, чтобы    это сочетание можно было удобнее произнести: «Мистер Твистер&#xD;&#xA;&gt; / Бывший    минист(ъ)р…» (Самуил Маршак, знаком (ъ) отмечена явно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прописанная в    стихотворном размере редуцированная).&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Уменьшились из обычной безударной гласной — так, слово красота при    определённом произношении редуцируется до `красъта`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question falls into case #2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-short&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38894" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15545" RevisionGUID="81ddbcc5-84b0-4f73-a7a5-b3b26afc52fa" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:58:47.657" Comment="Proposed by 6187 approved by 8895, 5605 edit id of 947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15588" RevisionGUID="8b8562e3-3ac2-423e-b380-7747f3f74fde" CreationDate="2018-01-22T14:03:22.110" UserId="8514" Text="Количество переходит в качество." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15588" RevisionGUID="9b7ba4ef-771a-4396-a683-a6dc44e5a345" CreationDate="2018-01-22T14:57:08.857" UserId="8514" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="The best and natural option is &#xD;&#xA;Количество переходит в качество." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15589" RevisionGUID="bd3a54a3-7e1d-4d07-a541-6e3fec358c65" CreationDate="2018-01-22T15:02:51.047" UserId="6539" Text="**Пожалуй** expresses equally probability and preference or is used to show a non-straightforward polite excuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я, пожалуй, пойду, а то поздно уже. I'd rather go now because it's getting late.(polite excuse).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я, пожалуй,попью чайку. I'd rather drink some tea.(preference )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я, пожалуй, займусь этим проектом.I might as well pay attention to that project.(probability ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no reluctance. Only intonation can show it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="6081bc72-8fcf-4aa6-8175-b397c2a14490" CreationDate="2018-01-23T03:07:06.113" UserId="7038" Text="(Note: I would like to learn Russian, but I have not started yet, so unfortunately I will be making this post entirely in English. I don't mind what language you use for answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the letter &quot;и&quot; does not generally represent an iotated vowel in Russian at the start of a word. It is pronounced /i/ with no glide ( unlike for example &quot;я&quot; /ja/ or &quot;ю&quot; /ju/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would guess that it is not difficult for a Russian speaker to pronounce /ji/ (sounds like &quot;йи&quot;) and to distinguish the sound of this from /i/. I would like to know if I am right about this, and if so, what are some examples of Russian words where /ji/ does occur? And does it occur at the start of any words that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my research has turned up inconsistent results that I am not sure I can trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An old book from 1916, *[The Russians and Their Language][1],* by Nadine Jarintzov, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Only the и, amongst the light vowels, makes a slight exception: there are only three words beginning with it in which it has the *y*-sound to start it with; these are the genitive, dative and ablative cases of the Russian word for 'they' = они́: ихъ[\*] (of them), имъ[\*] (to them), and и́ми (by them), *yih, yim, yimi.*  In all the rest of the Russian words beginning with an и the latter (against the nature of other light vowels) has no *y*-part in it: иго́лка (needle) *igolka,* и́ва (willow) *iva,* идти́ (to go) *idt’i;* etc. (p xvii-xviii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*note: I understand that the word-final hard sign &quot;ъ&quot; is not used in the present-day spelling of these words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionary entries on их, им and и́ми describe the pronunciations starting with /ji/ instead of /i/ as &quot;dated or regional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little later on, Jarintzov mentions the existence of /ji/ in words like се́мьи. The Wikipedia article &quot;[Soft sign][2]&quot; also seems to say that ьи is pronounced as /ji/ in Russian. But since it is an unstressed syllable, I would guess the phonetic pronunciation is actually [jɪ], with vowel reduction causing the vowel /i/ to be less close than it would be in a stressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [Reddit discussion][3] I found, native speakers say not to pronounce /ji/ in им, but a commenter also said that some word-intial unstressed syllables might sound like they start with &quot;йи&quot; because of vowel reduction. The example was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;единорог&quot; is pronounced &quot;йидинарок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article &quot;[Russian phonology][4]&quot; says a number of things about the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed syllables. Some of them seem confusing or dubious. The parts that I think seem relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a soft consonant or /j/ precedes, both /o/ and /a/ merge with /i/ and are pronounced as [ɪ]. Example: язы́к About this sound [jɪˈzɨk] 'tongue'). /o/ is written as ⟨e⟩ in these positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of unstressed /e ~ i/ is [ɪ] after soft consonants and /j/, and word-initially (эта́п  [ɪˈtap] ('stage')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a number of exceptions to the above vowel-reduction rules:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels may not merge in foreign borrowings, particularly with unusual or recently borrowed words such as ра́дио, [ˈradʲɪ.o]  'radio'. In such words, unstressed /a/ may be pronounced as [ɐ], regardless of context; unstressed /e/ does not merge with /i/ in initial position or after vowels, so word pairs like эмигра́нт and иммигра́нт, or эмити́ровать and имити́ровать, differ in pronunciation.[citation needed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all a bit complicated, so I wanted to make sure I understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my summary of what I think I have gotten from all of this:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial stressed syllables, un-iotated /ˈi/ occurs. Iotated /ˈji/ doesn't occur at the start of any (?) word in standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial unstressed syllables, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [jɪ] (which is equated with /ji/; that is, it sounds like it is pronounced as &quot;йи&quot;) occurs at the start of words that are written with iotated vowels like я (from Wikipedia: язы́к) or е (from Reddit: единорог), except sometimes (in &quot;foreign borrowings&quot; in particular?) it seems these may be pronounced without vowel reduction as /ja/ and /je/ respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ɪ] occurs in unstressed syllables at the start of words that are written with un-iotated front vowels, such as э (from Wikipedia: эта́п) or I assume и (as in [игле́][5], which Wiktionary says is pronounced [ɪˈɡlʲe])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In non-word-initial syllables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in unstressed syllables, /ji/ (I understand that according to the rules of vowel reduction, this would technically be pronounced [jɪ]) occurs after written with ьи after consonants, and perhaps in words written with и or е after other vowels (the existence of a j-like glide before /i/ after vowels seems dubious, or optional at best).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps /ji/ can occur in stressed syllables as well? I would appreciate some examples if so. I found a [web page][6] that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Nouns ending with -ий, -ия, -ие (not to be confused with substantivated adjectives) are written with -ии instead of -ие in Prepositional (as this ending is never stressed, there is no difference in pronunciation): тече́ние - в ни́жнем тече́нии реки́ &quot;streaming - in lower streaming of a river&quot;. But if words в течение and в продолжение are representing compound preposition meaning &quot;while, during the time of&quot;, they are written with -е: в тече́ние ча́са &quot;in a time of an hour&quot;. For nouns ending in -ья, -ье, or -ьё, using -ьи in the Prepositional (where endings of some of them are stressed) is usually erroneous, but in poetic speech it may be acceptable (as we replace -ии with -ьи for metric or rhyming purposes): *Весь день она́ лежа́ла в забыт**ьи́*** (F. Tyutchev).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which confuses me a bit. Does this mean stressed &quot;ьи́&quot; does not occur in any words in non-poetic speech, or are these remarks only applicable to words ending in ьи́?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=R9hfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR17&amp;lpg=PR17&amp;dq=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZBMq7TRxXu&amp;sig=lCuUxT40t4tB2KTmt3uw96A1PJ4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjz7NPE_uzYAhVuct8KHR-NAdI4ChDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign#Palatalization_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/20t7ii/is_%D0%B8_pronounced_ee_or_yi/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Vowel_mergers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B5#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://redfoxsanakirja.fi/en/grammar/russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="6081bc72-8fcf-4aa6-8175-b397c2a14490" CreationDate="2018-01-23T03:07:06.113" UserId="7038" Text="Where does the sound &quot;йи&quot; / iotated и / [ji] occur in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="6081bc72-8fcf-4aa6-8175-b397c2a14490" CreationDate="2018-01-23T03:07:06.113" UserId="7038" Text="|произношение|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="fbed267b-9214-4f83-aec9-526476a3bb7f" CreationDate="2018-01-23T03:18:01.053" UserId="7038" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="(Note: I would like to learn Russian, but I have not started yet, so unfortunately I will be making this post entirely in English. I don't mind what language you use for answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the letter &quot;и&quot; does not generally represent an iotated vowel in Russian at the start of a word. It is pronounced /i/ with no glide ( unlike for example &quot;я&quot; /ja/ or &quot;ю&quot; /ju/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would guess that it is not difficult for a Russian speaker to pronounce /ji/ (sounds like &quot;йи&quot;) and to distinguish the sound of this from /i/. I would like to know if I am right about this, and if so, what are some examples of Russian words where /ji/ does occur? And does it occur at the start of any words that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my research has turned up inconsistent results that I am not sure I can trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An old book from 1916, *[The Russians and Their Language][1],* by Nadine Jarintzov, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Only the и, amongst the light vowels, makes a slight exception: there are only three words beginning with it in which it has the *y*-sound to start it with; these are the genitive, dative and ablative cases of the Russian word for 'they' = они́: ихъ[\*] (of them), имъ[\*] (to them), and и́ми (by them), *yih, yim, yimi.*  In all the rest of the Russian words beginning with an и the latter (against the nature of other light vowels) has no *y*-part in it: иго́лка (needle) *igolka,* и́ва (willow) *iva,* идти́ (to go) *idt’i;* etc. (p xvii-xviii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*note: I understand that the word-final hard sign &quot;ъ&quot; is not used in the present-day spelling of these words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionary entries on их, им and и́ми describe the pronunciations starting with /ji/ instead of /i/ as &quot;dated or regional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little later on, Jarintzov mentions the existence of /ji/ in words like се́мьи. The Wikipedia article &quot;[Soft sign][2]&quot; also seems to say that ьи is pronounced as /ji/ in Russian. But since it is an unstressed syllable, I would guess the phonetic pronunciation is actually [jɪ], with vowel reduction causing the vowel /i/ to be less close than it would be in a stressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [Reddit discussion][3] I found, native speakers say not to pronounce /ji/ in им, but a commenter also said that some word-intial unstressed syllables might sound like they start with &quot;йи&quot; because of vowel reduction. The example was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;единорог&quot; is pronounced &quot;йидинарок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article &quot;[Russian phonology][4]&quot; says a number of things about the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed syllables. Some of them seem confusing or dubious. The parts that I think seem relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a soft consonant or /j/ precedes, both /o/ and /a/ merge with /i/ and are pronounced as [ɪ]. Example: язы́к About this sound [jɪˈzɨk] 'tongue'). /o/ is written as ⟨e⟩ in these positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of unstressed /e ~ i/ is [ɪ] after soft consonants and /j/, and word-initially (эта́п  [ɪˈtap] ('stage')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a number of exceptions to the above vowel-reduction rules:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels may not merge in foreign borrowings, particularly with unusual or recently borrowed words such as ра́дио, [ˈradʲɪ.o]  'radio'. In such words, unstressed /a/ may be pronounced as [ɐ], regardless of context; unstressed /e/ does not merge with /i/ in initial position or after vowels, so word pairs like эмигра́нт and иммигра́нт, or эмити́ровать and имити́ровать, differ in pronunciation.[citation needed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all a bit complicated, so I wanted to make sure I understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my summary of what I think I have gotten from all of this:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial stressed syllables, un-iotated /ˈi/ occurs. Iotated /ˈji/ doesn't occur at the start of any (?) word in standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial unstressed syllables, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [jɪ] (which is equated with /ji/; that is, it sounds like it is pronounced as &quot;йи&quot;) occurs at the start of words that are written with iotated vowels like я (from Wikipedia: язы́к) or е (from Reddit: единорог), except sometimes (in &quot;foreign borrowings&quot; in particular?) it seems these may be pronounced without vowel reduction as /ja/ and /je/ respectively (according to an uncited sentence in the Wikipedia article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ɪ] occurs in unstressed syllables at the start of words that are written with un-iotated front vowels, such as э (from Wikipedia: эта́п) or I assume и (as in [игле́][5], which Wiktionary says is pronounced [ɪˈɡlʲe])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In non-word-initial syllables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in unstressed syllables, /ji/ (I understand that according to the rules of vowel reduction, this would technically be pronounced [jɪ]) occurs after written with ьи after consonants, and perhaps in words written with и or е after other vowels (the existence of a j-like glide before /i/ after vowels seems dubious, or optional at best).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps /ji/ can occur in stressed syllables as well? I would appreciate some examples if so. I found a [web page][6] that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Nouns ending with -ий, -ия, -ие (not to be confused with substantivated adjectives) are written with -ии instead of -ие in Prepositional (as this ending is never stressed, there is no difference in pronunciation): тече́ние - в ни́жнем тече́нии реки́ &quot;streaming - in lower streaming of a river&quot;. But if words в течение and в продолжение are representing compound preposition meaning &quot;while, during the time of&quot;, they are written with -е: в тече́ние ча́са &quot;in a time of an hour&quot;. For nouns ending in -ья, -ье, or -ьё, using -ьи in the Prepositional (where endings of some of them are stressed) is usually erroneous, but in poetic speech it may be acceptable (as we replace -ии with -ьи for metric or rhyming purposes): *Весь день она́ лежа́ла в забыт**ьи́*** (F. Tyutchev).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which confuses me a bit. Does this mean stressed &quot;ьи́&quot; does not occur in any words in non-poetic speech, or are these remarks only applicable to words ending in ьи́?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=R9hfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR17&amp;lpg=PR17&amp;dq=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZBMq7TRxXu&amp;sig=lCuUxT40t4tB2KTmt3uw96A1PJ4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjz7NPE_uzYAhVuct8KHR-NAdI4ChDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign#Palatalization_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/20t7ii/is_%D0%B8_pronounced_ee_or_yi/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Vowel_mergers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B5#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://redfoxsanakirja.fi/en/grammar/russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15584" RevisionGUID="604b47cb-a8bc-481a-be5f-dff474076aab" CreationDate="2018-01-23T05:49:49.130" UserDisplayName="user10152" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="What is the best translation into Russian of the common English expression &quot;Quality over quantity&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not found any answers on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Bear in mind that I'm a native Russian speaker.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="04582615-968c-4fd6-b537-150bb6e9c04b" CreationDate="2018-01-23T05:55:24.563" UserId="7038" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="(Note: I would like to learn Russian, but I have not started yet, so unfortunately I will be making this post entirely in English. I don't mind what language you use for answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the letter &quot;и&quot; does not generally represent an iotated vowel in Russian at the start of a word. It is pronounced /i/ with no glide ( unlike for example &quot;я&quot; /ja/ or &quot;ю&quot; /ju/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would guess that it is not difficult for a Russian speaker to pronounce /ji/ (sounds like &quot;йи&quot;) and to distinguish the sound of this from /i/. I would like to know if I am right about this, and if so, what are some examples of Russian words where /ji/ does occur? And does it occur at the start of any words that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my research has turned up inconsistent results that I am not sure I can trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An old book from 1916, *[The Russians and Their Language][1],* by Nadine Jarintzov, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Only the и, amongst the light vowels, makes a slight exception: there are only three words beginning with it in which it has the *y*-sound to start it with; these are the genitive, dative and ablative cases of the Russian word for 'they' = они́: ихъ[\*] (of them), имъ[\*] (to them), and и́ми (by them), *yih, yim, yimi.*  In all the rest of the Russian words beginning with an и the latter (against the nature of other light vowels) has no *y*-part in it: иго́лка (needle) *igolka,* и́ва (willow) *iva,* идти́ (to go) *idt’i;* etc. (p xvii-xviii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*note: I understand that the word-final hard sign &quot;ъ&quot; is not used in the present-day spelling of these words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionary entries on их, им and и́ми describe the pronunciations starting with /ji/ instead of /i/ as &quot;dated or regional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little later on, Jarintzov mentions the existence of /ji/ in words like се́мьи. The Wikipedia article &quot;[Soft sign][2]&quot; also seems to say that ьи is pronounced as /ji/ in Russian. But since it is an unstressed syllable, I would guess the phonetic pronunciation is actually [jɪ], with vowel reduction causing the vowel /i/ to be less close than it would be in a stressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [Reddit discussion][3] I found, native speakers say not to pronounce /ji/ in им, but a commenter also said that some word-intial unstressed syllables might sound like they start with &quot;йи&quot; because of vowel reduction. The example was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;единорог&quot; is pronounced &quot;йидинарок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article &quot;[Russian phonology][4]&quot; says a number of things about the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed syllables. Some of them seem confusing or dubious. The parts that I think seem relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a soft consonant or /j/ precedes, both /o/ and /a/ merge with /i/ and are pronounced as [ɪ]. Example: язы́к About this sound [jɪˈzɨk] 'tongue'). /o/ is written as ⟨e⟩ in these positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of unstressed /e ~ i/ is [ɪ] after soft consonants and /j/, and word-initially (эта́п  [ɪˈtap] ('stage')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a number of exceptions to the above vowel-reduction rules:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels may not merge in foreign borrowings, particularly with unusual or recently borrowed words such as ра́дио, [ˈradʲɪ.o]  'radio'. In such words, unstressed /a/ may be pronounced as [ɐ], regardless of context; unstressed /e/ does not merge with /i/ in initial position or after vowels, so word pairs like эмигра́нт and иммигра́нт, or эмити́ровать and имити́ровать, differ in pronunciation.[citation needed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all a bit complicated, so I wanted to make sure I understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my summary of what I think I have gotten from all of this:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial stressed syllables, un-iotated /ˈi/ occurs. Iotated /ˈji/ doesn't occur at the start of any (?) word in standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial unstressed syllables, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [jɪ] (which is equated with /ji/; that is, it sounds like it is pronounced as &quot;йи&quot;) occurs at the start of words that are written with iotated vowels like я (from Wikipedia: язы́к) or е (from Reddit: единорог), except sometimes (in &quot;foreign borrowings&quot; in particular?) it seems these may be pronounced without vowel reduction as /ja/ and /je/ respectively (according to an uncited sentence in the Wikipedia article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ɪ] occurs in unstressed syllables at the start of words that are written with un-iotated front vowels, such as э (from Wikipedia: эта́п) or I assume и (as in [игле́][5], which Wiktionary says is pronounced [ɪˈɡlʲe])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In non-word-initial syllables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in unstressed syllables, /ji/ (I understand that according to the rules of vowel reduction, this would technically be pronounced [jɪ]) occurs after consonants in words written with ьи, and perhaps after vowels in words written with и or е (the existence of a j-like glide before /i/ after vowels seems dubious, or optional at best).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps /ji/ can occur in stressed syllables as well? I would appreciate some examples if so. I found a [web page][6] that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Nouns ending with -ий, -ия, -ие (not to be confused with substantivated adjectives) are written with -ии instead of -ие in Prepositional (as this ending is never stressed, there is no difference in pronunciation): тече́ние - в ни́жнем тече́нии реки́ &quot;streaming - in lower streaming of a river&quot;. But if words в течение and в продолжение are representing compound preposition meaning &quot;while, during the time of&quot;, they are written with -е: в тече́ние ча́са &quot;in a time of an hour&quot;. For nouns ending in -ья, -ье, or -ьё, using -ьи in the Prepositional (where endings of some of them are stressed) is usually erroneous, but in poetic speech it may be acceptable (as we replace -ии with -ьи for metric or rhyming purposes): *Весь день она́ лежа́ла в забыт**ьи́*** (F. Tyutchev).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which confuses me a bit. Does this mean stressed &quot;ьи́&quot; does not occur in any words in non-poetic speech, or are these remarks only applicable to words ending in ьи́?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=R9hfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR17&amp;lpg=PR17&amp;dq=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZBMq7TRxXu&amp;sig=lCuUxT40t4tB2KTmt3uw96A1PJ4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjz7NPE_uzYAhVuct8KHR-NAdI4ChDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign#Palatalization_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/20t7ii/is_%D0%B8_pronounced_ee_or_yi/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Vowel_mergers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B5#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://redfoxsanakirja.fi/en/grammar/russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15592" RevisionGUID="5b8997ff-955c-487b-9d48-80b013271978" CreationDate="2018-01-23T05:58:16.010" UserId="6539" Text="A big question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.In word-initial stressed syllables, un-iotated /ˈi/ occurs. Iotated /ˈji/ doesn't occur at the start of any (?) word in standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I think so. Some people still pronounce j in those pronouns like им,  их, ими. In my region at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial unstressed syllables,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[jɪ] (which is equated with /ji/; that is, it sounds like it is pronounced as &quot;йи&quot;) occurs at the start of words that are written with iotated vowels like я (from Wikipedia: язы́к) or е (from Reddit: единорог), except sometimes (in &quot;foreign borrowings&quot; in particular?) it seems these may be pronounced without vowel reduction as /ja/ and /je/ respectively (according to an uncited sentence in the Wikipedia article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I agree. (ежи'ха, ежеви'ка, едини'чный, ягоди'цы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.[ɪ] occurs in unstressed syllables at the start of words that are written with un-iotated front vowels, such as э (from Wikipedia: эта́п) or I assume и (as in игле́, which Wiktionary says is pronounced [ɪˈɡlʲe])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Right. But only starting with &quot;э&quot; or &quot;и&quot; (этажи', игру'шки)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.In non-word-initial syllables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in unstressed syllables, /ji/ (I understand that according to the rules of vowel reduction, this would technically be pronounced [jɪ]) occurs after written with ьи after consonants, and perhaps in words written with и or е after other vowels (the existence of a j-like glide before /i/ after vowels seems dubious, or optional at best).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Yes. Се'мьи (plural from семья'.), ола'дьи .волну'емся, игра'ем, поко' ится. But : успока'иваться &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Perhaps /ji/ can occur in stressed syllables as well? I would appreciate some examples if so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Right. Семьи'(genetive singular), ладьи', бадьи', полыньи', свои', твои', мои', воробьи', соловьи'(plural from nouns endind with &quot;й &quot;(воробей, соловей)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome to the world of Russian. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="71094f4e-47fa-4c11-b9c8-073409737c87" CreationDate="2018-01-23T06:40:00.837" UserId="7038" Comment="added 1267 characters in body" Text="(Note: I would like to learn Russian, but I have not started yet, so unfortunately I will be making this post entirely in English. I don't mind what language you use for answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the letter &quot;и&quot; does not generally represent an iotated vowel in Russian at the start of a word. It is pronounced /i/ with no glide ( unlike for example &quot;я&quot; /ja/ or &quot;ю&quot; /ju/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would guess that it is not difficult for a Russian speaker to pronounce /ji/ (sounds like &quot;йи&quot;) and to distinguish the sound of this from /i/. I would like to know if I am right about this, and if so, what are some examples of Russian words where /ji/ does occur? And does it occur at the start of any words that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my research has turned up inconsistent results that I am not sure I can trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An old book from 1916, *[The Russians and Their Language][1],* by Nadine Jarintzov, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Only the и, amongst the light vowels, makes a slight exception: there are only three words beginning with it in which it has the *y*-sound to start it with; these are the genitive, dative and ablative cases of the Russian word for 'they' = они́: ихъ[\*] (of them), имъ[\*] (to them), and и́ми (by them), *yih, yim, yimi.*  In all the rest of the Russian words beginning with an и the latter (against the nature of other light vowels) has no *y*-part in it: иго́лка (needle) *igolka,* и́ва (willow) *iva,* идти́ (to go) *idt’i;* etc. (p xvii-xviii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*note: I understand that the word-final hard sign &quot;ъ&quot; is not used in the present-day spelling of these words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionary entries on их, им and и́ми describe the pronunciations starting with /ji/ instead of /i/ as &quot;dated or regional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little later on, Jarintzov mentions the existence of /ji/ in words like се́мьи. The Wikipedia article &quot;[Soft sign][2]&quot; also seems to say that ьи is pronounced as /ji/ in Russian. But since it is an unstressed syllable, I would guess the phonetic pronunciation is actually [jɪ], with vowel reduction causing the vowel /i/ to be less close than it would be in a stressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [Reddit discussion][3] I found, native speakers say not to pronounce /ji/ in им, but a commenter also said that some word-intial unstressed syllables might sound like they start with &quot;йи&quot; because of vowel reduction. The example was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;единорог&quot; is pronounced &quot;йидинарок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article &quot;[Russian phonology][4]&quot; says a number of things about the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed syllables. Some of them seem confusing or dubious. The parts that I think seem relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a soft consonant or /j/ precedes, both /o/ and /a/ merge with /i/ and are pronounced as [ɪ]. Example: язы́к About this sound [jɪˈzɨk] 'tongue'). /o/ is written as ⟨e⟩ in these positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of unstressed /e ~ i/ is [ɪ] after soft consonants and /j/, and word-initially (эта́п  [ɪˈtap] ('stage')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a number of exceptions to the above vowel-reduction rules:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels may not merge in foreign borrowings, particularly with unusual or recently borrowed words such as ра́дио, [ˈradʲɪ.o]  'radio'. In such words, unstressed /a/ may be pronounced as [ɐ], regardless of context; unstressed /e/ does not merge with /i/ in initial position or after vowels, so word pairs like эмигра́нт and иммигра́нт, or эмити́ровать and имити́ровать, differ in pronunciation.[citation needed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all a bit complicated, so I wanted to make sure I understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my summary of what I think I have gotten from all of this:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial stressed syllables, un-iotated /ˈi/ occurs. Iotated /ˈji/ doesn't occur at the start of any (?) word in standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial unstressed syllables, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [jɪ] (which is equated with /ji/; that is, it sounds like it is pronounced as &quot;йи&quot;) occurs at the start of words that are written with iotated vowels like я (from Wikipedia: язы́к) or е (from Reddit: единорог), except sometimes (in &quot;foreign borrowings&quot; in particular?) it seems these may be pronounced without vowel reduction as /ja/ and /je/ respectively (according to an uncited sentence in the Wikipedia article). **Update.** according to a document I found, linked below, these words may in fact be heard pronounced without /j/, at least &quot;in casual speech&quot;. I don't know how common or accepted this is, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ɪ] occurs in unstressed syllables at the start of words that are written with un-iotated front vowels, such as э (from Wikipedia: эта́п) or I assume и (as in [игле́][5], which Wiktionary says is pronounced [ɪˈɡlʲe])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In non-word-initial syllables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in unstressed syllables, /ji/ (I understand that according to the rules of vowel reduction, this would technically be pronounced [jɪ]) occurs after consonants in words written with ьи, and perhaps after vowels in words written with и or е (the existence of a j-like glide before /i/ after vowels seems dubious, or optional at best).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps /ji/ can occur in stressed syllables as well? I would appreciate some examples if so. I found a [web page][6] that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Nouns ending with -ий, -ия, -ие (not to be confused with substantivated adjectives) are written with -ии instead of -ие in Prepositional (as this ending is never stressed, there is no difference in pronunciation): тече́ние - в ни́жнем тече́нии реки́ &quot;streaming - in lower streaming of a river&quot;. But if words в течение and в продолжение are representing compound preposition meaning &quot;while, during the time of&quot;, they are written with -е: в тече́ние ча́са &quot;in a time of an hour&quot;. For nouns ending in -ья, -ье, or -ьё, using -ьи in the Prepositional (where endings of some of them are stressed) is usually erroneous, but in poetic speech it may be acceptable (as we replace -ии with -ьи for metric or rhyming purposes): *Весь день она́ лежа́ла в забыт**ьи́*** (F. Tyutchev).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which confuses me a bit. Does this mean stressed &quot;ьи́&quot; does not occur in any words in non-poetic speech, or are these remarks only applicable to words ending in ьи́?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update.** I found a document, &quot;[Russian intervocalic deletion in Derivational Optimality Theory][7]&quot;, by Janina Mołczanow (2012), that says that &quot;in casual speech&quot; unstressed syllables starting with [jɪ] may even lose the glide and be pronounced with [ɪ] or after a hard consonant, [ɨ]. The examples given are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;jevropa [i] ‘Europe’ &gt; golos jevropy [s ɨ] ‘the voice of Europe’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;jelovyj [i] ‘firry’ –  &gt; v jelovom lesu [v ɨ] ‘in the fir forest’ &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ježa [i] ‘hedgehog’ – &gt; nos ježa [s ɨ] ‘hedgehog’s nose’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(p. 289)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is,  го́лос Евро́пы pronounced with &quot;сы&quot; in the middle, в ело́вом ле́су pronounced with &quot;вы&quot; at the start, and нос ежа́ pronounced with &quot;сы&quot; in the middle. Russian speakers, does that sound possible to you/are you familar with this type of pronunciation? If so, does it sound OK, or would you definitely recommend that a learner avoid it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=R9hfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR17&amp;lpg=PR17&amp;dq=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZBMq7TRxXu&amp;sig=lCuUxT40t4tB2KTmt3uw96A1PJ4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjz7NPE_uzYAhVuct8KHR-NAdI4ChDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign#Palatalization_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/20t7ii/is_%D0%B8_pronounced_ee_or_yi/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Vowel_mergers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B5#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://redfoxsanakirja.fi/en/grammar/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janina_Molczanow/publication/257978136_Russian_intervocalic_deletion_in_Derivational_Optimality_Theory/links/54dc90ef0cf25b09b9124303/Russian-intervocalic-deletion-in-Derivational-Optimality-Theory.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15591" RevisionGUID="e35f25bc-5968-414e-b6a3-da9748783595" CreationDate="2018-01-23T07:56:23.680" UserId="7038" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="(Note: I would like to learn Russian, but I have not started yet, so unfortunately I will be making this post entirely in English. I don't mind what language you use for answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the letter &quot;и&quot; does not generally represent an iotated vowel in Russian at the start of a word. It is pronounced /i/ with no glide ( unlike for example &quot;я&quot; /ja/ or &quot;ю&quot; /ju/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I would guess that it is not difficult for a Russian speaker to pronounce /ji/ (sounds like &quot;йи&quot;) and to distinguish the sound of this from /i/. I would like to know if I am right about this, and if so, what are some examples of Russian words where /ji/ does occur? And does it occur at the start of any words that you know of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, my research has turned up inconsistent results that I am not sure I can trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An old book from 1916, *[The Russians and Their Language][1],* by Nadine Jarintzov, says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Only the и, amongst the light vowels, makes a slight exception: there are only three words beginning with it in which it has the *y*-sound to start it with; these are the genitive, dative and ablative cases of the Russian word for 'they' = они́: ихъ[\*] (of them), имъ[\*] (to them), and и́ми (by them), *yih, yim, yimi.*  In all the rest of the Russian words beginning with an и the latter (against the nature of other light vowels) has no *y*-part in it: иго́лка (needle) *igolka,* и́ва (willow) *iva,* идти́ (to go) *idt’i;* etc. (p xvii-xviii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*note: I understand that the word-final hard sign &quot;ъ&quot; is not used in the present-day spelling of these words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wiktionary entries on их, им and и́ми describe the pronunciations starting with /ji/ instead of /i/ as &quot;dated or regional&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little later on, Jarintzov mentions the existence of /ji/ in words like се́мьи. The Wikipedia article &quot;[Soft sign][2]&quot; also seems to say that ьи is pronounced as /ji/ in Russian. But since it is an unstressed syllable, I would guess the phonetic pronunciation is actually [jɪ], with vowel reduction causing the vowel /i/ to be less close than it would be in a stressed syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a [Reddit discussion][3] I found, native speakers say not to pronounce /ji/ in им, but a commenter also said that some word-intial unstressed syllables might sound like they start with &quot;йи&quot; because of vowel reduction. The example was &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;единорог&quot; is pronounced &quot;йидинарок&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article &quot;[Russian phonology][4]&quot; says a number of things about the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed syllables. Some of them seem confusing or dubious. The parts that I think seem relevant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a soft consonant or /j/ precedes, both /o/ and /a/ merge with /i/ and are pronounced as [ɪ]. Example: язы́к About this sound [jɪˈzɨk] 'tongue'). /o/ is written as ⟨e⟩ in these positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pronunciation of unstressed /e ~ i/ is [ɪ] after soft consonants and /j/, and word-initially (эта́п  [ɪˈtap] ('stage')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are a number of exceptions to the above vowel-reduction rules:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels may not merge in foreign borrowings, particularly with unusual or recently borrowed words such as ра́дио, [ˈradʲɪ.o]  'radio'. In such words, unstressed /a/ may be pronounced as [ɐ], regardless of context; unstressed /e/ does not merge with /i/ in initial position or after vowels, so word pairs like эмигра́нт and иммигра́нт, or эмити́ровать and имити́ровать, differ in pronunciation.[citation needed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all a bit complicated, so I wanted to make sure I understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is my summary of what I think I have gotten from all of this:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial stressed syllables, un-iotated /ˈi/ occurs. Iotated /ˈji/ doesn't occur at the start of any (?) word in standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word-initial unstressed syllables, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [jɪ] (which is equated with /ji/; that is, it sounds like it is pronounced as &quot;йи&quot;) occurs at the start of words that are written with iotated vowels like я (from Wikipedia: язы́к) or е (from Reddit: единорог), except sometimes (in &quot;foreign borrowings&quot; in particular?) it seems these may be pronounced without vowel reduction as /ja/ and /je/ respectively (according to an uncited sentence in the Wikipedia article). **Update.** according to a document I found, linked below, these words may in fact be heard pronounced without /j/, at least &quot;in casual speech&quot;. I don't know how common or accepted this is, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ɪ] occurs in unstressed syllables at the start of words that are written with un-iotated front vowels, such as э (from Wikipedia: эта́п) or I assume и (as in [игле́][5], which Wiktionary says is pronounced [ɪˈɡlʲe])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In non-word-initial syllables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in unstressed syllables, /ji/ (I understand that according to the rules of vowel reduction, this would technically be pronounced [jɪ]) occurs after consonants in words written with ьи, and perhaps after vowels in words written with и or е (the existence of a j-like glide before /i/ after vowels seems dubious, or optional at best).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Perhaps /ji/ can occur in stressed syllables as well? I would appreciate some examples if so. I found a [web page][6] that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Nouns ending with -ий, -ия, -ие (not to be confused with substantivated adjectives) are written with -ии instead of -ие in Prepositional (as this ending is never stressed, there is no difference in pronunciation): тече́ние - в ни́жнем тече́нии реки́ &quot;streaming - in lower streaming of a river&quot;. But if words в течение and в продолжение are representing compound preposition meaning &quot;while, during the time of&quot;, they are written with -е: в тече́ние ча́са &quot;in a time of an hour&quot;. For nouns ending in -ья, -ье, or -ьё, using -ьи in the Prepositional (where endings of some of them are stressed) is usually erroneous, but in poetic speech it may be acceptable (as we replace -ии with -ьи for metric or rhyming purposes): *Весь день она́ лежа́ла в забыт**ьи́*** (F. Tyutchev).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; which confuses me a bit. Does this mean stressed &quot;ьи́&quot; does not occur in any words in non-poetic speech, or are these remarks only applicable to words ending in ьи́?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update.** I found a document, &quot;[Russian intervocalic deletion in Derivational Optimality Theory][7]&quot;, by Janina Mołczanow (2012), that says that &quot;in casual speech&quot; unstressed syllables starting with [jɪ] may even lose the glide and be pronounced with [ɪ] or after a hard consonant, [ɨ]. The examples given are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;jevropa [i] ‘Europe’ &gt; golos jevropy [s ɨ] ‘the voice of Europe’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;jelovyj [i] ‘firry’ –  &gt; v jelovom lesu [v ɨ] ‘in the fir forest’ &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;ježa [i] ‘hedgehog’ – &gt; nos ježa [s ɨ] ‘hedgehog’s nose’&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;br&gt;(p. 289)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, it says that words like Евро́па, ело́вый and ежа́ can be pronounced with the sound &quot;и&quot; (not &quot;йи&quot;) at the start, and го́лос Евро́пы can be pronounced with &quot;сы&quot; in the middle, в ело́вом ле́су can be pronounced with &quot;вы&quot; at the start, and нос ежа́ can be pronounced with &quot;сы&quot; in the middle. Russian speakers, does that sound possible to you/are you familar with this type of pronunciation? If so, does it sound OK, or would you definitely recommend that a learner avoid it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/books?id=R9hfAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PR17&amp;lpg=PR17&amp;dq=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ZBMq7TRxXu&amp;sig=lCuUxT40t4tB2KTmt3uw96A1PJ4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjz7NPE_uzYAhVuct8KHR-NAdI4ChDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=Russian%20words%20that%20start%20with%20%5Bji%5D&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign#Palatalization_sign&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/20t7ii/is_%D0%B8_pronounced_ee_or_yi/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Vowel_mergers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B5#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://redfoxsanakirja.fi/en/grammar/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janina_Molczanow/publication/257978136_Russian_intervocalic_deletion_in_Derivational_Optimality_Theory/links/54dc90ef0cf25b09b9124303/Russian-intervocalic-deletion-in-Derivational-Optimality-Theory.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15593" RevisionGUID="afb2596b-04ac-431d-ab24-92fbeb94a61f" CreationDate="2018-01-23T08:35:48.333" UserId="7674" Text="&lt;sup&gt;In response to ***sumelic***'s request i'm posting this as an answer, but without expecting any points for it.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Please be aware that from practical standpoint the only hard and fast and inviolable rule of **vowel reduction** in Russian, which must be observed to not sound odd or dialectical, is  &#xD;&#xA;**`unstressed O -&gt; A`**,   &#xD;&#xA;the rest are pretty much provisional, they only simplify pronunciation or are rather a result thereof, and certainly not a part of the school's Russian language curriculum as far as i remember.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any word all other vowels can be pronounced as they're written respecting the rules of their interaction with adjacent phonemes (e.g. ци/ши/жи).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attempt at examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; к**о**робк**о**й (`коробка` in Instrumental) = к**а**ропк**а**й BUT NOT&#xD;&#xA;к**о**ропк**о**й  &#xD;&#xA;н**е**с**е**рьёзн**о**му (`несерьёзный` in Dative) = EITHER н**и**с**и**рьйозн**а**му&#xD;&#xA;&gt; OR н**е**с**е**рьйозн**а**му&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from principles of **vowel reduction** correct pronunciation of phonemes of course needs to be grasped." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15594" RevisionGUID="564cb042-64aa-46d2-ba67-efbf3015ba95" CreationDate="2018-01-23T09:03:10.913" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Наконец-**то** я дома. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наконец я дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two phrases differ in meaning? Adding the colloquial particle &quot;то&quot; to the end of an adverb seems to reinforce its meaning, but I'm not sure if that holds true here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, for instance, the adverb &quot;endlich&quot; single-handedly carries the connotation of emotional relief (like, &quot;Ah, FINALLY!&quot;) after a long-lasting wait is over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the adverb &quot;Наконец&quot; alone not enough to impart a sense of relief to the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15594" RevisionGUID="564cb042-64aa-46d2-ba67-efbf3015ba95" CreationDate="2018-01-23T09:03:10.913" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;наконец&quot; vs &quot;наконец-то&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15594" RevisionGUID="564cb042-64aa-46d2-ba67-efbf3015ba95" CreationDate="2018-01-23T09:03:10.913" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15594" RevisionGUID="f4dea5cf-b422-41cf-9a0d-4fba22f3cd7e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T09:18:08.187" UserId="8672" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="&gt;Наконец-**то** я дома. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наконец я дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two phrases differ in meaning? Adding the colloquial particle &quot;то&quot; to the end of an adverb seems to reinforce its meaning, though perhaps at the risk of coming across as somewhat childish and uneducated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, for instance, the adverb &quot;endlich&quot; single-handedly carries the connotation of emotional relief (like, &quot;Ah, FINALLY!&quot;) after a long-lasting wait is over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the adverb &quot;Наконец&quot; alone not enough to impart a sense of relief to the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15594" RevisionGUID="669e549f-7de1-472d-9a0e-34e1f5f09e5f" CreationDate="2018-01-23T09:23:55.500" UserId="8672" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="&gt;Наконец-**то** я дома. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наконец я дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two phrases differ in meaning? Adding the colloquial particle &quot;то&quot; to the end of an adverb seems to reinforce its meaning, but at the risk of coming across as somewhat childish and uneducated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, for instance, the adverb &quot;endlich&quot; single-handedly carries the connotation of emotional relief (like, &quot;Ah, FINALLY!&quot;) after a long-lasting wait is over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the adverb &quot;Наконец&quot; alone not enough to impart a sense of relief to the sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15595" RevisionGUID="8919f1d8-509c-46a6-9efc-7969d3588f72" CreationDate="2018-01-23T09:44:27.910" UserId="7674" Text="My impression is that `наконец-то` is fit for simple sentences (not compound or complex) with just one predicate, where the fact of something having occurred **finally** is its only idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец-то я дома (simple sentence). Теперь можно расслабиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`наконец` almost implies some continuation or expansion of the statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец я дома и могу расслабиться. (two predicates)  &#xD;&#xA;Наконец я дома, и можно расслабиться. (compound sentence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15596" RevisionGUID="e8f1e67c-3c16-40d9-86d2-567e3985d2a7" CreationDate="2018-01-23T10:07:21.377" UserId="6539" Text="The meaning is absolutely the same &quot;at last&quot;, but as you mentioned (correctly ) the difference is emotional, since &quot;-то&quot;, a particle gives an additional stress to the word it is used with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наконец я дома. (I am home at last.) Наконец-то я дома.(And at last I am home)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15597" RevisionGUID="7a0565f9-700a-4bfa-8b87-11bb5682ae1f" CreationDate="2018-01-23T10:58:22.513" UserId="5443" Text="The version *with* -**то** typically relates to the current moment and also expresses the speaker's *personal* (or related to a fictional character's thoughts) satisfaction with some *long awaited* fact, with a bit of emotion. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Наконец-то** мне принесли заказанный диск!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more common version (*without* -**то**) is *less personal* and can describe a sequence of some events in the past (not only recent events), which had been *expected* but happened with some delay (or inevitably not as soon as desired).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1830 году Наталья Гончарова согласилась, **наконец**, выйти замуж за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пушкина." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15597" RevisionGUID="01dc6df3-e0f1-4807-a4e9-381ea9c7c9b3" CreationDate="2018-01-23T11:04:26.683" UserId="5443" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="The version *with* -**то** (close to '*at last*') typically relates to the current moment and also expresses the speaker's *personal* (or related to a fictional character's thoughts) satisfaction with some *long awaited* fact, with a bit of emotion. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Наконец-то** мне принесли заказанный диск!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more common version (*without* -**то**, closer to '*finally*') is *less personal* and can describe a sequence of some events in the past (not only recent events), which had been *expected* but happened with some delay (or inevitably not as soon as desired).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В 1830 году Наталья Гончарова согласилась, **наконец**, выйти замуж за&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пушкина." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15595" RevisionGUID="e145abc1-fade-4294-b4a5-79a0fae54436" CreationDate="2018-01-23T13:30:07.117" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="My impression is that `наконец-то` is fit for simple sentences (not compound or complex) with just one predicate, where the fact of something having occurred **finally** is its only idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец-то я дома.(simple sentence) Теперь можно расслабиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`наконец` almost implies some continuation or expansion of the statement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец я дома и могу расслабиться. (two predicates)  &#xD;&#xA;Наконец я дома, и можно расслабиться. (compound sentence)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15598" RevisionGUID="5507665f-d1d8-4ee5-b6f7-fe95a4f1991e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T14:59:44.627" UserId="10163" Text="I was looking at [this](http://zaokvant.ru/products/radioactive-sources)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and can't for the life of me understand what ГИИД-1 means :S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English format of this website is completely different from the Russian one and haven't been able to get anything from google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help, please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15598" RevisionGUID="5507665f-d1d8-4ee5-b6f7-fe95a4f1991e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T14:59:44.627" UserId="10163" Text="Confused about Russian nuclide abbreviation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15598" RevisionGUID="5507665f-d1d8-4ee5-b6f7-fe95a4f1991e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T14:59:44.627" UserId="10163" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15599" RevisionGUID="3aed39a9-1720-4e5b-a323-d8f4a36c461f" CreationDate="2018-01-23T15:16:24.943" UserId="3680" Text="It's just a name. And only the authors know what exactly it means. Ask them.  &#xD;&#xA;We can only guess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Г` - Гамма&#xD;&#xA;* `И` - Излучатель&#xD;&#xA;* `И` - Иридиевый&#xD;&#xA;* `Д-1` - ???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15598" RevisionGUID="8cde6e8c-80c0-4cae-9866-84e6d761a193" CreationDate="2018-01-23T15:19:03.463" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I was looking at [this](http://zaokvant.ru/products/radioactive-sources)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and can't for the life of me understand what ГИИД-1 means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English format of this website is completely different from the Russian one and haven't been able to get anything from google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone help, please? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15600" RevisionGUID="8935eb84-bfb7-4374-950d-e2eb6fcd9445" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:50:16.927" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;... либо ..., либо ... **Третьего не дано**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is an equivalent of the English expression &quot;it can only go one of two ways&quot; оr &quot;(there's) no in-between&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how to parse the phrase, though, especially the word &quot;дано&quot;. My assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Subject = impersonal, omitted, something like &quot;it&quot; or &quot;the (current) situation&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;дано&quot; = alternative form (?) of &quot;дало&quot;, which is the neuter singular past tense of the verb &quot;дать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;третьего&quot; = direct object of the transitive verb &quot;дать&quot;, and in genitive case because of the negative construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(It / The situation) didn't give/allow a third course/choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15600" RevisionGUID="8935eb84-bfb7-4374-950d-e2eb6fcd9445" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:50:16.927" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse the phrase &quot;Третьего не дано&quot;, especially &quot;дано&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15600" RevisionGUID="8935eb84-bfb7-4374-950d-e2eb6fcd9445" CreationDate="2018-01-23T19:50:16.927" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15601" RevisionGUID="f35e4476-fbd9-40dc-aa99-1759866a6f70" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:22:06.877" UserId="9001" Text="**Дано** is the third person singular passive voice form of **давать** and means &quot;[it] is not given/provided&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other assumptions are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may expand this expression to &quot;*Третьего выбора не дано*&quot; - &quot;*A third option is not provided*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15602" RevisionGUID="955a598f-0c90-4011-bd65-da19ccc8017d" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:24:41.613" UserId="8780" Text="Perhaps some nouns are used both as animate (Nom=Gen) and inanimate (Nom=Accus), depending on the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the &quot;добавить в друзья&quot; in social networks. Here the word &quot;friends&quot; is used in the sense of &quot;friend list&quot;, not of the humans themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, &quot;в гостях&quot; reflects the prepositional usage of в, while &quot;в гости&quot; reflects the accusative usage of a noun which, although derived from the word for &quot;guests&quot;, here implies a change in quality/state, rather than the embodiment of the guests themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, remember that лицо is inanimate when meaning &quot;face&quot; and animate as a formal word for &quot;person&quot;. Which implies an animate accusative plural in &quot;лиц&quot;. Like in the idiom &quot;мера на лиц...&quot;, &quot;a measure, concerning [a group of specific] people&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15603" RevisionGUID="ef42f8b8-e98b-4509-83ce-45d0b84380c6" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:29:11.473" UserId="8780" Text="This idiom roughly translates as &quot;the thing is, he/she is very busy&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a friend of mine on VK used &quot;Хлопот полный рот&quot;, whereas on gramota.ru I saw &quot;хлопот полон рот&quot;. Which one is correct, or are they both correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38935" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15603" RevisionGUID="ef42f8b8-e98b-4509-83ce-45d0b84380c6" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:29:11.473" UserId="8780" Text="Idiom: &quot;Хлопот полон рот&quot; or &quot;хлопот полный рот&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38936" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15603" RevisionGUID="ef42f8b8-e98b-4509-83ce-45d0b84380c6" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:29:11.473" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15604" RevisionGUID="cd6c4848-68fe-4ca4-bc39-59602d113785" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:56:29.183" UserId="10165" Text="**Warning: Potential Spoilers of Yevgeny Zamyatin's _We_!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My book club recently finished reading an English translation of Yevgeny Zamyatin's _We_, originally published in 1924 in Russian. We don't know any Russian (even its alphabet), but we were very curious how certain elements were expressed in the original. We'd be so grateful if someone, whether familiar with the novel or not, could describe the translation of these elements for us, the best they can. I imagine the full Russian text should be easy to find, somewhere online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Since this is a fairly involved question, I'll upvote answers to any one of the below. Thanks on behalf of all of us!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In the fourth paragraph of chapter (&quot;Record&quot;) 36, the translation reads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Only when He had stopped talking did I regain consciousness again and I saw: **the hand moved ahundredton-ly,** slowly crawling, a finger was fixing toward me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I love this invented word, _ahundredton-ly_. What was it in Russian? If also an invented word, does it sound similarly strange as the English word here? Or is there no strangeness at all in Russian, and the translator added his / her own zest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In chapter (&quot;Record&quot;) 8, the English translation repeatedly mentions the &quot;Irrational Root,&quot; _i.e._ what we in America typically call the imaginary root. My hypothesis is that either Zamyatin or the translator intentionally departed from mathematical correctness to use the word &quot;Irrational&quot; in contrast to rationality. What Russian word is used, and is it the same word used to describe the square root of -1 (imaginary)? Or the square root of 2 (irrational).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. In the English translation, the characters names appear to be consonants for men, vowels for women. How was this done in the Russian alphabet? (I'll give brief descriptions of each character to aid matching them up in the Russian text.) We especially wondered if there was any significance to the letter &quot;I&quot; and &quot;U,&quot; given the book is called &quot;We&quot;; we imagine Russian pronouns would work too differently for this to have been intended; or did Zamyatin do something entirely different yet symbolic in his original?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - **D-503**: Narrator and main character.&#xD;&#xA;    - **R-13**: D-503's friend; suggested to be black; speaks gutturally.&#xD;&#xA;    - **S-4711**: D-503's &quot;Guardian&quot;; follows him everywhere; &quot;squishy&quot; footsteps.&#xD;&#xA;    - **O-90**: D-503's original partner; often described &quot;pink&quot;; innocent and devoted to D-503.&#xD;&#xA;    - **I-330**: Leader of rebellion; disappears mysteriously; has D-503 wrapped around her finger.&#xD;&#xA;    - **U**: Older woman; takes care of children; motherly figure to D-503." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15604" RevisionGUID="cd6c4848-68fe-4ca4-bc39-59602d113785" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:56:29.183" UserId="10165" Text="How were these expressed in the original Russian of Yevgeny Zamyatin's &quot;We&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15604" RevisionGUID="cd6c4848-68fe-4ca4-bc39-59602d113785" CreationDate="2018-01-23T21:56:29.183" UserId="10165" Text="|перевод|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15605" RevisionGUID="dbdc2552-376b-4f35-8bc9-5d6255f3a980" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:12:13.700" UserId="4481" Text="I found [this document][1] searching on google by `ГИИД`. You can find detailed information on page 9 of the document. `ГИИД-1` is a device, which is used as a source of gamma rays in radiography. The device is a steel container with an isotope iridium-192 inside. There are several devices, the first is `ГИИД-1`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning of the word `ГИИД` is explained in another answer, but I suppose it would be `источник`, not `излучатель`: &quot;Гамма-источник иридиевый&quot;, &quot;1&quot; - I think, is just a number of a model. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.isotop.ru/files/treecontent/nodes/attaches/0/95/noname..pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15606" RevisionGUID="ab4924ae-f94e-485b-8e1d-a20f446bb138" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:12:21.657" UserId="3680" Text="&gt; This idiom roughly translates as &quot;the thing is, he/she is very busy&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Хлопот полон рот` is the correct one, but both are perfectly understandable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15607" RevisionGUID="0be06d40-6a52-4fac-b46b-e573b0e2970e" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:13:07.207" UserId="6097" Text="1. The used word is &quot;стопудово&quot;.  It consists of &quot;сто&quot; (hundred) and &quot;пуд&quot; (a unit of weight which is about 16 kg). It sounds strange in this context. I would understand it as &quot;very slowly and heavily&quot;.  It's hard to say how strange the word itself was meant to be by the author hundred years ago  because this word exists in modern (slang) Russian and means &quot;definitely, for sure, 100%!&quot; and it sounds normal nowadays (but as said not in this context). &#xA;&#xA;2. It's irrational as in square root of two. &#xA;&#xA;*To be continued* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15607" RevisionGUID="b2f7985c-3a1c-49c1-8ca3-521902250d3a" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:22:27.563" UserId="6097" Comment="added 148 characters in body; deleted 20 characters in body" Text="1. The used word is &quot;стопудово&quot;.  It consists of &quot;сто&quot; (hundred) and &quot;пуд&quot; (a unit of weight which is about 16 kg). It sounds strange in this context. I would understand it as &quot;very slowly and heavily&quot;.  It's hard to say how strange the word itself was meant to be by the author hundred years ago  because this word exists in modern (slang) Russian and means &quot;definitely, for sure, 100%!&quot; and it sounds normal nowadays (but as said not in this context). &#xA;&#xA;2. It's irrational as in square root of two. &#xA;&#xA;3. Latin letters are used for all characters except D-503. &quot;His&quot; letter is Д which stand for &quot;D&quot; in Russian. *I couldn't find the character &quot;U&quot;*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15608" RevisionGUID="3ad4898a-c071-43cc-9f1f-db9d7e344cec" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:23:39.200" UserId="7674" Text="1. The word used is `стопудово`, it's a adverb from a phrase `сто пудов` - `a hundred`[`puds`][1]. For the time it could have well been a neologism (as those were the days of revolutionary innovations in the language), today it's a slang word meaning `certainly`, `100%`. Generally adverbs derived from measures is a rare thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's a literal translation of [`иррациональный корень`][2]. Google gives examples of the English phrase `irrational root`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. D-503 = Д-503  &#xD;&#xA;О-90 = О-90  or just O  &#xD;&#xA;I-330 = I-330  &#xD;&#xA;R-13 = R-13  &#xD;&#xA;S-4711 = S-4711  &#xD;&#xA;U = Ю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E8%F0%F0%E0%F6%E8%EE%ED%E0%EB%FC%ED%FB%E9%20%EA%EE%F0%E5%ED%FC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E8%F0%F0%E0%F6%E8%EE%ED%E0%EB%FC%ED%FB%E9%20%EA%EE%F0%E5%ED%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15609" RevisionGUID="a3f9c722-e6f0-4325-ab35-b9945e4b9010" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:24:14.353" UserId="4481" Text="2. I think, no translation errors here. Both [irrational numbers][1] and [imaginary numbers][2] exist, in Russian it is &quot;иррациональные числа&quot; (the word &quot;иррациональный&quot; is  borrowed, it is &quot;irratsionalnyj&quot; in transliteration) and &quot;мнимые числа&quot; (the word &quot;мнимый&quot; is Russian, it means &quot;imaginary&quot;, &quot;seeming&quot;, &quot;virtual&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15607" RevisionGUID="37b56249-62d7-4900-991b-a90e1001c5d6" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:29:16.220" UserId="6097" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="1. The used word is &quot;стопудово&quot;.  It consists of &quot;сто&quot; (hundred) and &quot;пуд&quot; (a unit of weight which is about 16 kg). It sounds strange in this context. I would understand it as &quot;very slowly and heavily&quot;.  It's hard to say how strange the word itself was meant to be by the author hundred years ago  because this word exists in modern (slang) Russian and means &quot;definitely, for sure, 100%!&quot; and it sounds normal nowadays (but as said not in this context). &#xA;&#xA;2. It's irrational as in square root of two. &#xA;&#xA;3. Latin letters are used for all characters except D-503 and U.  Narrator's letter is Д which stand for &quot;D&quot; in Russian and U's letter is Ю which is pronounced exactly as English standalone &quot;U&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15608" RevisionGUID="7c87a5bb-ff71-4b62-989f-b35f9eeed567" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:30:30.553" UserId="7674" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="1. The word used is `стопудово`, it's a adverb from a phrase `сто пудов` - `a hundred`[`puds`][1]. For the time it could have well been a neologism (as those were the days of revolutionary innovations in the language), today it's a slang word meaning `certainly`, `100%`. Generally adverbs derived from measures is a rare thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's a literal translation of [`иррациональный корень`][2]. Google gives examples of the English phrase `irrational root`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. D-503 = Д-503  &#xD;&#xA;О-90 = О-90  or just O  &#xD;&#xA;I-330 = I-330  &#xD;&#xA;R-13 = R-13  &#xD;&#xA;S-4711 = S-4711  &#xD;&#xA;U = Ю (sounds the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of the plot, but the *machine-like* names hint at a possibility of its being placed somewhere in the future. Is that so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E8%F0%F0%E0%F6%E8%EE%ED%E0%EB%FC%ED%FB%E9%20%EA%EE%F0%E5%ED%FC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E8%F0%F0%E0%F6%E8%EE%ED%E0%EB%FC%ED%FB%E9%20%EA%EE%F0%E5%ED%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15608" RevisionGUID="2f3a270b-69df-4984-873b-423aed226b74" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:36:08.137" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="1. The word used is `стопудово`, it's a adverb from a phrase `сто пудов` - `a hundred`[`puds`][1]. For the time it could have well been a neologism (as those were the days of revolutionary innovations in the language), today it's a slang word meaning `certainly`, `100%`. Generally adverbs derived from measures is a rare thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's a literal translation of [`иррациональный корень`][2]. Google gives examples of the English phrase `irrational root`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. D-503 = Д-503  &#xD;&#xA;О-90 = О-90  or just O  &#xD;&#xA;I-330 = I-330  &#xD;&#xA;R-13 = R-13  &#xD;&#xA;S-4711 = S-4711  &#xD;&#xA;U = Ю (sounds the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of the plot, but the *machine-like* names hint at a possibility of its being placed somewhere in the future. Is that so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%EF%F3%E4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E8%F0%F0%E0%F6%E8%EE%ED%E0%EB%FC%ED%FB%E9%20%EA%EE%F0%E5%ED%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15601" RevisionGUID="1d62ab22-cd2f-4ca8-86ac-6d0dada1d284" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:49:22.927" UserId="9001" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="**Дано** (and also *дан*, *дана*) is the third person singular passive participle made from verb **дать** and means &quot;[it] is [not] given/provided&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Russian Wiktionary][1] Wiktionary also lists it as an &quot;unchangeable predicative&quot; with the meaning &quot;to be destined (to have natural ability) to do something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ему было не дано петь&quot; - &quot;He was not destined to sing (he was a bad singer)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other assumptions are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may expand this expression to &quot;*Третьего выбора не дано*&quot; - &quot;*A third option is not provided*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15601" RevisionGUID="95e645d9-db1e-4b92-8019-96d63bf3eec4" CreationDate="2018-01-23T22:58:27.130" UserId="9001" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Дано** (and also *дан*, *дана*) is the third person singular shortened passive participle made from verb **дать** and means &quot;[it] is [not] given/provided&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Russian Wiktionary][1] also lists it as an &quot;unchangeable predicative&quot; with the meaning &quot;to be destined (to have natural ability) to do something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ему было не дано петь&quot; - &quot;He was not destined to sing (he was a bad singer)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other assumptions are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may expand this expression to &quot;*Третьего выбора не дано*&quot; - &quot;*A third option is not provided*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15608" RevisionGUID="d170f655-d5b9-4cfc-b3f6-10b54572cee9" CreationDate="2018-01-24T08:12:06.533" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="1. The word used is `стопудово`, it's a adverb from a phrase `сто пудов` - `a hundred`[`puds`][1]. For the time it could have well been a neologism (as those were the days of revolutionary innovations in the language), today it's a slang word meaning `certainly`, `100%`. Generally adverbs derived from measures is a rare thing in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's a literal translation of [`иррациональный корень`][2]. Google gives examples of the English phrase `irrational root`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. D-503 = Д-503  &#xD;&#xA;О-90 = О-90  or just O  &#xD;&#xA;I-330 = I-330  &#xD;&#xA;R-13 = R-13  &#xD;&#xA;S-4711 = S-4711  &#xD;&#xA;U = Ю (sounds the same)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of the plot, but the *machine-like* names hint at a possibility of its being set somewhere in the future. Is that so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%EF%F3%E4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%E8%F0%F0%E0%F6%E8%EE%ED%E0%EB%FC%ED%FB%E9%20%EA%EE%F0%E5%ED%FC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15610" RevisionGUID="fe664c4e-2b34-40a3-bb8f-f6afa4d0e4a0" CreationDate="2018-01-24T08:16:41.190" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;*Полон*&quot; is the [short form][1] of &quot;*полный*&quot; and in this case they are absolutely interchangeable. However, &quot;*хлопот полон рот*&quot; is more euphonic and thus it is the preferable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://masterrussian.com/aa041601a.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15601" RevisionGUID="49a9fb4a-db55-4e77-b174-17e11cf64987" CreationDate="2018-01-24T08:48:33.487" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body; added 11 characters in body" Text="**Дано** (and also *дан*, *дана*) is the neuter singular short past tense passive participle of the verb **дать** and means &quot;[it] is [not] given/provided&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Russian Wiktionary][1] also lists it as an &quot;unchangeable predicative&quot; with the meaning &quot;to be destined (to have natural ability) to do something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ему было не дано петь&quot; - &quot;He was not destined to sing (he was a bad singer)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other assumptions are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may expand this expression to &quot;*Третьего выбора не дано*&quot; - &quot;*A third option is not provided*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15601" RevisionGUID="10f5c8f1-47fb-4b92-adeb-fd12b5a66726" CreationDate="2018-01-24T08:56:10.857" UserId="2104" Comment="added 33 characters in body; edited body" Text="**Дано** (masuline: **дан**, feminine: **дана**, plural: **даны**) is the neuter singular short passive participle of the perfective verb **дать** and means &quot;[it] is [not] given/provided&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But [Russian Wiktionary][1] also lists it as an &quot;unchangeable predicative&quot; with the meaning &quot;to be destined (to have natural ability) to do something&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ему было не дано петь&quot; - &quot;He was not destined to sing (he was a bad singer)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other assumptions are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may expand this expression to &quot;*Третьего выбора не дано*&quot; - &quot;*A third option is not provided*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12649" RevisionGUID="079bb420-c8d3-4ab5-b342-2c2445ed8579" CreationDate="2018-01-24T09:30:04.930" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="So, *&quot;Я в гостях&quot;* seems to be prepositional plural of *гость*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Я иду в гости&quot;* leaves me puzzled, though. According to conjugation tables, it is nominative plural, while *в* used to express direction requires accusative (which is *гостя* or *гостей* - *&quot;Я иду в гостя/гостей&quot;* just sounds silly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What form are we dealing with here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15611" RevisionGUID="093f9b29-125c-4226-a81b-42541d8e5d39" CreationDate="2018-01-24T09:58:11.393" UserId="2104" Text="**Дано́** means 'given'.&#xA;&#xA;**Тре́тьего не дано́** is a set phrase literally meaning 'no third (choice) is given', one has to choose either/or.&#xA;&#xA;Your parse is correct. Well done recognising the direct object in the genitive.&#xA;&#xA;**Дано́** is the passive participle of the perfective verb **дать**. It is the short neuter form. Other forms include masculine **дан**, feminine **дана́** and plural **даны**. The full form is **да́нный**, e.g.: Да́нный предме́т недоста́точно хорошо́ изу́чен. = The given subject has not been studied well enough. &#xA;&#xA;Because it is a set phrase, in the past tense is rendered as:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Тре́тьего бы́ло не дано́.&#xA;&#xA;rather than the more ordinary:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Тре́тьего не́ было дано́.&#xA;&#xA;Compare e.g. to: Тре́тьего блю́да не́ было по́дано. = 'No third course was served' which cannot be phrased as **Тре́тьего блю́да бы́ло не по́дано." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38957" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15584" RevisionGUID="c7d2cfe6-28e6-49b8-b995-acd669b7de57" CreationDate="2018-01-24T10:52:46.137" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/956117564723204097" />
  <row Id="38958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15612" RevisionGUID="67b3193d-578c-4dcd-9eea-c9d0f2923fbd" CreationDate="2018-01-24T10:53:52.540" UserId="2104" Text="3. No, there is no symbolism in I and U (Russian Ю), at least not in the sense you interpreted them: they cannot be read as Russian personal pronouns. For the record, the Russian personal pronouns are: I=я, you=ты (informal) or вы (formal), we=мы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15616" RevisionGUID="b5f54dd2-4e1c-4fe2-a3cc-ee34201f7a07" CreationDate="2018-01-24T15:40:05.853" UserId="8780" Text="I recall the name of writer Константин Паустовский being transliterated as Constantin Paustovsky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38972" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="d3f1dbb7-7884-473c-b9a0-df25d7957ce8" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:04:52.277" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|genitive-negative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38973" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15604" RevisionGUID="29a01e65-938b-440c-a93e-1df83b4e706b" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:05:38.433" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="38974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15603" RevisionGUID="61c2f49c-746c-4abc-b93a-8f5a8b38059c" CreationDate="2018-01-24T16:06:14.303" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15617" RevisionGUID="0b7cd705-57f0-4b39-85b0-13cd654be3b8" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:26:21.713" UserId="8780" Text="I was looking for a word meaning &quot;blur&quot; (as a noun) or &quot;bokeh&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the word расфокусированный means &quot;out of focus&quot;, but does &quot;расфокусировка&quot; exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15617" RevisionGUID="0b7cd705-57f0-4b39-85b0-13cd654be3b8" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:26:21.713" UserId="8780" Text="Photography vocabulary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15617" RevisionGUID="0b7cd705-57f0-4b39-85b0-13cd654be3b8" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:26:21.713" UserId="8780" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15618" RevisionGUID="1ed922ec-7871-4477-83f6-4fc74274cc98" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:52:56.270" UserId="242" Text="The simplest google search immediately proves that **such word exists**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #1. [An article][1] in Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; смещение фокуса, нарушение фокусировки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #2. A photography [tutorial][2] titled &quot;Расфокусировка — несколько приемов сделать снимок оригинальнее&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #3. A medicine [article][3] &quot;Что такое расфокусировка зрения, и как ее лечить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus about 90000 other proofs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, in future tend to perform some initial research before asking a question here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fotonotes.ru/?p=47&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://okulist.online/zabolevaniya/glaz/narusheniya-refrakcii/rasfokusirovka-zreniya.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38979" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15617" RevisionGUID="136dafd5-f393-4394-81d2-b700e83ce17c" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:53:57.720" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Does word &quot;расфокусировка&quot; exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15619" RevisionGUID="c9a66f96-5699-4268-89e7-8b5adc2e15ae" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:54:41.183" UserId="7674" Text="Yes `расфокусировка` does exist, it might be found in the dictionaries. However  it's rather a gerund in English grammar terms, that is it denotes an action and not a state. But i guess depending on a context it might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you have a host of translation options. I would prefer `мутность`, `размытость/размытие`, `туман`, `нечёткость`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that what's actually in colloquial use in Russian as a name for the effect is [`блюр`][2]. I can understand that because all above mentioned options in my opinion aren't inadequate enough. Russian fails in this department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=blur&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%80+%D1%8D%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82&amp;lr=lang_ru&amp;newwindow=1&amp;hl=en&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;tbs=lr:lang_1ru&amp;ei=cgFpWu3TCYTJwAL4-6bADQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;biw=1281&amp;bih=889" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15618" RevisionGUID="e0c91788-bb19-47d0-9477-f102e0585819" CreationDate="2018-01-24T21:58:14.993" UserId="242" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="The simplest google search immediately proves that **such word exists**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #1. [An article][1] in Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **расфокусировка** - смещение фокуса, нарушение фокусировки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #2. A photography [tutorial][2] titled &quot;Расфокусировка — несколько приемов сделать снимок оригинальнее&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #3. A medicine [article][3] &quot;Что такое расфокусировка зрения, и как ее лечить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus about 90000 other proofs. So, please, in future tend to perform some initial research before asking a question here. The more effort you put into the question, the higher is the probability you'll get quality answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to mention that, while the Russian wiki on [&quot;боке&quot;][4] indeed does not use `расфокусировка` (or just `расфокус`) to my knowledge it's quite common term in professional photographer community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fotonotes.ru/?p=47&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://okulist.online/zabolevaniya/glaz/narusheniya-refrakcii/rasfokusirovka-zreniya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15619" RevisionGUID="e3c62720-a609-4ee5-8d7c-0b169c34dcf0" CreationDate="2018-01-24T22:01:01.490" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 342 characters in body" Text="Yes `расфокусировка` does exist, it might be found in the dictionaries. However  it's rather a gerund in English grammar terms, that is it denotes an action and not a state. But i guess depending on a context it might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] you have a host of translation options. I would prefer `мутность`, `размытость/размытие`, `туман`, `нечёткость` or more accurately `эффект мутности/размытости/нечёткости`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in my opinion all above mentioned options aren't adequate enough. Russian fails in this department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=blur&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15618" RevisionGUID="a1d285df-a92e-481a-8f52-9d74758bfcd0" CreationDate="2018-01-24T22:05:57.733" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The simplest google search immediately proves that **such word exists**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #1. [An article][1] in Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **расфокусировка** - смещение фокуса, нарушение фокусировки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #2. A photography [tutorial][2] titled &quot;Расфокусировка — несколько приемов сделать снимок оригинальнее&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #3. A medicine [article][3] &quot;Что такое расфокусировка зрения, и как ее лечить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus about 90000 other proofs. So, please, in future tend to perform some initial research before asking a question here. The more effort you put into the question, the higher is the probability you'll get quality answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to mention that, while the Russian wiki on [&quot;боке&quot;][4] indeed does not use `расфокусировка` (or just **`расфокус`**) to my knowledge it's quite common term in professional photographer community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fotonotes.ru/?p=47&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://okulist.online/zabolevaniya/glaz/narusheniya-refrakcii/rasfokusirovka-zreniya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15618" RevisionGUID="7911767b-f06c-41f2-97f3-898d61ab1186" CreationDate="2018-01-24T22:15:43.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The simplest google search immediately proves that **such word exists**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #1. [An article][1] in Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **расфокусировка** - смещение фокуса, нарушение фокусировки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #2. A photography [tutorial][2] titled &quot;Расфокусировка — несколько приемов сделать снимок оригинальнее&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proof #3. A medicine [article][3] &quot;Что такое расфокусировка зрения, и как ее лечить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus about 90000 other proofs. So, please, in future tend to perform some initial research before asking a question here. The more effort you put into the question, the higher is the probability you'll get quality answers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I want to mention that, while the Russian wiki on [&quot;боке&quot;][4] indeed does not use `расфокусировка` (or just **`расфокус`**) to my knowledge it's quite common term in professional photographers community. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fotonotes.ru/?p=47&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://okulist.online/zabolevaniya/glaz/narusheniya-refrakcii/rasfokusirovka-zreniya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38986" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15575" RevisionGUID="f639a38f-24c0-4608-b1cf-3257efa6d249" CreationDate="2018-01-24T22:52:46.130" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/956298758307840000" />
  <row Id="38987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15620" RevisionGUID="b59623f4-9751-42a8-81c1-a4ac0d17802b" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:21:48.573" UserId="8780" Text="As far as I know, &quot;married&quot; (man) is **женатый** (short form **женат**) and &quot;married&quot; (woman) is **замужняя** (short form **замужем**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, the verb &quot;to marry&quot; with a man as the subject is **жениться/пожениться** and with a woman as the subject, it becomes **выходить замуж/выйти замуж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, is there a generic word for both genders? How can I say &quot;they got married&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard of **&quot;Они поженились&quot;**, but I'm not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15620" RevisionGUID="b59623f4-9751-42a8-81c1-a4ac0d17802b" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:21:48.573" UserId="8780" Text="Marriage vocabulary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15620" RevisionGUID="b59623f4-9751-42a8-81c1-a4ac0d17802b" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:21:48.573" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15621" RevisionGUID="bd57fa93-f0ed-4745-b2e8-9b3d8101352c" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:25:02.293" UserId="242" Text="Well, there's official and very pompous &quot;сочетаться браком&quot; or even &quot;сочетаться узами брака&quot; but no one sane will use it in casual speech. &quot;Пожениться&quot; is indeed the form that can be used in general. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15621" RevisionGUID="ebee0759-e0ca-421d-a237-e67e8fac7f33" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:33:01.057" UserId="242" Comment="added 303 characters in body" Text="Well, there's official and very pompous &quot;сочетаться браком&quot; or even &quot;сочетаться узами брака&quot; but no one sane will use it in casual speech. &quot;Пожениться&quot; is indeed the form that can be used in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words worth to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  `расписаться` ([here][1] - зарегистрировать в официальном учреждении свой брак с кем-либо )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  `бракосочетаться` (almost as bad as &quot;сочетаться браком&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   `обвенчаться` - strictly speaking, it's [only about a marriage][2] committed in church but in real-life usage it's quite often about any official marriage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38992" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15620" RevisionGUID="87823d23-36ac-4b0b-bf14-e3c9a56cb0e6" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:54:10.760" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Gender-neutral synonym for &quot;поженились&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15620" RevisionGUID="87823d23-36ac-4b0b-bf14-e3c9a56cb0e6" CreationDate="2018-01-25T00:54:10.760" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15622" RevisionGUID="7f4c6aa8-3c8b-451a-906a-fedbf64223fe" CreationDate="2018-01-25T01:54:37.357" UserId="9118" Text="When speaking about a married couple as a whole (in plural) &quot;они поженились&quot;, or even &quot;они женаты&quot; can be used, even though, strictly speaking, only the man &quot;поженился/женат&quot;, the woman &quot;вышла замуж/замужем&quot;. Can't think of any common singular synonym that can be used for both sexes. In more official language, you could say &quot;состоит в браке&quot; or &quot;вступил[а] в брак&quot;, &quot;заключил[а] брак&quot; (although the inflection still spoils the gender neutrality somewhat)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15623" RevisionGUID="b4a3201b-264f-40b5-8ecf-06192e0ea6ce" CreationDate="2018-01-25T05:10:45.790" UserId="5443" Text="**Расфокусировка** (объектива) is a *widely* used term in optics. It refers to a *position* of lens components, corresponding to blurred image, relatively to the focused position giving the most sharp image. The term can also describe any *motion* in lens components *towards unfocused state* of the lens as does the verb **расфокусирование** which describes *just action*. By extension, the term is often applied to blurred images *resulting* from unfocused state of the lens (*расфокусированность* или расфокусировка *изображения*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15624" RevisionGUID="a5cc4220-e761-47f3-8caf-fccadf84e5ec" CreationDate="2018-01-25T06:00:34.357" UserId="8672" Text="In English, you can say &quot;leave someone out of the loop&quot; to mean &quot;leave them out of the discussion&quot;; for instance, three people are talking among themselves, and you feel sort of alienated, not being part of the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**исключить** кого-то **из обсуждения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: я **исключён из обсуждения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this phrasing is rather straightforward. I wonder if there is another idiomatic expression  used colloquially and figuratively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15624" RevisionGUID="a5cc4220-e761-47f3-8caf-fccadf84e5ec" CreationDate="2018-01-25T06:00:34.357" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of the colloquial figurative expression &quot;get left out of the loop&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15624" RevisionGUID="a5cc4220-e761-47f3-8caf-fccadf84e5ec" CreationDate="2018-01-25T06:00:34.357" UserId="8672" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15624" RevisionGUID="a5d68ea9-b3c4-47b7-a0e0-8e4e2c4f755e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T06:06:59.043" UserId="8672" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="In English, you can say &quot;leave someone out of the loop&quot; to mean &quot;leave them out of the discussion&quot;; for instance, three people are talking among themselves, and you feel sort of alienated, not being part of the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**исключить** кого-то **из обсуждения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: я **исключён из обсуждения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this phrasing is rather straightforward. I wonder if there is another idiomatic expression  used colloquially and figuratively/metaphorically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15625" RevisionGUID="d0ec1a4a-d084-4cc1-b6d2-efd40e001b51" CreationDate="2018-01-25T08:24:39.357" UserId="8895" Text="A widely used contemporary colloquial expression is &quot;**отправлять в игнор**&quot;, as in &quot;Меня отправили в игнор&quot; - however, note that this is used almost solely by teens and younger people among themselves, and would be completely inappropriate otherwise. Note that &quot;игнор&quot; here is directly borrowed from the English &quot;ignore&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, I doubt that there is a stable counterpart for '**leaving** someone out of the loop', although there is one for '**getting (staying)** out of the loop': &quot;**оказываться (быть) не в теме/не в курсе дела**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The guys were eagerly discussing something, but I found myself completely out of the loop*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ребята что-то оживленно обсуждали, но я оказался совершенно не в теме*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15626" RevisionGUID="184ee753-a3fa-44be-b478-9c6d7f814df8" CreationDate="2018-01-25T08:45:39.700" UserId="5443" Text="I can't think of a universal compact expression for embedding into any context. However, that sense can be expressed indirectly where necessary, e. g. :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они обсуждали это так, будто меня (его, никого) рядом не было. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *не подумали привлечь к обсуждению* меня или кого-то ещё из присутствовавших.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они обсуждали эту тему, *не считаясь с моим присутствием* (полностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меня игнорируя).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они говорили об этом так, будто  меня это не касалось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39003" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15525" RevisionGUID="6733d3d0-3f98-4471-a39d-709c2260957e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T10:52:48.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/956479960612593665" />
  <row Id="39005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15628" RevisionGUID="c712ac9a-4e7c-4f2d-89e8-04eb6ab6ff1e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T13:11:15.597" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;отрицать **очевидное** =  *deny **the obvious***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, for instance, an adjective can perform the function of a noun by taking the form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;definitite article + adjective in neutral gender (with a capitalised first letter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does it generally work in Russian? Is it enough to use the neutral singular form of an adjective without capitalising its first letter or adding some particle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15628" RevisionGUID="c712ac9a-4e7c-4f2d-89e8-04eb6ab6ff1e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T13:11:15.597" UserId="8672" Text="How does adjectival nominalisation work in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15628" RevisionGUID="c712ac9a-4e7c-4f2d-89e8-04eb6ab6ff1e" CreationDate="2018-01-25T13:11:15.597" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15629" RevisionGUID="f7f0662c-9922-4ab8-89aa-5dd2db881b80" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:00:04.543" UserId="134" Text="In modern Russian, you just put the adjective in full neuter singular, as in your example. No capitalization or anything needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Никто не обнимет необъятного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Мы за всё хорошее, против всего плохого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Былое и думы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic and Old Russian, you had to put the adjective in neuter plural. Russian has a number of words like *вселенная, преисподняя, святая святых* etc. which are formed according to this paradigm, but it is not productive anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15554" RevisionGUID="b1f94323-8773-4437-bf93-cb66f6d98310" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:04:56.650" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**`Как хорошо!`** is an impersonal (subjectless) sentence and the role of `хорошо` is indeed adverbial, it answers the question `how?` and not `which?`. But predicates in these sentences do assume neuter gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На улице `темно` - **It**'s dark outside  &#xD;&#xA;Было `интересно` - **It** was interesting  &#xD;&#xA;Вчера `похолодало` - **It** got colder yesterday  &#xD;&#xA;Проводить время одному `скучно` - **It**'s boring to spend time alone  &#xD;&#xA;Крышу `сорвало` ветром - The roof got torn off with the wind  &#xD;&#xA;Ему `стало` легче - He got/felt better" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15620" RevisionGUID="5f526171-2faa-41d2-ac74-6e215ef3e150" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:10:46.883" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|marital|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13121" RevisionGUID="e8a56011-dbc3-4d62-91c9-c183789e5a43" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:14:47.350" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|синонимы|marital|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15629" RevisionGUID="b5c62d3d-8f95-4c86-8c5e-cea1c30149b4" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:49:55.700" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="In modern Russian, you just put the adjective in full neuter singular, as in your example. No capitalization or anything needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Никто не обнимет необъятного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Мы за всё хорошее, против всего плохого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Былое и думы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Church Slavonic and Old Russian, you had to put the adjective in neuter plural. Russian has a number of words like *преисподняя; святая святых; прочая, прочая, прочая* etc. which are formed according to this paradigm, but it is not productive anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15630" RevisionGUID="50f82620-58f8-4d60-bd05-03ac9d6d4502" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:02:22.647" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;С памятью у тебя **стало** хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this translates literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It (omitted, impersonal subject) has become worse with the memory of yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the noun &quot;память&quot; cannot be the subject instead with the meaning of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Your memory has got worse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15630" RevisionGUID="50f82620-58f8-4d60-bd05-03ac9d6d4502" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:02:22.647" UserId="8672" Text="Why does the verb &quot;стать&quot; need an omitted, impersonal subject here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15630" RevisionGUID="50f82620-58f8-4d60-bd05-03ac9d6d4502" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:02:22.647" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15631" RevisionGUID="992c1221-fc0b-4891-80b7-fcab81a2f87d" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:28:14.673" UserId="10169" Text="The none &quot;память&quot; can be a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Память у тебя стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other variants below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is &quot;У тебя с памятью стало хуже&quot;, but onebody wants to accent &quot;память&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то с памятью у тебя стало хуже." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15632" RevisionGUID="956a3af5-a419-47a7-9f78-5785a7801f59" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:28:25.710" UserId="5510" Text="You can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Твоя память стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the meaning will be quite the same but the word &quot;память&quot; will be the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15633" RevisionGUID="689e2d71-22b8-4666-8c2c-802e45f48f3b" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:32:26.697" UserId="134" Text="&gt; I wonder why the noun &quot;память&quot; cannot be the subject instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, it can. *Твоя память стала хуже* is a perfectly grammatical, albeit just a little bit peculiar way to put this in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, all languages work differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian we say *идёт дождь* (literally, &quot;the rain goes&quot;) while in English (and lots of other languages) &quot;to rain&quot; is an avalent verb (a verb without object or subject). Russian simply does not have a single verb which would directly correspond to &quot;to rain&quot;, and Russian speaking people get along just fine without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same vein Russians say &quot;there is something at me&quot; when English speaking people would just say &quot;I have&quot;. There is a construct for &quot;I have&quot; in Russian, however its use is quite limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some languages &quot;to sneeze&quot; and &quot;to cough&quot; are transitive verbs (you don't sneeze or cough, instead it sneezes or coughs you); in others you can't just &quot;eat&quot; or &quot;drink&quot;, you have to eat or drink something, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just how those languages work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15631" RevisionGUID="665631e9-f845-4174-9a37-493d2c923e52" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:34:21.073" UserId="10169" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The none &quot;память&quot; can be a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Память у тебя стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Твоя память стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It expresses a fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Other variants below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is &quot;У тебя с памятью стало хуже&quot;, but onebody wants to accent &quot;память&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то с памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accents unpleasant surprise, discontent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15631" RevisionGUID="139fcb2b-ae5d-47b3-a0ee-dd4d9b3fdafa" CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:01:08.493" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="The noun &quot;память&quot; can be a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Память у тебя стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Твоя память стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It expresses a fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Other variants below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same is &quot;У тебя с памятью стало хуже&quot;, but somebody wants to accent &quot;память&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то с памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accents unpleasant surprise, discontent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39021" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15630" RevisionGUID="d554df82-5ea6-4f01-b779-81e1e6873501" CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:02:01.253" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15631" RevisionGUID="08a6fb83-f75a-4bfb-b8b9-150527a31242" CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:46:18.253" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="The noun &quot;память&quot; can be a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Память у тебя стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Твоя память стала хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It expresses a fact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Other variants below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same as &quot;У тебя с памятью стало хуже&quot;, but somebody wants to accent &quot;память&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что-то с памятью у тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accents unpleasant surprise, discontent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15634" RevisionGUID="5dc0d1bc-5cb3-4dba-b93d-0ed17bf0cd33" CreationDate="2018-01-26T07:59:54.620" UserId="4560" Text="**Стать** isn't really important here. This is just one particular modality of a catch-all Russian construction that talks about &quot;trouble with&quot; something or other. Which has two fairly self-contained elements, a predicate specifying how bad the trouble is (here, **стало хуже**), and the &quot;**c** + *noun*&quot; part where the noun identifies the *source* of the trouble — in this case, **память**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;how bad&quot; part is very, very flexible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В городе **неблагополучно с преступностью.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да у него **с головой плохо**. *[~&quot;That one's crazy in the head&quot;.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С котами была сплошная беда.** *[~&quot;The cats were no end of trouble.&quot;]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a form of **быть** appears in the last example — well, really, it's been there all along, just not apparently because of present-tense copula dropping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm trying to say here is, it's essentially just an accident that you can also say **память у тебя стала хуже**. Because you definitely can't say `*в городе неблагополучна преступность` or `*у него плохая голова`. It's just that in your example, there are two elaborations on the basic construction: the comparative **хуже** and the modality introduced by using **стать** instead of **быть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly there's a very small difference between saying &quot;your memory's gotten worse&quot; and &quot;this memory thing of yours has gotten worse&quot;, but that difference is there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15634" RevisionGUID="b0de9d54-b9d9-4a9a-93e4-23b01472d562" CreationDate="2018-01-26T08:10:51.303" UserId="4560" Comment="added 268 characters in body" Text="**Стать** isn't really important here. This is just one particular modality of a catch-all Russian construction that talks about &quot;trouble with&quot; something or other. Which has two fairly self-contained elements, a predicate specifying how bad the trouble is (here, **стало хуже**), and the &quot;**c** + *noun*&quot; part where the noun identifies the *source* of the trouble — in this case, **память**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;how bad&quot; part is very, very flexible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E. g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В городе **неблагополучно с преступностью.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да у него **с головой плохо**. *[~&quot;That one's crazy in the head&quot;.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С котами была сплошная беда.** *[~&quot;The cats were no end of trouble.&quot;]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a form of **быть** appears in the last example — well, really, it's been there all along, just not apparently because of present-tense copula dropping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm trying to say here is, it's essentially just an accident that you can also say **память у тебя стала хуже**. Because you definitely can't say `*в городе неблагополучна преступность` or `*у него плохая голова`. It's just that in your example, there are two elaborations on the basic construction: the comparative **хуже** and the modality introduced by using **стать** instead of **быть**. Which, understandably, makes you wonder why go through all the trouble of making it impersonal and oblique when you could just make it a plain subject+verb. Whereas in fact this is a syntactic set piece where the impersonality and obliqueness are there to begin with. And it doesn't always convert this easily into subject+verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admittedly there's a very small difference between saying &quot;your memory's gotten worse&quot; and &quot;this memory thing of yours has gotten worse&quot;, but that difference is there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15635" RevisionGUID="c1abbf9e-0089-4a02-9937-a99a23d49f73" CreationDate="2018-01-26T08:37:27.103" UserId="4560" Text="**Хлопот полон рот** is idiomatic; **хлопот полный рот** is — well, like saying &quot;shiver my timbers&quot; instead of the more iconic &quot;shiver *me* timbers&quot;. **Полон** is a bit of a relic here, from a time when short adjectives were more generally &quot;indefinite&quot;, something like the Germanic weak adjective, instead of the more narrow predicative function (&quot;is full&quot;) that they have today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="d64bfdc3-f5cf-4799-a44e-e509a1f5eafe" CreationDate="2018-01-26T14:23:51.807" UserId="4753" Comment="changed &quot;lectors&quot; to &quot;newsreaders&quot; since in English &quot;lector&quot; has academic or ecclesiastical connotations" Text="## Television &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [LiveTV][1], online streaming of sporting events&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [1tv.ru][2] News in Russian, the newsreaders speak very good Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://livetv.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://1tv.ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="78ac34dd-6b02-4792-b758-9a8544623164" CreationDate="2018-01-26T14:32:34.273" UserId="4753" Comment="added ReadyRussian.org (a non-commercial site of which I am the webmaster)" Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][5] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][6] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][7] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][8] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][9].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][10] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][11] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fluent in Russian][12] - free audio lessons in the form of questions and answers for developing speaking and listening skills, as well as grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][13] - Russian language self study guide for beginners.&#xD;&#xA; - [ReadyRussian.org][14] - 16-week course for classroom use, includes exercises, quizzes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.memrise.com/courses/english/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://speakfluentrussian.com&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.readyrussian.org/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15636" RevisionGUID="4ea25282-c147-40df-a9d5-f74d6c4fe994" CreationDate="2018-01-26T14:57:37.830" UserId="10169" Text="Quite usable phrases, close to &quot;leave someone out of the loop&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Исключить из круга общения.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Выгнать из нашего круга.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Исключить из общего круга.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Исключить из узкого круга [избранных].**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15637" RevisionGUID="d36098df-85f9-4b0b-8d3e-99a41a508164" CreationDate="2018-01-26T21:10:38.307" UserId="9459" Text="Now, to `bokeh`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would describe it as `размытие фона` or `фон не в фокусе`. Russian Wikipedia [thinks](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5) a direct borrowing exists, `боке`. This is in my opinion even more professional jargon than `расфокусировка`. (The latter, as I think was already mentioned, is a state of the optics rather then property of the image.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more formal term around bokeh is `глубина резко изображаемого пространства` (depth of field), but it describes _everything_ on the object in and out of focus. A more formal/professional description of bokeh would then be something like `малая ГРИП с нерезким фоном`, loosely corresponding to `shallow depth of field`, which results in bokeh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="253abc6a-26da-465a-b11a-ad51e2c9ec04" CreationDate="2018-01-27T01:07:02.487" UserId="8780" Text="I know that there is a remnant of the vocative case in Russian (concerning mainly religious words), which is not often mentioned in textbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I know the religious vocatives &quot;Боже!&quot;, &quot;Иисусе!&quot;. Among casual names, I know &quot;Кать!&quot; and &quot;Сашь!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other names with a vocative ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="253abc6a-26da-465a-b11a-ad51e2c9ec04" CreationDate="2018-01-27T01:07:02.487" UserId="8780" Text="Usage of Vocative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="253abc6a-26da-465a-b11a-ad51e2c9ec04" CreationDate="2018-01-27T01:07:02.487" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15639" RevisionGUID="9014ff10-0f88-42eb-8299-df8eeefc2f30" CreationDate="2018-01-27T05:21:28.953" UserId="4560" Text="**Кать!** and **Саш!** (sic, no soft mark) are the so-called new vocative, which is has no relation to the original Slavic one. And, outside of names, you also have it in **мам!**, **пап!**, **дядь!**, and **тёть!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Господи** is an old vocative. **Старче** (from **старец**) is an old vocative that's barely ever used, but widely known thanks to Pushkin's Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39035" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="e5845eb6-5c0a-4e83-a898-00760f0ded93" CreationDate="2018-01-27T11:21:07.683" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Examples o nouns in vocative case in usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="5305bd3e-4e64-40aa-8637-2b1150cd8633" CreationDate="2018-01-27T11:26:31.330" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I know that there is a remnant of the vocative case in Russian (concerning mainly religious words), which is not often mentioned in textbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I know the religious vocatives &quot;Боже!&quot;, &quot;Иисусе!&quot;. Among casual names, I know &quot;Кать!&quot; and &quot;Саш!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other names with a vocative ending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15640" RevisionGUID="e6d14d6b-be4e-49e8-8dc1-694f4f96fe61" CreationDate="2018-01-27T11:32:14.547" UserId="2079" Text="As for old vocatives, there are also `Иисусе` (more often `господи Иисусе`) and `врачу, исцелися сам` are used.  As for the the last idiom, many Russians don't understand that `врачу` is an old vocative, instead interpreting it as a dative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the new vocatives, they are created from virtually any name which ends by -a or -я (Саш, Дим, Зин, Вась, Петь, Тань, Насть...), and also there are пап, мам, баб, тёть, дядь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="9691841f-6523-49a7-bd3d-398b2a1f7235" CreationDate="2018-01-27T11:52:15.890" UserId="7674" Text="From slang there's the fringe **`чуви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братиш`**, **`братюнь`** (from `братишка` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="2fdd7443-2f98-4c7b-866f-0dce253879b7" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:01:12.283" UserId="7674" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чуви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братиш`**, **`братюнь`** (from `братишка` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the new vocative can be derived for virtually all personal names in all their incarnations ending with a vowel: `Андрюш &lt;- Андрюша, Серёж &lt;- Серёжа, Свет &lt;- Света, Наташ &lt;- Наташа, Слав &lt;- Слава`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15642" RevisionGUID="e8c7a26b-194e-414c-b629-40b5e677f6ff" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:19:34.333" UserId="10177" Text="Just to add, &quot;женитьба&quot; is a noun formed from the verb &quot;жениться&quot;, which comes from the word &quot;жена=wife&quot;and literally translates as something like &quot;to get wifed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Замужество&quot; is formed from the phrase &quot;выходить замуж&quot;, literally translates as &quot;to go after/behind a husband&quot;, &quot;муж&quot; being &quot;husband&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="6d83a16a-b186-4ee0-9bda-f386dd86847a" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:24:20.817" UserId="7674" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чуви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братиш`**, **`братюнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Парниш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for personal names the new vocative can be derived from virtually all their incarnations ending with **`-А`**: `Андрюш &lt;- Андрюша, Серёж &lt;- Серёжа, Свет &lt;- Света, Наташ &lt;- Наташа, Слав &lt;- Слава, Валь &lt;- Валя, Валюш &lt;- Валюша, Сём &lt;- Сёма, Ян &lt;- Яна` and so on and so forth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39042" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="b9946a39-f0a5-4c9e-a45d-38670d6110da" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:25:10.130" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|звательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39043" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="f9ce0d12-a028-4ed3-826f-bae76e2ff549" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:25:36.033" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|склонение|окончания|звательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39044" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15638" RevisionGUID="b9946a39-f0a5-4c9e-a45d-38670d6110da" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:25:10.130" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="Examples of nouns in vocative case in usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="386bd4ea-5afc-41c2-930c-55469c68eed4" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:30:35.643" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 280 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чуви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братиш`**, **`братюнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Парниш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15643" RevisionGUID="cf2b4824-013b-4597-91cd-75d0be4e85d4" CreationDate="2018-01-27T12:41:54.443" UserId="242" Text="I believe that @Nikolay-Ershov's answer should be accepted, since it the first one, it's succinct, it's complete and it's correct. I just wanted to mention a couple of other examples, so, there's a word `владыко` which is vocative of &quot;[владыка][1]&quot;. It's used to address higher ranks church officials, so domain of usage is pretty tiny. In fact, in Russian is extinct to that level that de-facto &quot;владыко&quot; is treated quite often as a word of it's own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happened with, for example, `человече`, which used to be vocative for `человек`. Sometimes (again, very rarely) [it's used][2] to make speech sound archaic, most likely in ironical way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Все, что вдохновляет господ поэтов, было  рассыпано  вокруг него&#xD;&#xA;&gt; щедрою рукою в огромном количестве и, казалось, говорило и  пело: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;На, бери, человече! Наслаждайся, пока еще не явилась осень!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the author (Anton Pavlovich Chekhov actually) uses `человече` correctly, as a vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [here][3] modern author is using (just to sound a bit more pathetic) it incorrectly, as a nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Когда звучит это фраза на всех языках мира, становится ясно -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; человече её изрек после тяжелого испытания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other form worth to mention is `друже` (from `друг`), like in phrase &quot;И как же нам, друже, Совесть заставить улечься?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, one thing you should know about any old-form vocative usage in Russian - all such words are rare and extremely bookish. No even everyone will recognize what you are saying if you'll actually use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/LITRA/CHEHOW/apples.txt&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://world.lib.ru/s/slepuhin_a_w/sav-ural-extrime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="0a86caf4-78ee-4424-b13f-c0a3bd712652" CreationDate="2018-01-27T14:14:15.547" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чуви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братиш`**, **`братюнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Парниш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Девуль`** (from `девуля` - `girl/gal`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="bcfe4c26-5bad-4e51-b264-3c2214495998" CreationDate="2018-01-27T14:19:49.630" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чуви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братиш`**, **`братюнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Парниш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Девуль`** (from `девуля` - `girl/gal`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dialectical new vocative for personal names can even have double consonant final as was famously exemplified in the classic Soviet comedy &quot;Love and doves&quot; (Любовь и голуби)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[`Людк, а Людк?`][1]** (from `Людка`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-B4zBPrAQQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15643" RevisionGUID="84f85828-5c33-4b30-9e5f-440c7fac8afc" CreationDate="2018-01-27T15:15:02.770" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="I believe that one of answers already given should be accepted, since all of them are succinct, complete and correct. Still, I want to mention a couple of other examples, so, there's a word `владыко` which is vocative of &quot;[владыка][1]&quot;. It's used to address higher ranks church officials, so domain of usage is pretty tiny. In fact, in Russian is extinct to that level that de-facto &quot;владыко&quot; is treated quite often as a word of it's own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happened with, for example, `человече`, which used to be vocative for `человек`. Sometimes (again, very rarely) [it's used][2] to make speech sound archaic, most likely in ironical way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Все, что вдохновляет господ поэтов, было  рассыпано  вокруг него&#xD;&#xA;&gt; щедрою рукою в огромном количестве и, казалось, говорило и  пело: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;На, бери, человече! Наслаждайся, пока еще не явилась осень!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the author (Anton Pavlovich Chekhov actually) uses `человече` correctly, as a vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [here][3] modern author is using (just to sound a bit more pathetic) it incorrectly, as a nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Когда звучит это фраза на всех языках мира, становится ясно -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; человече её изрек после тяжелого испытания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other form worth to mention is `друже` (from `друг`), like in phrase &quot;И как же нам, друже, Совесть заставить улечься?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, one thing you should know about any old-form vocative usage in Russian - all such words are rare and extremely bookish. No even everyone will recognize what you are saying if you'll actually use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/LITRA/CHEHOW/apples.txt&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://world.lib.ru/s/slepuhin_a_w/sav-ural-extrime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="633f1426-2d9d-4dbd-b064-fb1269d8d7fb" CreationDate="2018-01-27T15:16:05.407" UserId="7674" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чУви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братИш`**, **`братЮнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`ПарнИш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`ДевУль`** (from `девуля` - `girl/gal`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`СынУль`** (from `сынуля` - `sonny`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;formed by the pattern of the &quot;new vocative&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exclusively for `сын` and `дочь` there're in use such vocative forms as **`сЫна`** and **`дОча`**, whose paradigm is opposite to the *new vocative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dialectical *new vocative* for personal names can even have double consonant final as was famously exemplified in the classic Soviet comedy &quot;Love and doves&quot; (Любовь и голуби)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[`Людк, а Людк?`][1]** (from `Людка`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-B4zBPrAQQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15643" RevisionGUID="f73597b0-43e7-41d4-83c1-395fbd150fea" CreationDate="2018-01-27T17:05:42.373" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I believe that one of answers already given should be accepted, since all of them are succinct, complete and correct. Still, I want to mention a couple of other examples, so, there's a word `владыко` which is vocative of &quot;[владыка][1]&quot;. It's used to address higher ranks church officials, so domain of usage is pretty tiny. In fact, in Russian is extinct to that level that de-facto &quot;владыко&quot; is treated quite often as a word of it's own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same happened with, for example, `человече`, which used to be vocative for `человек`. Sometimes (again, very rarely) [it's used][2] to make speech sound archaic, most likely in ironical way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Все, что вдохновляет господ поэтов, было  рассыпано  вокруг него&#xD;&#xA;&gt; щедрою рукою в огромном количестве и, казалось, говорило и  пело: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;На, бери, человече! Наслаждайся, пока еще не явилась осень!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the author (Anton Pavlovich Chekhov actually) uses `человече` correctly, as a vocative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [here][3] modern author is using (just to sound a bit more pathetic) it incorrectly, as a nominative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Когда звучит это фраза на всех языках мира, становится ясно -&#xD;&#xA;&gt; человече её изрек после тяжелого испытания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other form worth to mention is `друже` (from `друг`), like in phrase &quot;И как же нам, друже, Совесть заставить улечься?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, one thing you should know about any old-form vocative usage in Russian - all such words are rare and extremely bookish. Not even everyone will recognize what you are saying if you'll actually use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/LITRA/CHEHOW/apples.txt&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://world.lib.ru/s/slepuhin_a_w/sav-ural-extrime.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="5cfd72ca-5cf0-455c-88d7-c7b21372109d" CreationDate="2018-01-27T19:31:31.427" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чУви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братИш`**, **`братЮнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`ПарнИш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`ДевУль`** (from `девуля` - `girl/gal`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`СынУль`** (from `сынуля` - `sonny`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all formed by the pattern of the *new vocative*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exclusively for `сын` and `дочь` there're in use such vocative forms as **`сЫна`** and **`дОча`**, whose paradigm is opposite to the *new vocative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dialectical *new vocative* for personal names can even have double consonant final as was famously exemplified in the classic Soviet comedy &quot;Love and doves&quot; (Любовь и голуби)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[`Людк, а Людк?`][1]** (from `Людка`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-B4zBPrAQQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15641" RevisionGUID="aae0db4b-6acd-4612-b183-476bd3b6e664" CreationDate="2018-01-27T20:46:30.250" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Not exactly names&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From slang there's the fringe **`чУви`** (from `чувак` - `dude`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then **`братИш`**, **`братЮнь`** (from `братиш(к)а` and `братюня` respectively - `bro/bruh`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`ПарнИш`** (from `парниша` - `bloke/lad`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`ДевУль`** (from `девуля` - `girl/gal`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`СынУль`** (from `сынуля` - `sonny`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;all formed by the pattern of the *new vocative*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exclusively for `сын` and `дочь` there're in use such vocative forms as **`сЫна`** and **`дОча`**, whose paradigm is opposite to the *new vocative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dialectical *new vocative* for personal names can even have double consonant final as was famously showcased in the classic Soviet comedy movie &quot;Love and doves&quot; (Любовь и голуби)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[`Людк, а Людк?`][1]** (from `Людка`)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-B4zBPrAQQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39054" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15630" RevisionGUID="0b67ad30-e122-4930-bbed-78b741ed2c81" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:59:55.517" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/957433021895991296" />
  <row Id="39055" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15603" RevisionGUID="95042692-c923-49c9-9092-c755d7180257" CreationDate="2018-01-28T04:59:55.587" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/957478320454668288" />
  <row Id="39056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15628" RevisionGUID="6b3ada67-286c-4cf8-b470-82804ec827e1" CreationDate="2018-01-28T08:53:49.347" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15644" RevisionGUID="736d73c7-7a67-4668-b403-c3e45299beab" CreationDate="2018-01-28T10:02:57.790" UserId="170" Text="In what cases should I say &quot;не обязательно&quot; and in what case should I say &quot;необязательно&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it correct here?:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Не стоит подменять понятие &quot;защищать отечество&quot; понятием &quot;защищать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интересы отечества&quot;. Второе вовсе **не обязательно** оправдывает потери&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жизней&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15644" RevisionGUID="736d73c7-7a67-4668-b403-c3e45299beab" CreationDate="2018-01-28T10:02:57.790" UserId="170" Text="&quot;не обязательно&quot; versus &quot;необязательно&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15644" RevisionGUID="736d73c7-7a67-4668-b403-c3e45299beab" CreationDate="2018-01-28T10:02:57.790" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15645" RevisionGUID="5b7eac86-164a-45ae-812a-0c84a1206bd8" CreationDate="2018-01-28T10:23:28.460" UserId="134" Text="Yes, it is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., 66.6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечание 1. Раздельное написание *не* с прилагательным, имеющим при себе пояснительные слова, встречается:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. при наличии в качестве пояснительных слов отрицательных местоимений и наречий (начинающихся с *ни*) или сочетаний *далеко не, вовсе не, отнюдь не*, например: *никому не известный адрес, ни в чем не повинные люди, нисколько не понятное выражение, ничуть не вредный напиток, далеко не простое решение, вовсе не бесплодные поиски, отнюдь не новый сюжет*; ср.: *неведомыми мне путями – никому не ведомыми путями*;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15647" RevisionGUID="6538d53c-1d9f-458a-8ae3-4e582ae9c4a6" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:25:44.710" UserId="8780" Text="What's the difference between **взлетать/взлететь** and **улетать/улететь**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the first one especially for the take off of an airplane, whereas the latter one is especially for a bird flying away?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15647" RevisionGUID="6538d53c-1d9f-458a-8ae3-4e582ae9c4a6" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:25:44.710" UserId="8780" Text="Взлететь vs Улететь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15647" RevisionGUID="6538d53c-1d9f-458a-8ae3-4e582ae9c4a6" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:25:44.710" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15648" RevisionGUID="aefd7f7e-cf89-43d4-a6df-0e6216c506f3" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:52:27.987" UserId="7674" Text="They have different meanings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взлетать/взлететь** - to take off  - vector of motion is vertical  &#xD;&#xA;**улетать/улететь** -  to fly away - vector of motion is horizontal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's possible to **взлететь** without **улетaть**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15648" RevisionGUID="6c0058a4-359f-4119-bb9e-0e9d1abcad9e" CreationDate="2018-01-28T20:59:21.317" UserId="7674" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="They have different meanings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взлетать/взлететь** - to take off  - vector of motion is vertical  &#xD;&#xA;**улетать/улететь** -  to fly away - vector of motion is horizontal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it's possible to **взлететь** without **улетaть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are applicable to planes and birds, to anything able to fly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39070" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15647" RevisionGUID="184f7126-a73a-4985-ac07-bd154257e529" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:03:04.227" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15644" RevisionGUID="bf57e81f-1e2a-4c58-8658-87917c79a6bd" CreationDate="2018-01-28T21:57:43.883" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|не-plus-adverb|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15650" RevisionGUID="d70a95d5-7d38-4d33-9c80-43029aa35233" CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:09:16.267" UserId="8780" Text="Before asking my question, let me tell what I know about verbs of motion so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-For each verb of motion in English (ex.: *to go*) there are multiple verbs in Russian;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Each nuance of motion verbs in Russian depends on the means of locomotion (on foot or by vehicle), and on the direction of movement (determined or undetermined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Moreover, there's the usual distinction between perfective and imperfective verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Furthermore, verbs of motion can be preceded by prefixes denoting destination, such as **при-** (denoting *arrival*), **вы-**, **у-** (denoting *exit*) or **в-** (denoting *entry*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-While in each pair of unprefixed verbs of motion (determined and undetermined) both verbs are imperfective, adding a prefix converts both verbs to determined direction, being one perfective and the other imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far so good. I believe I know the nuance of meaning of some groups, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ходить (undet. imp.), идти (det. imp.), пойти (det. pf.);&#xD;&#xA; - ездить (undet. imp.), ехать (det. imp.), поехать (det. pf.);&#xD;&#xA; - бе́гать (undet. imp.), бежа́ть (det. imp.), побежа́ть (det. pf.); etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prefixed verbs have only one imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - входить (det. imp.), войти (det. pf.);&#xD;&#xA; - въезжать (det. imp.), въехать (det. pf.);&#xD;&#xA; - вбега́ть (det. imp.), вбежа́ть (det. pf.); etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's get into my doubt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Таска́ть** (undet.) / **тащи́ть** (det.) are a pair of imperfective verbs meaning &quot;to drag&quot;. Since they are motion verbs, most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*, *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for *&quot;лезть&quot;*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15650" RevisionGUID="d70a95d5-7d38-4d33-9c80-43029aa35233" CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:09:16.267" UserId="8780" Text="Perfective of таскать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15650" RevisionGUID="d70a95d5-7d38-4d33-9c80-43029aa35233" CreationDate="2018-01-28T23:09:16.267" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15651" RevisionGUID="a4b8cc7b-154e-4444-87de-3721491d2f4e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:30:54.410" UserId="6545" Text="I have some trouble with two sets of words (in the title). My two sources are https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9 and the book, https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/textbooks/5000_Russian_Words - and unfortunately they do not explicitly state agreement in their usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Старший:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book says, &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    elder, older; senior; (as noun) elder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and leaves the comparative out (but includes it in старый, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    elder, older, senior&#xD;&#xA;    eldest, oldest&#xD;&#xA;    higher, highest&#xD;&#xA;    (substantivized, in the masculine, animate) foreman&#xD;&#xA;    (substantivized, in the masculine, animate) chief, man in charge&#xD;&#xA;    (substantivized, in the masculine, animate, military) first (lieutenant)&#xD;&#xA;    senior (suffix used for names of elders)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Старый:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    old&#xD;&#xA;    ancient, antique&#xD;&#xA;    olden&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and includes comparatives from both words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Wiktionary doesn't really give great useage information and the book says that `старее` is used for &quot;things and of old animate beings&quot;, while `старше` it says is used for &quot;animate beings, not necessarily old ones&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. So there really isn't a one-word solution in all uses?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How can `старше` be used for &quot;not necessarily old ones&quot;? As in young ones?! Contradictory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Младший&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    junior; younger, youngest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with no mention of comparative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    younger, youngest (in an earlier period of life)&#xD;&#xA;    junior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and gives the comparative, but no real useage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Молодой&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    young&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but gives no specifics of its comparative, though it lists both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    young&#xD;&#xA;    youthful&#xD;&#xA;    new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and gives its comparative, but no useage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only available useage information comes from the book and says that `младше` is only for animate beings. Neither say anything about useage for `молохе`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. Can `молохе` be used in all contexts, therefore negating the need to use `младше`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15651" RevisionGUID="a4b8cc7b-154e-4444-87de-3721491d2f4e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:30:54.410" UserId="6545" Text="старший или старый а молодой или младший" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15651" RevisionGUID="a4b8cc7b-154e-4444-87de-3721491d2f4e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:30:54.410" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15651" RevisionGUID="44e983e6-b339-483c-8597-57d2574b4dfd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T03:54:08.527" UserId="6545" Comment="clarify" Text="I asked these together because it didn't make sense (to me) to have two separate, but very related, questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some trouble with two sets of words (in the title). My two sources are https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9 and the book, https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/textbooks/5000_Russian_Words - and unfortunately they do not explicitly state agreement in their usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Старший:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book says, &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    elder, older; senior; (as noun) elder&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and leaves the comparative out (but includes it in старый, and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    elder, older, senior&#xD;&#xA;    eldest, oldest&#xD;&#xA;    higher, highest&#xD;&#xA;    (substantivized, in the masculine, animate) foreman&#xD;&#xA;    (substantivized, in the masculine, animate) chief, man in charge&#xD;&#xA;    (substantivized, in the masculine, animate, military) first (lieutenant)&#xD;&#xA;    senior (suffix used for names of elders)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Старый:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    old&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    old&#xD;&#xA;    ancient, antique&#xD;&#xA;    olden&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and includes comparatives from both words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Wiktionary doesn't really give great useage information and the book says that `старее` is used for &quot;things and of old animate beings&quot;, while `старше` it says is used for &quot;animate beings, not necessarily old ones&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. So there really isn't a one-word solution in all uses?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How can `старше` be used for &quot;not necessarily old ones&quot;? As in young ones?! Contradictory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Младший&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    junior; younger, youngest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with no mention of comparative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    younger, youngest (in an earlier period of life)&#xD;&#xA;    junior&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and gives the comparative, but no real useage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Молодой&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The books says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    young&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but gives no specifics of its comparative, though it lists both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary says,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    young&#xD;&#xA;    youthful&#xD;&#xA;    new&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and gives its comparative, but no useage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only available useage information comes from the book and says that `младше` is only for animate beings. Neither say anything about useage for `молохе`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. Can `молохе` be used in all contexts, therefore negating the need to use `младше`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15652" RevisionGUID="635a56e2-d850-4d25-9132-cf43105f884d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T04:06:04.303" UserId="6539" Text="Since the prefix **по-** mostly shows the beginning of the action, you can say it's the most generic meaning comparing to other prefixes. So **полезть** can be a safe variant like **потащить** and **потаскать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15653" RevisionGUID="145cad01-4c38-4865-92ab-b8cc7dccf132" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:05:01.997" UserId="6097" Text="1. No, there isn't. &#xA;&#xA;2. As in &quot;Моя сестра старше меня на 3 года. Сейчас ей 14 лет&quot;.  My sister is older than me but not old.  Using &quot;старее&quot; in this case is inappropriate. &#xA;&#xA;3.  &quot;Моложе&quot; and &quot;младше&quot; are both used with animate beings. There isn't such a big difference between them as between &quot;старше&quot; and  &quot;старее&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15654" RevisionGUID="bf2f4c45-b220-4755-8fe9-4e0577dcc6f4" CreationDate="2018-01-29T07:45:04.100" UserId="194" Text="Потащить - to start drag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Потаскать - to drag a bit around&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оттаскать - to drag around quite enough&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Затаскать - to drag around up to changed condition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="a59c8de1-592b-4219-96a1-60d90f50cf8a" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:07:19.847" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасКИВать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however is still true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать` doesn't appear to be a motion verb as ***unlike them it's transitive***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` REMAINS *imperfective* regardless of the prefix, like the absolute majority of indterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs (or all of them, i'm just being cautious).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` BECOMES *perfective* regardless of the prefix, again like the absolute majority of determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Simply because, unlike `таскать`, `лезть` is a genuine motion verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39086" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15650" RevisionGUID="87150f20-96b4-4677-893f-0167167007e4" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:12:55.860" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|вид|motion-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15656" RevisionGUID="3db21128-9119-4ca8-abe6-7968034912a0" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:24:00.830" UserId="1502" Text="That's difficult to rationalize the meaning of prefixes **&quot;вз&quot;** and **&quot;у&quot;**, almost as difficult as to explain the rationale behind **&quot;off&quot;** in &quot;take **off**&quot;. But one can always try. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at **ВЗ** first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some words that use this prefix:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взлететь** - take off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вздумать** - come up with an idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вломать** - crack, or break something forcefully&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взбодриться** - energize oneself (that's the word Nescafe uses on their coffee in Russia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взбаламутить** - to distort  something intentionally, turn something peaceful into something chaotic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**взрыть** - dig the ground emotionally without any purpose (sometimes about bombs but usually about animals)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also **ВОЗ** prefix, which seems to carry the same meaning as **ВЗ** and just being another phonetic for for the latter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возмутить** - (same as взбаламутить i.e. turn something calm/still into chaotic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возделать** - cultivate, or precisely turn wild soil into a garden or a field&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**воздеть** - raise something bravely, i.e. head, flag, but not a problem for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вознамериться** - get your mind set on something (but not just having it set on something, as in other examples, the word is about a moment when something have started or got done)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**возгордиться** - start being too proud at some moment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if you see the pattern, but I can observe that it seems to be about applying one's energy, emotions and effort to get something done or started also implying the moment when it have happened or have started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the **У** part. The usage seems very diverse, but take a look, I will show how some words with У have one meaning and next to them the same words without the У prefix having another meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**упасть** - to fall, **пасть** - to fall&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**умыть** - get washed, **мыть** - to wash&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**узнать** - obtain knowledge, **знать** - to know something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**угадать** - make a correct guess, **гадать** - do guessing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**убить** - to kill, **бить** - to beat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**упрятать** - make something hidden, **прятать** - to hide &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the verbs that describe some form of a movement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**улететь** - fly away, **лететь** - to fly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**уплыть** - swim away, **плыть** - to swim&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**уйти** - to go away, **идти** - to go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**убежать** - run away, **бежать** - to run&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases the prefix adds the meaning of something being complete, done, rather just happening. But in the latter case it is also about the direction of the move away from the area of the mental focus at the moment of the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interesting is how **У** behaves with the suffixes meant to emphasize that something is still happening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**улетает** - in a process of flying away&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**убивает** - in a process of getting something killed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**угадывала** - she was continuously making attempts to make a right guess&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other answer states that the difference between **взлететь** and **улететь** is about the direction, and although in this particular case it seems to be true, the real difference is that **ВЗ** is about effort and energy, and **У** is about something being finished. In practive the space ship or a coin in the well both can **улететь** (fly away) vertically and your enterprise or a startup can **взлететь** (take off) without any vertical movement in the physical world, all will be the correct usage of those words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, because repeating is good, repeating is good, when you encounter **ВЗ** think of someone's effort, and when you encounter the **У** prefix think of something that finishes completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically there is another &quot;vertical&quot; use for the word **улететь** to mean somebody &quot;getting high&quot;, used both about someone daydreaming or envisioning something actively or someone using drugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="a6d14358-8a8d-4697-8860-22753e3a1eef" CreationDate="2018-01-29T10:24:13.460" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасКИВать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however is still true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать` doesn't appear to be a motion verb as ***unlike them it's transitive***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` REMAINS *imperfective* regardless of the prefix, like the absolute majority of indterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs (or all of them, i'm just being cautious).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` BECOMES *perfective* regardless of the prefix, again like the absolute majority of determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Simply because, unlike `таскать/тащить`, `лазить/лезть` ***are a pair of genuine motion verbs***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15657" RevisionGUID="4fd713e6-68ff-4963-9773-a3d14a2ecc1a" CreationDate="2018-01-29T11:43:28.003" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; 2. How can старше be used for &quot;not necessarily old ones&quot;? As in young ones?! Contradictory?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as in being hierarchically senior, `старше по званию`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Младший** - **youngest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is rather incorrect. `Youngest` is `самый младший/самый молодой`, whereas `младший` is simply `younger`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the sentence `у меня два младших брата` wouldn't make sense as it would say `i have two youngest brothers` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Can моло**ж**е be used in all contexts, therefore negating the need to use младше?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed both `младше` and `моложе` are being used with inanimate objects, although `младше` seems more frequent, but i personally still feel uneasy about this usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's almost as using the English `younger` with inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If i had to choose a more fitting word i'd opt for `новее/более новый` - `newer`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15657" RevisionGUID="9a48400e-8a25-48fd-a181-1468790a2b86" CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:00:42.660" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; 2. How can старше be used for &quot;not necessarily old ones&quot;? As in young ones?! Contradictory?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as in being hierarchically senior, `старше по званию`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Младший** - **youngest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if it's correct. `Youngest` is rather`самый младший/самый молодой`, whereas `младший` is simply `younger`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the sentence `у меня два младших брата` wouldn't make sense as it would say `i have two youngest brothers` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Can моло**ж**е be used in all contexts, therefore negating the need to use младше?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed both `младше` and `моложе` are being used with inanimate objects, although `младше` seems more frequent, but i personally still feel uneasy about this usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's almost as using the English `younger` with inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If i had to choose a more fitting word i'd opt for `новее/более новый` - `newer`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15657" RevisionGUID="27a63038-6749-411d-a0e2-81da943f8962" CreationDate="2018-01-29T13:12:23.390" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; 2. How can старше be used for &quot;not necessarily old ones&quot;? As in young ones?! Contradictory?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as in being hierarchically senior, `старше по званию`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Младший** - **youngest**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure if it's correct. `Youngest` is rather`самый младший/самый молодой`, whereas `младший` is simply `younger`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise the sentence `у меня два младших брата` wouldn't make sense as it would say `i have two youngest brothers` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Can моло**ж**е be used in all contexts, therefore negating the need to use младше?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed both `младше` and `моложе` are being used with inanimate objects, although `младше` seems more frequent, but i personally still feel uneasy about this usage. I guess it's more pertinent to scientese and professional lexis than to general purpose language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's almost as using the English `younger` with inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If i had to choose a more fitting word i'd opt for `новее/более новый` - `newer`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15645" RevisionGUID="88b6c5b2-53d6-48c9-ab24-a2fd4d48d2bf" CreationDate="2018-01-29T14:17:05.390" UserId="134" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="Yes, it is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., 66.6:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Примечание 1. Раздельное написание *не* с прилагательным, имеющим при себе пояснительные слова, встречается:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. при наличии в качестве пояснительных слов отрицательных местоимений и наречий (начинающихся с *ни*) или сочетаний *далеко не, вовсе не, отнюдь не*, например: *никому не известный адрес, ни в чем не повинные люди, нисколько не понятное выражение, ничуть не вредный напиток, далеко не простое решение, вовсе не бесплодные поиски, отнюдь не новый сюжет*; ср.: *неведомыми мне путями – никому не ведомыми путями*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule applies to ad-adjectival adverbs and proper adjectives alike (see 71.4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пишутся раздельно с *не* наречия на *-о*, если при них в качестве пояснительного слова стоит отрицательное наречие, начинающееся с *ни*, либо сочетание *далеко не, вовсе не, отнюдь не* (ср. §66, п. 6, примеч. 1, подпункт 2), например: *докладчик говорил нисколько не убедительно, рукопись отредактирована отнюдь не плохо*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="6377bada-a165-466f-9460-5e33c5ff653f" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:27:40.187" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тас-КИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать` doesn't appear to be a motion verb as ***unlike them it's transitive***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` REMAINS *imperfective* regardless of the prefix, like the absolute majority of indeterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs (or all of them, i'm just being cautious).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` BECOMES *perfective* regardless of the prefix, again like the absolute majority of determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Simply because, unlike `таскать/тащить`, `лазить/лезть` ***are a pair of genuine motion verbs***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="efe41588-d0e9-4550-b294-80d4c9d86aaa" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:36:42.583" UserId="7674" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать` doesn't appear to be a motion verb as ***unlike them it's transitive***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*. And since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there's no generic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` REMAINS *imperfective* regardless of the prefix, like the absolute majority of indeterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs (or all of them, i'm just being cautious).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` BECOMES *perfective* regardless of the prefix, again like the absolute majority of determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Simply because, unlike `таскать/тащить`, `лазить/лезть` ***are a pair of genuine motion verbs***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="c41f92c6-9946-4d4d-a950-0b5cac68389d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:42:16.937" UserId="7674" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать` doesn't appear to be a motion verb as ***unlike them it's transitive***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` REMAINS *imperfective* regardless of the prefix, like the absolute majority of indeterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs (or all of them, i'm just being cautious).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` BECOMES *perfective* regardless of the prefix, again like the absolute majority of determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Simply because, unlike `таскать/тащить`, `лазить/лезть` ***are a pair of genuine motion verbs***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there're no generic ones, everything hinges on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15658" RevisionGUID="66870263-75a6-49f6-b72c-eb3dc938ac14" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:44:42.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15658" RevisionGUID="66870263-75a6-49f6-b72c-eb3dc938ac14" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:44:42.420" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15659" RevisionGUID="0d284654-9bce-4259-a2ed-d2ab00dcd19b" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:44:42.420" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15659" RevisionGUID="0d284654-9bce-4259-a2ed-d2ab00dcd19b" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:44:42.420" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15660" RevisionGUID="a72803de-248d-4e3c-80d0-fcac573474cd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:49:00.317" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15660" RevisionGUID="a72803de-248d-4e3c-80d0-fcac573474cd" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:49:00.317" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15661" RevisionGUID="429c15aa-88c2-45a0-8791-4e777f7744e4" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:49:00.317" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15661" RevisionGUID="429c15aa-88c2-45a0-8791-4e777f7744e4" CreationDate="2018-01-29T21:49:00.317" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="6d1d7b92-f1b4-4ea2-84b4-77ae68808721" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:02:45.850" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать` doesn't appear to be a motion verb as ***unlike them it's transitive***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` only becomes *perfective* with the prefix **по-**, like all indeterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` becomes *perfective* regardless of the prefix, also like all determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Simply because, unlike `таскать/тащить`, `лазить/лезть` ***are a pair of genuine motion verbs***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there're no generic ones, everything hinges on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="a577cd0d-4426-4226-85a4-1f3d9c595048" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:11:03.113" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 89 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать`, though recognized as a motion verb, appears to be the only one to behave differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` only becomes *perfective* with the prefix **по-**, like all indeterminate motion (aka *multidirectional*) verbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` becomes *perfective* regardless of the prefix, also like all determinate motion (aka *unidirectional*) verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there're no generic ones, everything hinges on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15662" RevisionGUID="b8a2d199-bd0c-4745-9c92-fc41807e5db2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:13:30.767" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15662" RevisionGUID="b8a2d199-bd0c-4745-9c92-fc41807e5db2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:13:30.767" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15663" RevisionGUID="c2f1e9cb-c016-401e-839c-f1085d8a9d89" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:13:30.767" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15663" RevisionGUID="c2f1e9cb-c016-401e-839c-f1085d8a9d89" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:13:30.767" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="3f1f3b17-97a0-49be-9eb9-35da8f3c1fc2" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:27:41.463" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать`, though recognized as a motion verb, appears to be the only one to behave differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` becomes *perfective* with the prefixes **по-/из-/с-**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` becomes *perfective* regardless of the prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there're no generic ones, everything hinges on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="ac7948cb-547e-4fbd-83de-3e035e36102d" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:36:32.647" UserId="7674" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать`, though recognized as a motion verb, appears to be the only one to behave differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` only becomes *perfective* with the prefixes **по-/из-/с-** (but this doesn't apply to every motion verb of its type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` becomes *perfective* regardless of the prefix like all motion verbs of its type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there're no generic ones, everything hinges on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15664" RevisionGUID="79f1a426-1932-4f18-92fd-bfe12c5b2f8e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:50:15.233" UserId="9603" Text="When should I use the genitive singular and when should I use the genitive plural after quantity words like **много** and **сколько**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15664" RevisionGUID="79f1a426-1932-4f18-92fd-bfe12c5b2f8e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:50:15.233" UserId="9603" Text="Genitive case after quantity words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15664" RevisionGUID="79f1a426-1932-4f18-92fd-bfe12c5b2f8e" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:50:15.233" UserId="9603" Text="|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15665" RevisionGUID="41afa59d-4f29-43a7-bd7c-c2b07e34aa4b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T00:02:07.663" UserId="9256" Text="That's countable vs. uncountable. Use singular for uncountable objects, like `много снега` - a lot of snow, and plural for countable, like `много снежков` - many snowballs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to much vs many in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39117" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15650" RevisionGUID="a3a871bd-a41f-4fbb-b0ad-f65408881827" CreationDate="2018-01-30T02:08:53.270" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/958160052967411713" />
  <row Id="39118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15663" RevisionGUID="bb0242ff-f56f-48b6-89b9-ea088f567df9" CreationDate="2018-01-30T02:25:40.573" UserId="7674" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Questions addressing specifically grammar and usage of motion verbs known to have 17 pairs of uni- and multidirectional counterparts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39119" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15663" RevisionGUID="bb0242ff-f56f-48b6-89b9-ea088f567df9" CreationDate="2018-01-30T02:25:40.573" Comment="Proposed by 7674 approved by -1 edit id of 950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15663" RevisionGUID="a340b915-8650-4e5f-86cf-6dcca256863b" CreationDate="2018-01-30T02:25:40.573" UserId="4560" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="Questions concerning the limited set of Russian verbs of motion that come in pairs of uni- and multidirectional." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15666" RevisionGUID="1dfc8dce-99b6-4def-bfda-7af83cf70a49" CreationDate="2018-01-30T04:39:46.977" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; ..., **да**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **так**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **не так ли**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **а**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've so far come across these four words functioning as a tag question, and I wonder how they differ in meaning and usage? In most languages, there are several different words for forming a tag question, each having a flavour of its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15666" RevisionGUID="1dfc8dce-99b6-4def-bfda-7af83cf70a49" CreationDate="2018-01-30T04:39:46.977" UserId="8672" Text="Difference between &quot;..., да?&quot;, &quot;..., так?&quot;, &quot;..., не так ли?&quot;, &quot;..., а?&quot; as a tag question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15666" RevisionGUID="1dfc8dce-99b6-4def-bfda-7af83cf70a49" CreationDate="2018-01-30T04:39:46.977" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15667" RevisionGUID="8b9111d4-43f1-4a3e-9fba-6bbabe28139d" CreationDate="2018-01-30T04:56:36.093" UserId="4560" Text="**..., да?** — &quot;right?&quot; (&quot;is it true?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., так?** — &quot;right?&quot; (&quot;did I understand you correctly?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that **да?** seeks to *confirm* some prior knowledge, guess, or suspicion, while **так?** generally double-checks the speaker's *comprehension*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., не так ли?** — generic &quot;doesn't it?&quot; (and other forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., а?** — not *quite* sure it belongs with the others. When it's not added to requests to signify insistence/pleading (**ну пойдём, а?**), it's more of a &quot;that's quite something&quot; thing. Signifying either impressiveness (**как мы их обогнали-то, а?**) or frustration (**что за чертовщина, а?**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd add another one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., правда?** — the sort of &quot;doesn't it?&quot; that prompts to agree with the speaker on some point expressed in or related to the statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15667" RevisionGUID="0247fe66-9cd4-4e0e-91d4-0091d9e58875" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:13:05.440" UserId="4560" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="**..., да?** — &quot;right?&quot; (&quot;is it true?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., так?** — &quot;right?&quot; (&quot;did I understand you correctly?&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that **да?** seeks to *confirm* some prior knowledge, guess, or suspicion, while **так?** generally double-checks the speaker's *comprehension*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., не так ли?** — generic &quot;doesn't it?&quot; (and other forms)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., а?** — not *quite* sure it belongs with the others. You can add it to requests to signify insistence/pleading (**ну пойдём, а?**), to things that are formally questions, signifying either impressiveness (**как мы их обогнали-то, а?**) or frustration (**что за чертовщина, а?**), and to actual questions, signifying impatience (**вы вообще инструкцию читали, а?**) — but it doesn't work as something you can tag on to a *statement* to turn it into a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd add another one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**..., правда?** — the sort of &quot;doesn't it?&quot; that prompts to agree with the speaker on some point expressed in or related to the statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39126" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15666" RevisionGUID="c318fc89-9e7e-4012-b9e8-47f6db81198a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T05:45:05.077" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;да?&quot;, &quot;так?&quot;, &quot;не так ли?&quot;, &quot;а?&quot; as a tag question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15655" RevisionGUID="921b236e-2faf-4e7f-89a2-ba90e35932ac" CreationDate="2018-01-30T07:35:45.220" UserId="7674" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Q:** most likely *таскать* will remain imperfective when preceded by *в-*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *вы-*, *при-*. Whereas *тащить* will become the perfective counterpart of the prefixed verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** With respect to this particular verb the opposite is true, it will be turned into *perfective*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With prefix its *IMperfective* aspect will look like **`в-/вы-/при-тасК-ИВ-ать`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your statement however does hold true for other motion verbs `ходить`, `летать`, `бегать`, `плавать`, `ползать` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* So `таскать`, though recognized as a motion verb, appears to be the only one to behave differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** However, is there a generic perfective prefix for *&quot;тащить&quot;*, neither&#xD;&#xA;&gt; denoting entry, nor exit, nor arrival? Like **&quot;потащить&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** Any prefix added to `тащить` turns it into *perfective*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Q:** Likewise, **лазить** (undet.) / **лезть** (det.) are the imperfective&#xD;&#xA;&gt; duo for &quot;to climb&quot;. What's the generic perfective prefix for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *&quot;лезть&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** `Лазить` only becomes *perfective* with the prefixes **по-/из-/с-** (but this doesn't apply to every motion verb of its type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, `лезть` becomes *perfective* regardless of the prefix like all motion verbs of its type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since prefixes are semantically significant, i guess there're no generic ones, everything hinges on the context.&#xD;&#xA;_______________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases of prefix **вы-** the aspect depends on the meaning signified with a stress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;выход**И**ть&lt;sup&gt;imperf&lt;/sup&gt; - в**Ы**ходить&lt;sup&gt;perf&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;вынос**И**ть&lt;sup&gt;imperf&lt;/sup&gt; - в**Ы**носить&lt;sup&gt;perf&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;вывоз**И**ть&lt;sup&gt;imperf&lt;/sup&gt; - в**Ы**возить&lt;sup&gt;perf&lt;/sup&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;(not motion) вычит**А**ть&lt;sup&gt;imperf&lt;/sup&gt; - в**Ы**читать&lt;sup&gt;perf&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15668" RevisionGUID="d329001c-ac00-46d9-9571-1f0cc1223828" CreationDate="2018-01-30T09:04:25.130" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Наконец-то **нашлась** моя книга.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the passive verb &quot;нашлась&quot; agrees with the feminine singular subject &quot;книга&quot;. But then...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не **найдется** таких слов, чтобы оправдать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why this sentence, on the other hand, needs to take the impersonal, omitted subject &quot;it&quot; instead of directly using the plural &quot;слов&quot; as the subject? Why is it incorrect to use the 3rd-person plural &quot;найдутся&quot; that corresponds to the plural noun &quot;слов&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не **найдутся** таких слов, чтобы оправдать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Таких слов ne **найдутся**, чтобы оправдать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15668" RevisionGUID="d329001c-ac00-46d9-9571-1f0cc1223828" CreationDate="2018-01-30T09:04:25.130" UserId="8672" Text="Why say &quot;Не найдется таких слов&quot; in the singular instead of using the plural &quot;найдутся&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15668" RevisionGUID="d329001c-ac00-46d9-9571-1f0cc1223828" CreationDate="2018-01-30T09:04:25.130" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15669" RevisionGUID="98adb290-1b35-42a0-9900-081f3a704e38" CreationDate="2018-01-30T09:39:22.563" UserId="9001" Text="The reason is that you use negation with genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**слов**&quot; is in genitive case and therefore lose the role of subject in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead you switch to nominative, the verb will change to plural as you expected:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Не найдутся такие слова.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15668" RevisionGUID="0b6881c0-dc65-46ec-a2da-2b5f7a665340" CreationDate="2018-01-30T11:27:51.957" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|genitive-negative|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15666" RevisionGUID="0b4fcf79-8e17-4ef6-8e2f-d66f44587b64" CreationDate="2018-01-30T11:31:09.190" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|tag-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39134" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15651" RevisionGUID="4eaa29a4-9a9e-4c6c-b66b-644233c63b4a" CreationDate="2018-01-30T11:32:55.487" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11739" RevisionGUID="80b0b67f-8ff7-46ba-b2f0-968303bb7f5d" CreationDate="2018-01-30T15:57:41.103" UserId="9603" Comment="added 6350 characters in body" Text="The following list contains all you need to get started with Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][2] - short Russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][3], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest Russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][4], a site for learning Russian&#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][5], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][6] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][7], Russian lessons. Online and free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [8] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][9]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [10] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][11] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][12]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][13] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][14] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][15] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][16] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][17] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][18] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][19]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][20], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Learn to speak Russian][21] - Russian learning site that provides a lot of helpful lessons and other information, including original course from beginning to confident level, and original books. The blog of Russian-1000words.pw contains a lot of different information on Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][10] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][3] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][4] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][5] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][6] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][7] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][8] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][9] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][11].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][12] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian FSI Course][15] - Russian language course that was developed by US Foreign Service Institute.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fluent in Russian][16] - free audio lessons in the form of questions and answers for developing speaking and listening skills, as well as grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][17] - Russian language self study guide for beginners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dictionaries &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ABBYY Lingvo.ru][10], multilingual dictionary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Academic][3], an extensive collection of Russian dictionaries&#xD;&#xA; - [Gramota][4], grammar reference and more&#xD;&#xA; - [lurkmore.to][5], russian lurkmore: an on-line encyclopedia of interesting facts, focused on memes (stable ideas and expressions) of runet.&#xD;&#xA; - [Multitran][6], great translations for English-Russian, German-Russian, and includes grammatical tables, but doesn't mark stress&#xD;&#xA; - [ru.wiktionary][7], online dictionary and grammatical tables&#xD;&#xA; - [Пиздец!][8] - Russian-English slang dictionary | Словарь русского мата и неформального языка&#xD;&#xA; - [Open Russian][9] - English-Russian and German-Russian dictionary with examples, declension and stressmarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Textbooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - German: MOCT - Modernes Russisch - Aktualisierte Ausgabe: Modernes Russisch. Moct 1. Arbeitsbuch mit 2 Audio-CDs: Niveau A1-A2. ISBN: 978-3125275669&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The online library of the Russian as Foreign Language Faculty site of the Lomonosov Moscow State University](http://www.mgu-russian.com/elibrary/ru/online:4). You can find references to many good textbooks there. However, the access is only open to those who visit their courses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Sputnik: An Introductory Russian Language Course](http://www.sputniktextbook.org).  Designed to develop basic reading, writing, listening and communication skills. A free complementary website comes with a lot of sounds and quizzes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Newspapers &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Викиновости][6], online free news anyone can edit - Russian section of the site&#xD;&#xA; - [Газета.ру][3], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Известия.ру][10], Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Лента.ру][5], online Russian newspaper&#xD;&#xA; - [Правда.ру][4], Russian newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Audiobooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [10] - vocalized works of great Russian classics and modern authors. Ruspeach website is translated in 9 languages and it is developing and improving everyday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/833/resources-for-learning-russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gazeta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.pravda.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.lenta.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ru.wikinews.org&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ru.wiktionary.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.russki-mat.net/e/Russian.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.openrussian.org&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.ruspeach.com/handbook/podcasts/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/russian.html&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://speakfluentrussian.com&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://russian-1000words.pw&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Source][1]**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39136" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11739" RevisionGUID="80b0b67f-8ff7-46ba-b2f0-968303bb7f5d" CreationDate="2018-01-30T15:57:41.103" Comment="Proposed by 9603 approved by 8895, 7674 edit id of 946" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39137" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15644" RevisionGUID="5e71a5fb-7318-4be3-88b5-3aa5c7868c90" CreationDate="2018-01-30T17:08:55.597" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/958386555206406144" />
  <row Id="39138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="cc435952-b786-474a-a046-4f7fb64e3342" CreationDate="2018-01-31T05:17:21.043" UserId="10192" Text="Russia uses the short scale number-naming system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is, then, &quot;миллиард&quot; used instead of &quot;биллион&quot;?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="cc435952-b786-474a-a046-4f7fb64e3342" CreationDate="2018-01-31T05:17:21.043" UserId="10192" Text="Why is &quot;миллиард&quot; used insted of &quot;биллион&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="cc435952-b786-474a-a046-4f7fb64e3342" CreationDate="2018-01-31T05:17:21.043" UserId="10192" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="469ae869-e16b-48b9-8b1e-943b88787079" CreationDate="2018-01-31T06:04:26.457" UserId="10192" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="Russia uses the short scale number-naming system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is, then, &quot;миллиард&quot; used instead of &quot;биллион&quot;?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Миллиард&quot; (as opposed to &quot;биллион&quot;) is used in the long scale number-naming system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39142" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="469ae869-e16b-48b9-8b1e-943b88787079" CreationDate="2018-01-31T06:04:26.457" UserId="10192" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="|числительные|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15671" RevisionGUID="66a8a36e-43cb-45d0-93f1-02e9036600ae" CreationDate="2018-01-31T09:51:32.200" UserId="3680" Text="As stated in [wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Слово «миллиард», имевшее вначале значение 10&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;, получило значение 10&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; (тысячи миллионов) в «Арифметике» Траншана (1558) и употреблялось во Франции в XIX веке наравне со словом «биллион».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word &quot;milliard&quot;, which initially had a value of 10&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;, acquired the value 10&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; (thousands of millions) in the Transhana Arithmetic (1558) and was used in France in the 19th century on a par with the word &quot;billion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language borrowed many words from the French language in those years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39144" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15668" RevisionGUID="04e0df82-3768-4405-947c-bd3ea4e2d5dc" CreationDate="2018-01-31T11:10:01.813" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/958658623923736576" />
  <row Id="39145" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15624" RevisionGUID="d40ad66d-38b2-4519-93d2-4f854531e0c4" CreationDate="2018-01-31T14:10:02.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/958703923879186435" />
  <row Id="39146" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="5ad94d8b-0403-4379-b7e9-c37b1a36efdd" CreationDate="2018-01-31T14:41:19.217" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is &quot;миллиард&quot; used instead of &quot;биллион&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15671" RevisionGUID="d2b88aad-7d0e-4c8f-8a7d-3bc541cd5c8e" CreationDate="2018-01-31T15:58:06.543" UserId="1688" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="As stated in [wikipedia](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Слово «миллиард», имевшее вначале значение 10&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;, получило значение 10&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; (тысячи миллионов) в «Арифметике» Траншана (1558) и употреблялось во Франции в XIX веке наравне со словом «биллион».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The word &quot;milliard&quot;, which initially had a value of 10&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;, acquired the value 10&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; (thousands of millions) in the [Jean Trenchant's Arithmetics][1] (1558) and was used in France in the 19th century on a par with the word &quot;billion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian language borrowed many words from the French language in those years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Trenchant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39148" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15671" RevisionGUID="d2b88aad-7d0e-4c8f-8a7d-3bc541cd5c8e" CreationDate="2018-01-31T15:58:06.543" Comment="Proposed by 1688 approved by 3680 edit id of 951" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15661" RevisionGUID="57977dac-0afb-4c34-9f45-46616a1d4635" CreationDate="2018-01-31T15:58:18.773" UserId="7674" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Questions dealing with intricacies of grammatical aspects of verbs both in fashioning and in usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39150" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15661" RevisionGUID="57977dac-0afb-4c34-9f45-46616a1d4635" CreationDate="2018-01-31T15:58:18.773" Comment="Proposed by 7674 approved by 8895, 3680 edit id of 949" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15672" RevisionGUID="bfa95f1c-ef85-48de-81f0-ef77674f0f37" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:26:41.640" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Вижу, **с** памятью **у** тебя стало хуже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice an interesting structure in Russian: Why does it take the *dual* form of &quot;**с** памятью **у** тебя&quot; rather than the more straightforward &quot;**с** твоей памятью&quot; with a single preposition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{Literally}: &quot;**with** the memory **at/by/near** you&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: &quot;**with** your memory&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**у** него **во** сне&quot; = &quot;**at/by/near** him **in** a dream&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**в** его сне&quot; = &quot;**in** his dream&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder when it is preferable to use these *separated* structures consisting of two prepositions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15672" RevisionGUID="bfa95f1c-ef85-48de-81f0-ef77674f0f37" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:26:41.640" UserId="8672" Text="When to use the double prepositional structure &quot;с памятью у тебя&quot; rather than &quot;с твоей памятью&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15672" RevisionGUID="bfa95f1c-ef85-48de-81f0-ef77674f0f37" CreationDate="2018-01-31T16:26:41.640" UserId="8672" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15673" RevisionGUID="4c932688-10f8-4e2f-a0d8-8ccaa74df3d2" CreationDate="2018-01-31T19:52:12.827" UserId="7674" Text="This structure is used in impersonal sentences or with subject being `всё` describing *state of affairs* in some of the aspects of personal life or exhibition of qualities, with phrases **`(не) всё в порядке / (не) всё гладко / (не) всё ладится / (не) всё слава богу / (не) всё хорошо / (всё) (не)плохо / стало хуже / стало лучше / всё нормально / всё отлично / не очень / не важно / проблемы / без проблем`** and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. У меня с учёбой не всё в порядке - Not everything is smooth in my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; studies  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. C заказами у него всё хорошо - He doesn't have any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems with getting orders&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Со здоровьем у неё пока не важно, зато с работой наладилось - Her health is still giving her troubles, but she's found work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. У них не всё гладко c пунктуальностью - They're not very good at being exact on time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess it's a way of getting around the inconvenience or inability to use these adverbs or their adjectival forms directly with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English i think a similar structure is used with the words `problem(s)/trouble(s)` as showcased by example 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15673" RevisionGUID="9608b526-18d2-4856-b6af-cb910b4e1913" CreationDate="2018-01-31T20:00:00.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="This structure is used in impersonal sentences or with subject being `всё` describing *state of affairs* in some of the aspects of personal life or exhibition of qualities, with phrases **`(не) всё в порядке / (не) всё гладко / (не) всё ладится / (не) всё слава богу / (не) всё хорошо / (всё) (не)плохо / стало хуже / стало лучше / всё нормально / всё отлично / не очень / не важно / проблемы / без проблем`** and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. У меня с учёбой не всё в порядке - Not everything is smooth in my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; studies  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. C заказами у него всё хорошо - He doesn't have any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems with getting orders&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Со здоровьем у неё пока не важно, зато с работой наладилось - Her health is still giving her troubles, but she's found work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. У них не всё гладко c пунктуальностью - They're not very good at being exact on time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess it's a way of getting around the inconvenience or inability to use these adverbs or their adjectival forms directly with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English i think a similar structure is used with the words `problem(s)/trouble(s)` as showcased by example 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as `dreams` are concerned i believe it's because in Russian they're perceived not as belonging to a person but as happening to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15673" RevisionGUID="2c13e012-a00d-47a9-ae39-3e40b355f775" CreationDate="2018-01-31T21:44:06.193" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="This structure is used in impersonal sentences or with subject being `всё/ничего` describing *state of affairs* in some of the aspects of personal life or exhibition of qualities, with phrases **`(не) всё в порядке / (не) всё гладко / (не) всё ладится / (не) всё слава богу / (не) всё хорошо / (всё) (не)плохо / стало хуже / стало лучше / всё нормально / всё отлично / не очень / не важно / проблемы / без проблем`** and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. У меня с учёбой не всё в порядке - Not everything is smooth in my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; studies  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. C заказами у него всё хорошо - He doesn't have any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems with getting orders&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Со здоровьем у неё пока не важно, зато с работой наладилось - Her health is still giving her troubles, but she's found work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. У них не всё гладко c пунктуальностью - They're not very good at being exact on time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess it's a way of getting around the inconvenience or inability to use these adverbs or their adjectival forms directly with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English i think a similar structure is used with the words `problem(s)/trouble(s)` as showcased by example 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as `dreams` are concerned i believe it's because in Russian they're perceived not as belonging to a person but as happening to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15673" RevisionGUID="4fad10c9-db2a-4fa9-86d8-a7382fcac18e" CreationDate="2018-02-01T02:05:39.857" UserId="1097" Comment="fix typo" Text="This structure is used in impersonal sentences or with subject being `всё/ничего` describing *state of affairs* in some of the aspects of personal life or exhibition of qualities, with phrases **`(не) всё в порядке / (не) всё гладко / (не) всё ладится / (не) всё слава богу / (не) всё хорошо / (всё) (не)плохо / стало хуже / стало лучше / всё нормально / всё отлично / не очень / не важно / проблемы / без проблем`** and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. У меня с учёбой не всё в порядке - Not everything is smooth in my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; studies  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. C заказами у него всё хорошо - He doesn't have any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems with getting orders&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Со здоровьем у неё пока неважно, зато с работой наладилось - Her health is still giving her troubles, but she's found work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. У них не всё гладко c пунктуальностью - They're not very good at being exact on time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess it's a way of getting around the inconvenience or inability to use these adverbs or their adjectival forms directly with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English i think a similar structure is used with the words `problem(s)/trouble(s)` as showcased by example 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as `dreams` are concerned i believe it's because in Russian they're perceived not as belonging to a person but as happening to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15674" RevisionGUID="d2d1f33f-2dd5-454f-a01b-bf188b7ba0b5" CreationDate="2018-02-01T04:50:36.860" UserId="5443" Text="The first version is typically used in expressions **defining** someone's good or bad memory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *С памятью у тебя* всё в порядке. (or *C памятью у тебя* плохо.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one just **refers to** someone's good or bad memory which is known or implied to be good or bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *C твоей памятью* можно вслепую играть в шахматы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *С твоей памятью* лучше иметь под рукой таблицу умножения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15673" RevisionGUID="8eab4f12-9e93-42e9-be34-16aa8857a48b" CreationDate="2018-02-01T07:57:44.480" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This structure is used in impersonal sentences or with subject being `всё/ничего` describing *state of affairs* in some of the aspects of personal life or exhibition of qualities, with phrases **`(не) всё в порядке / (не) всё гладко / (не) всё ладится / (не) всё слава богу / (не) всё хорошо / (всё) (не)плохо / стало хуже / стало лучше / всё нормально / всё отлично / не очень / неважно / проблемы / без проблем`** and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. У меня с учёбой не всё в порядке - Not everything is smooth in my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; studies  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. C заказами у него всё хорошо - He doesn't have any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems with getting orders&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Со здоровьем у неё пока неважно, зато с работой наладилось - Her health is still giving her troubles, but she's found work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. У них не всё гладко c пунктуальностью - They're not very good at being exact on time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess it's a way of getting around the inconvenience or inability to use these adverbs or their adjectival forms directly with the objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English i think a similar structure is used with the words `problem(s)/trouble(s)` as showcased by example 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as `dreams` are concerned i believe it's because in Russian they're perceived not as belonging to a person but as happening to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39160" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15594" RevisionGUID="2c31b5c9-f560-4b78-84c5-8d54e8c92b22" CreationDate="2018-02-01T08:13:37.587" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/958976618197868545" />
  <row Id="39162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15676" RevisionGUID="ccf659bf-006e-43f9-8e52-b91107a2829a" CreationDate="2018-02-01T08:49:27.267" UserId="10199" Text="Is there a table or list of rules on how to write the proper name (possessive?) adjective of a word, based on case as well?&#xA;&#xA;For example,&#xA;&#xA;*Пашины* родители&#xA;&#xA;*Пашиным* родителям&#xA;&#xA;*Пашиной* матери &#xA;&#xA;*Юрины* дни рождения&#xA;&#xA;*Юриному* отцу&#xA;&#xA;*Юринами* руками&#xA;&#xA;и.т.д..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15676" RevisionGUID="ccf659bf-006e-43f9-8e52-b91107a2829a" CreationDate="2018-02-01T08:49:27.267" UserId="10199" Text="Declension of proper name adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15676" RevisionGUID="ccf659bf-006e-43f9-8e52-b91107a2829a" CreationDate="2018-02-01T08:49:27.267" UserId="10199" Text="|грамматика|падежи|прилагательные|склонение|possessive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15677" RevisionGUID="50e45b48-b27c-4baa-85fd-c9f57d784fa2" CreationDate="2018-02-01T09:33:46.677" UserId="10200" Text="I'm trying to understand this section from a humorous song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... бабушка Света &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пьёт кофе с морошкой, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любуясь в окошко, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ходит за кошкою кошка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my limited knowledge of Russian, and some help from Google translate, a literal translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... grandmother Sveta &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Drinks coffe with cloudberries, &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Admiring in the little window &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How a cat walks for a cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really understand what the last line means.  Is this idiomatic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15677" RevisionGUID="50e45b48-b27c-4baa-85fd-c9f57d784fa2" CreationDate="2018-02-01T09:33:46.677" UserId="10200" Text="Meaning of Russian phrase &quot;как ходит за кошкою кошка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15677" RevisionGUID="50e45b48-b27c-4baa-85fd-c9f57d784fa2" CreationDate="2018-02-01T09:33:46.677" UserId="10200" Text="|перевод|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15676" RevisionGUID="a5f73acf-d8e6-4e61-bec9-c7d6877f3eee" CreationDate="2018-02-01T09:42:04.397" UserId="7674" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Is there a table or list of rules on how to write the proper name (possessive?) adjective of a word, based on case as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пашины* родители&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пашиным* родителям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Пашиной* матери &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Юрины* дни рождения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Юриному* отцу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Юрин**Ы**ми* руками&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и.т.д..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15678" RevisionGUID="9703c576-b567-46ab-9f2b-06a8480d61f0" CreationDate="2018-02-01T09:53:34.297" UserId="7674" Text="No, it's not an idiom, the meaning is straightforward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любуясь в окошко,   &#xD;&#xA;Как ходит за кошкою кошка.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Watching through the window  &#xD;&#xA; how the cats walk (pass by) one after the other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39170" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15677" RevisionGUID="95f20993-7138-402e-88e0-8072a9fdcd58" CreationDate="2018-02-01T10:05:20.377" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39171" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15676" RevisionGUID="b8b28776-137b-400c-aadc-5e3a434f21ca" CreationDate="2018-02-01T10:05:57.927" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15666" RevisionGUID="f519b324-c912-41e4-b1b4-c10718360d7e" CreationDate="2018-02-01T10:25:31.500" UserId="8672" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&gt; ..., **да**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **так**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **не так ли**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **а**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've so far come across these four words functioning as a tag question, and I wonder how they differ in meaning and usage? In most languages, there are several different words for forming a tag question, each having a flavour of its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **верно**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15676" RevisionGUID="669bce70-85ad-4528-a2bd-a8c082b63db3" CreationDate="2018-02-01T10:44:51.643" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|прилагательные|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="9a217216-3ff8-4154-8307-43f5ea10f4c4" CreationDate="2018-02-01T12:47:27.860" UserId="4753" Comment="Updated link, improved formatting" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the &quot;ODT&quot; link at the top right of the page. This is for downloading the original Openoffice document which is useful if you would like to change the formatting to suit your preferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart presents the three main noun and adjective declensions. For each declension only one set of endings is given. The spelling rules are presented separately. Some learners will find this easier to memorize." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15679" RevisionGUID="e788d6ec-d5b7-46f0-868c-7d41f2a12327" CreationDate="2018-02-01T12:55:43.747" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;сильные мира **сего** *=* the powerful (people) of **this** world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article on Wiki says that the demonstrative &quot;сей&quot; sounds outdate, literary, humourous etc and is rarely used except in certain set phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific expression, how does the genitive &quot;сего&quot; sound, as opposed to saying &quot;сильные мира **этого**&quot; or &quot;сильные **этого** мира&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15679" RevisionGUID="e788d6ec-d5b7-46f0-868c-7d41f2a12327" CreationDate="2018-02-01T12:55:43.747" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;сильные мира сего&quot; compare to &quot;сильные мира этого&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15679" RevisionGUID="e788d6ec-d5b7-46f0-868c-7d41f2a12327" CreationDate="2018-02-01T12:55:43.747" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15680" RevisionGUID="003755ad-cc46-4484-a6a0-af079acc6fe7" CreationDate="2018-02-01T12:56:58.637" UserId="2104" Text="У тебя, у меня,, у нас, у вас, etc are used almost interchangably with posessive pronouns to indicate 'loose posession':&#xA;&#xA; 1. **У меня** машина сломалась.&#xA; 2. **Моя** машина сломалась.&#xA;&#xA;Both mean 'My car broke' and neither (nor even the English translation) implies that you actually own the car. 'My car' could simply mean 'the car I was driving at the moment', even if you rented it.&#xA;&#xA;Conversely, if you say e.g.:&#xA;&#xA; * Это **мой** кошелек! ('It is my wallet!')&#xA;&#xA;This can't be put as:&#xA;&#xA;* *Это **у меня** кошелек!&#xA;&#xA;Because `мой` in this case conveys a strong sense of ownership.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="24c20e92-2efc-45d1-95d7-497eb4688f3b" CreationDate="2018-02-01T12:57:06.400" UserId="4753" Comment="added screenshot" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online. Here is what the a screenshot of the part of the first page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![two case tables][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the whole thing: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a link on the site for downloading the ODT file, so you can reformat the chart for your own use. It distributed under a creative commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart presents the three main noun and adjective declensions. For each declension only one set of endings is given. The spelling rules are presented separately. Some learners will find this easier to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CwYwI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15681" RevisionGUID="9a89962f-ccc1-462b-b21a-a01c457cb945" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:04:10.107" UserId="1836" Text="&quot;Сильные мира сего&quot; is a set phrase, so &quot;сего&quot; sounds perfectly normal, while &quot;этого&quot; sounds unusual and weird." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="b14ac2a6-0157-43cc-b31a-6a35ad3bfce5" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:06:25.180" UserId="4753" Comment="replaced defective screenshot" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online. Here is what the a screenshot of the part of the first page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample of case tables][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the whole thing: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a link on the site for downloading the ODT file, so you can reformat the chart for your own use. It distributed under a creative commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart presents the three main noun and adjective declensions. For each declension only one set of endings is given. The spelling rules are presented separately. Some learners will find this easier to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jJHKK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="67246965-1627-4d95-9fcc-bc87e3744c6f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:12:18.173" UserId="4753" Comment="edited for brevity" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online. Here is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample of case tables][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full set is two pages long: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Openoffice file is provided, so you can reformat the chart if you like. It distributed under a creative commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full chart is large and difficult to memorize. Once you get a feel for how the endings are attached and the spelling changes which occur, you can switch to this shorter chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart presents the three main noun and adjective declensions. For each declension only one set of endings is given. The spelling rules are presented separately. Some learners will find this easier to memorize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jJHKK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="8d4b6899-b7c3-4671-b27e-95b7e03b0c90" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:17:58.583" UserId="4753" Comment="added second screenshot of second chart" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online. Here is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample of case tables][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full set is two pages long: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Openoffice file is provided, so you can reformat the chart if you like. It distributed under a creative commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was learning the cases I found the full chart impossible to memorize. But once I understood the spelling rules I discovered there were patterns and that there were not as many different declensions as there appeared to be. I made another chart to help students to see this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![less busy case charts][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![vowel pairs chart][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest starting with the full chart to get a feel of how declension works and use the abbreviated chart if you get stuck trying to memorize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jJHKK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mA6Yd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0C6QA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15682" RevisionGUID="ba9d6f1a-a45a-485f-80b3-65768c7b2f9e" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:44:12.177" UserId="7674" Text="It's a stable collocation, originating from an earlier period, therefore it sounds normal within this specific phrase. And as a Russian proverb has it `&quot;there's no taking  words out of a song&quot;`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase appears to be of a Bibleic origin and [one author claims][1] originally was &quot;**`великие`**`мира сего`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Uqk-DwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT6&amp;lpg=PT6&amp;dq" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="a10027a0-5e47-43be-9eeb-5f822d5d3c31" CreationDate="2018-02-01T14:09:42.990" UserId="4753" Comment="replace screenshot, added more explanation" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online. Here is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample of case tables][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full set is two pages long: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Openoffice file is provided, so you can reformat the chart if you like. It distributed under a creative commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was learning the cases I found the full chart impossible to memorize. But once I understood the spelling rules I discovered there were patterns and that there were not as many different declensions as there appeared to be. I made another set of charts to help students to see this. Here is an example from the first part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![simplified noun chart][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part explains how hard and soft vowels work and how once we can see the declension rules as separate from the spelling rules the chart is much simpler:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![vowel pairs chart][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest starting with the full chart to get a feel of how declension works and use the abbreviated chart if you get stuck trying to memorize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jJHKK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jFNBC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0C6QA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15683" RevisionGUID="c16eb5e5-84b5-446a-93ca-3b8f4d881e8f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T18:26:56.533" UserId="8460" Text="Where did the curious tradition of transliterating English _u_ (sound _ʌ_) as Russian _е_ come from? I remember at least three examples off the top of my head: trust -&gt; трест, lunch - ленч (now obsolete), and Dundee -&gt; денди. Judging by the fact that the latter was used by Pushkin (&quot;как денди лондонский одет...&quot;), the tradition must be at least 200 years old. But why on Earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15683" RevisionGUID="c16eb5e5-84b5-446a-93ca-3b8f4d881e8f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T18:26:56.533" UserId="8460" Text="Transliterating English -u- (-ʌ-) as Russian -е-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15683" RevisionGUID="c16eb5e5-84b5-446a-93ca-3b8f4d881e8f" CreationDate="2018-02-01T18:26:56.533" UserId="8460" Text="|транслитерация|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15684" RevisionGUID="6f970405-af50-4065-89a9-ae9e99dc7a97" CreationDate="2018-02-01T19:59:24.227" UserId="6539" Text="1.**dandy**&#xD;&#xA;noun [ C ] UK ​  /ˈdæn.di/ US ​  /ˈdæn.di/&#xD;&#xA;​&#xD;&#xA;a man, especially in the past, who dressed in expensive, fashionable clothes and was very interested in his own appearance:&#xD;&#xA;an upper-class dandy (Cambridgedictionary.com )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Pushkin is not to blame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Траст&#xD;&#xA;trust&#xD;&#xA;The word **траст** was borrowed from English as a term for financial arrangement at the end of the 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Слово заимствовано в английском языке в конце XIX века как экономическое понятие. В экономике &quot;траст&quot; – и процесс, и результат. Как процесс: траст – это передача активов в доверительное управление, под попечительство. Как результат: траст и есть сами доверенные активы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one more borrowing word appears,  a derivative from trust, **трест** and it means a group of enterprises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В конце XIX века в русском языке появляется еще одно производное от trust слово – трест. Им стали обозначать особую организационно-правовую форму бизнеса - объединение нескольких предприятий, которые добровольно и в этом смысле - доверительно отказывались от своей коммерческой самостоятельности и подчинялись единому управлению.(dictionary-economics.ru.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 As for lunch and ленч some sources say it was mispronounced, others show the formal &quot;luncheon&quot;, which might have been the cause of mispronunciation,  but nobody can say for sure.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15683" RevisionGUID="b287b23f-2608-4c9b-a445-5d4c7450b2f6" CreationDate="2018-02-01T20:49:48.297" UserId="8460" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Where did the curious tradition of transliterating English _u_ (sound _ʌ_) as Russian _е_ come from? I remember at least three examples off the top of my head: trust -&gt; трест, lunch - ленч (now obsolete), and Dundee -&gt; денди. Judging by the fact that the latter was used by Pushkin (&quot;как денди лондонский одет...&quot;), the tradition must be at least 200 years old. But why on Earth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited: Dundee has nothing to do with денди, it's a different word. Lunch and trust are still on the list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15684" RevisionGUID="5081bdcb-1a94-4622-b4e0-d2e1030d51ed" CreationDate="2018-02-02T02:56:06.090" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="1.**dandy**&#xD;&#xA;noun [ C ] UK ​  /ˈdæn.di/ US ​  /ˈdæn.di/&#xD;&#xA;​&#xD;&#xA;a man, especially in the past, who dressed in expensive, fashionable clothes and was very interested in his own appearance:&#xD;&#xA;an upper-class dandy (Cambridgedictionary.com )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Pushkin is not to blame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Траст&#xD;&#xA;trust&#xD;&#xA;The word **траст** was borrowed from English as a term for financial arrangement at the end of the 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Слово заимствовано в английском языке в конце XIX века как экономическое понятие. В экономике &quot;траст&quot; – и процесс, и результат. Как процесс: траст – это передача активов в доверительное управление, под попечительство. Как результат: траст и есть сами доверенные активы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then one more borrowed word appears,  a derivative from trust, **трест** and it means a group of enterprises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;В конце XIX века в русском языке появляется еще одно производное от trust слово – трест. Им стали обозначать особую организационно-правовую форму бизнеса - объединение нескольких предприятий, которые добровольно и в этом смысле - доверительно отказывались от своей коммерческой самостоятельности и подчинялись единому управлению.(dictionary-economics.ru.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 As for lunch and ленч some sources say it was mispronounced, others show the formal &quot;luncheon&quot;, which might have been the cause of mispronunciation,  but nobody can say for sure.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39197" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15679" RevisionGUID="bf549ef1-94f4-4f9f-a812-4f1264523570" CreationDate="2018-02-02T08:16:57.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/959339843498205184" />
  <row Id="39198" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="15677" RevisionGUID="b7eeae47-2871-45ce-9400-ac59daf8e096" CreationDate="2018-02-02T15:38:41.047" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1836,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alissa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15686" RevisionGUID="93224eda-06e9-435e-adad-9c4c4c87ae67" CreationDate="2018-02-02T18:20:32.963" UserId="5" Text="Дифтонговый &quot;с&quot; смягчен &quot;у&quot; но этого не достаточно чтобы оправдать звук в &quot;гюсь&quot; в чем причина?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15686" RevisionGUID="93224eda-06e9-435e-adad-9c4c4c87ae67" CreationDate="2018-02-02T18:20:32.963" UserId="5" Text="В чем разница в произношении гусь гус и гюсь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15686" RevisionGUID="93224eda-06e9-435e-adad-9c4c4c87ae67" CreationDate="2018-02-02T18:20:32.963" UserId="5" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15687" RevisionGUID="fa21bcee-99d0-4794-a9ac-d48688a3a5c6" CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:56:21.370" UserId="8780" Text="I've read a bit about the partitive genitive in Russian, used in expressions such as **&quot;кусок сахару&quot;**, **&quot;чашка чаю&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the sources I use usually label this declension as facultative, mainly literary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** So, are *&quot;кусок сахару&quot;* and *&quot;чашка чаю&quot;* just alternatives to **&quot;кусок сахара&quot;** and **&quot;чашка чая&quot;** respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** Second question: It's told that the partitive genitive, when used to talk about an indefinite amount of a commodity, is analogous to the French usage of *de  / du / de la*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In French it's common to say *&quot;Je veux du thé&quot;* (&quot;I want [an indefinite amount of] tea&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has partitive genitive in Russian the same function here? Like, **&quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;**, **&quot;Я хочу сыру&quot;**, in order to express desire for an indefinite amount of a feeding commodity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** As far as I know, the verb &quot;хотеть&quot; is followed either by accusative (when referring to concrete nouns in general) and genitive (regarding abstract nouns such as in the expression *&quot;Я хочу мира&quot;*, or negation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When referring to a commodity such as *чай*, *сыр*, *сахар*, is it better to use accusative (*&quot;Я хочу чай&quot;*) or genitive? If genitive, may I use *&quot;Я хочу чая&quot;* and *&quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;* interchangeably, or just *чаю*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15687" RevisionGUID="fa21bcee-99d0-4794-a9ac-d48688a3a5c6" CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:56:21.370" UserId="8780" Text="Partitive Genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15687" RevisionGUID="fa21bcee-99d0-4794-a9ac-d48688a3a5c6" CreationDate="2018-02-02T20:56:21.370" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15686" RevisionGUID="68177be7-94ae-482c-9dda-3cb188efe58e" CreationDate="2018-02-02T22:20:12.577" UserId="6097" Comment="added 2 characters in body; added 1 character in body" Text="Дифтонговый &quot;с&quot; смягчен &quot;у&quot;, но этого не достаточно, чтобы оправдать звук в &quot;гюсь&quot;. В чем причина?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15688" RevisionGUID="d077d977-9eab-475a-8144-9176d30620e3" CreationDate="2018-02-02T22:24:39.350" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; 1. So, are &quot;кусок сахару&quot; and &quot;чашка чаю&quot; just alternatives to &quot;кусок сахара&quot; and &quot;чашка чая&quot; respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By and large they are. However this relates to your question # 2 and so some distinction could be drawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Has partitive genitive in Russian the same function here? Like, &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;Я хочу сыру&quot;, in order to express desire for an indefinite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of a feeding commodity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say so. Because if a limited quantity substance was mentioned earlier (a pack of tea you have, a brick of cheese you bought) it would most likely be pointed at with regular genitive. It would serve as a kind of definite article &quot;**the**&quot;. Partitive genitive in such case would create a mixed message. To illustrate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Хочу сыру (I want some cheese)  &#xD;&#xA;-Так у тебя же в холодильнике лежит целая пачка (But you do have a pack in the fridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i doubt anyone will be able to put in words the confusion it would create. Overall this is marginal, the slight difference in connotation will rather be simply dismissed by the interlocutor.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. When referring to a commodity such as чай, сыр, сахар, is it better to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use accusative (&quot;Я хочу чай&quot;) or genitive? If genitive, may I use &quot;Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочу чая&quot; and &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot; interchangeably, or just чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, genitive is the normative case here, but again the type of genitive may depend on the message the speaker wishes to convey as mentioned in the explanation above. Generally however they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15688" RevisionGUID="261964e6-058d-4edb-9ec7-a3cf0f805fc0" CreationDate="2018-02-02T22:39:52.923" UserId="7674" Comment="added 441 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. So, are &quot;кусок сахару&quot; and &quot;чашка чаю&quot; just alternatives to &quot;кусок сахара&quot; and &quot;чашка чая&quot; respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By and large they are. However this relates to your question # 2 and so some distinction could be drawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Has partitive genitive in Russian the same function here? Like, &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;Я хочу сыру&quot;, in order to express desire for an indefinite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of a feeding commodity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say so. Because if a limited quantity substance was mentioned earlier (a pack of tea you have, a brick of cheese you bought) it would most likely be pointed at with regular genitive. It would serve as a kind of definite article &quot;**the**&quot;. Partitive genitive in such case would create a mixed message. To illustrate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Хочу сыру (I want some cheese)  &#xD;&#xA;-Так у тебя же в холодильнике лежит целая пачка (But you do have a pack in the fridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i doubt anyone will be able to put in words the confusion it would create. Overall this is marginal, the slight difference in connotation will rather be simply dismissed by the interlocutor.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. When referring to a commodity such as чай, сыр, сахар, is it better to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use accusative (&quot;Я хочу чай&quot;) or genitive? If genitive, may I use &quot;Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочу чая&quot; and &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot; interchangeably, or just чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, genitive is the normative case here, but again the type of genitive may depend on the message the speaker wishes to convey as mentioned in the explanation above. Generally however they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;As a side, all the odd cases, unfortunately in my opinion, aren't formally studied in the school and most people have no knowledge of their existence despite using them in their speech. So because of not being the formal part of modern Russian language rules set, they aren't well protected from attrition and are prone to corruption or falling out of use, which i think is what happening in particular to genitive partitive.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15688" RevisionGUID="f488c827-a6ae-4756-8c54-e67f9abc6489" CreationDate="2018-02-02T22:46:46.470" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. So, are &quot;кусок сахару&quot; and &quot;чашка чаю&quot; just alternatives to &quot;кусок сахара&quot; and &quot;чашка чая&quot; respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By and large they are. However this relates to your question # 2 and so some distinction could be drawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Has partitive genitive in Russian the same function here? Like, &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;Я хочу сыру&quot;, in order to express desire for an indefinite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of a feeding commodity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say so. Because if a limited quantity substance was mentioned earlier (a pack of tea you have, a brick of cheese you bought) it would most likely be pointed at with regular genitive. It would serve as a kind of definite article &quot;**the**&quot;. Partitive genitive in such case would create a mixed message. To illustrate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Хочу сыру (I want some cheese)  &#xD;&#xA;-Так у тебя же в холодильнике лежит целая пачка (But you do have a pack in the fridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i doubt anyone will be able to put in words the confusion it would create. Overall this is marginal, the slight difference in connotation will rather be simply dismissed by the interlocutor.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. When referring to a commodity such as чай, сыр, сахар, is it better to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use accusative (&quot;Я хочу чай&quot;) or genitive? If genitive, may I use &quot;Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочу чая&quot; and &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot; interchangeably, or just чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, genitive is the normative case here, but again the type of genitive may depend on the message the speaker wishes to convey as pointed out in the explanation above. Generally however they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;As a side, all the odd cases, unfortunately in my opinion, aren't formally studied in the school and most people have no knowledge of their existence despite using them in their speech. So because of not being the formal part of modern Russian language rules set, they aren't well protected from attrition and are prone to corruption or falling out of use, which i think is what happening in particular to genitive partitive.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15689" RevisionGUID="3cf2b8c0-2d59-4ba7-ac1c-d60a37576bf1" CreationDate="2018-02-02T23:24:40.923" UserId="10209" Text="по моему так разницы нету.... &#xD;&#xA;он сказал БЫ,&#xD;&#xA;он БЫ сказал,  &#xD;&#xA;можно так и так произносить писать. так же с фразой,&#xD;&#xA;мы хотели БЫ,&#xD;&#xA;мы БЫ хотели,&#xD;&#xA;но выбирать надо что то одно)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion there is no difference ....&#xD;&#xA;he said,&#xD;&#xA;he would say,&#xD;&#xA;you can so and so pronounce to write. so with the phrase,&#xD;&#xA;we would like,&#xD;&#xA;we would like,&#xD;&#xA;but you have to choose something that one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правда перевод отличается если менять местами но на самом деле это не важно&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39210" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15683" RevisionGUID="58752a4f-b2ba-4650-a771-1a836f21c06e" CreationDate="2018-02-03T02:16:57.267" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/959611634619645952" />
  <row Id="39211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15690" RevisionGUID="71fa1368-d52a-4f90-aa8c-c06f45776b7f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T04:55:14.567" UserId="6539" Text="Если вопрос о смягчении &quot;г&quot;, то гласные и,е,ё,ю,я смягчают **предыдущую** согласную. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уголок --уголёк, глас – гляссе, гусь – гюйс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правило, однако, не распространяется на шипящие ж,ш , которые остаются твердыми &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;жили, жёлтый,шили" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15690" RevisionGUID="a0b47fed-2826-412b-9c24-7315a300c0db" CreationDate="2018-02-03T05:03:30.203" UserId="6539" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Если вопрос о смягчении &quot;г&quot;, то гласные и,е,ё,ю,я смягчают **предыдущую** согласную. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уголок --уголёк, глас – гляссе, гусь – гюйс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правило, однако, не распространяется на шипящие ж,ш,ц , которые остаются твердыми &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;жили, жёлтый,шили&#xD;&#xA;Звуки &quot;ч,щ&quot; всегда мягкие.&#xD;&#xA;Существуют исключения : например, &quot;е&quot; не всегда смягчает предыдущий согласный звук,особенно в иностранных словах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стресс, декольте, кашне." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15690" RevisionGUID="76cbdfa0-659b-4cba-b89e-e2acf35fa680" CreationDate="2018-02-03T05:14:28.413" UserId="6539" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Если вопрос о смягчении &quot;г&quot;, то гласные и,е,ё,ю,я смягчают **предыдущую** согласную. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уголок --уголёк, глас – гляссе, гусь – гюйс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правило, однако, не распространяется на шипящие ж,ш,ц , которые остаются твердыми &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;жили, жёлтый,шили&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Звуки &quot;ч,щ&quot; всегда мягкие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существуют исключения : например, &quot;е&quot; не всегда смягчает предыдущий согласный звук,особенно в иностранных словах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стресс, декольте, кашне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В слове &quot;гусь&quot; звук &quot;с&quot; смягчен мягким знаком, следующим за ним." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15690" RevisionGUID="e3dfc848-01bf-41ec-be71-5ea9f1696c72" CreationDate="2018-02-03T05:45:30.253" UserId="6539" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Если вопрос о смягчении &quot;г&quot;, то гласные и, е, ё, ю, я смягчают **предыдущий** согласный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;уголок --уголёк, глас – гляссе, гусь – гюйс.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правило, однако, не распространяется на шипящие ж, ш, ц , которые остаются твердыми &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;жили, жёлтый, шили&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Звуки &quot;ч, щ, й&quot; всегда мягкие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;щи, число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существуют исключения : например, &quot;е&quot; не всегда смягчает предыдущий согласный звук,особенно в иностранных словах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стресс, декольте, кашне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В слове &quot;гусь&quot; звук &quot;с&quot; смягчен мягким знаком, следующим за ним." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15688" RevisionGUID="a0d0f787-92b2-4d2d-881b-dd13a50c547f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T07:56:48.047" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. So, are &quot;кусок сахару&quot; and &quot;чашка чаю&quot; just alternatives to &quot;кусок сахара&quot; and &quot;чашка чая&quot; respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By and large they are. However this relates to your question # 2 and so some distinction could be drawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Has partitive genitive in Russian the same function here? Like, &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;Я хочу сыру&quot;, in order to express desire for an indefinite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of a feeding commodity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say so. Because if a limited quantity substance was mentioned earlier (a pack of tea you have, a brick of cheese you bought) it would most likely be pointed at with regular genitive. It would serve as a kind of definite article &quot;**the**&quot;. Partitive genitive in such case would create a mixed message. To illustrate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Хочу сыру (I want some cheese)  &#xD;&#xA;-Так у тебя же в холодильнике лежит целая пачка (But you do have a pack in the fridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i doubt anyone will be able to put in words the confusion it would create. Overall this is marginal, the slight difference in connotation will rather be simply dismissed by the interlocutor.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. When referring to a commodity such as чай, сыр, сахар, is it better to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use accusative (&quot;Я хочу чай&quot;) or genitive? If genitive, may I use &quot;Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочу чая&quot; and &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot; interchangeably, or just чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, genitive is the normative case here, but again the type of genitive may depend on the message the speaker wishes to convey as pointed out in the explanation above. Generally however they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;As a side, all the odd cases, unfortunately in my opinion, aren't formally taught in school and most people have no knowledge of their existence despite using them in their speech. So because of not being the formal part of modern Russian language rules set, they aren't well protected from attrition and are prone to corruption or falling out of use, which i think is what happening in particular to genitive partitive.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15691" RevisionGUID="219d5c76-2a73-4229-b4a9-6bbbec0d021d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T08:11:53.110" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;У нас должна быть ясная голова, **шобы** делать свою работу, да?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather it is equivalent to &quot;чтобы&quot;, given the context and that &quot;шо&quot; seems to be a distorted form of &quot;что&quot;, possibly of Ukrainian origin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15691" RevisionGUID="219d5c76-2a73-4229-b4a9-6bbbec0d021d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T08:11:53.110" UserId="8672" Text="How common is it to use &quot;шобы&quot; instead of &quot;чтобы&quot;? And how to use it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15691" RevisionGUID="219d5c76-2a73-4229-b4a9-6bbbec0d021d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T08:11:53.110" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15692" RevisionGUID="6b94e46d-5fce-4616-8b4e-3211e595dc90" CreationDate="2018-02-03T10:31:10.390" UserId="7674" Text="I don't think this pertains to pronunciation in Russian Federation, in Ukraine however in informal loose speech it's very widespread, but still belongs to low register, which nobody seems to feel uncomfortable with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could be influenced by a Ukrainian equivalent **щоби [щобы]**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15692" RevisionGUID="7e54f28b-bc72-46ce-88eb-fd33d8f4fa98" CreationDate="2018-02-03T10:44:32.143" UserId="7674" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Yes, in meaning **шобы = чтобы** (and their respective shortened forms **шоб = чтоб**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this pertains to pronunciation in Russian Federation, in Ukraine however in informal loose speech it's very widespread, but still belongs to low register, which nobody seems to feel uncomfortable with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could be influenced by a native Ukrainian counterpart **щоб(и) [щоб(ы)]**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15692" RevisionGUID="1d8afa80-808b-466b-a6e2-86f65a15e86f" CreationDate="2018-02-03T11:09:43.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Yes, in meaning **шобы = чтобы** (and their respective shortened forms **шоб = чтоб**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this pertains to pronunciation in Russian Federation, in Ukraine however in informal loose speech it's very widespread, but still belongs to low register, which nobody seems to feel uncomfortable with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could be influenced by a native Ukrainian counterpart **щоб(и) [щоб(ы)]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not recommend using it at all, as it's a regionalism which must be accompanied with other regional features to sound authentic, if nothing else (not to speak of euphony, which it lacks). Otherwise it will sound out of place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39222" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15687" RevisionGUID="743fb2bd-33a3-4601-8023-a270c02f9b72" CreationDate="2018-02-03T11:48:22.243" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|genitive-partitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15688" RevisionGUID="9ef4070d-650d-4be4-b4d6-2f23fb962de1" CreationDate="2018-02-03T11:49:37.043" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. So, are &quot;кусок сахару&quot; and &quot;чашка чаю&quot; just alternatives to &quot;кусок сахара&quot; and &quot;чашка чая&quot; respectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By and large they are. However this relates to your question # 2 and so some distinction could be drawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Has partitive genitive in Russian the same function here? Like, &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot;, &quot;Я хочу сыру&quot;, in order to express desire for an indefinite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of a feeding commodity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say so. Because if a limited quantity substance was mentioned earlier (a pack of tea you have, a brick of cheese you bought) it would most likely be pointed at with regular genitive. It would serve as a kind of definite article &quot;**the**&quot;. Partitive genitive in such case would create a mixed message. To illustrate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Хочу сыру (I want some cheese)  &#xD;&#xA;-Так у тебя же в холодильнике лежит целая пачка (But you do have a pack in the fridge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i doubt anyone will be able to put in words the confusion it would create. Overall this is marginal, the slight difference in connotation will rather be simply dismissed by the interlocutor.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. When referring to a commodity such as чай, сыр, сахар, is it better to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use accusative (&quot;Я хочу чай&quot;) or genitive? If genitive, may I use &quot;Я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочу чая&quot; and &quot;Я хочу чаю&quot; interchangeably, or just чаю?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, genitive is the normative case here, but again the type of genitive may depend on the message the speaker wishes to convey as pointed out in the explanation above. Generally however they're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;As a side, all the odd cases, unfortunately in my opinion, aren't formally taught in school and most people have no knowledge of their existence despite using them in their speech. So because of not being the formal part of modern Russian language rules set, they aren't well protected from attrition and are prone to corruption or falling out of use, which i think is what's happening in particular to genitive partitive.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="e8eb6363-807d-4e70-84ef-c7b8e58d2bf6" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:02:07.317" UserId="10216" Text="https://ibb.co/mMSZG6&#xD;&#xA;https://ibb.co/bKqApR&#xD;&#xA;https://ibb.co/iXUgw6&#xD;&#xA;What are the names of these? I assumed they were КолобоK and  &#xD;&#xA;собака to say of some." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="e8eb6363-807d-4e70-84ef-c7b8e58d2bf6" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:02:07.317" UserId="10216" Text="Can anyone tell me the names of these Russian objects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="e8eb6363-807d-4e70-84ef-c7b8e58d2bf6" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:02:07.317" UserId="10216" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15694" RevisionGUID="bc396db6-a60e-4699-be1d-889ebcc2e320" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:14:03.990" UserId="7674" Text="1. [Собака Жучка][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Колобок][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Дружинники][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ibb.co/mMSZG6&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ibb.co/bKqApR&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ibb.co/iXUgw6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15694" RevisionGUID="73113cc0-df0c-48bc-a4b6-b86786808ff4" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:19:23.617" UserId="7674" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="1. **Собака Жучка**  &#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Колобок**  &#xD;&#xA;[![][5]][5] &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;3. **Дружинники**  &#xD;&#xA;[![][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Is this for a crossword?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqUQv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CWZBA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6z7oP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="fb0e78e8-4321-4e43-bc31-02d91409b409" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:20:09.477" UserId="6097" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="https://ibb.co/mMSZG6&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ibb.co/bKqApR&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ibb.co/iXUgw6&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the names of these? I assumed they were КолобоK and  &#xD;&#xA;собака to say of some." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="568d8fa3-4082-4879-bcb3-4b56fd95b417" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:26:29.797" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="https://ibb.co/mMSZG6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ibb.co/bKqApR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ibb.co/iXUgw6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the names of these? I assumed they were КолобоK and  &#xD;&#xA;собака to say of some." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="568d8fa3-4082-4879-bcb3-4b56fd95b417" CreationDate="2018-02-03T22:26:29.797" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15695" RevisionGUID="4f7c159c-a3dd-4564-84cc-4feaf3c9bfeb" CreationDate="2018-02-04T03:55:51.733" UserId="5" Text="I stopped for a minute trying to come up with a translation what would preserve the nuances, could not find any decent one. Need help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15695" RevisionGUID="4f7c159c-a3dd-4564-84cc-4feaf3c9bfeb" CreationDate="2018-02-04T03:55:51.733" UserId="5" Text="How would you say it in Russian: &quot;world's most okayest employee&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15695" RevisionGUID="4f7c159c-a3dd-4564-84cc-4feaf3c9bfeb" CreationDate="2018-02-04T03:55:51.733" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15696" RevisionGUID="eecce3ff-8ac6-4324-9093-0d8b95de66ba" CreationDate="2018-02-04T08:05:56.213" UserId="7674" Text="My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый нормальный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый годный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously these don't have the double superlative. If it's indispensable for translation, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый зачётнейший**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15696" RevisionGUID="db368064-0c42-4bd8-8548-6b912e9c4b5d" CreationDate="2018-02-04T10:51:48.573" UserId="7674" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый нормальный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый годный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously these don't have the double superlative. If it's indispensable for translation, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый зачётнейший** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15697" RevisionGUID="7e983a85-8339-4bbd-8e81-3a16eac30cf0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:25:57.040" UserId="4451" Text="I was sent this meme by a friend, and although I can read and understand it in a literal sense, I am failing to understand what about the usage of these words is comical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the text roughly translates to &quot;Andre Ilyich is stern yet gentle to himself on the timetable- he glued a sticker of a cat&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the gun would be the timetable. What is the play on words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F2Azf.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15697" RevisionGUID="7e983a85-8339-4bbd-8e81-3a16eac30cf0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:25:57.040" UserId="4451" Text="What is the play-on-words regarding the word &quot;табельный&quot; in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15697" RevisionGUID="7e983a85-8339-4bbd-8e81-3a16eac30cf0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:25:57.040" UserId="4451" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15698" RevisionGUID="d1a84d86-539d-4745-bc90-fe19cc46a9d1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:35:29.427" UserId="8780" Text="I've found quite a few words, expressing quantity, which may be preceded by an accusative preposition and remain the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm not sure if they may be preceded by prepositions requiring different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm talking about *много, мало, более, сколько, несколько, столько, больше,* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, in need of declining these adverbs, **много** and **несколько** may be replaced by the adjectives **многие** and **несколькие**, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the other adverbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to tell *&quot;to live with little money&quot;*, does it make sense to say **&quot;жить с мало денег&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;You can trade more than 60 cryptocurrencies&quot;* - **&quot;Вы можете торговать более 60 криптовалют&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;(I know that *торговать* normally is followed by instrumental).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, *&quot;We got to live with less money&quot;* - **&quot;Мы стали жить с меньше денег&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Мы стали жить с деньгами поменьше&quot;**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15698" RevisionGUID="d1a84d86-539d-4745-bc90-fe19cc46a9d1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:35:29.427" UserId="8780" Text="Prepositions before adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15698" RevisionGUID="d1a84d86-539d-4745-bc90-fe19cc46a9d1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:35:29.427" UserId="8780" Text="|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15699" RevisionGUID="c055ef5f-8f1f-475d-ac68-651918c8790d" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:41:32.227" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Andrey Ilyich is stern yet gentle  &#xD;&#xA;onto his service &quot;TT&quot; gun   &#xD;&#xA;he glued a sticker with a *kitty* from a gum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Котэ&quot;** is a Runet meme meaning cuteness, kind of *kawai* in Japanese terms but less syrupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1]'s a relevant article explaining the meme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poem itself is incidentally written in a meter imitating the Japanese *haiku*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15700" RevisionGUID="96304d23-f463-4d04-9f4c-1488dd2fab7b" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:43:56.787" UserId="9459" Text="I think you misunderstood the timetable thing. `ТТ` is `Тульский Токарев`, a handgun. `Табельное [оружие]`, or [`служебное оружие`](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1405020) is a service pistol, issued to,&#xD;&#xA; e.g. police officers. (By the way, `ТТ` is not used as a service pistol anymore, as far as I know.) As `Токарев` is a male surname, the adjective is used as `табельный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the guy sticked a cute cate™ pic to his service pistol, which should be a pun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15699" RevisionGUID="3866465a-786e-48b5-9d36-4fabbe2554eb" CreationDate="2018-02-04T13:47:57.200" UserId="7674" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="&gt; Andrey Ilyich is stern yet gentle  &#xD;&#xA;onto his service &quot;TT&quot; gun   &#xD;&#xA;he glued a sticker with a *kitty* from a gum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Котэ&quot;** is a Runet meme meaning cuteness, kind of *kawai* in Japanese terms but less syrupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a play on the contrast between fondness of guns or occupation in some enforcement agency and having a cute bubble gum sticker on a weapon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1]'s a relevant article with some background on the meme (rus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poem itself is incidentally written in a meter imitating the Japanese *haiku*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15701" RevisionGUID="954e5207-02aa-447b-92c1-c8c868fb110a" CreationDate="2018-02-04T14:13:41.987" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; 1. As far as I know, in need of declining these adverbs, **много** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** may be replaced by the adjectives **многие** and **несколькие**, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**несколькие** is incorrect, its Nominative is still **несколько**, but it declines in the rest of the cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I want to tell *&quot;to live with little money&quot;*, does it make sense to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say **&quot;жить с мало денег&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express such ideas in Russian one needs to get creative by either adding words or replacing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жить **с малым количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;  or better yet   &#xD;&#xA;жить **с небольшим количеством** денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. *&quot;You can trade more than 60 cryptocurrencies&quot;* - **&quot;Вы можете торговать более 60 криптовалют&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here to **более** you add **чем** to first get to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю (шестьюдесятью) криптовалют**ами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in Russian **валюта** is a collective class name, whose plural is rarely used in Instrumental. Therefore to sound idiomatic the sentence needs to be modified into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю **видами** криптовалют&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Finally, *&quot;We got to live with less money&quot;* - **&quot;Мы стали жить с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньше денег&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;Мы стали жить с деньгами поменьше&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the example for the question #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы стали жить с **меньшим количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15701" RevisionGUID="43ad48db-09a8-41e3-98e0-e71157177adf" CreationDate="2018-02-04T14:25:48.947" UserId="7674" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. As far as I know, in need of declining these adverbs, **много** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** may be replaced by the adjectives **многие** and **несколькие**, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**несколькие** is incorrect, its Nominative is still **несколько**, but it declines in the rest of the cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I want to tell *&quot;to live with little money&quot;*, does it make sense to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say **&quot;жить с мало денег&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express such ideas in Russian one needs to get creative by either adding words or replacing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жить **с малым количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;  or better yet   &#xD;&#xA;жить **с небольшим количеством** денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. *&quot;You can trade more than 60 cryptocurrencies&quot;* - **&quot;Вы можете торговать более 60 криптовалют&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here to **более** you add **чем** to first get to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю (шестьюдесятью) криптовалют**ами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in Russian **валюта** is a collective class name, whose plural is rarely used in Instrumental. Therefore to sound idiomatic the sentence needs to be modified into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю **видами** криптовалют&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Finally, *&quot;We got to live with less money&quot;* - **&quot;Мы стали жить с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньше денег&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;Мы стали жить с деньгами поменьше&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the example for the question #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы стали жить с **меньшим количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;So let's try to sum up, for collective or uncountable nouns:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**много** is declined in the form of **большOе количество**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мало** as **небольшое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **более/больше** as **большEе количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **менее/меньше** as **меньшее количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сколько** as **какое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **столько** as **такое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** as **некоторое количество** &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;And if a collective noun clearly rerpesents volume **количество** can be replaced with **объём**&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15699" RevisionGUID="175337d9-f610-4f6c-a497-87da9bdc683f" CreationDate="2018-02-04T14:45:51.807" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="&gt; Andrey Ilyich is stern yet gentle  &#xD;&#xA;onto his service &quot;TT&quot; gun   &#xD;&#xA;he glued a sticker with a *kitty* from a gum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Котэ&quot;** is a Runet meme meaning cuteness, kind of *kawai* in Japanese terms but less syrupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a play on the contrast between fondness of guns or occupation in some enforcement agency and having a cute bubble gum sticker on a weapon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1]'s a relevant article with some background on the meme (rus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The poem itself is incidentally written in a meter similar (likely unintentionally) to the Japanese *haiku*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15697" RevisionGUID="42749d28-37eb-4157-a6f5-88516525abd4" CreationDate="2018-02-04T14:59:44.273" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|meme|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15701" RevisionGUID="25486ea3-7e94-4c16-8d5a-a35f58fa0e24" CreationDate="2018-02-04T15:07:17.347" UserId="7674" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. As far as I know, in need of declining these adverbs, **много** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** may be replaced by the adjectives **многие** and **несколькие**, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**несколькие** is incorrect, its Nominative is still **несколько**, but it declines in the rest of the cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I want to tell *&quot;to live with little money&quot;*, does it make sense to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say **&quot;жить с мало денег&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express such ideas in Russian one needs to get creative by either adding words or replacing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жить **с малым количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;  or better yet   &#xD;&#xA;жить **с небольшим количеством** денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. *&quot;You can trade more than 60 cryptocurrencies&quot;* - **&quot;Вы можете торговать более 60 криптовалют&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here to **более** you add **чем** to first get to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю (шестьюдесятью) криптовалют**ами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in Russian **валюта** is a collective class name, whose plural is rarely used in Instrumental. Therefore to sound idiomatic the sentence needs to be modified into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю **видами** криптовалют&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Finally, *&quot;We got to live with less money&quot;* - **&quot;Мы стали жить с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньше денег&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;Мы стали жить с деньгами поменьше&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the example for the question #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы стали жить с **меньшим количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;So let's try to sum up, for collective or uncountable nouns in cases other than Nominative and Accusative:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**много** is declined in the form of **большOе количество**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мало** as **небольшое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **более/больше** as **большEе количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **менее/меньше** as **меньшее количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сколько** as **какое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **столько** as **такое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** as **некоторое количество** &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;And if a collective noun clearly rerpesents volume **количество** can be replaced with **объём**&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15695" RevisionGUID="78e6642d-93c9-43f2-9d7c-2f10041aa4c2" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:14:04.560" UserId="5" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="I stopped for a minute trying to come up with a translation what would preserve the nuances, could not find any decent one. Need help&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sorry for having to explain what's implied: the words at play are the &quot;most&quot; implying a winner of a contest that conflicts with &quot;okayest&quot; implying an absolute mediocre person who cannot win anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39252" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15695" RevisionGUID="3cfd5332-cd4e-475c-abe4-2119053ff124" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:43:58.457" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15696" RevisionGUID="b37fca86-3b3c-4db3-8af8-d68aa85d5c11" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:53:37.353" UserId="7674" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый нормальный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый годный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously these don't have the double superlative. If it's indispensable for translation, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый зачётнейший** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After being given the rundown, my suggestion is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому посредственному**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому неказистому**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i guess it'll only work in the context of winning, because by itself these phrases don't have any positive connotations as **самый** always intensifies any property it qualifies be it positive or negative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15702" RevisionGUID="17a3420d-cee3-4eae-ad68-efb7f7adecf1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:58:22.773" UserId="10219" Text="From what I can tell, здоровым is the masculine/neuter instrumental case of здоровый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can't figure out is why the instrumental is used there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence comes from a transcript found here: http://www.russianforfree.com/video-smeshariki-a977b78.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pasted below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ка́рыч:  Не лежи́ на снегу́ - просту́дишься (3).&#xD;&#xA;Бара́ш:  Ну и что? А смысл не просту́живаться (3)? (correct form*: не простужа́ться)&#xD;&#xA;Ка́рыч: Что́бы не боле́ть. &#xD;&#xA;Бара́ш:  А смысл не боле́ть?&#xD;&#xA;Ка́рыч:  Что́бы быть здоро́вым, ёлки-иголки (4).&#xD;&#xA;Бара́ш:  А смысл быть здоро́вым?&#xD;&#xA;Ка́рыч:  Чуда́к (5)! Тебе́ что, не нра́вится быть здоро́вым?&#xD;&#xA;Бара́ш:  При чём здесь «нра́вится» и́ли «не нра́вится». Я не хочу́ быть БЕССМЫ́СЛЕННО здоро́вым.&#xD;&#xA;Ка́рыч:  Ай... Тебе́ ну́жен смысл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15702" RevisionGUID="17a3420d-cee3-4eae-ad68-efb7f7adecf1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:58:22.773" UserId="10219" Text="Why is the instrumental case used in the sentence: Чтобы быть здоровым?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15702" RevisionGUID="17a3420d-cee3-4eae-ad68-efb7f7adecf1" CreationDate="2018-02-04T16:58:22.773" UserId="10219" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39257" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15691" RevisionGUID="0a21672a-1c20-435a-b16b-e5b63e06b890" CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:18:27.863" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/960200894641033217" />
  <row Id="39258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15696" RevisionGUID="65867820-a623-4bb6-911f-7e02e361af0e" CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:52:56.123" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body" Text="My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый нормальный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый годный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously these don't have the double superlative. If it's indispensable for translation, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый зачётнейший** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After being given the rundown, my suggestions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому посредственному**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому неказистому**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому обыкновенному / среднестатистическому / ничем не примечательному /&#xD;&#xA;невыдающемуся**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15703" RevisionGUID="272403e3-4e0b-412c-9577-b3fd85c197e0" CreationDate="2018-02-04T17:56:01.743" UserId="7674" Text="**здоровым** here answers the question **быть каким?** (to be which?) which defaults to Instrumental case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15703" RevisionGUID="ce3fc818-2de1-4f8e-9b01-29b646b6bc36" CreationDate="2018-02-04T18:08:03.303" UserId="7674" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="**здоровым** here answers the question **быть каким?** (to be which?) which defaults to Instrumental case when applied to qualities denoted with adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; быть честным   &#xD;&#xA;быть сильной  &#xD;&#xA; быть (по)битым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With **быть** the object defaults to Instrumental also when answering the question **быть кем?**, only in this case the object is noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; быть студентом  &#xD;&#xA;быть другом  &#xD;&#xA;быть героиней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It needs to be remembered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15703" RevisionGUID="b02c4c68-88dc-40c0-a0ae-20cb8da89d59" CreationDate="2018-02-04T18:18:16.130" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Object **здоровым** here answers the question **быть каким?** (to be which?) which defaults to Instrumental case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; быть честным   &#xD;&#xA;быть сильной  &#xD;&#xA; быть (по)битым&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the verb **быть** the object defaults to Instrumental also when answering the question **быть кем?** (to be whom?), only in this case the object is not an adjective but a noun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; быть студентом  &#xD;&#xA;быть другом  &#xD;&#xA;быть героиней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It needs to be memorized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15701" RevisionGUID="c6dfac61-2d52-4e0f-8431-25ddf926a29f" CreationDate="2018-02-04T18:22:45.050" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. As far as I know, in need of declining these adverbs, **много** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** may be replaced by the adjectives **многие** and **несколькие**, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**несколькие** is incorrect, its Nominative is still **несколько**, but it declines in the rest of the cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I want to tell *&quot;to live with little money&quot;*, does it make sense to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say **&quot;жить с мало денег&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express such ideas in Russian one needs to get creative by either adding words or replacing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жить **с малым количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;  or better yet   &#xD;&#xA;жить **с небольшим количеством** денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. *&quot;You can trade more than 60 cryptocurrencies&quot;* - **&quot;Вы можете торговать более 60 криптовалют&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here to **более** you add **чем** (just as in English *`more than`*) to first get to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю (шестьюдесятью) криптовалют**ами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in Russian **валюта** is a collective class name, whose plural is rarely used in Instrumental. Therefore to sound idiomatic the sentence needs to be modified into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю **видами** криптовалют&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Finally, *&quot;We got to live with less money&quot;* - **&quot;Мы стали жить с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньше денег&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;Мы стали жить с деньгами поменьше&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the example for the question #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы стали жить с **меньшим количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;So let's try to sum up, for collective or uncountable nouns in cases other than Nominative and Accusative:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**много** is declined in the form of **большOе количество**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мало** as **небольшое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **более/больше** as **большEе количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **менее/меньше** as **меньшее количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сколько** as **какое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **столько** as **такое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** as **некоторое количество** &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;And if a collective noun clearly represents volume **количество** can be substituted with **объём**&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15701" RevisionGUID="238e6eb9-f0c8-4b22-b763-7833953615c4" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:13:00.323" UserId="7674" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. As far as I know, in need of declining these adverbs, **много** and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** may be replaced by the adjectives **многие** and **несколькие**, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**несколькие** is incorrect, its Nominative is still **несколько**, but it declines in the rest of the cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I want to tell *&quot;to live with little money&quot;*, does it make sense to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; say **&quot;жить с мало денег&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express such ideas in Russian one needs to get creative by either adding words or replacing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жить **с малым количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;  or better yet   &#xD;&#xA;жить **с небольшим количеством** денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. *&quot;You can trade more than 60 cryptocurrencies&quot;* - **&quot;Вы можете торговать более 60 криптовалют&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here to **более** you add **чем** (just as in English *`more than`*) to first get to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю (шестьюдесятью) криптовалют**ами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that in Russian **валюта** is a collective class name, whose plural is rarely used in Instrumental. Therefore to sound idiomatic the sentence needs to be modified into&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать **более**, **чем** 60-ю **видами** криптовалют&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Finally, *&quot;We got to live with less money&quot;* - **&quot;Мы стали жить с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньше денег&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;Мы стали жить с деньгами поменьше&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the example for the question #1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы стали жить с **меньшим количеством** денег  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;So let's try to sum up, for collective or uncountable nouns in cases other than Nominative and Accusative:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**много** is declined in the form of **большOе количество**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мало** as **небольшое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **более/больше** as **большEе количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **менее/меньше** as **меньшее количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сколько** as **какое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **столько** as **такое количество**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **несколько** as **некоторое количество** &lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;So basically in contrast with English the role of the main object is assumed by the word `количество` while the word which was supposed to be the main object is inflected in Genitive answering the question `количество/а/у/ом/е чего?` - *of money, of problems, of days* etc. And if a collective noun clearly represents volume **количество** can be substituted with **объём**&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15702" RevisionGUID="bdcc8add-b4ff-4b48-b2cb-e371a81c0685" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:54:35.167" UserId="10219" Comment="formatting" Text="From what I can tell, здоровым is the masculine/neuter instrumental case of здоровый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can't figure out is why the instrumental is used there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence comes from a transcript found here: http://www.russianforfree.com/video-smeshariki-a977b78.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pasted below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ка́рыч:  Не лежи́ на снегу́ - просту́дишься (3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бара́ш:  Ну и что? А смысл не просту́живаться (3)? (correct form*: не простужа́ться)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ка́рыч: Что́бы не боле́ть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бара́ш:  А смысл не боле́ть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ка́рыч:  Что́бы быть здоро́вым, ёлки-иголки (4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бара́ш:  А смысл быть здоро́вым?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ка́рыч:  Чуда́к (5)! Тебе́ что, не нра́вится быть здоро́вым?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Бара́ш:  При чём здесь «нра́вится» и́ли «не нра́вится». Я не хочу́ быть БЕССМЫ́СЛЕННО здоро́вым.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ка́рыч:  Ай... Тебе́ ну́жен смысл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15706" RevisionGUID="920206df-c218-4cd0-80c0-de9624488771" CreationDate="2018-02-04T20:58:50.140" UserId="10219" Text="I'm definitely a beginner so apologies in advance for what may be silly questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about this sentence, particularly around the use of `в`: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне смысла в этой жизни и без Кузинатры хватает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2#Russian), `в` is used with locations, directions, and time.  But here it's used with this life which doesn't seem to fit into any of those 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you clarify what `в` means here and in what cases are `этой` and `жизни`.  The spelling alone is not sufficient as they both match many.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what is the subject in this sentence (or of the propositional phrase)?  In easier examples, like `Он идёт в теа́тр`, it's straightforward to see the subject (in nominative case) is `Он`, but here there is `Мне` which is either accusative or prepositional case, so I'm confused to say to least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from a [cartoon with transcript](http://www.russianforfree.com/video-smeshariki-a977b78.php).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is the quoted dialog:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ка́рыч:  Тогда́ тебе́ нужна́ Кузина́тра (&quot;Кузина́тра&quot; is only a name).&#xD;&#xA;    Бара́ш:  Кака́я ещё Кузина́тра?&#xD;&#xA;    Ка́рыч:  Кузина́тра, даю́щая смысл.&#xD;&#xA;    Бара́ш:  Даааа! Она́ мне нужна́! Но где её иска́ть?&#xD;&#xA;    Ка́рыч:  Э́то о́чень далеко́. &#xD;&#xA;    Бара́ш:  За смы́слом хоть на край све́та (6). Веди́ меня́!&#xD;&#xA;    Ка́рыч:  Нет, мне в таку́ю даль пере́ться (7) не́ за чем. Мне смы́сла в э́той &#xD;&#xA;    жи́зни и без Кузина́тры хвата́ет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15706" RevisionGUID="920206df-c218-4cd0-80c0-de9624488771" CreationDate="2018-02-04T20:58:50.140" UserId="10219" Text="Use of the preposition в unrelated to time/location/direction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15706" RevisionGUID="920206df-c218-4cd0-80c0-de9624488771" CreationDate="2018-02-04T20:58:50.140" UserId="10219" Text="|грамматика|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15707" RevisionGUID="373062dd-eb8c-4b2d-8c09-6a66daeb2de2" CreationDate="2018-02-04T21:35:09.087" UserId="10221" Text="In this particular example 'в' is 'in'. That's how you specify your context or, if you wish, scope. So there are two possibilities there: &quot;мне смысла жизни мало&quot; or &quot;мне смысла **в** жизни мало&quot;. Both are very similar, though the second one **could** but not necessarily has to be understood such that it references to the personal life of the author, not the Life as a phenom. &#xA;&#xA;But as a beginner, please remember: &quot;в&quot; mostly always means &quot;in&quot;. So you might say &quot;**в** такой ситуации&quot; - &quot;in such a situation&quot; or &quot;в возрасте&quot; which would mean that someone is not so young. Russians tend to use &quot;в&quot; quite a lot and not all of the usages can be literally translated with help of &quot;in&quot;, but **essentially** the meaning holds: to be inside of something. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39272" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15539" RevisionGUID="a76e1eb4-3969-48db-adcf-374a40df31df" CreationDate="2018-02-04T23:18:36.113" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/960291526579507201" />
  <row Id="39274" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="15690" RevisionGUID="85d1e139-277a-4e0c-b6c7-b1654d8f18ba" CreationDate="2018-02-05T05:12:29.737" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39279" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15706" RevisionGUID="803b657a-7a4b-412d-ab47-57771512b68c" CreationDate="2018-02-05T07:20:48.200" UserId="6097" Comment="edited title" Text="Use of the preposition &quot;в&quot; unrelated to time/location/direction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15696" RevisionGUID="60154a53-02ed-45d4-b60c-2292ebfd3ddf" CreationDate="2018-02-05T09:14:36.323" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="My take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый нормальный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый годный** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously these don't have the double superlative. If it's indispensable for translation, then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самый зачётнейший** (в мире)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After being given the rundown, my suggestions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому посредственному**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому неказистому**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**самому обыкновенному / среднестатистическому / ничем не примечательному /&#xD;&#xA;невыдающемуся / заурядному**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39281" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15600" RevisionGUID="5220e58e-6a7f-4be9-bcb6-05f560a188b5" CreationDate="2018-02-05T09:22:11.823" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15708" RevisionGUID="f9a1556a-cc2d-48b4-b447-fd9cf0ea27e3" CreationDate="2018-02-05T09:45:43.343" UserId="5443" Text="    what is the subject in this sentence (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, there's a type of sentence with **no subject** (*impersonal sentence*) and your example belongs to it. In English translation, such sentences *take a subject* like '**there**' of '**it**'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand how it works *literally*, it might be useful to slightly change the word order in your Russian sentence,  just by moving the verb **хватает** from the very end (where that verb sounds *emphasized*) to a neutral position, just after the pronoun мне. It makes possible to match elementary Russian and English phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Мне хватает смысла (2) в этой жизни (3) и без Кузинатры.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (1) There is enough sense for me (2) in this life (3) without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cuisinatra as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the English version has the subject '**there**', *without* a counterpart in the Russian sentence, while other words can be matched almost literally: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне хватает = [it, there] is enough... for me;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; смысла (genitive case) = sense;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; в этой жизни = in this life;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; без Кузинатры = without Cuisinatra;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **и** (in this context) = as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    what в means here (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the comparison of parts (2), **в** means **in** here  (*inside, within* - possible in some other context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    in what cases are этой and жизни (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **жизнь** and the pronoun **эта** are in the **prepositional** case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15709" RevisionGUID="407d8a48-db84-4503-b085-bd6d3ca4d111" CreationDate="2018-02-05T10:24:45.727" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Интересный **род занятий** она себе выбрала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that &quot;занятий&quot; is in Genitive and only &quot;род&quot; takes the accusative case for the verb &quot;выбрала&quot;, I assume the sentence should be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She has chosen an interesting **kind** (of all possible jobs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Strictly speaking, in Russian, is it a **kind**/**sort** that she has chosen, rather than a **job** in Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is it odd to use the genitive singular &quot;занятия&quot; and say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Интересный **род занятия** она себе выбрала. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In stark contrast, in English, you say &quot;an interesting **kind** **of** **job**&quot; {both in singular}, not &quot;an interesting **kind** **of** **jobs**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15709" RevisionGUID="407d8a48-db84-4503-b085-bd6d3ca4d111" CreationDate="2018-02-05T10:24:45.727" UserId="8672" Text="Is it &quot;a kind&quot;, not &quot;a job&quot; that she has chosen in: &quot;Интересный род занятий она себе выбрала&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15709" RevisionGUID="407d8a48-db84-4503-b085-bd6d3ca4d111" CreationDate="2018-02-05T10:24:45.727" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15709" RevisionGUID="1b57635e-b73e-45ab-8735-004c86147076" CreationDate="2018-02-05T10:35:38.963" UserId="8672" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="&gt;Интересный **род занятий** она себе выбрала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that &quot;занятий&quot; is in Genitive and only &quot;род&quot; takes the accusative case for the verb &quot;выбрала&quot;, I assume the sentence should be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She has chosen an interesting **kind** (of all possible jobs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Strictly speaking, in Russian, is it a **kind**/**sort** that she has chosen, rather than a **job** in Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is it odd to use the genitive singular &quot;занятия&quot; and say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Интересный **род занятия** она себе выбрала. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In stark contrast, in English, you say &quot;an interesting **kind** **of** **job**&quot; {both in singular}, not &quot;an interesting **kind** **of** **jobs**&quot;. She has chosen a **job** rather than a kind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39287" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15561" RevisionGUID="af357801-5c96-4352-af53-3d1d4b0a78ff" CreationDate="2018-02-05T11:21:14.600" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/960473384177029120" />
  <row Id="39288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15710" RevisionGUID="88752648-571d-4e9b-bd2b-a558e8a33920" CreationDate="2018-02-05T11:44:29.473" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Q1. Strictly speaking, in Russian, is it a **kind/sort** that she has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chosen, rather than a **job** in Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's both. It doesn't imply that she first has had some occupation and then chose its kind. **Род занятий** (type of occupation) is a stable collocation in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q2. Is it odd to use the genitive singular &quot;занятия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is, mainly because it's a deviation from the stable collocation. But as a rule such words as **род/вид/тип/категория/класс** call for plural form of the word they refer to (perhaps because they themselves encompass a host of objects, being umbrella terms). To quote another example from an answer to [another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать более, чем 60-ю **видами криптовалют**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For English mindset one can rationalize it as *`of all`**`jobs`**`she's chosen this type`*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15698/prepositions-before-adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15710" RevisionGUID="91a110fd-fdbc-4a50-ba9a-bced2a75e42f" CreationDate="2018-02-05T11:49:31.530" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Q1. Strictly speaking, in Russian, is it a **kind/sort** that she has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chosen, rather than a **job** in Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's both. It doesn't imply that she first has had some occupation and then chose its kind. **Род занятий** (type of occupation) is a stable collocation in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q2. Is it odd to use the genitive singular &quot;занятия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is, mainly because it's a deviation from the stable collocation. But as a rule such words as **род/вид/тип/категория/класс** call for plural form of the word they refer to (perhaps because they themselves encompass a host of objects, being umbrella terms). To quote another example from an answer to [another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать более, чем 60-ю **видами криптовалют**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For English mindset one may rationalize it as *`of all`**`jobs`**`she's chosen this type`*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15698/prepositions-before-adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15710" RevisionGUID="05b3970c-8404-44bb-80df-7a3e969a404d" CreationDate="2018-02-05T12:22:40.640" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt; Q1. Strictly speaking, in Russian, is it a **kind/sort** that she has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chosen, rather than a **job** in Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's both. It doesn't imply that she first had had some occupation and then chose its kind. **Род занятий** (type of occupation) is a stable collocation in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q2. Is it odd to use the genitive singular &quot;занятия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is, mainly because it's a deviation from the stable collocation. But as a rule such words as **род/вид/тип/категория/класс** call for plural form of the word they refer to (perhaps because they themselves encompass a host of objects, being umbrella terms). To quote another example from an answer to [another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать более, чем 60-ю **видами криптовалют**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anglophone mindset one may rationalize it as *`of all (types of)`**`  jobs`**`she's chosen this type`*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15698/prepositions-before-adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15710" RevisionGUID="f5f783f5-27d5-40e9-a17d-b75947468576" CreationDate="2018-02-05T12:28:12.023" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt; Q1. Strictly speaking, in Russian, is it a **kind/sort** that she has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chosen, rather than a **job** in Genitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say it's both. It doesn't imply that she first had had some occupation and then chose its kind. **Род занятий** (type of occupation) is a stable collocation in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might as well say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Интересное занятие она себе выбрала&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the meaning is not very much different from the original phrase, but it sounds poor and skimpy in comparison with the original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q2. Is it odd to use the genitive singular &quot;занятия&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is, mainly because it's a deviation from the stable collocation. But as a rule such words as **род/вид/тип/категория/класс** call for plural form of the word they refer to (perhaps because they themselves encompass a host of objects, being umbrella terms). To quote another example from an answer to [another question][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете торговать более, чем 60-ю **видами криптовалют**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anglophone mindset one may rationalize it as *`of all (types of)`**`  jobs`**`she's chosen this type`*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15698/prepositions-before-adverbs&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15711" RevisionGUID="85953018-f826-4726-9b86-b0154b044f03" CreationDate="2018-02-05T12:55:20.863" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Если бы я знала, **что тут будет**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{If I had known what would happen here, I would not have come.}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The temptation is great to say &quot;будет происходить&quot; or &quot;произойдёт&quot;, but I wonder if &quot;быть&quot; alone is enough to express the idea of &quot;happen&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если бы я знала, **что тут будет** **происходить**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если бы я знала, **что тут** **произойдёт**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15711" RevisionGUID="85953018-f826-4726-9b86-b0154b044f03" CreationDate="2018-02-05T12:55:20.863" UserId="8672" Text="Is &quot;что тут будет&quot; enough to express the idea of &quot;what would happen here&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15711" RevisionGUID="85953018-f826-4726-9b86-b0154b044f03" CreationDate="2018-02-05T12:55:20.863" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15712" RevisionGUID="1750cbe3-1dcf-4ea1-a67e-9a154febc9fd" CreationDate="2018-02-05T13:24:15.943" UserId="9001" Text="*Если бы я знала, что тут будет* - a little colloquial, but that's what people often say in the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Если бы я знала, что тут будет происходить* - means the same and neutrally styled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Если бы я знала, что тут произойдёт* - a valid phrase with slightly different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the first two sentences refer to what continuously happens in general (like a lot of noise, consumption of alcohol etc.), the last sentence talks about some particular fact that have happened (somebody broke their hand, kitchen was burnt etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Если бы я знала, что тут будет* -  can also have a different meaning: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If I had known what would be [built | placed] here*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15708" RevisionGUID="c2bb512b-7460-48e7-8c71-746a2544aa6a" CreationDate="2018-02-05T18:54:00.707" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="    what is the subject in this sentence (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, there's a type of sentence with **no subject** (*impersonal sentence*) and your example belongs to it. In English translation, such sentences *take a subject* like '**there**' or '**it**'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand how it works *literally*, it might be useful to slightly change the word order in your Russian sentence,  just by moving the verb **хватает** from the very end (where that verb sounds *emphasized*) to a neutral position, just after the pronoun мне. It makes possible to match elementary Russian and English phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Мне хватает смысла (2) в этой жизни (3) и без Кузинатры.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (1) There is enough sense for me (2) in this life (3) without&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cuisinatra as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the English version has the subject '**there**', *without* a counterpart in the Russian sentence, while other words can be matched almost literally: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мне хватает = [it, there] is enough... for me;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; смысла (genitive case) = sense;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; в этой жизни = in this life;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; без Кузинатры = without Cuisinatra;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **и** (in this context) = as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    what в means here (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the comparison of parts (2), **в** means **in** here  (*inside, within* - possible in some other context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    in what cases are этой and жизни (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **жизнь** and the pronoun **эта** are in the **prepositional** case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15713" RevisionGUID="cf501cb1-bdc1-4d99-a8cb-737f4d472839" CreationDate="2018-02-05T19:01:07.267" UserId="9256" Text="`&quot;Если бы я знала, что тут будет&quot;` - as @AlexVB mentioned, this is colloquial. Using a phrase like this is sounds too generic, like when a person can't find specific words to describe the happening, or deliberately stays vague. Ex: `&quot;Я пришла, а там такое!&quot;` - &quot;I've come, and there was this thing going on!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, native speakers would try to be more specific with the phrase. `&quot;Если бы я знала, что тут будет X&quot;` (where X is the name or description of the event or situation that distressed the speaker) is a more complete and literature-friendly phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15713" RevisionGUID="908cd6f9-2c5d-47e7-a428-c255b1e7f03f" CreationDate="2018-02-05T20:54:29.253" UserId="9256" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`&quot;Если бы я знала, что тут будет&quot;` - as @AlexVB mentioned, this is colloquial. Using a phrase like this sounds too generic, like when a person can't find specific words to describe what is happening, or deliberately stays vague. Ex: `&quot;Я пришла, а там такое!&quot;` - &quot;I've come, and there was this thing going on!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, native speakers would try to be more specific with the phrase. `&quot;Если бы я знала, что тут будет X&quot;` (where X is the name or description of the event or situation that distressed the speaker) is a more complete and literature-friendly phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39300" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15466" RevisionGUID="58bf4aeb-70a9-4289-b86b-6209a596dc91" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:24:23.230" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/960655369709150208" />
  <row Id="39301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15714" RevisionGUID="63846558-dbcf-4864-bdac-72b573ba8dee" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:28:20.120" UserId="8780" Text="Someone told me that it is incorrect to say `&quot;Я не люблю людей, моложе меня&quot;`. The correct syntax, she said, is `&quot;Я не люблю людей, кто моложе меня&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got to know that, when using a comparative referring to people on a subordinate clause, the subordinate clause may not be introduced by the comparative (*моложе*), but by a relative pronoun (*кто, который*, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what about things other than people? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to tell *&quot;I don't like cars older than 5 years&quot;*, which of the following alternatives is valid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **1.** Я не люблю машин, что старше пяти лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **2.** Я не люблю машин, которые старше пяти лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **3.** Я не люблю машин, которым более пяти лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **4.** Я не люблю машин, чему более пяти лет. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15714" RevisionGUID="63846558-dbcf-4864-bdac-72b573ba8dee" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:28:20.120" UserId="8780" Text="Comparative in subordinate clauses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15714" RevisionGUID="63846558-dbcf-4864-bdac-72b573ba8dee" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:28:20.120" UserId="8780" Text="|subordinate|clauses|сравнительная-степень|сравнительный|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15715" RevisionGUID="173c48c6-bcc4-43cc-be87-1165ca8a9576" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:37:30.717" UserId="8780" Text="I know that, when a number declines, all of its components decline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, the number 250.000 in instrumental would be **двумястами пятьюдесятью тысячами.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I was wondering, would I ever need, in practice, to tell the number 250.000 in the instrumental case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example... `&quot;The price of our apartment was 250.000 euros&quot;`. Does it make any sense to say &quot;Цена нашей квартиры была двумястами пятьюдесятью тысячами евро&quot;`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15715" RevisionGUID="173c48c6-bcc4-43cc-be87-1165ca8a9576" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:37:30.717" UserId="8780" Text="Usage of declined numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15715" RevisionGUID="173c48c6-bcc4-43cc-be87-1165ca8a9576" CreationDate="2018-02-05T23:37:30.717" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15716" RevisionGUID="2f1af926-0f9c-4bac-9e61-228efbcac782" CreationDate="2018-02-06T00:21:06.797" UserId="4560" Text="In your particular example, 250,000 would be nominative to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take an example where you'd actually need instrumental, though — say, &quot;a suitcase with 250,000 euros in it&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **чемодан с двумястами пятьюдесятью тысячами евро**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— if you're a radio/TV presenter, maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `чемодан с двухсот пятидесятью тысячами евро`, or something equally haphazard along these lines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— what you're probably going to get even from native Russian speakers in everyday life. We all struggle with numerals; it's an area in which Russian is currently shedding old complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to imagine having to spell out such numerals in writing when you can just write the numbers, but theoretically, the same general rule applies: in a book or &quot;serious&quot; publication, you'll be expected to use the correct forms; informally, pretty much anything goes as long as it's *some* oblique form. If you look at the declension of **сорок**, it's more or less how all numerals will probably end up eventually." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15717" RevisionGUID="936b835b-c0b5-446f-9656-96b634c2589d" CreationDate="2018-02-06T00:42:40.047" UserId="4560" Text="Strange advice. `Я не люблю людей, кто моложе меня` is ungrammatical. Sounds like the kind of mistake an English speaker would make. **Кто** never introduces a subordinate clause without a preceding form of **тот** (in the appropriate gender, case, and number), unless the main clause's verb is imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не люблю людей моложе меня** (no comma) is correct and that's how you should say it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не люблю тех, кто моложе меня** is correct too but a bit too bookish for everyday speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Я не люблю машин, что старше пяти лет.** — Accidentally sounds like a line of poetry. You'd rarely find **что** outside the poetic register (unless, of course, it's a **тот, что** two-parter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Я не люблю машин, которые старше пяти лет.** — Okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Я не люблю машин, которым более пяти лет.** — Better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Я не люблю машин, чему более пяти лет.** — If anything, this can be understood to somewhat clumsily try to say that the speaker has disliked cars for over five years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13288" RevisionGUID="1e73160c-fb41-4be3-bab2-8548efad2606" CreationDate="2018-02-06T05:26:09.307" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Мы в жизни не говорим **примерно** и **около** с минутами и секундами. В крайнем случае **почти**. Правильнее говорить **примерно** без четверти восемь,а лучше **около** восьми, **почти** /**где‐то** восемь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15718" RevisionGUID="f14f55b8-2085-48fe-bbdb-eff4185f60dd" CreationDate="2018-02-06T07:32:26.010" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Если **уж** ты заговорил о Бельгии, Швейцарии, то покажи мне хоть одного шотландца или ирландца, не владеющего английским. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually associate &quot;уж&quot; or &quot;уже&quot; with the temporal sense &quot;already&quot;, but in this specific instance, it does not seem to fit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15718" RevisionGUID="f14f55b8-2085-48fe-bbdb-eff4185f60dd" CreationDate="2018-02-06T07:32:26.010" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;уж&quot; in &quot;если уж&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15718" RevisionGUID="f14f55b8-2085-48fe-bbdb-eff4185f60dd" CreationDate="2018-02-06T07:32:26.010" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15719" RevisionGUID="7b899ff2-c8cb-4171-9712-300c331dbc46" CreationDate="2018-02-06T08:07:14.643" UserId="4481" Text="Some of your variants seems natural for me, some - not. Also, it depends on context. For example, if someone asks you &quot;What time is it?&quot;, and you don't know the exact time, you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; примерно семь пятнадцать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начало восьмого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is 7:50, you can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Без чего-то восемь (eight without something)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to arrange a meeting, you can use all your variants (for me it seems OK). But note: `приблизительно в семь пятнадцать` is a correct answer to question &quot;When you would like to meet?&quot;, while `приблизительно семь пятнадцать` is a correct answer to &quot;What time is it?&quot; (but not vise versa). The preposition `в` here makes sense. The same rule works for `примерно [в] семь пятнадцать`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39316" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15693" RevisionGUID="480ad068-6925-4b14-8690-92c966bb9722" CreationDate="2018-02-06T08:10:01.637" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1836,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alissa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15720" RevisionGUID="fe39add6-2064-45b3-8c17-63b97570dff5" CreationDate="2018-02-06T09:41:41.467" UserId="5443" Text="You can think of the combination **если уж** (**=since**) here as a result of a transformation from simply **если** (**=if**). While the meaning '**since**' is clear enough from the context even without **уж**, the addition of it makes that sense clear even *without* the context. Technically, you can still consider **уж** a short version of '*[if] it's **already** happened that...*'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an even stronger (but a bit more colloquial) Russian expression than *если уж*: **раз (уж)**, which carries the meaning of **since** even in absence of **уж**, which just adds some emphasis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39318" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15715" RevisionGUID="39eade34-1601-4862-b929-cec1b4c29cbf" CreationDate="2018-02-06T11:28:43.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/960837654442119169" />
  <row Id="39319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15532" RevisionGUID="2dc75aed-630b-4a6f-895a-287c4e8d340a" CreationDate="2018-02-06T14:28:59.167" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/960883019664982016" />
  <row Id="39320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15721" RevisionGUID="9781b870-8345-4c95-9484-568748b595a6" CreationDate="2018-02-06T19:21:17.897" UserId="10219" Text="Beginner here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to figure out the difference between [поде́лать](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/поделать#Russian) and [сделать](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the above wiktionary links, they both mean to make / to do and are both perfective verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they synonyms?  In their some connotation difference between the two?  How would I know which to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one is correct (if any...): Я сделал ошибку vs Я поделал ошибку.  I seem to find way more examples of the former on [reverso](http://context.reverso.net/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/%D1%8F+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BB+%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BA%D1%83)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, they both list the imperfective form as `делать`, so I am confused as to why `делать` needs 2 perfective forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks / большое спасибо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15721" RevisionGUID="9781b870-8345-4c95-9484-568748b595a6" CreationDate="2018-02-06T19:21:17.897" UserId="10219" Text="поде́лать vs сделать, both mean to make/to do and are perfective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15721" RevisionGUID="9781b870-8345-4c95-9484-568748b595a6" CreationDate="2018-02-06T19:21:17.897" UserId="10219" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15722" RevisionGUID="c9f599e9-8c73-4377-a4a2-c1eb2d105f15" CreationDate="2018-02-06T20:35:11.687" UserId="9256" Text="Many Russian verbs have several perfect forms with prefixes `&quot;по-&quot;` and `&quot;с-&quot;`. &quot;C-&quot; prefix usually means that the act is complete, while &quot;по-&quot; means doing something without having a tangible result. Ex. `&quot;сходить&quot;` - to go (and come back), `&quot;походить&quot;` - to walk for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `&quot;делать&quot;`, predominant perfect form is `&quot;сделать&quot;`. `&quot;Я сделал ошибку&quot;` - &quot;I made a mistake&quot;. The word `&quot;поделать&quot;` has a much more narrow use. Ex. `&quot;Он что-то там поделал&quot;` - &quot;He did something there&quot;, the implied meaning is that the work was either incomplete or incompetent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, one very common phrase with the word `&quot;поделать&quot;` - `&quot;Ничего не поделать&quot;`, meaning &quot;There's nothing can be done&quot;. Using the word `&quot;сделать&quot;` in this case will be inappropriate, unless we talk about an event in the past, when a window of opportunity to fix something existed, but now it's gone - `&quot;Ничего уже не сделаешь&quot;` - &quot;Nothing can be done *now*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15722" RevisionGUID="883c184e-8ba7-48be-a9ee-e13b0e748a96" CreationDate="2018-02-06T22:01:35.337" UserId="9256" Comment="added 486 characters in body" Text="Many Russian verbs have several perfect forms with prefixes `&quot;по-&quot;` and `&quot;с-&quot;`. `&quot;C-&quot;` prefix usually means that the act is complete, while `&quot;по-&quot;` means doing something without having a tangible result. Ex. `&quot;сходить&quot;` - to go (and come back), `&quot;походить&quot;` - to walk for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `&quot;делать&quot;`, predominant perfect form is `&quot;сделать&quot;`. `&quot;Я сделал ошибку&quot;` - &quot;I made a mistake&quot;. The word `&quot;поделать&quot;` has a much more narrow use. Ex. `&quot;Он что-то там поделал&quot;` - &quot;He did something there&quot;, the implied meaning is that the work was either incomplete or incompetent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, one very common phrase with the word `&quot;поделать&quot;` - `&quot;Ничего не поделать&quot;`, meaning &quot;There's nothing can be done&quot;. Using the word `&quot;сделать&quot;` in this case will be inappropriate, unless we talk about an event in the past, when a window of opportunity to fix something existed, but now it's gone - `&quot;Ничего уже не сделаешь&quot;` - &quot;Nothing can be done *now*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The typical &quot;incomplete, random&quot; meaning of `&quot;по-&quot;` verbs holds true only when there is no corresponding `&quot;с-&quot;` verbs, or the `&quot;с-&quot;` verb has a distinctly different meaning. In those cases &quot;по-&quot; verbs describe completed acts. Ex. `&quot;постирать&quot;` - &quot;to wash&quot; (clothes), `&quot;починить&quot;` - &quot;to fix&quot;. There are no respective words like `&quot;сстирать&quot;` or `&quot;счинить&quot;`. Ex.2 `&quot;помыть&quot;` - &quot;to wash&quot; (rigid object) - the word `&quot;смыть&quot;` - &quot;to wash something away&quot; - has a different meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15722" RevisionGUID="9516e06e-8f0c-4e52-8e05-c2ade4eb2aba" CreationDate="2018-02-06T22:50:45.180" UserId="9256" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Many Russian verbs have several perfect forms with prefixes `&quot;по-&quot;` and `&quot;с-&quot;`. `&quot;C-&quot;` prefix usually means that the act is complete, while `&quot;по-&quot;` means doing something without having a tangible result. Ex. `&quot;сходить&quot;` - to go (and come back), `&quot;походить&quot;` - to walk for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `&quot;делать&quot;`, predominant perfect form is `&quot;сделать&quot;`. `&quot;Я сделал ошибку&quot;` - &quot;I made a mistake&quot;. The word `&quot;поделать&quot;` has a much more narrow use. Ex. `&quot;Он что-то там поделал&quot;` - &quot;He did something there&quot;, the implied meaning is that the work was either incomplete or incompetent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, however, one very common phrase with the word `&quot;поделать&quot;` - `&quot;Ничего не поделать&quot;`, meaning &quot;There's nothing can be done&quot;. Using the word `&quot;сделать&quot;` in this case will be inappropriate, unless we talk about an event in the past, when a window of opportunity to fix something existed, but now it's gone - `&quot;Ничего уже не сделаешь&quot;` - &quot;Nothing can be done *now*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The typical &quot;incomplete, intermittent&quot; meaning of `&quot;по-&quot;` verbs does not hold true when there are no corresponding `&quot;с-&quot;` verbs, or the `&quot;с-&quot;` verb has a distinctly different meaning. In those cases `&quot;по-&quot;` verbs describe successfully completed acts. Ex. `&quot;постирать&quot;` - &quot;to wash&quot; (clothes), `&quot;починить&quot;` - &quot;to fix&quot;. There are no respective words like `&quot;сстирать&quot;` or `&quot;счинить&quot;`. Ex.2 `&quot;помыть&quot;` - &quot;to wash&quot; (rigid object) - the word `&quot;смыть&quot;` - &quot;to wash something away&quot; - has a different meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15723" RevisionGUID="8da84933-d252-458c-b891-490660e35850" CreationDate="2018-02-07T13:02:28.883" UserId="334" Text="&gt;I usually associate &quot;уж&quot; or &quot;уже&quot; with the temporal sense &quot;already&quot;, but in this specific instance, it does not seem to fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;True. The most common setting to use this expression is something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Если уж он зашел в этот магазин, [то] он купит то-то и то-то.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Если уж ты слил всю заварку чаю, [то] будь добр заварить свежую.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the addition of &quot;уж&quot; puts special emphasis on the &quot;Если ... [то] &quot; (&quot;If ... then ...&quot;) pair. Depending on context/intonation it can be expression of annoyance, emphasis of necessity and other things. It also may imply that the condition (if ... part) is rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particualr example in your question &quot;уж&quot; imply that Irish and Scottish people virtually always speak English, the speaker dares you to prove otherwise, and it has clear consequence for some situation with Belgium/Sweden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15723" RevisionGUID="f956c1f5-fe8b-437f-adc4-357eff16e916" CreationDate="2018-02-07T13:11:38.683" UserId="334" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="&gt;I usually associate &quot;уж&quot; or &quot;уже&quot; with the temporal sense &quot;already&quot;, but in this specific instance, it does not seem to fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;True. The most common setting to use this expression is something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Если уж он зашел в этот магазин, [то] он купит то-то и то-то.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Если уж ты слил всю заварку чаю, [то] будь добр заварить свежую.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the addition of &quot;уж&quot; puts special emphasis on the &quot;Если ... [то] &quot; (&quot;If ... then ...&quot;) pair. Depending on context/intonation it can be expression of annoyance, emphasis of necessity and other things. It also may imply that the condition (if ... part) is rare and if it happens at all, the conditioned part (to ... part) happens for sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the particualr example in your question &quot;уж&quot; imply that Irish and Scottish people virtually always speak English, the speaker dares you to prove otherwise, and it has clear consequence for some situation with Belgium/Sweden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39328" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15721" RevisionGUID="5dbbe55f-f709-40f6-8379-c210acf1556a" CreationDate="2018-02-07T14:32:48.447" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961246368810627072" />
  <row Id="39336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15727" RevisionGUID="727f8c20-e9a3-4ded-84cc-b3aa174511bd" CreationDate="2018-02-07T21:21:00.400" UserId="4511" Text="What does `тупенькая` means in below sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Ты говоришь по-английски?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    -Нет, я тупенькая )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15727" RevisionGUID="727f8c20-e9a3-4ded-84cc-b3aa174511bd" CreationDate="2018-02-07T21:21:00.400" UserId="4511" Text="тупенькая meaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15727" RevisionGUID="727f8c20-e9a3-4ded-84cc-b3aa174511bd" CreationDate="2018-02-07T21:21:00.400" UserId="4511" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15728" RevisionGUID="479ba825-9b22-43f8-baa6-c01deb648a94" CreationDate="2018-02-07T22:04:26.647" UserId="7674" Text="It means *thick (headed)*. Grammatically it is the word ***тупая*** with the suffix ***-еньк**(ая)* (-ая is ending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***-еньк** (-оньк)* is a suffix of adjectives, adverbs and nouns which imparts them diminutive connotation to either soften their rudeness (as in ***тупенькая*** vs ***тупая***) or make them sound gentle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мал**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;чёрный - чёрн**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;скоро - скор**еньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;тихо - тих**оньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;дочка - доч**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; папа - пап**еньк**а (archaic)   &#xD;&#xA;мама - мам**еньк**а (archaic)  &#xD;&#xA;Петя - Пет**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;Катя - Кат**еньк**а" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39340" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15727" RevisionGUID="a7c822e5-b4c4-4283-bf15-4c81ea01368f" CreationDate="2018-02-07T22:05:41.987" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|морфология|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15729" RevisionGUID="9c72a6ed-f74f-4c45-a6ef-0235c5414714" CreationDate="2018-02-07T22:59:48.380" UserId="10237" Text="Both mean &quot;nothing&quot; as far as I understand, so what is the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15729" RevisionGUID="9c72a6ed-f74f-4c45-a6ef-0235c5414714" CreationDate="2018-02-07T22:59:48.380" UserId="10237" Text="What's the difference between ничем and ничего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15729" RevisionGUID="9c72a6ed-f74f-4c45-a6ef-0235c5414714" CreationDate="2018-02-07T22:59:48.380" UserId="10237" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39344" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15718" RevisionGUID="ba0c232e-0c22-4ae1-9c65-bae7cad708e9" CreationDate="2018-02-07T23:30:47.127" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961381755575062530" />
  <row Id="39345" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15473" RevisionGUID="c54bb395-908b-4778-83bb-6e9fc00cbb07" CreationDate="2018-02-08T02:34:25.700" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961427971461525504" />
  <row Id="39346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="49e7e2f6-e805-4d82-8ba8-47ac2a12f144" CreationDate="2018-02-08T02:49:04.707" UserId="8780" Text="I've been having a hard time trying to find out when был is followed by nominative and when it is followed by instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Это даже не был **дом**, а ветх**ая** сторожк**а**, стоявш**ая** в глубине сада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Пушкин был велик**ий** **поэт**.&#xD;&#xA; - Стоймость квартиры была **двести пятьдесять** тысяч (250.000) евро &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дорога была ровн**ой** и однообразн**ой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does был + nominative have any imperfective connotation, whereas был + instrumental has a perfective one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="49e7e2f6-e805-4d82-8ba8-47ac2a12f144" CreationDate="2018-02-08T02:49:04.707" UserId="8780" Text="Declension after был" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="49e7e2f6-e805-4d82-8ba8-47ac2a12f144" CreationDate="2018-02-08T02:49:04.707" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15731" RevisionGUID="a6f632c1-d6a5-48e3-9dee-041b7fc9646b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T03:06:29.883" UserId="8780" Text=" - Even though the letter **щ** is many times transliterated as **shch** or **shtch** (depending on the transliteration language), is it actually pronounced as **[шч]**, or rather, as an extended **[ш]**, or as a double **[шш]**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is letter **х** equivalent of English **h**, of French **r** (like in ***r**éponse*), or something in-between?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is **ы** a fusion of the almost deaf **&quot;e&quot;** in French (*crêp**e***, *joli**e***) and a short **[й]** sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does letter **ъ** extend the preceding consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Does letter **ь** shorten the preceding consonant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15731" RevisionGUID="a6f632c1-d6a5-48e3-9dee-041b7fc9646b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T03:06:29.883" UserId="8780" Text="Pronounciation of some letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15731" RevisionGUID="a6f632c1-d6a5-48e3-9dee-041b7fc9646b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T03:06:29.883" UserId="8780" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15732" RevisionGUID="539e1a98-03dc-4b98-a667-46f134ce006c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T03:56:06.673" UserId="2079" Text="был + nominative means constant (not temporary) feature.  For example, you can say both `Горький был писателем` and `Горький был писатель` (the latter is colloqiual). You, however, cannot say `Горький был грузчик`, because his work as a loader was temporary.  You should say `Горький был грузчиком`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15734" RevisionGUID="3c669a43-e5a6-4f69-ad2e-32cecef4e1ab" CreationDate="2018-02-08T07:56:46.220" UserId="6539" Text="In the past tense, predicate nouns that are linked to the subject through the forms был/была́/бы́ли can be in either the nominative or instrumental cases. There is a lot of variation. A basic rule of thumb is that the predicate noun will be in the nominative case if it refers to some **permanent** quality (such as nationality), but in the instrumental case for a quality/feature that is **changeable** (such as profession).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more information here &#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13103/translation-for-when-i-was-young&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15728" RevisionGUID="5922fb6c-454c-47fe-bf21-eb6a6c987c09" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:07:19.677" UserId="7674" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="It means *thick (headed)*. Grammatically it is the word ***тупая*** with the suffix ***-еньк**(ая)* (-ая is ending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***-еньк** (-оньк)* is a suffix of adjectives, adverbs and nouns which imparts them diminutive connotation to either downtone their rudeness (as in ***тупенькая*** vs ***тупая***), make them sound gentle or, in case of adverbs, to reduce their intensity and absoluteness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мал**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;чёрный - чёрн**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;скоро - скор**еньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;тихо - тих**оньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;дочка - доч**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; папа - пап**еньк**а (archaic)   &#xD;&#xA;мама - мам**еньк**а (archaic)  &#xD;&#xA;Петя - Пет**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;Катя - Кат**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;дервеня - дерев**еньк**а" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15734" RevisionGUID="5c109dc6-6317-4ab6-a016-f52c62764808" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:13:27.160" UserId="6539" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="In the past tense, predicate nouns that are linked to the subject through the forms был/была́/бы́ли can be in either the nominative or instrumental cases. There is a lot of variation. A basic rule of thumb is that the predicate noun will be in the nominative case if it refers to some **permanent** quality (such as nationality), but in the instrumental case for a quality/feature that is **changeable** (such as profession).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See more information here &#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13103/translation-for-when-i-was-young&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пушкин был великим поэтом. (Normal usage)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пушкин был великий поэт (Colloquial )&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39358" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15553" RevisionGUID="41852a28-32d1-4089-97c2-93edbc27aba9" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:33:58.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961518453105610753" />
  <row Id="39359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15735" RevisionGUID="952667d5-283d-4e57-ac65-5525b0826499" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:41:59.870" UserId="4511" Text="What does the girl asks in below sentence? I didn't understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Boy: ты такой красивая)&#xD;&#xA;    -Girl: Какой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15735" RevisionGUID="952667d5-283d-4e57-ac65-5525b0826499" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:41:59.870" UserId="4511" Text="Какой? meaning in a specific answer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15735" RevisionGUID="952667d5-283d-4e57-ac65-5525b0826499" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:41:59.870" UserId="4511" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15736" RevisionGUID="75d21ed8-75f9-41a8-a4d2-e4dd6036db2b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T08:57:06.180" UserId="6097" Text="*It should be &quot;так**ая**/как**ая**&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boy says &quot;you are so beautiful!&quot; and the girl asks what kind of beautiful the boy means, what kind of &quot;so&quot;, how much &quot;so&quot; this &quot;so&quot; is. Flirting she is, I would say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15737" RevisionGUID="80bc8a94-d58c-4bf5-80c2-57639979368e" CreationDate="2018-02-08T09:05:57.717" UserId="6097" Text=" - &quot;Щ&quot; is neither [шч], nor extended [ш] nor double [ш]. It's a soft &quot;ш&quot;, similar to &quot;ch&quot; in &quot;Chicago&quot; and to &quot;x&quot; in Portuguese &quot;xicara&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;х&quot; is similar to English &quot;h&quot; in &quot;house&quot;, &quot;home&quot;, &quot;hay&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ы&quot; is a hard case :) Say &quot;eeee&quot; and then try to move your tongue backwards. That sound would be quite close to &quot;ы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - no, unlike some languages there's no long and short consonants and vowels in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15737" RevisionGUID="fb2bcdb9-72a9-4a57-97de-621495b981c6" CreationDate="2018-02-08T09:12:22.367" UserId="6097" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text=" - &quot;Щ&quot; is neither [шч], nor extended [ш] nor double [ш]. It's a soft &quot;ш&quot;, similar to &quot;ch&quot; in &quot;Chicago&quot; and to &quot;x&quot; in Portuguese &quot;xicara&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;х&quot; is similar to English &quot;h&quot; in &quot;house&quot;, &quot;home&quot;, &quot;hay&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;ы&quot; is a hard case :) Say &quot;ee&quot; (as in &quot;beef&quot;) and then try to move your tongue backwards. That sound would be quite close to &quot;ы&quot;. Another method: start saying &quot;oo&quot; (as in &quot;book&quot;) and the move your lips like you wants to say &quot;ee&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - no, unlike some languages there's no long and short consonants and vowels in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; - no." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15731" RevisionGUID="13f08a96-16b3-4b31-90b2-f075dcc01d5a" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:13:45.730" UserId="8780" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of some letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15738" RevisionGUID="f5524b6e-52b5-4b7e-be28-e6fde3fb9f57" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:22:55.220" UserId="8780" Text="Even though the word **мечта** officially has no genitive plural, is it possible to say **мечт** colloquially, or use **мечтаний** as an alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like, &quot;That's one of my dreams&quot;. **&quot;Это одна из моих мечт&quot;** or **&quot;Это одно из моих мечтаний&quot;**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15738" RevisionGUID="f5524b6e-52b5-4b7e-be28-e6fde3fb9f57" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:22:55.220" UserId="8780" Text="Genitive plural of мечта" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15738" RevisionGUID="f5524b6e-52b5-4b7e-be28-e6fde3fb9f57" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:22:55.220" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15739" RevisionGUID="459c67aa-0914-470e-a57f-5bff612e65d4" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:49:25.723" UserId="10238" Text="You can not say **мечт**, this is definetely incorrect. Word **мечтаниe** has a slightly different meaning, it's **dreaming** in English and it's more about the process of thinking of your dream. So there is no genitive plural of **мечта** in Russian, but you can say that using another word - **Это одно из моих желаний**, this phrase has exactly the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15728" RevisionGUID="e502dd0a-6061-405f-829e-e21ff4c34d66" CreationDate="2018-02-08T11:54:51.100" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="It means *thick (headed)*. Grammatically it is the word ***тупая*** with the suffix ***-еньк**(ая)* (-ая is ending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***-еньк** (-оньк)* is a suffix of adjectives, adverbs and nouns which imparts them diminutive connotation to either downtone their rudeness (as in ***тупенькая*** vs ***тупая***), make them sound gentle or, in case of adverbs, to reduce their intensity and absoluteness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый - мал**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;чёрный - чёрн**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;скоро - скор**еньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;тихо - тих**оньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;дочка - доч**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; папа - пап**еньк**а (archaic)   &#xD;&#xA;мама - мам**еньк**а (archaic)  &#xD;&#xA;Петя - Пет**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;Катя - Кат**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;деревня - дерев**еньк**а" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15740" RevisionGUID="c606a54c-f22b-4890-b2a8-1577e3c73485" CreationDate="2018-02-08T12:05:29.763" UserId="10238" Text="**ничем** is declension of **ничего** in instrumental form (see [Russian_declension][1]). Example: negotiations ended with nothing - переговоры закончились **ничем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15728" RevisionGUID="39ba07cd-a253-4652-8ef7-dd85b8d0d51f" CreationDate="2018-02-08T12:24:25.683" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="It means *thick (headed)*. Grammatically it is the word ***тупая*** with the suffix ***-еньк**(ая)* (-ая is ending)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***-еньк** (-оньк)* is a suffix of adjectives, adverbs and nouns which imparts them diminutive connotation to either downtone their rudeness (as in ***тупенькая*** vs ***тупая***), make them sound gentle or, in case of adverbs, to reduce their intensity and absoluteness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малый/ая - мал**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;чёрный/ая - чёрн**еньк**ий/ая   &#xD;&#xA;скоро - скор**еньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;тихо - тих**оньк**о   &#xD;&#xA;дочка - доч**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; папа - пап**еньк**а (archaic)   &#xD;&#xA;мама - мам**еньк**а (archaic)  &#xD;&#xA;Петя - Пет**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;Катя - Кат**еньк**а  &#xD;&#xA;деревня - дерев**еньк**а" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15741" RevisionGUID="9264199c-de49-48a9-894f-f5d3497ab579" CreationDate="2018-02-08T12:56:28.007" UserId="8780" Text="I read that verbs **есть**, **ждать**, **мочь**, **петь**, **пить**, **спать** have no gerund.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I ever need to convey a progressive mood of these verbs (respectively, *eating, waiting, being able to, singing, drinking, sleeping*), is there a way around? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15741" RevisionGUID="9264199c-de49-48a9-894f-f5d3497ab579" CreationDate="2018-02-08T12:56:28.007" UserId="8780" Text="Verbs with no gerund" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15741" RevisionGUID="9264199c-de49-48a9-894f-f5d3497ab579" CreationDate="2018-02-08T12:56:28.007" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15742" RevisionGUID="cf884fe4-53c8-4206-9f99-d3cc698cdada" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:18:28.367" UserId="6097" Text="**If you mean verb:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no progressive mood in Russian you don't have to worry. Just use present, past or future tense and &quot;сейчас&quot;, &quot;в тот момент&quot; or whatever is suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am eating  - Я (сейчас) ем.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; She was singing when I came in - Когда я вошёл, она пела.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tomorrow midnight, we will be drinking champagne  - Завтра в полночь мы будем пить шампанское.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you mean noun:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to worry again. Just use the verb itself or the coresponding noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I love singing - Я люблю петь / Я люблю пение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like her singing - Мне нравится, как она поет / Мне нравится её пение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eating was their favorite pleasure - (По)есть было их любимым удовльствием / Еда была их любимым удовольствием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15743" RevisionGUID="f0efca77-f6b5-4941-a7a0-e12095666e33" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:18:53.150" UserId="6539" Text="If you mean continious aspect, we don't have it. We have one present, one past and one future. So it doesn't matter if it happens every day or now, we have got one form &quot;Я ем, ты ешь, он, она ест, мы едим, вы едите, они едят.&quot; You can only add when. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15741" RevisionGUID="11daee2d-4fdb-49ae-8da0-1e8d2bc560e5" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:19:41.263" UserId="4560" Comment="added for clarification because &quot;gerund&quot; seems to be misunderstood&quot;" Text="I read that verbs **есть**, **ждать**, **мочь**, **петь**, **пить**, **спать** have no gerund (деепричастие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I ever need to convey a progressive mood of these verbs (respectively, *eating, waiting, being able to, singing, drinking, sleeping*), is there a way around? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15743" RevisionGUID="b3c3cd80-00c8-48c7-bd7c-3eed1a675cc6" CreationDate="2018-02-08T13:32:08.787" UserId="6539" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="If you mean continious aspect, we don't have it. We have one present, one past and one future. So it doesn't matter if it happens every day or now, we have got one form &quot;Я ем, ты ешь, он, она ест, мы едим, вы едите, они едят.&quot; You can only add when. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean деепричастие, that's another question. Yes, there's a way.&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;we went along the road singing&quot;. There's no деепричастие настоящего времени, but you can always say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы шли по дороге и пели.(The idea is the same, that of the simultaneous action)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="ae328cac-5919-49e1-8b3f-fc684a28452b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T14:11:07.733" UserId="4903" Comment="Fixed a typo" Text="I've been having a hard time trying to find out when был is followed by nominative and when it is followed by instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Это даже не был **дом**, а ветх**ая** сторожк**а**, стоявш**ая** в глубине сада.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Пушкин был велик**ий** **поэт**.&#xD;&#xA; - Стоимость квартиры была **двести пятьдесять** тысяч (250.000) евро &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Дорога была ровн**ой** и однообразн**ой**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does был + nominative have any imperfective connotation, whereas был + instrumental has a perfective one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15744" RevisionGUID="51339a83-96c1-482d-ac27-c6c360d08764" CreationDate="2018-02-08T14:19:44.170" UserId="10240" Text="Some words simply lack required forms to use them in certain ways. мечты does not have a genitive. Because of this putting it where it would require a genitive is impossible. It's a restriction. In such cases you often have to completely change the entire sentence rather than changing words. For instance you could say: Я об этом мечтал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15742" RevisionGUID="1182ae95-11fd-4f74-9a38-14a336253649" CreationDate="2018-02-08T14:24:16.937" UserId="4903" Comment="Added missing articles" Text="**If you mean a verb:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since there is no progressive mood in Russian you don't have to worry. Just use present, past or future tense and &quot;сейчас&quot;, &quot;в тот момент&quot; or whatever is suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am eating  - Я (сейчас) ем.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; She was singing when I came in - Когда я вошёл, она пела.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tomorrow midnight, we will be drinking champagne  - Завтра в полночь мы будем пить шампанское.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you mean a noun:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't have to worry again. Just use the verb itself or the coresponding noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I love singing - Я люблю петь / Я люблю пение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I like her singing - Мне нравится, как она поет / Мне нравится её пение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eating was their favorite pleasure - (По)есть было их любимым удовльствием / Еда была их любимым удовольствием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15743" RevisionGUID="359f2db7-bff5-4243-8e67-b2f2a00160bb" CreationDate="2018-02-08T15:18:49.870" UserId="6539" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="If you mean continious aspect, we don't have it. We have one present, one past and one future. So it doesn't matter if it happens every day or now, we have got one form &quot;Я ем, ты ешь, он, она ест, мы едим, вы едите, они едят.&quot; You can only add when. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean деепричастие, that's another question. Yes, there's a way.&#xD;&#xA;For example &quot;we went along the road singing&quot;. There's no деепричастие настоящего времени, but you can always say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы шли по дороге и пели.(The idea is the same, that of the simultaneous action).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use synonyms:for ждать, ожидая, for есть– жуя, кушая,for пить - отпивая,запивая,глотая etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15745" RevisionGUID="31635fe0-7344-4d91-a32f-be19d108e29b" CreationDate="2018-02-08T15:54:34.740" UserId="4560" Text="* **Щ:** `[шч]` is a relic. It lingers in transliteration and some textbooks, but that pronunciation went pretty much extinct towards the end of the 20th century. Modern **щ** is an extended, palatalised (soft, &quot;sharp&quot;) `[ш’:]`. Meaning it's closer to the English `sh` than basic `[ш]` — in fact, it &quot;overshoots&quot; the English sound and ends up even further in the back, and even sharper-sounding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Х:** Spanish `j` as in **Juana**. German `ch` as in **machen** (*not* as in **Milch**). Scottish **loch** if pronounced authentically. More intense than English `h`, and completely unvoiced. Nothing like the French uvular `r`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ы:** a single vowel. Transliteration conventions tend to obscure the fact that it's fairly close to the English `[i]`, especially American English and especially after non-plosives, as in **sift** or **lid**. Still, it's pronounced noticeably further in the back of the mouth. Turkish undotted `ı` (**balık**) is more or less the same sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ъ, Ь:** I have to disagree with Abakan, Russian doubled consonants are technically &quot;long&quot;, but that's not what these letters do. Word-finally, **ь** palatalises/&quot;softens&quot; the preceding consonant (hence the name &quot;soft sign&quot;); mid-word, both are basically pronounced `[j]`. The difference is supposed to be that the consonant before **ъ** isn't supposed to palatalise (hence the name &quot;hard sign&quot;), but a lot of the time, most speakers including myself palatalise it anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="0b88e1f6-5404-43c5-ab7d-653337637084" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:17:23.240" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать** and **петь**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="9bbca8cf-c781-479a-ba3f-d946ff68e146" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:22:47.277" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards.&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question was about present participle rather than gerund, then the list modified list is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - по/съ-едая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - умея&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - находясь во сне&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39388" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15741" RevisionGUID="fd1c2551-d8fd-41d8-b4b9-6d9617f3cc5e" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:23:36.463" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|gerund|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="cb966ae4-afb4-405d-a409-50bf77d4493a" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:27:49.363" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards.&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question was about present participle rather than gerund, then the  modified list is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - по/съ-едая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - умея, обладая способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - находясь/пребывая во сне&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15741" RevisionGUID="e18a36ce-4d07-4bb8-9ecd-cce32b2ff761" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:35:41.920" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="6ec51cda-e4a1-4981-adbb-00f463a17d1c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:39:41.347" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Gerund&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards.&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question was about **present participle** rather than gerund, then the  modified list is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - по/съ-едая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - умея, обладая способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - находясь/пребывая во сне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As evident from the list quite a few of them can form present participle though addition of a prefix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39392" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15738" RevisionGUID="3f182922-3a07-4b0a-9e9d-3fd18bf29b31" CreationDate="2018-02-08T17:34:03.057" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961654368306106368" />
  <row Id="39393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="f7f7fe0e-c47a-45fc-a88e-56e41dc76609" CreationDate="2018-02-08T18:36:18.220" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Gerund&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards.&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question was about **present participle** rather than gerund, then the  modified list is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - по/съ-едая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - умея, обладая способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - находясь/пребывая во сне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As evident from the list quite a few of them can form present participle through addition of a prefix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15731" RevisionGUID="da27e730-4b6b-4947-bde5-a1a8656451cc" CreationDate="2018-02-08T20:34:02.940" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961699666533453824" />
  <row Id="39397" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15738" RevisionGUID="955bbdd1-8b76-44e7-ae4f-ef4d80f9b676" CreationDate="2018-02-08T21:19:10.107" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Genitive plural of &quot;мечта&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="99c0da50-b302-46e9-b19d-ad81bcb8c3c6" CreationDate="2018-02-08T22:10:14.383" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Gerund&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью, способность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards.&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question was about **present participle** rather than gerund, then the  modified list is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - по/съ-едая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - умея, обладая способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - находясь/пребывая во сне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As evident from the list quite a few of them can form present participle through addition of a prefix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15748" RevisionGUID="c68ed451-0c34-4902-be50-06737793774d" CreationDate="2018-02-08T22:20:38.890" UserId="4753" Text="Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak in his authoritative &lt;i&gt;Грамматический словарь русского языка. Словоизменение.&lt;/i&gt; gives the genitive plural of &quot;мечта&quot; as &quot;мечт&quot; while noting that this form is &quot;awkward&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the introduction he explains what he means by “awkward” using “мечт” as one of his examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Возможен также случай, когда способ образования потенциальной формы однозначен, однако построенная таким образом форма воспринимается как нежелательная. Практически это выражается в тем, что носители литературного русского языка в тех случаях, когда им в речи требуется по смыслу данная форма, обычно испытывают затруднение и нередко предпочитают обойтись вообще без этой формы, заменив слово синонимом или перестроив синтаксическую конструкцию. Таковы, например, формы: брюзг, мечт, башок (от брюзга́, мечта́, башка́), галжу́, дужу́ (от галдеть, дудеть). Причины подобного затруднения могут быть различными. По-видимому, чаще всего причина состоит в том, что в таких формах ударение или вид основы слишком сильно отклоняется от остальных форм парадигмы (прежде всего, от исходной формы) [footnote omitted] в других случаях слишком непривычно образование соответствующих форм от основ с определенным суффиксом (например, кратких форм от основ с суффиксом -ск-, ср. дереве́нский, све́тский, геро́йский); иногда источник затруднения не вполне ясен (ср., например, пиша́ от писа́ть).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There will also be cases where the means of making a potential form is clear, however the form so produced is considered undesirable. The practical manifestation of this is that when the sense of the speech requires the given form a native speaker of Russian ordinarily experiences a certain awkwardness and it is not seldom that will he prefer to do without that form entirely, replacing it with a synonym or altering the syntactical construction. Such forms include: брюзг, мечт, башок (from брюзга́, мечта́, башка́), галжу́, дужу́ (from галдеть, дудеть). This awkwardness may have various causes. It would seem that most often the cause is that in such forms the stress or the form of the stem differs too markedly from the other forms in the paradigm (particularly from the initial form). In other cases [the problem is] the these forms are derived from a starting form with a particular subject in a way which is too unusual (for example, a short from from a starting form with the suffix  -ск-, ср. дереве́нский, све́тский, геро́йский); occasionally the source of the awkwardness is not entirely clear (compare for example пиша́ from писа́ть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Указанная особенность потенциальной формы отражается в словаре пометой “затрудн.”, т. е. образование данной фермы затруднительно (или равносильным этой помете условным знаком). Например, при слове башка дано указание “Р. мн. затрудн.”, при слове галдеть — “наст. 1 ед. затрудн.”. Помета “затрудн.” может стоять и в тех случаях, когда форма допускает два варианта образования; она показывает здесь, что затруднение вызывают оба варианта формы; см., например, статью гулкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This feature of a potential form is shown in this dictionary by the note “awk.”, i.e., the production of this form is awkward (or an equivalent symbol). For example next to the word башка is the notation “G. Pl. awk.”, next to the word галдеть — “pres. 1st sing. awk.”. The notation “awk.” may also be present in cases where there are two possible forms; here it indicates that both possibilities are awkward; for example, see the entry гулкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Таким образом, указание о том, что образование некоторой формы затруднительно или что сведения об этой форме носят предположительный характер, всегда означает, что данная форма малоупотребительна. Однако обратное неверно: далеко не про всякую малоупотребительную форму дается какое-либо из этих указаний.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, the notation that the production of a particular form is awkward or that the information about the form is conjectural always means that the form in question is seldom-used. However the opposite is not the case: it is hardly true that every seldom-used form bears such a notation.&#xD;&#xA;Заметим, что между затрудненным образованием формы (помета “затрудн.”) и ее отсутствием (помета “нет”, см. стр. 5) в действительности нет резкой границы; поэтому в переходных случаях выбор той или другой пометы в известной мере условен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Note that there is no sharp distinction is possible between words which are awkward (noted “awk.”) and forms which are absent (noted as “non-existent”, see page 5), thus in edge cases the choice of one or the other of these notations is understood to be in some degree arbitrary.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion, from the standpoint of morphology the genitive plural of “мечта” is unquestionably “мечт”. However native speakers find it awkward and seldom use it. Ozhegov’s dictionary famously suggests “мечтаний” as a substitute. But &quot;мечт&quot; is used occasionally and after researching the matter I can find no argument that it is objectively incorrect. It seems it’s use is just one of those things people love to criticize like ending an English sentence with a preposition. If it is rejected, it is rejected on stylistic, not grammatical grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is extensive discussion of this issue on the Internet. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Gramota.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [Stackexchange: «Мечта» во множественном числе][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/lenta/news/8_3290&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/13617/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15748" RevisionGUID="5a150da1-cf7d-479f-946a-3bc211f53337" CreationDate="2018-02-09T00:16:14.947" UserId="4753" Comment="minor cleanup of formatting and translations" Text="Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak in his authoritative &lt;i&gt;Грамматический словарь русского языка. Словоизменение.&lt;/i&gt; gives the genitive plural of &quot;мечта&quot; as &quot;мечт&quot; while noting that this form is &quot;awkward&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the introduction he explains what he means by “awkward” using “мечт” as one of his examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Возможен также случай, когда способ образования потенциальной формы однозначен, однако построенная таким образом форма воспринимается как нежелательная. Практически это выражается в тем, что носители литературного русского языка в тех случаях, когда им в речи требуется по смыслу данная форма, обычно испытывают затруднение и нередко предпочитают обойтись вообще без этой формы, заменив слово синонимом или перестроив синтаксическую конструкцию. Таковы, например, формы: брюзг, мечт, башок (от брюзга́, мечта́, башка́), галжу́, дужу́ (от галдеть, дудеть). Причины подобного затруднения могут быть различными. По-видимому, чаще всего причина состоит в том, что в таких формах ударение или вид основы слишком сильно отклоняется от остальных форм парадигмы (прежде всего, от исходной формы) [footnote omitted] в других случаях слишком непривычно образование соответствующих форм от основ с определенным суффиксом (например, кратких форм от основ с суффиксом -ск-, ср. дереве́нский, све́тский, геро́йский); иногда источник затруднения не вполне ясен (ср., например, пиша́ от писа́ть).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There will also be cases where the means of making a potential form is clear, however the form so produced is considered undesirable. The practical manifestation of this is that when the sense of the speech requires the given form a native speaker of Russian ordinarily experiences a certain awkwardness and it is not seldom that will he prefer to do without that form entirely, replacing it with a synonym or altering the syntactical construction. Such forms include: брюзг, мечт, башок (from брюзга́, мечта́, башка́), галжу́, дужу́ (from галдеть, дудеть). This awkwardness may have various causes. It would seem that most often the cause is that in such forms the stress or the form of the stem differs too markedly from the other forms in the paradigm (particularly from the initial form). In other cases [the problem is] the these forms are derived from a starting form with a particular subject in a way which is too unusual (for example, a short from from a starting form with the suffix  -ск-, ср. дереве́нский, све́тский, геро́йский); occasionally the source of the awkwardness is not entirely clear (compare for example пиша́ from писа́ть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Указанная особенность потенциальной формы отражается в словаре пометой “затрудн.”, т. е. образование данной фермы затруднительно (или равносильным этой помете условным знаком). Например, при слове башка дано указание “Р. мн. затрудн.”, при слове галдеть — “наст. 1 ед. затрудн.”. Помета “затрудн.” может стоять и в тех случаях, когда форма допускает два варианта образования; она показывает здесь, что затруднение вызывают оба варианта формы; см., например, статью гулкий.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That a potential form has this feature is expressed in this dictionary by the note “awk.”, i.e., the production of this form is awkward (or an equivalent symbol). For example next to the word башка is the notation “g. pl. awk.”, next to the word галдеть — “pres. 1st sing. awk.”. The notation “awk.” may also be present in cases where there are two possible forms; here it indicates that both possibilities are awkward; for example, see the entry гулкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Таким образом, указание о том, что образование некоторой формы затруднительно или что сведения об этой форме носят предположительный характер, всегда означает, что данная форма малоупотребительна. Однако обратное неверно: далеко не про всякую малоупотребительную форму дается какое-либо из этих указаний.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, the notation that the production of a particular form is awkward or that the information about the form is conjectural always means that the form in question is seldom-used. However the opposite is not the case: it is hardly true that every seldom-used form bears such a notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Заметим, что между затрудненным образованием формы (помета “затрудн.”) и ее отсутствием (помета “нет”, см. стр. 5) в действительности нет резкой границы; поэтому в переходных случаях выбор той или другой пометы в известной мере условен.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Note that there is no sharp distinction is possible between words which are awkward (noted “awk.”) and forms which are absent (noted as “non-existent”, see page 5), thus in edge cases the choice of one or the other of these notations is understood to be in some degree arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion, from the standpoint of morphology the genitive plural of “мечта” is unquestionably “мечт”. However native speakers find it awkward and seldom use it. Ozhegov’s dictionary famously suggests “мечтаний” as a substitute. But &quot;мечт&quot; is used occasionally and after researching the matter I can find no argument that it is objectively incorrect. It seems it’s use is just one of those things people love to criticize like ending an English sentence with a preposition. If it is rejected, it is rejected on stylistic, not grammatical grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is extensive discussion of this issue on the Internet. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Gramota.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [Stackexchange: «Мечта» во множественном числе][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/lenta/news/8_3290&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/13617/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15530" RevisionGUID="04bbf4f9-34cd-48dc-84cc-57f39edca6a0" CreationDate="2018-02-09T02:38:20.227" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/961791342522363904" />
  <row Id="39402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15749" RevisionGUID="448d19fa-e9bc-4233-a341-da77fbb0a933" CreationDate="2018-02-09T07:00:21.963" UserId="10246" Text="Russian declension is a very complex system. Its grammatical cases (падежи) sometimes can be very tricky and confusing, however there are some rules that can help you to understand them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you actually have the same word in two different cases. The first one, &quot;ничем&quot;, is an instrumental grammatic case for the main - so called, nominative - case &quot;ничего&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All six grammatic cases in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именительный падеж/nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;Родительный падеж/genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;Дательный падеж/dative case:&#xD;&#xA;Ничему&#xD;&#xA;Винительный падеж/accusative case:&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;Творительный падеж/instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;Ничем&#xD;&#xA;Предложный/prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;(Exception)&#xD;&#xA;Ни (о/в) чем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's totally OK to say: &quot;Он абсолютно ничего не сделал&quot;/&quot;He has done absolutely nothing&quot;, while &quot;Он абсолютно ничем не сделал&quot; is incorrect, even though the majority of Russians  would understand you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15750" RevisionGUID="fa3f1006-8803-4c8c-a4dd-5dc744d97a71" CreationDate="2018-02-09T07:16:46.503" UserId="10246" Text="The girl's question is very close in meaning to &quot;What do you mean by this?&quot;. Possible answers she probably expects are &quot;You have charming eyes&quot;/&quot;У тебя замечательные глаза&quot;, &quot;Nice waist&quot;/&quot;У тебя неплохая фигура&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the translated sentences above are not identic because of the difference between English and Russian languages and their traditions (&quot;неплохая талия&quot; is a good translation but it has slightly more sexual context, while the word &quot;фигура&quot; is absolutely neutral)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15751" RevisionGUID="503b4771-1dd1-4aa4-9571-2d7d9ce8f280" CreationDate="2018-02-09T07:40:40.143" UserId="10246" Text="Гус - is very close in pronunciation to &quot;goose&quot; except for the duration of &quot;u&quot; sound. &#xD;&#xA;Гусь - compared to &quot;гус&quot;, has different sound in the end. &quot;Ь&quot; letter is not pronounced. Yet, it makes the consonant it stays after soft. This letter in Russian is called &quot;мягкий знак&quot;/&quot;soft sign&quot;. However, it can do nothing in such words as &quot;ночь&quot;, &quot;тишь&quot;, &quot;мышь&quot; because they belong to the 3rd declesion.&#xD;&#xA;Гюсь - sounds very similar to &quot;гусь&quot;, but lettet &quot;ю&quot; makes the consonant it stands after soft. (Note: I also pronounce it as something between &quot;и&quot; and &quot;у&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15746" RevisionGUID="fc8c1894-c4c9-49bd-a461-8d330909d7a2" CreationDate="2018-02-09T07:59:31.930" UserId="7674" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="Gerund&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - поедание (ядение - archaic)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - обладание способностью, способность&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певание, пение&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивание, распитие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - сон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When i use gerund forms in my speech i often pause fabricating a proper form in my head, because they're not very typical for Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some verbs gerund and a noun can be the same word like for **спать**, therе's a word **спаньё**, but it's very low register by modern standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;In constructions where English would have a gerund Russian, particularly in its spoken form, has subordinate clause with a verb, e.g.&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Instead of **singing** you'd better do some work*  &#xD;&#xA;*Вместо **того, чтобы петь**, ты бы лучше поработал*  &#xD;&#xA;An equivalent with gerund such as &quot;*Вместо **пения** ты бы лучше поработал*&quot; is also correct but isn't very usable.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the question was about **present participle** rather than gerund, then the  modified list is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть - по/съ-едая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ждать - ожидая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; мочь - умея, обладая способностью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; петь - на/рас-певая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; пить - рас/вы-пивая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спать - находясь/пребывая во сне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As evident from the list quite a few of them can form present participle through addition of a prefix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15752" RevisionGUID="77d4a2e2-3b61-4e0f-9625-fe3589ff9355" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:33:17.403" UserId="10246" Text="I read that verbs есть, ждать, мочь, петь, пить, спать have no gerund (деепричастие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I ever need to convey a progressive mood of these verbs (respectively, eating, waiting, being able to, singing, drinking, sleeping), is there a way around?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы обычно говорим &quot;когда (можно заменить на &quot;пока&quot;) я ел(а)...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда я ел, я оглядывал роскошный кабинет директора.&#xD;&#xA;Пока я ел, мои новые знакомые то и дело пытались обокрасть меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно уточнить о каком приеме пищи идет речь:&#xD;&#xA;Завтракая/обедая/ужиная&#xD;&#xA;За завтраком/полдником/обедом/ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя есть и более редкие фразы:&#xD;&#xA;Принимая пищу&#xD;&#xA;Принимая трапезу (звучит несколько устаревше)&#xD;&#xA;Трапезничая (абсолютно устарело)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ждать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово с чрезвычайно близким к нему значением - &quot;ожидать&quot;, которое имеет деепричастие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ожидая автомеханика, я перекидывался редкими язвительными замечаниями о качестве дорог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помимо этого, в русском языке есть устойчивое выражение &quot;считать минуты&quot;, которое означает &quot;с нетерпением ждать чего-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Считая минуты до следующего свидания со своей любимой, студент, окрещенный мной &quot;Ромео&quot;, перебирал струны гитары и заливался пением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один способ заменить деепричастие для &quot;ждать&quot; - заменить его &quot;дожидаясь&quot;. Оно подчеркивает продолжительность ожидания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для меня его корректно использовать разве что для прошедшего времени и для чего-то регулярно совершаемого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дожидаясь моей подруги сердца, я с нетерпением смотрел на часы, стрелки которых едва ползли по циферблату, тем самым вызывая во мне бурю эмоций.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея&#xD;&#xA;Имея возможность&#xD;&#xA;Обладая возможностью&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15739" RevisionGUID="53281354-4be4-44c8-b472-fe67bd4db9b4" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:42:07.697" UserId="-1" Comment="Improve wording and grammar" Text="You can not say **мечт**; this is definetely incorrect. The word **мечтаниe** has a slightly different meaning: it's **dreaming** in English and it's more about the process of thinking of your dream. So there is no genitive plural of **мечта** in Russian, but you can say that using another word - **Это одно из моих желаний**. This phrase has exactly the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15739" RevisionGUID="53281354-4be4-44c8-b472-fe67bd4db9b4" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:42:07.697" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5605, 8895 edit id of 955" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15752" RevisionGUID="28dc8d29-7825-4570-b631-1da762e5c79f" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:44:54.773" UserId="10246" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="I read that verbs есть, ждать, мочь, петь, пить, спать have no gerund (деепричастие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I ever need to convey a progressive mood of these verbs (respectively, eating, waiting, being able to, singing, drinking, sleeping), is there a way around?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы обычно говорим &quot;когда (можно заменить на &quot;пока&quot;) я ел(а)...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда я ел, я оглядывал роскошный кабинет директора.&#xD;&#xA;Пока я ел, мои новые знакомые то и дело пытались обокрасть меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно уточнить о каком приеме пищи идет речь:&#xD;&#xA;Завтракая/обедая/ужиная&#xD;&#xA;За завтраком/полдником/обедом/ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя есть и более редкие фразы:&#xD;&#xA;Принимая пищу&#xD;&#xA;Принимая трапезу (звучит несколько устаревше)&#xD;&#xA;Трапезничая (абсолютно устарело)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ждать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово с чрезвычайно близким к нему значением - &quot;ожидать&quot;, которое имеет деепричастие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ожидая автомеханика, я перекидывался редкими язвительными замечаниями о качестве дорог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помимо этого, в русском языке есть устойчивое выражение &quot;считать минуты&quot;, которое означает &quot;с нетерпением ждать чего-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Считая минуты до следующего свидания со своей любимой, студент, окрещенный мной &quot;Ромео&quot;, перебирал струны гитары и заливался пением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один способ заменить деепричастие для &quot;ждать&quot; - заменить его &quot;дожидаясь&quot;. Оно подчеркивает продолжительность ожидания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для меня его корректно использовать разве что для прошедшего времени и для чего-то регулярно совершаемого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дожидаясь моей подруги сердца, я с нетерпением смотрел на часы, стрелки которых едва ползли по циферблату, тем самым вызывая во мне бурю эмоций.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея писать программы как на Java, так и на C++, мой друг получал нескромное количество заказов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имея возможность/возможности&#xD;&#xA;Обладая возможностью/возможностями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Даже имея возможность скрыться с места преступления, он решил сдаться полиции из-за терзаний совести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Множественное число показывает, что возможности были шире/многочисленние.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15749" RevisionGUID="538b0283-cc25-4e39-b23a-061eee4fa926" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:47:38.353" UserId="10246" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Russian declension is a very complex system. Its grammatical cases (падежи) sometimes can be very tricky and confusing, however there are some rules that can help you to understand them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you actually have the same word in two different cases. The first one, &quot;ничем&quot;, is an instrumental grammatic case for the main - so called, nominative - case &quot;ничего&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All six grammatic cases in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именительный падеж/nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Родительный падеж/genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дательный падеж/dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Винительный падеж/accusative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Творительный падеж/instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предложный падеж/prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Exception)&#xD;&#xA;Ни (о/в) чем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's totally OK to say: &quot;Он абсолютно ничего не сделал&quot;/&quot;He has done absolutely nothing&quot;, while &quot;Он абсолютно ничем не сделал&quot; is incorrect, even though the majority of Russians  would understand you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15749" RevisionGUID="c2ba3dd4-28ac-47e2-baa4-89b5a7343df4" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:54:27.350" UserId="10246" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Russian declension is a very complex system. Its grammatical cases (падежи) sometimes can be very tricky and confusing, however there are some rules that can help you to understand them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you actually have the same word in two different cases. The first one, &quot;ничем&quot;, is an instrumental grammatic case for the main - so called, nominative - case &quot;ничего&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All six grammatic cases in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именительный падеж/nominative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Родительный падеж/genitive case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дательный падеж/dative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Винительный падеж/accusative case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Творительный падеж/instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ничем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предложный падеж/prepositional case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Exception)&#xD;&#xA;Ни (о/в) чем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's totally OK to say: &quot;Он абсолютно ничего не сделал&quot;/&quot;He has done absolutely nothing&quot;, while &quot;Он абсолютно ничем не сделал&quot; is incorrect, even though the majority of Russians  would understand you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number of cases in Russian language can differ in different textbooks, but I cannot mention any noun that would not have any of these grammatic cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15751" RevisionGUID="9912b658-41a6-4960-9965-b715f59cf097" CreationDate="2018-02-09T08:57:19.153" UserId="10246" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Гус - is very close in pronunciation to &quot;goose&quot; except for the duration of &quot;u&quot; sound. In &quot;гус&quot;, it's pronounced way shorter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гусь - compared to &quot;гус&quot;, has different sound in the end. &quot;Ь&quot; letter is not pronounced. Yet, it makes the consonant it stays after soft. This letter in Russian is called &quot;мягкий знак&quot;/&quot;soft sign&quot;. However, it can do nothing in such words as &quot;ночь&quot;, &quot;тишь&quot;, &quot;мышь&quot; because they belong to the 3rd declesion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гюсь - sounds very similar to &quot;гусь&quot;, but lettet &quot;ю&quot; makes the consonant it stands after soft. (Note: I also pronounce it as something between &quot;и&quot; and &quot;у&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39413" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="15690" RevisionGUID="800a9555-2429-4d76-b70f-068870cad67c" CreationDate="2018-02-09T09:06:12.087" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15752" RevisionGUID="f04913e7-4e44-4a3a-a1e8-eeb0d9aac6ec" CreationDate="2018-02-09T09:13:36.357" UserId="10246" Comment="added 257 characters in body" Text="I read that verbs есть, ждать, мочь, петь, пить, спать have no gerund (деепричастие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I ever need to convey a progressive mood of these verbs (respectively, eating, waiting, being able to, singing, drinking, sleeping), is there a way around?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы обычно говорим &quot;когда (можно заменить на &quot;пока&quot;) я что-то делал(а)...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда я ел, я оглядывал роскошный кабинет директора.&#xD;&#xA;Пока я ел, мои новые знакомые то и дело пытались обокрасть меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно уточнить о каком приеме пищи идет речь:&#xD;&#xA;Завтракая/обедая/ужиная&#xD;&#xA;За завтраком/полдником/обедом/ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя есть и более редкие фразы:&#xD;&#xA;Принимая пищу&#xD;&#xA;Принимая трапезу (звучит несколько устаревше)&#xD;&#xA;Трапезничая (абсолютно устарело)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ждать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово с чрезвычайно близким к нему значением - &quot;ожидать&quot;, которое имеет деепричастие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ожидая автомеханика, я перекидывался редкими язвительными замечаниями о качестве дорог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помимо этого, в русском языке есть устойчивое выражение &quot;считать минуты&quot;, которое означает &quot;с нетерпением ждать чего-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Считая минуты до следующего свидания со своей любимой, студент, окрещенный мной &quot;Ромео&quot;, перебирал струны гитары и заливался пением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один способ заменить деепричастие для &quot;ждать&quot; - заменить его &quot;дожидаясь&quot;. Оно подчеркивает продолжительность ожидания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для меня его корректно использовать разве что для прошедшего времени и для чего-то регулярно совершаемого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дожидаясь моей подруги сердца, я с нетерпением смотрел на часы, стрелки которых едва ползли по циферблату, тем самым вызывая во мне бурю эмоций.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея писать программы как на Java, так и на C++, мой друг получал нескромное количество заказов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имея возможность/возможности&#xD;&#xA;Обладая возможностью/возможностями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Даже имея возможность скрыться с места преступления, он решил сдаться полиции из-за терзаний совести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Множественное число показывает, что возможности были шире/многочисленние.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Напевать - петь легко и беззаботно, чаще всего тихо. Есть деепричастие напевая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Распевать - петь широко, громко. Есть деепричастие распевая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заливаяться пением - петь увлеченно, чаще всего - громко. Деепричастный оборот - заливаясь пением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15752" RevisionGUID="6d83a33d-ba46-43a3-86f5-c58dc30b6910" CreationDate="2018-02-09T09:25:15.143" UserId="10246" Comment="added 257 characters in bodyв" Text="&gt; I read that verbs есть, ждать, мочь, петь, пить, спать have no gerund (деепричастие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, if I ever need to convey a progressive mood of these verbs (respectively, eating, waiting, being able to, singing, drinking, sleeping), is there a way around?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке мы обычно говорим &quot;когда (можно заменить на &quot;пока&quot;) я что-то делал(а)...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Когда я ел, я оглядывал роскошный кабинет директора.&#xD;&#xA;Пока я ел, мои новые знакомые то и дело пытались обокрасть меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно уточнить о каком приеме пищи идет речь:&#xD;&#xA;Завтракая/обедая/ужиная&#xD;&#xA;За завтраком/полдником/обедом/ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сказать иначе, если прием пищи неплотный:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перекусывая (название еды)&#xD;&#xA;За перекусом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если текст неформальный или литературный, можно использовать следующее:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уплетая (пищу/бутерброд/шоколад...)&#xD;&#xA;Треская (название еды)&#xD;&#xA;Поглощая (название еды) - подчеркивает огромные количества съеденного&#xD;&#xA;Пожирая (название еды) - оскорбительно, подчеркивает чудовищно огромные количества съеденного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хотя есть и другие фразы:&#xD;&#xA;Принимая пищу&#xD;&#xA;За приемом пищи&#xD;&#xA;Принимая трапезу (звучит несколько устаревше)&#xD;&#xA;За приемом трапезы&#xD;&#xA;Трапезничая (абсолютно устарело)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ждать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть слово с чрезвычайно близким к нему значением - &quot;ожидать&quot;, которое имеет деепричастие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ожидая автомеханика, я перекидывался редкими язвительными замечаниями о качестве дорог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помимо этого, в русском языке есть устойчивое выражение &quot;считать минуты&quot;, которое означает &quot;с нетерпением ждать чего-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Считая минуты до следующего свидания со своей любимой, студент, окрещенный мной &quot;Ромео&quot;, перебирал струны гитары и заливался пением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один способ заменить деепричастие для &quot;ждать&quot; - заменить его &quot;дожидаясь&quot;. Оно подчеркивает продолжительность ожидания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для меня его корректно использовать разве что для прошедшего времени и для чего-то регулярно совершаемого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дожидаясь моей подруги сердца, я с нетерпением смотрел на часы, стрелки которых едва ползли по циферблату, тем самым вызывая во мне бурю эмоций.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Умея писать программы как на Java, так и на C++, мой друг получал нескромное количество заказов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Имея возможность/возможности&#xD;&#xA;Обладая возможностью/возможностями&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Даже имея возможность скрыться с места преступления, он решил сдаться полиции из-за терзаний совести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Множественное число показывает, что возможности были шире/многочисленние.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Напевать - петь легко и беззаботно, чаще всего тихо. Есть деепричастие напевая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Распевать - петь широко, громко. Есть деепричастие распевая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Заливаяться пением - петь увлеченно, чаще всего - громко. Деепричастный оборот - заливаясь пением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15753" RevisionGUID="6c84bfa1-101b-485b-8baf-0297df06989a" CreationDate="2018-02-09T11:28:19.317" UserId="10247" Text="It must be said that the phrase **ты такой красивая)** is grammatically incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct form MUST be *ты такая красивая* (feminine for both pronoun and adjective, if you refer to a female).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that it's kind of a joke based on a grammatical mistake with some gender association due to this mistake. The boy makes a mistake - uses masculine pronoun instead of feminine (not clear why he makes it, intentionally or not), the girl replies *какой?* (continuing to make this mistake, in her case she is doing it intentionally), thus producing some comic effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15754" RevisionGUID="b13c4794-8a80-4b57-8ae2-a248764465d4" CreationDate="2018-02-09T12:21:45.790" UserId="10247" Text="**Щ** is also quite close to an Italian consonant, as in *prosciutto*. But a bit harder.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15755" RevisionGUID="6fe360f9-9563-409d-952a-adb5c60cdc7c" CreationDate="2018-02-09T12:35:13.050" UserId="10247" Text="As the original phrase is more colloquial and probably may be emotional, it sounds perfectly fine to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your temptation is grammatically correct, but using &quot;будет происходить&quot; or &quot;произойдёт&quot; makes it more formal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess in most situations it would be enough (if the context is clear) to use it to express the idea of 'happen'. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15756" RevisionGUID="cd75f30d-d3a8-440d-86be-19980d2a656e" CreationDate="2018-02-09T13:37:47.757" UserId="10247" Text="Q1. From a speaker's perspective it's more practical to see **род занятий** as a single entity. Thus you can compare it with 'She chose this activity (domain, job, area, field, etc.)'. Strictly speaking, grammatically strict, she chose a **род** (which is important for a learner to see), but as soon as you understand the grammatical structure it makes sense to look at the whole sentence and it's implication, which suggests thinking of the phrase **род занятий** as one whole. And in that sense she chose an activity, area or job (depending on your context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Example**: &#xD;&#xA;Какой у неё род занятий? - Она музыкант. &#xD;&#xA;Compare: What does she do? - She is a musician. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Googling **род занятия** results in Google automatically yielding &quot;род занятий&quot;. This must be an ablsolutely stable collocation. On the other hand you have a similar phrase **род деятельности** - singl. (usually implies 'job').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To research for **род** I used paper copy of *Большой толковый словарь РЯ (Кузнецов)*&#xD;&#xA;Here is the way to online [link](http://www.endic.ru/kuzhecov/Rod-42681.html) (entry 4 is of interest)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15757" RevisionGUID="9f15daf9-efe2-400d-ad79-36eb1831199c" CreationDate="2018-02-09T13:42:52.580" UserId="334" Text="The closest English sound to Щ would be, indeed, [ch] in  Chicago. The difference is that [ch] is pronounced by unblocking passage of air that was blocked by tongue and [щ] is a continous sound, similar to [sh] . \&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronouncion of many words containing Щ can be found online, see, for example Щука on Forvo.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;link: https://forvo.com/word/%D1%89%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15740" RevisionGUID="c3c32809-1cbd-4eb0-9a81-0cb96127a240" CreationDate="2018-02-09T14:37:08.827" UserId="10238" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**ничем** is declension of **ничто** in instrumental form (see [Russian_declension][1]). Example: negotiations ended with nothing - переговоры закончились **ничем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15748" RevisionGUID="0727ceaf-c37a-47ca-bc8e-d269b57f382f" CreationDate="2018-02-09T15:06:46.203" UserId="4753" Comment="made part of translation less obscure" Text="Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak in his authoritative &lt;i&gt;Грамматический словарь русского языка. Словоизменение.&lt;/i&gt; gives the genitive plural of &quot;мечта&quot; as &quot;мечт&quot; while noting that this form is &quot;awkward&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the introduction he explains what he means by “awkward” using “мечт” as one of his examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Возможен также случай, когда способ образования потенциальной формы однозначен, однако построенная таким образом форма воспринимается как нежелательная. Практически это выражается в тем, что носители литературного русского языка в тех случаях, когда им в речи требуется по смыслу данная форма, обычно испытывают затруднение и нередко предпочитают обойтись вообще без этой формы, заменив слово синонимом или перестроив синтаксическую конструкцию. Таковы, например, формы: брюзг, мечт, башок (от брюзга́, мечта́, башка́), галжу́, дужу́ (от галдеть, дудеть). Причины подобного затруднения могут быть различными. По-видимому, чаще всего причина состоит в том, что в таких формах ударение или вид основы слишком сильно отклоняется от остальных форм парадигмы (прежде всего, от исходной формы) [footnote omitted] в других случаях слишком непривычно образование соответствующих форм от основ с определенным суффиксом (например, кратких форм от основ с суффиксом -ск-, ср. дереве́нский, све́тский, геро́йский); иногда источник затруднения не вполне ясен (ср., например, пиша́ от писа́ть).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There will also be cases where the means of making a potential form is clear, however the form so produced is considered undesirable. The practical result is that when the meaning conveyed in speech requires the given form, a native speaker of Russian ordinarily experiences a certain awkwardness and it is not seldom that will he prefer to do without that form entirely, replacing it with a synonym or altering the syntactical construction. Such forms include: брюзг, мечт, башок (from брюзга́, мечта́, башка́), галжу́, дужу́ (from галдеть, дудеть). This awkwardness may have various causes. It would seem that most often the cause is that in such forms the stress or the form of the stem differs too markedly from the other forms in the paradigm (particularly from the initial form). In other cases [the problem is] the these forms are derived from a starting form with a particular subject in a way which is too unusual (for example, a short from from a starting form with the suffix  -ск-, ср. дереве́нский, све́тский, геро́йский); occasionally the source of the awkwardness is not entirely clear (compare for example пиша́ from писа́ть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Указанная особенность потенциальной формы отражается в словаре пометой “затрудн.”, т. е. образование данной фермы затруднительно (или равносильным этой помете условным знаком). Например, при слове башка дано указание “Р. мн. затрудн.”, при слове галдеть — “наст. 1 ед. затрудн.”. Помета “затрудн.” может стоять и в тех случаях, когда форма допускает два варианта образования; она показывает здесь, что затруднение вызывают оба варианта формы; см., например, статью гулкий.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;That a potential form has this feature is expressed in this dictionary by the note “awk.”, i.e., the production of this form is awkward (or an equivalent symbol). For example next to the word башка is the notation “g. pl. awk.”, next to the word галдеть — “pres. 1st sing. awk.”. The notation “awk.” may also be present in cases where there are two possible forms; here it indicates that both possibilities are awkward; for example, see the entry гулкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Таким образом, указание о том, что образование некоторой формы затруднительно или что сведения об этой форме носят предположительный характер, всегда означает, что данная форма малоупотребительна. Однако обратное неверно: далеко не про всякую малоупотребительную форму дается какое-либо из этих указаний.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Thus, the notation that the production of a particular form is awkward or that the information about the form is conjectural always means that the form in question is seldom-used. However the opposite is not the case: it is hardly true that every seldom-used form bears such a notation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Заметим, что между затрудненным образованием формы (помета “затрудн.”) и ее отсутствием (помета “нет”, см. стр. 5) в действительности нет резкой границы; поэтому в переходных случаях выбор той или другой пометы в известной мере условен.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Note that there is no sharp distinction is possible between words which are awkward (noted “awk.”) and forms which are absent (noted as “non-existent”, see page 5), thus in edge cases the choice of one or the other of these notations is understood to be in some degree arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in conclusion, from the standpoint of morphology the genitive plural of “мечта” is unquestionably “мечт”. However native speakers find it awkward and seldom use it. Ozhegov’s dictionary famously suggests “мечтаний” as a substitute. But &quot;мечт&quot; is used occasionally and after researching the matter I can find no argument that it is objectively incorrect. It seems it’s use is just one of those things people love to criticize like ending an English sentence with a preposition. If it is rejected, it is rejected on stylistic, not grammatical grounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is extensive discussion of this issue on the Internet. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Gramota.ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [Stackexchange: «Мечта» во множественном числе][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/lenta/news/8_3290&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/13617/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15670" RevisionGUID="a4f6bfab-19ee-4a2f-b43e-e386eea1015d" CreationDate="2018-02-10T05:46:50.120" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962201167563550720" />
  <row Id="39424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15758" RevisionGUID="7da4607c-6b09-43da-88cb-c3b286e57273" CreationDate="2018-02-10T08:34:50.207" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Ни **хрена** подобного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, the genitive &quot;хрена&quot; is pronounced as &quot;хре́на&quot;, correct? I wonder why in this specific instance, the accent has to be moved to the last letter: &quot;хрена́&quot;, thereby altering the pronunciation of the word completely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15758" RevisionGUID="7da4607c-6b09-43da-88cb-c3b286e57273" CreationDate="2018-02-10T08:34:50.207" UserId="8672" Text="Why pronounce &quot;хрена&quot; differently in &quot;ни хрена подобного&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15758" RevisionGUID="7da4607c-6b09-43da-88cb-c3b286e57273" CreationDate="2018-02-10T08:34:50.207" UserId="8672" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39427" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15492" RevisionGUID="f56b5712-d6e1-4997-8545-20779e8dc7bd" CreationDate="2018-02-10T08:46:59.940" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962246507608133632" />
  <row Id="39428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15759" RevisionGUID="f1c168a2-d097-458e-ac95-f7d674da48e7" CreationDate="2018-02-10T09:01:39.003" UserId="4560" Text="It tries to fit the stress pattern of **ничего**. The same happens with **ни черта́** despite **чёрт** not normally having a mobile stress paradigm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that expressions like **ни хрена**, **до хрена** and their variations with other nouns, including the obscene one, have become adverbialised to the extent that it's more common to spell them **нихрена** and **дохрена**. There's also the salient case of **нахрена́** (&quot;why the hell...&quot;), which, on top of the odd stress placement, is not ever properly inflected: this strongly suggests that analogy-based formation patterns have taken over from inflection-based ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15760" RevisionGUID="18db9da7-856f-479f-ac43-1e397f929ba0" CreationDate="2018-02-10T12:18:04.420" UserId="10246" Text="The phrase `&quot;ни хрена подобного&quot;` is a fairly swear one. It implies that it is commonly used among poorly educated people who are more likely to live in rural areas of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As `Nikolay Ershov` mentioned earlier, such phrases as `&quot;ни черта подобного&quot;`, `&quot;ни хрена подобного&quot;` (and many others) do not basically belong to the literary Russian language. I didn't manage to find any source that explains the stress in those phrases but the theory about the stress on the last syllable by analogy with `&quot;ничего&quot;` seems to be more than viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I would advise you to avoid these phrases in your speech as the most of them vulgar, old-fashioned and do not fit in any conversation. Phrase `&quot;ничего подобного&quot;` works well and does not have aforementioned disadvantages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39430" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15483" RevisionGUID="4fc18cc1-0ae5-411c-a264-0d1d15e40d30" CreationDate="2018-02-10T14:48:17.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962337429817569282" />
  <row Id="39431" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="13268" RevisionGUID="447257fb-e32b-4976-958b-9540a9760042" CreationDate="2018-02-10T17:48:17.343" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962382727277367298" />
  <row Id="39432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15761" RevisionGUID="ab78c54e-6f3d-40a9-8aad-0e234e8de9fd" CreationDate="2018-02-10T20:57:31.037" UserId="10246" Text="Несколько недель назад я писал кое-что Вконтакте и с удивлением для себя обнаружил, что слово &quot;бутафор&quot; у меня подчеркивалось как содержащее ошибку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для меня это слово стояло в одном ряду с такими как &quot;бондарь&quot;, &quot;экзальтированный&quot; и так далее, то есть действительно редко используемым, однако безусловно существующим. Факт, что это слово я обнаружил в единственном словаре (причем малоизвестном, ни Даля, ни Ожегова), изумил меня еще больше, и с того момента меня терзают сомнения, которые я хотел бы развеять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так существует или нет это слово?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15761" RevisionGUID="ab78c54e-6f3d-40a9-8aad-0e234e8de9fd" CreationDate="2018-02-10T20:57:31.037" UserId="10246" Text="Бутафор - настоящее слово или моя выдумка?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15761" RevisionGUID="ab78c54e-6f3d-40a9-8aad-0e234e8de9fd" CreationDate="2018-02-10T20:57:31.037" UserId="10246" Text="|словарь|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39435" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15761" RevisionGUID="a570c88a-d0ed-423d-8f41-94dbd89a5c55" CreationDate="2018-02-10T21:32:49.547" UserId="10246" Comment="edited title" Text="Бутафор - настоящее слово или моя выдумка? | &quot;Бутафор&quot; - an actual word or my fantasy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15762" RevisionGUID="4901dd7a-ccfb-4274-8e8d-835ab74b3a87" CreationDate="2018-02-10T21:35:16.190" UserId="7674" Text="Вот [ссылка][1] на список всех словарей, в которых оно зафиксировано. Насколько список достоверен, судить не берусь, но там есть и Даль, и Ожегов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сам я не уверен, что когда-либо с ним встречался, но, встретившись, проблемы с пониманием его смысла (который подтвердили соварные статьи) не испытал, и по уху (или по глазу) оно мне не резануло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/fre_rus/81778/%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15763" RevisionGUID="df1ed162-ea26-4bf8-82cd-6ef232ad4c82" CreationDate="2018-02-10T23:17:17.443" UserId="10237" Text="When they say it sounds like the &quot;G&quot; in English, do they mean the hard G sound like Gary, the soft G like Genuine, or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15763" RevisionGUID="df1ed162-ea26-4bf8-82cd-6ef232ad4c82" CreationDate="2018-02-10T23:17:17.443" UserId="10237" Text="Does the letter г ever have a soft &quot;J&quot; sound?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15763" RevisionGUID="df1ed162-ea26-4bf8-82cd-6ef232ad4c82" CreationDate="2018-02-10T23:17:17.443" UserId="10237" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39440" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9151" RevisionGUID="1ba7cfe9-aac3-42d9-9eff-571d161855d9" CreationDate="2018-02-10T23:48:17.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962473325200060416" />
  <row Id="39441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15764" RevisionGUID="e5357678-0e53-4842-9c92-e4444a8638c3" CreationDate="2018-02-11T00:30:40.410" UserId="2079" Text="It is hard, like in Gary. Hear for example the pronounce of га (https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/га#Произношение).  It is the voiced counterpart of к.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there is no sound similar to G in Geniune. Such G is transliterated as ДЖ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, г is pronounced as the voiced counterpart of х. This is most common in Ukraine, and among people from Ukraine.  You should not pronounce г like this, but you should recognize such г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In word endings -ого, -его, and in the pronoun `его`, г is pronounced like в. (But not in the words `ого` and `ого-го`.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39442" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="d77b471e-10b6-4d74-8fd2-f8d3a2e42d8e" CreationDate="2018-02-11T02:53:26.927" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962519921547776000" />
  <row Id="39445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15735" RevisionGUID="a52cf9a4-9770-49f3-a236-81deadf88ef0" CreationDate="2018-02-11T11:53:29.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/962655827982241793" />
  <row Id="39446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15765" RevisionGUID="a1d8115b-191e-44c2-a317-7fdc5906a80a" CreationDate="2018-02-11T15:07:07.557" UserId="7674" Text="Unfortunately without context it's impossible to figure out what *they*, whoever they are, mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English hard **G** is in principle equivalent to Russian **Г**, ***which is always hard anyway***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English soft **G** can be transliterated into Russian as **ДЖЬ**, but Russian doesn't have such a sound, it's uncharacteristic to its phonetic system.  &#xD;&#xA; Instead, Russian has a sound denoted by a letter **Ж** used, in particular, at places where **Г** must become soft and so turn into **Ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вра**Г** - вра**Ж**еский   &#xD;&#xA;доро**Г**ой - доро**Ж**е   &#xD;&#xA;сла**Г**ать - сло**Ж**ение   &#xD;&#xA;запря**Г**ать - запря**Ж**ён  &#xD;&#xA;мо**Г**у - мо**Ж**ем&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15765" RevisionGUID="54726394-7dd8-494e-b998-3fd47883503a" CreationDate="2018-02-11T15:13:38.733" UserId="7674" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately without context it's impossible to figure out what *they*, whoever they are, mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English hard **G** is in principle equivalent to Russian **Г**, ***which is always hard anyway***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English soft **G** can be transliterated into Russian as **ДЖЬ**, but Russian doesn't have such a sound, it's uncharacteristic to its phonetic system.  &#xD;&#xA; Instead, Russian has a sound denoted by a letter **Ж** used, in particular, at places where **Г** must become soft and so turn into **Ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вра**Г** - вра**Ж**еский   &#xD;&#xA;доро**Г**ой - доро**Ж**е   &#xD;&#xA;сла**Г**ать - сло**Ж**ение   &#xD;&#xA;запря**Г**ать - запря**Ж**ён  &#xD;&#xA;мо**Г**у - мо**Ж**ем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the phoneme **Ж** itself is also always hard in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15765" RevisionGUID="744e44b3-4659-4628-8610-f9ef95cc8747" CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:43:58.097" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately without context it's impossible to figure out what *they*, whoever they are, mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English hard **G** is in principle equivalent to Russian **Г**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English soft **G** can be transliterated into Russian as **ДЖЬ**, but Russian doesn't have such a sound, it's uncharacteristic to its phonetic system.  &#xD;&#xA; Instead, Russian has a sound denoted by a letter **Ж** used, in particular, at places where **Г** must become soft and so turn into **Ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вра**Г** - вра**Ж**еский   &#xD;&#xA;доро**Г**ой - доро**Ж**е   &#xD;&#xA;сла**Г**ать - сло**Ж**ение   &#xD;&#xA;запря**Г**ать - запря**Ж**ён  &#xD;&#xA;мо**Г**у - мо**Ж**ем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the phoneme **Ж** itself is also always hard in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15765" RevisionGUID="6f450bea-90a4-4a58-b4ac-7daec65898d1" CreationDate="2018-02-11T16:54:43.777" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately without context it's impossible to figure out what *they*, whoever they are, mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English so called hard **G** (or in scientific terms *voiced velar plosive*) is in principle equivalent to Russian **Г**. However its hardness in English isn't absolute as in certain positions it softens, retaining nevertheless its *velar plosive* character as in words ***begin*** or ***nagGing***.  &#xD;&#xA;Similarly Russian **Г** can get soft like in the words *дру**Г**ие, но**Г**и, забе**Г**е*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English so called soft **G** can be transliterated into Russian as **ДЖЬ**, but Russian doesn't have such a sound, it's uncharacteristic to its phonetic system.  &#xD;&#xA;Instead, Russian has a sound denoted by a letter **Ж** used, in particular, at places where **Г** must become soft and so turn into **Ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вра**Г** - вра**Ж**еский   &#xD;&#xA;доро**Г**ой - доро**Ж**е   &#xD;&#xA;сла**Г**ать - сло**Ж**ение   &#xD;&#xA;запря**Г**ать - запря**Ж**ён  &#xD;&#xA;мо**Г**у - мо**Ж**ем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the phoneme **Ж** itself is also always hard in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15765" RevisionGUID="ca160521-0ef9-46e8-a265-8c0c86299c22" CreationDate="2018-02-11T17:42:51.977" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately without context it's impossible to figure out what *they*, whoever they are, mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English so called hard **G** (or in phonologic terms *voiced velar plosive*) is in principle equivalent to Russian **Г**. However its hardness in English isn't absolute as in certain positions it softens, retaining nevertheless its *velar plosive* character as in the words ***begin***, ***nagGing***, ***rugGed***.  &#xD;&#xA;Similarly Russian **Г** can get soft like in the words *дру**Г**ие, но**Г**и, забе**Г**е*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English so called soft **G** can be transliterated into Russian as **ДЖЬ**, but Russian doesn't have such a sound, it's uncharacteristic to its phonetic system.  &#xD;&#xA;Instead, Russian has a sound denoted by a letter **Ж** used, in particular, at places where **Г** must become soft and so transform into **Ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вра**Г** - вра**Ж**еский   &#xD;&#xA;доро**Г**ой - доро**Ж**е   &#xD;&#xA;сла**Г**ать - сло**Ж**ение   &#xD;&#xA;запря**Г**ать - запря**Ж**ён  &#xD;&#xA;мо**Г**у - мо**Ж**ем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the phoneme **Ж** itself is always hard in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15766" RevisionGUID="5f10aa53-95b1-49fb-966a-b7a4967b6b4f" CreationDate="2018-02-12T11:35:03.520" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я тоже в долгу не оставалась. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is an idiomatic phrase that either means paying someone back for something bad or repaying someone for something good, depending on context? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15766" RevisionGUID="5f10aa53-95b1-49fb-966a-b7a4967b6b4f" CreationDate="2018-02-12T11:35:03.520" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret the phrase &quot;Я тоже в долгу не оставалась&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15766" RevisionGUID="5f10aa53-95b1-49fb-966a-b7a4967b6b4f" CreationDate="2018-02-12T11:35:03.520" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15767" RevisionGUID="2d25b5d9-8e10-4d1c-931b-8921c424efa1" CreationDate="2018-02-12T11:43:16.053" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;В долгу не остаться&quot; may be used with good things as well as bad things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, as a standalone sentence in an imperfective form, I would say it's rather negative than positive. But this might be just my own perception. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15768" RevisionGUID="95e21eea-c0af-4f80-980f-6c683e95e739" CreationDate="2018-02-12T11:43:51.080" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, `не оставаться в долгу` is an idiomatic phrase meaning (be quick) to repay someone like for like, either for good or bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15769" RevisionGUID="23a7e6f7-628c-4502-9918-6c09b0dd485f" CreationDate="2018-02-12T12:21:29.667" UserId="10247" Text="&gt; Не остаться в долгу *у кого* (*перед кем*) - Отплатить кому-л. тем же&#xD;&#xA;&gt; самым (поступком, отношением и т.п.) - i.e. pay back with a similar attitude, action, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: paper copy Толковый словарь (Кузнецов). &#xD;&#xA;link http://slovariki.org/tolkovyj-slovar-kuznecova/13593 &#xD;&#xA;(a *diamond sign* means phraseological use)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15770" RevisionGUID="a3e63c7a-24b2-4b18-bf56-594fd7756990" CreationDate="2018-02-12T12:24:23.503" UserId="5443" Text="Situations of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я в долгу не останусь.** A promise to *pay back even more* for a favor from someone who's typically not a close friend. In some rare context it can be a threat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я в долгу не остался.** I paid back (likely) even more to someone. Idiomatically, it can mean *fighting back* (in proper context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я в долгу не оставался.** (imperfective sense) *Each time* I gave a proper answer to somebody acting against me (or was *continuously* fighting back)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39458" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15766" RevisionGUID="0dde569d-3312-4500-a413-18b3352cce3c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:15:11.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/963114275110903809" />
  <row Id="39459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15771" RevisionGUID="1636f850-4afc-41b6-bf77-9da53a1b5a11" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:54:50.743" UserId="10219" Text="Beginner here, I have a sentence with it's translation, but need some help understanding why.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На его месте вы бы ещё не так заплакали.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the translation is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In his place, you would cry even more (or in french, à sa place, vous pleureriez encore bien davantage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm able to see what each word means, but am having trouble seeing why, all together, it means the above translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вы        -&gt; You&#xD;&#xA;    бы        -&gt; Makes the verb conditional&#xD;&#xA;    ещё       -&gt; More &#xD;&#xA;    не        -&gt; negates &#xD;&#xA;    так       -&gt; so much&#xD;&#xA;    заплакали -&gt; Past tense of cry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So literally, it reads more like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In his place, you wouldn't cry as much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is the opposite of what the translation says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help on understanding why this sentence means what it means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15771" RevisionGUID="1636f850-4afc-41b6-bf77-9da53a1b5a11" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:54:50.743" UserId="10219" Text="Helping understand translation of `вы бы ещё не так заплакали`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15771" RevisionGUID="1636f850-4afc-41b6-bf77-9da53a1b5a11" CreationDate="2018-02-12T18:54:50.743" UserId="10219" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15772" RevisionGUID="a0eb9786-f320-41ed-b3ac-187d52f67e66" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:22:25.937" UserId="7674" Text="`Так` in relation to `плакать` describes a manner of the action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ТАК (сильно) плакал - He cried SO MUCH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself `не так` would mean `not so much` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in combination with `ещё` (more), which in this sentence functions as an intensifying particle, `не так` comes to mean `even more`, that is `this/so much and more`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ещё (и) не так плакал - &lt;sup&gt;literally&lt;/sup&gt; I cried SO MUCH and MORE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15772" RevisionGUID="b27dbe54-02bd-47fe-b0dc-bddae94d32fe" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:32:25.763" UserId="7674" Comment="added 286 characters in body" Text="`Так` in relation to `плакать` describes a manner of the action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ТАК (сильно/горько/громко) плакал - He cried SO MUCH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself `не так` would mean `not so much` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in combination with `ещё` (more), which in this sentence functions as an intensifying particle, `не так` comes to mean `even more`, that is `this/so much and more`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ЕЩЁ (и) НЕ ТАК плакал - &lt;sup&gt;literally&lt;/sup&gt; I cried SO MUCH MORE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it can be further rationalized and dissected, it's an instance where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And it's a stable construction in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я слышал, что они занимаются рэкетом / I've heard they practise extortion  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я ещё (и) не то слышал / I've heard so much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15768" RevisionGUID="7a55cfb7-d22b-4235-abc7-ee9809e2796c" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:32:39.937" UserId="2104" Comment="added 835 characters in body" Text="Yes, `не оста́ться в долгу́` is an idiomatic phrase meaning (be quick) to repay someone like for like, either for good or bad. When said about a good thing, the phrase can mean literally 'not to remain indebted', 'to repay':&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Фабри́ций не пожела́л оста́ться в долгу́ и отпусти́л ро́вно сто́лько же эпи́рских пле́нных. = Fabricius did not want to remain obliged and released exactly the same number of Epirian prisoners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the flip side, the phrase can mean 'hit back when you are hit', 'make a move when your opponent makes a move':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * «Мицуби́си» не оста́лась в долгу́, отве́тив «Хо́нде» городски́м вседоро́жником. = Mitsubishi did not lag behind for long and responded to Honda by (creating) an urban off-road truck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example the verb is imperfective past feminine (остава́лась) which means that she is either very competitive or she likes returning the good done to her. I'd recommend that you find out which it is before dating her. ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15772" RevisionGUID="a371f851-bf79-4874-8931-d9bc5dad3106" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:44:21.367" UserId="7674" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="`Так` in relation to `плакать` describes a manner of the action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ТАК (сильно/горько/громко) плакал - He cried SO MUCH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself `не так` would mean `not so much` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in combination with `ещё` (more), which in this sentence functions as an intensifying particle, `не так` comes to mean `even more`, that is `this/so much and more`, or if we employ the negation, then `not so much, but more`, which is the underlying idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ЕЩЁ (и) НЕ ТАК плакал - &lt;sup&gt;literally&lt;/sup&gt; I cried SO MUCH MORE/NOT SO MUCH, but MORE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it can be further rationalized and dissected, it's an instance where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And it's a stable construction in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я слышал, что они занимаются рэкетом / I've heard they practise extortion  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я ещё (и) не то слышал / I've heard so much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15773" RevisionGUID="4ec4a579-6b01-4049-b5e4-6b24aa0cd579" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:51:41.667" UserId="1553" Text="I'm a native Russian speaker and you may laugh at me, but I don't fully understand the difference between **повидло** and **варенье**. Both words are translated as **jam** and seem to be used interchangeably. Are they synonyms, or is there a regional preference / any subtle difference in the meaning? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15773" RevisionGUID="4ec4a579-6b01-4049-b5e4-6b24aa0cd579" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:51:41.667" UserId="1553" Text="&quot;Повидло&quot; vs &quot;Варенье&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15773" RevisionGUID="4ec4a579-6b01-4049-b5e4-6b24aa0cd579" CreationDate="2018-02-12T19:51:41.667" UserId="1553" Text="|лексикон|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15774" RevisionGUID="eb199515-c34b-416b-a882-153cda1023ce" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:04:07.347" UserId="7674" Text="I've always considered **варенье** to be home made, whereas **повидло** manufactured. But they also differ in texture, thickness, so maybe their recepes differ as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15775" RevisionGUID="5ba54117-5d24-41f8-8e78-6e5e362cb469" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:20:40.917" UserId="4903" Text="In my opinion the most noticeable difference between the two is that &quot;повидло&quot; is a homogeneous product.  Both products are a result of boiling sweetened fruit. **&quot;Варенье&quot;** is then put in jars as a mix of syrup and pieces of fruit, or berries. But **&quot;повидло&quot;** is sifted through to remove small seeds, pieces of skin, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15776" RevisionGUID="88172c86-c60c-42f7-bd33-678ce0db1e69" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:21:17.750" UserId="2079" Text="Согласно русской википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повидло получают путём вываривания с сахаром **фруктового или ягодного пюре**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варенье получают путём вываривания с сахаром **фруктов или ягод**, реже овощей, розовых лепестков, мологых грецких орехов, сосновых шишек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Клубничное повидло: http://suseky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/klubnihnoe-povidlo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повидло - однородная масса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В варенье есть фрукты, ягоды или что там варили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make варенье from something, you cook it with sugar (and probably water, don't know for sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make повидло from something, you first grind it in a blender (or sometimes manually with fork), then add sugar and cook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15775" RevisionGUID="68ba462f-300c-49c7-bd51-d7ed772a8f56" CreationDate="2018-02-12T20:32:54.210" UserId="4903" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In my opinion the most noticeable difference between the two is that **&quot;повидло&quot;** is a homogeneous product.  Both products are a result of boiling sweetened fruit. **&quot;Варенье&quot;** is then put in jars as a mix of syrup and pieces of fruit, or berries. But **&quot;повидло&quot;** is sifted through to remove small seeds, pieces of skin, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15776" RevisionGUID="e2fd80da-93ae-4b43-9240-7a15cbd85f53" CreationDate="2018-02-12T21:01:10.740" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="Согласно русской википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повидло получают путём вываривания с сахаром **фруктового или ягодного пюре**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варенье получают путём вываривания с сахаром **фруктов или ягод**, реже овощей, розовых лепестков, мологых грецких орехов, сосновых шишек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повидло - однородная масса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В варенье есть фрукты, ягоды или что там варили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make варенье from something, you cook it with sugar (and probably water, don't know for sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make повидло from something, you first grind it in a blender (or sometimes manually with fork), then add sugar and cook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15776" RevisionGUID="35965978-b0cf-4c91-8af0-79bc97ae32c1" CreationDate="2018-02-13T03:43:16.393" UserId="2079" Comment="edited body" Text="Согласно русской википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повидло получают путём вываривания с сахаром **фруктового или ягодного пюре**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Варенье получают путём вываривания с сахаром **фруктов или ягод**, реже овощей, розовых лепестков, молодых грецких орехов, сосновых шишек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Повидло - однородная масса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В варенье есть фрукты, ягоды или что там варили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make варенье from something, you cook it with sugar (and probably water, don't know for sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make повидло from something, you first grind it in a blender (or sometimes manually with fork), then add sugar and cook." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15772" RevisionGUID="bd1a4f02-cb51-4576-9c02-fad374d40f49" CreationDate="2018-02-13T08:08:59.180" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="`Так` in relation to `плакать` describes a manner of the action&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ТАК (сильно/горько/громко) плакал - He cried SO MUCH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself `не так` would mean `not so much` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in combination with `ещё` (more), which in this sentence functions as an intensifying particle, `не так` comes to mean `even more`, which can be thought of as `this/so much and more`, or if we employ the negation, then `not so much, but more`, which is the underlying idea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ЕЩЁ (и) НЕ ТАК плакал - &lt;sup&gt;literally&lt;/sup&gt; I cried SO MUCH MORE/NOT SO MUCH, but MORE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure it can be further rationalized and dissected, it's an instance where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And it's a stable construction in Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я слышал, что они занимаются рэкетом / I've heard they practise extortion  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Я ещё (и) не то слышал / I've heard so much more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15765" RevisionGUID="09ae0a30-8cbd-4eab-8f7d-61f206087968" CreationDate="2018-02-13T10:48:01.867" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar and spelling corrected" Text="Unfortunately, without context it's impossible to figure out what *they*, whoever they are, mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English so-called hard **G** (or in phonologic terms *voiced velar plosive*) is in principle equivalent to Russian **Г**. However, its hardness in English isn't absolute since in certain positions it softens, retaining nevertheless its *velar plosive* character as in the words ***beGin***, ***nagGing***, ***rugGed***.  &#xD;&#xA;Similarly, Russian **Г** can get soft like in the words *дру**Г**ие, но**Г**и, забе**Г**е*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English so-called soft **G** can be transliterated into Russian as **ДЖЬ**, but Russian doesn't have such a sound, it's uncharacteristic of its phonetic system.  &#xD;&#xA;Instead, Russian has a sound denoted by the letter **Ж** used, in particular, at places where **Г** must become soft and so transform into **Ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вра**Г** - вра**Ж**еский   &#xD;&#xA;доро**Г**ой - доро**Ж**е   &#xD;&#xA;сла**Г**ать - сло**Ж**ение   &#xD;&#xA;запря**Г**ать - запря**Ж**ён  &#xD;&#xA;мо**Г**у - мо**Ж**ем&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the phoneme **Ж** itself is always hard in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15777" RevisionGUID="4b109f78-5304-46a4-8883-33836898a2e1" CreationDate="2018-02-13T11:53:32.097" UserId="10177" Text="Q1. Yes, here she has chosen the род of jobs. One way to translate this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;It's an interesting line of work she has chosen for herself.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;She chose the line (род) of work (занятий)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. The singular form sounds wrong specifically because of the word род. It's not exactly &quot;kind&quot;, literal translation is family/genus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe like in English you'd say a breed of dogs rather than a breed of a dog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words are more accepting of the singular, such as вид or тип." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15778" RevisionGUID="37d28a88-7729-47ed-963b-800de8d585b9" CreationDate="2018-02-13T13:57:52.433" UserId="10177" Text="It's a bit like trying to change &quot;the powers that be&quot; to &quot;the powers that exist&quot;. Сильные мира сего is a phrase that carries a specific feeling with it and is used in certain contexts just like powers that be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15779" RevisionGUID="c86149b0-2e47-4aac-8fe6-2e75d52a212b" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:32:07.237" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;От него гораздо больше **толку**, чем от некого короля!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this sentence literally means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;From him (we get) a lot more **use** than from a certain king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the noun &quot;толк&quot; has to be in Dative here? Is it an omitted, impersonal subject that I'm dealing with here? Still, I'm not sure how to properly parse the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15779" RevisionGUID="c86149b0-2e47-4aac-8fe6-2e75d52a212b" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:32:07.237" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the dative &quot;толку&quot; in &quot;От него гораздо больше толку&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15779" RevisionGUID="c86149b0-2e47-4aac-8fe6-2e75d52a212b" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:32:07.237" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15780" RevisionGUID="49954534-bff5-477d-828d-800287998346" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:37:03.547" UserId="4560" Text="It's not dative. It's a genitive form from a now-extinct paradigm that has come to have a partitive meaning, &quot;a measure of an uncountable thing&quot;. Related: [Partitive Genitive][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15687/partitive-genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15781" RevisionGUID="37204026-e64a-4538-acd2-63df650d6fed" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:44:38.577" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;От него гораздо больше толку, чем от **некого** короля!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{my literal translation}: From him (we get) a lot more use than from a **certain** king.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only meaning of the word &quot;некого&quot; that I'm aware of is &quot;no one&quot;, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply this meaning here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I have read that &quot;некого&quot; is the negative genitive of &quot;кто&quot;. So is &quot;некого&quot; made up of &quot;не&quot; and &quot;кого&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15781" RevisionGUID="37204026-e64a-4538-acd2-63df650d6fed" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:44:38.577" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;некого&quot; in &quot;чем от некого короля&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15781" RevisionGUID="37204026-e64a-4538-acd2-63df650d6fed" CreationDate="2018-02-13T18:44:38.577" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15779" RevisionGUID="95322e37-bf3c-46e4-8a6b-103a2b458a5e" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:05:02.210" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|genitive-partitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15782" RevisionGUID="f114caaf-ef88-4fb9-9045-82d6b67f2fb9" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:07:18.513" UserId="4560" Text="This particular **некого** is unrelated to **кто**. It's from **некий**, which is basically a more bookish, slightly archaic **какой-то**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Properly, the genitive should be **некоего**, but it's one of those quirks of inflection that a lot of people forget or never learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the choice of **неко(е)го** over **какого-то** adds an undertone of scepticism or suspicion (a &quot;some king&quot; that stops just short of saying &quot;some *supposed* king&quot;) whereas with **какого-то**, it would've been more outright dismissive (&quot;pfft, some king&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15782" RevisionGUID="471d2c04-1716-4ae7-8d90-c70fa60b7da9" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:12:46.247" UserId="4560" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="This particular **некого** is unrelated to **кто**. It's from **некий**, which is basically a more bookish, slightly archaic **какой-то**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Properly, the genitive should be **некоего**, but it's one of those quirks of inflection that a lot of people forget or never learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the choice of **неко(е)го** over **какого-то** adds an undertone of scepticism or suspicion (a &quot;some king&quot; that stops just short of saying &quot;some *supposed* king&quot;) whereas with **какого-то**, it would've been more outright dismissive (&quot;some king... like those are ever any good&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="61aac6c5-c9fe-4da1-8ec0-43787819acc6" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:20:29.697" UserId="4714" Text="How exactly is й pronounced in adjective endings such as ий/ ый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember something, from some of the first grammar books that I read, about it being more or less silent--not having any sound. But recently I read that there should be a /j/ sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this work? What is the difference between ый and ы in normal speech? Do you hear the й? I 'm looking for a practical explanation not so much phonetic theory. Although the latter is welcome too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G., красивый/ красивы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тихий/ тихи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that in older styles speakers would pronounce the й much stronger. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="61aac6c5-c9fe-4da1-8ec0-43787819acc6" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:20:29.697" UserId="4714" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;й&quot; in adjective endings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="61aac6c5-c9fe-4da1-8ec0-43787819acc6" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:20:29.697" UserId="4714" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15782" RevisionGUID="b213e046-a203-4712-9a58-e724ff545c1b" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:23:38.213" UserId="4560" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="This particular **некого** is unrelated to **кто**. It's from **некий**, which is basically a more bookish, slightly archaic **какой-то**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Properly, the genitive should be **некоего**, but it's one of those quirks of inflection that a lot of people forget or never learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the choice of **неко(е)го** over **какого-то** adds an undertone of scepticism or suspicion (a &quot;some king&quot; that stops just short of saying &quot;some *supposed* king&quot;) whereas with **какого-то**, it would've been more outright dismissive (&quot;some king... like those are ever any good&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Ouch. I completely forgot — despite your translation — that **некий** can also have a different shade of meaning, close to **кое-какой**. So without context, it's hard to tell whether the speaker means &quot;than some king&quot; or, indeed, &quot;than *a certain* king [we all know]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15785" RevisionGUID="93b156a6-e3f9-4eff-b5d9-ebaff8504efd" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:32:54.520" UserId="7674" Text="It's not one of those cases where a sound can be reduced in spoken language without affecting the accuracy and euphony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fluent speech it can get swallowed so to speak at the end of words, due to its curtness, but it's a result of sloppiness and lack of effort, and ideally it has to be pronounced even if briefly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If **Й** is left out, instead of **красивЫЙ** we get **красивЫ**, which are two different forms of the adjective, full singular and shortened plural  respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15786" RevisionGUID="ada3c4c4-b773-42fa-ae30-cbecb15b6621" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:36:06.760" UserId="4903" Text="Russian &quot;й&quot; sounds very much like English &quot;y&quot; in words: *&quot;bo**y**&quot;, &quot;ma**y**&quot;, &quot;fe**y**&quot;.* Unlike in English sound &quot;й&quot; is never dropped or converted into &quot;и&quot;, as it happens in words: *&quot;icy&quot;, &quot;chimney&quot;.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, my first name *&quot;Витали**й**&quot;* is typically pronounced by English speakers as *vee-tah-lee*, while the Russian pronunciation always preserves the semivowel at the end *vee-tah-lee**y***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15785" RevisionGUID="4efb5630-b842-4c45-9e87-784bce11ba5e" CreationDate="2018-02-13T19:41:04.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="It's not one of those cases where a sound can be reduced in spoken language without affecting the accuracy and euphony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fluent speech it can get swallowed so to speak at the end of words, due to its curtness, but it's a result of sloppiness and lack of effort, and ideally it has to be pronounced even if briefly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If **Й** is left out, instead of **красивЫЙ** we get **красивЫ**, which are two different forms of the adjective, full singular and shortened plural  respectively. Likewise for **тихИЙ** vs **тихИ**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="ab71ff7a-e87b-4375-958c-27200e4bdf9e" CreationDate="2018-02-13T21:10:24.243" UserId="4714" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="How exactly is й pronounced in adjective endings such as ий/ ый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember something, from some of the first grammar books that I read, about it being more or less silent--not having any sound. But recently I read that there should be a /j/ sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this work? What is the difference between ый and ы in normal speech? Do you hear the й? I 'm looking for a practical explanation not so much phonetic theory. Although the latter is welcome too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G., красивый/ красивы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тихий/ тихи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that in older styles speakers would pronounce the й much stronger. Or at least that's what I understood from the book I'm reading--see below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is from Jones and Ward (1969), The phonetics of Russian. —**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Old Pronunciation of -их][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Modern][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2p2vN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v61kh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="a3f59ced-8d95-4131-8f32-4fe26e19d0dc" CreationDate="2018-02-14T09:18:43.037" UserId="4714" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="How exactly is й pronounced in adjective endings such as ий/ ый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember something, from some of the first grammar books that I read, about it being more or less silent--not having any sound. But recently I read that there should be a /j/ sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this work? What is the difference between ый and ы in normal speech? Do you hear the й? I 'm looking for a practical explanation not so much phonetic theory. Although the latter is welcome too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G., красивый/ красивы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тихий/ тихи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that in older styles speakers would pronounce the й much stronger. Or at least that's what I understood from the book I'm reading--see below. (*EDIT-- It turns out I was wrong-- this older style regards the last и in тихий, which is pronounced similar to schwa*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is from Jones and Ward (1969), The phonetics of Russian. —**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Old Pronunciation of -их][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Modern][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2p2vN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v61kh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="2fa29780-2694-4eea-a633-01381e1df950" CreationDate="2018-02-14T09:24:24.363" UserId="4714" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="How exactly is й pronounced in adjective endings such as ий/ ый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember something, from some of the first grammar books that I read, about it being more or less silent--not having any sound. But recently I read that there should be a /j/ sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this work? What is the difference between ый and ы in normal speech? Do you hear the й? I 'm looking for a practical explanation not so much phonetic theory. Although the latter is welcome too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G., красивый/ красивы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тихий/ тихи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that in older styles speakers would pronounce the й much stronger. Or at least that's what I understood from the book I'm reading--see below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is from Jones and Ward (1969), The phonetics of Russian. —**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Old Pronunciation of -их][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Modern][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE-- So I read the introduction to the Book by Jones and Ward (1969) and they mention this--**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![**enter image description here**][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2p2vN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v61kh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bZmH8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="bdbd17e8-9d97-460a-a276-622582036176" CreationDate="2018-02-14T09:33:26.323" UserId="4714" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="How exactly is й pronounced in adjective endings such as ий/ ый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember something, from some of the first grammar books that I read, about it being more or less silent--not having any sound. But recently I read that there should be a /j/ sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this work? What is the difference between ый and ы in normal speech? Do you hear the й? I 'm looking for a practical explanation not so much phonetic theory. Although the latter is welcome too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G., красивый/ красивы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тихий/ тихи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that in older styles speakers would pronounce the й much stronger. Or at least that's what I understood from the book I'm reading--see below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is from Jones and Ward (1969), The phonetics of Russian. —**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Old Pronunciation of -их][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Modern][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE-- So I read the introduction to the Book by Jones and Ward (1969) and they mention this--**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![**enter image description here**][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2p2vN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v61kh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bZmH8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15787" RevisionGUID="e2a8b984-8461-4143-ab56-d4669fa71e96" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:50:27.673" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Woman: Я могла бы **остаться** здесь навсегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Man: Так **оставайся**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you need to use the perfective &quot;остаться&quot; on one hand and the imperfective &quot;оставаться&quot; on the other, even though they both refer to the same action of the woman staying in the same place.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15787" RevisionGUID="e2a8b984-8461-4143-ab56-d4669fa71e96" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:50:27.673" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the perfective &quot;остаться&quot; on one hand and the imperfective &quot;оставаться&quot; on the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15787" RevisionGUID="e2a8b984-8461-4143-ab56-d4669fa71e96" CreationDate="2018-02-14T13:50:27.673" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15788" RevisionGUID="e3a9bea7-6f81-484d-9607-df7e18bcd0bb" CreationDate="2018-02-14T14:16:41.853" UserId="2104" Text="Imperfective imperatives (проходите, садитесь) sound more polite than perfective (пройдите, сядьте).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15789" RevisionGUID="2c8b1e8a-7931-4663-b085-e8828f8407f4" CreationDate="2018-02-14T14:42:30.163" UserId="7674" Text="Concerning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я могла бы остаться здесь **на**всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfective verbs** can't go together with the adverb **навсегда**. They do with the adverb **всегда**, because the 1st denotes a momentary manner of action and the 2nd a continuous one. So one can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я могла бы оста**ВА**ться здесь ()всегда." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15789" RevisionGUID="29a70c9e-405d-45a9-84ee-f3fffab6a157" CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:06:21.237" UserId="7674" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="Concerning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я могла бы остаться здесь **на**всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfective verbs** can't go together with the adverb **навсегда**. They do with the adverb **всегда**, because the 1st denotes a momentary manner of action and the 2nd a continuous/incomplete one. So one can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я могла бы оста**ВА**ться здесь ()всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning politeness, which is true, in this dialogue **останься** could possibly work as well because the interlocutors seem to be close acquaintances, which allows for more informal address. Perfective imperative also sounds somewhat more persistent and demanding and in informal setting the degree of imperative is up to the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="d821615f-3414-4941-bc47-80cc59422d75" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:30:04.980" UserId="4714" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="How exactly is й pronounced in adjective endings such as ий/ ый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember something, from some of the first grammar books that I read, about it being more or less silent--not having any sound. But recently I read that there should be a /j/ sound. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does this work? What is the difference between ый and ы in normal speech? Do you hear the й? I 'm looking for a practical explanation not so much phonetic theory. Although the latter is welcome too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G., красивый/ красивы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тихий/ тихи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read that in older styles speakers would pronounce the й much stronger. Or at least that's what I understood from the book I'm reading--see below.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is from Jones and Ward (1969), The phonetics of Russian. —**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Old Pronunciation of -их][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Modern][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE-- So I read the introduction to the Book by Jones and Ward (1969) and they mention this--**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![**enter image description here**][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Yet another Update-- I looked through some reference books and here's what they say about й—**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2p2vN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v61kh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bZmH8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9DjPw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9QkZo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15790" RevisionGUID="a3dda03f-ee58-469f-83fd-275d6ddc44ad" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:55:45.727" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Поэтому я приехала **сюда**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{X}: Поэтому я приехала **тут**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{X}: Поэтому я приехала **здесь**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you can only use the adverb &quot;сюда&quot; in this instance, although all three seem to share the locative meaning &quot;here&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example where this time around &quot;здесь&quot; seems to fit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как же **здесь** красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{X}: Как же **тут** красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{X}: Как же **сюда** красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15790" RevisionGUID="a3dda03f-ee58-469f-83fd-275d6ddc44ad" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:55:45.727" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;сюда&quot;, &quot;здесь&quot;, and &quot;тут&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15790" RevisionGUID="a3dda03f-ee58-469f-83fd-275d6ddc44ad" CreationDate="2018-02-14T19:55:45.727" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15791" RevisionGUID="1d423962-a7d0-48c2-9563-1ef693bd7205" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:13:20.883" UserId="7674" Text="It's because **сюда** means `to here` just like **туда** means `to there` which are in use with verbs of movement and direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Здесь/тут** mean simply `here` and are adverbs of place and not of direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider English archaic **hither/thither**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15792" RevisionGUID="a326f8b1-6255-4dee-93af-e6f9edcf9e3d" CreationDate="2018-02-14T20:24:07.087" UserId="6539" Text="Здесь (formal ), тут (colloquial ), opposite там are synonyms and show place. There's one more colloquial form туточки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сюда -opposite туда shows destination or direction, when you move." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15793" RevisionGUID="25f7c074-fdfd-4007-afcd-06f5956ba979" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:42:50.370" UserId="8780" Text="I noticed that women can tell, in Russian, **&quot;я не продавец&quot;**, **&quot;я официант&quot;** or **&quot;она - хороший друг&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though these job nouns have a feminine counterpart, respectively, **продавщица**, **официантка**, **хорошая подруга**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it OK to refer to a woman's job either by the male or female ending of the job?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Adjectives will agree in gender with job nouns with masculine endings, even when referring to women?&#xD;&#xA; 3. When dealing with nouns which have no female counterpart, such as **администратор** (*receptionist*), can I use **одна** in the following situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *&quot;One of the former [female] receptionists now wants to be a trooper&quot;* -&#xD;&#xA;    **Одна из бывших администраторов сейчас хочет стать военной.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15793" RevisionGUID="25f7c074-fdfd-4007-afcd-06f5956ba979" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:42:50.370" UserId="8780" Text="Masculine job nouns on women" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15793" RevisionGUID="25f7c074-fdfd-4007-afcd-06f5956ba979" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:42:50.370" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15794" RevisionGUID="33a6b57b-59a4-4ba0-a965-7c0295873f66" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:51:29.453" UserId="8780" Text="Are suffixes **-ов** and **-ова** on people's names equivalent of the suffix *-son* used in Germanic languages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffixes **-ич**, **-ича** also imply the name of the father, on the patronimic. Are they, too, equivalents of *-son* (and *-dottir* in Icelandic), however used on *отчество* rather than on *фамилия*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15794" RevisionGUID="33a6b57b-59a4-4ba0-a965-7c0295873f66" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:51:29.453" UserId="8780" Text="Name suffixes -ов, -ич" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15794" RevisionGUID="33a6b57b-59a4-4ba0-a965-7c0295873f66" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:51:29.453" UserId="8780" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15795" RevisionGUID="4deece39-4da5-447f-b9b1-da46a49f0bc8" CreationDate="2018-02-14T23:59:56.507" UserId="9256" Text="1. Masculine job titles are generally well accepted for women as well. Feminine job titles are only sometimes more preferable (ex. &quot;певица&quot; vs &quot;певец&quot;). In many cases feminine titles are either only colloquial (ex. &quot;врачиха&quot; vs. &quot;врач&quot;), or actually a carryover of wife's titles from patriarchal times (&quot;губернаторша&quot;, &quot;инспекторша&quot;, &quot;генеральша&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Correct, adjectives agree with title's gender, not person's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Correct, pronouns (as opposed to adjectives) should agree with person's gender." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15796" RevisionGUID="72c4b2fd-5b07-4800-b34e-cc96af8b6442" CreationDate="2018-02-15T00:23:42.623" UserId="8780" Text="1. Is **дом** an import from Latin *domus* as a loanword, or is it the byproduct of the common indo-european substratum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In my country, on the façade of courts, it's written DOMUS IUSTITIÆ, &quot;the house of justice&quot;. If translated literally into Russian, it could become **&quot;Дом Юстиции&quot;**, perhaps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In **юстиция**, the Latin root is evident, since words of Slavic origin related to justice, righteousness or fairness contain the root **право**.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    However, my question is, **юстиция** may only be used as a juridic term referring to the institution of law and court, whereas **справедливость**, which is the Slavic equivalent of *iustitia*, is required for the remaining shades of meaning of the word &quot;justice&quot; in English, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. May **огонь** be related to Latin *ignis*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15796" RevisionGUID="72c4b2fd-5b07-4800-b34e-cc96af8b6442" CreationDate="2018-02-15T00:23:42.623" UserId="8780" Text="Russian vs Latin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15796" RevisionGUID="72c4b2fd-5b07-4800-b34e-cc96af8b6442" CreationDate="2018-02-15T00:23:42.623" UserId="8780" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15797" RevisionGUID="5ed5efc4-6e2f-4b39-9ebd-b0e74dc01664" CreationDate="2018-02-15T06:59:19.253" UserId="9001" Text="You can look up word origin in an [etymology dictionary][1]. I found [this one][2] easy enough for beginners (it provides links to other dictionaries including [Vasmer's][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Дом** is of Indo-European origin and related to Latin *domus*&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes. **Юстиция** is used as juridic term only. It has a synonym of Russian origin - **правосудие**. &quot;House of justice&quot; will most probably translate to &#xD;&#xA;**дом/дворец правосудия**. **Справедливость** means *fairness* and is used in less formal contexts.&#xD;&#xA;3. [Yes][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://gufo.me/dict/krylov?letter=%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Vasmer&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://gufo.me/dict/krylov/%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15798" RevisionGUID="3da7f0c4-1534-41a8-b1a0-b9968d5185cf" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:09:41.847" UserId="10247" Text="I would say for **-ов, -ова** a closer analogy (in the sense of grammar) would be the surnames like Jones, Peters (in the sense that they are Jone's, Peter's children, a Russian obsolete form would be *Иванов сын - son of Ivan*, hence the modern surname *Иванов*, where it kind of lost its original *son* part). It just happens that **-son** names are popular in Germanic languages, while **-ов** is very popular in Russian, that's why it may be perceived as equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for patronymics, the correct forms (depending of the stem) are **-ович/-евич/-ич** (male), **-овна/-евна/-ична/-инична** (female) - e.g. Петрович, Петровна. In modern Russian these forms derive directly from father's name (interestingly, even if the father is unknown or has a non-Russian name some patronynic will be used in their passport, maybe with some rare exceptions) so the name of the father is clear from them. I wouldn't say it's full equivalent of *-son,* because the name ending in *-son* says nothing of the father, but a Russian patronymic says it. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15797" RevisionGUID="b61bdf5e-bddb-46b0-90e6-1911e06d365f" CreationDate="2018-02-15T07:10:27.203" UserId="9001" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="You can look up word origin in an [etymology dictionary][1]. I found [this one][2] easy enough for beginners (it provides links to other dictionaries including [Vasmer's][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Дом** is of Indo-European origin and related to Latin *domus*&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes. **Юстиция** is used as juridic term only. It has a synonym of Russian origin - **правосудие**. &quot;House of justice&quot; will most probably translate to &#xD;&#xA;**дом/дворец правосудия**. **Справедливость** means *fairness* and is used in less formal contexts and **честность** is an informal word for this.&#xD;&#xA;3. [Yes][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://gufo.me/dict/krylov?letter=%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Vasmer&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://gufo.me/dict/krylov/%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15789" RevisionGUID="f3c3dd35-7741-4914-ad2a-16b34a7e8360" CreationDate="2018-02-15T11:35:12.230" UserId="7674" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="Concerning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я могла бы остаться здесь **на**всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Imperfective verbs** can't go together with the adverb **навсегда**. They do with the adverb **всегда**, because the 1st denotes a momentary manner of action and the 2nd a continuous/incomplete one. So one can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я могла бы оста**ВА**ться здесь ()всегда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it's useful to think of **навсегда** as `from this point onwards` and of **всегда** as `always`. And since **навсегда** implies a starting point, the verb it's associated with must be *perfective*, because these denote  an action which has either started or ended, where a putative fixed point in time is evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning politeness, which is true, in this dialogue **останься** could possibly work as well because the interlocutors seem to be close acquaintances, which allows for more informal address. Perfective imperative also sounds somewhat more persistent and demanding and in informal setting the degree of imperative is up to the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15799" RevisionGUID="20afbc5f-8be0-488b-99b0-a1c285d815eb" CreationDate="2018-02-15T13:28:27.307" UserId="10270" Text="I understand that a different verb of motion is used for a bus, tram, train than for a car, lorry, van.&#xD;&#xA;e.g.автобус ходит, машина ездит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct and, if so, why? Then, if I get on the bus автобус ходит а я еду.&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15799" RevisionGUID="20afbc5f-8be0-488b-99b0-a1c285d815eb" CreationDate="2018-02-15T13:28:27.307" UserId="10270" Text="Unprifixed verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15799" RevisionGUID="20afbc5f-8be0-488b-99b0-a1c285d815eb" CreationDate="2018-02-15T13:28:27.307" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15800" RevisionGUID="4a8d2841-61a1-46e7-83dd-3d90369eee9b" CreationDate="2018-02-15T13:47:21.113" UserId="4560" Text="Not quite. Автобус **едет** if all you mean is that it's in motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Автобус **ходит** — as does all other non-airborne public transport, including passenger ships — in relation to its route or destination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus you say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Из Москвы в Балашиху ходит электричка**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— meaning you can get to Balashikha from Moscow by commuter train. But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вот едет электричка из Москвы в Балашиху**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— of an actual train passing by, or of a hypothetical but *specific* train." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39533" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15799" RevisionGUID="e0043f23-965b-4af8-a47f-15551dbe336f" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:29:56.447" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Unprefixed verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15799" RevisionGUID="e0043f23-965b-4af8-a47f-15551dbe336f" CreationDate="2018-02-15T14:29:56.447" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="|грамматика|motion-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15801" RevisionGUID="78f5dbc9-dce9-44f2-88af-7972b1726509" CreationDate="2018-02-15T19:48:33.793" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;лёгк**ое**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you pronounce the &quot;ое&quot; sound {IPA: [**əjə**]} at the end of a neuter nominative adjective such as &quot;лёгкое&quot;? I notice three different pronunciations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-к**ое** {with a weak &quot;**о**&quot; sound}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-к**е** {with the &quot;**о**&quot; sound dropped}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-к**оjе** {with the &quot;**j**&quot; sound included}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, the same goes for &quot;прошл**ое**&quot;, because the IPA is the same &quot;[**əjə**]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15801" RevisionGUID="78f5dbc9-dce9-44f2-88af-7972b1726509" CreationDate="2018-02-15T19:48:33.793" UserId="8672" Text="The correct pronunciation of the &quot;ое&quot; ending, as in &quot;лёгкое&quot;, &quot;прошлое&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15801" RevisionGUID="78f5dbc9-dce9-44f2-88af-7972b1726509" CreationDate="2018-02-15T19:48:33.793" UserId="8672" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39539" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15801" RevisionGUID="fc2491dc-6abc-4321-9aad-3b28ad090511" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:11:29.333" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="How to pronounce the &quot;ое&quot; ending in &quot;лёгкое&quot;, &quot;прошлое&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15802" RevisionGUID="e3b72309-83c4-45a6-9b1d-cfd19b08b1f6" CreationDate="2018-02-15T20:53:25.453" UserId="7674" Text="Examples in the Wiktionary: [***лёгкое***](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5), [***прошлое***](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The examples differ a bit with **прошлое** being pronounced with a more open **А** in **-ае** and audible **Й -айэ**,  but this is idiosyncrasy of the speaker, i second the first example in your list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-к**ое** {with a weak &quot;**о**&quot; sound}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically **O** must be reduced to **A** but due to the stress being far away it gets further reduced to something amorphous between **Э** and **Ы**, while **Й** of **-йэ** is reduced to short **И** → **-иэ** to keep final **Е** from turning into **Э**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15803" RevisionGUID="daa05db1-8aad-4fa7-9a5a-549ad88e28d7" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:24:27.177" UserId="10270" Text="Suffixes on short form comparatives can be ше (лучше, больше) or же (дороже, моложе) or ще (проще, чище) or че (легче, крепче). Is there any rule which determines which one should be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15803" RevisionGUID="daa05db1-8aad-4fa7-9a5a-549ad88e28d7" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:24:27.177" UserId="10270" Text="suffixes short comparatives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15803" RevisionGUID="daa05db1-8aad-4fa7-9a5a-549ad88e28d7" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:24:27.177" UserId="10270" Text="|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15805" RevisionGUID="2373ce9a-a41e-456a-83a7-ba652475f671" CreationDate="2018-02-16T08:20:53.843" UserId="4560" Text="I'm not sure there is a &quot;correct&quot; pronunciation for those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On paper, it's still `[əjə]`, suggesting that it would be more &quot;standard&quot; to articulate the [j], but that seems fairly outdated because, by and large, nobody does, and dropping the [j] doesn't strike one as markedly colloquial the way, for example, dropping the [dʲ] in **будет** does. It's more of this ivory-tower approach of Russian academic linguistics, which often results in learners hearing different pronunciations from the ones they've been taught to expect, while rank-and-file native speakers are at a bit of a loss to explain what happened there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say the first one you listed is the most common and &quot;neutral&quot; one, but generally it's free variation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15802" RevisionGUID="732574d9-d7fe-4c4e-bbcd-642d741d7994" CreationDate="2018-02-16T08:51:07.987" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Examples in the Wiktionary: [***лёгкое***](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5), [***прошлое***](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B5)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The examples differ a bit with **прошлое** being pronounced with a more open **А** in **-ае** and audible **Й -айэ**,  but this is idiosyncrasy of the speaker, i second the first example in your list&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-к**ое** {with a weak &quot;**о**&quot; sound}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically **O** must be reduced to **A** but due to the stress being a bit distant it's further reduced to something amorphous between **Э** and **Ы**, while **Й** of **-йэ** is reduced to short **И** → **-иэ** to keep final **Е** from devolving into **Э**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15806" RevisionGUID="1c09fb41-f36a-444c-ae09-b77b10ac1bb3" CreationDate="2018-02-16T10:41:10.010" UserId="6539" Text="The question is great and rather complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, there are different ways to form a comparative from only **quality** adjectives. A compound form with **более** in front of the adjective and the so-called synthetic or simple forms with the following endings :**-ее/ей, -е and -ше**.&#xD;&#xA;I will not consider the analytical form with **более**, but it certainly should be mentioned that some quality adjectives cannot have simple comparative forms. They are the adjectives with suffixes -ск-, -ов-, -н-, -л-(they also don't have short forms )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дружеский, массовый, кровный, исхудалый. Сюда же относятся прилагательные с суффиксом -к-: плавкий, громоздкий, тяжкий, отдельные непроизводные слова: плоский, ветхий, гордый, отлогий, все слова, обозначающие масти животных: каурый, саврасый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We should memorize some adjectives which have &#xD;&#xA;а) suppletive forms in many languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;хороший-лучше, плохой-хуже, малый- меньше, дешевый– дешевле    (compare good-better, bad– worse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) a so-called &quot;unproductive suffix **-ше** which is used with a limited group of adjectives.  Memorize :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далекий – дальше, ранний – раньше, тонкий – тоньше; долгий-дольше, маленький -меньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The majority of adjectives use the productive **-ее/-ей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  светлый – светл-ее, бережливый – бережлив-ее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The ending **-е** is used only after основа слова, ending with sounds **д, т, ст, г, к, х,  с, з**&#xD;&#xA; This is complicated, because adjectives drop -ок- and -к-, and there's an alteration of these sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**з-ж, с-ш, х-ш, г-ж, ст-щ, д-ж, т-ч, к-ч**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Низкий– низ-к-ий – ниже.(-к- is dropped and з changes into ж ), высокий– выс-ок-ий-выше (-ок -is dropped and с changes into ш ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сухой– суше, тугой – туже, частый– чаще, молодой– моложе, богатый– богаче, крепкий-крепче &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems we should distinguish when -к- belongs to the root and is changed respectively into ч (легкий– легче) and when it doesn't and can be dropped (низкий – низ-к-ий– ниже). I believe it's easier to memorize such adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39550" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15796" RevisionGUID="7419a4bc-3613-4453-af77-7139af853957" CreationDate="2018-02-16T15:33:31.033" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/964523138049601538" />
  <row Id="39551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="4f99ce3c-3ee5-4553-bd21-77ac0cf9c52d" CreationDate="2018-02-16T20:15:32.880" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;слишк**о**м рано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на сам**о**м деле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It corresponds to the IPA &quot;**ə**&quot;, but I seem to notice some speakers pronounce it like &quot;**o**&quot; in &quot;**o**pinion&quot;, while others make it sound like &quot;**a**&quot; in &quot;sec**o**nd&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder which one to imitate?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="4f99ce3c-3ee5-4553-bd21-77ac0cf9c52d" CreationDate="2018-02-16T20:15:32.880" UserId="8672" Text="Correct pronunciation of the second last unaccented &quot;о&quot; sound, as in &quot;слишком&quot;, &quot;самом&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="4f99ce3c-3ee5-4553-bd21-77ac0cf9c52d" CreationDate="2018-02-16T20:15:32.880" UserId="8672" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15806" RevisionGUID="9b51bef8-d248-4cd8-b514-c9af6fe21ffb" CreationDate="2018-02-16T21:51:04.350" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing and punctuation corrected" Text="The question is great and rather complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, there are different ways to form a comparative from only **quality** adjectives. A compound form with **более** in front of the adjective and the so-called synthetic or simple forms with the following endings :**-ее/ей, -е and -ше**.&#xD;&#xA;I will not consider the analytical form with **более**, but it certainly should be mentioned that some quality adjectives cannot have simple comparative forms. They are the adjectives with suffixes -ск-, -ов-, -н-, -л- (they also don't have short forms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дружеский, массовый, кровный, исхудалый. Сюда же относятся прилагательные с суффиксом -к-: плавкий, громоздкий, тяжкий, отдельные непроизводные слова: плоский, ветхий, гордый, отлогий, все слова, обозначающие масти животных: каурый, саврасый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We should memorize some adjectives which have &#xD;&#xA;а) suppletive forms in many languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;хороший – лучше, плохой –, малый – меньше, дешевый – дешевле (compare good-better, bad– worse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) a so-called &quot;unproductive&quot; suffix **-ше** which is used with a limited group of adjectives.  Memorize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далекий – дальше, ранний – раньше, тонкий – тоньше; долгий – дольше, маленький –меньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The majority of adjectives use the productive **-ее/-ей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  светлый – светл-ее, бережливый – бережлив-ее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The ending **-е** is used only after word stems (основа слова) ending with sounds **д, т, ст, г, к, х,  с, з**&#xD;&#xA; This is complicated, because adjectives drop -ок- and -к-, and there's an alteration of these sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**з→ж, с→ш, х→ш, г→ж, ст→щ, д→ж, т→ч, к→ч**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Низкий: низ-к-ий – ниже. (-к- is dropped and з changes into ж ), высокий: выс-ок-ий – выше (-ок -is dropped and с changes into ш).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сухой – суше, тугой – туже, частый – чаще, молодой – моложе, богатый – богаче, крепкий – крепче &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems we should distinguish when -к- belongs to the root and is changed respectively into ч (легкий – легче) and when it doesn't and can be dropped (низкий – низ-к-ий – ниже). I believe it's easier to memorize such adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15781" RevisionGUID="88618e4a-4272-4f0f-adb4-8851442ea8cd" CreationDate="2018-02-17T12:37:24.997" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/964841209054277632" />
  <row Id="39556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15808" RevisionGUID="8f4c1b35-0ab3-46b0-b1eb-0d2b44936555" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:04:16.907" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Tебе и решать.** === It's up to you (to decide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand the meaning of the expression, its grammatical construction eludes me. Or more specifically, some elements seem to be lacking as is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tебе === to/for you&#xD;&#xA;    и === emphasising the following verb&#xD;&#xA;    решать === decide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Do we have here an impersonal, omitted subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is the verb &quot;решать&quot; alone enough to express the idea of &quot;to + infinitive(decide)&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. I'd expected to see the perfective &quot;решить&quot; used instead: in the sense of deciding something *once and for all*. I wonder why the imperfective &quot;решать&quot; is the right word to choose here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Are there other expressions that follow this &quot;тебе и решать&quot; word order?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15808" RevisionGUID="8f4c1b35-0ab3-46b0-b1eb-0d2b44936555" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:04:16.907" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret the grammatical construction of &quot;тебе и решать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15808" RevisionGUID="8f4c1b35-0ab3-46b0-b1eb-0d2b44936555" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:04:16.907" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15808" RevisionGUID="1eecd964-287e-4e0c-9fce-b64d568e7fb3" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:10:46.743" UserId="8672" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Tебе и решать.** === It's up to you (to decide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand the meaning of the expression, its grammatical construction eludes me. Or more specifically, some elements seem to be lacking as is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tебе === to/for you&#xD;&#xA;    и === emphasising the following verb&#xD;&#xA;    решать === decide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q1. Do we have here an impersonal, omitted subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is the verb &quot;решать&quot; alone enough to express the idea of &quot;to + infinitive(decide)&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. I'd expected to see the perfective &quot;решить&quot; used instead: in the sense of deciding something *once and for all*. I wonder why the imperfective &quot;решать&quot; is the right word to choose here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Are there other expressions that follow this &quot;тебе и решать&quot; word order? Or is this a one-off instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="e804c7b0-16ff-436c-a17e-3a955b6751e5" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:12:22.577" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;слишк**о**м рано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на сам**о**м деле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It corresponds to the IPA &quot;**ə**&quot;, but I seem to notice some speakers pronounce it like &quot;**o**&quot; in &quot;**o**pinion&quot;, while others make it sound more like &quot;**a**&quot; in &quot;sec**o**nd&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39561" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="e804c7b0-16ff-436c-a17e-3a955b6751e5" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:12:22.577" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to pronounce the second last unaccented &quot;о&quot; sound, as in &quot;слишком&quot;, &quot;самом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="466b33a6-7256-4a40-8799-8fea159178e5" CreationDate="2018-02-17T14:18:59.070" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;слишк**о**м рано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на сам**о**м деле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It corresponds to the IPA &quot;**ə**&quot;, but I seem to notice some speakers pronounce it like &quot;**o**&quot;, as in &quot;**о**н&quot; or &quot;д**о**лг&quot;, while others make it sound more like &quot;**a**&quot;, as in &quot;ран**о**&quot;, &quot;какой-т**о**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39563" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15808" RevisionGUID="a5efe911-c40a-4946-b6b4-dc00dc3f30b1" CreationDate="2018-02-17T15:19:13.047" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15809" RevisionGUID="d7f6b2f6-3cb6-49fc-9518-abb9498def90" CreationDate="2018-02-17T16:07:28.157" UserId="6539" Text="1Do we have here an impersonal, omitted subject?&#xD;&#xA; No. Russian impersonal sentences don't have subjects like &quot;it&quot; in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is the verb &quot;решать&quot; alone enough to express the idea of &quot;to + infinitive(decide)&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;Yes, решать expresses the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. I'd expected to see the perfective &quot;решить&quot; used instead: in the sense of deciding something once and for all. I wonder why the imperfective &quot;решать&quot; is the right word to choose here?&#xD;&#xA; No, you can't use perfective here, but it's possible after &quot;нужно/надо решить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Are there other expressions that follow this &quot;тебе и решать&quot; word order? Or is this a one-off instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make the sentence longer explaining what is to be solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе решать, ехать в Москву или нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15809" RevisionGUID="e0b16c4d-d973-4936-b98a-40e95cf0e563" CreationDate="2018-02-17T16:14:41.493" UserId="6539" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="1Do we have here an impersonal, omitted subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; No. Russian impersonal sentences don't have subjects like &quot;it&quot; in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is the verb &quot;решать&quot; alone enough to express the idea of &quot;to + infinitive(decide)&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, решать expresses the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. I'd expected to see the perfective &quot;решить&quot; used instead: in the sense of deciding something once and for all. I wonder why the imperfective &quot;решать&quot; is the right word to choose here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; No, you can't use perfective here,because it's a general statement but it's possible after &quot;нужно/надо решить&quot; or a peculiar task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Are there other expressions that follow this &quot;тебе и решать&quot; word order? Or is this a one-off instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make the sentence longer explaining what is to be solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе решать, ехать в Москву или нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15807" RevisionGUID="4ef5e30d-d73c-4e06-aec5-c79cc988ddfe" CreationDate="2018-02-17T16:25:27.843" UserId="8672" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="&gt;слишк**о**м рано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;на сам**о**м деле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These &quot;о&quot;s correspond to the IPA &quot;**ə**&quot;. I seem to notice some speakers pronounce it like the *pure* &quot;**o**&quot; sound, as in &quot;**о**н&quot; or &quot;д**о**лг&quot;, albeit unstressed, while others make it sound more like &quot;**a**&quot;, as in &quot;ран**о**&quot;, &quot;какой-т**о**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15784" RevisionGUID="e6ec2608-3f94-41cb-a443-20a73f9f1b38" CreationDate="2018-02-17T18:37:25.160" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/964931806586982401" />
  <row Id="39568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15810" RevisionGUID="e30c56a2-bdf2-4a9a-b18c-1a0f1626ccdc" CreationDate="2018-02-17T20:00:14.840" UserId="6602" Text="Q4. Are there other expressions that follow this &quot;тебе и решать&quot; word order? Or is this a one-off instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construction, i.e. pronoun in dative + imperfective infinitive verb, may be used with any pronoun as well as with various verbs. For example it occurs in such phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Вы много чего придумали, но **мне рисовать** == You have suggested a lot of things, but **I should paint** it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may swap words, so *рисовать мне, решать тебе* also accepted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39569" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15763" RevisionGUID="3ffa5293-e09a-420d-b265-0061338603e0" CreationDate="2018-02-18T03:44:20.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/965069442030989312" />
  <row Id="39570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15809" RevisionGUID="4508b394-8e24-475b-9e8c-df335a7fecf0" CreationDate="2018-02-18T04:36:19.733" UserId="6539" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="1Do we have here an impersonal, omitted subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; No. Russian impersonal sentences don't have subjects like &quot;it&quot; in English. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2. Is the verb &quot;решать&quot; alone enough to express the idea of &quot;to + infinitive(decide)&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, решать expresses the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3. I'd expected to see the perfective &quot;решить&quot; used instead: in the sense of deciding something once and for all. I wonder why the imperfective &quot;решать&quot; is the right word to choose here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; No, you can't use perfective here,because it's a general statement but it's possible after &quot;нужно/надо решить&quot; or a peculiar task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q4. Are there other expressions that follow this &quot;тебе и решать&quot; word order? Or is this a one-off instance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make the sentence longer explaining what is to be solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе решать, ехать в Москву или нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a limited choice of other verbs, mainly synonyms. What comes to mind is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Тебе выбирать&quot;, perhaps sometimes &quot;делать, выполнять&quot;.You can use other pronouns or nouns instead of &quot;тебе&quot; though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15811" RevisionGUID="cf334465-d51b-411c-b228-ff57f9d6e7de" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:10:03.670" UserId="8780" Text="Sometimes I have a doubt, whether I should use a time expression with or without a preposition (although, naturally, in the accusative case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to say &quot;The last time I spoke in Russian in real life [not online] was one year ago&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the following sentence do the job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я говорил на русском на живую последний раз год назад.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main doubt is whether it is preferable *&quot;в последний раз&quot;* or just *&quot;последний раз&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15811" RevisionGUID="cf334465-d51b-411c-b228-ff57f9d6e7de" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:10:03.670" UserId="8780" Text="&quot;For the last time&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15811" RevisionGUID="cf334465-d51b-411c-b228-ff57f9d6e7de" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:10:03.670" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15812" RevisionGUID="a6ee97fe-9e5b-420b-9b56-8834ecafd466" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:21:28.300" UserId="8780" Text="I saw quite a few present passive participles (ending in **-емый**, **-имый**) which are translated into English with the suffix *-able*, *-ible*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like `невидимый - invisible`, `непредсказуемый - unpredictable`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, not all present passive participles are translated into *-able*, but does the inverse occur? I mean, can I take any English word ending in *-able*, such as *replaceable*, and convey the same meaning in Russian by attaching the suffix *-емый/-имый*? Does `знаменимый` exist with the meaning *&quot;replaceable&quot;*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15812" RevisionGUID="a6ee97fe-9e5b-420b-9b56-8834ecafd466" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:21:28.300" UserId="8780" Text="Equivalent of suffix -able" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15812" RevisionGUID="a6ee97fe-9e5b-420b-9b56-8834ecafd466" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:21:28.300" UserId="8780" Text="|суффиксы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15813" RevisionGUID="ee09f559-0f07-444f-8357-e7f1f8a1ddc5" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:23:16.113" UserId="8780" Text="Is the feminine instrumental in **-ою** literary only nowadays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15813" RevisionGUID="ee09f559-0f07-444f-8357-e7f1f8a1ddc5" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:23:16.113" UserId="8780" Text="Feminine instrumental -ою" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15813" RevisionGUID="ee09f559-0f07-444f-8357-e7f1f8a1ddc5" CreationDate="2018-02-18T18:23:16.113" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15814" RevisionGUID="b9376a70-3ba8-4bf4-bbb8-65650dbcd716" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:08:02.990" UserId="7674" Text="This question has been dealt with elsewhere, so please let me just give some references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [gramotno.livejournal.com](https://gramotno.livejournal.com/37536.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Корректны оба варианта. В данном контексте устойчивые выражения в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; последний раз и последний раз полностью синонимичны и взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В наречном значении такая вариативность присутствует почти всегда: в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; последний раз прощаю — последний раз прощаю; объясняю в последний раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — объясняю последний раз; в последний раз было круто — последний раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; было круто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **&quot;В первый раз&quot; или &quot;первый раз&quot;**  [(russian.stackexchange.com)](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15811/for-the-last-time-in-russian) &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Справка сайтa [gramota.ru](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=%22%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Добрый день! &quot;Первый раз я посетил эту страну, еще будучи инженером&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подскажите, как правильно: &quot;первый раз или в первый раз&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ответ справочной службы русского языка:** Варианты &quot;первый раз&quot; и &quot;в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; первый раз&quot; равноправны.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally prefer it without the preposition, it's easier this way.&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as your sentence is concerned, it's not entirely correct, despite being comprehensible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорил на русском **на живую** последний раз год назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, if **на живую** were a legitimate adverb in Russian, it would have to be spelled jointly with the preposition  - **наживую**, as such is the grammatic rule. However there's no such adverb in Russian (there's one in Ukrainian - &quot;наживу/наживо&quot;). Instead there's the adverb **вживую** with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, even with this adverb the phrase would still sound awkward, because **вживую** is not normally used to describe live real time speech to contrast it with conversation in writing or texting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what can replace it in Russian, but it may even be redundant because the act of speaking in most cases is being done in real time anyway, all other forms of communication isn't essentially **разговор**, but simply **общение**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may be reformulated in two ways&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последний раз я **разговаривал** на русском год назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последний раз я **общался** на русском **устно** год назад." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15814" RevisionGUID="0dd28046-6793-44e8-bf32-151d6b3c25c2" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:23:32.927" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="This question has been dealt with elsewhere, so please let me just give some references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [gramotno.livejournal.com](https://gramotno.livejournal.com/37536.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Корректны оба варианта. В данном контексте устойчивые выражения в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; последний раз и последний раз полностью синонимичны и взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В наречном значении такая вариативность присутствует почти всегда: в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; последний раз прощаю — последний раз прощаю; объясняю в последний раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — объясняю последний раз; в последний раз было круто — последний раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; было круто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **&quot;В первый раз&quot; или &quot;первый раз&quot;**  [(russian.stackexchange.com)](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15811/for-the-last-time-in-russian) &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Справка сайтa [gramota.ru](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=%22%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Добрый день! &quot;Первый раз я посетил эту страну, еще будучи инженером&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подскажите, как правильно: &quot;первый раз или в первый раз&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ответ справочной службы русского языка:** Варианты &quot;первый раз&quot; и &quot;в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; первый раз&quot; равноправны.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally prefer it without the preposition, it's easier this way.&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as your sentence is concerned, it's not entirely correct, despite being comprehensible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорил на русском **на живую** последний раз год назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, if **на живую** were a legitimate adverb in Russian, it would have to be spelled jointly with the preposition  - **наживую**, as such is the grammatic rule. However there's no such adverb in Russian (there's one in Ukrainian - &quot;наживу/наживо&quot;). Instead there's the adverb **вживую/живьём** with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, even with this adverb the phrase would still sound awkward, because **вживую** is not normally used to describe live real time speech to contrast it with conversation in writing or texting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what can replace it in Russian, but it may even be redundant because the act of speaking in most cases is being done in real time anyway, all other forms of communication isn't essentially **разговор**, but simply **общение**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may be reformulated in two ways&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последний раз я **разговаривал** на русском год назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последний раз я **общался** на русском **устно** год назад." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15814" RevisionGUID="801a43e5-d9c3-42f8-978b-16590d5fd29e" CreationDate="2018-02-18T19:34:03.813" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This question has been dealt with elsewhere, so please let me just give some references&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [gramotno.livejournal.com](https://gramotno.livejournal.com/37536.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Корректны оба варианта. В данном контексте устойчивые выражения в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; последний раз и последний раз полностью синонимичны и взаимозаменяемы.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В наречном значении такая вариативность присутствует почти всегда: в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; последний раз прощаю — последний раз прощаю; объясняю в последний раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — объясняю последний раз; в последний раз было круто — последний раз&#xD;&#xA;&gt; было круто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **&quot;В первый раз&quot; или &quot;первый раз&quot;**  [(russian.stackexchange.com)](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15811/for-the-last-time-in-russian) &lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Справка сайтa [gramota.ru](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=%22%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Добрый день! &quot;Первый раз я посетил эту страну, еще будучи инженером&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подскажите, как правильно: &quot;первый раз или в первый раз&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ответ справочной службы русского языка:** Варианты &quot;первый раз&quot; и &quot;в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; первый раз&quot; равноправны.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally prefer it without the preposition, it's easier this way.&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as far as your sentence is concerned, it's not entirely correct, despite being comprehensible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорил на русском **на живую** последний раз год назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, if **на живую** were a legitimate adverb in Russian, it would have to be spelled jointly with the preposition  - **наживую**, as such is the grammatic rule. However there's no such adverb in Russian (there's one in Ukrainian - &quot;наживу/наживо&quot;). Instead there's the adverb **вживую/живьём** with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, even with this adverb the phrase would still sound awkward, because **вживую** is not normally used to describe live real time speech to contrast it with conversation in writing or texting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what can replace it in Russian, but it may even be redundant because the act of speaking in most cases is being performed in real time anyway, all other forms of communication isn't essentially **разговор**, but simply **общение**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it may be reformulated in two ways&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последний раз я **разговаривал** на русском год назад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последний раз я **общался** на русском **устно** год назад." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15815" RevisionGUID="a1e11b15-4954-45a4-8908-dddd82371249" CreationDate="2018-02-18T21:30:19.103" UserId="7674" Text="I don't think anyone has aver analysed correspondence or did a statistical analysis of *translatablility* between the respective English adjectives and Russian present passive participles, but let's conduct an exercise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[the list source](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/spelling/words-ending-in-able-or-ible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; likeable - привлекательный, располагающий к себе   &#xD;&#xA;peaceable - миролюбивый   &#xD;&#xA;debatable - спорный    &#xD;&#xA;pleasurable - приятный, доставляющий удовольствие   &#xD;&#xA;adaptable - **легкоадаптируемый, легкоприспосабливаемый**   &#xD;&#xA;inimitable - **неподражаемый, неповторимый**   &#xD;&#xA;capable - способный   &#xD;&#xA;adorable - милый, **обожаемый**  &#xD;&#xA;desirable - желательный   &#xD;&#xA;justifiable - оправданный    &#xD;&#xA;preferable - предпочтительный    &#xD;&#xA;disposable - одноразовый, **используемый однократно, выбрасываемый**    &#xD;&#xA;knowledgeable - осведомлённый, знающий   &#xD;&#xA;amiable - дружелюбный   &#xD;&#xA;durable - стойкий, устойчивый, долговечный    &#xD;&#xA;laughable - смехотворный   &#xD;&#xA;fashionable - модный    &#xD;&#xA;reliable - надёжный  &#xD;&#xA;excitable - **легковозбудимый**    &#xD;&#xA;lovable - вызывающий симпатию, заслуживающий любви    &#xD;&#xA;believable - вероятный, заслуживающий доверия    &#xD;&#xA;excusable - простительный    &#xD;&#xA;manageable - поддающийся управлению, **управляемый**      &#xD;&#xA;serviceable - пригодный к использованию    &#xD;&#xA;measurable - **измеримый, измеряемый**     &#xD;&#xA;sizeable - внушительный    &#xD;&#xA;noticeable - заметный    &#xD;&#xA;suitable - подходящий, пригодный     &#xD;&#xA;changeable - переменчивый, меняющийся, **изменяемый**    &#xD;&#xA;tolerable - **терпимый**, сносный    &#xD;&#xA;objectionable - предосудительный, **недопустимый**    &#xD;&#xA;comfortable - удобный, комфортабельный, комфортный   &#xD;&#xA;payable - подлежащий уплате/оплате    &#xD;&#xA;impressionable - впечатлительный  &#xD;&#xA;conceivable - **вообразимый, постижимый**   &#xD;&#xA;operable - работоспособный, исправный    &#xD;&#xA;transferable - переносной, переводной, **переводимый, передаваемый**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can draw your conclusions. Although some do invite translation with present passive participle or could in certain contexts be translated with those, overall the most obvious equivalent would be a simple adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the chances are higher for adjectives formed out of actual verbs, because not all -able/ible adjectives have verb counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15815" RevisionGUID="1e2263a7-176d-4f75-8142-160c3426eeec" CreationDate="2018-02-18T21:36:50.747" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="I don't think anyone has ever analysed correspondence or did a statistical analysis of *translateability* between the respective English adjectives and Russian present passive participles, but let's conduct an exercise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[the list source](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/spelling/words-ending-in-able-or-ible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; likeable - привлекательный, располагающий к себе   &#xD;&#xA;peaceable - миролюбивый   &#xD;&#xA;debatable - спорный    &#xD;&#xA;pleasurable - приятный, доставляющий удовольствие   &#xD;&#xA;adaptable - **легкоадаптируемый, легкоприспосабливаемый**   &#xD;&#xA;inimitable - **неподражаемый, неповторимый**   &#xD;&#xA;capable - способный   &#xD;&#xA;adorable - милый, **обожаемый**  &#xD;&#xA;desirable - желательный   &#xD;&#xA;justifiable - оправданный    &#xD;&#xA;preferable - предпочтительный    &#xD;&#xA;disposable - одноразовый, **используемый однократно, выбрасываемый**    &#xD;&#xA;knowledgeable - осведомлённый, знающий   &#xD;&#xA;amiable - дружелюбный   &#xD;&#xA;durable - стойкий, устойчивый, долговечный    &#xD;&#xA;laughable - смехотворный   &#xD;&#xA;fashionable - модный    &#xD;&#xA;reliable - надёжный  &#xD;&#xA;excitable - **легковозбудимый**    &#xD;&#xA;lovable - вызывающий симпатию, заслуживающий любви    &#xD;&#xA;believable - вероятный, заслуживающий доверия, вызывающий доверие    &#xD;&#xA;excusable - простительный    &#xD;&#xA;manageable - поддающийся управлению, **управляемый**      &#xD;&#xA;serviceable - пригодный к использованию    &#xD;&#xA;measurable - **измеримый, измеряемый**     &#xD;&#xA;sizeable - внушительный    &#xD;&#xA;noticeable - заметный    &#xD;&#xA;suitable - подходящий, пригодный     &#xD;&#xA;changeable - переменчивый, меняющийся, **изменяемый**    &#xD;&#xA;tolerable - **терпимый**, сносный    &#xD;&#xA;objectionable - предосудительный, **недопустимый**    &#xD;&#xA;comfortable - удобный, комфортабельный, комфортный   &#xD;&#xA;payable - подлежащий уплате/оплате, **оплачиваемый, взимаемый**    &#xD;&#xA;impressionable - впечатлительный  &#xD;&#xA;conceivable - **вообразимый, постижимый**   &#xD;&#xA;operable - работоспособный, исправный    &#xD;&#xA;transferable - переносной, переводной, **переводимый, передаваемый**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can draw your conclusions. Although some do invite translation with present passive participle or could in certain contexts be translated with those, overall the most obvious equivalent would be a simple adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the chances are higher for adjectives formed out of actual verbs, because not all -able/ible adjectives have verb counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15815" RevisionGUID="a61a2b99-2095-4869-8b9c-e4018207d57d" CreationDate="2018-02-18T21:49:39.510" UserId="7674" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="I don't think anyone has ever analysed correspondence or did a statistical analysis of *translateability* between the respective English adjectives and Russian present passive participles, but let's conduct an exercise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[the list source](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/spelling/words-ending-in-able-or-ible)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; likeable - привлекательный, располагающий к себе   &#xD;&#xA;peaceable - миролюбивый   &#xD;&#xA;debatable - спорный    &#xD;&#xA;pleasurable - приятный, доставляющий удовольствие   &#xD;&#xA;adaptable - **легкоадаптируемый, легкоприспосабливаемый**   &#xD;&#xA;inimitable - **неподражаемый, неповторимый**   &#xD;&#xA;capable - способный   &#xD;&#xA;adorable - милый, **обожаемый**  &#xD;&#xA;desirable - желательный   &#xD;&#xA;justifiable - оправданный    &#xD;&#xA;preferable - предпочтительный    &#xD;&#xA;disposable - одноразовый, **используемый однократно, выбрасываемый**    &#xD;&#xA;knowledgeable - осведомлённый, знающий   &#xD;&#xA;amiable - дружелюбный   &#xD;&#xA;durable - стойкий, устойчивый, долговечный    &#xD;&#xA;laughable - смехотворный   &#xD;&#xA;fashionable - модный    &#xD;&#xA;reliable - надёжный  &#xD;&#xA;excitable - **легковозбудимый**    &#xD;&#xA;lovable - вызывающий симпатию, заслуживающий любви    &#xD;&#xA;believable - вероятный, заслуживающий доверия, вызывающий доверие    &#xD;&#xA;excusable - простительный    &#xD;&#xA;manageable - поддающийся управлению, **управляемый**      &#xD;&#xA;serviceable - пригодный к использованию    &#xD;&#xA;measurable - **измеримый, измеряемый**     &#xD;&#xA;sizeable - внушительный    &#xD;&#xA;noticeable - заметный    &#xD;&#xA;suitable - подходящий, пригодный     &#xD;&#xA;changeable - переменчивый, меняющийся, **изменяемый**    &#xD;&#xA;tolerable - **терпимый**, сносный    &#xD;&#xA;objectionable - предосудительный, **недопустимый**    &#xD;&#xA;comfortable - удобный, комфортабельный, комфортный   &#xD;&#xA;payable - подлежащий уплате/оплате, **оплачиваемый, взимаемый**    &#xD;&#xA;impressionable - впечатлительный  &#xD;&#xA;conceivable - **вообразимый, постижимый**   &#xD;&#xA;operable - работоспособный, исправный    &#xD;&#xA;transferable - переносной, переводной, **переводимый, передаваемый**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can draw your conclusions. Although some do invite translation with present passive participle or could in certain contexts be translated with those, overall the most obvious equivalent would be a simple adjective. Sometimes obstacle could come from the type of a Russian verb which doesn't provide for formation of passive participles like in the case of `laughable` and Russian reflexive `смеяться`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the chances are higher for adjectives formed out of actual verbs, because not all -able/ible adjectives have verb counterparts. And also good chances of being translated with Russian present passive participle have English past participles used in present tense.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15816" RevisionGUID="e34b0eab-9eb8-4ccc-b9fc-37a2b2828ffb" CreationDate="2018-02-18T22:11:36.207" UserId="10267" Text="How would you typically translate до поры до времени, and how is it different from a less idiomatic phrase like в данное время?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15816" RevisionGUID="e34b0eab-9eb8-4ccc-b9fc-37a2b2828ffb" CreationDate="2018-02-18T22:11:36.207" UserId="10267" Text="до поры до времени" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15816" RevisionGUID="e34b0eab-9eb8-4ccc-b9fc-37a2b2828ffb" CreationDate="2018-02-18T22:11:36.207" UserId="10267" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15258" RevisionGUID="18541eea-b60c-49f7-8382-abb381121811" CreationDate="2018-02-18T22:11:50.510" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="The usual ending of feminine adjectives in the instrumental is -ой or -ей. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Летом мы лакомились **вкусной** ягодой.&#xD;&#xA;Вода была горячей-прегорячей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine adjectives can have the ending -ою,-ею in the instrumental case.(вариантные окончания). They are usef mainly in poetry, folklore or bookish style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Берёзы **жёлтою** резьбой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Блестят в лазури голубой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И. Бунин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Под **сосною зеленою** спать положите вы меня.( Песня «Калинка»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the noun also uses the same poetic ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15817" RevisionGUID="70af3a9a-ca1b-41da-b60f-1a9ef176cb9a" CreationDate="2018-02-18T22:31:11.400" UserId="7674" Text="**до поры до времени** - for the time being; temporarily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в данное время** - at this/present moment; presently; currently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st adverb underscores transient nature of an event or a state, the 2nd one is neutral in this respect, just describing the current state, which may or may not be bound to change. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15818" RevisionGUID="b2b39a6f-507e-444d-a9ba-c6d2ec2d9bbe" CreationDate="2018-02-18T22:42:56.723" UserId="2104" Text="In addition to Баян Купи-ка's answer, some people use the English suffix -able directly with Russian verbs thus producing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * [чита́бельный][1] 'easy to read / worth reading'&#xD;&#xA; * [игра́бельный][2] 'easy to play / worth playing'&#xD;&#xA; * [смотри́бельный][3] 'easy to watch', etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a relatively new trend and it's far from being standard Russian. It's more of a slang. It can sound cool when used right. Sort of like my five year old son awarding a new cartoon with a reserved 'Umm, not bad'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15819" RevisionGUID="326ded0f-0d6f-43af-9aed-07a51e4253ac" CreationDate="2018-02-18T23:00:31.387" UserId="2104" Text="Here's a few translations loosely based on [these reverso examples][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Роллинг с его́ миллиа́рдами ну́жен мне **до поры́ до вре́мени**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   I need Rolling and his billions **only for so long**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * И всё бы́ло хорошо́... **до поры́ до вре́мени**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   And it worked... **for a while**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Все они таки́е, **до поры́ до вре́мени**.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   They all are, **until they aren't anymore**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://context.reverso.net/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/%D0%B4%D0%BE+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B+%D0%B4%D0%BE+%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39593" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15771" RevisionGUID="a32082c1-e4c8-419e-bd29-8011aa187892" CreationDate="2018-02-19T09:48:10.057" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/965523392777605121" />
  <row Id="39594" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15758" RevisionGUID="25dcd699-31fc-419c-8f5a-e745766f1bd2" CreationDate="2018-02-19T12:48:02.647" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/965568660327882752" />
  <row Id="39595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15820" RevisionGUID="e66fc0a8-d488-4d20-b992-011c734bb60e" CreationDate="2018-02-19T14:04:43.687" UserId="9795" Text="This idiom emphasizes that the situation cannot continue indefinitely. And the finale can have critical consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Роллинг с его миллиардами нужен мне до поры до времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; At some point, I will not need Rolling and the fate of Rolling will be tragical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15820" RevisionGUID="0fa87851-3f6c-46b7-afec-59d5fce10bc6" CreationDate="2018-02-19T14:14:08.673" UserId="9795" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text=" &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...and how is it different from a less idiomatic phrase like в данное&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idiom emphasizes that the situation cannot continue indefinitely. And the finale can have critical consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Роллинг с его миллиардами нужен мне до поры до времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; At some point, I will not need Rolling and the fate of Rolling will be tragical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15821" RevisionGUID="28bc6d39-e448-42ec-b827-bf8f66b2bde0" CreationDate="2018-02-19T20:35:08.350" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Не притворяйся, будто **тебе плевать**. === Don't act like you don't care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how this phrase ultimately translates as &quot;not care&quot;. I assume the omitted subject in the &quot;будто&quot; subordinate clause is &quot;ты&quot;, in keeping with the preceding verb &quot;притворяйся&quot;. So...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;ты тебе плевать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this supposed to literally mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;you spit on yourself&quot; === &quot;you don't care&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder, though, why &quot;тебе&quot; is used instead of the reflexive &quot;себе&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15821" RevisionGUID="28bc6d39-e448-42ec-b827-bf8f66b2bde0" CreationDate="2018-02-19T20:35:08.350" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;будто тебе плевать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15821" RevisionGUID="28bc6d39-e448-42ec-b827-bf8f66b2bde0" CreationDate="2018-02-19T20:35:08.350" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15822" RevisionGUID="af00d04c-c3d1-49f8-85c1-d2bd4f0f473c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T22:13:16.117" UserId="5584" Text="&gt; Иван Иванович идёт на работу в гараж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it &quot;в гараж&quot; and not &quot;в гараже&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as &quot;Ivan I. goes to work in the garage.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not &quot;Ivan I. goes to work to the garage.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15822" RevisionGUID="af00d04c-c3d1-49f8-85c1-d2bd4f0f473c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T22:13:16.117" UserId="5584" Text="Иван Иванович идёт на работу в гараж" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15822" RevisionGUID="af00d04c-c3d1-49f8-85c1-d2bd4f0f473c" CreationDate="2018-02-19T22:13:16.117" UserId="5584" Text="|падежи|предлоги|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15823" RevisionGUID="9e1d73f4-f3d4-45cc-a248-3473814436c1" CreationDate="2018-02-19T22:46:35.543" UserId="8780" Text="In **чрезмерно**, **чрезвычайный**, is the first **ч** pronounced the usual way, or rather [ш], like in *что*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15823" RevisionGUID="9e1d73f4-f3d4-45cc-a248-3473814436c1" CreationDate="2018-02-19T22:46:35.543" UserId="8780" Text="Pronunciation of Ч before consonant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15823" RevisionGUID="9e1d73f4-f3d4-45cc-a248-3473814436c1" CreationDate="2018-02-19T22:46:35.543" UserId="8780" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15824" RevisionGUID="19f13efa-1def-4ca7-bf5d-c750192b1471" CreationDate="2018-02-19T23:21:40.857" UserId="9602" Text="“Тебе плевать.” (“You don’t care.”) follows the same pattern of impersonal sentences as “Тебе холодно/жарко” (“You’re cold/hot”). A full sentence which also sounds quite natural would be “Плевать ты хотел на это” (more or less “To spit on this is all you wanted”)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15825" RevisionGUID="3772c4f8-10d1-420b-86a2-a5778f16b6af" CreationDate="2018-02-19T23:31:23.820" UserId="9602" Text="“в” + noun in prepositional case means location (“in”), while “в” + noun in accusative case means direction (“to”). Note that for most sentences only one of those usages makes sense, the other would use another preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Кит плывет в океан (acc.)” — “A whale is swimming towards the ocean” (from a sea maybe)  &#xD;&#xA;“Кит плывет в океане (prep.)” — “A whale is swimming in the ocean” (NB: “по океану” would be a bit more natural)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39608" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15823" RevisionGUID="cc1e0453-5ab9-4b7f-9a23-39e31a9d9453" CreationDate="2018-02-19T23:42:37.753" UserId="8780" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of Ч before Р" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15822" RevisionGUID="8a7649a7-85e1-4c96-b92c-6deadbf41ddf" CreationDate="2018-02-20T00:57:35.790" UserId="5584" Comment="added 343 characters in body" Text="&gt; Иван Иванович идёт на работу в гараж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it &quot;в гараж&quot; and not &quot;в гараже&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is translated as &quot;Ivan I. goes to work in the garage.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not &quot;Ivan I. goes to work to the garage.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear to me that grammatically both &quot;на работу&quot; and &quot;в гараж&quot; are in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why &quot;на работу&quot; would use the accusative, since we want to say &quot;to [his] work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not understand why we use &quot;в гараж&quot; (translates as &quot;to [the] garage) when we want (???) to say &quot;in the garage&quot; (&quot;в гараже&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15825" RevisionGUID="b849f59d-18af-440c-b1e1-acad5700f243" CreationDate="2018-02-20T01:46:14.643" UserId="9602" Comment="addressing the update" Text="“в” + noun in prepositional case means location (“in”), while “в” + noun in accusative case means direction (“to”). Note that for most sentences only one of those usages makes sense, the other would use another preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Кит плывет в океан (acc.)” — “A whale is swimming towards the ocean” (from a sea maybe)  &#xD;&#xA;“Кит плывет в океане (prep.)” — “A whale is swimming in the ocean” (NB: “по океану” would be a bit more natural)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what applies to what:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович идёт на работу в гараж. (Implies he has a job at the garage.)  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович идёт (куда?) {на работу} (куда?) {в гараж}.  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович идёт в гараж на работу. (equivalent)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;while:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович идет поработать в гараже. (He goes with the purpose of working in the garage.)  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович идет (что делать?) {поработать (где?) {в гараже}}.  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович идет в гараже поработать. (Almost equivalent, but sounds a bit weird. Could occur if someone wanted to emphasize “в гараже” in speech.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because “на работу” is such a common phrase, the word “работу” does not really function as a standalone word. While if you break the phrase up, or use a synonym, you can attach other words to that “работа”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович едет на работу в центр города.  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович едет в центр города на работу.  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович едет на свою работу в центре города.  &#xD;&#xA;Иван Иванович едет (куда?) {на свою работу (где она находится?) {в центре города}}.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15827" RevisionGUID="393d4e93-8247-4653-a8e7-d9129775a066" CreationDate="2018-02-20T06:04:03.440" UserId="1376" Text="It's pronounced the usual way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only subtle difference that some people pronounce very short **е** between **ч** and **р**, because it's hard not to do it)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15828" RevisionGUID="c0f2fb9f-8d24-4c91-a3cd-2de0066cd973" CreationDate="2018-02-20T06:51:05.950" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Иван Иванович идёт на работу в гараж.or Иван Иванович идет в гараж на работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гараж here depends on the verb идет, meaning destination, not the noun работа. So the translation should be &quot;He is going to the garage to work&quot;(in order to work).If you change the noun and use the infinitive instead, you can have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он идет в гараж работать. Он идет поработать в гараже. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15829" RevisionGUID="2e45763f-929f-4736-8d86-b5981e589f1d" CreationDate="2018-02-20T09:04:12.050" UserId="10247" Text="It's ruder than &quot;Don't act as if you don't care&quot; but less rude than &quot;Don't act as if you don't give a sh..t&quot;. Probably similar to British 'You don't bloody care'. Literally it implies 'you spit on smth.'/ but 'on smth' is omitted. It's also possible to say that 'you spit on smb.' in other contexts (meaning 'you don't bloody care about them, what they think, do, etc.').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relflexive &quot;себе&quot; is not implied here, for here the implication is that you don't care about something (you are the actor). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same way one can say: Не притворяйся, будто тебе это нужно. Не притворяйся, будто тебе это надо сделать, etc. (no reflexive is implied here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15831" RevisionGUID="33850806-d62e-43fd-8105-1833d2072a0a" CreationDate="2018-02-20T12:16:52.887" UserId="6824" Text="Maybe you hear them say &quot;[с лишк**о**м][1]&quot; (meaning a little more than needed) and &quot;[сам**о**м][2]&quot; (prepositional case of &quot;сам&quot; meaning &quot;oneself&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15832" RevisionGUID="b89809a9-aaa0-48b4-98dc-e23fbb9cd36e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:23:52.570" UserId="10285" Text="Since всё means all or everything, so does как всё mean 'how is everything' or 'how are you all or how is everybody'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15832" RevisionGUID="b89809a9-aaa0-48b4-98dc-e23fbb9cd36e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:23:52.570" UserId="10285" Text="Question about the word всё" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15832" RevisionGUID="b89809a9-aaa0-48b4-98dc-e23fbb9cd36e" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:23:52.570" UserId="10285" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15832" RevisionGUID="e71c4cfe-13fd-4eee-b01d-9c8f15272ad3" CreationDate="2018-02-20T14:25:55.603" UserId="8895" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Since &quot;всё&quot; means 'all' or 'everything', does &quot;как всё&quot; mean 'how is everything' or 'how are you all' or 'how is everybody'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15833" RevisionGUID="4041ea11-962e-487e-ba77-e9235557a575" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:12:11.000" UserId="10285" Text="What is the difference between ем и ест? As far as I know ем means to 'eat' and ест means 'eats or eating' but that is not how it is on various sites I have seen. How are they used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15833" RevisionGUID="4041ea11-962e-487e-ba77-e9235557a575" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:12:11.000" UserId="10285" Text="Difference between ем и ест" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15833" RevisionGUID="4041ea11-962e-487e-ba77-e9235557a575" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:12:11.000" UserId="10285" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15834" RevisionGUID="2d584e14-9ff4-4190-a06f-acde251af09b" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:55:34.430" UserId="6539" Text="Correct.Всё refers to things, not to people (everything or all /things/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё хорошо.Everything is OK. Всё хорошо, что хорошо кончается All is well that ends well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since languages differ, we don't say Как всё.We ask Как дела? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can use it in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как всё случилось? How it all happened? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15834" RevisionGUID="2ff4d7e6-6a39-4453-9e74-4e7af0166291" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:02:39.937" UserId="6539" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Correct.Всё refers to things, not to people (everything or all /things/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Всё хорошо.Everything is OK. Всё хорошо, что хорошо кончается All is well that ends well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since languages differ, we don't say Как всё.We ask Как дела? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can use it in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как всё случилось? How it all happened? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't use it with &quot;people&quot;. There is another word &quot;все&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15835" RevisionGUID="eda7128f-6801-47f9-9b81-6afcf3ab47f2" CreationDate="2018-02-20T16:55:11.267" UserId="7674" Text="If you seek rational behind this idiom, it may be assumed that it implies a verb **хочется**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не притворяйся, будто тебе ***(хочется)*** плевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of **плевать** as expression of disdain, denial of worthiness and  indifference has been covered by other contributors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression can take the form of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плевать **хотел** на ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonym of **плевать** in this meaning is **чихать** or more emphatically **чхать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15836" RevisionGUID="2f53070a-0827-4ba5-a5b1-11d13cfdcbb8" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:28:18.503" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Как **же** здесь красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Как здесь красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, for instance, the words &quot;doch/aber&quot; usually used in the sense of the contrasting &quot;but&quot; can also serve as emphatical flavour particles in exclamative &quot;how (beautiful/big)&quot; contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the same goes for the &quot;же&quot; here. And does it have a similar function to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отвечайте **же**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... though, in this instance, it is coupled with a verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15836" RevisionGUID="2f53070a-0827-4ba5-a5b1-11d13cfdcbb8" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:28:18.503" UserId="8672" Text="What is the function of &quot;же&quot; in &quot;Как же здесь красиво!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15836" RevisionGUID="2f53070a-0827-4ba5-a5b1-11d13cfdcbb8" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:28:18.503" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15837" RevisionGUID="1c5b6a27-7355-4554-b2a1-ed6510977b4a" CreationDate="2018-02-20T17:33:10.547" UserId="10267" Text="You're exactly right. *Же* is frequently used in contexts like this, to make the statement more emphatic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15835" RevisionGUID="401cffc7-b9b0-4413-9879-2eca95f5826b" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:32:49.357" UserId="7674" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="If you seek rational behind this idiom, it may be assumed that it implies a verb **хочется** which also requires Dative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не притворяйся, будто тебе ***(хочется)*** плевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of **плевать** as expression of disdain, denial of worthiness and  indifference has been covered by other contributors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression can also take the form of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плевать **хотел** на ... &lt;sup&gt;always in past tense&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mostly used when speaking from the 1st person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonym of **плевать** in this meaning is **чихать** or more emphatically **чхать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15835" RevisionGUID="0b033dd6-a09d-4e02-8f7c-498143aca30f" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:41:33.367" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If you seek rationale behind this idiom, it may be assumed that it implies a verb **хочется** which also requires Dative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не притворяйся, будто тебе ***(хочется)*** плевать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of **плевать** as expression of disdain, denial of worthiness and  indifference has been covered by other contributors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression can also take the form of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плевать **хотел** на ... &lt;sup&gt;always in past tense&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mostly used when speaking from the 1st person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonym of **плевать** in this meaning is **чихать** or more emphatically **чхать**. I'll gloss over some less decent versions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15761" RevisionGUID="415d4ea9-2931-48af-b141-70dcaa10c41c" CreationDate="2018-02-20T18:52:09.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/966022677856169985" />
  <row Id="39639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15839" RevisionGUID="83a8067b-50ab-4060-b29e-65215d8cadf8" CreationDate="2018-02-21T05:26:16.760" UserId="10247" Text="&quot;Как всё&quot; would mean 'how is everything'. Sounds awkward, I doubt native speakers use it often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как все&quot; would mean 'how are all (people)&quot;. Sounds a bit awkward too. A better phrasing is &quot;Как там все&quot; - how are they all there.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is *как всё/все* is seldom used as is, usually some other words are added." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15840" RevisionGUID="f3e9924c-29d7-4fbc-93cd-9c53b6c09bb5" CreationDate="2018-02-21T07:49:18.870" UserId="10291" Text=" 1. Я **ем** яблоко. (I am eating an apple.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Он **ест** яблоко. (He eats an apple.)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Я хочу **есть**. (I want to eat.)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Он хочет **есть**. (He wants to eat.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15842" RevisionGUID="1dd9b9d6-3750-4e8a-8897-601a25aa7933" CreationDate="2018-02-21T13:27:44.363" UserId="10285" Text="I'm new to Russian and started learning it about 2 or 3 months ago. Till now I've been using Duolingo to learn Russian, and as you may all know, Duolingo is not the site for 'Grammar' and I had to learn that the hard way. I've also tried using some sites like masterrussian, russianforeveryone and other similar sites, but I feel these sites are a little too advanced for a beginner like me (this may not be the case for everyone).&#xD;&#xA;I just really want to know if any of you know any nice site where everything is taught about Russian, Free of cost and clearly(eg: gender, the cases, conjugations, etc) which is easy for people like me to understand.&#xD;&#xA;If possible please mention any Russian learning books which includes vocabulary and grammar which is available on Amazon.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15842" RevisionGUID="1dd9b9d6-3750-4e8a-8897-601a25aa7933" CreationDate="2018-02-21T13:27:44.363" UserId="10285" Text="Training books or sites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15842" RevisionGUID="1dd9b9d6-3750-4e8a-8897-601a25aa7933" CreationDate="2018-02-21T13:27:44.363" UserId="10285" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="2c17304f-f033-4ae9-a688-f438a22cf7bd" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:15:57.453" UserId="10294" Text="  [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/icsnc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;What is the equivalent letters in the Latin alphabet and what is the first letter in in first and surname in Cyrillic? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="2c17304f-f033-4ae9-a688-f438a22cf7bd" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:15:57.453" UserId="10294" Text="what is the first letter in in first and surname in cyrillic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="2c17304f-f033-4ae9-a688-f438a22cf7bd" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:15:57.453" UserId="10294" Text="|accusative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15844" RevisionGUID="de864094-e94a-48cc-899f-a8e1d389e32e" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:27:35.790" UserId="1836" Text="Looks like first letter of name and surname is &quot;Я&quot;. There is no equivalent letter in Latin alphabet. It's usually transliterated as &quot;Ya&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Name is most certainly Янъ (it's pre-reform spelling, would be Ян today). It's Russian version of name Jan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surname is more difficult. Looks like Яв...я What's in the middle I'm unsure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="941ef6ed-c0cc-423c-95f1-3e1d52771aeb" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:36:57.000" UserId="1236" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="  [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/icsnc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;What is the equivalent letters in the Latin alphabet and what is the first letter in the first first and in the surname in Cyrillic? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39651" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="941ef6ed-c0cc-423c-95f1-3e1d52771aeb" CreationDate="2018-02-21T14:36:57.000" UserId="1236" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the first letter in the first name and in the surname in Cyrillic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15845" RevisionGUID="b3fd61c0-a770-415a-b195-d342a80be24e" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:07:53.663" UserId="1236" Text="As [Alissa][1] correctly said, the first letter in both words is `Я`, and the first name is `Янъ` (Yan). But the first word is &quot;Явился&quot;. It is neither name nor surname, it means &quot;[there] came&quot;. The image is most likely a scan or a photo from a parish book in which the newborn children are recordered. Every such record begins with the name of the place and date. Then it's usually written, &quot;**There came** {person's name and surname}, aged X, {profession}, and in the presence of {names of 2 witnesses} presented a newborn child, born on {date} from {mother's name}&quot;. The child was baptized and given the name {name}, god-parents being {names and surnames of a man and a woman}. This Act was signed by {the name of the parish administrator}. {the name and the signature of the priest who wrote this record}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is your image has only the first name, the surname must follow the frirst name, that is, it is written to the right of the first name `Янъ`, and it is not in your image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I translated such a record into English, on Linguistics StackExchange, [have a look][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/1836/alissa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9334/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39653" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15816" RevisionGUID="3dc8e4aa-b93c-4efd-a006-ffbfa623c1a7" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:59:07.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/966341522655457280" />
  <row Id="39654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15845" RevisionGUID="e3a02bcf-af5c-4587-8256-4c303e3b55e4" CreationDate="2018-02-21T16:06:00.320" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As [Alissa][1] correctly said, the first letter in both words is `Я`, and the first name is `Янъ` (Yan). But the first word is &quot;Явился&quot;. It is neither a first name nor a surname, it means &quot;[there] came&quot;. The image is most likely a scan or a photo from a parish book in which the newborn children were recordered. Every such record begins with the name of the place and date. Then it's usually written, &quot;**There came** {person's name and surname}, aged X, {profession}, and in the presence of {names of 2 witnesses} presented a newborn child, born on {date} from {mother's name}&quot;. The child was baptized and given the name {name}, god-parents being {names and surnames of a man and a woman}. This Act was signed by {the name of the parish administrator}. {the name and the signature of the priest who wrote this record}.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is your image has only the first name, the surname must follow the frirst name, that is, it is written to the right of the first name `Янъ`, and it is not in your image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I translated such a record into English, on Linguistics StackExchange, [have a look][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/1836/alissa&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9334/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15846" RevisionGUID="1e58b187-5405-43c3-b61e-c2473d48ecbe" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:40:10.817" UserId="4714" Text="**How strange would it sound to make the preceding consonants soft in the following words?—**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the С)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спичка, смена, сфера, свет, смех&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the м)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лампе, бомбе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the в)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;деревня, дешевле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Apparently** in the past people made them soft, and I realise that there is even such a thing as intermediate softness. If you are going to make one consonant soft you can't help but change the previous one a little bit--it's just easier that way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As a foreinger** I only just recently mastered soft sounds--which turned out to super easy once I found a good explanation--not just the ridiculous &quot;raise your tongue up to the top of the mouth&quot; (for reference, that is a useless tip). Th thing that really helped me was memorizing the position of и (й) and then just remembering that the tongue has to get back into that position for any soft sound--like и...ть...и...ть...и...ти... I'm not sure why they don't just tell foreigners that. I found this tip in some phonetics books written in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anyway, my** question is— how strange (bad) will it sound if I make letters soft that should not be soft, or letters that were soft in past generations, but are not now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it** not such a big deal to make some mistakes in softness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **I'm asking** because, as it turns out, making letters soft is super easy compared to making the corresponding hard sound--it's no wonder Russian children don't usually go to speech therapists for soft sounds (except ль and рь) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15846" RevisionGUID="1e58b187-5405-43c3-b61e-c2473d48ecbe" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:40:10.817" UserId="4714" Text="Regression with soft sounds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15846" RevisionGUID="1e58b187-5405-43c3-b61e-c2473d48ecbe" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:40:10.817" UserId="4714" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15847" RevisionGUID="53ee6b2a-1372-4576-a284-1d69294e7097" CreationDate="2018-02-21T20:28:33.700" UserId="7674" Text="Actually i believe i've heard some people a feature of whose manner of speech was a degree of softening of the **C**'s and the **M**'s before soft consonants like in your examples. Not sure about **B** though as it seems to me quite resistant to softening in blends with soft consonants, i've tried it and it's not easy or convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i've heard sounded a bit odd to me, rather funny, but acceptable. Can't speak of other cases, i'd need to hear them to make any judgement, but palatalization has potential to severely distort the way the language sounds, so its acceptability depends on the degree of resulted distortion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15847" RevisionGUID="65339ed6-9516-4fea-9a8f-b882b2056dfe" CreationDate="2018-02-21T20:35:24.970" UserId="7674" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Actually i believe i've heard some people a feature of whose manner of speech was a degree of softening of the **C**'s and the **M**'s before soft consonants like in your examples. Not sure about **B** though as it seems to me quite resistant to softening in blends with soft consonants, i've tried it and it's not easy or convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i've heard sounded a bit odd to me, rather funny, but acceptable. Can't speak of other cases, i'd need to hear them to make any judgement, but palatalization has potential to severely distort the way the language sounds, so its acceptability depends on the degree of resulted distortion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time accent is not that much of a problem, but from social perspective in order to be acceptable it at least has to be referential to foreign or regional background. An accent must be natural and not arbitrary and whimsical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15847" RevisionGUID="cd55feba-cc1f-48e1-aa6a-a6c0e2cd501a" CreationDate="2018-02-21T20:40:51.413" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Actually i believe i've heard some people a feature of whose manner of speech was a degree of softening of the **C**'s and the **M**'s before soft consonants like in your examples. Not sure about **B** though as it seems to me quite resistant to softening in blends with soft consonants, i've tried it and it's not easy or convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i heard sounded a bit odd to me, rather funny, but acceptable. Can't speak of other cases, i'd need to hear them to make any judgement, but palatalization has potential to severely distort the way the language sounds, so its acceptability depends on the degree of resulted distortion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time accent is not that much of a problem, but from social perspective in order to be acceptable it at least has to be referential to foreign or regional background. An accent must be natural and not arbitrary, whimsical or one-off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15848" RevisionGUID="dc517905-d6e4-4ed2-803e-6dd3f0c181c8" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:39:39.643" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Кто бы мог представить, что в мире все еще **остались** такие уголки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Кто бы мог представить, что в мире все еще **оставались** такие уголки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expected to see the imperfective verb here (in the sense of &quot;*still remaining*&quot;), so the use of the perfective verb (*still remained*) pulled me up short." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39662" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15848" RevisionGUID="dc517905-d6e4-4ed2-803e-6dd3f0c181c8" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:39:39.643" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the perfective &quot;остаться&quot; rather than the imperfective &quot;оставаться&quot; here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39663" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15848" RevisionGUID="dc517905-d6e4-4ed2-803e-6dd3f0c181c8" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:39:39.643" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15849" RevisionGUID="9e11d527-750c-4d67-9a77-33ba51f9a7dc" CreationDate="2018-02-22T01:41:46.057" UserId="8780" Text=" 1. A friend of mine told me I cannot tell **&quot;Страна, куда я поехал&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;    rather than **&quot;Страна, куда я ездил&quot;**. Even when I am referring to&#xD;&#xA;    a completed trip which just happened once (*&quot;The country I went to&#xD;&#xA;    in November&quot;*, for example). &#xD;&#xA;    Is the imperfective indeterminate verb a requirement of **куда**&#xD;&#xA;    itself?&#xD;&#xA; 2. I want to say &quot;We need to travel at least 2000 kms if we want to go somewhere beyond (to the east) of France&quot;. Is it OK to tell **&quot;Нам приходится доехать минимум 2000 км если мы собираемся поехать куда-либо дальше (на востоке от) Франции&quot;**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15849" RevisionGUID="9e11d527-750c-4d67-9a77-33ba51f9a7dc" CreationDate="2018-02-22T01:41:46.057" UserId="8780" Text="Describing a displacement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15849" RevisionGUID="9e11d527-750c-4d67-9a77-33ba51f9a7dc" CreationDate="2018-02-22T01:41:46.057" UserId="8780" Text="|motion-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15850" RevisionGUID="4b355110-eefa-47d0-8ad7-6feb1a9769f0" CreationDate="2018-02-22T07:35:07.867" UserId="10247" Text="Both are possible. You can't say either of them is incorrect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто бы мог представить, что в мире все еще остались такие уголки?&quot; - more implies you are talking about today's world from the point of view of now (beatiful nooks, places still remain). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кто бы мог представить, что в мире все еще оставались такие уголки?&quot; - makes sense if you are talking about the world in the past (or the world at a particular time in the past), and at that point 'some nice nooks, places WERE STILL REMAINING). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your sense (at present, still remain) the first variant is used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39668" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="f2155441-b797-4527-b7b0-c51faf45aae6" CreationDate="2018-02-22T08:04:30.913" UserId="9602" Comment="better tags" Text="|выбор-имени|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39669" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="f2155441-b797-4527-b7b0-c51faf45aae6" CreationDate="2018-02-22T08:04:30.913" Comment="Proposed by 9602 approved by 1236, 8895 edit id of 956" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15851" RevisionGUID="bee0c0ef-d625-460a-ac9e-e6150f8470f8" CreationDate="2018-02-22T08:37:40.470" UserId="6539" Text="The difference between поехал and eздил is similar to that of &quot;have gone&quot; and &quot;have been&quot; both deriving from the verb &quot;go&quot;. Поехал means you are still there, ездил means you visited and returned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;We need to travel at least 2000 kms if we want to go somewhere beyond (to the east) of France&quot;. Is it OK to tell &quot;Нам приходится доехать минимум 2000 км если мы собираемся поехать куда-либо дальше (на востоке от) Франции&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost correct. Нам придется(future) проехать(cover), как минимум,2000 км, если мы собираемся поехать куда‐либо дальше, восточнее/на восток от Франции." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39671" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="1c729e39-b217-4dab-b19d-ac80b007141d" CreationDate="2018-02-22T09:59:08.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/966613318399119360" />
  <row Id="39672" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15843" RevisionGUID="0bc150e7-17d4-4699-a38c-a304380484ef" CreationDate="2018-02-22T15:50:34.523" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15852" RevisionGUID="00a5787c-7558-45d6-b4a8-2610a80ef058" CreationDate="2018-02-22T17:15:05.767" UserId="10267" Text="Is there a specific reason that, when transliterating an English name, double letters are carried over into the Cyrillic? Specific example: My daughter's name is Tillie. This is an unusual name even in English, and so when we lived for a year in Russia, everyone had to come up with Cyrillic for it on the fly. Without exception, everyone who tried ended up transliterating it as Тилли. This seems odd to me, since the double-L in English isn't really pronounced as a double. It's mostly just there so that the name doesn't look like it should be pronounced ty-lee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the pronunciation of Тили be noticeably different from Тилли? And if so, wouldn't the single Л actually be closer to the English pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15852" RevisionGUID="00a5787c-7558-45d6-b4a8-2610a80ef058" CreationDate="2018-02-22T17:15:05.767" UserId="10267" Text="Transliterating double letters in names" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15852" RevisionGUID="00a5787c-7558-45d6-b4a8-2610a80ef058" CreationDate="2018-02-22T17:15:05.767" UserId="10267" Text="|транслитерация|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15848" RevisionGUID="6e495cb6-a000-4bb0-b52e-d612b05c7444" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:05:25.193" UserId="8672" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="&gt;Кто бы мог представить, что в мире все еще **остались** такие уголки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Кто бы мог представить, что в мире все еще **оставались** такие уголки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd expected to see the imperfective verb here (in the sense of &quot;*still remaining*&quot;), so the use of the perfective verb (*still remained*) pulled me up short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly do the two verbs differ in meaning in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15854" RevisionGUID="550019d7-ef9b-4e31-846f-621401e0c34e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:33:39.813" UserId="9256" Text="Phrase #2 (&quot;оставались&quot;) is in past tense. If the phrase #1 (&quot;остались&quot;) is correct, then the phrase is supposed to be used in present tense, or, even if it talks about past, it is presumed that its meaning holds true in present as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Present tense for phrase #2 would be &quot;остаются&quot;, which can be used interchangeably with &quot;остались&quot;, but imperfective form implies that the process of disappearance is going on as we speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в мире все еще остались такие уголки&quot; - there are (were) still places like that in the world (many disappeared, but some remain, and hold on);&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в мире все еще оставались такие уголки&quot; - there were places like that in the world (many disappeared, but some have remained, however by now they all might have gone)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;в мире все еще остаются такие уголки&quot; - there are still places like that in the world (many disappeared, but some are remaining, likely not for long)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15855" RevisionGUID="badba969-a9c5-481c-9fa1-e25b5401414f" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:39:55.083" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, Тили would be closer to the English pronunciation of Tillie. &#xA;&#xA;In Russian double consonants are significantly longer than single ones. E.g. a native Russian can hear whether another native Russian says Рима or Римма, мая or Майя (double [й]).&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15856" RevisionGUID="5cf73915-eb01-4ab6-bfe8-e8608d78b964" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:40:26.427" UserId="7674" Text="The English name **Billy** for instance is traditionally transliterated in Cyrillic as **Билли** and i feel would almost stop being immediately recognizable as itself and look odd had it been transliterated as **Били**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this method of transliteration accords with rules of the [**Practical transcription of English into Russian**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Англо-русская_практическая_транскрипция)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;specifically this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ll - [l] лл** (в географических названиях **л** перед согласными, но всегда **лл** в названиях валлийского происхождения)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of **-лл-** indeed differs from **-л-**, but it seems that prolonged articulation of the English double **L** in names has become the norm in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe it's a manifestation of a [phonetic rule](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=879&amp;met3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удвоенное написание согласных в русском языке сохраняется в большом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количестве заимствованных слов, напр.: ассимиляция, аккорд, аппарат,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интеллект и др. Однако удвоение согласного при произношении наблюдается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не во всех случаях. **Как правило удвоенный согласный произносится в том&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случае, если находится в заударном слоге**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both **Billy** and **Tillie** the double **L** is found in the post-stress syllable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15857" RevisionGUID="159113ec-8bf9-41b0-9246-acba4c232404" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:41:07.053" UserId="9256" Text="In Russian, double letters typically transliterated as double, regardless of original pronunciation. Note that in Russian double letters do not always need to sound as double either (ex. &quot;параллельный&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a foreign name with double letters often looks like a legal name, while compressing it to a single makes it look like a nickname (&quot;Harry&quot; - &quot;Гарри&quot; vs. &quot;Гари&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15856" RevisionGUID="e7e67bd5-5152-4e5f-836a-59838d25db1d" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:49:43.063" UserId="7674" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="The English name **Billy** for instance is traditionally transliterated in Cyrillic as **Билли** and i feel would almost stop being immediately recognizable as itself and look odd had it been transliterated as **Били**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this method of transliteration accords with rules of the [**Practical transcription of English into Russian**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Англо-русская_практическая_транскрипция)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;specifically this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ll - [l] лл** (в географических названиях **л** перед согласными, но всегда **лл** в названиях валлийского происхождения)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of **-лл-** indeed differs from **-л-**, but it seems that prolonged articulation of the English double consonants in names has become the norm in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe it's a manifestation of a [phonetic rule](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=879&amp;met3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удвоенное написание согласных в русском языке сохраняется в большом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количестве заимствованных слов, напр.: ассимиляция, аккорд, аппарат,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интеллект и др. **Однако удвоение согласного при произношении наблюдается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не во всех случаях.** **Как правило удвоенный согласный произносится в том&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случае, если находится в заударном слоге**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both **Billy** and **Tillie** the double **L** is found in the post-stress syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audio examples of Russian pronunciation: [**Johnny**](https://youtu.be/Z4LgdnMb-KQ?t=14s), [**Harry**](https://youtu.be/gQduJ0njTW8?t=24s), [**Billy**](https://youtu.be/DRgqgvHI4Cg?t=20s)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15855" RevisionGUID="b1c1a95a-3a47-4035-b90e-141332da8f63" CreationDate="2018-02-22T18:53:32.683" UserId="2104" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Yes, **Тили** would be closer to the English pronunciation of Tillie, but **Тилли** better preserves the look of how it's written. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian double consonants are noticeably longer than single ones. E.g. a native Russian can hear whether another native Russian says **Рима** or **Римма**, **мая** or **Майя** (double [й]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="f9329893-6903-4999-a709-f24e1476ccb3" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:16:47.583" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Давай узнаем, **не** вернулись **ли** остальные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Давай узнаем, вернулись **ли** остальные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the first version with &quot;не&quot; is working on the assumption that they're ***probably*** already back, whereas the second suggests a ***slim chance*** of their return?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Can you think of other examples where &quot;не ... ли ...&quot; and &quot;... ли ...&quot; make a difference like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="f9329893-6903-4999-a709-f24e1476ccb3" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:16:47.583" UserId="8672" Text="Nuance between &quot;Давай узнаем, не ... ли ...&quot; and &quot;Давай узнаем, ... ли ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="f9329893-6903-4999-a709-f24e1476ccb3" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:16:47.583" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15856" RevisionGUID="245df5ef-d086-47c1-a90c-87d5889ca3ca" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:17:29.187" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The English name **Billy** for instance is traditionally transliterated in Cyrillic as **Билли** and i feel would almost stop being immediately recognizable as itself and would look odd had it been transliterated as **Били**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this method of transliteration accords with rules of the [**Practical transcription of English into Russian**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Англо-русская_практическая_транскрипция)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;specifically this one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ll - [l] лл** (в географических названиях **л** перед согласными, но всегда **лл** в названиях валлийского происхождения)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pronunciation of **-лл-** indeed differs from **-л-**, but it seems that prolonged articulation of the English double consonants in names has become the norm in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe it's a manifestation of a [phonetic rule](http://prometod.ru/index.php?type_page&amp;katalog&amp;id=879&amp;met3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удвоенное написание согласных в русском языке сохраняется в большом&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количестве заимствованных слов, напр.: ассимиляция, аккорд, аппарат,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; интеллект и др. **Однако удвоение согласного при произношении наблюдается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не во всех случаях.** **Как правило удвоенный согласный произносится в том&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случае, если находится в заударном слоге**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both **Billy** and **Tillie** the double **L** is found in the post-stress syllable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Audio examples of Russian pronunciation: [**Johnny**](https://youtu.be/Z4LgdnMb-KQ?t=14s), [**Harry**](https://youtu.be/gQduJ0njTW8?t=24s), [**Billy**](https://youtu.be/DRgqgvHI4Cg?t=20s)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="ac4da500-77a3-4708-85e7-6e6dcecb9e1e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:47:53.497" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="How do these two carry nuances of meaning: &quot;Давай узнаем, не ... ли ...&quot; vs. &quot;Давай узнаем, ... ли ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15855" RevisionGUID="2fd85696-f8fd-4dbf-bcae-ad333c4794b3" CreationDate="2018-02-22T19:49:03.327" UserId="2104" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="Yes, **Тили** would be closer to the English pronunciation of Tillie, but **Тилли** better preserves the look of how it's written. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian double consonants are noticeably longer than single ones:&#xA;&#xA; * **в**ёл - **вв**ёл&#xA; * по**д**ать - по**дд**ать&#xA; * по**д**ождём - по**д д**ождём&#xA; * Вы **к**ому? - Вы **к к**ому?&#xA; * Ри**м**а - Ри**мм**а&#xA; * мая - Ма**й**я (double [й])&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39694" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15852" RevisionGUID="40ce8275-345e-49eb-84b7-f619ad2954b7" CreationDate="2018-02-22T22:00:55.763" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/966794960933736450" />
  <row Id="39695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="2992b22d-4cc0-4872-8a93-093dc0f8e486" CreationDate="2018-02-22T22:23:09.357" UserId="8672" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="&gt;Давай узнаем, **не** вернулись **ли** остальные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Давай узнаем, вернулись **ли** остальные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the first version with &quot;не&quot; is working on the assumption that they're ***probably*** already back, whereas the second suggests a ***slim chance*** of their return? My assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**не ... ли**: They are likely to be already back. But let's find out for sure, just in case they aren't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**ли**: I don't think they're back yet. But let's check it out anyway on the off chance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, can you think of other examples where &quot;не ... ли&quot; and &quot;ли&quot; make a difference like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39696" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="e9ebe698-9a72-49c5-94dc-ef8a70ae7c60" CreationDate="2018-02-23T04:03:21.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/966886169534373888" />
  <row Id="39697" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15849" RevisionGUID="9dcc98d7-2920-4063-ab9e-8183234abd7e" CreationDate="2018-02-23T10:02:46.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/966976618639118336" />
  <row Id="39698" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15842" RevisionGUID="b777f776-757e-462f-8717-659bbbe18582" CreationDate="2018-02-23T11:10:58.083" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[833],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1688,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mustaccio&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9603,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Trey&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39699" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15833" RevisionGUID="05891062-4a6e-4e54-822a-9c4a6447caf3" CreationDate="2018-02-23T11:12:36.220" UserId="3680" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:9603,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Trey&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15859" RevisionGUID="362f95f3-5687-4b5b-9566-6f9f1d030c01" CreationDate="2018-02-23T12:23:02.617" UserId="9001" Text="The difference is very subtle and also may depend on context. As a rule of thumb I'd suggest using the version **without** *не* in all **declarative sentences**. The negation adds some peculiarity which may be hard to capture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the given example I'd say that **вернулись ли остальные** doesn't necessarily implies *slim* chance. It can as well mean that you have solid grounds to expect they are going to return. But the expression is neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The version with negation on the contrary shows that you are looking forward for the return. This also makes the expression sound conversationally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other contexts **не** + **ли** may express other nuances. For example, it may add extra politeness to your offer as in &quot;*Не хотите ли чаю?*&quot; And when making a polite request this **не** becomes mandatory as in &quot;*Не найдется ли у вас листа бумаги?*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39701" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15836" RevisionGUID="acb69991-ced9-43a8-9cb5-3d0cfe22f5e7" CreationDate="2018-02-23T16:02:44.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/967067206583574530" />
  <row Id="39702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15860" RevisionGUID="cf065df6-ae36-4e0b-b82c-7902d90e3586" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:14:49.107" UserId="10300" Text="I'm building a collection of flashcards to learn Russian (that I will eventually share on Anki) and I'm hoping that someone could take 60 seconds to confirm the accuracy of the words in &#xD;&#xA;[this spreadsheet:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bfbMv67njodCbEtnwwH6NHW5cJa0PD3c2KsUSs5zvCE/edit#gid=1547172303&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a complete beginner here. This was my original starting method that got me to advanced conversational fluency in Spanish so I hope I can repeat the success with this awesome new language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15860" RevisionGUID="cf065df6-ae36-4e0b-b82c-7902d90e3586" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:14:49.107" UserId="10300" Text="Feedback request for this small collection of Russian words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15860" RevisionGUID="cf065df6-ae36-4e0b-b82c-7902d90e3586" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:14:49.107" UserId="10300" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15846" RevisionGUID="1493145f-6857-45d7-a3dd-a984308dcd35" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:24:11.750" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 480 characters in body" Text="**How strange would it sound to make the preceding consonants soft in the following words?—**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from Jones and Ward (1969) The Phonetics of Russian--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the С)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спичка, смена, сфера, свет, смех&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the м)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лампе, бомбе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the в)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;деревня, дешевле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Apparently** in the past people made them soft, and I realise that there is even such a thing as intermediate softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anyway, my** question is— how strange (bad) will it sound if I make letters soft that should not be soft, or letters that were soft in past generations, but are not now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it** not such a big deal to make some mistakes in softness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **I'm asking** because, as it turns out, making letters soft is super easy compared to making the corresponding hard sound--it's no wonder Russian children don't usually go to speech therapists for soft sounds (except ль and рь) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15860" RevisionGUID="641f7c5c-4be7-4747-9eec-221e20a8673a" CreationDate="2018-02-23T21:35:50.483" UserId="10300" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Native English speaker here. I'm building a collection of flashcards to learn Russian (that I will eventually share on Anki) and I'm hoping that someone could take 60 seconds to confirm the accuracy of the Russian words in &#xD;&#xA;[this spreadsheet:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bfbMv67njodCbEtnwwH6NHW5cJa0PD3c2KsUSs5zvCE/edit#gid=1547172303&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there are many translations for a single word. I'm looking for whatever is most common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a complete beginner here. This was my original starting method that got me to advanced conversational fluency in Spanish so I hope I can repeat the success with this awesome new language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15861" RevisionGUID="dd7480ca-392d-4da9-b51a-074f7290e53b" CreationDate="2018-02-24T00:33:42.743" UserId="2442" Text="It would sound archaic or regional indeed.  &#xD;&#xA;My grandfather, for example, keeps softening the *с* in words like свет, последний, косвенно. However he is both elderly (turning 88 this year) and he was born in a village in Tambov region and moved to Moscow at the age of 14, so his speech has some interesting dialectal features, besides that regressive assimilation. He is not the only (aged) person I heard this softening from.  &#xD;&#xA;This softening is part of a larger feature set called the old Moscow pronunciation. There palatalization went even further: четверг is pronounced like &quot;четьверьг&quot;, церковь — like &quot;церьковь&quot; and so on. This is another thing, but nowadays also quite rare. If your Russian is good enough, I highly recommend to read [this](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5) Wikipedia article, especially the section about the old Moscow pronunciation (Старомосковское произношение). The corresponding article in English is quite poor so far, unfortunately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15860" RevisionGUID="01a4269a-2f33-498e-a476-6ddf4baf1f1d" CreationDate="2018-02-24T06:08:00.947" UserId="10300" Comment="deleted 298 characters in body" Text="Native English speaker here. I'm building a collection of flashcards to learn Russian (that I will eventually share on Anki) and I'm hoping that someone could take 60 seconds to confirm the accuracy of the Russian words in &#xD;&#xA;[this spreadsheet:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bfbMv67njodCbEtnwwH6NHW5cJa0PD3c2KsUSs5zvCE/edit#gid=1547172303&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a notes column to provide context for some ambiguous words. Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15860" RevisionGUID="276d6754-db05-4b17-8ae4-2cc7c8572042" CreationDate="2018-02-24T06:22:35.690" UserId="10300" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Native English speaker here. I'm building a collection of flashcards to learn Russian (that I will eventually share on Anki) and I'm hoping that someone could take 60 seconds to confirm the accuracy of the Russian words in &#xD;&#xA;[this spreadsheet:][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bfbMv67njodCbEtnwwH6NHW5cJa0PD3c2KsUSs5zvCE/edit#gid=1547172303&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I added a notes column to provide context for some ambiguous words. Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Thanks to whoever filled in 90% of the sheet for me. Much appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15846" RevisionGUID="95cf515c-5539-41e6-bdda-ee1f30026329" CreationDate="2018-02-24T08:02:35.323" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 99 characters in body" Text="**How strange would it sound to make the preceding consonants soft in the following words?—**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All examples are from ***Jones and Ward (1969) The Phonetics of Russian***. Furthermore, all examples are from the speech of the older generation. In other words people did speak like this at one time (or still do)--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the С)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спичка, смена, сфера, свет, смех&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the м)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лампе, бомбе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(I mean the в)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;деревня, дешевле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My** question is— how strange (bad) will it sound if I make letters soft that should not be soft, or letters that were soft in past generations, but are not now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it** not such a big deal to make some mistakes in softness?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39712" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15803" RevisionGUID="d0709347-5c30-4654-895a-d3644e9bb973" CreationDate="2018-02-24T19:05:49.997" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/967475672418484224" />
  <row Id="39713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15862" RevisionGUID="cd0abcf3-6454-4ecf-a5d6-a4cd7e4da8cf" CreationDate="2018-02-25T08:19:29.410" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;И мне **ещё никогда не** было так трудно вымыть квартиру, как сейчас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И мне **никогда не** было так трудно вымыть квартиру, как сейчас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the version with &quot;ещё&quot; emphasises the fact that something had never happened ***until this very moment***?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15862" RevisionGUID="cd0abcf3-6454-4ecf-a5d6-a4cd7e4da8cf" CreationDate="2018-02-25T08:19:29.410" UserId="8672" Text="How do these two carry nuances of meaning: &quot;ещё никогда не&quot; vs. &quot;никогда не&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15862" RevisionGUID="cd0abcf3-6454-4ecf-a5d6-a4cd7e4da8cf" CreationDate="2018-02-25T08:19:29.410" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15863" RevisionGUID="f506ab82-524f-4c36-90b6-c49aea5ef6b9" CreationDate="2018-02-25T10:24:26.287" UserId="5600" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Sorry for the short answer @alone-Zee, but since you've nailed it - yes, the answer is just &quot;Yes&quot; - you are correct. &quot;[Ещё][1]&quot; stands for still/more/yet and simply and plainly emphasizes &quot;никогда не&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/search?&amp;q=translate%3A%20%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%91" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15709" RevisionGUID="db1f8984-763a-4c6b-af30-f35b219283ff" CreationDate="2018-02-25T19:08:53.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/967838829263679488" />
  <row Id="39718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15864" RevisionGUID="e766b07d-f265-4d21-86d5-daae3bf25792" CreationDate="2018-02-26T00:54:27.347" UserId="2244" Text="If you had no &quot;как сейчас&quot;, &quot;еще не&quot; would have been simply an equivalent of &quot;not yet&quot;. Used together with &quot;как сейчас&quot;, it simply provides additional emphasis, ~&quot;never before now&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15865" RevisionGUID="f95ec382-5bb5-4aae-8727-db8f153f1008" CreationDate="2018-02-26T01:34:26.560" UserId="2244" Text="A general reminder - language is not a secret code to be translated word for word. Even programming languages, being simple semantically, compared to natural ones, are never translated word for word. You need to provide context for each translation, apart from the obvious borrowings from English such as &quot;odometer/одометр&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of your English words can be translated by multiple Russian ones (same goes for, say, Italian or even German). If you simply want &quot;the most common&quot; then again, is it statistically most common among a general corpus? news? science reports?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want your mini-project to produce useful results, add a few sentences using the English words and ask for Russian equivalents one would use in translating those sentences. There is a reason dictionaries exist, and it is exactly this ambiguity of translation. Even the all-knowing(not!) Google Translate gives you several variants: [![GoogleT example screenshot][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aOQBr.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I fixed a couple of words and provided some comments, but as it stands now, the table is not even &quot;most common translation according to an average person&quot;, especially verbs. If you're up for some dry reading, [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfective_aspect) is one of huge reasons. In Russian verbs aspect is encoded into the word, not indicated by a tense like in English (eg do/did/have done etc can all be translated by several verbs with a different prefix, plus the usual grammatical ending)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15866" RevisionGUID="31c8f473-0b32-4ee3-9d3d-e03774bc004b" CreationDate="2018-02-26T01:49:55.430" UserId="2244" Text="I'd (a native speaker obviously) say that the only difference I feel is &quot;не … ли&quot; is more colloquial. Without &quot;не&quot; this is perfectly suitable for an article, e.g. &quot;Важно ли знать правила русского языка?&quot; - with  &quot;не&quot; this would read rather strange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maaaybe with &quot;не&quot; the speaker (again, colloquial usage) implies that they sort of hope/expect/think the event more likely, but again, the difference in meaning is negligible compared to the difference in the sense of colloquiality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="86fe1ee8-5465-4c69-9460-e4f8498740b0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:08:17.713" UserId="8289" Text="I would like to see contrasting examples of the imperatives of to go. What is the differences among these? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ходи    иди  пойди&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="86fe1ee8-5465-4c69-9460-e4f8498740b0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:08:17.713" UserId="8289" Text="The differences among the imperatives of verbs of motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="86fe1ee8-5465-4c69-9460-e4f8498740b0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:08:17.713" UserId="8289" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15868" RevisionGUID="3a76dd75-a055-40c2-855b-7675773ce2c7" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:45:18.657" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я здесь многое повидал! **Такого**, что многие даже не поверили бы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    = Here, I've seen a lot of things! Such things that most people wouldn't even believe!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the word &quot;такой&quot; is used here as a replacement for the accusative &quot;многое&quot;, the temptation is great to opt for the neuter accusative &quot;**такое**&quot; instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder what is the rationale for the genitive &quot;такого&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15868" RevisionGUID="3a76dd75-a055-40c2-855b-7675773ce2c7" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:45:18.657" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the genitive &quot;такого&quot; instead of the accusative &quot;такое&quot; here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15868" RevisionGUID="3a76dd75-a055-40c2-855b-7675773ce2c7" CreationDate="2018-02-26T04:45:18.657" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15869" RevisionGUID="5345284f-4b02-49a3-a2fa-0ba7d3934fa9" CreationDate="2018-02-26T05:28:05.753" UserId="5818" Text="I’m deciphering a modern transcription of [ревизские сказки](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%B8) (revision records) written in the 19th century. All throughout I see a pattern similar to this (names have been changed):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Илья Андреевич Ростов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - его сыновья:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - Николай&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - Петр&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ильи Андреевича жена Наталья Николаевна&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - его же дочери:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - Вера&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - Наташа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sons are listed first under “его сын” or “его сыновья”, then the wife and then the daughters under “его же дочь” or “его же дочери”. What does the word же mean in this context? If it's for emphasis, it seems odd to always emphasize “his daughters” but never “his sons”. Would the meaning change if же were left out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(By contrast, the [исповедная роспись](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C) or confession records for the same time and place list sons and daughters after husband and wife under the heading “дети их”.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15869" RevisionGUID="5345284f-4b02-49a3-a2fa-0ba7d3934fa9" CreationDate="2018-02-26T05:28:05.753" UserId="5818" Text="Meaning of же in “его сыновья ... его же дочери”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15869" RevisionGUID="5345284f-4b02-49a3-a2fa-0ba7d3934fa9" CreationDate="2018-02-26T05:28:05.753" UserId="5818" Text="|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15868" RevisionGUID="2a39782f-fc85-45f5-acd7-b25c5410df78" CreationDate="2018-02-26T05:35:34.867" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;Я здесь многое повидал! **Такого**, что многие даже не поверили бы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== Here, I've seen a lot of things! Such things that most people wouldn't even believe!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the word &quot;такой&quot; is used here as a replacement for the accusative &quot;многое&quot;, the temptation is great to opt for the neuter accusative &quot;**такое**&quot; instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39731" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15868" RevisionGUID="2a39782f-fc85-45f5-acd7-b25c5410df78" CreationDate="2018-02-26T05:35:34.867" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 65 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the rationale for using the genitive &quot;такого&quot; in &quot;Такого, что многие даже не поверили бы!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15870" RevisionGUID="ab945c49-7647-44fd-b963-1a90f7f3d66f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T08:17:28.560" UserId="5443" Text="The particle **же** is used here as an extra reminder that the pronoun **его**, *used for the second time*, **still** refers to the person mentioned above. It is not necessary and is just intended to make reading a bit easier (bookish style)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15871" RevisionGUID="891beaf9-db8b-4f4f-8855-085e566d0d93" CreationDate="2018-02-26T08:30:51.753" UserId="6539" Text="It means &quot;also&quot;, &quot;also his daughters&quot;, nothing more. The meaning won't change if don't use it at all. But the formal official style was like that. First they named men, they were more important, because it somehow was connected with payment, then they listed women, as additional information. That's why they used &quot;же&quot;(also)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15872" RevisionGUID="188f0d3a-d173-4e3f-9ea1-eb56f025d699" CreationDate="2018-02-26T08:34:34.860" UserId="5443" Text="I think the two sentences do not combine perfectly. The word **много** is *omitted* from the second sentence (много такого), which would be OK if it were present in the first sentence in the same form (to refer to), but it's мног**ое** instead of мног**о** there. And that gives a dissonance. Better correlated sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я здесь многое повидал! **Много такого**, что многие даже не поверили бы!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я здесь **много** (чего) повидал! **Такого**, что многие даже не поверили бы!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я здесь **многое** повидал! И **такое**, (во) что многие даже не поверили бы!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15870" RevisionGUID="828f9558-4888-4f1d-acbc-a06076140fe0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T08:54:56.640" UserId="5443" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="The particle **же** is used here as an extra reminder that the pronoun **его**, *used for the second time*, **still** refers to the person mentioned above. It is not necessary and is just intended to make reading a bit easier (bookish style).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** An example with the nominative case of the pronoun (**он же** in the meaning 'it was **still him**').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Он** [or a name here] исполнял партию Томми во всех исполнениях&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одноимённой рок-оперы. Впоследствии **он же** исполнил партию Иуды в одной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; из поздних записей известного мюзикла." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15873" RevisionGUID="3038ffb5-22ae-4e27-81b5-9882286c476a" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:13:28.890" UserId="5443" Text="The version **ходи** is about a *continuous* (going to and fro) or *repeated* action, while the version **пойди** is a request to go somewhere **once** (maybe for doing something there), another version of it is *сходи* (=пойди и вернись).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Repeated action:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ходи** весь этот месяц к врачу на уколы, и всё пройдёт. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuous action:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На тренировке **ходи** по бревну, пока не устанешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Single action:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пойди** в аптеку и принеси аспирин." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15874" RevisionGUID="0f816ea4-7290-4273-964e-505d2eae1727" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:39:20.170" UserId="2104" Text="**Ходи(те)** is primarily used in negative sentences: Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять!&quot; Иди, пойди are only used in positive. &#xA;&#xA;**Пойди** is telling someone to run an errant, to go somewhere with a particular goal: Пойди га кухню, принеси воды. If it's a simple roundtrip, **сходи** is preferable: Сходи в магазин, купи молока.&#xA;&#xA;**Иди** is more concerned with the process of moving: &quot;Стой! Теперь иди.&quot; while nowadays colloquially it can mean the same as пойди/сходи and it sounds a bit rude: Иди в магазин и купи молока.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15874" RevisionGUID="507de3fc-96ce-4ecb-86ad-551334a4f902" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:44:51.977" UserId="2104" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="**Ходи(те)** is primarily used in negative sentences: Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять!&quot; Иди, пойди are only used in positive contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пойди** is telling someone to run an errant, to go somewhere with a particular goal: Пойди на кухню, принеси воды. If it's a simple round trip, **сходи** is preferable: Сходи в магазин, купи молока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Иди** is more concerned with the process of moving: &quot;Стой! Теперь иди.&quot; although nowadays colloquially it can mean the same as пойди/сходи and it sounds a bit rude: Иди в магазин и купи молока.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15874" RevisionGUID="4b9ee26c-69ac-4fe6-ad82-befeaba0d38d" CreationDate="2018-02-26T09:55:27.560" UserId="2104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**Ходи(те)** is primarily used in negative sentences: &quot;Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять!&quot; **Иди, пойди** are only used in positive contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пойди** is telling someone to run an errant, to go somewhere with a particular goal: Пойди на кухню, принеси воды. If it's a simple round trip, **сходи** is preferable: Сходи в магазин, купи молока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Иди** is more concerned with the process of moving: &quot;Стой! Теперь иди.&quot; although nowadays colloquially it can mean the same as **пойди/сходи** and it sounds a bit rude: Иди в магазин и купи молока.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15871" RevisionGUID="232c3974-8bf8-48f9-b5ec-a2051544c92d" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:07:29.157" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It means &quot;also&quot;, &quot;also his daughters&quot;, nothing more. The meaning won't change if you don't use it at all. But the formal official style was like that. First they named men, they were more important, because it somehow was connected with payment, then they listed women, as additional information. That's why they used &quot;же&quot;(also)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15869" RevisionGUID="7f3b3eb3-bde3-40e2-9f9c-fc3103ea1740" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:16:28.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/968067232084439040" />
  <row Id="39742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="f7c22b1a-1f87-4058-8624-b62de5376d88" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:23:38.950" UserId="6907" Text="I'm trying to understand what is the difference in meaning between these two words: Завист and ревность, I used both in meaning of &quot;to be jealous&quot; but I was told by someone that there is a difference between them. What is this difference?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="f7c22b1a-1f87-4058-8624-b62de5376d88" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:23:38.950" UserId="6907" Text="Завист Vs. ревность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="f7c22b1a-1f87-4058-8624-b62de5376d88" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:23:38.950" UserId="6907" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15876" RevisionGUID="0cc6aad0-17b1-4fab-a45a-998a3e4e5d90" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:30:23.210" UserId="4600" Text="It's simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**зависть** – envy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ревность** – jealousy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are nouns. Note the spelling: it's &quot;завист**ь**&quot;, not &quot;завис**т**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="ffbcd737-3468-4e23-9a5e-550e9c1ef10f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:33:46.073" UserId="6907" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I'm trying to understand what is the difference in meaning between these two words: **Зависть** and **ревность**, I used both in meaning of &quot;to be jealous&quot; but I was told by someone that there is a difference between them (since the explanation was in Russian language I'm not sure that I understood it). What is this difference?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39747" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="b29af5ca-9bde-40f9-ac54-183134663a53" CreationDate="2018-02-26T10:42:46.493" UserId="3680" Comment="typo" Text="Зависть Vs. ревность" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15876" RevisionGUID="a97ee0b0-dde4-4ea9-872b-ed437988bf1b" CreationDate="2018-02-26T11:10:00.073" UserId="4600" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="It's simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**зависть** – envy (a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ревность** – jealousy (love-related, as if when a man is jealous of his wife)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are nouns. Note the spelling: it's &quot;завист**ь**&quot;, not &quot;завис**т**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15876" RevisionGUID="1268f951-a2c9-4e91-b7c4-6a2c0a674a00" CreationDate="2018-02-26T12:58:41.720" UserId="4600" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="It's simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**зависть** – envy (a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ревность** – jealousy (affection-related, as if when a man is jealous of his wife or children of their parents etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are nouns. Note the spelling: it's &quot;завист**ь**&quot;, not &quot;завис**т**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15877" RevisionGUID="17cf04e2-0173-4ee9-9301-abf1cd23a60e" CreationDate="2018-02-26T16:21:29.583" UserId="9602" Text="It’s normative to use accusative here (“я видел такое”), but in similar cases, especially in vernacular speech, genitive can also be heard (“я такого насмотрелся”). I think this stems from the extinct partitive case, further emphasizing the magnitude of things that were seen by suggesting those constituted only part of an even more magnificent whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15874" RevisionGUID="2aa09e49-7841-4467-9a47-f8f82acb009c" CreationDate="2018-02-26T18:52:44.617" UserId="2104" Comment="Typo: errant -&gt; errand" Text="**Ходи(те)** is primarily used in negative sentences: &quot;Не ходите, дети, в Африку гулять!&quot; **Иди, пойди** are only used in positive contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пойди** is telling someone to run an errand, to go somewhere with a particular goal: Пойди на кухню, принеси воды. If it's a simple round trip, **сходи** is preferable: Сходи в магазин, купи молока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Иди** is more concerned with the process of moving: &quot;Стой! Теперь иди.&quot; although nowadays colloquially it can mean the same as **пойди/сходи** and it sounds a bit rude: Иди в магазин и купи молока.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39752" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="130df2ef-1d15-4a14-8db4-690be669341f" CreationDate="2018-02-26T19:16:47.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/968203204654661633" />
  <row Id="39753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15878" RevisionGUID="582518bc-cac7-4c88-8762-f6c5ad981563" CreationDate="2018-02-26T21:08:20.123" UserId="7547" Text="It looks like a word formation mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the accusative has two supporting questions, *“кого”* (like in genitive) for animate objects and *“что”* (like in nominative) for inanimate objects. However, nominative-like inanimate case looks inconvenient *in spoken language* because it interferes with an actual subject in its legal nominative. So it is often unintentionally replaced with a wrong form. Then it becomes a habit and goes into a written language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it can be treated as a some sort of style." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="c9a591b4-9c56-446d-a02f-cbc6ecdae1d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T22:25:21.163" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting" Text="I would like to see contrasting examples of the imperatives of *to go*. What are the differences among these? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- ходи&#xD;&#xA;- иди&#xD;&#xA;- пойди&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="c9a591b4-9c56-446d-a02f-cbc6ecdae1d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T22:25:21.163" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39758" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="c9a591b4-9c56-446d-a02f-cbc6ecdae1d0" CreationDate="2018-02-26T22:25:21.163" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680 edit id of 958" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39759" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15799" RevisionGUID="7cb00e83-7e8d-4714-bb52-cdaa164e08a6" CreationDate="2018-02-26T22:30:45.383" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[14790],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9603,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Trey&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15879" RevisionGUID="f7246e57-8725-4d29-9be8-08ab20efdfc8" CreationDate="2018-02-27T00:00:22.753" UserId="10306" Text="The only sites answering this question are in Russian text, so I wanted to ask it here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15879" RevisionGUID="f7246e57-8725-4d29-9be8-08ab20efdfc8" CreationDate="2018-02-27T00:00:22.753" UserId="10306" Text="Difference between царь and король?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15879" RevisionGUID="f7246e57-8725-4d29-9be8-08ab20efdfc8" CreationDate="2018-02-27T00:00:22.753" UserId="10306" Text="|грамматика|узус|лексикон|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15880" RevisionGUID="c85934ec-f08a-45ea-a592-65cc18477c6e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T03:24:58.677" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between these two? According to wiktionary both are perfective forms of *говорит* but I'm not sure if they're really interchangeable. When should each one be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15880" RevisionGUID="c85934ec-f08a-45ea-a592-65cc18477c6e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T03:24:58.677" UserId="9603" Text="сказать VS поговорить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15880" RevisionGUID="c85934ec-f08a-45ea-a592-65cc18477c6e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T03:24:58.677" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15881" RevisionGUID="95f2036d-5086-4786-9884-e70c8a8e2acc" CreationDate="2018-02-27T04:47:34.450" UserId="5443" Text="The difference is mainly in *word origin*. **Царь** comes from **Caesar** and **король** comes from the name **Карл**, and its derivatives are used in Eastern Europe (however, it's **цар** in Bulgaria). The word **king** coming from German root is usually translated into Russian as **король** while Russian **царь** is used as **tzar/tsar** in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15882" RevisionGUID="28fedcf8-05bc-40c3-913f-4f951e81ff35" CreationDate="2018-02-27T07:13:32.780" UserId="10247" Text="Historically ***царь*** has been used to refer to any Russian monarch (as a general title) since Ivan IV (first to use it) till the last tsar Nicholas II. It was borrowed from the Byzantine Empire (cf. Ceasar) and traditionally used in Russian. ***Король*** on the contrary is used to refer to Western (Catholic, Latinized, etc.) kings. In Russian language ***король*** is associated with the west (Old World kings). In Russian historical texts you can see such titles as король Швеции (king of Sweden), король Пруссии (king of Prussia) - of almost any European country. All these terms usually mean either an absolute monarch or the most important ruler. **Царь** is the ruler of Russia. As the term 'emperor' (*император*) has been used since early 18th century for a Russian monarch, **царь** became a more traditional title. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15883" RevisionGUID="3c90580a-459e-43b3-8aef-838d385950b7" CreationDate="2018-02-27T07:37:56.740" UserId="10247" Text="If you work from the English word 'jealous' it is true that both these words can be used, but only in accurate senses. See OALD definitions for 'jealous':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) feeling angry or unhappy because somebody you like or love is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; showing interest in somebody else  - In Russian this implies&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ревность**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;2) jealous (of somebody/something) - feeling angry or unhappy because you wish you had something that somebody else has  - In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian it is **зависть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in these senses &quot;to be jealous (of)&quot; applies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for definitions of the Russian words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Зависть** usually means **envy**. And mostly used in this sense (sometimes in a positive way of course, or as a joke)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ревность** has at least 3 senses:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;1) Jealousy in love, feelings, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;2) Being angry when someone is successful and you are not (e.g. at work)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;3) *obsolete* *meaning*, zeal, huge desire, actions or energy to do or achieve something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15883" RevisionGUID="12f41795-449c-4a0f-97d9-aa2bb819fa0c" CreationDate="2018-02-27T07:48:22.607" UserId="10247" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="If you work from the English word 'jealous' it is true that both these words can be used, but only in accurate senses. See OALD definitions for 'jealous':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) feeling angry or unhappy because somebody you like or love is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; showing interest in somebody else  - In Russian this implies&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ревность**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      &#xD;&#xA;2) jealous (of somebody/something) - feeling angry or unhappy because you wish you had something that somebody else has  - In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian it is usually understood as **зависть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in these senses &quot;to be jealous (of)&quot; applies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for definitions of the Russian words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Зависть** usually means **envy**. And mostly used in this sense (sometimes in a positive way of course, or as a joke)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ревность** has at least 3 senses:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;1) Jealousy in love, feelings, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;2) Being angry when someone is successful and you are not (e.g. at work)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;       &#xD;&#xA;3) *obsolete* *meaning*, zeal, huge desire, actions or energy to do or achieve something" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15884" RevisionGUID="87f8c6ea-43fc-4eeb-8a9d-82b6a5425be4" CreationDate="2018-02-27T08:03:29.533" UserId="9603" Text="What is the function of *по одному* in the following sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Брежнев ехал на машине по одному из московских проспектов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research and [apparently][1] it means **one at a time**, that doesn't really make sense here, however. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isn't it better to just use something like *по улице* in this case?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15884" RevisionGUID="87f8c6ea-43fc-4eeb-8a9d-82b6a5425be4" CreationDate="2018-02-27T08:03:29.533" UserId="9603" Text="Interpretation of по-одному" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15884" RevisionGUID="87f8c6ea-43fc-4eeb-8a9d-82b6a5425be4" CreationDate="2018-02-27T08:03:29.533" UserId="9603" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15885" RevisionGUID="5bc81ec0-b969-4a46-8eb9-643de6bb5cab" CreationDate="2018-02-27T08:25:20.450" UserId="8895" Text="You are mixing two completely different cases here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **брал предметы по одному** - took the items **one at a time**. Here, &quot;по одному&quot; is an adverb;&#xD;&#xA;2. **ехал по одному из проспектов** - drove along **one of the** roads. In this case, &quot;один из проспектов&quot; is the object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39774" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15884" RevisionGUID="6118d73a-0c3f-4ea9-baba-5af8aaef792d" CreationDate="2018-02-27T11:00:16.340" UserId="1236" Comment="edited title" Text="Interpretation of &quot;по одному&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39777" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15879" RevisionGUID="bfbb697c-45ab-41d8-8192-e67e94ddb12f" CreationDate="2018-02-27T16:19:05.787" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/968520874931445760" />
  <row Id="39778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15886" RevisionGUID="fe2e6261-e0fb-4120-94d5-fc363d81746a" CreationDate="2018-02-27T16:22:06.520" UserId="4753" Text="Сказать means to make one or more statement which have the effect of informing the listener on some clearly identified subject. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скажите что я позвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хорошо, скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast поговорить means to have a talk with someone. It conveys the idea of uttering appropriate words in order to revolve a situation or to make one's position clear. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наш сын меня не слушает. Ты должен с ним поговорить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хорошо, я поговорю.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15887" RevisionGUID="a1c2bf1a-e89d-4743-a124-c334073f1990" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:04:26.773" UserId="8780" Text="How can I say &quot;A book with more than 1000 pages&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;с более&quot; or &quot;с больше&quot; does not make sense. Someone told me that there's not such a straightforward way to use &quot;более/больше&quot; preceded by a preposition requiring a case other than the accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15887" RevisionGUID="a1c2bf1a-e89d-4743-a124-c334073f1990" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:04:26.773" UserId="8780" Text="&quot;With more than...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15887" RevisionGUID="a1c2bf1a-e89d-4743-a124-c334073f1990" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:04:26.773" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15888" RevisionGUID="c0ab9a25-30f3-48f3-8531-8dfa95c76285" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:05:19.313" UserId="3680" Text="You could just say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Книга с более чем 1000 страницами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a literal translation and it makes a perfect sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15889" RevisionGUID="fb672946-9042-4488-92ab-51e73ea2dbba" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:22:07.117" UserId="4629" Text="Whilst @Dmitry's answer is technically 100% correct, I am yet to hear someone use such a construct in a conversation. Admittedly, this particular message is quite cumbersome to communicate across in Russian without sounding as an academic textbook...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - bearing in mind what you literally asked (&quot;How can I SAY&quot;) - a couple of more colloquial options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я тут за ночь прочёл книгу больше чем на триста страниц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Представляешь, Сергей Пертович издал книгу - больше тысячи страниц!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HTH" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15890" RevisionGUID="c68ebb45-44d8-432d-b021-9fc67a0b0ad0" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:23:47.850" UserId="9795" Text="1) книга с более чем тысячью страницами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) книга, имеющая более тысячи страниц" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15891" RevisionGUID="fbc10260-78f1-4243-8393-7ffa90ad74fb" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:33:22.340" UserId="2104" Text="Книга объёмом более 1000 страниц." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15384" RevisionGUID="883bf9a2-be23-4b2d-a902-e21f7c3f7187" CreationDate="2018-02-27T18:02:01.887" UserId="4629" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="&quot;José Antonio Bolcoff (1794–1866) was born Osip Volkov in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Siberia. Working for the Russian-American Company, Bolcoff was captured on shore by the Spanish in 1815. He quickly assimilated into the Spanish culture, and was given the name José Antonio Bolcof. Bolcoff traveled with Governor Pablo Vicente de Solá, acting as an interpreter. In 1822, Bolcoff settled in Branciforte and married María Candida Castro, grantee of Rancho Refugio. Bolcoff was alcade of Branciforte in 1833. In 1833, Bolcoff was granted the one square league Rancho San Augustin, and moved his family to the rancho and built an adobe. In 1839, Bolcoff replaced Francisco Soto as administrator of Mission Santa Cruz.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_San_Agustin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bolcoff's biography snippets I managed to find do not clarify his poor comand of Russian. One possibility is that, having not been sufficiently literate in the first place, he stopped using Russian fairly early in life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a direct quotation I came across:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Переводчик наш Осип Волков живет у его в доме и, как видно, пользуется отличною доверенностию. Я спросил его, чем приличнее услужить губернатору в будущее время? И он сказал, что-нибудь из вещей интересных и что возмет даже и звонкою монетою. Будучи в С.-Барбаре, я вызывался ему, что в Монтерее без его повысили пошлины и в С.-Круз взыскали и за деньги. «Да, – отвечал он, – это так должно!», и после сего отзыва я замолчал.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Reisen/XIX/1800-1820/Issl_russ_tich_ok_XIX/41-60/50.phtml?id=4142&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference &quot;креол&quot; may be misleading. Here is how Брокгауз и Ефрон define it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Креол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(от испанского criollo) — в обширном смысле слова каждый родившийся в стране индивидуум чужой расы. Поэтому в американских колониях родившиеся там негры не смешанной крови, в противоположность привезенным, называются К. (в Бразилии — Negro de nacao). В тесном смысле К. называются в прежних французских, испанских и португальских колониях Америки, а также Африки (Гвинея) и Остиндии, местные уроженцы чисто европейской крови (sangre azul), в противоположность родившимся в Европе эмигрантам, которые в бывшей испанской Америке называются чапетонами, в Мехике обыкновенно — гачупинами, в Бразилии — Portuguezes legitimos или Filhos do reino. В Бразилии белые местные уроженцы прозвали себя Brasileiros. Ср. Oelsner-Monomerque, &quot;Der Kreole&quot; (Б., 1848).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15884" RevisionGUID="9d7c7b14-e9f3-4834-b167-397d02f1e291" CreationDate="2018-02-27T19:19:05.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/968566173909561347" />
  <row Id="39789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15886" RevisionGUID="b7ec6748-46e7-47e0-9705-7fee2c8e73b7" CreationDate="2018-02-27T19:31:26.420" UserId="4753" Comment="typo" Text="Сказать means to make one or more statements which have the effect of informing the listener on some clearly identified subject. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скажите что я позвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хорошо, скажу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast поговорить means to have a talk with someone. It conveys the idea of uttering appropriate words in order to revolve a situation or to make one's position clear. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Наш сын меня не слушает. Ты должен с ним поговорить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Хорошо, я поговорю.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15892" RevisionGUID="4c2f0f80-7b49-483b-8df0-f0630352fb03" CreationDate="2018-02-27T23:48:04.180" UserId="4560" Text="If you must use `более`: **Книга более чем с тысячей страниц.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anti-prescriptivist as I like to think of myself as, I'm still a little peeved by `с более чем тысячей` and dismayed to see it here twice, but perhaps it's time for me to move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, **книга [длиной] в тысячу с лишним страниц** is what sounds good to me overall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13127" RevisionGUID="b510c004-3d86-4553-ac29-89a7881da720" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:20:53.360" UserId="4753" Comment="fixed typo" Text="The existing answers provide a wealth of interesting information. But the questioner is a beginner and so needs a simple guide to talking about marriage and weddings. Here is my attempt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Most Important Words About Weddings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брак***--the institution of marriage; a specific marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***вступить в брак***--to get married; literally &quot;to enter into marriage&quot;, &quot;to enter into matrimony&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***ЗАГС***--government office where civil marriage ceremonies are performed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадьба***--the ceremonies and festivities of the wedding day, especially the wedding feast (reception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жениться***--(of a man) to take a wife; (of a couple) to get married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***выйти замуж***--(of a woman) to get married; literally, to leave home to join a husband's household&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Examples**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я приглашен на свадьбу. I am invited to a wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У нас не было свадьбы. We did not have a wedding reception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна вышла замуж. Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван женился. Ivan got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иван и Анна женились. Ivan and Anna got married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как вы относитесь в сексу до брака/до свадьбы? What do you think about premarital sex?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Parties in Courtship and Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***жених***--a suitor, an betrothed man, a bridegroom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***невеста***--a betrothed woman, a bride&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруг***--a spouse (male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***супруга***--a spouse (female)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***спутник жизни***--a spouse of either sex; literally a life companion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More Words about Marriage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачный союз***--the marriage union&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***гражданский брак***--strictly speaking: a marriage entered into in a civil ceremony; informally: living together without marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бракосочетание***--the marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***венчание***--a church marriage ceremony&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свадебный пир***--the marriage feast, the wedding reception&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***замужество***--the state of a woman who is married&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***женитьба***--a man's or a couple's wedding; seems to be used to talk about the change in status rather than the festivities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***брачная ночь***--the wedding night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Words About Matchmaking and Engagement to Marry**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сваха***--a matchmaker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сводничество***--the act of matchmaking (take care since this can also refer to procuring of prostitutes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватать***--to recommend a match to someone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***свататься***--to make an offer of marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сватовство***--the act of proposing marriage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***сделать предложение***--to propose something (such as marriage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложить руку и сердца***--to offer heart and hand (made by a man to a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***предложение руки и сердце***---the offer of heart and hand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***просить руки***--to ask for a woman's hand in marriage (request made to parents)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***помолвка***--an engagement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15891" RevisionGUID="61e1b219-659a-4d2c-8d03-7eb3cc1f060b" CreationDate="2018-02-28T16:48:53.613" UserId="2104" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text=" * Книга объёмом более 1000 страниц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this pattern to describe other dimensions as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Гора высотой более 1000 метров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Река длиной более 1000 километров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dimension (объём, длина, высота) is in the instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word тысяча is in the genitive case: более тысячи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15889" RevisionGUID="a57576bc-fd8e-4a23-becb-daf98a575e15" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:49:57.537" UserDisplayName="user10069" Comment="Fixed a typo." Text="Whilst @Dmitry's answer is technically 100% correct, I am yet to hear someone use such a construct in a conversation. Admittedly, this particular message is quite cumbersome to communicate across in Russian without sounding as an academic textbook...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - bearing in mind what you literally asked (&quot;How can I SAY&quot;) - a couple of more colloquial options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я тут за ночь прочёл книгу больше чем на триста страниц.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Представляешь, Сергей Петрович издал книгу - больше тысячи страниц!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39794" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15889" RevisionGUID="a57576bc-fd8e-4a23-becb-daf98a575e15" CreationDate="2018-02-28T19:49:57.537" Comment="Proposed by 10069 approved by 3680 edit id of 959" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39795" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15887" RevisionGUID="f820cfb0-2a56-417c-a174-b0534b2c584b" CreationDate="2018-03-01T10:29:00.687" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/969157549282021377" />
  <row Id="39797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15894" RevisionGUID="38a15a71-24b0-48d8-a169-d5bcb0a1cc64" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:20:18.497" UserId="7674" Text="An English equivalent is the word &quot;**same**&quot; used as a replacement for a noun or a pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ilya Rostov, his sons, daughters **of the same**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15894" RevisionGUID="341ff0fa-d027-419c-8225-322f4ea45917" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:29:24.910" UserId="7674" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="An English equivalent is the word &quot;**same**&quot; used as a replacement for a noun or a pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ilya Rostov, his sons, daughters **of the same**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With inanimate owners in English **thereof** could be used with the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15894" RevisionGUID="e6feb337-ffbe-494f-ae5e-9a1a85737448" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:43:07.290" UserId="7674" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="An English equivalent is the word &quot;**same**&quot; used as a replacement for a noun or a pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ilya Rostov, his sons, daughters **of the same**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With inanimate owners in English **thereof** could be used with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In enumeration of items belonging to the same owner or acts performed by the same actor **же** precedes the last item to connect it with the same referent which was already mentioned earlier, especially if its connection with that referent would seem unlikely or unusual just to emphasize that it still refers thereto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сам делал кладку, штукатурил, стелил полы и он **же** разрабатывал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проект&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15894" RevisionGUID="1da33547-a325-46bd-8a23-4433d1055ed7" CreationDate="2018-03-01T19:48:24.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="An English equivalent is the word &quot;**same**&quot; used as a replacement for a noun or a pronoun&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ilya Rostov, his sons, daughters **of the same**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With inanimate owners in English **thereof** could be used with the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In enumeration of items belonging to the same owner or acts performed by the same actor **же** precedes the last item to connect it with the same referent which was already mentioned earlier, especially if its connection with that referent would seem unlikely or unusual just to emphasize that it still refers thereto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сам делал кладку, штукатурил, стелил полы *и он **же*** разрабатывал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проект&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15871" RevisionGUID="caec940d-d007-424f-9b50-0a1357f6d2ab" CreationDate="2018-03-02T04:16:26.760" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It means &quot;also&quot;, **&quot;also his daughters&quot;**, nothing more. The meaning won't change if you don't use it at all. But the formal official style was like that. First they named men, they were more important, because it somehow was connected with payment, then they listed women, as additional information. That's why they used &quot;же&quot;(also)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15896" RevisionGUID="777b4430-96fd-4572-8f8a-af09751e4375" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:49:51.703" UserId="8744" Text="It isn't only literary, you can hear it in colloquial speech and rustic dialect, and in phraseology and idioms. Or just  to express you feelings brighter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39806" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15813" RevisionGUID="14195831-07c4-477c-a850-760453edb621" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:56:33.613" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[15256],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15897" RevisionGUID="0e28dc9f-c03c-4ba9-ba67-0194fff9a3bc" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:11:09.887" UserId="10319" Text="If you don't know someone's отчество, how should you address them at the beginning of a letter/email? As господин/госпожа?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15897" RevisionGUID="0e28dc9f-c03c-4ba9-ba67-0194fff9a3bc" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:11:09.887" UserId="10319" Text="Form of address when you don't know отчество" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15897" RevisionGUID="0e28dc9f-c03c-4ba9-ba67-0194fff9a3bc" CreationDate="2018-03-02T17:11:09.887" UserId="10319" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15898" RevisionGUID="fe3bfe7f-d4db-4253-87b8-5bb0b59ebe69" CreationDate="2018-03-02T19:00:17.607" UserId="4629" Text="&quot;Глубокоуважаемый(-ая) господин(-жа) LAST_NAME!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15899" RevisionGUID="1ca8b3aa-9f27-4b56-b0f2-959b72205645" CreationDate="2018-03-02T19:19:19.203" UserId="3680" Text="I cannot come up with anything except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [`Уважаемый`/`Дорогой`/`Здравствуйте`] [`господин`] `Имя` [`Отчество`/`Фамилия`/`Отчество Фамилия`]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [`Уважаемый`/`Дорогой`/`Здравствуйте`] [`господин`] `Фамилия` `Имя` [`Отчество`]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой Иван Иванович!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый г-н Петр Петрович Петров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Анатолий Вассерман!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Вассерман Анатолий Александрович!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, Толя!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15868" RevisionGUID="a1bd6b7a-be7e-42a1-a35e-dfe6d193f0a1" CreationDate="2018-03-03T01:29:05.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/969746450426056704" />
  <row Id="39817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15900" RevisionGUID="c47b2029-0b22-4a9d-9351-18f5a7796f5f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T04:57:51.783" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я **должен был предвидеть**, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the conditional aspect of this phrasing, I'd expected to see the conditional marker &quot;бы&quot;. I wonder why you can drop &quot;бы&quot; in this particular instance, even though we're clearly talking about something that didn't happen in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the literal translation is something like: &quot;I **had to be foreseeing** that ...&quot;. Incidentally, you'd use the conditional tense &quot;j'aurais dû ...&quot; in French to describe the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is there another phrasing like this that conveys a conditional meaning without using  &quot;бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15900" RevisionGUID="c47b2029-0b22-4a9d-9351-18f5a7796f5f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T04:57:51.783" UserId="8672" Text="Why is the conditional marker &quot;бы&quot; omitted from the construction &quot;Я должен был предвидеть, что ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15900" RevisionGUID="c47b2029-0b22-4a9d-9351-18f5a7796f5f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T04:57:51.783" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15900" RevisionGUID="e131b55c-ccd4-48db-82de-ff2d67af5ff3" CreationDate="2018-03-03T08:43:15.637" UserId="8672" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я **должен был предвидеть**, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the conditional aspect of this phrasing, I'd expected to see the conditional marker &quot;бы&quot;. I wonder why you can drop &quot;бы&quot; in this particular instance, even though we're clearly talking about something that didn't happen in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the literal translation is something like: &quot;I **had to be foreseeing / expecting** that ...&quot;. Incidentally, you'd use the conditional tense &quot;j'aurais dû ...&quot; in French to describe the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is there another phrasing like this that conveys a conditional meaning without using  &quot;бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15901" RevisionGUID="cfc9296a-517f-4acd-b30f-d3955f69c5ba" CreationDate="2018-03-03T09:18:09.477" UserId="6097" Text="I don't see conditional aspect here. It's past tense. Compare to &quot;Я должен был пойти в кино (но остался дома)&quot;.  Anyway, you can say it with &quot;бы&quot; too: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я должен был бы предвидеть, что..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15900" RevisionGUID="0c80b42b-8cb4-4ab4-95c9-519959d3af39" CreationDate="2018-03-03T10:07:49.930" UserId="8672" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я **должен был предвидеть**, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the counterfactual conditional aspect of this phrasing, I'd expected to see the conditional marker &quot;бы&quot;. I wonder why you can drop &quot;бы&quot; in this particular instance, even though we're clearly talking about something that didn't happen in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the literal translation is something like: &quot;I **had to be foreseeing / expecting** that ...&quot;. Incidentally, you'd use the conditional tense &quot;j'aurais dû ...&quot; in French to describe the same idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Is there another phrasing like this that conveys a conditional meaning without using  &quot;бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15867" RevisionGUID="a0025f58-6267-4a0e-9b3b-c22ab0e3fb0c" CreationDate="2018-03-03T10:29:05.760" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/969882345854652416" />
  <row Id="39824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15902" RevisionGUID="e3162bd5-34ed-4a76-b73c-2e8365bc368c" CreationDate="2018-03-03T10:29:13.600" UserId="7674" Text="The following quotation may explain this phenomenon, although in the source article it doesn't directly relate to sentences of the type in question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможность опущения частицы сослагательного наклонения при глаголе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мочь** и прилагательном **должен** связана с тем, что эти модальные слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частично синонимичны сослагательному наклонению: они участвуют в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначении ситуации, которая является не вполне реализованной ([Bybee&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995]; [Добрушина 2014]). Это свойство модальных предикатов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проявляется и в других конструкциях, например в относительных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source http://rusgram.ru/Сослагательное_наклонение#423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15903" RevisionGUID="0608dfc8-2884-4cd8-b8f7-574e064e1c59" CreationDate="2018-03-03T10:37:52.810" UserId="2244" Text="    Я должен был предвидеть, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    …we're clearly talking about something that didn't happen in the past.&#xD;&#xA;If you are absolutely sure (from a larger context) that you are talking about a counterfactual event, then your Russian phrase is wrong. What is your source? If not a good book, then it's probably a case of hypercorrection (similar to an English &quot;he invited my husband and I to lunch&quot;), because there is indeed a &quot;low literacy&quot; marker of people using more &quot;бы&quot; than the grammar calls for, [here's](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#33) a description of such overuse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a read if that huge article anyway, maybe 4.1 is your case - it still does require the particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarise the article, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сослагательное наклонение обозначает ситуации, не существующие в реальном мире.&#xD;&#xA;    Сослагательное наклонение выражается аналитически с помощью частицы бы (б).&#xD;&#xA;Full stop :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15903" RevisionGUID="f6694c1f-e2ec-4cda-8827-8b89c6a73d03" CreationDate="2018-03-03T10:47:57.000" UserId="2244" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="    Я должен был предвидеть, что …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    …we're clearly talking about something that didn't happen in the past.&#xD;&#xA;If you are absolutely sure (from a larger context) that you are talking about a counterfactual event, then your Russian phrase is wrong. What is your source? If not a good book, then it's probably a case of hypercorrection (similar to an English &quot;he invited my husband and I to lunch&quot;), because there is indeed a &quot;low literacy&quot; marker of people using more &quot;бы&quot; than the grammar calls for, [here's](http://rusgram.ru/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#33) a description of such overuse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a read if that huge article anyway, maybe 4.1 is your case - it still does require the particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarise the article, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сослагательное наклонение обозначает ситуации, не существующие в реальном мире.&#xD;&#xA;    Сослагательное наклонение выражается аналитически с помощью частицы бы (б).&#xD;&#xA;Full stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you assume that &quot;Я должен был предвидеть, что…&quot; by itself indicates a counterfactual aspect, then perhaps it's your view on life that needs adjustment. Or at least your Russian grammar! ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Counterfactuality here doesn't follow from &quot;Я должен был&quot;. In Russian the phrase is simply a factual statement about the past - he had to have foreseen (he didn't foresee, but still *had* to)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15902" RevisionGUID="99253fb3-95ea-4f28-9efc-bb78737e6b77" CreationDate="2018-03-03T11:07:46.137" UserId="7674" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="The following quotation may explain this phenomenon, although in the source article it doesn't directly relate to sentences of the type in question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможность опущения частицы сослагательного наклонения при глаголе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мочь** и прилагательном **должен** связана с тем, что эти модальные слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частично синонимичны сослагательному наклонению: они участвуют в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначении ситуации, которая является не вполне реализованной ([Bybee&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995]; [Добрушина 2014]). Это свойство модальных предикатов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проявляется и в других конструкциях, например в относительных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source http://rusgram.ru/Сослагательное_наклонение#423&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in a classic conditional sentence with conjunction **если бы/будь** the particle **бы** would absolutely have to be added to the adjective **должен**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Если бы** я **был**/**Будь** я ясновидящим, я **должен был бы** предвидеть, что нам отключат воду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15902" RevisionGUID="2de92557-fc86-4865-9e31-86446f206d12" CreationDate="2018-03-03T11:13:54.520" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="The following quotation may explain this phenomenon, although in the source article it doesn't directly relate to sentences of the type in question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможность опущения частицы сослагательного наклонения при глаголе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мочь** и прилагательном **должен** связана с тем, что эти модальные слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частично синонимичны сослагательному наклонению: они участвуют в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначении ситуации, которая является не вполне реализованной ([Bybee&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995]; [Добрушина 2014]). Это свойство модальных предикатов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проявляется и в других конструкциях, например в относительных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source http://rusgram.ru/Сослагательное_наклонение#423&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in a classic conditional sentence with conjunction **если бы/будь** the particle **бы** would absolutely have to be appended&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Если бы** я **был**/**Будь** я ясновидящим, я **должен был бы** предвидеть, что нам отключат воду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15904" RevisionGUID="08019921-f1fe-42c8-9706-ff385dfd852d" CreationDate="2018-03-03T12:11:46.957" UserId="6539" Text="There are sentences when the **conditional** clause is marked with **бы**, and the main clause is used in the **indicative** because we have modal verbs **мочь и должен** instead. The rule is about **counterfactual** (unrealized ) events. That's just your sentence, though it has only main clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы в мои планы входило украсть что-нибудь, я мог вынести даже прилавок. [А. Геласимов. Год обмана (2003)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конечно, бабушка и без нее бы обошлась, но если бы она не взялась помогать, в семье могла произойти ссора. [«Мурзилка» (2002)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если бы они померли сами, то должны были где-нибудь валяться. [А. Геласимов. Степные боги (2008)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another possibility to omit бы, when it is used for **politeness or to express wish**. We can have indicative mood after if, and **бы** in the main clause. &#xD;&#xA;The situation refers to **present or future** and can be realized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но если нам по пути, я проводил бы вас… с вашего позволения…[Ю. Буйда. Город палачей (2003)] (politeness )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но, если вы не возражаете, я бы спросил вас кое о чем предварительно. [В. Белоусова. По субботам не стреляю (2000)] (politeness )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Людмила Викторовна, раз уж зашла речь, я бы хотел попросить ненадолго ваши камни, те, с которыми Аркадий Викторович экспериментировал. [Е. Парнов. Третий глаз Шивы (1985)] (politeness )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ее выгнали из квартиры, оставила бы мне весточку. [В. Бережков. Рядом со Сталиным (1998)](wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «А вы если не смогли со всем разобраться, то подавали бы давно рапорт, уходили б в отставку!» [О. Павлов. Казенная сказка (1993)](wish)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15905" RevisionGUID="e5b3761c-ce8f-4d09-97a1-cf9f457d982f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T12:36:03.107" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;First ..., and now this!? **So much for** a peaceful vacation!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you use the expression &quot;so much for X&quot; ironically and dejectedly when something didn't turn out the way you'd hoped. In this specific example, something put a damper on what was supposed to be a peaceful vacation. I wonder if the following two phrases sound idiomatic enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First ..., and now this!? **Не слишком ли это для** &quot;мирного отпуска&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;First ..., and now this!? **Это уж слишком для** &quot;мирного отпуска&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39831" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15905" RevisionGUID="e5b3761c-ce8f-4d09-97a1-cf9f457d982f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T12:36:03.107" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of the English idiom &quot;So much for (a peaceful vacation)!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39832" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15905" RevisionGUID="e5b3761c-ce8f-4d09-97a1-cf9f457d982f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T12:36:03.107" UserId="8672" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15906" RevisionGUID="de77a0ff-6767-4b30-832d-e34a2f46801d" CreationDate="2018-03-03T12:42:49.160" UserId="7674" Text="Yes they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот такой (вот) &quot;мирный отпуск&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот тебе и &quot;мирный отпуск&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Про &quot;мирный отпуск&quot; можно забыть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коту под хвост весь &quot;мирный отпуск&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And use many more other options](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=so+much+for&amp;l1=1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15906" RevisionGUID="6dfce98d-c617-480a-bab4-5e9bb90720c6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T12:50:23.460" UserId="7674" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Yes they do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the Russian phrase would be more accurately back rendered in English as **too much for** rather than **so much for** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While **so much for** can be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот такой (вот) &quot;мирный отпуск&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот тебе и &quot;мирный отпуск&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Про &quot;мирный отпуск&quot; можно забыть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коту под хвост весь &quot;мирный отпуск&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[... and with many more other options](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&amp;s=so+much+for&amp;l1=1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15899" RevisionGUID="f3524a38-35ea-4650-8c74-5b2eb41f4d57" CreationDate="2018-03-03T14:06:09.287" UserId="1097" Comment="removed doubling [Отчество / Фамилия]" Text="I cannot come up with anything except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [`Уважаемый`/`Дорогой`/`Здравствуйте,`] [`господин`] `Имя` [`Отчество` / `Фамилия`]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [`Уважаемый`/`Дорогой`/`Здравствуйте,`] [`господин`] `Фамилия` `Имя` [`Отчество`]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой Иван Иванович!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый г-н Петр Петрович Петров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Анатолий Вассерман!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Вассерман Анатолий Александрович!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, Толя!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15907" RevisionGUID="d71d44d9-2a8d-4eae-9320-e18483b43e4f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T15:17:12.527" UserId="10270" Text="The word for a Russian is Русский. The word for the Russian language is по-русский or русский язык (i.e. they are the same). So you could say я Русский.&#xD;&#xA;However the word for an Englishman is Англичанин and the word for English is по-английский (i.e. they are not the same). So you can't say я Английский. Similarly the words for an Italian and for the Italian language (итальянец, итальянский) are not the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15907" RevisionGUID="d71d44d9-2a8d-4eae-9320-e18483b43e4f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T15:17:12.527" UserId="10270" Text="I am confused by the difference between the word for a language and the word for a people who speak thet language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15907" RevisionGUID="d71d44d9-2a8d-4eae-9320-e18483b43e4f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T15:17:12.527" UserId="10270" Text="|прилагательные|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15899" RevisionGUID="ba793512-1cba-4e5c-9b0d-a71fde6f4956" CreationDate="2018-03-03T15:22:50.633" UserId="3680" Comment="added description of square brackets" Text="I cannot come up with anything except:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [`Уважаемый`/`Дорогой`/`Здравствуйте,`] [`господин`] `Имя` [`Отчество`] [`Фамилия`]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [`Уважаемый`/`Дорогой`/`Здравствуйте,`] [`господин`] `Фамилия` `Имя` [`Отчество`]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Here each pair of square brackets indicates an optional part._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой Иван Иванович!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый г-н Петр Петрович Петров!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Анатолий Вассерман!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Вассерман Анатолий Александрович!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, Толя!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39840" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15905" RevisionGUID="b0411652-2b22-48cd-a76b-01d7f773ede2" CreationDate="2018-03-03T16:13:54.027" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|одним-словом|idioms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15908" RevisionGUID="74ac3d1c-f204-4b2a-b646-19b7570042b0" CreationDate="2018-03-03T17:22:38.027" UserId="1236" Text="Yes, in Russian, the name of the nationality is usually different from the name of the language. That's because nationalities are _nouns_, English often has the same difference: nationality is _Pole_, but the language is _Polish_, _Spaniard_ and _Spanish_, _Swede_ and *Swedish*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The languages are usually named with *adjectives*, but that's simply because the word &quot;language&quot; is omitted: *[the] English [language]* ~ *английский [язык]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;I'm a Pole&quot; is &quot;Я поляк&quot; (nouns in both languages), and &quot;I study [the] Polish [language]&quot; is correspondingly &quot;Я изучаю польский [язык]&quot; (adjectives in both languages).&lt;br/&gt;**Note**: the only exception is &quot;Russian&quot;  (русский), since the nationality is expressed by a substantivized adjective which is identical with the adjective naming the language: &quot;Я русский&quot; vs. &quot;Я изучаю русский [язык].&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *по-* words are a bit different. They are *adverbs* and are used mostly after verbs dealing with speech, such as *to speak, to talk, to think, to write, to read* (говорить, разговаривать, думать, писать, читать). After such verbs, the *по-* adverbs can be substituted with a prepositional noun phrase **на + language name in the prepositional case**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю по-русски. / Я говорю на русском [языке].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не умею читать по-китайски. / Я не умею читать на китайском [языке].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when there are no those speech verbs, ot the verb is &quot;to&quot; be, only the **на** forms are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эта книга на французском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of some countries with their nationalities and languages. And remember, since nationalities in Russian are nouns and designate people, they all have the other form for females, and also plural forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Country: Nationality (male) - Language - In ... language**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Россия: русский - русский [язык] - по-русски / на русском &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Англия: англичанин - английский [язык] - по-английски / на английском [языке] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Украина: украинец - украинский [язык] - по-украински / на украинском [языке] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Италия: итальянец - итальянский [язык] - по-итальянски / на итальянском [языке] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Франция: француз - французский [язык] - по-французски / на французском [языке] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Польша: поляк - польский [язык] - по-польски / на польском [языке] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** In Russian, the names of the nationalities and languages are capitalized only if they are the first word in a sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15902" RevisionGUID="e65d3de2-4fdb-4a5f-b561-e3300e20a36b" CreationDate="2018-03-03T18:15:54.287" UserId="7674" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="The following quotation may explain this phenomenon, although in the source article it doesn't directly relate to sentences of the type in question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможность опущения частицы сослагательного наклонения при глаголе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мочь** и прилагательном **должен** связана с тем, что эти модальные слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частично синонимичны сослагательному наклонению: они участвуют в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначении ситуации, которая является не вполне реализованной ([Bybee&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995]; [Добрушина 2014]). Это свойство модальных предикатов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проявляется и в других конструкциях, например в относительных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source http://rusgram.ru/Сослагательное_наклонение#423&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in a classic conditional sentence with conjunction **если бы/будь** the particle **бы** would absolutely have to be appended&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Если бы** я **был**/**Будь** я ясновидящим, я **должен был бы** предвидеть, что нам отключат воду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But like other participants i tend to think that your example isn't a part of a conditional sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as in English one can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I `would have to` foresee, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I `would have foreseen`, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I `had to` foresee, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which all express different moods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15902" RevisionGUID="36320f71-470f-4acd-9a7d-c57d10966a49" CreationDate="2018-03-03T18:21:51.377" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="The following quotation may explain this phenomenon, although in the source article it doesn't directly relate to sentences of the type in question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможность опущения частицы сослагательного наклонения при глаголе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **мочь** и прилагательном **должен** связана с тем, что эти модальные слова&#xD;&#xA;&gt; частично синонимичны сослагательному наклонению: они участвуют в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обозначении ситуации, которая является не вполне реализованной ([Bybee&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1995]; [Добрушина 2014]). Это свойство модальных предикатов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; проявляется и в других конструкциях, например в относительных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложениях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source http://rusgram.ru/Сослагательное_наклонение#423&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in a classic conditional sentence with conjunction **если бы/будь** the particle **бы** would absolutely have to be appended&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Если бы** я **был**/**Будь** я ясновидящим, я **должен был бы** предвидеть, что нам отключат воду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But like other participants i tend to think that your example isn't a part of a conditional sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as in English one can say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I `would have to` foresee, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I `would have had` to foresee, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I `had to` foresee, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which all express different moods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15896" RevisionGUID="dd58d6bd-fb90-46ea-a2d6-964359cb628b" CreationDate="2018-03-03T18:27:13.567" UserId="8744" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="It isn't only literary, you can hear it in colloquial speech and rustic dialect, and in phraseology and idioms. Or just  to express you feelings brighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &quot;Я горжусь тоб**ой**&quot; (I proud  of you) - is just regular phrase, means exactly what it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;Я горжусь тоб**ою**!&quot; - has a lot of feelings inside, mostly warm. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15904" RevisionGUID="5fb06a12-7199-4c54-b88e-4218517b1002" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:16:24.553" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are sentences when the **conditional** clause is marked with **бы**, and the main clause is used in the **indicative** because we have modal verbs **мочь и должен** instead. The rule is about **counterfactual** (unrealized ) events. That's just your sentence, though it has only main clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы в мои планы входило украсть что-нибудь, я мог вынести даже прилавок. [А. Геласимов. Год обмана (2003)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конечно, бабушка и без нее бы обошлась, но если бы она не взялась помогать, в семье могла произойти ссора. [«Мурзилка» (2002)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если бы они померли сами, то должны были где-нибудь валяться. [А. Геласимов. Степные боги (2008)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another possibility to omit бы, when it is used for **politeness or to express wish**. We can have indicative mood after if, and **бы** in the main clause. &#xD;&#xA;The situation refers to **present or future** and can be realized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Но если нам по пути, я проводил бы вас… с вашего позволения…[Ю. Буйда. Город палачей (2003)] (politeness )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но, если вы не возражаете, я бы спросил вас кое о чем предварительно. [В. Белоусова. По субботам не стреляю (2000)] (politeness )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Людмила Викторовна, раз уж зашла речь, я бы хотел попросить ненадолго ваши камни, те, с которыми Аркадий Викторович экспериментировал. [Е. Парнов. Третий глаз Шивы (1985)] (politeness )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ее выгнали из квартиры, оставила бы мне весточку. [В. Бережков. Рядом со Сталиным (1998)] (wish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «А вы если не смогли со всем разобраться, то подавали бы давно рапорт, уходили б в отставку!» [О. Павлов. Казенная сказка (1993)] (wish)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15909" RevisionGUID="ff80303a-5195-4cfa-9948-65256a03d4d6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:46:25.123" UserId="6907" Text="Will it be correct if I translate &quot;It depends on the context&quot; into &quot;**Это зависит *от* контекста**&quot;? I understand that always I have to use the preposition &quot;от&quot; rather than other prepositions (e.g. Это зависит *от* погода). Isn't it? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15909" RevisionGUID="ff80303a-5195-4cfa-9948-65256a03d4d6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:46:25.123" UserId="6907" Text="How to say &quot;It depends on the context&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15909" RevisionGUID="ff80303a-5195-4cfa-9948-65256a03d4d6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:46:25.123" UserId="6907" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15910" RevisionGUID="f4c12869-fef7-45c8-998d-01d7fa0681e5" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:58:37.820" UserId="6551" Text="I mean plural genitive in &quot;отряды драгун, улан, гусар, рейтар, кирасир, партизан, гренадир&quot;, but for some reason that doesn't apply to &quot;отряды мушкетёров, юнкеров, сапёров и казаков&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Why does this apply to some unit types, but not the others? It's not &quot;native vs non-native&quot; or &quot;modern vs historical&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Has it always been like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15910" RevisionGUID="f4c12869-fef7-45c8-998d-01d7fa0681e5" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:58:37.820" UserId="6551" Text="Why do many military unit types have weird declension?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15910" RevisionGUID="f4c12869-fef7-45c8-998d-01d7fa0681e5" CreationDate="2018-03-03T19:58:37.820" UserId="6551" Text="|склонение|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15911" RevisionGUID="7b4091d0-0785-4cb2-82a6-301450a004d4" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:00:47.800" UserId="6539" Text="Зависит (verb) is used with the &quot;fixed &quot;preposition &quot;от&quot; followed by genitive case -родительный падеж. Зависит от чего?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;зависит от контекста, от погоды, от него." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="5069d8e3-8623-4b60-97b1-b2738ea7f7eb" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:07:41.253" UserId="6907" Text="Why is the letters M and T are similar in hand writing in Russian language? (m &amp; м) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: от &gt; *от*. Vs. oм&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="5069d8e3-8623-4b60-97b1-b2738ea7f7eb" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:07:41.253" UserId="6907" Text="Why is the letters M and T are similar in hand writing in Russian language? ((m &amp; м)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="5069d8e3-8623-4b60-97b1-b2738ea7f7eb" CreationDate="2018-03-03T20:07:41.253" UserId="6907" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15905" RevisionGUID="c845f461-0220-4737-952f-433ce4b8d69f" CreationDate="2018-03-03T22:29:23.520" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/970063614852980736" />
  <row Id="39858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="53531733-8ece-49e2-909f-23c3392de336" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:10:23.330" UserId="3680" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is the letters M and T (`м` and `m`) are similar in hand writing in Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: от &amp;rarr; *от*. vs. *oм*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="53531733-8ece-49e2-909f-23c3392de336" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:10:23.330" UserId="3680" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why is the letters M and T are similar in hand writing in Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="54deee5f-13e2-4f52-b039-541835277425" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:43:14.983" UserId="6907" Comment="edited body" Text="Why is the letters M and T (`м` and `m`) are similar in hand writing in Russian language? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: от &amp;rarr; *оm*. vs. *oм*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39866" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15912" RevisionGUID="c12ecc03-7bed-4975-a237-9f97090b0d60" CreationDate="2018-03-04T10:12:50.013" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1552],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="39867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15916" RevisionGUID="66ea71fa-47c6-422e-9fe1-64e8b1ef4e53" CreationDate="2018-03-04T10:24:01.153" UserId="9603" Text="Is it rude to use imperative with imperfective verbs?&#xD;&#xA;Like, suppose you are a customs officer asking someone to open their case , you could probably(I'm just guessing at this point) say either: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; откройте , пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; открывайте , пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually I'd go for the former since, from my experience, perfective verbs are more  likely to be used in this kind of construction(again, this is pure speculation).&#xD;&#xA;So the question is , does it really matter which one you choose here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15916" RevisionGUID="66ea71fa-47c6-422e-9fe1-64e8b1ef4e53" CreationDate="2018-03-04T10:24:01.153" UserId="9603" Text="Imperative with imperfective verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15916" RevisionGUID="66ea71fa-47c6-422e-9fe1-64e8b1ef4e53" CreationDate="2018-03-04T10:24:01.153" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15917" RevisionGUID="695ff326-0295-484c-b40f-0f3328ebfcc4" CreationDate="2018-03-04T11:07:57.727" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, **откройте** sounds more polite, especially when followed by **пожалуйста.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Открывайте** is more likely to be followed by **сейчас же!** (immediately!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15916" RevisionGUID="4b6a4b48-fe4a-4cb6-8f18-4aa17c430b87" CreationDate="2018-03-04T11:10:59.370" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Is it rude to use imperative with imperfective verbs?&#xD;&#xA;Like, suppose you are a customs officer asking someone to open their case, you could probably (I'm just guessing at this point) say either: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; откройте, пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; открывайте, пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually I'd go for the former since, from my experience, perfective verbs are more likely to be used in this kind of construction (again, this is pure speculation).&#xD;&#xA;So the question is, does it really matter which one you choose here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15918" RevisionGUID="73e0ad6b-b1d2-4aaa-984e-d4b111c7fd54" CreationDate="2018-03-04T16:21:44.727" UserId="7674" Text="*Imperfective imperati*ve is not necessarily rude if mitigated by some words of politeness and/or intonation and verbosity, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, давайте, открывайте скоренько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without such dampers it certainly may be perceived as confrontational, more aggressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the difference between them stems from the fact that semantically *perfective imperative* is a one-off demand, which leaves to the addressee the freedom of refusal or non-compliance.  &#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperative* on the other hand expresses importunate persistent demand showing that the speaker isn't inclined to back off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's however a pointedly rude and disrespectful imperative which cannot be tempered by any politesse, and it's *past tense perfective* form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыл/а/и!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встал/а/и!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал, отжался!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15918" RevisionGUID="211f27ba-d2a4-426f-a130-4897f33498d8" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:14:06.557" UserId="7674" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="*Imperfective imperati*ve is not necessarily rude if mitigated by some words of politeness and/or intonation and verbosity, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, давайте, открывайте скоренько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without such dampers it certainly may be perceived as confrontational, more aggressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the difference between them stems from the fact that semantically *perfective imperative* is a one-off demand, which leaves to the addressee the freedom of refusal or non-compliance.  &#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperative* on the other hand expresses importunate persistent demand showing that the speaker isn't inclined to back off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's however a pointedly rude and disrespectful imperative which cannot be tempered by any politesse, and it's *past tense perfective* form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыл/а/и!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встал/а/и!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал, отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form not only demands action but demands that it invariably be done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="9188769d-efb1-4ec1-b883-14e2591bda7f" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:50:25.670" UserId="7547" Comment="Fix a broken link and some typography misusage" Text="This is for historical reasons, and the form of the Russian italic ‘*т*’ is, actually, related to both ‘т’ and Latin ‘m’. Before the invention of printing the typical handwriting style used for writing books in Russia was [полуустав][1], in which the shape of ‘T’ was like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Halfustav cyrillic T letter][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, it had long serifs going down from the horizontal bar, and they very often reached the line on which the letters stand, making ‘т’ look like ‘ш’ turned upside down. When book printing began in Russia, the first movable types copied this полуустав. In 1708 Peter the Great commanded a reform of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, eliminating several letters and changing the shapes of the printed letters so that they look more like the Dutch Antiqua of that time, he chose the shapes himself (Peter spent some time in the Netherlands and liked everything Dutch). This reformed alphabet is called “гражданский шрифт” (civil script/font). Now the Russian alphabet looked like this (the 4 lines at the top are upper-case letters, the rest is lower case.):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seemed quite natural for Peter that ‘*m*’ is the closest Antiqua shape to an upside-down ‘ш’. There's a detailed [article][4] in Russian about the reform. This shape of the letters was used during all the 18th century and the first third of the 19th, only the shape of ‘з’ was used rather early instead of Peter’s “s”, also ‘и’ and ‘й’ were reintroduced. Later, the modern shape of a lower-case ‘т’ was used, but in italics and handwriting we still use the shape that was introduced by Peter the Great and continues the tradition of handwritten books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20120729124940/http://www.callig.ru/history/rus-halfustav&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aTP0O.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rb8l0.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://fontproblem.narod.ru/index.html?http://fontproblem.narod.ru/crosref/aticles/Peter_reforma.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39877" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1554" RevisionGUID="9188769d-efb1-4ec1-b883-14e2591bda7f" CreationDate="2018-03-04T18:50:25.670" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 1236 edit id of 961" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15918" RevisionGUID="c8dd0462-1590-4e17-9afc-66b100095d8d" CreationDate="2018-03-04T19:19:26.423" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="It does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperati*ve is not necessarily rude if mitigated by some words of politeness and/or intonation and verbosity, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, давайте, открывайте скоренько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without such dampers it certainly may be perceived as confrontational, more aggressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the difference between them stems from the fact that semantically *perfective imperative* is a one-off demand, which leaves to the addressee the freedom of refusal or non-compliance.  &#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperative* on the other hand expresses importunate persistent demand showing that the speaker isn't inclined to back off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's however a pointedly rude and disrespectful imperative which cannot be tempered by any politesse, and it's *past tense perfective* form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыл/а/и!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встал/а/и!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал, отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form not only demands action but demands that it invariably be done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15919" RevisionGUID="2a27a7e8-a8c5-4fc8-ad9e-77d6c0e01743" CreationDate="2018-03-04T20:12:32.803" UserId="2104" Text="Assuming that you know their first name, these are polite enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, Андрей!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый Андрей,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing someone with just their first name in the Вы-register is becoming more popular in the business world. Or if you know them well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дорогой Андрей,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only know their last name, you can go with **господин/госпожа**, usually abbreviated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый г-н Иванов,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемая г-жа Иванова,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are a lot more formal than the others I've mentioned and are expected in the hospitality industry.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15920" RevisionGUID="88890cb6-8867-4e43-a4fc-b482254bfd90" CreationDate="2018-03-04T21:41:48.317" UserId="4629" Text="One theory maintains that these exceptions from the regular pl.G. ending rule can most of the time be classified as collective nouns (not exactly the same phenomenon as well-known English collective nouns, by the way). They include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ethnic groups (*башкиры - башкир, грузины - грузин*)&#xD;&#xA; - military formations &#xD;&#xA; - fruit and veg (*баклажаны - баклажан, помидоры - помидор*)&#xD;&#xA; - units of measurment (*граммы - грамм, амперы - ампер*)&#xD;&#xA; - ...and there may be more&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I could not find any articles that would clearly explain quite why that is the case. However, where saying smth like *полк солдат, эскадрон гусар, грядка помидор* is possible, this zero ending may turn out to be the correct pl.G. form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39881" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15916" RevisionGUID="70a47b3e-2d0f-4ca4-b53e-e95305714840" CreationDate="2018-03-04T22:29:32.673" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/970426040844804096" />
  <row Id="39882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15921" RevisionGUID="92b9e104-7119-48f5-909a-585ac05abe0b" CreationDate="2018-03-05T08:12:50.693" UserId="242" Text="Actually de-facto, form like `гусаров, партизанов, солдатов` are perfectly legal but have slightly different meaning. Here's a [quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительное, одушевлённое, мужской род, 2-е склонение (тип&#xD;&#xA;&gt; склонения 1a((2)) по классификации А. А. Зализняка); в род. п. мн. ч.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; допускается форма гуса́р (преимущ. при собир. знач.) и гуса́ров&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (преимущ. при обознач. отдельных лиц).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's another [quote][2], more general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Названия людей по национальности и по принадлежности к воинским&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соединениям, преимущественно употребляющиеся в формах множественного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числа в собирательном значении: мадьяры - мадьяр, туркмены - туркмен,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гардемарины - гардемаринов и гардемарин, партизаны - партизан, солдаты&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - солдат; сюда же относится форма р. п. мн. ч. человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it's indeed the case. For instance, when one talk about `партизаны` as a whole they most likely would say `партизан`, when one will talk about some specific group, he/she most likely will say `партизанов`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В этом лесу много партизан.&#xD;&#xA; - Пары партизанов хватит чтобы устроить тут диверсию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, being back to your question, it's just happened that military ranks by their nature denote some general group of people, that's why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15918" RevisionGUID="f245840a-8378-4f9b-a2ca-aa36fb7228e8" CreationDate="2018-03-05T08:18:04.407" UserId="7674" Comment="added 435 characters in body" Text="It does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperati*ve is not necessarily rude if mitigated by some words of politeness and/or intonation and verbosity, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, давайте, открывайте скоренько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without such dampers it certainly may be perceived as confrontational, more aggressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the difference between them stems from the fact that semantically *perfective imperative* is a one-off demand, which leaves to the addressee the freedom of refusal or non-compliance.  &#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperative* on the other hand expresses importunate persistent demand showing that the speaker isn't inclined to back off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's however a pointedly rude and disrespectful imperative which cannot be tempered by any politesse, and it's *past tense perfective* form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыл/а/и!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встал/а/и!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал, отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form not only demands action but demands that it invariably be done already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another ostensibly disrespectful form of imperative is infinitive form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыть учебники!   &#xD;&#xA;Всем встать!   &#xD;&#xA;Не двигаться!   &#xD;&#xA;Сидеть!   &#xD;&#xA;Выходить по одному!  &#xD;&#xA;Ждать меня тут!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still it can be acceptable in some formal hierarchical contexts such as army, penitentiary system and activities of law enforcement agencies, even in school, basically where degrading of human dignity isn't considered problematic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39889" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15897" RevisionGUID="c1d494ac-7985-4af8-80e0-e1c36de2c003" CreationDate="2018-03-05T08:23:00.707" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Form of address when you don't know patronymic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39890" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15910" RevisionGUID="badb6706-7c1b-4d8a-9e53-a7e86b4a45f6" CreationDate="2018-03-05T10:29:59.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/970607349034569728" />
  <row Id="39891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15918" RevisionGUID="515298dd-cddc-4e26-8790-248fe488284d" CreationDate="2018-03-05T10:55:47.700" UserId="7674" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="It does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperati*ve is not necessarily rude if mitigated by some words of politeness and/or intonation and verbosity, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, давайте, открывайте скоренько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without such dampers it certainly may be perceived as confrontational, more aggressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the difference between them stems from the fact that semantically *perfective imperative* is a one-off demand, which leaves to the addressee the freedom of refusal or non-compliance.  &#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperative* on the other hand expresses importunate persistent demand showing that the speaker isn't inclined to back off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's however a pointedly rude and disrespectful imperative which cannot be tempered by any politesse, and it's *past tense perfective* form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыл/а/и!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встал/а/и!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал, отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form not only demands action but demands that it invariably be done already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another ostensibly disrespectful form of imperative is infinitive form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыть учебники!   &#xD;&#xA;Всем встать!   &#xD;&#xA;Не двигаться!   &#xD;&#xA;Сидеть!   &#xD;&#xA;Выходить по одному!  &#xD;&#xA;Ждать меня тут!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still it can be acceptable in some formal hierarchical contexts such as army, penitentiary system and activities of law enforcement agencies, even in school, basically where degrading of human dignity isn't considered problematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet another unpleasant form of imperative is verb in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Садишься за стол, пишешь объяснительную&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зах**о**дите, снимаете обувь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; См**о**трите видео, потом пересказываете&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас (ты) отдыхаешь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15922" RevisionGUID="97184ad0-18f5-495d-b084-1a1d780fe96c" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:30:24.800" UserId="7674" Text="Zero ending in Genitive plural could be a remnant of both Church Slavonic, where both forms seem to be equivalent, and Old Russian, where it was characteristic of the words we now inflect differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 12 Существительныя на ъ, съ предшествующею согласною в, б, п, м, н, л, р, с, т, д, з, г, к, х, суть рода мужескаго, и склоняются слѣдующимъ образомъ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Множественнаго числа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родит. подобенъ именительному единственнаго ч. БИСЕРЪ, ВЛАСЪ, ВЪЛКЪ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВЛЪХВЪ, ВОСТОКЪ, ЗАПАДЪ и пр. -ОВЪ, рѣдко. Въ Остром. однажды&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **греховъ**, въ Григ. Богосл. ХI в. **домовъ** и Супр. **из домовъ, оудовъ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Грамматика церковно-словенскаго языка, изложенная по дрѣвнейшимъ онаго письменным памятникамъ&quot;, А.Х. Востоков, стр. 15, 17*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твердом варианте склонения у существительных в родитель­ном  падеже &#xD;&#xA;&gt; встречается  окончание  **-ѡвъ**  и  нулевое  окончание. **Одно и  то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же  слово может  иметь  оба варианта окончания**:  `Сподоби  ѧ  видѣти  чада`**`чадѡвъ`**.  `Вѣнецъ  старыхъ  чада`**`чадъ`**  *[Притч.  17, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6]*.  В существительных с нулевым окончанием для отличия от формы И.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.  используются  дополнительные  графические  средства, а именно: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; буквы **є, ѡ** и облеченное ударение.   &#xD;&#xA;В  мягком  варианте  склонения &#xD;&#xA;&gt; возможны  окончания  ־євъ, -Ей и нулевое окончание:  царЕй, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; іЕрЕєвъ,  **пѡль *(полей)***·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Церковнославянский язык&quot;, А.А. Плетнева, А.Г. Кравецкий, стр. 68*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Существительные с основами* *-ŏ (столъ)*, *-jŏ (конь, поле)***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Единственное  число`**   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    *-ŏ  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; *-jŏ  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Ср.р.*   &#xD;&#xA;И. дроугъ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;конь &amp;nbsp;поле&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Множественное  число`**   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*-ŏ  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; *-jŏ  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Ср.р.*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И. дроузи &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;кони &amp;nbsp;поля   &#xD;&#xA;Р. дроугъ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;конь &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;поль  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Существительные с основой на согласный М.р.*** *** *-en***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Единственное  число`**    &#xD;&#xA;И. камы *(камень)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Множественное  число`**    &#xD;&#xA;И. камене(ние)    &#xD;&#xA;Р. каменъ(ии)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;[Древнерусский язык. Учебно методическое пособие](http://dialekt.vspu.ru/sites/dialekt.vspu.ru/files/metodichka.pdf)&quot;, Приложение 3 &quot;Образцы склонения и спряжения&quot;, стр. 64-66*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;И у Пушкина в &quot;[Пророке](http://pesni.voskres.ru/poems/pushk02.htm)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И внял я неба содроганье,   &#xD;&#xA;И горний ангелов полет,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **И `гад` морских подводный ход.**   &#xD;&#xA;И дольней лозы прозябанье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[A discussion some data sources was borrowed from](http://azangru.livejournal.com/294944.html)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15923" RevisionGUID="e80570a7-fc0a-4ae4-b62d-a986817d77d7" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:33:53.300" UserId="10270" Text="In English, I would say &quot;I'm English&quot; where &quot;English&quot; is an adjective presumably meaning &quot;I'm (an) English (man)&quot;. I would never say &quot;I'm an English man&quot; in full. Similarly in French je suis francais.&#xD;&#xA;From your explanation it appears you can use this construction in Russian for a Russian but not for any other nationality. Have I understood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15922" RevisionGUID="768642f5-168e-4023-8826-9477dd441f83" CreationDate="2018-03-05T14:37:50.880" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Zero ending in Genitive plural could be a remnant or influence of both Church Slavonic, where both forms seem to be equivalent, and Old Russian, where it was characteristic of the words we now inflect differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 12 Существительныя на ъ, съ предшествующею согласною в, б, п, м, н, л, р, с, т, д, з, г, к, х, суть рода мужескаго, и склоняются слѣдующимъ образомъ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Множественнаго числа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родит. подобенъ именительному единственнаго ч. БИСЕРЪ, ВЛАСЪ, ВЪЛКЪ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВЛЪХВЪ, ВОСТОКЪ, ЗАПАДЪ и пр. -ОВЪ, рѣдко. Въ Остром. однажды&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **греховъ**, въ Григ. Богосл. ХI в. **домовъ** и Супр. **из домовъ, оудовъ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Грамматика церковно-словенскаго языка, изложенная по дрѣвнейшимъ онаго письменным памятникамъ&quot;, А.Х. Востоков, стр. 15, 17*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твердом варианте склонения у существительных в родитель­ном  падеже &#xD;&#xA;&gt; встречается  окончание  **-ѡвъ**  и  нулевое  окончание. **Одно и  то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же  слово может  иметь  оба варианта окончания**:  `Сподоби  ѧ  видѣти  чада`**`чадѡвъ`**.  `Вѣнецъ  старыхъ  чада`**`чадъ`**  *[Притч.  17, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6]*.  В существительных с нулевым окончанием для отличия от формы И.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.  используются  дополнительные  графические  средства, а именно: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; буквы **є, ѡ** и облеченное ударение.   &#xD;&#xA;В  мягком  варианте  склонения &#xD;&#xA;&gt; возможны  окончания  ־євъ, -Ей и нулевое окончание:  царЕй, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; іЕрЕєвъ,  **пѡль *(полей)***·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Церковнославянский язык&quot;, А.А. Плетнева, А.Г. Кравецкий, стр. 68*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Существительные с основами* *-ŏ (столъ)*, *-jŏ (конь, поле)***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Единственное  число`**   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    *-ŏ  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; *-jŏ  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Ср.р.*   &#xD;&#xA;И. дроугъ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;конь &amp;nbsp;поле&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Множественное  число`**   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*-ŏ  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; *-jŏ  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Ср.р.*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И. дроузи &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;кони &amp;nbsp;поля   &#xD;&#xA;Р. дроугъ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;конь &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;поль  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Существительные с основой на согласный М.р.*** *** *-en***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Единственное  число`**    &#xD;&#xA;И. камы *(камень)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Множественное  число`**    &#xD;&#xA;И. камене(ние)    &#xD;&#xA;Р. каменъ(ии)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;[Древнерусский язык. Учебно методическое пособие](http://dialekt.vspu.ru/sites/dialekt.vspu.ru/files/metodichka.pdf)&quot;, Приложение 3 &quot;Образцы склонения и спряжения&quot;, стр. 64-66*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;И у Пушкина в &quot;[Пророке](http://pesni.voskres.ru/poems/pushk02.htm)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И внял я неба содроганье,   &#xD;&#xA;И горний ангелов полет,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **И `гад` морских подводный ход.**   &#xD;&#xA;И дольней лозы прозябанье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[A discussion some data sources was borrowed from](http://azangru.livejournal.com/294944.html)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39895" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15907" RevisionGUID="333bd7a6-61c5-4d8f-b3bc-aae386b750ef" CreationDate="2018-03-05T16:00:56.777" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="I am confused by the difference between the word for a language and the word for a people who speak that language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39896" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15909" RevisionGUID="a81c4148-b097-46a0-ac11-752a507907bd" CreationDate="2018-03-05T16:30:00.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/970697946797928449" />
  <row Id="39897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15918" RevisionGUID="dbf9f1a2-7744-4b4a-9698-157059a82e0c" CreationDate="2018-03-05T21:16:01.623" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It does matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperati*ve is not necessarily rude if mitigated by some words of politeness and/or intonation and verbosity, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, давайте, открывайте скоренько&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without such dampers it certainly may be perceived as confrontational, more aggressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the difference between them stems from the fact that semantically *perfective imperative* is a one-off demand, which leaves to the addressee the freedom of refusal or non-compliance.  &#xD;&#xA;*Imperfective imperative* on the other hand expresses importunate persistent demand showing that the speaker isn't inclined to back off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's however a pointedly rude and disrespectful imperative which cannot be tempered by any politesse, namely *past tense perfective* form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыл/а/и!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Встал/а/и!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упал, отжался!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form not only demands action but demands that it invariably be done already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another ostensibly disrespectful form of imperative is infinitive form of a verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Открыть учебники!   &#xD;&#xA;Всем встать!   &#xD;&#xA;Не двигаться!   &#xD;&#xA;Сидеть!   &#xD;&#xA;Выходить по одному!  &#xD;&#xA;Ждать меня тут!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still it can be acceptable in some formal hierarchical contexts such as army, penitentiary system and activities of law enforcement agencies, even in school, basically where degrading of human dignity isn't considered problematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet another unpleasant form of imperative is verb in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Садишься за стол, пишешь объяснительную&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зах**о**дите, снимаете обувь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; См**о**трите видео, потом пересказываете&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас (ты) отдыхаешь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39899" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15907" RevisionGUID="654344e9-0913-4796-8fb3-9095a7bb083b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T01:30:24.793" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/970833946375319553" />
  <row Id="39901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15922" RevisionGUID="717b6a2f-1c46-40e4-bd6d-14c74380fa7d" CreationDate="2018-03-06T09:05:05.043" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1028 characters in body" Text="Zero ending in Genitive plural could be a remnant or influence of both Church Slavonic, where both forms seem to be equivalent, and Old Russian, where it was characteristic of the words we now inflect differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 12 Существительныя на ъ, съ предшествующею согласною в, б, п, м, н, л, р, с, т, д, з, г, к, х, суть рода мужескаго, и склоняются слѣдующимъ образомъ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Множественнаго числа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родит. подобенъ именительному единственнаго ч. БИСЕРЪ, ВЛАСЪ, ВЪЛКЪ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ВЛЪХВЪ, ВОСТОКЪ, ЗАПАДЪ и пр. -ОВЪ, рѣдко. Въ Остром. однажды&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **греховъ**, въ Григ. Богосл. ХI в. **домовъ** и Супр. **из домовъ, оудовъ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Грамматика церковно-словенскаго языка, изложенная по дрѣвнейшимъ онаго письменным памятникамъ&quot;, А.Х. Востоков, стр. 15, 17*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твердом варианте склонения у существительных в родитель­ном  падеже &#xD;&#xA;&gt; встречается  окончание  **-ѡвъ**  и  нулевое  окончание. **Одно и  то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же  слово может  иметь  оба варианта окончания**:  `Сподоби  ѧ  видѣти  чада`**`чадѡвъ`**.  `Вѣнецъ  старыхъ  чада`**`чадъ`**  *[Притч.  17, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6]*.  В существительных с нулевым окончанием для отличия от формы И.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ед.  используются  дополнительные  графические  средства, а именно: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; буквы **є, ѡ** и облеченное ударение.   &#xD;&#xA;В  мягком  варианте  склонения &#xD;&#xA;&gt; возможны  окончания  ־євъ, -Ей и нулевое окончание:  царЕй, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; іЕрЕєвъ,  **пѡль *(полей)***·&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Церковнославянский язык&quot;, А.А. Плетнева, А.Г. Кравецкий, стр. 68*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Существительные с основами* *-ŏ (столъ)*, *-jŏ (конь, поле)***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Единственное  число`**   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    *-ŏ  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; *-jŏ  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Ср.р.*   &#xD;&#xA;И. дроугъ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;конь &amp;nbsp;поле&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Множественное  число`**   &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*-ŏ  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; *-jŏ  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*М.р.*&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;*Ср.р.*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И. дроузи &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;кони &amp;nbsp;поля   &#xD;&#xA;Р. дроугъ &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;конь &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;поль  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Существительные с основой на согласный М.р.*** *** *-en***&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Единственное  число`**    &#xD;&#xA;И. камы *(камень)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Множественное  число`**    &#xD;&#xA;И. камене(ние)    &#xD;&#xA;Р. каменъ(ии)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;[Древнерусский язык. Учебно методическое пособие](http://dialekt.vspu.ru/sites/dialekt.vspu.ru/files/metodichka.pdf)&quot;, Приложение 3 &quot;Образцы склонения и спряжения&quot;, стр. 64-66*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;И у Пушкина в &quot;[Пророке](http://pesni.voskres.ru/poems/pushk02.htm)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И внял я неба содроганье,   &#xD;&#xA;И горний ангелов полет,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **И `гад` морских подводный ход.**   &#xD;&#xA;И дольней лозы прозябанье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[A discussion some data sources was borrowed from](http://azangru.livejournal.com/294944.html)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;___________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it also could be caused by interference of Genitive of feminine nouns, because in all other cases both masculine and feminine nouns inflect identically  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;***ед.ч.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; мн.ч. И.п. &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; мн.ч. Р.п.***  &#xD;&#xA;***м.р.*** гусар &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;гусары &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;гусар  &#xD;&#xA;***ж.р.*** пара &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;пары &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;пар  &#xD;&#xA;***м.р.*** солдат &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;солдаты &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;солдат  &#xD;&#xA;***ж.р.*** палата &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;палаты &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;палат  &#xD;&#xA;***м.р.*** драгун &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;драгуны &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;драгун  &#xD;&#xA;***ж.р.*** лагуна &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;лагуны &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;лагун" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39902" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15910" RevisionGUID="0c2913d7-3bfa-43fe-addd-4b71ac0218f8" CreationDate="2018-03-06T13:36:29.113" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|морфология|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15924" RevisionGUID="6a3d330e-a745-4e03-9137-181706d2869c" CreationDate="2018-03-06T15:32:15.673" UserId="10267" Text="I thought I had learned the word for *everywhere* some time ago—**всюду.** But this morning I ran across **везде,** which got me looking around, and so I also found **повсюду** and **повсеместно.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What, if anything, are the distinctions in meaning among these words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, are they all used fairly frequently, or are some of them uncommon in typical communication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I did also see *куда ни кинь,* but that one seems pretty easy to think of as *wherever you look.* So I get that distinction.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15924" RevisionGUID="6a3d330e-a745-4e03-9137-181706d2869c" CreationDate="2018-03-06T15:32:15.673" UserId="10267" Text="Sorting the various terms for &quot;everywhere&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15924" RevisionGUID="6a3d330e-a745-4e03-9137-181706d2869c" CreationDate="2018-03-06T15:32:15.673" UserId="10267" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15925" RevisionGUID="48af8ee3-c1da-4b9c-b057-682b63e54bab" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:01:37.213" UserId="3680" Text="I believe the words `(по-)всюду`, `повсеместно` and `везде` are completely interchangeable in respect to their meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;Despite that the words `всюду`, `повсюду`, `повсеместно` are a bit less frequently used nowadays, they are don't sound ancient or too bookish. You can use them freely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15925" RevisionGUID="d64c6182-940a-41b2-8a91-dd17ab25c44b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:06:51.490" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I believe the words `(по-)всюду`, `повсеместно` and `везде` are completely interchangeable in respect to their meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;Despite that the words `всюду`, `повсюду`, `повсеместно` are a bit less frequently used nowadays, they don't sound ancient or too bookish. You can use them freely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15926" RevisionGUID="8e6134ab-6119-43ee-98f2-4ee5ce225362" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:11:46.003" UserId="9602" Text="**Везде** is the neutral word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Всюду** is just a bit archaic-sounding, but is otherwise equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Повсюду** also answers “куда?” (in addition to “где?”), so with words like “разлететься” you can use повсюду but not the other synonyms mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Повсеместно** literally means “in all places”, is somewhat formal and might feel a bit more figurative than literal (like “in most places, those that really matter”).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general these are near-perfect synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15925" RevisionGUID="6f5c95ca-892d-4132-9bc9-21143f81ae18" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:21:31.793" UserId="3680" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="I believe the words `(по-)всюду`, `повсеместно` and `везде` are completely interchangeable in respect to their meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;Despite that the words `всюду`, `повсюду`, `повсеместно` are a bit less frequently used nowadays, they don't sound ancient or too bookish. You can use them freely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Side note. The word `повсеместно` derived from the word `повсеместный` (`ubiquitous`).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15927" RevisionGUID="559e0915-de1f-4516-907d-4139e91ed80b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:54:43.180" UserId="10267" Text="There are two common uses for the English word **experience:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the specific sense, as in &quot;skydiving was an interesting experience&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - the more general sense, as in &quot;I have the job experience you're looking for&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former is a description of the immediate process of living through something, perceiving it, etc. Where as the latter is typically more focused on the knowledge or expertise gained by having participated in something. They're not cleanly separate, of course, since the former typically leads to the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I've looked up *experience* in an English-Russian dictionary, they always give **опыть** as the translation—often the only one. My sense is that that word is the best translation for the *second* usage above. Is it also the proper term for the *first* usage, or would **переживание** be better for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also noticed, on [Linguee][1] for example, that *переживание* is indicated to be less frequently used. Is that because *опыть* meets the same need, or because the second usage above is a more common topic of conversation among Russians? I wouldn't normally wonder that, but in this case it does conform to my sense of the cultural differences between, say, America (whence I come) and Russia. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.linguee.com/english-russian/search?query=experience" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15927" RevisionGUID="559e0915-de1f-4516-907d-4139e91ed80b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:54:43.180" UserId="10267" Text="&quot;Опыть&quot; vs &quot;переживание&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15927" RevisionGUID="559e0915-de1f-4516-907d-4139e91ed80b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T16:54:43.180" UserId="10267" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15927" RevisionGUID="0574cfb3-f2ad-4156-a6d8-160f4208d599" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:19:05.103" UserId="3680" Comment="typo" Text="There are two common uses for the English word **experience:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the specific sense, as in &quot;skydiving was an interesting experience&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - the more general sense, as in &quot;I have the job experience you're looking for&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former is a description of the immediate process of living through something, perceiving it, etc. Where as the latter is typically more focused on the knowledge or expertise gained by having participated in something. They're not cleanly separate, of course, since the former typically leads to the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I've looked up *experience* in an English-Russian dictionary, they always give **опыт** as the translation—often the only one. My sense is that that word is the best translation for the *second* usage above. Is it also the proper term for the *first* usage, or would **переживание** be better for that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also noticed, on [Linguee][1] for example, that *переживание* is indicated to be less frequently used. Is that because *опыт* meets the same need, or because the second usage above is a more common topic of conversation among Russians? I wouldn't normally wonder that, but in this case it does conform to my sense of the cultural differences between, say, America (whence I come) and Russia. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.linguee.com/english-russian/search?query=experience" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39914" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15927" RevisionGUID="0574cfb3-f2ad-4156-a6d8-160f4208d599" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:19:05.103" UserId="3680" Comment="typo" Text="&quot;Опыт&quot; vs &quot;переживание&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15928" RevisionGUID="15282384-af1a-4a65-947a-8dd49e8d549c" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:36:02.720" UserId="134" Text="*Переживание* (literally, &quot;living-through&quot;) is quite a set way to translate the English phrase &quot;emotional experience&quot;. I can't think of any other way for it to be used to translate &quot;experience&quot; outside this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your gut feeling is right, Russian *опыт* usually only applies to knowledge and expertise indeed. &quot;Skydiving was an interesting experience&quot; is best translated as *прыгать с парашютом было очень интересно*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15929" RevisionGUID="020dca66-07e9-469b-9774-cb0c8827deb4" CreationDate="2018-03-06T17:56:20.370" UserId="10330" Text="Well, you can use their name or surname or both. Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Дорогой, Андрей or Дорогой, Андрей Петров&#xD;&#xA;You can also use &quot;друг&quot;(friend) if its friend email. Anyway you can even **avoid** that and just say &quot;Привет/Здравствуйте&quot;(Hi/Hello) and after that start letter body. However&#xD;&#xA;there is no particular pattern of writing letter in Russian, so even last proposition is optional. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15911" RevisionGUID="56a87130-b1fa-473b-a262-76ec7d14ce6b" CreationDate="2018-03-06T21:45:05.273" UserId="2104" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Зависит (verb) is used with the &quot;fixed&quot; preposition &quot;от&quot; followed by the genitive case - родительный падеж. Зависит от чего?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;зависит от контекста, от погоды, от него." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15930" RevisionGUID="0b4df714-12e4-4c08-966c-cbcb70edd9f4" CreationDate="2018-03-06T22:47:09.973" UserId="2104" Text="* все = everyone&#xD;&#xA;* всё = everything&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Written Russian often disposes of the dots above Ё which can be confusing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как всё&quot; is not idiomatic Russian. If you want to say &quot;How is everything?&quot;, simply use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как дела?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to greet a group of people with &quot;Hi, how is everyone?&quot;, you may use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всем привет! Как настроение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как все&quot; can be used, but not as a greeting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как мама? Как папа? Как все? = How's mum? How's dad? How's everyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean 'like everyone (else)':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как поживаешь? - Как все: работаю, учусь.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15806" RevisionGUID="1a111ebd-99ee-4337-aec9-2e132a391551" CreationDate="2018-03-06T23:12:43.237" UserId="2104" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The question is great and rather complicated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First of all, there are different ways to form a comparative only from **qualitative** adjectives. A compound form with **более** in front of the adjective and the so-called synthetic or simple forms with the following endings: **-ее/ей, -е and -ше**.&#xD;&#xA;I will not consider the analytical form with **более**, but it certainly should be mentioned that some quality adjectives cannot have simple comparative forms. They are the adjectives with suffixes -ск-, -ов-, -н-, -л- (they have no short forms either):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дружеский, массовый, кровный, исхудалый. Сюда же относятся прилагательные с суффиксом -к-: плавкий, громоздкий, тяжкий, отдельные непроизводные слова: плоский, ветхий, гордый, отлогий, все слова, обозначающие масти животных: каурый, саврасый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We should memorize some adjectives which have &#xD;&#xA;а) suppletive forms in many languages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;хороший – лучше, плохой – хуже, малый – меньше, дешевый – дешевле (compare: good – better, bad – worse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) a so-called &quot;unproductive&quot; suffix **-ше** which is used with a limited group of adjectives.  Memorize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далекий – дальше, ранний – раньше, тонкий – тоньше; долгий – дольше, маленький –меньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The majority of adjectives use the productive **-ее/-ей.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  светлый – светл-ее, бережливый – бережлив-ее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The ending **-е** is used only after word stems (основа слова) ending with sounds **д, т, ст, г, к, х,  с, з**&#xD;&#xA; This is complicated, because adjectives drop -ок- and -к-, and there's an alteration of these sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**з→ж, с→ш, х→ш, г→ж, ст→щ, д→ж, т→ч, к→ч**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Низкий: низ-к-ий – ниже. (-к- is dropped and з changes into ж ), высокий: выс-ок-ий – выше (-ок -is dropped and с changes into ш).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More examples :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сухой – суше, тугой – туже, частый – чаще, молодой – моложе, богатый – богаче, крепкий – крепче &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems we should distinguish when -к- belongs to the root and is changed respectively into ч (легкий – легче) and when it doesn't and can be dropped (низкий – низ-к-ий – ниже). I believe it's easier to memorize such adjectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39921" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15927" RevisionGUID="c5e41a19-fb0a-4baf-bec2-37fd874e78c0" CreationDate="2018-03-07T04:31:29.800" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/971241904460435456" />
  <row Id="39922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15931" RevisionGUID="6b15d23c-1dc2-4bf5-842e-56db75f8aa4e" CreationDate="2018-03-07T05:52:29.897" UserId="10247" Text="*skydiving was an interesting experience* - It's possible to say **переживание** (probably when saying of a jump which caused strong emotions), or **впечатление** (if you mean an unusual impression regardless of emotions), even **опыт** (e.g. if you mean this pursuit was interesting experience for your career professionally). That is to say a speaker might want to be specific here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I have the job experience you're looking for* - most likely implies **опыт** (i.e. you have enough skills, knowledge, practice, etc., sometimes implying you are a seasoned person who suits the job).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not that **переживание** is used rarely. It's a literary word often implying some stronger feelings (so it's more often used in suitable contexts, emotionally coloured speech, or literary works). While **опыт** is a neutral word suitable for any style (from philosophical meaning 'experience' to everyday meaning like 'job experience', etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39923" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15924" RevisionGUID="544edddc-efdf-42d5-8330-4f452b2b2cca" CreationDate="2018-03-07T07:31:29.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/971287203958722560" />
  <row Id="39924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15916" RevisionGUID="3bbb37b5-54da-4cd2-9539-1c087406eb78" CreationDate="2018-03-07T08:05:21.080" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|повелительное-наклонение|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39925" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15897" RevisionGUID="99009fea-6b03-43cb-a209-e6302c0d1e5e" CreationDate="2018-03-07T10:31:30.123" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/971332503326937088" />
  <row Id="39926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15932" RevisionGUID="5b0b73ba-63a5-486d-a537-1d0e172ea0fa" CreationDate="2018-03-07T11:18:34.307" UserId="2079" Text="&gt; По нынешним понятиям об этикете письмо сие было бы весьма неприличным,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; но оно рассердило Кирила Петровича не странным слогом и расположением,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; но только своею сущностью&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А интересно, как вы думаете, в чем именно заключалась «странность»?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перечитываю, перечитываю, а я еще ничего особенно старомодного в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сравнении с основным текстом романа в этом письме так и не нашел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот что странное в письме:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обращение.&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обращение &quot;милостивый государь&quot; и ему подобные были только в официальных письмах. В дружеских письмах никаких &quot;государей&quot; не было. Например, Дельвиг письма к Пушкину начинал &quot;Здравия желаю Александру милому и поздравляю с Новым годом&quot;, &quot;Поздравляем тебя, милый Пушкин, с переменой судьбы твоей&quot; и т. д.  Также могли друга назвать &quot;любезнейший&quot; (например, &quot;здравствуйте, любезнейшая и почтеннейшая Варвара Алексеевна&quot;), а часто (даже, может быть, в большинстве случаев) обходились без обращения, сразу переходя к делу.  *Своим обращением Дубровский сразу даёт понять, что они с Троекуровым более не друзья.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но это далеко не всё. Теоретически, по Далю, были три обращения: &quot;милостивый государь&quot; к высшим, &quot;милостивый государь мой&quot; к равным и &quot;государь мой&quot; к низшим. На практике, из трёх обращений в письмах почти всегда выбирали первое. Так, например, Бекендорф в письме Пушкину называет его &quot;милостивый государь&quot;, хотя отправитель неизмеримо выше адресата и по табели о рангах (Бекендорф был генералом от кавалерии), и по титулу (граф), и по занимаемой должности.  Словами &quot;Милостивый государь мой&quot; письма начинали редко, а &quot;государь мой&quot;, кажется, никогда. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слова &quot;государь мой премилостивый&quot; странные. Такого обращения не было, и звучит это как гибрид второго обращения, не очень-то вежливого, и третьего, пренебрежительного.  Да и перестановка слов - это как если бы современное письмо начать так &quot;Иван Иванович, уважаемый, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подпись&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Под стать обращению.  В официальных письмах прощались словами &quot;милостивый государь (с новой строки) ваш покорный слуга&quot;, иногда слегка изменёнными: ваш покорнейший слуга, вашего превосходительства всепокорнейший слуга и т.д. Пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                           Милостивый государь!&#xD;&#xA;                             Николай Петрович.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Почтенное письмо ваше с приложением перстня от ее императорского величества имел&#xD;&#xA;    я счастие получить. Принимаю с глубочайшим благоговением и благодарностью сей&#xD;&#xA;    знак высокой ее милости к слабому моему таланту. Имею честь пребыть с истинным &#xD;&#xA;    почтением&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;                                                             милостивый государь&#xD;&#xA;                                                           ваш покорнейший слуга&#xD;&#xA;                                                                    Иван Крылов.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;                               Апреля 22 дня&#xD;&#xA;                                   1826.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Была подпись &quot;остаюсь готовым к услугам вашим&quot; (или &quot;вашим услугам&quot;), например, в письме Белинского Гоголю 1842 года (не путать с их перепиской 1847 года, вошедшей в хрестоматии).  Будучи в ярости, Дубровский смешал эти две подписи, получилось опять же не вежливая подпись, а что-то странное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Основной текст ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я до тех пор не намерен ехать в Покровское, пока не вышлете Вы мне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; псаря Парамошку с повинною; а будет моя воля наказать его или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помиловать, а я терпеть шутки от Ваших холопьев не намерен, да и от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вас их не стерплю, потому что я не шут, а старинный дворянин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Текст не разбит на предложения и стилистически неправилен. Правильно, по-моему:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я до тех пор не намерен ехать в Покровское, пока не вышлете Вы мне псаря Парамошку с повинною, а наказать его или помиловать, на то моя воля. Я терпеть шутки от Ваших холопьев не намерен, да и от Вас их не стерплю, потому что я не шут, а старинный дворянин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15933" RevisionGUID="cbf6f22c-6713-4433-8ff5-d79730f8f193" CreationDate="2018-03-07T19:39:18.187" UserId="4629" Text="&gt; Why is this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the risk of having to stand corrected I daresay that is the remnant of an archaic tendency to single oneself and one's tribe out in the multitude of other tribes inhabiting the land. This phenomenon reminds me of a old film about Native Americans where they called themselves Human Beings as opposed to the colonists whom they called White Men. Thus, Russian defines its speakers as posessing a certain (ethnic, tribal) quality whilst all the non-speakers are defined as being members of particular (ethnic, tribal) groups. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian word *национальность* itself (widely perceived as a translation of e.g. English word *nationality* - which is wrong) primarily means ethnic origin, whilst in English, French and presumably many other languages it means a mere belonging to a language and a state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15934" RevisionGUID="eed2119f-ecad-41a3-b195-f7bec23ee0fb" CreationDate="2018-03-08T10:55:34.090" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;связать себя **брачными** узами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;связать себя узами **брака**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder when you use one over the other and which is considered stylistically superior: &quot;брак&quot; as Plural Instrumental or as Singular Genitive. I assume their meanings boil down to essentially the same ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15934" RevisionGUID="eed2119f-ecad-41a3-b195-f7bec23ee0fb" CreationDate="2018-03-08T10:55:34.090" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in case: &quot;связать себя брачными узами&quot; vs &quot;связать себя узами брака&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15934" RevisionGUID="eed2119f-ecad-41a3-b195-f7bec23ee0fb" CreationDate="2018-03-08T10:55:34.090" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39931" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15934" RevisionGUID="65610221-95b3-4654-994c-9f3347c5376a" CreationDate="2018-03-08T11:09:05.313" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;связать себя брачными узами&quot; vs &quot;связать себя узами брака&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15935" RevisionGUID="281598ca-1f0b-44f6-8e9a-50f8ffe4ad6a" CreationDate="2018-03-08T11:29:37.300" UserId="3680" Text="Despite I'd personally prefer the second one, I believe they are completely interchangeable. I cannot imagine any nuances in meaning or usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of completely equivalent phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ограничить себя **моральными** нормами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ограничить себя нормами **морали**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15936" RevisionGUID="0475801d-0f3e-4dcf-9e08-4fbdad69fdf1" CreationDate="2018-03-08T12:52:36.257" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**До сих пор** не верится, что ты ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Всё ещё** не верится, что ты ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**До сих пор всё ещё не верится**, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how the two similar phrases &quot;до сих пор&quot; and &quot;всё ещё&quot; are nuanced in this specific sentence and if combining them together serves to emphasise its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15936" RevisionGUID="0475801d-0f3e-4dcf-9e08-4fbdad69fdf1" CreationDate="2018-03-08T12:52:36.257" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;до сих пор&quot; vs &quot;всё ещё&quot; vs &quot;до сих пор всё ещё&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15936" RevisionGUID="0475801d-0f3e-4dcf-9e08-4fbdad69fdf1" CreationDate="2018-03-08T12:52:36.257" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15937" RevisionGUID="8e40c28f-cd25-4379-a617-c5d4daf44cf0" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:21:15.603" UserId="9602" Text="“До сих пор” — literally “until these times” — can exclude the present moment while “всё ещё” would tend to include it, but the present tense of the verb “верится” negates that difference in the sentences given, where both phrases are identical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;До сих пор не пробовал я настоящего кофе! — as a compliment to the drink being currently enjoyed  &#xD;&#xA;Я всё ещё не пробовал настоящего кофе — and the one being currently consumed isn’t spectacular either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the phrases sounds unnatural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15938" RevisionGUID="7ba33c31-9528-4ba7-962e-4372b831e900" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:42:42.893" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; **До сих пор всё ещё** не верится&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is a no-no, in Russian such use would be described as *масло масляное*, that is tautological.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it more palatable the pronoun **всё** could be dropped&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **До сих пор ещё** не верится&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still not perfect, but acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39938" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15936" RevisionGUID="6c9acb42-4bac-4d75-83b9-b6a155b9af75" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:58:07.020" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;До сих пор не верится&quot; vs &quot;Всё ещё не верится&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15936" RevisionGUID="6c9acb42-4bac-4d75-83b9-b6a155b9af75" CreationDate="2018-03-08T13:58:07.020" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&gt;**До сих пор** не верится, что ты ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Всё ещё** не верится, что ты ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**До сих пор всё ещё** не верится, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how the two similar phrases &quot;до сих пор&quot; and &quot;всё ещё&quot; are nuanced in this specific sentence and if combining them together serves to emphasise its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15936" RevisionGUID="e96ba797-65ec-40d8-8dd6-78478ad71fd1" CreationDate="2018-03-08T19:31:48.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/971830863972519936" />
  <row Id="39947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15934" RevisionGUID="a7438029-35b2-49b5-8b3a-096732521386" CreationDate="2018-03-08T22:31:48.703" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/971876162824802306" />
  <row Id="39948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15941" RevisionGUID="83faa1f1-d746-4b3f-9eb3-bcff6a632858" CreationDate="2018-03-09T00:51:27.733" UserId="10338" Text="Тоже мне мирный отпуск - (тоже мне _______ (нашёлся)) - used to express indignation and dissatisfaction with something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И это мирным отпуском называется?! (A little more emphatic than some of the examples offered above) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15942" RevisionGUID="15dd61f1-3d43-45ad-abc9-0ef41a40a40f" CreationDate="2018-03-09T00:59:25.197" UserId="10338" Text="To add to what was said above, the grammatical constructions for these two words are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;завидовать (кому) &#xD;&#xA;For example, if  someone just got a ticket to a movie you wanted to see you might hear: &quot;Я завидую тебе белой завистью. - This is a &quot;friendly&quot; sort of envy, if such a thing exists. You're happy for the other person but don't secretly covet what they want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-ревновать кого к кому-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ревную свою девушку к её бывшему&#xD;&#xA;I'm jealous of my girlfriend over/because of her past boyfriend.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15943" RevisionGUID="6227a45a-ce66-4d52-a887-ba7b38cdc160" CreationDate="2018-03-09T04:36:14.063" UserId="4560" Text="**Узами брака** sounds vaguely better because almost all uses of **брачный** describe things *functionally* related to marriage, such as **брачный контракт** (pre-nup) or **брачные игры** (a term for animal courtship), whereas here, it would atypically refer to the *essence* of **узы**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, for an expression so ornate, there's a rather narrow range of contexts in which it will not sound out of place; even its ironic use comes off a little lifeless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15944" RevisionGUID="efb0988f-9dcf-4429-81e6-0737b96ea058" CreationDate="2018-03-09T07:39:05.370" UserId="4481" Text="There is also a proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот тебе, бабушка, и Юрьев день.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be used in any situation, when you are disappointed with an unexpected incident." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39954" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15875" RevisionGUID="1b52a701-ab3c-46e3-97fd-2ce72288b827" CreationDate="2018-03-09T15:12:51.487" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Зависть&quot; or &quot;ревность&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15945" RevisionGUID="9de60e00-74e4-4a6b-aa6f-8ab4c4372065" CreationDate="2018-03-09T16:26:27.610" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Спасибо. Для меня это будет **много** значить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Спасибо. Для меня это будет **многое** значить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how the adverb &quot;много&quot; and the pronoun &quot;многое&quot; differ in meaning and usage in this specific instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39956" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15945" RevisionGUID="9de60e00-74e4-4a6b-aa6f-8ab4c4372065" CreationDate="2018-03-09T16:26:27.610" UserId="8672" Text="To say &quot;It will mean a lot to me&quot;: &quot;много значить&quot; vs &quot;многоe значить&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39957" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15945" RevisionGUID="9de60e00-74e4-4a6b-aa6f-8ab4c4372065" CreationDate="2018-03-09T16:26:27.610" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15946" RevisionGUID="de3879f3-5f52-4b6f-ab42-fc27e900f57c" CreationDate="2018-03-09T17:03:51.637" UserId="4903" Text="The corpus of Russian language has examples of both phrases in present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня это много значит. [Examples](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EC%ED%EE%E3%EE%20%E7%ED%E0%F7%E8%F2&amp;p=0) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня это многое значит. [Examples](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EC%ED%EE%E3%EE%E5%20%E7%ED%E0%F7%E8%F2&amp;p=0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't perceive any difference in the meaning. The second form is used considerably less often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future tense I would only use the first form. The second form sounds awkward to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15947" RevisionGUID="66588abc-ac85-4470-92a7-c62921e3d384" CreationDate="2018-03-09T19:00:48.250" UserId="5443" Text="The first version is about importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня это будет **много** значить. -&gt; It will mean much (a lot) to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is about variety of (countable) meanings which might follow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня это будет **многое** значить. -&gt; It will mean many things to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15946" RevisionGUID="56fdd775-f3ab-4631-b7e6-2050f89b8267" CreationDate="2018-03-09T19:18:33.800" UserId="4903" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The corpus of Russian language has examples of both phrases in present tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня это **много** значит. [Examples](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EC%ED%EE%E3%EE%20%E7%ED%E0%F7%E8%F2&amp;p=0) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня это **многое** значит. [Examples](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EC%ED%EE%E3%EE%E5%20%E7%ED%E0%F7%E8%F2&amp;p=0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't perceive any difference in the meaning. The second form is used considerably less often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future tense I would only use the first form. The second form sounds awkward to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15900" RevisionGUID="56908500-63a2-408f-bfd8-c98e9f4ea9ae" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:42:41.760" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/972241289390510080" />
  <row Id="39967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15949" RevisionGUID="b882683e-742c-4931-bba4-fb23585e2b41" CreationDate="2018-03-10T04:42:13.667" UserId="10342" Text="Можно сказать `опыт работы` и `любовные переживания`, но не `переживания работы`, а `опыт любви` звучит пошло, если не сказать скабрезно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39968" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15862" RevisionGUID="39215951-919b-42ec-9629-4243c5188656" CreationDate="2018-03-10T04:42:41.783" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/972331886847635456" />
  <row Id="39969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15950" RevisionGUID="c40a0a90-75e0-4f11-8180-89e4093e2597" CreationDate="2018-03-10T06:31:09.390" UserId="5443" Text="As already mentioned, the first two versions are most often interchangeable despite the fact that **до сих пор** typically points at a longer time passed. Here's an example where **до сих пор** *can't* replace **всё ещё** (at least, that would sound unnatural). The reason is **до сих пор** is about a really substantial period time while **всё ещё** can mean anything *just longer than immediate*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пытаюсь осознать то, что ты *сейчас* рассказал. **Всё ещё не верится**, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты такое сделал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15950" RevisionGUID="997f2478-4ab4-44a2-a3be-dfa731be08f7" CreationDate="2018-03-10T09:21:44.927" UserId="5443" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As already mentioned, the first two versions are most often interchangeable despite the fact that **до сих пор** typically points at a longer time passed. Here's an example where **до сих пор** *can't* replace **всё ещё** (at least, that would sound unnatural). The reason is **до сих пор** is about a really substantial period of time while **всё ещё** can mean anything *just longer than immediate*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пытаюсь осознать то, что ты *сейчас* рассказал. **Всё ещё не верится**, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты такое сделал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15952" RevisionGUID="3a9757ed-ecb4-418f-a32e-c8001a230506" CreationDate="2018-03-10T13:48:32.903" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Значит, **остаётся только одно**: смотреть, чтопроизойдёт дальше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the literally translated &quot;only one thing remains&quot; doesn't quite cut it here. Is it more like &quot;there's only one thing left to do&quot; or &quot;one thing is sure&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you use this expression in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15952" RevisionGUID="3a9757ed-ecb4-418f-a32e-c8001a230506" CreationDate="2018-03-10T13:48:32.903" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;Остается только одно: {infinitive}&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15952" RevisionGUID="3a9757ed-ecb4-418f-a32e-c8001a230506" CreationDate="2018-03-10T13:48:32.903" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15952" RevisionGUID="aa8c7a1d-5766-4726-899b-f66fc665c22c" CreationDate="2018-03-10T13:55:24.937" UserId="8672" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="&gt;Значит, **остаётся только одно**: смотреть, чтопроизойдёт дальше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the literally translated &quot;only one thing remains&quot; doesn't quite cut it here. Is it more like &quot;there's only one thing left to do&quot; or &quot;one thing is sure&quot;, or possibly &quot;in any case / whatever the case&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you use this expression in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15952" RevisionGUID="d5d3c68c-3d88-4cf7-ac31-c42f12ddbd08" CreationDate="2018-03-10T14:26:36.967" UserId="1236" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Значит, **остаётся только одно**: смотреть, что произойдёт дальше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the literally translated &quot;only one thing remains&quot; doesn't quite cut it here. Is it more like &quot;there's only one thing left to do&quot; or &quot;one thing is sure&quot;, or possibly &quot;in any case / whatever the case&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you use this expression in general?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15953" RevisionGUID="80ab4eba-5740-4851-93c7-5e0ebdf38f18" CreationDate="2018-03-10T15:15:24.610" UserId="8052" Text="We use it when we want to express despair - there is only one way of handling a situation. In your particular example the way itself (`смотреть, что произойдёт дальше`) essentially means `do nothing`, or `there is nothing you can do`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15832" RevisionGUID="024f6a11-dfd2-4079-b731-664cbebb7603" CreationDate="2018-03-10T16:42:55.140" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/972513136476647424" />
  <row Id="39982" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15823" RevisionGUID="c1a68150-3524-4bcf-9efc-2dddc323c349" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:42:56.443" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/972603739210158082" />
  <row Id="39983" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15773" RevisionGUID="023a2050-8540-48c8-bf26-0148a5a9702a" CreationDate="2018-03-11T01:42:55.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/972649033780137984" />
  <row Id="39984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15954" RevisionGUID="1c38577d-de41-4298-81e1-0f2106888e03" CreationDate="2018-03-11T06:51:59.220" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between *дверями* and *дверьми*? My textbook states that «дверьми» is bookish, however upon searching more into this I found some articles claiming that they are **completely** interchangeable. So does it matter which one I choose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15954" RevisionGUID="1c38577d-de41-4298-81e1-0f2106888e03" CreationDate="2018-03-11T06:51:59.220" UserId="9603" Text="дверями vs дверьми" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15954" RevisionGUID="1c38577d-de41-4298-81e1-0f2106888e03" CreationDate="2018-03-11T06:51:59.220" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15955" RevisionGUID="91fa5119-6c3e-4431-af7a-3225a1ed07ba" CreationDate="2018-03-11T07:24:15.653" UserId="3680" Text="Despite they are completely interchangeable, the latter is a bit bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ending `-ьми` in instrumental case plural is a bit obsolete, except for these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `дочери` - `дочерьми` (preferable) / `дочерями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `лошади` - `лошадьми` (preferable) / `лошадями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `звери` - `зверями` (preferable) / `зверьми` (really obsolete),&#xD;&#xA;* `дети` - `детьми` only,&#xD;&#xA;* `кости` - `костями`, except the phrase `лечь костьми`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15955" RevisionGUID="a9a43f95-0d39-4224-aff6-b9fb13b4f07d" CreationDate="2018-03-11T07:29:28.170" UserId="3680" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Despite they are completely interchangeable, the latter is a bit bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ending `-ьми` in instrumental case plural is lost, except for these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `дочери` - `дочерьми` / `дочерями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `лошади` - `лошадьми` / `лошадями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `двери` - `дверьми` / `дверями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `звери` - `зверями` (preferable) / `зверьми` (obsolete),&#xD;&#xA;* `дети` - `детьми` only,&#xD;&#xA;* `кости` - `костями`, except the phrase `лечь костьми`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39989" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15787" RevisionGUID="05e0563f-6e31-4b1b-8caf-628695128ab4" CreationDate="2018-03-11T07:43:28.010" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/972739766906228736" />
  <row Id="39990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15955" RevisionGUID="eae93dcc-97bf-4b8f-a36c-999ffa671097" CreationDate="2018-03-11T09:27:27.613" UserId="3680" Comment="Added людьми" Text="Despite they are completely interchangeable, the latter is a bit bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ending `-ьми` in instrumental case plural is lost, except for these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `дочери` - `дочерьми` / `дочерями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `лошади` - `лошадьми` / `лошадями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `двери` - `дверьми` / `дверями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `звери` - `зверями` (preferable) / `зверьми` (obsolete),&#xD;&#xA;* `дети` - `детьми` only,&#xD;&#xA;* `люди` - `людьми` only (thanks @БаянКупи-ка),&#xD;&#xA;* `кости` - `костями`, except the phrase `лечь костьми`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39991" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15954" RevisionGUID="e2af130f-e46d-485a-9000-62ea0c13dfab" CreationDate="2018-03-11T12:14:05.767" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|падежи|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15956" RevisionGUID="ba355aea-a641-4860-b192-2ff92992508c" CreationDate="2018-03-11T12:54:08.590" UserId="2104" Text="Stats from the [Russian National Corpus][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Literary texts (Художественные тексты):&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;дверями: 52%, дверьми: 48%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Non-literary texts (Нехудожественные тексты):&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;дверями: 74%, дверьми: 26%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Based on the first 100 documents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This confirms that **дверьми** is more bookish (48% vs 26%) and that in literary texts the two are interchangeable (52% vs 48%). In other genres (news, speech) **дверями** prevails (74% vs 26%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?sort=gr_tagging&amp;out=normal&amp;dpp=100&amp;spd=10&amp;seed=2891&amp;env=alpha&amp;mydocsize=107321&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E4%E2%E5%F0%FC&amp;gramm1=pl%2Cins&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;mode=main&amp;mycorp=(((sphere%253A%2522%25ED%25E5%25F5%25F3%25E4%25EE%25E6%25E5%25F1%25F2%25E2%25E5%25ED%25ED%25E0%25FF%2522)))&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=160351999&amp;mysentsize=11540232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="c920ed98-2688-47bd-acd8-f48657ba277e" CreationDate="2018-03-11T15:10:24.183" UserId="8762" Text="I'm wondering, if anybody knows, what is this type called and if there are theoretical studies and/or monographies about contexts, in which these forms could  be particulary used (проходим Пушкина (=творчество Пушкина), играет Прокофьева (=пьесу Прокофьева), идем на Тарантино (=фильм Тарантино), билеты на Гришковца (=спектакль Гришковца)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="c920ed98-2688-47bd-acd8-f48657ba277e" CreationDate="2018-03-11T15:10:24.183" UserId="8762" Text="Очередь на Серова (=выставку Серова): A specific type of metonymy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="c920ed98-2688-47bd-acd8-f48657ba277e" CreationDate="2018-03-11T15:10:24.183" UserId="8762" Text="|узус|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15958" RevisionGUID="4a8c130d-902b-465c-9eee-6980abce3c14" CreationDate="2018-03-11T15:33:30.737" UserId="6539" Text="You are right. It's a metonymy. Here's an extract from the dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;МЕТОНИМИЯ (переименование) (троп)– перенос названия с одного предмета на другой на основании их  смежности. Переименование может быть связано с заменой названия произведения именем автора: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Читал охотно Апулея, а Цицерона не читал (А. Пушкин)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39997" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="15907" RevisionGUID="769b1752-fbb9-42a0-a43c-338f7aabfa8b" CreationDate="2018-03-11T15:43:12.753" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7094],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="39998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15958" RevisionGUID="be8edddb-6345-4ec5-9f9a-8b4fb3ebc548" CreationDate="2018-03-11T17:49:19.280" UserId="6539" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="You are right. It's a metonymy. Here's an extract from the dictionary &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;МЕТОНИМИЯ (переименование) (троп)– перенос названия с одного предмета на другой на основании их  смежности. Переименование может быть связано с заменой названия произведения именем автора: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Читал охотно Апулея, а Цицерона не читал (А. Пушкин)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of metonymy is called logical. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Перенос имени автора на созданное им творение. Например: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;«перечитывать Пушкина» (книги Пушкина), «любить Шишкина» (картины Шишкина), «пользоваться Далем» (словарем под редакцией Даля).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15961" RevisionGUID="4f4d02d6-0561-40bc-aa85-799e4433ad69" CreationDate="2018-03-11T21:01:56.607" UserId="6545" Text="Simple question at the end of my textbook (finally)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm supposed to provide the proper form for a possessive pronoun in the blank:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Где ____ машина! Вы видели ____ машину?&#xD;&#xA; - Нет, я не видел ____ машину.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I supplied, in order,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    моя мою вашу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it was suggested that the last one may also be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вашей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15961" RevisionGUID="4f4d02d6-0561-40bc-aa85-799e4433ad69" CreationDate="2018-03-11T21:01:56.607" UserId="6545" Text="clarification on the proper form of a possessive pronoun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15961" RevisionGUID="4f4d02d6-0561-40bc-aa85-799e4433ad69" CreationDate="2018-03-11T21:01:56.607" UserId="6545" Text="|узус|местоимения|притяжательные-местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15962" RevisionGUID="5345d41a-247c-46ff-8d53-4c142c5d26db" CreationDate="2018-03-11T21:40:30.160" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;*Вашей*&quot; is definitely wrong, it should be &quot;*вашу*&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нет, я не видел **вашу** машину.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct object of the sentence, &quot;*машину*&quot;, is in the Accusative case, that is why its attribute should also be in the Accusative (&quot;_вашу_&quot;), because the possessive pronoun &quot;_ваша_&quot; aggrees in case with the noun it modifies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that in Russian, if the predicate verb is negative, the direct object can be in the Genitive case, not in the Accusative as usually. So, if the task were to insert &quot;_ваша_&quot; into such a sentence as &quot;*Нет, я не видел ____ машин**ы***&quot; in which the direct object is in the Genitive case, then &quot;*вашей*&quot; would fit it well, since &quot;*вашей*&quot; is the Genitive case of &quot;_ваша_&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15963" RevisionGUID="451d753f-d607-472f-a259-c4032a395df7" CreationDate="2018-03-11T21:42:57.653" UserId="134" Text="*Ваш* is a possessive pronoun and as such has to agree in case with the noun it defines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that in your example, where *машина* is in sg. acc., the pronoun should be in sg. acc. as well, so *вашу* is the right answer here indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, negative statements in Russian allow both accusative and genitive for the objects. So both *я не видел вашу машину* and *я не видел вашей машины* are valid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should use one case, gender and number for both the object and the pronoun, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15964" RevisionGUID="f022a666-e7f2-4a0d-894b-0cdc834fa8fa" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:28:55.427" UserId="10338" Text="Good comments above! As was already stated, adjectives and pronouns agree with the **noun** they are describing in number, gender and case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's see what that looks like below in a bit more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Где моя машина? &#xD;&#xA;моя машина - singular feminine noun in the *nominative* case. This is the form you will find in the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Вы видели мою машину? &#xD;&#xA;мою машину - singular feminine noun in the *accusative* case. This case is used to denote the direct object of the sentence. In this sentence &quot;мою машину&quot; is the direct object of the verb &quot;видели&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Нет, я не видел вашу машину.&#xD;&#xA;вашу машину - Same story here with singular feminine noun in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These resources will be of assistence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.multitran.ru/c/M.exe?a=1&amp;a=1  - Multitran online dictionary. Gives examples of usage in specific fields&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary/Викисловарь - for verb conjugations and noun declensions&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/знать&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/Заглавная_страница&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good reference for learning cases&#xD;&#xA;http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/nouns_accusative.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Удачи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15955" RevisionGUID="4e61cede-ee75-44a6-bcc3-aacbf378a3ab" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:11:10.590" UserId="3680" Comment="Added плетьми" Text="Despite they are completely interchangeable, the latter is a bit bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ending `-ьми` in instrumental case plural is lost, except for these words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `дочери` - `дочерьми` / `дочерями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `лошади` - `лошадьми` / `лошадями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `двери` - `дверьми` / `дверями`,&#xD;&#xA;* `плети` - `плетьми` / `плетями` (thanks @user31264),&#xD;&#xA;* `звери` - `зверями` (preferable) / `зверьми` (obsolete),&#xD;&#xA;* `дети` - `детьми` only,&#xD;&#xA;* `люди` - `людьми` only (thanks @БаянКупи-ка),&#xD;&#xA;* `кости` - `костями`, except the phrase `лечь костьми`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15965" RevisionGUID="a8d5a1c6-f902-4fbb-b714-d9d065b26538" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:20:01.317" UserId="6907" Text="I'm trying to get the parallel preposition for &quot;of&quot; in Russian language and I'm really confused a little bit. I want it to explain to a Russian how to use &quot;of&quot; in an English sentence , but I can't find something that I know that it is really like &quot;of&quot; in the following contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the president **of** Russia.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the end **of** the show.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the bank **of** Moscow.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car is **of** my mother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Iv'e checked the translation on Google translate, and [this is][1] what I found... &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com.ua/?um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;client=tw-ob#auto/ru/of&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kd7nE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15965" RevisionGUID="a8d5a1c6-f902-4fbb-b714-d9d065b26538" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:20:01.317" UserId="6907" Text="Is there a preposition in Russian language like &quot;of&quot; in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15965" RevisionGUID="a8d5a1c6-f902-4fbb-b714-d9d065b26538" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:20:01.317" UserId="6907" Text="|одним-словом|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15966" RevisionGUID="ef03e64d-fa16-4dcf-a8e1-335eae58c554" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:56:33.270" UserId="2104" Text="No, there is no direct equivalent. 'Of' is usually rendered into Russian using the genitive case or possessive adjectives/pronouns. There are only a few cases where 'of' can be rendered as **из**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сделан **из** камня 'made **of** stone'&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15966" RevisionGUID="2091a255-a928-4f60-935d-4132436f1374" CreationDate="2018-03-12T00:11:41.280" UserId="2104" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="No, there is no direct equivalent. 'Of' is usually rendered into Russian using the genitive case or possessive adjectives/pronouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is president of Russia. -- Это президент России. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the end of the show. -- Это конец шоу. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the bank of Moscow. -- Это банк Москвы. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car is of my mother. -- Это машина моей матери.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only a few cases where 'of' can be rendered as **из**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сделан **из** камня -- 'made **of** stone'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вилем II **из** Пернштейна -- 'William II **of** Pernstein'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15966" RevisionGUID="3c5e0f7e-d388-4977-b6bd-01761fcab27b" CreationDate="2018-03-12T00:29:52.910" UserId="2104" Comment="added 316 characters in body" Text="No, there is no direct equivalent. 'Of' (indicating possession/containment) is usually rendered into Russian using the genitive case or possessive adjectives/pronouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is president of Russia. -- Это президент России. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the end of the show. -- Это конец шоу. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the bank of Moscow. -- Это банк Москвы. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car is of my mother. -- Это машина моей матери.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only a few cases where 'of' can be rendered as **из**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сделан **из** камня -- 'made **of** stone'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вилем II **из** Пернштейна -- 'William II **of** Pernstein'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needless to say (or maybe not) that constructs such as 'to be proud of', 'to dispose of' are of a totally different kind and are rendered into Russian using other grammatical cases. Grammatical cases are a huge thing in Russian. You won't get far in your studies without them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40021" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15957" RevisionGUID="f62d6df4-dd1b-471c-b010-07ce523f2bce" CreationDate="2018-03-12T04:43:35.480" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/973056887729115136" />
  <row Id="40022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15965" RevisionGUID="2f0502c2-fa25-48bd-8dd4-697ca98b5fd3" CreationDate="2018-03-12T08:40:29.030" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected, formatting" Text="I'm trying to get the parallel preposition for &quot;of&quot; in Russian language and I'm really confused a little bit. I want it to explain to a Russian how to use &quot;of&quot; in an English sentence, but I can't find something that I know that it is really like &quot;of&quot; in the following contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the president **of** Russia.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the end **of** the show.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is the bank **of** Moscow.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; This car is **of** my mother.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've checked the translation on Google Translate, and [this is][1] what I found... &#xD;&#xA;[![Google Translate screenshot][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com.ua/?um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;client=tw-ob#auto/ru/of&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kd7nE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15965" RevisionGUID="2f0502c2-fa25-48bd-8dd4-697ca98b5fd3" CreationDate="2018-03-12T08:40:29.030" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680 edit id of 962" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15967" RevisionGUID="41d3e8f1-4b3d-4d6e-82ce-4dee79855a6e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T12:51:47.773" UserId="8780" Text="It's told that **ё** is always stressed. However, when browsing declension charts of numerals, if I'm not mistaken, I noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Трёхсо́т**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a stress mark on the syllable -сот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Stress on -сот rather than on трёх-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Both stresses possible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15967" RevisionGUID="41d3e8f1-4b3d-4d6e-82ce-4dee79855a6e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T12:51:47.773" UserId="8780" Text="Is thee a non stressed ё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15967" RevisionGUID="41d3e8f1-4b3d-4d6e-82ce-4dee79855a6e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T12:51:47.773" UserId="8780" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15968" RevisionGUID="c55efe53-08aa-45d1-b1af-33c8db50b72f" CreationDate="2018-03-12T13:37:15.233" UserId="9001" Text="Short answer: stress is on *-сот*; you may put secondary stress on *трёх-* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a compound word. In compound words generally the second part is stressed, but first part may have a secondary stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This rule seems to take over from the always-stress-ё rule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15967" RevisionGUID="71aa7008-4ed9-49a4-b766-99b057b36350" CreationDate="2018-03-12T14:15:21.637" UserId="6097" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there a non stressed ё?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15969" RevisionGUID="0d7d02ce-ff6b-4a5a-bbd2-083955cca9c9" CreationDate="2018-03-12T14:47:53.393" UserId="10345" Text="There are loan names with non-stressed ё as well. For example, the surname of the mathematician Paul Erdős is spelled as _Э́рдёш_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding _трёхсот_: you may put secondary stress on the first syllable indeed, but I don't hear any difference between this word and the word _двухсот_, where the secondary stress doesn't appear, so it is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more, you can construct longer words where secondary stress on ё can hardly apply: for example, _трёхсо́тметро́вый_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may want to look at the pronunciation of these words on forvo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[трёхсотметровую][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[трёхсот][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forvo.com/search/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%91%D1%85%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%8E/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://forvo.com/search/%D1%82%D1%80%D1%91%D1%85%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15970" RevisionGUID="de87d345-e851-47b4-9be3-5f85adc56c75" CreationDate="2018-03-12T15:29:56.010" UserId="3680" Text="There are several words with unstressed `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (`Трёх-`/`Четырёх-`) (`-мерный`/`-этажный`/`-ярусный`/`-угольный`/`-колёсный`/...) - two stresses: `ё` and other syllable.&#xD;&#xA;* (`Трёхсот-`/`Четырёхсот-`) (`-мерный`/`-этажный`/`-ярусный`/`-угольный`/`-колёсный`/...) - two stresses, `ё` unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;* `Сёгун` - unstressed `ё`.&#xD;&#xA;* `Щёлочноземельный` - two stresses.&#xD;&#xA;* `Сёрфингист`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is geographic name `Бёрёлёх`. I don't know what syllable is stressed, but it's guaranteed that two of three are unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word `трёхсо́т`, the stressed syllable is definitely `о́`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15970" RevisionGUID="51dcd0ce-b9f3-408a-b7f3-656ce1754055" CreationDate="2018-03-12T15:36:27.720" UserId="3680" Comment="added stressed characters" Text="There are several words with unstressed `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (`Трёх-`/`Четырёх-`) (`-мéрный`/`-этáжный`/`-я́русный`/`-уго́льный`/`-колёсный`/...) - two stresses: `ё` and other syllable.&#xD;&#xA;* (`Трёхсо́т-`/`Четырёхсо́т-`) (`-мéрный`/`-этáжный`/`-я́русный`/`-уго́льный`/`-колёсный`/...) - two stresses, `ё` unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;* `Сёгýн` - unstressed `ё`.&#xD;&#xA;* `Щёлочноземéльный` - two stresses.&#xD;&#xA;* `Сёрфинги́ст` - unstressed `ё`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a geographic name [`Бёрёлёх`](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%91%D1%80%D1%91%D0%BB%D1%91%D1%85). I don't know what syllable is stressed, but it's guaranteed that two of three are unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word `трёхсо́т`, the stressed syllable is definitely `о́`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15970" RevisionGUID="8601e12b-2ccf-48ec-abe0-e336a7ed7fc0" CreationDate="2018-03-12T15:58:06.737" UserId="3680" Comment="added трёхрублёвка and кёрлинги́ст " Text="There are several words with unstressed `ё`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (`Трёх-`/`Четырёх-`) (`-мéрный`/`-этáжный`/`-я́русный`/`-уго́льный`/`-колёсный`/...) - two stresses: `ё` and other syllable.&#xD;&#xA;* (`Трёхсо́т-`/`Четырёхсо́т-`) (`-мéрный`/`-этáжный`/`-я́русный`/`-уго́льный`/`-колёсный`/...) - two stresses, `ё` unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;* `Сёгýн` - unstressed `ё`.&#xD;&#xA;* `Щёлочноземéльный` - two stresses.&#xD;&#xA;* `Сёрфинги́ст`, `Кёрлинги́ст` - unstressed `ё`.&#xD;&#xA;* `Трёхрублёвка` - two stresses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there is a geographic name [`Бёрёлёх`](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%91%D1%80%D1%91%D0%BB%D1%91%D1%85). I don't know what syllable is stressed, but it's guaranteed that two of three are unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the word `трёхсо́т`, the stressed syllable is definitely `о́`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15972" RevisionGUID="82f502bb-cf40-48ab-b90d-3426d3ef1f93" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:20:03.310" UserId="3680" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="To mark a stressed syllable in word, use the following *stressed* Russian letters:  &#xD;&#xA;`Á á Ó ó É é ý и́ ы́ э́ ю́ я́`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15972" RevisionGUID="82f502bb-cf40-48ab-b90d-3426d3ef1f93" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:20:03.310" UserId="3680" Comment="added 60 characters in body" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="47fc3e17-2204-4de7-b666-356364ed7ad2" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:20:03.310" UserId="3680" Text="Questions about stressed syllables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40038" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="47fc3e17-2204-4de7-b666-356364ed7ad2" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:20:03.310" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15972" RevisionGUID="527ae514-2291-4409-965f-4462f1e2907a" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:25:51.567" UserId="3680" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="To mark a stressed syllable in a word, use the following *stressed* Russian glyphs:  &#xD;&#xA;`Á á Ó ó É é ý и́ ы́ э́ ю́ я́`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="26419db5-e82c-44b9-9afc-a0ceb91f5821" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:25:51.567" UserId="3680" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Questions about stressed syllables.  &#xD;&#xA;List of stressed Russian glyphs:  Á á Ó ó É é ý и́ ы́ э́ ю́ я́." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40041" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="6b18a388-1cea-47d2-9aa6-d91fd9fee35d" CreationDate="2018-03-12T16:59:34.263" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|пунктуация|орфография|буква-ё|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15972" RevisionGUID="91f37ad9-6656-423e-a186-d8db4c04b2c5" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:02:51.720" UserId="3680" Comment="added missing glyphs" Text="To mark a stressed syllable in a word, use the following *stressed* Russian glyphs:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Á á Ó ó É é У́ ý И́ и́ Ы́ ы́ Э́ э́ Ю́ ю́ Я́ я́" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="e936f0aa-6b54-4897-9d61-842d56778e38" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:02:51.720" UserId="3680" Comment="added missing glyphs" Text="Questions about stressed syllables.  &#xD;&#xA;List of stressed Russian glyphs:  Á á Ó ó É é У́ ý И́ и́ Ы́ ы́ Э́ э́ Ю́ ю́ Я́ я́." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15973" RevisionGUID="3618c1e3-eb7d-4969-913b-076b5038d063" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:13:25.600" UserId="3680" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Questions about stress and stressed syllables in words and phrases. List of stressed Russian glyphs:  Á á Ó ó É é У́ ý И́ и́ Ы́ ы́ Э́ э́ Ю́ ю́ Я́ я́." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="34857295-80a5-4911-bfae-1f0e7a3a6ac7" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:15:03.957" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="5a8b53c6-67aa-4119-a226-93042adce44e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:16:21.533" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="2be22d84-8af1-4a04-a6f7-e85f8c7d75ea" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:16:42.383" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40048" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15233" RevisionGUID="c54e1178-bd0f-4561-a856-a68f214e9c2f" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:17:12.187" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15967" RevisionGUID="da63ba6b-53e9-4aab-bca7-d2a304b2ab9e" CreationDate="2018-03-12T22:44:02.770" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/973328790603657216" />
  <row Id="40051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="787ec7f9-9fa7-4c33-9bcd-316d500844f2" CreationDate="2018-03-13T00:32:24.367" UserId="10348" Text="Как правильно пишется слово 'б**Ь**ем' или 'б**Ъ**ем'&#xD;&#xA;с мягким знаком или твердым знаком&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- я нашел некоторые ненадежные подтверждения в силу использования ['Ь'][1] &#xD;&#xA;но словарь T9 на телефоне постоянно норовит исправить слово на 'б**Ъ**ем'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;вопрос:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно пишется слово 'б**Ь**ем' или 'б**Ъ**ем' и дайте пожалуйста подтверждения более твердые нежели просто слова (ссылка на источник) в английском это мог быть Oxford dictionary, в русском может Даль, но не уверен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;СПАСИБО!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://znanija.com/task/11892617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="787ec7f9-9fa7-4c33-9bcd-316d500844f2" CreationDate="2018-03-13T00:32:24.367" UserId="10348" Text="Твердый знак или мягкий знак" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="787ec7f9-9fa7-4c33-9bcd-316d500844f2" CreationDate="2018-03-13T00:32:24.367" UserId="10348" Text="|грамматика|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15975" RevisionGUID="9305fd96-19bb-4137-818c-b157f88e2616" CreationDate="2018-03-13T01:02:54.597" UserId="2104" Text="Мягкий знак однозначно: *бьём*. Твердый пишется в основном после приставок (*объём*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40055" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15965" RevisionGUID="f9c191a1-c49a-4c6b-83b8-92ee1eb0619e" CreationDate="2018-03-13T01:44:01.777" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/973374087534993408" />
  <row Id="40056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="54ab863d-e4c5-499a-a42a-86f4284a1e3e" CreationDate="2018-03-13T09:51:45.893" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как правильно пишется слово 'б**Ь**ем' или 'б**Ъ**ем' - с мягким знаком или c твердым знаком?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я нашел некоторые ненадежные подтверждения в силу использования ['Ь'](https://znanija.com/task/11892617), &#xD;&#xA;но словарь T9 на телефоне постоянно норовит исправить слово на 'б**Ъ**ем'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как правильно пишется слово 'б**Ь**ем' или 'б**Ъ**ем'? И дайте, пожалуйста, подтверждения более твердые, нежели просто слова (ссылка на источник). В английском это мог быть Oxford dictionary, в русском может Даль, но не уверен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40057" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="54ab863d-e4c5-499a-a42a-86f4284a1e3e" CreationDate="2018-03-13T09:51:45.893" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="Твердый знак или мягкий знак?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40058" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15974" RevisionGUID="f758f357-10ae-4bce-ae31-191e40fc4427" CreationDate="2018-03-13T10:14:45.530" UserId="6097" Comment="уточнил заголовок" Text="Твердый знак или мягкий знак в слове &quot;бьём&quot; / &quot;бъём&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11999" RevisionGUID="040e3b8c-340b-46d9-aa09-496b3ee1f1a6" CreationDate="2018-03-13T13:10:40.727" UserId="134" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="As it often happens, this word had been borrowed as indeclinable into Russian, but had later accepted declension as more people were becoming familiar with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In older texts it's indeclinable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Живут коала на ветвях особого вида эвкалиптов и питаются листьями. [коллективный. Из почты «Огонька» // «Огонек». № 34, 1956]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Вероятно, возрастающее внимание общественности к этому яркому шустрому зверьку сможет сохранить ему жизнь, как оно когда-то помогло спасти коала в Восточной Австралии. [Клуб Почемучек // «Юный натуралист», 1976]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, in newer ones it does decline:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Зоопарк, наверное, выполнил свой годовой план, постоять в очереди к коале пришел и мэр города. [Ирина Соколова. Бабочки летают (заметки о Тайване) (1999)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Австралийскому сумчатому медведю коале бесполезно предлагать морковку или бутерброд с сыром. [Т. Подоскина. Нескучная латынь // «Наука и жизнь», 2008] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dictionaries don't agree on declinability and gender either: Lopatin treats it as declinable feminine or indeclinable masculine; Zarva's *Русское словесное ударение* says it's masculine and indeclinable; *Большой Толковый Словарь* (the 1998's edition) says it's declinable feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40061" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15954" RevisionGUID="9bb29a6d-bf00-421b-8152-718c3481da7b" CreationDate="2018-03-13T13:44:03.493" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/973555287880880129" />
  <row Id="40063" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="3dcac5b9-20a8-48bb-8b76-d44c7721901b" CreationDate="2018-03-13T14:18:04.677" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Склоняется ли слово &quot;коала&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40064" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1690" RevisionGUID="9f623c44-a1f2-453d-866c-9e108ab5bf7d" CreationDate="2018-03-13T14:19:04.777" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15976" RevisionGUID="de8d83a8-3448-42f5-a390-161eed32fb24" CreationDate="2018-03-13T17:50:30.160" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Ты **чем-то** похож на него.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Ты **что-то** похож на него.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that if the adjective &quot;похожий&quot; were not in the shortened form, it would take the instrumental case here. But I wonder if the adverb &quot;что-то&quot; with the meaning of &quot;somewhat/slightly&quot; is also affected and needs to be in the instrumental?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15976" RevisionGUID="de8d83a8-3448-42f5-a390-161eed32fb24" CreationDate="2018-03-13T17:50:30.160" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the instrumental &quot;чем-то&quot; instead of &quot;что-то&quot; in: &quot;Ты чем-то похож на него&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15976" RevisionGUID="de8d83a8-3448-42f5-a390-161eed32fb24" CreationDate="2018-03-13T17:50:30.160" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15977" RevisionGUID="86be5675-4237-4632-949b-960aaa041bce" CreationDate="2018-03-13T18:10:54.310" UserId="4560" Text="**Чем-то** does not mean &quot;somewhat&quot; or &quot;slightly&quot;. It means &quot;somehow&quot;, &quot;in some vague or elusive way&quot;, which is not quite the same. It's quite independent of the predicate, whether adjectival or verbal. You'd also say **он чем-то меня раздражает** ~&quot;something about him irritates me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, **что-то** wouldn't mean &quot;slightly&quot; either here. It's more of an expression of puzzlement or concern: &quot;you look like him, you know&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15978" RevisionGUID="c8359bb1-af65-4a56-9533-ef0ce5397548" CreationDate="2018-03-13T19:08:52.190" UserId="9602" Text="The first sentence is completely regular with no funny business. Чем ты похож на него? — Чем-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence “что-то” isn’t really part of the sentence but rather it denotes the speaker’s feeling about it, thus it isn’t declined. When someone’s says a very natural “Что-то мне нездоровится” you can think of it as “Что-то *даёт мне понять, что* мне нездоровится”. Grammatically, it’s like “I think” in “I think I’m ill”, except as usual, Russian lets you place that “что-то” in just about any place in the sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15979" RevisionGUID="d02caadd-2448-4fea-96a8-90bcc1a028d5" CreationDate="2018-03-13T20:29:00.797" UserId="7674" Text="To better tease out the semantic role of **чем-то**, adjective **похож** may be substituted with the verb **походить** which is easier to associate with a noun in Instrumental and which gives us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты чем-то **походишь** на него&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translatable as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You resemble him with something (some of your features)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15979" RevisionGUID="6c52c7c1-ec72-4ea4-945b-4b991ae00556" CreationDate="2018-03-13T21:44:14.937" UserId="7674" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="To better tease out the semantic role of **чем-то**, adjective **похож** may be substituted with the verb **походить** which is easier to associate with a noun (or in this case a pronoun) in Instrumental and which gives us&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты чем-то **походишь** на него&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translatable as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You resemble him with something (some of your features)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="828ae1b8-5832-404c-8dfe-c80c0e400ac7" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:11:12.877" UserId="9100" Text="What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче кагбе пыщъ&quot; (as I asked a remote developer about delivery of my app project. Never heard anything more from him. Hope it is not a deadly decease.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="828ae1b8-5832-404c-8dfe-c80c0e400ac7" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:11:12.877" UserId="9100" Text="Meaning кагбе пыщъ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="828ae1b8-5832-404c-8dfe-c80c0e400ac7" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:11:12.877" UserId="9100" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="49be2285-51d3-45f4-b10b-b48e75edb60e" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:25:34.587" UserId="4600" Text="It's in [Upyachka][1] slang. Provided your context I guess that would mean he had sent you something. Literally translated that would roughly evaluate into something like *well, sorta kaboom.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче&quot; – a common parasite word in Russian, equivalent to *&quot;well, ...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кагбе&quot; – meaning *&quot;sort of&quot;* distorted &quot;как бы&quot;, from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыщ&quot; – something like explosion *&quot;kaboom, bang&quot;*, again from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upyachka* was popular website and netlore associated with in 2000s. The content posted on that website consisted mostly of meaningless meme pictures and GIFs, deliberately misspelled and nonsensical Russian etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Упячка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="50ca3b6f-4cce-4589-aea7-c78e8a3977dd" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:31:05.830" UserId="4600" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="It's in [Upyachka][1] slang. Provided your context I guess that would mean he had sent you something. Literally translated that would roughly evaluate into something like *well, sorta kaboom.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче&quot; – a common parasite word in Russian, equivalent to *&quot;well, ...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кагбе&quot; – meaning *&quot;sort of&quot;* distorted &quot;как бы&quot;, from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыщ&quot; – something like explosion *&quot;kaboom, bang&quot;*, again from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upyachka* was popular website and netlore associated with in 2000s. The content posted on that website consisted mostly of meaningless meme pictures and GIFs, deliberately misspelled and nonsensical Russian words etc. The most known phrase in Upyachkan, illustrating its characteristic extensive usage of uppercase and exclamation marks was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЖЫВТОНЕ ЧОЧО УПЯЧКА!!! УПЯЧКА УПЯЧКА! ШЯЧЛО ПОПЯЧТСА ПОПЯЧТСА! Я идиот! Убейте меня, кто-нибудь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Упячка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="32253d7e-9575-4feb-b4e3-88bf7edb2731" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:33:32.083" UserId="4600" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's in [Upyachka][1] slang. Literally translated that would roughly evaluate into something like *well, sorta kaboom.* Provided your context I guess that would mean he had sent you something, or something bad happened, or he just decided to disappear forever. Anyways, I would consider unprofessional sending something like that with any intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче&quot; – a common parasite word in Russian, equivalent to *&quot;well, ...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кагбе&quot; – meaning *&quot;sort of&quot;* distorted &quot;как бы&quot;, from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыщ&quot; – something like explosion *&quot;kaboom, bang&quot;*, again from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upyachka* was popular a website and netlore associated with in 2000s. The content posted on that website consisted mostly of meaningless meme pictures and GIFs, deliberately misspelled and nonsensical Russian words etc. The most known phrase in Upyachkan, illustrating its characteristic extensive usage of uppercase and exclamation marks was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЖЫВТОНЕ ЧОЧО УПЯЧКА!!! УПЯЧКА УПЯЧКА! ШЯЧЛО ПОПЯЧТСА ПОПЯЧТСА! Я идиот! Убейте меня, кто-нибудь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Упячка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="2c6a027e-f3a4-440f-9d57-4d90167a134b" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:39:04.823" UserId="4600" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="It's in [Upyachka][1] slang. Literally translated that would roughly evaluate into something like *well, sorta kaboom.* Provided your context I guess that would mean he had sent you something, or something bad happened, or he just decided to disappear forever. Anyways, I would consider unprofessional sending something like that with any intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче&quot; – a common parasite word in Russian, equivalent to *&quot;well, ...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кагбе&quot; – meaning *&quot;sort of&quot;* distorted &quot;как бы&quot;, from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыщ&quot; – something like explosion *&quot;kaboom, bang&quot;*, again from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upyachka* was popular a website and netlore associated with in 2000s. The content posted on that website consisted mostly of meaningless meme pictures and GIFs, deliberately misspelled and nonsensical Russian words etc. The most known phrase in Upyachkan, illustrating its characteristic extensive usage of uppercase and exclamation marks was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЖЫВТОНЕ ЧОЧО УПЯЧКА!!! УПЯЧКА УПЯЧКА! ШЯЧЛО ПОПЯЧТСА ПОПЯЧТСА! Я идиот! Убейте меня, кто-нибудь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upyachka.io/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="6809ea4a-bb61-4467-b5ab-003f34a7045a" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:43:01.313" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="6809ea4a-bb61-4467-b5ab-003f34a7045a" CreationDate="2018-03-14T08:43:01.313" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;короче кагбе пыщъ&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I asked a remote developer about delivery of my app project. Never heard anything more from him. Hope it is not a deadly decease." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="d4279a6e-4826-4277-bdf4-c3e684fd13c7" CreationDate="2018-03-14T12:23:02.160" UserId="4600" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It's in [Upyachka][1] slang. Literally translated that would roughly evaluate into something like *well, sorta kaboom.* Provided your context I guess that would mean he had sent you something, or something bad happened, or he just decided to disappear forever. Anyways, I would consider unprofessional sending something like that with any intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче&quot; – a common parasite word in Russian, equivalent to *&quot;well, ...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кагбе&quot; – meaning *&quot;sort of&quot;* distorted &quot;как бы&quot;, from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыщь&quot; – something like explosion *&quot;kaboom, bang&quot;*, again from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upyachka* was popular a website and netlore associated with it in 2000s. The content posted on that website consisted mostly of meaningless meme pictures and GIFs, deliberately misspelled and nonsensical Russian words etc. The most known phrase in Upyachkan, illustrating its characteristic extensive usage of uppercase and exclamation marks was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЖЫВТОНЕ ЧОЧО УПЯЧКА!!! УПЯЧКА УПЯЧКА! ШЯЧЛО ПОПЯЧТСА ПОПЯЧТСА! Я идиот! Убейте меня, кто-нибудь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upyachka.io/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="243787a3-3291-480c-a1a4-9f48efb6beda" CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:22:42.393" UserId="6991" Text="I understood the first time I heard about the locative that it was usually reserved for monosyllabic masculine nouns (ex. _чай_, _дом_, _сок_) with exceptions (_кровь_, _дверь_). However, I recently saw that _на  дому_ is the correct usage for describing activities inside of a house, whereas _на доме_ for activities on the roof. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But just today, I notice that the locative case isn't used once it is modified by an adjective? For example, I can find no record of the sentence _на моём дому_ online, but instead, I see _на моём доме_. Are there any concrete rules to tell me when to use the locative, as what I am learning seems arbitrary.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="243787a3-3291-480c-a1a4-9f48efb6beda" CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:22:42.393" UserId="6991" Text="What are the rules of the locative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="243787a3-3291-480c-a1a4-9f48efb6beda" CreationDate="2018-03-14T17:22:42.393" UserId="6991" Text="|словоупотребление|падежи|узус|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15983" RevisionGUID="71201225-a521-4ad3-b2e0-c6cdefb32c9b" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:13:51.987" UserId="242" Text="There are no rules for locative cases but rather sporadic usages that are evidence of having locative (to some extent) earlier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usages of phrases like `на дому`, `на снегу` etc. should be memorized and that's it. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="df7fff13-e201-4373-bb77-638ca62f6c75" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:14:09.147" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;кагбе пыщъ&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15984" RevisionGUID="04ef3d5f-0d64-436c-a270-d66277a6b517" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:28:21.547" UserId="134" Text="Locative is pretty much arbitrary indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To further complicate things, some of the words which technically have locative only use it in set phrases or in certain senses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дом* is one of such words. While *в дому* still can be understood, it has long since fallen out of use in live Russian speech, and *на дому* is a set phrase meaning &quot;at home&quot; in the context of work: *работа на дому* means &quot;outwork&quot; and *надомник* means &quot;outworker&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't really say *на моём дому* nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words like this are *мир* (*в миру* can only be used in the sense of &quot;secular world&quot;), *щит* (*в щиту* means &quot;in the electric panel&quot;) and several others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15985" RevisionGUID="cc12d2b5-328f-4034-88c2-e7591544e6ac" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:42:11.470" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; But just today, I notice that the locative case isn't used once it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified by an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite, it's totally correct to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На белом/рыхлом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; снег**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На крутом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; вал**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В горячем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бо**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В дремучем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; лес**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На нашем&lt;sup&gt;poss. pronoun&lt;/sup&gt; век**У**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i guess use of Locative must be governed by other factors, if any, and which exactly i unfortunately am not able to tell yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40091" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="472386d2-3a8e-4b2f-9bda-8e890113daae" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:55:02.233" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|падежи|узус|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15985" RevisionGUID="6292ce99-cfa2-46e2-aa27-2a4a5abccc97" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:59:27.987" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="&gt; But just today, I notice that the locative case isn't used once it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified by an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite, it's totally correct to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На белом/рыхлом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; снег**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На крутом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; вал**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В горячем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бо**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В дремучем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; лес**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На нашем&lt;sup&gt;poss. pronoun&lt;/sup&gt; век**У**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The noun **дом** appears to be unique (or one of the very few) among those able to inflect in Locative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15985" RevisionGUID="5a5c06bb-0fd8-45b8-a462-6ffa3b4963ca" CreationDate="2018-03-14T19:31:40.707" UserId="7674" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="&gt; But just today, I notice that the locative case isn't used once it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified by an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite, it's totally correct to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На белом/рыхлом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; снег**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На крутом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; вал**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В горячем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бо**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В дремучем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; лес**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На нашем&lt;sup&gt;poss. pron.&lt;/sup&gt; век**У**    &#xD;&#xA;В новом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; порт**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В дальнем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; кра**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В цветущем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; сад**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В липком&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; пот**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На своём&lt;sup&gt;poss. pron.&lt;/sup&gt; х..**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В ночном&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бред**У**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that **дом** is unique, because its Locative has only survived for  limited use in а particular sense of `working from home`. In fact despite being written separately **на** + **дому**, semantically it functions as an adverb (which are to be written jointly with prepositions), and this i believe is the reason for its reversion to Prepositional case once this fossilized semantic unity is broken up by insertion of intermediate words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15985" RevisionGUID="2a7e1f80-a137-42fc-a607-4036edfa15a8" CreationDate="2018-03-14T19:39:43.143" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; But just today, I notice that the locative case isn't used once it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified by an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite, it's totally correct to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На белом/рыхлом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; снег**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На крутом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; вал**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В горячем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бо**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В дремучем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; лес**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На нашем&lt;sup&gt;poss. pron.&lt;/sup&gt; век**У**    &#xD;&#xA;В новом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; порт**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В дальнем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; кра**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В цветущем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; сад**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В липком&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; пот**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На своём&lt;sup&gt;poss. pron.&lt;/sup&gt; х..**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В ночном&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бред**У**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that **дом** is unique, because its Locative has only survived for  limited use in а particular sense of `working from home`. In fact despite being written separately **на** + **дому**, semantically it functions as an adverb (which are to be written jointly with prepositions), and this i believe is the reason for its reversal to Prepositional case once this fossilized semantic unity is broken up by insertion of intermediate words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40095" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15980" RevisionGUID="feefab35-af46-4ea9-9136-b8caa5ee3b18" CreationDate="2018-03-14T19:54:16.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/974010845230485505" />
  <row Id="40096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15986" RevisionGUID="812dd273-96d2-4554-903b-7c3e7df7d3b2" CreationDate="2018-03-14T20:31:07.630" UserId="2104" Text="In the course of the last few hundred years Locative (and Partitive) were gradually phased out of the language. Some words have lost their locatives completely. E.g. my granddad (born 1929) would say &quot;в отпуску&quot;. Nowadays  this sounds peculiar, &quot;в отпуске&quot; is pretty much the only way of saying it. &#xA;&#xA;Some words are &quot;hesitating&quot; (to various degrees): мозг, счёт (на вашем счёте/счету осталось...), аэропорт, цех, мост (дырка в мосте / в мосту). &#xA;&#xA;Some have split meanings: &#xA;&#xA;В углу комнаты лежит мяч.&#xA;В прямом угле 90 градусов.&#xA;&#xA;На краю земли.&#xA;В Краснодарском крае.&#xA;&#xA;В миру&#xA;В мире&#xA;&#xA;Others have only kept locatives in set phrases: на нашем веку (vs в двадцатом веке), на виду (vs в нетрезвом виде), на дому (vs на доме), etc.&#xA;&#xA;Most high-frequency words continue to hold on to their locatives quite firmly: час, глаз, бок, лес, снег, берег...&#xA;&#xA;You are not finding any examples of &quot;на моём дому&quot; because &quot;на дому&quot; is a set phrase.&#xA;&#xA;You are right: adding an adjective *can* sway even a veteral locative word towards taking the ending -е: &quot;В следующем часе мы услышим...&quot;&#xA;&#xA;There are a few towns / villages in Russia called &quot;Сосновый бор&quot; and &quot;Старый мост&quot;. I'd really like to hear how those people describe where they live!&#xA;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15986" RevisionGUID="94719624-992b-4bd3-b6da-97f19a3d8e1c" CreationDate="2018-03-14T22:05:04.047" UserId="2104" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="In the course of the last few hundred years Locative (and Partitive) were gradually phased out of the language. Some words have lost their locatives completely. E.g. my granddad (born 1929) would say &quot;в отпуску&quot;. Nowadays  this sounds peculiar, &quot;в отпуске&quot; is pretty much the only way of saying it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words are &quot;hesitating&quot; (to various degrees): мозг, счёт (на вашем счёте/счету осталось...), аэропорт, цех, мост (дырка в мосте / в мосту). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some have split meanings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В углу комнаты лежит мяч.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В прямом угле 90 градусов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На краю земли.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Краснодарском крае.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В миру&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В мире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others have only kept locatives in set phrases: на нашем веку (vs в двадцатом веке), на виду (vs в нетрезвом виде), на дому (vs на доме), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most high-frequency words continue to hold on to their locatives quite firmly: час, глаз, бок, лес, снег, берег...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not finding any examples of &quot;на моём дому&quot; because &quot;на дому&quot; is a set phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right: adding an adjective *can* sway even a veteral locative word towards taking the ending -е: &quot;В следующем часе мы услышим...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few towns / villages called &quot;Сосновый бор&quot; and &quot;Старый мост&quot;. I'd really like to hear how those people describe where they live!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40104" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="8ad42cab-32d4-429f-ad1b-d259e2029a0d" CreationDate="2018-03-15T10:54:38.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/974237430051196928" />
  <row Id="40105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15985" RevisionGUID="aae1f358-2772-4ae8-a7e4-d2c1714af30e" CreationDate="2018-03-15T11:17:22.650" UserId="7674" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="&gt; But just today, I notice that the locative case isn't used once it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; modified by an adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not quite, it's totally correct to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На белом/рыхлом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; снег**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На крутом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; вал**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В горячем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бо**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В дремучем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; лес**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На нашем&lt;sup&gt;poss. pron.&lt;/sup&gt; век**У**    &#xD;&#xA;В новом&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; порт**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В дальнем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; кра**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В цветущем&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; сад**У**  &#xD;&#xA;В липком&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; пот**У**  &#xD;&#xA;На своём&lt;sup&gt;poss. pron.&lt;/sup&gt; х..**Ю**  &#xD;&#xA;В ночном&lt;sup&gt;adj.&lt;/sup&gt; бред**У**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that **дом** is unique, because its Locative has only survived for  limited use in а particular sense of `working from home`. In fact despite being written separately **на** + **дому**, semantically it functions as an adverb (which are to be written jointly with prepositions), because it can answer not only the question **`where?`** but also **`how?`**, and this i believe is the reason for its reversal to Prepositional case once this fossilized semantic unity is broken up by insertion of intermediate words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15976" RevisionGUID="b5806e5b-d91c-4c71-8d93-ac572867f248" CreationDate="2018-03-15T16:54:41.147" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/974328037515890690" />
  <row Id="40110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15986" RevisionGUID="2caaa305-c5eb-4ebb-aa40-006937869615" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:22:41.583" UserId="2104" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="&gt; Are there any concrete rules to tell me when to use the locative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer: Yes, there are a few trends. Read the long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the course of the last few hundred years Locative (and Partitive) were gradually phased out of the language. Some words have lost their locatives completely. E.g. my granddad (born 1929) would say &quot;в отпуску&quot;. Nowadays  this sounds peculiar, &quot;в отпуске&quot; is pretty much the only way of saying it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words are &quot;hesitating&quot; (to various degrees): мозг, счёт (на вашем счёте/счету осталось...), аэропорт, цех, мост (дырка в мосте / в мосту). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some have split meanings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В углу комнаты лежит мяч.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В прямом угле 90 градусов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На краю земли.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Краснодарском крае.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В миру&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В мире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others have only kept locatives in set phrases: на нашем веку (vs в двадцатом веке), на виду (vs в нетрезвом виде), на дому (vs на доме), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most high-frequency words continue to hold on to their locatives quite firmly: час, глаз, бок, лес, снег, берег...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not finding any examples of &quot;на моём дому&quot; because &quot;на дому&quot; is a set phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are right: adding an adjective *can* sway even a veteral locative word towards taking the ending -е: &quot;В следующем часе мы услышим...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few towns / villages called &quot;Сосновый бор&quot; and &quot;Старый мост&quot;. I'd really like to hear how those people describe where they live!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15986" RevisionGUID="62ad1aec-da6e-4c2d-aae0-f628cf464551" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:40:45.250" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="&gt; Are there any concrete rules to tell me when to use the locative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer: Yes, there are a few trends. Read the long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the course of the last few hundred years Locative (and Partitive) were gradually phased out of the language. Some words have lost their locatives completely. E.g. my granddad (born 1929) would say &quot;в отпуску&quot;. Nowadays  this sounds peculiar, &quot;в отпуске&quot; is pretty much the only way of saying it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words are &quot;hesitating&quot; (to various degrees): мозг, счёт (на вашем счёте/счету осталось...), аэропорт, цех, мост (дырка в мосте / в мосту):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some have split meanings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В углу комнаты лежит мяч.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В прямом угле 90 градусов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На краю земли.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Краснодарском крае.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В миру&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В мире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others have only kept locatives in set phrases: на нашем веку (vs в двадцатом веке), на виду (vs в нетрезвом виде), на дому (vs на доме), час (в пятом часу vs в одном часе 60 секунд).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not finding any examples of &quot;на моём дому&quot; because &quot;на дому&quot; is a set phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most high-frequency words continue to hold on to their locatives quite firmly: час, глаз, бок, лес, снег, берег...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few towns / villages called &quot;Сосновый бор&quot; and &quot;Старый мост&quot;. I'd really like to hear how those people describe where they live!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15989" RevisionGUID="01dcaf77-cd4e-4a22-918d-270e15ca48ba" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:59:03.317" UserId="6371" Text="Есть ли аналоги слова &quot;Takeaway&quot; в русском языке? Контекст такой:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've read a book. Here are my takeaways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос не в переводе фразы в целом, а в том, есть ли аналогичные слова или короткие фразы в русском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме &quot;основные мысли&quot; мне ничего не приходит на ум, но даже это отражает значение не точно. Ведь это не основные мысли, а то, что было важно в книге именно для меня -- то, что я из неё **вынес**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15989" RevisionGUID="01dcaf77-cd4e-4a22-918d-270e15ca48ba" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:59:03.317" UserId="6371" Text="Перевод слова &quot;takeaway&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15989" RevisionGUID="01dcaf77-cd4e-4a22-918d-270e15ca48ba" CreationDate="2018-03-15T17:59:03.317" UserId="6371" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15986" RevisionGUID="110854e5-947a-41af-ad0f-1555a1decc6d" CreationDate="2018-03-15T19:16:38.363" UserId="2104" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="First of all, don't believe the other answers telling you that the locative is arbitrary and that there are no rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locative is *not* arbitrary: for some words its use is *required*: **в глазу, в боку, в саду;** others (the majority) do not have a distinct locative form: **в столе, в городе.** It would be wrong to use them with the ending -у: **в столу, в городу;** and it would be wrong to say **в глазе, в боке, в саде.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there any concrete rules to tell me when to use the locative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer: Yes, there are a few trends. Read the long answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the course of the last few hundred years Locative (and Partitive) were gradually phased out of the language. Some words have lost their locatives completely. E.g. my granddad (born 1929) would say &quot;в отпуску&quot;. Nowadays  this sounds peculiar, &quot;в отпуске&quot; is pretty much the only way of saying it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words are &quot;hesitating&quot; (to various degrees): мозг, счёт (на вашем счёте/счету осталось...), аэропорт, цех, мост (дырка в мосте / в мосту):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some have split meanings: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В углу комнаты лежит мяч.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В прямом угле 90 градусов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На краю земли.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Краснодарском крае.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В миру&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В мире&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others have only kept locatives in set phrases: на нашем веку (vs в двадцатом веке), на виду (vs в нетрезвом виде), на дому (vs на доме), час (в пятом часу vs в одном часе 60 секунд).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are not finding any examples of &quot;на моём дому&quot; because &quot;на дому&quot; is a set phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most high-frequency words continue to hold on to their locatives quite firmly: час, глаз, бок, лес, снег, берег...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few towns / villages called &quot;Сосновый бор&quot; and &quot;Старый мост&quot;. I'd really like to hear how those people describe where they live!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15990" RevisionGUID="f1c87fbe-12be-4032-ac2b-006ad0d72f03" CreationDate="2018-03-15T19:25:05.223" UserId="6539" Text="Если речь о еде, то «на вынос» и «с собой» – самые распространенные варианты. В вашем случае так не получится. Самое краткое будет «вот, что я узнал, вынес, почерпнул». " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15991" RevisionGUID="aa52678a-86dc-48ae-affb-56cd678cecf3" CreationDate="2018-03-15T19:48:19.840" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Таковы её уроки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот такие уроки я извлёк  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот какие уроки я (для себя) извлёк/вынес&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;но это всё равно громоздко по сравнению с английским" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15992" RevisionGUID="96085656-9ef7-4e6e-b2ba-f9fc1c836d26" CreationDate="2018-03-15T19:56:00.630" UserId="2104" Text="Выводы? &quot;Вот какие выводы я для себя сделал.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15993" RevisionGUID="e9752994-ce67-40dc-8d23-5d1318d1159f" CreationDate="2018-03-15T20:22:25.907" UserId="2104" Text="**Основные идеи, пункты, выжимка, конспект**&#xA;&#xA;То, что конспект сделан вами, ясно из контекста; особо подчеркивать это необязательно. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Я прочитал книгу. Вот основные идеи:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15990" RevisionGUID="413405f5-8750-42f0-a100-c23b7ecbd677" CreationDate="2018-03-16T07:17:47.403" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 68 characters in body" Text="Изначально значение «на вынос», «с собой». Самое краткое будет «вот, что я узнал, вынес, почерпнул». " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15990" RevisionGUID="8722377a-cbba-4113-bcbe-81588a3a72c4" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:10:07.300" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Изначально значение «на вынос», «с собой». Самое краткое будет «вот, что я узнал, вынес, **почерпнул**». " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="6ebfc216-1d68-4e8c-a10c-bcc4a5294ec8" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:30:55.823" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Don't just swallow anything they throw at you! **Мало ли** какие слухи про нее &#xD;&#xA;ходят...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the sentence means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**You never know** / **Who knows** what kind of (unreliable) gossip may be circling around about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why the adverb &quot;мало / little&quot; coupled with the interrogative particle &quot;ли&quot; gets to have this meaning. Can I interpret it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  Just how little do we know about it?!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="6ebfc216-1d68-4e8c-a10c-bcc4a5294ec8" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:30:55.823" UserId="8672" Text="How come &quot;мало ли&quot; means what it does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="6ebfc216-1d68-4e8c-a10c-bcc4a5294ec8" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:30:55.823" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="2388100f-cce6-4f3b-b218-6433f3c00f6f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:41:01.013" UserId="8672" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;Don't just swallow anything they throw at you! **Мало ли** какие слухи про нее &#xD;&#xA;ходят...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the sentence means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**You never know** / **Who knows** what kind of (unreliable) gossip may be circling around about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why the adverb &quot;мало / little&quot; coupled with the interrogative particle &quot;ли&quot; gets to have this meaning. Can I interpret it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  **Just how little do we know about it?!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="bbda8d50-4cd5-4cbf-b8cb-b9a6b897cdbf" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:54:09.753" UserId="8672" Comment="added 131 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;Don't just swallow anything they throw at you! **Мало ли** какие слухи про нее &#xD;&#xA;ходят...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the sentence means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**You never know** / **Who knows** what kind of (unreliable) gossip may be circling around about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why the adverb &quot;мало / little&quot; coupled with the interrogative particle &quot;ли&quot; gets to have this meaning. Can I interpret it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  **Do we know even (a) little about it?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  **Just how little do we know about it?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... asking in a rhetorical fashion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40127" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="bbda8d50-4cd5-4cbf-b8cb-b9a6b897cdbf" CreationDate="2018-03-16T13:54:09.753" UserId="8672" Comment="added 131 characters in body; edited title" Text="How does the expression &quot;мало ли&quot; mean what it does?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15995" RevisionGUID="702cea3c-4fc6-471c-a99a-5ed03795dc90" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:06:10.290" UserId="7239" Text="E.g. `What a beautiful day!` or `What a jerk!`. The phrase doesn't have in general any positive or negative connotation, but is just a general exclamation about the perceived (large) magnitude of something, good or bad. (`What a generous offer!`, `What a terrible surprise!`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course one could also use any of the above sarcastically, inverting the meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my guess is that one might say something like `(Вот) так красивый день!` or `(Вот) такой красивый день!` in Russian to mean something similar, but really I have no idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15995" RevisionGUID="702cea3c-4fc6-471c-a99a-5ed03795dc90" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:06:10.290" UserId="7239" Text="Russian equivalents of English idiom &quot;what a ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15995" RevisionGUID="702cea3c-4fc6-471c-a99a-5ed03795dc90" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:06:10.290" UserId="7239" Text="|одним-словом|выражения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15996" RevisionGUID="29768296-7df6-4aec-a824-f5cf3cbcbd02" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:30:02.193" UserId="6539" Text="In general we say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какой прекрасный день, какой чудесный пень, какой чудесный я и песенка моя!(a famous song from the cartoon )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are variations speaking negatively about a person we can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой подлец! And Каков подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides we use «Что за» plus noun, or noun phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ну что за ушки, что за глазки! Какие перышки, какой носок!(from the fable by Krylov.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="1d73166a-8dac-4064-bd83-db7ac3a5d279" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:47:17.280" UserId="8672" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="&gt;Don't just swallow anything they throw at you! **Мало ли** какие слухи про нее &#xD;&#xA;ходят...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the sentence means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**You never know** / **Who knows** what kind of (unreliable) gossip may be circling around about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why the adverb &quot;мало / little&quot; coupled with the interrogative particle &quot;ли&quot; gets to have this meaning. Can I interpret it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  **Do we know even (a) little about it?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  **Just how little do we know about it?!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What kind of gossip may be circling around –  **We know so little about it, don't we?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... asking in a rhetorical fashion? I wonder if some verb like &quot;знать&quot; is omitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15997" RevisionGUID="0a7f0323-1e44-4f16-b2e8-803359cb0986" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:49:31.453" UserId="10365" Text="Мало ли comes from a rhetorical question which assumes answer No (-&quot;Мало ли?&quot; -&quot;Много.&quot;). It signifies distrust based on a lot of contradicting information (possibly existing only in speakers imagination).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It this case it means the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of a lot of gossip which may be circling around, you can't trust any." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="29c893df-3965-4a8d-9c4e-fed0f1d07635" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:54:36.430" UserId="6539" Text="Мало ли has got at least three meanings &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 It doesn't matter &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что же она ничего не сказала? Ведь должна была сказать!– Мало ли что должна.(Why didn't she say anything? She should have said!– It doesn't matter what she should do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.To be on the safe side, just in case, everything can happen &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, в лес идешь, мало ли что. (Take a rifle,  you are going to the forest, everything can happen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.A lot , different things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мало ли о чем говорят. Всему верить нельзя.(People  talk a lot, but you shouldn't believe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15999" RevisionGUID="cf19d284-2be3-4779-bdfc-497a42694b99" CreationDate="2018-03-16T15:28:07.157" UserId="7674" Text="Based on **V.V.**'s examples I believe in all cases **мало ли** can be translated as **`there's a lot ... so what?`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало ли какие слухи про нее ходят... - **There's a lot** of gossip circling around about her, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ведь она должна была сказать! - But she had to say!  &#xD;&#xA;– Мало ли что должна. -  **There's a lot** she has to do, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation of **мало ли (что)?** placed at the end of a sentence is more straightforward, because it doesn't imply opposite meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, мало ли (что)? - Take a rifle, lots of things can happen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15999" RevisionGUID="d6242f29-c7fa-4e47-bc89-62d77a154a52" CreationDate="2018-03-16T15:33:23.627" UserId="7674" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="Based on **V.V.**'s examples I believe in all cases **мало ли** anywhere in a sentence bar the end can be translated as **`there's a lot ... so what?`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало ли какие слухи про нее ходят... - **There's a lot** of gossip circling around about her, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ведь она должна была сказать! - But she had to say!  &#xD;&#xA;– Мало ли что должна. -  **There's a lot** she has to do, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation of **мало ли (что)?** placed at the end of a sentence is more straightforward, because it doesn't imply opposite meaning being just a shorthand of a complete question `мало ли что может случиться?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, мало ли (что)? - Take a rifle, lots of things can happen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16000" RevisionGUID="958cf29a-d574-4699-aaea-091c8823add2" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:01:21.820" UserId="7674" Text="Pronoun **какой (же)**, with **же** making a phrase more emphatic, would fit universally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какой** прекрасный день!  - **What a** beautiful day   &#xD;&#xA;**Какой** негодяй! - **What a** scoundrel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in negative contexts **какой** sounds pretty sterile and mincing (unless said with a contemptuous intonation which doesn't translate through writing) and is usually given up in favor of **вот (это/же)** and **ну и**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну и** тяжёлый (же) денёк сегодня выдался - **What a** difficult day i had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; today  &#xD;&#xA;**Вот (же)**/**Ну и** мразь! - **What a** jerk!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16002" RevisionGUID="59efaa88-98ec-4e2b-b808-dac3539afc3f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:30:39.887" UserId="10367" Text="Я называю символ существенным в слове, если его удаление приведет к новому слову. Например, если удалить из слова &quot;из&quot; букву &quot;з&quot;, я получу другое слово &quot;и&quot;, т.е. буквы &quot;з&quot; существенна в слове &quot;из&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я называю букву существенной, если существует слово (русского языка), в котором она существенна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существенен ли мягкий знак (ь)? Если да, приведите пожалуйста пример, где его удаление приведен к образованию нового слова. Аналогично для твердого знака." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16002" RevisionGUID="59efaa88-98ec-4e2b-b808-dac3539afc3f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:30:39.887" UserId="10367" Text="Существенны ли мягкий и твердый знаки на письме?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16002" RevisionGUID="59efaa88-98ec-4e2b-b808-dac3539afc3f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:30:39.887" UserId="10367" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="4ba11618-cb2a-4720-ab55-5ee9ce1833b6" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:39:35.770" UserId="3680" Text="Мягкий знак точно существенен:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вонь - Вон&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Над твердым придется подумать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16003" RevisionGUID="3c8d75d7-d3ae-4421-8ed4-1a45eccc6e18" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:42:56.367" UserId="3680" Comment="добавлен пример для твердого знака" Text="Да, оба знака существенны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мягкий:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вонь - Вон  &#xD;&#xA;Семья - Семя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Твердый:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Съесть - Сесть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15999" RevisionGUID="7bd80def-8080-40dd-9906-3354e69ed857" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:49:01.597" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Based on **V.V.**'s examples I believe in all cases **мало ли** anywhere in a sentence bar the end can be translated as **`there is/could be a lot ... so what?`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало ли какие слухи про нее ходят... - **There is/could be a lot** of gossip circling around about her, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ведь она должна была сказать! - But she had to say!  &#xD;&#xA;– Мало ли что должна. -  **There is/could be** she has to do, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation of **мало ли (что)?** placed at the end of a sentence is more straightforward, because it doesn't imply opposite meaning being just a shorthand of a complete question `мало ли что может случиться?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, мало ли (что)? - Take a rifle, lots of things can happen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40146" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15994" RevisionGUID="65c4154d-f5bf-44d4-bd68-dfcab7fa2831" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:56:07.417" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/974690787295416326" />
  <row Id="40147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15999" RevisionGUID="ab9fa158-3337-4462-b1a8-6084556202d5" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:56:16.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Based on **V.V.**'s examples I believe in all cases **мало ли** anywhere in a sentence bar at the end can be translated as **`there is/could be a lot/different things ... so what?`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало ли какие слухи про нее ходят... - **There is/could be a lot** of gossip circling around about her, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ведь она должна была сказать! - But she had to say!  &#xD;&#xA;– Мало ли что должна. -  **There is/could be** a lot she has to do, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation of **мало ли (что)?** placed at the end of a sentence is more straightforward, because it doesn't imply opposite meaning being just a shorthand of a complete question `мало ли что может случиться?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, мало ли (что)? - Take a rifle, lots of things can happen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15999" RevisionGUID="6cb9d368-b32c-4f57-9b48-d48bb24ebbe7" CreationDate="2018-03-16T18:24:23.483" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Based on **V.V.**'s examples I believe in all cases **мало ли** anywhere in a sentence bar at the end can be translated as **`there is/could be a lot/different ... so what?`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало ли какие слухи про нее ходят... - **There is/could be a lot** of gossip/**different** rumors circulating about her, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Ведь она должна была сказать! - But she had to say!  &#xD;&#xA;– Мало ли что должна. -  **There is/could be** a lot she has to do, **so what**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation of **мало ли (что)?** placed at the end of a sentence is more straightforward, because it doesn't imply opposite meaning being just a shorthand of a complete question `мало ли что может случиться?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, мало ли (что)? - Take a rifle, lots of things can happen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15996" RevisionGUID="7c2c05c4-3a67-4e81-be00-85f91d084cb2" CreationDate="2018-03-16T18:36:50.197" UserId="6539" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="In general we say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Какой** прекрасный день, какой чудесный пень, какой чудесный я и песенка моя!(a famous song from the cartoon )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are variations: speaking negatively about a person we can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой подлец! And **Каков** подлец! **Ну и** подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides we use «Что за» plus noun, or noun phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ну **что за** ушки, что за глазки! Какие перышки, какой носок!(from the fable by Krylov.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15998" RevisionGUID="829f6b11-cd8c-4322-bf13-c0215ab5b1f3" CreationDate="2018-03-17T04:41:27.990" UserId="6539" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="**Мало ли** has got at least three meanings &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 **It doesn't matter**, **no matter** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что же она ничего не сказала? Ведь должна была сказать!– **Мало ли** что должна.(Why didn't she say anything? She should have said!– It doesn't matter what she should do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.**To be on the safe side, just in case, everything can happen** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьми ружье, в лес идешь, **мало ли** что. (Take a rifle,  you are going to the forest, everything can happen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.**A lot,different things**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Мало ли** о чем говорят. Всему верить нельзя.(People  talk a lot, but you shouldn't believe it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15996" RevisionGUID="8395b24c-2baa-47fb-804b-532e4cdb963b" CreationDate="2018-03-17T06:10:26.670" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In general we say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Какой** прекрасный день, какой чудесный пень, какой чудесный я и песенка моя!(a famous song from the cartoon )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are variations: speaking negatively about a person we can use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой подлец! And **Каков** подлец! **Ну и** подлец!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides we use «Что за» plus noun, or noun phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ну **что за** шейка, что за глазки! Какие перышки, какой носок!(from the fable by Krylov.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13269" RevisionGUID="6947b6e6-52a2-4468-b25c-b048599f2ddf" CreationDate="2018-03-17T09:25:47.117" UserId="7884" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I would like to congratulate someone I know well for his 50th birthday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the following be considered good, ok, bad or very bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С днем рождения, старый пердун!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16005" RevisionGUID="e21f3fbe-7112-4976-8938-bd6855b10fdf" CreationDate="2018-03-17T12:38:39.463" UserId="4560" Text="I think I found an English expression that's very close in meaning: &quot;**there's no telling** what kind of gossip may be circling about it&quot;. Then again, it doesn't quite have the dismissive undertone which is an option with **мало ли**: it may be there but doesn't have to, depending on context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No verb is omitted from **мало ли**, it qualifies **какие**. (And it can do that with any other interrogative pronoun.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15995" RevisionGUID="df9bfa69-e5ac-40d6-8a32-660b89eb685a" CreationDate="2018-03-17T14:12:11.670" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/975011920611872769" />
  <row Id="40160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16002" RevisionGUID="b120c726-d74d-4304-8c5b-b21ff7cd6b5a" CreationDate="2018-03-17T16:13:23.037" UserId="10367" Comment="edited body" Text="Я называю символ существенным в слове, если его удаление приведет к новому слову. Например, если удалить из слова &quot;из&quot; букву &quot;з&quot;, я получу другое слово &quot;и&quot;, т.е. буква &quot;з&quot; существенна в слове &quot;из&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я называю букву существенной, если существует слово (русского языка), в котором она существенна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существенен ли мягкий знак (ь)? Если да, приведите пожалуйста пример, где его удаление приведен к образованию нового слова. Аналогично для твердого знака." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16007" RevisionGUID="8d6e43dd-7a0b-4c78-b2a5-71fec88edb67" CreationDate="2018-03-17T17:25:34.867" UserId="242" Text="Палатализация согласных - неотъемлемая часть русской фонетики. То, о чём вы спрашиваете, [называется][1] `минимальными парами` и в случае мягких и твёрдых согласных таких пар в русском языке очень много. Вот [цитата][2] из википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существует большое число минимальных пар, различающихся по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мягкости/твёрдости согласных, в частности, в русском языке: [н]ос&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слушать «нос» — [н’]ос «нёс»; бы[т] «быт» — бы[т’] «быть»; пы[л] «пыл»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — пы[л’] «пыль».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, я не могу отметить, что отсутствие минимальной пары не означало бы само по себе &quot;несущественность&quot; - даже если нет &quot;мягкого&quot; или &quot;твёрдого&quot; аналога - это не значит, что можно будет произнести иначе - и вас поймут. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%8F%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16007" RevisionGUID="51e15cfd-7142-4850-b687-82ca8bfad1c5" CreationDate="2018-03-17T17:34:19.117" UserId="242" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Палатализация согласных - неотъемлемая часть русской фонетики. То, о чём вы спрашиваете, [называется][1] `минимальными парами` и в случае мягких и твёрдых согласных таких пар в русском языке очень много. Вот [цитата][2] из википедии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существует большое число минимальных пар, различающихся по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мягкости/твёрдости согласных, в частности, в русском языке: [н]ос&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слушать «нос» — [н’]ос «нёс»; бы[т] «быт» — бы[т’] «быть»; пы[л] «пыл»&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — пы[л’] «пыль».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, я не могу отметить, что отсутствие минимальной пары не означало бы само по себе &quot;несущественность&quot; - даже если нет &quot;мягкого&quot; или &quot;твёрдого&quot; аналога - это не значит, что можно будет произнести (или написать) иначе - и вас поймут. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%8F%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="9272ddc5-421d-4746-8514-89211f85c054" CreationDate="2018-03-17T18:45:47.763" UserId="6545" Text="A homework question, exactly quoted,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В этот период, у нас было много неожиданных трудностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in reviewing my previous question, https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13964/when-to-use-не-было-and-не-будет-regardless-of-person-gender-or-number I am reassured that, without negation, the verb `быть` needs to agree in gender and number with the noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last word, the noun, is feminine, but plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I believe that without `много`, the trailing adjective and noun would be nominative plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I often think of verbs, prepositions, etc. affecting other words 'downstream', and yet it seems `много` affects the verb `быть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Is this a fair assessment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - So should the sentence actually use `были`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="9272ddc5-421d-4746-8514-89211f85c054" CreationDate="2018-03-17T18:45:47.763" UserId="6545" Text="быть with tenses, gender, number but in affirmative sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="9272ddc5-421d-4746-8514-89211f85c054" CreationDate="2018-03-17T18:45:47.763" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|узус|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="c0f0b654-34a8-42b4-80c0-d5caa7ee97d8" CreationDate="2018-03-17T19:05:24.680" UserId="7674" Text="Indeed **были** can be used, however only *without* **много**, which ultimately changes the meaning of the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этот период у нас были неожиданные трудности. *(no info on their volume)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the original sentence however the subject is not **неожиданные трудности** but **много *(неожиданных трудностей)***, and naturally the predicate **быть** conforms with the properties of the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subject can be either noun, pronoun, numeral or null. Here we have it as a numerical pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16009" RevisionGUID="8551c108-2bef-4bb1-bb1b-751f252acdb3" CreationDate="2018-03-17T19:10:37.027" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="1. Indeed **были** can be used *without* **много**, which ultimately changes the meaning of the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этот период у нас были неожиданные трудности. *(no info on their volume)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. No. In the original sentence the subject is not **неожиданные трудности** but **много *(неожиданных трудностей)***, and naturally the predicate **быть** conforms to the properties of the subject. It's only natural for a subject to affect a predicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subject can be either noun, pronoun, numeral or null. Here we have it as a numerical pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40168" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="af432a30-51fe-4ac3-91f3-25e645c7b014" CreationDate="2018-03-17T19:44:29.470" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|узус|tense|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16010" RevisionGUID="be628beb-2309-4fe8-aa21-546b42a869c8" CreationDate="2018-03-17T19:44:33.317" UserId="2079" Text="In case there is an adverb describing quality (много, несколько, немного etc.) or a numerical, a verb было must be in neutral singular, i. e. `в автобусе было двадцать человек`, `у нас было несколько домов`, `в зоопарке было много животных`.  Same with сколько:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Сколько котов было у вас?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - У меня было пять котов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16010" RevisionGUID="32cc257e-bb5c-4bfe-a0f8-5f263efc64c7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:04:52.420" UserId="2079" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In case there is an adverb describing quality (много, несколько, немного etc.) or a numerical, the verb быть must be in neutral singular, i. e. `в автобусе было двадцать человек`, `у нас было несколько домов`, `в зоопарке было много животных`.  Same with сколько:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Сколько котов было у вас?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - У меня было пять котов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16011" RevisionGUID="e83bf160-61fe-4f40-89a6-40e98e19b6ac" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:09:02.123" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;У меня такое **чувство**, что/будто я ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня такое **ощущение**, что/будто я ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня такое **впечатление**, что/будто я ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot figure out on my own how these three synonyms differ in usage and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if you can drop the word &quot;такое&quot; without altering the meaning of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how does the choice between &quot;что&quot; and &quot;будто&quot; affect the meaning of the subordinate clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16011" RevisionGUID="e83bf160-61fe-4f40-89a6-40e98e19b6ac" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:09:02.123" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;чувство&quot; vs &quot;ощущение&quot; vs &quot;впечатление&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16011" RevisionGUID="e83bf160-61fe-4f40-89a6-40e98e19b6ac" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:09:02.123" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16011" RevisionGUID="3df10220-3c98-43ce-af75-f16656a7d7b1" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:14:08.380" UserId="8672" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="&gt;У меня (такое) **чувство**, что/будто я ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня  (такое) **ощущение**, что/будто я ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня  (такое) **впечатление**, что/будто я ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot figure out on my own how these three synonyms differ in usage and meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if you can drop the word &quot;такое&quot; without altering the meaning of the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how does the choice between &quot;что&quot; and &quot;будто&quot; affect the meaning of the subordinate clause? Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40175" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16011" RevisionGUID="3df10220-3c98-43ce-af75-f16656a7d7b1" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:14:08.380" UserId="8672" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Difference in usage: &quot;чувство&quot; vs &quot;ощущение&quot; vs &quot;впечатление&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40176" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="f80f7141-8a40-4d2e-a165-e17324106a9c" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:05:06.903" UserId="6991" Comment="55" />
  <row Id="40177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16012" RevisionGUID="14d861fa-ec08-4562-a964-1bacbe9e8dd3" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:37:41.130" UserId="242" Text="`Чувство` stands a **feeling** (so, something like &quot;I have a feeling as if I...&quot;, `впечатление` is an impression ( ~&quot;I have an impression that&quot;). In fact, впечатление is a [calque][1] from French `impression`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion it's only `ощущение` what is somewhat tricky to explain in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's indeed most usually translated as a `feeling`, as well as it's indeed synonymous to `чувство` in many, if not if, cases. Had I have to translate it to English I most likely use something like - &quot;I have a sense that&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In fact, `чувство` corresponds to `ощущение` pretty much like &quot;to feel&quot; and &quot;to sense&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To feel&quot; is more about emotions, to sense is more about biological aspect though, of course is used figuratively as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;Мои чувства к тебе более чем серьёзны&quot; but never &quot;мои ощущения к тебе серьёзны&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="bfcbdc4a-433c-450f-97cd-807bb2d38769" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:46:14.740" UserId="7674" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to the sensory sphere, **впечатление** - to cerebral sphere, nevertheless these three are largely synonymous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the contrary, a more likely situation would be introduced by **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**будто** means **as if** which obviously indicates a less likely state&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**будто** much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16012" RevisionGUID="4db0c21d-8c66-4e60-8cd4-9d6999a1859b" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:46:17.113" UserId="242" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="`Чувство` stands a **feeling** (so, something like &quot;I have a feeling as if I...&quot;, `впечатление` is an impression ( ~&quot;I have an impression that&quot;). In fact, впечатление is a [calque][1] from French `impression`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion it's only `ощущение` what is somewhat tricky to explain in this context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's indeed most usually translated as a `feeling`, as well as it's indeed synonymous to `чувство` in many, if not if, cases. Had I have to translate it to English I most likely use something like - &quot;I have a sense that&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;In fact, `чувство` corresponds to `ощущение` pretty much like &quot;to feel&quot; and &quot;to sense&quot; [in English][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To feel&quot; is more about emotions, to sense is more about biological aspect though, of course is used figuratively as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say &quot;Мои чувства к тебе более чем серьёзны&quot; but never &quot;мои ощущения к тебе серьёзны&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, again, exactly like in English there are some phrases where you should just memorize which of these verbs should be used. Most obvious example would be: while `ощущать боль` is grammatically valid, we say `чувствовать боль`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/105628/a-sense-of-vs-a-feeling-of" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="a9081fb0-3a1e-4a05-a2a3-46dbef1209f7" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:52:17.950" UserId="7674" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to sensory sphere, **впечатление** - to cerebral sphere, nevertheless these three are largely synonymous and interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when a sentence begins with **такое** and lacks **у меня**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое **чувство/ощущение/впечатление**, что/будто я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it cannot be omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the contrary, a more likely situation would be introduced by **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**будто** means **as if** which obviously indicates a less likely state&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**будто** much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="db00d0f8-4a45-43f3-803b-b99f2c9628b5" CreationDate="2018-03-17T21:57:24.043" UserId="7674" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to sensory sphere, **впечатление** - to cerebral sphere, nevertheless these three are largely synonymous and interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when a sentence begins with **такое** and lacks **у меня**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое **чувство/ощущение/впечатление**, что/будто я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it cannot be omitted but can be substituted with **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the contrary, a more likely situation would be introduced by **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**будто** means **as if** which obviously indicates a less likely or less realistic state&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**будто** is much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="dc239e16-5832-409d-8a9b-13ece0223b71" CreationDate="2018-03-17T22:29:36.560" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 136 characters in body" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to sensory sphere, **впечатление** - to cerebral sphere, nevertheless these three are largely synonymous and interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when a sentence begins with **такое** and lacks **у меня**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое **чувство/ощущение/впечатление**, что/будто я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it cannot be omitted but can be substituted with **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, or less realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also **будто** is much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13271" RevisionGUID="ad19f535-67da-4dbc-a813-f9317fa6d5ca" CreationDate="2018-03-17T22:45:41.217" UserId="7674" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="depends on the terms you're on with this person, because this is quite offensive, i mean it could be taken as a friendly banter by a good friend and as an insult by a stranger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i think it's as strong as its English equivalent &quot;Happy Birthday, old fart!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16014" RevisionGUID="c6599963-8458-4ec2-afc3-02c4cf3bfd86" CreationDate="2018-03-18T00:13:45.087" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я с радостью помогу. Только работать постоянно **никак не получится**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to grasp the undertone of this phrase. Does it mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Try as I might, working full-time just won't work out for me in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Regrettably, I won't be able to work full-time. I just can't make it happen, despite my best intentions to the contrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: I wish I could work full-time, but circumstances don't allow me to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, rather than showing a strong refusal on the part of the speaker:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'd be glad to help, but there's no way I'm going to work full-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Can I use &quot;получиться&quot; and &quot;удаться&quot; interchangeably here, or are the two somehow nuanced in this specific sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я с радостью помогу. Только работать постоянно **никак не удастся**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16014" RevisionGUID="c6599963-8458-4ec2-afc3-02c4cf3bfd86" CreationDate="2018-03-18T00:13:45.087" UserId="8672" Text="The undertone of the phrase &quot;никак не получится&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16014" RevisionGUID="c6599963-8458-4ec2-afc3-02c4cf3bfd86" CreationDate="2018-03-18T00:13:45.087" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15989" RevisionGUID="25ca8939-070a-48ce-b76b-072ee4af19a8" CreationDate="2018-03-18T02:17:31.613" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/975194457116114944" />
  <row Id="40189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16015" RevisionGUID="d41b1ed2-2da0-433f-9025-110beb0d4b9d" CreationDate="2018-03-18T03:30:55.477" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Я с радостью помогу. Только работать постоянно никак не удастся /не получится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is the following. Both verbs are interchangeable in this situation. It means he will help /he is eager to help, but due to some circumstances he can't work full time. And it doesn't depend on him." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40190" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15961" RevisionGUID="ecc5b9f6-bc66-461a-8387-d2ffb9db51a2" CreationDate="2018-03-18T05:17:36.090" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/975239774578659328" />
  <row Id="40191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16016" RevisionGUID="19a2a8fa-86e9-42fe-818b-c1c487ebe1c6" CreationDate="2018-03-18T07:58:02.920" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between **Трогать** (to touch) and **Касатса**? Are they just synonyms or I should use each word in  a specific case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16016" RevisionGUID="19a2a8fa-86e9-42fe-818b-c1c487ebe1c6" CreationDate="2018-03-18T07:58:02.920" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between Трогать and Касатса?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16016" RevisionGUID="19a2a8fa-86e9-42fe-818b-c1c487ebe1c6" CreationDate="2018-03-18T07:58:02.920" UserId="6907" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16016" RevisionGUID="07683aeb-4ebe-4666-84f6-a362e55941df" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:09:43.783" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between **трогать** (to touch) and **касаться**? Are they just synonyms or I should use each word in  a specific case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16016" RevisionGUID="07683aeb-4ebe-4666-84f6-a362e55941df" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:09:43.783" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;трогать&quot; and &quot;касаться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16017" RevisionGUID="b94f0721-c2fd-4b45-bea9-830497c7f944" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:16:49.213" UserId="242" Text="`Трогать` usually is more intense. You can think of `касаться` of a single, atomic action, it's to touch once and/or to touch subtly, while `трогать` is to touch thoroughly and/or to touch many times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if the action has a connotation of unintentional action, `коснуться` is most likely to be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14765" RevisionGUID="bc792f0f-3fa1-46dc-aeb0-5a0496687a4a" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:20:13.727" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="`Bon voyage` (or `Бон вояж`, whatever) is a French phrase which the majority of native speakers will be very confused to hear - **it's just not used**. A big amount of people won't even understand you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stick to one from following list:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - доброго пути&#xD;&#xA; - счастливого пути&#xD;&#xA; - хорошей дороги&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам добраться&#xD;&#xA; - хорошо вам доехать / долететь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of @Sergey-Slepov comment, it's very difficult to say whether it was adopted or not just because Russian aristocracy just was able easily to switch to French - and then &quot;bon voyage&quot; of course could be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian though to my knowledge it was never widely adopted. &#xD;&#xA;Some times it was used with slightly different meaning like [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, &quot;сделать бон вояж&quot; is to make a nice trip.&#xD;&#xA;[Here][3]'s another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто в аферисты, кто в пеструшки /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускается на авантаж /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зато в самой Москве старушки /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Желают в Вятку бон-вояж (want to make a trip to Vyashka). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even in this particular meaning (which, again, is not a wish of a nice trip but rather the trip itself) is obsolete and not used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.de/books?id=dwSPBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA321&amp;lpg=PA321&amp;dq=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2kRA1HipwE&amp;sig=LNPmLRlZRSRhcvDk_A-bKn6WqQQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidneKkv_LUAhUGWRQKHdm9BAc4ChDoAQgyMAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R1FSG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=IGhGAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA151&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;dq=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=fF098OxHAi&amp;sig=KsLFPaNLc-J2A2PMBAk5IMjphBQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidneKkv_LUAhUGWRQKHdm9BAc4ChDoAQgoMAE#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8A%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B6%D1%8A&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Grgs2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16017" RevisionGUID="9aaff15a-702b-489f-8971-9f1a41369398" CreationDate="2018-03-18T08:26:01.670" UserId="242" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="`Трогать` usually is more intense. You can think of `касаться` of a single, atomic action, it's to touch once and/or to touch subtly, while `трогать` is to touch thoroughly and/or to touch many times. That's why `касаться` has second, figurative meaning &quot;to mention something, to cover some issue but not necessarily in detail&quot;, like in phrase: &quot;Что до вопросов экономических, их президент только коснулся&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if the action has a connotation of unintentional action, `коснуться` is most likely to be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there are cases when these verbs are not synonymous at all and can not be interchanged by any means. `Меня это не трогает`is - it doesn't bother me&quot;, `меня это не касается` - it's none of my concern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="98ed5240-227d-4116-be93-b0906f835877" CreationDate="2018-03-18T10:30:36.400" UserId="7674" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to sensory sphere, **впечатление** - to cerebral sphere, nevertheless in this construct these three are largely synonymous and interchangeable. Except that in my opinion **впечатление** has a greater tendency to objectivity as an expression of conclusion as opposed to a gut or an irrational feeling, and a greater tendency of being followed with **что** in the subordinate sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when a sentence begins with **такое** and lacks **у меня**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое **чувство/ощущение/впечатление**, что/будто я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it cannot be omitted but can be substituted with **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, or less realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also **будто** is much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="40c1fc98-a8fe-4f47-98e4-614267615e8d" CreationDate="2018-03-18T10:41:45.430" UserId="1236" Comment="Punctuation corrected" Text="A homework question, exactly quoted,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В этот период у нас было много неожиданных трудностей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in reviewing my previous question, https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13964/when-to-use-не-было-and-не-будет-regardless-of-person-gender-or-number I am reassured that, without negation, the verb `быть` needs to agree in gender and number with the noun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last word, the noun, is feminine, but plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I believe that without `много`, the trailing adjective and noun would be nominative plural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I often think of verbs, prepositions, etc. affecting other words 'downstream', and yet it seems `много` affects the verb `быть`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Is this a fair assessment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - So should the sentence actually use `были`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40201" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16008" RevisionGUID="40c1fc98-a8fe-4f47-98e4-614267615e8d" CreationDate="2018-03-18T10:41:45.430" UserId="1236" Comment="Punctuation corrected" Text="“Быть” with tenses, gender, number but in affirmative sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="a6854fe9-fd1e-4327-9f27-9d5cd1f9553f" CreationDate="2018-03-18T12:50:45.203" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to affective sphere, **впечатление** - to cerebral sphere, nevertheless in this construct these three are largely synonymous and interchangeable. Except that in my opinion **впечатление** has a greater tendency to objectivity as an expression of conclusion as opposed to a gut or an irrational feeling, and a greater tendency of being followed with **что** in the subordinate sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when a sentence begins with **такое** and lacks **у меня**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое **чувство/ощущение/впечатление**, что/будто я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it cannot be omitted but in case of **чувство/ощущение** can be substituted with **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, or less realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also **будто** is much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16018" RevisionGUID="3b6643ff-821f-47f5-abf1-39a618424fa4" CreationDate="2018-03-18T13:34:39.603" UserId="10177" Text="One simple way to think about it is &quot;трогать&quot; is &quot;to touch&quot; or &quot;to be touching&quot;, which implies a more deliberate action, while &quot;касаться&quot; is more like &quot;to be in contact with&quot;, which can be unintentional, or passive in the case of inanimate objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;стол касается стены,&quot; &quot;the table is in contact with the wall&quot;, but you can't say &quot;стол трогает стену,&quot; that almost sounds like &quot;the table is grabbing/groping the wall&quot; or something that is active and requires hands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16019" RevisionGUID="8ff49dff-7e00-465a-b187-b0bf1a711dce" CreationDate="2018-03-18T13:43:25.343" UserId="10177" Text="&quot;I'll gladly help. But working full time just isn't possible for me.&quot; It's like the second or third option. It's saying it can't happen, without going into specifics, a polite refusal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16013" RevisionGUID="c1115371-8d4e-4383-8b7b-ebcaff684616" CreationDate="2018-03-18T16:18:03.967" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="1. **чувство** and **ощущение** as their meaning suggests refer to affective sphere, **впечатление** - to intellectual sphere, nevertheless in this construct these three are largely synonymous and interchangeable. Except that in my opinion **впечатление** has a greater tendency towards objectivity as an expression of conclusion as opposed to a gut or an irrational feeling, and a greater tendency of being followed with **что** in the subordinate sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **такое** can more readily be omitted from phrases with **ощущение** than from those with the other two words, as their absence makes the phrase lacking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However when a sentence begins with **такое** and lacks **у меня**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такое **чувство/ощущение/впечатление**, что/будто я&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;it cannot be omitted but in case of **чувство/ощущение** can be substituted with **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. &gt; Do you use &quot;будто&quot; to describe a more unlikely situation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, or less realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also **будто** is much more than **что** prone to be used with the past tense, at least такое у меня впечатление" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16021" RevisionGUID="e604a98b-9f02-48df-8ee2-2ef7ab28f1e6" CreationDate="2018-03-18T18:01:08.903" UserId="8672" Text="I wonder how these two synonyms are nuanced in each of the following four instances? I suppose some of them sound odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;получать **плату** за работу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;получать **оплату** за работу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;получать **плату** работы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;получать **оплату** работы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case 3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Держите X(что-то) в **оплату** работы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Держите X(что-то) в **плату** работы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Case 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Держите X(что-то) в **оплату** за работу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Держите X(что-то) в **плату** за работу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16021" RevisionGUID="e604a98b-9f02-48df-8ee2-2ef7ab28f1e6" CreationDate="2018-03-18T18:01:08.903" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;оплата&quot; and when to use &quot;плата&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16021" RevisionGUID="e604a98b-9f02-48df-8ee2-2ef7ab28f1e6" CreationDate="2018-03-18T18:01:08.903" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="7f17c0a0-0a19-4250-a41f-f06165b95475" CreationDate="2018-03-18T18:10:30.693" UserId="242" Text="`Оплата` [stands for][1] [payment][2], the act of paying, like in `оплата проезда`, `оплата услуг`, so it's governed by question &quot;Оплата чего?&quot;, noun + noun in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Плата` [corresponds][3] to the English noun &quot;pay&quot;, the noun which is usually [explained in dictionaries][4] as &quot;Money given in return for work; salary or wages.&quot; It's governed by the question &quot;плата за что?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech those terms quite often are confused and mixed up just like English &quot;payment&quot; and &quot;pay&quot; do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/payment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pay#Noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="52250258-dd16-49cd-91b6-a615e61c73ef" CreationDate="2018-03-18T18:17:38.967" UserId="242" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="`Оплата` [stands for][1] [payment][2], the act of paying, like in `оплата проезда`, `оплата услуг`, so it's governed by question &quot;Оплата чего?&quot;, noun + noun in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Плата` [corresponds][3] to the English noun &quot;pay&quot;, the noun which is usually [explained in dictionaries][4] as &quot;Money given in return for work; salary or wages.&quot; It's governed by the question &quot;плата за что?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech those terms quite often are confused and mixed up just like English &quot;payment&quot; and &quot;pay&quot; do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is general information. Now, being back to the cases you've mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;плата за работу&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;получать плату за работу&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;получать в качестве платы за работу&quot; or &quot;получать в качестве оплаты работы&quot; are correct.&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;вот плата за работу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should mention though that all this cases sounds bit off for Russian speaker. One might say just `вот деньги за работу`, &quot;получить расчёт за работу&quot;, &quot;в счёт оплаты работы&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: I assume you are from Japan, so here are wiktionary articles on [pay][5] and [payment][6] in Japanese. Hope this is useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/payment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pay#Noun&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/pay&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/payment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16022" RevisionGUID="167eff56-a9e1-4941-bf81-18ea436b34af" CreationDate="2018-03-18T18:24:33.053" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="`Оплата` [stands for][1] [payment][2], the act of paying, like in `оплата проезда`, `оплата услуг`, so it's governed by question &quot;Оплата чего?&quot;, noun + noun in Genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Плата` [corresponds][3] to the English noun &quot;pay&quot;, the noun which is usually [explained in dictionaries][4] as &quot;money given in return for work; salary or wages.&quot; It's governed by the question &quot;плата за что?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech those terms quite often are confused and mixed up just like English &quot;payment&quot; and &quot;pay&quot; do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is general information. Now, being back to the cases you've mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;плата за работу&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;получать плату за работу&quot; is correct.&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;получать в качестве платы за работу&quot; or &quot;получать в качестве оплаты работы&quot; are correct.&#xD;&#xA; 4. &quot;вот плата за работу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should mention though that all this cases sounds bit off for Russian speaker. One might say just `вот деньги за работу`, &quot;получить расчёт за работу&quot;, &quot;в счёт оплаты работы&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: I assume you are from Japan, so here are wiktionary articles on [pay][5] and [payment][6] in Japanese. Hope this is useful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/payment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pay#Noun&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/pay&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/payment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40217" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8373" RevisionGUID="5bc8807e-1fef-47c0-be57-518b517d0fec" CreationDate="2018-03-18T19:31:50.030" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="dc18575d-ee29-4007-b666-bf403ae9613c" CreationDate="2018-03-18T23:12:16.007" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Мне **наплевать** на тех, кто сейчас занимает мое место. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression seems to bear all the hallmarks of an impersonal construction, so I wonder why the 3rd-person singular &quot;наплюёт&quot; is not used here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Are there other expressions that take an infinitive verb in a similar fashion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="dc18575d-ee29-4007-b666-bf403ae9613c" CreationDate="2018-03-18T23:12:16.007" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;Мне наплевать на X&quot;: Why is it acceptable to use an infinitive verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="dc18575d-ee29-4007-b666-bf403ae9613c" CreationDate="2018-03-18T23:12:16.007" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11613" RevisionGUID="cf9b3faf-1e0a-45c1-950a-e3d7cc3d8b62" CreationDate="2018-03-19T01:22:19.510" UserId="4753" Comment="clarified wording" Text="I learned using charts photocopied from the back of a textbook called &lt;i&gt;Live From Moscow&lt;/i&gt; (now out of print). Years later when I had to teach a class I looked online for something similar, but found nothing. So I created one in OpenOffice Writer, started a website, and put it online. Here is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sample of case tables][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full set is two pages long: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%205--Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Russian Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Openoffice file is provided, so you can reformat the chart if you like. It distributed under a Creative Commons license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was learning the cases I found the full chart too much to memorize. But once I understood the spelling rules I discovered that some of the changes were phonetic and that there were not as many different declensions as there appear to be. So, I made another set of charts to help students to see this. Here is an example from the first part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![simplified noun chart][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part explains how hard and soft vowels work and how once we can see the declension rules as separate from the spelling rules the chart is much simpler:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![vowel pairs chart][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.readyrussian.org/Handouts/Grammar%206--Abbreviated%20Case%20Charts.html&quot;&gt;Abbreviated Case Charts&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest starting with the full chart to get a feel of how declension works and use the abbreviated chart if you get stuck trying to memorize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jJHKK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jFNBC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0C6QA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40223" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="134148be-3571-445c-a7ec-1a9b70e49be2" CreationDate="2018-03-19T07:48:25.720" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|impersonal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40232" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="46a215d5-17b7-4192-89eb-eeca409f31df" CreationDate="2018-03-19T09:30:55.877" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Мне наплевать на ...&quot;. Why is it acceptable to use an infinitive verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11714" RevisionGUID="20cdbc29-dc45-4861-a843-2d33635d6cd9" CreationDate="2018-03-19T09:33:06.810" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="When to use &quot;бы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="42bf27f6-20c9-4c14-a592-774651865a86" CreationDate="2018-03-19T10:04:01.337" UserId="9715" Text="It's going around that Putin said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Darude][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin: “Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Attention To The Unseen][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin: ‘Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After Viktor Sukhodrev's mishaps with Russian translation I'm skeptical to accept it at its face-value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate translation? What is that phrase that he used? What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is this just another «Мы вас похороним!»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://darudemag.com/2018/03/putin-those-who-serve-us-with-poison-will-eventually-swallow-it-and-poison-themselves/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://attentiontotheunseen.com/2018/03/08/putin-those-who-serve-us-with-poison-will-eventually-swallow-it-and-poison-themselves/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="42bf27f6-20c9-4c14-a592-774651865a86" CreationDate="2018-03-19T10:04:01.337" UserId="9715" Text="Did Putin literally say, &quot;Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="42bf27f6-20c9-4c14-a592-774651865a86" CreationDate="2018-03-19T10:04:01.337" UserId="9715" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="e7a3426d-4c4e-4758-8eda-49038c50b5ea" CreationDate="2018-03-19T10:14:41.100" UserId="9715" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="It's going around that Putin said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Darude][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin: “Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Attention To The Unseen][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin: ‘Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After Viktor Sukhodrev's mishaps with Russian translation I'm skeptical to accept it at its face-value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate translation? What is that phrase that he used? What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is this just another «Мы вас похороним!»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: This seems to be the interview here: https://youtu.be/w7swxH6RjBY?t=50s it's dubbed over in English though, not sure how hard that makes it to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://darudemag.com/2018/03/putin-those-who-serve-us-with-poison-will-eventually-swallow-it-and-poison-themselves/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://attentiontotheunseen.com/2018/03/08/putin-those-who-serve-us-with-poison-will-eventually-swallow-it-and-poison-themselves/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16027" RevisionGUID="2ed206f9-cae2-473c-bc93-1a5baab8f556" CreationDate="2018-03-19T10:20:14.487" UserId="3680" Text="If I recognized correctly, Putin said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Те, кто капают куда-то яд, сами его и проглотят в конце концов, сами этим ядом и отравятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be translated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those who drip poison somewhere will eventually swallow it and poison themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40239" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="539deb82-5912-4df3-a8d7-e75f7397d6f0" CreationDate="2018-03-19T11:03:03.807" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vadim Landa&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="caddbda6-7ff2-4202-9822-1569b7ca1d4a" CreationDate="2018-03-19T11:28:18.200" UserId="9715" Comment="added 480 characters in body" Text="It's going around that Putin said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;'Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Darude][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin: “Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Attention To The Unseen][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Putin: ‘Those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves’&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After Viktor Sukhodrev's mishaps with Russian translation I'm skeptical to accept it at its face-value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this an accurate translation? What is that phrase that he used? What does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is this just another «Мы вас похороним!»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: This seems to be the interview here: https://youtu.be/w7swxH6RjBY?t=50s it's dubbed over in English though, not sure how hard that makes it to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As quoted by [facenews][3] the original Russian seems to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Те, кто капает куда-то яд, сами его и проглотят в конце концов, сами этим ядом и отравятся&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;капает seems to be a form of [капать][4] meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;to drip, drop, spill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the English says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;serve us with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm quite confused what drip has to do with serving someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://darudemag.com/2018/03/putin-those-who-serve-us-with-poison-will-eventually-swallow-it-and-poison-themselves/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://attentiontotheunseen.com/2018/03/08/putin-those-who-serve-us-with-poison-will-eventually-swallow-it-and-poison-themselves/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.facenews.ua/columns/2018/319814/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40241" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16026" RevisionGUID="4eb730c3-37a5-4c94-a7bc-083cd1528df0" CreationDate="2018-03-19T11:29:59.817" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16028" RevisionGUID="3e33603c-54fd-42e4-ab03-b3e73e24a5eb" CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:37:28.713" UserId="6539" Text="This is one of the forms of an impersonal sentence formed with the **independent infinitive** which serves as a predicate and a hidden subject of a pronoun in the dative. The infinitive corresponds to present time, though grammatically it doesn't show tense. If you want to refer the action to the past, you should use &quot;было&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and for future &quot;будет&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Зачем ему **было уезжать**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вам **наплевать будет** на него.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наплевать** is used idiomatically, meaning &quot;все равно&quot;, I don't care.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="807f2ba0-8017-4847-9d57-76e787e9dcd1" CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:49:40.020" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Мне наплевать на **последствия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Мне наплевать на **следствия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the surface, they both seem to mean &quot;consequence&quot;, the sense presumably originating from the word &quot;след/track/footprint&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why in this specific instance, &quot;последствие&quot; with the prefix &quot;по-&quot; is the one to go for? Why does the use of &quot;следствие&quot; sound odd here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="807f2ba0-8017-4847-9d57-76e787e9dcd1" CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:49:40.020" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;последствие&quot; vs &quot;следствие&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="807f2ba0-8017-4847-9d57-76e787e9dcd1" CreationDate="2018-03-19T13:49:40.020" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16030" RevisionGUID="5880c05d-0ef0-4fc9-a80d-8b889d399489" CreationDate="2018-03-19T14:01:47.720" UserId="3680" Text="`Следствие` mostly used with the meaning `investigation`, except for the math.  &#xD;&#xA;While `последствие` has the meanings `result` / `effect` / `aftermath` / `consequence`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16031" RevisionGUID="9b69ce24-8061-4e16-8414-6a8a315b4f4b" CreationDate="2018-03-19T14:13:26.090" UserId="5443" Text="**Следствие** often (though not always) has *neutral* meaning as in '*cause - effect*' pair (**причина - следствие**), while **последствия(-е)** is typically about something *negative*, like *delayed bad results* from some event/action (**событие/действие - последствия**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16032" RevisionGUID="73cb9267-7fad-4d07-a288-128bed53ad92" CreationDate="2018-03-19T15:11:54.130" UserId="5443" Text="Those are not synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оплата** (the *action* of paying for something) is derived from a *strictly transitive* Russian verb **оплачивать (что?)** which is *never* used without a direct object (accusative case). The corresponding noun keeps tracks of that verb's transitiveness by keeping the dependent noun which *must* present (unless previously mentioned) in the genitive case (*оплачивать что?* -&gt; **оплата чего?**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Оплатить (оплачивать) труд, проезд, товар, услуги. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Оплата** проезда, труда, товара, услуг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Плата** just refers to *a sum of money* due **for** something (**за** что-то):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Плата** **за** проезд, заработная плата (плата **за** работу), арендная плата&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (плата **за** аренду).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your examples: 1) получать **плату за работу** (OK), 2) произвести **оплату** (чьей-то) **работы**, 3) возьмите X в счёт **оплаты работы**, 4) возьмите X в качестве **платы за работу**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16028" RevisionGUID="19580236-f8fe-4cf8-aae3-7ada5ea70e60" CreationDate="2018-03-19T15:37:26.227" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This is one of the forms of an **impersonal sentence** formed with the **independent infinitive** which serves as a predicate and a hidden subject of a pronoun in the dative. The infinitive corresponds to present time, though grammatically it doesn't show tense. If you want to refer the action to the past, you should use &quot;было&quot;&#xD;&#xA;and for future &quot;будет&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Зачем ему **было уезжать**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вам **наплевать будет** на него.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наплевать** is used idiomatically, meaning &quot;все равно&quot;, I don't care.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16033" RevisionGUID="31106bf3-2d6d-4c1b-a4bb-b69fbacb6096" CreationDate="2018-03-19T16:47:18.643" UserId="8780" Text="The stress of the word утро seems to be irregular, since it depends on the absence or presence of a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the stress is always **у́тр-** *without* a preposition.&#xD;&#xA; 2. the stress is always **утр-́** *after* a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's again **утр-́** not necessarily after a preposition. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. A dictionary of mine cites &quot;в семь часов **утра́**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Some books cite **утро́м** (or at least **рано утро́м**) to mean &quot;in the morning&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the correct stress in each context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16033" RevisionGUID="31106bf3-2d6d-4c1b-a4bb-b69fbacb6096" CreationDate="2018-03-19T16:47:18.643" UserId="8780" Text="Stress mark of утро" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16033" RevisionGUID="31106bf3-2d6d-4c1b-a4bb-b69fbacb6096" CreationDate="2018-03-19T16:47:18.643" UserId="8780" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16034" RevisionGUID="32b91c8e-b66a-47b8-92bf-4fda79566b55" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:06:22.020" UserId="6539" Text="1.the stress is always у́тр- without a preposition.--Correct. In the singular. In the plural утра'ми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.the stress is always утр-́ after a preposition.--No, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об у'тре, для такого у'тра, в это у'тро.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.A dictionary of mine cites &quot;в семь часов утра́&quot;--Correct, an expression, should be memorized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 Some books cite утро́м (or at least рано утро́м) to mean &quot;in the morning&quot;No, this isn't correct. It should be &quot;у'тром&quot;,the same &quot;рано у'тром.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16034" RevisionGUID="b5d909dd-a136-422d-a528-2bafeac1c15a" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:12:36.797" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="1.the stress is always у́тр- without a preposition.--Correct. . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.the stress is always утр-́ after a preposition.--No, not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; об у'тре, для такого у'тра, в это у'тро.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.A dictionary of mine cites &quot;в семь часов утра́&quot;--Correct, an expression, should be memorized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 Some books cite утро́м (or at least рано утро́м) to mean &quot;in the morning&quot;No, this isn't correct. It should be &quot;у'тром&quot;,the same &quot;рано у'тром.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16035" RevisionGUID="4558139c-4182-41cc-bc58-431e74dea015" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:25:39.347" UserId="3680" Text="1. Almost true. Without a preposition stress is almost always on the first syllable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рано ýтром  &#xD;&#xA;каждое ýтро&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except the word **утра́** with preposition **к**, **в**, **до** etc in the following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [preposition] [time] утра́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; к 8 часам утра́  &#xD;&#xA;в 7 часов утра́  &#xD;&#xA;до 6 часов утра́&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;2. Wrong. Not always.  &#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; для [раннего] ýтра  &#xD;&#xA;в [столь раннее] ýтро   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;3. Correct. See the 1st item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;4. Wrong. The correct stress is on the first syllable: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рано ýтром&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Bonus pack.  &#xD;&#xA;There are also adverbs constructed from preposition and the word **утро**. They should be memorized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; поутрý  &#xD;&#xA;наýтро&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="24b1a002-ff1b-41bb-80b4-2c49ce9cf798" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:32:48.940" UserId="5691" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I underlined two words in green. They have obsolete letters that I cannot track down. What are the translations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: This is a map legend. The full map is [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6hVMv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_russian_railroads_1916.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="24b1a002-ff1b-41bb-80b4-2c49ce9cf798" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:32:48.940" UserId="5691" Text="What are these two words with obsolete letters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="24b1a002-ff1b-41bb-80b4-2c49ce9cf798" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:32:48.940" UserId="5691" Text="|буквы|дореформенная-орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="ae73a358-1aeb-4466-8fab-2caf15fd3b85" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:40:01.690" UserId="10267" Text="I don't see any obsolete letters in that second one. It's [**Нарымь**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narym" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16038" RevisionGUID="86cd1527-9b34-41b5-a3be-8db067d4535c" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:46:40.290" UserId="3680" Text="The first word is `Уездная` (County, district).  &#xD;&#xA;The second word is `Нарым`. It's a geographic title, no translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40261" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="16034" RevisionGUID="e7e57585-addf-405d-b039-786a192b509f" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:54:23.830" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16039" RevisionGUID="7051e169-f288-40e0-a785-b302fc97c9b0" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:58:35.517" UserId="9256" Text="First word (Уездная) has an obsolete letter &quot;yat&quot; (&quot;[ять][1]&quot;) in cursive, so it looks different form its typical form (ѣ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second word (Нарымъ) has no obsolete letters, although the first letter &quot;Н&quot; is written in uncommon form (maybe someone knows an explanation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16037" RevisionGUID="db62b7f4-abc2-47a2-b4e7-e5e976b51e26" CreationDate="2018-03-19T18:27:18.873" UserId="10267" Comment="edited body" Text="I don't see any obsolete letters in that second one. It's [**Нарымъ**][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narym" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40264" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="16040" RevisionGUID="f45c15da-1852-4de0-bfc8-79e1b95ea315" CreationDate="2018-03-19T19:28:13.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/439464/c-%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bc-%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b6%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-co-%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bc-%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b6%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f" />
  <row Id="40265" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="16041" RevisionGUID="d7c38c80-9f84-47e9-b06a-f056cb133604" CreationDate="2018-03-19T19:28:13.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/439464/c-%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bc-%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b6%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d0%b8%d0%bb%d0%b8-co-%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bc-%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b6%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f/439465#439465" />
  <row Id="40266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16041" RevisionGUID="c187b373-513d-47cd-9902-0361bee648c8" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:14:53.857" UserDisplayName="М_Г" Text="Корректно: **C днем рождения!** (Обычно с восклицательным знаком.)&#xD;&#xA;Почему? Эта тема уже не раз обсуждалась (см. мой комментарий к вопросу). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16040" RevisionGUID="a4712f30-e71c-4ea7-86a0-860eba5f397d" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:07:57.933" UserDisplayName="Pyong Yang" Text="Could you please tell me whether people say &quot;C днем рождения&quot; or &quot;Co  днем рождения&quot; ? And why.&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very very much.&#xD;&#xA;Best wishes,&#xD;&#xA;Peter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16040" RevisionGUID="a4712f30-e71c-4ea7-86a0-860eba5f397d" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:07:57.933" UserDisplayName="Pyong Yang" Text="&quot;C днем рождения&quot; или &quot;Co днем рождения&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16040" RevisionGUID="a4712f30-e71c-4ea7-86a0-860eba5f397d" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:07:57.933" UserDisplayName="Pyong Yang" Text="|орфография|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40270" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="16034" RevisionGUID="5b5b8b6a-8013-499f-820d-dc46356a5b73" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:18:05.293" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16042" RevisionGUID="10cb7409-9e2e-413b-b54f-5aad2f260634" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:21:09.227" UserId="487" Text=" I sort of know (пошло оно все ...), but I have heard: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - «а не пошло бы оно все нахуй?» (from *Ленинград — В Питере - пить*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the **бы** addition mean and, moreover, why is the sentence having now *а не* at the beginning? An acquaintance explained me that this is a kind of conjunctive mood. The phrase is from a museum guide (sick of her work which, apparently apocryphally) reproduces a Pushkin quote. Is this a practical structure or rather poetic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16042" RevisionGUID="10cb7409-9e2e-413b-b54f-5aad2f260634" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:21:09.227" UserId="487" Text="&quot;А не пошло бы оно все на ...&quot; What is the difference from &quot;пошло оно все на...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16042" RevisionGUID="10cb7409-9e2e-413b-b54f-5aad2f260634" CreationDate="2018-03-19T20:21:09.227" UserId="487" Text="|мат|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16043" RevisionGUID="90e7c1b8-7afd-421e-a5c4-661716f3e1c6" CreationDate="2018-03-19T21:50:01.223" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;It did me a lot of good to **move my body a little** after sitting for one whole day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that with this specific meaning you should use &quot;(немного) **подви́гаться**&quot;, but how does &quot;**подвига́ться**&quot; compare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;**подви́гаться**&quot; denotes multi-directional random movements, with an emphasis placed on the idea &quot;for a while / a little&quot; due to the prefix &quot;по-&quot;, whereas &quot;**подвига́ться**&quot; refers to a movement in a single direction, as in &quot;moving forward&quot; or figuratively &quot;advancing (upwards) in your career&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16043" RevisionGUID="90e7c1b8-7afd-421e-a5c4-661716f3e1c6" CreationDate="2018-03-19T21:50:01.223" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;подви́гаться&quot; and when to use &quot;подвига́ться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16043" RevisionGUID="90e7c1b8-7afd-421e-a5c4-661716f3e1c6" CreationDate="2018-03-19T21:50:01.223" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16044" RevisionGUID="2d5552d2-47ca-4700-b1b4-295d85fd4cc2" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:04:18.003" UserId="7674" Text="You pretty much nailed it on your own save for a few points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**подвигАться** a person can only physically and in any direction, when someone wishes to sit down next to you on a limited sitting space they might ask you to **подвинуться** which would be sideways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to career it's **пРодвигаться**, which is always a progressing movement, in the direction you're facing (in a physical sense) or invest efforts in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16044" RevisionGUID="88ef27ca-a163-4405-93ed-a86864deffc5" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:09:23.453" UserId="7674" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="You pretty much nailed it on your own save for a few points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**подвигАться** a person can only physically and in any direction, when someone wishes to sit down next to you on a limited sitting space they might ask you to **подвинуться** which would be sideways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to career it's **пРодвигаться**, which is always a progressing movement, in the direction you're facing (in a physical sense) or invest efforts in, a movement to a specific destination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16044" RevisionGUID="476759b7-691e-427f-b35d-fe5e8129bffb" CreationDate="2018-03-19T22:18:17.227" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You pretty much nailed it on your own save for a few points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**подвигАться** a person can only physically and in any direction, when someone wishes to sit down next to you on a limited sitting space they might ask you to **подвинуться** which would be sideways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regard to career it's **пРодвигаться**, which is always a progressing movement, in the direction you're facing (in a physical sense) or invest efforts in, a movement towards specific destination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16045" RevisionGUID="89185a57-1acd-42c3-880d-45b042330c1d" CreationDate="2018-03-19T23:58:17.903" UserId="9256" Text="This is definitely a practical structure, used in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One use of &quot;а не ... бы ...&quot; is to convey a conjunctive (subjunctive) mood, like in this particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another use is to soften the rudeness of obscenities. Without &quot;а не ... бы ...&quot; the phrase becomes declarative instead of interrogative, which would make it more rude. This softening effect is more pronounced in imperative/interrogative variants. &quot;Пошел ты на ...&quot; is much more rude than &quot;А не пошел бы ты на ...&quot; (however, both variants are rude)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16046" RevisionGUID="766e5769-15bf-4c3c-9b68-835e3478f54d" CreationDate="2018-03-20T08:36:31.287" UserId="7674" Text="It's the same as if the English **fuck you** were framed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why wouldn't you go and fuck yourself / fuck off?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wouldn't you rather ....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How about you fuck off / yourself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's to express either sarcastically greater contempt and disdain through framing it as a polite question or alternatively to somewhat mitigate the offensiveness. And if addressing an inanimate object it's often an expression of deep disappointment rather than anger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construct **`а не + verb in past tense + бы`** basically expresses a cautious question about a possibility, like **`wouldn't...`**. The particle **`а`** isn't indispensable but it's an integral part of spoken language which makes it more emphatic and colorful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16049" RevisionGUID="912cfff0-471f-47f9-9af6-c0cdb7c0f230" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:58:29.653" UserId="10247" Text="Source **Большой толковый словарь русского языка (Кузнецов)**, 2014 edition gives the following meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПОДВ**И**ГАТЬСЯ, -аюсь, -аешься; св. Двигаться некоторое время, сделать несколько движений. Дайте ребёнку п.  My transl.: move for a while, make several movements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is close to your suggestion (multi-directional random movements).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for ПОДВИГ**А**ТЬСЯ this source says to see ПОДВИНУТЬСЯ (because ПОДВИГ**А**ТЬСЯ is its **imperfective**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ПОДВИНУТЬСЯ**, -нусь, -нешься; св. 1. Несколько, немного придвинуться или передвинуться. Все немножко подвинулись. Туча подвинулась к нам. 2. Пройти, проехать вперёд; продвинуться. Лодка подвинулась вверх по течению. // Идти, продвигаться вперёд (о войсках, фронте и т.п.). Фронт подвинулся южнее. 3. Несколько, немного продвинуться, приблизиться к завершению, к поставленной цели. П. в немецком языке. Строительство подвинулось. 4. Разг. Преуспеть на службе, получить повышение; повыситься (по службе, общественному положению и т.п.). П. в чинах. &lt;*Подвиг**а**ться*, -аюсь, -аешься; нсв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief translation for ПОДВИНУТЬСЯ: 1. Move a little. 2. Go forward, move forward. 3. Progress, move closer to the end, improve. 4. *Informal*,  Advance in career (status, etc.). The final abbreviation *нсв* = imperfective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you are basically right in your suggestions. Except the 'career' meaning which is really not used often and sounds somewhat old-fashioned (a commonly used alternative is *продвинуться*). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16050" RevisionGUID="8264d5c5-a94b-4137-8dcc-b7fb5653aa6d" CreationDate="2018-03-20T12:00:52.527" UserId="9001" Text="**Последствие** is a thing or event that starts/happens at some point in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я [не] думаю|беспокоюсь о последствиях* - I [don't] think|care about what can happen [because of it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Курение приводит к негативным последствиям: одышке и т.д.* - Smoking has negative consequences like wheeze etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дождь вызвал последствия в виде наводнения* - Rain caused the flood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Следствие** (in sense of *effect*, not *investigation*) is an abstract thing, which is true since its cause is true. Synonyms are **вывод**, **заключение**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Теорема имеет следующие следствия* (not *последствия*) - From the theorem you can draw the following conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Следствия, которые мы можем вывести из этих фактов, таковы...* - From the facts we can conclude that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But** in some set phrases (*Следствием ... является ...*) it is used instead of **последствие**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Следствием дождя явилось наводнение.* - The flood came as a consequence of the rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Следствием курения являются заболевания легких* -  Lung diseases are caused by smoking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use **последствие** here as well and it will sound only a little unusual. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16042" RevisionGUID="c304d108-7def-4fa7-8d4e-2a3e4c45b4cf" CreationDate="2018-03-20T13:56:28.587" UserId="1097" Comment="Insert youtube link. And «а не пошло бы оно всё нахуй?» this is definitely not a quote from Pushkin" Text=" I sort of know (пошло оно всё ...), but I have heard: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - «а не пошло бы оно всё нахуй?» ([«В Питере — пить»][1], группа &quot;Ленинград&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the **бы** addition mean and, moreover, why is the sentence having now *а не* at the beginning? An acquaintance explained me that this is a kind of conjunctive mood. The phrase is from a museum guide (sick of her work which, apparently apocryphally) spoken instead of Pushkin's quote. Is this a practical structure or rather poetic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/1ugivNRYfjc?t=4m40s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40296" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16042" RevisionGUID="c304d108-7def-4fa7-8d4e-2a3e4c45b4cf" CreationDate="2018-03-20T13:56:28.587" UserId="1097" Comment="Insert youtube link. And «а не пошло бы оно всё нахуй?» this is definitely not a quote from Pushkin" Text="&quot;А не пошло бы оно всё на ...&quot; What is the difference from &quot;пошло оно всё на...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="bc3c314b-f2f8-4ec6-9531-2f179f245db7" CreationDate="2018-03-20T17:40:39.790" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**важнее** всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**скорее** всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**больше** всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I've contented myself with putting this down to *just because*, but I wonder why in Russian you use a comparative form to refer to the superlative notion of &quot;the most ... of all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike &quot;важнее&quot; and &quot;скорее&quot;, &quot;больше&quot; has a superlative form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about, say, the adjective &quot;хороший&quot; that has both comparative and superlative forms: &quot;... всего&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="bc3c314b-f2f8-4ec6-9531-2f179f245db7" CreationDate="2018-03-20T17:40:39.790" UserId="8672" Text="Why use Comparative for the Superlative meaning, as in: &quot;важнее / скорее / больше всего&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="bc3c314b-f2f8-4ec6-9531-2f179f245db7" CreationDate="2018-03-20T17:40:39.790" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="2ab68d60-adc6-47c0-8d03-65695010ea2e" CreationDate="2018-03-20T17:53:02.980" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 166 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;**важнее** всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**скорее** всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**больше** всего&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I've contented myself with putting this down to *just because*, but I wonder why in Russian you use a comparative form to refer to the superlative notion of &quot;the most ... of all&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40301" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="2ab68d60-adc6-47c0-8d03-65695010ea2e" CreationDate="2018-03-20T17:53:02.980" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 166 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why use Comparative for the Superlative meaning: &quot;важнее / скорее / больше всего&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16052" RevisionGUID="bcce6831-6a55-450a-9373-5feadca85e72" CreationDate="2018-03-20T19:26:37.490" UserId="2104" Text="In English one can say 'more important than anything'. &#xA;&#xA;In Russian one can say **важнейший из всех**.&#xA;&#xA;Both languages can use either the comparative or the superlative to express the same idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16046" RevisionGUID="6a1ba05e-98ff-414e-baf4-8fcd1be161d5" CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:23:52.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="It's the same as if the English **fuck you** were framed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why wouldn't you go and fuck yourself / fuck off?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wouldn't you rather ....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How about you fuck off / yourself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's to express either sarcastically greater contempt and disdain through framing it as a polite question or alternatively to somewhat mitigate the offensiveness. And if addressing an inanimate object it's often an expression of deep disappointment rather than anger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construct **`а не + verb in past tense/infinitive + бы`** basically expresses a cautious question about a possibility, like **`wouldn't...`**. The particle **`а`** isn't indispensable but it's an integral part of spoken language which makes it more emphatic and colorful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40304" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16036" RevisionGUID="f2bbb463-023a-48de-964a-b2f26f89cb24" CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:26:42.327" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/976193333642088448" />
  <row Id="40305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15981" RevisionGUID="d3ad4abc-5480-4a5b-bcc3-36b0bd6eb3e3" CreationDate="2018-03-21T07:42:30.150" UserId="4600" Comment="edited body" Text="It's in [Upyachka][1] slang. Literally translated that would roughly evaluate into something like *well, sorta kaboom.* Provided your context I guess that would mean he had sent you something, or something bad happened, or he just decided to disappear forever. Anyways, I would consider unprofessional sending something like that with any intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;короче&quot; – a common parasite word in Russian, equivalent to *&quot;well, ...&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;кагбе&quot; – meaning *&quot;sort of&quot;* distorted &quot;как бы&quot;, from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;пыщь&quot; – something like explosion *&quot;kaboom, bang&quot;*, again from Upyachka slang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Upyachka* was a popular website and netlore associated with it in 2000s. The content posted on that website consisted mostly of meaningless meme pictures and GIFs, deliberately misspelled and nonsensical Russian words etc. The most known phrase in Upyachkan, illustrating its characteristic extensive usage of uppercase and exclamation marks was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЖЫВТОНЕ ЧОЧО УПЯЧКА!!! УПЯЧКА УПЯЧКА! ШЯЧЛО ПОПЯЧТСА ПОПЯЧТСА! Я идиот! Убейте меня, кто-нибудь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upyachka.io/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16030" RevisionGUID="9b52c483-2138-4e22-bfba-67f46be454b9" CreationDate="2018-03-21T12:45:22.293" UserId="3680" Comment="added more details" Text="`Следствие` (singular) is widely used in the math in the meaning of `effect` / `consequence`, like in a logical pair `cause` - `effect`, and also in the meaning of `investigation` (criminal).  &#xD;&#xA;The word `следствия` is either a plural form or genitive of `следствие`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word `последствие` has a very close (if not the same) meaning `result` / `effect` / `aftermath` / `consequence`. But in some circumstances it has a negative connotation. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Последствия пожара  &#xD;&#xA;Последствия болезни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it makes sense to mention a preposition `вследствие` which has a meaning `as a consequence of`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40307" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16043" RevisionGUID="f3edfe30-08cf-4dd7-a114-dcaee867a44f" CreationDate="2018-03-21T17:27:07.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/976510529412960258" />
  <row Id="40308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="633d523c-814f-4d04-83a9-acd4cec380a9" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:07:54.093" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;В последнее время не было возможности побыть одной, немного расслабиться, чтобы **пару** часов не думать о домашних делах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the meaning of the phrase, it seems as if the preposition &quot;за&quot; with the meaning of &quot;for/during&quot; is dropped. I wonder if it is unusual to say &quot;за пару часов&quot; instead in an instance like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="633d523c-814f-4d04-83a9-acd4cec380a9" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:07:54.093" UserId="8672" Text="What is the rationale for using the accusative &quot;пару&quot; in &quot;пару часов не думать&quot; without a preceding preposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="633d523c-814f-4d04-83a9-acd4cec380a9" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:07:54.093" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16054" RevisionGUID="da0f5902-821e-4875-b660-36806bd05713" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:23:24.787" UserId="9256" Text="Preposition `&quot;за&quot;` can be used when there supposed to be a specific accomplishment during mentioned time period. In this case, `&quot;думать&quot;` is imperfective, and no accomplishment is anticipated, meaning that `&quot;за&quot;` cannot be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare to `&quot;сделать домашние дела за пару часов&quot;` (to finish home chores in couple hours)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16055" RevisionGUID="2cafc2a7-8270-411f-a642-a2473f9ca866" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:23:45.407" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Не знаю, **гожусь** ли я **в напарники** , но попробовать можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never come across another instance where a noun following the preposition &quot;в&quot; takes any other case than Prepositional or Accusative. Not to mention that the very idea of using Nominative Plural following any preposition pulled me up short. I wonder if this is just a one-off instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16055" RevisionGUID="2cafc2a7-8270-411f-a642-a2473f9ca866" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:23:45.407" UserId="8672" Text="Why does Nominative Plural follow the preposition &quot;в&quot; in &quot;годиться в + noun&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16055" RevisionGUID="2cafc2a7-8270-411f-a642-a2473f9ca866" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:23:45.407" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="044e7678-c7e5-4a32-93dc-803b6f29630e" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:24:06.427" UserId="3680" Text="Presence of a preposition in this context depends on the aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a verb is in the perfective aspect, the preposition is used, and isn't used otherwise.  &#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... чтобы пару часов не думать о домашних делах. (*imperfective*)  &#xD;&#xA;... чтобы **за** пару часов отойти от произошедшего. (*perfective*)  &#xD;&#xA;Успеть **за** пару дней. (*perfective*)  &#xD;&#xA;Пробездельничать пару дней. (*imperfective*)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16056" RevisionGUID="2c99d417-248f-4394-9e62-738805bbeedb" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:29:51.717" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted extra examples" Text="Presence of a preposition in this context depends on the aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a verb is in the perfective aspect, the preposition is used, and isn't used otherwise.  &#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... чтобы пару часов не думать о домашних делах. (*imperfective*)  &#xD;&#xA;... чтобы **за** пару часов отойти от произошедшего. (*perfective*)  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="b067acb9-c46b-4a2f-b502-5cc0ee9c86ea" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:30:13.720" UserId="2079" Text="`&quot;За пару часов не думать о домашних делах&quot;` is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;За&quot; in such expressions means that it took that time to perform some action.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `За два часа она сделала домашнее задание` (it took two hours for her to do her homework - she started to do it, then finished it, all in two hours) &#xD;&#xA;* `Она два часа делала домашнее задание` (she spent two hours doing her homework - maybe she finished it, maybe not, maybe she made little or no progress, or maybe she started her homework yesterday, and now just continued to do it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;за&quot; requires perfective, and without &quot;за&quot; it is imperfective.  You cannot say &quot;она два часа сделала домашнее задание&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16057" RevisionGUID="82d318be-7ae4-4aab-8adf-5031578b40a4" CreationDate="2018-03-21T18:45:41.007" UserId="2079" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="`&quot;За пару часов не думать о домашних делах&quot;` is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;За&quot; in such expressions means that it took that time to perform some action. The verb must be perfective.  Without &quot;за&quot; it must be imperfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `За два часа она сделала домашнее задание` (it took two hours for her to do her homework - she started to do it, then finished it, all in two hours) &#xD;&#xA;* `Она два часа делала домашнее задание` (she spent two hours doing her homework - maybe she finished it, maybe not, maybe she made little or no progress, or maybe she started her homework yesterday, and now just continued to do it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: `за ... не ...` means some task is not done for this time, the verb still should be perfective.  Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `За два часа она ни разу не подумала о домашних делах`&#xD;&#xA;* `За целый день ты ничего не сделал`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16059" RevisionGUID="f56819d1-82ec-476b-9f47-03f9c90fb0da" CreationDate="2018-03-21T19:18:44.183" UserId="2104" Text="Using just the accusative with no preposition is a common way of saying an action was taking place over the duration of a time span or a distance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Подождите **минуту**. - Please wait **a minute**.&#xD;&#xA;* Проехать **милю**. - To drive **for a mile.**&#xD;&#xA;* Отдохни **недельку-другую**. - Have a rest **for a week or two.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40322" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16055" RevisionGUID="9b4d658f-281f-4055-b854-5d19bcaf3d62" CreationDate="2018-03-21T19:25:22.997" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the rationale for using Nominative Plural following the preposition &quot;в&quot; in &quot;годиться в + noun&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="70e4d97b-d465-418e-86ac-99dc003cf6c0" CreationDate="2018-03-21T19:58:17.167" UserId="2104" Text="It's a very peculiar twist of the Russian grammar: a preposition followed by what seems to be a noun in the nominative case. Some grammarians even treat this as a separate case; others prefer to say that the noun is actually in the accusative but it loses its animacy in this context. More examples of this kind:&#xA;&#xA;* Он тебе в отцы годится! - He's old enough to be your father!&#xA;* Я бы в летчики пошел, пусть меня научат! &#xA;* Иванов избирается в депутаты.&#xA;* Петров метит в начальники.&#xA;* Дети играют в дочки-матери / в казаки-разбойники.&#xA;&#xA;The general meaning is aspiring or pretending to be someone. &#xA;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression with a rich history. It looks like it's used less these days. So well done spotting it.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40324" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16029" RevisionGUID="15f64bee-0d96-4c8d-8dae-9f6de4771f45" CreationDate="2018-03-21T20:30:19.883" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/976556633886281735" />
  <row Id="40325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16055" RevisionGUID="ba6247bc-e070-46fb-9954-14d37988728f" CreationDate="2018-03-21T21:28:02.587" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Не знаю, **гожусь** ли я **в напарники**, но попробовать можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never come across another instance where a noun following the preposition &quot;в&quot; takes any other case than Prepositional or Accusative. Not to mention that the very idea of using Nominative Plural following any preposition pulled me up short. I wonder if this is just a one-off instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="bf1ef63f-a114-4cd0-8c6e-f42c20411c53" CreationDate="2018-03-21T21:31:55.847" UserId="2104" Comment="added 165 characters in body" Text="It's a very peculiar twist of the Russian grammar: a preposition followed by what seems to be a noun in the nominative case. Some grammarians even treat this as a separate case; others prefer to say that the noun is actually in the accusative but it loses its animacy in this context. More examples of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он тебе **в отцы** годится! - He's old enough to be your father!&#xD;&#xA;* Я бы **в летчики** пошел, пусть меня научат! &#xD;&#xA;* Иванов избирается **в депутаты.**&#xD;&#xA;* Петров метит **в начальники.**&#xD;&#xA;* Дети играют **в дочки-матери / в казаки-разбойники.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю, гожусь ли я в напарники, но попробовать можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not sure if I would be a good partner, but we can give it a try.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general meaning is aspiring or pretending to be someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression with a rich history that sadly seems to be falling out of use. So well done spotting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15891" RevisionGUID="71b91b21-6257-41eb-b954-ea82abb281e2" CreationDate="2018-03-21T21:36:46.500" UserId="2104" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text=" * **Книга объёмом более 1000 страниц.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use this pattern to describe other dimensions as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Гора высотой более 1000 метров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Река длиной более 1000 километров.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dimension (объём, длина, высота) is in the instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **тысяча** is in the genitive case: **более тысячи.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="09069348-8152-4bc2-ba2c-f42aeee961d3" CreationDate="2018-03-21T21:47:10.167" UserId="2104" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="It's a very peculiar twist of the Russian grammar: a preposition followed by what seems to be a noun in the nominative case. Some grammarians even treat this as a separate case; others prefer to say that the noun is actually in the accusative but it loses its animacy in this context. More examples of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он тебе **в отцы** годится! - He's old enough to be your father!&#xD;&#xA;* Я бы **в летчики** пошел, пусть меня научат! ([Маяковский. Кем быть?][1])&#xD;&#xA;* Иванов избирается **в депутаты.** - Ivanov is being elected a deputy.&#xD;&#xA;* Петров метит **в начальники.** - Petrov is aiming at becoming a boss.&#xD;&#xA;* Дети играют **в дочки-матери / в казаки-разбойники.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю, гожусь ли я в напарники, но попробовать можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not sure if I would be a good partner, but we can give it a try.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general meaning is aspiring or pretending to be someone. It's a colloquial expression with a rich history that sadly seems to be falling out of use. So well done spotting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D0%BC_%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C%3F_(%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16053" RevisionGUID="1d8b2fc5-8b63-4c64-9c5a-706cf3dbc22e" CreationDate="2018-03-22T05:30:30.500" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/976692573954768897" />
  <row Id="40331" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16055" RevisionGUID="24e41de1-b4b6-467a-816f-5ab21ec2fa00" CreationDate="2018-03-22T08:30:30.280" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/976737871691436034" />
  <row Id="40333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16059" RevisionGUID="7f989fd2-46de-4bda-9e1b-07029d169093" CreationDate="2018-03-22T11:05:00.753" UserId="2104" Comment="added 888 characters in body" Text="Using just the accusative with no preposition is a common way of describing an action that is 'spread' over a time span or a distance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Подождите **минуту**. - Please wait **a minute**.&#xD;&#xA;* Проехать **милю**. - To drive **for a mile.**&#xD;&#xA;* Отдохни **недельку-другую**. - Have a rest **for a week or two.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may not be as obvious with masculine and neuter nouns (or numerals) because their nominative and accusative are the same:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я прождал автобуса **целый час.**&#xD;&#xA;* Проехать **пять километров.**&#xD;&#xA;* Попрыгунья Стрекоза&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Лето красное** пропела;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Оглянуться не успела,&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Как зима катит в глаза.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;([Крылов. Стрекоза и Муравей][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not, the bold words above are in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'pure accusative' sets the boundaries of the described action; **за** + accusative sums up what happens by the end of the time interval:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – **За сколько** сделаешь? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;– **За день** сделаю. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;– А **за два**? &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Фильм &quot;Формула любви&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B9_(%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/ESDZPSrO128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16062" RevisionGUID="fd9efdd6-57cb-4e30-880a-e0c2fe782fd3" CreationDate="2018-03-22T13:20:24.797" UserId="5443" Text="You can think of *the accusative* here like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... so that I'd *have a couple of hours* of not thinking about&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housework.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (The opposite: ... so that I'd *spend a couple of hours* enjoying my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; housework.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prepositional version with &quot;**за**&quot; is for a *different* meaning: you'll are limited in time to a couple of hours while have to complete something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .. so that I'd get all of my housework done *in a couple of hours*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(... чтобы **за** пару часов переделать все домашние дела)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16063" RevisionGUID="4693a805-3375-4e6e-853e-cefbd47e599c" CreationDate="2018-03-23T00:51:26.867" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;on **сильно** занят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: on **очень** занят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that in this specific instance you can swap &quot;очень&quot; with &quot;сильно&quot; in the sense of &quot;very much&quot;. However, given that &quot;сильно&quot; carries the fundamental meaning of &quot;strongly&quot;, I'm not sure if &quot;очень&quot; is interchangeable with &quot;сильно&quot; all the time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16063" RevisionGUID="4693a805-3375-4e6e-853e-cefbd47e599c" CreationDate="2018-03-23T00:51:26.867" UserId="8672" Text="When (and when not) can you replace &quot;очень&quot; with &quot;сильно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16063" RevisionGUID="4693a805-3375-4e6e-853e-cefbd47e599c" CreationDate="2018-03-23T00:51:26.867" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16063" RevisionGUID="8fbae4f6-7cb4-42b1-8efb-319f2f6c004a" CreationDate="2018-03-23T03:35:40.843" UserId="1097" Comment="fix typo" Text="&gt;он **сильно** занят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: он **очень** занят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that in this specific instance you can swap &quot;очень&quot; with &quot;сильно&quot; in the sense of &quot;very much&quot;. However, given that &quot;сильно&quot; carries the fundamental meaning of &quot;strongly&quot;, I'm not sure if &quot;очень&quot; is interchangeable with &quot;сильно&quot; all the time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40341" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16016" RevisionGUID="34df4f0e-52b6-4982-a04e-ec1fbab0ad82" CreationDate="2018-03-23T05:32:33.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/977055479510773760" />
  <row Id="40342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16064" RevisionGUID="3bc0a57b-e431-4abc-97ff-65db68a312f6" CreationDate="2018-03-23T06:38:47.880" UserId="10386" Text="I'm reading a certain set of kindergarten/lower primary maths textbooks that is written by American authors for a non-American company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever students are asked to identify the number of rectangles in a given picture, the answer booklet gives the number of oblongs instead of the number of rectangles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the topic may be too advanced for kindergarten students, the maths textbooks indeed teach at the very first level that squares are rectangles, where levels 1-4 are for kindergarten students. Perhaps, the ones who wrote the answer booklets were not fluent in English while the ones who wrote the textbooks were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[picture with 4 circles, 2 triangles, 3 square rectangles, 2 oblong rectangles for a total of 5 rectangles]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Circle ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Triangle ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Square ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rectangle ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer key would give only the numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the last line is wrong since it should be 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this happen in Russian? Or a Russian dialect? I mean, is there something specific about the translations of any of the following words 'rectangle, square, oblong, quadrilateral, quadrangle, parallelogram, trapezoid/trapezium, rhombus' that would cause such confusion? I guess the translator/s thought that when English speakers say 'rectangle', it means 'oblong in their language/dialect, but I don't see that as specifically a problem for this particular language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, are squares considered rectangles in Russia? Apparently, these things can vary by state, curricula, culture, time, etc. Please provide a document from the education department of your government or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm a monolinguist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are kindergartners supposed to be steered from squares being rectangles?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/13831/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In what curricula are “rectangles” defined so as to exclude squares?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/13700/in-what-curricula-are-rectangles-defined-so-as-to-exclude-squares)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why do we have circles for ellipses, squares for rectangles but nothing for triangles?](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2249741/why-do-we-have-circles-for-ellipses-squares-for-rectangles-but-nothing-for-tria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are/should kids (be) taught about the colour of the sun?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/394471)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16064" RevisionGUID="3bc0a57b-e431-4abc-97ff-65db68a312f6" CreationDate="2018-03-23T06:38:47.880" UserId="10386" Text="Could a translation error lead to squares to not be considered as rectangles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16064" RevisionGUID="3bc0a57b-e431-4abc-97ff-65db68a312f6" CreationDate="2018-03-23T06:38:47.880" UserId="10386" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|этимология|математика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16065" RevisionGUID="7f5a58e1-701d-4cb9-a2da-847e6ffaf3cd" CreationDate="2018-03-23T08:15:10.993" UserId="4600" Text="My answer may not be based on any academic facts, but I will try to analyze this as a native Russian speaker. **Очень** and **сильно** are not always interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When used to describe current state of a person/situation they are interchangeable, both can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **очень** разозлился. = He got very angry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **сильно** разозлился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя рука **очень** болит. = My hand hurts very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя рука **сильно** болит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When used to describe qualities of a person/object – not really interchangeable. **Сильно** even when used may sound strange or bear negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Станция находится **очень** далеко. = The station is very far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Станция находится **сильно** далеко. -&gt; this sounds awkward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты **очень** умный. = You are very smart. (neutral)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты **сильно** умный. = You are smart as fuck. (not really a compliment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When used to describe actual [physical] force – **сильно** should be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **очень** ударил человека кулаком. -&gt; this sounds awkward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **сильно** ударил человека кулаком. = He punched the man hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот район **очень** пострадал от землетрясения. = This area suffered much damage from the earthquake. – Sounds okay, but not preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот район **сильно** пострадал от землетрясения. -&gt; this usage **is preferred**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16064" RevisionGUID="37f6f78c-0084-4fc5-87e1-18bfe47172e1" CreationDate="2018-03-23T08:38:07.087" UserId="10386" Comment="additionally" Text="I'm reading a certain set of kindergarten/lower primary maths textbooks that is written by American authors for a non-American company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever students are asked to identify the number of rectangles in a given picture, the answer booklet gives the number of oblongs instead of the number of rectangles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the topic may be too advanced for kindergarten students, the maths textbooks indeed explicitly say at the bottom of the first page of a textbook at the very first level to tell students that squares are special types of rectangles, where levels 1-4 are for kindergarten students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the accompany guide for teachers devotes a whole page of discussion as to how to teach that squares are special types of rectangles. There's even a paragraph about teaching to kindergarten students. The authors/some of the co-authors of the teacher guides are also authors/co-authors of the textbooks. They have also said that if students are taught that squares are not rectangles, then they will have misconceptions later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps, the ones who wrote the answer booklets were not fluent in English while the ones who wrote the textbooks were.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[picture with 4 circles, 2 triangles, 3 square rectangles, 2 oblong rectangles for a total of 5 rectangles]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Circle ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Triangle ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Square ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Rectangle ___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer key would give only the numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the last line is wrong since it should be 5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this happen in Russian? Or a Russian dialect? I mean, is there something specific about the translations of any of the following words 'rectangle, square, oblong, quadrilateral, quadrangle, parallelogram, trapezoid/trapezium, rhombus' that would cause such confusion? I guess the translator/s thought that when English speakers say 'rectangle', it means 'oblong in their language/dialect, but I don't see that as specifically a problem for this particular language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, are squares considered rectangles in Russia? Apparently, these things can vary by state, curricula, culture, time, etc. Please provide a document from the education department of your government or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm a monolinguist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are kindergartners supposed to be steered from squares being rectangles?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/13831/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In what curricula are “rectangles” defined so as to exclude squares?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/13700/in-what-curricula-are-rectangles-defined-so-as-to-exclude-squares)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why do we have circles for ellipses, squares for rectangles but nothing for triangles?](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2249741/why-do-we-have-circles-for-ellipses-squares-for-rectangles-but-nothing-for-tria)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What are/should kids (be) taught about the colour of the sun?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/394471)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16066" RevisionGUID="5c23ed35-ebf3-4576-8ae8-f5b531198b15" CreationDate="2018-03-23T08:52:38.853" UserId="7674" Text="I believe i would answer exactly as the answer key shows, which in your opinion is *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Square is *квардрат*  &#xD;&#xA;Rectangle is *прямоугольник* (named *oblong rectangle* in your description)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian *rectangle* and *oblong rectangle* both are just *прямоугольник*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although technically square is an isolated case of a rectangle, conceptually they're usually treated as different shapes. This is what i remember from my school years and it's been a while since then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the age of the target audience the way the task is framed is closer to a riddle, where children have to figure out that square (квадрат) is also a rectangle (прямоугольник) and so insert 5 instead of 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it all comes down to what the children are actually taught in terms of difference and relationship between square and rectangle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16066" RevisionGUID="b68e1124-2301-4810-bd83-4184d20c99ab" CreationDate="2018-03-23T08:58:26.533" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I believe i would answer exactly as the answer key shows, which in your opinion is *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Square is *квардрат*  &#xD;&#xA;Rectangle is *прямоугольник* (named *oblong rectangle* in your description)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian *rectangle* and *oblong rectangle* both are just *прямоугольник*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although technically *square* is an isolated case of a *rectangle*, conceptually they're usually treated as different shapes. This is what i remember from my school years and it's been a while since then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the age of the target audience the way the task is framed is closer to a riddle, where children have to figure out that square (квадрат) is also a rectangle (прямоугольник) and so insert 5 instead of 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it all comes down to what the children are actually taught in terms of difference and relationship between square and rectangle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16067" RevisionGUID="380f7b56-a5d9-4329-bf4f-5050ff1526e6" CreationDate="2018-03-23T09:03:54.560" UserId="2079" Text="Сильно instead of очень is very colloquial.  I don't recommend to use it at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has negative connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* `Он очень умный` = `he is very smart`&#xD;&#xA;* `Он сильно умный` = (approximately) `he is smartass`.  It is never a compliment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16066" RevisionGUID="025349ee-9b58-4c0f-beb0-e8c0fdb951ce" CreationDate="2018-03-23T09:55:28.270" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="I believe i would answer exactly as the answer key shows, which in your opinion is *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I guess the translator/s thought that when English speakers say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'rectangle', it means 'oblong in their language/dialect*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do envision such a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian square is *квардрат* while rectangle is *прямоугольник* (named *oblong rectangle* in your description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *rectangle* and *oblong rectangle* are just *прямоугольник* and the latter is usually only understood as oblong, to the exclusion of a square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although technically *square* is an isolated case of a *rectangle*, conceptually they're usually treated as different shapes. This is what i remember from my school years and it's been a while since then. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16066" RevisionGUID="68882839-5782-4142-a331-adb571557317" CreationDate="2018-03-23T10:00:55.967" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="I believe i would answer exactly as the answer key shows, which in your opinion is *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I guess the translator/s thought that when English speakers say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'rectangle', it means 'oblong in their language/dialect*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do envision such a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian square is *квадрат* while rectangle is *прямоугольник* (named *oblong rectangle* in your description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *rectangle* and *oblong rectangle* are just *прямоугольник* and the latter is usually only understood as *oblong*, to the exclusion of a *square*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although technically *square* is an isolated case of a *rectangle*, conceptually in Russian speaking milieu they're usually treated as different shapes. This is what i remember from my school years and it's been a while since then. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16068" RevisionGUID="653b1415-c29b-44f5-84f6-dec97dda33a9" CreationDate="2018-03-23T11:22:30.153" UserId="6816" Text="I just read about [shibboleths][1] and I was wondering: are/were there are any Russian shibboleths used today or in the past?&#xA;&#xA;A shibboleth is a phrase (or a custom/tradition) that is used to distinguish between groups of people, often depending on whether or not the speaker can properly pronounce the phrase.&#xA;&#xA;Here is a list of examples: [List of shibboleths][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shibboleths" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16068" RevisionGUID="653b1415-c29b-44f5-84f6-dec97dda33a9" CreationDate="2018-03-23T11:22:30.153" UserId="6816" Text="What are some Russian shibboleths?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16068" RevisionGUID="653b1415-c29b-44f5-84f6-dec97dda33a9" CreationDate="2018-03-23T11:22:30.153" UserId="6816" Text="|выражения|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16065" RevisionGUID="24378f3e-9d32-4853-8f10-f548468a33b0" CreationDate="2018-03-23T11:41:10.640" UserId="4600" Comment="added 477 characters in body" Text="My answer may not be based on any academic facts, but I will try to analyze this as a native Russian speaker. **Очень** and **сильно** are not always interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When used to describe current state of a person/situation they are interchangeable, both can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **очень** разозлился. = He got very angry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **сильно** разозлился.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя рука **очень** болит. = My hand hurts very much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя рука **сильно** болит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When used to describe qualities of a person/object – not really interchangeable. **Сильно** even when used may sound strange or bear negative connotation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Станция находится **очень** далеко. = The station is very far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Станция находится **сильно** далеко. -&gt; this sounds awkward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты **очень** умный. = You are very smart. (neutral)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты **сильно** умный. = You are smart as fuck. (not really a compliment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When used to describe actual [physical] force – **сильно** should be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **очень** ударил человека кулаком. -&gt; this sounds awkward&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **сильно** ударил человека кулаком. = He punched the man hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот район **очень** пострадал от землетрясения. = This area suffered much damage from the earthquake. – Sounds okay, but not preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот район **сильно** пострадал от землетрясения. -&gt; this usage **is preferred**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Only **сильно** can be used with adverbs **так** / **не так:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **так сильно** тебя люблю! = I love you so much!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **очень** тебя люблю! = I love you much!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **так очень** тебя люблю! -&gt; **completely wrong**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **не так сильно** привязан к родителям. = He's not so much attached to his parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **не очень** привязан к родителям. = He's not much attached to his parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **не так очень** привязан к родителям. -&gt; **completely wrong**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16068" RevisionGUID="4d9ce744-a623-4db3-ab5a-235c06f7312d" CreationDate="2018-03-23T12:09:44.757" UserId="6097" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I just read about [shibboleths][1] and I was wondering: are/were there are any Russian shibboleths used today or in the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A shibboleth is a phrase (or a custom/tradition) that is used to distinguish between groups of people, often depending on whether or not the speaker can properly pronounce the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of examples: [List of shibboleths][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shibboleths" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16066" RevisionGUID="b921891b-aa24-4771-acee-603b92a1e2a0" CreationDate="2018-03-23T12:25:29.480" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I believe i would answer exactly as the answer key shows, which in your opinion is *incorrect*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I guess the translator/s thought that when English speakers say&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'rectangle', it means 'oblong in their language/dialect*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do envision such a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian square is *квадрат* while rectangle is *прямоугольник* (named *oblong rectangle* in your description).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both *rectangle* and *oblong rectangle* are just *прямоугольник* and the latter is usually only understood as *oblong*, to the exclusion of a *square*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although technically *square* is an isolated case of a *rectangle*, conceptually in Russian speaking milieu they're usually treated as different shapes. This is what i remember from my school years and it's been a while since then.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16068" RevisionGUID="77b8e875-242e-4772-ba8f-2934d942d858" CreationDate="2018-03-23T13:31:48.017" UserId="6816" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I just read about [shibboleths][1] and I was wondering: what are some Russian shibboleths used today or in the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A shibboleth is a phrase (or a custom/tradition) that is used to distinguish between groups of people, often depending on whether or not the speaker can properly pronounce the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of examples: [List of shibboleths][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shibboleths" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40359" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16068" RevisionGUID="7a935fb5-a3ab-45cb-ba93-5132d338779a" CreationDate="2018-03-23T13:49:29.700" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40360" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16063" RevisionGUID="550eb135-1ce9-47b8-a325-568b6691f059" CreationDate="2018-03-23T14:32:50.407" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/977191444292231168" />
  <row Id="40361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="b190d161-4f0f-49f3-a43c-991024c5f542" CreationDate="2018-03-23T18:58:34.513" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;И вот **в один прекрасный день** ты начинаешь осознавать, что влюблена в него. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get the feeling that this (fixed) expression is not about the weather being literally &quot;прекрасный / beautiful / nice&quot; when something has happened, but rather perhaps, I wonder if it is used to describe how suddenly and unexpectedly something has happened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="b190d161-4f0f-49f3-a43c-991024c5f542" CreationDate="2018-03-23T18:58:34.513" UserId="8672" Text="What does the expression &quot;(и вот) в один прекрасный день&quot; intend to convey?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="b190d161-4f0f-49f3-a43c-991024c5f542" CreationDate="2018-03-23T18:58:34.513" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16070" RevisionGUID="5b3c6877-a7fe-43bc-8cfd-d18852fa4d33" CreationDate="2018-03-23T19:27:40.180" UserId="7674" Text="[There's](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%E2+%EE%E4%E8%ED+%EF%F0%E5%EA%F0%E0%F1%ED%FB%E9+%E4%E5%ED%FC) a direct English parallel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one fine day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although in Russian the phrase doesn't necessarily mean it to be literally *beautiful* or *charming*, it's still not used to describe adverse events, except ironically. The antonymous expression for negative events would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В один злополучный/зслосчастный день....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which nevertheless is too literary for daily use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40365" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16023" RevisionGUID="d3d91dd9-4701-4c0c-8a26-f26f1ad19bb7" CreationDate="2018-03-23T20:35:41.957" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/977282760669843461" />
  <row Id="40366" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15801" RevisionGUID="7d5fe715-1ec8-4039-90e8-1d838cbda102" CreationDate="2018-03-23T23:35:42.727" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/977328062286065664" />
  <row Id="40367" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15779" RevisionGUID="0927027c-e121-4dde-92ed-57fe442d48a5" CreationDate="2018-03-24T05:36:12.717" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/977418785253658624" />
  <row Id="40368" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="14763" RevisionGUID="a7fecd80-2afd-4db6-9eef-6d6e59142ed6" CreationDate="2018-03-24T08:36:12.540" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/977464083153907712" />
  <row Id="40369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16070" RevisionGUID="2629af44-67ce-434f-9704-8457da982dba" CreationDate="2018-03-24T12:30:01.903" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="[There's](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%E2+%EE%E4%E8%ED+%EF%F0%E5%EA%F0%E0%F1%ED%FB%E9+%E4%E5%ED%FC) a direct English parallel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one fine day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although in Russian the phrase doesn't necessarily mean it to be literally *beautiful* or *charming*, it's still not used to describe adverse events, except ironically. The antonymous expression for negative events would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В один злополучный/злосчастный день....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which nevertheless is too literary for daily use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16071" RevisionGUID="82aa593e-753a-4bb5-8b94-c902b102cdbe" CreationDate="2018-03-25T11:42:28.177" UserId="10342" Text="Выражение &quot;в один прекрасный день&quot; может означать нечто совсем иное, чем истинное счастье. Например: И вот, в один прекрасный день меня уволили. Или: И вот, в один прекрасный день Ельцин передал власть Путину. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16072" RevisionGUID="4578c8ce-6c8a-49ad-8f24-010357851a47" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:46:26.593" UserId="9603" Text="For example, can I rewrite the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я живу в Берлине с тысяча девятьсот семьдесят третьего года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я живу в Берлине с семьдесят третьего года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, is this considered informal? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16072" RevisionGUID="4578c8ce-6c8a-49ad-8f24-010357851a47" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:46:26.593" UserId="9603" Text="Is it common to omit part of a year in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16072" RevisionGUID="4578c8ce-6c8a-49ad-8f24-010357851a47" CreationDate="2018-03-25T14:46:26.593" UserId="9603" Text="|phrase|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16073" RevisionGUID="9882e5e8-2b19-4586-a9cb-d3f336a40037" CreationDate="2018-03-25T16:16:27.937" UserId="10402" Text="Yes, you can (and should) use it, as long it is clear from the context, which century you are talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the formality, it is only slightly informal meaning that you would not normally see the short form written in official documents, but officials may easily use it at press-conferences. At the same time, in written form, the long form would typically be replaced by digits. So in general you would encounter either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я живу в Берлине с семьдесят третьего года. [oral]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я живу в Берлине с 1973 года. [written]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40375" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16072" RevisionGUID="aabfd538-6117-4c3a-8212-70ce164a62af" CreationDate="2018-03-25T17:01:38.870" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is it common to omit part of a year in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16074" RevisionGUID="42034293-4cf7-4084-a30f-714cc4660a68" CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:50:44.077" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Пока ты проводишь свое драгоценное время **впустую** и занимаешься бесполезными делами, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative feminine construction &quot;в + пустую&quot; leads me to think that some feminine noun is theoretically omitted at the end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;впустую: в + пустую + ???&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;spend time **to empty/vain + ???**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16074" RevisionGUID="42034293-4cf7-4084-a30f-714cc4660a68" CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:50:44.077" UserId="8672" Text="The adverb &quot;впустую&quot; is made up of &quot;в&quot; + &quot;пустую&quot; + &quot;what feminine noun&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16074" RevisionGUID="42034293-4cf7-4084-a30f-714cc4660a68" CreationDate="2018-03-25T22:50:44.077" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40379" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="15982" RevisionGUID="a17ce1d7-0376-463f-abcf-74b6cd0f83ca" CreationDate="2018-03-25T23:04:35.547" UserId="-1" Comment="55" />
  <row Id="40380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16075" RevisionGUID="d2d0a303-28da-45d2-a86a-80d5f62b61f4" CreationDate="2018-03-26T00:04:10.923" UserId="3680" Text="Despite the word `впустую` looks like you described, its meaning is very similar if not the same as for words: `зря`, `напрасно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're right, if there are two words `в пустую`, they are typically followed by an accusative feminine noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'm not aware how `впустую` is related to `в пустую`, except for similar looking. I'd not be surprised if there is no relationship at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16076" RevisionGUID="93ba07b2-a12c-4ef5-80c9-37cb7e51db06" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:16:27.213" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я **не** **стану** тебя слушаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, when &quot;не&quot; directly qualifies the verb &quot;стать&quot;, the phrase expresses a determined refusal to do something: &quot;not going to do / not about to do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Мы с тобой обручились, но это **не** значит, что я **стану** тебя слушаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about when &quot;не&quot; qualifies the verb &quot;значит&quot; in the main clause, as shown above? Is a strong negation still perceived? Or is it closer to a partial negation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;..., but that does**n't necessarily** mean that I'm going to ...?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16076" RevisionGUID="93ba07b2-a12c-4ef5-80c9-37cb7e51db06" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:16:27.213" UserId="8672" Text="Is &quot;это не значит, что я стану ...&quot; a strong negation like &quot;я не стану ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16076" RevisionGUID="93ba07b2-a12c-4ef5-80c9-37cb7e51db06" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:16:27.213" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40384" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16076" RevisionGUID="f1707771-0e5d-4dc2-9953-d194170e8e79" CreationDate="2018-03-26T05:47:53.870" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Does &quot;это не значит, что я стану ...&quot; express a determined refusal like &quot;я не стану ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16076" RevisionGUID="89f8495b-062b-493e-a11d-89658135e38a" CreationDate="2018-03-26T06:00:32.240" UserId="8672" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я **не** **стану** тебя слушаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, when &quot;не&quot; directly qualifies the verb &quot;стать&quot;, the phrase expresses a determined refusal to do something: &quot;not going to do / not about to do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Мы с тобой обручились, но это **не** значит, что я **стану** тебя слушаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about when &quot;не&quot; qualifies the verb &quot;значит&quot; in the main clause, as shown above? Is a strong negation still perceived? Or is it more like a lighter-in-tone, partial negation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;..., but that does**n't necessarily** mean that I'm going to ...?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16077" RevisionGUID="72e325e5-ab13-4069-9310-4264b9b30da3" CreationDate="2018-03-26T07:23:30.983" UserId="5691" Text="Two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Yekaterinburg][1] was renamed to Sverdlovsk in 1924, after the man [Yakov Sverdlov][2]. Notice the -sk prefix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Orenburg][3] was renamed to Chkalov in 1938, after the man [Valery Chkalov][4]. Notice this name **doesn't** have the -sk suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering why. Both names end in a v, but one is given an -sk suffix, and the other isn't. Is there some rule about this? Does the -sk suffix mean anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I have a [similar question][5]. That one is more about general city names, but this one is more of a specific case because Chkalov has no suffix, prefix, or any modifications to the name whatsoever. I'm wondering why. &quot;Chkalovsk&quot; sounds better to me, like Sverdlovsk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterinburg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Sverdlov&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenburg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Chkalov&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/9064/what-are-the-rules-if-any-for-naming-a-city-after-a-person" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16077" RevisionGUID="72e325e5-ab13-4069-9310-4264b9b30da3" CreationDate="2018-03-26T07:23:30.983" UserId="5691" Text="Why are some city names, when named after people, given -sk suffix, but others aren't?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16077" RevisionGUID="72e325e5-ab13-4069-9310-4264b9b30da3" CreationDate="2018-03-26T07:23:30.983" UserId="5691" Text="|существительные|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16078" RevisionGUID="5390accd-d882-4fcf-9db5-fb41e2b1cea7" CreationDate="2018-03-26T07:32:55.713" UserId="4600" Text="There's no grammatical rule in Russian that specifies city name generation based on person names. It's rather random or based on historical context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in early soviet times Stalingrad (now Volgograd), Stalino (now Donetsk) and Stalinsk (now Novokuznetsk) existed simultaneously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16079" RevisionGUID="d5cabdd2-6ce6-4347-b120-7cd4c1ee7421" CreationDate="2018-03-26T08:22:00.807" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;На вашем счету **недостаточно денег**, чтобы продолжить пользование услугами сети интернет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for using the genitive &quot;денег&quot; seems straightforward enough, but in the following instance, the use of the genitive &quot;этого&quot; instead of &quot;это&quot; has me puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Детская смертность снизилась вдвое, но **этого недостаточно**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is not strictly a negative construction, despite the prefix &quot;не-&quot;, and it does not fit the &quot;not enough **of** ...&quot; interpretation, either.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16079" RevisionGUID="d5cabdd2-6ce6-4347-b120-7cd4c1ee7421" CreationDate="2018-03-26T08:22:00.807" UserId="8672" Text="What is the rationale for using the genitive &quot;этого&quot; in &quot;этого недостаточно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16079" RevisionGUID="d5cabdd2-6ce6-4347-b120-7cd4c1ee7421" CreationDate="2018-03-26T08:22:00.807" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16080" RevisionGUID="58c66e91-4035-43cd-b734-2af963377087" CreationDate="2018-03-26T08:35:25.623" UserId="2104" Text="**Это не значит,** = It doesn't mean &#xA;**что я стану тебя слушаться.** = that I will start doing whatever you tell me.&#xA;&#xA;**Слушаться** means listen and do as told. It's what parents often demand of their children: **Слушайся папу!** = Listen to your dad! (and do what he tells you)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16081" RevisionGUID="daa7ca02-3329-478f-9c5f-ed0b4ca39dc1" CreationDate="2018-03-26T08:38:12.607" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Но этого недостаточно&quot; is 100% similar to the English &quot;but it's not  enough&quot; and differs from just &quot;недостаточно&quot; like it's English counterpart differs from just &quot;not enough&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say in English: &quot;There's no enough money in the world to make me get this job&quot;, or one can say &quot;I have like what, 200 bucks on me, but it's not enough&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16082" RevisionGUID="b0f76120-5f75-4fc3-b81b-d4221e3a2550" CreationDate="2018-03-26T08:42:01.460" UserId="2104" Text="Both your examples use the genitive case for the same reason: **(не)достаточно** takes a compliment in the genitive case:&#xA;&#xA;* &quot;Достаточно одной таблетки.&quot; (Google it)&#xA;* Этого недостаточно, нужно больше!&#xA;* Достаточно примеров?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16083" RevisionGUID="281aa144-d7a7-4014-9603-efd7d5d172fc" CreationDate="2018-03-26T10:07:44.390" UserId="6097" Text="&gt; I assume this is not strictly a negative construction, despite the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; prefix &quot;не-&quot;, and it does not fit the &quot;not enough of ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interpretation, either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your assumption is not correct. It **is** a negative construction and it **does fit** the &quot;not enough of ...&quot; interpretation - &quot;not enough of this (*decreasing of сhild mortality*) *for whatever it's being spoken about*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16084" RevisionGUID="22fa3af0-6af6-4178-b861-74a3094dc3ee" CreationDate="2018-03-26T11:41:09.583" UserId="1836" Text="There are 3 constructions with more or less the same meaning (X stands for an adjective):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. more X than anything (Xer than anything)&#xD;&#xA; 2. the most X (the Xest)&#xD;&#xA; 3. the most X of all (the Xest of all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian that will be (using certain adjectives, as I cannot find how to generalize)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Важнее всего (более важно чем что-либо) – note that option in parenthesis sounds a bit strange. It might be better with some other adjectives, but I'm not sure. It could be used for adjectives without comparative forma, but I can't remember if there are any such adjectives in Russian.&#xD;&#xA; 2. важнейший (самый важный) – unlike previous construction, in this case both options are perfectly interchangeable, even if adjective has superlative form&#xD;&#xA; 3. важнейший из всех (самый важный из всех) – perfectly interchangeable options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="d7ba0d12-8bc1-4916-b246-9f9c999bb7ac" CreationDate="2018-03-26T13:59:21.643" UserId="7674" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслепую (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчистую (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всухую (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничью (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолостую (сходить)  &#xD;&#xA;напропалую (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачастую (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрутую (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпную (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукопашную (ходить)  &#xD;&#xA;ни в какую (не хотеть) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun or nouns could be.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="9c497635-7644-403d-8f2f-35052e8587fa" CreationDate="2018-03-26T14:05:02.013" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслепую (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчистую (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всухую (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничью (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолостую (сделать что-л.)  &#xD;&#xA;напропалую (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачастую (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрутую (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпную (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукопашную (ходить)  &#xD;&#xA;ни в какую (не хотеть)   &#xD;&#xA;вживую (увидеть)  &lt;sup&gt;*could be a later creation in the familiar pattern*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun might have been.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="0b1c1486-9bf3-4f4d-8aa1-7a0629db9ac6" CreationDate="2018-03-26T14:14:23.550" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслепую (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчистую (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всухую (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничью (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолостую (сделать что-л.)  &#xD;&#xA;напропалую (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачастую (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрутую (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпную (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукопашную (ходить)  &#xD;&#xA;ни в какую (не хотеть)   &#xD;&#xA;вживую (увидеть)  &lt;sup&gt;*could be a later creation in the familiar pattern*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;втупую (действовать) &lt;sup&gt;*modern slang*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun or nouns might have been.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="16ec3356-e0d7-460b-8e38-1af0cc337298" CreationDate="2018-03-26T14:41:31.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслепую (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчистую (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всухую (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничью (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолостую (сделать что-л.)  &#xD;&#xA;напропалую (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачастую (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрутую (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпную (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукопашную (ходить)   &#xD;&#xA;вплотную (стоять)   &#xD;&#xA;ни в какую (не хотеть)   &#xD;&#xA;вживую (увидеть)  &lt;sup&gt;*could be a later creation in the familiar pattern*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;втупую (действовать) &lt;sup&gt;*modern slang*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun or nouns might have been.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="6c54ec38-df57-463e-a4ff-333b105cbc1f" CreationDate="2018-03-26T14:42:24.243" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/978281014618476544" />
  <row Id="40403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="141cda06-4bba-4167-9005-05429b8b73cf" CreationDate="2018-03-26T15:02:23.433" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслепую (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчистую (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всухую (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничью (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолостую (сделать что-л.)  &#xD;&#xA;напропалую (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачастую (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрутую (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпную (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукопашную (ходить)   &#xD;&#xA;вплотную (стоять)  &#xD;&#xA;напрямую (говорить)     &#xD;&#xA;ни в какую (не хотеть)   &#xD;&#xA;вживую (увидеть)  &lt;sup&gt;*could be a later creation in the familiar pattern*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;втупую (действовать) &lt;sup&gt;*modern slang*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun or nouns might have been.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40404" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16051" RevisionGUID="fb8dce5b-86b3-4959-ad49-1fb8b4cded48" CreationDate="2018-03-26T17:42:24.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/978326315215609856" />
  <row Id="40405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16086" RevisionGUID="cbb08f4f-bc7d-4798-be99-6d86bf0398b3" CreationDate="2018-03-26T18:06:37.773" UserId="9256" Text="It seems like in modern Russian language the is a &quot;hierarchy&quot; of city name's forms, according to a degree of importance and respectability. If we name a city after a person, for example &quot;Иванов&quot;, then the hierarchy will look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ивановград &gt; Иванов &gt; Ивановск &gt; Иваново, Ивановский &gt; Ивановка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hierarchy appear to be settled about 1930s. According to the unwritten rules, if a prominent person (Иванов) dies, and we name a sizeable city after him, it's preferable to name it &quot;Ивановград&quot; or &quot;Иванов&quot;, but not &quot;Ивановск&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;[Свердловск][1] was renamed in 1924, and [Киров][2] in 1934, since that it looks like the tradition of &quot;-ск&quot; is getting deprecated in favor of just [Family Name]. But for small towns it is still Ok to get the &quot;-ск&quot; suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffix &quot;-град&quot;, while being the most prominent, also sounds pompous and is not widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterinburg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov,_Kirov_Oblast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16086" RevisionGUID="278af397-9d83-4d76-82cb-949d5e67ac03" CreationDate="2018-03-26T18:51:16.933" UserId="9256" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="It seems like in modern Russian language there is a &quot;hierarchy&quot; of city name's forms, according to a degree of importance and respectability. If we name a city after a person, for example &quot;Иванов&quot;, then the hierarchy will look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ивановград &gt; Иванов &gt; Ивановск &gt; Иваново, Ивановский &gt; Ивановка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hierarchy appear to be settled about 1930s. According to the unwritten rules, if a prominent person (Иванов) dies, and we name a sizeable city after him, it's preferable to name it &quot;Ивановград&quot; or &quot;Иванов&quot;, but not &quot;Ивановск&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;[Свердловск][1] was renamed in 1924, and [Киров][2] in 1934, and since that time it looks like the tradition of &quot;-ск&quot; is getting deprecated in favor of just [Family Name]. But for small towns it is still Ok to get the &quot;-ск&quot; suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suffix &quot;-град&quot;, while being the most prominent, also sounds pompous and is not widely used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterinburg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov,_Kirov_Oblast" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16087" RevisionGUID="a99a4e75-72e3-4993-b587-d6f447adb1c5" CreationDate="2018-03-26T20:20:07.700" UserId="10402" Text="As a native speaker, I would say that `не значит` here leaves a certain degree of uncertainty, suggesting an intention not to obey (depending on the actual conditions) rather than strict refusal to obey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a comment aside, I find the use of `стать, стану` slightly outdated in your examples. In your first example, it would be slightly more natural to hear a simpler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **не буду** тебя слушаться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second example, the outdated verb `обручиться` also hints that the phrase  refers to the language before the 1917 revolution, rather than to its modern state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a non-linguist, I would guess that it is more common nowadays to come across `стать` with the meaning `to become` rather than the refusal you are talking about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне никогда **не стать** таким знаменитым, как Александр Столетов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="fb98c92a-8720-41f8-bcd5-2bc757ac8c65" CreationDate="2018-03-26T21:32:26.660" UserId="7674" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслепую (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчистую (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всухую (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничью (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолостую (сделать что-л.)  &#xD;&#xA;напропалую (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачастую (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрутую (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпную (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукопашную (ходить)   &#xD;&#xA;вплотную (стоять)  &#xD;&#xA;напрямую (говорить)     &#xD;&#xA;ни в какую (не хотеть)   &#xD;&#xA;вживую (увидеть)  &lt;sup&gt;*could be a later creation in the familiar pattern*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;влёгкую (обыграть) &lt;sup&gt;*modern colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;втупую (действовать) &lt;sup&gt;*modern slang*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun or nouns might have been.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16088" RevisionGUID="4a170ada-c0d3-443c-91aa-fb5bfd4b96f8" CreationDate="2018-03-26T23:22:07.743" UserId="134" Text="Preposition + adjective in oblique case (without a noun the latter would define) is and has always been a productive pattern of adverb formation in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some cases, genders and adjective forms, though, have been more productive in past than now and vice versa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of those patterns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Short gen. m.: *издалека, слева, сполна*&#xD;&#xA;* Short dat. m.: *понемногу, помалу*&#xD;&#xA;* Full dat. m.: *по-прежнему, по-новому*&#xD;&#xA;* Short acc. m.: *влево, вообще, наголо, подавно*&#xD;&#xA;* Full acc. f.: *впустую, одесную, зачастую*&#xD;&#xA;* Full acc. m. pl.: *впервые*&#xD;&#xA;* Short instr. m.: *по-русски, по-немецки*&#xD;&#xA;* Short loc. m.: *наготове, налегке, вскоре*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there are no words &quot;omitted&quot; here: the case and the gender are just repurposed to convey some subtleties in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of those patterns have since stopped being productive. *Впервые*, *вскоре* etc. are fossilized forms, you can't produce new adverbs like those in modern Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others, like full acc. f. you're asking about, are relatively new. Except for Church Slavonic *одесную* and *ошую*, they are virtually non-existent in medieval and even XVIII texts, but then people picked them up and started using them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why did this particular form gain such traction, but you can see a surge in its usage around 1850's, while neither of Lomonosov's, Vostokov's or Gretch's grammars even mention those forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16042" RevisionGUID="fbd3fbd8-0aca-494f-8423-efb8c5a6f0c4" CreationDate="2018-03-26T23:44:17.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/978417386528411648" />
  <row Id="40411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16033" RevisionGUID="1c123bf4-841e-4af6-be34-b450385dd0da" CreationDate="2018-03-27T05:44:18.113" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/978507984551792641" />
  <row Id="40412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16002" RevisionGUID="dcf921cf-da55-42dc-8c6b-af338d459c3f" CreationDate="2018-03-27T08:44:45.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/978553399317843969" />
  <row Id="40413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16085" RevisionGUID="bb2b0f37-ae63-4997-bdbe-2af7da8704c1" CreationDate="2018-03-27T11:52:02.220" UserId="7674" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="There's a limited group of adverbs which for some reason (perhaps historical) assume Accusative inflection of words in feminine gender&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вслеп**у**ю (стрелять)  &#xD;&#xA;вчист**у**ю (проиграть)  &#xD;&#xA;втёмную (действовать)   &#xD;&#xA;всух**у**ю (выиграть)   &#xD;&#xA;вничь**ю** (сыграть)  &#xD;&#xA;вхолост**у**ю (сделать что-л.)  &#xD;&#xA;напропал**у**ю (гулять)  &#xD;&#xA;зачаст**у**ю (случаться)  &#xD;&#xA;вкрут**у**ю (сварить яйца)  &#xD;&#xA;врассыпн**у**ю (бежать)  &#xD;&#xA;врукоп**а**шную (ходить)   &#xD;&#xA;вплотн**у**ю (стоять)  &#xD;&#xA;напрям**у**ю (говорить)   &#xD;&#xA;втих**у**ю (сделать что-л.)    &#xD;&#xA;ни в как**у**ю (не хотеть)   &#xD;&#xA;вжив**у**ю (увидеть)  &lt;sup&gt;*could be a later creation in the familiar pattern*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;влёгкую (обыграть) &lt;sup&gt;*modern colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;втуп**у**ю (действовать) &lt;sup&gt;*modern slang*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're probably correct in assuming the existence of a noun which would follow them in their ancient form, but i'm unaware of what these noun or nouns might have been.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="dca80bbf-540e-44da-bfb0-79eb0345bbab" CreationDate="2018-03-27T19:09:24.690" UserId="6539" Text="Don't consider this information to be an answer. It's for those who answer this question. There is an explanation in what way the process might go.Briefly speaking, there was a noun, several nouns to be precise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особый интерес представляют наречия, соотносительные с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных: въмалѣ, съмо- лоду, издавьна, помногу, помалу и т. п. Хотя такая их соотносительность с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных как будто бы очевидна, объяснить их происхождение непосредственно из таких форм нельзя, так как русскому языку сочетания прилагательных с предлогами несвойственны. Существуют разные объяснения происхождения данных наречий, одно из которых заключается в том, что они возникли в результате „свертывания&quot; атрибутивно-именных словосочетаний с последующей адвербиализацией прилагательного (этот процесс можно назвать лексико-семантической конденсацией). Дело заключается в том, что в древнерусском языке существовали атрибутивно-именные сочетания, выступавшие в обстоятельственной функции, которые были соотносительны с наречиями. Такая соотносительность присуща временным и пространственным наречиям, что связано с выражением временной и пространственной характеристики действия определительными словосочетаниями, в состав которых входили **существительные с общим временным или пространственным значением**, выступающие в качестве опорных слов таких сочетаний; таковыми во временных обстоятельственных конструкциях были слова **врем*, лѣто, часъ, дьнь**, а в пространственных — **страна (сторона), путь**. Обобщенное лексическое значение опорного существительного в таких сочетаниях обусловливало то, что основную семантическую нагрузку получало прилагательное, а не существительное, которое вследствие этого могло опускаться. Опущение определяемого имени облегчалось устойчивым характером таких словосочетаний, а их обстоятельственная функция способствовала переходу прилагательного в наречие. Так, например, из по малѣ времени, часѣ развилось наречие помалѣ; из по мнозѣ лѣтѣ — помнозѣ; из не въ дълзѣ времени — невъдълзѣ; из из давьна времени — издавьна; из о десьную его страну — одеськую; из отъ далеча пути — отъдалеча. Такое объяснение было предложено Е. И. Янович в книге „Наречие в истории русского языка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="dca4be78-b0cc-4354-9744-ba6ae49c4792" CreationDate="2018-03-27T22:09:32.080" UserId="8672" Text="Context: They're talking about some newly developed equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Опробуй** их разок, а?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker used &quot;опробовать&quot;, but how does &quot;попробовать&quot; compare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Попробуй** их разок, а?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the prefix &quot;о-&quot; imparts the meaning of &quot;to the full extent&quot;, does  &quot;опробовать&quot; express the idea of &quot;testing/experimenting with something thoroughly&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="dca4be78-b0cc-4354-9744-ba6ae49c4792" CreationDate="2018-03-27T22:09:32.080" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;опробовать&quot; vs &quot;попробовать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16090" RevisionGUID="dca4be78-b0cc-4354-9744-ba6ae49c4792" CreationDate="2018-03-27T22:09:32.080" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16091" RevisionGUID="bd511129-6b35-4ad7-a083-cf7c7d93a32f" CreationDate="2018-03-27T22:47:15.880" UserId="3680" Text="Yes, `опробовать` means something like `try out`, `make a test of` or `make an experiment with` some **new** equipment, solution, approach.  &#xD;&#xA;Also `опробовать` relates to a noun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Опробовать *noun*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Опробовать оборудование / решение / подход.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;`Попробовать` has a wider meaning: `try`, `try out`, `taste of` almost everything.&#xD;&#xA;Typically used as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Попробовать [*verb*] *noun*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Попробовать [*съесть*] мясо.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Попробовать [*использовать*] другую отвертку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a verb is very often omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be used to express a threat:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Только попробуй [*do smth*]!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16092" RevisionGUID="74568f8e-8056-403a-9780-63445249c4e4" CreationDate="2018-03-28T00:31:34.017" UserId="8672" Text="I'm a bit fuzzy on the usage of these three words -- specifically when they are used for emphasis in the sense of &quot;so much / such&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these two nuanced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) **Такая** жара! {vs} **Какая** жара! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it impossible to say &quot;Он так яркий, что ...&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Он **такой** яркий, что я не могу на него смотреть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the emphatic meaning of  &quot;How + (adjective/adverb) !&quot; in English, can only &quot;какой&quot; be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3) **Какой** обидчивый. = How touchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it impossible to say &quot;Такое плохо?&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4) **Так** плохо? = Is it that bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you use the genitive &quot;такого&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) А что в них **такого** особенного? = And what's so special about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16092" RevisionGUID="74568f8e-8056-403a-9780-63445249c4e4" CreationDate="2018-03-28T00:31:34.017" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;такой&quot;, &quot;какой&quot; or &quot;так&quot; respectively for emphasis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16092" RevisionGUID="74568f8e-8056-403a-9780-63445249c4e4" CreationDate="2018-03-28T00:31:34.017" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16093" RevisionGUID="a3a16c16-4aaa-446a-b278-02f89f19d855" CreationDate="2018-03-28T01:58:21.293" UserId="8780" Text="According to the sources I've checked, only numbers from 1 to 4 have an animate ending (meaning that the accusative case will be the same as the genitive, endingwise). Numbers from 5 upward will have a common accusative for both animate and inanimate nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in compound numerals, all components decline... what if I want to decline a number like 21, 22?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 1 and 2 also have an agreement in gender, will 1 and 2 decline as animate numerals, whereas &quot;20&quot; declines the usual way? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: What would be an animate accusative of **двадцать одна** (admitting that the agreement in gender happens)? **Двадцать одну**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **двадцать один**? Does it become **двадцать одного**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40423" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16093" RevisionGUID="a3a16c16-4aaa-446a-b278-02f89f19d855" CreationDate="2018-03-28T01:58:21.293" UserId="8780" Text="Mixed animate and inanimate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40424" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16093" RevisionGUID="a3a16c16-4aaa-446a-b278-02f89f19d855" CreationDate="2018-03-28T01:58:21.293" UserId="8780" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="15858" RevisionGUID="09e85cc9-23bb-445b-aa52-60e12e121cc3" CreationDate="2018-03-28T02:13:10.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="40426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="a864304e-bc10-4dcb-8b8b-c49fced399a2" CreationDate="2018-03-28T03:52:15.500" UserId="6539" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="Don't consider this information to be an answer. There is an explanation in what way the process might go. Briefly speaking, there was a noun, several nouns to be precise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особый интерес представляют наречия, соотносительные с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных: въмалѣ, съмо- лоду, издавьна, помногу, помалу и т. п. Хотя такая их соотносительность с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных как будто бы очевидна, объяснить их происхождение непосредственно из таких форм нельзя, так как русскому языку сочетания прилагательных с предлогами несвойственны. Существуют разные объяснения происхождения данных наречий, одно из которых заключается в том, что они возникли в результате „свертывания&quot; атрибутивно-именных словосочетаний с последующей адвербиализацией прилагательного (этот процесс можно назвать лексико-семантической конденсацией). Дело заключается в том, что в древнерусском языке существовали атрибутивно-именные сочетания, выступавшие в обстоятельственной функции, которые были соотносительны с наречиями. Такая соотносительность присуща временным и пространственным наречиям, что связано с выражением временной и пространственной характеристики действия определительными словосочетаниями, в состав которых входили **существительные с общим временным или пространственным значением**, выступающие в качестве опорных слов таких сочетаний; таковыми во временных обстоятельственных конструкциях были слова **врем*, лѣто, часъ, дьнь**, а в пространственных — **страна (сторона), путь**. Обобщенное лексическое значение опорного существительного в таких сочетаниях обусловливало то, что основную семантическую нагрузку получало прилагательное, а не существительное, которое вследствие этого могло опускаться. Опущение определяемого имени облегчалось устойчивым характером таких словосочетаний, а их обстоятельственная функция способствовала переходу прилагательного в наречие. Так, например, из по малѣ времени, часѣ развилось наречие помалѣ; из по мнозѣ лѣтѣ — помнозѣ; из не въ дълзѣ времени — невъдълзѣ; из из давьна времени — издавьна; из о десьную его страну — одеськую; из отъ далеча пути — отъдалеча. Такое объяснение было предложено Е. И. Янович в книге „Наречие в истории русского языка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS So the noun was &quot;**сторона**&quot;, there are still some hints or remnants in our language and in English as well. We can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он изменился (как?) **в лучшую сторону**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He smiled **in a friendly way**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="da205a53-a991-400f-981c-d35a93a43bc9" CreationDate="2018-03-28T03:57:39.773" UserId="6539" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="Don't consider this information to be an answer. There is an explanation in what way the process might go. Briefly speaking, there was a noun, several nouns to be precise before the adverb was formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особый интерес представляют наречия, соотносительные с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных: въмалѣ, съмо- лоду, издавьна, помногу, помалу и т. п. Хотя такая их соотносительность с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных как будто бы очевидна, объяснить их происхождение непосредственно из таких форм нельзя, так как русскому языку сочетания прилагательных с предлогами несвойственны. Существуют разные объяснения происхождения данных наречий, одно из которых заключается в том, что они возникли в результате **„свертывания&quot; атрибутивно-именных словосочетаний с последующей адвербиализацией прилагательного** (этот процесс можно назвать лексико-семантической конденсацией). Дело заключается в том, что в древнерусском языке существовали **атрибутивно-именные сочетания, выступавшие в обстоятельственной функции**, которые были соотносительны с наречиями. Такая соотносительность присуща временным и пространственным наречиям, что связано с выражением временной и пространственной характеристики действия определительными словосочетаниями, в состав которых входили **существительные с общим временным или пространственным значением**, выступающие в качестве опорных слов таких сочетаний; таковыми во временных обстоятельственных конструкциях были слова **врем*, лѣто, часъ, дьнь**, а в пространственных — **страна (сторона), путь**. Обобщенное лексическое значение опорного существительного в таких сочетаниях обусловливало то, что основную семантическую нагрузку получало прилагательное, а не существительное, которое вследствие этого могло опускаться. Опущение определяемого имени облегчалось устойчивым характером таких словосочетаний, а их обстоятельственная функция способствовала переходу прилагательного в наречие. Так, например, из **по малѣ времени, часѣ развилось наречие помалѣ; из по мнозѣ лѣтѣ — помнозѣ; из не въ дълзѣ времени — невъдълзѣ; из из давьна времени — издавьна; из о десьную его страну — одеськую; из отъ далеча пути — отъдалеча**. Такое объяснение было предложено Е. И. Янович в книге „Наречие в истории русского языка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS So the noun was &quot;**сторона**&quot;, there are still some hints or remnants in our language and in English as well. We can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он изменился (как?) **в лучшую сторону**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He smiled **in a friendly way**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16089" RevisionGUID="578f1184-4de6-4d91-acef-4e9e9cde2190" CreationDate="2018-03-28T04:02:55.050" UserId="6539" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="Don't consider this information to be an answer. There is an explanation in what way the process might go. Briefly speaking, there was a noun, several nouns to be precise before the adverb was formed.It was formed from a noun phrase with a preposition. Some phrases remained till now (see P.S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Особый интерес представляют наречия, соотносительные с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных: въмалѣ, съмо- лоду, издавьна, помногу, помалу и т. п. Хотя такая их соотносительность с предложно-падежными формами прилагательных как будто бы очевидна, объяснить их происхождение непосредственно из таких форм нельзя, так как русскому языку сочетания прилагательных с предлогами несвойственны. Существуют разные объяснения происхождения данных наречий, одно из которых заключается в том, что они возникли в результате **„свертывания&quot; атрибутивно-именных словосочетаний с последующей адвербиализацией прилагательного** (этот процесс можно назвать лексико-семантической конденсацией). Дело заключается в том, что в древнерусском языке существовали **атрибутивно-именные сочетания, выступавшие в обстоятельственной функции**, которые были соотносительны с наречиями. Такая соотносительность присуща временным и пространственным наречиям, что связано с выражением временной и пространственной характеристики действия определительными словосочетаниями, в состав которых входили **существительные с общим временным или пространственным значением**, выступающие в качестве опорных слов таких сочетаний; таковыми во временных обстоятельственных конструкциях были слова **врем*, лѣто, часъ, дьнь**, а в пространственных — **страна (сторона), путь**. Обобщенное лексическое значение опорного существительного в таких сочетаниях обусловливало то, что основную семантическую нагрузку получало прилагательное, а не существительное, которое вследствие этого могло опускаться. Опущение определяемого имени облегчалось устойчивым характером таких словосочетаний, а их обстоятельственная функция способствовала переходу прилагательного в наречие. Так, например, из **по малѣ времени, часѣ развилось наречие помалѣ; из по мнозѣ лѣтѣ — помнозѣ; из не въ дълзѣ времени — невъдълзѣ; из из давьна времени — издавьна; из о десьную его страну — одеськую; из отъ далеча пути — отъдалеча**. Такое объяснение было предложено Е. И. Янович в книге „Наречие в истории русского языка&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS So the noun was &quot;**сторона**&quot;, there are still some hints or remnants in our language and in English as well. We can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он изменился (как?) **в лучшую сторону**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He smiled **in a friendly way**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16094" RevisionGUID="f975be3f-8122-42dc-b2fd-7d94e4287f24" CreationDate="2018-03-28T07:45:45.673" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, **двадцать одна** becomes **двадцать одну** in the accusative and **двадцать один** will be either **двадцать одного** if it qualifies an animate noun and **двадцать один** for inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать один** компьютер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16094" RevisionGUID="0c456e50-f6d1-4e69-bbb6-2ac342727a49" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:31:35.060" UserId="2104" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Yes, **двадцать одна** becomes **двадцать одну** in the accusative and **двадцать один** will be either **двадцать одного** if it qualifies an animate noun and **двадцать один** if inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать один** компьютер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать двух** человек.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать два** компьютера.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16094" RevisionGUID="2b877426-91ae-41b5-80f4-be2f4f5523a0" CreationDate="2018-03-28T09:06:09.747" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Yes, **двадцать одна** becomes **двадцать одну** in the accusative and **двадцать один** will be either **двадцать одного** if it qualifies an animate noun or **двадцать один** if inanimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать один** компьютер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать двух** человек.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать два** компьютера.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16094" RevisionGUID="698c1b5f-5353-4f79-bc97-512ef778d3a6" CreationDate="2018-03-28T09:12:44.520" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Yes, **двадцать одна** becomes **двадцать одну** in the accusative and **двадцать один** will be either **двадцать одного** if it qualifies an animate noun or **двадцать один** if inanimate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать один** компьютер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать двух** человек.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать два** компьютера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I.e. each component of a compound number is declined independently. Animacy, gender *and number* are dictated by the noun. Yes, you can say 'one' in plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Купи **одни** ножницы. = Buy one pair of scissors.&#xD;&#xA;* Он не курит уже **двадцать одни** сутки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there is no grammatically acceptable way of saying **22 сутки** (or 23, or 24). 25 is OK: **двадцать пять суток.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="d72a4d5b-e50d-462f-bdf1-7ba457f708cd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:39:27.497" UserId="7674" Text="I'm a bit puzzled as to the correct inflection of the word **процент** in a phrase such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент(?) случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically in the fractional part of fractional numerals **процент** must be inflected in singular Genitive - **4 десятых процента**. But then the phrase in question would sound a little odd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в двух целых, четырёх десятых процентА случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because **процент** is surrounded by all words in plural and kind of awkwardly stands out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is this correct or should it instead be changed into ungrammatical but euphonically preferable &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в двух целых, четырёх десятых процентАХ случаев" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="d72a4d5b-e50d-462f-bdf1-7ba457f708cd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:39:27.497" UserId="7674" Text="Inflection of fraction numerals of per cents with nouns (2,4 процента? -ах? случаев)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="d72a4d5b-e50d-462f-bdf1-7ba457f708cd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:39:27.497" UserId="7674" Text="|падежи|числительные|inflection|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40436" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="b56311b9-7522-45d1-9a86-17de74aae4a2" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:50:42.473" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Inflection of fraction numerals of per cents with nouns (в 2,4 процента? -ах? случаев)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="b56311b9-7522-45d1-9a86-17de74aae4a2" CreationDate="2018-03-28T10:50:42.473" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm a bit puzzled as to the correct inflection of the word **процент** in a phrase such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент(?) случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically in the fractional part of fraction numerals **процент** must be inflected in singular Genitive - **4 десятых процента**. But then the phrase in question would sound a little odd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в двух целых, четырёх десятых процентА случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because **процент** is surrounded by all words in plural and kind of awkwardly stands out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is this correct or should it instead be changed into ungrammatical but euphonically preferable &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в двух целых, четырёх десятых процентАХ случаев" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="d249c75f-59f6-4850-b836-03d9256eb7e1" CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:03:41.280" UserId="3680" Text="Both are usable (with some restrictions depending on context).  &#xD;&#xA;[gramota.ru](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Имя числительное, в отличие от других имен (существительного и прилагательного), лишено признаков числа. Иными словами, если существительные могут иметь формы единственного и множественного числа (книга – книги), то числительные не имеют таких форм (ср.: два, пятеро, сто пятьдесят). По этой причине с числительным собственно «согласование» сказуемого по форме числа принципиально невозможно. Форма сказуемого единственного или множественного числа выбирается говорящим произвольно. При постановке сказуемого в ед. ч. прошедшего времени сказуемое принимает форму среднего рода: пятьдесят человек пришло на лекцию, в ДТП погибло два человека; открылось десять новых магазинов и т.п.  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without a context I'd personally prefer the second option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент**ах** случаев" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="5c53a133-f256-4141-bffb-1ee32044602b" CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:09:04.230" UserId="3680" Comment="added see also" Text="Both are usable (with some restrictions depending on context).  &#xD;&#xA;[gramota.ru: *Согласование сказуемого с числительными*](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Имя числительное, в отличие от других имен (существительного и прилагательного), лишено признаков числа. Иными словами, если существительные могут иметь формы единственного и множественного числа (книга – книги), то числительные не имеют таких форм (ср.: два, пятеро, сто пятьдесят). По этой причине с числительным собственно «согласование» сказуемого по форме числа принципиально невозможно. Форма сказуемого единственного или множественного числа выбирается говорящим произвольно. При постановке сказуемого в ед. ч. прошедшего времени сказуемое принимает форму среднего рода: пятьдесят человек пришло на лекцию, в ДТП погибло два человека; открылось десять новых магазинов и т.п.  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without a context I'd personally prefer the second option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент**ах** случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [licey.net: *Некоторые особенности согласования*](http://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/41-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_russkii_yazyk_i_kultura_obscheniya/stages/783-33_nekotorye_osobennosti_soglasovaniya.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="5a14fef3-5c75-43e6-b874-33fb595a7e2c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:14:55.373" UserId="3680" Comment="added see also" Text="Both are usable (with some restrictions depending on context).  &#xD;&#xA;[gramota.ru: *Согласование сказуемого с числительными*](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Имя числительное, в отличие от других имен (существительного и прилагательного), лишено признаков числа. Иными словами, если существительные могут иметь формы единственного и множественного числа (книга – книги), то числительные не имеют таких форм (ср.: два, пятеро, сто пятьдесят). По этой причине с числительным собственно «согласование» сказуемого по форме числа принципиально невозможно. Форма сказуемого единственного или множественного числа выбирается говорящим произвольно. При постановке сказуемого в ед. ч. прошедшего времени сказуемое принимает форму среднего рода: пятьдесят человек пришло на лекцию, в ДТП погибло два человека; открылось десять новых магазинов и т.п.  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without a context I'd personally prefer the second option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент**ах** случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://numeralonline.ru: *Склонение дробных числительных*](http://numeralonline.ru/#fractional)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Склонение дробных числительных&#xD;&#xA;Примеры дробных числительных: одна вторая, семь сотых, полтора.&#xD;&#xA;Дробное числительное состоит из двух частей: числитель дроби (количественное числительное, обозначающее целое число) и знаменатель дроби (порядковое числительное). Если числитель заканчивается на цифру «один», то вместо неё используется «одна». Цифра «два» заменяется на «две». Сравните: одна пятая, две пятых, три пятых, четыре пятых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Изменяются по падежам обе части в соответствии со склонением количественных и порядковых числительных. Знаменатель склоняется как порядковое числительное во множественном числе: к трем пятым (д.п.), с двумя пятыми (тв.п.). Или как порядковое числительное в единственном числе женского рода, если числитель оканчивается на 1: к одной пятой, вижу двадцать одну тридцать седьмую. При обозначении количества существительное при дробном числительном употребляется в родительном падеже: от одной седьмой участка, к двум седьмым площади прямоугольника.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [licey.net: *Некоторые особенности согласования*](http://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/41-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_russkii_yazyk_i_kultura_obscheniya/stages/783-33_nekotorye_osobennosti_soglasovaniya.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16095" RevisionGUID="4dbd2c01-b22c-441f-be51-8a907da6e14b" CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:25:43.957" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I'm a bit puzzled as to the correct inflection of the word **процент** in a phrase such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент(?) случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically in the fractional part of fraction numerals **процент** must be inflected in singular Genitive - **4 десятых процента**. But then the phrase in question would sound a little odd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в двух целых, четырёх десятых процентА случаев&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because **процент** is preceded by all words with flexions ending with &quot;**X**&quot; and kind of awkwardly stands out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is this correct or should it instead be changed into ungrammatical but euphonically preferable &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в двух целых, четырёх десятых процентАХ случаев" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16096" RevisionGUID="eb028138-64e9-458b-afa1-993f2176c69c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T11:34:36.117" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 559 characters in body" Text="[numeralonline.ru: *Склонение дробных числительных*](http://numeralonline.ru/#fractional)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Склонение дробных числительных&#xD;&#xA;Примеры дробных числительных: одна вторая, семь сотых, полтора.&#xD;&#xA;Дробное числительное состоит из двух частей: числитель дроби (количественное числительное, обозначающее целое число) и знаменатель дроби (порядковое числительное). Если числитель заканчивается на цифру «один», то вместо неё используется «одна». Цифра «два» заменяется на «две». Сравните: одна пятая, две пятых, три пятых, четыре пятых.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Изменяются по падежам обе части в соответствии со склонением количественных и порядковых числительных. Знаменатель склоняется как порядковое числительное во множественном числе: к трем пятым (д.п.), с двумя пятыми (тв.п.). Или как порядковое числительное в единственном числе женского рода, если числитель оканчивается на 1: к одной пятой, вижу двадцать одну тридцать седьмую. При обозначении количества существительное при дробном числительном употребляется в родительном падеже: от одной седьмой участка, к двум седьмым площади прямоугольника.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: [licey.net: *Некоторые особенности согласования*](http://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/41-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_russkii_yazyk_i_kultura_obscheniya/stages/783-33_nekotorye_osobennosti_soglasovaniya.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[evartist.narod.ru: *п.8*](http://evartist.narod.ru/text1/59.htm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильными являются конструкции 35,5 процента (не ...процентов), 12,6 километра (не ...километров), т.е. при смешанном числе существительным управляет дробь, а не целое число. Также: 45,0 (сорок пять и ноль десятых) секунды, 67/8 (шесть и семь восьмых) метра и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[school-assistant.ru](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=drobnie_chislitelnie):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Порядковое числительное в обозначениях дробных чисел  &#xD;&#xA;употребляется в форме Р.п. мн. числа: три четвёртых, шесть восьмых.  &#xD;&#xA;Существительные при сочетаниях, обозначающих дробные числа,  &#xD;&#xA;употребляются в форме Р. п. ед. числа: две третьих часа, пять сотых грамма. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Получается, что правильно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в 2,4 процент**а** случаев&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16094" RevisionGUID="ee50c6ea-cc7a-4388-a045-ac31781e7d42" CreationDate="2018-03-28T13:34:22.877" UserId="2104" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Yes, **двадцать одна** becomes **двадцать одну** in the accusative and **двадцать один** will be either **двадцать одного** if it qualifies an animate noun or **двадцать один** if inanimate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать один** компьютер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 22, 23 and 24 the inanimate pattern is more preferable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приняла на работу **двадцать два** человека (less preferably: **двадцать двух** человек).&#xD;&#xA;* Компания приобрела **двадцать два** компьютера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Animacy, gender *and number* are dictated by the noun. Yes, you can say 'one' in plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Купи **одни** ножницы. = Buy one pair of scissors.&#xD;&#xA;* Он не курит уже **двадцать одни** сутки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there is no grammatically acceptable way of saying **22 сутки** (or 23, or 24). 25 and up are OK: **двадцать пять суток.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16097" RevisionGUID="0342b928-e781-45f1-b01a-d2a32eedf570" CreationDate="2018-03-28T20:09:37.530" UserId="6539" Text="1. As for emphatic sentences, to my mind there isn't much difference in the following &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Такая жара! (Such hot weather we are having!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какая жара! (What hot weather we are having!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 Он **такой** яркий, что я не могу на него смотреть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an adjective in the full form,  so for the emphasis use the full form of &quot;такой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Though It's impossible to use &quot;так&quot; to emphasize a full adjective, you can use it before a short form, but you can't use &quot;такой&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он **так** ярок, что я не могу на него смотреть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 For the emphatic meaning of &quot;How + (adjective/adverb) !&quot; in English, can only &quot;какой&quot; be used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on what exactly comes after &quot;how&quot;, in case it is a full adjective, you use &quot;какой&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Какой обидчивый!= How touchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a short adjective,  use &quot;как&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Посмотрите, как (он ) обидчив!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an adverb,  also use &quot;как&quot;, &quot;так&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как плохо! Так плохо?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Плохо&quot; is an adverb. Not a noun, so &quot;какое&quot;and &quot;такое&quot; are impossible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое/какое can be used either with full adjectives or nouns in the neutral gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Какое/такое горе! Какое/такое огромное!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ask the last question separately , because it has nothing to do with the emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16077" RevisionGUID="ee8fcba7-8d30-4571-82eb-3d554cea5d70" CreationDate="2018-03-28T20:50:21.870" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/979098390637219841" />
  <row Id="40446" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16093" RevisionGUID="514abea0-e01a-4169-9822-412547e00b9e" CreationDate="2018-03-29T02:50:08.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/979188932645711872" />
  <row Id="40447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16092" RevisionGUID="41aa4097-2987-4521-b924-db9438ca1c3d" CreationDate="2018-03-29T03:03:03.210" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 120 characters in body" Text="I'm a bit fuzzy on the usage of these three words -- specifically when they are used for emphasis in the sense of &quot;so much / such&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these two nuanced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) **Такая** жара! {vs} **Какая** жара! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it impossible to say &quot;Он так яркий, что ...&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Он **такой** яркий, что я не могу на него смотреть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the emphatic meaning of  &quot;How + (adjective/adverb) !&quot; in English, can only &quot;какой&quot; be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3) **Какой** обидчивый. = How touchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it impossible to say &quot;Такое плохо?&quot; here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4) **Так** плохо? = Is it that bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16098" RevisionGUID="42ae50be-29e5-4844-b93c-349de2f61400" CreationDate="2018-03-29T03:11:54.883" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;А что в них **такого** **особенного**? = And what's so special about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm familiar with the use of Genitive in a negative construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не увидел я в них **ничего такого особенного**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or: **Ничего такого особенного** в них нет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you need Genitive in this interrogative sentence?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16098" RevisionGUID="42ae50be-29e5-4844-b93c-349de2f61400" CreationDate="2018-03-29T03:11:54.883" UserId="8672" Text="What is the rationale for using the genitive &quot;такого&quot; in &quot;что в них такого особенного&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16098" RevisionGUID="42ae50be-29e5-4844-b93c-349de2f61400" CreationDate="2018-03-29T03:11:54.883" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16099" RevisionGUID="38c8f9a8-39b5-4a9b-a052-f66a5c7cd94d" CreationDate="2018-03-29T06:38:50.593" UserId="6539" Text="The sentence is of a phraseological sort, where the components have got individual  idiomatic relationship, which doesn't correspond to usual rules. The sentence starts with a question word after which you can find either **a noun** (толк, прок, польза, радость,  выгода), **a quality adjective** (like in our case), or the pronoun &quot;**такой**&quot;. All **in the genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что толку?(what's the use?). Что нового?(What's new?) Что такого?(What's of that?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such questions or exclamations are often rhetorical or asking about some quality or situation in general. They can be emphasized by particles. More examples &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Что пользы спорить? Что же здесь особенного?Да что же тут такого? Ну что в тебе испанского? Что же тут обидного? Ну что новенького в городе, что интересного?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16100" RevisionGUID="a28f694f-e3d8-4f45-bdc6-1bbab196ea9a" CreationDate="2018-03-29T06:41:58.473" UserId="9001" Text="We got a bunch of cases and use them to express shades of meaning. Genitive is used for direct object instead of accusative in some situations. This is just one of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it originates from **Что в них есть из особенного?** - *What it has from the list of unusual qualities?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **из** like **of** is an indicator of genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way people colloquially often say something like **Что тебе купить из одежды?** - *What clothes do you want me to buy?*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15659" RevisionGUID="d4cb0701-63d9-434f-8d3f-120059a63724" CreationDate="2018-03-29T07:47:32.217" UserId="7674" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Questions related to rules of spelling adverbs with &quot;не&quot; as either a particle or a prefix, i.e. separately or jointly respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40454" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15659" RevisionGUID="d4cb0701-63d9-434f-8d3f-120059a63724" CreationDate="2018-03-29T07:47:32.217" Comment="Proposed by 7674 approved by 8895, 6097 edit id of 948" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="ef46b7ee-cb25-4425-999b-c7ac945eaf49" CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:32:34.510" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я уже несколько раз **доказала** тебе, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Я уже несколько раз **доказывала** тебе, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was under the impression that you should use an imperfective verb to express the idea of something happening multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why a perfective verb is used in this instance. Does the adverb &quot;уже&quot; have something to do with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="ef46b7ee-cb25-4425-999b-c7ac945eaf49" CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:32:34.510" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the perfective &quot;доказать&quot;, not the imperfective &quot;доказывать&quot;, despite &quot;несколько раз&quot; referring to repeated actions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="ef46b7ee-cb25-4425-999b-c7ac945eaf49" CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:32:34.510" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16102" RevisionGUID="83064c44-5ee8-483a-9820-1a17279d3d41" CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:39:24.153" UserId="134" Text="In the first example the narrator tells she succeeded in proving something several times, in the second one she tells she attempted to prove something several times (and her attempts might or might not have failed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="67283b17-1d9d-44de-8bcd-570b5f3d328a" CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:42:24.827" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Я уже несколько раз **доказала** тебе, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Я уже несколько раз **доказывала** тебе, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was under the impression that you should use an imperfective verb to express the idea of something happening multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why a perfective verb is used in this instance. Does the adverb &quot;уже&quot; have anything to do with it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16102" RevisionGUID="a9255324-50f8-4b01-b9f6-c21663bc1cdc" CreationDate="2018-03-29T10:46:57.897" UserId="134" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="In the first example the narrator tells she succeeded in proving something several times, in the second one she tells she attempted to prove something several times (and her attempts might or might not have failed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sentences can be translated into English like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have proved to you several times that …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have been proving to you several times that …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs in Russian are about state transition, i.e. if an action is described by a perfective verb it is assumed it has lead to some kind of outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective verbs are about state, i.e. they describe the action itself, without focusing on its outcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="a7ec5b5c-eb52-43d4-8469-2d74ae7c2454" CreationDate="2018-03-29T13:31:03.230" UserId="6097" Text="&gt; I was under the impression that you should use an imperfective verb to express the idea of something happening multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not quite correct. Imperfective is used to express the idea of unfullfilled, ongoing, unfinished etc. actions. It does not mean that this action happens multiple times:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей смотрел в окно (*Andrey watched out of the window*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not say how many time Andrey watched out of the windows. In fact, the sentence in this form even implies that this was a single-time action (which lasted for some time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perfective aspect doesn't mean that the action was performed only once. It's always possible to specify how many times the action was done:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей посмотрел в окно три раза (*Andrey looked out of the windows three times*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Елена перешла улицу пять раз (*Elena crossed the street five times*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16104" RevisionGUID="20abe441-a006-4e05-b80c-5afd61d89a6e" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:43:20.017" UserId="10412" Text="My Russian for beginners textbook has (it describes a shopping mall) the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..., а также есть книжный и ювелирный магазины. (In case it's relevant, I can also provide the first part of the sentence.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are &quot;книжный&quot; and &quot;ювелирный&quot; in the singular, but &quot;магазины&quot; in the plural? To confirm that it's not a mistake, I also googled for &quot;книжный магазины&quot; and got many results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16104" RevisionGUID="20abe441-a006-4e05-b80c-5afd61d89a6e" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:43:20.017" UserId="10412" Text="Adjective in singular, noun in plural" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16104" RevisionGUID="20abe441-a006-4e05-b80c-5afd61d89a6e" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:43:20.017" UserId="10412" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16105" RevisionGUID="776db2db-cf08-4088-93c6-09004d968a90" CreationDate="2018-03-29T19:02:25.340" UserId="6539" Text="When we have two shops it's obvious we say магазины. But the shops are different.  One shop sells books, the other sells jewellery. In Russian we don't repeat one noun twice in the same sentence. You can't say книжный магазин и ювелирный магазин. The repeated noun is considered redundant,  so we unite the shops showing the quality separately. Since the quality adjectives belong to each shop we preserve them in the singular. That is logical. So as a result we have книжный (the first) и ювелирный (the second) магазины." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16105" RevisionGUID="431c8362-da23-495b-b57d-f7a458b82e34" CreationDate="2018-03-29T19:52:46.030" UserId="6539" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="When we have **two shops** it's obvious we say **магазины**. But the shops are different.  One shop sells books, the other sells jewellery. In Russian we don't repeat one noun twice in the same sentence. You can't say книжный магазин и ювелирный магазин. The repeated noun is considered **redundant**,  so we unite the shops showing the quality separately. Since the quality adjectives belong to each shop we preserve them in the singular. That is logical. So as a result we have **книжный** (the first) **и ювелирный** (the second) **магазины**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16102" RevisionGUID="0314f561-fee2-4a37-b76b-6de84b244e33" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:05:46.343" UserId="4714" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In the first example the narrator states that she succeeded in proving something several times, in the second one she states that she attempted to prove something several times (and her attempts might or might not have failed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sentences can be translated into English like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have proved to you several times that …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have been proving to you several times that …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs in Russian are about state transition, i.e. if an action is described by a perfective verb it is assumed it has lead to some kind of outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective verbs are about state, i.e. they describe the action itself, without focusing on its outcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="45420986-24b6-41e6-9343-d7517662507a" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:07:46.710" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; I was under the impression that you should use an imperfective verb to express the idea of something happening multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not quite correct. Imperfective is used to express the idea of unfullfilled, ongoing, unfinished etc. actions. It does not mean that this action happens multiple times:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей смотрел в окно (*Andrey looked out the window*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not say how many times Andrey looked out of the windows. In fact, the sentence in this form even implies that this was a single-time action (which lasted for some time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perfective aspect doesn't mean that the action was performed only once. It's always possible to specify how many times the action was done:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей посмотрел в окно три раза (*Andrey looked out of the windows three times*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Елена перешла улицу пять раз (*Elena crossed the street five times*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16103" RevisionGUID="7e609da4-327f-4c93-948a-1d26d7b928bb" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:16:49.757" UserId="4714" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; I was under the impression that you should use an imperfective verb to express the idea of something happening multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not quite correct. Imperfective is used to express the idea of unfullfilled, ongoing, unfinished etc. actions. It does not mean that this action happens multiple times:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей смотрел в окно (*Andrey looked out of the window*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not say how many times Andrey looked out of the windows. In fact, the sentence in this form even implies that this was a single-time action (which lasted for some time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And perfective aspect doesn't mean that the action was performed only once. It's always possible to specify how many times the action was done:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Андрей посмотрел в окно три раза (*Andrey looked out of the windows three times*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Елена перешла улицу пять раз (*Elena crossed the street five times*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16106" RevisionGUID="e76fc749-e775-486d-b2e6-e30c58591837" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:38:39.073" UserId="487" Text="What does the expression in bold mean? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек, лишенный матраца, — жалок. Он не существует. Он не платит налогов, не имеет жены, **знакомые не занимают ему денег до среды**, ...(From Ch. 19 *Двенадцать стульев*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see it means `his acquaintences don't give him money until Wednesday`. So, what does that mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16106" RevisionGUID="e76fc749-e775-486d-b2e6-e30c58591837" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:38:39.073" UserId="487" Text="Дать кому денег до среды (From Двенадцать стульев). What does that mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16106" RevisionGUID="e76fc749-e775-486d-b2e6-e30c58591837" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:38:39.073" UserId="487" Text="|литература|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16106" RevisionGUID="9e09b358-3544-4f45-ba25-d37550d3514f" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:45:06.187" UserId="487" Comment="edited body" Text="What does the expression in bold mean? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек, лишенный матраца, — жалок. Он не существует. Он не платит налогов, не имеет жены, **знакомые не занимают ему денег до среды**, ...(From Ch. 19 *Двенадцать стульев*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see it means `his acquaintences don't lend him money until Wednesday`. So, what does that mean? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16101" RevisionGUID="a39e16ab-4d40-43e0-88f9-6554f352bba2" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:52:44.560" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/979461376782622720" />
  <row Id="40475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16107" RevisionGUID="6c0e01b8-403b-42ff-b229-364ec4db42f8" CreationDate="2018-03-30T01:29:34.170" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between *Ваша комната лучше нашей* and *Ваша комната лучше чем наша* ? Are these interchangeable? If so, when should I use the construction «чем + nominative» instead of the genitive case? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16107" RevisionGUID="6c0e01b8-403b-42ff-b229-364ec4db42f8" CreationDate="2018-03-30T01:29:34.170" UserId="9603" Text="чем + nominative vs genitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16107" RevisionGUID="6c0e01b8-403b-42ff-b229-364ec4db42f8" CreationDate="2018-03-30T01:29:34.170" UserId="9603" Text="|падежи|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40478" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16098" RevisionGUID="b1c0ec95-971a-4303-960d-f4f5e8fb9c1c" CreationDate="2018-03-30T02:52:56.630" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/979552024642621440" />
  <row Id="40479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16108" RevisionGUID="f077f816-9a1e-4a7e-b0c5-200b3dcf6b0c" CreationDate="2018-03-30T03:55:25.280" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**плеваться желчью в** кого-н&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this expression usually used figuratively rather than in a literal sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Why does &quot;желчь&quot; take the instrumental case here, instead of the accusative? Is it because of a reflexive verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16108" RevisionGUID="f077f816-9a1e-4a7e-b0c5-200b3dcf6b0c" CreationDate="2018-03-30T03:55:25.280" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;плеваться желчью в кого-н&quot;: Is this a colloquial figurative expression to refer to someone arguing furiously?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16108" RevisionGUID="f077f816-9a1e-4a7e-b0c5-200b3dcf6b0c" CreationDate="2018-03-30T03:55:25.280" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16109" RevisionGUID="9c8ee09f-08a3-4c4c-b610-6ac98d827d3e" CreationDate="2018-03-30T03:58:38.897" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Знакомые не занимают ему денег до среды (his acquaintences don't lend him money &quot;until Wednesday &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you ask someone to lend you some money, you usually promise to pay it back and name the day. It's doesn't matter what day is mentioned. But it means that the person is so poor (having nothing to sleep on) and he can't be relied on.He won't be able to return the sum, when he promised to do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16110" RevisionGUID="7a7ed088-5092-4b38-a7aa-f15df88e1c3c" CreationDate="2018-03-30T04:04:19.673" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Ваша комната лучше нашей and Ваша комната лучше, чем наша.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sentences are interchangeable, meaning absolutely the same. It's just an example of different descriptions of the same idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16109" RevisionGUID="7fb8c99f-4639-4c91-aeb2-8a7c3c4d219d" CreationDate="2018-03-30T05:42:12.360" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;Знакомые не занимают ему денег до среды (his acquaintances don't lend him money &quot;till Wednesday &quot;(even for a short period of time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you ask someone to lend you some money, you usually promise to pay it back and name the day. It doesn't matter what day is mentioned. But it means that the person is so poor (having nothing to sleep on) and he can't be relied on.He won't be able to return the sum, when he promised to do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16111" RevisionGUID="ea432684-1fa3-461c-a2c3-0933ebcc7fc0" CreationDate="2018-03-30T06:48:21.787" UserId="6539" Text="Желчь figuratively means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раздражение, язвительность, злость ( irritation, annoyance, anger, acrimony ) &#xD;&#xA;The usage is figurative, an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После возвратных глаголов никогда не употребляются имена существительные и местоимения в винительном падеже, (Reflexive verbs never take a noun or a pronoun in the accusative )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16111" RevisionGUID="8fbf46e7-7c44-4e6f-9d20-1d6e077504de" CreationDate="2018-03-30T06:56:08.650" UserId="6539" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="Желчь figuratively means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раздражение, язвительность, злость ( irritation, annoyance, anger, acrimony ) &#xD;&#xA;The usage is figurative, an idiom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После возвратных глаголов никогда не употребляются недушевленные имена существительные в винительном падеже, (Reflexive verbs never take an inanimate  noun in the accusative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With animate nouns the situation is different. It's normal to use accusative in colloquial speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он всегда слушается мать и отца.(colloquial).Слушайся Анну." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16111" RevisionGUID="277bf0c7-7f58-41c9-8cdb-bf71c7b89e20" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:05:51.763" UserId="6539" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Желчь figuratively means &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;раздражение, язвительность, злость ( irritation, annoyance, anger, acrimony ) &#xD;&#xA;The usage is figurative, (an idiom &quot;излить/изливать желчь&quot; is more common )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;После возвратных глаголов никогда не употребляются недушевленные имена существительные в винительном падеже, (Reflexive verbs never take an inanimate  noun in the accusative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With animate nouns the situation is different. It's normal to use accusative in colloquial speech,but not in the written speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он всегда слушается мать и отца.(colloquial).Слушайся Анну." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="e6f47b2d-70bd-4c53-9778-ff5577c55825" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:27:38.660" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;прийти мне в **голову** = « me venir à l'**esprit** »&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;с кривой **душой** =  « à  l'**esprit** torturé »&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;в своем **уме** = « sain d'**esprit**  »&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit fuzzy on the difference in usage between these three synonyms, especially as you can express each of them with the noun « esprit {mind} » in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my mind, &quot;голова&quot; seems to be about what you are thinking, while &quot;душа&quot; centres round your feelings, even your personalities, whereas &quot;ум&quot; refers to  your intellect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to when to use which of the three, I wonder if they are ultimately linked to their corresponding idiomatic expressions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="e6f47b2d-70bd-4c53-9778-ff5577c55825" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:27:38.660" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;голова&quot;, &quot;душа&quot; and &quot;ум&quot; when referring to one's mind" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="e6f47b2d-70bd-4c53-9778-ff5577c55825" CreationDate="2018-03-30T08:27:38.660" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16113" RevisionGUID="91a5b780-dead-47c3-a775-efcb737b7ef2" CreationDate="2018-03-30T09:42:43.817" UserId="4560" Text="They're interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vernacular somewhat prefers **чем** — in line with how less inflecting, more analytical constructions tend to fare better colloquially. That doesn't mark the genitive construction as bookish, it sees everyday use too. However, the genitive often carries an added meaning of an implied &quot;even&quot; (&quot;even better&quot;, etc.). In other words, you're likely to hear **Ваша комната *лучше*, чем наша** but **Ваша комната лучше *нашей*** — I'm using italics to show where the emphasis goes. Again, this isn't set in stone, it's just a tendency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16114" RevisionGUID="94ea218a-79d2-4dee-985e-426ee9e6e001" CreationDate="2018-03-30T10:53:26.497" UserId="9001" Text="Your assumptions are generally correct. In your examples the words are used figuratively. There're some set phrases with them, so you usually say *сломать голову* and very rarely *сломать ум*, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Голова** mainly means *a head*, a part of a body, but figuratively may be used as a synonym of **ум** (thinking ability) in several set phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Прийти в голову* (also *прийти на ум*) - spring to mind &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сломать голову* - tie oneself into knots (if someone injures his head you use the verb **разбить** instead).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Душа** - literally the spiritual part of a person. But also used to refer to person's inner character and feelings. In older days mental disorders were referred as **душевные болезни** (hence **душевнобольной** - the word is still in use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Он добрая душа/у него добрая душа* - he is a good-natured person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня душа болит* - I take [it] very personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ум** - intellect and figuratively also sanity. As if when you lose your intellect you become insane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Сойти с ума* - become demented; go mad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В своем уме* - sane.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="6fa817fc-9b88-4f36-98d1-bff6d012863f" CreationDate="2018-03-30T16:42:45.490" UserId="9603" Text="When can I use superlatives like  ***наи**лучший*  instead of the word *самый*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to guess I'd say that the former is slightly more bookish but I'm not really sure.&#xD;&#xA;Usually I'd just use something like *самый лучший*. So the question is: which variant is more commonly used in everyday speech?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="6fa817fc-9b88-4f36-98d1-bff6d012863f" CreationDate="2018-03-30T16:42:45.490" UserId="9603" Text="Superlatives with the prefix наи" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="6fa817fc-9b88-4f36-98d1-bff6d012863f" CreationDate="2018-03-30T16:42:45.490" UserId="9603" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16117" RevisionGUID="bc8329b0-0df6-474d-96e6-22636077c6ac" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:08:45.590" UserId="9256" Text="First of all, `&quot;наи-&quot;` adjectives are indeed poetic or bookish. `&quot;Самый ...&quot;` is not only more broadly used, it's virtually always the safe choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This prefix can be used with adjectives that are in superlative form and can be applied to a human `&quot;наилучший&quot;`/&quot;the best&quot; , `&quot;наимудрейший&quot;`/&quot;the most wise&quot;. Adjectives that normally can't be applied to a human (like `&quot;наимягчайший&quot;`/&quot;the softest&quot;, `&quot;наисложнейший&quot;`/&quot;the most difficult&quot;) are seeing even more rare use, and I wouldn't advise a non-fluent speaker to ever use those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16118" RevisionGUID="417fd06e-3abd-4429-a62d-7a7d78632d12" CreationDate="2018-03-30T18:20:57.080" UserId="7674" Text="Could it be that around the time the novel was written Wednesday was a common employees' payday until which people would usually borrow money, just like today they do so until monthly wage payday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would mean that salary could have been paid out weekly or biweekly back then. Although i personally have never heard of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16119" RevisionGUID="e3ee1581-2cb0-407e-8b33-cfbca7e9cbc1" CreationDate="2018-03-30T18:40:21.183" UserId="9795" Text="&gt;  ...мы удивляемся, как ни один предприимчивый издатель не выпустил до сих пор в свет &quot;Самоучителя одесского языка&quot; на пользу приезжим.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Без знания одесского языка тут вас ждёт масса водевильных недоразумений и чисто опереточных qui pro quo.  &#xD;&#xA;  — Советую вам познакомиться с monsieur Игрек: он всегда готов занять денег!    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Позвольте! Но что ж тут хорошего? Человек, который занимает деньги!   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Как! Человек, который занимает деньги? Это такой милый, любезный... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Ничего не вижу в этом ни милого, ни любезного.   &#xD;&#xA;— Это такой почтенный человек. Его за это любит и уважает весь город.    &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрт возьми! — думаете вы. — Как, однако, здесь легко прослыть почтенным. Начну-ка и я занимать направо и налево, чтоб меня любил и уважал весь город!&quot;    &#xD;&#xA;Но при первой же попытке &quot;занять&quot; вы поймёте ошибку. Везде занимать значит &quot;занимать&quot;, т. е. брать взаймы.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И только в Одессе &quot;занять&quot; значит дать взаймы.   &#xD;&#xA; — Я занял ему сто рублей...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Влас Дорошевич &quot;Одесский язык&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16120" RevisionGUID="5295c989-6dc3-47cd-9ee0-dfa5c278bc3b" CreationDate="2018-03-31T00:20:10.040" UserId="9459" Text="I might be flawed, but can't this be directly translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spitting bile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in the sense of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; his response was full of bile and hatred&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and I'd attribute `-ся` to &quot;own&quot; bile, it's not someone's else bile that gets figuratively thrown around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16050" RevisionGUID="bb95a079-bdc7-48f7-a386-ca0a8b0ddb90" CreationDate="2018-03-31T17:55:58.910" UserId="9001" Comment="Implementing J-mster's suggestion." Text="**Последствие** is a thing or event that starts/happens at some point in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я [не] думаю|беспокоюсь о последствиях* - I [don't] think|care about what can happen [because of it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Курение приводит к негативным последствиям: одышке и т.д.* - Smoking has negative consequences like wheeze etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дождь вызвал последствия в виде наводнения* - Rain caused the flood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Следствие** (in sense of *effect*, not *investigation*) is an abstract thing, which is true since its cause is true. Synonyms are **вывод**, **заключение**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Теорема имеет следующие следствия* (not *последствия*) - From the theorem you can draw the following corollaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Следствия, которые мы можем вывести из этих фактов, таковы...* - From the facts we can conclude that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But** in some set phrases (*Следствием ... является ...*) it is used instead of **последствие**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Следствием дождя явилось наводнение.* - The flood came as a consequence of the rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Следствием курения являются заболевания легких* -  Lung diseases are caused by smoking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use **последствие** here as well and it will sound only a little unusual. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40506" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16116" RevisionGUID="556be0c1-5730-4b56-be31-ae3c6349bfdc" CreationDate="2018-03-31T20:59:27.250" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/980187841710968833" />
  <row Id="40507" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16106" RevisionGUID="0f5e493c-21b2-44f7-9b21-12cefd7bd090" CreationDate="2018-04-01T00:00:32.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/980233413079764992" />
  <row Id="40508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="5140c521-be43-4582-abc0-bdacf529fe5a" CreationDate="2018-04-01T14:34:52.140" UserId="10420" Text="I found a source saying that the partner of падать is both упасть and пасть, so I was wondering what the difference between these two words is. So far I could only find a post explaining the difference between падать and упасть (the first one is perfective and the second one is imperfective) but I couldn't find anything on the difference between пасть and упасть (though упасть seems to be more commonly used)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="5140c521-be43-4582-abc0-bdacf529fe5a" CreationDate="2018-04-01T14:34:52.140" UserId="10420" Text="difference between пасть and упасть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="5140c521-be43-4582-abc0-bdacf529fe5a" CreationDate="2018-04-01T14:34:52.140" UserId="10420" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16122" RevisionGUID="0a0cbbc8-39ad-4895-8dd8-f0460cba8b6e" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:05:13.423" UserId="4560" Text="**Пасть** came to be a lofty metaphorical term, covering probably all cases where falling is used as a lofty metaphor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- of a slain combatant (**пасть в бою**);&#xD;&#xA;- of a city, kingdom, etc. (**Рим пал**);&#xD;&#xA;- of an overthrown ruler (**тиран пал**);&#xD;&#xA;- of decline into depravity (**как низко ты пал!**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Упасть** is for everyday falls, mostly literal, but also e.g. of stocks or currencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the imperfective **падать**, the verbal noun **падение** is shared between the two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="3d43495a-3cb4-4ba9-b306-f4dfbf7ed708" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:06:24.753" UserId="9821" Text="I am wondering why the genitive case for ветер is ветра instead of &quot;ветера&quot;. Is there any rule behind this instance? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="3d43495a-3cb4-4ba9-b306-f4dfbf7ed708" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:06:24.753" UserId="9821" Text="Родительный падеж and ветер" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="3d43495a-3cb4-4ba9-b306-f4dfbf7ed708" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:06:24.753" UserId="9821" Text="|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16124" RevisionGUID="49f47738-2fac-4710-a8ac-bd3eb4a2ef1d" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:07:05.570" UserId="10421" Text="friend. If we are talking about пасть as about a verb this word should be understood as a sublime and outdated word something like &quot;face downwards&quot; in front of powerful person - пасть ниц. Although, it is really rare in common life&#xD;&#xA;But if пасть is a noun we translate it as &quot;jaws&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Prefixes are probably the most important thing in Russian because they change a verb absolutely. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;Быть           to be&#xD;&#xA;Прибыть    to arrive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Бежать      to run&#xD;&#xA;Забежать  to make a short visit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знать         to know&#xD;&#xA;Узнать       to recognize &#xD;&#xA;Признать  to admit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really hope that I helped you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16125" RevisionGUID="26b63f2f-c741-4bcd-a351-618684f0bd56" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:32:56.780" UserId="10421" Text="No, this missing letter is just an exception. But there are exceptions for some plural nouns' endings like:&#xD;&#xA;Учи́тель - учителя́    (Род. падеж for singular - учи́теля)&#xD;&#xA;Дом -  дома́               (Род. падеж for singular - до́ма)&#xD;&#xA;Вечер - вечера́          (Род. падеж for singular - ве́чера) &#xD;&#xA;Ветер - ветрá             (Род. падеж for singular - ве́тра)&#xD;&#xA;As you can see in these words the stress syllable also changes. &#xD;&#xA;Although, if we follow the rules the words should have become &quot;учи́тели&quot;, &quot;до́мы&quot; and &quot;ве́черы&quot; - but these words do not sound good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16126" RevisionGUID="b9b76e43-008a-45ea-adcb-bb3611c5e86c" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:42:00.803" UserId="9001" Text="This [extra][1] vowel (mobile vowel) may appear in the grammatical cases when a noun has no ending. But you can't say for sure if it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example this mobile vowel appears in all cases except nominative, not just genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, you should just memorize such words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://orfogrammka.ru/%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%85_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D1%83%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16126" RevisionGUID="a28d430f-c4b7-4eea-9fe8-7d847ed2b792" CreationDate="2018-04-01T16:49:51.823" UserId="9001" Comment="Corrected an error." Text="This [extra][1] vowel (mobile vowel) may appear in the grammatical cases when a noun has no ending. But you can't say for sure if it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example this mobile vowel disappears in all cases except nominative, not just genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, you should just memorize such words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://orfogrammka.ru/%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%85_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D1%83%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="d9d9dcaf-a951-4a36-8aac-8e7287e5ee30" CreationDate="2018-04-01T19:03:42.330" UserId="9821" Text="While studying the 1st and 2nd conjugations of the verbs in the present tense I noticed something. &#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, verbs ending in -ить belong to the 2nd conjugation while the rest of them belong to the 1st. Of course there are exceptions such as брить or видеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb обидеть is also an exception since it belongs to the 2nd conjugation. What I noticed is that this is a perfect verb and its imperfect pair is обижать, which clearly belongs to the first conjugation. My question is if this is an isolated case of one can say that, in general, the imperfect verb also &quot;predicts&quot; the conjugation of its perfect pair. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge is quite limited and therefore I couldn't come up with examples. Such cases must be rare since the perfect/imperfect pair usually differs by a prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="d9d9dcaf-a951-4a36-8aac-8e7287e5ee30" CreationDate="2018-04-01T19:03:42.330" UserId="9821" Text="Спряжения - обижать/обидеть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="d9d9dcaf-a951-4a36-8aac-8e7287e5ee30" CreationDate="2018-04-01T19:03:42.330" UserId="9821" Text="|спряжение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="d67a9cda-7f42-487a-b3fe-21067e70b18d" CreationDate="2018-04-01T19:11:30.887" UserId="9821" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="While studying the 1st and 2nd conjugations of the verbs in the present tense I noticed something. &#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, verbs ending in -ить belong to the 2nd conjugation while the rest of them belong to the 1st. Of course there are exceptions such as брить or видеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb обидеть is also an exception since it belongs to the 2nd conjugation. What I noticed is that this is a perfect verb and its imperfect pair is обижать, which clearly belongs to the 1st conjugation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question:** is this an isolated case or one can say that, in general, the imperfect verb also &quot;predicts&quot; the conjugation of its perfect pair. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge is quite limited and therefore I couldn't come up with examples. Such cases must be rare since the perfect/imperfect pair usually differs by a prefix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="b0a4377b-37d5-401c-921d-335542a33ff4" CreationDate="2018-04-01T19:37:23.170" UserId="2104" Text="This is called a fleeting/mobile vowel which historically formed during the [Fall or the Jers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no strict rules but some patterns stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Nouns ending in **-ец**: конец, палец, боец - конца, пальца, бойца;&#xD;&#xA;* Nouns ending in **-ок/ёк**: замок, зверёк, чаёк - замка, зверька, чайка;&#xD;&#xA;* Nouns ending in **-ей**: муравей, воробей, улей - муравья, воробья, улья;&#xD;&#xA;* A few odd ones: лев - льва, орёл - орла, мох - мха, вошь - вши, весь - всего, угол - угла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: кошка - кош**е**к, банка - банок, селёдка - селёд**о**к, койка - коек;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: вишня - виш**е**н, башня - башен, деревня - деревень; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья - семей, статья - статей, судья - судей;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - руж**е**й, копьё - коп**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* **-йна**: война - воен, тайна - таен;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: масло - мас**е**л, ремесло - ремёсел;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо - я**и**ц, кукла - кукол, серьга - сер**ё**г, кочерга - кочер**ё**г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general rules are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is more than one consonant or **щ** to the left of a fleeting vowel, the fleeting vowel is kept in all forms: гон**е**ц - гонца, but бегл**е**ц - бегл**е**ца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ветер - ветра &#xD;&#xA; - катер - катера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16129" RevisionGUID="3594774e-72e9-4816-ab93-4fbbab9fd090" CreationDate="2018-04-01T20:36:33.067" UserId="6907" Text="I found some words in [Cambridge dictionary][1] but it is not clear to me when to use each one of them and how: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    снаружи, вне, за пределами, под&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I have some examples: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is no students **outside** the class (car, bus, metro). &#xD;&#xA;* It is in the box or **outside** the box.&#xD;&#xA;* Wait me please **outside** the room, I will call you when your turn comes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-russian/outside_1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16129" RevisionGUID="3594774e-72e9-4816-ab93-4fbbab9fd090" CreationDate="2018-04-01T20:36:33.067" UserId="6907" Text="How to translate &quot;outside&quot; into Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16129" RevisionGUID="3594774e-72e9-4816-ab93-4fbbab9fd090" CreationDate="2018-04-01T20:36:33.067" UserId="6907" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16130" RevisionGUID="a0aa3ff9-e453-4572-b386-e8177e586dff" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:19:29.737" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; There are no students outside the class - Вне класса / Снаружи студентов нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is in the box or outside the box - Это в коробке или вне коробки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please wait outside the room - Подожди, пожалуйста, за пределами/вне комнаты / снаружи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**За пределами** is mainly used with objects denoting large spaces and which have formal boundaries. It's a more technical preposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Снаружи** normally doesn't require an object, i.e. used by itself, the object is implied being derived from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three **cнаружи** and **вне** are the most usable in mundane speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** doesn't belong in this list as it means **under(neath)/near**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я спрятался от дождя **под** мостом - I hid from rain **under(neath)** a bridge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я обычно оставляю машину **под** домом - I usually leave the car **near** the house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16130" RevisionGUID="7cffac76-9da4-4939-a0c3-e4a5eb683148" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:25:56.707" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="&gt; There are no students outside the class - Вне класса / Снаружи студентов нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is in the box or outside the box - Это в коробке или вне коробки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please wait outside the room - Подожди, пожалуйста, за пределами/вне комнаты / снаружи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**За пределами** is mainly used with objects denoting large spaces and which have formal boundaries. It's a more technical preposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Снаружи** normally doesn't require an object, i.e. used by itself, the object is implied being derived from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three **cнаружи** and **вне** are the most usable in mundane speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** is synonymous with the other three only in the context of relative disposition of cities and suburbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы живём **под** Москвой - We live **outside** of Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;otherwise it means **under(neath)/near**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="69d17058-49c3-4f8e-b9d3-f43144f9cfe8" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:30:41.420" UserId="2104" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="This is called a fleeting/mobile vowel which historically formed during the [Fall or the Jers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no strict rules but some patterns stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: коне&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* A few odd ones: л**е**в - льва, ор**ё**л - орла́, м**о**х - мха, в**о**шь - вши, в**е**сь - всего́, у́г**о**л - угла́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - руж**е**й, копьё - коп**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These phonetic rules regarding fleeting vowels are quite strict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is more than one consonant or **щ** to the left of a fleeting vowel, the fleeting vowel is kept in all forms: гон**е**ц - гонца́, but бегл**е**ц - бегл**е**ца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="7a026eab-37d2-41a7-b988-61ebdabe62cd" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:38:57.610" UserId="2104" Comment="added 368 characters in body" Text="This is called a fleeting/mobile vowel which historically formed during the [Fall or the Jers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no strict rules but some patterns stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* A few odd ones: л**е**в - льва, ор**ё**л - орла́, м**о**х - мха, в**о**шь - вши, в**е**сь - всего́, у́г**о**л - угла́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - руж**е**й, копьё - коп**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These phonetic rules regarding fleeting vowels are quite strict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is more than one consonant or **щ** to the left of a fleeting vowel, the fleeting vowel is kept in all forms: гон**е**ц - гонца́, but бегл**е**ц - бегл**е**ца.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40531" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="2aafd1a1-e506-48e2-86dc-b6e70d25b836" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:58:41.553" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|родительный-падеж|беглая-гласная|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11603" RevisionGUID="e7739cd8-5a2b-471f-bc38-199f7015abb2" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:59:24.327" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|окончания|беглая-гласная|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40533" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14476" RevisionGUID="1b01ebe4-03d2-4d4c-a867-606b4d3a5a91" CreationDate="2018-04-01T21:59:46.853" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|беглая-гласная|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14544" RevisionGUID="b5075e5f-7047-4a17-97d6-bd862fb85479" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:02:59.787" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|беглая-гласная|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40535" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="c32f1b43-4cc7-4273-aa46-13d45474ac6a" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:03:25.743" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|морфология|беглая-гласная|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40536" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2188" RevisionGUID="3f9f17f4-09f1-4fb8-b46e-9f07adeca4e3" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:04:50.297" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|склонение|родительный-падеж|беглая-гласная|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="e387b964-10e9-45c9-b9cb-c7767ee8c458" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:18:48.463" UserId="7674" Text="In fact both **обидеть** and **обижать** belong to the 1st conjugation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix: **принять-принимать, найти-находить** (+ with other prefixes),  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** (+ with other prefixes), **узнать-узнавать** (+ with other prefixes), **сдержать-сдерживать** (+ with other prefixes) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without a survey it's difficult to tell whether in all perf/imperf pairs both verbs belong to the same type of conjugation, but it seems that they do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="b7fc4994-5d63-43de-a4e4-656276fa7010" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:22:33.600" UserId="2104" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="This is called a fleeting/mobile vowel which historically formed during the [Fall or the Jers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no strict rules but some patterns stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* A few odd ones: л**е**в - льва, ор**ё**л - орла́, м**о**х - мха, в**о**шь - вши, в**е**сь - всего́, у́г**о**л - угла́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - руж**е**й, копьё - коп**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These phonetic rules regarding fleeting vowels are quite strict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is a consonant cluster to the left of a vowel, the vowel is kept in all cases: бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́ (compare to гон**е**ц - гонца́), &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ц - &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16132" RevisionGUID="c250c896-583a-489e-9fd4-6a565056fdfb" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:41:19.823" UserId="3680" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16132" RevisionGUID="c250c896-583a-489e-9fd4-6a565056fdfb" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:41:19.823" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="d6e74f89-4a60-43a9-a65d-6fde5c1c0970" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:41:19.823" UserId="3680" Text="Беглый гласный звук - звук, выпадающий при склонении и изменении формы слова" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16133" RevisionGUID="d6e74f89-4a60-43a9-a65d-6fde5c1c0970" CreationDate="2018-04-01T22:41:19.823" UserId="3680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="232c78a2-39e7-4237-ace6-8034aa7210f6" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:28:53.123" UserId="8780" Text="I know that, in order to tell &quot;people&quot; (plural) with no numerals, we must say **люди**. **Человек** is used either for singular with no numeral, or for plural with numerals. Consequently, 2/3/4 is followed by **человека**, whereas from 5 upward it's once again **человек**, a kind of irregular genitive plural with null ending (like the words *волос*, *сапог*, *грузин*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like the word for person/people, the word for &quot;kid&quot; features two different roots, either for no-numeral plural (**дети**, not counting the expression *трое детей*) and for singular (**ребёнок**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, which word should be used when trying to attach a numeral to the idea of &quot;kid&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 kids - два ребёнка?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 kids - пять ребёнок?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="232c78a2-39e7-4237-ace6-8034aa7210f6" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:28:53.123" UserId="8780" Text="Word for counting number of kids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="232c78a2-39e7-4237-ace6-8034aa7210f6" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:28:53.123" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="f59ef52f-dcd9-49c6-be62-50b5a62f4946" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:40:52.343" UserId="3680" Text="Special cases for number of kids 1 - 4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `Один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;2. `Два ребёнка` / `двое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;3. `Три ребёнка` / `трое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;4. `Четыре ребёнка` / `четверо детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Number of kids 5 and more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `Пять (пятеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;6. `Шесть (шестеро) детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="ec71cf32-86e4-49e7-a604-e4c4a45f8b47" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:46:41.273" UserId="3680" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Special cases for number of kids 1-4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `Один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;2. `Два ребёнка` / `двое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;3. `Три ребёнка` / `трое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;4. `Четыре ребёнка` / `четверо детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For number of kids more than 20 ending with 1-4:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;21. `Двадцать один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;22. `Двадцать два ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;23. `Двадцать три ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;24. `Двадцать четыре ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on for (31-34, 41-44, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other number of kids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `Пять (пятеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;6. `Шесть (шестеро) детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="e86d96a0-627b-4c0d-89cf-e8796d265730" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:51:44.500" UserId="3680" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Special cases for number of kids `1`-`4`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `Один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;2. `Два ребёнка` / `двое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;3. `Три ребёнка` / `трое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;4. `Четыре ребёнка` / `четверо детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For number of kids `5`-`10`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `Пять (пятеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;6. `Шесть (шестеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For number of kids ending with `1`-`4` if number of tens is not equal to `1`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;21. `Двадцать один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;22. `Двадцать два ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;23. `Двадцать три ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;24. `Двадцать четыре ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on for (31-34, 41-44, ..., 101-104, 121-124, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other number of kids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `Пять (пятеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;6. `Шесть (шестеро) детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16135" RevisionGUID="1824844a-b041-4035-ad6b-ddadb5552f50" CreationDate="2018-04-01T23:57:59.490" UserId="3680" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Special cases for number of kids `1`-`4`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `Один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;2. `Два ребёнка` / `двое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;3. `Три ребёнка` / `трое детей`.&#xD;&#xA;4. `Четыре ребёнка` / `четверо детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For number of kids `5`-`10`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. `Пять (пятеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;6. `Шесть (шестеро) детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For number of kids ending with `1`-`4` if number of tens is not equal to `1`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;21. `Двадцать один ребёнок`.&#xD;&#xA;22. `Двадцать два ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;23. `Двадцать три ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;24. `Двадцать четыре ребёнка`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on for (31-34, 41-44, ..., 101-104, 121-124, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all other number of kids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`5. Пять детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;`6. Шесть детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;`36. Тридцать шесть детей`.  &#xD;&#xA;`128. Сто двадцать восемь детей`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="839eb7f8-e19d-443c-8beb-4fe943ae8115" CreationDate="2018-04-02T00:36:40.220" UserId="2104" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="This is called a fleeting/mobile vowel which historically formed during the [Fall or the Jers][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no strict rules but some patterns stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, ка́м**е**нь - ка́мня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ёл**: ор**ё**л - орла́, ос**ё**л - осла́, коз**ё**л - козла́, кот**ё**л - котла́;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few odd ones: с**о**н - сна, р**о**т - рта, л**е**в - льва, м**о**х - мха, в**о**шь - вши, в**е**сь - всего́, у́г**о**л - угла́, у́г**о**ль - угля́, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - ру́ж**е**й, копьё - ко́п**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* са́бля - са́б**е**ль, ка́пля - ка́п**е**ль, сопло́ - со́п**е**л, дупло́ - ду́п**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These phonetic rules regarding fleeting vowels are quite strict:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is a consonant cluster to the left of a vowel, the vowel is kept in all cases: бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́ (compare to гон**е**ц - гонца́), &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ц - &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="10e9ffab-0c7c-4faf-b8a1-a1c38c292675" CreationDate="2018-04-02T00:39:59.063" UserId="2104" Text="Как правильно написать это слово? Какие будут варианты? :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="10e9ffab-0c7c-4faf-b8a1-a1c38c292675" CreationDate="2018-04-02T00:39:59.063" UserId="2104" Text="Кавказ - Закавказье, Урал - Зауралье, Алтай -?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="10e9ffab-0c7c-4faf-b8a1-a1c38c292675" CreationDate="2018-04-02T00:39:59.063" UserId="2104" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16137" RevisionGUID="ab273acb-8aa7-4e6d-856f-cfef1e0c067c" CreationDate="2018-04-02T03:26:30.323" UserId="6545" Text="I have a sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он видел вокруг красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, реку Волгу. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and translating is not hard, and I think the meaning is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He saw beautiful, picturesque places, short mountains, forests around the Volga river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I looked up the preposition (or adverb?) `вокруг` and I see that two sources say the `genitive` case comes afterwards. So I see that the forests, mountains and places are `direct objects` of the verb `видел`, hence `accusative`, and I think these objects are seen *around* the river, so these latter words (adj. and noun river) should be `genitive`...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that, due to some freedom in word order, that the sentence could also be written as(?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он видел красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, вокруг реку Волгу. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;which more clearly (correctly?) associates the river to the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Он видел вокруг красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, реки Волги. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the proper sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16137" RevisionGUID="ab273acb-8aa7-4e6d-856f-cfef1e0c067c" CreationDate="2018-04-02T03:26:30.323" UserId="6545" Text="preposition вокруг (+ gen) but sentence only has accusative nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16137" RevisionGUID="ab273acb-8aa7-4e6d-856f-cfef1e0c067c" CreationDate="2018-04-02T03:26:30.323" UserId="6545" Text="|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16139" RevisionGUID="75673bc7-71e5-4e24-8910-350f6f57c4be" CreationDate="2018-04-02T04:41:28.430" UserId="7939" Text="The meaning is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He saw beautiful, picturesque places, short mountains, forests, the Volga river&#xD;&#xA;    around himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, the word order is not SO free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16140" RevisionGUID="0ffb084f-0953-4621-b75e-b32a4e5f4623" CreationDate="2018-04-02T04:44:26.210" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Он видел вокруг **красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, реку Волгу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accusative is correct, he saw (what?). **Вокруг** here is an adverb, not a preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saw (where?) around, or nearby– вокруг. It isn't connected with the direct object in the accusative. Compare it with the following, where вокруг is a preposition &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Земля вращается вокруг солнца &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вокруг (чего?) солнца (genitive).A preposition can't stand far from the noun it belongs to. So, if it (вокруг) were a preposition, ( the nearest noun is места), but the sentence wouldn't make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16137" RevisionGUID="e39d95b1-ba67-4cc5-a4e9-96ef7f933c16" CreationDate="2018-04-02T06:58:29.937" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I have a sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он видел вокруг красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, реку Волгу. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and translating is not hard, and I think the meaning is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; He saw beautiful, picturesque places, short mountains, forests around the Volga river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I looked up the preposition (or adverb?) `вокруг` and I see that two sources say the `genitive` case comes afterwards. So I see that the forests, mountains and places are `direct objects` of the verb `видел`, hence `accusative`, and I think these objects are seen *around* the river, so these latter words (adj. and noun river) should be `genitive`...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that, due to some freedom in word order, that the sentence could also be written as(?),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он видел красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, вокруг реку Волгу. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;which more clearly (correctly?) associates the river to the preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why not,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Он видел вокруг красивые, живописные места, невысокие горы, леса, реки Волги. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as the proper sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16139" RevisionGUID="2d3e4f74-653d-451d-803e-1a798681b832" CreationDate="2018-04-02T06:59:52.863" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The meaning is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; He saw beautiful, picturesque places, short mountains, forests, the Volga river around himself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, the word order is not SO free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="09f96e90-864d-41bd-ad17-9bed42a6945d" CreationDate="2018-04-02T07:19:38.857" UserId="10425" Text="As shown by the declension table for the noun version of слепой here: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/слепой this word apparently is a noun (blind person) but declines like an adjective (prepositional case is слепом and not слепое* as I would expect under the rules I've seen, yet this is not marked as irregular on Wiktionary). Why? Is this a special case where an adjective can act as a noun but stays declining as an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="09f96e90-864d-41bd-ad17-9bed42a6945d" CreationDate="2018-04-02T07:19:38.857" UserId="10425" Text="Why does the noun слепой decline like an adjective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="09f96e90-864d-41bd-ad17-9bed42a6945d" CreationDate="2018-04-02T07:19:38.857" UserId="10425" Text="|падежи|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16130" RevisionGUID="75c426b0-0601-4993-8c49-597af2aac133" CreationDate="2018-04-02T07:39:22.720" UserId="7674" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="&gt; There are no students outside the class - Вне класса / Снаружи студентов нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is in the box or outside the box - Это в коробке или вне коробки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please wait outside the room - Подожди, пожалуйста, за пределами/вне комнаты / снаружи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**За пределами** is mainly used with objects denoting large spaces and which have formal boundaries. It's a more technical preposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Снаружи** normally doesn't require an object, i.e. used by itself, the object is implied being derived from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three **cнаружи** and **вне** are the most usable in mundane speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** is synonymous with the other three in the context of relative disposition of cities and suburbs when cities proper names are mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы живём **под** Москвой - We live **outside** Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*But*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We live **outside** the city - Мы живём **за** городом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** also can be translated as **outside** in the sense of **in front of / near** a building, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Встречаемся **под** университетом - Let's meet up **outside** of the university&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise it literally means **under(neath)**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="c743db14-9633-4989-bb56-aeb0ff68b896" CreationDate="2018-04-02T07:56:41.307" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix: **принять-принимать, найти-находить** (+ with other prefixes),  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** (+ with other prefixes), **узнать-узнавать** (+ with other prefixes), **сдержать-сдерживать** (+ with other prefixes) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without a survey it's difficult to tell whether in all perf/imperf pairs both verbs belong to the same type of conjugation, but it seems that they do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16142" RevisionGUID="7da6e5c0-20bb-46f3-a5db-80b4d84d7ff1" CreationDate="2018-04-02T08:44:28.027" UserId="6539" Text="There are some adjectives that have become nouns as a result of dropping the nominal part of the noun phrase. These adjectives have the semantic meaning of the noun phrase and retain **the gender of the dropped noun**, but keep their **adjectival declension**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Русский,больной, ученый,мороженое,рабочий, насекомое, животное, шампанское." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="93b08ba0-7434-4a20-9944-fc88741dd002" CreationDate="2018-04-02T08:54:02.300" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5304 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **будет принимать, будет находить, будет убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sng)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчищ**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просып**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстил**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержив**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчищ**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просып**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстил**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="f46d2860-5b79-4314-8ee0-d3e6a3ee3e77" CreationDate="2018-04-02T09:01:02.480" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sng)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчищ**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просып**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстил**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержив**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчищ**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просып**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстил**ают**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="b531fc5a-ce8a-4e0a-9028-c41d5f490d49" CreationDate="2018-04-02T09:10:20.113" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="1bbd928e-a69e-4420-87a5-a47e0556abe7" CreationDate="2018-04-02T09:35:48.993" UserId="7674" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix (**об-**) and a variably suffixed stem (**[в]ид**) as its ancient form was [**`об-видети`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Этимология)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="fc7d0ae1-7c84-4fb8-93f9-c0ea0fd2ffdf" CreationDate="2018-04-02T09:46:45.777" UserId="7674" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчив**аешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix and a variably suffixed stem ([**`об + вид`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Этимология) OR **`o + бед`**, depending on the etymology attributed to it)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="e45a3042-e854-45eb-8daf-456d4453bea0" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:57:56.027" UserId="10428" Text="Как правильно? В коммерческом предложении компании стоит пункт:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По окочанию этапа: будет разработан веб сайт компании и разработан фирменный стиль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По окочании этапа: будет разработан веб сайт компании и разработан фирменный стиль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="e45a3042-e854-45eb-8daf-456d4453bea0" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:57:56.027" UserId="10428" Text="По окончании этапа или по окончанию этапа" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="e45a3042-e854-45eb-8daf-456d4453bea0" CreationDate="2018-04-02T10:57:56.027" UserId="10428" Text="|выражения|морфология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16144" RevisionGUID="2b0254b1-8c71-4f06-9aa1-7c2a337c5c02" CreationDate="2018-04-02T11:04:03.870" UserId="3680" Text="В данном контексте правильно (в значении &quot;после окончания этапа&quot;) верно: **по окочании**.  &#xD;&#xA;Подробнее: [ссылка1](http://russkiiyazyk.ru/orfografiya/pravopisanie/kak-pishetsya-po-okonchanii-ili-po-okonchaniyu.html), [ссылка2](https://kak-pravilno.net/po-okonchanii-ili-po-okonchaniyu-kak-pravilno/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16144" RevisionGUID="5877aed8-d9be-407f-a3dc-b2b9f0bf2ab8" CreationDate="2018-04-02T11:09:10.780" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="В данном контексте (в значении &quot;после окончания этапа&quot;) правильно: **по окочании**.  &#xD;&#xA;Подробнее: [ссылка1](http://russkiiyazyk.ru/orfografiya/pravopisanie/kak-pishetsya-po-okonchanii-ili-po-okonchaniyu.html), [ссылка2](https://kak-pravilno.net/po-okonchanii-ili-po-okonchaniyu-kak-pravilno/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По окончани**и** — если мы говорим в контексте «после какого-либо события», тогда в конце слова пишется буква «и».  &#xD;&#xA;По окончани**ю** — если предложение строится в контексте «по признаку», тогда в конце слова пишется буква «ю».&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16145" RevisionGUID="653fe3df-ebaf-4156-b25c-96648f4c0936" CreationDate="2018-04-02T11:12:28.977" UserId="5443" Text="The literal word for outside is **снаружи**, however its usage is mainly limited to something like **boxes** or **containers**. It doesn't combine well with rooms and buildings, so proper translation in those two cases depends much on context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside (the room) - **в коридоре, за дверью** (the latter is not polite&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a request to wait there);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside (the building) - **на улице, у входа (в здание), у подъезда**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's raining outside. - **На улице дождь.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16146" RevisionGUID="7dd3962c-6d7f-4926-9a04-456125b11ee8" CreationDate="2018-04-02T11:45:01.603" UserId="242" Text="Такого слова нет. Наличие горной системы не предполагает автоматически, что существует образованное от него слово с приставкой &quot;за-&quot;. В случае Закавказья мы имеем исторически обосабливаемый регион, поэтому существование отдельного термина оправдано. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Урал условно делит Россию на ту часть, что была в Русском царстве и ту, что стала российской на этапе Российской Империи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же самое с Закарпатьем или, например, с Припамирьем. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Территории за Алтаем же обособленного культурного, экономического или исторического единства всё-таки не составляли, поэтому слова типа Заалтайщина просто не случилось - нечего им было обозначать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть территории Монголии, Китая и Казахстана. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16147" RevisionGUID="8c0822cd-8581-41e2-812c-78cd84584cbe" CreationDate="2018-04-02T11:49:41.197" UserId="310" Text="If you must, you can use generic `загорье`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16146" RevisionGUID="f9f77256-fd69-4c2e-81fa-19df942dc5dc" CreationDate="2018-04-02T12:13:09.257" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Такого слова нет. Наличие горной системы не предполагает автоматически, что существует образованное от него слово с приставкой &quot;за-&quot;. В случае Закавказья мы имеем исторически обосабливаемый регион, поэтому существование отдельного термина оправданно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Урал условно делит Россию на ту часть, что была в Русском царстве и ту, что стала российской на этапе Российской Империи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же самое с Закарпатьем или, например, с Припамирьем. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Территории за Алтаем же обособленного культурного, экономического или исторического единства всё-таки не составляли, поэтому слова типа Заалтайщина просто не случилось - нечего им было обозначать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть территории Монголии, Китая и Казахстана. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="c321518f-b207-420e-86cf-1696a45efa17" CreationDate="2018-04-02T13:22:56.277" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Как правильно написать это слово? Какие будут варианты? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="ce023ab3-0dfa-4b64-be11-cac64a3084f5" CreationDate="2018-04-02T14:13:07.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix and a variably suffixed stem ([**`об + вид`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Родственные_слова) OR **`o + бед`**, depending on the etymology attributed to it)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16130" RevisionGUID="3a88bee6-5ed5-458d-831e-052fd349839b" CreationDate="2018-04-02T18:10:56.467" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&gt; There are no students outside the class - Вне класса / Снаружи студентов нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is in the box or outside the box - Это в коробке или вне коробки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please wait outside the room - Подожди, пожалуйста, за пределами/вне комнаты / снаружи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**За пределами** is mainly used with objects denoting large spaces and which have formal boundaries. It's a more technical preposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Снаружи** normally doesn't require an object, i.e. used by itself, the object is implied being derived from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three **cнаружи** and **вне** are the most usable in mundane speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** is synonymous with the other three in the context of relative disposition of cities and suburbs when cities proper names are mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы живём **под** Москвой - We live **outside** Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*But*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We live **outside** the city - Мы живём **за** городом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** also can be translated as **outside** in the sense of **in front of / near** a building, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Встречаемся **под** университетом &lt;sup&gt;colloquial&lt;/sup&gt;- Let's meet up **outside** of the university&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise it literally means **under(neath)**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16130" RevisionGUID="712fd29c-2e82-4302-9662-14efef8096f9" CreationDate="2018-04-02T18:26:36.543" UserId="7674" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="&gt; There are no students outside the class - Вне класса / Снаружи студентов нет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is in the box or outside the box - Это в коробке или вне коробки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Please wait outside the room - Подожди, пожалуйста, за пределами/вне комнаты / снаружи&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**За пределами** is mainly used with objects denoting large spaces and which have formal boundaries. It's a more technical preposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Снаружи** normally doesn't require an object, i.e. used by itself, the object is implied being derived from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the three **cнаружи** and **вне** are the most usable in mundane speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** is synonymous with the other three in the context of relative disposition of cities and suburbs when cities proper names are mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы живём **под** Москвой - We live **outside** Moscow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*But*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We live **outside** the city - Мы живём **за** городом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Под** also can be translated as **outside** in the sense of **in front of / near** a building, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Встречаемся **под** университетом &lt;sup&gt;*colloquial, poss. regional*&lt;/sup&gt;- Let's meet up **outside** of the university&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise it literally means **under(neath)**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="560813c5-593d-4efb-9cdd-7a6a3c90349d" CreationDate="2018-04-02T19:43:55.310" UserId="2104" Comment="added 438 characters in body" Text="Как правильно написать это слово? Какие будут варианты? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо за ответы и комментарии. Хочу пояснить, что вопрос про орфографию, а не про географию. Сформулирую точнее: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как писать слова, образованные от основы на **-й** (Алтай, Китай, юбилей...) с помощью приставки и суффикса [j], который на письме обычно передается через **-ье** (Закавказье, Зауралье...)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю, что таких слов, возможно, и не существует, или они существуют только в окказиональном употреблении, так что на данный момент вопрос чисто теоретический.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="e9283fdc-efaa-4b70-8415-a5d9b501274d" CreationDate="2018-04-02T20:31:09.220" UserId="2104" Comment="added 715 characters in body" Text="The disappearing vowel is called a fleeting / mobile vowel. Some words have them, most don't. If a noun has a fleeting vowel, then it will obey these rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant). It is always the last vowel in the stem of the word. A stem is the part that is left when throwing away any endings: ветер has the stem вет**е**р, кошка has the stem кош**е**к (with a fleeting **-е-**).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word form has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant - phonetically **й**у).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is a consonant cluster to the left of a vowel, the vowel is kept in all cases: бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́ (compare to гон**е**ц - гонца́), &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ц - &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels historically formed after the [Fall or the Jers][1] ([падение редуцированных][2]) in 11-13 centuries AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the big question is, how does one tell if a word has a fleeting vowel? There is no definitive answer but a few patterns do stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, ка́м**е**нь - ка́мня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ёл**: ор**ё**л - орла́, ос**ё**л - осла́, коз**ё**л - козла́, кот**ё**л - котла́;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few odd ones: с**о**н - сна, р**о**т - рта, л**е**в - льва, м**о**х - мха, у́г**о**л - угла́, у́г**о**ль - угля́, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - ру́ж**е**й, копьё - ко́п**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* са́бля - са́б**е**ль, ка́пля - ка́п**е**ль, сопло́ - со́п**е**л, дупло́ - ду́п**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г, в**о**шь - вши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels also exist in verbs (брать - б**е**ру, звать - з**о**ву), pronouns (в**е**сь - всего́), prefixes (вз**о**браться - взберусь) and prepositions (к нему - к**о** мне).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="a1285c87-d6f0-4dfa-8454-ab0b2855ef55" CreationDate="2018-04-02T20:46:56.460" UserId="2104" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="The disappearing vowel is called a fleeting / mobile vowel. Some words have them, most don't. If a noun has a fleeting vowel, then it will obey these rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant). It is always the last vowel in the stem of the word. A stem is the part that is left when throwing away any endings: ветер has the stem вет**е**р, кошка has the stem кош**е**к (with a fleeting **-е-**).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word form has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant - phonetically **й**у).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is a consonant cluster to the left of a vowel, the vowel is kept in all cases: бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́ (compare to гон**е**ц - гонца́), &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ц - &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels historically formed after the [Fall or the Jers][1] ([падение редуцированных][2]) in 11-13 centuries AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the big question is, how does one tell if a word has a fleeting vowel? There is no definitive answer but a few patterns do stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, ка́м**е**нь - ка́мня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ёл**: ор**ё**л - орла́, ос**ё**л - осла́, коз**ё**л - козла́, кот**ё**л - котла́;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few odd ones: с**о**н - сна, р**о**т - рта, л**е**в - льва, м**о**х - мха, у́г**о**л - угла́, у́г**о**ль - угля́, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - ру́ж**е**й, копьё - ко́п**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* са́бля - са́б**е**ль, ка́пля - ка́п**е**ль, сопло́ - со́п**е**л, дупло́ - ду́п**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г, в**о**шь - вши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels also exist in verbs (брать - б**е**ру́, звать - з**о**ву́), adjectives (кра́ткий - кра́т**о**к, ну́жный - ну́ж**е**н), pronouns (в**е**сь - всего́), prefixes (вз**о**браться - взберусь) and prepositions (к нему - к**о** мне).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40591" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16137" RevisionGUID="af5d6a1c-f916-47ce-a061-70547620ab88" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:06:14.523" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/980914325266292736" />
  <row Id="40592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="87be6d9f-38ba-4d45-b652-ea2358b5ce0a" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:07:24.157" UserId="6907" Text="What's more common, **вместо** or **взамен** for the following context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say for example that &quot;I want red instead of blue, house instead of apartment&quot;. &quot;I bought a fork instead of spoon.&quot;. Which of these two should I use?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.b. I found here [this answer][1], but it deals with other question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2167/how-to-say-instead-of-verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="87be6d9f-38ba-4d45-b652-ea2358b5ce0a" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:07:24.157" UserId="6907" Text="вместо Vs. взамен" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="87be6d9f-38ba-4d45-b652-ea2358b5ce0a" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:07:24.157" UserId="6907" Text="|word-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="a5a74443-0102-4620-9ebb-7b6452260de2" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:16:31.557" UserId="7674" Text="What fits in your examples is **вместо**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Взамен** is used when you (wish to) replace something you already possess as **заменить** means **to replace**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поставил новый замок взамен старого" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16149" RevisionGUID="da17c628-0c97-4846-999c-408cc8acd5b4" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:27:39.510" UserId="7674" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="What fits in your examples is **вместо**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Взамен** is used when you (wish to) replace something you already possess as **заменить** means **to replace** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я поставил новый замок взамен старого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or (expect to) receive something in return for what you share or offer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Мы уважаем все клубы и ожидаем того же взамен](https://www.sport-express.ru/football/france/news/prezident-pszh-my-uvazhaem-vse-kluby-i-ozhidaem-togo-zhe-vzamen-1307685/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="c9f523a8-9a3c-44ae-9e0d-63f5ad2d8c1d" CreationDate="2018-04-02T21:36:21.297" UserId="6907" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I found two translation for &quot;**instead of**&quot;: **вместо** or **взамен**. What's the acceptable one for the following context? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say for example that &quot;I want red instead of blue, house instead of apartment&quot;. &quot;I bought a fork instead of spoon.&quot;. Which of these two should I use?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.b. I found here [this answer][1], but it deals with other question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2167/how-to-say-instead-of-verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="eea52e6e-4dff-4e20-aba3-a91d3c255a6a" CreationDate="2018-04-02T22:13:35.560" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16150" RevisionGUID="275b21d2-9757-4e1e-ba6c-5c6e1f87b182" CreationDate="2018-04-02T23:14:16.333" UserId="10430" Text="**взамен** emphasizes replacing or changing one thing to another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я купил скутер **взамен** велосипеда. (I bought a scooter to replace a bike.)&#xD;&#xA;He had the bike, but he bought the scooter to use it instead of the bike.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Я купил новую лампочку **взамен** старой. (I bought a new light bulb **to replace** old one.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вместо** means one instead of another.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я купил скутер **вместо** велосипеда. (I planned to buy a bike, but I bought a scooter).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40600" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16141" RevisionGUID="9457fc4d-35b2-47d9-abf6-0ad5c5cb3391" CreationDate="2018-04-03T03:06:04.370" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/981004880054833152" />
  <row Id="40601" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16136" RevisionGUID="bb0921c9-dcf1-491e-9995-0eeed264d41d" CreationDate="2018-04-03T06:06:04.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/981050178139574273" />
  <row Id="40602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="9eccd2a5-9755-45c1-80f5-49893398812f" CreationDate="2018-04-03T07:02:05.293" UserId="7674" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix and a variably suffixed stem ([**`об + вид`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Родственные_слова) OR **`o + бед`**, depending on the etymology attributed to it). And thus not always imperfective verb indicates type of conjugation its perfective counterpart belongs to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="302f1d6a-4c86-451e-94ba-3adb30bfc62f" CreationDate="2018-04-03T07:07:20.680" UserId="7674" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать, зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать, расстелить-расстилать**&lt;sup&gt;(+ other prefixes)&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix and a variably suffixed stem ([**`об + вид`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Родственные_слова) OR **`o + бед`**, depending on the etymology attributed to it).  &#xD;&#xA;And thus indication of the perfective verb conjugation by its imperfective counterpart isn't the general rule of thumb, but it can be for certain other group of verbs, like those whose perfective aspect is formed with a prefix because prefixes don't affect conjugation which is a function of ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="c54dd1da-0270-49cc-96bc-de386eb2887f" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:17:32.863" UserId="5897" Comment="&quot;Fall or the Yers&quot; -&gt; &quot;Fall of the Yers&quot;" Text="The disappearing vowel is called a fleeting / mobile vowel («беглые» гласные). Some words have them, most don't. If a noun has a fleeting vowel, then it will obey these rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant). It is always the last vowel in the stem of the word. A stem is the part that is left when throwing away any endings: ветер has the stem вет**е**р, кошка has the stem кош**е**к (with a fleeting **-е-**).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word form has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant - phonetically **й**у).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is a consonant cluster to the left of a vowel, the vowel is kept in all cases: бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́ (compare to гон**е**ц - гонца́), &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ц - &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels historically formed after the [Fall of the Jers][1] ([падение редуцированных][2]) in 11-13 centuries AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the big question is, how does one tell if a word has a fleeting vowel? There is no definitive answer but a few patterns do stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, ка́м**е**нь - ка́мня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ёл**: ор**ё**л - орла́, ос**ё**л - осла́, коз**ё**л - козла́, кот**ё**л - котла́;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few odd ones: с**о**н - сна, р**о**т - рта, л**е**в - льва, м**о**х - мха, у́г**о**л - угла́, у́г**о**ль - угля́, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - ру́ж**е**й, копьё - ко́п**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* са́бля - са́б**е**ль, ка́пля - ка́п**е**ль, сопло́ - со́п**е**л, дупло́ - ду́п**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г, в**о**шь - вши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels also exist in verbs (брать - б**е**ру́, звать - з**о**ву́), adjectives (кра́ткий - кра́т**о**к, ну́жный - ну́ж**е**н), pronouns (в**е**сь - всего́), prefixes (вз**о**браться - взберусь) and prepositions (к нему - к**о** мне).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40606" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="c54dd1da-0270-49cc-96bc-de386eb2887f" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:17:32.863" Comment="Proposed by 5897 approved by -1 edit id of 965" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16128" RevisionGUID="11f8b9ea-20ed-43a9-b839-9259132f66e1" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:17:32.863" UserId="2104" Comment="&quot;Fall or the Yers&quot; -&gt; &quot;Fall of the Yers&quot;" Text="The disappearing vowel is called a fleeting / mobile vowel («беглая» гласная). Some words have them, most don't. If a noun has a fleeting vowel, then it will obey these rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fleeting vowel can only appear between two consonants (**й** being a consonant). It is always the last vowel in the stem of the word. A stem is the part that is left when throwing away any endings: ветер has the stem вет**е**р, кошка has the stem кош**е**к (with a fleeting **-е-**).&#xD;&#xA; 2. A word form has a fleeting vowel only if the ending is null or begins with a consonant: люб**о**вь (null) - любви́ (vowel) - люб**о**вью (consonant - phonetically **й**у).&#xD;&#xA; 3. If there is a consonant cluster to the left of a vowel, the vowel is kept in all cases: бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - бе&lt;u&gt;гл&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́ (compare to гон**е**ц - гонца́), &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ц - &lt;u&gt;лж&lt;/u&gt;**е**ца́.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels historically formed after the [Fall of the Jers][1] ([падение редуцированных][2]) in 11-13 centuries AD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the big question is, how does one tell if a word has a fleeting vowel? There is no definitive answer but a few patterns do stand out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Masculine nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ец**: кон&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;ц - конца́, па́л**е**ц - па́льца, бо**е́**ц - бойца́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ень**: па́р**е**нь - па́рня, ко́р**е**нь - ко́рня, ка́м**е**нь - ка́мня, п**е**нь - пня;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ок/-ек/-ёк**: зам**о**к - замка, замоч**е**к - замочка, звер**ё**к - зверька́, ча**ё**к - чайка́;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ей**: мурав&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - муравья́, вороб&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й - воробья́, у́л**е**й - у́лья;&#xD;&#xA;* ending in **-ёл**: ор**ё**л - орла́, ос**ё**л - осла́, коз**ё**л - козла́, кот**ё**л - котла́;&#xD;&#xA;* Quite a few odd ones: с**о**н - сна, р**о**т - рта, л**е**в - льва, м**о**х - мха, у́г**о**л - угла́, у́г**о**ль - угля́, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feminine and neuter nouns may get a fleeting vowel in **genitive plural**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ка**: ко́шка - кош**е**к, ба́нка - ба́н**о**к, селёдка - селёд**о**к, ко́йка - ко́**е**к;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ня**: ви́шня - виш**е**н, ба́шня - ба́ш**е**н, дере́вня - дерев&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;нь; &#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ья**: семья́ - сем&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, статья́ - стат&lt;b&gt;е́&lt;/b&gt;й, судья́ - су́д**е**й;&#xD;&#xA;* consonant + **ьё**: ружьё - ру́ж**е**й, копьё - ко́п**и**й;&#xD;&#xA;* са́бля - са́б**е**ль, ка́пля - ка́п**е**ль, сопло́ - со́п**е**л, дупло́ - ду́п**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-сло**: ма́сло - мас**е**л, ремесло́ - ремёс**е**л;&#xD;&#xA;* **-дро**: ведро́ - вёд**е**р, бедро́ - бёд**е**р;&#xD;&#xA;* Odd ones: яйцо́ - я**и**ц, ку́кла - ку́кол, серьга́ - сер**ё**г, кочерга́ - кочер**ё**г, в**о**шь - вши.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice how **й** is lost in writing but is still pronounced: га́йка - га́ек (га[jе]к), ле́йка - ле́ек (ле[jе]к).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleeting vowels also exist in verbs (брать - б**е**ру́, звать - з**о**ву́), adjectives (кра́ткий - кра́т**о**к, ну́жный - ну́ж**е**н), pronouns (в**е**сь - всего́), prefixes (вз**о**браться - взберусь) and prepositions (к нему - к**о** мне).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of these patterns telling if a word has a fleeting vowel is difficult: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ве́т**е**р - ве́тра &#xD;&#xA; - ка́тер - ка́тера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, use a dictionary or [this tool][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/phon2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://morpher.ru?s=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="ac702fbc-a2f4-41a4-8445-be922622ef05" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:19:51.433" UserId="6907" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I found two translations for &quot;**instead of**&quot;: **вместо** or **взамен**. What's the acceptable one for the following contexts? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say for example that &quot;I want red instead of blue, house instead of apartment&quot;. &quot;I bought a fork instead of spoon.&quot;. Which of these two should I use?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.b. I found here [this answer][1], but it deals with other question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/2167/how-to-say-instead-of-verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40609" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="aff8b8be-3298-4638-8d4c-69aed6957f72" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:31:35.967" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Вместо&quot; or &quot;взамен&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40610" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="73bb1ae2-8f7b-40e6-b2f3-178ddfa7910b" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:32:31.693" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Ветер&quot; in genitive - why &quot;ветра&quot;, not &quot;ветера&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40611" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16137" RevisionGUID="2d864877-3e57-42d8-9230-17135134a5db" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:33:40.237" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Preposition вокруг (+ genitive) but sentence only has accusative nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="b3ffb462-c778-408a-a711-876d56b52024" CreationDate="2018-04-03T10:49:32.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать**&lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **расстелить-расстилать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(Future tense of imperfective verbs in such pairs is usually formed analytically through addition of the conjugated verb **быть** to infinitive, e.g.: **буду принимать, будешь находить, будут убивать** etc.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix and a variably suffixed stem ([**`об + вид`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Родственные_слова) OR **`o + бед`**, depending on the etymology attributed to it).  &#xD;&#xA;And thus indication of the perfective verb conjugation by its imperfective counterpart isn't the general rule of thumb, but it can be for certain other group of verbs, like those whose perfective aspect is formed with a prefix because prefixes don't affect conjugation which is a function of ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16151" RevisionGUID="6859615d-b4d2-48d4-9fe7-afd85fce3e11" CreationDate="2018-04-03T17:25:26.303" UserId="4629" Text="Дело, конечно, не в буквах, а в том, что такие конструкции (сделать А после В) требуют предложного падежа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сделать А -- _по прибытии, по рассмотрении, по прошествии, по окончании, по получении, по прочтении_ и т.д. То есть, &quot;по ком? по чём?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Знаменательно, что предложным падежом традиционно управляет также глагол &quot;скучать&quot;. По ком. Скучать _по матери, по отце, по деде, по сыне, по вас_ и т.д. Но это управление, к сожалению, сегодня практически полностью заместилось дательным падежом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="a3928808-aaf0-4901-918b-659df81343b0" CreationDate="2018-04-03T17:31:23.660" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting" Text="Как правильно? В коммерческом предложении компании стоит пункт:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - По окочанию этапа: будет разработан веб сайт компании и разработан фирменный стиль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - По окочании этапа: будет разработан веб сайт компании и разработан фирменный стиль." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40617" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="a3928808-aaf0-4901-918b-659df81343b0" CreationDate="2018-04-03T17:31:23.660" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting" Text="'По окончании этапа' или 'по окончанию этапа'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40618" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="a3928808-aaf0-4901-918b-659df81343b0" CreationDate="2018-04-03T17:31:23.660" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 8895, 3680 edit id of 964" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16152" RevisionGUID="4349f89c-37f2-409d-a387-fce23ed332fc" CreationDate="2018-04-03T21:04:09.203" UserId="9459" Text="As already mentioned they are mostly the same (though `под` also means &quot;under&quot;), the exact usage depends on the finesse. Here, I am trying to capture it in translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Снаружи` is outside in the sense of &quot;there is also _inside_ and it's not it&quot;. Like, outside the box.&#xD;&#xA;- `Вне` is outside in the sense of &quot;no bounds&quot;. It's also a bit oldish and bookish. (For example, there was a classic short Sci-Fi story from the Golded Era called &quot;Извне&quot;, which basically means &quot;from ouside&quot;, the antonym of &quot;within&quot;, but conveys the meaning of &quot;from outer space&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  `Вне` is also more abstract. &quot;Outside the building&quot; is `снаружи`, &quot;any categories do not apply here&quot; is `вне категорий`.&#xD;&#xA;- `За пределами` is verbatim &quot;out of bounds&quot;. There should be some boundary for it, like &quot;outside the city&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- I at first translated `под` as &quot;under&quot;. Indeed, there is also a somewhat colloquial meaning &quot;closeby&quot;, as in `под окном`: &quot;I'll be waiting outside in front of your window.&quot; Other answers elaborate a bit on this, somehow in the usage it's always outside the building/object that is referenced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16153" RevisionGUID="95038bc0-1908-4c1c-b484-fd1cbe78c1c8" CreationDate="2018-04-03T21:28:22.277" UserId="9459" Text="I'd try here again my English approximations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `Голова` is &quot;head&quot;, but also (as mentioned) all related to thinking, `пришло в голову` = &quot;came to my mind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- `Ум` is &quot;intellect&quot;, also in figurative sense: &quot;sanity&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- `Душа` is &quot;soul&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fun part begins in the figurative speech: `сойти с ума` (&quot;to loose sanity&quot;) vs. `душевнобольной` (&quot;insane&quot;, &quot;mental&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To pepper up with a 20th century quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Холодная голова, горячее сердце и чистые руки»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;loosely translated, &quot;cold blood, passionate heart, trusty hands&quot; – apparently, those are the desired properties of a good KGB (well, then-VChK) agent as mentioned by its founder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16131" RevisionGUID="f7f81891-508c-4595-b4c9-60e7a6462413" CreationDate="2018-04-04T08:39:33.127" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 224 characters in body" Text="*Видеть* isn't strictly speaking an exception as [it's not alone](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides **брить** another genuine exception from the 2nd conjugation verbs is [**стелить**](http://school-assistant.ru/?predmet=russian&amp;theme=sprjazenie_glagolov_5).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some infinitive forms of perfective and imperfective verbs differ not in prefix but in suffix, e.g.: **принять-принимать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **найти-находить** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;,  **убить-убивать**&lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **зажечь-зажигать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **узнать-узнавать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **сдержать-сдерживать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **подчистить-подчищать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **проспать-просыпать**, **замолчать-замалчивать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt;, **расстелить-расстилать** &lt;sup&gt;*(+ other prefixes)*&lt;/sup&gt; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation of perfective verbs in the aforementioned pairs is apparent in the future tense and for some of them it differs from the conjugation of their imperfective counterparts in present tense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Imperf (present)` &lt;sup&gt;(1st)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Perf (future)` &lt;sup&gt;(2nd)&lt;/sup&gt;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2nd pers.`&lt;sup&gt;(sg)&lt;/sup&gt;**  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ешь**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ишь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`3d pers.` &lt;sup&gt;(pl)&lt;/sup&gt;** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдержива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;сдерж**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчища**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;подчист**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просыпа**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;просп**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замалчива**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;замолч**ат**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстила**ют**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;расстел**ят**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **обидеть-обижать** appears to not be an isolated case and nicely blends into this list because it's too comprised of a prefix and a variably suffixed stem ([**`об + вид`**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/обида#Родственные_слова) OR **`o + бед`**, depending on the etymology attributed to it).  &#xD;&#xA;And thus indication of the perfective verb conjugation by its imperfective counterpart isn't the general rule of thumb, but it can be for certain other group of verbs, like those whose perfective aspect is formed with a prefix because prefixes don't affect conjugation which is a function of ending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40622" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16148" RevisionGUID="2ca4afae-001c-4a68-925d-d7fcbbb66e83" CreationDate="2018-04-04T09:10:04.503" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/981458872434069504" />
  <row Id="40623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16154" RevisionGUID="ba9775b9-a267-4724-abb5-bcba9fff9b02" CreationDate="2018-04-05T06:08:13.250" UserId="5443" Text="**Взамен** is typically about replacing something *for a reason*, e. g. the old thing is already (or expected to be) **gone** (lost or given/promised to somebody), **can't be used** anymore. The idea of **compensation** (finding a good replacement) is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Взамен* украденного/поломанного велосипеда он купил новый (или купил&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мопед).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты отдашь мне эту редкую монету, я *взамен* дам тебе любую другую&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (или окажу важную услугу).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вместо** has much wider meaning and is applicable to both things and actions (**instead** or **rather than** doing something).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вместо* шляпы на ходу он надел сковороду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вместо* лампочки накаливания лучше поставить светодиодную.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Вместо* того, чтобы обратиться в полицию, он решил сам наказать обидчика." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16129" RevisionGUID="c85da973-1152-44a0-9bde-980925245eac" CreationDate="2018-04-05T09:12:07.957" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/981821777679699968" />
  <row Id="40625" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16143" RevisionGUID="d2d24668-841b-498b-ae16-dadd86ca1739" CreationDate="2018-04-05T12:12:22.867" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/981867138876084225" />
  <row Id="40626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16155" RevisionGUID="a2735ca9-231c-4e47-8bea-0e1e5874e779" CreationDate="2018-04-05T14:37:36.277" UserId="6907" Text="What would be the accurate translation for &quot;**Even though**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found &quot;**даже если**&quot; and &quot;**даже когда**&quot; and in [Cambridge dictionary][1] (English- Russian)  &quot;**несмотря на то что**&quot;. So, I am a little bit confused about the term that I have to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he is a smart man he did that mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he was around he didn't come to say hello.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-russian/even_2?q=even%20though" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16155" RevisionGUID="a2735ca9-231c-4e47-8bea-0e1e5874e779" CreationDate="2018-04-05T14:37:36.277" UserId="6907" Text="&quot;Even-though&quot; in Russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40628" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16155" RevisionGUID="a2735ca9-231c-4e47-8bea-0e1e5874e779" CreationDate="2018-04-05T14:37:36.277" UserId="6907" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16156" RevisionGUID="d96f6cae-15c5-4e4c-8ab7-a686461041e0" CreationDate="2018-04-05T15:42:13.690" UserId="7674" Text="They can be interchangeable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he is a smart man he did that mistake. - **Не смотря на то,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что** он умён ... / **Хоть** он **и** умён, ....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he was around he didn't come to say hello. - **Не смотря на то,** что он был поблизости ... / **Хоть** он **и** был поблизости ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже когда** means **even when** and is appropriate when there's temporary aspect involved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He didn't work out **even when** he was young, much less now when he's 70&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Оне не занимался физкультурой, **даже когда** был молод, а теперь, когда ему 70, и подавно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже если** - **even if**, when there's a condition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even if** he showers her with gifts and jewelry she still won't marry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; him - **Даже если** он будет осыпать её подарками и украшениями, она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; равно не пойдет за него замуж" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16156" RevisionGUID="0af06d6e-7b83-41b6-8c98-62ef223acd21" CreationDate="2018-04-05T17:31:23.527" UserId="10327" Comment="не смотря -&gt; несмотря" Text="They can be interchangeable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he is a smart man he did that mistake. - **Несмотря на то,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что** он умён ... / **Хоть** он **и** умён, ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he was around he didn't come to say hello. - **Несмотря на то,** что он был поблизости ... / **Хоть** он **и** был поблизости ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже когда** means **even when** and is appropriate when there's temporary aspect involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He didn't work out **even when** he was young, much less now when he's 70&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Оне не занимался физкультурой, **даже когда** был молод, а теперь, когда ему 70, и подавно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже если** - **even if**, when there's a condition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even if** he showers her with gifts and jewelry she still won't marry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; him - **Даже если** он будет осыпать её подарками и украшениями, она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; равно не пойдет за него замуж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16156" RevisionGUID="0af06d6e-7b83-41b6-8c98-62ef223acd21" CreationDate="2018-04-05T17:31:23.527" Comment="Proposed by 10327 approved by 7674 edit id of 966" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16156" RevisionGUID="b2e2b54d-791e-4f1b-8106-979fdc75fcdd" CreationDate="2018-04-05T17:33:24.987" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 32 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Even though** he is a smart man he did that mistake. - **Несмотря на то,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что** он умён ... / **Хоть** он **и** умён, ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he was around he didn't come to say hello. - **Несмотря на то,** что он был поблизости ... / **Хоть** он **и** был поблизости ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже когда** means **even when** and is appropriate when there's temporary aspect involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He didn't work out **even when** he was young, much less now when he's 70&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Оне не занимался физкультурой, **даже когда** был молод, а теперь, когда ему 70, и подавно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже если** - **even if**, when there's a condition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even if** he showers her with gifts and jewelry she still won't marry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; him - **Даже если** он будет осыпать её подарками и украшениями, она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; равно не пойдёт за него замуж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16123" RevisionGUID="2d28f354-90a4-4162-b418-b42730eb8c35" CreationDate="2018-04-05T18:12:07.823" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/981957672592379907" />
  <row Id="40634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16156" RevisionGUID="2510bbe4-cd69-4e77-beb1-5d762c3353f7" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:05:59.903" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; **Even though** he is a smart man he did that mistake. - **Несмотря на то,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что** он умён ... / **Хоть** он **и** умён, ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even though** he was around he didn't come to say hello. - **Несмотря на то,** что он был поблизости ... / **Хоть** он **и** был поблизости ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже когда** means **even when** and is appropriate when there's temporary aspect involved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He didn't work out **even when** he was young, much less now when he's 70&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Он не занимался физкультурой, **даже когда** был молод, а теперь, когда ему 70, и подавно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**даже если** - **even if**, when there's a condition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even if** he showers her with gifts and jewelry she still won't marry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; him - **Даже если** он будет осыпать её подарками и украшениями, она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; равно не пойдёт за него замуж." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16155" RevisionGUID="7ebb6079-f09d-4530-9c2e-829e5f740b3c" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:14:45.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/982003630751600640" />
  <row Id="40636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16157" RevisionGUID="245268ef-a4fb-480c-8639-1566cb0a78c1" CreationDate="2018-04-05T23:28:59.257" UserDisplayName="user10435" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With masculine and neuter nouns, два and три take the genitive singular. With feminine nouns it is at least usually taught that две and три also take the genitive singular. But how do we know? Given that this form of a feminine noun is always the same as the nominative plural, can we not with equal justification say that these numerals take the nominative plural? Or might we not say that they take the form that expresses both of those functions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40637" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16157" RevisionGUID="245268ef-a4fb-480c-8639-1566cb0a78c1" CreationDate="2018-04-05T23:28:59.257" UserDisplayName="user10435" Text="With feminine nouns, how do we know that две and три take the genitive singular rather than the nominative plural?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40638" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16157" RevisionGUID="245268ef-a4fb-480c-8639-1566cb0a78c1" CreationDate="2018-04-05T23:28:59.257" UserDisplayName="user10435" Text="|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16134" RevisionGUID="409c8420-2df1-4e28-9778-866f5787cd17" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:14:50.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/982048951862951936" />
  <row Id="40640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="c3c55d25-4b76-4543-bec8-bb4a53056e19" CreationDate="2018-04-06T05:53:29.267" UserId="10438" Text="I just bought a Russian samovar...  could you tell what this says... and put the Russian script, so I can google it?   Thanks![![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sdsQ1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="c3c55d25-4b76-4543-bec8-bb4a53056e19" CreationDate="2018-04-06T05:53:29.267" UserId="10438" Text="Russian Samovar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="c3c55d25-4b76-4543-bec8-bb4a53056e19" CreationDate="2018-04-06T05:53:29.267" UserId="10438" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16159" RevisionGUID="b6c83b04-261d-4ebb-a474-71398455eed9" CreationDate="2018-04-06T06:17:25.023" UserId="3708" Text="It's definitely a manufacturer's mark, in old (pre-revolutionary) Russian orthography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ЯКОВЪ = Яков = Yakov ~ Jacob (probably the first name of manufacturer)&#xD;&#xA;* НЕГИНСКИ = Neginski (probably the last name, but due to the fact that the caption is extremely weared off, it might had more letters before or after that originally)&#xD;&#xA;* ВЪТУЛѢ = В Туле = in [Tula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tula,_Russia), city of origin, the main manufacturing center for samovars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16159" RevisionGUID="a53c8004-f414-4564-a6e7-28927972bbfe" CreationDate="2018-04-06T06:31:08.163" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's definitely a manufacturer's mark, in old (pre-revolutionary) Russian orthography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It reads:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ЯКОВЪ = Яков = Yakov ~ Jacob (probably the first name of manufacturer)&#xD;&#xA;* НЕГИНСКИ = Neginski (probably the last name, but due to the fact that the caption is extremely weared off, it might had more letters before or after that originally)&#xD;&#xA;* ВЪ ТУЛѢ = В Туле = in [Tula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tula,_Russia), city of origin, the main manufacturing center for samovars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="5136356c-1623-4539-b7eb-07a7aa75256e" CreationDate="2018-04-06T07:50:17.527" UserId="10438" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="I just bought a Russian samovar...  could you tell what this says... and put the Russian script, so I can google it?   Thanks![![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sdsQ1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NmdLl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40646" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="8d31ff32-6789-4266-8c93-26235d5358ed" CreationDate="2018-04-06T08:15:19.707" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="448a66c9-8406-4eb5-bd02-651449ec4568" CreationDate="2018-04-06T09:41:48.780" UserId="7674" Text="I'd argue that the case of **сестра** is a proof that the Genitive feminine form is singular and not plural. Another such word is **башка** if we accept it's plural as **бошки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also may consider two other genders which clearly provide singular forms and i personally as a native speaker (which isn't of course any proof) conceive the feminine flexion as of a singular form.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The forms of feminine *Nom. pl* and *Gen. sing* are simply homonyms, they sound and are spelled alike but function differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But maybe historical philology can provide more conclusive clues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="eecc6d3f-daf6-430c-9821-3b4d2ca5527e" CreationDate="2018-04-06T09:49:17.607" UserId="7674" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="I'd argue that the case of **сестра** is a proof that the Genitive feminine form is singular and not plural. Another such word is **башка** if we accept it's plural as **бошки** (Gen. - **башки**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also may consider two other genders which clearly provide singular forms and i personally as a native speaker (which isn't of course any proof) conceive the feminine flexion as of a singular form and because with numerals you expect some sort of oblique case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the forms of feminine *Nom. pl* and *Gen. sing* (in this particular case) are simply homonyms, they sound and are spelled alike but function differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But maybe historical philology can provide more conclusive clues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="add42ce0-c7d4-4b89-8c37-6b1d5d29a1f4" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:27:42.943" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Место рождения не **выбирают**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Нельзя **выбрать**, где родиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two sentences convey essentially the same meaning; the impersonal &quot;one/you&quot; cannot choose where you are born. Since this is a general statement that holds true to anyone, not just to a specific single person -- in other words, this happens on many occasions -- it seems to make more sense to use the imperfective &quot;выбирать&quot; (as shown in the 1st example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which makes me wonder why the 2nd example uses the perfective &quot;выбрать&quot; instead, despite the impersonal, general nature of the statement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40650" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="add42ce0-c7d4-4b89-8c37-6b1d5d29a1f4" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:27:42.943" UserId="8672" Text="Why use imperfective &quot;выбирать&quot; on one hand and perfective &quot;выбрать&quot; on the other in these impersonal &quot;one/you&quot; statements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40651" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="add42ce0-c7d4-4b89-8c37-6b1d5d29a1f4" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:27:42.943" UserId="8672" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="12a0f157-0358-447c-9461-e7c2a5c442ec" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:34:48.827" UserId="7674" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="I'd argue that the case of **сестра** is a proof that the Genitive feminine form is singular and not plural. Other such words are **башка** (if we accept it's Nom. pl. as **бошки**, Gen. - **башки**) and **весна** (**вёсны** vs **весны** respectively), **зима** (stress variation, **зИмы** vs **зимЫ** respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also may consider two other genders which clearly provide singular forms and i personally as a native speaker (which isn't of course any proof) conceive the feminine flexion as of a singular form and because with numerals you expect some sort of oblique case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the forms of feminine *Nom. pl* and *Gen. sing* (in this particular case) are simply homonyms, they sound and are spelled alike but function differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But maybe historical philology can provide more conclusive clues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16162" RevisionGUID="2a882c7d-ad8d-4f53-b38d-dae48546d2e0" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:42:10.113" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; Нельзя выбрать, где родиться.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; why the 2nd example uses the perfective &quot;выбрать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is implied that such a choice would be a final one, for every person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While multiple persons can (well, rather canNOT) do multiple choices, each of them is entitled only of single one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like a person who is already black can not get yellow or white or red, like a person who is already French-born can not change it and became Swiss-born. As far as the choice is committed (by the person or by situation) it can no more be re-made again and again. It is a singular thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those phrases are like mathematical [proof by contradiction][1] - they imagine some hypothetical situation, then claim this kind of situation is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16163" RevisionGUID="6eef3b7f-4c3f-4084-9dbf-d4fe307b9721" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:52:37.547" UserId="5443" Text="The first example is literally about an action supposedly taken **repeatedly** (therefore, *imperfective*) by multiple people in their own time (who fail each time to do it). It suggests extrapolation for any single case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second example denies possibility of an action (in imagination) taken **just once**, by a *single* person - so it's a single completed action (therefore, *perfective* verb form). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16162" RevisionGUID="83530105-dd96-4e8f-9896-627d151159f2" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:53:23.717" UserId="9058" Comment="added 1487 characters in body" Text="&gt; Место рождения не выбирают.      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя выбрать, где родиться.          &#xD;&#xA;&gt; why the 2nd example uses the perfective &quot;выбрать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is implied that such a choice would be a final one, for every person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those phrases are like mathematical [proof by contradiction][1] - they imagine some hypothetical situation - a what-if scenario - then claim this kind of situation is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those both phrases imagine &quot;what if&quot; human gets born &quot;unmarked&quot;, &quot;unattributed&quot;, [&quot;unassigned&quot; (as in variables)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, they imagine, by some action of willing choice those humans do anchor themselves, do &quot;bound&quot; birthplace value to themselves, after being born and raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then they deny the possibility of such an imagined situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like a person who is already black can not get yellow or white or red, like a person who is already French-born can not change it and became Swiss-born. As far as the choice is committed (by the person or by situation) it can no more be re-made again and again. It is a singular thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we have to take into account the slight difference between those situations imagined by both phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first phrase - Место рождения не выбирают - is talking about the &quot;unknown quantity&quot; of people. That is why the verb ends with -ют - the plural form. Single would not be &quot;unknown quantity&quot;, thus plural it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase - Нельзя выбрать, где родиться - implies some unknown but specific addressee. &quot;[Тебе] нельзя выбрать...&quot; - &quot;[you] can not choose...&quot;. Thus, it is in singular form, even there is no explicitly singular verb, like in the former case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While multiple persons can (well, rather canNOT) do multiple choices - each of them is entitled only of the single one, but together their choices are many - when we think about any specific person from the set, that person's choice become singular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former process is kind of repetitive, not that any of the persons can repeat, but rather &quot;Person #1 makes choice #1, then person #2 makes choice #2, then person #3....&quot; kind of repetition. Thus, imperfect verb. The latter process has no &quot;person #2&quot; and &quot;choice#2&quot;, thus no repetition, thus perfect (committed, completed, final) verb is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="11ab2bc4-5fa5-4462-9c70-5a4773c1c8a7" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:55:02.607" UserId="7674" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I'd argue that the case of **сестра** is a proof that the Genitive feminine form is singular and not plural. Other such words are **башка** (if we accept it's Nom. pl. as **бошки**, Gen. - **башки**) and **весна** (**вёсны** vs **весны** respectively), **зима** (stress variation: **зИмы** vs **зимЫ** respectively), **беда** (stress variation: **бЕды** vs **бедЫ** respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also may consider two other genders which clearly provide singular forms and i personally as a native speaker (which isn't of course any proof) conceive the feminine flexion as of a singular form and because with numerals you expect some sort of oblique case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the forms of feminine *Nom. pl* and *Gen. sing* (in this particular case) are simply homonyms, they sound and are spelled alike but function differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But maybe historical philology can provide more conclusive clues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16164" RevisionGUID="0f6d23c1-4342-418b-a9d9-5425d321fbe1" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:56:59.057" UserId="10433" Text="Last weekend a read a book where was a sentence: &quot;Из леса вышли мужики с дрынами.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;мужики с дрынами&quot; means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16164" RevisionGUID="0f6d23c1-4342-418b-a9d9-5425d321fbe1" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:56:59.057" UserId="10433" Text="What does &quot;Мужики с дрынами&quot; means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16164" RevisionGUID="0f6d23c1-4342-418b-a9d9-5425d321fbe1" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:56:59.057" UserId="10433" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16162" RevisionGUID="1d3a515d-e6c8-479e-9714-f0d2706c828f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T10:58:25.743" UserId="9058" Comment="added 1487 characters in body" Text="&gt; Место рождения не выбирают.      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя выбрать, где родиться.          &#xD;&#xA;&gt; why the 2nd example uses the perfective &quot;выбрать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is implied that such a choice would be a final one, for every person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those phrases are like mathematical [proof by contradiction][1] - they imagine some hypothetical situation - a what-if scenario - then claim this kind of situation is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Those both phrases imagine &quot;what if&quot; human gets born &quot;unmarked&quot;, &quot;unattributed&quot;, [&quot;unassigned&quot; (as in variables)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Then, they imagine, by some action of willing choice those humans do anchor themselves, do &quot;bound&quot; birthplace value to themselves, after being born and raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Then they deny the possibility of such an imagined situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like a person who is already black can not get yellow or white or red, like a person who is already French-born can not change it and became Swiss-born. As far as the choice is committed (by the person or by situation) it can no more be re-made again and again. It is a singular thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we have to take into account the slight difference between those situations imagined by both phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first phrase - `Место рождения не выбирают` - is talking about the &quot;indeterminate quantity&quot; of people. That is why the verb ends with `-ют` - the plural form. Single would not be &quot;indeterminate quantity&quot;, thus plural it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second phrase - `Нельзя выбрать, где родиться` - implies some unknown but specific addressee. &quot;[Тебе] нельзя выбрать...&quot; - &quot;[you] can not choose...&quot;. Thus, it is in singular form, even there is no explicitly singular verb, like in the former case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple persons when considered all-together can (well, rather cannot here) do multiple choices - each of them is entitled only to a single one, but together their choices are many. Yet when we think about any specific person from the set, that person's choice is singular event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former process is kind of repetitive, not that any of those persons can repeat it, but rather &quot;Person #1 makes choice #1, then person #2 makes choice #2, then person #3....&quot; kind of repetition. Thus, the imperfect verb. The latter process has no &quot;person #2&quot; and &quot;choice #2&quot;, thus has no repetitions, thus the perfect (committed, completed, final) verb is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16162" RevisionGUID="74b50112-29e6-4513-a429-f384bb2583f3" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:04:56.040" UserId="9058" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="&gt; Место рождения не выбирают.      &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя выбрать, где родиться.          &#xD;&#xA;&gt; why the 2nd example uses the perfective &quot;выбрать&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *People* can not choose *their* birth place.&#xD;&#xA;2. *One/you* can not choose *his/your* birth place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is implied that such a choice would be a final one, for every person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those phrases are like mathematical [proof by contradiction][1] - they imagine some hypothetical situation - a what-if scenario - then claim this kind of situation is not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Those both phrases imagine &quot;what if&quot; human gets born &quot;unmarked&quot;, &quot;unattributed&quot;, [&quot;unassigned&quot; (as in variables)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Then, they imagine, by some action of willing choice those humans do anchor themselves, do &quot;bound&quot; birthplace value to themselves, after being born and raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Then they deny the possibility of such an imagined situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like a person who is already black can not get yellow or white or red, like a person who is already French-born can not change it and became Swiss-born. As far as the choice is committed (by the person or by situation) it can no more be re-made again and again. It is a singular thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, we have to take into account the slight difference between those situations imagined by both phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first phrase - `Место рождения не выбирают` - is talking about the &quot;indeterminate quantity&quot; of people. That is why the verb ends with `-ют` - the plural form. Single would not be &quot;indeterminate quantity&quot;, thus plural it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second phrase - `Нельзя выбрать, где родиться` - implies some unknown but specific addressee. &quot;[Тебе] нельзя выбрать...&quot; - &quot;[you] can not choose...&quot;. Thus, it is in singular form, even there is no explicitly singular verb, like in the former case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple persons when considered all-together can (well, rather cannot here) do multiple choices - each of them is entitled only to a single one, but together their choices are many. Yet when we think about any specific person from the set, that person's choice is singular event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former process is kind of repetitive, not that any of those persons can repeat it, but rather &quot;Person #1 makes choice #1, then person #2 makes choice #2, then person #3....&quot; kind of repetition. Thus, the imperfect verb. The latter process has no &quot;person #2&quot; and &quot;choice #2&quot;, thus has no repetitions, thus the perfect (committed, completed, final) verb is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16165" RevisionGUID="e3500295-268b-44e0-8b2e-a1cab69c0e1d" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:08:35.883" UserId="9058" Text="I guess everyone know what is &quot;мужик&quot;, and &quot;дрын&quot; is some wooden stick for a fight, maybe (in a lingo) a rough substitution for a sword among fantasy novels re-enactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the guys were kind of armed, with what they found in that wood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16160" RevisionGUID="17a5a72e-0a4f-4cec-96b5-a7a1b409117f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:23:59.753" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I'd argue that the case of **сестра** is a proof that the Genitive feminine form is singular and not plural. Other such words are **башка** (if we accept its Nom. pl. as **бошки**, Gen. - **башки**) and **весна** (**вёсны** vs **весны** respectively), **зима** (stress variation: **зИмы** vs **зимЫ** respectively), **беда** (stress variation: **бЕды** vs **бедЫ** respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also may consider two other genders which clearly provide singular forms and i personally as a native speaker (which isn't of course any proof) perceive the feminine flexion as of a singular form and because with numerals you expect some sort of oblique case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion the forms of feminine *Nom. pl* and *Gen. sing* (in this particular case) are simply homonyms, they are spelled and often sound alike but function differently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But maybe historical philology can provide more conclusive clues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16166" RevisionGUID="8e971b30-4367-4293-ae6d-8974f54ccd4e" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:32:27.260" UserId="134" Text="&gt; But how do we know?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, Russian cases are defined by the questions the nominals put into each case answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might not the best way to define a case, because using this definition you can't tell partitive from genitive as in *чая* vs *чаю*, or locative from prepositional as in *о лесе* vs *в лесу*, but it's how it works in traditional grammars which trace back to Meletius' Church Slavonic grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this definition is good enough to tell the two cases apart in your case. You can't ask in Russian *две кто?* or *две что?*, you'd have to ask *две кого?* or *две чего?* which undoubtedly puts the corresponding word into genitive or its varieties (or which nominative is not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given that this form of a feminine noun is always the same as the nominative plural, can we not with equal justification say that these numerals take the nominative plural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feminine nominals are not always the same as nominative plural as in genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paradigm differs for all adjectives and ordinal numerals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * красивые (f. nom. pl.) / красивой (f. gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * первые (f. nom. pl.) / первой (f. gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, for nouns with mobile stress:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * ре&amp;#x301;ки (nom. pl.) / реки&amp;#x301; (gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * во&amp;#x301;ды (nom. pl.) / воды&amp;#x301; (gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, for nouns with a mobile vowel in the root:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * сёстры (nom. pl.) / сестры (gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * зори (nom. pl.) / зари (gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, for ad-hoc declension paradigms resulted from the gender shift:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * гроздья (nom. pl.) / грозди (gen. sg.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This said, numerals in *две, три* and *четыре* undoubtedly govern singular genitive even for feminine nominals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16167" RevisionGUID="522ffb54-6e22-4a2c-93e9-198f2cf3ed36" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:32:42.257" UserId="7674" Text="[**дрын**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%E4%F0%FB%ED) can be translated as **bludgeon**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мужик** as **men** (folksy) or men of a certain type, **bozo** or [many other variants](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?s=%EC%F3%E6%E8%EA&amp;dstat=%EC%F3%E6%E8%F3&amp;l1=2&amp;l2=1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16167" RevisionGUID="4812cf59-5fc3-4556-8bb6-3bc3690b5c2a" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:40:10.100" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[**дрын**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%E4%F0%FB%ED) can be translated as **bludgeon**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мужик** as **man** (folksy) or a man of a certain type, **bozo** or [many other variants](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?s=%EC%F3%E6%E8%EA&amp;dstat=%EC%F3%E6%E8%F3&amp;l1=2&amp;l2=1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40667" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16164" RevisionGUID="e47d7c7d-e3ff-48be-b5eb-168fefa9fc87" CreationDate="2018-04-06T12:16:54.237" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9058,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Arioch&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16167" RevisionGUID="c3af8387-0d2e-49b7-ab42-a416240bc949" CreationDate="2018-04-06T13:26:39.423" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="[**дрын**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=%E4%F0%FB%ED) can be translated as **bludgeon**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**мужик** as **man** (folksy for мужчина) or a man of a certain type, **bozo** or [many other variants](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?s=%EC%F3%E6%E8%EA&amp;dstat=%EC%F3%E6%E8%F3&amp;l1=2&amp;l2=1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="3b8eb7b9-7574-4e1b-b3be-8b1928897c02" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:20:52.397" UserId="10439" Text="Are there any modern dialects of Russian that preserve traces of the old phonetic distinction between “e” and “ѣ” (ять)?  Lomonosov described “ѣ” as тонкий, “e” as дебелый, with “ѣ” always to be pronounced “ье”, but I’ve also read assertions that “ѣ” was originally more *open*, like IPA “ɛ” or “æ”.  It allegedly derives from original *ē/ai/oi.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In roots, Old Russian “мѣсѧц, лѣс, лѣто” correspond to Polish “miesiąc, las, lato” with soft “l” not hard “ł”) and Serbian mjesec/mesec, ljeto/leto.  In endings, Polish preserves Slavonic fem-dat/prep “ѣ” as “ie”, and fem-gen “ы” as “y”, but Serbian has flipped Slavonic fem-dat/prep “ѣ” into hard “и”, and fem-gen “ы” into hard “e”.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="3b8eb7b9-7574-4e1b-b3be-8b1928897c02" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:20:52.397" UserId="10439" Text="Pronunciation of ять" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="3b8eb7b9-7574-4e1b-b3be-8b1928897c02" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:20:52.397" UserId="10439" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16169" RevisionGUID="5716a59b-cedc-4f35-9278-5d1f9e217e3f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:25:42.577" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;«Нельзя верить женщинам», **ведь так**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, &quot;ведь&quot; and &quot;так&quot; can both individually serve as a tag question: &quot;isn't it?&quot;, &quot;right?&quot;. But what about when they are coupled together? How is  &quot;ведь так&quot; nuanced compared to other tag questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15666/difference-between-%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%B0-as-a-tag-question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16169" RevisionGUID="5716a59b-cedc-4f35-9278-5d1f9e217e3f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:25:42.577" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;ведь так&quot;, as opposed to other tag questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16169" RevisionGUID="5716a59b-cedc-4f35-9278-5d1f9e217e3f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T14:25:42.577" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|tag-question|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16170" RevisionGUID="091226b1-59d9-4302-9741-7b23fdc5db1f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T15:07:34.627" UserId="9001" Text="You are not entirely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведь** alone can't form a tag question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**..., так?**&quot; compared to &quot;**..., ведь так?**&quot; (or &quot;**..., так ведь?**&quot; ) sounds stiffer and more demanding. **..., ведь так?** roughly means &quot;*I feel you won't argue*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40677" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="801a5cb5-6a6f-4de5-becb-087712b2223b" CreationDate="2018-04-06T15:18:07.060" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/982276268639965185" />
  <row Id="40678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16171" RevisionGUID="3942973d-2700-414f-b9d1-9f62bd520eb9" CreationDate="2018-04-06T15:44:43.157" UserId="242" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**The short answer would be no** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two main reasons for this. First, the phonetical distinction between `e` and `ѣ` was lost de-facto about two centuries before the letter [was officially abolished][1]. Second, for historical reasons modern Russian is one of the most homogenous languages in the world, the number of dialectal variances is quite low. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slightly longer answer would be - there's some evidence that in some semi-moribund dialects there were indeed some traces of `e`/ `ѣ` distinction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [quote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В подобных диалектах фонемы верхне-среднего подъема /ѣ/ и /ω/ могут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реа- лизоваться дифтонгами [ие] и [уо], у которых изменение тембра&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит за счет пони- жения подъема гласного: л[ие]с, к[уо]т или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; монофтонгами верхне-среднего подъема. Эти диалектные фонемы, как и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуковые реализации, называются е закрытым и о закры- тым. Они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; противопоставлены фонемам средне-нижнего подъема /е/ и /о/,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реализация- ми которых в говорах бывают монофтонги средне-нижнего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъема либо дифтонги типа [еи], [оу];&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, it is claimed that in some dialects there exist so called `е закрытое` (closed &quot;e&quot;) and in some `о закрытое` (closed &quot;o&quot;). As a sidenote, there are dialects with both o closed and e closed, but [no dialects][3] with only o closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you should take anything you here about phonetic differences in Russian dialects with a grain of salt. Even relatively new sources, dated back to 80s or 90s can easily be obsolete - the dialectal landscape changed drastically since then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B8_1918_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pstgu.ru/download/1223919984.ter-avanesova.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://danefae.org/djvu/dialektologi.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40679" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="a4855733-aa08-486f-b883-6282897a5614" CreationDate="2018-04-06T15:47:37.790" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;ять&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16157" RevisionGUID="6fc30205-d191-4d71-8cba-0807e236624a" CreationDate="2018-04-06T16:33:45.433" UserDisplayName="user10435" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;With masculine and neuter nouns, два and три take the genitive singular. With feminine nouns it is at least usually taught that две and три also take the genitive singular. But how do we know? Given that this form of a feminine noun is almost always the same as the nominative plural, can we not with equal justification say that these numerals take the nominative plural? Or might we not say that they take the form that expresses both of those functions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16158" RevisionGUID="f37edb10-570b-4b2c-a014-f66d9d5db06d" CreationDate="2018-04-06T19:03:25.273" UserId="10438" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I just bought a Russian samovar, and cannot read this type of Russian script...  could you provide the modern Russian script?   Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sdsQ1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NmdLl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16171" RevisionGUID="9e428301-166c-44e9-b788-50db4e6333b9" CreationDate="2018-04-06T19:10:52.767" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="**The short answer would be no** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two main reasons for this. First, the phonetical distinction between `e` and `ѣ` was lost de-facto about two centuries before the letter [was officially abolished][1]. Second, for historical reasons modern Russian is one of the most homogenous languages in the world, the number of dialectal variances is quite low. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The slightly longer answer would be - there's some evidence that in some semi-moribund dialects there were indeed some traces of `e`/ `ѣ` distinction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [quote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В подобных диалектах фонемы верхне-среднего подъема /ѣ/ и /ω/ могут&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реализоваться дифтонгами [ие] и [уо], у которых изменение тембра&#xD;&#xA;&gt; происходит за счет понижения подъема гласного: л[ие]с, к[уо]т или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; монофтонгами верхне-среднего подъема. Эти диалектные фонемы, как и их&#xD;&#xA;&gt; звуковые реализации, называются е закрытым и о закрытым. Они&#xD;&#xA;&gt; противопоставлены фонемам средне-нижнего подъема /е/ и /о/,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; реализациями которых в говорах бывают монофтонги средне-нижнего&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъема либо дифтонги типа [еи], [оу];&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, it is claimed that in some dialects there exist so called `е закрытое` (closed &quot;e&quot;) and in some `о закрытое` (closed &quot;o&quot;). As a sidenote, there are dialects with both o closed and e closed, but [no dialects][3] with only o closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you should take anything you here about phonetic differences in Russian dialects with a grain of salt. Even relatively new sources, dated back to 80s or 90s can easily be obsolete - the dialectal landscape changed drastically since then. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B8_1918_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pstgu.ru/download/1223919984.ter-avanesova.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://danefae.org/djvu/dialektologi.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40684" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16127" RevisionGUID="2f3373f8-5f0e-47f4-ac34-323e0c5a73b2" CreationDate="2018-04-07T06:19:57.360" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/982503223885000706" />
  <row Id="40685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="e8ace77f-3d2c-45eb-8e68-f2c83db5bddb" CreationDate="2018-04-07T06:45:36.873" UserId="8672" Text="Plan B is a secondary plan that you could fall back on in case Plan A, so to speak, didn't pan out as expected. The notion of &quot;switching to Plan B&quot; exists in English {Plan B}, French {le plan B}, German {Plan B}, Italian {piano B} etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is an idiomatic way to express the idea of &quot;switching to Plan B&quot; in Russian? Is a single alphabet commonly used instead of an adjective like &quot;запасной&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**запасной** / **запасный** план" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="e8ace77f-3d2c-45eb-8e68-f2c83db5bddb" CreationDate="2018-04-07T06:45:36.873" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;Plan B&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="e8ace77f-3d2c-45eb-8e68-f2c83db5bddb" CreationDate="2018-04-07T06:45:36.873" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16173" RevisionGUID="73925089-0738-4795-b528-71c403bdd4fb" CreationDate="2018-04-07T07:36:32.063" UserId="1502" Text="**Ведь** actually means &quot;to know&quot; although modern Russian speakers are often not aware of this fact and only use it as a emotional informal grammar addition. It can be used in the sentence to gently demand an audience to agree to the statement. It must precede or follow the subject or a verb in question. In your example &quot;так&quot; is a statement that can be translated as &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;ведь&quot; is attached to it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="3e8103d2-29a6-43da-81ac-5a8ec8b1534b" CreationDate="2018-04-07T07:37:23.190" UserId="8762" Text="I was wondering, if there are any or -ы ending is always a definite indicator of plural form... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="3e8103d2-29a6-43da-81ac-5a8ec8b1534b" CreationDate="2018-04-07T07:37:23.190" UserId="8762" Text="Russian noun that ends with -ы in singular: Myth or Reality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16174" RevisionGUID="3e8103d2-29a6-43da-81ac-5a8ec8b1534b" CreationDate="2018-04-07T07:37:23.190" UserId="8762" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16175" RevisionGUID="139c747d-1676-4c2a-9adc-66c2d04d564c" CreationDate="2018-04-07T09:38:00.373" UserId="7674" Text="Another option is **альтернативный план**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the idea of &quot;switching to Plan B&quot; may be expressed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; водить в действие альтернативный план / переходить к альтернативному&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плану&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less formally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;переключаться на альтернативный план &lt;sup&gt;(*technically possible, but is somewhat unusual*)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or highly informally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; включать / запускать альтернативный план" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16175" RevisionGUID="f58dd689-1611-49e6-ba1e-f038654d50a0" CreationDate="2018-04-07T11:33:49.940" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Another option is **альтернативный план**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the idea of &quot;switching to Plan B&quot; may be expressed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вводить в действие альтернативный план / переходить к альтернативному&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плану&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less formally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;переключаться на альтернативный план &lt;sup&gt;(*technically possible, but is somewhat unusual*)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or highly informally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; включать / запускать альтернативный план" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16176" RevisionGUID="dd7f3292-5d47-42c6-a1aa-fed838766ab0" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:41:11.617" UserId="4833" Text="A grammatical search in [ruscorpora.ru][1] for nouns in Nom,sg ending on -ы&#xD;&#xA;gives a number of occurrences, among them&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * common abbreviations, like _Минобороны_, _Москомприроды_, _замглавы_;&#xD;&#xA; * foreign surnames, like _Чжуан-цзы_, _Сеид-оглы_, _Новотны_,&#xD;&#xA; * foreign geographical names: _река Иты_, _Янцзы_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=*%FB&amp;gramm1=S%2Cnom%2Csg&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16177" RevisionGUID="e2acd7ea-0f06-41ef-ad54-0d11dbda5fd2" CreationDate="2018-04-07T16:32:37.677" UserId="5008" Text="The old name of the letter **Ы** itself is **еры** which grammatically is neuter gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the same is with the old name of the letter **Р** - **рцы**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16175" RevisionGUID="b4bef610-f40f-4ae6-b4b3-cad5d53ac72c" CreationDate="2018-04-07T17:15:08.407" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Another option is **альтернативный план**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the idea of &quot;switching to Plan B&quot; may be expressed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вводить в действие / задействовать альтернативный план // переходить к альтернативному&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плану&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less formally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;переключаться на альтернативный план &lt;sup&gt;(*technically possible, but is somewhat unusual*)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or highly informally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; включать / запускать альтернативный план" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40697" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16112" RevisionGUID="e2dcf919-b731-4847-ac71-f80289f3bbfe" CreationDate="2018-04-07T21:20:39.343" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/982729892671492096" />
  <row Id="40698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="9aebe8c9-f627-460c-8aec-0ce9d00c97d6" CreationDate="2018-04-08T01:31:45.363" UserId="6545" Text="I know about the use of dative case, or nominative case, as illustrated here: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6954/how-does-%d1%81%d0%bb%d0%b5%d0%b4%d1%83%d0%b5%d1%82-behave-towards-%d0%b4%d0%be%d0%bb%d0%b6%d0%b5%d0%bd-%d0%bd%d0%b0%d0%b4%d0%be-and-%d0%bd%d1%83%d0%b6%d0%bd%d0%be when talking about things 'one must/should/etc. do', and that is why I am confused about why this sentence;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хлеб н**а**до р**е**зать **о**стрым нож**о**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;shouldn't actually be;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хл**е**бу н**а**до р**е**зать **о**стрым нож**о**м.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't the bread **need** a sharp knife, like I need to drink water,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне н**а**до пить в**о**ду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="9aebe8c9-f627-460c-8aec-0ce9d00c97d6" CreationDate="2018-04-08T01:31:45.363" UserId="6545" Text="надо and the instrumental case (knife cutting bread; a tool)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="9aebe8c9-f627-460c-8aec-0ce9d00c97d6" CreationDate="2018-04-08T01:31:45.363" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16179" RevisionGUID="8282cf8b-8b08-403d-8eb6-5f97146a499a" CreationDate="2018-04-08T06:32:48.473" UserId="10446" Text="No, this occurs quite frequently, but is not the rule. Very often this is a sign of the genitive. For example: это коровы (plural); молоко коровы (&quot;milk of this cow&quot; or &quot;milk of a cow&quot; depending on the context). The previously mentioned example Москомприроды (abbreviation, &quot;московский комитет охраны природы&quot;:)) is the genitive, but in sentence &quot;природы этих явлений различны&quot; (colloquial, better say &quot;природа этих явлений различна&quot;) &quot;природы&quot; has a plural form. And the gender of the noun does not matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="591bd9b9-d747-4a6e-9f46-a2160a3c2811" CreationDate="2018-04-08T08:14:47.887" UserId="4714" Text="I'm having a really hard time understating the difference in sentences like—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я был не уверен VS. Я не был уверен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не жил в Канаде VS. Я жил не в Канаде. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference in sentences such as the above mentioned? Thanks)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="591bd9b9-d747-4a6e-9f46-a2160a3c2811" CreationDate="2018-04-08T08:14:47.887" UserId="4714" Text="Position of &quot;Не&quot; before negated word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="591bd9b9-d747-4a6e-9f46-a2160a3c2811" CreationDate="2018-04-08T08:14:47.887" UserId="4714" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16181" RevisionGUID="af3e1f59-5d8e-42d7-97e9-71e75395771c" CreationDate="2018-04-08T08:56:52.197" UserId="134" Text="&gt; _Я не жил в Канаде_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I never lived in Canada&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _Я жил не в Канаде_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;I lived not in Canada (but in the United States)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter implies some context. It is assumed that the narrator did live somewhere that could as well be Canada, but then they clarify that it wasn't Canada." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16182" RevisionGUID="a554dfc2-7bbd-4dc2-8ebc-ff9436415535" CreationDate="2018-04-08T09:18:00.263" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; Хлеб надо резать острым ножом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хлеб** in this sentence is an object of the verb резать and is in the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Надо** _can_ take a dative object (**To whom** is it needed?) but in this sentence it is omitted meaning &quot;everyone / anyone&quot; should cut bread with a sharp knife." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16183" RevisionGUID="6053665e-db12-48b2-93d6-5fb8517fed13" CreationDate="2018-04-08T10:10:42.867" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;отправиться **навстречу** приключениям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the meaning of the base word &quot;встреча&quot;, I'm assuming that &quot;навстречу&quot; is somewhat nuanced compared to when using &quot;в / на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **в** приключения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **на** приключения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't suppose &quot;к&quot; works here, does it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **к** приключениям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if &quot;приключение&quot; should always be in the plural when coupled with &quot;отправиться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40709" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16183" RevisionGUID="6053665e-db12-48b2-93d6-5fb8517fed13" CreationDate="2018-04-08T10:10:42.867" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;навстречу / в / на&quot; as a preposition following the verb &quot;отправиться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40710" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16183" RevisionGUID="6053665e-db12-48b2-93d6-5fb8517fed13" CreationDate="2018-04-08T10:10:42.867" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16183" RevisionGUID="569365d5-1175-4b70-9e88-75f803a803b3" CreationDate="2018-04-08T12:04:58.603" UserId="8672" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="&gt;отправиться **навстречу** приключениям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the meaning of the base word &quot;встреча&quot;, I'm assuming that &quot;навстречу&quot; is somewhat nuanced compared to when using &quot;в / на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **в** приключения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **на** приключения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't suppose &quot;к&quot; works here, does it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **к** приключениям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if &quot;приключение&quot; should always be in the plural when coupled with &quot;отправиться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note: another similar phrase comes to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **в путешествие**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16183" RevisionGUID="c7ddce68-16a5-4b8d-95ca-d43598003079" CreationDate="2018-04-08T12:10:53.777" UserId="8672" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="&gt;отправиться **навстречу** приключениям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the meaning of the base word &quot;встреча&quot;, I'm assuming that &quot;отправиться навстречу&quot; is somewhat nuanced compared to &quot;отправиться в / на&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **в** приключения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **на** приключения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't suppose &quot;к&quot; works here, does it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **к** приключениям&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if &quot;приключение&quot; should always be in the plural when coupled with &quot;отправиться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note: another similar phrase comes to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;отправиться **в путешествие**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="abc2bb77-6bbb-4c13-91a1-5473cb3bb541" CreationDate="2018-04-08T12:49:29.237" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;денек **выдался**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it literally means &quot;my/our little day stood out from others. It was special somehow&quot;, but its precise meaning eludes me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's been an **eventful** day. [in a positive sense]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or: It's been a **rough**  day. [with a negative connotation of struggling]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or: It's been a **long**  day. [feeling as if several days have passed in a single day]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note: Is it just as acceptable to say &quot;день выдался&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="abc2bb77-6bbb-4c13-91a1-5473cb3bb541" CreationDate="2018-04-08T12:49:29.237" UserId="8672" Text="What kind of day does &quot;денек выдался&quot; refer to, exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="abc2bb77-6bbb-4c13-91a1-5473cb3bb541" CreationDate="2018-04-08T12:49:29.237" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="6107489e-410f-4c69-aa85-6f926c003a83" CreationDate="2018-04-08T13:08:42.127" UserId="8672" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt; Ну и денек **выдался** в минувшую субботу! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming it literally means &quot;my/our little day stood out from others. It was special somehow&quot;, but its precise meaning eludes me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's been an **eventful** day. [in a positive sense]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or: It's been a **rough**  day. [with a negative connotation of struggling]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or: It's been a **long**  day. [feeling as if several days have passed in a single day]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note: Is it just as acceptable to say &quot;день выдался&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16185" RevisionGUID="2ff2ebb3-5dd8-463e-94ef-c76450241a0c" CreationDate="2018-04-08T13:19:00.223" UserId="7674" Text="It's either outright negative or bitter-sweet but in the latter case the phrase refers to the bitter part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's totally acceptable to not use the diminutive form of **день** however in this case the connotation is most likely invariably negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diminutive form is meant to show that either there was some positive aspect or that you're not too upset or angry about the day having been shitty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16185" RevisionGUID="8ee1cecb-9024-44e9-9703-1a1060045394" CreationDate="2018-04-08T13:24:14.000" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="It's either outright negative or bitter-sweet but in the latter case the phrase refers to the bitter part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diminutive form is meant to show that either there was some positive aspect or that you're not too upset or angry about the day having been shitty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's totally acceptable to not use the diminutive form of **день** however in this case the phrase most likely expresses negative attitude towards the experience." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="41b74ea4-ee57-42db-b250-66a2a57e4543" CreationDate="2018-04-08T14:03:25.200" UserId="7674" Text="With regard to the first example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Я был не уверен** `не уверен` is out to be written jointly **`неуверен`** and this construction is best construed as a complete statement, where `неуверен` completes the idea and ends the sentence. In it you describe your own state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** on the other hand requires continuation, an explanation of what you were unsure, which comes in the form of a subordinate sentence introduced with a conjunction **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, что смогу успеть к назначенному времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you describe your attitude towards a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can hear people say **Я был не уверен, что...** and although there may not be a strict rule against such use, in my opinion it's wrong stylistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the sake of learning it's always easier and safer to have and adhere to rules, so treating the above phrases in the manner just suggested i believe would be a safe bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's worth noting that in Russian unlike in modern English it would be incorrect to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, **когда** она придёт - I wasn't sure when she would come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian insufficiency of knowledge can't be expressed with the equivalent of the English **unsure/not sure** without sounding awkward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="b3c050a0-fb07-47ee-9f8d-196df75799a9" CreationDate="2018-04-08T14:08:52.180" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="With regard to the first example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Я был не уверен** `не уверен` is ought to be written jointly **`неуверен`** and this construction is best construed as a complete statement, where `неуверен` completes the idea and ends the sentence. In it you describe your own state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** on the other hand requires continuation, an explanation of what you were unsure, which comes in the form of a subordinate sentence introduced with a conjunction **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, что смогу успеть к назначенному времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you describe your attitude towards a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can hear people say **Я был не уверен, что...** and although there may not be a strict rule against such use, in my opinion it's wrong stylistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the sake of learning it's always easier and safer to have and adhere to rules, so treating the above phrases in the manner just suggested i believe would be a safe bet.&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that in Russian unlike in modern English it would be incorrect to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, **когда** она придёт - I wasn't sure when she would come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian insufficiency of knowledge can't be expressed with the equivalent of the English **unsure/not sure** without sounding awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead this idea is best conveyed with such statements like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я точно не знал, когда она придёт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знал, когда именно она придёт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="0f1f9c5c-c92f-4e49-9a35-49008a1d5dcc" CreationDate="2018-04-08T15:48:56.123" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="With regard to the first example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Я был не уверен** `не уверен` is ought to be written jointly **`неуверен`** and this construction is best construed as a complete statement, where `неуверен` completes the idea and ends the sentence. In it you describe your own state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** on the other hand requires continuation, an explanation of what you were unsure, which comes in the form of a subordinate sentence introduced with a conjunction **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, что смогу успеть к назначенному времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you describe your attitude towards a situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can hear people say **Я был не уверен, что...** and although there may not be a strict rule against such use, in my opinion it's wrong stylistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the sake of learning it's always easier and safer to have and adhere to rules, if only provisional, so treating the above phrases in the manner just suggested i believe would be a safe bet.&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;Worth noting that in Russian unlike in modern English it would be incorrect to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, **когда** она придёт - I wasn't sure when she would come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian insufficiency of knowledge can't be expressed with the equivalent of the English **unsure/not sure** without sounding awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead this idea is best conveyed with statements such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я точно не знал, когда она придёт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знал, когда именно она придёт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16188" RevisionGUID="9c4ca2aa-8ba1-42f3-906d-efff376f2d95" CreationDate="2018-04-08T17:19:07.003" UserId="10446" Text="&quot;Отправиться навстречу&quot; is a absolutely correct for &quot;приключениям&quot;, but it is a phraseologysm. Отправиться навстречу опасности, отправиться навстречу судьбе, отправиться навстречу геморрою, отправиться навстречу мечтаниям.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="9e0b8333-945b-4841-b227-59e3a17ec02d" CreationDate="2018-04-08T21:36:13.660" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="With regard to the first example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Я был не уверен** `не уверен` is ought to be written jointly **`неуверен`** and this construction is best construed as a complete statement, where `неуверен` completes the idea and ends the sentence. In it you describe your own state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** on the other hand requires continuation, an explanation of what you were unsure of, which comes in the form of a subordinate sentence introduced with a conjunction **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, что смогу успеть к назначенному времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can hear people say **Я был не уверен, что...** and although there may not be a strict rule against such use, in my opinion it's wrong stylistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the sake of learning it's always easier and safer to have and adhere to rules, if only provisional, so treating the above phrases in the manner just suggested i believe would be a safe bet.&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;Worth noting that in Russian unlike in modern English it would be incorrect to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, **когда** она придёт - I wasn't sure when she would come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian insufficiency of knowledge can't be expressed with the equivalent of the English **unsure/not sure** without sounding awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead this idea is best conveyed with statements such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я точно не знал, когда она придёт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знал, когда именно она придёт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="1c4861b6-d3c9-4825-b3a3-51ddd6c58b65" CreationDate="2018-04-08T21:49:38.673" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="With regard to the first example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Я был не уверен** `не уверен` is ought to be written jointly **`неуверен`** and this construction is best construed as a complete statement, where `неуверен` completes the idea and ends the sentence. In it you describe your own state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** on the other hand requires continuation, an explanation of what you were unsure of, which comes in the form of a subordinate sentence introduced with a conjunction **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, что смогу успеть к назначенному времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can hear people say **Я был не уверен, что...** and although there may not be a strict rule against such use, in my opinion it's wrong stylistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** can also be a sentence in its own right if it follows a description of deliberation or hesitation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Смог бы я успеть к назначенному времени? Я не был уверен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or a statement to which it is a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, что погасит долг. Я не был уверен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it's a more bookish style unusual in everyday speech&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;Worth noting that in Russian unlike in modern English it would be incorrect to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, **когда** она придёт - I wasn't sure when she would come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian insufficiency of knowledge can't be expressed with the equivalent of the English **unsure/not sure** without sounding awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead this idea is best conveyed with statements such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я точно не знал, когда она придёт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знал, когда именно она придёт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40727" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16168" RevisionGUID="f5f1d9d7-cc15-458c-9933-60b5283a834a" CreationDate="2018-04-09T00:24:31.820" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983138553986199552" />
  <row Id="40728" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16161" RevisionGUID="2c959e3e-2d52-4dec-9475-19f1fba9e2be" CreationDate="2018-04-09T03:24:31.903" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983183852607823872" />
  <row Id="40729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16108" RevisionGUID="87e0c8b0-48b1-41b5-b0bb-0d9f04b92517" CreationDate="2018-04-09T09:24:50.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983274526497759232" />
  <row Id="40730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16189" RevisionGUID="70922fba-3817-41c0-8993-cbe66b0074b8" CreationDate="2018-04-09T11:22:16.463" UserId="10247" Text="If it's денёк, it's very likely something negative is implied (but it can also be something funny, unusual). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: The happiest day in my life - Самый счастливый день в моей жизни (денёк is not used here, cos it's an important day). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't say it's LONG (length of the day is irrelevant here, it just means the day is unusual for some reason)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure there's a source which proscribes the use of Ну и ДЕНЬ выдался в минувшую субботу! - it sounds OK, but not so emphatic, i.e. день could be just as well used in a neutral situation. Ну и денёк is very emphatic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16190" RevisionGUID="3a17892b-6359-480b-9036-c53a9b271e62" CreationDate="2018-04-09T16:47:54.507" UserId="9256" Text="A **rough day** is the closest equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Денек выдался&quot; must be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stressful&#xD;&#xA; - Somewhat unexpected (if you went to the dentist to have a root canal,&#xD;&#xA;   that doesn't count, but if you went to the dentist for a check up and&#xD;&#xA;   ended up having a root canal, that's the thing)&#xD;&#xA; - Not tragically bad. Either day's efforts may have somehow improved the outcome, or the day was a string of essentially small mishaps (if your flight got cancelled and you just went home, that doesn't count, but if you spent a day at the airport, finally getting on another flight, that's the thing)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16191" RevisionGUID="02187e99-27f3-493c-8a7c-95e1484d8dce" CreationDate="2018-04-09T17:03:01.853" UserId="9256" Text="`&quot;Отправиться навстречу приключениям&quot;` is a proper phrase for embarking on an adventure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Отправиться в приключения&quot;` is not proper. &quot;Пуститься в приключения&quot; can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Отправиться на приключения&quot;` is proper, but nuanced differently from &quot;... навстречу ...&quot;. &quot;... навстречу ...&quot; implies that the adventures would be unexpected, with overall positive sense. &quot;... на ...&quot; implies that adventures would be of a well-known sort, with overall negative sense, for example, a nightlong drinking trip through seedy bars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Отправиться к приключениям&quot;` is hardly proper as it is. &quot;Отправиться к **новым** приключениям&quot; would be better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="6fe9aaf9-6c51-4834-9913-82d690c5f469" CreationDate="2018-04-09T18:44:40.097" UserId="10451" Text="The first sentence of Anna Karenina follows: &quot;Все счастливые семьи похожи друг на друга, каждая несчастливая семья несчастлива по-своему&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a better translation for &quot;несчастлива&quot;?  &quot;Unhappy&quot; or &quot;miserable&quot;? Or maybe another word? Commonly used &quot;unhappy&quot; in English seems too weak based on my knowledge of Polish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="6fe9aaf9-6c51-4834-9913-82d690c5f469" CreationDate="2018-04-09T18:44:40.097" UserId="10451" Text="best translation for несчастливая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="6fe9aaf9-6c51-4834-9913-82d690c5f469" CreationDate="2018-04-09T18:44:40.097" UserId="10451" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16193" RevisionGUID="cccda28a-12e1-4454-ab89-6fcf7854a804" CreationDate="2018-04-09T18:57:01.187" UserId="9256" Text="`&quot;Unhappy&quot;` seems to be the best translation for `&quot;несчастливая&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Miserable&quot;` would be a good fit for `&quot;несчастная&quot;`, but that's a stronger word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16194" RevisionGUID="dc89ca90-39b0-4354-ab1b-3c54f66521a7" CreationDate="2018-04-09T19:59:44.323" UserId="7674" Text="Authors of three translations have opted for **unhappy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; own way,” wrote Garnett.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its&#xD;&#xA;&gt; own way,” wrote Pevear and Volokhonsky.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here, meanwhile, is Schwartz: “All happy families resemble one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; another; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/books/review/new-translations-of-tolstoys-anna-karenina.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40738" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="01744b9d-9cc6-4be4-935f-f7be1023990b" CreationDate="2018-04-09T20:31:47.163" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40739" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="4830f709-1a5a-4601-b4f5-f86e3b8944bc" CreationDate="2018-04-09T20:31:57.617" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16184" RevisionGUID="9fcf4b63-0167-4902-b46a-542ae35d6804" CreationDate="2018-04-10T03:28:17.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983547187153068032" />
  <row Id="40741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16186" RevisionGUID="65ca66b7-c4b9-4ad1-8355-12a541eaac05" CreationDate="2018-04-10T06:52:30.927" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="With regard to the first example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Я был не уверен** `не уверен` in my opinion is ought to be written jointly **`неуверен`** and this construction is best construed as a complete statement, where `неуверен` completes the idea and ends the sentence. In it you describe your own state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** on the other hand requires continuation, an explanation of what you were unsure of, which comes in the form of a subordinate sentence introduced with a conjunction **что**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, что смогу успеть к назначенному времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can hear people say **Я был не уверен, что...** and although there may not be a strict rule against such use, in my opinion it's wrong stylistically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я не был уверен** can also be a sentence in its own right if it follows a description of deliberation or hesitation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Смог бы я успеть к назначенному времени? Я не был уверен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or a statement to which it is a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, что погасит долг. Я не был уверен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it's a more bookish style unusual in everyday speech&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;Worth noting that in Russian unlike in modern English it would be incorrect to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не был уверен, **когда** она придёт - I wasn't sure when she would come&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian insufficiency of knowledge can't be expressed with the equivalent of the English **unsure/not sure** without sounding awkward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead this idea is best conveyed with statements such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я точно не знал, когда она придёт&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знал, когда именно она придёт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40742" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16072" RevisionGUID="4c69fc56-0948-4eda-af6d-2bd8fff69613" CreationDate="2018-04-10T12:28:41.177" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983683181521010688" />
  <row Id="40743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16175" RevisionGUID="24f69934-8fb4-47b5-a62f-46fee74e8050" CreationDate="2018-04-10T14:12:18.817" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="Оther options are **альтернативный план**, **резервный план**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the idea of &quot;switching to Plan B&quot; may be expressed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вводить в действие / задействовать ... план // переходить к ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плану&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;less formally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;переключаться на ... план &lt;sup&gt;(*technically possible, but is somewhat unusual*)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or highly informally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; включать / запускать ... план" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16195" RevisionGUID="70458659-9ec2-4077-bae6-9cfd02189b59" CreationDate="2018-04-10T17:17:46.287" UserId="4903" Text="A common phrase in Russian is **&quot;запасной вариант&quot;**. Here is [a chart comparing frequency of usage *&quot;запасной вариант&quot;* vs *&quot;запасной план&quot;*.](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/ngram.xml?env=alpha&amp;mode=main&amp;t1=%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%C2%A0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&amp;t2=%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%C2%A0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82&amp;start=1800&amp;end=2010&amp;smoothing=3&amp;query=%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%C2%A0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%2C%C2%A0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%C2%A0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Был пущен в ход запасной вариант. / *Plan B was executed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Пошёл в ход запасной вариант. / *Plan B was executed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * У него всегда есть запасной вариант. / *He always has an alternative plan.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Она не рассматривала запасных вариантов. / *She did not consider alternative plans.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16180" RevisionGUID="f3b87d64-82ae-4490-9fbb-06aa44971e3a" CreationDate="2018-04-10T21:30:52.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983819627187843074" />
  <row Id="40746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16196" RevisionGUID="b7ec31b2-1409-43a4-90fc-3268daf0c4aa" CreationDate="2018-04-11T06:03:31.950" UserId="8359" Text="According to Serhii Plokhy's _Lost Kingdom_, at a time of linguistic-nationalist tension, Mikhail Lomonosov prescriptively defined three styles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the high style, to be used for the composition of epics, odes, and poems, was supposed to employ the vocabulary common to Church Slavonic and literary Russian; the intermediate style, to be used in dramatic works, was to rely on the vernacular but avoid colloquialisms; and the third, lower style, which admitted the language of townsfolk and peasants, was reserved for comedy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The man is so famous that I can only imagine his plan had some influence. But to what degree did authors of the late 1700s follow these recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16196" RevisionGUID="b7ec31b2-1409-43a4-90fc-3268daf0c4aa" CreationDate="2018-04-11T06:03:31.950" UserId="8359" Text="Lomonosov's three literary styles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16196" RevisionGUID="b7ec31b2-1409-43a4-90fc-3268daf0c4aa" CreationDate="2018-04-11T06:03:31.950" UserId="8359" Text="|история-языка|лексикон|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16183" RevisionGUID="8955339d-0698-4935-88f3-24d0dc0019d2" CreationDate="2018-04-11T06:30:52.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/983955524193542145" />
  <row Id="40750" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16196" RevisionGUID="dd1029f8-e25e-4f81-9407-d7772947a7e2" CreationDate="2018-04-11T08:07:01.173" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16178" RevisionGUID="a713af1c-88a3-490a-bef1-f71041563132" CreationDate="2018-04-11T09:31:03.143" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/984000866205290496" />
  <row Id="40752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="b814dfc3-4f3f-441b-a2ed-66c0f5329525" CreationDate="2018-04-11T13:04:57.437" UserId="10458" Text="I would like to find a translation of the word &quot;reference&quot; into Russian in the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Please provide the names and contact information for three references&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here reference is a person that can provide a reference letter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="b814dfc3-4f3f-441b-a2ed-66c0f5329525" CreationDate="2018-04-11T13:04:57.437" UserId="10458" Text="How to say reference in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="b814dfc3-4f3f-441b-a2ed-66c0f5329525" CreationDate="2018-04-11T13:04:57.437" UserId="10458" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="97e4d28e-4b6c-4440-8437-6d003b9cef0b" CreationDate="2018-04-11T13:26:34.973" UserId="7674" Text="More context would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say **рекомендатель**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=reference) we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лицо, дающее рекомендацию   &#xD;&#xA;лицо, способное дать рекомендацию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which are too unwieldy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16199" RevisionGUID="83e573ef-4d7a-4f78-9029-57984996aea1" CreationDate="2018-04-11T13:43:20.843" UserId="1097" Text="I would translate as:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пожалуйста предоставьте три рекомендации(положительных отзыва) с именами и контактной информацией(контактными данными)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40757" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="5fbddeb8-fefd-42df-8d78-17cbae5a22c2" CreationDate="2018-04-11T15:55:00.823" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1688,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mustaccio&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4903,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16200" RevisionGUID="e6b1ed7e-6bc7-4c33-87e4-6d6334d7639e" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:12:18.257" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Со **всей этой историей** с допингами, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Со **всеми этими историями** с допингами, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is more common in Russian to use a singular construction with this &quot;история&quot; expression. If so, what is the rationale for using the singular? In French, you express the same idea in the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{plural}: Avec **toutes ces histoires** de dopage, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{not singular}: Avec **toute cette histoire** de dopage, ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16200" RevisionGUID="e6b1ed7e-6bc7-4c33-87e4-6d6334d7639e" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:12:18.257" UserId="8672" Text="{singular} &quot;Со всей этой историей с ...&quot; vs. {plural} &quot;Со всеми этими историями с ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16200" RevisionGUID="e6b1ed7e-6bc7-4c33-87e4-6d6334d7639e" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:12:18.257" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="82d2d5f0-8ab0-4115-a4ef-8fdf91c5f719" CreationDate="2018-04-11T21:40:26.577" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я схожу вниз по лестнице/ по трапу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я спускаюсь вниз по лестнице/ по трапу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any subtle differences in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="82d2d5f0-8ab0-4115-a4ef-8fdf91c5f719" CreationDate="2018-04-11T21:40:26.577" UserId="170" Text="The difference between 'схожу' and 'спускаюсь'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="82d2d5f0-8ab0-4115-a4ef-8fdf91c5f719" CreationDate="2018-04-11T21:40:26.577" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16202" RevisionGUID="7b32a26d-2d1e-43db-aef5-55c3c7ea7de7" CreationDate="2018-04-11T21:53:23.570" UserId="7674" Text="Not so much in meaning as in register with **схожу** being vernacular and thus of lower register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically they in principle could differ because **схожу** means **walk down** while **спускаюсь** means **descend** which can be performed by means other than walking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But practically in everyday use more often than not **спускаюсь** implies descend by means of walking, because this is the most common way of descending physically. And certainly when it's a descent down the stairs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="bfe48303-b164-46c9-8561-6ac9e06d7e43" CreationDate="2018-04-11T23:03:01.007" UserId="10458" Comment="added 617 characters in body" Text="I would like to find a translation of the word &quot;reference&quot; into Russian in the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Please provide the names and contact information for three references&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here reference is a person that can provide a reference letter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to give a context for this question. I am Russian living in UK for last 12 years working in academia. Clearly this phrase is more than familiar for me, since we are constantly asked to provide references in UK, US, etc. Nowadays there are certain institutions in Russia that are trying to copycat  western practices. In particular one needs to translate these type of phrases into Russian. I genuinely think that the meaning of the word &quot;reference&quot; as a human being is not yet worked out in Russian language, or maybe it is worked out but I am not aware of it. This was my reason to ask the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, been native Russian speaker, I never encountered the word &quot;рекомендатель&quot; and I am not sure if it usage is common in Russian academia.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16203" RevisionGUID="7fdbb135-c104-466b-82aa-19b3cbfff29d" CreationDate="2018-04-12T03:26:02.483" UserId="170" Text="As far as I know, Russian people in the city of Vologda speak with an accent, in which the unstressed Russian 'о' in some words sounds like a stressed one. I wonder if it's also true for the name of their city. Is the way they pronounce the name of their city - 'Вологда' - different from how all the rest of Russians pronounce it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16203" RevisionGUID="7fdbb135-c104-466b-82aa-19b3cbfff29d" CreationDate="2018-04-12T03:26:02.483" UserId="170" Text="How do residents of Vologda pronounce the name of heir city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16203" RevisionGUID="7fdbb135-c104-466b-82aa-19b3cbfff29d" CreationDate="2018-04-12T03:26:02.483" UserId="170" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40769" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16203" RevisionGUID="fd4e73df-bf49-40db-859d-834714faae8c" CreationDate="2018-04-12T03:37:21.317" UserId="170" Comment="edited title" Text="How do residents of Vologda pronounce the name of their city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16202" RevisionGUID="05436b54-2955-467c-9525-2807b23441d3" CreationDate="2018-04-12T07:05:05.307" UserId="7674" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="Not so much in meaning as in register with **схожу** being vernacular and thus of lower register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically they in principle could differ because **схожу** means **walk down** while **спускаюсь** means **descend** which can be performed by means other than walking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But practically in everyday use more often than not **спускаюсь** implies descend by means of walking, because this is the most common way of descending physically. And certainly when it's a descent down the stairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's difference in my view between shades of meaning of these words in different tenses in the context of descending down the stairs. The perfective aspect of **сходить** in the past and future tenses (**сошёл, сойду**) tends to emphasize the manner of descending, that is by walking, therefore if there's no need to stress this detail **спустился** and **спущусь** would sound more appropriate as they're neutral in this respect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16204" RevisionGUID="6584ac28-8318-4314-b82f-b95520c10823" CreationDate="2018-04-12T07:28:00.840" UserId="7674" Text="I personally haven't heard how they pronounce it but since a feature of [Vologda group of dialects](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вологодская_группа_говоров#Севернорусские_диалектные_черты) is [full оканье (as apposed to partial оканье)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Оканье#Полное_и_неполное_оканье) they're expected to pronounce it as **ВолОгда** (as opposed to standard **Волагда**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16205" RevisionGUID="0c22358f-972f-41c6-a911-b2cc01e286f7" CreationDate="2018-04-12T09:01:39.937" UserId="4560" Text="[This video][1] suggests that aside from the full Os, &quot;classic&quot; Vologda accent also realises hard `л` as a retroflex `[ɭ]` as opposed to standard Russian &quot;dark&quot; `[ɫ]`. So ['voɭogdə], vs. standard ['voɫəgdə].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, not a lot of people generally speak with Northern Russian accents these days, and that video was specifically heritage-themed. Here's a [vox pop on Vologda streets][2] and everybody speaks Central Russian — akanye, `[ɫ]` and all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHJpdQl-v-U&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/Aa6mFQiniYI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40773" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16172" RevisionGUID="dea54789-6bc0-48cd-bad1-eae32febd6ca" CreationDate="2018-04-12T09:32:58.833" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/984363739691536384" />
  <row Id="40774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16074" RevisionGUID="8df41ee6-4f44-48d7-afeb-f8f5bd580fbf" CreationDate="2018-04-12T12:33:10.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/984409086795091968" />
  <row Id="40775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16206" RevisionGUID="c98fc605-3016-4a3b-8a4c-807f262cd98b" CreationDate="2018-04-12T19:38:49.840" UserId="3859" Text="There is a subtle difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я был не уверен VS. Я не был уверен&#xD;&#xA;    I was uncertain vs I was not certain. &#xD;&#xA;    I was vs I was not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я не жил в Канаде VS. Я жил не в Канаде.&#xD;&#xA;    I hadn't lived in Canada VS I lived outside of Canada.&#xD;&#xA;    Never lived in Canada vs Lived somewhere else at the time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16207" RevisionGUID="887adba0-75d4-4e77-b0d2-2c9f8866da9b" CreationDate="2018-04-12T21:04:44.903" UserId="9256" Text="`&quot;Кино&quot;` and `&quot;Фильм&quot;` are **full synonyms** in the meaning of &quot;**Live action feature film**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different meanings, like &quot;Cinema theater&quot; or &quot;Film reel&quot; can be applicable only to one, but not the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, when the movie is not &quot;Live action feature length&quot;, there is more nuanced gray area, where &quot;фильм&quot; is usually preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Short** features usually called &quot;Фильм&quot; rather than &quot;Кино&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **Animated** movies more often called &quot;Фильм&quot;, however, this must be due to the prevalence of specialized word &quot;Мультфильм&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **Documentaries** are more often called &quot;Фильм&quot; (&quot;Документальный фильм&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - **Series** are almost exclusively called &quot;Фильм&quot; (&quot;Многосерийный фильм&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40777" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16203" RevisionGUID="36ee0595-abad-4316-a12e-141af7b685a1" CreationDate="2018-04-13T00:36:09.083" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/984591029889392640" />
  <row Id="40779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="b013a6de-f528-48ff-8aec-5635ecf335b6" CreationDate="2018-04-13T04:15:42.347" UserId="4238" Comment="fixed broken link" Text="What is the meaning of the expression &quot;уж уволь,&quot; as found in the lyrics [of this Kino song, &quot;Malysh&quot;][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it something like &quot;G-d help me already&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How commonly is it used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh18AOH6maY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13994" RevisionGUID="b013a6de-f528-48ff-8aec-5635ecf335b6" CreationDate="2018-04-13T04:15:42.347" UserId="4238" Comment="fixed broken link" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="9d9fd65f-c9bd-4bfe-a38a-46b09933262a" CreationDate="2018-04-13T11:32:06.647" UserId="10267" Comment="Set off blockquote, fixed some minor formatting/punctuation" Text="The first sentence of *Anna Karenina* follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все счастливые семьи похожи друг на друга, каждая несчастливая семья несчастлива по-своему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a better translation for &quot;несчастлива&quot;?  &quot;Unhappy&quot; or &quot;miserable&quot;? Or maybe another word? The commonly used &quot;unhappy&quot; in English seems too weak, based on my knowledge of Polish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40782" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="9d9fd65f-c9bd-4bfe-a38a-46b09933262a" CreationDate="2018-04-13T11:32:06.647" Comment="Proposed by 10267 approved by 8895, 5605 edit id of 967" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="802436f9-ac04-4250-87da-873321c0a86e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:13:39.720" UserId="4451" Text="I always thought that &quot;Jew&quot; was &quot;eврей&quot;, but I have also heard the usage of &quot;иудей&quot;. What is the difference? They appear to be the same in the dictionaries that I have checked. Are they completely the same, or do they have slightly different meanings/connotations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="802436f9-ac04-4250-87da-873321c0a86e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:13:39.720" UserId="4451" Text="What is the difference between eврей and иудей?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="802436f9-ac04-4250-87da-873321c0a86e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:13:39.720" UserId="4451" Text="|значения|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16210" RevisionGUID="6e2a5a47-8e4d-40bf-bb63-a840dc6e0eb6" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:17:46.123" UserId="1836" Text="It's quite simple: &quot;еврей&quot; is nationality or ethnicity (not sure which fits better, but hope you get the point) and &quot;иудей&quot; is religion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16211" RevisionGUID="5f44c12a-3c7b-40fe-bb33-41d93a1bb364" CreationDate="2018-04-13T12:29:36.920" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; Are &quot;eврей&quot; &amp; &quot;иудей&quot; completely the same, or do they have slightly different meanings/connotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not the same. &#xD;&#xA;They are from different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Иудей&quot; stands for &quot;Judaist&quot; - http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Judaist &#xD;&#xA;That is, **religion**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you look for &quot;almost the same with different connotation&quot; words, denoting **ethnicity**, then those would be the pair of &quot;Jew&quot;=&quot;жид&quot; and &quot;Hebrew&quot;=&quot;еврей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian &quot;жид&quot; is considered a vulgar slur, while in 19th century Russian and in modern Polish &quot;жид&quot; is a neutral &quot;technical&quot; term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In **political** category there is yet another word &quot;Israeli&quot;=&quot;израильтянин&quot; - a citizen of the Jewish state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in essential language those three categories sometimes get blurred - either by mistake or intentionally - and those end being used as substitutions for one another. The vocabularies you consulted could represent those blurry lines by including tangent meaning into the articles. However in the strict meaning those words are talking about historically related but different attributes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="b93911fb-5c57-4beb-a83f-f15db011f1b8" CreationDate="2018-04-13T15:24:34.810" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;eврей&quot; and &quot;иудей&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40790" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="b93911fb-5c57-4beb-a83f-f15db011f1b8" CreationDate="2018-04-13T15:24:34.810" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|выбор-слова|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="3e7b6f42-e283-41e1-a947-49d71a62a59e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T20:27:41.243" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Ну и** денек выдался в минувшую субботу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume these two words are not to be interpreted literally as &quot;Well and&quot;. When do you use &quot;Ну и&quot; like this at the start of conversation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="3e7b6f42-e283-41e1-a947-49d71a62a59e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T20:27:41.243" UserId="8672" Text="What is the function of &quot;Ну и&quot; at the start of conversation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="3e7b6f42-e283-41e1-a947-49d71a62a59e" CreationDate="2018-04-13T20:27:41.243" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16213" RevisionGUID="331c1019-a925-4f67-a337-b6f2b0ad1cc5" CreationDate="2018-04-13T20:40:51.353" UserId="3680" Text="This could be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What a ... !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What a [wonderful / terrible / ...] day was on saturday!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16214" RevisionGUID="47cca0f8-a3f3-4efd-bc76-633bc4b78977" CreationDate="2018-04-13T21:14:43.753" UserId="7674" Text="&lt;sup&gt;*By Alone-zee's request i trasfer here my comments made in response to identical sub-question [in another thread](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/16185/7674)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ну и** is an emphatic compound interjection in exclamations expressing negative emotions or attitude, it functions as the English **what a...; such a...; so...** but only in a negative context, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну и** погодка сегодня! - **What a** terrible weather we have today! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну и** дурак **же** ты!/**Ну** ты **и** дурак! - You're **such a** fool! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну** ты **и** загнул!/**Ну** **и** загнул **же** ты! - You're **so** exaggerating! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ну и** видок у тебя,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шарапов!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogIxmP5hwA4) - You have **such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a** terrible look, Sharapov!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`- Could it be that this &quot;и&quot; is a particle for emphasis that often precedes a verb?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ну и** goes not only with verbs and rather to a lesser extent with verbs, and it doesn't follow some previous statement for confirmation or reinforcement, it is perfectly autonomous and self-contained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check these examples of usage with a verb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`1.`** **Ну** ты **и** пишешь! &lt;sup&gt;*(a comment about quality of handwriting)*&lt;/sup&gt; - You have **such an** awful handwriting! &lt;sup&gt;*(characters are either too small, illegible, ugly, don't meet some arbitrary requirements or something else etc)*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VERSUS &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in a dialogue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2.`**   &#xD;&#xA;-Зачем я это пишу? - Why am i even writing this?  &#xD;&#xA;-Тебе сказали писать?  - Have you been told to write this?  &#xD;&#xA;-Да. - Yes.  &#xD;&#xA;-Ну / Вот / Ну вот ты и пишешь. - So that's why you're writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the second example the phrase doesn't end with exclamation mark, it would be inappropriate here because it's not an exclamation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40798" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="deb973b0-5b83-45fb-8267-ec8ee80d8ac9" CreationDate="2018-04-13T21:22:31.000" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|междометие|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16214" RevisionGUID="6e038f7e-6143-451e-a752-2e94edfed506" CreationDate="2018-04-14T10:45:18.857" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&lt;sup&gt;*By Alone-zee's request i trasfer here my comments made in response to identical sub-question [in another thread](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/16185/7674)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ну и** is an emphatic compound interjection in exclamations expressing negative emotions or attitude, it functions as the English **what a...; such a...; so...** but only in a negative context, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ну и*** погодка сегодня! - ***What a*** terrible weather we have today! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ну и*** дурак ***же*** ты!/***Ну*** ты ***и*** дурак! - You're ***such a*** fool! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***Ну*** ты ***и*** загнул!/***Ну*** ***и*** загнул ***же*** ты! - You're ***so*** exaggerating! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [***Ну и*** видок у тебя,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шарапов!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogIxmP5hwA4) - You have ***such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a*** terrible look, Sharapov!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`- Could it be that this &quot;и&quot; is a particle for emphasis that often precedes a verb?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt that. **ну и** goes not only with verbs and rather to a lesser extent with verbs, and it doesn't follow some previous statement for confirmation or reinforcement, it is perfectly autonomous and self-contained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check these examples of usage with a verb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`1.`** ***Ну*** ты ***и*** пишешь! &lt;sup&gt;*(a comment about quality of handwriting)*&lt;/sup&gt; - You have ***such an*** awful handwriting! &lt;sup&gt;*(characters are either too small, illegible, ugly, don't meet some arbitrary requirements or something else etc)*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VERSUS &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in a dialogue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`2.`**   &#xD;&#xA;-Зачем я это пишу? - Why am i even writing this?  &#xD;&#xA;-Тебе сказали писать?  - Have you been told to write this?  &#xD;&#xA;-Да. - Yes.  &#xD;&#xA;-Ну / Вот / Ну вот ты ***и*** пишешь. - So that's why you're writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in the second example the phrase doesn't end with exclamation mark, it would be inappropriate here because it's not an exclamation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="6339e2a9-e091-4b50-96ec-de20f665962a" CreationDate="2018-04-14T14:13:34.437" UserId="9525" Text="In Mussorgsky's operas Boris Godunov and Khovanshchina it strikes me how often &quot;да&quot; (usually meaning &quot;yes&quot;) is used as a substitute for &quot;и&quot; (&quot;and&quot;). Is that how they normally spoke in the late 19th century, or is it deliberate use of archaic/poetic language in the librettos? Would it sound odd in contemporary Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Related](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12606/what-is-the-word-%d0%b4%d0%b0)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="6339e2a9-e091-4b50-96ec-de20f665962a" CreationDate="2018-04-14T14:13:34.437" UserId="9525" Text="Use of &quot;да&quot; instead of &quot;и&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="6339e2a9-e091-4b50-96ec-de20f665962a" CreationDate="2018-04-14T14:13:34.437" UserId="9525" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="68e1c613-a63e-437f-b00b-2362dc06e235" CreationDate="2018-04-14T14:51:37.413" UserId="7674" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature. To me it's obviously a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there're a number of fossilized collocations where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь да гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-да-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;ты да я, да мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="bfc1b2a4-924d-4df0-a73b-61f0fadbe4bc" CreationDate="2018-04-14T14:57:18.943" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there're a number of fossilized collocations where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь да гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-да-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;ты да я, да мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="0a756ad8-111b-4ab0-b491-27d7105454cf" CreationDate="2018-04-14T15:03:40.987" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there're a number of fossilized collocations where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь да гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-да-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;ты да я, да мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16217" RevisionGUID="53f4f2a4-89c1-45c3-8d44-cdf389f7f581" CreationDate="2018-04-14T15:05:33.113" UserId="10177" Text="You can still hear it in use quite often, but depending on context it sounds poetic, informal or forced archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not easy to explain, but it can also be used to add a certain kind of emphasis. If you said,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они ели омаров и красную икру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That just sounds like a neutral statement. But if you said,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Они ели омаров да красную икру.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives it a kind of an emphasis on the type of the things listed, in this case imparting the idea that they were eating expensive/decadent things in general, rather than just those two specific dishes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40807" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="8ce596f4-d002-4f91-ad82-767d962fbdce" CreationDate="2018-04-14T15:27:37.123" UserId="9525" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="051059ab-ca7e-4147-9590-38558003862a" CreationDate="2018-04-14T15:41:57.807" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there's a number of fossilized collocations where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь да гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-да-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;ты да я, да мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="cef3d078-27ef-4e13-9c95-41e0f5ef85d3" CreationDate="2018-04-14T15:53:37.157" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Касаткин (2005) отмечает частотность союза `да` в современном Северном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречии в соединительной и противительной функции, что подтверждается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и на наших данных.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Йокояма О. Б. «Письма русских крестьян. Тексты и контексты»*](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=kSyYCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA357&amp;lpg=PA357&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7+%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xsfjl0EX6r&amp;sig=MSg8ZUvGGV8cGz0_14buzauMXv8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiK06e6jbraAhUSJ1AKHWxzCYA4ChDoAQg6MAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%20%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;f=false) *(a collection of letters by peasants of uyezd Serapulsky from the late 19th cent.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there's a number of fossilized collocations where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь да гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-да-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;ты да я, да мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="5c1498a6-4145-47a2-b88b-8af709bd5ce2" CreationDate="2018-04-14T17:09:57.177" UserId="7674" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Касаткин (2005) отмечает частотность союза `да` в современном [Северном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречии](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Северорусское_наречие) в соединительной и противительной функции, что подтверждается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и на наших данных.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Йокояма О. Б. «Письма русских крестьян. Тексты и контексты»*](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=kSyYCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA357&amp;lpg=PA357&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7+%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xsfjl0EX6r&amp;sig=MSg8ZUvGGV8cGz0_14buzauMXv8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiK06e6jbraAhUSJ1AKHWxzCYA4ChDoAQg6MAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%20%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;f=false) *(a collection of letters by peasants of uyezd Serapulsky from the late 19th cent.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there's a number of fossilized collocations where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь ***да*** гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты ***да*** я, **да** мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынь ***да*** положь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; из огня ***да*** в полымя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-***да***-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="162ea999-0d12-46a4-a3c9-ea0c6f37b3ea" CreationDate="2018-04-14T17:17:36.163" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Касаткин (2005) отмечает частотность союза `да` в современном [Северном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречии](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Северорусское_наречие) в соединительной и противительной функции, что подтверждается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и на наших данных.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Йокояма О. Б. «Письма русских крестьян. Тексты и контексты»*](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=kSyYCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA357&amp;lpg=PA357&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7+%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xsfjl0EX6r&amp;sig=MSg8ZUvGGV8cGz0_14buzauMXv8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiK06e6jbraAhUSJ1AKHWxzCYA4ChDoAQg6MAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%20%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;f=false) *(a collection of letters by peasants of uyezd Serapulsky from the late 19th cent.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there's a number of fossilized phrases where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь ***да*** гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты ***да*** я, **да** мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынь ***да*** положь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; из огня ***да*** в полымя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-***да***-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="4abc8601-0306-42b1-bac1-bdd2156a77ef" CreationDate="2018-04-14T18:04:15.977" UserId="7674" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Касаткин (2005) отмечает частотность союза `да` в современном [Северном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречии](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Северорусское_наречие) в соединительной и противительной функции, что подтверждается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и на наших данных.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Йокояма О. Б. «Письма русских крестьян. Тексты и контексты»*](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=kSyYCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA357&amp;lpg=PA357&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7+%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xsfjl0EX6r&amp;sig=MSg8ZUvGGV8cGz0_14buzauMXv8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiK06e6jbraAhUSJ1AKHWxzCYA4ChDoAQg6MAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%20%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;f=false) *(a collection of letters by peasants of uyezd Serapulsky from the late 19th cent.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Сочинительные союзы `и` и `а` чаще встречаются в южных говорах, чем в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; северных, где очень употребительным в качестве соединительного и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; противительного является союз `да`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Л. Л. Касаткин. Русская диалектология 2005 (page 145)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there's a number of fossilized phrases where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь ***да*** гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты ***да*** я, **да** мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынь ***да*** положь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; из огня ***да*** в полымя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-***да***-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16216" RevisionGUID="3a9477f3-a00c-458b-9417-b1d9bcbdf4bc" CreationDate="2018-04-14T18:10:58.343" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="19th century literature doesn't exhibit this feature consistently. To me it's obvious that it's a stylisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But usage of **да** as a conjunction apparently was and to this day to a certain extent still is a feature of regional vernacular dialects of Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Касаткин (2005) отмечает частотность союза `да` в современном [Северном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречии](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Северорусское_наречие) в соединительной и противительной функции, что подтверждается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и на наших данных.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Йокояма О. Б. «Письма русских крестьян. Тексты и контексты»*](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=kSyYCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA357&amp;lpg=PA357&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7+%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xsfjl0EX6r&amp;sig=MSg8ZUvGGV8cGz0_14buzauMXv8&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiK06e6jbraAhUSJ1AKHWxzCYA4ChDoAQg6MAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%20%D0%B4%D0%B0&amp;f=false) *(a collection of letters by peasants of uyezd Serapulsky from the late 19th cent.)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Сочинительные союзы `и` и `а` чаще встречаются в южных говорах, чем в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; северных, где очень употребительным в качестве соединительного и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; противительного является союз `да`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Л. Л. Касаткин «Русская диалектология» (page 145)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern standard Russian there's a number of fossilized phrases where **да** has this function, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тишь ***да*** гладь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты ***да*** я, **да** мы с тобой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынь ***да*** положь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; из огня ***да*** в полымя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Иван-***да***-Марья &lt;sup&gt;(botanical name)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian **да** in the form of **та** is a part of standard vocabulary alongside **i/й** (equivalent of the Russian **и**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="747f07b5-d3e4-4191-b976-d99696236c30" CreationDate="2018-04-14T21:27:40.963" UserId="10322" Text="Hey can anyone explain to me the difference between these words, and maybe наматывать as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was doing guitar-vocab, my usual resources seem to be drawing a blank?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="747f07b5-d3e4-4191-b976-d99696236c30" CreationDate="2018-04-14T21:27:40.963" UserId="10322" Text="Difference between бренчать and тренькать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="747f07b5-d3e4-4191-b976-d99696236c30" CreationDate="2018-04-14T21:27:40.963" UserId="10322" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40818" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="dfa41fd0-4abe-4e8e-8c2d-0a23a86e1f48" CreationDate="2018-04-14T21:34:37.457" UserId="3680" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40819" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16212" RevisionGUID="33660091-067c-4dfd-91d3-ef84fc9ab288" CreationDate="2018-04-14T21:43:35.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985272380250607622" />
  <row Id="40820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16200" RevisionGUID="c1d48fe1-42a6-4406-9cc3-fca33b22fa8e" CreationDate="2018-04-15T00:45:51.703" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985318249427558400" />
  <row Id="40823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16219" RevisionGUID="2c328f3a-7977-438a-b98e-396e1ab4fdb9" CreationDate="2018-04-15T08:06:43.247" UserId="10446" Text="Basically, there is no difference between plural and singular forms of the sentences like that. However, in some contexts (sic!), the use of the plural can reduce the importance of the subject. This can be explained as follows: &quot;history&quot; is unique (and significant...); if there are many &quot;histories&quot;, they are likely routine and should not be significant. &quot;Истории&quot; sometimes means &quot;случаи&quot;, &quot;обыденные ситуации&quot; and so on, up to &quot;байки&quot;, &quot;сплетни&quot;... However, sometimes (mostly infrequently), the singular word &quot;история&quot; can be used in a figurative sense like &quot;россказни&quot; and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16209" RevisionGUID="0d7a4b7e-ffa3-4415-aecb-198779e4c8c7" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:45:29.280" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985499348741099520" />
  <row Id="40825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="b1cd5d01-f9fc-4a0a-af4e-6f31c76b2426" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:53:36.817" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;И **будет вам известно**, я  ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather there is an equivalent of &quot;будет вам известно&quot; among the following phrasings, but I wonder which is the closest, as they nuanced in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;you know&quot;, &quot;you see&quot;, &quot;for what it’s worth&quot;, &quot;for your information&quot;, &quot;I'm letting you know that ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly do you use &quot;будет вам/тебе известно&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="b1cd5d01-f9fc-4a0a-af4e-6f31c76b2426" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:53:36.817" UserId="8672" Text="What is the tone of the expression &quot;будет вам известно&quot;? Neutral or condescending?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="b1cd5d01-f9fc-4a0a-af4e-6f31c76b2426" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:53:36.817" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40828" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="9277db76-e87c-46d7-8a8c-5da70214c2ba" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:56:05.510" UserId="3680" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5443,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Alex_ander&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16221" RevisionGUID="ac70d7c7-abda-4d4c-804d-5640abee4164" CreationDate="2018-04-15T13:09:49.683" UserId="4560" Text="First of all, the expression is more properly **да будет вам известно**. (The `и` does not replace `да`, which marks a third-person imperative, so the whole phrase here would be **И да будет**, etc.). Without the `да`, it's a case of the &quot;I could care less&quot; type of phraseology decay in everyday usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For your information&quot; seems closest. Not necessarily condescending, but certainly non-neutral in an argumentative way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40830" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="17b87641-7801-4443-a137-b751587a5f8e" CreationDate="2018-04-15T15:45:36.120" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985544675871350784" />
  <row Id="40831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="94eb333a-974e-48f8-91f2-a3b8d8963c35" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:04:48.137" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Создавалось ощущение, будто** все мои немногочисленные знакомые в этом мире являются участниками огромного заговора, цель которого – свести меня с ума. Брр!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that the use of the imperfective &quot;создаваться&quot; indicates that a particular impression was forming in multiple, unspecified people's minds, not being confined to the speaker's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder if this phrasing imparts an impersonal sense similar to &quot;it looked/sounded/seemed like&quot; in English or &quot;on aurait dit que ...&quot; in French, as opposed to the personal turn of phrase &quot;I had the impression that ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**У меня** **создалось** ощущение, будто ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it into a fully personal statement, on the other hand, do you place &quot;У меня&quot; at the beginning and use the perfective &quot;создаться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="94eb333a-974e-48f8-91f2-a3b8d8963c35" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:04:48.137" UserId="8672" Text="Does the phrasing &quot;Создавалось ощущение, будто ...&quot; impart an impersonal sense similar to &quot;it looked/sounded/seemed like&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="94eb333a-974e-48f8-91f2-a3b8d8963c35" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:04:48.137" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="13324164-0819-4ddb-9042-48e0abfa8b23" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:10:58.713" UserId="8672" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Создавалось ощущение, будто** все мои немногочисленные знакомые в этом мире являются участниками огромного заговора, цель которого – свести меня с ума. Брр!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that the use of the imperfective &quot;создаваться&quot; indicates that a particular impression was forming in multiple, unspecified people's minds, not being confined to the speaker's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder if this phrasing imparts an impersonal and less subjective sense similar to &quot;it looked/sounded/seemed like&quot; in English or &quot;on aurait dit que ...&quot; in French, as opposed to the personal turn of phrase &quot;I had the impression that ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**У меня** **создалось** ощущение, будто ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it into a fully personal statement, on the other hand, do you place &quot;У меня&quot; at the beginning and use the perfective &quot;создаться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40835" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="13324164-0819-4ddb-9042-48e0abfa8b23" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:10:58.713" UserId="8672" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Does the phrasing &quot;Создавалось ощущение, будто ...&quot; impart an impersonal and less subjective sense similar to &quot;it looked/sounded/seemed like&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16222" RevisionGUID="69c83945-b177-4ecb-b67c-d2fd417a0e4f" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:38:55.310" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Создавалось ощущение, будто** все мои немногочисленные знакомые в этом мире являются участниками огромного заговора, цель которого – свести меня с ума.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that the use of the imperfective &quot;создаваться&quot; indicates that a particular impression was forming in multiple, unspecified people's minds, not being confined to the speaker's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder if this phrasing imparts an impersonal and less subjective sense similar to &quot;it looked/sounded/seemed like&quot; in English or &quot;on aurait dit que ...&quot; in French, as opposed to the personal turn of phrase &quot;I had the impression that ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**У меня** **создалось** ощущение, будто ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to make it into a fully personal statement, on the other hand, do you place &quot;У меня&quot; at the beginning and use the perfective &quot;создаться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="94af432e-f1d6-4ce0-be70-6b33b0fcdc58" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:45:02.787" UserId="8672" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="&gt;И **будет вам известно**, я  ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather there is an equivalent of &quot;будет вам известно&quot; among the following phrasings, but I wonder which is the closest, as they nuanced in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;you know&quot;, &quot;you see&quot;, &quot;for what it’s worth&quot;, &quot;for your information&quot;, &quot;for the record&quot;, &quot;I'm letting you know that ...&quot;, &quot;I'll have you know that ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly do you use &quot;будет вам/тебе известно&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16223" RevisionGUID="c750b3f5-2591-4deb-8742-784dc48025da" CreationDate="2018-04-15T20:36:59.320" UserId="2104" Text="Both mean making repetitive noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бренча́ть** is loud and annoying:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Пиани́но сла́вно бренча́ло всё одну́ и ту же мело́дию.&#xD;&#xA;* Звени́т гита́ра, бренчи́т бу́бен, у́хает бараба́н.&#xD;&#xA;* Что́-то бормоча́, он бренча́л ключа́ми, ища́ тот, кото́рый ну́жен.&#xD;&#xA;* Движо́к тря́сся, бренча́ кры́шкой капо́та.&#xD;&#xA;* Э́то тебе́ не на балала́йке бренча́ть!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тре́нькать** is softer more intermittent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Буфе́тчица погромы́хивала посу́дой, е́ле слы́шно тре́нькала кака́я-то му́зыка.&#xD;&#xA;* На пери́лах терра́сы то́нко и остро́ тре́нькала кака́я-то пти́чка.&#xD;&#xA;* В прохо́де сиде́л и бестолко́во тре́нькал на гита́ре пья́ный солда́тик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice three distinct patterns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Бренча́ть на (prepositional) - Similar to **игра́ть на** (гита́ре, балала́йке).&#xD;&#xA;* Бренча́ть (instrumental) - Make a noise with something (ключа́ми, кры́шкой).&#xD;&#xA;* X бренчи́т. - X is making noise on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used with **на**, both mean an inept play on a musical instrument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find more examples on http://ruscorpora.ru." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40839" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16201" RevisionGUID="72536a5b-e5f9-4b5f-b563-21f86e30cf06" CreationDate="2018-04-15T21:49:16.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985636199124660225" />
  <row Id="40843" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16215" RevisionGUID="d75ba9f9-fade-48e4-9a5e-70bd5eff73ac" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:49:35.190" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985772171355197440" />
  <row Id="40845" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16218" RevisionGUID="9a09b15b-0b45-4a07-9e08-f741dfbbd4cd" CreationDate="2018-04-16T08:20:02.077" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;бренчать&quot; and &quot;тренькать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16211" RevisionGUID="f486f99d-01b2-4ad0-854d-3e506a02e87f" CreationDate="2018-04-16T09:24:46.093" UserId="9058" Comment="typo" Text="&gt; Are &quot;eврей&quot; &amp; &quot;иудей&quot; completely the same, or do they have slightly different meanings/connotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not the same. &#xD;&#xA;They are from different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Иудей&quot; stands for &quot;Judaist&quot; - http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Judaist &#xD;&#xA;That is, **religion**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you look for &quot;almost the same with different connotations&quot; words, denoting **ethnicity**, then those would be the pair of &quot;Jew&quot;=&quot;жид&quot; and &quot;Hebrew&quot;=&quot;еврей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian &quot;жид&quot; is considered a vulgar slur, while in 19th century Russian and in modern Polish &quot;жид&quot; is a neutral &quot;technical&quot; term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In **political** category there is yet another word &quot;Israeli&quot;=&quot;израильтянин&quot; - a citizen of the Jewish state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in essential language those three categories sometimes get blurred - either by mistake or intentionally - and those words end being used as substitutions for one another. The vocabularies you consulted could represent those blurry lines by including those tangent meaning into the articles. However in the strict meaning those words are represent historically related but different attributes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16211" RevisionGUID="83ee7681-99b4-4688-b85c-1da4bf76fb09" CreationDate="2018-04-16T09:34:08.247" UserId="9058" Comment="typo" Text="&gt; Are &quot;eврей&quot; &amp; &quot;иудей&quot; completely the same, or do they have slightly different meanings/connotations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not the same. &#xD;&#xA;They are from different categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Иудей&quot; stands for &quot;Judaist&quot; - http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Judaist &#xD;&#xA;That is, **religion**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you look for &quot;almost the same with different connotations&quot; words, denoting **ethnicity**, then those would be the pair of &quot;Jew&quot;=&quot;жид&quot; and &quot;Hebrew&quot;=&quot;еврей&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian &quot;жид&quot; is considered a vulgar slur, while in 19th century Russian and in modern Polish &quot;жид&quot; is a neutral &quot;technical&quot; term. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In **political** category there is yet another word &quot;Israeli&quot;=&quot;израильтянин&quot; - a citizen of the Jewish state. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in essential language those three categories sometimes get blurred - either by mistake or intentionally - and those words end being used as substitutions for one another. The vocabularies you consulted could represent those blurry lines by including those tangent meaning into the articles. However in the strict meaning those words are represent historically related but different attributes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Etymologically probably &quot;жид&quot; is a simplified rough translation of &quot;Jude&quot;, which itself probably stems from &quot;Judaist&quot;/&quot;Иудей&quot;. Back then few centuries ago the concept of ethnicity was weak if existing, and people were mostly split over religious watersheds, thus there was little if any separation of &quot;religious&quot; and &quot;national&quot; meaning of those words back then. Again, the word &quot;жид&quot; was mostly used in prior centuries, so could denote both senses at once. So I guess in reading texts using that word it would not be easy to choose between competing interpretations. However in modern Russian this word is only used in some specific circumstances and the &quot;normal&quot; words &quot;еврей&quot; &amp; &quot;иудей&quot; have their clear distinction of concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40848" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16107" RevisionGUID="333d26e9-17b8-4a3b-b69f-3a1fa84dc292" CreationDate="2018-04-16T09:49:35.407" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985817470899511296" />
  <row Id="40849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16210" RevisionGUID="656d7cd4-d6a9-45e6-ac64-21ed17c1b4bd" CreationDate="2018-04-16T10:49:34.113" UserId="1836" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="It's quite simple: &quot;еврей&quot; is nationality or ethnicity (not sure which fits better, but hope you get the point) and &quot;иудей&quot; is someone who follows Judaism." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16225" RevisionGUID="07952926-a07a-4b9a-9c06-feb3e3661d46" CreationDate="2018-04-16T12:43:44.257" UserId="4605" Text="I'd say, without giving it too much thought, that 'надо' is closer to 'must', more related to duty, while 'нужно' is closer to 'need', more related to personal needs. For example, a saying: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Есть такое слово - 'надо'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means, roughly, &quot;There is such a thing as duty&quot;; 'нужно' would be completely unappropriate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16104" RevisionGUID="6161f5d8-c587-42a5-953b-3c898adad1dc" CreationDate="2018-04-16T15:49:35.287" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/985908067102543872" />
  <row Id="40852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16226" RevisionGUID="f03f70dc-48fd-4669-813a-76dad244ca45" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:06:26.390" UserId="10270" Text="The expression &lt;я пошёл к севе&gt; is in the past tense but it means &quot;I'm off home&quot; which is the present tense. Why is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16226" RevisionGUID="f03f70dc-48fd-4669-813a-76dad244ca45" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:06:26.390" UserId="10270" Text="Why do you say &lt;Я пошёл&gt; when should be present tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16226" RevisionGUID="f03f70dc-48fd-4669-813a-76dad244ca45" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:06:26.390" UserId="10270" Text="|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="6936e894-ac37-49ce-b8e5-7797d8c22b0f" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:41:32.817" UserId="7674" Text="I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar, because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So into English it would have to be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have gone to Seva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how would you frame this same idea using present tense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="7304c2ae-d957-46e0-9b33-cfd345dd3eb4" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:46:48.793" UserId="7674" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar, because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So into English it would have to be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have gone to Seva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;***I'm off home*** is ***Mеня нет дома***, which is present tense as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="7158870e-a657-48ae-9c3c-c25f7dd4d48c" CreationDate="2018-04-16T19:27:00.717" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 71 characters in body" Text="I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar, because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So into English it would have to be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have gone to Seva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The question has probably been misunderstood because of a spelling mistake, so the response is &quot;off home&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="8ed87953-7eb9-4e25-a9fb-b0c1cf3b3882" CreationDate="2018-04-16T19:56:50.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar, because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So into English it would have to be translated as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have gone to Seva&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;The question has probably been misunderstood because of a spelling mistake, so the response is &quot;off home&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;2nd attempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provided the Russian here is **Я пошёл к сеБе** (not **севе**) i believe one cannot meaningfully compare these two sentences because their structures are markedly different, it's only fair to compare more or less grammatically equivalent constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does have a construct similar to **I'm off (to) home**, and that's **Я домой**, whose tense is equivalent to that of the English expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="85bfd78b-7c8c-4eab-ba9b-5644dd209490" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:06:55.137" UserId="7674" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt; I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar,  because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;So into English it would have to be translated as&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*I have gone to Seva*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The question has probably been misunderstood because of a spelling mistake, so the response is &quot;off home&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;2nd attempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provided the Russian here is **Я пошёл к сеБе** (not **севе**) i believe one cannot meaningfully compare these two sentences because their structures are markedly different, it's only fair to compare more or less grammatically equivalent constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does have a construct similar to **I'm off (to) home**, and that's **Я домой**, whose tense is equivalent to that of the English expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16228" RevisionGUID="2976ed63-7aa0-4fb7-a459-3177c57a63a9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:41:40.250" UserId="8568" Text="Как правильнее транслитерировать/перевести имя Jian-Yang ? (персонаж из &quot;Silicon Valley&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16228" RevisionGUID="2976ed63-7aa0-4fb7-a459-3177c57a63a9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:41:40.250" UserId="8568" Text="Как правильнее транслитерировать/перевести имя Jian-Yang?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16228" RevisionGUID="2976ed63-7aa0-4fb7-a459-3177c57a63a9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:41:40.250" UserId="8568" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16229" RevisionGUID="e4543ddb-1ab1-4bd0-8231-22e89523c2a5" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:47:31.890" UserId="7674" Text="Если это пиньинь, а похоже на то, тогда&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Цзянь Ян**, если это фамилия и имя, или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Цзяньян**, если это имя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16229" RevisionGUID="0cf3abf2-2636-4fe3-b9a1-1ec673ab35c9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T20:58:21.213" UserId="7674" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="Если это пиньинь, а похоже на то, тогда&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Цзянь Ян**, если это фамилия и имя, или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Цзяньян**, если это имя&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подкрепляя цитатой из [таблицы перевода пиньиня в систему Палладия](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Транскрипционная_система_Палладия#Перевод_пиньиня_в_систему_Палладия)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; jian — цзянь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; yang — ян&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16230" RevisionGUID="268eb306-ae5e-4e37-bd36-c2c8660e2c09" CreationDate="2018-04-16T22:29:18.970" UserId="10473" Text="I've only been studying Russian for about a year (and slowly at that), so I'm probably misunderstanding a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand, though, идти and ехать are both unidirectional verbs of motion and basically mean &quot;to go.&quot; However, идти implies walking and ехать implies some other form of transportation. I understand that it's more nuanced than that, because my professor has said that you can use you can still use идти if you're driving a short distance in the context of your everyday life and it's not very important to specify that you drove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm basically wondering about the history of this type of distinction (walking vs. other) and whether/how it has changed over time in the language. It seems like technology changes (more forms of transportation now than before, maybe less walking?) would have some sort of effect on the usage of идти/ехать and similar pairs like ходить/ездить." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16230" RevisionGUID="268eb306-ae5e-4e37-bd36-c2c8660e2c09" CreationDate="2018-04-16T22:29:18.970" UserId="10473" Text="Have technology changes had any effect on the usage of идти vs. ехать (and similar verb pairs)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16230" RevisionGUID="268eb306-ae5e-4e37-bd36-c2c8660e2c09" CreationDate="2018-04-16T22:29:18.970" UserId="10473" Text="|словоупотребление|история-языка|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16231" RevisionGUID="8918d206-e55f-4e4c-b97f-4e98aea31d03" CreationDate="2018-04-17T06:07:48.370" UserId="9525" Text="*пошёл* has perfective [verb aspect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect) - verbs with prefixes usually do. It refers to a one-time event of starting to walk. If you're walking right now, that event of starting to walk is already in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*шёл* would be the corresponding imperfective aspect, referring to a habitual or continuous process of walking in the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16226" RevisionGUID="2ed30e53-7d73-45cf-8222-c20935ec26bc" CreationDate="2018-04-17T06:08:33.643" UserId="4714" Comment="edited body" Text="The expression &lt;я пошёл к себе&gt; is in the past tense but it means &quot;I'm off home&quot; which is the present tense. Why is this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="b0458f62-4469-49bd-b101-f5052d429445" CreationDate="2018-04-17T06:42:53.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt; I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar,  because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;So into English it would have to be translated as&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*I have gone to Seva*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The question has probably been misunderstood because of a spelling mistake, so the response is &quot;off home&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;2nd attempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provided the Russian here is **Я пошёл к сеБе** (not **севе**) i believe one cannot meaningfully compare these two sentences because their structures are markedly different, it's only fair to compare more or less grammatically equivalent constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does have a construct similar to **I'm off home**, and that's **Я домой**, whose tense is equivalent to that of the English expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a verb this idea can be expressed in all 3 tenses with a varying degree of determination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл домой   &#xD;&#xA;Я иду домой   &#xD;&#xA;Я пойду домой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16232" RevisionGUID="5bc260b0-b534-4dc6-8ab2-dc7bb6abc8f4" CreationDate="2018-04-17T08:52:48.470" UserId="5443" Text="As for the question in comments: not too many versions to guess the name meaning. Some real people with such a name/surname are written in Chinese as 杨健 (Yáng Jiàn, 2nd and 4th tones). The first character is known to be used as a surname (dictionaries say so), but it also has the meaning '**poplar**'; the second character means '**healthy/strong**'. Examples from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jian_(footballer) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jian_(diver) . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a person of Chinese origin lives in a Western country, the original surname+name order is often *reversed* into name+surname: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jian_Yang_(politician) - same could be with the film character. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were also historical Yang Jian persons with the surname 杨 who had different name part 暕 (Jian, 3rd tone - **bright/light**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jian_(Sui_prince) and 堅 (Jian, 1st tone, **strong**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Wen_of_Sui ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40873" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="a283c393-c490-4c81-a06d-ed8a8a5dabbf" CreationDate="2018-04-17T12:52:54.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/986225993206640640" />
  <row Id="40874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16233" RevisionGUID="aaa322bf-3185-4dc2-a49a-7ab375ab95c5" CreationDate="2018-04-17T13:17:21.930" UserId="7674" Text="I unfortunately cannot tell anything about the diachronic aspect of their usage, but within a locality in specific cases one can use **идти** even when taking a ride to the destination. One such case i can think of is announcing one's destination when leaving home or reporting about that on return home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в кино   &#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл к сватам   &#xD;&#xA;Я ушёл на работу  &#xD;&#xA;Я ходил на рынок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which doesn't mean a person arrives/ed there solely on foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's basically analogous to usage of **to go** in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this doesn't work for destinations such as areas in contrast to specific locations. One would't say ***Я пошёл в центр*** (donwtown) unless one truly moves on foot. Likewise ***Я иду в новый район***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of moving somewhere outside of a locality requires usage of **ехать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16233" RevisionGUID="11f0dac7-0064-4032-918f-13efdf94f29f" CreationDate="2018-04-17T13:23:59.123" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I unfortunately cannot tell anything about the diachronic aspect of their usage, but within a locality in specific cases one can use **идти** even when taking a ride to the destination. One such case i can think of is announcing one's destination when leaving home or reporting about that on return home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в кино   &#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл к сватам   &#xD;&#xA;Я ушёл на работу  &#xD;&#xA;Я ходил на рынок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which doesn't mean a person arrives/ed there solely on foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's basically analogous to usage of **to go** in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this doesn't work for destinations such as areas in contrast to specific locations. One would't say ***Я пошёл в центр*** (donwtown) unless one truly moves on foot. Likewise ***Я иду в новый район***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of moving somewhere outside of a locality always requires usage of **ехать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16233" RevisionGUID="6f11a870-b381-4c21-bc66-a09165034271" CreationDate="2018-04-17T13:38:27.213" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I unfortunately cannot tell anything about the diachronic aspect of their usage, but within a locality in specific cases one can use **идти** even when taking a ride to the destination. One such case i can think of is announcing one's destination when leaving home or reporting about a trip on return home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в кино   &#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл к сватам   &#xD;&#xA;Я ушёл на работу  &#xD;&#xA;Я ходил на рынок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which doesn't mean a person arrives/ed there solely on foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's basically analogous to usage of **to go** in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this doesn't work for destinations such as areas in contrast to specific locations. One would't say ***Я пошёл в центр*** (donwtown) unless one truly moves on foot. Likewise ***Я иду в новый район***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of moving somewhere outside of a locality always requires usage of **ехать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16233" RevisionGUID="d3922389-1cad-4f58-bd1f-3571857939e1" CreationDate="2018-04-17T14:50:08.703" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="I unfortunately cannot tell anything about the diachronic aspect of their usage, but within a locality in specific cases one can use **идти** even when taking a ride to the destination. One such case i can think of is announcing one's destination when leaving home or reporting about a trip on return home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в кино   &#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл к сватам   &#xD;&#xA;Я ушёл на работу  &#xD;&#xA;Я ходил на рынок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which doesn't mean a person arrives/ed there solely on foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's basically analogous to usage of **to go** in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this doesn't work for destinations such as areas in contrast to specific locations. One would't say ***Я пошёл в центр*** (downtown) unless one truly moves on foot. Likewise ***Я иду в новый район***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of moving somewhere outside of a locality always requires usage of **ехать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16230" RevisionGUID="a65028b9-f3df-4400-b58d-29ca3ea3971a" CreationDate="2018-04-17T17:32:19.457" UserId="10473" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I've only been studying Russian for about a year (and slowly at that), so I'm probably misunderstanding a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand, though, идти and ехать are both unidirectional verbs of motion and basically mean &quot;to go.&quot; However, идти implies walking and ехать implies some other form of transportation. I understand that it's more nuanced than that, because my professor has said that you can still use идти if you're driving a short distance in the context of your everyday life and it's not very important to specify that you drove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm basically wondering about the history of this type of distinction (walking vs. other) and whether/how it has changed over time in the language. It seems like technology changes (more forms of transportation now than before, maybe less walking?) would have some sort of effect on the usage of идти/ехать and similar pairs like ходить/ездить." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16234" RevisionGUID="6092e81b-867e-4144-8cb4-ec4774f53d82" CreationDate="2018-04-17T18:59:15.537" UserId="6539" Text="&gt; 1.Создавалось ощущение, будто все мои немногочисленные знакомые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. У меня создалось ощущение, будто ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's really hard to explain, because the difference is in feeling the situation, not the meaning itself. First of all, both include the speaker, that's obvious. And both of them are impersonal (grammatically ). A personal sentence would be &quot;Я думаю, что...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first sentence is a bit vague and you are right that it expresses a kind of general idea with the speaker and other people being included as recipients. Something like &quot;There was a general feeling that...&quot; It is close to &quot;It seemed &quot;. The feeling somehow was &quot;blowing in the wind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2. The second is clearly &quot;I had a feeling that...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16235" RevisionGUID="d8ac4194-aa45-4a0f-9232-6943b357bafb" CreationDate="2018-04-17T19:28:38.337" UserId="4903" Text="For reasons unknown to me, verbs of movement with prefix *&quot;по-&quot;* are used in the past tense to indicate intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, prefix *&quot;по-&quot;* means the beginning of an action with any of the following verbs of movement: *бежать, вести, везти, гнать, ехать, катить, лезть, лететь, нести, плыть, ползти, тащить, идти.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result the following phrases are used as farewells:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я пошёл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я побежал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я поехал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of verbs in past tense for that purpose is unusual. A popular Russian writer [K. Chukovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korney_Chukovsky) says in his book &quot;Alive as life itself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или эта форма: *я пошел* вместо *я ухожу.* Человек еще сидит за столом, он только собирается уйти, но изображает свой будущий поступок уже совершенным.&#xD;&#xA;С этим я долго не мог примириться. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Or this form: &quot;я пошел&quot;, instead of &quot;я ухожу&quot;. The man is still sitting at the table, he just started contemplating his leave, but he expresses his future action as complete. For a long time I could not accept it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16227" RevisionGUID="359a69c3-f0e8-4ef5-af51-2a1682337d07" CreationDate="2018-04-17T19:35:00.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt; I would say it's akin to Present Perfect in terms of English grammar,  because the verb is in perfective aspect, i.e. the act has been performed and its effect is still being felt at present.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;So into English it would have to be translated as&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*I have gone to Seva*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The question has probably been misunderstood because of a spelling mistake, so the response is &quot;off home&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;2nd attempt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provided the Russian here is **Я пошёл к сеБе** (not **севе**) i believe one cannot meaningfully compare these two sentences because their structures are markedly different, it's only fair to compare more or less grammatically equivalent constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian does have a construct similar to **I'm off home**, and that's **Я домой**, whose tense is equivalent to that of the English expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a verb this idea can be expressed in all 3 tenses with a varying degree of determination (in a descending order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошёл домой   &#xD;&#xA;Я иду домой   &#xD;&#xA;Я пойду домой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16235" RevisionGUID="d25771a4-c263-4ec9-b178-b1541667ceae" CreationDate="2018-04-17T19:37:03.177" UserId="4903" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="For reasons unknown to me, verbs of movement with prefix *&quot;по-&quot;* are used in the past tense to indicate intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, prefix *&quot;по-&quot;* means the beginning of an action with any of the following verbs of movement: *бежать, вести, везти, гнать, ехать, катить, лезть, лететь, нести, плыть, ползти, тащить, идти.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result the following phrases are used as farewells:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я пошёл. / I'm leaving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я побежал. / I'm leaving in a hurry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я поехал. / I'm leaving by car, or public transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a similar way the following phrases mean the intent of starting an action in the immediate future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я понёс. / I am starting carrying [it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я покатил. / I am starting rolling [it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of verbs in past tense for that purpose is unusual. A popular Russian writer [K. Chukovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korney_Chukovsky) says in his book &quot;Alive as life itself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или эта форма: *я пошел* вместо *я ухожу.* Человек еще сидит за столом, он только собирается уйти, но изображает свой будущий поступок уже совершенным.&#xD;&#xA;С этим я долго не мог примириться. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Or this form: &quot;я пошел&quot;, instead of &quot;я ухожу&quot;. The man is still sitting at the table, he just started contemplating his leave, but he expresses his future action as complete. For a long time I could not accept it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16234" RevisionGUID="821067c4-45e8-44c8-8a37-a7f432d70c36" CreationDate="2018-04-18T04:34:47.123" UserId="6539" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1.Создавалось ощущение, будто все мои немногочисленные знакомые&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. У меня создалось ощущение, будто ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's really hard to explain, because the difference is in feeling the situation, not the meaning itself. First of all, both include the speaker, that's obvious. And both of them are impersonal (grammatically ). A personal sentence would be &quot;Я думаю, что...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The first sentence is a bit vague and you are right that it expresses a kind of general idea with the speaker and other people being included as recipients. Something like &quot;There was a general feeling that...&quot; It is close to &quot;It seemed &quot;. The feeling somehow was &quot;blowing in the wind&quot;.The imperfect verb gives the feeling of uncertainty. Being done but still incomplete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The second is clearly &quot;I had a feeling that...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="898e6c7d-e2ec-4690-b0dd-b849a2514378" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:28:16.720" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Woman: Если это касается XXX, я буду через минуту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Man: **Так**, Вероника. (This is an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following two meanings came to mind, but neither seems to fit the bill here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;**so**&quot; in the sense of &quot;therefore&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: &quot;**well**&quot; in the sense of &quot;ну&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="898e6c7d-e2ec-4690-b0dd-b849a2514378" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:28:16.720" UserId="8672" Text="What is the function/meaning of &quot;так&quot; in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="898e6c7d-e2ec-4690-b0dd-b849a2514378" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:28:16.720" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16238" RevisionGUID="5ad735e8-614c-4d5b-b7a7-32b9f8183b2b" CreationDate="2018-04-18T18:33:11.767" UserId="3680" Text="I'd translate this as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Listen, Veronika.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look, Veronika." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16204" RevisionGUID="a6283c7b-3636-4b05-ba88-e7756939cbf1" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:22:57.757" UserId="7674" Comment="added 333 characters in body" Text="I personally haven't heard how they pronounce it but since a feature of [Vologda group of dialects](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вологодская_группа_говоров#Севернорусские_диалектные_черты) is [full оканье (as apposed to partial оканье)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Оканье#Полное_и_неполное_оканье) they're expected to pronounce it as **ВолОгда** (as opposed to standard **Волагда**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: finally found a recording of the pronunciation, which sounds exactly as i described (not that was a big mystery to me anyway) with `л` sounding as per *Nikolay Ershov*'s description, with the only caveat that it's a recording of a villager and not of a city resident&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [***Вот помнишь, к нам приезжали, ко мне, девки-ти, из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вологды-то?***](https://youtu.be/qqPL8e5AcCE?t=3s)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16239" RevisionGUID="25f7c077-f49d-4563-b316-de363aadbdd1" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:32:19.263" UserId="4903" Text="The phrase **&quot;Так, &lt; Name &gt;&quot;** could express either an agreement, or calling for attention with a following order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Agreement:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase ends the statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Так, Вероника. / *Yes, Veronica. [You are correct.] / Yes, Veronica. [It's a good plan.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An order:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is followed by the details of the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, Вероника, срочно на диету. / *Listen Veronica, start dieting ASAP.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Так, Холмогоров, зовите наряд... / *Listen, Kholmogorov, call a police patrol...*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16239" RevisionGUID="9769061d-dd54-49da-832f-1343d79328c3" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:41:36.360" UserId="4903" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="The phrase **&quot;Так, &lt; Name &gt;&quot;** could express either an agreement, or calling for attention with a following order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Agreement:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase ends the statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Так, Вероника. / *Yes, Veronica. [You are correct.] / Yes, Veronica. [It's a good plan.]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An order:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is followed by the details of the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, Вероника, срочно на диету. / *Listen Veronica, start dieting ASAP.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Так, Холмогоров, зовите наряд... / *Listen Kholmogorov, call a police patrol...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the same phrase as a question is a **request for clarification/confirmation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так, Вармишев? / *Is it so Varmishev?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так. / *Yes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="df44c67f-9f13-4d9d-be5e-f2693269d298" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:47:29.533" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the function/meaning of &quot;Так, &lt; Name &gt;&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16239" RevisionGUID="ff1827c2-a9c0-467c-982d-19063592d4cc" CreationDate="2018-04-18T19:49:02.867" UserId="4903" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The phrase **&quot;Так, &lt; Name &gt;&quot;** could express either an agreement, or calling for attention with a following order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Agreement / Acknowledgement:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase ends the statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Так, Вероника. / *Yes, Veronica. / Indeed, Veronica.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An order:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is followed by the details of the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, Вероника, срочно на диету. / *Listen Veronica, start dieting ASAP.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Так, Холмогоров, зовите наряд... / *Listen Kholmogorov, call a police patrol...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the same phrase as a question is a **request for clarification/confirmation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так, Вармишев? / *Is it so Varmishev?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так. / *Yes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16235" RevisionGUID="6c548823-4164-479a-bc57-13ac0cb519b1" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:11:22.530" UserId="4903" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="For reasons unknown to me, verbs of movement with prefix *&quot;по-&quot;* are used in the past tense to indicate intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, prefix *&quot;по-&quot;* means the beginning of an action when used with any of the following verbs of movement: *бежать, вести, везти, гнать, ехать, катить, лезть, лететь, нести, плыть, ползти, тащить, идти.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result the following phrases are used as farewells:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я пошёл. / I'm leaving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я побежал. / I'm leaving in a hurry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Я поехал. / I'm leaving by car, or public transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a similar way the following phrases mean the intent of starting an action in the immediate future:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я понёс. / I am starting carrying [it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я покатил. / I am starting rolling [it].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage of verbs in past tense for that purpose is unusual. A popular Russian writer [K. Chukovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korney_Chukovsky) says in his book &quot;Alive as life itself&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Или эта форма: *я пошел* вместо *я ухожу.* Человек еще сидит за столом, он только собирается уйти, но изображает свой будущий поступок уже совершенным.&#xD;&#xA;С этим я долго не мог примириться. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Or this form: &quot;я пошел&quot;, instead of &quot;я ухожу&quot;. The man is still sitting at the table, he just started contemplating his leave, but he expresses his future action as complete. For a long time I could not accept it.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16239" RevisionGUID="3c17fa8c-c15c-4819-88e6-460fb0c15951" CreationDate="2018-04-18T20:13:52.507" UserId="4903" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The phrase **&quot;Так, &lt; Name &gt;&quot;** could either express an agreement, or call for attention with a following order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Agreement / Acknowledgement:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase ends the statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;... Так, Вероника. / *Yes, Veronica. / Indeed, Veronica.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An order:**&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is followed by the details of the order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так, Вероника, срочно на диету. / *Listen Veronica, start dieting ASAP.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Так, Холмогоров, зовите наряд... / *Listen Kholmogorov, call a police patrol...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the same phrase as a question is a **request for clarification/confirmation:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так, Вармишев? / *Is it so Varmishev?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Так. / *Yes.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16240" RevisionGUID="03f04be9-b770-4d0c-b598-08e4d6b919f5" CreationDate="2018-04-18T21:43:22.627" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Подумайте только, **в два раза больше радости**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand the meaning of this sentence, the grammatical function of the phrase &quot;в два раза больше радости&quot; has me puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the entire phrase &quot;в два раза больше радости&quot; serve as the direct object of the verb &quot;подумать&quot;, albeit separated by a comma?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, I wonder if &quot;в два раза больше радости&quot; as a whole is considered to be in the accusative case, given the construction &quot;подумать + (accusative) / think about&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16240" RevisionGUID="03f04be9-b770-4d0c-b598-08e4d6b919f5" CreationDate="2018-04-18T21:43:22.627" UserId="8672" Text="Does &quot;в два раза больше радости&quot; as a whole serve as a direct object in the accusative case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16240" RevisionGUID="03f04be9-b770-4d0c-b598-08e4d6b919f5" CreationDate="2018-04-18T21:43:22.627" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16241" RevisionGUID="4d8f9d17-05bb-4495-99af-f8b674849d1b" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:13:40.577" UserId="9001" Text="It is a separate clause. We do not, as far as I know, use the conception of cases with clauses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Представьте себе поезд. - Imagine a train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Открываю глаза и вижу,] Представьте себе, поезд! - [I open my eyes and see,]Believe it or not, a train!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подумать** usually requires prepositional case, so it doesn't fit to your model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use **думать** with accusative but in some very rare phrases like *думать думу* - to think about something difficult for a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16241" RevisionGUID="35051081-b4a9-494b-84aa-16bbb3dd6054" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:19:34.787" UserId="9001" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="It is a separate clause. We do not, as far as I know, use the conception of cases with clauses. Neither it plays the role of direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Представьте себе поезд. - Imagine a train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Открываю глаза и вижу,] Представьте себе, поезд! - [I open my eyes and see,]Believe it or not, a train!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подумать** usually requires prepositional case, so it doesn't fit to your model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use **думать** with accusative but in some very rare phrases like *думать думу* - to think about something difficult for a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16241" RevisionGUID="85792f38-51a1-43d8-9d18-8cecaadf5c34" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:24:57.353" UserId="9001" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="It is a separate clause. We do not, as far as I know, use the conception of cases with clauses. Nor  plays it the role of direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, &quot;только подумайте&quot; are *parenthetical words*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Представьте себе поезд. - Imagine a train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Открываю глаза и вижу,] Представьте себе, поезд! - [I open my eyes and see,]Believe it or not, a train!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подумать** usually requires prepositional case, so it doesn't fit to your model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use **думать** with accusative but in some very rare phrases like *думать думу* - to think about something difficult for a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16241" RevisionGUID="7a6ac2b7-3ff3-43f3-90ac-f2e96707de1d" CreationDate="2018-04-18T22:30:07.077" UserId="9001" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="It is a separate clause. We do not, as far as I know, use the conception of cases with clauses. Nor  plays it the role of direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically, &quot;только подумайте&quot; are *parenthetical words*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Представьте себе поезд. - Imagine a train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Представьте себе, поезд! - Believe it or not, a train!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подумать** usually requires prepositional case, so it doesn't fit to your model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use **думать** with accusative but in some very rare phrases like *думать думу* - to think about something difficult for a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40905" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16228" RevisionGUID="e96e5994-2084-45f3-b170-a01d70710fe3" CreationDate="2018-04-19T06:57:53.000" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/986861422809419776" />
  <row Id="40906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16204" RevisionGUID="5c963d04-307c-4146-b9b3-8c95f10e598a" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:08:17.323" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I personally haven't heard how they pronounce it but since a feature of [Vologda group of dialects](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вологодская_группа_говоров#Севернорусские_диалектные_черты) is [full оканье (as apposed to partial оканье)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Оканье#Полное_и_неполное_оканье) they're expected to pronounce it as **ВолОгда** (as opposed to standard **Волагда**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: finally found a recording of the pronunciation, which sounds exactly as i described (not that it was a big mystery to me anyway) with `л` sounding as per *Nikolay Ershov*'s description, with the only caveat that it's a recording of a villager and not of a city resident&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [***Вот помнишь, к нам приезжали, ко мне, девки-ти, из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вологды-то?***](https://youtu.be/qqPL8e5AcCE?t=3s)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40907" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16230" RevisionGUID="43248d69-ff96-49bd-9c09-760a024fb19f" CreationDate="2018-04-19T12:57:57.760" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/986952039983968256" />
  <row Id="40908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="aac37fa7-3442-490d-82ba-f7be1f5c2621" CreationDate="2018-04-19T17:12:59.497" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Ты должен **принести** **мне** в точности **то**, что я сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the accusative &quot;то&quot; is understandably used to express the idea of &quot;принести/bring someone ***something***&quot;. I wonder why in the following example, on the other hand, the use of the genitive case &quot;фруктов / чего-нибудь&quot; is required, despite the seemingly same construction as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я скажу, чтобы она **принесла** **тебе** **фруктов** и **чего-нибудь** попить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="aac37fa7-3442-490d-82ba-f7be1f5c2621" CreationDate="2018-04-19T17:12:59.497" UserId="8672" Text="Why use Genitive for &quot;something&quot; to say &quot;принести/bring someone something&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="aac37fa7-3442-490d-82ba-f7be1f5c2621" CreationDate="2018-04-19T17:12:59.497" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16243" RevisionGUID="8c7f2aec-6602-4aff-b21e-120aafc8f8b0" CreationDate="2018-04-19T17:18:05.730" UserId="2079" Text="It is so called отделительный падеж, which is in most cases same as родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Принеси мне фрукты - bring me fruits.&#xD;&#xA;* Принеси мне фруктов - bring me some fruits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use both, but using отделительный падеж is bit more polite.  When you buy something, you should use accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, отделительный падеж is different from родительный падеж. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Родительный падеж: у меня нет чая&#xD;&#xA;* Отделительный падеж: налейте мне, пожалуйста, чаю" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="8d9fc7d5-d2ec-4827-a28d-0e954e724929" CreationDate="2018-04-19T17:22:18.913" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;Ты должен **принести** мне в точности **то**, что я сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the accusative &quot;то&quot; is understandably used to express the idea of &quot;принести/bring someone ***something***&quot;. I wonder why in the following example, on the other hand, the use of the genitive case &quot;фруктов / чего-нибудь&quot; is required, despite the seemingly same construction as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я скажу, чтобы она **принесла** тебе **фруктов** и **чего-нибудь** попить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="336a3700-b2bd-42cb-a1a6-e53ac55876a9" CreationDate="2018-04-19T18:26:30.683" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|genitive-partitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16243" RevisionGUID="dbfc77a3-26a5-4c56-9ff7-50a147a8b7a7" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:09:36.280" UserId="2079" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="It is so called отделительный падеж, which is in most cases same as родительный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Принеси мне фрукты - bring me fruits.&#xD;&#xA;* Принеси мне фруктов - bring me some fruits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use both, but using отделительный падеж is bit more polite.  When you buy something, you should use accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, отделительный падеж is different from родительный падеж. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Родительный падеж: у меня нет чая&#xD;&#xA;* Отделительный падеж: налейте мне, пожалуйста, чаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: отделительный падеж is not used for just one object (if you ask for one fruit), neither for all objects of given kind (if you ask for all of the fruits)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16244" RevisionGUID="99f7c6bd-d43e-4f36-9ca4-6b54c1575d02" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:28:13.493" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Его зовут Борис, **это он** впустил нас в дом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that &quot;это он ...&quot; is an equivalent expression of  &quot;it's him who ...&quot;. If this English construction is anything to go by, I'm puzzled by the lack of a word corresponding to the relative pronoun &quot;who&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;comma + кто&quot; dropped here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его зовут Борис, это он(**, кто**) впустил нас в дом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40916" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16244" RevisionGUID="99f7c6bd-d43e-4f36-9ca4-6b54c1575d02" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:28:13.493" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse &quot;это он ... / it's him who ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40917" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16244" RevisionGUID="99f7c6bd-d43e-4f36-9ca4-6b54c1575d02" CreationDate="2018-04-19T20:28:13.493" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16245" RevisionGUID="316a57d8-85e7-43f0-b970-eb0bf701e538" CreationDate="2018-04-19T21:10:04.820" UserId="9602" Text="The “это” does not really play a grammatical role here. “His name is Boris, he let us in”. Observe that “это” can appear without the other part of the sentence at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Как вы здесь оказались?  &#xD;&#xA;— Это Борис нас впустил. [“это” is optional and it gives a bit of an apologetic tone]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, such usage the word “это” refers to its natural meaning of “this” but without being actually coupled to particular words, rather to the entire sentence. “Что это?!” “Это кот нагадил.” (the verb is intransitive so “это” is not the object).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“Он, кто” is ungrammatical, instead use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Его зовут Борис, это тот, кто впустил нас в дом.  &#xD;&#xA;Его зовут Борис, вот кто впустил нас в дом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40919" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16244" RevisionGUID="a9124944-781c-4fc6-8802-d263c620086b" CreationDate="2018-04-19T22:44:07.913" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the function of &quot;это&quot; in &quot;Его зовут X, это он впустил ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16246" RevisionGUID="09f24b7b-6dfa-4d78-9bb1-1daf057668ae" CreationDate="2018-04-20T07:02:31.737" UserId="6539" Text="It's amazing how exactly you understand the details of a foreign language. Of course, the meaning of это is emphatic. And it corresponds to that English structure of yours. It's him/he is the one who let us in. But we don't use the same structure in Russian, I mean a sentence with a subordinate clause. We can emphasize with the following :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Именно он впустил нас/Это он впустил нас.(or just stress он )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16247" RevisionGUID="ed3dd407-44a9-4ee4-83e0-70bd2b7a16d4" CreationDate="2018-04-20T07:53:15.207" UserId="6097" Text="Yes, it's an equivalent expression of English &quot;*it's him who ...*&quot;. And the thing is that it is an ***equivalent expression***, not a word-by-word translation. So there is no &quot;*who*&quot;. Why should there be one? It's just &quot;*it's he*&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16248" RevisionGUID="07509d23-231b-4b01-958e-5b84308b8e67" CreationDate="2018-04-20T07:58:44.143" UserId="5443" Text="The genitive in this case comes from the omitted '*some quantity **of**...*' which in Russian is typically expressed using an *indefinite numeral* like **немного**, **несколько.** Those numerals agree with a noun in the **genitive** (несколько ябл**ок**, немного вод**ы** или ч**его**-нибудь - the numerals can be omitted). If you simply say &quot;принеси фрукты&quot; that would most likely mean bringing all the fruit available in some place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16249" RevisionGUID="5d5bcee9-100a-40ea-9563-08ac01b8988f" CreationDate="2018-04-20T09:56:02.703" UserId="9058" Text="I feel like the most verbatim translation of the 2nd part would be using &quot;the very&quot; or &quot;himself&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, the first part of your example is not needed to make a &quot;minimal verifiable example&quot; as they say in some other StackExchange forums :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core question revolves around &quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. Technically, even &quot;нас&quot; is not needed here, just the phrase would sound very awkward without it. _If chosen so, to yet reduce boilerplate/noise, we could minimize the phrase yet further up to &quot;Это Борис сделал&quot; to use as neuter and minimal verb as possible._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would go on with &quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you map it to English &quot;It was Boris, who let us in&quot; and feel confused, because this English counterpart is actually two sentences fused together, a so called &quot;complex sentence&quot;. And translating it back to Russian, if verbatim, would require a 2-parts complex sentence too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_It was Boris_, **who let us in**  ==&gt; _То был Борис_, **кто впустил нас**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this English expression is proper mapping for &quot;literature translation&quot; which is &quot;retelling&quot;. But it is not the verbatim &quot;literary&quot; translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For word-to-word attempt we need some English phraseology, that anchors the attention to some specific term, exaggerates its importance, without spawning an extra sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At glance, I can see two options for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. one way to &quot;underline&quot; some term is appending xxxxx-self/xxxxx-selves to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Boris himself let us in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, however, has a specific connotation, uncalled for. It emphasize some kind of worshipping, kissing up to. It could be said with some fans daring to ring on some super-star doorbell, and that superstar blessed them with his own descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not always so, if I imagine some possible interrogation scene from a detective book, then &quot;Boris himself let us in&quot; would sound much differently, as framing the said Boris. So in such a context this would be probably the fitting way to translate the original sentence. But only in this kind of a very specific, narrow context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The more universal option to map such a phrase to I believe would be using &quot;the very&quot; expression. That would probably not be met in real life spoken English. But for the &quot;technical&quot; goal of making word-to-word comparison and feeling the internal mechanics of the language conveying ideas, I guess it would be the most fitting mapping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/very&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* used to emphasize that you are talking about one specific thing or part and not another &#xD;&#xA;* 3 — used as an intensive especially to emphasize identity ·before my very eyes&#xD;&#xA;* 5 : being the same one : selfsame ·the very man I saw&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;That way the mapping I feel &quot;mechanically&quot; proper would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Это** *Борис* впустил нас&quot; ==&gt; &quot;**The very** *Boris* let us in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16249" RevisionGUID="bd51f01d-6111-442f-8c4b-8f30b002e402" CreationDate="2018-04-20T10:02:04.447" UserId="9058" Comment="added 555 characters in body" Text="&gt; this English construction is anything to go by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on your goal. If you aim at &quot;literature translation&quot; - at a smooth naturally sounding RETELLING - then this construction surely is &quot;to go by&quot;, but that would make the syntax comparison pointless. Then whether your aim would be &quot;word to word matching&quot;, a reproduction of the language mechanics barebones in another more familiar language, even if the outcome would sound awkward and would but never be used in actual conversations, then that construction obviously does not fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like the most verbatim translation of the 2nd part would be using &quot;the very&quot; or &quot;himself&quot; expressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, the first part of your example is not needed to make a &quot;minimal verifiable example&quot; as they say in some other StackExchange forums :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core question revolves around &quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. Technically, even &quot;нас&quot; is not needed here, just the phrase would sound very awkward without it. _If chosen so, to yet reduce boilerplate/noise, we could minimize the phrase yet further up to &quot;Это Борис сделал&quot; to use as neuter and minimal verb as possible._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would go on with &quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you map it to English &quot;It was Boris, who let us in&quot; and feel confused, because this English counterpart is actually two sentences fused together, a so called &quot;complex sentence&quot;. And translating it back to Russian, if verbatim, would require a 2-parts complex sentence too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_It was Boris_, **who let us in**  ==&gt; _То был Борис_, **кто впустил нас**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this English expression is proper mapping for &quot;literature translation&quot; which is &quot;retelling&quot;. But it is not the verbatim &quot;literary&quot; translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For word-to-word attempt we need some English phraseology, that anchors the attention to some specific term, exaggerates its importance, without spawning an extra sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At glance, I can see two options for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. one way to &quot;underline&quot; some term is appending xxxxx-self/xxxxx-selves to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Boris himself let us in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, however, has a specific connotation, uncalled for. It emphasize some kind of worshipping, kissing up to. It could be said with some fans daring to ring on some super-star doorbell, and that superstar blessed them with his own descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not always so, if I imagine some possible interrogation scene from a detective book, then &quot;Boris himself let us in&quot; would sound much differently, as framing the said Boris. So in such a context this would be probably the fitting way to translate the original sentence. But only in this kind of a very specific, narrow context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The more universal option to map such a phrase to I believe would be using &quot;the very&quot; expression. That would probably not be met in real life spoken English. But for the &quot;technical&quot; goal of making word-to-word comparison and feeling the internal mechanics of the language conveying ideas, I guess it would be the most fitting mapping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/very&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* used to emphasize that you are talking about one specific thing or part and not another &#xD;&#xA;* 3 — used as an intensive especially to emphasize identity ·before my very eyes&#xD;&#xA;* 5 : being the same one : selfsame ·the very man I saw&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;That way the mapping I feel &quot;mechanically&quot; proper would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Это** *Борис* впустил нас&quot; ==&gt; &quot;**The very** *Boris* let us in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have strong doubt whether &quot;the very&quot; construct in English can be applied to personal names and for natural way of language &quot;it was him, who...&quot; pattern feels better. However if we sack the English correctness for the sake of representing underlying mechanics of Russian then my gut feeling tells me those two constructs as reference points." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16249" RevisionGUID="f13245dd-e5fb-49a9-b3f9-8ad637d68369" CreationDate="2018-04-20T10:11:34.973" UserId="9058" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="&gt; this English construction is anything to go by&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on your goal. If you aim at &quot;literature translation&quot; - at a smooth naturally sounding RETELLING - then this construction surely is &quot;to go by&quot;, but that would make the syntax comparison pointless. Then whether your aim would be &quot;word to word matching&quot;, a reproduction of the language mechanics barebones in another more familiar language, even if the outcome would sound awkward and would but never be used in actual conversations, then that construction obviously does not fit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like the most verbatim translation of the 2nd part would be using &quot;the very&quot; or &quot;himself&quot; expressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, the first part of your example is not needed to make a &quot;minimal verifiable example&quot; as they say in some other StackExchange forums :-D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The core question revolves around &quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. Technically, even &quot;нас&quot; is not needed here, just the phrase would sound very awkward without it. _If chosen so, to yet reduce boilerplate/noise, we could minimize the phrase yet further up to &quot;Это Борис сделал&quot; to use as neuter and minimal verb as possible._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would go on with &quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you map it to English &quot;It was Boris, who let us in&quot; and feel confused, because this English counterpart is actually two sentences fused together, a so called &quot;complex sentence&quot;. And translating it back to Russian, if verbatim, would require a 2-parts complex sentence too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_It was Boris_, **who let us in**  ==&gt; _То был Борис_, **кто впустил нас**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, this English expression is proper mapping for &quot;literature translation&quot; which is &quot;retelling&quot;. But it is not the verbatim &quot;literary&quot; translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For word-to-word attempt we need some English phraseology, that anchors the attention to some specific term, exaggerates its importance, without spawning an extra sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это Борис впустил нас&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At glance, I can see two options for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. one way to &quot;underline&quot; some term is appending xxxxx-self/xxxxx-selves to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Boris himself let us in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, however, has a specific connotation, uncalled for. It emphasize some kind of worshipping, kissing up to. It could be said with some fans daring to ring on some super-star doorbell, and that superstar blessed them with his own descending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is not always so, if I imagine some possible interrogation scene from a detective book, then &quot;Boris himself let us in&quot; would sound much differently, as framing the said Boris. So in such a context this would be probably the fitting way to translate the original sentence. But only in this kind of a very specific, narrow context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The more universal option to map such a phrase to I believe would be using &quot;the very&quot; expression. That would probably not be met in real life spoken English. But for the &quot;technical&quot; goal of making word-to-word comparison and feeling the internal mechanics of the language conveying ideas, I guess it would be the most fitting mapping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/very&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* used to emphasize that you are talking about one specific thing or part and not another &#xD;&#xA;* 3 — used as an intensive especially to emphasize identity ·before my very eyes&#xD;&#xA;* 5 : being the same one : selfsame ·the very man I saw&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;That way the mapping I feel would be &quot;mechanically&quot; proper would be this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Это** *Борис* впустил нас&quot; ==&gt; &quot;**The very** *Boris* let us in&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have strong doubt whether &quot;the very&quot; construct in English can be applied to personal names and for natural way of language &quot;it was him, who...&quot; pattern feels better. However if we sack the English correctness for the sake of representing underlying mechanics of Russian then my gut feeling tells me those two constructs as reference points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, your original example using those constructs seems to be &quot;at low level&quot; mapped verbatim way like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Его зовут Борис, это он впустил нас в дом.&#xD;&#xA;* They call him Boris, he himself let us into the house.&#xD;&#xA;* They call him Boris, the very he let us into the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those phrases are totally non-English and sound double plus awkward. Because they seek to word-for-word mapping of the entire rather complex language structure, and thus amount of boilerplate noise unrelated to the core question becomes overwhelming. Which was why I chosen above to strip your example of everything I felt was not immediately related to the problem at hands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="4d433b52-383c-4dbb-bb97-a98cf4f64da1" CreationDate="2018-04-20T15:05:01.290" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|родительный-падеж|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16250" RevisionGUID="8416506e-2835-4106-9c6e-9f8d1ca130bc" CreationDate="2018-04-20T17:32:57.400" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я старалась **лишь** передать тебе ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я старалась **только** передать тебе ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я старалась **просто** передать тебе ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context, for instance, do you perceive any nuance between them? How can I determine which is preferable to use in any given context?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16250" RevisionGUID="8416506e-2835-4106-9c6e-9f8d1ca130bc" CreationDate="2018-04-20T17:32:57.400" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;лишь&quot;, &quot;только&quot; and &quot;просто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16250" RevisionGUID="8416506e-2835-4106-9c6e-9f8d1ca130bc" CreationDate="2018-04-20T17:32:57.400" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="ec6de363-e6e2-4418-8ea3-97b65c3fde51" CreationDate="2018-04-20T19:10:33.560" UserId="9256" Text="Hmm, the phrases in question are indeed very thinly nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simple explanation would be the closest translation of Russian words to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - лишь - just&#xD;&#xA; - только - only&#xD;&#xA; - просто - simply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Лишь&quot; is associated with minimum effort or cost.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Только&quot; is associated with common sense limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Просто&quot; is associated with minimum complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All meanings suggest the lack of hidden agenda and that the other party should not draw any conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16251" RevisionGUID="4a7e4174-52fc-49a4-9385-9c92d3b6d3d6" CreationDate="2018-04-20T19:19:58.550" UserId="9256" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="Hmm, the phrases in question are indeed very thinly nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simple explanation would be the closest translation of Russian words to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - лишь - just&#xD;&#xA; - только - only&#xD;&#xA; - просто - simply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Лишь&quot; is associated with minimum effort or cost.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Только&quot; is associated with common sense limitations.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Просто&quot; is associated with minimum complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All meanings suggest the lack of hidden agenda and that the other party should not draw any conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Even with &quot;Лишь&quot; being translated as &quot;Just&quot;, the phrase &quot;I tried just ...&quot; is perfectly useful, common, and apologetic, while &quot;Я старалась лишь ...&quot; in Russian sounds more bookish and rather dismissive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16252" RevisionGUID="94f1bc89-bb4a-4812-8131-c852d6143932" CreationDate="2018-04-20T20:13:37.240" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я **вообще-то про** X и Y... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker used this expression to set her interlocutor straight on who she was actually referring to. I'm assuming this is an equivalent of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Actually, I was **talking**/**thinking** about X and Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Actually, I **meant** X and Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is common to omit a verb (whatever it is) from this Russian expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16252" RevisionGUID="94f1bc89-bb4a-4812-8131-c852d6143932" CreationDate="2018-04-20T20:13:37.240" UserId="8672" Text="What verb is considered omitted in the expression &quot;Я вообще-то про X и Y&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16252" RevisionGUID="94f1bc89-bb4a-4812-8131-c852d6143932" CreationDate="2018-04-20T20:13:37.240" UserId="8672" Text="|глаголы|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="6027e10b-761a-4620-b153-9b388cf9e746" CreationDate="2018-04-20T20:49:27.577" UserId="7674" Text="Yes and Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construct with the verb omission exists also outside of this specific expression. **`Я о/про + object`** means **`I'm speaking of/mean...`** when used as a clarification either solicited or self-initiated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The omission is similar to that in a phrase ***речь о...***, where the verb ***идёт*** gets omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16253" RevisionGUID="a1aa8001-cb6b-4f75-aeb7-af6efc794d9a" CreationDate="2018-04-20T21:36:06.513" UserId="7674" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="Yes and Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construct with the verb omission exists also outside of this specific expression. **`Я о/про + object`** means **`I'm speaking of/mean...`** when used as a clarification either solicited or self-initiated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The omission is similar to that in a phrase ***речь о...***, where the verb ***идёт*** gets omitted, Russian for ***it's about...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another expression of this type which came up in [a response to another question](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/16227/7674) is ***Я домой / на работу / в кино*** where the verb ***иду*** is dropped - ***I'm off home / to work / to the movies***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16252" RevisionGUID="7ffcb86f-fcd9-4dc8-bd13-22786e21d394" CreationDate="2018-04-20T21:37:47.320" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;Я вообще-то **про** X и Y... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker used this expression to set her interlocutor straight on who she was actually referring to. I'm assuming this is an equivalent of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Actually, I was **talking**/**thinking** about X and Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Actually, I **meant** X and Y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is common to omit a verb (whatever it is) from this Russian expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16254" RevisionGUID="2eabcfd4-b8b0-4255-8ec3-fee1f885b292" CreationDate="2018-04-20T23:13:05.783" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;вспоминать **важные для него события**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: вспоминать **важные события**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming this prepositional phrase &quot;для него&quot; -- in the same manner as &quot;важные&quot; -- attributively modifies the noun &quot;события&quot;. Is it common in Russian to use a phrase like &quot;для него&quot; as part of piled-up attributive adjectives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, I also wonder if it is possible to move &quot;для него&quot; to other positions. Or does &quot;для него&quot; lose its attributive value at these positions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вспоминать **для него** важные события&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вспоминать важные события **для него**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of piled-up attributive adjectives exists in German as well, though it sounds rather formal. What about in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16254" RevisionGUID="2eabcfd4-b8b0-4255-8ec3-fee1f885b292" CreationDate="2018-04-20T23:13:05.783" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;важные для него события&quot;: Is it common to use a phrase like &quot;для него&quot; as part of piled-up attributive adjectives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16254" RevisionGUID="2eabcfd4-b8b0-4255-8ec3-fee1f885b292" CreationDate="2018-04-20T23:13:05.783" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16254" RevisionGUID="e7fd7176-0c4e-48aa-afc1-5b6ceccb725c" CreationDate="2018-04-21T00:49:34.200" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="&gt;вспоминать **важные для него события**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: вспоминать **важные события**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming the prepositional phrase &quot;для него&quot;, coupled with &quot;важные&quot;, attributively modifies the noun &quot;события&quot;. Is it common in Russian to use a phrase like &quot;для него&quot; as part of piled-up attributive adjectives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, I also wonder if it is possible to move &quot;для него&quot; to other positions. Or does &quot;для него&quot; lose its attributive value at these positions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вспоминать **для него** важные события&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вспоминать важные события **для него**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of piled-up attributive adjectives exists in German as well, though it sounds rather formal. What about in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16255" RevisionGUID="c58f508c-bf74-4bc1-bf98-3c2e3686ece0" CreationDate="2018-04-21T03:33:18.957" UserId="2446" Text="вспоминать важные для него события - the events important **to him**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вспоминать важные события - remembering some events important in general, not necessarily important to him, personally. The 1812 War was an important event, and I can remember it, but it's not really &quot;важное **для меня** событие&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;вспоминать для него важные события&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вспоминать важные события для него&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;both sound wrong to my ear, especially the last one. The first one I can &quot;swallow&quot; but wouldn't say myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;вспоминать события, важные для него" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16256" RevisionGUID="55d1ccb7-7c4c-4053-8049-99e85f16e7d4" CreationDate="2018-04-21T12:36:03.983" UserId="10483" Text="I do not feel like using &quot;история&quot; or &quot;истории&quot; changes the overall feeling of the sentence. It just depends on whether there was only one &quot;story&quot; or a couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to note that истор**иями** с доп**ингами** makes the sentence heavy and more difficult to pronounce. That is why the first option is preferable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16257" RevisionGUID="96dcd6ec-9833-472f-a555-2a6522cb7de1" CreationDate="2018-04-21T12:46:40.557" UserId="10483" Text="Yes, it is common to omit a verb. Especially if it is clear from the context or was used in the previous sentence. The verb &quot;lost&quot; in your example is &quot;говорю&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я вообще-то *говорю* про то-то и то-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you probably know, the word &quot;to be&quot; is omitted all the time. Sometimes you will see the dash instead of it, sometimes not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16258" RevisionGUID="d1df50e3-09e5-4587-8760-33ddbfc404b2" CreationDate="2018-04-21T13:14:48.120" UserId="10483" Text="technology changes did have an effect on Russian. If you are using plane, you need to use the verb &quot;лететь&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Она улетела (полетела) в Нью-Йорк.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of a thumb is to actually consider the means of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as long as you are not mentioning the destination point and just want to mention that you are leaving, you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я пошел - *(literal: I went)* I'm leaving.&#xD;&#xA;Мне надо идти - I need to go.&#xD;&#xA;Она уже ушла. - She has left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically when you use the word &quot;уходить&quot; like that, without destination or not focusing on it, the English equivalent is &quot;to leave&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16259" RevisionGUID="0cc37de5-cf00-4f47-8ccf-b406541eabd1" CreationDate="2018-04-21T13:21:02.233" UserId="10483" Text="*Создавалось ощущение, будто все мои немногочисленные знакомые в этом мире являются участниками огромного заговора, цель которого – свести меня с ума.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is basically the same as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня создавалось ощущение, будто все мои немногочисленные знакомые в этом мире являются участниками огромного заговора, цель которого – свести меня с ума.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no palpable difference, honestly. I'm a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40948" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16197" RevisionGUID="3473b4c2-b376-4f0a-9d61-5631bde3b871" CreationDate="2018-04-21T13:25:04.040" UserId="3680" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="40949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16260" RevisionGUID="054e6234-90dd-4110-9d9f-0a2e1f1f49be" CreationDate="2018-04-21T15:10:19.930" UserId="5443" Text="The exact expression with **вообще-то** (actually) with the omitted verb **говорю** (I am speaking) typically occurs *in the middle* of a conversation where the listener has just revealed misunderstanding of the subject. The *ground* for omitting the *verb* here is that the listening person anyway faces the continuing fact of *speaking*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That very expression is highly unlikely to be seen in a written text since it's a kind of interaction with another person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16261" RevisionGUID="2cca026c-fe06-40a9-ab26-bf0a3bf567e7" CreationDate="2018-04-21T15:31:21.910" UserId="5443" Text="The phrase **для него** actually modifies the meaning of the adjective **важные** here, from '*absolutely* important' into '*personally* important', so it tends to follow that adjective in case of changing the word order, e. g. another possible version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вспоминать события, важные для него&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last two examples from the question sound a bit strange and mean that somebody tries to recall some (absolutely) important events in order to help somebody else (the mentioned person)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="dacd40ed-586f-4150-a0fe-7ffb4f6dde75" CreationDate="2018-04-21T15:58:13.003" UserId="7674" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="More context would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say **рекомендатель**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=reference) we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лицо, дающее рекомендацию   &#xD;&#xA;лицо, способное дать рекомендацию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which are too unwieldy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: [here's an example](http://www.hr-portal.ru/doki/blank-proverki-rekomendaciy-na-soiskatelya) of a references form found online which uses the word **рекомендатель**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="45f303c9-9fa1-44c2-b6c0-47a9908027d8" CreationDate="2018-04-21T17:15:31.383" UserId="7674" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="More context would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say **рекомендатель**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=reference) we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лицо, дающее рекомендацию   &#xD;&#xA;лицо, способное дать рекомендацию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which are too unwieldy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: [here's an example](http://www.hr-portal.ru/doki/blank-proverki-rekomendaciy-na-soiskatelya) of a references form found online which uses the word **рекомендатель**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: [![https://i.stack.imgur.com/ne0Ww.png][1]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ne0Ww.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16262" RevisionGUID="6005bad3-599c-4144-8f9c-34d78cd1c3a5" CreationDate="2018-04-21T18:28:29.193" UserId="9459" Text="I'd answer the second part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вспоминать для него важные события&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is not very nicely written, as other answers outline, but means &quot;to remember events, important for him&quot;, as probably intended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вспоминать важные события для него&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does not convey the feeling that the one, who is remembering, and the one for who the events are important, are the same person. So it's like &quot;[the investigator was asking for details, so John Doe started] remembering the events, important for him&quot;, here the last &quot;him&quot; is not clearly stated, but implies that it's important for investigator and not John Doe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40954" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16244" RevisionGUID="85d86338-d7f0-484e-b620-ab94f6ff224f" CreationDate="2018-04-21T19:05:51.373" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/987769399095504901" />
  <row Id="40955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16198" RevisionGUID="41c70f50-5c9a-46cc-8086-5e2a8998b989" CreationDate="2018-04-21T20:25:41.733" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="More context would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say **рекомендатель**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=reference) we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лицо, дающее рекомендацию   &#xD;&#xA;лицо, способное дать рекомендацию&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which are too unwieldy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: [here's an example](http://www.hr-portal.ru/doki/blank-proverki-rekomendaciy-na-soiskatelya) of a references form found online which uses the term **рекомендатель**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: [![https://i.stack.imgur.com/ne0Ww.png][1]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ne0Ww.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16242" RevisionGUID="c9a4f681-48fa-426f-86c9-607c36605d03" CreationDate="2018-04-21T22:07:53.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/987815210919620608" />
  <row Id="40957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16263" RevisionGUID="dc45902b-8e95-46b4-9697-ce4596793b42" CreationDate="2018-04-22T02:32:01.240" UserId="6907" Text="I was taught that the translation of &quot;**what**&quot; is **что**, but recently I noticed that people use **Чёво** in the same meaning of &quot;what?&quot;. Is that useage correct or slang or what is it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. I don't know a language that has more than one translation to &quot;what&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16263" RevisionGUID="dc45902b-8e95-46b4-9697-ce4596793b42" CreationDate="2018-04-22T02:32:01.240" UserId="6907" Text="What is the difference between что and Чёво?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16263" RevisionGUID="dc45902b-8e95-46b4-9697-ce4596793b42" CreationDate="2018-04-22T02:32:01.240" UserId="6907" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16263" RevisionGUID="12d2f8bc-40ed-4dec-be46-2878a1ffc55e" CreationDate="2018-04-22T04:12:29.800" UserId="6907" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="I was taught that the translation of &quot;**what**&quot; is **что**, but recently I noticed that people use **чего** in the same meaning of &quot;what?&quot;. Is that useage correct or slang or what is it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. I don't know a language that has more than one translation to &quot;what&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40961" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16263" RevisionGUID="12d2f8bc-40ed-4dec-be46-2878a1ffc55e" CreationDate="2018-04-22T04:12:29.800" UserId="6907" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What is the difference between что and чего?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16264" RevisionGUID="23ceb1b4-1ecd-4e4b-b2bc-6d6d9c90bca1" CreationDate="2018-04-22T04:51:01.280" UserId="9603" Text="So there was this exercise in our textbook asking us to translate the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Could you please tell me how to get to the institute by metro&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a while I came up with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скажите, пожалуйста, как **проехать в институт** на метро?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which *seems* to be fine, but I also found this alternative translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скажите, пожалуйста, как **доехать до института** на метро?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and it left me wondering about the interchangeability of these verbs. Are they really interchangeable in this case? Which variant is more likely to used in everyday speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16264" RevisionGUID="23ceb1b4-1ecd-4e4b-b2bc-6d6d9c90bca1" CreationDate="2018-04-22T04:51:01.280" UserId="9603" Text="Interchangeability of доехать and проехать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16264" RevisionGUID="23ceb1b4-1ecd-4e4b-b2bc-6d6d9c90bca1" CreationDate="2018-04-22T04:51:01.280" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16265" RevisionGUID="75f41833-aa7e-40df-82fd-e7acb7742c7d" CreationDate="2018-04-22T06:23:20.807" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Проехать в&quot; and &quot;Доехать до&quot; are largely interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;проехать в&quot; literally means &quot;get through to&quot;, so it is implied that destination's location is likely known, but the path to it is unclear. &quot;Доехать до&quot; means &quot;get to&quot;, and the location is relatively distant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как доехать до Петербурга&quot; would mean &quot;How to get to Petersburg&quot; from a distant location (like Moscow). &quot;Как проехать в Петербург&quot; would mean the same, but from a much closer place, like a suburb Peterhof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="0d08d115-4508-4f9a-9904-d639169f904f" CreationDate="2018-04-22T12:26:02.760" UserId="10322" Text="Hey I'm confused about the use of  случаться vs происходить, as well as бывать and статься. They appear high up on most of the frequency lists I've seen, I've read that случаться  describes a random happening, while бывать is more something that happens more habitually.  So I guess, if that's agreed to be the case, do происходить and статься differ along that line as well? Or generally, what is the relationship between these words?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="0d08d115-4508-4f9a-9904-d639169f904f" CreationDate="2018-04-22T12:26:02.760" UserId="10322" Text="случаться vs происходить vs статься" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16267" RevisionGUID="0d08d115-4508-4f9a-9904-d639169f904f" CreationDate="2018-04-22T12:26:02.760" UserId="10322" Text="|словоупотребление|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40971" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16252" RevisionGUID="ff3f7ab6-9517-4d12-bc22-ffd6bb089bf1" CreationDate="2018-04-22T19:07:37.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/988132232811483142" />
  <row Id="40972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16060" RevisionGUID="4c2db1a1-d7b6-4b11-a9a7-44d73cea5b9f" CreationDate="2018-04-22T20:26:44.247" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's a very peculiar twist of the Russian grammar: a preposition followed by what seems to be a noun in the nominative case. Some grammarians even treat this as a separate case; others prefer to say that the noun is actually in the accusative but it loses its animacy in this context. More examples of this kind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он тебе **в отцы** годится! - He's old enough to be your father!&#xD;&#xA;* Я бы **в летчики** пошел, пусть меня научат! ([Маяковский. Кем быть?][1])&#xD;&#xA;* Иванов избирается **в депутаты.** - Ivanov is being elected a deputy.&#xD;&#xA;* Петров метит **в начальники.** - Petrov is aiming at becoming a boss.&#xD;&#xA;* Дети играют **в дочки-матери / в казаки-разбойники.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не знаю, гожусь ли я в напарники, но попробовать можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Not sure if I would be a good partner, but we can give it a try.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general meaning is aspiring or pretending to be someone. It's a colloquial expression with a rich history which sadly seems to be falling out of use. So well done spotting it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D0%BC_%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C%3F_(%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16269" RevisionGUID="40d91fc3-8bcc-49e7-9478-8061d6e8b679" CreationDate="2018-04-23T05:05:47.170" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **Шли бы вы** куда еще, а? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Imperfective Past + &quot;бы&quot; + Subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the presence of &quot;бы&quot; accompanied by the *conditional* past, is it close to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you guys could go somewhere else, hum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, how does the perfective version differ in meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пошли бы вы** куда еще, а? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Perfective Past + &quot;бы&quot; + Subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16269" RevisionGUID="40d91fc3-8bcc-49e7-9478-8061d6e8b679" CreationDate="2018-04-23T05:05:47.170" UserId="8672" Text="How polite does this construction sound: &quot;Шли бы вы куда еще?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16269" RevisionGUID="40d91fc3-8bcc-49e7-9478-8061d6e8b679" CreationDate="2018-04-23T05:05:47.170" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16271" RevisionGUID="42e5010f-48dc-473b-a9b0-90e22714741a" CreationDate="2018-04-23T06:28:23.727" UserId="5443" Text="Despite it's safe to use either expression to make your needs understood, there **is** a difference. The version **доехать до** (to get to) is universal and is suitable for any situation, including the expected changing types of transport in that process. The version **проехать в/к** is *more specific* and is typically about **the rout** - it's for a '*topological*' question, e. g. if you're asking it with a metro map in your hands (or if you're driving a car). However, if you don't have a map before you both and are expecting to hear which trains to take and where to switch lines, it's about general getting to that place, and the version **доехать** would sound *more natural*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="5aa9627f-7359-44fc-9825-11964afa74d7" CreationDate="2018-04-23T06:31:20.427" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Вы мне клиентов **распугиваете**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы мне клиентов **отпугиваете**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct in assuming that the prefix &quot;от-&quot; simply conveys the idea of someone moving away from a place, whereas the suffix &quot;рас-/раз-&quot; is more about multiple people being scattered in multiple directions, and in a disorderly manner, at that? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if the dative &quot;мне&quot; in this instance  means &quot;(scare off ...) from me&quot;  rather than &quot;to/for me&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="5aa9627f-7359-44fc-9825-11964afa74d7" CreationDate="2018-04-23T06:31:20.427" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;распугивать&quot; and &quot;отпугивать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="5aa9627f-7359-44fc-9825-11964afa74d7" CreationDate="2018-04-23T06:31:20.427" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40986" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16250" RevisionGUID="1a8b3cd1-25d4-45ab-91f7-fd8574f2e0ce" CreationDate="2018-04-23T07:10:11.423" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/988314071719186432" />
  <row Id="40987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="5b7601e6-268d-4a66-b9fb-2898bef438e2" CreationDate="2018-04-23T07:16:12.887" UserId="7674" Text="Your understanding is absolutely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Рас-/отпугивать мне*** is not ***from me*** but means ***to my displeasure and inconvenience***. A difficult one to render ideomatically in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression of displeasure or indignation with someone else's actions when they interfere with one's comfort, plans etc. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты мне тут расселся?  &#xD;&#xA;Вы мне тут ходите туда-сюда, а я убирай &lt;sup&gt;*(a typical rant from a grumpy cleaner)*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="d99b0dfe-9bae-4194-807f-cffceedae647" CreationDate="2018-04-23T07:26:15.820" UserId="7674" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Your understanding is absolutely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Рас-/отпугивать мне*** is not ***from me*** but means ***to my displeasure and inconvenience***. A difficult one to render ideomatically in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression of displeasure or indignation with someone else's actions when they interfere with one's comfort, plans etc. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты мне тут расселся?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы мне тут ходите туда-сюда, а я убирай &lt;sup&gt;*(a typical rant from a grumpy cleaner)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты мне оставь эти выходки! - You'd better stop your tricks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;***отпугивать*** can be used with preposition ***от*** + *Genitive*, but not so much ***распугивать***. The latter doesn't go well together with indirect object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="a21c5d6f-49f6-477c-bf31-98e0c70bfd80" CreationDate="2018-04-23T07:41:11.473" UserId="7674" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="Your understanding is absolutely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Рас-/отпугивать мне*** is not ***from me*** but means ***to my displeasure and inconvenience***. A difficult one to render ideomatically in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression of displeasure or indignation with someone else's actions when they interfere with one's comfort, plans etc. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты мне тут расселся?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы мне тут ходите туда-сюда, а я убирай &lt;sup&gt;*(a typical rant from a grumpy cleaner)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты мне оставь эти выходки! - You'd better stop your tricks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;***отпугивать*** can be used with preposition ***от*** + *Genitive*, but not so much ***распугивать***. The latter doesn't go well together with indirect object. One it can be used successfully with in my opinion is that which denotes a place and is governed by preposition ***из/с(о)*** + *Genitive*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="ae19b994-9e57-4879-b460-166bee4d4253" CreationDate="2018-04-23T08:02:20.983" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Your understanding is absolutely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Рас-/отпугивать мне*** is not ***from me*** but means ***to my displeasure and inconvenience***. A difficult one to render ideomatically in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression of displeasure or indignation with someone else's actions when they interfere with or disturb one's comfort, plans etc. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты мне тут расселся? - What's up with you sitting around here?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы мне тут ходите туда-сюда, а я убирай &lt;sup&gt;*(a typical rant from a grumpy cleaner)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты мне оставь/брось эти выходки! - You'd better stop your tricks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;***отпугивать*** can be used with preposition ***от*** + *Genitive*, but not so much ***распугивать***. The latter doesn't go well together with indirect object. One it can be used successfully with in my opinion is that which denotes a place and is governed by preposition ***из/с(о)*** + *Genitive*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="e293d891-de0a-43ee-9864-5392b38a78a5" CreationDate="2018-04-23T08:33:21.103" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Your understanding of the difference in the verbs' meaning is absolutely spot on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However ***pас-/отпугивать мне*** is not ***from me***, it means ***to my displeasure and inconvenience***. A difficult one to render ideomatically in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression of displeasure or indignation with someone else's actions when they interfere with or disturb one's comfort, plans etc. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты мне тут расселся? - What's up with you sitting around here?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы мне тут ходите туда-сюда, а я убирай &lt;sup&gt;*(a typical rant from a grumpy cleaner)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты мне оставь/брось эти выходки! - You'd better stop your tricks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;***отпугивать*** can be used with preposition ***от*** + *Genitive*, but not so much ***распугивать***. The latter doesn't go well together with indirect object. One it can be used successfully with in my opinion is that which denotes a place and is governed by preposition ***из/с(о)*** + *Genitive*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16275" RevisionGUID="131fd781-0907-4f2f-9131-7ce6c8eb1dc5" CreationDate="2018-04-23T08:42:45.710" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; Not to mention that the very idea of using Nominative Plural following any preposition pulled me up short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal shot on this, is that we omit few words here. This manifests in that the sense of this plural word in this specific phrase is different from a usual meaning of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гожусь ли я в напарники?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would deconstruct this pattern like &quot;Am I fit enough _for merging myself_ into _the group_ &quot;teammates&quot; ?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, &quot;teammates&quot; - &quot;напарники&quot; becomes a title, a name of some group.&#xD;&#xA;And the &quot;group&quot; - omitted in this pattern - is in normal Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider perhaps this question and my comment to it: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/14727/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16276" RevisionGUID="7d50d7c1-e3da-4821-ae6e-25e6f202b964" CreationDate="2018-04-23T09:43:43.477" UserId="5443" Text="**случиться** - to happen accidentally or unexpectedly, to occur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Случилось* так, что в назначенный день адвокат заболел. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Случилось* странное происшествие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**произойти** - to take place due to reasons, having an explanation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Из-за явного нарушения правил безопасности *произошёл* пожар.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как и прогнозировали, в этом месяце *произошло* извержение вулкана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**статься** (bookish, archaic) - to end up with some situation (for unknown reason), to have some destiny in the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Может статься* (= сложиться так), что мы больше не встретимся.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- А *что сталось* с тем поручиком? &#xD;&#xA;-- Лет через 10 примкнул к повстанцам в Греции и погиб." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16277" RevisionGUID="11b811e4-fb69-4722-ba2a-29fb8cc8414e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T10:37:24.317" UserId="5443" Text="While the prefix **от-** here works almost literally as a directional one (they tend to scare the clients into getting *away from* the business person), the prefix **рас-** works idiomatically. It adds **intensity** in case of imperfective **распугиваете** (like, many clients each minute, one by one) and **resultativeness** in case of perfective **распугаете/распугали** (I'll finally lose or I have lost *every* potential client). So the direction remains indefinite (just away) in that case, as in this typical expression about fishing ( = **every** fish will swim *away* from here):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не шуми, (всю) рыбу распугаешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16278" RevisionGUID="621e7b25-0bc4-40d2-83ae-0cbde5d08c2e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T13:40:20.570" UserId="2104" Text="Both sentences are insults phrased as 'polite' requests. The conditional version is gormally more polite which makes it sounds even more oxymoronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common Russian insult is telling someone to go f*ck themselves (иди на х**у!) with numerous euphemisms for х*у including: лесом, в баню, куда подальше, куда еще, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative иди can be replaced by an even more rude пошёл or softened to a conditional negated form А не пойти бы вам... making the whole phrase sound 'polite' bit still insulting. This form was often used by intelligentsia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16279" RevisionGUID="8ef89277-2c44-4737-83e4-30e6278cc449" CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:51:29.407" UserId="7674" Text="What would be the best way to render this sentence in Russian so that it doesn't become clumsy and tautological?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is one of the main services and features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that ***services*** and ***features*** (the way they're translated) are of different genders in Russian so the numeral ***one*** and the adjective ***main*** must agree with each of them in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most straightforward way of rendering it would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это один из основных сервисов и одна из основных функций изделия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the structure ***один из...***  isn't usually repeated in relation to the same object, and that makes the sentence unnecessarily pleonastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16279" RevisionGUID="8ef89277-2c44-4737-83e4-30e6278cc449" CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:51:29.407" UserId="7674" Text="Один из + adjective + enumerated parts of different genders" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16279" RevisionGUID="8ef89277-2c44-4737-83e4-30e6278cc449" CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:51:29.407" UserId="7674" Text="|синтаксис|wording|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16279" RevisionGUID="452c3e6b-7d5e-4c8d-b518-f3bdea3928cd" CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:58:17.360" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="What would be the best way to render this sentence in Russian so that it doesn't become clumsy and tautological?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is one of the main services and features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that ***services*** and ***features*** (the way they're translated) are of different genders in Russian so the numeral ***one***  must agree with each of them in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most straightforward way of rendering it would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это один из основных сервисов и одна из основных функций изделия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the structure ***один из...***  isn't usually repeated in relation to the same object, and that makes the sentence unnecessarily pleonastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41001" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16279" RevisionGUID="452c3e6b-7d5e-4c8d-b518-f3bdea3928cd" CreationDate="2018-04-23T14:58:17.360" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body" Text="Один из + enumerated parts of different genders" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16280" RevisionGUID="823e94cf-dbd1-49c4-b7ae-f0b04fe2330c" CreationDate="2018-04-23T15:30:06.937" UserId="4903" Text="Indeed repeating *&quot;один из&quot;* makes the sentence clumsy. Additionally, the word *&quot;сервис&quot;* in Russian sounds odd to my ear. I would replace it with old-fashioned *&quot;служебная функция&quot;.* Then both words become of the same gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это одна из основных служебных функций изделия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это одна из основных служебных функций и характеристик изделия." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16271" RevisionGUID="e8a80a4c-8b6b-41fe-a439-6388e66574b7" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:05:50.150" UserId="9256" Comment="Typo fix" Text="Despite it's safe to use either expression to make your needs understood, there **is** a difference. The version **доехать до** (to get to) is universal and is suitable for any situation, including the expected changing types of transport in that process. The version **проехать в/к** is *more specific* and is typically about **the route** - it's for a '*topological*' question, e. g. if you're asking it with a metro map in your hands (or if you're driving a car). However, if you don't have a map before you both and are expecting to hear which trains to take and where to switch lines, it's about general getting to that place, and the version **доехать** would sound *more natural*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16278" RevisionGUID="169ba9f0-b797-40eb-8985-6fe6fd8cbbdb" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:53:36.683" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Both sentences are insults phrased as 'polite' requests. The conditional version is normally more polite which makes it sound even more oxymoronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common Russian insult is telling someone to go f\*ck themselves (иди на х\*й!) with numerous euphemisms for х\*й including: лесом, в баню, куда подальше, куда еще, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The imperative иди can be replaced by an even more rude пошёл or softened to a conditional negated form А не пойти бы вам... making the whole phrase sound 'polite' bit still insulting. This form was often used by intelligentsia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16281" RevisionGUID="a1b6c1db-d5ae-458d-b9f3-98b57d286dc5" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:58:57.983" UserId="10493" Text="A man used the first and a woman used the second, to each other. What exactly do they mean? Are they naughty terms of endearment or harmless, cute ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16281" RevisionGUID="a1b6c1db-d5ae-458d-b9f3-98b57d286dc5" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:58:57.983" UserId="10493" Text="What do these mean: pupushik and pupushonok?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16281" RevisionGUID="a1b6c1db-d5ae-458d-b9f3-98b57d286dc5" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:58:57.983" UserId="10493" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|сленг|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16282" RevisionGUID="2be0bd55-9c43-4742-ad4d-75b278558831" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:35:52.107" UserId="9029" Text="I think they said `кукушка` (cuckoo) and `кукушонок` (little cuckoo).&#xD;&#xA;The following tongue twister was meant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кукушка кукушонку купила капюшон. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надел кукушонок капюшон. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как в капюшоне он смешон.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (The cuckoo bought a hood for the little cuckoo.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The little cuckoo put the hood on.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How funny looks it now.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16283" RevisionGUID="8fccde51-7db9-45cf-ba7a-23d05e1710ec" CreationDate="2018-04-23T18:19:02.593" UserId="7674" Text="Let's take a potshot at it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these are **пупсик** and **пупсёнок**, which are not uncommon as names of endearment between romantic partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're translation options for it from [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%EF%F3%EF%F1%E8%EA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kewpie; kewpie doll; munchkin; baby doll; cutie    &#xD;&#xA;cutie pie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; babycakes; pookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16283" RevisionGUID="2792f97d-af64-4237-bbc7-d3b52570de53" CreationDate="2018-04-23T18:26:29.613" UserId="7674" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="Let's take a potshot at it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these are **пупсик** and **пупсёнок**, which are not uncommon as names of endearment between romantic partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're translation options for **пупсик** from [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%EF%F3%EF%F1%E8%EA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kewpie; kewpie doll; munchkin; baby doll; cutie    &#xD;&#xA;cutie pie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; babycakes; pookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But picture is worth a 1000 words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]**ПУПС**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IiXmT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3awHL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16283" RevisionGUID="72e31bc4-c313-4d1f-becd-39747f401de2" CreationDate="2018-04-23T18:40:20.467" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Let's take a potshot at it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these are **пупсик** and **пупсёнок**, which are not uncommon as names of endearment between romantic partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're translation options for **пупсик** from [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%EF%F3%EF%F1%E8%EA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kewpie; kewpie doll; munchkin; baby doll; cutie    &#xD;&#xA;cutie pie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; babycakes; pookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a picture is worth a 1000 words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]**ПУПС**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IiXmT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3awHL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16283" RevisionGUID="5786d2f4-588a-420c-aa8e-fe0ea6e2fd6d" CreationDate="2018-04-23T21:29:46.143" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Let's take a potshot at it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these are **пупсик** and **пупсёнок**, which are (at least the first one) not uncommon as names of endearment between romantic partners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here're translation options for **пупсик** from [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=2&amp;l2=1&amp;s=%EF%F3%EF%F1%E8%EA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kewpie; kewpie doll; munchkin; baby doll; cutie    &#xD;&#xA;cutie pie  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; babycakes; pookie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a picture is worth a 1000 words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]**ПУПС**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IiXmT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3awHL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16284" RevisionGUID="5467acd1-bdb6-4ec2-b49c-5b640b19f49e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T21:54:28.327" UserId="8568" Text="`пупсик` is a word in common use — *naughty term of endearment or harmless, cute one*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use suffix `-онок` — `пупсёнок`,   &#xD;&#xA;It is not really in common use, but every still get it. The word has the same meaning. Maybe a little cutier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, `pupushik` and `pupushonok` — `пупушик` and `пупушонок` — it is not known words for a Russian speaker, but they are similar to `пупсик`, everyone will notice that, and will assume what it is some kind of `naughty terms of endearment or harmless, cute ones`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16285" RevisionGUID="27b1d4cf-72eb-4327-886f-002b68a51e25" CreationDate="2018-04-24T00:01:33.017" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Care to explain what's the deal with these earrings, **why such a fuss?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to express this idea in Russian. I wonder which interrogative adverb is best suited for this context and how they are nuanced. I'm assuming that &quot;зачем&quot; is somehow different from the rest and not sure if &quot;куда&quot; in the sense of &quot;what for&quot; can be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **отчего** шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **почему** шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **зачем** шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **откуда** шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **куда** шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16285" RevisionGUID="27b1d4cf-72eb-4327-886f-002b68a51e25" CreationDate="2018-04-24T00:01:33.017" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;отчего/почему/зачем/откуда/куда шум&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16285" RevisionGUID="27b1d4cf-72eb-4327-886f-002b68a51e25" CreationDate="2018-04-24T00:01:33.017" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16286" RevisionGUID="79688981-937e-4780-9b38-26e22e6aa5ef" CreationDate="2018-04-24T01:42:06.493" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Care to explain ***what's the deal with*** these earrings, why such a fuss?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to express this idea in Russian. How are these two expressions nuanced here? I wonder if &quot;что там с ...&quot; implies that there will surely be some story to be told about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, **что это за** серьги, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, **что там с** этими серьгами, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16286" RevisionGUID="79688981-937e-4780-9b38-26e22e6aa5ef" CreationDate="2018-04-24T01:42:06.493" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;что это за серьги&quot; and &quot;что там с этими серьгами&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16286" RevisionGUID="79688981-937e-4780-9b38-26e22e6aa5ef" CreationDate="2018-04-24T01:42:06.493" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16287" RevisionGUID="1224b6cd-18e4-46b9-ad2d-6febfa26ff81" CreationDate="2018-04-24T04:30:45.847" UserId="6539" Text="I believe none of these  would do. I'd rather say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **из‐за чего** шум/крик/скандал/кипеш?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из‐за чего means &quot;what's the reason of&quot; or &quot;what caused all that fuss? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16288" RevisionGUID="ae13e96b-ae3b-4df8-a60a-86baf49ba405" CreationDate="2018-04-24T04:45:22.797" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Не объяснишь, что там с этими серьгами, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence is better. **Что там с** means &quot;what's the matter with&quot;, whereas you can use the first sentence, but the meaning is more general &quot;what kind of earrings are they?&quot;. **Отчего** expresses a general reason **из‐за чего** is more about details. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16287" RevisionGUID="c5643f9b-10a7-49ba-a636-56e337c6dd81" CreationDate="2018-04-24T04:47:28.813" UserId="6539" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I believe none of these  would do. I'd rather say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **из‐за чего** шум/крик/скандал/кипеш/сыр-бор?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из‐за чего means &quot;what's the reason of&quot; or &quot;what caused all that fuss? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отчего, почему is used for reason, зачем for purpose, откуда for the place where it comes from. Куда makes no sense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16287" RevisionGUID="10b6cf68-f6d6-471d-987b-8a348d215f6c" CreationDate="2018-04-24T04:54:35.067" UserId="6539" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I believe none of these  would do. I'd rather say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, **из‐за чего** шум/крик/скандал/кипеш/сыр-бор/ажиотаж?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Из‐за чего means &quot;what's the reason of&quot; or &quot;what caused all that fuss? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отчего, почему is used for reason, зачем for purpose, откуда for the place where it comes from,origin. Куда makes no sense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41024" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16272" RevisionGUID="c3268c88-93d4-4505-891e-607ccfa03c16" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:14:37.410" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/988677574984388609" />
  <row Id="41025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16284" RevisionGUID="c1ae4bcc-7afb-44ed-9440-0ebd7b6b7e42" CreationDate="2018-04-24T10:08:11.630" UserId="8568" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="`пупсик` is a word in common use — *naughty term of endearment or harmless, cute one*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use suffix `-онок` — `пупсёнок`,   &#xD;&#xA;It is not really in common use, but every-one still get it. The word has the same meaning. Maybe a little cutier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, `pupushik` and `pupushonok` — `пупушик` and `пупушонок` — it is not known words for a Russian speaker, but they are similar to `пупсик`, everyone will notice that, and will assume what it is some kind of *naughty terms of endearment or harmless, cute ones*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41026" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16286" RevisionGUID="cf96d529-7b94-4817-8b45-688776391363" CreationDate="2018-04-24T13:14:37.360" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/988768171929866240" />
  <row Id="41027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16289" RevisionGUID="5bc81d2a-2e5d-4b1e-a7b6-948687718b11" CreationDate="2018-04-24T15:39:18.877" UserId="10439" Text="Which modern dialects of Russian still pronounce the genitive adjective ending *ого* as written, instead of *ово*?  Donbass, perhaps?  Is the sound closer to *g* or to *h*?  Are students being compelled to use the standard Moscow pronunciation in school?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16289" RevisionGUID="5bc81d2a-2e5d-4b1e-a7b6-948687718b11" CreationDate="2018-04-24T15:39:18.877" UserId="10439" Text="Dialectical pronunciation of “-ого”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16289" RevisionGUID="5bc81d2a-2e5d-4b1e-a7b6-948687718b11" CreationDate="2018-04-24T15:39:18.877" UserId="10439" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16290" RevisionGUID="3a63c0ed-5b67-4eea-b7a8-363bf3fe922d" CreationDate="2018-04-24T17:47:57.700" UserId="7674" Text="I unfortunately can't answer the main question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i will remark that currently Donbass is not unique in this respect, they speak Russian with the same accent as the rest of Ukraine including **-oво**-ing the **-ого** ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather native Ukrainian speakers who speaking Russian would pronounce **-ого** ending as it's written because this is how it's pronounced in Ukrainian or villagers speaking heavy *surjik* as it's called, a Russian contaminated with Ukrainian pronunciation, where Russian words are pronounced as if they were Ukrainian, mainly through replacement of the closed **Е** and **И** with the open **Э** and **Ы**, and interspersing speech with some most basic Ukrainian vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't call it a dialect, but rather a distorted form of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The memorable General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU &quot;the dear&quot; L.I. Brezhnev would pronounce it like **-оho**, but he wasn't a Donbass native, he was from [Dnepropetrovsk region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16290" RevisionGUID="8eb5a137-b672-43b0-b518-bcf3ff37a83b" CreationDate="2018-04-24T17:53:05.977" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I unfortunately can't answer the main question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i will remark that currently Donbass is not unique in this respect, they speak Russian with the same accent as the rest of Ukraine including **-oво**-ing the **-ого** ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather native Ukrainian speakers who speaking Russian would pronounce **-ого** ending as it's written because this is how it's pronounced in Ukrainian or villagers speaking heavy *surjik* as it's called, a Russian contaminated with Ukrainian pronunciation, where Russian words are pronounced as if they were Ukrainian, mainly through replacement of the closed **Е** and **И** with the open **Э** and **Ы**, and interspersing speech with some most basic Ukrainian vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't call it a dialect, but rather a distorted form of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The memorable General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU &quot;the dear&quot; L.I. Brezhnev was the one to pronounce **-ого** like **-оho**, but he wasn't a Donbass native, he was from [Dnepropetrovsk region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16290" RevisionGUID="557d0726-2127-4496-8bf3-bb71fbc1ed91" CreationDate="2018-04-24T17:57:51.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I unfortunately can't answer the first and the last questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i will remark that currently Donbass is not unique in this respect, they speak Russian with the same accent as the rest of Ukraine including **-oво**-ing the **-ого** ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather native Ukrainian speakers who speaking Russian would pronounce **-ого** ending as it's written because this is how it's pronounced in Ukrainian or villagers speaking heavy *surjik* as it's called, a Russian contaminated with Ukrainian pronunciation, where Russian words are pronounced as if they were Ukrainian, mainly through replacement of the closed **Е** and **И** with the open **Э** and **Ы**, and interspersing speech with some most basic Ukrainian vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't call it a dialect, but rather a distorted form of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The memorable General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU &quot;the dear&quot; L.I. Brezhnev was the one to pronounce **-ого** like **-оho**, but he wasn't a Donbass native, he was from [Dnepropetrovsk region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16290" RevisionGUID="f61300e8-d0de-47a6-9c71-1146a3d8c2fa" CreationDate="2018-04-24T18:03:28.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="I unfortunately can't answer the first and the last questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i will remark that currently Donbass is not unique in this respect, they speak Russian with the same accent as the rest of Ukraine including **-aвa**-ing the **-ого** ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather native Ukrainian speakers who speaking Russian would pronounce **-ого** ending as **-оho** because this is how it's pronounced in Ukrainian or villagers speaking heavy *surjik* as it's called, a Russian contaminated with Ukrainian pronunciation, where Russian words are pronounced as if they were Ukrainian, mainly through replacement of the closed **Е** and **И** with the open **Э** and **Ы**, and interspersing speech with some most basic Ukrainian vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't call it a dialect, but rather a distorted form of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The memorable General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU &quot;the dear&quot; L.I. Brezhnev was the one to pronounce **-ого** like **-aho** or even **-aha**, but he wasn't a Donbass native, he was from [Dnepropetrovsk region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16291" RevisionGUID="5d56faaf-50d8-4b0f-adc4-70dbe7d5acaf" CreationDate="2018-04-24T19:08:31.313" UserId="9256" Text=" - Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, отчего шум?   &#xD;&#xA; - Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, почему шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... why the fuss?&quot; &quot;Почему&quot; sounds a little better, but there is no difference in the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, зачем шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... why create the fuss?&quot; Implying &quot;we/they don't need to attract attention&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, откуда шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;... who is making the fuss?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;       &#xD;&#xA; - Не объяснишь, что это за серьги, куда шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a proper Russian phrase. Will be understood, but  can appear as colloquial in some circles only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15509" RevisionGUID="22ee75e6-3123-4559-b55f-dd9223c84e17" CreationDate="2018-04-24T21:30:56.370" UserId="8672" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;слишком&quot; redundant in &quot;не слишком ... много ...&quot;? If not, what is its function?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41040" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15509" RevisionGUID="22ee75e6-3123-4559-b55f-dd9223c84e17" CreationDate="2018-04-24T21:30:56.370" UserId="8672" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16286" RevisionGUID="831baac1-f4ce-4ba7-9bc8-27301f2942c2" CreationDate="2018-04-24T21:32:19.370" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;Care to explain **what's the deal with** these earrings, why such a fuss?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to express this idea in Russian. How are these two expressions nuanced here? I wonder if &quot;что там с ...&quot; implies that there will surely be some story to be told about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, **что это за** серьги, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не объяснишь, **что там с** этими серьгами, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16293" RevisionGUID="31ad1b7e-1cf0-4152-a230-9eb7ba237eef" CreationDate="2018-04-25T06:02:51.133" UserId="10247" Text="The dictionary prescribed standard is ***ово***. Moscow pronunciation is not really a modern term today (you probably meant historical Moscow norm, but today the pronunciation is prescribed by dictionaries and everyone is expected to say *ово* both in Moscow and Vladivostok, students in all places are expected to be taught the standard, in fact parents would have taught them it before school already). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are instances when ***ого*** ending could be pronounced as written. This is in R.Orthodox church sermons and usages connected with church, especially when quoting Bible in Church Slavonic, for in Church Slanovic it is pronounced AS WRITTEN (basically everything is pronounced as written in Church Slavonic). Outside of church or historical (biblical) text context such usage would be regarded old-fashioned and sounding a bit funny. My guess is **ого**-ending is anachronism and reflects the Church Slavonic roots of Russian (earlier historical Russian usages). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Ukranian and South Russia dialects (the latter I hear often at work), the speakers would pronouce such word as **другого** as [druhova], where 1st Russian **г** becomes Ukraninan **vocalized h**, but there's actually no need for them to change Russian **в** in ого-ending, at least I hear that this sound is pronounced as all other Russian speakers do (that is *oго* as **в**). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16294" RevisionGUID="40946ae3-0dd6-4bb0-ab28-e810eaebbcb6" CreationDate="2018-04-25T08:32:32.060" UserId="6097" Text="&gt; **что это за серьги**, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is asked about the earrings. What are they, where are they from, whom they belong to etc. The asking person doesn't know anything about these earrings and is interested what is so special about them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **что там с этими серьгами**, отчего шум?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is asked what is going on with these earrings. The asking person do know which earrings are meant and is interested now why there's so much fuss and agitation about them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16290" RevisionGUID="b5b1b55e-96da-494e-a0ca-2aa43292bd62" CreationDate="2018-04-25T09:51:44.673" UserId="7674" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="I unfortunately can't answer the first and the last questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i will remark that currently Donbass is not unique in this respect, they speak Russian with the same accent as the rest of Ukraine including **-aвa**-ing the **-ого** ending.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's rather native Ukrainian speakers who speaking Russian would pronounce **-ого** ending as **-оho** because this is how it's pronounced in Ukrainian or villagers speaking heavy *surjik* as it's called, a Russian contaminated with Ukrainian pronunciation, where Russian words are pronounced as if they were Ukrainian, mainly through replacement of the closed **Е** and **И** with the open **Э** and **Ы**, of **Г** with [voiced glottal fricative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_glottal_fricative) **[ɦ]** and interspersing speech with some most basic Ukrainian vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't call it a dialect, but rather a distorted form of language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The memorable General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU &quot;the dear&quot; L.I. Brezhnev was the one to pronounce **-ого** like **-aho** or even **-aha**, but he wasn't a Donbass native, he was from [Dnepropetrovsk region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16295" RevisionGUID="aed7bc5e-2d41-4cfb-a717-6390af116ce7" CreationDate="2018-04-25T13:18:14.570" UserId="5443" Text="It is possible to use a similar clause where the different genders don't matter. As for the meaning of 'service' here, without a context I can only suppose that 'main service of the product' could be something like '**serving for** some task' or '**serving as** some specific appliance'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это можно отнести *к числу* основных применений и возможностей изделия." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41047" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16237" RevisionGUID="f14008a6-c385-4909-bdd2-f714c49e6ffc" CreationDate="2018-04-25T13:20:32.867" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/989132050576928769" />
  <row Id="41049" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16240" RevisionGUID="b61015c0-f49a-48a3-8da4-41ab9c75acd7" CreationDate="2018-04-25T19:20:37.100" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/989222665184530434" />
  <row Id="41050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16226" RevisionGUID="02bd9ac2-56fb-4b65-8e0b-e21e114d2d4a" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:20:44.033" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/989267992826535937" />
  <row Id="41055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16281" RevisionGUID="41a7b131-3bbd-41a2-ba30-79fd75a4fc91" CreationDate="2018-04-27T05:43:46.167" UserId="10493" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="A man used the first and a woman used the second, to each other. What exactly do they mean? Are they naughty terms of endearment or harmless, cute ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;:-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: Armenian man and Ukrainian woman from Lviv writing to each other in Latin script Online. I have spelled exactly as they have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16297" RevisionGUID="bc2ad223-59b1-4d4a-b82a-acb25cfd1090" CreationDate="2018-04-27T15:39:25.360" UserId="4903" Text="Both of these words are 'russified' forms of a colloquial Armenian word **pupush.** According to [Armenian Wiktionary](https://hy.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D5%BA%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%BA%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B7) it is an adjective meaning *lovely, sweetheart.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian words *пупушик* and *пупушонок* are nouns that are formed using diminutive suffixes *-ик* and *-онок.* Based on sparse internet usage of those words, they are used as terms of endearment, &quot;pet names&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16297" RevisionGUID="5ed3e323-5ad4-4d43-9f9e-0cdcff3f902e" CreationDate="2018-04-27T15:45:26.920" UserId="4903" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Both of these words are 'russified' forms of a colloquial Armenian word **pupush / պուպուշ.** According to [Armenian Wiktionary](https://hy.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D5%BA%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%BA%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B7) it is an adjective meaning *lovely, sweetheart.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian words *пупушик* and *пупушонок* are nouns that are formed using diminutive suffixes *-ик* and *-онок.* Based on sparse internet usage, these words are used as cute terms of endearment (&quot;pet names&quot;) applied to loved ones and children." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="9f625c18-fcf7-49c5-98c6-c4ffaadb4e81" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:21:26.447" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Надо же**, кто бы мог подумать? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiki][1] says that &quot;надо же&quot; is used to express surprise, so I'm assuming an expression like &quot;кто бы мог подумать&quot; can be coupled with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give some other examples where &quot;надо же&quot; is used in conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I wonder if  &quot;надо же&quot; might not be a shortend form of an expression that includes some verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%B6%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="9f625c18-fcf7-49c5-98c6-c4ffaadb4e81" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:21:26.447" UserId="8672" Text="Is &quot;надо же&quot; shortened from what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="9f625c18-fcf7-49c5-98c6-c4ffaadb4e81" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:21:26.447" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16299" RevisionGUID="5f23fdde-3fab-435b-9097-c89d455a6642" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:27:44.217" UserId="2104" Text="It's a short form of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же было такому случиться! (Must this have happened?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="6ebe8d5a-688a-455e-911f-86c7c3f9458f" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:29:47.247" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;**Надо же**, кто бы мог подумать? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiki][1] says that &quot;надо же&quot; is used to express surprise, so I'm assuming an expression like &quot;кто бы мог подумать&quot; can be coupled with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give some other examples where &quot;надо же&quot; is used in conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I wonder if  &quot;надо же&quot; might not be a shortened form of an expression that includes some verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%B6%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41063" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="662da5e2-3bc6-4f3e-8705-e319bd70258b" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:54:00.020" UserId="8672" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Is &quot;надо же&quot; shortened from what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16299" RevisionGUID="a47b31db-d99b-4b09-8281-0163fd549147" CreationDate="2018-04-27T18:56:46.850" UserId="2104" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="It can have many continuations, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же было такому случиться! (Must this have happened?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же было попасть под дождь! (Did I have to get in the rain?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же было сломать ногу! (What are the chances of me breaking a leg?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16299" RevisionGUID="e24a73ee-4b4a-4f5d-ba9f-57e85b260fc0" CreationDate="2018-04-27T19:19:17.670" UserId="2104" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="Yes, &quot;Надо же!&quot; expresses surprise and can as well be followed by &quot;Кто бы мог подумать!&quot; A few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же как время летит!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Такой молодой ― и надо же! ― вздохнула Нюра.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...И надеваю третью коробку себе на голову. ― Надо же! ― удивляется папа. ― И голова пригодилась!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can't recommend [ruscorpora.ru][1] enough: it's a great resource when you need examples.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Надо же** can have many continuations, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Надо же было такому случиться!][2] (Must this have happened?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же было попасть под дождь! (Did I have to get in the rain?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же было сломать ногу! (What are the chances of me breaking a leg?!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every надо же expresses surprise. It can simply mean &quot;one must&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же что-то придумать! - We have to think of something!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо же быть объективным. - One has to be objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ruscorpora.ru/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%B6%D0%B5%E2%80%A6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="5ba0c3d4-ae7b-4672-b4a0-eee0be1719cc" CreationDate="2018-04-27T21:23:46.053" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;**Надо же**, кто бы мог подумать? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wiki][1] says that &quot;надо же&quot; is used to express surprise, so I'm assuming an expression like &quot;кто бы мог подумать&quot; can be coupled with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you give some other examples of how &quot;надо же&quot; is used in conversation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I wonder if  &quot;надо же&quot; might not be a shortened form of an expression that includes some verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%B6%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41068" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16192" RevisionGUID="51382070-0b4b-4f5c-b484-e70fd2e7c328" CreationDate="2018-04-28T01:21:17.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/990038205943644160" />
  <row Id="41069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16220" RevisionGUID="6ec6cee7-ff30-4376-b8e1-d1c506a39b34" CreationDate="2018-04-28T05:59:02.960" UserId="8672" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="&gt;И **будет вам известно**, я  ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather there is an equivalent of &quot;будет вам известно&quot; among the following phrasings, but I wonder which is the closest, as they nuanced in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;you know&quot;, &quot;you see&quot;, &quot;for what it’s worth&quot;, &quot;for your information&quot;, &quot;for the record&quot;, &quot;I'm letting you know that ...&quot;, &quot;I'll have you know that ...&quot;, &quot;just so you know&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How exactly do you use &quot;будет вам/тебе известно&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16274" RevisionGUID="d172d19c-5665-49c5-9a9c-4ed4773747f7" CreationDate="2018-04-28T06:58:45.990" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Your understanding of the difference in the verbs' meaning is absolutely spot on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However ***pас-/отпугивать мне*** is not ***from me***, it means ***to my displeasure and inconvenience***. A difficult one to render idiomatically in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial expression of displeasure or indignation with someone else's actions when they interfere with or disturb one's comfort, plans etc. For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты мне тут расселся? - What's up with you sitting around here?&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы мне тут ходите туда-сюда, а я убирай &lt;sup&gt;*(a typical rant from a grumpy cleaner)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты мне оставь/брось эти выходки! - You'd better stop your tricks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______&#xD;&#xA;***отпугивать*** can be used with preposition ***от*** + *Genitive*, but not so much ***распугивать***. The latter doesn't go well together with indirect object. One it can be used successfully with in my opinion is that which denotes a place and is governed by preposition ***из/с(о)*** + *Genitive*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41071" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16298" RevisionGUID="42755858-df58-4951-a5ff-6b8f04a20d62" CreationDate="2018-04-28T10:21:24.180" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/990174130984112128" />
  <row Id="41072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16300" RevisionGUID="a4db742e-9e36-45da-be7d-342d6c7758af" CreationDate="2018-04-28T10:35:18.497" UserId="9058" Text="I am not sure, but I suppose &quot;надо же&quot; is indeed a shortened &quot;надо жe было этому случиться!&quot; which is something like &quot;Must really something like that had to happen!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the 1986 Soviet song, where repeat is built over those words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://teksty-pesenok.ru/rus-alla-pugachyova/tekst-pesni-nado-zhe-bylo-takomu-sluchit/1734014/&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOmKl2zkHCc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16279" RevisionGUID="510d6ed4-8236-4b06-8dab-77bda165a9bc" CreationDate="2018-04-28T17:21:25.087" UserId="7674" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="What would be the best way to render this sentence in Russian so that it doesn't become clumsy and tautological?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is one of the main services and features of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem here is that ***services*** and ***features*** (the way they're translated) are of different genders in Russian so the numeral ***one***  must agree with each of them in gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most straightforward way of rendering it would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это один из основных сервисов и одна из основных функций изделия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the structure ***один из...***  isn't usually repeated in relation to the same object, and that makes the sentence unnecessarily pleonastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;In a movie &quot;Контрабанда&quot; (1974) there's a [phrase](https://youtu.be/gyNL1JbdESg?t=50m57s) affected with a similar problem of disagreement, although a bit more forgivable&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;**Одна из** самых аккуратных и дисциплинированных **членов** нашего экипажа.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16301" RevisionGUID="6059263d-0bc2-4b6b-be3f-e650e2ee6cb1" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:38:46.520" UserId="153" Text="For context, whether or not it even matters, I am a professional musician and a native Russian speaker was asking me just now about when my love for music first manifested itself. I replied with a lengthy tirade, closing it with a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так что любовь [к музыке] проснулась рано, а мозги **позднее**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then I read it back and started second-guessing myself. Should it not have been &quot;позже&quot; instead? Is &quot;позднее&quot; even a word? Sounds kinda strange, yet sounds kinda right. Is this a purely stylistic difference? One of register, dialect, age? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is this maybe even a widespread thing and there are similar pairings for other adverbs that I should be wary of but never even noticed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16301" RevisionGUID="6059263d-0bc2-4b6b-be3f-e650e2ee6cb1" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:38:46.520" UserId="153" Text="&quot;Позже&quot; vs. &quot;позднее&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16301" RevisionGUID="6059263d-0bc2-4b6b-be3f-e650e2ee6cb1" CreationDate="2018-04-29T00:38:46.520" UserId="153" Text="|выбор-слова|наречия|formality|сравнительная-степень|сравнительный|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16302" RevisionGUID="439264c8-8534-4209-911e-c743d2704a36" CreationDate="2018-04-29T06:04:35.797" UserId="6539" Text="Розенталь says that some adverbs can have two synthetic comparative forms :более – больше, менее – меньше, далее – дальше, ранее – раньше, позднее – позже, where the forms with **-ее** are bookish or formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Списки избирателей должны быть составлены не **позднее** указанного срока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; whereas those with **- ше(-же)** are neutral and can be used in both bookish and colloquial styles. Neutral forms are used more widely and eagerly.&#xD;&#xA; In reality we don't strictly obey &quot;the rules&quot; and most often use them interchangeably though the above-mentioned preference remains. Besides there is one more form **попозже** (a bit later) which is also frequently used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16302" RevisionGUID="66fcf090-65c0-400f-9b62-464988cf4824" CreationDate="2018-04-29T06:14:50.603" UserId="6539" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Розенталь says that some adverbs can have two synthetic comparative forms :более – больше, менее – меньше, далее – дальше, ранее – раньше, позднее – позже, where the forms with **-ее** are bookish or formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Списки избирателей должны быть составлены не **позднее** указанного срока.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; whereas those with **- ше(-же)** are neutral and can be used in both bookish and colloquial styles. Neutral forms are used more widely and eagerly.&#xD;&#xA; In reality we don't strictly obey &quot;the rules&quot; and most often use them interchangeably though the above-mentioned preference remains. Besides there is one more form **попозже** (a bit later) which is also frequently used.&#xD;&#xA; There's no difference in meaning позднее/позже." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16303" RevisionGUID="81807ff7-0a2b-4273-b7f1-4687032d9181" CreationDate="2018-04-29T07:09:28.840" UserId="7674" Text="To me the sentence sounds perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, and as already implied in V.V.'s response, it's a matter of style and usus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my gut feeling the choice of **позже** and **позднее** affects wording of a clause and simple substitution of one with the other won't do. With **позже** it would sound more euphonic being worded as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так что любовь [к музыке] проснулась рано, **а (уже) позже - мозги**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Так что любовь [к музыке] проснулась рано, **а мозги уже/намного позже**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could imagine the reason for uneasiness being the fact that **позднее** is contraposed to a simple antonym **рано** rather than to its comparative form **раньше/ранее**, which is somewhat illogical. In this case the sentence can be reworded to avoid both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="4874bc8e-e55f-421f-9553-52b0d13b9d8b" CreationDate="2018-04-29T07:43:14.893" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Ничего себе**, тебе удалось ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Надо же**, тебе удалось ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the surface, they appear to be synonyms used to express your surprise: &quot;wow&quot;, but how are they nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that you use &quot;надо же&quot; when something **unexpected** has happened, while  &quot;ничего себе&quot; is used when you are **impressed** with what someone has unexpectedly done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two expressions may well have some overlapping uses, but I wonder if there are any instances where they are not interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="4874bc8e-e55f-421f-9553-52b0d13b9d8b" CreationDate="2018-04-29T07:43:14.893" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;ничего себе&quot; vs &quot;надо же&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="4874bc8e-e55f-421f-9553-52b0d13b9d8b" CreationDate="2018-04-29T07:43:14.893" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="627616ec-806a-4beb-82eb-71550967476e" CreationDate="2018-04-29T07:48:20.563" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;**Ничего себе**, тебе удалось ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Надо же**, тебе удалось ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the surface, they appear to be synonyms used to express your surprise, but how are they nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that you use &quot;надо же&quot; when something **unexpected** has happened, while  &quot;ничего себе&quot; is used when you are **impressed** with what someone has unexpectedly done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two expressions may well have some overlapping uses, but I wonder if there are any instances where they are not interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="627616ec-806a-4beb-82eb-71550967476e" CreationDate="2018-04-29T07:48:20.563" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Nuances between &quot;ничего себе&quot; and &quot;надо же&quot; to express your surprise, &quot;wow&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16305" RevisionGUID="45b29e63-f35b-46a4-bb1f-06d08e7d091f" CreationDate="2018-04-29T10:18:45.130" UserId="5443" Text="**Позже** and **попозже** tend to express a time delay from some *event* or from *current moment*, while the version **позднее** is typically based *on time in numbers* (days, months, years, etc. - mentioned or not) and **попозднее** often refers to some *later hours of day cycle*. That is why **(не) позднее** is used in formal conditional clauses with numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это было **позже**. (Маркони **позже** запатентовал радио, чем его изобрёл&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Попов.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выплата зарплаты производится не **позднее** 25 числа каждого месяца.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прихожи **попозже** (я сейчас занят).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приходи **попозднее** (когда стемнеет, ближе к полуночи).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the example from your question, the version with **позднее** most likely refers to some '*older age*' while the version with **позже** would mean '*later than my love to music did*'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41086" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16301" RevisionGUID="20ed0ccb-b0d8-45a0-9843-e69ffa18fa96" CreationDate="2018-04-29T10:21:55.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/990536651150684165" />
  <row Id="41087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16306" RevisionGUID="7739f00d-a662-4f3b-aff4-4149cd40201f" CreationDate="2018-04-29T16:13:29.547" UserId="10509" Text="Question: Does Russian have the concept of &quot;sentence fragments&quot; (as English does), and is it also clearly considered a grammatical mistake? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an optional bonus part of this question, not required though, could you provide a link to a webpage discussing sentence fragments in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English grammar, you may have heard about a &quot;sentence fragment&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sentence fragments are groups of words that look like sentences, but aren't. To be a sentence, groups of words need to have at least one independent clause. An independent clause is any group of words that contain both a subject and a verb and can stand on its own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;Some girls in the class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fragment can be changed to a correct sentence, as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some girls in the class study together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the reason I am asking: &#xD;&#xA;When learning Russian, as a beginner, I sometimes encounter what appear to be sentence fragments. Although it could simply be that I am not sufficiently accustomed to the fact that &quot;to be&quot; or &quot;is&quot; are omitted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16306" RevisionGUID="7739f00d-a662-4f3b-aff4-4149cd40201f" CreationDate="2018-04-29T16:13:29.547" UserId="10509" Text="sentences fragments" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16306" RevisionGUID="7739f00d-a662-4f3b-aff4-4149cd40201f" CreationDate="2018-04-29T16:13:29.547" UserId="10509" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41090" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16069" RevisionGUID="f73db371-d4f3-473e-9188-93ecc545d218" CreationDate="2018-04-29T16:21:55.783" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/990627248104452097" />
  <row Id="41091" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16306" RevisionGUID="b1baf42e-6af7-4cb1-bc31-5326d6b3f394" CreationDate="2018-04-29T17:22:41.400" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Does Russian have the concept of &quot;sentence fragments&quot; (as English does)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16307" RevisionGUID="14b864fd-2d99-4854-9472-8a4d5cacbd34" CreationDate="2018-04-29T18:23:48.567" UserId="10510" Text="I don't quite understand the &quot;sentence fragments&quot; thing but in situation when someone asks me &quot;Кто это?&quot;, I can safely answer &quot;Какие-то девушки&quot; (no verb, right?). Or, when I'm just sitting on a cliff at a sunset I can tell my girlfriend &quot;Красивый вид&quot; &lt;strike&gt;and then kiss her&lt;/strike&gt;. Even &quot;Красиво&quot; is enough. Actually, any single word can make a sentence in a certain situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16308" RevisionGUID="a1dd88ad-d45b-4efb-b75a-4aa2740c0348" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:07:48.997" UserId="5584" Text="[Собо́р Каза́нской ико́ны Бо́жией Ма́тери][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it not **Божьей Матери** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Божьей is the feminine genitive of [божий][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80_(%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16308" RevisionGUID="a1dd88ad-d45b-4efb-b75a-4aa2740c0348" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:07:48.997" UserId="5584" Text="Собо́р Каза́нской ико́ны Бо́жией Ма́тери" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16308" RevisionGUID="a1dd88ad-d45b-4efb-b75a-4aa2740c0348" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:07:48.997" UserId="5584" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="a418e072-c950-4a76-8853-fb9d510cea05" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:16:07.070" UserId="7674" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние** and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also could be an influence of Church Slavonic as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="6df102ea-4c1b-419c-a234-e2d2bf1660fe" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:27:36.933" UserId="7674" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние** and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This appears to originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, where the second form is typical to Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="3d7a3375-b8eb-4b44-99b9-708ecf6fbbfc" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:09:40.913" UserId="7674" Comment="added 557 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние** and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the second form is typical to Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="20d03cb7-7096-4f95-8516-a383492a8b32" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:25:00.837" UserId="7674" Comment="added 547 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние** and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the second form is typical to Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16310" RevisionGUID="ff4e3893-1008-49f8-a728-878f2f18a4c1" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:25:20.753" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Does Russian have the concept of &quot;sentence fragments&quot; (as English does)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it does. This is called ellipsis (*эллипсис*) and as far as I know it's a thing in every human language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it also clearly considered a grammatical mistake?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a rhetorical figure widely used in the language. If used properly, it is not perceived as incorrect by the speakers, despite the fact that its exact meaning is left to the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, this famous poem by the Russian author Foeth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шёпот, робкое дыханье,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трели соловья,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Серебро и колыханье  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сонного ручья,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Свет ночной, ночные тени,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тени без конца,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ряд волшебных изменений  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Милого лица,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В дымных тучках пурпур розы,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отблеск янтаря,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И лобзания, и слезы,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И заря, заря!..  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does not have a single verb in it, but I doubt it can be called &quot;a grammatical mistake&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="9adc471d-1185-40e5-85ae-c02d71280ad0" CreationDate="2018-04-29T20:45:23.810" UserId="7674" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the second form is typical to Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="010320a2-9d36-4225-96e1-9871c072aa0d" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:05:13.960" UserId="7674" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the second form is typical to Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="7d68d3fc-fe38-4283-a101-8af6c3f62e70" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:36:59.117" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан Затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the [second form](http://www.orthodic.org/?searchCs=&amp;searchRu=%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;type=ru) is typical to Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="072f7087-306c-4254-b333-a5d1d0d48065" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:39:43.490" UserId="8672" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;**Ничего себе**, тебе удалось ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Надо же**, тебе удалось ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the surface, they appear to be synonyms used to express your surprise, &quot;wow&quot;, but how are they nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming that you use &quot;надо же&quot; when something **unexpected** has happened, while  &quot;ничего себе&quot; is used when you are **impressed** with what someone has unexpectedly done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two expressions might have some overlapping uses, but I wonder if there are any instances where they are simply not interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41105" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="072f7087-306c-4254-b333-a5d1d0d48065" CreationDate="2018-04-29T21:39:43.490" UserId="8672" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited title" Text="Nuances between &quot;ничего себе&quot; and &quot;надо же&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41106" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16021" RevisionGUID="58d666dc-9f94-438b-96ab-b61a06a4bb56" CreationDate="2018-04-29T22:21:55.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/990717845309976576" />
  <row Id="41107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16311" RevisionGUID="962d70e6-991f-44be-8121-3cd6eb788674" CreationDate="2018-04-29T23:29:52.650" UserId="334" Text="The church was named long before &quot;Божьей&quot; became a grammatic norm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More importantly, Russian Orthodox Church uses Church Slavonic for many things, including official naming. This particular brand of Slavonic is very archaic and preserves letters, words and grammatic constructs that fell into disuse centuries ago. Don't bother trying to learn it, simply keep in mind that whenever something relating Church is considered, something weird might pop up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16312" RevisionGUID="86eea674-755e-4bbd-9f34-1cf5ddec7ada" CreationDate="2018-04-30T01:07:23.587" UserId="10511" Text="&quot;Надо же&quot; is used with a tinge of annoyance, saying you didn't expect it to happen but it happened.&quot;Ничего себе&quot; is more positive than the previous version. In any case, everything depends on the intonation of the person, any of these phrases can be pronounced either with a positive connotation or negative.&#xD;&#xA;For example: &quot;Надо же, тебе опять повезло&quot; and &quot;Ничего себе, ты поменял стрижку!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16313" RevisionGUID="e9c257bc-a5dd-4f61-b7c6-c7c482ac02ae" CreationDate="2018-04-30T04:51:25.337" UserId="194" Text="Ничего себе reflects greater surprise. You really express emotion, while надо же can be used without any emothion &quot;I did not expect this, but so it happened, okay&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16314" RevisionGUID="edc0f939-ed1d-4787-8cde-357a93cf0cde" CreationDate="2018-04-30T04:55:58.963" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Чьи **это** были деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Чьи **эти** были деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm struggling to wrap my head around is why you need to use the singular &quot;это&quot; with all the other plural words here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I interpret the sentence structure this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чьи деньги были это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complicate matters further, both &quot;эти&quot; and &quot;это&quot; seem to work in the present tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чьи **эти** деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чьи **это** деньги?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16314" RevisionGUID="edc0f939-ed1d-4787-8cde-357a93cf0cde" CreationDate="2018-04-30T04:55:58.963" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse the construction &quot;Чьи это были деньги?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16314" RevisionGUID="edc0f939-ed1d-4787-8cde-357a93cf0cde" CreationDate="2018-04-30T04:55:58.963" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16315" RevisionGUID="5eb0ab6e-858d-4453-9c2c-9e29b3cf90f7" CreationDate="2018-04-30T05:00:19.863" UserId="194" Text="Да будет вам известно = Be it known to you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16314" RevisionGUID="63046127-38a7-4bb5-8d9c-92b679e0992d" CreationDate="2018-04-30T05:03:19.897" UserId="8672" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="&gt;Чьи **это** были деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Чьи **эти** были деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm struggling to wrap my head around is why you need to use the singular &quot;это&quot; with all the other plural words here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I interpret the sentence structure this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чьи деньги были это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Это были чьи деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complicate matters further, both &quot;эти&quot; and &quot;это&quot; seem to work in the present tense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чьи **эти** деньги?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чьи **это** деньги?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16316" RevisionGUID="e372400d-14dd-496b-9f37-8a0d8d2e861b" CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:39:20.453" UserId="9931" Text="Чьи **это** были деньги? - Accent on WHO own this money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чьи были **эти** деньги? - Accent on MONEY type or source of this MONEY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;I brought some money to You. 1000 RUR + 100 USD.&#xD;&#xA;You ask: Чьи это деньги?&#xD;&#xA;Answer: Это всё наши с другом деньги.&#xD;&#xA;You ask: Чьи эти деньги? *and point on 100 USD*&#xD;&#xA;Answer: Эти деньги моего друга. Он добавил их к моим 1000 рублям (RUR)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16316" RevisionGUID="8da7ea82-4348-407b-88dc-0c194485b178" CreationDate="2018-04-30T07:44:57.440" UserId="9931" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Чьи **это** были деньги? - Accent on WHO own this money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чьи были **эти** деньги? - Accent on MONEY type or source of this MONEY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For example:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I brought some money to You. 1000 RUR + 100 USD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You ask:** *Чьи **это** деньги?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer:** Это всё наши с другом деньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You ask:** *Чьи **эти** деньги?* (and point on 100 USD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer:** Эти деньги моего друга. Он добавил их к моим 1000 рублям (RUR)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="2dcf4b15-5c28-4096-a31a-4b4c97121376" CreationDate="2018-04-30T08:40:02.007" UserId="7674" Comment="added 421 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан Затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basically Instrumental of quite a few words belonging to the 3d declension ending with **-ь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Христос воскресе из мертвых, смерт**ию** смерть поправ](https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/molitvoslov/molitv13.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Easter lity*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[В свободное от должности время большею част**ию** сижу дома](https://phraseology.academic.ru/13821/Большей_%28большею%29_частью_%28частию%29) &lt;sup&gt;*Dostoevsky,&quot;The Landlady&quot; (1846—1847)*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the [second form](http://www.orthodic.org/?searchCs=&amp;searchRu=%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;type=ru) is typical to Church Slavonic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16316" RevisionGUID="363e7c07-4450-415c-acb1-356a34968781" CreationDate="2018-04-30T10:49:29.507" UserId="9931" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Чьи **это** были деньги? - Accent on WHO own this money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чьи были **эти** деньги? - Accent on MONEY type or source of this MONEY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For example:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I brought some money to You. 1000 RUR + 100 USD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You ask:** *Чьи **это** деньги?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer:** Это всё наши с другом деньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You ask:** *Чьи **эти** деньги?* (and point on 100 USD)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer:** Эти деньги - моего друга. Он добавил их к моим 1000 рублям (RUR)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16317" RevisionGUID="10bedc03-ccfd-4ccc-a9a5-f16c6fd9c326" CreationDate="2018-04-30T10:50:08.757" UserId="7674" Text="Another example of semantic difference between **это** and **эти**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи это деньги? - Это мои деньги &lt;sup&gt;*possession*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи эти деньги? - Это американские деньги &lt;sup&gt;*source*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16317" RevisionGUID="fa5e2917-cf9c-4ff9-8b91-95fadd392867" CreationDate="2018-04-30T10:56:08.697" UserId="7674" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Another example of semantic difference between **это** and **эти**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи это деньги? - Это мои деньги &lt;sup&gt;*possession*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи эти деньги? - Это американские деньги &lt;sup&gt;*source*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on DimXenon's example the *source* of money (implied with **эти**) means that someone furnished it, but whether they belong to that person or not is beside the point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16318" RevisionGUID="3e2dab21-9ec4-49ef-b7c3-56ed44eeba50" CreationDate="2018-04-30T12:08:27.330" UserId="6539" Text="Unless you have a choice, you can use **это**. Эти is more rarely used.&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on the structure. If it is the subject, unchanged dummy &quot;it&quot;, you say это, no matter what the tense is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Это были мои деньги. Это были российские купюры. Чьи это были деньги? Чьи это были купюры? Это мои деньги. Чьи это деньги?. Это российские купюры. Чьи это купюры?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the following examples эти is a determiner, in Russian указательное местоимение, этот, эта,это(for neuter gender),эти (for plural )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти купюры американские, а те российские. Где‐то я уже видел эти книги. Чьи эти деньги?(this very money)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16317" RevisionGUID="7c2e559b-5d2e-4747-b1ab-83f23ed54fbe" CreationDate="2018-04-30T12:49:37.917" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Another example of semantic difference between **это** and **эти**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи это деньги? - Это мои деньги &lt;sup&gt;*possession*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи эти деньги? - Это американские деньги &lt;sup&gt;*source*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on DimXenon's example the *source* of money (implied with **эти**) means that someone furnished it, but whether it belongs to that person or not is beside the point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16317" RevisionGUID="db439aac-801d-42a8-8d99-b1148ce9d4ed" CreationDate="2018-04-30T14:52:51.820" UserId="7674" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Another example of semantic difference between **это** and **эти**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи это деньги? - Это мои деньги &lt;sup&gt;*possession*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи эти деньги? - Это американские деньги &lt;sup&gt;*source*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on DimXenon's example the *source* of money (implied with **эти**) means that someone furnished it, but whether it belongs to that person or not is beside the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of distinction maybe it's useful to treat ***Чьи ЭТО деньги?*** as ***Whose money is IT?*** while treating ***Чьи ЭТИ деньги?*** as ***Whose is THIS money?***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="98cc508d-025c-4a1a-a92b-0393853bdffc" CreationDate="2018-04-30T15:10:51.277" UserId="7674" Comment="added 439 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан Затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basically Instrumental of quite a few words belonging to the 3d declension group ending with **-ь** &lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Христос воскресе из мертвых, смерт**ию** смерть поправ](https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/molitvoslov/molitv13.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Easter lity*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[В свободное от должности время большею част**ию** сижу дома](https://phraseology.academic.ru/13821/Большей_%28большею%29_частью_%28частию%29) &lt;sup&gt;*Dostoevsky,&quot;The Landlady&quot; (1846—1847)*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the [second form](http://www.orthodic.org/?searchCs=&amp;searchRu=%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;type=ru) is typical to Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *&lt;sup&gt;In fact such form of Instrumental ending (along with the modern form) for the said declension group is attested in textbooks on Old Russian. In particular in &quot;ДРЕВНЕРУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК. Учебно-методическое пособие&quot;, Appendix 3, table &quot;Существительные с основами на ĭ&quot;. So the suggestion of Church Slavonic influence may not apply to this case or even at all.&lt;/sup&gt;* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="025b5dcb-4447-436b-824f-0013b2b28ede" CreationDate="2018-04-30T16:11:34.920" UserId="7674" Comment="added 423 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан Затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basically Instrumental of quite a few words belonging to the 3d declension group ending with **-ь** &lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Христос воскресе из мертвых, смерт**ию** смерть поправ](https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/molitvoslov/molitv13.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Easter lity*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[В свободное от должности время большею част**ию** сижу дома](https://phraseology.academic.ru/13821/Большей_%28большею%29_частью_%28частию%29) &lt;sup&gt;*Dostoevsky,&quot;The Landlady&quot; (1846—1847)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and multiple case declensions of the 2nd declension group neuters ending with **-e**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[«Семейное счаст**ие**»](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семейное_счастие) &lt;sup&gt;*roman by Leo Tolstoy (1859)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[С счаст**ие**м у вас разлад](https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Нет_ни_в_чем_вам_благодати_(Пушкин)) &lt;sup&gt;Pushkin, Nov 1825&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[«Путь к счаст**ию**»](http://www.stihi-xix-xx-vekov.ru/rileev13.html) &lt;sup&gt;*Rileyev 1821*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the [second form](http://www.orthodic.org/?searchCs=&amp;searchRu=%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;type=ru) is typical to Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *&lt;sup&gt;In fact such form of Instrumental ending (along with the modern form) for the said declension group is attested in textbooks on Old Russian. In particular in &quot;ДРЕВНЕРУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК. Учебно-методическое пособие&quot;, Appendix 3, table &quot;Существительные с основами на ĭ&quot;. So the suggestion of Church Slavonic influence may not apply to this case or even at all.&lt;/sup&gt;* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="4606f26d-27a0-4382-87f9-ba307d4e41b5" CreationDate="2018-04-30T17:51:17.083" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан Затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basically Instrumental of quite a few words belonging to the 3d declension group ending with **-ь** &lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Христос воскресе из мертвых, смерт**ию** смерть поправ](https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/molitvoslov/molitv13.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Easter lity*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[В свободное от должности время большею част**ию** сижу дома](https://phraseology.academic.ru/13821/Большей_%28большею%29_частью_%28частию%29) &lt;sup&gt;*Dostoevsky,&quot;The Landlady&quot; (1846—1847)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and multiple case declensions of the 2nd declension group neuters ending with **-e**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[«Семейное счаст**ие**»](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семейное_счастие) &lt;sup&gt;*roman by Leo Tolstoy (1859)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[С счаст**ие**м у вас разлад](https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Нет_ни_в_чем_вам_благодати_(Пушкин)) &lt;sup&gt;*Pushkin, Nov 1825*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[«Путь к счаст**ию**»](http://www.stihi-xix-xx-vekov.ru/rileev13.html) &lt;sup&gt;*Rileyev 1821*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the [second form](http://www.orthodic.org/?searchCs=&amp;searchRu=%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;type=ru) is typical to Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *&lt;sup&gt;In fact such form of Instrumental ending (along with the modern form) for the said declension group is attested in textbooks on Old Russian. In particular in &quot;ДРЕВНЕРУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК. Учебно-методическое пособие&quot;, Appendix 3, table &quot;Существительные с основами на ĭ&quot;. So the suggestion of Church Slavonic influence may not apply to this case or even at all.&lt;/sup&gt;* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16317" RevisionGUID="0d553a8e-205d-4ed3-9496-2df66ed320b5" CreationDate="2018-04-30T21:16:31.083" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Another example of semantic difference between **это** and **эти**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи это деньги? - Это мои деньги &lt;sup&gt;*possession*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чьи эти деньги? - Это американские деньги &lt;sup&gt;*source*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on DimXenon's example the *source* of money (implied with **эти**) means that someone furnished it, but whether it belongs to that person or not is beside the point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of distinction maybe it's useful to treat ***Чьи ЭТО деньги?*** as ***Whose money is IT?*** while treating ***Чьи ЭТИ деньги?*** as ***Whose is THIS money?/Whose money is THIS?***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41128" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16306" RevisionGUID="761066fd-7621-4ff2-8fef-87635cc38f68" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:21:59.270" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/991080247796928513" />
  <row Id="41129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16319" RevisionGUID="0482e129-9edd-40a7-b0cb-541836ab5eb1" CreationDate="2018-04-30T23:29:17.090" UserId="179" Text="According to Russian Wikipedia (and this is exactly how I remember it from school), the sentence in Russian unlike in English, is not required to have the subject, a predicate or both. We don't call such structures &quot;sentence fragments&quot; and they are considered sentences, though *incomplete*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is from [Wikipedia][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a sentence has all the required sentence members, then it is considered complete. An incomplete sentence is the one which misses formally necessary primary and secondary members, whose meaning is clear from the context or situation. … The incomplete sentences can be missing the subject as well as a predicate at the same time: *Where?*, *Why?* **[The &quot;where&quot; and &quot;why&quot; here are both sentences, we don't call them &quot;sentence fragments]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если предложение содержит все необходимые члены предложения, то оно считается полным. Неполным предложением является предложение, в котором отсутствуют формально необходимые главные или второстепенные члены предложения, значение которых ясно из контекста или ситуации[6]. … В неполных предложениях может не быть одновременно как подлежащего, так и сказуемого: Куда? Зачем?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_(%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0)#%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16309" RevisionGUID="5a7f88f3-73ee-4a45-8a3e-0326511c2c09" CreationDate="2018-05-01T06:59:00.767" UserId="7674" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="These are two types of spelling of the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like for example **сиянье - сияние, ученье - учение**, and the rest of verbal nouns, all of which are current and legitimate today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case **Божия** is an archaic form which is kept due to being  part of a proper name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **вражья - вражия**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Предостережения от прелести враж**ие**й](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_45)  &#xD;&#xA;[Враж**ия** логика](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_49)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form pertains also to plural&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [О враж**иих** кознях](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very-i-zhizni/#0_50)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Письма к разным лицам о разных предметах веры и жизни&quot; by Святитель Феофан Затворник (1815-1894)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [отцы и брат**ия** мои возлюбленные](https://predanie.ru/feodor-studit-prepodobnyy/book/68042-feodor-studit-tvoreniya/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Прп. Феодор Студит, &quot;Творения&quot;, translation from 1871-2*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as well as to Instrumental of ***мысль*** - **мыслию**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[и мысл**ию** и сердцем](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/chetyre-slova-o-molitve/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Четыре слова о молитве&quot;, Слово II by Св. Феофан Затворник, Nov 22, 1864*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basically Instrumental of quite a few words belonging to the 3d declension group ending with **-ь** &lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Христос воскресе из мертвых, смерт**ию** смерть поправ](https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/molitvoslov/molitv13.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Easter lity*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[В свободное от должности время большею част**ию** сижу дома](https://phraseology.academic.ru/13821/Большей_%28большею%29_частью_%28частию%29) &lt;sup&gt;*Dostoevsky,&quot;The Landlady&quot; (1846—1847)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and multiple case declensions of the 2nd declension group neuters ending with **-e**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[«Семейное счаст**ие**»](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Семейное_счастие) &lt;sup&gt;*roman by Leo Tolstoy (1859)*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[С счаст**ие**м у вас разлад](https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Нет_ни_в_чем_вам_благодати_(Пушкин)) &lt;sup&gt;*Pushkin, Nov 1825*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;[«Путь к счаст**ию**»](http://www.stihi-xix-xx-vekov.ru/rileev13.html) &lt;sup&gt;*Rileyev 1821*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **статья** back in the 19th century would be spelled as **статия** (nowadays this is the normative spelling in particular in Bulgarian)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[Стат**ия** по гривне  &#xD;&#xA;Стат**ия** по 3 алтына](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=R5zsBQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=RA1-PA72&amp;lpg=RA1-PA72&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=w25KAM8MHe&amp;sig=UJ70Sg-p3hxwJZs-FRjc5-vuZ38&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiE7t6cp-DaAhUEyKYKHSETAnE4ChDoAQhTMAs#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&quot;Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь и его устройство до второй четверти XVII века&quot; Том 1,  by Н. Никольский, 1897*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might originate from the Church Slavonic or be a result of its influence as a liturgical language of Russian Orthodox Church. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar alternation would occur in the pair **судья - судия**, of which the [second form](http://www.orthodic.org/?searchCs=&amp;searchRu=%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;type=ru) is typical to Church Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;***1***&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; *&lt;sup&gt;In fact such form of Instrumental ending (along with the modern form) for the said declension group is attested in textbooks on Old Russian. In particular in &quot;ДРЕВНЕРУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК. Учебно-методическое пособие&quot;, Appendix 3, table &quot;Существительные с основами на ĭ&quot;. So the suggestion of Church Slavonic influence may not apply to this case or even at all.&lt;/sup&gt;* " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16320" RevisionGUID="35d5ecdd-1930-4b57-b8bf-8ff651d98f92" CreationDate="2018-05-01T10:53:02.447" UserId="10515" Text="I have been studying Russian recently and I have come across a problem that I have been trying to resolve for some time now which involves the softening of consonants. I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden (and of course, 'ь' is the most obvious indicator that a consonant preceding it would soften). I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when softened. I know that 'т' sounds similar to 'ц' when softened, but with more odd examples such as 'л' I am lost. I know that there are numerous sound recordings of words with softened and hardened characters, but as a beginner to this language it is hard to pick up the subtleties. All of the online Russian learning resources I have been to have so far only been stating the groups of vowels that harden or soften characters, not listing how the consonants sound or are transliterated when softened. Therefore, I would be much obliged if anyone could help me in this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16320" RevisionGUID="35d5ecdd-1930-4b57-b8bf-8ff651d98f92" CreationDate="2018-05-01T10:53:02.447" UserId="10515" Text="What are the Transliterations of Hard Consonants Converted to Soft Consonants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16320" RevisionGUID="35d5ecdd-1930-4b57-b8bf-8ff651d98f92" CreationDate="2018-05-01T10:53:02.447" UserId="10515" Text="|узус|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16320" RevisionGUID="edc417a9-9a04-488a-a934-308aa72406ab" CreationDate="2018-05-01T10:56:12.183" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="I have been studying Russian recently and I have come across a problem that I have been trying to resolve for some time now which involves the softening of consonants.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden (and of course, 'ь' is the most obvious indicator that a consonant preceding it would soften). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when softened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that 'т' sounds similar to 'ц' when softened, but with more odd examples such as 'л' I am lost. I know that there are numerous sound recordings of words with softened and hardened characters, but as a beginner to this language it is hard to pick up the subtleties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the online Russian learning resources I have been to have so far only been stating the groups of vowels that harden or soften characters, not listing how the consonants sound or are transliterated when softened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I would be much obliged if anyone could help me in this matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41135" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16320" RevisionGUID="edc417a9-9a04-488a-a934-308aa72406ab" CreationDate="2018-05-01T10:56:12.183" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="|узус|фонетика|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16321" RevisionGUID="f31bd782-af56-4033-bd2e-0683c77f49fc" CreationDate="2018-05-01T11:41:18.480" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; *I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is incorrect. Softening and hardening works the other way round, that is what determines pronunciation of a consonant is the *following* vowel, not the preceding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider the word **колЕно**. In it the soft consonant is **Л** which *precedes* the **E**, and not **Н** which follows it. In the inflected form (на) **колЕнЕ** both **Л** and **Н** are soft due to each being followed by **Е**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; softened*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is also incorrect. Besides the fact the vowels cannot be hard or soft (although do affect softness or hardness), the members in pairs of consonants are distinguished by the degree of vocalization and not by hardness-softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider one pair **Д - Т** (basically equivalent to the English **D - T**), of which both can be either hard or soft depending on the *following* vowel. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;С**Т**ена &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;С**Т**он &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, **Т** and **Ц** aren't considered a pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is that **E, И** and **Ё** soften *preceding* consonants, while **А, О, Э, Ы** harden them. **Ш** and **Щ** are a hard and a soft versions of the same sound and don't depend on the *following* vowel. **Ц** is mostly hard regardless of the *following* vowel.   &#xD;&#xA;There're of course details but these i'm sure covered in the textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16321" RevisionGUID="19f91fc1-bdd2-4637-9e4e-7f997007fc9a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T11:46:33.613" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; *I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is incorrect. Softening and hardening works the other way round, that is what determines pronunciation of a consonant is the *following* vowel, not the preceding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider the word **колЕно**. In it the soft consonant is **Л** which *precedes* the **E**, and not **Н** which follows it. In the inflected form (на) **колЕнЕ** both **Л** and **Н** are soft due to each being followed by **Е**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; softened*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is also incorrect. Besides the fact the vowels cannot be hard or soft (although do affect softness or hardness), the members in pairs of consonants are distinguished by the degree of vocalization and not by hardness-softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider one pair **Д - Т** (basically equivalent to the English **D - T**), of which both can be either hard or soft depending on the *following* vowel. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;С**Т**ена &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;С**Т**он &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, **Т** and **Ц** aren't considered a pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is that **E, И, Ю** and **Ё** soften *preceding* consonants, while **А, О, Э, У** and **Ы** harden them. **Ш** and **Щ** are hard and a soft versions of the same sound and don't depend on the *following* vowel. **Ц** is mostly hard regardless of the *following* vowel. **Ч** is always soft regardless of the *following* vowel.  &#xD;&#xA;There're of course details but those i'm sure covered in the textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16321" RevisionGUID="ca9c2a6a-a908-486d-8602-259258f764cb" CreationDate="2018-05-01T11:54:37.157" UserId="7674" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="&gt; *I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is incorrect. Softening and hardening works the other way round, that is what determines pronunciation of a consonant is the *following* vowel, not the preceding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider the word **колЕно**. In it the soft consonant is **Л** which *precedes* the **E**, and not **Н** which follows it. In the inflected form (на) **колЕнЕ** both **Л** and **Н** are soft due to each being followed by **Е**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This logic applies to English as well (in ***tune*** **T** is soft due to **U** while in ***tone*** it's hard due to **O**) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; softened*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is also incorrect. Besides the fact the vowels cannot be hard or soft (although do affect softness or hardness), the members in pairs of consonants are distinguished by the degree of vocalization and not by hardness-softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider one pair **Д - Т** (basically equivalent to the English **D - T**), of which both can be either hard or soft depending on the *following* vowel. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**Т**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;С**Т**он &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, **Т** and **Ц** aren't considered a pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is that **E, И, Ю** and **Ё** soften *preceding* consonants, while **А, О, Э, У** and **Ы** harden them. **Ш** and **Щ** are hard and a soft versions of the same sound and don't depend on the *following* vowel. **Ц** is mostly hard regardless of the *following* vowel. **Ч** is always soft regardless of the *following* vowel.  &#xD;&#xA;There're of course details but those i'm sure are covered in the textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16321" RevisionGUID="3253c40e-81ab-4acd-bb3f-1a3cbcbf0da8" CreationDate="2018-05-01T12:02:33.793" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; *I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is incorrect. Softening and hardening works the other way round, that is what determines pronunciation of a consonant is the *following* vowel, not the preceding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider the word **колЕно**. In it the soft consonant is **Л** which *precedes* the **E**, and not **Н** which follows it. In the inflected form (на) **колЕнЕ** both **Л** and **Н** are soft due to each being followed by **Е**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This logic applies to English as well (in ***tune*** **T** is soft due to **U** while in ***tone*** it's hard due to **O**) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; softened*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is also incorrect. Besides the fact the vowels cannot be hard or soft (although do affect softness or hardness), the members in pairs of consonants are distinguished by the degree of vocalization and not by hardness-softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider one pair **Д - Т** (basically equivalent to the English **D - T**), of which both can be either hard or soft depending on the *following* vowel. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**Т**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**Т**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, **Т** and **Ц** aren't considered a pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is that **E, И, Ю, Я** and **Ё** soften *preceding* consonants, while **А, О, Э, У** and **Ы** harden them. **Ш** and **Щ** are hard and a soft versions of the same sound and don't depend on the *following* vowel. **Ц** is mostly hard regardless of the *following* vowel. **Ч** is always soft regardless of the *following* vowel.  &#xD;&#xA;There're of course details but those i'm sure are covered in the textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41140" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16320" RevisionGUID="fc4d37c5-84dd-4a5b-af21-bd37f1b87987" CreationDate="2018-05-01T13:41:46.657" UserId="10515" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the Latin Transliterations of Hard Consonants Converted to Soft Consonants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="025163d9-e450-4c14-8d11-07006aa7afea" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:59:52.053" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **вы с Адамом** так **близки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker and her interlocutor are on close enough terms to call each other by &quot;ты&quot;, which rules out the possibility of her suddenly switching to the polite, singular &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the context also makes it abundantly clear that her interlocutor is the only person here that she is referring to as having a close relationship with Adam, so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably  plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **ты** с Адамом так близок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This apparent idiosyncrasy -- using the plural &quot;вы (с Адамом)&quot; when, in fact, the casual, singular &quot;ты (с Адамом)&quot; is obviously implied -- throws me off here. What is the rationale behind this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="025163d9-e450-4c14-8d11-07006aa7afea" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:59:52.053" UserId="8672" Text="Why say &quot;вы с Адамом близки&quot; in the plural instead of &quot;ты с Адамом близок&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="025163d9-e450-4c14-8d11-07006aa7afea" CreationDate="2018-05-02T11:59:52.053" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="b35e3f83-70cb-4a05-b2e2-2c652635f51f" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:06:34.307" UserId="8672" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **вы с Адамом** так **близки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker and her interlocutor are on close enough terms to call each other by &quot;ты&quot;, which rules out the possibility of her suddenly switching to the polite, singular &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the context also makes it abundantly clear that her interlocutor is the only person here that she is referring to as having a close relationship with Adam, so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably  plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **ты** с Адамом так близок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This apparent idiosyncrasy -- using the plural &quot;вы (с Адамом)&quot; when, in fact, the casual, singular &quot;ты (с Адамом)&quot; is obviously implied -- throws me off here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; What is the rationale behind this construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16323" RevisionGUID="836e0e6e-99b1-4cf1-80ca-2993530c0c0e" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:27:02.247" UserId="6097" Text="&gt; so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This premise is wrong. It is plural &quot;вы&quot;. It is absolutely legit to use &quot;вы&quot; referring to a single present counterpart and their absent companions. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Father to child*: Что вы сегодня делали на уроке математики? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, father does not use polite singular &quot;вы&quot; addressing his child. &quot;Вы&quot; in this case refers to the child and their classmates even when they're absent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;вы&quot; implies that the group of people which are spoken about (ты и Адам, ребенок и одноклассники) have something common (are close to each other) or are/were/will be doing something together (as in math class)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="3945028e-69ca-4f2b-9b90-fd2772a8b63e" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:41:26.577" UserId="8672" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **вы с Адамом** так **близки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The intended meaning in English: &quot;... why you{singular} and Adam are so close&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker and her interlocutor are on close enough terms to call each other by &quot;ты&quot;, which rules out the possibility of her suddenly switching to the polite, singular &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the context also makes it abundantly clear that her interlocutor is the only person here that she is referring to as having a close relationship with Adam, so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably  plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **ты** с Адамом так близок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This apparent idiosyncrasy -- using the plural &quot;вы (с Адамом)&quot; when, in fact, the casual, singular &quot;ты (с Адамом)&quot; is obviously implied -- throws me off here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; What is the rationale behind this construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16324" RevisionGUID="f6409077-976f-4779-825d-d2d05fbd7f29" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:46:35.717" UserId="7674" Text="I guess the rational is in that their intimacy/friendship is reciprocal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the addressee were the only one exercising intimacy/friendship in his relationship with Adam, it would be correct to say ***ты так близок***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since relationship is an affair in which usually all parties are actively engaged the use of plural is much more prevalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16324" RevisionGUID="e600f1d2-4155-4fe6-a46a-d35aef700727" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:51:36.943" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I guess the rationale is in that their intimacy/friendship is reciprocal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the addressee were the only one exercising intimacy/friendship in his relationship with Adam, it would be correct to say ***ты так близок***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since relationship is an affair in which usually all parties are actively engaged the use of plural is much more prevalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="e3ba8a95-1d86-4e8e-8d2e-efc875f6e480" CreationDate="2018-05-02T12:54:32.377" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **вы с Адамом** так **близки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The intended meaning: &quot;you{singular, her interlocutor} and Adam are so close&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker and her interlocutor are on close enough terms to call each other by &quot;ты&quot;, which rules out the possibility of her suddenly switching to the polite, singular &quot;вы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the context also makes it abundantly clear that her interlocutor is the only person here that she is referring to as having a close relationship with Adam, so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably  plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я начинаю понимать, почему **ты** с Адамом так близок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This apparent idiosyncrasy -- using the plural &quot;вы (с Адамом)&quot; when, in fact, the casual, singular &quot;ты (с Адамом)&quot; is obviously implied -- throws me off here.  What is the rationale behind this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16323" RevisionGUID="e90cf997-f89d-49f3-86fb-82dcf3cd3108" CreationDate="2018-05-02T13:11:24.947" UserId="179" Comment="some tenses, omitted articles and a pronoun have been fixed" Text="&gt; so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This premise is wrong. It is plural &quot;вы&quot;. It is absolutely legit to use &quot;вы&quot; referring to a single present counterpart and their absent companions. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Father to child*: Что вы сегодня делали на уроке математики? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, father does not use the polite singular &quot;вы&quot; addressing his child. &quot;Вы&quot; in this case refers to the child and his/her classmates even when they're absent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;вы&quot; implies that the group of people which are being spoken about (ты и Адам, ребенок и одноклассники) have something common (are close to each other) or are/were/will be doing something together (as in the math class)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41151" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16323" RevisionGUID="e90cf997-f89d-49f3-86fb-82dcf3cd3108" CreationDate="2018-05-02T13:11:24.947" Comment="Proposed by 179 approved by -1 edit id of 970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16323" RevisionGUID="7f35a1c0-f4be-4f48-a9d0-9804ad8cdfa8" CreationDate="2018-05-02T13:11:24.947" UserId="6097" Comment="some tenses, omitted articles " Text="&gt; so it seems logical to discard the inexplicably plural &quot;вы&quot; in favour of the casual, singular &quot;ты&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This premise is wrong. It is plural &quot;вы&quot;. It is absolutely legit to use &quot;вы&quot; referring to a single present counterpart and their absent companions. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Father to child*: Что вы сегодня делали на уроке математики? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, father does not use the polite singular &quot;вы&quot; addressing his child. &quot;Вы&quot; in this case refers to the child and their classmates even when they're absent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This &quot;вы&quot; implies that the group of people which are being spoken about (ты и Адам, ребенок и одноклассники) have something common (are close to each other) or are/were/will be doing something together (as in the math class)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41153" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="04cff768-df2c-49e7-bf53-8cfa33306638" CreationDate="2018-05-02T13:30:33.643" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;вы с Адамом близки&quot;: Why use the plural &quot;вы&quot; to supposedly refer to the casual, singular &quot;you&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8661" RevisionGUID="0dbcbf47-a34e-4ddf-86b5-5fdd6a9ad084" CreationDate="2018-05-03T07:08:07.793" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41155" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8661" RevisionGUID="0dbcbf47-a34e-4ddf-86b5-5fdd6a9ad084" CreationDate="2018-05-03T07:08:07.793" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 6097, 8895 edit id of 968" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41156" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="c88b2e2f-b07e-4baa-88c4-431b92af98cb" CreationDate="2018-05-03T07:08:13.980" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|прилагательные|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41157" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8906" RevisionGUID="c88b2e2f-b07e-4baa-88c4-431b92af98cb" CreationDate="2018-05-03T07:08:13.980" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 6097, 8895 edit id of 969" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16322" RevisionGUID="259b1fad-aa8d-451b-98ca-f7811caca767" CreationDate="2018-05-03T07:22:44.640" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/991941109185220613" />
  <row Id="41159" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16304" RevisionGUID="b8b8f851-5d6a-443f-a755-4aaef4930195" CreationDate="2018-05-03T10:22:45.387" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/991986410755325952" />
  <row Id="41160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16325" RevisionGUID="1e315b88-5765-478f-a076-4409a78d7280" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:14:20.410" UserId="9001" Text="**Крайний** - находящийся награнице какого-нибудь объекта (или интервала, диапазона): *крайнеее окно справа*, *крайнее недовольство* (недовольство на границе всех возможных уровней недовольства).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Последний** - имевший место поздее всех по времени (*последний поезд*) или такой объект в ряду похожих, после которого эти объекты кончаются (*последний патрон*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Иногда, смысл этих слов совпадает. Например, *крайний в очереди* является так же и *последним в очереди*, хотя второй вариант, на мой взгляд, является предпочтительным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В связи со своим значением слово **последний** породило суеверие (изначально у представителей профессий, связанных с повышенным риском), основанное на представлении о том, что если назвать какое-либо событие *последним*, оно станет последним в жизни говорящего или другого связанного с ним человека. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, привычка неправильного употребления *крайний* вместо *последний* чрезвычайно распространилась в посдледние 20 лет и среди обывателей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="de3999ee-9953-48f0-a60b-41b231935572" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:26:20.273" UserId="10526" Text="I'm writing an app for Russian language learners and I am looking for a database (as a csv file for example or an API) of Russian verbs and their associated cases? For instance something that can tell me the verb &quot;дать&quot; takes &quot;что, кому&quot; or &quot;accusative, dative&quot; or &quot;винительный, дательный&quot;? &#xA;&#xA;I can't find anything online that will give me that information for every verb. Яндекс has a dictionary service and openrussian.org has a dictionary database as well, but I can't seem to find anywhere that has the correct cases for verbs.&#xA;&#xA;Do anyone have any idea where I might be able to get my hands on something like that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="de3999ee-9953-48f0-a60b-41b231935572" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:26:20.273" UserId="10526" Text="Verb - question words database or api" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="de3999ee-9953-48f0-a60b-41b231935572" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:26:20.273" UserId="10526" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16327" RevisionGUID="4f1a3a3f-1a4f-42f7-92be-01dd6c962c0e" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:39:17.940" UserId="10527" Text="&gt; Хотя по какой-то причине в тоже время мне стало труднее ладить с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; другими девочками…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужно ли обособить &quot;по какой-то причине&quot;, или после &quot;хотя&quot;, или тут и так всё нормально без запятых?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16327" RevisionGUID="4f1a3a3f-1a4f-42f7-92be-01dd6c962c0e" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:39:17.940" UserId="10527" Text="Ставятся ли в этом предложении какие-нибудь запятые?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16327" RevisionGUID="4f1a3a3f-1a4f-42f7-92be-01dd6c962c0e" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:39:17.940" UserId="10527" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16328" RevisionGUID="c7aef82d-dda0-4e60-8f14-f2b0e3304d9a" CreationDate="2018-05-03T20:49:48.703" UserId="7587" Text="- First case is an expression of some negative surprise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Надо же было проиграть столько денег!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Надо же было мне ввязаться в их ссору!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here we mean, that our doings had some negative consequences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another case is when you want to express, that you're or somebody else extremely need to take some actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Надо же как то отсюда выбраться!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Надо же что-то предпринять в такой ситуации&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16329" RevisionGUID="e4724a69-a886-4e47-bee3-bff0f07f9a3e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T03:19:01.500" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Не могу **отделаться** от мысли, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не могу **избавиться** от мысли, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the phrase above, I feel more comfortable using &quot;отделаться&quot;, while in the following phrase I opt for &quot;избавиться&quot;. That said, I'm not sure if the other option in each is downright impossible. I wonder if &quot;избавиться&quot; tends to be followed by something more negative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**избавиться** от моей компании&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**отделаться** от моей компании" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16329" RevisionGUID="e4724a69-a886-4e47-bee3-bff0f07f9a3e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T03:19:01.500" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;отделаться&quot; vs &quot;избавиться&quot;: When to use which one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16329" RevisionGUID="e4724a69-a886-4e47-bee3-bff0f07f9a3e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T03:19:01.500" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16330" RevisionGUID="1bc808fb-0d73-48e3-9bc1-dd0d557d17d3" CreationDate="2018-05-04T03:29:12.300" UserId="6539" Text="Нет причин выделять что‐либо запятыми. Вот примеры из корпуса русского языка. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Например, многие живут с уверенностью, что должны быть безупречными, сильными, умными, и, когда по какой-то причине не могут соответствовать собственным требованиям, расстраиваются, а то и вовсе впадают в депрессию. [Юлия Кожева. Откровенные уроки, способные изменить мир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если же человек по какой-то причине слышит эти голоса все время, его или объявляют шизофреником и изолируют от нормальных людей, или назначают пророком и сажают в золотую колесницу. [Виктор Пелевин. Любовь к трем цукербринам (2014)] " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16331" RevisionGUID="72ca82c2-16ed-47dd-984d-1b1c6b6cbe41" CreationDate="2018-05-04T05:35:06.230" UserId="5443" Text="The version **избавиться** just points at the *result* of getting rid of smth/smb, while the version **отделаться** (sometimes, **чем**) means doing that with some *effort* or paying a *price* for it, which is not necessarily mentioned. An example with *mentioning* the price: **отделался лёгким испугом** (he got rid *of some situation* at the price of just being frightened a bit; you can't use *избавился* here). So there's an extra emphasis on the effort in your first example and therefore it might sound more convincing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="568f0099-4887-48c4-a5b7-09e83e592795" CreationDate="2018-05-04T09:18:06.000" UserId="7674" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от***, but not ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** can be translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="61ab3271-d43c-49dd-8b24-6b4f087a2bb2" CreationDate="2018-05-04T09:23:19.683" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от***, but not ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="70b8577d-cee8-4d41-8212-aacc11119f85" CreationDate="2018-05-04T10:25:04.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/992349382258450432" />
  <row Id="41177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16330" RevisionGUID="dfbc3c60-a0d5-485b-9193-53fc6b1e338c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T10:32:38.990" UserId="6539" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="Нет причин выделять что‐либо запятыми. Вот примеры из корпуса русского языка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Например, многие живут с уверенностью, что должны быть безупречными, сильными, умными, и, когда по какой-то причине не могут соответствовать собственным требованиям, расстраиваются, а то и вовсе впадают в депрессию. [Юлия Кожева. Откровенные уроки, способные изменить мир.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Если же человек по какой-то причине слышит эти голоса все время, его или объявляют шизофреником и изолируют от нормальных людей, или назначают пророком и сажают в золотую колесницу. [Виктор Пелевин. Любовь к трем цукербринам (2014)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Обособляются предложные обороты, которые содержат объяснение того, о чем говорится в предложении, и выделяются интонационно: ...Детям, по причине малолетства, не определили никаких должностей, что, впрочем, нисколько не помешало им совершенно облениться… И. Тургенев, Малиновая вода. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Те, что стоят между подлежащим и сказуемым, а не в начале предложения и в конце могут обособляться и нет --авторское решение.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="637c75f9-f374-46cb-857d-d240a98ac5d6" CreationDate="2018-05-04T10:46:27.260" UserId="7674" Comment="added 452 characters in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от***, but not ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting results.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other dictionaries) both verbs are listed as synonyms of each other. Yet the examples for ***избавляться*** in my view point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="22494721-f241-4dbf-b466-7fcddd2fb8f8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T11:27:32.153" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от*** without ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting results.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other dictionaries) both verbs are listed as synonyms of each other. Yet the examples for ***избавляться*** in my view point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="047aac9b-fe19-409a-8e1c-7ded50da2eee" CreationDate="2018-05-04T11:36:40.103" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от*** without ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary derived meaning of ***избавиться от*** as applied to animates is  ***to kill*** and as applied to inanimates is ***to dispose of***. ***Отделаться*** doesn't have such connotations.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English - Russian dictionaries translations i used herein apply to both verbs. In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other dictionaries) both verbs are listed as synonyms of each other. Yet the examples for ***избавляться*** speficially, in my view, point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="622549ef-e68d-4f98-b0a9-5ea38fbb3f28" CreationDate="2018-05-04T12:00:23.373" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Врать** не буду, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Лгать** не буду, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two synonyms are nuanced or if they are simply interchangeable in these two instances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**лгать** мне прямо в глаза&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**врать** мне прямо в глаза" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="622549ef-e68d-4f98-b0a9-5ea38fbb3f28" CreationDate="2018-05-04T12:00:23.373" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;врать&quot; and &quot;лгать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="622549ef-e68d-4f98-b0a9-5ea38fbb3f28" CreationDate="2018-05-04T12:00:23.373" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16334" RevisionGUID="e7a833aa-7f0c-496b-8997-4867ae77dac8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:10:09.387" UserId="5605" Text="Значение у слов **врать** и **лгать** одинаковое, но **лгать** - литературное слово, а **врать** - разговорное, более грубое. Смысловых различий у слов **врать** и **лгать** нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16335" RevisionGUID="313d7679-4e8d-4377-bb9a-dcb0e5b63330" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:11:12.063" UserId="10531" Text="Врать is conversational, лгать is formal. &quot;врать мне прямо в глаза&quot; is an established colloquial expression and uses &quot;врать&quot;. I googled &quot;лгать мне прямо в глаза&quot; and got two bad translations of romance pulps and a bad romantic pop song.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the nouns, враньё and ложь, are less formal than the corresponding verbs. Ложь is neutral and can mean a calm &quot;False.&quot; as well as an indignant &quot;LIES!!!&quot;, враньё is a rough equivalent of &quot;bullshit!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16334" RevisionGUID="b36403db-d144-4b2e-8ecb-98517701f4c5" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:23:45.967" UserId="5605" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Значение у слов **врать** и **лгать** одинаковое, но **лгать** - литературное слово, а **врать** - разговорное, более грубое. Смысловых различий у слов **врать** и **лгать** нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words **лгать** and **врать** the same meaning, but **лгать** is a literary word, and the word **врать** - more rough, colloquial synonym. There are no semantic differences between these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41187" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16064" RevisionGUID="816ca317-37a9-4ada-bade-344aa750d558" CreationDate="2018-05-04T13:25:04.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/992394680645115904" />
  <row Id="41188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="5cfb37b6-4744-48d5-9e59-71a511a98bc1" CreationDate="2018-05-04T15:15:28.333" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от*** without ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary derived meaning of ***избавиться от*** as applied to animates is  ***to kill*** and as applied to inanimates is ***to dispose of***. ***Отделаться*** doesn't have such connotations.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English - Russian dictionaries translations i used herein apply to both verbs. In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other dictionaries) both verbs are listed as synonyms of each other. Yet the examples for ***избавляться*** specifially, in my view, point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16329" RevisionGUID="19efeaea-a08c-4e8a-9dca-a36511c37302" CreationDate="2018-05-04T16:25:04.667" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/992439979736469505" />
  <row Id="41190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="35d672c4-5c3d-4378-84f2-ffb914560ecd" CreationDate="2018-05-04T17:28:02.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence and profundity, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary and situational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от*** without ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages/extricates oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That which one ***избавляется от*** exerts greater influence on or power over them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a collocation such as ***избавиться от болезни/привычки/проблемы***  it can't be replaced with ***отделаться***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary derived meaning of ***избавиться от*** as applied to animates is  ***to kill*** and as applied to inanimates is ***to dispose of***. ***Отделаться*** doesn't have such connotations.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English - Russian dictionaries translations i used herein apply to both verbs. In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other dictionaries) both verbs are listed as synonyms of each other. Yet the examples for ***избавляться*** specifially, in my view, point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="b8f9fd3c-e7d5-4b2e-8034-14f46cd3a88e" CreationDate="2018-05-04T19:35:37.517" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence and profundity, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary and situational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от*** without ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages/extricates oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That which one ***избавляется от*** exerts greater influence on or power over them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a collocation such as ***избавиться от болезни/привычки/проблемы***  it can't be replaced with ***отделаться***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary derived meaning of ***избавиться от*** as applied to animates is  ***to kill*** and as applied to inanimates is ***to dispose of***. ***Отделаться*** doesn't have such connotations.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian - English dictionaries both verbs have virtually identical translations.   &#xD;&#xA;In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other Russian - Russian dictionaries) both are listed as synonyms of each other, yet the examples for ***избавляться*** specifially, in my view, point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41197" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16014" RevisionGUID="c746b01e-8f79-48d5-97bb-c9ba6a362045" CreationDate="2018-05-05T07:28:44.167" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/992667392806391808" />
  <row Id="41198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16331" RevisionGUID="c1d8b45b-b46d-4b30-b0d3-6a9a9884ad73" CreationDate="2018-05-05T08:21:53.877" UserId="5443" Comment="added 623 characters in body" Text="The version **избавиться** just points at the *result* of getting rid of smth/smb, while the version **отделаться** (sometimes, **чем**) means doing that with some *effort* or paying a *price* for it, which is not necessarily mentioned. An example with *mentioning* the price: **отделался лёгким испугом** (he got rid *of some situation* at the price of just being frightened a bit; you can't use *избавился* here). So there's an extra emphasis on the effort in your first example and therefore it might sound more convincing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P. S.** One more aspect of difference. The usage of **отделаться** is *limited* to cases where some animated (usually human) force is involved: getting rid of some annoying person (typically, of their *presence*) like а taxman, a creditor or a blackmailer; of a bothering dog, etc. - by doing, giving or promising them something. In case of annoying thoughts (as in your example) it is also OK, since their source is human (like action of 'someone inside my head'). But you need to use the more general **избавиться** when speaking about e. g. a disease or some useless thing which you are going to sell or to throw away.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16331" RevisionGUID="f5f7b20a-7049-4dcd-bd5b-e31ff086b751" CreationDate="2018-05-05T08:27:40.007" UserId="5443" Comment="added 623 characters in body" Text="The version **избавиться** just points at the *result* of getting rid of smth/smb, while the version **отделаться** (sometimes, **чем**) means doing that with some *effort* or paying a *price* for it, which is not necessarily mentioned. An example with *mentioning* the price: **отделался лёгким испугом** (he got rid *of some situation* at the price of just being frightened a bit; you can't use *избавился* here). So there's an extra emphasis on the effort in your first example and therefore it might sound more convincing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P. S.** One more aspect of difference. The usage of **отделаться** is *limited* to cases where some animated (usually human) force is involved: getting rid of some annoying person (typically, of their *presence* but it's also possible to say *отделаться окончательно*) like а taxman, a creditor or a blackmailer; of a bothering dog, etc. - by doing, giving or promising them something. In case of annoying thoughts (as in your example) it is also OK, since their source is human (like, action of 'someone inside my head'). But you need to use the more general **избавиться** when speaking about e. g. a disease or some useless thing which you are going to sell or to throw away.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16332" RevisionGUID="566e51e5-fdab-4fba-8d01-f45bb67884d0" CreationDate="2018-05-05T10:29:53.527" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="Although this distinction may not be strictly followed in usage, ***избавиться от*** has a connotation of permanence and profundity, while ***отделаться от*** is rather temporary and situational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible ***отделаться от*** without ***избавиться от***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***отделаться*** is translated as ***to shrug off, to shake off***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***избавиться*** is a cognate of ***избавление*** - ***salvation, deliverence***, so when one ***избавляется*** one ***salvages/extricates oneself***, which is usually construed as having lasting effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That which one ***избавляется от*** exerts greater influence on or power over them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a collocation such as ***избавиться от болезни/привычки/проблемы/иллюзий/(any personal quality)***  it can't be replaced with ***отделаться***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary derived meaning of ***избавиться от*** as applied to animates is  ***to kill*** and as applied to inanimates is ***to dispose of***. ***Отделаться*** doesn't have such connotations.&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian - English dictionaries both verbs have virtually identical translations.   &#xD;&#xA;In the dictionary *Бабенко Л.Г. — «Толковый словарь русских глаголов. Идеографическое описание Английские эквиваленты. Синонимы. Антонимы»* on p. 234 (and in other Russian - Russian dictionaries) both are listed as synonyms of each other, yet the examples for ***избавляться*** specifially, in my view, point at a permanence of the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы спасти себя и весь отряд, нужно было быстрее избавляться от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предателя. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она как-будто хочет избавиться от отцовской кабалы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="921670bd-ab8f-4f99-bbee-54f0926abd0f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:34:02.890" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;ненавидеть что-нибудь **во сто крат** сильнее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: ненавидеть что-нибудь **во сто раз** сильнее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to use &quot;во сто крат&quot; to hyperbolically express the idea of &quot;гораздо + comparative&quot;, but I wonder if it is considered to be an outdated expression. Is it more common nowadays to use the genitive plural &quot;раз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="921670bd-ab8f-4f99-bbee-54f0926abd0f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:34:02.890" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;во сто крат&quot; vs &quot;во сто раз&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16338" RevisionGUID="921670bd-ab8f-4f99-bbee-54f0926abd0f" CreationDate="2018-05-05T14:34:02.890" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16339" RevisionGUID="a38510e5-03ef-4193-bdff-bd25169e0b41" CreationDate="2018-05-05T15:43:09.373" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, **во сто крат** is bookish while **в сто раз** is universal (note: **в**, not **во**). If you want to go really hyperbolic, you may as well use **в тысячу / миллион раз**. Or **сто миллионов**... you get the idea. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16340" RevisionGUID="6182efc1-1182-4905-94b4-f33a5eabf1e5" CreationDate="2018-05-06T18:56:58.163" UserId="10528" Text="In daily life we usually use “**в сотню раз**”, “**в сто раз**” and “**во сто раз**”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve never heard anyone use “*в/во сто крат*”, but I saw it in books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t know what Sergey meant by “not во”, but I often hear people say the three versions I’ve suggested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16011" RevisionGUID="5331f992-ce4a-4496-97b5-e8e3cd4b1f88" CreationDate="2018-05-07T07:28:52.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/993392202670858240" />
  <row Id="41208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16341" RevisionGUID="27e809c9-c23d-4c4f-af10-e76c9ed88d32" CreationDate="2018-05-07T09:29:57.640" UserId="310" Text="There are cases where they're not interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say `стократно` but you can't say `сторазно`. Also you can say `многократно`, but you can't say `многоразно`. There's a word `многоразовый`, which is not quite the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16342" RevisionGUID="0dc0b9a4-2bd4-41bf-a9db-ac9bbef7d9de" CreationDate="2018-05-07T09:48:42.870" UserId="5443" Text="**Вó сто крат** is **not** considered *outdated*. Some dictionaries mark it as *colloquial* and some other - as *bookish*. It's an idiomatic **set phase** (meaning *immeasurably*), as opposed to **в сто раз** which is most often used as a literal expression and is also colloquially used for an *exaggeration* (usually, about countable things: **зарабатывать я там буду *в сто раз больше***). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of *outdated* things, **literal** usage of **во сто крат** (where **крат** directly replaces **раз** and refers to *numbers*) can only be found in very old literature like Russian versions of Gospel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... иное [семя] упало на добрую землю и принесло плод: одно *во сто*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крат, а другое *в шестьдесят*, иное же *в тридцать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your examples, the first one may sound too sophisticated for everyday speech while is OK in a letter, an article, etc. The second one ( with **в сто раз**) is a bit *informal/colloquial/spontaneous* and not suitable for something written, when applied to something that can't be expressed in numbers; **гораздо** or **намного** would sound better, applied to smth. like comparative '*amount of hatred*'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16321" RevisionGUID="aece2d7c-516e-4417-ba52-a05d4abad53f" CreationDate="2018-05-07T10:18:12.377" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; *I understand that there are certain vowels that indicate whether a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consonant succeeding it would be hard or soft, for example the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'e' would indicate that the consonant after it would soften while an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'a' would indicate that the consonant after it would harden*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is incorrect. Softening and hardening works the other way round, that is what determines pronunciation of a consonant is the *following* vowel, not the preceding one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider the word **колЕно**. In it the soft consonant is **Л** which *precedes* the **E**, and not **Н** which follows it. In the inflected form (на) **колЕнЕ** both **Л** and **Н** are soft due to each being followed by **Е**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This logic applies to English as well (in ***tune*** **T** is soft due to **U** while in ***tone*** it's hard due to **O**) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I also understand that vowels and consonants come in pairs, so in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frames of two characters both must either be hard or soft but not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both. However, I have been trying to find a concise table that would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide transliterations of what consonants would sound like when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; softened*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumption is also incorrect. Besides the fact the vowels cannot be hard or soft (although do affect softness or hardness), the members in pairs of consonants are distinguished by the degree of vocalization and not by hardness-softness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider one pair **Д - Т** (basically equivalent to the English **D - T**), of which both can be either hard or soft depending on the *following* vowel. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Д**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**Т**ело &lt;sup&gt;*soft*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**Т**ом &lt;sup&gt;*hard*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the record, **Т** and **Ц** aren't considered a pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb is that **E, И, Ю, Я** and **Ё** soften *preceding* consonants, while **А, О, Э, У** and **Ы** harden them. **Ш** and **Щ** are hard and a soft versions of the same sound and don't depend on the *following* vowel. **Ц** and **Ж** are mostly hard regardless of the *following* vowel. **Ч** is always soft regardless of the *following* vowel.  &#xD;&#xA;There're of course details but those i'm sure are covered in the textbooks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16343" RevisionGUID="4876b215-9162-44b8-87ba-08f375ad444a" CreationDate="2018-05-07T12:46:52.427" UserId="7716" Text="Here are some interesting comments on [nuances of враньё](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:vranyo &quot;at Wiktionary&quot;) in particular. They're from English speakers; an article by a native speaker gives a couple examples from her life in this [NYTimes article](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/from-russia-with-lies.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="3c52c199-f6f1-4231-9c82-9abb53665889" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:16:57.927" UserId="10534" Text="Каждый человек живет в определённом(,) созданном им мире." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="3c52c199-f6f1-4231-9c82-9abb53665889" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:16:57.927" UserId="10534" Text="Do I need comma here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="3c52c199-f6f1-4231-9c82-9abb53665889" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:16:57.927" UserId="10534" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="a03ea490-7ab8-4f71-a4e1-47ca84d2f72d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:21:59.700" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="My Russian teacher gave me an exercise in which I have to fill in a missing word. The only word available is заказать but it makes the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Хорошо, тогда я заказать на первое уху, а на второе пельмени&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it should be &quot;я закажу&quot;. But searching for &quot;я заказать&quot; reveals a lot of sentences which start Могу ли я заказать... so perhaps this is just a shortened/colloquial version? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a valid sentence one could say, or is there a mistake in the exercise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="a03ea490-7ab8-4f71-a4e1-47ca84d2f72d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:21:59.700" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41217" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="13937" RevisionGUID="a03ea490-7ab8-4f71-a4e1-47ca84d2f72d" CreationDate="2018-05-07T14:21:59.700" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680 edit id of 971" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16345" RevisionGUID="4652a5b5-ed0a-4ede-97cc-8c9195acbe41" CreationDate="2018-05-07T17:10:17.373" UserId="8568" Text="мире (каком?) определённом  &#xD;&#xA;мире (каком?) созданном им (созданном (кем?) им)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. это обычное прилагательное — `определённом` и причастие с зависимым словом (причастный оборот) `созданном им`. Причём определение и причастный оборот являются однородными членами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правила русского языка в данном случае таковы:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * причастный оборот (сам по себе) перед определяемым словом не выделяется запятыми (хотя после определяемого слова выделяется) &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Каждый человек живет в созданном им мире.  &#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Каждый человек живет в мире, созданном им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * если есть не только причастный оборот, но и прилагательное, то всё зависит от их порядка: &#xD;&#xA;      * если причастный оборот разрывает более сильную связь &quot;прилагательное-существительное&quot; то запятая, соединяющая однородные прилагательное и причастный оборот, нужна:&#xD;&#xA;      &gt; Каждый человек живет в определённом, созданном им мире.  &#xD;&#xA;      &gt; Даже старые, серыми лишаями покрытые ветви деревьев зашептали о прошлых днях (М. Г.)   &#xD;&#xA;      &gt; Нет, не только во сне плачут пожилые, поседевшие за годы войны мужчины&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      * Однако если причастный оборот стоит перед прилагательным, то запятая уже не нужна:&#xD;&#xA;      &gt; Каждый человек живет в созданном им определённом мире.  &#xD;&#xA;      &gt; Каждый раз появлялась и снова тонула в кромешном мраке припавшая к широким балкам степная станица (Пауст.);   &#xD;&#xA;      &gt; Сергей увидел плавающие в воздухе белые листки тетрадки (Вороб.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник: http://orthographia.ru/punctum_uk.php?rid=110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16346" RevisionGUID="3e534d1f-2567-4049-a9eb-b19d7cf43088" CreationDate="2018-05-07T18:31:52.417" UserId="6539" Text=" Определения, носящие характер пояснения (перед ними можно поставить слова а именно, то есть и т. п.), отделяются запятой от поясняемого слова, но после них запятая не ставится(Розенталь)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Каждый человек живет в определенном, созданном им мире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Созданном им – пояснение предыдущего определения (определенном)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41220" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16344" RevisionGUID="c6f4be6d-53e2-4ffc-9567-7724ceb328b7" CreationDate="2018-05-07T22:28:58.463" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/993618720982491136" />
  <row Id="41221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16347" RevisionGUID="0f885c07-4728-4d74-9464-6a9eb39a367d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T04:44:32.737" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Если не решишь, не договоришься, у тебя **ничего** не получится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative: Unlikely, given this impersonal &quot;получиться&quot; construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative: Unlikely, as the reflexive &quot;получиться&quot; does not work like a transitive verb that takes Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental: Given the reflexive nature of &quot;получиться&quot;, I'm tempted to go with the interpretation &quot;you won't manage/succeed **in**/**with** anything&quot; in an *instrumental* way, but I assume &quot;ничего&quot; cannot take the place of the instrumental &quot;ничем&quot;, as opposed to the nominative or accusative &quot;ничто&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Genitive: So I'm left with the genitive option. Is it like: &quot;you won't manage/succeed **of** anything&quot; in a *genitive* way? But then, if so, I wonder if the &quot;сделать&quot; here is considered to be in Genitive as well (*in a manner of speaking*), since it's essentially in place of &quot;ничего&quot; in the first example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У него не получилось **сделать** ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16347" RevisionGUID="0f885c07-4728-4d74-9464-6a9eb39a367d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T04:44:32.737" UserId="8672" Text="What is the case of &quot;ничего&quot; in &quot;у тебя ничего не получится&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16347" RevisionGUID="0f885c07-4728-4d74-9464-6a9eb39a367d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T04:44:32.737" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="f41be2b4-c7df-4651-bb4f-46cca007f51f" CreationDate="2018-05-08T05:17:03.757" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Imperative + Future}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming this phrase means &quot;come and show me the photos sometime&quot;. In English, both &quot;come&quot; and &quot;show&quot; are in Imperative, while in Russian it takes the form of &quot;Imperative + Future&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;Заходи, покажешь X&quot; is the construction commonly used to express the idea of &quot;come and do something&quot;. Do the following alternatives sound odd?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажи** фотки! {Imperative + Imperative} &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Заходи** как-нибудь **показать** фотки!  {Imperative + Infinitive} -- similar to &quot;come to show&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Is it unusual to use the perfective &quot;зайти&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Imperfective Imperative + Perfective Future}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: **Зайди** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Perfective Imperative + Perfective Future}&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="f41be2b4-c7df-4651-bb4f-46cca007f51f" CreationDate="2018-05-08T05:17:03.757" UserId="8672" Text="Is &quot;Заходи, покажешь X&quot; {Imperative + Future} an equivalent of &quot;come and show me X&quot; {Imperative + Imperative} in English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="f41be2b4-c7df-4651-bb4f-46cca007f51f" CreationDate="2018-05-08T05:17:03.757" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16347" RevisionGUID="9f5ed721-fee0-415a-afcc-444284721f3e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T07:01:23.077" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 460 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;Если не решишь, не договоришься, у тебя **ничего** не **получится**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if the rationale for using the genitive &quot;ничего&quot; here can be put down to something as simple as a negative construction requiring &quot;ничего&quot;, especially given the use of the dative &quot;ничему&quot; in a similar, reflexive construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я **ничему** не **научился**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;ничего&quot; in &quot;у тебя ничего не получится&quot; *originally* come from the nominative or some other case, in a manner of speaking?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41228" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16347" RevisionGUID="9f5ed721-fee0-415a-afcc-444284721f3e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T07:01:23.077" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 460 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the rationale for using the genitive &quot;ничего&quot; in &quot;у тебя ничего не получится&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="e323b23b-f487-4ed5-81fd-e8ecb698ce57" CreationDate="2018-05-08T07:42:22.087" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;1 **Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Imperative + Future}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming this phrase means &quot;come and show me the photos sometime&quot;. In English, both &quot;come&quot; and &quot;show&quot; are in Imperative, while in Russian it takes the form of &quot;Imperative + Future&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;Заходи, покажешь X&quot; is the construction commonly used to express the idea of &quot;come and do something&quot;. Do the following alternatives sound odd?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2 **Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажи** фотки! {Imperative + Imperative} &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3 **Заходи** как-нибудь **показать** фотки!  {Imperative + Infinitive} -- similar to &quot;come to show&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Is it unusual to use the perfective &quot;зайти&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Imperfective Imperative + Perfective Future}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: 4 **Зайди** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Perfective Imperative + Perfective Future}&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16349" RevisionGUID="5cf2eabb-2afe-42c8-ad87-4e1c2d92330e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T07:43:31.190" UserId="9116" Text="&gt; I'm assuming this phrase means &quot;come and show me the photos sometime&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I wonder if &quot;Заходи, покажешь X&quot; is the construction commonly used...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is quite a usual way to say this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do the following alternatives sound odd?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Заходи как-нибудь, покажи фотки!`&#xD;&#xA;I can think of a situation wherein someone would use these words, but it would be most likely without `как-нибудь`, but with `сейчас/сегодня/через час` as the second imperative makes it like the action should not be in an uncertain future, but soon. But overall I would not suggest preferring it as it is quite colloquial to my ear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Заходи как-нибудь показать фотки!`&#xD;&#xA;Sounds alright. Grammatically correct and as good as the {Imperative + Future} one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; On another note: Is it unusual to use the perfective &quot;зайти&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not unusual and completely correct but it sounds more 'demanding', if you're not very close with this person I wouldn't suggest using it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="fb20bb5a-5bb9-43b4-8d01-9b471e2d4163" CreationDate="2018-05-08T07:46:23.273" UserId="8672" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) **Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Imperative + Future}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming this phrase means &quot;come and show me the photos sometime&quot;. In English, both &quot;come&quot; and &quot;show&quot; are in Imperative, while in Russian it takes the form of &quot;Imperative + Future&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;Заходи, покажешь X&quot; is the construction commonly used to express the idea of &quot;come and do something&quot;. Do the following alternatives sound odd?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) **Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажи** фотки! {Imperative + Imperative} &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3) **Заходи** как-нибудь **показать** фотки!  {Imperative + Infinitive} -- similar to &quot;come to show&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On another note: Is it unusual to use the perfective &quot;зайти&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4) **Зайди** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Perfective Imperative + Perfective Future}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: **Заходи** как-нибудь, **покажешь** фотки! {Imperfective Imperative + Perfective Future}&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16350" RevisionGUID="95903497-438b-4e24-abfa-524d10294f48" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:02:45.697" UserId="6539" Text="All these sentences are valid meaning you invite someone to come to your place and show some pictures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1. Заходи как-нибудь, покажешь фотки! {Imperative + Future} (come and you will/can show)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Заходи как-нибудь, покажи фотки! {Imperative + Imperative}(come and show)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3.Заходи как-нибудь показать фотки! {Imperative + Infinitive} (come in order to show--purpose )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same forms are valid with the perfective imperative as well,  with no difference in meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Зайди как-нибудь, покажешь фотки! Зайди как‐нибудь показать фотки. Зайди как‐нибудь, покажи фотки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All are equally used, we don't have any preference. &#xD;&#xA;Besides you can use different verbs in both parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приходи/приди/забеги/забегай/загляни/заскочи, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="8fa4e03d-93df-4716-8e78-0a88addc3f8b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:42:14.777" UserId="10535" Text="как можно узнать какой падеж если несколько глаголов в одном фраз , и какой глагол будет работать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41234" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="8fa4e03d-93df-4716-8e78-0a88addc3f8b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:42:14.777" UserId="10535" Text="как можно узнать какой падеж если несколько глаголов в одном фраз , и какой глагол будет работать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41235" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="8fa4e03d-93df-4716-8e78-0a88addc3f8b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:42:14.777" UserId="10535" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16352" RevisionGUID="f740550d-110b-43bc-aa96-ca1e44288f7c" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:47:37.187" UserId="6539" Text="Firstly, verbs demand /govern different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Получится что? что‐нибудь (in the affirmative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если долго мучиться, что‐нибудь получится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the negative не получится + genitive (like with the majority of verbs in the negative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего не получится/не выйдет/не случится /не добьешься/не произойдет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some verbs require different cases. Only a dictionary can tell a learner what cases are possible with certain verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Научиться чему?  Чему-нибудь. Не научиться  чему? Ничему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; радоваться чему? Чему-нибудь. Не радоваться ничему." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16352" RevisionGUID="dfc15be6-a9b2-45af-abb2-8d8d843a44e1" CreationDate="2018-05-08T08:54:29.943" UserId="6539" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="Firstly, verbs demand /govern different cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Получится что? что‐нибудь (in the affirmative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если долго мучиться, что‐нибудь получится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the negative не получится + genitive (like with the majority of verbs in the negative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ничего не получится/не выйдет/не случится /не добьешься/не произойдет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But some verbs require different cases. Only a dictionary can tell a learner what cases are possible with certain verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Научиться чему?  Чему-нибудь. Не научиться  чему? Ничему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; радоваться чему? Чему-нибудь. Не радоваться ничему.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conjugation &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Именительный	 Что?	ничто́	&#xD;&#xA;Родительный	 Чего?	ничего́	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дательный	 Чему?	ничему́	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Винительный	 Что?	ничто́	&#xD;&#xA;Творительный	  Чем?	ниче́м	&#xD;&#xA;Предложный О чем?	ни о чём" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16353" RevisionGUID="ae0e9f6a-e7c4-4b12-b83f-fc464c93be55" CreationDate="2018-05-08T09:11:31.767" UserId="9058" Text="You have to understand which verb is controlling the noun you are curious about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control structure of the sentence is typically a tree. From subject via verbs to objects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я посмотрел в окно и закрыл книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я закрыл книгу чтобы посмотреть в окно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those phrases have two verbs and two nouns each, but they clearly constitute verb-noun pairs: книга is bound to закрыть verb and окно is bound to посмотреть verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you can look into the dictionary which grammatical cases every of those verbs imposes over their respective bound object nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="4fca7a2c-5519-423f-9262-147aa073b353" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:03:20.920" UserId="233" Text="In English there’s the use of *armchair* as a modifier with a profession or occupation to ironically indicate that the person in question has mostly theoretical (and not necessarily expert) knowledge on a subject, lacking in practical on-the-ground experience. [Examples] include *“armchair linguist”* and *“armchair anthropologist”*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good equivalent to a phrase like *armchair psychologist* in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Examples]: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/269087/65446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="4fca7a2c-5519-423f-9262-147aa073b353" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:03:20.920" UserId="233" Text="What is the closest equivalent to &quot;Armchair &lt;profession&gt;&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="4fca7a2c-5519-423f-9262-147aa073b353" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:03:20.920" UserId="233" Text="|перевод|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="33bf883d-1683-4797-8f79-72df90be8677" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:21:46.893" UserId="233" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="In English there’s the use of ***armchair*** as a modifier with a profession or occupation to ironically indicate that the person in question has mostly theoretical (and not necessarily expert) knowledge on a subject, lacking in practical on-the-ground experience. [Examples] include ***armchair linguist*** and ***armchair anthropologist***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good equivalent to a phrase like *armchair psychologist* in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit] Another similar expression to ironically refer to a person whose knowledge is purely theoretical is ***woolly academic***, but I cannot find a Russian translation for that either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Examples]: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/269087/65446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16355" RevisionGUID="2940c43a-84a8-40cd-9e27-9b397521ce34" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:24:57.233" UserId="4481" Text="There is an expression &quot;диванный эксперт&quot; (&quot;the sofa expert&quot;), I think it is almost the same. It could be applied to any profession. Also, there is another one expression - &quot;диванные войска&quot; (&quot;the army on the sofa&quot;), which means a group of people who are &quot;experts&quot; in military questions or a group of people supporting in internet one of sides of the war (a singular will be &quot;диванный воин&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16356" RevisionGUID="7cf5f2ae-e3e7-466c-8e28-ec8fa4f1e280" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:25:07.013" UserId="3680" Text="I think &quot;*диванный*&quot; plays the same role in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Диванный аналитик  &#xD;&#xA;Диванный лингвист" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41246" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="cc7b63f0-1723-451d-b4c2-6c0c74b2c47b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:31:46.587" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|выражения|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="cc7b63f0-1723-451d-b4c2-6c0c74b2c47b" CreationDate="2018-05-08T11:31:46.587" UserId="3680" Comment="edited tags" Text="In English there’s the use of ***armchair*** as a modifier with a profession or occupation to ironically indicate that the person in question has mostly theoretical (and not necessarily expert) knowledge on a subject, lacking in practical on-the-ground experience. [Examples] include ***armchair linguist*** and ***armchair anthropologist***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good equivalent to a phrase like *armchair psychologist* in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar expression to ironically refer to a person whose knowledge is purely theoretical is ***woolly academic***, but I cannot find a Russian translation for that either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Examples]: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/269087/65446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16357" RevisionGUID="c01f9a78-5ea6-4e8f-9630-e717388865fc" CreationDate="2018-05-08T12:09:41.720" UserId="5443" Text="**Кабинетный** учёный (your case), *паркетный генерал*, *комнатный* (офисный) *журналист*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's even a publishing house ironically named *&quot;Кабинетный учёный&quot;*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.armchair-scientist.ru/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16358" RevisionGUID="342ad834-a3ab-4a5e-8e2d-73fdfe3f225d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T12:54:14.910" UserId="6539" Text="В составных глагольных формах есть глагол основной /главный,который показывает смысл и вспомогательные, которые дают оттенки, детали этого глагола например &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;начал смотреть - смотреть (главное действие), начал – говорит о стадии этого действия. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же самое в сочетаниях и формах &#xD;&#xA;&gt;можно посмотреть, буду смотреть – смысл выражен инфинитивом **смотреть**, **посмотреть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Если дальше идет существительное или местоимение, оно согласуется с **инфинитивом** (смотреть).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Смотреть что? Фильм.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первый глагол служит для согласования со словом, которое стоит перед ним, а не после.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Я начал, вы начали**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="9f121878-f4c3-477f-9fe8-f093bf06364e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T13:18:29.167" UserId="7674" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="как можно узнать какой падеж если несколько глаголов в одном фраз , и какой глагол будет работать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;например : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он начинал смотреть интересные кино&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какой глагол будет контролировать фраза по падежом , начинать или смотрить, или я буду смотрить , можно смотрить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16359" RevisionGUID="4a20a565-c505-4e63-8ce7-c0a39e3b8109" CreationDate="2018-05-08T13:24:30.603" UserId="10537" Text="Слово **ложь** по происхождению означает то что лежит поверх, или скрывает, истину. Аналогично англ. **lie**.&#xD;&#xA;**Враньё** можно перевести **straight lie**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Врёте в глаза&quot; - довольно высокопарная фраза, тут уместнее именно слово &quot;лжёте&quot; (лгать)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="71db8f49-f6b8-4c4b-b368-38d0a4cd740e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T14:25:45.130" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="как можно узнать какой падеж если несколько глаголов в одной фразе, и какой глагол будет работать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;например : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он начинал смотреть интересные кино&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какой глагол будет контролировать фразу по падежам, начинать или смотрить, или я буду смотреть, можно смотреть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41254" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="71db8f49-f6b8-4c4b-b368-38d0a4cd740e" CreationDate="2018-05-08T14:25:45.130" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Как узнать какой падеж, если несколько глаголов в одной фразе, и какой глагол будет работать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="4f22f6b1-03bd-44b5-b2ba-1b64c8b544ed" CreationDate="2018-05-08T15:26:47.320" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed typo" Text="как можно узнать какой падеж если несколько глаголов в одной фразе, и какой глагол будет работать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;например : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он начинал смотреть интересные кино&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какой глагол будет контролировать фразу по падежам, начинать или смотреть, или я буду смотреть, можно смотреть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16360" RevisionGUID="26a11ec7-2803-4831-8312-5682f91ddc65" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:02:02.657" UserId="8794" Text="How does one start an email to a professor? I am curious about how it is done in Russia, but also how it should be done in Russian in the United States. Over here, especially in small classes (like my Russian class), we have relatively casual relationships with professors. In an English email, I would say, &quot;Hello Professor Smith.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16360" RevisionGUID="26a11ec7-2803-4831-8312-5682f91ddc65" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:02:02.657" UserId="8794" Text="Addressing professors over email" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16360" RevisionGUID="26a11ec7-2803-4831-8312-5682f91ddc65" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:02:02.657" UserId="8794" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="f89812ef-d6e3-4b97-8953-03867d0eb2e8" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:45:50.853" UserId="3680" Text="I'd start an official message with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый *Имя Отчество*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or alternatively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый профессор *Фамилия*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of closer relationship, I'd use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, *Имя Отчество*!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, профессор *Фамилия*!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16361" RevisionGUID="93ec76ab-9a80-4aa4-a8ae-82048025afbe" CreationDate="2018-05-08T17:10:10.037" UserId="2104" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I'd start an official message with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый *Имя Отчество*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or alternatively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважаемый профессор *Фамилия*!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of a closer relationship, I'd use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, *Имя Отчество*!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здравствуйте, профессор *Фамилия*!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16362" RevisionGUID="97c1dfd6-9015-4275-a9c7-65b27cf77e42" CreationDate="2018-05-08T18:41:49.020" UserId="7674" Text="If your relationship is casual and less formal one may be addressed as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приветствую/Здравствуйте, профессор &lt;sup&gt;*no (sur)names*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omission of a name underscores the informality and sounds kind of cheery, merry, enthusiastically and upbeat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16362" RevisionGUID="8561427c-8a0a-4d5a-a855-3232671d323d" CreationDate="2018-05-08T18:51:46.160" UserId="7674" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="If your relationship is casual and less formal one may be addressed as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приветствую/Здравствуйте, профессор &lt;sup&gt;*no (sur)names*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omission of a name underscores the informality and sounds kind of cheery, merry, enthusiastically and upbeat. And if the content of the message is somber or deals with a request of some sort, then it conversely sounds more appealing, cordial, intimate, hopeful and ingratiating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16354" RevisionGUID="6edff2b0-3a3f-4fea-9e86-7b3eb7a1fd74" CreationDate="2018-05-09T01:29:33.617" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/994026554819796992" />
  <row Id="41266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16363" RevisionGUID="b97f65c9-5ac9-4c1d-adb8-60353e4da5fe" CreationDate="2018-05-09T02:14:03.760" UserId="9118" Text="As both Dmitrys have said, &quot;диванный&quot; is probably the closest match, however, there are other words in use, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Кухонный&quot;. Used to call a person who's expertise is only&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;applicable&quot; at his own kitchen (to be clear, it doesn't involve&#xD;&#xA;   cooking or other legitimate kitchen activities). I think, there's an&#xD;&#xA;   actual idiom &quot;кухонный психолог&quot;, which, in my opinion, is more to&#xD;&#xA;   the point than &quot;диванный&quot; - after all, what's so wrong with getting&#xD;&#xA;   your knowledge of psychology by reading professional literature while&#xD;&#xA;   sitting on a sofa? There is also &quot;кухонный эксперт&quot; (which, again, is&#xD;&#xA;   not an expert on kitchen equipment). &quot;Кухонный диссидент&quot; was a&#xD;&#xA;   popular expression in late Soviet time, for people who would&#xD;&#xA;   criticize the regime from safety of their kitchens.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Доморощенный&quot; (homegrown?) is similar to the above, but mostly used&#xD;&#xA;   for occupations where formal training / official degree is deemed to&#xD;&#xA;   be of most importance. E. g. &quot;доморощенный специалист/эксперт/etc&quot;. For example, &quot;кухонный политик&quot; sounds pejorative, &quot;доморощенный политик&quot; - not quite so (yeah, of the people, for the people, what's wrong with that?). &quot;Доморощенный нейрохирург&quot;, on the other hand...&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*-теоретик&quot;, a deliberately absurd expression for occupations where&#xD;&#xA;   &quot;practice is everything&quot;, like &quot;ёбарь-теоретик&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="a7e9fa2b-15ba-4aff-b88e-6b01960f5a7c" CreationDate="2018-05-09T11:24:02.247" UserId="9100" Text="Это значит выключить? Как это понимать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="a7e9fa2b-15ba-4aff-b88e-6b01960f5a7c" CreationDate="2018-05-09T11:24:02.247" UserId="9100" Text="Заглушить мотор" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="a7e9fa2b-15ba-4aff-b88e-6b01960f5a7c" CreationDate="2018-05-09T11:24:02.247" UserId="9100" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16365" RevisionGUID="8e01726c-28d1-45e5-ab65-7acfa14243fb" CreationDate="2018-05-09T12:10:33.210" UserId="5008" Text="Да, в данном случае именно это оно и означает. Причина подобного словоупотребления довольно прозрачна - моторы, а также разные прочие механизмы, работают довольно громко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значение это разговорное и не основное, однако же встречается довольно часто и в практически любом словаре имеется. Например, [wiki:глушить](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="f2f80616-15f5-4158-bbd1-de583e883b54" CreationDate="2018-05-09T12:33:29.087" UserId="9100" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Это значит выключить? Как это понимать - синоним заглушить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16362" RevisionGUID="c182b084-31f6-4108-a474-6e97aff2b2d2" CreationDate="2018-05-09T13:53:00.650" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="If your relationship is casual and less formal one may be addressed as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приветствую/Здравствуйте, профессор &lt;sup&gt;*no (sur)names*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Omission of a name underscores the informality and sounds kind of cheery, merry, enthusiastic and upbeat. And if the content of the message is somber or deals with a request of some sort, then it conversely sounds more appealing, cordial, intimate, hopeful and ingratiating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="ee825da7-d46d-4f5e-a612-d037a54e1cc9" CreationDate="2018-05-09T16:10:09.930" UserId="9100" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited title" Text="Может, так было раньше, но в наше время мотор автомобиля можно только выключить, т.е. заглушить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что имеют в виду, говоря &quot;приглуши&quot; мотор?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41278" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="ee825da7-d46d-4f5e-a612-d037a54e1cc9" CreationDate="2018-05-09T16:10:09.930" UserId="9100" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited title" Text="Приглушить мотор автомобиля невозможно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16359" RevisionGUID="408ed83d-1c85-4dd0-a99e-e85936a129c1" CreationDate="2018-05-09T16:24:11.230" UserId="10537" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="В школе учили что слово **ложь** по происхождению означает то что лежит поверх, или скрывает, истину. Аналогично англ. **lie**.&#xD;&#xA;**Враньё** можно перевести **straight lie**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Врёте в глаза&quot; - по-моему менее стилистически согласовано чем &quot;лжёте в глаза&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16367" RevisionGUID="9cc324ab-c8be-460e-b431-51c9331043a6" CreationDate="2018-05-10T08:44:55.683" UserId="4714" Text="As far as I know syllables are split at the vowel, whereas in English it's often at a consonant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But today I came across this word— **Щипцы** (Tongs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it is split like this— **Щип-цы** (I expected Щи-пцы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that Syllables are split at Л, М, Н, Р. But are there other rules? What are the rules for splitting up words into Syllables?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16367" RevisionGUID="9cc324ab-c8be-460e-b431-51c9331043a6" CreationDate="2018-05-10T08:44:55.683" UserId="4714" Text="What are the rules for splitting syllables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16367" RevisionGUID="9cc324ab-c8be-460e-b431-51c9331043a6" CreationDate="2018-05-10T08:44:55.683" UserId="4714" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16368" RevisionGUID="7d5ce753-500d-4de8-9847-e4a82b3ef8a8" CreationDate="2018-05-10T09:30:55.683" UserId="9058" Text="Слог (syllable) consists of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. initial single consonant (sometimes missing: Russian has no diphthongs, not in writing at least, so two adjacent vowels spawn two syllables)&#xD;&#xA;2. a single vowel (the syllable nucleus)&#xD;&#xA;3. a number (from zero to many) final consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mid-word syllable terminates at the start of the next syllable, which means at the initial consonant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case, Щип-цы, the second syllable is built around &quot;ы&quot; vowel and contains the preceding consonant &quot;ц&quot;. That makes the first syllable end at п - the sound preceeding next syllable's ц. That makes the between-syllables dash be inserted between п and ц, not earlier or later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted in practice there may be more rules, less strict and giving you more options. http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you stick with the between syllables borderlines (the safest rule of thumb) then the above holds: syllables include only ONE consonant preceding its vowel (if such exists), not two consonants or more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16368" RevisionGUID="e9b1095b-6cb5-4eca-9d3e-b44e158d74d1" CreationDate="2018-05-10T09:36:08.933" UserId="9058" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="&gt; syllables are split at the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in special cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слог (syllable) consists of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. initial single consonant (sometimes missing: Russian has no diphthongs, not in writing at least, so two adjacent vowels spawn two syllables)&#xD;&#xA;2. a single vowel (the syllable nucleus)&#xD;&#xA;3. a number (from zero to many) final consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mid-word syllable terminates at the start of the next syllable, which means at the initial consonant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case, Щип-цы, the second syllable is built around &quot;ы&quot; vowel and contains the preceding consonant &quot;ц&quot;. That makes the first syllable end at п - the sound preceeding next syllable's ц. That makes the between-syllables dash be inserted between п and ц, not earlier or later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted in practice there may be more rules for splitting words, less strict and giving you more options. http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you stick with the between syllables borderlines (the safest rule of thumb) then the above holds: syllables include only ONE consonant preceding its vowel (if such consonant exists), not two consonants or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice, that the first syllable of the word might contain more left-side consonants.&#xD;&#xA;Яб-ло-ко has б and л in different syllables, but бло-ка-да has then both in the first one. Because then there is no &quot;zeroth&quot; vowel-less syllable to own &quot;б&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16368" RevisionGUID="3fe6c436-77c4-4afc-a0bf-49bbb737d346" CreationDate="2018-05-10T09:41:27.200" UserId="9058" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; syllables are split at the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in special cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слог (syllable) consists of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. initial single consonant (sometimes missing: Russian has no diphthongs, not in writing at least, so two adjacent vowels spawn two syllables)&#xD;&#xA;2. a single vowel (the syllable nucleus)&#xD;&#xA;3. a number (from zero to many) final consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mid-word syllable terminates at the start of the next syllable, which means at the initial consonant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case, `Щип-цы`, the second syllable is built around &quot;ы&quot; vowel and contains the preceding consonant &quot;ц&quot;. That makes the first syllable end at п - the sound preceeding next syllable's ц. That makes the between-syllables dash be inserted between п and ц, not earlier or later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted in practice there may be more rules for splitting words, less strict and giving you more options. http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you stick with the between syllables borderlines (the safest rule of thumb) then the above holds: syllables include only ONE consonant preceding its vowel (if such consonant exists), not two consonants or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice, that the first syllable of the word might contain multiple left-side consonants.&#xD;&#xA;`Яб-ло-ко` has б and л in different syllables, but `бло-ка-да` has them both in the first one. Because then there is no &quot;zeroth&quot; vowel-less syllable to own &quot;б&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16368" RevisionGUID="0d81a0ec-5cfa-4db1-9f4a-aeca49186d51" CreationDate="2018-05-10T09:49:00.910" UserId="9058" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; syllables are split at the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems modern academic currents indeed say it. But it seems to be of limited usage for practical task of splitting words at line ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3 says *&quot;Понятие слога лежит в основе правил переноса слов в русском языке. Однако, разбиение слова для переноса не всегда совпадает с разбиением слова на слоги, в связи с чем некоторые источники разделяют **понятия фонетического слога и слога для переноса**&quot;.* So what I describe above, and what I remember from USSR school, is maybe in modern currents called &quot;syllables-for-splitting&quot; while ones you describe in your question are perhaps &quot;syllables-for-pronunciation&quot;. In practice, I can't say why anyone would need latter in the casual life. The former ones seem to be those that practically matter. And the former I would discuss further on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слог - syllable - (at least the &quot;syllable-for-splitting&quot;)  consists of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. initial single consonant (sometimes missing: Russian has no diphthongs, not in writing at least, so two adjacent vowels spawn two syllables)&#xD;&#xA;2. a single vowel (the syllable nucleus)&#xD;&#xA;3. a number (from zero to many) final consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mid-word syllable terminates at the start of the next syllable, which means at the initial consonant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case, `Щип-цы`, the second syllable is built around &quot;ы&quot; vowel and contains the preceding consonant &quot;ц&quot;. That makes the first syllable end at п - the sound preceeding next syllable's ц. That makes the between-syllables dash be inserted between п and ц, not earlier or later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted in practice there may be more rules for splitting words, less strict and giving you more options. http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you stick with the between syllables borderlines (the safest rule of thumb) then the above holds: syllables include only ONE consonant preceding its vowel (if such consonant exists), not two consonants or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice, that the first syllable of the word might contain multiple left-side consonants.&#xD;&#xA;`Яб-ло-ко` has б and л in different syllables, but `бло-ка-да` has them both in the first one. Because then there is no &quot;zeroth&quot; vowel-less syllable to own &quot;б&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16368" RevisionGUID="cfd8f9ce-a24f-4a8e-a72f-2ef62e192111" CreationDate="2018-05-10T10:05:44.353" UserId="9058" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; syllables are split at the vowel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems modern academic currents indeed say it. But it seems to be of limited usage for practical task of splitting words at line ends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3 says *&quot;Понятие слога лежит в основе правил переноса слов в русском языке. Однако, разбиение слова для переноса не всегда совпадает с разбиением слова на слоги, в связи с чем некоторые источники разделяют **понятия фонетического слога и слога для переноса**&quot;.* So what I describe below, and what I remember from USSR school, is maybe in modern currents called &quot;syllables-for-splitting&quot; while ones you describe in your question are perhaps &quot;syllables-for-pronunciation&quot;. In practice, I can't say why anyone would need latter in the casual life. The former ones seem to be those that practically matter. And the former I would discuss further on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слог - syllable - (at least the &quot;syllable-for-splitting&quot;)  consists of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. initial single consonant (sometimes missing: Russian has no diphthongs, not in writing at least, so two adjacent vowels spawn two syllables)&#xD;&#xA;2. a single vowel (the syllable nucleus)&#xD;&#xA;3. a number (from zero to many) final consonants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mid-word syllable terminates at the start of the next syllable, which means at the initial consonant of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in your case, `Щип-цы`, the second syllable is built around &quot;ы&quot; vowel and contains the preceding consonant &quot;ц&quot;. That makes the first syllable end at п - the sound preceeding next syllable's ц. That makes the between-syllables dash be inserted between п and ц, not earlier or later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Granted in practice there may be more rules for splitting words, less strict and giving you more options. http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=97&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However if you stick with the between syllables borderlines (the safest rule of thumb) then the above holds: syllables include only ONE consonant preceding its vowel (if such consonant exists), not two consonants or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice, that the first syllable of the word might contain multiple left-side consonants.&#xD;&#xA;`Яб-ло-ко` has б and л in different syllables, but `бло-ка-да` has them both in the first one. Because then there is no &quot;zeroth&quot; vowel-less syllable to own &quot;б&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16369" RevisionGUID="3d703d11-604c-4830-a372-2b865d9261d0" CreationDate="2018-05-10T10:38:23.380" UserId="4714" Text="This might help you— **врать** used to mean &quot;to speak&quot;. The word **врач** is related to this--meaning &quot;he who speaks, casts spells&quot;. врать also has other rarer meanings—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**врать &#xD;&#xA;несов. - врать, сов. - совра́ть; разг.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) (говорить неправду) lie, tell lies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) тк. несов. уст. (пустословить) talk nonsense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) (быть неточным) be wrong&#xD;&#xA;часы́ врут — the clock [watch] is wrong&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) разг. (фальшивить) play a false note; (в пении) sing out of tune&#xD;&#xA;••&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;врёшь! — ≈ it's a lie!, nonsense!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**лгать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) (сов. солга́ть) lie, tell lies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лгать кому́-л в глаза́ — lie to smb's face&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) (сов. налга́ть) (на вн.; клеветать) slander (d)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **Врать** means to speak, sing, do something in a untrue way, whereas **лгать** means to do something with purpose, in order to mislead, trick etc. The origins of **лгать** are related to betrayal or treason. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16370" RevisionGUID="cb6e56e2-4551-4611-83ed-be3808b81f97" CreationDate="2018-05-10T19:35:33.610" UserId="2238" Text="A good description can be found in Knyazev &amp; Pozharitskaya's textbook. In short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. If there is at least one consonant, the last consonant always goes to the right (no splitting like *her-o; for graphical splitting but not for pronunciation prefixes can be an exception);&#xD;&#xA; 2. A syllable can only begin with sequences a word can begin with;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If both apply and there's still some choice, sonority of consonants in the syllable must go up to the vowel before it and down after it. Sonority hierarchy is approximately: s,z &lt; p,t,k &lt; b,d,g &lt; s,sh,z,zh,v &lt; m,n &lt; l,r &lt; j (s and z are given twice, it's not a typo). Affricates (c and ch) are analyzed as sequences but cannot be divided, palatalization is irrelevant for sonority;&#xD;&#xA; 4. If some choice remains after *that*, you can choose freely (as in сестра) but official recommendation is &quot;put as much as possible to the right&quot; (i. e. се-стра is preferable to сес-тра and сест-ра).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16371" RevisionGUID="1eb4cf88-7250-48d7-8275-8e64813793aa" CreationDate="2018-05-10T23:11:06.983" UserId="10548" Text="&quot;Господа, я полагаю ревизор появится здесь, менее чем за минуту. &#xD;&#xA;Но ревизор появился ещё раньше&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильно ли употреблять слово раньше, когда ожидаемо было &quot;менее чем минута&quot; ? Что может быть раньше, чем менее минуты?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16371" RevisionGUID="1eb4cf88-7250-48d7-8275-8e64813793aa" CreationDate="2018-05-10T23:11:06.983" UserId="10548" Text="Интересует правильность выражения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16371" RevisionGUID="1eb4cf88-7250-48d7-8275-8e64813793aa" CreationDate="2018-05-10T23:11:06.983" UserId="10548" Text="|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16372" RevisionGUID="2dbba94b-efff-45a5-82ee-547d37c3d66c" CreationDate="2018-05-10T23:37:41.393" UserId="3680" Text="Не усматриваю никаких проблем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Любое количество секунд, меньшее 60, будет меньше минуты. Обозначим его `N`. Это - ожидаемое/оценочное время, упомянутое в цитате в виде *&quot;менее чем за минуту&quot;*.  &#xD;&#xA;Любое количество секунд, меньшее `N`, будет соответствовать *&quot;раньше&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="7cfe07c3-cd27-42e8-bd39-0ead2fbbe9fa" CreationDate="2018-05-11T00:29:29.433" UserId="9602" Text="I recently realized that the first phoneme in the word Днепр is not [d̪] at all. The position of my tongue is very much different from what it takes to pronounce [d̪], or [d] for that matter. What’s that phoneme, then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="7cfe07c3-cd27-42e8-bd39-0ead2fbbe9fa" CreationDate="2018-05-11T00:29:29.433" UserId="9602" Text="Sound of Д in Днепр" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="7cfe07c3-cd27-42e8-bd39-0ead2fbbe9fa" CreationDate="2018-05-11T00:29:29.433" UserId="9602" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16374" RevisionGUID="49a683e0-8b45-454d-a0ae-64c8fc992f9e" CreationDate="2018-05-11T05:47:20.560" UserId="7674" Text="Мне кажется, выражение ***&quot;менее, чем за минуту&quot;*** нелогично, хоть и звучит гладко.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Логично выражение ***&quot;менее, чем ЧЕРЕЗ минуту&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К слову, в украинском предлог ***за*** означает в том числе ***через*** (в аспекте времени)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16374" RevisionGUID="61adf3ad-922f-4b6d-a9de-99827f0372ed" CreationDate="2018-05-11T05:52:41.420" UserId="7674" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="Мне кажется, в контексте прибытия выражение ***&quot;менее, чем за минуту&quot;*** нелогично, хоть и звучит гладко. Оно логично, когда речь идёт о продолжительном непрерывном действии, например&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Робот, умеющий складывать одежду менее, чем за минуту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а *прибытие* для стороннего наблюдателя всегда одномоментно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В контексте прибытия логично выражение ***&quot;менее, чем ЧЕРЕЗ минуту&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К слову, в украинском предлог ***за*** означает в том числе ***через*** (в аспекте времени)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16375" RevisionGUID="1ea8aa78-ad80-41f0-8763-db484b0858d1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T06:25:54.283" UserId="5443" Text="Выражение неудачно, поскольку формально приходится отнести &quot;ещё раньше&quot; **к названной оценке** &quot;менее минуты&quot; (от нуля до минуты), а **не к ожиданиям** говорящего. Он мог подразумевать, в дополнение к названной им оценке, примерное количество времени, но никак свои ожидания *не обозначил* и не уточнил перед количественным сравнением. Поэтому &quot;ещё раньше&quot; здесь приходится трактовать как &quot;*он уже здесь*&quot;, &quot;*добрался за несколько секунд*&quot; (мне о секундах надо было думать, а не о минутах) и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Неудачно употребление предлога &quot;**за**&quot; (по смыслу здесь нужно &quot;через&quot;). Как уже отмечено, &quot;появляются&quot; люди единомоментно, а предлог может говорить либо о *затраченном* времени (добраться **за** такое-то время), либо об интервале времени ранее какого-то момента (напр. **за столько-то времени до** начала мероприятия).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Со временами расхождение: полаг*аю*, появится -&gt; появился." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16374" RevisionGUID="840d22a9-2d30-4fd3-ac38-a4469d229068" CreationDate="2018-05-11T07:47:30.657" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Мне кажется, в контексте *появления* выражение ***&quot;менее, чем ЗА минуту&quot;*** нелогично, хоть и звучит гладко. Оно логично, когда речь идёт о продолжительном действии, например&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Робот, умеющий складывать одежду менее, чем за минуту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;так как ***за*** означает ***в течение***. А *появление* для стороннего наблюдателя всегда одномоментно, у него нет продолжительности во времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В контексте прибытия логично выражение ***&quot;менее, чем ЧЕРЕЗ минуту&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К слову, в украинском предлог ***за*** означает в том числе ***через*** (в аспекте времени)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16376" RevisionGUID="7fed73ee-e40d-43fa-b1f2-cfbf711ccec3" CreationDate="2018-05-11T08:14:06.350" UserId="10551" Text="You may have not known, but in Russian language you can make a verb from almost every word, and people always come up with new ones. So if you are planning of making an if statement for every single verb in Russian language (that's what you want to do, and it's called hard coding), you are certainly going to fail. What you need is to find an algorithm or train an neural network (preferably second) for your task." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16371" RevisionGUID="5e408622-a773-4a0e-bab9-e66313bd5653" CreationDate="2018-05-11T08:59:33.070" UserId="1236" Comment="Punctuation corrected" Text="«Господа, я полагаю, ревизор появится здесь менее чем за минуту. &#xD;&#xA;Но ревизор появился ещё раньше».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правильно ли употреблять слово «раньше», когда ожидаемо было «менее чем минута»? Что может быть раньше, чем менее минуты?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16374" RevisionGUID="5cc8f19b-3631-43cf-ad53-64643bc1cf80" CreationDate="2018-05-11T10:37:17.870" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Мне кажется, в контексте *появления* выражение ***&quot;менее, чем ЗА минуту&quot;*** нелогично, хоть и звучит гладко. Оно логично, когда речь идёт о продолжительном действии, например&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Робот, умеющий складывать одежду менее, чем за минуту&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;так как ***за*** означает ***в течение***. А *появление* для стороннего наблюдателя всегда одномоментно, у него нет продолжительности во времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В контексте *появления* логично выражение ***&quot;менее, чем ЧЕРЕЗ минуту&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К слову, в украинском предлог ***за*** означает в том числе ***через*** (в аспекте времени)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16377" RevisionGUID="28b25ed4-25b1-4cbd-a721-7c27a73b6bb3" CreationDate="2018-05-11T11:10:49.417" UserId="9058" Text="&gt; «Господа, я полагаю, ревизор появится здесь менее чем за минуту. Но ревизор появился ещё раньше».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Должно быть &quot;я полагАЛ&quot; - в прошедшем времени. Поскольку ревизор уже &quot;появился&quot;, то вы сейчас уже больше ничего не полагаете. Вы закончили полагать в момент &quot;ревизор появился&quot;, а это было в прошлом. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Как упоминалось, &quot;менее, чем ЧЕРЕЗ минуту&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Что может быть раньше, чем менее минуты? - да что угодно. Половина минуты, например. Чтобы проплыть под парусом вокруг света - нужны недели, или даже месяцы. Чтобы взорвать реактор Чернобыльской АЭС хватило 4 с половиной секунд. Считать, что минута - это оооочень мало, и что делить её нельзя, не стоит. Это очень зависит от контекста. Если например до закрытия офиса оставалось 50 секунд и вы надеялись, что он не успеет и прибежит после закрытия, а он успел за 40 секунд, то не будет ничего странного в меньших чем минута отрезках времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Правильно ли употреблять слово «раньше»? - да. Но можно использовать и другие слова. Зависит от того, с чем &quot;сравнивается&quot;, к какой части предыдущей фразы отсылает это слово. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Но ревизор появился ещё раньше [[, чем я полагал]].&#xD;&#xA;* Но ревизор появился ещё быстрее [[, чем прошлa та минута]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оба варианта вполне нормальны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16378" RevisionGUID="b48c0a00-eb9c-435a-af1d-1dd4564a5002" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:31:36.383" UserId="242" Text="This is called `фаукальное д` - this happens when some specific consonants stand before `н` or `м` - to be more precise, before nasal consonants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a [quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стык предлога со следующим словом фонетически почти не отличается от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; стыка приставки и корня по образованию комбинаторных оттенков фонем,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: под ним [под- н’іім] — поднять (плдн’'ат’| (фаукальное д)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More about nasal release (this is how it's called in English) one can find in a Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Фаукальный взрыв (от лат. faux/fauces, faucalis — глотка, глоточный) —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; взрывной звук, образуемый в зеве, характерный для такого образования.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возникает в положении неносового взрывного согласного перед носовым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; того же места образования, в результате замены ртового взрыва&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (например, б, д, п) зевным вследствие опускания нёбной занавески при&#xD;&#xA;&gt; переходе от смычного к носовому; смычный при этом характеризуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; некоторой имплозивностью (сомкнутостью). Например, ро**тн**ый, го**дн**ый,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нэ**пм**ан, тще**тн**ый, о**бм**ан, пригод**н**ый, по**тн**ый и т. д.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://sci.house/grafika-orfografiya-fonetika-scibook/foneticheskie-yavleniya-styike-85212.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41307" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16371" RevisionGUID="627284fb-22bb-4e4b-b663-7b16d4bcd0cc" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:32:23.957" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Можно ли употреблять слово «раньше», когда ожидаемо было «менее чем минута»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41308" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="22544904-a495-4c5b-9fb5-93c16d6f73da" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:36:58.930" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Sound of &quot;д&quot; in Днепр" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41309" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="233f5f9c-16cd-4973-beee-7de30e31e09c" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:38:02.933" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41310" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="b500e1c1-703a-4371-a16e-1fed18ae9d71" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:38:02.933" UserId="242" Comment="to https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/verb-question-words-database-or-api" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41311" PostHistoryTypeId="35" PostId="16376" RevisionGUID="69559dd6-83c8-4fa4-9ed3-cb95c1b6c609" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:38:02.933" UserId="-1" Comment="to https://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/verb-question-words-database-or-api" />
  <row Id="41312" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="cb85ea9e-19c4-4a99-801b-9a8d4639f7a1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:38:02.933" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41313" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16367" RevisionGUID="11859563-248b-47c4-b367-c17438817c94" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:38:51.110" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[138],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41314" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16373" RevisionGUID="fd5e1447-857b-4bbf-997f-6c9b4b85cada" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:41:03.570" UserId="9602" Comment="if you insist :-)" Text="Sound of ⟨д⟩ in Днепр" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41315" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16348" RevisionGUID="5702026a-415e-4590-a614-d1772070ed8f" CreationDate="2018-05-11T13:56:52.073" UserId="8672" Comment="edited tags" Text="|tense|повелительное-наклонение|будущее-время|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="acde521f-6954-4664-9f41-fc02bf20a607" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:12:41.120" UserId="1995" Text="Today the following sentence came up in a chat with a Russian friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты был забавным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the adjective is in dative case, but I would expect it to be in nominative together with the verb был/быть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked my friend why she didn't write Ты был забавный, she explained that this was because it was in past tense. But I cannot find this rule anywhere in Russian grammar books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain the use of dative in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="acde521f-6954-4664-9f41-fc02bf20a607" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:12:41.120" UserId="1995" Text="Use of dative with был/быть, e.g. &quot;Ты был забавным.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="acde521f-6954-4664-9f41-fc02bf20a607" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:12:41.120" UserId="1995" Text="|грамматика|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41319" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="9a6d07d1-456c-4240-a03b-6dde1c59c7fa" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:32:13.120" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|творительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="f38512a6-ccb2-4c99-8a55-c9c022241b0f" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:34:30.980" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="Today the following sentence came up in a chat with a Russian friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты был забавным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the adjective is in dative case, but I would expect it to be in nominative together with the verb был/быть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked my friend why she didn't write Ты был забавный, she explained that this was because it was in past tense. But I cannot find this rule anywhere in Russian grammar books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain the use of &lt;strike&gt;dative&lt;/strike&gt; instumental in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41321" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="f38512a6-ccb2-4c99-8a55-c9c022241b0f" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:34:30.980" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="Use of instrumental with был/быть, e.g. &quot;Ты был забавным.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41323" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="16326" RevisionGUID="8d764a4b-8a90-4e99-abcb-bfd448879234" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:44:47.330" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16380" RevisionGUID="0f0587a8-a39d-4d52-a089-746e5e2559b1" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:45:52.797" UserId="5443" Text="The noun and adjective functioning as the nominal part of a compound predicate can be in the *nominative* **or** in the *instrumental* case.&#xD;&#xA;Typically, the nominative here [where the linking verb *быть* is present] corresponds to a *permanent* quality of the subject while the instrumental case better combines with a *temporary* quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In much more detail (Розенталь Д.Э., Джанджакова Е.В., Кабанова Н.П.CПРАВОЧНИК ПО ПРАВОПИСАНИЮ, ПРОИЗНОШЕНИЮ, ЛИТЕРАТУРНОМУ РЕДАКТИРОВАНИЮ, M.: ЧеРо, 1999):&#xD;&#xA;http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/62.htm#%D0%B7_02 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(see §179. Формы сказуемого)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16381" RevisionGUID="da4086b2-4c0a-424d-b58d-b8b9c91f58d6" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:47:08.123" UserId="7674" Text="It can be added to the answers in the past topics referenced by Sergey Slepov in the comments, that at least in your example usage of adjective in nominal or intrumental affects its semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавный*** would relegate your being ***забавный*** to a distant past, when there was *another you* so to speak, for example in the childhood, youth etc, that is once you were so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавным*** can be applied to any time span." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16381" RevisionGUID="e7fd0c00-976f-44ac-a9c6-ebb79906b66f" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:52:12.970" UserId="7674" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="It can be added to the answers in the past topics referenced by Sergey Slepov in the comments, that at least in your example usage of adjective in nominal or instrumental affects its semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавный*** &lt;sup&gt;*Nom.*&lt;/sup&gt; would relegate your being ***забавный*** to a distant past, when there was *another you* so to speak, for example in the childhood, youth etc, that is once you were so. That's probably agrees with the fact of it indicating *permanent* quality as mentioned elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавным*** &lt;sup&gt;*Instr.*&lt;/sup&gt; can be applied to any time span." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16381" RevisionGUID="8b3ccfe0-a723-4746-be97-1725c501c91b" CreationDate="2018-05-11T14:59:21.683" UserId="7674" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="It can be added to the answers in the past topics referenced by Sergey Slepov in the comments, that at least in your example usage of adjective in nominal or instrumental affects its semantics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавный*** &lt;sup&gt;*Nom.*&lt;/sup&gt; would relegate your being ***забавный*** to a distant past, when there was *another you* so to speak, for example in the childhood, youth etc, that is once you were so. That's probably agrees with the fact of it indicating *permanent* (or stable within certain time limits) quality as mentioned elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавным*** &lt;sup&gt;*Instr.*&lt;/sup&gt; can be applied to any time span.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41328" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16360" RevisionGUID="ecf28668-8970-4f37-9482-7d7076e63f47" CreationDate="2018-05-11T16:31:05.610" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/994978208620666880" />
  <row Id="41329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="ebad2bc5-691e-47e8-a864-b1ed4dd86f61" CreationDate="2018-05-11T17:46:36.267" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|творительный-падеж|essive|изобразительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="309e963c-b295-4ad8-9992-7c34cff4fac6" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:09:20.610" UserId="1995" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Today the following sentence came up in a chat with a Russian friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты был забавным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the adjective is in &lt;strike&gt;dative&lt;/strike&gt; instrumental case, but I would expect it to be in nominative together with the verb был/быть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked my friend why she didn't write Ты был забавный, she explained that this was because it was in past tense. But I cannot find this rule anywhere in Russian grammar books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anybody explain the use of &lt;strike&gt;dative&lt;/strike&gt; instumental in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I mistakenly wrote dative case above. I meant instrumental case. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16381" RevisionGUID="61d5d35a-ed61-48bc-878c-fdb4928592a6" CreationDate="2018-05-11T20:15:08.743" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What can be added to the answers in the past topics referenced by Sergey Slepov in the comments, is that at least in your example, usage of adjective in nominal or instrumental affects semantics of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавный*** &lt;sup&gt;*Nom.*&lt;/sup&gt; would relegate your being ***забавный*** to a distant past, when there was *another you* so to speak, for example in the childhood, youth etc, that is once you were so. That's probably agrees with the fact of it indicating *permanent* (or stable within certain time limits) quality as mentioned elsewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты был забавным*** &lt;sup&gt;*Instr.*&lt;/sup&gt; can be applied to any time span.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16334" RevisionGUID="1bae9f08-558d-427d-85d3-78d96c246066" CreationDate="2018-05-11T21:23:59.747" UserId="115" Comment="Fixed grammar." Text="Значение у слов **врать** и **лгать** одинаковое, но **лгать** - литературное слово, а **врать** - разговорное, более грубое. Смысловых различий у слов **врать** и **лгать** нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words **лгать** and **врать** have the same meaning, but **лгать** is a literary word, while **врать** is a rougher colloquial synonym. There are no semantic differences between these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41338" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16364" RevisionGUID="0c16e057-086e-4b27-80a0-7e45ad324762" CreationDate="2018-05-12T04:31:02.983" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/995159391736393728" />
  <row Id="41339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16384" RevisionGUID="2848653d-deff-409c-9bc6-f04c5b7d0100" CreationDate="2018-05-12T05:24:19.853" UserId="10177" Text="It's analogous to ”you two are so close.&quot; &quot;You two&quot; here being &quot;вы (с Адамом.)&quot; &quot;Вы так близки.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Вы (с Адамом [specifying who is &quot;вы&quot;]) так близки.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16385" RevisionGUID="fe5b175f-1b19-449a-9bb4-ff8c887c125b" CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:49:45.727" UserId="4714" Text="I often read that Russian consonants are &quot;harder&quot; than English ones--that is, they are velarised. I understand how this affects the consonant when pronounced in isolation--Т, Т, Д, Д--with secondary articulation of the back of the tongue towards the  soft palate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does this matter beyond the isolated pronunciation of consonants? I mean, when we pronounce a consonat with a vowel, are the consonants velarised?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;т + velarisation + vowel? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16385" RevisionGUID="fe5b175f-1b19-449a-9bb4-ff8c887c125b" CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:49:45.727" UserId="4714" Text="Velarisation of Russian hard consonants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16385" RevisionGUID="fe5b175f-1b19-449a-9bb4-ff8c887c125b" CreationDate="2018-05-12T09:49:45.727" UserId="4714" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41344" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="878a9fd6-e1ac-4dc6-be98-ca8584f49e3a" CreationDate="2018-05-12T10:33:30.917" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/995250609203933184" />
  <row Id="41357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16388" RevisionGUID="14825d7a-3b46-4d5c-8a74-4e7a65bc0037" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:07:10.460" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;You'll have to babysit her, **too**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I wanted to express this idea in an sarcastic tone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе **ещё и с ней** нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Тебе **ещё с ней** нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm torn between the two. I wonder if the addition of &quot;и&quot; is required here and the latter sounds odd?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16388" RevisionGUID="14825d7a-3b46-4d5c-8a74-4e7a65bc0037" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:07:10.460" UserId="8672" Text="Should I say &quot;ещё и с ней&quot; or &quot;ещё с ней&quot;? Any nuance involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16388" RevisionGUID="14825d7a-3b46-4d5c-8a74-4e7a65bc0037" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:07:10.460" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16389" RevisionGUID="2247ee39-e212-455c-9849-1994ef40b6aa" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:26:55.827" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Will you look after him a little bit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to express this idea in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты не **приглядишь** за ним немножечко?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты не **поглядишь** за ним немножечко?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two verbs are nuanced. Incidentally, you cannot use the imperfective &quot;глядеть&quot; here, correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16389" RevisionGUID="2247ee39-e212-455c-9849-1994ef40b6aa" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:26:55.827" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;приглядеть&quot; and &quot;поглядеть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16389" RevisionGUID="2247ee39-e212-455c-9849-1994ef40b6aa" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:26:55.827" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41363" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16388" RevisionGUID="73204b86-127e-47f1-89bc-84b299d94d50" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:41:31.693" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;ещё и с ней&quot; vs &quot;ещё с ней&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16390" RevisionGUID="6f31ad8c-7117-48b9-82de-e3f8f3ce43e4" CreationDate="2018-05-12T18:59:32.237" UserId="2104" Text="**Ещё** on its own means 'more', not 'too':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Тебе с ней **ещё** нянчиться придется. - You'll have to do **more** babysitting with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your variant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Тебе **ещё** с ней нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is pretty much equivalent to the above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Еще и** means 'too' but be careful with emphasis and placement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Еще и с ней** puts emphasis on **ней** (her) which implies that you were babysitting someone else and now you will have to babysit **her**, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё и нянчиться** emphasises **нянчиться** which is probably what you wanted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Тебе **ещё и** нянчиться с ней придется. - You'll have to babysit her, too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16391" RevisionGUID="beaa9011-2d75-4282-ac43-1d7454d838ed" CreationDate="2018-05-12T19:45:38.090" UserId="7674" Text="**поглядеть/посмотреть за** as a synonym of the **приглядеть/присмотреть за** is vernacular, because base meaning of the former is ***to look at/on*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed in a request framed as interrogative sentence imperfective can't be used, but it can be in regular interrogative and assertive sentences&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты разве не хочешь за ним присматривать/смотреть?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты будешь за ним присматривать/смотреть или нет?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не собираюсь/буду за ним присматривать/смотреть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16391" RevisionGUID="fcedbfbf-9657-4edd-9ef2-b1f39792a2ae" CreationDate="2018-05-12T19:51:55.417" UserId="7674" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="**поглядеть/посмотреть за** as a synonym of the **приглядеть/присмотреть за** is vernacular, because base meaning of the former is ***to look at/on*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**глядеть за** would indeed be wrong if i'm the one to ask, however i wouldn't vouch that it's not used by someone somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However **смотреть за** is OK.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16391" RevisionGUID="87d66e98-d92e-4919-b514-7b50dbbfe2a3" CreationDate="2018-05-12T19:57:24.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="**поглядеть/посмотреть за** as a synonym of the **приглядеть/присмотреть за** is vernacular, because base meaning of the former is ***to look at/on*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**глядеть за** would indeed be wrong if i'm the one to ask, but i wouldn't vouch that it's not used by anyone anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**смотреть за** on the other other hand is OK as far as i'm concerned.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="8f336d99-c7ad-4c6f-a25b-c33bf4097fd2" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:13:23.690" UserId="7674" Text="The syntax depends of what you're trying to convey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё и с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as explained by Sergey Slepov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё { } с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would read as emphasizing **нянчиться**, i.e. *on top of all the troubles you'll have to do also babysitting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically it can be construed as emphasizing **ещё** to mean *doing some more babysitting to what has already been done*. But if this is indeed the idea, for clarity i would place **ещё** at the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе { } с ней нянчиться придётся ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken language the syntax is less demanding because import can be emphasized with intonation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16388" RevisionGUID="605a8289-e80c-401a-93e1-e615cba73e55" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:25:47.630" UserId="8672" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="&gt;You'll have to babysit her, **too**. {= her as well as him}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I wanted to express this idea in an sarcastic tone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тебе **ещё и с ней** нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: Тебе **ещё с ней** нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm torn between the two. I wonder if the addition of &quot;и&quot; is required here and the latter sounds odd?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="ff754396-d692-4c52-9046-9ae987f01291" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:26:25.900" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The syntax depends of what you're trying to convey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё и с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as explained by Sergey Slepov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё { } с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would read as emphasizing **нянчиться**, i.e. *on top of all the troubles you'll have to do also babysitting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically it can be construed as emphasizing **ещё** to mean *doing some more babysitting to what has already been done*. But if this is indeed the idea, to lessen ambiguity i would place **ещё** at the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе { } с ней нянчиться придётся ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still not ideal but i think a little clearer and context may help. In spoken language the syntax is less demanding because import can be emphasized with intonation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="94302a3b-b75e-4317-a120-b3d1ab77a7e3" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:32:53.417" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The syntax depends of what you're trying to convey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё и с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as explained by Sergey Slepov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё { } с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would read as emphasizing **нянчиться**, i.e. *on top of all the troubles you'll have to do also babysitting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically it can be construed as emphasizing **ещё** to mean *doing some more babysitting to what has already been done*. But if this is indeed the idea, to lessen ambiguity i would place **ещё** at the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе { } с ней нянчиться придётся ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still not ideal but i think a little clearer and context may help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken language the syntax is less demanding because import can be emphasized with intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding **и** before the word needing emphasis seems to resolve this ambiguity, **ещё** isn't one of them however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16391" RevisionGUID="e85d395e-3059-4368-b5f1-8f9bbfd23f62" CreationDate="2018-05-12T20:36:36.283" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="**поглядеть/посмотреть за** as a synonym of the **приглядеть/присмотреть за** is vernacular, because base meaning of the former is ***to look at/on*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**глядеть за** would indeed be wrong if i'm the one to ask, but i wouldn't vouch that it's not used by anyone anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**смотреть за** on the other hand is OK as far as i'm concerned.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16393" RevisionGUID="9ad7c90b-d08f-41d0-9f28-3fd3fe3dadbb" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:04:13.767" UserId="10555" Text="Do `спорить` and `spar` have any common etymological root?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16393" RevisionGUID="9ad7c90b-d08f-41d0-9f28-3fd3fe3dadbb" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:04:13.767" UserId="10555" Text="Are &quot;спорить&quot; and English &quot;spar&quot; cognates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16393" RevisionGUID="9ad7c90b-d08f-41d0-9f28-3fd3fe3dadbb" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:04:13.767" UserId="10555" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16394" RevisionGUID="19512af9-35ca-4529-9d73-9ce987f08697" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:15:30.453" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;1) Почему ты **хоть раз** в жизни не можешь сделать ... ?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1+) Почему ты **хотя бы один раз** в жизни не можешь сделать ... ?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two phrases are nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, how do the sentences above differ in meaning from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Почему бы тебе хоть раз в жизни не сделать ... ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2+) Почему бы тебе хотя бы один раз в жизни не сделать ... ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you use the first construction in an accusing tone, while the second one is for making a suggestion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16394" RevisionGUID="19512af9-35ca-4529-9d73-9ce987f08697" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:15:30.453" UserId="8672" Text="Difference between &quot;хоть раз&quot; and &quot;хотя бы один раз&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16394" RevisionGUID="19512af9-35ca-4529-9d73-9ce987f08697" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:15:30.453" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16395" RevisionGUID="3b264bf0-d822-4a84-a56a-5b6ce172a949" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:20:52.487" UserId="7674" Text="On the face of it doesn't seems so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**spar**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spar (n.1) early 14c., &quot;rafter;&quot; late 14c., &quot;stout pole,&quot; from or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognate with Middle Low German or Middle Dutch sparre, from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proto-Germanic *sparron (source also of Old English *spere &quot;spear,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lance,&quot; Old Norse sperra &quot;rafter, beam,&quot; German Sparren &quot;spar,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rafter&quot;), **from PIE root *sper- (1) &quot;spear, pole&quot;** (see spear (n.1)).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nautical use, in reference to one used as a mast, yard, boom, etc.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dates from 1630s. Also borrowed in Old French as esparre, which might&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be the direct source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source 1](https://www.etymonline.com/word/spar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle English sparre (“spar, rafter, beam”) (noun), sparren (“to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close, bar”) (verb), ultimately from Proto-Germanic *sparrô (“stake,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beam”), **from Proto-Indo-European *(s)par- (“beam, log”)**. Compare Dutch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spar (“balk”), German Sparren (“rafter, spar”), Danish sparre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (“spar”), Albanian shparr, shpardh (“kind of oak”). Perhaps also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compare spear, park&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source 2](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spar#Etymology_1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**спорить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее от праслав. *sъporъ, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. съпоръ, также соупоръ (из *сѫ-поръ), русск. спор; связано с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pьr- (пере́ть)**. Ср. **др.-инд. pŕ̥t-, pŕ̥tanā** «борьба»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/спорить#Этимология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian word **C-** is a prefix, the root is **ПР**. In the English the morphology isn't entirely clear, but **S** isn't indicated as being a prefix, although i'm not sure there's a non-Slavic language it could pertain to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16395" RevisionGUID="90514249-beee-489c-a637-1f19482c20b9" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:28:59.533" UserId="7674" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="On the face of it doesn't seem so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**spar**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spar (n.1) early 14c., &quot;rafter;&quot; late 14c., &quot;stout pole,&quot; from or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cognate with Middle Low German or Middle Dutch sparre, from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proto-Germanic *sparron (source also of Old English *spere &quot;spear,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lance,&quot; Old Norse sperra &quot;rafter, beam,&quot; German Sparren &quot;spar,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rafter&quot;), **from PIE root *sper- (1) &quot;spear, pole&quot;** (see spear (n.1)).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nautical use, in reference to one used as a mast, yard, boom, etc.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dates from 1630s. Also borrowed in Old French as esparre, which might&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be the direct source of the English word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source 1](https://www.etymonline.com/word/spar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From Middle English sparre (“spar, rafter, beam”) (noun), sparren (“to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close, bar”) (verb), ultimately from Proto-Germanic *sparrô (“stake,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beam”), **from Proto-Indo-European *(s)par- (“beam, log”)**. Compare Dutch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spar (“balk”), German Sparren (“rafter, spar”), Danish sparre&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (“spar”), Albanian shparr, shpardh (“kind of oak”). Perhaps also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compare spear, park&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source 2](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spar#Etymology_1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**спорить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее от праслав. *sъporъ, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. съпоръ, также соупоръ (из *сѫ-поръ), русск. спор; связано с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pьr- (пере́ть)**. Ср. **др.-инд. pŕ̥t-, pŕ̥tanā** «борьба»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/спорить#Этимология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian word **C-** is a prefix, the root is **ПР**. In the English the morphology isn't entirely clear, but **S** isn't indicated as being a prefix, although i'm not sure there's a non-Slavic language it could pertain to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe Russian cognates or relatives of **спорить** are **перечить, поперёк, наперекор**, and maybe even **против**, which either don't have prefix or have different prefixes. But this is only an opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16396" RevisionGUID="282f573e-0016-407c-a7ed-4d27d7ac67a7" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:40:59.320" UserId="7674" Text="**1.** One other iteration would be ***Почему ты хоть `один` раз в жизни не можешь сделать?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** 1+) is probably just a little bit more emotive, maybe due to verbosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** Yes, интонация возмущения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16392" RevisionGUID="742a4cb9-a356-4083-bbfa-cee87964fb6f" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:55:20.733" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="The syntax depends on what you're trying to convey&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё и с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as explained by Sergey Slepov&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё { } с ней нянчиться придётся&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would read as emphasizing **нянчиться**, i.e. *on top of all the troubles you'll have to do also babysitting*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically it can be construed as emphasizing **ещё** to mean *doing some more babysitting to what has already been done*. But if this is indeed the idea, to lessen ambiguity i would place **ещё** at the end&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе { } с ней нянчиться придётся ещё&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still not ideal but i think a little clearer and context may help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In spoken language the syntax is less demanding because import can be emphasized with intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding **и** before the word needing emphasis seems to resolve this ambiguity, **ещё** isn't one of them however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16396" RevisionGUID="44fd33cf-ccff-4da2-a430-474a33004f41" CreationDate="2018-05-12T21:58:48.000" UserId="7674" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="**1.** One other iteration would be ***Почему ты хоть `один` раз в жизни не можешь сделать?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** 1+) is probably just a little bit more emotive, maybe due to verbosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** Yes, интонация возмущения in the first pair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="19ff2d63-c01f-4360-b9cd-473383569717" CreationDate="2018-05-12T22:11:36.243" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Эта каменная глыба свалилась с неба... меня наверно **оглушило** ударной волной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;глыба&quot; is a feminine noun...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feminine &quot;волной&quot; is in Instrumental, so it cannot be the subject...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, the verb &quot;оглушить&quot; does not take the impersonal subject...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="19ff2d63-c01f-4360-b9cd-473383569717" CreationDate="2018-05-12T22:11:36.243" UserId="8672" Text="What is the omitted neuter subject of the verb &quot;оглушить/оглушило&quot; here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="19ff2d63-c01f-4360-b9cd-473383569717" CreationDate="2018-05-12T22:11:36.243" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16398" RevisionGUID="78f0056e-af5d-42f7-b781-f9acd7c21bc0" CreationDate="2018-05-13T00:13:09.117" UserId="9602" Text="Grammatically, you can imagine something like “нечто” as an implied subject: нечто оглушило меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a common way of expressing impersonal sentences: Урожай побило градом. Дом завалило снегом. Где шляпа? — Ветром унесло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could rephrase your sentence with an explicit subject: Ударная волна оглушила меня. See https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/8829/ for what semantic nuances this implies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16393" RevisionGUID="4084fadc-3310-4039-9c16-b3c6e98ec8ac" CreationDate="2018-05-13T01:09:54.567" UserId="10555" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="Do `спорить` and `spar` have any common etymological root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I'm referring specifically to the usage of `spar` for training for a fight or engaging in an argument." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41389" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16333" RevisionGUID="e590aabc-dd26-4987-a30e-4fe91f44902d" CreationDate="2018-05-13T01:33:46.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/995477167080435712" />
  <row Id="41390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16397" RevisionGUID="13ea0e80-c68b-41f6-afa0-9ef6d5ca6a4e" CreationDate="2018-05-13T06:09:58.133" UserId="8672" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&gt;Эта каменная глыба свалилась с неба... меня наверно **оглушило** ударной волной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The &quot;глыба&quot; is a feminine noun...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The feminine &quot;волной&quot; is in Instrumental, so it cannot be the subject...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As far as I know, the verb &quot;оглушить&quot; does not take the impersonal subject...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16395" RevisionGUID="484f0dec-ff64-46e1-b6b0-257f924506a2" CreationDate="2018-05-13T06:55:38.780" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 283 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's maybe there isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**spar (v)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; late 14c., &quot;go quickly, rush, dart, spring;&quot; c. 1400, &quot;to strike or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thrust,&quot; perhaps from Middle French esparer &quot;to kick&quot; (Modern French&#xD;&#xA;&gt; éparer), from Italian sparare &quot;to fling,&quot; **from Latin ex- (see ex-) +&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parare &quot;make ready, prepare,&quot; hence &quot;ward off, parry&quot; (from PIE root&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*pere-(1)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to produce, procure&quot;)**. Etymologists consider a connection with spur unlikely.   &#xD;&#xA;Used in 17c. in reference to preliminary actions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a cock fight; figurative sense of &quot;to dispute, bandy with words&quot; is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from 1690s.  &#xD;&#xA;Extension to humans, in a literal sense, with meaning &quot;to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engage in or practice boxing&quot; is attested from 1755. Related: Sparred;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sparring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://www.etymonline.com/word/spar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**спорить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее от праслав. *sъporъ, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. съпоръ, также соупоръ (из *сѫ-поръ), русск. спор; связано с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pьr- (пере́ть)**. Ср. **др.-инд. pŕ̥t-, pŕ̥tanā** «борьба», авест. pǝrǝt-, рǝšаnā «схватка, борьба»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/спорить#Этимология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian word **C-** is a prefix, the root is **ПР**. In the English,  **S** could be a remnant of the Latin prefix **EX-**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe Russian cognates or relatives of **спорить** are **перечить, поперёк, наперекор**, and maybe even **против**, which either don't have prefix or have different prefixes. But this is only an opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16395" RevisionGUID="0e76d67a-a550-4102-8d68-ecba1209e737" CreationDate="2018-05-13T07:35:52.973" UserId="7674" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's maybe there isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**spar (v)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; late 14c., &quot;go quickly, rush, dart, spring;&quot; c. 1400, &quot;to strike or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thrust,&quot; perhaps from Middle French esparer &quot;to kick&quot; (Modern French&#xD;&#xA;&gt; éparer), from Italian sparare &quot;to fling,&quot; **from Latin ex- (see ex-) +&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parare &quot;make ready, prepare,&quot; hence &quot;ward off, parry&quot; (from PIE root&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*pere-(1)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to produce, procure&quot;)**. Etymologists consider a connection with spur unlikely.   &#xD;&#xA;Used in 17c. in reference to preliminary actions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a cock fight; figurative sense of &quot;to dispute, bandy with words&quot; is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from 1690s.  &#xD;&#xA;Extension to humans, in a literal sense, with meaning &quot;to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engage in or practice boxing&quot; is attested from 1755. Related: Sparred;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sparring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://www.etymonline.com/word/spar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**спорить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее от праслав. *sъporъ, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. съпоръ, также соупоръ (из *сѫ-поръ), русск. спор; связано с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pьr- (пере́ть)**. Ср. **др.-инд. pŕ̥t-, pŕ̥tanā** «борьба», авест. pǝrǝt-, рǝšаnā «схватка, борьба»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/спорить#Этимология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian word **C-** is a prefix, the root is **ПР**. In the English,  **S** could be a remnant of the Latin prefix **EX-**. Hard to tell whether this is coincidence or a result of common ancestry, although for greater semantic similarity the Russian prefix would perhaps have to be **ИЗ-** instead of **С-**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe Russian cognates or relatives of **спорить** are **перечить, поперёк, наперекор**, and maybe even **против**, which either don't have prefix or have different prefixes. But this is only an opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16399" RevisionGUID="b9ee11d9-ce8f-411f-9996-686c22032c98" CreationDate="2018-05-13T08:30:27.687" UserId="194" Text="&gt; Тебе ещё с ней нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is more neutral tone, as if the sayer were reminding the listener. &quot;You will have to babysit her as well, don't forget, so you will have little spare time!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе ещё и с ней нянчиться придётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like the sayer were discouraging the listener from something. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16400" RevisionGUID="4a73592a-66b0-4e9c-ad4c-335faa108e82" CreationDate="2018-05-13T15:58:58.190" UserId="6539" Text="Some info I could find.&#xD;&#xA;There are two opposite processes in Russian pronunciation : palatalization (connected with soft consonants) and velarization (connected with hard consonants)&#xD;&#xA;The vivid example of a velarized consonant is hard [л], but velarization also characterizes other hard consonants.&#xD;&#xA;In Russian soft [ Л'] in &quot;люк&quot;, &quot;мель&quot; is palatalized, and &#xD;&#xA;hard [ Л] in &quot;лук&quot;, &quot;мел&quot; is velarized.&#xD;&#xA;Веларизованные согласные могут быть губными и переднеязычными.&#xD;&#xA;Источник.&#xD;&#xA;Русская фонетика. Мультимедийный Интернет-учебник. Автор/создатель: Кедрова Г.Е., Потапов В.В., Егоров А.М., Омельянова" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11714" RevisionGUID="561fba1f-0257-4cca-a665-b02d5cf282c4" CreationDate="2018-05-13T22:35:09.253" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/995794603486994433" />
  <row Id="41396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16400" RevisionGUID="9ea4c063-64f2-4c41-a394-26eb3bbe6212" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:01:08.027" UserId="6539" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Some info I could find.&#xD;&#xA;There are two opposite processes in Russian pronunciation : palatalization (connected with soft consonants) and velarization (connected with hard consonants)&#xD;&#xA;The vivid example of a velarized consonant is hard [л], but velarization also characterizes other hard consonants.&#xD;&#xA;In Russian soft [ Л'] in &quot;люк&quot;, &quot;мель&quot; is palatalized, and &#xD;&#xA;hard [ Л] in &quot;лук&quot;, &quot;мел&quot; is velarized.&#xD;&#xA;Веларизованные согласные могут быть губными и переднеязычными.Palatalization in Russian is stronger than velarization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Источник.&#xD;&#xA;Русская фонетика. Мультимедийный Интернет-учебник. Автор/создатель: Кедрова Г.Е., Потапов В.В., Егоров А.М., Омельянова" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16401" RevisionGUID="070e11d9-9e03-4b28-8383-d0ade84a6bc8" CreationDate="2018-05-14T09:34:28.783" UserId="9058" Text="I suppose that &quot;пригляди за ним&quot; (also: присмотри за ним) is correct term and implies very focused attention. Like *supervising* continuously without taking your eyes away for a moment. Like indeed babysitting, cause it might take just few minutes for a baby to crawl and fall out the window or something. Because of that, it usually means relatively short timespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Погляди за ним&quot; I would expect to hear in some villages, where language is less literature and more dialectical or even archaic. It would imply more state of affairs than specific action. Something that goes for long but does not have to be continuous. Say, if one babushka goes for few weeks into town hospital, she may ask her neighbors to *look after* her hens. Which in practice would mean opening their shed in the dawn and closing it in the dusk and giving them meal and water thrice or twice a day. And in between they are walking by their own. Because that activity is mundane and does not need a lot of time and effort invested it may continue for much longer than for example supervising a baby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;W.r.t. &quot;глядеть&quot; it can be used but mostly in different verb forms and with different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not correctly order &quot;гляди за ним&quot; (to me it sounds very village-speak) I believe, but you can order &quot;смотри за ним&quot;. Additionally, you can order &quot;гляди в оба&quot; (&quot;watch with your both [eyes]&quot;, meaning &quot;stay alert&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16401" RevisionGUID="c98e73ff-f5e1-4ee2-a203-31084b71a2e3" CreationDate="2018-05-14T09:41:37.207" UserId="9058" Comment="added 680 characters in body" Text="I suppose that &quot;пригляди за ним&quot; (also: присмотри за ним) is correct term and implies very focused attention. Like *supervising* continuously without taking your eyes away for a moment. Like indeed babysitting, cause it might take just few minutes for a baby to crawl and fall out the window or something. Because of that, it usually means relatively short timespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Погляди за ним&quot; I would expect to hear in some villages, where language is less literature and more dialectical or even archaic. It would imply more state of affairs than specific action. Something that goes for long but does not have to be continuous. Say, if one babushka goes for few weeks into town hospital, she may ask her neighbors to *look after* her hens. Which in practice would mean opening their shed in the dawn and closing it in the dusk and giving them meal and water thrice or twice a day. And in between they are walking by their own. Because that activity is mundane and does not need a lot of time and effort invested it may continue for much longer than for example supervising a baby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;W.r.t. &quot;глядеть&quot; it can be used but mostly in different verb forms and with different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can not correctly order &quot;гляди за ним&quot; (to me it sounds very village-speak) I believe, but you can order &quot;смотри за ним&quot;. Additionally, you can order &quot;гляди в оба&quot; (&quot;watch with your both [eyes]&quot;, meaning &quot;stay alert&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you can ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ты не глядишь за ним?&#xD;&#xA;* Ты глядишь за ним?&#xD;&#xA;* Ты не присматриваешь за ним?&#xD;&#xA;* Ты присматриваешь за ним?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those questions query the state of affairs. Are you supervising someone/something or not. When your examples were requests politely worded as a questions ( &quot;would you not follow me?&quot; reportedly say UK policemen when arresting you ) those are just questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, there can be &quot;Ты разве не глядишь за ним?&quot;/&quot;Pазве ты не глядишь за ним?&quot; = &quot;Aren't you watching after him?&quot; where the emphasized surprise implies deviation from the normal, expected situation. This borders with &quot;polite request worded as question&quot; case, but still is not quite that.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16402" RevisionGUID="f3e79766-d4e8-4ef1-8c0c-f72e6a0543d4" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:04:43.920" UserId="2238" Text="Velarization is there, and it is (unlike, say, glottalization) simultaneous with the main articulation not consecutive to it. Therefore, having a vowel around does not usually affect it (rather, it goes the other way around, so э is not very fronted after hard consonants; и cannot combine with them, and other vowels are back themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a dispute whether already velar consonants are velarized (к, г, х) though; for labial and coronal it is beyond doubt for a trained phonetician (and especially well heard for л, ж and ш). That said, speakers do not usually understand it until they're confronted with languages with non-velarized consonants - and sometimes even after that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16403" RevisionGUID="d03762a2-67b0-4453-a1ba-d00d1db987fb" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:16:55.007" UserId="9058" Text="I would extend upon Sergey's answer too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе с ней **ещё** нянчиться придется. - You'll have to do **more** babysitting with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree here. I would say that phrase conveys &quot;start&quot; rather than &quot;more&quot;: &quot;You'll have to **start** babysit her&quot;. The &quot;more&quot; motive might be implied here of course. Like, if you are babysiting 10 persons, adding 11th to the list is making more of the babysitting. Or, if you focus on time/effort spent, then starting babysitting makes you spend yet more time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But those ideas are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'll have to do **more** babysitting with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;implies that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you already babysit&#xD;&#xA;* you babysit not enough, if you was babysitting for example for an hour a day, now you would babysit for three hours a day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those implications are missing in &quot;Тебе с ней ещё [потом] нянчиться придется&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What actually implied here is surprise, unexpected consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not expect that your current decision would later add babysitting her to your current list of burdens, but it will. Think again if you want to make your burdens yet heavier than they already are. There would be a price to pay that you overlook and do not expect yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is what conveyed here. &quot;To all your chores, you would later have to babysit her as well&quot;, like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This notion of unexpected consequences, of a probably unpleasant surprise incoming is what conveyed by &quot;ещё&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Еще и с ней puts emphasis on ней (her) which implies that you were babysitting someone else and now you will have to babysit her, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolutely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ещё и нянчиться emphasises нянчиться &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and emphasizes it in the way, that you already has some list of activities you do with her, and now that list would get extended with babysitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like, you were providing for her with money, food, medicine, and it is getting snowballing to the point it can now be called babysitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or like you intend to do some limited activity, like going to parties together, but that person is known to call her acquaintances in the dead night and whine about her troubles, real or imagined. So, you get a forewarning, that you would have to BOTH walk her to the parties AND (unexpectedly) to wipe her night tears way too often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I derive it from how lists are described in Russian (not only in Russian, of course). Красный, желтый, синий **И** зелёный. Red, yellow, blue **AND** green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such phrases like these yours the inserted &quot;И&quot; implies some already existing list that would be yet extended. And the positioning of this &quot;И&quot; specifies which one of the few concurrent lists would get extended. Was it the list of activities with a certain persons, or the list of persons you engage in certain activity with or some other list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific idea you want to convey is &quot;her as well as him&quot; - extending the list of persons for the specific activity. That positions &quot;И&quot; in front of &quot;HER&quot;, thus &quot;Тебе ещё **и с ней** нянчиться придётся&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16403" RevisionGUID="a1023d80-7cd3-44f3-97ab-491924b7c75a" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:22:12.473" UserId="9058" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="I would extend upon Sergey's answer too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе с ней **ещё** нянчиться придется. - You'll have to do **more** babysitting with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree here. I would say that phrase conveys &quot;start&quot; rather than &quot;more&quot;: &quot;You'll have to **start** babysit her&quot;. The &quot;more&quot; motive might be implied here of course. Like, if you are babysiting 10 persons, adding 11th to the list is making more of the babysitting. Or, if you focus on time/effort spent, then starting babysitting makes you spend yet more time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But those ideas are different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You'll have to do **more** babysitting with her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;implies that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you already babysit&#xD;&#xA;* you babysit not enough, if you was babysitting for example for an hour a day, now you would babysit for three hours a day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those implications are missing in &quot;Тебе с ней ещё [потом] нянчиться придется&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;What actually implied here is surprise, unexpected consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You do not expect that your current decision would later add babysitting her to your current list of burdens, but it will. Think again if you want to make your burdens yet heavier than they already are. There would be a price to pay that you overlook and do not expect yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is what conveyed here. &quot;To all your chores, you would later have to babysit her as well&quot;, like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This notion of unexpected consequences, of a probably unpleasant surprise incoming is what conveyed by &quot;ещё&quot; here.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Еще и с ней puts emphasis on ней (her) which implies that you were babysitting someone else and now you will have to babysit her, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolutely correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ещё и нянчиться emphasises нянчиться &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and emphasizes it in the way, that you already has some list of activities you do with her, and now that list would get extended with babysitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like, you were providing for her with money, food, medicine, and it is getting snowballing to the point it can now be called babysitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or like you intend to do some limited activity, like going to parties together, but that person is known to call her acquaintances in the dead night and whine about her troubles, real or imagined. So, you get a forewarning, that you would have to BOTH walk her to the parties AND (unexpectedly) to wipe her night tears way too often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I derive it from how lists are described in Russian (not only in Russian, of course). Красный, желтый, синий **И** зелёный. Red, yellow, blue **AND** green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such phrases like these yours the inserted &quot;И&quot; implies some already existing list that would be yet extended. And the positioning of this &quot;И&quot; specifies which one of the few concurrent lists would get extended. Was it the list of activities with a certain persons, or the list of persons you engage in certain activity with or some other list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the specific idea you want to convey is &quot;her as well as him&quot; - extending the list of persons for the specific activity. That positions &quot;И&quot; in front of &quot;HER&quot;, thus &quot;Тебе ещё **и с ней** нянчиться придётся&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, it can be worded without &quot;ещё&quot; - like &quot;Тогда тебе и с ней придётся нянчиться&quot;. This would imply &quot;It would not be that much of a surprise, and you probably already know it, but still you better consider it once again, for personally I would had not chosen this path&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16404" RevisionGUID="b5e189b9-ad38-4d6c-a4f8-c77ffa215501" CreationDate="2018-05-14T12:36:09.200" UserId="10558" Text="That's how they used to teach native kids in Russian schools some years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All vowels can be hard and soft except few. (Notice the use of &quot;hard&quot; and &quot;soft&quot; instead of &quot;velarised&quot; - &quot;palatlised&quot;. I am not sure if the terms were avoided to make the rules more intuitive or because the kids were native and they didn't need more generic linguistic terms.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonants are read &quot;hard&quot; or &quot;soft&quot; depending on the following vowels or special letters: hard and soft signs. The default state is &quot;hard&quot;, so when a consonant is not followed by anything it is &quot;hard&quot;, thus usage of hard sign to make consonant hard is obsolete in modern written language, but can be found in books dating before 1918.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels that make consonants soft: e, ё, и, ю, я. Soft sign: ь.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vowels that make consonants hard (or rather don't make them soft): э, о, ы, у, а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - м in **ме**ра - **мэ**р&#xD;&#xA; - т in **тё**р - **то**п&#xD;&#xA; - н in **ны**ть - **ни**ть&#xD;&#xA; - л in **лю**к - **лу**г&#xD;&#xA; - р in **ря**д - **ра**д&#xD;&#xA; - с in но**с** - о**сь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following consonants are always hard: ж, ц, ш.&#xD;&#xA;The following consonants are always soft: й, ч, щ.&#xD;&#xA;(De facto these might be not completely true for certain dialects or variants of pronunciation: e.g. вожжи, дрожжи, дождь might be pronounced with &quot;softish&quot; ж).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard and soft signs also have &quot;separating&quot; function. In this case the soft sign may loose the softening function: льёт - soft л, but вьюн - hard в." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16405" RevisionGUID="ab6b2b06-e9fd-4440-90fc-de355b0d6d00" CreationDate="2018-05-14T16:07:08.277" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;и**ме**на́ [ɪ**mʲɪ**ˈna]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: и́**ме**ни [ˈi**mʲɪ**nʲɪ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least according to IPA, these two &quot;ме&quot; sounds should be pronounced the same way. But I seem to notice that the &quot;mʲɪ&quot; sound placed before a stressed syllable sounds just like &quot;mʲɪ&quot;, similar to &quot;**m**ix&quot; in English, whereas the &quot;mʲɪ&quot; sound placed after a stressed syllable sounds more like &quot;mʲe&quot;, as in &quot;**ме**ч [**mʲe**t͡ɕ]&quot; -- albeit not as distinct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16405" RevisionGUID="ab6b2b06-e9fd-4440-90fc-de355b0d6d00" CreationDate="2018-05-14T16:07:08.277" UserId="8672" Text="Do you pronounce the &quot;ме&quot; sound differently in&quot;имена́&quot; and &quot;и́мени&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16405" RevisionGUID="ab6b2b06-e9fd-4440-90fc-de355b0d6d00" CreationDate="2018-05-14T16:07:08.277" UserId="8672" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41406" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16385" RevisionGUID="812ae4a3-840e-4f23-8b47-1ee8286d825c" CreationDate="2018-05-14T19:36:53.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/996112129743904768" />
  <row Id="41407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16406" RevisionGUID="f774d29f-e071-45d5-b1ef-9aef236cd27e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T20:10:47.393" UserId="9256" Text="The &quot;+&quot; versions refer to an action that is normally done repeatedly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The non-&quot;+&quot; versions refer to an action that may, or may not be regularly repeated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Почему бы тебе хоть раз в жизни не посмотреть 'Звездные войны'?&quot;` / &quot;Why don't you see 'Star Wars' just once?&quot; - Implies that this is a movie that everyone should watch, at least once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;Почему бы тебе хотя бы один раз в жизни не посмотреть 'Звездные войны'?&quot;` / &quot;Why don't you see 'Star Wars' at least one time?&quot; - Implies that this is a movie that should be watched repeatedly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16407" RevisionGUID="cfd42250-fe74-4eac-8931-82b2bde5309e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:04:56.280" UserId="5543" Text="Прочитав объяснение и примеры приведенные в Викисловаре.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне кажется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* жалуется тот, кто просто говорит о том, что ему плохо, у него болит; _жаловаться_ - это нейтральное слово&#xD;&#xA;* _сетовать_ - мне кажется, что это слово ничем не отличается от слова _жаловаться_, кроме того, что это слово книжное&#xD;&#xA;* _роптать_, по моему является очень негативным словом. Ропщущий человек жалуется из-за пустяков, делает это слишком часто. Роптать - это переливать свое неудовольствие на других, окружающих человек. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда ли это, что мне кажется про разницы между этими словами?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Для информации, привожу цитированные фрагменты статьи из Викисловаря. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **роптать**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высказывать недовольство кем-либо, чем-либо, обиду на кого-либо, что-либо &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;◆ Он был в горе, в досаде, роптал на весь свет, сердился на несправедливость судьбы, негодовал на несправедливость людей и, однако же, не мог отказаться от новых попыток. Н. В. Гоголь, «Мертвые души», 1842 г. (цитата из Национального корпуса русского языка, см. Список литературы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ◆ За спиной у хозяина роптали, называли его последними именами, но дальше ропота и разговоров дело не шло. А. И. Пантелеев, «Ленька Пантелеев», 1938-1952 г. (цитата из Национального корпуса русского языка, см. Список литературы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сетовать**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; книжн. то же, что жаловаться &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ◆ Хозяйка стала угощать его пивом и сетовала на нынешнее дождливое время. Ф. М. Решетников, «Тетушка Опарина», 1868 г. (цитата из Национального корпуса русского языка, см. Список литературы)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **жаловаться**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; высказывать жалость &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ◆ Вон собаки. Они жрут только мясо и рыбу, и никто из них не жалуется на зубную боль. Рытхэу, «Пусть уходит лёд», 1966 г. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16407" RevisionGUID="cfd42250-fe74-4eac-8931-82b2bde5309e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:04:56.280" UserId="5543" Text="В чем разница между роптать, сетовать, хынкать а жаловаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16407" RevisionGUID="cfd42250-fe74-4eac-8931-82b2bde5309e" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:04:56.280" UserId="5543" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41411" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="bb83f2ff-79a7-4eea-8b03-3d28a09a3abb" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:27:41.457" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|essive|изобразительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16395" RevisionGUID="7ce903cf-c08e-4f4f-9d64-bb7819c66889" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:36:56.660" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's maybe there isn't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**spar (v)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; late 14c., &quot;go quickly, rush, dart, spring;&quot; c. 1400, &quot;to strike or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thrust,&quot; perhaps from Middle French esparer &quot;to kick&quot; (Modern French&#xD;&#xA;&gt; éparer), from Italian sparare &quot;to fling,&quot; **from Latin ex- (see ex-) +&#xD;&#xA;&gt; parare &quot;make ready, prepare,&quot; hence &quot;ward off, parry&quot; (from PIE root&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [*pere-(1)](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*pere-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) &quot;to produce, procure&quot;)**. Etymologists consider a connection with spur unlikely.   &#xD;&#xA;Used in 17c. in reference to preliminary actions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in a cock fight; figurative sense of &quot;to dispute, bandy with words&quot; is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from 1690s.  &#xD;&#xA;Extension to humans, in a literal sense, with meaning &quot;to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; engage in or practice boxing&quot; is attested from 1755. Related: Sparred;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sparring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://www.etymonline.com/word/spar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**спорить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; далее от праслав. *sъporъ, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.-русск. съпоръ, также соупоръ (из *сѫ-поръ), русск. спор; связано с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***pьr- (пере́ть)**. Ср. **др.-инд. pŕ̥t-, pŕ̥tanā** «борьба», авест. pǝrǝt-, рǝšаnā «схватка, борьба»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/спорить#Этимология)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Russian word **C-** is a prefix, the root is **ПР**. In the English,  **S** could be a remnant of the Latin prefix **EX-**. Hard to tell whether this is coincidence or a result of common ancestry, although for greater semantic similarity the Russian prefix would perhaps have to be **ИЗ-** instead of **С-**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe Russian cognates or relatives of **спорить** are **перечить, поперёк, наперекор, препираться**, and maybe even **против**, which either don't have prefix or have different prefixes. But this is only an opinion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41413" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16407" RevisionGUID="afeb3d35-201d-42b9-8318-8f0286abf7ea" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:37:43.843" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="В чем разница между роптать, сетовать, хныкать а жаловаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16408" RevisionGUID="68d0de4e-a8e2-429e-a5b5-a77e7523f772" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:47:51.130" UserId="9459" Text="- `роптать` is a quite strong (but also bookish) one. It's _almost_ &quot;uprise&quot;, &quot;riot&quot;, but not quite. I'd say a murmur. &quot;А люди все роптали и роптали, наверное, справедливости хотят&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- `сетовать` is bookish for &quot;compain&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- which is exactly the meaning of `жаловаться`, but more broadly accepted in the language. &quot;Выйдешь без шапки — потом не жалуйся, что простудился!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me `роптать` is, while _very_ bookish, also about multiple people. &quot;The murmurs started again at his infidelity, but each of them was quite, when he locked at them directly.&quot; While both other verbs are about single-person complaining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16409" RevisionGUID="ba50e437-5222-459a-be03-a14fefceae9b" CreationDate="2018-05-14T21:53:19.963" UserId="9459" Text="The way it's stated in the examples, I agree with @Баян Купи-ка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However. The verb `приглядеть` can also mean &quot;to have picked something&quot;, and `поглядеть` is &quot;just to look at something&quot;. So, it's possible to put a phase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я поглядела товары в лавке, но ничего не приглядела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's correct and understandable, it's a bit weird for a modern native speaker. It's sounds a) oldish, almost bookish, b) plain, spoken language. So, it's sort of how people nowadays would think, peasants in 19th century talked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41416" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="34fed302-71dd-43ff-88ce-cd116fada5dd" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:36:55.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/996157435667677189" />
  <row Id="41417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16410" RevisionGUID="8fe8c624-9f3d-45c6-97a2-6a86a31f1367" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:55:12.440" UserId="10560" Text="I'm struggling to understand which motion verbs should be used in which situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verbs that I have been studying are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти/пойти&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ехать/поехать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ходить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ездить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use these verbs? What are the differences between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16410" RevisionGUID="8fe8c624-9f3d-45c6-97a2-6a86a31f1367" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:55:12.440" UserId="10560" Text="Motion Verbs - Deciding which verb to use when" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16410" RevisionGUID="8fe8c624-9f3d-45c6-97a2-6a86a31f1367" CreationDate="2018-05-14T22:55:12.440" UserId="10560" Text="|глаголы|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16407" RevisionGUID="0ad01097-b80f-4743-8b12-ee5182a97023" CreationDate="2018-05-15T07:30:52.170" UserId="5543" Comment="удалено хныкать из заглавия, про него не было ничего в посте" Text="В чем разница между роптать, сетовать а жаловаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41421" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16410" RevisionGUID="dfdcfb4b-79dc-428d-90fd-152d42f1b3b7" CreationDate="2018-05-15T10:14:13.067" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[15202],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="cf8e33d5-7f97-4960-b66d-9fca5697b88d" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:53:59.510" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Don't do X. **Уж тем более** теперь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I understand the meaning of the entire phrase...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the function of &quot;уж&quot; here? And is it impossible to say &quot;уже тем более теперь&quot; instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;тем&quot; the dative or instrumental case of &quot;тот&quot;? I suppose the same case applies to the &quot;тем&quot; in &quot;тем не менее&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="cf8e33d5-7f97-4960-b66d-9fca5697b88d" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:53:59.510" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse the expression &quot;уж тем более ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="cf8e33d5-7f97-4960-b66d-9fca5697b88d" CreationDate="2018-05-15T13:53:59.510" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16412" RevisionGUID="a9d75889-d171-40bf-b2c8-bea866ed0a59" CreationDate="2018-05-15T15:01:17.390" UserId="10563" Text="**чего** is colloquial and is only used in spoken form. It is not synonymous with **что**, though it could be used colloquially to convey some context appropriate emotion. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты знал что в английском языке больше миллиона слов? &#xD;&#xA;    Did you know that the English language has more than a million words?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Чего?! &#xD;&#xA;    To convey surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    С января стоимость проезда в метро увеличится в два раза.&#xD;&#xA;    Starting in January the cost of riding metro will double.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Чего?! &#xD;&#xA;    To convey disgust or displeasure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16413" RevisionGUID="8e061f92-d0f6-4e7a-b2bd-d11a418083f6" CreationDate="2018-05-15T15:36:04.557" UserId="7674" Text="**A)** Here **Уж** is a particle of intensification, it can be dropped but at the expense of the phrase becoming somewhat dry and terse. In this sentence it can't be replaced with **уже**, although in some [other cases](https://znanija.com/task/12120459) they can be interchangeable, perhaps because in those **уж** is simply a short form of **уже**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не виделись **уж(е)** несколько лет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ожидать **уж(е)** пятнадцать минут. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не спать **уж(е)** вторые сутки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пить **уж(е)** третий стакан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Уж(е)** пятый раз приходит к кому-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples **уж** sounds archaic and poetic and isn't typical to modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **тем** is Instrumental not of **тот** but of **то** because neuter prepositions (то, оно) are used to point at abstract phenomena or phenomena in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16413" RevisionGUID="0d512573-eae0-45bc-82cc-72a23cdeabfa" CreationDate="2018-05-15T15:43:03.813" UserId="7674" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="**A)** Here **Уж** is a particle of intensification, it can be dropped but at the expense of the phrase becoming somewhat dry and terse. In this sentence it can't be replaced with **уже**, although in some [other cases](https://znanija.com/task/12120459) they can be interchangeable, perhaps because in those **уж** is simply a short form of **уже**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не виделись **уж(е)** несколько лет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ожидать **уж(е)** пятнадцать минут. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не спать **уж(е)** вторые сутки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пить **уж(е)** третий стакан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Уж(е)** пятый раз приходит к кому-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples **уж** sounds archaic and poetic (abbreviation of words for the sake of metre was one of poetic devices in the past) and isn't typical to modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **тем** is Instrumental not of **тот** but of **то** because neuter prepositions (то, оно) are used to point at abstract phenomena or phenomena in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16413" RevisionGUID="fa5d2754-9ade-4e22-a8cc-6b5f54a3fbdf" CreationDate="2018-05-15T18:11:46.157" UserId="7674" Comment="added 695 characters in body" Text="**A)** Here **Уж** is a particle of intensification, it can be dropped but at the expense of the phrase becoming somewhat dry and terse. In this sentence it can't be replaced with **уже**, although in some [other cases](https://znanija.com/task/12120459) they can be interchangeable, perhaps because in those **уж** is simply a short form of **уже**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не виделись **уж(е)** несколько лет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ожидать **уж(е)** пятнадцать минут. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не спать **уж(е)** вторые сутки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пить **уж(е)** третий стакан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Уж(е)** пятый раз приходит к кому-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples **уж** sounds archaic and poetic (abbreviation of words for the sake of metre was one of poetic devices in the past) and isn't typical to modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples above the main form is **уже** and **уж** is its optional variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases where **уж** is the main form it can be replaced with **уже** in different syntactical position&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Уж если** я чего решил, то выполню обязательно = **Если** я чего **уже** решил, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот **уж где** действительно можно отдохнуть = Вот **где уже** действительно...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Уж чем** наградил Господь, тому и радоваться надо = **Чем уже** наградил Господь, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И что **уж я** только ни делал? = И что **я уже** только...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flow of these variant sentences isn't always smooth and there could be some awkwardness to them so they may not always be adequate as replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **тем** is Instrumental not of **тот** but of **то** because neuter prepositions (то, оно) are used to point at abstract phenomena or phenomena in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16413" RevisionGUID="014972a8-f7f4-4994-8e82-ef53feb865e4" CreationDate="2018-05-15T18:25:10.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="**A)** Here **Уж** is a particle of intensification, it can be dropped but at the expense of the phrase becoming somewhat dry and terse. In this sentence it can't be replaced with **уже**, although in some [other cases](https://znanija.com/task/12120459) they can be interchangeable, perhaps because in those **уж** is simply a short form of **уже**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не виделись **уж(е)** несколько лет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ожидать **уж(е)** пятнадцать минут. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не спать **уж(е)** вторые сутки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пить **уж(е)** третий стакан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Уж(е)** пятый раз приходит к кому-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples **уж** sounds archaic and poetic (abbreviation of words for the sake of metre was one of poetic devices in the past) and isn't typical to modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples above the main form is **уже** and **уж** is its optional variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some other cases where **уж** is the main form it can be replaced with **уже** in different syntactical position&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Уж если** я чего решил, то выполню обязательно = **Если** я чего **уже** решил, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот **уж где** действительно можно отдохнуть = Вот **где уже** действительно...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Уж чем** наградил Господь, тому и радоваться надо = **Чем уже** наградил Господь, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И что **уж я** только ни делал? = И что **я уже** только...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flow of these variant sentences isn't always smooth and there could be some awkwardness to them so they may not always be adequate as replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **тем** is Instrumental not of **тот** but of **то** (their forms in 4.5 out of 5 oblique cases are [homophonic](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/тот#Русский)) because neuter prepositions (то, оно) are typically used to point at abstract phenomena or phenomena in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16413" RevisionGUID="e0835f68-c44a-4810-a5e0-10b0f11c3a7c" CreationDate="2018-05-15T18:31:14.300" UserId="7674" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="**A)** Here **Уж** is a particle of intensification, it can be dropped but at the expense of the phrase becoming somewhat dry and terse. In this sentence it can't really be replaced with **уже**. One can say ***тем более уже теперь*** but it's not quite the same in terms of expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although in some [other cases](https://znanija.com/task/12120459) they can be interchangeable, perhaps because in those **уж** is simply a short form of **уже**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не виделись **уж(е)** несколько лет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ожидать **уж(е)** пятнадцать минут. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не спать **уж(е)** вторые сутки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пить **уж(е)** третий стакан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Уж(е)** пятый раз приходит к кому-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these examples **уж** sounds archaic and poetic (abbreviation of words for the sake of metre was one of poetic devices in the past) and isn't typical to modern language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples above the main form is **уже** and **уж** is its optional variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In yet other cases where **уж** is the main form it can be replaced with **уже** in different syntactical position (something that was already attempted above with inferior result)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Уж если** я чего решил, то выполню обязательно = **Если** я чего **уже** решил, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот **уж где** действительно можно отдохнуть = Вот **где уже** действительно...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Уж чем** наградил Господь, тому и радоваться надо = **Чем уже** наградил Господь, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И что **уж я** только ни делал? = И что **я уже** только...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flow of these variant sentences isn't always smooth and there could be some awkwardness to them so they may not always be adequate as replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **тем** is Instrumental not of **тот** but of **то** (their forms in 4.5 out of 5 oblique cases are [homophonic](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/тот#Русский)) because neuter prepositions (то, оно) are typically used to point at abstract phenomena or phenomena in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16414" RevisionGUID="5b212f99-574d-4489-b558-b4cc8faa8170" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:14:53.600" UserId="5405" Text="**Роптать** можно на вышестоящих, перешёптываться в поисках одобрения других и даже возможного бунта. Поэтому нельзя сказать *я ропщу*, ропот - это всегда коллективное и понятное лишь при взгляде со стороны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сетуют**  не ожидая серьёзной реакции, как правило малознакомым людям и/или о вещах которые невозможно изменить (погода, невезение и т. п.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Жаловаться** - это вызывать жалость, сочувствие, эмпатию. Жалуются когда ожидают от слушателя каких-либо действий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16415" RevisionGUID="04f12fcc-0d39-46fb-adc9-d4f87c14124d" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:20:49.077" UserId="5405" Text="На соседнем форуме тоже поднимал этот [вопрос][1] Если кратко. В современном языке только стилистическая **лгать** более возвышенное слово и ложь как правило серьёзнее, чем враньё. В остальном отличий почти нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/20149/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BC-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F-%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D1%82-%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16408" RevisionGUID="84072444-9df5-4fc1-9591-5efcd19f8513" CreationDate="2018-05-15T22:57:22.850" UserId="9459" Comment="as mentioned in the comments" Text="- `роптать` is a quite strong (but also bookish) one. It's _almost_ &quot;uprise&quot;, &quot;riot&quot;, but not quite. I'd say a murmur. &quot;А люди все роптали и роптали, наверное, справедливости хотят&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- `сетовать` is bookish for &quot;complain&quot;, but don't really expect a change when doing so;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;to complain&quot; is exactly the meaning of `жаловаться`, but more broadly accepted in the language. &quot;Выйдешь без шапки — потом не жалуйся, что простудился!&quot;. Further point is that `жаловаться` also means complaining to an authority, while `сетовать` is more brooding without expected consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me `роптать` is, while _very_ bookish, also about multiple people. &quot;The murmurs started again at his infidelity, but each of them was quite, when he locked at them directly.&quot; While both other verbs are about single-person complaining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41435" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16407" RevisionGUID="b47da4b1-a428-4bfd-ac6a-571a11f96aa0" CreationDate="2018-05-16T04:36:57.283" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/996610429337161728" />
  <row Id="41436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16414" RevisionGUID="a1f8d7ba-8dc8-46d8-a5c1-d981058fe812" CreationDate="2018-05-16T08:37:13.500" UserId="5405" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="**Роптать** можно на вышестоящих, перешёптываться в поисках одобрения других и даже возможного бунта. Поэтому нельзя сказать *я ропщу*, ропот - это всегда коллективное и понятное лишь при взгляде со стороны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сетуют**  не ожидая серьёзной реакции, как правило малознакомым людям и/или о вещах которые невозможно изменить (погода, невезение и т. п.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Жаловаться** - это вызывать жалость, сочувствие, эмпатию. Жалуются когда ожидают от слушателя каких-либо действий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если рабочий рассказывает директору предприятия, что денег не хватает, он жалуется. А если директор об этом говорит рабочему, то он сетует." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16416" RevisionGUID="ef2846eb-b2d6-4108-afb7-c369e995fdcb" CreationDate="2018-05-16T10:29:44.810" UserId="9058" Text="Partial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe not even an answer but some related observations: as I was laying out examples, which I hope would clarify usage patterns, I actually instead got more and more confused myself. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And is it impossible to say &quot;уже тем более теперь&quot; instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context &quot;ужЕ&quot; would be synonymous to &quot;теперь&quot;. Both words would mean that as the time went by the situation at hands changed and what appeared feasible earlier is no more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this &quot;*уже* тем более *теперь*&quot; would be a mistake like &quot;*Чёрная* кошка перебежала дорогу *чёрная*&quot;. A bit too many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare with possible phrase &quot;уже нельзя&quot;. That is how &quot;уже&quot; would get parsed in that phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, can you say &quot;уже тем более&quot; without &quot;теперь&quot; ? No, again. As &quot;уже&quot; indeed has a function of amplification, and lacking &quot;теперь&quot; would get bound to &quot;тем более&quot;. But you can not amplify &quot;тем более&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However you can bring both &quot;уже&quot; and &quot;теперь&quot; words together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*Теперь уже* тем более [не стOит так делать]&quot; or &quot;*Сегодня уже* тем более&quot; or &quot;*Сейчас уже* тем более&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In those examples while &quot;уже&quot; still seems synonymous - it is not redundant. Instead it is amplification by repetition. Kind of &quot;черный-черный кот&quot; pattern in a remote sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now one extra brush stroke. &quot;Уже теперь&quot; vs &quot;теперь уже&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In some vague sense one refers to the past and another to the future.&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it is positive/negative sentences that make difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Я купил шкаф с доставкой у вас неделю назад. Когда наконец его привезут?&#xD;&#xA;- Уже завтра!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Мы вам должны были шкаф привезти на прошлой неделе, но не смогли. Вот сейчас его погрузили и выезжаем к вам.&#xD;&#xA;- Теперь уже не привозите. Шкаф купили в другом магазине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, with &quot;теперь&quot; omitted, a simpler phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Уже не привозите. Шкаф купили в другом магазине.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if TV discusses some prospects of having good crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- В это лето стоит хорошая погода. *Уже теперь* видно, как хорошо растёт пшеница и какой обильный должен быть урожай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Холодные дожди этим летом как будто не прекрашались ни на день. *Теперь уже* не приходится надеяться на хороший урожай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frankly, I can feel those intonations differences, but I can not rationally explain them and fail to word some clear rules." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2517" RevisionGUID="c55a15a1-aca2-4351-88a9-9aec95c7def1" CreationDate="2018-05-16T21:23:19.860" UserId="1943" Comment="minor" Text="My late mother-in-law's story of her captivity in the Soviet Union as a German civilian forced laborer after WW2 contains a number of words which are apparently Russian, but for which I cannot find any confirmation (some of them I can find, but these others are giving me trouble).  The original text is a transcription in German from an audio recording.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A word commanding &quot;to stop&quot;.  In her description she gives &quot;Stoy!&quot; as a command from the Russian soldier who captured her.  Bing Translater says &quot;stop!&quot; is &quot;стоп!&quot; which of course transliterates to &quot;stop!&quot;  Is there some word, &quot;stoy&quot;, which answers to what she remembers hearing?&#xD;&#xA; - A word that seems to sound like &quot;yest&quot;, used in demanding one to show personal documents.  This word in the exchange that she describes sounds like &quot;yest&quot;, and occurs with the word in German and Russian for &quot;document&quot; (&quot;документы&quot; or &quot;Dokumente&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - A word for an article of winter clothing, a quilted jacket.  The word she uses is &quot;kupeikas&quot;, which I cannot find anywhere.  In her tale, the clothing item is using in connection with the felt boots, valenki or Валенки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16417" RevisionGUID="6d719120-8756-41bf-b45f-24a8243dac0e" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:23:58.300" UserId="334" Text="Don't mix &quot;уж&quot; and &quot;уже&quot;. The first one is a grammar particle and not a word proper, it doesn't convey facts, but more like personal opinion of the speaker. The latter, however, is a proper word with clear meaning of passing some threshold/mark (usually in time, but sometimes in some kind of a row)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Уж&quot; is a modal particle, i.e. it gives an emotional opinion of the speaker. The exact meaning might vary greatly, but usually is something about annoyance of the speaker caused by inability of the other party to grasp a very simple idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case I tentatively translate it as &quot;and it is your fault, you moron, that it is a very bad idea to to X do, and you should see it easy enough&quot;, but I need more context to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some random paper about the particle: [link][1] . If you can read it, it should give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dialog-21.ru/media/1768/47.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16417" RevisionGUID="d1d6dd45-e4f2-49d6-b97b-870d4d06b32d" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:38:17.207" UserId="334" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Don't mix &quot;уж&quot; and &quot;уже&quot;. The first one is a grammar particle and not a word proper, it doesn't convey facts, but more like personal opinion of the speaker. The latter, however, is a proper word with clear meaning of passing some threshold/mark (usually in time, but sometimes in some kind of a row)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Уж&quot; is a modal particle, i.e. it gives an emotional opinion of the speaker. The exact meaning might vary greatly, but usually is something about annoyance of the speaker caused by inability of the other party to grasp a very simple idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this particular case I tentatively translate it as &quot;and it is your fault, you moron, that it is a very bad idea to do X now, and you should see it easy enough&quot;, but I need more context to be sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some random paper about the particle: [link][1] . If you can read it, it should give you an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dialog-21.ru/media/1768/47.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16418" RevisionGUID="917649f7-9dea-4d42-873c-912b619f0c5e" CreationDate="2018-05-17T08:44:39.650" UserId="334" Text="&quot;Что&quot; is inflected in Russian. &quot;Чего&quot; is one of its forms. Per grammar rules it should be used only in special circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However! Indeed, colloquially &quot;Чего&quot; might be used instead of &quot;Что&quot;. This use however, is usually assumed to be a sign of unsophisticated person and/or a sign of surprise/displeasure/lack of understanding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16420" RevisionGUID="37d64293-ffdf-44e5-85f4-41e4e1cf7896" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:09:01.047" UserId="8893" Text="There's no considerable difference. And both phrases imply some criticism, even said with a friedly tone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16421" RevisionGUID="3b4b1fe4-cf8b-47ca-92a5-72018b4fc139" CreationDate="2018-05-17T13:18:56.530" UserId="8893" Text="Both of those syllables are in an unstressed position, hence the reduction of sound. It's very difficult or even impossible to spot any difference in this position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the practical standpoint: **they sound the same**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16423" RevisionGUID="cdf39adf-8252-4516-9f31-5c413fa6c76c" CreationDate="2018-05-18T07:17:41.803" UserId="10572" Text="I would say that &quot;mʲɪ&quot; can be pronounced as the similar to &quot;mix&quot; (и) or as in &quot;меч&quot; (е), or even among them. Both options will be correct. It depends on the dialect of the speaker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41454" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16263" RevisionGUID="b6d9bb54-0550-4a3f-9300-99335ff0afca" CreationDate="2018-05-18T07:37:04.073" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/997380531942821888" />
  <row Id="41456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16424" RevisionGUID="e728badb-f1c1-4752-b163-b01987c33c53" CreationDate="2018-05-18T12:33:01.507" UserId="10574" Text="It has to be 30 characters that's why this is here. And i mean &quot;in you&quot; not that i believe you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41457" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16424" RevisionGUID="e728badb-f1c1-4752-b163-b01987c33c53" CreationDate="2018-05-18T12:33:01.507" UserId="10574" Text="How do you say &quot;I belive in you!&quot; in russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41458" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16424" RevisionGUID="e728badb-f1c1-4752-b163-b01987c33c53" CreationDate="2018-05-18T12:33:01.507" UserId="10574" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16425" RevisionGUID="20697a98-8a60-42b2-a422-aeed01ed160a" CreationDate="2018-05-18T12:33:34.903" UserId="310" Text="It has to be 30 characters that's why this is here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я в тебя верю!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41460" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16424" RevisionGUID="a6b18abd-4650-4a47-8f30-b3b34fd2ced6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T13:56:16.210" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16427" RevisionGUID="dc115926-30fb-4ff1-876f-12994a0836cf" CreationDate="2018-05-18T14:43:55.630" UserId="10575" Text="Does anyone know if Grammatica still exists - the program which accents Russian text for you? I lost my stand alone app version when I had to reset Windows 10. A Google search for the online version is 'unable to find the server.' If this company no longer exists are there any alternatives? Thanks! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16427" RevisionGUID="dc115926-30fb-4ff1-876f-12994a0836cf" CreationDate="2018-05-18T14:43:55.630" UserId="10575" Text="Grammatica program" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16427" RevisionGUID="dc115926-30fb-4ff1-876f-12994a0836cf" CreationDate="2018-05-18T14:43:55.630" UserId="10575" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16428" RevisionGUID="c25b14f9-fab8-4d69-ae6e-6cd8610e8d9b" CreationDate="2018-05-18T14:59:48.737" UserId="8397" Text="I've stumbled across [an excellent future][1] that is only labelled in Russian and am wondering whether there are good tools for taking Russian text — as an image — and transliterating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(From context I think I can get from there to an understanding of most of the contents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://zolotarevdesign.com/roman-legion&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fr13q.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41466" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16428" RevisionGUID="c25b14f9-fab8-4d69-ae6e-6cd8610e8d9b" CreationDate="2018-05-18T14:59:48.737" UserId="8397" Text="Recommended tool for transliterating image text to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41467" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16428" RevisionGUID="c25b14f9-fab8-4d69-ae6e-6cd8610e8d9b" CreationDate="2018-05-18T14:59:48.737" UserId="8397" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16429" RevisionGUID="6c3a0319-bfcf-4ccb-a0dc-bc136d28c4ea" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:16:53.443" UserId="8780" Text="&quot;Только силой с этим явлением [terrorism] **не справиться**, тем более, что смерть террористов не пугает&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was intrigued at the usage of the infinitive ***справиться*** here. Normally the third person plural is used in order to express an impersonal subject (like &quot;говорят...&quot; in the sense of &quot;it is told that...&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, apparently, &quot;не справиться&quot; translates here as *&quot;one can't cope with&quot;*?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16429" RevisionGUID="6c3a0319-bfcf-4ccb-a0dc-bc136d28c4ea" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:16:53.443" UserId="8780" Text="Не справиться as an idiom" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16429" RevisionGUID="6c3a0319-bfcf-4ccb-a0dc-bc136d28c4ea" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:16:53.443" UserId="8780" Text="|выражения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16430" RevisionGUID="31ea72d5-767c-4540-a258-5c2d494611b7" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:39:10.147" UserId="7674" Text="No, it's not an idiom, it's one of grammatical vehicles to express *inability*, structured as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dative + negated infinitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In positive statements, which express *ability*, either the inflected modal verb **мочь** is employed or the inflected adjective **способен**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Я могу/способен поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A positive expression of *ability* similar to that of *inability* requires addition of an adverb ***под силу***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Мне под силу поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16431" RevisionGUID="6bb6384a-0a50-4d3d-8c70-8e3860746561" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:46:54.517" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Она **творила** все, что ей вздумается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Она **делала** все, что ей вздумается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the verb  &quot;творить&quot; in the sense of &quot;***do*** X&quot; always carries a negative connotation. Is it close to &quot;***commit*** (a faux pas)&quot; in a negative sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16431" RevisionGUID="6bb6384a-0a50-4d3d-8c70-8e3860746561" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:46:54.517" UserId="8672" Text="Does &quot;творить&quot; – as opposed to the neutral &quot;делать&quot; – carry a negative connotation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16431" RevisionGUID="6bb6384a-0a50-4d3d-8c70-8e3860746561" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:46:54.517" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16432" RevisionGUID="430f7bc2-583d-4c62-9184-c35935321ba0" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:49:38.120" UserId="5443" Text="**Не справиться** here can be thought of as a short form for **не**(-льзя/-возможно) **справиться**. So yes, your translation is correct while a more literal one would sound like *'it's impossible to cope with (to overwhelm/overcome)...'*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16430" RevisionGUID="fe1cf55c-b630-433d-8d61-82ce0f5f1d62" CreationDate="2018-05-18T15:53:34.867" UserId="7674" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="No, it's not an idiom, it's one of grammatical vehicles to express *inability*, constructed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dative + negated perfective infinitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In positive statements, which express *ability*, either the inflected modal verb **мочь** is employed or the inflected adjective **способен**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Я могу/способен поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A positive expression of *ability* similar to that of *inability* requires for example addition of adverbs ***под силу; по плечу*** if it's about physical or intellectual ability or an adverb ***по средствам*** if it's about financial ability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Мне под силу поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However their use is context dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16433" RevisionGUID="f90eaa0d-3500-4409-8330-32ccd7e832e6" CreationDate="2018-05-18T16:05:11.257" UserId="5443" Text="No, not always - it's a matter of context. There are quite positive expressions like  **творить добро** and **творить чудеса**. But here are *prefixed* versions of the verb which always (if not ironically/idiomatically used) carry negative sense: **натворить** (perfective) and **вытворять** (imperfective)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16433" RevisionGUID="3921373f-0a25-498a-a9a5-e8c1d7461f8f" CreationDate="2018-05-18T16:11:27.117" UserId="5443" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="No, not always - it's a matter of context. There are quite positive expressions like  **творить добро** and **творить чудеса**. But here are *prefixed* versions of the verb which always (if not ironically/idiomatically used) carry negative sense: **натворить** (perfective) and **вытворять** (imperfective). The second mentioned verb is often used to informally describe one's positive impression from circus tricks or actions of a player in some game." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16430" RevisionGUID="cf850a85-8a4e-41fc-a095-3d9913708bf4" CreationDate="2018-05-18T17:10:16.263" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="No, it's not an idiom, it's one of grammatical vehicles to express *inability*, constructed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dative + negated perfective infinitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In positive statements, which express *ability*, either the inflected modal verb **мочь** is employed or the inflected adjective **способен**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Я могу/способен поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A positive expression of *ability* similar to that of *inability* requires for example addition of adverbial phrases ***под силу; по плечу*** if it's about physical or intellectual ability or an adverb ***по средствам; по карману*** if it's about financial ability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Мне под силу поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However their use is context dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16434" RevisionGUID="773670eb-1742-49c6-86c2-d9ff2450ca5a" CreationDate="2018-05-18T17:19:49.737" UserId="7674" Text="Indeed, in cases where **творить** is a synonym of **делать** it has negative connotation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases **Что ты наделала?** and **Что ты натворила?** which express dismay and dread at what a person has done are synonymous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts its negative connotation happens to be co-opted to express approval of such negativity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16434" RevisionGUID="92f9c0c5-bb98-4bb9-9e6b-d3c1e4474807" CreationDate="2018-05-18T17:33:19.233" UserId="7674" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="Indeed, in cases where **творить** is a synonym of **делать** it has negative connotation. Unlike ***faux pas*** as far as i understand it **творить** Usually denotes an intense deliberate activity. But sometimes it does get applied to denote a genuine ***faux pas*** by way of hyperbolization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases **Что ты наделала?** and **Что ты натворила?** which express dismay and dread at what a person has done are synonymous.   &#xD;&#xA;Incidentally the use of **творить** in the perfective aspect **натворить** could serve as the above mentioned hyperbolization of a trivial blunder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts the word's negative connotation happens to be co-opted to express approval of such negativity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16435" RevisionGUID="e09f50c7-f226-40e9-93aa-3f248df4a99b" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:31:08.157" UserId="1236" Text="Do it yourself. [There's a site][1] for free online OCR (Optical Character recognition). What you have to do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [From that site][2], save the pictures on your computer. I mean the big ones, the halves, not the one you posted here in your question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Chose the first half picture on the OCR site, chose Russian as the text language, and press the &quot;Upload + OCR&quot; button there.&#xD;&#xA; 3. With their Select tool chose an area with the text and press the &quot;OCR&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Below the image, read the Russian text which you can copy and paste into a translator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newocr.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zolotarevdesign.com/roman-legion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16435" RevisionGUID="1a1a98f7-cd23-4904-a004-7dbd3a3fd321" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:36:29.720" UserId="1236" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Do it yourself. [There's a site][1] for free online OCR (Optical Character recognition). What you have to do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [From that site][2], save the pictures on your computer. I mean the big ones, the halves, not the one you posted here in your question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Choose the first half picture on the OCR site, choose Russian as the text language, and press the &quot;Upload + OCR&quot; button there.&#xD;&#xA; 3. With their Select tool choose an area with the text and press the &quot;OCR&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Below the image, read the Russian text which you can copy and paste into a translator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newocr.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zolotarevdesign.com/roman-legion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16435" RevisionGUID="c5ea4616-a6b0-403f-8ce3-b1bf465fdb57" CreationDate="2018-05-18T18:43:44.030" UserId="1236" Comment="Addition" Text="Do it yourself. [There's a site][1] for free online OCR (Optical Character recognition). What you have to do is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [From that site][2], save the pictures on your computer. I mean the big ones, the halves, not the one you posted here in your question.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Choose the first half picture on the OCR site, choose Russian as the text language, and press the &quot;Upload + OCR&quot; button there.&#xD;&#xA; 3. With their Select tool choose an area with the text and press the &quot;OCR&quot; button.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Below the image, read the Russian text which you can copy and paste into a translator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD.: To transliterate a Russian text with the Latin alphabet, copy the Russian text, go to [this site][3], paste the text into the central big field and press &quot;В транслит&quot; above the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newocr.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://zolotarevdesign.com/roman-legion&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://translit.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16436" RevisionGUID="bf218a24-1e33-4431-8569-702799d1cde7" CreationDate="2018-05-18T20:25:34.940" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Она оставила его **разбираться** с последствиями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она оставила его **справляться** с последствиями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;справляться&quot; is about getting the entire process of dealing with a situation ***over*** with, whereas &quot;разбираться&quot; is more ***detail*** oriented, focused on how you sort out a more ***complicated*** situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16436" RevisionGUID="bf218a24-1e33-4431-8569-702799d1cde7" CreationDate="2018-05-18T20:25:34.940" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;разбираться&quot; and &quot;справляться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16436" RevisionGUID="bf218a24-1e33-4431-8569-702799d1cde7" CreationDate="2018-05-18T20:25:34.940" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41488" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16436" RevisionGUID="9639d0f7-fd56-4eba-aee0-c4af9808295d" CreationDate="2018-05-18T20:56:52.123" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;разбираться&quot; vs &quot;справляться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="ed7e288d-0fe6-472b-82d9-0c70dcefabad" CreationDate="2018-05-19T01:01:05.573" UserId="8780" Text="&quot;Существует 4 фактора, от которых зависит наше здоровье&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the grammatical number is quite confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominative 4 (**четыре**) is followed by *genitive singular* **фактора**. No doubt here. If &quot;4&quot; takes another case (*ex.:* genitive **четырёх**) than &quot;фактор&quot; takes the corresponding *plural* case (becoming **четырёх факторов** then). So far so good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what's the grammatical number of ***четыре*** itself, if it's a noun rather than just a numeral?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, &quot;существу**ЕТ** (third person *singular*) четыре фактора&quot;. Is &quot;четыре&quot; a singular noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then, &quot;от котор**ЫХ**&quot; (genitive *plural*) when &quot;фактора&quot; is genitive singular.&#xD;&#xA;Does the relative pronoun refer directly to the fact that we are talking about *multiple* factors, regardless of the genitive singular which is, say, a grammatical &quot;whim&quot; of the Russian language?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="ed7e288d-0fe6-472b-82d9-0c70dcefabad" CreationDate="2018-05-19T01:01:05.573" UserId="8780" Text="Grammatical number of numeral 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16437" RevisionGUID="ed7e288d-0fe6-472b-82d9-0c70dcefabad" CreationDate="2018-05-19T01:01:05.573" UserId="8780" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16430" RevisionGUID="7cc4005f-a4fc-440c-b2f3-a40827174e7d" CreationDate="2018-05-19T06:51:32.833" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="No, it's not an idiom, it's one of grammatical vehicles to express *inability*, constructed as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Dative + negated (perfective) infinitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In positive statements, which express *ability*, either the inflected modal verb **мочь** is employed or the inflected adjective **способен**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Я могу/способен поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A positive expression of *ability* similar to that of *inability* requires for example addition of adverbial phrases ***под силу; по плечу*** if it's about physical or intellectual ability or ***по средствам; по карману*** if it's about financial ability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне не поднять этот камень** VS **Мне под силу поднять этот камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However their use is context dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16438" RevisionGUID="a119d55e-8146-40ca-9993-6367d3eaf107" CreationDate="2018-05-19T07:09:24.377" UserId="7674" Text="**4 фактора** is the correct agreement between a numeral and a noun. To have the noun assume the form of Genitive plural **факторОВ**, **4** would have to be construed as **четвёрка**, that is as another noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we have divergence between **существуЕТ** and **которЫХ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in my opinion this is a case of erroneous agreement of a predicate with a subject expressed with a numeral, especially in the presence of a relative pronoun **которЫХ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb has to assume plural form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существу**ЮТ** 4 фактора, которые ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In vernacular and in grammarless speech the rules of agreement are very often overlooked and verbs assume neutral inflection, not least because these rules are very vague, like those described in the section [*Согласование сказуемого с числительными*](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo) of gramota.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16438" RevisionGUID="5cd0ec67-d65f-4cdb-ac17-43d9fd66f69f" CreationDate="2018-05-19T07:14:44.500" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body" Text="**4 фактора** is the correct agreement between a numeral and a noun. To have the noun assume the form of Genitive plural **факторОВ**, **4** would have to be construed as **четвёрка**, that is as another noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we have divergence between **существуЕТ** and **которЫХ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in my opinion this is a case of erroneous agreement of a predicate with a subject expressed with a numeral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb has to assume plural form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существу**ЮТ** 4 фактора, от которЫХ ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In vernacular and in grammarless speech the rules of agreement are very often overlooked and verbs assume neutral inflection, not least because these rules are very vague, like those described in the section [*Согласование сказуемого с числительными*](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo) of an article on gramota.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16439" RevisionGUID="963a0359-a438-495e-8ad5-0b940320f778" CreationDate="2018-05-19T07:20:18.937" UserId="10578" Text="I think that &quot;диванный&quot; is a neologism, probably not more than 7-8 years old, and comes from the direct (admittedly, good) translation of &quot;armchair&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It is used mainly to refer to self-styled military specialists (&quot;диванный генерал&quot;, &quot;диванный вояка&quot;, &quot;диванные войска&quot;) and/or self-styled experts (&quot;диванный эксперт&quot;, &quot;диванный аналитик&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contemporary Russian use, the use of &quot;диванный&quot; adj. actually voids the meaning of the noun to which it's applied (e.g., &quot;диванный эксперт&quot; = &quot;not an expert actually&quot;) and has a ironic or sarcastic or even pejorative connotation.&#xD;&#xA;The older Russian analogues to that would be &quot;кухонный &lt;&gt;&quot; (&quot;showing off with one's knowledge in the parlour, that knowledge never being good for use in the world outside&quot;) or &quot;&lt;&gt; кислых щей&quot; (just pejorative and a tiny bit vulgar), like other guys pointed out already. Or &quot;&lt;&gt; доморощенный&quot; (liter. &quot;home-grown&quot;, &quot;self-taught and so (supposedly) to a not very good extent&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's what your English examples seem to denote, anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 1: note the inverse order of noun and adjective, this strengthens the expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2: there's even more pejorative and vulgar &quot;&lt;&gt; недоделанный&quot; (liter. that adj. means &quot;uncompleted, unfinished&quot;, but, again, in this use case it's very pejorative and vulgar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, to denote a lack of practical knowledge in somebody admittedly (well enough) theoretically trained, there is no direct one-word analogue. There's an *ironic expression* &quot;молодой боец&quot; (&quot;just from the boot camp&quot;) or an *ironic use* of &quot;молодой специалист&quot; (&quot;just finished studying, never worked seriously in this field&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16438" RevisionGUID="e83cf2b2-99f8-41d9-b5c0-88f082adcdee" CreationDate="2018-05-19T07:21:14.627" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body" Text="**4 фактора** is the correct agreement between a numeral and a noun. To have the noun assume the form of Genitive plural **факторОВ**, **4** would have to be construed as **четвёрка**, that is as another noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we have divergence between **существуЕТ** and **которЫХ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in my opinion this is a case of erroneous agreement of a predicate with a subject expressed with a numeral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb has to assume plural form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существу**ЮТ** 4 фактора, от которЫХ ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In vernacular and in grammarless speech the rules of agreement with numerals in particular are very often overlooked and verbs assume neutral inflection, not least because these rules are very vague, like those described in the section [*Согласование сказуемого с числительными*](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo) of an article on gramota.ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16440" RevisionGUID="a2c8b668-28f1-446f-aff5-384d47ca9923" CreationDate="2018-05-19T11:00:43.597" UserId="10580" Text="из иврита БЛИЯД (בלי יד) - без руки (это дословный перевод). В более широком понятии - человек (в данном случае - женщина), которой ни кто не подаст руки в знак не уважения, или для того, что-бы на неё опереться. vicgjmelsky@mail.ru&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16441" RevisionGUID="7298ce69-df73-4556-8ded-0f1c39955e8c" CreationDate="2018-05-19T12:06:59.443" UserId="2104" Text="The sentence you quoted is grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, cardinal numerals do not have a grammatical number and whenever such numeral appears as the subject of a sentence, the predicate can assume either number. The choice is not completely arbitrary though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - singular is preferred, when the emphasis is on the number itself or the subject(s) were passive or they all participated in the action in the same way: &#xD;&#xA;    - В русском име**ет**ся 6 падежей. (emphasis on the number)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; In the past tense, singular neuter is used (-о):&#xD;&#xA;    - В результате урагана упал**о** двадцать деревьев. (trees were passive)&#xD;&#xA;    - В авиакатастрофе погибл**о** 200 человек. (single event, people were passive victims)&#xD;&#xA;    - На лекцию пришл**о** пятьдесят человек, а не пятьдесят два. (emphasis on the number)&#xD;&#xA; - plural is preferred, when you want to emphasise the subjects' active involvement in the action or the action was multiple events or was performed by each subject in their own way:&#xD;&#xA;    - Сто аспирантов пишут диссертации (each is writing their own)&#xD;&#xA;    - Двадцать один участник обсудили проблему (Yes, the predicate is plural despite the seemingly singular subject &quot;двадцать один&quot;. Each participant was actively involved in their own way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Existence verbs' (существует, имеется, наличиствует, есть) are a common example of a passive action (you don't need to do anything to exist) and thus singular is preferred in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Существу**ет** 4 фактора, от которых зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* say &quot;Существу**ют** 4 фактора...&quot; if you want to emphasise the uniqueness of each factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is based on the article [Единственное и множественное число сказуемого][1] (thanks to @БаянКупи-ка for the link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for которых, agreement rules are different (and simpler) for adjectives and adjectival pronouns: it's singular if the number is 1 and plural otherwise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 1 основн**ой** фактор, от котор**ого** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 3 основн**ых** фактора, от котор**ых** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 5 основн**ых** факторов, от котор**ых** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16441" RevisionGUID="8de3ace0-60b2-4515-89e5-f5616bd74a6b" CreationDate="2018-05-19T12:21:42.047" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The sentence you quoted is grammatically correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, cardinal numerals do not have a grammatical number and whenever such numeral appears as the subject of a sentence, the predicate can assume either number. The choice is not completely arbitrary though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - singular is preferred, when the emphasis is on the number itself or the subject(s) were passive or they all participated in the action in the same way: &#xD;&#xA;    - В русском име**ет**ся 6 падежей. (emphasis on the number)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA; In the past tense, singular neuter is used (-о):&#xD;&#xA;    - В результате урагана упал**о** двадцать деревьев. (trees were passive)&#xD;&#xA;    - В авиакатастрофе погибл**о** 200 человек. (single event, people were passive victims)&#xD;&#xA;    - На лекцию пришл**о** пятьдесят человек, а не пятьдесят два. (emphasis on the number)&#xD;&#xA; - plural is preferred, when you want to emphasise the subjects' active involvement in the action or the action was multiple events or was performed by each subject in their own way:&#xD;&#xA;    - Сто аспирантов пишут диссертации (each is writing their own)&#xD;&#xA;    - Двадцать один участник обсудили проблему (Yes, the predicate is plural despite the seemingly singular subject &quot;двадцать один&quot;. Each participant was actively involved in their own way.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Existence verbs' (существует, имеется, наличиствует, есть) are a common example of a passive action (you don't need to do anything to exist) and thus singular is preferred in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Существу**ет** 4 фактора, от которых зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* say &quot;Существу**ют** 4 фактора...&quot; if you want to emphasise the uniqueness of each factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is based on the article [Единственное и множественное число сказуемого][1] (thanks to @БаянКупи-ка for the link)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for которых, the rules are different for numeral-adjective agreement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 1 основн**ой** фактор, от котор**ого** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 3 основн**ых** фактора, от котор**ых** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 5 основн**ых** факторов, от котор**ых** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA; - Существует 21 основн**ой** фактор, от котор**ых** зависит наше здоровье.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16442" RevisionGUID="8c4ffcdc-5f71-4844-b0ca-a5e5892a8211" CreationDate="2018-05-19T19:22:53.897" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;X. Ну и Y тоже. Ну и Z, да. **Вино еще там... А!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: A man asks his wife on the phone to tell him what she wants him to buy for dinner, and she enumerates several items, as they occur to her, one after another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this entire phrase means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And wine, too... Yeah!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;еще&quot; = another addition&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;там&quot; = to/in the list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41503" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16442" RevisionGUID="8c4ffcdc-5f71-4844-b0ca-a5e5892a8211" CreationDate="2018-05-19T19:22:53.897" UserId="8672" Text="Can you use &quot;еще там&quot; like &quot;тоже&quot; when enumerating things?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41504" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16442" RevisionGUID="8c4ffcdc-5f71-4844-b0ca-a5e5892a8211" CreationDate="2018-05-19T19:22:53.897" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41505" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16379" RevisionGUID="e76151d5-2ee1-4bde-8d16-49978cc597a5" CreationDate="2018-05-19T22:38:38.787" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/997969809454325760" />
  <row Id="41506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16443" RevisionGUID="2f25b76d-2053-4a02-aecb-67bee8e7ffb9" CreationDate="2018-05-19T23:57:54.223" UserId="10579" Text="It's shortened from full sentence (развёрнутого предложения): ещё там должно было быть. „Ну и“ at the beginning it's marker that person remind sth, or specifies. &#xD;&#xA;Like: ещё там можно было кататься на велосипеде. Ну и на скейте тоже. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16444" RevisionGUID="82cf1e9f-375c-4698-a3ac-1db255ea82aa" CreationDate="2018-05-20T01:22:11.767" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Разбираться&quot; is indeed **may** be more detail oriented. But the real nuance here is the likelihood of success. For &quot;разбираться&quot;, the problem is assumed to be solvable, even if one can fail to get to the bottom of it. For &quot;справляться&quot;, it is implied that one can totally fail at the task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;Она оставила его разбираться с последствиями&quot; - means that one was left with a task of dealing with some consequences - something tedious, but doable.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она оставила его справляться с последствиями&quot; - means that one was left struggling with some consequences - meaning that the task can be overwhelming and even lead to some kind of harm to the one who's doing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16445" RevisionGUID="50aff7dd-8d1e-4721-9335-8ad2ea66c4ac" CreationDate="2018-05-20T04:45:41.203" UserId="10578" Text="*In the context of that brief example* there's no perceivable distinction.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of &quot;разбираться&quot; here is &quot;to look into (smth.), to process (smth.)&quot; ; for &quot;справляться&quot; it's &quot;to (begin to) cope, manage, deal (with smth.)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16446" RevisionGUID="564a3246-c7e9-4c0f-beba-329215fd3cb5" CreationDate="2018-05-20T04:57:19.163" UserId="10578" Text="The verb &quot;творить&quot; was &quot;always&quot; having as one of the meanings &quot;to make mischief&quot;, with perfective &quot;натворить&quot; rather restricted to that use, and both forms were generally used when referring to children's (or pets') behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days, there's a street use &quot;ты что творишь?!&quot; meaning approx. &quot;what are you doing?? (you are doing wrong, stop it)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind you, like other guys said already, &quot;что вздумается&quot; bears a light connotation of wantonness (&quot;anything one's left foot wants&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16447" RevisionGUID="d8c67b5c-c99e-4a28-8000-d18ebeba76f1" CreationDate="2018-05-20T05:06:31.953" UserId="10578" Text="No difference in meaning, the first phrase just using a contracted form of the expression. Might indicate more hurried or emotional speech, and might not, just speaker's preference. Both phrases rather presuppose an argument with speaking side &quot;offering big advice&quot; (expect this to be met with verbal retaliation)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16448" RevisionGUID="824f181e-0f14-48cd-aa25-0cbcca1e8092" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:48:01.670" UserId="10583" Text="Подскажите пожалуйста как правильно изменяются в &#xD;&#xA;винительном падеже составные числительные и связанные с ними &#xD;&#xA;одушевлённые существительные?&#xD;&#xA;Например: как правильно сказать  &quot;вижу 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 женщин и котов. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;Хочется сказать  &quot;я вижу двадцать четыре женщины&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;На одном сайте мне ответили &quot;&#xD;&#xA;Стилистически нейтральны формы: вижу 22, 23, 24 женщины; вижу 22, 23, 24 кота; вижу 25, 26 женщин; вижу 25, 26 котов.&#xD;&#xA;В разговорной речи допустимо: вижу 22, 23, 24 женщин; вижу 22, 23, 24 котов.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Мне всё ещё не понятно. Значит ли это, что в стилистически нейтральной форме с однозначными числами тоже можно говорить: вижу две, три, четыре женщины, два, три кота, вместо двух, трёх, четырёх женщин, котов?&#xD;&#xA;А в разговорной речи: вижу 22 женщин окончания Р.п. принимает только последнее число двадцать двух женщин или по правилам оба должны меняться (двадцати двух)? Что-то я запуталась совсем...&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16448" RevisionGUID="824f181e-0f14-48cd-aa25-0cbcca1e8092" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:48:01.670" UserId="10583" Text="В.п. числительных и одушевленных существительных" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16448" RevisionGUID="824f181e-0f14-48cd-aa25-0cbcca1e8092" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:48:01.670" UserId="10583" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16449" RevisionGUID="1ccebc9d-298f-453a-bcc0-418b383608ee" CreationDate="2018-05-20T09:48:29.973" UserId="10582" Text="if you learn Ukrainian language then you can understand about 60% Russian language(just need to know basics of Russian language for that)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16450" RevisionGUID="a54555db-03f9-4957-be9a-10d487edfe9d" CreationDate="2018-05-20T11:17:15.437" UserId="4560" Text="Not &quot;commit&quot; but &quot;wreak&quot;, as in &quot;wreak havoc&quot;, with the same tendency (perhaps less pronounced) to be tied to set expressions. To &quot;commit&quot; would be **допустить** or **совершить**; the latter sounds graver, and is exclusively used to talk about &quot;committing&quot; evil or criminal acts rather than mere blunders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @Alex_ander pointed out, there's an opposite and more literary usage of **творить** that carries a Biblical kind of loftiness. I remember being baffled by it as a child; it sounded to me like that solemn voice on the radio was praising someone for making mischief." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16434" RevisionGUID="e645b530-b656-4aa4-9908-8792c1fc20d4" CreationDate="2018-05-20T11:19:35.807" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Indeed, in cases where **творить** is a synonym of **делать** it has negative connotation. Unlike ***faux pas*** as far as i understand it **творить** usually denotes an intense deliberate activity. But sometimes it does get applied to denote a genuine ***faux pas*** by way of hyperbolization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phrases **Что ты наделала?** and **Что ты натворила?** which express dismay and dread at what a person has done are synonymous.   &#xD;&#xA;Incidentally the use of **творить** in the perfective aspect **натворить** could serve as the above mentioned hyperbolization of a trivial blunder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some contexts the word's negative connotation happens to be co-opted to express approval of such negativity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16451" RevisionGUID="1ac53309-02ce-4321-a217-b3b47f444e03" CreationDate="2018-05-20T12:17:18.363" UserId="10578" Text="В наше время (!) &quot;жаловаться&quot; и &quot;сетовать&quot; это практические одно и то же; второе слово более старое, книжное.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Роптать&quot; примерно соответствует &quot;словесно возмущаться (против чего-то, по какому-то поводу)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16452" RevisionGUID="b183b720-3573-46da-8fad-ae7169992c6f" CreationDate="2018-05-20T12:23:07.077" UserId="10578" Text="This phrase would work without the &quot;уж&quot; particle; here it rather serves as an rhetorical embellishment, than an actual strengthening of the statement.&#xD;&#xA;Without &quot;уж&quot; the original phrase could be translated as: &quot;Don't do X. More so (don't do it) now&quot;. With it: &quot;Don't do X. Even more so (don't do it) now&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41519" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16269" RevisionGUID="3290df45-1f61-4354-9f80-9d241699aed6" CreationDate="2018-05-20T13:38:24.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/998196241300418561" />
  <row Id="41520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16453" RevisionGUID="0a74fed4-c496-4b6a-bc3f-d05abdaea6a6" CreationDate="2018-05-20T17:48:56.137" UserId="334" Text="The word &quot;творить&quot; is used in Russian Bible translation in context of God performing miracles and creating the world. In case people relate the word to this context (like чудотворец творит чудеса) it is neutral or even positive. A particularly common positive use is in context of art, where &quot;творец творит искуство&quot; is a strong compliment of a great artist. But whenever creativity and innovation are undesirable, the word bears strong negative connotation, because it implies innovation where it should not be and thus making a mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7976" RevisionGUID="757992b4-9f6d-4e18-b25c-980fda6f3c63" CreationDate="2018-05-21T01:39:34.053" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/998377727790141444" />
  <row Id="41522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16454" RevisionGUID="917c8144-aeeb-4aff-a6a5-46939d9f7f39" CreationDate="2018-05-21T03:21:19.373" UserId="2079" Text=" - 20: вижу двадцать женщин и двадцать котов   &#xD;&#xA; - 21: вижу двадцать одну женщину и двадцать одного кота &#xD;&#xA; - 25,26,27,28,29: вижу двадцать пять женщин и двадцать пять котов&#xD;&#xA; - 22,23,24: it's tricky, and different sources give different answers.&#xD;&#xA;  - According to gramota.ru, `я вижу двадцать два кота` - http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;start=45&#xD;&#xA;  - According to http://www.slovari.ru/default.aspx?p=1008, neither  `я вижу двадцать два кота` nor `я вижу двадцать двух котов` is correct. You should rewrite the sentence to avoid this.&#xD;&#xA;  - https://hinative.com/ru/questions/4667834 : three different Russians gave three different answers&#xD;&#xA;  - Conclusion: there is no consensus. If you believe in gramota.ru, `я вижу двадцать две женщины и двадцать два кота`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16454" RevisionGUID="9335026a-7e58-49b8-a108-2a83c5b40298" CreationDate="2018-05-21T03:29:34.553" UserId="2079" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text=" - 20: вижу двадцать женщин и двадцать котов   &#xD;&#xA; - 21: вижу двадцать одну женщину и двадцать одного кота &#xD;&#xA; - 25,26,27,28,29: вижу двадцать пять женщин и двадцать пять котов&#xD;&#xA; - 22,23,24: it's tricky, and different sources give different answers.&#xD;&#xA;  - According to gramota.ru, `я вижу двадцать два кота` - http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;start=45&#xD;&#xA;  - According to http://www.slovari.ru/default.aspx?p=1008, neither  `я вижу двадцать два кота` nor `я вижу двадцать двух котов` is correct. You should rewrite the sentence to avoid this.&#xD;&#xA;  - https://hinative.com/ru/questions/4667834 : three different Russians gave three different answers&#xD;&#xA;  - Conclusion: there is no consensus. If you believe in gramota.ru, use `я вижу двадцать две женщины и двадцать два кота`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16456" RevisionGUID="2a6ee761-955b-4299-89c8-98ce46afa562" CreationDate="2018-05-21T11:33:29.197" UserId="5443" Text="Если число, оканчивающееся на 2, 3 или 4 (но не на 12, 13, 14), является многозначным (то есть больше или равно 21), то винительный падеж совпадает с именительным как для конструкций с одушевленными, так и для конструкций с неодушевленными существительными:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вижу 22, 23, 24 кота, женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nekin.info/math/imya_chislitelnoye.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К рекомендации допускать иное в разговорной речи я бы отнёсся с осторожностью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16456" RevisionGUID="b1bfb942-bfe3-4cea-afe4-53f52e10a533" CreationDate="2018-05-21T11:39:52.917" UserId="5443" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Если число, оканчивающееся на 2, 3 или 4 (но не на 12, 13, 14), является многозначным (то есть больше или равно 21), то винительный падеж [числительного] совпадает с именительным как для конструкций с одушевленными, так и для конструкций с неодушевленными существительными:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вижу 22, 23, 24 кота, женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nekin.info/math/imya_chislitelnoye.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К рекомендации допускать иное в разговорной речи я бы отнёсся с осторожностью." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16457" RevisionGUID="29125906-4788-45e1-8e97-6242caa6fa79" CreationDate="2018-05-21T14:41:49.757" UserId="8780" Text="I have a doubt concerning what verbs are used to describe the movement of a ship, boat, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Идти/ходить**, respectively determinate and indeterminate, mean *&quot;to go on foot/walk&quot;*. If I go somewhere by car, I tell **&quot;я езжу&quot;** (ind.), **&quot;я поеду&quot;** (det. pf.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that the displacement of *vehicles themselves* is referred to as **идти/ходить** too. **&quot;Автобус ходит по городе&quot;**, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I am talking about ships? Dictionaries tell that &quot;плавать&quot; means not only &quot;to swim&quot; but also &quot;to sail/navigate&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does **плавать/плыть** and compounds with prefixes such as **уплывать/уплыть** refer to the action of a sailor aboard a ship, or the movement of the ship herself on water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16457" RevisionGUID="29125906-4788-45e1-8e97-6242caa6fa79" CreationDate="2018-05-21T14:41:49.757" UserId="8780" Text="Verbs of motion for sailing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16457" RevisionGUID="29125906-4788-45e1-8e97-6242caa6fa79" CreationDate="2018-05-21T14:41:49.757" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16457" RevisionGUID="8453c42a-15f1-4b88-9b31-dc5085d81a8b" CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:45:15.590" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="I have a doubt concerning what verbs are used to describe the movement of a ship, boat, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Идти/ходить**, respectively determinate and indeterminate, mean *&quot;to go on foot/walk&quot;*. If I go somewhere by car, I tell **&quot;я езжу&quot;** (ind.), **&quot;я поеду&quot;** (det. pf.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that the displacement of *vehicles themselves* is referred to as **идти/ходить** too. **&quot;Автобус ходит по городУ&quot;**, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I am talking about ships? Dictionaries tell that &quot;плавать&quot; means not only &quot;to swim&quot; but also &quot;to sail/navigate&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does **плавать/плыть** and compounds with prefixes such as **уплывать/уплыть** refer to the action of a sailor aboard a ship, or the movement of the ship herself on water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16458" RevisionGUID="e8b7c38e-7108-4362-8ce7-b8c807bd215a" CreationDate="2018-05-21T15:56:13.937" UserId="7674" Text="Yes they all denote movement of a person aboard a vessel and of the vessel itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to them **поплыть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However professional sailors [like to emphasize](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=Z-sCW9vHE8e3kwWtk73oCw&amp;q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1j0i22i30i19k1.2205.6090.0.6432.26.24.0.0.0.0.275.3224.1j15j4.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.20.3223.0..0j0i30k1.0.FnqgWMCva2E) that they do not **плавают**, because it's shit which floats, whereas they **ходят**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавает только говно и щепки, а моряки ходят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16458" RevisionGUID="d2840d89-baad-456d-8937-d22bb5698b25" CreationDate="2018-05-21T17:13:33.153" UserId="7674" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Yes they all denote movement of a person aboard a vessel and of a vessel itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to them **поплыть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contexts where the fact of travelling to a certain destination is important and not the means **ездить** can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's believed that professional sailors [like to emphasize](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=Z-sCW9vHE8e3kwWtk73oCw&amp;q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1j0i22i30i19k1.2205.6090.0.6432.26.24.0.0.0.0.275.3224.1j15j4.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.20.3223.0..0j0i30k1.0.FnqgWMCva2E) that they do not **плавают**, because it's shit which floats, whereas they **ходят**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавает только говно и щепки, а моряки ходят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16458" RevisionGUID="e31e2062-1382-4469-8f16-5caa1a441c6f" CreationDate="2018-05-21T19:16:01.710" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Yes they all denote movement of a person aboard a vessel and of a vessel itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to them **поплыть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contexts where the *fact* of travelling to certain destination is what's important and not the *means*, **ездить** can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's believed that professional sailors [like to emphasize](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=Z-sCW9vHE8e3kwWtk73oCw&amp;q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1j0i22i30i19k1.2205.6090.0.6432.26.24.0.0.0.0.275.3224.1j15j4.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.20.3223.0..0j0i30k1.0.FnqgWMCva2E) that they do not **плавают**, because it's shit which floats, whereas they **ходят**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавает только говно и щепки, а моряки ходят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41534" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="16254" RevisionGUID="073828d9-027b-459c-9edc-652d3b917d21" CreationDate="2018-05-21T19:26:54.417" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="41535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16459" RevisionGUID="bcd92e44-1e3e-4ec9-96e3-f61f8502eac9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:10:40.033" UserId="10219" Text="Beginner here.  There are 2 similiar sentences talking about a birthday, but use a different case and I am confused why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is `Вчера я была у Тамары на дне рождения.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: `Yesterday, I was at Tamara's for her birthday.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second is `Кого ты пригласил на день рождения?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: `Whom did you invite for your birthday.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can gather, the first declinates like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дне` - locative/prepositional&#xD;&#xA;`рождения` - genative (day of birth?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`день` - accusative (guessing its not nominative)&#xD;&#xA;`рождения` - genative (day of birth?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the first question, is the above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question is why the difference?  My guess from looking at [wiktionary ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0#Russian) would be accusative is used to say something was for a particular date (more focus on purpose) and locative is used to say something was on a particular date.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?  Could you give a few other examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it still be correct to say `Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` like whom did you invite on your birthday?  If so, how would the connotation of the question change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16459" RevisionGUID="bcd92e44-1e3e-4ec9-96e3-f61f8502eac9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:10:40.033" UserId="10219" Text="на день рождения vs на дне рождения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16459" RevisionGUID="bcd92e44-1e3e-4ec9-96e3-f61f8502eac9" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:10:40.033" UserId="10219" Text="|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16460" RevisionGUID="7ed64842-05a0-4034-a168-7a9a8ff951ca" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:46:26.663" UserId="10589" Text="It is дне because день is in the preposionnal case (предложный падеж) with на, it indicates the location, where you are&#xD;&#xA;You cannot say &quot;Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?&quot; because you want to have на + винителный падеж (accusative) invite TO your birthday" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16461" RevisionGUID="0b4a5652-b586-4f6c-bb6c-8eee798c3a6c" CreationDate="2018-05-21T20:58:05.847" UserId="7674" Text="Yes, you've parsed it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Prepositional/Locative* case describes a stationary condition while the *Accusative* describes movement/directionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is of the same kind as in [German](https://www.fluentu.com/blog/german/german-prepositions/) if you happen to know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Positional: Das Buch liegt **auf dem** Tisch. (The book is on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Книга на стол**Е**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Directional: Ich lege den Buch **auf den** Tisch. (I place the book on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Я кладу книгу на сто**л**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in German the Genitive is the equivalent of Russian Locative for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` means `Whom did you invite AT your birthday?` that is the invitation was handed *while at* the birthday party." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16461" RevisionGUID="96cab579-3e78-4324-ae2c-3f492f542445" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:06:31.540" UserId="7674" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="Yes, you've parsed it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Prepositional/Locative* case describes a stationary condition while the *Accusative* describes movement/directionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is of the same kind as in [German](https://www.fluentu.com/blog/german/german-prepositions/) if you happen to know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Positional: Das Buch liegt **auf dem** Tisch. (The book is on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Книга лежит **на** сто**лЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Directional: Ich lege den Buch **auf den** Tisch. (I place the book on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Я кладу книгу **на** сто**л**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in German the Genitive is the equivalent of Russian Locative for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` means `Whom did you invite AT your birthday?` that is the invitation was handed *while at* the birthday party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you need to decide what case to use you may be guided by questions **Где?** (Where?) and **Куда?** (Whereto/whither?). The first implies a *place/static condition* and so requires *Prepositional/Locative*, the second implies *direction/goal/destination* and therefore requires *Accusative*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="73c2da6e-d207-48a9-b8c6-87de04be2a4a" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:07:52.903" UserId="6539" Text="Consider it as a party, a birthday party. If you are asked &quot;Where were you yesterday?&quot; – At Tamara's party.На дне рождения.(location, place).&#xD;&#xA;When you invite people to your party, to visit a place, an event, it's like they will go to your place, movement, приглашаю на день рождения (accusative - день).Compare it with location --movement (at school – в школе, to school – в школу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы были на празднике. Он пригласил нас на праздник." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="07ff0468-a840-4ee1-8233-b4b50507ece3" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:13:04.417" UserId="6539" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Consider it as a party, a birthday party. If you are asked &quot;Where were you yesterday?&quot; – At Tamara's party.На дне рождения.(location, place).&#xD;&#xA;When you invite people to your party, to visit a place, an event, it's like they will go to your place, movement, приглашаю на день рождения (accusative - день).Compare it with location --movement (at school – в школе, to school – в школу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы были на празднике. Он пригласил нас на праздник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения потанцевать? Who did you invite to dance at the party? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16461" RevisionGUID="689b380e-8929-432d-b513-80735be8ea1d" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:16:53.897" UserId="7674" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="Yes, you've parsed it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Prepositional/Locative* case describes a stationary condition while the *Accusative* describes movement/directionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is of the same kind as in [German](https://www.fluentu.com/blog/german/german-prepositions/) if you happen to know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Positional: Das Buch liegt **auf dem** Tisch. (The book is on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Книга лежит **на** сто**лЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Directional: Ich lege den Buch **auf den** Tisch. (I place the book on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Я кладу книгу **на** сто**л**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in German the Genitive is the equivalent of Russian Locative for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` means `Whom did you invite AT your birthday?` that is the invitation was handed *while at* the birthday party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference can be highlighted with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На** моём **дне** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; мой друг пригласил меня **на**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свой **день** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**At** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; my birthday party my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; friend invited me **to** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; his birthday party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you need to decide what case to use you may be guided by questions **Где?** (Where?) and **Куда?** (Whereto/whither?). The first implies a *place/static condition* and so requires *Prepositional/Locative*, the second implies *direction/goal/destination* and therefore requires *Accusative*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16458" RevisionGUID="d1b2fe08-ba7d-44b1-8fa7-069f71c84bd4" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:20:11.497" UserId="7674" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Yes they all denote movement of a person aboard a vessel and of a vessel itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to them **поплыть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contexts where the *fact* of travelling to certain destination is what's important and not the *means*, **ездить** can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's believed that professional sailors [like to emphasize](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=Z-sCW9vHE8e3kwWtk73oCw&amp;q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1j0i22i30i19k1.2205.6090.0.6432.26.24.0.0.0.0.275.3224.1j15j4.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.20.3223.0..0j0i30k1.0.FnqgWMCva2E) that they do not **плавают**, because it's shit which floats, whereas they **ходят**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавает только говно и щепки, а моряки ходят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is professional jargon and has no bearing on the regular usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16459" RevisionGUID="3c38be09-27ae-4ac4-8f17-076e5782afcc" CreationDate="2018-05-21T21:29:14.933" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Beginner here.  There are 2 similiar sentences talking about a birthday, but use a different case and I am confused why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is `Вчера я была у Тамары на дне рождения.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: `Yesterday, I was at Tamara's for her birthday.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second is `Кого ты пригласил на день рождения?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translation: `Whom did you invite for your birthday.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can gather, the first declinates like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`дне` - locative/prepositional&#xD;&#xA;`рождения` - genitive (day of birth?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`день` - accusative (guessing its not nominative)&#xD;&#xA;`рождения` - genitive (day of birth?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the first question, is the above correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question is why the difference?  My guess from looking at [wiktionary ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0#Russian) would be accusative is used to say something was for a particular date (more focus on purpose) and locative is used to say something was on a particular date.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that correct?  Could you give a few other examples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it still be correct to say `Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` like whom did you invite on your birthday?  If so, how would the connotation of the question change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41546" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16448" RevisionGUID="4dea7361-34c3-4f4e-9976-862b5f4570c1" CreationDate="2018-05-21T22:39:26.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/998694784255619073" />
  <row Id="41547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="f9c03a32-956c-4afb-8314-4c8548d7a372" CreationDate="2018-05-22T04:36:36.173" UserId="6539" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Consider it as a party, a birthday party. If you are asked &quot;Where were you yesterday?&quot; – At Tamara's party.На дне рождения.(**location, place**).&#xD;&#xA;When you invite people to your party, to visit a place, an event, it's like they will go to your place, movement, приглашаю на день рождения (accusative - день).Compare it with location --**movement/direction** (at school – в школе, to school – в школу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы были на празднике. Он пригласил нас на праздник.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения потанцевать? Who did you invite to dance at the party? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16463" RevisionGUID="1e67edeb-cc77-4d32-ae8d-6eabd231ec89" CreationDate="2018-05-22T05:10:23.833" UserId="10578" Text="The &quot;важные для него события&quot; is indeed the standard form.&#xD;&#xA;Can you move &quot;для него&quot; to the other parts of the expression? Actually, you can. The use would get somewhat context and style specific, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Важные события -- для него&quot;: &quot;events are important, but exactly/only/just for him&quot;. Intonational stress on &quot;для него&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...для него важные события, (для него важные дела, ...)&quot;: this inversion could be used in a phrase with repetitive structure, enumerating similar items &quot;important just/personally for him&quot;. Usable in rather specific context and style, but still. Again, intonational stress on &quot;для него&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16464" RevisionGUID="3bb9d750-ad10-4852-bd43-77ec38987a01" CreationDate="2018-05-22T06:44:58.093" UserId="6539" Text="Числительные небольшого количества (два, три и четыре) согласуются по одушевлённости – винительный падеж в зависимости от одушевлённости совпадает с **именительным или родительным**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тургенев увидел **два пятна** случайных пешеходов. [И. Ф. Анненский. Вторая книга отражений (1909)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Однажды, проезжая мимо одной из них, мы увидели **двух уток**. [В. Г. Короленко. Мороз (1900-1901)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако в этом случае, по крайней мере с некоторыми одушевлёнными существительными, в частности, обозначениями животных, возможны колебания в пользу формы **именительного падежа**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Когда мы с ним сговаривались, с моим свояком, мы не одну, а три бутылки выпили, полночи гудели и он написал: взял **две коровы** на прокорм на зиму за три бутылки, одну корову верну по весне, обязуюсь ― и подпись. [Ф. Светов. Мое открытие музея (2001)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Старший сын старика Кувычки, рассказывал его сосед по воронежской деревне, когда, женившись, отделился, получил **три лошади**. [А. Чудаков. Ложится мгла на старые ступени (1987-2000)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме того, **одушевлённость обычно не выражена** в составных числительных, заканчивающихся на числительные небольшого количества:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А он сделал невидимыми **тридцать три человека**. [М. Сергеев. Волшебная галоша (1971)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В тот день мы, пионеры шестого класса «Б», вылили &lt;водой из нор&gt; **двадцать два суслика** и вышли на первое место по заготовке шкурок. [С. Василенко. Суслик (1997)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В языке XIX в. одушевлённость сохранялась в таких контекстах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Окромя, что побил великое множество неприятеля, взял в плен офицера одного, рядовых **пятьдесят трех человек**. [И. Д. Панчулидзев. Документы (1812)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отправив таким образом всех (шестьдесят нижних чинов и **двадцать двух арестантов**), он с старшим унтер-офицером поехал последним. [Н. И. Греч. Записки о моей жизни (1849-1856)]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16461" RevisionGUID="bc045185-f247-4553-8c47-f8c260d986e2" CreationDate="2018-05-22T10:53:13.150" UserId="7674" Comment="added 909 characters in body" Text="Yes, you've parsed it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Prepositional/Locative* case describes a stationary condition while the *Accusative* describes movement/directionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is of the same kind as in [German](https://www.fluentu.com/blog/german/german-prepositions/) if you happen to know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Positional: Das Buch liegt **auf dem** Tisch. (The book is on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Книга лежит **на** сто**лЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Directional: Ich lege den Buch **auf den** Tisch. (I place the book on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Я кладу книгу **на** сто**л**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in German the Genitive is the equivalent of Russian Locative for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` means `Whom did you invite AT your birthday?` that is the invitation was handed *while at* the birthday party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference can be highlighted with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На** моём **дне** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; мой друг пригласил меня **на**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свой **день** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**At** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; my birthday party my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; friend invited me **to** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; his birthday party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cидя &lt;sup&gt;*Where?*&lt;/sup&gt; **в** комнат**е** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt;, я смотрю &lt;sup&gt;*Whereto?*&lt;/sup&gt; **в** окн**о** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я встал **на** рук**и** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; и стою **на** рук**ах** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you need to decide what case to use you may be guided by questions **Где?** (Where?) and **Куда?** (Whereto/whither?). The first implies a *place/static condition* and so requires *Prepositional/Locative*, the second implies *direction/goal/destination* and therefore requires *Accusative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian there're 4 prepositions with varying case governance depending on the type of activity: **на, в, под, за**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**НА / В &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ПОД / ЗА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Positional`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Prep./Loc.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Instr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Directional`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16461" RevisionGUID="e70416fc-a3c6-4089-83b3-1f20826ce5cf" CreationDate="2018-05-22T10:58:34.867" UserId="7674" Comment="added 909 characters in body" Text="Yes, you've parsed it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Prepositional/Locative* case describes a stationary condition while the *Accusative* describes movement/directionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is of the same kind as in [German](https://www.fluentu.com/blog/german/german-prepositions/) if you happen to know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Positional: Das Buch liegt **auf dem** Tisch. (The book is on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Книга лежит **на** сто**лЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Directional: Ich lege den Buch **auf den** Tisch. (I place the book on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Я кладу книгу **на** сто**л**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in German the Genitive is the equivalent of Russian Locative for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` means `Whom did you invite AT your birthday?` that is the invitation was handed *while at* the birthday party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference can be highlighted with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На** моём **дне** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; мой друг пригласил меня **на**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свой **день** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**At** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; my birthday party my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; friend invited me **to** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; his birthday party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you need to decide what case to use you may be guided by questions **Где?** (Where?) and **Куда?** (Whereto/whither?). The first implies a *place/static condition* and so requires *Prepositional/Locative*, the second implies *direction/goal/destination* and therefore requires *Accusative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cидя &lt;sup&gt;*Where?*&lt;/sup&gt; **в** комнат**е** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt;, я смотрю &lt;sup&gt;*Whereto?*&lt;/sup&gt; **в** окн**о** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я встал **на** рук**и** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; и стою **на** рук**ах** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;In Russian there're 4 prepositions with varying case governance depending on the type of activity: **на, в, под, за**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**НА / В &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ПОД / ЗА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Positional`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Prep./Loc.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Instr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Directional`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16448" RevisionGUID="855353d0-74b5-464d-b90f-ca31925cfdfc" CreationDate="2018-05-22T18:23:59.950" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41553" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16351" RevisionGUID="652116df-4f15-49e3-9753-2f5ee12bda39" CreationDate="2018-05-22T18:33:52.687" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41556" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16254" RevisionGUID="afd8c8f8-165b-489b-956c-b80d5d76cad9" CreationDate="2018-05-22T22:43:36.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/999058222664306689" />
  <row Id="41557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16465" RevisionGUID="3a073918-81d6-48a6-acda-4b03679b91be" CreationDate="2018-05-23T00:56:40.457" UserId="10593" Text="Его отличительная черта – нормированность, т. е. наличие правил (вы их учите в школе из года в год), соблюдение которых обязательно для всех членов общества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what is the use of которых here? if i translate is, it would be: observation that is obligatory for all members of community?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if that's the case, why isn't it которые instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;help!! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41558" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16465" RevisionGUID="3a073918-81d6-48a6-acda-4b03679b91be" CreationDate="2018-05-23T00:56:40.457" UserId="10593" Text="what is the use of которых here? if i translate is, it would be: observation that is obligatory for all members of community?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41559" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16465" RevisionGUID="3a073918-81d6-48a6-acda-4b03679b91be" CreationDate="2018-05-23T00:56:40.457" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16466" RevisionGUID="b1266489-5adb-46b4-9178-3a0dafa4e02d" CreationDate="2018-05-23T01:29:18.463" UserId="2079" Text="`Которых` refers to `правил`. How do you know this?  Because they are both in plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Правил` - genitive plural of `правило`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Которых` - genitive plural of `который`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other nouns in the sentence: `черта`, `нормированность`, `соблюдение`. They are all in nominative singular, so `которых` cannot refer to them (mismatch in number).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, `соблюдение` usually refers to `закон`, `правило` or similar (соблюдение закона/законов, соблюдение правила/правил).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `который` referred to `соблюдение`, it would be in nominative singular `соблюдение, которое обязательно для всех членов общества` (but the whole sentence would be still ill-formed)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16466" RevisionGUID="b8c84731-1f4c-42f5-b793-e7c3c36bbd0f" CreationDate="2018-05-23T02:08:17.687" UserId="2079" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="It is a tricky sentence. If `который` immediately follows a noun, it does not neccessarily refer to this noun. It may refer to any previous noun in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it refers the immediately preceding noun, it is separated by comma, and matches the noun in number, case, and (if relevant) gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It it refers another noun, there is no comma. It matches the noun by number, but the case is governed by the preceding noun.  Yes, it is that complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, `которых` refers to `правил`, because they are both in plural. Other nouns before `которых` are in singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, `соблюдение правил` is a common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `который` referred to `соблюдение`, this part of the sentence would be `соблюдение, которое обязательно для всех членов общества` (note the comma)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16466" RevisionGUID="f558817a-8957-4dde-a215-beae1f8a27ab" CreationDate="2018-05-23T02:18:37.417" UserId="2079" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="It is a tricky sentence. If `который` immediately follows a noun, it does not neccessarily refer to this noun. In rare cases, it may refer to any previous noun in the sentence. You encountered such a case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it refers to the immediately preceding noun, it is separated by comma, and matches the noun in number, case, and (if relevant) gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It it refers to another noun, there is no comma. It matches the noun by number, but the case is governed by the immediately preceding noun.  Yes, it is that complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, `которых` refers to `правил`, because they are both in plural. Other nouns before `которых` are in singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, `соблюдение правил` is a common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `который` referred to `соблюдение`, this part of the sentence would be `соблюдение, которое обязательно для всех членов общества` (note the comma).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, `которых` is in plural because `правил` is in plural. `Которых` is in genitive because `соблюдение` governs genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16466" RevisionGUID="01c89226-cda5-4d7f-9c6b-64c7fd545177" CreationDate="2018-05-23T02:27:30.700" UserId="2079" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="It is a tricky sentence. If `который` immediately follows a noun, it does not neccessarily refer to this noun. In rare cases, it may refer to any previous noun in the sentence. You encountered such a case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `который` refers to the immediately preceding noun, it is separated by comma, and matches the noun in number, case, and (if relevant) gender.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It `который` refers to another noun, there is no comma. It matches the noun by number, but the case is governed by the immediately preceding noun.  Yes, it is that complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, `которых` must refer to `правил`. One reason is they are both in plural. Other nouns before `которых` are in singular.  Besides, if it referred to any other noun, the sentence would be ill-formed, and make no sense. Finally, `соблюдение правил` is just a common phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `который` referred to `соблюдение`, this part of the sentence would be `соблюдение, которое обязательно для всех членов общества` (note the comma).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, `которых` is in plural because `правил` is in plural. `Которых` is in genitive because `соблюдение` governs genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16462" RevisionGUID="d4fd90b8-e646-47aa-9c18-4ba709481bd9" CreationDate="2018-05-23T04:39:46.627" UserId="6539" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Consider it as a party, a birthday party. If you are asked &quot;Where were you yesterday?&quot; – At Tamara's party.На дне рождения.(**location, place**).&#xD;&#xA;When you invite people to your party, to visit a place, an event, it's like they will go to your place, movement, приглашаю на день рождения (accusative - день).Compare it with location --**movement/direction** (at school – в школе, to school – в школу). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мы были на празднике. Он пригласил нас на праздник.Мы были в театре. Мы ходили в театр. Она пригласила нас в театр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения потанцевать? Who did you invite to dance at the party? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16461" RevisionGUID="e8149dd8-6f58-4a3f-92f3-74eff9b3d822" CreationDate="2018-05-23T10:59:17.057" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Yes, you've parsed it correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Prepositional/Locative* case describes a stationary condition while the *Accusative* describes movement/directionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is of the same kind as in [German](https://www.fluentu.com/blog/german/german-prepositions/) if you happen to know it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Positional: Das Buch liegt **auf dem** Tisch. (The book is on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Книга лежит **на** сто**лЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Directional: Ich lege den Buch **auf den** Tisch. (I place the book on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; table.)  - Я кладу книгу **на** сто**л**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only in German the Dative is the equivalent of Russian Locative for this purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?` means `Whom did you invite AT your birthday?` that is the invitation was handed *while at* the birthday party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference can be highlighted with the following sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На** моём **дне** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; мой друг пригласил меня **на**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свой **день** рождения &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**At** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt; my birthday party my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; friend invited me **to** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; his birthday party&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you need to decide what case to use you may be guided by questions **Где?** (Where?) and **Куда?** (Whereto/whither?). The first implies a *place/static condition* and so requires *Prepositional/Locative*, the second implies *direction/goal/destination* and therefore requires *Accusative*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cидя &lt;sup&gt;*Where?*&lt;/sup&gt; **в** комнат**е** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt;, я смотрю &lt;sup&gt;*Whereto?*&lt;/sup&gt; **в** окн**о** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я встал **на** рук**и** &lt;sup&gt;*Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; и стою **на** рук**ах** &lt;sup&gt;*Locative*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;In Russian there're 4 prepositions with varying case governance depending on the type of activity: **на, в, под, за**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**НА / В &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ПОД / ЗА**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Positional`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Prep./Loc.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Instr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Directional`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Accusative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16467" RevisionGUID="04ab2f49-08e3-4980-9771-55cf580fa701" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:24:49.210" UserId="10594" Text="&gt; if that's the case, why isn't it которые instead?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use &quot;которые&quot; like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..., *соблюдать которые* обязательно для всех членов общества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..., *которые обязательны к соблюдению* для всех членов общества." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16468" RevisionGUID="0571b8cf-faaa-4049-bb1e-49a809baf93a" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:46:13.447" UserId="1236" Text="&quot;Который&quot; is a pronoun which means it stands for, refers to, substitutes another noun. That another noun is called [atecedent][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ava arrived late because traffic held *her* up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The pronoun *her* refers to and takes its meaning from *Ava*, so *Ava* is the antecedent of *her*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being able to find the antecedents of pronouns is very important, especially in long complex sentences with subordinate (dependent) clauses, like the one in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian where coordinative pronouns like &quot;который&quot; decline in cases, numbers, and genders, it's rather easy to find the antecedents, because it's the noun in the same case, number and gender as the pronoun, &quot;который&quot; in your sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence, &quot;которых&quot; is Dative/Accusative plural (these two cases coincide for animate nouns). In your sentence, the only noun in this case-number form is &quot;правил&quot; (&quot;of the rules&quot;) which is the antecedent of &quot;которых&quot;, that's the noun &quot;которых&quot; refers to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; why isn't it которые instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, coordinative pronouns must agree with their antecedents in all the noun grammar categories. Since &quot;правил&quot; is Genitive plural, you can't use &quot;которые&quot; which is Nominative/Accusative plural (for the inanimate nouns the two cases have the same form).&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16460" RevisionGUID="7c16bf86-2ee2-4c46-97cf-083334f90b15" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:59:46.633" UserId="6350" Comment="typo corrected" Text="It is дне because день is in the prepositional case (предложный падеж) with на; it indicates the location, where you are.  &#xD;&#xA;You cannot say &quot;Кого ты пригласил на дне рождения?&quot; because you want to have на + винителный падеж (accusative): invite TO your birthday." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41569" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16460" RevisionGUID="7c16bf86-2ee2-4c46-97cf-083334f90b15" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:59:46.633" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 5605 edit id of 973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16468" RevisionGUID="a821f499-f99f-41d7-a52f-3dfa75834f8d" CreationDate="2018-05-23T14:34:51.440" UserId="1236" Comment="Corrected" Text="&quot;Который&quot; is a pronoun which means it stands for, refers to, substitutes another noun. That another noun is called [atecedent][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ava arrived late because traffic held *her* up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The pronoun *her* refers to and takes its meaning from *Ava*, so *Ava* is the antecedent of *her*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being able to find the antecedents of pronouns is very important, especially in long complex sentences with subordinate (dependent) clauses, like the one in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian where coordinative pronouns like &quot;который&quot; decline in cases, numbers, and genders, it's rather easy to find the antecedents. In your sentence, &quot;которых&quot; is plural and the only plural noun in that sentence is &quot;правил&quot; (&quot;of the rules&quot;) which is the antecedent of &quot;которых&quot;, that's the noun &quot;которых&quot; refers to.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41571" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16465" RevisionGUID="8dc6fdfc-cde3-4116-abee-e2477fa1fddc" CreationDate="2018-05-23T22:50:38.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/999422379922255873" />
  <row Id="41572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16469" RevisionGUID="8328782c-594b-47d8-9141-78ada7c3c335" CreationDate="2018-05-24T13:23:13.700" UserId="10575" Text="I've been using Russiangram for a few days now in order to replace Grammatica. Very well done and very helpful! The one question I have now is how to choose when it gives you an option. eg: Вели́ка|Велика́. The morfilogia site helps somewhat and also a book I have 5000 Russian words. But one of the most helpful things about Grammatica with its drop down tables was that it made the choice quite easy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41573" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16427" RevisionGUID="faba206e-04ce-42ae-9749-6139ad465d51" CreationDate="2018-05-24T16:31:47.723" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16457" RevisionGUID="1ce4396c-8f54-4e72-83b9-8d7ece5be036" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:40:52.477" UserId="8780" Comment="edited body" Text="I have a doubt concerning what verbs are used to describe the movement of a ship, boat, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Идти/ходить**, respectively determinate and indeterminate, mean *&quot;to go on foot/walk&quot;*. If I go somewhere by car, I tell **&quot;я езжу&quot;** (ind.), **&quot;я поеду&quot;** (det. pf.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that the displacement of *vehicles themselves* is referred to as **идти/ходить** too. **&quot;Автобус ходит по городу&quot;**, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I am talking about ships? Dictionaries tell that &quot;плавать&quot; means not only &quot;to swim&quot; but also &quot;to sail/navigate&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does **плавать/плыть** and compounds with prefixes such as **уплывать/уплыть** refer to the action of a sailor aboard a ship, or the movement of the ship herself on water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16470" RevisionGUID="0c105f44-690c-4f8b-bc43-4a9db4ce86e2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:15:06.473" UserId="8780" Text="I know that decimal numbers containing a whole number plus one or more fractional numbers are referred to as **целая** (whole number) plus **десятая** (a tenth) or **сотая** (a hundredth), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**целая**&quot; is feminine because it stands for the noun &quot;**часть**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems to me that целая, десятая, etc., don't decline the usual way after a numeral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm not mistaken, a *masculine* adjective after 2/3/4 takes the *genitive plural*, while a feminine adjective after 2/3/4 takes the *nominative plural*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Два быстр-**ых** *(G.pl.)* самолёта *(G.sing.)*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Две быстр-**ые** *(N.pl.)* машины *(G.sing.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But afterwards, we have **одна целая** (1,x) and then **две целых** (2,x). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why number 0 takes the genitive plural (**ноль целых**), because all numbers ending in 0 typically demand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why isn't &quot;2,x&quot; **две целые**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this is one more grammatical whim which adds up to the truckload of irregularities featured by the Russian language. Like the word год, whose genitive plural is лет in every situation except for decades, in which it becomes [девяностых] годов, when the decade is referred to in the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, here's my attempt at transcribing the pronunciation of the following decimal numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0,1 - ноль целых, одна десятая&#xD;&#xA; - 0,01 - ноль целых, одна сотая&#xD;&#xA; - 0,001 - ноль целых, одна тысячная&#xD;&#xA; - 0,2 - ноль целых, две десятых&#xD;&#xA; - 0,02 - ноль целых, две сотых&#xD;&#xA; - 1,2 - одна целая, две десятых&#xD;&#xA; - 2,22 - две целых, две десятых две сотых" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16470" RevisionGUID="0c105f44-690c-4f8b-bc43-4a9db4ce86e2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:15:06.473" UserId="8780" Text="Gender of decimal numbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16470" RevisionGUID="0c105f44-690c-4f8b-bc43-4a9db4ce86e2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T20:15:06.473" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|числительные|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16470" RevisionGUID="58a8fd77-42f8-428c-9934-b16314835c94" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:13:16.383" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="I know that decimal numbers containing a whole number plus one or more fractional numbers are referred to as **целая** (whole number) plus **десятая** (a tenth) or **сотая** (a hundredth), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**целая**&quot; is feminine because it stands for the noun &quot;**часть**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems to me that целая, десятая, etc., don't decline the usual way after a numeral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm not mistaken, a *masculine* adjective after 2/3/4 takes the *genitive plural*, while a feminine adjective after 2/3/4 takes the *nominative plural*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Два быстр-**ых** *(G.pl.)* самолёта *(G.sing.)*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Две быстр-**ые** *(N.pl.)* машины *(G.sing.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But afterwards, we have **одна целая** (1,x) and then **две целых** (2,x). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand why number 0 takes the genitive plural (**ноль целых**), because all numbers ending in 0 typically demand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why isn't &quot;2,x&quot; **две целые**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess this is one more grammatical whim which adds up to the truckload of irregularities featured by the Russian language. Like the word год, whose genitive plural is лет in every situation except for decades, in which it becomes [девяностых] годов, when the decade is referred to in the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, here's my attempt at transcribing the pronunciation of the following decimal numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0,1 - ноль целых, одна десятая&#xD;&#xA; - 0,01 - ноль целых, одна сотая&#xD;&#xA; - 0,001 - ноль целых, одна тысячная&#xD;&#xA; - 0,2 - ноль целых, две десятых&#xD;&#xA; - 0,02 - ноль целых, две сотых&#xD;&#xA; - 1,2 - одна целая, две десятых&#xD;&#xA; - 2,22 - две целых, &lt;strike&gt;две десятых две сотых&lt;/strike&gt; двадцать две сотых" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16471" RevisionGUID="64d0e062-6a8d-48d6-a056-bc40adb3d598" CreationDate="2018-05-24T22:35:35.947" UserId="10601" Text="The composer was advertised as Rachmaninoff, signed autographs as Rachmaninoff, and has Rachmaninoff on his tombstone. I think his personal preference is clear.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16472" RevisionGUID="6c1daf8c-bb08-473d-b448-b1c22990befd" CreationDate="2018-05-24T23:07:11.870" UserId="10602" Text="I always see this simple tables, where inclination is determined very easy - you just look if it's feminine, masculine or neuter and then look at the ending of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it just doesn't work sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;звено&quot; - &quot;звенья&quot;` but `&quot;зерно&quot; - &quot;зёрна&quot;` and `&quot;шило&quot; - &quot;шилья&quot;`. Sometimes it works several ways like `&quot;крыло&quot; - &quot;крылья&quot;` but `&quot;крылА&quot;` works as well (although sounds a bit old-fashioned). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some more general rule or I'll just have to memorize all this? I'm especially interested about &quot;зерно&quot; and &quot;звено&quot;, they appear so similar!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16472" RevisionGUID="6c1daf8c-bb08-473d-b448-b1c22990befd" CreationDate="2018-05-24T23:07:11.870" UserId="10602" Text="How do you determine inclination of nouns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16472" RevisionGUID="6c1daf8c-bb08-473d-b448-b1c22990befd" CreationDate="2018-05-24T23:07:11.870" UserId="10602" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16473" RevisionGUID="fb535fed-65a5-4b69-9e53-268c6bcba43d" CreationDate="2018-05-25T03:40:29.680" UserId="6539" Text="It seems you are mixing things. If we speak about declension both зерно and звено decline in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И.зерно, звено&#xD;&#xA;Р зерна, звена&#xD;&#xA;Д.зерну, звену&#xD;&#xA;В.зерно, зваено&#xD;&#xA;Т. зерном, звеном&#xD;&#xA;П.о зерне, звене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the problem? As for plural forms,крылья,звенья,шила!зёрна there's no general rule. You should consult a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16473" RevisionGUID="63cd7cde-aa53-4ce7-854a-25c1da9b9852" CreationDate="2018-05-25T07:50:01.863" UserId="6539" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="It seems you are mixing things. If we speak about declension both зерно and звено decline in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И.зерно, звено&#xD;&#xA;Р зерна, звена&#xD;&#xA;Д.зерну, звену&#xD;&#xA;В.зерно, зваено&#xD;&#xA;Т. зерном, звеном&#xD;&#xA;П.о зерне, звене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the problem? As for plural forms,крылья,звенья,(шила!,если два, три,четыре),  шилья, зёрна there's no general rule. You should consult a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16474" RevisionGUID="0af254b9-8ec2-49dd-8845-28d48d3a79f8" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:07:00.323" UserId="10407" Text="In English there is a convention where you can include featured artists of a song in the song's title using the format: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Song Title] **feat.** [Featured Artist]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the equivalent of this in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41587" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16474" RevisionGUID="0af254b9-8ec2-49dd-8845-28d48d3a79f8" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:07:00.323" UserId="10407" Text="How do you write a featuring artist into a song title" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41588" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16474" RevisionGUID="0af254b9-8ec2-49dd-8845-28d48d3a79f8" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:07:00.323" UserId="10407" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="cc8b3bf5-447e-4adc-b132-65e73958924a" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:42:44.663" UserId="7674" Text="The Russian equivalents are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`при участии`**`+`*`name of an artist`* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`c участием`**`+`*`name of an artist`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16476" RevisionGUID="d066dc09-2925-4453-983a-23aff5f8cb65" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:46:02.237" UserId="179" Text="You know, I've never seen such a use case. I always thought that &quot;feat.&quot; meant &quot;a duet&quot;, that is one artist does something with another. A quick search gave some examples like &quot;Yelawolf - Best Friend ft. Eminem&quot;, that is [Artist] - [Song Title] feat. [Featured Artist], that is not like you said [Song Title] feat. [Featured Artist]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case I would say there is no established way to convey this. Basically, you need to express that there are more than one person present in that situation (sing a song in that case). So you can use whatever means you have in the language to do this (I listed them from most preferable one to the least) (**the list is not exhaustive**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - use the conjunction &quot;и&quot; (it means &quot;and&quot;), that is Филлип Киркоров и Красная Плесень — Зайка моя [Artist] &quot;и&quot; [Artist] ­— [Song].&#xD;&#xA; - use some symbols like &amp;, / etc. Филлип Киркоров &amp; Красная Плесень — Зайка моя [Artist] &amp; [Artist] ­— [Song]&#xD;&#xA; - use the word &quot;дует&quot; (a duet) like Филлип Киркоров, дуэт с Красной Плесенью — Зайка моя [Artist] &quot;дуэт с&quot; [Artist] ­— [Song]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="236fefc0-28ef-4672-8503-247b45a328c4" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:52:28.833" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The Russian equivalents are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`при участии`***`+ name of an artist`* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`c участием`***`+ name of an artist`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41592" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16470" RevisionGUID="304f865d-726a-4885-b014-dd87db74449b" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:53:58.493" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/999966800266825730" />
  <row Id="41593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="4af0a655-38f1-45f8-971e-b199ca516def" CreationDate="2018-05-25T10:59:04.553" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The Russian equivalents are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`при участии`***`+ name of an artist`* (more prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`c участием`***`+ name of an artist`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since features are common in contemporary music genres like hip hop and dance music the above mentioned convention has been established mainly in the Russian hip hop scene, as dance genres scene isn't very developed in Russia so far as i'm aware. But the convention seems to have been adopted across the board.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few examples of the usage: [1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwUHXfM0FIY), [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRNAnJiApPk), [3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0OpfB5_wBI)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16473" RevisionGUID="99d273c2-4d03-48d1-b13c-7ef567753d08" CreationDate="2018-05-25T11:31:35.023" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It seems you are mixing things. If we speak about declension both зерно and звено decline in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И.зерно, звено&#xD;&#xA;Р зерна, звена&#xD;&#xA;Д.зерну, звену&#xD;&#xA;В.зерно, звено&#xD;&#xA;Т. зерном, звеном&#xD;&#xA;П.о зерне, звене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the problem? As for plural forms,крылья,звенья,(шила!,если два, три,четыре),  шилья, зёрна there's no general rule. You should consult a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="e0660a1f-a875-4c5e-9414-0335c21ee5af" CreationDate="2018-05-25T11:41:23.180" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="The Russian equivalents are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`при участии`***`+ name of an artist`* (prevalent) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`c участием`***`+ name of an artist`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;abbreviated forms **`при уч.`** and **`c уч.`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both literally mean *`with the participation of`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since features are common in contemporary music genres like hip hop and dance music the above mentioned convention has been developed within the Russian hip hop scene, as dance genres scene is underdeveloped in Russia so far as i'm aware. But the convention seems to have been adopted across the spectrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few examples of the usage: [1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwUHXfM0FIY), [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRNAnJiApPk), [3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0OpfB5_wBI)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16477" RevisionGUID="2c22a5c0-9a00-4b0f-92ed-9c0a180307e4" CreationDate="2018-05-25T12:51:18.013" UserId="1640" Text="I would use the English word unless you know that your target audience does not know what &quot;feat&quot; means (e. g. if these are very old people).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Justification:** I searched for &quot;feat&quot; on [Yandex.Music](https://music.yandex.ru/search?text=feat&amp;type=tracks). I found several Russian-speaking artists, who use &quot;feat&quot; in their song titles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ДНК][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Егор Крид][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![GUF][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yandex is targeted at ordinary people. If they use &quot;feat&quot;, it's probably widespread enough in Russia (at least among Yandex users).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CODq4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Fny7a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4dyg5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16478" RevisionGUID="aafb43c1-47fb-4739-9188-2ee460e4f1ac" CreationDate="2018-05-25T13:30:40.170" UserId="5443" Text="I think, in the context  of mentioning a/the performing artist (rather than introducing an additional guest performer - in that case: *при участии/c участием*) **feat.** (featuring) can be replaced with the Russian **исп.** (stands for _исполняет_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from an author's site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Старый рояль *муз. И. Филатова, стихи С. Пискунова, **исп.** С. Пискунов*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.piskunov-sergey.ru/muzyka/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16478" RevisionGUID="5e4be6c0-207a-4b1a-84eb-4281d64d3f55" CreationDate="2018-05-25T13:36:17.877" UserId="5443" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I think, in the context  of mentioning a/the/main performing artist (rather than introducing an additional guest performer - in that case: *при участии/c участием*) **feat.** (featuring) can be replaced with the Russian **исп.** (stands for _исполняет_). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from an author's site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Старый рояль *муз. И. Филатова, стихи С. Пискунова, **исп.** С. Пискунов*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.piskunov-sergey.ru/muzyka/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16473" RevisionGUID="cc041fe8-2095-4148-b6a0-d177f40e6452" CreationDate="2018-05-25T15:34:16.647" UserId="1236" Comment="Spacing corrected" Text="It seems you are mixing things. If we speak about declension both зерно and звено decline in the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И. зерно, звено  &#xD;&#xA;Р. зерна, звена  &#xD;&#xA;Д. зерну, звену  &#xD;&#xA;В. зерно, звено  &#xD;&#xA;Т. зерном, звеном  &#xD;&#xA;П. о зерне, о звене.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is the problem? As for plural forms, крылья, звенья, (шила!, если два, три, четыре), шилья, зёрна, there's no general rule. You should consult a dictionary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="194409f3-f55f-4f0f-8b43-860cd7047430" CreationDate="2018-05-25T15:53:03.820" UserId="5443" Text="Generally, a version like *две быстр**ые*** is preferable in more 'personalized', less abstract cases like speaking about *available couple of things*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Могу по этому случаю одолжить **две быстрые** машины. &#xD;&#xA;- *Которые две*? - **Оба** мо**и** &quot;Феррари&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Правлению банка нужно выделить машины. - *Сколько каких*? - **Две быстрых** - например, &quot;Феррари&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, numerals tend to be perceived as parts of an abstract concept, and that would make the internal part *две цел**ые** (части числа)* of a numeral sound  informal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16479" RevisionGUID="fb24180b-d844-4406-8205-d0b5f8d9778b" CreationDate="2018-05-25T15:58:43.907" UserId="5443" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="It's about grammatical *case*, not gender. Generally, a version like *две быстр**ые*** is preferable in more 'personalized', less abstract cases like speaking about *available couple of things*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Могу по этому случаю одолжить **две быстрые** машины. &#xD;&#xA;- *Которые две*? - **Оба** мо**и** &quot;Феррари&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Правлению банка нужно выделить машины. - *Сколько каких*? - **Две быстрых** - например, &quot;Феррари&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably, numerals tend to be perceived as parts of an abstract concept, and that would make the internal part *две цел**ые** (части числа)* of a numeral sound  informal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16474" RevisionGUID="30d61987-9857-47f0-b6c9-57cbf7508814" CreationDate="2018-05-25T16:17:46.823" UserId="10407" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="In English there is a convention where you can include featured artists of a song in the song's title using the format: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Song Title] **feat.** [Featured Artist]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the equivalent of this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in [this answer][1], I intended to reference the format:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Artist] - [Song Title] **feat.** [Featured Artist]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/16476/10407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16480" RevisionGUID="4e1225ca-84b2-42d3-a2cd-49b392d8739b" CreationDate="2018-05-25T16:33:53.347" UserId="2104" Text="There is more to declension than just the type. The type determines the endings but quite a few words get suffixes added or replaced especially when switching into plural:&#xA;&#xA;- муж - муж**ь**я&#xA;- стул - стул**ь**я&#xA;&#xA;- кот**ёнок** - кот**ят**а&#xA;- мыш**онок - мыш**ат**а&#xA;&#xA;(This type of suffix alteration is quite regular and applies to all animate nouns and the name of a mushroom опенок.)&#xA;&#xA;- мать - мат**ер**и&#xA;- дочь - доч**ер**и&#xA;&#xA;There are also volatile vowels:&#xA;&#xA;- вет**е**р - ветра (compare to: катер - катера)&#xA;&#xA;Quite a few masculine nouns get 'neuter' endings -а/-я: доктор**а**, учител**я**.&#xA;&#xA;Given just the nominative singular form of a noun you can't reliably deduce its inflected forms. You need to know if the word has a volatile vowel or suffix alterations or irregular endings. Such information can be found in dictionaries such as *The Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* by Andrey Zalizniak. Or you can simply use software tools such as this one: http://morpher.ru/Demo.aspx&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16475" RevisionGUID="0f73aaa7-d8c5-4ac6-897b-e15b971634fa" CreationDate="2018-05-25T17:07:54.813" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The Russian equivalents are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`при участии`***`+ name of an artist`* (prevalent) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`c участием`***`+ name of an artist`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;abbreviated forms **`при уч.`** and **`c уч.`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both literally mean *`with the participation of`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since features are common in contemporary music genres like hip hop and dance music the above mentioned convention i believe was developed within the Russian hip hop scene, as dance genres scene is underdeveloped in Russia so far as i'm aware. But the convention seems to have been adopted across the spectrum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few examples of the usage: [1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwUHXfM0FIY), [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRNAnJiApPk), [3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0OpfB5_wBI)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16481" RevisionGUID="020c79dc-eebc-404f-bd4d-8fcdff4e51bc" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:29:52.107" UserId="10604" Text="Please notice, we are speaking about fractions, parts of a whole.&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, we usually don't pronounce (or write) the word 'part', but we have it mind (though, often unconsciously).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1/5 - [одна] пятая [часть]; &#xD;&#xA; - 1/10 - [одна] десятая [часть];&#xD;&#xA; - 0,1 - ноль целых [частей], [и] одна десятая [часть]; &#xD;&#xA; - 2,3 - две целых [части], [и] три десятых [части]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16482" RevisionGUID="5d2221b8-33e6-4058-be59-f0f87dec128a" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:38:41.427" UserId="10604" Text="I believe the -off ending (instead of -ov) came from German. The letter 'v', in German, is pronounced as 'f', so, they needed a way to represent the -ov in Russian names and they invented -off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16483" RevisionGUID="96f90cc0-bf13-4999-a3e2-eca40dd653ac" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:46:10.607" UserId="10605" Text="We put equivalent from English&#xD;&#xA;for example, Pussycat Dolls feat. Timbaland&#xD;&#xA;Russian names and bands also with the word &quot;feat.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16484" RevisionGUID="144e6a78-eed1-4443-a44d-54f2d2576967" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:48:37.870" UserId="8780" Text="Recently I've found a few feminine nouns, whose declension follows the following pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Singular/Plural&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- N./A. но́вость; но́вости &#xD;&#xA;- G. но́вости; новос**те́й** &#xD;&#xA;- D. но́вости; новос**тя́м** &#xD;&#xA;- I. но́востью; новос**тя́ми** &#xD;&#xA;- P. но́вости; новос**тя́х**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I came across the stress pattern of **новость**, I thought all nouns ending in -ость followed the same pattern, but I was wrong, and apparently this fragmented pattern (stressed stem on singular and *nominative plural*, stressed ending on the remaining cases) is not that frequent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got to know two more nouns following this pattern:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- це́рковь (це́ркви, церкве́й, церква́м);&#xD;&#xA;- дере́вня (дере́вни, дереве́нь, деревня́м);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other frequently used feminine nouns with such pattern?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16484" RevisionGUID="144e6a78-eed1-4443-a44d-54f2d2576967" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:48:37.870" UserId="8780" Text="Fragmented stress of feminine nouns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16484" RevisionGUID="144e6a78-eed1-4443-a44d-54f2d2576967" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:48:37.870" UserId="8780" Text="|ударение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16485" RevisionGUID="73fc2808-96d6-4d3f-96e8-81d927da8fbb" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:51:40.737" UserId="10605" Text="The word &quot;день&quot; is declinable in this situation - на днЕ рождениЯ&#xD;&#xA;because it's Предложный падеж. The question  for word день is на чём? - на дне&#xD;&#xA;and than the second question is to word &quot;рождение&quot; - на дне ЧЕГО? рождениЯ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16486" RevisionGUID="c3aba765-6bdc-44b5-a727-2038d2e68f73" CreationDate="2018-05-25T21:54:56.953" UserId="7674" Text="Obsolete word **сени** (which has only plural form), **сани** (only exists in plural), **тень**, **часть**, **мать**, **сеть**, **камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems mainly typical of words of the 3d declension group" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16486" RevisionGUID="e4ed267a-aed2-4cd0-bed7-792bc49aa144" CreationDate="2018-05-25T22:00:22.293" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Obsolete word **сени** and semi-obsolete **ясли** (which both only have plural form), **сани** (only exists in plural), **тень**, **часть**, **мать**, **сеть** (variable stress in sing. P./L.), **камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems mainly typical of words of the 3d declension group" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16486" RevisionGUID="c346cee1-1b0e-4576-9473-9ae3ed9f3ed7" CreationDate="2018-05-25T22:05:32.800" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Obsolete word **сени** and semi-obsolete **ясли** (which both only have plural form), **сани** (only exists in plural) so not frequent, then **часть**, **мать**, **сеть**, **тень** (both with variable stress in sing. P./L.), **камень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems mainly typical of words of the 3d declension group" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41615" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16474" RevisionGUID="85487174-50cc-46d5-b5d8-24f6d07e9a55" CreationDate="2018-05-25T22:55:22.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1000148347410403330" />
  <row Id="41616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16486" RevisionGUID="15d21b86-bebe-4332-bf40-592ecc2e5eff" CreationDate="2018-05-26T06:49:14.300" UserId="7674" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="Obsolete word **сени** and semi-obsolete **ясли** (which both only have plural form) so not frequent, then **сани**, **люди** (both of which only exist in plural), **часть**, **мать**, **дочь**, **смерть**, **соль**, **горсть**, **кость**, **сеть**, **тень**, **дверь** (all last three with variable stress in sing. P./L. + in sing. G. &amp; D. of *дверь*), **полость**, **плоскость**, **скорость**, **область**, **камень**, **зверь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save for the last two seems mainly typical of words of the 3d declension group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course the most frequent - **блядь**, which however very rarely gets to be inflected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16486" RevisionGUID="ca03d3c0-230c-411b-84fb-d5c6c470a8f8" CreationDate="2018-05-26T06:59:28.177" UserId="7674" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Obsolete word **сени** and semi-obsolete **ясли** (which both only have plural form) so not frequent, then **сани**, **люди** (both of which only exist in plural), **часть**, **мать**, **дочь**, **смерть**, **соль**, **горсть**, **кость**, **сеть**, **тень**, **дверь** (all last three with variable stress in sing. P./L. + in sing. G. &amp; D. of *дверь*), **полость**, **плоскость**, **скорость**, **область**, **камень**, **зверь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save for the last two seems mainly typical of words of the 3d declension group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course the most frequent - **блядь**, which however as an expletive very rarely gets to be inflected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16487" RevisionGUID="c6ae7ea1-5863-47b0-802d-f36600bdc6ec" CreationDate="2018-05-26T07:15:48.843" UserId="2104" Text="See &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Russian 3rd-declension feminine-form accent-e nouns][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [Russian nouns with accent pattern e][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_3rd-declension_feminine-form_accent-e_nouns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_nouns_with_accent_pattern_e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16480" RevisionGUID="c13acce2-34c4-4617-bd96-b733ffb23d5d" CreationDate="2018-05-26T10:36:19.407" UserId="2104" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="There is more to declension than just the type. The type determines the endings but quite a few words also get suffixes added or replaced especially when switching into plural:&#xA;&#xA;- муж - муж**ь**я&#xA;- стул - стул**ь**я&#xA;&#xA;- кот**ёнок** - кот**ят**а&#xA;- мыш**он**ок - мыш**ат**а&#xA;&#xA;(This type of suffix alteration is quite regular and applies to all animate nouns and the name of a mushroom опенок.)&#xA;&#xA;- мать - мат**ер**и&#xA;- дочь - доч**ер**и&#xA;&#xA;There are also volatile vowels:&#xA;&#xA;- вет**е**р - ветра (compare to: катер - катера)&#xA;&#xA;Quite a few masculine nouns get 'neuter' endings -а/-я: доктор**а**, учител**я**.&#xA;&#xA;Given just the nominative singular form of a noun you can't reliably deduce its inflected forms. You need to know if the word has a volatile vowel or suffix alterations or irregular endings. Such information can be found in dictionaries such as *The Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* by Andrey Zalizniak. Or you can simply use software tools such as this one: http://morpher.ru/Demo.aspx&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41620" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="bf1b6db0-9985-4d0f-aaf9-3c009921a761" CreationDate="2018-05-26T12:53:45.057" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16488" RevisionGUID="405d05a5-65f0-405d-8a6b-88c1d5c10ccc" CreationDate="2018-05-27T21:06:14.700" UserId="7674" Text="I've always thought it should be pronounced with the standard Russian voiced velar stop **Г** [g]. But lately i've been hearing recordings where it's pronounced as voiced glottal fricative [ɦ] like the Ukrainian **Г**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pronunciation also represents the word in both [Russian](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/ого) and [English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ого) articles of Wiktionary, and in 2 out of 3 audio examples on [Forvo](https://ru.forvo.com/word/ого/#ru).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there no 'correct' pronunciation, or is it region dependent within Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16488" RevisionGUID="405d05a5-65f0-405d-8a6b-88c1d5c10ccc" CreationDate="2018-05-27T21:06:14.700" UserId="7674" Text="Pronunciation of interjection &quot;ого&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16488" RevisionGUID="405d05a5-65f0-405d-8a6b-88c1d5c10ccc" CreationDate="2018-05-27T21:06:14.700" UserId="7674" Text="|произношение|междометие|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16488" RevisionGUID="a405a9e6-bdb9-4ed3-805d-7f890650a52c" CreationDate="2018-05-27T21:47:20.353" UserId="7674" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I've always thought it should be pronounced with the standard Russian voiced velar stop **Г** [g]. But lately i've been hearing recordings where it's pronounced as voiced glottal fricative [ɦ] like the Ukrainian **Г**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pronunciation also represents the word in both [Russian](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/ого) and [English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ого) articles of Wiktionary, and in 2 out of 3 audio examples on [Forvo](https://ru.forvo.com/word/ого/#ru), all of which are by residents of Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is there no 'correct' pronunciation, or is it region dependent within Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16489" RevisionGUID="80b9011a-4a73-4875-b847-5179b583c61e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T00:06:46.377" UserId="10612" Text="Вопрос, собственно, в заголовке.&#xD;&#xA;Имеется цитата &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; К этому человеку все относились с большим пиететом. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Аркадий Стругацкий, Борис Стругацкий, «Понедельник начинается в субботу», 1964 г.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Значит, &quot;иметь&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;offtopic: какой тэг здесь подойдёт лучше всего? Как называется то чем я сейчас занимаюсь, выбирая из `иметь` и `испытывать` относительно `пиетет`а? Семантическое согласование? о_О&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Похоже, этот вопрос меня интересует даже сильнее заданного ранее. А вот `интересует`: `больше` или/и `сильнее`?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16489" RevisionGUID="80b9011a-4a73-4875-b847-5179b583c61e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T00:06:46.377" UserId="10612" Text="Пиетет: иметь или испытывать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16489" RevisionGUID="80b9011a-4a73-4875-b847-5179b583c61e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T00:06:46.377" UserId="10612" Text="|словоупотребление|согласование|семантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16490" RevisionGUID="aff0140c-366b-4c63-99f1-81824b95de8a" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:06:51.610" UserId="10578" Text="Это вопрос не семантики, а стиля и принятого употребления в речи. И то, и другое может со временем изменяться, &quot;дрейфовать&quot;. И некоторые речевые обороты, хоть формально и возможны, но практически &quot;не существуют&quot;, т.е. не используются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что: пиетет не &quot;имеют&quot;, а &quot;как бы &quot;применяют&quot; к отношению, ну и &quot;испытывать пиетет&quot; это несколько неуклюже, а лучше: &quot;испытывать (глубокое) уважение&quot;; &quot;пиететом &quot;обладает&quot; отношение (к лицу)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второй вопрос не имеет определённого ответа. Оба варианта правильны, и выбирать следует по вкусу. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41629" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16489" RevisionGUID="1210b840-28aa-4cbb-8a17-70492ecb8f43" CreationDate="2018-05-28T05:35:07.770" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|согласование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16489" RevisionGUID="6e27ad44-4861-4ebc-a448-9e705f50e429" CreationDate="2018-05-28T07:52:39.463" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|сочетание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16491" RevisionGUID="bf80018b-352d-4235-b71b-7a153c61b782" CreationDate="2018-05-28T08:08:19.607" UserId="7674" Text="*`Испытывать`* и *`иметь`* семантически отличаются, поэтому не думаю, что их следует противопоставлять. В моём понимании *`испытывать`* может описывать нечто сиюминутное, преходящее, в то время как *`иметь`* - нечто постоянное, долговременное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому *`испытывать пиетет`* - это скорее испытывать его в некий момент времени или в определённых обстоятельствах, например во время общения, а *`иметь пиетет`* - это быть готовым к его испытанию априори, быть наделённым способностью испытывать пиетет по отношению к человеку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так же и с *`больше`* против *`сильнее`*. Уместны оба." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16492" RevisionGUID="f69a5235-11ed-4e31-a8a0-6fb15ba27135" CreationDate="2018-05-28T10:24:44.743" UserId="5443" Text="Русский язык. Учебник для ссузов, Москва, 2010, с. 38:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Орфоэпия согласных** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Лишь в нескольких словах **нужно** произносить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заднеязычные щелевые (похожие на [х] и [х'], но только звонкие) звуки,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которые принято транскрибировать как [ɣ] и [ɣ']: *бухгалтер*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [буɣа́лт'ир], разговорные междометия *ага*, ***ого*** [оɣо́], *угу*, *эге*. Кроме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; того, *старшей нормой* [= отражающей старомосковское произношение, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отличие от *младшей нормы*, соотв. современному литературному языку]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; допускается произношение мягкого звука [ɣ'] в словах *Господь*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Господи*, в формах слова *Бог*: *Бога*, *Богу* и т. д., а также произношение мягкого звука [ɣ'] в форме *о Боге*...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That page scanned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=ocY0DwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ots=i9pv3lhhol&amp;sig=ACfU3U2kE3PKdHmfQKHpKMZ3B8hDEiQffQ&amp;w=1280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41633" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16489" RevisionGUID="9c3783fa-2060-43d3-9e5b-55e7ae00a1d6" CreationDate="2018-05-28T10:34:47.370" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16493" RevisionGUID="33e68de4-18bf-4276-81f3-47b8571a72c0" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:17:29.253" UserId="8780" Text="It has been confusing me the fact that a few verbs have participles which, according to textbooks, normally don't match a particular verb aspect (perfective or imperfective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **гореть** (imp.) and **загореть** (pf.). The *past passive participle* is normally formed from the perfective aspect, however the word **горелый** exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **резать** (imp.), **разрезать** (pf.). According to some dictionaries, the word **режанный** exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently there are also *past adverbs* for imperfective verbs, like **ждав** instead of **подождав**, according to cooljugator.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how far can we use *past participles* and *past adverbs* with **im**perfective verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16493" RevisionGUID="33e68de4-18bf-4276-81f3-47b8571a72c0" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:17:29.253" UserId="8780" Text="Off-aspect conjugations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16493" RevisionGUID="33e68de4-18bf-4276-81f3-47b8571a72c0" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:17:29.253" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|наречия|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16493" RevisionGUID="f89be6d5-9b30-47da-8b72-8759f363f2f4" CreationDate="2018-05-28T15:42:34.870" UserId="8780" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="It has been confusing me the fact that a few verbs have participles which, according to textbooks, normally don't match a particular verb aspect (perfective or imperfective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **гореть** (imp.) and **сгореть** (pf.). The *past passive participle* is normally formed from the perfective aspect, however the word **горелый** exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **резать** (imp.), **разрезать** (pf.). According to some dictionaries, the word **режанный** exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently there are also *past adverbs* for imperfective verbs, like **ждав** instead of **подождав**, according to cooljugator.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how far can we use *past participles* and *past adverbs* with **im**perfective verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16493" RevisionGUID="dfc20761-16c6-4e8a-86c9-98ade41a790e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:03:22.407" UserId="8780" Comment="edited body" Text="It has been confusing me the fact that a few verbs have participles which, according to textbooks, normally don't match a particular verb aspect (perfective or imperfective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **гореть** (imp.) and **сгореть** (pf.). The *past passive participle* is normally formed from the perfective aspect, however the word **горелый** exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is **резать** (imp.), **разрезать** (pf.). According to some dictionaries, the word **резанный** exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently there are also *past adverbs* for imperfective verbs, like **ждав** instead of **подождав**, according to cooljugator.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how far can we use *past participles* and *past adverbs* with **im**perfective verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16488" RevisionGUID="e73b1ce7-df0c-4808-a413-1693628376e9" CreationDate="2018-05-28T16:56:06.080" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1001145096010633221" />
  <row Id="41640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16494" RevisionGUID="99c14130-8f87-477e-a393-87ef6df2c91b" CreationDate="2018-05-28T17:53:48.420" UserId="4714" Text="**Russian syntax: aspects of modern Russian syntax and vocabulary** has a good description—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Ignore the notes (sorry, it's my personal copy) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(F. M. Borras, Reginald Frank Christian)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.cz/books?id=RR0ZAQAAIAAJ&amp;dq=syntax%20of%20russian%20%20borrass&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjVs5qs_KjbAhXNGewKHZYTChwQ6AEIKTAA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bu3XP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J6L1S.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wQufT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XqAW8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="f4fe4af0-85d1-4e17-a1e7-2a2983231c3c" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:24:57.557" UserId="7674" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels for using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference both of which have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="ba836b97-25ba-4844-9442-9bb6a2c9ea08" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:32:07.787" UserId="7674" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels for using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня огород уже 2 года стоит не копанный - My veggie garden has for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 years gone non-spaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference. Both have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="1413bdc6-e305-4382-ac6f-bbcfeb502e26" CreationDate="2018-05-28T18:56:48.250" UserId="7674" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [C]традательные причастия могут образовываться только от переходных глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также не от всех глаголов образуются в русском языке страдательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причастия прошедшего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels to using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня огород 2 года стоит не копанный - My veggie garden has for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 years gone non-spaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the statement according to which past passive participles derive from transitive verbs and the list of suffixes pertaining to past participles, it appears that words formed with the suffix -&amp;nbsp;**ел/ал**- (**горелый**, **спелый**, **прелый**, **лежалый**) can't be classed as participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're adjectives, however indeed their link to intransitive verbs is apparent: **гнилой - гнить**, **умелый - уметь**, **усталый - устать**, **отсталый - отстать**, **светлый - светить** (here the quality is ascribed not to the subject but to the object despite incongruence with the verb's character), and even **смелый** i believe is linked to **сметь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *According to some dictionaries, the word резанный exists.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My life experience confirms as much.&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference. Both have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="958cb63c-74d6-451f-84bb-9ab0268fc95c" CreationDate="2018-05-28T19:08:09.023" UserId="7674" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [C]традательные причастия могут образовываться только от переходных глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также не от всех глаголов образуются в русском языке страдательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причастия прошедшего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels to using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня огород 2 года стоит не копанный - My veggie garden has for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 years gone non-spaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the statement according to which past passive participles derive from transitive verbs and the list of suffixes pertaining to past participles, it appears that words formed with the suffix -&amp;nbsp;**ел/ал**- (**горелый**, **спелый**, **прелый**, **лежалый**, **вялый**) can't be classed as participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're adjectives, however indeed their link to intransitive verbs is apparent: **гнилой - гнить**, **умелый - уметь**, **усталый - устать**, **отсталый - отстать**, **запоздалый - запоздать**, **беглый - бегать**, **светлый - светить** (here the quality is ascribed not to the subject but to the object despite incongruence with the verb's character), and even **смелый** i believe is linked to **сметь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *According to some dictionaries, the word резанный exists.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My life experience confirms as much.&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference. Both have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="d00548aa-2085-4a4d-833e-af17857c82ae" CreationDate="2018-05-28T19:15:55.397" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [C]традательные причастия могут образовываться только от переходных глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также не от всех глаголов образуются в русском языке страдательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причастия прошедшего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels to using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня огород 2 года стоит не копанный - My veggie garden has for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 years gone non-spaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the statement according to which past passive participles derive from transitive verbs and the list of suffixes pertaining to past participles, it appears that words formed with the suffix -&amp;nbsp;**ел/ал**- (**горелый**, **спелый**, **прелый**, **лежалый**, **вялый**) can't be classed as participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're adjectives, however indeed their link to intransitive verbs is apparent: **гнилой - гнить**, **умелый - уметь**, **усталый - устать**, **отсталый - отстать**, **запоздалый - запоздать**, **беглый - бегать**, **светлый - светить** (here the quality is ascribed not to the subject but to the object despite incongruence with the verb's character), and even **смелый** i believe is linked to **сметь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *According to some dictionaries, the word резанный exists.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My life experience confirms as much. And the phraseologism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Орать как резанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference. Both have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="8dc6f4a3-6441-4aef-a00d-6359d0237d3e" CreationDate="2018-05-28T20:32:12.860" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [C]традательные причастия могут образовываться только от переходных глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также не от всех глаголов образуются в русском языке страдательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причастия прошедшего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels to using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня огород 2 года стоит не копанный - My veggie garden has for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 years gone non-spaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the statement according to which past passive participles derive from transitive verbs and the list of suffixes pertaining to past participles, it appears that words formed with the suffix -&amp;nbsp;**ел/ал**- (**горелый**, **спелый**, **прелый**, **лежалый**, **вялый**) can't be classed as participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're adjectives, however indeed their link to intransitive verbs is apparent: **гнилой - гнить**, **умелый - уметь**, **усталый - устать**, **отсталый - отстать**, **запоздалый - запоздать**, **беглый - бегать**, **талый** - **таять**, **светлый - светить** (here the quality is ascribed not to the subject but to the object despite incongruence with the verb's character), and even **смелый** i believe is linked to **сметь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *According to some dictionaries, the word резанный exists.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My life experience confirms as much. And the phraseologism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Орать как резанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference. Both have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16495" RevisionGUID="a78e89d2-6a74-44df-b683-198b137c61c3" CreationDate="2018-05-28T21:08:43.103" UserId="7674" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Причастие_(лингвистика)#В_русском_языке)  on participles doesn't emphasize the fact of past passive participles being mainly derived from perfective verbs, and in its examples lists two imperfective ones with a potential for a 3d one **печёный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [C]традательные причастия могут образовываться только от переходных глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия страдательного залога прошедшего времени образуются с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помощью суффиксов -нн- (от глаголов на -ать: читанный, потерянный),&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -енн- (от глаголов на -ить и -чь: испеченный), -т- (от односложных глаголов: мятый).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Также не от всех глаголов образуются в русском языке страдательные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причастия прошедшего времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed some forms of past passive participles may sound a little unusual, like **терянный**, but if context absolutely compels to using them, they can be employed and understood, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот телефон у меня уже сто раз терянный и найденный - This phone of mine has already been about a dozen times lost and found.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня огород 2 года стоит не копанный - My veggie garden has for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2 years gone non-spaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the statement according to which past passive participles derive from transitive verbs and the list of suffixes pertaining to past participles, it appears that words formed with the suffix -&amp;nbsp;**л**- (**горелый**, **спелый**, **прелый**, **лежалый**, **вялый**) can't be classed as participles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think they're adjectives, however indeed their link to intransitive verbs is apparent: **гнилой - гнить**, **умелый - уметь**, **усталый - устать**, **отсталый - отстать**, **запоздалый - запоздать**, **беглый - бегать**, **талый** - **таять**, **светлый - светить** (here the quality is ascribed not to the subject but to the object despite incongruence with the verb's character), and even **смелый** i believe is linked to **сметь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strangely i've managed to find only [one site](http://www.yaklass.ru/p/russky-yazik/5-klass/imia-prilagatelnoe-15580/polnye-i-kratkie-prilagatelnye-12418/re-81bf4f28-0c6a-43ba-82fa-b9da8363fc18) where they're mentioned and there they're listed as adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Прилагательные, образованные от глаголов, с суффиксом –л-. Например: обнищалый, опустелый, прошлый.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *According to some dictionaries, the word резанный exists.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My life experience confirms as much. And the phraseologism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Орать как резанный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ждав** must be archaic and sounds awkward by modern standards. In modern language **ожидая** will be rather used instead. However it's no substitute for **подождав** due to aspect difference. Both have their use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Деепричастие#Деепричастие_в_русском_языке) on past adverb states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несовершенный — обозначает настоящее и прошедшее времена. Образуется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от глаголов несовершенного вида с помощью суффиксов а (-я) и отвечает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на вопрос «что делая?»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So imperfective past adverbs derive from imperfective verbs by appendage of the -(а)я suffix and are very much in use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16496" RevisionGUID="d19e912b-367a-42ce-acb1-ac1ff27da34a" CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:17:33.917" UserId="8780" Text="How do I say &quot;People move to wherever they can earn more money&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжут **туда, куда** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжут **куда** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжут **туда, где** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжут **куда, где** можно зарабатывать больше денег." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16496" RevisionGUID="d19e912b-367a-42ce-acb1-ac1ff27da34a" CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:17:33.917" UserId="8780" Text="Pair of clauses indicating destination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16496" RevisionGUID="d19e912b-367a-42ce-acb1-ac1ff27da34a" CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:17:33.917" UserId="8780" Text="|предлоги|глаголы-движения|subordinate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16497" RevisionGUID="014e0c68-c04c-4ae0-aab7-4ab53adc06ee" CreationDate="2018-05-28T23:59:18.677" UserId="3680" Text="The correct one is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезж**аю**т **туда**, **где** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a bit shorter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезж**аю**т **туда**, **где** можно больше зарабатывать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16497" RevisionGUID="2aa40449-1da1-4c52-a5b5-8fba744c468f" CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:04:30.853" UserId="3680" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="The correct one is the 3rd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезж**аю**т **туда**, **где** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a bit shorter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезж**аю**т **туда**, **где** можно больше зарабатывать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Please also pay attention to the correct spelling of the word `переезжают`*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16497" RevisionGUID="6a7b7c7e-7aac-4053-be58-6896bc7e7737" CreationDate="2018-05-29T00:12:47.843" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The correct one is the 3rd&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезж**аю**т **туда**, **где** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a bit shorter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезж**аю**т **туда**, **где** больше зарабатывают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Please also pay attention to the correct spelling of the word `переезжают`*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16496" RevisionGUID="57d8a092-92f7-4165-98f3-8068d3887913" CreationDate="2018-05-29T03:05:35.870" UserId="8780" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="How do I say &quot;People move to wherever they can earn more money&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжают **туда, куда** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжают **куда** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжают **туда, где** можно зарабатывать больше денег.&#xD;&#xA;- Люди переезжают **куда, где** можно зарабатывать больше денег." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41655" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="ffee4991-a883-44cf-abdb-728bf05d22eb" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:53:22.573" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41656" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="ffee4991-a883-44cf-abdb-728bf05d22eb" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:53:22.573" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 974" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41657" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16496" RevisionGUID="5fcb9cd0-3c52-4410-b387-141680130387" CreationDate="2018-05-29T23:02:33.503" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1001599705971912704" />
  <row Id="41658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="ab8d34e7-648e-4a38-af87-b1fdb4e6eaf5" CreationDate="2018-05-30T12:14:47.973" UserId="194" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Частичный) (Partitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни дня без строчки (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни единого разу (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господь (Nominative) бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господи, боже мой (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдём (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask me, I would accept only a few of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Nominative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1a. Vocative** (new Vocative only)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2a. Partivive** (-у,-ю-Genitive, also including Abessive listed above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2b. Numerative** (special use for units of measurement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Dative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Accusative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. Prepositional**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5a. Locative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sum, 9." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e7e7d9cc-80dc-4ed3-b681-f9557d503827" CreationDate="2018-05-30T12:21:27.697" UserId="194" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="The most extensive list is as follows (totally, 16):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Именительный (Nominative)**&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Родительный  (Genitive)**&#xD;&#xA;   3. **Отделительный (Частичный) (Partitive)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить весь чай (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; хочу выпить немного чаю (Partitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   4. **Ждательный**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письмо (Accusative), отправленное вчера &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; жду письма (Ждательный) от мамы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   5. **Дательный (Dative)**&#xD;&#xA;   6. **Счетный I (Numerative I)**&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; на этой шкале нет граммов (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; пуля весит девять грамм (Numerative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   7. **Счетный II (Numerative II)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; не прошло и ча́са (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; это заняло три часа́ (Numerative) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   8. **Винительный (Accusative)**&#xD;&#xA;   9. **Включительный (Превратительный) (Translative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; стрелять в президента (Accusative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; избрать в президенты (Translative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   10. **Творительный (Instrumental)**&#xD;&#xA;   11. **Предложный (Prepositional)**&#xD;&#xA;   12. **Местный (Locative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесе (Prepositional) много пользы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; в лесу (Locative) растут грибы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   13. **Исходный (Ablative)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; гулял в лесý (Locative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; вышел и́з лесу (Ablative) (difference in the stress)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   14. **Лишительный (Abessive)**&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни дня без строчки (Genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; ни единого разу (Abessive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   15. **Звательный старый (Old Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господь (Nominative) бог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; господи, боже мой (Old Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   16. **Звательный новый (Neo-Vocative)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; хороший дядя (Nominative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &gt; дядь, пойдём (Neo-Vocative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that no source gives them all, but all of them can be found in at least some sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ask me, I would accept only a few of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Nominative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1a. Vocative** (new Vocative only)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Genitive**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2a. Partivive** (-у,-ю-Genitive, also including Abessive listed above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2b. Numerative** (special use for units of measurement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Dative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Accusative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. Instrumental**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**6. Prepositional**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**6a. Locative**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sum, 10." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16498" RevisionGUID="91dd210f-95d6-45fe-8f6b-f620c4d828cc" CreationDate="2018-05-30T12:57:11.963" UserId="5443" Text="The comprehensive edition Русская грамматика by the Russian Academy of Sciences (Наука, 1980)&#xD;&#xA;http://lukashevichus.info/knigi/russk_gramm_sl_shvedova_1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;says (p. 703):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Предикативы** — это слова с модальными значениями долженствования,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; необходимости, возможности. Это — *самостоятельные слова*, не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соотносительные с *качественными* наречиями и краткими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательными; например, *должно, **можно**, надо, нельзя, нужно,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; устар. надобно*. По своим синтаксическим функциям эти слова совпадают с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предикативами в системе *существительных* [лень, недосуг]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's different from *adverb*. Unlikely there's an exact English term for предикатив in its defined meaning; here's a page using the term *predicative adverb*, however along with the words like надо, defined above, typical adverbs (like холодно) are shown which are out of that definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version of literally parsing the sentence (as opposed to proper translation with 'May I...'), in an attempt to replace *можно* with something as impersonal: *Is it OK if* I have some tea? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16499" RevisionGUID="dd5c088f-1641-490a-809c-98d8c9851519" CreationDate="2018-05-30T14:51:54.837" UserId="7674" Text="In my opinion a more accurate and idiomatic rendering would be with the verb in perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают туда, где можно зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;ever&quot;-ness present in the English sentence i think can at least to some degree be conveyed with conditional mood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают туда, где можно *было бы* зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16499" RevisionGUID="17dbe782-0eb3-478d-9c05-d211d6864a7b" CreationDate="2018-05-30T15:07:45.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="In my opinion a more accurate and idiomatic rendering would be with the verb in perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают туда, где можно зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;ever&quot;-ness present in the English sentence i think can at least to some degree be conveyed with conditional mood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают туда, где можно *было бы* зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the word **угодно** suggested by Ingaz in my opinion it would sound better with the subordinate clause being introduced with conjunction *чтобы*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают куда угодно, *чтобы* зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;even though this rendering isn't completely equivalent to the English sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16499" RevisionGUID="917095f2-18a6-4bce-a4f1-b8c3cb65e4de" CreationDate="2018-05-30T15:38:30.283" UserId="7674" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="In my opinion a more accurate and idiomatic rendering would be with the verb in perfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают туда, где можно зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;ever&quot;-ness present in the English sentence i think can at least to some degree be conveyed with conditional mood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают туда, где можно *было бы* зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the word **угодно** suggested by Ingaz in my opinion it would sound better with the subordinate clause being introduced with conjunction *чтобы*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Люди переезжают куда угодно, *чтобы* зарабОТАТЬ больше денег&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;even though this rendering isn't completely equivalent to the English sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A combination *pronoun + угодно* as the main clause indicator for a subordinate clause in a complex sentence doesn't seem typical to Russian. Corpus of Russian language lists very few such cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41664" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8585" RevisionGUID="a1196b96-4071-4a5e-830e-861bba973ed8" CreationDate="2018-05-31T08:02:35.717" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1002097998489321473" />
  <row Id="41665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16500" RevisionGUID="7220bda8-89b1-4146-bb18-ddc4e1ef19f5" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:33:22.753" UserId="6471" Text="How to say in Russian &quot;published computer scientist&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16500" RevisionGUID="7220bda8-89b1-4146-bb18-ddc4e1ef19f5" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:33:22.753" UserId="6471" Text="&quot;Published computer scientist&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16500" RevisionGUID="7220bda8-89b1-4146-bb18-ddc4e1ef19f5" CreationDate="2018-05-31T13:33:22.753" UserId="6471" Text="|выражения|терминология|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16501" RevisionGUID="6cfbe09d-ae30-40e2-9e61-8c3ac562f068" CreationDate="2018-05-31T15:36:08.917" UserId="9459" Text="To answer a half of your question, &quot;computer science&quot; is typically (after German and French, I guess) referred to in Russian as `информатика`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, actually, a thin veil of differences between possible terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Computer science, used as a direct loan from English, is specially about computers. Duh.&#xD;&#xA;- `Информатика`, the standard word in, e.g. German for the field, could also be directly translated as &quot;informatics&quot; in English, even if very seldom. It is about _information processing_ though, which is a wider term.&#xD;&#xA;- The older `кибернетика`, loaned directly from &quot;cybernetics&quot; has fallen out of grace. It's about automatic systems and information processing, detached from the medium and way of processing. It's almost never used in the West, in the East there was a historic crack-down on it (and also on genetics), so it's mostly remembered by native-speakers for that. I've never seen this term used for computer science in a serious context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of names for modern partial areas varies. For example, &quot;data science&quot; is mostly taken verbatim, while &quot;deep learning&quot; is typically translated to `глубокое обучение`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, someone doing a science is a scientist (`ученый`), or a studied professional (`специалист`). I infer &quot;published&quot; as &quot;had published research&quot;, but I am unsure. In this case it's something compound as `специалист, публиковавший научные работы в области информатики`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41669" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16500" RevisionGUID="68f61be6-0655-448a-aab3-c27ff2e05df2" CreationDate="2018-05-31T16:03:02.223" UserId="3680" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16498" RevisionGUID="c531093f-b3ce-4b5a-b1b8-10a8fdf820c2" CreationDate="2018-06-01T04:26:20.437" UserId="5443" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="The comprehensive edition Русская грамматика by the Russian Academy of Sciences (Наука, 1980)&#xD;&#xA;http://lukashevichus.info/knigi/russk_gramm_sl_shvedova_1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;says (p. 703):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Предикативы** — это слова с модальными значениями долженствования,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; необходимости, возможности. Это — *самостоятельные слова*, не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; соотносительные с *качественными* наречиями и краткими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательными; например, *должно, **можно**, надо, нельзя, нужно,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; устар. надобно*. По своим синтаксическим функциям эти слова совпадают с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предикативами в системе *существительных* [лень, недосуг]...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's different from *adverb*. Unlikely there's an exact English term for предикатив in its defined meaning; here's a page using the term *predicative adverb*, however along with the words like надо, defined above, typical adverbs (like холодно) are included which are out of that definition.&#xD;&#xA;http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/predicative_adverbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version of literally parsing the sentence (as opposed to proper translation with 'May I...'), in an attempt to replace *можно* with something as impersonal: *Is it OK if* I have some tea? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16502" RevisionGUID="e64b012a-7efa-4edd-956f-286d959665cd" CreationDate="2018-06-01T12:07:20.030" UserId="10593" Text="Он уже даже  хотел  начать  изучать  физику,  которую  в шутку называл физикой-мизикой... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble identifying how the subordinate clause links to the main clause, specifically, how the antecedent works. &#xD;&#xA;is it&#xD;&#xA;1. ... physics, which is called 'something' &#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;2. calling physics 'something'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate my confusion, in English you can say:&#xD;&#xA;1. The book which i am reading.&#xD;&#xA;the sentence can be broken into &quot;&quot;The book&quot; and &quot;I am reading the book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;2. The book which is interesting&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;which one does the который in the example work like? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16502" RevisionGUID="e64b012a-7efa-4edd-956f-286d959665cd" CreationDate="2018-06-01T12:07:20.030" UserId="10593" Text="Another question on который, how is it used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16502" RevisionGUID="e64b012a-7efa-4edd-956f-286d959665cd" CreationDate="2018-06-01T12:07:20.030" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16502" RevisionGUID="fda0b92c-0456-4acc-98a0-f41e431857cb" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:06:41.977" UserId="3680" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="&gt;Он уже даже  хотел  начать  изучать  физику,  которую  в шутку называл физикой-мизикой... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble identifying how the subordinate clause links to the main clause, specifically, how the antecedent works. &#xD;&#xA;is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ... physics, which is called 'something' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. calling physics 'something'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate my confusion, in English you can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &gt;The book which i am reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the sentence can be broken into &quot;The book&quot; and &quot;I am reading the book.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt;The book which is interesting&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;which one does the `который` in the example work like? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16503" RevisionGUID="66ee6a0a-d7bc-41a5-ad3a-813140a17c1d" CreationDate="2018-06-01T13:52:30.460" UserId="7674" Text="The option 2 `calling physics 'something'` is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous sentence would look like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он уже даже хотел начать изучать физику, в шутку **называя её**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; физикой-мизикой -   &#xD;&#xA;He even was about to start learning physics facetiously **calling it** physics-shmysics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the literally accurate translation of the original was provided by Alex_ander in the comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The female pronoun in Accusative `которУю` refers to female noun in Accusative `физикУ`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16504" RevisionGUID="2ef4ca7b-15aa-4a13-8867-26c2a268dd5c" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:16:16.250" UserId="6074" Text="I am not a native, but I came across these two sentences on a thread over at [this thread on Linguistics.SE][1], and I had some kind of vague feeling the sentences did not mean *exactly* the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Огонь - плох&#xD;&#xA;* Огонь - плохо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference, and if so what is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/6181/did-a-cave-man-style-language-ever-exist?rq=1 &quot;this thread on Linguistics.SE&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16504" RevisionGUID="2ef4ca7b-15aa-4a13-8867-26c2a268dd5c" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:16:16.250" UserId="6074" Text="Is there a difference between Огонь - плох and Огонь - плохо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16504" RevisionGUID="2ef4ca7b-15aa-4a13-8867-26c2a268dd5c" CreationDate="2018-06-01T14:16:16.250" UserId="6074" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="93212451-43ba-47f7-b702-fbfee87a9f6f" CreationDate="2018-06-01T15:14:38.620" UserId="7674" Text="**`Огонь плох`** (without a dash) is a *simple combination of words*, refers to the quality of fire &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Огонь - плох`** (with a dash) is a *sentence* which may refer to consequences of fire, it can be reworded as **`Огонь - он плох`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Огонь - плохо`** is a *sentence* which refers to the quality of a situation in which there's fire, it can be worded as **`Огонь - это плохо`** and is unpacked as `it's bad when there's fire`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract and general phenomena as well as predicate in impersonal sentences in Russian are denoted with neuter gender, that's why **`плохо`** doesn't refer to **`огонь`** but to the whole affair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="ec48861d-eb18-4c8f-8dc2-fa6c99b686f1" CreationDate="2018-06-01T15:35:12.760" UserId="7674" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="1 **`Огонь плох`** (without a dash) is a *simple combination of words*, refers to the quality of fire, e.g. unstable, weak, producing little light etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **`Огонь - плох`** (with a dash) is a *sentence* which may refer to consequences of fire, it can be reworded as **`Огонь - он плох`**, it's bad as a destructive force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 **`Огонь - плохо`** is a *sentence* which refers to the quality of a situation in which there's fire, it can be worded as **`Огонь - это плохо`** and is unpacked as `it's bad when there's fire`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract and general phenomena as well as predicate in impersonal sentences in Russian are denoted with neuter gender, that's why **`плохо`** doesn't refer to **`огонь`** but to the whole affair" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41681" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16457" RevisionGUID="8fa43abc-7f13-4c5a-a854-7f2fbfaca096" CreationDate="2018-06-01T17:05:38.930" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1002597050125602816" />
  <row Id="41682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="22f381cd-57f3-41bb-959f-86427a9be7cc" CreationDate="2018-06-01T17:26:45.843" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="1 **`Огонь плох`** (without a dash) is a *simple combination of words*, refers to the quality of fire, e.g. unstable, weak, producing little light etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **`Огонь - плох`** (with a dash) is a *sentence* which may refer to adverse consequences of fire, it can be reworded as **`Огонь - он плох`**, it's bad as a destructive force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 **`Огонь - плохо`** is a *sentence* which refers to the quality of a situation in which there's fire, it can be reworded as **`Огонь - это плохо`** and is unpacked as `it's bad when there's fire`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract and general phenomena as well as predicate in impersonal sentences in Russian are expressed in neuter gender, that's why **`плохо`** doesn't refer to **`огонь`** but to the whole affair of its presence and/or activity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16505" RevisionGUID="6dc5ffc4-97d7-436e-ba56-5821f5b8d273" CreationDate="2018-06-01T18:16:23.327" UserId="7674" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="1 **`Огонь плох`** (without a dash) is a combination of words, able to also stand as a sentence, which refers to the quality of fire, e.g. unstable, weak, producing little light etc &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 **`Огонь - плох`** (with a dash) is a sentence which may refer to adverse consequences of fire, it can be reworded as **`Огонь - он плох`**, it's bad as a destructive force&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 **`Огонь - плохо`** is a sentence which refers to the quality of a situation in which there's fire, it can be reworded as **`Огонь - это плохо`** and is unpacked as `it's bad when there's fire`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract and general phenomena as well as predicate in impersonal sentences in Russian are expressed in neuter gender, that's why **`плохо`** doesn't refer to **`огонь`** but to the whole affair of its presence and/or activity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16506" RevisionGUID="cec229f6-fe76-4988-af9a-fe22a1f1f299" CreationDate="2018-06-02T04:40:03.677" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Он уже даже хотел начать изучать физику, которую в шутку называл физикой-мизикой...= которую (он) называл (which he called ).=он называл физику...= **he called physics something** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 physics, which is called 'something'=физику, **которая называлась**(passive)&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 calling physics 'something'= **называя физику чем-то**(participle-gerund)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering all the examples you can choose the equivalent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16508" RevisionGUID="4f2ceed9-150d-4f35-b99b-331c2df81edd" CreationDate="2018-06-02T23:32:05.290" UserId="5818" Text="A woman is not an aunt to her son-in-law, but does зять have an alternate meaning other than son-in-law, or тетка have an alternate meaning other than aunt, such that a woman can be тетка to her зять?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know whether there is any support for the possibility that the two women listed in these two records are the same woman:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В духовных росписях ([исповедных книгах][1]) ... прихода ... уезда ... губернии за 1820 год имеются следующие записи:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - вдова Евдокия Лаврентьевна (фамилия не указана) – 48 лет&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - зять ее Иван Осипович (фамилия не указана) – 33 года&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В  [ревизской сказке][2] за 1834 год (8-я ревизия) среди государственных крестьян деревни ... сельского общества ... волости ... уезда ... губернии значатся:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Осип…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - его 1-й сын Иван&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - ныне лет (1834 год) – 45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ивана Осиповича тетка Авдотья (отчество не указано)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     - ныне лет (1834 год) – 63&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it significant that an official record uses тетка instead of тётя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have precedent for another woman in a later generation (Осип’s great granddaughter) who is named Евдокия in the confession records and Авдотья in the revision records, and in her case it is clear that it is the same woman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16508" RevisionGUID="4f2ceed9-150d-4f35-b99b-331c2df81edd" CreationDate="2018-06-02T23:32:05.290" UserId="5818" Text="Can a woman be тетка to her зять in any sense of the words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16508" RevisionGUID="4f2ceed9-150d-4f35-b99b-331c2df81edd" CreationDate="2018-06-02T23:32:05.290" UserId="5818" Text="|значения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="01dc8603-a228-482b-9a56-7198d80b5f51" CreationDate="2018-06-02T23:36:42.180" UserId="5584" Text="Почему «Директор зоопарка», но **«Заведующий зоопарком»**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Заведующий» здесь не существительное?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="01dc8603-a228-482b-9a56-7198d80b5f51" CreationDate="2018-06-02T23:36:42.180" UserId="5584" Text="Почему «Директор зоопарка», но «Заведующий зоопарком»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="01dc8603-a228-482b-9a56-7198d80b5f51" CreationDate="2018-06-02T23:36:42.180" UserId="5584" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="d819b37d-dbad-44c5-baf1-d52e6ef4d85e" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:11:55.400" UserId="10593" Text="Умней ли такой красавчик или красавица, чем другие ребята, добрее или способней?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello, I'm confused with the word умней, imperative of умнеть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you translate this sentence? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="d819b37d-dbad-44c5-baf1-d52e6ef4d85e" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:11:55.400" UserId="10593" Text="Здравствуйте, что это предложение значит?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16510" RevisionGUID="d819b37d-dbad-44c5-baf1-d52e6ef4d85e" CreationDate="2018-06-03T04:11:55.400" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41698" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16504" RevisionGUID="bc9307f2-ad98-46dd-9e59-dab0d1ccbe77" CreationDate="2018-06-03T05:06:07.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1003140751813902336" />
  <row Id="41699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16511" RevisionGUID="72f7a879-b2ee-438b-af0b-9cb6dc35af98" CreationDate="2018-06-03T06:02:28.240" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;Is it significant that an official record uses тетка instead of тётя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тётка is a more official form, so it was more appropriate to use it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I have precedent for another woman in a later generation (Осип’s great granddaughter) who is named Евдокия in the confession records and Авдотья in the revision records&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Авдотья is a simplified form of the name Евдокия (which is of a greek origin). In principle, from the bureaucratic point of view, the different name forms should be considered different no matter what, however, in practice the situation where one person goes under two names/forms isn't absolutely extraordinary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I want to know whether there is any support for the possibility that the two women listed in these two records are the same woman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, she must be named as &quot;_тёща_&quot; (mother-in-law), not &quot;_тётка_&quot; (aunt), however, it won't be a surprise if such a small mistake was done. So, of course, that was possible (or, I should say, quite probable)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16512" RevisionGUID="9c84861d-ba68-434e-a74a-875dfe302357" CreationDate="2018-06-03T06:42:32.703" UserId="7674" Text="[Wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/заведующий) утверждает, что &quot;заведующий&quot; - это существительное. Так же, как &quot;[управляющий](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/управляющий)&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Но очевидно, что это субстантивированные причастия, и с дополнением их принято согласовывать по модели причастий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опять же, в Wiktionary примеры предложений с этими словами содержат именно такой тип согласования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И [Грамота.ру](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=отделением) это подтверждает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *заместитель управляющего **отделением***.  &#xD;&#xA;Правильно: *работает в должности заведующего терапевтическим  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отделением***.  &#xD;&#xA;Слово заведующий управляет творительным падежом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41701" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16411" RevisionGUID="24b04e92-7a4f-429e-b28d-3fd809adb925" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:06:07.817" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1003186051538718720" />
  <row Id="41702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16513" RevisionGUID="e1c2985e-3e3a-47c0-b054-f5bc6b9fdd55" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:46:10.473" UserId="7674" Text="Since all the original records are handwritten, there's a chance that ***тётка*** is simply an erroneous reading of ***тёща*** written illegibly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine the combination of **ТК** kind of merging into а semblance of **Щ**, but to be able to corroborate this conjecture the actual text needs to be examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the gap between the ages of each person in two documents is different, in the 1st it's 15 years, while in the 2nd it's 18, could be an error but could also have significance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16513" RevisionGUID="d3fd76c3-f836-4989-b148-2eb4c524dc10" CreationDate="2018-06-03T08:53:26.727" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body" Text="Since all the original records are handwritten, there's a chance that ***тётка*** is simply an erroneous reading of ***тёща*** written illegibly, but to be able to corroborate this conjecture the actual text needs to be examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the gap between the ages of each person in two documents is different, in the 1st it's 15 years, while in the 2nd it's 18, could be an error but could also have significance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16513" RevisionGUID="dec70079-dd35-4890-8329-eff3fbb54fa5" CreationDate="2018-06-03T09:14:24.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Since all the original records are handwritten, there's a slim chance that ***тётка*** is simply an erroneous reading of ***тёща*** written illegibly, but to be able to corroborate this conjecture the actual text needs to be examined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand the gap between the ages of each person in two documents is different, in the 1st it's 15 years, while in the 2nd it's 18, could be an error but could also have significance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16514" RevisionGUID="0a1d7c57-d12a-48a2-850a-c815aec42a2e" CreationDate="2018-06-03T09:28:22.437" UserId="10578" Text="Well, &quot;тетка&quot; (written with &quot;e&quot;, BTW) wasn't considered an &quot;improper&quot; form of naming the relative in the 19th c. language (and even more so when peasants were considered).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regional dialects &quot;тетка&quot; and &quot;дядька&quot; were considered a polite form of addressing an unacquainted person older than the speaker, even in the 20th c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, the old woman might have gone to live &quot;on her son-in-law's bread&quot; (&quot;идти в приживалки&quot;), and so was named just like the older woman in the records.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt the possibility of mixing up the hand-written &quot;тк&quot; and &quot;щ&quot;. The 1st one has 4 vertical elements and nothing under the baseline, the 2nd one has 3 vertical elements and the loop under the baseline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16515" RevisionGUID="b0b2a5f3-6937-44ed-b15d-b86c7e3e3018" CreationDate="2018-06-03T09:31:51.387" UserId="10578" Text="Translatable as:&#xD;&#xA;Is this he-beauty or she-beauty *more clever* [&quot;умней&quot;] than the other guys, or more kind or more gifted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16516" RevisionGUID="4ea5b365-9eeb-40c8-a4a9-1ef82e3ee5a6" CreationDate="2018-06-03T21:12:28.723" UserId="6539" Text="Unfortunately your confusion is caused by the coincidence of two forms. &#xD;&#xA;The first is (in your version ) an imperative of the verb &quot;умнеть&quot; – умней, and the second is (in reality) the comparative from the adjective &quot;умный&quot; – умнее, or умней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Умней ли такой красавчик или красавица, чем другие ребята, добрее или способней? Is such a handsome boy or a beautiful girl **cleverer**, kinder, or more talented than other guys? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41709" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16394" RevisionGUID="983c2403-c3a8-4179-91cf-cda8245d26e1" CreationDate="2018-06-04T02:06:24.700" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1003457913292296194" />
  <row Id="41710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16517" RevisionGUID="72c895d6-ccfd-4945-86e7-be4b1df35015" CreationDate="2018-06-04T17:04:11.077" UserId="8794" Text="I was looking up the verb обнимать/обнять. [Wiktionary][1] says some very weird and confusing things about the “literary conjugation” of обнимать. The word объемлет, according to Wiktionary, does not correspond to any infinitive. But it is also a part of the literary conjugation of обнимать. This is oxymoronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me like the correct explanation is the following: объять is a verb that is neither perfective nor imperfective. It has both present-tense conjugation and future-tense conjugation: он объемлет (it includes), он обоймёт (it will include). It has no past imperfective, only past perfective: они объяли (they included).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please explain this strange verb объять, and what the connection is between объять and обнимать/обнять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16517" RevisionGUID="72c895d6-ccfd-4945-86e7-be4b1df35015" CreationDate="2018-06-04T17:04:11.077" UserId="8794" Text="What's up with объять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16517" RevisionGUID="72c895d6-ccfd-4945-86e7-be4b1df35015" CreationDate="2018-06-04T17:04:11.077" UserId="8794" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16518" RevisionGUID="de8b9a77-981d-47bc-952c-ef5360a856e1" CreationDate="2018-06-04T17:30:17.073" UserId="10578" Text="Just to the 2nd part of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words &quot;обнимать/обнять&quot; are the imperfective and perfective forms of the same verb, meaning &quot;to embrace/hug&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb &quot;объять&quot; is considered to be of rather high literary style, not usually encountered in oral speech. Meaning approx. &quot;to encompass [in the sense of including, containing something big in size/volume or well-extended]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cf. &quot;нельзя объять необъятное&quot; -- &quot;one can't encompass unencompassable&quot; in the sense &quot;don't disperse your efforts, concentrate&quot; or &quot;better leave this (subject, target) as is, it's too effort-consuming&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &quot;необъятные просторы&quot; -- &quot;unbounded vastnesses&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16512" RevisionGUID="fea706b0-0c27-4bbd-8290-16aeb8d0ddf3" CreationDate="2018-06-04T17:55:44.983" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1054 characters in body" Text="[Wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/заведующий) утверждает, что &quot;заведующий&quot; - это существительное. Так же, как &quot;[управляющий](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/управляющий)&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Но очевидно, что это субстантивированные причастия, и с дополнением их принято согласовывать по модели причастий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опять же, в Wiktionary примеры предложений с этими словами содержат именно такой тип согласования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И [Грамота.ру](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=отделением) это подтверждает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *заместитель управляющего **отделением***.  &#xD;&#xA;Правильно: *работает в должности заведующего терапевтическим  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отделением***.  &#xD;&#xA;Слово заведующий управляет творительным падежом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;[Субстантивированное причастие](http://pedlib.ru/Books/4/0038/4_0038-131.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 99. Переход причастий в прилагательные и существительные  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия могут употребляться также **в значении имени существительного**, т.е. **субстантивироваться.** Ср.: Поле, окружающее деревню. — Окружающее его утомляло. В предложении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; субстантивированные причастия являются подлежащим или дополнением:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Минувшее проходит предо мною. (П.) Мересьев устал от всего пережитого.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Б. Пол.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Борисоглебская Э.И., Гурченкова В.П., Курбыко А.Е. и др. Русский язык: Пособие для поступающих в вузы*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Субстантива́ция, или субстантиви́рование](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Субстантивация)&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (от лат. substantivum — существительное), — **переход в разряд имён&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных** других частей речи (прилагательных, глаголов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **причастий**, числительных), вследствие приобретения ими способности непосредственно указывать на предмет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * причастие: «командующий отдал приказ»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Wikipedia*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16512" RevisionGUID="bf9d0ec5-bd25-4bf4-a3cf-e761b211b441" CreationDate="2018-06-04T18:41:08.083" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="[Wiktionary](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/заведующий) утверждает, что &quot;заведующий&quot; - это, в частности, существительное. Так же, как &quot;[управляющий](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/управляющий)&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;Но очевидно, что это субстантивированные причастия, и с дополнением их принято согласовывать по модели причастий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Опять же, в Wiktionary примеры предложений с этими словами содержат именно такой тип согласования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И [Грамота.ру](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer?s=отделением) это подтверждает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правильно: *заместитель управляющего **отделением***.  &#xD;&#xA;Правильно: *работает в должности заведующего терапевтическим  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отделением***.  &#xD;&#xA;Слово заведующий управляет творительным падежом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;[Субстантивированное причастие](http://pedlib.ru/Books/4/0038/4_0038-131.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 99. Переход причастий в прилагательные и существительные  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причастия могут употребляться также **в значении имени существительного**, т.е. **субстантивироваться.** Ср.: Поле, окружающее деревню. — Окружающее его утомляло. В предложении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; субстантивированные причастия являются подлежащим или дополнением:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Минувшее проходит предо мною. (П.) Мересьев устал от всего пережитого.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Б. Пол.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Борисоглебская Э.И., Гурченкова В.П., Курбыко А.Е. и др. Русский язык: Пособие для поступающих в вузы*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Субстантива́ция, или субстантиви́рование](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Субстантивация)&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (от лат. substantivum — существительное), — **переход в разряд имён&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительных** других частей речи (прилагательных, глаголов,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **причастий**, числительных), вследствие приобретения ими способности непосредственно указывать на предмет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * причастие: «командующий отдал приказ»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Wikipedia*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16519" RevisionGUID="720097dd-23c6-430d-960a-9ad043257fa3" CreationDate="2018-06-04T19:06:26.237" UserId="2104" Text="According to the [Russian Wiktionary][1], **объемлет** is 3rd person present of the imperfective **обымать**. The infinitive **обымать** is archaic but its other forms are still used and are considered high / literary / poetic style:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Как океан **объемлет** шар земной, Земная жизнь кругом **объята** снами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a table that sums up the four verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;| Imperfective | Perfective |&#xD;&#xA;| ------------ | ---------- |&#xD;&#xA;| обнимать     | обнять     |&#xD;&#xA;| обымать      | обять      |&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16517" RevisionGUID="163dff10-4608-4c02-8de5-31df4556e295" CreationDate="2018-06-04T19:59:04.227" UserId="8794" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I was looking up the verb *обнимать*/*обнять*. [Wiktionary][1] says some very weird and confusing things about the “literary conjugation” of *обнимать*. The word *объемлет*, according to Wiktionary, does not correspond to any infinitive. But it is also a part of the literary conjugation of *обнимать*. This is oxymoronic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me like the correct explanation is the following: *объять* is a verb that is neither perfective nor imperfective. It has both present-tense conjugation and future-tense conjugation: *он объемлет* (it encompasses) and *он обоймёт* (it will encompass). It has no past imperfective, only past perfective: *они объяли* (they encompassed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please explain the verb *объять*, and what the connection is between *объять* and *обнимать/обнять*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16519" RevisionGUID="5249fbdd-e568-4df4-b4d3-83a2d4785732" CreationDate="2018-06-04T23:16:36.873" UserId="4903" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="According to the [Russian Wiktionary][1], **объемлет** is 3rd person present of the imperfective **обымать**. The infinitive **обымать** is archaic but its other forms are still used and are considered high / literary / poetic style:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Как океан **объемлет** шар земной, Земная жизнь кругом **объята** снами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a table that sums up the four verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;| Imperfective | Perfective |&#xD;&#xA;| ------------ | ---------- |&#xD;&#xA;| обнимать     | обнять     |&#xD;&#xA;| обымать      | объять     |&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16521" RevisionGUID="fab127e2-83c2-4f53-96ea-52b26e653e04" CreationDate="2018-06-04T23:26:29.443" UserId="2079" Text="I'll start from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The verb заведовать means to manage, to supervise. (Below I'll translate it as to supervise.) This verb, along with similar verbs (руководить, управлять, править, командовать), governs instrumental case: руководить предприятием, управлять государством, командовать армией, заведовать складом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Заведующий is a participle (причастие) made from this verb.  In Russian, participles govern the same cases as their respective verbs. So, заведующий also governs instrumental case: заведовать зоопарком -&gt; мужчина, заведующий зоопарком. If заведовать is to supervise, then мужчина, заведующий складом is a man who supervises the zoo, a man supervising the zoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Thе noun phrase заведующий зоопарком should be translated, most literally, as one who supervises the zoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Here заведующий is called &quot;substantiated participle&quot;. In simple terms, it means the participle is now &quot;working as a noun&quot;. That doesn't matter, really. The word заведующий still governs instrumental case, no matter what. Semantically, it is a noun, but grammatically, it remains a participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Similarly, for example, if a profession &quot;любящий зоопарк&quot; existed, the word зоопарк would be in accusative, because the verb любить governs accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. What about the word директор? There is no story behing it. It is just a boring, plain noun. As any noun, it governs genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16521" RevisionGUID="63b75445-0454-4fe2-926c-7a82ad6e04ec" CreationDate="2018-06-04T23:34:33.147" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="I'll start from the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The verb `заведовать` means `to manage`, `to supervise`. (Below I'll translate it as `to supervise`.) This verb, along with similar verbs (`руководить`, `управлять`, `править`, `командовать`), governs instrumental case: `руководить предприятием`, `управлять государством`, `командовать армией`, `заведовать складом`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. `Заведующий` is a participle (причастие) made from this verb.  In Russian, participles govern the same cases as their respective verbs. So, `заведующий` also governs instrumental case: `заведовать зоопарком` -&gt; `заведующий зоопарком`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Thе noun phrase `заведующий зоопарком` should be translated, most literally, as `one who supervises the zoo`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. In this noun phrase, `заведующий` is a &quot;substantiated participle&quot;. In simple terms, it means the participle is now &quot;working as a noun&quot;. That is not important for our purposes. The word `заведующий` still governs instrumental case, no matter what. Semantically, it is a noun in this expression, but grammatically, it remains a participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Similarly, for example, if a profession &quot;любящий зоопарк&quot; existed, the word `зоопарк` would be in accusative, because the verb `любить` governs accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. What about the word `директор`? There is no story behing it. It is just a boring, plain noun. As any noun, it governs genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16523" RevisionGUID="7118c625-1515-4d8a-ad59-c8c3890941df" CreationDate="2018-06-05T11:54:39.760" UserId="2238" Text="The situation is diachronically unpleasant. The -н- in обнимать and обнять is an innovation replacing older forms which would give обымать and объять. (Cf. 3rd person pronoun's forms with н after prepositions, which are themselves due to reanalysis of forms like вън его &gt; въ него (&gt; в него) and further analogy.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the verbs, -н-forms (понимать, донимать, etc.) have all but expelled from Russian -н-less-forms. However, объять (and, to a lesser extent, its imperfective pair обымать) was maintained by Church Slavonic (CS) influence, where -н-forms do not seem to have won (except for prefix в &lt; въ &lt; вън, cf. внять - внимать - внемлет). Объемлет is itself a CS correlate to обнимает with another imperfective affix (*-j &gt; л, not a); aspectual distinction was yet fuzzy in CS, so объемлет was taken as, so to say, habitual present form (though not continuous, which would still be обымает expelled by обнимает).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synchronically, however, Wiktionary's analysis seems to be the best: объемлет would have infinitive обымать but the verb has no prescriptively approved infinitive stem (and therefore no past as well). So the imperfective pair of объять is largely defective, having only finite present forms (and present participles объемлющий and объемлемый; I do not want to be engaged in a discussion of whether participles are verb forms). Of course, the situation does somewhat remind the situation with biaspectuals like казнить, женить and many -овать verbs, but the latter use the same form for perfective future and (necessarily imperfective) present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16524" RevisionGUID="0d547b56-acf6-46c4-be67-74ac91da724f" CreationDate="2018-06-06T03:50:21.580" UserId="10631" Text="В электроэнергетике есть термин, в употреблении которого никак не удаётся прийти к консенсусу: часть энергетиков говорит &quot;оценка состояния&quot;, часть - &quot;оценивание состояния&quot;. Есть ли какая-то разница с лингвистической точки зрения? Какое слово в каком случае следует употреблять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16524" RevisionGUID="0d547b56-acf6-46c4-be67-74ac91da724f" CreationDate="2018-06-06T03:50:21.580" UserId="10631" Text="В чём разница между &quot;оценка&quot; и &quot;оценивание&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16524" RevisionGUID="0d547b56-acf6-46c4-be67-74ac91da724f" CreationDate="2018-06-06T03:50:21.580" UserId="10631" Text="|стилистика|терминология|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16525" RevisionGUID="6add26fd-35bb-4234-9ebc-8aeba079635e" CreationDate="2018-06-06T04:16:25.617" UserId="10578" Text="И &quot;оценка&quot;, и &quot;оценивание&quot; могут означать действие, процесс; &quot;оценка&quot;, кроме того, может означать итог, результат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вероятнее всего, речь о личных предпочтениях говорящих, одни из которых предпочитают проводить это различие (или переняли речевой оборот у предпочитавших это различие), для других же это не столь важно. Или даже случайность выбора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ведь этого нет в нормативных документах?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16526" RevisionGUID="294a65ef-7b65-4ec7-b729-4adba0f9dc1a" CreationDate="2018-06-06T04:38:54.093" UserId="6539" Text="Существительное «оценка» гораздо многозначнее, чем «оценивание». Вот основные значения:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ОЦЕ́НКА, оценки, жен.&#xD;&#xA;1. только ед. Действие по гл. оценить-оценивать. Произвести оценку имущества.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном значении оно синонимично существительному « оценивание». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. Назначенная или определенная кем-нибудь стоимость, цена. Низкая оценка. Высокая оценка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. Мнение, суждение, высказанное о качествах кого-чего-нибудь. Правильная оценка чьих-нибудь поступков. Дать настоящую оценку кому-чему-нибудь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-3 значения являются результатом первого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4. Школьный балл, отметка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вам надо учитывать, идет ли речь о процессе (**оценивание/оценка**) или о результате(**оценка**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16527" RevisionGUID="2b2f5df4-910a-4659-8a18-aa6589a8283e" CreationDate="2018-06-06T05:34:51.447" UserId="5443" Text="**Оценивание** (чего-либо) может означать *только* **действие** (завершающееся *оценкой*), поэтому слово может употребляться *вне контекста*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Оценка** (чего-либо) может иметь как смысл **действия оценивания**, так и смысл **результата оценивания** (например, количественного). Поэтому для распознания значения слова *обязателен контекст*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16528" RevisionGUID="9dcff002-9f17-44e1-8f10-3153a7ed7bf2" CreationDate="2018-06-06T06:50:24.887" UserId="7674" Text="В Гугле при поиске закавыченных терминов &quot;[оценивание состояния](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1274&amp;bih=893&amp;ei=8n8XW6GFE8TYgAaAubfoCw&amp;q=%22%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;oq=%22%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...122365.124910.0.135854.2.2.0.0.0.0.154.280.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.1AAjB4HyO6Y)&quot; и &quot;[оценка состояния](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1274&amp;bih=893&amp;ei=1H8XW-z0NcytgAbS1qKQAg&amp;q=%22%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;oq=%22%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3...116288.118717.0.119250.2.2.0.0.0.0.154.297.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.9zuU0NTcB28)&quot; в сочетании со словом &quot;электроэнергетика&quot; результатов по первому запросу примерно в 27 раз меньше, чем по второму (более 2000 против более 54 000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [предложении](http://isem.irk.ru/publications/503/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассматривается задача **оценивания** состояния электроэнергетических&#xD;&#xA;&gt; систем (ЭЭС) по текущим значениям наблюдаемых параметров этих систем.&#xD;&#xA;Оценивание состояния электроэнергетической системы: алгоритмы и примеры решения линеаризованных задач&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Гурина Л.А., Зоркальцев В.И., Колосок И.Н., Коркина Е.С., Мокрый И.В. &quot;Оценивание состояния электроэнергетической системы: алгоритмы и примеры решения линеаризованных задач&quot;, ИСЭМ СО РАН ISBN: 978-5-93908-148-1, 2016*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на мой взгляд можно применить и слово &quot;**оценка**&quot;, так как из контекста (фраза: *задача оценивания*) уже понятно, что речь идёт о *действии*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Соглашаясь с другими ответами, считаю, что &quot;**оценка**&quot; менее специфично, в то время как &quot;**оценивание**&quot; более уместно в контекстах, где необходимо подчеркнуть именно значение *действия*. Кроме того,  стилистически на мой вкус &quot;**оценивание**&quot; звучит несколько громоздко и напоминает канцелярит,  потому я бы воздержался от его применения без нужды." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16508" RevisionGUID="b3df2e26-c6fe-4738-9c5f-e57fe4662808" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:12:28.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1004365407875207168" />
  <row Id="41733" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16509" RevisionGUID="8e779982-63f8-449f-8be6-d7c4ec594da5" CreationDate="2018-06-06T17:12:28.300" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1004410706328989699" />
  <row Id="41740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16530" RevisionGUID="b450fbf9-35cb-41dc-a103-3bbe31be85d1" CreationDate="2018-06-07T05:25:23.527" UserId="10593" Text="Каждый  коротышка  был  ростом  с  небольшой&#xD;&#xA;огурец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am translating it as every small person was of the size of small cucumber?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am confused about the case, why is cucumber in accusative or nominative and why use с небольшой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16530" RevisionGUID="b450fbf9-35cb-41dc-a103-3bbe31be85d1" CreationDate="2018-06-07T05:25:23.527" UserId="10593" Text="How is огурец used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16530" RevisionGUID="b450fbf9-35cb-41dc-a103-3bbe31be85d1" CreationDate="2018-06-07T05:25:23.527" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="acc3c84d-bc98-42d4-aad4-cfd5506dc2cd" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:02:24.263" UserId="7674" Text="This is one of adverbial constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="d436280f-4097-4753-8f35-65c8beae871a" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:08:45.650" UserId="7674" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="This is one of adverbial constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and uneducated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="b6e31452-256f-4254-9132-c13a3a01b1ca" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:16:46.697" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and uneducated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="d64b9d49-8057-4281-93e4-9c1c20c9aca4" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:21:55.050" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="35dc24d2-cbea-48bd-8ef9-cb279db0eecd" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:38:41.753" UserId="7674" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures to be translated `as big/small/long/short etc. ... as`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="1361ab69-b2b3-43de-8c54-34e0608e735f" CreationDate="2018-06-07T07:43:51.387" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures to be translated `as big/small/long/short etc. ... as...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="1f7a62cf-7783-4c05-aaac-0073c5ce8c6d" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:47:38.167" UserId="9058" Comment="сО что" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures to be translated `as big/small/long/short etc. ... as...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? со что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="4e0b8fd5-4e1e-4a44-9023-044de55de0b4" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:50:03.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A close to literal translation would be **`OF THE`**`size/length/width/height/depth etc.`**`OF`***`...`*&#xD;&#xA;but a more idiomatic one is **`AS`**`big/small/long/short/high/low/deep etc. `**`AS`***`...`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16532" RevisionGUID="519bf34e-5954-4e4a-91d4-ca14d879570e" CreationDate="2018-06-07T10:49:03.673" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;Небольшой&quot; is perceived as slightly bigger than &quot;маленький&quot;, but not yet so big as &quot;big&quot;. Think &quot;medium or just a tad bigger&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;коротышка&quot;, being the quasi-race name, would be better translated as, e.g., &quot;shortling&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="762b2d62-ad6e-4374-b055-149bd980ed63" CreationDate="2018-06-07T11:24:32.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An approximation of literal translation would be   &#xD;&#xA;**`OF THE`**`size/length/width/height/depth etc.`**`OF`***`...`*  &#xD;&#xA;but a more idiomatic one is   &#xD;&#xA;**`AS`**`big/small/long/short/high/low/deep etc. `**`AS`***`...`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But these words differ in their register. **Маленький** tends to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16533" RevisionGUID="28306210-b16c-423d-bc1e-7a2d3d9e1183" CreationDate="2018-06-07T13:40:14.247" UserId="9100" Text="Это вроде как человек загордился?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16533" RevisionGUID="28306210-b16c-423d-bc1e-7a2d3d9e1183" CreationDate="2018-06-07T13:40:14.247" UserId="9100" Text="Что значит выросла корона?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16533" RevisionGUID="28306210-b16c-423d-bc1e-7a2d3d9e1183" CreationDate="2018-06-07T13:40:14.247" UserId="9100" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16530" RevisionGUID="d9e531f8-4b89-4556-b9a9-3c388acbd911" CreationDate="2018-06-07T14:20:32.663" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1004729827432247296" />
  <row Id="41757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16534" RevisionGUID="f8bcbf57-4134-4fca-97a7-4cfa81aa42fa" CreationDate="2018-06-07T14:25:23.797" UserId="310" Text="This term is employed in narrow context of a [popular Russian relations psychology blogger][1]. In that context it (very roughly) means a sudden build-up of illusions of self-importance to other party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не &quot;загордился&quot;, а скорее &quot;перестал видеть настоящее отношение к себе и стал видеть выдуманное&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used outside of this context it might mean anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://evo-lutio.livejournal.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16533" RevisionGUID="9886ad79-b5bc-43ff-9abb-02b1d2d757a2" CreationDate="2018-06-07T14:37:21.993" UserId="9100" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Это вроде как человек загордился?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: &quot;после получения диплома, у него тройная корона выросла.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="8afcc3e7-57e8-46dd-923e-fa561da024d6" CreationDate="2018-06-07T15:11:40.250" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An approximation of literal translation would be   &#xD;&#xA;**`OF THE`**`size/length/width/height/depth etc.`**`OF`***`...`*  &#xD;&#xA;but a more idiomatic one is   &#xD;&#xA;**`AS`**`big/small/long/short/high/low/deep etc. `**`AS`***`...`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But in this context these words differ in their register. **Маленький** would tend to be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="be0abb96-b2d3-4a28-87f5-037d909108f8" CreationDate="2018-06-07T15:25:19.680" UserId="7674" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. королевских замашек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="502cad91-1bd1-4b01-9240-aa016229a16b" CreationDate="2018-06-07T15:30:46.790" UserId="7674" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. королевских замашек или используется для саркастического обозначения чувства собственного достоинства в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="88bb5ab6-1eb1-4fe0-a13f-db5bdd113931" CreationDate="2018-06-07T15:37:40.510" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An approximation of literal translation would be   &#xD;&#xA;**`OF THE`**`size/length/width/height/depth etc.`**`OF`***`...`*  &#xD;&#xA;but a more idiomatic one is   &#xD;&#xA;**`AS`**`big/small/long/short/high/low/deep etc. `**`AS`***`...`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But in this context these words differ in their register. **Маленький** could be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="f2395dbb-8211-4c98-9f74-786dde7cebe2" CreationDate="2018-06-07T15:50:57.257" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="9fac2630-d4f6-47ab-912f-8b3211b05b9c" CreationDate="2018-06-07T17:44:01.890" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2147 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства и самоуважения в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос.&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гугл выражение &quot;корона не упадёт&quot; впервые фиксирует в [2002 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2002%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;ei=ImwZW7PBH9DXgQa64YPYDQ&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l9.4427.6690.0.7203.2.2.0.0.0.0.160.315.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.299...0i7i30i19k1j0i19k1j0i8i30i19k1.0.wYaMIp8sfuM) со всего 4-мя вхождениями. В [2004-м](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2004%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2004&amp;ei=hWwZW7KPCMONgAaaw7WwCg&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.932.932.0.1679.1.1.0.0.0.0.151.151.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.150....0.YerrA2exDoE) и [2005-м](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2005&amp;tbm=) впервые фиксирует его в форме &quot;корона не упала&quot;, но только во вхождении 2005 г. оно на мой взгляд имеет самостоятельную семантическую ценность, а не является просто формой, модифицированной под влиянием союза *чтобы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение &quot;корона выросла&quot; впервые Гуглом зафиксировано в [2005 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2005&amp;ei=YW4ZW5mJFsPvgAbQvbKQCg&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.1525.2902.0.3147.3.2.1.0.0.0.148.286.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.285....0.RiQXYG5GpH0) всего одним вхождением&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо за совет дорогие домовые только дельного мало, вы что с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посторонними вообще не общаетесь или **корона выросла**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующая фиксация - только в [2008 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&amp;ei=zG8ZW9qqM4rTgAaCx4egCQ&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.803.803.0.1275.1.1.0.0.0.0.155.155.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.155....0.q3ntD8Hu3_0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="06335755-f361-4ed5-87fb-33899de975b5" CreationDate="2018-06-07T18:04:18.793" UserId="7674" Comment="added 779 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства и самоуважения в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос.&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Гугл выражение **&quot;корона не упадёт&quot;** впервые фиксирует в [2002 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2002%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;ei=ImwZW7PBH9DXgQa64YPYDQ&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l9.4427.6690.0.7203.2.2.0.0.0.0.160.315.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.299...0i7i30i19k1j0i19k1j0i8i30i19k1.0.wYaMIp8sfuM) со всего 4-мя вхождениями. В [2004-м](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2004%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2004&amp;ei=hWwZW7KPCMONgAaaw7WwCg&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.932.932.0.1679.1.1.0.0.0.0.151.151.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.150....0.YerrA2exDoE) и [2005-м](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2005&amp;tbm=) впервые фиксирует его в форме **&quot;корона не упала&quot;**, но только во вхождении 2005 г. оно на мой взгляд имеет самостоятельную семантическую ценность, а не является просто формой, модифицированной под влиянием союза *чтобы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение **&quot;корона выросла&quot;** впервые Гуглом зафиксировано в [2005 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2005&amp;ei=YW4ZW5mJFsPvgAbQvbKQCg&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.1525.2902.0.3147.3.2.1.0.0.0.148.286.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.285....0.RiQXYG5GpH0) всего одним вхождением&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо за совет дорогие домовые только дельного мало, вы что с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посторонними вообще не общаетесь или **корона выросла**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующая фиксация - только в [2008 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&amp;ei=zG8ZW9qqM4rTgAaCx4egCQ&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.803.803.0.1275.1.1.0.0.0.0.155.155.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.155....0.q3ntD8Hu3_0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В утвердительной форме **&quot;корона упала&quot;** со смыслом &quot;перестать важничать, стать проще&quot; и &quot;унизиться&quot; впервые фиксируется в [2012 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/31/2012&amp;ei=WXEZW57hJsOCgAbC-6_wBQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, да! Моя доча 3,5 лет на себе ощутила тайскую любоффь))) Она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время была в недоумении, почему, кроме мамы и папы, её тискают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; незнакомые иностранные граждане ))))....Ну, а дома то **&quot;корона упала&quot;** и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она еще долго вспоминала дружелюбный тайский народ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; странно, конечно, 2 минуты сидеть и записывать - это по-мужски,&#xD;&#xA; йоптыть... выйти и помочь - **это ж корона упала бы, да**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="7863c8f5-0561-4751-bd2e-123c5e3f7a17" CreationDate="2018-06-07T18:32:19.647" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 296 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства и самоуважения в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос.&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [1999 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;ei=FHkZW62rIMKVsgGw_oPwBw&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1.9882.11674.0.12129.6.6.0.0.0.0.182.494.0j3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.2.329...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i7i5i30k1.0.taRQ2xBqTCU) Гугл впервые фиксирует выражение &quot;корона не упала&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни у кого **корона не упала** перевестись на заочное и пойти работать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; растить и СОДЕРЖАТЬ детей, работать и получать высшее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а **&quot;корона не упадёт&quot;** впервые фиксируется в [2002 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;tbm=)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но, как говорится, с их головы **корона не упадет**, если они признают,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ни одно открытие их в этом направлении современной науке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение **&quot;корона выросла&quot;** впервые Гуглом зафиксировано в [2005 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2005&amp;ei=fnoZW-6KII2TmgWNvaCgBQ&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.1391.1391.0.1920.1.1.0.0.0.0.165.165.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.165....0.GDwZgMI6nEg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо за совет дорогие домовые только дельного мало, вы что с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посторонними вообще не общаетесь или **корона выросла**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Следующая фиксация - только в [2008 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&amp;ei=zG8ZW9qqM4rTgAaCx4egCQ&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.803.803.0.1275.1.1.0.0.0.0.155.155.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.155....0.q3ntD8Hu3_0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В утвердительной форме **&quot;корона упала&quot;** со смыслом &quot;перестать важничать, стать проще&quot; и &quot;унизиться&quot; впервые фиксируется в [2012 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/31/2012&amp;ei=WXEZW57hJsOCgAbC-6_wBQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, да! Моя доча 3,5 лет на себе ощутила тайскую любоффь))) Она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время была в недоумении, почему, кроме мамы и папы, её тискают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; незнакомые иностранные граждане ))))....Ну, а дома то **&quot;корона упала&quot;** и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она еще долго вспоминала дружелюбный тайский народ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; странно, конечно, 2 минуты сидеть и записывать - это по-мужски,&#xD;&#xA; йоптыть... выйти и помочь - **это ж корона упала бы, да**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="b385685b-c488-4923-b41f-968d3bd73390" CreationDate="2018-06-07T18:40:16.907" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 397 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения, если оно существует в виде фразеологизма, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства и самоуважения в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос.&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [1999 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;ei=FHkZW62rIMKVsgGw_oPwBw&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1.9882.11674.0.12129.6.6.0.0.0.0.182.494.0j3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.2.329...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i7i5i30k1.0.taRQ2xBqTCU) Гугл впервые фиксирует выражение &quot;корона не упала&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни у кого **корона не упала** перевестись на заочное и пойти работать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; растить и СОДЕРЖАТЬ детей, работать и получать высшее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а **&quot;корона не упадёт&quot;** впервые фиксируется в [2002 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;tbm=)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но, как говорится, с их головы **корона не упадет**, если они признают,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ни одно открытие их в этом направлении современной науке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение **&quot;корона выросла&quot;** впервые Гуглом зафиксировано в [2005 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&amp;ei=vXsZW-mcCLSSmgX13rzwCA&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1j0i8i30k1l2.47101.48318.0.48732.7.7.0.0.0.0.330.896.0j2j1j1.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.2.516...0i19k1j0i7i30i19k1.0.O5mjcaCbmGY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо за совет дорогие домовые только дельного мало, вы что с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посторонними вообще не общаетесь или **корона выросла**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;следующая фиксация - только в 2008 г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот у девушки-мастера в какой-то момент такая **корона выросла**, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это стало отражаться на обслуживании клиентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В утвердительной форме **&quot;корона упала&quot;** со смыслом &quot;перестать важничать, стать проще&quot; и &quot;унизиться&quot; впервые фиксируется в [2012 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/31/2012&amp;ei=WXEZW57hJsOCgAbC-6_wBQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, да! Моя доча 3,5 лет на себе ощутила тайскую любоффь))) Она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время была в недоумении, почему, кроме мамы и папы, её тискают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; незнакомые иностранные граждане ))))....Ну, а дома то **&quot;корона упала&quot;** и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она еще долго вспоминала дружелюбный тайский народ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; странно, конечно, 2 минуты сидеть и записывать - это по-мужски,&#xD;&#xA; йоптыть... выйти и помочь - **это ж корона упала бы, да**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="b0f338b4-1d46-4c71-b994-d94f44fadb86" CreationDate="2018-06-07T19:27:02.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения и можно ли его признать уже оформившимся фразеологизмом, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства и самоуважения в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос.&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [1999 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;ei=FHkZW62rIMKVsgGw_oPwBw&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1.9882.11674.0.12129.6.6.0.0.0.0.182.494.0j3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.2.329...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i7i5i30k1.0.taRQ2xBqTCU) Гугл впервые фиксирует выражение &quot;корона не упала&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни у кого **корона не упала** перевестись на заочное и пойти работать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; растить и СОДЕРЖАТЬ детей, работать и получать высшее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а **&quot;корона не упадёт&quot;** впервые фиксируется в [2002 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;tbm=)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но, как говорится, с их головы **корона не упадет**, если они признают,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ни одно открытие их в этом направлении современной науке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение **&quot;корона выросла&quot;** впервые Гуглом зафиксировано в [2005 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&amp;ei=vXsZW-mcCLSSmgX13rzwCA&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1j0i8i30k1l2.47101.48318.0.48732.7.7.0.0.0.0.330.896.0j2j1j1.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.2.516...0i19k1j0i7i30i19k1.0.O5mjcaCbmGY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо за совет дорогие домовые только дельного мало, вы что с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посторонними вообще не общаетесь или **корона выросла**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;следующая фиксация - только в 2008 г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот у девушки-мастера в какой-то момент такая **корона выросла**, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это стало отражаться на обслуживании клиентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В утвердительной форме **&quot;корона упала&quot;** со смыслом &quot;перестать важничать, стать проще&quot; и &quot;унизиться&quot; впервые фиксируется в [2012 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/31/2012&amp;ei=WXEZW57hJsOCgAbC-6_wBQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, да! Моя доча 3,5 лет на себе ощутила тайскую любоффь))) Она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время была в недоумении, почему, кроме мамы и папы, её тискают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; незнакомые иностранные граждане ))))....Ну, а дома то **&quot;корона упала&quot;** и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она еще долго вспоминала дружелюбный тайский народ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; странно, конечно, 2 минуты сидеть и записывать - это по-мужски,&#xD;&#xA; йоптыть... выйти и помочь - **это ж корона упала бы, да**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16535" RevisionGUID="16796f9c-1af3-4f28-9a42-e3fd34ff5b35" CreationDate="2018-06-07T19:43:57.233" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Не знаю источника происхождения этого выражения и можно ли его признать уже оформившимся фразеологизмом, но мне оно понятно без связи с какими-либо блогами, как вариант выражения ***корона не упадёт*** и ему подобных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слово **корона** в современном разговорном языке, насколько я заметил, приобрело переносное значение *завышенного самомнения*, *заносчивости*, т.е. архетипически королевских замашек, или используется для саркастического и пренебрежительного обозначения чувства собственного достоинства и самоуважения в негативных высказываниях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому я понимаю предложение в том смысле, что после получения диплома у человека непропорционально и неоправданно выросла самооценка, человек стал себя переоценивать, стал заноситься, задрал нос.&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В [1999 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;ei=FHkZW62rIMKVsgGw_oPwBw&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1.9882.11674.0.12129.6.6.0.0.0.0.182.494.0j3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.2.329...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i7i5i30k1.0.taRQ2xBqTCU) Гугл впервые фиксирует выражение **&quot;корона не упала&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни у кого **корона не упала** перевестись на заочное и пойти работать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; растить и СОДЕРЖАТЬ детей, работать и получать высшее&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;а **&quot;корона не упадёт&quot;** впервые фиксируется в [2002 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&amp;tbm=)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но, как говорится, с их головы **корона не упадет**, если они признают,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ни одно открытие их в этом направлении современной науке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Выражение **&quot;корона выросла&quot;** впервые Гуглом зафиксировано в [2005 г.](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2008&amp;ei=vXsZW-mcCLSSmgX13rzwCA&amp;q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;oq=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1j0i8i30k1l2.47101.48318.0.48732.7.7.0.0.0.0.330.896.0j2j1j1.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.2.516...0i19k1j0i7i30i19k1.0.O5mjcaCbmGY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Спасибо за совет дорогие домовые только дельного мало, вы что с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посторонними вообще не общаетесь или **корона выросла**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;следующая фиксация - только в 2008 г.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так вот у девушки-мастера в какой-то момент такая **корона выросла**, что&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это стало отражаться на обслуживании клиентов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В утвердительной форме **&quot;корона упала&quot;** со смыслом &quot;перестать важничать, стать проще&quot; и &quot;унизиться&quot; впервые фиксируется в [2012 г.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2012,cd_max:12/31/2012&amp;ei=WXEZW57hJsOCgAbC-6_wBQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;biw=1279&amp;bih=891)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, да! Моя доча 3,5 лет на себе ощутила тайскую любоффь))) Она всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; время была в недоумении, почему, кроме мамы и папы, её тискают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; незнакомые иностранные граждане ))))....Ну, а дома то **&quot;корона упала&quot;** и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она еще долго вспоминала дружелюбный тайский народ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; странно, конечно, 2 минуты сидеть и записывать - это по-мужски,&#xD;&#xA; йоптыть... выйти и помочь - **это ж корона упала бы, да**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16531" RevisionGUID="e275d513-35da-442d-8b25-97ee543e6b6a" CreationDate="2018-06-07T20:10:26.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="**1** This is one of adjectival constructions in Russian to denote likeness in terms of measures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **размером с** горошину  `as small as a pea`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ростом с** мизинец `as short as a pinkie`   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **весом с** пудовую гирю  `as heavy as a 16 kg weight`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; рептилия **длиной с** автобус  `a reptile as long as a bus`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **глубиной с** Марианскую впадину  `as deep as Mariana Trench`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**толщиной с** бревно  `as thick as a log`  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;**шириной с** футбольное поле `as wide as a football field`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these the preposition **C** governs Accusative case because it implies a question **c кого? с что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An approximation of literal translation would be   &#xD;&#xA;**`OF THE`**`size/length/width/height/depth etc.`**`OF`***`...`*  &#xD;&#xA;but a more idiomatic one is   &#xD;&#xA;**`AS`**`big/small/long/short/high/low/deep etc. `**`AS`***`...`*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A word denoting a type of dimension or quality (**размером**, **высотой**, **шириной**, **длиной** etc) can be omitted if it's clear from the context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; помидор &lt;strike&gt;размером&lt;/strike&gt; с горошину  &#xD;&#xA;кулак &lt;strike&gt;величиной&lt;/strike&gt; с пудовую гирю  &#xD;&#xA;змеи &lt;strike&gt;толщиной&lt;/strike&gt; с бревно  &#xD;&#xA;сосиски &lt;strike&gt;длиной&lt;/strike&gt; с мизинец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2** Instead of **небольшой** one can use **маленький** as well. But in this context these words differ in their register. **Маленький** could be perceived as belonging to a primitive language, like that of children and  poorly educated speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="2fce84f9-afbd-410e-9a9c-fa96a35c2572" CreationDate="2018-06-08T01:43:13.350" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Even in the most **peaceful region**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: &quot;even in the most **peaceful** of **regions**, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;something being the case even in the most extreme circumstances&quot;, in English you can go with either &quot;peaceful(singular) / region(singular)&quot; or &quot;peaceful(singular) / regions(plural)&quot; with some nuances of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder how you idiomatically say this in Russian. Should both &quot;мирном&quot; and &quot;краю&quot; be in the singular, following the exact same pattern as its English counterpart? Or is it more common to use some other *singular-plural* combination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Даже в самом **мирном** **краю** ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="2fce84f9-afbd-410e-9a9c-fa96a35c2572" CreationDate="2018-06-08T01:43:13.350" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of the superlative expression “even in the most peaceful region”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="2fce84f9-afbd-410e-9a9c-fa96a35c2572" CreationDate="2018-06-08T01:43:13.350" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16537" RevisionGUID="7f72d176-cdef-467c-a3c6-9bfa08f05d7b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T04:08:53.757" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Делать что-то – **дело хорошее, но** бывает, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;it's all very well doing A, but sometimes it's best to do B&quot;, I wonder if the phrasing above sounds idiomatic enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we commonly say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's **all very well** doing A, but shouldn't we do B first?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: It's **all well and good/dandy** to do ..., but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16537" RevisionGUID="7f72d176-cdef-467c-a3c6-9bfa08f05d7b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T04:08:53.757" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of the idiomatic expression “It's all very well doing …”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16537" RevisionGUID="7f72d176-cdef-467c-a3c6-9bfa08f05d7b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T04:08:53.757" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="c1d75cbb-81c4-4226-a3ba-9f0936bc3a54" CreationDate="2018-06-08T04:22:02.960" UserId="8672" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt;Even in the most **peaceful region**, something happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: &quot;even in the most **peaceful** of **regions**, ...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;something being the case even in the most extreme circumstances&quot;, in English you can go with either &quot;peaceful(singular) / region(singular)&quot; or &quot;peaceful(singular) / regions(plural)&quot; with some nuances of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder how you idiomatically say this in Russian. Should both &quot;мирном&quot; and &quot;краю&quot; be in the singular, following the exact same pattern as its English counterpart? Or is it more common to use some other *singular-plural* combination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Даже в самом **мирном** **краю** ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16538" RevisionGUID="3478a1d8-10ed-471f-bc64-25505f6d10f2" CreationDate="2018-06-08T05:59:34.107" UserId="7674" Text="Your rendering is correct. Plural can also be used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже в самом мирном **из &lt;sup&gt;out of&lt;/sup&gt;** (всех) краёв...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;constructed virtually identical to the English  `most peaceful [out] of [all] regions`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form is less common than the first one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16539" RevisionGUID="35bc9f74-96df-4c22-a23b-370ac4de2c0f" CreationDate="2018-06-08T06:12:22.877" UserId="7674" Text="Your rendering is OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a more idiomatic example could look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотреть фильмы - это конечно хорошо/чудесно/замечательно, но может быть сначала нужно/стоит сделать уроки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16539" RevisionGUID="19cc54b3-8798-4755-a715-8b9f294b8eca" CreationDate="2018-06-08T06:22:34.853" UserId="7674" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="Your rendering is OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd only take issue with closely placed cognates `делать ... дело хорошее`. In Russian stacking up cognates is considered poor style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a more idiomatic example could look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотреть фильмы - это/оно конечно хорошо/чудесно/замечательно, но может быть сначала нужно/стоит сделать уроки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16539" RevisionGUID="2921e07f-b9d0-49fb-a1c6-e86a160f8b18" CreationDate="2018-06-08T06:53:24.750" UserId="7674" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Your rendering is OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd only take issue with closely placed cognates `делать ... дело хорошее`. In Russian stacking up cognates is considered poor style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a more idiomatic example could look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотреть фильмы - это/оно конечно хорошо/чудесно/замечательно, но может быть сначала нужно/стоит сделать уроки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase `дело хорошее` to my taste sounds better next to a lone noun (noun phrase) or an infinitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Футбол - дело хорошее, но...  &#xD;&#xA;Жениться - дело хорошее, но...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="683d8fe2-7219-40a9-b019-808a105100c5" CreationDate="2018-06-08T10:06:48.730" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;Even in the most **peaceful** of **regions**, something happens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    one indefinite, unspecified region, the most peaceful one imaginable out of all the regions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;something being the case even in the most extreme circumstances&quot;, in English you usually use the construction &quot;the most + peaceful(singular) + of + regions(plural)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder how you idiomatically say this in Russian. Should both &quot;мирном&quot; and &quot;краю&quot; be in the singular? Or is it more common to use some other *singular-plural* combination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Даже в самом **мирном** **краю** ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41783" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="683d8fe2-7219-40a9-b019-808a105100c5" CreationDate="2018-06-08T10:06:48.730" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 61 characters in body; edited title" Text="Russian equivalent of the superlative expression “even in the most peaceful of regions&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16536" RevisionGUID="f846ed03-ca52-4bf4-95da-ffbf92dab77b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T10:52:07.050" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;Even in the most **peaceful** of **regions**, something happens.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    one indefinite, unspecified region, the most peaceful one imaginable out of all regions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;something being the case even in the most extreme circumstances&quot;, in English you usually use the construction &quot;the most + peaceful(singular) + of + regions(plural)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder how you idiomatically say this in Russian. Should both &quot;мирном&quot; and &quot;краю&quot; be in the singular? Or is it more common to use some other *singular-plural* combination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Даже в самом **мирном** **краю** ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16540" RevisionGUID="1bf4f547-2ec8-477c-8b94-09c38537d111" CreationDate="2018-06-08T11:58:09.050" UserId="10639" Text="I need to recognize the first name and last name of a Russian man ``SEIDOV CHARY``&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is first, which is last?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16540" RevisionGUID="1bf4f547-2ec8-477c-8b94-09c38537d111" CreationDate="2018-06-08T11:58:09.050" UserId="10639" Text="Need to recognize first name and last name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16540" RevisionGUID="1bf4f547-2ec8-477c-8b94-09c38537d111" CreationDate="2018-06-08T11:58:09.050" UserId="10639" Text="|узус|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16541" RevisionGUID="eea8b512-c095-4b3d-97a9-c72ade86bd8b" CreationDate="2018-06-08T12:06:50.620" UserId="7674" Text="**SEIDOV** looks like a surname due to the `-OV` ending &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CHARY**  must then be the personal name&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However neither of them sound ethnically Russian. Could belong to an Azeri or a person from one of the Central Asian states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16539" RevisionGUID="7197aba9-6100-42e0-b718-6c7ea4b761c0" CreationDate="2018-06-08T14:13:52.913" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Your rendering is OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd only take issue with closely placed cognates `делать ... дело хорошее`. In Russian stacking up cognates is considered poor style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe a more idiomatic example could look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотреть фильмы - это/оно конечно хорошо/чудесно/замечательно, но может (быть) сначала нужно/стоит сделать уроки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase `дело хорошее` to my taste sounds better next to a lone noun (noun phrase) or an infinitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Футбол - дело хорошее, но...  &#xD;&#xA;Жениться - дело хорошее, но...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="901a394c-da9b-43de-8cca-d040f1c4bfee" CreationDate="2018-06-08T18:30:42.050" UserId="6074" Text="А есть на этой плакате несколько слов,  незнакомые мне, и которых не найдётся б словарях.&#xD;&#xA;Суть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* в чдачах и в нечдачах&#xD;&#xA;(разве это просто опечатка? имелось слово &quot;удачах&quot; ввиду?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* чничтожим&#xD;&#xA;(разве это точно таже опечатка?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* также слово &quot;нащего&quot; написано чуть по-другому. Как мне кажется, обычно через букву Ш пишется а здесь, через Щ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sm2Ql.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="901a394c-da9b-43de-8cca-d040f1c4bfee" CreationDate="2018-06-08T18:30:42.050" UserId="6074" Text="в чдачах и в нечдачах" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41793" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="901a394c-da9b-43de-8cca-d040f1c4bfee" CreationDate="2018-06-08T18:30:42.050" UserId="6074" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16543" RevisionGUID="e486e2d5-2b19-4046-a79a-2bb65184eeec" CreationDate="2018-06-08T18:41:29.087" UserId="7674" Text="Конечно это ошибки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и БОРЮЩИХС**А** впридачу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покольку плакат, насколько можно судить по тексту, выпущен в Британии, орфографические ошибки вызваны, очевидно, плохим знакомством с русским алфавитом и, видимо языком тоже, и потому неумением различать похожие по начертанию буквы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16543" RevisionGUID="a4ddffba-0280-4dc2-9d4b-36114b61d532" CreationDate="2018-06-08T18:50:16.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 872 characters in body" Text="Конечно это ошибки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и БОРЮЩИХС**А** впридачу (со [старомосковским](https://blog.accent-center.ru/2016/04/26/современное-произношение-жителей-мо/) [акцентом](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=WEcyDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT33&amp;lpg=PT33&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5+%D0%A1%D0%90+%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE+%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zxDWbE764h&amp;sig=yTgFsL5fjdvXP0RKY1S1iVykxms&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiawOWt3cTbAhVDFywKHbbUA2AQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%20%D0%A1%D0%90%20%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;f=false)) в сильно двусмысленной фразе `борющихся с ними`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покольку плакат, насколько можно судить по тексту, выпущен в Британии, орфографические ошибки вызваны, очевидно, плохим знакомством с русским алфавитом и, видимо языком тоже, и потому неумением различать похожие по начертанию буквы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16543" RevisionGUID="4c48dab9-a229-4bd9-9ef8-8847f7e5c10f" CreationDate="2018-06-08T18:57:51.890" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Конечно это ошибки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и БОРЮЩИХС**А** (со [старомосковским](https://blog.accent-center.ru/2016/04/26/современное-произношение-жителей-мо/) [акцентом](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=WEcyDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT33&amp;lpg=PT33&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5+%D0%A1%D0%90+%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE+%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zxDWbE764h&amp;sig=yTgFsL5fjdvXP0RKY1S1iVykxms&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiawOWt3cTbAhVDFywKHbbUA2AQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%20%D0%A1%D0%90%20%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;f=false)) впридачу, в сильно двусмысленной фразе `борющихся с ними`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покольку плакат, насколько можно судить по тексту, выпущен в Британии, орфографические ошибки вызваны, очевидно, плохим знакомством с русским алфавитом и, видимо языком тоже, и потому неумением различать похожие по начертанию буквы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16544" RevisionGUID="82b5a4a8-ce66-47ca-99ae-c9a9c1650962" CreationDate="2018-06-08T19:42:21.053" UserId="10642" Text="Years are a gift from God, thats why we use dativ and say „how many [of the]years [have been given] to you?“" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16545" RevisionGUID="42975c96-da8e-4342-bb14-a2d0aa8bca23" CreationDate="2018-06-09T04:28:03.883" UserId="10578" Text="You can use both plural; &quot;*(даже) в самом мирном из краёв*&quot;; and singular: &quot;*(и) в самом мирном краю*&quot;, only the form with plural **might** be bit more loaded **emotionally**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16545" RevisionGUID="b0fc6808-f9e9-441a-a507-6a9e59a15fa2" CreationDate="2018-06-09T04:34:35.470" UserId="10578" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="You can use both plural; &quot;*(даже) в самом мирном из краёв*&quot;; and singular: &quot;*(и) в самом мирном краю*&quot;, only the form with plural **might** be bit more loaded **emotionally**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like, with singular you're telling that something (bad) might happen (even in the most peaceful... etc.). And you'd rather use plural to exclaim: &quot;(to think that) something like this should happen! (in the most peaceful... etc.)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16543" RevisionGUID="406ec4e2-8ee8-4ca2-9d6a-e9c68358a87c" CreationDate="2018-06-09T05:48:40.787" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="Конечно это ошибки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и БОРЮЩИХС**А** (со [старомосковским](https://blog.accent-center.ru/2016/04/26/современное-произношение-жителей-мо/) [акцентом](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=WEcyDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT33&amp;lpg=PT33&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5+%D0%A1%D0%90+%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE+%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zxDWbE764h&amp;sig=yTgFsL5fjdvXP0RKY1S1iVykxms&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiawOWt3cTbAhVDFywKHbbUA2AQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%20%D0%A1%D0%90%20%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;f=false)) впридачу, в сильно двусмысленной фразе `борющихся с ними`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покольку плакат, насколько можно судить по тексту, выпущен в Британии, орфографические ошибки вызваны, очевидно, плохим знакомством с русским алфавитом и, видимо языком тоже, и потому неумением различать похожие по начертанию буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во избежание двусмысленности `борющихся с ними` текст следовало бы перефразировать, например, как `борющихся ВМЕСТЕ с ними` или `борющихся с ними ПЛЕЧОМ К ПЛЕЧУ`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16543" RevisionGUID="d90cc724-dc57-4f5e-b4fd-f73c66849532" CreationDate="2018-06-09T08:23:14.357" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Конечно это ошибки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и БОРЮЩИХС**А** (со [старомосковским](https://blog.accent-center.ru/2016/04/26/современное-произношение-жителей-мо/) [акцентом](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=WEcyDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT33&amp;lpg=PT33&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5+%D0%A1%D0%90+%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE+%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=zxDWbE764h&amp;sig=yTgFsL5fjdvXP0RKY1S1iVykxms&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiawOWt3cTbAhVDFywKHbbUA2AQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%20%D0%A1%D0%90%20%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%A1%D0%AF&amp;f=false)) впридачу, в сильно двусмысленной фразе `борющихся с ними`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Покольку плакат, насколько можно судить по тексту, выпущен в Британии, орфографические ошибки вызваны, очевидно, плохим знакомством с русским алфавитом и, видимо языком тоже, и потому неумением различать похожие по начертанию буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во избежание двусмысленности выражение `борющихся с ними` следовало бы перефразировать, например, как `борющихся ВМЕСТЕ с ними` или `борющихся с ними ПЛЕЧОМ К ПЛЕЧУ`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="647d2e3b-2d94-4dc2-9b59-5c3a21f33cd4" CreationDate="2018-06-09T08:24:59.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="А есть на это&lt;strike&gt;й&lt;/strike&gt;**м** плакате несколько слов,  незнакомые мне, и которых не найдётся &lt;strike&gt;б&lt;/strike&gt; **в** словарях.&#xD;&#xA;Суть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* в чдачах и в нечдачах&#xD;&#xA;(разве это просто опечатка? имелось слово &quot;удачах&quot; ввиду?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* чничтожим&#xD;&#xA;(разве это точно таже опечатка?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* также слово &quot;нащего&quot; написано чуть по-другому. Как мне кажется, обычно через букву Ш пишется а здесь, через Щ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sm2Ql.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16458" RevisionGUID="9854b2de-1b8f-4375-b3c2-66fc01695efc" CreationDate="2018-06-09T20:26:57.440" UserId="7674" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Yes they all denote movement of a person aboard a vessel and of a vessel itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add to them **поплыть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contexts where the *fact* of travelling to certain destination is what's important and not the *means*, **ездить** can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it's believed that professional sailors [like to emphasize](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=Z-sCW9vHE8e3kwWtk73oCw&amp;q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;oq=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82+%D0%B0+%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i19k1j0i22i30i19k1.2205.6090.0.6432.26.24.0.0.0.0.275.3224.1j15j4.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.20.3223.0..0j0i30k1.0.FnqgWMCva2E) that they do not **плавают**, because it's shit which floats, whereas they **ходят**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавает только говно и щепки, а моряки ходят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is professional jargon and has no bearing on the regular usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Illustration from a movie](https://youtu.be/8-Kc0x3Ocr0?t=34m41s)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="07f4a30b-05d7-491f-b896-76b9c2818ead" CreationDate="2018-06-10T08:18:10.160" UserId="5692" Text="Here's a quote from Anna Karenina:&#xD;&#xA;Как это будет ему доказано, он не знал, но знал, что это, несомненно, логически будет ему доказано, и он ждал этого доказательства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know: why is этого in accusative case, singular form, and доказательства in accusative case, plural form? Shouldn't they agree in number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="07f4a30b-05d7-491f-b896-76b9c2818ead" CreationDate="2018-06-10T08:18:10.160" UserId="5692" Text="in он ждал этого доказательства why is этого in accusative case, singular form, and доказательства in accusative case, plural form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="07f4a30b-05d7-491f-b896-76b9c2818ead" CreationDate="2018-06-10T08:18:10.160" UserId="5692" Text="|падежи|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="b89cea5b-3a93-4a23-a71e-40bc3b0d4e86" CreationDate="2018-06-10T08:27:42.953" UserId="5692" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Here's a quote from Anna Karenina:&#xD;&#xA;Как это будет ему доказано, он не знал, но знал, что это, несомненно, логически будет ему доказано, и он ждал этого доказательства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know: why is этого in genetive case, singular form, and доказательства in accusative case, plural form? Shouldn't they agree in number?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="b89cea5b-3a93-4a23-a71e-40bc3b0d4e86" CreationDate="2018-06-10T08:27:42.953" UserId="5692" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="|падежи|родительный-падеж|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16547" RevisionGUID="b234ad1e-c4ab-41a8-9372-f7ec47d76600" CreationDate="2018-06-10T09:07:17.563" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Ты **не торопилась** (+ infinitive ...)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were a couple of occasions where I wanted to say this to my girlfriend who has a habit of spending hours on end doing shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the only phrasing I could come up with with my currently rather limited vocabulary, but I wonder if it doesn't somewhat fall short of the meaning conveyed by the English expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16547" RevisionGUID="b234ad1e-c4ab-41a8-9372-f7ec47d76600" CreationDate="2018-06-10T09:07:17.563" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of &quot;You took your (own) sweet time (doing ...)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16547" RevisionGUID="b234ad1e-c4ab-41a8-9372-f7ec47d76600" CreationDate="2018-06-10T09:07:17.563" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41813" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="4a7b9737-5246-411e-84fa-319b97e0c2f3" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:11:51.307" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="in он ждал этого доказательства why is этого in genitive case, singular form, and доказательства in accusative case, plural form?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="d2e29213-bdda-4e99-8625-76076fae10d5" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:15:05.177" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="Here's a quote from Anna Karenina:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как это будет ему доказано, он не знал, но знал, что это, несомненно, логически будет ему доказано, и он ждал этого доказательства&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know: why is `этого` in genitive case, singular form, and `доказательства` in accusative case, plural form? Shouldn't they agree in number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16548" RevisionGUID="e2f668d8-46b9-4c92-95c9-19ed356093f1" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:16:41.043" UserId="10578" Text="First thing comes to mind: &quot;Тебя только за смертью посылать&quot; -- &quot;you're the (good) one to go fetch (our) death&quot;. But that's rather strong expression, although it might be used jokingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of &quot;real&quot; folklore expressions, too, but I doubt they get much use these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="be9015e5-a5d2-4b1c-b222-a49fce23d0b3" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:20:16.223" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="Should words agree in case and number?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16549" RevisionGUID="692b98a1-897a-4922-9adf-d7963e45e99c" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:31:53.693" UserId="7674" Text="In Russian the phrase would sound more complete with qualifiers such as `не слишком/не больно/не особо/не особенно` ([example from a dictionary](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=take+sweet+time)) and more idiomatic with *adverbial participle* instead of *infinitive*, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не особо спешила/торопилась, перебирая платья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it lacks the connotation of indulgence, and i'm not sure it in itself is still idiomatic enough, it still sounds kind of awkward, let alone the fact  that *adverbial participles* are a rare bird in colloquial language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16549" RevisionGUID="657842b5-6921-499b-942f-34c38276f3b5" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:43:16.283" UserId="7674" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="In Russian the phrase would sound more complete with qualifiers such as `не слишком/не больно/не особо/не особенно` ([example from a dictionary](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=take+sweet+time)) and more idiomatic with *adverbial participle* instead of *infinitive*, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не особо спешила/торопилась, перебирая платья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it lacks the connotation of indulgence, and i'm not sure it in itself is still idiomatic enough, it still sounds kind of awkward, let alone the fact  that *adverbial participles* are a rare bird in colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could fit the bill is the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На шоппинг ты времени явно/уж точно/совсем не пожалела - You really didn't spare your time doing/on shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an ad-hoc variant with a connotation of rebuke, rather a translation than a stable construction in Russian, but idiomatic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16549" RevisionGUID="0234582b-b654-4c43-aa6e-10f496884f39" CreationDate="2018-06-10T10:55:00.340" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="In Russian the phrase would sound more complete with qualifiers such as `не слишком/не больно/не особо/не особенно` ([example from a dictionary](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=take+sweet+time)) and more idiomatic with *adverbial participle* instead of *infinitive*, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не особо спешила/торопилась, перебирая платья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it lacks the connotation of indulgence, and i'm not sure it in itself is still idiomatic enough, it still sounds kind of awkward, let alone the fact  that *adverbial participles* are a rare bird in colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could fit the bill is the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На шоппинг ты времени явно/уж точно/совсем не пожалела - You really didn't spare your time doing/on shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an ad-hoc variant with a connotation of rebuke, rather a translation than a stable construction in Russian, but idiomatic and has a potential for pattern derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16549" RevisionGUID="c79771ba-b1ea-46e9-ab0c-cfcc054b0676" CreationDate="2018-06-10T12:23:24.547" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In Russian the phrase would sound more complete with qualifiers such as `не слишком/не больно/не особо/не особенно` ([example from a dictionary](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=take+sweet+time)) and more idiomatic with *adverbial participle* instead of *infinitive*, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не особо спешила/торопилась, перебирая платья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it lacks the connotation of indulgence, and i'm not sure it in itself is still idiomatic enough, it still sounds kind of awkward, let alone the fact  that *adverbial participles* are a rare bird in colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could fit the bill is the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На шоппинг ты времени явно/уж точно/совсем не пожалела - You really didn't spare/took all your time doing/on shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an ad-hoc variant with a connotation of rebuke, rather a translation than a stable construction in Russian, but idiomatic and has a potential for pattern derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16550" RevisionGUID="8fcf48dc-d81d-4fb8-ab30-be24a2af7866" CreationDate="2018-06-10T14:10:59.537" UserId="2079" Text="Ошибки.  Автор отвратительно знает русский язык.  К тому, что написал Баян Купи-ка, добавлю, что пропущены все знаки препинания, а &quot;Советский Союз&quot; надо писать с заглавных букв, и предложения тоже надо начинать с заглавной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должно быть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет геройским воинам Советского Союза от британских союзников,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; борющихся вместе с ними!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы всегда с вами в удачах и неудачах. Вместе добьем, разгромим,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уничтожим нашего врага!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16550" RevisionGUID="bc7bba2a-e62c-4455-b52d-a862c11c5e83" CreationDate="2018-06-10T14:16:51.283" UserId="2079" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Ошибки.  Автор плаката отвратительно знает русский язык.  К тому, что написал Баян Купи-ка, добавлю, что пропущены все знаки препинания, а &quot;Советский Союз&quot; надо писать с заглавных букв, и предложения тоже надо начинать с заглавной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должно быть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет геройским воинам Советского Союза от британских союзников,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; борющихся вместе с ними!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы всегда с вами в удачах и неудачах. Вместе добьем, разгромим,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уничтожим нашего врага!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="9e0e06db-d32d-4d7c-a86b-c3dee41fa0ed" CreationDate="2018-06-10T17:34:09.073" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1005865714056613889" />
  <row Id="41824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16551" RevisionGUID="2e9e6fe1-fe40-40ca-845c-930ffac4587b" CreationDate="2018-06-10T18:51:18.440" UserId="10367" Text="Некоторые слова (здесь &quot;слово&quot; употребляется в значении &quot;осмысленный набор букв&quot;) могут иметь несколько начальных форм. Например, слово &quot;села&quot; может иметь форму &quot;сесть&quot; (она села), а может иметь форму &quot;село&quot; (они выехали из села). Аналогично для слова &quot;три&quot;: это слово может быть числительным (&quot;3&quot;), а может быть глаголом (&quot;тереть&quot;). Однако, это единственные подобные слова, которые я смог найти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос: как много таких слов? Это единичные случаи, или таких слов десятки, сотни, или тысячи?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16551" RevisionGUID="2e9e6fe1-fe40-40ca-845c-930ffac4587b" CreationDate="2018-06-10T18:51:18.440" UserId="10367" Text="Какие слова могут иметь несколько начальных форм?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16551" RevisionGUID="2e9e6fe1-fe40-40ca-845c-930ffac4587b" CreationDate="2018-06-10T18:51:18.440" UserId="10367" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16552" RevisionGUID="0a73467a-67ce-44fb-892f-d244df956725" CreationDate="2018-06-10T19:09:43.653" UserId="7674" Text="Вы имеете в виду [омоформы](https://russkiiyazyk.ru/leksika/chto-takoe-omoformyi.html), если я правильно понял. Навскидку: пила (гл. пить; сущ. пила); дела (гл. девать; сущ. дело); дуло (гл. дуть; сущ. дуло);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Существуют словари омонимов, по которым, думаю, можно подсчитать число таких слов в языке. Например homonyms.ru, который включает также омофоны, омографы и омоформы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предисловии к нему сказано&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Подобных слов с одинаковым написанием и разным значением в русском&#xD;&#xA;&gt; языке довольно много**, что становится главной проблемой для их усвоения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и запоминания. Словарь омонимов поможет учащимся найти и использовать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова омонимы в любой момент, достаточно иметь под рукой гаджет с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; доступом в интернет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16550" RevisionGUID="1af6bc4a-4ee6-4e2a-a54b-32ed3fbbcef9" CreationDate="2018-06-10T21:37:31.180" UserId="2079" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Ошибки.  Автор плаката отвратительно знает русский язык.  К тому, что написал Баян Купи-ка, добавлю, что пропущены все знаки препинания, а &quot;Советский Союз&quot; надо писать с заглавных букв, и предложения тоже надо начинать с заглавной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должно быть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет геройским воинам Советского Союза от британских союзников,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; борющихся вместе с ними!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы всегда с вами в удачах и неудачах. Вместе добьем, разгромим,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уничтожим нашего врага!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: плакат явно кустарно сделан, и, возможно, у художника просто не было трафаретов некоторых русских букв. Он заменил их похожими по очертаниям.  Или же это вообще нe аутентичный плакат, а, например, фрагмент кадра из фильма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16550" RevisionGUID="22cef529-25ff-4bf4-b684-269f5431fe94" CreationDate="2018-06-10T21:43:20.077" UserId="2079" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Ошибки.  Автор плаката отвратительно знает русский язык.  К тому, что написал Баян Купи-ка, добавлю, что пропущены все знаки препинания, а &quot;Советский Союз&quot; надо писать с заглавных букв, и предложения тоже надо начинать с заглавной буквы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Должно быть:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет геройским воинам Советского Союза от британских союзников,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; борющихся вместе с ними!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы всегда с вами в удачах и неудачах. Вместе добьем, разгромим,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уничтожим нашего врага!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: я заметил, что буква г везде написана как латинская буква r. Bозможно, у художника просто не было трафаретов некоторых русских букв. Он заменил их похожими по очертаниям.  Кроме того, возможно, что это вообще нe аутентичный плакат, а, например, фрагмент кадра из фильма." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16555" RevisionGUID="6d9e340d-f2bb-46f9-821f-11b9f9bf543d" CreationDate="2018-06-11T01:10:52.843" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;Ты [делала что-либо] целую вечность!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Тебя не дождёшься!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я заждался!&quot; (this shifts focus from her to yourself, but it's not that illogical - after all, it's all about *your* perception of the time she spent, she may think that &quot;да только на минуту, одним глазком заглянула!&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16548" RevisionGUID="62123531-dc1b-41a4-88fb-8f243dd8bb16" CreationDate="2018-06-11T04:27:10.440" UserId="10578" Comment="added 499 characters in body" Text="First thing comes to mind: &quot;Тебя только за смертью посылать&quot; -- &quot;you're the (good) one to go fetch (our) death&quot;. But that's rather strong expression, although it might be used jokingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of &quot;real&quot; folklore expressions, too, but I doubt they get much use these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: And if you aren't looking for a &quot;real&quot; idiom, these ones might work: &quot;пять минут опозданием не считаются&quot; (five minutes late doesn't count as late -- just ironic); &quot;пять минут ждём и уходим&quot; (we wait five minutes more, then leave -- students' joke, when the professor is late to the auditorium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, &quot;(он/она) не опаздывает, а задерживается!&quot; -- ironic &quot;clarification&quot;, referring to a supposed &quot;chief person&quot;, meaning &quot;you can't say he/she is late, he/she is really (just) delayed&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16556" RevisionGUID="55540ed3-8229-420f-a8fb-e00034f8df8f" CreationDate="2018-06-11T07:00:09.390" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Q1) Извини, что пришлось тащить тебя с собой, не **дав** даже **отдохнуть** как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;letting/allowing ***you*** (to) do something&quot;, you usually put an accusative pronoun. So I wonder why it is missing here. Is it because the preceding clause already has &quot;тебя&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q2) Извини, что **пришлось** тащить тебя с **собой**, не дав даже отдохнуть как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no qualms about the verb &quot;прийтись&quot; per se not always being accompanied by a dative pronoun. You can easily assume that &quot;(мне) пришлось&quot; is omitted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given the presence of the reflexive pronoun &quot;собой = мной&quot;, I wonder if it isn't necessary to place some *subject marker* -- in this instance: &quot;мне&quot; -- before the &quot;собой&quot; in order to make it perfectly clear to whom the reflexive &quot;собой&quot; refers? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16556" RevisionGUID="55540ed3-8229-420f-a8fb-e00034f8df8f" CreationDate="2018-06-11T07:00:09.390" UserId="8672" Text="Are dative and accusative pronouns usually omitted in the following?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16556" RevisionGUID="55540ed3-8229-420f-a8fb-e00034f8df8f" CreationDate="2018-06-11T07:00:09.390" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16556" RevisionGUID="6e153705-605e-4fbf-88b0-452e5c54d730" CreationDate="2018-06-11T07:07:20.790" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&gt;Q1) Извини, что пришлось тащить тебя с собой, не **дав** даже **отдохнуть** как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;letting/allowing ***you*** (to) do something&quot;, you usually put an accusative pronoun. So I wonder why it is missing here. Is it because the preceding clause already has &quot;тебя&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q2) Извини, что **пришлось** тащить тебя с **собой**, не дав даже отдохнуть как следует.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no qualms about the verb &quot;прийтись&quot; per se not always being accompanied by a dative pronoun. You can easily assume that &quot;(мне) пришлось&quot; is omitted here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But given the presence of the reflexive pronoun &quot;собой = мной&quot;, I wonder if it isn't necessary to place some *subject marker* -- in this instance: &quot;мне&quot; -- before the &quot;собой&quot; in order to make perfectly clear to whom the reflexive &quot;собой&quot; refers? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="f285846c-0bca-45a6-bd85-54308c29b93c" CreationDate="2018-06-11T08:37:11.360" UserId="2251" Comment="Corrected grammar" Text="`Хлопковый`/`хлопчатый` and `хлопчатобумажный` indeed mean the same thing. As for why the second form is used instead of the first one, which is both more intuitive and shorter - here's a [quote][1] from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русской технической литературе до второй половины XIX века вместо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова «хлопок» применяли термин «хлопчатая бумага», сохранившийся до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; настоящего времени в словах: хлопчатобумажная ткань, хлопчатобумажная&#xD;&#xA;&gt; промышленность и других.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your assumption is wrong – it has not started in Soviet times. This word indeed is used in books starting from XIX century. Actually one can trace even to earlier times. Here's a [quote][2] from document dated 1745:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь же при Астрахани, хотя по опытам довольно видно, что делание&#xD;&#xA;&gt; шелка и сеяние бумаги хлопчатой немалую приносить может пользу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for `ситец`, in the same article you can find that it is a &quot;лёгкая хлопчато-бумажная гладкокрашеная или набивная ткань, получаемая в результате специальной отделки сурового миткаля&quot;. So, it is a sort of fiber made of cotton, one of many. Just like миткаль, бумазея, бязь, вельвет and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And one final note. Just like @Matt correctly noted, most probably &quot;бумага&quot; is derived from Italian word (derived in turn from a Latin one) which stood for cotton. It is very likely but no one knows for sure actually. Also, in other Slavic languages, even in the closest to Russian `бумага` is not used for paper at all, but for cotton we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - бавовна in Ukrainian&#xD;&#xA; - бавоўна in Belarusian&#xD;&#xA; - bawełna in Polish&#xD;&#xA; - bombaž in Slovenian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very disputable how exactly these forms find their way into the languages mentioned above, we can end up finding ourselves in the land of stupid pseudo-linguistic assumptions. Most probably these words are related but definitely not always directly with `бумага`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9#.D0.A5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41841" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11194" RevisionGUID="f285846c-0bca-45a6-bd85-54308c29b93c" CreationDate="2018-06-11T08:37:11.360" Comment="Proposed by 2251 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 975" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16549" RevisionGUID="563b0510-60e9-444d-9a8b-0d7bd7cddae6" CreationDate="2018-06-11T09:44:59.893" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="In Russian the phrase would sound more complete with qualifiers such as `не слишком/не больно/не особо/не особенно` ([example from a dictionary](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=take+sweet+time)) and more idiomatic with *adverbial participle* instead of *infinitive*, for example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты не особо спешила/торопилась, перебирая платья&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it lacks the connotation of indulgence, and i'm not sure it in itself is still idiomatic enough, it still sounds kind of awkward, let alone the fact  that *adverbial participles* are a rare bird in colloquial language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could fit the bill is the phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На шоппинг ты времени явно/уж точно/совсем не пожалела - You really `didn't spare/ took all / haven't been frugal with` your time `doing/on` shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an ad-hoc variant with a connotation of rebuke, rather a translation than a stable construction in Russian, but idiomatic and has a potential for pattern derivation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16557" RevisionGUID="a193799e-89bc-4b32-8f43-4b069c69fe41" CreationDate="2018-06-11T12:38:10.267" UserId="134" Text="&gt; So I wonder why it is missing here. Is it because the preceding clause already has &quot;тебя&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, using *тебя* in the preceding clause made the implied pronoun obvious from the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the context is made clear by the previous usage of the pronoun, but it does not have to be this way. You can say *дайте, пожалуйста, пройти* without using *мне*, and the meaning is still clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I wonder if it isn't necessary to place some subject marker -- in this instance: &quot;мне&quot; -- before the &quot;собой&quot; in order to make perfectly clear to whom the reflexive &quot;собой&quot; refers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reflexive pronoun *себя* always refers to the last agent in the clause, which is the implied *мне* or *нам* (note that *мне* or *нам* are grammatical objects but semantic agents here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first person is implied by semantics of the sentence (the usage of *извини* and the meaining of *тащить с собой* rule out second and third persons). The number is unclear, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in context, other persons can be implied as well in similar constructs. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Пришлось нести всё это к себе&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;requires context to understand, and depending on the context, it could mean&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * I had to bring this all to my place&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * You had to bring this all to your place&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * He had to bring this all to his place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc., but one thing stays the same: the one who had to bring all this was the owner of the place where they brought it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="3361d781-7f6f-4f69-8952-ef0727078f83" CreationDate="2018-06-11T18:19:47.710" UserId="3595" Comment="brahmin ref added" Text="You are right, that the current style of romanization of Russian surnames is &quot;-ov&quot; (transliteration), while in the past it used to be &quot;-off&quot; (quasi-phonetic). See [this paper][1] in French (with English abstract) on the subject. Note, that until recently when Russians were issued travel documents, their names were romanized in French style, i.e. &quot;-ow&quot; would have been acceptable too. You could encounter funny endings like &quot;-oukine&quot; etc. Now they switched to Enlgish transliteration. If he were issued a passport today I bet it would have been Rakhmaninov, note _kh_ instead of _ch_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Update &#xD;&#xA;[Apparently][2], Rachmaninov's last name is from a derivative of an old Russian word for [Brahmin][3]. So, maybe the right way to spell is actually &quot;Rahmaninov&quot;, after all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/13/14/13/PDF/sakhno_nompropre_version_meta_2_.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16558" RevisionGUID="9e59e83d-e569-405b-a15d-60dbcaf9b65b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:44:15.233" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Если никто им не даст отпор, **таких, как я, будет все больше и больше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In parsing this part, I'm not sure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - what is the (singular) subject of this main clause. Is it &quot;больше и больше&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - why &quot;таких&quot; is in the genitive. Is it because &quot;больше и больше + (genitive)&quot; works just like &quot;много  + (genitive)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - what is the function of &quot;таких&quot;. Is it an animate substantive with the meaning of &quot;such people&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - if &quot;все&quot; serves as an adverb with the meaning of &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To facilitate understanding, can I interpret the construction as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;все больше и больше {(+genitive) таких} будет {(as a predicate) как я}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== &quot;(always) more and more (of) people will be/become/end up like me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or more naturally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== &quot;If no one opposes them, more and more people will be/become like me // will go through what I have gone through.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16558" RevisionGUID="9e59e83d-e569-405b-a15d-60dbcaf9b65b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:44:15.233" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse the expression &quot;таких, как я, будет все больше и больше&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16558" RevisionGUID="9e59e83d-e569-405b-a15d-60dbcaf9b65b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:44:15.233" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16558" RevisionGUID="1c8bcbff-20b3-4b82-87bf-728d75ce0758" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:49:49.943" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;Если никто им не даст отпор, **таких, как я, будет все больше и больше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In parsing this part, I'm not sure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - what is the (singular) subject of this main clause. Is it &quot;больше и больше&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - why &quot;таких&quot; is in the genitive. Is it because &quot;больше и больше + (genitive)&quot; works just like &quot;много  + (genitive)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - what is the function of &quot;таких&quot;. Is it an animate substantive with the meaning of &quot;such people&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - if &quot;все&quot; serves as an adverb with the meaning of &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To facilitate understanding, can I interpret the construction as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;все больше и больше {(+genitive) таких} будет {(as a predicate) как я}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== &quot;(always) more and more (of) people will be/become/end up like me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or more naturally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== &quot;If no one opposes them, more and more people will go through {such things that //} what I have gone through.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16559" RevisionGUID="c186e66e-6a67-4948-ab0f-98d590b34a82" CreationDate="2018-06-12T10:26:28.937" UserId="6074" Text="&gt;what is the (singular) subject of this main clause. Is it &quot;больше и больше&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the same third person singular like `идёт дождь` or `у меня новая машина`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;why &quot;таких&quot; is in the genitive. Is it because &quot;больше и больше + (genitive)&quot; works just like &quot;много + (genitive)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;what is the function of &quot;таких&quot;. Is it an animate substantive with the meaning of &quot;such people&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right, `больше чего` means &quot;more **of** what&quot; so it's genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;if &quot;все&quot; serves as an adverb with the meaning of &quot;always&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about that, best wait for a native" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16560" RevisionGUID="54595643-2092-401e-b676-6df0f86ebc93" CreationDate="2018-06-12T11:52:19.530" UserId="9602" Text="Let’s compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будет много фруктов. — There will be lots of fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будет больше фруктов. — There will be more fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будет всё больше и больше фруктов. — The amount of fruit will be constantly increasing day after day. (“больше и больше” is quite similar to “more and more” and can be used without “всё”, which just adds a bit of emphasis on the trend)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будет всё больше и больше таких фруктов, как в Турции. — There will be more and more fruit of the kind they have in Turkey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будет всё больше и больше таких [людей], как я. — There will be more and more people like me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your final translation is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16562" RevisionGUID="fd80429e-ad94-405d-8877-7baaf34c8e45" CreationDate="2018-06-12T12:05:11.250" UserId="10652" Text="Насчет *ЧДАЧАХ* и *НЕЧДАЧАХ* - в старых печатных машинках СССР буквы **У** и **Ч** обозначались одним символом **Ч**. Вероятно, автор плаката использовал начертание символов с клавиатуры." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16563" RevisionGUID="e55fbaab-69c1-42e8-aaec-ebf7e3e14fb1" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:06:36.133" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;у нас туго с **деньга́ми**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The descriptions on Wiki have me puzzled, as it seems the &quot;деньга́ми&quot; can be the plural instrumental of either the *plural-only* noun &quot;[де́ньги][1]&quot; or the colloquial singular noun &quot;[деньга́][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may ultimately amount to the same thing, but I wonder from which the instrumental &quot;деньга́ми&quot; in this expression stems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B8#Russian&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B0#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16563" RevisionGUID="e55fbaab-69c1-42e8-aaec-ebf7e3e14fb1" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:06:36.133" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;у нас туго с деньга́ми&quot;: Does this instrumental &quot;деньга́ми&quot; stem from &quot;де́ньги&quot; or &quot;деньга́&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16563" RevisionGUID="e55fbaab-69c1-42e8-aaec-ebf7e3e14fb1" CreationDate="2018-06-12T14:06:36.133" UserId="8672" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16564" RevisionGUID="f9e59116-4580-4f3a-9900-4a83a9d8698b" CreationDate="2018-06-12T15:39:02.817" UserId="10578" Text="The word &quot;деньга́&quot; is ancient and rare, although it might be used as a colloquial or a joke.&#xD;&#xA;In this (seemingly ordinary) case the word &quot;де́ньги&quot; was the original form, no doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16565" RevisionGUID="0d2b29cd-ce0f-4cfa-8d07-68ec2489a6eb" CreationDate="2018-06-12T15:45:44.887" UserId="2104" Text="It normally means 'we're short of money' but you could say the same to mean 'we're short of coins' if you are a numismatist. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="c9a33316-3d85-4f50-87fc-1c1b2ff8e25f" CreationDate="2018-06-12T17:25:09.393" UserId="10655" Text="In a phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посадк**у** на Луну предшествовали тренировачные полеты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending **-у** of the word &quot;посадка&quot; does not sound right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the proper ending to use in such case ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="c9a33316-3d85-4f50-87fc-1c1b2ff8e25f" CreationDate="2018-06-12T17:25:09.393" UserId="10655" Text="What should be the proper word ending of the word &quot;посдака&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="c9a33316-3d85-4f50-87fc-1c1b2ff8e25f" CreationDate="2018-06-12T17:25:09.393" UserId="10655" Text="|окончания|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16567" RevisionGUID="bb261866-c8dd-486b-8520-aa7ef0f40a35" CreationDate="2018-06-12T17:32:40.413" UserId="10578" Text="Corrected: &quot;посадк**е** на Луну предшествовали трениров**о**чные полеты&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Dative case used: &quot;*to which* [Moon landing] something [training flights] was something [forerunner]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="dd375b1e-f0ad-4d66-a8d0-b08228f069d0" CreationDate="2018-06-12T19:00:42.743" UserId="4481" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="In a phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посадк**у** на Луну предшествовали тренировачные полеты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending **-у** of the word &quot;посадка&quot; does not sound right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the proper ending to use in such case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="dd375b1e-f0ad-4d66-a8d0-b08228f069d0" CreationDate="2018-06-12T19:00:42.743" UserId="4481" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What should be the proper word ending of the word &quot;посадка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16568" RevisionGUID="66a02e05-5376-490f-bef9-8c0a66e8607a" CreationDate="2018-06-12T19:25:57.890" UserId="7674" Text="Accusative is governed by another verb, synonymous to **предшествовать**, namely **предварять**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посадк**у** на Луну **предваряли** тренировoчные полеты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Semantically they're not completely identical, but still can be used as substitutes of each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="6504057e-c085-4b7f-989c-12f9fd0261c0" CreationDate="2018-06-12T19:30:39.170" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="In a phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посадк**у** на Луну предшествовали трениров&lt;strike&gt;а&lt;/strike&gt;**о**чные полеты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending **-у** of the word &quot;посадка&quot; does not sound right for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the proper ending to use in such case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="e9c79dd2-b2d0-454d-9051-0e1ef0dae0ff" CreationDate="2018-06-13T00:20:20.030" UserId="10593" Text="Такой юной девочке ни к чему подобный «маскарадный» вариант макияжа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I translate it? It doesn't make sense to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To such a young girl... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="e9c79dd2-b2d0-454d-9051-0e1ef0dae0ff" CreationDate="2018-06-13T00:20:20.030" UserId="10593" Text="What does this mean? dative and prepositional cases and ни" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16569" RevisionGUID="e9c79dd2-b2d0-454d-9051-0e1ef0dae0ff" CreationDate="2018-06-13T00:20:20.030" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16570" RevisionGUID="591645d4-7218-4931-923b-3d24bae3e045" CreationDate="2018-06-13T02:48:15.313" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;Ни к чему&quot; is an idiom, it literally means &quot;completely useless&quot;, &quot;inapplicable&quot;, etc. It is often used as &quot;inappropriate&quot;, which is your case exactly: &quot;Such thick makeup is completely inappropriate for such a young girl.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16571" RevisionGUID="ac01d2d5-a792-4383-bab3-b7e049378d8f" CreationDate="2018-06-13T04:10:01.833" UserId="10578" Text="Just complementing the answers @Wilson and @Roman Odaisky gave. &quot;Всё&quot; if used with an adverb serves as the mean of amplification or continuity. Doesn't really change the meaning of the adverb itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, however, &quot;всё&quot; is used redundantly (maybe emotionally): &quot;больше и больше&quot; -- &quot;more and more [from day to day, minute to minute, etc.] &quot;; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;всё больше и больше&quot; -- &quot;more and more [from day to day, minute to minute, etc.]&quot; (in this context!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively: &quot;будет больше&quot; -- &quot;(there) will be more&quot;; &quot;будет всё больше&quot; -- &quot;(there) will be more [from day to day, ...]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16572" RevisionGUID="3d4f12c4-3ac7-4858-addf-5c2465c6f88f" CreationDate="2018-06-13T04:11:38.507" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Согласитесь**, впечатляет: у ребенка, как я, свой бизнес!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what a kid said. Given the exclamation mark, it's tempting to regard it as the imperative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;(You **must**) Agree(**!**) that it's impressive: a kid like me running his own business!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interpretation -- the future tense -- seems possible as well, supposing that a question mark is hidden behind the colon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;You **will** agree that it's impressive, (**right?**): a kid like me running his own business!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, in English, the future tense &quot;will&quot; can be used like the imperative to give an order. As such, even if this &quot;согласитесь&quot; is the future tense, it may still be considered to be close in meaning to the imperative &quot;согласитесь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16572" RevisionGUID="3d4f12c4-3ac7-4858-addf-5c2465c6f88f" CreationDate="2018-06-13T04:11:38.507" UserId="8672" Text="Is this &quot;согласитесь&quot; the Future or the Imperative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16572" RevisionGUID="3d4f12c4-3ac7-4858-addf-5c2465c6f88f" CreationDate="2018-06-13T04:11:38.507" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41879" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16566" RevisionGUID="741a5673-6d61-4865-9245-55987a2acfa0" CreationDate="2018-06-13T06:37:07.460" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|окончания|дательный-падеж|винительный-падеж|inflection|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41880" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16542" RevisionGUID="bc0c2590-0299-4870-a453-045900bd8bf3" CreationDate="2018-06-13T06:38:10.960" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16570" RevisionGUID="d4c35f70-e933-46c2-ba1e-aec7e497f9b1" CreationDate="2018-06-13T07:31:43.617" UserId="9118" Comment="clarification" Text="&quot;Ни к чему&quot; is an idiom, it literally means &quot;completely useless&quot;, &quot;inapplicable&quot;, etc. It is often used as &quot;inappropriate&quot;, which is your case exactly: &quot;Such thick makeup is completely inappropriate for such a young girl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. The commenters raised a good point: &quot;completely useless&quot; here means &quot;completely useless [for you]/[in this situation]&quot;. It doesn't mean the object in question is fundamentally useless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16570" RevisionGUID="ee72ff42-17d0-40ac-90d7-9c02beb81a93" CreationDate="2018-06-13T07:39:38.133" UserId="9118" Comment="clarification" Text="&quot;Ни к чему&quot; is an idiom, it literally means &quot;completely useless&quot;, &quot;inapplicable&quot;, etc. It is often used as &quot;inappropriate&quot;, which is your case exactly: &quot;Such thick makeup is completely inappropriate for such a young girl.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. The commenters raised a good point: &quot;completely useless&quot; here means &quot;completely useless [for you]/[in this situation]&quot;. It doesn't mean the object in question is fundamentally useless. Maybe simple &quot;does not need&quot; is a better translation, e. g. &quot;Such a young girl does not need such thick makeup.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16572" RevisionGUID="bc3537d2-2ecf-4890-80d9-8e5a3352d007" CreationDate="2018-06-13T08:40:27.073" UserId="8672" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Согласитесь**, впечатляет: у ребенка, как я, свой бизнес!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what a kid said. Given the exclamation mark, it's tempting to regard it as the imperative form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;(You **must**) Agree(**!**) that it's impressive: a kid like me running his own business!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interpretation -- the future tense -- seems possible as well, supposing that a question mark is hidden behind the colon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;You **will** agree that it's impressive, (**right?**): a kid like me running his own business!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, in English, the future tense &quot;will&quot; can be used like the imperative to give an order. As such, even if this &quot;согласитесь&quot; is the future tense, it may still be considered to be close in meaning to the imperative &quot;согласитесь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{in an imperative tone} &quot;You **will** agree that it's impressive: a kid like me running his own business!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16573" RevisionGUID="0d14b734-14d9-4dbc-8b11-9ab24d41df66" CreationDate="2018-06-13T09:27:24.073" UserId="10578" Text="That's the (&quot;clear&quot;) imperative form use case. The (tending to) future tense use would include some introducing words, e.g.: &quot;Думаю, вы согласитесь, что...&quot; (I think/believe you'll agree that...); &quot;Ведь вы согласитесь, что...&quot; (You'll surely agree that...)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16574" RevisionGUID="3737dc42-02a8-45f5-9d68-8cbdc81f224b" CreationDate="2018-06-13T11:05:35.720" UserId="8780" Text="I saw the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Моя бабушка умерла в 1959 году, не дожив до ста лет **всего лишь трёх месяцев.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understood the meaning of this sentence. &quot;My grandmother (...) lived three months short of 100&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't get the syntax in this sentence. What's the meaning of the genitive *трёх месяцев* here? Does it imply &quot;for a matter of three months&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16574" RevisionGUID="3737dc42-02a8-45f5-9d68-8cbdc81f224b" CreationDate="2018-06-13T11:05:35.720" UserId="8780" Text="&quot;Short of&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16574" RevisionGUID="3737dc42-02a8-45f5-9d68-8cbdc81f224b" CreationDate="2018-06-13T11:05:35.720" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16575" RevisionGUID="bedb1fa3-618e-4232-91f3-17807c203d23" CreationDate="2018-06-13T12:02:41.363" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Согласитесь, впечатляет: у ребенка, как я, свой бизнес!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an introductory word.&#xD;&#xA;There's a group of **introductory words** which express an appeal to the interlocutor (Розенталь, § 99)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt;видишь (ли), видите (ли), понимаешь (ли), понимаете (ли), знаешь (ли), знаете (ли), пойми, поймите, поверьте, послушайте, согласитесь, согласись, вообразите, представьте себе, извините, простите, веришь (ли), верите (ли), пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't mix them with the similar grammatical forms of the imperative and the future, or present forms.&#xD;&#xA; You can change them with other introductory words, you cannot ask questions from other words in the sentence, you can leave them out, they are put in commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, вы согласитесь поработать с нами.(future)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Согласись со мной поехать, ну, пожалуйста.(imperative )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16576" RevisionGUID="fb705886-e2ef-4e4d-8175-ae77c8dc76d0" CreationDate="2018-06-13T12:03:22.047" UserId="10578" Text="Literally this means: &quot;My grandma died in 1959, not having reached the age [не дожив] of 100 [до 100 лет] by just [всего лишь] three months [трёх месяцев]&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the genitive you're asking about relates to the &quot;не дожив [сколько?; кого? чего?]&quot;, which in its turn implies a relation with the qualification &quot;до чего, до какого? (события, времени, срока)&quot; -- &quot;to what, to which? (event, time duration, moment in time)&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare: &quot;не доделав [чего?] насколько?&quot; -- &quot;not having completed [what?] by what measure?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="5f8dbdec-14ef-4155-9224-0a7a633c70dd" CreationDate="2018-06-13T15:31:36.693" UserId="7674" Text="The meaning of Genitive (which is rather [Abessive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abessive_case)) is linked to the negation of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quoted phrase does sound idiomatic (as Abessive case does in Russian), but it would still sound right if instead of Abessive *Accusative* was employed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...умерла в 1959 году, не дожив до ста лет всего лишь тр**И**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; месяц**А**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16574" RevisionGUID="5feaba7e-faf0-45f7-b797-794e9d942193" CreationDate="2018-06-13T15:32:02.190" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|синтаксис|abessive-case|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16577" RevisionGUID="63970d67-60ae-4c97-9471-9530ec49e88b" CreationDate="2018-06-13T15:38:07.107" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The use of Genitive (which is rather [Abessive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abessive_case)) is linked to the negation of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quoted phrase does sound idiomatic (as Abessive case does in Russian), but it would still sound right if instead of Abessive *Accusative* was employed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...умерла в 1959 году, не дожив до ста лет всего лишь тр**И**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; месяц**А**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16578" RevisionGUID="b95ec251-1669-4257-af71-3bddaf728720" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:38:52.470" UserId="2079" Text="The genitive is because of `не`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `Я видел ваш чемодан` but `Не видел я вашего чемодана!` (`Не видел я ваш чемодан!` is also correct.)&#xD;&#xA; - `Она прожила семь лет` but `она не прожила и семи лет`&#xD;&#xA; - `Она не дожила трёх месяцев до ста лет.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16575" RevisionGUID="9fdf09ed-f234-49f8-b220-190f9fe9e543" CreationDate="2018-06-13T16:58:58.673" UserId="6539" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt;Согласитесь, впечатляет: у ребенка, как я, свой бизнес!(Правда,впечатляет--замена)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an introductory word.&#xD;&#xA;There's a group of **introductory words** which express an appeal to the interlocutor (Розенталь, § 99)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt;видишь (ли), видите (ли), понимаешь (ли), понимаете (ли), знаешь (ли), знаете (ли), пойми, поймите, поверьте, послушайте, согласитесь, согласись, вообразите, представьте себе, извините, простите, веришь (ли), верите (ли), пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't mix them with the similar grammatical forms of the imperative and the future, or present forms.&#xD;&#xA; You can change them with other introductory words, you cannot ask questions from other words in the sentence, you can leave them out, they are put in commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, вы согласитесь поработать с нами.(future)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Согласись со мной поехать, ну, пожалуйста.(imperative )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16575" RevisionGUID="35164c6e-6651-47c1-a73c-17057ea8e559" CreationDate="2018-06-13T17:05:32.187" UserId="6539" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt;Согласитесь, впечатляет: у ребенка, как я, свой бизнес! (Правда,впечатляет--замена)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an introductory word.&#xD;&#xA;There's a group of **introductory words** which express an appeal to the interlocutor (Розенталь, § 99)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	&gt;видишь (ли), видите (ли), понимаешь (ли), понимаете (ли), знаешь (ли), знаете (ли), пойми, поймите, поверьте, послушайте, согласитесь, согласись, вообразите, представьте себе, извините, простите, веришь (ли), верите (ли), пожалуйста&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't mix them with the similar grammatical forms of the imperative and the future, or present forms.(Here you cannot substitute another word at all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to distinguish :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You can change them with other introductory words, you cannot ask questions from other words in the sentence, you can leave them out, they are put in commas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, вы согласитесь поработать с нами.(future)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Согласись со мной поехать, ну, пожалуйста.(imperative )." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16579" RevisionGUID="8fb13a4a-e914-4ec4-8f4f-d95555ead8fa" CreationDate="2018-06-13T19:00:16.537" UserId="2079" Text="To determine the correct interpretation, we should check what happens when the verb is in singular.  Is it `согласись` (imperative) or `согласишься` (future tense) ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search for `согласись` in ruscorpora finds hunderds of such usages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Но вообще… согласись, ведь на самом деле всё так и есть!&#xD;&#xA; - Согласись Сергей ― это история Выксы!! (comma is missing after `согласись`)&#xD;&#xA; - Согласись, что эти в зале Академии выглядели примерно таким же образом, несмотря на дорогой прикид.&#xD;&#xA; - ...ведь был прав, согласись.&#xD;&#xA; - Но согласись, что мелодические линии этих оперных сцен не свойственны вагнеровскому мышлению. &#xD;&#xA; - Согласись, после неудачи в Портофино группе было не до возлюбленной Кенаря...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search for `согласишься` does not find such cases. In rare cases when `согласишься` means &quot;you will agree with what I am saying&quot;, `ты` is always present, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но ведь ты согласишься, любезный читатель, не правда ли, что между любовью и предательством существует определенная иерархия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** `согласитесь` in such sentences should be interpreted as an imperative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16580" RevisionGUID="a89a53af-acee-4b50-b64b-d380fd35350f" CreationDate="2018-06-14T00:22:54.783" UserId="10593" Text="did i use осознанный correctly here? I want a correct example to put in anki. I intended the sentence to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem that is known by you should be finished by you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Проблема, осознанная тобой тебе нужно закончить. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16580" RevisionGUID="a89a53af-acee-4b50-b64b-d380fd35350f" CreationDate="2018-06-14T00:22:54.783" UserId="10593" Text="use of passive past participle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16580" RevisionGUID="a89a53af-acee-4b50-b64b-d380fd35350f" CreationDate="2018-06-14T00:22:54.783" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16581" RevisionGUID="95acebfe-e481-4b9a-8f03-248408c9f526" CreationDate="2018-06-14T04:59:41.220" UserId="6539" Text="You'd better use ruscorpora.ru for such purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the well-known &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Свобода – это **осознанная необходимость**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are a lot of other examples &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Первая **осознанная улыбка** сына досталась отцу.&#xD;&#xA;Это первая **осознанная попытка** найти выход их тупика. Это не размышления, а **осознанная позиция**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vivien had made a conscious effort to be friendly.&#xD;&#xA;Вивьен сделала **осознанную попытку** проявить дружелюбие.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She made a conscious decision to leave the painting unfinished.&#xD;&#xA;Она приняла **осознанное решение** оставить картину незаконченной.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I read about the various options so that I could make an informed choice.&#xD;&#xA;Я читал о различных вариантах, поэтому мог сделать **осознанный выбор**.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;He took a calculated risk and got in on the ground floor of the new enterprise.&#xD;&#xA;Он пошёл на **осознанный риск** и пробрался на первый этаж нового предприятия.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Good information is essential if people are to make informed choices about services.&#xD;&#xA;Чтобы люди могли сделать **осознанный выбор** в отношении услуг, необходима достоверная информация.  ☰&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example isn't quite correct &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Проблему,осознанную тобой, необходимо решить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16582" RevisionGUID="ee7415c6-8d72-4ae8-a95e-f5ac54730795" CreationDate="2018-06-14T12:09:06.527" UserId="5443" Text="Technically, it is in the *Imperative* (despite the coincidence with the Future form) and the word literally invites to '*agree*' with the following statement. However, it is closer to something like '**Look, it's impressive..**.' '**You know, it's impressive...**' and is a bit more formal than **Hey, it's impressive!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16580" RevisionGUID="ec3c25fa-e896-406c-ab1e-bd065919aec2" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:10:05.043" UserId="6097" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="did i use осознанный correctly here? I want a correct example to put in anki. I intended the sentence to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The problem that is known by you should be finished by you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проблема, осознанная тобой тебе нужно закончить. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="8c3eecef-aef3-4584-bc44-2950dfa991e3" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:35:07.897" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;От меня так просто не **скрыться**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why you can omit the second-person singular/plural &quot;сможешь/сможете&quot; and just use the infinitive &quot;скрыться&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: От меня так просто не **сможешь/сможете** скрыться!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="8c3eecef-aef3-4584-bc44-2950dfa991e3" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:35:07.897" UserId="8672" Text="Why does &quot;скрыться&quot; take the infinitive form in &quot;От меня так просто не скрыться!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="8c3eecef-aef3-4584-bc44-2950dfa991e3" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:35:07.897" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="1726b947-44ce-492d-89a8-f9fec31d50c7" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:50:45.537" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Последним его словом** было мое имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мое имя было **последним его словом** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Моим именем** было последнее его слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Последнее его слово было **моим именем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming you can phrase this sentence in at least four different ways, but  how do they compare in terms of nuance and emphasis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if the different positions of &quot;его&quot; affect the meaning of the sentence at all: &quot;последним его словом&quot; vs &quot;его последним словом&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="1726b947-44ce-492d-89a8-f9fec31d50c7" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:50:45.537" UserId="8672" Text="Nuaces of meaning, depending on which part is in the instrumental case in &quot;Последним его словом было мое имя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="1726b947-44ce-492d-89a8-f9fec31d50c7" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:50:45.537" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16585" RevisionGUID="3bdd2ed6-45f3-4a42-8524-2f667ac0cceb" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:55:03.753" UserId="7674" Text="This is called either [*an independent infinitive construction*](http://rusgram.ru/Конструкция_с_независимым_инфинитивом#214) or [*an infinitive sentence*](https://moluch.ru/archive/69/11950/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuts and bolts have been explained, hopefully satisfactorily, at [**Не справиться as an idiom**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16429/Не-справиться-as-an-idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инфинитивные предложения с отрицательной частицей ***не*** выражают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такие отрицательные модальные значения как: а) невозможность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) невыполнимость, c) ненужность и d) запрещение совершения действия. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; школьной грамматике отдельное выделение инфинитивных предложений&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отсутствует, они считаются одним из видов безличных. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; По словам Д. Э. Розенталя *«Инфинитивными предложениями* называются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; односоставные предложения, в которых главный член выражен *независимым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инфинитивом*» [11, с. 79]. Он считает, что инфинитивные предложения –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это особая разновидность односоставных предложений. **Обязательный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонент в структуре русских инфинитивных предложений – это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *независимый инфинитив*, для которого структурно-обязательной является дательный субъект, т. е. форма дательного падежа со значением&#xD;&#xA;&gt; субъекта действия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Барари Р., Мадаэни А. А. Инфинитивные предложения с отрицательным значением в русском языке и способы их выражения в персидском // Молодой ученый. — 2014. — №10. — С. 522-527*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41910" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="128f015e-0cac-4a2f-88f1-aaa162c0ecaa" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:56:10.030" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|infinitive-sentence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41911" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16429" RevisionGUID="0aa243c9-156a-4399-bc10-cc567fabb392" CreationDate="2018-06-14T14:56:25.380" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выражения|идиомы|infinitive-sentence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16585" RevisionGUID="ad3097d9-3fb1-4320-a3f7-5fbebc114f04" CreationDate="2018-06-14T15:00:35.627" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="This is called either [*an independent infinitive construction*](http://rusgram.ru/Конструкция_с_независимым_инфинитивом#214) or [*an infinitive sentence*](https://moluch.ru/archive/69/11950/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuts and bolts have been explained, hopefully satisfactorily, at [**Не справиться as an idiom**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16429/Не-справиться-as-an-idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инфинитивные предложения с отрицательной частицей ***не*** выражают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такие отрицательные модальные значения как: а) невозможность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) невыполнимость, c) ненужность и d) запрещение совершения действия. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; школьной грамматике отдельное выделение инфинитивных предложений&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отсутствует, они считаются одним из видов безличных. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; По словам Д. Э. Розенталя *«Инфинитивными предложениями* называются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; односоставные предложения, в которых главный член выражен *независимым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инфинитивом*» [11, с. 79]. Он считает, что инфинитивные предложения –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это особая разновидность односоставных предложений. **Обязательный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонент в структуре русских инфинитивных предложений – это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *независимый инфинитив*, для которого структурно-обязательным является дательный субъект, т. е. форма дательного падежа со значением&#xD;&#xA;&gt; субъекта действия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Барари Р., Мадаэни А. А. Инфинитивные предложения с отрицательным значением в русском языке и способы их выражения в персидском // Молодой ученый. — 2014. — №10. — С. 522-527*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значение невозможности требует совершенного вида глагола. Исключение –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; примеры с *не видать*...   &#xD;&#xA;Еще пример исключения: *не жить*...   &#xD;&#xA;Употребление несовершенного вида облегчается также в контексте *больше не*: *После&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такой операции не летать вам больше*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16585" RevisionGUID="a646c2d5-9dab-4d69-ada9-17580ae37a08" CreationDate="2018-06-14T15:07:54.513" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="This is called either [*an independent infinitive construction*](http://rusgram.ru/Конструкция_с_независимым_инфинитивом#214) (конструкция с независимым инфинитивом) or [*an infinitive sentence*](https://moluch.ru/archive/69/11950/) (инфинитивное предложение)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuts and bolts have been explained, hopefully satisfactorily, at [**Не справиться as an idiom**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16429/Не-справиться-as-an-idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инфинитивные предложения с отрицательной частицей ***не*** выражают&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такие отрицательные модальные значения как: а) невозможность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) невыполнимость, c) ненужность и d) запрещение совершения действия. В&#xD;&#xA;&gt; школьной грамматике отдельное выделение инфинитивных предложений&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отсутствует, они считаются одним из видов безличных. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; По словам Д. Э. Розенталя *«Инфинитивными предложениями* называются&#xD;&#xA;&gt; односоставные предложения, в которых главный член выражен *независимым&#xD;&#xA;&gt; инфинитивом*» [11, с. 79]. Он считает, что инфинитивные предложения –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; это особая разновидность односоставных предложений. **Обязательный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компонент в структуре русских инфинитивных предложений – это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *независимый инфинитив*, для которого структурно-обязательным является дательный субъект, т. е. форма дательного падежа со значением&#xD;&#xA;&gt; субъекта действия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Барари Р., Мадаэни А. А. Инфинитивные предложения с отрицательным значением в русском языке и способы их выражения в персидском // Молодой ученый. — 2014. — №10. — С. 522-527*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **значение невозможности требует совершенного вида глагола**.   &#xD;&#xA;Исключения –&#xD;&#xA;*не видать*, *не жить*  &#xD;&#xA;Употребление несовершенного вида облегчается также в контексте *больше не*: *После&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такой операции `не летать вам больше`*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16586" RevisionGUID="499314ef-3138-4def-b6ae-33b9a4b82656" CreationDate="2018-06-14T16:12:17.000" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; 1. Последним его словом было мое имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds neutral: &quot;His last word was my name.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Мое имя было последним его словом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might give the impression that your name killed him. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Моим именем было последнее его слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a sort of Yoda-speak: &quot;My name his last word was&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Последнее его слово было моим именем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds OK. Almost as good as No.1.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="54085f63-8bfd-47f3-b5bf-26c101e28459" CreationDate="2018-06-14T16:15:56.627" UserId="8672" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) **Последним его словом** было мое имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Мое имя было **последним его словом** .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3) **Моим именем** было последнее его слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4) Последнее его слово было **моим именем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming you can phrase this sentence in at least four different ways, but  how do they compare in terms of nuance and emphasis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, I wonder if the different positions of &quot;его&quot; affect the meaning of the sentence at all: &quot;последним его словом&quot; vs &quot;его последним словом&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16587" RevisionGUID="b895fab4-d419-4042-bd38-2a2b9c6d38af" CreationDate="2018-06-14T17:22:46.457" UserId="2079" Text="&#xD;&#xA;    1) Последним его словом было мое имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on `мое имя`. (&quot;Последним его словом было мое имя, а не что-то другое&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    2) Мое имя было последним его словом .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emphasis on `последним его словом`, especially on `последним`. (&quot;Мое имя было последним его словом, а не первым или, например, третьим с конца.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    3) Моим именем было последнее его слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is hard to comprehend. It sounds for me like a gothic litherary style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    4) Последнее его слово было моим именем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like 1. Also, it sounds a bit like there is a queer coincidence between his last word and the narrator's name.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16588" RevisionGUID="131029df-ba5e-4b8d-bab6-1499d6da8a01" CreationDate="2018-06-15T04:13:21.830" UserId="10578" Text="Nos. 1 and 4 are plain, narrative variants, slightly emphasising &quot;his last word&quot; meaning and differing in grammar only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. 2 changes emphasis to &quot;my name&quot;, stays in the narrative style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. 3 reorders the words and because of this the phrase gets &quot;dramatic&quot;. Emphasis may be put either on &quot;his last word&quot; or on &quot;my name&quot; by intonation, when spoken/read, or by typographic means, when written/printed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16589" RevisionGUID="8fd12607-f7f1-43b9-8257-251ec2b2baa5" CreationDate="2018-06-15T04:17:05.410" UserId="10578" Text="The 1st phrase emphasises impersonality slightly, implying noone can get away from &quot;me&quot;: &quot;It's not so easy [for anyone] to get away from me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd one requires pronoun or noun, and so gets somewhat specific in meaning: &quot;YOU won't (be able to) get away from me so easily&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16590" RevisionGUID="256cc3c8-df35-450c-ada0-ee0524317c26" CreationDate="2018-06-15T09:23:38.287" UserId="5443" Text="Typically, it's not natural to use that participle with *dependent words*. Its usage is closer to that of an *adjective*, as the examples in another answer clearly show. So just a grammatical correction wouldn't give a good Russian sentence. However, it is possible to imagine a rare situation (in a dialogue) where it might sound natural enough, considering emphasis on pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (- Проблему какую-то, говоришь, осознал!?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Осознанную **тобой** проблему **тебе же** и решать! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (It's up to you to solve the problem you feel!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16574" RevisionGUID="2498be63-7885-4b7e-a839-19a83949fb6f" CreationDate="2018-06-15T12:09:27.123" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1007595939828322304" />
  <row Id="41921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="db8f3fa5-1ac6-44c9-ba5c-227bbc503571" CreationDate="2018-06-15T15:02:34.390" UserId="2251" Text="In Latin, Венера is Venus. A similar word &quot;corpus&quot; is translated as &quot;корпус&quot;, not as &quot;корпора&quot; (or &quot;корпор&quot; if we take its gender into account). Why is then Venus not Венера?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="db8f3fa5-1ac6-44c9-ba5c-227bbc503571" CreationDate="2018-06-15T15:02:34.390" UserId="2251" Text="Почему Венера, а не Венус?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="db8f3fa5-1ac6-44c9-ba5c-227bbc503571" CreationDate="2018-06-15T15:02:34.390" UserId="2251" Text="|этимология|произношение|правописание|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16592" RevisionGUID="3ad60f0e-925f-486e-b504-ca392b4713e0" CreationDate="2018-06-15T15:36:59.160" UserId="310" Text="In modern Italian she is Venere, in Latin one of the forms were Venĕris according to Italian Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Serbian and Bulgarian she is Венера. Looks like it's nothing very special about Russian. You should search for this fork earlier than Russian loan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="fbee3d30-e632-43f5-826b-d49ee2101ef3" CreationDate="2018-06-15T16:06:08.410" UserId="2251" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In Latin, Венера is Venus. A similar word &quot;corpus&quot; is translated as &quot;корпус&quot;, not as &quot;корпора&quot; (or &quot;корпор&quot; if we take its gender into account). Why is then Venus not Венус?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16593" RevisionGUID="ddd4b4fc-3dcd-43b6-938d-d14ac784d4a2" CreationDate="2018-06-15T20:41:26.217" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;А **чем** это отличается от того, что делаю я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: А **как** это отличается от того, что делаю я?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I'm aware that &quot;чем&quot; is the right word to use to express the idea of &quot;How is it different from ...?&quot;, I can't quite put my finger on why &quot;как&quot; sounds strange here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16593" RevisionGUID="ddd4b4fc-3dcd-43b6-938d-d14ac784d4a2" CreationDate="2018-06-15T20:41:26.217" UserId="8672" Text="The reason why &quot;как это отличается от того&quot; does not work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16593" RevisionGUID="ddd4b4fc-3dcd-43b6-938d-d14ac784d4a2" CreationDate="2018-06-15T20:41:26.217" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="80f9f44e-bcca-480a-9cc2-c1e103d1a61c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T21:05:49.067" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **меня** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **своего** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker is looking back on his own life. I'm assuming that *[illeism][1]* is in effect here; the omitted subject in front of &quot;был&quot; is not &quot;я&quot;, but &quot;он&quot; that refers to the speaker himself, practically acting as &quot;я&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the reflexive pronoun &quot;своего&quot; is not used in the subordinate clause despite referring to oneself? Why suddenly drop the illeism and switch to the more personal &quot;меня&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41930" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="80f9f44e-bcca-480a-9cc2-c1e103d1a61c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T21:05:49.067" UserId="8672" Text="The reason why the reflexive pronoun &quot;свой&quot; is not used despite referring to oneself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41931" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="80f9f44e-bcca-480a-9cc2-c1e103d1a61c" CreationDate="2018-06-15T21:05:49.067" UserId="8672" Text="|местоимения|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16595" RevisionGUID="aaceff53-bc93-43b5-b410-07a4b15ed1ce" CreationDate="2018-06-15T21:59:43.207" UserId="134" Text="*Себя* refers to the last (implied) agent in the clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **себя** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Back then the man was still alive who had been pushing **himself** towards fulfilling his dreams&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agent in the clause is the &quot;man&quot;, hence *себя* would refer to him as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="391e1e56-e6b9-4f1c-b9a2-9ee6caa1c49a" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:01:44.383" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **меня** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{Why not}: В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **себя** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker is looking back on his own life, talking about what kind of man he used to be. I'm assuming that *[illeism][1]* is in effect here; the omitted subject in front of &quot;был&quot; is not &quot;я&quot;, but &quot;он&quot; that refers to the speaker himself, practically acting as &quot;я&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the reflexive pronoun &quot;себя&quot; is not used in the subordinate clause despite referring to oneself? Why suddenly drop the illeism and switch to the more personal &quot;меня&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="391e1e56-e6b9-4f1c-b9a2-9ee6caa1c49a" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:01:44.383" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="The reason why the reflexive pronoun &quot;себя&quot; is not used despite referring to oneself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16595" RevisionGUID="543f1f52-faff-4ce9-8781-2927cc5474a8" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:09:46.587" UserId="134" Comment="added 492 characters in body" Text="*Себя* refers to the last (implied) agent in the clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **себя** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Back then the man was still alive who had been pushing **himself** towards fulfilling his dreams&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The agent in the clause is the &quot;man&quot;, hence *себя* would refer to him as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for why illeism is dropped here, I don't know. Probably the narrator meant to emphasize some kind of split personality they had, so that one side of their personality (which they don't identify with anymore, as it's &quot;dead&quot;) was pushing their current &quot;me&quot; (hence *меня*) towards pursuing their dreams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any explanation which would have explained replacing &quot;himself&quot; with &quot;myself&quot; in the English phrase above would work just as well for replacing *себя* with *меня* in the Russian phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16596" RevisionGUID="d05932eb-042f-4cd1-b3b9-d14f775ee116" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:13:07.220" UserId="9001" Text="First of all, *своего* is a possessive pronoun and doesn't fit there at all. You must be thinking of *себя*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there is nothing omitted in front of *был*, because the clause has a perfectly normal subject - *человек*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, if *человек* was the author himself (that is not obvious without context, and implies an unusual way of telling a story), both *себя/меня* could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would explain it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the author thinks that back then he had different personality, he will use *себя* as if he is talking about someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if he wants to show that there was a *part* of his personality (which is gone now) that helped some other part of his personality (which more or less survived) he may use *меня*  to refer the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the whole manner of speaking is rather unusual, so without context I can't be sure I got the author's point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="a91f3fca-d8a8-42f5-a5ba-d4f4f9888ddd" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:23:39.270" UserId="8672" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="&gt;В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **меня** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{Why not}: В то время был еще жив человек, который подталкивал **себя** к осуществлению мечты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker is reminiscing about how much more passionate of a man he used to be. I'm assuming that *[illeism][1]* is in effect here; the omitted subject in front of &quot;был&quot; is not &quot;я&quot;, but &quot;он&quot; that refers to the speaker himself, practically acting as &quot;я&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the reflexive pronoun &quot;себя&quot; is not used in the subordinate clause despite referring to oneself? Why suddenly drop the illeism and switch to the more personal &quot;меня&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16597" RevisionGUID="c27209ab-b2ff-4ec1-8a15-94ebfe26e05d" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:33:54.053" UserId="134" Text="Imparisyllabic Latin words (meaning words having an extra syllable in genitive compared to nominative) are usually cited in their genitive form, as it's usually a more accurate representation of the word's etymology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Church Slavonic authors chose to use Latin genitive stems for all Church Slavonic forms, including the nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why we have *Venus (gen. Veneris) &gt; Венера, Cicero (gen. Ciceronis) &gt; Цицерон, cliens (gen. clientis) &gt; клиент* etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16598" RevisionGUID="a5c77e4e-3e4c-4620-b77e-0b3ee36d35b3" CreationDate="2018-06-15T22:38:14.973" UserId="9001" Text="**Отличается** requires a noun in instrumental case when you are talking about *what* is different. Hence **чем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Этот банк отличается надежностью* - The bank is known for its sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, **как** in this context will mean you want to know to what extent one thing is different from another (*Как* is a question to be answered with an adverb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Как отличаются эти графики?* - How big is the difference between these curves?&#xD;&#xA;*Очень сильно* - Quite big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16572" RevisionGUID="eb1d4baa-05d9-407c-8659-7436ccfac120" CreationDate="2018-06-16T00:09:25.000" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1007777124982411264" />
  <row Id="41941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16599" RevisionGUID="840cebc9-bb17-4c66-9fa1-b79c7dd56aa7" CreationDate="2018-06-16T04:09:18.177" UserId="10578" Text="There's a formal semantical difference, which @AlexVB correctly pointed out -- &quot;difference in what (aspect)&quot; vs. &quot;difference by what (measure)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a usage difference. I think you'll find the second variant isn't actually used (maybe that's why it sounds strange to you). If you'd want to ask &quot;by what measure this differs from that&quot;, you'd want to say, e.g., &quot;насколько (это отличается... и т.д.)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16600" RevisionGUID="70a743a6-5494-472f-a94a-4b7541ff4ef1" CreationDate="2018-06-16T05:04:54.310" UserId="10177" Text="I think the fact that the man he's talking about is himself is irrelevant from a grammatical point of view. He's simply saying that in the past there was a man who pushed him toward his dream. The fact that the man was actually himself doesn't matter here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="300f14ee-fa87-4b99-91d2-69d89cfcacf7" CreationDate="2018-06-16T08:03:12.187" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Интересно, слетит ли он **с катушек** еще раз?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is a set expression with the meaning of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I wonder if he will **go out of his mind** and fly away once again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="300f14ee-fa87-4b99-91d2-69d89cfcacf7" CreationDate="2018-06-16T08:03:12.187" UserId="8672" Text="How to use the expression &quot;с катушек&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="300f14ee-fa87-4b99-91d2-69d89cfcacf7" CreationDate="2018-06-16T08:03:12.187" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16602" RevisionGUID="94fed99b-d445-4f90-aa64-12532eda07a5" CreationDate="2018-06-16T08:40:51.660" UserId="10667" Text="&quot;Слетит ли он с катушек&quot; is translated as &quot;if he will go out of his mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So, the correct translation will be I wonder if he will go out of his mind once again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16603" RevisionGUID="bff26988-4b91-46b4-a099-b5738b3b0a4c" CreationDate="2018-06-16T12:56:51.077" UserId="6539" Text="**Слететь с катушек** is equal to &quot;**go crazy /mad, to lose control, to behave inadequately**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Иван совсем с катушек слетел, ругается дебоширит.  Дай бог ему здоровья и не слететь с катушек.  Можно было сразу слететь с катушек, это был удар по нервной системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idiom is young and  connected with the first computers whose memory was written on the magnetic tape, these bobbins could fall and paralyze the work of the computer centre. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41948" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="e4b7ec9e-a7db-4cd7-ab0c-5a045f7f2d28" CreationDate="2018-06-16T23:17:34.880" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему &quot;Венера&quot;, а не 'Венус&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="cb2ebb74-9103-4cc0-aafe-0a7d90fc6f6b" CreationDate="2018-06-17T01:04:04.160" UserId="9603" Text="Are these words interchangeable? I recently read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - она стёрла видео с телефона&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would it sound weird if I replaced **стёрла** for **удалила**? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="cb2ebb74-9103-4cc0-aafe-0a7d90fc6f6b" CreationDate="2018-06-17T01:04:04.160" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between «стереть» and «удалить»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16604" RevisionGUID="cb2ebb74-9103-4cc0-aafe-0a7d90fc6f6b" CreationDate="2018-06-17T01:04:04.160" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16605" RevisionGUID="57f1f43b-4426-4c6d-8ed9-f8ddce654192" CreationDate="2018-06-17T01:11:00.080" UserId="9459" Text="For deleting a file it's essentially the same. But, there are some verbal and formality differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `стереть` is &quot;to erase&quot;. Like that thing that remove pencil lines from the paper. It's also the less formal, colloquial one.&#xD;&#xA;- `удалить` is &quot;to remove&quot;. It's more broad, more formal. It also coinsides with the medical term, you could say `удалить селезенку` for &quot;to remove the spleen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To add more similar words, but much less in a &quot;deleting a file&quot; context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `уничтожить` is &quot;to destroy&quot;, you don't really use it in conjecture with files.&#xD;&#xA;- `убрать` is &quot;to remove&quot;, also &quot;to pick trash&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- `выбросить` is &quot;to recycle&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- `вытереть` is &quot;to wipe&quot;, _might_ be used in the context of wiping a device, but is somewhat strange to my ear&#xD;&#xA;- `отформатировать` is a loan from &quot;to format [a drive]&quot;, has a bit of a different meaning technically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16606" RevisionGUID="1627f6f3-2705-4388-b661-a6986fc8f797" CreationDate="2018-06-17T04:18:19.580" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;Удалить&quot; is the formal, standardised term for the action of removing a file from computer storage. (Not very apposite for the context, by the way, but there you are).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;стереть&quot; is a synonym, coming from the times when magnetic tape was used for audio and video recording and computer storage (maybe not so familiar technology for younger folks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of magnetic tape records the verb &quot;стереть&quot; was the standard. You could say then: &quot;стереть запись&quot; -- &quot;to erase the recording&quot;; &quot;стереть кассету&quot; -- &quot;to erase/blank the cassette&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16603" RevisionGUID="176e06fc-743d-4ddf-b4aa-4de7be7b10bd" CreationDate="2018-06-17T05:49:38.327" UserId="6539" Comment="deleted 179 characters in body" Text="**Слететь с катушек** is equal to &quot;**go crazy /mad, to lose control, to behave inadequately**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Иван совсем с катушек слетел, ругается дебоширит.  Дай бог ему здоровья и не слететь с катушек.  Можно было сразу слететь с катушек, это был удар по нервной системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16602" RevisionGUID="810d0625-77b6-4e7f-b011-04dd8bf695cf" CreationDate="2018-06-17T07:14:49.187" UserId="6097" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;Слетит ли он с катушек&quot; is translated as &quot;if he will go out of his mind&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So, the correct translation will be &quot;I wonder if he will go out of his mind once again&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16607" RevisionGUID="acc8480f-d436-446b-af96-a4fefdd8a672" CreationDate="2018-06-17T17:06:53.377" UserId="10565" Text="Very often in russian verbs have two forms, some examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - делать/сделать&#xD;&#xA; - встречаться/встретиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My russian friends keep telling it is important to differentiate both but cannot explain to me what the difference actually is and when to use one or another. Any insight on the difference between both would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16607" RevisionGUID="acc8480f-d436-446b-af96-a4fefdd8a672" CreationDate="2018-06-17T17:06:53.377" UserId="10565" Text="What is the difference between the forms of verbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16607" RevisionGUID="acc8480f-d436-446b-af96-a4fefdd8a672" CreationDate="2018-06-17T17:06:53.377" UserId="10565" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41959" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16594" RevisionGUID="9660eebe-4730-4a93-afd0-8fb0715b5a14" CreationDate="2018-06-18T00:23:09.833" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1008505360318156801" />
  <row Id="41960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16608" RevisionGUID="65eb1f0f-b870-4715-9550-4e9e6c9d768b" CreationDate="2018-06-18T04:15:08.670" UserId="10578" Text="The difference here is uncompleted vs. completed action, as expressed by the respective pairs of forms of the verbs. In a couple of words, you could compare that to the difference between continuous and perfect tenses in English. Beyond that, it's textbooks and vocabularies materiel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16584" RevisionGUID="5f66a0ae-f40d-4e39-ac23-7de396b4cc90" CreationDate="2018-06-18T06:23:09.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1008595957099966465" />
  <row Id="41962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16609" RevisionGUID="5f8a0c26-ed0d-4578-b97e-d8b20e5eb01e" CreationDate="2018-06-18T10:28:55.943" UserId="9058" Text="1) But &quot;the plural-only noun &quot;де́ньги&quot; technically IS the plural of &quot;the colloquial singular noun &quot;деньга́&quot;. So I guess your question here makes little sense, I can see no dichotomy here. It is plural instrumental form of the same word either way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, the plural &quot;деньги&quot; gained additional generic sense that &quot;деньга&quot; arguably lacks - &quot;деньги&quot; can refer to a bank account or a BitCoin wallet, while &quot;деньга&quot; refers to physical cash, to a coin or a banknote. Still does it make them really different words? I personally do not think so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Compare with plural &quot;люди&quot; gaining the additional meaning of singular &quot;people&quot; and remaining in modern use due to that generic sense, while singular &quot;людь&quot; falling out of usage together with &quot;полюдье&quot; and other feudal-era terms.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you consider them semantically being different words, homonyms, they still technically are merely forms of one word. So, as for me it is exactly the case of &quot;ultimately amount to the same thing&quot;. At least when the question is formulated in technical terms (from which... stems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Now if you ask what was the specific meaning of the word &quot;деньгами&quot; in that phrase, then we can put it to the test using synonyms. Granted, this test perhaps is not easy for foreign person living outside &quot;language native environment&quot;. However, I would try to bring some examples. We try to replace the word in question with other words, that convey only or mostly one of those meanings we try to differentiate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Купюра - (here) banknote.  It does not have a meaning of &quot;money in general&quot;. So &quot;у нас туго с купюрами&quot; would refer to paper cash specifically. Does it sound idiomatic? I'd say no. It can be used in a professional environment, where a cashier or ATM maintainer may report an abnormal shortage of paper cash to one's boss. But you would next to never meet it in casual life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Банкнота - banknote. Same as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лавэ - that is a rather vulgar semi-bandito word for &quot;money&quot; (plural деньги). &quot;У нас туго с лавэ&quot; - it sounds perfectly natural to me (with that gangsta accent, which is not always welcome, but that is another issue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Монета - coin. This is a bit tricky. Cause in plural &quot;монеты&quot;/&quot;coins&quot; MIGHT be used colloquially to refer money-in-general, quite like plural of &quot;деньга&quot; does normally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My guess (unchecked) is that деньга/таньга was originally a Tartar word for coin. And if that word for coin gained an extra generic meaning in plural, then it is only natural for another word denoting coin to gave the same trait.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, back to the case, in the aforementioned professional environment &quot;у нас туго с монетами&quot; would refer specifically to lack of coins (while paper cash might be in abundance). However in general population &quot;у нас туго с монетами&quot; would be seen as a somewhat vulgar wannabe-gangsta way to say &quot;short of (in general) money&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By default, w/o context, деньги would refer to money in general and монеты to coins, the particular physical form of money. &#xD;&#xA;However when pressed by the &quot;у нас туго с ...&quot; context the &quot;монеты&quot; would be normally pushed to its secondary more vague and abstract meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рубль - rouble. Might refer to the currency (roubles vs dollars vs pounds vs ...) or to a cash of the specific value (coins or banknotes bearing value of exactly 1 rouble, not 2 or 10 or half). Here again &quot;у нас туго с рублями&quot; would normally imply that professional environment situation - or some pretentious person intentionally garbling the language for the sake of avoiding normative &quot;туго с деньгами&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наличность - cash. Singular-only. &quot;У нас туго с наличностью&quot; would imply &quot;short of pocket money&quot; kind of situation, short of money that could be handed over right this instant. Technically &quot;наличность&quot; is short for &quot;наличные деньги&quot; - &quot;cash money&quot;, however &quot;наличный&quot; in general means some resource &quot;instantly available, existing here and now&quot;. So that phrase would imply that in general there are some valuables (like bank account to draw cash from, or like expensive property to be firesold) that can be converted into the required cash, just it would be troubling and bothersome, so the doubt is conveyed whether this route to be taken or the whole &quot;deal&quot; refused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ATM I can not come with more synonyms to check and compare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16610" RevisionGUID="92ba6afe-161a-49c6-8208-4179223d9e5c" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:10:05.053" UserId="8780" Text="1. I was trying to figure out how to say &quot;x kilometers to the north/west/east/south of y&quot;. Which of these alternatives is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится на двухстах километрах к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится двухстами километрами севернее Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится на растоянии двухсот километров к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What if I want to tell just the location in regard to the compass point, without the distance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится севернее Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится северной Москвы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In a textbook, I saw the following sentence: &quot;Саратов находится **юго-западной** Москвы&quot;. If I understood well, &quot;юго-западной&quot; is the instrumental feminine. Why not &quot;юго-западным&quot;, since Саратов is masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16610" RevisionGUID="92ba6afe-161a-49c6-8208-4179223d9e5c" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:10:05.053" UserId="8780" Text="Relative locations with compass points" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16610" RevisionGUID="92ba6afe-161a-49c6-8208-4179223d9e5c" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:10:05.053" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|склонение|творительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16611" RevisionGUID="5ae0fd12-0dce-470f-9d08-a2508c5c3fd8" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:24:00.663" UserId="1836" Text="For &quot;x kilometers to the north of Y&quot; all three options are fine (note that I've corrected them a bit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Углич находится в двухстах километрах к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;        Углич находится двумястами километрами севернее Москвы&#xD;&#xA;        Углич находится на растоянии двухсот километров к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one more option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Углич находится в двухстах километрах на север от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;It's almost same as first one, the difference is in &quot;на север&quot; vs &quot;к северу&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For location in regard to the compass point, without the distance, first two are fine, but the last one in your example is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        Углич находится к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;        Углич находится севернее Москвы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sentence from textbook: &quot;Саратов находится юго-западной Москвы&quot;, I guess there is a mistake. It should be &quot;Саратов находится юго-западней Москвы&quot;. And I believe &quot;юго-западней&quot; is an adjective n comparative form here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16610" RevisionGUID="195ad227-aa59-449f-b857-54b7b7eb41fe" CreationDate="2018-06-18T14:37:39.707" UserId="8780" Comment="edited body" Text="1. I was trying to figure out how to say &quot;x kilometers to the north/west/east/south of y&quot;. Which of these alternatives is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится на двухстах километрах к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится двухстами километрами севернее Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится на растоянии двухсот километров к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What if I want to tell just the location in regard to the compass point, without the distance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится к северу от Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится севернее Москвы&#xD;&#xA;- Углич находится северной Москвы &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. In a textbook, I saw the following sentence: &quot;Саратов находится **юго-западней** Москвы&quot;. If I understood well, &quot;юго-западней&quot; is the instrumental feminine. Why not &quot;юго-западным&quot;, since Саратов is masculine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16612" RevisionGUID="baa53ce4-82e7-4034-bef1-ac5b0284a0ed" CreationDate="2018-06-18T19:29:40.187" UserId="10578" Text="1) To &quot;X kilometers to the north/west/east/south of Y&quot;..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) ..the (arguably) most used equivalent would be &quot;в X [in prepositive] километрах к северу/западу/востоку/югу от Y [in genitive]&quot;, or the one completely equivalent to it, &quot;на север/запад/восток/юг от Y [genitive]&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b) the variant with &quot;...на расстоянии...&quot; [X in genitive] would be more suitable to point out the correct distance, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1c) and the variant with &quot;...двумястами...&quot; [X in instrumentative] would be somewhat more expressive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The location in regard to the compass point (in your example) should be expressed as any one of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2a) &quot;...севернее...&quot; or &quot;...северней...&quot; [Y in genitive in both cases], the 2nd form is just the 1st form with its ending contracted (&quot;-ее&quot; -&gt; &quot;-ей&quot;);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2b) &quot;...к северу от...&quot; or &quot;...на север от...&quot; [Y in genitive in both cases].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2c) There's also the &quot;... по направлению на север от... [Y in genitive]&quot; -- &quot;in the north direction off [Y...]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16613" RevisionGUID="2020b81c-8cb2-48df-8239-700685d2a300" CreationDate="2018-06-18T20:39:20.160" UserId="9256" Text=" - *Углич находится на двухстах километрах к северу от Москвы* -&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Углич находится **в** двухстах километрах к северу от Москвы&quot; This would probably be the most common colloquial use case. There may be an alternative: &quot;Углич находится на двух**сотом** километр**е** к северу от Москвы&quot;, which implies that the distance is metered on railroad or highway.&#xD;&#xA; - *Углич находится двухстами километрами севернее Москвы* - Usable, but less practical.&#xD;&#xA; - *Углич находится на растоянии двухсот километров к северу от Москвы* - Definitely usable, but not colloquial. It sounds like a geography lesson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Углич находится к северу от Москвы* - perfectly fine. A variant &quot;Углич находится **на** север от Москвы&quot; implies a stricter sense of direction.&#xD;&#xA; - *Углич находится севернее Москвы* - defines latitude, but not direction. Same as &quot;Stockholm is farther to the north than Moscow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - *Углич находится северной Москвы* - not good at all. &quot;северной Москвы&quot; means it is about the northern part of Moscow, and the sentence &#xD;&#xA; as a whole makes no grammatical sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;№3 (*юго-западней*) I think it is sufficiently resolved already, as the question reflects it.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16614" RevisionGUID="1eb78817-7824-485a-87b8-59476256ee80" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:12:23.630" UserId="8780" Text="I saw an old post on this forum, telling that, in order to convey the idea &quot;from... to...&quot;, we must use **&quot;из... в...&quot;** when the endpoints are towns or countries, whereas **&quot;с... на...&quot;** is used when the endpoints refer to natural geography, such as mountains, islands, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the correct syntax is **&quot;из Москвы в Петербург&quot;**, and **&quot;с Урала на Камчатку&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I have a few doubts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What if the endpoints refer to different types of geography? &#xD;&#xA;For example, *&quot;from Moscow to the Ural Mountains&quot;*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;**Из** Москвы **на** Урал&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Nouns which take the preposition **на** in the locative case require **&quot;из... в...&quot;** to be replaced by **&quot;из... на...&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Из Крыма на Стравопольский Край&quot;, &quot;из Москвы на Кавказ&quot;, &quot;из России на Украину&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Once I saw the sentence &quot;**от** Москвы **до** Петербурга&quot;. Is this syntax correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How to tell &quot;from... to...&quot; when referring to abstract concepts, instead of geography?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For example, *&quot;from poverty to wealth&quot;*: &quot;**с** бедности **до** богатства&quot;?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; *&quot;The weather went from very cold to very hot with no transition&quot;*: &quot;Погода превращалась **с** очень холодной **на** очень жаркую  без перехода&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16614" RevisionGUID="1eb78817-7824-485a-87b8-59476256ee80" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:12:23.630" UserId="8780" Text="From... to... in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16614" RevisionGUID="1eb78817-7824-485a-87b8-59476256ee80" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:12:23.630" UserId="8780" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|сравнительная-степень|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16615" RevisionGUID="885b50e7-7c14-428d-bde1-3db6d8977aff" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:44:47.617" UserId="134" Text="&gt; What if the endpoints refer to different types of geography? For example, &quot;from Moscow to the Ural Mountains&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Из Москвы на Урал&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Nouns which take the preposition на in the locative case require &quot;из... в...&quot; to be replaced by &quot;из... на...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;из Москвы на Кавказ&quot;, &quot;из России на Украину&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Russian grammars prescribe to use *на Украину* but some Russian speakers living in Ukraine prefer to use *в Украину*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you would have used *на Украине* in locative, it would be consistent to use *на Украину* in accusative as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Край* is rarely if ever used with *на*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once I saw the sentence &quot;от Москвы до Петербурга&quot;. Is this syntax correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, but it means &quot;from Moscow to St. Petersburg&quot; in context of time or distance measurement: *от Москвы до Петербурга час лёту* means &quot;it's one hour's flight from Moscow to St. Petersburg&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other edge use cases for this syntax, but in general, when you're talking about going from somewhere to somewhere else, you use *из/с* and *в/на*, and when you're talking about distance from somewhere to somewhere else, you use *от* and *до*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, &quot;from poverty to wealth&quot;: &quot;с бедности до богатства&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See above. *От бедности до богатства один шаг*: &quot;it's one step from poverty to wealth&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The weather went from very cold to very hot with no transition&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Погода сменилась с очень холодной на очень жаркую без перехода*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to use *превратилась* (which is not stylistically justified here), you would have used *из/в* indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41974" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="16563" RevisionGUID="3bf841ce-25fe-40c5-a8ba-1a12f49f0103" CreationDate="2018-06-18T22:45:07.510" UserId="8780" Comment="56" />
  <row Id="41975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16616" RevisionGUID="13814cd6-a018-4a56-a8ed-3c9a67b5ae05" CreationDate="2018-06-18T23:11:41.143" UserId="134" Text="Russian stress is very mobile, and etymology does not play the leading role in defining it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words like *серьга, кирка, грудь, ось, глушь, сажень, Обь, Пермь, кружево, зеркало* and numerous others don't have any rhyme or reason to their stress patterns, and, as a matter of fact, their stress patterns were (and still are) swaying during the course of language development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's equally natural for Russian to say both *зе&amp;#x301;ркала* and *зеркала&amp;#x301;*, *знамёна* and *знамена&amp;#x301;*, *гру&amp;#x301;ди* and *груди&amp;#x301;* (sg. gen.) etc, and the forms which are perceived as blatantly wrong now were the only correct ones just 150 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best explanation of the fact that Russian speakers say *де&amp;#x301;ньги* in nominative and *деньга&amp;#x301;м* in dative in early XXI century is that they feel like it at this very point in time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16617" RevisionGUID="3f174a32-3aef-48f0-a2b9-b3ef5c247712" CreationDate="2018-06-19T00:29:05.903" UserId="8780" Text="One of the first things I got to know when I started learning Russian is that the preposition &quot;of&quot; does not exist in Russian. Or at least, so tell beginner-level textbooks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I kept studying, I realized that one cannot just use the genitive in many contexts. There are the prepositions **с, из, от** which denote origin and, unfortunately, are not interchangeable. I'm afraid that I need to learn case-by-case where to employ each one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, let me know if I got the right preposition in the following examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Из** is used when referring: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the material something is made of: &quot;стол сделан **из** дерева&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the starting point of a trip, *if that same point is denoted by the preposition **в**, were it the destination* : &quot;**из** Москвы на Кавказ&quot;, because &quot;с Кавказа **в** Москву&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;- Moreover, **из** is normally used when the point of departure is a city, country, region or other kind of artificial geography: из города, из Саратовской Области, из России.&#xD;&#xA;- a sample from an assortment: &quot;один **из** моих любимых блюд&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the starting stage of a transition/transformation, if the verb denoting the transition is followed by the preposition **в**: &quot;**Из** деревни превратиться **в** город&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**С** is used with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the starting point of a trip, if that same point is denoted by the preposition ***на***, were it the destination: &quot;**с** Кавказа в Москву&quot; because &quot;из Москвы **на** Кавказ&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- Moreover, **с** denotes departure from natural geography, such as mountains, islands, planets and stars. &quot;С Урала на Тихий Океан&quot;, &quot;с равнины на гору&quot;, &quot;с Земли на Луну&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- when referring to a starting point in time: &quot;со среды&quot;, &quot;с августа&quot;, &quot;с 2000 года&quot;, &quot;с шести часов вечера&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the means of sending a message: &quot;писать с телефона&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the starting stage of a transition/transformation denoted by a verb followed by the preposition ***на***: &quot;погода *с* холодной сменилась *на* жаркую&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**От** is used with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the cause of a negative consequence: &quot;умереть от холода&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the cause of an inadvertent action: &quot;от смущения она разбила кувшин с молоком&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the starting point of a trip having its arrival point denoted by ***до***, when measuring distance or travel time: &quot;поездка от Москвы до Петербурга занимает 13 часов&quot;, &quot;расстояние от Москвы до Петербурга - 700км&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- the symptoms a medicine is supposed to get people rid of: &quot;лекарство от кашеля&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the general usages I know so far. There are however specific usages which do not seem to fit the general criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expressions **&quot;с каждого дня&quot;**, **&quot;день ото дня&quot;**, **&quot;изо дня в день&quot;** all mean the same, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last surprise I stumbled upon was &quot;Алине Загитовой вручили ключ от квартиры в Ижевске&quot;. Is **ключ** in the same league as **лекарство**, in the sense that the purpose a thing is made for is indicated by *от*, rather than the genitive alone or the preposition *для*? Are there any other words followed by **от** indicating what something was designed for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not include examples such as &quot;сбить с тольку&quot;, &quot;сойти с ума&quot;, &quot;изо всех сил&quot;, because these all are set expressions which seem independent from general grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the expression &quot;от себя&quot; (for &quot;push!&quot;) a set expression too, or does it fit any rule for designating the starting point of something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16617" RevisionGUID="3f174a32-3aef-48f0-a2b9-b3ef5c247712" CreationDate="2018-06-19T00:29:05.903" UserId="8780" Text="Recap of с, от, из" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16617" RevisionGUID="3f174a32-3aef-48f0-a2b9-b3ef5c247712" CreationDate="2018-06-19T00:29:05.903" UserId="8780" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41979" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16563" RevisionGUID="1ca2fc4a-802f-4f0c-ab1c-370b7645ad65" CreationDate="2018-06-19T03:33:54.550" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1008915750688567297" />
  <row Id="41980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16618" RevisionGUID="bf559f8b-278d-4afe-a1d3-2bb72cc2b070" CreationDate="2018-06-19T04:34:36.267" UserId="2079" Text="The items are correct (except от `кашля`, since `кашель` has е only in nominal/accusative singular), but the list is not comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you missed a very common usage of `с` as &quot;with&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Она пошла в кино с подругами - She went to a cinema with (female) friends.&#xD;&#xA; * Он в баре с друзьями - he is in a pub with friends&#xD;&#xA; * Я встретил Мишку с Сашкой - I met Misha and Sasha (implies they were together)&#xD;&#xA; * Я сплю только с женой - I sleep only with my wife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the verbs дружить, враждовать, разводиться, воевать, играть govern &quot;с&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * СССР воевал с нацистской Германией - USSR warred/fought/made war against Nazi Germany&#xD;&#xA; * Я развёлся с женой - I divorced my wife&#xD;&#xA; * Иванов с Петровым дружат/враждуют (or Иванов дружит/враждует с Петровым)&#xD;&#xA; * Маша играет в шахматы с Наташей - Masha plays chess against Natasha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;С каждого дня&quot; is uncommon. It is mostly used in expressions like `по 2 фотографии с каждого дня` - literally &quot;two photographs from each day&quot;.  Similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* собрать по 1000 рублей с каждого сотрудника - collect 1000 rubles from each employee (for celebrating something, for example)&#xD;&#xA;* урожай пшеницы составил 50 центнеров с гектара - wheat crop was 50 centners per hectare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;День ото дня&quot; is about a feature which become stronger and stronger day by day (or weaker and weaker day by day). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня работы становилось всё больше - each day, there was more and more work&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня терпение его истощалось - his patience was exhausted day by day&#xD;&#xA;* Год от года, день ото дня хорошеет Кострома - Year by year, day by day, Kostroma becomes more and more beautiful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изо дня в день&quot; is about something which happens every day, without change, i. e. `изо дня в день мы слышали одно и то же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About `ключ от квартиры`: `Х от Y` means that X is made to be a part of Y, or (smaller) X and (bigger) Y are made to be together: `лампочка от фонарика, пробка от бутылки, детали от велосипеда, ручка от двери, ключ от двери/квартиры/дома/шкафа/машины, шнурки от ботинок` etc. If you will now remove one key from your computer's keyboard, it will become `клавиша от компьютера`. (Note this is almost always about artificial objects.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16618" RevisionGUID="4f512150-f234-4a8e-8f47-f48d12278d01" CreationDate="2018-06-19T04:39:47.323" UserId="2079" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="The items are correct (except от `кашля`, since `кашель` has е only in nominal/accusative singular), but the list is not comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you missed a very common usage of `с` as &quot;with&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Она пошла в кино с подругами - She went to a cinema with (female) friends.&#xD;&#xA; * Он в баре с друзьями - he is in a pub with friends&#xD;&#xA; * Я встретил Мишку с Сашкой - I met Misha and Sasha (implies they were together)&#xD;&#xA; * Я сплю только с женой - I sleep only with my wife.&#xD;&#xA; * Чай с сахаром - tea with sugar&#xD;&#xA; * Дом с мезонином - house with mezzanine&#xD;&#xA; * Дама с собачкой - lady with a little dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the verbs играть, дружить, враждовать, разводиться, воевать, соперничать govern &quot;с&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * СССР воевал с нацистской Германией - USSR warred/fought/made war against Nazi Germany&#xD;&#xA; * Я развёлся с женой - I divorced my wife&#xD;&#xA; * Иванов с Петровым дружат/враждуют (or Иванов дружит/враждует с Петровым)&#xD;&#xA; * Маша играет в шахматы с Наташей - Masha plays chess against Natasha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian language consider war, divorce, enmity as something which both parties do together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;С каждого дня&quot; is uncommon. It is mostly used in expressions like `по 2 фотографии с каждого дня` - literally &quot;two photographs from each day&quot;.  Similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* собрать по 1000 рублей с каждого сотрудника - collect 1000 rubles from each employee (for celebrating something, for example)&#xD;&#xA;* урожай пшеницы составил 50 центнеров с гектара - wheat crop was 50 centners per hectare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;День ото дня&quot; is about a feature which become stronger and stronger day by day (or weaker and weaker day by day). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня работы становилось всё больше - each day, there was more and more work&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня терпение его истощалось - his patience was exhausted day by day&#xD;&#xA;* Год от года, день ото дня хорошеет Кострома - Year by year, day by day, Kostroma becomes more and more beautiful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изо дня в день&quot; is about something which happens every day, without change, i. e. `изо дня в день мы слышали одно и то же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About `ключ от квартиры`: `Х от Y` means that X is made to be a part of Y, or (smaller) X and (bigger) Y are made to be together: `лампочка от фонарика, пробка от бутылки, детали от велосипеда, ручка от двери, ключ от двери/квартиры/дома/шкафа/машины, шнурки от ботинок` etc. If you will now remove one key from your computer's keyboard, it will become `клавиша от компьютера`. (Note this is almost always about artificial objects.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16618" RevisionGUID="9b1e7111-3e63-41d9-bee2-4c389e8d1127" CreationDate="2018-06-19T04:47:39.557" UserId="2079" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="The items are correct (except `от кашля`, since `кашель` has `е` only in nominal/accusative singular), but the list is not comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you missed a very common usage of `с` as &quot;with&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Она пошла в кино с подругами - She went to a cinema with (female) friends.&#xD;&#xA; * Он в баре с друзьями - he is in a pub with friends&#xD;&#xA; * Я встретил Мишку с Сашкой - I met Misha and Sasha (implies they were together)&#xD;&#xA; * Я сплю только с женой - I sleep only with my wife.&#xD;&#xA; * Чай с сахаром - tea with sugar&#xD;&#xA; * Дом с мезонином - house with mezzanine&#xD;&#xA; * Дама с собачкой - lady with a little dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the verbs играть, дружить, враждовать, разводиться, воевать, соперничать govern &quot;с&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * СССР воевал с нацистской Германией - USSR warred/fought/made war against Nazi Germany&#xD;&#xA; * Я развёлся с женой - I divorced my wife&#xD;&#xA; * Иванов с Петровым дружат/враждуют (or Иванов дружит/враждует с Петровым)&#xD;&#xA; * Маша играет в шахматы с Наташей - Masha plays chess against Natasha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian language consider war, divorce, enmity as something which both parties do together. Russian husbands divorce &quot;with&quot; their wives, and vice versa. In Russian, countries make wars &quot;with&quot; each other, rather than against each other, basketball teams play &quot;with&quot; each other, and children (and adults) fight &quot;with&quot; each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;С каждого дня&quot; is uncommon. It is mostly used in expressions like `по 2 фотографии с каждого дня` - literally &quot;two photographs from each day&quot;.  Similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* собрать по 1000 рублей с каждого сотрудника - collect 1000 rubles from each employee (for celebrating something, for example)&#xD;&#xA;* урожай пшеницы составил 50 центнеров с гектара - wheat crop was 50 centners per hectare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;День ото дня&quot; is about a feature which become stronger and stronger day by day (or weaker and weaker day by day). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня работы становилось всё больше - each day, there was more and more work&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня терпение его истощалось - his patience was exhausted day by day&#xD;&#xA;* Год от года, день ото дня хорошеет Кострома - Year by year, day by day, Kostroma becomes more and more beautiful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изо дня в день&quot; is about something which happens every day, without change, i. e. `изо дня в день мы слышали одно и то же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About `ключ от квартиры`: `Х от Y` means that X is made to be a part of Y, or (smaller) X and (bigger) Y are made to be together: `лампочка от фонарика, пробка от бутылки, детали от велосипеда, ручка от двери, ключ от двери/квартиры/дома/шкафа/машины, шнурки от ботинок` etc. If you will now remove one key from your computer's keyboard, it will become `клавиша от компьютера`. (Note this is almost always about artificial objects.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16618" RevisionGUID="3ccbdc7a-b35a-4676-81ae-6e2d22549493" CreationDate="2018-06-19T04:58:12.967" UserId="2079" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="The items are correct (except `от кашля`, since `кашель` has `е` only in nominal/accusative singular), but the list is not comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you missed a very common usage of `с` as &quot;with&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Она пошла в кино с подругами - She went to a cinema with (female) friends.&#xD;&#xA; * Он в баре с друзьями - he is in a pub with friends&#xD;&#xA; * Я встретил Мишку с Сашкой - I met Misha and Sasha (implies they were together, and are often appear together)&#xD;&#xA; * Я сплю только с женой - I sleep only with my wife.&#xD;&#xA; * Чай с сахаром - tea with sugar&#xD;&#xA; * Дом с мезонином - house with mezzanine&#xD;&#xA; * Дама с собачкой - lady with a little dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the verbs играть, дружить, враждовать, разводиться, воевать, соперничать govern &quot;с&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * СССР воевал с нацистской Германией - USSR warred/fought/made war against Nazi Germany&#xD;&#xA; * Я развёлся с женой - I divorced my wife&#xD;&#xA; * Иванов с Петровым дружат/враждуют (or Иванов дружит/враждует с Петровым)&#xD;&#xA; * Маша играет в шахматы с Наташей - Masha plays chess against Natasha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian husbands divorce &quot;with&quot; their wives (and vice versa). In Russian, countries make wars &quot;with&quot; each other, rather than against each other, basketball teams play &quot;with&quot; each other, and children fight &quot;with&quot; each other.  It seems the Russian language considers war, divorce, fight as something which both parties do together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about marriage? It has three different prepositions. Вступают в брак с кем-то, женятся на ком-то, а выходят замуж за кого-то. Maybe the idea is that the husband is &quot;above&quot; his wife (thats why &quot;жениться на&quot;), while the wife is &quot;behind&quot; her husband (thats why &quot;выйти замуж за&quot;), but gender-neutral expression   `обвенчаться`, `вступить в брак`, `связать жизнь` govern `с`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;С каждого дня&quot; is uncommon. It is mostly used in expressions like `по 2 фотографии с каждого дня` - literally &quot;two photographs from each day&quot;.  Similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* собрать по 1000 рублей с каждого сотрудника - collect 1000 rubles from each employee (for celebrating something, for example)&#xD;&#xA;* урожай пшеницы составил 50 центнеров с гектара - wheat crop was 50 centners per hectare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;День ото дня&quot; is about a feature which become stronger and stronger day by day (or weaker and weaker day by day). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня работы становилось всё больше - each day, there was more and more work&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня терпение его истощалось - his patience was exhausted day by day&#xD;&#xA;* Год от года, день ото дня хорошеет Кострома - Year by year, day by day, Kostroma becomes more and more beautiful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изо дня в день&quot; is about something which happens every day, without change, i. e. `изо дня в день мы слышали одно и то же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About `ключ от квартиры`: `Х от Y` means that X is made to be a part of Y, or (smaller) X and (bigger) Y are made to be together: `лампочка от фонарика, пробка от бутылки, детали от велосипеда, ручка от двери, ключ от двери/квартиры/дома/шкафа/машины, шнурки от ботинок` etc. If you will now remove one key from your computer's keyboard, it will become `клавиша от компьютера`. (Note this is almost always about artificial objects.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16618" RevisionGUID="9995792f-c6f2-4876-8de2-ca92039bb748" CreationDate="2018-06-19T05:31:08.637" UserId="2079" Comment="added 405 characters in body" Text="The items are correct (except `от кашля`, since `кашель` has `е` only in nominal/accusative singular), but the list is not comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you missed a very common usage of `с` as &quot;with&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Она пошла в кино с подругами - She went to a cinema with (female) friends.&#xD;&#xA; * Он в баре с друзьями - he is in a pub with friends&#xD;&#xA; * Я встретил Мишку с Сашкой - I met Misha and Sasha (implies they were together, and are often appear together)&#xD;&#xA; * Я сплю только с женой - I sleep only with my wife.&#xD;&#xA; * Чай с сахаром - tea with sugar&#xD;&#xA; * Дом с мезонином - house with mezzanine&#xD;&#xA; * Дама с собачкой - lady with a little dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the verbs играть, дружить, враждовать, разводиться, воевать, соперничать govern &quot;с&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * СССР воевал с нацистской Германией - USSR warred/fought/made war against Nazi Germany&#xD;&#xA; * Я развёлся с женой - I divorced my wife&#xD;&#xA; * Иванов с Петровым дружат/враждуют (or Иванов дружит/враждует с Петровым)&#xD;&#xA; * Маша играет в шахматы с Наташей - Masha plays chess against Natasha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian husbands divorce &quot;with&quot; their wives (and vice versa). In Russian, countries make wars &quot;with&quot; each other, rather than against each other, basketball teams play &quot;with&quot; each other, and children fight &quot;with&quot; each other.  It seems the Russian language considers war, divorce, fight as something which both parties do together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about marriage? It has three different prepositions. Вступают в брак с кем-то, женятся на ком-то, а выходят замуж за кого-то. Maybe the idea is that the husband is &quot;above&quot; his wife (thats why &quot;жениться на&quot;), while the wife is &quot;behind&quot; her husband (thats why &quot;выйти замуж за&quot;), but gender-neutral expression   `обвенчаться`, `вступить в брак`, `связать жизнь` govern `с`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;С каждого дня&quot; is uncommon. It is mostly used in expressions like `по 2 фотографии с каждого дня` - literally &quot;two photographs from each day&quot;.  Similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* собрать по 1000 рублей с каждого сотрудника - collect 1000 rubles from each employee (for celebrating something, for example)&#xD;&#xA;* урожай пшеницы составил 50 центнеров с гектара - wheat crop was 50 centners per hectare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;День ото дня&quot; is about a feature which become stronger and stronger day by day (or weaker and weaker day by day). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня работы становилось всё больше - each day, there was more and more work&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня терпение его истощалось - his patience was exhausted day by day&#xD;&#xA;* Год от года, день ото дня хорошеет Кострома - Year by year, day by day, Kostroma becomes more and more beautiful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изо дня в день&quot; is about something which happens every day, without change, i. e. `изо дня в день мы слышали одно и то же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about `ключ от квартиры`. Its very common usage is separation of a piece from whole. The verbs `оторвать`, `отделить`, `отрезать`, and similar verbs with prefix `от-`, usually govern the prefix `от`: `отрубить ветку от дерева`, `отрезать от буханки`, `оторвать обложку от книги` (but `вырвать страницу из книги`) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ключ от квартиры` is similar to this: `Х от Y` means that X and Y are now separate objects, but X is made to be a part of Y, or to belong to Y, or (smaller) X and (bigger) Y are made to be together: `лампочка от фонарика`, `пробка от бутылки`, `детали от велосипеда`, `ручка от двери`, `ключ от двери/квартиры/дома/шкафа/машины`, `шнурки от ботинок` etc. If you will now remove one key from your computer's keyboard, it will become `клавиша от компьютера`. (Note this is almost always about artificial objects.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16618" RevisionGUID="55417d07-377b-4d26-bdf5-7f4ff76017b2" CreationDate="2018-06-19T05:43:10.710" UserId="2079" Comment="added 405 characters in body" Text="The items are correct (except `от кашля`, since `кашель` has `е` only in nominal/accusative singular), but the list is not comprehensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, you missed a very common usage of `с` as &quot;with&quot;. Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Она пошла в кино с подругами - She went to a cinema with (female) friends.&#xD;&#xA; * Он в баре с друзьями - he is in a pub with friends&#xD;&#xA; * Я встретил Мишку с Сашкой - I met Misha and Sasha (implies they were together, and are often appear together)&#xD;&#xA; * Я сплю только с женой - I sleep only with my wife.&#xD;&#xA; * Чай с сахаром - tea with sugar&#xD;&#xA; * Дом с мезонином - house with mezzanine&#xD;&#xA; * Дама с собачкой - lady with a little dog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the verbs играть, дружить, враждовать, разводиться, воевать, соперничать govern &quot;с&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * СССР воевал с нацистской Германией - USSR warred/fought/made war against Nazi Germany&#xD;&#xA; * Я развёлся с женой - I divorced my wife&#xD;&#xA; * Иванов с Петровым дружат/враждуют (or Иванов дружит/враждует с Петровым)&#xD;&#xA; * Маша играет в шахматы с Наташей - Masha plays chess against Natasha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian husbands divorce &quot;with&quot; their wives (and vice versa). In Russian, countries make wars &quot;with&quot; each other, rather than against each other, basketball teams play &quot;with&quot; each other, and children fight &quot;with&quot; each other.  It seems the Russian language considers war, divorce, fight as something which both parties do together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about marriage? It has three different prepositions. Вступают в брак с кем-то, женятся на ком-то, а выходят замуж за кого-то. Maybe the idea is that the husband is &quot;above&quot; his wife (thats why &quot;жениться на&quot;), while the wife is &quot;behind&quot; her husband (thats why &quot;выйти замуж за&quot;), but gender-neutral expression   `обвенчаться`, `вступить в брак`, `связать жизнь` govern `с`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;С каждого дня&quot; is uncommon. It is mostly used in expressions like `по 2 фотографии с каждого дня` - literally &quot;two photographs from each day&quot;.  Similar expressions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* собрать по 1000 рублей с каждого сотрудника - collect 1000 rubles from each employee (for celebrating something, for example)&#xD;&#xA;* урожай пшеницы составил 50 центнеров с гектара - wheat crop was 50 centners per hectare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;День ото дня&quot; is about a feature which become stronger and stronger day by day (or weaker and weaker day by day). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня работы становилось всё больше - each day, there was more and more work&#xD;&#xA;* День ото дня терпение его истощалось - his patience was exhausted day by day&#xD;&#xA;* Год от года, день ото дня хорошеет Кострома - Year by year, day by day, Kostroma becomes more and more beautiful&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изо дня в день&quot; is about something which happens every day, without change, i. e. `изо дня в день мы слышали одно и то же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now about `ключ от квартиры`. The very common usage of the prefix `от` is separation of a piece from whole. The verbs `оторвать`, `отделить`, `отрезать`, and similar verbs with prefix `от-`, usually govern the prefix `от`: `отрубить ветку от дерева`, `отрезать от буханки`, `оторвать обложку от книги` (but `вырвать страницу из книги`) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ключ от квартиры` is similar to this: `Х от Y` means that X and Y are now separate objects, but X is made to be a part of Y, or to belong to Y, or (smaller) X and (bigger) Y are made to be together: `лампочка от фонарика`, `пробка от бутылки`, `детали от велосипеда`, `ручка от двери`, `ключ от замка/двери/квартиры/дома/шкафа/машины`, `шнурки от ботинок` etc. If you will now remove one key from your computer's keyboard, it will become `клавиша от компьютера`. (Note this is almost always about artificial objects.)  Other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - От какой бутылки эта пробка?&#xD;&#xA;    - Вон от той.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Эта крышка от чего?&#xD;&#xA;    - От банки с компотом.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Что это за железяка?&#xD;&#xA;    - Ручка от ящика стола.&#xD;&#xA;    - А почему она на полу?&#xD;&#xA;    - Потому что она от ящика отломалась.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    - Это магазин от автомата Калашникова?&#xD;&#xA;    - Нет, от &quot;Узи&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - А почему стол шатается?&#xD;&#xA;    - Потому что ножка от него отвалилась. А где она, я не знаю.&#xD;&#xA;    - В коридоре валяется какая-то ножка, наверное, от нашего стола.  Рядом с чекой от гранаты и гусеницей от танка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16619" RevisionGUID="fffb293d-f345-49ca-8351-3561bdce9378" CreationDate="2018-06-19T08:14:43.300" UserId="2104" Text="Here is one more use case of 'с/со' where it is translated as 'off':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Упасть **со** стола / **со** скалы / **с** дивана.  - Fall **off** the table / a cliff / a sofa." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="78294d4f-f128-489f-8b42-dff6e7742349" CreationDate="2018-06-19T10:16:23.293" UserId="10674" Text="On many from Russia and Belarus I can see prices on products displayed as:&#xA;&#xA;212,00 p.&#xA;&#xA;I've added a screen shot as well. Is the price 212 rubles or is it a shortening of some sort? (like 212k meaning 212,000)&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s9v71.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41988" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="78294d4f-f128-489f-8b42-dff6e7742349" CreationDate="2018-06-19T10:16:23.293" UserId="10674" Text="Ruble &amp; Currency display on websites" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41989" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="78294d4f-f128-489f-8b42-dff6e7742349" CreationDate="2018-06-19T10:16:23.293" UserId="10674" Text="|infinitive-sentence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41990" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="3a9aa7a5-9624-402e-90b9-fe1eabc73374" CreationDate="2018-06-19T10:39:53.267" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="3494a7c3-8f81-45cd-bd60-4ef199b35335" CreationDate="2018-06-19T11:29:49.473" UserId="2104" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="On many from Russia and Belarus I can see prices on products displayed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;212,00 p.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added a screen shot as well. Is the price 212 rubles or is it a shortening of some sort? (like 212k meaning 212,000)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s9v71.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41992" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="3494a7c3-8f81-45cd-bd60-4ef199b35335" CreationDate="2018-06-19T11:29:49.473" UserId="2104" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="2b1ac168-6b8e-47fa-b03d-3814d092e70e" CreationDate="2018-06-19T14:06:48.513" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|правописание|культура|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="906bb115-aab9-48db-b552-929956f2af89" CreationDate="2018-06-19T15:07:57.880" UserId="134" Comment="added 32 characters in body; edited title" Text="On many a website from Russia and Belarus I can see prices on products displayed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 212,00 p.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added a screen shot as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the price 212 rubles or is it a shortening or a delimiter of some sort? (like 212k meaning 212,000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s9v71.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41995" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="906bb115-aab9-48db-b552-929956f2af89" CreationDate="2018-06-19T15:07:57.880" UserId="134" Comment="added 32 characters in body; edited title" Text="Ruble &amp; Currency delimiters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41996" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="fea92caa-0df2-4b6a-9274-68a22ecc8326" CreationDate="2018-06-19T15:08:03.177" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="41997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16621" RevisionGUID="0b87fc50-8dbf-4215-aa70-7ad83a4f0cd3" CreationDate="2018-06-19T15:32:51.793" UserId="2079" Text="Yes, `рубль` is commonly abbreviated as `руб.` or `р.`, so `212,00 р.` means `212 рублей`.  On websites which sell things, рубль is often abbreviated for simplicity of programming. You don't need to program the server to use correct case each time (21 рубль, 22 рубля, 25 рублей).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, comma is used to delimit integer and fractional part, i. e. pi in Russian would be written as `3,14` .  On the other hand, rubles and kopeikas should be delimited by period (for example, 3 rubles 62 kopeikas is 3.62). I would say that all of the following are common: `212,00 р.`, `212.00`, `212 руб. 00 коп.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price of 212 Belarussian rubles (about $100) is pretty typical for a matress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="41998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16622" RevisionGUID="7c925880-3aee-4e54-b932-bdadee092e4a" CreationDate="2018-06-19T17:47:24.860" UserId="9602" Text="A rather funny case is that all three can be used to denote emotional reasons for some action: со зла, из зависти, от скуки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16624" RevisionGUID="314ba5af-8500-4311-ac09-04a73cb2e1c1" CreationDate="2018-06-19T20:55:54.960" UserId="7674" Text="I believe the answer is to be sought in the realm of semantics and so surmise that it really an inflexion of the plural **`деньги`**, аs on a conceptual level Russian native speakers, if my own perception of the language is anything to go by, don't think of **`money`** in terms of collection of singular **`coins`** which is the meaning of the word **`деньгА`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural **`деньги`** is a generic term to designate *financial means* in both cash and non-cash forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression **`туго с деньгами`** normally means *shortage of financial means* and not *shortage of coins*. In this respect formerly downvoted Sergey Slepov's reply makes lots of sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still to express the idea of *coins shortage* modern Russian speaker would use not the word **`деньга/деньги`** but the word **`монеты`**, because in modern language **`деньги`** in most use cases doesn't give the connotation of **`coins`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16624" RevisionGUID="53b2a712-7e99-4453-84c3-a8345db5b916" CreationDate="2018-06-19T21:10:50.840" UserId="7674" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="I believe the answer is to be sought in the realm of semantics and so surmise that it really an inflexion of the plural **`деньги`**, аs on a conceptual level Russian native speakers, if my own perception of the language is anything to go by, don't think of **`money`** in terms of collection of singular **`coins`** which is the meaning of the word **`деньгА`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of Chukovsky's children's poem [&quot;Муха-цокотуха&quot;](https://youtu.be/F0w4B_Ig2VQ?t=1m27s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муха по полю пошла,   &#xD;&#xA;Муха **денежку** нашла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural **`деньги`** is a generic term to designate *financial means* in both cash and non-cash forms as both coins and bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression **`туго с деньгами`** normally means *shortage of financial means* and not *shortage of coins*. In this respect formerly downvoted Sergey Slepov's reply makes lots of sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still to express the idea of *coins shortage* modern Russian speaker would use not the word **`деньга/деньги`** but the word **`монеты`**, because in modern language plural **`деньги`** in most use cases doesn't give the connotation of **`coins`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eFYRm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16624" RevisionGUID="2b7b19ab-aa3b-48a2-b4e1-29f200e437e7" CreationDate="2018-06-19T21:21:16.363" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I believe the answer is to be sought in the realm of semantics and so surmise that it really an inflexion of the plural **`деньги`**, аs on a conceptual level Russian native speakers, if my own perception of the language is anything to go by, don't think of **`money`** in terms of collection of singular **`coins`** which is the meaning of the word **`деньгА`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reminded of Chukovsky's children's poem [&quot;Муха-цокотуха&quot;](https://youtu.be/F0w4B_Ig2VQ?t=1m27s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Муха по полю пошла,   &#xD;&#xA;Муха **денежку** нашла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural **`деньги`** is a generic term to designate *financial means* in both cash and non-cash forms as both coins and bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression **`туго с деньгами`** normally means *shortage of financial means* and not *shortage of coins*. In this respect formerly downvoted Sergey Slepov's reply makes good sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of *coins shortage* modern Russian speaker would use not the word **`деньга/деньги`** but the word **`монеты`**, because in modern language plural **`деньги`** in most use cases doesn't give the connotation of **`coins`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eFYRm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42010" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16620" RevisionGUID="8e5ea4a3-6119-41ed-8c3a-5fcf89cde879" CreationDate="2018-06-20T00:34:07.010" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1009232892210438144" />
  <row Id="42011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16625" RevisionGUID="bd10fc59-dad2-4d63-8acd-e1a4e97e63e2" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:58:29.640" UserId="10680" Text=" ![Picture of a note/poem I found ](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hkhJj.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;Hi I was wondering if one of you could help me translate this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16625" RevisionGUID="bd10fc59-dad2-4d63-8acd-e1a4e97e63e2" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:58:29.640" UserId="10680" Text="Note or a poem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16625" RevisionGUID="bd10fc59-dad2-4d63-8acd-e1a4e97e63e2" CreationDate="2018-06-20T01:58:29.640" UserId="10680" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16621" RevisionGUID="db69c302-9173-4208-b781-4c98a3639f23" CreationDate="2018-06-20T04:31:37.933" UserId="2079" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Yes, `рубль` is commonly abbreviated as `руб.` or `р.`, so `212,00 р.` means `212 рублей`.  On websites which sell things, рубль is often abbreviated for simplicity of programming. You don't need to program the server to use correct case each time (21 рубль, 22 рубля, 25 рублей).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, comma is used to delimit integer and fractional part, i. e. pi in Russian would be written as `3,14` .  On the other hand, rubles and kopeikas can be also delimited by period (for example, 3 rubles 62 kopeikas was 3.62). I would say that all of the following are common: `212,00 р.`, `212.00`, `212,00`, `212 руб. 00 коп.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price of 212 Belarussian rubles (about $100) is pretty typical for a matress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16626" RevisionGUID="0e841255-f33a-449b-944f-29e061d0eea2" CreationDate="2018-06-20T04:43:48.180" UserId="10578" Text="That's the famous poem by Konstantin Simonov written in 1941 (1942?).&#xD;&#xA;Addressed by a generalised frontline soldier to his wife. There'd be English translations in the Net, I believe. The general sense is like: &quot;Wait for me and I'll be back ... but you'll have to wait with all your heart... wait when noone else waits... and then [because of your waiting] I'll be back&quot;. Created some adverse reception in its time, being perceived as a sort of rigid moral law (for wives and girlfriends of soldiers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16621" RevisionGUID="bd5f5e4d-8642-4307-b2e1-a069b4f417e8" CreationDate="2018-06-20T04:50:14.303" UserId="62" Comment="corrected i.e. to e.g. and added that 3,14 is an approximation to pi, not that it is pi." Text="Yes, `рубль` is commonly abbreviated as `руб.` or `р.`, so `212,00 р.` means `212 рублей`.  On websites which sell things, рубль is often abbreviated for simplicity of programming. You don't need to program the server to use correct case each time (21 рубль, 22 рубля, 25 рублей).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, comma is used to delimit integer and fractional part, e.g., the familiar approximation to pi in Russian would be written as `3,14` .  On the other hand, rubles and kopeikas can be also delimited by period (for example, 3 rubles 62 kopeikas was 3.62). I would say that all of the following are common: `212,00 р.`, `212.00`, `212,00`, `212 руб. 00 коп.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price of 212 Belarussian rubles (about $100) is pretty typical for a matress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16621" RevisionGUID="7b673708-bb68-4500-8ec6-1ea9c26e18d7" CreationDate="2018-06-20T05:12:26.340" UserId="1236" Comment="Spelling and grammar corrected" Text="Yes, `рубль` is commonly abbreviated as `руб.` or `р.`, so `212,00 р.` means `212 рублей`.  On websites which sell things, рубль is often abbreviated for simplicity of programming. You don't need to program the server to use the correct case each time (21 рубль, 22 рубля, 25 рублей).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, comma is used to delimit the integer and fractional parts, e.g., the familiar approximation to pi in Russian would be written as `3,14`.  On the other hand, rubles and kopecks can be also delimited by a period (for example, 3 rubles 62 kopecks was 3.62). I would say that all of the following are common: `212,00 р.`, `212.00`, `212,00`, `212 руб. 00 коп.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price of 212 Belarussian rubles (about $100) is pretty typical for a mattress." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42018" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16625" RevisionGUID="8acdf1ea-db1d-4060-9c35-9bc15ec5b6e2" CreationDate="2018-06-20T14:21:34.340" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9058,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Arioch&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="42019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16627" RevisionGUID="51775e83-18dc-4522-81d3-25ee4ec96762" CreationDate="2018-06-20T18:10:43.237" UserId="10686" Text="Пытаюсь спроектировать морфологический парсер русского языка. И вот незадача ... Со школьной скамьи нам повествовали только о трех временах в русском языке: `будущем`, `настоящем` и `прошлом`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В одной из дискуссий на очередном ресурсе программеров возник вопрос &quot;а действительно ли это все так?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пример**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слышал, слыхал, слыхивал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вопросы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Как это трактовать? Вариации прошедшего времени, или вариации (нескольких) прошедших времен?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Тот же вопрос относительно &quot;настоящего&quot; и &quot;будущего&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Так сколько же времен в русском языке??!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16627" RevisionGUID="51775e83-18dc-4522-81d3-25ee4ec96762" CreationDate="2018-06-20T18:10:43.237" UserId="10686" Text="Времена в русском языке" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16627" RevisionGUID="51775e83-18dc-4522-81d3-25ee4ec96762" CreationDate="2018-06-20T18:10:43.237" UserId="10686" Text="|морфология|грамотность|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16628" RevisionGUID="6eb25a28-23b1-4d72-a082-777f831ddcb6" CreationDate="2018-06-20T18:43:57.013" UserId="2104" Text="В школе учили правильно: времен три. Плюс два вида, два залога, три наклонения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слышал, слыхал, слыхивал - разные глаголы. Корень один, но связи между ними нерегулярные, примерно как между рука, ручка и ручник. Попробуйте, например, подыскать пару:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Слышал - слыхал&#xD;&#xA;* Дышал - ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет такого слова, в этом и нерегулярность. А времена и залоги есть у всех глаголов. Вид - пограничная категория: у кого-то есть пара, у других нет, а у третьих несколько.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16628" RevisionGUID="5ed09159-cb19-44ff-b714-71bf24d72e88" CreationDate="2018-06-20T18:56:34.257" UserId="2104" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="В школе учили правильно: времен три. Плюс два вида, два залога, три наклонения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Слышал, слыхал, слыхивал - разные глаголы. Корень один, но связи между ними нерегулярные, примерно как между рука, ручка и ручник. Попробуйте, например, подыскать пару по аналогии:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Слышал - слыхал&#xD;&#xA;* Дышал - ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет такого слова, в этом и нерегулярность. А времена и залоги есть у всех глаголов. Вид - пограничная категория: у одних слов есть пара, у других нет, а у третьих несколько.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16629" RevisionGUID="5de49f3c-5676-4d0c-ac00-2fb126624716" CreationDate="2018-06-20T19:24:16.070" UserId="9602" Text="Хотя в старославянском языке и [были][1] времена, которых в современном русском языке нет, это всё же не та ситуация. Такие глаголы называют видовыми дублетами (см., например, Сергей Карцевский, [«Из лингвистического наследия», т. 2][2]) и особых времен не усматривают.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic_grammar#Verbs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.com/books?id=sanSAAAAQBAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16630" RevisionGUID="ab6545db-2d97-4cad-adde-9d9e05c95506" CreationDate="2018-06-20T19:39:24.700" UserId="7674" Text="1. Это это следует трактовать как разные ВИДЫ (АСПЕКТЫ) глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect  &#xD;&#xA; https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вид_(лингвистика)   &#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аспектология&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;За исключением **слышал** - **слыхал**, которые являются попросту разными глаголами с разными основами - **слыш(ать)** - **слых(ать)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Аналогично для двух остальных времён.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Времён три.&#xD;&#xA;Видов основных, признанных в языке, два - совершенный и несовершенный, оба вида присущи всем трём временам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16630" RevisionGUID="727afa62-7f0f-4ab0-ac54-db3bf707192e" CreationDate="2018-06-20T19:44:51.303" UserId="7674" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="1. Думаю, следует трактовать как разные ВИДЫ (АСПЕКТЫ) глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect  &#xD;&#xA; https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вид_(лингвистика)   &#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аспектология&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Аналогично для двух остальных времён.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Времён три.&#xD;&#xA;Видов основных, признанных в языке, два - совершенный и несовершенный, оба вида присущи всем трём временам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16630" RevisionGUID="122772e6-722e-44d9-b80d-dc21fc0cbbc8" CreationDate="2018-06-20T19:52:11.540" UserId="7674" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="1. Думаю, следует трактовать как разные ВИДЫ (АСПЕКТЫ) глагола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect  &#xD;&#xA; https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вид_(лингвистика)   &#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аспектология&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Теоретически аналогично для двух остальных времён, но в русском в них виды, отличные от стандартных совершенного и несовершенного, применяются уже редко. Я имею в виду такие как ***посиживаю***, ***полёживаю***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Времён три.&#xD;&#xA;Видов основных, признанных в языке, два - совершенный и несовершенный, прошедшему и будущему присущи оба вида, настоящему - только несовершенный." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16631" RevisionGUID="80e7c87a-d347-48cb-9669-20894aebbf57" CreationDate="2018-06-20T23:34:38.263" UserId="10687" Text="In standard Russian, the vowel **я** in the word **январь** must be reduced to /ɪ/. So, **январь** sounds [ɪnˈvarʲ]. Today in Forvo there are eight people pronouncing this word, and all of them do it  as [jɪnˈvarʲ], without the vowel reduction. Considering that is borrowed from latin **ianuarius** and the sound /ɪ/ is preserved in most languages like English, French, Catalan, German, Italian, Romanian, maybe there is an exception for this word and the rule doesn't met in this case, or the eight people in Forvo are non standard speakers? How most Russian speakers pronounce it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16631" RevisionGUID="80e7c87a-d347-48cb-9669-20894aebbf57" CreationDate="2018-06-20T23:34:38.263" UserId="10687" Text="Vowel reduction in unstressed я in январь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16631" RevisionGUID="80e7c87a-d347-48cb-9669-20894aebbf57" CreationDate="2018-06-20T23:34:38.263" UserId="10687" Text="|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16632" RevisionGUID="7e0a5cfd-e822-45b5-ad73-0429604eb33a" CreationDate="2018-06-21T00:14:38.697" UserId="10593" Text="i always thought бы should be used with verbs in the past tense. &#xD;&#xA;Example: Я тебя бы сказал. I should have told you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the passage below it's used like this:&#xD;&#xA;надо бы рассказать... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На фоне трагедии Фауста это персонаж скорее малозначительный, чем загадочный, однако справедливости ради надо бы рассказать и о нем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16632" RevisionGUID="7e0a5cfd-e822-45b5-ad73-0429604eb33a" CreationDate="2018-06-21T00:14:38.697" UserId="10593" Text="use of бы here with надо" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16632" RevisionGUID="7e0a5cfd-e822-45b5-ad73-0429604eb33a" CreationDate="2018-06-21T00:14:38.697" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="39773cc5-0f09-4639-ac3c-0e9dcf1ba37d" CreationDate="2018-06-21T00:19:25.320" UserId="134" Text="&gt; In standard Russian, the vowel я in the word январь must be reduced to /ɪ/. So, январь sounds [ɪnˈvarʲ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word-initial and post-vocalic _я, е, ю, ё_, are subject to iotation (prepending the close allophone of the vowel with `[j]`), so the Forvo pronunciations are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel reduction is still there: a stressed word initial _я_, as in _яблоко_, would have been `[jäbləkə]`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="9e88ba12-2522-4059-8877-38151567704f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T00:24:32.187" UserId="134" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="&gt; In standard Russian, the vowel я in the word январь must be reduced to /ɪ/. So, январь sounds [ɪnˈvarʲ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not sound like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word-initial and post-vocalic _я, е, ю, ё_, are subject to iotation (prepending the front allophone of the vowel with `[j]`), so the Forvo pronunciations are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel reduction is still there: a stressed word initial _я_, as in _яблоко_, would have been `[jäbləkə]`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16633" RevisionGUID="55835d39-6f9e-4e20-93bb-d8dc675adf77" CreationDate="2018-06-21T00:31:35.280" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="&gt; In standard Russian, the vowel я in the word январь must be reduced to /ɪ/. So, январь sounds [ɪnˈvarʲ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not sound like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word-initial and post-vocalic _я, е, ю, ё_, are subject to iotation (prepending the vowel with `[j]`), so the Forvo pronunciations are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowel reduction is still there: a stressed word initial _я_, as in _яблоко_, would have been `[jäbləkə]`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16634" RevisionGUID="95883191-930e-48f0-9674-b14642df612a" CreationDate="2018-06-21T05:00:47.197" UserId="5443" Text="In this usage **(надо) бы** expresses the author's *hesitation*, as if the idea of writing about something else came up at the last moment and it's unclear yet if that material should be placed in the same section of the book, how detailed it should be, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the author just wanted to mention that opportunity without writing about it at all, they could write **(надо) было бы** instead and then explain why the idea was abandoned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="627d0e61-d085-413d-99d1-19847f87e195" CreationDate="2018-06-21T09:59:59.097" UserId="8780" Text="As far as I know, the word &quot;girlfriend&quot; in Russian is ambiguous. As well as the word for &quot;female friend&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say `ты хорошая подруга` am I telling just &quot;you're a good friend&quot; with no ambiguity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say `я хочу, чтобы ты стала моей подругой` is it evident that I am telling &quot;I want you to become my girlfriend&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a man, does the usage of the word **подруга** imply a connotation with &quot;girlfriend&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I just want to tell &quot;friend&quot;, the word **друг** works for both genders, right? If I say `ты хороший друг` it can mean &quot;you're a good [female] friend&quot;, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42040" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="627d0e61-d085-413d-99d1-19847f87e195" CreationDate="2018-06-21T09:59:59.097" UserId="8780" Text="Girlfriend vs friend" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42041" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16635" RevisionGUID="627d0e61-d085-413d-99d1-19847f87e195" CreationDate="2018-06-21T09:59:59.097" UserId="8780" Text="|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42042" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16631" RevisionGUID="45570deb-20c7-449f-b68b-cd33c1d8270c" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:41:45.803" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1009823697073594369" />
  <row Id="42043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="7ad1bc97-6a05-4f4e-8487-186f888e7c83" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:02:40.010" UserId="8780" Text="I've always wondered how could I connect a preposition with a verb. Since prepositions require the nouns following them to be declined, I didn't know what change would verbs undergo, since the infinitive of a verb is not a declinable word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the &quot;то, чтобы...&quot; clause may help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Instead of admitting his mistake, he rudely approached me.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Вместо того, чтобы допустить его ошибку, он грубо отнёсся ко мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There's a price in being an autonomous power.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Есть цена в том, чтобы быть самостоятельной властью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the following sentence, &quot;то, что...&quot; seems more appropriate to me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я удивился тому, что девушка говорит на моём языке так бегло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these clauses, maybe чтобы implies an intention, or something which has not been done yet, while что implies something already done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least I cannot think of an example where I would need &quot;тому, чтобы...&quot;. Maybe &quot;я направляюсь к тому, чтобы быть рок-звездой&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if I want to tell &quot;I don't want to do anything but to sleep&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не хочу ничего делать, кроме того, чтобы спать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="7ad1bc97-6a05-4f4e-8487-186f888e7c83" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:02:40.010" UserId="8780" Text="чтобы for connection between prepositions and verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="7ad1bc97-6a05-4f4e-8487-186f888e7c83" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:02:40.010" UserId="8780" Text="|предлоги|чтобы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="c3bfd1fc-af91-43bd-86e7-4593109565e6" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:33:54.123" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I've always wondered how could I connect a preposition with a verb. Since prepositions require the nouns following them to be declined, I didn't know what change would verbs undergo, since the infinitive of a verb is not a declinable word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the &quot;то, чтобы...&quot; clause may help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Instead of admitting his mistake, he rudely approached me.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Вместо того, чтобы`&lt;strike&gt;`допустить его`&lt;/strike&gt;`признать свою ошибку, он грубо отнёсся ко мне.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There's a price in being an autonomous power.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Есть цена в том, чтобы быть самостоятельной властью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the following sentence, &quot;то, что...&quot; seems more appropriate to me...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я удивился тому, что девушка говорит на моём языке так бегло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these clauses, maybe чтобы implies an intention, or something which has not been done yet, while что implies something already done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least I cannot think of an example where I would need &quot;тому, чтобы...&quot;. Maybe &quot;я направляюсь к тому, чтобы быть рок-звездой&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if I want to tell &quot;I don't want to do anything but to sleep&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Не хочу ничего делать, кроме того, чтобы спать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16636" RevisionGUID="76dfe7cd-d73a-4ce0-8d63-2d4f4092a168" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:47:47.263" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|предлоги|conjunctions|clauses|чтобы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16637" RevisionGUID="a4315ef8-33aa-471b-91ef-06e6317db2d6" CreationDate="2018-06-22T00:07:38.090" UserId="2079" Text="&gt; Since prepositions require the nouns following them to be declined, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; didn't know what change would verbs undergo, since the infinitive of a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verb is not a declinable word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nouns decline to the correct case, verbs just become inifinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вместо того, чтобы признать свою ошибку, он грубо отнёсся ко мне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's a price in being an autonomous power.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Есть цена в том, чтобы быть самостоятельной властью.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Цена в том&quot; не говорят. Even if you say &quot;есть цена у того&quot;, the whole sentence still would be, at least, odd. I am not sure how to say it correctly, with or without `чтобы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, in the following sentence, &quot;то, что...&quot; seems more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; appropriate to me...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Я удивился тому, что девушка говорит на моём языке так бегло.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct. &quot;Чтобы&quot; would be wrong here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In these clauses, maybe чтобы implies an intention, or something which has not been done yet, while что implies something already done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct, or at least very close to the truth (there may be some odd exceptions, but I cannot figure out any).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At least I cannot think of an example where I would need &quot;тому, чтобы...&quot;. Maybe &quot;я направляюсь к тому, чтобы быть рок-звездой&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я иду к тому, чтобы стать рок-звездой.` Otherwise, the sentence is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочу ничего делать, кроме того, чтобы спать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is better to use `кроме как`: `не хочу ничего не делать, кроме как спать`.  But such `кроме того, чтобы` is used occasionally: http://context.reverso.net/перевод/русский-английский/кроме+того%2C+чтобы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42049" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16591" RevisionGUID="2fe56b28-c3d8-4535-a947-e138a0569fc9" CreationDate="2018-06-22T03:48:13.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1010006518304002048" />
  <row Id="42050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16638" RevisionGUID="d52c28aa-1dcc-4939-9990-cb25765ed32d" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:04:54.107" UserId="10690" Text="Недавно мой ответ был [отредактирован][1] заменой &quot;читабельно&quot; на &quot;читаемо&quot; и комментарием, что слова &quot;читабельно&quot; не существует. Тем не менее [яндекс][2] (и гугл) понимают его и предлагают корректный перевод.&#xD;&#xA;В [лингво онлайн][3] оно присутствует в виде прилагательного, а в виде наречия встречается только в примерах из текстов (&quot;читабельнее&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд, использование именно этого слова, а не предложенного аналога более точно отражает суть в данном контексте:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пишите код так что бы было читабельно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно ли считать, что слово существует на основании того, что оно присутствует в базе онлайн словарей? или есть какие то более строгие критерии?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.stackoverflow.com/revisions/845012/2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://translate.yandex.ru/?lang=ru-en&amp;text=%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lingvolive.com/en-us/translate/ru-en/%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42051" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16638" RevisionGUID="d52c28aa-1dcc-4939-9990-cb25765ed32d" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:04:54.107" UserId="10690" Text="существует ли слово &quot;читабельно&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42052" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16638" RevisionGUID="d52c28aa-1dcc-4939-9990-cb25765ed32d" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:04:54.107" UserId="10690" Text="|словарь|слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16639" RevisionGUID="dc95decc-abdc-4a0b-b29a-ac57952d855f" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:32:17.960" UserId="7674" Text="Думаю, факт фиксации слова [в словарях](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1088802) является железным подтверждением факта его существования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другое дело, что оно может быть уместно не во всех контекстах, если например оно относится к разговорной лексике, к каковой согласно словарям относится слово `читабельный`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16639" RevisionGUID="6ec709dd-ab53-45f6-aa07-6313cdd18c7a" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:38:01.460" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Думаю, факт фиксации слова [в словарях](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1088802) является железным подтверждением факта его существования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другое дело, что оно может быть уместно не во всех контекстах, если  оно относится, например, к разговорной лексике, к каковой согласно словарям относится слово `читабельный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но общение в Интернете лично я таким контекстом не считаю.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16639" RevisionGUID="a2c3fba8-8500-4a6a-bb39-daf3b3dc6b1d" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:43:33.627" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Думаю, факт фиксации слова [в словарях](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1088802) является железным подтверждением факта его существования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это по поводу незафиксированных слов могут быть споры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другое дело, что оно может быть уместно не во всех контекстах, если  оно относится, например, к разговорной лексике, к каковой согласно словарям относится слово `читабельный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но общение в Интернете лично я таким контекстом не считаю, тем более не считаю справедливым редактирование с обоснованием, которое противоречит объективной реальности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственный более строгий, хоть и абсурдный, критерий, который мне приходит на ум, это законодательное закрепление факта существования слова." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16639" RevisionGUID="7c482857-2b31-44fd-a77b-df5539c288f5" CreationDate="2018-06-22T08:49:06.203" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Думаю, факт фиксации слова [в авторитетных словарях](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1088802) является железным подтверждением факта его существования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это по поводу незафиксированных слов могут быть споры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другое дело, что оно может быть уместно не во всех контекстах, если  оно относится, например, к разговорной лексике, к каковой согласно словарям относится слово `читабельный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но общение в Интернете лично я таким контекстом не считаю, тем более не считаю справедливым редактирование с обоснованием, которое противоречит объективной реальности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственный более строгий, хоть и абсурдный, критерий, который мне приходит на ум, это законодательное закрепление факта существования слова." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16639" RevisionGUID="1299f329-c44a-473b-a408-84f5657efde5" CreationDate="2018-06-22T09:08:40.503" UserId="7674" Comment="added 282 characters in body" Text="Думаю, факт фиксации слова [в авторитетных словарях](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1088802) является железным подтверждением факта его существования.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это по поводу незафиксированных слов могут быть споры.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Другое дело, что оно может быть уместно не во всех контекстах, если  оно относится, например, к разговорной лексике, к каковой согласно словарям относится слово `читабельный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но общение в Интернете лично я таким контекстом не считаю, тем более не считаю справедливым редактирование с обоснованием, которое противоречит объективной реальности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Единственный более строгий, хоть и абсурдный, критерий, который мне приходит на ум, это законодательное закрепление факта существования слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В моём восприятии слово `читаемый` лишено значения `удобный для чтения, разборчивый`, и уже только на этом основании я бы отверг его в качестве замены.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разница между ними уже обсуждалась [здесь]( https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/431317/ЧИТАЕМЫЙ-и-ЧИТАБЕЛЬНЫЙ-в-чём-разница)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16640" RevisionGUID="08f5dc83-7850-49d0-ba5c-41b0129afd8b" CreationDate="2018-06-22T09:16:56.490" UserId="2079" Text="Слова `читабельный`, `читабельность` широко употребляются в книгах по программированию. Что такое &quot;слова не существует&quot;? Если оно широко употребляется в книгах по определённой тематике, и известно любому, кто этой тематикой занимается, то оно существует." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16641" RevisionGUID="768d2dd8-7ea8-4bd0-817d-d81232f4ff65" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:07:05.223" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;разбираться в чем-то **из рук вон плохо**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This entire phrase is a hyperbolic expression used to emphasise the idea of &quot;**how badly** someone does something&quot;, correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its grammatical construction eludes me, though; I'm not sure how to parse the phrase -- how these separate words get to have the figurative meaning as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    из рук = (getting) out of hand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    вон = out there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    плохо = badly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: What other verbs than &quot;разбираться&quot; are commonly coupled with this expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16641" RevisionGUID="768d2dd8-7ea8-4bd0-817d-d81232f4ff65" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:07:05.223" UserId="8672" Text="Breaking down the expression &quot;из рук вон плохо&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16641" RevisionGUID="768d2dd8-7ea8-4bd0-817d-d81232f4ff65" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:07:05.223" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16642" RevisionGUID="b5fc0c32-0d89-4f2e-bb2f-eb447d3da897" CreationDate="2018-06-22T13:09:30.527" UserId="9001" Text="To me it breaks down like this: **плохо** as if everything falls **из рук вон**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may imagine an unprofessional or tired person, who can't hold his tools tightly and they keep falling out of his hands. So he effectively can't do his job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Из рук вон** means just **out of hands**. **Вон** is an old fashioned word and used to indicate direction &quot;from here/inside to the outside&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression may be coupled with the name of virtually any activity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Он водит/шьет/работает из рук вон плохо*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also in the phrase like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Дела идут из рук вон плохо*  - The things are very bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16643" RevisionGUID="438eac47-f4ce-4ca0-aa5a-decf6690b68d" CreationDate="2018-06-22T15:07:18.587" UserId="10545" Text="While your first question definitely can be answered as &quot;yes, there isn't any ambiguity&quot;, I think some people would disagree on the second one as, just like the English word can be interpreted differently (for example, if spelled differently, i. e. &quot;girlfriend&quot; and &quot;girl friend&quot;, though I am not sure if the latter is used commonly), the Russian one can, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Я хочу, чтобы ты стала моей подругой` is a slightly ambiguous sentence, if you ask me. It might carry both meanings of &quot;I want you to become my friend&quot; and &quot;I want you to become my girlfriend&quot;. If you want to express &quot;I want you to become my girlfriend&quot; clearly and without ambiguity, then you could use `Я хочу, чтобы ты стала моей девушкой`, since, as the related questions linked in the comments suggest, `девушка` has stronger romantic connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes - `друг` will quite clearly state lack of romantic interest, and can be used for both male and female friends in that regard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="dacd2227-5f12-4e74-a45d-353663d5aeb7" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:49:04.347" UserId="10693" Text="I have this comic book in russian that uses characters I don't know from my russian learning materials? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see my image. There are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-small m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-и with line on top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-mirrored s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which 'standard' characters do they represent?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZyCSD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="dacd2227-5f12-4e74-a45d-353663d5aeb7" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:49:04.347" UserId="10693" Text="What are this russian characters that aren't in the alphabet in my learning material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="dacd2227-5f12-4e74-a45d-353663d5aeb7" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:49:04.347" UserId="10693" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16645" RevisionGUID="84414774-cb04-4dd1-917d-28221798131e" CreationDate="2018-06-22T19:20:29.373" UserId="9602" Text="Those are cursive forms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cursive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters you were surprised by are, in order listed, Тт Йй Дд Гг." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16646" RevisionGUID="33cdbf0b-c47e-4ac6-be49-32cd9647b9a3" CreationDate="2018-06-22T19:22:02.617" UserId="7674" Text="-small m = `т`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-и with line on top = `й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-g = `д`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-mirrored s = `г`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are handwriting style characters, but some of them (`m`, `-и with line on top` and `mirrored s` in particular) are also used in italicized version of some Russian fonts, Arial and Times New Roman to name a few." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16647" RevisionGUID="815b11c6-1644-4939-8e10-c51019beba1e" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:10:18.083" UserId="10578" Text="In some fonts you might also encounter 'mirrored 6' which is 'small д'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16648" RevisionGUID="96c60623-b2e7-4323-aecf-d9eea2a12f75" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:12:56.947" UserId="6539" Text="Плохо is an adverb **badly** and «из рук вон» is an idiom meaning **very** &#xD;&#xA;It can be used with different verbs but only with this adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он учится из рук вон плохо. Дела идут из рук вон плохо. И готовит она из рук вон плохо.=совсем плохо, очень плохо." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42071" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16601" RevisionGUID="d138c096-6f1d-481e-b0c7-22d380dcd2dd" CreationDate="2018-06-23T00:48:26.997" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1010323663055441920" />
  <row Id="42072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16593" RevisionGUID="5c402c1a-484a-44b4-9871-bea91c91d27b" CreationDate="2018-06-23T03:48:18.777" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1010368927124414466" />
  <row Id="42073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16649" RevisionGUID="a79131ca-e2dc-4bc5-bed1-da39f811f263" CreationDate="2018-06-23T04:41:19.310" UserId="10578" Text="Let's try it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, just like the other guys said: in the expression itself the adverb is &quot;плохо&quot; (&quot;badly&quot;), and the &quot;из рук вон&quot; is the amplifier. Another adverb used here is &quot;слабо&quot; (&quot;weakly&quot;, in the sense of quality).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the expression might be used in the reduced form: &quot;из рук вон&quot;, implying the mentioned adverbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altogether the expression conveys the sense of deepest disapproval or lowest quality and is used with verbs denoting state, action, activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How the expression came to be? Without digging in the books and seeing as it uses the hand metaphor, it's very likely, just like @AlexVB suggested, that originally it meant the quality of something made by person who &quot;can't hit a nail straight or keep a tool in a hand&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare &quot;все из рук валится&quot; -- literally &quot;everything falling out of one's hands&quot;, &quot;can't do anything right/can't make busy with anything, because of feeling very bad or low&quot;, and **rude** &quot;(чьи-то) руки (растут) из ж*&quot; -- &quot;(someone's) hands (growing) out of one's arse&quot;), the person is all left hands and thumbs, can't do/make anything right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16650" RevisionGUID="e8fb194b-08e1-4aee-a25a-eb86bd3b0d29" CreationDate="2018-06-23T05:34:25.317" UserId="10696" Text="I am using some Tintin books to expand my understanding of casual speech.  Tintin books are (in my opinion) a great way to supplement dull textbooks.  However sometimes the language can be a bit too colloquial, so I have a few questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Только попадись мне этa болтушка!*  &#xD;&#xA;[From the context: Just let me get my hands on that chatterbox!]&#xD;&#xA;This is a grammatical question: I can't reconcile the 2nd person imperative (попадись) with the noun in the nominative case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Пойду скажу пару слов этому типу.*  &#xD;&#xA;[I am going to say a few words to that character.]&#xD;&#xA;Grammar again: I would have said 'сказать' instead of 'скажу'.  Two adjacent 1st pers. sing. verbs just looks wrong to me ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Чёрный ход был открыт.*  &#xD;&#xA;Whatever is a 'чёрный ход'?  Obviously not a 'black entrace', put possibly a 'back entrance'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Ни с того ни с сего у нас начали ломаться стёкла.*  &#xD;&#xA;I can't find an explanation of 'ни с того ни с сего'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any explanations will be much appreciated.  It will help me finish my glossary for the 'Дело профессора' (The Calculus Affair).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16650" RevisionGUID="e8fb194b-08e1-4aee-a25a-eb86bd3b0d29" CreationDate="2018-06-23T05:34:25.317" UserId="10696" Text="Tintin glossary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16650" RevisionGUID="e8fb194b-08e1-4aee-a25a-eb86bd3b0d29" CreationDate="2018-06-23T05:34:25.317" UserId="10696" Text="|грамматика|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16651" RevisionGUID="eb620445-649b-4d1b-b0f7-e1a8ccc1be06" CreationDate="2018-06-23T06:05:34.027" UserId="2104" Text="1. The imperative is used to express the desired state of things (Just **let me catch** that chatterbox!). Попасться is a reflexive verb ('be caught') so literally it's saying 'Just let that chatterbox be caught by me!' with chatterbox in the nominative. The speaker is addressing 'the chatterbox' with the 2nd person imperative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Two personal forms (or imperatives) are not that uncommon in Russian, especially with идти/пойти:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Пойди сходи за молоком! - Go and fetch some milk!&#xD;&#xA;- Пойду схожу за молоком. - (I will) go and fetch some milk.&#xD;&#xA;- Иди работай! - Go and do your work!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Чёрный_ход][2]&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   You were right, it's close to 'back door'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/ни_с_того_ни_с_сего][1] &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   This means 'suddenly' or 'without any reason'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16650" RevisionGUID="3c695079-e658-41d8-9a84-63fa1ade9ab0" CreationDate="2018-06-23T07:57:51.980" UserId="10696" Comment="Added link." Text="I am using some Tintin books to expand my understanding of casual speech.  Tintin books are (in my opinion) a great way to supplement dull textbooks.  However sometimes the language can be a bit too colloquial, so I have a few questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *Только попадись мне этa болтушка!*  &#xD;&#xA;[From the context: Just let me get my hands on that chatterbox!]&#xD;&#xA;This is a grammatical question: I can't reconcile the 2nd person imperative (попадись) with the noun in the nominative case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *Пойду скажу пару слов этому типу.*  &#xD;&#xA;[I am going to say a few words to that character.]&#xD;&#xA;Grammar again: I would have said 'сказать' instead of 'скажу'.  Two adjacent 1st pers. sing. verbs just looks wrong to me ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *Чёрный ход был открыт.*  &#xD;&#xA;Whatever is a 'чёрный ход'?  Obviously not a 'black entrace', put possibly a 'back entrance'?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. *Ни с того ни с сего у нас начали ломаться стёкла.*  &#xD;&#xA;I can't find an explanation of 'ни с того ни с сего'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any explanations will be much appreciated.  It will help me finish my glossary for the 'Дело профессора' (The Calculus Affair).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, anyone interested in Tintin glossaries may check out mine at &lt;http://www.users.on.net/~c.rennie/&gt;.  I have done two so far.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16652" RevisionGUID="c950951e-bf2e-4a97-a130-11bf9dc7fcfb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T10:52:11.620" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;I’ve...**shall we say, *graduated*** from my life as a hacker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say this in Russian, and I'm not sure how to idiomatically express the &quot;shall we say, *graduated*&quot; bit with euphemism. Rather than putting it bluntly: &quot;I've quit&quot;, the verb &quot;graduated&quot; is used euphemistically here, which is signalled by the preceding phrase &quot;shall we say&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Компьютерным взломом  я больше не занимаюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this phrasing is rather straightforward and does not fully express the idea conveyed by the English phrase. I wonder if the verb &quot;окончить&quot; gets the job done for this figurative meaning.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16652" RevisionGUID="c950951e-bf2e-4a97-a130-11bf9dc7fcfb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T10:52:11.620" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;shall we say, graduated&quot; euphemistically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16652" RevisionGUID="c950951e-bf2e-4a97-a130-11bf9dc7fcfb" CreationDate="2018-06-23T10:52:11.620" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16653" RevisionGUID="335db768-6af4-4d1b-b306-051171423088" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:21:35.037" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;1) Слишком **уж** много сил для них нужно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Негоже нам **и** дальше прошлым жить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming &quot;уж&quot; and &quot;и&quot; both serve as an intensifying particle here, but I'm not sure when to use one or the other. As for the intensifier &quot;же&quot;, I use it to draw some contrast to a previous statement, as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Как **же** здесь красиво!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but what is the difference between &quot;уж&quot; vs &quot;и&quot; as an intensifier?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to paraphrase the two phrases with &quot;уж&quot; and &quot;и&quot; swapped around?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16653" RevisionGUID="335db768-6af4-4d1b-b306-051171423088" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:21:35.037" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;уж&quot; vs &quot;и&quot; as an intensifier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16653" RevisionGUID="335db768-6af4-4d1b-b306-051171423088" CreationDate="2018-06-23T11:21:35.037" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="28357cd7-e0fd-4785-90ee-429bfeef5a44" CreationDate="2018-06-23T12:30:55.710" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; (Ну,) я, скажем так, с хакерством завязал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ну,) с хакерством я, скажем так, завязал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ну,) с хакерством я завязал, скажем так/назовём это так" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="9f87448a-3334-4182-b5f5-5c5f87561098" CreationDate="2018-06-23T12:37:06.127" UserId="7674" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="&gt; (Ну,) я, скажем так, с хакерством завязал || Хакерство для меня - это, скажем так, пройденный этап&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ну,) с хакерством я, скажем так, завязал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ну,) с хакерством я завязал, скажем так/назовём это так || Хакерство для меня - это пройденный этап, скажем так/назовём это так" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16655" RevisionGUID="91b4a710-6af3-491a-b1d1-360a214ed4bd" CreationDate="2018-06-23T12:38:16.803" UserId="6539" Text="The first that comes into mind is завязал. The second is поставил крест. The third is развязался. All of them are synonymous to покончил. I think there are more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;С хакерством я завязал/покончил/развязался. На хакерстве я, скажем, поставил крест." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16656" RevisionGUID="b01af906-f59a-47e8-9ba1-d7dc6ae7e8fa" CreationDate="2018-06-23T12:40:25.657" UserId="134" Text="_Я, скажем так, переболел хакерством_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb is usually applied to childhood infections like chickenpox or rubella which before the advent of vaccines most kids got early in their lives and once it had been over they were immune to this infection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian it's a metaphor for &quot;going though a phase&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Надеюсь. этими &quot;детскими болезнями&quot; телевидение переболеет и профессионализм снова будет в цене. [Федор Чеханков: Ненависть меня разрушает (2002) // «Витрина читающей России», 2002.09.13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * а вот мистика пострашней ИМХО. мой&#xD;&#xA;мой в своё время читал Кинга. я была в шоке. но ниче, переболел, щас ваще его не воспринимает. это же может быть издержки определённого возраста. пока думаю, дёргаться не стоит, а вот в курсе быть надо. [Наши дети: Подростки (2004)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Но вот удивительно — компьютерными играми с тех пор навсегда переболел. [Майя Кучерская. Современный патерик: чтение для впавших в уныние (2004)]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16654" RevisionGUID="732de177-ff88-434a-866f-4752270ac8c5" CreationDate="2018-06-23T12:53:46.000" UserId="7674" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="&gt; (Ну,) я, скажем так, с хакерством завязал/покончил &lt;sup&gt;(higher register)&lt;/sup&gt; || Хакерство для меня - это, скажем так, пройденный этап&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ну,) с хакерством я, скажем так, завязал/покончил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Ну,) с хакерством я завязал/покончил, скажем так/назовём это так || Хакерство для меня - это пройденный этап, скажем так/назовём это так" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16657" RevisionGUID="cfb17924-a082-438b-b036-8e2c3bb5e98c" CreationDate="2018-06-23T13:11:11.303" UserId="10578" Text="There is actually no well-recognised euphemism for what you want to express (actually, you'd want to &quot;translate&quot; the &quot;shall we say&quot; part, not the &quot;graduated&quot; part).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the variants with &quot;скажем/скажем так&quot; (almost surely) won't work without the &quot;wink, wink, nudge, nudge&quot;-ing or heavily intoning these words. I'd suggest using somewhat more modern-streetish &quot;как бы&quot; (&quot;so to say, in a way&quot;; e.g., &quot;*как бы* покончил&quot;), but that, too, is intonation-dependent (try to stretch the marked words).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Actually, scratch that answer, I've misread your question. Apologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="2cf7abd0-c514-4f5c-b41c-0e674a19bfe1" CreationDate="2018-06-23T15:48:18.753" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1010550120889372672" />
  <row Id="42095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="da89a593-ea56-46da-bfe7-eccb6d9112ab" CreationDate="2018-06-23T16:27:22.497" UserId="6350" Comment="capitalization, formatting" Text="I have this comic book in Russian that uses characters I don't know from my Russian learning materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see my image. There are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- small m&#xD;&#xA;- и with line on top&#xD;&#xA;- g&#xD;&#xA;- mirrored s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which 'standard' characters do they represent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZyCSD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42096" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="da89a593-ea56-46da-bfe7-eccb6d9112ab" CreationDate="2018-06-23T16:27:22.497" UserId="6350" Comment="capitalization, formatting" Text="What are these Russian characters that aren't in the alphabet in my learning material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42097" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="da89a593-ea56-46da-bfe7-eccb6d9112ab" CreationDate="2018-06-23T16:27:22.497" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 7674, 5605 edit id of 976" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16659" RevisionGUID="c0ba13aa-6053-410e-ae1c-25a3442d74ce" CreationDate="2018-06-23T19:40:56.427" UserId="10578" Text="No, you can't swap intensifiers in 1) and 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Уж&quot; *in this kind of context* sort of strengthens the extent of strengthening, and &quot;и&quot; just strengthens the extent (of the adverb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to put together some rule of thumb here, use &quot;уж&quot; where you could/would double the adverb. Like, &quot;нет уж!&quot; as &quot;no, no!&quot; vs. &quot;нет!&quot; as &quot;no!&quot;. Here, &quot;too much effort&quot; as &quot;слишком много сил&quot; vs. &quot;too, too much effort&quot; vs. &quot;слишком уж много сил&quot;. And use &quot;и&quot; otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16660" RevisionGUID="2e343934-b6ae-47c9-93e5-67e810905a2d" CreationDate="2018-06-24T01:28:08.847" UserId="10593" Text="Смотри, Востяков, как в тело войду, морду тебе за это самое набью окончательно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused from морду onwards, the cases are throwing me off. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16660" RevisionGUID="2e343934-b6ae-47c9-93e5-67e810905a2d" CreationDate="2018-06-24T01:28:08.847" UserId="10593" Text="can someone explain this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16660" RevisionGUID="2e343934-b6ae-47c9-93e5-67e810905a2d" CreationDate="2018-06-24T01:28:08.847" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16583" RevisionGUID="3ff62a91-3e82-4668-90de-15cc2f124fae" CreationDate="2018-06-24T06:48:18.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1010776613527740417" />
  <row Id="42104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16661" RevisionGUID="849ca042-32fd-466d-a01d-a08f1149bc2d" CreationDate="2018-06-24T06:50:54.427" UserId="6539" Text="ВХОДИТЬ В ТЕЛО. ВОЙТИ В ТЕЛО. Прост. Экспрес. Физически крепнуть; поправляться, полнеть.to get stronger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;морду тебе за это самое набью окончательно= **(Я) набью тебе ( dative) морду (accusative) за это (accusative) окончательно**.= I (which is omitted) will beat your face (you in the face) for this (which should be known from the previous context) surely (by all means).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When I get stronger I will surely beat you in the face for this/that**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42106" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16660" RevisionGUID="a0545dac-5002-46ed-b1d9-dc0a54299b97" CreationDate="2018-06-24T08:57:09.283" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What does морду тебе за это самое набью mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16662" RevisionGUID="98a34db7-f798-4b0f-b1ac-e882a3a5f0af" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:52:07.413" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Как же здесь оказались книги, **которым больше семи веков**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit stumped with this part...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Why use the dative relative pronoun &quot;которым&quot; rather than the nominative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) I suppose &quot;больше семи веков&quot; means &quot;more than seven centuries&quot;. Is &quot;семи веков&quot; in the genitive because &quot;больше&quot;, just like &quot;много&quot;, takes the genitive case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16662" RevisionGUID="98a34db7-f798-4b0f-b1ac-e882a3a5f0af" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:52:07.413" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;которым больше семи веков&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16662" RevisionGUID="98a34db7-f798-4b0f-b1ac-e882a3a5f0af" CreationDate="2018-06-24T10:52:07.413" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16663" RevisionGUID="96fa28f0-b9cc-4eae-8850-e3dacce5492a" CreationDate="2018-06-24T11:15:19.727" UserId="6907" Text="I just want to say &quot;I need to **find** it&quot;, or &quot;The main thins is that you will find it&quot; (for example, the key, the document, etc.). Now I am not sure which verb is more appropriate to the context that I showed. Google translate showed me both choices for the word find: найти &amp; находить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно это **найти**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно это **находить**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16663" RevisionGUID="96fa28f0-b9cc-4eae-8850-e3dacce5492a" CreationDate="2018-06-24T11:15:19.727" UserId="6907" Text="What's the appropriate verb for the following context? (найти Vs. находить)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16663" RevisionGUID="96fa28f0-b9cc-4eae-8850-e3dacce5492a" CreationDate="2018-06-24T11:15:19.727" UserId="6907" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16664" RevisionGUID="19f6d9ce-c49f-4a68-affe-dd739c360a20" CreationDate="2018-06-24T11:50:27.983" UserId="9001" Text="When the verb is transitive you have to use a perfective form in positive sentences, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нужно это найти.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative sentences you use imperfective verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне не нужно этого находить [, чтобы принять правильное решение].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the verb is intransitive you can use both perfective and imperfective forms in positive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нужно идти. Мне нужно уйти.* - I have to go (leave).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative sentences you use imprefective verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне не нужно уходить*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that perfective/imperfective aspect is often connected with &quot;transitiveness&quot;, so sometimes you have only one option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16665" RevisionGUID="e659fd37-32b3-45cf-b63b-7a619d382ffe" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:14:08.240" UserId="2079" Text="All comparatives without `чем` govern genitive. `Пёс больше кота, толще кота, красивее кота. Автомобиль дороже велосипеда, тяжелее велосипеда, быстрее велосипеда.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an expression about age with dative: `кому-то (или чему-то) столько-то лет (дней, месяцев, веков etc.)`  `Этим книгам больше семи веков` is an example of such expression.  Since `которым` replaces `этим книгам`, it should be in dative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42116" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16663" RevisionGUID="0631f12c-043a-420a-b326-51f91a5da736" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:17:03.163" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16666" RevisionGUID="b541c41d-cce8-4b1d-a6e8-8fc8bac30546" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:18:15.220" UserId="9001" Text="1) This is a normal way to talk about ages in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ему*(dat.) *десять лет*. - He is ten years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is (was) a kind of verb implied in this sentence which is used with dative noun: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ему [уже] исполнилось десять лет.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Yes, *больше* takes genitive (if it is in the same clause). You may say either&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Десять больше пяти*(gen.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Десять больше, чем пять*(nom.).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16667" RevisionGUID="d44b38d1-2281-4fe3-94e3-22a0feea2a00" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:22:53.850" UserId="2079" Text="If you need to find it once, `мне нужно это найти`. Example: you lost your glasses and need to find them as soon as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to find it time after time, `мне нужно это находить`.  Example: you have a pet who takes things and hides them in different places in your home.  You need to find the lost thing each time it happens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16668" RevisionGUID="bb5e7569-2de9-4e62-b4b6-6813c01a116e" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:23:30.763" UserId="134" Text="This is such called &quot;dative of possession&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used for things like age, name, kinship terms etc instead of possessive or genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _(возраст) мне семь лет_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _имя мне легион_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _я ему отец_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _человек человеку волк_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is a thing in Latin as well: _nomen mihi legio est, homo homini lupus est_, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16664" RevisionGUID="0d7c734b-bdb8-440e-8879-02a9517701bf" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:56:47.897" UserId="9001" Comment="Improved answer" Text="When the verb is transitive you have to use a perfective form in positive sentences, like in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нужно это найти.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As suggested by **Баян Купи-ка** in the comments imperfective form is also valid here when you talk about some stretched in time duty:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нужно находить решения, приемлемые для всех* - I [always] have to look for solutions, suitable for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative sentences you use imperfective verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне не нужно этого находить [, чтобы принять правильное решение].*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the verb is intransitive you can use both perfective and imperfective forms in positive sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне нужно идти. Мне нужно уйти.* - I have to go (leave).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In negative sentences you use imprefective verbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне не нужно уходить*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that perfective/imperfective aspect is often connected with &quot;transitiveness&quot;, so sometimes you have only one option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42121" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="a7443c03-5ea1-4987-9f7f-7dd1d94cd1bd" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:58:59.757" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42122" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1612" RevisionGUID="a7443c03-5ea1-4987-9f7f-7dd1d94cd1bd" CreationDate="2018-06-24T12:58:59.757" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 7674, 9001 edit id of 977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16669" RevisionGUID="6e0d9790-bf58-4fea-a567-6bcfbb9be2d4" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:39:03.130" UserId="3892" Text="In this example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вот только** дай мне закончить школу, и я сразу же от вас уеду и буду&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жить, как мне хочется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does вот только mean the same as как только, perhaps with a more emotional bent? Can it be used in a situation where the speaker isn't necessarily upset?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16669" RevisionGUID="6e0d9790-bf58-4fea-a567-6bcfbb9be2d4" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:39:03.130" UserId="3892" Text="Usage of ВОТ ТОЛЬКО" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16669" RevisionGUID="6e0d9790-bf58-4fea-a567-6bcfbb9be2d4" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:39:03.130" UserId="3892" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16668" RevisionGUID="6586780b-b8ae-4289-b24b-da2d534f71bc" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:57:03.383" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is so called &quot;dative of possession&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's used for things like age, name, kinship etc. instead of possessive or genitive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _(возраст) мне семь лет_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _имя мне легион_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _я ему отец_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _человек человеку волк_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is a thing in Latin as well: _nomen mihi legio est, homo homini lupus est_, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="cf042677-4bc1-44ee-a579-4640065b0ef9" CreationDate="2018-06-24T14:25:34.547" UserId="7674" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate, OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="6624d9ab-0eab-485f-8c68-aabe1c1f93c4" CreationDate="2018-06-24T14:32:06.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate, OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вот только` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a synonym of `как только`, it only can introduce second clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="35498875-0dbc-4ca8-9d2d-7c4e2c1d6222" CreationDate="2018-06-24T14:37:23.537" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate, OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вот только` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a synonym of `как только`, it only can introduce first clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, а **вот только** начнется лето, (и) я сразу же заболею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rehashing the sentence by swapping clauses to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, но я сразу же заболею, **вот только** начнется лето &lt;sup&gt;*incorrect*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doesn't sound idiomatic, unlike it would do with the conjunction `как только`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="f2e7148b-6d2a-4762-a1ab-d1c19ab0880e" CreationDate="2018-06-24T14:43:08.107" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate, OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(вот) только` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a synonym of `как только`, it only can introduce first clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, а **(вот) только** начнется лето, (и) я сразу же заболею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rehashing the sentence by swapping clauses to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, но я сразу же заболею, **(вот) только** начнется лето&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;doesn't sound idiomatic, unlike it would do with the conjunction `как только`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16671" RevisionGUID="55f7b0ec-689b-4a9b-bd7d-8b66372c5eb7" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:16:37.317" UserId="6903" Text="I seem to remember someone using this as a farewell, but when I search for the expression, it doesn't seem to be as common as I thought. Is it idiomatic to say something like &quot;До следующего раза&quot;? If so, can one leave out &quot;раза&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In French, for example, one can say, &quot;À la prochaine&quot;, meaning &quot;Until next [time]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42132" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16671" RevisionGUID="55f7b0ec-689b-4a9b-bd7d-8b66372c5eb7" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:16:37.317" UserId="6903" Text="Can one say &quot;до следующего&quot; or &quot;до следующего раза&quot; as a farewell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42133" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16671" RevisionGUID="55f7b0ec-689b-4a9b-bd7d-8b66372c5eb7" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:16:37.317" UserId="6903" Text="|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="b0ee3275-1396-4921-a25a-d636984d7b32" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:27:11.183" UserId="7674" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate (first), OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(вот) (только)` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a synonym of `как только`, it only can introduce first clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, а **(вот) (только)** начнется лето, (и) я сразу же заболею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rehashing the sentence by swapping clauses to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Когда школа я не болею, но я сразу же заболею, **(вот) (только)** начнется лето*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**doesn't** sound idiomatic, unlike it would do with the conjunction `как только`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this function `(вот) (только)` in one clause is often (or perhaps always) coupled with adverbs either of immediacy (`сразу (же)`, `тут же`, `тотчас`) or surety (`обязательно`, `непременно`) in the next clause and requires verbs in future tense in perfective aspect in both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Вот) (только) ...., (и) `сразу/тут же` / `обязательно`....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either parenthetic part thereof can be omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="6ce9029a-73c7-45bc-b9b3-8f778340fffd" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:33:15.030" UserId="7674" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate (first), OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вот только` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a synonym of `как только`, it only can introduce first clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, а **вот только** начнется лето, (и) я сразу же заболею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rehashing the sentence by swapping clauses to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Когда школа я не болею, но я сразу же заболею, **вот только** начнется лето*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**doesn't** sound idiomatic, unlike it would do with the conjunction `как только`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this function `вот только` in one clause is often (or perhaps always) coupled with adverbs either of immediacy (`сразу (же)`, `тут же`, `тотчас`) or surety (`обязательно`, `непременно`) in the next clause and requires verbs in future tense in perfective aspect in both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вот только ...., (и) `сразу/тут же` / `обязательно`....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context either part of `вот только` can be omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="c3281687-8e86-49b4-8788-34d6633d700a" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:39:54.727" UserId="7674" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого`** which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language it's not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually you would hear **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`**, **`счастливо!`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="5907f3ba-a7c5-4c0c-bd06-b357adaa693e" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:47:13.423" UserId="7674" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого`** which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language it's not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually you would hear **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`**, **`счастливо!`**, **`увидимся!`** (see ya)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="3b0ff922-f825-48a6-bc74-605945af1202" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:58:12.003" UserId="7674" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого!`** (equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**) which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, or the straightforward **`до встречи!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language **`до скорого`** is not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually you would hear **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`**, **`счастливо!`**, **`удачи!`**, **`увидимся!`** (see ya) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Пока!`** does have a connotation of `until`, etymology was discussed in Russian [here](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/15639/Почему-прощаются-пока)  and [elsewhere](https://ru-etymology.livejournal.com/1136154.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="3739415a-d1a6-4ab4-9e6a-af1369b3a6ce" CreationDate="2018-06-24T18:06:16.647" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of time, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate (first), OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вот только` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a full synonym of `как только` and it only can introduce first clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, а **вот только** начнется лето, (и) я сразу же заболею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rehashing the sentence by swapping clauses to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Когда школа я не болею, но я сразу же заболею, **вот только** начнется лето*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**doesn't** sound idiomatic, unlike it would do with the conjunction `как только`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this function `вот только` in one clause is often (or perhaps always) coupled with adverbs either of immediacy (`сразу (же)`, `тут же`, `тотчас`) or surety (`обязательно`, `непременно`) in the next clause and requires verbs in future tense in perfective aspect in both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вот только ...., (и) `сразу/тут же` / `обязательно`....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context either part of `вот только` can be omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="a06d434a-fffa-4557-aacd-1aaa26e969ca" CreationDate="2018-06-24T18:12:56.407" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого!`** (equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**) which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, or the straightforward **`до встречи!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language **`до скорого`** is not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically you would hear **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`**, **`счастливо!`**, **`удачи!`**, **`увидимся!`** (see ya) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Пока!`** does have a connotation of `until`, etymology was discussed in Russian [here](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/15639/Почему-прощаются-пока)  and [elsewhere](https://ru-etymology.livejournal.com/1136154.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="9ff13fc4-2569-4715-88c2-54bb0e57571f" CreationDate="2018-06-24T20:35:45.553" UserId="7674" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого!`** (equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**) which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, or the straightforward **`до встречи!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language **`до скорого`** is not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically you would hear **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`**, **`до связи!`**, **`счастливо!`**, **`удачи!`**, **`увидимся!`** (see ya) and their combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Пока!`** does have a connotation of `until`, etymology was discussed in Russian [here](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/15639/Почему-прощаются-пока)  and [elsewhere](https://ru-etymology.livejournal.com/1136154.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16673" RevisionGUID="957340ec-420e-4f61-8b9c-570e860fcd6f" CreationDate="2018-06-25T02:01:42.570" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;До следующего&quot; feels incomplete and wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;До следующего раза&quot; means not &quot;until next time&quot;, but rather &quot;until next occasion/event&quot;. As a farewell, it is OK to say to a person/a group of people who you meet only on some rare/specific occasions, according to some schedule, tradition, when the stars align, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you meet some people, say, once, twice a year for a party, a travel, something like that. When parting at the end of the event, because you don't expect to meet them until the next such event, you may say &quot;ну, до следующего раза&quot; (e. g. &quot;until the next party/whatever&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42143" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16580" RevisionGUID="bd0f5076-b395-46d6-b639-718b08486401" CreationDate="2018-06-25T03:49:21.427" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1011093965469306880" />
  <row Id="42144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="014e904a-4125-456e-888e-9a44b6835291" CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:34:47.363" UserId="7674" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого!`** (equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**) which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, or the straightforward **`до встречи!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language **`до скорого`** is not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expecting to meet a person at a known day or time of the day people might say **`до вечера!`**, **`до завтра!`**, **`до пятницы!`**, **`до следующей недели!`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically you would hear the unspecific in terms of time **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`** (keep in touch), **`до связи!`** (talk to you later), **`счастливо!`**, **`удачи!`**, **`увидимся!`** (see ya) and their combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Пока!`** does have a connotation of `until`, etymology was discussed in Russian [here](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/15639/Почему-прощаются-пока)  and [elsewhere](https://ru-etymology.livejournal.com/1136154.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16672" RevisionGUID="434deb4c-8446-4f0a-8a2b-d4d444ad88b7" CreationDate="2018-06-25T06:58:28.560" UserId="7674" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I haven't encountered its use in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's said when some business is left undone and is expected to be completed or resumed next time around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can be said though is **`до скорого!`** (equivalent of the German **`bis bald`**) which is a short form of **`до скорого свидания`** which in turn is a variant of the conventional **`до свидания`**, or the straightforward **`до встречи!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in modern language **`до скорого`** is not particularly colloquial. Sounds a bit pretentious to my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expecting to meet a person on a known day or at a known time of the day people might say **`до вечера!`**, **`до завтра!`**, **`до пятницы!`**, **`до следующей недели!`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically you would hear the unspecific in terms of time **`пока!`**, **`давай!`**, **`на связи!`** (keep in touch), **`до связи!`** (talk to you later), **`счастливо!`**, **`удачи!`**, **`увидимся!`** (see ya) and their combinations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Пока!`** does have a connotation of `until`, etymology was discussed in Russian at [&quot;Почему прощаются &quot;пока&quot;?&quot;](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/15639/Почему-прощаются-пока)  and at [&quot;Пока / Давай при прощании&quot;](https://ru-etymology.livejournal.com/1136154.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16674" RevisionGUID="6af04624-e2fd-407e-a1ec-6a8b7048960a" CreationDate="2018-06-25T07:24:50.013" UserId="9058" Text="Вряд ли его в 1990-х воскресили из ностальгии по &quot;ленинскому неиспорченному коммунизму&quot;, мне кажется это новый импорт, независимый. Возможно, вместе с вернувшимися эмигрантами. Но даже если и 1920-е, то тогда в основном технологии импортировали из США и Германии. Т.е. французское влияние на язык в 1920-е - тоже под вопросом." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="9bf2b949-15a8-4db1-a4fb-4374dba1e0bd" CreationDate="2018-06-25T08:54:56.013" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|диалект|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42149" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="9bf2b949-15a8-4db1-a4fb-4374dba1e0bd" CreationDate="2018-06-25T08:54:56.013" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42150" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="9408bdd3-e1f9-45b4-9dd1-71deb510b530" CreationDate="2018-06-25T08:55:02.830" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42151" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2919" RevisionGUID="9408bdd3-e1f9-45b4-9dd1-71deb510b530" CreationDate="2018-06-25T08:55:02.830" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 7674, 4481 edit id of 979" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16675" RevisionGUID="73650d25-06c2-4f82-9a7e-42f6f3a82c30" CreationDate="2018-06-25T09:42:49.210" UserId="1277" Text="Nobody posted these letters italicized yet, so here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Тт *Тт*&#xD;&#xA;- Йй *Йй*&#xD;&#xA;- Дд *Дд*&#xD;&#xA;- Гг *Гг*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examine this answer's markdown by clicking &quot;edit&quot; to make sure I didn't trick you :ь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="be6e4b78-5838-41ba-a27a-aae551badc39" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:14:45.157" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;А чего это **мы** такие ворчливые?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just received an IM from my girlfriend, in which she used the pronoun &quot;мы&quot; (jokingly, I suppose) although it was I alone who was grumbling about something in a previous message.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is an equivalent of &quot;Aren't **we** grumpy today?&quot; in English and &quot;**On** est ronchon, hein ?&quot; in French? English and French use the pronouns &quot;we/on&quot; to indirectly refer to &quot;you/tu&quot; respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="be6e4b78-5838-41ba-a27a-aae551badc39" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:14:45.157" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, can &quot;мы&quot; be used to refer to &quot;you&quot; in conversation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="be6e4b78-5838-41ba-a27a-aae551badc39" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:14:45.157" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16677" RevisionGUID="ea157e37-518e-40a0-a9bd-5f35e0a319e1" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:20:28.090" UserId="10715" Text="In this particular case it means &quot;Why are you grumpy today&quot;? So, &quot;we&quot; means &quot;you&quot; in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This form is often used when talking to children and emphasizes jocular tone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="7ab84797-f711-4860-9010-cb18d956039e" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:48:08.330" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;1) А **чего это** мы такие ворчливые?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? Why is **it** that you ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Не знаю, **как такому**, как ты, удалось сделать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? I don't know how **such a thing**, how you managed to do ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The functions of the words &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; placed after the interrogative pronouns got me thinking. I'm assuming both &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; can be *omitted*, so by placing these seemingly *extra* words, can you emphasise your statement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;чего это&quot; and &quot;как такому&quot; are both used only in colloquial style, as these two phrases come from chatty IMs that my girlfriend sent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="7ab84797-f711-4860-9010-cb18d956039e" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:48:08.330" UserId="8672" Text="Are &quot;чего это&quot; and &quot;как такому&quot; expressions used for emphasis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="7ab84797-f711-4860-9010-cb18d956039e" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:48:08.330" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="af251e1e-b972-443e-b260-6937af2df170" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:55:13.093" UserId="8672" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) А **чего это** мы такие ворчливые?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? Why is **it** that you ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Не знаю, **как такому**, как ты, удалось сделать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? I don't know how **such a thing**, how you managed to do ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The functions of the words &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; placed after the interrogative pronouns got me thinking. I'm assuming both &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; can be *omitted*, so by placing these seemingly *extra* words, can you emphasise your statement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, why &quot;как такому&quot; in dative rather than &quot;как такое&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;чего это&quot; and &quot;как такому&quot; are both used only in colloquial style, as these two phrases come from chatty IMs that my girlfriend sent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="595fcf2f-b218-40b9-83e8-d5cc1014fd54" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:55:27.853" UserId="8672" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) А **чего это** мы такие ворчливые?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? Why is **it** that you ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Не знаю, **как такому**, как ты, удалось сделать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? I don't know how **such a thing**, how you managed to do ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The functions of the words &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; placed after the interrogative pronouns got me thinking. I'm assuming both &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; can be *omitted*, so by placing these seemingly *extra* words, can you emphasise your statement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, why say &quot;как такому&quot; in dative rather than &quot;как такое&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;чего это&quot; and &quot;как такому&quot; are both used only in colloquial style, as these two phrases come from chatty IMs that my girlfriend sent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="2526bf55-3618-4f2a-b13e-c0c7ee0286d9" CreationDate="2018-06-25T12:57:58.247" UserId="8672" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) А **чего это** мы такие ворчливые?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? Why is **it** that you ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Не знаю, **как такому**, как ты, удалось сделать ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   *=? I don't know how **such a thing**, how you managed to do ...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The functions of the words &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; placed after the interrogative pronouns got me thinking. I'm assuming both &quot;это&quot; and &quot;такому&quot; can be *omitted*, so by placing these seemingly *extra* words, can you emphasise your statement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Incidentally, why say &quot;как **такому**&quot; in dative rather than &quot;как такое&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;чего это&quot; and &quot;как такому&quot; are both used only in colloquial style, as these two phrases come from chatty IMs that my girlfriend sent to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16670" RevisionGUID="1c3d5c0b-0a7f-49e2-9515-09424dddd701" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:34:58.087" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="They differ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как только`** is a conjunction which can introduce subordinate clause of timing, translated `as soon as`, `right after`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вот только`** can't function like that, it can be translated as **`just`** or **`simply`** and **`вот`** is added for emphasis but can be omitted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this sentence in English should read something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just let me graduate (first), OK, and I'll leave you right away....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Just wait till after I graduate, OK, ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in contexts where it doesn't express displeasure of the speaker, in these cases it imparts the statement a tenor of promise or prediction i guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вот только` too can be translated `as soon as` but in Russian it's not a full synonym of `как только` and it only can introduce first clause in a compound sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда школа я не болею, а **вот только** начнется лето, (и) я сразу же заболею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rehashing the sentence by swapping clauses to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Когда школа я не болею, но я сразу же заболею, **вот только** начнется лето*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**doesn't** sound idiomatic, unlike it would do with the conjunction `как только`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this function `вот только` in one clause is often (or perhaps always) coupled with adverbs either of immediacy (`сразу (же)`, `тут же`, `тотчас`) or surety (`обязательно`, `непременно`) in the next clause and requires verbs in future tense in perfective aspect in both&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;вот только ...., (и) `сразу/тут же` / `обязательно`....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the context either part of `вот только` can be omitted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="3d4ffd42-8d09-4823-ad9a-dec00bf87268" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:52:01.090" UserId="8780" Text="Within the expression `такой, какой` must both components be in the same case? Or rather, какой may take another case, according to the content of the second clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's just like she was previously.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она такая, какая (какой) она была раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's just like the way I saw her for the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Она такая, какой я увидел её впервые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The contemporary flag of Russia is the same as the flag of Imperial Russia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодняшний флаг России такой, каким был флаг царьской России." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="3d4ffd42-8d09-4823-ad9a-dec00bf87268" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:52:01.090" UserId="8780" Text="Inflection of такой, какой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="3d4ffd42-8d09-4823-ad9a-dec00bf87268" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:52:01.090" UserId="8780" Text="|склонение|местоимения|clauses|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16678" RevisionGUID="55eda8ee-1c2e-4420-9a5f-7f20e40b7233" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:52:46.943" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Are the expressions &quot;чего это&quot; and &quot;как такому&quot; used for emphasis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16680" RevisionGUID="e42acd44-24eb-46b1-89c7-701b10aed32d" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:56:07.710" UserId="9602" Text="Yes, in sentences like this “мы” can in fact be a 2nd person pronoun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also observe that this can apply to imperative mood as well. “Проходим, не задерживаемся!”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16681" RevisionGUID="9378c28c-68c4-419b-9a23-1b3c9845b134" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:29:30.337" UserId="2104" Text="From your examples it's evident that какой is part of the second clause and inflects accordingly. In all your examples какой is in the instrumental case which is required by был/увидел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You *can* use nominative with был (Она такая, **какая** она была раньше.) but to me that sounds colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/16379/2104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42171" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16644" RevisionGUID="3ee018ec-407b-491f-be8c-6b8c8688130e" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:57:50.777" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|буквы|алфавит|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="1d232916-a02c-4c2a-b14a-d5b106a28cc7" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:10:13.310" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Within the expression `такой, какой` must both components be in the same case? Or rather, какой may take another case, according to the content of the second clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's just like she was previously.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она такая, какая (какой) она была раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's just like the way I saw her for the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Она такая, какой я увидел её впервые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The contemporary flag of Russia is the same as the flag of Imperial Russia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодняшний флаг России такой, каким был флаг цар&lt;strike&gt;Ь&lt;/strike&gt;ской&lt;sup&gt;***without Ь***&lt;/sup&gt; России." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42173" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="475e7b8c-5c6f-4a52-b749-e39fd9ba86ed" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:16:49.183" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|местоимения|clauses|essive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42174" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="a9f9fa92-e946-45fc-af83-48740640a70c" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:19:12.487" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|прилагательные|essive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42175" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15702" RevisionGUID="2a4dc0be-a749-4ecf-9d3e-695d931b17f9" CreationDate="2018-06-25T18:19:34.977" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|essive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16676" RevisionGUID="55145bba-a363-4712-b962-bf69eb6ba94e" CreationDate="2018-06-26T00:49:29.100" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1011411087244316672" />
  <row Id="42178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16683" RevisionGUID="566e4eca-5667-41bc-89c1-e808a76a36af" CreationDate="2018-06-26T06:01:47.973" UserId="5443" Text="*Какая* can take **any** case according to the content of the second clause, as you suggest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Она такая, какая есть.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Она такая, какой была раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Она такая, какой можно многое пообещать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Она такая, какую ещё поискать надо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Она такая, какой можно гордиться.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Она такая, на какой можно даже жениться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16684" RevisionGUID="6b214a51-975c-4d08-ad12-92fdbd723133" CreationDate="2018-06-26T06:33:54.027" UserId="3502" Text="&gt;I wonder if this is an equivalent of &quot;Aren't we grumpy today?&quot; in English &#xD;&#xA;I think this is exact equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42183" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16671" RevisionGUID="77564384-5715-4b06-a773-5bcb051b847c" CreationDate="2018-06-26T12:49:23.423" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1011592257290620930" />
  <row Id="42184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16679" RevisionGUID="5c3561ee-92a3-4041-b9ba-2de5fdc1e596" CreationDate="2018-06-26T13:39:25.913" UserId="134" Comment="corrections can be found in the edit history, no need to mark them in the post" Text="Within the expression `такой, какой` must both components be in the same case? Or rather, какой may take another case, according to the content of the second clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's just like she was previously.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она такая, какая (какой) она была раньше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;She's just like the way I saw her for the first time.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Она такая, какой я увидел её впервые.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The contemporary flag of Russia is the same as the flag of Imperial Russia.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодняшний флаг России такой, каким был флаг царской России." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16685" RevisionGUID="b0f49275-9d71-42df-ae28-1941863e8c03" CreationDate="2018-06-26T14:16:35.413" UserId="5443" Text="The usage of **мы** instead of **ты**/**вы** in colloquial speech is wide enough. The explorers call it '**sympathetically intimate**', '**solidary**', '**doctorate** / **parental**' or '**inclusive**'. Such a usage of **мы** is considered *neutral* when it emphasizes a definitely higher situational status of the speaker, e. g. in a pair like **doctor-to-patient** (К*ак мы себя чувствуем?*), **parent-to-child** (*Что это мы тут плачем?*),  **policeman-to-suspect** (*Будем сознаваться или будем играть в молчанку!?*), etc. A *comical* effect only appears if it's spoken by someone 'out of proper status'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (В. З. Санников, Русский язык в зеркале языковой игры)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=cRyLAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA79&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ots=da9xaO3W0Q&amp;sig=ACfU3U3d6nZJB4gbAygeQnAmbbQuOkLgaw&amp;w=1280&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=cRyLAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA80&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ots=da9xaO3W0Q&amp;sig=ACfU3U3P472gku_DWe20h6Yugnm_BFiFzQ&amp;w=1280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16686" RevisionGUID="bb033437-2325-4bef-8ee1-4705b8a65ed0" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:33:19.030" UserId="8219" Text="To answer your question directly: both of these expressions are used only colloquially, but their function is somewhat opposite to emphasis. It's rather (at least sometimes) about being able to &quot;humbly&quot; ask or suggest something that would be too rude with more straightforward wording. Also, &quot;(а) чего это&quot; is a reduction of the more literal &quot;чего это ради&quot; (&quot;what is this for&quot;) and is far more frequent than &quot;такому, как&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example for &quot;чего это&quot; (from [Russian National Corpus](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=%28lang%3A%22eng%22+%7C+lang_trans%3A%22eng%22%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=24681277&amp;mysentsize=1608376&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=para&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;env=alpha&amp;req=%F7%E5%E3%EE+%FD%F2%EE)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ― Для **чего это** тебе понадобилось вдруг ― одежду стирать? ― спросили его. [Н. Н. Носов. Приключения Незнайки и его друзей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1953-1954)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Why should** you wash your clothes all of a sudden like this?&quot; they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; asked him. [Nikolay Nosov. The Adventures of Dunno and his Friends&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Margaret Wettlin, 1980)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example for &quot;как такому&quot; (from [Russian National Corpus](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=%28lang%3A%22eng%22+%7C+lang_trans%3A%22eng%22%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=24681277&amp;mysentsize=1608376&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=para&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;env=alpha&amp;req=%F2%E0%EA%EE%EC%F3+%EA%E0%EA)):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там кому попало выдают паспорта! А я б, например, **не выдал такому, как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы**! Глянул бы только раз в лицо и моментально отказал бы! ― кот до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; того рассердился, что швырнул паспорт на пол. [М. А. Булгаков. Мастер&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и Маргарита (1929-1940)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whereas I, for instance, **wouldn't issue one to the likes of you**! Not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on your life I wouldn't! I'd just take one look at your face and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instandy refuse! ' The cat got so angry that he flung the passport on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the floor. [Mikhail Bulgakov. Master and Margarita (Richard Pevear ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Larissa Volokhonsky, 1979)]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16687" RevisionGUID="68d6fb7c-6e04-40db-9540-65f16b3ab39a" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:44:51.640" UserId="8780" Text="A friend of mine wrote `я не интересуюсь, кто с кем играет` (in a football match). Normally, **интересоваться** is followed by a word in the instrumental case. When the word is a noun, an adjective or a pronoun, there's no difficulty about declining it. But, in this context, **интересоваться** is followed by a completely new clause, which could be independent and not subordinate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's like **надеяться**? &quot;Надеяться *на что*&quot;, but if we are hoping for something described by a whole clause rather than a noun, *на что* may be dropped. Like in `надеюсь, всё будет хорошо`, rather than `надеюсь на то, чтобы всё было хорошо`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, is it a valid alternative to say `я не интересуюсь тем, кто с кем играет`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've previously noticed that a declined pronoun **то** may relate to an independent clause without any particular syntax connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; путешествовать в этом году зависит **от того**, сколько денег&#xD;&#xA;&gt; останется после ремонта чердака&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb требовать normally is followed by genitive, but what if it is followed by a clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*They demanded me to rewrite the document.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они потребовали (от меня) переписать документ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16687" RevisionGUID="68d6fb7c-6e04-40db-9540-65f16b3ab39a" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:44:51.640" UserId="8780" Text="Clauses after non-accusative verbs or то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16687" RevisionGUID="68d6fb7c-6e04-40db-9540-65f16b3ab39a" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:44:51.640" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|предлоги|clauses|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16688" RevisionGUID="538cc519-306c-4ed8-bc5c-e846bad194f7" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:46:10.587" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Es gibt **nichts**, das ich mir **nicht** leisten könnte!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    = There's nothing I can't afford!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed this original German sentence with a double negative construction is for some reason translated (by a professional Russian translator, no less) into something as straightforward as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я все могу купить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which makes me wonder if the use of double negation doesn't sound idiomatic in Russian in this specific instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16688" RevisionGUID="538cc519-306c-4ed8-bc5c-e846bad194f7" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:46:10.587" UserId="8672" Text="Double negation in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16688" RevisionGUID="538cc519-306c-4ed8-bc5c-e846bad194f7" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:46:10.587" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16688" RevisionGUID="d9c94c97-4c53-442e-96be-f8d15088e7aa" CreationDate="2018-06-26T15:51:20.237" UserId="8672" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;Es gibt **nichts**, das ich mir **nicht** leisten könnte!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    = There's nothing I can't afford!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed this original German sentence with a double negative construction is for some reason translated (by a professional Russian translator, no less) into something as straightforward as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я все могу купить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which makes me wonder if the use of double negation somehow doesn't sound idiomatic in Russian in this specific instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16689" RevisionGUID="2dcaeee7-dc3f-4d80-ac46-b0063f06b208" CreationDate="2018-06-26T16:04:16.833" UserId="10578" Text="There's the &quot;нет ничего, чего (я/он/...) не мог бы (сделать/...)&quot; construction, which may, or in some cases (i.e. with some verbs) may not sound natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case the translation by that template would be &quot;не ничего, чего я купить бы не смог (or: чего я не смог бы купить)&quot;. To my taste, such construction in general sounds just a little bit dramatic, maybe, not just neutrally narrative, but it sounds all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16690" RevisionGUID="6b5aae90-8c95-4c8c-8ba2-fa1206b049fd" CreationDate="2018-06-26T16:13:41.540" UserId="10578" Text="You'll get some pieces of textbooks yet, no doubt, but such constructions with words omitted but implied are possible, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only those two verbs may be involved. It could be: &quot;Я не знаю [того], кто с кем играет&quot;. Your examples: &quot;я не интересуюсь [тем], кто с кем...&quot;; &quot;надеюсь [на то, что] все будет хорошо&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the use of the verb &quot;требовать&quot; quoted by you is more like the use of modal verbs in English: &quot;требовать сделать&quot;, &quot;долженствовать быть&quot; (that last one's rather poor example, but still possible)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16688" RevisionGUID="8d8fa362-b77a-4cb3-b08b-0ab9bf09694c" CreationDate="2018-06-26T16:23:52.533" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Es gibt **nichts**, das ich mir **nicht** leisten könnte!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    = There's nothing I can't afford!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just noticed this original German sentence with a double negative construction is for some reason translated (by a professional Russian translator, no less) into something as straightforward as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я все могу купить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which makes me wonder if the use of double negation somehow doesn't sound idiomatic in Russian in an instance like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16687" RevisionGUID="9632f60e-6648-48de-a6dd-51522e2efd0b" CreationDate="2018-06-26T18:40:51.033" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="**1**. A friend of mine wrote `я не интересуюсь, кто с кем играет` (in a football match). Normally, **интересоваться** is followed by a word in the instrumental case. When the word is a noun, an adjective or a pronoun, there's no difficulty about declining it. But, in this context, **интересоваться** is followed by a completely new clause, which could be independent and not subordinate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it's like **надеяться**? &quot;Надеяться *на что*&quot;, but if we are hoping for something described by a whole clause rather than a noun, *на что* may be dropped. Like in `надеюсь, всё будет хорошо`, rather than `надеюсь на то, чтобы всё было хорошо`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, is it a valid alternative to say `я не интересуюсь тем, кто с кем играет`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've previously noticed that a declined pronoun **то** may relate to an independent clause without any particular syntax connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; путешествовать в этом году зависит **от того**, сколько денег&#xD;&#xA;&gt; останется после ремонта чердака&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. The verb требовать normally is followed by genitive, but what if it is followed by a clause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*They demanded me to rewrite the document.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они потребовали (от меня) переписать документ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16691" RevisionGUID="ecef87e4-f61f-4838-9a7d-3003b82e0f4f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T18:49:07.637" UserId="7674" Text="1. Yes, it's absolutely valid and correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; путешествовать в этом году зависит от того, сколько денег останется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; после ремонта чердака&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first clause is incorrect, unless you've omitted the beginning. In this case the infinitive cannot function as a subject by itself, we need a conventional subject in a form of a noun, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Возможность** путешествовать в этом году зависит от того, сколько денег останется после ремонта чердака   &#xD;&#xA;or better still   &#xD;&#xA;**Возможность отправиться в путешествие** в этом году зависит от того, сколько денег останется после ремонта чердака&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*They demanded me to rewrite the document. - &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они потребовали (от меня) переписать документ.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can append the subordinate clause with conjunction **чтобы** and provisionally with indicative pronoun **то** inflected in Genitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они потребовали (от меня) (того), **чтобы** я переписа**л** документ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="da6509a7-5b5a-40d2-8969-b9313514cf1f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T21:57:31.397" UserId="6545" Text="according to my dictionary, see attached Pic,&#xA;[![dictionary entry for pf. првредить][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;I think I should use the dative case after this verb. BTW, the повредить entry basically directed me to the вредить entry. Because of 'feeling cold', or indirect objects I can see why one would use dative case. But my friend from Kiev said to use the accusative case.&#xA;&#xA;So, should I use accusative for inanimate objects and dative for animate objects? For example :&#xA;&#xA;    I accidentally damaged one of my bedroom windows. &#xA;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из моих окон спальни. &#xA;     ... или... &#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из моих окон в моей спальне. &#xA;&#xA;    I accidentally damaged one of my plants in my garage. &#xA;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из моих растениям в моём гараже. &#xA;&#xA;Aside question : is there a reference for which case of nouns go with verbs? I usually rely on my dictionary but... &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2NIV2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="da6509a7-5b5a-40d2-8969-b9313514cf1f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T21:57:31.397" UserId="6545" Text="(по)вредить with accusative and/or dative" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="da6509a7-5b5a-40d2-8969-b9313514cf1f" CreationDate="2018-06-26T21:57:31.397" UserId="6545" Text="|word|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42202" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16669" RevisionGUID="7fdc1e6e-4e29-4900-9a2c-767c8984c550" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:46:50.240" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Usage of &quot;вот только&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="f490584f-5f7d-40bf-a9b0-511124155992" CreationDate="2018-06-26T22:59:25.147" UserId="6545" Comment="tidy up, add dictionary link; edited body" Text="According to my dictionary (Kenneth Katzner https://www.wiley.com/en-us/English+Russian%2C+Russian+English+Dictionary%2C+Revised+and+Expanded+Edition-p-9780471017073), see attached pic,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![dictionary entry for pf. првредить][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I should use the dative case after this verb. BTW, the повредить entry basically directed me to the вредить entry. Because of 'feeling cold', or indirect objects I can see why one would use dative case. But my friend from Kiev said to use the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, should I use accusative for inanimate objects and dative for animate objects? For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I accidentally damaged one of my bedroom windows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из моих окон спальни. &#xD;&#xA;     ... или... &#xD;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из моих окон в моей спальне. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for animate beings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I accidentally damaged one of my plants in my garage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из моих растениям в моём гараже. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside question : is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs? I usually rely on my dictionary but sometimes that fails and I don't want to ask the same question over and over, with just a different verb...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K26Q8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16693" RevisionGUID="610a1b04-9a67-4ebe-8d3b-a5d5e803b8e0" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:13:53.727" UserId="134" Text="This verb accepts both accusative and dative, but this changes its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить кому-нибудь (чему-нибудь)* means &quot;to hurt smb./smth.&quot;, as opposed to &quot;to help smb./smth.&quot;. This is about indirect, circumstantial or long-term damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить что-нибудь* means &quot;to damage something&quot;. This is rarely if ever used with animate objects, and means directly inflicting some damage as an immediate result of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй автомобиль некачественным бензином, не то повредишь двигателю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill your car with low quality gas. This will hurt the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about long-term damage. If you fill your car with low quality gas, it likely won't stall or damage the engine immediately, but will shorten its life if you keep doing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй дизельный автомобиль бензином, не то повредишь двигатель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill your diesel car with gasoline. This will damage the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about immediate damage. If you fill a diesel car with gasoline, you'll damage the engine and will have to tow the car to the garage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both your examples you used the word &quot;damaged&quot;, this means your friend was right and you have to use the accusative here: *повредил растение*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to say that you hurt your plant, like in put it away from the sun light or were keeping forgetting to water it, then you should have used the dative: *повредил растению*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="37f2d50b-5b90-4a74-ac9c-d0886b53ad97" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:19:53.357" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="According to my dictionary (Kenneth Katzner https://www.wiley.com/en-us/English+Russian%2C+Russian+English+Dictionary%2C+Revised+and+Expanded+Edition-p-9780471017073), see attached pic,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![dictionary entry for pf. првредить][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I should use the dative case after this verb. BTW, the повредить entry basically directed me to the вредить entry. Because of 'feeling cold', or indirect objects I can see why one would use dative case. But my friend from Kiev said to use the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, should I use accusative for inanimate objects and dative for animate objects? For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I accidentally damaged one of my bedroom windows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из окон своей спальни. &#xD;&#xA;     ... или... &#xD;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из окон в своей спальне. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for animate beings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I accidentally damaged one of my plants in my garage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Я случайно повредил одному из растений в своём гараже. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside question : is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs? I usually rely on my dictionary but sometimes that fails and I don't want to ask the same question over and over, with just a different verb...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K26Q8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16693" RevisionGUID="012bf791-55ea-497f-900e-a8361476019d" CreationDate="2018-06-26T23:20:38.653" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This verb accepts both accusative and dative, but this changes its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить кому-нибудь (чему-нибудь)* means &quot;to hurt smb./smth.&quot;, as opposed to &quot;to help smb./smth.&quot;. This is about indirect, circumstantial or long-term damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить что-нибудь* means &quot;to damage something&quot;. This is rarely if ever used with animate objects, and means directly inflicting some damage as an immediate result of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй автомобиль некачественным бензином, не то повредишь двигателю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill your car with low quality gas. This will hurt the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about long-term damage. If you fill your car with low quality gas, it likely won't stall or damage the engine immediately, but will shorten its life if you keep doing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй дизельный автомобиль бензином, не то повредишь двигатель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill your diesel car with gasoline. This will damage the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about immediate damage. If you fill a diesel car with gasoline, you'll damage the engine and will have to tow the car to the garage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both your examples you used the word &quot;damaged&quot;, this means your friend was right and you have to use the accusative here: *повредил растение*. This would mean that you broke or burned it, or inflicted some other kind of immediate damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to say that you hurt your plant, like in put it away from the sunlight or were keeping forgetting to water it, then you should have used the dative: *повредил растению*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42208" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="16563" RevisionGUID="5056f96a-97c6-4e0e-b7cc-e2beab5f69b5" CreationDate="2018-06-27T00:23:20.340" UserId="-1" Comment="56" />
  <row Id="42209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16689" RevisionGUID="69ae1c6b-42cc-411e-b917-b88036adbc1b" CreationDate="2018-06-27T04:53:33.543" UserId="10578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There's the &quot;нет ничего, чего (я/он/...) не мог бы (сделать/...)&quot; construction, which may, or in some cases (i.e. with some verbs) may not sound natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case the translation by that template would be &quot;нет ничего, чего я купить бы не смог (or: чего я не смог бы купить)&quot;. To my taste, such construction in general sounds just a little bit dramatic, maybe, not just neutrally narrative, but it sounds all right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16689" RevisionGUID="bb83b846-6678-47ab-b2df-243137f4611b" CreationDate="2018-06-27T04:59:13.880" UserId="10578" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There's the &quot;нет ничего, чего (я/он/...) не мог бы (сделать/...)&quot; construction, which may, or in some cases (i.e. with some verbs) may not sound natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case the translation by that template would be &quot;нет ничего, чего я купить бы не смог (or: чего я не смог бы купить)&quot;. To my taste, such construction in general sounds just a little bit dramatic, maybe, not just neutrally narrative, but it sounds all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: There's also the variant &quot;нет ничего, *что* (я/он/...) не мог бы (сделать/...)&quot;, but I don't remember whether it's considered 100% literary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="8f0cfcdb-724d-4f1d-8fa8-2428d423e3c1" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:14:46.923" UserId="7674" Text="**1**. There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, Acc.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There's one reference, i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf, but i'm unsure of the legality of the copy, it's searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="8816cd1e-537b-49fd-9753-661a345024ee" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:25:20.027" UserId="7674" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="**1**. There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, Acc.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example above) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example above) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There's one reference, i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf, but i'm unsure of the legality of the copy, it's searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="6103ec8f-b542-447e-b1a7-26a2bedc0231" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:42:38.053" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**1**. In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example below) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example below) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my experience in the sense of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** (that is without a direct object) rather than **`ПОвредить`** more frequently the verb **`НАвредить`** is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, Acc.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There's one reference, i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf and searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="a407d619-fcda-4d59-b25d-e7fb1e7ad4ae" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:49:58.050" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**1**. In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example below) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example below) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my experience in the sense of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** (that is without a direct object) it is the perfective form **`НАвредить`** of the verb **`вредить`** which is used more frequently, rather than **`ПОвредить`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, Acc.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There's one reference, i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf and searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16693" RevisionGUID="54c61212-09e0-46bd-b744-25b86b569f4e" CreationDate="2018-06-27T08:02:06.940" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="This verb accepts both accusative and dative, but this changes its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить кому-нибудь (чему-нибудь)* means &quot;to hurt smb./smth.&quot;, as opposed to &quot;to help smb./smth.&quot;. This is about indirect, circumstantial or long-term damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить что-нибудь* means &quot;to damage something&quot;. This is rarely if ever used with animate objects, and means directly inflicting some damage as an immediate result of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй автомобиль некачественным бензином, не то повредишь двигателю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill up your car with low quality gas. This will hurt the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about long-term damage. If you fill your car with low quality gas, it likely won't stall or damage the engine immediately, but will shorten its life if you keep doing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй дизельный автомобиль бензином, не то повредишь двигатель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill up your diesel car with gasoline. This will damage the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about immediate damage. If you fill a diesel car with gasoline, you'll damage the engine and will have to tow the car to the garage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both your examples you used the word &quot;damaged&quot;, this means your friend was right and you have to use the accusative here: *повредил растение*. This would mean that you broke or burned it, or inflicted some other kind of immediate damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to say that you hurt your plant, like in put it away from the sunlight or were keeping forgetting to water it, then you should have used the dative: *повредил растению*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="9ff3772e-fcf9-493d-a208-6c0c09d606ab" CreationDate="2018-06-27T08:28:17.363" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**1**. In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example below) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example below) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my experience in the sense of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** (that is without a direct object) it is the *perfective* form **`НАвредить`** of the verb **`вредить`** which is used more frequently, rather than **`ПОвредить`**.  &#xD;&#xA;In its *imperfective* aspect the verb always has the meaning of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** and can't incorporate direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, Acc.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; There's one source of such reference, i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf and searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16686" RevisionGUID="4ecb8524-6bf9-4250-8f2f-9bf302b675dd" CreationDate="2018-06-27T10:05:44.627" UserId="8219" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="To answer your question directly: both of these expressions are used only colloquially, but their function is somewhat opposite to emphasis. It's rather (at least sometimes) about being able to &quot;humbly&quot; ask or suggest something that might be too rude with a more straightforward wording. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чего это&quot; is a reduction of the more literal &quot;для чего это&quot; (&quot;what is this for&quot;). This example (with &quot;мы&quot; like in your sentence) [is obtained from Russian National Corpus](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=%28lang%3A%22eng%22+%7C+lang_trans%3A%22eng%22%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=24681277&amp;mysentsize=1608376&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=para&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;env=alpha&amp;req=%F7%E5%E3%EE+%FD%F2%EE):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ralph turned. &quot;**What** are we hiding **for**? He stepped through the screen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of grass on to the little open space that led to the narrow neck.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [William Golding. Lord of the Flies (1954)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ральф обернулся. **Чего это** мы прячемся? Он вышел из заслона травы на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; голое место перед перешейком. [Уильям Голдинг. Повелитель мух (Е.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Суриц, 1985)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of &quot;такому, как&quot; (also [from Russian National Corpus](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?mycorp=%28lang%3A%22eng%22+%7C+lang_trans%3A%22eng%22%29&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=24681277&amp;mysentsize=1608376&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=para&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;env=alpha&amp;req=%F2%E0%EA%EE%EC%F3+%EA%E0%EA)):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там кому попало выдают паспорта! А я б, например, **не выдал такому, как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы**! Глянул бы только раз в лицо и моментально отказал бы! ― кот до&#xD;&#xA;&gt; того рассердился, что швырнул паспорт на пол. [М. А. Булгаков. Мастер&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и Маргарита (1929-1940)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whereas I, for instance, **wouldn't issue one to the likes of you**! Not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on your life I wouldn't! I'd just take one look at your face and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; instandy refuse! ' The cat got so angry that he flung the passport on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the floor. [Mikhail Bulgakov. Master and Margarita (Richard Pevear,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Larissa Volokhonsky, 1979)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="64c31760-acd3-42ea-b2fb-7e5516650699" CreationDate="2018-06-27T11:31:53.823" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**1**. In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example below) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example below) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my experience in the sense of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** (that is without a direct object) it is the *perfective* form **`НАвредить`** of the verb **`вредить`** which is used more frequently, rather than **`ПОвредить`**.  &#xD;&#xA;In its *imperfective* aspect the verb always has the meaning of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** and can't incorporate direct object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Повредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, ACC.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one source of such reference i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf, the exact address is searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16693" RevisionGUID="2f3888b6-ecf6-4567-94de-129053ee8bc4" CreationDate="2018-06-27T15:14:03.787" UserId="134" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="This verb accepts both accusative and dative, but its meaning depends on the case used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить кому-нибудь (чему-нибудь)* means &quot;to hurt or harm smb./smth.&quot;, as opposed to &quot;to help smb./smth.&quot;. This is about indirect, circumstantial or long-term damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*повредить что-нибудь* means &quot;to damage something&quot;. This is rarely if ever used with animate objects, and means directly inflicting some damage as an immediate result of the action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй автомобиль некачественным бензином, не то повредишь двигателю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill up your car with low quality gas. This will hurt the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about long-term damage. If you fill your car with low quality gas, it likely won't stall or damage the engine immediately, but will shorten its life if you keep doing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Не заправляй дизельный автомобиль бензином, не то повредишь двигатель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   Don't fill up your diesel car with gasoline. This will damage the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about immediate damage. If you fill a diesel car with gasoline, you'll damage the engine and will have to tow the car to the garage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both your examples you used the word &quot;damaged&quot;, this means your friend was right and you have to use the accusative here: *повредил растение*. This would mean that you broke or burned it, or inflicted some other kind of immediate damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to say that you hurt your plant, like in put it away from the sunlight or were keeping forgetting to water it, then you should have used the dative: *повредил растению*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16684" RevisionGUID="ebb422b5-f319-46fd-9f03-f52d68554dbc" CreationDate="2018-06-27T17:26:14.640" UserId="369" Comment="split citation from answer" Text="&gt; I wonder if this is an equivalent of &quot;Aren't we grumpy today?&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is exact equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!----&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42221" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16684" RevisionGUID="ebb422b5-f319-46fd-9f03-f52d68554dbc" CreationDate="2018-06-27T17:26:14.640" Comment="Proposed by 369 approved by 179, 5605 edit id of 980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16695" RevisionGUID="6449c73f-2b94-4fe3-b503-91d6812fabc1" CreationDate="2018-06-27T19:19:46.637" UserId="8672" Text="I just wrote in a IM:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот бы и мне туда! **Неужели** когда-нибудь простые люди тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm entertaining the possibility of space travel in a rather hopeful tone: &quot;I wonder if the day will come when we ...&quot;. But then, I wondered how the use of &quot;разве&quot; would have compared. Does &quot;разве&quot; impart a rather negative, sceptical flavour to my remark?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Вот бы и мне туда! Но серьезно, **разве** когда-нибудь простые люди тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ a relevant [post][1] ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12312/what-is-the-difference-between-%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5-and-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16695" RevisionGUID="6449c73f-2b94-4fe3-b503-91d6812fabc1" CreationDate="2018-06-27T19:19:46.637" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;неужели&quot; and &quot;разве&quot; in this specific context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16695" RevisionGUID="6449c73f-2b94-4fe3-b503-91d6812fabc1" CreationDate="2018-06-27T19:19:46.637" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16695" RevisionGUID="a6e3da41-c9bd-4b55-bab7-88fc514307f2" CreationDate="2018-06-27T19:29:27.740" UserId="8672" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I just wrote in a IM:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот бы и мне туда! **Неужели** когда-нибудь простые люди тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm entertaining the possibility of space travel in a rather hopeful tone: &quot;I wonder if the day will come when we ...&quot;. But then, I wondered how the use of &quot;разве&quot; would have compared. Does &quot;разве&quot;, on the other hand, impart a rather negative, sceptical flavour to my remark?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Вот бы и мне туда! Но серьезно, **разве** когда-нибудь простые люди тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ a relevant [post][1] ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12312/what-is-the-difference-between-%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5-and-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16696" RevisionGUID="324b5063-c4db-494c-99ca-2697b1736617" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:33:20.960" UserId="134" Text="You're right and your remark shows deep understanding of these constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Неужели* implies you've accepted the fact you were skeptical of but still express your surprise, *разве* means you have not accepted it yet and are looking for additional confirmation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Он придёт с женой. — Неужели он женился? // &quot;He will come with his wife&quot;. &quot;He's married? I'm surprised!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Он придёт с женой. — Разве он женился? // &quot;He will come with his wife&quot;. &quot;I was not aware he was married, is he?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Неужели* is more often than not a rhetorical question, *разве* more often than not requires an actual answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16695" RevisionGUID="9d0c2dfd-53d5-423b-8da3-9f7f7fb08c49" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:36:22.253" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I just wrote in an IM:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вот бы и мне туда! **Неужели** когда-нибудь простые люди тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm entertaining the possibility of space travel in a rather hopeful tone: &quot;I wonder if the day will come when we ...&quot;. But then, I wondered how the use of &quot;разве&quot; would have compared. Does &quot;разве&quot;, on the other hand, impart a rather negative, sceptical flavour to my remark: &quot;Will the day ever come when we ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Вот бы и мне туда! Но серьезно, **разве** когда-нибудь простые люди тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ a relevant [post][1] ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/12312/what-is-the-difference-between-%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5-and-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="2ccbed93-9125-450a-9e98-3f5d9faa2751" CreationDate="2018-06-28T06:54:46.547" UserId="7674" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="**1**. In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example below) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example below) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my experience in the sense of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** (that is without a direct object) it is the *perfective* form **`НАвредить`** of the verb **`вредить`** which is used more frequently, rather than **`ПОвредить`**.  &#xD;&#xA;In its *imperfective* aspect the verb always has the meaning of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** and can't incorporate direct object, thus being *intransitive*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the verbs **`вредить`** &amp; **`навредить`** form an *imperfective/perfective* pair of the same *intransitive* verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`повредить`** on the other hand despite partially overlapping with them in meaning can be *transitive* and has its own imperfective form **`повреждать`** which semantically sets it apart from the above mentioned pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Повредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, ACC.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one source of such reference i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf, the exact address is searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="4479ff07-5183-4765-b321-461e4bd64d50" CreationDate="2018-06-28T07:52:32.353" UserId="6097" Comment="formatting and link" Text="According to my dictionary (Kenneth Katzner, [link][1]), see attached pic,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![dictionary entry for pf. првредить][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I should use the dative case after this verb. BTW, the повредить entry basically directed me to the вредить entry. Because of 'feeling cold', or indirect objects I can see why one would use dative case. But my friend from Kiev said to use the accusative case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, should I use accusative for inanimate objects and dative for animate objects? For example :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I accidentally damaged one of my bedroom windows. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я случайно повредил одному из окон своей спальни. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ... или... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я случайно повредил одному из окон в своей спальне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for animate beings...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I accidentally damaged one of my plants in my garage. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я случайно повредил одному из растений в своём гараже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside question: is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs? I usually rely on my dictionary but sometimes that fails and I don't want to ask the same question over and over, with just a different verb...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/English+Russian%2C+Russian+English+Dictionary%2C+Revised+and+Expanded+Edition-p-9780471017073&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/K26Q8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16694" RevisionGUID="4b73ac1c-efe2-4bfe-a7f5-44077564b35c" CreationDate="2018-06-28T10:14:05.970" UserId="7674" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="**1**. In addition to Quassnoi's reply it can be said that **`повредить + Dative WITHOUT Accusative`** (unlike in my example below) means **`to (cause/inflict) harm`**, whereas **`повредить + Dative WITH Accusative`** (like in my example below) means **`to damage`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to my experience in the sense of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** (that is without a direct object) it is the *perfective* form **`НАвредить`** of the verb **`вредить`** which is used more frequently, rather than **`ПОвредить`**.  &#xD;&#xA;In its *imperfective* aspect the verb always has the meaning of **`to (cause/inflict) harm`** and can't incorporate direct object, thus being *intransitive*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the verbs **`вредить`** &amp; **`навредить`** form an *imperfective/perfective* pair of the same *intransitive* verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`повредить`** on the other hand despite partially overlapping with them in meaning can be *transitive* and has its own imperfective form **`повреждать`** which semantically sets it apart from the above mentioned pair.&#xD;&#xA;______&#xD;&#xA;To me the data in the dictionary from which the screen shot is taken, indicating **`повредить`** as the *perfective* form of the verb **`вредить`**, seems inaccurate.&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There're many verbs with multiple case governance depending on the type of their relationship to an object, it is only in relation to a DIRECT object that transitive verbs govern Accusative (and sometimes Genitive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Повредить** can have at least 3 objects in one sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во время задержания полицейские **повредили** дубинкой&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Inst.***&lt;/sup&gt; плечо&lt;sup&gt;***DIR. OBJECT, ACC.***&lt;/sup&gt; демонстранту&lt;sup&gt;***indir. object, Dat.***&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *is there a reference for which case of nouns go with which verbs?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one source of such reference i'm aware of, which is **&quot;Словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка&quot;** by П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина (it's available online as pdf, the exact address is searchable with Google)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16697" RevisionGUID="14d5beeb-f853-4ea8-9ec7-948aba1adb9e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T11:43:33.960" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Старые привычки **дают о себе знать**, да?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is a commonly used expression to convey the idea of &quot;Old habits die hard&quot;? If an automatic [translator][1] is anything to go by, however, it doesn't seem to turn up any example of this phrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, is it more like &quot;Old habits are letting their presence be known&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/old+habits+die+hard" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16697" RevisionGUID="14d5beeb-f853-4ea8-9ec7-948aba1adb9e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T11:43:33.960" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;Old habits die hard&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16697" RevisionGUID="14d5beeb-f853-4ea8-9ec7-948aba1adb9e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T11:43:33.960" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16698" RevisionGUID="8bd01263-9150-4afe-800b-46a0b23b1fb7" CreationDate="2018-06-28T12:01:32.673" UserId="4481" Text="Yes, your translation is OK. Another one idiom (among translations you found) which is commonly used is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привычка - вторая натура&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is also often used, but has a little bit different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Горбатого могила исправит&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression describes a person with negative qualities, who don't want to correct the behaviour. It could be applied to negative habits too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16699" RevisionGUID="468f52ba-5436-42a9-95a4-9e8e5fdde4a3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T14:12:22.763" UserId="10728" Text="There is this Russian language teacher I knew way back, and took his classes. He's a bit of a stickler about forms of address. I expect to meet him again in person in a few months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I address him - in Russian? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know his first and last names, and his professional title (he's got a master's degree), but don't know his father's name. Local customs usually mandate referring to university teachers as 'professors' even if they aren't entitled to professorship, as a honorific - but I don't know if it's the same way in Russia. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16699" RevisionGUID="468f52ba-5436-42a9-95a4-9e8e5fdde4a3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T14:12:22.763" UserId="10728" Text="How do you address a university teacher whose father's name you don't know?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16699" RevisionGUID="468f52ba-5436-42a9-95a4-9e8e5fdde4a3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T14:12:22.763" UserId="10728" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16700" RevisionGUID="8b4141d5-fde9-4be2-ad7a-7702cb499557" CreationDate="2018-06-28T14:30:34.833" UserId="5008" Text="Well, the full name of the professor is the main thing any Russian-speaking student must know ;-) BTW. There's a well-known Russian student joke about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when you don't, simply try to omit any addressing as much as you can (by using simply &quot;Вы&quot;). And if you can't avoid it then... just ask what's his patronymic name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16701" RevisionGUID="a491d34b-7876-4397-86b2-1adfb06cf682" CreationDate="2018-06-28T14:44:50.000" UserId="10729" Text="I also like this one, it can be used in this context: &quot;Охота пуще неволи&quot;. It's not used as often, but it really should be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="3f160478-5f22-4954-8dad-246b5747f6a3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:21:14.900" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Она не сложнее сама по себе – **кому какая легче дается**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the construction/meaning of this phrase, or more specifically, &quot;кому&quot; and &quot;какая&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=??? It's not that *A* per se is necessarily more difficult – it comes more naturally to some people, after all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="3f160478-5f22-4954-8dad-246b5747f6a3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:21:14.900" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;кому какая легче дается&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="3f160478-5f22-4954-8dad-246b5747f6a3" CreationDate="2018-06-28T19:21:14.900" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16703" RevisionGUID="5eb785a0-dbee-4cf6-baf1-58c403059049" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:23:22.543" UserId="9180" Text="There's another idiom which *in some cases* could be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как волка ни корми, он всё в лес глядит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which roughly translates into &quot;No matter how well you're gonna feed the wolf, he'll always keep glancing at the forest.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it will always have negative connotations and often imply relapsing into a former, inferior, state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it will be applicable to e.g. a paroled thug disillusioned with the hardships of an honest life and contemplating their return to crime, or to a struggling chain smoker who's been desperately trying to transition to vaping to no avail, but it won't apply to a jogger who fractured their arm and had to take a break from their daily routine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Reference](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/3856/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16703" RevisionGUID="c6196d3b-d562-46c9-a021-ad01bb81e2f9" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:33:38.563" UserId="9180" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="There's another idiom which *in some cases* could be used to denote an unhealthy fixation on old habits or cravings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как волка ни корми, он всё в лес глядит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which roughly translates into &quot;No matter how well you're gonna feed the wolf, he'll always keep glancing at the forest.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it will always have negative connotations and often imply relapsing into a former, inferior, state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it will be applicable to e.g. a paroled thug disillusioned with the hardships of an honest life and contemplating their return to crime, or to a struggling chain smoker who's been desperately trying to transition to vaping to no avail, but it won't apply to a jogger who fractured their arm and had to take a break from their daily routine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, it will almost certainly be perceived as something offensive if you tell that to someone straight out. Unless you both know each other well and you're confident that the recipient can take a joke!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Reference](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/3856/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16704" RevisionGUID="8018a93d-6841-4a49-89c3-bc896fae72fd" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:39:24.683" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Выбери **на чьей** ты **стороне**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    = Choose which side you are on!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In expressing the idea of &quot;on which side&quot; in Russian, the phrase &quot;на чьей стороне&quot; is interposed by the pronoun &quot;ты&quot;. On the other hand, I'm assuming the addition of a verb such as &quot;стоять&quot; prevents this *separated* construction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Выбери **на чьей стороне** ты стоишь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I notice this kind of separated construction often appears with the particle &quot;ли&quot;, but I'm wondering if there is a grammatical rule that determines when such a construction is mandatory.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16704" RevisionGUID="8018a93d-6841-4a49-89c3-bc896fae72fd" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:39:24.683" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, when to use an 'interposed' phrasing such as &quot;на чьей ты стороне&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16704" RevisionGUID="8018a93d-6841-4a49-89c3-bc896fae72fd" CreationDate="2018-06-28T20:39:24.683" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16697" RevisionGUID="4b881e96-7911-47ce-82fd-06f7bc138918" CreationDate="2018-06-28T21:00:32.970" UserId="8672" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt;Старые привычки **дают о себе знать**, да?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is a commonly used expression to convey the idea of &quot;Old habits die hard&quot;? If an automatic [translator][1] is anything to go by, however, it doesn't seem to turn up any example of this phrasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, is it more like &quot;Old habits are letting their presence be known / rearing their ugly heads&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://context.reverso.net/translation/english-russian/old+habits+die+hard" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="45e868a0-695c-43e9-9341-99196bdd8ea1" CreationDate="2018-06-28T21:12:14.693" UserId="8672" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я бы не сказала, что она сложнее сама по себе – **кому какая легче дается**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the construction/meaning of this phrase, or more specifically, &quot;кому&quot; and &quot;какая&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=??? It's not that *A* per se is necessarily more difficult – it comes more naturally to some people, after all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42251" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16697" RevisionGUID="46b02a0a-361c-4de5-88eb-f1f5e3c9f19e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T21:49:54.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1012453058582929409" />
  <row Id="42252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16705" RevisionGUID="57084c42-eccc-4597-981f-1d192799aabf" CreationDate="2018-06-28T22:55:20.593" UserId="9602" Text="A very natural pattern of speech is simply “Здравствуйте”, then making small talk using just “Вы” as necessary, then at some point something like “Скажите, пожалуйста, Александр — к сожалению, не помню Вашего отчества — …” — at which position he’s expected to speak it, you repeat the full name and continue with some question. A pause and a quizzical look are a substitute for the part between the dashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a Google and/or Yandex search for `&quot;Иван * Иванов&quot;` is likely to solve the problem by itself if the name and surname are rare enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16706" RevisionGUID="2bd14b36-23af-425b-9f4d-be3bf63a9268" CreationDate="2018-06-29T08:03:00.270" UserId="10137" Text="Russian language has many lexical constructions which can be considered as &quot;fillers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вводные слова (introductory words)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***видишь ли***, здесь все не так просто - ***you see***, everything is not so simple here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Частицы (co-words making sentence more expressive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вы ***бы*** залатили за аренду квартиры - ***would*** you pay for renting an apartment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16703" RevisionGUID="b58ea427-8821-494f-9870-254554d63d2b" CreationDate="2018-06-29T10:48:18.067" UserId="9180" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="There's another idiom which *in some cases* could be used to denote an unhealthy fixation on old habits or cravings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как волка ни корми, он всё в лес глядит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which roughly translates into &quot;No matter how well you're gonna feed the wolf, he'll always keep glancing at the forest.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it will always have negative connotations and often imply relapsing into a former, inferior, state while neglecting other people's good will and attempts to change one's nature for the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it will be applicable to e.g. a paroled thug disillusioned with the hardships of an honest life and contemplating their return to crime, or to a struggling chain smoker whose significant other has been desperately trying to transition them to vaping to no avail, but it won't apply to a jogger who fractured their arm and had to take a break from their daily routine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, it will almost certainly be perceived as something offensive if you tell that to someone straight out. Unless you both know each other well and you're confident that the recipient can take a joke!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Reference](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/3856/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16707" RevisionGUID="ac4bf7b8-c929-4eff-9106-7a43ca604f29" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:36:56.113" UserId="9058" Text="1. You are not the only student the professor has, right? so just ask your peers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. That professor is not some stray bullet, he is a professor in some cafedra (кафедра) - a specific scientific branch within university. There usually is a list of all professors and docents there, sometimes there are plates wit hnames on the doors, sometimes there are photos on the wall, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Most universities have internet sites, and most of them have list of cafedras, their professors and their courses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Universities have governments, sitting behind students and teachers. Dean (декан) or chancellor (ректор) would be a top official, and the administration would be деканат or ректорат. You are expected to visit them with any your beginning problem to amend it before it grows our of proportions. There would be some clerks there who are not your direct bosses - ones responsible for other student years or branches, just secretaries, etc. Come there and ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. if NOTHING else help, you may talk with the professor and then stop after saying his name showing your confusion. &quot;.....Иван эээ....&quot;. Showing your confusion and obviously asking for a prompt. If the professor is not a total jerk, he would usually suggest his middle name to you. But then do care to remember it, asking for it yet again would be like showing your incapability to learn :-D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16703" RevisionGUID="3fdbe43f-af84-4ca2-a730-616088be8de2" CreationDate="2018-06-29T12:41:46.593" UserId="9180" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="There's another idiom which *in some cases* could be used to denote an unhealthy fixation on old habits or cravings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как волка ни корми, он всё в лес глядит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which roughly translates into &quot;No matter how well you're gonna feed the wolf, he'll always keep glancing at the forest.&quot; or much more liberally, &quot;You can take the wolf out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the wolf.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it will always have negative connotations and often imply relapsing into a former, inferior, state while neglecting other people's good will and attempts to change one's nature for the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it will be applicable to e.g. a paroled thug disillusioned with the hardships of an honest life and contemplating their return to crime, or to a struggling chain smoker whose significant other has been desperately trying to transition them to vaping to no avail, but it won't apply to a jogger who fractured their arm and had to take a break from their daily routine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, it will almost certainly be perceived as something offensive if you tell that to someone straight out. Unless you both know each other well and you're confident that the recipient can take a joke!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Reference](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/michelson_new/3856/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16708" RevisionGUID="7be98a8c-96c4-441a-b6f6-48fbdeeef3c9" CreationDate="2018-06-29T15:27:39.487" UserId="334" Text="First, I would go with different translation in English for the first Russian sentence, smth. like &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Choose your side (in the conflict&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Choose the side you support&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second Russian sentence the best translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Choose where are you standing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the first sentence has a somewhat idiomatic luggage, implying context of conflict, but the second uses verb &quot;стоять&quot; that is mostly used in context of &quot;standing on your legs&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the first sentence should be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выбери, на чьей ты стороне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a complex sentence. It looks weird, because both parts are grammatically incomplete, but there are two of them, and they should be separated by a comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's nitpicking. As for the actual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian connections between words are not regulated by their position, or, more precisely, position is second to inflections. In this particular case, &quot;чьей&quot; is controlled by &quot;стороне&quot; as both words are of female gender and in Preposition case. *Usual*, i.e. default word order in a sentence is subject-verb-object. The verb in the second part of the first sentence is omitted, so it is subject-object. In part adjective-object, adjective is usually first. So, normally it should be &quot;Выбери, ты на чьей стороне&quot;, and it is perfectly fine. Whoever! It is a good idea to specify, what should be chosen, i.e. what links the first part of the sentence and the second. It is &quot;чьей&quot;, i.e. what is to be chosen. And so this word is moved forward, and since it does not create ambiguity, it is also perfectly fine. There is not an iron-clad rule for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16709" RevisionGUID="72005d69-7fab-4b66-9261-ae529c285716" CreationDate="2018-06-29T17:50:33.390" UserId="4753" Text="We do not know what the topic is. I am going to assume it is &quot;work&quot;. If so the sentence means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Different people find different kinds of work easier.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кому--to whom (Here as the sense of &quot;to (for) various different persons&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какая--&quot;what kind of&quot;, here serves as a sort of pronoun to refer to something of the feminine gender such as &quot;работа&quot;. Here has the sense is &quot;various kinds&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;легче--more easily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дается--yields (in the sense &quot;The door yielded easily to the pressure of his hand.&quot;), comes, responds to effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the literal meaning is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To various different persons various different kinds of X come more easily.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16709" RevisionGUID="9ae74cad-c33f-4837-a1ad-c4990df13823" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:08:26.787" UserId="4753" Comment="rewrote to include the full quoted utterance" Text="We do not know what the topic (referred to by the pronoun &quot;она&quot; is. I am going to assume it is &quot;работа&quot;, &quot;work&quot;. If so, then the utterance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы не сказала, что она сложнее сама по себе – кому какая легче дается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I would not say that it is intrinsically difficult. Different people find different kinds of work easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a word-by-word breakdown:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кому--to whom, not in the sense to a specific person but in the sense &quot;to one&quot;, &quot;to each one&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какая--&quot;what kind of&quot;, here serves as a sort of pronoun to refer to something of the feminine gender such as &quot;работа&quot;. Here it means &quot;a certain kind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;легче--more easily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дается--yields (in the sense &quot;The door yielded easily to the pressure of his hand.&quot;), comes, gives, responds to effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the literal meaning is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;To each one there is a kind of X which comes more easily.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16709" RevisionGUID="6f926df1-9814-48d7-929f-5ac90ba7dcaf" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:18:17.297" UserId="4753" Comment="formatting" Text="We do not know what the topic (referred to by the pronoun &quot;она&quot; is. I am going to assume it is &quot;работа&quot;, &quot;work&quot;. If so, then the utterance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я бы не сказала, что она сложнее сама по себе – кому какая легче дается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I would not say that it is intrinsically difficult. Different people find different kinds of work easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a word-by-word breakdown:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кому--to whom, not in the sense to a specific person but in the sense &quot;to one&quot;, &quot;to each one&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;какая--&quot;what kind of&quot;, here serves as a sort of pronoun to refer to something of the feminine gender such as &quot;работа&quot;. Here it means &quot;a certain kind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;легче--more easily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;дается--yields (in the sense &quot;The door yielded easily to the pressure of his hand.&quot;), comes, gives, responds to effort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the literal meaning is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To each one there is a kind of X which comes more easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16710" RevisionGUID="15cab744-260b-4d02-a2fd-10f02d2e2e17" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:27:39.777" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Perhaps, (blah blah blah) –  **no, on second thoughts, scratch that**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this particular use of the verb &quot;scratch&quot; comes in handy in conversation when you suddenly realise mid-sentence that a little *re-direction* in your thinking might be in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea colloquially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16710" RevisionGUID="15cab744-260b-4d02-a2fd-10f02d2e2e17" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:27:39.777" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;no, scratch that!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16710" RevisionGUID="15cab744-260b-4d02-a2fd-10f02d2e2e17" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:27:39.777" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16711" RevisionGUID="51015060-ee52-4abd-8c8e-d226364d9129" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:47:06.383" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; Возможно, (бла-бла-бла)... **хотя нет, забудь (об этом).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you have your second thoughts ready, then continue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможно, (бла-бла-бла)... **хотя нет, скорее...** (бла-бла-бла).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16711" RevisionGUID="8e3bf14c-8ec5-48b2-bba8-688308a3b595" CreationDate="2018-06-29T18:55:09.257" UserId="2104" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="&gt; Возможно, (бла-бла-бла)... **хотя нет, забудь (об этом).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you have your second thoughts ready, then continue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возможно, (бла-бла-бла)... **хотя нет, скорее...** (бла-бла-бла).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наверное, я приду... **хотя нет, скорее** не приду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16712" RevisionGUID="e81c1cf5-72f4-41eb-9fc4-c34bf1829f22" CreationDate="2018-06-29T20:27:19.517" UserId="10736" Text="Is it really necessary to deep dive into such nuances for a person learning Russian?&#xD;&#xA;Повредить is in most cases used in accusative case and in most cases is used with inanimate objects. Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Повредить окно, повредить двигатель, повредить плечо, повредить растение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я случайно повредил **одно** из окон в своей спальне&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally don't think it can be said 'повредить двигателю', but 'повредить двигател**ь**' or '**на**вредить двигателю'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For animate objects use 'навредить' with dative case. For example:&#xD;&#xA;'Навредить человеку, навредить животному, навредить здоровью(inanimate)'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16713" RevisionGUID="dc758493-6115-4e44-8e06-a6367c234006" CreationDate="2018-06-29T20:50:26.753" UserId="10578" Text="The verbs *most* usable for the translation of &quot;scratch that&quot; (1st person plural future tense, but also might be used in 2nd person singular/plural present imperative):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;забудем; оставим; пропустим (это)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;on second thoughts&quot; might be translatable as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;(хорошо) подумав&quot; -- &quot;[now] having thought (carefully) [of that]&quot;; its close analogue: &quot;если подумать&quot; -- &quot;if you think [of that]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;no,&quot; part might be translated as &quot;хотя нет&quot;, like in Sergey Slepov's [answer][2], or it might be translated together with &quot;on second thoughts&quot; to the tune of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;no, on second thoughts,&quot; -- &quot;или нет,&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/2104/sergey-slepov&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/16711/10578" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16714" RevisionGUID="c747559a-1615-47e9-a443-f04da34b2679" CreationDate="2018-06-29T22:51:51.407" UserId="242" Text="`Забей` is also acceptable in casual speech, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Хотя знаешь что, забей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other acceptable translation would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хотя знаешь, я тут подумал, проехали. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16715" RevisionGUID="188c528f-3faa-4182-adee-ff4160470b81" CreationDate="2018-06-30T00:28:06.947" UserId="209" Text="Why just not say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; старые привычки не умирают&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's well used expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42272" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16692" RevisionGUID="6938422d-2fa5-44c4-b272-fb5de0e8a386" CreationDate="2018-06-30T06:50:11.867" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1012951415101231104" />
  <row Id="42273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16716" RevisionGUID="8157df2e-1a4b-4ebe-8efe-2f4cdddd362f" CreationDate="2018-06-30T10:28:32.427" UserId="8357" Text="“*А*” indeed translates the English “*and*”. Unlike “*но*” and “*but*”, it does not point out any contradiction. “*Никита принёс орехов, а Вася принёс огурцов*” → “*Nikita brought some nuts, and Vasya brought some cucumbers*”. There is no contradiction, real or implied. Better to say, there is no “conflict” in the ideas that needs to be resolved. The “conflict” of ideas may be present and therefore go (or not) into the translation (“*а мы думали, что вы всё сами принесёте*” [in a sad voice, since they thought, on the contrary, it was our responsibility] → “*oh, we were so sure you would bring everything by yourself*”), but it's not specified. After all, nobody's making yet an argument over the missed things, so there is no need to use “но”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike “*и*”, however, “*а*” does introduce a contrast, a switch of attention. One might say, “*и*” just adds information to the “table” that was already installed. “*А*” installs a new “table”. In the sentence about the cucumbers, there is no point to add anything to the information that Nikita brought the nuts, so “*и*” would not go really well. But if I translate “*Nikita brought some cucumbers, and/but Vasya did not like them*”, I might use either. Another example: “*Я пошёл к Васе, и мы с Васей пошли в цирк*” (continuation) vs. “*Я пошёл к Васе, а с Васей приключилась беда*” (the switch of context: “*I went to Vasya's, and it turned out Vasya was in trouble*”). In the second sentence, I might also use “*и*”, so that the context would be the continued one: “*I went to Vasya's, and then he got in trouble*”. Also: “*Я пошёл с Васей по грибы, а/и по дороге нам встретился Васин сосед*”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example (from a popular song): “*а мы любили, а мы могли свою любовь найти* … etc”. Again, there's no contradiction with anything. But the “*а*” serves to introduce a new “table” on which we expose our ideas. The interesting part is that the previous “table” has not been mentioned, rather it's just the state by default." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16716" RevisionGUID="a276b6ac-1dc0-4535-b1d9-1135fc1b7c48" CreationDate="2018-06-30T10:33:59.753" UserId="8357" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="“*А*” indeed translates the English “*and*”. Unlike “*но*” and “*but*”, it does not point out any contradiction. “*Никита принёс орехов, а Вася принёс огурцов*” → “*Nikita brought some nuts, and Vasya brought some cucumbers*”. There is no contradiction, real or implied. Better to say, there is no “conflict” in the ideas that needs to be resolved. The “conflict” of ideas may be present and therefore go (or not) into the translation (“*а мы думали, что вы всё сами принесёте*” [in a sad voice, since they thought, on the contrary, it was our responsibility] → “*oh, we were so sure you would bring everything by yourself*”), but it's not specified. After all, nobody's making yet an argument over the missed things, so there is no need to use “но”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike “*и*”, however, “*а*” does introduce a contrast, a switch of attention. One might say, “*и*” just adds information to the “table” that was already installed. “*А*” installs a new “table”. In the sentence about the cucumbers, there is no point to add anything to the information that Nikita brought the nuts, so “*и*” would not go really well. But if I translate “*Nikita brought some cucumbers, and/but Vasya did not like them*”, I might use either. Another example: “*Я пошёл к Васе, и мы с Васей пошли в цирк*” (continuation) vs. “*Я пошёл к Васе, а с Васей приключилась беда*” (the switch of context: “*I went to Vasya's, and it turned out Vasya was in trouble*”). In the second sentence, I might also use “*и*”, so that the context would be the continued one: “*I went to Vasya's, and then he got in trouble*”. Also: “*Я пошёл с Васей по грибы, а/и по дороге нам встретился Васин сосед*”. The word would determine what I would feel about the second part, how I would perceive it, in which context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example (from a popular song): “*а мы любили, а мы могли свою любовь найти* … etc”. Again, there's no contradiction with anything. But the “*а*” serves to introduce a new “table” on which we expose our ideas. The interesting part is that the previous “table” has not been mentioned, rather it's just the state by default." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="2f5d8d09-0795-4520-a970-bf070bbebe06" CreationDate="2018-06-30T15:05:08.997" UserId="10738" Comment="fix spelling and some grammar" Text="пиздато literally means something like 'cuntish', and is an expression of positive experience obtained by a heterosexual male's genitalia; you might hardly, if ever, hear heterosexual women saying 'пиздато'; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хуево literally meas something like 'dicky', or 'prickish', and therefore is an expression of negative feeling of a heterosexual person equipped with male genitalia towards same-sex genitalia; it might also have a slight overtone of self-denial;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;охуенно is different; it is all about the o-prefix (cf. овладеть/овладевать, ополоуметь, одолеть/одолевать, ошеломить/ошеломлять, огрести/огребать, описать/описывать, остепениться, обрести/обретать, etc.), where the prefix has a meaning of 'taking smb/smth over completely, losing the sense of self-identity', and охуенно stands therefore for smth like 'having almost a sexual pleasure', 'feeling like turning oneself into a one big hard-on'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42276" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="2f5d8d09-0795-4520-a970-bf070bbebe06" CreationDate="2018-06-30T15:05:08.997" Comment="Proposed by 10738 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 981" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16717" RevisionGUID="56195201-9801-43fc-9822-02aca2163b1b" CreationDate="2018-07-01T09:31:33.663" UserId="2079" Text="All previous answers miss the point.  **`Охуенный` and `хуёвый` mean different things because they are so similar to `отменный` and `дерьмовый`.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody took the adjective `отменный` and made the taboo word `охуенный`. Somebody else took the adjective `дерьмовый` and made the taboo word `хуёвый`.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16717" RevisionGUID="cb7258ee-1c69-4f54-a19b-00a224aa5c41" CreationDate="2018-07-01T09:52:27.157" UserId="2079" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="All previous answers miss the point.  **`Охуенный` and `хуёвый` mean different things because they are so similar to `отменный` and `дерьмовый`.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody took the adjective `отменный` and made the taboo word `охуенный`. Somebody else took the adjective `дерьмовый` and made the taboo word `хуёвый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also word `опизденный` which means the same as `охуенный`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пиздец` is made from `конец` (тебе конец -&gt; тебе пиздец). In one OS made in one of the Soviet computation centers in mid 80-s, there were two commands: КОН, exit from the current command/subsystem, or from the whole system (&quot;one level up&quot;), and ПИЗ,  exit from the system immediately, no matter what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пиздатый` is made from `поддатый` (slightly drunk). Since it feels good to be in that state, the word `пиздатый` means something good. Another word for becoming drunk is `захорошеть`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16717" RevisionGUID="42769459-796e-4648-8bae-6553ad13bdc3" CreationDate="2018-07-01T09:57:44.317" UserId="2079" Comment="added 373 characters in body" Text="All previous answers miss the point.  **`Охуенный` and `хуёвый` mean different things because they are so similar to `отменный` and `дерьмовый`.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody took the adjective `отменный` and made the taboo word `охуенный`. Somebody else took the adjective `дерьмовый` and made the taboo word `хуёвый`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also word `опизденный` which means the same as `охуенный`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пиздец` is made from `конец` (тебе конец -&gt; тебе пиздец). In one OS made in one of the Soviet computation centers in mid '80s, there were, among others, two commands: КОН, exit either from the current command/subsystem or from the whole system, and ПИЗ, immediate exit from all subsystems and from the system, no matter what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Пиздатый` is made from `поддатый` (slightly drunk). Since it feels good to be in that state, the word `пиздатый` means something good. Another word for becoming drunk is `захорошеть`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16718" RevisionGUID="3f4e18e0-44bb-4e42-9e3f-c946431e2827" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:02:11.350" UserId="5375" Text="After consulting a couple of dictionaries (that don't always agree with each other), I have found this list of translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brother-in-law:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sister's husband: зять&#xD;&#xA;- wife's brother: шурин&#xD;&#xA;- husband's brother: деверь&#xD;&#xA;- wife's sister's husband: свояк&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sister-in-law:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- brother's wife: невестка or золовка&#xD;&#xA;- wife's sister: свояченица&#xD;&#xA;- husband's sister: золовка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the word золовка appears twice (this is where my dictionaries disagree), and I have no translation for &quot;husband's sister's husband&quot;, &quot;wife's brother's wife&quot;, and &quot;husband's brother's wife&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody please help med with corrections and additions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16718" RevisionGUID="3f4e18e0-44bb-4e42-9e3f-c946431e2827" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:02:11.350" UserId="5375" Text="Brother-in-law and sister-in-law in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16718" RevisionGUID="3f4e18e0-44bb-4e42-9e3f-c946431e2827" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:02:11.350" UserId="5375" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16719" RevisionGUID="c820a69a-21bf-44d9-8502-4adff197ccdf" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:32:07.943" UserId="242" Text="There's no such thing like one-two-one correspondence between words in one language and another one, however, as of `золовка`, to my knowledge it's always about husband's sister (while brother's wife is always `невестка`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also no obligation in any language to have specific term for any kind of relations. Actually husband's sister's husband can be called `зять` which [stands][1] for &quot;муж дочери, сестры, золовки или племянницы&quot;. However, I assure you that the majority of native speaker will have very hard times trying to answer this question out of the top of their head. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wife's brother's wife is [`невестка`][1] as well - the same word as for son's wife. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those relationships were more important in older societies and therefore as of now this terminology is gradually getting erased from usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16720" RevisionGUID="6cdb3fe0-2c51-4db3-b358-3a3544732e27" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:33:06.483" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Сколько уже можно** болтаться там сзади?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is more or less an equivalent of the English phrasing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How much longer {**towards a point in time in the future**} are you going to do ...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... said in a rather accusing tone. But what is the more literal interpretation of the phrase? Is it more like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;=??? How long {**already / until now**} could you be lagging behind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16720" RevisionGUID="6cdb3fe0-2c51-4db3-b358-3a3544732e27" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:33:06.483" UserId="8672" Text="Сколько уже можно ...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16720" RevisionGUID="6cdb3fe0-2c51-4db3-b358-3a3544732e27" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:33:06.483" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16719" RevisionGUID="44f14667-fc10-45aa-9f8a-b8dd151dad65" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:37:46.753" UserId="242" Comment="added 556 characters in body" Text="There's no such thing like one-two-one correspondence between words in one language and another one, however, as of `золовка`, to my knowledge it's always about husband's sister (while brother's wife is always `невестка`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also no obligation in any language to have specific term for any kind of relations. Actually husband's sister's husband can be called `зять` which [stands][1] for &quot;муж дочери, сестры, золовки или племянницы&quot;. However, I assure you that the majority of native speaker will have very hard times trying to answer this question out of the top of their head. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wife's brother's wife is [`невестка`][1] as well - the same word as for son's wife. There was also word `сношенница` which was used for indicate relations between to men wife's, one can find it in Dal's [dictionary][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сношени́ца, влд. тмб. жена деверя, жены двух братьев друг другу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this one is obsolete, nobody uses it as of now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those relationships were more important in older societies and therefore as of now this terminology is gradually getting erased from usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0:%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F_(2-%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5)._%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BC_4_(1882).pdf/262" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="c40e3b0c-4a37-4b36-848c-1e60cc383293" CreationDate="2018-07-01T13:51:25.880" UserId="7674" Text="The [dictionaries](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/817794) are pretty unanimous in that ***золовка*** is husband's sister. Some of them, including the Dahl's dictionary, add that it also could be a regional designation for brother's wife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) husband's brother's wife = [невестка, сноха](http://www.milinda.ru/svadba/novaja-rodnja.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жена жене брата мужа – НЕВЕСТКА, или СНОХА&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) wife's brother's wife = [сноха](http://fb.ru/article/99617/jena-brata-jenyi---eto-drug-tovarisch-i-snoha)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена брата жены – это сноха.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) husband's sister's husband - [свояк](http://fb.ru/article/133959/kto-mne-muj-sestryi-muja-razbiraemsya-v-semeynoy-ierarhii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если у вашего горячо любимого мужа есть родная сестра, то вам она,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прежде всего, приходится золовкой. Если же она пребывает в браке, то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ее муж вам доводится **свояком**, ибо **все мужчины, женатые на сестрах,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеют такое название**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почти у всех нас есть двоюродные сестры, которых мы очень любим и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; желаем им счастья. Рано или поздно они создают свои семьи, а ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; родственники потом думают – **муж двоюродной сестры кем приходится нам?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он точно так же является свояком, так как мужчины, женатые на сестрах,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пусть и двоюродных, называются свояками**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i guess the rule is that all sisters' husbands are ***свояки*** and all brothers' wives are ***снохи*** or ***невестки*** for the same generation relatives.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16721" RevisionGUID="d52addee-e4da-49d5-924c-40b74fd7aea6" CreationDate="2018-07-01T14:00:38.850" UserId="7674" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="The [dictionaries](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/817794) are pretty unanimous in that ***золовка*** is husband's sister. Some of them, including the Dahl's dictionary, add that it also could be a regional designation for brother's wife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) husband's brother's wife = [невестка, сноха](http://www.milinda.ru/svadba/novaja-rodnja.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жена жене брата мужа – НЕВЕСТКА, или СНОХА&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) wife's brother's wife = [сноха](http://fb.ru/article/99617/jena-brata-jenyi---eto-drug-tovarisch-i-snoha)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жена брата жены – это сноха.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) husband's sister's (female cousin's) husband - [свояк](http://fb.ru/article/133959/kto-mne-muj-sestryi-muja-razbiraemsya-v-semeynoy-ierarhii)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если у вашего горячо любимого мужа есть родная сестра, то вам она,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прежде всего, приходится золовкой. Если же она пребывает в браке, то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ее муж вам доводится **свояком**, ибо **все мужчины, женатые на сестрах,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имеют такое название**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почти у всех нас есть двоюродные сестры, которых мы очень любим и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; желаем им счастья. Рано или поздно они создают свои семьи, а ее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; родственники потом думают – **муж двоюродной сестры кем приходится нам?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он точно так же является свояком, так как мужчины, женатые на сестрах,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пусть и двоюродных, называются свояками**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So i guess the rule is that all sisters' husbands are ***свояки*** and all brothers' wives are ***снохи*** or ***невестки*** for the same generation relatives.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16722" RevisionGUID="5b77130d-a23f-4e10-9975-2f32be2b5037" CreationDate="2018-07-01T14:24:32.990" UserId="9602" Text="Literally — Сколько (for how long) [уже] можно (is it acceptable) болтаться сзади (to lag behind)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the implication that the amount of time for which it is permissible to lag behind has long elapsed)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16722" RevisionGUID="f685760d-5840-49e5-b5ee-3deb36325cbe" CreationDate="2018-07-01T15:45:04.497" UserId="9602" Comment="responding to comment" Text="Literally — Сколько (for how long) [уже] можно (is it acceptable) болтаться сзади (to lag behind)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(with the implication that the amount of time for which it is permissible to lag behind has long elapsed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This construct is a question that could be literal or rhetoric, only the latter sounds accusing. A child could ask a parent, “Сколько [мне] [уже] можно играть?” — “For how long may I play?” (“уже” would merely suggest that something has changed and the speaker expects a different allowance). However, if the parent were to say exactly the same (without “мне” obviously, or with “тебе”), that would be accusing the child of playing too much (and “уже” would play an emphasizing role).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like plain “можно”, it uses the dative case for the subject (something permits (whom?)): “Мне можно [есть] шоколад, но нельзя мёд” — “I can eat chocolate, but not honey” (presumably due to allergy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16723" RevisionGUID="922fb365-d890-40de-a67b-c43c03c056c4" CreationDate="2018-07-01T22:41:18.940" UserId="9459" Text="To highlight an oldish and somewhat bookish alternative: `впрочем`. It basically means &quot;although&quot;, so&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, трампампамция коагулирует ингибитор ульмотрона, хм, впрочем, нет. Вычеркните все после слов &quot;таким образом&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The words `или нет`, `хотя`, `оставим` convey the same meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16724" RevisionGUID="2fee733f-7787-4561-99e1-11a57f1e7c03" CreationDate="2018-07-02T05:46:57.030" UserId="8359" Text="The native people of southern Kamchatka are Itelmen. The arrival of Russian men around 1700 created a mixed group called Kamchadals. By 1800, the Itelmen languages were extinct and the Russian language was dominant. Russian settlers had partially adopted the local fish diet, and Kamchadals built log homes in the Russian style. Since there were still few or no Russian women around, ethnic admixture continued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Nelson Hancock's paper [Regimes of Classification and theParadox of Kamchadal Heritage][1] [sic], Kamchadal people well into the twentieth century used an obviously regional style of speaking. Perhaps it started out as a pidgin when Itelmen languages were still spoken, then became a dialect, but that is just my speculation. Hancock's informant calls her native speech _Kamchadalskii_ and reports being embarrassed about it in her youth: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We [Kamchadals] have an entirely different accent. A Russian shows up and you have to start speaking correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the characteristic markers of Kamchadal Russian speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cas.miamioh.edu/havighurstcenter/papers/hancock.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16724" RevisionGUID="2fee733f-7787-4561-99e1-11a57f1e7c03" CreationDate="2018-07-02T05:46:57.030" UserId="8359" Text="Kamchadalskii dialect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16724" RevisionGUID="2fee733f-7787-4561-99e1-11a57f1e7c03" CreationDate="2018-07-02T05:46:57.030" UserId="8359" Text="|узус|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16725" RevisionGUID="fe50e534-fd72-49ad-bba3-29b707ffea8d" CreationDate="2018-07-02T08:13:09.163" UserId="9118" Text="There's also &quot;старого коня [or пса] новым трюкам не научишь&quot; (you can not teach an old horse/dog new tricks). Although it conveys a more pessimistic feeling of impossibility (e. g. they don't die hard - they don't die, period)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16726" RevisionGUID="48f88f19-9ab5-48e1-a8bb-0016565fb9e9" CreationDate="2018-07-02T09:35:34.217" UserId="10749" Text="Eh, that's pretty outdated. I'm from Kamchatka. Grew up there and lived there until I moved to California at 25. There aren't that many native people in Kamchatka pecentage-wise, but certainly there are enough, especially in the north. All Itelmens and Koryaks speak Russian (and vast majority are completely fluent). Though they do teach native languages in rural parts in the North. They also have a few hours of local TV in Itelmen (local news, interviews with sone craftsmen and such). It's not a pigeon, but a proper language. Granted, there's a chance of some locals in small villages maybe using occasionally Itelmen or Koryak words for some things, but they generally will be still speaking Russian. Raindeer herders how are more off the grid in their own world might speak Itelmen or Koryak with family or if they run into another herder, but they will speak proper Russian, abeight with some noticable accent. So while thre isn't any 'creole' type thing based in Itelmen and Russian, there is at least some hope that Itelmen and Koryak languages proper will survive. Though like with Native American languages, young people use it less and less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General population of course has a specific accent and  it's quite different than Moscow one, but not to the extent of being a dialect. Also there's a lot of local slang (but that's normal for any language and any country) and words being used differently, but overall it's pretty standard russian.&#xD;&#xA;Like you wouldn't talk about NY or New HempSHA dialect vs West Coast, but rather of different accents.&#xD;&#xA;As for accent, we don't extend any vowels. There's no &quot;оканье&quot; or &quot;аканье&quot; and the accent is never nasal. It's kind of a &quot;deep&quot; (as in low-pitched) accent with all vowels being short and reduction not turning &quot;o&quot; into &quot;aaaa&quot; or &quot;e&quot; into &quot;ииии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Local slang is a different thing, but the words are not normally coming from native languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16695" RevisionGUID="9068661c-58e9-4136-b9f6-54749b4b7d26" CreationDate="2018-07-02T09:50:16.567" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1013721508773007360" />
  <row Id="42299" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16652" RevisionGUID="2803d593-d5a5-4918-a859-1a9b992dfa8b" CreationDate="2018-07-02T12:50:16.613" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1013766807533113344" />
  <row Id="42300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16727" RevisionGUID="4bdbaab4-0fe8-413a-9c48-36b9091d5bff" CreationDate="2018-07-02T15:04:51.770" UserId="7674" Text="Here're some of the salient characteristics of their dialect according to the paper [ФОНЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ КАМЧАТСКИХ ГОВОРОВ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ГОВОРА ПОСЕЛКА КОВРАН)](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/foneticheskie-osobennosti-kamchatskih-govorov-na-materiale-govora-poselka-kovran) by Малоземлина Оксана Владимировна (there're more nuances in the actual report)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consonants**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [в] - sometimes sounds like the English [w]; sometimes drops between vowels (го'орил instead of гоВорил); at positions where the phoneme is devoiced into [ф] sometimes gets replaced with [х] (черкоХ instead of церкоФЬ, вэроХка instead of верёФка); soft phoneme is pronounced with the addition of [й] (ВЙАжут instead of ВЯжут, зивЙОт instead of жиВЁт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally soft labials and alveolars harden (поПЭРОк instead of поПЕРЁк, вРЭМА instead of вРЕМЯ, ДЭлаЛЫ instead of ДЕлаЛИ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 There's supplantation between sibilants and fricatives/affricates already seen in some examples above [ш] with [с], [ж] with [з] (походиС instead of походиШЬ, Цо-то instead of Ч(т)о-то, Сйут instead of Шьют, дерЗал instead of дерЖал, ни раЖу instead of ни раЗу, ЖамйорЖну instead of ЗамёрЗну, Цетыре instead of Четыре)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 [й] between vowels can fall out (сделАУт instead of сделАЙУт, двойнАА instead of двойнАЙА)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vowels**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [o] maintains its pronunciation in the first and second prestress syllables and on account of this their speech is classed as full o-ing, and it also does in the first poststress syllable. Unstressed prefix раз/с- is pronounced as роз/с-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 [и][ы] are mainly undistinguished by the speakers or being articulated as something in between like [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] or [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;] (бИл instead of бЫл, вЫлИ instead of вИлЫ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 There occurs sporadic labialisation of vowels whereby they devolve into [у] (бУвают instead of бЫвают, кУрыто instead of кОрыто, пУка instead of пОка, жабУла instead of забЫла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, проанализированный материал позволяет сделать следующие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выводы:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Говор двуязычных ительменов п. Ковран является окающим.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Гласные Е, А после мягких согласных реализуются как [и] (иканье), так и [е](еканье), а в некоторых случаях – как [а] (яканье).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Яркой фонетической чертой является смешение звуков [и] и [ы], а также произношение среднего звука [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] или [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Наблюдается спорадическая лабиализация гласных.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Звук [в], как правило губно - зубной, но он может чередоваться с губно - губным [w].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Фонема &lt;л&gt; имеет четыре аллофона: типичные для литературного языка [л] и [л’], а также средненёбные [l] и [l’].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Отмечается неразличение свистящих и шипящих звуков [c] и [ш], [з] и [ж], аффрикат [ч’] и [ц], совпадающих в [ц] ( т. е. цоканье).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One other source which may be of interest to yourself is [manuscripts of В.И. Иохельсон (V.I. Iochelson) about Itelmens](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=sX7FAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82+%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=trVFEVUM5S&amp;sig=VAp5K0pwXsSJjkMTYiMsbFKbOw0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilwtTn6f_bAhUpQpoKHfUxA6EQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%20%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;f=false), wherein the last chapter is dedicated to their dialect of Russian. The manuscript is available in the New York Public Library." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16727" RevisionGUID="9f414c43-0ff5-4892-b906-fb3c1c77f935" CreationDate="2018-07-02T15:10:01.120" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Here're some of the salient characteristics of their dialect according to the paper [ФОНЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ КАМЧАТСКИХ ГОВОРОВ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ГОВОРА ПОСЕЛКА КОВРАН)](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/foneticheskie-osobennosti-kamchatskih-govorov-na-materiale-govora-poselka-kovran) by Малоземлина Оксана Владимировна (there're more nuances in the actual report)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consonants**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [в] - sometimes sounds like the English [w]; sometimes drops between vowels (го'орил instead of гоВорил); at positions where the phoneme is devoiced into [ф] sometimes gets replaced with [х] (черкоХ instead of церкоФЬ, вэроХка instead of верёФка); soft phoneme is pronounced with the addition of [й] (ВЬЙАжут instead of ВЯжут, зиВЬЙОт instead of жиВЁт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally soft labials and alveolars harden (поПЭРОк instead of поПЕРЁк, вРЭМА instead of вРЕМЯ, ДЭлаЛЫ instead of ДЕлаЛИ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 There's supplantation between sibilants and fricatives/affricates already seen in some examples above [ш] with [с], [ж] with [з] (походиС instead of походиШЬ, Цо-то instead of Ч(т)о-то, Сйут instead of Шьют, дерЗал instead of дерЖал, ни раЖу instead of ни раЗу, ЖамйорЖну instead of ЗамёрЗну, Цетыре instead of Четыре)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 [й] between vowels can fall out (сделАУт instead of сделАЙУт, двойнАА instead of двойнАЙА)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vowels**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [o] maintains its pronunciation in the first and second prestress syllables and on account of this their speech is classed as full o-ing, and it also does in the first poststress syllable. Unstressed prefix раз/с- is pronounced as роз/с-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 [и][ы] are mainly undistinguished by the speakers (бИл instead of бЫл, вЫлИ instead of вИлЫ) or being articulated as something in between like [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] or [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 There occurs sporadic labialisation of vowels whereby they devolve into [у] (бУвают instead of бЫвают, кУрыто instead of кОрыто, пУка instead of пОка, жабУла instead of забЫла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, проанализированный материал позволяет сделать следующие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выводы:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Говор двуязычных ительменов п. Ковран является окающим.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Гласные Е, А после мягких согласных реализуются как [и] (иканье), так и [е](еканье), а в некоторых случаях – как [а] (яканье).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Яркой фонетической чертой является смешение звуков [и] и [ы], а также произношение среднего звука [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] или [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Наблюдается спорадическая лабиализация гласных.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Звук [в], как правило губно - зубной, но он может чередоваться с губно - губным [w].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Фонема &lt;л&gt; имеет четыре аллофона: типичные для литературного языка [л] и [л’], а также средненёбные [l] и [l’].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Отмечается неразличение свистящих и шипящих звуков [c] и [ш], [з] и [ж], аффрикат [ч’] и [ц], совпадающих в [ц] ( т. е. цоканье).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One other source which may be of interest to yourself is [manuscripts of В.И. Иохельсон (V.I. Iochelson) about Itelmens](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=sX7FAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82+%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=trVFEVUM5S&amp;sig=VAp5K0pwXsSJjkMTYiMsbFKbOw0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilwtTn6f_bAhUpQpoKHfUxA6EQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%20%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;f=false), wherein the last chapter is dedicated to their dialect of Russian. The manuscript is available in the New York Public Library." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16727" RevisionGUID="f701319e-900f-4f66-bf26-5044a3450674" CreationDate="2018-07-02T16:34:58.537" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Here're some of the salient features of their dialect according to the paper [ФОНЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ КАМЧАТСКИХ ГОВОРОВ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ГОВОРА ПОСЕЛКА КОВРАН)](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/foneticheskie-osobennosti-kamchatskih-govorov-na-materiale-govora-poselka-kovran) by Малоземлина Оксана Владимировна (there're more nuances in the actual report)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consonants**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [в] - sometimes sounds like the English [w]; sometimes drops between vowels (го'орил instead of гоВорил); at positions where the phoneme is devoiced into [ф] sometimes gets replaced with [х] (черкоХ instead of церкоФЬ, вэроХка instead of верёФка); soft phoneme is pronounced with the addition of [й] (ВЬЙАжут instead of ВЯжут, зиВЬЙОт instead of жиВЁт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally soft labials and alveolars harden (поПЭРОк instead of поПЕРЁк, вРЭМА instead of вРЕМЯ, ДЭлаЛЫ instead of ДЕлаЛИ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 There's supplantation between sibilants and fricatives/affricates already seen in some examples above [ш] with [с], [ж] with [з] (походиС instead of походиШЬ, Цо-то instead of Ч(т)о-то, Сйут instead of Шьют, дерЗал instead of дерЖал, ни раЖу instead of ни раЗу, ЖамйорЖну instead of ЗамёрЗну, Цетыре instead of Четыре)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 [й] between vowels can fall out (сделАУт instead of сделАЙУт, двойнАА instead of двойнАЙА)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vowels**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [o] maintains its pronunciation in the first and second prestress syllables and on account of this their speech is classed as full o-ing, and it also does in the first poststress syllable. Unstressed prefix раз/с- is pronounced as роз/с-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 [и][ы] are mainly undistinguished by the speakers (бИл instead of бЫл, вЫлИ instead of вИлЫ) or being articulated as something in between like [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] or [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 There occurs sporadic labialisation of vowels whereby they devolve into [у] (бУвают instead of бЫвают, кУрыто instead of кОрыто, пУка instead of пОка, жабУла instead of забЫла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, проанализированный материал позволяет сделать следующие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выводы:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Говор двуязычных ительменов п. Ковран является окающим.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Гласные Е, А после мягких согласных реализуются как [и] (иканье), так и [е](еканье), а в некоторых случаях – как [а] (яканье).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Яркой фонетической чертой является смешение звуков [и] и [ы], а также произношение среднего звука [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] или [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Наблюдается спорадическая лабиализация гласных.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Звук [в], как правило губно - зубной, но он может чередоваться с губно - губным [w].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Фонема &lt;л&gt; имеет четыре аллофона: типичные для литературного языка [л] и [л’], а также средненёбные [l] и [l’].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Отмечается неразличение свистящих и шипящих звуков [c] и [ш], [з] и [ж], аффрикат [ч’] и [ц], совпадающих в [ц] ( т. е. цоканье).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One other source which may be of interest to yourself is [manuscripts of В.И. Иохельсон (V.I. Iochelson) about Itelmens](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=sX7FAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82+%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=trVFEVUM5S&amp;sig=VAp5K0pwXsSJjkMTYiMsbFKbOw0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilwtTn6f_bAhUpQpoKHfUxA6EQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%20%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;f=false), wherein the last chapter is dedicated to their dialect of Russian. The manuscript is available in the New York Public Library." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16727" RevisionGUID="6ff0503d-300a-49b6-9788-5e0d12f04353" CreationDate="2018-07-02T16:43:40.577" UserId="7674" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Here're some of the salient features of their dialect according to the paper [ФОНЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ КАМЧАТСКИХ ГОВОРОВ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ГОВОРА ПОСЕЛКА КОВРАН) (2007)](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/foneticheskie-osobennosti-kamchatskih-govorov-na-materiale-govora-poselka-kovran) by Малоземлина Оксана Владимировна (there're more nuances in the actual report, the material seems to come from older sources)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consonants**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [в] - sometimes sounds like the English [w]; sometimes drops between vowels (го'орил instead of гоВорил); at positions where the phoneme is devoiced into [ф] sometimes gets replaced with [х] (черкоХ instead of церкоФЬ, вэроХка instead of верёФка); soft phoneme is pronounced with the addition of [й] (ВЬЙАжут instead of ВЯжут, зиВЬЙОт instead of жиВЁт)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally soft labials and alveolars harden (поПЭРОк instead of поПЕРЁк, вРЭМА instead of вРЕМЯ, ДЭлаЛЫ instead of ДЕлаЛИ)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 There's supplantation between sibilants and fricatives/affricates already seen in some examples above [ш] with [с], [ж] with [з] (походиС instead of походиШЬ, Цо-то instead of Ч(т)о-то, Сйут instead of Шьют, дерЗал instead of дерЖал, ни раЖу instead of ни раЗу, ЖамйорЖну instead of ЗамёрЗну, Цетыре instead of Четыре)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 [й] between vowels can fall out (сделАУт instead of сделАЙУт, двойнАА instead of двойнАЙА)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vowels**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 [o] maintains its pronunciation in the first and second prestress syllables and on account of this their speech is classed as full o-ing, and it also does in the first poststress syllable. Unstressed prefix раз/с- is pronounced as роз/с-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 [и][ы] are mainly undistinguished by the speakers (бИл instead of бЫл, вЫлИ instead of вИлЫ) or being articulated as something in between like [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] or [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 There occurs sporadic labialisation of vowels whereby they devolve into [у] (бУвают instead of бЫвают, кУрыто instead of кОрыто, пУка instead of пОка, жабУла instead of забЫла)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким образом, проанализированный материал позволяет сделать следующие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выводы:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Говор двуязычных ительменов п. Ковран является окающим.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Гласные Е, А после мягких согласных реализуются как [и] (иканье), так и [е](еканье), а в некоторых случаях – как [а] (яканье).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Яркой фонетической чертой является смешение звуков [и] и [ы], а также произношение среднего звука [и&lt;sup&gt;ы&lt;/sup&gt;] или [ы&lt;sup&gt;и&lt;/sup&gt;].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Наблюдается спорадическая лабиализация гласных.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Звук [в], как правило губно - зубной, но он может чередоваться с губно - губным [w].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Фонема &lt;л&gt; имеет четыре аллофона: типичные для литературного языка [л] и [л’], а также средненёбные [l] и [l’].  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Отмечается неразличение свистящих и шипящих звуков [c] и [ш], [з] и [ж], аффрикат [ч’] и [ц], совпадающих в [ц] ( т. е. цоканье).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One other source which may be of interest to yourself is [manuscripts of В.И. Иохельсон (V.I. Iochelson) about Itelmens](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=sX7FAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA7&amp;lpg=PA7&amp;dq=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82+%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=trVFEVUM5S&amp;sig=VAp5K0pwXsSJjkMTYiMsbFKbOw0&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwilwtTn6f_bAhUpQpoKHfUxA6EQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%20%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE&amp;f=false), wherein the last chapter is dedicated to their dialect of Russian. The manuscript is available in the New York Public Library." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15010" RevisionGUID="ef7a1e58-9da7-4cf1-b861-cb8b8ef30517" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:12:14.563" UserId="8359" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="San Francisco, Сан-Франциско in Russian, is a Spanish name meaning &quot;Saint Francis&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Сан in the city name is a direct phonetic adoption, but the Франциско differs from the Spanish in the inclusion of the `ц`. It seems to me that with  modern transliteration norms the city's name would be spelled Сан-Франсиско.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the `ц` came from the Italian name of the saint himself, Francesco d'Assisi, already adopted as Франциск Ассизский. Still, at least for the modern Italian pronunciation, a `Ч` seems a better match than the `ц`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How did the `ц` get into these names?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16724" RevisionGUID="d9e5f47d-65f2-46d9-b332-cc86a14959ba" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:14:46.863" UserId="8359" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The native people of southern Kamchatka are Itelmen. The arrival of Russian men around 1700 created a mixed group called Kamchadals. By 1800, the Itelmen languages were mostly extinct and the Russian language was dominant. Russian settlers had partially adopted the local fish diet, and Kamchadals built log homes in the Russian style. Since there were still few or no Russian women around, ethnic admixture continued. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Nelson Hancock's paper [Regimes of Classification and theParadox of Kamchadal Heritage][1] [sic], Kamchadal people well into the twentieth century used an obviously regional style of speaking. Perhaps it started out as a pidgin when Itelmen languages were still spoken, then became a dialect, but that is just my speculation. Hancock's informant calls her native speech _Kamchadalskii_ and reports being embarrassed about it in her youth: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We [Kamchadals] have an entirely different accent. A Russian shows up and you have to start speaking correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the characteristic markers of Kamchadal Russian speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cas.miamioh.edu/havighurstcenter/papers/hancock.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42306" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16638" RevisionGUID="038d2c69-5591-4da0-8421-ca9ced784b87" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:50:16.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1014083896324083712" />
  <row Id="42307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16726" RevisionGUID="711f4429-44ca-4bff-a2e6-d4cca0e15905" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:39:38.630" UserId="6074" Comment="corrected spellings" Text="Eh, that's pretty outdated. I'm from Kamchatka. Grew up there and lived there until I moved to California at 25. There aren't that many native people in Kamchatka percentage-wise, but certainly there are enough, especially in the north. All Itelmens and Koryaks speak Russian (and vast majority are completely fluent). Though they do teach native languages in rural parts in the North. They also have a few hours of local TV in Itelmen (local news, interviews with some craftsmen and such). It's not a pigeon, but a proper language. Granted, there's a chance of some locals in small villages maybe using occasionally Itelmen or Koryak words for some things, but they generally will be still speaking Russian. Reindeer herders how are more off the grid in their own world might speak Itelmen or Koryak with family or if they run into another herder, but they will speak proper Russian, albeit with some noticeable accent. So while there isn't any 'creole' type thing based in Itelmen and Russian, there is at least some hope that Itelmen and Koryak languages proper will survive. Though like with Native American languages, young people use it less and less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General population of course has a specific accent and it's quite different than Moscow one, but not to the extent of being a dialect. Also there's a lot of local slang (but that's normal for any language and any country) and words being used differently, but overall it's pretty standard Russian.&#xD;&#xA;Like you wouldn't talk about NY or New HempSHA dialect vs West Coast, but rather of different accents.&#xD;&#xA;As for accent, we don't extend any vowels. There's no &quot;оканье&quot; or &quot;аканье&quot; and the accent is never nasal. It's kind of a &quot;deep&quot; (as in low-pitched) accent with all vowels being short and reduction not turning &quot;o&quot; into &quot;aaaa&quot; or &quot;e&quot; into &quot;ииии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Local slang is a different thing, but the words do not normally come from native languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42308" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16726" RevisionGUID="711f4429-44ca-4bff-a2e6-d4cca0e15905" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:39:38.630" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 4481, 9058 edit id of 982" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16702" RevisionGUID="06761cf5-1979-42b0-8bee-54851d4590fe" CreationDate="2018-07-03T15:50:16.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1014174493458206721" />
  <row Id="42310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16699" RevisionGUID="29ec5dd2-1b35-427f-9416-927bcca7befb" CreationDate="2018-07-04T03:50:16.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1014355686917066753" />
  <row Id="42311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16728" RevisionGUID="d91430ec-3d03-4ab8-b21a-33f4c415abd5" CreationDate="2018-07-04T06:36:30.220" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Когда таланта нет, приходится **брать упорством**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =??? ..., you have to be persistent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;брать + instrumental noun&quot; makes for some idiomatic expression?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16728" RevisionGUID="d91430ec-3d03-4ab8-b21a-33f4c415abd5" CreationDate="2018-07-04T06:36:30.220" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;брать упорством&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16728" RevisionGUID="d91430ec-3d03-4ab8-b21a-33f4c415abd5" CreationDate="2018-07-04T06:36:30.220" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16729" RevisionGUID="7e60b296-9a30-466c-997a-a317c6a2b43a" CreationDate="2018-07-04T06:42:00.633" UserId="7674" Text="It does. The phrase means **`to conquer with perseverance`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Брать** here is *`to conquer, to capture, to seize`* in a military sense or simply *`to take`* which in English to the best of my knowledge can also have that meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a proverb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смелость города берёт&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which means that towns or castles can be captured with enough courage and bravery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16730" RevisionGUID="fad72798-28c3-4c95-b66e-f8cefa5dac9e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:02:33.930" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Думаю, люди **бывают** совершенно **разными**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Думаю, люди совершенно разные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this phrase means something along the lines of &quot;to each his own&quot;, but how should I interpret it more literally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =??? People can be totally different (vary from person to person) sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside: Does &quot;бывать&quot; always take the instrumental case just as &quot;быть&quot; does?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ a relevant [post][1] ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8299/%D0%91%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16730" RevisionGUID="fad72798-28c3-4c95-b66e-f8cefa5dac9e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:02:33.930" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;бывать разными&quot; and &quot;быть разные&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16730" RevisionGUID="fad72798-28c3-4c95-b66e-f8cefa5dac9e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:02:33.930" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16730" RevisionGUID="dd39693d-8c2d-4b47-b096-029d6e19ad1e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:26:06.413" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt;1) Думаю, люди **бывают** совершенно **разными**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =??? People can be totally different (vary from person to person) sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: 2) Думаю, люди **могут быть** совершенно **разными**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: 3) Думаю, люди могут **оказаться** совершенно **разными** (по своим ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume  the 1st sentence with &quot;бывать&quot; means something along the lines of &quot;to each his own&quot;, but how does it compare with the 2nd and the 3rd?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside: Do &quot;бывать&quot; and &quot;оказаться&quot; always take the instrumental case, just as &quot;быть&quot; does?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42319" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16730" RevisionGUID="dd39693d-8c2d-4b47-b096-029d6e19ad1e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T08:26:06.413" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body; edited title" Text="Nuances between &quot;люди бывают разными&quot;, &quot;люди могут быть разными&quot;, and &quot;люди могут оказаться разными&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16731" RevisionGUID="ea0c5408-3d15-4857-a20e-0ee6b459cd33" CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:25:39.923" UserId="10270" Text="In expression в всей поездки I think всей is in the prepositional case. But what case is поездки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16731" RevisionGUID="ea0c5408-3d15-4857-a20e-0ee6b459cd33" CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:25:39.923" UserId="10270" Text="case of поездки in expression в всей поездки" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16731" RevisionGUID="ea0c5408-3d15-4857-a20e-0ee6b459cd33" CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:25:39.923" UserId="10270" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42323" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16669" RevisionGUID="5dd3c0e4-e7ae-421c-a3da-ff6dbcad0c18" CreationDate="2018-07-04T09:50:23.350" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1014446313117814784" />
  <row Id="42324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16732" RevisionGUID="97934449-256a-4d02-af7a-427626dcad08" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:07:47.600" UserId="6539" Text="&gt; 1.Люди бывают совершенно разными. People are totally different.&#xD;&#xA;2. Люди могут быть совершенно разными. People can be totally different. &#xD;&#xA;3. Люди могуг оказаться совершенно разными. People may turn out to be totally different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is a neutral opinion. The second is a supposition. The third shows how unexpected things can be.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the instrumental case is required. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16733" RevisionGUID="cd95eea1-285b-4e5b-bb65-4f3a6915250e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:25:51.020" UserId="10407" Text="I have read somewhere that `смотри` is an unfinished action while `посмотри` is a completed action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not help when I'm thinking of usage scenarios. For example I was watching the movie **Лёд** and there was a scene where the small girl tells her mother &quot;`Смотри!`&quot;, which I understood to mean &quot;`Look!`&quot;. So how do you classify that as either complete or incomplete when it hasn't even started?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16733" RevisionGUID="cd95eea1-285b-4e5b-bb65-4f3a6915250e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:25:51.020" UserId="10407" Text="What is the difference between посмотри and смотри" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16733" RevisionGUID="cd95eea1-285b-4e5b-bb65-4f3a6915250e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:25:51.020" UserId="10407" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16734" RevisionGUID="5be4d02b-8870-43cf-b9e3-79f6fab24fe6" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:36:47.583" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;В всей поездки&quot; is ungrammatical. Did you mean &quot;во всей поездке&quot;? Then it's Locative. Could also be Genitive: &quot;(из) всей поездки&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the declension charts for [весь][1] and [поездка][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C#%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B0#%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16735" RevisionGUID="58e8563f-742a-46ec-9abd-8790a09cf19c" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:44:29.063" UserId="1836" Text="I'd say that &quot;смотри&quot; is used for immediate action. E.g. when something funny is happening. And &quot;посмотри&quot; is used for a future action. E.g. when you recommend a movie, or ask to take a look at some document. Something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can say &quot;посмотри&quot; for an immediate action, and in most cases it would sound ok. But saying &quot;смотри&quot; for a future action sounds weird and would probably be understood as &quot;Look at it now&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16732" RevisionGUID="6c677282-6965-41f5-bf5f-9cd02f251723" CreationDate="2018-07-04T10:47:36.077" UserId="1836" Comment="slight fix of formatting" Text="&gt; 1. Люди бывают совершенно разными. People are totally different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Люди могут быть совершенно разными. People can be totally different. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Люди могуг оказаться совершенно разными. People may turn out to be totally different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is a neutral opinion. The second is a supposition. The third shows how unexpected things can be.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the instrumental case is required. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16736" RevisionGUID="37c0b8bd-658c-450f-b2de-73f5ce5b9c01" CreationDate="2018-07-04T11:22:41.283" UserId="2104" Text="**Смотри** is a call for immediate action. **Посмотри** is more calm and polite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Смотри! = Look!&#xD;&#xA;* Посмотри мою статью = Have a look at my article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian imperative is quite complex when it comes to aspect. All nuances would be impossible to list in a short post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [MasterRussian article][1] (see &quot;Usage of the Imperative&quot; halfway down the page)&#xD;&#xA;* [Timothy W. Grinsell. Russian Imperfective Imperatives][2]&#xD;&#xA;* [Imperfective or perfective aspect for imperative][3] (related SO question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [2.4 Вид (rusgram.ru)][4]&#xD;&#xA;* [Помета §18 в &quot;Грамматическом словаре&quot; А. А. Зализняка.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/the_imperative_mood&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mitwpl.mit.edu/open/sub16/Grinsell.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/q/7329/2104&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2#24&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://gramdict.ru/conjugation/symbols#para18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16733" RevisionGUID="4314d9f5-5802-4108-b5b5-5ba0e09bed71" CreationDate="2018-07-04T12:01:27.433" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;посмотри&quot; and &quot;смотри&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16737" RevisionGUID="a757a5d2-9a68-4dfd-9cb2-f25e4787f98f" CreationDate="2018-07-04T15:09:23.313" UserId="10578" Text="Indeed, &quot;смотри&quot; means the unfinished action, but not necessary the action that's going to happen right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the meanings, prevailingly colloquial and possibly requiring certain intonation and (or) words:&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;смотри!..&quot; with intonation raising and lowering, /и/ drawn out: &quot;just you wait; watch yourself&quot;, with mildly confrontational/threatening connotation;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;ты смотри&quot; or &quot;смотри ты&quot; -- &quot;what a surprise; would you look at that&quot;; &#xD;&#xA;- &quot;смотри там&quot; -- &quot;be careful/watchful (there); be on the watch (there)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your example means, almost literally: &quot;Turn your eyes there (and see something)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, &quot;посмотри&quot; means the action with a definite end/result to it:&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;посмотри в книге/Гугле&quot; -- &quot;look it up in the book/Google&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;посмотри за ребенком&quot; -- &quot;watch the baby (for the period of time)&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16738" RevisionGUID="dc485a37-a3c9-449f-b8b1-ba605a246e4e" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:02:34.917" UserId="5443" Text="**Смотри** из typically about attracting attention to something *speaking for itself*, while **посмотри** is more about having a look at smth. and making (more or less deep) conclusions from that (approximately, *look* vs *have a look*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16739" RevisionGUID="40ad9214-e4a4-4609-8cb3-1135fb0a6413" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:29:02.317" UserDisplayName="user10756" Text="The English proverb [&quot;You can't have your cake and eat it&quot;](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it) is apparently equivalent to the Russian one &quot;И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&quot;. What's the exact meaning of the proverb &quot;И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&quot;? How do Russian people interpret and use it (and in which circumstances)? Is it often or rarely used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42336" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16739" RevisionGUID="40ad9214-e4a4-4609-8cb3-1135fb0a6413" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:29:02.317" UserDisplayName="user10756" Text="What is the meaning of the proverb &quot;И рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42337" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16739" RevisionGUID="40ad9214-e4a4-4609-8cb3-1135fb0a6413" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:29:02.317" UserDisplayName="user10756" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16740" RevisionGUID="43bcfef5-a4e2-4cd1-9408-4d4dff3e976f" CreationDate="2018-07-04T16:49:12.600" UserId="5443" Text="Люди бывают совершенно разны**е**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are totally different kinds of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Люди бывают совершенно разны**ми**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People can behave totally differrent [in different situations].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Люди могут быть совершенно разными:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People [suitable for that job] can be totally differrent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Люди могут оказаться совершенно разными:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; People may turn out to be incompatible (with each other. [e.g. in a marriage]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or (unexpectedly) not suitable for some task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16741" RevisionGUID="15bb7cbb-e8bd-4c05-850f-1d7afe55eee2" CreationDate="2018-07-04T17:01:45.023" UserId="10578" Text="Literally &quot;и рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть&quot; means &quot;eat a fish without getting wet [without going into water]&quot;. There are lots of semantic equivalents, some of them vulgar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of those vulgar ones has the same first part of the phrase as your example: &quot;и рыбку съесть&quot; -- &quot;to [both] eat a fish&quot; and often is quoted only by the first part (completely appropriate by itself!). So, when you hear someone using that part of the phrase, chances are one's having a rude expression in mind (but often from &quot;high&quot; moral ground, too, i.e. &quot;pointing out the smartarse&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16742" RevisionGUID="995ec8d3-10ed-43d4-b583-ad4a003659ac" CreationDate="2018-07-04T17:46:38.503" UserId="10578" Text="Other similar examples would be: &quot;брать измором&quot; -- &quot;to wear down (the issue, person, etc.)&quot;; &quot;брать нервом&quot; (oldish; used in 1930s &quot;Вратарь республики&quot;) -- &quot;to do/achieve by the strength of spirit, not by physical strength&quot;; &quot;брать нахрапом&quot; -- &quot;to get/achieve (something) by being extremely pushy&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16743" RevisionGUID="1732342c-f1a2-41a1-9371-a4dd51daa891" CreationDate="2018-07-05T00:52:22.693" UserId="10696" Text="I am having trouble parsing and understanding&#xD;&#xA;*Кого там нелёгкая несёт?  Входите!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The context is that someone is interrupted by a knock on the door, and that is his response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am especially puzzled by *нелёгкая*.  According to morfologija.ru this can be either an adjective or a noun (in the nominative).  And the sentence seems to require that *нелёгкая* is a noun.   However I can't find any English translation of the noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is *нелёгкая*, and what is the meaning of the sentence?  Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16743" RevisionGUID="1732342c-f1a2-41a1-9371-a4dd51daa891" CreationDate="2018-07-05T00:52:22.693" UserId="10696" Text="Кого там нелёгкая несёт?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16743" RevisionGUID="1732342c-f1a2-41a1-9371-a4dd51daa891" CreationDate="2018-07-05T00:52:22.693" UserId="10696" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16744" RevisionGUID="ab7e4b03-1efe-438c-b5a8-952d8f944802" CreationDate="2018-07-05T04:12:53.163" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;Нелегкая&quot; (adj.) literally means &quot;not light [i.e. heavy]&quot; and is used primarily in the sense of &quot;not easy, hard, complicated&quot; (life, choice, subject).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of this old saying &quot;нелегкая несет&quot;, though, &quot;нелегкая&quot; means the same as &quot;нечистая&quot;, i.e. it's an old-times euphemism for &quot;devil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;who [the devil] is there? enter&quot;; &quot;what have [devils] brought here? enter&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42346" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16733" RevisionGUID="0b9f57ea-e9d3-4091-9e7d-5ca98ca03e53" CreationDate="2018-07-05T06:50:44.383" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1014763490798600192" />
  <row Id="42351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="df30f001-d1e5-4c68-ad0d-3d512c2811f7" CreationDate="2018-07-06T03:20:11.527" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;партнер **по** поединкам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Context: The speaker was jokingly mentioning someone he often has spats with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *why* of using the preposition &quot;по&quot; does not come naturally to me: &quot;a partner **for** quarrels&quot;? Could it be that &quot;партнер&quot; often, if not always, takes &quot;по&quot; as a preposition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside: Does &quot;партнер по поединку&quot; in the dative singular work just as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="df30f001-d1e5-4c68-ad0d-3d512c2811f7" CreationDate="2018-07-06T03:20:11.527" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the preposition &quot;по&quot; in &quot;партнер по поединкам&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="df30f001-d1e5-4c68-ad0d-3d512c2811f7" CreationDate="2018-07-06T03:20:11.527" UserId="8672" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16746" RevisionGUID="0901c8ba-f6d0-4600-bd56-f2c74fb60e04" CreationDate="2018-07-06T05:45:32.097" UserId="10578" Text="One of the meanings the &quot;по&quot; conveys is &quot;pertaining to&quot;. &quot;Заседание по поводу [чего-то]&quot; -- &quot;meeting to discuss/celebrate [something]&quot;; &quot;работы по данной теме&quot; -- &quot;[scientific] works on this subject&quot;; &quot;сосед по [лестничной] площадке&quot; -- &quot;neighbour whose flat's located at the same [stairs] landing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The aside: your case with dative singular wouldn't work, I think, you'd want &quot;партнер/противник **в** поединке/игре&quot; here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42355" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16743" RevisionGUID="adc984ee-0773-4d29-ab66-c41488b694a6" CreationDate="2018-07-06T06:52:26.617" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1015126307523440641" />
  <row Id="42358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16747" RevisionGUID="496822b5-167c-4abf-b644-952a62c92cf5" CreationDate="2018-07-07T08:33:33.347" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;отобрать **у** тебя что-то&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition *у* usually refers to something being in someone's possession, so this phrase should literally translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;take away **your** (something/belongings/house/car)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I wonder if native speakers perhaps see it as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;take away (something/everything/a car) **from** you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... even though the preposition *у*, in and of itself, does not have the sense of &quot;from/**от**&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16747" RevisionGUID="496822b5-167c-4abf-b644-952a62c92cf5" CreationDate="2018-07-07T08:33:33.347" UserId="8672" Text="How do Russian speakers see the preposition &quot;у&quot; in &quot;отобрать у тебя что-то&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16747" RevisionGUID="496822b5-167c-4abf-b644-952a62c92cf5" CreationDate="2018-07-07T08:33:33.347" UserId="8672" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42362" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16728" RevisionGUID="692fb065-793a-41b5-a87d-13899aade5eb" CreationDate="2018-07-07T09:52:27.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1015533997231878145" />
  <row Id="42363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16749" RevisionGUID="134de911-eded-4fc0-839f-1ab1df0e503d" CreationDate="2018-07-07T11:53:48.993" UserId="1833" Text="Well, I think that this particular one has more accent on the fact that you get your fish and you haven't done anything to catch that, so sneaky lucky bastard you. We have a bunch of other possibilities with the same beginning about a fish, which carry &quot;you want too much at the same moment&quot; sense. One of them is that vulgar one mentioned already И рыбку съесть и на хуй сесть (to eat a fish and to sit on a dick). The rhyme and the rude word multiply the comic effect of the phrase. Another one which is completely fine for children (and understood by children) would be И рыбку съесть и на люстре покататься (to eat a fish and to ride a chandelier). So in the sense &quot;there would be too many pleasures for you&quot; I'd use (and I do use) the 2 last ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="2bc80cda-3b49-49f1-92cd-082a9ed8d562" CreationDate="2018-07-08T00:49:44.610" UserId="7239" Text="**Note:** Please let me know if this question is off-topic, so it can be closed or deleted. I am afraid that it either focuses too much on Russian culture, or alternatively is asking for a translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background/Context:** I often find that, at least when interacting with me as a foreigner, my Russian friends are what I believe to be [&quot;too polite&quot;](https://www.becomingminimalist.com/danger-here/) to me. In particular, it is often my impression that they readily say white lies to me because they think that is what I want to hear. Russian culture seems to place a very large importance on &quot;hospitality&quot;, and pleasing the guest no matter what seems to fall under the umbrella of the Russian notion of &quot;hospitality&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether or not any of the above is true, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Question:** How would could I ask a Russian to &quot;not just say what you think I want to hear&quot; or to &quot;cut the shit&quot; or to &quot;forego white lies&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only things I could think of are complicated constructs using unwieldy relative clauses, and which seem like they would most likely be misinterpreted due to me using the wrong word order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Пожалуйста, не скажи мне просто то, что ты думаешь, что я хочу слышать, а правду.&#xD;&#xA; - Не соври мне дела потому что ты думаешь, что я хочу услышать такие дела.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [link](http://www.correctenglish.ru/reference/idioms/white-lie/) seems to offer some Russian expressions which are similar to the English idiom &quot;white lie&quot;, but since they are Russian idioms I don't feel that I know how to use them properly to communicate what I want to say. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - невинная ложь  &#xD;&#xA; - ложь во спасение  &#xD;&#xA; - мелкая ложь с целью пощадить чьи-либо чувства  &#xD;&#xA; - специально солгать кому-либо, чтобы кого-либо не расстраивать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be possible to give some examples of how to use these expressions idiomatically to convey the sort of meaning stated above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is just the linguistic issue. There is also the issue of navigating our different cultural perspectives. To me, the lack of authenticity/authenticity prevents us from getting to know each other and therefore weakens our friendship. But to them, it probably seems like they are being very good hosts, and therefore strengthening the friendship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="2bc80cda-3b49-49f1-92cd-082a9ed8d562" CreationDate="2018-07-08T00:49:44.610" UserId="7239" Text="How to ask someone to be less polite and not use white lies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="2bc80cda-3b49-49f1-92cd-082a9ed8d562" CreationDate="2018-07-08T00:49:44.610" UserId="7239" Text="|культура|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16739" RevisionGUID="f8d9bdcc-60ff-4643-8d6e-46d61874f7be" CreationDate="2018-07-08T00:52:33.503" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1015760514746601472" />
  <row Id="42372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16752" RevisionGUID="942672a4-e97c-4831-849c-928a6934a1f0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T01:04:38.247" UserId="10749" Text="&quot;Давай на прямую&quot;/&quot;давай напрямоту&quot; or &quot;говори прямо&quot; are good expressions, literally meaning &quot;Speak directly&quot;, &quot;be direct&quot;. There is also very casual expression &quot;давай по чесноку&quot; where &quot;по чесноку&quot; is a replacement for &quot;по честному&quot;, meaning &quot;let's be honest&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16752" RevisionGUID="cefdfa00-25d8-48f3-91cd-9b7d48615c5d" CreationDate="2018-07-08T02:36:36.747" UserId="10749" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="&quot;Давай напрямую&quot;/&quot;давай напрямоту&quot; or &quot;говори прямо&quot; are good expressions, literally meaning &quot;Speak directly&quot;, &quot;be direct&quot;. &quot;Напрямую&quot; can be translated as &quot;straight up&quot;. There is also very casual expression &quot;давай по чесноку&quot; where &quot;по чесноку&quot; is a replacement for &quot;по честному&quot;, meaning &quot;let's be honest&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16753" RevisionGUID="2828407b-8cd0-4288-a351-9e95257733eb" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:06:17.913" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;В Париже для меня слишком жарко! **Нет уж**, лучше Женева, там прохладнее!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if  &quot;нет уж&quot; serves to emphasise the comparative &quot;лучше&quot; in some way? How is this expression usually used?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16753" RevisionGUID="2828407b-8cd0-4288-a351-9e95257733eb" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:06:17.913" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;нет уж&quot; in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16753" RevisionGUID="2828407b-8cd0-4288-a351-9e95257733eb" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:06:17.913" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16754" RevisionGUID="2759bc25-bff9-4603-8da4-170a462fa38a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T05:46:19.693" UserId="10578" Text="Yes, you're right, &quot;нет уж&quot; expression serves as an intensifier, introducing a (somewhat) emotional attitude of the speaker into the phrase, sometimes even as a joke. It does not add anything to the core meaning of the phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of its meaning as of: &quot;oh no(, you don't); no way you'd get me/him/her/us/... (agreeing to smth., doing smth., etc.); me no fool&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="17013924-4a53-4d96-ac47-cfe7750dfa0d" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:31:39.537" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Были бы** они поумнее, могли бы сами так делать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if a past-tense verb followed by &quot;бы&quot; always makes for a conditional clause without &quot;если&quot;? Is there any difference in register and whatnot, compared to the usual conditional clause with &quot;если&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="17013924-4a53-4d96-ac47-cfe7750dfa0d" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:31:39.537" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;Были бы они поумнее&quot;: How does this conditional clause compare with the usual &quot;если&quot; conditional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16755" RevisionGUID="17013924-4a53-4d96-ac47-cfe7750dfa0d" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:31:39.537" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16756" RevisionGUID="64e99d8c-03f1-43d4-94ac-4a7ba7a85d47" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:33:04.707" UserId="1833" Text="Will add my 5 cents here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай [вот] без этого&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;literally means &quot;*let's [speak] without that*&quot;. Of course fits only for communication between friends. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ой,] давай попроще&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &quot;*[oh], let's [speak] simpler*&quot; again should be used in very informal situations. And I'd say this one is very colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давай без формальностей / Обойдёмся без формальностей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which can be translated as &quot;*let's [speak] without formalities / we can do it without formalities*&quot; and could be used in a broader range of contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these 3 would be used just to tell people to stop being polite and take formalities away. Not sure if that's applicable for white lies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16757" RevisionGUID="05d66062-6be6-4260-9cf2-dc74d662b677" CreationDate="2018-07-08T06:47:05.497" UserId="1833" Text="That adds a bit of contempt and disregard I'd say. One more thing adds up in this particular phrase: the prefix &quot;по&quot; in &quot;поумнее&quot;. We can compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы они были умнее, то могли бы сами так сделать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pretty neutral, however a bit of disregard exists even there, but that's the usual thing in phrases like &quot;if they had been smarter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы они были поумнее, то могли бы сами так сделать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adds up to that. And then your phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Были бы они поумнее, могли бы сами так делать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the maximizing of that disregarding effect is reached exactly because you throw some words &quot;если, то&quot; away. The phrase start to sound as if it was spoken by an old woman from a village. And if she knows how to make the things properly...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16758" RevisionGUID="ffd87853-0648-49bc-834f-c700d6cc1fb0" CreationDate="2018-07-08T07:07:04.357" UserId="10578" Text="Regarding the grammar side, use of &quot;если&quot; in such constructs is sort of optional (implied) in conversational speech, but expected in formal/literary speech. Regarding the meaning itself, both &quot;если бы были поумнее&quot; and &quot;были бы поумнее&quot; are equivalent. Old-ish/out-of-use equivalents: &quot;ежели/кабы [как бы] были поумнее&quot;; if you want to (jokingly) parade your (Church Slavonic) erudition: &quot;аще были бы поумнее&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16759" RevisionGUID="bcda5080-2b2c-4d9b-a78d-28c8eec7697a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:12:11.447" UserId="1640" Text="* Говори без прикрас (talk without embellishing the facts)&#xD;&#xA;* Режь правду-матку (say the unembellished, naked truth, it is implied that this truth may hurt and you accept it)&#xD;&#xA;* Давай по чесноку (informal, plays on the similarity between честно (honest) and чеснок (garlic))&#xD;&#xA;* [По гамбургскому счету](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гамбургский_счёт) (tell something as it is, based on hard facts)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16757" RevisionGUID="ff143110-b116-41ca-8fba-86506b53e9a7" CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:38:12.867" UserId="1833" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="That adds a bit of contempt and disregard I'd say. One more thing adds up in this particular phrase: the prefix &quot;по&quot; in &quot;поумнее&quot;. We can compare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы они были умнее, то могли бы сами так делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;pretty neutral, however a bit of disregard exists even there, but that's the usual thing in phrases like &quot;if they had been smarter&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы они были поумнее, то могли бы сами так делать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;adds up to that. And then your phrase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Были бы они поумнее, могли бы сами так делать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the maximizing of that disregarding effect is reached exactly because you throw some words &quot;если, то&quot; away. The phrase start to sound as if it was spoken by an old woman from a village. And if she knows how to make the things properly...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16749" RevisionGUID="18963402-6b33-453c-b447-882cd5681c06" CreationDate="2018-07-08T08:45:21.947" UserId="1833" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="Well, I think that this particular one has more accent on the fact that you get your fish and you haven't done anything to catch that, so sneaky lucky bastard you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a bunch of other possibilities with the same beginning about a fish, which carry &quot;*you want too much at the same moment*&quot; sense. Note that these phrases below mention completely different activities, on contrast with both your examples with the fish and the cake, which might be essential difference. One of them is that vulgar one mentioned already: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть и на хуй сесть (to eat a fish and to sit onto a [someones] dick).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rhyme and the rude word multiply the comic effect of the phrase. Another one which is completely fine for children (well, because children are usually the ones who want too many) would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И рыбку съесть и на люстре покататься (to eat a fish and to ride a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chandelier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the sense &quot;there would be too many pleasures for you&quot; I'd use (and I do use) the 2 last ones. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16752" RevisionGUID="cf1578b5-1890-43fa-b861-d268b1fc5286" CreationDate="2018-07-08T18:05:13.687" UserId="2104" Comment="Орфография" Text="&quot;Давай напрямую&quot;/&quot;давай напрямоту&quot; or &quot;говори прямо&quot; are good expressions, literally meaning &quot;Speak directly&quot;, &quot;be direct&quot;. &quot;Напрямую&quot; can be translated as &quot;straight up&quot;. There is also very casual expression &quot;давай по чесноку&quot; where &quot;по чесноку&quot; is a replacement for &quot;по-честному&quot;, meaning &quot;let's be honest&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="bd36411d-3c33-4c3e-b9c1-7dbdd0c8ac80" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:12:53.620" UserId="10420" Text="I was wondering how you can say in Russian that you are moving into a new house/apartment or moving to a new city (to live there, not to visit it). I find it difficult to find a good translation for this, since in most contexts &quot;to move&quot; means something else. Moreover, without asking a native speaker it's hard to check whether a word has the right connotation or not (for example, &quot;to migrate&quot; would have a similar meaning but different connotation to &quot;to move&quot;). Could someone help me translate this? Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="bd36411d-3c33-4c3e-b9c1-7dbdd0c8ac80" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:12:53.620" UserId="10420" Text="How to say &quot;moving in to a new house&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="bd36411d-3c33-4c3e-b9c1-7dbdd0c8ac80" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:12:53.620" UserId="10420" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16761" RevisionGUID="0ad78826-8cbe-40d8-92ac-ef7914290a70" CreationDate="2018-07-08T19:21:19.250" UserId="6539" Text="The verb is переехать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Переехать в новый дом, в новую квартиру, переехать в другой город.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb is perfective. Its imperfective pair is переезжать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;За свою жизнь они несколько раз переезжали с квартиры на квартиру, с места на место." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="32cfacdb-1328-4496-8b0a-9a88120b352a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T23:24:25.073" UserId="2104" Comment="Typo: spats -&gt; spars." Text="&gt;партнер **по** поединкам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Context: The speaker was jokingly mentioning someone he often has spars with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *why* of using the preposition &quot;по&quot; does not come naturally to me: &quot;a partner **for** quarrels&quot;? Could it be that &quot;партнер&quot; often, if not always, takes &quot;по&quot; as a preposition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside: Does &quot;партнер по поединку&quot; in the dative singular work just as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16762" RevisionGUID="f31d41bc-4ea5-42b6-8c83-897354e20876" CreationDate="2018-07-08T23:45:13.567" UserId="2104" Text="Yes, партнёр is often followed by по:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* партнёр по бизнесу = business partner&#xD;&#xA;* партнёр по танцам = dancing partner&#xD;&#xA;* коллега по работе = work colleague&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Singular (партнёр по поединку) would mean a partner just for the current round / fight, whereas партнёр по поединкам (plural) means a regular sparring partner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="9a31487b-1aa5-4c7f-b114-6557156d14a0" CreationDate="2018-07-09T02:36:35.037" UserId="8672" Text="С английским выражением «he raised his eyebrow**s** / he didn't even raise his eyebrow**s**» обязательно следует, строго говоря, поставить существительное «eyebrows» во множественное число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С точки зрения логики и имеет больший смысл повести обеими брови с удивлением при виде какого-то шокирующего события. Тогда тем более интересно, наоборот ли обычно бывает в русском языке:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;напр. «он и **бровью** не повел» вм. «он и **бровями** не повел»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или, возможно, единственное «бровью» употребляется только в отрицательном предложении, чтобы подчеркнуть, что он даже не потрудился пошевелить единой бровью? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Викисловарь, точнее английская [Википедия][1], показывает обе версии, не упоминая о возможной разнице в использовании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="9a31487b-1aa5-4c7f-b114-6557156d14a0" CreationDate="2018-07-09T02:36:35.037" UserId="8672" Text="«повести бровью» vs. «повести бровями»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="9a31487b-1aa5-4c7f-b114-6557156d14a0" CreationDate="2018-07-09T02:36:35.037" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="5de12f87-957f-48ed-84e3-9741e828e8b1" CreationDate="2018-07-09T02:41:50.840" UserId="8672" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="С английским выражением «he raised his eyebrow**s** / he didn't even raise his eyebrow**s**» обязательно следует, строго говоря, поставить существительное «eyebrows» во множественное число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С точки зрения логики и имеет больший смысл повести обеими брови с удивлением при виде какого-то шокирующего события. Тогда тем более интересно, наоборот ли обычно бывает в русском языке:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;напр. «он и **бровью** не повел» вм. «он и **бровями** не повел»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или, возможно, единственное «бровью» употребляется только в отрицательном предложении, чтобы подчеркнуть, что он даже не потрудился пошевелить единой бровью? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Викисловарь, точнее английская [Википедия][1], показывает обе версии, не упоминая о возможной разнице в использовании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16764" RevisionGUID="4cc02d7b-c365-4fcc-a218-c0ae4cd4e13d" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:00:51.503" UserId="9100" Text="Какая тут связь с борщом? Есть ли похожие примеры?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16764" RevisionGUID="4cc02d7b-c365-4fcc-a218-c0ae4cd4e13d" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:00:51.503" UserId="9100" Text="Переборщить - исходное значение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16764" RevisionGUID="4cc02d7b-c365-4fcc-a218-c0ae4cd4e13d" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:00:51.503" UserId="9100" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16765" RevisionGUID="885331e3-731b-40f6-8034-300d35f9d5a6" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:04:41.817" UserId="5443" Text="В английском единственное число тоже употребляется: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I led him through into the dining-room, and when he saw the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nearly-eaten steak on a plate the dear man did not even **raise an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eyebrow**.Barnard, Robert THE DISPOSAL OF THE LIVING (2002)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/raise-an-eyebrow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском выражении &quot;*и бровью не повёл*&quot; с отрицанием - да, есть усилительный оттенок &quot;*даже одной*&quot;. Похожий пример из английской книжки: '*do not say a thing or even **move an eyebrow***'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=Z3QgAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA57&amp;img=1&amp;pgis=1&amp;dq=even-move-an-eyebrow&amp;sig=ACfU3U35JUu8hq_nO9IsCgqTy4wtKBrSmA&amp;edge=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16766" RevisionGUID="1e17bb4d-cddb-4712-868f-50cbac86d6eb" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:21:44.867" UserId="1236" Text="The things can be looked at differently, and I'll try to explain it.  &#xD;&#xA;I'll begin with another verb, **брать у** ('take from'). The idea of how the preposition `y` denotes possession is following: `y` actually means &quot;near, at&quot;, so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **у стены** means '*at the wall, near the wall*'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **у Петра** actually means '*at Peter's*'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У Петра есть машина** is '*At Peters there's a-car*'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я брал книги у Петра** is something like '*I took books at Peter's.*'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if we speak about **отобрать у**, it's almost the same, with an interesting exception of the prefix **ото-** which is a positional variant of the prefix **от-** derived from the preposition **от**, 'from'.  &#xD;&#xA;What I mean is, this prefix **ото-** corresponds to the English 'away' in **take away from**. Since 'away' has almost the same meaning as 'from', it's the English manner of constructing the phrase **take away from** which looks rather strange, it's almost the same as saying ***take from from**, while the Russian **отобрать у** is pretty logical, it's like ***from-take at**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16767" RevisionGUID="aaaf73e0-3133-4452-81ab-6e7c40dec5c1" CreationDate="2018-07-09T05:38:52.637" UserId="6539" Text="В словаре Даля написано, что &quot;боршить&quot; - означает &quot;**лить без толку много, через край**&quot;.(to pour a lot of liquid without limit)&#xD;&#xA;А по мнению П.Я.Черных (автора историко-этимологического словаря русского языка), глагол &quot;переборщить&quot; связан со словом &quot;**переборчивый**&quot; &quot;строгий в выборе, требовательный; **привередливый**, разборчивый).(demanding, hard to please ), существительным &quot;перебор&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Связи с «борщом», как едой нет. There's no connection with the food &quot;borshch&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="cab8ac39-9a23-4a8d-a888-bda729c688e1" CreationDate="2018-07-09T09:52:34.897" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1016258804365787137" />
  <row Id="42406" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16751" RevisionGUID="c0cc50d3-c332-41e7-986b-8f8aef8d4d0d" CreationDate="2018-07-09T12:52:33.473" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1016304097006374914" />
  <row Id="42409" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16747" RevisionGUID="cfd65581-0042-46cb-a428-543ccac6d390" CreationDate="2018-07-09T15:52:34.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1016349398991810562" />
  <row Id="42410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16768" RevisionGUID="43415c90-ec03-4c91-82c8-a0cde910a1e6" CreationDate="2018-07-09T23:59:29.223" UserId="9602" Text="**у** does have the sense of “from”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4.** Указывает на источник получения, приобретения чего-л. *Взял книгу у товарища. Отобрали мячик у ребёнка. У соседей раздобыли немного муки. У кого ты это взяла? Сейчас же отдай назад! У кого нам помощи просить? Учись у товарищей. У кого бы взять денег в долг?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Большой толковый словарь][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D1%83&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16730" RevisionGUID="d7b5e5d4-cf44-41eb-bead-83702ccf6d8f" CreationDate="2018-07-10T15:52:33.690" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1016711783212572672" />
  <row Id="42412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="b133b974-8a0e-4955-81dd-939964f409fd" CreationDate="2018-07-10T19:20:17.413" UserId="10775" Text="It's not a plural form of accusative case. It's singular form of genitive case. Like `нет кого\чего?` `доказательства`. Plural form of accusative case for this word is `доказательств`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16708" RevisionGUID="24dbcce5-0279-45ef-a082-2889d829ef26" CreationDate="2018-07-10T22:03:49.330" UserId="334" Comment="edited body" Text="First, I would go with different translation in English for the first Russian sentence, smth. like &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Choose your side (in the conflict&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Choose the side you support&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the second Russian sentence the best translation would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Choose where are you standing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the first sentence has a somewhat idiomatic luggage, implying context of conflict, but the second uses verb &quot;стоять&quot; that is mostly used in context of &quot;standing on your legs&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the first sentence should be written as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выбери, на чьей ты стороне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a complex sentence. It looks weird, because both parts are grammatically incomplete, but there are two of them, and they should be separated by a comma. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's nitpicking. As for the actual question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian connections between words are not regulated by their position, or, more precisely, position is second to inflections. In this particular case, &quot;чьей&quot; is controlled by &quot;стороне&quot; as both words are of female gender and in Preposition case. *Usual*, i.e. default word order in a sentence is subject-verb-object. The verb in the second part of the first sentence is omitted, so it is subject-object. In part adjective-object, adjective is usually first. So, normally it should be &quot;Выбери, ты на чьей стороне&quot;, and it is perfectly fine. However! It is a good idea to specify, what should be chosen, i.e. what links the first part of the sentence and the second. It is &quot;чьей&quot;, i.e. what is to be chosen. And so this word is moved forward, and since it does not create ambiguity, it is also perfectly fine. There is not an iron-clad rule for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="adecd5b1-e8bc-4b29-ae1f-b0471eccfae0" CreationDate="2018-07-10T22:10:45.177" UserId="10775" Comment="Changed incorrect info" Text="It's not a plural form of accusative case. It's singular form of genitive case. Like `нет кого\чего?` `доказательства`. Plural form of accusative case for this word is `эти доказательства`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="7b0a9ac8-e17d-4f46-b708-a43b72a75b04" CreationDate="2018-07-10T23:15:51.827" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Как ни странно, но даже **при таком отношении** к учебе, я умудрился сдать все экзамены за второе учебное полугодие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Как ни странно, но даже **с таким отношением** к учебе, я умудрился сдать все экзамены за второе учебное полугодие.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an English speaker's perspective, it is tempting to opt for the preposition &quot;с&quot; to express the idea of &quot;**with** such attitude towards ...&quot;. In this context, French, Italian and German also use the *with* prepositions: &quot;avec/con/mit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it is more common in Russian to choose the preposition &quot;при&quot;. How are these two nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="7b0a9ac8-e17d-4f46-b708-a43b72a75b04" CreationDate="2018-07-10T23:15:51.827" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between the prepositions &quot;при&quot; and &quot;с&quot; in &quot;при таком отношении к учебе&quot; vs &quot;с таким отношением к учебе&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="7b0a9ac8-e17d-4f46-b708-a43b72a75b04" CreationDate="2018-07-10T23:15:51.827" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="66d8d102-befa-4733-8ae7-0d5e0869151e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:09:32.363" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Кулинарный опыт кулинарным опытом**, но вы еще совсем дети.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Context: Two kids have outstanding culinary skills, especially given their young age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the phrase literally translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Culinary skills are **in** culinary skills (**only**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it basically means something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You two have outstanding culinary skills, I'll grant you that, but **leaving them aside**, you're still kids, all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: You two have remarkable culinary skills, I'll give you that, but **it doesn't change the fact that** you're still kids through and through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside (1): How do you paraphrase the expression if instead of the adjective &quot;кулинарный&quot; you have a genitive noun like &quot;работы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;??? **Опыт работы опытом работы**, но ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside (2): Are there other similar expressions that use a deliberately *repetitious* wording like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="66d8d102-befa-4733-8ae7-0d5e0869151e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:09:32.363" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret the expression &quot;кулинарный опыт кулинарным опытом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="66d8d102-befa-4733-8ae7-0d5e0869151e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:09:32.363" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="4ce04a39-feb0-44b4-9b76-302091aa22c5" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:22:21.743" UserId="8672" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Кулинарный опыт кулинарным опытом**, но вы еще совсем дети.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Context: Two kids have outstanding culinary skills, especially given their young age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the phrase literally translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Culinary skills are **in** culinary skills (**only**) -- not to be  associated with anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it basically means something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You two have outstanding culinary skills, I'll grant you that, but **leaving them aside**, you're still kids, all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: You two have remarkable culinary skills, I'll give you that, but **it doesn't change the fact that** you're still kids through and through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside (1): How do you paraphrase the expression if instead of the adjective &quot;кулинарный&quot; you have a genitive noun like &quot;работы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;??? **Опыт работы опытом работы**, но ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside (2): Are there other similar expressions that use a deliberately *repetitious* wording like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16773" RevisionGUID="b5ab6064-9f0f-4947-9ef1-df1c9f0697fe" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:28:36.987" UserId="9602" Text="If **с** is **with,** then **при** is **given.** “При”, the more official-sounding of the two, just states some condition, while “с” implies closer ties to the speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentences given sound 99% equivalent because “отношение к учебе” is internal to the student anyway. But compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не могу работать при таком свете — anyone could say this to complain about the workplace being poorly lit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не могу работать с таким светом — while this usage could be synonymous with the above in principle, this heavily implies that light is an essential part of the work, e. g. a photographer could say this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="de148065-fa7e-488f-9f7e-7b090fafd563" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:45:23.590" UserId="10749" Text="I would actually translate it as &quot;Having some culinary skills is fine and dandy, but you're still just kids.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it means that you are agreeing with some point that's been made, but you want to point out some larger context or some circumstances that make things a bit more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;There are a few expressions like that, one that comes to mind is &quot;Работа работой, а обед по расписанию&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42430" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16724" RevisionGUID="b8529141-7878-49ae-8274-dea43441280c" CreationDate="2018-07-11T00:52:36.793" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1016847692373352448" />
  <row Id="42431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="70c17025-ccf4-4fc9-8374-d4d41ae04900" CreationDate="2018-07-11T01:01:26.377" UserId="8672" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Кулинарный опыт кулинарным опытом**, но вы еще совсем дети.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Context: Two kids have outstanding culinary skills, especially given their young age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the phrase literally translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Culinary skills are **in** culinary skills (**only**) -- not to be  associated with anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it basically means something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You two have outstanding culinary skills, I'll grant you that, but **leaving them aside**, you're still kids, all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: You two have remarkable culinary skills, I'll give you that, but **it doesn't change the fact that** you're still kids through and through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside (1): How do you paraphrase the expression if instead of the adjective &quot;кулинарный&quot; you have a genitive noun like &quot;работы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;??? **Опыт работы опытом работы**, но ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside (2): Are there other similar expressions that use a deliberately *repetitious* wording like this? Or can you apply this &quot;nominative + instrumental&quot; construction to virtually any context? For instance, can you express this part in bold with this construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I love music, but (**for all my love of it**) I need to be more realistic in choosing my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="5fcf6cac-8729-4269-bdfa-a6a414f3f576" CreationDate="2018-07-11T01:12:08.753" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Кулинарный опыт кулинарным опытом**, но вы еще совсем дети.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Context: Two kids have outstanding culinary skills, especially given their young age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the phrase literally translates as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Culinary skills are **in** culinary skills (**only**) -- not to be  associated with anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if it basically means something along the lines of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;You two have outstanding culinary skills, I'll grant you that, but **leaving them aside**, you're still kids, all right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{or}: You two have remarkable culinary skills, I'll give you that, but **it doesn't change the fact that** you're still kids through and through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q1): How do you paraphrase the expression if instead of the adjective &quot;кулинарный&quot; you have a genitive noun like &quot;работы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;??? **Опыт работы опытом работы**, но ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q2): Are there other similar expressions that use a deliberately *repetitious* wording like this? Or can you apply this &quot;nominative + instrumental&quot; construction to virtually any context? For instance, can you express this part in bold with this construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I love music, but (**for all my love of it**) I need to be more realistic in choosing my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="80148c5a-4c95-4e22-b3de-91e8b6890de7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T02:16:11.340" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Казалось бы, ей пора повзрослеть, **а она все такая же...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just received an IM from my girlfriend, in which she was jokingly alluding to her friend's too-*lenient* attitude -- for someone in the modelling field -- towards her daily diet. My girlfriend typically sticks to a healthy diet to stay in shape, while her friend is less so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the context, I'm assuming it means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It would seem it's high time she grew up and started paying more attention to what she eats, **but she's always/still such a...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q1): Is some adjective (not a short-form one) omitted at the end: &quot;such a + (adjective)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q2): Does &quot;все&quot; here mean &quot;always&quot; or &quot;still&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q3): Does &quot;же&quot; -- coupled with &quot;а&quot; -- serve as a contrasting particle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="80148c5a-4c95-4e22-b3de-91e8b6890de7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T02:16:11.340" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;а она все такая же...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="80148c5a-4c95-4e22-b3de-91e8b6890de7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T02:16:11.340" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="b320fc67-c57e-4800-afac-02e7e2c852a7" CreationDate="2018-07-11T02:21:21.420" UserId="8672" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;Казалось бы, ей пора повзрослеть, **а она все такая же...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just received an IM from my girlfriend, in which she was jokingly alluding to her friend's too-*lenient* attitude -- for someone in the modelling field -- towards her daily diet. My girlfriend typically sticks to a healthy diet to stay in shape, while her friend is less so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the context, I'm assuming it means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It would seem it's high time she grew up (and started paying more attention to what she eats), **but she's always such a...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q1): Is some adjective (not a short-form one) omitted at the end: &quot;such a + (adjective)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q2): Does &quot;все&quot; mean &quot;always&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q3): Does &quot;же&quot; -- coupled with &quot;а&quot; -- serve as a contrasting particle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="b88cf4f8-6ef4-424a-b4dc-07c5790ca3dd" CreationDate="2018-07-11T02:29:53.990" UserId="8672" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="&gt;Казалось бы, ей пора повзрослеть, **а она все такая же...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just received an IM from my girlfriend, in which she was jokingly alluding to her friend's too-*lenient* attitude -- for someone in the modelling field -- towards her daily diet. My girlfriend typically sticks to a healthy diet to stay in shape, while her friend is less so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the context, I'm assuming it means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It would seem it's high time she grew up (and started paying more attention to what she eats), **but she's always such a...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q1): Is some adjective (not a short-form one) omitted at the end: &quot;such a + (adjective)&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q2): Does &quot;все&quot; mean &quot;always&quot; here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Q3): Does &quot;же&quot; -- coupled with &quot;а&quot; -- serve as a contrasting particle? I find the position of &quot;же&quot; curious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16776" RevisionGUID="83d23f15-5ba2-40a4-826c-4ce9470d50e9" CreationDate="2018-07-11T04:24:00.660" UserId="10578" Text="This &quot;[smth.] in nominative+instrumental&quot; construction is used in conversational speech, indeed, when you want to convey &quot;[smth.] is fine [by itself]/does as it must do, but ...&quot; or &quot;putting [smth.] aside, ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mildly confrontational, somewhat assuming greater expertise on the speaker' part (perhaps correctly). &quot;It's right/fine of you to do/say/point out/be capable of [smth.], but [my greater expertise] leads to ...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16777" RevisionGUID="910ca0e8-3239-43f8-b367-d7cd18c156f2" CreationDate="2018-07-11T04:31:34.590" UserId="10578" Text="What's omitted in such a phrase is expansion/explanation of the ellipsis to the tune of &quot;still same old self [compared with old self who was/did/looked/etc. ...]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, &quot;все такой/такая/такие же&quot; translates as &quot;same old self/selves&quot;, and the phrase is quite comprehensible without that expansion/explanation, anyway, going by the 1st part (here, food habits).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q2: &quot;все&quot; means &quot;still&quot; here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q3: &quot;же&quot; goes with &quot;такой/такая/такие&quot; and together those usually mean &quot;same as&quot;, but in the context those mean &quot;same as [old self]&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16763" RevisionGUID="929ca956-2f43-4f51-b49a-413b79ee3223" CreationDate="2018-07-11T09:10:42.980" UserId="1097" Comment="согласование падежей" Text="С английским выражением «he raised his eyebrow**s** / he didn't even raise his eyebrow**s**» обязательно следует, строго говоря, поставить существительное «eyebrows» во множественное число.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С точки зрения логики и имеет больший смысл повести обеими бровями с удивлением при виде какого-то шокирующего события. Тогда тем более интересно, наоборот ли обычно бывает в русском языке:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;напр. «он и **бровью** не повел» вм. «он и **бровями** не повел»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или, возможно, единственное «бровью» употребляется только в отрицательном предложении, чтобы подчеркнуть, что он даже не потрудился пошевелить единой бровью? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Викисловарь, точнее английская [Википедия][1], показывает обе версии, не упоминая о возможной разнице в использовании.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42441" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16650" RevisionGUID="e3472694-ceab-4c46-8618-05c4ac750b42" CreationDate="2018-07-11T09:52:36.507" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1016983586833092608" />
  <row Id="42442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="56e0c134-6aec-4ee5-82f1-c74e37f095fc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T12:37:51.723" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**На что я не люблю Артёма**, но сейчас мне бы пригодилась его помощь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem this part roughly means &quot;I can't stand him&quot;, but how does it get to have this meaning? The phrase &quot;я не люблю Артёма&quot; obviously means &quot;I don't like him&quot;, but what is the function of &quot;На что&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="56e0c134-6aec-4ee5-82f1-c74e37f095fc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T12:37:51.723" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;На что я не люблю Артёма&quot; mean &quot;I can't stand him&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16778" RevisionGUID="56e0c134-6aec-4ee5-82f1-c74e37f095fc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T12:37:51.723" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16641" RevisionGUID="c71c1af9-eb14-4068-88c6-f24c2adc1915" CreationDate="2018-07-11T12:52:36.643" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017028885886717954" />
  <row Id="42446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16779" RevisionGUID="d75218ad-4557-44ad-aa76-d2865743a39e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T12:55:28.873" UserId="242" Text="Actually &quot;I can't stand him&quot; is actually `я не выношу его` or `я не переношу его` or `я на дух его не могу терпеть` - it's different (more passionate, if you will) than &quot;I don't like him&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of `на что` the closes English equivalent would be `as much as`, so the phrase altogether can be translated something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As much as I don't like Artyom I'd appreciate his help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't need to understand the logic behind `на что` in this meaning - it's just a phrase one should remember and understand when it used and when it doesn't. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16780" RevisionGUID="0dea4d3a-70b5-492f-8495-829810a9616d" CreationDate="2018-07-11T13:45:38.140" UserId="10776" Text="In Russian word &quot;*переборщить*&quot; has meaning like &quot;*to make smth more than it needs*&quot;. For example, when you are cooking a soup, you can add so much salt and in this case we can say: &quot;*Я переборщил с солью*&quot; (What means &quot;*I added so much salt*&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16781" RevisionGUID="5a1746c0-d8d3-4253-b36b-d3ccd90f6702" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:21:23.043" UserId="10270" Text="I understand that the possessor is in the genitive case but what is the difference between машина девушки and машина у девушки and у девушки есть машина and я вожу машину девушки and я вожу машину у девушки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16781" RevisionGUID="5a1746c0-d8d3-4253-b36b-d3ccd90f6702" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:21:23.043" UserId="10270" Text="expressing possession" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16781" RevisionGUID="5a1746c0-d8d3-4253-b36b-d3ccd90f6702" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:21:23.043" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16782" RevisionGUID="77242489-7ad8-4f82-b72f-3de17e963708" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:29:06.907" UserId="10578" Text="The combinations of words &quot;машина&quot; and &quot;девушка&quot; in numbers 1 to 4 express approximately the same meaning -- &quot;car [which] belongs to girl [and I drive it]&quot;. Number 5, however, might sooner mean  &quot;I drive the car [in the company/firm/organisation] belonging to the girl&quot;. It would hardly relate to the girl's possession of the car itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16781" RevisionGUID="0c1551ae-2181-4430-9b52-1184b7bf12a5" CreationDate="2018-07-11T14:42:49.310" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Машина девушки&quot; and &quot;машина у девушки&quot; - what's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16783" RevisionGUID="d144a023-9bfa-4577-9c32-a0f4c2d8f8ea" CreationDate="2018-07-11T15:12:02.637" UserId="1836" Text="I would assume that &quot;девушка&quot; in these sentences stands for someone's girlfriend though it could be some other girl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`машина девушки` is most simple – &quot;my girlfriend's car&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`машина у девушки` is usually used as a part of a sentence. Like &quot;а что за машина у девушки?&quot; — &quot;What kind of car does your girlfriend have?&quot; Or &quot;моя машина сейчас у девушки&quot; — &quot;My car is currently at my girlfriend's place&quot;/&quot;I gave my car to my girlfriend for now&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`у девушки есть машина` – &quot;my girlfriend has a car&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`я вожу машину девушки` - &quot;I drive the my girlfriend's car&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`я вожу машину у девушки` – This doesn't sound naturally. I'd translate it as &quot;I drive a car at my girlfriend's place&quot; or something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="78b29a22-7cb3-4d7e-9c9f-fdae13ef67cd" CreationDate="2018-07-11T16:34:31.447" UserId="10593" Text="how would i say this: 3 journals were gathered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;три журнала собрались? или&#xD;&#xA;три журнала собралось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;more specifically, do i decline according to три or журнала?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I'm wrong, how should i make the sentence? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="78b29a22-7cb3-4d7e-9c9f-fdae13ef67cd" CreationDate="2018-07-11T16:34:31.447" UserId="10593" Text="question of quantity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="78b29a22-7cb3-4d7e-9c9f-fdae13ef67cd" CreationDate="2018-07-11T16:34:31.447" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16785" RevisionGUID="b5c1ff48-8746-4b40-89f3-1ec70f4ea3dc" CreationDate="2018-07-11T16:54:18.097" UserId="9602" Text="Because someone did the gathering, you need to use impersonal sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Собрали три журнала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Было собрано три журнала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would use “собрались” where the subjects actually performed the action: Школьники собрались в классе; and “собралось” where, on the contrary, it just happened: В фильтре собралось много мусора.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for declension, you decline “три журнала” as a whole. Трёх журналов, трём журналам etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16774" RevisionGUID="8bc292c8-2bf8-40a4-9d99-55842192ebdd" CreationDate="2018-07-11T16:57:49.267" UserId="10749" Comment="added 585 characters in body" Text="I would actually translate it as &quot;Having some culinary skills is fine and dandy, but you're still just kids.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it means that you are agreeing with some point that's been made, but you want to point out some larger context or some circumstances that make things a bit more complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few expressions like that, one that comes to mind is &quot;Работа работой, а обед по расписанию&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second part of the question - yes, you can apply it in a number of situations, though not sure about ANY context. For your example: &quot;Музыка музыкой, но мне надо как то деньги зарабатывть&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;You can come up with any number of examples - like &quot;Любовь любовью, но у тебя экзамены на носу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also in many cases (but not always) use &quot; - это, конечно, хорошо, но&quot; Instead of repeating the word or expression. Like so &quot;Музыка - это, конечно, хорошо, но мне надо как то деньги зарабатывть&quot; or in you original sentence - &quot;Кулинарный опыт - это, конечно, хорошо, но...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="ef2a2c9b-eae7-4c72-a9be-1d07ba7c002d" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:25:32.177" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="How would I say &quot;3 journals were gathered&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* три журнала собрались? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* три журнала собралось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, do i decline according to три or журнала?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm wrong, how should i make the sentence? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42460" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="ef2a2c9b-eae7-4c72-a9be-1d07ba7c002d" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:25:32.177" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="&quot;Три журнала собралось&quot; or &quot;собрались&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16781" RevisionGUID="68dc5d69-838a-4910-bb0d-f6fed9107f9e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T19:31:39.950" UserId="242" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I understand that the possessor is in the genitive case but what is the difference between `машина девушки` and `машина у девушки` and `у девушки есть машина` and `я вожу машину девушки` and `я вожу машину у девушки`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42462" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15702" RevisionGUID="7968c4d6-8f70-48b9-9164-8ba0197fa0b8" CreationDate="2018-07-12T00:55:34.293" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017210824602148864" />
  <row Id="42463" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="1ed2dde4-259b-4405-af57-1320a4aa9c6f" CreationDate="2018-07-12T06:55:26.840" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017301390446690304" />
  <row Id="42464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="7e9fb097-3851-4b58-82e1-4e0fc076d233" CreationDate="2018-07-12T08:25:55.000" UserId="5443" Text="Its' the *passive voice* here, so It can't be *собралось/собрались*, which is usually (if not always) about *people* who gathered. Literally, it's **Было собрано 3 журнала**. Depending on context it could also be **Забрали три журнала** (где-то приготовленные). However, **to gather** could be used here as a printing industry term: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gather** – To assemble folded signatures in proper sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pimw.org/about-us/the-printing-industry/glossary-of-print-terms/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which corresponds to the Russian term **подбирать** (распечатанные) **листы**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.apostrof.ru/pubs/2620.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it could actually mean fulfillment of an intermediate operation in printing for 3 items in work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произведён подбор листов для трёх журналов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16786" RevisionGUID="a2f920c3-68fe-41ce-8bdd-cbff4e5fdec2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T08:31:36.200" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Its' the *passive voice* here, so It can't be *собралось/собрались*, which is usually (if not always) about *people* who gathered. Literally, it's **Было собрано 3 журнала**. Depending on context it could also be **Забрали три журнала** (где-то приготовленные). However, **to gather** could be used here as a printing industry term: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Gather** – To assemble folded signatures in proper sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pimw.org/about-us/the-printing-industry/glossary-of-print-terms/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which corresponds to the Russian term **подбирать** (отпечатанные) **листы**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.apostrof.ru/pubs/2620.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it could actually mean fulfillment of an intermediate operation in printing for 3 items in work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произведён подбор листов для трёх журналов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42466" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16772" RevisionGUID="3652d746-e843-4900-b734-b88e9b8eed35" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:55:26.750" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017391987165712385" />
  <row Id="42467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16787" RevisionGUID="d334d301-e9e5-49b1-bc23-8124e529dc2b" CreationDate="2018-07-12T13:36:31.350" UserId="10780" Text="Both singular and plural are possible, but the usage will be different:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Plural: (удивленно) поднять **брови** = raise the eyebrows (in surprise)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Singular: **бровью** не повести, **бровью** не пошевельнуть = not to bat an eyelid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that singular case is a set expression, so you shall just memorize it that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="11e631ab-7c14-49b4-99e6-abfe66695404" CreationDate="2018-07-12T14:34:42.783" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections, formatting ('code formatting' should not be used for emphasis/quoting, see: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135112/295232)" Text="It's not a plural form of the accusative case; it's a singular form of the genitive case. Like 'нет кого\чего?' 'доказательства'. The plural form of the accusative case for this word is 'эти доказательства'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42469" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16769" RevisionGUID="11e631ab-7c14-49b4-99e6-abfe66695404" CreationDate="2018-07-12T14:34:42.783" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 10775 edit id of 984" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16780" RevisionGUID="982fe25e-f577-4135-964e-df383f681dad" CreationDate="2018-07-12T14:39:52.913" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="In Russian, the word &quot;*переборщить*&quot; has a meaning like &quot;*to make something more than it needs*&quot;. For example, when you are cooking a soup, you can add so much salt and in this case we can say: &quot;*Я переборщил с солью*&quot; (Which means &quot;*I added so much salt*&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42471" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="16780" RevisionGUID="982fe25e-f577-4135-964e-df383f681dad" CreationDate="2018-07-12T14:39:52.913" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 10776 edit id of 983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16788" RevisionGUID="9cc18731-7ac8-4e5f-9670-c0e72a3d19b2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T15:23:01.123" UserId="8780" Text="I know that the verb **отказаться** requires the preposition **от** before mentioning the thing to be refused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the following word is a noun, then no problem. The noun declines into the genitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *They refused the silver medal.* **Они отказались от серебряной медали.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if we put a clause after **от** rather than just a noun?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *They refused to receive the silver medal.* Они отказались **от того, чтобы** получить серебряную медаль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it work this way?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16788" RevisionGUID="9cc18731-7ac8-4e5f-9670-c0e72a3d19b2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T15:23:01.123" UserId="8780" Text="отказаться от before a clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16788" RevisionGUID="9cc18731-7ac8-4e5f-9670-c0e72a3d19b2" CreationDate="2018-07-12T15:23:01.123" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16789" RevisionGUID="abc68fab-4af7-4463-a1ea-0c66daf290dd" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:05:56.637" UserId="6539" Text="You can't use собрались,because that presupposes animate nouns, people, but you can use собралось for things in impersonal sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня **собралось** целых три журнала.(accumulated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the meanings of the verb is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Насчитываться, доходить до какого-либо количества, числа**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of the noun depends on the numeral три. &#xD;&#xA;Another variant is passive voice which has already been covered in the previous answers. Both **было собрано** and **были собраны** are valid. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16790" RevisionGUID="dd88bdfa-488d-4ea8-aada-62df9820d7e8" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:20:19.473" UserId="10668" Text="Example sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал с дивана. I got up from the couch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the &quot;с&quot; change the pronunciation of the following &quot;д&quot; to &quot;т&quot;? Or, does it go the other way, with the &quot;с&quot; changing to sound like &quot;з&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал [з] дивана.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я встал с [т]ивана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16790" RevisionGUID="dd88bdfa-488d-4ea8-aada-62df9820d7e8" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:20:19.473" UserId="10668" Text="Does preposition &quot;c&quot; change pronunciation of following to unvoiced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16790" RevisionGUID="dd88bdfa-488d-4ea8-aada-62df9820d7e8" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:20:19.473" UserId="10668" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16791" RevisionGUID="522a3fad-49f4-476a-a1e5-67bf7254793c" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:32:31.703" UserId="1236" Text="You're absolutely right with the Russian translation, only _to receive the silver medal_ is not a clause, it's an infinitive phrase. A clause should have a subject of its own. Anyway, with a real clause it will work just the same way, with **от того, чтобы**, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они отказались **от того, чтобы** *он* вручил им серебряную медаль. (They refused that he should give them the silver medal.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16792" RevisionGUID="62211086-b484-43be-be99-2fccae4d7440" CreationDate="2018-07-12T16:37:07.480" UserId="9602" Text="In general, *following* consonants affect *preceding* ones. So “с дивана” is [з], “сделал” is also [з], “отдохну́л” is [адахнул] etc. This is unlike other Slavic languages like Czech where it’s the other way round, or Ukrainian where the spelling is closer to pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16793" RevisionGUID="efacca56-eb96-4d13-ba44-126ba7f6c9ac" CreationDate="2018-07-12T18:01:13.417" UserId="242" Text="In Russian language there are non-paired consonants (`л`, `м`, `н`, `р`). Consonants called paired if there exist non-voiced counterpart: `б`/`п`, `в`/`ф`, `г`/`к`, `д`/`т`, `ж`/`ш` and `з`/`c`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `с` occurs before `б` (like in `сбой`), `г` (like in `сгодиться`), `д` (like in `сдать`) or `ж` (like in `сжиматься)` - than it's pronounced like with voice, that is, as `з`. The same holds true for the following non-voiced consonants: `п`, `ф`, `к`, `т`, `ш`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take notice that `в` is not in that list, so, for instance, in `свора` so voicing (озвончение) does not occur. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16793" RevisionGUID="00f6aaf0-8e44-4581-b4ce-05e19062561f" CreationDate="2018-07-12T18:07:49.443" UserId="1236" Comment="Grammar corrected" Text="In the Russian language there are non-paired consonants (`л`, `м`, `н`, `р`). Consonants are called paired if there exists a non-voiced counterpart: `б`/`п`, `в`/`ф`, `г`/`к`, `д`/`т`, `ж`/`ш` and `з`/`c`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `с` occurs before `б` (like in `сбой`), `г` (like in `сгодиться`), `д` (like in `сдать`) or `ж` (like in `сжиматься)` - then it's pronounced like with voice, that is, as `з`. The same holds true for the following non-voiced consonants: `п`, `ф`, `к`, `т`, `ш`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take notice that `в` is not in that list, so, for instance, in `свора` the voicing (озвончение) does not occur. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16794" RevisionGUID="62dbe0ff-d90f-4554-91a6-e816115048f9" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:13:45.710" UserId="8780" Text="I know that many prepositions can be followed by **то, чтобы** if we want to relate the preposition to a new sentence, rather than just a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Вместо того, чтобы...&#xD;&#xA;- Настаивать на том, чтобы...&#xD;&#xA;- Отказаться от того, чтобы...&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these may be set expressions. Apparently the conjunction чтобы cannot be used with just every preposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I heard that `кроме того, чтобы` is incorrect, and must be replaced with **кроме как**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's my attempt at numbering a few usages of **то, что** and **то, чтобы**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надеяться на то, что...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вопреки тому, что...  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удивиться тому, что...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жалеть о том, что...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо, чтобы...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Maybe the correct conjunction must be memorized for each case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Still left an example with **тем** (instrumental).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb **рисковать** takes the instrumental case, thus we say `рисковать жизнью`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what if I want to risk a more elaborate sentence? Like &quot;He risks losing his reputation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though I could simplify and just say `&quot;Он рискует потерей своей репутации&quot;`, if I wanted to connect **рискует** to another verb, could the sentence become `&quot;Он рискует тем, чтобы потерять свою репутацию&quot;`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Finally, if I want to say &quot;on the brink of...&quot; something other than a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;On the brink of death&quot; would be `на грани смерти.` But &quot;on the brink of losing his job&quot; wouldn't be `&quot;на грани того, чтобы быть уволенным&quot;`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16794" RevisionGUID="62dbe0ff-d90f-4554-91a6-e816115048f9" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:13:45.710" UserId="8780" Text="то, что or то, чтобы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16794" RevisionGUID="62dbe0ff-d90f-4554-91a6-e816115048f9" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:13:45.710" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|предлоги|чтобы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42486" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16794" RevisionGUID="29c42d29-15f9-4701-9fdb-3d1685e6b2b3" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:19:18.770" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;То, что&quot; or &quot;то, чтобы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16795" RevisionGUID="0661b6be-1567-466d-864c-b4d100860c17" CreationDate="2018-07-12T20:55:38.710" UserId="7674" Text="2. With ***рискует*** the subordinate clause is appended with the conjunction ***что*** and assumes future tense ***рискует тем, что потеряет***, but another way of attaching a verb is to simply say ***рискует потерять*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is correct but another, a more compact version, is again the simple ***на грани быть уволенным***, still this only seem to work for the verb ***быть***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16796" RevisionGUID="6a848bde-6d71-4e41-a3b4-1eafc51858ee" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:48:50.857" UserId="7239" Text="**Intro:** Here is some text where the speaker is explaining their plans for their future education:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Диссертации только после магистратуры и на соискание (получение)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; степени. Если всё пойдёт по плану, то диссертация будет года этак&#xD;&#xA;&gt; через два.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the best of my understanding, this should mean something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The dissertation occurs only after a master's degree and is for the purpose of receiving the (PhD) degree. If everything goes according to plan, I will start my dissertation something like two years from now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the word order, most of this seems standard to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** However, the part&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...то диссертация будет года этак через два.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;seems exceedingly strange to me. *First*, shouldn't it be `та диссертация`, or is `то` here being used to replace a noun rather than an adjective? (I.e. not being used as a modifier pronoun?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Second*, why are `года` and `два` separated from each other here? Does this separation indicate anything important missing in my above translation attempt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, I would have expected something more like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  ...та диссертация будет этак через два года.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any difference in meaning between that and what was originally written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:**&#xD;&#xA;It is well known that since Russian is a highly-inflected language, the number of possible word orders which are grammatically correct are higher than in other languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have also been told at least one Russian-speaking friend that sometimes different word orders imply different nuances, so that even if they are both grammatically correct they don't necessarily mean &quot;the same thing&quot;. Not having been able to find any formal resources explaining these changes in meaning due to word order, it is difficult for me to identify situations where this is relevant when I see them in practice/&quot;in the wild&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aside:** The speaker just graduated university (undergraduate/bachelor's), which explains some of my translation attempt. However, in American English, the &quot;dissertation&quot; for a doctoral degree is sometimes also called a &quot;thesis&quot;, and while not all Master's programs require a thesis in order to graduate, it is also not unheard of for Master's students to complete a thesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does `диссертация` here translate as (doctoral) dissertation, (doctoral) thesis, or (Master's) thesis? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the person saying that they are going to get their doctorate two years after graduating college? That is what it sounded like to me originally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe they meant a Master's thesis, because maybe one can think of completing the thesis after the Master's program, and the thesis is done for the purpose of getting the Master's degree. On the other hand, one might also typically get a PhD after completing their Master's, and the word dissertation is typically used only to refer to a document written for a doctoral degree. Yet the original text sounds like the speaker intends to complete their &quot;dissertation&quot; two years after completing undergrad which doesn't make much sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42489" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16796" RevisionGUID="6a848bde-6d71-4e41-a3b4-1eafc51858ee" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:48:50.857" UserId="7239" Text="Does word order influence the meaning of this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42490" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16796" RevisionGUID="6a848bde-6d71-4e41-a3b4-1eafc51858ee" CreationDate="2018-07-12T23:48:50.857" UserId="7239" Text="|значения|лексикон|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16797" RevisionGUID="246cfb73-8386-4956-b9cc-064e55a92680" CreationDate="2018-07-13T00:23:04.677" UserId="1236" Text="The **то** isn't a demonstrative neuter gender pronoun &quot;that&quot;, it's a conjunction, and it's paired with _если_: **если ..., то ...** – &quot;if ..., then ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Если расскажешь всё, то я тебя отпущу.** – &quot;If you tell me everything, then I'll let you go&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The position of _года_ really matters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **два года** – &quot;two years&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **года два** – &quot;about / approximately / some two years&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually _этак_ also means &quot;about / approximately / some&quot;, so the idea of approximation is expressed redundantly, but it's very usual to say it like that in Russian. The whole idea of &quot;in about two years&quot; can be expressed in at least tree different ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. _года через два_&#xD;&#xA; 2. _этак через два года_&#xD;&#xA; 3. _года этак через два_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, this works not only with the number of years, putting the name of any unit of measurement before the number adds the idea of approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **метра три** - about three meters  &#xD;&#xA;**килограммов пять** - about 5 kilograms  &#xD;&#xA;**минуты две тому назад** - about two minutes ago&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Этак_ has several synonyms: _примерно, приблизительно, где-то_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; _года через два = примерно через два года = приблизительно через два года = где-то через два года_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the ways of expressing approximation described above are colloquial, only _примерно_ and _приблизительно_ are literary and are apt for scholarly publications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_I won't comment on kinds of theses since it's beyond the scope of this SE._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16798" RevisionGUID="2900b8fd-b935-45f5-9958-356c61cf7631" CreationDate="2018-07-13T05:19:15.630" UserId="9118" Text="&gt; Диссертации только после магистратуры и на соискание (получение)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; степени. Если всё пойдёт по плану, то диссертация будет года этак&#xD;&#xA;&gt; через два.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The dissertation occurs only after a master's degree and is for the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; purpose of receiving the (PhD) degree. If everything goes according to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plan, I will start my dissertation something like two years from now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, your translation has two critical flaws. It should rather be something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dissertations happen only after completing your master's course *(N.B. not necessarily receiving a master's degree!)* and in order to get a/the degree *(N.B. unclear which degree - the master's or the further one)*. If everything goes as planned, the dissertation **will be ready** *(N.B. not started! finished!)* in about two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which makes the situation somehow ambiguous: maybe the speaker is talking about the master's thesis (магистерская диссертация) he or she is going to write during the master's course and complete in two years (which is the typical length of a master's course). Maybe about their future doctoral dissertation ([кандидатская диссертация][1]) they hope to complete two years after their master's course is over. (In Russian there's also &quot;докторская диссертация&quot;, which is one level higher than Ph.D., but we can safely rule that out - you don't complete *that* in two years before even your master's course, unless you're some kind of an enormous genius.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidate_of_Sciences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16795" RevisionGUID="7d9f8050-46f9-43c2-9a79-83775f4f0f2f" CreationDate="2018-07-13T06:52:24.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="2. With ***рискует*** the subordinate clause is appended with the conjunction ***что*** and assumes future tense ***рискует тем, что потеряет***, but another way of attaching a verb is to simply say ***рискует потерять*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. This is correct but another, a more compact version, is again the simple ***на грани быть уволенным***, still this only seem to work for the verb ***быть*** and maybe also ***стать***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42494" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16790" RevisionGUID="20087eee-4de5-4540-8ab6-31a6bb137915" CreationDate="2018-07-13T06:55:55.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017663897942282241" />
  <row Id="42495" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16788" RevisionGUID="494047c6-8b42-45d3-b425-443cd3a8d295" CreationDate="2018-07-13T09:56:52.673" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Отказаться от&quot; before a clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="30f146c6-b991-4324-af40-80dafcf91db2" CreationDate="2018-07-13T13:34:31.083" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Раз вы не Раиса, то нам **не** о **чем** разговаривать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ... then we have nothing to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To convey the idea of &quot;nothing&quot;, I usually expect to see the combination of &quot;ни&quot;, &quot;не&quot;, and &quot;что&quot;, as in &quot;**ни** на **что** **не** годится&quot;. Why the omission of &quot;ни&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps, is it more related to the 4th [definition][1] of &quot;не&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="30f146c6-b991-4324-af40-80dafcf91db2" CreationDate="2018-07-13T13:34:31.083" UserId="8672" Text="Why is &quot;ни&quot; omitted here to say &quot;nothing&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="30f146c6-b991-4324-af40-80dafcf91db2" CreationDate="2018-07-13T13:34:31.083" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16800" RevisionGUID="a157ed5b-c88c-4060-a731-e47986f200e8" CreationDate="2018-07-13T13:49:23.923" UserId="242" Text="Has it have been with noun it would be `разговор ни о чём`, however in this case it's `не`. And again, it's just should be memorized. Here are relevant articles from wiktionary: [ни о чём][1], [не о чем][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `не о чем` indicates that there's nothing to talk about, while `ни о чём` sort indicates that you are talking about nothing [other that]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in this example it will be `ни` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будем думать только об экзамене, и больше ни о чём&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%BE_%D1%87%D1%91%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE_%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16800" RevisionGUID="e7589724-6337-4fb5-b21e-fd04a591f826" CreationDate="2018-07-13T13:54:40.620" UserId="242" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Has it have been with noun it would be `разговор ни о чём`, however in this case it's `не`. And again, it's just should be memorized. Here are relevant articles from wiktionary: [ни о чём][1], [не о чем][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `не о чем` indicates that there's nothing to talk about, while `ни о чём` sort indicates that you are talking about nothing [other that]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in this example it will be `ни` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будем думать только об экзамене, и больше ни о чём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider following pair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ни о чём я вам не расскажу, ни в чём не признаюсь&quot;. (literally - I will tell you about nothing, I will confess nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Не о чем мне вам рассказывать, не в чем мне признаваться&quot;. (literally - I have nothing to tell you about, I have nothing to confess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%BE_%D1%87%D1%91%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE_%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16792" RevisionGUID="49ac0f69-c3dc-481b-b05f-a23789cb3dfc" CreationDate="2018-07-13T14:08:16.040" UserId="9602" Comment="Czech" Text="In general, *following* consonants affect *preceding* ones. So “с дивана” is [з], “сделал” is also [з], “отдохну́л” is [адахнул] etc. This is unlike other Slavic languages like Czech where it can be the other way round, or Ukrainian where the spelling is closer to pronunciation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16801" RevisionGUID="5f9a964d-b47c-4729-b2a4-025f43de8668" CreationDate="2018-07-13T15:45:40.200" UserId="10578" Text="Handling this a little differently: &quot;не&quot; is straightforward &quot;no/not&quot;, but &quot;ни&quot; may indeed mean &quot;nothing&quot;, like @shabunc rightly says, but also, depending on context, may mean &quot;neither&quot; or &quot;nor&quot; or sort of pointer to &quot;anything&quot; or &quot;whatever&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &quot;не то&quot; is &quot;not that [something which was expected/needed/etc.]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But: &quot;ни то, ни другое&quot; is &quot;neither this, nor that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And: &quot;чтобы [one word!] не делать&quot; is &quot;[in order] to do not&quot;, but &quot;что бы [two words!] ни делать[, лишь бы не работать]&quot; is &quot;to do anything [but work]&quot; or &quot;whatever's one going to do [one's not going to do work]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42503" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16796" RevisionGUID="2d137d9b-51a3-4ec9-8079-4a26ad8eb84f" CreationDate="2018-07-13T18:55:55.527" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017845091682091009" />
  <row Id="42504" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16788" RevisionGUID="b7a93afe-7785-4110-87ad-240235b03000" CreationDate="2018-07-13T21:55:56.357" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1017890394699333632" />
  <row Id="42505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="dc0847ae-c75a-48c1-9878-8976194d43cb" CreationDate="2018-07-14T05:21:21.073" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Не понимаю, **в кого** он такой **своевольный**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw this phrase in an IM, and I assume it is roughly an equivalent of &quot;take after&quot; in English. I find this turn of phrase curious, though: how should I interpret &quot;в кого {accusative}&quot;? It literally seems to mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't understand **to whom** he's so stubborn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this how Russian speakers commonly convey the idea of &quot;take after&quot;? Or are there other expressions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="dc0847ae-c75a-48c1-9878-8976194d43cb" CreationDate="2018-07-14T05:21:21.073" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;take after&quot; in &quot;I wonder who he takes after with his obstinacy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="dc0847ae-c75a-48c1-9878-8976194d43cb" CreationDate="2018-07-14T05:21:21.073" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16803" RevisionGUID="4aaa12c4-8f33-48bb-90e8-e8e148a1e7d0" CreationDate="2018-07-14T06:17:18.483" UserId="10749" Text="Yes, &quot;в кого ты/он/она такой/такая...&quot; is the question about whom that person is taking after. It can be about about appearance and/or behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он весь в отца&quot; means &quot;he really takes after his father&quot;/&quot;he's just like his father&quot;. &quot;Весь/вся в...&quot; can be translated as &quot;He/she is the spitting image of...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very common phrase is &quot;В кого ты такой уродился?!&quot; Depending on context and intonation, it can be lighthearted, positive even, or an expression of annoyance (that's how it's most often used), sort of &quot;You're just impossible!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В кого ты такой умный?&quot; can be a compliment &quot;Damn, you are smart!&quot; or more like &quot;Oh really, smartass?&quot;, while &quot;В кого ты такая красивая?&quot; is a compliment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also drop personal pronoun if it's clear whom you're talking about. Like so &quot;Ну вся в мать!&quot;. Again, whether her being like her mother is good or bad depends on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42509" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="1b866b05-902e-46e1-ba24-9b621d9587ac" CreationDate="2018-07-14T06:33:25.903" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="In Russian, how do you express &quot;take after&quot; in &quot;I wonder who he takes after with his obstinacy&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16804" RevisionGUID="6d3f1205-eb62-40b7-96a1-96f4bb8b5256" CreationDate="2018-07-14T06:33:39.530" UserId="4833" Text="Yes indeed, the English “take after someone” can be translated as *«родиться/поийти/идти/быть/стать в кого-либо»*&#xA;&#xA;[Основные значения фразового глагола take][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Take after – быть похожим, походить на (родителей, родственников) – когда говорят о характере, склонностях и т.п. &#xA;&gt; — Mary is very clever – she takes after her mother. – Мэри очень умная – она пошла в свою мать&#xA;&#xA;In your example, the verb быть is omitted in the Present tense, so what is left is «_в_» with a noun phrase in Accusative. &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://englsecrets.ru/frazovye-glagoly/frazovyj-glagol-take.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="f031fa0b-ecd0-4713-bacd-842d458a063e" CreationDate="2018-07-14T06:35:12.963" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;Не понимаю, **в кого** он такой **своевольный**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw this phrase in an IM, and I assume it is roughly an equivalent of &quot;take after&quot; in English. I find this turn of phrase curious, though: how should I interpret &quot;в кого {accusative}&quot;? It seems to literally mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I don't understand **to whom** he's so stubborn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this how Russian speakers commonly convey the idea of &quot;take after&quot;? Or are there other expressions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16805" RevisionGUID="a882cae4-3bc5-4ee4-8395-48e13ed03030" CreationDate="2018-07-14T11:52:55.243" UserId="8780" Text="How do I express &quot;the same as...&quot; in the following sentences in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;- Why did you learn French? - For the same reason you learned English.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &quot;She's in the same university as me.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll give it a try anyway, as far as my knowledge of Russian grammar goes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему изучил ты французский? По той же причине, почему ты изучил английский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она в том же университете, как я." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16805" RevisionGUID="a882cae4-3bc5-4ee4-8395-48e13ed03030" CreationDate="2018-07-14T11:52:55.243" UserId="8780" Text="&quot;The same as...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16805" RevisionGUID="a882cae4-3bc5-4ee4-8395-48e13ed03030" CreationDate="2018-07-14T11:52:55.243" UserId="8780" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16806" RevisionGUID="1d4e25d6-a262-4229-98b8-1e1f3fe04ff8" CreationDate="2018-07-14T12:06:16.230" UserId="8780" Text="I would like to convey a rather complex idea in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switzerland is a multilingual country where, among other languages, French and German are spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are more german-speaking Swiss who know French than french-speaking Swiss who know German, and I would like to tell exactly this in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the words **англоговорящий** and **русскоговорящий**. But I doubt just every language can be attached to this suffix (plus англо- and русско- are themselves adaptations into a prefix, and I don't know if every language has a prefix of its own).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First, the sentence I am looking for. Does it work like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть больше немецкоговорящих швейцарьцев, знающих французский, чем &#xD;&#xA;&gt; французскоговорящих  швейцарьцев, знающих немецкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I'm not sure about the language prefixes. Maybe I could use &quot;немецкие швейцарьцы&quot; and &quot;французские швейцарьцы&quot; instead?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Which are the language prefixes for the following languages?&#xD;&#xA;итальянский, португальский, испанский, японский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16806" RevisionGUID="1d4e25d6-a262-4229-98b8-1e1f3fe04ff8" CreationDate="2018-07-14T12:06:16.230" UserId="8780" Text="The suffix -говорящий" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16806" RevisionGUID="1d4e25d6-a262-4229-98b8-1e1f3fe04ff8" CreationDate="2018-07-14T12:06:16.230" UserId="8780" Text="|суффиксы|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16807" RevisionGUID="2c871680-1d19-4af3-b0cd-e98a026234c9" CreationDate="2018-07-14T12:13:43.647" UserId="5443" Text="&gt; 1. Почему ты выучил французский? По той же причине, *что* ты выучил английский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(more formal: **по которой** instead of **что**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possible (more colloquial) answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Потому же, почему** ты выучил английский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Она учится/училась в том же университете, **что** и я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она учится *в одном со мной* университете." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16808" RevisionGUID="bbd04500-8169-4c29-8467-0ed4b6d5f7d4" CreationDate="2018-07-14T12:51:25.563" UserId="5443" Text="&gt; 1. Немецкоязычных швейцарцев, знающих французский, больше, чем франкоязычных (швейцарцев), знающих немецкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's possible to find in a modern 'synonyms' dictionary (e.g. Тришин, 2013) versions like: **немецкоговорящий (германоговорящий), франкоговорящий (also, noun: франкофон), италоговорящий, португалоговорящий, испаноговорящий, японоговорящий**. All of those (presumably, coming from the form like 'English speaker') have *older*, more traditional versions, ending with **-язычный**. The version like **англоговорящий** is not always applied to a native speaker, it sometimes describes a technician with language training for working abroad, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="42520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16808" RevisionGUID="d9ca952c-a236-4f7c-8c33-01860e6575c3" CreationDate="2018-07-14T13:04:58.197" UserId="5443" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. Немецкоязычных швейцарцев, знающих французский, больше, чем франкоязычных (швейцарцев), знающих немецкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. It's possible to find in a modern 'synonyms' dictionary (e.g. Тришин, 2013) versions like: **немецкоговорящий (германоговорящий), франкоговорящий (also, noun: франкофон), италоговорящий, португалоговорящий, испаноговорящий, японоговорящий**. All of those (presumably, coming from the form like 'English speaker') have *older*, more traditional versions, ending with **-язычный**. The version like **англоговорящий** is not always applied to a native speaker, it sometimes describes a technician with language training (*англоговорящий технический специалист*) for working abroad, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16806" RevisionGUID="e74addab-b145-4146-a08b-64ff51651ba2" CreationDate="2018-07-14T13:35:05.320" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I would like to convey a rather complex idea in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switzerland is a multilingual country where, among other languages, French and German are spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are more german-speaking Swiss who know French than french-speaking Swiss who know German, and I would like to tell exactly this in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the words **англоговорящий** and **русскоговорящий**. But I doubt just every language can be attached to this suffix (plus англо- and русско- are themselves adaptations into a prefix, and I don't know if every language has a prefix of its own).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. First, the sentence I am looking for. Does it work like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть больше немецкоговорящих швейцарцев, знающих французский, чем &#xD;&#xA;&gt; французскоговорящих  швейцарцев, знающих немецкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I'm not sure about the language prefixes. Maybe I could use &quot;немецкие швейцарцы&quot; and &quot;французские швейцарцы&quot; instead?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Which are the language prefixes for the following languages?&#xD;&#xA;итальянский, португальский, испанский, японский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16809" RevisionGUID="958c24d8-c8b6-4056-9b12-b644e692317c" CreationDate="2018-07-14T13:51:10.860" UserId="242" Text="Just like it was already mentioned for `франкоговорящие`/`франкоязычные` there's relatively widely known and accepted [`франкофон`][1]. Actually there's less known and less used however existing term [`лузофон`][2] for one who talks Portuguese. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also [`англофоны`][3], `синофоны` (for Chinese speakers) and even [`румынофоны`][4] however this terms are used extremely rare. One just can not add `-фон` to some derivative of language name, it doesn't work that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some texts that tend to sound as scientific and official as possible one can even find `германофон` but that's definitely rather a curiosity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16810" RevisionGUID="dcf669ec-6764-431d-9c38-8dd5eacb5363" CreationDate="2018-07-14T18:16:41.297" UserId="10177" Text="It's somewhat similar to the English &quot;no thanks&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's too hot for me in Paris! No thanks, Geneva is better, it's cooler&#xD;&#xA;&gt; there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Уж is &lt;strike&gt;a snake&lt;/strike&gt; an intensifier used after да/нет in answering questions or showing the speaker's agreement/disagreement, like/dislike, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43523" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16784" RevisionGUID="2541633e-889d-4f82-90fd-99d6342b2253" CreationDate="2018-07-14T18:56:17.610" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1018207572837502976" />
  <row Id="43524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16811" RevisionGUID="9b8f18be-0768-4c71-9abf-bd1ac816e127" CreationDate="2018-07-15T01:54:33.493" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Вы, **к обеду** не **опоздайте**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы, **на обед** не **опоздайте**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы, **в обед** не **опоздайте**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the use of &quot;с&quot; is out of the question, but I'm wavering between these three. Are they nuanced somehow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, am I correct in thinking that &quot;запоздать&quot; cannot be used in this context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16811" RevisionGUID="9b8f18be-0768-4c71-9abf-bd1ac816e127" CreationDate="2018-07-15T01:54:33.493" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, which preposition to use to say &quot;Don't be late for lunch&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16811" RevisionGUID="9b8f18be-0768-4c71-9abf-bd1ac816e127" CreationDate="2018-07-15T01:54:33.493" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16812" RevisionGUID="487e4754-79e3-4cf8-a77a-12c831ac1048" CreationDate="2018-07-15T02:56:18.530" UserId="2079" Text="First, comma after `ты` or `вы` is rude, and colloquial. `Вы, ...` is short for `Эй вы, ...`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы к обеду не опоздайте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies they should appear at lunch time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы на обед не опоздайте. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies they should appear at the lunch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы в обед не опоздайте.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes no sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16813" RevisionGUID="18435e45-7b58-4618-904f-4ad215c1ccc1" CreationDate="2018-07-15T05:29:20.910" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Anna... she's **at it** **again** (doing something / with something)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Anna **fait** encore **des siennes** ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We colloquially use these expressions in English and French when we catch someone (with a bit of a disobedient / mischievous / reckless  streak) once again  doing something you disapprove of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Опять** Анна? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Опять** она?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't suppose this is sufficient as an equivalent, is it? How do you commonly express this &quot;she's at it again, doing ...?&quot; idea in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16813" RevisionGUID="18435e45-7b58-4618-904f-4ad215c1ccc1" CreationDate="2018-07-15T05:29:20.910" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;she’s at it again&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16813" RevisionGUID="18435e45-7b58-4618-904f-4ad215c1ccc1" CreationDate="2018-07-15T05:29:20.910" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16814" RevisionGUID="9dcd6193-e888-4d52-9768-969626e95b5a" CreationDate="2018-07-15T06:47:11.460" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Она опять в своём репертуаре.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она опять взялась за старое / за своё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она опять взялась за ....." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16815" RevisionGUID="eb94f898-0921-4970-b7a5-6a163b059efd" CreationDate="2018-07-15T06:56:40.807" UserId="10578" Text="Yet another set of expressions is constructed with &quot;снова&quot;. &quot;[Он/она/они] снова [берутся] за старое&quot;, &quot;[Он/она/они] снова за своё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sets of expressions may be contracted in conversation: &quot;(Ну) снова она!..&quot;; &quot;(Ну) опять она!..&quot; -- implying she's &quot;at it again&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there exists a colloquial phrase (which you may encounter), the meaning of which I personally don't understand, it might just occur to be a conversational-space-filler: &quot;Не опять, а снова&quot; -- said in a quasi-ritual response to somebody saying &quot;опять&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16816" RevisionGUID="88cc5ab3-ce89-4c5e-a2b3-49e685522050" CreationDate="2018-07-15T07:08:54.000" UserId="10578" Text="In real use, there definitely exists a nuance between using perfect and imperfect in such cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не опоздайте&quot; (perf.) is sort of bit less polite reminder to not be late than &quot;не опаздывайте&quot; (imperf.), even if both of those are used with &quot;пожалуйста&quot;. &quot;Less polite&quot; because it sort of implies the possibility of persons addressed to be late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This nuance, however, vanishes in less formal conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronoun isn't usually used in such phrases, just &quot;не опаздывайте к обеду, пожалуйста&quot; would do. Names, however, could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronoun with full stop (written with comma) is right out, that's an equivalent to &quot;hey you&quot;, just like @user31264 says." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16814" RevisionGUID="792c4d35-5856-41ca-ad2f-7ebf5199430e" CreationDate="2018-07-15T07:54:55.040" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&gt; Она опять в своём репертуаре.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она опять / Опять она &lt;sup&gt;*greater annoyance*&lt;/sup&gt; взялась за старое / за своё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она опять / Опять она взялась за ....." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16817" RevisionGUID="eb35ebc8-9e21-45b8-a195-dfb839e8c5d4" CreationDate="2018-07-15T07:58:04.880" UserId="5443" Text="It's either **не опоздайте к обеду** (in case both are supposed to meet at the lunch), or **на обед не опоздайте** (as a reminder to another person that they were planning to have a lunch *somewhere else*). The pronoun **вы** is not necessary and even may sound *unfriendly* (***вы** на обед не опоздайт*е can express an actual desire to get rid of somebody's presence). **В обед** usually means **within the lunch break** and therefore doesn't fit an expression about being late." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16799" RevisionGUID="ff7a82fd-086e-4635-bdad-c4b42d38ff02" CreationDate="2018-07-16T13:02:47.177" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1018843385849839617" />
  <row Id="43538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="a1ca62c4-e02b-4c12-bfbd-e3fab2566076" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:20:33.297" UserId="8780" Text="Even though, theoretically, there are no articles in Russian, can **один** sometimes work as the indefinite article? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least I've seen &quot;**одни**&quot; (&quot;a few ones&quot;) which is similar in usage to &quot;unos&quot; in Spanish - the plural of the indefinite article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *&quot;Schopenhauer wrote a biography [not the only one] in Greek&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I tell &quot;Шопенхауер написал биографию на греческом&quot;, there's no way to tell whether it was his single biography or one of many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, is it OK to tell &quot;Шопенхауер написал **одну** биографию на греческом&quot; to make clear that it was &quot;a biography&quot; rather than &quot;the biography&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="a1ca62c4-e02b-4c12-bfbd-e3fab2566076" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:20:33.297" UserId="8780" Text="один as an equivalent of &quot;a, an&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="a1ca62c4-e02b-4c12-bfbd-e3fab2566076" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:20:33.297" UserId="8780" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="8820b94c-0c8d-4771-9fc0-adbffbbc991e" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:59:15.170" UserId="8780" Text="This is the kind of things I know how to use in practice, but would not manage to explain to someone in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Некогда, нечего, нечем, не с кем... they differ from никогда, ничего, ничем, ни с кем in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Мне некогда - I have no time (literally &quot;to me no when&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- Нечего делать - There's nothing that can be done.&#xD;&#xA;- Не с кем говорить - There's no one to talk to.&#xD;&#xA;- Нечем дышать! - There's no way to breathe!&#xD;&#xA;- Не о чём жалеть - There's nothing to regret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Никогда не будет времени - There will never be [enough] time.&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего не делал - I didn't anything.&#xD;&#xA;- Не говорю ни с кем - I don't talk to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;- Не могу дышать ничем! - I can't breathe in any way!&#xD;&#xA;- Я стараюсь ни о чём не жалеть - I try not to regret anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far so good. In practice, I know when to use не- and ни-. But how can the difference in usage be explained, say, in a &quot;scientific&quot; way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe не- words are used exclusively in impersonal sentences (only with the dative in order to refer to a passive subject, like in &quot;мне некогда&quot;), whereas ни- words are personal, referring to an active subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, which syntax is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Мне не с кем говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- У меня не с кем говорить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="8820b94c-0c8d-4771-9fc0-adbffbbc991e" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:59:15.170" UserId="8780" Text="Negative prefixes не- vs. ни-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="8820b94c-0c8d-4771-9fc0-adbffbbc991e" CreationDate="2018-07-16T21:59:15.170" UserId="8780" Text="|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43544" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="fb784a23-b2a0-4194-9ef1-d36e1a45aa8f" CreationDate="2018-07-16T22:21:39.787" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16820" RevisionGUID="ec446240-5c9f-48e4-8183-9e09697b71ff" CreationDate="2018-07-16T23:19:23.833" UserId="2079" Text="Sometimes, один is translated as &quot;a/an&quot;, or &quot;a certain&quot; ([link][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.pons.com/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4?q=%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD&amp;l=enru&amp;in=ac_ru&amp;lf=ru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шопенхауер написал одну биографию на греческом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Shopenhauer is transliterated as Шопенгауэр.  &quot;h&quot; is often transliterated as &quot;г&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, `одну` as `a` is too easily confused with `одну` as `one`. It would be understood as &quot;Shopenhauer wrote one biograhy on Greek&quot; (rather than two or more).   `Один` as `a` is used in sentences where such confusion is unlikely, i. e. `мне это сказал один знакомый`, `я это прочитал в одной книге` etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16821" RevisionGUID="a0f1067b-4be7-4dee-aab5-a6353039d516" CreationDate="2018-07-16T23:21:31.713" UserId="242" Text="There's no such thing like articles in Russian, whether definite or indefinite. However, in some specific phrases it de-facto acts very similar to indefinite article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот анекдот мне рассказал один мужик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот анекдот мне рассказал мужик.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sentences are completely valid, however native speaker will perceive the second one as incomplete - it's implies that there's somebody very specific (`мужик`) but it's not clear who exactly. You can even hear something like `мне один мужик один анекдот рассказал`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side-note - there's a theory which is backed up by a lot of data actually that this is exactly how indefinite articles evolve - [they usually are derived from numerals][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3596/origin-of-articles-in-european-languages/3621#3621" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43547" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="04a1e522-5441-4cc3-af65-80559ba5e58f" CreationDate="2018-07-17T00:27:52.060" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Один&quot; as an equivalent of indefinite article" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43548" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16775" RevisionGUID="041bf9b4-44f0-4637-9669-26f622bdd9e7" CreationDate="2018-07-17T01:04:10.793" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1019024930648875010" />
  <row Id="43551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16822" RevisionGUID="e9e2e902-729f-480d-b1d6-e7cc9dfde83f" CreationDate="2018-07-17T09:23:19.163" UserId="8052" Text="And there is also a saying/idiom:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; опять двадцать пять" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16823" RevisionGUID="d97b3598-84f4-471d-be98-e2aff526b8b7" CreationDate="2018-07-17T09:36:20.030" UserId="5443" Text="Sometimes (not too often), **один** really just adds the same sense of indefiniteness as articles a/an/un/uno/una/un' do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Один** мой друг живёт в Канаде. (**A** friend of mine lives in Canada. /I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have **a** friend living in Canada./)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about '*friend count*', it just prevents from false conclusions about '*my only friend / FFL*' which are possible in case один is omitted here (*Мой друг живёт в Канаде*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your example, the word **один** is useful in a Russian translation, with the following word order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шопенгауер написал на греческом биографию **одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It keeps the original's (Schopenhauer wrote a biography in Greek) measure of *indefiniteness* (no ideas if it was the only biography he wrote), while the literal version with direct replacement of the article (*Шопенгауер написал **одну биографию** на греческом*) has an extra emphasis on *на греческом* and leaves unnecessary questions: was he a prolific biography writer who wrote one of those in Greek / was it just one / could it be an autobiography?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that some forms of Spanish and Italian indefinite article even coincide with the word meaning '**one**' but in the function of *article* they just express *indefiniteness*, so **unos** doesn't mean '*ones*', it means **'some'** (items in plural). In English, a/an  tend to mean '*one of the specified kind*', not simply '*one*'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43553" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="c514ac0f-30aa-455b-a1bd-62d6fa68afdf" CreationDate="2018-07-17T13:27:10.023" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7544,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Baskakov_Dmitriy&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="64d13063-01ac-41f2-af0e-baf84b85b31d" CreationDate="2018-07-17T13:27:28.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="This is the kind of things I know how to use in practice, but would not manage to explain to someone in theory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Некогда, нечего, нечем, не с кем... they differ from никогда, ничего, ничем, ни с кем in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Мне некогда - I have no time (literally &quot;to me no when&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;- Нечего делать - There's nothing that can be done.&#xD;&#xA;- Не с кем говорить - There's no one to talk to.&#xD;&#xA;- Нечем дышать! - There's no way to breathe!&#xD;&#xA;- Не о чём жалеть - There's nothing to regret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Никогда не будет времени - There will never be [enough] time.&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего не делал - I didn't anything.&#xD;&#xA;- Не говорю ни с кем - I don't talk to anyone.&#xD;&#xA;- Не могу дышать ничем! - I can't breathe in any way!&#xD;&#xA;- Я стараюсь ни о чём не жалеть - I try not to regret anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far so good. In practice, **I know when to use не- and ни-. But how can the difference in usage be explained, say, in a &quot;scientific&quot; way?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe не- words are used exclusively in impersonal sentences (only with the dative in order to refer to a passive subject, like in &quot;мне некогда&quot;), whereas ни- words are personal, referring to an active subject?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, which syntax is better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Мне не с кем говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- У меня не с кем говорить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16824" RevisionGUID="648759de-4dbf-4ead-9992-da0386f92e0c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:39:36.047" UserId="6141" Text="I'm planning to give a speech in Russian where I'll say something like &quot;imagine there's an eighth day of the week--let's call it ______.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Представьте, что прибавился еще день недели--назовем его **восьмятница**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm struggling with is how to make up a name for the eighth day in a way that rings true for Russians in order to make the illustration more memorable.  However, I know I'm in dangerous territory as what a non-native speaker makes up as logical may not be what a native speaker would think of.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you name the eighth day of the week?  I would like to incorporate the number eight somehow.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16824" RevisionGUID="648759de-4dbf-4ead-9992-da0386f92e0c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:39:36.047" UserId="6141" Text="How to make up a name--eighth day of week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16824" RevisionGUID="648759de-4dbf-4ead-9992-da0386f92e0c" CreationDate="2018-07-17T14:39:36.047" UserId="6141" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16825" RevisionGUID="05860982-28b6-47d1-91aa-79f6894a7091" CreationDate="2018-07-17T15:16:29.700" UserId="1836" Text="Восьмятница sounds good actually. Maybe not for a case like &quot;something happened and we have to have 8-day week, we need a name for the new day&quot; (official name to be put into calendars and stuff). But for cases like you've described – just about perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43559" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16824" RevisionGUID="7c16e9d6-e1ec-41bb-b653-3993a8f04d4b" CreationDate="2018-07-17T15:29:15.483" UserId="242" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43560" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16824" RevisionGUID="356ddfa0-08d4-4449-8657-16e69b19b01b" CreationDate="2018-07-17T16:28:03.683" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How to make up a name - eighth day of week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16827" RevisionGUID="9cd11445-0622-4620-a0ad-7428e9f9ec6f" CreationDate="2018-07-17T21:04:33.453" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;Не&quot;, either in a prefix or as a particle, means logical inversion, denial, negative; but &quot;ни&quot; means &quot;nothing of the kind/none of the variants/alternatives&quot; (and may have other meanings in some contexts [russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16799]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16799]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16799" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16828" RevisionGUID="4d95045d-fd98-49cd-a9ce-7ffbc5d1604b" CreationDate="2018-07-17T22:07:13.130" UserId="8780" Text="I don't know if the word **другой** is considered an adjective. However it declines like an adjective, and as such I name it an &quot;adjective-like&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that, when numeral два is either in the nominative or inanimate accusative, the noun it quantifies takes the genitive singular, whereas an adjective accompanying the noun takes the genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, &quot;два ближн-**их** друг-**а**&quot; - *two close friends*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if I use the word **другие**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take the three hosts of the Fifa World Cup 2026 as an example. USA, Canada and Mexico. But the title of that competition will be &quot;United 26&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say the following: &quot;The title United 26 shows a bias in favor of the USA, as though the other two hosts were secondary&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Название &quot;United 26&quot; проявляет предвзятость к США, как будто други**е**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; два организатора - второстепенны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say &quot;два других организатора&quot; I would be telling &quot;*two other hosts*&quot;, not &quot;*THE two other hosts*&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, what if I use a personal pronoun (which declines as an adjective) instead of a typical adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Два моих друга - two of my friends&#xD;&#xA;- Мои два друга - my two friends&#xD;&#xA;- Два других друга - two other friends&#xD;&#xA;- Другие два друга - the two other friends&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the adjective/pronoun takes the genitive plural after the numeral when expressing &quot;some out of many&quot;, whereas it takes the nominative plural before the numeral when the numeral refers to the total quantity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16828" RevisionGUID="4d95045d-fd98-49cd-a9ce-7ffbc5d1604b" CreationDate="2018-07-17T22:07:13.130" UserId="8780" Text="Adjective-like word before два" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16828" RevisionGUID="4d95045d-fd98-49cd-a9ce-7ffbc5d1604b" CreationDate="2018-07-17T22:07:13.130" UserId="8780" Text="|прилагательные|склонение|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16828" RevisionGUID="0149603c-4ae5-4799-97e8-23cac576da23" CreationDate="2018-07-18T06:34:24.220" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I don't know if the word **другой** is considered an adjective. However it declines like an adjective, and as such I name it an &quot;adjective-like&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that, when numeral два is either in the nominative or inanimate accusative, the noun it quantifies takes the genitive singular, whereas an adjective accompanying the noun takes the genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, &quot;два бли&lt;strike&gt;жн&lt;/strike&gt;ЗК-**их** друг-**а**&quot; - *two close friends*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if I use the word **другие**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take the three hosts of the Fifa World Cup 2026 as an example. USA, Canada and Mexico. But the title of that competition will be &quot;United 26&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say the following: &quot;The title United 26 shows a bias in favor of the USA, as though the other two hosts were secondary&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Название &quot;United 26&quot; проявляет предвзятость к США, как будто други**е**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; два организатора - второстепенны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say &quot;два других организатора&quot; I would be telling &quot;*two other hosts*&quot;, not &quot;*THE two other hosts*&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, what if I use a personal pronoun (which declines as an adjective) instead of a typical adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Два моих друга - two of my friends&#xD;&#xA;- Мои два друга - my two friends&#xD;&#xA;- Два других друга - two other friends&#xD;&#xA;- Другие два друга - the two other friends&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the adjective/pronoun takes the genitive plural after the numeral when expressing &quot;some out of many&quot;, whereas it takes the nominative plural before the numeral when the numeral refers to the total quantity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16828" RevisionGUID="869e5b44-c6c8-4a2b-8a3a-14f61d30a23f" CreationDate="2018-07-18T10:52:13.587" UserId="7674" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="I don't know if the word **другой** is considered an adjective. However it declines like an adjective, and as such I name it an &quot;adjective-like&quot; word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that, when numeral два is either in the nominative or inanimate accusative, the noun it quantifies takes the genitive singular, whereas an adjective accompanying the noun takes the genitive plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, &quot;два бли&lt;strike&gt;жн&lt;/strike&gt;ЗК-**их** друг-**а**&quot; - *two close friends*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if I use the word **другие**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take the three hosts of the Fifa World Cup 2026 as an example. USA, Canada and Mexico. But the title of that competition will be &quot;United 26&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say the following: &quot;The title United 26 shows a bias in favor of the USA, as though the other two hosts were secondary&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Название &quot;United 26&quot; проявляет предвзятость &lt;strike&gt;к&lt;/strike&gt; `в пользу`/`отдает предпочтение` США, как будто други**е**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; два организатора - второстепенны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say &quot;два других организатора&quot; I would be telling &quot;*two other hosts*&quot;, not &quot;*THE two other hosts*&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, what if I use a personal pronoun (which declines as an adjective) instead of a typical adjective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Два моих друга - two of my friends&#xD;&#xA;- Мои два друга - my two friends&#xD;&#xA;- Два других друга - two other friends&#xD;&#xA;- Другие два друга - the two other friends&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the adjective/pronoun takes the genitive plural after the numeral when expressing &quot;some out of many&quot;, whereas it takes the nominative plural before the numeral when the numeral refers to the total quantity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43570" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16828" RevisionGUID="93fc49cb-a08f-44b9-84ef-62451b6a3bca" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:04:36.120" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1019568618550554624" />
  <row Id="43571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16829" RevisionGUID="c01dfb93-7a66-40a9-949b-80ad624f2c66" CreationDate="2018-07-18T16:04:25.697" UserId="2104" Text="In case of &quot;другие два организатора&quot; **другие** qualifies **два организатора** which is plural which makes **другие** plural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of &quot;два других организатора&quot; **два** governs both **других** and **организатора** according to [these rules][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If I say &quot;два других организатора&quot; I would be telling &quot;two other hosts&quot;, not &quot;THE two other hosts&quot;, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use either version (&quot;другие два&quot; or &quot;два других&quot;) to mean &quot;the other two&quot; or &quot;another two&quot;, depending on the context. Russian does not have &quot;the&quot; or &quot;an&quot;. If absolutely necessary, you can use &quot;остальные два&quot; (the other two) or &quot;еще два&quot; (another two).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/11629/2104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16830" RevisionGUID="eb82488b-3592-4922-8047-5fd7dec4f0a1" CreationDate="2018-07-18T16:25:01.953" UserId="1274" Text="This is not only related to &quot;adjective-like&quot; pronoun `другие`, regular adjectives also express similar behaviour. However, the connotation of the definite article &quot;THE&quot; only appears with pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом был заброшен, и **два разбитых окна** чернели на фасаде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом был заброшен, и **разбитые два окна** чернели на фасаде.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no indication of how many windows are there in total, however the former focuses more on the count (there are two windows), while the latter on the state (they were broken).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The focus is expressed with the nominative case; in the first sentence it is &quot;два&quot;, in the second it is &quot;разбитые два&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16827" RevisionGUID="06852b8a-47a4-4e95-bd99-9c237dd45440" CreationDate="2018-07-19T02:35:43.590" UserId="1097" Comment="Link formatted" Text="&quot;Не&quot;, either in a prefix or as a particle, means logical inversion, denial, negative; but &quot;ни&quot; means &quot;nothing of the kind/none of the variants/alternatives&quot; (and may have other meanings in some contexts: [Why is “ни” omitted here to say “nothing”?][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16799" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16831" RevisionGUID="fa643cee-c409-4a91-9752-51029571687a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T07:55:34.713" UserId="170" Text="How do they refer in Russian to a public address system in the department store?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up some possible terms in a dictionary and found these two: &quot;система оповещения&quot; and &quot;трансляция&quot;, but I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Система оповещения&quot; seems to me to be referring more to the public address system in streets (like that in case of war). In other words, it is bigger in scale than a public address system in a department store or in a school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;трансляция&quot; seems to be more about a radio, that is, wireless broadcast.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16831" RevisionGUID="fa643cee-c409-4a91-9752-51029571687a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T07:55:34.713" UserId="170" Text="&quot;Public address system&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16831" RevisionGUID="fa643cee-c409-4a91-9752-51029571687a" CreationDate="2018-07-19T07:55:34.713" UserId="170" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="ad48906f-dbf8-4f0e-899f-33bd8b3dca15" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:04:14.830" UserId="9670" Text="Как сленговое &quot;шестерка&quot; переводится на английский?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="ad48906f-dbf8-4f0e-899f-33bd8b3dca15" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:04:14.830" UserId="9670" Text="Как сленговое &quot;шестерка&quot; переводится на английский?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="ad48906f-dbf8-4f0e-899f-33bd8b3dca15" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:04:14.830" UserId="9670" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16833" RevisionGUID="bdbfc5f3-6647-471e-a9d3-df1d58409f20" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:48:48.443" UserId="8909" Text="&quot;Grunt&quot; вполне подойдёт, хотя наверняка найдутся другие варианты перевода." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16834" RevisionGUID="f55ad365-c19a-4e44-8dfe-51d60e8049ce" CreationDate="2018-07-19T08:59:55.703" UserId="8909" Text="In a non-formal situation you would just use &quot;громкоговоритель&quot; (loudspeaker).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Система оповещения&quot; would still be the formal name of the system that's used in, for example, a fire at a supermarket. Russian [Wikipedia][1] states that there are difference scales of such systems, and supermarket one would be &quot;object&quot; scale. I'm not sure there's a formal name for a loudspeaker that would call a worker to his workplace and things like that, I'm not even sure it's a separate system from emergency ones and not just a microphone wired in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16835" RevisionGUID="f4bb8025-6844-4157-8ee6-02e7d126bc3c" CreationDate="2018-07-19T09:15:22.387" UserId="134" Text="It's _громкая связь_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как рассказать о событиях на вашем стенде? Легко!&#xD;&#xA;Дайте объявление по громкой связи в павильоне выставки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В понедельник я ещё не успела сменить сапоги на туфли, как по громкой связи меня вызвали в кабинет главного бухгалтера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дженнифер Лоуренс по громкой связи в самолете поддержала будущих победителей Супербоула. Но всем было наплевать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that _громкая связь_ also means &quot;speakerphone&quot; (on your phone)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43584" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16832" RevisionGUID="60b55805-6a00-4d58-90b7-c35e44ddd7b3" CreationDate="2018-07-19T09:16:09.040" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16823" RevisionGUID="42b93f4d-4744-4bd0-a5dc-ba5c144fa9ab" CreationDate="2018-07-19T13:12:50.070" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="Sometimes (not too often), **один** really just adds the same sense of indefiniteness as articles a/an/un/uno/una/un' do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Один** мой друг живёт в Канаде. (**A** friend of mine lives in Canada. /I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have **a** friend living in Canada./)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not about '*friend count*', it just prevents from false conclusions about '*my only friend / FFL*' which are possible in case один is omitted here (*Мой друг живёт в Канаде*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your example, the word **один** is useful in a Russian translation, with the following word order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шопенгауэр написал на греческом биографию **одного** человека.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It keeps the original's (Schopenhauer wrote a biography in Greek) measure of *indefiniteness* (no ideas if it was the only biography he wrote), while the literal version with direct replacement of the article (*Шопенгауэр написал **одну биографию** на греческом*) has an extra emphasis on *на греческом* and leaves unnecessary questions: was he a prolific biography writer who wrote one of those in Greek / was it just one / could it be an autobiography?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that some forms of Spanish and Italian indefinite article even coincide with the word meaning '**one**' but in the function of *article* they just express *indefiniteness*, so **unos** doesn't mean '*ones*', it means **'some'** (items in plural). In English, a/an  tend to mean '*one of the specified kind*', not simply '*one*'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16836" RevisionGUID="f115f062-01f0-4df0-b36e-56488192553b" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:11:01.130" UserId="8780" Text="Which one is correctly written?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- У меня не с кем говорить&#xD;&#xA;- Мне не с кем говорить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16836" RevisionGUID="f115f062-01f0-4df0-b36e-56488192553b" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:11:01.130" UserId="8780" Text="У меня or мне before не- words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16836" RevisionGUID="f115f062-01f0-4df0-b36e-56488192553b" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:11:01.130" UserId="8780" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16837" RevisionGUID="fd1b253a-1cc3-4d06-8c1a-d98bc9e40835" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:18:42.307" UserId="8780" Text="I've seen the following set expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Она на ... лет моложе/старше меня.&#xD;&#xA;- Это в ... раз меньше/больше.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the prepositions **на** and **в** interchangeable in these contexts? If not, is there any rule justifying the employment of **на** and **в** in the respective examples? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or those prepositions are there just &quot;because&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16837" RevisionGUID="fd1b253a-1cc3-4d06-8c1a-d98bc9e40835" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:18:42.307" UserId="8780" Text="Prepositions used in comparisons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16837" RevisionGUID="fd1b253a-1cc3-4d06-8c1a-d98bc9e40835" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:18:42.307" UserId="8780" Text="|предлоги|сравнительный|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16838" RevisionGUID="4e4a23f7-e390-45c4-a1c3-63f07a9bcf3c" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:39:33.213" UserId="134" Text="*на* is addition or subtraction (*на двадцать лет старше* means &quot;twenty years older&quot;), *в* is division or multiplication (*в два раза старше* means &quot;two times as old&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16839" RevisionGUID="b6fd9808-6756-4485-9e45-990da2c2e364" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:46:22.717" UserId="134" Text="They are both grammatically correct, but mean different things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня не с кем говорить* means &quot;There is none to talk to at my place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне не с кем говорить* means &quot;I don't have anyone to talk to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that using imperfective *говорить* in these sentences assumes some context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *— Поговори с кем-нибудь!&#xD;&#xA;— Мне не с кем говорить.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just want to state the fact you don't have anyone to talk to, use the perfective verb *поговорить*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16840" RevisionGUID="cde88b19-dc1b-4c9c-ae69-b4a72a74d5a3" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:46:39.987" UserId="5443" Text="The *second* version is correct (I have no one to talk to). The first one sounds like: 'there's nobody to talk to at my place'. However, **у меня** can be used in a longer construction like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **У меня** **не**т никого, **с кем** можно было бы по**говорить**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16841" RevisionGUID="becff2d2-2a06-4c5d-8e97-8c61c87307f8" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:59:17.190" UserId="10801" Text="*У меня [дома, на работе] не с кем говорить.*&#xD;&#xA;*Мне [в принципе] не с кем говорить.*&#xD;&#xA;Also may be &#xD;&#xA;*Мне не с кем **по**говорить*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="4fc1a1ff-735c-43ec-ba25-58b8a28982e0" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:06:25.263" UserId="3892" Text="According to the dictionary, миновать is both perfective and imperfective. So I'm having trouble reconciling минуть: Does it indeed form part of the (hypothetical) verb pair минуть - муиновать, or is it considered a separate verb altogether? Also, is there any difference in meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="4fc1a1ff-735c-43ec-ba25-58b8a28982e0" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:06:25.263" UserId="3892" Text="What is the difference between миновать and минуть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="4fc1a1ff-735c-43ec-ba25-58b8a28982e0" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:06:25.263" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="ff6359a1-9d5e-4368-8115-53e95ef0e1e5" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:38:39.030" UserId="242" Text="`Минуть` in the majority of possible meanings became just more obsolete form of `миновать`, here's reduced quote from article on [`миновать`][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `устар.` [устаревшее - obsolete] то же, что миновать; пройти, проехать мимо кого-, чего-либо, оставив кого-, что-либо позади или в стороне &#xD;&#xA; 2. устар. то же, что [миновать][2]; пройти, не затронув кого-либо, не оказав никакого воздействия (обычно неблагоприятного) &#xD;&#xA; 3. обычно с отрицанием, устар. то же, что миновать; избежать чего-либо, уклониться от чего-либо&#xD;&#xA; 4. устар. то же, что миновать; не упомянуть о ком-, чём-либо, не коснуться кого-, чего-либо`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43601" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="37aff43d-1fcb-4d23-83ca-b60a9fd5ed27" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:42:26.473" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;миновать&quot; and &quot;минуть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16844" RevisionGUID="f572e528-f2c1-4922-bdc1-6c77595508af" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:10:04.307" UserId="8780" Text="If I want to say &quot;can I take a photo of you (your face)&quot;, how should I proceed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Могу снять фото на вас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Могу снять портрет ваш?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or neither of the aforementioned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16844" RevisionGUID="f572e528-f2c1-4922-bdc1-6c77595508af" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:10:04.307" UserId="8780" Text="Asking to take photos in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16844" RevisionGUID="f572e528-f2c1-4922-bdc1-6c77595508af" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:10:04.307" UserId="8780" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16845" RevisionGUID="186452a4-7065-4960-94d0-538b78ce3beb" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:23:09.850" UserId="134" Text="It's *можно вас сфотографировать?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фотографировать* is Russian for &quot;photographing&quot;, &quot;taking a picture&quot;, and it has a direct object in accusative, so there is not need to recourse to analytic constructs similar to English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, Russians are usually not particularly fond of people on street taking their pictures without a good reason, so if you just want to take a photo of stranger on the street, it would not hurt to throw some kind of explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Простите, можно вас сфотографировать? Я из …, мне для …*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Excuse me, can I take your picture? I'm from …, and that's for …&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16845" RevisionGUID="d2f4577e-c667-459a-8336-673380955821" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:35:20.930" UserId="134" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It's *можно вас сфотографировать?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фотографировать* is Russian for &quot;photographing&quot;, &quot;taking a picture&quot;, and it has a direct object in accusative, so there is not need to recourse to analytic constructs similar to English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, Russians are usually not particularly fond of people on street taking their pictures without a good reason, so if you just want to take a photo of stranger on the street, it would not hurt to throw in some kind of explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Простите, можно вас сфотографировать? Я из …, мне для …*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Excuse me, can I take your picture? I'm from …, and that's for …&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16845" RevisionGUID="0cf08d3f-6f95-43e4-bc66-84aece2bf192" CreationDate="2018-07-19T17:43:39.927" UserId="134" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's *можно вас сфотографировать?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фотографировать* is Russian for &quot;photographing&quot;, &quot;taking a picture&quot;, and it has a direct object in accusative, so there is not need to recourse to analytic constructs similar to English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, Russians are usually not particularly fond of people on street taking their pictures without a good reason, so if you just want to take a photo of a stranger on the street, it would not hurt to throw in some kind of explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Простите, можно вас сфотографировать? Я из …, мне для …*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Excuse me, can I take your picture? I'm from …, and that's for …&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16846" RevisionGUID="2019714b-b456-4df0-9865-5ed0c969ff1d" CreationDate="2018-07-19T18:26:53.817" UserId="242" Text="If one is asking complete strangers I'd go with `Вы не против, если я вас сфотографирую?` - it sounds to me subtly more polite and sort of less insistent rather than `можно`-form mentioned in the different question (which is 100% percent valid of course). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="034301ce-1695-4a11-9f4d-c8b46aea520b" CreationDate="2018-07-19T18:30:46.770" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="`Минуть` in the majority of possible meanings became just more obsolete form of `миновать`, here's reduced quote from article on [`минуть`][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `устар.` [устаревшее - obsolete] то же, что миновать; пройти, проехать мимо кого-, чего-либо, оставив кого-, что-либо позади или в стороне &#xD;&#xA; 2. устар. то же, что [миновать][2]; пройти, не затронув кого-либо, не оказав никакого воздействия (обычно неблагоприятного) &#xD;&#xA; 3. обычно с отрицанием, устар. то же, что миновать; избежать чего-либо, уклониться от чего-либо&#xD;&#xA; 4. устар. то же, что миновать; не упомянуть о ком-, чём-либо, не коснуться кого-, чего-либо`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="3d32b063-093e-461f-8cbe-b54b0a98edcb" CreationDate="2018-07-19T20:57:45.787" UserId="242" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="`Минуть` in the majority of possible meanings became just more obsolete form of `миновать`, here's reduced quote from article on [`минуть`][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `устар.` [устаревшее - obsolete] то же, что миновать; пройти, проехать мимо кого-, чего-либо, оставив кого-, что-либо позади или в стороне &#xD;&#xA; 2. устар. то же, что [миновать][2]; пройти, не затронув кого-либо, не оказав никакого воздействия (обычно неблагоприятного) &#xD;&#xA; 3. обычно с отрицанием, устар. то же, что миновать; избежать чего-либо, уклониться от чего-либо&#xD;&#xA; 4. устар. то же, что миновать; не упомянуть о ком-, чём-либо, не коснуться кого-, чего-либо`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: However I can recall at least one case when you should not trust dictionaries entirely - when one wants to say how much time passed by, `минуть` sounds more colloquial and less pathetic. For instance, compare `минуло семь лет` and `миновало семь лет`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16843" RevisionGUID="2ce4e154-307d-4514-897a-241663852c27" CreationDate="2018-07-20T00:04:34.703" UserId="3892" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="`Минуть` in the majority of possible meanings has just become more of an obsolete form of `миновать`, here's a reduced quote from an article on [`минуть`][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. `устар.` [устаревшее - obsolete] то же, что миновать; пройти, проехать мимо кого-, чего-либо, оставив кого-, что-либо позади или в стороне &#xD;&#xA; 2. устар. то же, что [миновать][2]; пройти, не затронув кого-либо, не оказав никакого воздействия (обычно неблагоприятного) &#xD;&#xA; 3. обычно с отрицанием, устар. то же, что миновать; избежать чего-либо, уклониться от чего-либо&#xD;&#xA; 4. устар. то же, что миновать; не упомянуть о ком-, чём-либо, не коснуться кого-, чего-либо`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: However I can recall at least one case when you should not trust dictionaries entirely - when one wants to say how much time passed by, `минуть` sounds more colloquial and less pathetic. For instance, compare `минуло семь лет` and `миновало семь лет`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43613" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16831" RevisionGUID="3c894709-dcdf-4381-ae6c-b046073e1aed" CreationDate="2018-07-20T01:05:44.030" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020112485200932867" />
  <row Id="43614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16847" RevisionGUID="dbd99a11-22e5-49f9-8ef1-958372459637" CreationDate="2018-07-20T05:00:09.853" UserId="10804" Text="в разговорной речи так ( in colloquial speech so ) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;не правильно (not properly) :&#xD;&#xA;простите разрешите..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно:&#xD;&#xA;можно вас сфоткать?&#xD;&#xA;можно с вами своткаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16847" RevisionGUID="a64e7f64-33ef-40e6-8723-5309b4121a02" CreationDate="2018-07-20T06:26:41.070" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="в разговорной речи так ( in colloquial speech so ) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;не правильно (not properly) :&#xD;&#xA;простите разрешите..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;правильно:&#xD;&#xA;можно вас сфоткать?&#xD;&#xA;можно с вами сфоткаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43616" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16842" RevisionGUID="04f53dfa-499a-4209-bd88-fe9ebe94287f" CreationDate="2018-07-20T10:06:39.837" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020248614692704256" />
  <row Id="43617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="074530b7-566f-4ba6-b9e1-890d20670389" CreationDate="2018-07-20T16:06:40.100" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020339212678311936" />
  <row Id="43618" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16813" RevisionGUID="1b5f34e3-e4a9-4ca9-bb55-7ae09c4816ba" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:06:40.343" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020384512214216704" />
  <row Id="43619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16848" RevisionGUID="ad42e440-4a85-4965-959d-3d1c510645b9" CreationDate="2018-07-20T21:29:05.140" UserId="9649" Text="As long as all your examples contain pronouns derived from particles and other pronouns we can talk about pronouns only for a while.&#xD;&#xA;In the case Yellow Sky's comment is right. You can treat &quot;не(когда/где/куда/etc)&quot; as negative pronouns, which mean absence of time/place/direction/etc. Whereas &quot;ни(когда/где/куда)&quot; stresses the negation expressed by &quot;не + verb&quot; construction. The negative construction can be omitted, but is usually obvious. E.g. &quot;В комнате никого [нет]&quot; -- Nobody in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's worth to mention &quot;некто&quot; and &quot;нечто&quot;. The former is for 'someone', the latter -- 'something amazing' or 'something unknown, obscure'. &quot;Некто ничего не делал&quot; - someone (we don't know him/her) didn't anything.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;То, что он сделал, -- это нечто!&quot; - he made something wonderful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And be careful! We like to play with &quot;ни&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;E.g. sometimes they describe their idleness as &quot;Делаю ничего&quot;. Don't be confused: that still means &quot;ничего не делаю&quot;, with some connotation perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, &quot;Ты никто/ничто&quot; is indignity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These particles are also used separately from pronouns. &#xD;&#xA;Main logic is the same. &quot;Не&quot; means negation, &quot;Ни&quot; - emphasis of negation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also &quot;ни..., ни...&quot; сonstruction is used like English &quot;neither... nor...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;В прошлом году ни Италия, ни Франция не прошли в четвертьфинал.&quot; -- 'Neither Italy nor France got to the quarter finals last year.'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43620" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16819" RevisionGUID="5c27d97c-e508-4a25-ba4a-ba9c08f2dcfb" CreationDate="2018-07-21T01:06:40.253" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020475108849332226" />
  <row Id="43621" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16771" RevisionGUID="22477536-4176-4b8d-b623-91efc68e4bb1" CreationDate="2018-07-21T16:06:41.687" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020701607145758722" />
  <row Id="43627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16802" RevisionGUID="03c74875-cc83-4a10-b033-e0f14591f3db" CreationDate="2018-07-21T22:06:41.560" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1020792203604525056" />
  <row Id="43628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16850" RevisionGUID="01dd328a-5aba-481b-b990-123c11f2bd03" CreationDate="2018-07-22T12:09:35.403" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Еще даже не **вечер**, а ты уже выпиваешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Еще даже не **вечером**, а ты уже выпиваешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I should use the noun &quot;вечер&quot; or the adverb &quot;вечером&quot; to express the idea of &quot;not in the evening&quot;. Incidentally, should I see &quot;вечером&quot; as the instrumental noun instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16850" RevisionGUID="01dd328a-5aba-481b-b990-123c11f2bd03" CreationDate="2018-07-22T12:09:35.403" UserId="8672" Text="Whether to say &quot;Еще даже не вечер, а ...&quot; or &quot;Еще даже не вечером, а ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16850" RevisionGUID="01dd328a-5aba-481b-b990-123c11f2bd03" CreationDate="2018-07-22T12:09:35.403" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16851" RevisionGUID="b1086b0f-8ffc-441a-bec3-a6883be4796a" CreationDate="2018-07-22T12:28:26.453" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;От холода **зуб на зуб не попадает**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this is a hyperbolic expression, meaning &quot;freezing cold&quot;. But how should I interpret the phrase more literally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not even sure if &quot;[попадает][1]&quot; comes from the imperfective &quot;попада́ть&quot; or the perfective &quot;попа́дать&quot;. I suppose these two are different verbs with different uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43632" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16851" RevisionGUID="b1086b0f-8ffc-441a-bec3-a6883be4796a" CreationDate="2018-07-22T12:28:26.453" UserId="8672" Text="The expression &quot;зуб на зуб не попадает&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43633" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16851" RevisionGUID="b1086b0f-8ffc-441a-bec3-a6883be4796a" CreationDate="2018-07-22T12:28:26.453" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="41f60967-7174-4e56-8c2b-fa2f9353315f" CreationDate="2018-07-22T13:04:16.097" UserId="10791" Text="I am learning Russian using Duolingo as a resource. One of the questions in an exercise was to translate the following into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стол на месте &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I (maybe naively) interpreted it as *Table/Desk on place*. The answer they were after was *The table is in the right place.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How am I supposed to infer that from the above? What can I do in the future to help with things like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="41f60967-7174-4e56-8c2b-fa2f9353315f" CreationDate="2018-07-22T13:04:16.097" UserId="10791" Text="How do I infer the meaning from Стол на месте?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="41f60967-7174-4e56-8c2b-fa2f9353315f" CreationDate="2018-07-22T13:04:16.097" UserId="10791" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|выражения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16853" RevisionGUID="d154e06a-b02f-42b3-9b8e-7fc9d2d4d559" CreationDate="2018-07-22T13:21:44.727" UserId="242" Text="You are not supposed to infer anything - you need to memorize. Language constructs differ in different languages, even closely related. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How one should infer that &quot;we are short on onion&quot; is about not having onion - Russian speaker does not say `мы коротки на лук` - yet, this is exactly how one says it in English and one should just remember it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This holds true about thousands of other phrases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in this particular case may be it would be helpful to think of this phrase as of shortened form of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стол на [cвоём] месте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is literally `the table is on it's place`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43638" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="50d4175b-550d-4791-bb11-c14159cc3065" CreationDate="2018-07-22T13:23:08.623" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I infer the meaning from &quot;Стол на месте&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16854" RevisionGUID="d570da7b-c39b-498b-970f-95046c287a00" CreationDate="2018-07-22T13:29:27.317" UserId="242" Text="First phrase can be translated as &quot;it's not even an evening and you are drinking already&quot;. It's constructed pretty much similar to it's English counterpart and `вечер` is in Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase is ungrammatical, you are confusing [`вечером`][1] (which is an adverb by the way) and the noun [`вечер`][2]. The adverb stands for `in the evening`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16854" RevisionGUID="df4650ab-7100-4677-8d27-a841d6a9f48d" CreationDate="2018-07-22T14:07:57.613" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="First phrase can be translated as &quot;it's not even an evening and you are drinking already&quot;. It's constructed pretty much similar to it's English counterpart and `вечер` is in Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase is ungrammatical, you are confusing [`вечером`][1] (which as you mentioned as adverb) and the noun [`вечер`][2]. The adverb stands for `in the evening`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16855" RevisionGUID="a4a94f9e-86da-4c88-90d2-61ee91c34fcc" CreationDate="2018-07-22T14:47:51.560" UserId="5443" Text="Literally, the jaws are trembling in the horizontal plane as well, so *no tooth* *meets* (**попада́ет** на) *its match* on the opposite jaw each time the jaws close." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43642" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16764" RevisionGUID="c44f9283-9856-48d1-9fea-b525bb781637" CreationDate="2018-07-22T16:06:41.670" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1021063995099402240" />
  <row Id="43643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16856" RevisionGUID="a3855f44-7b55-43b1-9c50-08a4fdd3d901" CreationDate="2018-07-22T17:05:07.857" UserId="10177" Text="The definition of `место` here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Определённое пространство, специально отведённое, предназначенное для кого-, чего-л. или обычно занимаемое кем-, чем-л.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is analogous to this definition of `place` in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. a portion of space designated or available for or being used by someone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The regular or proper position of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be similar to the English phrase &quot;the table is in place.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look up and match the right definitions of the words, it makes sense!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43648" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16760" RevisionGUID="75a4df0d-a1b7-4f08-bb9d-4c52857d75b6" CreationDate="2018-07-22T19:06:41.577" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1021109293100294145" />
  <row Id="43653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16859" RevisionGUID="cd3a1ebd-1f00-4d09-8ab0-f4c2502786fc" CreationDate="2018-07-23T06:12:42.800" UserId="10578" Text="To sound natural, you'd want simplier expressions &quot;ещё не вечер&quot; and &quot;ещё день&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st one, besides &quot;it's (relatively) early yet [to/for something]&quot;, has an alternative meaning in colloquial, &quot;there's yet time [to/for something]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd one means &quot;it's daytime yet&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16860" RevisionGUID="7d3f9fc1-4ee0-4068-933a-6f5e6a6a529b" CreationDate="2018-07-23T06:21:10.003" UserId="10578" Text="When you are freezing cold, all your muscles start shaking, trying to generate heat. Likewise the jaw muscles, like @Alex_ander says, so &quot;teeth do not meet teeth&quot; (and when you try to speak in that condition, you can talk only intermittently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are expressions conveying the same idea (but I'm not sure if this one's the native Russian expression), &quot;звонить зубами&quot;--&quot;to ring with your teeth&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43655" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16753" RevisionGUID="270b3164-dbf7-4893-9982-4a5be2bcc62f" CreationDate="2018-07-23T07:06:50.040" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1021290522571411456" />
  <row Id="43656" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15227" RevisionGUID="cc3f8e33-e06a-40cd-883f-5de9772d1619" CreationDate="2018-07-23T15:06:25.693" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43657" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="15227" RevisionGUID="cc3f8e33-e06a-40cd-883f-5de9772d1619" CreationDate="2018-07-23T15:06:25.693" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 5605 edit id of 985" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16861" RevisionGUID="3b6ba158-412e-4ad9-989e-aa063432805c" CreationDate="2018-07-24T00:44:12.600" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Не дворянское это дело** тратить на поход в магазин или фитнес-клуб массу времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    =??? It’s not in a nobleman's nature to spend much time going to a shop or a fitness club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume &quot;дворянское&quot; is the neuter nominative of &quot;дворянский&quot;, but does it serve the function of a substantive here with the meaning of &quot;nobleman'**s**&quot; like &quot;**mine**/**yours**&quot;, with some word implied: &quot;nobleman's (**nature**/etc)&quot;? That is, instead of an attributive meaning: &quot;nobleman-related&quot; like &quot;my/your&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose &quot;это дело&quot; serves as the *dummy* subject corresponding to &quot;it&quot; in English, with the *real* subject being &quot;тратить ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I interpret the sentence more literally as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not a nobleman's {substantive}, this thing, to spend much time going to a shop or a fitness club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, should I use the neuter nominative &quot;моё/mine&quot; to express the idea of &quot;It’s not in **my** nature to do X&quot; or more literally &quot;It’s not **mine**, this thing, to do X&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не моё это дело** тратить на поход в магазин или фитнес-клуб массу времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or does the word order of &quot;Не дворянское это дело&quot; come from &quot;Это не **дворянское**/**моё** дело&quot; {attributive}?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43659" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16861" RevisionGUID="3b6ba158-412e-4ad9-989e-aa063432805c" CreationDate="2018-07-24T00:44:12.600" UserId="8672" Text="Is this a Russian equivalent of the expression &quot;It’s not in someone's nature to do X&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43660" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16861" RevisionGUID="3b6ba158-412e-4ad9-989e-aa063432805c" CreationDate="2018-07-24T00:44:12.600" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16862" RevisionGUID="b7092d06-895b-4ba0-b497-7eb068639510" CreationDate="2018-07-24T01:45:08.010" UserId="134" Text="*Не дворянское это дело* literally means &quot;it's not a nobleman's job&quot;, but it's used here as a set phrase meaning &quot;it's beneath you (to spend much time etc.)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's more often used as *не царское это дело* (&quot;it's not a royal's job&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In *не моё это дело* the idiomatic meaning is lost, so it just has the literal meaning of &quot;it's not my job&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16863" RevisionGUID="2f4d1eae-184e-4850-aafe-64caabca027a" CreationDate="2018-07-24T04:41:34.167" UserId="10578" Text="This conversational expression, which is indeed much more popular in the form @Quassnoi points out: &quot;не царское это дело&quot;--&quot;not a job for a tsar&quot;, means more precisely &quot;I/you/... won't bother with that&quot; OR even &quot;I/... won't bother [those are sour grapes]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression **might** come from a vulgar joke, where tsar refuses to get intimate with a girl, on the lines: &quot;not a job for a tsar! but if I order it, she'll get intimated all right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or both joke and expression might share the same origin, reflected in the expression's form as in the question. I've never encountered a variant with &quot;дворянское дело&quot;, but might have heard a variant with &quot;барское дело&quot;--&quot;massa's job&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16864" RevisionGUID="78d3e317-b140-42f8-b9fc-11f28c6886d9" CreationDate="2018-07-24T04:51:23.797" UserId="5443" Text="Probably, that's a modification of a more popular expression: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не барское это дело**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dslov.ru/fslov/f373.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Барин** (originally, боярин) - in olden times (like 1.5-2 centuries ago), a higher class man, *master* to his servants, etc. (often addressed so by them). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is often used in the meaning '*it's not worth my (his) time and effort*, [I'd (he'd) rather hire somebody for that]'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16864" RevisionGUID="7650bb11-024d-4626-99ee-ff02ff23a0c1" CreationDate="2018-07-24T05:04:36.213" UserId="5443" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Probably, that's a modification of a more popular expression: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не барское это дело**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dslov.ru/fslov/f373.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Барин** (originally, боярин) - in olden times (like 1.5-2 centuries ago), a higher class man, *master* to his servants, etc. (often addressed so and referred to by them). Also, **барыня** (fem.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is often used in the meaning '*it's not worth my (his) time and effort*, [I'd (he'd) rather hire somebody for that]'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16864" RevisionGUID="5cca61b8-4c51-40c6-af78-e08e8ac4953c" CreationDate="2018-07-24T05:09:46.513" UserId="5443" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Probably, that's a modification of a more popular expression: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не барское это дело**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dslov.ru/fslov/f373.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Барин** (originally, боярин) - in olden times (like 1.5-2 centuries ago), a higher class man, *master* to his servants, etc. (often addressed so and referred to by them). Also, **барыня** (fem.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is often used in the meaning '*it's not worth my (his) time and effort*, [I'd (he'd) rather hire somebody for that]'. The modification '*не царское...*' is typically limited in usage to cases where a real boss is involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16864" RevisionGUID="c974744b-0863-4a64-9873-78d935f706c4" CreationDate="2018-07-24T05:24:51.637" UserId="5443" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Probably, that's a modification of a more popular expression: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не барское это дело**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dslov.ru/fslov/f373.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Барин** (originally, боярин) - in olden times (like 1.5-2 centuries ago), a higher class man, *master* to his servants, etc. (often addressed so and referred to by them). Also, **барыня** (fem.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is often used in the meaning '*it's not worth my (his) time and effort*, [I'd (he'd) rather hire somebody for that]'. The modification '*не царское...*' is typically limited in usage to cases where a real boss is involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of the sense '*It's not in someone's nature*...': one can use a more literal expression like **мне это занятие не по душе** or **(мне) не хотелось бы с этим возиться**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16864" RevisionGUID="a2f61a35-9682-4b9e-989d-d7ecb2153c8b" CreationDate="2018-07-24T05:40:56.550" UserId="5443" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="Probably, that's a modification of a more popular expression: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Не барское это дело**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://dslov.ru/fslov/f373.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Барин** (originally, боярин) - in olden times (like 1.5-2 centuries ago), a higher class man, *master* to his servants, etc. (often addressed so and referred to by them). Also, **барыня** (fem.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is often used in the meaning '*it's not worth my (his) time and effort*, [I'd (he'd) rather *hire* somebody for that]'. The modification '*не царское...*' is typically limited in usage to cases where a real boss is involved. The version '*не дворянское.*..' can carry a flavour *'it's below one's self-respect, not worth doing at all*'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of the sense '*It's not in someone's nature*...': one can use a more literal expression like **мне это занятие не по душе** or **(мне) не хотелось бы с этим возиться**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16865" RevisionGUID="b44b6a8e-f6b9-43df-aa35-43247ea0eddc" CreationDate="2018-07-24T06:40:17.517" UserId="5023" Text="We are omitting words, mostly the verb to be (is).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ещё не вечер&quot; means &quot;[NOW IT IS] not an evening yet&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ещё не вечером&quot; is just incorrect. We can say &quot;Вечером&quot; (In the evening), &quot;Не вечером&quot; (Not in the evening), but we it doesn't match with &quot;Ещё&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16866" RevisionGUID="12e85f00-f052-4c78-9c5d-7f41c826c001" CreationDate="2018-07-24T12:39:15.447" UserId="2104" Text="&gt; “It’s not in someone's nature to do X”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Не в его́ нату́ре / хара́ктере / обыкнове́нии де́лать X.&#xD;&#xA;* Не в мои́х пра́вилах / привы́чках де́лать X.&#xD;&#xA;* Ему́ несво́йственно де́лать X.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not a nobleman's {substantive}, this thing, to spend much time going to a shop or a fitness club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, дворя́нское is not substantivised, nor does it imply a noun. It is simply an adjective that agrees with the neuter noun де́ло. &quot;Не дворя́нское э́то де́ло&quot; can be parsed in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Э́то (-) не дворя́нское де́ло (This is not a nobleman's affair)&#xD;&#xA;* Э́то де́ло (-) не дворя́нское (This affair is not nobleman's)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Normally we don't write the dash for a copula before **не**.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43670" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16546" RevisionGUID="6230702b-d8be-4b53-a7fd-5705974c8b7b" CreationDate="2018-07-24T12:59:44.383" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1021741721984610304" />
  <row Id="43671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16867" RevisionGUID="947dc008-854d-4c38-9e56-a8a4ccbf6530" CreationDate="2018-07-24T17:47:16.443" UserDisplayName="user4574" Text="What is an English equivalent of the phrase *Ещё Аристотель отмечал, что...* , т.е. *ещё* в смысле *уже*? One might say *Already Aristotle observed that...*, but its meaning seems to be slightly different (?). Anyway, is there any other locution with roughly the same meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16867" RevisionGUID="947dc008-854d-4c38-9e56-a8a4ccbf6530" CreationDate="2018-07-24T17:47:16.443" UserDisplayName="user4574" Text="&quot;Ещё&quot; в смысле &quot;уже&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16867" RevisionGUID="947dc008-854d-4c38-9e56-a8a4ccbf6530" CreationDate="2018-07-24T17:47:16.443" UserDisplayName="user4574" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16868" RevisionGUID="1d3d830c-b42e-4984-8056-95b7ea55aea0" CreationDate="2018-07-24T17:57:52.253" UserId="7674" Text="Mayhap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even Aristotle was one who observed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16868" RevisionGUID="c1190f15-7406-43fa-9972-2e75f7e289e2" CreationDate="2018-07-24T18:07:22.020" UserId="7674" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Mayhap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Even Aristotle was one who observed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or there's a need to construct the sentence differently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fact that.... had already been observed by Aristotle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16867" RevisionGUID="60e78f43-2177-44b2-94d4-e97d617848eb" CreationDate="2018-07-24T19:27:13.260" UserDisplayName="user4574" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="What is an English equivalent of the phrase *Ещё Аристотель отмечал, что...* , т.е. *ещё* в смысле *уже*? One might say *Already Aristotle observed that...*, but its meaning seems to be slightly different (?). Anyway, is there any other locution with roughly the same meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that my variant [is not idiomatic enough.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/174011/already-aristotle-observed-that?noredirect=1#comment347052_174011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="d4eaf74b-3fab-451d-a88e-cb40a722493e" CreationDate="2018-07-24T21:14:20.197" UserId="5443" Text="*Back in his days*, Aristotle pointed out that..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="d165e39f-30d2-4f3d-8844-ab20b32c2b1c" CreationDate="2018-07-24T21:22:05.983" UserId="5443" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&gt; *Back in his days*, Aristotle pointed out that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(or stronger: as early as in his days)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16870" RevisionGUID="71b5ef2c-66e8-4926-aa06-0ed92e399fc4" CreationDate="2018-07-25T00:19:07.680" UserId="8672" Text="The adverb &quot;особенно/especially&quot; is used to add that something described is &quot;all the **more** true for/if ...&quot; in an affirmative structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Конечно! **Особенно** если сможешь ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &gt;== Certainly! And **all the more so** if you ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;much/still less&quot; in a negative structure in English, on the other hand, do Russian speakers still use &quot;особенно/especially&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I never imagined modelling at all, **much less** full-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А я и не зналa, что у неe есть дочь, **особенно**{/much less} твоего возраста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16870" RevisionGUID="71b5ef2c-66e8-4926-aa06-0ed92e399fc4" CreationDate="2018-07-25T00:19:07.680" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;much less&quot; in Russian, as in &quot;I never imagined modelling at all, much less full-time&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16870" RevisionGUID="71b5ef2c-66e8-4926-aa06-0ed92e399fc4" CreationDate="2018-07-25T00:19:07.680" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16871" RevisionGUID="3eb4cd13-72b6-4795-8e3b-e437aa6a8b72" CreationDate="2018-07-25T00:43:59.073" UserId="2079" Text="`Тем более` is better than `особенно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I never imagined modelling at all, much less full-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я никогда не представляла себе, что стану (буду работать, пойду работать) моделью, тем более на полную ставку." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16871" RevisionGUID="2dd58466-5cc0-42cf-917e-fb9afc9b57e6" CreationDate="2018-07-25T02:36:06.767" UserId="2079" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="`Тем более` is better than `особенно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I never imagined modelling at all, much less full-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я никогда не представляла себе, что стану (буду работать, пойду работать) моделью, тем более на полную ставку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Synonoms to `тем более` are `да ещё` (slightly more coloquial), `к тому же`, and it's variants: `к тому же ещё`, `да к тому же`,  `да к тому же ещё`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16871" RevisionGUID="8cc4d20d-4be7-4cdd-bccf-4280fd12522a" CreationDate="2018-07-25T02:43:29.987" UserId="2079" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="`Тем более` is better than `особенно`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I never imagined modelling at all, much less full-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я никогда не представляла себе, что стану (буду работать, пойду работать) моделью, тем более на полную ставку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Synonom to `тем более` is `да ещё (и)` (slightly more coloquial, `и` can be omitted).  There are also colloquial variants of this: `(да) к тому же ещё (и)`, and others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="e3b40de6-91f1-4668-97cd-de336f3acfbd" CreationDate="2018-07-25T04:18:23.433" UserId="5443" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&gt; *Back in his days*, Aristotle pointed out that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(or stronger: as early as in his days, as long ago as...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16869" RevisionGUID="36fc2e2b-5e20-417c-9c59-ce5b0213cf82" CreationDate="2018-07-25T04:59:28.790" UserId="5443" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; *Back in his days*, Aristotle pointed out that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(or stronger: as early as his days, as long ago as his days)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43687" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16852" RevisionGUID="48f326a3-a55b-4721-96b5-b556660e3b93" CreationDate="2018-07-25T06:00:59.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1021998728431972353" />
  <row Id="43688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="6a66ed9a-2d18-4f29-b05c-409537e3f03b" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:04:55.050" UserId="6539" Text="It seems to me that the nearest sense of Еще Аристотель is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aristotle was the first to observe that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сделать более общий смысл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far back as Aristotle's time it was observed...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="b8f300f4-f78f-4be5-b5ec-3a49b14cb3b5" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:13:48.713" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It seems to me that the nearest sense of Еще Аристотель is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aristotle was the first to observe that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сделать более общий смысл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far back as Aristotle's time it was observed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="8c384f09-983c-45fe-8ed7-6e8c446f7806" CreationDate="2018-07-25T07:26:13.633" UserId="6539" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that the nearest sense of Еще Аристотель is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aristotle was the first to observe that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сделать более общий смысл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far back as Aristotle's time it was observed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or simply &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aristotle,at his time, oserved...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16872" RevisionGUID="3f837a97-2c72-44f7-aadf-c8938fa12c28" CreationDate="2018-07-25T09:01:21.650" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It seems to me that the nearest sense of Еще Аристотель is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aristotle was the first to observe that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сделать более общий смысл&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;As far back as Aristotle's time it was observed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or simply &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aristotle,at his time, observed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43692" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16867" RevisionGUID="a41a9ee6-c95e-44b4-93c2-80cda5dc38ad" CreationDate="2018-07-25T11:54:03.127" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16873" RevisionGUID="5f99c407-e70b-441d-a5f6-16a518ab3f2b" CreationDate="2018-07-25T12:44:02.850" UserId="6181" Text="I noticed the absence of the dotted i (І / і) as well as yi (Ї / ї) within the Cyrillic Russian alphabet. I wonder why these two letters are not shared, when they are vowels and fundamental in Ukrainian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16873" RevisionGUID="5f99c407-e70b-441d-a5f6-16a518ab3f2b" CreationDate="2018-07-25T12:44:02.850" UserId="6181" Text="Why is the dotted i (І / і) and yi (Ї / ї) from Ukrainian not present in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16873" RevisionGUID="5f99c407-e70b-441d-a5f6-16a518ab3f2b" CreationDate="2018-07-25T12:44:02.850" UserId="6181" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16874" RevisionGUID="f44fa960-830e-4a9f-9da2-ebb97fc87914" CreationDate="2018-07-25T13:47:45.377" UserId="310" Text="Russian language has `[йе] е` `[йо] ё` `[йу] ю` and `[йа] я`, but it doesn't have `[йи]` anywhere and has virtually no use for this diphthong. So naturally there's no `ї` and it had to be invented for Ukrainian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="b3f59c0d-f6c3-41e0-bf77-aa0163c139dd" CreationDate="2018-07-25T13:58:53.810" UserId="3917" Text="The French and English dictionaries I have consulted translate &quot;низкий&quot;  and &quot;нижнийi in ways that I find operationally indistinguishable.  &#xD;&#xA;Are these adjectives synonyms or is there a clear, unquestionable difference between them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="b3f59c0d-f6c3-41e0-bf77-aa0163c139dd" CreationDate="2018-07-25T13:58:53.810" UserId="3917" Text="What is the difference between &quot;низкий&quot; and &quot;нижний&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="b3f59c0d-f6c3-41e0-bf77-aa0163c139dd" CreationDate="2018-07-25T13:58:53.810" UserId="3917" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16876" RevisionGUID="5d818a7a-2da6-4215-935a-27c738c8104f" CreationDate="2018-07-25T14:36:44.513" UserId="310" Text="`нижний` means &quot;lowest of&quot;, which then may not be low by itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`низкий` means low by itself. But it doesn't imply it is the lowest or placed particularly low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the clear difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`на нижней полке стояла ваза`, which could itself be pretty tall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`на столе стоял низкий ящик`, which is low by itself even if located on top of something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="8903e8f7-d9b9-4858-87fb-e476129826ab" CreationDate="2018-07-25T14:37:14.473" UserId="5443" Text="**Низкий** is a *qualitative* adjective (*low* tone, *low* building, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Нижний** is about something having a *lower position* relative to some other items of the same kind (*lower* brick, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Самый нижний** - the one having *the lowest* position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16877" RevisionGUID="3fb1418d-32ba-419b-a874-b4d59a590179" CreationDate="2018-07-25T14:47:49.703" UserId="5443" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="**Низкий** is a *qualitative* adjective (*low* tone, *low* building, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Нижний** is about something having a *lower position* relative to some other items of the same kind (*lower* brick, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Самый) нижний** - the one having *the lowest* position. **Самый** is not always needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16878" RevisionGUID="c78bb922-146a-4a4c-9691-055496339a81" CreationDate="2018-07-25T17:04:47.877" UserId="9256" Text="Russian alphabet had both і and ї in the past, but they had become obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Изменялись также правила относительно числа точек над І: Пётр отменил было их; затем было предписано ставить по две точки над І перед гласными, и одну — перед согласными; наконец, с 1738 года точка стала везде одна. Буква І отменена реформами 1917—1918 годов&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rules regarding number of dots above 'i' had been changing. At first, Peter I cancelled them altogether. Later, it was decreed that i in front of vowels should have two dots, and in front of consonants should have one. Since 1738, there was always only one dot above 'i'. The letter 'i' was made obsolete by the reform of 1917-1918.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Судьба отдельных букв в XVIII—XX веках][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Specific changes in 1917-1918 Russian orthography reform ][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82#%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B2_%D0%B2_XVIII%E2%80%94XX_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%85&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography#Specific_changes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16879" RevisionGUID="80beb9b4-bf2a-4a59-a584-dadd1a6fab02" CreationDate="2018-07-25T18:19:22.650" UserId="134" Text="Russian vowels come in pairs: *а/я, о/ё, у/ю, ы/и, э/е*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first three pairs are &quot;good&quot; ones. The second one in each pair is a front vowel (pronounced with the tongue closer to the front of the mouth than its counterpart) and can only occur after a &quot;soft&quot; (palatalized) consonant, *[j]* being one of those consonants: *мяч, люк, мёд* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in writing you can see the second ones occurring after other vowels (*пою*), after *ь* or *ъ* (*пью, объём*) or word-initially (*яблоко*). Every time you see the usage like this, you know there is an implicit *[j]* before the vowel because it has to be. No Russian word uses front vowels from the three first pairs in isolation of after other vowels, and in fact most Russians are even unable to pronounce them like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why &quot;Dr. Oetker&quot; and &quot;Yksi&quot; are rendered as *Доктор Эткер* and *Юкси* in Russian, even though the first one is not even in the correct pair and the second one has an initial *[j]* it lacks in orginal Finnish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second two pairs are more complex.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Front version of *э/е* can exist in isolation in Russian, and all words beginning with *э* in Moscow pronunciation: *этот, Эльза, эра* and so on start with a front vowel. Furthermore, while the complementary distribution of the &quot;good&quot; vowel pairs is always reflected on writing (*мода / мёда* etc.), it's not the case for *э/е*: in *секс*, the first *c* is &quot;hard&quot; (non-patalalized) and the vowel is back, while in *кекс* the first *к* is &quot;soft&quot; (palatalized) and the vowel is front. Many Russians are not sure how to pronounce words like *рельс, шинель, крем* and can even sway between two pronunciations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the *и/ы* pair stands out the most. It is in complementary distribution as well, but unlike the other ones, it's the back version of the vowel (*ы*) which can never happen word-initially or after other vowels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also the only one pair where the front version of the vowel happens immediately after other vowels, even when stressed, without *[j]* or other epentheses: *доил, кроил* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, even though the last two pairs are different, the complementary distribution is still there, even though it's not reflected consistently in writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This complementary distribution is enough to keep balance between etymological and phonetic orthography principles and avoid marking *[j]* in the words which never did it (because it was never there before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, while Russian does use *[ji]* in some words (*судьи, ладьи, ручьи*) and so on, it never uses it word-initially or after other vowels, and, hence, there was no real reason to introduce the third letter to the pair. When still used after vowels or word-initially (in loanwords) it can be represented with *йи* should the need arise (*Йиржи, Байи* etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently the phonetic situation is distinct in Ukrainian and *йи* is used word-initially and after the vowels often enough to justify adding a third letter to the mix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16880" RevisionGUID="5607bd40-e960-458a-9d74-6a54429dcff6" CreationDate="2018-07-25T21:42:56.543" UserId="10820" Text="There are no gender-neutral pronouns that can be applied to a person. &quot;Оно&quot; has pretty much the same connotations as &quot;it&quot; in English. You can probably make something up, if you're familiar with how verbs and adjectives are formed in Russian, but I doubt it will be easy to read for a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, however, ways to conceal one's gender in speech. That includes using passive verbs instead of active ones when it comes to past tense, but this is not always feasible (it can be done to a phrase like &quot;я оплатила счёт&quot;, turning it into &quot;счёт был оплачен мною&quot;, but good luck doing the same for stuff like &quot;я вышел на улицу&quot;). If the bulk of a text is written in past tense, you may try using present tense instead (&quot;я вышел на улицу&quot; becomes &quot;я выхожу на улицу&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also refer to a person by name instead of using a third-person pronoun, but it's generally recommended that you avoid using tautology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people use the so-called &quot;gender gaps&quot;. The practice is controversial to say the least, as many find them confusing and hard to read. Basically you just put an underline after the gender-neutral part of the word is over, and then write a gender-specific ending, usually feminine, but usage of masculine is not unheard of. That way, the adjective &quot;жёлтый/жёлтая&quot; becomes &quot;жёлт_ая&quot; or &quot;жёлт_ый&quot;. Thread with caution, however, as how acceptable its usage is largely depends on the audience it's meant for. If it's meant for the general population (and has nothing to do with feminism and so on), then I suggest using something else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a different, but more accepted way of gender-neutral speech - putting the alternative ending in parentheses. &quot;Грустный/грустная&quot; can either be written as &quot;грустный(ая)&quot;, &quot;грустн(ый/ая)&quot; (that's a bit weird though) or left as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And some people just use masculine pronouns everywhere when they mean common gender. Some people do mind it, some don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16874" RevisionGUID="07b15c76-6e3c-4cbe-b11b-4bfffb990525" CreationDate="2018-07-26T12:26:25.753" UserId="310" Comment="Remove clause about not using йи" Text="Russian language has `[йе] е` `[йо] ё` `[йу] ю` and `[йа] я`, but it doesn't have a dedicated letter for `[йи]` since it is usually covered by `ьи` or similar. So naturally there's no `ї` and it had to be invented for Ukrainian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16883" RevisionGUID="55b42177-6963-4aa0-92d3-3180c529f5d9" CreationDate="2018-07-26T17:29:54.037" UserId="62" Text="In English низкий and нижний are like &quot;low&quot; and &quot;lower&quot;, which are not really interchangeable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a setting you know something about, there are numerous places in math where нижний is used: нижний предел интегрирования (lower bound of integration), нижний индекс (lower index = subscript), нижняя оценка (lower bound), нижняя грань (infimum). Compared with &quot;lower&quot;, you don't really use &quot;low&quot; in technical math terms much, right? About all I can think of right now is low-dimensional topology, but in Russian that term does not use either adjective: it is маломерная топология." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="05e5c4ab-6aae-429b-a739-c15906d55006" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:44:22.467" UserId="5540" Text="I've seen на́чался,начался́, and нача́лся. Does it depend on whether it is an animate or inanimate object or something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="05e5c4ab-6aae-429b-a739-c15906d55006" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:44:22.467" UserId="5540" Text="What is correct pronunciation of &quot;начался&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="05e5c4ab-6aae-429b-a739-c15906d55006" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:44:22.467" UserId="5540" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43719" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="13dd8ded-3167-4d28-ab42-524536e1e5fc" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:51:54.653" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="455593ce-5f20-47f7-a6a4-8dde84664c1e" CreationDate="2018-07-26T19:55:08.487" UserId="3917" Comment="added 458 characters in body" Text="The French and English dictionaries I have consulted translate &quot;низкий&quot;  and &quot;нижний&quot; in ways that I find operationally indistinguishable.  &#xD;&#xA;Are these adjectives synonyms or is there a clear, unquestionable difference between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**   &#xD;&#xA;If I understand the answers correctly &quot;нижний&quot; would be a comparative or superlative of &quot;низкий&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However *all* grammar books or online sites I consulted (for example [this one](http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/the_comparative_degree)) give&quot;ниже&quot;, not &quot;нижний&quot;,  as the comparative form of &quot;низкий&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;And they don't indicate that the superlative is iregular, implying that it is obtained by just writing &quot;самый низкий&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;In other words, &quot;нижний&quot; is never evoked in these grammatical explanations.  &#xD;&#xA;What to think of that ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="e46e0cc7-9c51-4fa9-80fe-10c664c22679" CreationDate="2018-07-26T20:02:17.203" UserId="3917" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="The French and English dictionaries I have consulted translate &quot;низкий&quot;  and &quot;нижний&quot; in ways that I find operationally indistinguishable.  &#xD;&#xA;Are these adjectives synonyms or is there a clear, unquestionable difference between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**   &#xD;&#xA;If I understand the answers correctly &quot;нижний&quot; would be a comparative or superlative of &quot;низкий&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;However *all* grammar books or online sites I consulted (for example [this one](http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/the_comparative_degree)) give&quot;ниже&quot;, not &quot;нижний&quot;,  as the comparative form of &quot;низкий&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;And they don't indicate that the superlative is iregular.   &#xD;&#xA;In other words, &quot;нижний&quot; is never evoked in these grammatical explanations.  &#xD;&#xA;Does some user know a better reference on the subject ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16885" RevisionGUID="28e40351-c006-4ff8-8efc-ce1042f20e6a" CreationDate="2018-07-26T22:16:26.217" UserId="9649" Text="Ze is quite new word, isn't it? So, why don't you just invent another word for your russian translations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But keep in mind Russian gender is way less related to sex. I mean English has no idea of gender (in common sense, i.e. grammatical gender) by contrast with Russian, where every thing has gender: bridge (male), tower (female), bird (f), dog (primary female), rhino (m), ring (neutral), shoulder (n), body (n), et cetera. And native speakers don't mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure you know it. I mentioned it just to emphasis that the idea of gender neutralization in language is borrowed from narrow English, so your any try will probably look strange and alien to Russian. You should creatively work on every sentence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16888" RevisionGUID="d1331f3d-e71b-463d-add7-7de881c817d9" CreationDate="2018-07-27T12:19:46.497" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Держу пари**, ты забудешь ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My girlfriend often uses this phrase in IMs as well as in conversation. The indeclinable noun &quot;пари&quot; seems to be a borrowed word from French, and in French the phrase &quot;je parie que ... {I bet that ...}&quot; is commonly used in conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She has lived near Paris (no pun intended) for ten years in her teens, so I have always wondered if this phrase might actually not be as commonly used among Russian speakers who don't speak French. Is this quite an informal expression?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16888" RevisionGUID="d1331f3d-e71b-463d-add7-7de881c817d9" CreationDate="2018-07-27T12:19:46.497" UserId="8672" Text="Is &quot;держать пари&quot;, apparently borrowed from &quot;je parie&quot; in French, commonly used in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16888" RevisionGUID="d1331f3d-e71b-463d-add7-7de881c817d9" CreationDate="2018-07-27T12:19:46.497" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16889" RevisionGUID="5a2791a0-8021-463f-ae4b-bb134f8b38f6" CreationDate="2018-07-27T12:24:10.800" UserId="10822" Text="&quot;Нижний&quot; means &quot;placed at the bottom of something&quot;, so it's about position relative to other objects. Object couldn't be &quot;нижний&quot; by itself, it needs another objects, to be placed under them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Низкий&quot; is about object's shape, not about place, where it is located." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16890" RevisionGUID="bc4d205f-db92-4ef6-a560-290f861deb33" CreationDate="2018-07-27T12:35:14.710" UserId="310" Text="It is [very common][1] as a book expression which saw a large drop in usage from early XX century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In speech you would expect it to be `Спорим` or `Бьюсь об заклад` when more ornate. But it's in everybody's passive dictionary for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%EF%E0%F0%E8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="8d6e4fbc-8c02-440f-b7a9-26fe5cbd5b93" CreationDate="2018-07-28T11:26:51.010" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Чья бы корова мычала**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this expression said sarcastically, with &quot;чья&quot; alluding to &quot;твоя&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whose cow would be mooing/complaining? Don't tell me it's yours (of all people/cows who should be mooing/complaining)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="8d6e4fbc-8c02-440f-b7a9-26fe5cbd5b93" CreationDate="2018-07-28T11:26:51.010" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;Чья бы корова мычала&quot; have the meaning &quot;You're a fine one to talk&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="8d6e4fbc-8c02-440f-b7a9-26fe5cbd5b93" CreationDate="2018-07-28T11:26:51.010" UserId="8672" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43740" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16888" RevisionGUID="62f794a8-a5b5-4e92-9fda-cb77c4b51a30" CreationDate="2018-07-28T11:55:28.827" UserId="6097" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;держать пари&quot; commonly used in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16892" RevisionGUID="caa9d5dc-66e1-4d74-9297-0b81f7499e8b" CreationDate="2018-07-28T12:27:30.987" UserId="5443" Text="On occasion, the saying is often used in that incomplete form, but the speaker also refers to its second part:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чья бы корова мычала, а твоя бы молчала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, *it wouldn't be such a surprise to hear that moo in criticism from somebody else's cow, but yours should be silent*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sense: *it's strange to hear that criticism from a person, definitely doing what they criticize*. The sarcasm of the saying is a bit rude, but it is OK to use it within a circle of friends, closest co-workers or family members." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16893" RevisionGUID="a44c31fe-6c6c-4c63-a506-b81210c01231" CreationDate="2018-07-28T13:06:11.107" UserId="7674" Text="Another English equivalent would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look who's talking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous expression in Russian would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто б(ы) уже говорил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16894" RevisionGUID="a12e1c57-2575-4417-8c23-ae2b8315c238" CreationDate="2018-07-28T17:17:56.703" UserId="10177" Text="Just to add to the other answer, if you're looking for a negative construction, there is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    не говоря (уж) о..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я никогда не представляла себе, что буду моделью вообще, не говоря уж о полной ставке.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is equivalent to the English `not to mention`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16893" RevisionGUID="cc23a55b-61e0-416e-b430-fd2134dd07ee" CreationDate="2018-07-29T06:32:17.090" UserId="7674" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Another English equivalent would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look who's talking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous expression in Russian would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто б(ы) (уже) говорил? (но только не ты)&lt;sup&gt;*consistently ommitted*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43746" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16870" RevisionGUID="ce647821-c35a-49df-8227-008f88b7ef13" CreationDate="2018-07-29T18:01:59.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1023629725737070594" />
  <row Id="43747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16893" RevisionGUID="a76078e8-9484-4e85-aef9-8b67f81c7b38" CreationDate="2018-07-29T20:20:28.497" UserId="7674" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Another English equivalent would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Look who's talking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous expression in Russian would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто б(ы) (уже) говорил? (но только не ты)&lt;sup&gt;*consistently ommitted*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both expressions can be addressing some 3d person whose words have been retold, not necessarily the immediate interlocutor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16895" RevisionGUID="b0a13d35-83af-472c-8f5a-2f0fbc880eef" CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:21:49.053" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Дует попутный ветер, и **как раз** прилив, а ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== The wind is kicking up and the tide is **exactly** (**...**), but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I go on the definition shown on [Wiki][1], some word or phrase to describe the part inside (...) seems to be lacking in this Russian sentence. In English, a phrase such as &quot;how we want it to be&quot; is expected to follow the adverb &quot;exactly&quot;; after all, &quot;exactly&quot; cannot stand alone, so you cannot say &quot;the tide is exactly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the adverbial phrase &quot;как раз&quot;  only has the meaning of &quot;exactly&quot; and the meaning doesn't extend to &quot;exactly how we want it to be&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== The wind is kicking up and the tide is **exactly** (**how we want it to be**), but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this Russian sentence have some (implied) missing word(s), or should I interpret the phrase &quot;как раз&quot; differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16895" RevisionGUID="b0a13d35-83af-472c-8f5a-2f0fbc880eef" CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:21:49.053" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;как раз&quot; in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16895" RevisionGUID="b0a13d35-83af-472c-8f5a-2f0fbc880eef" CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:21:49.053" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16895" RevisionGUID="43540805-0d8f-4195-bb78-9182fde6a903" CreationDate="2018-07-30T22:27:11.830" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;Дует попутный ветер, и **как раз** прилив, а ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== The wind is kicking up and the tide is **exactly** (**...**), but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I go on the definition shown on [Wiki][1], some word or phrase to describe the part inside (...) seems to be lacking in this Russian sentence. In English, a phrase such as &quot;how we want it to be&quot; is expected to follow the adverb &quot;exactly&quot;; after all, &quot;exactly&quot; cannot stand alone and you cannot say &quot;the tide is exactly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;== The wind is kicking up and the tide is **exactly** (**how we want it to be**), but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the adverbial phrase &quot;как раз&quot;  only has the meaning of &quot;exactly&quot; and the meaning doesn't extend to &quot;exactly how we want it to be&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this Russian sentence have some (implied) missing word(s), or should I interpret the phrase &quot;как раз&quot; differently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16896" RevisionGUID="d96d48e6-4e8f-4851-8f71-a53ba739505b" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:11:58.297" UserId="10668" Text="This is an informal phrase. I can find both &quot;hawk&quot; and &quot;loogie&quot; in my English dictionary, but neither one is in my Russian-English dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the verb &quot;плюнуть&quot;, but I'm guessing that means simply &quot;spit&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the definitions in my English dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; loogie: (noun) a lump of phlegm or spittle  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; hawk: (verb), to clear the throat noisily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16896" RevisionGUID="d96d48e6-4e8f-4851-8f71-a53ba739505b" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:11:58.297" UserId="10668" Text="Translation of &quot;to hawk up a loogie&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16896" RevisionGUID="d96d48e6-4e8f-4851-8f71-a53ba739505b" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:11:58.297" UserId="10668" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16891" RevisionGUID="27a6e378-9c3f-40eb-b91e-ecc5e7e7ebd9" CreationDate="2018-07-31T06:01:34.477" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1024173202476544000" />
  <row Id="43756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16897" RevisionGUID="322a1500-bde4-43c4-bf1b-5a7690365789" CreationDate="2018-07-31T08:16:09.527" UserId="5443" Text="In this context **как раз** points at a *lucky coincidence* ('**and** /*luckily*/, **a high tide's *at that***'): the addition of the second condition (high tide) to the first one (favourable wind), both being necessary for a sailing vessel to get closer to the shore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="cc1a1a33-cfae-45de-8795-4b7d48c4208e" CreationDate="2018-07-31T08:44:53.613" UserId="242" Text="The closest I can think of are [`выкашлять`][1] (and [`выкашливать`][2]) and [`откашлять`][3] (and [`откашливать`][4]), like in phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня утром выкашляла желтоватый густой комочек слизи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как правильно откашливать мокроту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other alternative would be [`отхаркивать`][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Васька счастливо заржал, закашлялся и отхаркнул зеленую мокроту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16898" RevisionGUID="40892c0e-d0d1-4f11-aa7f-860409334f4d" CreationDate="2018-07-31T08:51:24.743" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The closest I can think of is [`отхаркивать`][5], which stands for &quot;шумно прочищать горло или носоглотку, выплёвывая мокро́ту&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Васька счастливо заржал, закашлялся и отхаркнул зеленую мокроту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other alternatives would be [`выкашлять`][1] (and [`выкашливать`][2]) and [`откашлять`][3] (and [`откашливать`][4]), like in phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сегодня утром выкашляла желтоватый густой комочек слизи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как правильно откашливать мокроту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43759" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16875" RevisionGUID="2b477cc6-0f8f-4ff8-8f64-2947e8265dbe" CreationDate="2018-07-31T09:02:33.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1024218747563859968" />
  <row Id="43760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16899" RevisionGUID="00da7d1a-bd2f-4ef4-80aa-f793af1228d3" CreationDate="2018-07-31T11:52:32.263" UserId="10791" Text="I am using duolingo as a resource for learning Russian. One of the exercises was to translate the following into English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дайте мне, пожалуйста, хлеб.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated it roughly as **Give me please bread** which is easy to infer the meaning, but seems a bit backward. Is the following amendment valid?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дайте мне хлеб, пожалуйста." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16899" RevisionGUID="00da7d1a-bd2f-4ef4-80aa-f793af1228d3" CreationDate="2018-07-31T11:52:32.263" UserId="10791" Text="Understanding order in &quot;Дайте мне , пожалуйста , хлеб .&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16899" RevisionGUID="00da7d1a-bd2f-4ef4-80aa-f793af1228d3" CreationDate="2018-07-31T11:52:32.263" UserId="10791" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16900" RevisionGUID="a0f89c84-1eb2-420c-a93b-4fd2ee65c477" CreationDate="2018-07-31T12:22:34.347" UserId="5443" Text="The *word order* in the original expression is *the most natural*, neutral.&#xD;&#xA;The version you suggest is also *correct*, but it leaves a slight feeling that the idea to make the sentence sounding more polite came to the speaker's mind at the latest moment. Why is it so in Russian? Probably, one tends to put **пожалуйста** (please) possibly closer to the already used *imperative* - to immediately compensate for its otherwise demanding sense. So it sounds a bit more polite than the version with **пожалуйста** postponed until the end of the sentence. The form *хлеб**а*** (*some* bread) is better unless one means a *specific piece* of it (typically, before their eyes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дайте мне, пожалуйста, хлеб**а**. (Give me *some* bread, please.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16901" RevisionGUID="be63c55d-fee1-4a54-8f90-3ea0942fffae" CreationDate="2018-07-31T14:10:21.407" UserId="10177" Text="If you want it to be very casual, then the most common would be `харкнуть`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Он харкнул ему в лицо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Откашлялся и схаркнул на землю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An informal and slightly incorrect translation of loogie would be `сопли` which is more like &quot;snot,&quot; but is used to refer to that as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16904" RevisionGUID="6b5061c9-952c-4f98-9507-e5f23ec6e8fa" CreationDate="2018-08-01T01:22:02.657" UserId="9602" Text="It’s nothing more than cadence of speech. There aren’t rules as to where to stammer “um” in a sentence, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a grocery store, all of the following would be perfectly natural, and none would be considered more polite than the other:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Дайте мне, пожалуйста, хлеба.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Мне хлеба, пожалуйста, и сы́ра.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Пожалуйста, хлеба и сыра.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Хлеба, пожалуйста.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a dozen other variations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43771" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16899" RevisionGUID="e865e1ba-b087-440f-bace-1fe181ce3c43" CreationDate="2018-08-01T03:01:26.793" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1024490259638312961" />
  <row Id="43772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="7882edb7-7bbb-457d-aec3-798e610699ab" CreationDate="2018-08-01T11:23:39.083" UserId="10828" Comment="Removed a dead link." Text="## Online courses &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Babbel][1] - beautiful resource for language learning. They've just added new Russian courses.&#xD;&#xA; - [Busuu][2] — online language learning site. Basic profile is free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Duolingo][3] - free language courses delivered via web-based and mobile applications. &#xD;&#xA; - [Edufire/languages/Russian][4] — a site where you can try and find a teacher of Russian with whom you later connect via edufire web-site or Skype. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Memrise][5] — a spaced repetition learning website. It has several Russian courses. It is mainly just memorizing vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [RussianForFree.com][6] — free lessons from basic level to advanced, texts with audio, grammar, activities, and much more. No Sign-up required either.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian LinguaLift][7] — online Russian textbook, spaced repetition tools and educational games. (For-pay.)&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian World][8] — video lectures of 2 years of Russian language courses from [Dallas ISD][9].&#xD;&#xA; - [Easy Russian][10] - regularly updated YouTube channel. Conversational Russian with Russian and English subtitles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Fluent in Russian][11] - free audio lessons in the form of questions and answers for developing speaking and listening skills, as well as grammar and vocabulary.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][12] - Russian language self study guide for beginners.&#xD;&#xA; - [ReadyRussian.org][13] - 16-week course for classroom use, includes exercises, quizzes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.babbel.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://busuu.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.duolingo.com/course/ru/en/Learn-Russian-Online&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://edufire.com/subjects/russian&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.memrise.com/courses/english/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.russianforfree.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://russian.lingualift.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2F566484C119BF4&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/2144&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanilla167333&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://speakfluentrussian.com&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.readyrussian.org/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16844" RevisionGUID="9294dad5-bdbc-4248-9db0-ef1d164ed8fa" CreationDate="2018-08-01T12:01:41.443" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1024626216203153409" />
  <row Id="43777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16906" RevisionGUID="4961568b-8375-4d5e-b5c4-8f19d916052c" CreationDate="2018-08-01T18:45:15.240" UserId="8780" Text="I've seen the following expressions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошёл бы ты работать!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Получить бы работу в этой компании!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My textbook translates them as *&quot;You should get a job!&quot;* and *&quot;It would be nice to get a job with this company!&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm looking for a more literal translation to help me interpret these constructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Пошёл бы ты работать&quot;** reminds me of `&quot;пошёл на хуй!&quot;`. Since the latter sentence means *&quot;go to hell!&quot;* (a very mild translation, I know!), I found strange the usage of the past tense, rather than the imperative (which would be `&quot;иди на хуй!&quot;`, the same way as `&quot;иди на фиг!&quot;`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps in `&quot;пошёл на хуй&quot;` the *бы* particle is omitted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt at translating literally `&quot;пошёл бы ты работать&quot;` is &quot;Had you gone work!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **&quot;получить бы работу&quot;**, the usage of the &quot;бы&quot; particle after an infinitive is news for me. Maybe it's an abbreviation of `&quot;хорошо бы получить работу&quot;`? Or, should I just see the construction infinitive+бы as a translation for &quot;I wish I...+past tense&quot; in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS:** If I want to tell &quot;Why don't you shut up?&quot;, is &quot;молчал ты бы!&quot; a valid translation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16906" RevisionGUID="4961568b-8375-4d5e-b5c4-8f19d916052c" CreationDate="2018-08-01T18:45:15.240" UserId="8780" Text="Colloquial conditional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16906" RevisionGUID="4961568b-8375-4d5e-b5c4-8f19d916052c" CreationDate="2018-08-01T18:45:15.240" UserId="8780" Text="|перевод|conditional|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16907" RevisionGUID="d973a4f1-c9d3-4ecb-8a6d-8f21af4a1d76" CreationDate="2018-08-01T18:58:01.137" UserId="10578" Text="The 1st one should be better formulated as &quot;Шёл бы ты работать&quot;--&quot;you should get a job&quot;. Alternatively, &quot;пошёл бы поработал&quot;--&quot;you should go (and) do some work&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those vulgar phrases mean just what they seem to mean -- &quot;go sit on d*k&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd one, indeed, implies &quot;it would be nice [to get this job]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PS one: &quot;Молчал бы!&quot;--&quot;You [of all people] should keep quiet&quot;  or &quot;Помолчал бы (ты)!&quot;--&quot;(Would you) shut up!&quot;. However, &quot;why don't you shut up&quot; would be more precisely translated as &quot;что ж ты не заткнешься&quot; (rude) or an equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16908" RevisionGUID="e7746192-8d04-4b53-9bc2-0a74caa6cc4c" CreationDate="2018-08-01T19:14:02.870" UserId="8780" Text="I saw that there are many prepositions which translate &quot;about&quot; into Russian. **о**, **насчёт**, **на**, **про**, **по поводу**, even **по** itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess they are not interchangeable and their usage must be memorized for each context...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes verbs are learned with the preposition that normally follows them. For example, `жалеть (о чём)`, `настаивать (на чём)`. No doubts here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, `говорить` is followed either by `о (чём)` or `на тему (чего)`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are `насчёт (+gen.)` and `про (+acc.)` interchangeable when introducing the subject of a conversation without a verb? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Talking about languages... I've read a bit.&quot;* would be `&quot;про языки / насчёт языков... я читал немного&quot;` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;while the &quot;about&quot; after a verb would be translated otherwise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`&quot;I've read a bit about languages&quot;` would be `&quot;я читал немного на тему языков&quot;`?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16908" RevisionGUID="e7746192-8d04-4b53-9bc2-0a74caa6cc4c" CreationDate="2018-08-01T19:14:02.870" UserId="8780" Text="Prepositions for &quot;about&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16908" RevisionGUID="e7746192-8d04-4b53-9bc2-0a74caa6cc4c" CreationDate="2018-08-01T19:14:02.870" UserId="8780" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16909" RevisionGUID="f0a362a1-de9c-4b22-bd65-860cc2413fdc" CreationDate="2018-08-01T22:48:29.157" UserId="9602" Text="*Насчёт* is very close to the English *regarding.* In your example, the topic of languages is quite abstract, thus *насчёт* and *на тему* are good fits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Насчет языков. Недавно прочитал интересную книгу и узнал, что... — Regarding languages: I’ve recently read an interesting book and learned that... (This could as well begin with *[К вопросу] о языках* or *На тему языков*, while *про* would be a bit unnatural.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это сборник статей на тему языков. — This is a compilation of articles on the topic of languages. (*Про* or *о* would also be decent fits.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For concrete things, you would prefer *про* or *о/об*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Расскажи мне об этом. — Tell me about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Узнал что-нибудь про концерт? — Have you found out anything about the concert? (Here *про* implies there’s something in particular the person asking wants to know, while *о* would imply a request for general information.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general, it’s true that one has to memorize the prepositions. English has the same problem, maybe even worse, where prepositions have the tendency to turn verbs into something else altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43785" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16745" RevisionGUID="804fa169-c87b-4f1b-b3e0-b00cb35a3db7" CreationDate="2018-08-02T00:01:23.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1024807335666098177" />
  <row Id="43786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="18cf1aba-c8eb-41fd-8de2-639c8ace0030" CreationDate="2018-08-02T01:10:33.517" UserId="7239" Text="In formal logic, there is the notion of a distinction between [&quot;free variables&quot; and &quot;bounded variables&quot;][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this distinction difficult to understand, until I thought of it this way: free variables are indeterminate things which can be expressed in Russian as что-нибудь, while bound variables are unspecified things which can be expressed in Russian as что-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Question:** Is this explanation correct? Do Russians (who know about formal logic) think about the concepts of свободные и связанные переменные?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concepts really did not make much sense to me until I thought about them this way. Also this might not be a question strictly about the Russian language or culture, in which case I apologize and would gladly learn about a better place to ask. ([StackOverflow на русском][2]?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related questions:**  &#xD;&#xA; https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/6933/%D0%A7%D1%82%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%BE-or-%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8603/whats-the-difference-between-the-two-suffixes-%D1%82%D0%BE-and-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.stackoverflow.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="18cf1aba-c8eb-41fd-8de2-639c8ace0030" CreationDate="2018-08-02T01:10:33.517" UserId="7239" Text="Is this formal logic explanation of the difference between что-нибудь and что-то?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="18cf1aba-c8eb-41fd-8de2-639c8ace0030" CreationDate="2018-08-02T01:10:33.517" UserId="7239" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16911" RevisionGUID="b0697e13-eaa4-4b40-8fa2-6ce046890bdb" CreationDate="2018-08-02T01:17:12.300" UserId="9118" Text="&gt; My textbook translates them as &quot;You should get a job!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that very well may be the appropriate translation, your textbook doesn't give you the full picture. It may also be used as &quot;You should go [back] to work!&quot; Like, in a situation were you're hanging out around the office water cooler for too long, telling jokes, and your boss or cow-orker says: &quot;Шёл бы ты работать!&quot; (e. g. back to your desk and do the job you're paid to do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, a single &quot;бы&quot; means something like &quot;would be good/better, if...&quot; There's also a double &quot;бы&quot;, which is more like &quot;if-then&quot; construct, like &quot;знал бы прикуп - жил бы в Сочи&quot; or &quot;если б я был султан - я б имел трёх жён&quot; (&quot;б&quot; is the shortened form of &quot;бы&quot;). Sometimes there are even more, like in &quot;если бы да кабы на Луне росли дубы, то тогда бы на Луну бы мы ходили по грибы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пошёл на хуй&quot; is a straight, direct order. You can say something like &quot;пошёл бы ты на хуй&quot;, which is more like an advice: &quot;would be great if you go fuck yourself&quot;. Or even &quot;а не пошёл бы ты на хуй?&quot; (&quot;why don't you... etc.&quot;) Although, given the context, such subtleties are insignificant in this particular case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16912" RevisionGUID="55564e0c-183d-4510-86aa-0bce8b6959f7" CreationDate="2018-08-02T06:19:33.307" UserId="6539" Text="I am sorry, I won't consider the terms you suggested, but perhaps you can find some connection. &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there are more variants что‐то, кое-что, что‐нибудь, что‐либо, which are hard to explain to foreigners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Что‐то shows that the subject is unknown to both the speaker and the recipient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что‐то промелькнуло в воздухе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Кое‐что means that the subject is partly known th the speaker and unknown to the recipient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я кое‐что помню об этом случае.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Что‐нибудь means &quot;no matter what/ not important what &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дай мне что‐нибудь поесть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Что‐либо is very close to что‐нибудь, it has a more general meaning of &quot;one of any taken subjects &quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; попросить кого-нибудь (ask somebody, no matter whom ), попросить кого-либо (ask somebody, any unknown  person ). The difference is subtle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your question: **-то** means &quot;something unknown&quot;,  whereas **-нибудь** means &quot;no matter what&quot; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16913" RevisionGUID="b2d7da78-0c5d-49b1-8626-3b79ab06e935" CreationDate="2018-08-02T06:38:56.743" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;Что-то&quot; is &quot;something (as in unspecified)&quot;, &quot;что-нибудь&quot; (&quot;что-либо&quot;) is &quot;anything&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;free&quot; variables have their (approximate?) equivalent in &quot;независимые переменные&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43792" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="5ead6174-e3da-4c1e-8feb-e5ecff5c3f31" CreationDate="2018-08-02T08:29:59.890" UserId="1262" Comment="Rollback to [13d4bc42-cf5f-45de-b6f4-4a8487c64342] - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator" Text="пиздато literally means something like 'cuntush', and is an expression of positive exprience obtained at heterosexual male's genitalia; you might hardly, if ever, hear heterosexual women saying 'пиздато'; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хуево literally meas something like 'dicky', or 'prickish', and therefore is an expression of negative feeling of a heterosexual person equipped with male genitalia towards same sex genitalia; it might also have a slight overtone of self-denial;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;охуенно is different; it is all about o-prefix (cf. овладеть/овладевать, ополоуметь, одолеть/одолевать, ошеломить/ошеломлять, огрести/огребать, описать/описывать, остепениться, обрести/обретать, etc.), where the prefix has a meaning of 'taking smb/smth over completely, loosing the sense of self-identity', and охуенно stands therefore for smth like 'having almost a sexual pleasure', 'feeling like turning oneself into a one big hard-on'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="38a81e9c-2e46-4298-b8b5-700fcd008394" CreationDate="2018-08-02T08:31:00.333" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="пиздато literally means something like 'cuntish', and is an expression of positive experience obtained by a heterosexual male's genitalia; you might hardly, if ever, hear heterosexual women saying 'пиздато'; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хуево literally meas something like 'dicky', or 'prickish', and therefore is an expression of negative feeling of a heterosexual person equipped with male genitalia towards same sex genitalia; it might also have a slight overtone of self-denial;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;охуенно is different; it is all about o-prefix (cf. овладеть/овладевать, ополоуметь, одолеть/одолевать, ошеломить/ошеломлять, огрести/огребать, описать/описывать, остепениться, обрести/обретать, etc.), where the prefix has a meaning of 'taking smb/smth over completely, loosing the sense of self-identity', and охуенно stands therefore for smth like 'having almost a sexual pleasure', 'feeling like turning oneself into a one big hard-on'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43794" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="bd7a5cd8-605c-49bb-9bd1-e995424d429c" CreationDate="2018-08-02T08:38:51.553" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is this formal logic explanation of the difference between &quot;что-нибудь&quot; and &quot;что-то&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43795" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16910" RevisionGUID="b582b0ef-f11c-47d6-bd7c-3c1c8ad34985" CreationDate="2018-08-02T09:29:36.427" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43796" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16906" RevisionGUID="7b91b855-d8c2-4e34-8f47-e9113a64ea51" CreationDate="2018-08-02T10:26:00.403" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Бы&quot; as colloquial conditional" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1543" RevisionGUID="7c559874-0f9b-4fc8-bc5c-c99793dbda73" CreationDate="2018-08-02T11:46:11.013" UserId="1262" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="пиздато literally means something like 'cuntish', and is an expression of positive experience obtained by a heterosexual male's genitalia; you might hardly, if ever, hear heterosexual women saying 'пиздато'; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хуево literally meas something like 'dicky', or 'prickish', and therefore is an expression of negative feeling of a heterosexual person equipped with male genitalia towards same sex genitalia; it might also have a slight overtone of self-denial;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;охуенно is different; it is all about the o-prefix (cf. овладеть/овладевать, ополоуметь, одолеть/одолевать, ошеломить/ошеломлять, огрести/огребать, описать/описывать, остепениться, обрести/обретать, etc.), where the prefix has a meaning of 'taking smb/smth over completely, losing the sense of self-identity', and охуенно stands therefore for smth like 'having almost a sexual pleasure', 'feeling like turning oneself into a one big hard-on'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16897" RevisionGUID="fd31ed5d-f7dd-455b-9d74-1900c24e27a2" CreationDate="2018-08-02T12:32:05.367" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In this context **как раз** points to a *lucky coincidence* ('**and** /*luckily*/, **it's high tide *at that***'): the addition of the second condition (high tide) to the first one (favourable wind), both being necessary for a sailing vessel to get closer to the shore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16914" RevisionGUID="6f6cc0f1-b9db-4fb6-99f1-3f5b050180af" CreationDate="2018-08-02T13:05:39.703" UserId="3892" Text="The are two ways to interpret **как раз** in this context to express that a condition or situation is viewed as an &quot;added bonus,&quot; as it were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **to boot** can be added to the end of the statement: ...and it's high tide *to boot*.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **as luck would have it** can be added before the statement: ...and, *as luck would have it*, it was high tide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that both these statements can also point to an unfortunate eventuality, which can easily be sussed from the context or the tone of the speaker: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some days it doesn't pay to get out of bed. This morning I woke up to an ant infestation in my bathroom, an eviction notice from my landlord and my cat died **to boot**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just wasn't our day; we robbed the store, got all the money, made a clean getaway, then, **as luck would have it**, a policeman pulled us over for having a brake light out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="d4ab0a45-9693-4f11-a679-6a4b9a961b9c" CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:57:15.337" UserId="3892" Comment="added 152 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I've seen **на́чался**,**начался́**, and **нача́лся** listed as past forms of this verb. However, there's no explanation as to when one form is used over another. Is it a matter of register? Are some of the forms preferred over others in literary style vs. conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43801" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="d4ab0a45-9693-4f11-a679-6a4b9a961b9c" CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:57:15.337" UserId="3892" Comment="added 152 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What deterines the usage of the three stress patterns of the past form &quot;начался&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43802" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="d4ab0a45-9693-4f11-a679-6a4b9a961b9c" CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:57:15.337" UserId="3892" Comment="added 152 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16854" RevisionGUID="bf987523-ebc6-4557-b2da-0a030576f2aa" CreationDate="2018-08-02T14:59:43.823" UserId="3892" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The first phrase can be translated as &quot;it's not even evening and you are already drinking.&quot; It's constructed pretty much similar to it's English counterpart and `вечер` is in the nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second phrase is ungrammatical - you are confusing [`вечером`][1] (which as you mentioned as an adverb) and the noun [`вечер`][2]. The adverb stands for `in the evening.` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16845" RevisionGUID="ea3f1d71-dd8f-4cc4-b32f-4a096860691e" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:18:48.607" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It's *можно вас сфотографировать?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Фотографировать* is Russian for &quot;photographing&quot;, &quot;taking a picture&quot;, and it has a direct object in accusative, so there is not need to recourse to analytic constructs similar to English ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, Russians are usually not particularly fond of people on street taking their pictures without a good reason, so if you just want to take a photo of a stranger on the street, it would not hurt to throw in some kind of explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Простите, можно вас сфотографировать? Я из …, мне для …*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Excuse me, can I take your picture? I'm from …, and it's for …&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16818" RevisionGUID="99d7e109-a9ff-4765-a322-74b592ee9c34" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:21:17.280" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Even though, theoretically, there are no articles in Russian, can **один** sometimes work as the indefinite article? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least I've seen &quot;**одни**&quot; (&quot;a few ones&quot;) which is similar in usage to &quot;unos&quot; in Spanish - the plural of the indefinite article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, *&quot;Schopenhauer wrote a biography [not the only one] in Greek&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I say &quot;Шопенхауер написал биографию на греческом&quot;, there's no way to tell whether it was his single biography or one of many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, is it OK to say &quot;Шопенхауер написал **одну** биографию на греческом&quot; to make clear that it was &quot;a biography&quot; rather than &quot;the biography&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16800" RevisionGUID="d3314ff2-b467-4a20-8f4c-6c2afb49e751" CreationDate="2018-08-02T15:28:20.583" UserId="3892" Comment="edited body" Text="Had it been used with a noun, it would be `разговор ни о чём`, however in this case it's `не`. And again, it should just be memorized. Here are some relevant articles from wiktionary: [ни о чём][1], [не о чем][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `не о чем` indicates that there's nothing to talk about, while `ни о чём` sort indicates that you are talking about nothing [else]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in this example it will be `ни` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Будем думать только об экзамене, и больше ни о чём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider following pair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Больше ни о чём я вам не расскажу, ни в чём не признаюсь&quot;. (literally - I will tell you about nothing, I will confess nothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Не о чем мне вам рассказывать, не в чем мне признаваться&quot;. (literally - I have nothing to tell you about, I have nothing to confess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%BE_%D1%87%D1%91%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%BE_%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16915" RevisionGUID="7b149164-8006-4582-bb79-7b8d38334223" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:53:16.803" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Таких театров** повсюду – пруд пруди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm at least aware that a quantity of something is expressed with the genitive case in Russian, but I'm not sure what necessitates the use of genitive in this case. Is it due to &quot;пруд пруди&quot; or &quot;повсюду&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16915" RevisionGUID="7b149164-8006-4582-bb79-7b8d38334223" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:53:16.803" UserId="8672" Text="Why is &quot;таких театров&quot; in genitive in &quot;таких театров повсюду – пруд пруди&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16915" RevisionGUID="7b149164-8006-4582-bb79-7b8d38334223" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:53:16.803" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16916" RevisionGUID="d91efc74-2b2c-4fa5-b601-1fe6ed12566a" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:59:46.923" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Таких театров повсюду – **пруд пруди**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this expression as a whole is used to refer to an extremely large quantity of something, but I'm not sure how to interpret it more literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пруд пруди = a pond ???" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16916" RevisionGUID="d91efc74-2b2c-4fa5-b601-1fe6ed12566a" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:59:46.923" UserId="8672" Text="Where does the word &quot;пруди&quot; in &quot;пруд пруди&quot; come from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16916" RevisionGUID="d91efc74-2b2c-4fa5-b601-1fe6ed12566a" CreationDate="2018-08-02T16:59:46.923" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43813" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="ead20dfb-3a16-44d8-8c22-c936b0328358" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:25:04.380" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43814" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="72d5c1fd-61e5-47c7-ba2c-61496f21aad7" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:30:55.973" UserId="4714" Comment="edited title" Text="What determines the usage of the three stress patterns of the past form &quot;начался&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="72d5c1fd-61e5-47c7-ba2c-61496f21aad7" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:30:55.973" UserId="4714" Comment="edited title" Text="I've seen **на́чался**, **начался́**, and **нача́лся** listed as past forms of this verb. However, there's no explanation as to when one form is used over another. Is it a matter of register? Are some of the forms preferred over others in literary style vs. conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16917" RevisionGUID="41870cd9-73a3-4b96-a9f9-94cd0f8d0246" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:32:44.387" UserId="9602" Text="Apparently this is the etymology: http://uknigi.ru/frazeologia/prud_prudi.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarize, the word *пруд* used to mean a rapidly flowing body of water, across which people might want to build a dam *(запруда),* and this latter word eventually gave rise to the current meaning of *пруд* = pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a dam you need large quantities of material, clay, sand, driftwood, stones, anything will do. Maybe you have so much of something, like theaters in your case, that the worth of it is no greater to you than that of dam-building material and you would build a dam *(прудить пруд)* out of it without a second thought." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16918" RevisionGUID="42926e7e-c4f2-45df-a0f4-ba2f9c741990" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:47:41.330" UserId="10839" Text="How can I say &quot;API (application programming interface)&quot; in Russian? Maybe there is some cut (except &quot;АПИ&quot;) to make it easy to read in translation from English to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43818" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16918" RevisionGUID="42926e7e-c4f2-45df-a0f4-ba2f9c741990" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:47:41.330" UserId="10839" Text="How can I say &quot;API (application programming interface)&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43819" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16918" RevisionGUID="42926e7e-c4f2-45df-a0f4-ba2f9c741990" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:47:41.330" UserId="10839" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16916" RevisionGUID="2391566c-515e-48f0-9f8d-25cfcc17ad9a" CreationDate="2018-08-02T17:55:32.173" UserId="8672" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="&gt;Таких театров повсюду – **пруд пруди**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems this expression as a whole is used to refer to an extremely large quantity of something, but I'm not sure how to interpret it more literally. Is &quot;пруди&quot; some conjugated form of the verb &quot;прудить&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;пруд пруди = a pond ???&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="0eb5ef54-103b-4f7f-a495-a927c341aafb" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:09:04.547" UserId="3892" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I've seen **на́чался**, **начался́**, and **нача́лся** listed as past forms of this verb. However, there's no explanation as to when one form is used over another. Is it a matter of register? Are some of the forms preferred over others in literary style vs. conversation? Is there a particular meaning associated with any one form? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16919" RevisionGUID="db1568fe-0555-4a52-8f46-20054e6d4722" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:27:29.277" UserId="4903" Text="The fully spelled term is [программный интерфейс приложения](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/API) In colloquial speech one could use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **программный интерфейс,** just a shorter form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **интерфейс,** if it's obvious from the context that this is not *&quot;графический интерфейс&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **библиотека,** as often an API is packaged into a library." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16920" RevisionGUID="7b40391d-b702-4a02-92c3-87de06b9f128" CreationDate="2018-08-02T18:32:39.337" UserId="9929" Text="In English, we don't use a comma in sentences all items in an enumeration are separated by “and”, “or”, “nor” etc. In Russian it is opposite:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EN: I've water and milk and juice.&#xD;&#xA;RU: У меня есть вода, и молоко, и сок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16921" RevisionGUID="8c4a0e4e-3734-4895-923a-573d76a6437e" CreationDate="2018-08-02T19:01:34.523" UserId="5443" Text="The *dash* in that expression is a substitute for the omitted words **... так много, что хоть...** So the *genitive* here comes from the combination &quot;**театров много**&quot;. The expression пруд пруди is just attached, without any influence from it on that case. It literally refers to a technology of creating a pond by making a dam of some otherwise useless material which is galore (theatres here). The expression is used to emphasize an excessive quantity/number of something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16922" RevisionGUID="7bf9ed64-275e-4ab4-9087-1878ab9dfbd8" CreationDate="2018-08-02T19:10:49.873" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;Прудить&quot; essentially means &quot;make water [collect in significant quantity]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In old-ish literature you may yet meet &quot;напрудить&quot; as a joking description of little kids pissing all over themselves and people holding them (&quot;Школа&quot; by Гайдар comes to mind).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's a expression with the same meaning, &quot;гать гатить&quot;, with &quot;гать&quot; meaning a wooden road passing through the marshy terrain, and &quot;гатить&quot; being a verb for the process of creating such road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16921" RevisionGUID="831d1cd4-d134-4196-a97f-13e0089607f1" CreationDate="2018-08-02T19:18:35.337" UserId="5443" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="The *dash* in that expression is a substitute for the omitted words **... так много** (or **столько**)**, что хоть...** So the *genitive* here comes from the combination &quot;**театров много (столько)**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таких театров повсюду *столько, что хоть* пруд пруди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression пруд пруди is just attached, without any influence from it on that case. It literally refers to a technology of creating a pond by making a dam of some otherwise useless material which is galore (theatres here). The expression is used to emphasize an excessive quantity/number of something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16884" RevisionGUID="267d042c-22eb-4d23-b003-3eefe9a7a516" CreationDate="2018-08-02T21:01:32.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1025124463115952128" />
  <row Id="43829" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16895" RevisionGUID="2b98bf2c-e8bd-4007-9a10-d18e81beeb47" CreationDate="2018-08-03T00:00:30.250" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1025169499753009153" />
  <row Id="43830" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16873" RevisionGUID="05ebec29-4f45-4830-96cd-075565ac462e" CreationDate="2018-08-03T03:01:39.250" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1025215087458615296" />
  <row Id="43831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16922" RevisionGUID="d36e1feb-82f7-4204-8d46-1e9338ef6978" CreationDate="2018-08-03T05:04:10.010" UserId="10578" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="&quot;Прудить&quot; essentially means &quot;make water [collect in significant quantity]&quot; and is a verb stemming from the noun &quot;пруд&quot; meaning &quot;pond&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In old-ish literature you may yet meet &quot;напрудить&quot; as a joking description of little kids pissing all over themselves and people holding them (&quot;Школа&quot; by Гайдар comes to mind).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there's a expression with the same meaning, &quot;гать гатить&quot;, with &quot;гать&quot; meaning a wooden road passing through the marshy terrain, and &quot;гатить&quot; being a verb for the process of creating such road." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16924" RevisionGUID="1ec1fd3d-f907-4d0f-9150-c39e88a679d3" CreationDate="2018-08-03T05:31:48.660" UserId="1262" Text="This is just one of many examples of Fenno-Ugric substratum in Russian. Russian Genitive  here actually conveys the meaning of [Partitive][1] (marked explicitly in phrases like надо бы ча**ю** instead of ча**я** only) and follows the same logic as it is the case in most of modern Fenno-Baltic languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, it stands for indefinite plural (uncountable plural), cf. Finnish&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sellais**ia** teattere**ita** löytyy kaikkialta paljolti.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finnish, the case is a Partitive Plural marking the uncountable abundance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitive_case" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16921" RevisionGUID="a3e214ac-fec2-4d51-97cd-c9167346bf26" CreationDate="2018-08-03T09:00:44.233" UserId="5443" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="The *dash* in that expression is a substitute for the omitted words **... так много** (or **столько**)**, что хоть...** So the *genitive* here comes from the combination &quot;**театров много (столько)**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таких театров повсюду *столько, что хоть* пруд пруди.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression пруд пруди is just attached, without any influence from it on that case. It literally refers to a technology of creating a pond by making a dam of some otherwise useless material which is galore (theatres here). The expression is used to emphasize an excessive quantity/number of something and literally means 'even enough for ponding a pond'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16925" RevisionGUID="10b900b1-d781-4911-90f3-b3c3f315c643" CreationDate="2018-08-03T15:44:06.153" UserId="9602" Text="The [source][1] I gave in the other answer also answers this. The expression used to feature the instrumental case — пруд пруди *(чем?)* — because that’s what makes sense taken literally, but with the original meaning fading and the expression becoming just a synonym of “много *(чего?)*” the grammar followed suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://uknigi.ru/frazeologia/prud_prudi.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="87dd9019-b728-4d18-8871-7c945fd4f3dd" CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:18:13.167" UserId="10801" Text="Bing translate and Google translate says:&#xD;&#xA;**Интерфейс программирования приложений**&#xD;&#xA;For me this seems more correct. Also i googled Russian books about programming and find out that there is no standard agreement about this.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://books.google.ru/books?id=hk8NmSqOkFsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Набор базовых интерфейсов программирования приложений**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another book][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Интерфейсы прикладного программирования**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=hk8NmSqOkFsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/28267159/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16926" RevisionGUID="5b3c1462-c993-4d56-b3a3-e85d616cf0ee" CreationDate="2018-08-03T16:27:25.960" UserId="10801" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="Bing translate and Google translate says:&#xD;&#xA;**Интерфейс программирования приложений**&#xD;&#xA;For me this seems more correct. Also i googled Russian books about programming and find out that there is no standard agreement about this.&#xD;&#xA;For example, in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[https://books.google.ru/books?id=hk8NmSqOkFsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Набор базовых интерфейсов программирования приложений**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another book with Ы][2]&#xD;&#xA;[and without Ы][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Интерфейс[ы] прикладного программирования**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=hk8NmSqOkFsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/28267159/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=vay1dnm9QIcC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="6ca6eb52-cad6-40ad-8004-ba255c6575ad" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:58:45.663" UserId="8672" Text="I was having a conversation with my friend who has been toying with the idea of living in Tokyo, and I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's all very well going all starry-eyed about life in Tokyo, but you'll land back on your feet once the novelty wears off. Tokyo was the first city in Japan where my girlfriend lived, and she's had her fair share of hectic days there before moving to Kyoto. She says Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit&quot; – and yes, those are **air quotes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you hear someone say Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit&quot;, you could be forgiven for thinking they are speaking positively of Tokyo as a great city/place worth visiting at least once in your life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific context, however, my girlfriend was actually implying sarcastically and pejoratively that Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit, (not to live in...)&quot; – an unusual turn of phrase which departs from the usual interpretation of the phrase &quot;a place to visit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the expression &quot;air quotes&quot; comes in handy to jokingly point out that a quoted word/phrase was originally said with irony or sarcasm and its meaning is not to be taken at face value. The *air-quoted* phrase is accompanied by a two-finger gesture mimicking the shape of imaginary quotation marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure the concept of &quot;air quotes&quot; itself even exists in other languages to begin with, but how do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;She says Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit&quot; – and yes, those are **air quotes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="6ca6eb52-cad6-40ad-8004-ba255c6575ad" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:58:45.663" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;air quotes&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="6ca6eb52-cad6-40ad-8004-ba255c6575ad" CreationDate="2018-08-03T17:58:45.663" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16929" RevisionGUID="ee51578c-4c7c-447f-a672-693ad19a5cc4" CreationDate="2018-08-03T19:04:26.310" UserId="10578" Text="There is an expression &quot;в кавычках&quot;--&quot;in quotes&quot;, *meaning* what you want, but the exact gesture, and so, the exact translation, isn't known in Russian (culture).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's known Vladimir Mayakovsky showed (air) quotes once -- by lifting his arms bent at an angle -- &lt;&lt; &gt;&gt;, but the gesture isn't popular or even fairly well-known." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16930" RevisionGUID="3c82ed53-f7b7-4652-9feb-1dc7c4a04eb2" CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:11:08.727" UserId="5443" Text="Unlikely a similar Russian expression with the word 'quotes' (like **в кавычках**) can be used to express the given sense. **В кавычках**, used in a judgement just after a sense-carrying word, directly (and in a bit agressive form) *denies the whole judgement*. In the context of the question (worth visiting, not living there), the translation could be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она говорит, что в Токио обязательно нужно побывать, но только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;побывать&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="c5e5010a-ebc8-4117-88d7-3a5212e68878" CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:13:34.393" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 93 characters in body" Text="I was having a conversation with my friend who has been toying with the idea of living in Tokyo, and I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's all very well going all starry-eyed about life in Tokyo, but you'll land back on your feet once the novelty wears off. Tokyo was the first city in Japan where my girlfriend lived, and she's had her fair share of hectic days there before moving to Kyoto. She says Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit&quot; – and yes, those are **air quotes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you hear someone say Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit&quot;, you could be forgiven for thinking they are speaking positively of Tokyo as a great city/place worth visiting at least once in your life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this specific context, however, my girlfriend was actually implying sarcastically and pejoratively that Tokyo is &quot;a place to visit, (not to live in...)&quot; – an unusual turn of phrase which departs from the usual interpretation of the phrase &quot;a place to visit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the expression &quot;air quotes&quot; comes in handy to jokingly point out that a quoted word/phrase was originally said with irony or sarcasm and its meaning is not to be taken at face value. The *air-quoted* phrase is accompanied by a two-finger gesture mimicking the shape of imaginary quotation marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure the concept of &quot;air quotes&quot; itself even exists in Russian to begin with, but how do Russian speakers express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16930" RevisionGUID="2fd79269-2fe7-4c53-b78d-b2888738f8de" CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:19:53.593" UserId="5443" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Unlikely a similar Russian expression with the word 'quotes' (like **в кавычках**) can be used to express the given sense. **В кавычках**, used in a judgement just after a sense-carrying word, directly (and in a bit agressive form) *denies the whole judgement*. In the context of the question (worth visiting, not living there), the translation could be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она говорит, что в Токио обязательно нужно побывать, но только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;побывать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real gesture, suitable for a joke here and replacing the part after comma, could be something like imitation of walking (going to Tokyo) with two fingers on a table." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43846" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16930" RevisionGUID="36b12d6c-1d42-4add-906f-874ee705fee5" CreationDate="2018-08-03T20:25:35.207" UserId="5443" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="Unlikely a similar Russian expression with the word 'quotes' (like **в кавычках**) can be used to express the given sense. **В кавычках**, used in a judgement just after a sense-carrying word, directly (and in a bit agressive form) *denies the whole judgement*. In the context of the question (worth visiting, not living there), the translation could be like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она говорит, что в Токио обязательно нужно побывать, но только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;побывать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real gesture, suitable for a joke here and replacing the part after comma, could be something like imitation of walking in both directions (going to/from Tokyo) with two fingers on a table." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43847" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16837" RevisionGUID="5fcfbd64-1e30-4ea2-8646-92f34c8b7935" CreationDate="2018-08-03T21:01:42.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1025486889938300934" />
  <row Id="43848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16929" RevisionGUID="7b5fdc67-b55f-494d-9663-0ea3b586a6ac" CreationDate="2018-08-04T04:23:51.290" UserId="10578" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="There is an expression &quot;в кавычках&quot;--&quot;in quotes&quot;, *meaning* what you want, but the *exact gesture*, and so, the *exact translation*, isn't known in Russian (culture).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your translated phrase would read (like @Баян Купи-ка rightly points out):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она говорит, в Токио нужно побывать обязательно -- в кавычках.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's known Vladimir Mayakovsky showed (air) quotes once -- by lifting his arms bent at an angle -- &lt;&lt; &gt;&gt;, but the gesture isn't popular or even fairly well-known." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16931" RevisionGUID="d53e4b82-075e-4990-a3be-0100629a91ac" CreationDate="2018-08-04T13:48:22.720" UserId="242" Text="If you want to have some term for using for some official paperwork, like legal docs. technical docs other answers provided could be helpful. However in colloquial speech nobody never calls API anything else other then АПИ or (yeah, we like diminutives) апишечка. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in real life you'll hear not &quot;Валерий, нам для этого нужен новый программный интерфейс&quot; but rather &quot;Валер, ну тут без того, чтобы новую апишечку запилить, не обойтись&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43850" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16916" RevisionGUID="cbda684e-9f3c-4d9e-bb72-703274463482" CreationDate="2018-08-05T03:01:09.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1025939737624891392" />
  <row Id="43851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16906" RevisionGUID="5e6144d1-a52c-49cd-8a25-24982c311334" CreationDate="2018-08-05T06:01:02.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1025985004793462785" />
  <row Id="43852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16927" RevisionGUID="a2c3420e-e668-4ea2-94e3-4c9ca86298a5" CreationDate="2018-08-06T09:01:30.930" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1026392813121032192" />
  <row Id="43853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16932" RevisionGUID="6ae826a2-4caa-4a55-9b71-b2ac8e8611c0" CreationDate="2018-08-06T13:47:10.747" UserId="8909" Text="Russian doesn't care about stresses as much as, for example, Chinese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are obvious cases where putting a stress on another syllable would make the whole word sound really wrong (`лЮбовь` as an example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases while the form might not be in a dictionary, it's still valid as a vernacular, though using it will indicate that maybe you're not too educated. `На́чался` is that case here. A person might use non-dictionaried versions with some slightly different tonal meaning, but I won't be able to provide an example, so subtle that will be. It won't affect your understanding, and you would be quite right to stick to the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are cases where even a reasonably educated person doesn't know how a word should be accentuated, a common example is `тОрты` vs. `тортЫ`. The right one, according to dictionaries, is `тОрты`, but you are likely to hear both variants equally, and most people won't blink on either. Only people that have particulary strong feelings about &quot;right&quot; ways of speaking would care if you don't use the dictionary form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as an edge case there are heteronyms, there aren't a lot of widely used ones, but `замОк` (lock) and `зАмок`(castle) are among the most common examples. You should know the difference with them and just you what you need to. In writing, the meaning is derived from context, just as with English examples (dEsert as area vs. desErt as an army desertion)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16933" RevisionGUID="59923458-70c7-413e-bb53-c16eb8125c21" CreationDate="2018-08-06T15:58:46.810" UserId="5443" Text="Some works exploring stress variability in Russian show sufficient difference between the declared standards and real language spoken by educated natives. E. Markland Sharapova (2000) tested 106 speakers in Moscow and found out that most of them considered it unnatural the 'standard' stress on **-ся** in *начался́ / заперся́ / обнялся́*. This conclusion might change my previous opinion: I used to think that the version **на́чался** was more typical for St. Petersburg (the words **пока не на́чался джаз** from a song by a local musician Grebenschikov never sounded strange to me), than for Moscow. The normative version **начался́** sounds a bit *formal* to me, expectable to hear it in some news by a central TV channel, or maybe I'd even use it myself when speaking about the beginning of a concert, as opposed to the case of a sudden rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A page from the book **Акцент и ударение в русском языке** by *Вернер Лефельдт*, where E. Markland Sharapova's work is quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=tcrLAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA116&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ots=EGW2WwvDbH&amp;sig=ACfU3U3R40LLW0pIAcLRAfwTIzxhSoNhjw&amp;w=1280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16934" RevisionGUID="051c491f-e66a-4d76-98a7-214ed48ac492" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:13:27.147" UserId="170" Text="How do they describe in Russian the act of a soldier clicking his heels together, which was very common in the pre-revolutionary Russian army?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how to say in Russian &quot;I saw him click his heels together when the general approached him&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16934" RevisionGUID="051c491f-e66a-4d76-98a7-214ed48ac492" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:13:27.147" UserId="170" Text="How do they describe in Russian the act of a soldier clicking his heels together?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16934" RevisionGUID="051c491f-e66a-4d76-98a7-214ed48ac492" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:13:27.147" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16935" RevisionGUID="aee5b4f7-70a2-4af0-b4b8-fbdf3e6ad88d" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:27:12.140" UserId="6097" Text="It's *щёлкать/щёлкнуть каблуками*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я увидел, как он щёлкнул каблуками, когда генерал приблизился к нему. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16935" RevisionGUID="44ecb6d1-ea78-489c-be7c-5be94a0a55d4" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:51:05.340" UserId="6097" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It's *щёлкать/щёлкнуть каблуками*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я увидел, как он щёлкнул каблуками, когда генерал приблизился (к нему). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16936" RevisionGUID="2d43fd3e-f13d-495e-85a0-b95954228072" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:55:57.297" UserId="170" Text="What's the correct way to describe in Russian a beam-ceilinged room, that is, a room with wooden beams in its ceiling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2][![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b59YA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVuPe.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/A86my.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16936" RevisionGUID="2d43fd3e-f13d-495e-85a0-b95954228072" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:55:57.297" UserId="170" Text="What's the correct way to describe in Russian a beam-ceilinged room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16936" RevisionGUID="2d43fd3e-f13d-495e-85a0-b95954228072" CreationDate="2018-08-06T16:55:57.297" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16937" RevisionGUID="208e1e72-8319-4dc4-ae8e-1514348f816b" CreationDate="2018-08-06T17:08:15.117" UserId="242" Text="This is `здание/комната c перекрытиями балочного типа`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a quote][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По типу конструкции перекрытия, применяемые в индивидуальном&#xD;&#xA;&gt; строительстве можно разделить на две группы:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * балочные – состоят из несущего элемента (балки) и заполнителя, обеспечивающего тепло- и звукоизоляцию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * безбалочные – выполняемые из готовых плит или панелей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Балочный` here is derived from [`балка`][2] which [is][3] predictably a beam. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://samdomstroy.by/roofs/floor-timber.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43866" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16936" RevisionGUID="eb4c984b-df3e-4395-8d7e-d65da6fd5155" CreationDate="2018-08-06T17:17:42.233" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16938" RevisionGUID="3fde6f33-86ea-493a-911d-9b5d05f152cc" CreationDate="2018-08-06T18:30:10.660" UserId="10578" Text="Strictly speaking, those are different types of &quot;перекрытие&quot;, respectively, &quot;перекрытие без подшивки потолком&quot;, and two cases of &quot;[дом, здание] без чердачного перекрытия&quot;. I wouldn't know the English terms off the bat, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16939" RevisionGUID="54d51810-92cc-4cfe-91fb-bb06edf9299e" CreationDate="2018-08-06T23:47:42.727" UserId="170" Text="How do they express in Russian a range of age of a given group of people?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, &quot;to range&quot; is rendered as &quot;колебаться&quot; in statistics, that is, in dealing with big sets of elements that are still subject to change. For example, &quot;Возраст водителей-дальнобольщиков в России колеблется от 25 до 45 лет&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what about a case of a small group of people, say 11, that is not subject to any change (that is, no new members will be added and not one member will be out). For example, &quot;The victims of yesterday's shooting ranged in age from 11 to 63&quot;. If the number of victims is 11 and all victims are identified (that is, each victim's age is precisely known) then it seems to be wrong to use &quot;колеблется&quot; in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Возраст одиннадцати убитых колеблется от 11 до 63&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43869" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16939" RevisionGUID="54d51810-92cc-4cfe-91fb-bb06edf9299e" CreationDate="2018-08-06T23:47:42.727" UserId="170" Text="How do they express in Russian a range of age of a precise group of people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43870" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16939" RevisionGUID="54d51810-92cc-4cfe-91fb-bb06edf9299e" CreationDate="2018-08-06T23:47:42.727" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16940" RevisionGUID="6ad1e32a-723e-4e13-a084-05527e7a5c19" CreationDate="2018-08-07T04:25:49.197" UserId="10578" Text="Describing a quantified value, you could say &quot;колеблется/изменяется [в пределах]&quot; -- &quot;oscillates/changes [in certain range]&quot;, &quot;находится в пределах от ... до ...&quot; -- &quot;[its value] is in range&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16941" RevisionGUID="16db7a6a-b3a9-460d-88d6-32d62e99d98a" CreationDate="2018-08-07T05:13:59.047" UserId="5443" Text="The choice depends on how *formal* it should sound. The versions below begin with the least formal one (fresh news, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Убитым во вчерашней перестрелке было от 11 до 63 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во вчерашней перестрелке погибли люди в возрасте от 11 до 63 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Убитые во вчерашней перестрелке были в возрасте от 11 до 63 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Убитые во вчерашней перестрелке по возрасту были от 11 до 63 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Police report style:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Установленный возраст* убитых во вчерашней перестрелке **находится в**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **диапазоне** (or **составил**) от 11 до 63 лет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pure statistics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Убитые во вчерашней перестрелке **принадлежат** обширной **возрастной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе** - от 11 до 63 лет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16942" RevisionGUID="0e712e20-7a78-4f22-ab4b-164bf630450f" CreationDate="2018-08-07T05:45:27.030" UserId="9100" Text="Какой вид цикла имеется в виду, если человек зацикливается на чем-л.?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While или for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или это образное сравнение с менструацией?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16942" RevisionGUID="0e712e20-7a78-4f22-ab4b-164bf630450f" CreationDate="2018-08-07T05:45:27.030" UserId="9100" Text="Тип цикла какой подразумевается?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16942" RevisionGUID="0e712e20-7a78-4f22-ab4b-164bf630450f" CreationDate="2018-08-07T05:45:27.030" UserId="9100" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16943" RevisionGUID="204b9a3f-c2dd-4399-97cb-01128a32e457" CreationDate="2018-08-07T06:14:31.330" UserId="5443" Text="Подразумевается **замкнутый** (повторяющийся) цикл (repeated cycle). It's about **becoming obsessed** with something. Человек переживает или пытается до конца осмыслить навязчивую тему, но всякий раз возвращается к началу своих переживаний, и всё повторяется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16943" RevisionGUID="32f34b8a-48e7-4a1a-b099-4cdbea71c1ca" CreationDate="2018-08-07T08:37:21.667" UserId="5443" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Подразумевается **замкнутый** (повторяющийся) цикл (repeated cycle of thinking). It's about **becoming obsessed** with something. Человек переживает или пытается до конца осмыслить навязчивую тему, но всякий раз возвращается к началу своих переживаний, и всё повторяется." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43878" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="16942" RevisionGUID="003e67e3-6c8c-4939-b329-0410eb6e60f5" CreationDate="2018-08-07T10:57:02.933" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16944" RevisionGUID="805ef32e-413d-4a4d-a3b2-989d30a63e18" CreationDate="2018-08-07T19:15:20.993" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Нам есть, чему поучиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the entire phrase means something along the lines of &quot;we could learn a thing or two from them/that&quot;, but I'm not sure how to parse this construction, interpreting it more literally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16944" RevisionGUID="805ef32e-413d-4a4d-a3b2-989d30a63e18" CreationDate="2018-08-07T19:15:20.993" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse &quot;Нам есть, чему поучиться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16944" RevisionGUID="805ef32e-413d-4a4d-a3b2-989d30a63e18" CreationDate="2018-08-07T19:15:20.993" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16945" RevisionGUID="5a06901d-a1e4-491a-b3cd-99798a54628b" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:23:22.293" UserId="7674" Text="I guess it can be parsed as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's which is for us to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse construction would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть, чему поучиться - We have which is to be learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что** is inflected in Dative as **чему** because this is the case шт цршср the verb **учиться** accepts object describing the subject of learning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16946" RevisionGUID="7e076370-12d5-4fbd-ac33-d34142782c88" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:35:37.820" UserId="10854" Text="Layered hairstyle - слои, in professional terminology. For the clients u can say текстурированная стрижка, same as choppy hairstyle - подвижная текстура волос.&#xD;&#xA;Funky look - молодёжный/ стильный/ эксцентричный/&#xD;&#xA; утрированный стиль одежды. &#xD;&#xA;Messy look, messy hair - прибрежный стиль.&#xD;&#xA;Crop hair - на висках и затылке градация с нуля и слои в теменной зоне, in professional terminology. Стрижка под мальчика in very simple words.&#xD;&#xA;Rough look - очень мужественный вид.&#xD;&#xA;To carry a haircut - носить стрижку.&#xD;&#xA;To carry a bang on one... - носить чёлкую на одну или обе стороны.&#xD;&#xA;Sideswept bang - универсальная чёлка/ чёлка на обе стороны.&#xD;&#xA;Trandy look - модный образ.&#xD;&#xA;To adopt a side bang... - вписать чёлку в прическу/ адаптировать боковую чёлку к прическе.&#xD;&#xA;Tones of blond - оттенки/ цвета блонда, literally blond translates as светлый, but we (both hairdressers and client) don't use this word, we use blond=блонд, блондинка - girl with light hair.&#xD;&#xA;Razor cut hairstyles - Стрижка бритвой.&#xD;&#xA;Up do - высокая прическа.&#xD;&#xA;New hairstyle styles - новые тенденции в стрижка, features - элементы in haircuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16945" RevisionGUID="422ae65a-f4c4-476a-ba07-facdf2ce4a4f" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:35:54.460" UserId="7674" Comment="added 425 characters in body" Text="I guess it can be parsed as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's which is for us to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse construction would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть, чему поучиться - We have which is to be learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что** is inflected in Dative as **чему** because this is the case in which the verb **учиться** accepts object describing the item of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically `нам есть, + inflected relative pronoun + infinitive` is a fixed construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам есть, куда пойти - We have places to go (there's no shortage) &lt;sup&gt;*more lit. There're places for us to go*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нам некуда...  - We have no...*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам есть, что смотреть - We have something to watch (there's no shortage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нам нечего ... - We have nothing ...*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам есть, зачем жить - We have reasons to live/what to live for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нам незачем ... - We have no reasons to live/nothing to live for*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16945" RevisionGUID="ad8fab63-4e84-4ce3-9a09-a13280fd0c77" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:41:24.550" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I guess it can be parsed as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's which is for us to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse construction would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть, чему поучиться - We have which is to be learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что** is inflected in Dative as **чему** because this is the case in which the verb **учиться** accepts object describing the item of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically `нам есть, + inflected relative pronoun + infinitive` is a fixed construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам **есть, куда** пойти - We have places to go (there's no shortage) &lt;sup&gt;*more lit. There're places for us to go*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нам **некуда**...  - We have no...*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам **есть, что** смотреть - We have something to watch (there's no shortage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нам **нечего** ... - We have nothing ...*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам **есть, зачем** жить - We have reasons to live/what to live for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нам **незачем** ... - We have no reasons to live/nothing to live for*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16947" RevisionGUID="43794815-14fb-4b66-a48c-4b7760ae1532" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:45:19.277" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Нам есть чему поучиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an impersonal sentence which is formed from the verb &quot;to be&quot;(есть ), an object in the form of a pronoun in the dative case(чему), another verb in the infinitive form (поучиться)and the agent of the action expressed by the infinitive also in the dative, which is traditional in impersonal sentences. It corresponds to English &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's something to learn for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of sentences of this kind and there's never a comma in them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16948" RevisionGUID="d5d5a0f9-f43b-4a5c-9aff-4475ce144382" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:45:45.620" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Он уже и **к** **тебе** **клинья подбивал**, верно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that they are talking about a ladykiller, I assume this phrase essentially means &quot;try to seduce someone&quot;, but I'm not sure how to interpret &quot;клинья подбивать&quot;. Can the perfect &quot;подбить&quot; be used as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16948" RevisionGUID="d5d5a0f9-f43b-4a5c-9aff-4475ce144382" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:45:45.620" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of &quot;к кому-либо клинья подбивать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16948" RevisionGUID="d5d5a0f9-f43b-4a5c-9aff-4475ce144382" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:45:45.620" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16949" RevisionGUID="9dc6e308-15fb-4273-b713-a95edf596939" CreationDate="2018-08-07T20:57:43.140" UserId="6539" Text="The idiom is **подбивать клинья** used mostly with the imperfect form showing the process of courting. Perhaps the perfective form can be used in the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, что, не удалось тебе к ней клинья подбить? (Rare)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри-ка, так и вьется вокруг нее, клинья подбивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial idiom meaning &quot;courting&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43891" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16934" RevisionGUID="87164dba-c1fc-457d-aa8a-233ed0a183ba" CreationDate="2018-08-07T21:02:11.487" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1026936565082324995" />
  <row Id="43892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16948" RevisionGUID="0a8974e2-b0ed-4a97-9155-e509ec7b450b" CreationDate="2018-08-07T21:03:31.763" UserId="8672" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt;Он уже и **к** **тебе** **клинья подбивал**, верно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that they are talking about a ladykiller, I assume this phrase essentially means &quot;try to seduce someone&quot;, but I'm not sure how to interpret &quot;клинья подбивать&quot; literally. Can the perfect &quot;подбить&quot; be used as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="7e54ab15-bf37-42e6-85ff-690c58b55e92" CreationDate="2018-08-08T00:04:11.397" UserId="10407" Text="I'm an English speaker learning Russian and from the little bit of French that I know the negation construct &quot;**ne pas**&quot; feels quite similar to &quot;**не раз**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there in fact a historical connection between these two negation constructs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="7e54ab15-bf37-42e6-85ff-690c58b55e92" CreationDate="2018-08-08T00:04:11.397" UserId="10407" Text="Connection between French and Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="7e54ab15-bf37-42e6-85ff-690c58b55e92" CreationDate="2018-08-08T00:04:11.397" UserId="10407" Text="|other-languages|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16949" RevisionGUID="148f39a7-53d8-40f0-9288-8d244925d0d7" CreationDate="2018-08-08T05:25:34.760" UserId="6539" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="The idiom is **подбивать клинья** used mostly with the imperfect form showing the process of courting. Perhaps the perfective form can be used in the infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну, что, не удалось тебе к ней клинья подбить? (Rare)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри-ка, так и вьется вокруг нее, клинья подбивает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a colloquial idiom meaning &quot;courting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a literal meaning, It's &quot;to drive a wedge&quot;, a sharp triangle piece of wood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16947" RevisionGUID="5d490751-a24a-462b-8641-72dd2a3923c6" CreationDate="2018-08-08T05:54:21.167" UserId="6539" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;Нам есть чему поучиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an impersonal sentence which is formed from the verb &quot;to be&quot;(есть ), an object in the form of a pronoun in the dative case(чему), another verb in the infinitive form (поучиться)functioning as an attribute to the object, and the agent of the action expressed by the infinitive also in the dative, which is traditional in impersonal sentences. It corresponds to English &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's something to learn for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of sentences of this kind and there's **never a comma** in them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16946" RevisionGUID="681e347f-7549-46c0-9c76-a9c1e9edd1a5" CreationDate="2018-08-08T06:27:10.720" UserId="4481" Comment="Поправил форматирование" Text="Layered hairstyle - &quot;слои&quot;, in professional terminology. For the clients you can say &quot;текстурированная стрижка&quot;, the same as choppy hairstyle - &quot;подвижная текстура волос&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Funky look - молодёжный/ стильный/ эксцентричный/&#xD;&#xA; утрированный стиль одежды. &#xD;&#xA;- Messy look, messy hair - прибрежный стиль.&#xD;&#xA;- Crop hair - на висках и затылке градация с нуля и слои в теменной зоне, in professional terminology. &quot;Стрижка под мальчика&quot; in very simple words.&#xD;&#xA;- Rough look - очень мужественный вид.&#xD;&#xA;- To carry a haircut - носить стрижку.&#xD;&#xA;- To carry a bang on one... - носить чёлку на одну или обе стороны.&#xD;&#xA;- Sideswept bang - универсальная чёлка/ чёлка на обе стороны.&#xD;&#xA;- Trandy look - модный образ.&#xD;&#xA;- To adopt a side bang... - вписать чёлку в прическу/ адаптировать боковую чёлку к прическе.&#xD;&#xA;- Tones of blond - оттенки/цвета блонда, literally blond translates as светлый, but we (both hairdressers and client) don't use this word, we use blond=блонд, блондинка - girl with light hair.&#xD;&#xA;- Razor cut hairstyles - Стрижка бритвой.&#xD;&#xA;- Up do - высокая прическа.&#xD;&#xA;- New hairstyle styles - новые тенденции в стрижка, features - элементы in haircuts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16945" RevisionGUID="0d914d8b-889c-4fd5-8520-857f5ad1002f" CreationDate="2018-08-08T06:38:11.617" UserId="7674" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I guess it can be parsed as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's (that) which is for us to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse construction would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть чему поучиться - We have (that) which is to be learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что** is inflected in Dative as **чему** because this is the case in which the verb **учиться** accepts object denoting the item of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically `object in Dative + есть + inflected relative pronoun + infinitive` is a stable construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам **есть куда** пойти - We have places to go (there's no shortage) &lt;sup&gt;*more lit. There're places for us to go*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Нам **некуда**...  - We have no...*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им **есть, что** смотреть - They have something/things to watch (there's no shortage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Им **нечего** ... - They have nothing ...*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **есть зачем** жить - I have reasons to live/what to live for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Мне **незачем** ... - I have no reasons to live/nothing to live for*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16951" RevisionGUID="a7995d40-9bd6-482c-818d-2455c01d214e" CreationDate="2018-08-08T07:17:39.280" UserId="6539" Text="I don't think there's any connection between these two phrases. What attracts attention is a mere coincidence in written forms,the visual image,  so to say. Though going deeper into the matter, we can admit that the meanings are different. If the French phrase is translated &quot;not&quot;, the Russian one is &quot; not once,more than once&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;But in the whole, we can say that since French was more popular with the nobility than any other language in the 19th century, and because of the war of 1812, Russian got borrowings from French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16947" RevisionGUID="857955c1-bf5b-430f-a73d-a91b6484e7f3" CreationDate="2018-08-08T07:21:01.810" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;Нам есть чему поучиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an impersonal sentence which is formed with the verb &quot;to be&quot;(есть ), an object in the form of a pronoun in the dative case(чему), another verb in the infinitive form (поучиться)functioning as an attribute to the object, and the agent of the action expressed by the infinitive also in the dative, which is traditional in impersonal sentences. It corresponds to English &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's something to learn for us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of sentences of this kind and there's **never a comma** in them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16952" RevisionGUID="654a48ba-e542-433d-8519-d882b9933646" CreationDate="2018-08-08T09:43:07.563" UserId="134" Text="The constructs are not linked etymologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French *pas* comes from the Latin word for &quot;step&quot; and the constructs like &quot;ne … pas&quot; originally literally meant &quot;don't (move, walk etc.) a single step&quot;, and were only used with the actual verbs of motion. *Pas* has later grammaticalized (become a function word rather than a content word) and is now used with all verbs, not only verbs of motion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian *раз* originally meant &quot;strike&quot; and is cognate to *разить* (&quot;to strike&quot;, &quot;to hit&quot;). *За один раз* originally meant &quot;in one strike&quot;, then the metaphor had worn out and the word's original meaning had been forgotten. This word is still a content word (meaning &quot;time&quot;, &quot;repetition&quot;) but has also acquired a grammatical role (*раз ты такой большой, иди работать* // &quot;Now that your are all grown up, go find a job&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those constructs are indeed similar in the sense that they both started as metaphors (&quot;a single step&quot; in French, &quot;a single strike&quot; in Russian) which later lost their metaphorical meanings and became integral parts of their respective languages. However, there is no historical or etymological connection between them, those are parallel independent developments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16945" RevisionGUID="8b52047d-5b06-48f7-b707-6bc824b110ac" CreationDate="2018-08-08T10:59:17.693" UserId="7674" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="I guess it can be parsed as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's (that) which is for us to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse construction would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть чему поучиться - We have (that) which is to be learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что** is inflected in Dative as **чему** because this is the case in which the verb **учиться** accepts object denoting the item of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically `object in Dative + есть + inflected relative pronoun + infinitive` is a stable construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам **есть куда** пойти - We have places to go (there's no shortage) &lt;sup&gt;*more lit. There're places for us to go*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Нам **некуда**...  - We have no...*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им **есть, что** смотреть - They have something/things to watch (there's no shortage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Им **нечего** ... - They have nothing ...*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **есть зачем** жить - I have reasons to live/what to live for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Мне **незачем** ... - I have no reasons to live/nothing to live for*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43907" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16936" RevisionGUID="13c689f4-0774-4bda-b6bf-b83bc39ee190" CreationDate="2018-08-08T12:02:24.757" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1027163113282576384" />
  <row Id="43908" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16950" RevisionGUID="611cc7ad-5236-46c7-843c-6fb4ca56199b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T13:10:35.967" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Ne pas&quot; and &quot;не раз&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16932" RevisionGUID="8402f2fc-0dd4-44fc-8450-d10b85057e73" CreationDate="2018-08-08T14:13:28.617" UserId="8909" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="Russian doesn't care about stresses as much as, for example, Chinese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are obvious cases where putting a stress on another syllable would make the whole word sound really wrong (`лЮбовь` as an example). If you put your stress in the wrong part of the word you would either sound weird, or won't be understood at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases while the form might not be in a dictionary, it's still valid as a vernacular, though using it will indicate that maybe you're not too educated. `На́чался` is that case here. A person might use non-dictionaried versions with some slightly different tonal meaning, but I won't be able to provide an example, so subtle that will be. It won't affect your understanding, and you would be quite right to stick to the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are cases where even a reasonably educated person doesn't know how a word should be accentuated, a common example is `тОрты` vs. `тортЫ`. The right one, according to dictionaries, is `тОрты`, but you are likely to hear both variants equally, and most people won't blink on either. Only people that have particulary strong feelings about &quot;right&quot; ways of speaking would care if you don't use the dictionary form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as an edge case there are heteronyms, there aren't a lot of widely used ones, but `замОк` (lock) and `зАмок`(castle) are among the most common examples. You should know the difference with them and just you what you need to. In writing, the meaning is derived from context, just as with English examples (dEsert as area vs. desErt as an army desertion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure of an example, but those cases might mix and match - some stresses would be wholly invalid, while others would simply be less accurate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16954" RevisionGUID="4b56845c-befb-4133-aca4-797d2ec45dcd" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:24:28.383" UserId="5375" Text="What were the names of the Russian letters и and i in the pre-1918 Russian alphabet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16954" RevisionGUID="4b56845c-befb-4133-aca4-797d2ec45dcd" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:24:28.383" UserId="5375" Text="Names of pre-1918 letters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16954" RevisionGUID="4b56845c-befb-4133-aca4-797d2ec45dcd" CreationDate="2018-08-08T17:24:28.383" UserId="5375" Text="|буквы|алфавит|дореформенная-орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16955" RevisionGUID="27a2e083-d11b-4832-af81-eed027524933" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:11:14.270" UserId="7674" Text="They're named [**Иже**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/И) and [**І**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/І_(кириллица)) (pronounced as [и] i surmise) or **И восьмиричное**  and **И десятиричное** respectively &lt;sup&gt;[**[1]**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Названия_букв_русского_алфавита#Изъятие_букв_и_изменения_их_названий)&lt;/sup&gt; due to numerical values used to be assigned to them &lt;sup&gt;[**[2]**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Старославянская_азбука#Числовые_значения)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oofNW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16955" RevisionGUID="e9a27f86-e3b2-4cde-acca-d4e2fc14d9a8" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:21:23.363" UserId="9256" Comment="edited body" Text="They're named [**Иже**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/И) and [**І**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/І_(кириллица)) (pronounced as [и] i surmise) or **И восьмеричное**  and **И десятиричное** respectively &lt;sup&gt;[**[1]**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Названия_букв_русского_алфавита#Изъятие_букв_и_изменения_их_названий)&lt;/sup&gt; due to numerical values used to be assigned to them &lt;sup&gt;[**[2]**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Старославянская_азбука#Числовые_значения)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oofNW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16955" RevisionGUID="716ea7ef-0665-485a-8be0-bed9e4c87f7c" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:23:51.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="They're named [**Иже**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/И) and [**І**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/І_(кириллица)) (pronounced as [и] i surmise) or **И восьмеричное**  and **И десятиричное** respectively &lt;sup&gt;[ **[ 1 ]** ](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Названия_букв_русского_алфавита#Изъятие_букв_и_изменения_их_названий)&lt;/sup&gt; due to numerical values used to be assigned to them &lt;sup&gt;[**[ 2 ]**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Старославянская_азбука#Числовые_значения)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oofNW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16956" RevisionGUID="ac45ffed-468a-425b-ac87-4ad498087486" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:26:45.693" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Дарование **вовсе не** обязательно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **ни сколько не** сомневаюсь в том, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume they both essentially mean &quot;not at all&quot;, emphasising negation, but I'm not sure how they differ in meaning and usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16956" RevisionGUID="ac45ffed-468a-425b-ac87-4ad498087486" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:26:45.693" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;вовсе не&quot; and when to use &quot;ни сколько не&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16956" RevisionGUID="ac45ffed-468a-425b-ac87-4ad498087486" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:26:45.693" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16957" RevisionGUID="17e57e71-6003-472e-8770-8416c02f0c3a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T18:56:21.007" UserId="7674" Text="I guess one can think of them as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вовсе не  = совсем не = отнюдь не&lt;sup&gt;*very high register*&lt;/sup&gt;** - `not at all`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нисколько&lt;sup&gt;*conjoined*&lt;/sup&gt; не = ничуть не = ни капли/грамма не&lt;sup&gt;*colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;** - `not in the slightest`, `not a bit`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16956" RevisionGUID="bcb41d49-4821-4ee7-a156-439fe0482095" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:04:07.400" UserId="8672" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="&gt;Дарование **вовсе не** обязательно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **ни сколько не** сомневаюсь в том, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume they both essentially mean &quot;not at all&quot;, emphasising negation, but I'm not sure how they differ in meaning and usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the former often coupled with an adjective/adverb and the latter with a verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16957" RevisionGUID="1e0e341b-c2e2-42ac-bc19-0119c1db54cf" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:06:39.970" UserId="7674" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="I guess they can be thought of in terms of the following distinction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вовсе не  = совсем не = отнюдь не&lt;sup&gt;*very high register*&lt;/sup&gt;** - `not at all`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нисколько&lt;sup&gt;*conjoined*&lt;/sup&gt; не = ничуть не = ни капли/грамма не&lt;sup&gt;*colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;** - `not in the slightest`, `not a bit`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16958" RevisionGUID="43e02f45-5871-4a51-8890-abd36d0b82e8" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:35:45.083" UserId="2079" Text="азъ, буки, вѣди, глаголь, добро, есть, живѣте, земля, иже (и восьмеричное), и (и десятеричное), и съ краткой (не уверен, что считалось отдельной буквой), како, люди, мыслѣте, нашъ, онъ, покой, рцы, слово, твердо, укъ, фертъ, хѣръ, цы, червь, ша, ща, еръ, еры, ерь, ять, э (оборотное э), ю, я, ѳита, ижица (так называлась буква ѵ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каждое название соответствует начальной букве этого названия, кроме слов ерь, еры, еръ, ять, ижица, обозначавших ъ, ы, ь, ѣ, ѵ соответственно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правописание названий букв по книге &quot;[Россiйская грамматика][1]&quot; Ломоносова, стр. 41-42 в источнике. (Не все буквы у него есть, правописание названий других букв по [Russian alphabet в английской википедии][2] и совокупности других источников.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Буква ѳита в современной орфографии - фита.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ижица была отменена Петром I, потом то вводилась, то отменялась, к концу 19 века формально осталась, но в грамматике 1870-х пишется, что она употребляется только в одном слове : мѵро.  Я не уверен, правильно ли было писать ижица или ѵжица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.runivers.ru/bookreader/book192769/#page/42/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16958" RevisionGUID="26e6d4ae-1aa5-4acb-bb9b-1b0ef7532b06" CreationDate="2018-08-08T19:44:15.650" UserId="2079" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Поскольку ответы в одно предложение, насколько я помню, против правил (в таких случаях рекомендуется дать больше информации), даю название всех букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Названия букв в старой орфографии.  В квадратных скобках сама буква, если она не совпадает с первой буквой названия.  В круглых скобках вариант названия или (курсивом) моё примечание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;азъ, буки, вѣди, глаголь, добро, есть, живѣте, земля, иже (и восьмеричное), и (и десятеричное), и съ краткой (*не уверен, что считалось отдельной буквой*), како, люди, мыслѣте, нашъ, онъ, покой, рцы, слово, твердо, укъ, фертъ, хѣръ, цы, червь, ша, ща, еръ `[ъ]`, еры `[ы]`, ерь `[ь]`, ять `[ѣ]`, э (оборотное э), ю, я, ѳита (*в современной орфографии - фита*), ижица `[ѵ]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правописание названий букв по книге &quot;[Россiйская грамматика][1]&quot; Ломоносова, стр. 41-42 в источнике. Не все буквы у него есть, правописание названий других букв по [Russian alphabet в английской википедии][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ижица была отменена Петром I, потом то вводилась, то отменялась, к концу 19 века формально осталась, но в грамматике 1870-х пишется, что она употребляется только в одном слове : мѵро.  Я не уверен, правильно ли было писать ижица или ѵжица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.runivers.ru/bookreader/book192769/#page/42/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16958" RevisionGUID="623b9f40-0a38-492b-89db-5102481b8e39" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:02:38.767" UserId="2079" Comment="edited body" Text="Поскольку ответы в одно предложение, насколько я помню, против правил (в таких случаях рекомендуется дать больше информации), даю название всех букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Названия букв в старой орфографии.  В квадратных скобках сама буква, если она не совпадает с первой буквой названия.  В круглых скобках вариант названия или (курсивом) моё примечание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;азъ, буки, вѣди, глаголь, добро, есть, живѣте, земля, иже (и восьмеричное), i (i десятеричное), и съ краткой (*не уверен, что считалось отдельной буквой*), како, люди, мыслѣте, нашъ, онъ, покой, рцы, слово, твердо, укъ, фертъ, хѣръ, цы, червь, ша, ща, еръ `[ъ]`, еры `[ы]`, ерь `[ь]`, ять `[ѣ]`, э (оборотное э), ю, я, ѳита (*в современной орфографии - фита*), ижица `[ѵ]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правописание названий букв по книге &quot;[Россiйская грамматика][1]&quot; Ломоносова, стр. 41-42 в источнике. Не все буквы у него есть, правописание названий других букв по [Russian alphabet в английской википедии][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ижица была отменена Петром I, потом то вводилась, то отменялась, к концу 19 века формально осталась, но в грамматике 1870-х пишется, что она употребляется только в одном слове : мѵро.  Я не уверен, правильно ли было писать ижица или ѵжица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.runivers.ru/bookreader/book192769/#page/42/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16959" RevisionGUID="2a17e6e3-682f-47b2-814d-081d31333c50" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:23:41.733" UserId="5443" Text="**Вовсе не** is about plain denying a *fact*: **not at all** or '**absolutely not**':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You *absolutely don't* have to be gifted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Нисколько** is literally about *quantity* and means '**no amount** (of doubt)'. **Нисколько не** in combination with a verb means '**to no extent**', so here are possible translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To *no extent* I doubt, that...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have *not the least* doubt, that..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16960" RevisionGUID="938d909b-b4a0-4e7c-afce-3c7442c3084b" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:28:51.233" UserId="6539" Text="**Нисколько не** is used as a slight exaggeration mostly with verbs and predicatives (in impersonal sentences ) like нисколько не жалко, нисколько не больно, мне нисколько не хочется. It isn't used with adjectives though or nouns. The meaning is &quot;absolutely &quot;not in any amount&quot;( ни в коей мере).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нисколько в этом не сомневаюсь – Я совершенно в этом не сомневаюсь&#xD;&#xA;Он нисколько не жалел о содеянном – Он совсем не жалел о содеянном&#xD;&#xA;Он нисколько не сомневался в сказанном – Он абсолютно не сомневался в сказанном&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вовсе не** is highly colloquial, used more often to express a firm negation, when a person is confident.(уверенное отрицание). The usage is more universal, it can be followed by a verb, a predicative, an adverb, an adjective, a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я вовсе не собирался вас обижать. Он вовсе не бедный человек. Мне вовсе не жалко. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16957" RevisionGUID="b846571e-d2c8-4e8c-bfef-027e1a4328ac" CreationDate="2018-08-08T20:40:16.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I guess they can be thought of in terms of the following distinction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**вовсе не  = совсем не = отнюдь не&lt;sup&gt;*very high register*&lt;/sup&gt;** - `not at all`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нисколько&lt;sup&gt;*conjoined*&lt;/sup&gt; не = ничуть не = ни капли/грамма не&lt;sup&gt;*colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;** - `not in the slightest`, `not a/the least bit`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16956" RevisionGUID="375ae394-1113-4bce-9e6b-305c99e9aadd" CreationDate="2018-08-08T23:18:17.083" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Дарование **вовсе не** обязательно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **нисколько не** сомневаюсь в том, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume they both essentially mean &quot;not at all&quot;, emphasising negation, but I'm not sure how they differ in meaning and usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the former often coupled with an adjective/adverb and the latter with a verb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43929" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16956" RevisionGUID="375ae394-1113-4bce-9e6b-305c99e9aadd" CreationDate="2018-08-08T23:18:17.083" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="When to use &quot;вовсе не&quot; and when to use &quot;нисколько не&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16961" RevisionGUID="c73d2f84-dff3-4098-bb01-7d06e836b51e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:29:10.420" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Ну и досталось же ему от моей сестры!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are talking about a ladykiller trying to seduce a girl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't make head nor tail of the meaning of this sentence. I wonder if &quot;dative + достаться + от&quot; makes up a set expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16961" RevisionGUID="c73d2f84-dff3-4098-bb01-7d06e836b51e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:29:10.420" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse and interpret &quot;Ну и досталось же ему от моей сестры!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16961" RevisionGUID="c73d2f84-dff3-4098-bb01-7d06e836b51e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:29:10.420" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="0bc66806-b004-4d7d-b2bc-8979c968829b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:41:22.983" UserId="8780" Text="Most verbs derived from **учиться** answer the question &quot;**чему**?&quot;. However, my textbook just cites &quot;**делать что**?&quot; as the question to be answered by **разучиться**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can разучиться be followed by a noun rather than a verb, and if so does the noun take the dative case like учиться, научиться and обучаться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="0bc66806-b004-4d7d-b2bc-8979c968829b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:41:22.983" UserId="8780" Text="Case after разучиться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16962" RevisionGUID="0bc66806-b004-4d7d-b2bc-8979c968829b" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:41:22.983" UserId="8780" Text="|падежи|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16963" RevisionGUID="fdb08bb8-7e17-46ee-b041-82bc1830bcb8" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:43:52.393" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;(From young to old) – **никому прохода не даст**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are talking about a ladykiller's taste in women covering a broad spectrum from young to old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this phrase means something along the lines of &quot;no one slips under his radar&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16963" RevisionGUID="fdb08bb8-7e17-46ee-b041-82bc1830bcb8" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:43:52.393" UserId="8672" Text="How to parse and interpret &quot;никому прохода не даст”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16963" RevisionGUID="fdb08bb8-7e17-46ee-b041-82bc1830bcb8" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:43:52.393" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="f0cc0f5d-4bdf-4457-bcb8-44e1ef878d8c" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:59:47.350" UserId="8780" Text="I've noticed that some imperfective verbs are converted to the perfective by just adding a prefix. However and oddly enough, sometimes there's an alternate imperfective formed from an internal modification of the prefixed verb itself!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not taking into account verbs in which the prefix conveys a different meaning rather than just changing the verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, `делать`, meaning *&quot;to do&quot;*, is imperfective; if we add the prefix **под**, the word becomes `подделать`, which is *perfective* and means *&quot;to falsify&quot;*. If we want to change the new verb to imperfective once again, then an internal modification is required, and thus it becomes `подделывать`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to the point: the verb **цвести** (&quot;to flourish&quot;) is imperfective and its perfective counterpart is **расцвести**. However, it seems that `расцвести` accepts two imperfectives: both the &quot;original&quot;, unprefixed `цвести`, and a variation from the prefixed verb itself: **расцветать**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for **растянуть**, which, apparently, accepts both **тянуть** and **растягивать** as imperfectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, is there any difference in meaning, or are both imperfectives interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="f0cc0f5d-4bdf-4457-bcb8-44e1ef878d8c" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:59:47.350" UserId="8780" Text="Double imperfectives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="f0cc0f5d-4bdf-4457-bcb8-44e1ef878d8c" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:59:47.350" UserId="8780" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16965" RevisionGUID="db931364-9083-42fe-9f4a-1ef0e22b2b57" CreationDate="2018-08-09T01:01:54.100" UserId="4903" Text="In this case &quot;досталось&quot; is a short form of an idiom  **&quot;достаться на орехи&quot;** - *&quot;got punished / got scolded&quot;* depending on the context. The referred punishment is not too harsh, but palpable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the main character was verbally abused, the phrase can be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну и досталось же ему от моей сестры! - *Well, he got totally scolded by my sister!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other forms of the idiom are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* достаться на калачи&#xD;&#xA;* получить на орехи&#xD;&#xA;* Смотри, достанется! *(as a warning)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16966" RevisionGUID="2bbeb54a-9e3b-4706-84c8-9eeb528b05fd" CreationDate="2018-08-09T01:18:19.153" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;Не давать прохода&quot; literally means that wherever you go, there's a crowd gathering around you, so you can't go through. Because you are so popular, etc. It's usually exaggerated, for example, if you're a pretty girl every man is trying to hit on, people may say: &quot;Ей мужики не дают прохода.&quot; - although, literally, that's not true, you could just ignore them and go where you need. I don't remember seeing it used the other way around (e. g. a single person &quot;не даёт прохода&quot; to multiple other persons), but I guess that's a legitimate usage as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16967" RevisionGUID="a4bbd3e8-c1f4-4f0d-9d32-f2d02d6d993d" CreationDate="2018-08-09T01:19:15.800" UserId="4903" Text="Your translation *&quot;no one slips under his radar&quot;* is very close, if you assume that *&quot;no one&quot;* are all women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никому прохода не даст / никому прохода не даёт - *He keeps bugging / harassing everyone (implied every girl)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idiom with a similar meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни одной юбки не пропустит - *He won't miss a single skirt.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16968" RevisionGUID="32dd5191-c1eb-4772-9be9-d98a2fe64010" CreationDate="2018-08-09T01:36:26.417" UserId="9118" Text="No, it can't be followed by a noun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say &quot;учиться стрелять&quot; or &quot;учиться стрельбе&quot;, both are OK. But only &quot;разучиться стрелять&quot;. You can't say &quot;разучиться стрельбе&quot;, it is wrong. If you use &quot;разучиться&quot; in more complicated cases, you would have to re-phrase, if there's no one-to-one correspondence between a noun and a verb. For example, you can't simply invert &quot;учиться военному делу настоящим образом&quot;, would have to say something like &quot;разучиться воевать&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="e6dfa0d3-b10d-4ea7-af02-03b10763ba30" CreationDate="2018-08-09T06:46:38.953" UserId="7674" Text="`Достаться + object in Dative` means `to be received by` (usually in the context of distribution among a group of people) or `to accrue to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему досталась бронзовая медаль - A bronze medal was received by him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this idiom with the addition of `от` it means being on the *receiving* end of someone else's rage or violence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again an impersonal construction, that which is *received* is only implied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="71f6c4d3-dee0-46e2-ab4b-4d512d9b10c4" CreationDate="2018-08-09T07:54:50.187" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="`Достаться + object in Dative` means `to be received by` (usually in the context of distribution among a group of people) or `to accrue to`, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему досталась бронзовая медаль - A bronze medal was received by him&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the idiom, with the addition of preposition `от`, it means being on the *receiving* end of someone else's rage or violence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again an impersonal construction, that which is *received* is only implied." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="297b4e78-58ef-4925-badb-a211a1bf6093" CreationDate="2018-08-09T08:17:44.687" UserId="7674" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="`Достаться + object in Dative` means `to be received by` (usually in the context of distribution among a group of people) or `to accrue to`, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашему атлету досталась бронзовая медаль - A bronze medal was received by our athlete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the idiom, with the addition of preposition `от`, it means being on the *receiving* end of someone else's rage or violence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again an impersonal construction, that which is *received* is only implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ну и` here is an intensifying cluster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="81bd48f0-5be7-4382-87df-f4336ef609f1" CreationDate="2018-08-09T08:24:54.183" UserId="7674" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="`Достаться + object in Dative` means `to be received by` (usually in the context of distribution among a group of people) or `to accrue to`, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашему атлету досталась бронзовая медаль - A bronze medal was received by our athlete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the idiom, with the addition of preposition `от`, it means being on the *receiving* end of someone else's rage or violence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again an impersonal construction, that which is *received* is only implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ну и` here is an intensifying cluster expressing enthusiasm and a kind of post factum encouragement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16970" RevisionGUID="bf6a4afd-6834-441d-8e51-b4c74bf6e27d" CreationDate="2018-08-09T08:38:34.837" UserId="5443" Text="Разучиться **only** takes an *infinitive* after it: **разучиться** (что делать?) **стрелять**. A similar verb **отучить(ся)** (= to quit some habit or make somebody quit it) can take either an *infinitive*  (**отучить** кого-либо **поступать** так-то) or a *noun* with the *preposition* **от** (**отучить/ся/ от привычки**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16971" RevisionGUID="fd63d243-a67d-4d9a-8c3c-6b0db4d5d8ee" CreationDate="2018-08-09T08:57:36.350" UserId="8909" Text="The idiom doesn't always mean romantic interest, though that is the most common usage. It can be used as a substitution for &quot;trying to gain favor with&quot; in any situation, for example, with a boss at work. It also colors the attempt (of gaining favor) as obvious, and is most often used ironically, to poke at a person doing this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16972" RevisionGUID="1ad9b306-b785-46fe-bcf3-6b4f5ead0188" CreationDate="2018-08-09T09:39:59.043" UserId="2104" Text="Generally the two imperfectives are not interchangeable but sometimes they can be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рвать цветы = (roughly same as) срывать цветы = pick flowers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;срывать сроки&quot; (break the deadlines) cannot be put as &quot;рвать сроки&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verbs such as расцветать, срывать are called &quot;secondary imperfectives&quot;. Try googling that for more information.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16969" RevisionGUID="eb9cdddd-bc17-41cd-8bcf-504eff4954e5" CreationDate="2018-08-09T09:43:23.683" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="`Достаться + object in Dative` means `to be received by` (usually in the context of distribution among a group of people) or `to accrue to`, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нашему атлету досталась бронзовая медаль - A bronze medal was received by our athlete&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the idiom, with the addition of preposition `от`, it means being on the *receiving* end of someone else's rage or violence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again an impersonal construction, that which is *received* is only implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`ну и` here is an intensifying cluster expressing enthusiasm, cheer and a kind of post factum encouragement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16973" RevisionGUID="f236dbdb-e080-4086-ae29-f6a80fc8dd06" CreationDate="2018-08-09T10:58:52.213" UserId="1836" Text="Yes, there is a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тянуть — to pull&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;растянуть – to stretch (not exactly, only as in &quot;to stretch leather&quot;, not as in &quot;to stretch arms&quot;, that would be вытянуть)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;растягивать – to be stretching smth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same goes for other verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43956" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="eb00d8b0-ed37-4255-8639-1f55c8e3b834" CreationDate="2018-08-09T13:30:01.467" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;тянуть&quot; and &quot;растягивать&quot; equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16974" RevisionGUID="1dfc3d77-a213-4ccb-b3d7-c82d55f79779" CreationDate="2018-08-09T14:29:04.733" UserId="5443" Text="A prefixed verb is *not just a version* of an unprefixed one: prefixes **modify the sense** of verbs, and that is not limited to changing their 'perfectiveness'.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тянуть** - to pull something (with an unknown result)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**растянуть** - to stretch something, to make it longer by pulling in two directions (or in one direction, with one end of it fixed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**растягивать** - to do that stretching continuously or from time to time (imperfective version of *растянуть*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**натягивать** - to *pull on* something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**натянуть** - perfective version of *натягивать*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with the other prefixed verbs having different sense: *вытянуть/вытягивать, затянуть/затягивать, притянуть/притягивать, оттянуть/оттягивать*, and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43959" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16954" RevisionGUID="27efa506-55e9-4c03-b8cf-31295b0b8756" CreationDate="2018-08-09T15:00:53.943" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1027570418708881408" />
  <row Id="43960" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16961" RevisionGUID="30d2ab1f-6331-4864-945e-41e14ebc4b2e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T19:47:38.537" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16963" RevisionGUID="85f6bcf8-416b-4cf9-a932-a21d82506c74" CreationDate="2018-08-09T19:49:16.017" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16975" RevisionGUID="5b484420-e01a-435a-93d6-75517b60d39e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:51:58.523" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;А я уже был мужчиной и **воспринимал** ее примерно так, как **воспринимают** возвышенное произведение искусства. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The speaker uses the verb &quot;воспринимать&quot; twice, but what effect does it have to switch from 1st singular to 3rd plural like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{compared to}: А я уже был мужчиной и **воспринимал** ее примерно так, как **воспринимаю** возвышенное произведение искусства. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16975" RevisionGUID="5b484420-e01a-435a-93d6-75517b60d39e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:51:58.523" UserId="8672" Text="The effect of switching from 1st singular to 3rd plural: &quot;я воспринимал ее примерно так, как воспринимают ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16975" RevisionGUID="5b484420-e01a-435a-93d6-75517b60d39e" CreationDate="2018-08-09T21:51:58.523" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16976" RevisionGUID="ee359fb0-5652-4985-8f77-256e57e36115" CreationDate="2018-08-10T00:39:49.653" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;... воспринимал ее примерно так, как [люди] воспринимают возвышенное произведение искусства&quot; - in English you would probably use &quot;they&quot;, in Russian it is omitted. The effect it has is to make it sound more abstract and impersonate, e. g. in the second part of the sentence you're not talking about yourself, you're not talking about her - you're talking about how people, in general, perceive works of art.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence you're still talking specifically about yourself: &quot;... воспринимал её примерно так, как [я] воспринимаю возвышенное произведение искусства&quot;. Well, okay, but who knows what's your personal perception of artworks is? Also, I am not sure if this sentence is wrong, but I find it kinda unnatural, I'd rather say &quot;... как воспринимал бы возвышенное произведение искусства.&quot; Or maybe put those art works in plural: &quot;... как воспринимаю возвышенн**ые** произведен**ия** искусства&quot; - don't know why, but it turns it into something more like &quot;как [я обычно] воспринимаю [какое-нибудь] возвышенное произведение искусства.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="c1f06d5f-a5a9-467f-aa14-bb2466023790" CreationDate="2018-08-10T01:43:08.303" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**С чего это** ты вдруг стал обо мне заботиться? А?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{по сравнению с}: **Отчего** ты вдруг стал обо мне заботиться? А?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чем отличается по смыслу «с чего» от «отчего» в это предложении? Слова вроде похожи, но полагаю, различие всё равно ощущается. Возможно, используют «с чего», когда удивились, что что-то случилось неожиданным образом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно, кстати, почему подчеркивающая частица «это», похоже, не подходит к использованию с «отчего»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Отчего это** ты вдруг стал обо мне заботиться? А?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="c1f06d5f-a5a9-467f-aa14-bb2466023790" CreationDate="2018-08-10T01:43:08.303" UserId="8672" Text="«С чего это ты ...» vs «Отчего ты ...»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="c1f06d5f-a5a9-467f-aa14-bb2466023790" CreationDate="2018-08-10T01:43:08.303" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43969" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="b1200ecc-e6fb-4040-a541-d8989afddb11" CreationDate="2018-08-10T01:59:20.623" UserId="8672" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43970" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="5761b2ec-9fbd-4379-b81f-b5d4e1257bb7" CreationDate="2018-08-10T02:28:16.350" UserId="8672" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43971" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="5f49712d-fc67-421e-a5da-9a89173e79ae" CreationDate="2018-08-10T02:29:10.957" UserId="8672" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43972" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="d20cebea-169c-49eb-a2ac-494e9e265d97" CreationDate="2018-08-10T03:48:32.430" UserId="8672" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="43973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="afcb5ae5-b3b2-4570-a2e0-192adda7ada5" CreationDate="2018-08-10T04:59:31.900" UserId="5443" Text="The first version sounds **unfriendly** (*это* emphasizes it) and expresses suspicion of hidden motives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why on earth would you start taking care of me all of a sudden?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is *more neutral*, but the included **вдруг** also expresses some suspicion or surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why (for what reason) did you start taking care of me all of a sudden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16978" RevisionGUID="4c520b56-a1df-4258-b3e5-b02b84bb6193" CreationDate="2018-08-10T05:06:38.440" UserId="5443" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="The first version sounds **unfriendly** (*это* emphasizes it) and expresses suspicion of hidden motives. And it's rather a rhetorical question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why on earth would you start taking care of me all of a sudden?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second one is *more neutral*, but the included **вдруг** also expresses some suspicion or surprise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why (for what reason) did you start taking care of me all of a sudden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16979" RevisionGUID="da657ed4-5a02-437b-b589-47dd3d9e8238" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:15:24.410" UserId="10791" Text="I mostly use the following for *&quot;What do you think?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как ты думаешь? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand there can be many variants of the aforementioned question, and I have seen a few of them. I was recently following a thread on Reddit and somebody was called out for using &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что ты думаешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe its the artless state of my Russian, but I cant understand why that would be incorrect? Does it not mean the same or at least something similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16979" RevisionGUID="da657ed4-5a02-437b-b589-47dd3d9e8238" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:15:24.410" UserId="10791" Text="Why was &quot;что ты думаешь&quot; deemed incorrect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16979" RevisionGUID="da657ed4-5a02-437b-b589-47dd3d9e8238" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:15:24.410" UserId="10791" Text="|грамматика|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16980" RevisionGUID="5ba80d3a-0027-401e-bee4-35ed51f5dbba" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:58:26.287" UserId="10864" Text="Какое из предложенний построенно корректно? Почему?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Лампа не существует&quot; И.П.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Лампы не существует&quot; Р.П.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16980" RevisionGUID="5ba80d3a-0027-401e-bee4-35ed51f5dbba" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:58:26.287" UserId="10864" Text="Именительный и родительный падеж" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16980" RevisionGUID="5ba80d3a-0027-401e-bee4-35ed51f5dbba" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:58:26.287" UserId="10864" Text="|падежи|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="c291f06a-bd28-4aa9-b203-09aaa4bad8ee" CreationDate="2018-08-10T09:00:28.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1027842103068557313" />
  <row Id="43982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16981" RevisionGUID="6162f728-5d8f-4680-a8e3-a1f5d810e1d5" CreationDate="2018-08-10T09:21:58.670" UserId="9001" Text="Both these questions are normal in Russian, but there is a difference in usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question with **что** is used when you ask to express an opinion about something. You introduce the subject with **о** preposition or with words like **насчёт**, **по поводу**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Что ты думаешь о глобальном потеплении?* -  What do you think about global warming?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question with **как** is used when you ask to make a choice of something (including questions you can answer with yes/no). There is no preposition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Как ты думаешь, завтра будет дождь или нет?* -  What do you think, will it rain tomorrow or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notable that use of **что** was normal in this case a hundred years ago or so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you just said something and want your interlocutor to reply in some way, both questions will work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[А] как ты думаешь?* (more usual, less formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[А] что ты думаешь?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt, opt for **что**. In the worst case you will sound old-fashioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16982" RevisionGUID="3f179f92-2f5b-43c1-9d92-9f596d05cd9b" CreationDate="2018-08-10T09:58:46.027" UserId="5443" Text="**Что ты думаешь... ?** is an *unfinished* or *incomplete* question. Its complete form is something like **Что ты *об этом* думаешь... ?** or **Что ты думаешь по этому поводу** *(на этот счёт, об этом)***?** Some words **must** be included in the **question itself**, while the question **Как ты думаешь?** does **not** need that. However, it still needs a previous context, typically a more detailed question, so **Как ты думаешь?** is about someone's personal opinion on the subject and it much better corresponds to the mentioned English version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16983" RevisionGUID="522caee3-e523-4506-aae0-cfb73bb44b11" CreationDate="2018-08-10T10:19:21.163" UserId="5443" Text="As for the part in the 3 person plural: it's **Indefinite-personal sentence** (*неопределённо-личное предложение*) in Russian. English versions use pronouns or some nouns to express the *same* sense: **as *they/people/you* (usually) perceive lofty fine arts** or **as *one* perceives**..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="aba3ff08-d81a-4429-8b2a-d2f3f286f9a5" CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:03:21.357" UserId="7674" Text="В [статье](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=2bfJAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA301&amp;lpg=PA301&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC+%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kQHzASgJy_&amp;sig=9NecI5U3-u9G2n3m6M-SxpUlhsA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_qLi7qOLcAhViApoKHeE_B30Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&amp;f=false) Менгель С. &quot;К вопросу о падежной вариативности в русских конструкциях с отрицанием&quot; в сборнике &quot;Горизонты современной лингвистики. Традиции и новаторство: сборник в честь Е. С. Кубряковой&quot; сказано:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Единственным и экзистенциальных глаголов, допускающим как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительный, так и родительный падеж при отрицании, является глагол&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *существовать*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="38a01cc2-1478-4f6e-9009-a74eb8b89825" CreationDate="2018-08-10T11:39:17.017" UserId="7674" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="В [статье](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=2bfJAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA301&amp;lpg=PA301&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC+%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kQHzASgJy_&amp;sig=9NecI5U3-u9G2n3m6M-SxpUlhsA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_qLi7qOLcAhViApoKHeE_B30Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&amp;f=false) Менгель С. &quot;К вопросу о падежной вариативности в русских конструкциях с отрицанием&quot; в сборнике &quot;Горизонты современной лингвистики. Традиции и новаторство: сборник в честь Е. С. Кубряковой&quot; сказано:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Единственным и экзистенциальных глаголов, допускающим как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительный, так и родительный падеж при отрицании, является глагол&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *существовать*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на мой взгляд формы именительного и родительного падежей не полностью взаимозаменяемы, так как отличаются семантическим оттенком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом корректны оба варианта." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43987" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16980" RevisionGUID="af65d981-1cdd-4043-a09d-dd2a3ed77395" CreationDate="2018-08-10T14:32:27.150" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Управление &quot;не существует&quot; - именительный или родительный падеж?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16984" RevisionGUID="61cc5ea0-1062-4628-85b1-473c19287b12" CreationDate="2018-08-10T14:42:04.407" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="В [статье](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=2bfJAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA301&amp;lpg=PA301&amp;dq=%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D1%81+%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC+%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kQHzASgJy_&amp;sig=9NecI5U3-u9G2n3m6M-SxpUlhsA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_qLi7qOLcAhViApoKHeE_B30Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%20%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6&amp;f=false) Менгель С. &quot;К вопросу о падежной вариативности в русских конструкциях с отрицанием&quot; в сборнике &quot;Горизонты современной лингвистики. Традиции и новаторство: сборник в честь Е. С. Кубряковой&quot; сказано:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Единственным из экзистенциальных глаголов, допускающим как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именительный, так и родительный падеж при отрицании, является глагол&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *существовать*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но на мой взгляд формы именительного и родительного падежей не полностью взаимозаменяемы, так как отличаются семантическим оттенком. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Таким образом корректны оба варианта." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16985" RevisionGUID="996cefc4-d3ed-4886-a5e3-e1c6ef9cc2ad" CreationDate="2018-08-10T16:19:55.947" UserId="10578" Text="Simple &quot;what do you think?&quot; should be translated as &quot;что думаешь?&quot; or &quot;как думаешь?&quot;, but the context should be clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's &quot;what do you think [about something]?&quot;, than it should be translated like other guys already said." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16958" RevisionGUID="f93f1f96-4b67-4691-a537-5a26c2ee6cee" CreationDate="2018-08-10T17:27:07.457" UserId="2079" Comment="added 837 characters in body" Text="Поскольку ответы в одно предложение, насколько я помню, против правил (в таких случаях рекомендуется дать больше информации), даю название всех букв.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Названия букв в старой орфографии.  В квадратных скобках сама буква, если она не совпадает с первой буквой названия.  В круглых скобках вариант названия или (курсивом) моё примечание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;азъ, буки, вѣди, глаголь, добро, есть, живѣте, земля, иже (и восьмеричное), i (i десятеричное), и съ краткой (*не уверен, что считалось отдельной буквой*), како, люди, мыслѣте, нашъ, онъ, покой, рцы, слово, твердо, укъ, фертъ, хѣръ, цы, червь, ша, ща, еръ `[ъ]`, еры `[ы]`, ерь `[ь]`, ять `[ѣ]`, э (оборотное э), ю, я, ѳита (*в современной орфографии - фита*), ижица `[ѵ]`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правописание названий букв по книге &quot;[Россiйская грамматика][1]&quot; Ломоносова, стр. 41-42 в источнике. Не все буквы у него есть, правописание названий других букв по [Russian alphabet в английской википедии][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ижица была отменена Петром I, потом то вводилась, то отменялась, к концу 19 века формально осталась, но в грамматике 1870-х пишется, что она употребляется только в одном слове : мѵро.  Я не уверен, правильно ли было писать ижица или ѵжица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: старые названия стали выходить из употребления и заменяться новыми с конца 19 века. Так, название &quot;твёрдый знак&quot; впервые употребляется в Корпусе русского языка в 1875 году (путевые заметки), а второй раз в 1896 году (&quot;Олеся&quot; Куприна). &quot;Ер&quot; в тот период употребляется только в речи детей и малограмотных персонажей, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дело идёт хорошо, Люба быстро постигает премудрость чтения и письма,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пачкает чернилами и пальцы и нос, Ванюшка хмурится, басит ещё гуще,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чем летом, пишет вместо буквы «р» везде твёрдый знак, верёвка у него&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выходит въевка, верхом ― въхом. Когда учительница объясняет, что это&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не так, он солидно спорит: ― А как же? «Ер» ― в нём сразу две буквы, я&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и пишу ер, чтобы скорее было написано… Нету ера? А дедушка говорит ―&#xD;&#xA;&gt; есть он? В конце слов? Мм… [Максим Горький. Большая любовь (1912)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.runivers.ru/bookreader/book192769/#page/42/mode/1up&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="36ab6410-3e10-4314-b60c-e5cef34f9629" CreationDate="2018-08-10T21:29:21.257" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="В чём разница в смысле между «С чего это ты ...» и «Отчего ты ...»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43992" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16980" RevisionGUID="d50e9b0d-a4b0-45ae-bc67-27f390b60e36" CreationDate="2018-08-11T00:01:59.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1028068975991828480" />
  <row Id="43993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16888" RevisionGUID="dd60f58b-8d9f-4c92-aca1-16845d30ad13" CreationDate="2018-08-11T12:00:27.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1028249785608929280" />
  <row Id="43994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16986" RevisionGUID="75f5c034-3804-4838-890d-580523068776" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:56:40.177" UserId="8672" Text="I've just learnt on another [post][1] that starting a sentence with «с чего» serves to set an unfriendly and rhetorical tone. So I was wondering if I could say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И **с чего** ты взяла, что можешь мне указывать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{with the meaning of}: Where do you get off telling me what to do?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the phrase &quot;Where do you get off ...&quot; comes in handy when you want to sharply reply to a remark that you find rude, uncalled for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the use of «с чего» fit the bill? If not, how do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16977/%D0%92-%D1%87%D1%91%D0%BC-%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83-%D0%A1-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%B8-%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%82%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16986" RevisionGUID="75f5c034-3804-4838-890d-580523068776" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:56:40.177" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;Where do you get off telling me what to do?!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16986" RevisionGUID="75f5c034-3804-4838-890d-580523068776" CreationDate="2018-08-11T17:56:40.177" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16987" RevisionGUID="ecd454df-d8ec-4ba1-b6c5-adc8a8976784" CreationDate="2018-08-11T18:21:13.250" UserId="7674" Text="(I just learned an English phrase *Where do you get off*) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=where%20do%20you%20get%20off) however it's translated differently, which is supported by the [Urban dictionary](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=where%20do%20you%20get%20off)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the more accurate parallel of the Russian expression would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where do/did you get this idea of having the right to give me orders?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;s=%D1%20%F7%E5%E3%EE%20%F2%FB%20%E2%E7%FF%EB,%20%F7%F2%EE%20...&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=2&amp;l2=1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whatever gave you the idea that...?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; What made you think that...?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16988" RevisionGUID="a7f52cc8-a047-48be-b541-b02b92ea4964" CreationDate="2018-08-11T19:52:14.597" UserId="10578" Text="&quot;С чего&quot; is sharp but is considered unliterary, too. (Arguably) better would be to use literary &quot;а почему ...&quot; (slightly less emotional) or &quot;да почему ...&quot; (more emotional), which are of almost equal sharpness, and literary in the bargain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="43999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16989" RevisionGUID="1dfb48d8-ee5b-4500-8d50-9458c33ecb14" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:35:23.133" UserId="10875" Text="What would be the axiomatic translation of this phrase? I can't seem to find it anywhere online and I'm not too sure if `новизна прошла` would be an accurate translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16989" RevisionGUID="1dfb48d8-ee5b-4500-8d50-9458c33ecb14" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:35:23.133" UserId="10875" Text="How to say 'the novelty has worn off' in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16989" RevisionGUID="1dfb48d8-ee5b-4500-8d50-9458c33ecb14" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:35:23.133" UserId="10875" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16989" RevisionGUID="774bb804-0126-4709-80b6-f9fa7fb472ab" CreationDate="2018-08-13T14:45:18.403" UserId="10875" Comment="english" Text="What would be the translation of this idiom? I can't seem to find it anywhere online and I'm not too sure if `новизна прошла` would be an accurate translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16990" RevisionGUID="a7e6cf01-e2a9-4b39-9cc2-f89ae4aa1659" CreationDate="2018-08-13T15:06:03.560" UserId="310" Text="`Пропал эффект новизны` shows many hits with search engines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16991" RevisionGUID="47a05170-ceb1-4cea-9f92-8cdf4c2958ca" CreationDate="2018-08-13T15:16:19.030" UserId="5443" Text="Новизна (чего-либо) повыветрилась.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это уже примелькалось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16992" RevisionGUID="6641a36f-87d0-4060-8f93-5af958d1de5c" CreationDate="2018-08-13T19:04:10.660" UserId="6539" Text="Впечатление новизны/свежести стерлось." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16993" RevisionGUID="9cececd7-35cf-4f83-96aa-37331675dbf2" CreationDate="2018-08-13T21:26:28.713" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Давайте-**ка** я составлю вам компанию. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Давайте я составлю вам компанию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be various explanations out there such as &quot;used to express a **pressing** request&quot; or &quot;used to **soften** a request&quot; or &quot;used to express a personal **intention**. And I'm not sure which one to go by." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16993" RevisionGUID="9cececd7-35cf-4f83-96aa-37331675dbf2" CreationDate="2018-08-13T21:26:28.713" UserId="8672" Text="What is the function of the particle &quot;-ка&quot; in the imperative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16993" RevisionGUID="9cececd7-35cf-4f83-96aa-37331675dbf2" CreationDate="2018-08-13T21:26:28.713" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16994" RevisionGUID="65a6edba-4b37-4310-9497-b6d38a4347cd" CreationDate="2018-08-13T23:44:25.227" UserId="9602" Text="http://rusgram.ru/Императив#34 quotes several linguists as saying *-ка* means that the speaker has just decided to make the request.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for softening, just about any particle would soften a request. *Подойди сюда!* sounds harsher than *А подойди сюда!* — I would say that’s because adding non-essential words to a sentence suggests some kind of thought process behind the request, or maybe some uncertainty, and so it sounds more like there’s a valid reason to comply, as opposed to the possibility the speaker just likes to boss people around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="6853bffb-47c3-4982-b792-e58091da328b" CreationDate="2018-08-14T01:21:48.607" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Тише, тише, не надо **на меня** так **бросаться**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, depending on context, can it be &quot;verbally laying into someone&quot; or &quot;physically laying into someone&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you hear this sentence, for instance, do you imagine someone hurling abuse at someone else? Or is it more like picking a fight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="6853bffb-47c3-4982-b792-e58091da328b" CreationDate="2018-08-14T01:21:48.607" UserId="8672" Text="Does &quot;бросаться на кого-н&quot; mean laying into someone verbally or physically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="6853bffb-47c3-4982-b792-e58091da328b" CreationDate="2018-08-14T01:21:48.607" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16996" RevisionGUID="03bb1310-d54b-40c4-bd7c-a8e964e82e50" CreationDate="2018-08-14T03:35:28.373" UserId="2104" Text="It can be either. In the given context, judging by the tone, the assault was probably mostly verbal. But the original meaning of **(на)броситься на** (to throw oneself at someone) implies physical interaction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Яков бросился на него с кулаками.&#xD;&#xA;* Пьяный Чуйков бросился на Родимцева и хотел задушить его.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to be confused with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Броситься на помощь/выручку кому-л. = Dash to help someone.&#xD;&#xA;* Броситься на шею (к) кому-л. = Throw oneself at someone and hug them around the neck: Узнала меня и в слезах бросилась на шею.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People can throw themselves at arbitrary objects, not just other people:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Кондуктор бросился на площадку.&#xD;&#xA;* Он ушёл, а я бросился на диван и закрыл глаза. [И. С. Тургенев. Ася (1858)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question. Do you think this implies physical contact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Первым долгом я, конечно, бросился на Измаила Александровича. (М. А. Булгаков. Записки покойника)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16997" RevisionGUID="a9676935-01aa-481a-969e-9e7ef113a35e" CreationDate="2018-08-14T10:47:21.200" UserId="5443" Text="It can be translated *literally*, with the meaning (verbal of physical) depending on the context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hey, slow down, don't **come at me** like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16998" RevisionGUID="272533b6-a7b1-4e11-aac2-f73477806a40" CreationDate="2018-08-14T19:08:00.447" UserId="6539" Text="The particle -ка is used with particular forms of the verb: &#xD;&#xA;1.future tense , first person singular and plural &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Посплю-ка я часок. Возьмем-ка еще по бутерброду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 Imperative singular and plural &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Скажи-ка, дядя, ведь недаром...&#xD;&#xA;Давайте-ка дружно возьмемся за руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Past tense of the verb пойти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пошел-ка ты вон отсюда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle always requires the **initial position** of the verb. The sentence starts from this verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning can be different: побуждение к действию (motivation, prompting ), смягчение просьбы (softening ), усиление просьбы( emphasis ), придание фамильярного оттенка( familiarity ), эффект неожиданности (внезапно принятое решение)(unexpected decision , on the spot decision )&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="0b5c2281-1d6f-46c9-a40d-96cf9069c516" CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:07:12.477" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Но она тут же **села** **ему на шею** - как и всем своим бывшим парням.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of an IM I received from my girlfriend, in which she was talking jokingly about her female friend bordering on control freak vis-à-vis her henpecked boyfriend seemingly at her beck and call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japanese, there is an expression 尻に敷かれる, literally &quot;a man is beneath the *hips* of his wife/girlfriend&quot;. I wonder if this Russian expression is more or less the *neck version* of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="0b5c2281-1d6f-46c9-a40d-96cf9069c516" CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:07:12.477" UserId="8672" Text="«сесть кому-н на шею»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="0b5c2281-1d6f-46c9-a40d-96cf9069c516" CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:07:12.477" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="fda0b81f-ee1e-4ef0-96ef-bdaff69be07c" CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:25:27.340" UserId="8672" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="&gt;Но она тут же **села** **ему на шею** - как и всем своим бывшим парням.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of an IM I received from my girlfriend, in which she was talking jokingly about her female friend bordering on control freak vis-à-vis her henpecked boyfriend seemingly at her beck and call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japanese, there is an expression 尻に敷かれる, literally &quot;a man is beneath the *hips* of his wife/girlfriend&quot;. I wonder if this Russian expression is more or less the *neck version* of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the phrase &quot;тут же / immediately&quot; part of this idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="bb820038-8d68-434a-a75d-e1ab3ed97f08" CreationDate="2018-08-14T23:54:58.993" UserId="8672" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="&gt;Но она тут же **села** **ему на шею** - как и всем своим бывшим парням.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of an IM I received from my girlfriend, in which she was talking jokingly about her female friend bordering on control freak vis-à-vis her henpecked boyfriend seemingly at her beck and call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japanese, there is an expression 尻に敷かれる, literally &quot;a man is beneath the hips of his wife/girlfriend&quot;, albeit without specifying which part of his body she sits on. I wonder if this Russian expression is more or less the *neck version* of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the phrase &quot;тут же / immediately&quot; part of this idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44021" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="416c5acd-7cea-4f16-9f27-30e56c3e8be7" CreationDate="2018-08-15T00:40:30.920" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of «сесть кому-н на шею»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17000" RevisionGUID="ab6ae5e7-7b31-4e66-a407-2e006f8fb58f" CreationDate="2018-08-15T02:09:02.523" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;If only I had just half of his... **no**, even a tenth as much courage as he does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly deal with this &quot;*or rather*&quot; type of  mid-sentence gear shifting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17000" RevisionGUID="ab6ae5e7-7b31-4e66-a407-2e006f8fb58f" CreationDate="2018-08-15T02:09:02.523" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say when you suddenly, mid-sentence, come up with a more suitable phrasing as an afterthought?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17000" RevisionGUID="ab6ae5e7-7b31-4e66-a407-2e006f8fb58f" CreationDate="2018-08-15T02:09:02.523" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17001" RevisionGUID="0541b7c6-9ffb-4ab7-843c-df3ab041e683" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:55:20.467" UserId="9602" Text="Using exactly the same construct: “Была бы у меня половина, нет, десятая часть его мужества”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чтобы заснуть, надо десять, нет, сто раз прочесть про себя какие-нибудь стихи (Е. Гинзбург)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17002" RevisionGUID="f390b0d1-4de2-473d-8e50-786f58ce1159" CreationDate="2018-08-15T04:58:52.757" UserId="6539" Text="The idiom is. сидеть у кого-либо на шее — be a burden to smb, **live at smb's expense**. «Тут же» isn't included, meaning &quot;immediately&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your version corresponds to another idiom «быть под каблуком», which is a different kind of dependence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17002" RevisionGUID="245e1d23-e6b7-4f3c-a28b-1471ff6e30c0" CreationDate="2018-08-15T05:05:39.517" UserId="6539" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="The idiom is. сидеть у кого-либо на шее — be a burden to smb, **live at smb's expense**. «Тут же» isn't included, meaning &quot;immediately&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your version corresponds to another idiom «быть под каблуком», which is a different kind of dependence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он всю жизнь сидит на шее у родителей, палец о палец не ударил." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16945" RevisionGUID="5e27d270-b00e-4c3c-b569-be69996765ff" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:37:31.237" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I guess it can be parsed as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There's (that) which is for us to learn&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse construction would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть чему поучиться - We have (that) which is to be learned&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**что** is inflected in Dative as **чему** because this is the case in which the verb **учиться** accepts object denoting the item of learning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically `object in Dative + есть + relative pronoun + infinitive` is a stable construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам **есть куда** пойти - We have places to go (there's no shortage) &lt;sup&gt;*more lit. There're places for us to go*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Нам **некуда**...  - We have no...*&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им **есть что** смотреть - They have something/things to watch (there's no shortage)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Им **нечего** ... - They have nothing ...*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **есть зачем** жить - I have reasons to live/what to live for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;negative&lt;/sup&gt; *Мне **незачем** ... - I have no reasons to live/nothing to live for*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17003" RevisionGUID="0e379e4c-1b04-4423-b4b5-f08f83f04d1a" CreationDate="2018-08-15T07:31:13.913" UserId="8909" Text="I like Alex_ander's `Это уже примелькалось`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, `Это уже не ново`, `Это уже не в новинку`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're talking about a joke you can hear `Это(т анекдот) уже с бородой`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the internet you can hear `баян`, though that's just net language, not suitable for anything formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I don't think a native speaker would use the word `новизна`, I feel like it's pretty rare, though an accurate translation of &quot;novelty&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17004" RevisionGUID="ef9e8ade-7625-4914-bbda-33e85ab4fab5" CreationDate="2018-08-15T11:42:49.287" UserId="5443" Text="Along with words like **... вернее**, **... точнее сказать**, (~= to be more exact) there's a typical self-correction phrase **да что там**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Двадцать лет назад – **да что там**, десять лет назад на богача,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; потратившего миллион долларов, чтобы избраться на выборную должность,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; посмотрели бы с недоверием и подозрением.*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Он знал это, потому что помнил, какая тоска, **да что там** тоска, ужас&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какой охватил его в Моршанске...* (Анна Берсенева, Ответный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; темперамент)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17005" RevisionGUID="05813f63-ffe5-4792-9b75-287487373333" CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:25:47.873" UserId="5443" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The phrase is *typically* about learning from **somebody**'s *unique or superior skills or knowledge*, **not** about getting *any missing knowledge* (that *somebody* is often *known* from context and can be omitted): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нам есть чему (у него, у них) поучиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'll try to literally parse it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is something for us (what) to learn (from them) for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word by word, parsing it backwards:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There is (something)** - есть (то)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**for us** - Нам&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(what) to learn** - чему учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**to learn for some time** - **по**учиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поучиться** as opposed to **учиться** means that there's a limited opportunity (*'while possible'*) to learn from somebody who's definitely not hired for teaching." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17006" RevisionGUID="7d3fa18d-3f4f-4886-8120-d31149b4bca4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T20:39:58.690" UserId="8672" Text="Looking back on a time when we ran into what briefly seemed like a bear in the woods, I wanted to say something in Russian to the effect of our finding ourselves fear-struck and helplessly &quot;riveted to the spot&quot;, as we say &quot;like a stump (of a tree)&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, is it more like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;стоять **как столб**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;than: стоять **как пень**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also wondering if the usage of &quot;как столб/пень&quot; can extend to instances where you cannot tear/pull yourself away from the TV etc, as if to be rooted in front of them, only because you are completely **engrossed** in that activity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can &quot;как столб/пень&quot; be used to convey the idea of being riveted to the TV screen etc of your own accord, as opposed to fear-induced temporary *paralysis*? Or in the case of such *voluntary* immobility, would you use some other expression?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17006" RevisionGUID="7d3fa18d-3f4f-4886-8120-d31149b4bca4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T20:39:58.690" UserId="8672" Text="How do Russian speakers say &quot;like a stump&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17006" RevisionGUID="7d3fa18d-3f4f-4886-8120-d31149b4bca4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T20:39:58.690" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17007" RevisionGUID="09e9b018-57ed-4991-8e28-8fb22fdc5b18" CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:05:40.327" UserId="5443" Text="**Остолбенеть** от ужаса (страха, неожиданности и т. п.). Literally, to become immovable like a pole (столб)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17008" RevisionGUID="72473e41-8071-43a5-9a86-58bb1121e93f" CreationDate="2018-08-16T02:51:49.233" UserId="6539" Text="**Остолбенеть** (to be stunned) is a verb, then there's an idiom **«на него столбняк (tetanus) нашел»**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a voluntary action there's **«не мог оторваться от телевизора»**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="450d4ba1-e2e3-4d2d-8e8c-e62728d3df98" CreationDate="2018-08-16T07:00:32.053" UserId="7674" Text="**как пень** usually refers to sitting, that is **сидеть как пень** in  statements disapproving lack of activity, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сидит целыми днями у телевизора/за компьютером *как (тот) пень*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**как столб** is also a disapproving comparison referring to someone else's immovability which creates obstacles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Стал как столб* в проходе и ни тебе ни пройти, ни проехать &lt;sup&gt;*very colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense **как вкопанный** (as if dug in) is used as well, but it also fits in the context of having to stop dead in one's tracks because of a startling event or sudden emergence of an obstacle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня заворожил протяжный шум лесных верхушек, и я остановился *как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вкопанный* на дорожке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед самым барьером конь остановился *как вкопанный*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17010" RevisionGUID="d0c7cef6-807f-49a3-8aa0-dce0dd338572" CreationDate="2018-08-16T10:49:59.857" UserId="7785" Text="I must add that &quot;сидеть на шее&quot; isn't just to be a burden on somebody, it's taking advantage of someone, having someone to look after you when you're fully capable of looking after yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="7dceac83-2c32-4f83-8ea6-a4a05ab85b9f" CreationDate="2018-08-16T12:33:55.337" UserId="7674" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="**как пень** usually refers to sitting, that is **сидеть как пень** in  statements disapproving lack of activity, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сидит целыми днями у телевизора/за компьютером *как (тот) пень*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**как столб** is also a disapproving comparison referring to someone else's immovability which creates obstacles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Стал как столб* в проходе и ни тебе ни пройти, ни проехать &lt;sup&gt;*very colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense **как вкопанный** (as if dug in) is used as well, but it also fits in the context of having to stop dead in one's tracks because of a startling event or sudden emergence of an obstacle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня заворожил протяжный шум лесных верхушек, и я остановился *как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вкопанный* на дорожке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед самым барьером конь остановился *как вкопанный*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of immobile or lifeless laying the comparison is with a log - **лежать как бревно**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="e46fae50-e584-411b-9302-d47a82046a63" CreationDate="2018-08-16T12:38:16.983" UserId="10386" Text="&gt; Equivalent question: What Russian letters won't equal 1?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: [the homophonic group: a mathematical diversion&#xD;&#xA;](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/843966/) --&gt; This is an exercise from Michael Artin's Algebra on, well, abstract algebra. In this exercise for the English language, words are equal if they are homophones, kind of like a formalisation of the [joke that sin(x)/n=6][1]. So in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;bee=be --&gt; This implies e=1 by cancellation of b and e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;buy=by --&gt; This implies u=1 by cancellation of b and y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;rase=raze --&gt; This implies s=z by cancellation of r and e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;canvass = canvas --&gt; This implies s=1 by cancellation of c,a,n,v,a and s. By canvass=canvas and rase=raze, we have s=z=1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually, all 26 English letters will equal 1. Apparently, this was done for [French][2] and [Czech][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidtheshittymath/comments/7z5e61/sinxn6/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.em/1062620828&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www1.osu.cz/~zusmanovich/topics.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="e46fae50-e584-411b-9302-d47a82046a63" CreationDate="2018-08-16T12:38:16.983" UserId="10386" Text="What is the Russian Homophonic Group?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="e46fae50-e584-411b-9302-d47a82046a63" CreationDate="2018-08-16T12:38:16.983" UserId="10386" Text="|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="b23922b9-16e8-4cce-b4ac-7d1063619267" CreationDate="2018-08-16T18:47:55.727" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**как пень** usually refers to sitting, that is **сидеть как пень** in  statements disapproving of lack of activity, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сидит целыми днями у телевизора/за компьютером *как (тот) пень*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**как столб** is also a disapproving comparison referring to someone else's immovability which creates obstacles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Стал как столб* в проходе и ни тебе ни пройти, ни проехать &lt;sup&gt;*very colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense **как вкопанный** (as if dug in) is used as well, but it also fits in the context of having to stop dead in one's tracks because of a startling event or sudden emergence of an obstacle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня заворожил протяжный шум лесных верхушек, и я остановился *как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вкопанный* на дорожке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед самым барьером конь остановился *как вкопанный*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of immobile or lifeless laying the comparison is with a log - **лежать как бревно**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="0efa87be-79bc-434b-a431-f149a0efdf09" CreationDate="2018-08-16T18:56:40.980" UserId="9602" Text="бос = босс, без = бес, бал = балл, сум = сумм, мая = майя, тон = тонн, серб = серп, гриб = грипп, маг = мак, юг = юкк ⇒ с = з = л = м = й = н = б = п = г = к = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;освещу = освящу = освищу ⇒ я = е = и.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ожёг = ожог, лапать = лапоть ⇒ ё = о = а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;литься = лица, питься = пицца, колоться = колодца, курится = курица ⇒ д = т = ц = ь = 1, я = а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;острова = острого, дров = дроф ⇒ ф = в = г = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ж = ш (дужка = душка) and щ = ч (щитов = счетов), no idea how to move further. Feel free to edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44045" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="846b7b5b-654a-4fc6-b2b5-1e005cffb824" CreationDate="2018-08-16T18:56:40.980" UserId="9602" />
  <row Id="44046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17013" RevisionGUID="ae9972bd-a43a-4796-b433-dda36ce5861a" CreationDate="2018-08-16T18:58:41.677" UserId="134" Text="Russian is not as big on silent letters as English and French are, however, double letters in loanwords, devoicing the consonants and vowel reduction seem to be the most prominent vectors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological *ь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ложь = лож `ь`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double consonants and devoicing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крапп = крап `ьп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крап = краб `ьп`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; буфф = буф `ьпф`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиф = лив `ьпфв`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кокк = кок `ьпфвк`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; маг = мак `ьпфвкг`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ватт = ват `ьпфвкгт`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; род = рот `ьпфвкгтд`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; балл = бал `ьпфвкгтдл`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silent *й*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Майя = мая `ьпфвкгтдлй`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double vowels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вантаа = ванта `ьпфвкгтдлйа`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel reduction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сома = сама `ьпфвкгтдлйао`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44047" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="17013" RevisionGUID="b6b65ae2-4315-4d1c-a86c-dcd9432ec7fe" CreationDate="2018-08-16T18:58:41.677" UserId="134" />
  <row Id="44048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="2fc90df0-e6fd-44d6-80ec-83df6b49d48f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T00:27:11.083" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение **разыгралось** или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение **разыгравшееся** или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of an IM I received from my girlfriend, and I think it essentially means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Still wondering if **it** wasn't just my imagination **playing** tricks on me. Or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I'd expected to see &quot;разыгравшееся&quot; used instead, at least more in keeping with the structure of the English phrasing. In which case, I could see the function of &quot;это&quot; as the subject: &quot;**it**'s my imagination **having played** tricks on me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence she used, on the other hand, I'm not sure how to parse and interpret the function of &quot;это&quot;. A related post: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16244/what-is-the-function-of-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-in-%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%82-x-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%B2%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="2fc90df0-e6fd-44d6-80ec-83df6b49d48f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T00:27:11.083" UserId="8672" Text="Function of «это» in «это у меня воображение разыгралось»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="2fc90df0-e6fd-44d6-80ec-83df6b49d48f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T00:27:11.083" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="449c6286-a616-4199-b83e-318f62dc3142" CreationDate="2018-08-17T00:39:20.467" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение **разыгралось** или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение **разыгравшееся** или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of an IM I received from my girlfriend, and I think it essentially means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Still wondering if **it** wasn't just my imagination **playing** tricks on me. Or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I'd expected to see &quot;разыгравшееся&quot; used instead, at least more in keeping with the structure of the English phrasing. In which case, I could see the function of &quot;это&quot; as the subject: &quot;**it**'s my imagination **having played** tricks on me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence she used, on the other hand, I'm not sure how to parse and interpret the function of &quot;это&quot;. A relevant post: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16244/what-is-the-function-of-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-in-%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%82-x-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%B2%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="3df4713e-5763-44ad-8525-020db86b401d" CreationDate="2018-08-17T01:55:41.767" UserId="9602" Comment="rigourouser group theory" Text="бос = босс, без = бес, бал = балл, сум = сумм, мая = майя, тон = тонн, серб = серп, гриб = грипп, маг = мак, юг = юкк ⇒ с = з = л = м = й = н = б = п = г = к = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;литься = лица, питься = пицца, колоться = колодца ⇒ ться = ца = цца = дца ⇒ д = ц = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кот = код ⇒ т = д = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;курится = курица ⇒ тся = ца = а = ться ⇒ ь = 1, я = а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лапать = лапоть ⇒ а = о.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ожёг = ожог ⇒ о = ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;освищу = освещу = освящу ⇒ и = е = я = а = о = ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;острова = острого, дров = дроф ⇒ ф = в = г = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ж = ш (дужка = душка) and щ = ч (щитов = счетов), no idea how to move further. Feel free to edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17012" RevisionGUID="4067b269-9ca9-4fd3-a0b6-f616914ad759" CreationDate="2018-08-17T02:05:32.140" UserId="9602" Comment="cleaner examples" Text="бос = босс, без = бес, бал = балл, сум = сумм, мая = майя, тон = тонн, серб = серп, гриб = грипп, маг = мак, юг = юкк ⇒ с = з = л = м = й = н = б = п = г = к = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;спиться = спится = спица, питься = пицца, колоться = колодца ⇒ ться = тся = ца = цца = дца ⇒ ь = ц = д = 1, тя = а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кот = код ⇒ т = д = 1, я = а.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;лапать = лапоть ⇒ а = о.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ожёг = ожог ⇒ о = ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;освищу = освещу = освящу ⇒ и = е = я = а = о = ё.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;острова = острого, дров = дроф ⇒ ф = в = г = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ж = ш (дужка = душка) and щ = ч (щитов = счетов), no idea how to move further. Feel free to edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="e9d55e16-c116-4a4d-9bd0-fdb301b3f20d" CreationDate="2018-08-17T02:21:43.733" UserId="8672" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&gt; Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение **разыгралось** или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение **разыгравшееся** или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is part of an IM I received from my girlfriend, and I think it essentially means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Still wondering if **it** wasn't just my imagination **playing** tricks on me. Or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I'd expected to see &quot;разыгравшееся&quot; used instead, at least more in keeping with the structure of the English phrasing. In which case, I could see the function of &quot;это&quot; as the subject: &quot;**it**'s my imagination **having played** tricks on me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence she used, on the other hand, I'm not sure how to parse and interpret the function of &quot;это&quot;, as the subject is apparently &quot;воображение&quot;. A relevant post: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16244/what-is-the-function-of-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-in-%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%82-x-%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%B2%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17015" RevisionGUID="297144e9-9f3d-4640-ae48-9af8b87959df" CreationDate="2018-08-17T02:23:00.127" UserId="9602" Text="In this type of usage, like in your other question, “это” is kind of outside its sentence and instead of coupling words, it couples sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Девушка услышала странный голос. Это у неё воображение разыгралось, наверное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be turned into the definition pattern (“X — [это] Y”):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Странный голос — это игра воображения девушки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Кто там?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Это я пришёл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which, if you want to apply usual sentence parsing rules, should be rephrased along the lines of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Звонок в твою дверь* — это *следствие моего визита.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="8772d465-1974-4fb6-b48e-2575178ecf7b" CreationDate="2018-08-17T06:43:49.753" UserId="7674" Text="Technically you can use past participle *разыгравшееся*, however in this case for the sentence to sound more idiomatically **у меня** needs to be replaced with **моё** (as in English) and order of words changed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все думаю, это моё разыгравшееся воображение или нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, this very phrasing, albeit grammatically sound, in itself isn't common and not 100% identical in meaning to the other version, because it equates the work of your imagination to that certain thing rather than signifies its being the result of the imagination's work, like the other version does.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17009" RevisionGUID="44ff211a-115a-48c3-9d1c-187fbffe4355" CreationDate="2018-08-17T06:47:08.700" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**как пень** usually refers to sitting, that is **сидеть как пень** in  statements disapproving of lack of activity, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Сидит* целыми днями у телевизора/за компьютером *как (тот) пень*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**как столб** is also a disapproving comparison referring to someone else's immovability which creates obstacles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Стал как столб* в проходе и ни тебе ни пройти, ни проехать &lt;sup&gt;*very colloquial*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sense **как вкопанный** (as if dug in) is used as well, but it also fits in the context of having to stop dead in one's tracks because of a startling event or sudden emergence of an obstacle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня заворожил протяжный шум лесных верхушек, и я *остановился как&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вкопанный* на дорожке&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Перед самым барьером конь *остановился как вкопанный*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of immobile or lifeless laying the comparison is with a log - **лежать как бревно**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17017" RevisionGUID="1574da8d-0b39-4a33-ba0f-7e37d8805ea9" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:12:59.873" UserId="10888" Text="&quot;Латвийка&quot; and &quot;латышка&quot; are both translated into English as &quot;a (female) Latvian&quot; (or, which in English is a rather archaic form, &quot;a [female] Lett&quot;). But what is their difference in meaning? Is one of the forms archaic? Or does one mean Latvian by citizenship and the other means ethnic Latvian? Perhaps a person of Russian ethnicity who is from Latvia would prefer to call themselves by one rather than the other? I have consulted a number of dictionaries without getting any enlightenment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17017" RevisionGUID="1574da8d-0b39-4a33-ba0f-7e37d8805ea9" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:12:59.873" UserId="10888" Text="What is the difference in meaning between &quot;латвийка&quot; and &quot;латышка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17017" RevisionGUID="1574da8d-0b39-4a33-ba0f-7e37d8805ea9" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:12:59.873" UserId="10888" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17018" RevisionGUID="ccc9ab5a-f482-44ce-ba3e-23012e71c848" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:21:38.733" UserId="6074" Text="* латышка is an ethnic Latvian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* латвийка is a woman who lives in or was born in Latvia, regardless of heritage/ancestry. Could be a Russian woman or Roma or something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like the difference between русский and российский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17019" RevisionGUID="11b438de-91d3-499d-9e8e-9a785aa8cc61" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:27:40.093" UserId="134" Text="Some nations have distinct words in Russian for &quot;pertaining to the titular ethnic group&quot; and &quot;pertaining to the nation or state&quot;, as in &quot;Russian&quot; vs. &quot;Russia's&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; немецкий/ германский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; русский / российский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; латышский / латвийский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; казахский / казахстанский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; малагасийский / мадагаскарский&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happens when the names of the country and the ethnic group come from the different roots (Germany particularly stands out in this regard across the languages of the world).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *латвийка* would mean &quot;a Latvian national or resident&quot;, while *латышка* would mean &quot;ethnic Latvian&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17016" RevisionGUID="444366dd-218c-4bd8-ba8e-85a1d3e4be06" CreationDate="2018-08-17T20:55:27.553" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Technically you can use past participle *разыгравшееся*, however in this case for the sentence to sound more idiomatically **у меня** needs to be replaced with **моё** (as in English) and order of words changed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все думаю, это моё разыгравшееся воображение или нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, this very phrasing, albeit grammatically sound, in itself isn't very common and not 100% identical in meaning to the other version, because it equates the work of your imagination to that certain thing rather than signifies its being the result of the imagination's work, like the other version does.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17013" RevisionGUID="d5c06800-e2da-4cc1-8774-3e289cc5e4fb" CreationDate="2018-08-17T20:59:38.797" UserId="134" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="Russian is not as big on silent letters as English and French are, however, double letters in loanwords, devoicing the consonants and vowel reduction seem to be the most prominent vectors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what I have so far:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`# абвгдеёжзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщъыьэюя`  &#xD;&#xA;`#      е   и          у хцч щ ы эюя` // not solved yet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Etymological *ь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ложь = лож `ь`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*ъ* as a prefix separator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; объём = обьём `ъ`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silent *й*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Майя = мая `й`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double consonants and devoicing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крапп = крап `п`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; крап = краб `б`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; буфф = буф `ф`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лиф = лив `в`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кокк = кок `к`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; маг = мак `г`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ватт = ват `т`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; род = рот `д`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; бос = босс `с`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рос = роз `з`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; балл = бал `л`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сумм = сум `м`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тор = торр `р`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тон = тонн `н`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double vowels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вантаа = ванта `а`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vowel reduction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сома = сама `о`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ожог = ожёг `ё`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Double consonants and devoicing again (now that we have vowels)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жжём = жом `ж`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нож = нош `ш`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="f5aee7d2-1281-44ef-91c3-577e015f6cf3" CreationDate="2018-08-18T03:04:16.560" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Вам не кажется, что эту яму **как будто** специально кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this &quot;[как будто][1]&quot; is an adverbial phrase, not a conjunction, given its position. When you use &quot;как будто&quot; as an adverbial phrase, does it serve to emphasise an immediately following word -- in this case, &quot;специально&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how does it differ in meaning from using &quot;будто&quot; as a conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Вам не кажется, **будто** специально эту яму кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%82%D0%BE#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="f5aee7d2-1281-44ef-91c3-577e015f6cf3" CreationDate="2018-08-18T03:04:16.560" UserId="8672" Text="Usage of the adverbial &quot;как будто&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="f5aee7d2-1281-44ef-91c3-577e015f6cf3" CreationDate="2018-08-18T03:04:16.560" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17021" RevisionGUID="2c33e4da-6b94-4b32-be19-2edb7bc6f188" CreationDate="2018-08-18T05:43:12.190" UserId="8893" Text="No, it doesn't emphasise anything here. This can be translated as 'as if' in both cases. Maybe you have a different example ?... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="91622070-c880-4f48-9372-317d5d76abbb" CreationDate="2018-08-18T05:59:34.303" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Вам не кажется, что эту яму **как будто** специально кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this &quot;[как будто][1]&quot; is an adverbial phrase, not a conjunction, given its position. When you use &quot;как будто&quot; as an adverbial phrase, does it serve to qualify an immediately following word -- in this case, &quot;специально&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how does it differ in meaning from using &quot;будто&quot; as a conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Вам не кажется, **будто** специально эту яму кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%82%D0%BE#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17022" RevisionGUID="e505bc15-7141-40f8-b216-cbf04b27d2fb" CreationDate="2018-08-18T06:11:50.383" UserId="8893" Text="Everything you've said about `это` is correct, but there's some important point missing. The use of `это` construction may add emphasis to actual subject of the sentence. See the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without это:&#xD;&#xA;Все думаю, у меня воображение разыгралось или нет.&#xD;&#xA;I can't stop thinking, is my imagination playing tricks on me or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With это (emphasised by intonation):&#xD;&#xA;Все думаю, это **у меня** воображение разыгралось или нет.&#xD;&#xA;I can't stop thinking, is this **my** imagination playing tricks on me or not? ( Maybe it was somebody else, who actually got imagination issues )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With это (emphasised by intonation):&#xD;&#xA;Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение разыгралось.&#xD;&#xA;I can't stop thinking, all **this** was just my imagination playing tricks on me. ( Everything what happened was my imagination )&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="21cb45c4-bd5d-4d79-a4ce-286279a503b0" CreationDate="2018-08-18T15:15:38.650" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Вам не кажется, что эту яму **как`-`будто** специально кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this &quot;[как будто][1]&quot; is an adverbial phrase, not a conjunction, given its position. When you use &quot;как будто&quot; as an adverbial phrase, does it serve to qualify an immediately following word -- in this case, &quot;специально&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how does it differ in meaning from using &quot;будто&quot; as a conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Вам не кажется, **будто** специально эту яму кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%82%D0%BE#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17020" RevisionGUID="0416f771-3e4b-422c-a4a0-340671243142" CreationDate="2018-08-18T15:22:18.783" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Вам не кажется, что эту яму **как`-`будто** специально кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this &quot;[как будто][1]&quot; is an adverbial phrase, not a conjunction, given its position. When you use &quot;как будто&quot; as an adverbial phrase, does it serve to qualify an immediately following word -- in this case, &quot;специально&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how does it differ in meaning from using &quot;будто&quot; as a conjunction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Вам не кажется, `что` **будто**&lt;sup&gt;**`3`**&lt;/sup&gt; специально&lt;sup&gt;**`4`**&lt;/sup&gt; эту&lt;sup&gt;**`1`**&lt;/sup&gt; яму&lt;sup&gt;**`2`**&lt;/sup&gt; кто-то вырыл?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%82%D0%BE#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17023" RevisionGUID="cd08bf0f-7bcc-4107-a834-466e97083fc9" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:32:53.570" UserId="8780" Text="With verbs such as ходить, плавать, ехать, летать, the fact that they are indeterminate means that they imply movement in many directions without a particular finish line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the verb &quot;to climb&quot; itself has both an indeterminate version (**лазить**) and a determinate one (**лезть**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, since the act of climbing always happens upward, how come there can be an indeterminate climbing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess there are differences in verb usage. Does **лазить** imply climbing up many things (`лазить по деревьям`, for example) while **лезть** focuses on climbing a particular thing (`лезть на дерево`)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44074" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17023" RevisionGUID="cd08bf0f-7bcc-4107-a834-466e97083fc9" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:32:53.570" UserId="8780" Text="лазить vs лезть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44075" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17023" RevisionGUID="cd08bf0f-7bcc-4107-a834-466e97083fc9" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:32:53.570" UserId="8780" Text="|вид|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17024" RevisionGUID="d2b57fe9-59d0-4942-86de-730b1402c315" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:38:33.373" UserId="8780" Text="I read the following excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он был арестован, без права переписка. Это значило **одно**: расстрел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No doubt that **одно**, in this context, means *&quot;just one thing&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can **одно** also be used in an expression like *&quot;I'll tell you one thing&quot;*, when the purpose is to draw the attention of our listener to a particular detail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does &quot;**я тебе скажу одно**&quot; exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17024" RevisionGUID="d2b57fe9-59d0-4942-86de-730b1402c315" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:38:33.373" UserId="8780" Text="одно as &quot;one thing&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17024" RevisionGUID="d2b57fe9-59d0-4942-86de-730b1402c315" CreationDate="2018-08-18T23:38:33.373" UserId="8780" Text="|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17025" RevisionGUID="4c691663-deb9-4475-8487-40304962cd90" CreationDate="2018-08-19T01:37:32.893" UserId="10177" Text="Three of the four verbs you listed are in their indeterminate forms, ехать isn't though, ездить is the indeterminate form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeterminate doesn't necessarily imply &quot;in many directions&quot;, it can also be used to indicate things like doing an action repeatedly, occasionally, continuously without a specific goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the act of climbing doesn't always happen upward, you can climb down a tree, cliff, etc., after climbing up it, you can climb down a hole, climb out of the window, climb along a ledge... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your last paragraph is pretty much correct, лазить implies doing an action repeatedly, continuously, or the act of climbing in general such as: Я люблю лазить по деревьям. (We can't say я люблю лезть...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While лезть means a particular instance with a specific goal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17026" RevisionGUID="369d9ac6-1aed-4198-abcc-1da7c38ef9f7" CreationDate="2018-08-19T04:18:36.073" UserId="10578" Text="No, it doesn't exist. You'd want to distinguish between &quot;one thing only&quot;--&quot;одно&quot; and &quot;one thing/some thing&quot;--&quot;кое-что / что-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case: &quot;я тебе скажу кое-что&quot; / &quot;я тебе что-то скажу&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verb and object may exchange places or not, depending on the emotional load and/or one's fancy); the variant(s) with &quot;что-то&quot; may be considered more colloquial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="dad01d20-b244-4d34-915c-894025b723fd" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:51:35.430" UserId="10890" Text="After reading [this article][1] I got curious how ф is in place of &quot;th&quot; in English for the word Cathedral (Кафедральный)? Sounds almost like a coffee-place. (I know it is not Café or Kafee in russian but kava so it would be kavadrala or kavarnadrala something. Ok, enough of the silliness.)&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;How is it that the word Кафедральный has this ф instead of some other Cyrillic letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberg_Cathedral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="dad01d20-b244-4d34-915c-894025b723fd" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:51:35.430" UserId="10890" Text="Cathedral, &quot;Кафедральный&quot;, why is ф in there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="dad01d20-b244-4d34-915c-894025b723fd" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:51:35.430" UserId="10890" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="b0426a0d-1947-47f3-9b15-2aabf4b87ffc" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:10:30.843" UserId="7674" Text="The word **кафедра**, which is the base for **кафедральный**, in Russian is a loan word from Greek, **καθέδρα**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre-reform Russian alphabet contained the Greek letter [**θ** (фита)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фита) and by the old orthograpical rules the word **кафедральный** would be spelled as [**каθедральный**](http://xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_DIGIT_5820/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of the reform of 1918, by which it was abolished, among other things, it was replaced with the letter **Ф**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i believe **θ** was still pronounced like **Ф**, which provided  justification for such a replacement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="206a76ec-2d1e-4bde-9a74-075cf972b766" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:14:02.867" UserId="7674" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="The word **кафедра**, which is the base for **кафедральный**, in Russian is a loan word from Greek, [**καθέδρα**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/кафедра#Этимология).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre-reform Russian alphabet contained the Greek letter [**θ** (фита)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фита) and by the old orthograpical rules the word **кафедральный** would be spelled as [**каθедральный**](http://xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_DIGIT_5820/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of the reform of 1918, by which it was abolished, among other things, it was replaced with the letter **Ф**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i believe **θ** was still pronounced like **Ф**, which provided  justification for such a replacement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="3156050a-3554-4a21-b86a-9888231c3348" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:22:55.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="The word **кафедра**, which is the base for **кафедральный**, in Russian is a loan word from Greek, [**καθέδρα**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/кафедра#Этимология).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre-reform Russian alphabet contained the Greek letter [**θ** (фита)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фита) and by the old orthograpical rules the word **кафедральный** would be spelled as [**каθедральный**](http://xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_DIGIT_5820/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of the reform of 1918, by which it was abolished, among other things, it was replaced with the letter **Ф**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i believe **θ** was still pronounced like **Ф**, which provided  justification for such a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays however, in transliteration of the English **TH** (which is similar to the Greek **θ**) instead of **Ф** the Russian letter **T** would rather be used, if not even **C**, which i personally consider too far off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="a37376d5-314f-4da5-9c3b-cd74ef5492ad" CreationDate="2018-08-19T09:29:58.643" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="The word **кафедра**, which is the base for **кафедральный**, in Russian is a loan word from Greek, [**καθέδρα**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/кафедра#Этимология).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre-reform Russian alphabet contained the Greek letter [**θ** (фита)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фита) and by the old orthograpical rules the word **кафедральный** would be spelled as [**каθедральный**](http://xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_DIGIT_5820/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of the reform of 1918, by which it was abolished, among other things, it was replaced with the letter **Ф**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i believe **θ** was still pronounced like **Ф**, which provided  justification for such a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays however, in transliteration of the English **TH** (which is similar to the Greek **θ**) instead of **Ф** the Russian letter **T** would rather be used or **C**, depending on the position in a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="890118f1-13b3-410d-abb5-c2a9cda72d6b" CreationDate="2018-08-19T13:10:11.700" UserId="10890" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="After reading [this article][1] I got curious how ф is in place of &quot;th&quot; in English for the word Cathedral (Кафедральный)? Sounds almost like a coffee-place. (I know it is not Café or Kafee in russian but кофе so it would be кофедрала something. Ok, enough of the silliness.)&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;How is it that the word Кафедральный has this ф instead of some other Cyrillic letters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberg_Cathedral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17029" RevisionGUID="0d4d8120-587c-45a3-8ddc-1785318fe6c5" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:58:11.210" UserId="8780" Text="I was doubtful when I saw the words **коровье молоко** and **козье молоко**. Then I checked an electronic dictionary (*Толковый словарь русского языка* for Mac), and there **-ья/-ье** where referred as the replacements for **-ий** in their respective adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I knew that there are, in Russian, *hard adjectives* (красив.ый, -ая, -ое, -ые), *soft adjectives* (соседн.ий, -яя, -ее, -ие) and *mixed adjectives* resulting from the spelling requirements after some consonants (хорош.ий, -ая, -ее, -ие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is **ья/ье** an irregular soft ending? Does it decline just like the regular soft endings (in which *feminine genitive* is **-ей** and *neuter genitive* is **-его**)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17029" RevisionGUID="0d4d8120-587c-45a3-8ddc-1785318fe6c5" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:58:11.210" UserId="8780" Text="Adjectives in -ья, -ье" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17029" RevisionGUID="0d4d8120-587c-45a3-8ddc-1785318fe6c5" CreationDate="2018-08-19T15:58:11.210" UserId="8780" Text="|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17022" RevisionGUID="89b3d53d-a3bd-4998-aa45-40e48a2e2bdb" CreationDate="2018-08-19T16:49:52.680" UserId="8893" Comment="Improved markup" Text="Everything you've said about `это` is correct, but there's some important point missing. The use of `это` construction may add emphasis to actual subject of the sentence. See the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without это:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все думаю, у меня воображение разыгралось или нет. I can't stop&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking, is my imagination playing tricks on me or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With это (emphasised by intonation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все думаю, это **у меня** воображение разыгралось или нет. I can't&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stop thinking, is this **my** imagination playing tricks on me or not?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ( Maybe it was somebody else, who actually got imagination issues )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With это (emphasised by intonation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все думаю, **это** у меня воображение разыгралось. I can't stop&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thinking, all **this** was just my imagination playing tricks on me. (&#xD;&#xA; Everything what happened was my imagination )&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17011" RevisionGUID="5f24491a-f4c5-4fae-9f53-bb3cb0809a67" CreationDate="2018-08-19T18:01:47.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1031239819534458882" />
  <row Id="44094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17030" RevisionGUID="5b4aafd9-a05c-49ff-a95a-e640cc9738c0" CreationDate="2018-08-19T18:36:08.440" UserId="9001" Text="I would look at this from another angle. It is not irregular ending, but irregular stem - a soft sign is attached to it in most forms. It also replaces a vowel in the ending if it is duplicated (**-яя**, **-ии**, **-ее**, **-юю**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**ий** - коров**ий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**его** - коровь**его**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc., but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**яя** - коровь**я**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**юю** - коровь**ю**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17031" RevisionGUID="17ead191-424b-42a7-b20e-83b083f94890" CreationDate="2018-08-19T23:25:48.840" UserId="2079" Text="Such adjectives are called притяжательные прилагательные. The ending ий-ье-ья is  common for them. We can see two types of their declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    корова - коровий - коровье&#xD;&#xA;    коза - козий - козье&#xD;&#xA;    овца - овечий - овечье&#xD;&#xA;    птица - птичий - птичье&#xD;&#xA;    кошка - кошачий - кошачьe&#xD;&#xA;    верблюд - верблюжий - верблюжье&#xD;&#xA;    слон - слоновий - слоновье&#xD;&#xA;    волк - волчий - волчье&#xD;&#xA;    заяц - заячий - заячье&#xD;&#xA;    лис/лиса - лисий - лисье&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    оса - осиный - осиное&#xD;&#xA;    пчела - пчелиный - пчелиное&#xD;&#xA;    муравей - муравьиный - муравьиное&#xD;&#xA;    кура/курица - куриный - куриное&#xD;&#xA;    змея - змеиный - змеиное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some declense both ways. For example, there are both `соколиный` and `соколий`, both `стрекозиный` and `стрекозий`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17031" RevisionGUID="05e72a0d-255b-417f-bd97-fc4aec5351b0" CreationDate="2018-08-19T23:39:23.773" UserId="2079" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Such adjectives are called *притяжательные прилагательные*, *posessive adjectives*. The ending ий-ье-ья is  common for &quot;animal&quot; posessive adjectives. We can see two types of their declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    корова - коровий - коровье&#xD;&#xA;    коза - козий - козье&#xD;&#xA;    овца - овечий - овечье&#xD;&#xA;    кошка - кошачий - кошачьe&#xD;&#xA;    верблюд - верблюжий - верблюжье&#xD;&#xA;    слон - слоновий - слоновье&#xD;&#xA;    волк - волчий - волчье&#xD;&#xA;    заяц - заячий - заячье&#xD;&#xA;    лис/лиса - лисий - лисье&#xD;&#xA;    обезьяна - обезьяний - обезьянье&#xD;&#xA;    птица - птичий - птичье&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    оса - осиный - осиное&#xD;&#xA;    пчела - пчелиный - пчелиное&#xD;&#xA;    муравей - муравьиный - муравьиное&#xD;&#xA;    кура/курица - куриный - куриное&#xD;&#xA;    змея - змеиный - змеиное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some declense both ways. For example, there are both `соколиный` and `соколий`, both `стрекозиный` and `стрекозий`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17031" RevisionGUID="722314c8-a40e-42aa-a843-2ff45c695666" CreationDate="2018-08-19T23:44:40.313" UserId="2079" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Such adjectives are called *притяжательные прилагательные*, *posessive adjectives*. The ending ий-ье-ья is  common for &quot;animal&quot; posessive adjectives. We can see two types of their declension:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    корова - коровий - коровье&#xD;&#xA;    коза - козий - козье&#xD;&#xA;    овца - овечий - овечье&#xD;&#xA;    кошка - кошачий - кошачьe&#xD;&#xA;    обезьяна - обезьяний - обезьянье&#xD;&#xA;    птица - птичий - птичье&#xD;&#xA;    рыба - рыбий - рыбье&#xD;&#xA;    верблюд - верблюжий - верблюжье&#xD;&#xA;    слон - слоновий - слоновье&#xD;&#xA;    волк - волчий - волчье&#xD;&#xA;    заяц - заячий - заячье&#xD;&#xA;    лис/лиса - лисий - лисье&#xD;&#xA;    дельфин - дельфиний - дельфинье&#xD;&#xA;    крокодил - крокодилий - крокодилье&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    зверь - звериный - звериное    &#xD;&#xA;    оса - осиный - осиное&#xD;&#xA;    пчела - пчелиный - пчелиное&#xD;&#xA;    муравей - муравьиный - муравьиное&#xD;&#xA;    кура/курица - куриный - куриное&#xD;&#xA;    змея - змеиный - змеиное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some declense both ways. For example, there are both `соколиный` and `соколий`, both `стрекозиный` and `стрекозий`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="9af1641e-36b8-42e2-baaa-d57d0b69df91" CreationDate="2018-08-20T01:38:17.927" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;I don't want to put in overtime day in and day out **to** get ahead in life, **only to** pop my clogs at 50 at the height of my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the structure &quot;only to&quot; comes in handy when you unexpectedly end up with a disappointing result. The use of &quot;..., чтобы ...&quot; comes to mind, but if I go for this structure, I'm not sure how to distinguish it from the preceding &quot;to&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="9af1641e-36b8-42e2-baaa-d57d0b69df91" CreationDate="2018-08-20T01:38:17.927" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;only to&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="9af1641e-36b8-42e2-baaa-d57d0b69df91" CreationDate="2018-08-20T01:38:17.927" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17033" RevisionGUID="6056ef73-0068-4102-be51-dcfb26e33f8e" CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:06:05.730" UserId="2079" Text="Maybe `ради перспективы`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не хочу изо дня в день рвать задницу на британский флаг и делать карьеру ради перспективы в 50 лет отбросить копыта." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="e98056ca-c454-4496-9dbc-bcb1d7ce31fc" CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:12:57.440" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;I've somehow managed to **blunder my way into** a management position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;= Я как-то умудрился (???) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we often use the structure &quot;verb of motion + one's way + preposition&quot; such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I've been so fortunate to **work my way up to** where I am now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;We **inched our way across** the room, hardly daring to breathe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm not too keen on travelling to Prague, as the thought of **pushing my way through** a crowd of tourists doesn't exactly appeal to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I **sneaked my way out of** the office earlier than usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is some fixed structure in Russian  roughly corresponding to this English construction. How do Russian speakers commonly express these ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="e98056ca-c454-4496-9dbc-bcb1d7ce31fc" CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:12:57.440" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;blunder/work/inch/push/sneak my way into/across/through/out of&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="e98056ca-c454-4496-9dbc-bcb1d7ce31fc" CreationDate="2018-08-20T02:12:57.440" UserId="8672" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17035" RevisionGUID="d9a806a8-5189-4c73-b9a4-8f9ed1c4e636" CreationDate="2018-08-20T03:56:20.957" UserId="2104" Text="I don't think a full equivalent exists. Here's how I would render your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've somehow managed to blunder my way into a management position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Каким-то образом я умудрился **оказаться** в начальниках.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR: Меня каким-то образом занесло в начальники.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I've been so fortunate to **work my way up to** where I am now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Мне повезло **доработать до** моей текущей должности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We **inched our way across** the room, hardly daring to breathe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мало-помалу** мы **протиснулись на другой конец** комнаты, едва дыша.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...pushing my way through a crowd ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;толкаться в толпе / расталкивать толпу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **sneaked my way out of** the office earlier than usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я **улизнул из** офиса раньше обычного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also replace **улизнул** with the colloquial **слинял**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the expression **проложить себе дорогу/путь чем-либо** but it's too bookish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Сын ремесленника, он начал службу с должности писца и **упорным трудом проложил себе путь к** вершинам немецкой почтовой иерархии.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Смело, товарищи, в ногу, &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Духом окрепнем в борьбе &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;В царство свободы **дорогу &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Грудью проложим** себе&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17036" RevisionGUID="6199bd6e-2fc9-4219-9fab-caa640031af0" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:08:25.057" UserId="2104" Text="A simple **чтобы** will do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* ... чтобы в 50 лет на вершине карьеры сыграть в ящик.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="491ca49c-fe1b-4cc1-b2fc-55a35cf3e110" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:26:12.807" UserId="8672" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't want to put in overtime day in and day out **to** get ahead in life, **only to** pop my clogs at 50 at the height of my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the structure &quot;only to&quot; comes in handy to express the idea of unexpectedly ending up with a disappointing result. The use of &quot;..., чтобы ...&quot; comes to mind, but if I go for this structure, I'm not sure how to distinguish it from the preceding &quot;to / чтобы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="54d9bd9b-03bb-47a5-a555-2a663f9727da" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:47:41.533" UserId="8672" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't want to put in overtime day in and day out **to** get ahead in life, **only to** pop my clogs at 50 at the height of my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the structure &quot;only to&quot; comes in handy to express the idea of unexpectedly ending up with a disappointing result. The use of &quot;..., чтобы ...&quot; comes to mind, but if I go for this structure, I'm not sure how to distinguish it from the preceding &quot;to / чтобы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So I searched, bending over on all fours, for a car key this driver dropped on the sand, **only to** leave with a sore back and without so much as a 'thank you'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44109" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="adf415a2-f242-4875-8f91-425c29ff8713" CreationDate="2018-08-20T04:48:41.817" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;blunder/work/inch/push/sneak my way into/across/through/out of&quot; – in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="bbdf5c1e-9b8e-4b35-a53f-3f9189b9e7ac" CreationDate="2018-08-20T08:22:19.367" UserId="8672" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt;I don't want to put in overtime day in and day out **to** get ahead in life, **only to** pop my clogs at 50 at the height of my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the structure &quot;only to&quot; comes in handy to express the idea of unexpectedly ending up with a disappointing result. The use of &quot;..., чтобы ...&quot; comes to mind, but if I go for this structure, I'm not sure how to distinguish it from the preceding &quot;to / чтобы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So I searched, bending over on all fours, for a car key this driver dropped on the sand, **only to** leave with a sore back and without so much as a 'thank you' to show for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17037" RevisionGUID="938771db-7dbf-423d-afe0-7307c0aabeb9" CreationDate="2018-08-20T08:33:06.590" UserId="7674" Text="My suggestion contains parts of those already offered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... только ради того, чтобы..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17037" RevisionGUID="34ac687d-6c69-4230-888c-8d4471b55b9a" CreationDate="2018-08-20T08:59:13.753" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="My suggestion contains parts of those already offered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... только ради того, чтобы (в результате/в итоге)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17037" RevisionGUID="b4eab04e-384c-4179-a54e-8d411ca32c84" CreationDate="2018-08-20T09:12:00.957" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="My suggestion contains parts of those already offered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... только ради того, чтобы (в результате/в итоге/в конце концов)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second sentence though in my opinion none of the suggestions would work, since it describes a consequence which has already materialized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead it requires some sort of conjunction with the word **пока**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .., **пока** (в итоге/в конце концов) у меня не разболелась спина, и (я не ушел,) не получив **/** удостоившись в награду даже благодарности **/** даже благодарности в качестве вознаграждения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17037" RevisionGUID="b7bfabf8-615e-4775-a529-5ac5d5694cf9" CreationDate="2018-08-20T09:44:13.080" UserId="7674" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="My suggestion contains parts of those already offered&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... только ради того, чтобы (в результате/в итоге/в конце концов)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second sentence though in my opinion none of the suggestions would idiomatically work, since it describes a consequence which has already materialized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead it requires some sort of conjunction with the word **пока**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .., **пока** (в итоге/в конце концов) у меня не разболелась спина, и (я не ушел,) не получив **/** удостоившись в награду даже благодарности **/** даже благодарности в качестве вознаграждения&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can say `ползал на карачках .., чтобы (в итоге/в конце концов) уйти с разболевшейся спиной...` but it's not idiomatic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="c75eac3d-bc48-4eb7-a876-2c6ca91dec48" CreationDate="2018-08-20T10:13:04.543" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="&gt;**1)** I've somehow managed to **blunder my way into** a management position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;= Я как-то умудрился (???) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we often use the structure &quot;verb of motion + one's way + preposition&quot; such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**2)** I've been so fortunate to **work my way up to** where I am now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**3)** We **inched our way across** the room, hardly daring to breathe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**4)** I'm not too keen on travelling to Prague, as the thought of **pushing my way through** a crowd of tourists doesn't exactly appeal to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**5)** I **sneaked my way out of** the office earlier than usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is some fixed structure in Russian  roughly corresponding to this English construction. How do Russian speakers commonly express these ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17034" RevisionGUID="af02aff6-a5ec-40b9-b2c8-4e6feb5b5beb" CreationDate="2018-08-20T10:36:54.097" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) I've somehow managed to **blunder my way into** a management position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;= Я как-то умудрился (???) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, we often use the structure &quot;verb of motion + one's way + preposition&quot; such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) I've been so fortunate to **work my way up to** where I am now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3) We **inched our way across** the room, hardly daring to breathe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;4) I'm not too keen on travelling to Prague, as the thought of **pushing my way through** a crowd of tourists doesn't exactly appeal to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;5) I **sneaked my way out of** the office earlier than usual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is some fixed structure in Russian  roughly corresponding to this English construction. How do Russian speakers commonly express these ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="0f89d80d-c024-4f31-808e-f82325cd5733" CreationDate="2018-08-20T10:37:53.247" UserId="8672" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt;1) I don't want to put in overtime day in and day out **to** get ahead in life, **only to** pop my clogs at 50 at the height of my career.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, the structure &quot;only to&quot; comes in handy to express the idea of unexpectedly ending up with a disappointing result. The use of &quot;..., чтобы ...&quot; comes to mind, but if I go for this structure, I'm not sure how to distinguish it from the preceding &quot;to / чтобы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or in another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) So I searched, bending over on all fours, for a car key this driver dropped on the sand, **only to** leave with a sore back and without so much as a 'thank you' to show for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17030" RevisionGUID="f04316bd-f686-4859-b73b-082b73488767" CreationDate="2018-08-20T15:34:52.127" UserId="9001" Comment="exception to the rule" Text="I would look at this from another angle. It is not irregular ending, but irregular stem - a soft sign is attached to it in most forms. It also replaces a vowel in the ending if it is duplicated (**-яя**, **-ии**, **-ее**, **-юю**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**ий** - коров**ий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**его** - коровь**его**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc., but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**яя** - коровь**я**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**юю** - коровь**ю**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an exception from this rule in nominative/accusative plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;средн**ие** but коровь**и**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44119" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16999" RevisionGUID="188d41c4-dad3-47b7-97a2-93e5f2195954" CreationDate="2018-08-20T21:01:11.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1031647354523463682" />
  <row Id="44120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17038" RevisionGUID="f94c6bdb-3cda-47e0-9238-68182a24e599" CreationDate="2018-08-21T08:53:07.443" UserId="10791" Text="I am trying to read some basic Russian texts to strengthen my vocabulary and I came across the following sentence in one of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И, может быть, это и проблема...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am yet to fully comprehend the intricacies of the Russian language, but I did struggle to translate this one properly. Apparently, the correct translation is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And maybe this is the problem...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does one get to this end result? I know I need to try and stop reading a sentence word by word in the hope it will make sense immediately, but there are a few things I do not understand regarding the aforementioned phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As far as I am aware *может* can mean *May, or Can (as in &quot;Can I&quot;, &quot;May I&quot;)* so where does this come in with *может быть*, and how does that end up meaning *Maybe*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In the phrase *это и проблема... (this is the problem)* why is *и* present? I thought that meant *and*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17038" RevisionGUID="f94c6bdb-3cda-47e0-9238-68182a24e599" CreationDate="2018-08-21T08:53:07.443" UserId="10791" Text="How does &quot;И, может быть, это и проблема&quot; translate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17038" RevisionGUID="f94c6bdb-3cda-47e0-9238-68182a24e599" CreationDate="2018-08-21T08:53:07.443" UserId="10791" Text="|грамматика|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17039" RevisionGUID="5e9f5cb8-8b1d-4e90-9783-0f77289f7162" CreationDate="2018-08-21T09:59:12.437" UserId="5443" Text="&gt; И, может быть, это и проблема...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original sentence  *doesn't* sound perfect Russian to me: it's even unclear, which of the two senses it was supposed to express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **And that might also be a problem**,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **And maybe the problem** [we are trying to locate] **is just in that**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is because the *second* &quot;**и**&quot;  can function (1) like **ещё и** (*also, as well*) or (2) simply *emphasize* the following word.&#xD;&#xA;Also, the first comma looks redundant: in case it was used in pair with the second one, to isolate the insert **может быть**, that does not work well because extracting the insert (a typical punctuation test) brings us to an internally strange sentence &quot;**И это и проблема**&quot;. So the first &quot;**И**&quot; is rather a part of &quot;**И может быть**&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44128" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16995" RevisionGUID="58ea04fa-1ffa-4bd4-9734-3171247a32dc" CreationDate="2018-08-21T12:00:34.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1031873693918666753" />
  <row Id="44135" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16944" RevisionGUID="4602d8c3-f34d-4f9e-8cad-14c9bed454fb" CreationDate="2018-08-21T21:02:13.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1032010004373622785" />
  <row Id="44136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17043" RevisionGUID="07cc8236-2940-4f6f-8f20-abb8258f6bb5" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:17:23.937" UserId="4560" Text="I think it's better to disregard, for the purposes of translation, the (quasi-)causal component implied by &quot;to&quot; in the English expression. From what I know about its use, &quot;only to&quot; can equally describe a reversal of fortunes that happens quite independently of the preceding events described.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, even if the causation is there, it's just better Russian to ignore it. Russian likes counterbalancing where English likes sequencing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, perhaps anticlimactically, I'd say the choice is between **а потом**, **а в итоге**, **а в конце концов** (more literary), or even a simple **а**. Perhaps English needs the somewhat intricate &quot;only to&quot; precisely because it doesn't have an equivalent of **а**, that quintessentially Russian &quot;this vs. that&quot; or &quot;before vs. after&quot; conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не хочется вкалывать изо дня в день, пытаясь чего-то в жизни добиться, а потом в 50, на пике карьеры, дать дуба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В общем, я ползал на четвереньках, ища ключ, который этот водитель уронил в песок, а в итоге остался только с болью в спине — даже «спасибо» не сказали." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17044" RevisionGUID="c6f04cc0-a6e1-4754-a6aa-80647c83a3bc" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:46:46.317" UserId="62" Text="Last year when visiting Russia I saw a store named Априори. This year in Russia I saw some chocolate bars named Априори. Naming something after such a philosophical term seems strange to me. Can any native speaker provide some insight into why this is a label that someone would want to use on a product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from the Russian Wikipedia page for Априори that the term is used outside of philosophy to mean &quot;speculative&quot; or &quot;preliminary&quot;, but these additional meanings don't sound attractive as a brand name." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17044" RevisionGUID="c6f04cc0-a6e1-4754-a6aa-80647c83a3bc" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:46:46.317" UserId="62" Text="априори as a brand name" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17044" RevisionGUID="c6f04cc0-a6e1-4754-a6aa-80647c83a3bc" CreationDate="2018-08-22T00:46:46.317" UserId="62" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17044" RevisionGUID="38ebf671-3312-4f4b-a0a4-595592604a94" CreationDate="2018-08-22T02:19:40.827" UserId="62" Comment="updated information" Text="Last year when visiting Russia I saw a store named Априори. This year in Russia I saw some chocolate bars named Априори. To me, *a priori* is a term from logic or philosophy, and naming something after such a philosophical term seems strange to me (like calling a chocolate bar &quot;contrapositive&quot;). Can any native speaker provide some insight into why this is a label that someone would want to use on a product? I did ask a native speaker about this when I was in Russia, and was told that the word just sounds nice.  Could that be all there is to it? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from the Russian Wikipedia page for Априори that the term is used outside of philosophy to mean &quot;speculative&quot; or &quot;preliminary&quot;, but these additional meanings don't seem attractive as the meaning of a brand name.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17045" RevisionGUID="72ddab12-1126-4781-9d1a-c4eb44095f9e" CreationDate="2018-08-22T03:54:04.030" UserId="2079" Text="The word `априори` is relatively common in Russian, intelligent Russians know and occasionally use it in discussions about various things. Examples from ruscorpora.ru :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Предприниматели) относятся к наемному работнику, как к классовому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; врагу, априори считая его дебилом и лентяем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Много в последнее время пришлось читать о том, что черно-белое кино &#xD;&#xA;&gt; не способно увлечь современного зрителя априори, но я с этим не соглашусь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb `априори` have nothing to do with shopping or chocolate bars, but this is common for brand names.  What does chocolate have to do with the planet Mars, or with the Greek mythology character Mars?  What about the brand name Ritter Sport?  What is &quot;Ritter Sport&quot;?  There is no sport called Ritter, and there is no human named Ritter Sport. &quot;Ritter Sport&quot; is a meaningless pair of words.  And chocolate bars have nothing to do with sports." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44142" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17044" RevisionGUID="eba4c419-9862-4075-91d6-1560b683d1f8" CreationDate="2018-08-22T08:40:13.363" UserId="134" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17046" RevisionGUID="2887146c-b34e-4588-9ba0-e283a7558956" CreationDate="2018-08-22T19:51:12.467" UserId="6326" Text="Oh, it's hard to message about it, 'cause it's more about intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can одно also be used in an expression like &quot;I'll tell you one thing&quot;,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when the purpose is to draw the attention of our listener to a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particular detail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is yes, you can translate it like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **я тебе скажу одно** is more like *I'll tell you **just one** thing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I'll tell you one thing* is closer in meaning to **я тебе скажу одну вещь**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17047" RevisionGUID="fddf0ef1-e730-4d4e-ba47-c9da7453932e" CreationDate="2018-08-22T19:58:16.183" UserId="6326" Text="Alex_ander is right, but the first version also could mean a surprise, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wow. What has changed? Why would you start taking care of me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17048" RevisionGUID="babaa2eb-42b2-4a45-9732-16f58aa39999" CreationDate="2018-08-22T20:06:34.973" UserId="6326" Text="&gt; Волк каждый год линяет, да обычая не меняет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English equivalent: **The fox changes his skin but keeps his knavery**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17028" RevisionGUID="b686b89c-e09d-4cc8-b9e0-9e819633c937" CreationDate="2018-08-23T06:53:18.463" UserId="7674" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="The word **кафедра**, which is the base for **кафедральный**, in Russian is a loan word from Greek, [**καθέδρα**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/кафедра#Этимология).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pre-reform Russian alphabet contained the Greek letter [**θ** (фита)](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фита) and by the old orthograpical rules the word **кафедральный** would be spelled as [**каθедральный**](http://xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_DIGIT_5820/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result of the reform of 1918, by which it was abolished, among other things, it was replaced with the letter **Ф**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i believe **θ** was still pronounced like **Ф**, which provided  justification for such a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays however, in transliteration of the English **TH** (which is similar to the Greek **θ**) instead of **Ф** the Russian letter **T** would rather be used or **C**, depending on the position in a word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17049" RevisionGUID="f938d2b8-ad58-4f8a-8657-b660d2a37307" CreationDate="2018-08-23T11:11:41.947" UserId="6326" Text="&gt; Всё думаю, это у меня воображение разыгралось или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's about current situation. Like, if something just has happened, and your imagination &quot;**playing tricks** on you&quot; right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всё думаю, это у меня воображение разыгравшееся или нет...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could have the same meaning. But it's more about your imagination in general, like &quot;your imagination **always plays tricks** on you&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17050" RevisionGUID="dbb4fb65-ba30-432b-a4eb-acfdc53be967" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:26:11.067" UserId="6821" Text="I understand why the dative is used in this sentence, given the presence of the preposition **по** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Я спала два раза по **одному часу**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I don't understand why it's **not** used in the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Я спала два раза по **два часа**&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have become accustomed to speaking that way so it is not an issue in daily life, but I would like to know what the rule is that guides this apparent inconsistency, assuming there *is* such a rule. I struggled to even describe the problem, so if there is a more appropriate title please don't hesitate to edit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17050" RevisionGUID="dbb4fb65-ba30-432b-a4eb-acfdc53be967" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:26:11.067" UserId="6821" Text="Use of the dative and time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17050" RevisionGUID="dbb4fb65-ba30-432b-a4eb-acfdc53be967" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:26:11.067" UserId="6821" Text="|грамматика|дательный-падеж|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17051" RevisionGUID="8cd7240f-ae56-45be-987e-1c87bcd90242" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:39:34.023" UserId="242" Text="With `один`, `тысяча`, `миллион`, `триллион` (in other words, with all that numeral that can be combined with `один`) dative is used - is just a rule that should be memorized. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По [одному] миллиону долларов попросили оба министерства &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Министерства запросили по два миллиона. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17051" RevisionGUID="701290fe-d80c-4d7a-9c46-2b069429610d" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:43:50.403" UserId="242" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="With `один`, `тысяча`, `миллион`, `триллион` (in other words, with all that numeral that can be combined with `один`) dative is used - is just a rule that should be memorized. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По [одному] миллиону долларов попросили оба министерства &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Министерства запросили по два миллиона. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relevant quote from slightly outdated yet quite famous [grammar reference][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Предлог по в так называемом дистрибутивном (распределительном)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значении управляет дательным и винительным падежом числительного. Ср.:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; по одному рублю, по тысяче книг, по миллиону жителей, по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; миллиарду рублей (при числительных один, тысяча, миллион, миллиард);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other case when we need dative is when we used quantitative words like `много`, `несколько` like in `по многу раз` or `по нескольку раз`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/59.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44153" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17050" RevisionGUID="cb1ce712-01f1-425e-8fbb-43b289e2a97e" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:48:05.813" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|числительные|дательный-падеж|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44154" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17050" RevisionGUID="cb1ce712-01f1-425e-8fbb-43b289e2a97e" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:48:05.813" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="Why &quot;по одному часу&quot; is in Dative while &quot;по два часа&quot; is not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44155" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17050" RevisionGUID="28505722-fb7a-4397-8b61-ac7ca57c93f6" CreationDate="2018-08-23T14:13:18.593" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why &quot;по одному часу&quot; is in dative while &quot;по два часа&quot; is not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44156" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17006" RevisionGUID="5ba98352-9562-4e8f-8ae4-38a8d5472dcf" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:01:07.617" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1032643906087931904" />
  <row Id="44157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17000" RevisionGUID="e08e0b0e-52d1-4840-ac12-d6ab46c39066" CreationDate="2018-08-23T18:02:05.083" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1032689445433159680" />
  <row Id="44158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17027" RevisionGUID="ae655ecd-abaa-4cf7-b262-bdeb88080e4b" CreationDate="2018-08-25T00:01:19.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1033142238564560898" />
  <row Id="44164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17053" RevisionGUID="98c8abe2-51ff-40e2-a70e-8bb5c5b42e65" CreationDate="2018-08-25T13:48:11.927" UserId="10322" Text="this might be more of a student-style hack, but when I was getting started I would watch for five or six letter verbs that seemed to come up a lot:ступить, глядеть, пустить, words like that. Anytime I learned a new one, I would go to google translate and try it out with as many prefixes as I could think of, see which ones came back as valid translations, then I'd scope those out in a dictionary to get a full translation (whether it was transitive, verb collocations, things like that).&#xD;&#xA;It was a bit repetitive, but not as bad as wading through the wiktionary list (which I also fought with) and it got me pretty good at anticipating and &#xD;&#xA;remembering the different senses of the prefixes. Maybe that helps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44165" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9355" RevisionGUID="edd75815-9c03-44ea-8f6f-b0c2d3bdd0df" CreationDate="2018-08-25T15:00:50.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1033368608112431104" />
  <row Id="44166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9361" RevisionGUID="122f9a51-1bb9-4aa8-9024-7461da412afe" CreationDate="2018-08-26T10:13:29.423" UserId="4714" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="English prepositions can do two jobs: 1) changing the noun like &quot;on the floor&quot;, and 2) changing the verb like &quot;to get out&quot;. Unlike English ones, Russian prepositions do only 1). For 2) we use verb prefixes exclusively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This concept presents in many languages and even in English you sometimes say &quot;bypass&quot; or &quot;foresee&quot; etc. What makes English special is that in 80% cases you still may use separate prepositions like &quot;go in, go out, go on, go by&quot; so there's one monstrously large vocabulary entry on &quot;to go&quot; yet it's only one and you know what letter it starts with. But in a Russian vocabulary there are a dozen of entries on those &quot;to go&quot;-variants and they all start (the prefixes!) with different letters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to deal with it? Well, think of it like an extra set of &quot;prepositions&quot; which you have to learn. In fact, they sometimes coincide. Let's take an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Под_&quot; means &quot;_Under_&quot; yet it's a verb prefix too. Let's add it to a verb &quot;_Держать_&quot; (to keep, to hold). Now we have &quot;_Поддержать_&quot; (note that double D: there's also both preposition and prefix &quot;по&quot;, so &quot;подержать&quot; is an absolutely different word). What &quot;_Поддержать_&quot; means? Literally &quot;_to hold (from) under_&quot;. Then applying some mind work gives &quot;_to support_&quot; which is the right answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that the prepositions (both true and &quot;prefix-like&quot; ones) have too many meanings so you can't deal with only a simple one-to-one correspondence. Or at least it wouldn't help you to get it. As an example, &quot;_Подделать_&quot; is &quot;_Under_&quot; + &quot;_Do_&quot;. But what it means? Really, &quot;_To Forge_&quot;. Having known that beforehand, perhaps, I can speculate that it was due to forging signatures or stamps  which are _under_ the text, yet no chance I could figure this just without any context. Sadly, this means you still need the dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about listing all those prefixes? Well, I don't know the comprehensive source to provide it here. But there shouldn't be too many of them (or else Russian people can't remember them all). So let's try to deal with it just by another example. How many verbs can we form out of &quot;_Держать_&quot; by adding different prefixes? Now let's do it: starting from the literal meaning we go to true one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выдержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from inside to outside&quot; ---&gt; to withstand, to survive, to keep self-control, to make vintage wine or cheese etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Додержать ---&gt; to keep upto/until smth. (rarely used in prefix-form)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Задержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold after&quot; ---&gt; to delay&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Издержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from&quot; ---&gt; &quot;to hold completely&quot; ---&gt; to spend, to waste (a little bookish)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Одержать [победу] ---&gt; &quot;to hold [a victory] all round&quot; ---&gt; to win&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Передержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold throughout&quot; ---&gt; to hold too much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Придержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold near&quot; ---&gt; to delay a little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подержать ---&gt; to keep a little&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поддержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold under&quot; ---&gt; to support&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сдержать ---&gt; &quot;to hold from top down to bottom&quot; ---&gt; to hold back, to fight off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Удержать ---&gt; &quot;to fulfill the process of holding&quot; ---&gt; to keep despite of smth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is no way complete but it could serve as a starting point. Try to apply these same prefixes, say, to verb &quot;_Идти_&quot; (to go) - can you now understand all the verbs? Выйти, дойти, зайти, изойти, обойти, перейти, прийти, пойти, подойти, сойти, уйти? (The life is hard and making the couple of errors here seems to be unavoidable, yet there always is the vocabulary to fix them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. As I was pointed out any &quot;preposition&quot; matching only the verb is considered to be an adverb not a preposition anymore. That makes much sense and yet raises one more question: if Russian language has adverbs too (and it really has) why Russian verbs need prefixes at all? The answer is _productivity_. Naturally, some adverbs make a bigger meaning shift than others. Say, &quot;Go forward&quot; still means &quot;Go&quot; plus a direction. While &quot;Go nuts&quot; isn't about &quot;going&quot; at all. So sometimes it makes sense (at least for Russians) to merge two words into one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take another example. &quot;_Я повернул налево_&quot; (I turned left). Here &quot;_налево_&quot; (left) is a regular adverb. Yet the verb &quot;_Повернуть_&quot; is still uses a prefix: &quot;По&quot; + &quot;Вернуть&quot;. That is &quot;an incomplete action&quot; + &quot;one turnover&quot; which gives just one regular turn in a grand total. It's fun that in English there's a prefix too although the other way round: &quot;_To Return_&quot; (_Вернуть_ in Russian) is formed like _Re_ + _Turn_ that is turning twice gives coming back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus there's nothing truly new in the concept of prefixes, and once you've got it, it helps much just like common prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions do. Though the flexibility is always a danger. Not all the couplings really make sense and combining them blindly is a way to play a fool. The most well-known joke about prefixed verbs is the word &quot;_Недоперепить_&quot;. Could anyone translate it? :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17054" RevisionGUID="972aaeb5-d1ac-4162-84f5-4301dcf215ca" CreationDate="2018-08-26T12:56:55.413" UserId="10912" Text="&gt; Он был арестован, без права переписка. Это значило одно: расстрел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sence the 'одно' word should represent the 'единственный, последний' meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'I'll tell you **one** thing'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here the 'one' would mean completely different 'this particular thing/ secret/ advice etc.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'll tell you one thing is closer in meaning to я тебе скажу одну вещь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly. По-русски так и будет: &quot;Скажу тебе одну вещь.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17055" RevisionGUID="855921dc-5eb6-41a2-93fb-31d4febf58e7" CreationDate="2018-08-26T13:06:26.253" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;бежать **по** лесу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;бежать **через** лес&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the surface, they both seem to mean &quot;running through the woods&quot;, but I wonder if they are nuanced somehow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17055" RevisionGUID="855921dc-5eb6-41a2-93fb-31d4febf58e7" CreationDate="2018-08-26T13:06:26.253" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;бежать по лесу&quot; vs &quot;бежать через лес&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17055" RevisionGUID="855921dc-5eb6-41a2-93fb-31d4febf58e7" CreationDate="2018-08-26T13:06:26.253" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17056" RevisionGUID="fae6e403-86af-4c8b-b1fb-27f4a0fe8a88" CreationDate="2018-08-26T13:07:20.127" UserId="10912" Text="This depends on a context, but here it reflects the 'probability'.&#xD;&#xA;'А, может быть, это и проблема.&quot; - 'something is probably a problem' - &quot;что-то, вероятно, является проблемой [для кого-либо]&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17057" RevisionGUID="2d1ea033-ea91-4890-8aae-35e69c8d45f2" CreationDate="2018-08-26T13:19:57.387" UserId="10912" Text="Native speakers do mix up all these words as well, but JFYI:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'Джем/ конфитюр' - while boiling berries become smashed, there are no complete berries in it.&#xD;&#xA; - 'Варенье' - berries save the shape.&#xD;&#xA; - 'Повидло' - puree of berries with sugar (boiled also as others)&#xD;&#xA; - 'Мармелад' - near to the 'джем', but usually from citrus fruits like oranges, lemons and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'Сырое варенье' - puree of berries with sugar without boiling&#xD;&#xA; - 'Варенье-пятиминутка' - something berry that was boiled for 5 minutes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17058" RevisionGUID="88dd9a17-dfa1-4e8c-9eed-77084ece68f7" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:11:38.440" UserId="7674" Text="The nuance is in the purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бежать через лес** - emphasizes the fact that forest is only a landscape feature on your way elsewhere which you're going to pass through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бежать по лесу** - means running in(side) the forest with no connotation of the need to pass through it, it could be for jogging having no destination outside of it and no intention to leave it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17059" RevisionGUID="744141fe-064c-45f5-b1a2-8707c0306cec" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:22:21.113" UserId="5605" Text="Смысловые нюансы здесь такие, на мой взгляд:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бежать по лесу*** можно и без конечной цели, не имея конечного пункта, до которого вы хотите добраться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бежать через лес*** подразумевает, что у вас есть конечная цель или пункт, до которого вы стремитесь добраться." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17058" RevisionGUID="06c6ef3c-e590-4733-ab52-a16a0bfe6f5b" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:24:40.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="The nuance is in the purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бежать через лес** - emphasizes the fact that forest is only a landscape feature on your way elsewhere which you're going to cross&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бежать по лесу** - means running in(side) the forest with no connotation of the need to pass through it, it could be for jogging having no destination outside of it and no intention to leave it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise: ехать через поле/по полю, плыть через реку/по реке, идти через дорогу/по дороге, красться через сад/по саду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With preposition *через* often verbs with prefix *пере-* are used: пере-плывать/-плыть (через) реку, пере-ходить/-йти (через) дорогу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17059" RevisionGUID="62ceec9c-ab78-4a22-a346-bcbb024db403" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:27:58.063" UserId="5605" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="Смысловые нюансы здесь такие, на мой взгляд:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бежать по лесу*** можно и без конечной цели, не имея конечного пункта, до которого вы хотите добраться. ***бежать по лесу*** it is possible without the ultimate goal, without having the destination to which you want to get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***бежать через лес*** подразумевает, что у вас есть конечная цель или пункт, до которого вы стремитесь добраться. ***бежать через лес*** implies that you have an end goal or point that you are aiming to reach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17058" RevisionGUID="62c44162-8891-42fc-8db7-f26d603958ef" CreationDate="2018-08-26T15:30:50.567" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="The nuance is in the purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бежать через лес** - emphasizes the fact that forest is only a landscape feature on your way elsewhere which you're going to cross&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**бежать по лесу** - means running in(side) the forest with no connotation of the need to pass through it, it could be for jogging having no destination outside of it and no intention to leave it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise: ехать через поле/по полю, идти через дорогу/по дороге, красться через сад/по саду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With preposition *через* often verbs with prefix *пере-* are used: пере-плывать/-плыть (через) реку, пере-ходить/-йти (через) дорогу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="8169b01e-632d-457c-a983-8a7cce4ecae8" CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:50:10.433" UserId="5" Text="Why do people say &quot;[пинать ногами][1]&quot; when the act of &quot;пинать&quot; can only be done by &quot;ноги&quot; and nothing else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="8169b01e-632d-457c-a983-8a7cce4ecae8" CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:50:10.433" UserId="5" Text="Why do people say пинать ногами?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="8169b01e-632d-457c-a983-8a7cce4ecae8" CreationDate="2018-08-26T17:50:10.433" UserId="5" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17061" RevisionGUID="709dcbef-d9d1-4dfc-b393-d1fc4a262ea2" CreationDate="2018-08-26T18:45:20.613" UserId="242" Text="Such redundancy is called [`плеоназм`][1] (an [link][2] for the English article) and in natural speech there are lot of examples of phrases that can be shortened without loosing any information. In the link provided above there's another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «Он сказал мне [о том], что его приняли на другую работу» (what is in square brackets can be omitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;other examples `А где это находится географически?`, `aктёрское амлуа`, `отара овец`, `героический подвиг` and I can go for quite a long but you got the idea. As you can see, some of such usages a de-facto used quite often - that often that you don't even think about such redundancy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good editor supposed to recognize such phrases and got rid of them though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44182" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="fb09bbf6-1ed7-489a-9860-8910611619fe" CreationDate="2018-08-26T18:46:48.203" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Why do people say &quot;пинать ногами&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17061" RevisionGUID="0f050b8d-e0a9-4d48-b624-daa0b273ee99" CreationDate="2018-08-26T19:18:12.423" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Such redundancy is called [`плеоназм`][1] (an [link][2] for the English article) and in natural speech there are lot of examples of phrases that can be shortened without loosing any information. In the link provided above there's another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - «Он сказал мне [о том], что его приняли на другую работу» (what is in square brackets can be omitted).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;other examples `А где это находится географически?`, `aктёрское амлуа`, `отара овец`, `героический подвиг` and I can go for quite a long but you got the idea. As you can see, some of such usages a de-facto used quite often - that often that you don't even think about such redundancy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good editor is supposed to recognize such phrases and get rid of them though.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="7e966736-47c1-41c7-91d2-23be4f2f7aad" CreationDate="2018-08-27T04:35:42.513" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Пожалуй, стоило бы **намылить ему шею** за то, что из-за него я так долго был лишен вашего общества. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this expression means &quot;give him a (verbal) dressing-down&quot;? Does &quot;намылить&quot; have anything to do with &quot;soap&quot;? In French, there is a similar colloquial expression &quot;passer un savon{soap} à someone&quot; to mean exactly that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know in which register it is used, but are there synonymous expressions for &quot;намылить ему шею&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="7e966736-47c1-41c7-91d2-23be4f2f7aad" CreationDate="2018-08-27T04:35:42.513" UserId="8672" Text="Meaning of &quot;намылить ему шею&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="7e966736-47c1-41c7-91d2-23be4f2f7aad" CreationDate="2018-08-27T04:35:42.513" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="83035a0c-0a04-4522-823a-c59a08496d0e" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:24:14.150" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;Только подумай! Возможно, пока мы разговариваем, британские солдаты проникают в город, **а** **мы даже не догадываемся**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is a commonly used expression to convey the idea of &quot;(Something could be happening), **and we'd be none the wiser**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that this Russian expression does not use the conditional tense for one thing, so I'm not sure if it serves as an equivalent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44188" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="83035a0c-0a04-4522-823a-c59a08496d0e" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:24:14.150" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you say &quot;We'd be none the wiser”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44189" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="83035a0c-0a04-4522-823a-c59a08496d0e" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:24:14.150" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="808f363f-f385-4245-bc46-71e5f5e7f70b" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:35:57.970" UserId="7674" Text="I don't think *&quot;none the wiser&quot;* fits here. [**Here're**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;s=none%20the%20wiser&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=1&amp;l2=2) its translations into Russian, and neither it does as per its definition in [English - English](https://www.google.com/search?q=none+the+wiser&amp;oq=none+the+wiser) dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It rather means to not know after the fact, not as something is happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian phrase in question means *&quot;and we even have no idea&quot;*. Its synonym would be an idiom **&quot;a мы ни сном, ни духом&quot;** or a straightforward phrase **&quot;a мы даже не знаем/не в курсе&quot;**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="19869a2b-081b-4581-8195-e1d39f1ec249" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:41:25.973" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I don't think *&quot;none the wiser&quot;* fits here. [**Here're**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;s=none%20the%20wiser&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=1&amp;l2=2) its translations into Russian, and neither it does as per its definition in [English - English](https://www.google.com/search?q=none+the+wiser&amp;oq=none+the+wiser) dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It rather means to not know or understand after the fact, not as something is happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian phrase in question means *&quot;and we even have no idea&quot;*. Its synonym would be an idiom **&quot;a мы ни сном, ни духом&quot;** or a straightforward phrase **&quot;a мы даже не знаем/не в курсе/понятия не имеем&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it would fit if the sentence was conditional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы сейчас, пока мы разговариваем, в город проникли англичане, мы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; остались бы в полном неведении/бы ничего не узнали.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="801f0d9f-d3e9-4720-bd25-e6a058bf03d4" CreationDate="2018-08-27T06:46:37.727" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I don't think *&quot;none the wiser&quot;* fits here. [**Here're**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;s=none%20the%20wiser&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=1&amp;l2=2) its translations into Russian, and neither it does as per its definition in [English - English](https://www.google.com/search?q=none+the+wiser&amp;oq=none+the+wiser) dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It rather means to not know or understand after the fact, not as something is happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian phrase in question means *&quot;and we even have no idea&quot;*. Its synonym would be an idiom **&quot;a мы ни сном, ни духом&quot;** or a straightforward phrase **&quot;a мы даже не знаем/не в курсе/понятия не имеем&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it would fit if the sentence were conditional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы сейчас, пока мы разговариваем, в город проникли британские солдаты, мы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *остались бы в полном неведении*/*бы ничего не узнали*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17064" RevisionGUID="d6927e26-8f26-4862-bec4-8ca86a3eb60f" CreationDate="2018-08-27T07:02:52.393" UserId="7674" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I don't think *&quot;none the wiser&quot;* fits here. [**Here're**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=3&amp;s=none%20the%20wiser&amp;sc=0&amp;l1=1&amp;l2=2) its translations into Russian, and neither it does as per its definition in [English - English](https://www.google.com/search?q=none+the+wiser&amp;oq=none+the+wiser) dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It rather means to not know, understand or find out after the fact, not as something is happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian phrase in question means *&quot;and we have no idea whatsoever / are totally oblivious&quot;*. Its synonym would be an idiom **&quot;a мы ни сном, ни духом&quot;** or a relatively more straightforward phrase **&quot;a мы даже не знаем/не в курсе/понятия не имеем&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it would fit if the sentence were conditional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы сейчас, пока мы разговариваем, в город проникли британские солдаты, мы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *остались бы в полном неведении* / *бы ничего (даже) не узнали* / *бы ни о чём (даже) не догадались*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="53a9ed6d-84d8-4fdc-b46d-63520c01d092" CreationDate="2018-08-27T07:03:47.820" UserId="8672" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="&gt;Только подумай! Возможно, пока мы разговариваем, британские солдаты проникают в город, **а** **мы даже не догадываемся**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is a commonly used expression to convey the idea of &quot;(Something could be happening), **and we'd be none the wiser**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that this Russian expression does not use the conditional tense for one thing, so I'm not sure if it serves as an equivalent. If it doesn't, how do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="a48181f8-97ff-457c-a62c-9726483aacee" CreationDate="2018-08-27T07:05:36.203" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt;Только подумай! Возможно, пока мы разговариваем, британские солдаты проникают в город, **а** **мы даже не догадываемся**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if this is a commonly used expression to convey the idea of &quot;(Something could be happening), **and we'd be none the wiser**&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that this Russian expression does not use the conditional mood for one thing, so I'm not sure if it serves as an equivalent. If it doesn't, how do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44196" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="1b2bb122-79f5-494b-8c2f-6907bfb5cb3d" CreationDate="2018-08-27T08:48:30.650" UserId="242" Comment="&quot;in Russian&quot; is redundant - this is a stack about Russian after all" Text="How do you say &quot;We'd be none the wiser”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17065" RevisionGUID="68b35490-2dd8-46d3-bb9a-5e7d2dc81a20" CreationDate="2018-08-27T09:39:11.553" UserId="242" Text="Some say &quot;намылить&quot; is to &quot;put some frothy soap on&quot;, &quot;to lather&quot; and actually this phrase has pretty grim etymology - for execution via hanging the know was usually lubricated by soap (or wax) to ensure it smoothness. Sometimes neck of one who's executed was lathered as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;намылить шею&quot; (according to this version) initially had more dark connotations that not just non-existent - it's quite soft actually. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is at least the most popular version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However personally me never found this version convincing enough - it's just that there's not enough evidence that support this version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually `намылить` [meant][1] to stand for: &quot;намыливая в воде, растирать, натирать&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've ever seen how laundry looks like before the invention of washing machines you've most likely seen something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This device is called [washboard][4] (or `стиральная доска` in Russian) and Wikipedia got it right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clothes are soaked in hot soapy water in a washtub or sink, then squeezed and rubbed against the ridged surface of the washboard to force the cleansing fluid through the cloth to carry away dirt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's rubbing forcibly against some ridged hard surface. One can imagine that it's quite uncomfortable if we'll make the same with the neck. &#xD;&#xA;So may be etymology is not that grim after all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.de/books?id=lMgGAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA385&amp;dq=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%8E%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiM6K6e9YzdAhUOmrQKHd_nAgwQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%8E%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iXsmx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eMjjy.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washboard_(laundry)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17066" RevisionGUID="b2e86227-bf70-4d99-9bd5-f54155daa5fa" CreationDate="2018-08-27T11:26:33.160" UserId="10177" Text="Your way of saying it doesn't work with the conditional mood, instead it implies conditionality using the **Только подумай/Imagine** form. It would be the same in English:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Imagine, while we are talking here, British troops are ... and we haven't even got a clue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, if you want to use the conditional **&quot;and we'd be none the wiser,&quot;** you wouldn't use the **imagine** form, you'd instead make it conditional, something like&#xD;&#xA;&gt;British troops could be infiltrating the city as we speak and we'd be none the wiser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would work in a similar fashion in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Британские солдаты могли бы/могут проникать в город пока мы тут разговариваем, а мы бы **даже и не догадывались/понятия не имели/ничего об этом не знали/нам бы это и в голову не пришло**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="d3ec2561-27b8-4ba5-9fca-1a0040744a2f" CreationDate="2018-08-27T15:23:54.387" UserId="10915" Text="How would I say &quot;of the silk road&quot;  as in a male dog/horsecat from the silk road?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eg &quot;Maxim of the Silk Road&quot; or from the Silk Road/Silk Route.&#xD;&#xA;And how would I transliterate it into English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would Maxim Шелкового пути&#xD;&#xA;ie Maxim Shelkovogo or Maxim Shelkovog Put make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or would Maxim Shelkovoy or Maxim Shelkovoy Dorogi make more sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks for reading and any answers! :  ) )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44200" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="d3ec2561-27b8-4ba5-9fca-1a0040744a2f" CreationDate="2018-08-27T15:23:54.387" UserId="10915" Text="How would I say &quot;of the silk road&quot; as in a male dog/horsecat from the silk road?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44201" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="d3ec2561-27b8-4ba5-9fca-1a0040744a2f" CreationDate="2018-08-27T15:23:54.387" UserId="10915" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44202" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="8263c3af-d36e-4579-b6ed-b617b0f51a42" CreationDate="2018-08-27T15:32:37.457" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17068" RevisionGUID="27db2e7a-ffd7-45cf-9ae6-cce4b87c8ca1" CreationDate="2018-08-27T20:16:26.870" UserId="2079" Text="Пинают не обязательно ногами. Например, можно пнуть с работы.  Когда-то такое употребление слова `пнуть` было переносным, сейчас уже, наверное, стало вторым значением." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="51d81da4-940f-4617-9a21-12263c9fb89c" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:06:47.443" UserId="10420" Text="When learning Russian grammar, the only auxiliary verb that is explained is быть, which is used for forming the imperfective future tense. However, occasionally I have seen sentences where идти is used as an auxiliary verb. For example, I once saw the combination &quot;идти гулять&quot;. Could someone explain how such constructions work and precisely what its nuances are (i.e. what's the difference between &quot;я погуляю&quot; and &quot;я иду гулять&quot;)? Is it also possible to say &quot;я шёл гулять&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side question: are there any other auxiliary verbs in Russian besides быть and идти?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="51d81da4-940f-4617-9a21-12263c9fb89c" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:06:47.443" UserId="10420" Text="Auxiliary verbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="51d81da4-940f-4617-9a21-12263c9fb89c" CreationDate="2018-08-28T09:06:47.443" UserId="10420" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="624f611b-80c0-468b-811c-c50c4688e2f8" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:41:31.253" UserId="7674" Text="As Abakan has noted these aren't auxiliary verbs, these are simply two actions in which one is the condition for another and which could be separated by the conjunction ***чтобы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти гулять - идти, **чтобы** (по)гулять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оther examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я встал (, чтобы) выглянуть в окно - i got up **to** take a look&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside   &#xD;&#xA;я ложусь/иду (, чтобы) спать - (literally) i lay down **to** sleep;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (idiomatically) i go to sleep   &#xD;&#xA;я сяду отдохну / (, чтобы) отдохнуть - i'll sit **to** take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuance is that only the first verb is tensed and conjugated whereas the second always maintains its infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future tense both verbs can be tensed and conjugated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="720c9a44-7625-483e-b815-4d1a3d430d15" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:50:26.247" UserId="7674" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="As Abakan has noted these aren't auxiliary verbs, these are simply two actions in which one is the condition for another and which could be separated by the conjunction ***чтобы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти гулять - идти, **чтобы** (по)гулять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оther examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я встал (, чтобы) выглянуть в окно - i got up **to** take a look&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;я ложусь/иду (, чтобы) спать - (literally) i lay down **to** sleep;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (idiomatically) i go to sleep  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;я сяду отдохну / (, чтобы) отдохнуть - i'll sit **to** take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuance is that only the first verb is tensed and conjugated whereas the second usually maintains its infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future tense both verbs can be tensed and conjugated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я погуляю&quot; - is future tense perfective  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;я иду гулять&quot; - is present tense whose future counterpart should be &quot;я пойду погулять/яю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я шёл гулять&quot; is indeed a legitimate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно шёл гулять.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17071" RevisionGUID="dcbbbea7-e4b9-4b73-81e0-cc7680c86012" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:55:25.183" UserId="4560" Text="**Идти** is not an auxiliary verb, it refers to literal physical going/walking. Yes, it's also possible to say **я шёл гулять**, but it has the same meaning of having to get somewhere before the &quot;actual&quot; walk begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, I can only think of one auxiliary verb in Russian besides **быть**. It's **стать**. On its own, it means &quot;to become&quot;; when followed by an imperfective verb in the infinitive, it means &quot;to begin [to]&quot;. That is, it's broadly synonymous with **начать**, but **начать**'s meaning of &quot;begin&quot; is lexically inherent, whereas **стать** in this sense is truly auxiliary. You can say, as a complete phrase, **Мы уже начали** &quot;We've already begun/started [doing smth.]&quot;, but ***\*Мы уже стали*** can only mean &quot;We've already become&quot; and wouldn't make sense when talking about starting something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the nuances of usage, **стать** implies less of a clear plan of action, or intent to carry it through, or a more general expectation of consequence, than **начать**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вадим стал расхаживать из стороны в сторону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вадим начал расхаживать из стороны в сторону.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both &quot;Vadim started pacing to and fro&quot;, but the difference is, the first one is just a thing that happened; with the second one, you vaguely expect it to lead to something else. Perhaps it's a thing with Vadim that he's known to start pacing to and fro when he gets angry and is about to yell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы стали обзванивать больницы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы начали обзванивать больницы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;We started calling different hospitals [around the area]&quot;, presumably because someone's gone missing. The difference is: the **стали** one has the implication is that they were unclear what to do or were out of options at that point. Whereas the **начали** one sounds more like methodically going through a missing-person checklist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another important nuance. A negated or interrogative auxiliary **стать** has a significantly different meaning. In a way, the opposite of regular **стать**. It doesn't even mean &quot;to begin to&quot; so much as &quot;to decide/choose to&quot;, with a particular shade of meaning that I'd describe as *objection-based refraining* from an already proposed or implied course of action. The objection in question can equally be moral or rational.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не стану выманивать деньги у матери троих детей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;I will not coax money out of a mother of three.&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве они станут связываться с племянником олигарха?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;Do you really think they'd mess with an oligarch's nephew?&quot;*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="33f6154c-28f5-4b2a-8680-8d2d044c0fd3" CreationDate="2018-08-28T10:57:07.683" UserId="7674" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="As Abakan has noted these aren't auxiliary verbs, these are simply two actions in which one is the condition for another and which could be separated by the conjunction ***чтобы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти гулять - идти, **чтобы** (по)гулять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оther examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я встал (, чтобы) выглянуть в окно - i got up **to** take a look&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;я ложусь/иду (, чтобы) спать - (literally) i lay down **to** sleep;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (idiomatically) i go to sleep  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;я сяду отдохну / (, чтобы) отдохнуть - i'll sit **to** take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuance is that only the first verb is tensed and conjugated whereas the second usually maintains its infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future tense both verbs can be tensed and conjugated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я погуляю&quot; - is future tense perfective  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;я иду гулять&quot; - is present tense whose future counterpart should be &quot;я пойду погулять/яю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я шёл гулять&quot; is indeed a legitimate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно **шёл гулять**. - In my childhood having done my homework i **would** usually **go to hang** outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="d896ec10-ed46-4ed6-a0fd-faf4635c3963" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:13:07.313" UserId="10915" Comment="added 209 characters in body; edited title" Text="EDITED on 28th August for clarity&#xD;&#xA;How would I say &quot;of the silk road&quot;  as in a male dog or horse or cat from the Silk Road? By &quot;the Silk Road&quot; I mean the ancient general route or area stretching from Russia, Central Asia and China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;eg &quot;Maxim of the Silk Road&quot; or from the Silk Road/Silk Route.&#xD;&#xA;Maxim is the name of an animal eg a cat, or dog or horse.&#xD;&#xA;The second part would be a family name - meaning &quot;of the Silk Route&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;And how would I write it in English using the Latin alphabet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would Maxim Шелкового пути&#xD;&#xA;ie Maxim Shelkovogo or Maxim Shelkovog Put make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or would Maxim Shelkovoy or Maxim Shelkovoy Dorogi make more sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks for reading and any answers! :  ) )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44212" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="d896ec10-ed46-4ed6-a0fd-faf4635c3963" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:13:07.313" UserId="10915" Comment="added 209 characters in body; edited title" Text="How would I say &quot;of the silk road&quot; as in a male dog or horse or cat from the silk road?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="e6d013f5-e8e5-43cc-8a67-9d0b32e49f4e" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:42:29.783" UserId="7674" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="As Abakan has noted these aren't auxiliary verbs, these are simply two actions in which one is the condition for another and which could be separated by the conjunction ***чтобы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти гулять - идти, **чтобы** (по)гулять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оther examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я встал (, чтобы) выглянуть в окно - i got up **to** take a look&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;я ложусь/иду (, чтобы) спать - (literally) i lay down **to** sleep;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (idiomatically) i go to sleep  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;я сяду отдохну / (, чтобы) отдохнуть - i'll sit **to** take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuance is that only the first verb is tensed and conjugated whereas the second usually maintains its infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future tense both verbs can be tensed and conjugated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я погуляю&quot; - is future tense perfective  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;я иду гулять&quot; - is present tense whose future counterpart should be &quot;я пойду погулять/яю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я шёл гулять&quot; is indeed a legitimate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно **шёл гулять**. - In my childhood having done my homework i **would** usually **go to hang** outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these collocations the action denoted by the tensed verb is more important, therefore they're used when that aspect needs to be stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand one could say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно гулял&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="a23b1676-3a5d-461b-a243-e18a3b89f4a5" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:57:07.857" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 64 characters in body" Text="How would I say &quot;of the silk road&quot;  as in a male dog or horse or cat from the Silk Road?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;the Silk Road&quot; I mean the ancient general route or area stretching from Russia, Central Asia and China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. &quot;Maxim of the Silk Road&quot; or from the Silk Road/Silk Route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maxim is the name of an animal e.g. a cat, or dog or horse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part would be a family name - meaning &quot;of the Silk Route&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how would I write it in English using the Latin alphabet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would *Maxim Шелкового пути*, i.e. &quot;Maxim Shelkovogo&quot; or &quot;Maxim Shelkovog Put&quot; make sense? Or would &quot;Maxim Shelkovoy&quot; or &quot;Maxim Shelkovoy Dorogi&quot; make more sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44215" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17067" RevisionGUID="073e028d-3491-4efa-8330-f2a71fe5cb47" CreationDate="2018-08-28T11:58:02.533" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="0eb4ce74-3649-493c-a1a5-fce08f4520e3" CreationDate="2018-08-28T13:03:37.833" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="As Abakan has noted these aren't auxiliary verbs, these are simply two actions in which one is the condition for another and which could be separated by the conjunction ***чтобы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти гулять - идти, **чтобы** (по)гулять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оther examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я встал (, чтобы) выглянуть в окно - i got up **to** take a look&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;я ложусь (, чтобы) спать - (literally) i lie down **to** sleep;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (idiomatically) i go to sleep   &#xD;&#xA;я иду (, чтобы) спать - i go to sleep&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;я сяду отдохну / (, чтобы) отдохнуть - i'll sit **to** take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuance is that only the first verb is tensed and conjugated whereas the second usually maintains its infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future tense both verbs can be tensed and conjugated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я погуляю&quot; - is future tense perfective  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;я иду гулять&quot; - is present tense whose future counterpart should be &quot;я пойду погулять/яю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я шёл гулять&quot; is indeed a legitimate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно **шёл гулять**. - In my childhood having done my homework i **would** usually **go to hang** outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these collocations the action denoted by the tensed verb is more important, therefore they're used when that aspect needs to be stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand one could say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно гулял&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17070" RevisionGUID="6c8c5cb1-cf9b-491d-9961-1a8b9c9811e2" CreationDate="2018-08-28T15:27:06.500" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="1) As Abakan has noted these aren't auxiliary verbs, these are simply two actions in which one is the condition for another and which could be separated by the conjunction ***чтобы***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;идти гулять - идти, **чтобы** (по)гулять&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оther examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я встал (, чтобы) выглянуть в окно - i got up **to** take a look&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;я ложусь (, чтобы) спать - (literally) i lie down **to** sleep;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (idiomatically) i go to sleep   &#xD;&#xA;я иду (, чтобы) спать - i go to sleep&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;я сяду отдохну / (, чтобы) отдохнуть - i'll sit **to** take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; some rest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nuance is that only the first verb is tensed and conjugated whereas the second usually maintains its infinitive form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In future tense both verbs can be tensed and conjugated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) &quot;я погуляю&quot; - is future tense perfective  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;я иду гулять&quot; - is present tense whose future counterpart should be &quot;я пойду (по)гулять/погуляю&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;я шёл гулять&quot; is indeed a legitimate construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно **шёл гулять**. - In my childhood having done my homework i **would** usually **go to hang** outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these collocations the action denoted by the tensed verb is more important, therefore they're used when that aspect needs to be stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand one could say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В детстве, сделав уроки, я обычно гулял&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17073" RevisionGUID="e82e1f99-5796-4af1-a2ae-6d8476911aa0" CreationDate="2018-08-28T17:04:30.260" UserId="9256" Text="I will touch only the nuances of given examples in my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;я погуляю&quot; (&quot;I will go out&quot;) is perfective. The implied&#xD;&#xA;meaning can be &quot;I will be out, but come back soon.&quot; For example: &quot;The&#xD;&#xA;dinner is not ready yet&quot; - &quot;I will go out for a while&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;я иду гулять&quot; (&quot;I'm going to go out&quot;) is imperfective. The implied meaning can be &quot;I will be out, I'm done here.&quot; or &quot;I go out, come with me?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;я шёл гулять&quot; (&quot;I was going out&quot;) is in past tense. This can be actually &quot;past simple&quot;, as in Баян Купи-ка's example (&quot;обычно шёл гулять&quot;), or &quot;past continuous&quot;, Ex.: &quot;Я шёл гулять, но началась гроза, и я вернулся домой&quot; - &quot;I was on my way out, but thunderstorm broke out, and I returned home.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17074" RevisionGUID="571f220f-f33a-4b11-9de6-c5a425d85629" CreationDate="2018-08-28T17:18:00.853" UserId="134" Text="The literal answer to your question would be *Максим с Шёлкового Пути* (&quot;Maxim s Shelkovogo Puti&quot; or &quot;Maksim s Sholkavava Puti&quot;, depending on whether you want transliteration or transcription).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am assuming you are trying to use this name in a piece of fiction, and if that's the case, there are a couple of issues with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, &quot;The Silk Road&quot; is a historiographical term: it had been coined by modern historians to describe a certain entity which lacked a contemporary name. People who used the Silk Road did not call it &quot;The Silk Road&quot;, and it's very unlikely they were at all aware that such a thing existed. This means that a name like this could not be used to call an animal in a realistic setting. Of course your mileage can vary if your setting involves time-travel or sci-fi or something like that when people from the future would want to name an animal from the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most Russian last names are formed according to several paradigms (*-ов/-ев, -ин/-ын, -ий/-ый, -ой, -ович/евич* etc.) and in most cases to form a Russian last name from a dictionary word you'd need to shoehorn it into one of those paradigms. Those paradigms are only remotely related to the way the modern language works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian for &quot;Silk Road&quot; is *Шёлковый путь* or *Великий Шёлковый путь*, which is quite a cumbersome phrase, and it's a challenge to make a nice-sounding Russian surname out of it which would still point to its original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try and use something like *Шелкопутный* or *Шелкопутский* or something like this, but those would not immediately strike the reader with a meaning of &quot;from the Silk Road&quot;, they would need to be reminded of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you provided us with more context on how you are going to use this name in your work, we'd probably be able to give you a better advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44222" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="0700e6d1-bd54-458f-9ade-e52113444051" CreationDate="2018-08-29T15:01:21.287" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1034818290533756928" />
  <row Id="44224" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="062b504d-664e-4aa2-8198-076991dd28e0" CreationDate="2018-08-30T12:01:33.230" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1035135430147092480" />
  <row Id="44225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="71f73d39-ecdd-42b5-80ea-da1386f84f8b" CreationDate="2018-08-30T13:00:39.330" UserId="10926" Text="В Интернете, вроде, встречаются обе формы (В.п. и Пр.п.). Улёгся «на ковёр»/«на ковре», «на кровать»/«на кровати», «на матрас»/«на матрасе». Есть ли одна правильная форма, а если нет, то в чём разница?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="71f73d39-ecdd-42b5-80ea-da1386f84f8b" CreationDate="2018-08-30T13:00:39.330" UserId="10926" Text="Улечься «на кровать» или «на кровати»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="71f73d39-ecdd-42b5-80ea-da1386f84f8b" CreationDate="2018-08-30T13:00:39.330" UserId="10926" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17077" RevisionGUID="6253d176-9e94-4cb0-9511-8f11ec19d058" CreationDate="2018-08-30T13:22:25.457" UserId="7674" Text="То же ***усесться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд разница такова, что с В.п. слово в целом синонимично слову ***сесть*** с примесью определённого оттенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С П.п. оно означает &quot;*лечь так, чтобы было комфортно*&quot;, в этом значении его синонимом является слово ***умоститься***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17077" RevisionGUID="f4213143-c36e-400b-a8a7-dd78dce7406a" CreationDate="2018-08-30T13:35:38.573" UserId="7674" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="То же ***усесться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд разница такова, что с В.п. слово в целом синонимично слову ***сесть*** с примесью определённого оттенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С П.п. оно означает &quot;*лечь так, чтобы было комфортно*&quot;, в этом значении его синонимом является слово ***умоститься***.   &#xD;&#xA;Иногда его значение совпадает со словом ***разлечься***, то есть &quot;*лечь, заняв слишком много места*&quot;, в коннотации которого также присутствует оттенок комфорта, потому что комфортное лежание/сидение предполагают остутствие какого-либо пространственного стеснения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17077" RevisionGUID="f2cac376-8330-42d0-a160-965a793f1a1a" CreationDate="2018-08-30T18:54:36.143" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="То же ***усесться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд разница такова, что с В.п. слово в целом синонимично слову ***сесть*** с примесью определённого оттенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С П.п. оно (в моём понимании) означает &quot;*лечь так, чтобы было комфортно*&quot;, в этом значении его синонимом является слово ***умоститься***.   &#xD;&#xA;Иногда его значение совпадает со словом ***разлечься*** или универсальным ***развалиться***, то есть &quot;*лечь, заняв слишком много места*&quot;, в коннотации которого также присутствует оттенок комфорта, потому что комфортное лежание/сидение предполагают остутствие какого бы то ни было пространственного стеснения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17077" RevisionGUID="3b552d56-ad5b-4f6a-8708-a1003e2cce30" CreationDate="2018-08-30T19:11:15.440" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="То же ***усесться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд разница такова, что с В.п. слово в целом синонимично слову ***сесть*** с примесью определённого оттенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С П.п. оно (в моём понимании) означает &quot;*лечь так, чтобы было комфортно*&quot;, в этом значении его синонимом является слово ***умоститься***.   &#xD;&#xA;Иногда его значение совпадает со словом ***разлечься*** или универсальным ***развалиться***, то есть &quot;*лечь, заняв неприлично много места*&quot;, в коннотации которого также присутствует оттенок комфорта, потому что комфортное лежание/сидение предполагают остутствие какого бы то ни было пространственного стеснения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17077" RevisionGUID="1345ed42-c239-4078-bd75-337cc6678b8b" CreationDate="2018-08-30T20:35:50.263" UserId="7674" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="То же ***усесться***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд разница такова, что с В.п. слово в целом синонимично слову ***сесть*** с примесью определённого оттенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С П.п. оно (в моём понимании) означает &quot;*лечь так, чтобы было комфортно*&quot;, в этом значении его синонимом является слово ***умоститься***.   &#xD;&#xA;Иногда его значение совпадает со словом ***разлечься*** или универсальным ***развалиться***, то есть &quot;*лечь, заняв неприлично много места*&quot;, в коннотации которого также присутствует оттенок комфорта, потому что комфортное лежание/сидение предполагают остутствие какого бы то ни было пространственного стеснения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кроме этого я бы добавил, что в В.п. акцентируется место/предмет, на который ложатся, потому что сам образ действия довольно тривиален, а в П.п. наоборот - способ размещения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17074" RevisionGUID="803d630d-0b08-4e81-a3ce-c12f46537332" CreationDate="2018-08-31T12:07:18.677" UserId="134" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="The literal answer to your question would be *Максим с Шёлкового Пути* (&quot;Maxim s Shelkovogo Puti&quot; or &quot;Maksim s Sholkavava Puti&quot;, depending on whether you want transliteration or transcription).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I am assuming you are trying to use this name in a piece of fiction, and if that's the case, there are a couple of issues with this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, &quot;The Silk Road&quot; is a historiographical term: it had been coined by modern historians to describe a certain entity which lacked a contemporary name. People who used the Silk Road did not call it &quot;The Silk Road&quot;, and it's very unlikely they were at all aware that such a thing existed. This means that a name like this could not be used to call an animal in a realistic setting. Of course your mileage can vary if your setting involves time-travel or sci-fi or something like that when people from the future would want to name an animal from the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the &quot;Silk Road&quot; part of this phrase is not a Russian last name. Most Russian last names are formed according to several paradigms (*-ов/-ев, -ин/-ын, -ий/-ый, -ой, -ович/евич* etc.) and in most cases to form a Russian last name from a dictionary word you'd need to shoehorn it into one of those paradigms. Those paradigms are only remotely related to the way the modern language works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian for &quot;Silk Road&quot; is *Шёлковый путь* or *Великий Шёлковый путь*, which is quite a cumbersome phrase, and it's a challenge to make a nice-sounding Russian surname out of it which would still point to its original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try and use something like *Шелкопутный* or *Шелкопутский* or something like this, but those would not immediately strike the reader with a meaning of &quot;from the Silk Road&quot;, they would need to be reminded of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you provided us with more context on how you are going to use this name in your work, we'd probably be able to give you a better advice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17078" RevisionGUID="288aa7c1-c1d4-48e0-9651-ab01bb135af1" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:35:26.353" UserId="5443" Text="Небольшое дополнение. Как _способ размещения_ вариант **на кровати** может иметь ещё один аспект употребления (кроме того, *каким образом возлежать*): кровать может акцентироваться как *альтернативное место* (**на чём = где**) по отношению к другому (напр. дивану); в этом случае не важен вариант глагола со значением &quot;ложиться&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На ночь он отдал в распоряжение гостя *диван в гостиной*, а сам улёгся **на кровати** в спальне." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="b67bff4e-75e2-4153-b811-a9d457ed0a9e" CreationDate="2018-08-31T21:59:12.843" UserId="5" Text="В бухгалтерской терминологии есть списания и поступления средств на счет и со счета. Есть ли слово, которое объединяет эти два понятия не заостряя внимание на направление их движения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="b67bff4e-75e2-4153-b811-a9d457ed0a9e" CreationDate="2018-08-31T21:59:12.843" UserId="5" Text="Есть ли единое слово для списания и поступления?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="b67bff4e-75e2-4153-b811-a9d457ed0a9e" CreationDate="2018-08-31T21:59:12.843" UserId="5" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17080" RevisionGUID="2452cae1-9e36-4eb8-a192-6f718c56f87a" CreationDate="2018-08-31T22:08:44.827" UserId="47" Text="Ближайшее, вероятно, «транзакция», хотя это не совсем одно и то же. Транзакция, как правило, подразумевает, что деньги откуда-то ушли и куда-то пришли. Списание допускает, по крайней мере умозрительно, что деньги могли уйти, но никуда не прийти. Но на практике слово транзакция можно применять вместо списания и зачисления. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Непонятная транзакция» &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Вижу в выписке транзакцию на сумму *xxx*» &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В обоих случаях остаётся неясным, о зачислении или списании идёт речь, т.е. слово «транзакция» действительно заменяет оба термина." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17081" RevisionGUID="061d7c08-09f5-478a-91ea-832d8ad54d37" CreationDate="2018-08-31T23:46:16.687" UserId="134" Text="It's _движение_: _движение денежных средств_ in case of a financial account, _движение металла_ in case of a metal account etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Движение денежных средств: изменение сумм денежных средств на счетах физических и юридических лиц, переход денег из одних рук в другие. // _Райзберг Б.А., Лозовский Л.Ш., Стародубцева Е.Б.. Современный экономический словарь. — 2-е изд., испр. М.: ИНФРА-М. 479 с.. 1999._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17082" RevisionGUID="45338513-4271-4eb3-8626-95c0258e12e9" CreationDate="2018-09-01T02:09:17.117" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он внезапно запел.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он как запоёт!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17082" RevisionGUID="45338513-4271-4eb3-8626-95c0258e12e9" CreationDate="2018-09-01T02:09:17.117" UserId="170" Text="Difference between внезапно запел and как запоёт" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17082" RevisionGUID="45338513-4271-4eb3-8626-95c0258e12e9" CreationDate="2018-09-01T02:09:17.117" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="66e02a99-18a6-4a6f-b54b-2b5489a367e2" CreationDate="2018-09-01T06:47:34.090" UserId="7674" Text="They differ in emphasis of suddenness, which is greater in the 2nd sentence in addition to the fact that's it's more colloquial&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination `КАК + perf. verb in the past/future tense || imperative` is a way to express suddenness or intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd phrase can also be put in the past tense or imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он как запел / запой!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="a587c618-e120-4143-97be-09bc42713300" CreationDate="2018-09-01T06:55:56.063" UserId="7674" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="They differ in emphasis of suddenness, which is greater in the 2nd sentence as indicated by the exclamation mark, in addition to the fact that's it's more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st sentence is повествовательное (narrative) while the 2nd is восклицательное (exclamatory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination `КАК + perf. verb in the past/future tense || imperative` is a way to express suddenness or intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd phrase can also be put in the past tense or imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он как запел / запой!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17083" RevisionGUID="41743b49-6ded-48d9-a563-faa150fd14b3" CreationDate="2018-09-01T07:01:26.297" UserId="7674" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="They differ in emphasis of suddenness, which is greater in the 2nd sentence as indicated by the exclamation mark, in addition to the fact that's it's more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1st sentence is повествовательное (narrative) while the 2nd is восклицательное (exclamatory).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination `КАК + perf. verb in the past/future tense || imperative` is a way to express suddenness or intensity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2nd phrase can also be put in the past tense or imperative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он как запел / запой!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it can also incorporate the adverb **внезапно** to sound pleonastic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он внезапно как запоёт/запел/запой!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44249" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17076" RevisionGUID="6753c394-5c94-4f74-b020-12f902e9fa0e" CreationDate="2018-09-01T09:01:58.647" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1035815014035337216" />
  <row Id="44250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="86a19071-c48c-4bfc-b1d3-0aa30ed6cd62" CreationDate="2018-09-01T09:43:41.547" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="В бухгалтерской терминологии есть списания и поступления средств на счет и со счета. Есть ли слово, которое объединяет эти два понятия не заостряя внимание на направлениИ их движения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="a441a2b4-09ea-4ce1-b187-91efc55b3386" CreationDate="2018-09-01T16:05:05.470" UserId="5468" Text="What is the difference between научиться and выучить? I understand that they both mean &quot;to learn&quot; but are they used in different contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="a441a2b4-09ea-4ce1-b187-91efc55b3386" CreationDate="2018-09-01T16:05:05.470" UserId="5468" Text="What is the difference between научиться and выучить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="a441a2b4-09ea-4ce1-b187-91efc55b3386" CreationDate="2018-09-01T16:05:05.470" UserId="5468" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="70d04e9c-f4f6-4e06-87bc-7c112c80f6db" CreationDate="2018-09-01T17:57:21.043" UserId="7674" Text="They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**научиться** `+ noun in Dative/verb in infinitive` - to acquire a skill / a set of skills&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выучить** `+ Accusative` - to learn by heart, to memorize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научился игре / играть на гитаре - I learned (how) to play guitar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил стихотворение - I learned a poem by heart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb **выучиться** which is basically synonymous to **научиться** but implies greater effort invested or difficulty experienced, something in the vein of `to manage to learn`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="c8ca6434-28ba-483a-a893-62b880aff9bc" CreationDate="2018-09-01T18:03:38.870" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**научиться** `+ noun in Dative/verb in infinitive` - to acquire a skill / a set of skills&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выучить** `+ Accusative` - to learn by heart, to memorize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научился игре / играть на гитаре - I've learned (how) to play guitar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил названия аккордов - I've learned the names of chords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb **выучиться** which is basically synonymous to **научиться** but implies greater effort invested or difficulty experienced, something in the vein of `to manage to learn`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="32bded3f-0374-4158-a55b-31283e56d60e" CreationDate="2018-09-01T19:14:02.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**научиться** `+ noun in Dative/verb in infinitive` - to acquire a skill / a set of skills&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выучить** `+ Accusative` - to learn by heart, to memorize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научился игре / играть на гитаре - I've learned (how) to play guitar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил названия аккордов - I've learned the names of chords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb **выучиться** which is basically synonymous to **научиться** but implies greater effort invested or difficulty experienced, something in the vein of `to manage to learn`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **обучиться** (reminded of by Alex_ander in the comment below) which is another synonym with a tendency to connect with nouns rather than with infinitives and having a tinge of thoroughness to its meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="5c2b080b-61c2-4bc8-b5b6-5cee4c6fe5f2" CreationDate="2018-09-01T19:25:06.840" UserId="7674" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**научиться** `+ noun in Dative/verb in infinitive` - to acquire a skill / a set of skills&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выучить** `+ Accusative` - to learn by heart, to memorize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научился игре / играть на гитаре - I've learned (how) to play guitar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил названия аккордов - I've learned the names of chords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb **выучиться** which is basically synonymous to **научиться** but implies greater effort invested or difficulty experienced, something in the vein of `to manage to learn`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **обучиться** (reminded of by Alex_ander in the comment below) which is another synonym with a tendency to connect with nouns rather than with infinitives and having a tinge of thoroughness to its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other end there's the verb **изучить** as a synonym of **выучить** but indicating a more thorough/exhaustive result or a process.   &#xD;&#xA;Still as opposed to **изучить**, **выучить** is a bit deficient with respect to imperfective aspect and the present tense as it's almost never used in the corresponding forms, i.e. **выучивал/выучиваю/буду выучивать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="be33f83b-f1b4-421a-a2d6-b6669f3b0128" CreationDate="2018-09-01T19:30:13.657" UserId="7674" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**научиться** `+ noun in Dative/verb in infinitive` - to acquire a skill / a set of skills&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выучить** `+ Accusative` - to learn by heart, to memorize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научился игре / играть на гитаре - I've learned (how) to play guitar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил названия аккордов - I've learned the names of chords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb **выучиться** which is basically synonymous to **научиться** but implies greater effort invested or difficulty experienced, something in the vein of `to manage to learn`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **обучиться** (reminded of by Alex_ander in the comment below) which is another synonym with a tendency to connect with nouns rather than with infinitives and having a tinge of thoroughness to its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other end there's the verb **изучить** as a synonym of **выучить** but indicating a more thorough/exhaustive result or a process.   &#xD;&#xA;Still in contrast to **изучить**, **выучить** is a bit deficient with respect to imperfective aspect and the present tense as it's almost never used in the corresponding forms, i.e. **выучивал/выучиваю/буду выучивать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="25f72814-164d-4f39-9719-c5d1bc0a28a4" CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:49:54.013" UserId="10017" Comment="Better layout" Text="When learning Russian grammar, the only auxiliary verb that is explained is `быть`, which is used for forming the imperfective future tense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, occasionally I have seen sentences where идти is used as an auxiliary verb. For example, I once saw the combination `идти гулять`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could someone explain how such constructions work and precisely what its nuances are (i.e. what's the difference between `я погуляю` and `я иду гулять`)? Is it also possible to say `я шёл гулять`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Side question: are there any other auxiliary verbs in Russian besides `быть` and `идти`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17069" RevisionGUID="25f72814-164d-4f39-9719-c5d1bc0a28a4" CreationDate="2018-09-01T21:49:54.013" Comment="Proposed by 10017 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="cc18942f-177f-4fcc-97e0-2dd545e9dc0f" CreationDate="2018-09-01T22:21:05.027" UserId="10932" Text="When referring in English to the dominant agricultural system in the southern US pre-1865, one typically says something like &quot;plantation slavery,&quot; and reasonably-educated people &quot;know what you're talking about&quot;--estates with very large spatial extents and chattel-slave populations growing cash crops. Similarly, one can use the term &quot;hacienda system&quot; to refer to similar operations in Latin America (both before and after abolition of slavery), or &quot;latifundia&quot; for ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a term widely used to refer to the serf-operated, large-estate system of the Russian grainbelt before the 1861 abolition? I sometimes see references to *obshchina* and *mir*, but IIRC (1) those are governing structures, and (2) a given estate would typically have several or many *mir*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="cc18942f-177f-4fcc-97e0-2dd545e9dc0f" CreationDate="2018-09-01T22:21:05.027" UserId="10932" Text="common-usage term for pre-1861 Russian agriculture system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="cc18942f-177f-4fcc-97e0-2dd545e9dc0f" CreationDate="2018-09-01T22:21:05.027" UserId="10932" Text="|словоупотребление|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17087" RevisionGUID="21729dd1-66e1-4e3a-a0f7-0830c808b90c" CreationDate="2018-09-01T23:25:18.990" UserId="10933" Text="&quot;Дожил: разговариваю с птицами.&quot; (Пишется двоеточие, потому что в 2 части БСП идет пояснение, раскрытие смысла первой).&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Разговариваю с птицами - дожил.&quot; (Ставится тире, т.к. в 2 части БСП идет следствие, результат).&#xD;&#xA;Все верно?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17087" RevisionGUID="21729dd1-66e1-4e3a-a0f7-0830c808b90c" CreationDate="2018-09-01T23:25:18.990" UserId="10933" Text="Постановка знаков препинания после дожил" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17087" RevisionGUID="21729dd1-66e1-4e3a-a0f7-0830c808b90c" CreationDate="2018-09-01T23:25:18.990" UserId="10933" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="d9b5d31c-be18-4d50-9d1e-c970be61eacc" CreationDate="2018-09-02T03:44:12.600" UserId="10932" Comment="tweaks" Text="When referring in English to the dominant agricultural system in the southern US pre-1865, one typically says something like &quot;plantation slavery,&quot; and reasonably-educated people &quot;know what you're talking about&quot;--estates with very large spatial extents and chattel-slave populations growing cash crops. Similarly, one can use the term &quot;hacienda system&quot; to refer to similar operations in Latin America (both before and after abolition of slavery), or &quot;latifundia&quot; for ancient Rome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a term widely used to refer to the serf-operated, large-estate system of the Russian grainbelt before the 1861 abolition? I sometimes see references to *obshchina* and *mir*, but IIUC (1) those are governing structures, and (2) even a relatively small estate would have several *mir*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17088" RevisionGUID="9c361236-5915-4694-851c-35294676e6cf" CreationDate="2018-09-02T06:58:25.130" UserId="7674" Text="I can't tell for certain, but after a bit of a research it seems that two terms could be used around the period in question to designate this type of economic system (if you're after the historical term)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**помѣщичье хозяйство**](https://www.google.com/search?q=помѣщичье+хозяйство)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**крѣпостное хозяйство**](https://www.google.com/search?q=крѣпостное%20хозяйство)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both occur in modern historiography but this fact alone wouldn't prove their use in the XIX century. Still their occurrence in pre-reform orthography is i think a good indication of their currency in or shortly after the relevant time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, **помѣщичье хозяйство** was practised until 1917 when it was abolished by the [Land Decree](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Декрет_о_земле#Содержание_Декрета) which read:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. «Помещичья собственность на землю отменяется немедленно без всякого&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выкупа»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17089" RevisionGUID="86989d5e-fa59-4715-bf32-0805057737e5" CreationDate="2018-09-02T07:01:58.230" UserId="9001" Text="**Крепостное право** (serfdom) is the name for the economical system (and also a historical phase) in Russia before 1861. It is not about agriculture exactly, although most peasants worked in this area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поместье** (estate) and **помещик** (landlord) is used to talk about land and its owners respectively. But the terms do not imply particularly big size of the household. For the owners of big amount of land you may use **крупноземельный помещик**. **Помещики**, however, survived the serfdom abolition in 1861 because they still owned most of the land after it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17090" RevisionGUID="a6a166a7-dab6-4d93-bb17-f76ea43f972d" CreationDate="2018-09-02T10:02:39.750" UserId="10935" Text="I am Russian but not linguist. I am going to tell how I understand this but I do not know any language theory behind this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example you can use `будто` and `как-будто` interchangeably. I think nowadays they more likely say `как-будто` in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes the word `как-будто` is used to qualify an immediately following word or even a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they say `эту яму специально кто-то вырыл` this might sound like accusation which in this case is obviously wrong. If they add `как-будто` they soften the accusation and say that this seems like it was done intentionally but we know that it was not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at couple examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say to my friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты как-будто хочешь меня обидеть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I expect and hope that they have no intention to offend me but they behave like they do, they make me feel they are offending me. The translation might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You seem to want to offend me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как-будто мне заняться нечем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As if I have nothing to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example `Как-будто` effects the meaning of the next sentence `мне заняться нечем`. It changes the meaning to the contrary, as if I say that I have a lot to do now, but also adds some emotions and irony to the statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I can remember the time when the expression `как-будто` become popular as a filter word. People tend to use to fill in the pause or to sound modern and cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the old school version for the last example might be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне больше заняться нечем!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17091" RevisionGUID="599070f4-4e8d-4620-831d-d174a057ef98" CreationDate="2018-09-02T10:37:16.447" UserId="10935" Text="I agree with @Alex_ander that the first version sounds much more offensive. But it also depends on how you say it and the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С чего это вдруг ты стал обо мне заботиться?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more offensive might be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С [rude word here] ли ты стал обо мне заботиться?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to sound polite I would ask&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты стал обо мне заботиться?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разница в том, на чем ты делаешь акцент в предложении, какие эмоции ты хочешь выразить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Грубая форма `с чего`, которая звучит резко, может быть даже как эвфемизм. `Отчего` или `Почему` звучат не так резко. Хотя смысл один и тот же.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Акцент на слове `вдруг` - `это вдруг`, чтобы подчеркнуть, что ты никогда до этого обо мне не заботился, но вдруг ты обо мне вспомнил. Подозрительно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intentionally explained this in Russian because I hope this will help you to learn the language. Also I am not linguist and this all is how I understand things.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17084" RevisionGUID="bc35110f-7e31-456f-9242-f46181f2437c" CreationDate="2018-09-02T12:01:53.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1036222679848824839" />
  <row Id="44274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17090" RevisionGUID="bfc0ee07-bbed-4202-953a-ced95aba0dc3" CreationDate="2018-09-02T13:45:05.327" UserId="10935" Comment="fixed spelling mistake" Text="I am Russian but not linguist. I am going to tell how I understand this but I do not know any language theory behind this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example you can use `будто` and `как будто` interchangeably. I think nowadays they more likely say `как будто` in this case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes the word `как будто` is used to qualify an immediately following word or even a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they say `эту яму специально кто-то вырыл` this might sound like accusation which in this case is obviously wrong. If they add `как будто` they soften the accusation and say that this seems like it was done intentionally but we know that it was not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at couple examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say to my friend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ты как будто хочешь меня обидеть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that I expect and hope that they have no intention to offend me but they behave like they do, they make me feel they are offending me. The translation might be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    You seem to want to offend me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Как будто мне заняться нечем!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As if I have nothing to do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this example `Как будто` effects the meaning of the next sentence `мне заняться нечем`. It changes the meaning to the contrary, as if I say that I have a lot to do now, but also adds some emotions and irony to the statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I can remember the time when the expression `как будто` become popular as a filter word. People tend to use to fill in the pause or to sound modern and cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the old school version for the last example might be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Мне больше заняться нечем!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="51fdeeac-0680-41a3-86e6-a88aaf7044f3" CreationDate="2018-09-02T15:45:40.837" UserId="10937" Text="Некоторые слова в зависимости от рода имеют разный смысл, например, &quot;машинист&quot; и &quot;машинистка&quot; — это совершенно разные профессии. Есть ли название у такого языкового феномена?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="51fdeeac-0680-41a3-86e6-a88aaf7044f3" CreationDate="2018-09-02T15:45:40.837" UserId="10937" Text="Как называются слова, меняющие значение в зависимости от рода: как &quot;машинист&quot; и &quot;машинистка&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="51fdeeac-0680-41a3-86e6-a88aaf7044f3" CreationDate="2018-09-02T15:45:40.837" UserId="10937" Text="|род|лингвистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16933" RevisionGUID="1631b0ce-e328-42ef-8f84-faafae1ae219" CreationDate="2018-09-02T16:39:47.103" UserId="5443" Comment="edited body" Text="Some works exploring stress variability in Russian show sufficient difference between the declared standards and real language spoken by educated natives. E. Marklund Sharapova (2000) tested 106 speakers in Moscow and found out that most of them considered it unnatural the 'standard' stress on **-ся** in *начался́ / заперся́ / обнялся́*. This conclusion might change my previous opinion: I used to think that the version **на́чался** was more typical for St. Petersburg (the words **пока не на́чался джаз** from a song by a local musician Grebenschikov never sounded strange to me), than for Moscow. The normative version **начался́** sounds a bit *formal* to me, expectable to hear it in some news by a central TV channel, or maybe I'd even use it myself when speaking about the beginning of a concert, as opposed to the case of a sudden rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A page from the book **Акцент и ударение в русском языке** by *Вернер Лефельдт*, where E. Marklund Sharapova's work is quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=tcrLAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA116&amp;img=1&amp;zoom=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ots=EGW2WwvDbH&amp;sig=ACfU3U3R40LLW0pIAcLRAfwTIzxhSoNhjw&amp;w=1280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17093" RevisionGUID="4078bd39-fdfa-4570-b4c3-59176646b020" CreationDate="2018-09-02T18:01:53.040" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1036313273493323776" />
  <row Id="44281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17087" RevisionGUID="5eda40f3-08c3-44ff-8e38-e897f7d2c13b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T03:02:29.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1036449321435185152" />
  <row Id="44283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17085" RevisionGUID="88efd43b-81de-4255-9f39-79dc6160c7cf" CreationDate="2018-09-03T06:13:51.790" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**научиться** `+ noun in Dative/verb in infinitive` - to acquire a skill (a set of skills)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**выучить** `+ Accusative` - to learn by heart, to memorize&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я научился игре / играть на гитаре - I've learned (how) to play guitar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я выучил названия аккордов - I've learned the names of chords&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the verb **выучиться** which is basically synonymous to **научиться** but implies greater effort invested or difficulty experienced, something in the vein of `to manage to learn`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **обучиться** (reminded of by Alex_ander in the comment below) which is another synonym with a tendency to connect with nouns rather than with infinitives and having a tinge of thoroughness to its meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other end there's the verb **изучить** as a synonym of **выучить** but indicating a more thorough/exhaustive result or a process.   &#xD;&#xA;Still in contrast to **изучить**, **выучить** is a bit deficient with respect to imperfective aspect and the present tense as it's almost never used in the corresponding forms, i.e. **выучивал/выучиваю/буду выучивать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8189" RevisionGUID="8ef53189-b4c0-4799-abbf-18f2b71085f8" CreationDate="2018-09-03T07:51:32.957" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|resources|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44285" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8189" RevisionGUID="8ef53189-b4c0-4799-abbf-18f2b71085f8" CreationDate="2018-09-03T07:51:32.957" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 988" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17095" RevisionGUID="153614e8-e614-4c35-b0ac-d690182eeb95" CreationDate="2018-09-03T08:30:50.397" UserId="10938" Text="Школьное выражение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    -Иванов, ты почему уроки прогулял?&#xD;&#xA;    -А я как все //Это проблемное место&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подскажите пожалуйста, филологи, с какой пунктуацией пойдёт выражение &quot;А я как все.&quot; С дефисом, запятой или ещё с какими-нибудь знаками препинания?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17095" RevisionGUID="153614e8-e614-4c35-b0ac-d690182eeb95" CreationDate="2018-09-03T08:30:50.397" UserId="10938" Text="С какой пунктуацией пойдёт выражение - &quot;а я как все&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17095" RevisionGUID="153614e8-e614-4c35-b0ac-d690182eeb95" CreationDate="2018-09-03T08:30:50.397" UserId="10938" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44289" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16977" RevisionGUID="5a8f48c5-6cdb-48bc-ab89-0dbe8ffc999f" CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:00:26.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1036584702113665026" />
  <row Id="44290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17096" RevisionGUID="48220bda-9dc6-40cb-b639-61282b312b5b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T12:19:58.617" UserId="242" Text="В данном случае как не нуждается в пунктуационном обособлении. В приведённом в комментариях [источнике][1] перечислены пять случаев, когда такое случается. На самом деле эти категории не являются взаимоисключающими, поэтому можно сказать что &quot;как&quot; в данном случае не обособляется, потому что:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - стоит между подлежащим и сказуемым&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;как&quot; входит в состав сказуемого и предложение без оборота не имеет смысла&#xD;&#xA; - оборот входит в состав фразеологизма&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/class/coach/punct/45_183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17097" RevisionGUID="18716049-e2b2-4846-bcd1-98ea726ec7ff" CreationDate="2018-09-03T19:14:42.973" UserId="242" Text="There's no specific term a single word one can use however there are some related terminology. Generally speaking this is a phenomena of `gender-related semantic differences` - when grammatical gender affects the way perceive the word. Technically nothing stops a woman from being called `машинистка` and riding trains or `генеральша` to rule an army however de-facto there exist a shift in meaning because of which when we think of `машинистка` we picture ourselves woman typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one word has positive connotation and it's counterpart has negative this differentiation is called `gender-related semantic polarization`. In Russian one example of such polarization would be the pair `стерва`/`стервец` where &quot;стервец&quot; is way more neutral than &quot;стерва&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian-language articles I've never encountered specific dedicated term however once I've saw `ложная гендерная парность`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17097" RevisionGUID="a158d177-4f67-42a3-a45c-406bd8584782" CreationDate="2018-09-03T19:21:21.943" UserId="242" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="There's no specific term a single word one can use however there are some related terminology. Generally speaking this is a phenomena of `gender-related semantic differences` - when grammatical gender affects the way perceive the word. Technically nothing stops a woman from being called `машинистка` and riding trains or `генеральша` to rule an army however de-facto there exist a shift in meaning because of which when we think of `машинистка` we picture to ourselves woman typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one word has positive connotation and it's counterpart has negative this differentiation is called `gender-related semantic polarization` (in Russian I've seen `семантическая полярность` or `семантическая поляризация`). In Russian one example of such polarization would be the pair `стерва`/`стервец` where &quot;стервец&quot; is way more neutral than &quot;стерва&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian-language articles I've never encountered specific dedicated term however once I've seen `ложная гендерная парность`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44295" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="558c908c-d268-43ce-afcf-9690a5bdedde" CreationDate="2018-09-03T23:20:32.137" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44296" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="55c268cf-6c1a-4058-a658-f6fc43d46278" CreationDate="2018-09-03T23:20:32.137" UserId="242" Comment="57" />
  <row Id="44297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17098" RevisionGUID="8b5dcb24-439b-4dd3-9479-408d6a8214f2" CreationDate="2018-09-04T07:21:29.810" UserId="9539" Text="Я не думаю, что **дожил** во втором примере &amp;mdash; это результат. Это, скорее, просто вывод из наблюдения в первой части. Но тире тут вполне уместно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сам вопрос в заголовке сформулирован не очень аккуратно. Речь идет не о тире после **дожил**, а о тире между двумя частями `сложноподчиненного предложения`.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17099" RevisionGUID="d26993d2-2b27-4325-8ffa-db14ae09f942" CreationDate="2018-09-04T07:24:23.560" UserId="9539" Text="A slightly low-key option is `это приелось`, with an obvious reference to food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17100" RevisionGUID="e1c87578-f786-4a23-abdb-528376d7b06e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:26:35.310" UserId="5605" Text="*Она уснула с улыбкой на лице.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Допустимо ли выражение ***с улыбкой на лице*** или можно написать только ***с улыбкой на губах***?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17100" RevisionGUID="e1c87578-f786-4a23-abdb-528376d7b06e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:26:35.310" UserId="5605" Text="&quot;с улыбкой на лице&quot; -- корректное выражение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17100" RevisionGUID="e1c87578-f786-4a23-abdb-528376d7b06e" CreationDate="2018-09-04T13:26:35.310" UserId="5605" Text="|фраза|грамотность|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17101" RevisionGUID="9821912f-96c8-43ff-839f-a7bc83b15778" CreationDate="2018-09-04T14:23:52.233" UserId="242" Text="Если опираться на статистику употребления, то, вообще говоря, &quot;с улыбкой на лице&quot; употребляется заметно чаще чем &quot;с улыбкой на губах&quot;. В этом легко убедиться как если просто поискать на гугле или яндексе по общему числу вхождений, так и на специфическом сайте. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же самое касается альтернативных форм `с улыбкою на губах/устах` и `с улыбкою на лице`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i4fKH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JTirD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44303" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17100" RevisionGUID="e728545c-e405-4890-8457-a3a2fb457fb8" CreationDate="2018-09-04T14:29:42.590" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Корректность выражения &quot;с улыбкой на лице&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17101" RevisionGUID="840634eb-6278-4be9-987a-d130d6533b7f" CreationDate="2018-09-04T14:33:29.487" UserId="242" Comment="added 235 characters in body" Text="Если опираться на статистику употребления, то, вообще говоря, &quot;с улыбкой на лице&quot; употребляется заметно чаще чем &quot;с улыбкой на губах&quot;. В этом легко убедиться как если просто поискать на гугле или яндексе по общему числу вхождений, так и на специфическом сайте. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То же самое касается альтернативных форм `с улыбкою на губах/устах` и `с улыбкою на лице`. То же самое касается пар фраз типа &quot;улыбка не сходила с его лица&quot; / &quot;улыбка не сходила с его губ&quot;. В общем, не будет натяжкой сказать, что улыбка в русском словоупотреблении воспринимается в больше степени как атрибут лица, а не губ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i4fKH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JTirD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17102" RevisionGUID="b03002f5-4bf6-4780-afe8-4ff93571ec8a" CreationDate="2018-09-04T15:51:33.560" UserId="5443" Text="Улыбка проявляется у людей по-разному и может различаться для разных частей лица в зависимости от ситуации или зависеть от индивидуальных особенностей человека. Можно вспомнить, что у лермонтовского Печорина *глаза* не смеялись, когда он сам смеялся. Поэтому &quot;... на лице&quot; можно считать нейтральным и вполне приемлемым выражением." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17103" RevisionGUID="89d8c6ec-dd35-4a9d-8251-568f737b6b49" CreationDate="2018-09-04T16:38:51.330" UserDisplayName="user10940" Text="Я в таких случаях как правило в [Google N-grams][1] обращаюсь:&#xD;&#xA;[![Статистика употребления выражений в русскоязычных текстах][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Как видно---улыбка на лице куда более популярна в текстах. По крайней мере в рамках корпуса книг Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D1%81%20%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B5%2C%D1%81%20%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=25&amp;smoothing=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rD7Z0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="ec2c3e1f-9294-47e3-a226-76480eec9f59" CreationDate="2018-09-04T20:57:51.783" UserId="5" Comment="edited body" Text="В бухгалтерской терминологии есть списания и поступления средств на счет и со счета. Есть ли слово, которое объединяет эти два понятия не заостряя внимание на направлении их движения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17100" RevisionGUID="f23a95c0-8279-407f-a041-955805fd8ea5" CreationDate="2018-09-05T06:01:12.203" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1037219072054906881" />
  <row Id="44311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="0884c472-9206-4ffe-9fb3-a7a96239b34a" CreationDate="2018-09-05T10:10:45.050" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Есть ли единое слово для &quot;списания&quot; и &quot;поступления&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44312" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17087" RevisionGUID="f27fb623-af04-4933-a150-e2e564e164fe" CreationDate="2018-09-05T10:38:03.720" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Постановка знаков препинания после &quot;дожил&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17104" RevisionGUID="3188ca99-f794-44a3-9342-1289160af446" CreationDate="2018-09-05T10:43:17.110" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **На свете** нет ничего невозможного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любой парень **на свете** бы ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't quite put my finger on why &quot;на свете&quot; needs to be used in the first two instances and  &quot;в мире&quot; in the third. How do these two figurative expressions compare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если вы собираетесь на самую страшную вечеринку **в мире**, ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17104" RevisionGUID="3188ca99-f794-44a3-9342-1289160af446" CreationDate="2018-09-05T10:43:17.110" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;на свете&quot; and when to use &quot;в мире&quot; in their figurative sense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17104" RevisionGUID="3188ca99-f794-44a3-9342-1289160af446" CreationDate="2018-09-05T10:43:17.110" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="16c404b1-be44-4f50-adb6-d19e7683767f" CreationDate="2018-09-05T10:57:14.490" UserId="7674" Text="**на свете** usually refers to *all times*, *ever*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в мире** - in the world presently&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this distinction isn't hard and fast, they often overlap or simply depend on the context and so can't necessarily be translated into English one-to-one.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="ffd8ec5a-4d21-4254-a7cb-1bb3917a0652" CreationDate="2018-09-05T11:16:24.777" UserId="7674" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="My feeling is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на свете** usually refers to *of all times*, *ever* and to immaterial world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в мире** - in the world presently and in material world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this distinction isn't hard and fast, they might overlap or simply be depend on the context.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17105" RevisionGUID="3712ac7c-2bf8-4686-9f4d-3686dbe87000" CreationDate="2018-09-05T12:38:46.963" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="My feeling is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на свете** usually refers to *of all times*, *ever* and to immaterial world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в мире** - in the world presently and in material world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this distinction isn't hard and fast, they might overlap or depend on the context and phraseology conventions.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17106" RevisionGUID="119e2659-0b0a-462e-8a93-ddd3222bbe41" CreationDate="2018-09-05T13:40:08.797" UserId="6326" Text="**В мире** is based on facts about the world as objective and verifiable thing. Like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Байкал - самое глубокое озеро в мире.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Baikal is the deepest lake in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**На свете** is more of a hyperbole that isn't meant to be taken literally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лучший парень на свете.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Best guy in the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44320" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17104" RevisionGUID="d6ae6fc6-a731-4630-913d-7db93828ad3f" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:01:33.603" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1037355057304481792" />
  <row Id="44321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17107" RevisionGUID="11aa9179-40e3-4ea1-abb5-a3d3c2636236" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:29:41.000" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Поскольку Япония - достаточно далекая **от нас** страна, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In German, inserting a prepositional phrase like &quot;от нас&quot; into a nominal phrase in this manner is considered rather formal. What about in Russian? I wonder if in conversation I need to paraphrase it somehow in a more relaxed style?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17107" RevisionGUID="11aa9179-40e3-4ea1-abb5-a3d3c2636236" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:29:41.000" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;достаточно далекая от нас страна&quot;: Is this kind of piled-up nominal phrase considered formal in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17107" RevisionGUID="11aa9179-40e3-4ea1-abb5-a3d3c2636236" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:29:41.000" UserId="8672" Text="|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17108" RevisionGUID="12d8f812-c5c9-4796-9065-44cda06a8f2b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:33:00.927" UserId="242" Text="There's nothing specifically formal or colloquial in such usage - &quot;от нас&quot; in this context just indicates the relative distance  - from us to Japan. This can be equally used in official speech and in everyday conversation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17109" RevisionGUID="b03223d0-3c2a-4365-9b8c-aa8ec05a623f" CreationDate="2018-09-05T16:58:58.657" UserId="5443" Text="Such an expression (despite widely used) usually reveals a speaker as a cautious person (if not a diplomat or mathematician) since *all* that stands behind **достаточно далёкий** (distant enough or even 'little enough') is just that Japan is **distant enough to use the word 'distant'** for it. Expressions with more sense are more clear: **относительно, сравнительно далёкий** (relatively or comparatively distant). **Достаточно** is used properly e. g. when it is followed by something, showing '*enough for what*', otherwise expressions with it only reveal unsophisticated speech *habits*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44326" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17107" RevisionGUID="9a520f87-5d5d-4400-88e6-a188cedc548b" CreationDate="2018-09-05T17:30:16.533" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Достаточно далекая от нас страна&quot;: Is this kind of piled-up nominal phrase considered formal in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44327" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17095" RevisionGUID="5c8a16fe-d992-46b9-b919-744811fa5ee9" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:02:04.493" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1037400485265924097" />
  <row Id="44328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17110" RevisionGUID="a53cdc0e-2bef-4474-96f5-d71788763f72" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:08:41.750" UserId="9256" Text="This is only adding an extra clarification to the meaning of the phrase. For example, a Muscovite may say &quot;Поскольку Япония - достаточно далекая **от нас** страна&quot; in a conversation with someone from Vladivostok, but not from Saint-Petersburg or Sochi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17111" RevisionGUID="0d10b441-b185-4246-b95b-c4b3949f613c" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:09:30.477" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Наконец я вас **догнал**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs:  Наконец я вас **настиг**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two verbs essentially mean &quot;catch up with someone&quot;, but I wonder if and how they are nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17111" RevisionGUID="0d10b441-b185-4246-b95b-c4b3949f613c" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:09:30.477" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances of meaning between &quot;догнать&quot; and &quot;настигнуть/настичь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17111" RevisionGUID="0d10b441-b185-4246-b95b-c4b3949f613c" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:09:30.477" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17112" RevisionGUID="9b5cb58e-ead6-43c0-b842-bbb04a5c7510" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:22:51.057" UserId="7674" Text="**настичь** is purely bookish nowadays, using it in mundane conversations makes one sound altisonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however unlike **догнать** it also can mean to catch up unintentionally, without chasing after someone, and in this meaning it's synonymous with a more colloquial **нагнать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for denotation of catching up in a non-physical sense **догнать** is currently the only appropriate verb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17113" RevisionGUID="d1c357c6-dfed-477c-9ed1-38d6a7dd5faf" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:27:29.833" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Догнать&quot; is a neutral term and can be used in most situations.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Настичь&quot; is mostly applicable to the forces of nature - &quot;Нас настигла буря&quot; is still more common than &quot;Нас догнала буря&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наконец я вас настиг&quot; sounds like what a villain would say in a comedy (or perhaps anyone with a sense or irony)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17112" RevisionGUID="53a59ec2-522c-4e94-bb94-cc5397bc66d1" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:34:07.657" UserId="7674" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="**настичь** is purely bookish nowadays, using it in mundane conversations makes one sound altisonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however unlike **догнать** it also can mean to catch up unintentionally, without chasing after someone, and in this meaning it's synonymous with a more colloquial **нагнать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for denotation of catching up in figurative sense **догнать** is currently the only appropriate verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference in register between them reflects in the way i perceive   your examples: in the 1st one **вас** rings *you plural* (German sie), in the 2nd it rings *you singular polite* (German Sie)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17112" RevisionGUID="17f7630a-f9e7-41b6-8a64-463cdb25071c" CreationDate="2018-09-05T18:41:01.953" UserId="7674" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="**настичь** is purely bookish nowadays, using it in mundane conversations makes one sound altisonant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however unlike **догнать** it also can mean to catch up unintentionally, without chasing after someone, and in this meaning it's synonymous with a more colloquial **нагнать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for denotation of catching up in figurative sense (catch up to, overtake in knowledge, physical features, accomplishments) **догнать** is currently the only appropriate verb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the difference in register between them reflects in the way i subjectively perceive your examples: in the 1st one **вас** rings *you plural* (German sie), in the 2nd it rings *you singular polite* (German Sie)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17114" RevisionGUID="50f9019c-088d-4294-9e3f-9a378d609405" CreationDate="2018-09-06T06:33:19.407" UserId="4481" Text="1. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наконец я вас настиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is absolutely bookish, looks like a citation from a book written in 19th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. &gt; Наконец я вас догнал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This phrase looks like an end of the story, which you tell to a person, who you caught up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; [A very-very long story about &quot;a chase&quot; ...] ... Наконец я вас догнал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If you want to say this phrase to someone right in the moment when you have caught him/her up, it is better to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Наконец-то я вас догнал." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="a013fbab-7000-40e3-a9f0-9063c8f529d7" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:21:02.063" UserId="170" Text="How is that limited-height section of a house under a floor or roof (usually reserved wiring and plumbing) called in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="a013fbab-7000-40e3-a9f0-9063c8f529d7" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:21:02.063" UserId="170" Text="Section of a house for wiring and plumbing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="a013fbab-7000-40e3-a9f0-9063c8f529d7" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:21:02.063" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17116" RevisionGUID="1593296e-dc76-4c46-8e65-c8f79dc6e7bf" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:32:47.770" UserId="1713" Text="I am going to &quot;fix comments&quot; or &quot;eliminate notes&quot; or &quot;remove remarks&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that those phrases changes the meaning of &quot;Устранить замечания&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17116" RevisionGUID="1593296e-dc76-4c46-8e65-c8f79dc6e7bf" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:32:47.770" UserId="1713" Text="How to translate &quot;Устранить замечания&quot; to English?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17116" RevisionGUID="1593296e-dc76-4c46-8e65-c8f79dc6e7bf" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:32:47.770" UserId="1713" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17118" RevisionGUID="2505df1f-6dcc-40de-b970-afae399eb9ca" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:47:30.307" UserDisplayName="user10940" Text="In case of the space under the floor it would probably be referred to as &quot;подпольное пространство&quot;, literally &quot;under-the-floor space&quot;. There is also the word &quot;подпол&quot; which is closer to &quot;crawl space&quot; or &quot;cellar&quot;, somewhere you could put jars or  vegetables for storage. &#xA;&#xA;As for the space above the ceiling, I am not quite sure these were widely used in Russian architecture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="4750c069-cd4a-4bbe-9aef-dc1ce71a8e2d" CreationDate="2018-09-06T07:50:45.597" UserId="170" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="How is that limited-height section of a house under a floor or roof (usually reserved for wiring and plumbing) called in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17119" RevisionGUID="6427c285-514f-4192-a678-f33d9605ba18" CreationDate="2018-09-06T08:15:00.470" UserId="1147" Text="You are right, &quot;устранить замечания&quot; usually doesn't simply mean to get rid of the remarks. You are eliminating them by doing something, presumably by improving things that were remarked on. What you are doing in this case can be called *addressing* the remarks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Address the remarks&quot; keeps both the intended meaning and the object of the original phrase (замечания – remarks).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44347" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="1a0afe6b-b488-47cc-a303-a57387a7b8df" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:02:25.410" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1037627065594462208" />
  <row Id="44348" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17116" RevisionGUID="46524f35-41b7-473d-86ae-246a2f696e25" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:16:20.720" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17120" RevisionGUID="af0502d5-b18f-4947-bc9e-c970f2de675e" CreationDate="2018-09-06T09:51:30.220" UserId="7674" Text="There're two terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**техническое подполье**](https://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=техническое+подполье) and [**технический чердак**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/139517/Технический)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they obviously only suit the entire house, not a separate apartment in an apartment block." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17120" RevisionGUID="a6c204b1-1df9-4d1d-9aac-45bb6eb55df2" CreationDate="2018-09-06T10:22:29.353" UserId="7674" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="There're two terms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**техническое подполье**](https://dic.academic.ru/searchall.php?SWord=техническое+подполье) and [**технический чердак**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/139517/Технический)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They obviously only suit the entire house, not a separate apartment in an apartment block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an apartment ***техническое пространство*** (под полом/над потолком) may fit the bill, but this is an improvised generic term for lack of a better one (to my limited knowledge)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="062439bd-b76f-4876-a6ea-c6c6fcf348d8" CreationDate="2018-09-06T12:03:47.263" UserId="170" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="How is that limited-height section of a house under a floor or roof (usually reserved for wiring and plumbing) called in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;The term in English is 'crawl space'. Google Translator rendered it as 'пространство сканирования', which I believe is wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17121" RevisionGUID="32a62cd5-8c8a-4acc-817e-c30d14b8b1bd" CreationDate="2018-09-07T03:01:34.603" UserId="4560" Text="No, not at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's what would be considered formal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Поскольку Япония — страна достаточно от нас далекая, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks nothing like German, but there's cast-iron logic to the word order here. Just putting **страна** at the end when it's not the most informative word in the sentence is fairly relaxed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*\*Достаточно далекая страна от нас* sounds un-Russian unless you specifically want to stress **от нас** (as opposed to it being remote from someone else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's anything formal here, it's the use of **достаточно** instead of the more generic **довольно**. Think &quot;fairly remote&quot; vs. &quot;quite remote&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44353" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17060" RevisionGUID="f99f5301-0089-46a4-815d-bd03f6544809" CreationDate="2018-09-07T03:01:56.747" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1037898736209412096" />
  <row Id="44358" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17079" RevisionGUID="76e26984-4261-4603-be5d-2498da312c1e" CreationDate="2018-09-07T07:20:45.477" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Cписание&quot; и &quot;поступление&quot; одним словом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17123" RevisionGUID="bfa3eb5f-9853-46f3-87ae-de352021bf6b" CreationDate="2018-09-07T11:32:30.193" UserId="10949" Text="I'm studying Russian through the Foreign Service Instutute course [available here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused about the pronunciation of the letter e. In lesson 1, it says the following about the pronunciation of the letter e:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In Russian the vowels e and я are given full pronunciation only when they &#xD;&#xA;&gt; are stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. When unstressed these vowels are pronounced as a short i. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what I understood was: &quot;Pronounce e as &quot;ye&quot; when they are stressed, otherwise pronounce them as an &quot;i&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this can't be right, as then I found words in the prepositional case where I hear the unstressed e being pronounced as &quot;ye&quot;. Examples below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;живёте  &#xD;&#xA;Москве&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked up [a previous question about the pronunciation of e][2] and it seemed to suggest that what's happening is that the previous consonant is palatalized and the e is still pronounced as Э.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So am I hearing the e as &quot;ye&quot; even though it's being pronounced as Э with a palatalized consonant? Or is there some rule that I am missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/oldfsi/languages/russian.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1449/pronunciation-of-%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17123" RevisionGUID="bfa3eb5f-9853-46f3-87ae-de352021bf6b" CreationDate="2018-09-07T11:32:30.193" UserId="10949" Text="Pronouncing the letter &quot;е&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17123" RevisionGUID="bfa3eb5f-9853-46f3-87ae-de352021bf6b" CreationDate="2018-09-07T11:32:30.193" UserId="10949" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="30603434-d2ca-4f3d-96c2-2337b64833e3" CreationDate="2018-09-07T12:21:06.970" UserId="7674" Text="**You confuse two aspects of their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being untressed they don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** (the threshold) the letters **я, ю, е, ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**понец [**йа**понец], **е**жовый [**йэ**жовый], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - **семЬЕ, сЪЕл**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since in **живёте** and **Москве** **[e]** is not placed at the beginning, doesn't follow **Ь** or **Ъ** and is stressed, it  1) is NOT reduced and 2) doesn't have a threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words could be transcribed as **жывиотие** and **масквие** in contrast to **жывйотйе** and **масквйэ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin **[ie]** instead of **[ye]**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="c56af9f6-efce-40a6-aac9-6e10508b8efd" CreationDate="2018-09-07T12:28:13.043" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**You confuse two aspects of their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) they don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** (the threshold) the letters **я, ю, е, ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**понец [**йа**понец], **е**жовый [**йэ**жовый], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - **семЬЕ, сЪЕл**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since in **живёте** and **Москве** **[e]** is stressed, not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  1) is NOT reduced and 2) doesn't have a threshold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two words could be transcribed as **жывиотие** and **масквие** in contrast to **жывйотйе** and **масквйэ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Latin **[ie]** instead of **[ye]**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="d754f3c1-1794-4587-9fc8-ca8116c2c6da" CreationDate="2018-09-07T12:40:52.897" UserId="7674" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="**You confuse two aspects of their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) they don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **я, ю, е, ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**понец [**йа**понец], **е**жовый [**йэ**жовый], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - **семЬЕ, сЪЕл**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) since it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИE* instead of **масквЙE**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="2ec5d9a7-0278-4b4a-991c-c5bc62447819" CreationDate="2018-09-07T12:46:40.163" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**You confuse two aspects of their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) they don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **я, ю, е, ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**понец [**йа**понец], **е**жовый [**йэ**жовый], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) since it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙE**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="8c51ca82-2fac-469d-86f6-00011d822d1a" CreationDate="2018-09-07T12:51:48.287" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**There're two aspects to their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aspects are complementary and not mutually exclusive, so must be considered in parallel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) the letters don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **я, ю, е, ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**блоко [**йа**блоко], **е**хать [**йэ**хать], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) since it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙE**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="f6072b63-975f-4c59-ab5b-cfe144d2574d" CreationDate="2018-09-07T12:57:28.757" UserId="7674" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="**There're two aspects to their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aspects are complementary and not mutually exclusive, so must be considered in parallel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) the letters **Я** and **Е** don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **Я, Ю, Е, Ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**блоко [**йа**блоко], **е**хать [**йэ**хать], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) since it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙE**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="7a0d1363-0217-4c1b-90c8-53031595c05d" CreationDate="2018-09-07T13:05:38.527" UserId="7674" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="**There're two aspects to their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aspects are complementary and not mutually exclusive, so must be considered in parallel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) the letters **Я** and **Е** don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **Я, Ю, Е, Ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**блоко [**йа**блоко], **е**хать [**йэ**хать], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) since it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙE**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pronunciation of **Ё** in **живёте** could be analyzed in a similar fashion, which i leave to yourself as an assignment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="72f26391-648a-4500-9d4d-865b86ef0cca" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:12:55.713" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**There're two aspects to their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aspects are complementary and not mutually exclusive, so must be considered in parallel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) the letters **Я** and **Е** don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **Я, Ю, Е, Ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**блоко [**йа**блоко], **е**хать [**йэ**хать], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) since it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙЭ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pronunciation of **Ё** in **живёте** could be analyzed in a similar fashion, which i leave to yourself as an assignment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="7f25b4c7-9b99-41e0-a47a-b1713430c83f" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:39:32.087" UserId="7674" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="**There're two aspects to their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aspects are complementary and not mutually exclusive, so must be considered in parallel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) the letters **Я** and **Е** don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **Я, Ю, Е, Ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**блоко [**йа**блоко], **е**хать [**йэ**хать], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;In the cited rule 1 'full pronunciation' apparently stands for the letter's alphabetic pronunciation (aspect 1 above) with no regard for the threshold (aspect 2 above), which the rule author probably didn't take into account.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙЭ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pronunciation of **Ё** in **живёте** could be analyzed in a similar fashion, which i leave to yourself as an assignment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17124" RevisionGUID="e3d56c5a-8638-4c75-a35e-4331ec6f45e6" CreationDate="2018-09-07T14:45:49.007" UserId="7674" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="**There're two aspects to their pronunciation: 1) reduction 2) &quot;threshold&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These aspects are complementary and not mutually exclusive, so must be considered in parallel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) When reduced due to being unstressed (save for Ё which is always stressed) the letters **Я** and **Е** don't sound like themselves but like **И** instead or something in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As a double phoneme that is with the addition of preceding **[y]** or **[й]** (the threshold) the letters **Я, Ю, Е, Ё** are pronounced at the very beginning of words - **я**блоко [**йа**блоко], **е**хать [**йэ**хать], and after **Ь** and **Ъ** - семь**е** [cим**йэ**], съ**е**л [с**йэ**л].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;In the cited rule 1 'full pronunciation' apparently stands for the letter's alphabetic pronunciation (aspect 1 above) with no regard for the threshold (aspect 2 above), which the rule author probably didn't take into account.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **Москве** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is stressed it is NOT reduced - **масквЕ** instead of **масквИ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **масквИЭ** instead of **масквЙЭ**.      **масквЕ** = **масквИЭ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In **живёте** since  &#xD;&#xA;1) **[e]** is unstressed it is reduced - **живётИ** instead of **живётЕ**  &#xD;&#xA;2) it's not placed at the beginning and neither follows **Ь** or **Ъ**, it  doesn't have a threshold, thus **живётИ** instead of **живётЙИ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(pronunciation of **Ё** in **живёте** could be analyzed in a similar fashion, which i leave to yourself as an assignment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17126" RevisionGUID="d833ccda-655e-4109-9790-791561e38e8a" CreationDate="2018-09-07T23:24:24.537" UserId="5836" Text="it's also phraseology meaning &quot;to do somethink rude with him&quot;. To scold or punish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One theory says that this phrase comes from epoch when criminals were executed by hanging. Rope for them was soaped for better slipping." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44376" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17123" RevisionGUID="054fcd88-bcd8-445e-b0ef-f391db500ea6" CreationDate="2018-09-08T06:01:12.023" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1038306235135799296" />
  <row Id="44377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17127" RevisionGUID="8c56054b-74c2-4a2d-b3be-47f8571b6ec5" CreationDate="2018-09-08T11:46:35.107" UserId="10953" Text="Есть предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Инструменты знаю на уровне достаточном для настройки сервера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужно ли обрамлять запятыми &quot;достаточном для настройки сервера&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17127" RevisionGUID="8c56054b-74c2-4a2d-b3be-47f8571b6ec5" CreationDate="2018-09-08T11:46:35.107" UserId="10953" Text="Запятая в распространенном (или нет?) определении" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17127" RevisionGUID="8c56054b-74c2-4a2d-b3be-47f8571b6ec5" CreationDate="2018-09-08T11:46:35.107" UserId="10953" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17129" RevisionGUID="9ebe6dda-f74d-4141-9c58-c67a53bd7621" CreationDate="2018-09-08T12:17:15.183" UserId="2079" Text="Конечно, нужно. Ведь это распространённое определение, стоящее после определяемого существительного. Такое определение, которое надо обрамлять запятыми, называется обособленным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот если бы оно стояло перед определяемым существительным, оно бы не обособлялось.  Есть некоторые исключения, но обычно после существительного обособляется, перед ним не обособляется. Подробнее: http://school-collection.edu.ru/dlrstore-wrapper/1946d260-e1a1-4308-8126-72b39aaea09a/punc18.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17130" RevisionGUID="8d84e5a2-a92f-4587-9d40-7a2aa98a1ec4" CreationDate="2018-09-08T12:25:35.820" UserId="242" Text="К своему удивлению я обнаружил, что де-факто перед &quot;достаточном для&quot; действительно ставят запятую. Обоснованием тому служит тот факт, что определительные обороты, стоящие после существительного должны обособляться. А именно, согласно [общепринятым правилам][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как правило, обособляются (отделяются запятой, а в середине предложения выделяются с двух сторон запятыми) согласованные распространенные определения, выраженные причастием или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательным с зависимыми от них словами и стоящие после&#xD;&#xA;&gt; определяемого слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично для меня это, повторюсь, большой сюрприз. В то время, как я согласен с обособлением в абсолютно всех примерах, приведённых по ссылке, и вместе с тем интуитивно не понимаю, почему &quot;достаточном&quot; тоже должно обособляться. Видимо, этот подпадает под пункт определения, имеющего уточняющее значение. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Замечу, что в интернете - даже в официальных документах, можно встретить &quot;на уровне, достаточном, для&quot; - вот вторая запятая точно не нужна и я бы назвал это случаем пунктуационной гиперкоррекции. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://videotutor-rusyaz.ru/uchenikam/teoriya/262-obosoblennyeopredeleniyaiprilogeniya.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44384" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17127" RevisionGUID="613a0522-701c-4052-b6cf-858104ea749a" CreationDate="2018-09-08T12:26:23.680" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;На уровне, достаточном для...&quot; - нужна ли тут запятая?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17131" RevisionGUID="39383182-8e3b-4b45-b0e2-3a1f28e2432d" CreationDate="2018-09-09T00:01:03.017" UserId="9459" Text="I just came up with another similar term from a different view point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Аппаратная&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's basically an &quot;device room&quot;, which can be anything. This is rather a room in a building and not a storey, but for that see other questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things like the access door to the elevator motor or a boiler room might be labeled as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="d15dc8c0-7973-4b59-a1e7-9564bd0b500e" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:11:17.460" UserId="10955" Text="What is the difference between adjectives &quot;pycckuu&quot; (Russian) and &quot;pyccuuckou&quot; (Russian). In the ever-changing, myriad of names, for the Russian/ Soviet security services, down the decades, whenever &quot;Russian&quot; is required--&quot;pyccuuckou&quot; is deployed eg The &quot;All-Russia Special....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, if I may please, in &quot;New Penguin Russian Course&quot;, N.J. Brown (1996); a tourist, in Moscow, asks; &quot;Who was Dzherzhinsky?&quot;, using &quot;kem&quot; (with whom) as opposed to &quot;kmo&quot; (who). Mr Brown did not explain with-whom-was-Dzh..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, how do I get the Cyrillic alphabet on my computer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="d15dc8c0-7973-4b59-a1e7-9564bd0b500e" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:11:17.460" UserId="10955" Text="Russian &amp; Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="d15dc8c0-7973-4b59-a1e7-9564bd0b500e" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:11:17.460" UserId="10955" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="d2842c4c-5786-4006-923a-a14fb7c502db" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:21:11.507" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="What is the difference between adjectives &quot;русский&quot; (Russian) and &quot;российский&quot; (Russian). In the ever-changing, myriad of names, for the Russian/ Soviet security services, down the decades, whenever &quot;Russian&quot; is required--&quot;российской&quot; is deployed eg The &quot;All-Russia Special....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, if I may please, in &quot;New Penguin Russian Course&quot;, N.J. Brown (1996); a tourist, in Moscow, asks; &quot;Who was Dzherzhinsky?&quot;, using &quot;kem&quot; (with whom) as opposed to &quot;kto&quot; (who). Mr Brown did not explain with-whom-was-Dzh.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44390" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="e370b286-6fa9-4d98-9189-38b0781b3ec7" CreationDate="2018-09-09T12:23:00.280" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44391" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17127" RevisionGUID="562968bb-573f-46bb-a617-10845d4edae1" CreationDate="2018-09-09T15:00:03.550" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1038804230751113216" />
  <row Id="44392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="825d7865-3b13-4296-99e8-08817a1d736c" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:12:57.683" UserId="10955" Text="In &quot;The New Penguin Russian Course&quot;, M.J. Brown (1996), a tourist in Moscow asks: &quot;Who was Dzherzhinsky?&quot;, using &quot;KEM&quot; (with whom) as opposed to &quot;kmo&quot; (who)--Mr. Brown did not give an explanation--why would Russians say with-whom-was-Dzh...&quot; to mean &quot;who-was-Dzh...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lettering: how do i get the Cyrillic alphabet on my computer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="825d7865-3b13-4296-99e8-08817a1d736c" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:12:57.683" UserId="10955" Text="Who &amp; Whom in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="825d7865-3b13-4296-99e8-08817a1d736c" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:12:57.683" UserId="10955" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="3a5aed79-9732-4f3e-800b-f518a31f03cf" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:47:19.837" UserId="-1" Comment="removal of second question" Text="What is the difference between adjectives &quot;русский&quot; (Russian) and &quot;российский&quot; (Russian). In the ever-changing, myriad of names, for the Russian/ Soviet security services, down the decades, whenever &quot;Russian&quot; is required--&quot;российской&quot; is deployed eg The &quot;All-Russia Special....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44396" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="3a5aed79-9732-4f3e-800b-f518a31f03cf" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:47:19.837" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5605, 7674 edit id of 989" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44397" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="fe2421a4-8582-4f26-9c52-a091363fcb72" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:48:36.520" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|essive|изобразительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44398" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14558" RevisionGUID="3fcadcb7-962f-4dc1-8272-ff5be1d55bae" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:50:10.890" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|essive|изобразительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="1283b345-46f4-4f05-b4c9-cabe99e29ad1" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:51:14.173" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|прилагательные|essive|изобразительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44400" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14182" RevisionGUID="829f3af0-ddfa-4b8d-9efc-6501980cc741" CreationDate="2018-09-09T18:52:06.490" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|essive|изобразительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="6a0b944c-e1bb-428f-afa8-e6e18ff4da6a" CreationDate="2018-09-09T21:55:30.280" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="In &quot;The New Penguin Russian Course&quot;, M.J. Brown (1996), a tourist in Moscow asks: &quot;Who was Dzherzhinsky?&quot;, using &quot;kem&quot; (with whom) as opposed to &quot;kto&quot; (who)--Mr. Brown did not give an explanation - why would Russians say with-whom-was-Dzh...&quot; to mean &quot;who-was-Dzh...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44402" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="6a0b944c-e1bb-428f-afa8-e6e18ff4da6a" CreationDate="2018-09-09T21:55:30.280" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 62 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Who&quot; and &quot;whom&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44403" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="fe467c5f-4e5d-4937-974a-0ef2f9404899" CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:35:51.897" UserId="3680" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44404" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="a2cb99da-3a29-4206-be6f-0e7cbade6523" CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:36:34.683" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1678],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="f15977d9-5f64-4d01-b2e3-a4e993af03a9" CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:43:13.917" UserId="3680" Comment="highlighted quotes, replaced transliteration" Text="In &quot;The New Penguin Russian Course&quot;, M.J. Brown (1996), a tourist in Moscow asks:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Who was Dzherzhinsky?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;using &quot;кем&quot; (with whom) as opposed to &quot;кто&quot; (who) -- Mr. Brown did not give an explanation - why would Russians say&#xD;&#xA;&gt;with-whom-was-Dzh...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to mean&#xD;&#xA;&gt;who-was-Dzh...?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44406" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17132" RevisionGUID="e03bdeeb-30b2-4da5-8af5-81f1cdc07010" CreationDate="2018-09-09T22:58:32.947" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Русский&quot; and &quot;российский&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17115" RevisionGUID="4031d637-1165-4a77-a1f8-6aeb3d6d9436" CreationDate="2018-09-10T03:02:38.767" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1038986076038344706" />
  <row Id="44411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17107" RevisionGUID="54912d12-52ed-46ac-b670-881db7daa693" CreationDate="2018-09-10T15:02:03.370" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1039167121132068864" />
  <row Id="44412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17135" RevisionGUID="fb040c9b-3515-4372-9871-0c1c1b459c10" CreationDate="2018-09-10T19:11:37.767" UserId="4714" Text="For future reference this is how syllables are split in Russian according to a good English language source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the source— [A Comprehensive Russian Grammar][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.se/books?id=xltIrGHlMDQC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=Terence%20wade%20russian%20grammar&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjf9_vfkbHdAhVJr6QKHU7WDUkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Terence%20wade%20russian%20grammar&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fb0dF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kk4Cc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="4b77c42e-71c4-41df-a408-f67c2fcbc796" CreationDate="2018-09-10T21:05:38.150" UserId="5" Text="Юноша - это молодой человек (парень). Юношеский, однако, означает возраст и подразумевает так же и девушек, как в словосочетании &quot;юношеский разряд&quot;. Есть ли слово с тем же смыслом что и юношеский, но пременимое исключительно к девушкам?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="4b77c42e-71c4-41df-a408-f67c2fcbc796" CreationDate="2018-09-10T21:05:38.150" UserId="5" Text="юноша и юношеский пременительно к девушкам" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="4b77c42e-71c4-41df-a408-f67c2fcbc796" CreationDate="2018-09-10T21:05:38.150" UserId="5" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17137" RevisionGUID="b3bbe672-4ece-4f4a-8a6e-961a9c0c3cf5" CreationDate="2018-09-10T22:17:16.770" UserId="242" Text="Это слово &quot;девичий&quot;. Читаем у [Ушакова][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ДЕ́ВИЧИЙ, Девичья, девичье. прил. к девица и к девушка. Девичьи наряды. Девичья красота. Девичий стыд. «Вам, людям молодым, другого нету дела, как замечать девичьи красоты?» Грибоедов.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/785910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17137" RevisionGUID="12c43ce9-da57-44d0-973b-879bffa27abe" CreationDate="2018-09-10T22:21:27.257" UserId="242" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Это слово &quot;девичий&quot;. Читаем у [Ушакова][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ДЕ́ВИЧИЙ, Девичья, девичье. прил. к девица и к девушка. Девичьи наряды. Девичья красота. Девичий стыд. «Вам, людям молодым, другого нету дела, как замечать девичьи красоты?» Грибоедов.&#xA;&#xA;И хотя это слово и заметно менее употребимо по сравнению с &quot;юношеский&quot;, да и имеет ряд устаревших и книжных значений, но вполне встречается в обиходе, например как во фразе:  &quot;Девичья сборная Копейска по футболу едет на первенство России&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/785910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44418" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="b0b2fd08-00ed-472d-bf53-7cebcfc1aea5" CreationDate="2018-09-10T22:25:32.180" UserId="242" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="&quot;Юноша&quot; и &quot;юношеский&quot; применительно к девушкам" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17137" RevisionGUID="64cf3f21-c5b3-424d-94c0-738e9858932c" CreationDate="2018-09-10T22:29:24.013" UserId="242" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Это слово &quot;девичий&quot;. Читаем у [Ушакова][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ДЕ́ВИЧИЙ, Девичья, девичье. прил. к девица и к девушка. Девичьи наряды. Девичья красота. Девичий стыд. «Вам, людям молодым, другого нету дела, как замечать девичьи красоты?» Грибоедов.&#xA;&#xA;И хотя это слово и заметно менее употребимо по сравнению с &quot;юношеский&quot;, да и имеет ряд устаревших и книжных значений, но вполне встречается в обиходе, например как во фразе:  &quot;Девичья сборная Копейска по футболу едет на первенство России&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Девичьего разряда действительно нет как лингвистической данности, но &quot;девичий возраст&quot; или &quot;девичьи шалости&quot; - вполне.&#xA;  [1]: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/785910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="3197dfe7-8f9a-4e17-b5cc-95bc701480e9" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:11:11.057" UserId="10140" Text="Как раз услишал &quot;(Ну), это самое&quot;. Какое значение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="3197dfe7-8f9a-4e17-b5cc-95bc701480e9" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:11:11.057" UserId="10140" Text="Что означает &quot;ЭТО САМОЕ&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="3197dfe7-8f9a-4e17-b5cc-95bc701480e9" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:11:11.057" UserId="10140" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44424" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="d797f58e-1eb5-43d7-8836-25985c39c98d" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:13:52.850" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44425" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="52b7d7f7-41b0-47c2-b453-e58dd762e8f1" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:16:33.010" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Что означает &quot;Это самое&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="d9fd2ee8-ddac-417a-807a-58c11e7e88f8" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:27:59.940" UserId="10140" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="Как раз услишал &quot;(Ну), это самое&quot;. Какое значение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Это&quot;=it/this. Это понятно.&#xD;&#xA;2. Однако проблема при соединении с &quot;самое&quot;, которое само по себе обозначает &quot;именно&quot; (например &quot;Эта самая книга.&quot;) или &quot;прямо, как раз&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда предполагаю, что &quot;это самое значит&quot; что-то вроде &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;. Я правильно понимаю? Кто-нибудь меня поправит?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44427" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="55e61a45-ab72-49aa-a63b-98f8de313adb" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:29:42.853" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17139" RevisionGUID="e4f7645f-cd92-4e60-a4ad-8b4528ba76da" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:39:00.793" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Это самое&quot; has two meanings - one the literal one (like in &quot;эта самая книга&quot; you've mention) and other meaning makes this phrase to belong to the group of words and phrases that in English are called [`filler words`][1]. In Russian such words called way less neutral - [&quot;слова-паразиты&quot;][2].  &#xD;&#xA;Such words bear no meaning and are used to sort of disguise pauses speaker has to deal with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning is way more rare compared the filler meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="e0fd04cf-b2a4-4c69-90ea-dd8a3a406dc8" CreationDate="2018-09-11T11:40:22.417" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="Как раз услышал &quot;(Ну), это самое&quot;. Какое значение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Это&quot;=it/this. Это понятно.&#xD;&#xA;2. Однако проблема при соединении с &quot;самое&quot;, которое само по себе обозначает &quot;именно&quot; (например &quot;Эта самая книга.&quot;) или &quot;прямо, как раз&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Отсюда предполагаю, что &quot;это самое значит&quot; что-то вроде &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;. Я правильно понимаю? Кто-нибудь меня поправит?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17140" RevisionGUID="aa804492-4203-4dc8-a736-f805b6ec6102" CreationDate="2018-09-11T12:17:28.000" UserId="7674" Text="Как фраза-паразит **это самое** может применяться в двух контекстах. Во втором оно более паразитично, чем в первом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как попытка напоминания себе и собеседнику о том, о чём только что или недавно шла речь, за которой как правило сразу следует воспроизведение того, что говорящий имел виду. В этом случае оно по сути значит &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Вне связи с необходимостью напоминания, а просто как заполнитель паузы. В этом случае оно не несёт никакой смысловой нагрузки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В обоих случаях оно может применяться и без дополнения &quot;самое&quot;, т.е. просто как &quot;это&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17140" RevisionGUID="6912781e-883e-4adb-8f16-217fa1e461ed" CreationDate="2018-09-11T12:37:44.797" UserId="7674" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Как фраза-паразит **это самое** может применяться в двух контекстах. Во втором оно более паразитично, чем в первом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как попытка напоминания себе и собеседнику о том, о чём только что или недавно шла речь, за которой как правило сразу следует воспроизведение того, что говорящий имел виду. В этом случае оно по сути значит &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Вне связи с необходимостью напоминания, а просто как заполнитель паузы. В этом случае оно не несёт никакой смысловой нагрузки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В обоих контекстах оно может применяться и без дополнения &quot;самое&quot;, т.е. просто как &quot;это&quot;, но в такой форме служит маркером менее развитого и грамотного человека." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44432" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="f0275677-0084-443d-a7da-7f723d7bd96b" CreationDate="2018-09-11T17:21:41.300" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44433" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17111" RevisionGUID="eca8bc40-8649-4a2e-97d9-f41d9dc77992" CreationDate="2018-09-11T18:03:38.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1039575204886917121" />
  <row Id="44434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17141" RevisionGUID="6a4ed7b1-1006-4db5-935b-a0b693a2cd03" CreationDate="2018-09-11T19:44:35.300" UserId="1717" Text="In English you could say “Dzherzhinsky was a revolutionary”, while in Russian this would be «Дзержинский был революционер*ом*» – in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it is a little easier to see in the following sentence: “Dzherzhinsky worked _as_ a politician” and «Дзержинский работал _политиком_» – in English you use a preposition, while in Russian you use a specific case for the same purpose. Going back to your example, in English with “to be” you don’t need a preposition, while in Russian you still need Instrumental, because in Russian «быть».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to give an answer to “why”, that’s just how [governance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_government) works in languages: unfortunately you have to simply learn which verbs require which prepositions (in English) or prepositions/cases (in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17140" RevisionGUID="92299a80-d168-41c8-a919-1ea2ee1a13a7" CreationDate="2018-09-12T09:22:17.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="Как фраза-паразит **это самое** может применяться в двух контекстах. Во втором оно более паразитично, чем в первом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Как попытка напоминания себе и собеседнику о том, о чём только что или недавно шла речь, за которой как правило сразу следует воспроизведение того, что говорящий имел виду. В этом случае оно по сути значит &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Вне связи с необходимостью напоминания, а просто как заполнитель паузы. В этом случае оно не несёт никакой смысловой нагрузки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В обоих контекстах оно может применяться и без дополнения &quot;самое&quot;, т.е. просто как &quot;это&quot;, но в такой форме служит маркером менее развитого и грамотного человека.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это самое** может также служить способом привлечения внимания собеседника после некоторой паузы в диалоге, и в этом случае оно синонимично &quot;слушай!&quot;, &quot;я говорю&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17141" RevisionGUID="0948fd4e-4aa5-4f5e-9b33-8159480d43b6" CreationDate="2018-09-12T10:45:17.563" UserId="1717" Comment="Finish the sentence " Text="In English you could say “Dzherzhinsky was a revolutionary”, while in Russian this would be «Дзержинский был революционер*ом*» – in the Instrumental case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it is a little easier to see in the following sentence: “Dzherzhinsky worked _as_ a politician” and «Дзержинский работал _политиком_» – in English you use a preposition, while in Russian you use a specific case for the same purpose. Going back to your example, in English with “to be” you don’t need a preposition, while in Russian you still need Instrumental with «быть» the same as with «работать».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to give an answer to “why”, that’s just how [governance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_government) works in languages: unfortunately you have to simply learn which verbs require which prepositions (in English) or prepositions/cases (in Russian)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17143" RevisionGUID="3c7d0e2c-d062-44bd-8803-e32afe01adef" CreationDate="2018-09-12T22:46:29.900" UserId="6722" Text="I was watching a show called *In the Army now*, and at 20:03, the journalist refers to himself as иван поддубный, which was translated as *superman*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js955f5zdXU. So my question is, what are some other well-known (assuming that иван поддубный is well-known) references that alludes to one's super-normal strength. For example, in English, I could make a comparison to either *Schwarzeneggar* or *Hercules*, both of whom are very well known" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17143" RevisionGUID="3c7d0e2c-d062-44bd-8803-e32afe01adef" CreationDate="2018-09-12T22:46:29.900" UserId="6722" Text="What names of people (real or mythical) could a person compare oneself to in order to give the air of super-normal strength?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17143" RevisionGUID="3c7d0e2c-d062-44bd-8803-e32afe01adef" CreationDate="2018-09-12T22:46:29.900" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44444" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17136" RevisionGUID="09d2b531-0a41-4d95-a4a7-b43bd393defe" CreationDate="2018-09-13T00:01:24.387" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1040027629359955968" />
  <row Id="44446" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17143" RevisionGUID="49ccd39a-e334-4d64-906d-6d8cfe9287f0" CreationDate="2018-09-13T08:01:03.707" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44447" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17133" RevisionGUID="a5aee3b6-b308-4803-97a6-cdad538b06b0" CreationDate="2018-09-13T15:00:34.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1040253912463421440" />
  <row Id="44448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17144" RevisionGUID="40b5abb8-97d9-43b6-99df-fce9a6223314" CreationDate="2018-09-13T16:07:02.310" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;В последнее время мы все **много чего** услышали о фейк-новостях и о том, что ныне мы живем в эпоху &quot;постправды&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: В последнее время мы все **многое** услышали о фейк-новостях и о том, что ныне мы живем в эпоху &quot;постправды&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how these two are nuanced in meaning -- when to use one or the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17144" RevisionGUID="40b5abb8-97d9-43b6-99df-fce9a6223314" CreationDate="2018-09-13T16:07:02.310" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;много чего&quot; vs &quot;многое&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17144" RevisionGUID="40b5abb8-97d9-43b6-99df-fce9a6223314" CreationDate="2018-09-13T16:07:02.310" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="6c422e03-7ba4-43d4-b133-15b0bceaddf3" CreationDate="2018-09-13T17:02:31.987" UserId="8178" Text="В произведении &quot;Тарас Бульба&quot; Н.В.Гоголя присутствует следующая фраза: &quot;... снявши с него саблю с дорогою рукоятью и отвязавши от пояса целый __черенок__ с червонцами&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Очевидно (и подтверждается сносками в различных изданиях), что под словом черенок имеется ввиду кошелёк. Однако ни в каком из известных словарей, в т.ч. украинских данное значение не встречается. Откуда же происходит употребление слова в данном значении?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="6c422e03-7ba4-43d4-b133-15b0bceaddf3" CreationDate="2018-09-13T17:02:31.987" UserId="8178" Text="Этимология слова &quot;черенок&quot; в значении кошелёк, использованное Гоголем?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="6c422e03-7ba4-43d4-b133-15b0bceaddf3" CreationDate="2018-09-13T17:02:31.987" UserId="8178" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17146" RevisionGUID="a8255192-79c9-4b93-a8c2-06601e1b4ba3" CreationDate="2018-09-13T17:13:12.157" UserId="242" Text="[Согласно Далю][1] `черес` (он же чересел, чресленик, чресельник) это &quot;долгий кошель кишкой, в котором носят деньги, опоясываясь под одеждой&quot;. [Слово][2] это действительно имеет малороссийский колор и происходит от &quot;чересла&quot; (&quot;поясница&quot;) - те самые чересла, которые до сих иногда можно услышать в выражении &quot;чересла болят&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну а `черенок` - это просто уменьшительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.infoliolib.info/sprav/dal/01/1889.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81_(%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%81)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17146" RevisionGUID="88616c9a-6cde-46de-9566-f09b273f9096" CreationDate="2018-09-13T17:20:58.643" UserId="242" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="[Согласно Далю][1] `черес` (он же чересел, чресленик, чресельник) это &quot;долгий кошель кишкой, в котором носят деньги, опоясываясь под одеждой&quot;. [Слово][2] это действительно имеет малороссийский колор и происходит от &quot;чересла&quot; (&quot;поясница&quot;) - те самые чересла, которые до сих иногда можно услышать в выражении &quot;чересла болят&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну а `черенок` - это просто уменьшительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну и ещё добавлю, что слово это никогда не было общепонятным, вот, читателям пушкинского &quot;Современника&quot; тоже [приходится][3] разъяснять:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.infoliolib.info/sprav/dal/01/1889.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81_(%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%81)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://books.google.de/books?id=rCYYAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA54&amp;dq=%22%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8A%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjZ_ounvrjdAhVR-aQKHWtTBoUQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=%22%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8A%22&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FG3QE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44457" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17145" RevisionGUID="22e2c49b-d638-426b-a0a9-dfd6e2ab3880" CreationDate="2018-09-14T06:01:36.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1040480663563120640" />
  <row Id="44458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17147" RevisionGUID="d7689a72-aa28-4b11-ba75-34ae1972ee4d" CreationDate="2018-09-15T12:36:00.270" UserId="8780" Text="I know that not all verbs have a perfective counterpart, while there are others which are perfective-only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some verbs do have both aspects, but many times dictionaries don't indicate their counterpart directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the verb тянуть. This verb spawns many derived verbs, yes. Растянуть, вытянуть, натянуть. However, these prefixes add a new meaning, and thus they don't just form the perfective counterpart of тянуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On gramota.ru, the definition of тянуть does not cite its perfective equivalent. Like other dictionaries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I found, on cooljugator.com, a link to the verb потянуть as the perfective equivalent of тянуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After checking the definition of потянуть on a digital *Толковый словарь русского языка*, that verb is described as `&quot;начать тянуть&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: when a dictionary does not link to the perfective counterpart of a given imperfective verb, what does that really mean? That the perfective counterpart is not important? Or that the imperfective verb has no true perfective counterpart without changing slightly its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17147" RevisionGUID="d7689a72-aa28-4b11-ba75-34ae1972ee4d" CreationDate="2018-09-15T12:36:00.270" UserId="8780" Text="When the perfective counterpart doesn't show up on a dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17147" RevisionGUID="d7689a72-aa28-4b11-ba75-34ae1972ee4d" CreationDate="2018-09-15T12:36:00.270" UserId="8780" Text="|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44461" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17147" RevisionGUID="759fc9dd-7e5d-4c8a-b6c6-968b95fe013b" CreationDate="2018-09-15T13:06:00.667" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17148" RevisionGUID="4a756352-df62-4d63-a7a1-549380457602" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:39:34.950" UserId="9558" Text="Both mean *good* but Хорошо is defined as the *short neuter singular of хоро́ший*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK it is possible to use any of them when for example answering &quot;Good!&quot; or is there any practical difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17148" RevisionGUID="4a756352-df62-4d63-a7a1-549380457602" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:39:34.950" UserId="9558" Text="Difference between Хороший and Хорошо?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17148" RevisionGUID="4a756352-df62-4d63-a7a1-549380457602" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:39:34.950" UserId="9558" Text="|значения|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44465" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17148" RevisionGUID="05274ca5-276b-40b1-a7b4-4f1a6b2be016" CreationDate="2018-09-15T16:45:41.163" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;хороший&quot; and &quot;xорошо&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="8d8d313f-6911-419e-8d3c-67d08348aedd" CreationDate="2018-09-15T17:27:18.363" UserId="7674" Text="No, when expressing general sense of goodness, satisfaction, delight, approval only **хорошо** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words in neuter gender besides referring to nouns in the corresponding gender also denote phenomena or states with no particular subject or actor: **темно, светло, холодно, тепло, жарко, ладно, жалко, так оно и есть, страшно, мне не видно/слышно/больно** likewise **мне/тебе** etc. **хорошо/плохо** etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="0ba69675-5b60-460c-bd3a-dcadcd386cd5" CreationDate="2018-09-15T17:34:29.697" UserId="7674" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="No, when expressing general sense of goodness, satisfaction, delight, approval only **хорошо** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an adverb and not adjective, therefore short form doesn't apply to it as it's an attribute of adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs denote in particular a state: **темно, светло, холодно, тепло, жарко, ладно, жалко, страшно, видно, слышно, больно** likewise **хорошо** and **плохо** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short neuter form of the adjective **хороший**&lt;sup&gt;*masc*&lt;/sup&gt; is not **хорошо** but **хорош**. **Хорошо** is a short form of the adjective **хорошее**&lt;sup&gt;*neut*&lt;/sup&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="0125abdb-2a08-4299-b15f-63a9270c06db" CreationDate="2018-09-15T17:39:45.617" UserId="7674" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="When expressing general sense of goodness, satisfaction, delight, approval only **хорошо** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an adverb and not adjective, therefore short form doesn't apply to it as it's an attribute of adjectives. **Хорошо** in this case is the only form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs denote in particular a state: **темно, светло, холодно, тепло, жарко, ладно, жалко, страшно, видно, слышно, больно** likewise **хорошо** and **плохо** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short neuter form of the adjective **хороший**&lt;sup&gt;*masc*&lt;/sup&gt; is not **хорошо** but **хорош**. **Хорошо** is a short form of the adjective **хорошее**&lt;sup&gt;*neut*&lt;/sup&gt;, bit it's not the same as the adverb **хорошо**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17149" RevisionGUID="e549694b-dc46-48f7-bdfd-0d773cc3a482" CreationDate="2018-09-15T18:05:42.103" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="When expressing general sense of goodness, satisfaction, delight, approval only **хорошо** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an adverb and not adjective, therefore short form doesn't apply to it as it's an attribute of adjectives. **Хорошо** in this case is the only form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adverbs denote in particular a state: **темно, светло, холодно, тепло, жарко, ладно, жалко, страшно, видно, слышно, больно** likewise **хорошо** and **плохо** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short form of the adjective **хороший**&lt;sup&gt;*masc*&lt;/sup&gt; is not **хорошо** but **хорош**. **Хорошо** is a short form of the adjective **хорошее**&lt;sup&gt;*neut*&lt;/sup&gt;, but it's not the same as the adverb **хорошо**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44473" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17147" RevisionGUID="e2ad36d8-318b-491e-a60d-10577eb37b24" CreationDate="2018-09-16T13:17:47.390" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8780,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;swrutra&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2104,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sergey Slepov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17151" RevisionGUID="80774cf0-0d9a-45d9-b765-779610d61e6f" CreationDate="2018-09-16T14:08:17.467" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Р. S. Если Вы **видаетесь и увидитесь** съ Бернгардомъ Васильевичемъ, то потрудитесь передать ему и семейству его мой сердечный поклонъ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, their meanings seem quite similar, if not the same. Why use two consecutive synonyms like this -- and a juxtaposition of an imperfective verb and a perfective verb, at that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17151" RevisionGUID="80774cf0-0d9a-45d9-b765-779610d61e6f" CreationDate="2018-09-16T14:08:17.467" UserId="8672" Text="What are the effects of using two synonyms &quot;видаться&quot; and &quot;увидеться&quot; in a row?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17151" RevisionGUID="80774cf0-0d9a-45d9-b765-779610d61e6f" CreationDate="2018-09-16T14:08:17.467" UserId="8672" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17152" RevisionGUID="b44294c3-ede1-4731-a1bd-840f41330f03" CreationDate="2018-09-16T14:24:48.360" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Р. S. Если Вы видаетесь и увидитесь съ Бернгардомъ Васильевичемъ, то потрудитесь передать **ему и семейству его** мой сердечный поклонъ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{instead of}: Р. S. Если Вы видаетесь и увидитесь съ Бернгардомъ Васильевичемъ, то потрудитесь передать **ему и семье его** мой сердечный поклонъ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how these two are nuanced in meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17152" RevisionGUID="b44294c3-ede1-4731-a1bd-840f41330f03" CreationDate="2018-09-16T14:24:48.360" UserId="8672" Text="Why is &quot;семейство&quot; used here rather than &quot;семья&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17152" RevisionGUID="b44294c3-ede1-4731-a1bd-840f41330f03" CreationDate="2018-09-16T14:24:48.360" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17153" RevisionGUID="50026435-833d-43c8-acef-5b4b685a8978" CreationDate="2018-09-16T15:31:18.933" UserId="7674" Text="**Видаетесь** means see one another habitually, on a regular basis, which is suggested by its imperfective aspect. BTW this form is obsolete. Today we'd say **видитесь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Увидитесь** in this context means will see one another soon, in a short while, next time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of 2 justifications for their combined use.&#xD;&#xA;1) they denote different types of action&#xD;&#xA;2) purely literary considerations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for use of **видаетесь** instead of **видитесь** (provided the latter form was in use at the time of the text composition) could be that since the latter is consonant with **увидетесь** thereby creating a semblance of tautology, which is frowned upon in the ethos of Russian composition, it was discarded in favor of an alternative form for the sake of euphony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17153" RevisionGUID="df2e88ee-25a5-490b-95d1-b16b5e00f336" CreationDate="2018-09-16T15:39:41.873" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="**Видаетесь** means see one another habitually, on a regular basis, which is suggested by its imperfective aspect. BTW this form is obsolete. Today we'd say **видитесь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Увидитесь** in this context means will see one another soon, in a short while, next time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of 2 justifications for their combined use.&#xD;&#xA;1) they denote different types of action&#xD;&#xA;2) purely literary aesthetic considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for use of **видаетесь** instead of **видитесь** (provided the latter form was in use at the time of the text composition) could be that since the latter is consonant with **увидетесь** thereby creating a semblance of tautology, which is frowned upon in the ethos of Russian composition, it was discarded in favor of an alternative form for the sake of euphony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17153" RevisionGUID="399fc53f-6631-4042-8590-d71e8d82ea27" CreationDate="2018-09-16T15:41:19.983" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**Видаетесь** means see one another habitually, on a regular basis, which is suggested by its imperfective aspect. BTW this form is obsolete. Today we'd say **видитесь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Увидитесь** in this context means will see one another soon, in a short while, next time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of 2 justifications for their combined use:&#xD;&#xA;1) they denote different types of action&#xD;&#xA;2) purely literary aesthetic considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for use of **видаетесь** instead of **видитесь** (provided the latter form was in use at the time of the text composition) could be that since the latter is consonant with **увидитесь** thereby creating a semblance of tautology, which is frowned upon in the ethos of Russian composition, it was discarded in favor of an alternative form for the sake of euphony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17153" RevisionGUID="cfbe4644-533b-4eaf-a4ee-bc1b72bbb47c" CreationDate="2018-09-16T17:48:17.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Видаетесь** means see one another habitually, on a regular basis, which is suggested by its imperfective aspect. BTW this form is obsolete. Today we'd say **видитесь**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Увидитесь** in this context means will see one another soon, in a short while, next time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of 2 justifications for their combined use:&#xD;&#xA;1) they denote different types of action&#xD;&#xA;2) purely literary aesthetic considerations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for use of **видаетесь** instead of **видитесь** (provided the latter form was current at the time of the text composition) could be that since the latter is consonant with **увидитесь** thereby creating a semblance of tautology, which is frowned upon in the ethos of Russian composition, it was discarded in favor of an alternative form for the sake of euphony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17155" RevisionGUID="8a4e0287-194e-4ca7-a722-f2b76fc4929e" CreationDate="2018-09-17T10:45:50.067" UserId="1836" Text="I'm not sure about all cases when perfective counterpart is not shown in a dictionary, but in case of &quot;тянуть&quot; it might be that none of its perfective forms mean the same as тянуть itself. Затянуть is to fasten (a belt, a knot, etc), растянуть is to stretch (fabric), etc., while тянуть itself can mean any of those. So, there is no definite perfective counterpart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17156" RevisionGUID="cc6993f7-0eac-460b-8c02-d38ba03c7269" CreationDate="2018-09-17T10:56:38.630" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;My question is: when a dictionary does not link to the perfective counterpart of a given imperfective verb, what does that really mean? That the perfective counterpart is not important? Or that the imperfective verb has no true perfective counterpart without changing slightly its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second. Because потянуть has got its imperfective counterpart потягивать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПОТЯ́ГИВАТЬ, потягиваю, потягиваешь, несовер., что.&#xD;&#xA;1. Тянуть понемногу. Потягивай веревку, но не дергай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17147" RevisionGUID="8f12cefa-9a06-4a2b-9bd8-cb875212c8c7" CreationDate="2018-09-17T12:00:33.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1041658161042739200" />
  <row Id="44490" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17156" RevisionGUID="9628de96-ab07-42af-8e1a-f19dc60328e0" CreationDate="2018-09-17T13:05:02.087" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44491" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17148" RevisionGUID="5246e952-0c2b-4ad5-bf6d-08479a5b7fd7" CreationDate="2018-09-17T15:00:48.100" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1041703520863481856" />
  <row Id="44494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17156" RevisionGUID="d2bea495-4b11-4065-b708-cba155897613" CreationDate="2018-09-17T21:42:36.797" UserId="6539" Comment="added 1645 characters in body" Text="&gt;My question is: when a dictionary does not link to the perfective counterpart of a given imperfective verb, what does that really mean? That the perfective counterpart is not important? Or that the imperfective verb has no true perfective counterpart without changing slightly its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тянуть has several meanings, according to that it has got different perfective counterparts, or remains imperfective. Just some examples. And you will see the reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ТЯНУТЬ&#xD;&#xA;ТЯНУ́ТЬ, несовер.&#xD;&#xA;1. кого (что). Натягивать, тащить или расправлять; напрягаясь, тащить к себе. (Pull,  spread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть невод – **вытянуть**, тянуть холст – **натянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что. То же, что вести (build)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть  телефонную линию – **протянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Натягивая, волочить что-н. для того, чтобы укрепить вдоль, поперек чего-н. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть веревку через двор. **Протянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. кого (что). Тащить, направляя куда-н. (Pull somewhere )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянуть баржу. Тянуть кого-н. за рукав – **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. что. Протягивать, вытягивать (give, hold,  stretch)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть руку. Тянуть  шею– **вытянуть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. перен., кого (что). Усиленно содействовать(help, promote)  вытягивать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть приятеля по службе. Тянуть  неуспевающего ученика – **вытянуть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. перен., кого (что). Настойчиво просить, убеждать(persuade ) пойти или поехать куда-н. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тянуть в кино. Тянуть в гости. – **потянуть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.  Влечь, привлекать. (Attract )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его тянет (безл.) к родным местам (тянут родные места). – **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9 безл., чем. О струе воздуха, запахе: распространяться.(spread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянет холодом из окна. Тянет дымом.– **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 что. Всасывать, вбирать, поглощать. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть пиво (медленно пить)– **втянуть**,&#xD;&#xA; Тянуть все силы из кого-н. – **вытянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. Медленно делать что-н.(not to hurry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть дело. Тянуть с ответом. Тянуть время.   – **потянуть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13 весить (weigh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Свёрток тянет пять килограмм.– **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14. обычно безл., что. Вызывать ощущение тяжести, давления или боли. (hurt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Подтяжки тянут. Тянет (безл.) в плечах.  (no)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;17. Красть, тащить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть, что плохо лежит  – **стянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44495" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17156" RevisionGUID="5ff4b642-45cc-4436-93be-5da0b2dfd04d" CreationDate="2018-09-17T21:43:03.503" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="44d32704-448a-48f7-91d5-6d7bddcc5cbd" CreationDate="2018-09-18T00:15:47.023" UserId="8359" Text="I'm trying to understand part of _Путешествие шлюпа «Диана» из Кронштадта в Камчатку, совершенное в 1807, 1808 и 1809 годах_. The author Golovnin names a Kamchadal song «Ай, вот тебе хрену, ай вот тебе хрену». I have had limited success understanding its name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The song is mentioned at least in part because its title is salacious. Do the two _Ай_ have different roles here? What has horseradish to do with sex? My dictionary and Google Translate have been of limited help. The question title includes one crude translation I received from the software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Text of Golovnin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HtIxu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="44d32704-448a-48f7-91d5-6d7bddcc5cbd" CreationDate="2018-09-18T00:15:47.023" UserId="8359" Text="About &quot;Horseradish, why are you fucking?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="44d32704-448a-48f7-91d5-6d7bddcc5cbd" CreationDate="2018-09-18T00:15:47.023" UserId="8359" Text="|перевод|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17158" RevisionGUID="bdb512bd-d73f-4c75-925e-3e873fc58f08" CreationDate="2018-09-18T01:56:40.120" UserId="9118" Text="&quot;Ай&quot; is a meaningless filler word. The word &quot;хрен&quot; literally means &quot;horseradish&quot;, a bitter, pungent root vegetable that is not particularly tasty or valuable. In the language it is often euphemistically used as &quot;something cheap, unpleasant or useless&quot; (for example, proverbs like &quot;хрен редьки не слаще&quot;). When you say &quot;а вот хрен тебе&quot;, literally it means &quot;here's some horseradish for you&quot;, but the intended meaning is more like &quot;no you don't&quot; or &quot;you get nothing&quot;. Can't be 100% sure without the context (e. g. the rest of the song), but it seems that &quot;ай вот тебе хрену&quot; is a bit more archaic version of that same phrase. You can read more about хрен [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17159" RevisionGUID="a0998070-3c15-457a-8a9e-d6f4583ae9d3" CreationDate="2018-09-18T05:32:16.987" UserId="10749" Text="'Хрен' is just one of the euphemisms for penis. So &quot;хрен тебе&quot; is essentially the same as &quot;хуй тебе&quot;. It doesn't have anything to do with horseradish or its taste or its value. Just like 'freak' has nothing to do with 'fuck' or 'shoot' with 'shit'. Merely same first letter and a one-syllable word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very roughly translated it will be something like 'Get the funk out' - like that song by Extreme. So naturally, everyone gets what is really meant here, but no actual 'curse' words are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Ай' is comparable to 'oi' or 'hey', it means nothing, just an interjection." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17161" RevisionGUID="11f2ef9e-94da-4c6d-affe-fde0e7a2a0bc" CreationDate="2018-09-18T09:38:05.610" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Он **так** увлёкся уборкой, **что** потерял счет времени. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The structure &quot;так X, что Y&quot; means &quot;so (much) X that Y&quot;, with Action X leading to **End Result** Y. I'm wondering if &quot;столько X, что Y&quot; works the same way: Action X vs End Result Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **столько** раз пытался связаться с ней, **что** потерял счет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is it more like &quot;so (many times) X **to the extent of** Y&quot;, with Y not being so much about the end result as about the **surprising degree** to which X?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17161" RevisionGUID="11f2ef9e-94da-4c6d-affe-fde0e7a2a0bc" CreationDate="2018-09-18T09:38:05.610" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;столько X, что Y&quot; compare with &quot;так X, что Y&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17161" RevisionGUID="11f2ef9e-94da-4c6d-affe-fde0e7a2a0bc" CreationDate="2018-09-18T09:38:05.610" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17162" RevisionGUID="fb3ea2c2-a98b-4868-8863-9203e7fddaa0" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:17:13.313" UserId="8672" Text="I'm wondering when to use one or the other, as at least based on their English translations, it is not easy to distinguish between them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17162" RevisionGUID="fb3ea2c2-a98b-4868-8863-9203e7fddaa0" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:17:13.313" UserId="8672" Text="Difference between &quot;одежда&quot; and &quot;платье&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17162" RevisionGUID="fb3ea2c2-a98b-4868-8863-9203e7fddaa0" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:17:13.313" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17162" RevisionGUID="7bf94ba7-0666-4823-a0c4-c49f3a46c8aa" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:22:13.453" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I'm wondering when to use one or the other, as at least based on their English translations, they are hardly distinguishable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="1340231f-dde0-496d-81e5-6615d0c1c25e" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:39:49.507" UserId="10327" Text="`Одежда` is any wear in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Платье` solely means a female dress in modern Russian. And only occasionally, in some archaic and/or poetic contexts you'll find it used for whatever wear/dress (e.g. &quot;новое платье короля&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="ccae4fff-b129-4ad1-a8a0-f805b5c5cd28" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:51:39.183" UserId="10327" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="`Одежда` is any wear in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Платье` solely means a female dress (see [images](https://www.google.ru/search?q=платье)) in modern Russian. And only occasionally, in some archaic and/or poetic contexts, you'll find it used for whatever wear/dress (e.g. &quot;новое платье короля&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="c28ec809-4975-42af-b411-4637483867d5" CreationDate="2018-09-18T16:59:10.420" UserId="10327" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="`Одежда` is any wear in general (usually except an &quot;underwear&quot; which is &quot;(нижнее) бельё&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Платье` solely means a female dress (see [images](https://www.google.ru/search?q=платье)) in modern Russian. And only occasionally, in some archaic and/or poetic contexts, you'll find it used for whatever wear/dress (e.g. &quot;новое платье короля&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17164" RevisionGUID="305bd0cc-a62a-4563-b85e-08fc013203f8" CreationDate="2018-09-18T19:28:09.270" UserId="4903" Text="**&quot;Так ... что ...&quot;** is a composite sentence where the action in the first clause leads to the result in the second clause. It is different from the second structure in that the action in the first clause occurs once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так наелся, что пришлось некоторое время посидеть молча. *// He ate so much that he had to sit quietly for a while.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Столько ... что ...&quot;** the action in the first clause was repeated multiple times, which leads to the result in the second clause. The result is not a surprise, but a conclusion based on logic, or experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Я столько слышал, что в метро много потрясающе красивых станций, а сам вот посмотришь ― все они почти одинаковые. *// I heard so much about extremely beautiful subway stations, but they look almost the same to me.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17161" RevisionGUID="14f7adae-7b38-47d8-84d3-20b12ac07cef" CreationDate="2018-09-19T03:00:35.457" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1042247049671000064" />
  <row Id="44522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17165" RevisionGUID="19be97d0-9ff6-451a-bf2a-483e2dd49449" CreationDate="2018-09-19T06:16:52.510" UserId="8195" Text="«Мальчик идёт под мостом» - «он проходит под лестницей». Why instrumental is used since movent is implied? I thought that instumental is used when the subject of the sentence does not change its position (like the prepositional case with «в» or «на»). Does «он проходит под лестницу» have different meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17165" RevisionGUID="19be97d0-9ff6-451a-bf2a-483e2dd49449" CreationDate="2018-09-19T06:16:52.510" UserId="8195" Text="Preposition &quot;под&quot; (under, implying movement). Why instrumental and not accusative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17165" RevisionGUID="19be97d0-9ff6-451a-bf2a-483e2dd49449" CreationDate="2018-09-19T06:16:52.510" UserId="8195" Text="|винительный-падеж|творительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17166" RevisionGUID="5c811ce5-aaf6-47fd-959c-153cb7ff4243" CreationDate="2018-09-19T06:28:46.733" UserId="7674" Text="Not specifically because of movement, but because Instrumental case is one of cases to govern preposition **под**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When **под** means **current location**, then it's Instrumental (he's already under the bridge or a staircase).  &#xD;&#xA;When it means **direction**, then it's Accusative. Therefore «он проходит под лестницу» means he moves towards under the staircase, in order to find himself thereunder. Likewise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик идёт под мост &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17166" RevisionGUID="a6260abf-2e0c-46ee-9801-64997dedac1a" CreationDate="2018-09-19T06:48:59.977" UserId="7674" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Not specifically because of movement, but because Instrumental case is one of cases to govern preposition **под**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When **под** means **current location**, then it's Instrumental (he's already under the bridge or a staircase).  &#xD;&#xA;When it means **direction**, then it's Accusative. Therefore «он проходит под лестницу» means he moves towards under the staircase, in order to find himself thereunder. Likewise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик идёт под мост &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such duality also applies to preposition **за**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17166" RevisionGUID="a7b7f732-df5b-4af1-898a-7daca2837f8f" CreationDate="2018-09-19T06:54:58.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Not specifically because of movement, but because Instrumental case is one of cases to govern preposition **под**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When **под** means **current location**, then it's Instrumental (he's already under the bridge or a staircase).  &#xD;&#xA;When it means **direction**, then it's Accusative. Therefore «он проходит под лестницу» means he moves towards under the staircase, in order to find himself thereunder. Likewise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик идёт под мост &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such duality also applies to preposition **за**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly you ***can't*** say **идти** **`над / перед / рядом с `** **мост**, these only govern Instrumental and so denote an established location and not a movement thereto." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17165" RevisionGUID="90219f93-13fc-4951-bf00-07e322a31822" CreationDate="2018-09-19T08:44:09.040" UserId="6097" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="«Мальчик идёт под мостом» - «он проходит под лестницей». Why instrumental is used since movement is implied? I thought that instumental is used when the subject of the sentence does not change its position (like the prepositional case with «в» or «на»). Does «он проходит под лестницу» have different meaning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17165" RevisionGUID="8326eaa1-82d4-4391-9a6d-d3593d8ac067" CreationDate="2018-09-19T11:18:12.157" UserId="8195" Comment="added 946 characters in body" Text="«Мальчик идёт под мостом» - «он проходит под лестницей». Why instrumental is used since movement is implied? I thought that instumental is used when the subject of the sentence does not change its position (like the prepositional case with «в» or «на»). Does «он проходит под лестницу» have different meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question arose when I watched a video about prepositions of direction. In the video there where the above examples which were translated as &quot;the boy is walking under the bridge&quot; and &quot;he walks under the ladder&quot;. In my two grammar books it is written that when &quot;под&quot; denotes movement to a position underneath something, accusative is used &quot;он сели под дерево - they sat down under the tree&quot;. On the contrary, instrumental is used when location is implied &quot;стоять под мостом - to stand under the bridge&quot;. Furthermore in the same article of this book,in another example with &quot;под+instrumental&quot; movement is denoted &quot;плавать под водой - to swim under water&quot;. Is there a difference of meaning between &quot;под+instrumental&quot; and &quot;под+accusative&quot; when movent is implied in the phrase? Is there a possibility that accusative denotes movement until the place and staying there and instumental passing through under the place and walking away afterwards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17166" RevisionGUID="da817fb9-7f5a-497d-bbc5-d2dbe7595e75" CreationDate="2018-09-19T11:50:07.903" UserId="7674" Comment="added 358 characters in body" Text="&gt; *Is there a possibility that accusative denotes movement until the place and staying there and instumental passing through under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; place and walking away afterwards?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental is used not specifically because of movement, but because Instrumental case is one of cases to govern preposition **под**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When **под** means **current location**, then it's Instrumental (he's already under the bridge or a staircase).  &#xD;&#xA;When it means **direction**, then it's Accusative. Therefore «он проходит под лестницу» means he moves towards under the staircase, in order to find himself thereunder. Likewise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик идёт под мост &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another illustration of the difference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавать/плыть под вод**ой** &lt;sup&gt;*Inst*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;BUT   &#xD;&#xA;Нырять/спускаться под вод**у** &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such duality also applies to preposition **за**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly you ***can't*** say **идти** **`над / перед / рядом с `** **мост**, these only govern Instrumental and so denote an established location and not a movement thereto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving from under something is signified with the preposition **из-под** but it governs Genitive case. Likewise the prepositions **от** (from) and **из** (from inside/from within)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17166" RevisionGUID="902ca7cd-459c-44f7-b89e-7260762afaa0" CreationDate="2018-09-19T11:56:20.313" UserId="7674" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="&gt; *Is there a possibility that accusative denotes movement until the place and staying there and instumental passing through under the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; place and walking away afterwards?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental is used not specifically because of movement, but because Instrumental case is one of cases to govern preposition **под**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When **под** means **current location**, then it's Instrumental (he's already under the bridge or a staircase).  &#xD;&#xA;When it means **direction**, then it's Accusative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Does «он проходит под лестницу» have different meaning?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the above said «он проходит под лестницу» means he moves towards under the staircase, in order to find himself thereunder. Likewise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мальчик идёт под мост &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another illustration of the difference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Плавать/плыть под вод**ой** &lt;sup&gt;*Inst*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;BUT   &#xD;&#xA;Нырять/спускаться под вод**у** &lt;sup&gt;*Acc*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such duality also applies to preposition **за**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly you ***can't*** say **идти** **`над / перед / рядом с `** **мост**, these only govern Instrumental and so denote an established location and not a movement thereto.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving from under something is signified with the preposition **из-под** but it governs Genitive case. Likewise the prepositions **от** (from) and **из** (from inside/from within/out of)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17165" RevisionGUID="fd148831-526f-46a0-92b2-f7ca247aaac7" CreationDate="2018-09-19T12:22:41.923" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|предлоги|винительный-падеж|творительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17167" RevisionGUID="382d5024-9332-45ba-a4ab-ce4b660a390b" CreationDate="2018-09-19T13:00:12.263" UserId="134" Text="These are very similar constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reformulate these sentences into questions in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How carried away did he get with the cleaning? So that he lost track of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How many times did I try to reach out to her? So many times that I lost count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, you can notice that these questions allow an answer with a quantifier: &quot;much&quot;, &quot;little&quot;, &quot;more than you&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English has one generic interrogative for questions like these, namely &quot;how&quot;: &quot;how much&quot;, &quot;how long&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian, however, has at least one more: *сколько*, and the corresponding determiner *столько*. In English, it's just a variety of &quot;how&quot; (&quot;how much&quot; or &quot;how many&quot;), with corresponding &quot;so&quot; (&quot;so much&quot; or &quot;so many&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way you can probably see that both these constructs are in fact varieties of the generic &quot;so ... that&quot;, except in Russian &quot;so much&quot; has its own word (*столько*) while others are just the generic &quot;so&quot; (*так*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *столько раз, что* just means &quot;so many times that&quot;, and is not at all different from other &quot;so ... that&quot; constructs which are conveyed by *так ... что*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact you can even rephrase the original Russian sentence this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я так много раз пытался связаться с ней, что потерял счет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which makes it parallel the other one even better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17163" RevisionGUID="cb961d07-2337-4a08-9367-df72f5636fa3" CreationDate="2018-09-19T20:17:09.927" UserId="4714" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="`Одежда` is any clothing in general (usually except &quot;underwear&quot; which is &quot;(нижнее) бельё&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Платье` solely means a female dress (see [images](https://www.google.ru/search?q=платье)) in modern Russian. And only occasionally, in some archaic and/or poetic contexts, you'll find it used for whatever wear/dress (e.g. &quot;новое платье короля&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="97de6884-716b-4b9f-8248-66eb565bbbbc" CreationDate="2018-09-19T21:31:41.783" UserId="8359" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Horseradish, why are you fucking?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="6ea2cba7-80ff-4f46-af3e-f1ccff7d69e0" CreationDate="2018-09-20T01:02:54.013" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; В таком случае помни, что есть масса **опций**: ты всегда можешь воспользоваться доставкой цветов — пусть даже ты вообще в другом городе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, &quot;масса опций&quot; is used with the meaning of &quot;tons of options&quot;, and I'm wondering if the word &quot;опция&quot; is sufficiently widely adopted to be considered a common Russian word rather than a fad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm used to hearing my girlfriend say &quot;вариант&quot; instead, as in &quot;масса вариантов&quot;, and as far as I remember, I've never heard her use &quot;опция&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="6ea2cba7-80ff-4f46-af3e-f1ccff7d69e0" CreationDate="2018-09-20T01:02:54.013" UserId="8672" Text="How commonly is the neologistic word “опция” used as a variant of &quot;вариант&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17168" RevisionGUID="6ea2cba7-80ff-4f46-af3e-f1ccff7d69e0" CreationDate="2018-09-20T01:02:54.013" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="6579effb-a7c6-4020-98db-ce94a28cd791" CreationDate="2018-09-20T01:22:27.047" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Девочки, **по чем** у вас на рынке свинина сейчас? Интересует цена в обычный непраздничный день. Пишите плиз свой населенный пункт. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, the preposition &quot;по&quot; is most frequently followed by dative case, and sometimes by accusative. I've never seen it coupled with prepositional case, so the meaning of &quot;по чём&quot; eludes me here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does &quot;по чём&quot; mean, and in what instances is &quot;по&quot; coupled with prepositional case?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="6579effb-a7c6-4020-98db-ce94a28cd791" CreationDate="2018-09-20T01:22:27.047" UserId="8672" Text="In what instances is the preposition &quot;по&quot; coupled with prepositional case, as in &quot;по чём&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="6579effb-a7c6-4020-98db-ce94a28cd791" CreationDate="2018-09-20T01:22:27.047" UserId="8672" Text="|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17170" RevisionGUID="127a38e6-d1c9-4939-aca1-d7d7024c3cdf" CreationDate="2018-09-20T04:52:52.007" UserId="6539" Text="I don't think it's widely used. Perhaps in science, but not in everyday speech.  We use **варианты, большой выбор, масса возможностей** instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17171" RevisionGUID="a3c807b7-3c61-4089-84f2-75470aecdcbd" CreationDate="2018-09-20T06:42:22.227" UserId="7833" Text="The correct spelling is &quot;почём&quot;. &quot;Почём&quot; is a phraseology (an exception). Means &quot;how much?&quot;, &quot;по какой цене?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17172" RevisionGUID="2fc0e1ef-39ba-4530-b027-576cd93d6340" CreationDate="2018-09-20T07:14:45.443" UserId="6539" Text="As I have already mentioned in my comment there's a mistake in your sentence. Почем should be written in one word, meaning (colloquial) how much does it cost.&#xD;&#xA;But we do use the preposition по with предложный /prepositional case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; При глаголах чувства (тужить, плакать, горевать, тосковать, скучать, соскучиться и т. п.) предлог по употребляется с **дательным** падежом, например: тужить по сыну, плакать по отцу, горевать по мужу, тосковать по родному селу, скучать по Михайловскому. Но личные местоимения 1-го и 2-го лица при указанных глаголах чаще ставятся в **предложном** падеже, например: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;плачет по вас, горюет по нас.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Предлог по с предложным падежом употребляется со значением «после чего-нибудь»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;по истечении срока, по прибытии на место, по окончании школы, по приезде в город." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="32f9ab79-c17e-4006-9b75-93a934c9e28e" CreationDate="2018-09-20T07:25:46.657" UserId="7674" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past inflection of some numerals (or even all above 4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="3706d138-58a2-4658-a6c7-2e18539dc436" CreationDate="2018-09-20T07:31:30.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past inflection of some numerals (or even of the majority above 4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="a7b3496d-a9af-4d0d-8907-984967026a43" CreationDate="2018-09-20T10:27:15.800" UserId="7674" Comment="added 877 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="a1c39866-005f-4138-9336-4c77cf7e7c51" CreationDate="2018-09-20T10:48:42.157" UserId="7674" Comment="added 877 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example of **по** governing Prepositional is when Prepositional acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between Prepositional and Dative has gotten blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function governance of  Prepositional with **по** is maintained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17174" RevisionGUID="cca4c4f8-e7bd-44b0-a7bf-0f72562d0961" CreationDate="2018-09-20T11:44:10.657" UserId="134" Text="*Опция* is quite common in the areas heavily influenced by English, such as IT industry, car sales, mobile networking and telecom. It is a calque from English &quot;option&quot; as in &quot;car option&quot; or &quot;mobile plan option&quot;. Before its advent, *дополнительная услуга, дополнительное оборудование, параметр* etc. were used in the same sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first usage recorded in the corpus is from 2002, in Google Books from 1986. All usages prior to 2005 I could find are exclusive to the areas above. After 2005, the word seems to gain enough traction to be used as a metonymy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 3 января 2015 года истекает максимальный срок содержания Урлашова под стражей во время следствия, стало быть, надо либо судить, либо выпускать. Вторая опция всерьез никем не рассматривается, в городе ждут ясности по первой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ноги – главная опция для секса, а не для семьи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ещё одна новинка музея ― работу по подготовке экспозиции второго зала посетители могут наблюдать «за стеклом». Эта «опция» пользуется огромной популярностью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are deliberate metonymies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17175" RevisionGUID="63c6f8cc-5429-4596-9c51-576bc1f7238f" CreationDate="2018-09-20T12:35:33.887" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **Через** неделю-другую **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек — не рыбка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Спустя** неделю-другую **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек — не рыбка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю, что за предлогом «после» следуют какое-то происходящее действие или событие, например, «обсчёта результатов», тогда как фразе, обозначающей какой-то срок, например, «неделю-другую» требуется предлог «через» или «спустя». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно же, чем по смыслу и употреблению «через X после Y» от «спустя X после Y»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17175" RevisionGUID="63c6f8cc-5429-4596-9c51-576bc1f7238f" CreationDate="2018-09-20T12:35:33.887" UserId="8672" Text="В чем разница между «через X после Y» и «спустя X после Y»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17175" RevisionGUID="63c6f8cc-5429-4596-9c51-576bc1f7238f" CreationDate="2018-09-20T12:35:33.887" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17175" RevisionGUID="90196dd1-c4e0-49c9-bf8f-38ef3aa3eb91" CreationDate="2018-09-20T12:54:17.020" UserId="8672" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Через** неделю-другую **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек — не рыбка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Спустя** неделю-другую **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек — не рыбка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю, что за предлогом «после» следуют какое-то происходящее действие или событие, например, «обсчёта результатов», тогда как фразе, обозначающей какой-то срок, например, «неделю-другую» требуется предлог «через» или «спустя». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно же, чем по смыслу и употреблению «через X после Y» отличается от «спустя X после Y»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17176" RevisionGUID="6d170160-0c48-42b8-ae45-a55ae9c5bade" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:20:19.117" UserId="10986" Text="После обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек — не рыбка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(когда именно оказалось?) &gt; производится уточнение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Через неделю-другую&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Спустя неделю-другую&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я считаю, что в данных двух случаях обе конструкции эквиваленты друг другу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17176" RevisionGUID="b218eeb6-2539-4ac1-bb8f-4fe854765da2" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:28:41.653" UserId="10986" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="После обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек не рыбка. (БЕЗ ТИРЕ!!!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(когда именно оказалось?) &gt; производится уточнение времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Через неделю-другую&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Спустя неделю-другую&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я считаю, что именно в данных двух случаях обе конструкции эквивалентны друг другу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17156" RevisionGUID="a4e4b132-98bc-4d79-9846-d911047c00cf" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:45:22.087" UserId="6539" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt;My question is: when a dictionary does not link to the perfective counterpart of a given imperfective verb, what does that really mean? That the perfective counterpart is not important? Or that the imperfective verb has no true perfective counterpart without changing slightly its meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тянуть has several meanings, according to that it has got different perfective counterparts, or remains imperfective. Just some examples. And you will see the reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ТЯНУТЬ&#xD;&#xA;ТЯНУ́ТЬ, несовер.&#xD;&#xA;1. кого (что). Натягивать, тащить или расправлять; напрягаясь, тащить к себе. (Pull,  spread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть невод – **вытянуть**, тянуть холст – **натянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что. То же, что вести (build)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть  телефонную линию – **протянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Натягивая, волочить что-н. для того, чтобы укрепить вдоль, поперек чего-н. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть веревку через двор. **Протянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. кого (что). Тащить, направляя куда-н. (Pull somewhere )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тянуть баржу. Тянуть кого-н. за рукав – **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. что. Протягивать, вытягивать (give, hold,  stretch)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть руку. Тянуть  шею– **вытянуть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. перен., кого (что). Усиленно содействовать(help, promote)  вытягивать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть приятеля по службе. Тянуть  неуспевающего ученика – **вытянуть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. перен., кого (что). Настойчиво просить, убеждать(persuade ) пойти или поехать куда-н. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тянуть в кино. Тянуть в гости. – **потянуть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.  Влечь, привлекать. (Attract )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Его тянет (безл.) к родным местам (тянут родные места). – **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9 безл., чем. О струе воздуха, запахе: распространяться.(spread)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянет холодом из окна. Тянет дымом.– **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10 что. Всасывать, вбирать, поглощать. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть пиво (медленно пить)– **втянуть**,&#xD;&#xA; Тянуть все силы из кого-н. – **вытянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12. Медленно делать что-н.(not to hurry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Тянуть дело. Тянуть с ответом. Тянуть время.   – **потянуть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13 весить (weigh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;. Свёрток тянет пять килограмм.– **потянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14. обычно безл., что. Вызывать ощущение тяжести, давления или боли. (hurt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Подтяжки тянут. Тянет (безл.) в плечах.  (no)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;17. Красть, тащить.(steal )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Тянуть, что плохо лежит  – **стянуть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17177" RevisionGUID="4552de25-c38a-4dc1-8fd1-6168f9f3f4d4" CreationDate="2018-09-20T13:58:53.000" UserId="10986" Text="Выше уже достаточно написали про значение фразы.&#xD;&#xA;От себя могу добавить, что она (эта фраза) может быть употреблена с целью сокрытия предмета разговора, например, в общественном месте по телефону:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подари ей(подруге) диск с этим самым. - подразумевается, что с эротикой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17178" RevisionGUID="82c93bc3-fde4-49f6-a146-4fe31882ed30" CreationDate="2018-09-20T14:23:17.193" UserId="10986" Text="если Вы видаетесь = если Вы достаточно регулярно (встречаетесь, видите друг друга)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;если Вы увидитесь = если Вы в будущем еще раз его встретите" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17174" RevisionGUID="2be775fb-9ab1-475d-9454-7a763e8f1390" CreationDate="2018-09-20T16:24:53.200" UserId="134" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="*Опция* is quite common in the areas heavily influenced by English, such as IT industry, car sales, mobile networking and telecom. It is a calque from English &quot;option&quot; as in &quot;car option&quot; or &quot;mobile plan option&quot;. Before its advent, *дополнительная услуга, дополнительное оборудование, параметр* etc. were used in the same sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first usage recorded in the corpus is from 2002, in Google Books from 1986. All usages prior to 2005 I could find are exclusive to the areas listed above. After 2005, the word seems to gain enough traction to be used as a metonymy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 3 января 2015 года истекает максимальный срок содержания Урлашова под стражей во время следствия, стало быть, надо либо судить, либо выпускать. Вторая опция всерьез никем не рассматривается, в городе ждут ясности по первой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ноги – главная опция для секса, а не для семьи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Ещё одна новинка музея ― работу по подготовке экспозиции второго зала посетители могут наблюдать «за стеклом». Эта «опция» пользуется огромной популярностью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All those are deliberate metonymies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="eeaf9a99-05a5-494c-a750-d425245fa443" CreationDate="2018-09-20T17:21:58.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 720 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по** governs bona-fide Prepositional in the meaning ***after, upon***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по прибыти**и**/приезд**е**/прилёт**е** - upon arrival   &#xD;&#xA;по окончани**и** - upon completion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i subjectively feel the urge to use Dative (по прибыти**Ю** etc.), it feels more convenient, so it could indicate that in this use Prepositional is a paradigm which is gradually obsolesces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;In fact i think that conceptually **по** governs Prepositional in most cases, despite inflexion assuming the form of Dative (maybe it's heterodox  point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance it does when it acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам  &#xD;&#xA;ходить по двору  &#xD;&#xA;стучать по столу  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the sense of ***by means of***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; связываться по сети   &#xD;&#xA;говорить по телефону  &#xD;&#xA;показывать по телевизору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between these special cases (in my opinion) of Prepositional and Dative has gotten blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function governance of Prepositional with **по** is maintained for plural forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="7f37dcd4-dc3b-4a5d-818a-92952e7e76c6" CreationDate="2018-09-20T17:44:26.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past, inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по** governs bona-fide Prepositional in the meaning ***after, upon***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по прибыти**и**/приезд**е**/прилёт**е** - upon arrival   &#xD;&#xA;по окончани**и** - upon completion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i subjectively feel the urge to use Dative (по прибыти**Ю** etc.), it feels more convenient, so it could indicate that in this use Prepositional is a paradigm which is gradually obsolesces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;Moreover i think that conceptually **по** governs Prepositional in most cases, despite the fact of inflexion assuming the form of Dative (maybe it's a heterodox point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance it does so when it acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам  &#xD;&#xA;ходить по двору  &#xD;&#xA;стучать по столу  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the sense of ***by means of***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; связываться по сети   &#xD;&#xA;говорить по телефону  &#xD;&#xA;показывать по телевизору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between these special cases (in my opinion) of Prepositional and Dative has gotten blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function governance of Prepositional with **по** is maintained for plural forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44563" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17086" RevisionGUID="589f7fb8-96b2-4dbc-a6ae-19196d6471c0" CreationDate="2018-09-20T21:02:05.970" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1042881608162979841" />
  <row Id="44565" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17082" RevisionGUID="406a942d-cf2b-47ef-a876-5f3689f81adc" CreationDate="2018-09-21T03:02:45.580" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1042972370863091712" />
  <row Id="44566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17170" RevisionGUID="0fdf00ea-590f-4899-b80d-d643245d3b0e" CreationDate="2018-09-21T04:46:32.627" UserId="6539" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I don't think it's widely used. When we say &quot;widely &quot;, we mean &quot;everywhere &quot;, universally.  Perhaps in science, in specific fields, but not in everyday speech.  We use **варианты, большой выбор, масса возможностей** instead. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="8a51d4f8-4b88-4de9-983c-781f334cf648" CreationDate="2018-09-21T06:49:57.760" UserId="7674" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past, inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по** governs bona-fide Prepositional in the meaning ***after, upon***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по прибыти**и**/приезд**е**/прилёт**е** - upon arrival   &#xD;&#xA;по окончани**и** - upon completion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i subjectively feel the urge to use Dative (по прибыти**Ю** etc.), it feels more convenient, so it could indicate that in this use Prepositional is a paradigm which is gradually obsolesces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;Moreover i think that conceptually **по** governs Prepositional in most cases, despite the fact of inflexion assuming the form of Dative (maybe it's a heterodox point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance it does so when it acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту &#xD;&#xA;ходить по двору  &#xD;&#xA;стучать по столу   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;плыть по воде  &#xD;&#xA;ехать по суше &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of the words in feminine is identical with the standard ending of Prepositional, eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о чём? - о воде/о суше/о земле/o голове  &#xD;&#xA;по чём? - по воде/по суше/по земле/по голове&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the sense of ***by means of***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; связываться по сети   &#xD;&#xA;говорить по телефону  &#xD;&#xA;показывать по телевизору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between these special cases (in my opinion) of Prepositional and Dative has gotten blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function governance of Prepositional with **по** is maintained for plural forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="44ab2b0c-4f23-4681-8318-c182e2894683" CreationDate="2018-09-21T06:55:16.073" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past, inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по** governs bona-fide Prepositional in the meaning ***after, upon***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по прибыти**и**/приезд**е**/прилёт**е** - upon arrival   &#xD;&#xA;по окончани**и** - upon completion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i subjectively feel the urge to use Dative (по прибыти**Ю** etc.), it feels more convenient, so it could indicate that in this use Prepositional is a paradigm which is gradually obsolesces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;Moreover i think that conceptually **по** governs Prepositional in most cases, despite the fact of inflexion assuming the form of Dative (maybe it's a heterodox point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance it does so when it acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту &#xD;&#xA;ходить по двору  &#xD;&#xA;стучать по столу   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;плыть по воде  &#xD;&#xA;ехать по суше/земле  &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of the words in feminine is identical with the standard ending of Prepositional, eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о чём? - o голове/о воде/о суше/о земле&#xD;&#xA;по чём? - по голове/по воде/по суше/по земле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the sense of ***by means of***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; связываться по сети   &#xD;&#xA;говорить по телефону  &#xD;&#xA;показывать по телевизору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between these special instances (in my opinion) of Prepositional and Dative has gotten blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function governance of Prepositional with **по** is maintained for plural forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="4120a6ec-ffa8-4aba-9a57-45d2b529566b" CreationDate="2018-09-21T07:00:16.387" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past, inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по** governs bona-fide Prepositional in the meaning ***after, upon***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по прибыти**и**/приезд**е**/прилёт**е** - upon arrival   &#xD;&#xA;по окончани**и** - upon completion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i subjectively feel the urge to use Dative (по прибыти**Ю** etc.), it feels more convenient, so it could indicate that in this use Prepositional is a paradigm which is gradually obsolesces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;Moreover i think that conceptually **по** governs Prepositional in most cases, despite the fact of inflexion assuming the form of Dative (maybe it's a heterodox point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance it does so when it acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту   &#xD;&#xA;ходить по двору  &#xD;&#xA;стучать по столу   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;плыть по воде  &#xD;&#xA;ехать по суше/земле  &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of feminine nouns is identical with the standard ending of Prepositional, eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о чём? - o голове/о воде/о суше/о земле  &#xD;&#xA;по чём? - по голове/по воде/по суше/по земле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the sense of ***by means of***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; связываться по сети   &#xD;&#xA;говорить по телефону  &#xD;&#xA;показывать по телевизору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between these special instances (in my opinion) of Prepositional on the one hand and Dative on the other has blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function governance of Prepositional with **по** is maintained for plural forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="a99ce5e6-3f54-40f9-93c7-ebbff94577a6" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:05:46.360" UserId="6545" Text="In Nicholas J Brown's book, The New Penguin Russian Course, in chapter 27, I see the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Во всех книгах, написанных (prep. pl.) этим (instr. sing. m.) автором (instr. sing. m.) до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the &quot;(prep. pl.)&quot; was provided by the book, but this is the case I don't understand. Plural because what was written were book**s**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why prepositional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental would denote who wrote them, i.e. 'with' or 'by' so the last part of the sentence makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: what does '-го' mean in '39-го'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="a99ce5e6-3f54-40f9-93c7-ebbff94577a6" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:05:46.360" UserId="6545" Text="Why the case of this participle - написанных?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="a99ce5e6-3f54-40f9-93c7-ebbff94577a6" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:05:46.360" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="4db161dc-fe4c-4a36-b865-f61bfde798ad" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:16:32.330" UserId="6545" Comment="another case of strange (to me) behavior" Text="In Nicholas J Brown's book, The New Penguin Russian Course, in chapter 27, I see the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Во всех книгах, написанных (prep. pl.) этим (instr. sing. m.) автором (instr. sing. m.) до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the &quot;(prep. pl.)&quot; was provided by the book, but this is the case I don't understand. Plural because what was written were book**s**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why prepositional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental would denote who wrote them, i.e. 'with' or 'by' so the last part of the sentence makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrast this with the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In our shops it is difficult to find books written by modern Russian writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В наших магазинах трудно найти книги, написанные современными российскими писателями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both participles share the same role, yet this one is also not instrumental....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: what does '-го' mean in '39-го'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44580" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="d371a1ab-1d32-4cdd-be6e-2b0e76f7cf2b" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:23:58.850" UserId="6545" Comment="edited title" Text="Why the case of this participle - написанн__?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="0e2b486b-daff-49fe-9825-4f5b5ed71ca5" CreationDate="2018-09-21T16:36:34.810" UserId="6545" Comment="deleted 40 characters in body" Text="In Nicholas J Brown's book, The New Penguin Russian Course, in chapter 27, I see the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Во всех книгах, написанных (prep. pl.) этим (instr. sing. m.) автором (instr. sing. m.) до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the &quot;(prep. pl.)&quot; was provided by the book, but this is the case I don't understand. Plural because what was written were book**s**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why prepositional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental would denote who wrote them, i.e. 'with' or 'by' so the last part of the sentence makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrast this with the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    In our shops it is difficult to find books written by modern Russian writers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    В наших магазинах трудно найти книги, написанные современными российскими писателями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both participles share the same role, yet this one is also not instrumental....?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17182" RevisionGUID="3fb7ca61-481a-40a3-9303-a8a7ff3f2807" CreationDate="2018-09-21T17:02:54.483" UserId="9602" Text="Let’s remove non-essential words so you can clearly see that in both cases the declension of the word “написанные” matches the grammatical role of the word “книги”:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В (каких?) написанных&lt;sup&gt;PREP&lt;/sup&gt; (чём?) книгах&lt;sup&gt;PREP&lt;/sup&gt; есть женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Трудно найти (какие?) написанные&lt;sup&gt;ACC&lt;/sup&gt; (что?) книги&lt;sup&gt;ACC&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual meaning of the word “написанный” and its correspondence with English “by someone” is irrelevant. An adjective like “интересный” would behave exactly the same. What matters is the role of the word “книги”, and that’s what differs between those sentences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17181" RevisionGUID="4a46e98b-32f1-4a33-b2ce-80b87532888b" CreationDate="2018-09-21T17:24:20.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="In Nicholas J Brown's book, The New Penguin Russian Course, in chapter 27, I see the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Во всех книгах, написанных (prep. pl.) этим (instr. sing. m.) автором&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (instr. sing. m.) до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only the &quot;(prep. pl.)&quot; was provided by the book, but this is the case I don't understand. Plural because what was written were book**s**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why prepositional?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instrumental would denote who wrote them, i.e. 'with' or 'by' so the last part of the sentence makes sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrast this with the sentence,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In our shops it is difficult to find books written by modern Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В наших магазинах трудно найти книги, написанные современными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; российскими писателями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that both participles share the same role, yet this one is also not instrumental....?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17183" RevisionGUID="b2c8b595-41a2-4488-bea9-9a99e4ac2b6d" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:31:27.217" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Здесь была металлическая пирамидка, размером с ладонь, **некое** устройство, состоящее из двух пересеченных колец, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how those four synonyms are nuanced and if in this context it is possible to replace &quot;некое устройство&quot; with &quot;какое-то устройство&quot; or &quot;кое-какое устройство&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming the first three &quot;некий&quot;, &quot;какой-то&quot; and &quot;кое-какой&quot; are used to describe a certain (**kind** of) something of an unspecified, unknown nature, whereas &quot;некоторый&quot; is somewhat different and refers more to a certain, unspecified **degree**/**amount** of something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17183" RevisionGUID="b2c8b595-41a2-4488-bea9-9a99e4ac2b6d" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:31:27.217" UserId="8672" Text="Difference between &quot;некий&quot;, &quot;какой-то&quot;, &quot;кое-какой&quot;, and &quot;некоторый&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17183" RevisionGUID="b2c8b595-41a2-4488-bea9-9a99e4ac2b6d" CreationDate="2018-09-21T23:31:27.217" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17017" RevisionGUID="50b4f298-fbfe-4a33-a6b3-2c15470d797e" CreationDate="2018-09-22T00:00:12.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1043288817573289985" />
  <row Id="44588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17184" RevisionGUID="4b3703fe-e53b-4bde-a0e7-d981367b3d1d" CreationDate="2018-09-22T01:34:53.690" UserId="9602" Text="*Некий* is indeed much like the English *certain* (when used figuratively to mean *un*certain). Like the English word, it’s somewhat bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Какой-то* means you don’t know and emphasize that it’s unimportant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Кое-какой* means you know but are choosing not to elaborate, different reasons for that lead to different connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Некоторый* is more like one unspecified member of a discrete set." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44589" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17032" RevisionGUID="dae68d14-ab9b-4fea-9ecb-68b455540f6b" CreationDate="2018-09-22T06:01:33.963" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1043379757226905600" />
  <row Id="44590" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17063" RevisionGUID="679da14d-947e-436a-ae8a-80fc7345b05f" CreationDate="2018-09-22T15:01:06.983" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1043515539417702409" />
  <row Id="44594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17186" RevisionGUID="5dedfac1-6421-4c5c-b407-f46e15763363" CreationDate="2018-09-23T07:02:10.403" UserId="8679" Text="I it my understanding that all of these mean a ***building***, as in “man-made structure.” However, I have been told that **сооружение** and **постройка** are rather technical. What do they really mean? How are they used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17186" RevisionGUID="5dedfac1-6421-4c5c-b407-f46e15763363" CreationDate="2018-09-23T07:02:10.403" UserId="8679" Text="Difference in usage between “здание,” “сооружение” &amp; “постройка”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17186" RevisionGUID="5dedfac1-6421-4c5c-b407-f46e15763363" CreationDate="2018-09-23T07:02:10.403" UserId="8679" Text="|лексикон|терминология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17187" RevisionGUID="9b86b9d7-5c43-4051-8157-2a09cbcd494d" CreationDate="2018-09-23T09:57:56.320" UserId="7674" Text="I'm afraid explaining difference between them is almost a lost cause because their usage is dictated by context. So it would be more fruitful to study instances of their use within context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since their translation into English will also be heavily influenced by context, listing their English equivalents has only so much use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in order for my reply to not sound completely negative, here're their rough English parallels and explanations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - building  &#xD;&#xA;**постройка** - structure  &#xD;&#xA;**сооружение** - construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - normally a solid building in which architectural style can be discerned, **постройка** - a light building or structure, **сооружение** - complex and bulky building or construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, their meanings may overlap due to contextual exigencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could list their Ukrainian versions, which may or may not have any correspondence to similar Polish nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17187" RevisionGUID="438bcf56-ce8f-4537-9424-2331ca5333e2" CreationDate="2018-09-23T10:03:40.397" UserId="7674" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="I'm afraid explaining difference between them is almost a lost cause because their usage is dictated by context. So it would be more fruitful to study instances of their use within context with the help of [Russian national corpus](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html) for example or just with Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since their translation into English will also be heavily influenced by context, listing their English equivalents has only so much use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in order for my reply to not sound completely negative, here're their rough English parallels and explanations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - building  &#xD;&#xA;**постройка** - structure  &#xD;&#xA;**сооружение** - construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - normally a solid building in which architectural style can be discerned, **постройка** - a light building or structure, **сооружение** - complex and bulky building or construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, their meanings may overlap due to contextual exigencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could list their Ukrainian versions, which may or may not have any correspondence to similar Polish nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17187" RevisionGUID="9197a19e-2383-4d8c-8838-0ac07af753f7" CreationDate="2018-09-23T10:15:43.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I'm afraid explaining difference between them is almost a lost cause because their usage is dictated by context. So it would be more fruitful to study instances of their use within context with the help of [Russian national corpus](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html) for example or just with Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since their translation into English will also be heavily influenced by context, listing their English equivalents has only so much use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in order for my reply to not sound completely negative, here're their rough English parallels and explanations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - building  &#xD;&#xA;**постройка** - structure  &#xD;&#xA;**сооружение** - construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - normally a solid building in which architectural style can be discerned with amenities for stay of humans; **постройка** - a light and/or temporary building or structure, often without amenities; **сооружение** - complex and bulky building or construction for special purposes, often industrial. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, their meanings may overlap due to contextual exigencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could list their Ukrainian versions, which may or may not have any correspondence to similar Polish nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17187" RevisionGUID="28b78cbf-f04f-4038-be39-9337a69a1464" CreationDate="2018-09-23T15:19:28.520" UserId="7674" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="I'm afraid explaining difference between them is almost a lost cause because their usage is dictated by context. So it would be more fruitful to study instances of their use within context with the help of [Russian national corpus](http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html) for example or just with Google.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since their translation into English will also be heavily influenced by context, listing their English equivalents has only so much use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in order for my reply to not sound completely negative, here're their rough English parallels and explanations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - building  &#xD;&#xA;**постройка** - structure  &#xD;&#xA;**сооружение** - construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**здание** - normally a solid building in which architectural style can be discerned with amenities for stay of humans; **постройка** - a light and/or temporary building or structure, often without amenities; **сооружение** - complex and bulky building or construction for special purposes, often industrial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's yet 4th word in this set which is **строение**. It for all intents and purposes is synonymous to **постройка** but may also denote a more substantial structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, their meanings may overlap due to contextual exigencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could list their Ukrainian versions, which may or may not have any correspondence to similar Polish nouns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17188" RevisionGUID="d04f8f12-bc8c-4b5a-a7c5-56c7d7ca27da" CreationDate="2018-09-23T17:43:37.707" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Не огорчайтесь, не все так плохо, как кажется поначалу или **исходя из названия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[or]: Не огорчайтесь, не все так плохо, как кажется поначалу или, **исходя из названия**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally, an adverbial participle is preceded by a comma: &quot;как кажется, исходя из названия&quot;. But what about when you have a *parallel* structure like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; как кажется поначалу [или] как кажется, исходя из названия&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Do you keep a comma or drop it in a *combined* phrasing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17188" RevisionGUID="d04f8f12-bc8c-4b5a-a7c5-56c7d7ca27da" CreationDate="2018-09-23T17:43:37.707" UserId="8672" Text="Whether to to keep or remove a comma before an adverbial participle: &quot;, исходя из названия&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17188" RevisionGUID="d04f8f12-bc8c-4b5a-a7c5-56c7d7ca27da" CreationDate="2018-09-23T17:43:37.707" UserId="8672" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="cb16ab86-6444-41ee-a493-92d4af1b58c9" CreationDate="2018-09-23T18:04:01.437" UserId="6545" Text="In Nicholas J. Brown's book, exercise 27/4 has a sentence, roughly expressing the same idea (with and without Past Passive Participles [short,perfective,transitive]) and the question and answer are in the pictures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary question was about the last pair of PPP and past perfective verb, **but** an additional very related part may ask about *mood* - I'm not sure it is a good idea to split into two questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![to translate to English w/ and w/o PPPs][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and translations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![answers for w/ and w/o][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, PPPs are passive, and I would say that past tense verbs are active. Here are some from the two situations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If necessary I will reword my sentence upon receiving suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fS9be.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8xudD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="cb16ab86-6444-41ee-a493-92d4af1b58c9" CreationDate="2018-09-23T18:04:01.437" UserId="6545" Text="Sentence written w/ and w/o participles - passive vs active voice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44608" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="cb16ab86-6444-41ee-a493-92d4af1b58c9" CreationDate="2018-09-23T18:04:01.437" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17190" RevisionGUID="8474a091-976f-4741-9fe3-e4f6c69bc737" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:01:26.347" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but more accurately **THEY had already sold**, in Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but **in his letter the** ***director***  **wrote**, *director* is the subject here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the English **would** comes from the future within the past tense according to the English grammar, but in Russian it's simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because English doesn't really have (at least to my limited knowledge) an equivalent of the Russian reflexive verb **удивляться**, that's why it's translated with PPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?**  &#xD;&#xA;**Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because action of reflexive verbs is directed from the subject onto themself. In the Russian clause there's no other subject which surprises them other than themselves, which is **МЫ**.  &#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion in Russian would look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это нас (очень) удивило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a legit construction only divergent from the wording of the original Russian sentence. Note that this is NOT an impersonal clause, because of the demonstrative pronoun **это** which is its subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="0c2994cc-466a-4d44-a854-d59cffffdd67" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:13:37.647" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="In Nicholas J. Brown's book, exercise 27/4 has a sentence, roughly expressing the same idea (with and without Past Passive Participles [short,perfective,transitive]) and the question and answer are in the pictures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary question was about the last pair of PPP and past perfective verb, **but** an additional very related part may ask about *mood* - I'm not sure it is a good idea to split into two questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![to translate to English w/ and w/o PPPs][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and translations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![answers for w/ and w/o][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, PPPs are passive, and I would say that past tense verbs are active. Here are some from the two situations;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS If necessary I will reword my sentence upon receiving suggestions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fS9be.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8xudD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17190" RevisionGUID="583e7512-ea12-4374-a25c-3ab1edd588a9" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:13:49.680" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but more accurately **THEY had already sold**, in Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but **in his letter the** ***director***  **wrote**, *director* is the subject here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the English **would** comes from the future within the past tense according to the English grammar, but in Russian it's simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because English doesn't really have (at least to my limited knowledge) an equivalent of the Russian reflexive verb **удивляться**, that's why it's translated with past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?**  &#xD;&#xA;**Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because action of reflexive verbs is directed from the subject onto themself. In the Russian clause there's no other subject which surprises them other than themselves, which is **МЫ**.  &#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion in Russian would look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это нас (очень) удивило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a legit construction only divergent from the wording of the original Russian sentence. Note that this is NOT an impersonal clause, because of the demonstrative pronoun **это** which is its subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44612" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="0c2994cc-466a-4d44-a854-d59cffffdd67" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:13:37.647" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44613" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17189" RevisionGUID="8bc3d0d4-391c-4f9f-b19d-0ce84e92242c" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:20:43.960" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17190" RevisionGUID="afebfb52-3abc-4962-9ffa-81b5f54c69dc" CreationDate="2018-09-23T19:28:46.913" UserId="7674" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but more accurately **THEY had already sold**, in Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but **in his letter the** ***director***  **wrote**, *director* is the subject here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the English **would** comes from the future within the past tense according to the English grammar, but in Russian it's simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because English doesn't really have (at least to my limited knowledge) an equivalent of the Russian reflexive verb **удивляться**, that's why it's translated with past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?**  &#xD;&#xA;**Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because action of reflexive verbs is directed from the subject onto themself. In the Russian clause there's no other subject which surprises them other than themselves, which is **МЫ**.  &#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion in Russian would look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это нас (очень) удивило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a legit construction only divergent from the wording of the original Russian sentence. Note that this is NOT an impersonal clause, because of the demonstrative pronoun **это** which is its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one gets creative this dichotomy can be rendered as **`We were wondering`** vs **`It made us wonder`**. As a result we're only left with one inaccurate parallel, that is the passive one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17191" RevisionGUID="1b1cbd04-fedd-4cd2-b131-b1c5de26c6f5" CreationDate="2018-09-23T21:04:05.300" UserId="3680" Text="I'd remove a comma here. `Исходя из` is not an adverbial participle but it is a preposition. And it isn't separated by commas if it is a part of a complex predicate and/or is closely related to it by the sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Details (in Russian)](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_248).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*In contrast, here is a comma:*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне показалось, исходя из названия, что ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17190" RevisionGUID="09fcb179-c8ad-489e-be6a-16ef069cb09a" CreationDate="2018-09-24T06:29:19.350" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but more accurately **THEY had already sold**, in Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but **in his letter the** ***director***  **wrote**, *director* is the subject here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the English **would** comes from the future within the past tense according to the English grammar, but in Russian it's simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because English doesn't really have (at least to my limited knowledge) an equivalent of the Russian reflexive verb **удивляться**, that's why it's translated with past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?**  &#xD;&#xA;**Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because action of reflexive verbs is directed from the subject onto themself. In the Russian clause there's no other subject which surprises them other than themselves, which is **МЫ**.  &#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion in Russian would look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это нас (очень) удивило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a legit construction only divergent from the wording of the original Russian sentence. Note that this is NOT an impersonal clause, because of the demonstrative pronoun **это** which is its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one gets creative this dichotomy can be rendered as **`It made us wonder`** vs **`We were wondering`**. As a result we're only left with one inaccurate parallel, that is the passive one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17190" RevisionGUID="710a1832-5f39-47f2-92c6-1d1fdaff1bc5" CreationDate="2018-09-24T12:00:48.327" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but more accurately **THEY had already sold**, in Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but **in his letter the** ***director***  **wrote**, *director* is the subject here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the English **would** comes from the future within the past tense according to the English grammar, but in Russian it's simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because English doesn't really have (at least to my limited knowledge) an equivalent of the Russian reflexive verb **удивляться**, that's why it's translated with past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?**  &#xD;&#xA;**Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because it doesn't convey the passive voice used in Russian example.    &#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion in Russian would look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это нас (очень) удивило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a legit construction only divergent from the wording of the original Russian sentence. Note that this is NOT an impersonal clause, because of the demonstrative pronoun **это** which is its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the rendering of this clause in the 2nd sentence which could be considered problematic due to the absence of a proper equivalent in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one gets creative this dichotomy can be rendered as **`It made us wonder`** vs **`We were wondering`**. As a result we're only left with one inaccurate parallel, that is the passive one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17190" RevisionGUID="09468d49-6d6a-4e8d-a7b1-cad8b909b608" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:39:59.307" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. уже проданы / уже продали : 'had already been sold' / 'had already sold' - Is this a passive construction versus an active construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but more accurately **THEY had already sold**, in Russian it's an impersonal construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. В среду было объявлено / В среду объявили : 'On Wednesday it was announced' / 'On Wednesday they announced' - Also seems passive vs active&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. было написано / написал : '(it) was written' / '(the letter) wrote' - Again, passive vs active voice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, but **in his letter the** ***director***  **wrote**, *director* is the subject here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. будут куплены / купят : 'would be bought' / '(they) would buy' - Again, passive and then active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4b. An aside, is this true (maybe this is starting to mix tense and mood...) 'would be bought' = 'will be bought'** Actually I would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed this conditional English translation come from a Russian&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence with 'бы' in it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the English **would** comes from the future within the past tense according to the English grammar, but in Russian it's simple future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what happened here? Why the same?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Мы были очень удивлены / Мы очень удивились : 'We were very surprised' -- in both cases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because English doesn't really have (at least to my limited knowledge) an equivalent of the Russian reflexive verb **удивляться**, that's why it's translated with past participle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Should the first situation be translated as: 'It was surprising to us...' - too much like impersonal dative case construction?**  &#xD;&#xA;**Maybe 'It very much surprised us'?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because it doesn't convey the passive voice used in Russian example.    &#xD;&#xA;Your suggestion in Russian would look like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это нас (очень) удивило&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is a legit construction only divergent from the wording of the original Russian sentence. Note that this is NOT an impersonal clause, because of the demonstrative pronoun **это** which is its subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the rendering of this clause in the 2nd sentence which could be considered problematic due to the absence of a proper equivalent in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one gets creative this dichotomy can be rendered as **`It made us wonder`** vs **`We were wondering`**. But as result we lose the accuracy of  the passive voice translation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="0e58d5ce-9d47-4ba1-b6eb-aa7fd2b05ca9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T01:12:22.147" UserId="10878" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We Have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What Would You Like To Eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZKAxP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="0e58d5ce-9d47-4ba1-b6eb-aa7fd2b05ca9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T01:12:22.147" UserId="10878" Text="WHEN TO USE WHICH WITH &quot;ЕСТЬ&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="0e58d5ce-9d47-4ba1-b6eb-aa7fd2b05ca9" CreationDate="2018-09-25T01:12:22.147" UserId="10878" Text="|грамматика|значения|порядок-слов|разница|wording|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17193" RevisionGUID="1a481e70-e858-4186-af25-b3cdb5283367" CreationDate="2018-09-25T04:43:50.980" UserId="6539" Text="These two &quot;есть&quot; are homonyms. Есть like &quot;to eat &quot; and есть like &quot;to own, possess,have&quot;In case of possession we can use the verb or leave it out. And in most cases we don't use the verb. But sometimes we use it for emphasis or you can't do without it (in questions mostly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У нас (есть) большие возможности.У него много друзей. У вас есть конверты?– Да, есть. Есть ли какие‐нибудь новости о нем? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for есть --to eat, we often say that sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть что‐нибудь поесть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="3c767f7b-af15-4be6-9b2b-f501e867986c" CreationDate="2018-09-25T05:27:38.260" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Oчевидно, что знаний им не хватает, зато готовности рассуждать обо всем на свете **хоть отбавляй**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is a figurative expression/predicate with the meaning of &quot;(there's) **plenty** / **more than enough** (of something)&quot;, but I fail to see how &quot;хоть + imperative&quot; gets to have this meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="3c767f7b-af15-4be6-9b2b-f501e867986c" CreationDate="2018-09-25T05:27:38.260" UserId="8672" Text="How to literally interpret &quot;хоть отбавляй&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="3c767f7b-af15-4be6-9b2b-f501e867986c" CreationDate="2018-09-25T05:27:38.260" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17193" RevisionGUID="8a204e0e-2558-4012-bb82-acde9694b387" CreationDate="2018-09-25T05:46:39.710" UserId="6539" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="These two &quot;есть&quot; are homonyms. Есть like &quot;to eat &quot; and есть like &quot;to own, possess,have&quot;. For choosing just consider the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of possession we can use the verb or leave it out. And in most cases we don't use the verb. But sometimes we use it for emphasis or you can't do without it (in questions mostly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У нас (есть) большие возможности.У него много друзей. У вас есть конверты?– Да, есть. Есть ли какие‐нибудь новости о нем? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for есть --to eat, we often say that sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас есть что‐нибудь поесть?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides there's есть meaning &quot;exists&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Есть многое на свете,  друг Горацио,что и не снилось нашим мудрецам." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17195" RevisionGUID="df258a51-8bdc-4e53-bf6a-11c38538bf5b" CreationDate="2018-09-25T06:04:27.647" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;ОТБА́ВИТЬ, отбавлю, отбавишь, совер. (к отбавлять), что и чего. Отделить, отнять, отлить, отсыпать и т.п. часть чего-нибудь. Отбавить воды из ведра. Отбавить муки из мешка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literary meaning is &quot;to make less quantity&quot;. The figurative one is &quot;too many, much&quot;. &quot;Хоть отбавляй&quot; shows a critical point, situation, meaning if you don't make it less, it will pour out of the container or explode, or do something negative. &quot;Хоть &quot; here expresses that you are forced to take some action to prevent a negative event. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="3aef1dfd-66c2-48f6-9255-6218210d5694" CreationDate="2018-09-25T08:22:43.463" UserId="6097" Comment="edited body; edited title; removed picture" Text="Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44630" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="3aef1dfd-66c2-48f6-9255-6218210d5694" CreationDate="2018-09-25T08:22:43.463" UserId="6097" Comment="edited body; edited title; removed picture" Text="When to use which with &quot;есть&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17196" RevisionGUID="4d1ae861-cf64-4505-9038-19233f89e532" CreationDate="2018-09-25T08:38:05.283" UserId="5443" Text="The verb **отбавить** means '*to remove some (excessive) quantity*', typically of an ingredient at cooking. So, the imperative **отбавляй** combined with **хоть** (=~if you like), means '*it's in such excess, that if you reduce it somehow, there would still be enough of it*.' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Their lack of knowledge is evident, nevertheless, there's **no shortage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of** their eagerness to discuss everything on earth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="2ca5a54b-0e50-467e-8e81-3dfb2ef5c184" CreationDate="2018-09-25T10:10:08.557" UserId="11002" Text="I've read A lady with a lapdog / Дама с собачкой recently and I am curious as to the meaning of this sentence in the first chapter about Dmitry's wife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она много читала, не писала в письмах ъ, называла мужа не&#xD;&#xA;Дмитрием, а Димитрием, а он втайне считал ее недалекой, узкой, неизящной,&#xD;&#xA;боялся ее и не любил бывать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* She writes without ъ - I guess this means she wrote with a kind of reformed orthography?&#xD;&#xA;* She called him Dimitry instead of Dmitry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book was published in 1899 but the reform of 1917 got rid of the ъ at the end of words. So does this mean that she started writing phonetically before the spelling was officially reformed? Does that make her uneducated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Chekhov trying to say that she went over the top to be modern? Is calling him Dimitry a way of &quot;foreignising&quot; someone's name, as if I was to over-pronounce &quot;croissant&quot; in English with an exaggerated French accent? Is Димитрий an upper, or lower class variant of Дмитрий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the context it's clear that Dmitry finds his wife irritating, however it's unclear exactly how/why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* is she uneducated and doesn't know how to spell?&#xD;&#xA;* is she over-educated and a show-off with her reformed spelling and mispronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;* does she just try to be different for the sake of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="2ca5a54b-0e50-467e-8e81-3dfb2ef5c184" CreationDate="2018-09-25T10:10:08.557" UserId="11002" Text="Dmitry's wife in Lady with a Lapdog, her spelling and calling him Dimitry - what does it mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="2ca5a54b-0e50-467e-8e81-3dfb2ef5c184" CreationDate="2018-09-25T10:10:08.557" UserId="11002" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="ca8f3f90-b31b-4f6b-9dbc-ca7e5399d509" CreationDate="2018-09-25T11:11:25.180" UserId="3680" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I've read &quot;A lady with a lapdog&quot; / &quot;Дама с собачкой&quot; recently and I am curious as to the meaning of this sentence in the first chapter about Dmitry's wife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она много читала, не писала в письмах ъ, называла мужа не&#xD;&#xA;Дмитрием, а Димитрием, а он втайне считал ее недалекой, узкой, неизящной,&#xD;&#xA;боялся ее и не любил бывать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* She writes without ъ - I guess this means she wrote with a kind of reformed orthography?&#xD;&#xA;* She called him Dimitry instead of Dmitry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book was published in 1899 but the reform of 1917 got rid of the ъ at the end of words. So does this mean that she started writing phonetically before the spelling was officially reformed? Does that make her uneducated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Chekhov trying to say that she went over the top to be modern? Is calling him Dimitry a way of &quot;foreignising&quot; someone's name, as if I was to over-pronounce &quot;croissant&quot; in English with an exaggerated French accent? Is Димитрий an upper, or lower class variant of Дмитрий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the context it's clear that Dmitry finds his wife irritating, however it's unclear exactly how/why:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* is she uneducated and doesn't know how to spell?&#xD;&#xA;* is she over-educated and a show-off with her reformed spelling and mispronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;* does she just try to be different for the sake of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44636" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="74d647f6-faac-4a19-be45-a69256882eba" CreationDate="2018-09-25T12:08:20.100" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44637" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="8d991fab-bc09-48d8-a565-431aa66004e5" CreationDate="2018-09-25T21:01:52.527" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1044693490888781827" />
  <row Id="44638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17186" RevisionGUID="a57f25ea-7430-4b94-ac09-9a01ba15935b" CreationDate="2018-09-26T09:01:14.607" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1044874525798805505" />
  <row Id="44639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17198" RevisionGUID="fc379254-687e-4b11-a6fe-5d0f888ac700" CreationDate="2018-09-26T09:14:23.633" UserId="10140" Text="Я как раз услышал, как используют слово &quot;это самое&quot; ещё в одном значении, и решил собрать вместе все ответы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (@Баян Купи-ка)  Как попытка напоминания себе и собеседнику о том, о чём только что или недавно шла речь, за которой как правило сразу следует воспроизведение того, что говорящий имел виду. В этом случае оно по сути значит &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (@Баян Купи-ка) Вне связи с необходимостью напоминания, а просто как заполнитель паузы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (@Илья) Употребление с целью сокрытия предмета разговора, например, в общественном месте по телефону:&#xD;&#xA; Подари ей(подруге) диск с этим самым. - подразумевается, что с эротикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Когда человек не может вспомнить название определённого предмета, или например имя человека: &quot;Ты не знаешь, придёт завтра, этот самый.&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;   Однако это значение возможно перекрывается с первым. Хотя может быть на самом деле они и идентичны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17198" RevisionGUID="d208d60e-b4eb-447e-8a7b-7b1319265870" CreationDate="2018-09-26T09:55:41.243" UserId="10140" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Я как раз услышал, как используют слово &quot;это самое&quot; ещё в одном значении, и решил собрать вместе все ответы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (@Баян Купи-ка)  Как попытка напоминания себе и собеседнику о том, о чём только что или недавно шла речь, за которой как правило сразу следует воспроизведение того, что говорящий имел виду. В этом случае оно по сути значит &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (@Баян Купи-ка) Вне связи с необходимостью напоминания, а просто как заполнитель паузы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (@Илья) Употребление с целью сокрытия предмета разговора, например, в общественном месте по телефону:&#xD;&#xA; Подари ей(подруге) диск с этим самым. - подразумевается, что с эротикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Когда человек не может вспомнить название определённого предмета, или например имя человека: &quot;Ты не знаешь, придёт завтра, этот самый..?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   Однако это значение возможно перекрывается с первым. Хотя может быть на самом деле они и идентичны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17199" RevisionGUID="ea907014-54b4-499f-aa4b-1c8ea8d34e3f" CreationDate="2018-09-26T16:45:38.047" UserId="310" Text="`это самое` can also used as an euphemism, for sexual intercourse usually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something naughty is being discussed, speaker is not comfortable with this topic so they would employ `это самое`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found an example on second page of search [on ruscorpora][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%FD%F2%EE%20%F1%E0%EC%EE%E5&amp;p=2&amp;docid=114430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="01a70feb-c2bf-4658-ac9d-0455eb823da8" CreationDate="2018-09-26T21:50:06.230" UserId="10878" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JF7fV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44643" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17183" RevisionGUID="5f5deea7-361e-405c-bbc5-57bccbd2cfee" CreationDate="2018-09-27T00:01:42.790" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1045101136552882177" />
  <row Id="44644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="744ef113-291c-4652-864c-c6678df954f9" CreationDate="2018-09-27T09:08:30.383" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17201" RevisionGUID="f16d0e50-c47e-4403-9256-b0eb299625fb" CreationDate="2018-09-27T13:13:49.983" UserId="11008" Text="This is synonyms. No actual difference" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17198" RevisionGUID="3fd0d725-d252-43e2-96f0-afafd43d32d7" CreationDate="2018-09-27T14:15:29.777" UserId="10140" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="Я как раз услышал, как используют слово &quot;это самое&quot; ещё в одном значении, и решил собрать вместе все ответы:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. (@Баян Купи-ка)  Как попытка напоминания себе и собеседнику о том, о чём только что или недавно шла речь, за которой как правило сразу следует воспроизведение того, что говорящий имел виду. В этом случае оно по сути значит &quot;именно это&quot; или &quot;как раз это&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. (@Баян Купи-ка) Вне связи с необходимостью напоминания, а просто как заполнитель паузы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. (@Илья) Употребление с целью сокрытия предмета разговора, например, в общественном месте по телефону:&#xD;&#xA; Подари ей(подруге) диск с этим самым. - подразумевается, что с эротикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Здесь я бы обобщил ответ @Илья и сказал, что &quot;это самое&quot; можно употребить в случае, когда что-то подразумевается, всем понятно, о чём идёт речь.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Когда человек не может вспомнить название определённого предмета, или например имя человека: &quot;Ты не знаешь, придёт завтра, этот самый..?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   Однако это значение возможно перекрывается с первым. Хотя может быть на самом деле они и идентичны." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44650" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="bba3889d-390b-4a02-a333-6aa8158bec36" CreationDate="2018-09-27T19:40:21.553" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4903,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Vitaly&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:310,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;alamar&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17202" RevisionGUID="08b5ea2d-7793-4a9c-bdef-6f699d140821" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:27:26.980" UserId="9603" Text="So I just came across the following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошло 2 года,а я все слушаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to make a guess I'd translate this to something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's been two years and still i'm listening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that, все is being used instead  ещё, so my questions is: what's the difference between them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17202" RevisionGUID="08b5ea2d-7793-4a9c-bdef-6f699d140821" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:27:26.980" UserId="9603" Text="Usage of &quot;все&quot; vs &quot;ещё&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17202" RevisionGUID="08b5ea2d-7793-4a9c-bdef-6f699d140821" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:27:26.980" UserId="9603" Text="|перевод|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="c7e6617c-b473-4e69-ac16-d563a04e32ab" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:28:18.280" UserId="10878" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WZ4ef.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="8dcfa4f4-157a-44c7-b760-2e09aea05b9d" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:46:54.313" UserId="10878" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the word &quot;**не**&quot; used in the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**мне не нравится**&quot;= &quot;**I Don't** Like&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the contrary &quot;**нет**&quot; is used in this one:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**у меня нет**&quot;= &quot;I **Don't** Have&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a rule that Always &quot;мне&quot; goes with &quot;не&quot; and &quot;меня&quot; with &quot;нет&quot;, I don't find any reasons for the distinction since in English both sentences would include the &quot;I do not&quot; fragment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5qzIj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="8dcfa4f4-157a-44c7-b760-2e09aea05b9d" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:46:54.313" UserId="10878" Text="When To Use Which With &quot;не &amp; нет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="8dcfa4f4-157a-44c7-b760-2e09aea05b9d" CreationDate="2018-09-28T01:46:54.313" UserId="10878" Text="|грамматика|выражения|узус|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17204" RevisionGUID="a500beea-2ce6-4c03-9502-eaf732635fa7" CreationDate="2018-09-28T02:00:03.730" UserId="11010" Text="I'm a fairly novice speaker but I think I can explain this well enough. Usually &quot;не&quot; is used to negate a verb, for example: &quot;Я *не* хочу...&quot; -&gt; &quot; I *do NOT* want...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second construction you used, нет still means no. Although the English equivalent of &quot;У меня нет...&quot; is &quot;I don't have...&quot;, grammatically it is closer to &quot;At me, there is/are no...&quot;. So while non-native Russian speakers will think of нет as &quot;do not&quot; in this scenario, it still means &quot;no&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17205" RevisionGUID="54c30ffe-6e09-4002-bbb4-d81b13322071" CreationDate="2018-09-28T02:45:00.893" UserId="10878" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/duUAI.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not only confused with the overall definition and distinction between &quot;меня&quot; and &quot;я&quot; but also when to use which when 2 different phrases containing one of them each merge together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here we have &quot;**я бы**&quot; =  I would&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Then we have &quot;**мне хотелось**&quot; =  &quot;I wanted&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when conforming the phrase &quot;I would like&quot; as in &quot;restaurant ordering scenarios&quot; what comes up is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;**мне хотелось бы**&quot; why not &quot;**я хотелось бы**&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also from my online russian learning courses seems that this last one (мне хотелось бы), is english translated as &quot;I would like&quot; but that doesn't make sense to me since &quot;to like / to enjoy&quot; is &quot;нравится&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the correct way to translate it be &quot;I would want&quot; instead ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17205" RevisionGUID="54c30ffe-6e09-4002-bbb4-d81b13322071" CreationDate="2018-09-28T02:45:00.893" UserId="10878" Text="Difference Between and when to select which when they fuse. &quot;меня&quot; V.S &quot;я&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17205" RevisionGUID="54c30ffe-6e09-4002-bbb4-d81b13322071" CreationDate="2018-09-28T02:45:00.893" UserId="10878" Text="|грамматика|выражения|узус|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17206" RevisionGUID="6f2400fe-2e93-4219-aefb-602c2ec7e09e" CreationDate="2018-09-28T04:49:05.510" UserId="11011" Text="&gt; I am not only confused with the overall definition and distinction between &quot;меня&quot; and &quot;я&quot; but also when to use which when 2 different phrases containing one of them each merge together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically speaking, ```я``` can be translated as 'I', and ```меня``` is 'me'. First is the subject, second is the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right, ```я бы``` can be translated as 'I would'. For example, ```я бы выпил чаю``` - 'I would drink some tea'. And that's correct too, ```мне хотелось``` means 'I wanted'. ```Мне хотелось выпить чаю``` = 'I wanted to drink some tea'. However, ```Мне бы хотелось выпить чаю``` have the same presupposing meaning and can be translated as 'I would drink some tea'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about the phrase 'I would like', the best translation for it is ```я бы хотел```. ```Я хотелось бы``` is grammatically incorrect. ```Мне хотелось бы``` is acceptable, and it means the same as ```я бы хотел```, however it's very tiny nuance. Usually 1st option is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17206" RevisionGUID="f4cd28f3-f6b1-423b-8a9d-97f5407962b3" CreationDate="2018-09-28T05:01:07.007" UserId="11011" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="&gt; I am not only confused with the overall definition and distinction between &quot;меня&quot; and &quot;я&quot; but also when to use which when 2 different phrases containing one of them each merge together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically speaking, **я** can be translated as 'I', and **меня** is 'me'. First is the subject, second is the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right, **я бы** can be translated as 'I would'. For example, **я бы выпил чаю** - 'I would drink some tea'. And that's correct too, **мне хотелось** means 'I wanted'. It's the same as **я хотел**. **Мне хотелось выпить чаю** = 'I wanted to drink some tea', the same as **я хотел выпить чаю**. However, **Мне бы хотелось выпить чаю** have the same presupposing meaning as in **я бы выпил чаю** and can be translated as 'I would drink some tea'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about the phrase 'I would like', the best translation for it is **я бы хотел**. **Я хотелось бы** is grammatically incorrect. **Мне хотелось бы** is acceptable, and it means the same as **я бы хотел**, however it's very tiny nuance. Usually 1st option is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17207" RevisionGUID="92247445-4ee3-41e6-9113-4ba6761541f9" CreationDate="2018-09-28T05:13:06.470" UserId="5443" Text="There's **no** *literal* English analog of **мне хотелось бы**, because it's an *impersonal* form, so literal combination of words in their cases (like this: *мне = to me; бы = would; хотелось = **it** was a wish*) would bring to a strange English phrase, that is never used in the same situation: **it would be a wish to me**. That is why both **мне хотелось бы** and **я бы хотел** are translated as **I would like**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17206" RevisionGUID="97235de0-c29f-4353-b7a6-d4b6f75f9cf5" CreationDate="2018-09-28T05:18:41.617" UserId="11011" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="&gt; I am not only confused with the overall definition and distinction between &quot;меня&quot; and &quot;я&quot; but also when to use which when 2 different phrases containing one of them each merge together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically speaking, **я** can be translated as 'I', and **меня** is 'me'. First is the subject, second is the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right, **я бы** can be translated as 'I would'. For example, **я бы выпил чаю** - 'I would drink some tea'. And that's correct too, **мне хотелось** means 'I wanted'. It's the same as **я хотел**. **Мне хотелось выпить чаю** = 'I wanted to drink some tea', the same as **я хотел выпить чаю**. However, **Мне бы хотелось выпить чаю** have the same presupposing meaning as in **я бы хотел выпил чаю**, or **я бы выпил чаю** and can be translated as 'I would drink some tea'. **Бы** changes everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about the phrase 'I would like', the best translation for it is **я бы хотел**. **Я хотелось бы** is grammatically incorrect. **Мне хотелось бы** is acceptable, it means the same as **я бы хотел**, however it's very tiny nuance. Usually 1st option is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="334e14cd-dd04-4d32-b5fe-2fc45de42cb2" CreationDate="2018-09-28T05:48:26.153" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17205" RevisionGUID="58adbc03-a438-45da-b269-bd352a32ba0b" CreationDate="2018-09-28T05:51:14.277" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="I am not only confused with the overall definition and distinction between &quot;меня&quot; and &quot;я&quot; but also when to use which when 2 different phrases containing one of them each merge together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Here we have &quot;**я бы**&quot; =  I would&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Then we have &quot;**мне хотелось**&quot; =  &quot;I wanted&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when conforming the phrase &quot;I would like&quot; as in &quot;restaurant ordering scenarios&quot; what comes up is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&quot;**мне хотелось бы**&quot; why not &quot;**я хотелось бы**&quot;?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also from my online russian learning courses seems that this last one (мне хотелось бы), is english translated as &quot;I would like&quot; but that doesn't make sense to me since &quot;to like / to enjoy&quot; is &quot;нравится&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the correct way to translate it be &quot;I would want&quot; instead ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="93484895-89e2-4f20-875a-75c018f08b5a" CreationDate="2018-09-28T05:53:24.573" UserId="10878" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sImPI.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="875dc088-b641-4f78-852d-8f276a73e2c2" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:01:57.580" UserId="7674" Text="I don't think **всё** alone in the sense of **ещё** is bookish, i use it in mundane conversations, and your sentence in Russian is perfectly mundane. But it does in my view have a certain tinge of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё** is a straight ***still***, but **всё ещё** and **всё** have a connotation of **can't stop *+ gerund***, that is doing something almost against one's will, obsessively. And in **всё** alone this connotation is stronger. It's usually said with a shade of regret, helplessness or irony." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="d1285a97-c8ff-43e7-b834-642015eb96dd" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:10:53.107" UserId="7674" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="I don't think **всё** alone in the sense of **ещё** is bookish, i use it in mundane conversations, and your sentence in Russian is perfectly mundane. But it does in my view have a certain tinge of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё** is a straight ***still***, but **всё ещё** and **всё** have a connotation of **can't stop *+ gerund***, that is continuing to do something almost against all odds, against one's will, or obsessively. And in **всё** alone this connotation is stronger. It's usually said with a shade of regret, helplessness or irony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она его видеть не хочет, а он всё ходит к ней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За окном уже стояла глубокая ночь, а я всё читал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both, your Russian sentence and in this example **всё** introduces a contrast to the content of the previous clause, that is something *continues* to be done or to happen despite circumstance described in another clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="aba3d6c1-3086-4672-9d03-8d7091430e18" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:19:39.517" UserId="7674" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="I don't think **всё** alone in the sense of **ещё** is bookish, i use it in mundane conversations, and your sentence in Russian is perfectly mundane. But it does in my view have a certain tinge of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё** is a straight ***still***, but **всё ещё** often and **всё** always are used in combination with alternative conjunction **a** and have a connotation of **can't stop *+ gerund***, that is continuing to do something almost against all odds, against one's will, or obsessively. And in **всё** alone this connotation is stronger. It's usually said with a shade of regret, helplessness or irony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она его видеть не хочет, а он всё ходит к ней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За окном уже стояла глубокая ночь, а я всё читал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both, your Russian sentence and in this example **всё** is used in a clause contrasting with another clause to mean that something *continues* to be done or to happen despite circumstance described in another clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="9a530ea5-499a-4ed2-84a1-c92df1343e6a" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:41:43.387" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I don't think **всё** alone in the sense of **ещё** is bookish, i use it in mundane conversations, and your sentence in Russian is perfectly mundane. But it does in my view have a certain tinge of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё** is a straight ***still***, but **всё ещё** often and **всё** almost exclusively are used in combination with alternative conjunction **a** and have a connotation of **can't stop *+ gerund***, that is continuing to do something almost against all odds, against one's will, or obsessively. And in **всё** alone this connotation is stronger. It's usually said with a shade of regret, helplessness or irony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она его видеть не хочет, а он всё ходит к ней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За окном уже стояла глубокая ночь, а я всё читал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both, your Russian sentence and in this example **всё** is used in a clause contrasting with another clause to mean that something *continues* to be done or to happen despite circumstance described in another clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17209" RevisionGUID="98a372cb-819e-4791-9fc6-9ef695683f7d" CreationDate="2018-09-28T08:57:03.890" UserId="6539" Text="Дмитрий and  Димитрий are variants of the same name of the greek origin. The form Димитрий is still used by the church and is considered to be more ancient than the simplified derivative Дмитрий. So Димитрий is higher in register than Дмитрий and sounds more noble. An uneducated person wouldn't use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the reform in the writing and changes connected with it, they say that these revolutionary ideas about the extreme difficulty of writing originally occurred some scholars as far as the 18th century. The first attempt was to exclude the letter «ижица» from the alphabet by the Academy of Sciences in 1735, in 1787 one part of «Academic News» was published without Ъ at the end of words. It was done on the initiative of the head of the Academy of Sciences Сергей Герасимович Домашнев. So the ideas were popular a century before the reform.&#xD;&#xA;Who could support such ideas? Only educated people.&#xD;&#xA;I won't go farther into literature questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17208" RevisionGUID="62653ed4-48d2-4550-b4ef-ced0d803d012" CreationDate="2018-09-28T09:33:05.877" UserId="7674" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="I don't think **всё** alone in the sense of **ещё** is bookish, i use it in mundane conversations, and your sentence in Russian is perfectly mundane. But it does in my view have a certain tinge of meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ещё** is a straight ***still***, but **всё ещё** often and **всё** almost exclusively are used in combination with alternative conjunction **a** and have a connotation of **can't stop *+ gerund***, that is continuing to do something almost against all odds, against one's will, or obsessively. And in **всё** alone this connotation is stronger. It's usually said with a shade of regret, helplessness or irony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она его видеть не хочет, а он всё ходит к ней&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За окном уже стояла глубокая ночь, а я всё читал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both, your Russian sentence and in this example **всё** is used in a clause contrasting with another clause to mean that something *continues* to be done or to happen despite circumstance described in another clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: It occurred to me that this **всё** could be a variant of **всё равно** which in contrastive clauses means ***despite that*** and also ***still***. So&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошло 2 года, а я **всё** слушаю   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошло 2 года, а я **всё** ***равно*** слушаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;although not fully synonymous are still (apropos) very close in meaning&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17206" RevisionGUID="09db8ebe-c895-45e9-9af9-6b1a68d662ad" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:12:48.640" UserId="1836" Comment="minor gramatical fix" Text="&gt; I am not only confused with the overall definition and distinction between &quot;меня&quot; and &quot;я&quot; but also when to use which when 2 different phrases containing one of them each merge together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically speaking, **я** can be translated as 'I', and **меня** is 'me'. First is the subject, second is the object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's right, **я бы** can be translated as 'I would'. For example, **я бы выпил чаю** - 'I would drink some tea'. And that's correct too, **мне хотелось** means 'I wanted'. It's the same as **я хотел**. **Мне хотелось выпить чаю** = 'I wanted to drink some tea', the same as **я хотел выпить чаю**. However, **Мне бы хотелось выпить чаю** have the same presupposing meaning as in **я бы хотел выпить чаю**, or **я бы выпил чаю** and can be translated as 'I would drink some tea'. **Бы** changes everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking about the phrase 'I would like', the best translation for it is **я бы хотел**. **Я хотелось бы** is grammatically incorrect. **Мне хотелось бы** is acceptable, it means the same as **я бы хотел**, however it's very tiny nuance. Usually 1st option is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="90dc10e1-4121-43f6-a359-257cf64db8c0" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:24:43.523" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="Why is the word &quot;**не**&quot; used in the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**мне не нравится**&quot;= &quot;**I Don't** Like&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the contrary &quot;**нет**&quot; is used in this one:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**у меня нет**&quot;= &quot;I **Don't** Have&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a rule that Always &quot;мне&quot; goes with &quot;не&quot; and &quot;меня&quot; with &quot;нет&quot;, I don't find any reasons for the distinction since in English both sentences would include the &quot;I do not&quot; fragment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="c3a68923-057c-4824-86ac-540dda269981" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:29:48.080" UserId="3680" Comment="stop it!" Text="Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="b328e8ac-3f9a-4899-baff-a8e08fffd915" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:33:55.573" UserId="10878" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QzfYf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="47919a17-0cd4-4876-9ea9-080e2538dd5f" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:36:11.113" UserId="10878" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Why is the word &quot;**не**&quot; used in the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**мне не нравится**&quot;= &quot;**I Don't** Like&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the contrary &quot;**нет**&quot; is used in this one:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**у меня нет**&quot;= &quot;I **Don't** Have&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a rule that Always &quot;мне&quot; goes with &quot;не&quot; and &quot;меня&quot; with &quot;нет&quot;, I don't find any reasons for the distinction since in English both sentences would include the &quot;I do not&quot; fragment.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UWSzy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="69871341-4f5b-4755-bd97-8e239c7d7560" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:40:49.067" UserId="10271" Text=" - память **вернулась** к ним [his memory (has) returned (at last)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **возвращалась** к ним [his memory was coming back (gradually)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **возвращаемся** к ним [his memory is coming back (gradually)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **вернётся** к ним [his memory will return (someday)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of the imperfective future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **будет возвращаться** к ним&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="69871341-4f5b-4755-bd97-8e239c7d7560" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:40:49.067" UserId="10271" Text="In what context is the imperfective future tense &quot;будет возвращаться&quot; used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="69871341-4f5b-4755-bd97-8e239c7d7560" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:40:49.067" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17211" RevisionGUID="b0cc8ac0-9563-4c79-8954-1396c69db346" CreationDate="2018-09-28T11:59:20.823" UserId="9673" Text="That corresponds to Future Progressive in English: The memory will be coming back to them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44685" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17152" RevisionGUID="596707af-12ae-4bc3-a6a6-ec639b9680bc" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:01:36.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1045644691474182144" />
  <row Id="44686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="06eb42c7-652f-4d14-99de-8d49c4253641" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:19:55.170" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="Lets look at these 2 sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. у нас **есть** / We have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. что вы хотите **есть**? / What would you like to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In both of them the word &quot;**есть**&quot; is used differently).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as for the use of  &quot;**есть**&quot; in both &quot;ordering scenarios&quot; where on one hand it refers to &quot;having&quot; (which I don't get since &quot;у нас&quot; should include having on its own same way that &quot;у меня&quot; on its own does without having to include this &quot;есть&quot; addition) and on the other hand it means to eat. Also Also how would the phrase in Russian &quot;what do you HAVE to EAT&quot; be written and if it includes &quot;есть&quot; 2 times? I am guessing it would be something like: &quot;что есть у вас есть&quot;? or &quot;что у вас есть по есть&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe these last 2 sound grammatically horrific but I'm a newbie here, thanks a lot !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44687" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="39347031-85f0-472d-90b7-23a78eb423f5" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:20:23.547" UserId="3680" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44688" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="26eb41aa-e8d6-41c3-b20f-127ae01b246e" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:20:23.547" UserId="3680" Comment="58" />
  <row Id="44689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="2316c846-ba0a-4a93-9674-7a20ef67aa38" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:20:51.357" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="Why is the word &quot;**не**&quot; used in the phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**мне не нравится**&quot;= &quot;**I Don't** Like&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on the contrary &quot;**нет**&quot; is used in this one:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**у меня нет**&quot;= &quot;I **Don't** Have&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it a rule that Always &quot;мне&quot; goes with &quot;не&quot; and &quot;меня&quot; with &quot;нет&quot;, I don't find any reasons for the distinction since in English both sentences would include the &quot;I do not&quot; fragment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44690" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="5a2f3cc9-a2b9-4f67-b41c-09a5e6f196d2" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:20:58.873" UserId="3680" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44691" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="e4242c9d-e468-4205-a045-2b4a61e6ab4d" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:20:58.873" UserId="3680" Comment="59" />
  <row Id="44692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="beb83fb0-f511-464b-bcab-a8358ca72aee" CreationDate="2018-09-28T12:36:58.160" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="When to use which with &quot;не&quot; / &quot; нет&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44693" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="977f89c5-dedc-4b25-b728-b1978596565d" CreationDate="2018-09-28T13:23:59.377" UserId="-1" Comment="59" />
  <row Id="44694" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="17203" RevisionGUID="c2ae11fe-f2a5-45d3-b8c1-9c8fe3964e24" CreationDate="2018-09-28T13:23:59.377" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44695" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="49bbdbf6-882f-47ab-8704-0e59f3ba5418" CreationDate="2018-09-28T13:25:25.167" UserId="-1" Comment="58" />
  <row Id="44696" PostHistoryTypeId="15" PostId="17192" RevisionGUID="c712478f-a370-48c9-a52b-d40ef54041b4" CreationDate="2018-09-28T13:25:25.167" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="642ff4df-bf9a-45dd-a50b-a1ace9e163a1" CreationDate="2018-09-28T14:34:19.170" UserId="7674" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text=" - память **вернулась** к ним [&lt;strike&gt;his&lt;/strike&gt; **their** memory (has) returned (at last)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **возвращалась** к ним [&lt;strike&gt;his&lt;/strike&gt; **their** memory was coming back (gradually)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **возвращаемся** к ним [&lt;strike&gt;his&lt;/strike&gt; **their** memory is coming back (gradually)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **вернётся** к ним [&lt;strike&gt;his&lt;/strike&gt; **their** memory will return (someday)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of the imperfective future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - память **будет возвращаться** к ним" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="642ff4df-bf9a-45dd-a50b-a1ace9e163a1" CreationDate="2018-09-28T14:34:19.170" UserId="7674" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="|значения|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17209" RevisionGUID="7e2e79ff-566c-4623-82ae-1dbc658325d3" CreationDate="2018-09-28T15:35:04.200" UserId="6539" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Дмитрий and  Димитрий are variants of the same name of the greek origin. The form Димитрий is still used by the church and is considered to be more ancient than the simplified derivative Дмитрий. So Димитрий is higher in register than Дмитрий and sounds more noble. An uneducated person wouldn't use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the reform in the writing and changes connected with it, they say that these revolutionary ideas about the extreme difficulty of writing originally occurred in some scholars' works as far as the 18th century. The first attempt was to exclude the letter «ижица» from the alphabet by the Academy of Sciences in 1735, in 1787 one part of «Academic News» was published without Ъ at the end of words. It was done on the initiative of the head of the Academy of Sciences Сергей Герасимович Домашнев. So the ideas were popular a century before the reform.&#xD;&#xA;Who could support such ideas? Only educated people.&#xD;&#xA;I won't go farther into literature questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="77bc1b5e-550f-4504-b035-86b3d9b20eed" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:02:26.073" UserId="11012" Text="This is a question from the B2 Russian exam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я очень рад: домашнее задание сегодня можно не&#xD;&#xA;а)сдавать&#xD;&#xA;б)сдать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct answer is listed as (a). Why? It's a one-time action, and doesn't have any continuous quality. Any help would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="77bc1b5e-550f-4504-b035-86b3d9b20eed" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:02:26.073" UserId="11012" Text="From the B2 Russian exam - why сдавать and not сдать домашнее задание?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="77bc1b5e-550f-4504-b035-86b3d9b20eed" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:02:26.073" UserId="11012" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17213" RevisionGUID="9c61b3b7-7dfa-4b18-9288-c8b9327e3557" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:11:02.347" UserId="1836" Text="I think, in case with сдать/сдавать in context of an exam, homework, etc., &quot;сдать&quot; is used not as &quot;to submit answers&quot; but to &quot;pass an exam&quot; (get a good score for homework&quot;, etc.), while &quot;сдавать&quot; is used for the process of passing an exam or submitting a homework." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="afd72488-7ab3-4b35-9a33-edf2521f964c" CreationDate="2018-09-28T17:41:20.433" UserId="7674" Text="The context part of the question hasn't been addressed yet, so here're some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда будешь возвращаться домой, купи хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Завтра он будет возвращаться с соревнований, и мы (по)едем его встречать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем возвращаться с дачи на машине, так что (c)можем тебя подвезти." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="58bcdb71-87cc-4bc3-99b1-771710e9c237" CreationDate="2018-09-28T18:30:49.903" UserId="7674" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="The context part of the question hasn't been addressed yet, so here're some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда будешь возвращаться домой, купи хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Завтра он будет возвращаться с соревнований, и мы (по)едем его встречать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем возвращаться с дачи на машине, так что (c)можем тебя подвезти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы этот вопрос уже обсудили, и я не буду к нему возвращаться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="ff6ad405-b783-42f5-b267-3a1e0d43bf08" CreationDate="2018-09-29T06:42:50.237" UserId="7674" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="The context part of the question hasn't been addressed yet, so here're some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда *будешь возвращаться* домой, купи хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Завтра он *будет возвращаться* с соревнований, и мы (по)едем его встречать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы *будем возвращаться* с дачи на машине, так что (c)можем тебя подвезти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы этот вопрос уже обсудили, и я *не буду* к нему *возвращаться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Future imperfective denotes being in the process of action or action being in the process of performance before they're complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Connotation in the last example is more complex due to negation. Here the imperfective aspect rather means repeated return than a process of return." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17214" RevisionGUID="f461f0d4-af34-4aa8-b2bd-3544a10eacb3" CreationDate="2018-09-29T10:25:34.960" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The context part of the question hasn't been addressed yet, so here're some examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда *будешь возвращаться* домой, купи хлеба.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Завтра он *будет возвращаться* с соревнований, и мы (по)едем его встречать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы *будем возвращаться* с дачи на машине, так что (c)можем тебя подвезти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы этот вопрос уже обсудили, и я *не буду* к нему *возвращаться*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Future imperfective denotes being in the process of action or action being in the process of performance before completion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Connotation in the last example is more complex due to negation. Here the imperfective aspect rather means repeated return than a process of return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the word **память** used in the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не волнуйтесь, память будет к вам постепенно возвращаться &lt;sup&gt;*prognosis by a doctor after memory loss*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44708" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17212" RevisionGUID="bf38bfb7-fe71-47c2-a401-d8e362a266ac" CreationDate="2018-09-29T12:01:32.283" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1046007062210236416" />
  <row Id="44709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17215" RevisionGUID="448bd7be-1f67-4f3b-865d-e52f3c721baf" CreationDate="2018-09-29T17:36:46.613" UserId="11017" Text="Recently I stumbled accross a definition of how to use the Instrumental in Russian. It is very detailed and lays out very many different possibilities in a systematic way. It talks about the &quot;Instrumental of means&quot;, &quot;Instrumental of adjunction&quot;, etc. etc. but it never mentions a so called &quot;Instrumental of manner&quot;, which I found later in a book about Ukrainian grammar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example from the book about Ukrainian would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорити ніжним голосом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;meaning &quot;to speak in a soft voice.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I wonder if this can also be done with the Instrumental case in Russian or if this is specific to Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I do not speak a word of Russian or Ukrainian, my interest comes from a purely linguistic perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17215" RevisionGUID="448bd7be-1f67-4f3b-865d-e52f3c721baf" CreationDate="2018-09-29T17:36:46.613" UserId="11017" Text="Instrumental of manner in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17215" RevisionGUID="448bd7be-1f67-4f3b-865d-e52f3c721baf" CreationDate="2018-09-29T17:36:46.613" UserId="11017" Text="|творительный-падеж|ukrainian|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17216" RevisionGUID="f00cfee4-b125-4cd8-b8aa-6c1f9363ad13" CreationDate="2018-09-29T18:06:09.773" UserId="7674" Text="Yes, this function of Instrumental is characteristic of both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорить нежным голосом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17216" RevisionGUID="1ee90d06-cb5b-4246-af36-61fb8f417b78" CreationDate="2018-09-29T18:11:41.537" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Yes it can, this function of Instrumental is characteristic of both languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; говорить нежным голосом" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44714" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17210" RevisionGUID="b58f0fa2-0726-4782-ba5c-e9abbf7e2fe1" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:01:30.937" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1046142952014315521" />
  <row Id="44715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="ee5e679f-19e6-4607-8c10-20986f2a1706" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:35:25.537" UserId="8672" Text="To express the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How come you're **so**[**that much** / **this much** / **to this extent**] sure of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following phrasings all seem to be saying more or less the same thing, but I wonder if and how they are nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **столь твердо уверен**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **настолько  твердо уверен**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **так твердо уверен**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And variants without &quot;твердо&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **столь уверен**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **настолько уверен**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **так уверен**?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="ee5e679f-19e6-4607-8c10-20986f2a1706" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:35:25.537" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances between &quot;столь/настолько/так (твердо) уверен&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="ee5e679f-19e6-4607-8c10-20986f2a1706" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:35:25.537" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44718" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="24d822d0-8580-40d1-b36b-59c40bc19f47" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:41:13.223" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="3591c9f1-8c5d-41da-8c68-852253f1ba26" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:56:14.580" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="To express the idea of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How come you're **so**[**that much** / **this much** / **to this extent**] sure of it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following phrasings all seem to be saying more or less the same thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты в нем **столь** / **настолько** / **так** уверен?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I wonder if and how they are nuanced? Also, if I use any of these words with `твёрдо` (like in `столь/настолько/так твёрдо уверен) - will it make a difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44720" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="9e88f198-c844-49dd-8bb6-e3486a3ea0ca" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:56:18.300" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44721" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="3591c9f1-8c5d-41da-8c68-852253f1ba26" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:56:14.580" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="Nuances between &quot;столь/настолько/так (твёрдо) уверен&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44722" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17217" RevisionGUID="3591c9f1-8c5d-41da-8c68-852253f1ba26" CreationDate="2018-09-29T21:56:14.580" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 78 characters in body" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17218" RevisionGUID="4e8597cb-167c-4af6-8826-02fbeff3b096" CreationDate="2018-09-30T06:37:37.140" UserId="10271" Text=" - мне захотелось пить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I think that past tense «захотелось» means «A desire to drink **has come** to me, and as a result there's an ongoing state where I want to have a drink **now**»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17218" RevisionGUID="4e8597cb-167c-4af6-8826-02fbeff3b096" CreationDate="2018-09-30T06:37:37.140" UserId="10271" Text="«мне захотелось пить» Do I want to have a drink NOW? Or I wanted to have a drink in the PAST?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17218" RevisionGUID="4e8597cb-167c-4af6-8826-02fbeff3b096" CreationDate="2018-09-30T06:37:37.140" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17219" RevisionGUID="745eab47-326c-4aa5-94eb-b64336cad3dd" CreationDate="2018-09-30T07:17:26.570" UserId="7674" Text="This is ambiguous, it can function as both Past Simple and Present Perfect.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Past Simple* - Когда я наелся вяленой рыбы, мне так захотелось пить, что я выпил литр воды за раз.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Present Perfect* - Мне захотелось пить, у тебя не найдётся минералочки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17220" RevisionGUID="7354df3b-8c29-46f6-926a-98eff02d5fb1" CreationDate="2018-09-30T07:32:05.087" UserId="9001" Text="Although it may mean that the desire **has** come or **had** come depending on the context, I won't use the phrase to say I want to drink now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it sound natural in the present perfect sense you have to relax it, make it sound more colloquial, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мне что-то захотелось пить.* - I'm kind of thirsty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notice that **что-то** is not an object of **пить**, but just a word used to mince the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44728" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17218" RevisionGUID="d27febe6-baeb-4d89-94bd-a1b6b9487886" CreationDate="2018-09-30T09:20:10.927" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="«Мне захотелось пить» - do I want to have a drink now? Or I wanted to have a drink in the past?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17218" RevisionGUID="d27febe6-baeb-4d89-94bd-a1b6b9487886" CreationDate="2018-09-30T09:20:10.927" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="In &quot;мне захотелось пить&quot; -  should I think that past tense «захотелось» means «A desire to drink **has come** to me, and as a result there's an ongoing state where I want to have a drink **now**»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17221" RevisionGUID="9b46314f-3963-483c-bba0-cf4536007d6b" CreationDate="2018-09-30T10:15:05.937" UserId="11019" Text="In a Past Simple form it's quite common, sort of &quot;I was thirsty&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a Present Perfect it sounds a bit awkward. A more natural form would be &quot;Мне захотелось *по*пить&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17222" RevisionGUID="cdcb7eeb-11e1-426f-a021-265849bbe79a" CreationDate="2018-09-30T10:19:42.387" UserId="11019" Text="**Почему ты в нём столь уверен?** Sounds quite archaic to be honest, or at least very formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему ты в нём настолько уверен?** and **Почему ты в нём так уверен?** are conveying the same meaning without noticeable difference in nuances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding **твёрдо** doesn't change anything really." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17223" RevisionGUID="74ad77ca-3f11-41ed-823a-2efc7f4a9931" CreationDate="2018-09-30T10:24:15.087" UserId="11019" Text="**Прошло 2 года, а я все слушаю** is basically a shortened version of **Прошло 2 года, а я все ещё слушаю**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44733" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17202" RevisionGUID="e9c4b965-f5dc-49f6-8088-3367b86ada5d" CreationDate="2018-09-30T15:01:07.220" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1046414642682245121" />
  <row Id="44734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="3fb9c821-fb2f-4545-b417-327cd9f8fe77" CreationDate="2018-10-01T05:05:11.480" UserId="11021" Text="![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sz19M.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;Is it me or is this wrong? In the masculine section of this, isnt it supposed to say он instead of я? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="3fb9c821-fb2f-4545-b417-327cd9f8fe77" CreationDate="2018-10-01T05:05:11.480" UserId="11021" Text="Is it me or is this wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="3fb9c821-fb2f-4545-b417-327cd9f8fe77" CreationDate="2018-10-01T05:05:11.480" UserId="11021" Text="|russian-usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="ea2e43fd-5101-4d95-84a9-7f5c3747de03" CreationDate="2018-10-01T06:44:45.400" UserId="7674" Text="Maybe there's explanation somewhere to this table, but i think they just didn't bother to list all the pronouns because there're only so much verb forms in the Past tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The listed masculine forms are true for all **я, ты, он**   &#xD;&#xA;The listed feminine forms are true for all **я, ты, она**  &#xD;&#xA;The listed plural forms are true for all **мы, вы, они**  &#xD;&#xA;And only neuter singular stands apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all in all 4 verbs of each verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main determinants in it are not the actual pronouns but the gender and number ***masculine, feminine, neuter and plural*** (exactly 4 for each verb aspect), the listed  pronouns are mentioned just as an example of each determinant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="fb239d41-a83c-4f11-8675-eae06ffaf2a2" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:02:21.633" UserId="7674" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's explanation somewhere to this table, but i think they just didn't bother to list all the pronouns because there're only so many verb forms in the Past tense anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The listed masculine forms are true for all **я, ты, он**   &#xD;&#xA;The listed feminine forms are true for all **я, ты, она**  &#xD;&#xA;The listed plural forms are true for all **мы, вы, они**  &#xD;&#xA;And only neuter singular stands apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all in all 4 verbs of each verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main determinants in it are not the actual pronouns but the gender and number ***masculine, feminine, neuter and plural*** (exactly 4 for each verb aspect), the listed  pronouns are mentioned just as an example of each determinant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the listed pronouns are deleted the table will remain correct and exhaustive for the given verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="7be6bf9a-4256-4b08-84e9-635841ad2e62" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:07:33.673" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Maybe there's explanation somewhere to this table, but i think they just didn't bother to list all the pronouns because there're only so many verb forms in the Past tense anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The listed masculine forms are true for all **я, ты, он**   &#xD;&#xA;The listed feminine forms are true for all **я, ты, она**  &#xD;&#xA;The listed plural forms are true for all **мы, вы, они**  &#xD;&#xA;And only neuter singular stands apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all in all 4 verbs of each verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main determinants here are not the actual pronouns but the gender and number ***masculine, feminine, neuter and plural*** (exactly 4 for each verb aspect), the listed  pronouns are mentioned just as an example of each determinant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the listed pronouns are deleted the table will remain correct and exhaustive for the given verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="5b1067d1-c37b-4ce1-90d2-b5be1cf411c8" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:05:12.290" UserId="7674" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's explanation somewhere to this table, but i think they just didn't bother to list all the pronouns *because there're only so many verb forms in the Past Tense anyway*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The listed masculine forms are true for all **я, ты, он**   &#xD;&#xA;The listed feminine forms are true for all **я, ты, она**  &#xD;&#xA;The listed plural forms are true for all **мы, вы, они**  &#xD;&#xA;And only neuter singular stands apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all in all 4 verbs of each verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The main determinants here are not the actual pronouns but the gender and number* ***masculine, feminine, neuter and plural*** (exactly 4 for each verb aspect), the listed  pronouns are mentioned just as an example of each determinant because in themselves they're unimportant for determining Past Tense verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the listed pronouns are deleted the table will remain correct and exhaustive for the given verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="ef7cef08-64a7-4e6e-8295-d1f581fb6020" CreationDate="2018-10-01T08:41:33.737" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's explanation somewhere to this table, but i think they just didn't bother to list all the pronouns *because there're only so many verb forms in the Past Tense anyway*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The listed masculine forms are true for all **я, ты, он**   &#xD;&#xA;The listed feminine forms are true for all **я, ты, она**  &#xD;&#xA;The listed plural forms are true for all **мы, вы, они**  &#xD;&#xA;And only neuter singular stands apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all in all 4 verbs of each verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The main determinants here are not the actual pronouns but the gender and number* ***masculine, feminine, neuter and plural*** (exactly 4 for each verb aspect), the listed  pronouns are mentioned just as an example of each determinant because in themselves they're irrelevant for determining Past Tense verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the listed pronouns are deleted the table will remain correct and exhaustive for the given verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="4958e7ac-6784-43d4-87e2-d3bb8485d148" CreationDate="2018-10-01T10:53:58.700" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44745" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="a760c7cc-7304-463f-9c07-f45afb5c5605" CreationDate="2018-10-01T14:58:12.987" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Are pronouns listed correctly on this past tense conjugation table?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17226" RevisionGUID="24cfed9e-4973-4964-934d-5af313e28691" CreationDate="2018-10-01T15:08:40.610" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Maybe there's explanation somewhere to this table, but i think they just didn't bother to list all the pronouns *because there're only so many verb forms in the Past Tense anyway*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The listed masculine forms are true for all **я, ты, он**   &#xD;&#xA;The listed feminine forms are true for all **я, ты, она**  &#xD;&#xA;The listed plural forms are true for all **мы, вы, они**  &#xD;&#xA;And only neuter singular stands apart&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all in all 4 verb forms of each verb aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The main determinants here are not the actual pronouns but the gender and number* ***masculine, feminine, neuter and plural*** (exactly 4 for each verb aspect), the listed  pronouns are mentioned just as an example of each determinant because in themselves they're irrelevant for determining Past Tense verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the listed pronouns are deleted the table will remain correct and exhaustive for the given verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="8f046073-693e-4c81-9756-b0701f857ce4" CreationDate="2018-10-02T10:13:07.943" UserId="10140" Text="Иногда, скорее в старших источниках, встречаю слово &quot;автомашина&quot;, полагаю что его значение это просто &quot;машина&quot;, или &quot;автомобиль&quot;. Можно сказать, что слово &quot;автомашина&quot; устаревшее? Как оно звучит уху современного человека? Можно его использовать, хотя бы в шутку?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="8f046073-693e-4c81-9756-b0701f857ce4" CreationDate="2018-10-02T10:13:07.943" UserId="10140" Text="Как воспринимается в сегодняшнем носителем языка слово &quot;автомашина&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17227" RevisionGUID="8f046073-693e-4c81-9756-b0701f857ce4" CreationDate="2018-10-02T10:13:07.943" UserId="10140" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17228" RevisionGUID="05caccad-bbb9-4230-a321-f14c30e7e07c" CreationDate="2018-10-02T10:33:51.870" UserId="7674" Text="Для моего уха, как носителя, звучит старомодно. Разве что в шутку или иронично можно использовать при условии, что собеседнику понятен оттенок. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается статуса устаревшего, то тут, наверное, нужно полагаться на авторитет словарей. Если соответствующая помета стоит, значит устаревшее (хотя, насколько я осведомлён, единых критериев устаревания нет). В онлайн версиях словарей такая помета не стоит. Но из активной лексики оно, по-моему, исчезло." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17229" RevisionGUID="f9b92735-5947-4cdf-889c-40868249e48a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T11:34:52.280" UserId="242" Text="Было бы здорово, если бы для полноты вопроса вы бы привели примеры такого использования. Вся штука в том, что **частота использования `автомашина` никогда не была сопоставима с частотой использования слова `автомобиль`** - вы можете обратиться к google ngram и увидеть такой график:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть даже в период когда слово `автомашина` использовалось чаще, разрыв был в 10 раз. &#xD;&#xA;Тут разумеется строгий читатель может сказать, что возможно корпус текстов, который индексирован в гугловом проекте неполный, но мы можем проверить и по национальному корпусу русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вот][2] слово `автомобиль`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вот][2] автомашина:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yvy36.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E0%E2%F2%EE%EC%E0%F8%E8%ED%E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMz06.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nQrim.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44755" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17224" RevisionGUID="e0444cf2-166b-4c3c-9ab5-2b6762fe4ccf" CreationDate="2018-10-02T18:00:30.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1047184563783589888" />
  <row Id="44756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="00dd62c8-5ac5-4d34-aa2e-42bcba4c5311" CreationDate="2018-10-02T21:00:40.630" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1047229904411152386" />
  <row Id="44757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17231" RevisionGUID="db92335a-7cd6-448b-85d2-39409b90f6ca" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:15:34.880" UserId="11028" Text="Мы с дочкой говорим &quot;переночёвка&quot; и &quot;поиграшка&quot; (по аналогии с &quot;переночёвка&quot;). Переночёвка, кстати, вполне нормальное русское слово. Например: &quot;Мама, можно мы пригласим Кейт на переночёвку?&quot;. Слово &quot;поиграшка&quot;, наверное, менее удачное, но в нашем семейном языке прижилось. Мне нравится больше, чем &quot;плейдейт&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17232" RevisionGUID="44522917-36cd-47f0-a579-db41a255ca0e" CreationDate="2018-10-02T22:52:02.687" UserId="11029" Text="Конструкция &quot;...спустя...после...&quot; мне кажется неестественной. &#xD;&#xA;Обычно &quot;спустя&quot; используется для описания события, которое следовало после события, описанного в предыдущем предложении либо в сложносочинённых предложениях:&quot;Обсчитали результаты.(,a) Неделю-другую спустя оказалось, что человек не рыбка&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поверхностный поиск по Национальному корпусу русского языка подтверждает моё предположение. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17175" RevisionGUID="c8a7ef85-3e32-4e07-8469-2f2d077a1d97" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:46:24.403" UserId="7674" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Через** неделю-другую **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек не рыбка. [*no dash before negation*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Спустя** неделю-другую **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек не рыбка. [*no dash before negation*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю, что за предлогом «после» следуют какое-то происходящее действие или событие, например, «обсчёта результатов», тогда как фразе, обозначающей какой-то срок, например, «неделю-другую» требуется предлог «через» или «спустя». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно же, чем по смыслу и употреблению «через X после Y» отличается от «спустя X после Y»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17175" RevisionGUID="b62741e3-2a9c-4826-810d-7b12cfb8cd01" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:57:42.757" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Через** неделю-другую **,** **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек не рыбка. [*no dash before negation*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Спустя** неделю-другую **,** **после** обсчёта результатов оказалось, что человек не рыбка. [*no dash before negation*]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я понимаю, что за предлогом «после» следуют какое-то происходящее действие или событие, например, «обсчёта результатов», тогда как фразе, обозначающей какой-то срок, например, «неделю-другую» требуется предлог «через» или «спустя». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно же, чем по смыслу и употреблению «через X после Y» отличается от «спустя X после Y»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17233" RevisionGUID="7406dc9e-fef7-4463-9941-dde8d856023e" CreationDate="2018-10-03T10:40:31.927" UserId="11029" Text="It looks like a set phrase. You cannot change it to &quot;хоть убавляй&quot;, &quot;хоть отнимай&quot; or &quot;хоть уменьшай&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, generally speaking, it is not the only &quot;хоть + imperative&quot; construction in Russian. For example, widely used &quot;хоть убей&quot; means &quot;for the life of...&quot; and so are nearly synonymous &quot;хоть лопни&quot; and &quot;хоть тресни&quot;. The construction &quot;хоть кол на голове теши&quot; is usually used to denote somebody who does not understand obvious things or ignores accepted rules - &quot;Он не понимает, что его могут ограбить, хоть кол на голове теши&quot; - &quot;He does not accept the idea  that he might be robbed, despite multiple attempts to explain to him&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One one might construct other clauses to denote practical impossibility or failed attempts to achieve something, even provided that certain extreme condition would be fulfilled. &quot;Если не изучать грамматику, то не заговоришь на иностранном языке, *хоть выучи наизусть* десять словарей&quot; - &quot;If one does not study grammar, he/she will not speak a foreign language, even provided he/she had learnt ten dictionaries by heart&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another meaning of the construction &quot;хоть &lt;не&gt; + imperative&quot;. It is used to denote the deeds that one might be forced  to attempt to avoid negative outcome or *vice versa* might be forced not to attempt because it seems that they will result in highly probable fail or negative outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;На улице холодно, хоть не выходи из дому&quot; - &quot;It is cold outside, I think it would be better not to go outside&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мою квартиру ограбили за три раза прошедший месяц, хоть переселяйся в другой район&quot; - &quot;My apartment was burglarized three times last month. I feel like I am forced to move to another neighbourhood&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44762" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17138" RevisionGUID="dfffac11-14e2-4575-8221-10ee434f2356" CreationDate="2018-10-03T12:00:16.823" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1047456297166229504" />
  <row Id="44763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17234" RevisionGUID="1fe5d8ec-02bd-49d7-9496-e3d52906acd9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T17:09:51.240" UserId="9594" Text="Short answer: we change a perfect verb (*сдать*) to its non perfect form (*сдавать*) in negative sentences (можно **не** сдавать) with a modal verb (*можно*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a more detailed explanation [here][1] (go to section 6.2.3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rusgram.ru/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#6_2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="75769a0e-1cb1-4edb-9e02-294211c8e059" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:18:20.323" UserId="11033" Text="I came upon this sentence in Dostoevsky's Записки из подполья:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И я тем более **убежден в злом**, так сказать, подозрении, что если, например, взять антитез нормального человека, то есть человека усиленно сознающего, вышедшего, конечно, не из лона природы, а из реторты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My English translation reads as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And I am the more convinced of this, so to speak, suspicion, seeing that if, for example, one takes the antithesis of the normal man, that is, the man of heightened consciousness, who came, of course, not from the bosom of nature but from a retort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen other translations that are very similar. It seems to me that the word &quot;злом&quot; was not translated. Is it some sort of play with words? The novel's protagonist says a few time how &quot;злой&quot; he is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="75769a0e-1cb1-4edb-9e02-294211c8e059" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:18:20.323" UserId="11033" Text="What does &quot;убежден в злом&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="75769a0e-1cb1-4edb-9e02-294211c8e059" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:18:20.323" UserId="11033" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17236" RevisionGUID="5d19cfdf-e40d-4dbc-99d7-a4e065262c2b" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:41:35.653" UserId="242" Text="It's an adjective `злой` (evil, vicious, wicked, unkind) in prepositional case and actually you can read this omitting `так сказать` (&quot;so to speak&quot;) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И я тем более убежден в злом [так сказать] подозрении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no play with words, it's just that - and this happens unfortunately very often, while translating Russian text even prominent and famous English translators are skipping any word or phrase they find difficult to come up with precise analogy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have no idea for instance how much &quot;12 стульев&quot; is ruined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17236" RevisionGUID="8fb89289-e135-4f87-99ad-97628003d9a8" CreationDate="2018-10-03T18:48:56.907" UserId="242" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="It's an adjective `злой` (evil, vicious, wicked, unkind) in prepositional case and actually you can read this omitting `так сказать` (&quot;so to speak&quot;) as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И я тем более убежден в злом [так сказать] подозрении.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's pretty much something like &quot;..convinced of this, so to speak, unkind suspicion&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no play with words, it's just that - and this happens unfortunately very often, while translating Russian text even prominent and famous English translators are skipping any word or phrase they find difficult to come up with precise analogy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have no idea for instance how much &quot;12 стульев&quot; is ruined. &#xD;&#xA;In this particular case, however, I'm quite surprised this word was skipped. It's has exact counterparts in English I mean. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="974e3d3d-d125-42c6-beaf-c4bb288c60e2" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:39:38.923" UserId="4714" Text="**Можно не сдавать** — (we) **don't have to** submit the homework today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible and/or allowed (**можно**) for us to not not submit it, **i.e.,** not do the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal use of imperfective. That is, not doing the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Можно не cдать** — means we might not be able to get it handed in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that we cannot (won't be able to) hand it in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он можешь не приходить**— He can not come. (if he wants) = He doesn't have to come. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он можешь не прийти** —He might not be able to come. (because something might happen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal perfective. There is a chance that someone won't be able to finish, accomplish, or get something done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is grammar structure in Russian that corresponds roughly to— 1) don't have to, and 2) might not be able to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="bb0f9785-68d9-4b9b-b547-6e7b3a08cb4f" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:52:50.537" UserId="4714" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="**Можно не сдавать** — (we) **don't have to** submit the homework today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible and/or allowed (**можно**) for us to not not submit it, **i.e.,** not do the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal use of imperfective. That is, not doing the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Можно не cдать** — means we might not be able to get it handed in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that we cannot (won't be able to) hand it in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он можешь не приходить**— He can not come. (if he wants) = He doesn't have to come. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он можешь не прийти** —He might not be able to come. (because something might happen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal perfective. There is a chance that someone won't be able to finish, accomplish, or get something done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is grammar structure in Russian that corresponds roughly to— 1) don't have to, and 2) might not be able to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="8028df91-28a2-4b3c-ae85-537d802b0224" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:54:59.517" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="**Можно не сдавать** — (we) **don't have to** submit the homework today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible and/or allowed (**можно**) for us to not not submit it, **i.e.,** not do the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal use of imperfective. That is, not doing the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Можно не cдать** — means we might not be able to get it handed in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that we cannot (won't be able to) hand it in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он може&lt;strike&gt;шь&lt;/strike&gt;T не приходить**— He can not come. (if he wants) = He doesn't have to come. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он може&lt;strike&gt;шь&lt;/strike&gt;T не прийти** —He might not be able to come. (because something might happen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal perfective. There is a chance that someone won't be able to finish, accomplish, or get something done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is grammar structure in Russian that corresponds roughly to— 1) don't have to, and 2) might not be able to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17237" RevisionGUID="1e775963-fdd8-4631-bf4b-714bdc86bc1a" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:57:11.420" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="**Можно не сдавать** — (we) **don't have to** submit the homework today&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible and/or allowed (**можно**) for us to not not submit it, **i.e.,** not do the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal use of imperfective. That is, not doing the action at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Можно не cдать** — means we might not be able to get it handed in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible that we cannot (won't be able to) hand it in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он может не приходить**— He can not come. (if he wants) = He doesn't have to come. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Он может не прийти** —He might not be able to come. (because something might happen) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just normal perfective. There is a chance that someone won't be able to finish, accomplish, or get something done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is grammar structure in Russian that corresponds roughly to— 1) don't have to, and 2) might not be able to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17038" RevisionGUID="441a84b5-2668-41bc-94f2-c94f3b19654e" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:00:41.717" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1047592296563322880" />
  <row Id="44779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17239" RevisionGUID="76e9eb7c-4e6c-423f-8e75-8527091188d3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T02:01:35.647" UserId="11021" Text="What is the purpose of всё in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;Я всё ещё читаю этот роман&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17239" RevisionGUID="76e9eb7c-4e6c-423f-8e75-8527091188d3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T02:01:35.647" UserId="11021" Text="Purpose of всё in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17239" RevisionGUID="76e9eb7c-4e6c-423f-8e75-8527091188d3" CreationDate="2018-10-04T02:01:35.647" UserId="11021" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17240" RevisionGUID="705b6582-bef9-458f-ab34-63974ed73405" CreationDate="2018-10-04T04:27:40.827" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;всё ещё&#xD;&#xA;нареч. обстоят. времени&#xD;&#xA;До сих пор, пока что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все еше is an adverb of time which means &quot;still&quot; like еще, but with more emphasis (все). It shows that the action is still in process and the person has spent some time reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я все еще читаю этот роман.(I am still reading this novel and I have been reading it for a long  time " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44783" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17239" RevisionGUID="7967f627-e365-4ac3-b24b-67d2980387d9" CreationDate="2018-10-04T04:29:02.397" UserId="6539" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|наречия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17241" RevisionGUID="69cf6873-792e-45be-bbb7-5c16eecd6afa" CreationDate="2018-10-04T04:35:03.133" UserDisplayName="user10940" Text="In this particular case &quot;всё ещё&quot; together mean &quot;still&quot;. As in &quot;I am still reading this novel.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Now, there is a catch: &quot;я ещё читаю этот роман&quot; also translates into &quot;I am still reading this novel.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;The difference is in the emphasis. &quot;Ещё&quot; on its own just means continuation of the action, the fact that it hasn't completed yet.&#xA;&#xA;Combined &quot;всё ещё&quot; has an additional connotation of process taking longer than originally expected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17229" RevisionGUID="fddeb6c3-f19b-4535-92dd-5dbdaaabcb9a" CreationDate="2018-10-04T10:56:52.370" UserId="242" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Слово &quot;автомашина&quot; воспринимается как довольно редко употребимое, но вместе с тем не ассоциируется с каким-то определённым историческим периодом, поэтому устарело не звучит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Было бы здорово, если бы для полноты вопроса вы бы привели примеры такого использования. Вся штука в том, что **частота использования `автомашина` никогда не была сопоставима с частотой использования слова `автомобиль`** - вы можете обратиться к google ngram и увидеть такой график:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть даже в период когда слово `автомашина` использовалось чаще, разрыв был в 10 раз. &#xD;&#xA;Тут разумеется строгий читатель может сказать, что возможно корпус текстов, который индексирован в гугловом проекте неполный, но мы можем проверить и по национальному корпусу русского языка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вот][2] слово `автомобиль`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Вот][2] автомашина:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yvy36.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%E0%E2%F2%EE%EC%E0%F8%E8%ED%E0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMz06.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nQrim.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44786" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17239" RevisionGUID="1b2692f9-0a6c-4c97-9011-967c1297051e" CreationDate="2018-10-04T12:40:46.733" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[17202],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="ee7a707e-792f-4c0a-a9ca-7e6e47231547" CreationDate="2018-10-05T10:27:30.357" UserId="11002" Comment="added 409 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am slightly confused by this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она много читала, не писала в письмах ъ, называла мужа не&#xD;&#xA;Дмитрием, а Димитрием, а он втайне считал ее недалекой, узкой, неизящной,&#xD;&#xA;боялся ее и не любил бывать дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(if you are interested it is from the well known short story &quot;A lady with a lapdog&quot; / &quot;Дама с собачкой&quot; by Chekhov)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easy to translate the sentence literally to English but hard for me to find the true meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* She writes without ъ - I guess this means she wrote with a kind of reformed orthography?&#xD;&#xA;* She called him Dimitry instead of Dmitry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book was published in 1899 but the reform of 1917 got rid of the ъ at the end of words. So this means that she (the protagonist's wife in the story) wrote without ъ before it was officially abolished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would that mean about a person if they omitted it? Is the subtext that she is uneducated? Or going over the top to be modern? Or trying to be different? Or just implying that she has some irritating habits? Or is she showing off her level of education?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding calling him Dimitry, is this a way of &quot;foreignising&quot; someone's name, as if I was to over-pronounce &quot;croissant&quot; in English with an exaggerated French accent? Is Димитрий an upper, or lower class variant of Дмитрий?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I have edited my question to try to make it clear that I am talking about  language after the feedback in the comments. Imagine that you wanted to translate the book into English for someone with no knowledge of 1900s Russian culture - the English translation I have says that she &quot;used phonetic spelling&quot; which in my opinion does not convey the true meaning, so I am asking really what the connotations of this description are for a native Russian speaker.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44788" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17197" RevisionGUID="ee7a707e-792f-4c0a-a9ca-7e6e47231547" CreationDate="2018-10-05T10:27:30.357" UserId="11002" Comment="added 409 characters in body; edited title" Text="Dimitry vs Dmitry, &quot;не писала в письмах ъ&quot;, text from around 1900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="b26d8659-2683-4c72-9faa-d31bc952cd7a" CreationDate="2018-10-05T19:04:29.663" UserId="11042" Text="Почему когда русский человек Начинает физическую нагрузку, он иногда говорит фразу «Три, четыре»? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="b26d8659-2683-4c72-9faa-d31bc952cd7a" CreationDate="2018-10-05T19:04:29.663" UserId="11042" Text="Почему «три четыре»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="b26d8659-2683-4c72-9faa-d31bc952cd7a" CreationDate="2018-10-05T19:04:29.663" UserId="11042" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44792" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="a71de6b8-564b-421b-8546-f9d4d8369b03" CreationDate="2018-10-05T19:23:47.513" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="76255390-224b-42d4-8f28-e30cd5a6210d" CreationDate="2018-10-05T19:55:03.327" UserId="11042" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Почему когда русский человек Начинает физическую нагрузку, он иногда говорит фразу «Три, четыре»? Почему пропускают «раз два»? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="836b4b09-bfd6-4603-bb6c-8e00b8e770bf" CreationDate="2018-10-05T19:56:42.607" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Почему** когда русский человек Начинает физическую нагрузку, он иногда говорит фразу «Три, четыре»? Почему пропускают «раз два»? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44795" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="3b2e080e-c5a6-4f61-8b55-13c355a56155" CreationDate="2018-10-05T20:01:09.860" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2060,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;jwalker&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="4ff18a1f-91dd-476a-b3b9-51b9bbc7cddd" CreationDate="2018-10-05T20:01:48.147" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Почему** когда русскоязычный человек начинает физическую нагрузку, он иногда говорит фразу «Три, четыре»? Почему пропускают «раз два»? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44797" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="d01c7434-d799-418e-893d-a0da2549c749" CreationDate="2018-10-05T20:40:57.837" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему иногда начинают счёт с «три-четыре»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="bbcab244-3be3-4a1b-8b1d-6b5e1982cf56" CreationDate="2018-10-05T20:44:33.910" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему начало упражнений или синхронных действий часто предваряют фразой «три-четыре»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44800" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="4ced007b-80de-4bd6-bae4-eb312c2600a6" CreationDate="2018-10-05T20:53:30.340" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Почему как стартовую команду применяют фразу «три-четыре»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="4b274123-408c-4427-baf5-41f8bb912ad2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T22:36:03.027" UserId="11021" Text="It makes no sense to me, when im listening to russians on youtube they all do it either way, another thing&#xD;&#xA;If i choose to do most of my o’s as a’s will others who dont still understand me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44802" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="4b274123-408c-4427-baf5-41f8bb912ad2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T22:36:03.027" UserId="11021" Text="Why do some people pronounce о as a and some just pronounce o as o" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44803" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="4b274123-408c-4427-baf5-41f8bb912ad2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T22:36:03.027" UserId="11021" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17244" RevisionGUID="4a4e4e99-e65a-41a7-973e-270194f07b90" CreationDate="2018-10-05T23:16:36.477" UserId="134" Text="This is a phenomenon called vowel reduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good starting point would be the Wikipedia article on Russian phonology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Vowel_mergers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell, most Russian dialects distinguish *о* and *а* and pronounce them more or less the way it says on the tin when they are stressed, and merge them (pronounce a neutral schwa instead of clear *о* or *а*) when they are unstressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some Russian dialects which (mostly) don't merge *о* and *а* even if they are unstressed, and those dialects are readily understood by practically any Russian speaker, though they do sound peculiar to those not accustomed to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't go pronouncing *а* instead if *о* or the other way around all the time. You have to separate them when they are stressed either way, and if you are unsure you can just always pronounce them as *а* and *о*, respectively, even if they are unstressed. You will be well understood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="0fdd9903-1e46-4967-b049-a6105ba47324" CreationDate="2018-10-06T08:16:17.690" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="It makes no sense to me, when I'm listening to Russians on youtube they all do it either way, another thing&#xD;&#xA;If i choose to do most of my o’s as a’s will others who dont still understand me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44806" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="0fdd9903-1e46-4967-b049-a6105ba47324" CreationDate="2018-10-06T08:16:17.690" UserId="6097" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Why do some people pronounce &quot;о&quot; as &quot; and some just pronounce &quot;o&quot; as &quot;o&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="eb4d00b3-909a-4a40-9e74-0c2fd13351a5" CreationDate="2018-10-06T08:18:12.437" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Почему когда русскоязычный человек начинает физическую нагрузку, он иногда говорит фразу «Три, четыре»? Почему пропускают «раз два»? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17235" RevisionGUID="15a98df3-8f4b-411b-9383-717fe311f6c4" CreationDate="2018-10-06T09:00:07.900" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1048498124866686977" />
  <row Id="44809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17245" RevisionGUID="c97fedcd-7671-4f71-9ecc-966f4b12fc27" CreationDate="2018-10-06T16:35:23.640" UserId="2104" Text="Подытоживая [обсуждение][1] (спасибо @Баян_Купи-ка за ссылку):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * &quot;Три-четыре&quot; пошло из музыки/танцев и используется для синхронизации исполнителей в начале исполнения: на &quot;раз&quot; уже нужно начать играть/танцевать. Если просто сказать &quot;раз&quot;, никто не успеет начать. Поэтому дается подготовительное [&quot;И!...&quot;][2] или &quot;три-четыре&quot;. Последнее лучше, чем &quot;и&quot;, так как вдобавок задает темп. Большинство музыкальных произведений имеет четырехдольный размер, поэтому &quot;три-четыре&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru-etymology.livejournal.com/840870.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKNfwSPg5nc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17249" RevisionGUID="c6bd2bcf-1043-4bbb-85cc-689ac134ce4e" CreationDate="2018-10-06T22:26:31.203" UserId="11046" Text="I've been watching these words recently and I am not quite sure how to use them. &#xD;&#xA;I know that Tak is like &quot;so&quot; or &quot;that&quot;(like in; _It's not that good_) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anybody please explain me? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17249" RevisionGUID="c6bd2bcf-1043-4bbb-85cc-689ac134ce4e" CreationDate="2018-10-06T22:26:31.203" UserId="11046" Text="&quot;Так&quot; &quot;такая&quot; &quot;такой&quot; and &quot;Какой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17249" RevisionGUID="c6bd2bcf-1043-4bbb-85cc-689ac134ce4e" CreationDate="2018-10-06T22:26:31.203" UserId="11046" Text="|грамматика|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17250" RevisionGUID="04d2fa2c-99ee-44e8-af16-20ce6fd05d61" CreationDate="2018-10-07T00:38:46.320" UserId="11019" Text="You don't have to address a person directly. You can always use an indirect form. Then a good start would be &quot;Извини&quot; or just an appropriate greeting, like &quot;Добрый день&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Извините, ты не подскажите, как мне пройти к Павелецкому вокзалу?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Добрый день, подскажите, пожалуйста, где ближайшая аптека?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="b965668d-2c9a-4e2c-bea2-b05d1b2fd902" CreationDate="2018-10-07T03:01:00.123" UserId="11021" Text="I have searched for hours looking for the conclusion but i cannot find it and really need help,  i have looked through dictionaries and cannot find why &#xA;In these words the «и» at the end sounds like the letter e=ye, why is that, what is the rule?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="b965668d-2c9a-4e2c-bea2-b05d1b2fd902" CreationDate="2018-10-07T03:01:00.123" UserId="11021" Text="Pronunciation of “и” at end for these specific words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="b965668d-2c9a-4e2c-bea2-b05d1b2fd902" CreationDate="2018-10-07T03:01:00.123" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17250" RevisionGUID="deaa8b67-c132-4f8c-b947-c4d43cff48aa" CreationDate="2018-10-07T06:51:12.673" UserId="7674" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="You don't have to address a person directly. You can always use an indirect form. Then a good start would be &quot;Извини&quot; or just an appropriate greeting, like &quot;Добрый день&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Извините, &lt;strike&gt;ты&lt;/strike&gt; вы не подскажЕте, как мне пройти к Павелецкому вокзалу?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Добрый день, подскажите, пожалуйста, где ближайшая аптека?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17253" RevisionGUID="30980819-890f-4abe-aae8-71d60909c132" CreationDate="2018-10-07T08:45:49.697" UserId="2104" Text="Sounds of a language are a fuzzy concept and when it comes to mapping them to letters, a lot depends on the listener's background. Many things only exist in the eye of the beholder (or the ear of the listener). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English refrain &quot;She's got it&quot; to an untrained sounds like &quot;Shizgara&quot; ([«Шизгара»][1]) with the original 't' mapped to 'r' and the weak 'it' to weak 'a'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that you just assume that there is an И at the end of these words and continue practising in listening until you 'get it'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44839" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17242" RevisionGUID="95e76266-f23e-413a-adbe-7a7d73223181" CreationDate="2018-10-07T09:00:44.033" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1048860664264052736" />
  <row Id="44841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17253" RevisionGUID="e15f9bc8-b554-4c82-942d-2bad5155b19e" CreationDate="2018-10-07T13:45:52.787" UserId="2104" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Sounds of a language are a fuzzy concept and when it comes to mapping them to letters, a lot depends on the listener's background. Many things only exist in the eye of the beholder (or the ear of the listener). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many Russian speakers heard the English refrain &quot;She's got it&quot; as &quot;Shizgara&quot; ([«Шизгара»][1]) with the original 't' mapped to 'r' and the weak 'it' to weak 'a'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that you just assume that there is an И at the end of these words and continue to practise listening until you 'get it'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="3455898e-f886-4a19-83fb-5d5d20801992" CreationDate="2018-10-07T16:16:42.107" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Она далеко не **самая лучшая** кандидатура на такую роль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Она далеко не **лучшая** кандидатура на такую роль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrasing &quot;самая лучшая&quot; pulled me up short because... Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;? Why is &quot;лучший&quot; preceded by &quot;самый&quot;, even though &quot;лучший&quot;, unlike &quot;красивый&quot;, can stand on its own as a full-fledged superlative adjective?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="3455898e-f886-4a19-83fb-5d5d20801992" CreationDate="2018-10-07T16:16:42.107" UserId="8672" Text="Why &quot;самый лучший&quot; instead of &quot;лучший&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="3455898e-f886-4a19-83fb-5d5d20801992" CreationDate="2018-10-07T16:16:42.107" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17255" RevisionGUID="8b750b43-7225-4ed2-90eb-a150a6dcb5db" CreationDate="2018-10-07T16:19:02.520" UserId="11049" Text="It is common and familiar but not babyish. &#xD;&#xA;Our Russian friends and family relatives use it all the time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="02ff1477-674d-479c-90a0-179f468bdcfc" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:14:20.913" UserId="7674" Text="Formally it does, but that's how it is, apparently **лучший** alone is at times perceived to be limited in its expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="82b261d1-9c10-470f-bfd2-3db36511e93e" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:20:21.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Formally it does, but that's how it is, apparently **лучший** alone is at times perceived to be limited in its expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a so to speak augmented superlative form like **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наисладчайший**, **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший** etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="002fff0a-b390-400f-9b74-b5e3afdd41bf" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:27:22.480" UserId="7674" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="Formally it does, but that's how it is, apparently **лучший** alone is at times perceived to be limited in its expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a nonce variant of **наилучший** which is a so to speak augmented or extreme superlative form like **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наисладчайший**, **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44849" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="9b3d437e-82c6-469c-a5df-a86c5d8b5f29" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:36:49.797" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|прилагательные|superlative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="8474a4db-9576-4cd6-867c-0bb89ffa7f82" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:45:14.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 809 characters in body" Text="Formally it does, but that's how it is, apparently **лучший** alone is at times perceived to be limited in its expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a nonce variant of **наилучший** which is a so to speak augmented or extreme superlative form like **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**, **наисладчайший**, **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="a336d52c-1bb3-4a5b-868e-e05d5b17aa0d" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:52:22.833" UserId="7674" Comment="added 809 characters in body" Text="Formally it does, but that's how it is, apparently **лучший** alone is at times perceived to be limited in its expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a so to speak augmented or extreme superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form instead of analytically from the simple one, similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**, **наисладчайший**, **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 2012 г.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="cb412717-dce2-44d5-afa4-867b5410b301" CreationDate="2018-10-07T17:57:39.123" UserId="7674" Comment="added 809 characters in body" Text="Formally it does, but that's how it is, apparently **лучший** alone is at times perceived to be limited in its expressiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a so to speak augmented or extreme superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**, **наисладчайший**, **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="9747173e-f900-45bd-b3a8-7c3937c34541" CreationDate="2018-10-07T18:13:13.153" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="It may or may not because **лучший** is also a *comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to **хорошо** vs **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**, **наисладчайший**, **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="0cd415d4-1420-4482-9369-ca5b0c6e5b1e" CreationDate="2018-10-07T18:18:32.240" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="It may or may not because **лучший** is also a *comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to **хорошо** vs **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; избегать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="4973470c-f9fd-41db-b4ee-64b7a283bab3" CreationDate="2018-10-07T18:26:44.880" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 16 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to **хорошо** vs **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="6f9b07a8-13d1-45f2-9e2e-4efcd765a0a4" CreationDate="2018-10-07T19:39:41.627" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to **хорошо** vs **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый младший**, [**самый низший**](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=IGG6W_OhMYKwsAHPxriAAw&amp;q=&quot;самый+низший&quot;), **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="a43fe52d-b079-47f0-9c2b-63eaad42ad2f" CreationDate="2018-10-07T20:36:15.320" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to difference in degree between **хорошо** and **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый младший**, [**самый низший**](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=IGG6W_OhMYKwsAHPxriAAw&amp;q=&quot;самый+низший&quot;), **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="e6e8fa1b-43d6-4c04-8549-aab3b9398d5e" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:05:38.687" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1241 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to difference in degree between **хорошо** and **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый младший**, [**самый низший**](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=IGG6W_OhMYKwsAHPxriAAw&amp;q=&quot;самый+низший&quot;), **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again because **худший**, **старший**, **младший**, **низший**, **меньший** are inflectable comparative forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Simple`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Comparative`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Superlative`** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;простой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; простейший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;самый простой/простейший   &#xD;&#xA;плохой/худой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; худший &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;самый плохой/худший    &#xD;&#xA;старый &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;старший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый старый/старший  &#xD;&#xA;молодой &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;младший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый молодой/младший  &#xD;&#xA;низкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;низший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый низкий/низший  &#xD;&#xA;маленький &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;меньший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый маленький/меньший   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="6d8f6372-90c2-4017-9ca6-c28389e68fb9" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:26:30.270" UserId="7674" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to difference in degree between **хорошо** and **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the simple one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый младший**, [**самый низший**](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=IGG6W_OhMYKwsAHPxriAAw&amp;q=&quot;самый+низший&quot;), **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again because **худший**, **старший**, **младший**, **низший**, **меньший** are inflectable comparative forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Simple`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Comparative`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Superlative`** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;простой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; простейший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;самый простой/простейший   &#xD;&#xA;плохой/худой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; худший &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;самый плохой/худший    &#xD;&#xA;старый &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;старший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый старый/старший  &#xD;&#xA;молодой &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;младший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый молодой/младший  &#xD;&#xA;низкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;низший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый низкий/низший  &#xD;&#xA;маленький &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;меньший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый маленький/меньший  &#xD;&#xA;тонкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;тощий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый тонкий/тощий " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="5fc7c868-c96f-4f2c-80a9-e52c967c0fcc" CreationDate="2018-10-07T21:46:35.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to difference in degree between **хорошо** and **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the positive one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый младший**, [**самый низший**](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=IGG6W_OhMYKwsAHPxriAAw&amp;q=&quot;самый+низший&quot;), **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again because **худший**, **старший**, **младший**, **низший**, **меньший** are inflectable comparative forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Positive`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Comparative`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Superlative`** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;простой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; простейший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;самый простой/простейший   &#xD;&#xA;плохой/худой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; худший &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;самый плохой/худший    &#xD;&#xA;старый &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;старший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый старый/старший  &#xD;&#xA;молодой &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;младший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый молодой/младший  &#xD;&#xA;низкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;низший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый низкий/низший  &#xD;&#xA;маленький &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;меньший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый маленький/меньший  &#xD;&#xA;тонкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;тощий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый тонкий/тощий   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian on the other hand *inflectable comparative* form is a rule and not an exception like in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Further read [«Избранные работы по русистике. Фонология. Морфонология. Морфология. Орфография. Лексикография» chapter «Употребление форм прилагательных с суффиксом -ейш- (-айш-) в значении сравнительной степени в русском литературном языке XIX-XX вв.»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=STRqAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17257" RevisionGUID="c345f2cb-0f34-4b68-b0db-2e908988049a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:04:14.920" UserId="170" Text="Which one is correct and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это очень важно для любого человека, живущего в христианскую эру&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Это очень важно для любого челoвека, живущего в христианской эре&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17257" RevisionGUID="c345f2cb-0f34-4b68-b0db-2e908988049a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:04:14.920" UserId="170" Text="&quot;живущего в христианскую эру&quot; or &quot;живущего в христианской эре&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17257" RevisionGUID="c345f2cb-0f34-4b68-b0db-2e908988049a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:04:14.920" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17256" RevisionGUID="316ca46b-13b2-4c44-9532-7c557d18aa21" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:24:59.597" UserId="7674" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="Here's a cookie cutter answer of the Gramota.ru information service:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Ответ справочной службы русского языка**](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search-answer/?s=самый%20лучший)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это корректное и допустимое сочетание для разговорной речи, в ситуации&#xD;&#xA;&gt; непринужденного общения. Но в образцовой литературной речи его лучше&#xD;&#xA;избегать.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Doesn't it sound like &quot;the most best&quot;?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not because **лучший** is also an *inflectable comparative* form which isn't perceived as *superlative*, similarly to difference in degree between **хорошо** and **лучше**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Ref. [*Синтетические префиксальные формы суперлатива* in *&quot;Грамматическая семантика. Русский язык в типологической перспективе&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;by Юрий Князев](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hWjMAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA222&amp;lpg=PA222&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that it's a variant of **наилучший** which is a superlative form derived synthetically from synthetic  comparative form (**лучший**) instead of analytically from the positive one (**самый + хороший**), similarly to **наихудший**, **наивысший**, **наименьший**,  **наисильнейший**, **наипростейший**, **наимоднейший** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наи (без удар.) (книжн.). Приставка, присоединяемая к форме&#xD;&#xA;&gt; превосходной, реже сравнительной степени прилагательных и наречий и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; придающая этим прилагательным и наречиям **значение предельной степени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; качества**, напр. наилучший, наибольший, наименьший, наиспособнейший,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наиболее, наименее, наичаще и т. п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/870622#sel=5:1,6:10)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also acceptable are collocations such as [**самый простейший**](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9%22&amp;newwindow=1&amp;ei=1kS6W-PhOo6QmgWlg6-4Dg), **самый худший**, **самый старший**, **самый младший**, [**самый низший**](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=IGG6W_OhMYKwsAHPxriAAw&amp;q=&quot;самый+низший&quot;), **самый меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Меньший**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; меньшая, меньшее. 1. Сравн. ст. к малый и к маленький. Из двух&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложенных комнат выбрал меньшую. 2. Превосх. ст. к тем же прил.;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **самый меньший**, меньший из всех (книжн.). Взять меньшее из данных&#xD;&#xA;&gt; количеств. 3. То же, что младший (разг. редко, чаще меньшой). Меньший&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сын. По меньшей мере - см. мера. **Самое меньшее** - не менее, по меньшей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мере. Придется заплатить самое меньшее сто рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Толковый словарь Ушакова 1935-40 гг.*](http://www.endic.ru/ushakov/Menshij-29458.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is again because **худший**, **старший**, **младший**, **низший**, **меньший** are inflectable comparative forms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Positive`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Comparative`** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`Superlative`** &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;простой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; простейший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;самый простой/простейший   &#xD;&#xA;плохой/худой&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; худший &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;самый плохой/худший    &#xD;&#xA;старый &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;старший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый старый/старший  &#xD;&#xA;молодой &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;младший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый молодой/младший  &#xD;&#xA;низкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;низший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; самый низкий/низший  &#xD;&#xA;маленький &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;меньший &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый маленький/меньший  &#xD;&#xA;тонкий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;тощий &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  самый тонкий/тощий   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it might be due to the fact of inflectable comparative adjectives being perceived as denoting a quality in its own right that adjunction of **самый** has become possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian on the other hand *inflectable comparative* form is a rule and not an exception like in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Further read [«Избранные работы по русистике. Фонология. Морфонология. Морфология. Орфография. Лексикография» chapter «Употребление форм прилагательных с суффиксом -ейш- (-айш-) в значении сравнительной степени в русском литературном языке XIX-XX вв.»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=STRqAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA83&amp;lpg=PA83#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17258" RevisionGUID="98907569-59ac-459d-8445-a8de80b73b96" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:33:32.857" UserId="7674" Text="The grammatical case (Accusative) in the first sentence is correct and applicable to other similar constructions: **в наше время**, **в старину**, **в понедельник - воскресенье**, **в первый год**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not a rule and should be learned on the case by case basis, because in other constructions for this purpose Prepositional is employed: **в прошлом месяце**, **в будущем году**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details in [Выражение времени: &quot;Когда?&quot;](https://www.ruspeach.com/learning/14659/)  &#xD;&#xA;*(www.ruspeach.com - Русский для иностранцев)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44868" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17257" RevisionGUID="f6c14495-50c4-4727-9505-5dee97d3e073" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:40:23.113" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="2ec5de61-e39e-463a-8c35-321af0932b58" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:41:22.440" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|падежи|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17258" RevisionGUID="dbf135ef-17bc-4060-b96f-91d51d5d9a8f" CreationDate="2018-10-08T06:43:15.317" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The grammatical case (Accusative) in the first sentence is correct and applicable to other adverbials of time: **в наше время**, **в старину**, **в понедельник - воскресенье**, **в первый год**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not a rule and should be learned on the case by case basis, because in other adverbials of time a more congruent Prepositional is employed: **в прошлом месяце**, **в будущем году**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details in [Выражение времени: &quot;Когда?&quot;](https://www.ruspeach.com/learning/14659/)  &#xD;&#xA;*(www.ruspeach.com - Русский для иностранцев)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17258" RevisionGUID="fca8c503-ce39-41d7-bd78-0d0d8ac72660" CreationDate="2018-10-08T07:24:11.800" UserId="7674" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The grammatical case (Accusative) in the first sentence is correct and applicable to other adverbials of time: **в наше время**, **в наш век**, **в эпоху коммунизма**, **в старину**, **в понедельник - воскресенье**, **в первый год**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's not a rule and should be learned on the case by case basis, because in other adverbials of time a more congruent Prepositional is employed: **в прошлом месяце**, **в будущем году**, **в январе - декабре**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details in [Выражение времени: &quot;Когда?&quot;](https://www.ruspeach.com/learning/14659/)  &#xD;&#xA;*(www.ruspeach.com - Русский для иностранцев)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17258" RevisionGUID="e10d2ccd-cb75-4186-a837-2bc478e9e3fe" CreationDate="2018-10-08T07:30:07.857" UserId="7674" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The grammatical case (Accusative) in the first sentence is correct and applicable to other adverbials of time: **в наше время**, **в наш век**, **в эпоху коммунизма**, **в старину**, **в понедельник - воскресенье**, **в первый год**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other adverbials of time however a more congruent Prepositional is employed: **в прошлом месяце**, **в будущем году**, **в январе - декабре**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no universal rule to this. Some principles of inflexion within adverbials are applied to certain time denoting words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details in [Выражение времени: &quot;Когда?&quot;](https://www.ruspeach.com/learning/14659/)  &#xD;&#xA;*(www.ruspeach.com - Русский для иностранцев)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17258" RevisionGUID="ada60551-bf62-46d6-8c03-1d76e8b0801a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T07:35:41.967" UserId="7674" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="The grammatical case (Accusative) in the first sentence is correct and applicable to other adverbials of time: **в наше время**, **в наш век**, **в эпоху коммунизма**, **в старину**, **в понедельник - воскресенье**, **в первый год**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other adverbials of time however a more congruent Prepositional is employed: **в прошлом месяце**, **в будущем году**, **в январе - декабре**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be no universal rule to this. There're some principles of inflexion within adverbials which are applicable to select time denoting words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details in [Выражение времени: &quot;Когда?&quot;](https://www.ruspeach.com/learning/14659/)  &#xD;&#xA;*(www.ruspeach.com - Русский для иностранцев)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="67e3728c-0615-45e4-a2c4-7eb6181eebf8" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:33:43.157" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Здоровый критицизм будет **как нельзя более кстати**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Здоровый критицизм будет  **как нельзя кстати**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose &quot;как нельзя&quot; by itself already has the meaning of &quot;couldn't be more X&quot;, so isn't &quot;более&quot; sort of redundant? Or are these two somehow nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="67e3728c-0615-45e4-a2c4-7eb6181eebf8" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:33:43.157" UserId="8672" Text="How is &quot;как нельзя более кстати&quot; different from &quot;как нельзя кстати&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="67e3728c-0615-45e4-a2c4-7eb6181eebf8" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:33:43.157" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="9fc0f66e-ce15-494c-a36d-69cffdb31e1b" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:55:32.627" UserId="6907" Text="In English I if I want to refer to something specific or non specific I can just do it by adding articles. For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw **a** house.  (non specific house)&#xD;&#xA;= я видел дом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I saw **the** house. (Specific house) = я видел дом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the way to make such sentence in specific form in Russian language, if any? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="9fc0f66e-ce15-494c-a36d-69cffdb31e1b" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:55:32.627" UserId="6907" Text="я видел дом means I saw a house or I saw the house or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="9fc0f66e-ce15-494c-a36d-69cffdb31e1b" CreationDate="2018-10-08T13:55:32.627" UserId="6907" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17260" RevisionGUID="b9907806-7b0e-4713-a669-7eedba2b0470" CreationDate="2018-10-08T14:17:44.680" UserId="8672" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="&gt; Здоровый критицизм будет **как нельзя более кстати**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;vs: Здоровый критицизм будет  **как нельзя кстати**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose &quot;как нельзя&quot; by itself already has the meaning of &quot;couldn't be more X&quot;, so isn't &quot;более&quot; sort of redundant? Or are these two somehow nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the same goes for: &quot;как нельзя более к месту&quot; vs &quot;как нельзя к месту&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="39f07114-992f-4f49-bebc-3587ad97d984" CreationDate="2018-10-08T15:16:10.213" UserId="7674" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has just been discussed or mentioned, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Genitive vs Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыра &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыру &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="f823f30d-1355-49b8-ba7d-9773e621cb0a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T15:21:19.587" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has been discussed or mentioned just now or before a pause in conversation, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Genitive vs Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыра &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыру &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17263" RevisionGUID="31bc3607-a2df-4d4f-812b-0959d7e8683d" CreationDate="2018-10-08T17:34:47.960" UserId="582" Text="From my perspective &quot;Я видел дом&quot; is &quot;I saw the house&quot;. If you're talking about non-specific house, you're usually not talking about specific house, so people usually say &quot;Я видел дома&quot; (emphasis is on the last &quot;а&quot;. Equals to &quot;I saw houses&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44890" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="24d9048a-f294-45db-8254-742b3962109c" CreationDate="2018-10-08T17:53:38.677" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я видел дом&quot; means I saw a house or I saw the house or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17265" RevisionGUID="8954aaa2-18fc-454e-b255-bf2435bea910" CreationDate="2018-10-08T18:01:57.750" UserId="242" Text="There's no such thing like definite and indefinite articles in Russian. What you actually asking essentially is &quot;how come up with two different sentences so there will be one-to-one correspondence between such sentences and usage of definite and indefinite articles&quot;. But if you'll think about it you'll realize that that will mean that, well, there are definite and indefinite articles in Russian and, thus, we came to contradiction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like asking &quot;Hey, in our language we have exclusive and inclusive `we` - how it supposed to be expressed in your language?&quot;. The thing is if the concept doesn't exist you can not have single way to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases `какой-то` would be a fit. In some cases `этот`. In some - quite small set of cases - `один` can be used (&quot;один человек когда-то мне сказал&quot; differs from &quot;человек мне когда-то сказал&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally speaking this concept just does not belong to Russian. In other words, &quot;I saw a house&quot; depending on context can be translated &quot;] увидел какой-то дом&quot;, &quot;я вижу какой-то дом&quot;, &quot;я вижу дом&quot; etc. while &quot;I saw the house&quot; can be translated as &quot;я вижу тот самый дом&quot;, &quot;я вижу дом&quot;, &quot;я вижу этот дом&quot; etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="816f9309-6267-4c65-9381-f4dd2d446438" CreationDate="2018-10-08T18:46:07.060" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has been discussed or mentioned just now or before a pause in conversation, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Acusative vs Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыр &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыру &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="5496a958-1e4b-4bae-979e-ed0376be1cf3" CreationDate="2018-10-08T18:53:16.713" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has been discussed or mentioned just now or before a pause in conversation, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Acusative vs Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыр &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыру &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of indefinite article sometimes could be played by the numeral **один**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question in the title, `Я видел дом` means `I saw A house`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="2ff26ffa-0d8f-4baa-9712-c721b80cd9ee" CreationDate="2018-10-08T20:18:33.640" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has been discussed or mentioned just now or before a pause in conversation, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Accusative vs Genitive/Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыр &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыра/у &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of indefinite article sometimes could be played by the numeral **один**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question in the title, `Я видел дом` means `I saw A house`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="7b2b0be8-5122-4f2d-a853-b4a34836fd4d" CreationDate="2018-10-08T21:06:42.293" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has been discussed or mentioned just now or was before a pause in conversation, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Accusative vs Genitive/Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыр &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыра/у &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of indefinite article sometimes could be played by the numeral **один**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question in the title, `Я видел дом` means `I saw A house`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44896" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17249" RevisionGUID="f696169e-aa16-454b-b615-6dfd30bfbae9" CreationDate="2018-10-08T23:50:36.440" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[16092],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:9603,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Trey&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="44897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17266" RevisionGUID="ed3511cb-7863-4ddb-b55a-642e433ad3a1" CreationDate="2018-10-09T02:03:36.577" UserId="496" Text="&quot;Я видел дом&quot; can mean both &quot;I saw a house&quot; and &quot;I saw the house&quot;. Usually it is clear from the context. That's why when native English speakers read my text they easily can add &quot;a&quot; and &quot;the&quot; in many places to correct me (OK, not so many nowadays). Almost never they asked me: do you mean &quot;a&quot; or &quot;the&quot; in a particular place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English &quot;a&quot; and &quot;the&quot; are very often dropped in titles of newspaper articles and nobody complains about it - the information is still conveyed clearly. I just looked at the titles in Google News - almost no articles there. For example: &quot;UN report calls for urgent action to avert catastrophic climate change&quot;. Should it be &quot;**A** UN report calls for **the** urgent action to avert **a** catastrophic climate change&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: in 95% of cases putting &quot;a&quot; or &quot;the&quot; is redundant even in English. In those 5% cases when you want to distinguish a _concrete_ vs a _generic_ house you can use the words that were already suggested in previous very good answers: один, какой-то vs этот, тот, тот самый.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17266" RevisionGUID="da4835ca-59ed-44e5-a380-9f550ec56cd8" CreationDate="2018-10-09T02:15:02.970" UserId="496" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="&quot;Я видел дом&quot; can mean both &quot;I saw a house&quot; and &quot;I saw the house&quot;. Usually it is clear from the context. That's why when native English speakers read my text they easily can add &quot;a&quot; and &quot;the&quot; in many places to correct me (OK, not so many nowadays). Almost never they asked me: do you mean &quot;a&quot; or &quot;the&quot; in a particular place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English &quot;a&quot; and &quot;the&quot; are very often dropped in titles of newspaper articles and nobody complains about it - the information is still conveyed clearly. I just looked at the titles in Google News - almost no articles there. For example: &quot;UN report calls for urgent action to avert catastrophic climate change&quot;. Should it be &quot;**A** UN report calls for **the** urgent action to avert **a** catastrophic climate change&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: in 95% of cases putting &quot;a&quot; or &quot;the&quot; is redundant even in English. In those 5% cases when you want to distinguish a _concrete_ vs a _generic_ house you can use the words that were already suggested in previous very good answers: один, какой-то, некий vs этот, тот, тот самый. For example (in scientific speech) you can say: Я вижу некий дом. Этот дом имеет три этажа. But you also can say: Я вижу дом. Дом имеет три этажа. Here &quot;некий&quot; and &quot;этот&quot; are assumed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="29453850-1eda-478e-b8ef-a1c6c939f5af" CreationDate="2018-10-09T05:44:07.640" UserId="10593" Text="hi please look at the sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И стал припоминать Сократ все, чему учили его про Богов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused as to how чему is used here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the sentence translate to i&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Socrates remembered all, to which they taught him on the gods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't make sense to put 'to which' there as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="29453850-1eda-478e-b8ef-a1c6c939f5af" CreationDate="2018-10-09T05:44:07.640" UserId="10593" Text="How is чему used in this semtence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="29453850-1eda-478e-b8ef-a1c6c939f5af" CreationDate="2018-10-09T05:44:07.640" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17268" RevisionGUID="0d255817-dbed-450f-a1b4-d73434c09473" CreationDate="2018-10-09T05:56:20.947" UserId="11055" Text="We would use чему asking about what someone is being taught, as well as answering questions like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чему** вас учат в школе? *(what are you taught at school?)* - Много чему *(a lot of things*): математике, русскому языку, литературе и т.д. *(mathematics, Russian, literature etc.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю **чему** тебя учат. *(I don't know what you are being taught.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чему is a Dative form of что: учить чему? - математике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd translate your sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И стал припоминать Сократ все, чему учили его про Богов. - Socrates started remembering everything he had been taught about Gods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44903" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="2833f072-b42a-4db2-81c1-5d76c22eb346" CreationDate="2018-10-09T06:37:20.357" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="How is чему used in this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17269" RevisionGUID="5666ee11-a90a-4044-a087-09eee94146f9" CreationDate="2018-10-09T06:50:34.487" UserId="7674" Text="Here **учить** is a synonym of **обучать** which governs two cases Accusative and Dative &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учить/обучать &lt;sup&gt;*кого? Accusative*&lt;/sup&gt; - Сократа   &#xD;&#xA;учить/обучать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;*чему? Dative*&lt;/sup&gt; - всему&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dative doesn't always require preposition, it's formed perfectly just by inflexion alone in both English (eg. which) and Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in the English sentence preposition ***to*** is superfluous &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Socrates started to recall everything, [x] **which** they taught him on the gods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17268" RevisionGUID="675b6a16-b7d9-4c39-9d62-d951d7fd3752" CreationDate="2018-10-09T06:53:42.263" UserId="11055" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We would use чему asking about what someone is being taught, as well as answering questions like that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чему** вас учат в школе? *(what are you taught at school?)* - Много чему *(a lot of things*): математике, русскому языку, литературе и т.д. *(mathematics, Russian, literature etc.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю **чему** тебя учат. *(I don't know what you are being taught.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чему is the Dative form of что: учить чему? - математике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd translate your sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И стал припоминать Сократ все, чему учили его про Богов. - Socrates started remembering everything he had been taught about Gods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17270" RevisionGUID="e05c2363-217e-4fe8-a0a6-331f36da21c7" CreationDate="2018-10-09T07:14:27.980" UserId="134" Text="Etymologically, English infinitives (as well as Russian infinitives) are dative forms of nouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look long enough at the sentences &quot;I give the dog to you&quot; and &quot;I teach the dog to fly&quot;, you will probably start seeing their similarity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look long enough at the Russian sentences: _я учу сестру плести_ and _я приношу жертву нечисти_, you will probably see their similarity as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dative has long since died in English, but whenever you are saying &quot;I teach to swim&quot;, in English and Russian alike, your are saying the phrase which has started out as &quot;I teach to the skill of swimming&quot;, in dative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this will help you to wrap your head around it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17268" RevisionGUID="bba49f16-86fd-407d-a4b4-aa83e72cbd66" CreationDate="2018-10-09T08:05:06.180" UserId="11055" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="We would use чему asking about what someone is being taught, as well as answering questions like that. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чему** вас учат в школе? *(what are you taught at school?)* - Много чему *(a lot of things*): математике, русскому языку, литературе и т.д. *(mathematics, Russian, literature etc.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не знаю **чему** тебя учат. *(I don't know what you are being taught.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чему is the Dative form of что: учить чему? - математике.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'd translate your sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И стал припоминать Сократ все, чему учили его про Богов. - Socrates started remembering everything he had been taught about Gods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44908" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="cca4a71d-5079-40a6-84ee-07cf7d09885f" CreationDate="2018-10-09T09:12:53.083" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How is &quot;чему&quot; used in this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17267" RevisionGUID="cca4a71d-5079-40a6-84ee-07cf7d09885f" CreationDate="2018-10-09T09:12:53.083" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm confused as to how чему is used in following sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И стал припоминать Сократ все, чему учили его про Богов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the sentence translate to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And Socrates remembered all, to which they taught him on the gods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't make sense to put 'to which' there as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17271" RevisionGUID="2047abf6-a8f3-482e-8ec0-083375824b3b" CreationDate="2018-10-09T10:43:39.990" UserId="4560" Text="**Как нельзя** is the modern form; **как нельзя более** sounds loquacious and old-fashioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I don't think **более** is technically redundant; **как нельзя более** sounds like it was the original and complete expression, as it admittedly makes a bit more sense — but over time, its first two words came to sufficiently convey the meaning, and **более** was dropped for the sake of brevity, until at some point the full expression began to sound slightly outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a similar example, I'm reminded of the English word **nonplussed**; given how specific its meaning is, compared to the Latin for &quot;no more&quot; which it incorporates, I'm guessing it's the rump of what was originally a longer Latin expression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17262" RevisionGUID="9b9cd93c-c683-4815-96ff-c88764dce614" CreationDate="2018-10-09T10:55:08.173" UserId="7674" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="One, and perhaps the most obvious, way to indicate definiteness is through the use of demonstrative pronouns **этот/тот**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases the definiteness is derived from the context. If a certain house has been discussed or mentioned just now or was before a pause in conversation, the odds that the repeated word **дом** will mean some new unspoken-of house are pretty high (that is unlikely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes a shade of definiteness can follow from the choice of grammatical case as in Accusative vs Genitive/Partitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть сыр &lt;sup&gt;*definite*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;хотеть сыра/у &lt;sup&gt;*indefinite*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A role of indefinite article sometimes could be played by the numeral **один** similarly to indefinite article *ein* (one) in German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question in the title, `Я видел дом` means `I saw A house`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17272" RevisionGUID="47c75a3f-a9ea-47a7-a019-ef5108b30e9f" CreationDate="2018-10-09T12:24:40.187" UserId="2079" Text="Оба выражения употреблялись с 1830-х.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пик употребления &quot;как нельзя более кстати&quot; приходится на 1860-е, потом выражение употреблялось всё реже. С 2010 года употреблений в Корпусе русского языка нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как нельзя кстати&quot; - сокращённая форма. До примерно 1975 года употреблялась редко. В последней четверти 20 века частота её употребления взлетела. Сокращённая форма вытеснила полную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Графики:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [частота &quot;как нельзя более кстати&quot;][1] &#xD;&#xA; - [частота &quot;как нельзя кстати&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%E0%EA%20%ED%E5%EB%FC%E7%FF%20%E1%EE%EB%E5%E5%20%EA%F1%F2%E0%F2%E8%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%E0%EA%20%ED%E5%EB%FC%E7%FF%20%EA%F1%F2%E0%F2%E8%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17272" RevisionGUID="c94d3472-a302-404c-9817-01df9e142b7d" CreationDate="2018-10-09T12:43:41.470" UserId="2079" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="Оба выражения употреблялись с 1830-х.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пик употребления &quot;как нельзя более кстати&quot; приходится на 1860-е, потом выражение употреблялось всё реже. С 2010 года употреблений в Корпусе русского языка нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как нельзя кстати&quot; - сокращённая форма. До примерно 1975 года употреблялась редко. В последней четверти 20 века частота её употребления взлетела. Сокращённая форма вытеснила полную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Графики:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [частота &quot;как нельзя более кстати&quot;][1] &#xD;&#xA; - [частота &quot;как нельзя кстати&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: то, что в Корпусе нет примеров употреблений полной формы с 2010, не значит, что она совсем вышла из употребления: и выражение (в обеих своих формах) не такое уж частое, и текстов в эти годы относительно немного. Но из двух форм полная встречается гораздо реже, чем сокращённая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%E0%EA%20%ED%E5%EB%FC%E7%FF%20%E1%EE%EB%E5%E5%20%EA%F1%F2%E0%F2%E8%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;req=%22%EA%E0%EA%20%ED%E5%EB%FC%E7%FF%20%EA%F1%F2%E0%F2%E8%22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="65c06390-ba08-420c-9b8a-2555adbdcb93" CreationDate="2018-10-09T14:31:17.280" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Russian relies on the context. From the context it is almost always clear whether we speak about a definite or indefinite concept. In some cases it's unclear and we just use additional words to describe that. Look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There is boy whose name is Max. Boy entered room. In room there were lot of toys. Boy took his most beloved toy and went to another room. In this room Max placed toy on red table. On table were already other toys. Then, boy played with them some time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that you can correctly place all the missing articles in the example above. So, from the Russian (and almost any Slavic language) point of view the concept of articles is redundant. They don't carry any additional information, which isn't already available from the context. And that is the reason why Russians have problems and one can make funny jokes about them. And I hope that I used all the articles correctly in my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with the declension or predicative adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13018" RevisionGUID="04170312-d5dc-4f9d-aa9c-7a7c193b4ff8" CreationDate="2018-10-09T14:36:20.023" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Russian relies on the context. From the context it is almost always clear whether we speak about a definite or indefinite concept. In some cases it's unclear and we just use additional words to describe that. Look:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There is boy whose name is Max. Boy entered room. In room there were lot of toys. Boy took his most beloved toy and went to another room. In this room Max placed toy on red table. On table there were already other toys. Then, boy played with them some time.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure that you can correctly place all the missing articles in the example above. So, from the Russian (and almost any Slavic language) point of view the concept of articles is redundant. They don't carry any additional information, which isn't already available from the context. And that is the reason why Russians have problems and one can make funny jokes about them. And I hope that I used all the articles correctly in my explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has nothing to do with the declension or predicative adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44929" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="470b45cd-1e5b-45a0-bb3b-53b4a0a68616" CreationDate="2018-10-09T21:00:31.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1049766579376988163" />
  <row Id="44930" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="3795bccd-166d-4dec-805a-585bc6f49380" CreationDate="2018-10-10T03:00:10.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="44931" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17254" RevisionGUID="736d1f63-5c67-4eb7-8d8f-2c286a0b7205" CreationDate="2018-10-10T03:00:12.423" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1049857098220232704" />
  <row Id="44932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17275" RevisionGUID="6bc8ce7c-5608-41f9-abb1-513314e8ab63" CreationDate="2018-10-10T04:56:12.833" UserId="11060" Text="The author of the question about that phrase almost found out the real meaning in his theory #3: &quot;Soviet newspapers in particular induce desperation on its readers, so they're better avoided&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of the story M. Bulgakov meant that most of soviet newspapers untill 1970-1980 were full of negative information, pretentious propaganda, latent western threat, &quot;the image of the enemy&quot;, many others, and glorification of Bolshevism in general. It was nothing but totally brainwashing and permanent effort to influence on public perception. Even &quot;positive&quot; news had the real meaning to praice Bolshevism. For example: &quot;Soviet combine driver Ivan Ivanov saved the life of the chipmunk while harvesting&quot;. What a gentleman!! What the nice Soviet ideology is!&#xD;&#xA;Also some news had &quot;positive&quot; context but it was obvious that it could not make a person happy. For example: &quot;The Soviet Children's chorus performed the concert in the friendly German Democratic Republic&quot;. Ok. So what? Who cares? Are you serious?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way in the context of the story, Professor Preobrajensky didn't like the &quot;social revolution&quot; and Bolshevism at all. So he was against reading that newspapers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44933" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17194" RevisionGUID="5bc7cc67-3694-450e-97dd-30980a6f947e" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:00:33.650" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1049947784336556032" />
  <row Id="44934" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4557" RevisionGUID="8848b8d4-c363-48eb-8011-489f28e049c9" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:02:53.350" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="44935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="d7432c6e-4d60-45df-922e-a1f7dfaa1d6c" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:29:19.793" UserId="11055" Text="The Russian idiom сделать что-то **на авось** is very interesting indeed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it may be similar to the English idiom **on the off-chance**, which means relying on the remote possibility *(if you can translate на авось into English better, I'll be grateful for your helpful suggestions).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the origin of the idiom? What is авось? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="d7432c6e-4d60-45df-922e-a1f7dfaa1d6c" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:29:19.793" UserId="11055" Text="The origin of на авось" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="d7432c6e-4d60-45df-922e-a1f7dfaa1d6c" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:29:19.793" UserId="11055" Text="|перевод|этимология|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="f33f5bed-f4b0-4a3f-b2e9-40ebf791a0e8" CreationDate="2018-10-10T09:34:56.457" UserId="11055" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The Russian idiom сделать что-то **на авось** is very interesting indeed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that it may be similar to the English idiom **on the off-chance**, which means relying on the remote possibility *(if you can translate на авось into English better, I'll be grateful for your helpful suggestions).* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the origin of the idiom? And what is авось? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44939" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17261" RevisionGUID="aa0ffae0-6cae-48d3-bd46-a05309052969" CreationDate="2018-10-10T11:30:53.210" UserId="6097" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Я видел дом&quot; means &quot;I saw a house&quot; or &quot;I saw the house&quot; or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44940" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="4ee3a199-d1e9-4d17-b4bc-dcc0c6b71fcb" CreationDate="2018-10-10T13:03:37.413" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="The origin of &quot;на авось&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17277" RevisionGUID="d5276fb0-981c-442b-bb96-6fee8bd554b0" CreationDate="2018-10-11T13:06:45.427" UserId="2079" Text="There are some cases when `на авось` doesn't mean relying on the off-chance. Instead, in about half cases it means carelessly leaving something to the chance when one shouldn't.  Examples from the first 10 in the ruscorpora.ru:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Светлана была ... поздним ребёнком, родилась случайно, вернее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынужденно: врачи запретили её матери делать очередной тридцать шестой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аборт. Они и предыдущие тридцать пятый, и тридцать четвёртый, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двадцать шестой запрещали, но мать надеялась на авось ― и как-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обходилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, abortions were dangerous, but the mother still did 35 abortions, and got away with it.  Most probably, the chance of bad outcome was small, maybe 10% or less, but she might die, which justifies the usage of на авось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Направо или налево? Описание маршрута показалось ему таким простым,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что записывать поленился, подумал – и так запомнит, чего там. И не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запомнил… Он решил действовать на авось и повернул налево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chance is 50:50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надейтесь на авось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15 апреля в Новгородской области начинается всеобщая диспансеризация взрослого населения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, most people are not sick, but for some people, it may save the life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночевка рядом с немецкой границей в Польше (в Польше на порядок&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дешевле). Нам ночь в мотеле на 5 обошлась около 1000 р. Отель только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; во Франкфурте бронировала заранее, и то не оплачивала а просто по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; электронке. В Дюссельдорф приехали на &quot;авось&quot;. Отель системы Холлидей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инн Экспресс, такой перевалочный пункт для транзитных пассажиров, но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; очень приличный и недорогой. Места всегда есть по факту. Так же по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пути туда и обратно в Польше ничего не бронировали, приезжали и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заселялись сразу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the chance of good outcome here is close to 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прозвонщик ― это профессия, ― пояснил Родион, ― мелкий воришка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; который действует безо всякого плана, полагаясь на авось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the chance of &quot;good&quot; outcome (for the thief) is much higher than 50%, otherwise he wouldn't be able to &quot;work&quot; like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations in real texts do not use off-chance. Some examples from reverso.net:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ну, надеемся на авось - well, I guess we roll the dice  &#xD;&#xA; - она прослушалась на авось - she had auditioned on a whim &#xD;&#xA; - положиться на авось и убить человека - to go with your gut and kill a person&#xD;&#xA; - не люблю надеяться на авось - I don't like leaving too mucht ot chance &#xD;&#xA; - все живут одним днём в надежде на авось - all live one day a time&#xD;&#xA;   trusting to luck" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17257" RevisionGUID="821b7c7d-90c6-400b-a7ad-3adc5a9345e8" CreationDate="2018-10-11T15:00:40.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1050400797983469568" />
  <row Id="44943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17277" RevisionGUID="291fd634-c014-4bc9-9a2e-3515bd61fb9e" CreationDate="2018-10-11T15:55:50.477" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are some cases when `на авось` doesn't mean relying on the off-chance. Instead, in about half cases it means carelessly leaving something to the chance when one shouldn't.  Examples from the first 10 in the ruscorpora.ru:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Светлана была ... поздним ребёнком, родилась случайно, вернее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынужденно: врачи запретили её матери делать очередной тридцать шестой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аборт. Они и предыдущие тридцать пятый, и тридцать четвёртый, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двадцать шестой запрещали, но мать надеялась на авось ― и как-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обходилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, abortions were dangerous, but the mother still did 35 abortions, and got away with it.  Most probably, the chance of bad outcome was small, maybe 10% or less, but she might die, which justifies the usage of на авось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Направо или налево? Описание маршрута показалось ему таким простым,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что записывать поленился, подумал – и так запомнит, чего там. И не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запомнил… Он решил действовать на авось и повернул налево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chance is 50:50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надейтесь на авось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15 апреля в Новгородской области начинается всеобщая диспансеризация взрослого населения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, most people are not sick, but for some people, it may save the life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночевка рядом с немецкой границей в Польше (в Польше на порядок&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дешевле). Нам ночь в мотеле на 5 обошлась около 1000 р. Отель только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; во Франкфурте бронировала заранее, и то не оплачивала а просто по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; электронке. В Дюссельдорф приехали на &quot;авось&quot;. Отель системы Холлидей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инн Экспресс, такой перевалочный пункт для транзитных пассажиров, но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; очень приличный и недорогой. Места всегда есть по факту. Так же по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пути туда и обратно в Польше ничего не бронировали, приезжали и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заселялись сразу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the chance of good outcome here is close to 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прозвонщик ― это профессия, ― пояснил Родион, ― мелкий воришка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; который действует безо всякого плана, полагаясь на авось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the chance of &quot;good&quot; outcome (for the thief) is much higher than 50%, otherwise he wouldn't be able to &quot;work&quot; like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations in real texts do not use off-chance. Some examples from reverso.net:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ну, надеемся на авось - well, I guess we roll the dice  &#xD;&#xA; - она прослушалась на авось - she had auditioned on a whim &#xD;&#xA; - положиться на авось и убить человека - to go with your gut and kill a person&#xD;&#xA; - не люблю надеяться на авось - I don't like leaving too much on chance &#xD;&#xA; - все живут одним днём в надежде на авось - all live one day a time&#xD;&#xA;   trusting to luck" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17277" RevisionGUID="264edd08-71a1-42c3-9e64-39b1957e3cfe" CreationDate="2018-10-11T16:01:57.857" UserId="2079" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are some cases when `на авось` doesn't mean relying on the off-chance. Instead, in about half cases it means carelessly leaving something to the chance when one shouldn't.  Examples from the first 10 in the ruscorpora.ru:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Светлана была ... поздним ребёнком, родилась случайно, вернее&#xD;&#xA;&gt; вынужденно: врачи запретили её матери делать очередной тридцать шестой&#xD;&#xA;&gt; аборт. Они и предыдущие тридцать пятый, и тридцать четвёртый, и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двадцать шестой запрещали, но мать надеялась на авось ― и как-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обходилось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, abortions were dangerous, but the mother still did 35 abortions, and got away with it.  Most probably, the chance of bad outcome was small, maybe 10% or less. It is the serious consequences of bad outcome (possibly death) which justify the usage of `на авось`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Направо или налево? Описание маршрута показалось ему таким простым,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что записывать поленился, подумал – и так запомнит, чего там. И не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; запомнил… Он решил действовать на авось и повернул налево.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chance is 50:50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не надейтесь на авось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 15 апреля в Новгородской области начинается всеобщая диспансеризация взрослого населения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the chance of good outcome is higher than 50%, since most people are not sick. But for some people, the medical check-up may save their life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночевка рядом с немецкой границей в Польше (в Польше на порядок&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дешевле). Нам ночь в мотеле на 5 обошлась около 1000 р. Отель только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; во Франкфурте бронировала заранее, и то не оплачивала а просто по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; электронке. В Дюссельдорф приехали на &quot;авось&quot;. Отель системы Холлидей&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инн Экспресс, такой перевалочный пункт для транзитных пассажиров, но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; очень приличный и недорогой. Места всегда есть по факту. Так же по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; пути туда и обратно в Польше ничего не бронировали, приезжали и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заселялись сразу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the chance of good outcome here is close to 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прозвонщик ― это профессия, ― пояснил Родион, ― мелкий воришка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; который действует безо всякого плана, полагаясь на авось.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, the chance of &quot;good&quot; outcome (good from the thief's point of view, of course) should be much higher than 50%, otherwise he wouldn't be able to &quot;work&quot; like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translations in real texts do not use off-chance. Some examples from reverso.net:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ну, надеемся на авось - well, I guess we roll the dice  &#xD;&#xA; - она прослушалась на авось - she had auditioned on a whim &#xD;&#xA; - положиться на авось и убить человека - to go with your gut and kill a person&#xD;&#xA; - не люблю надеяться на авось - I don't like leaving too much on chance &#xD;&#xA; - все живут одним днём в надежде на авось - all live one day a time&#xD;&#xA;   trusting to luck" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44945" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17014" RevisionGUID="c79c4ddf-7af4-4a90-a810-487d0787670c" CreationDate="2018-10-12T03:00:15.470" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1050581886769254400" />
  <row Id="44946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17029" RevisionGUID="45dd2f65-0c86-47f9-b7c9-a086a577c3c1" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:00:30.327" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1050672544188006400" />
  <row Id="44947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="59f697a4-0eba-4c2b-948d-f1300790f5db" CreationDate="2018-10-12T12:18:47.573" UserId="10593" Text="дорогие друзья.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу спросить когда и почему слово 'то' добавится к несколько глаголы. Увидь предложение вниз:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты и ешь-то и пьёшь-то не вовремя, не тогда, когда есть и пить хочется, а от скуки.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="59f697a4-0eba-4c2b-948d-f1300790f5db" CreationDate="2018-10-12T12:18:47.573" UserId="10593" Text="russian verb + то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="59f697a4-0eba-4c2b-948d-f1300790f5db" CreationDate="2018-10-12T12:18:47.573" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="3177577f-c44f-456b-8c45-c7458800df55" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:09:22.200" UserId="11055" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Дорогие друзья,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу спросить когда и почему частица 'то' добавляется к глаголам. См. пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты и ешь-**то** и пьёшь-**то** не вовремя, не тогда, когда есть и пить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочется, а от скуки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44951" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="3177577f-c44f-456b-8c45-c7458800df55" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:09:22.200" UserId="11055" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Russian verb + то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44952" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="3177577f-c44f-456b-8c45-c7458800df55" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:09:22.200" Comment="Proposed by 11055 approved by -1 edit id of 991" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="8d9bf42a-05dc-46ab-93c0-90c3939c28e0" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:09:22.200" UserId="5605" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Когда и почему частица &quot;то&quot; добавляется к глаголам. См. пример:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты и ешь-то и пьёшь-то не вовремя, не тогда, когда есть и пить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хочется, а от скуки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="82873a30-0621-4a35-8edf-fc0000cf2955" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:10:29.683" UserId="11055" Text="I know the difference between &quot;*лошадь*&quot; and &quot;*конь*&quot; - лошадь is a female horse and конь is a male horse. I also know that we should treat &quot;**конный спорт**&quot; as a set expression. Thus, &quot;*лошадиный спорт*&quot; would be wrong. Another horse collocation is &quot;**лошадиный помёт**&quot;. &quot;*Конный помёт*&quot; is not that natural, I think. But why? Are only male horses used in horse riding? Any do only female horses, well, do their business? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is **why is it often so necessary to distinguish between the two sexes when talking about horses?** &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="82873a30-0621-4a35-8edf-fc0000cf2955" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:10:29.683" UserId="11055" Text="О конях и лошадях" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="82873a30-0621-4a35-8edf-fc0000cf2955" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:10:29.683" UserId="11055" Text="|выбор-слова|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44957" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="8d9bf42a-05dc-46ab-93c0-90c3939c28e0" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:09:22.200" UserId="5605" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Russian verb + &quot;то&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="db081879-4841-44e4-96a0-24dc5d43b852" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:18:23.467" UserId="11055" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I know the difference between &quot;*лошадь*&quot; and &quot;*конь*&quot; - лошадь is a female horse and конь is a male horse. I also know that we should treat &quot;**конный спорт**&quot; as a set expression. Thus, &quot;*лошадиный спорт*&quot; would be wrong. Another horse collocation is &quot;**лошадиный помёт**&quot;. &quot;*Конный помёт*&quot; is not that natural, I think. But why? Not only male horses are used in horse riding. Any not only female horses, well, do their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is **why is it often so necessary to distinguish between the two sexes when talking about horses?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even asking a simple question, like &quot;Do you ride a horse?, we should think about which is more natural: Ты ездишь на коне? Ты ездишь на лошади? By the way, I was told that &quot;на лошади&quot; is more natural, but I have no idea why... I hope you can clarify it. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17280" RevisionGUID="eba4c0bd-94b9-4a3d-b86f-fec3ad53b814" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:25:51.103" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;Конный спорт&quot; and &quot;лошадиный помет&quot; are just phrasemes/set phrases. Russian language does not have a word for a &quot;genderless&quot; horse so it **has to be** either a *he-horse something* or *she-horse something*. There is no any logical reason behind that, it's just impossible to say it in a gendreless way in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So don't think about it as a distinguishing between two horse sexes. It's not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17281" RevisionGUID="694257e7-bfcc-48a6-9746-9dec64915421" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:37:52.320" UserId="5605" Text="Частица &quot;то&quot; дополнительно употребляется после различных частей речи (**и после глаголов тоже**) ***для подчёркивания и выделения в предложении слова, к которому относится***: Слушать-то слушал, да ничего не понял. Однако мост-то наш каков. Неужто-таки и грешные-то молитвы мои не доходили. Как-то милые в дальнем краю? Я-то понимаю. Ночь-то какая тёплая! Где-то он сейчас? Что дальше-то делать будешь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17282" RevisionGUID="5c37d7dd-3b05-43b2-aff0-eee47cbe38fe" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:39:48.287" UserId="9673" Text="Word &quot;конный&quot; is used for things that are somehow related to horses and the uses of horses for man's needs: &quot;конный двор&quot; (stables), &quot;конный завод&quot; (stud farm), &quot;конная тяга&quot; (horse traction), &quot;конный полк&quot; (cavalry regiments), &quot;конный разведчик&quot; (mounted scout) etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words &quot;лошадиный&quot; and &quot;конский&quot; are used for things that are connected directly with the horses themselves as physical beings: &quot;лошадиный/конский череп&quot; (horse skull), &quot;лошадиное/конское ржание&quot; (horse neighing), &quot;лошадиный/конский помет&quot; (horse dung), &quot;лошадиная/конская доза&quot; (dose for a horse — an idiom meaning &quot;a large quantity&quot;). These two adjectives have different genders, and the default one (in cases where the horse's actual gender is unimportant) seems to be &quot;лошадиный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope now you can see the difference in their usage better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="1005a980-27a2-49e2-a05f-2852194802e5" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:40:53.247" UserId="11055" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I know the difference between &quot;*лошадь*&quot; and &quot;*конь*&quot; - лошадь is a female horse and конь is a male horse. I also know that we should treat &quot;**конный спорт**&quot; as a set expression. Thus, &quot;*лошадиный спорт*&quot; would be wrong. Another horse collocation is &quot;**лошадиный помёт**&quot;. &quot;*Конный помёт*&quot; is not that natural, I think. But why? Not only male horses are used in horse riding. Any not only female horses, well, do their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is **why is it often so necessary to distinguish between the two sexes when talking about horses?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even asking a simple question, like &quot;Do you ride a horse?”, we should think about which is more natural: Ты ездишь на коне? Ты ездишь на лошади? By the way, I was told that &quot;на лошади&quot; is more natural, but I have no idea why... I hope you can clarify it. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17281" RevisionGUID="3124bde7-a950-43ee-b011-06e3bf997194" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:43:50.753" UserId="5605" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="Частица &quot;то&quot; дополнительно употребляется после различных частей речи (**и после глаголов тоже**) ***для подчёркивания и выделения в предложении слова, к которому относится***: Слушать-то слушал, да ничего не понял. Однако мост-то наш каков. Неужто-таки и грешные-то молитвы мои не доходили. Как-то милые в дальнем краю? Я-то понимаю. Ночь-то какая тёплая! Где-то он сейчас? Что дальше-то делать будешь?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The particle &quot; то &quot; is additionally used after various parts of speech (**and after verbs too** ) ***for underlining and highlighting in the sentence of the word to which it belongs***." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17283" RevisionGUID="5336108b-53d9-439d-a09a-784351c6fcc8" CreationDate="2018-10-12T13:46:27.937" UserId="6539" Text="Лошадь is a bigger notion than you stated, it describes the family of animals, comprising both he-horses, in other words жеребец or конь and she-horses кобыла in Russian. Конь is colloquial, because specialists would rather say жеребец and кобыла. As for collocations they appear in speech during the history and can't be explained mostly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="fe38ed21-444c-4c79-9572-949ae1275274" CreationDate="2018-10-12T14:51:52.770" UserId="11055" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I know the difference between &quot;*лошадь*&quot; and &quot;*конь*&quot; - лошадь is a female horse and конь is a male horse. I also know that we should treat &quot;**конный спорт**&quot; as a set expression. Thus, &quot;*лошадиный спорт*&quot; would be wrong. Another horse collocation is &quot;**лошадиный помёт**&quot;. &quot;*Конный помёт*&quot; is not that natural, I think. But why? Not only male horses are used in horse riding (as far as I know). And not only female horses, well, do their business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is **why is it often so necessary to distinguish between the two sexes when talking about horses?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even asking a simple question, like &quot;Do you ride a horse?”, we should think about which is more natural: Ты ездишь на коне? Ты ездишь на лошади? By the way, I was told that &quot;на лошади&quot; is more natural, but I have no idea why... I hope you can clarify it. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17282" RevisionGUID="a57e819a-b926-4458-b05a-48f2ae51e5ff" CreationDate="2018-10-12T15:26:24.267" UserId="7544" Comment="Made the post a bit more clear and fixed a spelling mistake" Text="Word &quot;конный&quot; is used for things that are somehow related to horses and the uses of horses for man's needs: &quot;конный двор&quot; (stables), &quot;конный завод&quot; (stud farm), &quot;конная тяга&quot; (horse traction), &quot;конный полк&quot; (cavalry regiment), &quot;конный разведчик&quot; (mounted scout) etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words &quot;лошадиный&quot; and &quot;конский&quot; are used for things that are connected directly with the horses themselves as physical beings: &quot;лошадиный/конский череп&quot; (horse skull), &quot;лошадиное/конское ржание&quot; (horse neighing), &quot;лошадиный/конский помет&quot; (horse dung), &quot;лошадиная/конская доза&quot; (dose for a horse — an idiom meaning &quot;a large quantity&quot;). These two adjectives indicate different genders of the horse, and the default one (in cases where the horse's actual gender is unimportant) seems to be &quot;лошадиный&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope now you can see the difference in their usage better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44967" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17282" RevisionGUID="a57e819a-b926-4458-b05a-48f2ae51e5ff" CreationDate="2018-10-12T15:26:24.267" Comment="Proposed by 7544 approved by 9673 edit id of 992" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44968" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17279" RevisionGUID="9d975eec-9621-4443-b7aa-5a06ad0095ea" CreationDate="2018-10-12T21:00:23.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1050853710111367168" />
  <row Id="44972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17285" RevisionGUID="0a5ced31-756a-4e8b-bdf6-a45fd47e9fa9" CreationDate="2018-10-12T23:46:42.633" UserId="11055" Text="Literally &quot;бедный родственник&quot; means &quot;poor relative&quot;. But it doesn't make much sense in the following context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что ты смотришь на меня **как бедный родственник**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this idiom mean? And what is its origin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17285" RevisionGUID="0a5ced31-756a-4e8b-bdf6-a45fd47e9fa9" CreationDate="2018-10-12T23:46:42.633" UserId="11055" Text="The meaning of &quot;бедный родственник&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17285" RevisionGUID="0a5ced31-756a-4e8b-bdf6-a45fd47e9fa9" CreationDate="2018-10-12T23:46:42.633" UserId="11055" Text="|значения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17286" RevisionGUID="53091ec0-898f-4081-884a-66681b3073ef" CreationDate="2018-10-12T23:54:54.503" UserId="11055" Text="**&quot;Заморить червячка&quot;** is an idiom which can be loosely translated as *&quot;to get a bite to eat&quot;*, or *&quot;to have a snack / to have something to eat&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which worm does the expression refer to? What is its origin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17286" RevisionGUID="53091ec0-898f-4081-884a-66681b3073ef" CreationDate="2018-10-12T23:54:54.503" UserId="11055" Text="The origin of &quot;заморить червячка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17286" RevisionGUID="53091ec0-898f-4081-884a-66681b3073ef" CreationDate="2018-10-12T23:54:54.503" UserId="11055" Text="|значения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="abeeb3ae-dd9c-4791-a087-df27003986ac" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:17:55.923" UserId="62" Text="Is there a Russian word (not a long phrase) that describes a &quot;holdout&quot;? This word means someone who resists doing something themselves that most other people are in favor of, e.g., not leaving an area where a hurricane is approaching after the government tells everyone to depart, not surrendering at the end of a war when their side has lost (like the Japanese soldiers who hid in the jungles of the Pacific for years after 1945), or continuing to use blackboards when most others are okay with using whiteboards. I am not seeking a translation of &quot;luddite&quot; since that is more specific to refusing to accept changes in technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before posting here I asked several native speakers about this and either they  couldn't think of a translation or the suggestions I got were not considered accurate by others, such as консерватор, мракобес, and ретроград. If any native speaker reading this understands what a &quot;holdout&quot; is and can think of an accurate  translation, please let me know. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44979" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="abeeb3ae-dd9c-4791-a087-df27003986ac" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:17:55.923" UserId="62" Text="expressing the idea of a &quot;holdout&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44980" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="abeeb3ae-dd9c-4791-a087-df27003986ac" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:17:55.923" UserId="62" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="e18d2daf-bfb3-42f6-b516-805cde241132" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:24:52.360" UserId="2079" Text="Являются ли слова вроде `ферзь` одушевлёнными?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны, `ферзь` отвечает на вопрос &quot;что?&quot;, а не &quot;кто&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой, склоняется это существительное, по крайней мере в ед. ч., как одушевлённое: `потерял ферзя`, а не `потерял ферзь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А во множественном числе?  Как правильно: `потерять два ферзя` или `потерять двух ферзей`? `Потерять две пешки/ладьи` или `потерять двух пешек/ладей`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое впечатление, что шахматные фигуры обладают свойствами и одушевлённых, и неодушевлённых существительных. И к тому же свойства разные для разных фигур." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="e18d2daf-bfb3-42f6-b516-805cde241132" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:24:52.360" UserId="2079" Text="одушевлённость шахматных фигур" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="e18d2daf-bfb3-42f6-b516-805cde241132" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:24:52.360" UserId="2079" Text="|существительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="ac8dca31-2ffb-47d6-bfed-4f4f23875a5d" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:30:19.000" UserId="2079" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Являются ли слова вроде `ферзь` одушевлёнными?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны, `ферзь` отвечает на вопрос &quot;что?&quot;, а не &quot;кто&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой, склоняется это существительное, по крайней мере в ед. ч., как одушевлённое: `потерял ферзя`, а не `потерял ферзь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А во множественном числе с числительным?  Как правильно: `потерять два ферзя` или `потерять двух ферзей`? `Потерять две пешки/ладьи` или `потерять двух пешек/ладей`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И есть ли разница со слонами и конями?  Потерять два слона или потерять двух слонов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое впечатление, что шахматные фигуры обладают свойствами и одушевлённых, и неодушевлённых существительных. И к тому же свойства разные для разных фигур." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="889c9888-54b9-48e7-b64f-b8b9bea6591d" CreationDate="2018-10-13T00:37:42.167" UserId="2079" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Являются ли слова вроде `ферзь` одушевлёнными?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С одной стороны, `ферзь` отвечает на вопрос &quot;что&quot;, а не &quot;кто&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;С другой, склоняется это существительное, по крайней мере в ед. ч., как одушевлённое: `потерял ферзя`, а не `потерял ферзь`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А во множественном числе с числительным?  Как правильно: `потерять два ферзя` или `потерять двух ферзей`? `Потерять две пешки/ладьи` или `потерять двух пешек/ладей`?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И есть ли разница со слонами и конями?  Потерять два слона или потерять двух слонов?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такое впечатление, что шахматные фигуры обладают свойствами и одушевлённых, и неодушевлённых существительных. И к тому же свойства разные для разных фигур. По-моему:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - пешка и ладья - полностью неодушевленные: отвечают на вопрос &quot;что&quot;, с числительными ведут себя как неодушевленные, склонение в единственном числе не зависит от одушевленности&#xD;&#xA; - король, ферзь, слон, конь - обладают смесью признаков одушевленных и неодушевленных существительных: отвечают на вопрос &quot;что&quot;, с числительными ведут себя и так, и так, склонение в единственном числе как у одушевленных" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17289" RevisionGUID="305c3451-d913-412a-af29-a0dbb1819d46" CreationDate="2018-10-13T02:50:09.263" UserId="11055" Text="A **holdout** is someone who *refuses to agree or act with other people* in a particular situation and *by doing so stops the situation from progressing* or being resolved (the Collins Dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that the translation of the word into Russian depends on the context, and there may be no one word that would mean everything &quot;holdout&quot; means in every situation. The sentences below are taken from English-English dictionaries and next to them you can see my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; France has been the **holdout** in trying to negotiate an end to the dispute. - Франция **не оказывает активного содействия** в попытках уладить спорный вопрос. (Perhaps, we could call France &quot;**саботажник**&quot; переговоров, but it might be inappropriate.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's time to shame **holdouts** into signing the treaty. - Пора заставить **уклонистов** подписать договор.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He says he might be a **holdout** at the start of the next season if the team doesn't agree to pay him more. - Он говорит, что в начале следующего сезона может &quot;**стать в позу**&quot;, если ему не будут платить больше. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you really need one word, I'd suggest **саботажник** or **уклонист**. But sometimes idioms (e.g. стать в позу) or the use of a whole phrase, like не оказывать содействия/поддержки; оставаться в стороне, work better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17290" RevisionGUID="be35b491-6341-42fa-b740-972c3222e5c6" CreationDate="2018-10-13T02:52:35.463" UserDisplayName="user10940" Text="The phrase is actually quite close to its literal meaning. Poor relatives usually ask others in their family for support and help, so the phrase came to mean *&quot;someone who is humiliated, dependent on others&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] is a dictionary source for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know where specifically the phrase comes from, but Google's Ngram corpora show its usage as such:&#xD;&#xA;[![Usage of &quot;бедный родственник&quot;][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the earliest result being [this almanac][3]. The snippet is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В собственной кибитке он чувствует себя, как бедный родственник на свадьбе у богатого дяди. Может быть, в самом деле придет время, когда его посадят на женскую половину и заставят мыть посуду и месить тесто...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which translates to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In his own yurt he feels like a poor relative at the wedding of a rich uncle. Maybe, in fact, the time will come when they put him on the female half and make him wash the dishes and knead the dough...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://phraseology.academic.ru/10787/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C4gjv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%22&amp;tbm=bks&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1947&amp;lr=lang_ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17289" RevisionGUID="070c0c3e-468a-49ac-baee-8a7c2b5085b9" CreationDate="2018-10-13T02:55:17.657" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="A **holdout** is someone who *refuses to agree or act with other people* in a particular situation and *by doing so stops the situation from progressing* or being resolved (the Collins Dictionary).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that the translation of the word into Russian depends on the context, and there may be no one word that would mean everything &quot;holdout&quot; means. The sentences below are taken from English-English dictionaries and next to them you can see my translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; France has been the **holdout** in trying to negotiate an end to the dispute. - Франция **не оказывает активного содействия** в попытках уладить спорный вопрос. (Perhaps, we could call France &quot;**саботажник**&quot; переговоров, but it might be inappropriate.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's time to shame **holdouts** into signing the treaty. - Пора заставить **уклонистов** подписать договор.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He says he might be a **holdout** at the start of the next season if the team doesn't agree to pay him more. - Он говорит, что в начале следующего сезона может &quot;**стать в позу**&quot;, если ему не будут платить больше. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you really need one word, I'd suggest **саботажник** or **уклонист**. But sometimes idioms (e.g. стать в позу) or the use of не оказывать содействия/поддержки, оставаться в стороне, work better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17291" RevisionGUID="06b85c06-09f8-4764-bbbb-5ff0ecd7615d" CreationDate="2018-10-13T02:59:05.933" UserDisplayName="user10940" Text="The phrase is french in origin (*&quot;tuer le ver&quot;*) and referred originally to the drinking of the alcohol on the empty stomach. This was supposed to quite literally &quot;kill the worm&quot; of the parasitic variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [link][1] to french wikitionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/tuer_le_ver" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17278" RevisionGUID="6db3b6eb-8ca2-4abe-967e-140fcb8b5862" CreationDate="2018-10-13T03:00:39.393" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1050944374962614272" />
  <row Id="44992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="972cf788-4366-42ab-9b71-c4bfa2353a8f" CreationDate="2018-10-13T08:59:52.740" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Являются ли слова вроде ферзь одушевлёнными?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_пешка, ладья_ are inanimate, all others (_конь, слон, король, ферзь_) are animate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А во множественном числе с числительным? Как правильно: потерять два ферзя или потерять двух ферзей? Потерять две пешки/ладьи или потерять двух пешек/ладей?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's _потерять двух ферзей, потерять две пешки_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_потерять два ферзя_ is sometimes used colloquially as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., 153.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В вариантах _купить двух коров – купить две коровы, подстрелить трех уток – подстрелить три утки_ (при названиях животных в форме женского рода, когда речь идет об общем счете, купле-продаже) вторая форма имеет разговорный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes numerals with plural genitive a bad test for animacy. Using an adjective or a possessive pronoun would make a better test: _потерял своих ферзей / *потерял свои ферзи; потерял свои пешки / *потерял своих пешек_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that animacy is not an intrinsic property of a Russian noun, it can change with context: _изучать креветок / варить креветки_. Let me quote another piece from Rosenthal's guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В различии форм _поймал трех рыбок – съел три рыбки_ сказывается то обстоятельство, что во втором случае имеется в виду кушанье, т.е. неодушевленность (ср.: _съесть кильки, сардины, шпроты_ – как нерасчлененный продукт; но: _съесть карасей, раков, цыплят_ – как единичные предметы). Возможные варианты: _есть креветок, устриц, пулярок – есть креветки, устрицы, пулярки_. **Такие же колебания наблюдаются у существительных _матрешка, кукла, марионетка_**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chess pieces are not that unlike dolls or puppets, so I would not be surprised to hear something like _он делает шахматные короли и королевы на токарном станке_ some day, although this is ungrammatical as of now.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44993" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="f71dfe28-11e1-4699-85b2-1ccb0c4f4a66" CreationDate="2018-10-13T10:12:20.477" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Одушевлённость шахматных фигур" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44994" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="91add0ab-3453-45b1-bb50-8817ebab6baf" CreationDate="2018-10-13T10:12:32.323" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Expressing the idea of a &quot;holdout&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17293" RevisionGUID="c2ab4db0-7c84-4ce4-a41b-e9e6b4fbcfa1" CreationDate="2018-10-13T10:29:08.667" UserId="134" Comment="I know, alright?" Text="&gt; Являются ли слова вроде ферзь одушевлёнными?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_пешка, ладья_ are inanimate, all others (_конь, слон, король, ферзь_) are animate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А во множественном числе с числительным? Как правильно: потерять два ферзя или потерять двух ферзей? Потерять две пешки/ладьи или потерять двух пешек/ладей?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's _потерять двух ферзей, потерять две пешки_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_потерять два ферзя_ is sometimes used colloquially as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rosenthal et al., 153.3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В вариантах _купить двух коров – купить две коровы, подстрелить трех уток – подстрелить три утки_ (при названиях животных в форме женского рода, когда речь идет об общем счете, купле-продаже) вторая форма имеет разговорный характер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes numerals with plural genitive a bad test for animacy. Using an adjective or a possessive pronoun would make a better test: _потерял своих ферзей / *потерял свои ферзи; потерял свои пешки / *потерял своих пешек_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that animacy is not an intrinsic property of a Russian noun, it can change with context: _изучать креветок / варить креветки_. Let me quote another piece from Rosenthal's guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В различии форм _поймал трех рыбок – съел три рыбки_ сказывается то обстоятельство, что во втором случае имеется в виду кушанье, т.е. неодушевленность (ср.: _съесть кильки, сардины, шпроты_ – как нерасчлененный продукт; но: _съесть карасей, раков, цыплят_ – как единичные предметы). Возможные варианты: _есть креветок, устриц, пулярок – есть креветки, устрицы, пулярки_. **Такие же колебания наблюдаются у существительных _матрешка, кукла, марионетка_**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(emphasis mine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chess pieces are not that unlike dolls or puppets, so I would not be surprised to hear something like _он делает шахматные короли и ферзи на токарном станке_ some day, although this is ungrammatical as of now.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="44999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17294" RevisionGUID="877a1715-87d0-4eab-a469-1642fdf828db" CreationDate="2018-10-13T18:01:30.887" UserId="10271" Text="I understand *скачать* is for *download*, but what is the correct term for *install*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(по)ставить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17294" RevisionGUID="877a1715-87d0-4eab-a469-1642fdf828db" CreationDate="2018-10-13T18:01:30.887" UserId="10271" Text="Russian verb for &quot;install (a PC application)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17294" RevisionGUID="877a1715-87d0-4eab-a469-1642fdf828db" CreationDate="2018-10-13T18:01:30.887" UserId="10271" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17295" RevisionGUID="bc490914-cbde-489d-914b-a056c260cb73" CreationDate="2018-10-13T18:04:02.627" UserId="7674" Text="**Установить/устанавливать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(По)Cтавить** can be used colloquially" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17296" RevisionGUID="00c79929-2a84-4f7e-9c0c-f5c0eb6d71aa" CreationDate="2018-10-14T13:28:25.223" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; прекрасный вечер&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прекрасная девушка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; красивый пейзаж&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if the choice depends on what noun follows?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17296" RevisionGUID="00c79929-2a84-4f7e-9c0c-f5c0eb6d71aa" CreationDate="2018-10-14T13:28:25.223" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;прекрасный&quot; and when to use &quot;красивый&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17296" RevisionGUID="00c79929-2a84-4f7e-9c0c-f5c0eb6d71aa" CreationDate="2018-10-14T13:28:25.223" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17297" RevisionGUID="8861da06-b943-4bdf-92fb-0d27ab0dc2b0" CreationDate="2018-10-14T13:54:48.967" UserId="7674" Text="**Красивый** is more about appearance of things, good looking, **прекрасный** is about the spirit of things, the impression they inspire and feelings they evoke, their inner virtues...   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А woman can be **Некрасивая** but **прекрасная**... **Прекрасный вечер** is about how it makes you feel, **красивый вечер** is about how the surroundings look, this is the rule of thumb but there's a degree of overlap and interchangeability between them as well and probably there're some collocations where certain adjective is more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аt the same time **красивый** &amp; **прекрасный пейзаж** both mean more or less the same thing referring to the appearance with difference in degree of external beauty which is greater with **прекрасный**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are cognates of each other having **крас** as their root. **Красный** in its archaic meaning and **красивый** are synonyms ([красный угол](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красный_угол), Красная площадь, красна девица). And in **прекрасный** the quality denoted by the root **крас** is amplified with the prefix **пре-** which means beyond. So technically **прекрасный** is simply *more beautiful*, *more good looking*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="529277f2-8ea0-4347-8169-d953116a91f4" CreationDate="2018-10-14T14:53:12.613" UserId="11012" Text="This is again from the B2 exam that I am trying to prepare for. The question is:&#xD;&#xA;Всесторонне обсудив тему...&#xD;&#xA;А) работа была начата&#xD;&#xA;Б) было произведено начало работ&#xD;&#xA;В) можно начинать работу&#xD;&#xA;Г) работа началась&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is В) the right answer? Would A) be correct if it was работа было начата? And would Г be correct if it was работа началось? Very confused about this one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="529277f2-8ea0-4347-8169-d953116a91f4" CreationDate="2018-10-14T14:53:12.613" UserId="11012" Text="Why is only one of these correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="529277f2-8ea0-4347-8169-d953116a91f4" CreationDate="2018-10-14T14:53:12.613" UserId="11012" Text="|перевод|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17297" RevisionGUID="89c55171-35c0-4926-ac1b-0c3bcfb58b99" CreationDate="2018-10-14T15:47:01.530" UserId="7674" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="**Красивый** is more about appearance of things, good look, **прекрасный** is about the spirit of things, the impression they inspire and feelings they evoke, their inner virtues, their effectiveness...   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А woman can be **НEкрасивая** but **прекрасная**... **Прекрасный вечер** is about how it makes you feel, **красивый вечер** is about how the surroundings look.  &#xD;&#xA;This is the rule of thumb but there's a degree of overlap and interchangeability between them as well and probably there're some stable collocations where certain adjective is more idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аt the same time **красивый** &amp; **прекрасный пейзаж** both mean more or less the same thing referring to the appearance with difference in degree of external beauty which is greater with **прекрасный**. Speaking however of a painting, **прекрасный** will rather refer to the workmanship and artistry of the painter, where beautiful is the work itself and not the depicted scenery. In this sense **прекрасный** means *great*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both words are cognates of each other having **крас** as their root. **Красный** in its archaic meaning and **красивый** are synonyms ([красный угол](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красный_угол), Красная площадь, красна девица). And in **прекрасный** the quality denoted by the root **крас** is amplified with the prefix **пре-** which means beyond, over. So literally **прекрасный** is simply *more beautiful*, *more good looking*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17299" RevisionGUID="a66cfc29-ac05-43bf-9bcf-374b05605018" CreationDate="2018-10-14T16:00:01.077" UserId="7674" Text="In Russian subject of adverbial participial phrases must agree with the subject of the main clause.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only the variant B adheres to this rule. The rest have a different subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the given adverbial participial phrase the subject is humans (because only humans are endowed with ability to discuss things), in the variants A, Б &amp; Г on the other hand it's either работа (А, Г) or начало (Б).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is admittedly difficult because variant B makes for an impersonal sentence where the subject isn't immediately evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17300" RevisionGUID="f3bd79b4-39d7-4a1a-ab22-f48e7f1f2943" CreationDate="2018-10-14T16:05:44.897" UserId="134" Text="This question tests your ability to use adverbial participles (*деепричастия*). They should be in agreement and not to be what English grammarians call &quot;dangling participles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the most strict points of view, all the answers above are incorrect: the adverbial participle requires a subject, a verb, and the subject being the agent for both the verb and the participle in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverbial clause here reads &quot;having throughly discussed the topic&quot;, so there has to be a subject and the subject should be the agent (something which did the discussion). In *А* and *Г* the subject is *работа* (&quot;work&quot;), and it did not do the discussion, so those are incorrect. In *Б* and *В*, there is no subject at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the requirement for the existence of the subject can be relaxed. One of the most influential Russian style guides, *Справочник по правописанию, произношению, литературному редактированию* by Rosenthal et al., suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ряде случаев возможно употребление деепричастного оборота, не выражающего действия подлежащего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) если производитель действия, обозначенного деепричастием, совпадает с производителем действия, обозначенного другой глагольной формой (инфинитивом, причастием, деепричастием), например: *Автору было предложено внести в рукопись дополнения, учитывая изменения, происшедшие в жизни общества за последнее время; Ничем нельзя было удержать напора волн, нахлынувших на берег, сметая все на своем пути;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) в безличном предложении при инфинитиве, например: *Приходилось работать в трудных условиях, не имея в течение многих недель ни одного свободного дня для отдыха.* Если же в безличном предложении нет инфинитива, к которому мог бы относиться деепричастный оборот, то употребление последнего стилистически неоправданно, например: *Уезжая из родного города, мне стало грустно; Прочитав вторично рукопись, редактору показалось, что она нуждается в серьезной доработке.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В* makes an impersonal sentence with an infinitive, so the usage of *В* is correct, at least, according to Rosenthal.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17299" RevisionGUID="06ea2659-8d13-4e1e-849d-9769cb053230" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:01:22.280" UserId="7674" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпив чаю, я отправился на работу &lt;sup&gt;*correct*&lt;/sup&gt; - Having drunk my tea I left for work  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выпив чаю, мне позвонили с работы &lt;sup&gt;*INcorrect*&lt;/sup&gt; - Having drunk my tea a call from work came in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only variant B adheres to this rule. The rest have different subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the given adverbial participial phrase the subject is humans (because only humans are endowed with ability to discuss things), in the variants A, Б &amp; Г on the other hand it's either работа (А, Г) or начало (Б). Only variant B implies humans because they're those who able to commence work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is admittedly difficult because variant B makes for an impersonal sentence where the subject isn't immediately evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17299" RevisionGUID="4d89bcf6-6e4a-488c-a153-d8d0cd2ea226" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:06:59.840" UserId="7674" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="In Russian subject of adverbial participial phrases must agree with the subject of the main clause. But it's also simply logical and should be true for other languages as well, English in particular.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*correct*&lt;/sup&gt; Выпив чаю, я отправился на работу  - Having drunk my tea I left for work  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;*INcorrect*&lt;/sup&gt; Выпив чаю, мне позвонили с работы  - Having drunk my tea a call from work came in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only variant B adheres to this rule. The rest have different subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the given adverbial participial phrase the subject is humans (because only humans are endowed with ability to discuss things), in the variants A, Б &amp; Г on the other hand it's either работа (А, Г) or начало (Б). Only variant B implies humans because they're those who able to commence work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is admittedly difficult because variant B makes for an impersonal sentence where the subject isn't immediately evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45016" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="5be149f8-af64-417e-be2f-5d01982b4f98" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:11:34.573" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|participle-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17299" RevisionGUID="35da2fbe-0110-46e5-aa3d-61fde15a0fcf" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:12:53.953" UserId="7674" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="In Russian subject of [participle clauses](https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/intermediate-grammar/participle-clauses) must agree with the subject of the main clause. But it's also simply logical and should be true for other languages as well, English in particular.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*correct*&lt;/sup&gt; Выпив чаю, я отправился на работу  - Having drunk my tea I left for work  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;*INcorrect*&lt;/sup&gt; Выпив чаю, мне позвонили с работы  - Having drunk my tea a call from work came in &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And only variant B adheres to this rule. The rest have different subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the given participle clause the subject is humans (because only humans are endowed with ability to discuss things), in the variants A, Б &amp; Г on the other hand it's either работа (А, Г) or начало (Б). Variant B just like the participle clause implies humans because they're those who able to commence work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is admittedly difficult because variant B makes for an impersonal sentence where the subject isn't immediately evident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17300" RevisionGUID="e91a9e44-b2ed-44cc-96ca-2b7954dd531a" CreationDate="2018-10-14T17:13:26.787" UserId="134" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="This question tests your ability to use adverbial participles (*деепричастия*). They should be in agreement and not to be what English grammarians call &quot;dangling participles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the most strict points of view, all the answers above are incorrect: the adverbial participle requires a subject, a verb, and the subject being the agent for both the verb and the participle in the sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverbial clause here reads &quot;having thoroughly discussed the topic&quot;, so there has to be a subject and the subject should be the agent (something which did the discussion). In *А* and *Г* the subject is *работа* (&quot;work&quot;), and it did not do the discussion, so those are incorrect. In *Б*, the subject is *начало*, and it's not an agent for the participle either (the beginning or work did not do the discussion). Finally, in *В*, there is no subject at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the requirement for the existence of the subject can be relaxed. One of the most influential Russian style guides, *Справочник по правописанию, произношению, литературному редактированию* by Rosenthal et al., suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В ряде случаев возможно употребление деепричастного оборота, не выражающего действия подлежащего:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) если производитель действия, обозначенного деепричастием, совпадает с производителем действия, обозначенного другой глагольной формой (инфинитивом, причастием, деепричастием), например: *Автору было предложено внести в рукопись дополнения, учитывая изменения, происшедшие в жизни общества за последнее время; Ничем нельзя было удержать напора волн, нахлынувших на берег, сметая все на своем пути;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) в безличном предложении при инфинитиве, например: *Приходилось работать в трудных условиях, не имея в течение многих недель ни одного свободного дня для отдыха.* Если же в безличном предложении нет инфинитива, к которому мог бы относиться деепричастный оборот, то употребление последнего стилистически неоправданно, например: *Уезжая из родного города, мне стало грустно; Прочитав вторично рукопись, редактору показалось, что она нуждается в серьезной доработке.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В* makes an impersonal sentence with an infinitive, so the usage of *В* is correct, at least, according to Rosenthal.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17301" RevisionGUID="d70a26ae-6ec6-4dec-a96e-d2e9447172af" CreationDate="2018-10-14T19:55:43.467" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; остаться здесь **навсегда**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уснуть **навеки** / **навек**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вовеки** / **вовек** не забуду &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They each seem to match better with some ideas than the others do, but how can I determine when to use each one? How are they nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And about the extra letter &quot;и&quot;... I wonder if &quot;навеки/навек&quot; and &quot;вовеки/вовек&quot; are simply interchangeable respectively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17301" RevisionGUID="d70a26ae-6ec6-4dec-a96e-d2e9447172af" CreationDate="2018-10-14T19:55:43.467" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;навсегда&quot;, &quot;навек(и)&quot;, &quot;вовек(и)&quot;: When to use each one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17301" RevisionGUID="d70a26ae-6ec6-4dec-a96e-d2e9447172af" CreationDate="2018-10-14T19:55:43.467" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17301" RevisionGUID="a239955e-d438-4280-9f6d-d8660d894f97" CreationDate="2018-10-14T20:00:59.810" UserId="8672" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; остаться здесь **навсегда**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уснуть **навеки** / **навек**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вовеки** / **вовек** не забуду &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; любить тебя **вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тhey can all translate as &quot;forever&quot; in English, but they each seem to match better with some ideas than the others do. How can I determine when to use each one? How are they nuanced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And about the extra letter &quot;и&quot;... I wonder if &quot;навеки/навек&quot; and &quot;вовеки/вовек&quot; are simply interchangeable respectively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45023" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17301" RevisionGUID="a239955e-d438-4280-9f6d-d8660d894f97" CreationDate="2018-10-14T20:00:59.810" UserId="8672" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;навсегда&quot;, &quot;навек(и)&quot;, &quot;вовек(и)&quot;, &quot;вечно&quot;: When to use each one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="42119705-9b72-492f-8659-588bf3ab8a55" CreationDate="2018-10-14T20:58:13.010" UserId="7674" Text="**Навсегда/навеки** are *forever* and they can't be combined with negation, but **вовеки** can and mostly is and in this case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17286" RevisionGUID="584b68d4-985f-4d08-a67b-0bb3c21e2bdf" CreationDate="2018-10-14T21:00:35.033" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1051578535490543616" />
  <row Id="45026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="dafbd4d4-4bb0-4823-bd22-d6c12a1e41f0" CreationDate="2018-10-14T21:05:27.360" UserId="7674" Comment="added 329 characters in body" Text="**Навсегда/навеки** are *forever* and they can't be combined with negation, but **вовеки** can and mostly is and in this case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уснуть** is not so straightforward as in its imperfective aspect the choice of adverb depends on the actual meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уснуть/засыпать **навсегда/навеки/навечно** - to fall/to be falling asleep for good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всегда/вечно** засыпать - to be falling asleep every time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="541e287b-fce0-4863-b5ee-cc50c7682bc1" CreationDate="2018-10-14T21:13:23.427" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="**Навсегда/навеки** are *forever* and they can't be combined with negation of the verb, but **вовеки** can and mostly is and in this case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уснуть** is not so straightforward as in its imperfective aspect the choice of adverb depends on the actual meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уснуть/засыпать **навсегда/навеки/навечно** - to fall/to be falling asleep for good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всегда/вечно** засыпать - to be falling asleep every time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="44553b22-6726-4a03-baf0-48f9fca3f508" CreationDate="2018-10-14T21:23:15.800" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="**Навсегда/навеки** are *forever* and rarely combined with negation of the verb, but **вовеки** mostly is and in this case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уснуть** is not so straightforward as in its imperfective aspect the choice of adverb depends on the actual meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уснуть/засыпать **навсегда/навеки/навечно** - to fall/to be falling asleep for good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всегда/вечно** засыпать - to be falling asleep every time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="f936d06d-5a87-4180-8fb5-d61accc5f14e" CreationDate="2018-10-14T21:24:35.770" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="**Вовеки** is mostly used with negated verb in which case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уснуть** is not so straightforward as in its imperfective aspect the choice of adverb depends on the actual meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уснуть/засыпать **навсегда/навеки/навечно** - to fall/to be falling asleep for good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всегда/вечно** засыпать - to be falling asleep every time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="af91ad63-32e7-43e6-9eca-9d9fc59ee871" CreationDate="2018-10-15T03:51:23.613" UserId="11073" Text="When I was taking my one (weak) Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds.  The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись.  At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably speak them.  Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign.  Is that rare, not uncommon, or happens all the time?  Is there any list of words like this somewhere?  I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc.  Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear?  Or does Russian encode words differing only in a soft sign with wildly different meaning so the correct word is heard easily in context?  (Apparently, Борись is archaic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="af91ad63-32e7-43e6-9eca-9d9fc59ee871" CreationDate="2018-10-15T03:51:23.613" UserId="11073" Text="Pairs of words differing only by a soft sign" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="af91ad63-32e7-43e6-9eca-9d9fc59ee871" CreationDate="2018-10-15T03:51:23.613" UserId="11073" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17304" RevisionGUID="8c8e34a7-fbc6-4e03-bfd3-34235a9aadca" CreationDate="2018-10-15T04:49:39.473" UserId="11055" Text="It seems to me that there are not so many Russian words like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few pairs I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мол - моль &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ролл - роль (the spelling differs a lot but the sound at the end is very similar - the only difference is the l' sound at the end of роль)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кров - кровь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вонь - вон&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коп - копь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there may be more examples. If I remember some more, I promise to edit my answer adding the pair(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for understanding which word is being said, I don't think it's too hard. I can't remember a time when I or someone I know had such problems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17305" RevisionGUID="ee47923d-f068-46d1-a867-1ac07fdae865" CreationDate="2018-10-15T05:20:33.180" UserId="10749" Text="The vowels in `dessous` and `dessus` are clearly different - like **u** in `full` vs **u** in `dude`. Unless you pronounce `dude` like `dood` there shouldn't be any confusion between 'below' and 'above' in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a clear difference to a Russian speaker between the consonants with and without the soft sign. `Конь` sounds different from `кон` and `даль` sounds different from `дал`. &#xD;&#xA;Palatalized vs non-palatalized consonant is easily audible for a native speaker. There might be more combination like that, but it's the only one I can think of that comes up often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact the only two words that sound very similar and often have to be repeated loudly in Russian that I can think of are `Июнь` and `Июль`, but it's because of **l** and **n** sounding similar in that particular combination, especially when pronounced quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try saying `Ron`, then `Ronnie`. And try to cut off the 'ie' from Ronnie while keeping the trailing soft sound after the 'n'. It sounds as if you were going to pronounce 'e' or 'i' after a consonant but changed your way at the very last moment and the vowel got cut off, leaving consonant sounding different than normally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find an audio of `дельфин` In Russian. Don't worry about the stress (it's on the second syllable), just listen to the **l** sound and compare it with **l** in English `dolphin`. You can use Google Translate, the pronunciation is alright there. It might not be clear if you're not used to the sound, but once you get it, you shouldn't be confused afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video starts right at chorus. &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/FqB-m0dKO-g?t=78&#xD;&#xA;At the second line (repeated throughout) there are two words with and without soft sign after **т** -  `память` and `лет`. The singer cuts off 't' very nicely so `лет` has a very nice short **hard т** sound, (while `память` has a **soft t**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17304" RevisionGUID="c26e1c65-6688-4219-961d-ee17c2c1b9fd" CreationDate="2018-10-15T05:57:07.960" UserId="11055" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that there are not so many Russian words like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few pairs I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мол - моль &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ролл - роль (the spelling differs a lot but the sound at the end is very similar - the only difference is the l' sound at the end of роль)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кров - кровь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вонь - вон&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Коп - копь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зор - зорь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мороз - морозь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there may be more examples. If I remember some more, I promise to edit my answer adding the pair(s). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for understanding which word is being said, I don't think it's too hard. I can't remember a time when I or someone I know had such problems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="7d5aef09-7110-4af8-b843-2cb169b7d3d1" CreationDate="2018-10-15T06:37:38.267" UserId="7674" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="**Вовеки** is mostly used with negated verb in which case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When negation accompanies the rest of them, be it applied to the verb or to the adverb, in most cases what essentially is negated is the adverb itself to mean *not forever*, without creating the meaning of *never*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уснуть** is not so straightforward as in its imperfective aspect the choice of adverb depends on the actual meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уснуть/засыпать **навсегда/навеки/навечно** - to fall/to be falling asleep for good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всегда/вечно** засыпать - to be falling asleep every time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17306" RevisionGUID="0eb7fc43-0131-42f0-b936-f1662ff869fd" CreationDate="2018-10-15T08:06:01.597" UserId="242" Text="It's a widely recognized point of view that one can claim that phoneme exist or does not exist in language (that said, is not distinguishable for a native speaker) that there exist a pair of meaningful words in that language such that they differ only by having or not having that phoneme.&#xA;&#xA;In my personal opinion this requirement is too strict and quite often such phoneme exist if there's no such pair.&#xA;&#xA;However, talking specifically about Russian and palatalized consonants - rest assured, they are distinguishable and in order to learn Russian one need to be able both distinguish palatalization both orally and audibly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17306" RevisionGUID="73acbfed-6cba-476b-b11b-edca11c539b7" CreationDate="2018-10-15T08:25:11.260" UserId="242" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="It's a widely recognized point of view that one can claim that phoneme exist or does not exist in language (that said, is not distinguishable for a native speaker) that there exist a pair of meaningful words in that language such that they differ only by having or not having that phoneme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my personal opinion this requirement is too strict and quite often such phoneme exist if there's no such pair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, talking specifically about Russian and palatalized consonants - rest assured, they are distinguishable and in order to learn Russian one need to be able both distinguish palatalization both orally and audibly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically for Russian speakers palatalizing consonants that do not have palatalized counterpart in modern Russian (that is, `ж`, `ш` and `ц`) is much as difficult as it to, say, English speaker. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="2d79e4db-41fa-4f0c-8654-990b3729237d" CreationDate="2018-10-15T09:20:28.190" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Было произведено начало работ&quot; usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45040" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="b209a1ee-c74a-48d6-8a41-32fa0b2b30c7" CreationDate="2018-10-15T09:29:37.610" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="(Complete sentence in B2 exam) Why is the &quot;correct answer&quot; actually correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45041" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="878fda60-234f-42ac-bafa-87f760e80b75" CreationDate="2018-10-15T09:32:46.027" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Было произведено начало работ&quot; usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45042" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="5480ac25-9604-44d9-80ac-a40ed8c9bd28" CreationDate="2018-10-15T09:45:19.227" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Participle clause x main clause agreement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="07a41f62-2b25-43ff-81ef-c4ad3277cab8" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:02:21.020" UserId="10271" Text="I'm a little unclear on this phrase's meaning. Does it describe the state of a swimmer jumping headlong into a pool, for example? Do you need to use  instrumental case 'с головой (with your head)', not genitive case 'с/из/от головы (from your head)'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="07a41f62-2b25-43ff-81ef-c4ad3277cab8" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:02:21.020" UserId="10271" Text="уйти под воду с головой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="07a41f62-2b25-43ff-81ef-c4ad3277cab8" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:02:21.020" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45046" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="5934f324-7a4f-4f77-9ba8-1e66a8761d30" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:03:54.123" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Уйти под воду с головой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17308" RevisionGUID="e448456b-dd35-46dc-a21c-d14048279aa1" CreationDate="2018-10-15T11:06:40.993" UserId="242" Text="It means to &quot;to go under water completely&quot; and de-facto is used sometimes not only for human beings but for inanimate objects as well  - but that would be a mistake. So yes, it has quite a literal meaning - to go under water with head [covered with water] and yes, it's with instrumental case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of usages you've mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `С головы` is &quot;starting from the head&quot;, like in &quot;рыба гниёт с головы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `Из головы` stands for &quot;out of head&quot;, like in &quot;никак не выкинуть её из головы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `От головы` is &quot;from head&quot;, like in &quot;от головы до шеи&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17309" RevisionGUID="bfe6a769-7b9f-4f77-b169-ce76db01f6f4" CreationDate="2018-10-15T12:08:42.117" UserId="10177" Text="**Установить** would be the most widely used one. Literally, &quot;to set up&quot;. **Установка** - Setup, installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less commonly used is also a direct loanword **инсталлировать, инсталляция**. You might use this when you want to be more specific about the type of setup." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17308" RevisionGUID="569b7cce-838f-4386-b172-bc23f66e4018" CreationDate="2018-10-15T12:13:47.493" UserId="242" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="It means to &quot;to go under water completely&quot; and de-facto is used sometimes not only for human beings but for inanimate objects as well (you can google for instance &quot;Забайкалье с головой уходит под воду&quot;) - but that would be a mistake. So yes, it has quite a literal meaning - to go under water with head [covered with water] and yes, it's with instrumental case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one related idiom it worth to know about - `уйти с головой` (dedicate you completely to something) - like in `уйти с головой в работу`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of usages you've mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `С головы` is &quot;starting from the head&quot;, like in &quot;рыба гниёт с головы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `Из головы` stands for &quot;out of head&quot;, like in &quot;никак не выкинуть её из головы&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - `От головы` is &quot;from head&quot;, like in &quot;от головы до шеи&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="b57d051e-ba2f-458f-84bd-88d87b4463d3" CreationDate="2018-10-15T12:18:53.003" UserId="242" Text="Answers provided are correct I just want to mentioned yet another verb used casually - `заинсталлить` (or just `заинсталить` since double consonants are relatively rare in Russian), like in following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно заинсталлить сертификат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При инсталляции Акробата есть предложение заинсталлить и принтер." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17310" RevisionGUID="22020a1e-461d-4e3c-9b7b-4c890fdb6546" CreationDate="2018-10-15T12:36:30.233" UserId="242" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Answers provided are correct I just want to mentioned yet another verb used casually - `заинсталлить` (or just `заинсталить` since double consonants are relatively rare in Russian), like in following phrases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нужно заинсталлить сертификат.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При инсталляции Акробата есть предложение заинсталлить и принтер.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a sidenote - there's even `отынсталить`, though it used less often. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17311" RevisionGUID="7ef023fa-2b47-4a0d-a28f-15be125f3e01" CreationDate="2018-10-15T12:58:32.670" UserId="10177" Text="Good answers in terms of meaning. I would add that both **навеки** and **вовеки** aren't really used in casual speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** is quite formal or bookish and I haven't heard **вовеки** outside of poems, songs, anthems or religious texts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both **навсегда** and **вечно** are pretty neutral, both used causally and formally. Their difference is **навсегда** is more like &quot;from now and forever,&quot; as in forever but starting now, or from some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они там останутся навсегда&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*They will stay there forever* (after probably arriving from elsewhere)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вечно**, on the other hand doesn't really imply a beginning, in usage it's more like &quot;always&quot;. Something is always like that, unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ты вечно молчишь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*You're always silent*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if used in the future tense, it could be the same as **навсегда**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Они будут стоять здесь вечно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*They will stand here forever*, or *they will always stand here* (this can mean from now on)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17302" RevisionGUID="5c86d7e6-ef7e-4a78-9dee-0b31028ffca6" CreationDate="2018-10-15T15:11:53.417" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="**Вовеки** is mostly used with negated verb in which case it means *never*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When negation accompanies the rest of them, be it applied to the verb or to the adverb, in most cases what essentially is negated is the adverb itself to mean *not forever*, without creating the meaning of *never*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Навеки** and **(на)вечно** are cognates with the root being ***век***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice may depend on the aspect of the verb (*im/perfective*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Остаться здесь **навсегда/навеки/навечно** BUT оставаться здесь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **всегда/вечно**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любить тебя **всегда/вечно** BUT полюбить тебя&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **навсегда/навеки/навечно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Уснуть** is not so straightforward as in its imperfective aspect the choice of adverb depends on the actual meaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уснуть/засыпать **навсегда/навеки/навечно** - to fall/to be falling asleep for good&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Всегда/вечно** засыпать - to be falling asleep every time/to always fall asleep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17305" RevisionGUID="a8d37561-e1f2-42bf-94f0-557e6986efce" CreationDate="2018-10-15T18:56:31.443" UserId="10749" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The vowels in `dessous` and `dessus` are clearly different - like **u** in `full` vs **u** in `dude`. Unless you pronounce `dude` like `dood` there shouldn't be any confusion between 'below' and 'above' in French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a clear difference to a Russian speaker between the consonants with and without the soft sign. `Конь` sounds different from `кон` and `даль` sounds different from `дал`. &#xD;&#xA;Palatalized vs non-palatalized consonant is easily audible for a native speaker. There might be more combination like that, but it's the only one I can think of that comes up often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact the only two words that sound very similar and often have to be repeated loudly in Russian that I can think of are `Июнь` and `Июль`, but it's because of **l** and **n** sounding similar in that particular combination, especially when pronounced quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try saying `Ron`, then `Ronnie`. And try to cut off the 'ie' from Ronnie while keeping the trailing soft sound after the 'n'. It sounds as if you were going to pronounce 'e' or 'i' after a consonant but changed your way at the very last moment and the vowel got cut off, leaving consonant sounding different than normally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find an audio of `дельфин` In Russian. Don't worry about the stress (it's on the second syllable), just listen to the **l** sound and compare it with **l** in English `dolphin`. You can use Google Translate, the pronunciation is alright there. It might not be clear if you're not used to the sound, but once you get it, you shouldn't be confused afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video starts right at the chorus. &#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/FqB-m0dKO-g?t=78&#xD;&#xA;At the second line (repeated throughout) there are two words with and without soft sign after **т** -  `память` and `лет`. The singer cuts off 't' very nicely so `лет` has a very nice short **hard т** sound, (while `память` has a **soft t**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17307" RevisionGUID="be80c925-c824-4a42-a317-dea5d7346ee1" CreationDate="2018-10-16T00:00:00.880" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1051986078515761152" />
  <row Id="45068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17314" RevisionGUID="3c5135ff-404b-449f-8565-7aa3ea57d744" CreationDate="2018-10-16T09:09:28.570" UserId="9058" Text="For diver - an intended action - it would usually be &quot;submerge&quot;, &quot;погрузиться с головой&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;уйти с головой&quot; idiom has a tint of something unexpected happening. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like a child after rain was running in the street, splashing the puddles, but one so pretty puddle only seemed small but was actually deep, and the kid suddenly &quot;went down all way with his head&quot;. Or a car falling from a bridge due to driver's mishap. Or a winter ice over a river suddenly cracking behind you while you believed it is thick and solid all the way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not always so, for example &quot;уйти с головой в работу&quot; is about purposely tuning out the world around you, not some strange occurrence. But in many enough use cases this tint would be present, so be aware." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="c1a3f920-aa4d-4a2e-ba42-2d5fc39845e8" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:15:34.543" UserId="11055" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="When I was taking my one week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds.  The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись.  At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, not to mention being unable to confidently pronounce them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only in a soft sign.  Is that rare, not uncommon, or does it happen all the time?  Is there any list of words like that somewhere?  I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pairs to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc.  Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45070" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="c1a3f920-aa4d-4a2e-ba42-2d5fc39845e8" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:15:34.543" UserId="11055" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Pairs of words differing only in a soft sign" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45071" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="c1a3f920-aa4d-4a2e-ba42-2d5fc39845e8" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:15:34.543" Comment="Proposed by 11055 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 994" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="c54d852a-3e4d-492f-b53c-c92590609f0f" CreationDate="2018-10-16T14:57:27.287" UserId="7674" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="When I was taking my one (weak) Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably speak them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or happens all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear? Or does Russian encode words differing only in a soft sign with wildly different meaning so the correct word is heard easily in context? (Apparently, Борись is archaic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17315" RevisionGUID="29058460-3d53-471b-b51f-ecfe65d773bd" CreationDate="2018-10-16T16:51:07.967" UserId="11080" Text="We would use such adjectives as упорный (both with negative and positive connotation), несгибаемый (positive), упёртый (negative &amp; colloquial), закоренелый (negative, e.x. закоренелый преступник), непреклонный (positive), стойкий (positive), and then a noun. &#xD;&#xA;A separate noun seems to be lacking. &#xD;&#xA;Also, some of the above adjectives can be used in a shortened form: &#xD;&#xA;Он был упорен (несгибаем, непреклонен, стоек). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17316" RevisionGUID="2583b144-25ee-48d5-a021-b5a7a9a31865" CreationDate="2018-10-16T17:00:06.550" UserId="11080" Text="The previous answer is brilliant, but I would like to add that a poor relative is also shy and humble, he just looks at you and keeps silent, sits at the corner of a table or stands in the door. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17317" RevisionGUID="c00b4e78-10ea-4310-879f-393ceb00127c" CreationDate="2018-10-16T17:34:47.893" UserId="11080" Text="A male horse is **жеребец** if he is... well, functioning, &#xD;&#xA;and **мерин** if he is emasculated. &#xD;&#xA;A female horse is **кобыла**. In literature you can also come across **кобылица**, that is just the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Лошадь** is a more common word denoting horse, though it is feminine, but it can be used talking about that animal in general. E.g. **табун лошадей** means a herd of horses of either sex. &#xD;&#xA;Конь is also a common word, but it is masculine. In the song &quot;Ходят кони над рекою, ищут кони водопою&quot; there's no idea whether they are stallions, geldins or mares. They are just horses. But if you know that it is a mare, you would rather say **лошадь** than **конь** about the animal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some set expressions in which these words are NOT interchangeable, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;бред сивой кобылы&#xD;&#xA;врёт, как сивый мерин&#xD;&#xA;конь германский (colloquial) &#xD;&#xA;конь в пальто (colloquial) &#xD;&#xA;тёмная лошадка &#xD;&#xA;тягловая лошадь. &#xD;&#xA;Just as you say &quot;nightmare&quot;, but not &quot;nighthorse&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, **конский навоз**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17317" RevisionGUID="93a18162-bc04-4c58-9abc-306fb128a6f0" CreationDate="2018-10-16T17:37:21.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="A male horse is **жеребец** if he is... well, functioning, &#xD;&#xA;and **мерин** if he is emasculated. &#xD;&#xA;A female horse is **кобыла**. In literature you can also come across **кобылица**, that is just the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Лошадь** is a more common word denoting horse, though it is feminine, but it can be used talking about that animal in general. E.g. **табун лошадей** means a herd of horses of either sex. &#xD;&#xA;Конь is also a common word, but it is masculine. In the song &quot;Ходят кони над рекою, ищут кони водопою&quot; there's no idea whether they are stallions, geldings or mares. They are just horses. But if you know that it is a mare, you would rather say **лошадь** than **конь** about the animal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some set expressions in which these words are NOT interchangeable, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;бред сивой кобылы&#xD;&#xA;врёт, как сивый мерин&#xD;&#xA;конь германский (colloquial) &#xD;&#xA;конь в пальто (colloquial) &#xD;&#xA;тёмная лошадка &#xD;&#xA;тягловая лошадь. &#xD;&#xA;Just as you say &quot;nightmare&quot;, but not &quot;nighthorse&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, **конский навоз**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17318" RevisionGUID="56675e70-96cd-4352-a360-e11156d863f5" CreationDate="2018-10-16T18:11:55.110" UserId="973" Text="**В последнее время мы все много чего услышали о фейк-новостях и о том, что ныне мы живем в эпоху &quot;постправды&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этот вариант звучит, на мой взгляд, лучше и, наверное, грамотнее чем второй. Хотя, отмечу, что &quot;МНОГО ЧЕГО&quot; не характерно для официального стиля. Это характерно для разговорной речи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Много чего я слышал, но такое слышу впервые. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Будет сказано много чего на этой встречи, но всё то многое, что будет сказано, не будет играть ни какой роли в твоей работе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ты много чего знаешь? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Все примеры находятся на грани простонародного стиля. Они верные, но характерны для людей не утруждающих себя изящностью речи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В последнее время мы все многое услышали о фейк-новостях и о том, что ныне мы живем в эпоху &quot;постправды&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Многое** здесь мне не нравится, так как **многое** лучше звучит, когда есть с чем сравнить это многое. То есть: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Многое, из того что нам говорили о фейковых новостях, мы услышали, но кое-что не услышали. &#xD;&#xA;Многое уже услышано (из того, что было сказано).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я думаю, второе предложение нужно изменить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В последнее время мы все много слышали о фейк-новостях и о том, что ныне мы живем в эпоху &quot;постправды&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Услышали** мне тоже не очень нравится. Услышали хорошо использовать если к вам кто-то обращался. А слышали, это вы сами слушали, но лично к вам никто не обращался.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="0d7ae219-118b-4ebf-a47f-6daaa569a7a3" CreationDate="2018-10-16T19:08:54.570" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 167 characters in body" Text="When I was taking my one week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably pronounce them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or happens all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="6e1d39b8-e5b8-4670-bb21-8964bc6c7d36" CreationDate="2018-10-16T19:14:30.190" UserId="242" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="When I was taking my one week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably pronounce them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or does it happen all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="84eec0af-4b91-4d63-a741-d4f7c277f31a" CreationDate="2018-10-16T20:45:42.157" UserId="11082" Text="&quot; смогли бы создать сервис - конкурент &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;сервис - конкурент&quot; означает &quot;сервис, который является (являлся бы) конкурентом&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тут надо написать тире или дефис?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="84eec0af-4b91-4d63-a741-d4f7c277f31a" CreationDate="2018-10-16T20:45:42.157" UserId="11082" Text="тире или дефис в &quot;сервис - конкурент&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="84eec0af-4b91-4d63-a741-d4f7c277f31a" CreationDate="2018-10-16T20:45:42.157" UserId="11082" Text="|пунктуация|орфография|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17320" RevisionGUID="247314d9-ec58-4410-96f6-b59553827e88" CreationDate="2018-10-16T20:49:26.297" UserId="11083" Text="Part of the problem is that those two words aren't even the original gender distinctions (as pointed out above with the actual horse breeder terms like жеребец and кобыла).&#xD;&#xA;Конь was the original Slavic word and лошадь is a loanword from Tatar for roughly same thing (I think). In Turkic languages that word seems to have had a meaning generic enough to end up now meaning things from &quot;pack horse&quot; to &quot;foal&quot; to &quot;camel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It happens to sound like a feminine word in Russian, so it became one. &#xD;&#xA;Separating the two by carving out their niches was the result of a series of historical stylistic trends and fashions and grasping them might just be a matter of getting the feel of it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17321" RevisionGUID="215ac02c-ca80-4aca-8236-4f247fdbd505" CreationDate="2018-10-16T21:04:07.747" UserId="7674" Text="Дефис. `сервис-конкурент`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тире - это знак синтаксиса, который участвует в формировании предложения, заменяя пропущеный или подразумеваемый член, а здесь просто слово, состоящее из двух частей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дефис в русской письменности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правила, регламентирующие раздельное — дефисное — слитное написание,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; содержат множество исключений, которые указаны в словарях. Вот&#xD;&#xA;&gt; некоторые случаи дефисного написания:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; составные слова (горе-охотник, луна-парк, Ага-хан, генерал-майор,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; жар-птица, пиар-акция, киловатт-час, Санкт-Петербург, интернет-сайт,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; онлайн-голосование);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Источник](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дефис#Дефис_в_русской_письменности)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45085" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="9ebb2881-4e45-4f04-9aad-5516cf91ce09" CreationDate="2018-10-17T03:00:44.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1052393948348600320" />
  <row Id="45086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="04e65f6b-9b58-46cc-90bd-daaab4b02cf1" CreationDate="2018-10-17T07:04:51.350" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="В фразе &quot;Cмогли бы создать сервис-конкурент?&quot;, где `сервис-конкурент` означает &quot;сервис, который является (являлся бы) конкурентом - нужно ли тут писать тире или дефис?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45087" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17319" RevisionGUID="04e65f6b-9b58-46cc-90bd-daaab4b02cf1" CreationDate="2018-10-17T07:04:51.350" UserId="242" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="Tире или дефис в &quot;сервис - конкурент&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17317" RevisionGUID="df04637c-d074-485d-823b-e40d6518cbe3" CreationDate="2018-10-17T08:25:42.527" UserId="11080" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="A male horse is **жеребец** if he is... well, functioning, &#xD;&#xA;and **мерин** if he is emasculated. &#xD;&#xA;A female horse is **кобыла**. In literature you can also come across **кобылица**, that is just the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Лошадь** is a more common word denoting horse, though it is feminine, but it can be used talking about that animal in general. E.g. **табун лошадей** means a herd of horses of either sex. &#xD;&#xA;Конь is also a common word, but it is masculine. In the song &quot;Ходят кони над рекою, ищут кони водопою&quot; there's no idea whether they are stallions, geldings or mares. They are just horses. But if you know that it is a mare, you would rather say **лошадь** than **конь** about the animal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some set expressions in which these words are NOT interchangeable, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;бред сивой кобылы;&#xD;&#xA;врёт, как сивый мерин;&#xD;&#xA;конь германский (colloquial); &#xD;&#xA;конь в пальто (colloquial); &#xD;&#xA;тёмная лошадка; &#xD;&#xA;тягловая лошадь. &#xD;&#xA;Just as you say &quot;nightmare&quot;, but not &quot;nighthorse&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, **конский навоз**. Here **лошадиный навоз** is also possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="c59e1c31-643e-4090-be38-25967dadc111" CreationDate="2018-10-17T11:36:18.980" UserId="6329" Comment="inserted examples given by OP in a comment, removed irrelevant sentence, corrected typos" Text="In words such as по-дружески or по-человечески:&#xA;&#xA;I have looked through dictionaries and cannot find why &#xA;in these words the «и» at the end sounds like the letter e=ye. Why is that, what is the rule?&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45096" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="c59e1c31-643e-4090-be38-25967dadc111" CreationDate="2018-10-17T11:36:18.980" Comment="Proposed by 6329 approved by 5605, 6097 edit id of 990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17324" RevisionGUID="4f28a6ba-1f29-4e62-8528-57a7847cbef5" CreationDate="2018-10-17T11:43:40.453" UserId="11080" Text="The closest synonyms are всё же, всё-таки, уж точно (probably exactly), and наверняка. &#xD;&#xA;I would translate it as *somehow*, *I'm sure*, *at least*, *they say*, *by the way*, perhaps. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45098" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="69d853e6-093a-4017-bd14-a4ed9b3e7c76" CreationDate="2018-10-17T12:00:35.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1052529804648636418" />
  <row Id="45099" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="a89c9142-290f-4192-9aad-496e8c9036d4" CreationDate="2018-10-17T12:21:18.513" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="The meaning of &quot;как-никак&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17325" RevisionGUID="fd81e5d6-81ed-42e7-b6e1-b97e12676f95" CreationDate="2018-10-17T18:35:22.433" UserId="10271" Text="Which preposition is correct to use with 'все в порядке'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17325" RevisionGUID="fd81e5d6-81ed-42e7-b6e1-b97e12676f95" CreationDate="2018-10-17T18:35:22.433" UserId="10271" Text="у меня все в порядке / со мной все в порядке" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17325" RevisionGUID="fd81e5d6-81ed-42e7-b6e1-b97e12676f95" CreationDate="2018-10-17T18:35:22.433" UserId="10271" Text="|грамматика|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17326" RevisionGUID="07cac5f6-a028-40c3-b6db-7c8e633e1c05" CreationDate="2018-10-17T19:22:09.413" UserId="9256" Text="Both prepositions are correct, depending on meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;у меня все в порядке&quot; means &quot;I'm doing fine&quot;, &quot;Things are all right&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;со мной все в порядке&quot; means &quot;I'm good&quot; (not hurt, not gone crazy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="122c9c0f-f8a0-43b2-b244-b7e2656a0364" CreationDate="2018-10-17T20:19:59.590" UserId="7674" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="When I was taking my one week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably pronounce them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or does it happen all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear? Or does Russian encode words differing only in a soft sign with wildly different meaning so the correct word is heard easily in context? (Apparently, Борись is archaic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14070" RevisionGUID="0b621160-954c-4a59-8bb0-c6e97a18b039" CreationDate="2018-10-17T20:23:36.987" UserId="9256" Comment="edited body" Text="There is a typical construction that I do not know specially when concerning about movements, in which we use the preposition y instead of the subject? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="9b43e2af-b4eb-4525-8184-f5db628f08fc" CreationDate="2018-10-17T20:25:21.210" UserId="10271" Text=" - Что ***бы*** ты ***выбрал***, если тебе ***надо было бы*** писать видео про это каждый день? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, 'Что бы ты выбрал' can mean both 'what would you choose' in present conditional and 'what would you have chosen' in past conditional, depending on contexts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But can the same thing be said about &quot;надо было бы&quot;? Can it be both 'if you had to write' in present conditional and 'if you'd had to write' in past conditional, depending on contexts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="9b43e2af-b4eb-4525-8184-f5db628f08fc" CreationDate="2018-10-17T20:25:21.210" UserId="10271" Text="'Надо было бы' - present or past conditional?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17327" RevisionGUID="9b43e2af-b4eb-4525-8184-f5db628f08fc" CreationDate="2018-10-17T20:25:21.210" UserId="10271" Text="|tense|conditional|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17328" RevisionGUID="d7adfc7d-88c8-4445-bfda-ad68a6ac2697" CreationDate="2018-10-17T21:44:57.983" UserId="2104" Text="The conditional mood in Russian is 'timeless'. Specific time references may be needed to resolve the ambiguity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Если *бы* у меня *был* миллион долларов... If I had a million dollars...&#xD;&#xA;* Если *бы* у меня **год назад** *был* миллион долларов... If I had had a million dollars a year ago...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, motion verbs do carry some temporal meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Если бы мне не надо было **ходить** на работу... If I didn't have (hadn't had) to go to work **every day**...&#xD;&#xA;* Если бы мне не надо было **идти** на работу... If I didn't have to go to work **now**...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17251" RevisionGUID="e8e82719-ac40-4dd5-ad6f-d2bd83db3104" CreationDate="2018-10-17T22:31:30.853" UserId="242" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="In words such as `по-дружески` or `по-человечески`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have looked through dictionaries and cannot find why &#xD;&#xA;in these words the «и» at the end sounds like the letter e=ye. Why is that, what is the rule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17329" RevisionGUID="814015e6-37cd-47e4-b014-5238163e55ae" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:28:31.503" UserId="7611" Text="What's an acceptable way to make a statement while at the same time expressing some uncertainty about that statement / giving an indication that's it's only your opinion? i.e. the Russian equivalent of adding an extra &quot;I think&quot; to an independent clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, take this (admittedly clunky) English sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I'm talking about something that I think she already knows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My ideas for how to translate into Russian would be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я говорю о том, которое по-моему она уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;2. Я говорю о том, которое я думаю что она уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;3. Я говорю о том, которое она уже знает ли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But none of them seem quite correct. What would be the correct  way of adding &quot;I think&quot; to that second clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17329" RevisionGUID="814015e6-37cd-47e4-b014-5238163e55ae" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:28:31.503" UserId="7611" Text="Expressing uncertainty while making a statement (I think...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17329" RevisionGUID="814015e6-37cd-47e4-b014-5238163e55ae" CreationDate="2018-10-18T03:28:31.503" UserId="7611" Text="|грамматика|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17330" RevisionGUID="ea0bfa62-8833-4b49-87d6-4c194d65b21d" CreationDate="2018-10-18T06:45:47.530" UserId="7674" Text="&gt;Я говорю о том, &lt;strike&gt;которое&lt;/strike&gt; **ЧТО** она **,** по-моему **,** уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я говорю о том, &lt;strike&gt;которое&lt;/strike&gt; **ЧТО** она **,** я думаю **,**  уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ОR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, что она, (как) мне кажется, уже знает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stylistically such insert phrase sounds better after **она**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct conjunction here is not **который**, but **что**, because it refers to an inanimate direct object of the verb **знает** (что? - то). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, что &lt;sup&gt;*оbject*&lt;/sup&gt; она &lt;sup&gt;*subject*&lt;/sup&gt;, мне кажется, уже знает &lt;sup&gt;*predicate*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17331" RevisionGUID="6be44bb5-fdc4-47cb-9d50-424b866c15f8" CreationDate="2018-10-18T06:46:14.543" UserId="11055" Text="&quot;I'm talking about something that I think she already knows&quot; could be translated like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она, **кажется**, уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она, **по-моему**, уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она, **как мне кажетс**я, уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она уже, **по всей видимости**, знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, &quot;Я говорю о том, о чём...&quot; is the same as &quot;Я говорю о том, что...&quot; in this sentence because we can say знать что-то and знать о чём-то. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17331" RevisionGUID="fdecded9-4371-49d4-90b1-1d41f3c85afd" CreationDate="2018-10-18T06:51:24.167" UserId="11055" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;I'm talking about something that I think she already knows&quot; could be translated like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она, **кажется**, уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она, **по-моему**, уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она, **как мне кажется**, уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём она уже, **по всей видимости**, знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, &quot;Я говорю о том, о чём...&quot; is the same as &quot;Я говорю о том, что...&quot; in this sentence because we can say *знать что-то* and *знать о чём-то.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these phrases in bold can be used at end of the sentence, that is after &quot;знает&quot;, after &quot;уже&quot;, or in the position I have used them in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17330" RevisionGUID="6b42ad24-aae9-4f5f-abe7-02cb51b39587" CreationDate="2018-10-18T06:54:12.763" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я говорю о том, &lt;strike&gt;которое&lt;/strike&gt; **ЧТО** она **,** по-моему **,** уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я говорю о том, &lt;strike&gt;которое&lt;/strike&gt; **ЧТО** она **,** я думаю **,**  уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ОR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, что она, (как) мне кажется, уже знает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stylistically such insert phrase sounds better after **она**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct conjunction here is not **которое**, but **что**. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17330" RevisionGUID="f0d003cd-2d62-4d49-84cc-ffc96f333a48" CreationDate="2018-10-18T07:06:23.117" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 115 characters in body" Text="&gt;Я говорю о том, &lt;strike&gt;которое&lt;/strike&gt; **ЧТО** она **,** по-моему **,** уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я говорю о том, &lt;strike&gt;которое&lt;/strike&gt; **ЧТО** она **,** я думаю **,**  уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ОR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, что она, (как) мне кажется, уже знает&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stylistically such insert phrase sounds better after **она**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct conjunction here is not **которое**, but **что**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Которое** would be correct if the main clause explicitly contained an object in Neuter gender and not just pointed at it with the demonstrative pronoun **то**, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том **деле**, **которое** она, (как) мне кажется, уже *видела*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17333" RevisionGUID="5b6e762e-b696-4f5d-949f-9f91fded6b27" CreationDate="2018-10-18T08:26:09.053" UserId="11055" Text="Is there a Russian proverb which could be used for saying that when at home, in a place one knows very well, or in a comfort zone, anyone is likely to win/achieve success? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Команда будет играть на домашнем стадионе. Что ж, у ребят хорошие шансы на победу. ... (the proverb). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты только дома такой борзый. За границей - никогда. ... (the proverb). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты так хорошо разбираешься в этом! - Да, нет. Просто ... (the proverb). Это же - моя сфера. Я этим занимаюсь всю жизнь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17333" RevisionGUID="5b6e762e-b696-4f5d-949f-9f91fded6b27" CreationDate="2018-10-18T08:26:09.053" UserId="11055" Text="Proverb for succeeding when in a comfort zone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17333" RevisionGUID="5b6e762e-b696-4f5d-949f-9f91fded6b27" CreationDate="2018-10-18T08:26:09.053" UserId="11055" Text="|пословицы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17334" RevisionGUID="1c0672f5-db97-4ac9-a897-ee1de8173230" CreationDate="2018-10-18T08:30:17.457" UserId="242" Text="&gt; Команда  будет играть на своём стадионе. Что ж, у ребят хорошие шансы на победу - **дома, как говорится, и стены помогают**.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ты так хорошо разбираешься в этом! - Да, нет. Просто я **же на этом собаку съел**. Это же - моя сфера. Я этим занимаюсь всю жизнь.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17334" RevisionGUID="75ea70a0-4b59-419e-90c8-ee1c657a6404" CreationDate="2018-10-18T08:40:01.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 331 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, I actually can think of three, not one idiom that can be used (they are not interchangeable, each of them is applicable only for one of examples provided in the question):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Команда  будет играть на своём стадионе. Что ж, у ребят хорошие шансы на победу - **дома, как говорится, и стены помогают**.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ты так хорошо разбираешься в этом! - Да, нет. Просто я **же на этом собаку съел**. Это же - моя сфера. Я этим занимаюсь всю жизнь.&#xA;&#xA;Last one is less exact however very close:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ты только дома такой борзый. За границей - никогда. В общем, **смелый ты только, когда никто не видит**.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17334" RevisionGUID="35c433bf-71a7-49bc-a257-d01dcfd05e37" CreationDate="2018-10-18T08:49:33.320" UserId="242" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="Well, I actually can think of three, not one idiom that can be used (they are not interchangeable, each of them is applicable only for one of examples provided in the question):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Команда  будет играть на своём стадионе. Что ж, у ребят хорошие шансы на победу - **дома, как говорится, и стены помогают**.&#xA;&#xA;The next one is the quite odd and on of my Russian favorites (though I love dogs ))) - &quot;собаку съесть [на&#xA;чём-то, в какой-либо теме] - literally [to eat a dog][1].&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ты так хорошо разбираешься в этом! - Да, нет. Просто я **же на этом собаку съел**. Это же - моя сфера. Я этим занимаюсь всю жизнь.&#xA;&#xA;Last one is less exact however very close:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Ты только дома такой борзый. За границей - никогда. В общем, **смелый ты только, когда никто не видит**.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/собаку_съесть" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17335" RevisionGUID="9dbadac8-e48c-406c-a6c4-af53c325ff7a" CreationDate="2018-10-18T09:37:38.290" UserId="242" Text="I want to add to the answers provided yet another form quite often used colloquially - it's [&quot;сдаётся мне&quot;][1], like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём, **сдаётся мне**, она уже знает. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also colloquial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём, **как по мне**, она уже знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More bookish but actually also used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём, **думается мне**, она уже знает. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also bookish and quite lengthy but also quite used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я говорю о том, о чём, **насколько я могу судить**, она уже знает. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/159923/%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="aedc97a9-f4ca-4891-9bd3-cab4fd072e14" CreationDate="2018-10-18T11:37:02.223" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 170 characters in body" Text="When I was taking my one week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably pronounce them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or does it happen all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13271" RevisionGUID="7b13bb30-9b05-46e5-a07f-c46a2fde811f" CreationDate="2018-10-18T11:54:22.727" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Depends on the terms you're on with this person, because this is quite offensive, i mean it could be taken as a friendly banter by a good friend and as an insult by a stranger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's as strong as its English equivalent &quot;Happy Birthday, old fart!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45134" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17325" RevisionGUID="da06a86d-a9f4-4d2f-a193-f9be6871920f" CreationDate="2018-10-18T11:55:27.430" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;У меня все в порядке&quot; or &quot;со мной все в порядке&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17336" RevisionGUID="bc3e31ca-656b-4dad-ad74-dcdcb4fb0f43" CreationDate="2018-10-18T12:57:49.683" UserId="11090" Text="Не очень поняла, почему же это проблема - найти для себя русско-польский и польско-русский словари. По крайней мере в формате pdf их можно найти в сети. Знаю, что очень неплохой словарь - это под ред. И. Х. Дворецкого &quot;Настольный русско-польский словарь&quot;  (Podreczny slownik rosyjsko-polski) 1961 года издания (скачать можно [отсюда][1]). К каждому слову множество примеров употребления, словосочетания, фразеологические обороты. Словари Дворецкого всегда хороши. Если из более современных, то Wiełki slownik polsko-rosyjski (Д.Гессен, Р. Стыпула) на 80 тыс. слов и Wiełki slownik rosyjsko-polski (А. Мирович, И. Дулевич, И. Грек-Пабис, И. Марыняк). &#xD;&#xA;Полагаю, чтобы понять, какой словарь Вам больше подходит и устроит наилучшим образом, надо посмотреть их самому. А вообще, я считаю, чем больше словарей имеешь, тем лучше. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://babylonians.narod.ru/polish/dict.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45136" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8867" RevisionGUID="00ce7ca3-8a32-42a3-b5ed-5cd7df0a60d0" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:06:00.377" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45137" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8872" RevisionGUID="60f8e4a8-2ceb-4ecc-a3db-161cbf3811a7" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:06:00.377" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45138" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="8880" RevisionGUID="0b849a27-ae3b-4607-9646-406a6cb0e89e" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:06:00.377" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45139" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="17336" RevisionGUID="edf186a9-60d0-4ff5-b7fb-1f09379ae20c" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:06:00.377" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="2dac8ee4-1713-4603-bdde-c16f84c01600" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:46:15.950" UserId="6545" Text="This is in regards to Nicholas J. Brown's _New Penguin_ book, page 336.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, the author offers 3 alternatives, mainly the first 2 to show the difference between который and long-form past passive participles (PPP). But the 3rd sentence confuses me in relation to the 2nd because the short-form PPP in the 2nd is plural, and the associated past-tense verb in the 3rd is singular (masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in the 3rd sentence, the subject of the relative clause [from который] is the author, автор, which is obviously masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.) Во всех книгах, написанных этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1a.) In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.) Во всех книгах, который были написаны этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2a.) In all the books, which were written by this author before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.) Во всех книгах, который написал этом автор до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3a.) In all the books, which this author wrote before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know, for example: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13746/interrogative-pronouns-taking-different-case-than-its-noun/13748#13748 that который agrees in _number and gender_ with the noun it modifies (in the main clause), and agrees in _case_ with the function it has in the subordinate clause. So in both the 2nd and 3rd sentences, который is in the nominative, since it answers the question &quot;what?&quot; (right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question is in regards to the PPP and past-tense verb. If my English translations are correct; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. The PPP is plural because the object of what was written are the book**s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The past-tense verb in the subordinate clause is singular because the author is masculine and singular - **why?**. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    If I constructed a sentence without the subordinate clause, about a book I wrote, I would say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Я написал эту книгу.&#xD;&#xA;  I wrote the book. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Я написал эти книги.&#xD;&#xA;  I wrote the books. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They wrote the book.&#xD;&#xA;  Они написали эту книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They wrote the books.  &#xD;&#xA;  Они написали эти книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last question... the past-tense verb in the 3rd sentence is transitive and so should have an object, despite it being in a subordinate clause(? - Does the subordinate clause have to have an object?). The only object I see to the verb &quot;to write&quot; is the plural books..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="2dac8ee4-1713-4603-bdde-c16f84c01600" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:46:15.950" UserId="6545" Text="different 'number' in verb of relative clause using который" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="2dac8ee4-1713-4603-bdde-c16f84c01600" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:46:15.950" UserId="6545" Text="|глаголы|participle|clauses|participle-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="858ea22a-5b40-4413-9df5-fffcf7add9ce" CreationDate="2018-10-18T13:55:27.243" UserId="7674" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="When I was taking my one week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably pronounce them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or does it happen all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear? Or does Russian encode words differing only in a soft sign with wildly different meaning so the correct word is heard easily in context? (Apparently, Борись is archaic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="f673365b-3fd7-439f-abe8-e4bd998f7d9a" CreationDate="2018-10-18T14:03:16.527" UserId="6545" Comment="tried (miserably probably) to clean up formatting..." Text="This is in regards to Nicholas J. Brown's _New Penguin_ book, page 336.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, the author offers 3 alternatives, mainly the first 2 to show the difference between который and long-form past passive participles (PPP). But the 3rd sentence confuses me in relation to the 2nd because the short-form PPP in the 2nd is plural, and the associated past-tense verb in the 3rd is singular (masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in the 3rd sentence, the subject of the relative clause [from который] is the author, автор, which is obviously masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Во всех книгах, написанных этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1a. In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Во всех книгах, который были написаны этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2a. In all the books, which were written by this author before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Во всех книгах, который написал этом автор до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3a. In all the books, which this author wrote before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know, for example: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13746/interrogative-pronouns-taking-different-case-than-its-noun/13748#13748 that который agrees in _number and gender_ with the noun it modifies (in the main clause), and agrees in _case_ with the function it has in the subordinate clause. So in both the 2nd and 3rd sentences, который is in the nominative, since it answers the question &quot;what?&quot; (right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question is in regards to the PPP and past-tense verb. If my English translations are correct; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2b. The PPP is plural because the object of what was written are the book**s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b. The past-tense verb in the subordinate clause is singular because the author is masculine and singular - **why?**. &#xD;&#xA;    If I constructed a sentence without the subordinate clause, about a book I wrote, I would say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b1. Я написал эту книгу. -- I wrote the book. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b2. Я написал эти книги. -- I wrote the books. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b3. They wrote the book. -- Они написали эту книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b4. They wrote the books. -- Они написали эти книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last question... the past-tense verb in the 3rd sentence is transitive and so should have an object, despite it being in a subordinate clause(? - Does the subordinate clause have to have an object?). The only object I see to the verb &quot;to write&quot; is the plural books..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="41e32b2e-9d67-4fa1-9d3a-095f502612c1" CreationDate="2018-10-18T14:05:06.057" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is in regards to Nicholas J. Brown's _New Penguin_ book, page 336.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, the author offers 3 alternatives, mainly the first 2 to show the difference between который and long-form past passive participles (PPP). But the 3rd sentence confuses me in relation to the 2nd because the short-form PPP in the 2nd is plural, and the associated past-tense verb in the 3rd is singular (masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in the 3rd sentence, the subject of the relative clause [from который] is the author, автор, which is obviously masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Во всех книгах, написанных этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1a. In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Во всех книгах, которые были написаны этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2a. In all the books, which were written by this author before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Во всех книгах, которые написаны этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3a. In all the books, which this author wrote before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know, for example: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13746/interrogative-pronouns-taking-different-case-than-its-noun/13748#13748 that который agrees in _number and gender_ with the noun it modifies (in the main clause), and agrees in _case_ with the function it has in the subordinate clause. So in both the 2nd and 3rd sentences, который is in the nominative, since it answers the question &quot;what?&quot; (right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question is in regards to the PPP and past-tense verb. If my English translations are correct; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2b. The PPP is plural because the object of what was written are the book**s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b. The past-tense verb in the subordinate clause is singular because the author is masculine and singular - **why?**. &#xD;&#xA;    If I constructed a sentence without the subordinate clause, about a book I wrote, I would say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b1. Я написал эту книгу. -- I wrote the book. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b2. Я написал эти книги. -- I wrote the books. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b3. They wrote the book. -- Они написали эту книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b4. They wrote the books. -- Они написали эти книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last question... the past-tense verb in the 3rd sentence is transitive and so should have an object, despite it being in a subordinate clause(? - Does the subordinate clause have to have an object?). The only object I see to the verb &quot;to write&quot; is the plural books..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45146" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="328e0d08-75e6-4a72-ae39-bb27ea3f1591" CreationDate="2018-10-18T14:07:36.943" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Different 'number' in verb of relative clause using который" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="a507bcd8-a31a-42c1-912c-1720cbd99c70" CreationDate="2018-10-18T14:28:06.713" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="This is in regards to Nicholas J. Brown's _New Penguin_ book, page 336.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There, the author offers 3 alternatives, mainly the first 2 to show the difference between который and long-form past passive participles (PPP). But the 3rd sentence confuses me in relation to the 2nd because the short-form PPP in the 2nd is plural, and the associated past-tense verb in the 3rd is singular (masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(in the 3rd sentence, the subject of the relative clause [from который] is the author, автор, which is obviously masculine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Во всех книгах, написанных этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1a. In all the books written by this author before 1939 there are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Во всех книгах, которые были написаны этим автором до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2a. In all the books, which were written by this author before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Во всех книгах, которые написал этот автор до 39-го года, есть интересные женщины.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3a. In all the books, which this author wrote before 1939, are interesting women.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know, for example: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13746/interrogative-pronouns-taking-different-case-than-its-noun/13748#13748 that который agrees in _number and gender_ with the noun it modifies (in the main clause), and agrees in _case_ with the function it has in the subordinate clause. So in both the 2nd and 3rd sentences, который is in the nominative, since it answers the question &quot;what?&quot; (right?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question is in regards to the PPP and past-tense verb. If my English translations are correct; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2b. The PPP is plural because the object of what was written are the book**s**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b. The past-tense verb in the subordinate clause is singular because the author is masculine and singular - **why?**. &#xD;&#xA;    If I constructed a sentence without the subordinate clause, about a book I wrote, I would say,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b1. Я написал эту книгу. -- I wrote the book. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b2. Я написал эти книги. -- I wrote the books. (assuming I am male)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b3. They wrote the book. -- Они написали эту книгу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3b4. They wrote the books. -- Они написали эти книги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last question... the past-tense verb in the 3rd sentence is transitive and so should have an object, despite it being in a subordinate clause(? - Does the subordinate clause have to have an object?). The only object I see to the verb &quot;to write&quot; is the plural books..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17337" RevisionGUID="77334cf9-c660-475f-9035-d594629633d5" CreationDate="2018-10-18T14:38:34.630" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|participle|clauses|participle-clause|subordinate-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17338" RevisionGUID="9871bf0b-4b2b-4b6d-b328-85878552d1b8" CreationDate="2018-10-18T14:54:41.207" UserId="7674" Text="**КоторЫЕ** is in Nominative in the sentence #2 (subject ***книги***) but in Accusative in the sentence #3 (the subject is ***этот автор*** while ***книги*** is the object), but in both cases it's **которЫЕ** since this inflexion fits both grammatical cases Nominative and Accusative which are used for subject and object in plural respectively, it refers to ***книги***, because they're the subject of the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...*my main question was about написать... why plural in #2 and masc.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sing. in #3.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since predicate (the verb) always agrees with the subject, in #2 it's in plural (***были написаны***) because the subject is ***книги***, whereas in #3 it's in singular masculine (***написал***) because the subject is ***этот автор***.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17339" RevisionGUID="b039bbaf-f330-46cc-956e-1e1af5920e53" CreationDate="2018-10-18T18:30:42.447" UserId="11080" Text="**Когда я был молодым** sounds better, but **когда я был молодой** is also possible in the same meaning. But the former sounds more proper, while the latter is sooner colloquial. There is also a third possibility, **когда я был молод**, which sounds a bit bookish and outdated, but it vividly reveals the fact that the speaker is no longer young. ) &#xD;&#xA;If a not yet old man says &quot;когда я был молод (и горяч)&quot;, he does it for the sake of humour. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="3e31cc89-369e-483e-970b-e2a80e46da08" CreationDate="2018-10-18T21:04:05.163" UserId="10271" Text="Я на тебя удивляюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я тебе удивляюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is correct as the object of the verb удивляться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="3e31cc89-369e-483e-970b-e2a80e46da08" CreationDate="2018-10-18T21:04:05.163" UserId="10271" Text="Я на тебя удивляюсь / Я тебе удивляюсь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="3e31cc89-369e-483e-970b-e2a80e46da08" CreationDate="2018-10-18T21:04:05.163" UserId="10271" Text="|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17341" RevisionGUID="537b89c8-76bc-4d8c-a45f-9358f645c345" CreationDate="2018-10-18T21:09:21.233" UserId="11092" Text="I guess (not knowing the context) in this case it has a very simple meaning like “to dive/ go under water completely” - first your legs, then body with arms and only then your head.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you use с головой в работу then it has a little bit different meaning like “to dedicate yourself to the work completely” it has a parallel with diving... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="108ff13b-206e-4d2c-8ae7-3ba62ecd49a6" CreationDate="2018-10-18T21:59:22.850" UserId="242" Text="**Both forms are valid but whenever you are in doubts feel safer to prefer &quot;я тебе удивляюсь&quot;** form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well quite often it is stated that correct form is &quot;я тебе удивляюсь&quot;, and any editor will cringe encountering &quot;я на тебя удивляюсь&quot;. However this is not true at all. It's not only de-facto colloquial usage - &quot;удивляться на кого-то, что-то&quot; one can [find in classic literature][1], like in &quot;Нехлюдов удивлялся сам на себя&quot;. Or, here's another [quote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но я удивляюсь на тебя, Лев. Куда девался твой гонор, твоя амбиция! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upravlenie.academic.ru/2367/%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/l/lejkin_n_a/text_1903_kupetz_prishel_oldorfo.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="0cb47210-40e4-4ee1-99aa-20ca90419115" CreationDate="2018-10-18T22:00:36.943" UserId="242" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="Choosing between &quot;я на тебя удивляюсь&quot; and &quot;я тебе удивляюсь&quot; - which is correct as the object of the verb `удивляться`?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45159" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17340" RevisionGUID="0cb47210-40e4-4ee1-99aa-20ca90419115" CreationDate="2018-10-18T22:00:36.943" UserId="242" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Я на тебя удивляюсь&quot; or &quot;я тебе удивляюсь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17342" RevisionGUID="9da1620f-0d3a-45f1-9bb0-602a5d305316" CreationDate="2018-10-18T22:06:32.030" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="**Both forms are valid but whenever you are in doubts - prefer &quot;я тебе удивляюсь&quot;** form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well quite often it is stated that correct form is &quot;я тебе удивляюсь&quot;, and any editor will cringe encountering &quot;я на тебя удивляюсь&quot;. However this is not true at all. It's not only de-facto colloquial usage - &quot;удивляться на кого-то, что-то&quot; one can [find in classic literature][1], like in &quot;Нехлюдов удивлялся сам на себя&quot;. Or, here's another [quote][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но я удивляюсь на тебя, Лев. Куда девался твой гонор, твоя амбиция! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upravlenie.academic.ru/2367/%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://az.lib.ru/l/lejkin_n_a/text_1903_kupetz_prishel_oldorfo.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17343" RevisionGUID="7397b481-ee47-4e81-964f-c732a2b5b3a5" CreationDate="2018-10-19T03:24:34.713" UserId="7544" Text="So, I have read [this article about color theory](https://color-wheel-artist.com/hue/) that explains the meaning of several English words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Hue: any Primary or Secondary color other than white or black, which means Yellow, Orange, Red, Violet, Blue and Green, but can also mean a mixture of those six. Pure black and white do not contain any hue. &#xD;&#xA;- Tint: a hue with some white color added, but totally no black.&#xD;&#xA;- Shade: a hue with some black added, but totally no white.&#xD;&#xA;- Tone: a hue with some gray added, in other words -- a hue with black and white added. Can have different &quot;value&quot;, which likely means &quot;the amount of gray added&quot;, but not sure about this word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what I am looking for is the Russian translation of those four terms. Multitran translates &quot;hue&quot; as &quot;цвет, оттенок, тон&quot;, &quot;tint&quot; as  &quot;краска, оттенок, тон, колорит&quot;, &quot;tone&quot; as &quot;оттенок, тон&quot;, and &quot;shade&quot; as &quot;оттенок, градация&quot;, with many unrelated words shown as possible translations for each four of the terms discussed. Context.Reverso basically translates all of them as &quot;оттенок&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Wikipedia translates &quot;hue&quot; as &quot;тон&quot;; &quot;tone (color)&quot; redirects to &quot;brightness&quot; in the English Wikipedia, which is translated as &quot;светлота&quot; in the Russian one, and &quot;tone color&quot; (no parenthesis!) redirects to Timbre, translated as &quot;Тембр&quot;, &quot;Tint&quot; and &quot;Shade (color)&quot; both redirect to &quot;Tints and shades&quot;, having no link to the Russian Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, there is no consistency in translating those words.&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, what is the correct way to call Hues, Tints, Shades, and Tones in Russian in a way that distinguishes one from another as defined above and makes you sound like someone who understands what is going on?** &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17343" RevisionGUID="7397b481-ee47-4e81-964f-c732a2b5b3a5" CreationDate="2018-10-19T03:24:34.713" UserId="7544" Text="What do I call a Hue, a Shade, a Tone and a Tint in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17343" RevisionGUID="7397b481-ee47-4e81-964f-c732a2b5b3a5" CreationDate="2018-10-19T03:24:34.713" UserId="7544" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17344" RevisionGUID="0f5acba0-9f86-497b-8f84-f7746c65137d" CreationDate="2018-10-19T06:48:20.470" UserId="11055" Text=" 1. **Hue** - цвет (if you use *hue* as a more literary word for color) or оттенок (if by hue you mean the distinctive characteristics of a given color that enable it to be assigned a position in the spectrum).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Tint** - оттенок again. By tint you mean a delicate or pale color or hue, don't you? If you want to be more specific, you may add &quot;нежный&quot; to &quot;оттенок&quot; to emphasize the delicacy. &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Shade** - оттенок again (!). The name of that book &quot;50 Shades of Grey&quot; was translated as &quot;50 Оттенков Серого&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; 4. **Tone** - тон." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="5ded4c5d-ee36-42db-b49f-fb210afe2e95" CreationDate="2018-10-19T06:52:19.667" UserId="8664" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in color model HSL Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - оттенок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness - яркость (тон) it is that you wrote as Tint and Shade&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тон or тональность uses in meaning &quot;lightness&quot; also, but it similar to Tonality in music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as Осветление и Затемнение. But basically is a adding and subtracting яркость (lightning) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17344" RevisionGUID="416e1531-7ef1-4683-b1e2-9adce2858960" CreationDate="2018-10-19T06:56:41.347" UserId="11055" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text=" 1. **Hue** - цвет (if you use *hue* as a more literary word for color) or оттенок (if by hue you mean the distinctive characteristics of a given color that enable it to be assigned a position in the spectrum).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Tint** - оттенок again. By tint you mean a delicate or pale color or hue, don't you? If you want to be more specific, you may add &quot;нежный&quot; to &quot;оттенок&quot; to emphasize the delicacy. &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Shade** - оттенок again (!). The name of that book &quot;50 Shades of Grey&quot; was translated as &quot;50 Оттенков Серого&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; 4. **Tone** - тон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qi1jA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="2cf94551-2184-46f5-8037-2ea162291e51" CreationDate="2018-10-19T07:04:51.980" UserId="8664" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in color model HSL Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - цвет, оттенок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness - яркость (тон) it is that you wrote as Tint and Shade&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тон or тональность (it similar to Tonality in music) uses in meaning &quot;Hue&quot; and &quot;lightness&quot; also, but if you don't dive enough context, &quot;тон&quot; normally will use more as lightness. If you want to understand you correctly, you can say &quot;цветовой тон&quot; or &quot;оттенок&quot; for Hue and &quot;световой тон&quot; или &quot;Яркость&quot; for lightness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as Осветление и Затемнение. But basically is a adding and subtracting яркость (lightning). If you talking about painting you can say &quot;Разбеление&quot; (Adding white) instead of &quot;Осветление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="b9f63aa7-f694-434c-8408-a4a8d06c102d" CreationDate="2018-10-19T07:10:08.443" UserId="8664" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in color model HSL Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - цвет, оттенок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness - яркость (тон) it is that you wrote as Tint and Shade&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тон or тональность (it similar to Tonality in music) uses in meaning &quot;Hue&quot; and &quot;lightness&quot; also, but if you don't dive enough context, &quot;тон&quot; normally will use more as lightness. If you want to understand you correctly, you can say &quot;цветовой тон&quot; or &quot;оттенок&quot; for Hue and &quot;световой тон&quot; или &quot;Яркость&quot; for lightness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as &quot;Осветление&quot; и &quot;Затемнение&quot;, you can say also that the color is &quot;темный&quot; or &quot;светлый&quot;. But basically is a adding and subtracting яркость (lightning). If you talking about painting you can say &quot;Разбеление&quot; (Adding white) instead of &quot;Осветление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="2749371c-064e-46dc-b7c1-99b167cd1380" CreationDate="2018-10-19T07:15:34.433" UserId="8664" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in color model HSL Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - цвет, оттенок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness - яркость (тон) it is that you wrote as Tint and Shade&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тон or тональность (it similar to Tonality in music) uses in meaning &quot;Hue&quot; and &quot;lightness&quot; (but definitely not like &quot;tone&quot; in the article), but if you don't dive enough context, &quot;тон&quot; normally will use more as lightness. If you want to understand you correctly, you can say &quot;цветовой тон&quot; or &quot;оттенок&quot; for Hue and &quot;световой тон&quot; или &quot;Яркость&quot; for lightness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as &quot;Осветление&quot; и &quot;Затемнение&quot;, you can say also that the color is &quot;темный&quot; or &quot;светлый&quot;. But basically is a adding and subtracting яркость (lightning). If you talking about painting you can say &quot;Разбеление&quot; (Adding white) instead of &quot;Осветление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="645110bf-6b19-4ce6-adcb-e129ce2c6714" CreationDate="2018-10-19T07:20:39.190" UserId="8664" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in color model HSL Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - цвет, оттенок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation (tone) - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness (tint and shade) - яркость (тон) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Shade &lt;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------&gt; Tint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тон or тональность (it similar to Tonality in music) uses in meaning &quot;Hue&quot; and &quot;lightness&quot; (but definitely not like &quot;tone&quot; in the article), but if you don't dive enough context, &quot;тон&quot; normally will use more as lightness. If you want to understand you correctly, you can say &quot;цветовой тон&quot; or &quot;оттенок&quot; for Hue and &quot;световой тон&quot; или &quot;Яркость&quot; for lightness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as &quot;Осветление&quot; и &quot;Затемнение&quot;, you can say also that the color is &quot;темный&quot; or &quot;светлый&quot;. But basically is a adding and subtracting яркость (lightning). If you talking about painting you can say &quot;Разбеление&quot; (Adding white) instead of &quot;Осветление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="435ebdb0-95fa-4dd4-bb6f-d7b3cf6728b7" CreationDate="2018-10-19T07:25:58.367" UserId="8664" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in color model HSL Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - цвет, оттенок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation (tone) - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness (tint and shade) - яркость (тон) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Shade (темный)&lt;------------------------------------------------------&gt; Tint(светлый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тон or тональность (it similar to Tonality in music) uses in meaning &quot;Hue&quot; and &quot;lightness&quot; (but definitely not like &quot;tone&quot; in the article), but if you don't dive enough context, &quot;тон&quot; normally will use more as lightness. If you want to understand you correctly, you can say &quot;цветовой тон&quot; or &quot;оттенок&quot; for Hue and &quot;световой тон&quot; или &quot;Яркость&quot; for lightness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as &quot;Осветление&quot; и &quot;Затемнение&quot;, you can say also that the color is &quot;темный&quot; or &quot;светлый&quot;. But basically is a adding and subtracting яркость (lightning). If you talking about painting you can say &quot;Разбеление&quot; (Adding white) instead of &quot;Осветление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17346" RevisionGUID="f37c692f-18ad-4525-8b05-2d9dc71b4889" CreationDate="2018-10-19T08:00:11.660" UserId="11080" Text="There's no tense in the Russian Conditional mood. The time can be figured out from the context. &#xD;&#xA;**Что бы вы делали, если бы вам надо было принимать важные решения каждый день? Моя работа этого требует.** - Present. &#xD;&#xA;**Что бы вы делали, если бы вам надо было принимать важные решения за других? А ведь я был моложе их всех.** - Past. &#xD;&#xA;Though the category of Perfect (совершенный и несовершенный вид) is observed with the Conditional mood. &#xD;&#xA;**Если бы я ходил на работу** - that means if I went (had gone) to my work (regularly) &#xD;&#xA;**Если бы я пришел на работу** - that is if I came (had come) to work (today, by that time) &#xD;&#xA;**Если бы я шел на работу** и видел, что здание сносят, я бы вернулся домой. - If I were going to my work... (that is a process, hence it is Continuous). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17347" RevisionGUID="22a02aee-f8e5-4d2a-857a-b09f2afba3de" CreationDate="2018-10-19T08:04:59.370" UserId="11080" Text="Please, use only удивляться + Dative, the other variant should only be understood if pronounced by another person. Wherever you can find it, it is not a current norm. &#xD;&#xA;So, **удивляюсь тебе**, **удивляться этому**, **удивляться чему-то, кому-то**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17348" RevisionGUID="1e341273-5802-4b11-b125-67b252aa568e" CreationDate="2018-10-19T10:42:09.397" UserId="11080" Text="Тот факт, что вы уважаете собеседника, уже достаточно выражен тем, что вы обращаетесь к нему на &quot;вы&quot;, а не на &quot;ты&quot;. Поэтому излишнее подчеркивание с помощью заглавной буквы - это, действительно, подобострастно. Вполне подойдет для обращения к президенту, патриарху, епископу, королю (или королеве). Использовалось для обращений к титулованным особам. Так получилось, что знать у нас исчезла, а желание писать &quot;Вы&quot; не пропало. Это типичная для носителей языка ошибка. &#xD;&#xA;Btw, в руководстве для переводчиков субтитров на coursera есть фраза: &quot;Представьте себе, что слова &quot;Вы&quot; не существует, а слово &quot;вы&quot; - существует&quot;, вполне отражающая тот факт, насколько такое написание ошибочно и насколько эта ошибка частотна. :) &#xD;&#xA;Fell free to ask for a translation if needed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="acdd2d37-6022-45b3-9a7a-1f5b7ef936e7" CreationDate="2018-10-19T12:43:25.663" UserId="6806" Text="In English, we have 2 distinct words for describing the loss of a job&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Getting fired&#xD;&#xA; - Getting laid off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former implies that the action was the fault of the employee, while the later implies that the action was the fault of the company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when I was trying to translate `laid off` in Russian, the result it gave me was `уволен`, which is the same as getting fired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this distinction exist in Russian? If you say `уволен`, is the context more like getting fired or getting laid off?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="acdd2d37-6022-45b3-9a7a-1f5b7ef936e7" CreationDate="2018-10-19T12:43:25.663" UserId="6806" Text="Laid off vs Fired in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="acdd2d37-6022-45b3-9a7a-1f5b7ef936e7" CreationDate="2018-10-19T12:43:25.663" UserId="6806" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17351" RevisionGUID="246a1e76-e7f7-4cd2-a3c1-a958f21ff4b9" CreationDate="2018-10-19T13:21:44.080" UserId="4560" Text="For &quot;laid off&quot;, Russian has the somewhat jargony-sounding, but very commonly used, **сократить**. It properly refers to staff cuts (**сократить штат**), which is why this &quot;laid off&quot; usage applied to a single employee (e.g. **меня сократили**) is slightly jarring for the inner purist, as well as a little absurd in the imagery it invokes, but that's still how you say it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="c8a915a5-4abd-470f-a7f3-261c583947ca" CreationDate="2018-10-19T13:25:52.007" UserId="11096" Text="**Уволить** - it is the verb that describes the action taken by the company, it does not actually specify whose fault it is.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Был уволен** - was fired by the company.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Уволился** - left the company by his own will.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Уйти с работы** - common expression for describing the cituation when employee leaves the company by his own will. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also **&quot;отчисление&quot;** - but this is suitable for education." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45183" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="8fab71e5-67a7-4ba0-aa35-6a1afe3a2486" CreationDate="2018-10-19T13:28:11.330" UserId="242" Comment="There's no much sense to add &quot;in Russian&quot; this is a Russian SE after all" Text="&quot;Laid off&quot; vs. &quot;fired&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="de06cb38-56a9-40ab-b34c-823a1efec2fc" CreationDate="2018-10-19T15:59:12.947" UserId="170" Text="How to say &quot;historical reenactment&quot; in Russian? For example, when talking about some festival with a historical reenactment of some medieval battle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="de06cb38-56a9-40ab-b34c-823a1efec2fc" CreationDate="2018-10-19T15:59:12.947" UserId="170" Text="How to say &quot;historical reenactment&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="de06cb38-56a9-40ab-b34c-823a1efec2fc" CreationDate="2018-10-19T15:59:12.947" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17354" RevisionGUID="387c0d77-0375-4afd-a40a-9f3b1e70612c" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:05:09.250" UserId="5605" Text="Как правильно: ***благодать низошла*** на кого-то или ***благодать снизошла*** на кого-то?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17354" RevisionGUID="387c0d77-0375-4afd-a40a-9f3b1e70612c" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:05:09.250" UserId="5605" Text="Благодать низошла или благодать снизошла на кого-то?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17354" RevisionGUID="387c0d77-0375-4afd-a40a-9f3b1e70612c" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:05:09.250" UserId="5605" Text="|грамотность|семантика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17355" RevisionGUID="2868e786-1614-4508-8636-a27eb92504ce" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:10:10.200" UserId="1836" Text="&quot;историческая реконструкция&quot; is the proper term for historical reenactment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45193" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="83c1adcc-f4c2-41df-866c-9f8d3f614875" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:26:03.440" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="a78d87e7-8fea-46d6-aac4-09d6c49c4eef" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:47:25.210" UserId="170" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="How to say &quot;historical reenactment&quot; in Russian? For example, when talking about some festival with a historical reenactment of some medieval battle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;историческая реконструкция&quot;, as far as I can tell, has three meanings. One is like a process of recovery of some facts, and another one is like a wall with pictures. But what I want is precisely a term that would convey only one meaning, that is the third meaning, which is a kind of performance or a cosplay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45195" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17353" RevisionGUID="c91d05ec-964a-47b9-8400-77027c425f31" CreationDate="2018-10-19T16:53:40.747" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17356" RevisionGUID="d8107fc4-c261-491a-a123-3f862b331680" CreationDate="2018-10-19T17:07:12.923" UserId="134" Text="In modern Russian, *снисходить* means &quot;to condescend, to deign&quot;, so if you're about to compose a neutral phrase in modern Russian, meaning &quot;grace descended&quot;, you should probably be using *благодать низошла*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, its original meaning in Church Slavonic is &quot;to descend&quot; and using Church Slavonic is a common way to give your Russian text grand style. So if that's your purpose, then you can use either word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17356" RevisionGUID="41aa071b-d42d-4594-87d2-6b6586344e18" CreationDate="2018-10-19T17:14:28.593" UserId="134" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In modern Russian, *снисходить* means &quot;to condescend, to deign&quot;, so if you're about to compose a neutral phrase in modern Russian, meaning &quot;grace (has) descended&quot;, you should probably be using *благодать низошла*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, its original meaning in Church Slavonic is &quot;to descend&quot; and using Church Slavonic is a common way to give your Russian text grand style. So if that's your purpose, then you can use either word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17345" RevisionGUID="7c8f4cb9-88dc-4d60-a964-edc6cee1648e" CreationDate="2018-10-19T22:09:08.087" UserId="8664" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="The words that uses in Russian for describing colors (as analog in HSL color model Hue-Saturation-Lightness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Hue - цвет, оттенок (тон)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Saturation (tone in the article) - насыщенность&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  lightness or value (tint and shade) - яркость (тон) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Shade (темный)&lt;------------------------------------------------------&gt; Tint(светлый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem that тон or тональность (it similar to Tonality in music) uses in meaning &quot;Hue&quot; and &quot;lightness&quot; (but definitely not like &quot;tone&quot; in the article). If you don't dive enough context, &quot;тон&quot; normally will use more as lightness in art and Hue in design. If you want to understand you correctly, you can say &quot;цветовой тон&quot; or &quot;оттенок&quot; for Hue and &quot;световой тон&quot; или &quot;Яркость&quot; for lightness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tint and Shade can be translated as &quot;Осветление&quot; и &quot;Затемнение&quot;, you can say also that the color is &quot;темный&quot; or &quot;светлый&quot;. But basically, it is adding and subtracting lightning (яркость). If you talking about painting you can say &quot;Разбеление&quot; (Adding white) instead of &quot;Осветление&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HSL node in Blender:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how it translated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uad4G.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jlt1a.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vew2y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1m6QD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hofXM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17358" RevisionGUID="d072ec4f-1ca1-4998-80ec-f873959c48c4" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:03:44.547" UserId="9355" Text="В каком предложении знак пунктуации употреблен правильно после слова *смотри*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри, я приготовлю ужин, а ты помоешь посуду.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотри! Я приготовлю ужин, а ты помоешь посуду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17358" RevisionGUID="d072ec4f-1ca1-4998-80ec-f873959c48c4" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:03:44.547" UserId="9355" Text="Запятая или знак восклицания после слова &quot;смотри&quot; в значении обращать внимание на что-то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17358" RevisionGUID="d072ec4f-1ca1-4998-80ec-f873959c48c4" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:03:44.547" UserId="9355" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="2423dcd6-e9b3-442f-90b4-c952998c7a9d" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:30:15.880" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixing English grammar issues" Text="**Уволить** - It is the verb that describes the action taken by the company, it does not actually specify whose fault it is.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Был уволен** - Was fired by the company.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Уволился** - Left the company by his own will.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Уйти с работы** - Common expression for describing the situation when an employee leaves the company by his own will. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also **&quot;отчисление&quot;** - but this is suitable for education." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17352" RevisionGUID="2423dcd6-e9b3-442f-90b4-c952998c7a9d" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:30:15.880" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 5605, 11096 edit id of 995" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17360" RevisionGUID="8b32afba-e2b8-4ff7-9334-9fdd888ac794" CreationDate="2018-10-20T08:48:01.383" UserId="11080" Text="С запятой предложение больше похоже на договоренность, а с восклицательным знаком - на угрозу. :) Или на эмоциональное высказывание. В обоих случаях - фразы из прямой речи, поэтому интонацией этой речи и надо руководствоваться, возможны оба варианта. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я бы сказала, что восклицательный знак более типичен для фраз, где мы предлагаем физически посмотреть на что-то удивительное. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Смотри! Там белка! Маленькая, рыжая, с длинным хвостом!**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17347" RevisionGUID="331b110d-6cba-4c7f-8d84-8767b370ffba" CreationDate="2018-10-20T11:01:43.147" UserId="11080" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="Please, use only удивляться + Dative, the other variant should only be understood if pronounced by another person. Wherever you can find it, it is not a current norm. &#xD;&#xA;So, **удивляюсь тебе**, **удивляться этому**, **удивляться чему-то, кому-то**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Удивляться на кого-то is a more colloquial form not typical of educated people. It could be just fine at Tolstoy's time, or in the direct speech of a charachter, to add a certain trait to him. But even Rhozenthal marks this phrase as a rarer one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45212" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17358" RevisionGUID="a8eab6c8-ad67-4d3a-96ba-3fddc84777a9" CreationDate="2018-10-20T12:09:08.467" UserId="9355" Comment="edited title" Text="Запятая или знак восклицания после слова &quot;смотри&quot; в значении обращать внимание на что-то?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16964" RevisionGUID="c6f99e2d-74d5-4c21-a026-8dc00c1131c4" CreationDate="2018-10-20T13:21:08.600" UserId="5605" Comment="добавил тэг" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17361" RevisionGUID="eb1d3e1a-124e-4ba8-8df2-220168825a9e" CreationDate="2018-10-20T14:40:29.940" UserId="11107" Text="The provided text is an example of the old Russian. This is clearly seen by the usage of 'ъ' at the end of the word - modern Russian does not uses that. In addition, some forms of words can also indicate the age of the language ('видаетесь' in your example).&#xD;&#xA;As you may understand, the process of obsolescence is not instant: some words are never used today ('видаетесь'), some words may be used, being outdated at the same time ('ибо', 'воистину').&#xD;&#xA;Some forms of the same word can be used as absolute synonyms, but it`s obvious, that text with true old Russian must contain the old version of word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add that word 'семейство' is widely used in math! For example, 'семейство прямых y=5*x+c', 'семейство функций f(x)=k*sin(x)'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17361" RevisionGUID="2dcf1885-5609-4d10-918d-a0319bf2fc26" CreationDate="2018-10-20T15:02:24.917" UserId="11107" Comment="more examples" Text="The provided text is an example of the old Russian. This is clearly seen by the usage of 'ъ' at the end of many words - modern Russian does not uses that. In addition, some forms of words can also indicate the age of the language ('видаетесь' in your example).&#xD;&#xA;As you may understand, the process of obsolescence is not instant: some words are never used today ('видаетесь'), some words may be used, being outdated at the same time ('ибо', 'воистину').&#xD;&#xA;Some forms of the same word can be used as absolute synonyms, but it`s obvious, that text with true old Russian must contain the old version of word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add that word 'семейство' is widely used in math! For example, 'семейство прямых y=5*x+c', 'семейство функций f(x)=k*sin(x)'. Moreover, in daily life, you may find a contrast: modern words make speech more formal, while the old one color speach with some fun: 'И что твоё семейство?)' (some enthusiasm) vs 'И как твоя семья?' (true or/and kind interest) or 'Ибо не следует так делать!' (confidence) vs 'Потому что не следует так делать.' (anger or/and sadness)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17362" RevisionGUID="a9fb5893-3a38-4ff2-98d9-961b03ee0f8e" CreationDate="2018-10-20T17:12:39.063" UserId="3859" Text="In music, it is customary for the conductor to count one measure before the band starts. Time signature of 4/4 being standard, раз, два. три, четыре is the signal to start. Три, четыре is simply an abbreviation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17350" RevisionGUID="88cc8302-8b21-4885-a58d-0589f7bd5f13" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:00:28.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1053707536623386624" />
  <row Id="45219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17363" RevisionGUID="3985190e-81b4-4af1-a6f8-327314f1a80a" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:39:20.867" UserId="8664" Text="**[Ролевые игры][1]**. And a players are called **&quot;[Ролевики][2]&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;историческая реконструкция&quot; has more official context and use mainly in science, &quot;Ролевые игры&quot; is like a hobby and improvisation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17363" RevisionGUID="914ccd52-da20-419f-9d6a-d442a8bf90d5" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:51:38.350" UserId="8664" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="**[Ролевые игры][1]**. And a players are called **&quot;[Ролевики][2]&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;историческая реконструкция&quot; has more official context and use mainly in science, &quot;Ролевые игры&quot; is like a hobby and improvisation, and including historical reenactment, cosplay, minstrel, tolkiens and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17363" RevisionGUID="e8ca7af1-f1fd-483c-8324-bf727f68932b" CreationDate="2018-10-20T19:00:56.147" UserId="8664" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="**[Ролевые игры][1]**. And a players are called **&quot;[Ролевики][2]&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;историческая реконструкция&quot; has more official context and use mainly in science, &quot;Ролевые игры&quot; is like a hobby and improvisation, and including historical reenactment, cosplay, minstrel, tolkiens, historical dancing and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an [example][3] of festival&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;ВолК&quot; - это ... ежегодный фестиваль ролевых игр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://volk.nn.ru/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17363" RevisionGUID="77f4448b-5b2d-4652-a216-142010304779" CreationDate="2018-10-20T19:45:11.700" UserId="8664" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="**[Ролевые игры][1]** (live action role-playing game). And a players are called **&quot;[Ролевики][2]&quot;** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;историческая реконструкция&quot; has more official context and use mainly in science, &quot;Ролевые игры&quot; is like a hobby and improvisation, and including historical reenactment, cosplay, minstrel, tolkiens, historical dancing and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an [example][3] of festival&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;ВолК&quot; - это ... ежегодный фестиваль ролевых игр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://volk.nn.ru/about" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17364" RevisionGUID="1b46b241-b73c-42b7-b182-cba59aed84ca" CreationDate="2018-10-21T10:57:43.937" UserId="170" Text="Which verb or a combination of verbs would best describe the act of starting a &quot;серия убийств&quot; (I want to keep &quot;серия убийств&quot;, but the grammatical case can be different from Nominative)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начал серию убийств&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Приступил к серии убийств&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Предпринял серию убийств&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пустился в совершение серии убийств&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17364" RevisionGUID="1b46b241-b73c-42b7-b182-cba59aed84ca" CreationDate="2018-10-21T10:57:43.937" UserId="170" Text="Which verb would start a &quot;серию убийств&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17364" RevisionGUID="1b46b241-b73c-42b7-b182-cba59aed84ca" CreationDate="2018-10-21T10:57:43.937" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17361" RevisionGUID="a6b6ada5-8d90-4073-9376-1b9d8490e714" CreationDate="2018-10-21T11:34:12.940" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="The provided text is an example of old Russian. This is clearly seen by the usage of 'ъ' at the end of many words - modern Russian does not use that. In addition, some forms of words can also indicate the age of the language ('видаетесь' in your example).&#xD;&#xA;As you may understand, the process of obsolescence is not instant: some words are never used today ('видаетесь'), some words may be used, being outdated at the same time ('ибо', 'воистину').&#xD;&#xA;Some forms of the same word can be used as absolute synonyms, but it's obvious, that text with true old Russian must contain the old version of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add that the word 'семейство' is widely used in math! For example, 'семейство прямых y=5*x+c', 'семейство функций f(x)=k*sin(x)'. Moreover, in daily life, you may find a contrast: modern words make speech more formal, while the old one color speech with some fun: 'И что твоё семейство?)' (some enthusiasm) vs 'И как твоя семья?' (true or/and kind interest) or 'Ибо не следует так делать!' (confidence) vs 'Потому что не следует так делать.' (anger or/and sadness)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45227" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17361" RevisionGUID="a6b6ada5-8d90-4073-9376-1b9d8490e714" CreationDate="2018-10-21T11:34:12.940" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 1097 edit id of 996" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45228" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17343" RevisionGUID="89944158-0f2b-4b8b-b353-85d6ec3ee350" CreationDate="2018-10-21T12:00:31.123" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1053979338515865600" />
  <row Id="45229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17365" RevisionGUID="32bc5f67-1589-42f2-b60a-9587e1d0fb59" CreationDate="2018-10-21T12:28:44.877" UserId="134" Text="I would use *совершил первое из серии убийств*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="9682a34d-86c2-4bfd-8b5b-3667103f772e" CreationDate="2018-10-21T13:20:21.340" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Начал совершать серийные убийства&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приступил к совершению серии убийств (if the series was preplanned)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;The word **серия** in Russian doesn't blend in well with the verbs suggested in the originally proposed variants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="b143993a-334b-458d-b9cb-98c9c04807f1" CreationDate="2018-10-21T13:33:56.733" UserId="7674" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="&gt; Начал совершать серийные убийства *(this one doesn't meet the requirement bit is the most idiomatic)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приступил к совершению серии убийств *(if the series was preplanned)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;The word **серия** in Russian doesn't blend in well with the verbs suggested in the originally proposed variants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17367" RevisionGUID="2df7dd3f-31c8-446c-b9ee-6f6ee4b82ee1" CreationDate="2018-10-21T14:10:10.470" UserId="11107" Text="This is an example of situation, when additional words are not required, because a modern short alternative exists. As a result, 'многое', 'много' can be used both in formal and informal speech, while 'много чего', 'много что', 'много такого' can only be used in informal speech. If you look at the word added, you`ll see it does not bring any additional information, it only adds volume to this part of the sentence, so more attention is paied to the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other words, that can be extended in informal speech only, like 'быстро *так*', 'что *же*', etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your example, use 'многое' to be sure you are not adding 'water' to your text. Use 'много чего' if you wish to express some insolence in the intonation, like in all these stories about fake-news : )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17333" RevisionGUID="88fac3f7-43cf-4dec-99d6-24357a525e2a" CreationDate="2018-10-21T18:01:09.303" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1054070094685499393" />
  <row Id="45236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17366" RevisionGUID="1118db40-0317-433e-8c5d-8767e81267ee" CreationDate="2018-10-22T06:25:10.880" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Начал совершать серийные убийства *(this one doesn't meet the requirement but is the most idiomatic)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Приступил к совершению серии убийств *(if the series was preplanned)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;The word **серия** in Russian doesn't blend in well with the verbs suggested in the originally proposed variants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17369" RevisionGUID="bc54d514-b401-4920-9f5a-81626afbfc2e" CreationDate="2018-10-22T06:35:10.240" UserId="7674" Text="Wikipedia on [Историческая реконструкция](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Историческая_реконструкция)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the collocation refers not to the cosplay culture, where reenactment is the goal in itself, but to a one-off show within another event, then these could work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Инсценировка исторического события &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Театрализованное воссоздание исторического события" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="2509cb4a-86ce-4816-91b7-efc4d09794a4" CreationDate="2018-10-22T07:03:13.263" UserId="9355" Text="Скажите отличаються ли следующие предлодения по значению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня ем этот шиколад **последний раз**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня ем этот шиколад **в последний раз**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="2509cb4a-86ce-4816-91b7-efc4d09794a4" CreationDate="2018-10-22T07:03:13.263" UserId="9355" Text="Какая разница между словосочитаниями &quot;в последний раз&quot; и &quot;последний раз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="2509cb4a-86ce-4816-91b7-efc4d09794a4" CreationDate="2018-10-22T07:03:13.263" UserId="9355" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17371" RevisionGUID="9ad0df83-35f5-4c2b-89f3-b11209ece84a" CreationDate="2018-10-22T07:25:07.993" UserId="7674" Text="Субъективно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`В последний раз`** имеет коннотацию приближающегося конца жизни, т.е. `в последний раз в жизни`, потому что больше уже не доведётся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словосочетании **`последний раз`** без предлога такой коннотации нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="056111ff-be4f-4994-b1ad-99102078a044" CreationDate="2018-10-22T07:25:25.830" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Скажите отличаються ли следующие предложения по значению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня ем этот шоколад **последний раз**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня ем этот шоколад **в последний раз**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="726a9e53-4893-4645-8140-dee6cd5cabcb" CreationDate="2018-10-22T08:18:27.240" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Скажите отличаются ли следующие предложения по значению.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня ем этот шоколад **последний раз**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня ем этот шоколад **в последний раз**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="726a9e53-4893-4645-8140-dee6cd5cabcb" CreationDate="2018-10-22T08:18:27.240" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Какая разница между словосочетаниями &quot;в последний раз&quot; и &quot;последний раз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17371" RevisionGUID="aa100745-5cd4-480a-81bb-77febb52ff3f" CreationDate="2018-10-22T09:59:52.283" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Субъективно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во фразе **`в последний раз`** есть коннотация приближающегося конца жизни, т.е. `в последний раз в жизни`, потому что больше уже не суждено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словосочетании **`последний раз`** без предлога такой коннотации нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45246" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17370" RevisionGUID="b5110c11-8657-4e6c-9cd7-4210bac47e26" CreationDate="2018-10-22T12:00:03.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1054341609951842304" />
  <row Id="45247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="3edab9a1-b6f5-4afc-9b91-a9330acac2e8" CreationDate="2018-10-22T17:13:39.573" UserId="10606" Text="Russian pronunciation presents to a foreigner, and specifically to Italians like me, several difficulties. &#xD;&#xA;These are the major problems I encountered, approximately in order of their importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0) Correct placement of word stress.&#xD;&#xA; - 1) The sound ы, especially after м, б, п, в, ф.&#xD;&#xA; - 2) Proper reduction of non-stressed vowels.&#xD;&#xA; - 3) Proper use of vowel allophones (all vowels change somewhat their sound depending on whether they are stressed or not and on whether they are followed by a soft or hard consonant).&#xD;&#xA; - 4) Pronunciation and contrast of л / ль&#xD;&#xA; - 5) Practically all soft consonant sounds apart from нь (especially мь, бь, пь, вь, фь, рь and even more so if word-final).&#xD;&#xA; - 6) Proper prosody and intonation ('rhythm').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I study Russian on my own so I have no feedback on my pronunciation; I've therefore put [here][1] a recording of myself reading a short story (there's no need to listen to *all* of it, of course) and I would be very grateful to hear some opinions on my delivery, if possible in reference to points 0-6 above, so that I can focus on those particular aspects. For example, listening to the recording, I think I mispronounced the word жители, but in general it is difficult for me to know what erroneous features and mispronunciations stands out the most.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfn79pj57lr0l2k/2018-10-22-strana_sobaki.mp3?dl=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="3edab9a1-b6f5-4afc-9b91-a9330acac2e8" CreationDate="2018-10-22T17:13:39.573" UserId="10606" Text="Russian pronunciation - list of major difficulties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="3edab9a1-b6f5-4afc-9b91-a9330acac2e8" CreationDate="2018-10-22T17:13:39.573" UserId="10606" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="4bb31d57-d233-4eef-a332-0f70b0baaac0" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:20:13.693" UserId="10271" Text="I'm awfully confused about the difference between the four nouns with the meaning 'difference'. Some example sentences showing which to use in which situation would greatly help my understanding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="4bb31d57-d233-4eef-a332-0f70b0baaac0" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:20:13.693" UserId="10271" Text="разница / разность / различие / отличие" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="4bb31d57-d233-4eef-a332-0f70b0baaac0" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:20:13.693" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45253" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="2b2143ab-c5cf-412a-b5a4-843f09b4abf7" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:23:57.847" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the pronunciation errors in this short story rendition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17374" RevisionGUID="13008bbc-052e-4380-a36c-f1264acfc721" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:55:25.450" UserId="10271" Text=" - **давай**(**те**) **пить** чай / let's have some tea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **давай**(**те**) **сыграем** / let's play&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused; they both mean 'let's', but why does one take an infinitive and the other a future form?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17374" RevisionGUID="13008bbc-052e-4380-a36c-f1264acfc721" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:55:25.450" UserId="10271" Text="Why does давай(те) take different forms - давай + inf. or давай + future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17374" RevisionGUID="13008bbc-052e-4380-a36c-f1264acfc721" CreationDate="2018-10-22T18:55:25.450" UserId="10271" Text="|грамматика|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17375" RevisionGUID="143ced8f-8b1a-47ec-adb3-bf8fe06a074e" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:00:32.600" UserId="134" Text="As the Russian pronunciations go, yours is not that bad at all!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most prominent mistake you're making is inserting the *[j]* between a palatalized consonant and the following vowel: in the third word of your dictation, you're saying _[gdʲje] (*гдье)_ instead of *[gdʲe] (где)*, and this goes on with practically any palatalized consonant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest of your mistakes are quite minor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You're overarticulating the reduced vowels. Try pronouncing the vowels which don't have stress on them shorter that you're doing now, as if you were mumbling.&#xD;&#xA;* You're making a stereotypical Italian mistake of inserting vowels between consonant clusters: *возьмём - [ə] - к - [ə] - примеру* at 0:24, *девяносто восемь - [ə] - собак* at 0:57 etc. *К*, as most Russian prepositions, is a proclitic, meaning that phonetically it's an integral part of the following word, so as far as the stress, vowel reduction etc. are concerned, *к примеру, про нас, о них* etc. are single words. This, to a certain extent, is true even for larger phrases, and spaces between Russian words within an isolated phrase are much less articulate than those between Italian ones.&#xD;&#xA;* *Л/ль* is something that would need some love indeed.&#xD;&#xA;* You're mispronouncing some words and phrases (_*не о чём_ instead of _не&amp;#x301; о чем_, _*завесёнки_ instead of _занавески_ etc.), but this happens to everyone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17376" RevisionGUID="4e2497ca-5baf-46b2-8e36-09940c29d7ed" CreationDate="2018-10-22T19:50:54.673" UserId="11080" Text="I can only congratulate you on such a great success! You sound quite good, and if you work on just few minor flaws, you can read aloud to record audiobooks. :) &#xD;&#xA;With your permit I'll name the mistakes I've noticed. &#xD;&#xA;0) на**у**чатся - stress У here; к**а**менная - stress the first А; н**е** о чем - stress НЕ, it's a set expression, погл**я**дывая - the second syllable is stressed, but the fifth is not; &#xD;&#xA;2) с**а**мой is pronounced as [самай] when the stress is in the first syllable; &#xD;&#xA;4) Exercise that. Sometimes your Л sounds correct, but sometimes not. Make your Л in лаем just like in ласковое. Also, work a bit more on Л in the end of words and before a consonant. E.x., попадал, дрожал, долго. &#xD;&#xA;5) That is also to be trained. That was the most remarkable thing. Just remember that it matters, train your tongue, and you'll make your soft cosonants proper. :) &#xD;&#xA;Also, the word добрее contains not only the soft рь, but also й between two е-s. I mean, the first Е softens the preceding consonant, and the second Е sounds like in the alphabet. &#xD;&#xA;Besides, к примеру should be pronounced without any vowel between the preposition and the noun. It's not so easy, but it's possible. :) КПР. &#xD;&#xA;Пример, при этом - do not omit рь, I mean the first and soft р. &#xD;&#xA;The sound Ц should always be pronounced and it is never softened. &#xD;&#xA;Так и повелось - three saparate words should sound separately. &#xD;&#xA;Занавески. Not завесёнки, but it sounded so nice. ))))) &#xD;&#xA;But I wouldn't even say a word if a foreigner spoke like you and did not ask for correcting him. You sound really great, and it is even more surprising that a person can achieve such results studying on his own. If you correct your soft sounds you can work as a spy in Russia. :) Or as a reporter, which would be better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="1c81441b-a422-4f9c-9b7f-0c51882ca9f0" CreationDate="2018-10-22T20:07:07.960" UserId="11080" Text="**Давайте пойдем, давайте сыграем, давайте сделаем, давайте купим, давайте скажем** - all those Perfect forms denote an action as such, which we propose to start, perform and finish. &#xD;&#xA;**Давайте идти быстрее, давайте говорить громче, давайте пить чай** - these infinitive forms express processes. &#xD;&#xA;**Давайте покупать чаще, давайте говорить друг другу комплименты, давайте понимать друг друга** - in these cases the actions are either repeated or not possible to be finished. &#xD;&#xA;A good exercise for the third case is very famous among the Russian native speakers. :) Here you are. http://spoemdruzya.ru/pesni-iz-filma/klyuch-bez-prava-peredachi/1037-davajte-vosklitsat-davajte-govorit-drug-drugu-komplimenty.html &#xD;&#xA;Btw, a more regular action for the compliments is another, and that's **делать комплименты**. &quot;Говорить комплименты&quot; is an invention of Bulat Okujava, but quite a famous one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17376" RevisionGUID="f889d09c-ed11-40fb-a7ba-42add2c610b0" CreationDate="2018-10-22T20:12:51.523" UserId="11080" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I can only congratulate you on such a great success! You sound quite good, and if you work on just few minor flaws, you can read aloud to record audiobooks. :) &#xD;&#xA;With your permit I'll name the mistakes I've noticed.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0) на**у**чатся - stress У here; к**а**менная - stress the first А; н**е** о чем - stress НЕ, it's a set expression, погл**я**дывая - the second syllable is stressed, but the fifth is not; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) с**а**мой is pronounced as [самай] when the stress is in the first syllable; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Exercise that. Sometimes your Л sounds correct, but sometimes not. Make your Л in лаем just like in ласковое. Also, work a bit more on Л in the end of words and before a consonant. E.x., попадал, дрожал, долго. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) That is also to be trained. That was the most remarkable thing. Just remember that it matters, train your tongue, and you'll make your soft cosonants proper. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the word добрее contains not only the soft рь, but also й between two е-s. I mean, the first Е softens the preceding consonant, and the second Е sounds like in the alphabet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, к примеру should be pronounced without any vowel between the preposition and the noun. It's not so easy, but it's possible. :) КПР.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Пример, при этом - do not omit рь, I mean the first and soft р. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sound Ц should always be pronounced and it is never softened.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Так и повелось - these three saparate words should sound separately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Занавески. Not завесёнки, but it sounded so nice. ))))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I wouldn't even say a word if a foreigner spoke like you and did not ask for correcting him. You sound really great, and it is even more surprising that a person can achieve such results studying on his own. If you correct your soft sounds you can work as a spy in Russia. :) Or as a reporter, which would be better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="498304d9-5b76-4e65-b19c-f2436db9284d" CreationDate="2018-10-22T20:14:12.623" UserId="11080" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Давайте пойдем, давайте сыграем, давайте сделаем, давайте купим, давайте скажем** - all those Perfect forms denote an action as such, which we propose to start, perform and finish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте идти быстрее, давайте говорить громче, давайте пить чай** - these infinitive forms express processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте покупать чаще, давайте говорить друг другу комплименты, давайте понимать друг друга** - in these cases the actions are either repeated or not possible to be finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good exercise for the third case is very famous among the Russian native speakers. :) Here you are. http://spoemdruzya.ru/pesni-iz-filma/klyuch-bez-prava-peredachi/1037-davajte-vosklitsat-davajte-govorit-drug-drugu-komplimenty.html &#xD;&#xA;Btw, a more regular action for the compliments is another, and that's **делать комплименты**. &quot;Говорить комплименты&quot; is an invention of Bulat Okujava, but quite a famous one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="a3523915-7baf-4129-bd80-7d3337e00745" CreationDate="2018-10-22T20:24:24.753" UserId="11080" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**Давайте пойдем, давайте сыграем, давайте сделаем, давайте купим, давайте скажем** - all those Perfect forms denote actions as such, which we propose to start, perform and finish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте идти быстрее, давайте говорить громче, давайте пить чай** - these infinitive forms express processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте покупать чаще, давайте говорить друг другу комплименты, давайте понимать друг друга** - in these cases the actions are either repeated or not possible to be finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good exercise for the third case is very famous among the Russian native speakers. :) Here you are. http://spoemdruzya.ru/pesni-iz-filma/klyuch-bez-prava-peredachi/1037-davajte-vosklitsat-davajte-govorit-drug-drugu-komplimenty.html &#xD;&#xA;Btw, a more regular action for the compliments is another, and that's **делать комплименты**. &quot;Говорить комплименты&quot; is an invention of Bulat Okujava, but quite a famous one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="121a2c1c-5f0b-436d-a6f7-1ee587374ec4" CreationDate="2018-10-22T22:51:54.013" UserId="10606" Comment="typo" Text="Russian pronunciation presents to a foreigner, and specifically to Italians like me, several difficulties. &#xD;&#xA;These are the major problems I encountered, approximately in order of their importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0) Correct placement of word stress.&#xD;&#xA; - 1) The sound ы, especially after м, б, п, в, ф.&#xD;&#xA; - 2) Proper reduction of non-stressed vowels.&#xD;&#xA; - 3) Proper use of vowel allophones (all vowels change somewhat their sound depending on whether they are stressed or not and on whether they are followed by a soft or hard consonant).&#xD;&#xA; - 4) Pronunciation and contrast of л / ль&#xD;&#xA; - 5) Practically all soft consonant sounds apart from нь (especially мь, бь, пь, вь, фь, рь and even more so if word-final).&#xD;&#xA; - 6) Proper prosody and intonation ('rhythm').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I study Russian on my own so I have no feedback on my pronunciation; I've therefore put [here][1] a recording of myself reading a short story (there's no need to listen to *all* of it, of course) and I would be very grateful to hear some opinions on my delivery, if possible in reference to points 0-6 above, so that I can focus on those particular aspects. For example, listening to the recording, I think I mispronounced the word жители, but in general it is difficult for me to know what erroneous features and mispronunciations stand out the most.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfn79pj57lr0l2k/2018-10-22-strana_sobaki.mp3?dl=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17378" RevisionGUID="a5dae43d-bab9-4f07-973c-3635dfe5b933" CreationDate="2018-10-22T23:46:31.720" UserId="11055" Text="*Разница* - ***difference***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - В чём **разница** между этим словарём и тем? (What's the difference between this dictionary and that one?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я не вижу никакой **разницы** между этими двумя книгами. (I don't see any difference between these two books.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Разность* - ***difference*** (the **result of the subtraction** of one number, quantity, etc, from another):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Найдите **разность** между 700 и 400. Ответ - 300. (Find the difference between 700 and 400. The answer is 300.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, personally, I associate *разность* with the mathematical operation. I never use *разность* the way I use *разница*. When it comes to the state or quality of being unlike, use *разница*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Различие*, *отличие* - ***distinction***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Есть очевидные **различия (отличия)** между двумя винодельными    регионами. (There are obvious distinctions between the two wine-making areas).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Он **проводит различие** (NOT отличие in this set expression) между    искусством и культурой. (He draws a distinction between art and   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я пока на **провёл различия** между удовольствием читать и писать. (I did not yet make a distinction between the pleasures of reading and of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writing fiction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, remember the expression **проводить различия**. Alternatively, you might say **находить отличия**. Again, it's a set expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **Найдите пять отличий** на картинках. (Spot the 5 differences in the pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we *wouldn't* say найдите пять разниц. But I see that it's possible to say найдти пять различий, though I'd prefer найдите пять отличий. Perhaps, it's just a matter of preference here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember the expression **в отличие от** (meaning *unlike*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **В отличие от тебя**, я знаю чего хочу. (Unlike you, I know what I want.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45266" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17364" RevisionGUID="e24826ce-065b-4c17-bd23-24470760edbb" CreationDate="2018-10-23T00:00:29.563" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1054522913985048576" />
  <row Id="45268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="ec45494d-6768-48b6-958a-acb4d97786b3" CreationDate="2018-10-23T06:30:14.917" UserId="11080" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="**Давайте пойдем, давайте сыграем, давайте сделаем, давайте купим, давайте скажем** - all those Perfect forms denote actions as such, which we propose to start, perform and finish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте идти быстрее, давайте говорить громче, давайте пить чай** - these infinitive forms express processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте покупать чаще, давайте говорить друг другу комплименты, давайте понимать друг друга** - in these cases the actions are either repeated or not possible to be finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good exercise for the third case is very famous among the Russian native speakers. :) Here you are. http://spoemdruzya.ru/pesni-iz-filma/klyuch-bez-prava-peredachi/1037-davajte-vosklitsat-davajte-govorit-drug-drugu-komplimenty.html &#xD;&#xA;Btw, a more regular action for the compliments is another, and that's **делать комплименты**. &quot;Говорить комплименты&quot; is not quite a current norm. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17377" RevisionGUID="4a7a3a8b-09e5-4cc8-990d-1643d25873e6" CreationDate="2018-10-23T07:12:37.760" UserId="11080" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Давайте пойдем, давайте сыграем, давайте сделаем, давайте купим, давайте скажем** - all those Perfect forms denote actions as such, which we propose to start, perform and finish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте идти быстрее, давайте говорить громче, давайте пить чай** - these infinitive forms express processes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давайте покупать чаще, давайте говорить друг другу комплименты, давайте понимать друг друга** - in these cases the actions are either repeated or not possible to be accomplished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good exercise for the third case is very famous among the Russian native speakers. :) Here you are. http://spoemdruzya.ru/pesni-iz-filma/klyuch-bez-prava-peredachi/1037-davajte-vosklitsat-davajte-govorit-drug-drugu-komplimenty.html &#xD;&#xA;Btw, a more regular action for the compliments is another, and that's **делать комплименты**. &quot;Говорить комплименты&quot; is not quite a current norm. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45270" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17372" RevisionGUID="76a3caa8-6cb1-45ab-b97c-18bdb230c7c4" CreationDate="2018-10-23T09:00:29.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1054658808440635392" />
  <row Id="45271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17378" RevisionGUID="c334c7c8-e6a8-49e0-9458-69864d12a0e4" CreationDate="2018-10-23T09:39:17.757" UserId="11055" Comment="added 673 characters in body" Text="*Разница* - ***difference***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - В чём **разница** между этим словарём и тем? (What's the difference between this dictionary and that one?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я не вижу никакой **разницы** между этими двумя книгами. (I don't see any difference between these two books.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Разность* - ***difference*** (the **result of the subtraction** of one number, quantity, etc, from another):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Найдите **разность** между 700 и 400. Ответ - 300. (Find the difference between 700 and 400. The answer is 300.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, personally, I associate *разность* with the mathematical operation. I never use *разность* the way I use *разница*. When it comes to the state or quality of being unlike, use *разница*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Различие*, *отличие* - ***distinction***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Есть очевидные **различия (отличия)** между двумя винодельными    регионами. (There are obvious distinctions between the two wine-making areas).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Он **проводит различие** (NOT отличие in this set expression) между    искусством и культурой. (He draws a distinction between art and   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я пока на **провёл различия** между удовольствием читать и писать. (I did not yet make a distinction between the pleasures of reading and of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writing fiction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, remember the expression **проводить различия**. Alternatively, you might say **находить отличия**. Again, it's a set expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **Найдите пять отличий** на картинках. (Spot the 5 differences in the pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we *wouldn't* say найдите пять разниц. But I see that it's possible to say найдти пять различий, though I'd prefer найдите пять отличий. Perhaps, it's just a matter of preference here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember the expression **в отличие от** (meaning *unlike*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **В отличие от тебя**, я знаю чего хочу. (Unlike you, I know what I want.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that some people have said in their comments that &quot;проводить различие/различия между&quot; is not a natural Russian collocation. I beg to differ, and here is some evidence to support my argument: [source 1][1] and [source 2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7n-ZBU5z36oC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20english&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=78w6hZP74n&amp;sig=aV_uGjcgbcaW89WE_4BZ9m1b-Pw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlz_CSoZzeAhXPdHAKHaeMAJIQ6AEwBnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20english&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=uUy5AAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PP49&amp;lpg=PP49&amp;dq=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=C3bg-ybTky&amp;sig=g8vjmcM32BjclFrEM1LNM4pTT74&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiu4vb3mJzeAhUJPXAKHYHkDaMQ6AEwCXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17378" RevisionGUID="fb421ad5-076a-4352-9057-e18ae9cb24aa" CreationDate="2018-10-23T09:44:21.573" UserId="11055" Comment="added 673 characters in body" Text="*Разница* - ***difference***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - В чём **разница** между этим словарём и тем? (What's the difference between this dictionary and that one?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я не вижу никакой **разницы** между этими двумя книгами. (I don't see any difference between these two books.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Разность* - ***difference*** (the **result of the subtraction** of one number, quantity, etc, from another):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Найдите **разность** между 700 и 400. Ответ - 300. (Find the difference between 700 and 400. The answer is 300.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, personally, I associate *разность* with the mathematical operation. I never use *разность* the way I use *разница*. When it comes to the state or quality of being unlike, use *разница*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Различие*, *отличие* - ***distinction***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Есть очевидные **различия (отличия)** между двумя винодельными    регионами. (There are obvious distinctions between the two wine-making areas).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Он **проводит различие** (NOT отличие in this set expression) между    искусством и культурой. (He draws a distinction between art and   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я пока на **провёл различия** между удовольствием читать и писать. (I did not yet make a distinction between the pleasures of reading and of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writing fiction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, remember the expression **проводить различия**. Alternatively, you might say **находить отличия**. Again, it's a set expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **Найдите пять отличий** на картинках. (Spot the 5 differences in the pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we *wouldn't* say найдите пять разниц. But I see that it's possible to say найдти пять различий, though I'd prefer найдите пять отличий. Perhaps, it's just a matter of preference here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember the expression **в отличие от** (meaning *unlike*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **В отличие от тебя**, я знаю чего хочу. (Unlike you, I know what I want.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that some people have commented that &quot;проводить различие/различия между&quot; is not a natural Russian collocation. I beg to differ, and here is some evidence to support my argument: [source 1][1] and [source 2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7n-ZBU5z36oC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20english&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=78w6hZP74n&amp;sig=aV_uGjcgbcaW89WE_4BZ9m1b-Pw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlz_CSoZzeAhXPdHAKHaeMAJIQ6AEwBnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20english&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=uUy5AAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PP49&amp;lpg=PP49&amp;dq=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=C3bg-ybTky&amp;sig=g8vjmcM32BjclFrEM1LNM4pTT74&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiu4vb3mJzeAhUJPXAKHYHkDaMQ6AEwCXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17288" RevisionGUID="70e33313-bee3-4533-941e-b6ca739744c5" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:00:19.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1054704064934658049" />
  <row Id="45274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17379" RevisionGUID="0e62eb78-4131-449c-8bdb-9cb9cb255579" CreationDate="2018-10-23T13:20:18.843" UserId="5443" Text="Ситуации могут различаться:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Этот шоколад мне не нравится, больше не буду есть такой.&#xD;&#xA;2. Мне не судьба ещё раз отведать этого шоколада: там, куда я направляюсь, его нет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17379" RevisionGUID="aa7badff-a916-427b-b47e-ccd0fa9c48ff" CreationDate="2018-10-23T13:30:07.143" UserId="5443" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Ситуации могут различаться:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Этот шоколад мне не нравится, больше не буду есть такой.&#xD;&#xA;2. Мне не судьба ещё раз отведать этого шоколада: там, куда я направляюсь, его нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Формальное различие здесь в том, что *предлогом* &quot;вписываются&quot; во временной интервал события поедания шоколада (процесс мыслят в его протяжённости, возможно, смакуют). Без предлога на событие просто ссылаются как на факт." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17380" RevisionGUID="afab0a41-9332-40ce-810e-25841965cca5" CreationDate="2018-10-23T14:39:45.163" UserId="5443" Text="If that phrase just introduces some citizen as a serial killer, the natural form would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... **совершил** серию убийств.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After such an introduction it becomes possible to discuss *chronology*, e. g. sequential number of a particular murder in the series, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other words like *предпринял, пустился, приступил, затеял*, etc. are only possible within proper context while discussing the serial killer's motive and its particular details.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17381" RevisionGUID="23154c1d-06ea-4c36-bca0-01dd1f93ac86" CreationDate="2018-10-23T15:19:44.273" UserId="5443" Text="You can think of *both* forms as '*future* tense':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давайте (будем) пить чай&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давайте попьём чаю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that **imperfective** verbs take the auxiliary verb **будем** (**-ет**, **ут**) to form future tense (*будем + infinitive*). In this particular expression *будем* can be omitted without *any* change in sense: it's either way a suggestion for future action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, both Russian versions follow the same template with *future*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17382" RevisionGUID="c92fc31e-7239-4a73-ae2c-68fa2fbff709" CreationDate="2018-10-23T16:03:13.860" UserId="9001" Text="По моему мнению обе фразы означают одно и то же. Фраза с предлогом выстроена грамматически более строго: существительное, прилагательное и предлог выполняют свои классические роли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Без предлога словосочетание *последний раз* начинает терять внутреннюю структуру и приобретать как единое целое наречное значение. Более отчетливо это видно в схожих по структуре выражениях: например, *второй раз* можно заменить на *вторично*, *повторно*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому фраза без предлога звучит более разговорно, а с предлогом - более формально, и из-за этого, возможно, воспринимается некоторыми с  фатальным оттенком." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17383" RevisionGUID="bac71b28-c690-49fc-a660-e32ea2d96af5" CreationDate="2018-10-23T16:42:02.813" UserId="1274" Text="You can use either form, the difference is whether an action is continuous or finite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- давай(те) **пить** чай / let's have tea&#xD;&#xA;- давай(те) **выпьем** чаю / let's have some tea&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- давай(те) **играть** / let's play&#xD;&#xA;- давай(те) **сыграем** / let's have a game" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17287" RevisionGUID="cd735b68-a885-47f3-a241-bd1da7f052fa" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:00:49.560" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1054794788552220677" />
  <row Id="45281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="37543234-88be-483e-89ca-4a67df96318c" CreationDate="2018-10-23T21:15:58.750" UserId="11021" Text="Is it always pronounced nye ive searched online but no sources on it. I hear it sometimes ни and sometimes не" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45282" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="37543234-88be-483e-89ca-4a67df96318c" CreationDate="2018-10-23T21:15:58.750" UserId="11021" Text="Pronunciation of не" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45283" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="37543234-88be-483e-89ca-4a67df96318c" CreationDate="2018-10-23T21:15:58.750" UserId="11021" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45284" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="46d1afce-4858-4f41-ada9-16c83b5e2345" CreationDate="2018-10-23T21:27:08.007" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="165388c5-cdb8-45f5-ae21-37da1edf2a84" CreationDate="2018-10-23T22:24:15.433" UserId="134" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Is it always pronounced &quot;nye&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched online but found no sources on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hear it sometimes as *ни* and sometimes as *не*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45286" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="165388c5-cdb8-45f5-ae21-37da1edf2a84" CreationDate="2018-10-23T22:24:15.433" UserId="134" Comment="added 27 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45287" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17384" RevisionGUID="277ace9a-bbc5-4c1d-abc9-da4ef66974a2" CreationDate="2018-10-23T22:24:19.183" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17385" RevisionGUID="8b9ef792-72a5-4e5a-abdb-4dbec03d9127" CreationDate="2018-10-23T22:41:55.143" UserId="134" Text="*Не* is proclitic, meaning that as far as pronunciation is concerned, it's a part of the word that follows it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that *е* in it is subject to vowel reduction if not stressed, and hence is pronounced as *[ɪ]*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vowels in *не* in *не о то&amp;#x301;м [nʲɪɐˈtom]* and *не&amp;#x301; о чем ['nʲeətɕɪm]* are pronounced differently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17386" RevisionGUID="7f0aa832-8704-4d65-814f-139c0764c531" CreationDate="2018-10-24T00:48:13.873" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Обычно я обедала в столовой колледжа – Пьюк-холле. На самом деле она называлась Дюк-холл, в честь покойного директора. Но **с моей легкой руки** она получила новое неофициальное прозвище.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does this expression mean, and how is it used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, can other personal pronouns than &quot;моей&quot; be used just as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17386" RevisionGUID="7f0aa832-8704-4d65-814f-139c0764c531" CreationDate="2018-10-24T00:48:13.873" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of the expression &quot;с моей легкой руки&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17386" RevisionGUID="7f0aa832-8704-4d65-814f-139c0764c531" CreationDate="2018-10-24T00:48:13.873" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17388" RevisionGUID="0921cbec-e955-46c4-9410-06dbf44f19aa" CreationDate="2018-10-24T03:45:35.543" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Натолкнувшийся на меня Фарсад, невесело улыбнулся – **мол**, не у одного тебя кошки на душе скребут, потом вдруг со всего размаха врезал меня по плечу, и проговорил:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As particles to mark reported speech, how do they differ in usage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to &quot;мол&quot;, does only context -- regardless of punctuation -- help determine which part of a sentence is such reported speech?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Натолкнувшийся на меня Фарсад, невесело улыбнулся – мол, **не у одного тебя кошки на душе скребут**, потом вдруг со всего размаха врезал меня по плечу, и проговорил:&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17388" RevisionGUID="0921cbec-e955-46c4-9410-06dbf44f19aa" CreationDate="2018-10-24T03:45:35.543" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;мол&quot; and &quot;де&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17388" RevisionGUID="0921cbec-e955-46c4-9410-06dbf44f19aa" CreationDate="2018-10-24T03:45:35.543" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17389" RevisionGUID="20ed62a9-0822-456b-b555-76ebfdf8a251" CreationDate="2018-10-24T04:00:55.387" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Он сегодня весь день не желает вылезать из комнаты. Играет что-то грустное на гитарке и поет. **От** его песни аж **кошки на душе скребут**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I see &quot;на душе кошки скребут&quot;, I sort of automatically expect the prepositional phrase &quot;у кого-н&quot; to come with it. In this specific instance, however, there is only one prepositional phrase: &quot;от его песни&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I interpret the meaning of this structure: &quot;От его песни аж кошки на душе скребут&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17389" RevisionGUID="20ed62a9-0822-456b-b555-76ebfdf8a251" CreationDate="2018-10-24T04:00:55.387" UserId="8672" Text="The expression &quot;на душе кошки скребут&quot; without &quot;у кого-н&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17389" RevisionGUID="20ed62a9-0822-456b-b555-76ebfdf8a251" CreationDate="2018-10-24T04:00:55.387" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17391" RevisionGUID="a26b3d16-9ab8-4732-b09d-9182d2602a7e" CreationDate="2018-10-24T11:57:04.690" UserId="11080" Text="It means the feeling of the speaker, so it can be rewritten as **От его песни у меня аж кошки на душе скребут.** Very often we omit a pronoun when we mean ourselves or it is clear from the context. &#xD;&#xA;compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*He came with his wife.* - **Он пришел с женой.**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*I'll tell my husband.* - **Я скажу мужу.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*My mother says, that...* - **Мама говорит, что...** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, it can denote a feeling which is generally produced on anybody who hears the song. That means, if you were present there, you would suffer that feeling as well. **[У кого угодно, кто это слышит,] аж кошки на душе скребут.** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17392" RevisionGUID="952468e7-bf57-4ee5-bbaa-a13fd3034ec9" CreationDate="2018-10-24T12:04:59.453" UserId="11080" Text="**-де** is added to a word as an postfix, while **мол,** can precede a whole phrase or be inserted between words. The phrase should express reported speech or an allusion to someone else's words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As **-де** tends to be an archaism now, it is stylistically demanding, and can sometimes be used to make the sentence a bit offencive. But a hundred years ago it was not offencive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17393" RevisionGUID="22e2d545-8ee8-4e37-b97b-c1101a96dcc1" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:38:39.947" UserId="9001" Text="There is a more general idiom **легкая рука**, meaning the ability to solve problems and gain success with ease and luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose the expression **с легкой руки** may be tracked to this idiom: **started with one's fortunate proposal**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may use it with any possessive pronoun or personal name, except for plural ones, because it's unnatural for several persons to share a single hand (and *с легких рук* is not idiomatic). Although, phrases like *с их легкой руки* do creep into language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17394" RevisionGUID="ea179445-8d48-498c-b264-26ec3fa198c6" CreationDate="2018-10-24T15:24:04.920" UserId="7674" Text="Some points in addition to Quassnoi's rundown not related specifically to the points 0 - 6 of the original question (converted from a comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) `0:58` **так что** is pronounced as one word **тАкштэ** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) `1:08` **ведь** is enclitic (appended to the immediately preceding word), pronounced with no stress **всигдАветь** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)`2:33` **не о чем** is pronounced as one word **нЕочем**, **Е** instead of **Ё** (Ё on the other hand is featured in the phrase **ни о чём** which is always coupled with negated verb and pronounced slower as **ниочЁм**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) sometimes slips through a typical feature of Italian pronunciation - lack of stop at the last consonant like in *дом(э), рот(э), домикаф(э), окнах(э)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) `3:10` in **в той стране** *тOй* shouldn't be reduced to *тАй*, pronouns always maintain their separate status &amp; proper stress &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) `3:36` **за стеклом** has genuine **E**, not **Ё**, therefore the stress is **за стеклОм**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) `4:23` к **сАмому** главному (here the word is **сАмый** and not **сам**, which in Dative does receive stress on the final syllable **самомУ**)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) `4:47` **добреЙэ**, not **добреэ** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) `4:57` **наУчатся** говорить (**научАться** is an infinitive form, which is somewhat dated, the stress pattern is identical to **обучAться**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17394" RevisionGUID="71c08cf4-7357-45b0-926f-5c6abafda882" CreationDate="2018-10-24T17:05:11.780" UserId="7674" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Some points in addition to Quassnoi's rundown not related specifically to the points 0 - 6 of the original question (converted from a comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) `0:58` **так что** is pronounced as one word **тАкштэ** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) `1:08` **всегда ведь** - ***ведь*** is enclitic (appended to the immediately preceding word), pronounced with no stress **всигдАветь** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)`2:33` **не о чем** is pronounced as one word **нЕочем**, **Е** instead of **Ё** (Ё on the other hand is featured in the phrase **ни о чём** which is always coupled with negated verb and pronounced slower as **ниачЁм**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) sometimes slips through a typical feature of Italian pronunciation - lack of stop at the last consonant like in *дом(э), рот(э), домикаф(э), окнах(э)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) `3:10` in **в той стране** *тOй* shouldn't be reduced to *тАй*, pronouns always maintain their separate status &amp; proper stress &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) `3:36` **за стеклом** has genuine **E**, not **Ё**, therefore the stress is **за стеклОм**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) `4:23` к **сАмому** главному (here the word is **сАмый** and not **сам**, which in Dative does receive stress on the final syllable **самомУ**)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) `4:47` **добреЙэ**, not **добреэ** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) `4:57` **наУчатся** говорить (**научАться** is an infinitive form, which is somewhat dated, the stress pattern is identical to **обучAться**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17392" RevisionGUID="32ad3291-6edd-4387-845e-c9eb829fd318" CreationDate="2018-10-24T19:44:31.210" UserId="11080" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**-де** is added to a word as a postfix, while **мол,** can precede a whole phrase or be inserted between words. The phrase should express reported speech or an allusion to someone else's words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As **-де** tends to be an archaism now, it is stylistically demanding, and can sometimes be used to make the sentence a bit offencive. But a hundred years ago it was not offencive. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45307" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17285" RevisionGUID="25980f4b-0acf-4766-82cd-43c769f2e8d5" CreationDate="2018-10-24T21:00:22.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1055202361084469254" />
  <row Id="45309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17394" RevisionGUID="dde4b78f-85ee-43c7-94af-a4c3fa43ee46" CreationDate="2018-10-25T06:30:22.070" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Some points in addition to Quassnoi's rundown not related specifically to the points 0 - 6 of the original question (converted from a comment)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) `0:58` **так что** is pronounced as one word **тАкштэ** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) `1:08` **всегда ведь** - ***ведь*** is enclitic (appended to the immediately preceding word), pronounced with no stress **всигдА*веть*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)`2:33` **не о чем** is pronounced as one word **нЕочем**, **Е** instead of **Ё** (Ё on the other hand is featured in the phrase **ни о чём** which is always coupled with negated verb and pronounced slower as **ниачЁм**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) sometimes slips through a typical feature of Italian pronunciation - lack of stop at the last consonant like in *дом(э), рот(э), домикаф(э), окнах(э)* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) `3:10` in **в той стране** *тOй* shouldn't be reduced to *тАй*, pronouns always maintain their separate status &amp; proper stress &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) `3:36` **за стеклом** has genuine **E**, not **Ё**, therefore the stress is **за стеклОм**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) `4:23` к **сАмому** главному (here the word is **сАмый** and not **сам**, which in Dative does receive stress on the final syllable **самомУ**)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8) `4:47` **добреЙэ**, not **добреэ** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9) `4:57` **наУчатся** говорить (**научАться** is an infinitive form, which is somewhat dated, the stress pattern is identical to **обучAться**)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17395" RevisionGUID="f782b585-3623-4720-ae7b-ad5a5198f6ca" CreationDate="2018-10-25T12:00:04.100" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; он **житейски** неопытен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems the word &quot;житейски&quot; is separately listed far below in the conjugation [table][1] of the adjective &quot;житейский&quot;, and I'm not so familiar with its usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;житейски&quot; an adverb derived from the adjective &quot;житейский&quot;: &quot;he's **worldly** inexperienced&quot; or &quot;inexperienced **in life**&quot;? I assume it follows the same conjugational pattern seen in &quot;я говорю **по-русски**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, I wonder if it is odd to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; он **по-житейски** неопытен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;or: он неопытен **по-житейски**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When should I use &quot;житейски&quot; versus &quot;по-житейски&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.morfologija.ru/%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0/%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17395" RevisionGUID="f782b585-3623-4720-ae7b-ad5a5198f6ca" CreationDate="2018-10-25T12:00:04.100" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;Он житейски неопытен&quot;: the usage of &quot;житейски&quot; (versus &quot;по-житейски&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17395" RevisionGUID="f782b585-3623-4720-ae7b-ad5a5198f6ca" CreationDate="2018-10-25T12:00:04.100" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17396" RevisionGUID="a25dd75d-54ca-4da6-9c74-cea89a22f79a" CreationDate="2018-10-25T12:37:14.717" UserId="7674" Text="Yes, **житейски** is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But it's used to describe passive participles answering the question *in what way?* similar to how the adverb functions in the English phrase `he's artistically gifted` or in a Russian phrase `он художественно одарён`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**По-житейски** is a standard adverb which describes verbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17396" RevisionGUID="0a5d589d-1d23-425e-86a2-7fe4f3b6ab82" CreationDate="2018-10-25T12:45:22.073" UserId="7674" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Yes, **житейски** is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But it's used to describe passive participles answering the question *in what way?* similar to how the adverb functions in the English phrase `he's artistically gifted` or in a Russian phrase `он художественно одарён`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**По-житейски** is a standard adverb which describes verbs and (adverbial) participles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17397" RevisionGUID="67968e66-df83-4028-b25b-bdbe42bb5365" CreationDate="2018-10-25T13:08:09.210" UserId="11080" Text="That means &quot;**inexperienced in life**&quot;. And I wouldn't add **по-** here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17398" RevisionGUID="9f6e1d77-f169-4e93-8af1-ff08283b66c7" CreationDate="2018-10-25T21:02:40.520" UserId="134" Text="Qualitative adverbs originating from possessive adjectives in sg. inst. come in two varieties in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The adjective they modify describes some quality **pertinent** to the noun from which the adverb is formed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Он идеологически подкован // He's well versed in ideological matters (lit. &quot;he's ideologically heeled&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Баллистически стойкая ткань // Ballistic-proof fabric (lit. &quot;ballistically proof&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The adjective they modify describes some quality **similar** to the noun from which the adverb is formed. They usually come with the preposition *по-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Он по-гусарски расточителен // He's as prodigal with money as a hussar (lit. &quot;hussarly prodigal&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Макароны по-флотски // Pasta a la navy, ragu bolognese (lit. &quot;navally (cooked) pasta, pasta as they do in the navy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely, there is a difference between those adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones from the first list are *about* the thing the adverb describes: ideology *is* something which is good, ballistic *is* something the fabric is proof against etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones from the second list are *like* the thing the adverb describes: he's prodigal *like* a hussar, the pasta is *like* they do in the navy etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is quite a fine line, and some of the adjectives are bleeding from one category to another. There is a number of adjectives like *героически, чертовски, ангельски, дьявольски, творчески* etc. which should have had the *по-* before them but they don't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он дьявольски умён // He's smart as a devil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Защитники Москвы героически пали на поле боя // The defenders of Moscow had fallen on the battlefield like heroes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both those cases, *по-* would have had more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Житейски* in your example belongs to the first category: his everyday skills are *what* he is inexperienced at, not *like* something he's inexperienced at. Taken literally, *он по-житейски неопытен* would mean something like &quot;he's inexperienced the way those who live their daily lives are&quot;, which makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I said, this is quite a fine line, and *по-житейски* and *житейски* are sometimes mixed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Смагин был обеспечен, перспективен и совершенно по-житейски неопытен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Губернатор Краснодарского края Александр Ткачёв заявил, что станица Кущёвская – это &quot;по-житейски благополучное место&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17398" RevisionGUID="0602ab16-0cd6-403f-b280-94ef96f349af" CreationDate="2018-10-25T21:07:59.757" UserId="134" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Qualitative adverbs originating from possessive adjectives in sg. inst. come in two varieties in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The adjective they modify describes some quality **pertinent** to the noun from which the adverb is formed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Он идеологически подкован // He's well versed in ideological matters (lit. &quot;he's ideologically heeled&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Баллистически стойкая ткань // Ballistic-proof fabric (lit. &quot;ballistically proof&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The adjective they modify describes some quality **similar** to the noun from which the adverb is formed. They usually come with the preposition *по-*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Он по-гусарски расточителен // He's as prodigal with money as a hussar (lit. &quot;hussarly prodigal&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; &gt; * Макароны по-флотски // Pasta a la navy, a dish similar to ragu bolognese (lit. &quot;navally (cooked) pasta, pasta as they do in the navy&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely, there is a difference between those adjectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones from the first list are *about* the thing the adverb describes: ideology *is* something which is good, ballistic *is* something the fabric is proof against etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones from the second list are *like* the thing the adverb describes: he's prodigal *like* a hussar, the pasta is *like* they do in the navy etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is quite a fine line, and some of the adjectives are bleeding from one category to another. There is a number of adjectives like *героически, чертовски, ангельски, дьявольски, творчески* etc. which should have had the *по-* before them but they don't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Он дьявольски умён // He's smart as a devil&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Защитники Москвы героически пали на поле боя // The defenders of Moscow had fallen on the battlefield like heroes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both those cases, *по-* would have had more sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Житейски* in your example belongs to the first category: his everyday skills are *what* he is inexperienced at, not *like* something he's inexperienced at. Taken literally, *он по-житейски неопытен* would mean something like &quot;he's inexperienced the way those who live their daily lives are&quot;, which makes little sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I said, this is quite a fine line, and *по-житейски* and *житейски* are sometimes mixed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Смагин был обеспечен, перспективен и совершенно по-житейски неопытен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Губернатор Краснодарского края Александр Ткачёв заявил, что станица Кущёвская – это &quot;по-житейски благополучное место&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17399" RevisionGUID="cc0cafd3-2618-422f-9594-82af0449d028" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:05:36.517" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Есть ощущение суетности, которое потом **никуда не денешь**. Хотя, конечно, все, что угодно, — за ваши деньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this phrase qualifies as an idiom, but does it mean something like &quot;you/one cannot deny its presence&quot; or &quot;there's no getting around that fact&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17399" RevisionGUID="cc0cafd3-2618-422f-9594-82af0449d028" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:05:36.517" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of the expression &quot;никуда не денешь&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17399" RevisionGUID="cc0cafd3-2618-422f-9594-82af0449d028" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:05:36.517" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17400" RevisionGUID="e5546f20-6159-4874-8a0f-b9f122a05a9f" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:52:08.593" UserId="11119" Text="It is an idiom and like any of them has no direct translation. And, like any of them, has many subtle shades of meaning depending on the contect.&#xD;&#xA;Both of your guesses are correct.&#xD;&#xA;There are a few variations on this idiom. I cannot recall many, but here is the one:&#xD;&#xA;Никуда не денешься&#xD;&#xA;Meaning you ain’t gonna have no options.&#xD;&#xA;Example, когда зима придет, ты никуда не денешься, придешь ко мне с поклоном.&#xD;&#xA;And here is one more:&#xD;&#xA;А куда ты денешься?&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time you hear this idiom in  dialogues:&#xD;&#xA;-я не хочу иметь никаких дел с тобой.&#xD;&#xA;-А куда ты денешься? Ты будешь делать как я сказал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more word of comment. You can use ВЫ refering to a group of people, but it is NEVER used in adressing a peron in honorofic sencr of the word ВЫ (singular). Examples you brought are neutral, example I brought are used in situations of very tough speaking.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17401" RevisionGUID="7173832f-c2ba-4ecf-aac6-f327873898f5" CreationDate="2018-10-25T22:58:12.137" UserId="134" Text="This means &quot;the sense of vanity one can't get rid of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually this is phrased as *ощущение суетности, от которого никуда не денешься* &quot;the sense of vanity you can't get away from&quot;, and it might even convey slightly different connotation (&quot;remove the feeling&quot; vs. &quot;walk away from the feeling&quot;), however, both of those just mean something which is gonna stay whether you want it or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17403" RevisionGUID="fdd884d8-cbcc-42c8-a663-0bc0d6884fbc" CreationDate="2018-10-25T23:27:15.373" UserId="11055" Text="I'd just like to add that personally I don't consider &quot;деться от чего-то&quot; or &quot;деть что-то куда-то&quot; an idiom. &quot;Деться&quot; means &quot;cкрыться&quot;, &quot;спрятаться&quot;, &quot;исчезнуть&quot;, and the word is just informal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куда делся мой ключ? (where is my key? (the key has disappeared, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can't find it!))&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куда делся твой друг? (where did your friend go? (he's gone, I don't see him anywhere))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Деть что-то куда&quot; means &quot;запрятать&quot;, &quot;поместить&quot;, &quot;истратить&quot;, and just like &quot;деться&quot;, which is just reflexive, the word is informal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't *деться* *от* some feeling/thought, or if you can't *деть* the feeling/thought *никуда*, then you can't shake it off:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу никуда деться от собственных мыслей / я не могу их никуда деть. (the thoughts are too disturbing)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зачем ты его пригласил? Теперь от него никуда не деться / теперь его никуда не денешь. (it's no longer about a feeling or thought, of course, but about a person, who is hard to get rid of)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17403" RevisionGUID="b6fe2b74-a56c-4bcc-8b13-1d9b1b4e69c3" CreationDate="2018-10-26T00:00:05.927" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="Personally, I don't consider &quot;деться от чего-то&quot; or &quot;деть что-то куда-то&quot; an idiom. &quot;Деться&quot; means &quot;cкрыться&quot;, &quot;спрятаться&quot;, &quot;исчезнуть&quot;, and the word is just informal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куда делся мой ключ? (where is my key? (the key has disappeared, I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can't find it!))&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Куда делся твой друг? (where did your friend go? (he's gone, I don't see him anywhere))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Деть что-то куда&quot; means &quot;запрятать&quot;, &quot;поместить&quot;, &quot;истратить&quot;, and just like &quot;деться&quot;, which is reflexive, the word is informal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't *деться* *от* some feeling/thought, or if you can't *деть* the feeling/thought *никуда*, then you can't shake it off:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не могу никуда деться от собственных мыслей / я не могу их никуда деть. (the thoughts are too disturbing)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Зачем ты его пригласил? Теперь от него никуда не деться / теперь его никуда не денешь. (it's no longer about a feeling or thought, of course, but about a person, who is hard to get rid of)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45326" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17399" RevisionGUID="45fbf562-5b6b-4daf-970d-e4eec9f564ae" CreationDate="2018-10-26T03:00:55.880" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1055655486366859265" />
  <row Id="45329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9215" RevisionGUID="e9e79602-4cb9-4616-89db-4676900b243a" CreationDate="2018-10-26T05:30:23.507" UserId="5448" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I'll write in Russian, ОК?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Общеизвестно, что Вы (с заглавной) пишется при вежливом обращении к одному лицу. Но есть одна тонкость, про которую обычно забывают. &#xD;&#xA;Её по-разному формулируют - и это приводит к разночтениям. Я своими словами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В основном правиле речь идет только о **личном** обращении к **конкретному** лицу.   &#xD;&#xA;Поэтому со строчной (маленькой) буквы вы пишется:  &#xD;&#xA;1. при передаче **устной речи** (в т.ч. в художественных текстах), а также в интернете, если стиль общения соответствуют устному (почти всегда на форумах, в скайпе и т. л., и часто во всякого рода социальных сетях),   &#xD;&#xA;2. при неконкретном обращении, предполагающем массового читателя, - типа памяток в гостинице или рекламы,  &#xD;&#xA;3. в рассылках.    &#xD;&#xA;Отдельным пунктом раньше стояли анкеты, сейчас, вроде, пришли к выводу, что там следует использовать заглавную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;К сожалению, эти правила нигде в одном месте явно не сформулированы, вынужден лично ликвидировать этот недочет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При написании e-мэйла одному человеку, коли уж Вы используете &quot;вы&quot;, писать стоит с заглавной. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45330" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17396" RevisionGUID="76a93636-b16a-49f2-bff7-d6a6f0d81072" CreationDate="2018-10-26T06:32:52.910" UserId="7674" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Yes, **житейски** is an adverb.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But it's used to describe passive participles answering the question *in what way?* similar to how the adverb functions in the English phrase `he's artistically gifted` or in a Russian phrase `он художественно одарён`, and adjectives `politically correct` - `политически корректный`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**По-житейски** is a standard adverb which describes verbs and (adverbial) participles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45331" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17386" RevisionGUID="0124a9c2-d341-47b4-925d-86cb6e709f63" CreationDate="2018-10-26T15:00:05.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1055836468101464064" />
  <row Id="45332" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17374" RevisionGUID="4f88b243-4533-4838-945f-c081933502c0" CreationDate="2018-10-26T21:00:51.573" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1055927259125743620" />
  <row Id="45333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="53ff009e-0ef1-4690-9dcf-892550f47a68" CreationDate="2018-10-27T01:07:22.437" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Смотрю на них, думаю, **видать** не у одной меня порой крыша едет!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the context, I assume the sentence means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is not just me who loses it every now and then -- such outbursts of temper are **seen** not just in me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm not sure how to interpret its grammatical function and infinitive usage. Can the sentence stand without &quot;видать&quot;? If so, what meaning/nuance does &quot;видать&quot; add to the sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смотрю на них, думаю, не у одной меня порой крыша едет!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="53ff009e-0ef1-4690-9dcf-892550f47a68" CreationDate="2018-10-27T01:07:22.437" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of &quot;видать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="53ff009e-0ef1-4690-9dcf-892550f47a68" CreationDate="2018-10-27T01:07:22.437" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17405" RevisionGUID="871590c0-3ca9-4e10-8b82-1ba44ca731ac" CreationDate="2018-10-27T02:11:41.497" UserId="10749" Text="It's a colloquial form of &quot;**видимо**&quot; or &quot;**по-видимому**&quot; and it's translated as &quot;[it] seems like&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;So the sentence is roughly translated as &quot;I look at them and it seems like I'm not the only one [who's] losing it&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="54231983-a83b-4082-9e30-d42d00ee6f65" CreationDate="2018-10-27T02:16:10.697" UserId="11124" Text="I am trying to say the following in russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello, my friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From I have seen from online learning videos it seems the ordering should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет друг мой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my head it seemed that the following would make sense too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет мой друг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have searched it online and I see it everywhere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both correct or is there a rule for the ordering here? Or is it possibly convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="54231983-a83b-4082-9e30-d42d00ee6f65" CreationDate="2018-10-27T02:16:10.697" UserId="11124" Text="Significance of word order in &quot;Привет мой друг&quot; or &quot;Привет друг мой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="54231983-a83b-4082-9e30-d42d00ee6f65" CreationDate="2018-10-27T02:16:10.697" UserId="11124" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="7526aa66-b868-4990-8dd5-cf4eb576b357" CreationDate="2018-10-27T03:33:42.960" UserId="10555" Text="Do &quot;чары&quot; and &quot;charm&quot; share a common etymological root?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the OED, &quot;charm&quot; originates (through French) from Latin &#xD;&#xA;_carmen_ (&quot;song&quot;), which is believed to originate from the Proto-Indo-European verb _*keh₂n-_ (&quot;to sing&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And according Wiktionary, &quot;чары&quot; is from &quot;Proto-Slavic _*čarъ_, from Proto-Balto-Slavic _*ker- *kēr-_, from Proto-Indo-European _*kʷer-_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, the similarities in sound and meaning of the two words seems too great to just be a coincidence...does anyone have any other info about their origin and possible etymological links?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="7526aa66-b868-4990-8dd5-cf4eb576b357" CreationDate="2018-10-27T03:33:42.960" UserId="10555" Text="Are the Russian word &quot;чары&quot; and English word &quot;charm&quot; etymologically related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="7526aa66-b868-4990-8dd5-cf4eb576b357" CreationDate="2018-10-27T03:33:42.960" UserId="10555" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17408" RevisionGUID="0e70bac5-2001-4235-bf87-4b7268e13145" CreationDate="2018-10-27T07:09:25.617" UserId="7674" Text="Totally agree with AR's answer.   &#xD;&#xA;But will only add that in my opinion a semantically closer English equivalent is **`looks like`** due to relatedness of both verbs **`видеть/видать`** and **`to look`** to the notion of sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I look at them and think to myself: 'It **looks like** i'm not the only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one going crazy!'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="6de69acf-85b7-4373-b21f-bcd7d03441fa" CreationDate="2018-10-27T07:16:50.197" UserId="7674" Text="Yes, it's rather a convention. Changes of word order convey shades of meaning and are used for emphasis of certain elements within a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of **`мой друг`** makes the phrase sound descriptive like in a sentence **`Он - мой друг`** - **`He's a friend of mine`**.   &#xD;&#xA;In contrast the order of **`друг мой`** makes the phrase sound vocative, i.e. expressing an address - **`Hey, my friend!`** (NOT **`Hey, a friend of mine!`**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Привет мой друг`** is not incorrect, but less vocative than the other version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="9f064aaf-0756-4ab9-b63b-9a6839aed09d" CreationDate="2018-10-27T07:22:01.777" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Yes, it's rather a convention. Changes of word order convey shades of meaning and are used for emphasis of certain elements within a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of **`мой друг`** makes the phrase sound descriptive like in a sentence **`Он - мой друг`** - **`He's a friend of mine`**.   &#xD;&#xA;In contrast the order of **`друг мой`** makes the phrase sound vocative, i.e. expressing an address - **`Hey, my friend!`** (NOT **`Hey, a friend of mine!`**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Привет, мой друг`** is not incorrect, but less vocative than the other version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="e903e9fe-0fc8-4455-897b-76f6e8415906" CreationDate="2018-10-27T07:40:43.900" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I am trying to say the following in russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello, my friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From I have seen from online learning videos it seems the ordering should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, друг мой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my head it seemed that the following would make sense too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, мой друг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have searched it online and I see it everywhere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both correct or is there a rule for the ordering here? Or is it possibly convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="fa3c407d-39bb-485e-89b4-6d2b1b8e7d82" CreationDate="2018-10-27T07:45:08.377" UserId="7674" Comment="added 160 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's rather a convention. Changes of word order convey shades of meaning and are used for emphasis of certain elements within a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of **`мой друг`** makes the phrase sound descriptive like in a sentence **`Он - мой друг`** - **`He's a friend of mine`**.   &#xD;&#xA;In contrast the order of **`друг мой`** makes the phrase sound vocative, i.e. expressing an address - **`Hey, my friend!`** (NOT **`Hey, a friend of mine!`**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Привет, мой друг`** is not incorrect, but less vocative than the other version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the adjectival cluster related to the word **`друг`** is more elaborate, the word itself does tend to come last, e.g. **`Привет, мой юный закадычный друг!`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="bbe387ee-880d-4401-959f-3dd1c632f055" CreationDate="2018-10-27T09:15:42.410" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's rather a convention. Changes of word order convey shades of meaning and are used for emphasis of certain elements within a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of **`мой друг`** makes the phrase sound descriptive like in a sentence **`Он - мой друг`** - **`He's a friend of mine`**.   &#xD;&#xA;In contrast the order of **`друг мой`** makes the phrase sound vocative, i.e. expressing an address - **`Hey, my friend!`** (NOT **`Hey, a friend of mine!`**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Привет, мой друг`** is not incorrect, but less vocative than the other version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the adjectival cluster related to the noun **`друг`** (or any noun denoting an addressee) is more elaborate, the noun itself does tend to come last, e.g. **`Привет, мой юный закадычный друг!`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17408" RevisionGUID="807f8a8a-2841-4d76-be8d-a2c694c6b516" CreationDate="2018-10-27T09:19:03.113" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Totally agree with AR's answer.   &#xD;&#xA;But will only add that in my opinion a semantically closer English equivalent is **`looks like`** due to relatedness of both verbs **`видеть/видать`** and **`to look`** to the notion of sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I look at them and think to myself: 'It **looks like** i'm not the only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one going crazy every now an then!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course the sentence can go without **`видать`** because it's just a speaker's remark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="de5bf73d-8251-4774-8f23-7882276b1754" CreationDate="2018-10-27T10:55:09.640" UserId="7674" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's rather a convention. Changes of word order convey shades of meaning and are used for emphasis of certain elements within a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order of **`мой друг`** makes the phrase sound descriptive like in a sentence **`Он - мой друг`** - **`He's a friend of mine`**.   &#xD;&#xA;In contrast the order of **`друг мой`** makes the phrase sound vocative, i.e. expressing an address - **`Hey, my friend!`** (NOT **`Hey, a friend of mine!`**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Привет, мой друг`** is not incorrect, but less vocative than the other version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the adjectival cluster related to the noun **`друг`** (or any noun denoting an addressee) is more elaborate, the noun itself does tend to come last, e.g. **`Привет, мой юный закадычный друг!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order in **`Привет, друг мой`** could also be an expression of a disguised reproach, disapproval, disappointment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45351" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17358" RevisionGUID="9f87153e-2404-4a77-aad1-c122d461b7cc" CreationDate="2018-10-27T12:00:33.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056153675809337344" />
  <row Id="45352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17409" RevisionGUID="95b37edb-90ca-47d6-a3e0-87ce1aae06cb" CreationDate="2018-10-27T17:17:29.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's rather a convention. Changes of word order convey shades of meaning and are used for emphasis of certain elements within a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The direct order of **`мой друг`** makes the phrase sound descriptive like in a sentence **`Он - мой друг`** - **`He's a friend of mine`**.   &#xD;&#xA;In contrast the order of **`друг мой`** makes the phrase sound vocative, i.e. expressing an address - **`Hey, my friend!`** (NOT **`Hey, a friend of mine!`**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Привет, мой друг`** is not incorrect, but less vocative than the other version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, if the adjectival cluster related to the noun **`друг`** (or any noun denoting an addressee) is more elaborate, the noun itself does tend to come last, e.g. **`Привет, мой юный закадычный друг!`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word order in **`Привет, друг мой`** could also be an expression of a disguised reproach, disapproval, disappointment.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17410" RevisionGUID="9d805b3a-8006-4a67-912d-88585327515f" CreationDate="2018-10-27T18:06:15.987" UserId="11080" Text="Чары`Этимологический словарь русского языка`&#xD;&#xA;чары Общеслав. Того же корня, что авест. čārā «средство», др.-инд. karóti «делает», лит. keraĩ «волшебство». Колдовство воспринималось как средство для достижения какой-л. цели. Школьный этимологический словарь русского языка. Происхождение слов. — М.: Дрофа Н. М. Шанский, Т. А. Боброва 2004 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later academician Zaliznyak stated that quantity of sounds was more restricted than quantity of words, thus, there was lots of coincidence, and they were a subject of quasi-scientific speculations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe, we shouldn't make conclusions based upon homophony without a deep research.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel like watching Zaliznyak's speech on this topic (not charm, but quasi-theories in linguistics), you are welcome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP3UyDow5i4 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17410" RevisionGUID="5b101c33-1fa5-4b59-89ed-8978d25898e3" CreationDate="2018-10-27T18:12:00.713" UserId="11080" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Чары`Этимологический словарь русского языка`&#xD;&#xA;чары Общеслав. Того же корня, что авест. čārā «средство», др.-инд. karóti «делает», лит. keraĩ «волшебство». Колдовство воспринималось как средство для достижения какой-л. цели. Школьный этимологический словарь русского языка. Происхождение слов. — М.: Дрофа Н. М. Шанский, Т. А. Боброва 2004 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The later academician Zaliznyak stated that quantity of sounds was more restricted than quantity of words, thus, there was lots of coincidence, and it was a subject of quasi-scientific speculations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe, we shouldn't make conclusions based upon homophony without a deep research.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feel like watching Zaliznyak's speech on this topic (not charm, but quasi-theories in linguistics), you are welcome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP3UyDow5i4 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17411" RevisionGUID="2fbb7581-7590-4ff5-b3fe-a257cc7b8ca1" CreationDate="2018-10-27T21:20:03.873" UserId="923" Text="There are also many other examples:&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Гены&quot; or &quot;Геныны&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Светы&quot; or &quot;Светины&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;машины&quot; or &quot;машиныны&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;дяди&quot; or &quot;дядины&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What forms are the right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17411" RevisionGUID="2fbb7581-7590-4ff5-b3fe-a257cc7b8ca1" CreationDate="2018-10-27T21:20:03.873" UserId="923" Text="What is the right form of a possessive name - &quot;мамы&quot; or &quot;мамины&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17411" RevisionGUID="2fbb7581-7590-4ff5-b3fe-a257cc7b8ca1" CreationDate="2018-10-27T21:20:03.873" UserId="923" Text="|possessive-pronoun|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17411" RevisionGUID="ecb7956c-d16a-4782-813b-d9cfba8ab552" CreationDate="2018-10-27T21:24:07.743" UserId="3680" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are also many other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Гены&quot; or &quot;Генины&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Светы&quot; or &quot;Светины&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;машины&quot; or &quot;машинины&quot;;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;дяди&quot; or &quot;дядины&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What forms are the right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17411" RevisionGUID="ecb7956c-d16a-4782-813b-d9cfba8ab552" CreationDate="2018-10-27T21:24:07.743" UserId="3680" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="What is the right form of a possessive name - &quot;мамы&quot; or &quot;мамины&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45360" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17325" RevisionGUID="901a8be4-fdc0-46f5-8585-e704135dd214" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:00:02.657" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056334740515622912" />
  <row Id="45361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17412" RevisionGUID="b2c70621-59e3-4a1a-893d-f770cf0e5b03" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:20:03.427" UserId="7547" Text="* The first word of each pair answers a question “*кого?*” (*whom?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second word of the pair answers a question “*чьё?*” (*whose?*). It's denoted by “*-ин*” suffix." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17412" RevisionGUID="ac2576e4-084b-4b75-9560-19794d19795e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:33:56.610" UserId="7547" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="Both variants are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first form answers a question “*кого?*” (*whom?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second form answers a question “*чьё?*” (*whose?*). This posessive (притяжательный) meaning is denoted by “*-ин*” suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Мамины пироги самые вкусные на свете. (Moms's cakes are the most delicious ones in the (whole) world);&#xD;&#xA;2. Голос мамы был мягким, но уверенным. (A voice of a mom was mild but confident).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also pay attention to a word order: *мамины пироги* vs *голос мамы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17412" RevisionGUID="1155fc94-79c8-4380-a747-7b1a33201e93" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:39:01.207" UserId="7547" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Both variants are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first form answers a question “*кого?*” (*whom?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second form answers a question “*чьё?*” (*whose?*). This posessive (притяжательный) meaning is denoted by “*-ин*” suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Мамины пироги самые вкусные на свете. (Mom's cakes are the most delicious ones in the (whole) world);&#xD;&#xA;2. Голос мамы был мягким, но уверенным. (A voice of a mom was mild but confident).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also pay attention to a word order: *мамины пироги* vs *голос мамы*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17412" RevisionGUID="a8f6682e-6a22-4946-9223-47f5f10d425c" CreationDate="2018-10-28T00:46:21.710" UserId="7547" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Both variants are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first form answers a question “*кого?*” (*whom?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second form answers a question “*чьё?*” (*whose?*). This posessive (притяжательный) meaning is denoted by “*-ин*” suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Мамины пироги самые вкусные на свете. (Mom's cakes are the most delicious ones in the (whole) world);&#xD;&#xA;2. Голос мамы был мягким, но уверенным. (A voice of a mom was mild but confident).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also pay attention to a word order: *мамины пироги* vs *голос мамы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's unusual when some words are put into a posessive form. For example, if you say “*машинины*”, everybody will either perceive it as a smart cue or just mishear it as “*м&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шин*” / “*маш&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;н*” (*Masha's* / *of cars*) not expecting this form to be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17412" RevisionGUID="59a8121d-5048-4ccb-9d70-1055686cfa8b" CreationDate="2018-10-28T01:25:44.717" UserId="7547" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Both variants are correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first form answers a question “*кого?*” (*whom?*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The second form answers a question “*чьё?*” (*whose?*). This possessive (притяжательный) meaning is denoted by “*-ин*” suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Мамины пироги самые вкусные на свете. (Mom’s cakes are the most delicious ones in the (whole) world);&#xD;&#xA;2. Голос мамы был мягким, но уверенным. (A voice of a mom was mild but confident).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also pay attention to a word order: *мамины пироги* vs *голос мамы*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it’s unusual when some words are put into a possessive form. For example, if you say “*машинины*”, everybody will either perceive it as a smart cue or just mishear it as “*м&lt;b&gt;а&lt;/b&gt;шин*” / “*маш&lt;b&gt;и&lt;/b&gt;н*” (*Masha’s* / *of cars*) not expecting this form to be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="7b727276-964c-4f9d-bee6-6ac363c0ab42" CreationDate="2018-10-28T03:50:18.240" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Mornings may never be stress-free times of zen-like bliss, but at least you can **carve out a minute or two** to enjoy your coffee before the day really gets going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some commonly used Russian expressions for &quot;carve out (time)&quot;? I might say the following in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выкроить минутку-другую на чашечку кофе" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="7b727276-964c-4f9d-bee6-6ac363c0ab42" CreationDate="2018-10-28T03:50:18.240" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of &quot;carve out (time)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="7b727276-964c-4f9d-bee6-6ac363c0ab42" CreationDate="2018-10-28T03:50:18.240" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17414" RevisionGUID="0394eb2e-e4c8-4db6-9ff1-8a2a6a2a6b79" CreationDate="2018-10-28T04:06:55.557" UserId="11055" Text="Right. You can definitely use the phrase &quot;**выкроить время/минутку-другую/часок-другой для чего-то/на что-то**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you may use &quot;**найти время**&quot;, &quot;**урвать минутку/часок**&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне нужно научиться **находить время** для себя. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **урвала** часок для чтения, и это помогло мне отвлечься. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я даже не могу **выкроить время** для звонка подруге!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that &quot;урвать&quot; and &quot;выкроить&quot; make the whole sentence more emotional. They emphasize how time-poor the speaker/writer is. While &quot;находить время&quot; is not that emotional and emphatic. It's just for stating the fact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17407" RevisionGUID="e53c5dc7-390b-4a74-8009-6c655c7a81e0" CreationDate="2018-10-28T06:00:50.533" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056425538242428928" />
  <row Id="45372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17408" RevisionGUID="38775b67-1b78-4f77-be75-3a2d0396a421" CreationDate="2018-10-28T07:07:14.763" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Totally agree with AR's answer.   &#xD;&#xA;But will only add that in my opinion a semantically closer English equivalent is **`looks like`** due to relatedness of both verbs **`видеть/видать`** and **`to look`** to the notion of sight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I look at them and think to myself: 'It **looks like** i'm not the only&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one going crazy every now and then!'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course the sentence can go without **`видать`** because it's just a speaker's remark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="3cd24e75-e184-4535-bca3-37d652973cf4" CreationDate="2018-10-28T07:56:04.000" UserId="7674" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to animate objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with inanimate objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where lexically possible instead of possessive forms of inanimate nouns their corresponding adjectives are employed:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive form which establishes connection with specific object. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45374" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17329" RevisionGUID="0cd063b7-1a6b-4f00-bac4-e661f10acc95" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:00:50.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056470836956282880" />
  <row Id="45375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="f7fd4574-f75c-4fab-a3cf-8e0bed929600" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:34:27.243" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to animate objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with inanimate objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where lexically possible instead of possessive forms of inanimate nouns their corresponding adjectives are employed:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive form which establishes connection with specific object. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="7d70ba47-e9a2-4d84-9d2f-b7aabb30fb35" CreationDate="2018-10-28T09:43:48.707" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to animate objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with inanimate objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where lexically possible instead of possessive forms of inanimate nouns their corresponding adjectives are employed:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive form which establishes connection with specific object. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however it may not be such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин** and **Машин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="6137c45b-d146-4f34-ad46-dbf0f2fe3894" CreationDate="2018-10-28T11:48:11.963" UserId="7674" Comment="added 260 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**театр - театра  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and stylistically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however it may not be such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин** and **Машин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17413" RevisionGUID="c4126116-c44a-41e8-9c0b-dc6d593b002a" CreationDate="2018-10-28T12:00:56.130" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056516158508163073" />
  <row Id="45379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="1b79e34b-a4e0-4087-a889-5a4f1e9da3ac" CreationDate="2018-10-28T12:44:40.727" UserId="7674" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**театр - театра  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and stylistically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**краевая администрация** and **администрация края**  &#xD;&#xA;**компьютерная мышь** and **мышь компьютера**   &#xD;&#xA;**автомобильная фара** and  **фара автобомиля**  &#xD;&#xA;**медицинская энциклопедия** and **энциклопения медицины**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;largely mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however it may not be such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин** and **Машин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="2fc7ac72-2151-4e3a-85ff-b930f7b13e21" CreationDate="2018-10-28T12:53:15.790" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**театр - театра  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and stylistically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**краевая администрация** and **администрация края**  &#xD;&#xA;**компьютерная мышь** and **мышь компьютера**   &#xD;&#xA;**автомобильная фара** and  **фара автомобиля**  &#xD;&#xA;**медицинская энциклопедия** and **энциклопедия медицины**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;largely mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however it may not be such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин** and **Машин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="c3c1a28f-26da-4391-988c-76a3b81d459e" CreationDate="2018-10-28T13:15:29.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**театр - театра  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and stylistically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**краевая администрация** and **администрация края**  &#xD;&#xA;**компьютерная мышь** and **мышь компьютера**   &#xD;&#xA;**автомобильная фара** and  **фара автомобиля**  &#xD;&#xA;**медицинская энциклопедия** and **энциклопедия медицины**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;largely (disregarding nuances) mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;however it may not be such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин** and **Машин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45382" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17411" RevisionGUID="3d951bc4-38d8-4918-a82a-1054a29a7d21" CreationDate="2018-10-28T13:23:54.227" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="3e53e08e-9b13-4cea-95c1-c161e999208f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T14:54:33.537" UserId="11129" Text="I try to translate a page ([ziteboard.com][1]) into Russian and there is a menu item saying: FAQ. How would you translate it? It must be short, because there is not enough room in the menu. I know the typical translation is ЧАСТО ЗАДАВАЕМЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ, but it is far too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ziteboard.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="3e53e08e-9b13-4cea-95c1-c161e999208f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T14:54:33.537" UserId="11129" Text="Translation of English FAQ into Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="3e53e08e-9b13-4cea-95c1-c161e999208f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T14:54:33.537" UserId="11129" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="c08cb561-e315-452e-952a-d874137fd90b" CreationDate="2018-10-28T14:54:37.253" UserId="7674" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**театр - театра  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and stylistically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**краевая администрация** and **администрация края**  &#xD;&#xA;**компьютерная мышь** and **мышь компьютера**   &#xD;&#xA;**автомобильная фара** and  **фара автомобиля**  &#xD;&#xA;**медицинская энциклопедия** and **энциклопедия медицины**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;largely (disregarding nuances) mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**мама - мамЫн  &#xD;&#xA;папа - папЫн**    &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which might be a result of contamination with the Genitive form **ГенЫ**, **СветЫ**, **мамЫ**, **папЫ**. Still it's not such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин**, **Машин**, **Лёшин**, **Пашин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17417" RevisionGUID="ad4d6524-f506-490d-893b-b3b91c2e037f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T15:08:04.397" UserId="7674" Text="Conventional abbreviation of **Часто задаваемые вопросы** in Russian Internet slang is **ЧаВо** which is clever because it also reminds of the pronunciation of colloquial interrogative word **чего?** meaning **что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to have fallen out of use or in fact has never really caught up and is very rarely, if at all, appears on websites these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17417" RevisionGUID="22a3ec9f-cfed-4991-856d-7aa25220962b" CreationDate="2018-10-28T15:13:14.603" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Conventional abbreviation of **Часто задаваемые вопросы** in Russian Internet lingo is **ЧаВо** which is clever because it also reminds of the pronunciation of colloquial interrogative word **чего?** meaning **что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to have fallen out of use or in fact has never really caught up and is very rarely, if at all, appears on websites these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="522c4fac-e06d-41c3-8c10-a4771103115d" CreationDate="2018-10-28T16:38:59.477" UserId="7674" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**театр - театра  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and semantically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**краевая администрация** and **администрация края**  &#xD;&#xA;**компьютерная мышь** and **мышь компьютера**   &#xD;&#xA;**автомобильная фара** and  **фара автомобиля**  &#xD;&#xA;**медицинская энциклопедия** and **энциклопедия медицины**   &#xD;&#xA;**cолнечный свет** and **свет солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;**оконные размеры** and **размеры окна/окон**  &#xD;&#xA;**мировая история** and **история мира**  &#xD;&#xA;**заводское руководство** and **руководство завода**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;largely (disregarding nuances) mean or may mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**мама - мамЫн  &#xD;&#xA;папа - папЫн**    &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which might be a result of contamination with the Genitive form **ГенЫ**, **СветЫ**, **мамЫ**, **папЫ**. Still it's not such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин**, **Машин**, **Лёшин**, **Пашин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17417" RevisionGUID="e8d87efa-fca9-48c5-a013-6b9915f4075f" CreationDate="2018-10-28T16:39:42.177" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Conventional abbreviation of **Часто задаваемые вопросы** in Russian Internet lingo is **ЧаВо** which is clever because it also reminds of the pronunciation of colloquial interrogative word **чего?** meaning **что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to have fallen out of use or in fact has never really caught on and is very rarely, if at all, appears on websites these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17415" RevisionGUID="b8090b40-1f5c-4a62-bdec-e1423ef90259" CreationDate="2018-10-28T18:32:06.180" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The possessive form is only applicable to *animate* objects, therefore **машинин** has no use other than in children's language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also with *inanimate* objects it poses stylistic challenge, mainly for nouns of the 2nd and 3d [declension groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension#First_declension), e.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**стол** - according to the paradigm its possessive masculine singular form is **стОлов**, but it sounds weird and is never used.    &#xD;&#xA;**спектакль** - **спектАклев**, which is likewise unusable    &#xD;&#xA;**город** - &lt;strike&gt;**гОродов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**день** - &lt;strike&gt;**днёв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**край** - &lt;strike&gt;**крАев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**окно** - &lt;strike&gt;**Oкнов**&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;**окнОв**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**место** - &lt;strike&gt;**мЕстов**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце** - &lt;strike&gt;**сОлнцев**&lt;/strike&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**отмель** - &lt;strike&gt;**Отмелев**&lt;/strike&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So grammatical means to express possessive relationship with *inanimate* objects are limited to the Genitive form of the corresponding nouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**спектакль - спектакля  &#xD;&#xA;город - города  &#xD;&#xA;окно - окна  &#xD;&#xA;солнце - солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or where lexically and semantically possible - to their corresponding adjectives as well:   &#xD;&#xA;**стол - настольный**  &#xD;&#xA;**город - городской**  &#xD;&#xA;**день - дневной**  &#xD;&#xA;**край - краевой**  &#xD;&#xA;**окно - оконный**  &#xD;&#xA;**солнце - солнечный**  &#xD;&#xA;etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**краевая администрация** and **администрация края**  &#xD;&#xA;**компьютерная мышь** and **мышь компьютера**   &#xD;&#xA;**автомобильная фара** and  **фара автомобиля**  &#xD;&#xA;**медицинская энциклопедия** and **энциклопедия медицины**   &#xD;&#xA;**cолнечный свет** and **свет солнца**  &#xD;&#xA;**оконные размеры** and **размеры окна/окон**  &#xD;&#xA;**мировая история** and **история мира**  &#xD;&#xA;**заводское руководство** and **руководство завода**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;largely (disregarding nuances) mean or may mean the same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But admittedly these adjectives lack definiteness of the possessive and Genitive forms which establish connection with specific object and so might not always be a viable replacement. &#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phonetically there's a regional variation of possessive form ending where **И** is replaced with **Ы**:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Гена - ГенЫн**, instead of **ГенИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**Света - СветЫн**, instead of **СветИн**  &#xD;&#xA;**мама - мамЫн  &#xD;&#xA;папа - папЫн**    &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which might be a result of contamination with the Genitive form **ГенЫ**, **СветЫ**, **мамЫ**, **папЫ**. Still it's not such an abnormal deviation because **-Ын** occurs in the standard pronunciation of **Мишин**, **Машин**, **Лёшин**, **Пашин**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="180b4ddb-bc50-4a7b-b97d-f28cc472fbd8" CreationDate="2018-10-29T01:09:40.180" UserId="11124" Comment="grammar fix, missing word" Text="I am trying to say the following in russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hello, my friend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I have seen from online learning videos, it seems the ordering should be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, друг мой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my head it seemed that the following would make sense too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привет, мой друг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have searched it online and I see it everywhere...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are both correct or is there a rule for the ordering here? Or is it possibly convention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45393" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="8502e519-ac86-491b-a14e-ab15829e5388" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:00:33.977" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056742558167195654" />
  <row Id="45394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="caba542e-03af-4203-a5c4-e54ea64dce3c" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:01:06.557" UserId="11132" Text="I use &quot;Вопрос-Ответ&quot; in site menu. This page have a good organic search results, what depends on context mainly. Build site for humans, bot search bots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1443" RevisionGUID="b02d5b8c-a634-4788-af19-53a812ceb707" CreationDate="2018-10-29T08:05:50.013" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|participle-clause|adverbial-participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45396" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17298" RevisionGUID="94d37b3c-f64b-4474-aeea-bd4396167d96" CreationDate="2018-10-29T08:10:37.287" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|participle-clause|adverbial-participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17419" RevisionGUID="54938a2a-d944-4572-a428-a87984d71fa3" CreationDate="2018-10-29T08:19:47.850" UserId="4803" Text="There is one more possibility. You can leave &quot;Q&amp;A&quot; or &quot;FAQ&quot;. Lot of people familiar with this acronyms, especially young people. It depend on you target auditory will it be appropriate or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45398" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="72c9bf8a-6f46-4491-9bd6-7cb7637428bb" CreationDate="2018-10-29T09:01:03.617" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1056833279440117760" />
  <row Id="45399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="5cc56e47-b9a8-4025-a8fb-d2da54d34b44" CreationDate="2018-10-29T10:49:32.313" UserDisplayName="user11133" Comment="addition, clarify" Text="I use &quot;Вопрос-Ответ&quot; in site menu. This page have a good organic search results, what depends on context mainly. Build site for humans, not search bots.  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;FAQ&quot; is also understandable without translation, if you site is for technical people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45400" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="5cc56e47-b9a8-4025-a8fb-d2da54d34b44" CreationDate="2018-10-29T10:49:32.313" Comment="Proposed by 11133 approved by 7674, -1 edit id of 997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="c110d547-f7f0-46fc-ac3c-1912d892cdb6" CreationDate="2018-10-29T10:49:32.313" UserId="5605" Comment="addition, clarify, " Text="I use &quot;Вопрос-Ответ&quot; in site menu. This page have a good organic search results, what depends on context mainly. Build site for humans, not search bots.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="8c954e5c-869a-4a53-8117-367bfa422d75" CreationDate="2018-10-29T11:18:05.833" UserId="7674" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="I use &quot;Вопрос-Ответ&quot; in site menu. This page have a good organic search results, what depends on context mainly. Build site for humans, not search bots.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;FAQ&quot; is also understandable without translation, if you site is for technical people.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17417" RevisionGUID="53d205d4-c807-4aca-8ea2-9edfe236cd0d" CreationDate="2018-10-29T12:37:56.130" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Conventional abbreviation of **Часто задаваемые вопросы** in Russian Internet lingo is **ЧаВо** which is clever because it also reminds of the pronunciation of colloquial interrogative word **чего?** meaning **что?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to have fallen out of use or in fact has never really caught on and very rarely, if at all, appears on websites these days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="dce04d92-030a-4885-be0e-604f7db5bb6c" CreationDate="2018-10-29T19:11:09.567" UserId="4799" Comment="Better title. No need for site link." Text="I try to translate a page into Russian and there is a menu item saying: FAQ. How would you translate it? It must be short, because there is not enough room in the menu. I know the typical translation is ЧАСТО ЗАДАВАЕМЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ, but it is far too long." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45405" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="dce04d92-030a-4885-be0e-604f7db5bb6c" CreationDate="2018-10-29T19:11:09.567" UserId="4799" Comment="Better title. No need for site link." Text="How to shortly translate &quot;FAQ&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17416" RevisionGUID="dce04d92-030a-4885-be0e-604f7db5bb6c" CreationDate="2018-10-29T19:11:09.567" Comment="Proposed by 4799 approved by 5605, 6097 edit id of 998" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="a4b719a8-bd8a-4975-823d-5473b6e4e11a" CreationDate="2018-10-30T02:16:26.393" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Так-то оно так**, **раз** **для себя**. Но все же тут пореже бы чуток, чтобы узор видней был. Вот для сравненья мою сейчас посмотришь.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[also]: **Так-то оно так, раз оно не эдак**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;раз&quot;, as well as the phrase &quot;так-то оно так&quot;, has me puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a different expression from &quot;**так-то оно так**, **а**/**но**/**да** ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="a4b719a8-bd8a-4975-823d-5473b6e4e11a" CreationDate="2018-10-30T02:16:26.393" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning of &quot;Так-то оно так, раз для себя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="a4b719a8-bd8a-4975-823d-5473b6e4e11a" CreationDate="2018-10-30T02:16:26.393" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17276" RevisionGUID="284ecdda-d8b1-4128-b967-78c57ba2f7a0" CreationDate="2018-10-30T06:00:53.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1057150327898673152" />
  <row Id="45411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="1f70a4b8-c5ed-4454-a1e0-af3f3035b915" CreationDate="2018-10-30T07:02:42.250" UserId="8672" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="&gt;**[Так-то оно так**, **раз** **для себя][1]**. Но все же тут пореже бы чуток, чтобы узор видней был. Вот для сравненья мою сейчас посмотришь.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;[also]: **Так-то оно так, раз оно не эдак**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;раз&quot;, as well as the phrase &quot;так-то оно так&quot;, has me puzzled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a different expression from &quot;**так-то оно так**, **а**/**но**/**да** ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://flibusta.site/b/404471/read" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17421" RevisionGUID="6f7a6a70-11b0-48c2-8942-dd167f824224" CreationDate="2018-10-30T11:34:03.540" UserId="11139" Text="„раз“ here just has the meaning of „if“.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Так-то оно так, раз для себя — it is so, if it is for yourself/ourselves;&#xD;&#xA;* Так-то оно так, раз оно не эдак — it is so, if it is not either way („it is this, if it is not that“ maybe)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17422" RevisionGUID="76dd2a95-e338-4892-8c6d-f06444b55627" CreationDate="2018-10-30T14:04:32.577" UserId="1097" Text="Так-то оно так: `I can understand it / agree with that / accept it.`  &#xD;&#xA;Раз для себя: `If it is for my(our) good.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-то оно так, раз оно не эдак: `This, perhaps, should be so, if in another way - not right.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17422" RevisionGUID="237aabbd-19e1-4a9c-b8e5-ec38fafaed1a" CreationDate="2018-10-30T14:16:06.980" UserId="1097" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Так-то оно так: `I can understand it / agree with that / accept it.`  &#xD;&#xA;Раз для себя: `If it is for my(our) good.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-то оно так, раз оно не эдак: `This, perhaps, should be so, if in another way - not right(there is no other way / does not exist).`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17421" RevisionGUID="979e8e7e-2ed7-4f14-8055-eb618cd1d7b6" CreationDate="2018-10-30T14:37:23.053" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="„раз“ here just has the meaning of „if“.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Так-то оно так, раз для себя — it is so, if it is for yourself/ourselves;&#xD;&#xA;* Так-то оно так, раз оно не эдак — it is so, unless it's the other way („it is this, if it is not that“ maybe)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17423" RevisionGUID="ce39cc23-98a3-4fed-81fd-25eec7b0a296" CreationDate="2018-10-30T14:52:47.957" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Так-то оно так, раз для себя. Но все же тут пореже бы чуток&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very vernacular as are the dialogues in the text in general. The logical sequence of clauses should be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так-то оно так, но все же тут пореже бы чуток&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Так-то оно так** here is agreement with a phenomenon (of a dense crochet-work) and not with someone's explicit statement. Basically with an imaginary statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так-то оно так, раз для себя. Но все же тут пореже бы чуток&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can be unpacked as **`Well if it's for your own use, i guess it's OK. But still would benefit from a bit sparser knitting`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17424" RevisionGUID="dc5583a6-f061-473c-9cd1-fa173f21f058" CreationDate="2018-10-31T05:39:08.097" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Если бы она могла нас увидеть, **она бы нам не спустила**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is an equivalent of &quot;let someone get away with it&quot;, but considering that &quot;спустить&quot; is a transitive verb, some element seems to be missing here. Is the following the full version of this expression?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы она могла нас увидеть, она бы нам не спустила **это с рук**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, is the function of the dative &quot;**нам**&quot; related to &quot;спустить это с (**наших**) рук&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17424" RevisionGUID="dc5583a6-f061-473c-9cd1-fa173f21f058" CreationDate="2018-10-31T05:39:08.097" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of the expression &quot;она бы нам не спустила&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17424" RevisionGUID="dc5583a6-f061-473c-9cd1-fa173f21f058" CreationDate="2018-10-31T05:39:08.097" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17425" RevisionGUID="53b9e97a-99cc-49d1-9c0e-53ca049fca7e" CreationDate="2018-10-31T06:05:55.713" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Она его не упрекала, потому что знала, что сложись все **наоборот**, если бы её парень упал, а она бы продолжала идти, она бы тоже не остановилась. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that &quot;наоборот&quot; cannot be replaced with &quot;напротив&quot; here, while in the following context, they seem to be interchangeable, even if &quot;напротив&quot; is a better choice. I wonder when I should choose one over the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Причащать? Нет, душа моя. Совершенно лишнее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Почему? Я, **напротив**/**наоборот**, нахожу, что для ребёнка необходимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17425" RevisionGUID="53b9e97a-99cc-49d1-9c0e-53ca049fca7e" CreationDate="2018-10-31T06:05:55.713" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;наоборот&quot; and &quot;напротив&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17425" RevisionGUID="53b9e97a-99cc-49d1-9c0e-53ca049fca7e" CreationDate="2018-10-31T06:05:55.713" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17426" RevisionGUID="afce0f2b-4154-4246-8f99-c3502a394933" CreationDate="2018-10-31T06:55:56.080" UserId="11139" Text="Yes, you could say it like the full version „она бы нам не спустила это с рук“. So, the first quote is just a contraction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like in modern Russian people use the shorthand form „не спустить кому-либо“ very rarely (and say „не спустить кому-либо (это) с рук“ more often), but it remains in literature and poetry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People often omit even the pronouns (нам, им, мне, тебе) in this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы она их увидела, она бы _(им)_ не спустила это с рук." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17427" RevisionGUID="27bd93d6-00a3-413b-9024-2c2a3aa6802e" CreationDate="2018-10-31T07:19:39.483" UserId="11139" Text="You perfectly feel that «наоборот» cannot be replaced with «напротив» in this particular case. Or, I would say, it _can_ be, but it will be slightly unusual for native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«напротив» is more often used when you are talking about someone’s own opinion, while «наоборот» can be used when you are talking about things/paths/outcomes/results in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, note the word «иначе», which fits most of the cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я думаю иначе: … («Я, иначе, думаю/нахожу» feels like old/bookish style)&#xD;&#xA;* Он считает иначе, что…&#xD;&#xA;* Сложись всё иначе…&#xD;&#xA;* Если бы всё сложилось иначе…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«наоборот» and «напротив» are more suitable when there are two completely different (polar) choiсes or outcomes, while «иначе» can be used when multiple choiсes/outcomes take into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17428" RevisionGUID="be2a53eb-40fa-4d21-acfa-c049f2ecfb05" CreationDate="2018-10-31T15:24:17.230" UserId="2284" Text="In the first example, adverb *наоборот* is a modifier, or, as Russian grammar usually calls it, circumstance of manner of action (обстоятельство образа действия): it is part of the syntactic structure of the sentence, we can put a question to it: *сложись как?* — *наоборот*.&#xA;&#xA;In the second example, adverb *наоборот*/*напротив* is an introductory word (answers no question, is not part of the syntactic structure of the sentence).&#xA;&#xA;Here's the difference. As introductory words, *наоборот* and *напротив* are interchangeable. As modifiers, they aren't. Note that unlike *наоборот*, *напротив* may also be a preposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17420" RevisionGUID="3307ad16-9dd4-4e7e-9135-2319bdeaa8c7" CreationDate="2018-11-01T00:01:01.403" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1057784538401779714" />
  <row Id="45428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17430" RevisionGUID="db4c318f-5e13-4a0a-b416-3bc9e51119f2" CreationDate="2018-11-01T06:56:38.060" UserId="8664" Text="It seems to me that the difference between this 2 words is in roots of the words. «наоборот» («обратная сторона чего либо») has the same root as «оборот», this describes that you have different opinion, over point of view  . «Напротив» has the same root as «против» («против кого либо»), so it describes that speaker are against somebody, in opposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему? Я, напротив, нахожу, что для ребёнка необходимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You focus on the fact that you are against this person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему? Я, наоборот, нахожу, что для ребёнка необходимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You focus on the fact that you are have a completely different opinion&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17430" RevisionGUID="376a9325-4db4-4828-9f07-254b89ab4c19" CreationDate="2018-11-01T07:10:19.097" UserId="8664" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="It seems to me that the difference between this 2 words is in roots of the words. «наоборот» («обратная сторона чего либо») has the same root as «оборот», this describes that you have different opinion, over point of view  . «Напротив» has the same root as «против» («против кого либо»), so it describes that speaker are against somebody, in opposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему? Я, напротив, нахожу, что для ребёнка необходимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You focus on the fact that you are against this person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему? Я, наоборот, нахожу, что для ребёнка необходимо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You focus on the fact that you are have a completely different opinion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So then you don't have a person to against with, you can't use «напротив»:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она его не упрекала, потому что знала, что сложись все наоборот, если бы её парень упал, а она бы продолжала идти, она бы тоже не остановилась." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45430" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17404" RevisionGUID="30490d96-0276-4e32-b179-597039e7dd6d" CreationDate="2018-11-01T09:00:07.817" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1057920209045127169" />
  <row Id="45431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17378" RevisionGUID="59b28b63-b3c4-4b3d-94ca-eccfe2c2c959" CreationDate="2018-11-01T13:38:13.880" UserId="11055" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="*Разница* - ***difference***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - В чём **разница** между этим словарём и тем? (What's the difference between this dictionary and that one?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я не вижу никакой **разницы** между этими двумя книгами. (I don't see any difference between these two books.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Разность* - ***difference*** (the **result of the subtraction** of one number, quantity, etc, from another):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Найдите **разность** между 700 и 400. Ответ - 300. (Find the difference between 700 and 400. The answer is 300.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, personally, I associate *разность* with the mathematical operation. I never use *разность* the way I use *разница*. When it comes to the state or quality of being unlike, use *разница*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Различие*, *отличие* - ***distinction***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Есть очевидные **различия (отличия)** между двумя винодельными    регионами. (There are obvious distinctions between the two wine-making areas).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Он **проводит различие** (NOT отличие in this set expression) между    искусством и культурой. (He draws a distinction between art and   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; culture.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я пока на **провёл различия** между удовольствием читать и писать. (I did not yet make a distinction between the pleasures of reading and of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writing fiction.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, remember the expression **проводить различия**. Alternatively, you might say **находить отличия**. Again, it's a set expression:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **Найдите пять отличий** на картинках. (Spot the 5 differences in the pictures.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we *wouldn't* say найдите пять разниц. But I see that it's possible to say найдти пять различий, though I'd prefer найдите пять отличий. Perhaps, it's just a matter of preference here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember the expression **в отличие от** (meaning *unlike*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - **В отличие от тебя**, я знаю, чего хочу. (Unlike you, I know what I want.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that some people have commented that &quot;проводить различие/различия между&quot; is not a natural Russian collocation. I beg to differ, and here is some evidence to support my argument: [source 1][1] and [source 2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7n-ZBU5z36oC&amp;pg=PA74&amp;lpg=PA74&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20english&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=78w6hZP74n&amp;sig=aV_uGjcgbcaW89WE_4BZ9m1b-Pw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjlz_CSoZzeAhXPdHAKHaeMAJIQ6AEwBnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20english&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=uUy5AAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PP49&amp;lpg=PP49&amp;dq=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=C3bg-ybTky&amp;sig=g8vjmcM32BjclFrEM1LNM4pTT74&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiu4vb3mJzeAhUJPXAKHYHkDaMQ6AEwCXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17431" RevisionGUID="008f7567-d8d0-46a8-8447-5fde3469b0a7" CreationDate="2018-11-01T13:47:24.677" UserId="11080" Text="I wouldn't say it could be used as &quot;Она бы не спустила это с рук&quot;. If you drop the pronoun, then drop &quot;с рук&quot; as well. But using &quot;спустить это кому-то&quot; is also ok and well-understood. &#xD;&#xA;Besides, there is the proverb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Еду-еду, не свищу, а наеду - не спущу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It denotes &quot;take care if I suddenly find out you've done something wrong&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;More than that, there is a connected expression without denoting a person who will punish somebody. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им (мне, тебе, вам, ему, etc.) это с рук не сойдет! (They are sure to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be punished)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему (вам, им, ей, etc.) это сошло с рук. (They have escaped the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; punishment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17432" RevisionGUID="49f5db07-d122-4085-bcaa-2b7f4461901a" CreationDate="2018-11-02T03:18:26.067" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; он не **блещет** умом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; она **блещет** красотой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is &quot;блестеть&quot; or &quot;блистать&quot; used, when it comes to the figurative use of these verbs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also: Is it less common to use another form of their third-person singular &quot;блестит/блистает&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, the figurative &quot;блестяще&quot; comes from &quot;блестеть&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17432" RevisionGUID="49f5db07-d122-4085-bcaa-2b7f4461901a" CreationDate="2018-11-02T03:18:26.067" UserId="8672" Text="Is &quot;блестеть&quot; or &quot;блистать&quot; used in the figurative &quot;он не блещет умом&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17432" RevisionGUID="49f5db07-d122-4085-bcaa-2b7f4461901a" CreationDate="2018-11-02T03:18:26.067" UserId="8672" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17433" RevisionGUID="6835b8a0-4916-442a-90e8-386f56187d26" CreationDate="2018-11-02T07:14:09.193" UserId="4600" Text="The infinitive here is definitely `блестеть`. And it will sound awkward if you say «Он не блестит умом».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«Он не блещет умом»** is a set and wide-known expression, so the verb in it cannot be easily replaced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="a8fb3214-b5ea-4a03-8eb2-5e56812e1dd0" CreationDate="2018-11-02T08:30:31.690" UserId="11139" Comment="you → your, and added a sentence" Text="I use &quot;Вопрос-Ответ&quot; in site menu. This page have a good organic search results, what depends on context mainly. Build site for humans, not search bots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;FAQ&quot; is also understandable without translation, if your site is for technical people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the cases you would safely use &quot;FAQ&quot;. It is only eldery people who cannot understand it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45440" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17418" RevisionGUID="a8fb3214-b5ea-4a03-8eb2-5e56812e1dd0" CreationDate="2018-11-02T08:30:31.690" Comment="Proposed by 11139 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 999" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17434" RevisionGUID="9ef48419-4499-4453-a07f-bd53f268a579" CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:20:15.460" UserId="6539" Text="First of all some examples from ruscorpora.ru.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И сердца жизнь живая, &#xD;&#xA;И чувства огнь святой, &#xD;&#xA;И дева молодая&#xD;&#xA;Блистает красотой! &#xD;&#xA;[А. В. Кольцов. Из Горация (1841.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Друзья, для нас природа&#xD;&#xA;И в ужасах своих блистает красотой! &#xD;&#xA;[В. Л. Пушкин. К любимцам муз (1804)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Камер-фрейлине Ее Императорского Величества Авроре уже под 30 лет, но она по-прежнему блистает красотой, и ее замечает один из богатейших людей России Павел Демидов. [Юрий Безелянский. (1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И сердца жизнь живая, &#xD;&#xA;И чувства огнь святой, &#xD;&#xA;И дева молодая &#xD;&#xA;Блистает красотой. &#xD;&#xA;[В. Н. Майков. Стихотворения Кольцова  (1846)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Блещет красотой, умом is a set expression but the form блистает красотой, блистать на сцене is still valid, especially in the world of theatre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive is evidently *блистать*, though the forms блещу, блещешь, блещет, блещете, блещут belong to both infinitives (блестеть и блистать см. Орфографический словарь ) but in this particular meaning it is not блестеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бог с ней, с эстетикой, мужик и не обязан блистать красотой. [Варвара Синицына. Муза и генерал (2002)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Точно будто родители, приносившие множество тяжелых жертв ради ее увеселения, виноваты в том, что ей нельзя блистать красотой в более людном месте и полонять сердца блестящих кавалеров. [П. И. Чайковский. Письма Н. Ф. фон-Мекк (1881)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Судя по его словам, Сумароков очень, любил блистать умом и говорить остроты, которые нынче, вероятно, не казались бы остротами, и любил умничать, что тогда принималось за ум, а ныне было бы очень скучно; например, однажды за столом у моего деда подали кулебяку. [М. А. Дмитриев. Мелочи из запаса моей памяти (1869)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она сказала себе: «Если не могу быть прекрасною и любимою, не могу привлекать к себе взоры и сердца, то буду блистать умом и заставлю себя заметить и уважить везде за мои нравственные превосходства!» [Е. П. Ростопчина. Счастливая женщина (1851)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не знаю; но сие желание блистать умом, или казаться глубокомысленным, едва ли не противно истинному вкусу. [Н. М. Карамзин. История государства Российского: Том 1 (1803-1818)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in everyday life you should use блещет, but if you need an infinitive, use блистать, still in literature and in the world of arts you can find блистает as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17434" RevisionGUID="d4545a01-e386-4fd0-b03a-ddea591be399" CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:29:05.643" UserId="6539" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="First of all some examples from ruscorpora.ru.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И сердца жизнь живая, &#xD;&#xA;И чувства огнь святой, &#xD;&#xA;И дева молодая&#xD;&#xA;*Блистает красотой*! &#xD;&#xA;[А. В. Кольцов. Из Горация (1841.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Друзья, для нас природа&#xD;&#xA;И в ужасах своих *блистает красотой*! &#xD;&#xA;[В. Л. Пушкин. К любимцам муз (1804)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Камер-фрейлине Ее Императорского Величества Авроре уже под 30 лет, но она по-прежнему *блистает красотой*, и ее замечает один из богатейших людей России Павел Демидов. [Юрий Безелянский. (1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И сердца жизнь живая, &#xD;&#xA;И чувства огнь святой, &#xD;&#xA;И дева молодая &#xD;&#xA;*Блистает красотой*. &#xD;&#xA;[В. Н. Майков. Стихотворения Кольцова  (1846)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Блещет красотой*, *умом* is a set expression but the form *блистает красотой*, *блистать на сцене* is still valid, especially in the world of theatre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive is evidently *блистать*, though the forms блещу, блещешь, блещет, блещете, блещут belong to *both infinitives* (блестеть и блистать см. Орфографический словарь ) but in this particular meaning it is *not* блестеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бог с ней, с эстетикой, мужик и не обязан *блистать красотой*. [Варвара Синицына. Муза и генерал (2002)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Точно будто родители, приносившие множество тяжелых жертв ради ее увеселения, виноваты в том, что ей нельзя *блистать красотой* в более людном месте и полонять сердца блестящих кавалеров. [П. И. Чайковский. Письма Н. Ф. фон-Мекк (1881)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Судя по его словам, Сумароков очень, любил *блистать умом* и говорить остроты, которые нынче, вероятно, не казались бы остротами, и любил умничать, что тогда принималось за ум, а ныне было бы очень скучно; например, однажды за столом у моего деда подали кулебяку. [М. А. Дмитриев. Мелочи из запаса моей памяти (1869)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она сказала себе: «Если не могу быть прекрасною и любимою, не могу привлекать к себе взоры и сердца, то буду *блистать умом* и заставлю себя заметить и уважить везде за мои нравственные превосходства!» [Е. П. Ростопчина. Счастливая женщина (1851)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не знаю; но сие желание *блистать умом*, или казаться глубокомысленным, едва ли не противно истинному вкусу. [Н. М. Карамзин. История государства Российского: Том 1 (1803-1818)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in everyday life you should use **блещет**, but if you need an infinitive, use **блистать**, still in literature and in the world of arts you can find **блистает** as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17434" RevisionGUID="50a98dd5-b080-472f-bcf1-d18ebd945161" CreationDate="2018-11-02T09:53:23.800" UserId="6539" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="First of all some examples from ruscorpora.ru.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;И сердца жизнь живая, &#xD;&#xA;И чувства огнь святой, &#xD;&#xA;И дева молодая&#xD;&#xA;*Блистает красотой*! &#xD;&#xA;[А. В. Кольцов. Из Горация (1841.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Друзья, для нас природа&#xD;&#xA;И в ужасах своих *блистает красотой*! &#xD;&#xA;[В. Л. Пушкин. К любимцам муз (1804)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Камер-фрейлине Ее Императорского Величества Авроре уже под 30 лет, но она по-прежнему *блистает красотой*, и ее замечает один из богатейших людей России Павел Демидов. [Юрий Безелянский. (1995)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Блещет красотой**, **умом** is a set expression but the form **блистает красотой**, **блистать на сцене** is still valid, especially in the world of theatre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive is evidently **блистать**, though the forms блещу, блещешь, блещет, блещете, блещут belong to **both infinitives** (блестеть и блистать см. Орфографический словарь ) but in this particular meaning it is *not* блестеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Бог с ней, с эстетикой, мужик и не обязан *блистать красотой*. [Варвара Синицына. Муза и генерал (2002)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Точно будто родители, приносившие множество тяжелых жертв ради ее увеселения, виноваты в том, что ей нельзя *блистать красотой* в более людном месте и полонять сердца блестящих кавалеров. [П. И. Чайковский. Письма Н. Ф. фон-Мекк (1881)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Судя по его словам, Сумароков очень, любил *блистать умом* и говорить остроты, которые нынче, вероятно, не казались бы остротами, и любил умничать, что тогда принималось за ум, а ныне было бы очень скучно; например, однажды за столом у моего деда подали кулебяку. [М. А. Дмитриев. Мелочи из запаса моей памяти (1869)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она сказала себе: «Если не могу быть прекрасною и любимою, не могу привлекать к себе взоры и сердца, то буду *блистать умом* и заставлю себя заметить и уважить везде за мои нравственные превосходства!» [Е. П. Ростопчина. Счастливая женщина (1851)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Не знаю; но сие желание *блистать умом*, или казаться глубокомысленным, едва ли не противно истинному вкусу. [Н. М. Карамзин. История государства Российского: Том 1 (1803-1818)] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though in everyday life you should use **блещет**, but if you need an infinitive, use **блистать**, still in literature and in the world of arts you can find **блистает** as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17436" RevisionGUID="ce63954a-8298-406e-af47-b1fa8086e021" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:12:58.013" UserId="11055" Text="&quot;**В тридевятом царстве, в тридесятом государстве**&quot; (&quot;in a Faraway Land&quot;) is a phrase that is used in numerous Russian fairytales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is царство - тридевятое (3-9ое), and государство - тридесятое (3-10ое)? What is the origin of the phrase? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17436" RevisionGUID="ce63954a-8298-406e-af47-b1fa8086e021" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:12:58.013" UserId="11055" Text="The origin of &quot;В тридевятом царстве, в тридесятом государстве&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17436" RevisionGUID="ce63954a-8298-406e-af47-b1fa8086e021" CreationDate="2018-11-03T01:12:58.013" UserId="11055" Text="|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17439" RevisionGUID="3a40359d-9753-45bc-8605-46bf7fd60642" CreationDate="2018-11-03T08:17:27.380" UserId="11080" Text="There is a lot of ethnographic and cultural studies about what the тридевятое царство, тридесятое государство was in fact, but I believe, that is not the matter of your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linguistically, **тридесятый** is an Old-Russian numeral denoting **тридцатый**, the thirtieth. And **тридевятый** seems to be a wordplay based on тридесятый and the fact that it is far enough for one to stop counting. (Compare: сто пятьсот раз.) **The thirtieth knigdom and furthieth country, if you count from our border** - that's how it can approximately be understood by the listener. Nobody knows the name of that country, for nobody's been there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**furtieth** is a wordplay denoting a non-existing numeral. You can think of your own one if you please. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17439" RevisionGUID="53e78cec-c242-41ee-879c-b841aadd8d1e" CreationDate="2018-11-03T08:35:32.807" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="There is a lot of ethnographic and cultural studies about what the тридевятое царство, тридесятое государство was in fact, but I believe, that is not the matter of your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linguistically, **тридесятый** is an Old-Russian numeral denoting **тридцатый**, the thirtieth. And **тридевятый** seems to be a wordplay based on тридесятый and the fact that it is far enough for one to stop counting. (Compare: сто пятьсот раз.) **The thirtieth kingdom and furthieth country, if you count from our border** - that's how it can approximately be understood by the listener. Nobody knows the name of that country, for nobody's been there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**furtieth** is a wordplay denoting a non-existing numeral. You can think of your own one if you please. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45457" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17406" RevisionGUID="7ab06a19-b6a9-4e6b-980a-95a06430cfd3" CreationDate="2018-11-03T09:00:30.550" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1058645080116998144" />
  <row Id="45458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17439" RevisionGUID="67949ba6-c485-42a5-8301-dabe740967b4" CreationDate="2018-11-03T09:42:11.797" UserId="11080" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There is a number of ethnographic and cultural studies about what the тридевятое царство, тридесятое государство was in fact, but I believe, that is not the matter of your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Linguistically, **тридесятый** is an Old-Russian numeral denoting **тридцатый**, the thirtieth. And **тридевятый** seems to be a wordplay based on тридесятый and the fact that it is far enough for one to stop counting. (Compare: сто пятьсот раз.) **The thirtieth kingdom and furthieth country, if you count from our border** - that's how it can approximately be understood by the listener. Nobody knows the name of that country, for nobody's been there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**furtieth** is a wordplay denoting a non-existing numeral. You can think of your own one if you please. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45462" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17373" RevisionGUID="55231545-3007-422a-8315-54127ec0f3fa" CreationDate="2018-11-03T12:00:39.873" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1058690417720475650" />
  <row Id="45471" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17157" RevisionGUID="4595e292-d623-408a-9601-0b543bd39237" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:00:26.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1058780958764228614" />
  <row Id="45473" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17169" RevisionGUID="ddc3f875-67a7-409a-9281-009db1d97586" CreationDate="2018-11-04T00:00:51.383" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1058871659845820418" />
  <row Id="45474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="6225fe54-61ca-401e-8b47-cd842b636799" CreationDate="2018-11-04T18:00:36.097" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1059143386807058432" />
  <row Id="45475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17443" RevisionGUID="b5c00e30-7ff0-42e0-b40b-beff7cd6a1cb" CreationDate="2018-11-05T09:45:29.493" UserId="10864" Text="В английской языке допустимо сказать, например: &quot;They were depending on me to look after little Ivan&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно ли аналогично выразить это предложение в русском языке через инфинитив? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Они положились на меня последить за маленьким Иваном&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или единственный способ - это придаточное предложение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Они положились на меня, чтобы я последил за маленьким Иваном&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17443" RevisionGUID="b5c00e30-7ff0-42e0-b40b-beff7cd6a1cb" CreationDate="2018-11-05T09:45:29.493" UserId="10864" Text="Употребление инфинитива как косвенное дополнение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17443" RevisionGUID="b5c00e30-7ff0-42e0-b40b-beff7cd6a1cb" CreationDate="2018-11-05T09:45:29.493" UserId="10864" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17444" RevisionGUID="8ccca21f-4f67-4c22-89e6-78841f07c74c" CreationDate="2018-11-05T10:37:42.083" UserId="242" Text="Оба приведённые вами предложения неправильные, нельзя сказать ни &quot;положились последить&quot; ни &quot;положились, чтобы я проследил&quot; - так попросту не говорят. Если ваш вопрос заключается в том, бывают ли в принципе конструкции с инфинитивом, то конечно бывают, но вот конкретно в этом случае кто-то может сказать &quot;Они очень рассчитывали на то, что я присмотрю за Ваней&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17443" RevisionGUID="c5812459-ad14-42c7-bc04-8633aade54b5" CreationDate="2018-11-05T10:37:53.827" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="В английском языке допустимо сказать, например: &quot;They were depending on me to look after little Ivan&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно ли аналогично выразить это предложение в русском языке через инфинитив? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Они положились на меня последить за маленьким Иваном&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или единственный способ - это придаточное предложение?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Они положились на меня, чтобы я последил за маленьким Иваном&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45480" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17443" RevisionGUID="af2dadd3-ea5f-4dbb-a26c-77a672bdc6b0" CreationDate="2018-11-05T11:16:16.337" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Употребление инфинитива в качестве косвенного дополнения" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17445" RevisionGUID="25c611f4-6149-4ea9-9e7b-00ffd5acfd31" CreationDate="2018-11-05T11:38:38.610" UserId="11080" Text="**Они доверили мне присмотреть за маленьким Ванюшей.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке тоже существуют фразы модальной семантики с инфинитивом. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **попросили** присмотреть&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дали** поспать &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дали возможность** поступить &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **разрешили** принести " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17445" RevisionGUID="9a778a81-300a-46ee-ac05-b6434143c66c" CreationDate="2018-11-05T11:50:01.777" UserId="11080" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Они доверили мне присмотреть за маленьким Ванюшей.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке тоже существуют фразы модальной семантики с инфинитивом. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **попросили** присмотреть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дали** поспать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дали возможность** поступить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **разрешили** принести " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17445" RevisionGUID="58918e33-57ef-4080-89b6-5c9969eceb8c" CreationDate="2018-11-05T12:25:23.957" UserId="11080" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="**Они доверили мне присмотреть за маленьким Ванюшей.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В русском языке тоже существуют фразы модальной семантики с инфинитивом. Например, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **попросили** присмотреть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **предложили** пойти &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дали** поспать &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **дали возможность** поступить &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **разрешили** принести &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **позволили** высказаться &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вынудили** принять меры &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заставили** извиниться " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17436" RevisionGUID="d1f6e4e8-39bc-46e8-b2c4-554ab61475b3" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:00:37.467" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1059777571246796800" />
  <row Id="45490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17447" RevisionGUID="62d50949-985c-4e8e-8a59-8e4a6c1b178c" CreationDate="2018-11-06T18:14:56.617" UserId="9762" Text="I've seen a lot of different translations like, &quot;компьютер саенс&quot; and &quot;Компьютерные науки&quot; and I was wondering which one is correct" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17447" RevisionGUID="62d50949-985c-4e8e-8a59-8e4a6c1b178c" CreationDate="2018-11-06T18:14:56.617" UserId="9762" Text="Как сказать &quot;Computer Science&quot; по-русски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17447" RevisionGUID="62d50949-985c-4e8e-8a59-8e4a6c1b178c" CreationDate="2018-11-06T18:14:56.617" UserId="9762" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17448" RevisionGUID="bbc62106-004e-4beb-9236-a3b75412490a" CreationDate="2018-11-06T19:17:21.533" UserId="7674" Text="Either [**компьютерные науки** or **информатика**](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=Computer+Science)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By no means **компьютер саенс**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17449" RevisionGUID="29dc071c-0ec7-4419-aa19-c0be7beafc4a" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:51:44.920" UserId="10883" Text="I can't understand how &quot;Come on!&quot; translates in Russian. I found this phrase in two films. One film says it translates as &quot;Хорошо!&quot; and other says &quot;Давай!&quot;. Google Translate shows &quot;Ну же!&quot; or &quot;Давай!&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;What is the most suitable phrase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45495" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17449" RevisionGUID="29dc071c-0ec7-4419-aa19-c0be7beafc4a" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:51:44.920" UserId="10883" Text="How does &quot;Come on!&quot; translates in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45496" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17449" RevisionGUID="29dc071c-0ec7-4419-aa19-c0be7beafc4a" CreationDate="2018-11-06T20:51:44.920" UserId="10883" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17450" RevisionGUID="85e8a158-9f5c-4e85-85fc-2704efac6c19" CreationDate="2018-11-06T21:07:52.250" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; компания мне **не помешает**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; компания мне **не повредит**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how they differ in usage when used figuratively.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17450" RevisionGUID="85e8a158-9f5c-4e85-85fc-2704efac6c19" CreationDate="2018-11-06T21:07:52.250" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in usage between “не помешает” and “не повредит”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17450" RevisionGUID="85e8a158-9f5c-4e85-85fc-2704efac6c19" CreationDate="2018-11-06T21:07:52.250" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17451" RevisionGUID="9e3093eb-9a47-4b7e-8969-c0297dc82982" CreationDate="2018-11-06T21:20:13.983" UserId="7674" Text="It depends on the context, therefore **`come on`** alone isn't enough for accurate translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a prompt for action it's **`давай`**. As a repeated prompt it can be rendered as **`ну же`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a condescending or skeptical dismissal it's **`да ладно (тебе)`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17452" RevisionGUID="30b2d5ad-8130-433d-b1a1-3ae98d93a709" CreationDate="2018-11-06T23:44:41.600" UserId="11055" Text="They both can be used figuratively in pretty much the same way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Компания* мне не помешает / не повредит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Чашечка чая* не помешает / не повредит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Немного развлечься* не помешает / не повредит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing I associate &quot;не повредит&quot; with is definitely harm that can be done to someone or something. And &quot;не помешает&quot; is like &quot;I could do with something&quot;. So, again, if you are interested in the figurative usage (you are), you can use both expressions without a second thought. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17453" RevisionGUID="57bb3b99-db39-402b-9ea2-e79ef4231396" CreationDate="2018-11-07T05:37:40.797" UserId="10749" Text="As a college/uni subject it's &quot;информатика&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Same as in French (l'informatique)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="bbc53603-4c5d-4e6b-b1d4-97d983345029" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:12:06.900" UserId="10271" Text="I can't understand the meaning of жена собственница.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня жена собственница! хорошо ли это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="bbc53603-4c5d-4e6b-b1d4-97d983345029" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:12:06.900" UserId="10271" Text="What does жена собственница mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="bbc53603-4c5d-4e6b-b1d4-97d983345029" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:12:06.900" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17455" RevisionGUID="52a1fe25-f216-4cd1-9e6f-d823a9a17670" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:40:48.983" UserId="11055" Text="Жена-собственница is an extremely possessive, jealous wife. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17451" RevisionGUID="93ff2f13-9e26-4ebf-8bd2-1ff37cb4b223" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:48:27.130" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="It depends on the context, therefore **`come on`** alone isn't enough for accurate translation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a prompt for action it's **`давай`**. As a repeated prompt it can be rendered as **`ну же`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a condescending or skeptical dismissal it's **`да ладно (тебе)`**, **`да брось (ты)`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17455" RevisionGUID="1b230fe5-9077-42ea-b680-95ff510fff4c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:50:02.703" UserId="11055" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Жена-собственница is an extremely possessive, jealous wife. Собственник/собственница can describe a wife, husband, girlfriend or boyfriend. Also, it's sometimes used to describe a mother who has become overly possessive of her son.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://deti.mail.ru/article/mama_sobstvennica/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="de4298b9-a1f0-4b73-9208-ed9113b423e9" CreationDate="2018-11-07T08:01:19.073" UserId="10271" Text="Is it appropriate to leave out замуж like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она чего вышла за этого мужчину?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="de4298b9-a1f0-4b73-9208-ed9113b423e9" CreationDate="2018-11-07T08:01:19.073" UserId="10271" Text="In informal speech, can you leave замуж out from выйти замуж?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="de4298b9-a1f0-4b73-9208-ed9113b423e9" CreationDate="2018-11-07T08:01:19.073" UserId="10271" Text="|грамматика|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17457" RevisionGUID="5147bbe4-2d24-4194-82ad-06c158c5dc29" CreationDate="2018-11-07T08:30:48.403" UserId="8672" Text="I just said in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Как же типично для меня** потерять что-то важное перед командировкой!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if this works as an equivalent of the sarcastic expression &quot;Trust me/you to (lose ...!)&quot; or &quot;Leave it to me/you to (lose ...!)&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17457" RevisionGUID="5147bbe4-2d24-4194-82ad-06c158c5dc29" CreationDate="2018-11-07T08:30:48.403" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of the sarcastic expression &quot;Trust me to ...!&quot; or &quot;Leave it to me to ...!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17457" RevisionGUID="5147bbe4-2d24-4194-82ad-06c158c5dc29" CreationDate="2018-11-07T08:30:48.403" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17458" RevisionGUID="ac712393-5490-4cc3-8c88-f9862eec600d" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:10:31.540" UserId="11055" Text="Yes, it's OK because it's clear what is meant. Выйти за кого-то can mean only one thing - to get married. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17459" RevisionGUID="fdba5118-addb-49d5-bc60-db078c773a3a" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:14:07.687" UserId="11055" Text="That's right. This can be an equivalent of those expressions meaning &quot;it's so typical of me to lose something important right before a business trip!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the alternatives, here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне что-то важное потерять перед командировкой - **как с горы катиться**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне только волю дай** что-нибудь важное перед командировкой забыть!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17459" RevisionGUID="fefe5d3a-1b83-48e6-93cb-ed9db8c7e6a4" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:24:06.197" UserId="11055" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="That's right. This can be an equivalent of those expressions meaning &quot;it's so typical of me to lose something important right before a business trip!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the alternatives, here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне что-то важное потерять перед командировкой - **как с горы катиться** (informal).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне только волю дай** что-нибудь важное перед командировкой забыть!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17459" RevisionGUID="aeb8aa53-4eae-42bd-8f82-9cbe306439b8" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:29:39.520" UserId="11055" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="That's right. This can be an equivalent of those expressions meaning &quot;it's so typical of me to lose something important right before a business trip!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the alternatives, here are a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне что-то важное потерять перед командировкой - **как с горы катиться** (informal).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне только волю дай** что-нибудь важное перед командировкой забыть!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне ничего не стоит** потерять что-то важное перед командировкой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45519" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="c8e23a3f-8707-43ee-aaca-e9786a56b659" CreationDate="2018-11-07T09:30:18.553" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="In informal speech, can you leave замуж out from &quot;выйти замуж&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17460" RevisionGUID="b3e4072f-0dcd-4b0f-b4a3-158e8bc52e07" CreationDate="2018-11-07T10:03:42.437" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Информатика&quot; is the closest you can get. In the Russian-language [wiki article][1] on &quot;Computer Science&quot; you can find more about the history of this term in different languages. In the same article you can find also term &quot;наука о вычислительной технике&quot; which is used but very, very limited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strange thing about &quot;информатика&quot; that it de-facto getting slightly outdated (like it happened with &quot;кибернетика&quot; earlier) but there's no decent word or phrase we can use and claim to be modern. Nobody says &quot;компьютер сайенс&quot; though, that's for sure. For the lack of a better term one can use just computer science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="dab76791-7f88-479a-a97c-1553803e14d8" CreationDate="2018-11-07T10:04:53.597" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="I can't understand the meaning of `жена-собственница`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У меня жена-собственница! Хорошо ли это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17461" RevisionGUID="65d5e2c7-126e-43db-9bdb-665b92ebe9e0" CreationDate="2018-11-07T10:12:14.800" UserId="242" Text="I was going o say &quot;authoritarian wife&quot; but googling hints that this term has not that subtle sexual connotation that by no means applicable for `жена-собственница`. So it's about a wife who's quite annoying it her attempts to over control, most likely quite jealous. It's not gender biased though, the masculine `собственник` uses as much frequently.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45523" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="697c07c8-65fb-4aa5-a01d-7bcc10177b43" CreationDate="2018-11-07T10:19:26.313" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What does &quot;жена-собственница&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="457ceabd-d14b-4f21-b562-542067fea7ee" CreationDate="2018-11-07T17:13:28.373" UserId="3917" Text="In a Russian political pop song the singer declares her admiration for Putin and says she wants: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Такого, как Путин, полного сил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syntax of the last two words is not clear to me:   &#xD;&#xA;Indeed, *сил* seems to be the plural genitive of the feminine noun *силa*, and  *полного* the singular masculine genitive of the adjective *полный*.  &#xD;&#xA;Could somebody please explain what is going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="457ceabd-d14b-4f21-b562-542067fea7ee" CreationDate="2018-11-07T17:13:28.373" UserId="3917" Text="Syntax of полного сил" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="457ceabd-d14b-4f21-b562-542067fea7ee" CreationDate="2018-11-07T17:13:28.373" UserId="3917" Text="|грамматика|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17463" RevisionGUID="fddb2ad3-ed9d-4816-8a48-5943112ef957" CreationDate="2018-11-07T17:30:12.453" UserId="9256" Text="They differ in the degree of usefulness/harmfulness implied. &quot;Не помешает&quot; implies that something can be in fact good, while &quot;не повредит&quot; often means that something is merely not going to do any harm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Одна рюмочка мне не повредит&quot; - &quot;One shot of liquor won't harm me&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Одна рюмочка мне не помешает&quot; - &quot;One shot of liquor would be welcome&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in many other contexts, &quot;не повредит&quot;/&quot;не помешает&quot; are full synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17465" RevisionGUID="6671108c-b292-487c-8ef0-ce9dabf5e143" CreationDate="2018-11-07T18:06:33.723" UserId="11177" Text="You're generally correct. &quot;Полный&quot; usually means &quot;overweight&quot; but can also mean &quot;full of&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;So &quot;Полный сил&quot; = &quot;Full of energy&quot;, just used in genitive in the song." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="7cc4769d-6286-4bf2-8ad0-d302197ae69f" CreationDate="2018-11-07T19:23:47.930" UserId="3917" Comment="Added link to video of evoked song" Text="In a [Russian political pop song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUh9pThGdm4) the singer declares her admiration for Putin and says she wants: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Такого, как Путин, полного сил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The syntax of the last two words is not clear to me:   &#xD;&#xA;Indeed, *сил* seems to be the plural genitive of the feminine noun *силa*, and  *полного* the singular masculine genitive of the adjective *полный*.  &#xD;&#xA;Could somebody please explain what is going on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17458" RevisionGUID="3b4d6d42-5259-4017-b550-fb30bfb95cfe" CreationDate="2018-11-07T23:01:25.617" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's OK because it's clear what is meant. Выйти за кого-то = to get married." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17463" RevisionGUID="1ef00fa3-cdce-44b9-9022-b2f8160be077" CreationDate="2018-11-08T05:18:03.943" UserId="9256" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="They differ in the degree of usefulness/harmfulness implied. &quot;Не помешает&quot; implies that something can be in fact good, while &quot;не повредит&quot; often means that something is merely not going to do any harm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Одна рюмочка мне не повредит&quot; - &quot;One shot of liquor won't harm me&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Одна рюмочка мне не помешает&quot; - &quot;One shot of liquor would be welcome&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in many other contexts, when the subject is essentially harmless (like tea) &quot;не повредит&quot;/&quot;не помешает&quot; are full synonyms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="840f3c0a-687a-48d0-b660-5e0623b5cf06" CreationDate="2018-11-08T06:59:59.873" UserId="11080" Text="We may say the following. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я так всегда: как** надо собираться, я теряю ключи. (or Я - как всегда...) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Это так на тебя похоже:** выехал из дому и забыл чемодан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В этом он весь**, вечно забывает всё, что нужно. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну это же я**, положила на видном месте, теперь не могу найти. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ничего удивительного**, **она может и голову дома забыть**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Да как обычно: как** надо собираться**, так** у тебя ничего нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also all the ways to express annoyance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17469" RevisionGUID="06521d66-e33b-4bc1-aca0-f486821a4c5b" CreationDate="2018-11-08T07:09:21.627" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="We may say the following. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я так всегда: как** надо собираться, я теряю ключи. (or Я - как всегда...) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Это так на тебя похоже:** выехал из дому и забыл чемодан. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В этом он весь**, вечно забывает всё, что нужно. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ну это же я**, положила на видном месте, теперь не могу найти. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ничего удивительного**, **она может и голову дома забыть**. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Да как обычно: как** надо собираться, **так** у тебя ничего нет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also all the ways to express annoyance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17462" RevisionGUID="bc0a0a15-21a7-4dbb-b230-946820c62f4b" CreationDate="2018-11-08T08:06:56.653" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Syntax of &quot;полного сил&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45546" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17456" RevisionGUID="735680dc-c455-4574-ad9f-6bf2c5d75109" CreationDate="2018-11-08T09:00:29.000" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1060457013107400704" />
  <row Id="45547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17470" RevisionGUID="0b56be21-f7ec-4104-8d86-5a00804510e2" CreationDate="2018-11-08T11:20:13.370" UserId="6097" Text="&quot;Полного&quot; is in genitive because it takes the same case as &quot;такого&quot;. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такой, как Путин, полный сил  - nominative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такому, как Путин, полному сил - dative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким, как Путин, полным сил - instrumental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Сил&quot; is in genitive because it's the expression &quot;full **of** ...&quot; - &quot;полный сил&quot;, &quot;полный энергии&quot;, &quot;полный счастья&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17473" RevisionGUID="7823339b-4178-4d0a-8dda-e4cd33b0256d" CreationDate="2018-11-08T13:22:27.180" UserId="7611" Text="Both Katzner's English-Russian and Oxford English-Russian dictionary translate dice as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; игральние кости -- dice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; играть в кости -- to play dice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But neither of them actually include the phrase &quot;to roll dice.&quot; The answer by shabunc in [this][1] Russian stackexchange question includes a quote talking about a dice game, but it also doesn't have any verbs talking about dice rolling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not having luck finding articles about how to talk about games in russian, but plugging different phrasings of `rolling the dice` into Google translate comes up with the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; roll the dice --&gt; бросить кости&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to roll dice --&gt; бросить кубики&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he rolled the dice --&gt; он закатил кости&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; he rolled a 7 on the dice --&gt; он закатил семь на кости&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking back at the dictionaries for what `закатить` means, Katzner says (and Oxford is pretty similar):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; закатывать / закатить -- to roll; wheel (into, under, behind, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither gives rolling dice as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - (given how flaky google translate sometimes is) Is google translate correct about how you talk about rolling dice? As in -- can you use either закатить or бросить?&#xD;&#xA; - Can кости be used interchangeably with кубики?&#xD;&#xA; - If google's wrong, how do you phrase it? What verbs do you use?&#xD;&#xA; - How do you talk about the results of a die roll / what number you rolled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/906/tile-based-game/907#907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17473" RevisionGUID="7823339b-4178-4d0a-8dda-e4cd33b0256d" CreationDate="2018-11-08T13:22:27.180" UserId="7611" Text="How to talk about rolling dice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17473" RevisionGUID="7823339b-4178-4d0a-8dda-e4cd33b0256d" CreationDate="2018-11-08T13:22:27.180" UserId="7611" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17474" RevisionGUID="8f718cfc-f164-44d1-8c51-86ce394fcd24" CreationDate="2018-11-08T13:55:50.253" UserId="11182" Text="`dice - &quot;игральные кости&quot;`, they may also be called `&quot;кубики&quot;`, `rolling the dice` - `&quot;Бросить кубики&quot;` in context, the player must roll the dice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17474" RevisionGUID="d7a33e0c-29c4-49ad-a350-d2d6a777a323" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:06:25.577" UserId="11182" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="`dice - &quot;игральные кости&quot;`, they may also be called `&quot;кубики&quot;`, `rolling the dice` - `&quot;Бросить кубики&quot;` in context, the player must roll the dice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ответ &#xD;&#xA;1. «Кидать кости», «Бросать кубики». &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Да. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. the result is voiced each digit separately «Шесть - Пять», «Один-Один»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45564" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17449" RevisionGUID="51b2b293-d3bf-4a35-b5bc-870448efa593" CreationDate="2018-11-08T18:00:17.287" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1060592859324268544" />
  <row Id="45565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17475" RevisionGUID="492e2417-7fc9-43ad-a822-ad7d35e5630a" CreationDate="2018-11-08T18:08:05.800" UserId="11080" Text="&quot;Закатил кости&quot; sounds strange. ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он бросил кости. Выпало 7. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less frequent variant might be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он выбросил 7 на костях. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17476" RevisionGUID="d83932c9-5c3a-4e84-bfc5-351badc4c58c" CreationDate="2018-11-08T19:47:58.077" UserId="2104" Text="Here is how I would talk about rolling a dice to my son:&#xA;&#xA;- Чья очередь кидать кубик? Твоя? Давай, кидай! Сколько у тебя выпало? Пять? А у меня шесть!&#xA;&#xA;To me &quot;играть в кости&quot; sounds old, something a Treasure Island pirate might do. &#xA;&#xA;Definitely not &quot;закатить кости&quot;... unless we are talking about a pirate rolling a wheelbarrow full of bones!&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17477" RevisionGUID="5fe89e8b-f529-4a53-b911-1dd2f2173f72" CreationDate="2018-11-08T21:49:00.270" UserId="7674" Text="Some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** *these have undertone of disappointment and annoyance* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**А)** **`всегда я чего-нибудь/куда-нибудь/с кем-нибудь etc.`** `+ future perfective` or `present` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всегда я чего-нибудь (да) (по)теряю перед командировкой.   &#xD;&#xA;Всегда я куда-нибудь не туда заеду/заезжаю.  &#xD;&#xA;Всегда я свяжусь/связываюсь с каким-нибудь жуликом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В)** **`всегда/обязательно я должен что-нибудь/куда-нибудь/с кем-нибудь etc.`** `+ perfective infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всегда/Обязательно я должен чего-нибудь потерять перед командировкой.   &#xD;&#xA;Всегда/Обязательно я должен куда-нибудь не туда заехать.  &#xD;&#xA;Всегда/Обязательно я должен связаться с каким-нибудь жуликом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**С)** **`я (просто) не могу, чтобы не`** `+ perfective infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я (просто) не могу, чтобы чего-нибудь не потерять перед командировкой.   &#xD;&#xA;Я (просто) не могу, чтобы не заехать куда-нибудь не туда.  &#xD;&#xA;Я (просто) не могу, чтобы не связаться с каким-нибудь жуликом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D)** **`если бы я не`** `+ past imperfective`, **`это был бы не я`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы я ничего не потерял перед командировкой, это был бы не я.   &#xD;&#xA;Если бы я не заехал не туда, это был бы не я.  &#xD;&#xA;Если бы я не связался с жуликом, это был бы не я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** *these have undertone of irony*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A)** **`для меня - пара пустяков/(да) я запросто могу`**` + perfective infinitive` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **`я - мастер`** `+ imperfective infinitive`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17478" RevisionGUID="ba08cdb4-5369-4805-bdf5-7c4d8fdb1932" CreationDate="2018-11-09T02:18:47.257" UserId="11186" Text="If I'm asking &quot;How are you?&quot; to a singular person in a formal way, why to I say &quot;Как Ваши дела&quot; instead of &quot;Как Ваш дела&quot;? Does &quot;Как Ваш дела&quot; mean anything?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17478" RevisionGUID="ba08cdb4-5369-4805-bdf5-7c4d8fdb1932" CreationDate="2018-11-09T02:18:47.257" UserId="11186" Text="Как Ваш дела vs Как Ваши дела" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17478" RevisionGUID="ba08cdb4-5369-4805-bdf5-7c4d8fdb1932" CreationDate="2018-11-09T02:18:47.257" UserId="11186" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17479" RevisionGUID="35736865-1445-4254-95cf-099cd9406dd2" CreationDate="2018-11-09T02:25:20.280" UserId="11055" Text="We use *Ваши* because it is for the plural *дела*. The whole phrase is in the Nominative case, just like, for example, мои друзья (мои друзья здесь), твои книги (твои книги интересные), **Ваши** столы (Ваши столы красивые) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we ask somebody about how something/someone is, we use the **Nominative**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как ваши друзья? - Хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как твой проект? - Плохо. BUT Как *твои* *проекты*? - Плохо.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как Ваши дела? - Отлично.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Как Ваш дела&quot; is ungrammatical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17480" RevisionGUID="04ce63d4-3915-457b-9b25-0602c724f53d" CreationDate="2018-11-09T06:00:09.413" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Does &quot;Как Ваш дела&quot; mean anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's a mistake. The pronoun should be in the plural because it refers to the plural noun дела. **Ваши** is a polite form and it can be used addressing one person and a group as well. If you know a person well you can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как твои дела?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also informal greetings avoiding the addressee (we don't say possessive pronouns as often as they are used in English)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как дела? Как жизнь? Как оно ничего?(joking) Что новенького?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17477" RevisionGUID="5ac83b91-8161-4488-bb61-d39e664a50b4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T07:25:24.817" UserId="7674" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Some other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** *these have undertone of disappointment and annoyance* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**А)** **`всегда/вечно я чего-нибудь/куда-нибудь/с кем-нибудь etc.`** `+ future perfective` or `present` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всегда/Вечно я чего-нибудь (да) (по)теряю перед командировкой.   &#xD;&#xA;Всегда/Вечно я куда-нибудь не туда заеду/заезжаю.  &#xD;&#xA;Всегда/Вечно я свяжусь/связываюсь с каким-нибудь жуликом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**В)** **`всегда/обязательно/вечно я должен что-нибудь/куда-нибудь/с кем-нибудь etc.`** `+ perfective infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всегда/Вечно/Обязательно я должен чего-нибудь потерять перед командировкой.   &#xD;&#xA;Всегда/Вечно/Обязательно я должен куда-нибудь не туда заехать.  &#xD;&#xA;Всегда/Вечно/Обязательно я должен связаться с каким-нибудь жуликом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**С)** **`я (просто) не могу, чтобы не`** `+ perfective infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я (просто) не могу, чтобы чего-нибудь не потерять перед командировкой.   &#xD;&#xA;Я (просто) не могу, чтобы не заехать куда-нибудь не туда.  &#xD;&#xA;Я (просто) не могу, чтобы не связаться с каким-нибудь жуликом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D)** **`если бы я не`** `+ past imperfective`, **`это был бы не я`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы я ничего не потерял перед командировкой, это был бы не я.   &#xD;&#xA;Если бы я не заехал не туда, это был бы не я.  &#xD;&#xA;Если бы я не связался с жуликом, это был бы не я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** *these have undertone of irony*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A)** **`для меня - пара пустяков/(да) я запросто могу`**` + perfective infinitive` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B)** **`я - мастер`** `+ imperfective infinitive`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я - мастер попадать в неприятные ситуации." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45574" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17478" RevisionGUID="78ef3662-778d-4621-bafb-7cef7123f628" CreationDate="2018-11-09T12:35:04.680" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Как Ваш дела&quot; vs &quot;Как Ваши дела&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="ed1bbd1e-434e-407b-986e-b5cbb45157df" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:37:16.483" UserDisplayName="user11194" Text="Although it is sometimes taught that there is no soft ж in Russian, in fact this is not so and many Russians pronounce a soft ж in the word дрожжи.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other Russian words contain a ж which is pronounced soft in standard or at least common pronunciation? And what are some good rules for remembering when a ж should be pronounced soft?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="ed1bbd1e-434e-407b-986e-b5cbb45157df" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:37:16.483" UserDisplayName="user11194" Text="What Russian words other than &quot;дрожжи&quot; have a soft ж in common pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="ed1bbd1e-434e-407b-986e-b5cbb45157df" CreationDate="2018-11-12T12:37:16.483" UserDisplayName="user11194" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="4b409c51-2f97-4fff-bb1b-0adbd26c18f8" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:48:48.593" UserId="7674" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** occurs in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reigns) which also can be spelled **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other words: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`** can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because it's unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, both **`д`** and **`з`** can (as shown above) be reduced to **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above list appears exhaustive, i don't think i can recall any other words whose pronunciation allows for palatalization of **`ж`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17485" RevisionGUID="16aefc36-08a2-4093-a65d-7d34978bd88e" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:52:42.893" UserId="2104" Text="The [Russian Wikipedia][1] lists the following words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* до[ж’ж’]и (дожди)&#xD;&#xA;* дро[ж’ж’]и (дрожжи)&#xD;&#xA;* по[ж’ж’]е (позже)&#xD;&#xA;* е[ж’ж’]у (езжу) &#xD;&#xA;* ви[ж’ж’]ять (визжать)&#xD;&#xA;* дребе[ж’ж’]ять (дребезжать)&#xD;&#xA;* бре[ж’ж’]ить (брезжить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't hear much of the soft Ж these days. You are more likely to hear a hard Ж in the words above and [жд] in **дожди**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96#%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B8_%C2%AB%D0%BC%D1%8F%D0%B3%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%C2%BB_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="6ea27569-bed6-4ecb-8e4f-204c806f4795" CreationDate="2018-11-12T13:54:25.810" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** occurs in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) which can also be spelled **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`** can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because it's unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above list appears exhaustive, i don't think i can recall any other words whose pronunciation allows for palatalization of **`ж`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="04ad0c09-0a70-4275-8304-b7a5979db1bd" CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:00:18.677" UserId="7674" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** occurs in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) which can also be spelled **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`** can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because it's unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="0cf22620-cbc8-4c02-92ad-323a484ec056" CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:05:58.723" UserId="7674" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** occurs in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) which can also be spelled **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because it's unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="b688299d-d450-407e-90eb-357a2e8ee318" CreationDate="2018-11-12T14:47:33.310" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** occurs in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) which can also be spelled **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because it's unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17486" RevisionGUID="3a4b27e3-5272-4854-8bf4-0013ed39b149" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:14:27.123" UserId="11195" Text="I start to studied Russian one month ago. My teacher show me how to use родительный падеж and дательный падеж but i really don't understand the differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example if I want to say:&#xD;&#xA;He give me a rose - он подарил мне розу &#xD;&#xA;why I use мне and not мня ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кому or кого meaning always &quot;To Whom?&quot; so how can I understand the difference between родительный падеж and дательный падеж if the question is always same and also the translation of мне / мня? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Rules][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3tHS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17486" RevisionGUID="3a4b27e3-5272-4854-8bf4-0013ed39b149" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:14:27.123" UserId="11195" Text="родительный падеж and дательный падеж how to choose мне or мня?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17486" RevisionGUID="3a4b27e3-5272-4854-8bf4-0013ed39b149" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:14:27.123" UserId="11195" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="9c82a642-17de-475a-81e7-66d79fcc6da7" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:24:31.057" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** may occur in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) which can also be spelled **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because it's unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="0800c856-d093-4ec2-a505-e3394dbded76" CreationDate="2018-11-12T15:40:51.603" UserId="7674" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** may occur in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) - this is conventional spelling, which can also have the form of **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because the word is unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17486" RevisionGUID="2be103dc-e52a-495c-b603-ede997353269" CreationDate="2018-11-12T16:45:53.300" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I start to studied Russian one month ago. My teacher show me how to use родительный падеж and дательный падеж but i really don't understand the differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example if I want to say:&#xD;&#xA;He give me a rose - он подарил мне розу &#xD;&#xA;why I use мне and not м**Е**ня ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;кому or кого meaning always &quot;To Whom?&quot; so how can I understand the difference between родительный падеж and дательный падеж if the question is always same and also the translation of мне / м**Е**ня? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Rules][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S5hD0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17487" RevisionGUID="2a50a31d-5eae-4361-bcbb-c2dcba071b4d" CreationDate="2018-11-12T17:33:29.427" UserId="2104" Text="The Dative case (дательный падеж) is used for the addressee in 'give':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он дал **мне** книгу. = Он дал книгу **мне**.&#xD;&#xA;* He have **me** the book. = He gave the book **to me**.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mi** ha dato il libro. = Egli ha dato il libro **a me**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Accusative case (винительный падеж) is used for the direct object of the action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он дал мне **книгу**. (`книгу` is the Accusative of `книга`, book)&#xD;&#xA;* Он спросил **меня**. (`меня` is the Accusative of `я`, I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Genitive case (родительный падеж) often appears after prepositions like **без, у, от**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Иди без **меня**. - Go without me.&#xD;&#xA;* У **меня** есть книга. - I have a book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What complicates matters a bit, **меня** can be either Genitive or Accusative, depending on context. In &quot;Он спросил меня&quot; it's Accusative, not Genitive. Your teacher is mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17487" RevisionGUID="b0c38aeb-fd0f-4558-abf9-ef2cd78444b9" CreationDate="2018-11-12T18:35:56.813" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The Dative case (дательный падеж) is used for the addressee in 'give':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он дал **мне** книгу. = Он дал книгу **мне**.&#xD;&#xA;* He gave **me** the book. = He gave the book **to me**.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mi** ha dato il libro. = Lui ha dato il libro **a me**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Accusative case (винительный падеж) is used for the direct object of the action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он дал мне **книгу**. (`книгу` is the Accusative of `книга`, book)&#xD;&#xA;* Он спросил **меня**. (`меня` is the Accusative of `я`, I)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Genitive case (родительный падеж) often appears after prepositions like **без, у, от**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Иди без **меня**. - Go without me.&#xD;&#xA;* У **меня** есть книга. - I have a book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What complicates matters a bit, **меня** can be either Genitive or Accusative, depending on context. In &quot;Он спросил меня&quot; it's Accusative, not Genitive. Your teacher is mistaken.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17488" RevisionGUID="5bc6a1fe-eb04-4a2c-960b-0fafaf60d876" CreationDate="2018-11-12T19:39:57.230" UserId="3595" Text="The most common of such words that is also commonly mispronounced is дождь. Often even native speakers pronounce it with a soft д at the end which is not supposed to be. &#xA;&#xA;A less common word is вожжи, a horse tack." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17488" RevisionGUID="a5adde86-fbe6-42ea-a564-0e09043fff70" CreationDate="2018-11-12T19:50:07.540" UserId="3595" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="The most common of such words that is also commonly mispronounced is дождь. Often even native speakers pronounce it with a soft д at the end which is not supposed to be. Here’s how it’s pronounced in a famous [song from 1990s][1], here’s a standard [pronunciation][2] &#xA;&#xA;A less common word is вожжи, a horse tack.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/-uCTyC1FGLw?t=14&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Ru-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%8C_(%C9%95).ogg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="ce6369b4-1292-4efe-878c-3da86a2c8615" CreationDate="2018-11-12T19:52:21.403" UserId="7674" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** may occur in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) - this is conventional spelling, which can also have the form of **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;4а) also sing. **`вожжа`** - which can be pronounced as **`[вожжя]`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because the word is unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17489" RevisionGUID="90a1b33f-ee81-438e-8d59-c5f4211c18dd" CreationDate="2018-11-12T21:56:06.657" UserId="11197" Text="I have learned that when expressing possession in Russian, the object you possess is in nominative case and genitive case when it is not (i.e. you don't have it). So based on that, I'd say the former is correct, however I have been seeing the second one as well (especially when expressing &quot;an amount&quot;, e.g. a lot, little etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to say &quot;Right now, I only have little time&quot;; however, I keep seeing two translations for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one of the two is correct, or if both are, when is the latter used? I haven't found anything on that unfortunately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17489" RevisionGUID="90a1b33f-ee81-438e-8d59-c5f4211c18dd" CreationDate="2018-11-12T21:56:06.657" UserId="11197" Text="&quot;Сейчас у меня есть мало время&quot; or &quot;Сейчас у меня есть мало времени&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17489" RevisionGUID="90a1b33f-ee81-438e-8d59-c5f4211c18dd" CreationDate="2018-11-12T21:56:06.657" UserId="11197" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17490" RevisionGUID="24bed4f5-2226-4ec1-aa90-9c2bca3d8a6c" CreationDate="2018-11-12T22:05:55.887" UserId="3680" Text="The second one is correct, except one thing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much better to use `совсем немного` instead of `мало` here, or just omit the verb `есть`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас у меня есть совсем немного времени.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас у меня мало времени." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="7fb3d4b5-c257-4fdf-9d90-17f6617822a4" CreationDate="2018-11-12T22:38:34.503" UserId="11055" Text="`Сейчас у меня есть мало время` is not correct. However, `сейчас у меня есть время` would be perfectly correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is we use the **Genitive** with **мало** (as well as with **немного**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня *мало* **денег**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас *немного* **ресурсов**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нее *мало* **хороших оценок**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `сейчас у меня есть мало времени` should be OK. But we usually omit `есть` when using `мало`(but not always - we don't if we want to emphasize the fact of having). So, we'd say `У меня есть деньги` but `У меня мало денег`; `У меня есть время` but `У меня мало времен`и. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="5b8af7e7-c0e4-4168-9fc9-f51d80aae48a" CreationDate="2018-11-12T22:43:37.607" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body; added 232 characters in body" Text="`Сейчас у меня есть мало время` is not correct. However, `сейчас у меня есть время` would be perfectly fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is we use the **Genitive** with **мало** (as well as with **немного**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня *мало* **денег**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас *немного* **ресурсов**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У неё *мало* **хороших оценок**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `сейчас у меня есть мало времени` should be OK. But we usually omit `есть` when using `мало`. So, we'd say `У меня есть деньги` but `У меня мало денег`; `У меня есть время` but `У меня мало времени`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, if we use немного, `есть` sounds quite natural: `У нас немного времени` (the fact that you have *not much* time is emphasized); `У нас есть немного времени` (the fact that you *have* not much time is emphasized). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17491" RevisionGUID="a67d2916-7a49-4303-84c5-c87479e06ea2" CreationDate="2018-11-12T22:48:52.790" UserId="11055" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="`Сейчас у меня есть мало время` is not correct. However, `сейчас у меня есть время` would be perfectly fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is we use the **Genitive** with **мало** (as well as with **немного**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня *мало* **денег**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас *немного* **ресурсов**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; У неё *мало* **хороших оценок**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `сейчас у меня есть мало времени` should be OK. But we usually omit `есть` when using `мало`. So, we'd say `У меня есть деньги` but `У меня мало денег`; `У меня есть время` but `У меня мало времени`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, if we use немного, `есть` sounds quite natural: `У нас немного времени` (the fact that you have *not much* time is emphasized); `У нас есть немного времени` (the fact that you *have* not much time is emphasized). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17492" RevisionGUID="0e77ee05-754a-4d24-b8a5-3c4bb49cd44a" CreationDate="2018-11-12T23:01:08.760" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Сейчас у меня есть мало времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is correct as already pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence Genitive case stems from the relationship between the pronoun **мало** and the noun **время** and not from the verb **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without the pronoun the case is Nominal as expected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with the pronoun **мало**, which is the subject of the sentence, the Genitive form of **время -&gt; времени** answers the question **(мало) чего?** - **(a little) of what?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with other quantitative pronouns **много, немного, немало, столько, несколько, сколько?**, also **чуть-чуть** and **полно́** which function as pronouns, and synonyms of those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17492" RevisionGUID="128a54f9-ad18-480b-b79a-f631d6b16a73" CreationDate="2018-11-12T23:06:16.647" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; Сейчас у меня есть мало времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is correct as already pointed out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence Genitive case stems from the relationship between the quantitative pronoun **мало** and the noun **время** and not from the verb **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without the pronoun the case is Nominal as expected&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас у меня есть время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with the pronoun **мало**, which is the bare subject of the sentence, the Genitive form of **время -&gt; времени** answers the question **(мало) чего?** - **(a little) of what?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with other quantitative pronouns **много, немного, немало, столько, несколько, сколько?**, also **чуть-чуть** and **полно́** which function as pronouns, and with synonyms of those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45620" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17489" RevisionGUID="bf8a4770-c797-44d7-9491-a598eaa3e3a1" CreationDate="2018-11-12T23:07:40.453" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|genitve|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17303" RevisionGUID="e7715a4a-29eb-4e4e-8378-b4b1a4d3aaf8" CreationDate="2018-11-13T05:18:46.683" UserId="11073" Comment="course was ten weeks, not one week" Text="When I was taking my ten week Russian course years ago, I ran across an MP3 with sample sounds. The pair that got me very worried was Борис vs Борись. At the time, I could hear only the vaguest difference between those sounds, much less be able to reliably pronounce them.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I was wondering how common it is in Russian that two words differ only by a soft sign. Is that rare, not uncommon, or does it happen all the time? Is there any list of words like this somewhere? I was thinking of developing a list and saying one of the pair to a native speaker and asking them which one I said, and having them say a random choice and me telling them what I heard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember reading about how close the French words for &quot;over&quot; and &quot;under&quot; sound (both sound like &quot;desous&quot;), and that French orators tend to avoid using them because it is hard to make sure everyone hears the right word over a PA system, etc. Does the same thing happen in Russian, or is the difference really obvious to the native Russian ear? Or does Russian encode words differing only in a soft sign with wildly different meaning so the correct word is heard easily in context? (Apparently, Борись is archaic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These days when I meet a native Russian speaker, I often ask them to pronounce Борис vs Борись, so I can again marvel at how subtle the difference is to this native English speaker's ear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17493" RevisionGUID="809ad3d1-a45f-404e-ba80-ba77ba526668" CreationDate="2018-11-13T07:05:50.413" UserId="11080" Text="&quot;Сейчас у меня есть мало времени&quot; sounds grammarically correct, but it is lexically strange. **We don't say so.** &#xD;&#xA;It can fall into two meanings, each of them expressed separately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) I am short of time = I don't have enough time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня мало времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;That really means that I don't have time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) I have some time, I can do something quickly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть немного времени.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;That means that I do have time, though not so much, but I'll try and do the thing for which I have it. &#xD;&#xA;If you say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть время,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; it means you are free to do what you are planning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17492" RevisionGUID="ea3812af-c399-4714-b446-e183b22511bc" CreationDate="2018-11-13T07:17:10.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="&gt; Сейчас у меня [есть] мало времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is correct as already pointed out, save for the use of the verb **есть**, which here is only implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence Genitive case stems from the relationship between the quantitative pronoun **мало** and the noun **время** and not from the implied verb **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without the pronoun the case is Nominal as expected and with the verb **есть** intact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас у меня есть время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with the pronoun **мало**, which is the bare subject of the sentence, the Genitive form of **время -&gt; времени** answers the question **(мало) чего?** - **(little) of what?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with other quantitative pronouns **много, немного, немало, столько, несколько, сколько?**, also **чуть-чуть** and **полно́** which function as pronouns, and with synonyms of those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45626" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17489" RevisionGUID="ac7bbd87-48c6-4641-b55b-785094e620b8" CreationDate="2018-11-13T07:30:29.560" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17492" RevisionGUID="299662bb-b000-42f9-9522-6fecc99d0d40" CreationDate="2018-11-13T09:00:54.673" UserId="7674" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="&gt; Сейчас у меня [есть] мало времени&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is correct as already pointed out, save for the use of the verb **есть**, which here is only implied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence Genitive case stems from the relationship between the quantitative pronoun **мало** and the noun **время** and not from the implied verb **есть**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So without the pronoun the case is Nominal as expected and with the verb **есть** intact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас у меня есть время&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with the pronoun **мало**, which is the bare subject of the sentence, the Genitive form of **время -&gt; времени** answers the question **(мало) чего?** - **(little) of what?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with other quantitative pronouns **много, немного, немало, столько, несколько, сколько?**, also **чуть-чуть** and **полно́** which function as pronouns, and with synonyms of those.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17494" RevisionGUID="8386bbe8-b681-45ab-8b2c-22cf20145c31" CreationDate="2018-11-14T05:48:02.170" UserId="8359" Text="Here's yet another origin story. [Georg Wilhelm Steller][1]'s 1740s-era [_History of Kamchatka_][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name Kamchatka was given to this land when the Russian Cossacks conquered it, because they learned from the heathen people through sign language that their name for the Kamchatka River, which is the largest in the entire land, was Konshatka, and for that reason the Cossacks called all of the land's inhabitants Kamchadali, as was their custom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The name _Konshat_ is the name of a much admired, very famous man from the past, who lived on this river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Steller&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/5487550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="b270793f-7ef6-43dd-829a-d9136f3ceb48" CreationDate="2018-11-14T07:40:16.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** may occur in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) - this is conventional spelling, which can also have the form of **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;4а) also sing. **`вожжа`** - which can be pronounced as **`[вожжя]`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because the word is unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Дажжи`** (дожди) и **`падажжи`** (подожди) are different from the rest in this list in that palatalized pronunciation of **`[ж]`** in them is the **only** option. Their penultimate phoneme **`[д]`** is palatalized in the normative pronunciation due to **`[и]`**, so after its reduction to **`[ж]`** the palatalization is simply kept. &#xD;&#xA;The other words allow for alternative pronunciation, either with or without palatalization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="b4c2e80c-b7e8-4f51-a854-ed741e23c085" CreationDate="2018-11-14T11:13:36.223" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** **MAY** occur in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to reduction of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to reduction of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to reduction of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) - this is conventional spelling, which can also have the form of **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;4а) also sing. **`вожжа`** - which can be pronounced as **`[вожжя]`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to reduction of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because the word is unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) be reduced to or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Дажжи`** (дожди) и **`падажжи`** (подожди) are different from the rest in this list in that palatalized pronunciation of **`[жж]`** in them is the **only** option. Their penultimate phoneme **`[д]`** is palatalized in the normative pronunciation due to **`[и]`**, so after its reduction to **`[ж]`** the palatalization is simply kept. &#xD;&#xA;The other words allow for alternative pronunciation, either with or without palatalization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17371" RevisionGUID="20aa8302-f6ff-4e93-8d0c-14758ca48f81" CreationDate="2018-11-14T16:00:54.390" UserId="7674" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="Субъективно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во фразе **`в последний раз`** есть коннотация приближающегося конца жизни, т.е. `в последний раз в жизни`, потому что больше уже не суждено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словосочетании **`последний раз`** без предлога такой коннотации нет.&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;**ОБНОВ.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В двух советских фильмах обратил внимание на использование фразы с предлогом &quot;**В**&quot; в том же значении, что и без предлога.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, думаю, что с предлогом &quot;**В**&quot; фраза может приобретать значение последнего раза навсегда, в то время как без него она может значить последний раз только по состоянию на нынешний момент или на определённый период." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="457201da-c382-412c-85df-490484928a32" CreationDate="2018-11-15T05:58:38.887" UserId="11055" Text="Why do we say на Фиджи / на Мальдивы / на Шри-Ланку but в Японию / в Ирландию / в Исландию?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the 6 countries are island countries. But Fiji, the Maldives and Sri Lanka are smaller than Japan, Ireland or Iceland (although the size of Iceland is almost the same as the one of Ireland). Does size matter when choosing the prepositions for an island country? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="457201da-c382-412c-85df-490484928a32" CreationDate="2018-11-15T05:58:38.887" UserId="11055" Text="Prepositions used with island countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="457201da-c382-412c-85df-490484928a32" CreationDate="2018-11-15T05:58:38.887" UserId="11055" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17495" RevisionGUID="574c6c5b-4db6-4925-aa1d-4acd869bd8d6" CreationDate="2018-11-15T06:07:57.020" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Why do we say на Фиджи / на Мальдивы / на Шри-Ланку but в Японию / в Ирландию / в Исландию?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the 6 countries are island countries. But Fiji, the Maldives and Sri Lanka are smaller than Japan, Ireland or Iceland (although the size of Iceland is almost the same as the one of Ireland). Does size matter when choosing the preposition for an island country? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="1723f4a8-9af1-442f-9c7b-70808cc86aa2" CreationDate="2018-11-15T07:57:21.500" UserId="134" Text="Being an island is something that encourages usage of _на_, but not sets it in stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_на_ is rarely (if ever) used with the names in _-ия/-ея_, so we use _в Новую Зеландию, в Японию, в Папуа — Новую Гвинею_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some regions are located on an island or an archipelago but are historically used with _в_: _в Сингапур, _в Доминикану_ (but _на Гаити_, even though the two share the same island)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, _на Гоа_ is widely used in Russian, even though it's not an island region, although many Russian speakers object to this usage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17497" RevisionGUID="0af40b4a-d8ef-45eb-9034-ca1fc47f2bd8" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:00:19.913" UserId="7674" Text="It may have to do with the presence of the ending **-ия** in the name, which precludes its association with an isle, perhaps because of gender discrepancy between the words **остров**&lt;sup&gt;*masc*&lt;/sup&gt; (which requires preposition **НА**) and those ending with **-ия**&lt;sup&gt;*fem*&lt;/sup&gt; (which tend to require preposition **В**),  also **В Британии**. However  **НА Сицилии** - so may be not or not in all cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17498" RevisionGUID="32a5d2d6-0f9c-4f04-9ce3-e28344a178b4" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:00:58.333" UserId="242" Text="Well, strictly speaking there's no such island as Japan, one say &quot;на Хоккайдо&quot; but &quot;в Японии&quot;. So there's no more mystery in that  in, say, &quot;на Бали&quot; ad opposed to &quot;в Индонезии&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;With Фиджи it's slightly more complicated. While there's no such island as well, the whole archipelago is called Fiji, so you can say &quot;в Фиджи&quot; when you refer to it as a country or &quot;на Фиджи&quot; when you think about it as a group of islands. In colloquial speech this is used quite often interchangeably.&#xA;&#xA;So, generally speaking when you refer to a destination as a state, you use &quot;в&quot; (like in &quot;в Шри-Ланке&quot;), you use &quot;на&quot; when you talk about an island (like in &quot;на Шри-Ланке&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;There are some notable exceptions though - Ирландия, Исландия, (and Великобритания by the way) are islands but &quot;на&quot;-firm is never used.&#xA;&#xA;Баян Купи-ка have a good point about all this exceptions ending on - &quot;-ия&quot;. This is a nice observation, however I can thing if places like &quot;Сицилия&quot; - one can easily say &quot;на Сицилии&quot;.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17499" RevisionGUID="72e0f048-df89-49a1-beb7-08187f72c6c6" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:16:07.927" UserId="11145" Text="&quot;Из дома вдруг вышла Даша - красивая девочка с огромными белыми бантами и в зеленом платье, из которого она тоже уже, по-моему,выросла.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скажите пожалуйста,как понимать выражение &quot;из платья выросла девочка&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;это имеется в виду, что платье старое. Оно уже маленькое для нее. Или тут еще другие значения. Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45641" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17499" RevisionGUID="72e0f048-df89-49a1-beb7-08187f72c6c6" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:16:07.927" UserId="11145" Text="что значит &quot;Из платья выросла девочка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45642" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17499" RevisionGUID="72e0f048-df89-49a1-beb7-08187f72c6c6" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:16:07.927" UserId="11145" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17500" RevisionGUID="e8c763d4-2d67-450a-b225-a4e193f54068" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:35:01.703" UserId="11055" Text="Это значит, что платье уже не по ней, то есть Даша уже великовата для него. Тут скорее всего имеется ввиду, что платье уже не подходит по **размеру**. Но, возможно, самое платье слишком детское (по **дизайну**). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17496" RevisionGUID="1bb7e846-41d0-48a7-bc18-edc056f0166e" CreationDate="2018-11-15T08:42:23.640" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Being an island is something that encourages usage of _на_, but not sets it in stone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_на_ is rarely (if ever) used with the names in _-ия/-ея_, so we use _в Новую Зеландию, в Японию, в Папуа — Новую Гвинею_ etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some regions are located on an island or an archipelago but are historically used with _в_: _в Сингапур, в Доминикану_ (but _на Гаити_, even though the two share the same island)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, _на Гоа_ is widely used in Russian, even though it's not an island region, although many Russian speakers object to this usage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17498" RevisionGUID="834488f9-c967-4d90-a668-08cf840bb401" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:02:22.603" UserId="242" Comment="it turns out that in commment provided there already was mentioned the counterexample I'm referring to" Text="Well, strictly speaking there's no such island as Japan, one say &quot;на Хоккайдо&quot; but &quot;в Японии&quot;. So there's no more mystery in that  in, say, &quot;на Бали&quot; ad opposed to &quot;в Индонезии&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Фиджи it's slightly more complicated. While there's no such island as well, the whole archipelago is called Fiji, so you can say &quot;в Фиджи&quot; when you refer to it as a country or &quot;на Фиджи&quot; when you think about it as a group of islands. In colloquial speech this is used quite often interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, generally speaking when you refer to a destination as a state, you use &quot;в&quot; (like in &quot;в Шри-Ланке&quot;), you use &quot;на&quot; when you talk about an island (like in &quot;на Шри-Ланке&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some notable exceptions though - Ирландия, Исландия, (and Великобритания by the way) are islands but &quot;на&quot;-firm is never used. This exceptions are important and the only thing can be done - is to memorize them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17501" RevisionGUID="73ded1c8-389b-41f9-a08d-ed6cd5517f36" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:26:40.577" UserId="2442" Text="It is a pun (каламбур), actually: выйти из дома means literally &quot;leave home&quot;, and вырасти из платья means that the dress is too small for her. As both phrases have totally different sense but common structure (verb + preposition из meaning from, or out of, + noun in genitive case), a comical/pun effect is reached here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="e541931f-5396-44da-a9e5-14f12ddc9855" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:46:44.893" UserId="10271" Text="Are they just interchangeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="e541931f-5396-44da-a9e5-14f12ddc9855" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:46:44.893" UserId="10271" Text="What's the difference between говорить по-английски and говорить на английском?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17502" RevisionGUID="e541931f-5396-44da-a9e5-14f12ddc9855" CreationDate="2018-11-15T10:46:44.893" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17503" RevisionGUID="0fc1fc6c-736d-4865-bcfe-937b9dbc63fc" CreationDate="2018-11-15T11:14:02.620" UserId="11055" Text="Generally speaking, they are interchangeable. However, sometimes `по-ангийски` sounds a bit more natural than `на английском`. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы говорите по-английски? (Do you speak English?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, `по-английски` is usually used when we talk about somebody's ability to use the language. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы говорит на английском? - Нет, я говорю на немецком. *(In this situation the person who is asking the question is not sure whether it's English he/she hears, so he/she is making sure it's really English. Note that if you say Вы говорите по-английски? instead, it should be fine too, since the context makes the situation quite clear)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста не перебивайте меня, когда я говорю на английском. Я могу сбиться. *(Again, it's quite possible to say когда я говорю по-английски instead)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**: When you mean someone's general ability to speak, use `по-английски`, not `на английском`. When you mean something else, the two phrases seem to be interchangeable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Текст написан на английсом *или* текст написан по-английски *(though на английском sounds just a bit better to me personally; it sounds a bit more professional, I would say)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он говорит по-английски (*или* на английском) , всё понятно - у него очень хорошее произношение. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17500" RevisionGUID="a9652430-6d09-4588-900f-466be677a335" CreationDate="2018-11-15T11:19:21.953" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Это значит, что платье уже не по ней, то есть Даша уже великовата для него. Тут скорее всего имеется ввиду, что платье уже не подходит по **размеру**. Но, возможно, само платье слишком детское (по **дизайну**). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17503" RevisionGUID="c9df4c39-8ea4-4bdc-b805-bbeabda4f33b" CreationDate="2018-11-15T11:52:24.727" UserId="11055" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Generally speaking, they are interchangeable. However, sometimes `по-ангийски` sounds a bit more natural than `на английском`. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы говорите по-английски? (Do you speak English?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`По-английски` is **usually** used when we talk about somebody's ability to use the language. It's not that `Вы говорите на английсокм (языке)` is wrong. If fact it's not. But `по-английски` is shorter, and definitely more common when asking someone if they speak English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы говорит на английском? Я что-то не понял. - Нет, я говорю на немецком. *(In this situation the person who is asking the question is not sure whether it's English he hears, so he is making sure it's really English. Note that if you say Вы говорите по-английски? instead, it should be fine too, since the context makes the situation clear)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста не перебивайте меня, когда я говорю на английском. Я могу сбиться. *(Again, it's quite possible to say когда я говорю по-английски instead)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**: When you mean someone's general ability to speak, you may want to use `по-английски`, not `на английском`. When you mean something else, the two phrases seem to be interchangeable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Текст написан на английсом *или* текст написан по-английски *(though на английском sounds just a bit better to me personally; it sounds a bit more professional, I would say)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он говорит по-английски (*или* на английском) , всё понятно - у него очень хорошее произношение. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17504" RevisionGUID="d00a5bfc-7b72-47d7-a7fa-2935575b518d" CreationDate="2018-11-15T13:40:36.613" UserId="11080" Text="Мы не говорим &quot;из платья выросла девочка&quot;, мы говорим &quot;девочка выросла из платья&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Первое бы значило, что было платье, а потом из него, как растение их семечки, выросла девочка, а второе - что девочка стала больше, а платье осталось маленьким, и теперь оно ей мало. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точно так же дети вырастают из штанишек, любой другой одежды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -Чудеса! - сказала Люба.-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шуба длинная была,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сундуке лежала шуба,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стала шуба мне мала. (Агния Барто, 1969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналогично мы вырастаем из чего-то в переносном смысле. &quot;Мы уже выросли из поверхностного подхода к бизнесу&quot; - означает, что раньше мы практиковали поверхностный подход, но сейчас мы сильно продвинулись, и больше так не делаем. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17505" RevisionGUID="942cfbc7-d978-47c3-a658-a42a7c27aab8" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:36:03.697" UserId="10271" Text="с глазу на глаз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think глазу is in genitive. Is глазу́ in locative and with an accent in the last syllable, although с is usually combined with genitive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17505" RevisionGUID="942cfbc7-d978-47c3-a658-a42a7c27aab8" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:36:03.697" UserId="10271" Text="Is глазу in locative in с глазу на глаз?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17505" RevisionGUID="942cfbc7-d978-47c3-a658-a42a7c27aab8" CreationDate="2018-11-15T17:36:03.697" UserId="10271" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17506" RevisionGUID="f2267a8f-e0be-432c-992b-b3c1cceab5d8" CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:09:16.367" UserId="2104" Text="It actually *is* genitive and the stress is on the first syllable: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* с гла́зу на́ глаз&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17506" RevisionGUID="27cd4a78-9b9d-4201-950c-9fadb3ff9f07" CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:27:44.293" UserId="2104" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="It actually *is* genitive and the stress is on the first syllable: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* с гла́зу на́ глаз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive ending -у is retained in quite a few set expressions such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* бе́з толку, и́з лесу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed prepositions and particles are also signs of a well-established expression or just a frequently-used collocation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* бе́з году неде́ля, встать на́ ноги, взять за́ руку, не́ за что, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17506" RevisionGUID="907de2bd-c6fc-460b-b1bd-bdc6f9054631" CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:38:54.527" UserId="2104" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="It actually *is* genitive and the stress is on the first syllable: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* с гла́зу на́ глаз&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The genitive ending -у is retained in quite a few set expressions such as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* бе́з толк**у**, и́з лес**у**, не зна́я бро́д**у** не су́йся в во́ду&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stressed prepositions and particles are also signs of a well-established expression or just a frequently-used collocation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* бе́з году неде́ля, встать на́ ноги, взять за́ руку, не́ за что, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45661" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17505" RevisionGUID="0ed6c68d-3a29-4c02-8d64-ac0442175ecc" CreationDate="2018-11-16T11:11:11.910" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Is глазу in locative in &quot;с глазу на глаз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17371" RevisionGUID="04f28ee1-81e8-40c1-8626-061a1b4d7b65" CreationDate="2018-11-16T12:34:17.337" UserId="7674" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Субъективно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во фразе **`в последний раз`** есть коннотация приближающегося конца жизни, т.е. `в последний раз в жизни`, потому что больше уже не суждено.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В словосочетании **`последний раз`** без предлога такой коннотации нет.&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;**ОБНОВ.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В двух советских фильмах обратил внимание на использование фразы с предлогом &quot;**В**&quot; в том же значении, что и без предлога.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тем не менее, думаю, что с предлогом &quot;**В**&quot; фраза может приобретать значение последнего раза навсегда, в то время как без него она может значить последний раз только по состоянию на нынешний момент или на определённый период.&#xD;&#xA;Но в вопросительном предложении такая разница не наблюдается." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="8c50d48e-4e76-46ff-941a-b0de9e1e76fa" CreationDate="2018-11-16T15:44:26.470" UserId="11209" Text="is there a russian equivalent to that idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="8c50d48e-4e76-46ff-941a-b0de9e1e76fa" CreationDate="2018-11-16T15:44:26.470" UserId="11209" Text="Equivalent of &quot;One man's trash is another man's treasure&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45665" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="8c50d48e-4e76-46ff-941a-b0de9e1e76fa" CreationDate="2018-11-16T15:44:26.470" UserId="11209" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="d4b7cb54-62c0-4f89-be76-e509400defe2" CreationDate="2018-11-16T17:24:04.330" UserId="11209" Comment="clarification and example" Text="is there a russian equivalent to that idiom?&#xA;&#xA;Edit:&#xA;The meaning is not literal but, typically, a commentary on how there is no judging for taste — what one person may think is worthless may be cherished by another.&#xA;&#xA;For example, someone might want to throw out their old clothes, which are trash to them, but another person might want those clothes, e.g. for arts and craft. those clothes are therefore treasure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="d57586f1-f3ee-4ca7-aa40-d06aa89b984d" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:18:42.790" UserId="7674" Text="Can't think of anything having quite that meaning but by way of extrapolation the following might work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кому война, а кому мать родна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that someone's misfortunes are someone else's luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=One+man%27s+trash+is+another+man%27s+treasure) doesn't give any natively Russian equivalents either aside from another extrapolated proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что русскому хорошо, (то) немцу смерть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still if all else fails literal translation will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что для одного - (му)сор, (то) для другого - клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Одному мусор - другому клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Кому мусор, а кому клад/сокровище**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for lulz the version of Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мусор одного человека - это еще одно мужское сокровище**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="952c9db4-5b7b-46ce-be7c-d3da82b8a6f9" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:27:18.363" UserId="7674" Comment="added 201 characters in body" Text="Can't think of anything having quite that meaning but by way of extrapolation the following might work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кому война, а кому мать родна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that someone's misfortunes are someone else's luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=One+man%27s+trash+is+another+man%27s+treasure) doesn't give any natively Russian equivalents either aside from another extrapolated proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что русскому хорошо, (то) немцу смерть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are based on contrast like the English one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still if all else fails literal translation will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что для одного - (му)сор, (то) для другого - клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Одному мусор - другому клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Кому мусор, а кому клад/сокровище**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we may make it sound like a Russian proverb since many of them rhyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что одному не надо, тому другие рады**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and license it under CC0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for lulz the version of Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мусор одного человека - это еще одно мужское сокровище**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="14d894b8-b25e-4c4d-8487-8108cc687ce8" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:33:57.317" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Can't think of anything having quite that meaning but by way of extrapolation the following might work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кому война, а кому мать родна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that someone's misfortunes are someone else's luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=One+man%27s+trash+is+another+man%27s+treasure) doesn't give any natively Russian equivalents either aside from another extrapolated proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что русскому хорошо, (то) немцу смерть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are based on contrast like the English one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still if all else fails literal translation will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что для одного - (му)сор, (то) для другого - клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Одному мусор - другому клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Кому мусор, а кому клад/сокровище**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we may make it sound like a proverb since many of them rhyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что одному не надо, тому другие рады**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and license it under CC0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for lulz the version of Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мусор одного человека - это еще одно мужское сокровище**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="61ecb9e3-b630-4430-9cf1-28dc77edd458" CreationDate="2018-11-16T18:44:00.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Can't think of anything having quite that meaning but by way of extrapolation the following might work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кому война, а кому мать родна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that someone's misfortunes are someone else's luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=One+man%27s+trash+is+another+man%27s+treasure) doesn't give any natively Russian equivalents either aside from another extrapolated proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что русскому хорошо, (то) немцу смерть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are based on contrast in experience like the English one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still if all else fails literal translation will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что для одного - (му)сор, (то) для другого - клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Одному мусор - другому клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Кому мусор, а кому клад/сокровище**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we may make it sound like a proverb since many of them rhyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что одному не надо, тому другие рады**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and license it under CC0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for lulz the version of Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мусор одного человека - это еще одно мужское сокровище**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="52cacdd0-2d87-4094-bb6f-2095bf10d045" CreationDate="2018-11-16T19:43:55.320" UserId="7674" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Can't think of anything having quite that meaning but by way of extrapolation the following might work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кому война, а кому мать родна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that someone's misfortunes are someone else's luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=One+man%27s+trash+is+another+man%27s+treasure) doesn't give any natively Russian equivalents either aside from another extrapolated proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что русскому хорошо, (то) немцу смерть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are based on contrast in experience like the English one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still if all else fails literal translation will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что для одного - (му)сор, (то) для другого - клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Одному (му)сор - другому клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Кому (му)сор, а кому (и) клад/сокровище**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we may make it sound like a proverb since many of them rhyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что одному не надо, тому другие рады**  &#xD;&#xA;**Что одному не надо, то другим - награда**  &#xD;&#xA;**Что мне не надо, то тебе - награда**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне не надо, а тебе - награда**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and license it under CC0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for lulz the version of Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мусор одного человека - это еще одно мужское сокровище**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17509" RevisionGUID="c97ee37a-97c4-4857-ae8d-ecdb0a07a5e0" CreationDate="2018-11-17T07:32:39.097" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Can't think of anything having quite that meaning but by way of extrapolation the following might work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кому война, а кому мать родна**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means that someone's misfortunes are someone else's luck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Multitran](https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?l1=1&amp;l2=2&amp;s=One+man%27s+trash+is+another+man%27s+treasure) doesn't give any natively Russian equivalents either aside from another extrapolated proverb&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что русскому хорошо, (то) немцу смерть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are based on contrast in experience like the English one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still if all else fails literal translation will do&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что для одного - (му)сор, (то) для другого - клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Одному (му)сор - другому клад/сокровище**  &#xD;&#xA;**Кому (му)сор, а кому (и) клад/сокровище**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we may try to make it sound like a proverb since many of them rhyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Что одним не надо, тому другие рады**  &#xD;&#xA;**Что одним не надо, то другим - награда**  &#xD;&#xA;**Что тебе не надо, то мне - награда**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Тебе не надо, а мне - награда**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and license it under CC0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for lulz the version of Google Translate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мусор одного человека - это еще одно мужское сокровище**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17499" RevisionGUID="17fb3c15-1407-436a-9632-62427475af3a" CreationDate="2018-11-17T12:00:09.637" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1063763721108054016" />
  <row Id="45675" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17505" RevisionGUID="6922a0f7-53c2-421b-a77b-82a1877eb6df" CreationDate="2018-11-18T06:00:25.917" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1064035580294676480" />
  <row Id="45681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17511" RevisionGUID="05fd2d49-2cc8-4c00-92d1-3a8f10258ea5" CreationDate="2018-11-19T01:43:28.353" UserId="4803" Text="Another version which I think is canonical translation is &quot;**На вкус и цвет товарища нет**&quot;. It is translates to: &quot;You can't find a friend judging by someones preferences in taste and color&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a humorous version: &quot;**На вкус и цвет все фломастеры разные**&quot;. Translation: &quot;Judging by taste and color all felt-tip pen are different&quot;. Not sure about &quot;felt-tip pen&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="5d009c6a-2731-46ca-8474-63e3bdf42536" CreationDate="2018-11-19T16:54:32.213" UserId="10903" Text="Встретил поговорку в словаре Даля «Пословицы русского народа»: `Старики хилеют, молодые пореют.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В толковом же словаре Даля есть толкование глаголу &quot;Пореть&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;`ПОРЕТЬ, см. парить, пора.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так что же означает это слово, корректно ли его так приводить и откуда вообще идут его корни?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="5d009c6a-2731-46ca-8474-63e3bdf42536" CreationDate="2018-11-19T16:54:32.213" UserId="10903" Text="Архаичное слово `пореть`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="5d009c6a-2731-46ca-8474-63e3bdf42536" CreationDate="2018-11-19T16:54:32.213" UserId="10903" Text="|значения|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17513" RevisionGUID="ea1e14d7-d1d4-4c0b-b159-03482b1c3b62" CreationDate="2018-11-19T17:50:17.903" UserId="5605" Text="***Пореют (пореть)*** -- устаревшее слово. Оно означает ***взрослеть, мужать, крепчать, входить в пору***. https://obrazovaka.ru/proverochnoe-slovo/pora.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45687" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17512" RevisionGUID="d2ddd5e1-9798-49c9-88b3-5145763e4f08" CreationDate="2018-11-20T11:00:24.957" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Архаичное слово &quot;пореть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17513" RevisionGUID="9079345e-f547-4d97-9d46-2c60a9b3faeb" CreationDate="2018-11-20T11:25:14.370" UserId="5605" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="***Пореют (пореть)*** -- устаревшее слово. Оно означает ***взрослеть, мужать, крепчать, входить в пору***. Этимологически слово ***пореть*** берет свое начало от слова ***переть*** в значении давить. Напор, отпор. ***Порый*** – в старину здоровый, крепкий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подробнее: https://obrazovaka.ru/proverochnoe-slovo/pora.html#ixzz5XORsVtl3 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17486" RevisionGUID="228d579e-bca7-485a-9dca-6ff4f3e2c734" CreationDate="2018-11-20T15:00:35.820" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1064896293007437830" />
  <row Id="45691" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17144" RevisionGUID="36db2b46-e755-4f26-89eb-76fb4ed5fa0a" CreationDate="2018-11-20T15:01:50.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45692" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17062" RevisionGUID="41d7910f-9ac0-469a-8def-a45ad833826f" CreationDate="2018-11-20T16:03:15.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="45693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="50802b22-0a13-4dbd-a239-f9e5976ad401" CreationDate="2018-11-20T17:21:08.220" UserId="10903" Text="As written in the [Словарь церковнославянского и русского языка (1847)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Намылить шею*, значит поколотить по шее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it follows that the meaning of expression `Намылить шею` (`to soap the neck`) was initially “beat on the neck someone”, and then transformed into a simple “beat up someone”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;It's very interesting that from the same dictionary we've got.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Намылить кому либо голову*, значит сделать выговоръ. *“За чужую вину мне намылили голову.”*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Намылить голову` (`to soap the head`) also has a negative color, but in this case had different meaning similar to english idiom “rake over the coals“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=391EAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17514" RevisionGUID="0a2af1be-5132-4a61-af04-43bee5997801" CreationDate="2018-11-20T17:28:51.523" UserId="10903" Comment="correct inaccuracies" Text="As written in the [Словарь церковнославянского и русского языка (1847)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Намылить шею*, значит поколотить по шее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it follows that the meaning of expression `Намылить шею` (`to apply soap on a neck`) was initially “beat on the neck someone”, and then transformed into a simple “beat up someone”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;It's very interesting that from the same dictionary we've got.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Намылить кому либо голову*, значит сделать выговоръ. *“За чужую вину мне намылили голову.”*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Намылить голову` (literally `to apply soap on a head`) also has a negative color, but in this case had different meaning similar to english idiom “rake over the coals“&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ru/books?id=391EAAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="9bd180e9-be86-40d0-a01a-1ead72879b1d" CreationDate="2018-11-20T18:41:19.900" UserId="11021" Text="I have listened to it about a thousand times and i still cannot get it , зелёный &#xA;&#xA;Is it like this zyelyoный? I can say the end but is the beginning right, thank you  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="9bd180e9-be86-40d0-a01a-1ead72879b1d" CreationDate="2018-11-20T18:41:19.900" UserId="11021" Text="Pronunciation of зелёный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17515" RevisionGUID="9bd180e9-be86-40d0-a01a-1ead72879b1d" CreationDate="2018-11-20T18:41:19.900" UserId="11021" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17516" RevisionGUID="3269a5a3-a878-47c9-ac2a-da5918fe832f" CreationDate="2018-11-20T19:26:31.627" UserId="7674" Text="Yes, but avoid the hard connection in the **zye** and **lyo**, the phoneme **[y]** should not create a barrier between the adjacent sounds, instead it must smoothly connect them so the 1st flows into the 3d. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also mind you that due to reduction in an unstressed position **зе-** should be pronounced as **зи-**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would transcribe them as **zee** and **lio** or better yet, with the view of the English pronunciation as **leo** -&gt; **zeeleoniy**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17518" RevisionGUID="dd3f8b68-59ac-486f-8554-6f67fd271494" CreationDate="2018-11-20T23:33:27.540" UserId="11021" Text="The rule is е sounds like ye after a vowel, does the  е[ye] have to be right in front of the vowel to sound like [ye] or can it be anywhere behind e throughout the word? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17518" RevisionGUID="dd3f8b68-59ac-486f-8554-6f67fd271494" CreationDate="2018-11-20T23:33:27.540" UserId="11021" Text="Rule of е after a vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17518" RevisionGUID="dd3f8b68-59ac-486f-8554-6f67fd271494" CreationDate="2018-11-20T23:33:27.540" UserId="11021" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17519" RevisionGUID="d6751aed-ae2f-46f5-8838-423ace0bc9e2" CreationDate="2018-11-21T00:07:45.353" UserId="11055" Text="You are right. If `e` is preceded by a vowel, it is read as `je`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мо**е**т, стира**е**т, убира**е**т, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also read `e` as `je` if a words starts with the letter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **е**нот, **е**щё, **е**сли, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `e` is preceded by `ъ`, we shall read it as `je` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъ**е**зд, съ**е**зд, въ**е**зд, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="a1925ae6-3b09-4c7d-b8ed-32ae72fc3c12" CreationDate="2018-11-21T11:36:00.993" UserId="11033" Text="The lack of the inflection of the verb to be in the present tense makes me confused sometimes. How would one say &quot;I know what I am&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="a1925ae6-3b09-4c7d-b8ed-32ae72fc3c12" CreationDate="2018-11-21T11:36:00.993" UserId="11033" Text="How do I say &quot;I know what I am&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="a1925ae6-3b09-4c7d-b8ed-32ae72fc3c12" CreationDate="2018-11-21T11:36:00.993" UserId="11033" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17522" RevisionGUID="a59869e3-07f0-4752-9273-2a370c093814" CreationDate="2018-11-21T11:52:13.020" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; **Я знаю, чтО/кто я есть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjugation in the Present tense is dead simple - **есть** is the only form. It can be replaced with **являться** which does conjugate according to grammatical person like any standard verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it can be translated also as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я знаю, кем я являюсь**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous expression without the verb **to be** is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я знаю, кто я такой**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17519" RevisionGUID="42ce3f80-a88f-4925-99f9-731898d012a6" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:23:03.343" UserId="7547" Comment="Soft sign follows the same rule as a hard sign here" Text="You are right. If `e` is preceded by a vowel, it is read as `je`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мо**е**т, стира**е**т, убира**е**т, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also read `e` as `je` if a words starts with the letter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **е**нот, **е**щё, **е**сли, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `e` is preceded by `ъ` or `ь`, we shall read it as `je` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъ**е**зд, съ**е**зд, въ**е**зд, варень**е**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45718" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17519" RevisionGUID="42ce3f80-a88f-4925-99f9-731898d012a6" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:23:03.343" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 5605, 11055 edit id of 1000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17518" RevisionGUID="86069c09-e0f4-4668-8d09-3f135e786935" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:32:42.380" UserId="6097" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="The rule is &quot;е&quot; sounds like &quot;ye&quot; after a vowel, does the  е[ye] have to be right in front of the vowel to sound like [ye] or can it be anywhere behind &quot;e&quot; throughout the word? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17518" RevisionGUID="86069c09-e0f4-4668-8d09-3f135e786935" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:32:42.380" UserId="6097" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Rule of &quot;е&quot; after a vowel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17524" RevisionGUID="dba33921-e5e9-4bfd-8015-f896b6017337" CreationDate="2018-11-21T18:00:13.893" UserId="2104" Text="Better put it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If `е` immediately follows a consonant, no [j] is added: `привет, тебе, же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Otherwise it gets a [j] sound in front of it: `ел, поел, съел, колье`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have both 1 and 2 type `е`: `еле, веер`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same rule applies to `я, ё, ю`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minimal pairs to practise the distinction: `сел/съел` (sat/ate), `полёт/польёт` (flight/will pour), `полю/полью` (I weed/I will water), `чего/чьего` (what/whose), перо/Пьеро (feather/Pierrot).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17524" RevisionGUID="0a727ad6-fed8-41ce-8eec-deb66c25a388" CreationDate="2018-11-21T18:51:28.733" UserId="2104" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Better put it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If `е` immediately follows a consonant, no [j] is added: `привет, тебе, же`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Otherwise it gets a [j] sound in front of it: `ел, поел, съел, колье`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have both type 1 and type 2 `е`: `еле, веер, белеет, змееед`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same rule applies to `я, ё, ю`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minimal pairs to practise the distinction: `сел/съел` (sat/ate), `полёт/польёт` (flight/will pour), `полю/полью` (I weed/I will water), `чего/чьего` (what/whose), перо/Пьеро (feather/Pierrot).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17519" RevisionGUID="01707f9f-eb7d-4181-8e39-17a2b9bf53df" CreationDate="2018-11-21T23:06:44.553" UserId="11055" Comment="added 453 characters in body" Text="You are right. If `e` is preceded by a vowel, it is read as `je`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мо**е**т, стира**е**т, убира**е**т, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also read `e` as `je` if a words starts with the letter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **е**нот, **е**щё, **е**сли, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `e` is preceded by `ъ` or `ь`, we shall read it as `je` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъ**е**зд, съ**е**зд, въ**е**зд, варень**е**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in words like `моeт` `e` is often reduced to `и` (`моит`), and words like `ещё` (see the second rule above) may be read as `йищё` (`если` will always be `jesl'i` since `e` is stressed). The reason is it's just simpler to pronounce the words like that. Technically, if you read `e` as `je` in those words, you'll be right, and no one will ever correct you. Many people will not even catch the difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17519" RevisionGUID="2d66f3e4-52fa-40a0-baf6-6da3ad5271f5" CreationDate="2018-11-21T23:14:03.363" UserId="11055" Comment="added 453 characters in body" Text="You are right. If `e` is preceded by a vowel, it is read as `je`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мо**е**т, стира**е**т, убира**е**т, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also read `e` as `je` if a words starts with the letter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **е**нот, **е**щё, **е**сли, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If `e` is preceded by `ъ` or `ь`, we shall read it as `je` as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подъ**е**зд, съ**е**зд, въ**е**зд, варень**е**, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in words like `моeт` `e` is often reduced to `и` (`моит`), and words like `ещё` (see the second rule above) may be read as `йищё` (`если` will always be `jesl'i` since `e` is stressed). The reason is it's just simpler to pronounce the words like that. Technically, if you read `e` as `je` in those words, you'll be right, and no one will ever correct you. Many people will not even catch the difference. Anyway, it's important to note the reduction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17525" RevisionGUID="2389621b-e376-4af0-abd1-0b344a83b515" CreationDate="2018-11-22T17:03:22.093" UserId="11021" Text="I thought that ё was always stressed, but in the word жёлтый its pronounced ZHOL-tiy, if this is right then when  is ё unstressed? Is it because of palatalization? Thank you in advance " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17525" RevisionGUID="2389621b-e376-4af0-abd1-0b344a83b515" CreationDate="2018-11-22T17:03:22.093" UserId="11021" Text="Pronunciation of жёлтый" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17525" RevisionGUID="2389621b-e376-4af0-abd1-0b344a83b515" CreationDate="2018-11-22T17:03:22.093" UserId="11021" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17526" RevisionGUID="f8ef096e-e898-4c57-9702-11985f3c8fbd" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:41:25.087" UserId="242" Text="Жёлтый is pronounced as [жолтый], so `ё` here stands for `o`.  The reason why it is the case is actually that `ё` wherever right after consonant just indicates that that particular consonant is palatalized. In some cases this give an illusion that `ё` is a sound sort of similar to the german `ö` - this happens for instance in `тёмный`. However, it's not the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But `ж` in modern Russian is never softened, so words like `жёлтый`, `жёлудь` are pronounced as `жо-` - and there's no even slightest trace of ö-illusion one might get with soft consonants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And actually in this case `ё` is stressed - almost like always except some foreign words like `сёрфинги́сты` and some very exotic exceptions in compound words like `четырёхчастный`, `трёхчастный` etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45734" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17525" RevisionGUID="bb1e4e1a-5884-469a-abe9-f4ecf7f74e2f" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:43:39.267" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Pronunciation of &quot;жёлтый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17526" RevisionGUID="909d1ac5-fffb-46b5-87a9-f7dcb651d0b1" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:47:22.290" UserId="242" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Жёлтый is pronounced as [жолтый], so `ё` here stands for `o`.  The reason why it is the case is actually that `ё` wherever right after consonant just indicates that that particular consonant is palatalized. In some cases this give an illusion that `ё` is a sound sort of similar to the german `ö` - this happens for instance in `тёмный`. However, it's not the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But `ж` in modern Russian is never softened, so words like `жёлтый`, `жёлудь`, `жёваный`, `жёсткий`, `жёны` are pronounced as `жо-` - and there's no even slightest trace of ö-illusion one might get with soft consonants. By the way, same story with `ш`, so `шёпот` is actually pronounced `шопот`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And actually in this case `ё` is stressed - almost like always except some foreign words like `сёрфинги́сты` and some very exotic exceptions in compound words like `четырёхчастный`, `трёхчастный` etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17521" RevisionGUID="f0f5efa2-5f2b-42b2-85b3-8b46c5537b1a" CreationDate="2018-11-23T00:00:36.550" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1065756967266848768" />
  <row Id="45741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="f3dfce62-d614-4e6f-9f51-8868fcecdacf" CreationDate="2018-11-23T00:03:42.463" UserId="11021" Text="It is not proceeded by a vowel, why is it nyervный, i checked on ru wikipedia its nyervный" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="f3dfce62-d614-4e6f-9f51-8868fcecdacf" CreationDate="2018-11-23T00:03:42.463" UserId="11021" Text="Pronunciation of “нервный”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="f3dfce62-d614-4e6f-9f51-8868fcecdacf" CreationDate="2018-11-23T00:03:42.463" UserId="11021" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17528" RevisionGUID="0db8ac9d-b65c-4d33-b2eb-e577706af147" CreationDate="2018-11-23T01:28:11.467" UserId="11021" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="It is not proceeded by a vowel, why is it nyervный, i checked on ru wikipedia its nyervный&#xA;I really still dont understand the rules of e[je] im so confused " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17529" RevisionGUID="cf1fc360-3db7-40d1-b108-195b7db07cad" CreationDate="2018-11-23T06:26:23.007" UserId="11056" Text="I think you should mention your goal in your post.   For instance, if you would like to read something with stress marks, there are plenty of texts available for you--should you be adept at combing through the internet and resources published by Russians for foreigners, or even for children.   If you would like to mark something up with stress marks, then this brings me to my third concern.   If you are worried about missing the stress marks since you are still developing your Russian, then you may want to consider the fact that this problem will hammer itself out with time, and not just through reading--you may need to include a triangulated strategy of listening to things, a chart you make or have of some of the unexpected shifts in stress/accent (or one you've found), and a text along the same level where these words will likely appear.   However, if you feel like your Russian is on a nice level where you more or less know the stress marks, and are still anxious about a few exceptions, it's time to take off the training wheels and ride with the big boys.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17530" RevisionGUID="b5d8a5cc-496d-47f3-8b5b-12afb8fa8c06" CreationDate="2018-11-23T06:46:58.317" UserId="1274" Text="It is pronounced without `j`, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- there is no vowel or `ъ`/`ь` before `е`,&#xD;&#xA;- it does not start a word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consonant before becomes soft, `н'`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please also refer to the [other](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/17519/1274) answer.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45751" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="27c75406-e42c-4c16-b88f-c31ef7cad5e3" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:19:58.690" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45752" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="a1d4fd8c-4be2-4af6-b955-b4d23f4bce07" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:19:58.690" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45753" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="5dfb2061-41a4-406f-9a5a-7baa66d2d225" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:19:58.690" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45754" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="d882aa17-2708-4a6a-9648-61d149dc4b71" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:19:58.690" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45755" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="8702956e-e92e-43e6-b499-9a6bd8fc6473" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:19:58.690" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45757" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="17529" RevisionGUID="8a22b83e-9dd1-4f5c-856b-0c90987e53fb" CreationDate="2018-11-23T11:19:58.690" UserId="242" />
  <row Id="45759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17532" RevisionGUID="f0de77bb-8d5e-428a-bc7f-a931d6e3c81b" CreationDate="2018-11-23T16:36:15.897" UserId="7985" Text="Где подлежащее и где сказуемое в предложении ***&quot;Жить -- родине служить&quot;***? Мне этот вопрос задала иностранная студентка, и я растерялся (я не филолог)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17532" RevisionGUID="f0de77bb-8d5e-428a-bc7f-a931d6e3c81b" CreationDate="2018-11-23T16:36:15.897" UserId="7985" Text="&quot;Жить -- родине служить&quot;. Где здесь подлежащее?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17532" RevisionGUID="f0de77bb-8d5e-428a-bc7f-a931d6e3c81b" CreationDate="2018-11-23T16:36:15.897" UserId="7985" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17533" RevisionGUID="0f13c3fe-654b-46ce-b26d-9e5bb101e007" CreationDate="2018-11-23T17:27:14.700" UserId="134" Text="The subject is _жить_, and there is no verb in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _значит_ is an assumed but not explicitly expressed verb here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17478" RevisionGUID="acc78d3d-8c8e-423a-9c92-9e34e9e64323" CreationDate="2018-11-23T18:00:39.157" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1066028769016729601" />
  <row Id="45764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17534" RevisionGUID="04c148b0-5695-4863-824e-11dedfe4991b" CreationDate="2018-11-23T18:10:57.927" UserId="2104" Text="Подлежащее – &quot;Жить&quot;, сказуемое – &quot;родине служить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Та же структура в предложении &quot;Понять – значит простить&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аналог в английском:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;― Oscar Wilde" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17533" RevisionGUID="e12805e1-5292-43f9-b943-bc17a897308a" CreationDate="2018-11-23T19:09:54.377" UserId="134" Comment="added 1074 characters in body" Text="The subject is _жить_, and there is no verb in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word _значит_ is an assumed but not explicitly expressed verb here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that the Russian linguistic term *сказуемое* is usually conveyed in English as &quot;predicate&quot;, however it's more strict than the English term. It only applies to the grammatical role in a sentence, not the semantic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me quote an article from the Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В языкознании для некоторых языков (в западноевропейских терминологических систе­мах) термин «предикат» был использован при обозначении состава предложения, соответ­ству­ю­ще­го сообщаемому, а также «ядерного» компонента этого состава (англ. *predicate*, франц. *prédicat*, исп. *predicado*, итал. *predicato*). Для других языков (например, славянских) этот термин был заменен калькой «сказуемое», что позволило избежать термино­ло­ги­че­ско­го смешения логических и грамматических категорий, но не исключён из лингвистического обихода. С термином «сказуемое» ассоциируется прежде всего формаль­ный аспект этого члена предложения, с термином «предикат» — его содержательный аспект.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your sentence, *родине служить* is a predicate but not a (grammatical) verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17535" RevisionGUID="44a010fe-9d25-461a-a257-5d129e03527e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T23:37:32.307" UserId="10602" Text="I stumble over this one a lot and sort of puts me off a bit. &quot;Я был адвокат&quot;, &quot;Петруччо был почтмейстер&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;I guess this can be also applied to adjectives like &quot;Я была красивая&quot; or &quot;Я была красивой&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;For some reason I always thought that it should be &quot;Я был адвокатом&quot;, &quot;Петруччо был почтмейстером&quot; and &quot;Я была красивой&quot; - but I could be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a relevant rule?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17535" RevisionGUID="44a010fe-9d25-461a-a257-5d129e03527e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T23:37:32.307" UserId="10602" Text="What is correct form - &quot;Был кто&quot; или &quot;Был кем&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17535" RevisionGUID="44a010fe-9d25-461a-a257-5d129e03527e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T23:37:32.307" UserId="10602" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17536" RevisionGUID="43f6ec2d-1564-4775-bb38-d7bf57d16138" CreationDate="2018-11-24T03:05:19.437" UserId="11055" Text="It's correct to say `быть кем-то/быть чем-то`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он хочет **быть** *учителем*. (**not** он хочет быть *учитель*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она *красивая* BUT Она **была** *красивой*. (Она была *красивая* can sometimes be heard but it's less correct than она была *красивой*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шоу **будет** зрелищным (I think I've heard шоу будет *зрелищное* but actually, just like in the sentence above, the form of the adjective should be different - зрелищным, not зрелищное)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when there is a noun or a noun phrase after `быть`, the instrumental case is always used: `быть хорошим человеком`, `быть медсестрой`, etc.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is an adjective after `быть`, the instrumental case should be used too. However, in colloquial Russian the nominative case is sometimes used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45770" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1954" RevisionGUID="eb6d399c-e35c-4406-8511-5b52eabd67af" CreationDate="2018-11-24T07:26:48.077" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|прилагательные|склонение|essive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45771" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17535" RevisionGUID="cd445d54-8074-46f0-b191-1d7e8c0d93a9" CreationDate="2018-11-24T07:26:58.113" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|essive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45772" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="2c1d6bc5-d503-48d9-8502-cf9b9fe94652" CreationDate="2018-11-24T07:29:24.177" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|склонение|essive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="0c0d7a26-d437-419c-af90-d5476db21f0f" CreationDate="2018-11-24T22:04:01.003" UserId="11021" Text="I know that *случайно встречаться* и *случайно встретиться* mean “meet by chance” but i look up the verb conjugation and i cant seem to find where they get the verb. Is both *случайно встречаться* a whole verb alone?, " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="0c0d7a26-d437-419c-af90-d5476db21f0f" CreationDate="2018-11-24T22:04:01.003" UserId="11021" Text="Russian verb “to meet by chance”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="0c0d7a26-d437-419c-af90-d5476db21f0f" CreationDate="2018-11-24T22:04:01.003" UserId="11021" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17537" RevisionGUID="43b23625-3236-430d-8c17-3412c9d351dd" CreationDate="2018-11-24T23:48:05.063" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I know that *случайно встречаться* и *случайно встретиться* mean “meet by chance” but i look up the verb conjugation and i cant seem to find where they get the verb. Is both *случайно встречаться* a whole verb alone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17538" RevisionGUID="4f9dc291-68ef-4184-9c2b-4d59eecd3725" CreationDate="2018-11-25T03:23:46.500" UserId="2104" Text="**Случайно** is an adverb, 'accidentally', and **встречаться** is a verb, 'to meet'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiktionary has a [conjugation table][1] for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="967966fd-3e54-4375-9e3c-569c6aed9086" CreationDate="2018-11-25T16:23:04.513" UserId="170" Text="Is there any Russian noun that would describe a clumsy and awkward girl? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45779" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="967966fd-3e54-4375-9e3c-569c6aed9086" CreationDate="2018-11-25T16:23:04.513" UserId="170" Text="a Russian noun for a clumsy lady" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45780" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="967966fd-3e54-4375-9e3c-569c6aed9086" CreationDate="2018-11-25T16:23:04.513" UserId="170" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17540" RevisionGUID="4e88e3e5-2482-454d-9678-78f8fab3830b" CreationDate="2018-11-25T16:53:59.973" UserId="7674" Text="[**кутАфья**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/847102) - an awkwardly dressed woman (personally have never heard it or used myself, seems outdated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**гусЫня**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/гусыня)- original meaning is *a female geese*  (not very frequent and pretty offensive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЯпа**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1005370) - this is a unisex term for a clumsy person who often drops or misses things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЫка**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/235563/растыка) - another unisex term, same as **растяпа** (pretty recent in general use, although i myself have never used it or heard much, [seems borrowed from regional vernacular](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/438397/Как-правильно-рОстыка-или-рАстыка))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17541" RevisionGUID="df4fc632-8284-4747-bfae-c2fa65ad9a9c" CreationDate="2018-11-25T17:31:49.507" UserId="2104" Text="[Курица][1] :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often used like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Какая же ты курица!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmBkGRGQSJw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17542" RevisionGUID="767e708b-e27f-47cd-b96c-705a2976ec0c" CreationDate="2018-11-25T18:18:59.973" UserId="5605" Text="**Кулёма** - это обычно неумелая, неловкая, неуклюжая женщина или девочка, позже стало употребляться и по отношению к мужчине, чтобы подчеркнуть отсутствие мужских навыков и характера." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17540" RevisionGUID="d80b7a6f-b856-49e1-accf-c5a13996f649" CreationDate="2018-11-25T18:22:49.843" UserId="7674" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="[**кутАфья**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/847102) - an awkwardly dressed woman (personally have never heard it or used myself, seems outdated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**гусЫня**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/гусыня)- original meaning is *a female geese*  (not very frequent and pretty offensive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЯпа**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1005370) - this is a unisex term for a clumsy person who often drops or misses things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЫка**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/235563/растыка) - another unisex term, same as **растяпа** (pretty recent in general use, although i myself have never used it or heard much, [seems borrowed from regional vernacular](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/438397/Как-правильно-рОстыка-или-рАстыка))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**копУха**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/копуха) - unisex, a sluggish person, whom everything takes lots of time to accomplish (from *копаться*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17542" RevisionGUID="c82a04a1-72b5-4eb6-8845-c24cdfbcbfab" CreationDate="2018-11-25T18:26:31.253" UserId="5605" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="**Кулёма** - это обычно неумелая, неловкая, неуклюжая женщина или девочка, позже стало употребляться и по отношению к мужчине, чтобы подчеркнуть отсутствие мужских навыков и характера.http://fb.ru/article/330487/chto-znachit-kulema-znachenie-slova" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45787" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="297b7de0-10a7-48e8-86ff-423781ee6972" CreationDate="2018-11-25T20:23:47.697" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45788" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="a6c07293-557d-4d28-8098-c203a9647fbe" CreationDate="2018-11-25T20:36:59.507" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Declension after &quot;был&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45789" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17539" RevisionGUID="990f54f9-3585-4c36-8733-f5c646621b0a" CreationDate="2018-11-25T20:39:02.217" UserId="242" Comment="it's a stack about Russian, there's no need to mention Russian in the title if you are asking for translation" Text="A noun for a clumsy lady" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17543" RevisionGUID="402cc912-19db-448a-9f62-0b8626883df4" CreationDate="2018-11-25T23:38:03.047" UserId="8450" Text="In this example **«намылить ему шею»** – is an idiom. It's a kind of **«give a good lesson»** or **«reprimand»**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17544" RevisionGUID="e6f78623-0d0d-4c08-a7db-68e1166b0900" CreationDate="2018-11-25T23:45:50.380" UserId="8450" Text="`Жена-собственница` that means `муж подкаблучник`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45792" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17532" RevisionGUID="50f56d96-67ed-46ce-b972-7006ee37f34f" CreationDate="2018-11-26T03:00:37.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1066889432559730689" />
  <row Id="45797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="1fadd613-6505-4f6c-af9d-e0473f5a4a15" CreationDate="2018-11-26T17:32:07.043" UserId="10878" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1). **ХОТЕЛОСЬ** =  мне хотелось / I wanted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2). **ХОЧУ** =  я хочу купить что нибудь для тебя / I want to buy something for you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between **&quot;хотелось&quot;** when used in the first scenario v.s. **&quot;хочу&quot;** on the second where they are both a conjugation of the &quot;хотеть&quot; verb or &quot;to want&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the answer implies that with &quot;мне&quot; you always use &quot;хотелось&quot; and therefore &quot;я&quot; must be always accompanied by &quot;хочу&quot; when do you use **&quot;мне хотелось&quot;** with a comprehensible example please and when would **&quot;я хочу&quot;** be the best choice to use instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for these &quot;хотеть&quot; scenarios I'm wondering if this word even means &quot;to want&quot; or is it more &quot;to like&quot; since for &quot;мне хотелось бы&quot; is translated as &quot;I would like&quot; rather than &quot;I would want&quot;. Thanks again&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lBMvT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="1fadd613-6505-4f6c-af9d-e0473f5a4a15" CreationDate="2018-11-26T17:32:07.043" UserId="10878" Text="ХОТЕЛОСЬ (VS) ХОЧУ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="1fadd613-6505-4f6c-af9d-e0473f5a4a15" CreationDate="2018-11-26T17:32:07.043" UserId="10878" Text="|грамматика|значения|узус|синонимы|спряжение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17547" RevisionGUID="d85f461f-78af-42e0-9763-446faa5ce77b" CreationDate="2018-11-26T18:08:25.897" UserId="2104" Text="**Мне хочется** is for wishes you can't control:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Мне хочется спать. = I need a nap.&#xD;&#xA;* Хочется съесть чего-нибудь. = I want/need to eat something.&#xD;&#xA;* Что делать, когда хочется сладкого? = What to do when you're craving sugar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хочу** is for your conscious wishes/decisions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Хочу в Париж!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="1b63785e-98a2-442b-9294-f812970b5d4b" CreationDate="2018-11-26T18:08:54.620" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 104 characters in body" Text="1). **ХОТЕЛОСЬ** =  мне хотелось / I wanted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2). **ХОЧУ** =  я хочу купить что нибудь для тебя / I want to buy something for you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between **&quot;хотелось&quot;** when used in the first scenario v.s. **&quot;хочу&quot;** on the second where they are both a conjugation of the &quot;хотеть&quot; verb or &quot;to want&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the answer implies that with &quot;мне&quot; you always use &quot;хотелось&quot; and therefore &quot;я&quot; must be always accompanied by &quot;хочу&quot; when do you use **&quot;мне хотелось&quot;** with a comprehensible example please and when would **&quot;я хочу&quot;** be the best choice to use instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for these &quot;хотеть&quot; scenarios I'm wondering if this word even means &quot;to want&quot; or is it more &quot;to like&quot; since for &quot;мне хотелось бы&quot; is translated as &quot;I would like&quot; rather than &quot;I would want&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="077ef4ff-42ea-4b7f-b9c6-998204f936ca" CreationDate="2018-11-26T18:40:33.517" UserId="10878" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1). **ХОТЕЛОСЬ** =  мне хотелось / I wanted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2). **ХОЧУ** =  я хочу купить что нибудь для тебя / I want to buy something for you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between **&quot;хотелось&quot;** when used in the first scenario v.s. **&quot;хочу&quot;** on the second where they are both a conjugation of the &quot;хотеть&quot; verb or &quot;to want&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the answer implies that with &quot;мне&quot; you always use &quot;хотелось&quot; and therefore &quot;я&quot; must be always accompanied by &quot;хочу&quot; when do you use **&quot;мне хотелось&quot;** with a comprehensible example please and when would **&quot;я хочу&quot;** be the best choice to use instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for these &quot;хотеть&quot; scenarios I'm wondering if this word even means &quot;to want&quot; or is it more &quot;to like&quot; since for &quot;мне хотелось бы&quot; is translated as &quot;I would like&quot; rather than &quot;I would want&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y1iJr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="4db3abfa-95bc-4d15-825c-2d580df89f31" CreationDate="2018-11-26T18:53:56.590" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 91 characters in body" Text="1). **ХОТЕЛОСЬ** =  мне хотелось / I wanted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2). **ХОЧУ** =  я хочу купить что нибудь для тебя / I want to buy something for you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between **&quot;хотелось&quot;** when used in the first scenario v.s. **&quot;хочу&quot;** on the second where they are both a conjugation of the &quot;хотеть&quot; verb or &quot;to want&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the answer implies that with &quot;мне&quot; you always use &quot;хотелось&quot; and therefore &quot;я&quot; must be always accompanied by &quot;хочу&quot; when do you use **&quot;мне хотелось&quot;** with a comprehensible example please and when would **&quot;я хочу&quot;** be the best choice to use instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for these &quot;хотеть&quot; scenarios I'm wondering if this word even means &quot;to want&quot; or is it more &quot;to like&quot; since for &quot;мне хотелось бы&quot; is translated as &quot;I would like&quot; rather than &quot;I would want&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="54d5f417-0c46-47bf-a8a1-68a5ad84bb01" CreationDate="2018-11-26T19:49:08.723" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="1). **хотелось** =  мне хотелось / I wanted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2). **хочу** =  я хочу купить что нибудь для тебя / I want to buy something for you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between **&quot;хотелось&quot;** when used in the first scenario v.s. **&quot;хочу&quot;** on the second where they are both a conjugation of the &quot;хотеть&quot; verb or &quot;to want&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the answer implies that with &quot;мне&quot; you always use &quot;хотелось&quot; and therefore &quot;я&quot; must be always accompanied by &quot;хочу&quot; when do you use **&quot;мне хотелось&quot;** with a comprehensible example please and when would **&quot;я хочу&quot;** be the best choice to use instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for these &quot;хотеть&quot; scenarios I'm wondering if this word even means &quot;to want&quot; or is it more &quot;to like&quot; since for &quot;мне хотелось бы&quot; is translated as &quot;I would like&quot; rather than &quot;I would want&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45805" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17546" RevisionGUID="54d5f417-0c46-47bf-a8a1-68a5ad84bb01" CreationDate="2018-11-26T19:49:08.723" UserId="242" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="&quot;Хотелось&quot; or &quot;хочу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13716" RevisionGUID="d7065b44-4f86-4608-97b8-a2c2370e5881" CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:18:22.157" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="It's almost like in Zootopia, remember, one bunny can call another bunny cute ) The same about `мужик` it's very informal and may be perceived (and intended to be such) as rude if a man is addressed by a person who is not a close acquaintance or is higher in rank (social, job, military, whatever). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But no, `мужик` is definitely not used only in negative contexts. Say you are trying to move some heavy objects from your backyard. Saying to your friends something like &quot;навалимся, мужики&quot; will sound very friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider the rather common phrase - which is also used ironically, though - &quot;ну ты мужик&quot; (something like &quot;you are quite a man&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;парень&quot; - this also can sound rude if it's intended to sound rude (&quot;эй, парень!&quot;) - in Russian language actually even &quot;большое спасибо&quot; can sound rude if pronounced with certain intonations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But generally it just refers to young men. For instance, a sports commentator can say something like: &quot;Парни на воллейбольной площадке выложились сегодня по полной!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to summarize: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Парень - a young man, dude, lad, mate, guy; used quite widely.&#xD;&#xA; - Мужик - either rude  (when addressing somebody) or quite friendly informal word used in a close group of friends. Sort of something between &quot;nigga&quot; and &quot;bro.&quot; Used relatively rarely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="e8e2b890-1874-4f81-ac4d-7fa8bedc0bb7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:00:22.347" UserId="170" Text="Do &quot;суждения&quot; and &quot;доля погрешности&quot; go along well in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That makes your суждения subject to a certain доля погрешности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You must keep in mind that as much as we respect this scholar, his суждения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still have some доля погрешности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that &quot;доля погрешности&quot; is a term mostly used in statistics in Russian, but can it also be applied in describing someone's general judgments (that is, not based on any statistical data)?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="e8e2b890-1874-4f81-ac4d-7fa8bedc0bb7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:00:22.347" UserId="170" Text="binding &quot;суждения&quot; and &quot;доля погрешности&quot; together in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="e8e2b890-1874-4f81-ac4d-7fa8bedc0bb7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:00:22.347" UserId="170" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17549" RevisionGUID="5d0412c5-6980-48b2-a6ad-3b179110c07a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:01:53.567" UserId="11229" Text="The grammar references I have read including my Russian textbook say на should be followed either by the accusative or prepositional case. But when translating &quot;for lunch&quot; and &quot;for supper&quot;, the usages on context.reverso.net all seem to be &quot;на обед&quot; and &quot;на ужин&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17549" RevisionGUID="5d0412c5-6980-48b2-a6ad-3b179110c07a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:01:53.567" UserId="11229" Text="Why nominative case in &quot;на ужин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17549" RevisionGUID="5d0412c5-6980-48b2-a6ad-3b179110c07a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:01:53.567" UserId="11229" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17550" RevisionGUID="fa088fe6-9bda-4d18-9af6-bd3689bc0c45" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:14:23.453" UserId="10999" Text="**&quot;хотелось&quot;** - means *&quot;I wanted it, but not so much to take any serious actions to achieve it (or had no way to achieve it)&quot;*. And yes, you're right: it near **&quot;хотелось бы&quot;**, but in the past tense.  &#xD;&#xA;**&quot;хотел&quot;** has a wider range of meanings. It may be synonymous with **&quot;хотелось&quot;** (using **&quot;Я&quot;** instead of **&quot;Мне&quot;**), but it may also mean a more real desire that you actually tried to fulfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17552" RevisionGUID="fab02463-bcf3-48ca-8db1-3ea7ac3c553b" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:32:16.033" UserId="10999" Text="Its can be used altogether with some connecting word(s). For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорил об этом достаточно уверенно, но мне все-таки показалось,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что в его суждениях могла быть опредленная доля погрешности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is a very specific combination, so you should only use it if you know exactly when it's appropriate.  &#xD;&#xA;In example above, using &quot;оценки&quot; is better than &quot;суждения&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он говорил об этом достаточно уверенно, но мне все-таки показалось,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; что в его оценках могла быть опредленная доля погрешности.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="794437c1-6366-4da9-9571-efb51f866248" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:35:06.490" UserId="11195" Text="My Russian teacher tell me that this two verbs учить and изучить means study, but when I need to use учить and when изучить? учить means also learn? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45817" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="794437c1-6366-4da9-9571-efb51f866248" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:35:06.490" UserId="11195" Text="What is the difference between изучить and учить?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45818" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="794437c1-6366-4da9-9571-efb51f866248" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:35:06.490" UserId="11195" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17554" RevisionGUID="00f52456-eba3-44b7-9a3d-a5020c523f47" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:48:19.580" UserId="10999" Text="In the russian language, **&quot;завтрак&quot;**, **&quot;обед&quot;** and **&quot;ужин&quot;** have the same spelling in nominative and accusative cases.  &#xD;&#xA;And in your examples (**&quot;на завтрак&quot;**, **&quot;на обед&quot;** and **&quot;на ужин&quot;**) these words are in accusative case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17555" RevisionGUID="5d3e0242-3bd0-421e-8e5d-8f62f55f57d4" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:54:45.693" UserId="134" Text="_На обед_ and _на ужин_ are accusative, not nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative is quite a peculiar case in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In singular, its forms have merged with nominative for most nouns except those in _-а, -я_ and a couple more exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural, even the nouns which do have a distinct accusative form lose it to genitive or accusative, depending on whether the noun is animate or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for a couple of edge cases, nominative cannot be used with prepositions in Russian at all. When you are seeing what looks like a nominative after a preposition, consult the declension table and you'll probably find the same form used in some other case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17556" RevisionGUID="f114b694-af54-40e8-aa62-41ab4cbd657f" CreationDate="2018-11-27T01:02:18.947" UserId="10999" Text="There are two nuances.  &#xD;&#xA;First, &quot;учить&quot; can mean both &quot;study&quot; and &quot;teach&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу математику (study)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу ученика (teach)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Second, &quot;изучить&quot; often has the connotation &quot;to study completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил это очень долго и и наконец-то изучил полностью.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I studied this topic for a long time, and eventually had studied it completely)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45822" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17535" RevisionGUID="adcbffd8-0fcb-4045-9bad-0ccc86828d2f" CreationDate="2018-11-27T03:01:10.560" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1067251959860785153" />
  <row Id="45823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17454" RevisionGUID="146376cc-dd54-4332-ac33-30d6bc58a601" CreationDate="2018-11-27T06:00:38.787" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1067297124944105472" />
  <row Id="45824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17540" RevisionGUID="63884452-f933-47dd-85cf-853e34a5dee0" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:49:55.523" UserId="7674" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="[**кутАфья**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/847102) - an awkwardly dressed woman (personally have never heard it or used myself, seems outdated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**гусЫня**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/гусыня)- original meaning is *a female geese*  (not very frequent and pretty offensive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЯпа**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1005370) - this is a unisex term for a clumsy person who often drops or misses things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЫка**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/235563/растыка) - another unisex term, same as **растяпа** (pretty recent in general use, although i myself have never used it or heard much, [seems borrowed from regional vernacular](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/438397/Как-правильно-рОстыка-или-рАстыка))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**копУха**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/копуха) - unisex, a sluggish person, whom everything takes lots of time to accomplish (from *копаться*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**недотёпа**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/недотёпа) - unisex, a person who fails at practical tasks (its Ukrainian cognate *до**тЭп**ный* means *clever*, *witty* so due to the negating prefix *недо-* which means *&quot;short of&quot;* it has a second meaning *dimwit* mentioned in the Wiktionary, and its root might be related to the root of *рас-**тяп**а*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17555" RevisionGUID="3a20bab7-5f58-4faf-912d-3b272633a5d0" CreationDate="2018-11-27T08:05:42.383" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="_На обед_ and _на ужин_ are accusative, not nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative is quite a peculiar case in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In singular, its forms have merged with nominative for most nouns except those in _-а, -я_ and a couple more exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural, even the nouns which do have a distinct accusative form lose it to genitive or nominative, depending on whether the noun is animate or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for a couple of edge cases, nominative cannot be used with prepositions in Russian at all. When you are seeing something that looks like a nominative after a preposition, consult with the declension table and you'll probably find the same form used in some other case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45828" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="7fa3fdbf-7370-4e81-9c9a-b48f76408ec8" CreationDate="2018-11-27T09:49:07.377" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;изучить&quot; and &quot;учить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17557" RevisionGUID="c2a52400-2fad-41bf-8d45-7df79d4190a3" CreationDate="2018-11-27T11:10:21.560" UserId="7674" Text="In principle they can co-exist, the phrase is fully comprehensible. However as you yourself admit it's a technical scientific term and so it's not a particularly good fit for such categories as judgement and opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead one can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That makes your суждения subject to a certain доля погрешности.  &#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это привносит в твои суждения определённую долю **субъективности**/делает твои суждения несколько **субъективными**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You must keep in mind that as much as we respect this scholar, his&#xD;&#xA;суждения still have some доля погрешности.&#xD;&#xA;___     &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоит учитывать/иметь в виду, что суждения этого учёного не свободны от/не лишены определённой **субъективности**/некоторой (доли) **субъективности**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17555" RevisionGUID="c8c3ae19-9f75-40d3-8c89-1296fc23bd0e" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:08:26.093" UserId="134" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="_На обед_ and _на ужин_ are accusative, not nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accusative is quite a peculiar case in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In singular, its forms have merged with nominative for most nouns except those in _-а, -я_ and a couple more exceptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In plural, even the nouns which do have a distinct accusative form in singular, lose it to genitive or nominative, depending on whether the noun is animate or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for a couple of edge cases, nominative cannot be used with prepositions in Russian at all. When you are seeing something that looks like a nominative after a preposition, consult with the declension table and you'll probably find the same form used in some other case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="50794cb0-3c18-40f3-bd0a-3b9fbdf2f913" CreationDate="2018-11-27T20:11:50.507" UserId="11021" Text="I went on wikipedia and i understood the stressed but i dont understand the sound of х in these words thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="50794cb0-3c18-40f3-bd0a-3b9fbdf2f913" CreationDate="2018-11-27T20:11:50.507" UserId="11021" Text="Pronunciation in “духи” (perfume) and (spirits)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="50794cb0-3c18-40f3-bd0a-3b9fbdf2f913" CreationDate="2018-11-27T20:11:50.507" UserId="11021" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="b9d73261-361f-4074-9014-fa1d2ee6f5a8" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:01:24.970" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Я не собиралась говорить ей, и она **ни за что** бы не догадалась. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не собиралась говорить ей, и она **нипочем** бы не догадалась. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, I seem to come across &quot;ни за что&quot; ten times more often. How are they nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45835" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="b9d73261-361f-4074-9014-fa1d2ee6f5a8" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:01:24.970" UserId="8672" Text="Difference of usage between &quot;ни за что&quot; and &quot;нипочем&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45836" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="b9d73261-361f-4074-9014-fa1d2ee6f5a8" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:01:24.970" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17560" RevisionGUID="3c1e36e5-4a1d-4a2b-85df-d2f0ffb21e2a" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:04:42.687" UserId="2104" Text="The sound of **х** is close to that of **ch** in Loch Ness. A more intense **h** as in Tahini." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17561" RevisionGUID="1afd3861-ce78-4995-a26b-e330444c78e7" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:14:19.700" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Нипочём&quot; (is the meaning of &quot;never&quot;) is more colloquial than &quot;ни за что&quot;. The latter can be used in any situation, while the former - only in informal speech (or literature stressing the informality);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that &quot;нипочём&quot; has [multiple meanings][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%91%D0%BC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45839" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17558" RevisionGUID="55c465da-8975-4208-b581-fd6b0e7c18b4" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:35:05.880" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17562" RevisionGUID="1608eb74-58f7-4f77-84ac-fd21c37f8f2c" CreationDate="2018-11-27T21:42:20.823" UserId="10999" Text="**&quot;нипочем&quot;** - in this case I would translate it as **&quot;no way&quot;** (*no way guessed*) - in contrary to **&quot;ни за что&quot;** (in this case I would translate it as **&quot;never&quot;**) is most often used by villagers or in folk tales.  &#xD;&#xA;I would recommend in most cases to use **&quot;ни за что&quot;** in such contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45841" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17549" RevisionGUID="a2459b28-3f5d-421b-b3fb-1d7d3fed63c9" CreationDate="2018-11-28T03:00:04.053" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1067614068658327552" />
  <row Id="45842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17173" RevisionGUID="cabf241a-f707-43bd-b719-cd6351ac9df1" CreationDate="2018-11-28T11:51:30.810" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Preposition **по** in the context of **price** implies that it's the price for each and every item individually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But although the question **почём?** uses Prep. case, in the answer numeral is inflected in Nominal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a remnant of an old paradigm. In the past, inflection of some numerals (or even all except those ending with 1-4, not sure about that) in the actual Prepositional case was common, eg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;Монеты&gt; приносить на Монетной Двор, которым за тѣ монеты наддавано&#xD;&#xA;&gt; будет, сверх настоящаго, **по пяти** копѣек на рубль.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Словарь русского языка XVIII в.*](http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/14/sld16716.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; даютъ двѣ кади меду **по шести** пудовъ, а хмелю двѣ бочки&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Акты, относящіеся к исторіи западной Россіи (1846) vol.1, p. 103, line 18 from the top*](https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ4ZAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA103&amp;lpg=PA103#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact even today Prepositional case is still occasionally applied to the numeral **тысяча** - **по тысячи**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Участники Великой Отечественной войны получат по 5 тыс. рублей,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; труженики тыла **по тысячи** рублей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*newslab.ru March 16, 2010*](http://newslab.ru/news/307973)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Забайкальском крае более 1 тысячи семей с детьми, находящимися в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; трудной жизненной ситуации, получат **по тысячи** рублей из бюджета&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*zabinfo.ru Feb 11, 2014*](http://zabinfo.ru/110970)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; оба угнали из СССР **по тысячи** лошадей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*Быков Н. А., Казачья трагедия (1940-1945-й г.г.). — Нью-Йорк: изд. автора, 1959.*](http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/bykov_na/19.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's just a mistake because there're far too many examples, although in Google results its occurrence is still significantly outnumbered by instances of the Dative case **по тысяче**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по** governs bona-fide Prepositional in the meaning ***after, upon***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; по прибыти**и**/приезд**е**/прилёт**е** - upon arrival   &#xD;&#xA;по окончани**и** - upon completion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i subjectively feel the urge to use Dative (по прибыти**Ю** etc.), it feels more convenient, so it could indicate that in this use Prepositional is a paradigm which is gradually obsolesces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;Moreover i think that conceptually **по** governs Prepositional in most cases, despite the fact of inflexion assuming the form of Dative (maybe it's a heterodox point of view).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance it does so when it acts as Locative in which action is applied to or takes place on the surface of an object:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; идти по мосту   &#xD;&#xA;ходить по двору  &#xD;&#xA;стучать по столу   &#xD;&#xA;гладить по голове   &#xD;&#xA;плыть по воде  &#xD;&#xA;ехать по суше/земле  &#xD;&#xA;бить по зубам &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ending of feminine nouns is identical with the standard ending of Prepositional, eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; о чём? - o голове/о воде/о суше/о земле  &#xD;&#xA;по чём? - по голове/по воде/по суше/по земле&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To these phrases both questions **по чём?** and **по чему?** apply, however the former already sounds dated or vernacular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the sense of ***by means of***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; связываться по сети   &#xD;&#xA;говорить по телефону  &#xD;&#xA;показывать по телевизору&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian the difference between these special instances (in my opinion) of Prepositional on the one hand and Dative on the other has blurred, but in Ukrainian, in particular, in locative function, governance of Prepositional with **по** is maintained for plural forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17563" RevisionGUID="184d7a15-1672-4479-b1fc-8f7124d29708" CreationDate="2018-11-28T15:07:52.580" UserId="242" Text="`Нипочём`, apart from being equivalent to `ни за что`, actually also has at least to well-known meanings that never can be substituted by `ни за что`. Apart from already mentioned in @IvanOlshansky's answer `no way`, it can also mean being unharmed, like `ему все горести нипочём`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to stress out that, while `нипочём` is indeed means &quot;no way&quot; you shouldn't think of it as of exact equivalent. You can use in English &quot;No way&quot; as a separate phrase. You can not use &quot;нипочём&quot; as a stand-alone, self-sufficient word, this holds true in `ни за что` / `нипочём` case as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Давай целоваться!&quot; - &quot;Ни за что!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Давай целоваться!&quot; - &quot;Нипочём!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; First is perfectly valid, second does not make sense at all, so as a substitute to `ни за что` you can use it only in conjunction with `не` + verb construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17556" RevisionGUID="9df33fa8-544d-4473-8b6a-8e8a16afd8bf" CreationDate="2018-11-28T19:50:32.017" UserId="10999" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="There are two nuances.  &#xD;&#xA;First, &quot;учить&quot; can mean both &quot;study&quot; and &quot;teach&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу математику (study)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учу ученика (teach)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Second, &quot;изучить&quot; often has the connotation &quot;to study completely&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я учил это очень долго и наконец-то изучил полностью.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (I studied this topic for a long time, and eventually had studied it completely)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="f4e625a5-2dbc-4616-828c-406aa08ca389" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:04:12.593" UserId="170" Text="What verb would best describe in Russian the act of trying to find some support for one's idea or theory from some source that doesn't necessarrily  support or even focus on that idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was desparately trying to _________________ from  Confucius'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writings some support for his crazy ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a word that besides 'finding' (&quot;выискивать&quot;) would also have a connotation of theorizing, which in the example above would be adding some personal interpretation of even development to Confucious' thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="f4e625a5-2dbc-4616-828c-406aa08ca389" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:04:12.593" UserId="170" Text="a Russian verb for finding support for one's idea or theory from a hardly-relevant source" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="f4e625a5-2dbc-4616-828c-406aa08ca389" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:04:12.593" UserId="170" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="b93dbb4e-67af-4f82-a6ad-68ec0ab02c46" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:26:05.033" UserId="7674" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений/опираясь на произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументы в пользу своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="b5b9e19b-cbb8-4add-91d5-e88344fa7cd1" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:31:45.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений/опираясь на произведения/апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументацию в поддержку своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения/апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пытаясь **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить хоть какие-то** аргументы в пользу своих безумных идей, он обращался/апеллировал к произведениям Конфуция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17566" RevisionGUID="2842c644-d57d-4a29-9942-a48b400c2da4" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:46:34.817" UserId="134" Text="I would use _истолковать_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно пытался истолковать труды Конфуция в пользу поддержки своих безумных идей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="72aedd1b-fe65-42eb-8608-3c50e92a9ba8" CreationDate="2018-11-29T08:48:31.663" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="What verb would best describe in Russian the act of trying to find some support for one's idea or theory from some source that doesn't necessarrily  support or even focus on that idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was desperately trying to _________________ from  Confucius'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writings some support for his crazy ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a word that besides 'finding' (&quot;выискивать&quot;) would also have a connotation of theorizing, which in the example above would be adding some personal interpretation of even development to Confucious' thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="7c8796c8-c15c-4e87-9101-83178778ca7c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T09:28:34.450" UserId="7674" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений / опираясь на произведения /апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументацию в поддержку своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения/апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он обращался к произведениям Конфуция, отчаянно пытаясь **построить/сформулировать на их базе** хоть какое-то обоснование / некое подобие обоснования своих безумных идей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пытаясь **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить хоть какие-то** аргументы в пользу своих безумных идей, он обращался/апеллировал к произведениям Конфуция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17567" RevisionGUID="876320d6-2251-4a4c-b817-1bdf367e37f5" CreationDate="2018-11-29T10:55:38.540" UserId="5443" Text="You can use the informal word **приплести** to strongly express your disapproval and skepticism about it. It would emphasize the irrelevance of the source used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В поддержку своих безумных идей он упорно пытался *приплести* труды&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Конфуция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Словарь Ожегова)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Приплести**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Впутать во что н.; упомянуть зря (разг.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="cdf5899a-158f-4968-84c9-ad66f727e469" CreationDate="2018-11-29T11:36:03.693" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений / опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументацию в поддержку своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он обращался к произведениям Конфуция, отчаянно пытаясь **построить/сформулировать на их базе хоть какое-то** обоснование / **некое подобие** обоснования своих безумных идей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пытаясь **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить хоть какие-то** аргументы в пользу своих безумных идей, он обращался/апеллировал к произведениям Конфуция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="259a5a1e-8361-45b9-8947-e1ef02602c56" CreationDate="2018-11-29T11:45:42.040" UserId="7674" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений / опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументацию в поддержку своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он обращался к произведениям Конфуция, отчаянно пытаясь **построить/сформулировать на их базе хоть какое-то** обоснование / **некое подобие** обоснования своих безумных идей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Пытаясь **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить хоть какие-то** аргументы в пользу своих безумных идей, он обращался/апеллировал к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы **хоть как-то** обосновать свои безумные идеи, он отчаянно пытался **принятуть за уши** труды Конфуция *(quite disparaging)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45860" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="1240855c-be3c-44be-b2d3-8cb7f5d0bccd" CreationDate="2018-11-29T11:59:59.380" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="A Russian verb for finding support for one's idea or theory from a hardly-relevant source" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45861" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="bd84ebcc-7faa-4da1-b538-a1e54dc7ea79" CreationDate="2018-11-29T12:00:31.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1068112467765706753" />
  <row Id="45862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="ed879d79-56bd-4fc8-912f-99c7f3024607" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:10:26.393" UserId="345" Text="I need to translate some from russian into english. &#xD;&#xA;english is foreign to me, so I asked for a help.&#xD;&#xA;My english is poor, But thranslated text seems to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Боевой пропуск, позволяющий получать больше различных наград&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;translated into &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Battle Pass to get even more different rewards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) I'm shure, that words before &quot;to get something&quot; must be some sort of action. In result, &quot;do some action&quot; to get &quot;something&quot;. But &quot;Battle Pass&quot; is NOT an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) the word &quot;different&quot; changes meaning of sentense:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;more rewards&quot; = &quot;больше наград&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;even more rewards&quot; = &quot;ещё больше наград&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&quot;more different rewards&quot; = &quot;более разнообразных наград&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;even more different rewards&quot; = &quot;ещё более разнообразных наград&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of the original text was &quot;quantity&quot; of rewards&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of transtatet text is &quot;difference&quot; between rewards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am i right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="ed879d79-56bd-4fc8-912f-99c7f3024607" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:10:26.393" UserId="345" Text="Correct translation for complex sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="ed879d79-56bd-4fc8-912f-99c7f3024607" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:10:26.393" UserId="345" Text="|перевод|transliteration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="4aaabf2d-5f67-4fff-82dc-89d1dbcd4123" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:19:14.047" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений / опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументацию в поддержку своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он обращался к произведениям Конфуция, отчаянно пытаясь **построить/сформулировать на их базе хоть какое-то** обоснование / **некое подобие** обоснования своих безумных идей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отчаянно пытаясь **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить хоть какие-то** аргументы в пользу своих безумных идей, он обращался/апеллировал к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы **хоть как-то** обосновать свои безумные идеи, он отчаянно пытался **принятуть за уши** труды Конфуция *(quite disparaging)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45866" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="5368a489-2140-4616-8eef-cd79658e825f" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:24:11.690" UserId="345" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17570" RevisionGUID="72fe08d7-18f0-4b4a-b3bf-6856200ad8b1" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:32:47.293" UserId="345" Text="&quot;ни за что&quot; means &quot;never&quot;. &quot;нипочём&quot; means &quot;easy to do&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;examples:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я ни за что это не сделаю&quot; - I will never do that.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мне это нипочём&quot; - I can easily do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sentence &quot;Я не собиралась говорить ей, и она нипочем бы не догадалась&quot; make no sence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45868" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17569" RevisionGUID="e91d612b-abba-4ee0-82fc-c1366bd01788" CreationDate="2018-11-29T13:43:39.063" UserId="345" Comment="edited tags" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17571" RevisionGUID="28ee0ad6-a073-453c-9f66-ff760cee58d1" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:05:32.860" UserDisplayName="user10940" Text="I would translate this into:&#xA;&#xA;    Battle Pass, which lets you earn even more rewards&#xA;&#xA;1 - I imagine the reason the translation came out this way is &quot;pass&quot; being a verb as well as a noun.&#xA;&#xA;2 - russian word &quot;различный&quot; often confuses automatic translation (at least in my experience), because it is often used without much reason to do so. The appropriate translation is &quot;various&quot; rather than &quot;different&quot;, however it still feels needless to me. You could use it, but I would leave it out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17572" RevisionGUID="3859b0af-d40a-4694-a214-6ba6ea870b96" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:14:10.743" UserId="7674" Text="**получать больше различных наград** - **`to get/receive/obtain/win a greater number of (different) / (different kinds of) rewards`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17573" RevisionGUID="b5697852-0c53-4d66-a699-d4b817251572" CreationDate="2018-11-29T14:26:55.340" UserId="11257" Text="&gt; *подыскать, подобрать, обнаружить* хоть какое-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; обоснование своим безумным идеям  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *выжать, извлечь* из трудов Конфуция  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *нащупать* аргументы в поддержку  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  &#xD;&#xA;Related to the comment from @Quassnoi, the phrase &quot;в пользу поддержки&quot; sounds incorrect to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17565" RevisionGUID="09948331-2447-43c4-8823-d3ab5362bbb1" CreationDate="2018-11-29T15:33:27.113" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="Not necessarily literary or flattering variants which come to mind are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно старался/пытался **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить** аргументы в пользу своих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; безумных идей на основе произведений / опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Aргументацию в поддержку своих безумных идей он отчаянно пытался **(по)строить**, опираясь на произведения / апеллируя к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **В качестве базы** для своих безумных идей он отчаянно старался/пытался&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **использовать** произведения Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он обращался к произведениям Конфуция, отчаянно пытаясь **построить/сформулировать на их базе хоть какое-то** обоснование / **некое подобие** обоснования своих безумных идей&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Отчаянно пытаясь **сфабриковать/сварганить/слепить хоть какие-то** аргументы в пользу своих безумных идей, он обращался/апеллировал к произведениям Конфуция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы **хоть как-то** обосновать свои безумные идеи, он отчаянно пытался **притянуть за уши** труды Конфуция *(quite disparaging)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="40ecb903-af27-4929-b73c-f3899c8551ce" CreationDate="2018-11-29T18:25:44.027" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Binding &quot;суждения&quot; and &quot;доля погрешности&quot; together in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17574" RevisionGUID="4f717dac-9cf8-4437-892e-5bdf1781cf9c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T18:53:14.837" UserId="11258" Text="`столкнуться` is a very good one for this case.&#xD;&#xA;It literally means `to bump into` or `to collide with`&#xD;&#xA;So people would say: `Вчера я столкнулся с Машей в кафе` = `I bumped into Masha at the coffee shop yesterday`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17575" RevisionGUID="cafd7a6b-c0ab-4241-bb3f-6a85d1011d55" CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:08:43.100" UserId="11145" Text="Скажите пожалуйста как правильно употреблять конструкцию «дело в том, что»? Какая разница между «потому, что», «так как» «поскольку» и «дело в том, что»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45876" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17575" RevisionGUID="cafd7a6b-c0ab-4241-bb3f-6a85d1011d55" CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:08:43.100" UserId="11145" Text="Как правильно употреблять &lt;дело в том, что&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45877" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17575" RevisionGUID="cafd7a6b-c0ab-4241-bb3f-6a85d1011d55" CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:08:43.100" UserId="11145" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17576" RevisionGUID="4d9d14cf-1c87-4ed8-af2e-6edc119fa796" CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:29:12.930" UserId="7674" Text="«потому, что», «так как» «поскольку» более или менее синонимичны, могут отличаться регистром, в частности «потому, что», будет пониже регистром, чем два других союза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«дело в том, что» применяется не как союз сложноподчинённого предложения, который вводит обстоятельство причины, а как вводная фраза, предваряющая изложение причин или аргументов [в новом предложении](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE+%D0%B2+%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC,+%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегоня опоздал, потому что/так как/поскольку мой будильник не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зазвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал. Дело в том, что мой будильник не зазвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во фразе «дело в том, что» слово «дело» по сути означает «причина», то есть «причина в том, что»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал. Причина в том, что мой будильник не зазвонил." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45879" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17575" RevisionGUID="84587d08-3e93-4eb8-b5e3-0a8bb38d0c5f" CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:36:49.653" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Как правильно употреблять &quot;дело в том, что&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17576" RevisionGUID="0e2de28c-6c48-4777-80c6-255535e4ea2c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T19:38:18.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="**«потому, что»**, **«так как»**, **«поскольку»** более или менее синонимичны, могут отличаться регистром, в частности «потому, что», будет пониже регистром, чем два других союза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«дело в том, что»** применяется не как союз сложноподчинённого предложения, который вводит обстоятельство причины, а как вводная фраза, предваряющая изложение причин или аргументов [в новом предложении](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE+%D0%B2+%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC,+%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегоня опоздал, потому что/так как/поскольку мой будильник не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зазвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал. Дело в том, что мой будильник не зазвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во фразе **«дело в том, что»** слово **«дело»** по сути означает **«причина»**, то есть **«причина в том, что»**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал. Причина в том, что мой будильник не зазвонил." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17577" RevisionGUID="1719528d-dd98-4b80-b2a3-6a3276abdf26" CreationDate="2018-11-29T20:40:09.047" UserId="11145" Text="Это выражение почему-то часто слышится у политиков. Что это за игра?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17577" RevisionGUID="1719528d-dd98-4b80-b2a3-6a3276abdf26" CreationDate="2018-11-29T20:40:09.047" UserId="11145" Text="Что такое «игра на обострение»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17577" RevisionGUID="1719528d-dd98-4b80-b2a3-6a3276abdf26" CreationDate="2018-11-29T20:40:09.047" UserId="11145" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17578" RevisionGUID="89fc1391-a894-4cf7-ab31-a66af2c27e22" CreationDate="2018-11-29T21:25:23.890" UserId="11080" Text="Это сказал Владимир Путин о провокационных действиях Украины в Керченском проливе. И он это сам же и объяснил в своей речи: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Это провокация, которая организована действующей властью в преддверие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; президентских выборов на Украине в марте следующего года. Рейтинг&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действующего президента находится на пятой строчке, у него есть шансы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не войти даже во второй тур, и поэтому нужно что-то делать, чтобы&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ситуацию обострить и создать непреодолимые препятствия для его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурентов, прежде всего, из оппозиции.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть, Путин имеет в виду, что действия противоположной стороны конфликта были намеренными, вызванными не необходимостью обороны, а политической игрой, направленной на обострение конфликта и получение выгоды от него. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="9a9dce26-d929-4603-90e1-dd5101ab8755" CreationDate="2018-11-29T21:27:53.360" UserId="10999" Text="Это то, что иначе называют **&quot;повышать ставки&quot;**, т.е. превращение вялотекущей игры, когда от результата очередного раунда почти ничего не зависит, в острую фазу, когда ставки максимально высоки и за один раз можно выиграть или проиграть всё." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17581" RevisionGUID="4bce3fcd-7ae3-4e26-937a-6295bdf8dd57" CreationDate="2018-11-29T21:30:23.000" UserId="11080" Text="Следует различать также &quot;, потому что&quot; и &quot;потому, что&quot;. §108 http://www.evartist.narod.ru/text1/49.htm &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наиболее разговорная форма из перечисленных автором вопроса - &quot;потому что&quot;. &quot;Так как&quot;, &quot;поскольку&quot;, &quot;ввиду того, что&quot;, &quot;по той причине, что&quot; - более официальны, могут использоваться в лекциях и публичных выступлениях, хотя и &quot;потому что&quot; тоже их не испортит. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17582" RevisionGUID="00742e87-6464-41e1-a129-22d9bdae37e7" CreationDate="2018-11-29T21:40:37.403" UserId="11080" Text="**Изучить** is also to research. And to learn by heart or learn very well is **выучить**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент изучил новые слова. - The student has studied new words, he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; made a research and came to some conclusions on them.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент выучил новые слова. - The student has learned new words, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now he can use them in speech.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент учил новые слова. - The student learned new words, or he was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; learning the new words when sth. happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Usually students who haven't learned the words say: &quot;Я учил.&quot; - &quot;Вы выучили?&quot; - &quot;Я учил.&quot; ))))) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17576" RevisionGUID="40b6cd78-957d-4d37-8e18-75b1a0aff2c3" CreationDate="2018-11-29T21:42:34.370" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**«потому что»**, **«так как»**, **«поскольку»** более или менее синонимичны, могут отличаться регистром, в частности «потому, что», будет пониже регистром, чем два других союза.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«дело в том, что»** применяется не как союз сложноподчинённого предложения, который вводит обстоятельство причины, а как вводная фраза, предваряющая изложение причин или аргументов [в новом предложении](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE+%D0%B2+%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC,+%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%22)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал, потому что/так как/поскольку мой будильник не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зазвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал. Дело в том, что мой будильник не зазвонил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Во фразе **«дело в том, что»** слово **«дело»** по сути означает **«причина»**, то есть **«причина в том, что»**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сегодня опоздал. Причина в том, что мой будильник не зазвонил." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17579" RevisionGUID="ce4e459b-4213-44e7-9392-60ebb97462f5" CreationDate="2018-11-29T21:55:16.017" UserId="10999" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="**&quot;Игра на обострение&quot;** - это то, что иначе называют **&quot;повышать ставки&quot;** (**raise the stakes**), т.е. превращение вялотекущей игры, когда от результата очередного раунда почти ничего не зависит, в острую фазу, когда ставки максимально высоки и за один раз можно выиграть или потерять всё." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17583" RevisionGUID="fd4cd80d-6d4a-4d8e-a986-3afcd0143bc6" CreationDate="2018-11-29T22:38:35.867" UserId="587" Text="I would propose the word **наскрести**, &quot;to scrape&quot;, reminiscent of an English idiom &quot;to scrape the bottom of the barrel&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он пытался **наскрести** у Конфуция хоть что-то в свою пользу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="3970dd29-cb67-49f3-9ac2-c25c2190f3f3" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:20:32.663" UserId="11261" Text="I am currently writing a novel with a Russian main character. &#xD;&#xA;Part of his personality is that he is, agaisnt all odds, a homosexual. I have been looking for coloquial words related to the LGBT community, particularly the neutral/positive AND negative terms for transgenderism, homosexuality, and transvestism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the country currently has a bad reputation when it comes to these subjects, which is why I hope a question like this doesn't seem tasteless, offensive, or out of place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you beforehand&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="3970dd29-cb67-49f3-9ac2-c25c2190f3f3" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:20:32.663" UserId="11261" Text="What are some words for LGBT people in Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="3970dd29-cb67-49f3-9ac2-c25c2190f3f3" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:20:32.663" UserId="11261" Text="|перевод|словоупотребление|одним-словом|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="42d64c46-1ea0-43c6-a3a0-c1e49071410c" CreationDate="2018-11-29T23:28:20.830" UserId="11261" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="I am currently writing a novel with a Russian main character. &#xD;&#xA;Part of his backstory and something that comes up frequently is that he is, agaisnt all odds, a homosexual transvestite. &#xD;&#xA;I am particularly looking for **colloquialy used** neutral/positive _and_ negative terms for transgenderism, homosexuality, and transvestism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far my search online has been fruitless. Every term I find is too formal or I can't corroborate anywhere else (like the use of the word трап in that context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the country currently has a bad reputation when it comes to these subjects, which is why I hope a question like this doesn't seem tasteless, offensive, or out of place. This is simply the inquiry of a writer working on a novel with heavy linguistic themes attempting to enrich his story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you beforehand&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17585" RevisionGUID="2ef79438-9a31-4464-ae9c-10411edf8c3e" CreationDate="2018-11-30T01:48:20.163" UserId="10999" Text="Colloquially used neutral/positive terms for homosexual male are **&quot;голубой&quot;** and **&quot;гей&quot;**.  &#xD;&#xA;For both transgenders and transvestites common terms are **&quot;транс&quot;** and **&quot;трап&quot;**(**&quot;трэп&quot;**). Transvestites are sometimes called **&quot;травести&quot;** (although this is wrong term!)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The negative names for all these people of course exist (and in many more variants!), but I will refrain from publishing these words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45900" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17575" RevisionGUID="b18ae308-a219-47ba-861a-816ee8b59807" CreationDate="2018-11-30T03:39:01.330" UserId="11145" Comment="edited title" Text="Как правильно употреблять «дело в том, что»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="5d7f30ae-3cd2-4bf7-aa2c-86dfc457c4fc" CreationDate="2018-11-30T07:52:11.917" UserId="7674" Text="&lt;sup&gt;*Since this is a forum dedicated to knowledge of a language and not to political issues i don't see any justification for suppressing the knowledge in favor of political correctness. This regrettable phenomenon already affects the Western academia and is certainly detrimental to it. End of rant.*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of more or less pejorative or uncomplimentary names for people with alternative sexual preferences or identification are:   &#xD;&#xA;**`педик`** - a male gay  &#xD;&#xA;**`петух`** - the same in prison lingo which in Russia has percolated into the civic life  &#xD;&#xA;[**`кобёл`**](https://slovar.cc/sleng/vor/2488063.html) - a male-like lesbian, also from prison lingo   &#xD;&#xA;[**`буч`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Буч_и_фэм) - the same as above (LGBT lingo, from the English **`butch`** having the same meaning)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="89eb3207-a700-4470-bb0e-60756851eb49" CreationDate="2018-11-30T07:58:45.843" UserId="7674" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="&lt;sup&gt;*Since this is a forum dedicated to knowledge of a language and not to political issues i don't see any justification for suppressing the knowledge in favor of political correctness. This regrettable phenomenon already affects the Western academia and is certainly detrimental to it. End of rant.*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of more or less pejorative or uncomplimentary names for people with alternative sexual preferences or identification are:   &#xD;&#xA;**`педик`** - a male gay (a shorthand of **`педераст`** - a boy lover, check out [some synonyms](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/педераст#Синонимы))  &#xD;&#xA;**`гомик`**, **`гомосек`** - the same as above (a shorthand of **`гомосексуалист`** - a homosexual)  &#xD;&#xA;**`петух`** - the same as above in prison lingo which in Russia has percolated into the civic life  &#xD;&#xA;[**`кобёл`**](https://slovar.cc/sleng/vor/2488063.html) - a male-like lesbian, also from prison lingo   &#xD;&#xA;[**`буч`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Буч_и_фэм) - the same as above (LGBT lingo, from the English **`butch`** having the same meaning)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="9d6c038d-fc4b-49f3-887a-37393ba04521" CreationDate="2018-11-30T08:17:45.257" UserId="7674" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="&lt;sup&gt;*Since this is a forum dedicated to knowledge of a language and not to political issues i don't see any justification for suppressing the knowledge in favor of political correctness. This regrettable phenomenon already affects the Western academia and is certainly detrimental to it. A situation which could be described with a famous retort of a renowned witty Russian actress Ranevskaya: &quot;How come, the ass does exist, but the word doesn't?&quot;. End of rant.*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of more or less pejorative or uncomplimentary names for people with alternative sexual preferences or identification are:   &#xD;&#xA;**`педик`** - a male gay (a shorthand of **`педераст`** - a boy lover, check out [some synonyms](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/педераст#Синонимы))  &#xD;&#xA;**`гомик`**, **`гомосек`** - the same as above (a shorthand of **`гомосексуалист`** - a homosexual)  &#xD;&#xA;**`петух`** - the same as above in prison lingo which in Russia has percolated into the civic life  &#xD;&#xA;[**`кобёл`**](https://slovar.cc/sleng/vor/2488063.html) - a male-like lesbian, also from prison lingo   &#xD;&#xA;[**`буч`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Буч_и_фэм) - the same as above but likely technical rather than pejorative (LGBT lingo, from the English **`butch`** having the same meaning)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17586" RevisionGUID="c1fac97c-034a-4d64-886e-a5bc73005722" CreationDate="2018-11-30T08:22:57.603" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&lt;sup&gt;*Since this is a forum dedicated to knowledge of a language and not to political issues i don't see any justification for suppressing the knowledge in favor of political correctness. This regrettable phenomenon already affects the Western academia and is certainly detrimental to it. A situation which could be described with a famous retort of a renowned witty Russian actress Ranevskaya: &quot;How come, the ass does exist, but the word doesn't?&quot;. End of rant.*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of more or less pejorative or uncomplimentary names for people with alternative sexual preferences or self-identification are:   &#xD;&#xA;**`педик`** - a male gay (a shorthand of **`педераст`** - a boy lover, check out [some synonyms](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/педераст#Синонимы))  &#xD;&#xA;**`гомик`**, **`гомосек`** - the same as above (a shorthand of **`гомосексуалист`** - a homosexual)  &#xD;&#xA;**`петух`** - the same as above in prison lingo which in Russia has percolated into the civic life  &#xD;&#xA;[**`кобёл`**](https://slovar.cc/sleng/vor/2488063.html) - a male-like lesbian, also from prison lingo   &#xD;&#xA;[**`буч`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Буч_и_фэм) - the same as above but likely technical rather than pejorative (LGBT lingo, from the English **`butch`** having the same meaning)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17587" RevisionGUID="e31e26dc-fca0-4c00-92ee-a37036524044" CreationDate="2018-11-30T08:45:46.880" UserId="5443" Text="Синонимичные выражения разной степени формальности *&quot;потому(,) что&quot;, &quot;так как&quot; и &quot;поскольку&quot;* указывают на **простую** (часто единственную) **причину** *непосредственно* - когда связь с указываемой причиной понятна без развёрнутых пояснений. Если же предстоит объяснение скрытых причин, то после указания на сложность их понимания такое объяснение может предваряться *вступительной фразой*: &quot;**Дело в том что...**&quot;. Примеры:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Казалось бы, причина  явления в этом. Но не всё так просто: **дело в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том, что** на это накладываются обстоятельства, которые мы пока не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; учитывали.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но в общем случае не существует простых формул для расчёта элементов&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лестничного фильтра. **Дело в том, что**..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="be107014-b9ef-475a-a417-620452881606" CreationDate="2018-11-30T09:00:22.323" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="I am currently writing a novel with a Russian main character. &#xD;&#xA;Part of his backstory and something that comes up frequently is that he is, agaisnt all odds, a homosexual transvestite. &#xD;&#xA;I am particularly looking for **colloquialy used** neutral/positive _and_ negative terms for transgenderism, homosexuality, and transvestism. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far my search online has been fruitless. Every term I find is too formal or I can't corroborate anywhere else (like the use of the word трап in that context).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that the country currently has a bad reputation when it comes to these subjects, which is why I hope a question like this doesn't seem tasteless, offensive, or out of place. This is simply the inquiry of a writer working on a novel with heavy linguistic themes attempting to enrich his story." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45907" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17577" RevisionGUID="259b0988-4282-4d2b-9f67-cb8f4e2b30bf" CreationDate="2018-11-30T09:04:01.337" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="45908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17588" RevisionGUID="244ffff4-f308-4e3b-b214-966c8636b116" CreationDate="2018-11-30T09:41:56.320" UserId="5443" Text="There is a *single verb* with the meaning *'to meet (somebody) by chance*': **повстречать** (кого - perfective, transitive). It is most often found in Russian fairy tales, poetry, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Шёл он, шёл и повстречал зайца.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Повстречался ему медведь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17559" RevisionGUID="23f06549-2ddd-4fcc-8716-dfd5b4bb9897" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:11:02.493" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference in usage between &quot;ни за что&quot; and &quot;нипочем&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17589" RevisionGUID="8ce8b141-9e80-4f4e-bf7b-23daf2b7454c" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:29:10.510" UserId="2104" Text="Widely understood and neutral/positive:&#xA;&#xA;* Ему́/ей нра́вятся ма́льчики/де́вочки&#xA;* Он/она́ лю́бит ма́льчиков/де́вочек&#xA;* Он гей&#xA;* Она́ лесбия́нка&#xA;&#xA;Lesser known, colloquial:&#xA;&#xA;* Ле́сби, би, транс&#xA;&#xA;Official neutral language :&#xA;&#xA;* гомосексуали́ст, &#xA;* бисексуа́л, транссексуа́л, трансвестит, трансге́ндер&#xA;&#xA;Official and negative:&#xA;&#xA;* мужелю́б, мужело́жец&#xA;&#xA;Colloquial and outright derogatory:&#xA;&#xA;* гомосе́к, педера́ст, пе́дик, ле́сба&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17590" RevisionGUID="a8e63f81-1b61-407b-af6b-eda0042339fe" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:36:11.240" UserId="8672" Text="When used in a phrase such as &quot;похоже на&quot; and &quot;вроде меня&quot;, &quot;похоже&quot; and &quot;вроде&quot; are not interchangeable. But how are they nuanced in the following instances?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Холод, **похоже**, ее совершенно не беспокоит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **вроде** обычно не особо дружелюбны к чужим.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And how does &quot;вроде бы&quot; compare?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **вроде бы** чувствуют себя вполне комфортно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17590" RevisionGUID="a8e63f81-1b61-407b-af6b-eda0042339fe" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:36:11.240" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in usage between “похоже” and “вроде”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17590" RevisionGUID="a8e63f81-1b61-407b-af6b-eda0042339fe" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:36:11.240" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17591" RevisionGUID="ce59d18c-2208-4a65-8ce5-66d2e751253b" CreationDate="2018-11-30T10:42:00.547" UserId="310" Text="`вроде` is more informal but they're otherwise identical. Both mean that you do uneducated guess about other person's inner state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`вроде бы` is no different and could be substituted too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они, похоже, чувствуют себя вполне комфортно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It only adds one extra tiny mark of uncertainty." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45916" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="ac548d4f-6d62-4626-a602-0d105c9cefb3" CreationDate="2018-11-30T15:00:33.947" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1068520163622834179" />
  <row Id="45917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17540" RevisionGUID="8e287521-e42f-4c95-831a-bba79e5c1400" CreationDate="2018-11-30T15:19:46.030" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="[**кутАфья**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/847102) - an awkwardly dressed woman (personally have never heard it or used myself, seems outdated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**гусЫня**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/гусыня)- original meaning is *a female geese*  (not very frequent and pretty offensive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЯпа**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1005370) - this is a unisex term for a clumsy person who often drops or misses things&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**растЫка**](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_synonims/235563/растыка) - another unisex term, same as **растяпа** (pretty recent in general use, although i myself have never used it or heard much, [seems borrowed from regional vernacular](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/438397/Как-правильно-рОстыка-или-рАстыка))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**копУха**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/копуха) - unisex, a sluggish person, whom everything takes lots of time to accomplish (from *копаться*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**недотёпа**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/недотёпа) - unisex, a person who fails at practical tasks (its Ukrainian cognate *до**тЭп**ный* means *clever*, *witty* so due to the negating prefix *недо-* which means *&quot;short of, under&quot;* it has a second meaning *dimwit* mentioned in the Wiktionary, and its root might be related to the root of *рас-**тяп**а*)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="39880190-b774-4fed-8913-a4dbc225a111" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:28:54.257" UserId="3892" Text="In the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cтуденты, **переводившие** эту статью, говорят, что она очень трудная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¿Is the meaning one of a perfect action of the type &quot;Students, having translated this article,...&quot; or is it more general and vague as in &quot;Students translating this article...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="39880190-b774-4fed-8913-a4dbc225a111" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:28:54.257" UserId="3892" Text="Intepretation of the imperfective participle переводивший" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="39880190-b774-4fed-8913-a4dbc225a111" CreationDate="2018-11-30T17:28:54.257" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|participle|вид|participle-clause|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="681b890b-fa35-475b-9cab-99009354d3de" CreationDate="2018-11-30T18:05:56.550" UserId="11080" Text="The participle переводившие is a **Past Tense non-perfect participle**. So, it is &quot;The students, who translated this article, said it was very difficult&quot; (if we observe the sequence of tences in English; otherwise, and literally, &quot;say it is very difficult&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17563" RevisionGUID="5b318c3c-6c1f-4d6d-ae66-a13334c9b4c1" CreationDate="2018-11-30T18:07:44.820" UserId="3892" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="&quot;Нипочём,&quot; apart from being equivalent to &quot;ни за что,&quot; actually also has at least two well-known meanings that can never be substituted by &quot;ни за что.&quot; Apart from that of &quot;no way&quot; already mentioned in @IvanOlshansky's answer, it can also mean being unharmed, as in &quot;ему все горести нипочём.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to stress that while &quot;нипочём&quot; indeed means &quot;no way,&quot; you shouldn't think of it as an exact equivalent. You can use &quot;no way&quot; as a separate phrase in English. You cannot use &quot;нипочём&quot; as a stand-alone, self-sufficient word. This holds true in the case of &quot;ни за что&quot; / &quot;нипочём&quot; as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare two examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Давай целоваться!&quot; - &quot;Ни за что!&quot;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Давай целоваться!&quot; - &quot;Нипочём!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is perfectly valid, but the second does not make any sense at all. So as a substitute for &quot;ни за что,&quot; you can only use it in conjunction with a &quot;не&quot; + verb construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17594" RevisionGUID="64a80388-d069-4ee0-9f44-f893c89c7e6e" CreationDate="2018-11-30T18:10:23.690" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The participle переводившие is a **Past Tense imperfective participle**. So, it is &quot;The students who translated this article said it was very difficult&quot; (if we observe the sequence of tenses in English; otherwise, and literally, &quot;say it is very difficult&quot;). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17595" RevisionGUID="73074276-9370-4cef-8ca9-bdf16e289ee9" CreationDate="2018-11-30T19:00:31.723" UserId="11270" Text="Not sure if Russian is classified as having perfect aspect, but **переводившие** definitely has a sense of something that is in the past. You would need to use **переводящие**, if you wanted to stress that the translation was on-going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **переводившие** wouldn't necessarily mean that the translation has positively finished. Say, students, last time I was in contact with them, were translating the article. I don't know where they are with their translation now -- it may be finished or it may not. Might be they have given up on it altogether. I could still use **переводившие** -- my best knowledge of the situation is from the past and at the time they were definitely translating it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also **переведшие** (or **перевёдшие** -- not sure which one is the literary norm, but you can meet both). This one is much closer to having a definitive connotation that something has positively occurred. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студенты, перевёдшие эту статью, говорят, что она очень трудная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression would most certainly mean that the students have finished translating the article. Finished as in not abandoned it halfway, but translated the whole article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Переводившие** can also signal prolonged action in the past, while **перевёдшие** has a feel of abruptness to it. This difference can be used as a stress. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студенты, переводившие статью 2 недели, говорят, что она очень трудная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студенты, перевёдшие статью за день, говорят, что она простая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the former **переводившие** hints at prolonged action and, hence, some effort. In the latter **переведшие** implies it happened fast and was effortless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45930" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17593" RevisionGUID="0da709cc-7ed0-4ccf-b28c-f3136f2ec7e7" CreationDate="2018-11-30T19:47:57.677" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Intepretation of the imperfective participle &quot;переводивший&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17596" RevisionGUID="08ee102d-b89b-4521-8055-088f71fd605f" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:30:42.233" UserId="5375" Text="Today I wanted to tell a Russian friend that a certain person was a terrible woman (in the sense that she is a very unpleasant person). I said, &quot;Она страшная женщина&quot;. But my friend told me that I used the word &quot;страшная&quot; erroneously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't able to understand what was wrong with my use of the word, but I got the impression that &quot;ужасная&quot; would have been a better word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've consulted a couple of dictionaries, but they haven't helped. They merely say that &quot;страшный&quot; and &quot;ужасный&quot; both mean &quot;terrible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's wrong with using the word &quot;страшный&quot; to indicate that somebody is horrible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17596" RevisionGUID="08ee102d-b89b-4521-8055-088f71fd605f" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:30:42.233" UserId="5375" Text="Proper translation of &quot;terrible&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17596" RevisionGUID="08ee102d-b89b-4521-8055-088f71fd605f" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:30:42.233" UserId="5375" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17597" RevisionGUID="b868bacd-4ed9-4fac-abdc-1f736c74c62a" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:35:58.210" UserId="7674" Text="I guess it's just the conventions of usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed in your situation more appropriate adjectives would be **ужасная, кошмарная**, and if you don't mind sounding ornate and grandiose  - **чудовищная**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17598" RevisionGUID="ebee6577-cfd1-41be-9309-fe526e950c80" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:50:30.140" UserId="6752" Text="Once can also use word `подвести`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подвести&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. кого-что подо что. Признать соответствующим чему-л., подогнать подо что-л., отнести к кругу каких-л. явлений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can be said that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно пытался подвести свои странные идеи под принципы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изложенные в работах Конфуция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17597" RevisionGUID="a62df729-471f-415b-adb2-506198022ece" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:52:49.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="I guess it's just the conventions of usage. Certain allusions may accrete to words and shape their connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed in your situation more appropriate adjectives would be **ужасная, кошмарная**, and if you don't mind sounding ornate and grandiose  - **чудовищная**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17599" RevisionGUID="d21cdb90-b077-4623-8834-0a29a3bee065" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:55:11.260" UserId="11270" Text="You are not wrong to use **страшная**, but it also has a second meaning of ugly. Without proper context, your interlocutor may understand this woman to be simply not beautiful enough, putting it mildly. There's also a noun that is linked to this adjective -- **страшила** or **страшилище**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ужасная** doesn't have this second meaning. Applied to someone as a whole, it would imply bad character. Applied to parts of the body, it can acquire the 2nd meaning of **страшная** and imply something is wrong with the looks. For example, **ужасная причёска** -- visually bad haircut. Or **ужасное лицо** -- terrible face. **Ужасное лицо** would most likely mean that it's not an inherently ugly face, but that something has happened to it. Bad acne, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17598" RevisionGUID="09ac746b-ff9c-462c-bfd8-d155f44c6c88" CreationDate="2018-11-30T20:55:37.727" UserId="6752" Comment="Add explanation" Text="Once can also use word `подвести`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [dictionary][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Подвести&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. кого-что подо что. Признать соответствующим чему-л., подогнать подо что-л., отнести к кругу каких-л. явлений.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it can be said that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он отчаянно пытался подвести свои странные идеи под принципы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изложенные в работах Конфуция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this word does carry meaning of trying to make one thing match something else. So, in the example above one is finding reasons why his ideas match concepts from Confucius' writings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&amp;all=x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45939" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17548" RevisionGUID="d9b0e550-b1b1-4e3a-92a1-bbfed0998031" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:00:29.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1068610743925395456" />
  <row Id="45940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17597" RevisionGUID="83b2f6ca-8735-4d28-b904-d8d9afea2a28" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:01:03.770" UserId="7674" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="I wouldn't label this use erroneous, rather ironic. The reason being conventions of usage. Certain allusions may accrete to words and shape their connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed in your situation more appropriate adjectives would be **ужасная, кошмарная**, and if you don't mind sounding ornate and grandiose  - **чудовищная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess one may liken this distinction to one between the English **scary** and **terrible**. Wishing to tell how terrible a person is an Anglophone wouldn't use the adjective **scary** and if they did, that'd probably sound ironic as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17599" RevisionGUID="f8c6d82f-3cc7-4f44-92cb-94db0e868f06" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:09:03.917" UserId="11270" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="You are not wrong to use **страшная**, but it also has a second meaning of ugly. Without proper context, your interlocutor may understand this woman to be simply not beautiful enough, putting it mildly. This is particularly important if you drop женщина and simply say &quot;она **страшная**&quot;. Even with proper context, this can be misinterpreted as referring to her physical looks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a noun that is linked to this adjective -- **страшила** or **страшилище**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ужасная** doesn't have this second meaning. Applied to someone as a whole, it would imply bad character. Applied to parts of the body, it can acquire the 2nd meaning of **страшная** and imply something is wrong with the looks. For example, **ужасная причёска** -- visually bad haircut. Or **ужасное лицо** -- terrible face. **Ужасное лицо** would most likely mean that it's not an inherently ugly face, but that something has happened to it. Bad acne, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17597" RevisionGUID="7e9e2d8f-65a3-4338-9f8f-779d1ac94d94" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:15:19.570" UserId="7674" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="I wouldn't label this use erroneous, rather ironic. The reason being conventions of usage. Certain allusions may accrete to words and shape their connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed in your situation more appropriate adjectives would be **ужасная, кошмарная**, and if you don't mind sounding ornate and grandiose  - **чудовищная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in Russian describing a person as **страшный**, besides **ugly** may mean **dangerous, evil** which to my understanding are not the qualities ordinarily attributed to a person with a terrible, annoying personality, although Иван Грозный is named Ivan The Terrible in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess one may liken this distinction to that between the English **scary** and **terrible**. Wishing to tell how terrible a person is an Anglophone wouldn't use the adjective **scary** and if they did, that'd probably sound ironic as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17597" RevisionGUID="6cc72c5d-e259-4583-aa08-56e95665c1ff" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:31:29.487" UserId="7674" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I wouldn't label this use erroneous, rather ironic. The reason being conventions of usage. Certain allusions may accrete to words and shape their connotations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed in your situation more appropriate adjectives would be **ужасная, кошмарная**, and if you don't mind sounding ornate and grandiose  - **чудовищная**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because in Russian describing a person as **страшный**, besides **ugly** may mean **dangerous, evil** as in the expression `страшный человек`, which to my understanding are not the qualities ordinarily attributed to a person with a terrible, annoying personality, although Иван Грозный is named Ivan The Terrible in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess one may liken this distinction to that between the English **scary** and **terrible**. Wishing to tell how terrible a person is an Anglophone wouldn't use the adjective **scary** and if they did, that'd probably sound ironic as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17600" RevisionGUID="aa5c48b9-4e80-4660-9156-47ff5028afc4" CreationDate="2018-11-30T21:32:36.780" UserId="134" Text="_Страшная женщина_ and _страшный мужчина_ mean &quot;ugly&quot;. Those words don't describe personality in any way, just the physical appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you want to describe personality, you should use the word _человек_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Страшный человек_ does describe the personality, however, its usage is different from English &quot;terrible person&quot;. The Russian phrase means &quot;terrifying person&quot;: a murderer, a violent criminal, things like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Ужасный человек_ is closer in meaning to English &quot;terrible person&quot; and is actually used in Russian in this sense, however other words like _скверный, нехороший_ etc. are used more widely to describe personality. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17601" RevisionGUID="e2b067fb-ef77-4240-9d4c-29cc35aae6ed" CreationDate="2018-11-30T22:17:20.973" UserId="134" Text="Imperfective aspect is about state, and perfective is about state transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_переводившие_ here means &quot;the students who have been translating the article&quot;, i. e. all those who have ever been &quot;in the state of translating the article&quot;. As long as the student spent at least some time translating the article, they would qualify for _переводившие_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its perfective counterpart, _переведшие_, means &quot;those who have changed the state of the article&quot;, turning it from &quot;untranslated&quot; to &quot;translated&quot;. Just spending the time on the article is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase describes all the students who have had a hand in translating the article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17595" RevisionGUID="c515fc7a-7113-437f-abbc-8b6cc448cf23" CreationDate="2018-11-30T22:26:23.610" UserId="11270" Comment="deleted 86 characters in body" Text="Not sure if Russian is classified as having perfect aspect, but **переводившие** definitely has a sense of something that is in the past. You would need to use **переводящие**, if you wanted to stress that the translation was on-going.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **переводившие** wouldn't necessarily mean that the translation has positively finished. Say, students, last time I was in contact with them, were translating the article. I don't know where they are with their translation now -- it may be finished or it may not. Might be they have given up on it altogether. I could still use **переводившие** -- my best knowledge of the situation is from the past and at the time they were definitely translating it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also **переведшие**. This one is much closer to having a definitive connotation that something has positively occurred. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студенты, переведшие эту статью, говорят, что она очень трудная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This expression would most certainly mean that the students have finished translating the article. Finished as in not abandoned it halfway, but translated the whole article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Переводившие** can also signal prolonged action in the past, while **переведшие** has a feel of abruptness to it. This difference can be used as a stress. For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студенты, переводившие статью 2 недели, говорят, что она очень трудная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студенты, переведшие статью за день, говорят, что она простая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the former **переводившие** hints at prolonged action and, hence, some effort. In the latter **переведшие** implies it happened fast and was effortless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17564" RevisionGUID="fa365da7-5790-4d96-a8b6-c7bfdec1b844" CreationDate="2018-12-01T00:50:09.117" UserId="170" Comment="edited body" Text="What verb would best describe in Russian the act of trying to find some support for one's idea or theory from some source that doesn't necessarrily  support or even focus on that idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He was desperately trying to _________________ from  Confucius'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; writings some support for his crazy ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a word that besides 'finding' (&quot;выискивать&quot;) would also have a connotation of theorizing, which in the example above would be adding some personal interpretation or even development to Confucious' thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45950" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17553" RevisionGUID="9398f1d5-06cb-433a-9361-704c77e1632c" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:01:28.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1068701586195693568" />
  <row Id="45951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="31d6d223-fa7c-4e06-9932-849c996749c0" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:16:01.697" UserId="6686" Text="In the sentence, &quot;русская культура создавалась веками&quot;, why is веками in instrumental case, and how would you translate the sentence? Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="31d6d223-fa7c-4e06-9932-849c996749c0" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:16:01.697" UserId="6686" Text="Use of instrumental case in a sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="31d6d223-fa7c-4e06-9932-849c996749c0" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:16:01.697" UserId="6686" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17603" RevisionGUID="681ff4b1-7a8c-4fda-a55a-5237e03d041e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:30:26.747" UserId="11021" Text="These are the images from the lessons im taking&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ANtt0.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xHaaw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17603" RevisionGUID="681ff4b1-7a8c-4fda-a55a-5237e03d041e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:30:26.747" UserId="11021" Text="What is the purpose of “a” in these sentences if not *and*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17603" RevisionGUID="681ff4b1-7a8c-4fda-a55a-5237e03d041e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T03:30:26.747" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17605" RevisionGUID="f50aece6-5351-4333-9e51-a99fa9d97137" CreationDate="2018-12-01T05:35:31.557" UserId="10999" Text="I would translate it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Russian culture was created over the centuries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you translate it literally, it would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Russian culture was created by centuries**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so **&quot;centuries&quot;** (**века**) is in instrumental case: **&quot;веками&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="c3365225-6da6-442b-ac57-d9055a5ca959" CreationDate="2018-12-01T07:48:52.413" UserId="7674" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal-Distributive case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive-temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Insrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие («творительный дистрибутивный» в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="30b14620-5b0d-48cf-a4f1-72dde00a89c2" CreationDate="2018-12-01T07:57:58.450" UserId="7674" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal-Distributive case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive-temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Insrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие («творительный дистрибутивный» в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place: (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. This function of Instrumental is more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="898502b9-b7a5-4f11-9a37-b36816fae867" CreationDate="2018-12-01T08:14:35.650" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Insrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие («творительный дистрибутивный» в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place: (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. This function of Instrumental is more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian, on the other hand Temporal Instrumenal there is somewhat rarer than in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="a741ef3c-ccee-4618-b445-f852dcc96c24" CreationDate="2018-12-01T08:20:24.027" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Insrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian nouns denoting most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**. This is one of adverb formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие («творительный дистрибутивный» в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place: (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. It's more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian. On the other hand Temporal Instrumenal there is somewhat rarer than in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="abad99fb-b260-4549-a8c8-60b3de243c1d" CreationDate="2018-12-01T08:25:33.227" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Insrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian nouns denoting most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**. This is one of adverb formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие ([«творительный дистрибутивный»](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive-temporal_case) в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place: (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. It's more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian. On the other hand Temporal Instrumenal there is somewhat rarer than in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17607" RevisionGUID="1dd0895d-8adb-4c5f-a333-b875c7ffb8a0" CreationDate="2018-12-01T08:53:14.060" UserId="11270" Text="I'd say this **а** is a feature of politeness and/or informality. Perhaps, you don't need to translate it, but you still need to know how to use it, if you don't want to come off as rude in conversations. In a conversation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена, где Света?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would sound too demanding, as if you were commanding Lena to tell you where Sveta was. **a**, by virtue of its informality, makes this almost oppressive tone go away, turning the question into a more polite/relaxed version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45967" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15730" RevisionGUID="8a42023b-ded6-4a20-a907-a9b2137c8f92" CreationDate="2018-12-01T09:00:27.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1068791929167589377" />
  <row Id="45968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="421b77f9-0848-45b9-a071-b1213934910e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T09:00:50.213" UserId="7674" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian nouns denoting most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**. This is one of adverb formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие ([«творительный дистрибутивный»](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive-temporal_case) в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instrumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place: (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. It's more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian. On the other hand Temporal Instrumental there is somewhat rarer than in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation i'd offer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian culture has been in creation/development for centuries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian culture has been developing for centuries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17582" RevisionGUID="4a24e861-dee8-4e2e-b89d-b23b0cc1f5c1" CreationDate="2018-12-01T09:08:53.383" UserId="11080" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Изучить** is also to research. And to learn by heart or learn very well is **выучить**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент изучил новые слова. - The student has studied new words, he&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has made a research and come to some conclusions on them.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент выучил новые слова. - The student has learned new words, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now he can use them in speech.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Студент учил новые слова. - The student learned new words, or he was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; learning the new words when sth. happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Usually students who haven't learned the words say: &quot;Я учил.&quot; - &quot;Вы выучили?&quot; - &quot;Я учил.&quot; ))))) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="b9fc1fda-565e-41e9-a854-860ead97493b" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:19:46.377" UserId="7674" Text="I believe another function of the interrogative **`a`** particle/interjection is akin to the adversative conjunction **`a`** in compound sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in compound sentences where it contrasts two statements, in interrogation it contrasts the question with expected state of affairs which doesn't obtain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in the question **`Лена, а где Света?`** the interrogative **`a`** could mean that **`Света`** was expected to be present but for some reason is absent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Вам кого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Мне нужна Света.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Она ушла.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;**`А`** когда она вернётся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here **`a`** contraposes the question to the statement **`Она ушла`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="b852cc15-3c4c-4b3a-b7a9-bf59364aa6bf" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:35:38.923" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I believe another function of the interrogative **`a`** particle/interjection is akin to the adversative conjunction **`a`** in compound sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in compound sentences where it contrasts two statements, in interrogation it contrasts the question with expected state of affairs which doesn't obtain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in the question **`Лена, а где Света?`** the interrogative **`a`** could mean that **`Света`** was expected to be present but is away for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Вам кого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Мне нужна Света.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Она ушла.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;**`А`** когда она вернётся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here **`a`** contraposes the question to the statement **`Она ушла`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="e5ebb202-a07f-4cee-a2ba-483329a2837e" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:42:04.830" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I believe another function of the interrogative **`a`** particle/interjection is akin to the adversative conjunction **`a`** in compound sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in compound sentences where it contrasts two statements, in interrogation it contrasts the expected state of affairs which doesn't obtain (implicitly or explicitly) with the question it gives rise to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in the question **`Лена, а где Света?`** the interrogative **`a`** could mean that **`Света`** was expected to be present but is away for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Вам кого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Мне нужна Света.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Она ушла.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;**`А`** когда она вернётся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here **`a`** contraposes the question to the statement **`Она ушла`** expressing the state of affairs which doesn't obtain, i.e. Sveta's presence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17607" RevisionGUID="47125fbd-47c3-42ac-9f80-c2193649ec46" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:46:12.547" UserId="11270" Comment="added 463 characters in body" Text="I'd say this **а** is a feature of politeness and/or informality. Perhaps, you don't need to translate it, but you still need to know how to use it, if you don't want to come off as rude in conversations. In a conversation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена, где Света?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would sound too demanding, as if you were commanding Lena to tell you where Sveta was. **a**, by virtue of its informality, makes this almost oppressive tone go away, turning the question into a more polite/relaxed version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, it would be interesting to note here that if you were to use **и** instead of **а** in this setting, it would come off as more aggressive, not less. Here's the scenario: Маша and Петя are a couple; they are invited to an event and are asked not to be late; Маша arrives on time, but Петя is nowhere to be seen. The host, if they felt Маша was somehow responsible for Петя's absence, could then explode at Маша like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Маша, и где Петя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="e9e378e5-1caf-4130-849e-edf3f2c4da20" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:47:58.493" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="I believe another function of the interrogative **`a`** particle/interjection is akin to the adversative conjunction **`a`** in compound sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in compound sentences where it contrasts two statements, in interrogation it contrasts the expected state of affairs which doesn't obtain (implicitly or explicitly) with the question it gives rise to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in the question **`Лена, а где Света?`** the interrogative **`a`** could mean that **`Света`** was expected to be present but is away for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Вам кого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Мне нужна Света.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Она ушла.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;**`А`** когда она вернётся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here **`a`** contraposes the question to the statement **`Она ушла`** negating the expected state of affairs, i.e. Sveta's presence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17607" RevisionGUID="f30b8645-c4e4-4740-bcf3-c633ea796dd4" CreationDate="2018-12-01T10:57:30.017" UserId="11270" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="I'd say this **а** is a feature of politeness and/or informality. Perhaps, you don't need to translate it, but you still need to know how to use it, if you don't want to come off as rude in conversations. In a conversation `Лена, где Света?` would sound too demanding, as if you were commanding Lena to tell you where Sveta was. **a**, by virtue of its informality, makes this almost oppressive tone go away, turning the question into a more polite/relaxed version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, it would be interesting to note here that if you were to use **и** instead of **а** in this setting, it could come off as more aggressive, not less. Here's the scenario: Маша and Петя are a couple; they are invited to an event and are asked not to be late; Маша arrives on time, but Петя is nowhere to be seen. The host, if they felt Маша was somehow responsible for Петя's absence, could then explode at Маша like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Маша, и где Петя?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the host were to ask `Маша, а где Петя?`, this is just asking a question, and politely. But `Маша, и где Петя?` kinda tells Маша off for not making sure Петя was on time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17608" RevisionGUID="646fb708-b6ad-4e8f-b002-d7f69b3b0386" CreationDate="2018-12-01T12:33:46.310" UserId="7674" Comment="added 505 characters in body" Text="I believe another function of the interrogative **`a`** particle/interjection is akin to the adversative conjunction **`a`** in compound sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in compound sentences where it contrasts two statements, in interrogation it contrasts the expected state of affairs which doesn't obtain (implicitly or explicitly) with the question it gives rise to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus in the question **`Лена, а где Света?`** the interrogative **`a`** could mean that **`Света`** was expected to be present but is away for some reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example in a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Вам кого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Мне нужна Света.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;Она ушла.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -&amp;nbsp;**`А`** когда она вернётся?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here **`a`** contraposes the question to the statement **`Она ушла`** negating the expected state of affairs, i.e. Sveta's presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course **`А?`** can function as 1) a standalone interrogative particle meaning **`What?`** / **`What's that?`** and 2) a reiteration of a question after it's been asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1)  &#xD;&#xA;- Я сегодня уезжаю. - I'm leaving today.  &#xD;&#xA;- **А?** Что ты сказала? - [**Huh?**](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huh#Interjection) &lt;sup&gt;**5**&lt;/sup&gt; What did you say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Где ты была вчера вечером, **а**? - [Where were you last night? **Huh**?](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huh#Interjection) &lt;sup&gt;**3**&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17601" RevisionGUID="e87e9408-6566-46bb-bcff-a98e80f95647" CreationDate="2018-12-01T13:33:58.797" UserId="3892" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The imperfective aspect is about state, and the perfective is about state transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_переводившие_ here means &quot;the students who have been translating the article,&quot; i.e. all those who have ever been &quot;in a state of translating the article.&quot; As long as the student spent at least some time translating the article, they would qualify for _переводившие_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its perfective counterpart, _переведшие_, means &quot;those who have changed the state of the article,&quot; turning it from &quot;untranslated&quot; to &quot;translated&quot;. Just spending time on the article is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This phrase describes all the students who have had a hand in translating the article." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17609" RevisionGUID="17ad8660-8df0-4af4-a7f1-a1e3f9bab1ad" CreationDate="2018-12-01T19:52:06.473" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **Ничего, если** я поживу здесь какое-то время?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hear this expression in conversation from time to time. How polite does it sound; is it appropriate for use in formal settings such as business meetings? Or is it generally used more informally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what are common responses, depending on whether you agree with a suggestion or not? Personally, when I don't mind the suggestion made, I tend to start the response with &quot;Да, конечно&quot; or something.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17609" RevisionGUID="17ad8660-8df0-4af4-a7f1-a1e3f9bab1ad" CreationDate="2018-12-01T19:52:06.473" UserId="8672" Text="Usage of &quot;Ничего, если ... ?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17609" RevisionGUID="17ad8660-8df0-4af4-a7f1-a1e3f9bab1ad" CreationDate="2018-12-01T19:52:06.473" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17610" RevisionGUID="8ff55c65-3b90-4dc9-bf52-3a440504ea38" CreationDate="2018-12-01T20:37:58.363" UserId="7674" Text="This is an informal question-cum-request. In business meetings i can envisage its usage only for finding a way to accommodate oneself - **Ничего, если я сяду здесь? Ничего, если я положу сюда свою сумку?** and the like - that is for things not directly related to the objectives of the meeting, unless one is on friendly terms with the opposite party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with requests for significant favors it may come off as a little presumptuous and insolent, because it's basically an expression of a decision made in advance for which only a formal consent is being sought, it expects a positive response before considering the other party's opinion. It's as if one would ask ***You don't mind me living here for a while, right/do you?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides your variant, a positive response could be **Да, без проблем** or **Да без проблем** / **(Да) Пожалуйста** / **Да ради бога** / **Живи сколько хочешь** / **Живи** (less welcoming) / **Ну ладно** (still less welcoming)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17610" RevisionGUID="26274b4f-a1a0-4973-b05b-9191258f9130" CreationDate="2018-12-01T20:43:09.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="This is an informal question-cum-request. In business meetings i can envisage its usage only for finding a way to accommodate oneself - **Ничего, если я сяду здесь? Ничего, если я положу сюда свою сумку?** and the like - that is for things not directly related to the objectives of the meeting, unless one is on friendly terms with the opposite party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with requests for significant favors it may come off as a little presumptuous and insolent, because it's basically an expression of a decision made in advance for which only a formal consent is being sought, it expects a positive response before considering the other party's opinion. It's as if one would ask ***You don't mind me living here for a while, right/do you?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides your variant, a positive response could be **Да, без проблем** or **Да без проблем** / **(Да) Пожалуйста** / **(Да) Ради бога** / **(Да) Живи сколько хочешь** / **Живи** (less welcoming) / **Ну ладно** (still less welcoming). **Да** being an enthusiastic particle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17610" RevisionGUID="2c735a78-c9c8-4681-a95d-618b287aebac" CreationDate="2018-12-01T21:03:41.017" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="This is an informal question-cum-request. In business meetings i can envisage its usage only for finding a way to accommodate oneself - **Ничего, если я сяду здесь? Ничего, если я положу сюда свою сумку?** and the like - that is for things not directly related to the objectives of the meeting, unless one is on friendly terms with the opposite party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with requests for significant favors it may come off as a little presumptuous and insolent, because it's basically an expression of a decision made in advance for which only a formal consent is being sought, it expects a positive response before considering the other party's opinion. It's as if one would ask ***You don't mind me living here for a while, right/do you?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides your variant, a positive response could be **Да, без проблем** or **Да без проблем** / **(Да) Пожалуйста** / **(Да) Ради бога** / **(Да) Живи сколько хочешь** / **Живи** (less welcoming) / **Ну ладно (, живи) / Ну живи** (still less welcoming). **Да** being an enthusiastic particle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="16530" RevisionGUID="431ae1d9-fab1-4071-90de-6f5e308a59be" CreationDate="2018-12-02T08:48:41.597" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|творительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17602" RevisionGUID="d8d527dd-d0e5-4425-8746-9209dae28f0d" CreationDate="2018-12-02T08:50:51.467" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|падежи|творительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17611" RevisionGUID="0630e1c7-1a74-4dc2-afaf-7385d43252ed" CreationDate="2018-12-02T11:20:05.183" UserId="11080" Text="&quot;Ничего&quot; tends to have the meaning &quot;ничего плохого&quot; in some cases of usage. E.x., &quot;Извините, пожалуйста, я наступил вам на ногу!&quot; - &quot;Ничего!&quot; - sth like 'never mind, I'm ok'. &#xA;I'd use &quot;ничего, если&quot; even in a business meeting, it adds some informality and neutral attitude to the issue discussed. &#xA;But pay attention, that the intonation matters, as well as the words after &quot;ничего&quot;. The phrase &quot;(А) ничего, что я вас уже час жду&quot; means the speaker is pretty angry, and this is what can really spoil your meeting. Avoid this type of usage of ничего, as it is really not for business. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17611" RevisionGUID="fd748c49-c161-416f-9b9e-255adc4473e2" CreationDate="2018-12-02T11:39:34.957" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ничего&quot; tends to have the meaning &quot;ничего плохого&quot; in some cases of usage. E.x., &quot;Извините, пожалуйста, я наступил вам на ногу!&quot; - &quot;Ничего!&quot; - sth like 'never mind, I'm ok'. &#xD;&#xA;I'd use &quot;ничего, если&quot; even in a business meeting, it adds some informality and neutral attitude to the issue discussed. &#xD;&#xA;But pay attention, that the intonation matters, as well as the words after &quot;ничего&quot;. The phrase &quot;(А) ничего, что я вас уже час жду?&quot; means the speaker is pretty angry, and this is what can really spoil your meeting. Avoid this type of usage of ничего, as it is really not for business. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45989" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16530" RevisionGUID="fcfecc9f-75e1-4d1d-8afe-2ed4acb07af6" CreationDate="2018-12-02T12:34:46.460" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How is &quot;огурец&quot; used here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17611" RevisionGUID="6a2bc066-5037-46b2-812f-b138093de779" CreationDate="2018-12-02T13:59:54.597" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;Ничего&quot; tends to have the meaning &quot;ничего плохого&quot; in some cases of usage. E.x., &quot;Извините, пожалуйста, я наступил вам на ногу!&quot; - &quot;Ничего!&quot; - sth like 'never mind, I'm ok'. &#xD;&#xA;I'd use &quot;ничего, если&quot; even in a business meeting, it adds some informality and neutral attitude to the issue discussed. &#xD;&#xA;But pay attention, that the intonation matters, as well as the words after &quot;ничего&quot;. The phrase &quot;(А) ничего, **что** я вас уже час жду?&quot; means the speaker is pretty angry, and this is what can really spoil your meeting. Avoid this type of usage of ничего, as it is really not for business. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="99756d3c-5da1-49cc-9bbc-16fa34c83c0f" CreationDate="2018-12-03T05:13:42.903" UserId="170" Text="How to describe a successful action of a player in a national team that would start a relatively long period of success for that team?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, тем самым **начав подъём** российского футбола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начав подьём&quot; doesn't sit right with me.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="99756d3c-5da1-49cc-9bbc-16fa34c83c0f" CreationDate="2018-12-03T05:13:42.903" UserId="170" Text="A verb or verbal phrase to describe a start of a long successful period in sports" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="99756d3c-5da1-49cc-9bbc-16fa34c83c0f" CreationDate="2018-12-03T05:13:42.903" UserId="170" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17613" RevisionGUID="937191a2-85b8-4e9c-9003-7ce60f9c7dc1" CreationDate="2018-12-03T05:44:54.743" UserId="11270" Text="Grammatically, everything is fine. As far as style, I believe `положить начало чему-либо` is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, тем самым **положив начало подъёму** российского футбола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will have the meaning of the scorer laying the symbolic foundation for the rise of Russian football. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17610" RevisionGUID="e686850f-6879-49de-9ce0-9cbe1974cdfe" CreationDate="2018-12-03T07:19:18.917" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is an informal question-cum-request. In business meetings i can envisage its usage only for finding a way to accommodate oneself - **Ничего, если я сяду здесь? Ничего, если я положу сюда свою сумку?** and the like - that is for things not directly related to the objectives of the meeting, unless one is on friendly terms with the opposite party.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with requests for significant favors it may come off as a little presumptuous and insolent, because it's basically an expression of a decision made in advance for which only a formal consent is being sought, it expects a positive response before considering the other party's opinion. It's as if one would ask ***You don't mind me living here for a while, right/do you?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides your variant, a positive response could be **Да, без проблем** or **(Да) Без проблем** / **(Да) Пожалуйста** / **(Да) Ради бога** / **(Да) Живи сколько хочешь** / **Живи** (less welcoming) / **Ну ладно (, живи) / Ну живи** (still less welcoming). **Да** being an enthusiastic particle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="1d52ff45-3a43-4487-9bc1-51007f5cd423" CreationDate="2018-12-03T07:26:21.813" UserId="7674" Text="For your example my suggestion is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, тем самым **дав толчок/старт** подъёму российского футбола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the situation you've described, which is different from the one represented by the actual example, **положить начало** fits perfectly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забитый им финальный гол положил начало серии побед команды на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чемпионате." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17614" RevisionGUID="e38ebd1b-fcb1-49eb-bd10-18c1a4348c7c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T07:53:02.183" UserId="7674" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="For your example my suggestion is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, тем самым **дав толчок/старт** подъёму российского футбола.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or you can express the idea in a roundabout way&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, **ставший/который стал началом** возрождения&#xD;&#xA;&gt; российского футбола&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, **после которого/вслед за которым** началось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возрождение российского футбола&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for the situation you've described, which is different from the one represented by the actual example, **положить начало** fits perfectly&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Забитый им финальный гол положил начало серии побед команды на&#xD;&#xA;&gt; чемпионате." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17615" RevisionGUID="2180c65f-0823-4baf-8341-d01ffc6c8f6e" CreationDate="2018-12-03T08:29:05.280" UserId="5443" Text="IMO, a conclusion about the long-term meaning of such a fact comes to minds _after a while_. For that reason, the idea that somebody started a new epoch by kicking a ball doesn't sound too natural. I'd try to change the sentence like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И тут он забил гол, с которым позже *стали связывать начало подъёма* в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; развитии российского футбола." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="45999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17616" RevisionGUID="aa7a7ef3-68ff-40b2-8833-1a65787bec19" CreationDate="2018-12-03T08:47:50.250" UserId="5443" Text="Each shorty was *as tall as* a small (standing) cucumber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17617" RevisionGUID="ddc335fa-96e1-47ba-b4c7-1dbc67ee2d5c" CreationDate="2018-12-03T09:06:31.597" UserId="5443" Text="This particular phrase sounds a bit unceremoniously: the speaker 'invites' the other person to agree with inevitable inconveniences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hopefully**, it will be **OK** if I live here for a while?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17618" RevisionGUID="d3dfbb9b-087d-42a5-92a6-f287796af567" CreationDate="2018-12-03T21:18:43.093" UserId="11080" Text="You have made my... week, I believe. )))))&#xD;&#xA;Really, I can't imagine a **чудовищная женщина**, neither can I think of a **чудовищный мужчина**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Страшная женщина** can be used also instead of **страшный человек**, denoting a cruel or cynic person, if the person is female, as **человек** is masculine though general. But this is more colloquial and may be ironic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a woman is ugly/she is concidered ugly/she thinks she is ugly, the words **страшная** and **страшненькая** are used. And **страшненькая** is sure to denote the appearance. &#xD;&#xA;**Ужасная женщина** is an extremely unpleasant woman. This epithet is very emotional, and in this case the expression &quot;**страшная женщина**&quot; can be used ironically and pronounced in a gravy voice. :) To make it sure you do it on purpose and for emphasis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an unpleasant woman will be **неприятная женщина**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the seamingly oxymoronic prase **страшная красавица** another meaning of the word **страшный** is revealed. It is a colloquial phrase, and it means &quot;extremely beautiful&quot;, like &quot;**ужасно хочу есть**&quot; means &quot;**I'm terribly hungry**&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17618" RevisionGUID="6dcb9e4e-1434-42d8-a0ab-1ea59ee987c2" CreationDate="2018-12-03T21:30:26.663" UserId="11080" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You have made my... week, I believe. )))))&#xD;&#xA;Really, I can't imagine a **чудовищная женщина**, neither can I think of a **чудовищный мужчина**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Страшная женщина** can be used also instead of **страшный человек**, denoting a cruel or cynic person, if the person is female, as **человек** is masculine though general. But this is more colloquial and may be ironic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a woman is ugly/she is concidered ugly/she thinks she is ugly, the words **страшная** and **страшненькая** are used. And **страшненькая** is sure to denote the appearance. &#xD;&#xA;**Ужасная женщина** is an extremely unpleasant woman. This epithet is very emotional, and in this case the expression &quot;**страшная женщина**&quot; can be used ironically and pronounced in a gravy voice. :) To make it sure you do it on purpose and for emphasis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an unpleasant woman will be **неприятная женщина**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the seamingly oxymoronic phrase **страшная красавица** another meaning of the word **страшный** is revealed. It is a colloquial phrase, and it means &quot;extremely beautiful&quot;, like &quot;**ужасно хочу есть**&quot; means &quot;**I'm terribly hungry**&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17618" RevisionGUID="703f05ee-958a-4d63-886f-701bfa4d9697" CreationDate="2018-12-04T05:02:57.387" UserId="11080" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="You have made my... week, I believe. )))))&#xD;&#xA;Really, I can't imagine a **чудовищная женщина**, neither can I think of a **чудовищный мужчина**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Страшная женщина** can be used also instead of **страшный человек**, denoting a cruel or cynic person, if the person is female, as **человек** is masculine though general. But this is more colloquial and may be ironic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a woman is ugly/she is concidered ugly/she thinks she is ugly, the words **страшная** and **страшненькая** are used. And **страшненькая** is sure to denote the appearance. &#xD;&#xA;**Ужасная женщина** is an extremely unpleasant woman. This epithet is very emotional, and in this case the expression &quot;**страшная женщина**&quot; can be used ironically and pronounced in a gravy voice. :) To make it sure you do it on purpose and for emphasis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just an unpleasant woman will be **неприятная женщина**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the seamingly oxymoronic phrase **страшная красавица** another meaning of the word **страшный** is revealed. It is a colloquial phrase, and it means &quot;extremely beautiful&quot;, like &quot;**ужасно хочу есть**&quot; means &quot;**I'm terribly hungry**&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Страшный человек][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Красота - страшная сила][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/3fCOx-Nq0vQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/KYrSYkby-q0?t=26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17619" RevisionGUID="a98a436c-8884-4f51-9cb1-2619963b1e19" CreationDate="2018-12-04T06:50:32.513" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; ..., и этим **начал череду успешных выступлений** команды... &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; ..., **с которого начался взлёт** {отечественного футбола}.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (успешное выступление команды) **ознаменовало новую волну возрождения**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; российского футбола&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (успехи сборной на чемпионате) **вдохновили** команду **на новые&#xD;&#xA;&gt; победы**/российских футболистов **на новые достижения**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; забил гол, **ставший первой ласточкой новой весны** российского футбола (&quot;первая ласточка&quot; is an idiom)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And miscellaneous. &#xD;&#xA;I am under the impression that the larger half of expressions to describe this phenomenon are not idioms and can be translated from your first language. Think of a proper metaphor. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="a5ae06f0-3eaa-4c9d-b048-276bbd08f8bf" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:07:22.530" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Таким людям, как я, **не место** в этом мире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why &quot;не&quot; instead of &quot;нет&quot; precedes the noun &quot;место&quot; in this expression -- not to mention the lack of the genitive &quot;места&quot;. Compared to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким людям, как я, **нет места** в этом мире.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="a5ae06f0-3eaa-4c9d-b048-276bbd08f8bf" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:07:22.530" UserId="8672" Text="Why say &quot;мне не место&quot;, not &quot;мне нет места&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="a5ae06f0-3eaa-4c9d-b048-276bbd08f8bf" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:07:22.530" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17621" RevisionGUID="10d571a1-eb57-4dd7-8a3d-ce202c910222" CreationDate="2018-12-04T08:53:24.423" UserId="11286" Text="You can say both way. While **нет места** can be said also as literally meaning &quot;there is no space&quot;, **не место** always means *nobody happy to see you* or *you should not be here* not because of lack of space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17622" RevisionGUID="24dc619b-5e53-4638-82ad-7d22cd6d27bf" CreationDate="2018-12-04T09:19:18.687" UserId="10999" Text="These sentences have different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким людям, как я, нет места в этом мире.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; People like me have no place in this world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким людям, как я, не место в этом мире.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; People like me are not suitable for this world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;мне здесь не место&quot;** means **&quot;I shouldn't be here (and maybe better should be elsewhere)&quot;**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17623" RevisionGUID="c55e9e18-91fc-4ee4-8dbc-9ba3a2e187c9" CreationDate="2018-12-04T09:28:32.303" UserId="11270" Text="Can't help with the theory of this phenomenon, but here's an intuitive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, why `не` instead of `нет`. In English one can say both `there is not a place` where `not` negates `is`, and `there is no place` where `no` -- at least, in my understanding -- negates `place`.  Similarly, `нет` in `нет места` sorta means `не есть` (where `есть` is a form of `быть` -- see [here](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C#%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_(%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_II))) or `не существует`. In other words, `нет` is not a negation of `места`, but a negation of a verb `существует` that is hidden in this `нет`, so what you are really saying is `не существует места`. `не` in `не место` negates `место` itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, why `место` instead of `места`. Now that `не` negates `место` is established, there's no reason for `место` to change cases. Drop `не` and you'll see it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким людям, как я, место в этом мире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding `не` shouldn't change anything as far as cases go -- when you add `не` into `Курица - птица` to say `Курица не птица` you don't switch cases too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17624" RevisionGUID="321456a8-592d-4d33-8d54-3c25397b0354" CreationDate="2018-12-04T10:05:30.913" UserId="2104" Text="Both expressions are valid, with different meaning:&#xA;&#xA;* Мне здесь нет места. - There is no place/room for me here.&#xA;* Мне здесь не место. - I shouldn't be here. / This place is not for me. &#xA;&#xA;As to the grammar, here is my unvalidated theory: место is used as a predicative (предикатив) here. As predicatives are not inflected, место has also lost its inflection in this role:&#xA;&#xA;* Мне здесь не хорошо.&#xA;Both expressions are valid, with different meaning:&#xA;&#xA;* Мне здесь нет места. - There is no place/room for me here.&#xA;* Мне здесь не место. - I shouldn't be here. / This place is not for me. &#xA;&#xA;As to the grammar, here is my unvalidated theory: место is used as a predicative (предикатив) here. As predicatives are not inflected, место has also lost its inflection in this role:&#xA;&#xA;* Мне здесь не хорошо.&#xA;* Мне здесь не спится..&#xA;* Мне здесь не место.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17624" RevisionGUID="af165272-fb6f-4d57-9208-33d8b9b2345d" CreationDate="2018-12-04T10:38:51.053" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 400 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Both expressions are valid, with different meaning:&#xA;&#xA;* Мне здесь нет места. - There is no place/room for me here.&#xA;* Мне здесь не место. - I shouldn't be here. / This place is not for me.&#xA;&#xA;As to the grammar, here is my unvalidated theory: место is used as a predicative (предикатив). As predicatives are not inflected, место has also lost its inflection in this role:&#xA;&#xA;* Мне здесь не хорошо.&#xA;* Мне здесь не спится..&#xA;* Мне здесь не место.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17623" RevisionGUID="7a872736-fc55-4965-929c-306083db10c4" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:04:17.100" UserId="11270" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Can't help with the theory of this phenomenon, but here's an intuitive answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, why `не` instead of `нет`. In English one can say both `there is not a place` where `not` negates `is`, and `there is no place` where `no` -- at least, in my understanding -- negates `place`.  Similarly, `нет` in `нет места` sorta means `не есть` (where `есть` is a form of `быть` -- see [here](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C#%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C_(%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB_II))) or `не существует`. In other words, `нет` is not a negation of `места`, but a negation of a verb `существует` that is hidden in this `нет`, so what you are really saying is `не существует места`. On the other hand, `не` in `не место` negates `место` itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, why `место` instead of `места`. Now that `не` negates `место` is established, there's no reason for `место` to change cases. Drop `не` and you'll see it:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Таким людям, как я, место в этом мире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding `не` shouldn't change anything as far as cases go -- when you add `не` into `Курица - птица` to say `Курица не птица` you don't switch cases too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17625" RevisionGUID="9f11fdb9-9016-4026-9d34-c1ddcfe45e28" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:55:46.043" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Похоже, я встречаю одних **лишь** жадных женщин.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the adverb &quot;лишь&quot;, along with the adjective &quot;одних&quot;, conveys the idea of &quot;(meet) only/just&quot;. I wonder why &quot;лишь&quot; needs to be interposed between the two adjectives &quot;одних&quot; and &quot;жадных&quot; like this instead of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, я встречаю **лишь** одних жадных женщин." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46016" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17625" RevisionGUID="9f11fdb9-9016-4026-9d34-c1ddcfe45e28" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:55:46.043" UserId="8672" Text="Why is &quot;лишь&quot; interposed in &quot;одних лишь жадных женщин&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46017" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17625" RevisionGUID="9f11fdb9-9016-4026-9d34-c1ddcfe45e28" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:55:46.043" UserId="8672" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17626" RevisionGUID="7465ace2-f33c-41e0-af94-25675fd0a1be" CreationDate="2018-12-04T16:08:16.737" UserId="310" Text="I would say that in this case `одних` works much more like *an article would* and not as an adjective at all. You can't possibly say `Похоже, я встречаю жадных одних женщин.` I guess there's a clever world for role of `одних` in this sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you say that you would actually wonder why the second form is allowed, and not the first one. Of course you will say &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the **only** greedy woman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and not &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **only** the greedy woman&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `одних` as an article has an opposite effect of `the` in English. So instead of meeting the only greedy woman you meet all women who are greedy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P. S. And the second form will be actually discouraged in written Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17627" RevisionGUID="b0705fbd-e255-4049-9b01-4ccf7c74ad76" CreationDate="2018-12-04T16:19:46.137" UserId="11270" Text="&gt; I wonder why &quot;лишь&quot; needs to be interposed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends on what you mean by needs -- it certainly doesn't have to. I don't see much difference between `одних лишь` и `лишь одних`, at least in the example that you are giving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would a person opt for the second phrase in your example, and not the first one? Because they wouldn't want to *говорить стихами*, for example -- your first phrase reads like a verse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="fca2b693-1ba6-4893-a0a5-d507f2dbfc74" CreationDate="2018-12-04T16:34:33.163" UserId="5443" Text="The numeral **одни(х)** is used here in the meaning **только**, so the word combination is equivalent in sense to &quot;**только лишь**&quot; where the two words are close synonyms and express almost the same meaning. They can follow in *either* order without changing sense, but the version &quot;**одних лишь**&quot; in that particular sentence sounds slightly *more phonetically balanced* here than &quot;**лишь одних**&quot; would. If another numeral in place of *одни(х)* were used here for 'counting' those women (встретил &quot;лишь двух&quot; жадных женщин, а не больше), another word order (&quot;двух лишь&quot;) wouldn't work well. So &quot;**одних лишь**&quot; or &quot;**лишь одних**&quot; has  here the sense similar to that of the combination '**only just**': https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/only-just" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46021" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17620" RevisionGUID="e6dadb79-f886-409e-998a-134abaa2455b" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:01:03.027" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1070015136419758080" />
  <row Id="46022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="c2b1d8b4-9410-4913-96cf-9481b29fcfce" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:20:05.950" UserId="3892" Text="I Listened to a podcast, in which the speaker attempted to explain what **тренироваться на кошечках** means and how it's used, yet I failed to grasp the meaning. Can someone explain? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46023" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="c2b1d8b4-9410-4913-96cf-9481b29fcfce" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:20:05.950" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of тренироваться на кошечках" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46024" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="c2b1d8b4-9410-4913-96cf-9481b29fcfce" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:20:05.950" UserId="3892" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17630" RevisionGUID="62868fe9-1e77-43bb-9a75-4a1e81735919" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:23:01.077" UserId="11270" Text="Means &quot;to train on a dummy&quot; or &quot;to practice the skills on a dummy&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a meme from a film called &quot;Операция Ы&quot;. Here's the scene where it's used: [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j79mA_6BAQ)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46027" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17630" RevisionGUID="bd6b01fd-4c05-485c-9065-810eb4a9aecf" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:25:18.070" UserId="242" Comment="Converted to Comment" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17630" RevisionGUID="a1d1bc90-c804-499b-93c6-6429a6943fa2" CreationDate="2018-12-04T18:48:35.543" UserId="11270" Comment="added 452 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Means &quot;to train on a dummy&quot; or &quot;to practice the skills on a dummy&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having been born back in the USSR and still being widely used by all generations, except may be the very old, it's quite a resilient meme from a film called &quot;Операция Ы&quot;. Here's the scene where it's used: [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j79mA_6BAQ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be employed quite liberally in all sorts of conversations -- you can have a dialogue that goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Давай поднимемся на Эверест?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Может, сначала потренируемся на кошечках и покорим Эльбрус?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it can refer not only to literally a dummy, but to anything that is considered a much simpler case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17630" RevisionGUID="edbf4a26-5824-49fd-8fff-464c6e5b61db" CreationDate="2018-12-04T19:16:32.170" UserId="11270" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body" Text="Means &quot;to train on a dummy&quot; or &quot;to practice the skills on a much simpler case&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having been born back in the USSR and still being widely used by all generations, except may be the very old, it's quite a resilient meme from a film called &quot;Операция Ы&quot;. Here's the scene where it's used: [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j79mA_6BAQ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be employed quite liberally in all sorts of conversations -- you can have a dialogue that goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Давай поднимемся на Эверест?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Может, сначала потренируемся на кошечках и покорим Эльбрус?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46030" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17630" RevisionGUID="a4e11039-2694-4747-8444-143655c9eccb" CreationDate="2018-12-04T21:17:51.973" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46031" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="97ff08d7-4db6-408c-b0e4-ede380900edb" CreationDate="2018-12-04T22:33:32.533" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;тренироваться на кошечках&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17631" RevisionGUID="a3e66f4f-a96f-4bfc-81e0-abecaea7b3c6" CreationDate="2018-12-04T22:41:58.403" UserId="11288" Text="I open a read book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здесь рэд это третья форма глагола, то есть она означает и прочитанный и читаемый одновременно!&#xD;&#xA;Тогда как правильно перевести:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я открыл прочитанную книгу.&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;Я открыл читаемую книгу. (недочитанную)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17631" RevisionGUID="a3e66f4f-a96f-4bfc-81e0-abecaea7b3c6" CreationDate="2018-12-04T22:41:58.403" UserId="11288" Text="многозначность третьей формы глагола" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17631" RevisionGUID="a3e66f4f-a96f-4bfc-81e0-abecaea7b3c6" CreationDate="2018-12-04T22:41:58.403" UserId="11288" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46035" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17629" RevisionGUID="0231cb70-296c-41cb-949e-ea7435d2e7b2" CreationDate="2018-12-05T06:00:03.163" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1070196079365382144" />
  <row Id="46036" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17631" RevisionGUID="5f115a69-73df-4e1c-b08c-3d98f84e75d9" CreationDate="2018-12-05T09:27:56.257" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Прочитанную книгу&quot; или &quot;читаемую книгу&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17632" RevisionGUID="04d75263-1019-45dc-ba3e-6f04bf55ae95" CreationDate="2018-12-05T10:30:22.290" UserId="11080" Text="Правильно - переводить, пользуясь контекстом. Здесь слишком мало информации из оригинала, чтобы сделать перевод правильно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если же это упражнение, где надо просто перевести фразы на русский, то напишите два варианта и покажите вашему учителю, что вы знаете оба. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я не понимаю, почему ответы упорно переносятся в комментарии, тогда как сообщения не по теме не модерируются. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17624" RevisionGUID="01f95162-c820-4a0c-921b-234c84470898" CreationDate="2018-12-05T13:46:53.913" UserId="2104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Both expressions are valid, with different meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Мне здесь нет места. - There is no place/room for me here.&#xD;&#xA;* Мне здесь не место. - I shouldn't be here. / This place is not for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the grammar, here is my unvalidated theory: место is used as a predicative (предикатив). As predicatives are not inflected, место has also lost its inflection in this role:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Мне здесь не хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;* Мне здесь не спится.&#xD;&#xA;* Мне здесь не место.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17633" RevisionGUID="a130b826-14cc-4869-be52-2b5a78ecf201" CreationDate="2018-12-05T15:25:36.750" UserId="11080" Text="If we read the phrase aloud, it sounds **rhytmical**. So, it can be either a line of a poem/song, or a phrase from the direct speech of a character. &#xA;&#xA;And if you put лишь first, the rhyme breaks. &#xA;&#xA;Grammatically it can be both лишь одних and одних лишь. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="4bb8b806-282a-45cd-8937-cf0e9b95e0c8" CreationDate="2018-12-06T04:33:56.597" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Мы будем помагать **друг другу всем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how placing &quot;всем&quot; after &quot;друг другу&quot; compares with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы **все**  будем помагать **друг другу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just a stylistic difference, or are they nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="4bb8b806-282a-45cd-8937-cf0e9b95e0c8" CreationDate="2018-12-06T04:33:56.597" UserId="8672" Text="Difference between &quot;друг другу всем&quot; and &quot;все ... друг другу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="4bb8b806-282a-45cd-8937-cf0e9b95e0c8" CreationDate="2018-12-06T04:33:56.597" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="4dc93eb8-fc0d-4294-b04a-d316b8a99092" CreationDate="2018-12-06T05:31:31.670" UserId="11270" Text="First, it's **помОгать**, not помагать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First phrase has a meaning of &quot;we'll be helping each other with everything we've got&quot;. It's a short version of **мы будем помогать друг другу всем, чем сможем**. As a rule, you are advised to place **всем** before **помогать** if you want it to have this meaning (**мы всем поможем**), otherwise, if **всем** is after **помогать** like in your example, you risk being misinterpreted as saying &quot;we'll be helping everyone&quot; (**мы будем помогать всем**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second phrase = &quot;we all will be helping each other&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17634" RevisionGUID="980e8c2b-0c61-4137-a9b4-d0816c814502" CreationDate="2018-12-06T05:35:40.053" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мы будем помогать **друг другу всем**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how placing &quot;всем&quot; after &quot;друг другу&quot; compares with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы **все**  будем помогать **друг другу**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it just a stylistic difference, or are they nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="9215f273-884f-4a18-8cff-3f58e1ffad80" CreationDate="2018-12-06T13:36:42.197" UserId="11080" Comment="To avoid misunderstanding. " Text="First, it's **помогать**, not помагать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First phrase has a meaning of &quot;we'll be helping each other with everything we've got&quot;. It's a short version of **мы будем помогать друг другу всем, чем сможем**. As a rule, you are advised to place **всем** before **помогать** if you want it to have this meaning (**мы всем поможем**, without **друг другу**), otherwise, if **всем** is after **помогать** like in your example, you risk being misinterpreted as saying &quot;we'll be helping everyone&quot; (**мы будем помогать всем**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second phrase = &quot;we all will be helping each other&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46046" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="9215f273-884f-4a18-8cff-3f58e1ffad80" CreationDate="2018-12-06T13:36:42.197" Comment="Proposed by 11080 approved by -1 edit id of 1001" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="24168661-f087-4dd8-8369-e3282fa3b772" CreationDate="2018-12-06T13:36:42.197" UserId="11270" Comment="added 366 characters in body; added 42 characters in body" Text="First phrase has the meaning of &quot;we'll be helping each other with everything&quot;, where everything refers to the amount of help they can provide each other, i.e. &quot;with everything we've got, we can spare, etc.&quot; Note that if you wanted to mean &quot;we'll be helping each other in everything&quot;, you would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем помогать друг другу во всём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by Баян Купи-ка in the comments, **всем** in the first expression is the instrumental case of *всё*. Adding *чем сможем* at the end can help with understanding why the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем помогать друг другу всем, чем сможем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *чем сможем* vs *чем можем* that you asked about in the comments, there's literally no difference in meaning -- a native Russian speaker would interpret them  the same way, at least in the setting that you provide -- but formally, *чем сможем* is &quot;what we'll be able to spare&quot; and *чем можем* is &quot;what we can spare&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second phrase = &quot;we all will be helping each other&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="960afd02-6893-44d5-8931-e18171defc8b" CreationDate="2018-12-06T14:06:07.237" UserId="11270" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="First phrase has the meaning of &quot;we'll be helping each other with everything&quot;, where everything refers to the amount of help they can provide each other, i.e. &quot;with everything we've got, we can spare, etc.&quot; Note that if you wanted to mean &quot;we'll be helping each other in everything&quot;, you would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем помогать друг другу во всём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by Баян Купи-ка in the comments, **всем** in the first expression is the instrumental case of *всё*. Adding *чем сможем* at the end can help with understanding why the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем помогать друг другу всем, чем сможем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *чем сможем* vs *чем можем* that you asked about in the comments, there's literally no difference in meaning -- a native Russian speaker would interpret them  the same way, at least in the setting that you provide -- but formally, **всем, чем сможем** is &quot;with everything we'll be able to spare&quot; and **всем, чем можем** is &quot;with everything we can spare&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second phrase = &quot;we all will be helping each other&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17635" RevisionGUID="a06684d8-c0fe-4604-895f-5d4db727ff8a" CreationDate="2018-12-06T14:21:58.563" UserId="11270" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="First phrase has the meaning of &quot;we'll be helping each other with everything&quot;, where everything refers to the amount of help they can provide each other, i.e. &quot;with everything we've got, we can spare, etc.&quot; Note that if you wanted to mean &quot;we'll be helping each other in everything&quot;, you would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем помогать друг другу во всём.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by Баян Купи-ка in the comments, **всем** in the first expression is the instrumental case of *всё*. Adding *чем сможем* at the end can help with understanding why the instrumental case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы будем помогать друг другу всем, чем сможем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding *чем сможем* vs *чем можем* that you asked about in the comments, there's literally no difference in meaning -- a native Russian speaker would interpret them  the same way, at least in the setting that you provide -- but formally, **всем, чем сможем** is &quot;with everything we'll be able to spare/we'll have&quot; and **всем, чем можем** is &quot;with everything we can spare/we have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second phrase = &quot;we all will be helping each other&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17596" RevisionGUID="d9766a64-de9f-4199-920b-a251e5eb5296" CreationDate="2018-12-06T18:00:32.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1070739783259963397" />
  <row Id="46051" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17482" RevisionGUID="b3c1c3a8-a81d-4f66-9d4d-eeebc6e5bdce" CreationDate="2018-12-07T00:00:30.047" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1070830370701144064" />
  <row Id="46052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="12d33218-69f6-4332-8f34-1de47083710a" CreationDate="2018-12-07T06:30:37.603" UserId="170" Text="&gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и немалое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и не малое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="12d33218-69f6-4332-8f34-1de47083710a" CreationDate="2018-12-07T06:30:37.603" UserId="170" Text="&quot;немалое&quot; or &quot;не малое&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="12d33218-69f6-4332-8f34-1de47083710a" CreationDate="2018-12-07T06:30:37.603" UserId="170" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17637" RevisionGUID="46c734a5-7759-4b43-9e5a-e5452f06878c" CreationDate="2018-12-07T07:41:40.850" UserId="11139" Text="Unfortunately, “не” with adjectives and participles is quite tricky in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;So, even large part of native speakers cannot write it properly very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically you write “не” seprately if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* you have some strengthening word or phrase (like “совсем”, “отнюдь”, etc) near the main “не”-word.&#xD;&#xA;* you have some antithesis (after the main statement) that opposes the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и совсем не малое.&#xD;&#xA;    Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и не малое, а довольно значительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your “short” case you most surely shoud use “немалое”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about “не” you can find in grammar rules (in Russian):  &#xD;&#xA;https://therules.ru/hyphen-particles/#88  &#xD;&#xA;(§ 88 and so on)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17637" RevisionGUID="d7bb3f59-7035-45a0-9a64-b7e70d555b52" CreationDate="2018-12-07T07:52:22.873" UserId="11139" Comment="explained examples" Text="Unfortunately, “не” with adjectives and participles is quite tricky in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;So, even large part of native speakers cannot write it properly very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically you write “не” seprately if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * you have some **strengthening** word or phrase (like “далеко не”, “отнюдь не”, “вовсе не”, “ничуть не”, “нисколько не”, etc) near the main word;&#xD;&#xA; * you have some **antithesis** (after the main statement) that opposes the primary meaning;&#xD;&#xA; * you want to imply some antithesis or strengthening _implicitly_ without writing them (sort of the author’s grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * strengthening “совсем не малое”:&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и совсем не малое.&#xD;&#xA; * explicit opposition „не малое, а …“:&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и не малое, а довольно значительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your “short” case you most likely shoud use “немалое”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about “не” you can find in grammar rules (in Russian):  &#xD;&#xA;https://therules.ru/hyphen-particles/#88  &#xD;&#xA;(§ 88 and so on)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17637" RevisionGUID="50e61fba-8c49-482b-a384-9219cdd65b8f" CreationDate="2018-12-07T08:47:33.407" UserId="11139" Comment="added rule of thumb" Text="Unfortunately, “не” with adjectives and participles is quite tricky in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;So, even large part of native speakers cannot write it properly very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically you write “не” seprately if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * you have some **strengthening** word or phrase (like “далеко не”, “отнюдь не”, “вовсе не”, “ничуть не”, “нисколько не”, etc) near the main word;&#xD;&#xA; * you have some **antithesis** (after the main statement) that opposes the primary meaning;&#xD;&#xA; * you want to imply some antithesis or strengthening _implicitly_ without writing them (sort of the author’s grammar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * strengthening “совсем не малое”:&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и совсем не малое.&#xD;&#xA; * explicit opposition „не малое, а …“:&#xD;&#xA;   &gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и не малое, а довольно значительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your “short” case you most likely shoud use “немалое”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * * *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In common usage one can apply the rule of thumb as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_If you can replace “не”-something in sentence with a one-word synonym (not containing “не” prefix) without losing any meaning and context, you should write it as one word._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уважение к нему и сейчас в стране существует, и значительное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about “не” you can find in grammar rules (in Russian):  &#xD;&#xA;https://therules.ru/hyphen-particles/#88  &#xD;&#xA;(§ 88 and so on)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17638" RevisionGUID="40d84899-b5fd-4c4a-b7d1-47b38690e3be" CreationDate="2018-12-07T11:29:56.853" UserId="11270" Text="In addition to what has been said, one trick for deciding how to write *не* with an adjective -- слитно or раздельно -- is by examining whether *не* together with its adjective assert/affirm a property of the noun phrase, in which case you should write them *слитно*, or reject/deny it (i.e. property), in which case it is *раздельно*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Telling the difference between the two can be sometimes quite tricky, but in your example it's quite obvious that *немалое* should be chosen -- you are clearly asserting that this man is of notable repute rather than trying to dismiss the claim that there's little respect for him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To show how *не малое* can pop up in a setting similar to the one you provide, imagine a dialogue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Person А: Уважение к нему сейчас в стране малое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Person В: Неправда, не малое...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *малое* can be said to be out of place in this particular Person A's phrase and in need of being changed for, say, *маленькое*, but style is not the important thing here. The important thing is that *не* and *малое* are written раздельно in Person B's response -- for the very reason that Person B is not asserting that the man is held in high respect, but denying that respect for him is low. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17633" RevisionGUID="76749a4e-9af1-4fdd-aebe-848aa432c90b" CreationDate="2018-12-07T16:44:41.013" UserId="11080" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="If we read the phrase aloud, it sounds **rhytmical**. So, it can be either a line of a poem/song, or a phrase from the direct speech of a character. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you put лишь first, the rhythm breaks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grammatically it can be both лишь одних and одних лишь. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17612" RevisionGUID="0d26c6ec-5279-4005-880a-dcd47030beab" CreationDate="2018-12-08T06:00:26.203" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1071283339380838401" />
  <row Id="46062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="70cd8493-e3ec-48b4-8f4c-3e3f5f5cb9aa" CreationDate="2018-12-09T14:00:44.257" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian nouns denoting most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**. This is one of adverb formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие ([«творительный дистрибутивный»](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive-temporal_case) в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instrumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place: (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. It's more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian. On the other hand Temporal Instrumental in Ukrainian is somewhat rarer than in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation i'd offer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian culture has been in creation/development for centuries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian culture has been developing for centuries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17639" RevisionGUID="a7b8999c-9dca-4969-8246-58da86b3d486" CreationDate="2018-12-09T17:50:21.390" UserId="8679" Text="Normally a reflexivity of a verb stays the same regardless of aspect (not talking about semantic derivation). But I have learned three exceptions to this rule already:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **станови́ться – стать** (but: ста́ться *разг.*)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **сади́ться – сесть**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **соску́читься – скуча́ть** (по кому́-то / о ко́м-то)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can only think of one example in Polish and always considered it an oddity, so I am wondering if this is a wider phenomenon in Russian. Are there other pairs of verbs like these?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17639" RevisionGUID="a7b8999c-9dca-4969-8246-58da86b3d486" CreationDate="2018-12-09T17:50:21.390" UserId="8679" Text="Aspectual pairs with one reflexive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17639" RevisionGUID="a7b8999c-9dca-4969-8246-58da86b3d486" CreationDate="2018-12-09T17:50:21.390" UserId="8679" Text="|лексикон|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17641" RevisionGUID="64ec02bc-129e-47b0-b40a-2955dea53691" CreationDate="2018-12-09T18:59:11.213" UserId="6545" Text="In Nicholas J. Brown's book, The New Penguin Russian Course - A Complete Course for Beginners (1996), there is an exercise (27.5 if it matters) containing a sentence;&#xA;&#xA;**Девяносто пять процентов тех, кто участвовал в опросе, назвали Кларка Гейбла единственно возможным Реттом Батлером.**&#xA;&#xA;Questions:&#xA;&#xA; I. I assume that the last four words are in instrumental case because it is like a profession, to be this Ретт Батлер. **(Question 1)**&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; As it is written... &lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA; II. I believe that the two words I am inquiring about , единственно возможным (Реттом)..., are an adverb, followed by a long-form adjective used _attributively_. **(Question 2)**&#xA;&#xA; I don't see a 'linking verb' so I assume that the adjective 'possible' is used _attributively_. **(Question 3)**&#xA;&#xA;I can see that the adverb 'only' is modifying the following long-form adjective 'possible', but what would it mean if the adverb was replaced by a short-form adjective (I think two consecutive adjectives used _attributively_, maybe even _predicatively_, require the first adjective to be short-form. **(Question 4)**), therefore modifying the same noun 'possible' modifies, as in the following? &#xA;&#xA;    единственен возможным (Реттом Батлером)...&#xA;&#xA;Since short-form adjectives are only used _predicatively_, would this be valid as there seemingly is no linking verb? **(Question 5)**&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; If I wrote it from scratch... &lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA; If I was going to make the sentence from scratch, can't both consecutive words единственно возможным actually be constructed _attributively_, as long-form adjectives **(Question 6)** and written as &#xA;&#xA;    _единственным возможным (Реттом Батлером)..._, &#xA;&#xA;as they both precede the noun (Ретт(ом) Батлер(ом)) they modify? **(Question 7)**&#xA;&#xA; By this site, https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13006/when-to-use-the-short-form-of-an-adjective/13007#13007, I understand the temporal/permanence features of the long and short adjectives, and so there may be more permanence with 'only' in this case. **(Question 8)**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17641" RevisionGUID="64ec02bc-129e-47b0-b40a-2955dea53691" CreationDate="2018-12-09T18:59:11.213" UserId="6545" Text="short, long adjective, adverb for two consecutive words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17641" RevisionGUID="64ec02bc-129e-47b0-b40a-2955dea53691" CreationDate="2018-12-09T18:59:11.213" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17642" RevisionGUID="2d107d4e-77b2-43e0-9f70-6f026080266d" CreationDate="2018-12-09T20:00:52.703" UserId="11080" Text="The Nominative case of the phrase under consideration is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **единственно возможный Ретт Батлер**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the verb называть requires the following cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Называть кого-то/что-то (Accusative) кем-то/чем-то (Instrumental).** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **единственно** is an **adverb** used as a **particle**, and **единственно возможный/-ая/-ое** is a set phrase. The word единственно has no declension. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase **единственно возможный** is an **attribute**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*There are no short forms of anything in this sentence.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still, we can discuss them. We can't replace единственно with единственен for two reasons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, we don't generally use this strange word. :) It sounds outdated and hard to say. And hard even to imagine where to be used betted than the full form единственный. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, in this phrase the notional characteristic is возможный, and единственно/единственный is a modifying word for it. In such cases it is pretty weird to use a short adjective. Besides, *we can't shorten a particle*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is possible to shorten the notional adjective, but usage of a shortened adjective requires some changes in the word order. **A shortened adjective is not used attributively.** The only variant possible is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они считали, что такой вариант единственно возможен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we wanted to modify the phrase discussed, it could be **единственный Ретт Батлер, который нам нравится**, for example. Then, we could compose the phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**мы назвали Кларка Гейбла единственным Реттом Батлером, который нам нравится**&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17643" RevisionGUID="49a65c69-fc1c-404b-90ae-ab0667aaa88d" CreationDate="2018-12-09T20:09:39.603" UserId="11080" Text="It sounds logical :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ложиться - лечь** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pay attention that статься has the meaning of случиться, to happen. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17643" RevisionGUID="be399b21-499e-4c8b-b7cf-27e8817dc537" CreationDate="2018-12-09T22:28:04.147" UserId="11080" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="It sounds logical :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ложиться - лечь** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pay attention that статься has the meaning of случиться, to happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при-/за-/на-/всмотреться - смотреть &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; дождаться - ждать &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; при-/за-/на-/вслушаться - слушать &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; наесться - есть (and there is a possibility to express having done&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enough of anything with the prefix на- and the reflexive particle -ся)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; приесться - надоесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, I would separate them in a way. Лечь, стать, сесть as the verbs of physical situation, and скучать, ждать, смотреть, etc. as feelings. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17625" RevisionGUID="c194e15c-623c-4290-be70-a39bf075d5c9" CreationDate="2018-12-10T06:00:32.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1072008140345016321" />
  <row Id="46080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17644" RevisionGUID="1d6425ef-6feb-4366-a048-f371788c1531" CreationDate="2018-12-10T13:27:59.243" UserId="134" Text="Regular imperfective counterparts for *стать, сесть, лечь* should have been _*ставать, *седать, *легать_, but those forms have fallen out of use as standalone words in the codified language, though they continue to exist as roots: _встать / вставать, присесть / приседать, налечь / налегать_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These forms have been [suppleted][1] with the reflexive causatives: *-становить, -садить, -ложить* are causatives meaning &quot;make stand&quot;, &quot;make sit&quot; and &quot;make lie&quot;, respectively, and when used with a reflexive postfix they mean &quot;make oneself stand&quot;, &quot;make oneself sit&quot; and &quot;make oneself lie&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't think of any more suppletive imperfective verbs with this exact paradigm (causative + reflexive) in Russian, but there are other paradigms: vowel alternation (_умирать / умереть, собирать / собрать_); stress alternation (_насыпа&amp;#x301;ть / насы&amp;#x301;пать, нареза&amp;#x301;ть / наре&amp;#x301;зать_); good old replacement with etymologically unrelated roots (_ловить / поймать, брать / взять_) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17645" RevisionGUID="8baa7d2d-899c-4375-8689-83376719b3a8" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:42:28.177" UserId="8672" Text="I just said in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели у вас не бывает **такого**, **когда** вы просто не можете удержаться от улыбки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking back on it, I'm not sure if  &quot;такое&quot; can work like a *placeholder* word referring to the following &quot;когда&quot; subordinate clause -- perhaps similar to the structure &quot;стать **такой**, **как** ты&quot;, for instance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17645" RevisionGUID="8baa7d2d-899c-4375-8689-83376719b3a8" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:42:28.177" UserId="8672" Text="Can &quot;такое&quot; work like a placeholder word referring to the following &quot;когда&quot; subordinate clause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17645" RevisionGUID="8baa7d2d-899c-4375-8689-83376719b3a8" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:42:28.177" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17645" RevisionGUID="f69f2098-963c-4770-aff4-1136a1cb94ce" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:47:53.233" UserId="8672" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="I just said in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели у вас не бывает **такого**, **когда** вы просто не можете удержаться от улыбки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking back on it, I'm not sure if  &quot;такое&quot; can work like a *placeholder* word referring to the following &quot;когда&quot; subordinate clause -- perhaps similar to the structure &quot;стать **такой**, **как** ты&quot;, for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do native speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17646" RevisionGUID="5238592b-f25c-43c2-9c8b-2157868977ca" CreationDate="2018-12-10T16:12:23.237" UserId="9673" Text="I would say that it's perfectly acceptable in colloquial speech. However, a more commonly used construct is &quot;такого, что&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели у вас не бывает **такого, что** вы просто не можете удержаться от улыбки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46086" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17508" RevisionGUID="ac2373c5-3e25-4fe2-b588-50417e5dfcfa" CreationDate="2018-12-10T18:00:37.950" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1072189358353059842" />
  <row Id="46087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17647" RevisionGUID="940fca88-40e1-4e5a-95ca-bbe843079beb" CreationDate="2018-12-10T20:43:42.200" UserId="11080" Text="In phrases like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня бывает **такое, что** я просыпаюсь рано утром и не могу больше&#xD;&#xA;&gt; заснуть.   &#xD;&#xA;Бывает **такое, когда** хочешь сделать что-то хорошее, а не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; получается.  &#xD;&#xA;Бывает **такое:** понимаешь, что знаком с человеком, а не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; можешь вспомнить имя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the word такое is a placeholder. Pay attention, that the neuter gender is quite commonly used in such phrases of general meaning not containing a noun. Compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейте разумное, доброе, вечное, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейте! Спасибо вам скажет сердечное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‎Русский народ…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Н.А.Некрасов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **стать такой, как ты** means **to become like you**, and it can not only be shortened to **стать, как ты**, but also extended to **стать такой красивой** (**умной**, and also nouns **красавицей**, also phrases **хорошей мамой**), **как ты**. In this case такой is the Accusative case of **такая**, it's feminine. We can say **стать таким, как ты**, if we mean a man. Here the word **такой** is not a placeholder, the structure is different. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17648" RevisionGUID="2a144bdd-b210-4bff-a37e-c9f7530772e4" CreationDate="2018-12-10T22:16:28.760" UserId="134" Text="Rosenthal et al., 210.3.а:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; … выбор союза или союзного слова, которые не подходят для данного контекста, например: … *Создалась обстановка, когда мало что благоприятствовало стабилизации* (слово *когда* с присущим ему значением времени не подходит для контекста; можно было сказать: *Создалась обстановка, которая не благоприятствовала стабилизации*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be better to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели с вами не случается такого, что вы просто не можете удержаться от улыбки?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели у вас не бывает мгновения, когда вы просто не можете удержаться от улыбки?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17649" RevisionGUID="8400649c-7c92-49b7-b2a9-e77275fb986c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T01:40:17.800" UserId="11058" Text="It is said in a Vladimir Vysotsky song.&#xD;&#xA;Прочь влияния извне,&#xD;&#xA;привыкайте к новизне,&#xD;&#xA;вдох глубокий до изне–&#xD;&#xA;можения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it comes from the word мочь but I'm not completely sure. I'd be grateful if anyone wanted to explain the meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17649" RevisionGUID="8400649c-7c92-49b7-b2a9-e77275fb986c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T01:40:17.800" UserId="11058" Text="Anyone want to expand on what можения means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17649" RevisionGUID="8400649c-7c92-49b7-b2a9-e77275fb986c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T01:40:17.800" UserId="11058" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17650" RevisionGUID="4aeb5831-9d87-4ad5-a61c-67fe1526b740" CreationDate="2018-12-11T02:24:48.063" UserId="115" Text="The phrase is &quot;до изнеможения&quot; - &quot;until exhaustion&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;изнеможение - exhaustion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does come from мочь. &quot;До изнеможения&quot; literally means &quot;until you can't anymore&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17651" RevisionGUID="8743adc7-a162-4fb3-87e9-a7ea747f1211" CreationDate="2018-12-11T05:03:08.423" UserId="8672" Text="I just said in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается **другого** выбора, **кроме как** помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if I could just as well have said &quot;**другого** выбора, **как** помочь&quot;, dropping &quot;кроме&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17651" RevisionGUID="8743adc7-a162-4fb3-87e9-a7ea747f1211" CreationDate="2018-12-11T05:03:08.423" UserId="8672" Text="Difference between &quot;другого ..., кроме как ...&quot; and &quot;другого ..., как ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17651" RevisionGUID="8743adc7-a162-4fb3-87e9-a7ea747f1211" CreationDate="2018-12-11T05:03:08.423" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17652" RevisionGUID="3675e7cd-69ee-464f-8946-f02ebeb45d55" CreationDate="2018-12-11T05:56:09.360" UserId="4833" Text="Both variants are grammatical and have the same meaning. &#xA;The first variant is more explicit, and you can stick to it for that reason: there could be other similar phrases where _как_ would rather mean _how_:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; я не знаю другого способа как тебе помочь. &#xA;&#xA;(I do not know another way how to help you)&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17653" RevisionGUID="7e5c9dae-d9ff-45af-a016-e74fa0ca798b" CreationDate="2018-12-11T06:53:48.770" UserId="11080" Text="The reason why the word was divided by a dash is that the rhyme demands it. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изне-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; можения!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And Vysotsky actually stressed that pause there.][1] It is typical of him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas normally the lyrics are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияние извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изнеможения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkojGf_u2uI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17654" RevisionGUID="d71df08a-38bf-4331-8fb9-45388e7bb78b" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:05:01.140" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Выходит, что мужчины -- **что старые, что молодые** -- просто не могут пройти мимо такой красавицы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I wanted to express the idea of &quot;all men, **young and old**&quot;. I wonder if my phrasing above got my meaning across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do native speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17654" RevisionGUID="d71df08a-38bf-4331-8fb9-45388e7bb78b" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:05:01.140" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of &quot;all men, young and old&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17654" RevisionGUID="d71df08a-38bf-4331-8fb9-45388e7bb78b" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:05:01.140" UserId="8672" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17655" RevisionGUID="d012b8b9-8560-4f6f-b19b-dc8162036bf3" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:08:07.647" UserId="11270" Text="Although they are both possible, I disagree that they have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **with кроме** discusses how you can't not help them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between helping and not helping. Expression **without кроме** discusses how there's no other way of helping them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between all the hypothetical ways to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, кроме как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no option but to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no other option how I can help them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17655" RevisionGUID="7b204a1a-a76c-462a-af1c-f5e3bcea4973" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:15:54.127" UserId="11270" Comment="edited body" Text="Although they are both possible, I disagree that they have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **with кроме** discusses how you can't not help them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between helping and not helping, i.e. between taking action and not taking it. Expression **without кроме** discusses how there's no other way of helping them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between all the hypothetical ways to help them, i.e. not taking action is not an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, кроме как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no choice but to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no other option how I can help them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17655" RevisionGUID="2b99ab1c-9133-4ad6-a825-d8f0a22bb324" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:25:15.913" UserId="11270" Comment="edited body" Text="Although they are both possible, I disagree that they have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **with кроме** discusses how you can't not help them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between helping and not helping, i.e. not helping is initially an option, but it's eventually rejected in favor of helping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **without кроме** discusses how there's no other way of helping them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between all the hypothetical ways to help them, i.e. not helping is not an option in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, кроме как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no choice but to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no other option how I can help them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17656" RevisionGUID="76f9e38d-b11e-4190-9c38-05dda81075ae" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:39:48.990" UserId="11270" Text="Yours works. You could have also used **и старые, и молодые** and, since there's a negation in the sentence, double negation to say **ни старые, ни молодые**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- мужчины всех возрастов просто не могут пройти...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- мужчины любого возраста просто не могут пройти...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- мужчины вне зависимости от возраста просто не могут пройти...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- мужчины, какого бы возраста они ни были, просто не могут пройти..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17606" RevisionGUID="4d0e05a4-d561-4f7d-95fb-de68f5b22f50" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:47:15.827" UserId="7674" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="This seems to be an example of the so called [Temporal case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_case) which in Russian either coincides with Instrumental or is expressed through Instrumental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian nouns denoting most generic periods of time during which discussed events take place or phenomena exist often inflect in Instrumental: **днём, вечером, зимой, весной, летом, осенью, часами, неделями, месяцами, годами**. This is one of adverb formation paradigms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [2.3.6. Творительный Времени](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#236)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Временные употребления, как и инструментальные, составляют широкий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; класс употреблений творительного падежа. В этих контекстах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляются находящиеся на разной стадии лексикализации формы,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; перечисленные в п. 1.2. Наиболее частотны формы **утром, днём, вечером и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ночью**, обозначающие конкретный момент времени. Они наиболее близки к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; наречиям, тем не менее, возможность иметь зависимое-прилагательное,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; характерная для существительных, но не для наречий (ср. словосочетания&#xD;&#xA;&gt; типа ранним утром, летним вечером) показывает, что процесс конверсии в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; данном случае ещё далёк от завершения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (32) Поздним вечером, когда они остались в здании детского сада одни,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; не считая сторожа, Костик встал и с серьезным выражением лица сказал:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Маришка, выходи за меня замуж!» [«Лиза» (2005)]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это не единственный способ временного употребления творительного: ещё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; один крупный класс составляют употребления множественного числа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творительного: **вечерами, ночами, годами, урывками**, — обозначающие&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (длящееся и) повторяющееся через определённые промежутки времени&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действие ([«творительный дистрибутивный»](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive-temporal_case) в терминологии [Малаховская&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1958]). К этим формам также могут присоединяться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; зависимые-прилагательные.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This function of Instrumental seems related to its use with words denoting landscape features through which motion takes place ([Творительный траектории](http://rusgram.ru/Творительный_падеж#234)): (плыть) **морем**, (идти) **лесом, полем, дворами**. It's more prominent in Ukrainian than in Russian. On the other hand Temporal Instrumental in Ukrainian is somewhat rarer than in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The translation i'd offer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian culture has been in creation/development for centuries&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Russian culture has been developing for centuries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17657" RevisionGUID="4923dae3-018d-4557-85f0-5f1736db777f" CreationDate="2018-12-11T07:58:26.200" UserId="10999" Text="There is a standard expression adopted in Russian literature: [**&quot;и стар и млад&quot;**][1].  &#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech it is sometimes replaced by a version **&quot;что стар, что млад&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17658" RevisionGUID="4f9e820e-76d8-4cb9-8db1-825db3795f3c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T08:04:16.563" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; Ни стар, ни млад. Стар и млад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither the old, nor the young. Ни стар, ни млад [не может пройти мимо такой красавицы][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in a way synonimous to the following phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни стар, ни мал. Стар и мал. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither the old, nor the little. This expression unites all people from childhood to senility, not about romantic relations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06J5xI9B0vk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17655" RevisionGUID="5b6538c5-1ce3-45c4-a428-a053a5d7561c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T08:13:48.210" UserId="11270" Comment="added 374 characters in body" Text="Although they are both possible, I disagree that they have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **with кроме** discusses how you can't not help them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between helping and not helping, i.e. not helping is initially an option, but it's eventually rejected in favor of helping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **without кроме** discusses how there's no other way of helping them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between all the hypothetical ways to help them, i.e. not helping is not an option in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, кроме как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no choice but to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no other option how I can help them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by Баян in the comments, the last Russian sentence is a poor choice of words, and more natural way of saying would look like *...не остаётся другого способа помочь им*. Still, if you encountered *у меня не остаётся другого выбора, как помочь им*, and you totally can, you should definitely take it to mean &quot;...I have no other option how I can help them&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17657" RevisionGUID="3f94ee89-306a-4178-ab28-65c07b3ccfd7" CreationDate="2018-12-11T08:14:56.217" UserId="10999" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="There is a standard expression adopted in Russian literature: [**&quot;и стар и млад&quot;**][1].  &#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech it is sometimes replaced by a version **&quot;что стар, что млад&quot;**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, in the Russian language there is a very famous quote **&quot;Любви все возрасты покорны&quot;**(*А.С.Пушкин, &quot;Евгений Онегин&quot;*) - **&quot;For love all ages are obedient&quot;**, and when it comes to romantic relationships of people of different ages,  references to this phrase are used very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17628" RevisionGUID="8e395fa6-4016-47a2-bcf3-049087489d61" CreationDate="2018-12-11T08:21:37.727" UserId="5443" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="The numeral **одни(х)** is used here in the meaning **только**, so the word combination is equivalent in sense to &quot;**только лишь**&quot; where the two words are close synonyms and express almost the same meaning. They can follow in *either* order without changing sense, but the version &quot;**одних лишь**&quot; in that particular sentence sounds slightly *more phonetically balanced* than &quot;**лишь одних**&quot; would. If another numeral in place of *одни(х)* were used here for 'counting' those women (встретил &quot;лишь двух&quot; жадных женщин, а не больше), another word order (&quot;двух лишь&quot;) wouldn't work well. So &quot;**одних лишь**&quot; or &quot;**лишь одних**&quot; has  here the sense similar to that of the combination '**only just**': https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/only-just" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17657" RevisionGUID="a6bc81a1-4145-4c44-a60b-a394d3e3665c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T08:28:04.967" UserId="10999" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="There is a standard expression adopted in Russian literature: [**&quot;и стар и млад&quot;**][1].  &#xD;&#xA;In colloquial speech it is sometimes replaced by a version **&quot;что стар, что млад&quot;**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, in the Russian language there is a very famous quote **&quot;Любви все возрасты покорны&quot;**(*А.С.Пушкин, &quot;Евгений Онегин&quot;*) - **&quot;To love all ages are obedient&quot;**/**&quot;To love all ages yield surrender&quot;**, and when it comes to romantic relationships of people of different ages,  references to this phrase are used very often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B8_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17659" RevisionGUID="be60be4f-7ee1-4b23-ae2a-e97b4e014a90" CreationDate="2018-12-11T09:25:13.977" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Сколько **бы** раз я **ни** повторял эту фразу мысленно, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Неважно**, сколько раз я повторяю эту фразу мысленно, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не важно**, сколько раз я повторяю эту фразу мысленно, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to use these subordinate structures almost interchangeably, but I wonder if and how they are nuanced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17659" RevisionGUID="be60be4f-7ee1-4b23-ae2a-e97b4e014a90" CreationDate="2018-12-11T09:25:13.977" UserId="8672" Text="How are they nuanced: &quot;... бы ... ни ...&quot; vs &quot;Неважно, ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17659" RevisionGUID="be60be4f-7ee1-4b23-ae2a-e97b4e014a90" CreationDate="2018-12-11T09:25:13.977" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17659" RevisionGUID="66a53b38-413b-43cd-b024-91c432a5762c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T12:52:13.683" UserId="8672" Comment="added 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; Какое **бы** положение ты **ни** занимал в обществе, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Неважно**, какое положение занимаешь в обществе, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не важно**, какое положение занимаешь в обществе, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to use these subordinate structures almost interchangeably to express the idea of &quot;no matter ...&quot;, but I wonder if and how they are nuanced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46116" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17659" RevisionGUID="66a53b38-413b-43cd-b024-91c432a5762c" CreationDate="2018-12-11T12:52:13.683" UserId="8672" Comment="added 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="Nuances between &quot;... бы ... ни ...&quot; and &quot;неважно, ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="50cfc8a1-00bb-4334-8d4d-cd495caa9466" CreationDate="2018-12-11T13:10:50.537" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Они **не то чтобы** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm familiar with the expression &quot;Не то чтобы&quot; -- in the sense of &quot;Not that ...&quot; -- placed at the beginning of a subordinate clause, but I assume we are looking at a different meaning here, given its position. Is it close in meaning to &quot;мало того, что ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46118" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="50cfc8a1-00bb-4334-8d4d-cd495caa9466" CreationDate="2018-12-11T13:10:50.537" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of &quot;не то чтобы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46119" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="50cfc8a1-00bb-4334-8d4d-cd495caa9466" CreationDate="2018-12-11T13:10:50.537" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17661" RevisionGUID="15a1337c-9682-4a41-9c84-95997cf722ce" CreationDate="2018-12-11T13:15:09.287" UserId="242" Text="The closest phrase in English would be something like &quot;**Not only couldn't they** open it - they failed even to move it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17661" RevisionGUID="3384a135-813e-4947-8ec8-a218b8000941" CreationDate="2018-12-11T13:23:27.533" UserId="242" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="The closest phrase in English would be something like &quot;**Not only couldn't they** open it - they failed even to move it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other similar Russian phrase worth to know is &quot;что там&quot;, like in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что там открыть - они сдвинуть с места его не могут!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="ae750131-8560-4496-8364-d393ab223391" CreationDate="2018-12-11T16:27:34.987" UserId="11295" Text="In my understanding, they both mean across, right? Are they interchangeable or used in specific situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="ae750131-8560-4496-8364-d393ab223391" CreationDate="2018-12-11T16:27:34.987" UserId="11295" Text="Which is the difference between поперек and через?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="ae750131-8560-4496-8364-d393ab223391" CreationDate="2018-12-11T16:27:34.987" UserId="11295" Text="|выбор-слова|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17664" RevisionGUID="52c714d5-f5e8-406f-a2b0-31de4ee6417b" CreationDate="2018-12-11T16:39:29.170" UserId="7674" Text="**поперек** - *across*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**через** - both *through* and *across*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But into English they often aren't translated one for one, the translation needs to be idiomatic, so it depends on the context and conventons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17665" RevisionGUID="f207a331-4b00-4d2d-b95e-af0360795ea5" CreationDate="2018-12-11T16:39:29.317" UserId="115" Text="There is a difference in meaning between these words. It would help if you could tell us the sentence that you are trying to use them in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;поперек means &quot;across&quot; as opposed to &quot;along&quot;, as in the expression &quot;вдоль и поперек&quot;, which literally means &quot;along and across&quot;, and figuratively means &quot;throughout&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стать поперек дороги - to stand across a road, like a car parked sideways blocking the road, or, figuratively, to stand in someone's way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Через means &quot;across&quot; in the sense of &quot;over&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перейти через дорогу - to cross (walk across) the road.&#xD;&#xA;Переплыть через реку - to swim across a river." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17666" RevisionGUID="f773adb6-7617-4cd5-805e-6feba5cfdb2f" CreationDate="2018-12-11T16:50:39.513" UserId="2104" Text="The correct translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They can't even *move* it, let alone open it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opening is perceived as a more difficult task than moving.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17653" RevisionGUID="b8674b5d-b8f9-475b-8b8a-eb497adc4ef1" CreationDate="2018-12-11T17:35:20.220" UserId="11080" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The reason why the word was divided with a dash is that the rhyme demands it. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изне-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; можения!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And Vysotsky actually stressed that pause there.][1] It is typical of him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas normally the lyrics are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияние извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изнеможения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkojGf_u2uI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17653" RevisionGUID="25d338db-c91b-4250-a7ea-9c5919a3b8b2" CreationDate="2018-12-11T18:07:26.043" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="The reason why the word was divided with a dash is that the rhyme demands it. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изне-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; можения!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And Vysotsky actually stressed that pause there.][1] It is typical of him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas normally the lyrics are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изнеможения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkojGf_u2uI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17653" RevisionGUID="d28801db-42c1-4a9f-b7a2-576357cc3e35" CreationDate="2018-12-11T18:22:02.480" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="The reason why the word was divided with a dash is that the rhyme demands it. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изне-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; можения!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And Vysotsky actually stressed that pause there.][1] It is typical of him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas normally the lyrics are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изнеможения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there was such a phenomenon in the USSR as [morning exercises][2]. Recommendations were read by a radio (and later - TV) announcer, it was accompanied by piano music, and the aim was to help Soviet citizens get healthier by speading sports habits among the population. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, together with the specifics of the TV of that time, evoke a number of [jokes][3], and Vysotsky wrote his song as a mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkojGf_u2uI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6lDdBt5kwY&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtQH4ZzcT4Y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="70ddd509-9d82-4e9e-8460-22715eee0fa5" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:19:30.953" UserId="7674" Text="I see there's some confusion as to the meaning of the construction exhibited by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But first there's a need to clarify its accurate wording, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely ***not exactly/quite*** and ***it's not that..., (but) it's ...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and not exactly 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Репутация российского полицейского **не то чтобы** стремится к нулю — она делится на ноль - ***It's not that** reputation of a Russian policeman tends to zero, **it's** divisible by zero.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't = They can't open it, let alone budge it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous Russian construction is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сдвинуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverb **даже** in the 2nd clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17668" RevisionGUID="38c32c02-a46e-4950-9a70-702c11c99013" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:27:32.973" UserId="11099" Text="I want to start learning the russian language. But I have a problem, I have no idea what to do! So my question is what should I tackle first? What is the easiest way to start learning russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17668" RevisionGUID="38c32c02-a46e-4950-9a70-702c11c99013" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:27:32.973" UserId="11099" Text="What should I learn first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17668" RevisionGUID="38c32c02-a46e-4950-9a70-702c11c99013" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:27:32.973" UserId="11099" Text="|обучение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="0f825969-9869-4aba-b154-19b7fb793b63" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:54:04.237" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 145 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely ***not exactly/quite*** and ***it's not that..., (but) it's ...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and not exactly 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Репутация российского полицейского **не то чтобы** стремится к нулю — она делится на ноль - ***It's not that** reputation of a Russian policeman tends to zero, **it's** divisible by zero.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous Russian construction is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сдвинуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverb **даже** in the 2nd clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17669" RevisionGUID="7976cfca-00fd-44b9-bb90-96bfaa219e9a" CreationDate="2018-12-11T19:59:46.740" UserId="11080" Text="The easiest way to start learning any language is to find a teacher or/and a course and join a target-language speaking community. Good books and motivation are also important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays there is a possibility to study online via Skype, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-study also helps, though not so efficiently as communicating people in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you choose self-study, get a textbook and use it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, youtube can be helpful, though there is not really much material for foreign students, but still you can watch something to your taste in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switch your gadgets to the Russian interface, be curious about the names of everything around you in Russian, learn the reading rules and read aloud as much as you can, whisper every Russian word you see. Write and type Russian, read what you have written, learn useful words and phrases by heart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ask questions here. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46142" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17668" RevisionGUID="378c40d1-ad0c-41f1-8bc1-fd2134641c2b" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:04:37.123" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="46143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17665" RevisionGUID="21d40b08-109f-41e4-b8ac-b028caf91851" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:14:40.497" UserId="115" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="There is a difference in meaning between these words. It would help if you could tell us the sentence that you are trying to use them in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;поперёк means &quot;across&quot; as opposed to &quot;along&quot;, as in the expression &quot;вдоль и поперёк&quot;, which literally means &quot;along and across&quot;, and figuratively means &quot;throughout&quot; or &quot;every which way&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стать поперёк дороги - to stand across a road, like a car parked sideways blocking the road, or, figuratively, to stand in someone's way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Через means &quot;across&quot; in the sense of &quot;over&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перейти через дорогу - to cross (walk across) the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Переплыть через реку - to swim across a river." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="1d1edfc5-37b6-417b-b3f6-0ace24f0c1b3" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:26:46.120" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely ***not exactly/quite*** and ***it's not that..., (but) it's ...***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and not exactly 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Репутация российского полицейского **не то чтобы** стремится к нулю — она делится на ноль - ***It's not that** reputation of a Russian policeman tends to zero, **it's** divisible by zero.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A synonymous Russian construction is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с места сдвинуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverb **даже** in the 2nd clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46145" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17649" RevisionGUID="147cb6cc-2bbb-4a20-8506-c0ae23eeff06" CreationDate="2018-12-11T21:00:33.407" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1072597025668165633" />
  <row Id="46146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17653" RevisionGUID="6f1c24d1-ab60-4300-8683-3e210009d732" CreationDate="2018-12-12T05:04:35.010" UserId="11080" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The reason why the word was divided with a dash is that the rhyme demands it. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изне-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; можения!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And Vysotsky actually stressed that pause there.][1] It is typical of him. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas normally the lyrics are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прочь влияния извне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкайте к новизне, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вдох глубокий до изнеможения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there was such a phenomenon in the USSR as [morning exercises][2]. Recommendations were read by a radio (and later - TV) announcer, it was accompanied by piano music, and the aim was to help Soviet citizens get healthier by speading sports habits among the population. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, together with the specifics of the TV of that time, evoked a number of [jokes][3], and Vysotsky wrote his song as a mockery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkojGf_u2uI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6lDdBt5kwY&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtQH4ZzcT4Y" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17670" RevisionGUID="e929c1b2-9864-4f9a-9fca-9ed0546a9ac6" CreationDate="2018-12-12T05:23:58.283" UserId="10247" Text="I am not sure one can find big nuances here. These structures seem  to be more functional and auxiliary, they express the idea 'no matter', but their lexical content is of less importance. However, one could think of *неважно* as stressing that it really 'doesn't matter', it seems closer to the idea of 'unimportance' (and it expresses it lexically), whereas *бы - ни*- doesn't explicitly say it's unimportant, it sounds more neutral and lacks that categorical 'unimportance' (which is rather expressed grammatically than lexically here)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17671" RevisionGUID="a9491406-4958-4e0f-9664-24b38fe8d84c" CreationDate="2018-12-12T05:49:32.113" UserId="10247" Text="**Через** (preposition) has at least 6 senses in Толковый словарь РЯ (Russian language dictionary). It may be used to express the senses 'across, through, with, by, with the help (aid) of', in X minutes (when talking about time), so the idea of crossing is just one of the senses, but quite popular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поперёк** can be both adverb and preposition. But it's basically just one narrower sense - across, more like spacial, geographical + metaphorical sense in set phrases and idioms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Logically speaking, when you cross the 10 m width of a 10x500 m field you go поперёк. Whereas *через* could be any crossing - 10m across, 500m along, or one can cross it diagonally - all meaning going через поле. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *через* and *поперёк* are interchangable only in certain cases, not always. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17672" RevisionGUID="82ff0a19-46f3-4d74-aa93-94d5a881f999" CreationDate="2018-12-12T06:09:35.017" UserId="10247" Text="Your variant works, but it sounds a bit literary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neutral pronoun is *как... так и...*. So the neutral register is 'все мужчины, как старые, так и молодые...' (or even simpler, double и...и   - и старые, и молодые) But maybe your variant could work better if one needs to sound ironic (more sophisticated, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*И стар, и млад*... needs clarifying. This is an idiom (so it's more of less fixed, with a fixed meaning, so the deviations suggested before like &quot;ни стар, ни млад&quot; probably exist, but rare and not typical). But the fixed meaning is 'ALL people, regardless of sex, including children, everyone'... In your case you need to say it's 'men only', so I would be cautious to use &quot;и стар, и млад&quot; - it may be used probably to refer to men in some contexts if you specify it's men only, but logically it's not 100% impeccable, for strictly speaking it includes women and children, hence may sound ironical or funny if the phrasing is not exact. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17672" RevisionGUID="c79af4e1-74f0-4f41-8297-0c42a66e4ff2" CreationDate="2018-12-12T06:17:24.537" UserId="10247" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="Your variant works, but it sounds a bit literary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neutral pronoun is *как... так и...*. So the neutral register is 'все мужчины, как старые, так и молодые...' (or even simpler, double и...и   - и старые, и молодые) But maybe your variant could work better if one needs to sound ironic (more sophisticated, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*И стар, и млад*... needs clarifying. This is an idiom (so it's more of less fixed, with a fixed meaning, so the deviations suggested before like &quot;ни стар, ни млад&quot; probably exist, but rare and not typical). But the fixed meaning is 'ALL people, regardless of sex, including children, everyone'... In your case you need to say it's 'men only', so I would be cautious to use &quot;и стар, и млад&quot; - it may be used probably to refer to men in some contexts if you specify it's men only, but logically it's not 100% impeccable, for strictly speaking it includes women and children, hence may sound ironical or funny if the phrasing is not exact. Besides, и стар, и млад (having archaic connotation, младой - is archaic form) in itself may sound ironic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17673" RevisionGUID="080cf935-76cc-4e51-8f04-4b47c1e6c892" CreationDate="2018-12-12T06:34:29.663" UserId="10247" Text="Изнеможение. &#xD;&#xA;Root is &quot;мочь&quot;, cf. я могу- I can, он может - he can.&#xD;&#xA;Не - is negation. &#xD;&#xA;Из - means 'out', &#xD;&#xA;Hence, изнеможение - exhaustion, your strengh is out, and you can not do anything, you are weak (usually physically). &#xD;&#xA;Technically, *изнеможение* is from verbs *изнемогать, изнемочь*. Just to be exact.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17655" RevisionGUID="e667d764-9a30-40ed-87ef-a53f3cba40bf" CreationDate="2018-12-12T07:17:31.270" UserId="11270" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Although they are both possible, I disagree that they have the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **with кроме** discusses how you can't not help them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between helping and not helping, i.e. not helping is initially an option, but it's eventually rejected in favor of helping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expression **without кроме** discusses how there's no other way of helping them -- *выбор* refers to the choice between all the hypothetical ways to help them, i.e. not helping is not an option in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, кроме как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no choice but to help them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Похоже, у меня не остается другого выбора, как помочь им.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently, I have no other option how to help them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by Баян in the comments, the last Russian sentence is a poor choice of words, and more natural way of saying would look like *...не остаётся другого способа помочь им*. Still, if you encountered *у меня не остаётся другого выбора, как помочь им*, and you totally can, you should definitely take it to mean &quot;...I have no other option how to help them&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="f4d10c48-f4fb-43c9-8d52-163c16a20c8b" CreationDate="2018-12-12T08:08:09.417" UserId="7674" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely  **`not exactly/quite`**  and  **`it's not that`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and not exactly 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Репутация российского полицейского **не то чтобы** стремится к нулю — она делится на ноль - ***It's not that** reputation of a Russian policeman tends to zero, **it's** divisible by zero.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **просто** громоздкий - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy/The safe is **not exactly** heavy, **just** bulky*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **но** сдвинуть его с места они (всё равно) не могут - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy, **but** they **still** can't move it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous Russian constructions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с места сдвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Мало того, что** они его не могут открыть, **так** они его **ещё и** с места сдвинуть не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverbs **даже** and **ещё** in the 2nd clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17666" RevisionGUID="94d1393e-e1d9-49c1-8034-165a9e87906b" CreationDate="2018-12-12T12:19:15.020" UserId="2104" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The correct translation would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They can't even *move* it, let alone opening it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opening is perceived as a more difficult task than moving.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46157" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17649" RevisionGUID="a70d5116-c4cb-409f-96ab-e12e2d92a529" CreationDate="2018-12-12T14:26:36.300" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Anyone want to expand on what &quot;можения&quot; means?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46158" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="75c5a895-c86a-40f1-b02b-2d7e1ac65e4a" CreationDate="2018-12-12T14:27:05.270" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Which is the difference between &quot;поперек&quot; and &quot;через&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46159" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17660" RevisionGUID="32e6c472-9f29-46d2-9220-17fae585ed45" CreationDate="2018-12-12T18:00:47.030" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1072914172244094976" />
  <row Id="46161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17674" RevisionGUID="8bcfb451-0798-4007-8df8-d044d5b49388" CreationDate="2018-12-13T07:49:16.837" UserId="11308" Text="It means “Abilities” and really comes from the word Мочь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17675" RevisionGUID="19fc0352-0227-4ee1-9cc7-c764c1315a82" CreationDate="2018-12-13T07:51:22.897" UserId="11308" Text="«И стар, и млад»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«От мала до велика»&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like this.:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17676" RevisionGUID="d5acb086-d75e-4545-9c5b-42901808109b" CreationDate="2018-12-13T07:56:58.227" UserId="11308" Text="Ужасный is it.:) or Грозный, ifabout the Ivan the 4th " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17677" RevisionGUID="6f713f61-ae8c-40a6-8122-084b93930238" CreationDate="2018-12-13T09:02:46.640" UserId="9058" Text="Как вообще возник оборот &quot;далось тебе [это] XXX&quot; ? Почему он означает то, что означает?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Т.е. я его использую, нутром ощущаю, но логически разложить этот оборот на составляющие, объяснить его механику - не могу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17677" RevisionGUID="6f713f61-ae8c-40a6-8122-084b93930238" CreationDate="2018-12-13T09:02:46.640" UserId="9058" Text="...дались тебе эти макароны!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17677" RevisionGUID="6f713f61-ae8c-40a6-8122-084b93930238" CreationDate="2018-12-13T09:02:46.640" UserId="9058" Text="|грамматика|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17678" RevisionGUID="8eaa201f-1ecc-43a6-b20f-84b960107c30" CreationDate="2018-12-13T09:05:23.427" UserId="9058" Text="Ещё один вариант, который пока не приводили.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Пугающая женщина&quot; - literary, fear-instilling woman." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="325d4b4a-ec4b-4023-85b2-cd0073e90ab7" CreationDate="2018-12-13T10:34:46.470" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely  **`not exactly/quite`**  and  **`it's not that`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and **not exactly** 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Репутация российского полицейского **не то чтобы** стремится к нулю — она делится на ноль - ***It's not that** reputation of a Russian policeman tends to zero, **it's** divisible by zero.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **просто** громоздкий - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy/The safe is **not exactly** heavy, **just** bulky*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **но** сдвинуть его с места они (всё равно) не могут - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy, **but** they **still** can't move it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous Russian constructions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с места сдвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Мало того, что** они его не могут открыть, **так** они его **ещё и** с места сдвинуть не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverbs **даже** and **ещё** in the 2nd clause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="0c8110ef-9dac-45a3-970f-0a8b61a98e40" CreationDate="2018-12-13T10:48:11.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely  **`not exactly/quite`**  and  **`it's not that`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and **not exactly** 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **просто** громоздкий - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy/The safe is **not exactly** heavy, **just** bulky*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **но** сдвинуть его с места они (всё равно) не могут - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy, **but** they **still** can't move it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous Russian constructions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с места сдвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Мало того, что** они его не могут открыть, **так** они его **ещё и** с места сдвинуть не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverbs **даже** and **ещё** in the 2nd clause.&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;**не то, что** always fashions exacerbation, aggravation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она **не то, что** маленькая, она микроскопическая&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ему **не то, что** сказал, я ему это в ухо проорал&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with the connotation of reservation or abatement created by **не то чтобы** (essentially the opposite of the one created by *не то, что*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она **не то чтобы** маленькая, но всё равно по размеру не годится&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ему **не то чтобы** сказал, а так, намекнул" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="13687708-8420-4b11-8474-2a48a122c393" CreationDate="2018-12-13T10:55:15.893" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely  **`not exactly/quite`**  and  **`it's not that`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and **not exactly** 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **просто** громоздкий - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy/The safe is **not exactly** heavy, **just** bulky*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **но** сдвинуть его с места они (всё равно) не могут - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy, **but** they **still** can't move it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous Russian constructions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с места сдвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Мало того, что** они его не могут открыть, **так** они его **ещё и** с места сдвинуть не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverbs **даже** and **ещё** in the 2nd clause.&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;**не то, что** always fashions exacerbation, aggravation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она **не то, что** маленькая, она микроскопическая - *Not only it's small, it's microscopic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ему **не то, что** сказал, я ему это в ухо проорал - *Not only i told him so, i shouted this into his ear*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with the connotation of reservation or abatement created by **не то чтобы** (essentially the opposite of the one created by *не то, что*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она **не то чтобы** маленькая, но всё равно по размеру не годится - *It's not exactly small, but still doesn't meet the size*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ему **не то чтобы** сказал, а так, намекнул - *It's not that i told him so, just hinted*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="9ac79fbe-d25d-4223-935c-60f10862ac72" CreationDate="2018-12-13T11:46:25.663" UserId="11275" Text="My hometown has a saying or motto on their sign which reads, &quot;Where life is worth living&quot; and I'm trying to complete a Russian exercise for a language course in which I give a tour of my hometown in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best idea of how to say this is, &quot;Тут Стоит Жить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I was wondering if anyone more skilled in the language knows the most natural way to say this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="9ac79fbe-d25d-4223-935c-60f10862ac72" CreationDate="2018-12-13T11:46:25.663" UserId="11275" Text="How would you translate, &quot;where life is worth living&quot; into Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="9ac79fbe-d25d-4223-935c-60f10862ac72" CreationDate="2018-12-13T11:46:25.663" UserId="11275" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="4a31e443-33cf-40bf-a8cd-cf4af68cde4d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:03:14.673" UserId="11275" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]My hometown has a saying or motto on their sign which reads, &quot;Where life is worth living&quot; and I'm trying to complete a Russian exercise for a language course in which I give a tour of my hometown in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My best idea of how to say this is, &quot;Тут Стоит Жить&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I was wondering if anyone more skilled in the language knows the most natural way to say this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use this phrase in a sentence, you would say, &quot;This town is a place where life is worth living&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's meant to sound positive and catchy. In reality, it is sometimes used ironically when things go poorly in the town, but in general, it is a positive thing to say. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WhKCg.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17680" RevisionGUID="a8245433-cbc9-4ce5-8945-c7dcf4eccff0" CreationDate="2018-12-13T12:47:52.223" UserId="2104" Text="You could go with a more literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Вебстер: жизнь стоит того, чтобы (здесь) жить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in Russian only the first letter of a heading / motto is capitalized, just like in a normal sentence. The is no such thing as &quot;title case&quot; in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17680" RevisionGUID="395d5206-1c88-48f2-bea7-67f21ef3857a" CreationDate="2018-12-13T13:37:21.050" UserId="2104" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="You could go with a more literal translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Жизнь стоит того, чтобы жить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;Same thing used in a sentence:&#xA;&#xA;* Вебстер - это место, где жизнь стоит того, чтобы жить.&#xA;&#xA;Note that in Russian only the first letter of a heading / motto is capitalized, just like in a normal sentence (unless you go for all caps like in the sign). The is no such thing as &quot;title case&quot; in official Russian orthography.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17681" RevisionGUID="457770bd-4e40-4513-bf8b-715c120b1da2" CreationDate="2018-12-13T13:56:13.297" UserId="11309" Text="&gt; &quot;This town is a place where life is worth living.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Этот город - место, где жизнь стоит быть прожитой.&quot; - the most correct option, I guess, but not literal translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Этот город - место, где жизнь стоит того, чтобы жить.&quot; - Sergey's translation is also correct, but it's a little bit crooked because of literal translation. *(my opinion)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="f3b36177-5fe9-4d7a-ac1e-d2eeff92980a" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:04:34.157" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **Куда** нам еще однa шляпа, и так уже целый склад.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard my girlfriend say this, and I'm not familiar with this particular usage of &quot;куда&quot;. What does this sentence mean? Is it meant as a rhetorical question close in meaning to &quot;... никуда не годится&quot; or &quot;К чему ...?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46179" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="f3b36177-5fe9-4d7a-ac1e-d2eeff92980a" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:04:34.157" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning and usage of &quot;Куда + dative + noun&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46180" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="f3b36177-5fe9-4d7a-ac1e-d2eeff92980a" CreationDate="2018-12-13T14:04:34.157" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1556" RevisionGUID="de769d52-7d0e-4d07-ba39-5adff4a06ab1" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:05:38.893" UserId="11302" Comment="Fix broken image link (source, via archive.org on original link: http://f.cl.ly/items/1n3o3809303F2I2F0y2t/e24-ABC.gif)" Text="Well, if you look at how we are taught to write in the early days of school, you'll notice that the italicized capital &quot;Т&quot; does resemble its lowercase variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qJGGD.gif)  &#xD;&#xA;*The letter in question is in the fifth row, third from the left*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46182" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1556" RevisionGUID="de769d52-7d0e-4d07-ba39-5adff4a06ab1" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:05:38.893" Comment="Proposed by 11302 approved by 5605, 560 edit id of 1003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17683" RevisionGUID="d8f4defa-92af-41df-833c-2ff18b2177c4" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:09:32.517" UserId="560" Text="Yes, you are basically right, &quot;Куда нам ... (nominative)&quot; means that you don't really need something. It can be disputed though, so it's not 100% rhetorical, but by saying that you imply that in your opinion the object you are talking about is useless for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="4e335ba6-a124-4a8b-88e2-921b218c5d4b" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:19:20.400" UserId="7674" Text="&gt;**То место, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However to my ear the word **место** used generically doesn't have in Russian particularly pleasant undertones (wonder if i'm alone). Mayhaps it's due to such stable collocations as *отхожее место*, *мокрое место*, *заднее место*, *места не столь отдалённые*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most obvious replacement is the generic noun for the locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Городок/Посёлок, где стоит жить**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17685" RevisionGUID="7fbd35d0-0332-4900-ac3d-04c92e546d10" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:19:37.600" UserId="134" Text="Imperfective _жить_ does not really work as a transitive verb in Russian, so I don't really think you can make the literal translation work the same way the original English sentence does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try replacing it with another pun or a word play or something:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Здесь не проживают, здесь живут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * И жизнь хороша, и жить хорошо&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Тут жизнь, в которой стоит жить&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, or similar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="ac63f582-fbe4-4aff-89b3-c72911c76019" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:24:41.517" UserId="7674" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="&gt;**То место, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However to my ear the word **место** used generically doesn't have in Russian particularly pleasant undertones (wonder if i'm alone). Mayhaps it's due to such stable collocations as *отхожее место*, *мокрое место*, *заднее место*, *места не столь отдалённые*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most obvious replacement is the generic noun for the locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Городок/Посёлок, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing fancy here, a straightforward translation which captures the meaning of the original without unnecessary embellishments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the word **life** in the English phrase is that it's required as a compliment of the noun **living**. There's no such requirement in Russian, so it can be dispensed with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="c9c61d0f-2817-4407-aa64-40e8b2ba6f39" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:32:31.880" UserId="7674" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="&gt;**То место, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However to my ear the word **место** used generically doesn't have in Russian particularly pleasant undertones (wonder if i'm alone). Mayhap it's due to such stable collocations as *отхожее место*, *мокрое место*, *заднее место*, *места не столь отдалённые*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most obvious replacement is the generic noun for the locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Городок/Посёлок, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing fancy here, a straightforward translation which captures the meaning of the original without unnecessary embellishments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the word **life** in the English phrase is that in the  construction used it's required as a compliment of the noun **living**. There's no such requirement in Russian for this particular case, so it can be dispensed with.&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*it is sometimes used ironically when things go poorly in the town*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sound ironic it must be spelled like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where life is worth **leaving**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="4dbbb069-b2a8-4e73-99b2-48483f12cd2c" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:37:29.210" UserId="10999" Text="The word **&quot;куда&quot;** is commonly used to clarify a location or direction. In this case, word &quot;куда&quot; also has a close to the location/direction meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Куда ... еще&quot;** in this context means &quot;where we should go/use/store etc.&quot;, but with the connotation of uselessness of new action.&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Куда нам еще одна шляпа?** - Where should we use/store one more hat (we already have enough hats)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Куда нам еще идти?** - Where else should we go (we are already in right place or just too tired to go anywhere else).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="071111e4-1a78-4182-b06b-ab9bc0b2302d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:42:00.157" UserId="7674" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="&gt;**То место, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However to my ear the word **место** used generically doesn't have in Russian particularly pleasant undertones (wonder if i'm alone). Mayhap it's due to such stable collocations as *отхожее место*, *мокрое место*, *заднее место*, *места не столь отдалённые*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most obvious replacement is the generic noun for the locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Городок/Посёлок, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing fancy here, a straightforward translation which captures the meaning of the original without unnecessary embellishments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've avoided the word **деревня** (village) since in the reality of Russian life it's not associated with modern small communities, rather with far flung, derelict and backwards places&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the word **life** in the English phrase is that in the  construction used it's required as a compliment of the noun **living**. There's no such requirement in Russian for this particular case, so it can be dispensed with.&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*it is sometimes used ironically when things go poorly in the town*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sound ironic it must be spelled like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where life is worth **leaving**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17686" RevisionGUID="cb6602a8-d26b-45ec-8a25-7552df30218d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:58:17.263" UserId="10999" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="The word **&quot;куда&quot;** is commonly used to clarify a location or direction (*&quot;Куда он это положил?&quot;*, *&quot;Куда мне идти?&quot;*).  &#xD;&#xA;In this case, word **&quot;куда&quot;** also has a meaning close to explaining the location/direction.  &#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Куда ... еще&quot;** in this context means &quot;where we should go/use/store etc.&quot;, but with the connotation of uselessness of some extra action.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Куда нам еще одна шляпа?** - Where should we use/store one more hat (we already have enough hats)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Куда нам еще идти?** - Where else should we go (we are already in right place or just too tired to go anywhere else).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17684" RevisionGUID="b5e65ed8-8ae8-4573-b660-46b506d72cef" CreationDate="2018-12-13T16:53:06.790" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;**То место, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However to my ear the word **место** used generically doesn't have in Russian particularly pleasant undertones (wonder if i'm alone). Mayhap it's due to such stable collocations as *отхожее место*, *мокрое место*, *заднее место*, *места не столь отдалённые*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the most obvious replacement is the generic noun for the locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Городок/Посёлок, где стоит жить**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing fancy here, a straightforward translation which captures the meaning of the original without unnecessary embellishments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've avoided the word **деревня** (village) since in the reality of Russian life it's not associated with modern small communities, rather with far flung, derelict and backwards places&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the word **life** in the English phrase is that in the  construction used it's required as an object of the noun **living**. There's no such requirement in Russian for this particular case, so it can be dispensed with.&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*it is sometimes used ironically when things go poorly in the town*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sound ironic it must be construed like this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Where life is worth **leaving**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17687" RevisionGUID="81ddffa1-a112-441e-8549-40905b415f5e" CreationDate="2018-12-13T17:25:23.727" UserId="11080" Text="I'll add a variant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Деревня, достойная того, чтобы в ней жить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, I like the author's version. It's not word-to-word, but it sounds good. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17688" RevisionGUID="b48a477e-1860-4dcd-ad70-e93e1c813980" CreationDate="2018-12-13T17:44:21.173" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; **Куда нам эта шляпа? У нас их целый склад.**  - Why take this hat, we don't have room for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add &quot;**куда + pronoun in Dative + Infinitive**&quot; to this row. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Куда тебе бегать, ты и ходишь-то с трудом!** - Do you really want to run being unable to walk properly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And simply &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Куда там!** - No such luck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's pretty colloquial, but quite decent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other version is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На кой чёрт тебе эта шляпа?** - Why the hell do you need this hat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Кой** is a shorter version of **какой**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чёрт&quot; was (and is) a swearing word, that's why it was omitted, and the expression became&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **На кой мне туда идти?** - Why the hell shall I go there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And later one swearing word was replaced by other swearing words an euphemisms. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="ab860eec-d59f-4520-8413-85d951664f04" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:12:06.877" UserId="11021" Text="The translators all give different meanings but which is the most appropriate way to say it? &#xA;Твоё счастье, что ты не здесь ( счастье’s main meaning is happiness)&#xA;Тебе повезло, сто тебя здесь нет (повезло = what a score) &#xA;вам повезло, что вы не здесь&#xA;What are the difference between these and whats the usage difference between повезло и счастье? &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="ab860eec-d59f-4520-8413-85d951664f04" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:12:06.877" UserId="11021" Text="‘Your lucky that your not here’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="ab860eec-d59f-4520-8413-85d951664f04" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:12:06.877" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="f12da558-8680-4c05-9527-0f0a1372be6d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:29:28.283" UserId="11080" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The translators all give different meanings but which is the most appropriate way to say it? &#xD;&#xA;Твоё счастье, что ты не здесь ( счастье’s main meaning is happiness)&#xD;&#xA;Тебе повезло, что тебя здесь нет (повезло = what a score) &#xD;&#xA;вам повезло, что вы не здесь&#xD;&#xA;What are the difference between these and whats the usage difference between повезло и счастье? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17689" RevisionGUID="ed8135f8-5b11-4a5e-b548-9dd685cc4594" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:29:45.860" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="Which is the best way to convey &quot;You're lucky that you're not here&quot; in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17690" RevisionGUID="73cd4ff3-674b-4777-a985-b2b490266a6d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T18:33:38.047" UserId="11080" Text="**Твоё счастье, что...** and **тебе повезло, что...** are both **You were lucky enough not to** (have been here, go there, have such an angry teacher). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no real difference between them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17687" RevisionGUID="82edec14-e03f-42bc-8a61-796112ddc2e2" CreationDate="2018-12-13T21:28:25.423" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="I'll add a variant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Деревня, достойная того, чтобы жить в ней.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, I like the author's version. It's not word-to-word, but it sounds good. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17667" RevisionGUID="426c6931-4846-4ef8-a541-a0a3c445ecaa" CreationDate="2018-12-14T10:58:59.983" UserId="7674" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="First there's a need to clarify the accurate wording of the construction, which should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**не то чтобы**](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/не_то_чтобы) has different meaning, namely  **`not exactly/quite`**  and  **`it's not that`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; употребляется при выражении неопределённости оценки признака или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; действия&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И **не то чтобы** да, и **не то чтобы** нет - ***Not exactly** 'yes' and **not exactly** 'no' either*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Не то чтобы** все, но многие - ***Not exactly** everyone, but many*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Моря **не то чтобы** нет — оно далеко и очень мелкое - ***It's not that** there's no sea, **but it's** far away and very shallow.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **просто** громоздкий - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy/The safe is **not exactly** heavy, **just** bulky*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cейф **не то чтобы** тяжёлый, **но** сдвинуть его с места они (всё равно) не могут - ***It's not that** the safe is heavy, **but** they **still** can't move it*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Native speakers seem to confuse the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the phrase in question in its rectified form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **не то что** открыть, а даже сдвинуть его с места не могут&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is translated as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Not only can't they open it, even budge it they can't&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a safe is protected by a code, obviously opening it without knowing the code is a much harder task than moving it, therefore inability to move it is more striking due to being less likely to happen and this is what gets the syntactic emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Synonymous Russian constructions are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мало того, что** открыть его не могут, они не могут его **даже**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; с места сдвинуть.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Мало того, что** они его не могут открыть, **так** они его **ещё и** с места сдвинуть не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb **мало** signifies that the content of the 1st clause is only a part of the problem, while the brunt of the problem is introduced with the adverbs **даже** and **ещё** in the 2nd clause.&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;**не то, что** always fashions exacerbation, aggravation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она **не то, что** маленькая, она микроскопическая - *Not only it's small, it's microscopic*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ему **не то, что** сказал, я ему это в ухо проорал - *Not only i told him so, i shouted this into his ear*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;compare with the connotation of reservation or abatement created by **не то чтобы** (essentially the opposite of the one created by *не то, что*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Она **не то чтобы** маленькая, но всё равно по размеру не годится - *It's not exactly small, but still doesn't meet the size*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я ему **не то чтобы** сказал, а так, намекнул - *It's not that i told him so, just hinted*&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17693" RevisionGUID="d317b7c6-de3e-44d7-a5a3-c3c8a3a9fafb" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:18:11.563" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Я не ослышалась? **Клянусь**, я только что слышала, как она поблагодарила меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard this (sarcastically said) in conversation. In English, you'd express the same idea with the conditional tense: &quot;I **could've sworn** I just heard ...&quot;. I wonder if it is more common in Russian to use the present tense like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17693" RevisionGUID="d317b7c6-de3e-44d7-a5a3-c3c8a3a9fafb" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:18:11.563" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of &quot;I could've sworn ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17693" RevisionGUID="d317b7c6-de3e-44d7-a5a3-c3c8a3a9fafb" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:18:11.563" UserId="8672" Text="|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17694" RevisionGUID="019ad40b-4e51-4c03-a5f0-eff8bbca0996" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:34:27.387" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Я не ослышалась? Клянусь, я только что слышала, **как** она поблагодарила меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard this (sarcastically said) in conversation. I'm not sure why you use &quot;как&quot; instead of &quot;что&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не ослышалась? Клянусь, я только что слышала, **что** она поблагодарила меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this sound like you heard the news from someone else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17694" RevisionGUID="019ad40b-4e51-4c03-a5f0-eff8bbca0996" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:34:27.387" UserId="8672" Text="Difference in meaning between &quot;слышать, как ...&quot; and &quot;слышать, что ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17694" RevisionGUID="019ad40b-4e51-4c03-a5f0-eff8bbca0996" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:34:27.387" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="90d35fd0-6f3e-4511-bc09-ad5a717528a2" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:40:05.197" UserId="7674" Text="Generally swearing isn't typical to modern Russian, but if used it's in the present tense or in the form of **готов(а) поклясться** which is dated and bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past one would hear **вот тебе крест** and **ей-богу**, but these are rare nowadays.  &#xD;&#xA;Modern vernacular replacements include **говорю**, **отвечаю**, **зуб даю** (semi-modern), **кроме шуток** (slang)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="232108d8-e744-495a-9d01-0e51c9d5f4aa" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:50:39.783" UserId="7674" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="Generally swearing isn't typical to modern Russian, but if used it's in the present tense or in the form of **готов(а) поклясться** which is dated and bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past one would hear **вот тебе крест** and **ей-богу**, but these are rare nowadays.  &#xD;&#xA;Modern vernacular replacements include **говорю**, **отвечаю**, **зуб даю** (semi-modern), **кроме шуток** (slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English **I could've sworn** means that the mistake has been realized, i don't think there's a set construction to convey such connotation in Russian. In theory one could say **я бы мог покляться** which would have that meaning but in practice it normally doesn't happen. So the Russian sentence is ambiguous due to the present tense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17696" RevisionGUID="4f966f43-f2cd-418b-a4dc-59db95add25f" CreationDate="2018-12-14T12:57:17.270" UserId="7674" Text="Yes, your assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`услышала, что ... ` means knowing of the fact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`услышала, как ... ` means witnessing the fact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17697" RevisionGUID="31f5ca9a-a79e-4a3f-9290-1b6295447df0" CreationDate="2018-12-14T14:20:20.197" UserId="10247" Text="OALD explains 'I could have sworn' like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[transitive] to promise that you are telling the truth swear (that)… She swore (that) she’d never seen him before. I could have sworn (= I am sure) I heard the phone ring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically in Russian present tense would be quite typical as in *Клянусь*, or *Могу покляться*. Russian has conditionals, but it may sound more literary in such situations. In theory it's OK to say *Я мог бы покляться* - but it sounds a bit like actor in a play, or if one wants to sound very educated, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="edf4031e-7604-4795-a078-32d9e2690a33" CreationDate="2018-12-14T14:25:15.637" UserId="9732" Text="My Kenneth Katzner dictionary translates **grasshopper** only as &quot;кузнечик&quot;. And if you look up in virtually any internet dictionary, it is still &quot;кузнечик&quot;. No more, no less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I recently found that there exists a bug called **katydid**. Katydids have a green body, very long antennae, and if I do not mistake, they make their sounds using their wings rather than their hind legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus I have been confused. Katydid = кузнечик? Then how do you translate &quot;grasshopper&quot;? I'd appreciate more information about this issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="edf4031e-7604-4795-a078-32d9e2690a33" CreationDate="2018-12-14T14:25:15.637" UserId="9732" Text="Correct Russian equivalent of 'grasshopper'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17698" RevisionGUID="edf4031e-7604-4795-a078-32d9e2690a33" CreationDate="2018-12-14T14:25:15.637" UserId="9732" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17699" RevisionGUID="fdb4faa7-6cec-4361-9931-0b889c5c6fc1" CreationDate="2018-12-14T14:27:36.087" UserId="10247" Text="Using ***как*** seems more dynamic to me.. I heard how she thanked me.. (I was hearing her, may be physically, very likely I heard it myself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using ***что*** is more about stating the fact, it could be *I heard that she thanked me* (I was there and heard it physically), but could also be that someone tells you about this fact (You've just heard from the person who had been near her that she had thanked you). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17700" RevisionGUID="dff79dc5-c97f-47ed-b1c5-d0e7285bd4df" CreationDate="2018-12-14T14:59:13.120" UserId="11080" Text="Perhaps, you mean **саранча**? The difference is somewhere in the field of biology. :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="3fd89208-79f0-4d90-92a8-47d0ef11edfc" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:00:16.610" UserId="4600" Text="To be honest, this is the first time I encounter the word **katydis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia says they belong to the family *Tettigoniidae (Настоящие кузнечики)* which belongs to suborder *Ensifera*, order *Orthoptera* order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grasshoppers** is an **informal group** of insects of the suborder *Caelifera (Короткоусые прямокрылые)* in the same order *Orthoptera.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian person without zoological background all these insects would perfectly qualify as **кузнечики.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WKeJ9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1FB24.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46224" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17679" RevisionGUID="9d42f3c9-7fa6-45a9-9136-65ab708f0cac" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:00:50.253" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1073593662976729089" />
  <row Id="46225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17702" RevisionGUID="821932ae-60a2-40e2-a3ae-ec450f505210" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:01:13.853" UserId="10999" Text="It seems to me that most urban residents do not distinguish **кузнечика**, **сверчка** and **цикаду**. Except that **саранча** can be separately noted, because it is much larger. Therefore, I think that even if you make a mistake in the choice of a word, almost no one will notice.  &#xD;&#xA;As for me personally, on the territory of the exUSSR I most often meet **grasshoppers**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17696" RevisionGUID="4c542ab7-d7dc-4f47-a464-cc02048f7dc8" CreationDate="2018-12-14T15:08:15.803" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Yes, your assumption is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`слышала, что ... ` means knowing of the fact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`слышала, как ... ` means witnessing the fact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="fdeafd2f-5952-4310-8b67-609442384f41" CreationDate="2018-12-14T16:26:17.260" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Generally swearing isn't typical to modern Russian, but if used it's in the indicative mood including in the form of **готов(а) поклясться** which is dated and bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past one would hear **вот тебе крест** and **ей-богу**, but these are rare nowadays.  &#xD;&#xA;Modern vernacular replacements include **говорю**, **отвечаю**, **зуб даю** (semi-modern), **кроме шуток** (slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English **I could've sworn** means that the mistake has been realized, i don't think there's a set construction to convey such connotation in Russian. In theory one could use conditional mood **я бы мог покляться** which would have that meaning but in practice it normally doesn't happen. So the Russian sentence is ambiguous due to the indicative mood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="bf5f5128-f41d-4deb-8733-22c89852dcb1" CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:47:49.417" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Generally swearing isn't typical to modern Russian, but if used it's in the indicative mood including in the form of **готов(а) поклясться** which is dated and bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past one would hear **вот тебе (истинный) крест** and **ей-богу**, but these are rare nowadays.  &#xD;&#xA;Modern vernacular replacements include **говорю**, **отвечаю**, **зуб даю** (semi-modern), **кроме шуток** (slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English **I could've sworn** means that the mistake has been realized, i don't think there's a set construction to convey such connotation in Russian. In theory one could use conditional mood **я бы мог покляться** which would have that meaning but in practice it normally doesn't happen. So the Russian sentence is ambiguous due to the indicative mood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="90077035-9042-4281-b363-7705312e7921" CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:58:01.450" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Generally swearing isn't typical to modern Russian, but if used it's in the indicative mood including in the form of **готов(а) поклясться** which is dated and bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past one would hear **вот тебе (истинный) крест** and **ей-богу**, but these are rare nowadays.  &#xD;&#xA;Modern vernacular replacements include **говорю**, **отвечаю**, **зуб даю** (semi-modern), **кроме шуток** (slang)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English **I could've sworn** means that the mistake has been realized, i don't think there's a set construction to convey such connotation in Russian. In theory one could use conditional mood **я мог бы покляться** which would have that meaning but in practice it normally doesn't happen. So the Russian sentence is ambiguous due to the indicative mood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17703" RevisionGUID="45940adb-5638-4e2a-9e22-e0122d78ca7b" CreationDate="2018-12-14T18:59:36.563" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Я мог бы покляться&quot; appears in many [translations of English books][1]. However, it sounds bookish and not quite idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me turn the tables around a bit and ask: why does English use the conditional mood in &quot;I could've sworn&quot;? Is it to say &quot;I could have sworn but I didn't because I knew I was wrong?&quot; Probably not. The use of conditional makes the language milder e.g. &quot;Could you help me?&quot; vs &quot;Can you help me?&quot;, &quot;I would think&quot; vs &quot;I think&quot;, &quot;I would like&quot; vs &quot;I want&quot;, etc. So what you are really saying is &quot;I swear&quot;, just using more &quot;polite&quot; language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar use of conditional exists in Russian: &quot;Не мог бы ты помочь мне?&quot; vs &quot;Ты не поможешь мне?&quot;, &quot;Я бы так не думал&quot; vs &quot;Я так не думаю&quot;, &quot;Шёл бы ты ...&quot; vs &quot;Иди ты ...&quot; but, as I said, it sounds bookish and &quot;overly polite&quot; which is why when combined with the common insult &quot;Иди ты&quot;, it creates a comical effect (well, used to; now the effect has nearly worn off, leaving the two almost identical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What &quot;I could've sworn&quot; is, it is largely an attempt to rationalize one's surprise reaction (&quot;I was sure until now that...&quot;) and there are countless ways you can do that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Странно! Я был полностью уверен, что ...&#xD;&#xA;* Удивительно! Куда она могла подеваться?&#xD;&#xA;* Опаньки! А я-то думал, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or how Mr. [Скуперфильд][2] would put it, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Провалиться мне на этом самом месте!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&amp;hl=en&amp;q=%22%D1%8F%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F%22&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vjZJDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT756&amp;lpg=PT756&amp;dq=%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F%20%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=30B9TJ3Ac3&amp;sig=wFZn5IiC6aC3iKhGNH0oqMuTULo&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi5uvSS_Z_fAhXRRhUIHVlZCogQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F%20%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="46235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17695" RevisionGUID="88187829-7357-4446-b284-290973bf5fb7" CreationDate="2018-12-15T07:43:00.953" UserId="7674" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Generally swearing isn't typical to modern Russian, but if used it's in the indicative mood including in the form of **готов(а) поклясться** which is dated and bookish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past one would hear **вот тебе (истинный) крест** and **ей-богу**, but these are rare nowadays.  &#xD;&#xA;Modern vernacular replacements include **говорю**, **отвечаю**, **зуб даю** (semi-modern), **кроме шуток** (slang), **бля буду** (vulgar and very low register)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The English **I could've sworn** means that the mistake has been realized, i don't think there's a set construction to convey such connotation in Russian. In theory one could use conditional mood **я мог бы покляться** which would have that meaning but in practice it normally doesn't happen. So the Russian sentence is ambiguous due to the indicative mood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="17aeae92-dc6c-4f1d-8e82-c1c376595e98" CreationDate="2018-12-15T14:10:03.227" UserId="7547" Comment="Add an translation of the order as was for the suborder" Text="To be honest, this is the first time I encounter the word **katydis.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia says they belong to the family *Tettigoniidae (Настоящие кузнечики)* which belongs to suborder *Ensifera*, order *Orthoptera*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grasshoppers** is an **informal group** of insects of the suborder *Caelifera (Короткоусые прямокрылые)* in the same order *Orthoptera (Прямокрылые)*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To a Russian person without zoological background all these insects would perfectly qualify as **кузнечики.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WKeJ9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1FB24.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47238" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17701" RevisionGUID="17aeae92-dc6c-4f1d-8e82-c1c376595e98" CreationDate="2018-12-15T14:10:03.227" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 4600 edit id of 1004" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17690" RevisionGUID="32f1b16d-035a-482a-9f34-aa4f74f8565a" CreationDate="2018-12-15T17:26:16.677" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="**Твоё счастье, что...** and **тебе повезло, что...** are both **You were lucky enough** not to (have been here, go there, have such an angry teacher). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no real difference between them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47240" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17677" RevisionGUID="437b1360-cd7c-4e7d-8bfe-e986253a2848" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:00:40.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1074001306652733443" />
  <row Id="47241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17704" RevisionGUID="390098bb-0d5f-4beb-9431-31ed487b233c" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:21:55.293" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; А **кто** пачкается за столом, **у того** и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard this, and given the context, I assume that the combination of &quot;кто ..., у того ...&quot; means &quot;those who ...&quot; and &quot;у того&quot; is required due to the idea expressed by &quot;душа&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to paraphrase this sentence without using &quot;у **того**&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or do you need to use the word &quot;**тот**&quot; accordingly, whatever its declension, in combination with &quot;кто&quot;? For instance, can I say something like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **с тем**  хоть в чем-нибудь соглашаться нельзя.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17704" RevisionGUID="390098bb-0d5f-4beb-9431-31ed487b233c" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:21:55.293" UserId="8672" Text="Usage of the structure &quot;кто ..., у того ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17704" RevisionGUID="390098bb-0d5f-4beb-9431-31ed487b233c" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:21:55.293" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17704" RevisionGUID="af0ba122-851c-4f51-86f1-c3b8dc147acb" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:27:52.577" UserId="8672" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&gt; А **кто** пачкается за столом, **у того** и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard this, and given the context, I assume that the combination of &quot;кто ..., у того ...&quot; means &quot;those who ...&quot; and &quot;у того&quot; is added since the idea expressed by &quot;душа&quot; requires &quot;у + кого-либо&quot;. Is this a variant of &quot;**Тот**, кто X, Y&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to paraphrase this sentence without using &quot;у **того**&quot;? Or do you need to use the word &quot;**тот**&quot; accordingly, whatever its declension, in combination with &quot;кто&quot;? For instance, can I say something like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **с тем**  хоть в чем-нибудь соглашаться нельзя.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17704" RevisionGUID="1d42ec62-e02a-4326-beda-fb1c093b3037" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:33:16.880" UserId="8672" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&gt; А **кто** пачкается за столом, **у того** и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard this, and given the context, I assume that the combination of &quot;кто ..., у того ...&quot; means &quot;those who ...&quot;. I wonder if this is a variant of &quot;**Тот**, кто X, Y&quot; and &quot;у того&quot; is added to the second clause since the idea expressed by &quot;душа&quot; requires &quot;у + кого-либо&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to paraphrase this sentence without using &quot;у **того**&quot;? Or do you need to use the word &quot;**тот**&quot; accordingly, whatever its declension, in combination with &quot;кто&quot;? For instance, can I say something like this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **с тем**  хоть в чем-нибудь соглашаться нельзя.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="3ccafabb-c6ae-4a9b-90ec-9ff464fd5bfc" CreationDate="2018-12-15T18:58:03.963" UserId="7674" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation due to being somewhat counterintuitive, because the subordinate clause is left without a conjunction to lean upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **`у человека`** for example or **`у людей`**, however in this case кто is replaced with **`который/ые`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for a spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary form it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, ни в чём соглашаться нельзя&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="6c11b928-8c09-48b2-a377-b72f960e5c55" CreationDate="2018-12-15T19:03:45.120" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation due to being somewhat counterintuitive, because the subordinate clause is left hanging without a relative pronoun to lean upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **у человека** for example or **у людей**, however these nouns entail replacement of **кто** with **который/ые**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for a spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary form it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **ни в чём** соглашаться нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="26f589d9-bf2d-4d17-aa5a-57a084682652" CreationDate="2018-12-15T19:13:33.083" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation due to being somewhat counterintuitive, because the subordinate clause is left hanging without a relative pronoun to lean upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul. Russian parallel to the English **`(pro)noun + has`** is **`у + (pro)noun in Genitive`**, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **She has** green eyes - **У неё** зелёные глаза&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **у человека** for example or **у людей**, however these nouns entail replacement of **кто** with **который/ые**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for a spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary form it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **ни в чём** соглашаться нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="303e0031-6028-43d8-aa1a-a0ec82c18f1a" CreationDate="2018-12-15T19:19:52.990" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation due to being somewhat counterintuitive, because the main clause gets interjected with the subordinate one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul. Russian parallel to the English **`(pro)noun + has`** is **`у + (pro)noun in Genitive`**, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **She has** green eyes - **У неё** зелёные глаза&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **у человека** for example or **у людей**, however these nouns entail replacement of **кто** with **который/ые**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for the spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary form it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **ни в чём** соглашаться нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="e56c0549-2ed7-42dd-83c7-564a596b5774" CreationDate="2018-12-15T19:25:18.937" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation being somewhat counterintuitive, since the main clause gets interjected with the subordinate one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed this is the same **`тот, кто...`** and &#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul. Russian parallel to the English **`(pro)noun + has`** is **`у + (pro)noun in Genitive`**, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **She has** green eyes - **У неё** зелёные глаза&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **у человека** for example or **у людей**, however these nouns entail replacement of **кто** with **который/ые**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for the spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary form it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **ни в чём** соглашаться нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="1a81c12f-a739-4ffd-96a6-f5037467b87e" CreationDate="2018-12-15T19:30:46.133" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation being somewhat counterintuitive, since the main clause gets interjected with the subordinate one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed this is the same **`тот, кто...`** in oblique case and &#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul. Russian parallel to the English **`(pro)noun + has`** is **`у + (pro)noun in Genitive`**, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **She has** green eyes - **У неё** зелёные глаза&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **у человека** for example or **у людей**, however these nouns entail replacement of **кто** with **который/ые**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for the spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary rendering it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **ни в чём** соглашаться нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17706" RevisionGUID="d8f51e82-0feb-4637-85df-e7ab2c6af5a7" CreationDate="2018-12-15T21:33:39.077" UserId="11318" Text="Как филолог и писатель, заявляю, что первый вариант - с использованием &quot;как&quot; - звучит правильнее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И да, действительно, вариант со словом &quot;что&quot; звучит, будто бы вы слышали это от другого человека. К тому же, повтор &quot;что&quot; в одном предложении не очень корректен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17707" RevisionGUID="92e4bcc0-f3ad-4372-b656-5b243da05bb1" CreationDate="2018-12-15T21:38:19.517" UserId="11318" Text="Можно использовать несколько разных переводов, которые по смыслу ничем не отличаются.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Тебе повезло, что тебя здесь нет.&#xD;&#xA;2) Твоё счастье, что ты не тут.&#xD;&#xA;3) Везёт же тебе, что ты сейчас не здесь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И многие другие варианты. Русский язык гораздо многограннее, чем английский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17709" RevisionGUID="ebabac77-3a63-4abf-8dd4-2bdd2f6863d2" CreationDate="2018-12-15T21:45:48.520" UserId="11318" Text="Даться -- разговорный и просторечный вариант слова &quot;понадобиться&quot;. &quot;Далось тебе это?&quot; - Зачем тебе это понадобилось? Не нужно тебе это!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17710" RevisionGUID="fd21e04a-c9d5-4b1e-962c-eeb49ad2e5f8" CreationDate="2018-12-15T21:50:36.420" UserId="11318" Text="Нейтральные синонимы - транс, гей, голубок.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Негативные - пидор, петух, опущенный, педераст, пидарас, гомосек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Формально - трансвестит-гомосексуал, трансвестит-гей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17712" RevisionGUID="75559e36-ba7e-4cbd-a70f-82543e40cb4d" CreationDate="2018-12-15T22:11:29.113" UserId="11019" Text="I would humbly suggest &quot;**Где жизнь того стоит**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main focus is on &quot;life&quot; followed by an assertion that the quality of it is high enough. Obviously &quot;the quality of life&quot; here is very subjective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17713" RevisionGUID="28e069ff-4f8f-4274-8ccd-e74dca3a7abf" CreationDate="2018-12-15T22:16:43.453" UserId="11318" Text="Неважно, какое положение занимаешь в обществе - в этом случае &quot;неважно&quot; пишется ВСЕГДА слитно. Последний вариант с раздельным правописанием неверный.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Однако если будет идти конструкция &quot;ничуть не важно&quot;, &quot;совсем не важно&quot;, &quot;отнюдь не важно&quot;, то здесь пишется раздельно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17714" RevisionGUID="3e3da72c-34e2-4872-8ae1-27b6bddc21e8" CreationDate="2018-12-15T22:17:01.850" UserId="11019" Text="I'd say a more probable option would be &quot;**Радуйся, что ты не здесь**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's quite common to hear constructs like that starting from &quot;радуйся, ...&quot;. The meaning literally is &quot;you should feel joy because...&quot;, essentially exactly what you are asking &quot;you are lucky, that ...&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17715" RevisionGUID="f43321b3-1fb5-49ce-a9c0-dedca5359552" CreationDate="2018-12-15T22:24:42.807" UserId="11019" Text="To be honest I'd say most Russian speakers would call those &quot;кузнечик&quot;, with some (being more familiar maybe with nature) - &quot;сверчок&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17716" RevisionGUID="992d3f9f-45e1-4dfe-9101-64604dd900bd" CreationDate="2018-12-16T00:42:25.767" UserId="4850" Text="Correct &quot;тренироваться на кошках&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source is this movie, this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aJqeeNVBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When literally it is &quot;to train on a dummy&quot;  it is always a joke and is almost never used without context &quot;stop doing this, you have no skill, go to have some practice to other place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17716" RevisionGUID="768035cb-462a-4e31-b3b6-4c103f255873" CreationDate="2018-12-16T00:55:32.477" UserId="4850" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="Correct &quot;тренироваться на кошках&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source is this movie, this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aJqeeNVBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this have a meaning &quot;to train on a dummy&quot;  it is always a joke and  almost never used without context &quot;you have no skill, find other fool&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. playing chess with a friend, if you would comment you first moves: &quot;this time I'm going train my King's Gambit&quot; you will hear this phrase probably 9 times from 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17716" RevisionGUID="88f18dea-979a-4208-90c3-a71b0e5a0c7b" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:03:56.100" UserId="4850" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Correct &quot;тренироваться на кошках&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source is this movie, this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aJqeeNVBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this phrase could have a meaning &quot;to train on a dummy&quot;  it is always a joke and  almost never used for something else then &quot;you have no skill, find other fool&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. playing chess with a friend, if you would comment you first moves: &quot;this time I'm going train my King's Gambit&quot; you will get back &quot;тренируйся (лучше) на кошках&quot; from Russian opponent  probably 9 times from 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17716" RevisionGUID="67a6b87c-98c6-400e-8d1a-7bbaf1737cf1" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:13:25.737" UserId="4850" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="The only useful form is spoken language is direct citation: &quot;тренеруйся на кошках&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source is this movie, this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aJqeeNVBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this phrase could have a meaning &quot;to train on a dummy&quot; and can be used in bad literature, in dialog it is always a joke and  almost never used for something else then &quot;you have no skill, find other fool :P&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. playing chess with a friend, if you would comment you first moves: &quot;this time I'm going train my King's Gambit&quot; you would get back &quot;тренируйся (лучше) на кошках&quot; from Russian opponent  probably 9 times in 10 attempts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17716" RevisionGUID="b67e6ae5-cc83-43a6-8895-2d9653eb7ffe" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:20:23.483" UserId="4850" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="The only useful form in spoken language is direct movie citation: &quot;тренеруйся на кошках&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source is this movie, this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aJqeeNVBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this phrase could have a meaning &quot;to train on a dummy&quot; in real life dialog it is always a joke and  almost never used for something else then friendly bulling: &quot;you have no skill, find other fool :P&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to hear it you should directly trigger word &quot;тренироваться&quot;: &quot;я тренирую..&quot;, &quot;я собираюсь тренивать..&quot; .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. playing chess with a friend, if you would comment you first moves: &quot;this time I'm going train my King's Gambit&quot; you would get back &quot;тренируйся (лучше) на кошках&quot; probably nine times out of ten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17717" RevisionGUID="914912c5-621c-45f7-ac2e-74cd41150db9" CreationDate="2018-12-16T04:43:16.297" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, **а** люди не настолько глупы, чтобы отправиться туда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of &quot;Интересно, (**а**) зачем ...&quot;, for instance, it is easy to interpret the optional &quot;а&quot; as &quot;but&quot;. However, I occasionally come across an instance like this where the first word/phrase is followed by the apparently **optional** &quot;а&quot; that does not seem to translate well into English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether to include &quot;а&quot; or not -- I wonder if it comes down to stylistic preference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, люди не настолько глупы, чтобы отправиться туда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17717" RevisionGUID="914912c5-621c-45f7-ac2e-74cd41150db9" CreationDate="2018-12-16T04:43:16.297" UserId="8672" Text="What is the function of the apparently optional &quot;а&quot;, as in &quot;хоть ..., хоть нет, а ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17717" RevisionGUID="914912c5-621c-45f7-ac2e-74cd41150db9" CreationDate="2018-12-16T04:43:16.297" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="5cfbf86c-0af6-49e4-8081-4a2485895e60" CreationDate="2018-12-16T05:08:34.927" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I wanted to express the idea of &quot;a grain of truth&quot; and said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В том, что он говорит, безусловно, есть доля правды.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering if the following could have worked as well? Or can it be misconstrued as some physical object being there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В том, что он говорит – там, безусловно, что-то есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="5cfbf86c-0af6-49e4-8081-4a2485895e60" CreationDate="2018-12-16T05:08:34.927" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of &quot;a grain of truth&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="5cfbf86c-0af6-49e4-8081-4a2485895e60" CreationDate="2018-12-16T05:08:34.927" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17717" RevisionGUID="2aa65975-0e14-4953-8f6d-2ce73be38a6d" CreationDate="2018-12-16T05:26:54.570" UserId="8672" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="&gt; Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, **а** люди не настолько глупы, чтобы отправиться туда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of &quot;Интересно, (**а**) зачем ...&quot;, for instance, it is easy to interpret the optional &quot;а&quot; as &quot;but&quot;. However, I occasionally come across an instance like this where the first word/phrase is followed by the apparently **optional** &quot;а&quot; that does not seem to translate well into English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar example is &quot;Ну, **а** ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether to include &quot;а&quot; or not -- I wonder if it comes down to stylistic preference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, люди не настолько глупы, чтобы отправиться туда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17719" RevisionGUID="09472c09-8356-4195-af5d-969bfab3e4dd" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:07:18.037" UserId="7674" Text="**`a`** in this sentence can be dispensed with. I believe it's added almost kind of subconsciously to contrast the preceding negation **`хоть нет`**, but logically it's not required. It can be replaced with **`но`** which is also optional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the expression **`ну, а...`** the **`a`** is absolutely required because it marks contradiction or alternative to someone else's statement. In this case it's **`ну`** which is dispensable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17719" RevisionGUID="f56a5f8f-0d05-444a-9813-edaa886d7817" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:16:53.317" UserId="7674" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="**`a`** in this sentence can be dispensed with. I believe it's added almost kind of subconsciously to contrast the preceding negation **`хоть нет`**, but logically it's not required. It can be replaced with **`но`** which is also optional. These may be regarded as flourishes, make the speech a bit less stiff and dry, add a tad of passion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the expression **`ну, а...`** the **`a`** is absolutely required because it marks contradiction or alternative to someone else's statement. In this case it's **`ну`** which is dispensable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17719" RevisionGUID="f2a7a05a-bf23-44e2-b723-1173b67003f0" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:22:14.267" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="**`a`** in this sentence can be dispensed with. I believe it's added almost kind of subconsciously to contrast the preceding negation **`хоть нет`**, but logically it's not required. It can be replaced with **`но`** which is also optional. These may be regarded as flourishes, make the speech a bit less stiff and dry, add a tad of passion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the expression **`ну, а...`** the **`a`** is absolutely required because it marks contradiction or alternative to someone else's statement. In this case it's **`ну`** which is logically dispensable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17720" RevisionGUID="52d6ea1c-37cd-4ce0-be7f-b1b670bfc498" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:41:52.140" UserId="11080" Text="**В этом что-то есть** is used in this meaning. But in your sentence it should be used without **там**. It is rather colloquial and may sound less certain, as noted above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also **в этом** (ваших словах, твоей идее) **есть зерно здравого смысла**, **доля истины**, **здравый смысл** (common sence). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17721" RevisionGUID="c83d695f-d18b-4df8-863c-d7697d567ad0" CreationDate="2018-12-16T08:51:16.937" UserId="9001" Text="&quot;A&quot; in the beginning of a sentence or an independent clause (like in your question) is used to introduce shift of thought to another thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example you first express the thought that it doesn't matter if it is order or not. Then you move on and say people won't go. These two clauses a actually independent, thus you insert &quot;а&quot; to soften the transition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind that in pure conditional sentence &quot;а&quot; doesn't fit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Если даже это приказ, люди не настолько глупы...*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47283" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="63fa9037-c0da-405c-8382-8ed7781f3f79" CreationDate="2018-12-16T09:33:24.197" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17722" RevisionGUID="575ca40e-9b26-4cf6-892c-a8b4192c1475" CreationDate="2018-12-16T09:40:15.873" UserId="11080" Text="It also similar to **but** here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, а люди не глупы. - Regardless if it is an order&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or not, but the people are not silly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both **а** and **but** can be omitted without influencing the sence. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17705" RevisionGUID="68e3fad2-223e-4cb2-a599-afa7cb115f74" CreationDate="2018-12-16T11:46:01.747" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="This is a spoken version of a construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А у того, кто** пачкается за столом, и душа запятнана.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more literary form doesn't come very easy in the flow of conversation being somewhat counterintuitive, since the main clause gets interjected with the subordinate one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed this is the same **`тот, кто...`** in oblique case and &#xD;&#xA;**`у + Genitive`** is definitely required since it implies possessing of the soul. In Russian possession of inherent inalienable personal qualities is expressed through **`у + (pro)noun in Genitive`**, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **She has** green eyes = Her eyes are green - **У неё** зелёные глаза&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't dispense with **тот** in the relevant grammatical case unless you just replace it with a noun **у человека** for example or **у людей**, however these nouns entail replacement of **кто** with **который/ые**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your own sentence syntactically is perfectly correct for the spoken language. The only thing is that **хоть в чём-нибудь** doesn't sound idiomatic and needs to be replaced with **ни в чём**. So in a more literary rendering it should be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**С тем, кто** ведет себя как избалованный ребенок, **ни в чём** соглашаться нельзя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17722" RevisionGUID="7d461251-2d7c-4832-a15c-af2d6c79d4ad" CreationDate="2018-12-16T11:56:12.657" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It also similar to **but** here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, а люди не глупы. - Regardless if it is an order&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or not, but the people are not silly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both **а** and **but** can be omitted without influencing the meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11729" RevisionGUID="119a7b6c-e377-4352-9b17-c738ba524347" CreationDate="2018-12-16T13:47:09.253" UserId="6107" Comment="Улучшено форматирование." Text="Plural **старики** (English: `old people`) in conjunction with the relative pronoun can be used in the colloquial with a sense of `old parents`, `grandparents` (also `parents` in the youth slang):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Слушай, а что же твои старики?&#xD;&#xA; - Дорогие мои старики, дайте я вас сейчас расцелую!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural **отцы**, **праотцы**, **деды**, **прадеды** can be used as an archaism with a sense of **предки** (English: `ancestors`, `previous generation`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Как жили деды да прадеды, так и нам жить велели.&#xD;&#xA; - Бог Авраама и Исаака и Иакова, Бог отцов наших, прославил Сына Своего Иисуса.(Деян.3:13)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11729" RevisionGUID="e770088f-d230-495e-9e10-6c95ee2d4b02" CreationDate="2018-12-16T13:57:28.647" UserId="6107" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Plural **старики** (English: `old people`) in conjunction with the relative pronoun can be used in the colloquial with a sense of `old parents`, `grandparents` (also `parents` in the youth slang):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Слушай, а что же твои старики?&#xD;&#xA; - Дорогие мои старики, дайте я вас сейчас расцелую!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plural **отцы**, **праотцы**, **деды**, **прадеды** can be used as an archaism with a sense of **предки** (English: `ancestors`, `previous generation`):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Как жили деды да прадеды, так и нам жить велели.&#xD;&#xA; - Бог Авраама и Исаака и Иакова, Бог отцов наших, прославил Сына Своего Иисуса.([Деян.3:13][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://azbyka.ru/biblia/?Act.3:13&amp;a~r" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17723" RevisionGUID="c035392f-0fb4-44ea-ab88-48444fdac157" CreationDate="2018-12-16T14:21:18.090" UserId="4714" Text="Honestly, the best way to deal with &quot;а&quot; in a crude way, is to think of it as meaning —&quot;and here's another bit of information, and as for this, as for this next thing ...&quot; I know that's not a good translation but that's exactly the role it plays in all cases of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты умеешь плавать, а я нет.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know how to swim and I don't. = **(and as for me, and regarding this other piece of information, here is the reality.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, а люди не настолько глупы, чтобы отправиться туда.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's and order or not, people are not so stupid as to head there. = **(and as for the people, here's some extra info about the people ...)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Интересно, (а) зачем —***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's interesting **(but as for the why of it, here's something more I will ask you about, ... why ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;а&quot;—started it's life in he Russian language as a sound, and then became a question marker, and finally was used to mark contrast. ( see here for origins— https://etymological.academic.ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At its core &quot;а&quot; is just a sound that marks additional information—here's something more in relation to what has been said, here's another question in relation to what we were talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17723" RevisionGUID="3e99e85d-aced-45e8-8110-6e17da362910" CreationDate="2018-12-16T14:27:36.617" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body" Text="Honestly, the best way to deal with &quot;а&quot; in a crude way, is to think of it as meaning —&quot;and here's another bit of information, and as for this, as for this next thing ...&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Ты умеешь плавать, а я нет.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know how to swim and I don't. = **(and as for me, and regarding this other piece of information, here is the reality.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Хоть это приказ, хоть нет, а люди не настолько глупы, чтобы отправиться туда.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it's and order or not, people are not so stupid as to head there. = **(and as for the people, here's some extra info about the people ...)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Интересно, (а) зачем —***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's interesting **(but as for the why of it, here's something more I will ask you about, ... why ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;а&quot;—started it's life in he Russian language as a sound, and then became a question marker, and finally was used to mark contrast. ( see here for origins— https://etymological.academic.ru)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At its core &quot;а&quot; is just a sound that marks additional information—here's something more in relation to what has been said, here's another question in relation to what we were talking about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17724" RevisionGUID="050f0337-c0aa-4260-98b3-98b52c5dde4b" CreationDate="2018-12-16T16:44:26.953" UserId="11320" Text="As previos commentors said, &quot;В этом что-то есть&quot; is not quite what you want, and rather means &quot;I like something about it&quot; or even &quot;it does make sense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Your first sentence fits perfectly, also you can use proposed options or even the collocation &quot;зерно истины&quot; wich is also pretty common." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="80291158-568a-44d3-a205-8409f21fe86b" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:14:11.587" UserId="11082" Text="я, ю, е letters are pairs for а, у, э, and, мае should be read maje, and майе should be read majje, like it happens with мая and майя - maja and majja.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that э is a different vowel than е in modern Russian, unlike vowels in я-а, ю-у pairs, ie I think мяч and мач have same а, but only different м, but in case of мер and мэр I think the vowels are different. I do not know how old is this situation, but according to general logic that appear, е is just the match for э like я is for а, seems it was so historically. I do not ask about this, this is just to show the problem. I, personally, used to wrongly think that айе should be read aje just like ае, because I thought that е generally behaves differently from я and ю... For example, I thought, it does not change the m in меч, does not palatalize it, like it happens in мяч, so I thought, е has initial j only in beginning of word, so, I thought, е's behaviour after й is just like after any other consonant, while я after й should use its initial j and make a double j.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some letter sequences here are not meaningful words, they are just examples, the question is about how letter sequence should be read." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="80291158-568a-44d3-a205-8409f21fe86b" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:14:11.587" UserId="11082" Text="Reading (pronounciation) of айе is ajje, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="80291158-568a-44d3-a205-8409f21fe86b" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:14:11.587" UserId="11082" Text="|буквы|фонетика|фонология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47295" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="193a02ea-32e3-494a-a782-a53c4fe12777" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:19:13.217" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="934ac3ca-7052-4914-87c4-f62c85d2d245" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:19:43.297" UserId="11082" Comment="why i need this..." Text="я, ю, е letters are pairs for а, у, э, and, мае should be read maje, and майе should be read majje, like it happens with мая and майя - maja and majja.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that э is a different vowel than е in modern Russian, unlike vowels in я-а, ю-у pairs, ie I think мяч and мач have same а, but only different м, but in case of мер and мэр I think the vowels are different. I do not know how old is this situation, but according to general logic that appear, е is just the match for э like я is for а, seems it was so historically. I do not ask about this, this is just to show the problem. I, personally, used to wrongly think that айе should be read aje just like ае, because I thought that е generally behaves differently from я and ю... For example, I thought, it does not change the m in меч, does not palatalize it, like it happens in мяч, so I thought, е has initial j only in beginning of word, so, I thought, е's behaviour after й is just like after any other consonant, while я after й should use its initial j and make a double j.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some letter sequences here are not meaningful words, they are just examples, the question is about how letter sequence should be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is to get a proof to fix a wiktionary function/table, (I do not what is it and how named), for https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Benwing2#reading_of_%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B5_etc , for table in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F and other similar words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47297" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="d8bcd8cb-f219-4c72-9f4a-f93d6b8fb6b7" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:29:52.830" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Are &quot;мая&quot; and &quot;майя&quot; pronounced similarly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47298" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="1a42a08e-1724-4426-b6c6-eda18c9e9dd5" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:31:02.830" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47299" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="e2558db4-8f7f-4580-a134-e825738558c4" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:32:54.720" UserId="11082" Comment="fix title, copy from comment" Text="Is phonetic transcription of vowel-й-е is vowel-jje or vowel-je?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="e2558db4-8f7f-4580-a134-e825738558c4" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:32:54.720" UserId="11082" Comment="fix title, copy from comment" Text="я, ю, е letters are pairs for а, у, э, and, мае should be read maje, and майе should be read majje, like it happens with мая and майя - maja and majja.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that э is a different vowel than е in modern Russian, unlike vowels in я-а, ю-у pairs, ie I think мяч and мач have same а, but only different м, but in case of мер and мэр I think the vowels are different. I do not know how old is this situation, but according to general logic that appear, е is just the match for э like я is for а, seems it was so historically. I do not ask about this, this is just to show the problem. I, personally, used to wrongly think that айе should be read aje just like ае, because I thought that е generally behaves differently from я and ю... For example, I thought, it does not change the m in меч, does not palatalize it, like it happens in мяч, so I thought, е has initial j only in beginning of word, so, I thought, е's behaviour after й is just like after any other consonant, while я after й should use its initial j and make a double j.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some letter sequences here are not meaningful words, they are just examples, the question is about how letter sequence should be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is to get a proof to fix a wiktionary function/table, (I do not know what is it and how named), for https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Benwing2#reading_of_%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B5_etc , for table in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F and other similar words." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17726" RevisionGUID="ffe1d7bf-5723-456b-9f9d-96e80a8e3a6f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T17:38:33.833" UserId="242" Text="For `я` in `майя` there's such difference, it's pronounced like `май-йа`, `йе` is actually pronounced just like `е` ([je]) - so Том Сойер would have been pronounced identically has it have been spelled `Том Соер` - this spelling does not exist for historical reasons just like we spell `йогурт`, not `ёгурт`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking gemination is not something very typical for Russian - however it do [exist to some extent][1] - but specifically about `йй` one can claim it's virtually non-existent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17726" RevisionGUID="7c9cded2-f246-4ff7-8391-428314dc5b76" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:09:16.097" UserId="242" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="For `я` in `майя` there's such difference, it's supposed to be pronounced like `май-йа`. However, for instance, de-facto this quite exotic letter combination is pronounced just like `я` - you can hear, for instance, how `Айя-София` is pronounced - search youtube, for instance. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Йе` is actually pronounced just like `е` ([je]) - so Том Сойер would have been pronounced identically has it have been spelled `Том Соер` - this spelling does not exist for historical reasons just like we spell `йогурт`, not `ёгурт`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking gemination is not something very typical for Russian - however it do [exist to some extent][1] - but specifically about `йй` one can claim it's virtually non-existent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17726" RevisionGUID="1a6ad6e2-6818-40a8-9f2d-c037ced05d05" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:14:18.590" UserId="242" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="For `я` in `майя` there's such difference, it's supposed to be pronounced like `май-йа`. However, for instance, de-facto this quite exotic letter combination is pronounced just like `я`. For verifying both of the claims you can search youtube for `Майя Плисецкая` (like [here][1]) and `Айя-София` (like [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;`Йе` is actually pronounced just like `е` ([je]) - so Том Сойер would have been pronounced identically has it have been spelled `Том Соер` - this spelling does not exist for historical reasons just like we spell `йогурт`, not `ёгурт`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking gemination is not something very typical for Russian - however it do [exist to some extent][3] - but specifically about `йй` one can claim it's virtually non-existent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkJ21e3Qt5c&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkK4IZRrOE&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination#Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17727" RevisionGUID="d39e1220-6c09-4dde-aa55-322b06b2ddd3" CreationDate="2018-12-16T19:21:34.297" UserId="11080" Text="The declension of the word майя on the second link is weird. You can decline only Майя as a name, but it requires a capital letter. Besides, why is there no Genitive in plural? The word майя meaning the Maya people is indeclinable in Russian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not quite clear what all the paragraph about what you thought on Е and Э is aimed at. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17727" RevisionGUID="95cf91be-95f5-48a5-b0bb-0d45e7d71f16" CreationDate="2018-12-16T20:35:57.383" UserId="11080" Comment="added 481 characters in body" Text="It is not quite clear what all the paragraph about what you thought on Е and Э is aimed at. If we decided to write **айэ**, it would sound just like **ае**: **в мае**. Unless we would like to make an extra effort to show this unusual combination in speech. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is impossible to soften й. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The letters **я, ю, ё, е** do sound as **йа, йу, йо, йэ** in the alphabet, and also after vowels, ь, ъ and й. In the latter case the sound й is reduplicated, but any consonant reduplication is partially reduced (say, to 1 1/2), so it can still sound as 1 **й** in fluent speech. But when we pronounce it distinctly we do have something like **йй** there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The declension of the word **майя** on the second link is weird. You can decline only **Майя** as a name, but it requires a capital letter. Besides, why is there no Genitive in plural? The word **майя** meaning the Maya people is indeclinable in Russian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="6aacb9ad-63d2-43bd-94e5-01f26da67b1f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T20:40:11.437" UserId="8780" Text="I checked a few dictionaries and realized that the verb **гнать** means, in general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to make something move; to drive sth./sb. out of somewhere (as a transitive verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- to run fast by vehicle: `гнать на машине`(as an intransitive verb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if I remember correctly, once I heard the sentence `&quot;гонит кровь по жилам&quot;`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find this meaning on any dictionary, but can **гнать** work as a synonym to **течь**?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="6aacb9ad-63d2-43bd-94e5-01f26da67b1f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T20:40:11.437" UserId="8780" Text="Meanings of гнать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="6aacb9ad-63d2-43bd-94e5-01f26da67b1f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T20:40:11.437" UserId="8780" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17729" RevisionGUID="7045e4c9-9d17-4b84-8204-a0f2807be03a" CreationDate="2018-12-16T21:04:26.340" UserId="11080" Text="No, **сердце гонит кровь по жилам** - it's the first meaning listed. A heart makes blood move away from it. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="5858c1b5-f832-4b99-b0dc-32e834378b25" CreationDate="2018-12-16T22:04:32.507" UserId="2104" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. some words written with a double consonant in normal paced speech are  pronounced with a single consonant: болеть гриппом [п], аккордеон [к], прожаренный [н], русский [с].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. and vice versa: длина is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonants are more likely to retain gemination when it occurs between morphemes: длин-ный, рас-сказ, лаос-ский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-frequency words are more likely to lose gemination (in speech, not in writing) which is what happened to русский and Майя (the female name). The name of the people, майя, is still pronounced with a double [йй] which is what the Wiki page says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17731" RevisionGUID="b8c6d425-822e-4039-9721-a4d30e824674" CreationDate="2018-12-16T22:24:36.373" UserId="11270" Text="Not an answer, but **гнать** can also mean to lie or to exaggerate. :) For example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A: Иду я вчера по Ленинскому проспекту и тут приземляются марсиане.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; B: Да чо ты гонишь!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's very colloquial. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17732" RevisionGUID="46ad7373-268f-4e5f-89ae-c495ede5b8ec" CreationDate="2018-12-17T01:19:21.637" UserId="11019" Text="I'd say it's more of **push**, than just neutral **move** as there is a notion of somewhat forced action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One potentially can translate &quot;сердце гонит кровь по жилам&quot; as &quot;heart pushes blood through the veins&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17733" RevisionGUID="8f15bea6-ebb3-412f-8abc-151d220294fe" CreationDate="2018-12-17T01:50:23.930" UserId="4850" Text="The accepted answer is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;страшная(ый) женщина/ребенок&quot; and &quot;страшный(ая) мужчина/человек/собака&quot; are different types of fixed expressions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used with &quot;man&quot; it describes the personality, used with &quot;woman&quot; or &quot;child&quot; it describes only appearance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also transitional cases like &quot;страшная баба&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is logic in this scale: &quot;the noun&quot; set danger limits for you. And if there is no real danger - e.g. in case of child - that means &quot;страшный&quot; is only about appearance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17733" RevisionGUID="3e11eb7d-a055-464a-81b1-1ecc8fd9d11e" CreationDate="2018-12-17T02:09:09.357" UserId="4850" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="The accepted answer is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;страшная(ый) женщина/ребенок&quot; and &quot;страшный(ая) мужчина/человек/собака&quot; are different colored expressions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used with &quot;man&quot; it describes the personality, used with &quot;woman&quot; or &quot;child&quot; it describes only appearance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also transitional cases like &quot;страшная баба&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And all can be changed by context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is logic in this scale: &quot;the object&quot; set danger limits for you. And if there is no real danger - e.g. in case of child - that means &quot;страшный&quot; is only about appearance. If there is a real danger for you - &quot;is she/he ugly&quot; - is not interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она страшная женщина&quot; - if you are talking about your professor means that you have reasons to afraid her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17733" RevisionGUID="dd7feed2-2c43-46ce-9134-c23cd19db690" CreationDate="2018-12-17T02:19:44.193" UserId="4850" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="The accepted answer is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;страшная(ый) женщина/ребенок&quot; and &quot;страшный(ая) мужчина/человек/собака&quot; are different colored expressions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used with &quot;man&quot; it describes the personality, used with &quot;woman&quot; or &quot;child&quot; it describes only appearance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also transitional cases like &quot;страшная баба&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And all can be changed by context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is logic in this scale: &quot;the object&quot; set danger limits for you. And if there is no real danger - e.g. in case of child - that means &quot;страшный&quot; is only about appearance. If there is a real danger for you - &quot;is she/he ugly&quot; - is not interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она страшная женщина&quot; - if you are talking about your professor, and we know that you depend on her, turns this phrase to &quot;she is terrible/dangerous person&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47316" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17693" RevisionGUID="0b28aea7-91f7-441c-ac23-e7868e1dfb14" CreationDate="2018-12-17T03:00:25.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1074499528026439683" />
  <row Id="47317" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17728" RevisionGUID="0e3e266a-84e5-4e67-aee0-6ebca78b66c3" CreationDate="2018-12-17T10:22:36.100" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meanings of &quot;гнать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="1533fcbe-855c-4355-abfb-d8406b038cd3" CreationDate="2018-12-17T11:13:53.267" UserId="2104" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. some words written with a double consonant in normal paced speech are  pronounced with a single consonant: болеть гриппом [п], аккордеон [к], прожаренный [н], русский [с].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. and vice versa: длина is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonants are more likely to retain gemination when it occurs between morphemes: длин-ный, рас-сказ, лаос-ский, под-дать (compare to подать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-frequency words sometimes lose gemination (in speech, not in writing) which is what happened to русский and Майя (the female name). The name of the people, майя, is still pronounced with a double [йй] as the Wiki page says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17718" RevisionGUID="6c65eaa6-45af-4844-946e-9d76ca54397d" CreationDate="2018-12-17T12:00:08.080" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1074635351325470721" />
  <row Id="47320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="830bfc2c-62a9-4873-ad9f-af2fd2239dc6" CreationDate="2018-12-17T13:53:35.293" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **Если бы** и в жизни было так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вот бы** и в жизни было так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Вот если бы** и в жизни было так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I tend to use whichever comes to mind first, but I'm wondering how they are nuanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="830bfc2c-62a9-4873-ad9f-af2fd2239dc6" CreationDate="2018-12-17T13:53:35.293" UserId="8672" Text="Nuances of meaning between &quot;Если бы&quot;, &quot;Вот бы&quot;, and &quot;Вот если бы&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="830bfc2c-62a9-4873-ad9f-af2fd2239dc6" CreationDate="2018-12-17T13:53:35.293" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17735" RevisionGUID="4067ef11-fd60-4afe-a904-56d6c45eb265" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:23:27.107" UserId="5443" Text="**Вот бы** = *хорошо бы* (expressing a desire lazily, without much hope):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот бы сейчас пива холодного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Если бы** typically introduces an *unreal* condition (your example is an incomplete sentence):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы и в жизни было так, все люди были бы счастливы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вот если бы**: the *вот* element introduces an *exceptional* condition for something to be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот если добавить в этот гамбургер черной икры, он станет вполне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; съедобным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17735" RevisionGUID="9d89a764-9b8e-4ff0-ab95-07c55664fcc8" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:31:05.277" UserId="5443" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="**Вот бы** = *хорошо бы* (expressing a desire lazily, without much hope):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот бы сейчас пива холодного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Если бы** typically introduces an *unreal* condition (your example is an incomplete sentence):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если бы и в жизни было так, все люди были бы счастливы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Вот если бы**: the *вот* element introduces an *exceptional* condition for something to be true (the whole expression demonstrates eagerness to agree with an opponent about an unlikely situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот если добавить в этот гамбургер черной икры, он станет вполне&#xD;&#xA;&gt; съедобным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17736" RevisionGUID="c6c92267-eabc-4ab6-be4b-892e8e125e14" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:50:34.750" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы ты **управляла** лодкой? Еще чего! Ты еще не в силах **справиться** с ней в одиночку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking back on it, I guess I picked the perfective &quot;справиться&quot;, thinking that steering a boat (**even once**) was beyond her. But given that I used  the imperfective &quot;управлять&quot;, I wonder if  the imperfective &quot;справляться&quot; would have been a better fit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, &quot;управлять&quot; doesn't have its perfective counterpart to begin with, I suppose. So it might not affect the choice of &quot;справиться&quot; vs &quot;справляться&quot;. I haven't learnt Russian grammar methodically, so I might be missing out on some ground rules for verb aspects that I'm not aware of here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17736" RevisionGUID="c6c92267-eabc-4ab6-be4b-892e8e125e14" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:50:34.750" UserId="8672" Text="Whether to use the perfective &quot;справиться&quot; or the imperfective &quot;справляться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17736" RevisionGUID="c6c92267-eabc-4ab6-be4b-892e8e125e14" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:50:34.750" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17736" RevisionGUID="abe0dc22-71f6-44c7-a411-521ea3cff565" CreationDate="2018-12-17T14:57:55.390" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы ты **управляла** лодкой? Еще чего! Ты еще не в силах **справиться** с ней в одиночку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking back on it, I guess I picked the perfective &quot;справиться&quot;, thinking that steering a boat (**even once**) was beyond her. But given that I used  the imperfective &quot;управлять&quot;, I wonder if  the imperfective &quot;справляться&quot; might have been a better fit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then again, &quot;управлять&quot; doesn't have its perfective counterpart to begin with, I suppose. So it might not affect the choice of &quot;справиться&quot; vs &quot;справляться&quot;. I haven't learnt Russian grammar methodically, so I might be missing out on some ground rules for verb aspects that I'm not aware of here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="aaa027e3-5b3e-472e-af0b-470c3c9721b7" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:34:42.350" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Чтобы** ты управляла лодкой? Еще чего! Ты еще не в силах справиться с ней в одиночку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I sometimes use an incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot; subordinate clause like this to express an element of surprise -- as  an equivalent of &quot;To think that ... !&quot; or something along those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering how far it can go with its *incompleteness*. Is it common to drop even a verb,  with the aid of an ellipsis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знал, что он честолюбец, но **чтобы** настолько...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, how (else) do native speakers use these incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot; clauses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="aaa027e3-5b3e-472e-af0b-470c3c9721b7" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:34:42.350" UserId="8672" Text="The usage of an incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot; subordinate clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="aaa027e3-5b3e-472e-af0b-470c3c9721b7" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:34:42.350" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="47d9a56e-528c-49fd-b3fb-86128c087b5f" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:38:54.763" UserId="7674" Text="No, your choice of words is absolutely correct. **Не в силах справЛЯться** is not idiomatic. The perfective might stem from the notion that normally you overcome or tame something once without doing it repeatedly or during a lengthy period. I don't think the aspects of the two verbs should depend on one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However had you used **управляться** instead, that would require imperfective. This verb implies repeated efforts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47333" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="6bbb396f-5100-4f70-ab4f-ddf67a5259cd" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:40:19.920" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="How to use an incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot; subordinate clause" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="c1d3c45a-1d1a-4538-a55e-544b3a607376" CreationDate="2018-12-17T15:46:13.053" UserId="7674" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="No, your choice of words is absolutely correct. **Не в силах справЛЯться** is not idiomatic. The perfective might stem from the notion that normally you overcome or tame something once without doing it repeatedly or during a lengthy period. I don't think the aspects of the two verbs should depend on one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective would be correct had you used the verb **управляться** instead. This verb implies repeated efforts. Its perfective counterpart **управиться** means to finish the task and therefore would not fit here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="a0e18d16-6e88-410e-aa0b-d0606b113c98" CreationDate="2018-12-17T17:15:41.280" UserId="8672" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Чтобы** ты управляла лодкой? Еще чего! Ты еще не в силах справиться с ней в одиночку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I sometimes use an incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot; subordinate clause like this to express an element of surprise -- as  an equivalent of &quot;To think that ... !&quot; or something along those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering how far it can go with its *incompleteness*. Is it common to drop even a verb,  with the aid of an ellipsis? Is virtually any wording possible, as long as there is an ellipsis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знал, что он честолюбец, но **чтобы** настолько...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, how (else) do native speakers use these incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot; clauses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="c0188bd2-3cb5-4e84-868c-4838dc4a4a36" CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:50:32.560" UserDisplayName="user10756" Text="In the context of binary numbers, what would be the English translation of &quot;Модифицированный дополнительный код&quot;? What the &quot;Модифицированный дополнительный код&quot; representation of a binary number? Google translate tells me that it means &quot;Modified Additional Code&quot;, but I am not sure what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what about the expression &quot;Модифицированный обратный код&quot;. Again, Google translate tells me that it means &quot;Modified Reverse Code&quot;, but I still don't get what would this be. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="c0188bd2-3cb5-4e84-868c-4838dc4a4a36" CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:50:32.560" UserDisplayName="user10756" Text="What would be the English translation of &quot;Модифицированный дополнительный код&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="c0188bd2-3cb5-4e84-868c-4838dc4a4a36" CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:50:32.560" UserDisplayName="user10756" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17740" RevisionGUID="3855530e-c0ff-4910-8871-3d48c721be40" CreationDate="2018-12-17T18:55:59.033" UserId="9256" Text="Yes, in colloquial speech, almost everything can be dropped from the sentence (assuming there is a context that can fill in the meaning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Чтобы ты? Управляла лодкой? Еще чего!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you do have to use at least one word as a focal point to express the surprise (&quot;настолько&quot;, &quot;ты&quot; etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="aa4712ee-664b-4b2e-a7ef-8eb61968a51a" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:33:17.190" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **а ведь** ей почтй всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering when it is preferable to use &quot;а ведь&quot; to show contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **хотя** ей почтй всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **хоть** ей почтй всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="aa4712ee-664b-4b2e-a7ef-8eb61968a51a" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:33:17.190" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;а ведь&quot;, as opposed to &quot;хотя/хоть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="aa4712ee-664b-4b2e-a7ef-8eb61968a51a" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:33:17.190" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="d61b426a-4148-456f-a118-8cab80fff00e" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:46:04.233" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **а ведь** ей почт**и** всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering when it is preferable to use &quot;а ведь&quot; to show contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **хотя** ей почт**и** всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **хоть** ей почт**и** всегда это было понятно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="4564fc19-db4c-4819-969d-e1ab7971f7be" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:49:20.443" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="No, your choice of words is absolutely correct. Here **не в силах справЛЯться** would not be idiomatic. The perfective might stem from the notion that normally you overcome or tame something once without doing it repeatedly or during a lengthy period. But as Alexander's example in the comment shows, it's not clear cut. I don't think the aspects of the two verbs **управляла** and **справиться** should necessarily agree with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective would be correct had you used the verb **управляться** instead. This verb implies repeated efforts. Its perfective counterpart **управиться** means to finish the task and therefore would not fit here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="38bb10a7-7453-4d77-9f27-93bb9f470ed6" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:58:35.137" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="No, your choice of words is absolutely correct. Here **не в силах справЛЯться** would not be idiomatic. The perfective might stem from the notion that normally you overcome or tame something once without doing it repeatedly or during a lengthy period. But as Alexander's example in the comment shows, it's not so clear cut. Still in Google the odds of perfective aspect in the phrase **не в силах справляться/справиться** are 10 times lower.   &#xD;&#xA;I don't think the aspects of the two verbs **управляла** and **справиться** should necessarily agree with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective would be correct had you used the verb **управляться** instead. This verb implies repeated efforts. Its perfective counterpart **управиться** means to finish the task and therefore would not fit here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="9ecdcc82-f384-48d6-a73f-3c4c52c9e495" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:04:42.267" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **а ведь** ей почти  всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering when it is preferable to use &quot;а ведь&quot; to show contrast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **хотя** ей почти  всегда это было понятно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, **хоть** ей почти  всегда это было понятно. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17742" RevisionGUID="dd576395-c591-4653-bccc-947fb52cf374" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:16:49.163" UserId="134" Text="*Ведь* conveys the larger degree of emotional involvement in the contrast between the main clause and the concessive clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, хотя ей почти всегда это было понятно. // She used to understand how the things work, and now she doesn't anymore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, а ведь ей почти всегда это было понятно. // She doesn't understand how the things work anymore, and I'm somehow emotional about that because she used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people are talking about emotionally charged subjects, they're more likely to use *ведь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он умирает от рака, а ведь он такой молодой! // (This is unfair!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он умирает от рака, хотя он такой молодой. // (This is a plain statement of facts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people are talking about neutral subjects, they're more likely to use *хотя*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алюминий стоит довольно дорого, хотя это один из самых распространённых элементов в земной коре // (This is something you would see in a textbook)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алюминий стоит довольно дорого, а ведь это один из самых распространённых элементов в земной коре // (This is something the author cares about for some reason and they want to show how emotional are they about this)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17742" RevisionGUID="e17b7eca-e613-4c6b-b239-76b17af94b33" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:26:58.643" UserId="134" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="*А ведь* conveys the larger degree of emotional involvement in the contrast between the main clause and the concessive clause:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, хотя ей почти всегда это было понятно. // She used to understand how the things work, and now she doesn't anymore&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она больше не знает, что к чему, а ведь ей почти всегда это было понятно. // She doesn't understand how the things work anymore, and I'm somehow emotional about that because she used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people are talking about emotionally charged subjects, they're more likely to use *а ведь*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он умирает от рака, а ведь он такой молодой! // (This is unfair!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он умирает от рака, хотя он такой молодой. // (This is a plain statement of facts)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When people are talking about neutral subjects, they're more likely to use *хотя*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алюминий стоит довольно дорого, хотя это один из самых распространённых элементов в земной коре // (This is something you would see in a textbook)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Алюминий стоит довольно дорого, а ведь это один из самых распространённых элементов в земной коре // (This is something the author cares about for some reason and they want to show how emotional are they about this)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17743" RevisionGUID="728e3bcd-1c98-4055-ab29-2c49e84759e6" CreationDate="2018-12-17T21:43:29.980" UserId="10446" Text="Это код Бодо вероятно. If you looking for &quot;Модифицированный дополнительный код&quot; -- you will look it at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%A2%D0%9A-2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47350" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17739" RevisionGUID="c11ac067-0987-4e9b-aeb4-ddbf4e9e5f22" CreationDate="2018-12-17T22:14:47.927" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="44b663cb-359f-4c27-8f92-c7e690f6be0a" CreationDate="2018-12-18T03:41:43.227" UserId="6545" Text="while studying 'active present participles', or I guess also called 'imperfective verbal adverbs' (IVA), I came across another constriction for saying, '&lt;verb&gt;+ing'. Which is.... better?&#xA;&#xA; 1. читающий книгу&#xA; 2. читающий &#xA; 3. работающий&#xA; 4. ужинающий&#xA;&#xA;or using preposition 'за' +instrumental case;&#xA;&#xA; 1. за книгой&#xA; 2. за чтением&#xA; 3. за работовй&#xA; 4. за ужинои&#xA;&#xA;I'm aware that the IVA can replace 'который' constructions. &#xA;&#xA;I get a sense that the 'during' meaning of 'за' may be slightly different in meaning with the IVA meaning of '-ing' verbs. Or not?&#xA;&#xA;Also, having just discovered words like чтение, слушание, мышление, etc... (Are there many?) it seems the IVA construction may not be too common....?&#xA;&#xA;With the latter being able to be applied on nouns and the former being applied to imperfective verbs, maybe the overlap is not as large as it may seem?&#xA;&#xA;Is there a difference in passive/active? Etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="44b663cb-359f-4c27-8f92-c7e690f6be0a" CreationDate="2018-12-18T03:41:43.227" UserId="6545" Text="which is more proper /popular? IVA or за+instr. noun" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="44b663cb-359f-4c27-8f92-c7e690f6be0a" CreationDate="2018-12-18T03:41:43.227" UserId="6545" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17745" RevisionGUID="56c1161f-c261-47de-aa5c-56ed1ae395a3" CreationDate="2018-12-18T05:46:45.370" UserId="10247" Text="*Если бы и в жизни было так.* - expresses observation on a condtion which in real life is usually not true (e.g. something happens in a movie, you know it's not possible in real life, hence this comment - If only this could happen in real life, etc....) - sounds more like an observation or comment with doubt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вот бы и в жизни было так* - expresses the DESIRE that this could happen in real life, but the implication is again that in fact it's not likely to happen, it's just your wish or dream. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вот если бы и в жизни было так.* - basically the same as No.1, but Вот adds more doubt, or makes it sligthly more emphatic. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47355" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="eefc3119-3dfb-4f16-b39c-74d15da417c2" CreationDate="2018-12-18T06:00:39.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1074907272596336644" />
  <row Id="47356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17746" RevisionGUID="7199cc59-b055-414c-92d5-c0dab95d598c" CreationDate="2018-12-18T06:17:54.797" UserId="10247" Text="Participles are a more flexible way, they work oftener, I guess a lot depends on style (за + inst. looks more literary), and these two ways are NOT interchangable, sometimes only one of the two is possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's easier for a learner to think of Russian participle as an adjective - a bit more difficult than a common adjective though (but very often it's about describing a person or thing), e.g. отходящий корабль (a leaving ship) - in such cases за+inst. is not possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;за+inst. - is also about describing, but through action, situation, and seems more literary. E.g. Она застала его за книгой (She found him reading, i.e. she found him with a book). I think the emphasis here is on describing the situation, act itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Easier to think maybe - if you want to describe a person use participle - this situation is often the case in everyday language acts, so maybe participles are used more often. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you encounter more Russian texts and contexts you'll see these are different linguistic situations. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17743" RevisionGUID="ea0c7f31-1fac-4485-8fd5-dfdf0c7c7cc8" CreationDate="2018-12-18T06:26:36.583" UserId="10446" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="If we are talking about calculations, then &lt;&lt;Дополнительный код&gt;&gt; is “two’s complement”, &lt;&lt;Обратный код&gt;&gt; is “ones' complement”. To understand what “modified” means, I need to see the context.&#xD;&#xA;Less likely, but it may be a telegraph code (eg. modified Baudot code or &lt;&lt;МТК-2&gt;&gt;; see https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%A2%D0%9A-2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47358" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="879ed323-a233-44f6-a41c-6c99cd691804" CreationDate="2018-12-18T08:22:42.167" UserId="11082" Comment="remove a tag" Text="|буквы|фонология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="8e038485-59df-4994-b451-33f9bb1dd14d" CreationDate="2018-12-18T09:33:50.097" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Do &quot;я&quot;/&quot;йя&quot;, &quot;e&quot;/&quot;йе&quot; &quot;ю&quot;/&quot;йю&quot; pronounced differently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="c581141a-880f-4d88-8a05-cf8362439911" CreationDate="2018-12-18T09:37:03.387" UserId="242" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="While studying 'active present participles', or I guess also called 'imperfective verbal adverbs' (IVA), I came across another constriction for saying, '&lt;verb&gt;+ing'. Which is.... better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. читающий книгу&#xD;&#xA; 2. читающий &#xD;&#xA; 3. работающий&#xD;&#xA; 4. ужинающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or using preposition 'за' +instrumental case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. за книгой&#xD;&#xA; 2. за чтением&#xD;&#xA; 3. за работовй&#xD;&#xA; 4. за ужинои&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that the IVA can replace 'который' constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get a sense that the 'during' meaning of 'за' may be slightly different in meaning with the IVA meaning of '-ing' verbs. Or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, having just discovered words like чтение, слушание, мышление, etc... (Are there many?) it seems the IVA construction may not be too common....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter being able to be applied on nouns and the former being applied to imperfective verbs, maybe the overlap is not as large as it may seem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in passive/active? Etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47361" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="c581141a-880f-4d88-8a05-cf8362439911" CreationDate="2018-12-18T09:37:03.387" UserId="242" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited title" Text="Choosing between &quot;за&quot; + instr. noun and imperfective verbal adverbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="ef181f13-05ea-4b03-b234-6e1f9f70ee8b" CreationDate="2018-12-18T10:46:45.307" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="While studying 'active present participles', or I guess also called 'imperfective verbal adverbs' (IVA), I came across another constriction for saying, '&lt;verb&gt;+ing'. Which is.... better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. читающий книгу&#xD;&#xA; 2. читающий &#xD;&#xA; 3. работающий&#xD;&#xA; 4. ужинающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or using preposition 'за' +instrumental case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. за книгой&#xD;&#xA; 2. за чтением&#xD;&#xA; 3. за работой&#xD;&#xA; 4. за ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that the IVA can replace 'который' constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get a sense that the 'during' meaning of 'за' may be slightly different in meaning with the IVA meaning of '-ing' verbs. Or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, having just discovered words like чтение, слушание, мышление, etc... (Are there many?) it seems the IVA construction may not be too common....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter being able to be applied on nouns and the former being applied to imperfective verbs, maybe the overlap is not as large as it may seem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in passive/active? Etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="433a8481-61c9-443e-b90a-cf218ec82a7d" CreationDate="2018-12-18T11:52:45.437" UserId="7674" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="No, your choice of words is absolutely correct. Here **не в силах справЛЯться** would not be idiomatic. The perfective might stem from the notion that normally you overcome or tame something once without doing it repeatedly or during a lengthy period.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alexander's example in the comment shows that imperfective aspect is in principle not entirely invalid, however the conditions it's used under differ from those present in your sentence. Namely unlike in his example your sentence contains the adverb **ещё** and direct object *in singular*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in Google the odds of perfective aspect in the phrase **не в силах справляться/справиться&amp;nbsp;с** are over 20 times lower. And a fair amount of phrases using *imperfective* aspect have *direct object in plural*.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I don't think the aspects of the two verbs **управляла** and **справиться** should necessarily agree with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective would be correct had you used the verb **управляться** instead. This verb implies repeated efforts. Its perfective counterpart **управиться** means to finish the task and therefore would not fit here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17738" RevisionGUID="f5364a19-c736-40ae-862f-a559567d00d1" CreationDate="2018-12-18T11:59:53.587" UserId="7674" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="No, your choice of words is absolutely correct. Here **не в силах справЛЯться** would not be idiomatic. The perfective might stem from the notion that normally you overcome or tame something once without doing it repeatedly or during a lengthy period.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alexander's example in the comment shows that imperfective aspect is in principle not entirely invalid, however the conditions it's used under differ from those present in your sentence. Namely unlike in his example your sentence contains the adverb **ещё** and direct object *in singular*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still in Google the odds of perfective aspect in the phrase **не в силах справляться/справиться&amp;nbsp;с** are over 20 times lower. And a fair amount of phrases using *imperfective* aspect have *direct object in plural*. That means that with multiple objects the action is likely to be understood as being performed multiple times over a period of time as the necessity arises, hence imperfective aspect.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I don't think the aspects of the two verbs **управляла** and **справиться** should necessarily agree with one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective would be correct had you used the verb **управляться** instead. This verb implies repeated efforts. Its perfective counterpart **управиться** means to finish the task and therefore would not fit here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17747" RevisionGUID="c8c37347-fe93-4a80-b42e-eb8daaeb09cb" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:21:33.753" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни за что! Мне нужно быть налегке, чтобы, **в случае чего**, я мог бы быстренько  отправиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were talking about how I like travelling light on business trips. I wanted to express the idea of &quot;Should anything happen&quot; or &quot;at the drop of a hat&quot; with the phrase &quot;в случае чего&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни за что! Мне нужно быть налегке, чтобы, **чуть что**, я мог бы быстренько  отправиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how &quot;чуть что&quot; would have stacked up against &quot;в случае чего&quot;. Does &quot;в случае чего&quot; carry a somewhat stronger  negative connotation, hinting at some sort of problem popping up?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17747" RevisionGUID="c8c37347-fe93-4a80-b42e-eb8daaeb09cb" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:21:33.753" UserId="8672" Text="How are &quot;в случае чего&quot; and &quot;чуть что&quot; nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17747" RevisionGUID="c8c37347-fe93-4a80-b42e-eb8daaeb09cb" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:21:33.753" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17747" RevisionGUID="1f7aea58-e006-48ed-a898-f275a6248e78" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:27:11.000" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни за что! Мне нужно быть налегке, чтобы, **в случае чего**, я мог бы быстренько  отправиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were talking about how I like travelling light on business trips. I wanted to express the idea of &quot;Should anything happen ... at the drop of a hat&quot; with the phrase &quot;в случае чего&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ни за что! Мне нужно быть налегке, чтобы, **чуть что**, я мог бы быстренько  отправиться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how &quot;чуть что&quot; would have stacked up against &quot;в случае чего&quot;. Does &quot;в случае чего&quot; carry a somewhat stronger  negative connotation, hinting at some sort of problem popping up?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47369" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="288b0051-0f31-473b-bcbd-4e5237458c0c" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:27:13.453" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Do &quot;я&quot;/&quot;йя&quot;, &quot;e&quot;/&quot;йе&quot;, &quot;ю&quot;/&quot;йю&quot; pronounced differently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47370" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="0676cb85-acef-40f7-a037-321b067797b0" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:39:19.550" UserId="11082" Comment="Rollback to [879ed323-a233-44f6-a41c-6c99cd691804]" Text="Is phonetic transcription of vowel-й-е is vowel-jje or vowel-je?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47371" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="6521bfe6-9fa6-42bd-8303-6cc565cc77d4" CreationDate="2018-12-18T12:53:50.297" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Does &quot;йе&quot; after vowel pronounced [jje]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="ed0585aa-d15e-4e9b-abbe-906fc22e59ac" CreationDate="2018-12-18T13:14:57.410" UserId="11082" Comment="i asked about canonical writing system" Text="я, ю, е letters are pairs for а, у, э, and, мае should be read maje, and майе should be read majje, like it happens with мая and майя - maja and majja.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that э is a different vowel than е in modern Russian, unlike vowels in я-а, ю-у pairs, ie I think мяч and мач have same а, but only different м, but in case of мер and мэр I think the vowels are different. I do not know how old is this situation, but according to general logic that appear, е is just the match for э like я is for а, seems it was so historically. I do not ask about this, this is just to show the problem. I, personally, used to wrongly think that айе should be read aje just like ае, because I thought that е generally behaves differently from я and ю... For example, I thought, it does not change the m in меч, does not palatalize it, like it happens in мяч, so I thought, е has initial j only in beginning of word, so, I thought, е's behaviour after й is just like after any other consonant, while я after й should use its initial j and make a double j.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some letter sequences here are not meaningful words, they are just examples, the question is about how letter sequence should be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is to get a proof to fix a wiktionary function/table, (I do not know what is it and how named), for https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Benwing2#reading_of_%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B5_etc , for table in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F and other similar words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on December 18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some answers are about what happens in real speech. I think there is some current canonical Russian writing system, where should be a simple general rule, reading (pronouncing) according to which is not incorrect, it is correct, acceptable because it is canonical, generally it maybe a little archaic, not like people really speak, but ok. For example, pronouncing &quot;gripəm&quot; (or maybe there should be other thing instead of ə, i am not sure, it is not important for this question) maybe what is used by more people and more often, but if somebody says &quot;grippəm&quot; or &quot;grippom&quot; it is not incorrect, because it is somewhat canonical. I think using such canonical version would be more correct to use in a table in Wiktionary. I asked about such &quot;canonical Russian writing system&quot;, not about current etymological/phonetical processes / phases of processes / changes &quot;in the wild&quot; (sound shifts etc). Also some little known pronouncing rules maybe not known, not noticed by some people, and may be pronounced by them without that rule, as it is written, or there maybe dialectal differences.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47373" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="75221374-0b9f-4234-8624-d7955d76619b" CreationDate="2018-12-18T13:40:12.183" UserId="11082" Comment="does pronounced -&gt; is pronounced; &quot;should&quot; to show that i ask about canonical rule" Text="Should &quot;йе&quot; after vowel be pronounced [jje]?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17748" RevisionGUID="38c3788e-7ae1-49f7-8be6-8ec7dd4e3120" CreationDate="2018-12-18T13:47:28.607" UserId="134" Text="*В случае чего* does have a slight negative connotation indeed. If you don't want it, it would be better to use *если что*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*В случае чего* and *если что* both mean &quot;should anything happen&quot; (the former implying &quot;anything bad&quot;, although not strictly so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Если что* can have an additional meaning of &quot;just so you know&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Чуть что* means the same as *если что* plus the notion of &quot;at a drop of a hat&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот тебе мой номер, в случае чего — звони // Here's my phone number, call me should anything happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот тебе мой номер, если что — звони // Here's my phone number, call me on any occasion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот тебе мой номер, чуть что — звони // Here's my phone number, should anything happen, call me right away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47380" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17747" RevisionGUID="c032ede7-c05f-4056-bbc9-a3d7fa2ceb3d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T03:01:33.733" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075224590639611904" />
  <row Id="47382" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17741" RevisionGUID="d411da78-1b2a-4058-b8a5-26e5f701896c" CreationDate="2018-12-19T06:00:44.080" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075269680858890240" />
  <row Id="47383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17750" RevisionGUID="3c426a30-8f3d-4630-9d5c-d905399e99bb" CreationDate="2018-12-19T09:58:53.007" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Страдать** **морской болезнью**? Если уже такая мелочь вызывает в тебе страх, то долго в море ты не протянешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what nuance &quot;страдать от морской болезни&quot; would have given to my phrasing? In the case of &quot;страдать от любви&quot;, for instance, &quot;страдать любовью&quot; sounds odd to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, when do you use &quot;страдать + instrumental&quot; – or &quot;страдать от + genitive&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17750" RevisionGUID="3c426a30-8f3d-4630-9d5c-d905399e99bb" CreationDate="2018-12-19T09:58:53.007" UserId="8672" Text="When to use &quot;страдать + instrumental&quot; – or &quot;страдать от + genitive&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17750" RevisionGUID="3c426a30-8f3d-4630-9d5c-d905399e99bb" CreationDate="2018-12-19T09:58:53.007" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17751" RevisionGUID="5f2a5399-ddb3-48a2-8d4b-b10bc617ed01" CreationDate="2018-12-19T10:42:39.997" UserId="10177" Text="I would add that чуть что carries a more immediate meaning and, to my ears at least, suggests more trivial cases under which the action happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like in the example in the other answer,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В случае чего, звони&#xD;&#xA;Is like &quot;in case anything happens, call me&quot;, usually implying more serious situations, but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Чуть что, звони&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is more like &quot;whatever happens, call me&quot;, no matter how trivial the matter you want to talk about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't strict, but that's the idea I get from both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="fb8edf1b-a29b-410e-b58a-78bf010a6a34" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:04:14.410" UserId="7674" Text="**`cтрадать + Instrumental`** - to be affected/afflicted by &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**`страдать + от + Genitive`** - to suffer from (which means literal suffering, not just as a   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;figure of speech)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="bc2506d9-bd20-4466-a30a-1dc9dc40cecf" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:14:29.407" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="**`cтрадать + Instrumental`** - *to be affected/afflicted by, to have, to experience*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**`страдать + от + Genitive`** - *to suffer from* (which means literal suffering, not just as a   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;figure of speech)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17752" RevisionGUID="7d4a7f4e-b47a-483b-a061-a349b8f7275c" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:46:35.167" UserId="7674" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="**`cтрадать + Instrumental`** - *to be affected/afflicted by, to have, to experience*&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**`страдать + от + Genitive`** - *to suffer from* (which means literal suffering, not just as a   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;figure of speech)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in mundane contexts **вызывать страх** is usually accompanied by preposition **`у`** rather than **`в`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="c6834ad5-892e-422c-807b-09b4423d8a45" CreationDate="2018-12-19T12:39:43.633" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; А чего там говорить-то?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А чего там понимать-то?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А о чем тут разговаривать-то?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if these phrasings work and which is a better fit: &quot;там&quot; or &quot;тут&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do native speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="c6834ad5-892e-422c-807b-09b4423d8a45" CreationDate="2018-12-19T12:39:43.633" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of the rhetorical construction &quot;What is there to talk about / understand?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="c6834ad5-892e-422c-807b-09b4423d8a45" CreationDate="2018-12-19T12:39:43.633" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17754" RevisionGUID="1594bf3c-714e-4515-b290-743e1b26b91b" CreationDate="2018-12-19T13:00:56.100" UserId="5443" Text="*В случае чего* works better in your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**в случае чего** ~= при необходимости (about actions in case of some *predictable* event)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чуть что** ~= если *вдруг* что-то пойдёт не так (about reaction to a *slightest* sign of something *going wrong*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чуть что я сразу же отменю отправку груза.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чуть что он  сразу бьёт свою собаку тапком.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Чуть что он всегда умывал руки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="afea7818-33e6-400a-bfb0-3462c0d6bdd5" CreationDate="2018-12-19T14:35:14.747" UserId="6545" Comment="IVA are called by wiktionary, Imperfective Present Adverbial, not Active Present Participles." Text="While studying 'imperfective verbal adverbs' (IVA), I came across another constriction for saying, '&lt;verb&gt;+ing'. Which is.... better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. читающий книгу&#xD;&#xA; 2. читающий &#xD;&#xA; 3. работающий&#xD;&#xA; 4. ужинающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or using preposition 'за' +instrumental case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. за книгой&#xD;&#xA; 2. за чтением&#xD;&#xA; 3. за работой&#xD;&#xA; 4. за ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that the IVA can replace 'который' constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get a sense that the 'during' meaning of 'за' may be slightly different in meaning with the IVA meaning of '-ing' verbs. Or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, having just discovered words like чтение, слушание, мышление, etc... (Are there many?) it seems the IVA construction may not be too common....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter being able to be applied on nouns and the former being applied to imperfective verbs, maybe the overlap is not as large as it may seem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in passive/active? Etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17755" RevisionGUID="8cd4cd57-e540-4525-96ae-a05df0c71a12" CreationDate="2018-12-19T14:52:57.490" UserId="11080" Text="*Страдать + Accusative = to be ill with sth*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Страдать болезнью = болеть** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; страдать морской болезнью  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; страдать малярией (болеть малярией)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; страдать воспалением лёгких (болеть воспалением лёгких)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;figuratively &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **страдать ерундой** - colloquial (to get busy with trifles, to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; procrastinate, to do wrong things, to be fooling around)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наше образование **слишком формально**. Увы, любая система **этим&#xD;&#xA;&gt; страдает**. (**Excessive formality** is a **drawback** of any system)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Страдать от + Genitive = to suffer from sth*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **страдать от любви** (to suffer from love, perhaps, unrequited love) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **страдать от равнодушия людей** (to suffer from people's indifference) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **страдать от невзгод** (to suffer from adversity)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it means to suffer losses or to be damaged. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; От урагана **пострадала** деревня (the village has suffered from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hurricane, the village was damaged by the hurricane). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47396" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17736" RevisionGUID="3f598b34-60f1-4158-be33-9ad3ad0e6ec6" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:00:43.477" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075405573833789440" />
  <row Id="47397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17756" RevisionGUID="bc6b91ce-ce07-4ad0-a4e3-4e9b8c960b62" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:27:59.530" UserId="8672" Text="The colloquial expression &quot;What's the hold-up?&quot; comes in handy when someone is dawdling, testing your patience. In conversation, there are times when I feel the urge to shout its equivalent expression in Russian. Can I say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сюда! Скорее! Чего ты там возишься?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if the register fits, for one thing. I suppose there is more than one way to express this idea, but what are some commonly used, idiomatic ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17756" RevisionGUID="bc6b91ce-ce07-4ad0-a4e3-4e9b8c960b62" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:27:59.530" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of the colloquial &quot;What's the hold-up?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17756" RevisionGUID="bc6b91ce-ce07-4ad0-a4e3-4e9b8c960b62" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:27:59.530" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17757" RevisionGUID="c9cd3841-5289-4a47-84d2-2ec6e107b467" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:35:47.380" UserId="7674" Text="**возишься** is not polite and derogatory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some neutral equivalents are **За чем дело стало?** or simple **Ты чего там (застрял/а)?** **Ну ты где (застрял/а)?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17757" RevisionGUID="035afeb4-bd0c-4e97-bac0-cc61c15dd47d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:40:52.343" UserId="7674" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="**возишься** is indeed slightly derogatory and so impolite&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;some neutral equivalents are **За чем дело стало?** which is somewhat uptight, the simple **Ты чего там (застрял/а)?** **Ну ты где (застрял/а)?** and the slangy **Ну ты чего тормозишь?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17734" RevisionGUID="490e6c5b-757b-4e92-bb2e-fc0b209df1b4" CreationDate="2018-12-19T18:01:00.427" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075450943393751040" />
  <row Id="47403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17758" RevisionGUID="4ca63cc9-f876-46c2-884d-db7f9629f343" CreationDate="2018-12-19T19:25:03.823" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; Что тут скажешь?  &#xD;&#xA;Здесь разговаривать не о чем.  &#xD;&#xA;С кем там разговаривать?  &#xD;&#xA;О чем с ним говорить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends on the situation. But you are in a way right, там is about a third person situation, and тут is nearer. But тут is more general and can be used anywhere. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17759" RevisionGUID="2c3ca898-da64-4aca-b36a-a0cb239d44b2" CreationDate="2018-12-19T22:48:55.623" UserId="10999" Text="In Russian, any equivalents of the phrase **&quot;What's the hold-up&quot;** are not rhetorical questions, so it is very likely that in response you will hear a long explanation of *&quot;what's the hold-up&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you need acceleration, rather than explanation, it is better to use some imperative form, for example **&quot;Не тормози! Давай скорее!&quot;** or **&quot;Не тяни резину, давай быстрее!&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17760" RevisionGUID="c2813333-8768-4632-bbd8-4269d87eba02" CreationDate="2018-12-19T22:56:13.147" UserId="10999" Text="Native speakers likely will say **&quot;О чем тут [еще] говорить?&quot;** / **&quot;Что тут еще понимать? [Тут и так всё ясно!]&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17706" RevisionGUID="0f733d26-379c-4931-8700-e31505b3c636" CreationDate="2018-12-19T23:47:07.403" UserId="4481" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="Первый вариант - с использованием &quot;как&quot; - звучит правильнее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И да, действительно, вариант со словом &quot;что&quot; звучит, будто бы вы слышали это от другого человека. К тому же, повтор &quot;что&quot; в одном предложении не очень корректен." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47407" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="0693f7ae-8184-42d2-9a4c-dfab24cd3e39" CreationDate="2018-12-20T00:01:13.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075541595154468864" />
  <row Id="47411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="66e8f679-6a46-4cc9-9f2b-3793ef05455e" CreationDate="2018-12-20T01:50:35.390" UserId="11021" Text="What is the difference in usage between them, i couldnt find anything online and правда и действительно have the same definitions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="66e8f679-6a46-4cc9-9f2b-3793ef05455e" CreationDate="2018-12-20T01:50:35.390" UserId="11021" Text="Difference of usage between ‘права, правда, and действительно’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="66e8f679-6a46-4cc9-9f2b-3793ef05455e" CreationDate="2018-12-20T01:50:35.390" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17763" RevisionGUID="989707fe-2471-4327-8e28-fc12a38e69af" CreationDate="2018-12-20T02:12:19.130" UserId="10999" Text="**&quot;Правда&quot;** means **&quot;truth&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это правда, что он ее любит?  &#xD;&#xA;Is it true he loves her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Действительно&quot;** means **&quot;really&quot;**, **&quot;actually&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он действительно ее любит?  &#xD;&#xA;Does he really love her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Право&quot;** in this context is a somewhat outdated word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я право не знаю, любит ли он ее.  &#xD;&#xA;I don't really know if he loves her." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="eb01383a-a8bc-4e73-8763-ccd84d7271b9" CreationDate="2018-12-20T02:16:19.580" UserId="11021" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference of usage between ‘право, правда, and действительно’?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17763" RevisionGUID="d79987a5-a683-41b9-be24-2e58309445bf" CreationDate="2018-12-20T02:19:36.970" UserId="10999" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="**&quot;Правда&quot;** means **&quot;truth&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это правда, что он ее любит?  &#xD;&#xA;Is it true he loves her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Действительно&quot;** means **&quot;really&quot;**, **&quot;actually&quot;**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он действительно ее любит?  &#xD;&#xA;Does he really love her?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Право&quot;** in this context is a somewhat outdated word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я право не знаю, любит ли он ее.  &#xD;&#xA;I don't really know if he loves her.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I've described only the meaning of each of these words, in which they can be applied in a similar context.  &#xD;&#xA;In reality, every word in this list has many other meanings and applications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="08a8444b-c887-4e5d-b5e6-b84b6a7c159c" CreationDate="2018-12-20T03:42:53.903" UserId="11332" Text="This is a two-part question; I hope that's allowable. I'm aware that an unstressed **о** is usually reduced, though there are some exceptions -- specifically in borrowed words, such as **стерео** or **радио**. All the examples I was able to find, however, had the **о** in question at the end of the word. I'm interested in how it's treated in a pretonic position (i.e. before a stressed syllable). For example, **маоизм**: Is that [mɐɐˈizm], [mɐoˈizm] or perhaps even [mɐʊˈizm]? How about **Маометто** (Italian; stress on the penult)? Is it something that is up to each individual speaker to decide, when to pronounce an unstressed &quot;foreign&quot; **о** and when to reduce it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of my question is about whether or not there is a glottal stop in between two reduced vowels that produce identical sounds. For example, **сообщить** is reduced to [sɐɐpˈɕːitʲ]; is there a glottal stop between the two /ɐ/s, or is it essentially just one /ɐ/ sound held longer than a typical /ɐ/?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="08a8444b-c887-4e5d-b5e6-b84b6a7c159c" CreationDate="2018-12-20T03:42:53.903" UserId="11332" Text="Vowel reduction of pretonic &lt;о&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="08a8444b-c887-4e5d-b5e6-b84b6a7c159c" CreationDate="2018-12-20T03:42:53.903" UserId="11332" Text="|произношение|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="bf39dba5-6a14-491d-a834-b12d8dd527e0" CreationDate="2018-12-20T05:00:55.047" UserId="2104" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. some words written with a double consonant in normal paced speech are  pronounced with a single consonant: болеть гриппом [п], аккордеон [к], прожаренный [н], русский [с].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. and vice versa: длина is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonants are more likely to retain gemination when it occurs between morphemes: длин-ный, рас-сказ, лаос-ский, под-дать (compare to подать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-frequency words sometimes lose gemination (in speech, not in writing) which is what happened to русский and Майя (the female name). The name of the people, майя, is still pronounced with a double [йй], just as the Wiki page says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find a true and stable double [йй], one must look for it at word or morpheme boundaries: лесной ёж, вкусный йогурт. It can as well occur within a single word but I am not aware of any dictionary words that have this morpheme structure. I do, however, recall one occasion when someone used the word предъюбилейе to mean 'the pre-jubilee birthday party'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="c2ead07f-b91e-47d2-8dd0-4e2e739d3563" CreationDate="2018-12-20T08:10:19.643" UserId="7674" Text="1. The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in some foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология) but in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it isn't. There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but i believe as long as the loan word is new it will tend to be pronounced without vowels reduction. Further down the line it depends on the naturalization of the word within the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with slight tonal variations between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="f57639e8-5230-4309-851f-e28362393764" CreationDate="2018-12-20T08:22:08.843" UserId="7674" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="1. The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in some foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), but in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) and **даоизм** it isn't. There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but i believe as long as the loan word is new it will tend to be pronounced without vowels reduction. Further down the line it depends on the naturalization of the word within the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with slight tonal variations between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="8fa1ab4d-d797-4850-bc93-bf167951164c" CreationDate="2018-12-20T10:48:33.250" UserId="7674" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="1. The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in some foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), but in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) and **даоизм** it isn't. There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but i believe as long as the loan word is new it will tend to be pronounced without vowels reduction. Further down the line it depends on the naturalization of the word within the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17766" RevisionGUID="3e8fdb48-874d-4528-bb4e-220853f1f2db" CreationDate="2018-12-20T11:30:57.720" UserId="10247" Text="Since 'hold-up' is quite neutral (meaning 'delay') it seems to me you need more or less neutral register here. My guess is &quot;Что так долго? Почему так долго?&quot;, preferably said so that to sound neutral, not rude. Otger emotional expressions wouldn't sound neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17766" RevisionGUID="e32f2641-7209-417b-bef5-9951da8ec73b" CreationDate="2018-12-20T11:50:32.383" UserId="10247" Comment="edited body" Text="Since 'hold-up' is quite neutral (meaning 'delay') it seems to me you need more or less neutral register here. My guess is &quot;Что так долго? Почему так долго?&quot;, preferably said so that to sound neutral, not rude. Other emotional expressions wouldn't sound neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="6b6d89d9-1f04-462d-afa1-98daf61f3533" CreationDate="2018-12-20T12:17:58.260" UserId="2104" Comment="added 557 characters in body" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. some words written with a double consonant in normal paced speech are  pronounced with a single consonant: болеть гриппом [п], аккордеон [к], прожаренный [н], русский [с].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. and vice versa: длина is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonants are more likely to retain gemination when it occurs between morphemes: длин-ный, рас-сказ, лаос-ский, под-дать (compare to подать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-frequency words sometimes lose gemination (in speech, not in writing) which is what happened to русский and Майя (the female name). The name of the people, майя, is still pronounced with a double [йй], just as the Wiki page says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find a true and stable double [йй], one must look for it at word or morpheme boundaries: лесной ёж, вкусный йогурт. It can as well occur within a single word but I am not aware of any dictionary words that have this morpheme structure. I do, however, recall one occasion when someone used the word предъюбилейе to mean 'the pre-jubilee birthday party'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on December 18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the 'canonical pronunciation', it *is* canonical to pronounce double consonants as single in certain words (mostly loanwords), e.g. saying [пп] in [гриппом][1] or [аппарат][2] would sound like overpronouncing. It would be wrong and non-canonical to about the same extent as not applying regular vowel reductions and saying [gripom] instead of [gripəm].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="7e89f01e-203e-45c4-9d01-20d8a317a7d9" CreationDate="2018-12-20T12:49:25.350" UserId="2104" Comment="added 394 characters in body" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. some words written with a double consonant in normal paced speech are  pronounced with a single consonant: болеть гриппом [п], аккордеон [к], прожаренный [н], русский [с].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. and vice versa: длина is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consonants are more likely to retain gemination when it occurs between morphemes: длин-ный, рас-сказ, лаос-ский, под-дать (compare to подать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-frequency words sometimes lose gemination (in speech, not in writing) which is what happened to русский and Майя (the female name). The name of the people, майя, is still pronounced with a double [йй], just as the Wiki page says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find a true and stable double [йй], one must look for it at word or morpheme boundaries: лесной ёж, вкусный йогурт. It can as well occur within a single word but I am not aware of any dictionary words that have this morpheme structure. I do, however, recall one occasion when someone used the word предъюбилейе to mean 'the pre-jubilee birthday party'. Update: found a semi-official word: [Приенисейе][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on December 18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the 'canonical pronunciation', it *is* canonical to pronounce double consonants as single in certain words (mostly loanwords), e.g. saying [пп] in [гриппом][2] or [аппарат][3] would sound like overpronouncing. It would be wrong and non-canonical to about the same extent as not applying regular vowel reductions and saying [gripom] instead of [gripəm].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02xgDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA149&amp;lpg=PA149&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=t2TOT5If94&amp;sig=Y09tLFqQoTpszXUz-bCW_PQUubI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiYmOeluK7fAhVYVRUIHbTlClUQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B5&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17767" RevisionGUID="182b3c78-15b9-404c-b9ba-e2a6ea35f767" CreationDate="2018-12-20T13:59:47.120" UserId="10247" Text="If you want a short answer and the question means these 3 words in the sense REALLY, here is the answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;действительно - neutral, &#xD;&#xA;правда - colloquial,&#xD;&#xA;право - very old-fashioned, hence could be ironic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is relevant only when they mean REALLY. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда can be noun = truth, право - legal system, law. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47430" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17694" RevisionGUID="28d80af4-cfb6-4e40-868c-070487cf89c7" CreationDate="2018-12-20T15:00:50.070" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075767989344133120" />
  <row Id="47431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="2e77d047-d291-4c8b-9d0c-ac98a20bb514" CreationDate="2018-12-20T15:46:06.303" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="1. The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in some foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), but in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) and **даоизм** it isn't. There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but i believe as long as the loan word is new it will tend to be pronounced without vowels reduction. Further down the line it depends on the naturalization of the word within the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="028023a5-6a1a-4358-97e4-8ee8d3205845" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:04:08.167" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь не **обошлось** без помощи то ли специалистов, таких, как он, то ли еще кого-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аs for **who** &quot;не обошлось&quot;, I was referring to the entire medical personnel in a hospital. So in a sense, I had **particular** individual(s), &quot;**они**&quot;, in mind, but at the same time it is arguably not as distinct and specific as, for instance, &quot;он/она&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I'm wondering if I should have placed the subject &quot;они&quot; with the verb &quot;обойтись&quot; instead of going for an impersonal construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="028023a5-6a1a-4358-97e4-8ee8d3205845" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:04:08.167" UserId="8672" Text="With the verb &quot;обойтись&quot;, whether to place a subject or use an impersonal construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="028023a5-6a1a-4358-97e4-8ee8d3205845" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:04:08.167" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="8597421d-68cb-4035-82de-f388926d2657" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:15:25.187" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь не **обошлось** без помощи то ли специалистов, таких, как он, то ли еще кого-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аs for **who** &quot;не обошлось&quot;, I was referring to the entire medical personnel in a hospital. So in a sense, I had **particular** individuals, &quot;**они**&quot;, in mind, but at the same time it is arguably not as distinct and specific as, for instance, &quot;он/она&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I'm wondering if I should have placed the subject &quot;они&quot; with the verb &quot;обойтись&quot; instead of going for an impersonal construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="66d3f179-dcdd-49e5-b855-3d6872986cd7" CreationDate="2018-12-20T18:54:55.263" UserId="7674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="1. The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in some foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат) but in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it isn't.   &#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but i believe as long as the loan word is new it will tend to be pronounced without vowels reduction. Further down the line it depends on the naturalization of the word within the language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="f2fb34e3-1742-4736-858f-6352f1edd30f" CreationDate="2018-12-20T19:08:00.937" UserId="7674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). But in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it isn't and **i guess it's because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike all the other listed nouns.** &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principle just suggested is correct, its **`o`** would have to be reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained in the names **Горацио** and **Базилио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="57f5a16d-f43c-476c-8942-71bba7527c81" CreationDate="2018-12-20T19:14:20.227" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). But in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it isn't and **i guess it's because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike all the other listed nouns.** &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principle just suggested is correct, its **`o`** would have to be reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained in such names as **Горацио** and **Базилио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="b1f4b5f1-9e3b-407c-8f74-810985658796" CreationDate="2018-12-20T19:24:57.513" UserId="7674" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). But in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it isn't and **i guess it's because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike all the other listed nouns.** &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained in such names as **Горацио** and **Базилио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principles just suggested are correct, its 1st **`o`** would have to be reduced, but the 2nd would remain intact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="f52f99d4-e3c5-46b1-9936-f32ef2e3f3c5" CreationDate="2018-12-20T19:30:45.377" UserId="7674" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). But in **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it isn't and **i guess it's because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike all the other listed nouns.** &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained in Italian names such as **Горацио**, **Базилио**, **Фабио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principles just suggested are correct, its 1st **`o`** would have to be reduced, but the 2nd would remain intact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="3228d43d-308c-4e6f-a2b4-10cbcb1929e5" CreationDate="2018-12-20T19:39:15.450" UserId="2104" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Words such as **касса, масса, тонна, ванна, Мекка, поддать, [Приенисейе][1]** [йй] have 'true doubles': saying them with a single consonant can hinder understanding. Minimal pairs: **подать - поддать, подождём - под дождём,** (нет) **тона - тонна, при Енисее - Приенисейе.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Then there are 'false doubles' which are normally pronounced as singles: **аппарат, аккуратный, [теннис][2],** (болеть) **[гриппом][3].** Saying them with a double consonant would sound inappropriate in normal speech but could be used e.g. to explain how the word is spelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The rest of the words occupy a middle ground whereby they can be pronounced with either single or double consonants or anywhere in between without sounding odd or erroneous. These include: [русский][4], [рассказ][5], [зажаренный][6], Майя, майя, Айя-София and many others. Actual pronunciation may depend on the speaker or the meaning ([Майя][7] vs [майя][8]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **длина** is a very peculiar case as it is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02xgDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA149&amp;lpg=PA149&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=t2TOT5If94&amp;sig=Y09tLFqQoTpszXUz-bCW_PQUubI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiYmOeluK7fAhVYVRUIHbTlClUQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B5&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17769" RevisionGUID="4fb84efc-b628-425b-8bd6-a48280a9a9b2" CreationDate="2018-12-20T20:41:09.553" UserId="134" Text="*Не обошлось без кого-либо* means &quot;someone had something to do with&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Росрыболовство уверенно заявило о том, что в этой истории не обошлось без активистов-экологов // Russian Federal Agency for Fishery stated with confidence that the ecology activists had something to do with this incident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я думаю, тут не обошлось без Дзержинского и его конторы. // I think Dzierzynski and &quot;the firm&quot; of his had something to do with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Не обошлось без чего-либо* means &quot;it has not been without something&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не обошлось без потерь и в семье самого Генри Форда. // It has not been without losses in the family of Henry Ford himself either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В Монце в тот день тоже не обошлось без аварий // That day had not been without car accidents in Monza as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to say that the medical personnel could not make do without someone's help, you should have used *было не обойтись*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Им было не обойтись без помощи специалиста, такого, как он, или ещё чьей-нибудь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17770" RevisionGUID="8d509df3-f5df-44ed-a64a-c42fdbee297d" CreationDate="2018-12-20T20:42:18.333" UserId="1274" Text="If you want to specify &quot;them&quot; as actors with &quot;обойтись&quot; in past tense, you can use subjunctive mood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **бы** не обошлись без помощи то ли специалистов, таких, как он, то ли&#xD;&#xA;&gt; еще кого-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could use other active constructions, like *прибегнуть к помощи*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они прибегнули к помощи то ли специалистов, таких, как он, то ли еще кого-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that &quot;обошлось&quot; (in the past tense) tends to be impersonal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="70f46edc-18c8-4752-afc5-6b8928f16fd3" CreationDate="2018-12-20T20:56:48.767" UserId="134" Comment="from the comments" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь не **обошлось** без помощи то ли специалистов, таких, как он, то ли еще кого-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аs for **who** &quot;не обошлось&quot;, I was referring to the entire medical personnel in a hospital. So in a sense, I had **particular** individuals, &quot;**они**&quot;, in mind, but at the same time it is arguably not as distinct and specific as, for instance, &quot;он/она&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I had in mind was something like: &quot;Here at this hospital, they (vaguely referring to the entire medical personnel) couldn't have managed/got by without some outside help from an expert in the field&quot;. I happened to use the impersonal construction without the subject &quot;они (обошлись)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I should have placed the subject &quot;они&quot; with the verb &quot;обойтись&quot; instead of going for an impersonal construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="4f262b30-b121-4aac-b459-689e33387bc3" CreationDate="2018-12-20T21:00:25.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1075858484279820299" />
  <row Id="47446" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="6911a159-69e0-4958-8898-51ce5f394341" CreationDate="2018-12-21T09:00:33.230" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1076039709623808000" />
  <row Id="47447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="7c5609e8-f371-4d3b-ade5-69d1d6f2a05b" CreationDate="2018-12-21T16:29:23.627" UserId="7674" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). In **хаос** it's not reduced [[ˈxa**ə**s]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/хаос) but in **хаотический** it is [[xɐ**ɐ**ˈtʲit͡ɕɪskʲɪɪ̯]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/хаотический).   &#xD;&#xA;In **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it's also not reduced and **perhaps because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike most of the listed nouns.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained in Italian names such as **Горацио**, **Базилио**, **Фабио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principles just suggested are correct, its 1st **`o`** would have to be reduced, but the 2nd would remain intact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="4393700c-b0f9-4670-a71e-5b93e44a5371" CreationDate="2018-12-21T16:38:32.190" UserId="7674" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). In **хаос** it's not reduced [[ˈxa**ə**s]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/хаос) but in **хаотический** it is [[xɐ**ɐ**ˈtʲit͡ɕɪskʲɪɪ̯]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/хаотический).   &#xD;&#xA;In **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it's also not reduced and **perhaps because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike most of the listed nouns.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained also in **адажио**, **трио**, **какао**, and in Italian names such as **Горацио**, **Базилио**, **Фабио**, **Антонио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principles just suggested are correct, its 1st **`o`** would have to be reduced, but the 2nd would remain intact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17768" RevisionGUID="b949d281-d280-4361-a66b-9cebf8525ae5" CreationDate="2018-12-21T17:29:12.693" UserId="8672" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Здесь не **обошлось** без помощи то ли специалистов, таких, как он, то ли еще кого-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Аs for **who** &quot;не обошлось&quot;, I was referring to the entire medical personnel in a hospital. So in a sense, I had **particular** individuals, &quot;**они**&quot;, in mind, but at the same time it is arguably not as distinct and specific as, for instance, &quot;он/она&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I had in mind was something like: &quot;Here at this hospital, they (I was vaguely referring to the entire medical personnel) couldn't have managed/got by without some outside help from an expert in the field&quot;. I happened to use the impersonal construction without the subject &quot;они (обошлись)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I should have placed the subject &quot;они&quot; with the verb &quot;обойтись&quot; instead of going for an impersonal construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="7f7ad2ff-7ea2-4089-9d43-cc413ba7e2f0" CreationDate="2018-12-21T18:07:18.180" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Так, сейчас посмотрим... Сегодня мы **успели** свалиться в пропасть, а затем ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm not talking about &quot;manage to do&quot; in a positive sense (succeed), but rather its ironic use when you made a blunder. I usually use &quot;умудриться&quot; in conversation, as in &quot;я умудрился простыть&quot;, but I wasn't aware that &quot;успеть&quot; could be used ironically, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering -- what about the impersonal &quot;удаться&quot;? Also, I seem to remember there was another reflexive verb that resembles &quot;умудриться&quot; and starts with *y*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, what verbs do Russian speakers commonly use for the ironic &quot;manage to do&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="7f7ad2ff-7ea2-4089-9d43-cc413ba7e2f0" CreationDate="2018-12-21T18:07:18.180" UserId="8672" Text="The ironic &quot;manage to do&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="7f7ad2ff-7ea2-4089-9d43-cc413ba7e2f0" CreationDate="2018-12-21T18:07:18.180" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17765" RevisionGUID="ec72e0bc-db9a-4274-ba3a-191e7a2fe2a0" CreationDate="2018-12-21T20:04:49.690" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="**1.**&amp;nbsp;The prestressed **`o`** is also reduced at least in quite a few foreign words or their grammatical derivatives, e.g. **баобаб** [[bɐ**ɐ**ˈbap]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/баобаб), **теология** [[tʲɪ**ɐ**ˈɫoɡʲɪɪ̯ə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/теология), **биотопливо** [[ˌbʲi**ɐ**ˈtoplʲɪvə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/биотопливо), **реостат** [[rʲɪ**ɐ**ˈstat]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/реостат), **даосизм** [[dɐ**ɐ**ˈsʲizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/даосизм). In **хаос** it's not reduced [[ˈxa**ə**s]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/хаос) but in **хаотический** it is [[xɐ**ɐ**ˈtʲit͡ɕɪskʲɪɪ̯]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/хаотический).   &#xD;&#xA;In **маоизм** [[mɐ**o**ˈizm]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/маоизм) it's also not reduced and **perhaps because `маоизм` has the cluster of 3 vowels unlike most of the listed nouns.**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;As far as **радио** and **стерео** are concerned, the maintenance of full **`o`** appears to be based on another principle, because it's maintained also in **адажио**, **арпеджио**, **трио**, **какао**, and in Italian names such as **Горацио**, **Базилио**, **Фабио**, **Антонио** as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's nothing to say about **Маометто** since it's not a current word in Russian vocabulary, but if the principles just suggested are correct, its 1st **`o`** would have to be reduced, but the 2nd would remain intact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.**&amp;nbsp;Russian doesn't have glottal stops so all vowel clusters are pronounced right on through with full air passage and slight tonal variations or vocal attack between individual phonemes to mark segue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="bd06dfb8-bfec-4329-8c83-98c72dbf964d" CreationDate="2018-12-21T20:05:11.317" UserId="11080" Text="We can ironically use anything, you know. &#xD;&#xA;But I like **меня угораздило** and **я умудрилась(-лся)** most of all. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17773" RevisionGUID="6874f67b-34a2-4030-98ce-d209285eb25a" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:10:13.160" UserId="11212" Text="Be careful with &quot;как&quot;, because even a little stress on or a pause before &quot;как&quot; in &quot;я слышала, как она поблагодарила меня&quot; changes the meaning to &quot;I know that she really does not care&quot;.  To avoid such misunderstandings and tautology (ослышалась-слышала) one could say &quot;Я не ослышалась? Клянусь, она только что поблагодарила меня.&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17774" RevisionGUID="ef09ef64-d0de-40f0-be72-00eac4ff9d68" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:35:49.743" UserId="11212" Text="It is actually fine to &quot;страдать любовью&quot; in poetry:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;У ног других не забывал &#xD;&#xA;    Я взор твоих очей; &#xD;&#xA;Любя других, я лишь страдал &#xD;&#xA;    Любовью прежних дней;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in real life more natural is to say &quot;страдать от любви&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="3b30eec0-ce86-4d57-8b6f-61891c533ca2" CreationDate="2018-12-22T02:12:24.760" UserId="4560" Text="I need to know the approximate time **учёный** was substantivised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl has no separate entry for the word as either noun *or* adjective, but he does use it as a noun when defining other terms (e.g. *«учоный, этимъ предметомъ занимающійся»*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian corpus gave me identical-looking timelines for [all instances][1] and [adjectival instances][2] of **ученый**, and only a slightly different one for [substantival instances][3]. I have no idea how reliable these are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to find a direct answer doesn't lead anywhere. I'd be grateful for any pointers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%F7%E5%ED%FB%E9&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%F7%E5%ED%FB%E9&amp;gramm1=A&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%F7%E5%ED%FB%E9&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=20#toggle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="3b30eec0-ce86-4d57-8b6f-61891c533ca2" CreationDate="2018-12-22T02:12:24.760" UserId="4560" Text="Any way to trace when «учёный» became a noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="3b30eec0-ce86-4d57-8b6f-61891c533ca2" CreationDate="2018-12-22T02:12:24.760" UserId="4560" Text="|история-языка|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47460" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17663" RevisionGUID="3fa920ba-2220-4e83-b60d-c62bfa0f7551" CreationDate="2018-12-22T06:00:31.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1076356792924426240" />
  <row Id="47461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="61815a55-6509-4820-a56e-17e495005ef6" CreationDate="2018-12-22T06:23:08.443" UserId="4560" Comment="An unclosed parenthesis can be an eyesore." Text="I need to know the approximate time **учёный** was substantivised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dahl has no separate entry for the word as either noun *or* adjective, but he does use it as a noun when defining other terms (e.g. *«учоный, этимъ предметомъ занимающійся»*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Russian corpus gave me identical-looking timelines for [all instances][1] and [adjectival instances][2] of **ученый**, and only a slightly different one for [substantival instances][3]. I have no idea how reliable these are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to find a direct answer doesn't lead anywhere. I'd be grateful for any pointers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%F7%E5%ED%FB%E9&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%F7%E5%ED%FB%E9&amp;gramm1=A&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/plot.xml?smoothing=3&amp;stat=gr_created_&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F3%F7%E5%ED%FB%E9&amp;gramm1=S&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;p=20#toggle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47462" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="6e7c9254-49fc-4bfa-88f7-e2da4b54bbc1" CreationDate="2018-12-22T09:48:03.153" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Russian equivalents of the ironic &quot;manage to do&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="80fd23ee-5103-4a48-9031-0db189a9e5b4" CreationDate="2018-12-22T10:55:36.943" UserId="5375" Text="As far as I know, these expressions are correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - В двадцатом веке&#xD;&#xA; - В век второй мировой войны&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does the first expression use the prepositional case, whereas the second expression uses the accusative case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="80fd23ee-5103-4a48-9031-0db189a9e5b4" CreationDate="2018-12-22T10:55:36.943" UserId="5375" Text="What is the proper case in &quot;в век(е)&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="80fd23ee-5103-4a48-9031-0db189a9e5b4" CreationDate="2018-12-22T10:55:36.943" UserId="5375" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17777" RevisionGUID="bbc65320-dd84-44f9-8c47-447e95a7b573" CreationDate="2018-12-22T11:10:15.373" UserId="242" Text="Well, first of all, it's genitive, not accusative. &quot;В век&quot; answers to the question &quot;кого? чего?&quot;, not &quot;кого? что?&quot; - it's &quot;в век капитализма&quot;, not &quot;в век капитализм&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В веке&quot; is for literal period designation, like in &quot;В 15 веке нарождающийся буржуазный класс всё более настойчиво заявлял о своих интересах&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В век&quot; is figurative, it's not that there's a century we are talking about, it's like &quot;the age&quot;, &quot;в эпоху&quot;, like in &quot;мы живём в век инноваций&quot; which can be translated as &quot;we live in the age of innovations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No imagine yourself asking a question why age there's &quot;of&quot; in the phrase &quot;age of innovations&quot;. Well, it's of because this is how in English specific relations between objects is designated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It happens that for similar kind of relations in Russian we use genitive. &#xD;&#xA;I don't want you to think that I mean that whenever you use &quot;of&quot; in English you use accusative in Russian, this would be oversimplification - there's no such thing like one-to-one correspondence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it gives a hint - it uses this way because it used this way, &quot;в век&quot; answers to the question &quot;кого? чего?&quot; - and that the way it is. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17777" RevisionGUID="902918fa-1d44-4dd4-be85-09ff9c08f754" CreationDate="2018-12-22T11:24:37.847" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&quot;В веке&quot; is for literal period designation, like in &quot;В 15 веке нарождающийся буржуазный класс всё более настойчиво заявлял о своих интересах&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В век&quot; is figurative, it's not that there's a century we are talking about, it's like &quot;the age&quot;, &quot;в эпоху&quot;, like in &quot;мы живём в век инноваций&quot; which can be translated as &quot;we live in the age of innovations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now imagine yourself asking a question why age there's &quot;in&quot; in the phrase &quot;in the age of innovations&quot;. Well, it's of because this is how in English specific relations between objects is designated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And next thing crucial for understanding of what's going on is to realize that there's no such thing like one two one correspondences between languages. Because modern English has no cases some of constructions with same preposition can be translated in some other language (including, by the way, Old English) into two constructions with different cases, two constructions with the same case and different prepositions, two constructions with no prepositions at all etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It something that just should be memoized - when you talk figuratively, it's, &quot;в век&quot; - аnd that's the way it is. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="801a0285-790c-414e-a2d2-e05b475fd117" CreationDate="2018-12-22T12:32:53.277" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некоторых ссор время от времени просто не избежать. **У них у всех** ведь  нет ничего общего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuance-wise, how does the dual-prepositional-style &quot;у них у всех&quot; sound, compared to &quot;**у них всех**&quot;? The same goes for &quot;у вас у двоих&quot; vs &quot;у вас двоих&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of &quot;к ним всем&quot;, however, &quot;к ним к всем&quot; sounds odd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="801a0285-790c-414e-a2d2-e05b475fd117" CreationDate="2018-12-22T12:32:53.277" UserId="8672" Text="Usage of &quot;у них у всех&quot; vs &quot;у них всех&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47470" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="801a0285-790c-414e-a2d2-e05b475fd117" CreationDate="2018-12-22T12:32:53.277" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="23c89a6f-2316-486b-9dfc-e16471b9fcd0" CreationDate="2018-12-22T12:46:51.267" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 29 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некоторых ссор время от времени просто не избежать. **У них у всех** ведь  нет ничего общего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuance-wise, how does the dual-prepositional-style &quot;у них у всех&quot; sound, compared to &quot;**у них всех**&quot;? More emphatic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for &quot;у вас у двоих&quot; vs &quot;у вас двоих&quot; or &quot;к ним ко всем&quot; vs &quot;к ним всем&quot; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17779" RevisionGUID="5c45ae0f-6632-4de8-8baa-f992486c2d2e" CreationDate="2018-12-22T13:00:44.017" UserId="7674" Text="I never use **у вас у двоих**, but do use **к ним ко всем**, the reason could be to avoid difficulty of articulating clusters of consonants ***ни***-***`хвс`***-***ех***, ***ни***-***`мвс`***-***ем***, especially the last because both **M** and **B** are labials, but the pronunciation of a cluster in ***ва***-***`сдв`***-***оих***, ***ни***-***`хдв`***-***оих*** doesn't present any difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Placing preposition before each member of **`noun + adjective`**, **`indicative pronoun + noun`** collocations is a traditional device of Russian folklore and then poetry whose purpose is most likely to either make verses more melodic by breaking clusters of consonants (as in the case of folklore) or to make them conform to the meter by means of lengthening and syllabic multiplication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17779" RevisionGUID="3a2dd199-39e1-4e4b-a9b9-ca8485e11b73" CreationDate="2018-12-22T13:08:08.723" UserId="7674" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="I never use **у вас у двоих**, but do use **к ним ко всем**, the reason could be to avoid difficulty of articulating clusters of consonants ***ни***-***`хвс`***-***ех***, ***ни***-***`мвс`***-***ем***, especially the last because both **M** and **B** are labials, but the pronunciation of a cluster in ***ва***-***`сдв`***-***оих***, ***ни***-***`хдв`***-***оих*** doesn't present any difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Placing preposition before each member of **`adjective + noun`** (**на новых на ботинках**), **`possessive pronoun + noun`** (**у наших у ворот**), **`indicative pronoun + noun`** (**за тем за полем**) collocations is a traditional device of Russian folklore and then poetry whose purpose is most likely to either make verses more melodic by breaking clusters of consonants (as in the case of folklore) or to make them conform to the meter by means of lengthening and syllabic multiplication.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="32ab79b2-6ae0-4e36-a7af-b96e8c224d01" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:47:21.257" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;  Даже когда вы расходитесь, я **вся** целиком за то, чтобы вы общались друг с другом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;вся&quot;, along with &quot;целиком&quot;, conveys the idea of &quot;100%&quot;? Is this &quot;вся&quot; an adverb?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="32ab79b2-6ae0-4e36-a7af-b96e8c224d01" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:47:21.257" UserId="8672" Text="The meaning of &quot;вся&quot; in &quot;я вся целиком за ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17780" RevisionGUID="32ab79b2-6ae0-4e36-a7af-b96e8c224d01" CreationDate="2018-12-22T14:47:21.257" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17779" RevisionGUID="9c5a4a66-5629-4260-a28d-129aaf13997f" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:14:06.850" UserId="7674" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="I never use **у вас у двоих**, but do use **к ним ко всем**, the reason could be to avoid difficulty of articulating clusters of consonants ***ни***-***`хвс`***-***ех***, ***ни***-***`мвс`***-***ем***, especially the last because both **M** and **B** are labials, but the pronunciation of a cluster in ***ва***-***`сдв`***-***оих***, ***ни***-***`хдв`***-***оих*** doesn't present any difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Placing preposition before each member of **`adjective + noun`** (**на новых на ботинках**), **`possessive pronoun + noun`** (**у наших у ворот**), **`indicative pronoun + noun`** (**за тем за полем**) collocations is a traditional device of Russian folklore and then poetry whose purpose is most likely to either make verses more melodic by breaking clusters of consonants (as in the case of folklore) or to make them conform to the meter by means of lengthening and syllabic multiplication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;***Further reading:*** [О ПОВТОРЕ ПРЕДЛОГОВ ПЕРЕД ОДНОРОДНЫМИ ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯМИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ РУССКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ: ОПЫТ КОРПУСНОГО АНАЛИЗА *by Сатюкова Дарья Николаeвна*](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-povtore-predlogov-pered-odnorodnymi-opredeleniyami-v-sovremennom-russkom-yazyke-opyt-korpusnogo-analiza)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17781" RevisionGUID="36130b47-1b48-4277-abad-5a9205dd2824" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:14:21.263" UserId="11212" Text="&quot;Я вся целиком за&quot; or &quot;Я целиком за&quot; is a kind of collocation which means &quot;I am totally agree&quot;. &quot;вся&quot; separately just means &quot;whole&quot;, e.g. &quot;вся королевская конница&quot;, and &quot;целиком&quot; separately means &quot;totally&quot; or &quot;till the end&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17782" RevisionGUID="9d86abe1-17f6-4b86-9b03-e66f9ab7dfb6" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:47:32.697" UserId="8672" Text="In English, you say &quot;some ..., while others ...&quot;, when comparing just two groups of people. And when the third group is thrown into the mix, you add &quot;still&quot; or &quot;yet&quot; to &quot;others&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***Some*** people do X, ***others*** do Y, ***still***/***yet*** ***others*** do Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same construction applies to the German equivalent as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;***Manche*** von uns {Some of us} ..., ***andere*** {others} ..., ***wieder andere*** {again others} ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrase in Russian for the third group &quot;still others&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47480" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17782" RevisionGUID="9d86abe1-17f6-4b86-9b03-e66f9ab7dfb6" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:47:32.697" UserId="8672" Text="How to express the contrasting &quot;still others&quot;, as in &quot;some people do X, others do Y, still others do Z&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47481" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17782" RevisionGUID="9d86abe1-17f6-4b86-9b03-e66f9ab7dfb6" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:47:32.697" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17783" RevisionGUID="1e7edb3d-f7c4-4fba-958d-636be5f13532" CreationDate="2018-12-22T15:57:42.757" UserId="11212" Text="In Russian you can say &quot;одни&quot;, &quot;другие&quot;, &quot;третьи&quot; and so on for some particular groups and &quot;остальные&quot; for &quot;the rest&quot;. E.g. &quot;одни пьют виски, другие текилу, третьи ром, а остальные - водку&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17779" RevisionGUID="1ef1ad04-1dd1-47cb-8c4b-ce88c17351b2" CreationDate="2018-12-22T16:38:31.063" UserId="7674" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I never use **у вас у двоих**, but do use **к ним ко всем**, the reason could be to avoid difficulty of articulating clusters of consonants ***ни***-***`хвс`***-***ех***, ***ни***-***`мвс`***-***ем***, especially the last because both **M** and **B** are labials, but the pronunciation of a cluster in ***ва***-***`сдв`***-***оих***, ***ни***-***`хдв`***-***оих*** doesn't present any difficulty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Placing preposition before each member of **`adjective + noun`** (**на новых на ботинках**), **`possessive pronoun + noun`** (**у наших у ворот**), **`indicative pronoun + noun`** (**за тем за полем**) collocations (and even oftener in reverse order of members) is a traditional device of Russian folklore and then poetry whose purpose is most likely to either make verses more melodic by breaking clusters of consonants (as in the case of folklore) or to make them conform to the meter by means of lengthening and syllabic multiplication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;***Further reading:*** [О ПОВТОРЕ ПРЕДЛОГОВ ПЕРЕД ОДНОРОДНЫМИ ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯМИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ РУССКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ: ОПЫТ КОРПУСНОГО АНАЛИЗА *by Сатюкова Дарья Николаeвна*](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-povtore-predlogov-pered-odnorodnymi-opredeleniyami-v-sovremennom-russkom-yazyke-opyt-korpusnogo-analiza)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17784" RevisionGUID="44b69ec7-7580-43a2-9f22-339a97e9e448" CreationDate="2018-12-22T18:54:08.947" UserId="134" Text="I don't think there is a word which would work exactly like English &quot;yet&quot; when used with *другие* in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually it's conveyed by using *кто* with each group, optionally replacing it with *а кто и* for the last one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кому поп, кому попадья, а кому и попова дочка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто верит в Магомета, кто — в Аллаха, кто — в Исуса, кто ни во что не верит — даже в чёрта, назло всем." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17785" RevisionGUID="9718924f-8395-4794-ab81-5724f271350f" CreationDate="2018-12-22T20:04:17.247" UserId="8679" Text="I would personally go with **ещё кто-то**:&#xA;https://context.reverso.net/перевод/русский-английский/А+еще+кто-то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17786" RevisionGUID="9cb44589-c510-4566-ac42-2ee9026d2eb8" CreationDate="2018-12-22T20:46:37.033" UserId="11042" Text="I'd just use некоторые multiple times, to be honest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Некоторые из нас пьют виски, некоторые пьют пиво, а некоторые пьют вино." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="4003a9ee-c8f3-4fdd-b0e3-db564c0db081" CreationDate="2018-12-22T20:56:28.953" UserId="11080" Text="I'd say that it is a kind of some pretty local collocation (maybe, Odessa?) or there is some kind of erotic implication. But to make it sure we need the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more common and neutral version of this expression would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я полностью за &#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;Я целиком за &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am all for it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47488" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17782" RevisionGUID="97a2fd85-f2e8-46d6-8851-2e197dd6d032" CreationDate="2018-12-22T21:00:39.863" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1076583319213617152" />
  <row Id="47489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17788" RevisionGUID="2e9a76f4-6ce5-4fb5-bda3-904ddb99e2b2" CreationDate="2018-12-22T22:29:46.143" UserId="242" Text="I was really surprised reading some of this answers and comments because actually neither this is too rare nor it is a regionalism of any sort. The phrase &quot;весь целиком&quot; (аnd `вся целиком` is the same in feminine) is quite common. &quot;Весь&quot; is used for emphasizing `целиком`, like in phrases (from actual literature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Южный склон этого холма когда-то давно, много людских поколений назад,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; размок от непрестанных дождей и сполз вниз `весь целиком`, обнажив&#xD;&#xA;&gt; каменную скалу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Апрельский выпуск &quot;Минервы&quot; разошелся `весь целиком` до десятого числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воскресный день он проводил в полном покое, `весь целиком` уходя в чтение книг и газет и в разговоры с детьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you've encounters is colloquialism, it's because there exist commonly use phrase `согласен целиком [и понолостью]` and `весь целиком`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="18e68412-4b94-438e-b97a-074e6c94a895" CreationDate="2018-12-23T01:04:53.167" UserId="11021" Text="I was given this sentence:&#xA;Я делаю сюрприз (Im preparing a surprise)&#xA;But i was also given удивление as when you pop out and yell surprise* &#xA;What is the difference of usage between the two, i searched online but there was nothing there &#xA;Thank you in Advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="18e68412-4b94-438e-b97a-074e6c94a895" CreationDate="2018-12-23T01:04:53.167" UserId="11021" Text="Difference between usage of ‘удивление’ и ‘сюрприз’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="18e68412-4b94-438e-b97a-074e6c94a895" CreationDate="2018-12-23T01:04:53.167" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17790" RevisionGUID="8cb9ff90-69b9-49c8-9224-2092112ec045" CreationDate="2018-12-23T02:55:21.500" UserId="6097" Text="These words are completely different and are not interchangeable. &#xA;&#xA;**Сюрприз** - an unexpected event or piece of information. &#xA;&#xA;**Удивление** - a state of being astonished, a feeling caused by something unexpected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17789" RevisionGUID="dc19c260-1498-496c-8a7c-60863f480270" CreationDate="2018-12-23T02:56:00.617" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I was given this sentence:&#xA;Я делаю сюрприз (Im preparing a surprise)&#xA;But i was also given удивление as when you pop out and yell surprise* &#xA;What is the difference of usage between the two, i searched online but there was nothing there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17791" RevisionGUID="778cff1c-d1fa-453c-946a-beb0b09c9c85" CreationDate="2018-12-23T05:54:24.197" UserId="10749" Text="In this Cornell's lyrics from Be Yourself I would translate each &quot;someone&quot; and &quot;another&quot; as &quot;кто-то&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone falls to pieces sleeping all alone&#xD;&#xA;Someone kills the pain&#xD;&#xA;Spinning in the silence&#xD;&#xA;She finally drifts away&#xD;&#xA;Someone gets excited in a chapel yard&#xD;&#xA;Catches a bouquet&#xD;&#xA;Another lays a dozen&#xD;&#xA;White roses on a grave&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone finds salvation in everyone, another only pain&#xD;&#xA;Someone tries to hide himself, down inside himself he prays&#xD;&#xA;Someone swears his true love until the end of time, another runs away&#xD;&#xA;Separate or united, healthy or insane&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, in most cases &quot;одни&quot;, &quot;другие&quot; and &quot;a кто-то [ещё]&quot; will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47496" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17775" RevisionGUID="526260aa-6922-4130-8a66-95e53701a53b" CreationDate="2018-12-23T06:00:35.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1076719195742711809" />
  <row Id="47497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="0d5634b1-cf51-4ace-b43c-759d3440d3ad" CreationDate="2018-12-23T08:04:59.723" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said this –  and the sentence with &quot;доводилось&quot; sarcastically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не зря говорят, что японцы трудоголики и все такое, но... он в самом деле заходит слишком далеко. Как-то не **доводилось** мне встречать человека, в котором было бы столько страсти, что  он вкалывал бы аж на смерть.  Низкий ему поклон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how the use of &quot;приходилось&quot; would have stacked up against &quot;доводилось&quot;. Does &quot;приходилось&quot; sound somewhat ambiguous, given its another usage in the sense of &quot;have to&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как-то не **приходилось** мне встречать человека, в котором ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="0d5634b1-cf51-4ace-b43c-759d3440d3ad" CreationDate="2018-12-23T08:04:59.723" UserId="8672" Text="“доводилось” vs “приходилось&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="0d5634b1-cf51-4ace-b43c-759d3440d3ad" CreationDate="2018-12-23T08:04:59.723" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47500" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="b3bb7fe7-5cd5-423a-b414-83b68f120a33" CreationDate="2018-12-23T08:30:27.650" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="How does “приходилось&quot; compare to “доводилось”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="3642def2-aea6-4165-9a68-a9b5d6a10ce7" CreationDate="2018-12-23T09:09:44.000" UserId="8672" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said this –  and the sentence with &quot;доводилось&quot; sarcastically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Не зря говорят, что японцы трудоголики и все такое, но... он в самом деле заходит слишком далеко. Как-то не **доводилось** мне встречать человека, в котором было бы столько страсти, что  он вкалывал бы аж на смерть.  Низкий ему поклон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how the use of &quot;приходилось&quot; would have stacked up against &quot;доводилось&quot;. Does &quot;приходилось&quot; sound somewhat ambiguous, given its another impersonal usage in the sense of &quot;have to&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как-то не **приходилось** мне встречать человека, в котором ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47502" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="3642def2-aea6-4165-9a68-a9b5d6a10ce7" CreationDate="2018-12-23T09:09:44.000" UserId="8672" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="«доводилось» vs «приходилось»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17793" RevisionGUID="74492b77-f15c-48ae-9a52-c1bd427d12a2" CreationDate="2018-12-23T10:43:51.220" UserId="11080" Text="In the meaning you gave these two words are fully interchangeable. **Доводилось** seems to be a less frequent synonim, but please, do use it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Приходилось** has also the meaning of &quot;I had to&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне пришлось вернуться домой за забытыми вещами.  Мне приходилось не раз возвращаться домой за вещами, которые мои дети забыли, собираясь в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; школу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use **доводилось** in these sentences as well, but it will imply just the fact that you have the experience of returning home to pick up some belongings. Whereas **приходилось** also means you were not happy with that. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your examples there is no negarive connotation, because they describe a situation in which the speaker was not involved, he or she is just an observer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насмерть is an adjective, it's one word here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17788" RevisionGUID="6f816c87-832a-4190-8e38-11fc55850c9b" CreationDate="2018-12-23T11:13:48.443" UserId="242" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="I was really surprised reading some of this answers and comments because actually neither this is too rare nor it is a regionalism of any sort. The phrase &quot;весь целиком&quot; (аnd `вся целиком` is the same in feminine) is quite common. &quot;Весь&quot; is used for emphasizing `целиком`, like in phrases (from actual literature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Апрельский выпуск &quot;Минервы&quot; разошелся `весь целиком` до десятого числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воскресный день он проводил в полном покое, `весь целиком` уходя в чтение книг и газет и в разговоры с детьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you've encounters is colloquialism, it's because there exist commonly use phrase `согласен целиком [и понолостью]` and `весь целиком`. Here are some examples one can google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Так я весь целиком за, давай развивать наши отношения, твои родители&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при чём? ([link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Согласно молве, народ весь целиком за Константина. ([link][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://zadolba.li/20121227&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lubelia.livejournal.com/1112861.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17788" RevisionGUID="4de90ca8-2b45-4cf8-8caf-5f08832835f8" CreationDate="2018-12-23T11:19:00.810" UserId="242" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="I was really surprised reading some of this answers and comments because actually neither this is too rare nor it is a regionalism of any sort. The phrase &quot;весь целиком&quot; (аnd `вся целиком` is the same in feminine) is quite common. &quot;Весь&quot; is used for emphasizing `целиком`, like in phrases (from actual literature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Апрельский выпуск &quot;Минервы&quot; разошелся `весь целиком` до десятого числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воскресный день он проводил в полном покое, `весь целиком` уходя в чтение книг и газет и в разговоры с детьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you've encounters is colloquialism, it's because there exist commonly use phrase `согласен целиком [и понолостью]` and `весь целиком`. Here are some examples one can google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Так я `весь целиком за`, давай развивать наши отношения, твои родители&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при чём? ([link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Согласно молве, народ `весь целиком за` Константина. ([link][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With `против`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Даже если б ты был `весь целиком против`, с того что поменяется? ([link][3])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  Cнял фильм о российской действительности, которая `вся целиком против` человека. ([link][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://zadolba.li/20121227&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lubelia.livejournal.com/1112861.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.peredovaya.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=369985&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perminfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/aaab003ed799f70b8dad88e4c0129265.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17793" RevisionGUID="47305459-9ef2-4202-8b89-b11fbbf235fe" CreationDate="2018-12-23T12:40:34.303" UserId="11080" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In the meaning you gave these two words are fully interchangeable. **Доводилось** seems to be a less frequent synonim, but please, do use it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Приходилось** has also the meaning of &quot;I had to&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне пришлось вернуться домой за забытыми вещами.  &#xD;&#xA;Мне приходилось не раз возвращаться домой за вещами, которые мои дети забыли, собираясь в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; школу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use **доводилось** in these sentences as well, but it will imply just the fact that you have the experience of returning home to pick up some belongings. Whereas **приходилось** also means you were not happy with that. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your examples there is no negarive connotation, because they describe a situation in which the speaker was not involved, he or she is just an observer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насмерть is an adjective, it's one word here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17793" RevisionGUID="1717a157-8f99-42a4-83ba-885d0599a16b" CreationDate="2018-12-23T12:59:23.170" UserId="11080" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="In the meaning you gave these two words are fully interchangeable. **Доводилось** seems to be a less frequent synonim, but please, do use it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Приходилось** has also the meaning of &quot;I had to&quot;, &quot;I was forced/compelled to&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне пришлось вернуться домой за забытыми вещами.  &#xD;&#xA;Мне приходилось не раз возвращаться домой за вещами, которые мои дети забыли, собираясь в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; школу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use **доводилось** in these sentences as well, but it will imply just the fact that you have the experience of returning home to pick up some belongings. Whereas **приходилось** also means you were not happy with that. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your examples there is no negarive connotation, because they describe a situation in which the speaker was not involved, he or she is just an observer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Насмерть is an adjective, it's one word here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47508" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="847aed5a-ad33-4938-bf28-0928a3f5f9bc" CreationDate="2018-12-23T14:31:35.670" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="How are the impersonal &quot;доводилось&quot; and &quot;приходилось&quot; nuanced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47509" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17778" RevisionGUID="ae6b6bf9-ab31-45c4-8ab0-a0d3ba74f974" CreationDate="2018-12-23T15:00:29.480" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1076855066634665985" />
  <row Id="47510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17794" RevisionGUID="964ddf2d-f0d6-4291-80a6-79279a5b2856" CreationDate="2018-12-23T16:05:14.047" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **Не берись** утверждать, что ты действительно знаешь, какая она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Не вздумай** утверждать, что ты действительно знаешь, какая она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how they are nuanced. Is the former about telling them not to start/set about doing something and the latter more about telling them not to even think about / toy with the possibility of  doing something? In short, dissuading &quot;actions&quot; vs &quot;thoughts&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I notice that one is perfective and the other imperfective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17794" RevisionGUID="964ddf2d-f0d6-4291-80a6-79279a5b2856" CreationDate="2018-12-23T16:05:14.047" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;Не берись ...&quot; vs &quot;Не вздумай ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17794" RevisionGUID="964ddf2d-f0d6-4291-80a6-79279a5b2856" CreationDate="2018-12-23T16:05:14.047" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17791" RevisionGUID="d710575d-ea70-4e45-8d63-d10bbea6ac30" CreationDate="2018-12-23T19:31:36.923" UserId="10749" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In these Cornell's lyrics from Be Yourself I would translate each &quot;someone&quot; and &quot;another&quot; as &quot;кто-то&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone falls to pieces sleeping all alone&#xD;&#xA;Someone kills the pain&#xD;&#xA;Spinning in the silence&#xD;&#xA;She finally drifts away&#xD;&#xA;Someone gets excited in a chapel yard&#xD;&#xA;Catches a bouquet&#xD;&#xA;Another lays a dozen&#xD;&#xA;White roses on a grave&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone finds salvation in everyone, another only pain&#xD;&#xA;Someone tries to hide himself, down inside himself he prays&#xD;&#xA;Someone swears his true love until the end of time, another runs away&#xD;&#xA;Separate or united, healthy or insane&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, in most cases &quot;одни&quot;, &quot;другие&quot; and &quot;a кто-то [ещё]&quot; will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17777" RevisionGUID="31006533-c4c8-409a-a266-3d2a4c9764b1" CreationDate="2018-12-23T19:44:00.083" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&quot;В веке&quot; is for literal period designation, like in &quot;В 15 веке нарождающийся буржуазный класс всё более настойчиво заявлял о своих интересах&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В век&quot; is figurative, it's not that there's a century we are talking about, it's like &quot;the age&quot;, &quot;в эпоху&quot;, like in &quot;мы живём в век инноваций&quot; which can be translated as &quot;we live in the age of innovations&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now imagine yourself asking a question why age there's &quot;in&quot; in the phrase &quot;in the age of innovations&quot;. Well, it's of because this is how in English specific relations between objects is designated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And next thing crucial for understanding of what's going on is to realize that there's no such thing like one to one correspondences between languages. Because modern English has no cases some of constructions with same preposition can be translated in some other language (including, by the way, Old English) into two constructions with different cases, two constructions with the same case and different prepositions, two constructions with no prepositions at all etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It something that just should be memoized - when you talk figuratively, it's, &quot;в век&quot; - аnd that's the way it is. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17795" RevisionGUID="e3f9a822-3bf8-4be3-98ff-b92b79836d41" CreationDate="2018-12-23T20:56:27.870" UserId="9459" Text="For starters, the last one is much more colloquial, along the lines of &quot;don't you dare...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is &quot;don't claim&quot;, &quot;don't bear the responsibility&quot;, compare to `Взялся за гуж, не говори, что не дюж` [proverb][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last one is &quot;don't you think&quot;, &quot;don't you dare&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the first one is about &quot;I do not recommend you to bear the responsibility of [doing something]&quot;, while the last one is &quot;I advise you not to [do something]&quot; or &quot;if you [do something], you'd deal with me&quot;. Compare to `Сейчас морозы! Не вздумай выйти на улицу без шапки!`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://otvet.mail.ru/question/17896145" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17589" RevisionGUID="e2f6aee8-f996-4ec6-ad10-70d85c25c259" CreationDate="2018-12-24T01:34:44.277" UserId="2104" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Widely understood and neutral/positive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ему́/ей нра́вятся ма́льчики/де́вочки&#xD;&#xA;* Он/она́ лю́бит ма́льчиков/де́вочек&#xD;&#xA;* Он гей&#xD;&#xA;* Она́ лесбия́нка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lesser known, colloquial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ле́сби, би, транс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official neutral language :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гомосексуали́ст, &#xD;&#xA;* бисексуа́л, транссексуа́л, трансвести́т, трансге́ндер&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official and negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мужелю́б, мужело́жец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquial and outright derogatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гомосе́к, педера́ст, пе́дик, ле́сба&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17589" RevisionGUID="f846b1e8-77d4-4dea-a6bb-793d0e1f6214" CreationDate="2018-12-24T01:48:34.303" UserId="2104" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Widely understood and neutral/positive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ему́/ей нра́вятся ма́льчики/де́вочки&#xD;&#xA;* Он/она́ лю́бит ма́льчиков/де́вочек&#xD;&#xA;* Он голубо́й / гей&#xD;&#xA;* Она́ лесбия́нка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lesser known, colloquial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Ле́сби, би, транс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official neutral language :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гомосексуали́ст, &#xD;&#xA;* бисексуа́л, транссексуа́л, трансвести́т, трансге́ндер&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Official and negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* мужелю́б, мужело́жец&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colloquial and outright derogatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* гомосе́к, педера́ст, пе́дик, ле́сба&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17797" RevisionGUID="e6f7ac4e-283d-44fe-b4fc-b5eced879cc0" CreationDate="2018-12-24T08:04:57.067" UserId="10999" Text="**&quot;Доводилось&quot;** and **&quot;приходилось&quot;** are often synonymous, but there is one minor nuance.  &#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Доводилось&quot;** has a connotation **&quot;had a chance to&quot;**,  while **&quot;приходилось&quot;** has the connotation **'had to ...'**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **доводилось** бывать на приеме у Королевы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you wouldn't want to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **приходилось** бывать на приеме у Королевы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, you'd rather say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **приходилось** заниматься скучной, однообразной работой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;than &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **доводилось** заниматься скучной, однообразной работой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17797" RevisionGUID="cce693e0-11cc-4636-b056-8b3f20249543" CreationDate="2018-12-24T08:19:32.420" UserId="10999" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**&quot;Доводилось&quot;** and **&quot;приходилось&quot;** are often synonymous, but there is one minor nuance.  &#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Доводилось&quot;** has a connotation **&quot;had a chance to&quot;**,  while **&quot;приходилось&quot;** has the connotation **'had to ...'**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **доводилось** бывать на приемах у Королевы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but you wouldn't want to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **приходилось** бывать на приемах у Королевы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary, you'd rather say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **приходилось** заниматься скучной, однообразной работой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;than &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне **доводилось** заниматься скучной, однообразной работой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47526" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="b298a11c-15bc-4954-abd3-da6985e45903" CreationDate="2018-12-24T11:53:36.487" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|произношение|фонетика|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47527" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17764" RevisionGUID="e9ec70ee-c5c8-4c00-8a7a-f7ab1f0257b9" CreationDate="2018-12-24T13:48:18.270" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Vowel reduction of pretonic [о]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17798" RevisionGUID="42566a89-9896-4ff5-906e-441f8df0216f" CreationDate="2018-12-24T14:37:28.617" UserId="8672" Text="In English, you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It took some getting used to, but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... with the word &quot;some&quot; acting like an intensifier. This colloquial structure essentially takes the form of &quot;It took some + gerund, but ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing in Russian to express this idea? Does the following sound idiomatic enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкнуть к этому мне удалось уж точно не сразу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17798" RevisionGUID="42566a89-9896-4ff5-906e-441f8df0216f" CreationDate="2018-12-24T14:37:28.617" UserId="8672" Text="How to express the idiomatic “It took some getting used to, but ...”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17798" RevisionGUID="42566a89-9896-4ff5-906e-441f8df0216f" CreationDate="2018-12-24T14:37:28.617" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17798" RevisionGUID="c8aa7dd3-814a-4f26-b9eb-0a49eaf1c4e5" CreationDate="2018-12-24T14:42:46.423" UserId="8672" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In English, you say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It took some (serious) getting used to, but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... with the word &quot;some&quot; acting like an intensifier. This colloquial structure essentially takes the form of &quot;It took some + gerund, but ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing in Russian to express this idea? Does the following sound idiomatic enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Привыкнуть к этому мне удалось уж точно не сразу, но ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17799" RevisionGUID="cbb8c056-7ba9-4f44-99ce-e4529fdaf6ba" CreationDate="2018-12-24T15:14:31.830" UserId="7674" Text="Yes it is but it's not an accurate equivalent of the English phrase, there seems to be no set expression in Russian.   &#xD;&#xA;Based on the English expression i myself would go with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне пришлось/надо было (постараться) к этому привыкнуть || ... пришлось/надо было к этому привыкать   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне пришлось (постараться) приучить себя к этому || ... пришлось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приучать себя к этому&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне пришлось/надо было приложить усилия, чтобы к этому привыкнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Привыкание к этому мне далось непросто/нелегко (a little less colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective aspect conveys a sense of greater effort. There's also a verb **попривыкнуть** which could better convey the connotation of the English **some**, but its imperfective form is unusable in this context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17799" RevisionGUID="9544975a-0948-482f-8827-9e12d9cf120b" CreationDate="2018-12-24T15:19:37.620" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Yes it is but it's not an accurate equivalent of the English phrase, there seems to be no set expression in Russian.   &#xD;&#xA;Based on the English expression i myself would go with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне пришлось/надо было (постараться) к этому привыкнуть || ... пришлось/надо было к этому привыкать   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне пришлось (постараться) приучить себя к этому || ... пришлось&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приучать себя к этому&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мне пришлось/надо было приложить усилия, чтобы к этому привыкнуть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Привыкание к этому мне далось непросто/нелегко *(a little less colloquial)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imperfective aspect conveys a sense of greater effort. There's also a verb **попривыкнуть** which could better convey the connotation of the English **some**, but its imperfective form is unusable in this context" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17800" RevisionGUID="9f66b0ad-1512-40c1-902a-8492d54d4cde" CreationDate="2018-12-24T17:37:28.823" UserId="2104" Text=" - С непривычки было сложно, но ... (теперь даже нравится, *например*)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17792" RevisionGUID="e8691cca-1a4e-41cf-aad6-51cc87103a14" CreationDate="2018-12-24T21:00:34.663" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077308073235148801" />
  <row Id="47537" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17776" RevisionGUID="fd923e20-a6a0-4e96-b9c7-f97fb089f83e" CreationDate="2018-12-25T00:00:37.250" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077353382451515392" />
  <row Id="47538" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17762" RevisionGUID="96b5de60-101e-41df-936b-358c688c0ac5" CreationDate="2018-12-25T09:00:23.607" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077489220737003520" />
  <row Id="47539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17800" RevisionGUID="77f4c105-424c-4209-bf59-f6f99f3a1133" CreationDate="2018-12-25T09:08:31.477" UserId="2104" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="You may use the remarkable adverb **[с непривычки][1]**, 'due to lack of habit':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - С непривычки было сложно (даже очень!), но ... теперь даже нравится (*например*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/240080/%D0%A1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17801" RevisionGUID="24f8a282-20ec-443a-a8e2-f392b85a4477" CreationDate="2018-12-25T12:33:35.033" UserId="6907" Text="What's the difference between несколько and сколько and некоторые in this context? For me, as a non Russian native speakers they look as synonym in this context, but I'm not sure about that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там есть **сколько** яблок.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там есть **несколько** яблок.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там есть **некоторые** яблок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17801" RevisionGUID="24f8a282-20ec-443a-a8e2-f392b85a4477" CreationDate="2018-12-25T12:33:35.033" UserId="6907" Text="What's the difference between несколько and сколько and некоторые in this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17801" RevisionGUID="24f8a282-20ec-443a-a8e2-f392b85a4477" CreationDate="2018-12-25T12:33:35.033" UserId="6907" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17802" RevisionGUID="dfbc8e45-ea04-406a-a9bb-675472218814" CreationDate="2018-12-25T13:23:45.913" UserId="11343" Text="Есть такое предложение: `This is known as the agent's running execution context.`&#xD;&#xA;Но проблема в том чтобы сохранить английские термины в их исходном состоянии. То есть из всего этого предложения нельзя переводить `agent` и `running execution context`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И как можно передать в таком случае притяжательный падеж, чтобы читателю было понятно что к чему относится?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17802" RevisionGUID="dfbc8e45-ea04-406a-a9bb-675472218814" CreationDate="2018-12-25T13:23:45.913" UserId="11343" Text="Как перевести предложение с притяжательным падежом, которое состоит из терминов" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17802" RevisionGUID="dfbc8e45-ea04-406a-a9bb-675472218814" CreationDate="2018-12-25T13:23:45.913" UserId="11343" Text="|перевод|выражения|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17803" RevisionGUID="e3cc1d9a-6534-4c04-a474-3ff5abf40411" CreationDate="2018-12-25T13:50:52.920" UserId="10999" Text="The first and last sentences are grammatically incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;The first sentence should be a question (**&quot;сколько&quot;** = &quot;**how many**&quot;/&quot;**how much**&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько там яблок?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the last sentence, the word &quot;яблоки&quot; must be in the plural, because &quot;некоторые&quot; requires the plural:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Там есть некоторые яблоки.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even in this version, this sentence looks clumsy. Native speakers would say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Там есть кое-какие яблоки.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or rather just:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Там есть яблоки.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So only second sentence is fully correct and should be used in this case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Там есть несколько яблок.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17804" RevisionGUID="a45ac873-cc15-4641-9af6-481c628e66ba" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:02:23.563" UserId="10999" Text="Если допустимо выделение полужирным шрифтом, я бы оформил это примерно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это известно как **running execution context** этого **agent**'a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это известно как **agent's running execution context**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если можно использовать только кавычки, то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это известно как &quot;agent's running execution context&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17804" RevisionGUID="bc8a238b-0842-41f0-966c-833aaa069109" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:09:31.520" UserId="10999" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Если допустимо выделение полужирным шрифтом, я бы оформил это примерно так:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это известно как **running execution context** этого **agent**'a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это известно как **agent's running execution context**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если можно использовать только кавычки, то:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это известно как &quot;agent's running execution context&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается притяжательного падежа как такового, то обычно он передается дополнительным местоимением и, при необходимости, окончанием: (&quot;этого **agent**'a&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17805" RevisionGUID="c77e036c-242b-4b5a-bb5e-c18cf8f210eb" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:11:42.283" UserId="7674" Text="Притяжательность можно попытаться выразить описательно, а не падежно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он известен как `running execution context`, принадлежащий / относящийся к / связанный с / зависящий от / который исполняет `agent`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17805" RevisionGUID="3d8359ad-3eea-4f79-87c1-0a7ba7c1900e" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:18:50.910" UserId="7674" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Притяжательность можно попытаться выразить описательно, а не падежно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он известен как `running execution context`, принадлежащий / относящийся к / связанный с / зависящий от / зависимый от / который исполняет / которым управляет `agent`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17801" RevisionGUID="0a925f64-9002-4fac-909e-44a7a0704009" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:27:22.600" UserId="6907" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between несколько and сколько and некоторые in this context? For me, as a non Russian native speakers they look as synonym in this context, but I'm not sure about that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там есть **сколько** яблоки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там есть **несколько** яблоки.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Там есть **некоторые** яблоки." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="5b61ffa9-1d63-48af-8c76-604f48c9ca43" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:55:40.260" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Да. Это **была** именитая компания, щедрая на праздники!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised to hear my girlfriend use &quot;была&quot; as if it were a thing of the past, I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь **в прошедшем времени**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this is where I would have gone with something as concise as &quot;Wait...'**was**'?&quot;, repeating the exact word she just said.: &quot;it **was** a ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I could just as well have said the following. Or does this sound somewhat ambiguous in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «**была**»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="5b61ffa9-1d63-48af-8c76-604f48c9ca43" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:55:40.260" UserId="8672" Text="How to express &quot;Wait...'was'?&quot; in surprise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="5b61ffa9-1d63-48af-8c76-604f48c9ca43" CreationDate="2018-12-25T14:55:40.260" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="b7158c99-8ee4-4431-ad1e-da7992441ec0" CreationDate="2018-12-25T15:00:37.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077579875492552704" />
  <row Id="47556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="de30fdfb-d996-4d42-a559-b51e958b774f" CreationDate="2018-12-25T15:04:52.480" UserId="8672" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="&gt; Да. Это **была** именитая компания, щедрая на праздники!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised to hear my girlfriend use &quot;была&quot; as if it were a thing of the past, I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь **в прошедшем времени**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this is where I would have gone with something as concise as &quot;Wait...'**was**'?&quot;, repeating the exact word she just said.: &quot;it **was** a ...&quot;. In French and German, for instance, it would have been the same: &quot;C'**était**?&quot;, &quot;Warte ... '**war**'?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I could just as well have said the following. Or does this sound somewhat ambiguous in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «**была**»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17807" RevisionGUID="e13363f4-1545-41e0-95c9-88e77d1f3671" CreationDate="2018-12-25T15:08:20.637" UserId="10999" Text="More native form of this question in Russian is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... **Почему** &quot;была&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="3594e28b-aa6a-4ec6-8b7d-440ad0090edc" CreationDate="2018-12-25T15:09:33.637" UserId="8672" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="&gt; Да. Это **была** именитая компания, щедрая на праздники!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised to hear my girlfriend use &quot;была&quot; as if it were a thing of the past, I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь **в прошедшем времени**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this is where I would have gone with something as concise as &quot;Wait...'**was**'?&quot;, repeating the exact word she just said.: &quot;it **was** a ...&quot;. In French, German and Spanish, for instance, it would have been the same: &quot;C'**était**?&quot;, &quot;Warte ... '**war**', &quot;Espera... ¿'**era**'?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I could just as well have said the following. Or does this sound somewhat ambiguous in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «**была**»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="09ad3fe0-02d8-490f-b010-635be6c004b4" CreationDate="2018-12-25T15:14:16.773" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Да. Это **была** именитая компания, щедрая на праздники!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised to hear my girlfriend use &quot;была&quot; as if it were a thing of the past, I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь **в прошедшем времени**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this is where I would have gone with something as concise as &quot;Wait...'**was**'?&quot;, repeating the exact word she just said.: &quot;it **was** a ...&quot;. In French, German and Spanish, for instance, it would have been the same: &quot;C'**était**?&quot;, &quot;Warte ... '**war**'?&quot;, &quot;Espera... ¿'**era**'?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I could just as well have said the following? Or does this sound somewhat ambiguous in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «**была**»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="73e38b73-d4df-4d34-8309-ee63e48175d5" CreationDate="2018-12-25T15:29:58.247" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Да. Это **была** именитая компания, щедрая на праздники!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised to hear my girlfriend use &quot;была&quot; as if it were a thing of the past, I said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь **в прошедшем времени**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this is where I would have gone with something as concise as &quot;Wait...'**was**'?&quot;, repeating the exact word she just said: &quot;it **was** a ...&quot;. In French, German and Spanish, for instance, it would have been the same: &quot;C'**était**?&quot;, &quot;Warte ... '**war**'?&quot;, &quot;Espera... ¿'**era**'?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if I could just as well have said the following? Or does this sound somewhat ambiguous in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «**была**»?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17809" RevisionGUID="d6c85b3f-aa78-447e-93b0-ff2365b12eef" CreationDate="2018-12-25T17:30:10.537" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Разве ничего нельзя сделать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to this, I just said in conversation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто знает. Правда, боюсь, надеяться **кроме авося** больше не **на** что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm now wondering if I should have placed the preposition &quot;на&quot; after &quot;кроме&quot;, too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кто знает. Правда, боюсь, надеяться **кроме на авось** больше не **на** что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In hindsight, I think I was tempted to use &quot;на&quot; as early on in this clause as possible, as I started it with &quot;надеяться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17809" RevisionGUID="d6c85b3f-aa78-447e-93b0-ff2365b12eef" CreationDate="2018-12-25T17:30:10.537" UserId="8672" Text="Whether to place a preposition after &quot;кроме: &quot;кроме авося&quot; or &quot;кроме на авось&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17809" RevisionGUID="d6c85b3f-aa78-447e-93b0-ff2365b12eef" CreationDate="2018-12-25T17:30:10.537" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17810" RevisionGUID="881bc5ae-1b4f-4ad1-b041-9812ed89cacf" CreationDate="2018-12-25T17:42:25.130" UserId="242" Text="The only valid form is &quot;на авось&quot; - in this usage it's not declined anyhow and stays exactly in the same form. &quot;Авось&quot; is declined in some extremely rarely used phrases, mostly sayings like &quot;от авося добра не жди&quot; or &quot;авося жданки съели&quot; or &quot;авосю не вовсе верь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be safe to say that most likely the only place one can encounter declined &quot;авось&quot; is dictionary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13899" RevisionGUID="a3fcfc6b-5153-4940-92fc-4b8d1a259cf2" CreationDate="2018-12-25T17:43:58.897" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="I am looking for a nickname/affectionate name for a character in a story that I am writing. I was considering basing it upon the word 'riddle' or 'puzzle' Are these the proper translations? `Решето` and `загадка`. Is there a diminutive form for each? I tried reading about how to choose the proper suffixes but my understanding of Russian is too limited to work it out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17811" RevisionGUID="c32bba78-688d-4547-9a0a-c787de740066" CreationDate="2018-12-25T18:24:17.813" UserId="7674" Text="The first variant is a great humorous sentence, i like it. Not because it's ostensibly incorrect but because it sounds witty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **кроме** before anything but a noun requires conjunction **как** - **кроме как**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, although you beat me to it with your comment while i was typing up this response, the stylistically correct version is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, надеяться **кроме как** на авось больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in a more relaxed order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, **кроме как** на авось надеяться больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i still prefer your original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17811" RevisionGUID="a4ec638d-724f-4386-948f-3f56db870091" CreationDate="2018-12-25T18:29:30.933" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The first variant is a great humorous sentence, i like it. Not because it's ostensibly incorrect but because it sounds witty, with tongue in cheek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **кроме** before anything but a noun requires conjunction **как** - **кроме как**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, although you beat me to it with your comment while i was typing up this response, the stylistically correct version is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, надеяться **кроме как** на авось больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in a more relaxed order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, **кроме как** на авось надеяться больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i still prefer your original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17811" RevisionGUID="af4c98cd-15cb-4119-97c4-6dd3ec42ff03" CreationDate="2018-12-25T18:34:50.343" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The first variant is a great humorous sentence, i like it. Not because it's ostensibly incorrect but because it sounds witty, with tongue in cheek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **кроме** before anything but a (pro)noun/numeral/adjective in any case but Genitive requires conjunction **как** - **кроме как**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`кроме нас`** but **`кроме как у нас`**  &#xD;&#xA;**`кроме синего`** but **`кроме как синий`**   &#xD;&#xA;**`кроме утра`** but **`кроме как утром`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, although you beat me to it with your comment while i was typing up this response, the stylistically correct version is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, надеяться **кроме как** на авось больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in a more relaxed order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, **кроме как** на авось надеяться больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i still prefer your original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17811" RevisionGUID="480a4639-95bb-475c-b7c8-03c24ccd1fc1" CreationDate="2018-12-25T18:39:59.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The first variant is a great humorous sentence, i like it. Not because it's ostensibly incorrect but because it sounds witty, with tongue in cheek.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The preposition **кроме** before anything but a (pro)noun/numeral/adjective in any case but Genitive requires conjunction **как** - **кроме как**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`кроме нас`** but **`кроме как у нас/про нас/нам/нами`**  &#xD;&#xA;**`кроме синего`** but **`кроме как синий/-им/-ему`**   &#xD;&#xA;**`кроме утра`** but **`кроме как утром`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, although you beat me to it with your comment while i was typing up this response, the stylistically correct version is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, надеяться **кроме как** на авось больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or in a more relaxed order&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Правда, боюсь, **кроме как** на авось надеяться больше не на что.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But i still prefer your original one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="0a5e9eb2-1854-4eec-92c2-37dcdb9a05d4" CreationDate="2018-12-25T19:51:53.370" UserId="11021" Text="Я плохо говорю по-португальски, но уже хорошо читаю. (Literal meaning: i speak Portuguese badly, but read (it) well. &#xA;&#xA;The literal meaning of *уже* is ‘already’, but at the same time i know it expresses a word sort of like an elongated  time.&#xA;&#xA;If we remove *уже* from the sentence i still get the same translation.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;What is the purpose of it in this sentence?&#xA;&#xA;Thank you in advance &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="0a5e9eb2-1854-4eec-92c2-37dcdb9a05d4" CreationDate="2018-12-25T19:51:53.370" UserId="11021" Text="Purpose if ‘уже’ in this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="0a5e9eb2-1854-4eec-92c2-37dcdb9a05d4" CreationDate="2018-12-25T19:51:53.370" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17813" RevisionGUID="ca3fe054-d60a-47a2-a67d-ad764b36ebf3" CreationDate="2018-12-25T20:48:01.520" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Ты **не хуже меня** знаешь правила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[vs]: Я **не меньше твоего** хочу отомстить за нее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious to know why you say &quot;не хуже **меня**&quot; instead of  &quot;не хуже **моего**&quot;  on one hand, and &quot;не меньше **твоего**&quot;  instead of &quot;не меньше **тебя**&quot; on the other.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To express the idea of &quot;just as much as I/you do&quot;, when do you use the form &quot;не + comparative adverb + **possessive**&quot; instead of the other way round?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17813" RevisionGUID="ca3fe054-d60a-47a2-a67d-ad764b36ebf3" CreationDate="2018-12-25T20:48:01.520" UserId="8672" Text="Why say &quot;не хуже меня&quot; on one hand, and &quot;не меньше твоего&quot; on the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17813" RevisionGUID="ca3fe054-d60a-47a2-a67d-ad764b36ebf3" CreationDate="2018-12-25T20:48:01.520" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17814" RevisionGUID="311ef9ed-159e-4d13-a9f3-015530c69475" CreationDate="2018-12-25T20:51:10.300" UserId="2104" Text="* I speak Portuguese badly, but I can read it well **already**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is, my Portuguese is constantly improving and I can read it well already. Without the **уже** the sentence would lose the sense of me currently studying Portuguese and would just state that my overall Portuguese is bad but reading is ok.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47579" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17654" RevisionGUID="df271a5b-b648-4486-bac7-abaf19e2be87" CreationDate="2018-12-25T21:00:18.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077670392842649603" />
  <row Id="47580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17814" RevisionGUID="c1b87fec-de5e-4f7b-bab5-abe7ce0dee78" CreationDate="2018-12-25T21:11:47.877" UserId="2104" Comment="added 289 characters in body" Text="* I speak Portuguese badly, but I can read it well **already**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning is, my Portuguese is constantly improving and I can read it well already. Without the **уже** the sentence would lose the sense of me currently studying Portuguese and would just state that my overall Portuguese is bad but reading is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may ask, where is the *can* in the original Russian sentence? It is implied. English does this too: 'I speak German' doesn't mean you speak it every day. It means you *can* speak it well. Similarly, the Russian **я хорошо читаю по-португальски** means 'I can read Portuguese well'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47581" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="13899" RevisionGUID="10b543a1-f1cd-4141-a355-6b748d0bfe19" CreationDate="2018-12-25T21:44:58.617" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Diminutive for &quot;решето&quot; and &quot;загадка&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47587" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17813" RevisionGUID="77722672-9c9d-4d11-bb70-1675d68daf2a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T00:00:38.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077715776520548352" />
  <row Id="47589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17817" RevisionGUID="28582a79-d1c7-4f0b-96a4-70fac74f8120" CreationDate="2018-12-26T05:13:51.657" UserId="5600" Text="&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь в прошедшем времени?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a good and precise way to put it in a written conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «была»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is totally fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oftentimes you simply repeat just the word(s) that confused you or expand it into a longer question. When speaking people (or is it just me?) tend to favor shorter phrasing. In the context of conversation there should be no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*Была*?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Почему &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Как это &quot;*была*&quot;? (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;- То есть &quot;*была*&quot;? (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;- Что значит &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Почему ты говоришь &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты имеешь в виду &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- etc etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other word in your question `постой`/`wait`/`espera` serves as a filler to bring more attention to the question and emphasizes that you are intentionally interrupting your girlfriend or any other interlocutor. To express the same in Russian it's similar to other languages, so you can use any of the options below (among others) before the question - all with there own degree of being colloquial-vs-epistolary and (in)formal, that being partially based on a speaker past experience too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Эй! (colloquial, informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Эээ... (colloquial, informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Так! (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;- Стоп! (informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Погодь! (colloquial, informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Подожди...&#xD;&#xA;- Извините, (formal)&#xD;&#xA;- Минуточку...&#xD;&#xA;- etc etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much any combination and variation of the above would convey your question. You can repeat them as well to show your interest in the subject. Again, given the conversation there is no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*Была*&quot;? Почему это &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Стоп, стоп, стоп! Подожди, почему ты говоришь &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17817" RevisionGUID="6c839e82-e543-4079-b45a-2cd536b7b049" CreationDate="2018-12-26T05:23:16.820" UserId="5600" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; Постой... Почему ты говоришь в прошедшем времени?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a good and precise way to put it in a written conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постой... «была»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is totally fine as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oftentimes you simply repeat just the word(s) that confused you or expand it into a longer question. When speaking people (or is it just me?) tend to favor shorter phrasing. In the context of conversation there should be no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*Была*?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- Почему &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Как это &quot;*была*&quot;? (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;- То есть &quot;*была*&quot;? (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;- Что значит &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Почему ты говоришь &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Что ты имеешь в виду &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- etc etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other word in your question `постой`/`wait`/`espera` serves as a filler to bring more attention to the question and emphasizes that you are intentionally interrupting your girlfriend or any other interlocutor. To express the same in Russian it's similar to other languages, so you can use any of the options below (among others) before the question - all with their own degree of being colloquial-vs-epistolary and (in)formal, that being partially based on a speaker past experience too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Эй! (colloquial, informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Эээ... (colloquial, informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Так! (colloquial)&#xD;&#xA;- Стоп! (informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Погодь! (colloquial, informal)&#xD;&#xA;- Подожди...&#xD;&#xA;- Извините, (formal)&#xD;&#xA;- Минуточку...&#xD;&#xA;- etc etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much any combination and variation of the above would convey your question. You can repeat them as well to show your interest in the subject. Again, given the conversation there is no ambiguity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;*Была*&quot;? Почему это &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;- Стоп, стоп, стоп! Подожди, почему ты говоришь &quot;*была*&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17818" RevisionGUID="b225a43e-6f4a-4ca5-8a18-4d65e7afc32a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:24:45.603" UserId="11195" Text="If I want to say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) I have a bag - у меня есть сумка &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) I need this bag - мне нужна эта сумка &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Why I can't say я нужна эта сумка and I need &quot;мне&quot;?)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) I want this bag - я хочу эту сумку&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**(Why is not я хочу эта сумка? and why if I use scarf and not bag I need to use этот? Like я хочу этот шарф )**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17818" RevisionGUID="b225a43e-6f4a-4ca5-8a18-4d65e7afc32a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:24:45.603" UserId="11195" Text="what is the difference between using эту , этот or эта?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17818" RevisionGUID="b225a43e-6f4a-4ca5-8a18-4d65e7afc32a" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:24:45.603" UserId="11195" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17787" RevisionGUID="41fc79cc-da50-4c6b-a659-25d6e616bd59" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:36:48.963" UserId="11080" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I'd say that it is a kind of some pretty local collocation (maybe, Odessa?) or there is some kind of joke with an erotic implication. But to make it sure we need the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more common and neutral version of this expression would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я полностью за  or  Я целиком за &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am all for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="b4808709-7008-4149-8d51-964589c9129d" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:43:38.557" UserId="11021" Comment="mispelling in title :p" Text="Я плохо говорю по-португальски, но уже хорошо читаю. (Literal meaning: i speak Portuguese badly, but read (it) well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literal meaning of *уже* is ‘already’, but at the same time i know it expresses a word sort of like an elongated  time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we remove *уже* from the sentence i still get the same translation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the purpose of it in this sentence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47596" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="b4808709-7008-4149-8d51-964589c9129d" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:43:38.557" UserId="11021" Comment="mispelling in title :p" Text="Purpose of ‘уже’ in this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17819" RevisionGUID="a2dbb10b-0738-4031-9cf0-49642de9db8d" CreationDate="2018-12-26T16:51:25.180" UserId="7674" Text="2.&amp;nbsp;Because this is how Russian works. The word **нужна** is not a verb with you can use as a predicate along with **Я** as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need in Russian is normally expressed indirectly through Dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`мне требуется / необходима`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely because the need perceived in Russian not as an act or volition, but as a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to say **`я нуждаюсь в этой сумке`** but the verb **`нуждаться`** is a little stronger than **`to need`**, it means that you can't do without it or that you pine for it, which is a volition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&amp;nbsp;The verb **`хотеть`** governs Accusative case for inanimate objects and **сумку** is **сумка** inflected in in Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a. **`Шарф`** is a masculine noun inflected in Accusative, the masculine indicative pronoun **`этот`** must agree with it in grammatical case, therefore **`этот`**, which is its inflected form of both Nominative and Accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Cумка`** on the other hand is a feminine noun therefore it requires feminine indicative pronoun **`эта`** in Accusative case - **`эту`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17819" RevisionGUID="e4764d4e-547d-479c-a2ff-c9af8aed7114" CreationDate="2018-12-26T17:03:28.710" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="2.&amp;nbsp;Because this is how Russian works. The word **нужна** is not a verb with you can use as a predicate along with **Я** as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need in Russian is normally expressed indirectly through Dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`мне требуется / необходима`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely because need perceived in Russian not as an act or volition, but as a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to say **`я нуждаюсь в этой сумке`** but the verb **`нуждаться`** is a little stronger than **`to need`**, it means that you can't do without it or that you pine for it, which is a volition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&amp;nbsp;The verb **`хотеть`** governs Accusative case for inanimate objects and **сумку** is **сумка** inflected in in Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a. **`Шарф`** is a masculine noun inflected in Accusative, the masculine demonstrative pronoun **`этот`** must agree with it in grammatical case, therefore **`этот`**, which is its inflected form of both Nominative and Accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Cумка`** (**`cумку`** in Accusative) on the other hand is a feminine noun therefore it requires feminine demonstrative pronoun **`эта`** whose inflected form in Accusative case is **`эту`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47600" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17812" RevisionGUID="fbe2d394-dfb9-4626-9ed8-b3d10c7a9bdf" CreationDate="2018-12-26T18:00:39.687" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1077987571458813952" />
  <row Id="47601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17819" RevisionGUID="c2390023-5c32-447c-b16b-2bbc9f418a6b" CreationDate="2018-12-26T18:14:57.037" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="2.&amp;nbsp;Because this is how Russian works. The word **нужна** is not a verb with you can use as a predicate along with **Я** as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need of a speaker in Russian is normally expressed indirectly through Dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`мне требуется / необходима`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely because need perceived in Russian not as an act or volition, but as a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to say **`я нуждаюсь в этой сумке`** but the verb **`нуждаться`** is a little stronger than **`to need`**, it means that you can't do without it or that you pine for it, which is a volition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&amp;nbsp;The verb **`хотеть`** governs Accusative case for inanimate objects and **сумку** is **сумка** inflected in in Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3a. **`Шарф`** is a masculine noun inflected in Accusative, the masculine demonstrative pronoun **`этот`** must agree with it in grammatical case, therefore **`этот`**, which is its inflected form of both Nominative and Accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Cумка`** (**`cумку`** in Accusative) on the other hand is a feminine noun therefore it requires feminine demonstrative pronoun **`эта`** whose inflected form in Accusative case is **`эту`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17819" RevisionGUID="2722353d-3596-44d8-a29c-a44441cc6d06" CreationDate="2018-12-26T18:20:43.803" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="2.&amp;nbsp;Because this is how Russian works. The word **нужна** is not a verb with you can use as a predicate along with **Я** as a subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need of a speaker in Russian is normally expressed indirectly through Dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`мне требуется / необходима`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely because someone's need perceived in Russian not as an act or volition, but as a state. Unlike at least in English the actor here is not the person who needs but the object which is needed.  &#xD;&#xA;That's why in the sentence **`Мне нужна эта сумка`** the subject is **`сумка`**. It's as if the bag were acting upon yourself making you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to say **`я нуждаюсь в этой сумке`** but the verb **`нуждаться`** is a little stronger than **`to need`**, it means that you can't do without it or that you pine for it, which is a volition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&amp;nbsp;The verb **`хотеть`** governs Accusative case for inanimate objects, therefore **`сумка`** assumes the form of **`сумку`** as expected of it in Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3A. **`Шарф`** is a masculine noun inflected in Accusative, the masculine demonstrative pronoun **`этот`** must agree with it in grammatical case, therefore **`этот`**, which is its inflected form of both Nominative and Accusative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Cумка`** (**`cумку`** in Accusative) on the other hand is a feminine noun therefore it requires feminine demonstrative pronoun **`эта`** whose inflected form in Accusative case is **`эту`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17819" RevisionGUID="fe5b57c1-7e0e-4fdf-b7e7-e93cc5931f07" CreationDate="2018-12-26T18:26:28.150" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="2.&amp;nbsp;Because this is how Russian works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need of a speaker in Russian is normally expressed indirectly through Dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`мне требуется / необходима`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely because someone's need is perceived in Russian not as an act or volition, but as a state. Unlike at least in English the actor here is not the person who needs but the object which is needed.  &#xD;&#xA;That's why in the sentence **`Мне нужна эта сумка`** the subject is **`сумка`**. It's as if the bag were acting upon yourself making you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to say **`я нуждаюсь в этой сумке`** but the verb **`нуждаться`** is a little stronger than **`to need`**, it means that you can't do without it or that you pine for it, which is a volition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&amp;nbsp;The verb **`хотеть`** governs Accusative case for inanimate objects, therefore **`сумка`** assumes the form of **`сумку`** as expected of it in Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3A. **`Шарф`** is a masculine noun inflected in Accusative, the masculine demonstrative pronoun **`этот`** must agree with it in grammatical case, hence **`этот`**, which is its form in both Nominative and Accusative cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Cумка`** (**`cумку`** in Accusative) on the other hand is a feminine noun therefore it requires feminine demonstrative pronoun **`эта`** whose inflected form in Accusative case is **`эту`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17821" RevisionGUID="d29a2eef-c528-40e1-9fd0-99e3ea4e678b" CreationDate="2018-12-26T18:28:36.820" UserId="9256" Text="To answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Решетечко&quot; - a word rarely used. Something that can be said to a 3 years old, or to deliberately create humor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Загадочка&quot; - a more widely used word. Can be used in virtually all diminutive contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As person's nicknames, both look unlikely, but not impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17819" RevisionGUID="e557263c-0ef1-49ed-9cf1-e3458b746073" CreationDate="2018-12-26T18:44:55.613" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="2.&amp;nbsp;Because this is how Russian works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need of a speaker in Russian is normally expressed indirectly through Dative case&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`мне требуется / необходима`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is likely because someone's need is perceived in Russian not as an act or volition, but as a state. Unlike at least in English the actor here is not the person who needs but the object which is needed.  &#xD;&#xA;That's why in the sentence **`Мне нужна эта сумка`** the subject is **`эта сумка`**. It's as if the bag were acting upon yourself making you need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible to say **`я нуждаюсь в этой сумке`** but the verb **`нуждаться`** is a little stronger than **`to need`**, it means that you can't do without it or that you pine for it, which is a volition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&amp;nbsp;The verb **`хотеть`** governs Accusative case for inanimate objects, therefore **`сумка`** assumes the form of **`сумку`** as expected of it in Accusative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3A. **`Шарф`** is a masculine noun inflected in Accusative, the masculine demonstrative pronoun **`этот`** must agree with it in grammatical case, hence **`этот`**, which is its form in both Nominative and Accusative cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Cумка`** (**`cумку`** in Accusative) on the other hand is a feminine noun therefore it requires feminine demonstrative pronoun **`эта`** whose inflected form in Accusative case is **`эту`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47609" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17818" RevisionGUID="efe84f68-817e-4feb-9482-9da5f70908e1" CreationDate="2018-12-26T20:58:04.057" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between using &quot;эту&quot;, &quot;этот&quot; or &quot;эта&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17822" RevisionGUID="9a1e43c4-3f88-4d6d-bebb-a663a1224634" CreationDate="2018-12-26T22:12:18.400" UserId="9603" Text="What's the difference between *худой* and *плохой*? Are these words interchangeable? When should each be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17822" RevisionGUID="9a1e43c4-3f88-4d6d-bebb-a663a1224634" CreationDate="2018-12-26T22:12:18.400" UserId="9603" Text="худой vs плохой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17822" RevisionGUID="9a1e43c4-3f88-4d6d-bebb-a663a1224634" CreationDate="2018-12-26T22:12:18.400" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17823" RevisionGUID="71df9aa9-a20c-4999-a59d-74b77405e714" CreationDate="2018-12-26T23:26:02.240" UserId="242" Text="One of the obsolete meanings of &quot;худой&quot; is bad, but nowadays this meaning is almost non-existent as an adjective. The only form that preserved that meaning is &quot;худо&quot; which is indeed similar to &quot;плохо&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;You can say &quot;мне худо&quot; instead of &quot;мне плохо&quot; - though it will sound slightly bookish. &#xA;&#xA;You can not say &quot;худой&quot; instead of &quot;плохой&quot; in modern Russian apart from some idioms like and sayings like &quot;худой мир лучше доброй ссоры&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Худой&quot; stands for thin, skinny. Actually it always was the main meaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47614" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17822" RevisionGUID="0a879132-76ad-4e0e-9e54-f26c1aaf7786" CreationDate="2018-12-26T23:28:33.080" UserId="242" Comment="edited title; edited title" Text="&quot;Худой&quot; or &quot;плохой&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17824" RevisionGUID="a9be09a7-a6f1-4e8e-9ff7-4a8902a0b91f" CreationDate="2018-12-27T07:47:23.977" UserId="11145" Text="Зачем одному «ослабеть» два несовершенных вида? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17824" RevisionGUID="a9be09a7-a6f1-4e8e-9ff7-4a8902a0b91f" CreationDate="2018-12-27T07:47:23.977" UserId="11145" Text="Какая разница между «слабеть»и «ослабевать»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17824" RevisionGUID="a9be09a7-a6f1-4e8e-9ff7-4a8902a0b91f" CreationDate="2018-12-27T07:47:23.977" UserId="11145" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17825" RevisionGUID="4fbdb94d-fa6f-4ced-a0e8-97c2c3952b6c" CreationDate="2018-12-27T07:58:20.023" UserId="10247" Text="**Плохой** is neutral word for 'bad'.&#xD;&#xA;**Худой** is neutral word for 'skinny, thin' (of a person). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But *худой* can be used in the sense 'bad', according to the dictionary (where it's marked as традиционно-народный - folk style, traditional, used for proverbs and folklore) - I wouldn't say it's obsolete though, but characteristic of that particular functional STYLE (folklore connotation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these two words are really not interchangable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17826" RevisionGUID="e68a556b-2115-4de5-a5fb-7cd0c0d4a056" CreationDate="2018-12-27T07:59:55.950" UserId="7674" Text="Offhand i'd say **«слабеть»** is for animate objects, **«ослабевать»** is for inanimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«ослабевать»** is the only imperfective of **«ослабеть»**.   &#xD;&#xA;**«слабеть»** is a separate form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17826" RevisionGUID="1eb1673f-e032-43c4-9cf3-72791b663b48" CreationDate="2018-12-27T08:03:10.340" UserId="7674" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Offhand i'd say **«слабеть»** is for animate objects, **«ослабевать»** is for inanimate. This is not absolutely set in stone, but such seems to be the tendency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**«ослабевать»** is the only imperfective of **«ослабеть»**.   &#xD;&#xA;**«слабеть»** is a separate form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17826" RevisionGUID="35c5c133-05b3-457b-8b90-b6493321a98e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T08:08:22.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Cуществует ещё глагол **«(о)слабнуть»**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На глазок я бы сказал, что **«(о)слабеть»** применяется по отношению к одушевлённым предметам, а **«ослабевать»** и **«(о)слабнуть»** - к неодушевлённым. Это не железное правило, но такова, мне кажется, тенденция.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17827" RevisionGUID="8ab466c8-5298-4e57-afe8-1a39584bc122" CreationDate="2018-12-27T08:22:08.823" UserId="11080" Text="Я бы сказала, что &quot;**ослабевать**&quot; выражает еще большую постепенность действия, чем &quot;**слабеть**&quot;. Но в целом они синонимичны и взаимозаменяемы. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17788" RevisionGUID="4ea0bc48-523f-4713-853c-5da23696c8c8" CreationDate="2018-12-27T10:23:56.580" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was really surprised reading some of this answers and comments because actually neither this is too rare nor it is a regionalism of any sort. The phrase &quot;весь целиком&quot; (аnd `вся целиком` is the same in feminine) is quite common. &quot;Весь&quot; is used for emphasizing `целиком`, like in phrases (from actual literature):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Апрельский выпуск &quot;Минервы&quot; разошелся `весь целиком` до десятого числа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Воскресный день он проводил в полном покое, `весь целиком` уходя в чтение книг и газет и в разговоры с детьми.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you've encountered is colloquialism, it's because there exist commonly use phrase `согласен целиком [и полностью]` and `весь целиком`. Here are some examples one can google:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Так я `весь целиком за`, давай развивать наши отношения, твои родители&#xD;&#xA;&gt; при чём? ([link][1])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Согласно молве, народ `весь целиком за` Константина. ([link][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With `против`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Даже если б ты был `весь целиком против`, с того что поменяется? ([link][3])&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  Cнял фильм о российской действительности, которая `вся целиком против` человека. ([link][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://zadolba.li/20121227&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://lubelia.livejournal.com/1112861.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.peredovaya.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=369985&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://perminfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/aaab003ed799f70b8dad88e4c0129265.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17828" RevisionGUID="37faa0f1-c352-45a1-b54a-14b545b877b0" CreationDate="2018-12-27T11:17:58.293" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вообще, это вроде не такая уж и сложная концепция. Ее вполне можно уложить **в слова** &quot;Эй, давай обеспечим пациентов тем, что является лучшим для них&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is where in English I'd have expressed the same idea as &quot;Pretty much boils down **to**, &quot;Hey ...&quot;. At least in English, it is not common to insert a word like &quot;слова&quot; after the preposition &quot;to&quot; before introducing direct speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it occurred to me, there and then, to fill in the word &quot;слова&quot;, as I'm used to place some noun in the phrase &quot;уложить ... в + noun&quot;, as in &quot;ее уложить **в** **5-6 часов**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm now wondering if I could have said alternatively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ее вполне можно уложить **в...** &quot;Эй, давай обеспечим пациентов тем, что является лучшим для них&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... following the pattern  of its English equivalent. Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ее вполне можно уложить **в то, что:** &quot;Эй, давай обеспечим пациентов тем, что является лучшим для них&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do native speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17828" RevisionGUID="37faa0f1-c352-45a1-b54a-14b545b877b0" CreationDate="2018-12-27T11:17:58.293" UserId="8672" Text="How to effectively connect a preceding clause to direct speech?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17828" RevisionGUID="37faa0f1-c352-45a1-b54a-14b545b877b0" CreationDate="2018-12-27T11:17:58.293" UserId="8672" Text="|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17828" RevisionGUID="bff6ee0a-977b-4794-be8d-62918850e263" CreationDate="2018-12-27T11:54:40.487" UserId="8672" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вообще, это вроде не такая уж и сложная концепция. Ее вполне можно уложить **в слова** &quot;Эй, давай обеспечим пациентов тем, что является лучшим для них&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is where in English I'd have expressed the same idea as &quot;Pretty much boils down **to**, &quot;Hey ...&quot;. At least in English, it is not common to insert a word like &quot;слова&quot; after the preposition &quot;to&quot; before introducing direct speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it occurred to me, there and then, to fill in the word &quot;слова&quot;, as I'm used to placing some noun in the phrase &quot;уложить ... в + noun&quot;, as in &quot;ее уложить **в** **5-6 часов**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm now wondering if I could have said alternatively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ее вполне можно уложить **в...** &quot;Эй, давай обеспечим пациентов тем, что является лучшим для них&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... following the pattern  of its English equivalent. Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ее вполне можно уложить **в то, что:** &quot;Эй, давай обеспечим пациентов тем, что является лучшим для них&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do native speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17829" RevisionGUID="dd059100-f66e-4fa6-b635-b2eb7afe239f" CreationDate="2018-12-27T12:35:25.363" UserId="8679" Text="Part of the confusion is that you treat **облеяь | в | слова** as two entities, while it's a fixed expression meaning *to put sth into words*, so there is nothing particular about the prepositions in either language.&#xA;&#xA;As for relative clauses in general, a very similar rule applies to shortened connection in spoken English and Russian:&#xA;&#xA;*We talked **about (that) how** to help him.*&#xA;&#xA;*Мы говорили **(об этом), как** помочь ему.*&#xA;&#xA;In your case what you &quot;skip&quot; is not obvious as there is at least a handful of ways to introduce what you wanna say, just like in English, but slicing a fixed phrase is not a good idea. Otherwise your propositions (bare prep &amp; prep + indefinite pronoun) would be correct (but of different registers).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17830" RevisionGUID="91795e96-cb48-4ec0-a1ed-9382f890b32f" CreationDate="2018-12-27T12:35:32.980" UserId="134" Text="If you want to keep *уложить*, I'd go with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Концепция, в общем-то, не такая и сложная. Её вполне можно уложить в одну фразу: &quot;давайте-ка обеспечим пациентов самым для них лучшим&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Свести*, however, is a better option, as @Баян Купи-ка correctly notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Эй* is an anglicism. It sounds very foreign to a Russian ear, and usually it's a hallmark of a poor translation from English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Тем, что является* (and abundance of dependent clauses in general) is something you should not be overusing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17829" RevisionGUID="9cd622b2-bef3-4dc3-87b0-3aecc1bf8ac4" CreationDate="2018-12-27T12:41:43.213" UserId="8679" Comment="added 8 characters in body; added 76 characters in body" Text="Part of the confusion is that you treat **облеяь/уложить | в | слова** as separate entities, while it's a fixed expression meaning *to put sth into words*, so there is nothing particular about the prepositions in either language--treat it as one indivisible unit of language similar to a single word.&#xA;&#xA;As for relative clauses in general, a very similar rule applies to shortened connection in spoken English and Russian:&#xA;&#xA;*We talked **about (that) how** to help him.*&#xA;&#xA;*Мы говорили **(об этом), как** помочь ему.*&#xA;&#xA;In your case what you &quot;skip&quot; is not obvious as there is at least a handful of ways to introduce what you wanna say, just like in English, but slicing a fixed phrase is not a good idea. Otherwise your propositions (bare prep &amp; prep + indefinite pronoun) would be correct (but of different registers).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17831" RevisionGUID="36a9672d-f585-46d7-9fdb-3e57d9cc39e3" CreationDate="2018-12-27T13:30:20.547" UserId="5443" Text="Второй вариант, образованный от *совершенной* формы глагола (ослабеть), позволяет выразить достижение некоторой *меры* или *порога* слабости, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По мере удаления поршня от магнита их взаимное притяжение **слабеет**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а на расстоянии 10 см оно **ослабевает** настолько, что поршень падает&#xD;&#xA;&gt; под действием силы тяжести.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; При отказе от пищи человек **слабеет**, причём на 5-й день он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ослабевает** настолько, что начинает падать в обморок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="83e6750d-e032-4a0a-9206-94a29895f99a" CreationDate="2018-12-27T13:42:51.893" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **слышу**, **чтоб** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if the subjunctive mood with &quot;чтобы&quot; is commonly used like this with the phrase &quot;в первый раз&quot; if you want to emphasise how surprised you are to  hear/see something unusual? Or should I have said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **слышу**, **что** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the past &quot;услышал&quot;, on the other hand, I assume the indicative mood with  &quot;что&quot; is the only option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **услышал**, **что** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think my uncertainty comes from the fact that in its French equivalent &quot;C'est la première fois que je + indicative&quot;, the subjunctive mood is impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="83e6750d-e032-4a0a-9206-94a29895f99a" CreationDate="2018-12-27T13:42:51.893" UserId="8672" Text="Subjunctive &quot;в первый раз слышу, чтобы ...&quot; vs. Indicative &quot;в первый раз слышу, что ...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="83e6750d-e032-4a0a-9206-94a29895f99a" CreationDate="2018-12-27T13:42:51.893" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="dfa6e4b6-408f-4eed-8717-6ff0b6d414d1" CreationDate="2018-12-27T13:48:14.787" UserId="8672" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="In conversation, I just said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **слышу**, **чтоб** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if the subjunctive mood with &quot;чтобы&quot; is commonly used like this with the phrase &quot;в первый раз&quot; if you want to emphasise how surprised you are to  hear/see something unusual? Or should I have said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **слышу**, **что** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the past &quot;услышал&quot;, on the other hand, I assume the indicative mood with  &quot;что&quot; is the only option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **услышал**, **что** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think my uncertainty comes from the fact that in its French equivalent &quot;C'est la première fois que je + indicative&quot;, the subjunctive mood is impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17833" RevisionGUID="0f091e60-79e6-4dee-84e0-605dd54b37fc" CreationDate="2018-12-27T16:04:41.243" UserId="6539" Text="1.Что and чтобы aren't used with all verbs. Some verbs require only что, others can be followed only by чтобы. And there are verbs which can be followed by both conjunctions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 In this case there's  a semantic difference. &#xD;&#xA;Что introduces facts and opinions. Чтобы introduces a wish. (we don't speak about purpose, clauses of purpose are also introduced with чтобы ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;А вам говорят, **что** ваш друг уже вышел… [Е. Гришковец. ОдноврЕмЕнно (2004)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ПА говорит, **чтобы** я к ней с этим не приставала. [Л. Улицкая. Казус Кукоцкого (2000)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ключик упорно настаивал, **что** Вертинский― выдающийся поэт. [В. П. Катаев. Алмазный мой венец (1975-1977)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Мама упорно настаивала, **чтобы** мы её &quot;правильно поняли&quot;. [А. Алексин. Раздел имущества (1979)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first sentence is incorrect. The rest are correct.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17829" RevisionGUID="2c5b5d72-8a03-44af-9ffc-b6e8b26e31d0" CreationDate="2018-12-27T16:49:22.483" UserId="11080" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Part of the confusion is that you treat **облечь/уложить | в | слова** as separate entities, while it's a fixed expression meaning *to put sth into words*, so there is nothing particular about the prepositions in either language--treat it as one indivisible unit of language similar to a single word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for relative clauses in general, a very similar rule applies to shortened connection in spoken English and Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*We talked **about (that) how** to help him.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Мы говорили **(об этом), как** помочь ему.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case what you &quot;skip&quot; is not obvious as there is at least a handful of ways to introduce what you wanna say, just like in English, but slicing a fixed phrase is not a good idea. Otherwise your propositions (bare prep &amp; prep + indefinite pronoun) would be correct (but of different registers).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17834" RevisionGUID="01e41006-5437-46cc-85d7-755138e5e9d3" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:08:31.810" UserId="11080" Text="Your first variant was not bad, actually. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's right, we do not use &quot;эй&quot; in such cases. In Russian it is a pretty colloquial word, you have to know whether you can say it to a particular person or not, for it can be even offencive if used out of place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And давай is also colloquial, one of the reasons is that it is given in the ты-form here, and the other is that we do not use it in concepts. ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wrote a letter I would put it like this &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Концепция, в общем, совсем не сложная. **Ее можно выразить одной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фразой: &quot;обеспечить пациентов самым лучшим для них&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In speaking you can change the word order (самым для них лучшим), add -то, etc.. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="5b5afae3-b1de-4596-baaf-aec9cd15a32e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:35:44.110" UserId="11021" Text="The literal translation that i found to be most closely equivalent to the english meaning of this is &#xA;&#xA;*Вы поучите картину*&#xA;,but i don’t know if that is just the literal meaning of saying ‘someone is receiving a picture’ or the phrasal meaning in english&#xA;&#xA;‘You get the picture’ in english is a way of saying that ‘you get the idea’ of something&#xA;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="5b5afae3-b1de-4596-baaf-aec9cd15a32e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:35:44.110" UserId="11021" Text="‘You get the picture’" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="5b5afae3-b1de-4596-baaf-aec9cd15a32e" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:35:44.110" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="a494c96b-d8ea-4def-9cec-d76e2b6e34bb" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:37:49.517" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думаешь, что ты на коне, а жизнь снова **отвешивает** тебе оплеуху.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of &quot;life **has a way of** ...&quot;. In English, this expression refers to the way how something generally happens, as in &quot;Life has a (funny) way of working out just when you start to believe it never will&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if in Russian the imperfective aspect &quot;отвешивает&quot; – as opposed to perfective – was enough to make a sweeping generalisation about how things work? That is, without adding another word such as &quot;жизнь **умеет** ...&quot; or &quot;жизнь **способна** ...&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47643" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="a494c96b-d8ea-4def-9cec-d76e2b6e34bb" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:37:49.517" UserId="8672" Text="How to express the generalising &quot;life has a way of ...&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47644" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="a494c96b-d8ea-4def-9cec-d76e2b6e34bb" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:37:49.517" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="c5cb3973-9fdd-4929-a080-20a101ddc90b" CreationDate="2018-12-27T18:40:38.680" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The literal translation that i found to be most closely equivalent to the english meaning of this is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вы по**Л**учите картину*&#xD;&#xA;,but i don’t know if that is just the literal meaning of saying ‘someone is receiving a picture’ or the phrasal meaning in english&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘You get the picture’ in english is a way of saying that ‘you get the idea’ of something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="baf5704f-5f09-4f0c-b879-8cbb2089fcaa" CreationDate="2018-12-27T19:03:14.323" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думаешь, что ты на коне, а жизнь снова **отвешивает** тебе оплеуху.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of &quot;life **has a way of** ...&quot;. In English, this expression refers to the way how something generally happens, as in &quot;Life has a (funny) way of working out just when you start to believe it never will&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if in Russian the imperfective aspect &quot;отвешивает&quot; – as opposed to perfective – was enough to make a sweeping generalisation about how things work? That is, without adding another word such as &quot;жизнь **умеет** ...&quot; or &quot;жизнь **способна** ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17834" RevisionGUID="2533fe18-dbec-41d3-a088-5ce385effec6" CreationDate="2018-12-27T19:12:15.483" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Your first variant was not bad, actually. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's right, we do not use &quot;эй&quot; in such cases. In Russian it is a pretty colloquial word, you have to know whether you can say it to a particular person or not, for it can be even offensive if used out of place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And давай is also colloquial, one of the reasons is that it is given in the ты-form here, and the other is that we do not use it in concepts. ) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wrote a letter I would put it like this &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Концепция, в общем, совсем не сложная. **Ее можно выразить одной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фразой: &quot;обеспечить пациентов самым лучшим для них&quot;.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In speaking you can change the word order (самым для них лучшим), add -то, etc.. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="0ee078ea-4ada-4a34-b414-f307599b2136" CreationDate="2018-12-27T20:21:26.703" UserId="8672" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Думаешь, что ты на коне, а жизнь снова **отвешивает** тебе оплеуху.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of &quot;life **has a way of** ...&quot;. In English, this expression refers to the way how something generally happens, as in &quot;Life has a (funny) way of working out just when you start to believe it never will&quot; or &quot;Sailing has a way of growing on you&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if in Russian the imperfective aspect &quot;отвешивает&quot; – as opposed to perfective – was enough to make a sweeping generalisation about how things work? That is, without adding another word such as &quot;жизнь **умеет** ...&quot; or &quot;жизнь **способна** ...&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17838" RevisionGUID="8320ac7d-7dd4-4849-a723-a44b94bd2d3f" CreationDate="2018-12-27T20:51:09.933" UserId="134" Text="I would use *она такая* или *дело такое*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жизнь — она такая, всё налаживается, когда в это уж и верить отчаялся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Парусный спорт — дело такое, захватывает." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17839" RevisionGUID="b679cfc7-b476-4fee-8bae-6aa77ef5fab9" CreationDate="2018-12-27T20:55:03.187" UserId="134" Text="I have to type in 30 characters before I can write&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну ты понял" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47653" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17836" RevisionGUID="93fa0bf1-3659-4604-ac1e-a874517579f7" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:00:38.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1078395251814002688" />
  <row Id="47654" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="42c2ce19-6fc7-4f45-8a70-b72bd41a2315" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:30:23.153" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;You get the picture&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17838" RevisionGUID="a26d00da-467c-485c-beb1-366e6b4984cd" CreationDate="2018-12-27T21:50:03.577" UserId="134" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="I would use *она такая* или *дело такое*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жизнь — она такая, всё налаживается, когда в это уж и верить отчаялся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Парусный спорт — дело такое, захватывает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to use *имеет свойство*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В жизни всё имеет свойство налаживаться тогда, когда уже отчаялся в это верить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть у парусного спорта такое свойство, захватывать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17840" RevisionGUID="305e9262-6c6d-4dd8-a94f-163f54075d00" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:02:42.410" UserId="5443" Text="**Чтобы** is typically used (with past tense) when speaking of something *not* happened. So, your first example sounds like the speaker *denies* the fact (like, *впервые слышу такое!*) of her saying something reasonable earlier (after hearing about it from somebody else). Such a sense is more directly expressed in this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никогда *не* слышал, **чтобы** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the speaker just expresses a surprise with an admitted fact or an approval, they don't use **чтобы**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В первый раз слышу/услышал, как/**что** ты сказала что-то разумное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17841" RevisionGUID="7b9eeb91-0c01-45e9-bb2c-f43b422994ae" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:19:40.740" UserId="8780" Text="I know that сто́ить has several meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the sentence **сколько стоит?** means *&quot;How much does it cost&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Говорить о религии не стоит** means *&quot;It's not worth talking about religion&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **это стоит того** simply means *&quot;It's worth it&quot;*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in this example, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out the meaning of **стоить**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Стоило ему свернуть на просёлочную дорогу, как мотор заглох.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it mean *&quot;As soon as he steered the car toward a rural road, the motor broke down&quot;*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, does &quot;стоит того&quot; agree in gender and number? *&quot;There are things which are worth it&quot;* is translated as &quot;есть вещи, которые **стоят** того&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47658" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17841" RevisionGUID="7b9eeb91-0c01-45e9-bb2c-f43b422994ae" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:19:40.740" UserId="8780" Text="Doubt about стоит/стоило" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47659" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17841" RevisionGUID="7b9eeb91-0c01-45e9-bb2c-f43b422994ae" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:19:40.740" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|conjunctions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="aef58c2b-b4a7-4cc2-bb9c-72956b7347f3" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:42:01.440" UserId="242" Text="Yes, it's just a regular Russian grammar construction obeying regular Russian grammar rules, so it agrees both in gender and number in the phrase you've provided. And yes, your understanding of &quot;стоило ему свернуть на просёлочную дорого&quot; is correct: `стоит сделать что-либо/что-то` means &quot;as soon as&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, &quot;говорить о религии не стоит&quot; is noticeably closer to &quot;we should speak about religion&quot; rather than &quot;it's not worth it&quot;. Check, for instance, &quot;не стоило тебе этого делать&quot;. To make it sound closer to not-worth-it-meaning, one more likely would say &quot;Говорить о религии сейчас не стоит&quot; or &quot;Чего мы будем сейчас о религии говорить&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="29cd114d-1421-4599-95a8-6609be91c306" CreationDate="2018-12-27T22:49:18.730" UserId="242" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's just a regular Russian grammar construction obeying regular Russian grammar rules, so it agrees both in gender and number in the phrase you've provided. And yes, your understanding of &quot;стоило ему свернуть на просёлочную дорого&quot; is correct: `стоит сделать что-либо/что-то` means &quot;as soon as&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's very subtle change of context that make this exactly phrase completely different. Сompare following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Тут стоит сделать одно замечание - it worth making a remark here.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cтоит сделать одно замечание - и он сразу впадает в ярость. A single reprimand  - and he's getting mad at instant.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, &quot;говорить о религии не стоит&quot; is noticeably closer to &quot;we should speak about religion&quot; rather than &quot;it's not worth it&quot;. Check, for instance, &quot;не стоило тебе этого делать&quot;. To make it sound closer to not-worth-it-meaning, one more likely would say &quot;Говорить о религии сейчас не стоит&quot; or &quot;Чего мы будем сейчас о религии говорить&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17843" RevisionGUID="5578d394-5fd0-4a44-9320-f4d3f191867b" CreationDate="2018-12-27T23:36:42.560" UserId="8672" Text="Adding &quot;только&quot; makes it all the easier to interpret this structure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Стоило** ему (**только**) свернуть на просёлочную дорогу, **как** мотор заглох.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A literal meaning: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **All he had to do** was turn onto a dirt road, **when/before** the engine (suddenly) stalled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more naturally: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The moment** he turned onto a dirt road, the engine stalled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the present &quot;стоит&quot; comes in handy when you make a general statement. I'd say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;(Вот) **Стоит** **только**/**хоть** на минуточку потерять бдительность,  **как** (**сразу/тут же**) (обязательно) рухнет весь план.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47666" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17828" RevisionGUID="49b4be4d-4d83-403d-be47-4f43ff7410fb" CreationDate="2018-12-28T09:00:34.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1078576431750397952" />
  <row Id="47667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="cba5d28e-dcbc-4db6-9f25-2b6da0bdd066" CreationDate="2018-12-28T19:55:39.833" UserId="8249" Text="&gt; Surely his wish had not been fulfilled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В «Портрете Дориана Грея» Оскара Уайльда это предложение передает удивление, испытанное Дорианом Греем после некоторого события. В примечаниях к одному из изданий романа сказано, что такой вопрос следует перевести как «Неужели его желание осуществилось?», однако, очевидно, в языке источника представлено отрицание, тем более что _surely_ — в отличие, например, от *hardly* — обладает вполне «утвердительной» семантикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно, как добиться большей точности перевода, использовав отрицание и в русском языке, сохранив при этом структуру и применив русские аналоги лексем исходного предложения?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="cba5d28e-dcbc-4db6-9f25-2b6da0bdd066" CreationDate="2018-12-28T19:55:39.833" UserId="8249" Text="Перевод вопроса, начинающегося с surely" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="cba5d28e-dcbc-4db6-9f25-2b6da0bdd066" CreationDate="2018-12-28T19:55:39.833" UserId="8249" Text="|перевод|отрицание|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17845" RevisionGUID="9334fa89-f5fb-4ec4-9194-7b07a0718ee4" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:18:44.313" UserId="7674" Text="В слове **неужели** отрицание уже содержится **`&quot;Не уже ли его желание осуществилось?&quot;`** в осовремененном синтаксисе **`&quot;Не осуществилось ли уже его желание?&quot;`**, но в такой форме у предложения нет риторического подтекста. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перефразировав, можно перевести как **`Не это ли и есть осуществление его желания?`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17845" RevisionGUID="51931bb1-81aa-4cc4-93e1-60d36159e231" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:26:06.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="В слове **неужели** отрицание уже содержится **`&quot;Не уже ли его желание осуществилось?&quot;`** в осовремененном синтаксисе **`&quot;Не осуществилось ли уже его желание?&quot;`**, но в такой форме у предложения нет риторического подтекста. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перефразировав, можно перевести как **`Не это ли и есть осуществление его желания?`**, правда тут пришлось изменить главные члены." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17845" RevisionGUID="cc25c690-09e8-4492-a865-60d527ae9610" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:26:22.823" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="В слове **неужели** отрицание уже содержится **`&quot;Не уже ли его желание осуществилось?&quot;`** в осовремененном синтаксисе **`&quot;Не осуществилось ли уже его желание?&quot;`**, но в такой форме у предложения нет риторического подтекста. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перефразировав, можно перевести как **`Не это ли и есть осуществление его желания?`**, правда тут не обошлось без изменения главных членов." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17844" RevisionGUID="41bedd91-c575-4f21-afff-216cd1112a84" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:27:26.843" UserId="8249" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="&gt; Surely his wish had not been fulfilled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В «Портрете Дориана Грея» Оскара Уайльда это предложение передает удивление, испытанное Дорианом Греем после некоторого события. В примечаниях к одному из изданий романа сказано, что такой вопрос следует перевести как «Неужели его желание осуществилось?», однако, очевидно, в языке источника представлено отрицание, тем более что _surely_ — в отличие, например, от *hardly* — обладает вполне «утвердительной» семантикой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интересно, как добиться большей точности перевода, использовав отрицание и в русском языке, сохранив при этом структуру и применив русские аналоги лексем исходного предложения?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Важно учесть, что Дориан Грей вовсе не предполагал, что его желание вообще может осуществиться. Претворение его в жизнь, которое, как показалось Грею, случилось, было пугающим, а вовсе не приятным." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15486" RevisionGUID="a640e50c-1759-42c5-bd72-ef9e1f0e8173" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:31:13.323" UserId="5998" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="I want to express that *I had a short night*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Night* is a feminine noun, so I would decline the adjective accordingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя ночь была короткая.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that short forms exist and can be applied, when used predicatively:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя ночь была коротка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is what Google Translate suggests as well and - it is usually right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, on-line I also found this version quite often:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Моя ночь была короткой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a grammatical perspective, I would use either `короткая` or `коротка`. But since `короткой` is also used a lot of times, I wonder which version is correct or more common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To make things even worse:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I translate &quot;*The weather was cold.*&quot;, Google Translate suggests this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Погода была холодной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though `погода` is also a feminine noun, in this case the ending `-ой` is suggested. I know that Google is by far not a perfect translator, but still, this confuses me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="1ad04987-d0a0-48d8-9206-5811810edeff" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:42:43.820" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In conversation, I just said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **слышу**, **чтобы** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if the subjunctive mood with &quot;чтобы&quot; is commonly used like this with the phrase &quot;в первый раз&quot; if you want to emphasise how surprised you are to  hear/see something unusual? Or should I have said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **слышу**, **что** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of the past &quot;услышал&quot;, on the other hand, I assume the indicative mood with  &quot;что&quot; is the only option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ого! В первый раз **услышал**, **что** ты сказала что-то разумное.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think my uncertainty comes from the fact that in its French equivalent &quot;C'est la première fois que je + indicative&quot;, the subjunctive mood is impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17846" RevisionGUID="510d8baa-e2e4-49b4-acad-078a2d039a50" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:57:13.737" UserId="5998" Text="I know there are multiple ways to form the **superlative degree** in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Simple superlative*, usually formed with the endings ``-ший`` / ``-шая`` / ``-шее`` / ``-шие`` (depending on genus and numerus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Compound superlative*, with ``самый`` / ``самая`` / ``самое`` / ``самые`` (depending on genus and numerus) combined with the respective adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Comparative degree in conjunction with ``всего`` or ``всех``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I struggle with cases where there is no gender, i.e. when forming the **superlative of adverbs**. I would like to express these statements in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Irina writes the most beautiful (*has the most beautiful handwriting*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came up with the following solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Лена поёт громче всех.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Ирина пишет красивее всех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically, what is the correct way to form the superlative of adverbs? Is the comparative degree with ``всего`` / ``всех`` the only possible way or can the *simple superlative* and *compound superlative* also be applied to adverbs? How do I deal with the gender then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17846" RevisionGUID="510d8baa-e2e4-49b4-acad-078a2d039a50" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:57:13.737" UserId="5998" Text="How to form superlative degree of adverbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17846" RevisionGUID="510d8baa-e2e4-49b4-acad-078a2d039a50" CreationDate="2018-12-28T20:57:13.737" UserId="5998" Text="|грамматика|наречия|superlative|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17845" RevisionGUID="c07bd3ee-5a51-4d71-a716-9b8e215a9c26" CreationDate="2018-12-28T21:10:07.477" UserId="7674" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="В слове **неужели** отрицание уже содержится **`&quot;Не уже ли его желание осуществилось?&quot;`** в осовремененном синтаксисе **`&quot;Не осуществилось ли уже его желание?&quot;`**, но в такой форме у предложения нет риторического подтекста. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Перефразировав, можно перевести как **`Не это ли и есть осуществление его желания?`**, правда тут не обошлось без изменения главных членов.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;или (как было предложено в комментариях)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`А точно/действительно ли его желание не осуществилось?`** (подразумевая `а может быть всё-таки осуществилось?`), хотя мне лично такой вариант перевода меньше импонирует." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17846" RevisionGUID="ebf031fb-fe84-40da-8060-3498c4b9cab9" CreationDate="2018-12-28T21:11:58.970" UserId="5998" Comment="Rephrased the actual question" Text="I know there are multiple ways to form the **superlative degree** in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Simple superlative*, usually formed with the endings ``-ший`` / ``-шая`` / ``-шее`` / ``-шие`` (depending on genus and numerus).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Compound superlative*, with ``самый`` / ``самая`` / ``самое`` / ``самые`` (depending on genus and numerus) combined with the respective adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Comparative degree in conjunction with ``всего`` or ``всех``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I struggle with cases where there is no gender, i.e. when forming the **superlative of adverbs**. I would like to express these statements in Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Irina writes the most beautiful (*has the most beautiful handwriting*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came up with the following solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Лена поёт громче всех.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Ирина пишет красивее всех.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While these translations express that the persons sing louder or write more beautiful than everybody else, they only imply the superlative indirectly. Is it possible to apply the *simple superlative* or *compound superlative* here as well? How to deal with the gender then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="3c7d1050-daa2-45df-b2bf-d1af0be69c55" CreationDate="2018-12-28T21:21:24.120" UserId="7674" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who sings the loudest in a group of people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="d4f0432f-5f7b-4dbc-807b-58b6fbe2762e" CreationDate="2018-12-28T21:31:14.757" UserId="7674" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="26f1d75e-8ba0-47ff-80d4-abf6bc7b9004" CreationDate="2018-12-28T22:25:20.233" UserId="7674" Comment="added 803 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всего` и `всех` however are semantically different and not always can be used interchangeably. The 1st conveys a sense of superiority on a timeline while the 2nd that of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17848" RevisionGUID="489978de-a0bb-4b15-93fa-d6bcdf08b454" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:04:17.523" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Почему ты так спокоен, **ведь** твой друг в опасности?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage of &quot;ведь&quot; in this specific instance pulled me up short because in my mind the second clause seems like an affirmative statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Почему ты так спокоен? **Ведь** твой друг в опасности. [**After all** / **Because**]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, this is where you'd say &quot;How can you be so calm, **knowing** your friend ... ?&quot; or &quot;How can you be so calm, **even though** your friend ... ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the first phrasing how native speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17848" RevisionGUID="489978de-a0bb-4b15-93fa-d6bcdf08b454" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:04:17.523" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret &quot;ведь&quot; in this specific instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17848" RevisionGUID="489978de-a0bb-4b15-93fa-d6bcdf08b454" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:04:17.523" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17849" RevisionGUID="e00e6f1c-2878-416a-9ca2-7335c1e950b1" CreationDate="2018-12-28T23:27:14.407" UserId="5443" Text="In this example **ведь** means something like '*while you (we both) know that...*' or '*despite the fact that...*':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why do you stay so calm *while you know that* your friend is in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; danger?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ведь** is related to **ведать** (знать)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="c3b54796-9d4b-42fe-af4e-aea4e945f601" CreationDate="2018-12-29T07:36:06.717" UserId="7674" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may be qualified by surrounding adverbs, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive of all currencies)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Здесь фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive out of all places)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) Сегодня фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive ever)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="93854a73-909f-4ac0-bcf4-274507013e6a" CreationDate="2018-12-29T07:47:53.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may be qualified by surrounding adverbs, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive of all currencies [on sale])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Здесь фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive out of all places)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;c) Сегодня фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive ever)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="03643b66-3c6f-4e2a-ae23-80eff8bc9afa" CreationDate="2018-12-29T08:50:40.867" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 82 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may be qualified by surrounding adverbs, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Здесь фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive out of all places [of exchange])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня фунт стоит **дороже всего** *(most expensive of all times it's been on sale [within certain time period])*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="076ad917-2efb-4b32-879c-346c0e6af249" CreationDate="2018-12-29T10:12:51.790" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 212 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may mean superiority in other terms and be qualified by surrounding content, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17850" RevisionGUID="454e77b7-5c84-4b09-b839-b8bee3584142" CreationDate="2018-12-29T14:39:56.350" UserId="11080" Text="There are some phrases in Russian that could be explained if we added the lacking words there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's complete the phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я не понимаю**, почему ты так спокоен. **Ведь** твой друг в опасности.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ведь here relates to &quot;я не понимаю, почему&quot;, but not to &quot;ты так спокоен&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47693" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="bd152c64-8cf0-444e-90c3-8d981e548933" CreationDate="2018-12-29T18:00:34.390" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1079074712855212034" />
  <row Id="47694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17851" RevisionGUID="c6cacccd-e437-46e6-82f8-44099759f9cd" CreationDate="2018-12-29T18:47:25.433" UserId="242" Text="`Ведь` is very closed to `учитывая тот факт, что` - and can be treated as a succinct way to say the latter. And &quot;учитывая тот факт, что&quot; has a correspondence in English - &quot;regarding the fact that&quot;, so don't trust Google Translate (or any other dictionary) which translates &quot;ведь&quot; as &quot;because&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a rule of a thumb - whenever you can use &quot;regarding the fact that&quot; you most probably ok with `ведь`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="f6376859-a837-4592-8352-7e3d31b3ac27" CreationDate="2018-12-29T20:28:31.553" UserId="7674" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may mean superiority in other terms and be qualified by surrounding content, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Названы ***регионы России***, где пенсионеры живут **хуже всего** *(the worst out of all Russian regions)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Хуже всего** людям жилось на Земле ***1,5 тысячи лет назад*** *(the worst out of all other periods / worst ever)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="f305f9ef-2723-4d13-b004-28e3d44e2d1c" CreationDate="2018-12-29T20:34:46.770" UserId="7674" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may mean superiority in other terms and be qualified by surrounding content, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Названы ***регионы России, где*** пенсионеры живут **хуже всего** *(the worst out of all Russian regions / worse than anywhere else in Russia)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Хуже всего** людям жилось на Земле ***1,5 тысячи лет назад*** *(the worst out of all other periods / worst ever)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт тишайше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему строжайше запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Покорнейше прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17824" RevisionGUID="e77816ff-072b-4aba-8808-777f46666fd7" CreationDate="2018-12-29T21:30:55.673" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Какая разница между «слабеть» и «ослабевать»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17852" RevisionGUID="fd074dab-17f9-4cb9-9f4d-518710c8ac8c" CreationDate="2018-12-30T05:30:44.213" UserId="5443" Text="В переводе точность передачи смысла не всегда соответствует схожести грамматических конструкций. Вариант &quot;Неужели его желание осуществилось?&quot; в этом отношении вполне возможен. Это нормальный русский язык, но точность такого перевода должна проверяться контекстом. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.shmoop.com/picture-dorian-gray/transformation-quotes-2.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Звучит предложенный в комментарии вариант так, будто персонаж до последнего момента жил тем желанием. Из контекста же следует, что он о нём забыл и, лишь увидя портрет, вспомнил, что искренне высказал его в какой-то момент из прошлого. Несмотря на видимые признаки, не верилось, что забытое желание могло осуществиться, поскольку &quot;такого не бывает&quot;. Поэтому здесь выражается смутное сомнение и приблизительный *смысл* (он может быть передан с отрицанием) таков: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно ли быть уверенным, что его желание не осуществилось?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17842" RevisionGUID="cbb7bb01-ad7c-4658-83e8-5c031db76e49" CreationDate="2018-12-30T12:13:32.660" UserId="11080" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Yes, it's just a regular Russian grammar construction obeying regular Russian grammar rules, so it agrees both in gender and number in the phrase you've provided. And yes, your understanding of &quot;стоило ему свернуть на просёлочную дорого&quot; is correct: `стоит сделать что-либо/что-то` means &quot;as soon as&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's very subtle change of context that make this exactly phrase completely different. Сompare following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Тут стоит сделать одно замечание - it worth making a remark here.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cтоит сделать одно замечание - и он сразу впадает в ярость. A single reprimand  - and he's getting mad at instant.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, &quot;говорить о религии не стоит&quot; is noticeably closer to &quot;we should not speak about religion&quot; rather than &quot;it's not worth it&quot;. Check, for instance, &quot;не стоило тебе этого делать&quot;. To make it sound closer to not-worth-it-meaning, one more likely would say &quot;Говорить о религии сейчас не стоит&quot; or &quot;Чего мы будем сейчас о религии говорить&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17852" RevisionGUID="309e2fdc-dba2-45c2-9799-4b883451306d" CreationDate="2018-12-30T14:45:03.940" UserId="5443" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="В переводе точность передачи смысла не всегда соответствует схожести грамматических конструкций. Вариант &quot;Неужели его желание осуществилось?&quot; в этом отношении вполне возможен. Это нормальный русский язык, но точность такого перевода должна проверяться контекстом. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.shmoop.com/picture-dorian-gray/transformation-quotes-2.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Звучит предложенный в комментарии вариант так, будто персонаж до последнего момента жил тем желанием. Из контекста же следует, что он о нём забыл и, лишь увидя портрет, вспомнил, что искренне высказал его в какой-то момент из прошлого. Несмотря на видимые признаки, не верилось, что забытое желание могло осуществиться, поскольку &quot;такого не бывает&quot;. Поэтому здесь выражается смутное сомнение и приблизительный *смысл* (он может быть передан с отрицанием) таков: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно ли быть уверенным, что его желание не осуществилось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.** Ещё вариант с тем же смыслом: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Уж не осуществилось ли его желание?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47701" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17832" RevisionGUID="7f442a16-0f27-4fce-ac65-d7a6686a53fb" CreationDate="2018-12-30T21:00:34.233" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1079482398591643649" />
  <row Id="47702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="020ccba0-27b1-417c-9e24-3471721b7a29" CreationDate="2018-12-31T02:55:30.283" UserId="11354" Text="Let's say you had a nice pool table. In American English, you might have a sign on it like, &quot;No children on the pool table&quot; or &quot;No children on the table&quot; ... if that was a problem, of course. :-) In American English, we're usually less formal, but maybe we could write, &quot;Children are not permitted on the pool table.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What would be idiomatic Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;* What about for a different kind of gaming table, like Shuffleboard? Would there be one idiomatic Russian sentence that'd be appropriate for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google translate, but I don't know how idiomatic or natural this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети не допускаются на бильярдный стол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also don't know if that's correct for printing on a sign (what I'm looking for) vs. spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="020ccba0-27b1-417c-9e24-3471721b7a29" CreationDate="2018-12-31T02:55:30.283" UserId="11354" Text="Idiomatic Signage: &quot;No children&quot;, &quot;Children not allowed on table&quot;, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="020ccba0-27b1-417c-9e24-3471721b7a29" CreationDate="2018-12-31T02:55:30.283" UserId="11354" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17854" RevisionGUID="038d9125-75b6-439c-a818-4f0bb27f81d4" CreationDate="2018-12-31T04:31:26.537" UserId="10999" Text="As a rule, we do not place sign with the word **&quot;дети&quot;**. Usually we say/write: **&quot;Только для взрослых&quot;** (&quot;For adults only&quot;) or **&quot;Для лиц старше 16/18 лет&quot;** (&quot;For persons over 16/18 y.o.&quot;), etc.  &#xD;&#xA;I.e. we specify for whom it is allowed, but not for whom it is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much less often we write or say **&quot;Дети до 12/16/18 лет не допускаются&quot;** (&quot;Children under 12/16/18 years are not allowed&quot;) or **&quot;Дети до 12/16/18 лет допускаются только в сопровождении взрослых&quot;** (&quot;Children under 12/16/18 years are allowed only accompanied by adults&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="38978992-2ddd-4982-b80c-0e3019bb572d" CreationDate="2018-12-31T05:22:18.273" UserId="11354" Comment="Clarified the description of the text I'm looking for." Text="Let's say you had a nice pool table. And some people were ruining it by putting their small children on top of it and letting walk around and banging on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In American English, you might have a sign on it like, &quot;No children on the pool table&quot; or &quot;No children on the table&quot;. :-) In American English, we're usually less formal, but maybe we could write, &quot;Children are not permitted on the pool table.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What would be idiomatic Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;* What about for a different kind of gaming table, like Shuffleboard? Would there be one idiomatic Russian sentence that'd be appropriate for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google translate, but I don't know how idiomatic or natural this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети не допускаются на бильярдный стол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also don't know if that's correct for printing on a sign (what I'm looking for) vs. spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="768a7fc5-ed01-4f63-b5ef-90924d6d08ae" CreationDate="2018-12-31T07:01:30.127" UserId="11354" Comment="Fixed grammar." Text="Let's say you had a nice pool table. And some people were ruining it by putting their small children on top of it and letting them walk around and bang on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In American English, you might put a sign on it like, &quot;No children on the pool table&quot; or &quot;No children on the table&quot;. In American English, we're usually less formal, but maybe we could write, &quot;Children are not permitted on the pool table.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What would be idiomatic Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;* What about for a different kind of gaming table, like Shuffleboard? Would there be one idiomatic Russian sentence that'd be appropriate for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google translate, but I don't know how idiomatic or natural this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети не допускаются на бильярдный стол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also don't know if that's correct for printing on a sign (what I'm looking for) vs. spoken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="7100bcc4-c078-43b1-89d3-cabaefe9cce1" CreationDate="2018-12-31T07:50:13.967" UserId="7674" Text="Another option which is less entreating and more assertive is &quot;**Просьба не сажать детей** etc.&quot; or even stronger &quot;**Запрещается сажать детей** etc.&quot;.   &#xD;&#xA;**Пожалуйста** is too soft in a society with law-is-for-wimps mentality. You may as well institute some sort of punitive measures and mention them in the verbiage because in all likelihood the sign will be ignored." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="6c12b13e-1f72-403d-ab6b-4ab5f2399626" CreationDate="2018-12-31T08:08:33.933" UserId="7674" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Another option which is less entreating and more assertive is &quot;**Просьба не сажать детей** etc.&quot; or even stronger &quot;**Запрещается сажать детей** etc.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**Пожалуйста** is generally not employed in formal signage and it's too soft in a society with law-is-for-wimps mentality. You may as well institute some sort of punitive measures and mention them in the verbiage because in all likelihood the sign will be ignored. Provided the establishment is located in the former USSR. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;And also to make the sign look less generic and more deliberate a signature **Администрация** after the verbiage may be appropriate, as if hinting whom the infractors will have to deal with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17855" RevisionGUID="a86073f5-d55a-4fb9-af68-15c57b33c39e" CreationDate="2018-12-31T08:14:13.930" UserId="7674" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="Another option which is less entreating and more assertive is &quot;**Просьба не сажать детей** etc.&quot; or even stronger &quot;**Запрещается сажать детей** etc.&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;**Пожалуйста** is generally not employed in formal signage in Russian and in prohibitive texts perceived as too soft in a society with law-is-for-wimps mentality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may as well institute some sort of punitive measures and mention them in the verbiage because in all likelihood the sign will be ignored. And also to make the sign look less generic and more deliberate a signature **Администрация** after the verbiage may also be appropriate, as if hinting whom the infractors will have to deal with.  &#xD;&#xA;The above is valid, in my opinion, provided the establishment is located in the former USSR or caters for tourists from here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47711" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="7bbabfc0-1730-435e-932c-19ef7548c5b0" CreationDate="2018-12-31T09:00:32.717" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1079663586119745536" />
  <row Id="47712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="858a521e-cffa-41ae-9bbb-37c29763c4af" CreationDate="2018-12-31T09:42:01.950" UserId="11354" Comment="A little shorter and more to the point." Text="Let's say you had a nice pool table. And some people were ruining it by putting their small children on top of it and letting them walk around and bang on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In American English, you might put a sign on it like, &quot;No children on the pool table&quot; or &quot;No children on the table&quot;. In American English, we're usually less formal, but maybe we could write, &quot;Children are not permitted on the pool table.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What would be idiomatic Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;* What about for a different kind of gaming table, like Shuffleboard? Would there be one idiomatic Russian sentence that'd be appropriate for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google translate, but I don't know how idiomatic or natural this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети не допускаются на бильярдный стол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17856" RevisionGUID="92e54e80-1833-48af-a972-fc1942f64cf6" CreationDate="2018-12-31T12:04:31.363" UserId="11080" Text="Maybe, if you don't want to allude the God, you wouldn't want to call the devil either. :) Or, at least, to use swearing words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's discuss what you can use in a decent society. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you can call your mother, I mean the exclamations:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мама!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мама дорогая!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мамочка!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мамочки!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as here, when Piglet saw his balloon burst, he shouted: [&quot;Мама, мамочка!&quot;][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мать моя женщина!** is also possible, but only in informal conversations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, it was (and is) possible to call your father (and the other respected men of your community) as well. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Батюшки!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Батюшки-светы!** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are most likely to call all people in general to help you, you can exhale: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Люди добрые! (Что делается!)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can name the situation what it is like, if it is really bad, then it will be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ужас!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ужас какой!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кошмар!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какой кошмар!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are happy, on the contrary, you can say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Красота!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Красота какая!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какое счастье!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are astonished, you exclaim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С ума сойти!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С ума сойти можно!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Обалдеть!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Обалдеть можно!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Рехнуться (можно)!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ого!**, **Ух ты!**, **Ничего себе!**, **Надо же!**, **Вот это да!** go here as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind that &quot;с ума сойти&quot; is more stylistically neutral, while обалдеть and рехнуться are colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, still, we do use **&quot;Боже упаси!&quot;, &quot;Господи, помилуй!&quot;, &quot;Боже сохрани!&quot;, &quot;Бог миловал!&quot;, &quot;Слава Богу!&quot;**. It was funny, when I was interpreting for a judaic organization and heard **&quot;Христом Богом тебя молю!&quot;** there. :) Because the Russian language and culture are firmly connected with christianity, and even our letters were invented by christians and spread over the orthodox part of the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Soviet times, when any religion was prohibited, there were certain trials to replace such expressions in literature. E.g., in &quot;Мойдодыр&quot; by Чуковский there is the following place: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Боже, Боже!** Что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отчего же всё кругом &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Завертелось, закружилось &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И помчалось кувырком? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most editions this innocent phrase was replaced by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что такое, что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even at that time, and we can trace it as we watch the films shot in different decades, people still used the God-calling expressions. And they also could use the devil-calling expressions (чёрт побери, да чёрт бы его побрал, где тебя черти носят?, чёрт его знает, чертовщина какая-то, чёрти что, etc.), and get the answer &quot;Не чертыхайся!&quot; or &quot;Не ругайся!&quot;, which meant 'don't swear'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was always better to say **&quot;Да Бог его знает!&quot; (I don't know), &quot;Иди с Богом!&quot;, &quot;Бог знает что&quot;** instead of **&quot;Да чёрт его знает!&quot;, &quot;Иди к чёрту!&quot;, &quot;Чёрт знает что&quot;**. Those phrases are not totally synonimous, but even if you mean the second part, you can mitigate your message using the first part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there exists **one** swearing expression to express all the &quot;мамочки!&quot;, &quot;ужас!&quot;, &quot;люди добрые!&quot; and &quot;красота-то какая!&quot;, but it's not what I would like to share here or to hear from a foreigner. ))))))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq5isTMnRww" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17856" RevisionGUID="f71fd0fa-d816-49e5-9760-878ee9324149" CreationDate="2018-12-31T12:10:03.253" UserId="11080" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Maybe, if you don't want to allude the God, you wouldn't want to call the devil either. :) Or, at least, to use swearing words. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's discuss what you can use in a decent society. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you can call your mother, I mean the exclamations:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мама!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мама дорогая!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мамочка!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мамочки!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just as here, when Piglet saw his balloon burst, he shouted: [&quot;Мама, мамочка!&quot;][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мать моя женщина!** is also possible, but only in informal conversations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically, it was (and is) possible to call your father (and the other respected men of your community) as well. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Батюшки!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Батюшки-светы!** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are most likely to call all people in general to help you, you can exhale: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Люди добрые! (Что делается!)** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you can name the situation what it is like, if it is really bad, then it will be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ужас!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ужас какой!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Кошмар!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какой кошмар!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are happy, on the contrary, you can say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Красота!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Красота какая!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какое счастье!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are astonished, you exclaim: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С ума сойти!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **С ума сойти можно!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Обалдеть!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Обалдеть можно!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Рехнуться (можно)!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ого!**, **Ух ты!**, **Ничего себе!**, **Надо же!**, **Вот это да!** go here as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mind that &quot;с ума сойти&quot; is more stylistically neutral, while обалдеть and рехнуться are colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, still, we do use **&quot;Боже упаси!&quot;, &quot;Господи, помилуй!&quot;, &quot;Боже сохрани!&quot;, &quot;Бог миловал!&quot;, &quot;Слава Богу!&quot;**. It was funny, when I was interpreting for a judaic organization and heard **&quot;Христом Богом тебя молю!&quot;** there. :) Because the Russian language and culture are firmly connected with christianity, and even our letters were invented by christians and spread over the orthodox part of the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the Soviet times, when any religion was prohibited, there were certain trials to replace such expressions in literature. E.g., in &quot;Мойдодыр&quot; by Чуковский there is the following place: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Боже, Боже!** Что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отчего же всё кругом &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Завертелось, закружилось &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; И помчалось кувырком? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most editions this innocent phrase was replaced by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что такое, что случилось? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even at that time, and we can trace it as we watch the films shot in different decades, people still used the God-calling expressions. And they also could use the devil-calling expressions (чёрт побери, да чёрт бы его побрал, где тебя черти носят?, чёрт его знает, чертовщина какая-то, чёрти что, etc.), and get the answer &quot;Не чертыхайся!&quot; or &quot;Не ругайся!&quot;, which meant 'don't swear'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has always been better to say **&quot;Да Бог его знает!&quot; (I don't know), &quot;Иди с Богом!&quot;, &quot;Бог знает что&quot;** instead of **&quot;Да чёрт его знает!&quot;, &quot;Иди к чёрту!&quot;, &quot;Чёрт знает что&quot;**. Those phrases are not totally synonimous, but even if you mean the second part, you can mitigate your message using the first part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there exists **one** swearing expression to express all the &quot;мамочки!&quot;, &quot;ужас!&quot;, &quot;люди добрые!&quot; and &quot;красота-то какая!&quot;, but it's not what I would like to share here or to hear from a foreigner. ))))))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq5isTMnRww" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="cacd4c47-aefd-4165-8209-0d201e214090" CreationDate="2018-12-31T13:56:34.257" UserId="8780" Text="Sometimes I don't know which reflexive form is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that **оправдаться** means *&quot;to be justified&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, if I want to tell *&quot;I don't need to justify myself&quot;* (in the sense of &quot;I don't need to give excuses&quot;, &quot;I don't need to explain why I did such&quot;), should I say &quot;мне не нужно **оправдать себя**&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="cacd4c47-aefd-4165-8209-0d201e214090" CreationDate="2018-12-31T13:56:34.257" UserId="8780" Text="оправдаться or оправдать себя" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="cacd4c47-aefd-4165-8209-0d201e214090" CreationDate="2018-12-31T13:56:34.257" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17858" RevisionGUID="61a96528-4a3c-4555-ac4d-4f0fbd8e43c7" CreationDate="2018-12-31T15:07:58.613" UserId="11080" Text="**Оправдываться** is also **to make excuses**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meaning of &quot;I have no need to give excuses&quot; it would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне не нужно оправдываться.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне не в чем оправдываться.** (There's nothing for me to give excuses for)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне не за что оправдываться.** (As previous)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make use of the reflexive particle -ся, it's helpful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And **to be justified** can, vice versa, be translated as **быть оправданным**, for example, in a court, where you do not justify yourself, you are just found not guilty. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47719" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="3827a674-f5d9-472b-8019-4093a0d28cc1" CreationDate="2018-12-31T15:15:23.180" UserId="242" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="&quot;Оправдаться&quot; or &quot;оправдать себя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="3827a674-f5d9-472b-8019-4093a0d28cc1" CreationDate="2018-12-31T15:15:23.180" UserId="242" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17860" RevisionGUID="68e4e6e4-bd95-4ea7-8db4-21cc030c1534" CreationDate="2018-12-31T17:00:58.983" UserId="2104" Text="In the sense, 'I don't have to explain myself to you', these will work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Я не обязан (перед тобой/вами) оправдываться.&#xD;&#xA;* Мне не за что (перед тобой/вами) оправдываться.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few examples of **оправдаться** (the perfective counterpart of **оправдываться**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Сегодня мы оправдались перед болельщиками за прошлые неудачи.&#xD;&#xA;* Политик попытался оправдаться перед избирателями.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the use of **перед**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When used with прогнозы/надежды/расчеты/ожидания, etc. **Оправдаться** means 'to come true':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Его надежды не оправдались. = His hopes did not materialise.&#xD;&#xA;* Его расчеты не оправдались. ~ He miscalculated. / His expectations turned out to be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;* Он не оправдал наших надежд. ~ He let us down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't (and need not) use **перед** in this sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both **оправдаться** and **оправдать себя** have a third sense, 'to prove itself worthwhile' (normally said of inanimate things):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Вложенные средства оправдались с лихвой.&#xD;&#xA;* Риск полностью оправдался.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="36c4265b-3200-4af5-8b5f-2af573f18d0e" CreationDate="2018-12-31T18:48:36.220" UserId="11360" Text="I've created this sign for a bathroom in a property that I rent out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And yes, before you ask - I have fished several such items out of toilets in the past.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the wording correct? I'm particularly uncertain about не vs. нет, but any other pointers would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dD2OV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="36c4265b-3200-4af5-8b5f-2af573f18d0e" CreationDate="2018-12-31T18:48:36.220" UserId="11360" Text="Proper usage for &quot;No X, Y, Z&quot; sign?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="36c4265b-3200-4af5-8b5f-2af573f18d0e" CreationDate="2018-12-31T18:48:36.220" UserId="11360" Text="|словоупотребление|particles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47728" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="ef1a06a7-e45c-44bf-9366-32da3f25b86f" CreationDate="2018-12-31T18:49:51.220" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="e9b0b4fd-a296-47c1-94cf-528f1a82e28e" CreationDate="2018-12-31T19:25:48.913" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Let's say you had a nice pool table. And some people were ruining it by putting their small children on top of it and letting them walk around and bang on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In American English, you might put a sign on it like, &quot;No children on the pool table&quot; or &quot;No children on the table&quot;. In American English, we're usually less formal, but maybe we could write, &quot;Children are not permitted on the pool table.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What would be idiomatic Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;* What about for a different kind of gaming table, like Shuffleboard? Would there be one idiomatic Russian sentence that'd be appropriate for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google translate, but I don't know how idiomatic or natural this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети не допускаются на бильярдный стол" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17854" RevisionGUID="5312113b-4d85-4b11-9d59-a8e72b003db2" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:32:26.193" UserId="11359" Comment="Move information from comments into the answer" Text="As a rule, we do not place sign with the word **&quot;дети&quot;**. Usually we say/write: **&quot;Только для взрослых&quot;** (&quot;For adults only&quot;) or **&quot;Для лиц старше 16/18 лет&quot;** (&quot;For persons over 16/18 y.o.&quot;), etc.  &#xD;&#xA;I.e. we specify for whom it is allowed, but not for whom it is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much less often we write or say **&quot;Дети до 12/16/18 лет не допускаются&quot;** (&quot;Children under 12/16/18 years are not allowed&quot;) or **&quot;Дети до 12/16/18 лет допускаются только в сопровождении взрослых&quot;** (&quot;Children under 12/16/18 years are allowed only accompanied by adults&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were a problem with people placing their children on the pool table, I would write: **&quot;Пожалуйста, не сажайте детей на бильярдный стол!&quot;** (&quot;Please do not put children on the pool table!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most comprehensive version would be **&quot;Пожалуйста, не сажайте детей на игральные столы!&quot;** (&quot;Please don't put children on the playing tables!&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47731" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17854" RevisionGUID="5312113b-4d85-4b11-9d59-a8e72b003db2" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:32:26.193" Comment="Proposed by 11359 approved by 134 edit id of 2006" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="4469cf31-6724-43aa-97b3-6ee6c9a2b621" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:58:00.840" UserId="8249" Comment="corrected spelling, etc." Text="The literal translation that is found to be most closely equivalent to the English meaning of this is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*Вы по**Л**учите картину*,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I don’t know if that is just the literal meaning of saying ‘someone is receiving a picture’ or the phrasal meaning in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‘You get the picture’ in English is a way of saying that ‘you get the idea’ of something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47733" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="4469cf31-6724-43aa-97b3-6ee6c9a2b621" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:58:00.840" UserId="8249" Comment="corrected spelling, etc." Text="|словоупотребление|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47734" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17835" RevisionGUID="4469cf31-6724-43aa-97b3-6ee6c9a2b621" CreationDate="2018-12-31T22:58:00.840" Comment="Proposed by 8249 approved by 4481, 11080 edit id of 2005" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17854" RevisionGUID="c6be63a4-aa63-4b6b-b4e3-7b2530f26f6a" CreationDate="2018-12-31T23:48:38.430" UserId="10999" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="As a rule, we do not place sign with the word **&quot;дети&quot;**. Usually we say/write: **&quot;Только для взрослых&quot;** (&quot;For adults only&quot;) or **&quot;Для лиц старше 16/18 лет&quot;** (&quot;For persons over 16/18 y.o.&quot;), etc.  &#xD;&#xA;I.e. we specify for whom it is allowed, but not for whom it is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much less often we write or say **&quot;Дети до 12/16/18 лет не допускаются&quot;** (&quot;Children under 12/16/18 years are not allowed&quot;) or **&quot;Дети до 12/16/18 лет допускаются только в сопровождении взрослых&quot;** (&quot;Children under 12/16/18 years are allowed only accompanied by adults&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were a problem with people placing their small children on the pool table, I would write: **&quot;Пожалуйста, не сажайте детей на бильярдный стол!&quot;** (&quot;Please do not put children on the pool table!&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if there were several different types of playing tables (pool, shuffleboard, etc.), the most comprehensive version would be: **&quot;Пожалуйста, не сажайте детей на игральные столы!&quot;** (&quot;Please don't put children on the playing tables!&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="acea4670-f7b9-45b8-8be6-474f2de2c712" CreationDate="2018-12-31T23:52:13.737" UserId="6907" Text="I got this a message from my friend with the following photo in which it says: &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Новий год уже совсем близко... Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет **явью**,  **а**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; все мечти исполнятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new year is quite close, let the new year fairy tales become to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reality **and** all dreams will come true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions about it are two:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What's the pronunciation of явью? (Yavyu or Yivu? two different local people told me two different pronunciations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Why does it use &quot;**a**&quot; instead of &quot;**и**&quot; (=and)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMM2Em.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="acea4670-f7b9-45b8-8be6-474f2de2c712" CreationDate="2018-12-31T23:52:13.737" UserId="6907" Text="Two questions about a spread photo in Russian with words for the 'new year'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="acea4670-f7b9-45b8-8be6-474f2de2c712" CreationDate="2018-12-31T23:52:13.737" UserId="6907" Text="|грамматика|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17863" RevisionGUID="bc270a40-cd0a-4db7-8b0e-0c3b72c44f73" CreationDate="2019-01-01T00:25:56.807" UserId="134" Text="The pronunciation of _явью_ is _[ˈjävʲjʊ]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_А_ is used instead of _и_ because the other clause starts with a noun and has a different verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the sentence be put this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть станет явью новогодняя сказка и исполнятся все мечты!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, it would have been used with _и_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17853" RevisionGUID="bc44a1fb-0c8c-44ff-9846-bf71ed917792" CreationDate="2019-01-01T00:30:14.013" UserId="134" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="Let's say you had a nice pool table. And some people were ruining it by putting their small children on top of it and letting them walk around and bang on it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In American English, you might put a sign on it like, &quot;No children on the pool table&quot; or &quot;No children on the table&quot;. In American English, we're usually less formal, but maybe we could write, &quot;Children are not permitted on the pool table.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What would be idiomatic Russian for this?&#xD;&#xA;* What about for a different kind of gaming table, like Shuffleboard? Would there be one idiomatic Russian sentence that'd be appropriate for both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Google translate, but I don't know how idiomatic or natural this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дети не допускаются на бильярдный стол&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, the crazy problem we have is an adult who puts their toddler on the pool table and lets them slam around on it. Same with the shuffleboard table. So I'm trying to express a prohibition, not on playing pool, but placing your child on it (and letting them walk on it.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17864" RevisionGUID="d17a3b86-2172-41a5-a2eb-f3ee1b93e756" CreationDate="2019-01-01T00:30:20.500" UserId="10999" Text="Right pronunciation of word **&quot;явью&quot;** is **[ˈjævjʊ]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Union **&quot;a&quot;** among others has two meanings: **&quot;but&quot;** and **&quot;and&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in meaning **&quot;and&quot;** when we need to show the heterogeneity described in the two connected sentences. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты - тоже!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью, а все мечты исполнятся!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The the first sentence implies that both parts of a complex sentence are about dreams:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты тоже [станут явью]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence, the first part is about fairy tales, and second - about dreams.&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence fairy tales become to reality, **but** dreams will come true (**come true**, not **become to reality**). So we use **&quot;a&quot;** instead of **&quot;и&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you use **&quot;и&quot;** in your sample, it won't be mistake. It will be just a slight change in the tone of the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17864" RevisionGUID="0ae95f66-9def-4ddc-a75d-8d19a5d0029b" CreationDate="2019-01-01T00:43:37.297" UserId="10999" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Right pronunciation of word **&quot;явью&quot;** is **[ˈjævjʊ]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Union **&quot;a&quot;** among others has two meanings: **&quot;but&quot;** and **&quot;and&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in meaning **&quot;and&quot;** when we need to show the heterogeneity described in the two connected sentences. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты - тоже!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью, а все мечты исполнятся!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence implies that both parts of a complex sentence are about becoming to reality:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты тоже [станут явью]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence, the first part is about fairy tales, and second - about dreams, and in that sentence fairy tales become to reality, **but** dreams will come true (**come true**, not **become to reality**). So we use **&quot;a&quot;** instead of **&quot;и&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you use **&quot;и&quot;** in your sample, it won't be mistake. It will be just a slight change in the tone of the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17857" RevisionGUID="cb16f04b-40a8-4a14-96b7-f58538d3afa5" CreationDate="2019-01-01T03:01:16.597" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1079935561014657024" />
  <row Id="47746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="45ceb3e7-64b7-49ca-8a0e-dee4d6704b50" CreationDate="2019-01-01T04:40:09.243" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I wanted to express the idea of &quot;not above doing anything to do ...&quot; and said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Впрочем он, я смотрю, **ничем не побрезгует** ради достижения собственных целей, какое уж там вести себя самоотверженно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if my phrasing matches well with the English expression in terms of register, for one thing, and &quot;побрезгать&quot; might not have been a better choice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="45ceb3e7-64b7-49ca-8a0e-dee4d6704b50" CreationDate="2019-01-01T04:40:09.243" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of “not above doing anything to ...”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="45ceb3e7-64b7-49ca-8a0e-dee4d6704b50" CreationDate="2019-01-01T04:40:09.243" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="11b45b20-6bb0-4beb-a447-2ee0cfeb83e6" CreationDate="2019-01-01T04:59:15.800" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="&gt; Так, сейчас посмотрим... Сегодня мы **успели** свалиться в пропасть, а затем ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm not talking about &quot;manage to do&quot; in a positive sense (succeed), but rather its ironic use when you made a blunder. I usually use &quot;умудриться&quot; in conversation, as in &quot;я умудрился простыть&quot;, but I wasn't aware that &quot;успеть&quot; could be used ironically, too. And what about the impersonal &quot;удаться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What verbs do Russian speakers commonly use for the **ironic** &quot;manage(d) to do&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;**умудриться**&quot;, &quot;**ухитриться**&quot;, &quot;**удаться**&quot;, &quot;**успеть**&quot;, &quot;**угораздить**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47750" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="11b45b20-6bb0-4beb-a447-2ee0cfeb83e6" CreationDate="2019-01-01T04:59:15.800" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="How to express the ironic &quot;managed to do&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47751" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="55be2d25-c6d2-40a1-a8a8-45b7c47cba14" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:04:23.777" UserId="8672" Comment="60" />
  <row Id="47752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="e3f964e2-85b0-4789-9cfa-c00ce16e9b90" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:05:40.593" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 36 characters in body" Text="&gt; Так, сейчас посмотрим... Сегодня мы **успели** свалиться в пропасть, а затем ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm not talking about &quot;manage to do&quot; in a positive sense (succeed), but rather its ironic use when you have made a blunder. I usually use &quot;умудриться&quot; in conversation, as in &quot;я умудрился простыть&quot;, but I wasn't aware that &quot;успеть&quot; could be used ironically, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What verbs do native speakers commonly use for the **ironic** &quot;manage(d) to do&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;**умудриться**&quot; / &quot;**ухитриться**&quot; /  &quot;**удаться**&quot; /  &quot;**успеть**&quot; /  &quot;**угораздить**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17866" RevisionGUID="3697c0f0-d679-4de8-9995-47d64fd4e11d" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:14:25.897" UserId="10999" Text="Your translation is pretty good.  &#xD;&#xA;There is a number of similar expressions, such as **&quot;он может пойти на всё ради достижения собственных целей&quot;**, but if we are talking about **&quot;not above doing anything to do ...&quot;**, more or less  literal option would be **&quot;он может опуститься до чего уднодно ради достижения собственных целей&quot;**, but I personally like the option you use more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17866" RevisionGUID="2dcdb1b0-d934-413c-81df-8231fca060b7" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:20:46.267" UserId="10999" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Your translation is pretty good.  &#xD;&#xA;There are a number of similar expressions, such as **&quot;он может пойти на всё ради достижения собственных целей&quot;**, but if we are talking about **&quot;not above doing anything to do ...&quot;**, more or less  literal option would be **&quot;он может опуститься до чего уднодно ради достижения собственных целей&quot;**, but I personally like the option you use more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="d23f9167-c424-4c04-b1df-da1cc88eeb40" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:36:19.380" UserId="8672" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I wanted to express the idea of &quot;not above doing anything to do ...&quot; and said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Впрочем он, я смотрю, **ничем не побрезгует** ради достижения собственных целей, какое уж там вести себя самоотверженно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if my phrasing matches well with the English expression in terms of register, for one thing, and the use of &quot;побрезгать&quot; might not have been a better choice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17866" RevisionGUID="87f9ed5b-b44b-4a10-94fd-6256a51819c3" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:45:32.543" UserId="10999" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Your translation is pretty good.  &#xD;&#xA;There are a number of similar expressions, such as **&quot;он может пойти на всё ради достижения собственных целей&quot;**, but if we are talking about **&quot;not above doing anything to do ...&quot;**, more or less  literal option would be **&quot;он может опуститься до чего угодно ради достижения собственных целей&quot;**, but I personally like the option you use more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="2aa5066c-babd-42f8-a08d-12160b2d4e84" CreationDate="2019-01-01T05:48:27.867" UserId="8672" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I wanted to express the idea of &quot;not above doing anything to do ...&quot; and said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Впрочем он, я смотрю, **ничем не побрезгует** ради достижения собственных целей, какое уж там вести себя самоотверженно!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if my phrasing matches well with the English expression in terms of register, for one thing, and the use of &quot;побрез**гать**&quot; might not have been a better choice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47758" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="a5687e73-8492-4d75-80fd-e281a2d81e7a" CreationDate="2019-01-01T06:00:29.453" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1079980661912551424" />
  <row Id="47759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17864" RevisionGUID="f8877f3c-cce4-442e-b81d-713f15315f90" CreationDate="2019-01-01T08:35:23.617" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Right pronunciation of word **&quot;явью&quot;** is **[ˈjævjʊ]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Union **&quot;a&quot;** among others has two meanings: **&quot;but&quot;** and **&quot;and&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in meaning **&quot;and&quot;** when we need to show the heterogeneity described in the two connected sentences. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты - тоже!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью, а все мечты исполнятся!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence implies that both parts of a complex sentence are about becoming a reality:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты тоже [станут явью]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence, the first part is about fairy tales, and second - about dreams, and in that sentence fairy tales become a reality, **but** dreams will come true (**come true**, not **become to reality**). So we use **&quot;a&quot;** instead of **&quot;и&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you use **&quot;и&quot;** in your sample, it won't be mistake. It will be just a slight change in the tone of the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17863" RevisionGUID="a69616d0-6775-4d1a-a7f8-0f97bf1d0399" CreationDate="2019-01-01T08:39:30.367" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The pronunciation of _явью_ is _[ˈjävʲjʊ]_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_А_ is used instead of _и_ because the other clause starts with a noun and has a different verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should the sentence be put this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть станет явью новогодняя сказка, и исполнятся все мечты!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, it would have been used with _и_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47761" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17848" RevisionGUID="fe881435-e169-4fa4-bd28-e7fe79771d34" CreationDate="2019-01-01T09:00:33.193" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080025975994372096" />
  <row Id="47762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="d7e43a50-c122-4390-bd1c-5280eb55c507" CreationDate="2019-01-01T12:30:56.067" UserId="5600" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I got this a message from my friend with the following photo in which it says: &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Новый год уже совсем близко... Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет **явью**,  **а**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; все мечты исполнятся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it says: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new year is quite close, let the new year fairy tales become&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reality **and** all dreams come true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions about it are two:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What's the pronunciation of явью? (Yavyu or Yivu? two different local people told me two different pronunciations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Why does it use &quot;**a**&quot; instead of &quot;**и**&quot; (=and)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMM2Em.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47763" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="d7e43a50-c122-4390-bd1c-5280eb55c507" CreationDate="2019-01-01T12:30:56.067" Comment="Proposed by 5600 approved by 7674, 242 edit id of 2008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47764" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="840e219c-bc8a-467c-b9ff-0a3add4b1d6b" CreationDate="2019-01-01T12:31:10.110" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the pronunciation of &quot;явью&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="85be7b6d-0388-40ec-89b4-2be8dff94eb6" CreationDate="2019-01-01T12:49:49.483" UserId="8672" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="&gt; Так, сейчас посмотрим... Сегодня мы **успели** свалиться в пропасть, а затем ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I'm not talking about &quot;manage to do&quot; in a positive sense (succeed), but rather its ironic use when you have made a blunder. I usually use &quot;умудриться&quot; in conversation, as in &quot;я умудрился простыть&quot;, but I wasn't aware that &quot;успеть&quot; could be used ironically, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What verbs do native speakers commonly use for the **ironic** &quot;manage(d) to do&quot;? Are some of them better suited for ironic/sarcastic usage than others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;**умудриться**&quot; / &quot;**ухитриться**&quot; /  &quot;**удаться**&quot; /  &quot;**успеть**&quot; /  &quot;**угораздить**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17867" RevisionGUID="a42b93d3-d48f-4ae9-a97d-97510ae16e13" CreationDate="2019-01-01T13:27:50.477" UserId="242" Text="`Угораздило` has slightly more noticeable connotation of some involuntary event, of something, that happened agains the will of the subject, like in phrase &quot;Эк меня угораздило въехать в эту стену&quot;. Not necessarily one managed to do anything to and up in such situation :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ухитриться` and `умудриться` are very closed synonyms but not not absolutely identical. Yet both `ухитриться` and `умудриться` are about being able to achieve something that was hardly expected to be achieved - or was not planned to be achieved at all, you can say &quot;ну и я как-то ухитрился всё-таки подобрать код для входа в подъезд&quot;, but you can not say &quot;ну и я умудрился как-то всё подобрать всё-таки код&quot; - it will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ухитрился&quot; is still applicable for voluntary actions. One can intentionally try to do something and succeed. &quot;Умудрился&quot; is more about ending up in situation one were not willing to end up with at all. So how does it differ to &quot;угораздило&quot; then? &#xD;&#xA;Well, `угораздило` is more about unexpected situation and `умудрился` is slightly more about unlikely situation. `Угораздило попасть в пробку` - is more like you didn't wanted to be in a traffic jam at all but well, shit happens. `Умудрился попасть в пробку`, - is more about like you never expected to stuck in traffic jam is this time of day, but somehow, you've managed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17867" RevisionGUID="a85167b8-ae42-43a9-bb10-9e8ee6b31e80" CreationDate="2019-01-01T13:36:36.867" UserId="242" Comment="added 353 characters in body" Text="`Угораздило` has slightly more noticeable connotation of some involuntary event, of something, that happened agains the will of the subject, like in phrase &quot;Эк меня угораздило въехать в эту стену&quot;. Not necessarily one managed to do anything to and up in such situation :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ухитриться` and `умудриться` are very closed synonyms but not not absolutely identical. Yet both `ухитриться` and `умудриться` are about being able to achieve something that was hardly expected to be achieved - or was not planned to be achieved at all, you can say &quot;ну и я как-то ухитрился всё-таки подобрать код для входа в подъезд&quot;, but you can not say &quot;ну и я умудрился как-то всё подобрать всё-таки код&quot; - it will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ухитрился&quot; is still applicable for voluntary actions. One can intentionally try to do something and succeed. &quot;Умудрился&quot; is more about ending up in situation one were not willing to end up with at all. So how does it differ to &quot;угораздило&quot; then? &#xD;&#xA;Well, `угораздило` is more about unexpected situation and `умудрился` is slightly more about unlikely situation. `Угораздило попасть в пробку` - is more like you didn't wanted to be in a traffic jam at all but well, shit happens. `Умудрился попасть в пробку`, - is more about like you never expected to stuck in traffic jam is this time of day, but somehow, you've managed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's small plot to give you an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, all three words are still very closed synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;You gotta get used for them in everyday situations to learn when they can be used completely interchangeably and when one is tiny bit more preferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uccu1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17867" RevisionGUID="f7181534-03fd-4e15-9d1c-1ca400de1df4" CreationDate="2019-01-01T13:42:28.427" UserId="242" Comment="wrong picture ))) by mad" Text="`Угораздило` has slightly more noticeable connotation of some involuntary event, of something, that happened agains the will of the subject, like in phrase &quot;Эк меня угораздило въехать в эту стену&quot;. Not necessarily one managed to do anything to and up in such situation :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ухитриться` and `умудриться` are very closed synonyms but not not absolutely identical. Yet both `ухитриться` and `умудриться` are about being able to achieve something that was hardly expected to be achieved - or was not planned to be achieved at all, you can say &quot;ну и я как-то ухитрился всё-таки подобрать код для входа в подъезд&quot;, but you can not say &quot;ну и я умудрился как-то всё подобрать всё-таки код&quot; - it will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ухитрился&quot; is still applicable for voluntary actions. One can intentionally try to do something and succeed. &quot;Умудрился&quot; is more about ending up in situation one were not willing to end up with at all. So how does it differ to &quot;угораздило&quot; then? &#xD;&#xA;Well, `угораздило` is more about unexpected situation and `умудрился` is slightly more about unlikely situation. `Угораздило попасть в пробку` - is more like you didn't wanted to be in a traffic jam at all but well, shit happens. `Умудрился попасть в пробку`, - is more about like you never expected to stuck in traffic jam is this time of day, but somehow, you've managed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's small plot to give you an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, all three words are still very closed synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;You gotta get used for them in everyday situations to learn when they can be used completely interchangeably and when one is tiny bit more preferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZxC0e.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17867" RevisionGUID="52cca402-4f60-4838-a7cd-0e711b8bd233" CreationDate="2019-01-01T13:58:31.040" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="`Угораздило` has slightly more noticeable connotation of some involuntary event, of something, that happened agains the will of the subject, like in phrase &quot;Эк меня угораздило въехать в эту стену&quot;. Not necessarily one managed to do anything to and up in such situation :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ухитриться` and `умудриться` are very closed synonyms but not not absolutely identical. Yet both `ухитриться` and `умудриться` are about being able to achieve something that was hardly expected to be achieved - or was not planned to be achieved at all, you can say &quot;ну и я как-то ухитрился всё-таки подобрать код для входа в подъезд&quot;, but you can not say &quot;ну и я умудрился как-то всё подобрать всё-таки код&quot; - it will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ухитрился&quot; is still applicable for voluntary actions. One can intentionally try to do something and succeed. &quot;Умудрился&quot; is more about ending up in situation one were not willing to end up with at all. So how does it differ to &quot;угораздило&quot; then? &#xD;&#xA;Well, `угораздило` is more about unexpected situation and `умудрился` is slightly more about unlikely situation. `Угораздило попасть в пробку` - is more like you didn't want to be in a traffic jam at all but well, shit happens. `Умудрился попасть в пробку`, - is more about like you never expected to stuck in traffic jam in this time of day, but somehow, you've managed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's small plot to give you an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, all three words are still very closed synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;You gotta get used for them in everyday situations to learn when they can be used completely interchangeably and when one is tiny bit more preferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZxC0e.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17867" RevisionGUID="c235b8f3-a2ea-49cb-923c-49cbe6c8d9f9" CreationDate="2019-01-01T14:06:16.520" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="`Угораздило` has slightly more noticeable connotation of some involuntary event, of something, that happened agains the will of the subject, like in phrase &quot;Эк меня угораздило въехать в эту стену&quot;. Not necessarily one managed to do anything to and up in such situation :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ухитриться` and `умудриться` are very closed synonyms but not not absolutely identical. Yet both `ухитриться` and `умудриться` are about being able to achieve something that was hardly expected to be achieved - or was not planned to be achieved at all, you can say &quot;ну и я как-то ухитрился всё-таки подобрать код для входа в подъезд&quot;, but you can not say &quot;ну и я умудрился как-то всё подобрать всё-таки код&quot; - it will sound slightly off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ухитрился&quot; is still applicable for voluntary actions. One can intentionally try to do something and succeed. &quot;Умудрился&quot; is more about ending up in situation one were not willing to end up with at all. So how does it differ to &quot;угораздило&quot; then? &#xD;&#xA;Well, `угораздило` is more about unpleasant situation and `умудрился` is slightly more about unlikely situation. `Угораздило попасть в пробку` - is more like you didn't want to be in a traffic jam at all but well, shit happens. `Умудрился попасть в пробку`, - is more about like you never expected to stuck in traffic jam in this time of day, but somehow, you've managed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's small plot to give you an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, all three words are still very closed synonyms. &#xD;&#xA;You gotta get used for them in everyday situations to learn when they can be used completely interchangeably and when one is tiny bit more preferable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZxC0e.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17864" RevisionGUID="593201c1-1699-478a-8fb2-a1064f0764c8" CreationDate="2019-01-01T15:08:27.710" UserId="11080" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Right pronunciation of word **&quot;явью&quot;** is **[ˈjævjʊ]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conjunction **&quot;a&quot;** among others has two meanings: **&quot;but&quot;** and **&quot;and&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in meaning **&quot;and&quot;** when we need to show the heterogeneity described in the two connected sentences. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты - тоже!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;и&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью, а все мечты исполнятся!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first sentence implies that both parts of a complex sentence are about becoming a reality:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть Новогодняя сказка станет явью и все мечты тоже [станут явью]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second sentence, the first part is about fairy tales, and second - about dreams, and in that sentence fairy tales become a reality, **but** dreams will come true (**come true**, not **become to reality**). So we use **&quot;a&quot;** instead of **&quot;и&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you use **&quot;и&quot;** in your sample, it won't be mistake. It will be just a slight change in the tone of the phrase." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17868" RevisionGUID="f3af56dc-6506-4e1d-bb96-f6adb3b4fece" CreationDate="2019-01-01T15:18:17.090" UserId="11080" Text="Не &quot;брезгать&quot;, а &quot;брезговать&quot;. -уе- should have warned you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничем не побрезгует &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничем не погнушается &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничем не поступится &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ни перед чем не остановится** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что угодно сделает &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пойдет на всё &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родину (или мать) продаст &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not everything goes well with the second part of your sentence. That's why I like the variant you used, and for some others the second clause must be paraphrased. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="fcb87471-2898-498d-bf33-625799fdcb49" CreationDate="2019-01-01T17:48:50.377" UserId="11360" Comment="Added text based on comments" Text="I've created this sign for a bathroom in a property that I rent out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And yes, before you ask - I have fished several such items out of toilets in the past.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the wording correct? I'm particularly uncertain about не vs. нет, but any other pointers would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: my apologies for not reading the site rules carefully, and thanks to those who provided constructive comments. As one of them is that I shouldn't have posted just an image, but rather the text, here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пожалуйста, поставьте только туалетную бумагу в туалете!&#xD;&#xA;не	влажные салфетки&#xD;&#xA;	детские салфетки&#xD;&#xA;	бумажных полотенец&#xD;&#xA;	пластик&#xD;&#xA;	игрушки&#xD;&#xA;	и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have the same sign (with the same layout) in some other languages, such as English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please put only toilet paper in the toilet!&#xD;&#xA;NO	wet wipes&#xD;&#xA;	baby wipes&#xD;&#xA;	paper towels&#xD;&#xA;	plastic&#xD;&#xA;	toys&#xD;&#xA;	etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and so I'd like as much as possible to keep the same flow. If indeed it's not idiomatic Russian to give a list with не/нет followed by a number of items, then so be it. But I would wonder: you find, for example, apartment buildings in the U.S. that have such signs outside (NO in large type, followed by a list of things not to do: ball playing, loitering, etc.); are such signs unknown in Russia?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dD2OV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47786" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="fcb87471-2898-498d-bf33-625799fdcb49" CreationDate="2019-01-01T17:48:50.377" Comment="Proposed by 11360 approved by 7674, 10999 edit id of 2007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47787" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="6988d83b-eb86-4775-ba26-6e424f9e5d2a" CreationDate="2019-01-01T17:53:58.793" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11080,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Elena&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:7674,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Баян Купи-ка&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="26ed3495-2795-4c76-87cd-10f5d23c087b" CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:14:34.567" UserId="11080" Comment="added 536 characters in body" Text="We can ironically use anything, you know. &#xD;&#xA;But I like **меня угораздило** and **я умудрилась(-лся)** most of all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Угораздило меня** - it's the worth which can happen to you with your scarce participation. It expresses the utmost regret. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я ухитрился** - it can be either positive or negative  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я умудрился** - the same as the previous phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне удалось** and **Я успел** are the examples of *using anything ironically*, because they are mostly positive or neutral denoting just what they mean, but I like your context and choice of a phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also idioms about the same situations, but I believe it's not the matter of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17871" RevisionGUID="26b8f9d5-3c9d-4501-928a-78d2e90cc542" CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:20:06.580" UserId="7674" Text="I personally haven't come across signs in Russian designed in a model you mention. Rather it would be a simple enumeration of objects with no fancy formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the verbiage, the idiomatically Russian one would look something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пожалуйста, бросайте в унитаз только туалетную бумагу!   &#xD;&#xA;НЕ БРОСАТЬ влажные салфетки, детские салфетки, бумажные полотенца, пластик,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; игрушки и т.п.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case if by **пластик** you really mean ***plastic bags***, then it needs to be replaced with **целлофан**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17872" RevisionGUID="1651246d-4ac7-4fbd-9606-eb53f347f4bd" CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:28:08.073" UserId="11080" Text="The phrase with NO will be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запрещается + Inf.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Строго запрещается + Inf.    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запрещено + Inf.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Строго запрещено + Inf. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But bear in mind that is sounds very official and angry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you mean to be more friendly, you can use the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просим не + Inf. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просьба не + Inf. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Туалет** is the room, while a toilet is **унитаз**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поставить в туалете** means to put sth. that can stand in the restroom, e.g., a vase, or a toilet paper roll if you put it vertically on a shelf. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put sth. in the toilet means **бросать в унитаз**, **спускать в унитаз**. That is to dump things there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Бумажных полотенец** has a different and wrong case. **Бумажные полотенца**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17871" RevisionGUID="2f34a491-d5ee-45be-8877-bfded3452509" CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:29:07.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="I personally haven't come across signs in Russian designed in a model you mention. Rather it would be a simple enumeration of objects/activities with no fancy formatting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the verbiage, the idiomatically Russian one would look something like the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пожалуйста, бросайте в унитаз только туалетную бумагу!   &#xD;&#xA;НЕ БРОСАТЬ влажные салфетки, детские салфетки, бумажные полотенца, пластик,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; игрушки и т.п.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case if by **пластик** you really mean ***plastic bags***, then it needs to be replaced with **целлофан**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To model the verbiage in the English style you propose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пожалуйста, бросайте в унитаз только туалетную бумагу!   &#xD;&#xA;НИКАКИХ влажных салфеток, детских салфеток, бумажных полотенец, пластика,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; игрушек и т.п.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in my opinion this is not formal enough for a sign if formality is important. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17772" RevisionGUID="dc8114df-d85a-4b7f-9dc5-23a9c5396eef" CreationDate="2019-01-01T18:55:25.133" UserId="11080" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="We can ironically use anything, you know. &#xD;&#xA;But I like **меня угораздило** and **я умудрилась(-лся)** most of all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Угораздило меня** - it's the worst what can happen to you with your scarce participation. It expresses the utmost regret. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я ухитрился** - it can be either positive or negative  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я умудрился** - the same as the previous phrase &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мне удалось** and **Я успел** are the examples of *using anything ironically*, because they are mostly positive or neutral denoting just what they mean, but I like your context and choice of a phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also idioms about the same situations, but I believe it's not the matter of your question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17868" RevisionGUID="17a76dae-c113-426f-8a51-d8e0d07e5659" CreationDate="2019-01-01T20:05:16.833" UserId="11080" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Не &quot;брезгать&quot;, а &quot;брезговать&quot;. -уе- should have warned you. Like требует - требовать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничем не побрезгует &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничем не погнушается &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ничем не поступится &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ни перед чем не остановится** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что угодно сделает &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пойдет на всё &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Родину (или мать) продаст &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not everything goes well with the second part of your sentence. That's why I like the variant you used, and for some others the second clause must be paraphrased. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="d7d10ef2-6e88-493c-8308-33967c369f08" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:05:03.777" UserId="11021" Text="I was given this sentence:&#xA;Our names are Misha and Masha&#xA;They told me to translate it and i translated it like this:&#xA;*Наш* зовут Миша и Маша &#xA;But the correct answer:&#xA;*Нас* зовут Миша и Маша&#xA;Why is нас(us) used in this case instead of наш(our)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="d7d10ef2-6e88-493c-8308-33967c369f08" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:05:03.777" UserId="11021" Text="Usage of “Hac и наш”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="d7d10ef2-6e88-493c-8308-33967c369f08" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:05:03.777" UserId="11021" Text="|usage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17874" RevisionGUID="b1db0990-47d3-4573-97ce-5acede7c2a37" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:37:14.777" UserId="10999" Text="The literal translation of the phrase **&quot;Нас зовут Миша и Маша&quot;** is not **&quot;Our names are Misha and Masha&quot;**, but **&quot;We are called Misha and Masha&quot;**. I.e. **&quot;зовут&quot;** is a verb.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so &quot;we are called&quot; = &quot;**нас** зовут&quot; (It's like &quot;They call **us**&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it was said **&quot;Наши имена Миша и Маша&quot;** (it's literal translation of **&quot;Our names are Misha and Masha&quot;**) then it would be &quot;Our names&quot; = &quot;**Наши** имена&quot; (BTW, plural **&quot;Наши&quot;**, not singular **&quot;Наш&quot;**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="9832e342-5ea9-40df-8ecb-bc578d0d81d9" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:40:06.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I was given this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;Our names are Misha and Masha&#xD;&#xA;They told me to translate it and i translated it like this:&#xD;&#xA;*Наш* зовут Миша и Маша &#xD;&#xA;But the correct answer:&#xD;&#xA;*Нас* зовут Миша и Маша&#xD;&#xA;Why is нас(us) used in this case instead of наш(our)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="9832e342-5ea9-40df-8ecb-bc578d0d81d9" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:40:06.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Difference between “нac&quot; и &quot;наш”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47800" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="9832e342-5ea9-40df-8ecb-bc578d0d81d9" CreationDate="2019-01-01T21:40:06.823" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17861" RevisionGUID="9003da46-8a9d-4d54-9faa-a0426d780fa4" CreationDate="2019-01-02T01:19:06.497" UserId="4481" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I've created this sign for a bathroom in a property that I rent out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And yes, before you ask - I have fished several such items out of toilets in the past.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the wording correct? I'm particularly uncertain about не vs. нет, but any other pointers would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: my apologies for not reading the site rules carefully, and thanks to those who provided constructive comments. As one of them is that I shouldn't have posted just an image, but rather the text, here it is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста, поставьте только туалетную бумагу в туалете!&#xD;&#xA;не	влажные салфетки&#xD;&#xA;	детские салфетки&#xD;&#xA;	бумажных полотенец&#xD;&#xA;	пластик&#xD;&#xA;	игрушки&#xD;&#xA;	и т.п.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, I have the same sign (with the same layout) in some other languages, such as English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please put only toilet paper in the toilet!&#xD;&#xA;NO	wet wipes&#xD;&#xA;	baby wipes&#xD;&#xA;	paper towels&#xD;&#xA;	plastic&#xD;&#xA;	toys&#xD;&#xA;	etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and so I'd like as much as possible to keep the same flow. If indeed it's not idiomatic Russian to give a list with не/нет followed by a number of items, then so be it. But I would wonder: you find, for example, apartment buildings in the U.S. that have such signs outside (NO in large type, followed by a list of things not to do: ball playing, loitering, etc.); are such signs unknown in Russia?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dD2OV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47802" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17865" RevisionGUID="59d0926d-e2b2-4951-a659-e3c9b8aff398" CreationDate="2019-01-02T06:00:32.243" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080343061480292353" />
  <row Id="47803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="3cd60d9e-832d-4c4b-b864-e5c580e0b4f2" CreationDate="2019-01-02T06:40:03.807" UserId="11363" Text="I can't seem to find a translation of this word into English. I've come across it in a language textbook, so I assume it's a word only a specialist in linguistics and/or anatomy would know. Based on the roots (no pun intended), I basically understand its meaning, but I'm looking for as exact a translation as possible. Perhaps there is no single word translation into English, in which case I'll simply substitute a phrase for it, but first I'd like to run it by you all before I make that decision. It was used in the context: &quot;...язык продвигается вперед, надкорневая часть отходит назад, спинка языка выгибается кверху.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="3cd60d9e-832d-4c4b-b864-e5c580e0b4f2" CreationDate="2019-01-02T06:40:03.807" UserId="11363" Text="Translation of надкорневый" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="3cd60d9e-832d-4c4b-b864-e5c580e0b4f2" CreationDate="2019-01-02T06:40:03.807" UserId="11363" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47808" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17875" RevisionGUID="46941e91-77c0-410b-b180-ca2ce16d2299" CreationDate="2019-01-02T09:07:06.087" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="f5e278ec-14dd-4030-b960-6f05fcc26cf9" CreationDate="2019-01-02T16:01:42.707" UserId="11360" Text="A (Hebrew) article at https://he.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2096985 mentions, incidentally, this detail (translation mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “What's with this name Vasily?” he thought to himself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, there are a lot of Russian names that come from Jewish ones, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least have some kind of Jewish connection. Jews in Russia bear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; names like Misha, Sasha, Boris, Vladimir, Igor—names reminiscent of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moshe, Baruch, Zev, Asher, etc. But “Vasily”? That’s a true-blue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gentile name; not many Jews bear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to know: what indeed makes certain names more or less likely to be used by Russian Jews? It's not just the etymology, since neither Boris nor Vladimir nor Igor come from Hebrew or (as far as I know) have any Hebrew/Jewish antecedents. I don't suppose it has to do with whether these are saints' names, either, seeing as how there's a St. Boris and a St. Vladimir. And if it's just the phonetic similarity of the beginning of the name - then why is Vladimir, which would pair up with the Jewish name (Zev) Wolf and its diminutive Velvel, more preferred than Vasily?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm also curious, in this connection, what other relatively popular Russian names are, like Vasily, less commonly used by Russian Jews.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="f5e278ec-14dd-4030-b960-6f05fcc26cf9" CreationDate="2019-01-02T16:01:42.707" UserId="11360" Text="Russian names typically used/not used by Jews" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="f5e278ec-14dd-4030-b960-6f05fcc26cf9" CreationDate="2019-01-02T16:01:42.707" UserId="11360" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17878" RevisionGUID="7c0a583b-afbe-4a95-88e2-13412013a2e8" CreationDate="2019-01-02T17:03:53.307" UserId="11080" Text="Well, all the Jews in Russia historically had Jewish names. But, to make it more pronounceable for the Russians, all the foreigners got Russian or Russian-sounding names and patronymic names, besides theirs. It was a part of what is called обрусение. But still, it was not a 100% case. Many Jews had only Jewish names, with a patronymic name derived from the Jewish name of the father. Just the local tradition of pronunciation tinted the names. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g., Мара Меировна, Наум Лазаревич. Pay attention I haven't given surnames here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that Василий just sounds perfectly Russian. Just as Марк sounds traditionally Jewish, though this name is not present in Torah, but there are many Russian Jews with this name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Борис resembles Борух, usually it's the same person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Илья is the Russian pronunciation of the prophet's name. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Миша resembles Моше, but Михаил can be either Мойша or Хаим. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But sometimes people just choose a name which they like and can turn from Цадик Израилевич to Евгений Борисович. It's less predictable than you might expect. I'd say, that it was also a kind of Jewish tradition which Russian name to choose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47816" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="3ca096c0-ee33-4a9e-9171-8ca37839c523" CreationDate="2019-01-02T17:21:49.410" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="13cc552c-e0b4-4cb6-a0a0-a5e0a8d5c681" CreationDate="2019-01-02T17:33:54.963" UserId="11360" Comment="removed last line, so as not to be asking for a list" Text="A (Hebrew) article at https://he.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2096985 mentions, incidentally, this detail (translation mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “What's with this name Vasily?” he thought to himself.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, there are a lot of Russian names that come from Jewish ones, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at least have some kind of Jewish connection. Jews in Russia bear&#xD;&#xA;&gt; names like Misha, Sasha, Boris, Vladimir, Igor—names reminiscent of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moshe, Baruch, Zev, Asher, etc. But “Vasily”? That’s a true-blue&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gentile name; not many Jews bear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to know: what indeed makes certain names more or less likely to be used by Russian Jews? It's not just the etymology, since neither Boris nor Vladimir nor Igor come from Hebrew or (as far as I know) have any Hebrew/Jewish antecedents. I don't suppose it has to do with whether these are saints' names, either, seeing as how there's a St. Boris and a St. Vladimir. And if it's just the phonetic similarity of the beginning of the name - then why is Vladimir, which would pair up with the Jewish name (Zev) Wolf and its diminutive Velvel, more preferred than Vasily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47818" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17877" RevisionGUID="1cd584c0-3d4a-4eb3-93d1-23ba7ec5cf5a" CreationDate="2019-01-02T17:52:46.287" UserId="11360" Comment="edited title per Shabunc's note" Text="Why are some Russian names not used by Jews, and others are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47819" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17862" RevisionGUID="a03ff5f7-aaa0-4227-b754-18acb084eac5" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:00:43.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080524304079560706" />
  <row Id="47820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="975081c1-6f86-40ee-a27d-120cfc3c83fc" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:47:34.173" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может, ты кому-то **здорово насолила**? Например, этому не пораженному пагубной страстью к роскошным автомобилям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere along the way, I got used to using the adverb &quot;здорово&quot; like this as an *oxymoronic*  *intensifier* to qualify/emphasise a word with a negative sense like &quot;насолить&quot; –  in a similar fashion to English oxymorons such as &quot;pretty disgusting&quot; and &quot;terribly pleased&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no qualms about having &quot;здорово&quot; qualify a word with a positive sense, but I'm wondering if such *negative* use of &quot;здорово&quot;, on the other hand, is considered slangish register-wise?  [ \[Wiki\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE#%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%CC%81%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="975081c1-6f86-40ee-a27d-120cfc3c83fc" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:47:34.173" UserId="8672" Text="Does the oxymoronic use of &quot;здорово&quot; sound slangish – i.e. when &quot;здорово&quot; is coupled with a negative word like &quot;насолить&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="975081c1-6f86-40ee-a27d-120cfc3c83fc" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:47:34.173" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47823" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="c3a37869-e5d4-48a6-b554-b1b23de328b4" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:52:52.917" UserId="8672" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47824" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="7ad51276-8ae3-488b-9e55-f9ce33ae1bde" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:58:19.430" UserId="8672" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="856fdac1-dfa7-44a0-b193-37de73631ef0" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:58:30.600" UserId="8672" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может, ты кому-то **здорово насолила**? Например, этому человеку, не пораженному пагубной страстью к роскошным автомобилям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere along the way, I got used to using the adverb &quot;здорово&quot; like this as an *oxymoronic*  *intensifier* to qualify/emphasise a word with a negative sense like &quot;насолить&quot; –  in a similar fashion to English oxymorons such as &quot;pretty disgusting&quot; and &quot;terribly pleased&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no qualms about having &quot;здорово&quot; qualify a word with a positive sense, but I'm wondering if such *negative* use of &quot;здорово&quot;, on the other hand, is considered slangish register-wise?  [ \[Wiki\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE#%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%CC%81%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47826" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="b7d94fa2-da94-4162-892e-847b89b61cf1" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:58:37.140" UserId="8672" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47827" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="aa489b8a-c209-4283-a2b7-cf6a61a0ad39" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:58:39.807" UserId="8672" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47828" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="2e73085d-f976-44ee-8234-4cf75bf20de1" CreationDate="2019-01-02T18:58:54.117" UserId="8672" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47829" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="4d4667d5-4421-49f3-8b79-fdc23aff6117" CreationDate="2019-01-02T19:00:27.167" UserId="8672" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="d794572d-5055-4661-a0c4-638148ea5a3d" CreationDate="2019-01-02T19:06:49.400" UserId="8672" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может, ты кому-то **здорово насолила**? Например, этому человеку, не пораженному пагубной страстью к роскошным автомобилям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere along the way, I got used to using the adverb &quot;здорово&quot; like this as an *oxymoronic*  *intensifier* to qualify/emphasise a word with a negative sense like &quot;насолить&quot; –  in a similar fashion to English oxymorons such as &quot;pretty disgusting&quot; and &quot;terribly pleased&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no qualms about having  the adverb &quot;здорово&quot; qualify a word with a positive sense, but I'm wondering if such *negative* use of &quot;здорово&quot;, on the other hand, is considered slangish register-wise?  [ \[Wiki\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE#%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%CC%81%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47831" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="e6baca13-8141-459b-82c5-f73cc87c3263" CreationDate="2019-01-02T19:17:44.783" UserId="8672" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the oxymoronic use of &quot;здорово&quot; sound slangish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17880" RevisionGUID="67d02dfb-113c-4286-b424-58b35f1f7a38" CreationDate="2019-01-02T20:33:43.640" UserId="10999" Text="The word **&quot;здорово&quot;** does not necessarily have a positive connotation. For example, it's quite possible to say to badly beaten man: **&quot;Здорово тебе досталось!&quot;**. And it won't mean that the person is beaten deservedly, and won't mean that the fact he is beaten is a positive fact. It will only mean that the person is beaten enough &quot;qualitatively&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;So the word &quot;great&quot; may be used to denote the degree of action, without an expression of the position of the speaker relative to this action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17880" RevisionGUID="b36f9959-1f91-46bf-8d90-0e2036d84e6f" CreationDate="2019-01-02T20:39:08.973" UserId="10999" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="The word **&quot;здорово&quot;** does not necessarily have a positive connotation. For example, it's quite possible to say to badly beaten man: **&quot;Здорово тебе досталось!&quot;**. And it won't mean that the person is beaten deservedly, and won't mean that the fact he is beaten is a positive fact. It will only mean that the person is beaten enough &quot;qualitatively&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;So the word &quot;great&quot; may be used to denote the degree of action, without any assessment on this action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17880" RevisionGUID="8c1d8cd3-e215-40c2-af29-967cedc7f7a6" CreationDate="2019-01-02T20:53:43.293" UserId="10999" Comment="added 404 characters in body" Text="The word **&quot;здорово&quot;** does not necessarily have a positive connotation. For example, it's quite possible to say to badly beaten man: **&quot;Здорово тебе досталось!&quot;**. And it won't mean that the person is beaten deservedly, and won't mean that the fact he is beaten is a positive fact. It will only mean that the person is beaten enough &quot;qualitatively&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;So the word &quot;great&quot; may be used to denote the degree of action, without any assessment on this action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, a real case from my life.  &#xD;&#xA;When I was just starting to learn English, I heard the phrase of a girl from the US: **&quot;I want it so bad!&quot;**. I asked her: **&quot;Do you mean it's bad that you want it?&quot;**. She laughed and said, **&quot;No, it just means I want it SO BADLY!&quot;**. I later learned that **&quot;bad&quot;** doesn't always mean **&quot;not good&quot;** ;)  &#xD;&#xA;With the word **&quot;здорово&quot;** - a similar situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="47f039ce-4bcf-4962-bcff-f77ba96e9d63" CreationDate="2019-01-02T22:00:50.017" UserId="2104" Comment="Add a stress mark to remove ambiguity" Text="In conversation, I said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может, ты кому-то **здо́рово насолила**? Например, этому человеку, не пораженному пагубной страстью к роскошным автомобилям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhere along the way, I got used to using the adverb &quot;здо́рово&quot; like this as an *oxymoronic*  *intensifier* to qualify/emphasise a word with a negative sense like &quot;насолить&quot; –  in a similar fashion to English oxymorons such as &quot;pretty disgusting&quot; and &quot;terribly pleased&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no qualms about having  the adverb &quot;здо́рово&quot; qualify a word with a positive sense, but I'm wondering if such *negative* use of &quot;здо́рово&quot;, on the other hand, is considered slangish register-wise?  [ \[Wiki\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE#%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%CC%81%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47836" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="47f039ce-4bcf-4962-bcff-f77ba96e9d63" CreationDate="2019-01-02T22:00:50.017" UserId="2104" Comment="Add a stress mark to remove ambiguity" Text="Does the oxymoronic use of &quot;здо́рово&quot; sound slangish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17881" RevisionGUID="d65e0170-05e7-4465-bcaa-8fe23084d8a4" CreationDate="2019-01-02T22:22:25.913" UserId="2104" Text="The word **здо́рово** is a well-known and widely used intensifier and as such is it can intensify both positive and negative words:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Эта вода здорово укрепляет иммунитет.&#xD;&#xA;* Рубль того времени очень здорово рухнул.&#xD;&#xA;* Он в какой-то пивной подрался, и ему здорово влепили в глаз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Citations from [ruscorpora.ru][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very informal but not [slangy][2] as it doesn't &quot;establish group identity&quot; or &quot;exclude outsiders.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ruscorpora.ru/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47838" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17841" RevisionGUID="aef3fef8-3b7b-4e8f-aaba-c94d321370bd" CreationDate="2019-01-03T00:00:31.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080614848579489792" />
  <row Id="47839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17730" RevisionGUID="77daba73-13bb-440d-ae2d-7dad6ba616a6" CreationDate="2019-01-03T04:54:23.847" UserId="2104" Comment="added 424 characters in body" Text="Gemination is a bit fuzzy in Russian: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Words such as **касса, масса, тонна, ванна, Мекка, поддать, [Приенисейе][1]** [йй] have 'true doubles': saying them with a single consonant can hinder understanding. Minimal pairs: **подать - поддать, подождём - под дождём,** (нет) **тона - тонна, при Енисее - Приенисейе.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Then there are 'false doubles' which are normally pronounced as singles: **аппарат, аккуратный, [теннис][2],** (болеть) **[гриппом][3].** Saying them with a double consonant would sound inappropriate in normal speech but could be used e.g. to explain how the word is spelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. The rest of the words occupy a middle ground whereby they can be pronounced with either single or double consonants or anywhere in between without sounding odd or erroneous. These include: [русский][4], [рассказ][5], [зажаренный][6], Майя, майя, Айя-София and many others. Actual pronunciation may depend on the speaker or the meaning ([Майя][7] vs [майя][8]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **длина** is a very peculiar case as it is sometimes erroneously pronounced with a double [нн].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for your December 18 update (&quot;if somebody says &quot;grippəm&quot; or &quot;grippom&quot; it is not incorrect, because it is somewhat canonical&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Я заболел гри**пп**ом.&#xD;&#xA; * Я пошел играть в те**нн**ис.&#xD;&#xA; * А**пп**арат вызываемого абонента недоступен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say these sentences with 'proper' doubles, people would think you are imitating an Estonian accent or trying to spell the words out. It would sound improper and incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02xgDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA149&amp;lpg=PA149&amp;dq=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B5&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=t2TOT5If94&amp;sig=Y09tLFqQoTpszXUz-bCW_PQUubI&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiYmOeluK7fAhVYVRUIHbTlClUQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B5&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F#Pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17882" RevisionGUID="44a94fce-f33d-42ef-9fb0-d063272c8d0b" CreationDate="2019-01-03T07:19:06.990" UserId="11080" Text="Зд**о**рово means not only **хорошо**, like [here][1], but also **очень**, **сильно**. In this meaning it may imply some kind of hidden gloat, but not necessarily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't make up an oxymoron here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use the adjective здоровый not only to denote health, but also to speak about big, huge size. &quot;здоровый кусок сахара&quot;, e.g.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Здор**о**вый дет**и**на is neither healthy, nor a child. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **здорово** means the scale of happenings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beware of style. This word is not tender, you can't say &quot;ты мне здорово нравишься&quot;. There you should use очень. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't say it is slangish. But it is colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LrZgUmrJqY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47841" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17824" RevisionGUID="f6fde31d-c60d-4763-a638-cfd8fda29ce8" CreationDate="2019-01-03T12:00:13.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080795966964465664" />
  <row Id="47842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17806" RevisionGUID="8495cb0d-f3b9-4f2e-aff1-6ef3920c8ca6" CreationDate="2019-01-03T15:00:34.887" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080841356002639872" />
  <row Id="47843" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17879" RevisionGUID="ec10e84b-92ea-4519-8025-2d2593f67149" CreationDate="2019-01-03T21:00:28.933" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080931928071720960" />
  <row Id="47844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17883" RevisionGUID="52ea8250-18fd-4954-9fa9-e3907be08de3" CreationDate="2019-01-03T22:28:59.353" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Тебе не кажется, что этот продукт немного... ну не знаю. Перехваливают что ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, in response to the above, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пожалуй, это лишь одно из немногих подходящих выражений...** В любом случае, вроде бы он рассматривает это, как вложение в будущее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of &quot;**Well, that's... one way to put it...**&quot; with a hint of understatement. I'm not sure if my phrasing sounds idiomatic enough. What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17883" RevisionGUID="52ea8250-18fd-4954-9fa9-e3907be08de3" CreationDate="2019-01-03T22:28:59.353" UserId="8672" Text="How to express &quot;that's one way to put it&quot; with a hint of understatement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17883" RevisionGUID="52ea8250-18fd-4954-9fa9-e3907be08de3" CreationDate="2019-01-03T22:28:59.353" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17883" RevisionGUID="21f74a82-204f-44f4-8b4c-0fcd4046d0d7" CreationDate="2019-01-03T22:45:06.963" UserId="8672" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="&gt; Тебе не кажется, что этот продукт немного... ну не знаю. Перехваливают что ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, in response to the above, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Пожалуй, это лишь одно из немногих подходящих выражений...** В любом случае, вроде бы он рассматривает это, как вложение в будущее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of &quot;**Well, that's... one way to put it...**&quot; with a hint of understatement -- implying that it could just as well have been described with some other (less pleasant) expressions. I'm not sure if my phrasing sounds idiomatic enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a commonly used phrasing for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17884" RevisionGUID="349c4936-3d68-4137-84fa-467e37bd6c45" CreationDate="2019-01-03T22:47:33.087" UserId="2104" Text="I think this will work well in your situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Это ещё мягко сказано!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17885" RevisionGUID="ed288199-ccd4-41fd-a2e7-6201b4d3de68" CreationDate="2019-01-03T23:36:43.957" UserId="11368" Text="I'd say, &quot;да, можно и так выразиться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In general, I don't think there are any strongly recommended expressions in this case. Your own phrase is fine, it just sounds too long for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47850" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17822" RevisionGUID="776cd572-afa2-4281-838a-ea02170b9757" CreationDate="2019-01-04T00:00:31.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1080977237359382529" />
  <row Id="47851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17885" RevisionGUID="141dee48-df8d-4b07-9aae-e4532396dc9d" CreationDate="2019-01-04T00:44:50.927" UserId="11368" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'd say, &quot;да, можно и так выразиться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;In general, I don't think there are any strongly recommended expressions in this case. Your own phrase is fine, it just sounds too long to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17883" RevisionGUID="dc3f7918-1e18-452e-82ea-571b343c2ccb" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:01:05.577" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081022678495121408" />
  <row Id="47853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="72781984-0e4a-4ebe-b3cd-2034f96abde0" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:17:13.757" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если его за это **понизят в ранге**, ему почти нечего будет сказать в свое оправдание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of getting demoted in the corporate ladder, or more specifically, in the medical field. I'm wavering between &quot;ранг&quot; and &quot;звание&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если его за это **понизят в звании**, ему почти нечего будет сказать в свое оправдание.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="72781984-0e4a-4ebe-b3cd-2034f96abde0" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:17:13.757" UserId="8672" Text="How to express &quot;getting promoted/demoted in the corporate ladder&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="72781984-0e4a-4ebe-b3cd-2034f96abde0" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:17:13.757" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="9d534b53-e5c9-4a30-a0e8-194ad56cb5bf" CreationDate="2019-01-04T03:23:37.747" UserId="8672" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если его за это **понизят в ранге**, ему почти нечего будет сказать в свое оправдание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of getting demoted in the corporate ladder, or more specifically, in the medical field. I'm wavering between &quot;ранг&quot; and &quot;звание&quot; -- when to use which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если его за это **понизят в звании**, ему почти нечего будет сказать в свое оправдание.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="96a0ae62-18b2-41b2-bf4e-d0ba541c1101" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:01:24.247" UserId="8672" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если его за это **понизят в ранге**, ему почти нечего будет сказать в свое оправдание.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of getting demoted on the **corporate** ladder, or more specifically, in the medical field. I'm wavering between &quot;ранг&quot; and &quot;звание&quot; -- when to use which:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если его за это **понизят в звании**, ему почти нечего будет сказать в свое оправдание.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47858" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="96a0ae62-18b2-41b2-bf4e-d0ba541c1101" CreationDate="2019-01-04T04:01:24.247" UserId="8672" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to express &quot;getting promoted/demoted on the corporate ladder&quot; in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17887" RevisionGUID="5118144e-a7ca-4302-bd33-36e4bf12f0ec" CreationDate="2019-01-04T05:10:54.210" UserId="10999" Text="The term **&quot;ранг&quot;** is appropriate mainly for the military and some government officials.  &#xD;&#xA;The term **&quot;звание&quot;** is used more broadly, but is also limited in application.  &#xD;&#xA;In fact, each sphere has its own analogue of the term **&quot;ранг&quot;**. For medical professionals it's **&quot;[медицинская] категория&quot;**, to workers - **&quot;[квалификационный] разряд&quot;**, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the term **&quot;ранг&quot;** can be used in a figurative sense. In that case it can be attributed to a very wide range of applications. And in some cases, you can simply say **&quot;положениие в [корпоративной] иерархии&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do not forget about the term **&quot;должность&quot;**. This is not the same as **&quot;ранг&quot;**, because the relationship between **&quot;ранг&quot;** and **&quot;занимаемая должность&quot;** in many areas is only indirect.  &#xD;&#xA;But sometimes &quot;должность&quot; may be the most appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47860" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17887" RevisionGUID="9ad88cc3-4e23-4ec8-90e5-753883b3f045" CreationDate="2019-01-04T05:16:40.493" UserId="10999" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="The term **&quot;ранг&quot;** is appropriate mainly for the military and some government officials.  &#xD;&#xA;The term **&quot;звание&quot;** is used more broadly, but is also limited in application.  &#xD;&#xA;In fact, each sphere has its own analogue of the term **&quot;ранг&quot;**. For medical professionals it's **&quot;[медицинская] категория&quot;**, to workers it's **&quot;[квалификационный] разряд&quot;**, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the term **&quot;ранг&quot;** can be used in a figurative sense. In that case it can be attributed to a very wide range of applications. And in some cases, you can simply say **&quot;положениие в [корпоративной] иерархии&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do not forget about the term **&quot;должность&quot;**. This is not the same as **&quot;ранг&quot;**, because the relationship between **&quot;ранг&quot;** and **&quot;занимаемая должность&quot;** in many areas is only indirect.  &#xD;&#xA;But sometimes **&quot;должность&quot;** may be the most appropriate in the discussion about promotion/demotion on the corporate ladder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="52dc9fd5-51b6-4f2f-b717-87bbeef908aa" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:43:00.973" UserId="11369" Text="I am looking for a pronunciation of the word слезы (tears) and saw on forvo.com both spellings слезы and слёзы which are pronounced differently. Is the meaning the same in both cases and how/why do they differ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="52dc9fd5-51b6-4f2f-b717-87bbeef908aa" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:43:00.973" UserId="11369" Text="Difference between слёзы and слезы?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="52dc9fd5-51b6-4f2f-b717-87bbeef908aa" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:43:00.973" UserId="11369" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17889" RevisionGUID="f06d1027-0e87-42ee-b43b-f9eee5220623" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:59:52.387" UserId="242" Text="They are pronounced exactly the same way because it is exactly same word. The usage letter &quot;ё&quot; from the very beginning of its existence (it [was][1] introduced at the end of XVIII century) was quite controversial and almost never - obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leads to this double spellings. In some cases it finally affected the way we pronounce some words (nobody's saying Рёрих nowadays), but this never happened with &quot;слёзы&quot;, which obeys regular rules of pronouncing words with &quot;ё&quot; (&quot;йо&quot; at the beginning, palatalization of preceding consonant plus &quot;о&quot; anywhere else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81_(%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47865" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="4f931b6e-6285-4f83-b9ac-fe87011b54d4" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:04:28.033" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;слёзы&quot; and &quot;слезы&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17889" RevisionGUID="3297aada-2301-4561-aefe-a1ab15a08ed6" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:05:40.493" UserId="242" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="They are pronounced exactly the same way because it is exactly same word. The usage letter &quot;ё&quot; from the very beginning of its existence (it [was][1] introduced at the end of XVIII century) was quite controversial and almost never - obligatory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leads to this double spellings. In some cases it finally affected the way we pronounce some words (nobody's saying Рёрих nowadays, other very famous example is  &quot;свекла&quot;/&quot;cвёкла&quot;), but this never happened with &quot;слёзы&quot;, which obeys regular rules of pronouncing words with &quot;ё&quot; (&quot;йо&quot; at the beginning, palatalization of preceding consonant plus &quot;о&quot; anywhere else).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind though, that singular form, &quot;слеза&quot; is exactlу without &quot;ё&quot;, the same, for instance, with &quot;звезда&quot;/&quot;звёзды&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%81_(%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17890" RevisionGUID="7492fb9d-551b-48ca-ab81-f01534c12371" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:22:18.110" UserId="11080" Text="The answer can be traced through the question. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;It means, слез**ы** is the Genitive case singular, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and слёзы is the Nominative case plural. This word, as you can see from the previous answer, can be written without dots above е, but retain the ё-pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tgM5g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47868" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17888" RevisionGUID="87f6bd01-9ba8-452a-955b-cafb1985dd0f" CreationDate="2019-01-04T18:00:39.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081249061351628802" />
  <row Id="47869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17890" RevisionGUID="d27e4f6f-d783-44d3-9099-1b2615ad413f" CreationDate="2019-01-04T18:18:42.977" UserId="11080" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The answer can be traced through the question. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;It means, слез**ы** is the Genitive case singular, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and слёзы is the Nominative case plural. This word, as you can see from the previous answer, can be written without dots above е, but it retains the ё-pronunciation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tgM5g.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17886" RevisionGUID="2a0d8afe-42a6-400d-8b89-368a7b89e7f1" CreationDate="2019-01-05T00:01:10.033" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081339786659426305" />
  <row Id="47871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17891" RevisionGUID="eb0f8689-4dd6-4b52-9048-912030bf2826" CreationDate="2019-01-05T06:41:23.470" UserId="11370" Text="Мое мнение, что это выражение: &quot;Вострить лыжи&quot; каким-то образом пришло из польского языка, в котором лыжвы это коньки, а вострить это точить. Тогда все становится на свои места. Коньки необходимо затачивать периодически." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="5240f381-be65-482f-9d26-05fc0ccb3886" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:37:03.330" UserId="8359" Text="I started wondering about established loanwords from the Spanish language. I did find an unattributed [list][1] of same (following), but it's not great; _Sol_ is the Peruvian unit of currency and at least _майор_ seems to be taken from Latin rather than Spanish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;     каско de casco&#xD;&#xA;    майор de mayor&#xD;&#xA;    мачизм de machismo&#xD;&#xA;    мачо de macho&#xD;&#xA;    соль de sol&#xD;&#xA;    танго de tango&#xD;&#xA;    текила de tequila&#xD;&#xA;    херес de jerez&#xD;&#xA;    хунта de junta&#xD;&#xA;    эскадрилья de escuadrilla&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are definitely better sources out there. What Spanish words, if any, had been adopted into Russian by the 19th century?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ezglot.com/etymologies.php?l=rus&amp;l2=spa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="5240f381-be65-482f-9d26-05fc0ccb3886" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:37:03.330" UserId="8359" Text="Does Russian have any long-established Spanish words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="5240f381-be65-482f-9d26-05fc0ccb3886" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:37:03.330" UserId="8359" Text="|история-языка|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47875" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="531b1985-7783-4a62-9406-c099653c915f" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:41:20.260" UserId="242" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="702273c3-1048-4c74-b020-4b65bf03cba2" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:51:44.033" UserId="8359" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body; edited title" Text="I started wondering about long-established loanwords from the Spanish language. It's easy to find some lists of same, but not with dates of attribution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Had any Spanish words had been adopted into Russian before 1800? I wouldn't be too surprised if not; the majority appear to be more recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ezglot.com/etymologies.php?l=rus&amp;l2=spa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47877" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="702273c3-1048-4c74-b020-4b65bf03cba2" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:51:44.033" UserId="8359" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body; edited title" Text="Had any Spanish words been established in Russian by 1800?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17892" RevisionGUID="cc386aae-9fe4-47c0-a53a-eab25deeb844" CreationDate="2019-01-05T07:54:52.700" UserId="8359" Comment="deleted 347 characters in body; edited title" Text="I started wondering about long-established loanwords from the Spanish language. It's easy to find some lists of same, but not with dates of attribution. Here's a [great list][1] from Wiktionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Had any Spanish words had been adopted into Russian before 1800? I wouldn't be too surprised if not; the majority appear to be more recent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F/ru" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="d4163c75-be71-43e1-8cf4-4714fcf985a4" CreationDate="2019-01-05T08:38:28.440" UserId="8672" Text="&gt;**Это** мы пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard my girlfriend say this in conversation, and it seems she meant it as a rough equivalent of &quot;***This** is our way of saying we trust you*&quot; or &quot;***This** is our trying to say we trust you*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this English sentence is anything to go by, the *emphatic* &quot;это&quot; seems to qualify the rest of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Это **мы пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I was always under the impression this type of &quot;это&quot; only emphasises one or two words immediately after it: &quot;Это я ... [It is me who ...]&quot;, &quot;Это от него ... [It is from him that ...]&quot; etc. To my mind, it corresponds to the emphatic construction &quot;It is X that Y&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Это **мы** пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I initially thought the &quot;это&quot; only emphasises the pronoun &quot;мы&quot; and interpreted what she said as: &quot;*It is **us** (**not someone else**) who are trying to say ...*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="d4163c75-be71-43e1-8cf4-4714fcf985a4" CreationDate="2019-01-05T08:38:28.440" UserId="8672" Text="In the emphatic construction &quot;Это (мы ...)&quot;, which part of a sentence does &quot;это&quot; place emphasis on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="d4163c75-be71-43e1-8cf4-4714fcf985a4" CreationDate="2019-01-05T08:38:28.440" UserId="8672" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="8ef2c281-0e57-4044-8553-6cf3984e94a2" CreationDate="2019-01-05T08:46:02.963" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt;**Это** мы пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard my girlfriend say this in conversation, and it seems she meant it as a rough equivalent of &quot;***This** is our way of saying that we trust you*&quot; or &quot;***This** is our trying to say that we trust you*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the English sentences are anything to go by, the *emphatic* &quot;это&quot; seems to qualify the rest of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Это **мы пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I was always under the impression this type of &quot;это&quot; only emphasises one or two words immediately after it: &quot;Это я ... [It is me who ...]&quot;, &quot;Это от него ... [It is from him that ...]&quot; etc. To my mind, it corresponds to the emphatic construction &quot;It is X that Y&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Это **мы** пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I initially thought the &quot;это&quot; only emphasises the pronoun &quot;мы&quot; and interpreted what she said as: &quot;*It is **us** (**not someone else**) who are trying to say ...*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17893" RevisionGUID="e61320ad-8bc6-4b4e-9939-24e66e8f064f" CreationDate="2019-01-05T09:21:50.750" UserId="8672" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="&gt;**Это** мы пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just heard my girlfriend say this in conversation, and it seems she meant it as a rough equivalent of &quot;***This** is our way of saying that we trust you*&quot; or &quot;***This** is our trying to say that we trust you*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the English sentences are anything to go by, the *emphatic* &quot;это&quot; seems to qualify the rest of the sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1) Это **мы пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I was always under the impression this type of &quot;это&quot; only emphasises one or two words immediately after it: &quot;Это **я** ... [*It is **me** who ...*]&quot;, &quot;Это **от него** ... [*It is **from him** that ...*]&quot; etc. To my mind, it corresponds to the emphatic construction &quot;It is X that Y&quot; in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2) Это **мы** пытаемся сказать, что доверяем тебе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I initially thought the &quot;это&quot; only emphasises the pronoun &quot;мы&quot; and interpreted what she said as: &quot;*It is **us** (**not someone else**) who are trying to say ...*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17894" RevisionGUID="337243f6-4bc9-403c-badf-2010f31a5ef9" CreationDate="2019-01-05T09:21:53.527" UserId="7674" Text="The scope of the emphasis depends on the members which receive tonal stress. It could be **мы** alone but it could just as much be the verb (**сказать** and to a lesser extent **доверяем** in your example) and in the latter case the emphasis i guess is perceived as being applied to the entire sentence, because the predicate is that much important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17894" RevisionGUID="d876d29c-ae79-4349-b135-66f50529f127" CreationDate="2019-01-05T09:35:07.070" UserId="7674" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="The scope of the emphasis depends on the members which receive tonal stress. It could be **мы** alone but it could just as much be the verb (**сказать** and to a lesser extent **доверяем** in your example) and in the latter case the emphasis i guess is perceived as being applied to the entire sentence, because the predicate is that much important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it may be the case that the predicate comes under tonal emphasis automatically in a relaxed enunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17894" RevisionGUID="8111c28a-2c28-4729-8886-bf1af5fd7421" CreationDate="2019-01-05T10:44:41.963" UserId="7674" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="The scope of the emphasis depends on the members which receive tonal stress. It could be **мы** alone but it could just as much be the verb (**сказать** and to a lesser extent **доверяем** in your example) and in the latter case the emphasis i guess is perceived as being applied to the entire sentence, because the predicate is that much important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it may be the case that the predicate comes under tonal emphasis automatically in a relaxed enunciation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the stressed **мы** the intonation is *`descending`* `\`,  &#xD;&#xA;in the stressed **сказать - доверяем** it's *`ascending`* `/` - *`descending`* `\`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47887" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17802" RevisionGUID="aa81ba19-1a6d-4e40-9555-97759c43578b" CreationDate="2019-01-05T12:00:34.387" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081520830931238912" />
  <row Id="47888" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17798" RevisionGUID="c0d00a73-2a76-481d-9368-6c5b15632c3b" CreationDate="2019-01-05T15:00:32.667" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081566122233733122" />
  <row Id="47889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="bd49b8aa-38e0-4955-b4aa-df62f2e3ff5a" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:10:25.467" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве терять голову и быть в восторге от **самого себя** – это как раз не значит поступить не по-взрослому?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes I find myself of two minds about the position of &quot;сам&quot; when it is  placed right next to &quot;себя&quot;. In terms of emphasis and style, how does my phrasing compare with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве терять голову и быть в восторге от **себя самого** – это как раз не значит поступить не по-взрослому?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="bd49b8aa-38e0-4955-b4aa-df62f2e3ff5a" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:10:25.467" UserId="8672" Text="«от самого себя» vs «от себя самого»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="bd49b8aa-38e0-4955-b4aa-df62f2e3ff5a" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:10:25.467" UserId="8672" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17896" RevisionGUID="bddcfc22-1472-45b3-80af-7abf03d9be80" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:14:56.387" UserId="11371" Text="Apologies for this basic question: Why does 'детей' in 'сколько у тебе детей' appear in the gen. and not the nom. as in the usual у + gen. + nom. construction? I wanted to ask this question as the preceding sentence read: 'у тебе есть дети' where the у + gen. + nom. seemed to work perfectly. Is it because, (1) the 'existence' of the children is no longer in question; (2) that the noun [детей] must agree with the personal pronoun [тебе] in the genitive case; or (3) because we're now asking about the quantity of children? Apologies, I just really want to know for sure. If anyone could explain exactly why it changes I'd be very grateful - thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17896" RevisionGUID="bddcfc22-1472-45b3-80af-7abf03d9be80" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:14:56.387" UserId="11371" Text="Why is детей in the Gen. and not the Nom. in this у + Gen. + Nom. construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17896" RevisionGUID="bddcfc22-1472-45b3-80af-7abf03d9be80" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:14:56.387" UserId="11371" Text="|грамматика|родительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="f381c6bb-f31d-4868-af9b-238aa0261133" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:52:26.637" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Говорят, что это в самом деле были огромные медведи **в два раза больше** любого человека!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Говорят, что это в самом деле были огромные медведи **вдвое больше** любого человека!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a bit fuzzy on when I should use &quot;в два/три/etc раза&quot; and when I should go for &quot;вдвое/втрое/etc&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="f381c6bb-f31d-4868-af9b-238aa0261133" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:52:26.637" UserId="8672" Text="When to use «вдвое/втрое/etc» rather than «в два/три/etc раза»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="f381c6bb-f31d-4868-af9b-238aa0261133" CreationDate="2019-01-06T02:52:26.637" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47898" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17873" RevisionGUID="73d7aae3-35bf-4a10-9d44-0631149f4157" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:00:48.290" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081747381761331201" />
  <row Id="47899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17898" RevisionGUID="8f561d32-3f56-4c57-a204-d268517ec405" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:05:13.157" UserId="10999" Text="In the Russian language there is an idiom **&quot;себя любимого&quot;** (**&quot;beloved myself&quot;** / **&quot;beloved himself&quot;**). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как же я при разделе прибыли забуду себя любимого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты весь вечер говоришь только о себе любимом!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about any narcissistic aspects, it makes sense to say **&quot;себя самого&quot;**, because this order of words is a reference to the phrase **&quot;себя любимого&quot;**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Самого себя&quot;** on the contrary is associated with the standard Russian phrase **&quot;От самого себя не убежишь&quot;** (**&quot;You can not escape from yourself&quot;**) and has a certain fatalistic connotation. Therefore, in this case, this word order is less appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17898" RevisionGUID="faa6ee99-a338-40bd-af80-f697c5418111" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:11:59.980" UserId="10999" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="In the Russian language there is an idiom **&quot;себя любимого&quot;** (**&quot;beloved myself&quot;** / **&quot;beloved himself&quot;**). Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как же я при выборе кандидата на должность главы комиссии забуду себя любимого?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты весь вечер говоришь только о себе любимом!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about any narcissistic aspects, it makes sense to say **&quot;себя самого&quot;**, because this order of words is a reference to the phrase **&quot;себя любимого&quot;**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&quot;Самого себя&quot;** on the contrary is associated with the standard Russian phrase **&quot;От самого себя не убежишь&quot;** (**&quot;You can not escape from yourself&quot;**) and has a certain fatalistic connotation. Therefore, in this case, this word order is less appropriate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47901" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="796e18b5-633a-46b8-a443-c7d7f7694d1e" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:19:14.303" UserId="8672" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47902" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="dc6d77e6-393a-4656-bfa8-8b7256a05c4b" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:19:40.210" UserId="8672" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8672,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Con-gras-tue-les-chiens&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="47903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17899" RevisionGUID="7445213d-fff7-4bc4-a011-fc49fecf0596" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:29:27.280" UserId="10999" Text="**«В два/три/etc раза»** is a more formal and neutral option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рост медведей этого вида в два-три раза превышает человеческий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;**«Вдвое/втрое/etc»** has a greater emotional content, indicating the significance of the difference, and is more colloquial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я вчера такого медведя видел... Он вдвое, а может даже втрое больше любого человека!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17900" RevisionGUID="42616dd6-b8ef-4286-a6b4-0b23a3397621" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:45:10.347" UserId="10749" Text="Собирательные числительные (вдвое, втрое, etc.) are a bit more colloquial but totally acceptable in everyday speech and in most of literature. &#xD;&#xA;Both forms are correct and common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference is that &quot;**в X раз**&quot; is not limited in the number of times, while собирательные числительные go from 2 to 10. You can say &quot;Акции компании за несколько лет выросли в цене в 12 раз&quot;, But you cannot say &quot;в двенадцетро раз&quot;. In practice only &quot;вдвое и втрое&quot; is widely used, starting with &quot;вчетверо&quot; and up it's more likely to hear and read &quot;**в X раз**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much like in English you can say **twice** and **thrice** (and the latter is rarely used) and that's it. After that you just use '**X times**&quot;, though you can say in some instances that something has doubled, tripled or quadrupled. Again, can only go to four. You of course can go with **Xfold** as high as you want, but it's rarely used outside of articles and books and it's yet a different form. So realistically after 3 in English &quot;**X times**&quot; is used. In Russian you can use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the bears that are twice as large as human are extremely tiny ones. The truly huge ones are 6-8 times bigger. Kodiak and Kamchatka brown bears reach over 650 kilos and 3 meters in height :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="b59624a2-b6f5-4420-ad1e-ff86a59571e9" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:59:23.960" UserId="8672" Text=" - &quot;Сколько&quot; takes a genitive noun by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An associated noun is often separated from &quot;сколько&quot; rather than being placed immediately following &quot;сколько&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one of the simplest examples, &quot;How old are you?&quot; – while it is perfectly acceptable to place &quot;сколько&quot; and the associated noun side by side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** **лет** тебе? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separated* *style* is more commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** тебе **лет**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько** тебе было **лет**, когда умерла твоя мать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17896" RevisionGUID="ca7cba94-6683-4eb4-a8d0-06017cc7c899" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:04:34.360" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="Apologies for this basic question: Why does 'детей' in 'сколько у тебя детей' appear in the gen. and not the nom. as in the usual у + gen. + nom. construction? I wanted to ask this question as the preceding sentence read: 'у тебя есть дети' where the у + gen. + nom. seemed to work perfectly. Is it because, (1) the 'existence' of the children is no longer in question; (2) that the noun [детей] must agree with the personal pronoun [тебе] in the genitive case; or (3) because we're now asking about the quantity of children? Apologies, I just really want to know for sure. If anyone could explain exactly why it changes I'd be very grateful - thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="f812edc4-0737-4908-9b63-b38f33e7417f" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:08:08.353" UserId="8672" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text=" - &quot;Сколько&quot; – as a word denoting the **quantity** of something – takes a genitive noun by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An associated noun is often separated from &quot;сколько&quot; rather than being placed immediately following &quot;сколько&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one of the simplest examples, &quot;How old are you?&quot; – while it is perfectly acceptable to place &quot;сколько&quot; and the associated noun side by side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** **лет** тебе? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separated* *style* is more commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** тебе **лет**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько** тебе было **лет**, когда умерла твоя мать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="7968db38-0cbe-4a78-84ce-68e3ca1e3f5b" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:13:25.017" UserId="8672" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text=" - &quot;Сколько&quot; – as a word denoting / asking about the **quantity** of something – takes a **genitive** noun by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An associated noun is often separated from &quot;сколько&quot; rather than being placed immediately following &quot;сколько&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one of the simplest examples, &quot;How old are you?&quot; – while it is perfectly acceptable to place &quot;сколько&quot; and the associated genitive noun &quot;лет&quot; side by side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** **лет** тебе? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separated* *style* is more commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** тебе **лет**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько** тебе было **лет**, когда умерла твоя мать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="f6ace30a-2717-4c24-9851-900409d9e25b" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:16:43.377" UserId="9603" Text="Just came across this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; эти странные русские верят в то, во что никто не верят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and I still can't figure out what's the function of &quot;во&quot; here. Can't I just say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; эти странные русские верят в то,  что никто не верят?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;why are we using the proposing &quot;in&quot; twice? I'd really appreciate some insight into this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="f6ace30a-2717-4c24-9851-900409d9e25b" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:16:43.377" UserId="9603" Text="Function of «во» in «... верят в то, во что никто не верит»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="f6ace30a-2717-4c24-9851-900409d9e25b" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:16:43.377" UserId="9603" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="3312dd96-a4e9-4977-9cc1-11a85cfecf19" CreationDate="2019-01-06T04:21:25.567" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text=" - &quot;Сколько&quot; – as a word denoting the **quantity** of something – takes a **genitive** noun by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An associated noun is often separated from &quot;сколько&quot; rather than being placed immediately following &quot;сколько&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one of the simplest examples, &quot;How old are you?&quot; – while it is perfectly acceptable to place &quot;сколько&quot; and the associated genitive noun &quot;лет&quot; side by side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** **лет** тебе? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separated* *style* is more commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** тебе **лет**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько** тебе было **лет**, когда умерла твоя мать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17903" RevisionGUID="2b068fba-e71f-4902-93b6-ecf6cb563a49" CreationDate="2019-01-06T05:19:33.423" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Эти странные русские верят **в то**, **во что** никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... верят **в то**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**во что** ... не верит&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two prepositions &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; are both necessary. Just because the main and relative clauses both have the same verb &quot;верить в(о) ...&quot; doesn't mean that the second preposition &quot;во&quot; is redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison's sake, I'd say, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **К тому**, **с кем** я веду переговоры, я внимательно присматриваюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... присматриваюсь **к тому**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**с кем** ... веду переговоры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that the *prepositional combination* in the main and relative clauses, &quot;... **к** тому, **с** кем ...&quot;, happens to use the same prepositions in your example: &quot;... **в** то, **во** что ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example with a similar structure, I'd say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сначала **разберусь с тем**, **с чем** надо **разобраться** в первую очередь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="1ac238af-a971-4a2a-9cc5-52c40168622d" CreationDate="2019-01-06T05:21:59.437" UserId="8672" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Just came across this phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти странные русские верят в то, во что никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and I still can't figure out what's the function of &quot;во&quot; here. Can't I just say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Эти странные русские верят в то,  что никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are we using the proposing &quot;in&quot; twice? I'd really appreciate some insight into this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17903" RevisionGUID="74ace444-1ee9-4280-bc6f-49a16e7d9941" CreationDate="2019-01-06T05:26:17.733" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; Эти странные русские верят **в то**, **во что** никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... верят **в то**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**во что** ... не верит&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two prepositions &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; are both necessary. Just because the main and relative clauses both have the same verb &quot;верить в(о) ...&quot;, it doesn't make the second preposition &quot;во&quot; redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison's sake, I'd say, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **К тому**, **с кем** я веду переговоры, я внимательно присматриваюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... присматриваюсь **к тому**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**с кем** ... веду переговоры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that the *prepositional combination* such as &quot;... **к** тому, **с** кем ...&quot; happens to use the same prepositions in your example: &quot;... **в** то, **во** что ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example with a similar structure, I'd say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сначала **разберусь с тем**, **с чем** надо **разобраться** в первую очередь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17904" RevisionGUID="d54c7d81-1b14-4dc7-b386-0d7a3e9aa3b1" CreationDate="2019-01-06T07:19:41.237" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; Эти русские **верят в то**, **во что** никто не **верит**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is the verb верить twice, and each of them demands the same case and preposition usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я не верю в то, что эти действия были необходимы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the second clause relates not to верю, but to то. We can translate it as 'I do not believe in the idea, **that** these actions were necessary'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, these are two different cases, but if you have heard the second type more often, you may be surprised that the first type exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, the verb верить can have a direct object in the Dative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я верю тому же, чему и вы. (Я верю тому же, чему верите и вы, just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; верите is omitted)  &#xD;&#xA;Я верю тому, что он говорит. (the second clause is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; related to тому) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У этих русских есть правила грамматики, которых ни у кого нет? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17905" RevisionGUID="270ce972-5434-45d4-8181-a466c40019a6" CreationDate="2019-01-06T07:44:09.410" UserId="11080" Text="Look, сколько means quantity. Let's count. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 год, 2 года, 3 года, 4 года, 5 лет, 6... лет  1 ребёнок, 2-4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ребёнка, 5... детей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько лет, сколько детей - **as in the biggest variant**. Don't pay attention that 21 - again год, just remember, that **сколько** requires the same form as with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same case is with the adverbs **много**, **мало**, **несколько**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Много людей, мало сил, несколько яблок. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя есть несколько яблок? Мы сделаем пирог.  &#xD;&#xA;У нас есть много&#xD;&#xA;&gt; друзей, и все они придут в гости.  &#xD;&#xA;У меня мало сил к вечеру, сделаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; работу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="f05b0ea4-aed5-46b9-875b-74fc3b88ff8c" CreationDate="2019-01-06T08:01:10.310" UserId="8672" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text=" - &quot;Сколько&quot; – as a word denoting the **quantity** of something – takes a **genitive** noun by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An associated noun is often separated from &quot;сколько&quot; rather than being placed immediately following &quot;сколько&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one of the simplest examples, &quot;How old are you?&quot; – while it is perfectly acceptable to place &quot;сколько&quot; and the associated genitive noun &quot;лет&quot; side by side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** **лет** тебе? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separated* *style* – with some pronoun (тебе, у тебя, etc) interposed –  is more commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** тебе **лет**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько** тебе было **лет**, когда умерла твоя мать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17903" RevisionGUID="7c15f4b6-7392-4b5f-92dd-30b6adb2c3b6" CreationDate="2019-01-06T08:07:15.997" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Эти странные русские верят **в то**, **во что** никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... верят **в то**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**во что** ... не верит&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two prepositions &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; are both necessary. Just because the main and relative clauses both have the same verb &quot;верить в(о) ...&quot;, it doesn't make the second preposition &quot;во&quot; redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison's sake, I'd say, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **К тому**, **с кем** я веду переговоры, я внимательно присматриваюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... присматриваюсь **к тому**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**с кем** ... веду переговоры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that the *prepositional combination* such as &quot;... **к** тому, **с** кем ...&quot; happens to be the same prepositions in your example: &quot;... **в** то, **во** что ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example with a similar structure, I'd say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сначала **разберусь с тем**, **с чем** надо **разобраться** в первую очередь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17903" RevisionGUID="54f14c82-996f-4a94-b72a-7fb4d37cc8ad" CreationDate="2019-01-06T08:14:18.330" UserId="8672" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; Эти странные русские верят **в то**, **во что** никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... верят **в то**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**во что** ... не верит&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two prepositions &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; are both necessary. Just because the main and relative clauses both have the same verb &quot;верить в(о) ...&quot;, it doesn't make the second preposition &quot;во&quot; redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison's sake, I'd say, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **К тому**, **с кем** я веду переговоры, я внимательно присматриваюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... присматриваюсь **к тому**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**с кем** ... веду переговоры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that the *prepositional combination* such as &quot;... **к** тому, **с** кем ...&quot; happens to be made of the same prepositions in your example: &quot;... **в** то, **во** что ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example with a similar structure, I'd say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сначала **разберусь с тем**, **с чем** надо **разобраться** в первую очередь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17903" RevisionGUID="754e1cf6-6b31-4586-8263-028889afcdd5" CreationDate="2019-01-06T08:21:04.630" UserId="8672" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt; Эти странные русские верят **в то**, **во что** никто не верит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... верят **в то**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**во что** ... не верит&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two prepositions &quot;в&quot; and &quot;во&quot; are both necessary. Just because the main and relative clauses both have the same verb &quot;верить в(о) ...&quot;, it doesn't make the second preposition &quot;во&quot; redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison's sake, I'd say, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **К тому**, **с кем** я веду переговоры, я внимательно присматриваюсь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Main clause: &quot;... присматриваюсь **к тому**&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - Relative clause: &quot;**с кем** ... веду переговоры&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that the *prepositional combination* such as &quot;... **к** тому, **с** кем ...&quot; happens to be made up of the same prepositions in your example: &quot;... **в** то, **во** что ...&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example with a similar structure, I'd say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сначала **разберусь с тем**, **с чем** надо **разобраться** в первую очередь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47922" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="cd0cd131-b073-40f2-ae54-1dd45d3e0f5d" CreationDate="2019-01-06T09:00:01.757" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1081837783600250880" />
  <row Id="47923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17896" RevisionGUID="937c4a6e-b9b1-4e04-b170-ba98aa64c64a" CreationDate="2019-01-06T09:51:49.153" UserId="7674" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Apologies for this basic question:  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Why does 'детей' in 'сколько у тебя детей' appear in the gen. and not the nom. as in the usual у + gen. + nom. construction?   &#xD;&#xA;I wanted to ask this question as the preceding sentence read: 'у тебя есть дети' where the у + gen. + nom. seemed to work perfectly. Is it because &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* (1) the 'existence' of the children is no longer in question;   &#xD;&#xA;* (2) that the noun [детей] must agree with the personal pronoun [тебе] in the genitive case; or   &#xD;&#xA;* (3) because we're now asking about the quantity of children? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apologies, I just really want to know for sure. If anyone could explain exactly why it changes I'd be very grateful - thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17901" RevisionGUID="8f5c64ce-ca38-4154-86dd-7290d131798c" CreationDate="2019-01-06T09:58:55.047" UserId="8672" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text=" - &quot;Сколько&quot; – as a word denoting the **quantity** of something – takes a **genitive** noun by default.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An associated genitive noun (like &quot;детей&quot;) is often separated from &quot;сколько&quot; rather than being placed immediately following &quot;сколько&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In one of the simplest examples, &quot;How old are you?&quot; – while it is perfectly acceptable to place &quot;сколько&quot; and the associated genitive noun &quot;лет&quot; side by side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** **лет** тебе? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separated* *style* – with some pronoun (тебе, у тебя, etc) interposed –  is more commonly used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  А **сколько** тебе **лет**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько** тебе было **лет**, когда умерла твоя мать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17905" RevisionGUID="7f295a6b-358a-4e8d-bcfa-37f95fe9dc29" CreationDate="2019-01-06T12:00:34.590" UserId="4714" Comment="Look, ... is pretty rude in English, like a threat (I know it's normal in Russian)" Text="Here, сколько means quantity. Let's count. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1 год, 2 года, 3 года, 4 года, 5 лет, 6... лет  1 ребёнок, 2-4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ребёнка, 5... детей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько лет, сколько детей - **as in the biggest variant**. Don't pay attention that 21 - again год, just remember, that **сколько** requires the same form as with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same case is with the adverbs **много**, **мало**, **несколько**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Много людей, мало сил, несколько яблок. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя есть несколько яблок? Мы сделаем пирог.  &#xD;&#xA;У нас есть много&#xD;&#xA;&gt; друзей, и все они придут в гости.  &#xD;&#xA;У меня мало сил к вечеру, сделаю&#xD;&#xA;&gt; работу завтра. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17906" RevisionGUID="da0591f7-2459-4ee1-b272-8ac5469294ef" CreationDate="2019-01-06T12:37:13.277" UserId="11080" Text="If you know the consrtuction with вдвое, втрое, use it in your speech. It sounds really natural and is closer to native speaking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas there exists &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; двукратно больше, трёхкратно больше, четырёхкратно больше&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and that is really old-fashioned and can hardly be heard nowadays, but will be well-understood by Russian speakers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В два, три, четыре раза is more neutral. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17900" RevisionGUID="6dc63ff2-890e-45a9-ba33-bb3b34c6cf7c" CreationDate="2019-01-06T13:44:52.097" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Собирательные числительные (вдвое, втрое, etc.) are a bit more colloquial but totally acceptable in everyday speech and in most of literature. &#xD;&#xA;Both forms are correct and common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference is that &quot;**в X раз**&quot; is not limited in the number of times, while собирательные числительные go from 2 to 10. You can say &quot;Акции компании за несколько лет выросли в цене в 12 раз&quot;, But you cannot say &quot;в двенадцатеро раз&quot;. In practice only &quot;вдвое и втрое&quot; is widely used, starting with &quot;вчетверо&quot; and up it's more likely to hear and read &quot;**в X раз**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much like in English you can say **twice** and **thrice** (and the latter is rarely used) and that's it. After that you just use '**X times**&quot;, though you can say in some instances that something has doubled, tripled or quadrupled. Again, can only go to four. You of course can go with **Xfold** as high as you want, but it's rarely used outside of articles and books and it's yet a different form. So realistically after 3 in English &quot;**X times**&quot; is used. In Russian you can use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the bears that are twice as large as human are extremely tiny ones. The truly huge ones are 6-8 times bigger. Kodiak and Kamchatka brown bears reach over 650 kilos and 3 meters in height :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="57d021a6-2361-4d45-9a2d-e9c1463e9b90" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:03:19.210" UserId="1347" Text="I'm referring to constructions like полным полна. They appear to be the same word, but different parts of speech, something like the French, &quot;comme ci, comme ca&quot;. What is the significance of this construction? Or am I &quot;seeing&quot; something that isn't there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47929" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="57d021a6-2361-4d45-9a2d-e9c1463e9b90" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:03:19.210" UserId="1347" Text="What is meant by &quot;repeated&quot; words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47930" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="57d021a6-2361-4d45-9a2d-e9c1463e9b90" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:03:19.210" UserId="1347" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="fa2bcba4-e4c1-40f0-a175-7e18fa811ab7" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:10:13.890" UserId="1347" Text="Would it be &quot;Innusha or Innush**k**a?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, the diminutive of Katya is Katyusha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I see words like korobush**k**a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="fa2bcba4-e4c1-40f0-a175-7e18fa811ab7" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:10:13.890" UserId="1347" Text="What is the correct diminutive for Inna?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="fa2bcba4-e4c1-40f0-a175-7e18fa811ab7" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:10:13.890" UserId="1347" Text="|выбор-имени|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="0aba0c71-a823-44d5-a44e-f3cbd782eb39" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:16:02.237" UserId="11080" Text="**И**нночка. Innochka. &#xD;&#xA;**И**ннушка is also possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17910" RevisionGUID="2ff2a5e8-7df5-498c-bff8-9d066e5de0b7" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:16:46.693" UserId="7674" Text="This means the highest degree of a quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use an awkward equivalent just for the sake of illustration **`полным полна`** is **`full to the fullest`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`давным давно`** - **a very long time ago**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`черным черно`** - **pitch black**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`темным темно`** - **extremely/completely/totally dark**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17910" RevisionGUID="c87d1371-585a-41b8-b39d-7198f1558af3" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:19:07.197" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="This means the highest degree of a quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use an awkward equivalent just for the sake of illustration **`полным-полна`** is **`full to the fullest`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`давным-давно`** - **a very long time ago**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`черным-черно`** - **pitch black**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`темным-темно`** - **extremely/completely/totally dark**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47937" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="cbb77e79-a627-47f0-811f-7e7f8ecdf657" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:19:22.790" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|наречия|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="c64bf1e9-8c06-4841-b0b2-011631007002" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:20:58.133" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="I'm referring to constructions like полным-полна. They appear to be the same word, but different parts of speech, something like the French, &quot;comme ci, comme ca&quot;. What is the significance of this construction? Or am I &quot;seeing&quot; something that isn't there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17910" RevisionGUID="e7c8a0fa-b303-489f-b92a-7c38e7b560d8" CreationDate="2019-01-06T18:45:02.420" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="This means the highest degree of a quality denoted by an *adverb*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use an awkward equivalent just for the sake of illustration **`полным-полна`** is **`full to the fullest`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`давным-давно`** - **a very long time ago**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`черным-черно`** - **pitch black**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`темным-темно`** - **extremely/completely/totally dark**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47940" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="17771" RevisionGUID="ce780a11-e49f-46ed-a618-a30067ced670" CreationDate="2019-01-06T19:19:32.810" UserId="8672" Comment="60" />
  <row Id="47941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17900" RevisionGUID="02c041d2-fd7b-4130-b6f1-5aef84caf003" CreationDate="2019-01-06T19:24:56.917" UserId="10749" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Собирательные числительные (вдвое, втрое, etc.) are a bit more colloquial but totally acceptable in everyday speech and in literature. &#xD;&#xA;Both forms are correct and common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference is that &quot;**в X раз**&quot; is not limited in the number of times, while собирательные числительные go from 2 to 10. You can say &quot;Акции компании за несколько лет выросли в цене в 12 раз&quot;, But you cannot say &quot;в двенадцатеро&quot;. In practice only &quot;вдвое и втрое&quot; is widely used, starting with &quot;вчетверо&quot; and up it's more likely to hear and read &quot;**в X раз**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much like in English you can say **twice** and **thrice** (and the latter is rarely used) and that's it. After that you just use '**X times**&quot;, though you can say in some instances that something has doubled, tripled or quadrupled. Again, can only go to four. You of course can go with **Xfold** as high as you want, but it's rarely used outside of articles and books and it's yet a different form. So realistically after 3 in English &quot;**X times**&quot; is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the bears that are twice as large as human are extremely tiny ones. The truly huge ones are 6-8 times bigger. Kodiak and Kamchatka brown bears reach over 650 kilos and 3 meters in height :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17911" RevisionGUID="fcd3f5cd-8971-4170-84f0-174ba60c0b28" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:31:48.633" UserId="11080" Text="Actually, all those phrases are idiomatic, and their list is restricted. **Белым-бело** is about snow outdoors, **темным-темно** and **черным-черно** are about the darkness in the night, or just in a dark place, **полным-полно** has already been mentioned. Maybe, there exist something else, but it doesn't come to my mind. These phrases are used as either **adverbs** or **short adjectives** (you couldn't have said полным-полна коробушка if it were an adverb). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, you can duplicate most **adjectives** following the pattern &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А рассвет приходит **синий-синий**, в белых клочьях тумана. Он дует на Ёжика, и Ёжик шевелит иголками. — Спит… — шепчет рассвет... И начинает улыбаться. И чем шире он улыбается, тем светлее становится вокруг. (С.Козлов, &quot;Как Ёжик ходил встречать рассвет&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there exist numerous **noun** phrases like that. They are written without a hyphen, mostly consist of epithets and look like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурак дураком** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стоял дурак дураком и слушал means He was standing like a fool and listening. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17910" RevisionGUID="79f7fd1d-9711-4583-ba2e-220b5c23214f" CreationDate="2019-01-06T20:55:33.970" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="This means the highest degree of a quality denoted by an *adverb*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use an awkward equivalent just for the sake of illustration **`полным-полнО`** is **`full to the fullest`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`давным-давно`** - **a very long time ago**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`черным-черно`** - **pitch black**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`темным-темно`** - **extremely/completely/totally dark**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17911" RevisionGUID="ab69261a-c6e9-488a-b912-8c0093c6efd5" CreationDate="2019-01-06T22:13:01.057" UserId="11080" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Actually, all those phrases are idiomatic, and their list is restricted. **Белым-бело** is about snow outdoors, **темным-темно** and **черным-черно** are about the darkness in the night, or just in a dark place, **полным-полно** has already been mentioned. Maybe, there exist something else, but it doesn't come to my mind. **Светлым-светло**. These phrases are used as either **adverbs** or **short adjectives** (you couldn't have said полным-полна коробушка if it were an adverb). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, you can duplicate most **adjectives** following the pattern &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А рассвет приходит **синий-синий**, в белых клочьях тумана. Он дует на Ёжика, и Ёжик шевелит иголками. — Спит… — шепчет рассвет... И начинает улыбаться. И чем шире он улыбается, тем светлее становится вокруг. (С.Козлов, &quot;Как Ёжик ходил встречать рассвет&quot;) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, there exist numerous **noun** phrases like that. They are written without a hyphen, mostly consist of epithets and look like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Дурак дураком** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стоял дурак дураком и слушал means He was standing like a fool and listening. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="424e9012-57cd-4812-b129-a169c4a73e2b" CreationDate="2019-01-06T22:48:27.263" UserId="7674" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - Валюша - Валюшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - Ириша - Иришка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - Мариша - Маришка** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка/ишка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the syllable preceding it do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, дЕвушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, корОбушка**, also **сОлнышко** (which in dialectal form can be spelled as **сОлнушко**), and at least one exception is **старУшка**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="89d8be2c-f521-44ca-9118-a85ec1da47c6" CreationDate="2019-01-06T22:57:54.177" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - Валюша - Валюшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - Ириша - Иришка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - Мариша - Маришка** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка/ишка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, дЕвушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, корОбушка**, also **сОлнышко** (which in dialectal form can be spelled as **сОлнушко**), and at least one exception is **старУшка**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="8649b89e-f4e7-40ab-9562-cd1637126737" CreationDate="2019-01-07T08:06:34.887" UserId="7674" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - Валюша - Валюшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - Ванюша - Ванюшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - Андрюша - Андрюшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - Ириша - Иришка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - Мариша - Маришка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнышко** (whose dialectal variant is spelled as **сОлнушко**), and at least one exception is **старУшка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize these determinative morphological features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="d117ba5e-05b5-4a72-9dbc-51aac34ec74f" CreationDate="2019-01-07T08:20:01.750" UserId="7674" Comment="added 311 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - Валюша - Валюшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - Ванюша - Ванюшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - Андрюша - Андрюшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - Ириша - Иришка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - Мариша - Маришка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнышко** (whose dialectal variant is spelled as **сОлнушко**), and at least one exception is **старУшка**.  &#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the first group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="ca4870ed-bd62-4a74-b21b-65711ea5686e" CreationDate="2019-01-07T08:25:29.633" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнышко** (whose dialectal variant is spelled as **сОлнушко**), and at least one exception is **старУшка**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the first group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="d956863c-2cb4-4592-b2e1-00cc50ccb46c" CreationDate="2019-01-07T09:44:48.633" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнушко**), and at least one exception is **старУшка**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the first group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="22d177ac-4579-40a2-8e35-6f327ee60ff8" CreationDate="2019-01-07T09:52:38.077" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, нЕбушко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнышко**).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the first group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="54222cce-77a8-46cc-8e8f-e62333f0a0c1" CreationDate="2019-01-07T10:23:05.607" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, нЕбушко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнышко**).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the first group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительные с **ударным суффиксом -ушк(а)** могут иметь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уменьшительно-уничижительное значение: комнатушка, избушка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кладовушка, пивнушка. Слова этого типа относятся к женскому роду, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и мотивированные словами мужского рода: зверь – зверюшка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; амбар – амбарушка, сараюшка. **Тип продуктивный.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От этого типа следует отличать существительные **с безударным суффиксом -ушк(а)/-юшк(а), -ушк(о) / -юшк(о)**, посредством которого образуются существительные со значением ласкательности: дедушка, дядюшка, вдовушка, женушка, зимушка; горюшко, морюшко, полюшко; pluralia tantum детушки,&#xD;&#xA;козлятушки. Сюда же относится суффикс -ушек: воробушек, соловушек (вариант соловушка), камушек, хлебушек (вариант хлебушко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Source: [ZDROBNĚLINY V RUŠTINĚ (Уменшительно-ласкательные суффиксы в русском языке) by Josefína Marchevková, p. 28](https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/24138/1/marchevkovadp.pdf)*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="cf274145-d7f6-4e32-89fe-a5ebd7ccdb0a" CreationDate="2019-01-07T10:34:50.240" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, нЕбушко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнышко**).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the 1st group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительные с **ударным суффиксом -ушк(а)** могут иметь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уменьшительно-уничижительное значение: комнатушка, избушка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кладовушка, пивнушка. Слова этого типа относятся к женскому роду, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и мотивированные словами мужского рода: зверь – зверюшка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; амбар – амбарушка, сараюшка. **Тип продуктивный.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От этого типа следует отличать существительные **с безударным суффиксом -ушк(а)/-юшк(а), -ушк(о) / -юшк(о)**, посредством которого образуются существительные со значением ласкательности: дедушка, дядюшка, вдовушка, женушка, зимушка; горюшко, морюшко, полюшко; pluralia tantum детушки,&#xD;&#xA;козлятушки. Сюда же относится суффикс -ушек: воробушек, соловушек (вариант соловушка), камушек, хлебушек (вариант хлебушко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Source: [ZDROBNĚLINY V RUŠTINĚ (Уменшительно-ласкательные суффиксы в русском языке) by Josefína Marchevková, p. 28](https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/24138/1/marchevkovadp.pdf)*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17909" RevisionGUID="5a4ab42f-9e3d-456b-90ae-ad5659c804f7" CreationDate="2019-01-07T10:37:09.443" UserId="11080" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="**И**нночка. Innochka. &#xD;&#xA;**И**ннушка is also possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Btw, to ask a person how to change their name correctly is a win-win strategy. )))))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="cad9e166-323e-4fbf-abec-49ed56b923f8" CreationDate="2019-01-07T10:56:15.700" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, нЕбушко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка, сИлушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнышко**).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the 1st group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительные с **ударным суффиксом -ушк(а)** могут иметь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уменьшительно-уничижительное значение: комнатушка, избушка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кладовушка, пивнушка. Слова этого типа относятся к женскому роду, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и мотивированные словами мужского рода: зверь – зверюшка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; амбар – амбарушка, сараюшка. **Тип продуктивный.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От этого типа следует отличать существительные **с безударным суффиксом -ушк(а)/-юшк(а), -ушк(о) / -юшк(о)**, посредством которого образуются существительные со значением ласкательности: дедушка, дядюшка, вдовушка, женушка, зимушка; горюшко, морюшко, полюшко; pluralia tantum детушки,&#xD;&#xA;козлятушки. Сюда же относится суффикс -ушек: воробушек, соловушек (вариант соловушка), камушек, хлебушек (вариант хлебушко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Source: [ZDROBNĚLINY V RUŠTINĚ (Уменшительно-ласкательные суффиксы в русском языке) by Josefína Marchevková, p. 28](https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/24138/1/marchevkovadp.pdf)*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13797" RevisionGUID="99bf4a5e-3656-43cb-94a2-f53faa13a1f2" CreationDate="2019-01-07T11:12:25.197" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="It's neither a nickname, nor a dinimutive. It's just a form which became distinctive from the (borrowed through Greek) Иосиф and happily co-exist with it just like Johannes co-exist with John. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it indeed initially was introduced at lower-class usage I'm not sure it can be treated as regionalism - I'd rather say it is Russian vulgar version of the name. Just like say Йозеф.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - yes, in colloquial speech Иосиф could be addressed as `Осип` if he didn't mind - nowadays it's pretty obsolete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a famous Russian-speaking poet of Jewish origin, Осип Манедльштам,  who actually was Иосиф. But this name can be use as a separate one as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there are some other examples when colloquial form of name became a separate one. For instance, `Егор` initially was a form of `Георгий`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="f6cc2e1a-f7bc-4f45-93f6-d7d63f8c0522" CreationDate="2019-01-07T13:54:52.207" UserId="7674" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, нЕбушко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка, сИлушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнышко**).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the 1st group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительные с **ударным суффиксом -ушк(а)** могут иметь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уменьшительно-уничижительное значение: комнатушка, избушка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кладовушка, пивнушка. Слова этого типа относятся к женскому роду, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и мотивированные словами мужского рода: зверь – зверюшка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; амбар – амбарушка, сараюшка. **Тип продуктивный.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От этого типа следует отличать существительные **с безударным суффиксом -ушк(а)/-юшк(а), -ушк(о) / -юшк(о)**, посредством которого образуются существительные со значением ласкательности: дедушка, дядюшка, вдовушка, женушка, зимушка; горюшко, морюшко, полюшко; pluralia tantum детушки,&#xD;&#xA;козлятушки. Сюда же относится суффикс -ушек: воробушек, соловушек (вариант соловушка), камушек, хлебушек (вариант хлебушко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Source: [ZDROBNĚLINY V RUŠTINĚ (Уменшительно-ласкательные суффиксы в русском языке)](https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/24138/1/marchevkovadp.pdf)  by Josefína Marchevková, p. 28  &#xD;&#xA;Тж. [&quot;Суффиксы субъективной оценки в русском языке и в русской разговорной речи&quot;](https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/82246/gradu04805.pdf) by Оути Пухакка, pp. 18, 19*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17912" RevisionGUID="732ba35e-fe3f-4ca0-bd98-c06302949e75" CreationDate="2019-01-07T13:59:59.793" UserId="7674" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="I've never heard **Иннуша**, but it sounds totally natural to me and i wouldn't bat an eyelid hearing it for the first time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stressed suffix **-уша/юша/иша** i'd call *endearing* rather than diminutive. Diminutive more often than not would be words having stressed **-ушка/юшка/ишка** suffix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I.** So for **Катя** *endearing* form is **Катюша**, but *diminutive* is **КатюшКа**  &#xD;&#xA;**Валя - ВалЮша - ВалЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Ваня - ВанЮша - ВанЮшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Андрей - АндрЮша - АндрЮшка**   &#xD;&#xA;**Ира - ИрИша - ИрИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;**Марина - МарИша - МарИшка**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**II.** However words suffixed with **-ушка/юшка** in which stress falls not on the suffix but on the immediately preceding syllable do have *endearing* connotation and not diminutive, e.g. **бАтюшка, мАтушка, бАбушка, дЕдушка, тётушка, дЯдюшка, дЕвушка, сосЕдушка, Иннушка, Аннушка, Олюшка, Марьюшка, Глебушка, солОвушка, корОбушка, пОлюшко, нЕбушко, вОлюшка, голОвушка, зИмушка, сИлушка**, also **сОлнушко** (dialectal variant of **сОлнышко**).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shift in the stress within the words of the 1st group makes them also have endearing rather than diminutive connotation, e.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ВанЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **ВАнюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**АндрЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **АндрЕюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;**КатЮшка**&lt;sup&gt;*dimin*&lt;/sup&gt; vs **КАтюшка**&lt;sup&gt;*endear*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix-stress pattern in which the stress immediately precedes the suffix, as in the words of the 2nd group, seems to not be productive any longer, it's a marker of antiquated language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me it's obvious that the applicability of these suffixes depends on the morphology of the base word, but it's not easy to pin down and systematize their determinative morphological features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Существительные с **ударным суффиксом -ушк(а)** могут иметь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уменьшительно-уничижительное значение: комнатушка, избушка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кладовушка, пивнушка. Слова этого типа относятся к женскому роду, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; том числе и мотивированные словами мужского рода: зверь – зверюшка,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; амбар – амбарушка, сараюшка. **Тип продуктивный.**   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;От этого типа следует отличать существительные **с безударным суффиксом -ушк(а)/-юшк(а), -ушк(о) / -юшк(о)**, посредством которого образуются существительные со значением ласкательности: дедушка, дядюшка, вдовушка, женушка, зимушка; горюшко, морюшко, полюшко; pluralia tantum детушки,&#xD;&#xA;козлятушки. Сюда же относится суффикс -ушек: воробушек, соловушек (вариант соловушка), камушек, хлебушек (вариант хлебушко).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Source: [ZDROBNĚLINY V RUŠTINĚ (Уменшительно-ласкательные суффиксы в русском языке)](https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/24138/1/marchevkovadp.pdf)  by Josefína Marchevková, p. 28  &#xD;&#xA;Тж. [&quot;Суффиксы субъективной оценки в русском языке и в русской разговорной речи&quot;](https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/82246/gradu04805.pdf) by Оути Пухакка, pp. 18, 19  &#xD;&#xA;[Русская грамматика §§ 420, 421](http://rusgram.narod.ru/380-432.html#420)*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47963" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17907" RevisionGUID="9f013a09-7a2e-4385-b372-f99d70fdd1ca" CreationDate="2019-01-07T15:00:42.027" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082290937202659328" />
  <row Id="47964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="3a24e990-1276-4cee-af14-fbaac79a4a3c" CreationDate="2019-01-07T18:00:58.427" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082336304669618176" />
  <row Id="47965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17908" RevisionGUID="24c22fe7-5911-4a02-b5de-f5a11c610aad" CreationDate="2019-01-07T19:12:59.433" UserId="1347" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Would it be &quot;Innusha or Innush**k**a?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, the diminutive of Katya is Katyusha. I am writing a poem to the tune of that song, likening her to the &quot;rocket launchers&quot; of the same name that won World War II for Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, I see words like korobush**k**a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When do you have diminutives with or without the &quot;k?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17914" RevisionGUID="b241a9bb-d518-4539-89e9-65fefe917bf0" CreationDate="2019-01-07T20:46:44.223" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С молокососами нередко бывает **куча** хлопот. Сдается мне, я постоянно убираю за ними... С тем же успехом я вполне мог бы вести дело совсем уж в одиночку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {vs}: С молокососами нередко бывает **уйма** хлопот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how they compare with one another in terms of nuance, usage, and register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does the dimunitive &quot;кучка + gen.&quot; completely lose the emphatic aspect of &quot;куча + gen. / *lots of*&quot;? I assume &quot;кучка хлопот&quot; sounds odd.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17914" RevisionGUID="b241a9bb-d518-4539-89e9-65fefe917bf0" CreationDate="2019-01-07T20:46:44.223" UserId="8672" Text="When to use “куча” and when to use “уйма”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17914" RevisionGUID="b241a9bb-d518-4539-89e9-65fefe917bf0" CreationDate="2019-01-07T20:46:44.223" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17914" RevisionGUID="e27b1d64-d34f-4c18-8715-f3fd26353cfe" CreationDate="2019-01-07T20:52:48.330" UserId="8672" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I said jokingly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С молокососами нередко бывает **куча** хлопот. Сдается мне, я постоянно убираю за ними... С тем же успехом я вполне мог бы вести дело совсем уж в одиночку!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {vs}: С молокососами нередко бывает **уйма** хлопот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how they compare with one another in terms of nuance, usage, and register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And does the dimunitive &quot;кучка + gen.&quot; completely lose the emphatic aspect of &quot;куча + gen. /// *lots of*&quot;? I assume &quot;кучка хлопот&quot; sounds odd.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17915" RevisionGUID="4fe917e2-caf5-4fbc-9e70-b9aaa110cd84" CreationDate="2019-01-07T20:56:39.383" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Куча&quot; is vulgar and colloquial, &quot;уйма&quot; is acceptable in a wider range of cases. A pupil can say to the teacher - &quot;Ну вы дали просто такую уйму задач, что мы вряд ли успеем за полтора часа&quot;. The same phrase with &quot;такую кучу задач&quot; is totally acceptable but by some teacher can be treated as too brusque and even rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A politician on an official meeting with some foreign delegation easily can say &quot;есть уйма областей в которых наши страны могли бы бы продолжать укреплять сотрудничество&quot;, the same with &quot;куча&quot; would be simply unacceptable by diplomatic  standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кучка&quot; is indeed lacks the emphatic aspect and is very close to &quot;fistful&quot; (`пригоршня`, `горсть`) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17915" RevisionGUID="1c725836-9849-4592-9166-e3878bd00c49" CreationDate="2019-01-07T21:03:09.833" UserId="242" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="&quot;Куча&quot; is vulgar and colloquial, &quot;уйма&quot; is acceptable in a wider range of cases. A pupil can say to the teacher - &quot;Ну вы дали просто такую уйму задач, что мы вряд ли успеем за полтора часа&quot;. The same phrase with &quot;такую кучу задач&quot; is totally acceptable but by some teacher can be treated as too brusque and even rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A politician on an official meeting with some foreign delegation easily can say &quot;есть уйма областей в которых наши страны могли бы бы продолжать укреплять сотрудничество&quot;, the same with &quot;куча&quot; would be simply unacceptable by diplomatic  standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, the word `уймища` is also highly colloquial so it's interchangeable with `куча` rather than with `уйма`. [Other synonyms][1] one can find here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кучка&quot; is indeed lacks the emphatic aspect and is very close to &quot;fistful&quot; (`пригоршня`, `горсть`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BC%D0%B0#%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17915" RevisionGUID="4daf232d-9a23-48c5-a7b5-4c5ba0e88f12" CreationDate="2019-01-07T21:12:16.863" UserId="242" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="&quot;Куча&quot; is vulgar and colloquial, &quot;уйма&quot; is acceptable in a wider range of cases. A pupil can say to the teacher - &quot;Ну вы дали просто такую уйму задач, что мы вряд ли успеем за полтора часа&quot;. The same phrase with &quot;такую кучу задач&quot; is totally acceptable but by some teacher can be treated as too brusque and even rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A politician on an official meeting with some foreign delegation easily can say &quot;есть уйма областей в которых наши страны могли бы бы продолжать укреплять сотрудничество&quot;, the same with &quot;куча&quot; would be simply unacceptable by diplomatic  standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, the word `уймища` is also highly colloquial so it's interchangeable with `куча` rather than with `уйма`. [Other synonyms][1] one can find here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it worth to keep in mind that, unlike &quot;уйма&quot; which is an abstract concept from the very beginning, &quot;куча&quot; initially stood for a physical object - and it still means (apart from &quot;many&quot;) a pile. That said - whenever this connotation of something material is important, &quot;куча&quot; is de-facto used more often. One will more likely can exclaim - &quot;да тут просто куча грязных носков!&quot; - even if it's not literally a pile - it's sort of a pile, you know :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Кучка&quot; is indeed lacks the emphatic aspect and is very close to &quot;fistful&quot; (`пригоршня`, `горсть`) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BC%D0%B0#%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="a34e5e40-9f34-4bab-8aec-301d4e9c06f7" CreationDate="2019-01-07T22:46:39.577" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; В холодильнике ничего не осталось (**поесть**)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've recently took a national Russian proficiency test held in my country, and this comes from one of the grammar-related questions in the most advanced level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of the question was about whether to use a perfective or an imperfective verb. I sort of intuitively chose the perfective &quot;поесть&quot; instead of the imperfective &quot;есть&quot; as the answer, but I'm hard-pressed to explain the rationale for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this uncertainty comes from the fact that I'd use the imperfective &quot;есть&quot; in the following modified sentences, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если в холодильнике ничего не осталось, а **есть** все равно хочется, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже если в холодильнике ничего не осталось, блины можно **есть** без ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="a34e5e40-9f34-4bab-8aec-301d4e9c06f7" CreationDate="2019-01-07T22:46:39.577" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the perfective &quot;поесть&quot; here? – from a Russian proficiency test" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="a34e5e40-9f34-4bab-8aec-301d4e9c06f7" CreationDate="2019-01-07T22:46:39.577" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="412b2c1d-2d63-452b-8722-88fd30338161" CreationDate="2019-01-07T22:56:06.673" UserId="8672" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="&gt; В холодильнике ничего не осталось (**поесть**)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've recently took a national Russian proficiency test held in my country, and this comes from one of the grammar-related questions in the most advanced level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of the question was about whether to use a perfective or an imperfective verb. I sort of intuitively chose the perfective &quot;поесть&quot; instead of the imperfective &quot;есть&quot; or a few other trick options, but I'm hard-pressed to explain the rationale for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this uncertainty comes from the fact that I'd use the imperfective &quot;есть&quot; in the following modified sentences, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если в холодильнике ничего не осталось, а **есть** все равно хочется, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже если в холодильнике ничего не осталось, блины можно **есть** без ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in a similarly structured phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне  ничего не осталось **делать** {imperfective}, как ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="e0fca427-0021-4d58-b20d-b71b1f1bfaef" CreationDate="2019-01-07T22:56:55.303" UserId="194" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things and events. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. Roughly translates as &quot;exceptional&quot;, &quot;blazing&quot;, &quot;outstanding&quot;. It can be applied only to actors, poets or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known, they just sparked in the past. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply it to people of the past who are very well known, like presidents or national leaders of the recent past. It is applicable only to relatively half-forgotten yet exceptional people. It has a taste of sore and pittyness, maybe melancholy and a lot of internal strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce super-duper high-style you can combine several Church-Slavonic borrowings: незабвенная клятва, незабвенное знамя, незабвенное пламя etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="aa8cc464-3548-48aa-b015-4aba20a24bc8" CreationDate="2019-01-07T23:10:03.987" UserId="194" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things and events. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. Roughly translates as &quot;exceptional&quot;, &quot;blazing&quot;, &quot;outstanding&quot;. It can be applied only to actors, poets or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known, they just sparked in the past. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply it to people of the past who are very well known, like presidents or national leaders of the recent past. It is applicable only to relatively half-forgotten yet exceptional people. It has a taste of sore and pittyness, maybe melancholy and a lot of internal strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce super-duper high-style you can combine several Church-Slavonic borrowings: незабвенная клятва, незабвенное знамя, незабвенное пламя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sum, незабываемый means unforgettable, impressing, while незабвенный is... infallable to oblivion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="2d65b19d-34cc-41b4-96c2-46bd57affdbd" CreationDate="2019-01-07T23:40:57.807" UserId="8672" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="&gt; В холодильнике ничего не осталось (**поесть**)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've recently took a national Russian proficiency test held in my country, and this comes from one of the grammar-related questions in the most advanced level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of the question was whether to fill in the blank with a perfective or an imperfective verb. I sort of intuitively chose the perfective &quot;поесть&quot; instead of the imperfective &quot;есть&quot; or a few other trick choices, but I'm hard-pressed to explain the rationale for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this uncertainty comes from the fact that I'd use the imperfective &quot;есть&quot; in the following modified sentences, for instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если в холодильнике ничего не осталось, а **есть** все равно хочется, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Даже если в холодильнике ничего не осталось, блины можно **есть** без ничего.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in a similarly structured phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне  ничего не осталось **делать** {imperfective}, как ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47980" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="bd2e4076-c69d-4ab8-be75-71787939dd25" CreationDate="2019-01-08T00:00:39.790" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082426823399608326" />
  <row Id="47981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17914" RevisionGUID="ce0bb4e0-c316-45b4-9e58-e39512fb1a8c" CreationDate="2019-01-08T03:00:46.953" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082472151788204035" />
  <row Id="47982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17917" RevisionGUID="e5df35c8-fce5-4fa6-8617-98504e11b207" CreationDate="2019-01-08T05:05:44.110" UserId="11080" Text="There is an expression &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Есть что-нибудь поесть?** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Is there anythign to eat?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As &quot;есть что-нибудь есть&quot; would sound like &quot;Ну как Ока?&quot; (try to pronounce quickly), the answer comes itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first есть is the singular Present form of the verb быть (to be). And it is homophonous to the Infinitive есть to eat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ничего не осталось есть** sounds really weird, because есть is durative, and we mean just enough food to take a meal. No durative verb is required here. And it is not quite clear, which есть stands here. But sounds like a mistake. Всё, что осталось, у нас есть, а чего не осталось, того нету. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Есть хочется** relates to the process of eating, it describes hunger. &#xD;&#xA;**Есть нечего** is actually the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to say &quot;**а поесть-то и нечего**&quot;, but it's not for your exam, I suppose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17918" RevisionGUID="ee798cb7-0376-4c37-b1f2-ed696dba8cf5" CreationDate="2019-01-08T06:37:06.293" UserId="8679" Text="With **делать**, the imperfective means there are multiple things that potentially could be done over a span of time, but aren't an option, as in: &quot;there is nothing left to do (out of many things I could think of)&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;In Polish, you could use perfective here as well, which would imply either that 1. completing the action would be a prerequisite to solve the situation, or 2. There is *the* solution to the problem (I am not sure if it translates into Russian here).&#xA;&#xA;With поесть, the perfective specifies a singular instance, as in: &quot;is there anything in the fridge for me to take a bite?&quot; This question doesn't assume that the fridge will nourish you for a month, but that you are only thinking about eating something now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17919" RevisionGUID="d2433faa-7b34-4478-bfa7-bdef94a72aed" CreationDate="2019-01-08T06:53:11.337" UserId="11080" Text="I would say that **куча** is a more widespread word nowadays. **Тьма** and **уйма** sound better Russian as they reveal your vocabulary. And they are all colloquial. And even more colloquial is пр**о**тьма. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Куча - это много, кучка - это мало. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Какая-то кучка людей собралась на площади, и вы это называете народным восстанием?!** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't put сдаётся here, as it sounds a bit outdated and demands another mood. По-моему would match better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17902" RevisionGUID="6c2339fb-6304-4a5a-a12f-c8e019e0fc81" CreationDate="2019-01-08T09:00:32.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082562689505918976" />
  <row Id="47986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="6ef9f65b-9947-45ce-a25a-e048000c409d" CreationDate="2019-01-08T09:37:31.380" UserId="11082" Comment="add a tag" Text="|орфография|буквы|фонология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="063434d6-acca-42d4-8fa2-2a2f407f75e4" CreationDate="2019-01-08T11:27:04.220" UserId="194" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="&gt; Незабываемый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be correctly only applied to things and events. It roughly means &quot;producing impression&quot;, &quot;producing emotion&quot;. It can be applied to night, tour, glance, taste, eyes, amusement etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Незабвенный&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very high-style. A Church-Slavonic borrowing. Roughly translates as &quot;exceptional&quot;, &quot;blazing&quot;, &quot;outstanding&quot;. It can be applied only to actors, poets or heroes and their deeds. This implyes that those people had perished or had not been seen for a long time. This implyes their impact is still substantial yet the people most likely are not currently widely known, they just sparked in the past. They are more part of eternity rather than current events and discourse, yet memory of them is somehow kept by the followers or monuments. Applicable to people, deeds, sacrifice, heroism, victory, popularity, recognition and other achievements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply it to people of the past who are very well known, like presidents or national leaders of the recent past. It is applicable only to relatively half-forgotten yet exceptional people. It has a taste of sore and pittyness, maybe melancholy and a lot of internal strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce super-duper high-style you can combine several Church-Slavonic borrowings: незабвенная клятва, незабвенное знамя, незабвенное пламя etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In sum, незабываемый means unforgettable, impressing, while незабвенный is... infallable to oblivion (забвение means oblivion and similarly high-style)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47988" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17897" RevisionGUID="1db4a893-1426-41e8-8171-daf9130aa2ee" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:00:36.303" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082608003004551168" />
  <row Id="47989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17920" RevisionGUID="43e6ba12-45f4-423d-8ba8-5dd5f03c684c" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:15:24.170" UserId="1347" Text="The Russian national anthem describes Russia as, &quot;Одна ты на свете&quot; using the preposition на.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I wrote a poem praising someone as &quot;Одна [ты] ___ XU,&quot; where &quot;XU&quot; refers to the University of X, and Google translate gave me в as the preposition in the blank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is Google translate correct? Why would the preposition be в in one case and на in the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17920" RevisionGUID="43e6ba12-45f4-423d-8ba8-5dd5f03c684c" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:15:24.170" UserId="1347" Text="Should I use на or в in the following context? How do I know which one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17920" RevisionGUID="43e6ba12-45f4-423d-8ba8-5dd5f03c684c" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:15:24.170" UserId="1347" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17921" RevisionGUID="46ba016d-557d-45e5-a984-3f85e7310ac4" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:40:35.837" UserId="2104" Text="Certain nouns require на while most are used with в:&#xA;&#xA;* На работе - в университете&#xA;* На рынке - в магазине&#xA;* На лугу - в поле&#xA;* На площади - в сквере&#xA;* На кухне - в комнате&#xA;&#xA;Some can be used with both: на свете - в целом свете, во дворе - на дворе, на Украине - в Украине, the latter being politically sensitive.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;В&quot; is the regular one. &quot;На&quot; is regarded as an exception, although some regularities exist e.g. islands require на: на острове Святой Елены, на Канарах.&#xA;&#xA;In Zalizniak's *Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* such nouns are tagged with М(на)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="dbd2f16e-51f8-4460-a5cc-55ac19bd3a36" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:43:24.710" UserId="7674" Text="In fact when speaking of singularity or uniqueness the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** provided pronoun **`весь`** is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it correct preposition depends on the denoting place noun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17921" RevisionGUID="6d8a3b8a-6cbb-4840-9290-dc9ba5796826" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:46:17.790" UserId="2104" Comment="added 27 characters in body; added 9 characters in body" Text="Certain nouns require &quot;на&quot; while most are used with &quot;в&quot;:&#xA;&#xA;* На работе - в университете&#xA;* На рынке - в магазине&#xA;* На лугу - в поле&#xA;* На площади - в сквере&#xA;* На кухне - в комнате&#xA;* На каникулах - в отпуске&#xA;&#xA;Some can be used with both: на свете - в целом свете, во дворе - на дворе, на Украине - в Украине, the latter pair being politically sensitive.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;В&quot; is the regular one. &quot;На&quot; is regarded as an exception, although some regularities exist e.g. islands require на: на острове Святой Елены, на Канарах.&#xA;&#xA;In Zalizniak's *Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* such nouns are tagged with М(на)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="067b7692-cb46-4724-869c-2409a5f5a100" CreationDate="2019-01-08T12:50:55.673" UserId="7674" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="In fact when speaking of singularity or uniqueness the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** provided pronoun **`весь`** is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it correct preposition depends on the noun denoting place, as exemplified in the lyrics of this [Soviet-pop song](https://youtu.be/TE5Gv5FMLcA) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одна ты **на** свете и **в** сердце одна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="63c438d9-b58f-4742-b0d7-23bc80fc6827" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:13:44.703" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In fact when speaking of singularity or uniqueness the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** provided pronoun **`весь`** is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without it correct preposition depends on the noun denoting location, as exemplified in the lyrics of this [Soviet-pop song](https://youtu.be/TE5Gv5FMLcA?t=109) about motherland (a popular topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одна ты **на** свете и **в** сердце одна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="62997458-4d73-4bd5-ac27-ae0c5223e7ba" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:21:36.017" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="In fact when emphasizing singularity or uniqueness the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** particularly when pronoun **`весь`** is used but on only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**  &#xD;&#xA;**один на миллион**   &#xD;&#xA;[**Школа для незрячих – одна на страну**](https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/27308396.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases correct preposition depends on the noun denoting location, as exemplified in the lyrics of this [Soviet-pop song](https://youtu.be/TE5Gv5FMLcA?t=109) about motherland (a popular topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одна ты **на** свете и **в** сердце одна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="088d16e3-5f97-4a32-8d74-b27a5b7b2b5e" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:53:16.820" UserId="7674" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="In fact when emphasizing singularity or uniqueness (often expressed by way of [metonymy]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy)) the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** particularly when pronoun **`весь`** is used but on only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &lt;sup&gt;(metonymical use of *свет (мир)* in a sense of *all the world's population*)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**  &lt;sup&gt;(metonymical use of *университет* in a sense of *all the students*)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**один на миллион**   &#xD;&#xA;[**Школа для незрячих – одна на страну**](https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/27308396.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases correct preposition depends on the noun denoting location, as exemplified in the lyrics of this [Soviet-pop song](https://youtu.be/TE5Gv5FMLcA?t=109) about motherland (a popular topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одна ты **на** свете и **в** сердце одна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="47999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="b7cc3cd0-f6c9-4233-a5a0-9257b31a5486" CreationDate="2019-01-08T13:58:56.807" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="In fact when emphasizing singularity or uniqueness (often by way of [metonymy]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy)) the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** particularly when pronoun **`весь`** is used but on only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &lt;sup&gt;(metonymical use of *свет (мир)* in a sense of *all the world's population*)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**  &lt;sup&gt;(metonymical use of *университет* in a sense of *all the students*)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**один на миллион**   &#xD;&#xA;[**Школа для незрячих – одна на страну**](https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/27308396.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases correct preposition depends on the noun denoting location, as exemplified in the lyrics of this [Soviet-pop song](https://youtu.be/TE5Gv5FMLcA?t=109) about motherland (a popular topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одна ты **на** свете и **в** сердце одна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17922" RevisionGUID="72963b3a-9dce-4377-822d-7d236a50a388" CreationDate="2019-01-08T16:45:59.563" UserId="7674" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="In fact when emphasizing singularity or uniqueness (often by way of [metonymy]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy)) the idiomatic preposition is **`на`** which governs *Accusative case* particularly when pronoun **`весь`** is used but on only&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(такая) одна на весь свет**  &lt;sup&gt;(metonymical use of *свет (мир)* in a sense of *all the world's population*)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**одна на весь университет**  &lt;sup&gt;(metonymical use of *университет* in a sense of *all the students*)&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;**один на миллион**   &#xD;&#xA;[**Школа для незрячих – одна на страну**](https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/27308396.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases correct preposition depends on the noun denoting location and governs *Prepositional case* instead, as exemplified in the lyrics of this [Soviet-pop song](https://youtu.be/TE5Gv5FMLcA?t=109) about motherland (a popular topic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одна ты **на** свете и **в** сердце одна" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17923" RevisionGUID="322f50c1-86bd-4017-b193-acb158853c56" CreationDate="2019-01-08T17:40:30.247" UserId="1347" Text="In one case you are *on* the earth, or на свете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the other case, you are *at* university, that is, with in its confines, not on top of a surface, so в is the better proposition." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17921" RevisionGUID="3aea2716-e25d-403e-986f-1853b9c20838" CreationDate="2019-01-08T20:28:39.733" UserId="2104" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Certain nouns require &quot;на&quot; while most are used with &quot;в&quot;:&#xA;&#xA;* На работе - в университете&#xA;* На рынке - в магазине&#xA;* На лугу - в поле&#xA;* На площади - в сквере&#xA;* На кухне - в комнате&#xA;* На каникулах - в отпуске&#xA;* На Урале - в Сибири&#xA;&#xA;Some can be used with either: на свете - в целом свете, во дворе - на дворе, на Украине - в Украине, the latter pair being politically sensitive.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;В&quot; is the regular one. &quot;На&quot; is regarded as an exception, although some regularities exist e.g. islands require на: на острове Святой Елены, на Канарах, на Таити.&#xA;&#xA;In Zalizniak's *Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* such nouns are tagged with П&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(на)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48003" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17801" RevisionGUID="a24fa22b-9b91-4f53-8727-495add465df0" CreationDate="2019-01-08T21:00:25.560" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082743853029961729" />
  <row Id="48004" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17809" RevisionGUID="e0a628c3-970b-4605-9151-00712c03fd1a" CreationDate="2019-01-09T00:00:39.963" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1082789211890167814" />
  <row Id="48005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17924" RevisionGUID="95386cc2-643e-4221-bb5a-11e53a595b1a" CreationDate="2019-01-09T04:46:18.827" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Ты что, собираешься перебраться в деревню, **подальше** от любопытных глаз?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Ты что, собираешься перебраться в деревню, **дальше** от любопытных глаз?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так засунь **подальше** свои эмоции и решай насущные проблемы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;{vs}: Так засунь **дальше** свои эмоции и решай насущные проблемы!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say something like the above in conversation, I seem to use &quot;**по**дальше&quot; rather than &quot;дальше&quot; almost by default. There are some particular instances/phrasings where the use of &quot;подальше&quot; with understatement seems like a must choice and substituting &quot;дальше&quot; seems simply out of place, although a *standard* comparative adjective/adverb can usually be swapped in at will, if you like, in place of their &quot;по-&quot; prefix-counterpart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if there are other phrases like these where the use of a comparative adjective/adverb with the &quot;по-&quot; prefix is preferred almost by default. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17924" RevisionGUID="95386cc2-643e-4221-bb5a-11e53a595b1a" CreationDate="2019-01-09T04:46:18.827" UserId="8672" Text="Why does &quot;подальше&quot;, not &quot;дальше&quot;, seem like a choice by default in some phrasings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17924" RevisionGUID="95386cc2-643e-4221-bb5a-11e53a595b1a" CreationDate="2019-01-09T04:46:18.827" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17925" RevisionGUID="2a4ef479-2f7f-45c7-bf01-cbd3646d8607" CreationDate="2019-01-09T05:32:17.720" UserId="11080" Text="**Дальше** is farther or further. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подальше** if far away. It is even farther than far. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the phrase **засунь подальше** it is an euphemism, I would say, a set one, and **дальше** here would mean sth like **pass it further**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Куда подальше** is also an idiom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comp. **передай дальше** - pass it to the next person in the row. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say **передай подальше**, it means с глаз долой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бросай мяч дальше** - throw the ball to the next player. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Бросай мяч подальше** - throw the ball as far as you can. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Беги дальше** - go on running. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Беги подальше** - run as far as you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17926" RevisionGUID="cf07e7ed-b7ca-4bca-9e35-8c1833d0e91e" CreationDate="2019-01-09T07:17:43.643" UserId="10749" Text="**Подальше** DOES NOT necessarily mean &quot;very far&quot; or &quot;far away&quot;, definitely doesn't mean &quot;as far as you can&quot; - that will be &quot;**как можно дальше**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It can mean a) a bit farther b) far enough away c) Really far away (but that usually used figuratively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Давай проедем подальше**&quot; does not mean let's drive as far as we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can, on the contrary it means &quot;let's drive a little more (perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&gt; looking for a parking spot and not quite ready to give up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly &quot;**Отойди подальше**&quot; does not mean &quot;get away as far as you can&quot;, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simply means &quot;walk on a further&quot;. If the intonation is threatening it CAN imply something like &quot;get the hell away from me (or it will get ugly)&quot;, but otherwise it's just a request to move a bit further. Plus if you really want to convey that you want them to move far away you'd say something like &quot;**Отойди-ка от меня подальше, повторяться не буду.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Я бы так хотел уехать подальше отсюда**&quot; does indeed imply that you want to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the hell away from here, as far as possible, however &quot;**Я переехал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подальше от работы**&quot; simply means that you moved and now you live&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farther from work than you used to. It can be just a bit farther.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically **подальше** CAN mean &quot;as far away as possible&quot; (especially when used as a figure of speech, wishful thinking, etc.), but by far and large it just means &quot;a bit further&quot;. Same way **поближе** just means &quot;a bit closer&quot;, &quot;closer than that even&quot;, it does not mean &quot;as close as possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using straight distance comparison between two things you сan for the most part use both forms, but **подальше**/**поближе** is a bit more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Её дом подальше моего**&quot; is fine, But to me &quot;**eё дом ещё дальше моего**&quot; sounds better, less folksy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подальше** means &quot;farther&quot;, while **дальше** сan mean both &quot;farther&quot; and &quot;further&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You absolutely cannot say &quot;**Да, я и подальше собираюсь этим заниматься!**&quot; or &quot;**Он хочет в карьере пройти как можно подальше.**&quot;. When you're not talking about some physical distance use **дальше**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дальше** can also mean &quot;go on&quot; when asking someone to continue or simply &quot;ok, let me continue/elaborate more&quot; when you're about to continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Так, значит продалжаю дальше, если никто не против**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean &quot;after that&quot; - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**А дальше там такое началось, что я не выдержал и уехал домой**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Ну понял. А дальше?**&quot; - &quot;Ok, got it, and then what?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Подальше&quot; сan never be used in those cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If request to move something (or someone) farther or closer is repeated you can say &quot;**подальше**/**поближе**&quot; the first time but when you repeat it (needing more/less distance) you simply say &quot;**дальще/ближе**&quot;, &quot;**ещё дальше/ближе**&quot; or simply &quot;**eщё**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17926" RevisionGUID="8f6e9433-ae37-4b36-ae10-f374e39cd685" CreationDate="2019-01-09T15:44:54.383" UserId="10749" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Подальше** DOES NOT necessarily mean &quot;very far&quot; or &quot;far away&quot;, definitely doesn't mean &quot;as far as you can&quot; - that will be &quot;**как можно дальше**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;It can mean a) a bit farther b) far enough away c) Really far away (but that usually used figuratively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Давай проедем подальше**&quot; does not mean let's drive as far as we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can, on the contrary it means &quot;let's drive a little more (perhaps&#xD;&#xA;&gt; looking for a parking spot and not quite ready to give up). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Similarly &quot;**Отойди подальше**&quot; does not mean &quot;get away as far as you can&quot;, it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; simply means &quot;walk on a further&quot;. If the intonation is threatening it CAN imply something like &quot;get the hell away from me (or it will get ugly)&quot;, but otherwise it's just a request to move a bit further. Plus if you really want to convey that you want them to move far away you'd say something like &quot;**Отойди-ка от меня подальше, повторяться не буду.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Я бы так хотел уехать подальше отсюда**&quot; does indeed imply that you want to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; get the hell away from here, as far as possible, however &quot;**Я переехал&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подальше от работы**&quot; simply means that you moved and now you live&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farther from work than you used to. It can be just a bit farther.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically **подальше** CAN mean &quot;as far away as possible&quot; (especially when used as a figure of speech, wishful thinking, etc.), but by far and large it just means &quot;a bit further&quot;. Same way **поближе** just means &quot;a bit closer&quot;, &quot;closer than that even&quot;, it does not mean &quot;as close as possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using straight distance comparison between two things you сan for the most part use both forms, but **подальше**/**поближе** is a bit more colloquial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Её дом подальше моего**&quot; is fine, But to me &quot;**eё дом ещё дальше моего**&quot; sounds better, less folksy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Подальше** means &quot;farther&quot;, while **дальше** сan mean both &quot;farther&quot; and &quot;further&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;You absolutely cannot say &quot;**Да, я и подальше собираюсь этим заниматься!**&quot; or &quot;**Он хочет в карьере пройти как можно подальше.**&quot;. When you're not talking about some physical distance use **дальше**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Дальше** can also mean &quot;go on&quot; when asking someone to continue or simply &quot;ok, let me continue/elaborate more&quot; when you're about to continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Так, значит продалжаю дальше, если никто не против**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also mean &quot;after that&quot; - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**А дальше там такое началось, что я не выдержал и уехал домой**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;**Ну понял. А дальше?**&quot; - &quot;Ok, got it, and then what?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Подальше&quot; сan never be used in those cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If request to move something (or someone) farther or closer is repeated, you can say &quot;**подальше**/**поближе**&quot; the first time; but when you repeat it (needing more/less distance) you simply say &quot;**дальще/ближе**&quot;, &quot;**ещё дальше/ближе**&quot; or simply &quot;**eщё**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17927" RevisionGUID="3b203c7a-4614-4289-9460-d88c1b412c26" CreationDate="2019-01-09T17:55:56.897" UserId="9256" Text="Дальше means farther&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подальше means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a little farther&#xD;&#xA; 2. far enough (from the starting point)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meaning of &quot;a little farther&quot; those words are synonyms and largely interchangeable. But in the meaning of &quot;far enough&quot; the meaning is different. &quot;подальше от любопытных глаз&quot; and &quot;засунь подальше&quot; fall under this category. It does not mean that something or someone should be moved comparatively farther, and neither moved as far away as possible - only that it has to be moved far enough to satisfy some requirement (not to be seen etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48012" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17924" RevisionGUID="e04c3aa0-2851-4291-ac23-e968ae5e712e" CreationDate="2019-01-09T21:00:33.547" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1083106274387128321" />
  <row Id="48013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17927" RevisionGUID="f018c6db-ad5c-42cb-91e7-673c712f1ec8" CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:14:36.627" UserId="9256" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Дальше means farther&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Подальше means&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a little farther&#xD;&#xA; 2. far enough (from the starting point)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meaning of &quot;a little farther&quot; those words are synonyms and largely interchangeable. But in the meaning of &quot;far enough&quot; &quot;подальше&quot; is different from &quot;дальше&quot;. &quot;подальше от любопытных глаз&quot; and &quot;засунь подальше&quot; fall under this category. It does not mean that something or someone should be moved comparatively farther, and neither moved as far away as possible - only that it has to be moved far enough to satisfy some requirement (not to be seen etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="cd0280b8-1f79-4e2b-a8c3-3bd19fdae2a0" CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:54:01.583" UserId="10271" Text="Один наш постоялец видел ~~~&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having difficulty in understanding the reason of using nominative. I thought genitive would be the correct case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Один наших постояльцев видел ~~~&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="cd0280b8-1f79-4e2b-a8c3-3bd19fdae2a0" CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:54:01.583" UserId="10271" Text="Difference between Один наш постоялец and Один наших постояльцев?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="cd0280b8-1f79-4e2b-a8c3-3bd19fdae2a0" CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:54:01.583" UserId="10271" Text="|грамматика|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17929" RevisionGUID="2e2f4dd5-4e24-439d-9cd8-100231b249ca" CreationDate="2019-01-09T23:59:31.907" UserId="242" Text="You are missing &quot;из&quot; in phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Один из** наших постояльцев видел...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;corresponds to &quot;**one of** our residents&quot;, while &quot;один наш постоялец&quot; is &quot;a resident of ours&quot;. The reason why you are confused is that &quot;один&quot; in the latter phrase is actually not supposed to be translated as &quot;one&quot; - in this usage it's actually quite close to indefinite article in English (check out this [question][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/16818/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD-as-an-equivalent-of-indefinite-article/16821" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="5b614bef-0b8b-4ef2-b67f-a89202ebe555" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:02:05.933" UserId="242" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm having difficulty in understanding the reason of using nominative in following phrase: &quot;Один наш постоялец видел...&quot;. I thought genitive would be the correct case, like in: &quot;Один наших постояльцев видел...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="5b614bef-0b8b-4ef2-b67f-a89202ebe555" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:02:05.933" UserId="242" Comment="added 23 characters in body; edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;один наш постоялец&quot; and &quot;один наших постояльцев&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="8df358cb-304f-456b-93a0-c0064549c052" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:13:56.663" UserId="1347" Text="I've been &quot;writing&quot; a Russian poem. (Actually, I write in English, and let Google translate do the work.) Below is the original English version, the Google translate version, and then questions about the changes I want to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Original version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why am I  standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Google Translate Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My proposed changes and questions:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - это то, [чего] я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда идти не хочу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Delete the чего in brackets. I need to cut two syllables to fit the music I'm using. Am I allowed to do this, or is чего so necessary that I should keep this? If so, which 1-3 other syllables can be cut?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I want to change &quot; куда я не хочу идти&quot; to куда идти не хочу&quot; to make &quot;не хочу&quot; rhyme with знаю. May I do this with the word order? (In German, the infinitive verb must come at the end. I hope this is *not* true in Russian.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="8df358cb-304f-456b-93a0-c0064549c052" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:13:56.663" UserId="1347" Text="Can I (gramatically) make the following changes to a Russian translate in a poem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="8df358cb-304f-456b-93a0-c0064549c052" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:13:56.663" UserId="1347" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48023" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="3b1cffee-3ecb-40b5-b3cd-dc6473ec6439" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:19:51.127" UserId="1347" Comment="edited title" Text="Can I (gramatically) make the following changes to a Russian translation in a poem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48024" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="176e718f-bf56-417d-9a82-a2ab94976502" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:20:23.757" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48025" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="22f7d07d-7512-450d-a3a6-760a7c2037bf" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:24:42.457" UserId="1347" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1347,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tom Au&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48026" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="82462dc8-bec4-4bf9-b1ec-a43267990fa0" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:25:11.613" UserId="1347" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1347,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tom Au&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="5686bda8-b5a4-4556-814c-b1cac1a12ced" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:30:27.137" UserId="1347" Comment="deleted 370 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've been &quot;writing&quot; a Russian poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a brief passage from the original English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why am I  standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to change the second line to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - это то, [чего] я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда идти не хочу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to change &quot; куда я не хочу идти&quot; to куда идти не хочу&quot; to make &quot;не хочу&quot; rhyme with знаю. May I do this with the word order? In German, the infinitive verb must come at the end, but is this true in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="5686bda8-b5a4-4556-814c-b1cac1a12ced" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:30:27.137" UserId="1347" Comment="deleted 370 characters in body; edited title" Text="Do Russian infinitives need to be at the end of the sentence as is the case in German?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48029" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="743dbf57-8248-48c2-b313-b7726e9ecf16" CreationDate="2019-01-10T00:32:10.003" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1347,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tom Au&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17931" RevisionGUID="68a78461-25c0-4eba-9107-230ff012910b" CreationDate="2019-01-10T01:24:12.483" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I jokingly said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она якобы слышала внутренний голос, который шепчет ей снова и снова. Я дал ей адрес хорошего врача! Да уж, время, что она провела в одиночестве, **ее не пощадило**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression &quot;X takes/took its toll on Y&quot; comes in handy to refer to an accumulating negative impact of some enduring activity or process on something that used to be in great condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to euphemistically express the idea of &quot;months of loneliness having made her lose her mind&quot;. I used &quot;не пощадило&quot; as a sort of litotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't seem to find &quot;не пощадило&quot; among more than 10 different phrases offered by native Russian speakers as equivalents of &quot;X took its toll on Y&quot;, so I'm not sure if my phrasing got my meaning across. What are commonly used phrasings for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48031" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17931" RevisionGUID="68a78461-25c0-4eba-9107-230ff012910b" CreationDate="2019-01-10T01:24:12.483" UserId="8672" Text="How to express the euphemistic “X took its toll on Y” in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48032" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17931" RevisionGUID="68a78461-25c0-4eba-9107-230ff012910b" CreationDate="2019-01-10T01:24:12.483" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17931" RevisionGUID="7f0d8978-0e04-4049-9704-0a2dd5057e58" CreationDate="2019-01-10T01:48:36.107" UserId="8672" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In conversation, I jokingly said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она якобы слышала внутренний голос, который шепчет ей снова и снова. Я дал ей адрес хорошего врача! Да уж, время, что она провела в одиночестве, **ее не пощадило**...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression &quot;X takes/took its toll on Y&quot; comes in handy to refer to an accumulating negative impact of some continuous activity or process on something that used to be in great condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to euphemistically express the idea of &quot;months of loneliness having made her lose her mind&quot;. I used &quot;не пощадило&quot; as a sort of litotes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't seem to find &quot;не пощадило&quot; among more than 10 different phrases offered by native Russian speakers as equivalents of &quot;X took its toll on Y&quot;, so I'm not sure if my phrasing got my meaning across. What are commonly used phrasings for this in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17932" RevisionGUID="dbe700bb-c998-4b06-b6e5-8970fdf53376" CreationDate="2019-01-10T03:20:00.150" UserId="11368" Text="To me, your phrase is perfectly fine. When I repeat it over and over, I feel some additional overtones like implications of somewhat harsh outcomes. Perhaps, hearing voices in one's head does qualify. In lighter situations I'd use *&quot;время[, что она провела в одиночестве,] не прошло бесследно&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17933" RevisionGUID="f3a7c623-d5e5-49c1-8f6d-30160c2bafd8" CreationDate="2019-01-10T07:46:16.863" UserId="7674" Text="Your version sounds good enough. Another way of putting it is what *rg_software* suggested with an added pronoun which i think makes it more idiomatic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не прошло для неё беccледно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and its variant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не прошло для неё без последствий**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17933" RevisionGUID="be54d2f2-b44a-4fee-b02e-2ed696e9ae19" CreationDate="2019-01-10T07:54:01.217" UserId="7674" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Your version sounds good enough. Another way of putting it is what *rg_software* suggested with an added pronoun which i think makes it more idiomatic and underscores that the impact was personal and not general&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не прошло для неё беccледно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and its variant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не прошло для неё без последствий**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17934" RevisionGUID="5a54538c-5d23-443d-8cf0-6dcf4d364e00" CreationDate="2019-01-10T11:11:27.667" UserId="11350" Text="If it's suitable for your poem variant &quot;Иннуся&quot; is possible. I guess this variant may also be suitable for the song's tune. BTW ladies with this name are mostly Ok about this kind diminutive but it's personal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48038" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17682" RevisionGUID="c0330467-ced8-448f-bff9-43f653ec3d39" CreationDate="2019-01-10T12:00:29.527" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1083332750189436928" />
  <row Id="48039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="1d6353ea-0052-4246-8c53-40966970bf53" CreationDate="2019-01-10T12:41:32.637" UserId="1347" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I've been &quot;writing&quot; a Russian poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a brief passage from the original English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why am I  standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to change the second line to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему я стою здесь - это то, [чего] я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда идти не хочу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to change **&quot; куда я не хочу идти&quot;** to **куда идти не хочу&quot;** to make &quot;не хочу&quot; rhyme with знаю. May I do this with the word order? In German, the infinitive verb must come at the end, but is this true in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17936" RevisionGUID="72d25e95-424f-4946-80be-27a92d6e948b" CreationDate="2019-01-10T14:44:37.303" UserId="5008" Text="In short, (almost) everything is permitted in Russian. However, every word order is different from another. As the rule of the thumb, the last word is more important, so &quot;идти не хочу&quot; mostly emphasizes &quot;I don't want&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the process of &quot;writing poems&quot; in Russian has much more rules than just that. And the most important thing is probably never to use many short words as you do in English. In Russian this just sucks. So the first step in any translation from English into Russian is to omit everything which is not so important. For example, the first line could be reduced even upto something like &quot;Почему я стою здесь - не знаю&quot;. Next, one should never even try to rhyme two verbs with each other, or he will face the most severe prosecution by Russian Muses. And so on, and so on. Yet I feel it's enough on that matter, so let us not go into more gloomy details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48044" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17584" RevisionGUID="18895fb7-bc20-4600-9506-22b5c5e26a8e" CreationDate="2019-01-10T15:00:35.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1083378072995405825" />
  <row Id="48045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17936" RevisionGUID="491375ae-772d-4edf-a161-f71c88c78acf" CreationDate="2019-01-10T15:31:04.727" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="In short, (almost) everything is permitted in Russian. However, every word order is different from another. As the rule of the thumb, the last word is more important, so &quot;идти не хочу&quot; mostly emphasizes &quot;I don't want&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the process of &quot;writing poems&quot; in Russian has many more rules than just that. And the most important thing is probably never to use many short words as you do in English. In Russian this just sucks. So the first step in any translation from English into Russian is to omit everything which is not so important. For example, the first line could be reduced even upto something like &quot;Почему я стою здесь - не знаю&quot;. Next, one should never even try to rhyme two verbs with each other, or he will face the most severe prosecution by Russian Muses. And so on, and so on. Yet I feel it's enough on that matter, so let us not go into more gloomy details." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17725" RevisionGUID="5302bb92-de47-4f24-9e27-1c124248a8ec" CreationDate="2019-01-10T15:51:47.817" UserId="11082" Comment="other forms of the question" Text="я, ю, е letters are pairs for а, у, э, and, мае should be read maje, and майе should be read majje, like it happens with мая and майя - maja and majja.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I, personally, think that э is a different vowel than е in modern Russian, unlike vowels in я-а, ю-у pairs, ie I think мяч and мач have same а, but only different м, but in case of мер and мэр I think the vowels are different. I do not know how old is this situation, but according to general logic that appear, е is just the match for э like я is for а, seems it was so historically. I do not ask about this, this is just to show the problem. I, personally, used to wrongly think that айе should be read aje just like ае, because I thought that е generally behaves differently from я and ю... For example, I thought, it does not change the m in меч, does not palatalize it, like it happens in мяч, so I thought, е has initial j only in beginning of word, so, I thought, е's behaviour after й is just like after any other consonant, while я after й should use its initial j and make a double j.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some letter sequences here are not meaningful words, they are just examples, the question is about how letter sequence should be read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is to get a proof to fix a wiktionary function/table, (I do not know what is it and how named), for https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Benwing2#reading_of_%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B5_etc , for table in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8F and other similar words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on December 18:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some answers are about what happens in real speech. I think there is some current canonical Russian writing system, where should be a simple general rule, reading (pronouncing) according to which is not incorrect, it is correct, acceptable because it is canonical, generally it maybe a little archaic, not like people really speak, but ok. For example, pronouncing &quot;gripəm&quot; (or maybe there should be other thing instead of ə, i am not sure, it is not important for this question) maybe what is used by more people and more often, but if somebody says &quot;grippəm&quot; or &quot;grippom&quot; it is not incorrect, because it is somewhat canonical. I think using such canonical version would be more correct to use in a table in Wiktionary. I asked about such &quot;canonical Russian writing system&quot;, not about current etymological/phonetical processes / phases of processes / changes &quot;in the wild&quot; (sound shifts etc). Also some little known pronouncing rules maybe not known, not noticed by some people, and may be pronounced by them without that rule, as it is written, or there maybe dialectal differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on January 10, 2019:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should &quot;йе&quot; after vowel be pronounced [jje]? Should [jje] after vowel be written &quot;йе&quot; or &quot;ййэ&quot; or &quot;ййе&quot;? Should [je] after vowel be written &quot;е&quot; or &quot;йэ&quot; or &quot;йе&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17937" RevisionGUID="1abe745c-ff03-43c9-b079-cd9d03d7fc6d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:40:48.323" UserId="1347" Text="In the &quot;Pripev&quot; or chorus of the Russian national anthem, there is a line that goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Славься, Отечество наше свободное.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word, that might read (to me, at least), &quot;Glory to the fatherland, our freedom.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't quite make sense, even to me. A better translation might be, &quot;Glory to our fatherland, [which is] free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My confusion arises from the fact that in English, adjectives (almost) always precede nouns. Is this true in Russian or not? That is, can the noun Отечество be followed by one or two adjectives instead of being preceded by them? Is it true that it's the word forms and declensions and not word order that determines the function of each word in a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17937" RevisionGUID="1abe745c-ff03-43c9-b079-cd9d03d7fc6d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:40:48.323" UserId="1347" Text="How do you tell which noun an adjective is modifying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17937" RevisionGUID="1abe745c-ff03-43c9-b079-cd9d03d7fc6d" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:40:48.323" UserId="1347" Text="|порядок-слов|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="937ad6ef-2d44-4419-9b04-1ca8ae532a90" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:47:17.830" UserId="242" Text="Your translation is incorrect, &quot;свободное&quot; is free, an adjective, not a noun, freedom, which is &quot;свобода&quot;. In modern Russian the majority of adjectives indeed precedes nouns, so one will say &quot;наше свободное отечество&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry and lyrics, however, it's pretty acceptable to put adjective after noun - for the sake of rhyming and/or metrical foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also bunch of phrases where adjective comes after the noun (or at least used alongside with &quot;normal&quot; form pretty widely) - like `вечер добрый`, `дубина стоеросовая` etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17937" RevisionGUID="97d66b54-24ff-48a8-a55d-e1b461e69f1a" CreationDate="2019-01-10T17:48:04.077" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In the refrain or chorus of the Russian national anthem, there is a line that goes: &quot;Славься, Отечество наше свободное.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Word for word, that might read (to me, at least), &quot;Glory to the fatherland, our freedom.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't quite make sense, even to me. A better translation might be, &quot;Glory to our fatherland, [which is] free.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My confusion arises from the fact that in English, adjectives (almost) always precede nouns. Is this true in Russian or not? That is, can the noun Отечество be followed by one or two adjectives instead of being preceded by them? Is it true that it's the word forms and declensions and not word order that determines the function of each word in a sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48053" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17931" RevisionGUID="c5476014-ba2f-40fc-b514-94ddd834eb8e" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:00:28.810" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1083423343922040832" />
  <row Id="48054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="1d281ced-35fc-468f-ae36-40f6916bf05e" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:01:29.207" UserId="242" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Your translation is incorrect, &quot;свободное&quot; is free, an adjective, not a noun, freedom, which is &quot;свобода&quot;. In modern Russian the majority of adjectives indeed precedes nouns, so one will say &quot;наше свободное отечество&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry and lyrics, however, it's pretty acceptable to put adjective after noun - for the sake of rhyming and/or metrical foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also bunch of phrases where adjective comes after the noun (or at least used alongside with &quot;normal&quot; form pretty widely) - like `вечер добрый`, `дубина стоеросовая` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other - extremely small and quite exotic - category of adjectives that usually are put after the noun - is one that contains indeclinable adjectives of foreign origin, like &quot;пиджаки беж&quot;. This is more of a curiosity actually. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17938" RevisionGUID="7f1af47d-4b3a-4ba6-a793-5765515223ea" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:11:35.973" UserId="242" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Your translation is incorrect, &quot;свободное&quot; is free, an adjective, not a noun, freedom, which is &quot;свобода&quot;. In modern Russian the majority of adjectives indeed precedes nouns, so one will say &quot;наше свободное отечество&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In poetry and lyrics, however, it's pretty acceptable to put adjective after noun - for the sake of rhyming and/or metrical foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also bunch of phrases where adjective comes after the noun (or at least used alongside with &quot;normal&quot; form pretty widely) - like `вечер добрый`, `дубина стоеросовая` etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other - extremely small and quite exotic - category of adjectives that usually are put after the noun - is one that contains indeclinable adjectives of foreign origin, like &quot;пиджаки беж&quot;. This is more of a curiosity actually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I want stop your attention on following fact. Compare two sentences: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вася, смелый и ловкий, стукнул медведя по носу деревянной ложкой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Смелый и ловкий Вася стукнул медведя по носу деревянной ложкой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The order in first sentence sort of emphasize the fact that Vasya is brave and deft, while in the second sentence it's rather an established fact. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="c4c98c7a-8432-473d-86aa-ea32bdd87aa5" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:42:33.150" UserId="11080" Text="It is easy. ))))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bear in mind, that a noun and its adjective always agree in gender, number and case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечество - neuter, singular, Nominative.  свободное - neuter,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singular, Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives have endings **-ый/ий(m), -ая/яя(f), -ое/ее(n), -ие/ые(pl)** in the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not nouns, except for several nouns derived from adjectives and used absolutely, like учительская (teachers' room in a school), ординаторская (doctors' room in a hospital), outdated мертвецкая (a room for corpses in a hospital), and several others, they do not change their gender, and they are found in dictionaries as nouns. Earlier they had a noun (for the three named words it was комната). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flective languages have a relatively free word order, inversion (when you verb nouns, etc.) is hardly possible with them. Meanwhile, such languages as English, with neither cases nor genders, have no other possibility to retain logic in a sentence but putting words in strict order. You recognize relations between words by their order, and we know that from endings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="6ab56d79-d381-4287-9d18-4e3392e0a799" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:48:59.010" UserId="11080" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="It is easy. ))))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bear in mind, that a noun and its adjective always agree in gender, number and case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечество - neuter, singular, Nominative.  свободное - neuter,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singular, Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives have endings **-ый/ий(m), -ая/яя(f), -ое/ее(n), -ие/ые(pl)** in the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not nouns, except for several nouns derived from adjectives and used absolutely, like учительская (teachers' room in a school), ординаторская (doctors' room in a hospital), outdated мертвецкая (a room for corpses in a hospital), and several others, they do not change their gender, and they are found in dictionaries as nouns. Earlier they had a noun (for the three named words it was комната). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flective languages have a relatively free word order, inversion (when you verb nouns, etc.) is hardly possible with them. We have endings, which define: a part of speech, gender, number, case, person, plurality, tense. Prefices and endings define perfective verbs. One word contains enough grammatical information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, such languages as English, with neither cases nor genders, have no other possibility to retain logic in a sentence but putting words in a strict order. You recognize relations between words by their order, and we know that from endings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="fc7e5b34-127b-49f7-a476-e92f9d54fcfe" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:58:10.797" UserId="11080" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It is easy. ))))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bear in mind, that **a noun and its adjective always agree in gender, number and case**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечество - neuter, singular, Nominative.  свободное - neuter,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singular, Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives have endings **-ый/ий(m), -ая/яя(f), -ое/ее(n), -ие/ые(pl)** in the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not nouns, except for several nouns derived from adjectives and used absolutely, like учительская (teachers' room in a school), ординаторская (doctors' room in a hospital), outdated мертвецкая (a room for corpses in a hospital), and several others, they do not change their gender, and they are found in dictionaries as nouns. Earlier they had a noun (for the three named words it was комната). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flective languages have a relatively free word order, inversion (when you verb nouns, etc.) is hardly possible with them. We have endings, which define: a part of speech, gender, number, case, person, plurality, tense. Prefices and endings define perfective verbs. One word contains enough grammatical information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, such languages as English, with neither cases nor genders, have no other possibility to retain logic in a sentence but putting words in a strict order. You recognize relations between words by their order, and we know that from endings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17939" RevisionGUID="97fb1408-d03f-48a9-8339-44cac27eeeb9" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:41:42.390" UserId="11080" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="It is easy. ))))) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bear in mind, that **a noun and its adjective always agree in gender, number and case**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отечество - neuter, singular, Nominative.  свободное - neuter,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; singular, Nominative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adjectives have endings **-ый/ий(m), -ая/яя(f), -ое/ее(n), -ие/ые(pl)** in the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are not nouns, except for several nouns derived from adjectives and used absolutely, like учительская (teachers' room in a school), ординаторская (doctors' room in a hospital), outdated мертвецкая (a room for corpses in a hospital), and several others, they do not change their gender, and they are found in dictionaries as nouns. Earlier they had a noun (for the three named words it was комната). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flective languages have a relatively free word order, as inversion (when you verb nouns, etc.) is hardly possible with them. We have endings, which define: a part of speech, gender, number, case, person, plurality, tense. Prefices and endings define perfective verbs. One word contains enough grammatical information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, such languages as English, with neither cases nor genders, have no other possibility to retain logic in a sentence but putting words in a strict order. You recognize relations between words by their order, and we know that from endings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17928" RevisionGUID="37b9d740-4a16-4b1a-a0a0-bd98cc289138" CreationDate="2019-01-11T00:00:21.180" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1083513908864921600" />
  <row Id="48061" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17636" RevisionGUID="01045c3f-640d-4955-bdbf-cee213ad4f9f" CreationDate="2019-01-11T03:01:24.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1083559471979335680" />
  <row Id="48062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17940" RevisionGUID="d4975008-01f9-4520-b51e-0b9be1d5b893" CreationDate="2019-01-11T05:39:36.000" UserId="10271" Text="For example, if you say &quot;чтобы победить этот страх&quot;, it's quite likely that you also sometimes need to say &quot;I **will** overcome&quot;, &quot;Я **победить** этот страх&quot;. I think I have seen a few other verbs like this before but I can't remember." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17940" RevisionGUID="d4975008-01f9-4520-b51e-0b9be1d5b893" CreationDate="2019-01-11T05:39:36.000" UserId="10271" Text="Why does the first person singular future of победить not exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17940" RevisionGUID="d4975008-01f9-4520-b51e-0b9be1d5b893" CreationDate="2019-01-11T05:39:36.000" UserId="10271" Text="|глаголы|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17936" RevisionGUID="5632ac4c-20fc-447a-93db-782fcc37c419" CreationDate="2019-01-11T06:54:19.083" UserId="5008" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="In short, (almost) everything is permitted in Russian. However, every word order is different from another. As the rule of the thumb, the last word is more important, so &quot;идти не хочу&quot; mostly emphasizes &quot;I don't want&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the process of &quot;writing poems&quot; in Russian has many more rules than just that. And the most important thing is probably never to use many short words as you do in English. In Russian this just sucks. So the first step in any translation from English into Russian is to omit everything which is not so important. For example, the first line could be reduced even upto something like &quot;Почему я стою здесь - не знаю&quot;. Next, one should never even try to rhyme two verbs with each other, or he will face the most severe prosecution by Russian Muses. And so on, and so on. Yet I feel it's enough on that matter, so let us not go into more gloomy details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD. And by special demand here is my full version:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Почему я стою здесь? Не знаю,  &#xD;&#xA;Но идти никуда не хочу.  &#xD;&#xA;Ничего, обойдёшь - и трамваи  &#xD;&#xA;Объезжают мою каланчу." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17933" RevisionGUID="791d10a2-1c31-4427-9f02-31f301a165cb" CreationDate="2019-01-11T07:25:27.980" UserId="7674" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="Your version sounds good enough. Another way of putting it is what *rg_software* suggested with an added pronoun which i think makes it more idiomatic and underscores that the impact was personal and not general&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не прошло для неё беccледно**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and its variant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не прошло для неё без последствий**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is a bit milder and vaguer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **не пошло ей на пользу**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="e7b6c7ef-d1ed-40e0-a9bf-e76d2e8ab03f" CreationDate="2019-01-11T08:12:37.577" UserId="7674" Text="The reason may be so that it doesn't sound like the grammarless pronunciation of **побегу** as **побеЖу**. And also the fact that alternation **д → ж** in future tense somehow sounds less natural than alternation **з → ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However realistically i don't see obstacle to using **побежу** as the 1st person future form of **победить**. Especially considering that to the 1st person future conjugation of **(раз)убедить** → **(раз)убежу**, a cognate of **победить**, the usage is more forgiving. It's recognized in the [Ushakov's dictionary](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/999670), although Wiktionary lists all these forms as theoretical and *uncommon* (which factually is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form **поврежу** from **повредить** to my ear is less euphonic than **(раз)убежу** and yet in the Wiktionary it's listed with no reservations unlike the latter. &#xD;&#xA;Another one, **рассержу ← рассердить** isn't considered problematic or non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to rather boil down to habit. The more we use it, the more naturally sounding it will become." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="e53ec546-f385-415f-9de1-796195b90aea" CreationDate="2019-01-11T09:46:56.033" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The reason may be so that it doesn't sound like the grammarless pronunciation of **побегу** as **побеЖу**. And also the fact that alternation **д → ж** in future tense is somehow perceived as less natural than alternation **з → ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However realistically i don't see obstacle to using **побежу** as the 1st person future form of **победить**. Especially considering that to the 1st person future conjugation of **(раз)убедить** → **(раз)убежу**, a cognate of **победить**, the usage is more forgiving. It's recognized in the [Ushakov's dictionary](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/999670), although Wiktionary lists all these forms as theoretical and *uncommon* (which factually is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form **по-/наврежу** from **по-/навредить** to my ear is less euphonic than **(раз)убежу** and yet in the Wiktionary it's listed with no reservations unlike the latter. &#xD;&#xA;Another one, **рассержу ← рассердить** isn't considered problematic or non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to rather boil down to habit. The more we use it, the more naturally sounding it will become." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="4f76f930-2b87-4ef0-b673-0e7b3ee07113" CreationDate="2019-01-11T09:52:57.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The reason may be so that it doesn't sound like the grammarless pronunciation of **побегу** as **побеЖу**. And also the fact that alternation **д → ж** in future tense is somehow perceived as less natural than alternation **з → ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However realistically i don't see obstacle to using **побежу** as the 1st person future form of **победить**. Especially considering that to the 1st person future conjugation of **(раз)убедить** → **(раз)убежу**, a cognate of **победить**, the usage is more forgiving. It's recognized in the [Ushakov's dictionary](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/999670), although Wiktionary lists all these forms as theoretical and *uncommon* (which factually is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form **по-/наврежу** from **по-/навредить** to my ear is less euphonic than **(раз)убежу** and yet in the Wiktionary it's listed with no reservations unlike the latter.   &#xD;&#xA;Others like **рассержу ← рассердить**, **по-/на-/пере-/от-/рассажу ← {...}садить** aren't considered problematic or non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to rather boil down to habit. The more we use it, the more naturally sounding it will become." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="0ba2ac6d-e157-4803-a9c9-cc022edeca21" CreationDate="2019-01-11T11:34:53.747" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="The reason may be so that it doesn't sound like the grammarless pronunciation of **побегу** as **побеЖу**. And also the fact that alternation **д → ж** in future tense is somehow perceived as less natural than alternation **з → ж**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However realistically i don't see obstacle to using **побежу** as the 1st person future form of **победить**. Especially considering that to the 1st person future conjugation of **(разу)бедить** → **(разу)бежу**, a cognate of **победить**, the usage is more forgiving. It's recognized in the [Ushakov's dictionary](https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/999670), although Wiktionary lists all these forms as theoretical and *uncommon* (which factually is true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form **по-/наврежу** from **по-/навредить** to my ear is less euphonic than **(разу)бежу** and yet in the Wiktionary it's listed with no reservations unlike the latter.   &#xD;&#xA;Others like **рассержу ← рассердить**, **по-/на-/пере-/от-/рассажу ← {...}садить** aren't considered problematic or non-existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems to rather boil down to habit. The more we use it, the more naturally sounding it will become." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="1158e841-c69f-4116-a92f-c67de7c89988" CreationDate="2019-01-11T19:08:09.540" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3056 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the root alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/ограждать/л → на-/огражу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/порождать/л → на-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person future form of these verbs defies phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative in previous centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs have cluster **-ДЖ-** instead of **-ЖД-** without any problem of 1st person sing. future form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;отчуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;видчужуваты - видчужу  &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="553b6569-95d3-4361-9227-2bea6b74fe15" CreationDate="2019-01-11T19:15:28.630" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3056 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the root alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/ограждать/л → на-/огражу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/порождать/л → на-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person future form of these verbs defies phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative in previous centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;отчуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;видчужуваты - видчужу  &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="ffd8c993-ff86-4c4f-aa67-fda28da752d9" CreationDate="2019-01-11T19:31:31.533" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the root alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/ограждать/л → на-/огражу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative in previous centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;отчуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;видчужуваты - видчужу  &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="a15558af-69d4-4d83-97a6-e2ac8680e162" CreationDate="2019-01-11T19:52:48.040" UserId="7674" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the root alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/ограждать/л → на-/огражу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative in previous centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;отчуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;видчужуваты - видчужу  &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="4aba7a4c-e796-42f2-8250-5f4ec624717b" CreationDate="2019-01-11T20:09:05.983" UserId="7674" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the root alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/ограждать/л → на-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative in previous centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="90d42789-7fbc-46ba-81b6-63264d9e2a8c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T20:46:10.567" UserId="7674" Comment="added 698 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/ограждать/л → на-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. The form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs derives from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`**, that is ***убедить, утвердить, победить*** etc. In all these forms **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must maintain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative in previous centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="c99ea21e-9a19-454f-83b7-7c9b3cb6f50b" CreationDate="2019-01-11T20:58:25.007" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the root.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. The form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs derives from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`**, that is ***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc. In all these forms **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must maintain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="ee93ac35-a5af-4c26-8b32-c6250e11c97a" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:10:02.223" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. The form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs derives from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`**, that is ***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc. In all these forms **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must maintain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="755d452c-30a3-4df1-9954-7d276864fa83" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:36:42.203" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="67f3795d-7ad6-4272-9479-2711fa79d356" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:42:52.663" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **вождение, хождение**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="65204f89-b447-43be-a51f-e6a7eb72ae15" CreationDate="2019-01-11T21:55:01.293" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="5754d06a-ebf2-4504-9150-e1304398888c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T22:30:20.050" UserId="7674" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **наслаждаться/лся → наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; порождать/л → нарожусь; порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;порождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;породжуваты - породжу  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17943" RevisionGUID="a413af31-5154-467a-9adc-359ce7e26a95" CreationDate="2019-01-12T01:52:14.877" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Это все хорошо. Но ни к чему **рассыпаться** из-за таких пустяков в благодарностях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тhis comes from one of the grammar-related questions in the most advanced level of the national Russian proficiency test that I've recently took in my country. The question was about whether to use the imperfective &quot;**рассыпа́ться**&quot; or the perfective &quot;**рассы́паться**&quot;, even if the difference in accent is only one syllable apart from one another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose the imperfective &quot;рассыпа́ться&quot;, drawing on the fact that in conversation I tend to use imperfective verbs in the case of &quot;незачем&quot;, but I'm not sure of the grammatical rationale for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17943" RevisionGUID="a413af31-5154-467a-9adc-359ce7e26a95" CreationDate="2019-01-12T01:52:14.877" UserId="8672" Text="What is the grammatical rationale for using the imperfective &quot;рассыпа́ться&quot; or the perfective &quot;рассы́паться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17943" RevisionGUID="a413af31-5154-467a-9adc-359ce7e26a95" CreationDate="2019-01-12T01:52:14.877" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="7fee5053-ad71-44ce-b73e-c22e6c4dc9f4" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:19:00.457" UserId="1347" Text="Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Каким-то образом] я буду следовать [за ней,] куда бы она ни пошла.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Только Инны для. Только Инны для.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48089" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="457444d4-9673-47eb-8b28-7d6880a25285" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:19:11.007" UserId="1347" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1347,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tom Au&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="c5df2fa4-d539-4b54-bd97-40fbc2ebef8f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:24:41.320" UserId="1347" Comment="added 149 characters in body" Text="Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Каким-то образом] я буду следовать [за ней,] куда бы она ни пошла.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Только Инны для. Только Инны для.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words in brackets are omitted to fit the melody. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [melody.][1](Vivre Pour Vivre)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5J0nAYUcw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="6b8f62e7-4fc1-4725-83a0-799b19d9ca16" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:30:19.480" UserId="1347" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Почему я стою здесь - я пожалуй не знаю. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет туда, куда идти не хочу .&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Каким-то образом] я буду следовать [за ней,] куда бы она ни пошла.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Только Инны для. Только Инны для.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Words in brackets are omitted to fit the melody. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [melody.][1](Vivre Pour Vivre)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5J0nAYUcw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="a526ecd8-fdb0-4cfc-a6a0-a2bcb18090c8" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:40:27.950" UserId="1347" Comment="added 322 characters in body" Text="Thanks for all your help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a compendium of ideas for the final verse (of four) of the poem I call, Только Инны для (Only For Inna).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why am I  standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow I will follow her to wherever she goes. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Only for Inna. Only for Inna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Russian Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - пожалуй не знаю. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет туда, куда я идти не хочу.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Каким-то образом] я буду следовать [за ней,] куда бы она ни пошла.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Только Инны для. Только Инны для.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Words in brackets are omitted (from the Google translate version) to fit the melody.] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [melody.][1](Vivre Pour Vivre)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5J0nAYUcw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="3496a677-395b-4670-9ecb-71c6f78b0f74" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:50:27.307" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of **-ЖД-** alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** occurs without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="00329f64-e0ec-4666-90ea-077375dd00fe" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:55:38.500" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="f3e40943-8aa1-421b-b359-43f177f04c3a" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:03:01.947" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***приходить, увидеть, приводить, проводить, наследить, нагадить***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="20330298-7f55-4e07-943c-a965fb8d2125" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:21:06.493" UserId="7674" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;огороджуваты - огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/восходить, увидеть, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, нагадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Three of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***увижу, наслежу, нагажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Two bases have **`-ду`** ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/взоЙДУ***, ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* And one base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** but also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="062dc142-48d4-44df-9d49-55a7b5b13828" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:26:53.963" UserId="7674" Text="In this case **рассыпАться** is used figuratively as part of an idiom, and in this function it (to be on the safer side i won't say *always* but) *mostly*  assumes imperfective aspect. Perfective aspect is applied to inanimate objects which can literally fall apart, get lose, spill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="a6dbe6a7-055b-49e5-8a71-435767912abb" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:32:58.470" UserId="7674" Comment="added 153 characters in body" Text="In this case **рассыпАться** is used figuratively as part of an idiom, and in this function it (to be on the safer side i won't say *always* but) *mostly*  assumes imperfective aspect. Perfective aspect is applied to inanimate objects which can literally fall apart, get lose, spill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it were another verb alongside **`ни к чему`**, **`не за чем`** i think they would be a good indication in favor of its imperfective aspect. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="8b20464d-842b-4493-9806-461f3e3d4cbd" CreationDate="2019-01-12T07:57:34.933" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/восходить, увидеть, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, нагадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Three of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***увижу, наслежу, нагажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Two bases have **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/взоЙДУ***, ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* And one base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** but also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="42661d55-c594-402b-87f9-39fe5d6d548f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T08:23:36.063" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/восходить, увидеть, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, нагадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Three of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***увижу, наслежу, нагажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/взоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="43ca49f8-94c7-43c0-85e6-f135753ef7c6" CreationDate="2019-01-12T08:23:47.740" UserId="1347" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I've been &quot;writing&quot; a Russian poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a brief passage from the original English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What's the reasons I am standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to change the second line to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему я стою здесь - это то, [чего] я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда идти не хочу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to change **&quot; куда я не хочу идти&quot;** to **куда идти не хочу&quot;** to make &quot;не хочу&quot; rhyme with знаю. May I do this with the word order? In German, the infinitive verb must come at the end, but is this true in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="3028f841-936a-47d7-92f5-f956c62720ba" CreationDate="2019-01-12T08:24:07.827" UserId="1347" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Thanks for all your help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a compendium of ideas for the final verse (of four) of the poem I call, Только Инны для (Only For Inna).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason I am standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow I will follow her to wherever she goes. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Only for Inna. Only for Inna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Russian Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - пожалуй не знаю. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет туда, куда я идти не хочу.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Каким-то образом] я буду следовать [за ней,] куда бы она ни пошла.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Только Инны для. Только Инны для.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Words in brackets are omitted (from the Google translate version) to fit the melody.] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [melody.][1](Vivre Pour Vivre)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5J0nAYUcw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="48ec2e4c-0dfe-4043-a620-1d9f77ffc077" CreationDate="2019-01-12T08:30:22.670" UserId="1347" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I've been &quot;writing&quot; a Russian poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a brief passage from the original English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What's the reason I am standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate gives me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему я стою здесь - это то, чего я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда я не хочу идти.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to change the second line to the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему я стою здесь - это то, [чего] я не знаю.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда идти не хочу.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to change **&quot; куда я не хочу идти&quot;** to **куда идти не хочу&quot;** to make &quot;не хочу&quot; rhyme with знаю. May I do this with the word order? In German, the infinitive verb must come at the end, but is this true in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17943" RevisionGUID="618b8bac-08c5-459d-ade5-90072d5f7565" CreationDate="2019-01-12T09:00:00.043" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1084012103755841536" />
  <row Id="48110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="69347e82-2699-49e9-bced-80f1207cbe6b" CreationDate="2019-01-12T09:43:25.143" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить, увидеть, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, нагадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Three of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***увижу, наслежу, нагажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17946" RevisionGUID="db1d2c6e-c714-40d6-bd8e-ccefc42105c6" CreationDate="2019-01-12T10:16:24.843" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть **сложа** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the meaning of the expression -- &quot;sit around, **twiddling** thumbs&quot;, or more literally, &quot;sit around, **folding** arms&quot; or &quot;sit around **with folded** arms&quot; -- &quot;сложа&quot; seems to function like an adverbial participle, whether it be present or past, as well as perfective or imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть, **сложив** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть, **сложивши** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть, **складывая** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... even though the third option doesn't sound right to me. I'm wondering if there are other expressions with a peculiar verb form like &quot;сложа&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17946" RevisionGUID="db1d2c6e-c714-40d6-bd8e-ccefc42105c6" CreationDate="2019-01-12T10:16:24.843" UserId="8672" Text="Where does &quot;сложа&quot; come from in the expression &quot;сложа руки&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17946" RevisionGUID="db1d2c6e-c714-40d6-bd8e-ccefc42105c6" CreationDate="2019-01-12T10:16:24.843" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17946" RevisionGUID="4886bb74-394d-4687-b289-6c0a7d69ed65" CreationDate="2019-01-12T10:23:53.203" UserId="8672" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть **сложа** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the meaning of the expression -- &quot;sit around, **twiddling** thumbs&quot;, or more literally, &quot;sit around, **folding** arms&quot; or &quot;sit around **with folded** arms&quot; -- &quot;сложа&quot; seems to function like an adverbial participle, whether it be present or past, as well as perfective or imperfective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть, **сложив** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть, **сложивши** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы не можем просто сидеть, **складывая** руки.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... even though the third option doesn't sound right to me. I'm wondering if there are other expressions with a *peculiar* verb form like &quot;сложа&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="d1aae096-6c2d-4138-b47b-7fc2e578dfca" CreationDate="2019-01-12T10:52:38.943" UserId="7674" Text="In fact all alternative options are off since they the deviate from the established phraseology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other adverbial idioms](https://orfogrammka.ru/стилистика/устаревшие_формы_деепричастий/) which use this participle pattern and are still current are **сломя голову, спустя рукава, положа руку на сердце, скрепя сердце**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would't call it peculiar, only outdated. We still use **придя**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="ed4fb53a-337b-421f-acd5-8a3eea9fef90" CreationDate="2019-01-12T10:58:18.130" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="In fact all alternative options are off since they the deviate from the established phraseology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of any other but there're [other adverbial idioms](https://orfogrammka.ru/стилистика/устаревшие_формы_деепричастий/) which use this participle pattern and are still current, namely **сломя голову, спустя рукава, положа руку на сердце, скрепя сердце**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would't call it peculiar, only outdated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="ca02a1b9-358b-4b2f-9675-0fb6c9854333" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:03:34.293" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 24 characters in body" Text="In fact all alternative options are off since they the deviate from the established phraseology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of any other but there're [other adverbial idioms](https://orfogrammka.ru/стилистика/устаревшие_формы_деепричастий/) which use this participle pattern and are still current, namely **сломя голову, спустя рукава, положа руку на сердце, скрепя сердце**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would't call it peculiar, only outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still more or less acceptable but not necessarily in active use [are](http://scicenter.online/russkiy-yazyik-scicenter/175-formyi-deeprichastiy-97704.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вспомня, встретя, заметя, наскуча, обнаружа, обратя, оставя, простя, разлюбя, расставя, увидя, услыша, направя**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="1ac0db22-e225-4c4a-99c5-1b84afca1b8c" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:06:10.187" UserId="11080" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="In fact all alternative options are off since they deviate from the established phraseology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of any other but there're [other adverbial idioms](https://orfogrammka.ru/стилистика/устаревшие_формы_деепричастий/) which use this participle pattern and are still current, namely **сломя голову, спустя рукава, положа руку на сердце, скрепя сердце**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would't call it peculiar, only outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still more or less acceptable but not necessarily in active use [are](http://scicenter.online/russkiy-yazyik-scicenter/175-formyi-deeprichastiy-97704.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вспомня, встретя, заметя, наскуча, обнаружа, обратя, оставя, простя, разлюбя, расставя, увидя, услыша, направя**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="2905804b-a269-460f-861c-33554a844b4b" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:07:13.097" UserId="7674" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="In fact all alternative options are off since they deviate from the established phraseology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of any other but there're [other adverbial idioms](https://orfogrammka.ru/стилистика/устаревшие_формы_деепричастий/) which use this participle pattern and are still current, namely **сломя голову, спустя рукава, положа руку на сердце, скрепя сердце**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would't call it peculiar, only outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still more or less acceptable but not necessarily in active use [are](http://scicenter.online/russkiy-yazyik-scicenter/175-formyi-deeprichastiy-97704.html) (without limitation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вспомня, встретя, заметя, наскуча, обнаружа, обратя, оставя, простя, разлюбя, расставя, увидя, услыша, направя, устроя**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17947" RevisionGUID="62029f28-67a2-427f-9e9e-23b6b1114f86" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:18:26.123" UserId="7674" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="In fact all alternative options are off since they deviate from the established phraseology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't think of any other but there're [other adverbial idioms](https://orfogrammka.ru/стилистика/устаревшие_формы_деепричастий/) which use this participle pattern and are still current, namely **сломя голову, спустя рукава, положа руку на сердце, скрепя сердце**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would't call it peculiar, only outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still more or less acceptable but not necessarily in active use [are](http://scicenter.online/russkiy-yazyik-scicenter/175-formyi-deeprichastiy-97704.html) (without limitation and with varying prefixes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **вспомня, встретя, заметя, наскуча, обнаружа, обратя, оставя, простя, разлюбя, расставя, увидя, услыша, направя, устроя**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17948" RevisionGUID="473a5d44-6c47-41f8-9ddb-5e60538aa42d" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:29:08.297" UserId="11080" Text="In the Old-Russian language there were 4 past tenses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the *participles ascend to verbs*, past participles ascent to verbs in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the *деепричастия ascend to participles*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the p*erfective деепричастия ascend to the verbs in the past* via participles, and some of them inherit for verbs in one past tense, and others for them in the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The past tenses in Old-Russian were **aorist, imperfect, perfect and pusquamperfect**. If you wish, you can find this information, but I believe, that is not what language learners need unless they are studying the history of Russian grammar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have retained different деепричастия in our language, and you have just to learn their usage in set or patterned expressions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Складывая руки** means simultaneous actions. It is a present-tense деепричастие. Складывая руки на груди, она говорила. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сложа руки** is a set expression for being idle. Не могу сидеть сложа руки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сложив руки** means a preceding action. Сложив руки крестообразно, он шагнул вперёд. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сложивши руки** sounds outdated and colloquial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17948" RevisionGUID="209fd5f1-97c5-4650-9e3a-9c3f51f97eee" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:51:41.177" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In the Old-Russian language there were 4 past tenses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the *participles ascend to verbs*, past participles ascent to verbs in the past. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the *деепричастия ascend to participles*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the p*erfective деепричастия ascend to the verbs in the past* via participles, and some of them inherit for verbs in one past tense, and others for them in the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The past tenses in Old-Russian were **aorist, imperfect, perfect and plusquamperfect**. If you wish, you can find this information, but I believe, that is not what language learners need unless they are studying the history of Russian grammar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have retained different деепричастия in our language, and you have just to learn their usage in set or patterned expressions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Складывая руки** means simultaneous actions. It is a present-tense деепричастие. Складывая руки на груди, она говорила. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сложа руки** is a set expression for being idle. Не могу сидеть сложа руки. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сложив руки** means a preceding action. Сложив руки крестообразно, он шагнул вперёд. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сложивши руки** sounds outdated and colloquial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48123" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17940" RevisionGUID="331ebc3b-2ce6-4e07-b13c-602d0fe921ea" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:54:09.003" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|глаголы|склонение|defective-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48124" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="0fa74c19-3723-43f6-a2e4-d9a5aa7ad37b" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:55:03.237" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|tense|будущее-время|defective-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="097e544f-c96d-4f33-bf4b-7831563377f1" CreationDate="2019-01-12T12:28:33.807" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить, увидеть, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Three of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="2ff01d2f-e78c-411f-b6d8-52471a66a516" CreationDate="2019-01-12T14:15:26.047" UserId="7674" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What i would dare to claim so far is that the flexion **`-дю`** is definitely incorrect. If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить, увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Three of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48127" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17639" RevisionGUID="fe84f859-6e3c-4f64-9812-5c56ffaa711b" CreationDate="2019-01-12T15:00:33.973" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1084102842804260865" />
  <row Id="48128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="1bb50942-fc18-4d5d-87a6-239b219b88a7" CreationDate="2019-01-12T15:11:27.200" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="I think i have an idea what the crux of the matter here is. The problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить, увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить, на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="b8941c02-6813-4d09-b0a4-c1c9111a6ac6" CreationDate="2019-01-12T16:37:47.810" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects all verbs in which **Д** of the stem alternates with **-ЖД-** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. They're called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **Ж** and **Д** in it belong to the stem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **З** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **Ж**, but they should help in the attempt to resolve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Ukrainian direct equivalents of these verbs instead of alternation with cluster **-ЖД-** occurs alternation with cluster **-ДЖ-** without any problem of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why they are perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because the flexion of 1st person sing. future form of these verbs defies certain phonetic principles. What those principles are is quite difficult for me to figure out due to lack of background in historical grammar of Russian and Old Slavonic, since that's where i believe this problem is rooted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="c8230fff-f6d3-4008-8cc1-7894f3c90612" CreationDate="2019-01-12T16:52:38.613" UserId="1347" Comment="added 246 characters in body" Text="This is to honor Elena's request to see what comes next, after the above. It's only two more lines of the final verse (of four) of the poem I call, Только Инны для (Only For Inna).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This product resulted from all the efforts above, and is a compendium of several comments. Thanks for all your help! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the reason I am standing here is something I don't know. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Inna leads me to a place where I don't want to go. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But somehow I will follow her to wherever she would go. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Only for Inna. Only for Inna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Russian Version:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему я стою здесь - пожалуй не знаю. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Инна ведет меня туда, куда идти не хочу.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Каким-то образом я] буду следовать за ней, куда бы она ни пошла.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Только Инны для. Только Инны для.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Words in brackets are omitted (from the Google translate version) to fit the melody.] &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the [melody.][1](Vivre Pour Vivre)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5J0nAYUcw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48131" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="17944" RevisionGUID="507b76c9-f9c5-454c-bac7-56f0e7124068" CreationDate="2019-01-12T16:54:25.660" UserId="1347" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1347,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tom Au&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17921" RevisionGUID="17e3be73-4018-42a3-bcaf-ded925395e75" CreationDate="2019-01-12T17:29:27.850" UserId="2104" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Certain nouns require &quot;на&quot; while most are used with &quot;в&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* На работе - в университете&#xD;&#xA;* На рынке - в магазине&#xD;&#xA;* На лугу - в поле&#xD;&#xA;* На площади - в сквере&#xD;&#xA;* На кухне - в комнате&#xD;&#xA;* На каникулах - в отпуске&#xD;&#xA;* На Урале - в Сибири&#xD;&#xA;* На Алтае - в Альпах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some can be used with either: на свете - в целом свете, во дворе - на дворе, на Украине - в Украине, the latter pair being politically sensitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В&quot; is the regular one. &quot;На&quot; is regarded as an exception, although some regularities exist e.g. islands require на: на острове Святой Елены, на Канарах, на Таити. For island countries, the choice may depend on whether you refer to the island (на Барбадосе) or the country (в Барбадосе).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Zalizniak's *Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* &quot;на&quot; nouns are tagged with П&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(на)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17921" RevisionGUID="e443c043-8e44-4b60-9953-cc32d3fd2aa4" CreationDate="2019-01-12T17:50:57.440" UserId="2104" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Certain nouns require &quot;на&quot; while most are used with &quot;в&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* На работе - в университете&#xD;&#xA;* На рынке - в магазине&#xD;&#xA;* На лугу - в поле&#xD;&#xA;* На площади - в сквере&#xD;&#xA;* На кухне - в комнате&#xD;&#xA;* На каникулах - в отпуске&#xD;&#xA;* На Урале - в Сибири&#xD;&#xA;* На Алтае - в Альпах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some can be used with either: на свете - в целом свете, во дворе - на дворе, на Украине - в Украине, the latter pair being politically sensitive. &quot;В районе&quot; is the norm while &quot;на районе&quot; is low-class slang (often spelled &quot;на раёне&quot; to mock people who use it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В&quot; is the regular one. &quot;На&quot; is regarded as an exception, although some regularities exist e.g. islands require на: на острове Святой Елены, на Канарах, на Таити. For island countries, the choice may depend on whether you refer to the island (на Барбадосе) or the country (в Барбадосе).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, &quot;в университете&quot; is correct in this context. I would even say &quot;ты одна **такая** в **целом** университете&quot;. &quot;На университете&quot; would be &quot;on top of the university (building)&quot; or the low-class version of &quot;в университете&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Zalizniak's *Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* &quot;на&quot; nouns are tagged with П&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(на).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17921" RevisionGUID="2114dd2b-c1b5-43f8-b629-09b7eacd74f0" CreationDate="2019-01-12T18:22:46.620" UserId="2104" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="When it comes to locations &amp;mdash; buildings, countries and territories (or the world, свет) &amp;mdash; certain nouns require &quot;на&quot; while most are used with &quot;в&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* На работе - в университете&#xD;&#xA;* На рынке - в магазине&#xD;&#xA;* На лугу - в поле&#xD;&#xA;* На площади - в сквере&#xD;&#xA;* На кухне - в комнате&#xD;&#xA;* На каникулах - в отпуске&#xD;&#xA;* На Урале - в Сибири&#xD;&#xA;* На Алтае - в Альпах&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some can be used with either: на свете - в целом свете, во дворе - на дворе, на Украине - в Украине, the latter pair being politically sensitive. &quot;В районе&quot; is the norm while &quot;на районе&quot; is low-class slang (often spelled &quot;на раёне&quot; to mock people who use it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;В&quot; is the regular one. &quot;На&quot; is regarded as an exception, although some regularities exist e.g. cities are always used with &quot;в&quot;, while islands require &quot;на&quot;: на острове Святой Елены, на Канарах, на Таити. For island countries, the choice may depend on whether you refer to the island (на Барбадосе) or the country (в Барбадосе).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, &quot;в университете&quot; is correct in this context. I would even say &quot;ты одна **такая** в **целом** университете&quot;. &quot;На университете&quot; would be &quot;on top of the university (building)&quot; or the low-class version of &quot;в университете&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Zalizniak's *Grammatical Dictionary of Russian* &quot;на&quot; nouns are tagged with П&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;(на).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="0eec684c-bc81-4aaf-a2e2-a462eed47df9" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:37:31.333" UserId="11021" Text="When studying i always come across words such as ‘apartment’, when i search many dictionaries i sometimes get an exact translation апартамент, but there is also another russian word that has the exact same meaning, квартира. What is the difference between them and what do i do during these cases.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="0eec684c-bc81-4aaf-a2e2-a462eed47df9" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:37:31.333" UserId="11021" Text="How do i deal with exact translations of english to russian words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="0eec684c-bc81-4aaf-a2e2-a462eed47df9" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:37:31.333" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="59f3a7e2-3bcb-4201-9d90-76591543b72f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:42:16.520" UserId="3680" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="When studying I always come across words such as `apartment`, when I search many dictionaries I sometimes get an exact translation `апартамент`, but there is also another Russian word that has the exact same meaning, `квартира`.  &#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between them and what do I do during these cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48140" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="59f3a7e2-3bcb-4201-9d90-76591543b72f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T19:42:16.520" UserId="3680" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I deal with exact translations of English to Russian words?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17950" RevisionGUID="8eedd237-0404-4b25-8db0-c747d26e3156" CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:08:25.473" UserId="2104" Text="It's just how Russian works. Negative imperatives and similar constructs require an imperfective verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Не** переходите улицу на красный свет!&#xD;&#xA;* **Не надо** печалиться!&#xD;&#xA;* **Нельзя** падать духом!&#xD;&#xA;* **Не стоит** благодарить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ни к чему** + infinitive and **незачем** + infinitive are also negative imperatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such constructs are collectively called **contexts/situations of mandatory imperfectivation** ([ситуация обязательной имперфективации][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, things were not always this way in Russian. A notable exception are the Ten Commandments: не укради, не убий, etc. They sound (and are) archaic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ddaSCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA64&amp;lpg=PA64&amp;dq=%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4pOVd7We-I&amp;sig=l3tA7ifzTnxfOE2EbKSnQboZjNo&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjpifiy-ujfAhUMRBUIHQQCAw4Q6AEwB3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17945" RevisionGUID="675ee058-b35b-424a-9962-b62bf44f1822" CreationDate="2019-01-12T20:28:45.600" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="In this case **рассыпАться** is used figuratively as part of an idiom, and in this function it (to be on the safer side i won't say *always* but) *mostly*  assumes imperfective aspect. Perfective aspect is applied to inanimate objects which can literally fall apart, get lose, spill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it were another verb alongside **`ни к чему`**, **`незачем`** i think they would be a good indication in favor of its imperfective aspect. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17951" RevisionGUID="78ee108e-56d3-4318-84bd-d7ea3cbbce9b" CreationDate="2019-01-12T21:05:26.490" UserId="11080" Text="It depends on the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Квартира** is a flat where you live. One or several rooms, usually with a kitchen and a bathroom, etc., and this apartment is situated in a block of flats. Квартира в многоквартирном доме. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Апартамент, апартаменты** is a kind of lodging to rent. We do not call our homes this word. Unless to make a phrase sound pompous or/and comical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you come to visit another country and search for lodging, you will be most likely offered **апартаменты**. And if you come to settle and make up your mind to purchase sth to live in, you will buy **квартира**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the law, **апартаменты** is an apartment in a building not meant for permanent accomodation, but equipped as a flat. Usually it is well-equipped and large. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But commonly, an **апартаменты** you will be offered as a tourist can be a flat in a block, but with no permanent residents. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17950" RevisionGUID="678c57ff-27c9-48b0-8151-7fd034a74d5f" CreationDate="2019-01-12T21:12:36.487" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 226 characters in body" Text="It's just how Russian works. Certain negative constructs require an imperfective verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Не надо** печалиться!&#xD;&#xA;* **Нельзя** падать духом!&#xD;&#xA;* **Не стоит** благодарить!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ни к чему** + infinitive and **незачем** + infinitive are also examples of such constructs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collectively they are called **contexts/situations of mandatory imperfectivation** ([ситуация обязательной имперфективации][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ddaSCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA64&amp;lpg=PA64&amp;dq=%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4pOVd7We-I&amp;sig=l3tA7ifzTnxfOE2EbKSnQboZjNo&amp;hl=ru&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjpifiy-ujfAhUMRBUIHQQCAw4Q6AEwB3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17952" RevisionGUID="86467005-b525-40b6-a68c-cdad8f3fcb9a" CreationDate="2019-01-12T23:44:57.013" UserId="11390" Text="As [Elena](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/17951/11390) fully explained the difference between **квартира** and **апартаменты**, to answer the second part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what do I do during these cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general one should be somewhat careful with *obviously* loaned words - they are usually loaned for a reason - to denote a special case for what a general word already exists. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example consider a pair **computer**/**компьютер** - it should not come as a surprise that Russian already has an exact original analogue to the verb **compute** - **вычислять**, and a noun **вычислитель** is very much an exact *translation* of English **computer**. Yet, since electronic computers were invented in the West, that foreign-sounding word was adopted to specifically denote that novel and foreign technology. (As everything in language, it was not sanctioned by a central authority) It would be incorrect to use the word **компьютер** in relation to anything else, but *electronic* computers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you have a few translation variants and one of them looks like a loaned word - most likely this variant denotes a special case, while there is a more general variant that covers way more meanings. In such situation a good modern dictionary is very nice to have. Another option would be to google the use of each variant in Russian texts to get an idea how they differ in usage. Event a simple search count can give you an idea of how widely this or that variant is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48147" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="7a68d3c3-9ed6-4ffa-9304-1d4fde7d4ad5" CreationDate="2019-01-13T03:00:46.220" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1084284088062746625" />
  <row Id="48148" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17949" RevisionGUID="e5549caf-1df8-407c-8a10-866c58644857" CreationDate="2019-01-13T09:01:45.193" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Апартаменты&quot; or &quot;квартира&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="4f71efdb-8c77-4297-8424-2f7f2b80406c" CreationDate="2019-01-13T09:59:52.710" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2087 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ).   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under the law of **iotation** the final phoneme **`[д]`** in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** for it owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of conjugation of all equivalents of these *defective verbs* it has in its vocabulary, in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="19591a7c-f940-4787-b047-fa10eddc7bda" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:05:54.930" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2087 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ).   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under the law of **iotation** the final phoneme **`[д]`** in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** for it owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="4e9c58ff-5f00-4ec7-bf46-c36ece1f0212" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:13:41.277" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2087 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ).   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under the law of **iotation** the final phoneme **`[д]`** in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next question is how the stem **`[д]`** in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="7444e7b7-4e14-4f11-9260-6f2004324822" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:19:22.603" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2087 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ).   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under the law of **iotation** the final phoneme **`[д]`** in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="aa9ed1f4-8123-4891-8227-4329809c86a0" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:25:25.780" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ).   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="1bfa9488-d385-450c-a0e4-be324ef0db76" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:32:19.423" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ).   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="98cb2b41-264e-4841-b084-cb77a34337c4" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:43:41.383" UserId="7674" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other phonemes or by addition of an intermediate phoneme.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="001c8834-8351-4181-ab6a-047515db8da3" CreationDate="2019-01-13T10:49:59.730" UserId="7674" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem a phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="a5a200f6-e469-4e40-a77d-7aedd0afc58e" CreationDate="2019-01-13T11:04:49.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is foreign to Russian phonetic system, therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="e74715b6-7688-4c03-869e-3dfb743d50ce" CreationDate="2019-01-13T11:39:26.943" UserId="7674" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i sure how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="d4dac22d-3ac2-4aec-b033-ad0313fa0b53" CreationDate="2019-01-13T12:14:03.123" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to the law of [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered normative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17953" RevisionGUID="81920e88-7732-4264-80df-10b54881799f" CreationDate="2019-01-13T12:45:35.383" UserId="11395" Text="The short answer that any Russian speaker will instantly give you is that all potential forms - побежу, победю, побежду - just sound somewhat bad. They just cause a weird subconscious reaction in any native Russian speaker and somewhat disrupt the perception of the speech. Explaining the exact reasons why this happens would require going into detail of how subconscious perception by Russian speakers works in these cases. I will just make some simple obvious observations, not intending to show the full picture. Побежу creates an association with бежать and thus can be subconsciously interpreted as, ''I will run.'' Побежду has another problem: In analogy to ''ждать --&gt; подожду,'' it causes a subconscious perception that it is from беждать, a non-existing verb that makes no sense whatsoever. The issue is that in побеждать, по- is not a prefix, but a part of the root. Победю has a similar problem. I think that for these problems, people simply avoided using any of these forms, so these forms became very unusual simply because they were de facto almost not used. And I guess this was the reason to officially exclude these forms in grammar textbooks, as the grammar rules are supposed to correspond to how people actually speak. So now there is an additional reason not to use these forms - they are officially ungrammatical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, do not look for some deep philosophic mystery here, and simply use ''смогу победить.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="d53bc650-cb07-4708-819c-1c25a0789439" CreationDate="2019-01-13T12:46:32.847" UserId="7674" Comment="added 518 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** as **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the defective ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17954" RevisionGUID="a73ce9bb-4d39-4953-97d7-b33214900f71" CreationDate="2019-01-13T14:40:37.207" UserId="11395" Text="The correct forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) Ты одна на университет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) Ты одна в университете.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both variants have the same meaning, ''You are only one at the university,'' but there is a subtle difference in the flavour. Sentence (i) somewhat emphasises the ratio, i.e., 1 to 1000 or how many students study at this university. It is like a fraction: The person you are talking about is in the numerator, and the rest of the university is in the denominator. Since you put the person you are talking about to the numerator, you use the preposition ''на''. Sentence (ii) just neutrally conveys the information that the person you are talking about is unique, only one, so now the focus is entirely on the person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you say, ''У нас пять отличников на университет,'' you imply that very few students manage to get only the highest marks. And if you say, ''У нас пять отличников в университете,'' you just matter-of-factly convey the information that there are five students who have managed to get only the highest marks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analogously, there is a subtle difference between ''ты одна на весь свет'' и ''ты одна на всем свете.'' They are analogous to sentences (i) and (ii), respectively, with the second sentence requiring ''на'' instead of ''в'' simply because the world is perceived to be a surface, the surface of our planet, and people are ON the surface, hence ''на.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, ''на'' = ''on,'' and ''в'' = ''in,'' but non-native speakers need a lot of practice and experience in order to avoid mistakes in using Russian prepositions, as Russian is a highly idiomatic language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17955" RevisionGUID="1b250207-0ac9-45a3-892b-8471a3e1e1bf" CreationDate="2019-01-13T16:00:32.273" UserId="11395" Text="I would say, ''Одиночество её подточило.'' This translation is short, idiomatic, properly emotional, and very Russian - it is perfect. Here, ''подточило'' figuratively means that the foundations of her mental strength have been undermined as a result of a slow continuous process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another excellent variant has already been given, ''Oдиночество не прошло для нее бесследно.'' Just note that here neither the negativeness of the effect nor its significance is said explicitly, so the reader is supposed to deduce it from the context. This translation is somewhat soft and basically only says there has been an effect. Or, to be exact, negates the notion that there has been no effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your variant is good, too, but there is one slightly illogical thing: The expression ''не пощадило'' implies that this was the normal, usual course of events (i.e., that the loneliness usually negatively affects the person), while ''да уж'' ехpresses some surprise or appreciation of something unusual. I would re-word your variant as follows, ''Да уж, как сильно одиночество ее не пощадило.'' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="0fbe2b1a-0d39-4d14-9f09-7bbf69b57192" CreationDate="2019-01-13T16:57:10.613" UserId="7674" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **пиздеть** to their full potential. *(a salacious joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** as **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the defective ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="d786a479-5023-4dbe-ba78-22b924da1e3e" CreationDate="2019-01-13T19:19:53.220" UserId="7674" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **пиздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** as **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="0b7b2d8b-c3dc-4462-a0a1-1952eb1e3b08" CreationDate="2019-01-13T19:52:43.283" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **пиздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17956" RevisionGUID="d6746f7b-5cd1-4c24-8889-30c7393d1190" CreationDate="2019-01-14T06:56:47.713" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; Is the first phrasing how native speakers commonly express this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the first phrasing is very Russian, but the punctuation is wrong. The reason is exactly the same as the one mentioned by you - the second clause is an affirmative statement, so it is weird to put a question mark after it. I would write as follows, ''Почему ты так спокоен? Ведь твой друг в опасности!'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, ''ведь'' plays an important role. It signals that the second clause is the reason for asking the question. This word connects two clauses, making the text cohesive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the word ''ведь'' is pretty equivalent to the English phrase ''you know,'' which is often used even when the conversation partner actually does not know. There is even an etymological connection: ''ведь'' is etymologically related to ''видел'' (''I/you saw'') and ''ведать&quot; (&quot;to know&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the phrasing conveys the same idea and emotions as, ''Why are you so calm? You know, your friend is in danger!''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="89b02e45-d2f2-4cb7-866e-4853df520da0" CreationDate="2019-01-14T08:13:43.570" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="ec47fe7a-d6ba-4edf-9f4f-b1179357bdef" CreationDate="2019-01-14T13:58:38.367" UserId="7674" Comment="added 945 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="1f2cc94c-7870-4d60-936d-9f73bb0e3832" CreationDate="2019-01-14T14:03:50.567" UserId="7674" Comment="added 945 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; группе; в современном русском языке **`жд`**, чередующееся с **`д`** (исконное)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и **`ж`** (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (родить - рожать – рождать);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) (known in Russian philology as **j-palatalization**) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may in its modern form be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive in verbs of 2nd conjugation group.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group, i'm not sure how it has ended up having **`[жд]`** in all those *defective verbs*. Perhaps it occurred under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither am i aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17946" RevisionGUID="6615cd21-9578-4a22-8da8-b9eed4f3ae11" CreationDate="2019-01-14T15:00:41.027" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1084827648088592384" />
  <row Id="48172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="2547f75f-2e25-4576-bef7-73ab1918110e" CreationDate="2019-01-14T15:25:19.873" UserId="7674" Comment="added 752 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) (known in Russian philology as **j-palatalization**) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may in its modern form be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive in verbs of 2nd conjugation group.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить; полюблю ← полюбить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Результаты j-палатализации в современном русском языке закрепляются в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следующих случаях слово- и формообразования&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – в формах 1 лица настоящего времени глаголов II спр. (учу ← *ukjon);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА&quot;](http://archive.is/25bQD) by Киржаева В.П., p. 22*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group linguists suggest that the 'southern' cluster **`[жд]`** prominent in all those *defective verbs* was introduced under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`** образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной группе;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(south. slav.)* [ж’д’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’д’]ати, *old slavonic* рождати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**↑&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dj ↓**    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(east. slav.)* [ж’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’]ати, *old russian* рожати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;в современном русском языке жд, чередующееся с д (исконное) и ж (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (ср.: родить–рожать–&gt;рождать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: Nizametdinova &quot;Historical grammar of Russian language&quot;, p. 42*&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17930" RevisionGUID="f6c7fb14-af24-4457-8a83-17deb6e52926" CreationDate="2019-01-14T18:00:20.290" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1084872859917389824" />
  <row Id="48174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="819813e1-e454-411c-9ad9-33969b201db0" CreationDate="2019-01-14T20:25:47.603" UserId="7674" Comment="added 895 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) (known in Russian philology as **j-palatalization**) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may in its modern form be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive in verbs of 2nd conjugation group.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить, полюблю ← полюбить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Результаты j-палатализации в современном русском языке закрепляются в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следующих случаях слово- и формообразования&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – в формах 1 лица настоящего времени глаголов II спр. (учу ← *ukjon);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА&quot;](http://archive.is/25bQD) by Киржаева В.П., p. 22*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group linguists suggest that the 'southern' cluster **`[жд]`** prominent in all those *defective verbs* was introduced under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`** образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной группе;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(south. slav.)* [ж’д’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’д’]ати, *old slavonic* рождати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**↑&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dj ↓**    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(east. slav.)* [ж’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’]ати, *old russian* рожати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;в современном русском языке жд, чередующееся с д (исконное) и ж (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (ср.: родить–рожать–&gt;рождать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: Nizametdinova &quot;Historical grammar of Russian language&quot;, p. 42*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not only **побежду** was in use. This was an acceptable paradigm for conjugation of other currently *defective verbs* as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An author from the 19th century Pavsky considered this paradigm the norm as follows from his [&quot;Philological Observations on the makeup of the Russian language&quot;](http://goo.gl/jDaGmD) (1842)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][8]&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWzGb.png &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**убѣжду**](http://goo.gl/h5C1Uf) in a 1843 translation of &quot;Robinson Crusoe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][4]&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kXEcf.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**утвержду**](http://goo.gl/xNh1bu) (1884)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][5]&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gcKCJ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**осужду**](http://goo.gl/R9MerW) (1785)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][6]&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ViFyQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**учрежду**](http://goo.gl/r9M1sj) (1867)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][7]&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qdBmF.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**огражду**](http://goo.gl/dnkkyX) in a tradegy &quot;Antigona&quot; by Kapnist from 1813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][9]&#xD;&#xA;[9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7yEFZ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="177d7fcf-9f51-46e2-b560-3390bb48b431" CreationDate="2019-01-14T21:01:01.423" UserId="7674" Comment="added 279 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **насажу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **насаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) (known in Russian philology as **j-palatalization**) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may in its modern form be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive in verbs of 2nd conjugation group.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить, полюблю ← полюбить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Результаты j-палатализации в современном русском языке закрепляются в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следующих случаях слово- и формообразования&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – в формах 1 лица настоящего времени глаголов II спр. (учу ← *ukjon);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА&quot;](http://archive.is/25bQD) by Киржаева В.П., p. 22*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group linguists suggest that the 'southern' cluster **`[жд]`** prominent in all those *defective verbs* was introduced under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`** образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной группе;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(south. slav.)* [ж’д’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’д’]ати, *old slavonic* рождати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**↑&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dj ↓**    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(east. slav.)* [ж’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’]ати, *old russian* рожати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;в современном русском языке жд, чередующееся с д (исконное) и ж (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (ср.: родить–рожать–&gt;рождать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: Nizametdinova &quot;Historical grammar of Russian language&quot;, p. 42*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not only **побежду** was in use. This was an acceptable paradigm for conjugation of other currently *defective verbs* as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An author from the 19th century Pavsky considered this paradigm the norm as follows from his [&quot;Philological Observations on the makeup of the Russian language&quot;](http://goo.gl/jDaGmD) (1842)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][8]&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWzGb.png &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**убѣжду**](http://goo.gl/h5C1Uf) in a 1843 translation of &quot;Robinson Crusoe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][4]&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kXEcf.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**утвержду**](http://goo.gl/xNh1bu) (1884)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][5]&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gcKCJ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**осужду**](http://goo.gl/R9MerW) (1785)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][6]&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ViFyQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**учрежду**](http://goo.gl/r9M1sj) (1867)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][7]&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qdBmF.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**огражду**](http://goo.gl/dnkkyX) in a tradegy &quot;Antigona&quot; by Kapnist from 1813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][9]&#xD;&#xA;[9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7yEFZ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [survey](http://archive.is/QaySM) conducted among school pupils and undergraduates revealed that only 18% and 2% of the respondents respectively would use **`-дю`** ending in the verbs in question. They were more inclined to use **`-жду`** ending, 35% and 10% respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="3f2b75d6-6137-4a7b-ac56-2c40226eb196" CreationDate="2019-01-15T04:01:54.013" UserId="11371" Text="Hi Russian StackExchangers,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure the answer is simple, so apologies. However, I'm struggling to understand the difference between говорить/сказать and говорить/поговорить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been making notes from the Master Russian website, which lists говорить/сказать as meaning to say, tell, and говорить/поговорить as to speak, talk, say, tell, or, talk-for-a-while. I understand that говорить is the imperfective aspect and that сказать and поговорить are the perfective and that говорить, сказать and поговорить have their past tenses in говориbл, etc., сказал, etc., and поговори́л, etc. So my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What's the difference between сказать and поговорить as the perfective aspects of говорить - especially in the past tense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and 2) How can поговорить as the perfective aspect of говорить suggest to talk-for-a-while when to talk-for-a-while seems far more process-orientated and, hence, imperfective than perfective? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;finally, 2a) I'm aware that the difference between сказать and поговорить has been asked before on StackExchange. However, the answer that was given focussed on поговорить in the infinitive and not the past tense. I'd really like to understand how they differ from one another when conjugated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, apologies if this is a particularly dumb question. Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="3f2b75d6-6137-4a7b-ac56-2c40226eb196" CreationDate="2019-01-15T04:01:54.013" UserId="11371" Text="сказать and поговорить as perfective aspects of гоиорить in the past tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="3f2b75d6-6137-4a7b-ac56-2c40226eb196" CreationDate="2019-01-15T04:01:54.013" UserId="11371" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17896" RevisionGUID="7839f8fc-0fd7-4ab0-99dc-979bc7bfcb45" CreationDate="2019-01-15T06:00:17.120" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1085054040571027456" />
  <row Id="48180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17958" RevisionGUID="a9b861ab-48c6-4787-93e6-4e607fed7830" CreationDate="2019-01-15T10:42:48.660" UserId="242" Text="Well, `сказать` is &quot;to say&quot;, so &quot;скажи ему&quot; is identical to &quot;say to him&quot;. `Поговорить` is actually not interchangeable with `сказать` at all. One can say something &quot;Я скажу так - это не дело&quot; but &quot;поговорить&quot; always answers to the question &quot;to whom?&quot; so even in phrase &quot;я поговорю&quot; the &quot;with whom&quot; part is omitted only because of context, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Когда ты уже поговоришь с сыном? Он совсем отбился от рук!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я поговорю [c ним]. Сегодня же и поговорю [с сыном].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Говорить&quot; is like speaking, talking, telling - and, as it comes with using English verbs with &quot;-ing&quot; it about an action that's happening right now or happens at the same moment with some other action - like in &quot;Вчера встретил друзей - они **говорили** о политике&quot; - friends've been talking about politics when the narrator run into them. One can not say &quot;они поговорили о политике&quot; in this context however &quot;Так хорошо посидели с друзьями, **поговорили** о политике&quot; `поговорили` is not about the action that already happened, like in &quot;we've talks about politics&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="f3d862fa-5ab5-429e-b19a-6b4b35d3595a" CreationDate="2019-01-15T10:45:09.870" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 156 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm struggling to understand the difference between говорить/сказать and говорить/поговорить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been making notes from the Master Russian website, which lists говорить/сказать as meaning to say, tell, and говорить/поговорить as to speak, talk, say, tell, or, talk-for-a-while. I understand that говорить is the imperfective aspect and that сказать and поговорить are the perfective and that говорить, сказать and поговорить have their past tenses in говориbл, etc., сказал, etc., and поговори́л, etc. So my questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What's the difference between сказать and поговорить as the perfective aspects of говорить - especially in the past tense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and 2) How can поговорить as the perfective aspect of говорить suggest to talk-for-a-while when to talk-for-a-while seems far more process-orientated and, hence, imperfective than perfective? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that I'm aware that there exist a question on the difference between `сказать` and `поговорить`. However, the answer that was given focused on `поговорить` in the infinitive and not the past tense. I'd really like to understand how they differ from one another when conjugated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48182" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17957" RevisionGUID="f3d862fa-5ab5-429e-b19a-6b4b35d3595a" CreationDate="2019-01-15T10:45:09.870" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 156 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Сказать&quot; and &quot;поговорить&quot; as perfective aspects of &quot;говорить&quot; in the past tense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17958" RevisionGUID="93fd847a-3aef-48b7-862e-fe8daa484de0" CreationDate="2019-01-15T10:49:13.347" UserId="242" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Well, `сказать` is &quot;to say&quot;, so &quot;скажи ему&quot; is identical to &quot;say to him&quot;. `Поговорить` is actually not interchangeable with `сказать` at all. One can say something &quot;Я скажу так - это не дело!&quot; but &quot;поговорить&quot; always answers to the question &quot;to whom?&quot; so even in phrase &quot;я поговорю&quot; the &quot;with whom&quot; part is omitted only because of context, like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Когда ты уже поговоришь с сыном? Он совсем отбился от рук!&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Я поговорю [c ним]. Сегодня же и поговорю [с сыном].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Говорить&quot; is like speaking, talking, telling - and, as it comes with using English verbs with &quot;-ing&quot; it about an action that's happening right now or happens at the same moment with some other action - like in &quot;Вчера встретил друзей - они **говорили** о политике&quot; - friends've been talking about politics when the narrator run into them. One can not say &quot;они поговорили о политике&quot; in this context however &quot;Так хорошо посидели с друзьями, **поговорили** о политике&quot; `поговорили` is not about the action that already happened, like in &quot;we've talks about politics&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="bc96b1d8-70e0-4cd1-8c14-bf5aea837d04" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:07:46.047" UserId="8664" Text="Нода - это заимствование от слова node (узел). Из [викисловаря][1], узнал, что это слово женского рода. Используется в компьютерных приложениях для обозначения блока программы, который соединяется с другими нодами и образует сложную структуру:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-же используется для обозначения компьютера в специфических сетях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что очевидно и используется повсеместно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нодовый редактор&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ноды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Группа нодов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что неочевидно, и примеров использования не найти. Например, каким образом склонять это слово, особенно во фразах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Использовать активную нод(у) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выделенных нод(ов) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цвет ноды(?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Добавить к ноде(у)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7qrko.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="bc96b1d8-70e0-4cd1-8c14-bf5aea837d04" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:07:46.047" UserId="8664" Text="Как склоняется слово &quot;Нода&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="bc96b1d8-70e0-4cd1-8c14-bf5aea837d04" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:07:46.047" UserId="8664" Text="|склонение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="80bd1b9f-d0cb-4de1-9c04-2ffe496dc4c4" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:37:39.430" UserId="8672" Text="The context: They were talking about a gate they couldn't open and pass through. But they weren't so eager to venture too deep into the forest to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... но мы не особо-то **сюда** и **рвались**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to use &quot;рваться&quot; with an infinitive or а preposition &quot;к/в&quot;, so I'd be tempted to place an additional verb between &quot;сюда&quot; and &quot;рваться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this how native speakers commonly express the idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="80bd1b9f-d0cb-4de1-9c04-2ffe496dc4c4" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:37:39.430" UserId="8672" Text="Usage of &quot;рваться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="80bd1b9f-d0cb-4de1-9c04-2ffe496dc4c4" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:37:39.430" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17962" RevisionGUID="a2f88228-e166-437c-9870-4e3022f881fd" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:49:34.217" UserId="7674" Text="For the purposes of modern usage and disregarding the etymologies **сюда** is a Locative case form of pronoun **тут/здесь** and as such already includes prepositions of direction, which hence become redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither infinitive is necessary. Expressions such as **рваться домой / на помощь** are fully idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A higher register synonym of **рваться** in this sense is **стремиться**, which nevertheless isn't always a viable alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="5d111bc5-e98a-4f1a-b926-720da111a133" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:52:21.587" UserId="8672" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="The context: They were talking about a gate they couldn't open and pass through. But they weren't so eager to venture too deep into the forest to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... но мы не особо-то **сюда** и **рвались**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to use &quot;рваться&quot; with an infinitive or а preposition &quot;к/в&quot;, so I'd be tempted to place an additional verb between &quot;сюда&quot; and &quot;рваться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this how native speakers commonly express the idea? And is there any other instance where the form &quot;рваться + adverb&quot; is used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17962" RevisionGUID="c5dcd37b-11cf-478a-af7f-cb8f452c0a15" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:54:52.420" UserId="7674" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="For the purposes of modern usage and disregarding the etymologies **сюда** is a Locative case form of pronoun **тут/здесь** and as such already includes prepositions of direction, which hence become redundant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither infinitive is necessary. Expressions such as **рваться домой / рваться обратно / вперёд / назад** are fully idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A higher register synonym of **рваться** in this sense is **стремиться**, which nevertheless isn't always a viable alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="b0146e87-fe00-464e-98be-ebdc477fa9ab" CreationDate="2019-01-15T11:58:16.423" UserId="8664" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Нода - это заимствование от слова node (узел). Из [викисловаря][1], узнал, что это слово женского рода. Используется в компьютерных приложениях для обозначения блока программы, который соединяется с другими нодами и образует сложную структуру:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-же используется для обозначения компьютера в специфических сетях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что очевидно и используется повсеместно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нодовый редактор&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ноды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Группа нодов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что неочевидно, и примеров использования не найти. Например, каким образом склонять это слово, особенно во фразах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Использовать активную нод(у) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выделенных нод(ов) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цвет ноды(?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Добавить к ноде(у)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точно ли это слово женского рода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7qrko.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17963" RevisionGUID="00697e3e-1abf-4960-90bf-864d959c29fe" CreationDate="2019-01-15T12:05:04.283" UserId="4481" Text="Слово &quot;нода&quot; было заимствовано относительно недавно, так что я не думаю, что есть какой-то стандарт его употребления. Не могу сказать ничего про мужской род - сколько ни работаю в ИТ, видел только употребления в женском роде. Например, вопрос на ruSO (первое, что в гугле попалось): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Jenkins — два билда на одной ноде][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Возможно ли в Jenkins делать два билда одного одинакового проекта на одной ноде одновременно?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.stackoverflow.com/q/683396/180398" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="bded502b-147c-47d9-8fa0-342853b25905" CreationDate="2019-01-15T12:08:33.487" UserId="8664" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="Нода - это заимствование от слова node (узел). Из [викисловаря][1], узнал, что это слово женского рода. Используется в компьютерных приложениях для обозначения блока программы, который соединяется с другими нодами и образует сложную структуру:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Так-же используется для обозначения компьютера в специфических сетях&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что очевидно и используется повсеместно:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нодовый редактор&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ноды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Группа нодов&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Кое-что неочевидно, и примеров использования не найти. Например, каким образом склонять это слово, особенно во фразах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Использовать активную нод(у) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выделенных нод(ов) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Цвет ноды(?) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Добавить к ноде(у)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Точно ли это слово женского рода?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть варианты как с мужского рода:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Исправляем это недоразумение используя нод Hue/Saturation/Value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://pikabu.ru/story/vozmozhnosti_sovremennoy_kompyuternoy_grafiki_4291152&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;так и женского:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нода Copy. Наследование трансформаций и атрибутов. Техника Copy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Stamping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://vfxlaboratory.ru/kurs/houdini-artist-101&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7qrko.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="bded502b-147c-47d9-8fa0-342853b25905" CreationDate="2019-01-15T12:08:33.487" UserId="8664" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="Как склоняется слово &quot;Нод(а)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17964" RevisionGUID="a8f739d2-e20c-4bf6-8bc0-ed4e8b1df98e" CreationDate="2019-01-15T14:29:52.833" UserId="2104" Text="Вариативность по роду - довольно распространенное явление, особенно среди заимствованных слов: компонент/компонента, метод/метода и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой бы род вы ни выбрали, старайтесь придерживаться его, хотя бы в рамках одного документа, т.е. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * либо один нод, 2 нода, 5 нодов,&#xD;&#xA; * либо одна нода, 2 ноды, 5 нод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А еще есть вполне годное русское слово **узел**, у которого нет проблем с родом и склонением.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17965" RevisionGUID="c929c3cb-abda-49c2-ac09-63dcb8b628c2" CreationDate="2019-01-15T14:37:08.170" UserId="2104" Text="Говорить &amp;mdash; to speak&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сказать &amp;mdash; to say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поговорить &amp;mdash; to have a chat, to talk for a while&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17966" RevisionGUID="e4c11bcf-b9ee-49aa-8916-a74972041baa" CreationDate="2019-01-15T14:52:30.177" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; 1) What's the difference between сказать and поговорить as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfective aspects of говорить - especially in the past tense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он сказал ей что-то = He (has) told her something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он поговорил с ней = He (has) had a conversation with her. The conversation is over and in the past. The sentence implies, but not definitely means, that he was the initiator of the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он поговорил минут пять и замолк = He (has) continuously talked for five minutes or so and stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these translations, the choice between Past Simple and Past Perfect in the English variant is dictated by the context. Do not automatically translate all Russian perfect forms by using English perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) How can поговорить as the perfective aspect of говорить suggest to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; talk-for-a-while when to talk-for-a-while seems far more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process-orientated and, hence, imperfective than perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you decide to have a conversation with someone on a certain topic, e.g., to explain her that she needs to change her behavior, and once you accomplish your mission, you can say to a third person, ''Я поговорил с ней об этом'' - ''I have talked with her about it.'' This means that you not only have told her she needs to change her behavior, but also have given her an opportunity to respond, ask questions, express her view, etc. This also means that the conversation is over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word ''поговорить'' is rather result-oriented and at the time is about talking for a while. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17962" RevisionGUID="27adf24c-e7ab-4304-bb0b-d0e3ea3a859d" CreationDate="2019-01-15T16:58:41.140" UserId="7674" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="For the purposes of modern usage and disregarding the etymologies **сюда** is a Locative case form of pronoun **тут/здесь** and as such already includes prepositions of direction, which hence become redundant. Apropos **hence**, an English equivalent which doesn't require prepositions, along with **thence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither infinitive is necessary. Expressions such as **рваться домой / рваться обратно / вперёд / назад** are fully idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A higher register synonym of **рваться** in this sense is **стремиться**, which nevertheless isn't always a viable alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17967" RevisionGUID="9a6cdc76-697d-4cda-a9a8-ec5006ede964" CreationDate="2019-01-15T18:47:24.643" UserId="11021" Text="I was given this to translate in russian: really? Aren’t they playing on Tuesday? &#xA;&#xA;I translated it: правда? Они не играют не во вторник( i did this still without fully understand how to write aren’t )&#xA;&#xA;The correct answer was: правда, *Разве* они играют не во вторник&#xA;&#xA;Разве is translated to ‘really’, what is it really expressing? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17967" RevisionGUID="9a6cdc76-697d-4cda-a9a8-ec5006ede964" CreationDate="2019-01-15T18:47:24.643" UserId="11021" Text="How do i express “aren’t”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17967" RevisionGUID="9a6cdc76-697d-4cda-a9a8-ec5006ede964" CreationDate="2019-01-15T18:47:24.643" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="8d9723b2-866d-4566-a538-2099796f5c84" CreationDate="2019-01-15T19:13:22.983" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Aren't&quot; is English-specific and doesn't have a direct translation. Start with a plain positive sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они **играют** во вторник. - They **are playing** on Tuesday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To turn it into a question, simply add a question mark at the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они играют во вторник? - Are they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it negative, add **не** to the verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они **не** играют во вторник? - **Aren't** they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then add **разве**, 'really?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Разве** они не играют во вторник? - **Really?** Aren't they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17969" RevisionGUID="2265ac02-97af-4ca3-b62d-f135637c2361" CreationDate="2019-01-15T19:37:58.467" UserId="11080" Text="**Разве они не играют во вторник?** is the correct variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really** is literally **реально, на самом деле, в самом деле**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разве is a particle expressing doubt. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17969" RevisionGUID="a1a6cb73-eab6-4d45-b44c-5622b79fe557" CreationDate="2019-01-15T20:02:24.073" UserId="11080" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="**Разве они не играют во вторник?** is the correct variant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Really** is literally **реально, на самом деле, в самом деле**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Разве** is a particle expressing doubt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, it can be used as a conjunction translated as **but for, except**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Не люблю яблок, разве только антоновку.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not like apples except [antonovka][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonovka" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="291a284b-1797-46dc-943a-b60c563f1524" CreationDate="2019-01-15T20:05:42.587" UserId="2104" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="&quot;Aren't&quot; is English-specific and doesn't have a direct translation. Start with a plain positive sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они **играют** во вторник. - They **are playing** on Tuesday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To turn it into a question, simply add a question mark at the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они играют во вторник? - Are they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it negative, add **не** to the verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они **не** играют во вторник? &#xD;&#xA;&#xA;Now the Russian part sounds more like asking for a confirmation, 'Is it true that they are **not** playing on Tuesday?'&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is where **разве** comes in. It expresses disbelief implied by the English &quot;Aren't&quot;:&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Разве** они не играют во вторник? - **Aren't** they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;**Правда?** translates to **Really?** and expresses surprise:&#xA;&#xA;* **Правда?** Разве они не играют во вторник? - **Really?** Aren't they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17964" RevisionGUID="16249b35-b330-4fb5-87af-478154200dbf" CreationDate="2019-01-15T23:02:47.587" UserId="2104" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Вариативность по роду - довольно распространенное явление, особенно среди заимствованных слов: компонент/компонента, метод/метода, вольер/вольера и др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Какой бы род вы ни выбрали, старайтесь придерживаться его, хотя бы в рамках одного документа, т.е. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * либо один нод, 2 нода, 5 нодов,&#xD;&#xA; * либо одна нода, 2 ноды, 5 нод.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А еще есть вполне годное русское слово **узел**, у которого нет проблем с родом и склонением.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17968" RevisionGUID="0d896769-93c3-4937-87a7-82c4ac876bfe" CreationDate="2019-01-15T23:17:55.240" UserId="2104" Comment="added 471 characters in body" Text="&quot;Aren't&quot; is English-specific and doesn't have a direct translation. Start with a plain positive sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они **играют** во вторник. - They **are playing** on Tuesday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To turn it into a question, simply add a question mark at the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они играют во вторник? - Are they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it negative, add **не** to the verb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Они **не** играют во вторник? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the Russian part sounds more like asking for a confirmation, 'Is it true that they are **not** playing on Tuesday?'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is where **разве** comes in. It expresses disbelief implied by the English &quot;Aren't&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Разве** они не играют во вторник? - **Aren't** they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правда?** translates to **Really?** and expresses surprise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Правда?** Разве они не играют во вторник? - **Really?** Aren't they playing on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. &quot;Aren’t they playing on Tuesday?&quot; can be read in multiple ways, depending on where you put emphasis. In Russian, this would affect the placement of **не** (along with emphasis and a rising tone on the word following **не**):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Aren’t they _playing_ on Tuesday? - Разве они **не играют** во вторник?&#xD;&#xA;2. Aren’t they playing on _Tuesday_? - Разве они играют **не во вторник**?&#xD;&#xA;3. Aren’t _they_ playing on Tuesday? - Разве **не они** играют во вторник?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17970" RevisionGUID="ccdd3a7b-c998-4255-99e9-206dd95b0bef" CreationDate="2019-01-16T02:22:05.583" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; I was given this to translate in russian: really? Aren’t they playing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on Tuesday?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I translated it: правда? Они не играют не во вторник( i did this still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; without fully understand how to write aren’t )&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The correct answer was: правда, Разве они играют не во вторни&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter variant is excellent, but the correct punctuation is: Правда? Разве они не играют во вторник?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation (''правда? Они не играют не во вторник?'') has a double negation and thus means the following: ''Really? It is not on Tuesday that they are not playing, right?''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what happens if you remove the first or second ''не'':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда? Они играют не во вторник? = Really? It is not on Tuesday that they are playing, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда? Они не играют во вторник? = Really? They are not playing on Tuesday, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Разве is translated to ‘really’, what is it really expressing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, people often translate ''разве'' to ''really,'' yet the actual meaning is different, but in many contexts the difference in the meanings is so unimportant that it is not a bad idea to translate ''разве'' to ''really'' to keep the translation as short and simple as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning of ''разве'' in closed questions (i.e., yes-no questions) is to convey the information that the speaker  (i.e., the person who asks the question) thinks or has strong reasons to assume that the correct answer is to negate the statement composing the question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разве они не играют во вторник? = I think they are playing on Tuesday. Are they not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разве они играют во вторник? = I think they are not playing on Tuesday. Are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я хочу поехать в Японию, но разве мне дадут визу? = I want to visit Japan, but I think they won't give me a visa (if I apply). Or will they? (The question sounds pretty hopeless.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Я приглашаю тебя на свидание.'' ''Прекрати, разве ты не женат?'' = ''Let's have a date.'' ''Stop it. Aren't you married?''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17966" RevisionGUID="d61f7372-e1c6-4a7f-b79d-ce9a2a16e8d4" CreationDate="2019-01-16T02:47:58.130" UserId="11395" Comment="fixed a typo" Text="&gt; 1) What's the difference between сказать and поговорить as the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfective aspects of говорить - especially in the past tense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он сказал ей что-то = He (has) told her something. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он поговорил с ней = He (has) had a conversation with her. The conversation is over and in the past. The sentence implies, but not definitely means, that he was the initiator of the conversation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он поговорил минут пять и замолк = He (has) continuously talked for five minutes or so and stopped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these translations, the choice between Past Simple and Past Perfect in the English variant is dictated by the context. Do not automatically translate all Russian perfect forms by using English perfect forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) How can поговорить as the perfective aspect of говорить suggest to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; talk-for-a-while when to talk-for-a-while seems far more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; process-orientated and, hence, imperfective than perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine you decide to have a conversation with someone on a certain topic, e.g., to explain her that she needs to change her behavior, and once you accomplish your mission, you can say to a third person, ''Я поговорил с ней об этом'' - ''I have talked with her about it.'' This means that you not only have told her she needs to change her behavior, but also have given her an opportunity to respond, ask questions, express her view, etc. This also means that the conversation is over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word ''поговорить'' is rather result-oriented and at the same time is about talking for a while. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7710" RevisionGUID="bafb20ce-55a4-415d-9303-b0ebe39f2ff8" CreationDate="2019-01-16T09:37:05.423" UserId="4676" Comment="Поправлена нерабочая ссылка на gramota.ru" Text="Если проложить аналогию с предлогами с/со, к/ко, употребление которых определяется удобством произношения, то и предлоги в/на по отношению к Украине могут сменять друг друга по той же причине. Если произносить &quot;Украина&quot; с коротким &quot;У&quot;, то предлог удобнее с гласной буквой, и наоборот. Возможно, это связано с [изменяющейся постановкой ударения][1]. Так как предлоги синонимичны, то их употребление постепенно меняется.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&amp;ag=x&amp;word=украина" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17967" RevisionGUID="86060db6-5e83-4f91-8312-239862932ecd" CreationDate="2019-01-16T16:52:48.527" UserId="242" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was given this to translate in Russian: &quot;Really? Aren’t they playing on Tuesday?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I translated it: &quot;Правда? Они не играют не во вторник&quot;. ( I did this still without fully understand how to write aren’t )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct answer was: &quot;Правда, *разве* они играют не во вторник?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разве is translated to ‘really’, what is it really expressing? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17967" RevisionGUID="86060db6-5e83-4f91-8312-239862932ecd" CreationDate="2019-01-16T16:52:48.527" UserId="242" Comment="added 15 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do I express “aren’t”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17737" RevisionGUID="80ace4ee-ce0f-4a8c-a7f9-9ce08d7a1201" CreationDate="2019-01-16T19:02:10.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48221" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17959" RevisionGUID="594665e8-6dd0-4a25-857b-151baf36c812" CreationDate="2019-01-16T21:00:35.970" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1085642999562944512" />
  <row Id="48222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17971" RevisionGUID="a84bedb9-8d15-4259-b8b9-55988c0fc860" CreationDate="2019-01-17T01:37:42.660" UserId="3502" Text="When used for cursing it can be shortened almost to nothing: &quot;[Да] чтоб ты!&quot; which is shortened form of &quot;[Да] чтоб ты [сдох | света белого не видел | жил на одну зарплату | ...]!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some variants of the omitted sentence parts for your examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Чтобы** ты управляла лодкой? Еще чего! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[You want me to agree] **that** you'll control the boat? No way!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[You want me to believe] **that** you'd controlled the boat? No way!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я знал, что он честолюбец, но **чтобы** настолько...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I knew he was a status seeker, but [did not expect] **that** [he's] so [...].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17972" RevisionGUID="9072135e-a96f-480b-b082-e0b9563e8981" CreationDate="2019-01-17T02:54:55.307" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; All in all, how (else) do native speakers use these incomplete &quot;чтобы&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clauses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это он сделал. **Чтобы** мне под землю провалиться! = It is him who did it. I swear I am telling the truth. Literally: May I fall to below ground (if I am lying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Почему еще не готово? **Чтобы** к завтра работу закончил! = Why is it not ready? Finish the work by tomorrow!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не то **чтобы** он такой злодей внутри, он лишь цинично действует в своих интересах. = It is not that he is such a badass in his soul - he just cynically does what is in his interests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну у него и дворец! **Чтоб** я так жил! = What a palace of his! I wish I had the same lifestyle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да **чтоб** тебя! = Damn you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чтобы** всё у тебя было хорошо! = May you do well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17973" RevisionGUID="19d1a702-32c9-4640-baf6-5f66e3887c8c" CreationDate="2019-01-17T06:18:17.817" UserId="10247" Text="*Квартира* is the word to be used in most cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Аппартаменты* (usually PLURAL) as slightly archaic is used to denote reception rooms in palaces, luxury suites, etc. So it's usually not used for modern flats in modern homes. But could be used in hotel room descriptions and ads, often luxury ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it must be mentioned that this term is CURRENTLY becoming popular for some new kind of real estate in modern market. The previous answers and comments were mentioning some law, but in fact THERE IS NO LAW where this term is described (housing laws describe only the term КВАРТИРА, but not АППАРТАМЕНТЫ), so it's legally as it was mentioned here is regarded as commercial property (partly, because of that LACK OF DESCRIPTION IN THE LAW). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's good to use *квартира*. Since *аппартаменты* in this new sense is not quite described it's better to avoid using it in modern contexts (it's just a new DEVELOPPERS' term I would say). But *аппартаменты* sounds good in literature texts where palaces, luxury rooms are described. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17974" RevisionGUID="bf91904f-fc5b-4db5-8488-f040dad3d92e" CreationDate="2019-01-17T06:36:30.593" UserId="10247" Text="It's used with both prepositions and adverbs. Quite often with prepositions in sports, fighting, warfare, competition contexts. Cf, рвётся в бой (in a fight), рвётся к воротам (in football) - sometimes literal, sometimes metaphorical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since this word implies somewhat intensive emotion (long, want, yearn) it MAY suggest lower register sometimes, depending on the context. But may express some strong feeling in neutral or higher styles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One should just be more cautious with any words denoting strong, intenstive feelings, this word being no exception. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="97d4fbf1-62c8-44be-9681-fc6586bde1d9" CreationDate="2019-01-17T07:01:17.133" UserId="7674" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but **отсужу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **отсуживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л → утружу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/о-/отсажу** are OK since they're perceived as derivatives of **на-/о-/отсаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) (known in Russian philology as **j-palatalization**) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to create a flexion of a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may in its modern form be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive in verbs of 2nd conjugation group.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить, полюблю ← полюбить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Результаты j-палатализации в современном русском языке закрепляются в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следующих случаях слово- и формообразования&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – в формах 1 лица настоящего времени глаголов II спр. (учу ← *ukjon);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА&quot;](http://archive.is/25bQD) by Киржаева В.П., p. 22*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group linguists suggest that the 'southern' cluster **`[жд]`** prominent in all those *defective verbs* was introduced under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`** образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной группе;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(south. slav.)* [ж’д’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’д’]ати, *old slavonic* рождати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**↑&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dj ↓**    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(east. slav.)* [ж’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’]ати, *old russian* рожати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;в современном русском языке жд, чередующееся с д (исконное) и ж (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (ср.: родить–рожать–&gt;рождать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: Nizametdinova &quot;Historical grammar of Russian language&quot;, p. 42*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not only **побежду** was in use. This was an acceptable paradigm for conjugation of other currently *defective verbs* as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An author from the 19th century Pavsky considered this paradigm the norm as follows from his [&quot;Philological Observations on the makeup of the Russian language&quot;](http://goo.gl/jDaGmD) (1842)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][8]&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWzGb.png &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**убѣжду**](http://goo.gl/h5C1Uf) in a 1843 translation of &quot;Robinson Crusoe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][4]&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kXEcf.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**утвержду**](http://goo.gl/xNh1bu) (1884)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][5]&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gcKCJ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**осужду**](http://goo.gl/R9MerW) (1785)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][6]&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ViFyQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**учрежду**](http://goo.gl/r9M1sj) (1867)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][7]&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qdBmF.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**огражду**](http://goo.gl/dnkkyX) in a tradegy &quot;Antigona&quot; by Kapnist from 1813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][9]&#xD;&#xA;[9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7yEFZ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [survey](http://archive.is/QaySM) conducted among school pupils and undergraduates revealed that only 18% and 2% of the respondents respectively would use **`-дю`** ending in the verbs in question. They were more inclined to use **`-жду`** ending, 35% and 10% respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17975" RevisionGUID="6151d901-f2fe-4b11-8263-8289a8b3e380" CreationDate="2019-01-17T07:05:16.540" UserId="10247" Text="I think you could hold in mind the formula: Ни к чему **ДЕЛАТЬ** это. Always imperfective. Hence **рассыпАться**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17973" RevisionGUID="c491d8f7-5dd9-4cad-8125-0c9fcff22169" CreationDate="2019-01-17T07:36:04.497" UserId="10247" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="*Квартира* is the word to be used in most cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Аппартаменты* (usually PLURAL) as slightly archaic is used to denote reception rooms in palaces, luxury suites, etc. So it's usually not used for modern flats in modern homes. But could be used in hotel room descriptions and ads, often luxury ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it must be mentioned that this term is CURRENTLY becoming popular for some new kind of real estate in modern market. The previous answers and comments were mentioning some law, but in fact THERE IS NO HOUSING LAW where this term is described (housing laws describe only the term КВАРТИРА, but not АППАРТАМЕНТЫ), so it's legally as it was mentioned here is regarded as commercial property (partly, because of that LACK OF DESCRIPTION IN THE LAW). The only legal document I've found is classification of tourist accomodations (where *аппартамент* as type of accomodation is used, but only in hotel/hospitality contexts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's good to use *квартира*. Since *аппартаменты* in this new sense is not quite described it's better to avoid using it in modern contexts (it's just a new DEVELOPPERS' term I would say). But *аппартаменты* sounds good in literature texts where palaces, luxury rooms are described. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17965" RevisionGUID="bdd62d2b-d457-439a-933d-f1a3eb88b1e7" CreationDate="2019-01-17T09:18:23.687" UserId="2104" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Говорить &amp;mdash; to speak, to talk&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сказать &amp;mdash; to say, to tell&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поговорить &amp;mdash; to have a chat, to talk for a while&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17976" RevisionGUID="7a4b764e-bf3f-4c2f-a352-0d7f62cc0d89" CreationDate="2019-01-17T14:13:12.007" UserId="9762" Text="In Russian is there a difference between папа and отец? If there is, is it like Dad vs Daddy in English? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17976" RevisionGUID="7a4b764e-bf3f-4c2f-a352-0d7f62cc0d89" CreationDate="2019-01-17T14:13:12.007" UserId="9762" Text="Difference between папа and отец?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17976" RevisionGUID="7a4b764e-bf3f-4c2f-a352-0d7f62cc0d89" CreationDate="2019-01-17T14:13:12.007" UserId="9762" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17977" RevisionGUID="cb2a224e-bf57-4611-b361-414ec3d49276" CreationDate="2019-01-17T14:24:51.863" UserId="11080" Text="It is like dad and father. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Daddy is папочка. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17978" RevisionGUID="b5f1c17a-115c-4318-93c4-a4e915ad52a9" CreationDate="2019-01-17T14:27:29.950" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; In Russian is there a difference between папа and отец? If there is,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it like Dad vs Daddy in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is, and no, it is not like Dad vs Daddy. ''Отец'' is a formal, official word and is like ''father.'' ''Папа'' is how children actually address their father at home and is like ''dad.'' ''Daddy'' is ''папочка,'' ''папусик,'' ''папуля,'' etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17979" RevisionGUID="0163867f-fcc0-419b-92a7-63a0709750fd" CreationDate="2019-01-17T18:50:45.957" UserId="11395" Text="I am surprised that such questions are given in tests for non-native speakers, because a slight modification of your original phrase can easily change the correct choice between рассы́паться and рассыпа́ться, and I think that only native speakers can confidently handle this. Let me demonstrate that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's first define the context: Person X was helped a bit by Person Y and then excessively expressed his gratitude. The expression of gratitude is over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person Y says your original phrase, ''Ни к чему рассыпа́ться из-за таких пустяков в благодарностях.'' Here, рассы́паться would sound very weird, while рассыпа́ться sounds perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person Y adds, ''K чему ты рассы́пался из-за таких пустяков в благодарностях?'' Here the situation is opposite: рассы́пался sounds perfect, while рассыпа́лся - rather weird, in the circumstances, although not entirely unacceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A day later, Person Y tells Person Z about what happened, and adds, ''Я знал, что он немного странный, но чтоб ни к чему из-за таких пустяков рассы́паться в благодарностях...'' Here both рассы́паться and рассыпа́ться sound perfect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the above examples are very confusing to non-native speakers, but native speakers easily make the right choices - they just know how to say right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you cannot easily make choices in such phrases, considering the exact meanings of the verbs may help make the right choice. Рассы́паться is about a completed action considered as a whole. It is a result-oriented verb. Рассыпа́ться is about a process, a habit, or general concept. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accordingly, here are the exact meanings of the above phrases (in the context given above):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ни к чему рассыпа́ться из-за таких пустяков в благодарностях = There is no reason to express your gratitude for such minor things, in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;K чему ты рассы́пался из-за таких пустяков в благодарностях? = Why did you express your gratitude so strongly for such minor things? The question is about the completed action as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знал, что он немного странный, но чтоб так ни к чему рассыпа́ться/рассы́паться в благодарностях по таким пустякам... = I knew he is somewhat weird, but (I did not expect him) to express gratitude so strongly for such minor things for no real reason... Here, the choice between рассыпа́ться and рассы́паться slightly affects the flavour. With рассы́паться, the focus is rather on the very fact of expressing the gratitude so excessively. With the рассыпа́ться, the focus is rather on the process, e.g., on the exact way how the gratitude was expressed or on what Person X could think during the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the only really reliable way to get able to make the right choices in such phrases is to simply get a lot of experience with colloquial and idiomatic Russian phrases. Then your subconscious associative thinking will tell you the right choice - just how it works for native speakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48236" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17976" RevisionGUID="7f6d9cf1-0282-480e-9d0b-201f97bc675d" CreationDate="2019-01-18T00:00:50.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1086050746112585734" />
  <row Id="48237" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17961" RevisionGUID="3ea0ccde-0cac-4c45-98a9-0546f9de347b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T03:00:35.467" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1086095982419496960" />
  <row Id="48238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17980" RevisionGUID="b40b8df5-9c5e-4ac5-806b-82538458dde1" CreationDate="2019-01-18T05:46:27.097" UserId="1347" Text="Today I learned that the &quot;standard&quot; Russian translation of &quot;I lost my ticket is Я потерял **свой** билет.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would you use свой instead of мой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that свой can refer to &quot;one's own.&quot; Coupled with Я, one's own could be &quot;my own.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But can one also use the more direct мой? Or is свой preferred for some reason?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17980" RevisionGUID="b40b8df5-9c5e-4ac5-806b-82538458dde1" CreationDate="2019-01-18T05:46:27.097" UserId="1347" Text="Why would one use &quot;свой&quot; instead of a more direct word in the following context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17980" RevisionGUID="b40b8df5-9c5e-4ac5-806b-82538458dde1" CreationDate="2019-01-18T05:46:27.097" UserId="1347" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17981" RevisionGUID="c086aeab-3577-4734-9acc-19a94ea548f7" CreationDate="2019-01-18T06:47:37.460" UserId="11080" Text="In Russian we do not use possessive pronouns when they are implied by other words or the context. There is no need saying that the ticket I lost was mine, unless I have lost your ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we can simply say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла билет. - I have lost my ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду с мужем/другом/коллегой. - I will come with my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; husband/friend/colleague. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала с сестрой. - She was speaking with her sister.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is still unclear, whose ticket, colleauge or sister it is, we can use the universal reflexive possessive pronoun свой. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла свой билет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду со своим коллегой. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала со своей сестрой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you just don't have such a short and convenient word which substitutes for all the possessive pronouns at once. That's why it is translated as a phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not use свой in certain situations. E.g., when introducing sth or sb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это мой сын. &#xD;&#xA;Это моя работа. &#xD;&#xA;Вот наш дом.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes **свой** stands for **own**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У них свой дом.** - They have their own house (they do not live in a block or share a house with anybody). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in English the possessive pronouns everywhere just spell the articles, that's why they are used in such sentences as &quot;He came with his wife&quot;. Otherwise you should say &quot;He came with the wife&quot; which would sound less polite or clear, maybe? In Russian there are no articles, which simplifies the situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17981" RevisionGUID="19f57ae2-3987-496e-95a2-77c21bb54116" CreationDate="2019-01-18T06:52:58.933" UserId="11080" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="In Russian we do not use possessive pronouns when they are implied by other words or the context. There is no need saying that the ticket I lost was mine, unless I have lost your ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we can simply say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла билет. - I have lost my ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду с мужем/другом/коллегой. - I will come with my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; husband/friend/colleague. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала с сестрой. - She was speaking with her sister.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is still unclear, whose ticket, colleauge or sister it is, we can use the universal reflexive possessive pronoun свой. It stands for мой, твой, их, ваш, наш, etc., but is reflexive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла свой билет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду со своим коллегой. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала со своей сестрой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you just don't have such a short and convenient word which substitutes for all the possessive pronouns at once. That's why it is translated as a phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not use свой in certain situations. E.g., when introducing sth or sb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это мой сын. &#xD;&#xA;Это моя работа. &#xD;&#xA;Вот наш дом.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say, that we can hardly use свой in the Nominative case, as it usually refers to the objects of a sentence, and objects require objective cases (all the rest but Nominative). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes **свой** stands for **own**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У них свой дом.** - They have their own house (they do not live in a block or share a house with anybody). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in English the possessive pronouns everywhere just spell the articles, that's why they are used in such sentences as &quot;He came with his wife&quot;. Otherwise you should say &quot;He came with the wife&quot; which would sound less polite or clear, maybe? In Russian there are no articles, which simplifies the situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17981" RevisionGUID="5982ca67-081d-4558-82ea-a281094d7aa1" CreationDate="2019-01-18T07:02:52.100" UserId="11080" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="In Russian we do not use possessive pronouns when they are implied by other words or the context. There is no need saying that the ticket I lost was mine, unless I have lost your ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we can simply say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла билет. - I have lost my ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду с мужем/другом/коллегой. - I will come with my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; husband/friend/colleague. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала с сестрой. - She was speaking with her sister. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помою руки. - I will wash my hands. (Whose hands shall I wash? There is no need stating that unless I decide to wash somebody else's hands) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is still unclear, whose ticket, colleauge or sister it is, we can use the universal reflexive possessive pronoun свой. It stands for мой, твой, их, ваш, наш, etc., but is reflexive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла свой билет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду со своим коллегой. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала со своей сестрой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you just don't have such a short and convenient word which substitutes for all the possessive pronouns at once. That's why it is translated as a phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not use свой in certain situations. E.g., when introducing sth or sb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это мой сын. &#xD;&#xA;Это моя работа. &#xD;&#xA;Вот наш дом.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say, that we can hardly use свой in the Nominative case, as it usually refers to the objects of a sentence, and objects require objective cases (all the rest but Nominative). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes **свой** stands for **own**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У них свой дом.** - They have their own house (they do not live in a block or share a house with anybody). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in English the possessive pronouns everywhere just spell the articles, that's why they are used in such sentences as &quot;He came with his wife&quot;. Otherwise you should say &quot;He came with the wife&quot; which would sound less polite or clear, maybe? In Russian there are no articles, which simplifies the situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17982" RevisionGUID="8fa50fe5-6565-4fdb-9d69-3f547f0b51b0" CreationDate="2019-01-18T09:43:22.230" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; But can one also use the more direct мой?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, one can. It will sound okay and definitely won't be a mistake, although the Russian speakers prefer to say ''свой билет'' or simply ''билет.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or is свой preferred for some reason?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is, but the reason is not really strong. It is related to how the Russian speakers subconsciously perceive speech. With ''свой,'' the sentence is perceived slightly more naturally and smoothly. This is just how the mind of a Russian speaker is wired. ''Свой'' emphasises the ownership, while ''мой'' just redundantly points to the owner - it is obvious anyway whose ticket it is. If it were not clear from the context whose ticket it is, you would have to say ''мой.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48246" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="17980" RevisionGUID="080d8648-9644-489c-9e8c-5dbbd399c229" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:46:39.093" UserId="242" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[11220],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11220" RevisionGUID="b5add217-d388-45b8-bd0a-b86e5ded68da" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:50:07.443" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between `свой` (`своя` и т.д.) and `мой` (`моя` и т.д.) when Russian people speak they seem aware of the difference but still I can't wrap my head around it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48248" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17976" RevisionGUID="c384b172-2b2c-40ff-8788-e1db02f5ff4b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T10:50:27.727" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;папа&quot; and &quot;отец&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17942" RevisionGUID="e377b10d-9b6b-4b06-afdd-f019c7e2b33d" CreationDate="2019-01-18T16:51:21.877" UserId="7674" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="This particular problem affects most of the verbs in which **`[д]`** of the stem alternates with **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive and past tense forms. These belong to a group of verbs called *defective verbs* or *verbs with deficient 1st person paradigm*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **по-/у-/разубеждать/л → по-/у-/разубежу** (?) &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **под-/утверждать/л → под-/утвержу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **учреждать/л → учрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/за-/ограждать/л → на-/за-/огражу** (?)  &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/огорожу** is OK since it derives from **нагородить/огораживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **заблуждаться/лся → заблужусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **услаждать/л; наслаждаться/лся → услажу; наслажусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**воз-/пробуждать/л → воз-/пробужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **рас-/осуждать/л → рас-/осужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but **отсужу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **отсуживать** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пред-/упреждать/л → пред-/упрежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **отчуждать/л → отчужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **утруждать/л, перетруждаться/лся → утружу, перетружусь** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **повреждать/л → поврежу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**при-/понуждать → при-/понужу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **угождать/л → угожу** (?)&#xD;&#xA;but is OK when perceived as a derivative of **угодить** in the sense of `to end up in` and not `to pander to`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **на-/до-/осаждать/л → до-/осажу** (?)    &#xD;&#xA;but **на-/о-/отсажу** are OK since they're perceived as derivatives of **на-/о-/отсаживать**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **нарождаться/лся; воз-/порождать/л → нарожусь; воз-/порожу** (?)   &#xD;&#xA;but **рожу** is OK since it's perceived as a derivative of **рожать**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **пере-/охлаждать(ся)/л(ся) → пере-/охлажу(сь)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**провожу, похожу** are OK since they derive from **провожать** and **походить/похаживать** notwithstanding that in the nouns the alternation does occur - **(сопро)вождение, (по)хождения**  &#xD;&#xA;To **ждать** for example it doesn't apply since both **`[ж]`** and **`[д]`** in it belong to the stem.  &#xD;&#xA;**нагромождать** and **пригвождать** don't belong in this list since they have **`[з]`** in their stem (громозд, гвозд) which alternates with **`[ж]`**.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the question is why the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense is  perceived as not natural enough. Supposedly that's because in these verbs it defies certain phonetic principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And worst of all is the fact that this deficiency precludes usage of such important verbs as **пердеть** и **бздеть** to their full potential. *(a tasteless joke)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st person sing. future tense form of verbs belonging to 2nd conjugation group in particular is fashioned in Russian according to **the law of** [**iotation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic#Iotation) (known in Russian philology as **j-palatalization**) which originates in the Proto-Slavic language. This is when in order to append a flexion to a stem an articulation similar to that of phoneme **`[j]`** is introduced as a kind of phonetic suffix ( **`[j]`** as the **`[y]`** sound in the word **yes** ) causing softening (palatalization) of an antecedent consonant.   &#xD;&#xA;In the case of conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense it combined with the ending may in its modern form be represented as something like **`[-ʲu]`**.  &#xD;&#xA;Different consonants it affected differently. Some could coexist with it unaltered (mainly either those which were inherently soft historically or those which could naturally respond to softening), others due to being obstinately hard needed adjustment either by alternation with other consonants or by addition of an intermediate one susceptible to softening.  &#xD;&#xA;Alternation and accretion of phonemes located in the last position in the stem effected by **iotation** becomes apparent when comparing the form of the 1st person sing. future tense to the perfective infinitive in verbs of 2nd conjugation group.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. ***посплю ← поспать, попью ← попить; побью ← побить, полюблю ← полюбить; разовью ← развить, удивлю ← удивить;  налью ← налить; покормлю ← покормить; скажу ← сказать; напишу ← написать; отвечу ← ответить; поплачу ← поплакать; угощу ← угостить; пригвозжу ← пригвоздить*** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Ч]ередования, исторически обусловленные **«j-смягчением»** [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **выступают в инфинитиве глаголов II спряжения, в 1 лице их настоящего /&#xD;&#xA;&gt; простого будущего времени**, а также в формах страдательных причастий&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшего времени. Например: с // ш (украсить – украшу – украшенный,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; повесить – повешу – повешенный); з // ж (загрузить – загружу –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; загруженный; заморозить – заморожу – замороженный); д // ж (огородить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – огорожу – огороженный; разбудить – разбужу – разбуженный); т // ч&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрутить – раскручу –  раскрученный; б // бл (влюбиться – влюблюсь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – влюблённый); п // пл (купить – куплю – купленный); м // мл (утомить&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – утомлю – утомлённый), в // вл (обновить – обновлю – обновленный) и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; др.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;МЕЖПРЕДМЕТНЫЕ СВЯЗИ ДИСЦИПЛИН ИСТОРИКО-ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКОГО ЦИКЛА С КУРСОМ РУССКИЙ КАК ИНОСТРАННЫЙ&quot;](http://archive.is/FA3WI) by С. А. КОРОЛЕВИЧ, p. 3*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Результаты j-палатализации в современном русском языке закрепляются в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; следующих случаях слово- и формообразования&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; – в формах 1 лица настоящего времени глаголов II спр. (учу ← *ukjon);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: [&quot;ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА&quot;](http://archive.is/25bQD) by Киржаева В.П., p. 22*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically under **iotation** as it relates to Russian the final **`[д]`** phoneme in a stem present in all *defective verbs* above would have two alternative incarnations **`[ж]`** and **`[жд]`**.   &#xD;&#xA;**`[ж]`** was typical to Eastern Slavic languages whereas **`[жд]`** to the Southern ones. Since Russian belongs to the former group linguists suggest that the 'southern' cluster **`[жд]`** prominent in all those *defective verbs* was introduced under the influence of Church Slavonic which was a Southern Slavic language used for liturgical purposes and which affected standards of literary language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) **ж//жд**: р͡ожать – ро͡ждать; звук **`[ж]`** образовался в результате&#xD;&#xA;&gt; отвердения в 14 в. из **`[ж’]`**,который, в свою очередь, образовался из&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сочетания **`*dj`** в восточнославянской диалектной группе; **сочетание** **`[жд]`** образовалось из старославянского сложного звука **`[ж’д’]`**, который, в свою очередь, образовался из сочетания **`*dj`** в южнославянской диалектной группе;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[source](https://studfiles.net/preview/3351737/)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(south. slav.)* [ж’д’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’д’]ати, *old slavonic* рождати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**↑&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *dj ↓**    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;*(east. slav.)* [ж’]: *rodjati → ро[ж’]ати, *old russian* рожати;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;в современном русском языке жд, чередующееся с д (исконное) и ж (восточнославянское), является старославянизмом (ср.: родить–рожать–&gt;рождать).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*source: Nizametdinova &quot;Historical grammar of Russian language&quot;, p. 42*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware how Ukrainian also being an Eastern Slavic language and having grown out of the same Old Russian as the modern Russian has, instead of alternation of **`[д]`** with **`[жд]`** has ended up having it alternating with **`[дж]`** in the equivalents of the above-listed verbs which it has in its own vocabulary.   &#xD;&#xA;Whatever the reason is, this fact has significantly simplified **iotation** of **`[д]`** in these verbs owing to which Ukrainian has no problem of their conjugation in 1st person sing. future tense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`RUS`**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;**`UKR`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;на-/за-/ограждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;на-/за-/огороджуваты - на-/за-/огороджу  &#xD;&#xA;утверждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;с-/затвэрджуваты - с-/затвэрджу  &#xD;&#xA;осуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;о-/засуджуваты - о-/засуджу  &#xD;&#xA;наслаждаться&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насолоджуватыся - насолоджуся  &#xD;&#xA;предупреждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;попэрэджуваты - попэрэджу   &#xD;&#xA;угождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;догоджуваты - догоджу  &#xD;&#xA;насаждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;насаджуваты - насаджу    &#xD;&#xA;по-/возрождать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;по-/видроджуваты - по-/видроджу   &#xD;&#xA;про-/возбуждать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;про-/збуджуваты - про-/збуджу &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Up next is figuring out how the stem **`[д]`** phoneme in these verbs should correctly behave under **iotation**.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In previous centuries the form [**побежду**](https://krylov.livejournal.com/2513589.html) was considered the norm, at least a literary one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«Пространная Русская Грамматика» Николая Греча (второе издание, 1830 год)*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AzdVd.png &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*An excerpt from Suvorov's letter to Turchaninov*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][2]&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7luj.png  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*«История Преображенского Полка» штабс-капитана Азначевского*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;![][3]&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Zw8.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But not only **побежду** was in use. This was an acceptable paradigm for conjugation of other currently *defective verbs* as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An author from the 19th century Pavsky considered this paradigm the norm as follows from his [&quot;Philological Observations on the makeup of the Russian language&quot;](http://goo.gl/jDaGmD) (1842)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][8]&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWzGb.png &#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**убѣжду**](http://goo.gl/h5C1Uf) in a 1843 translation of &quot;Robinson Crusoe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][4]&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kXEcf.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**утвержду**](http://goo.gl/xNh1bu) (1884)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][5]&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gcKCJ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**осужду**](http://goo.gl/R9MerW) (1785)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][6]&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ViFyQ.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**учрежду**](http://goo.gl/r9M1sj) (1867)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][7]&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qdBmF.png&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**огражду**](http://goo.gl/dnkkyX) in a tradegy &quot;Antigona&quot; by Kapnist from 1813&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][9]&#xD;&#xA;[9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7yEFZ.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If we derive the form of the 1st person singular future tense of all these verbs from their perfective infinitive which ends with **`-ить`** (***оградить, утвердить, победить*** etc.) we'll find out that in all of them **Д** is softened by the following **И** and it must retain its softness in the conjugation of the 1st person singular future tense similarly to final stem consonants of verbs of the same infinitive paradigm    and conjugation (2nd) (***отпилить - отпилю, починить - починю, подлечить - подлечу, закурить - закурю***). So we obtain ***оградю, утвердю, победю*** etc. Such combination as **`-дю`** however is [very rare in Russian](http://archive.is/mlZeo) &lt;sub&gt;(apart from the native outdated stem ***дюж - дюжий, дюже*** etc., words such as ***гадюка, дядюшка***, those suffixed with ***-юк - сердюк, пиздюк***, and loan words)&lt;/sub&gt; therefore its use as flexion is improbable. No other verbs have it either.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [survey](http://archive.is/QaySM) conducted among school pupils and undergraduates revealed that only 18% and 2% of the respondents respectively would use **`-дю`** ending in the verbs in question. They were more inclined to use **`-жду`** ending, 35% and 10% respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The clue about how **Д** should behave under conjugation in the 1st person sing. future tense could have been given by such infinitives as ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вос-/превосходить(йти), увидеть, рессердить, при-/пере-/от-/за-/на-/проводить(вести), на-/про-/от-/выследить, на-/за-/пере-/подгадить***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Four of these bases in the relevant form have flexion **`-жу`** - ***рассержу, увижу, на-/про-/от-/выслежу, на-/за-/пере-/подгажу***;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base has **`-ду`** - ***при-/у-/за-/на-/пере-/вз-/превзоЙДУ***;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* One base can have both - ***при-/пере-/от-/за-/навеДУ*** and also ***провожу***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results are inconclusive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retention of **`[д]`** in **`[-ду]`** is likewise improbable in my view, because all verbs which do have **`[д]`** in the flexion of the 1st person sing. future tense lack it in their perfective infinitive form in contrast to that of the *defective* ones. Examples include ***пойду ← пойти, приведу ← привести, побреду ← побрести, украду ← украсть, упаду ← упасть, сяду ← сесть***. Neither do these verbs have cluster **`[жд]`** in their imperfective infinitive form, if any, unlike the defective ones do. Besides, perfective infinitives of these verbs belong to a conjugation group different from that which perfective infinitives of the *defective verbs* belong to, namely 1st vs 2nd respectively, and so must be governed by somewhat different principles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*to be continued*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17983" RevisionGUID="72d3c5e7-dd5f-472f-a6a4-ce68b9fb1412" CreationDate="2019-01-18T17:31:20.610" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Она меня постоянно **задирает**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она меня постоянно **достает**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I use &quot;задирать&quot; or &quot;доставать&quot; with the meaning of &quot;сильно раздражать&quot;. I'm wondering how they compare with one another in terms of nuance, usage, and register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48251" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17983" RevisionGUID="72d3c5e7-dd5f-472f-a6a4-ce68b9fb1412" CreationDate="2019-01-18T17:31:20.610" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;задирать&quot; differ from &quot;доставать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48252" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17983" RevisionGUID="72d3c5e7-dd5f-472f-a6a4-ce68b9fb1412" CreationDate="2019-01-18T17:31:20.610" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17984" RevisionGUID="aacf4d12-962b-4741-8ee2-07a1a2cdd6c6" CreationDate="2019-01-18T17:49:49.200" UserId="11080" Text="They mean the same only in the forms **задрал** and **достал**, that is perfective past. Both are colloquial, and достал is softer, if it is possible to be softer here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the present form **задирает** or any other imperfective forms this verb means **teasing**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Достаёт** in its indirect meaning is &quot;сильно раздражает, старается вывести из себя&quot;. Literally it is 'keeps trying to get you out of yourself'. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17985" RevisionGUID="d877bf45-8c4d-4cf5-afc9-a7812e924063" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:07:01.267" UserId="7674" Text="**доставать** is either **`to bug with smth, to rag on`**, incessant requests, questions or addresses, if done on purpose, or **`to annoy`** if causing nuisance unintentionally and unwittingly, a synonym of **действовать на нервы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is **`to tease, to banter`** as already said, but also **`to try to pick a fight, to badger`** if done with malicious intent, whose synonym is **задираться** typical to children vocabulary in the past, don't think it's still common" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17985" RevisionGUID="1d46fcc7-5f84-4221-93ce-55f114ebf951" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:12:13.443" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="**доставать** is either **`to bug with smth, to rag on`**, incessant requests, questions or addresses, if done on purpose, or **`to annoy`** if causing nuisance unintentionally and unwittingly, a synonym of **действовать на нервы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is **`to tease, to banter`** as already said, but also **`to try to pick a fight, to badger, to yank one's chain`** if done with malicious intent, whose synonym is **задираться к** typical to children vocabulary in the past, don't think it's still common&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is perceived as significantly older, **доставать** is pretty recent, i've started hearing it a lot since end of the 80s beginning of the 90s " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17985" RevisionGUID="67d49a9c-71e8-4956-945b-2e93cc8b05e9" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:21:04.967" UserId="7674" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="**доставать** is either **`to bug with smth, to rag on`**, incessant requests, questions or addresses, if done on purpose, or **`to annoy`** if causing nuisance unintentionally and unwittingly, a synonym of **действовать на нервы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is **`to tease, to banter`** as already said, but also **`to try to pick a fight, to badger, to yank one's chain`** if done with malicious intent, whose synonym is **задираться к** typical to children vocabulary in the past, don't think it's still common&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is perceived as significantly older, **доставать** is pretty recent, i've started hearing it a lot since end of the 80s beginning of the 90s &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the adverb **постоянно** signals that act or its effect are deliberate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17986" RevisionGUID="06456b13-4c19-4d13-8936-90d8c4a9a40d" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:21:15.810" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; In conversation, I use &quot;задирать&quot; or &quot;доставать&quot; with the meaning of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;сильно раздражать&quot;. I'm wondering how they compare with one another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in terms of nuance, usage, and register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this meaning, there is a difference between these verbs in the imperfective form: &quot;Задирать&quot; is to provoke a conflict, a physical fight, or a verbal fight, while ''доставать'' is merely to annoy with persistent action, to get to, often with a purpose of making the victim change his course of actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A classical situation of ''задирать'': One schoolboy bullies another one and challenges him to a fist fight, simply willing to test the fists and get some adrenaline. A classical situation of ''доставать'': A wife constantly reminds her husband that he earns not enough money, trying to make him change his job for a better one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A persistent mosquito or a fly can доставать, but cannot задирать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Задиристый person is someone aggressive, verbally or physically. Доставучий person is just someone persistent in his annoying actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the perfective form, however, these verbs are equivalent: ''Задрал уже'' = ''Достал уже'' = ''You got to me.'' However, ''задрал'' is used rarely as compared to ''достал''." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17985" RevisionGUID="dca302f1-bc77-4bf4-92a0-336d12ffb737" CreationDate="2019-01-18T19:59:23.397" UserId="7674" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="**доставать** is either **`to bug with smth, to rag on`**, incessant requests, questions or addresses, if done on purpose, or **`to annoy`** if causing nuisance unintentionally and unwittingly, a synonym of **действовать на нервы**, this verb can accept complement in Instrumental, that is **доставать чем-то** or **с чем-то** which is rarer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is **`to tease, to banter`** as already said, but also **`to try to pick a fight, to badger, to yank one's chain`** if done with malicious intent, whose synonym is **задираться к** typical to children vocabulary in the past, don't think it's still common, this one is used without complement to denote means whereby the act is done&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**задирать** is perceived as significantly older, **доставать** is pretty recent, i've started hearing it a lot since end of the 80s beginning of the 90s &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the adverb **постоянно** signals that act or its effect are deliberate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17988" RevisionGUID="8b2984eb-b099-4178-a2e1-cb0ebc71008b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:07:12.637" UserId="10200" Text="In English you can sometimes append an infinitive to another verb to express the concept of purpose.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's meet to discuss this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I translate this construction to Russian?  Can I just add the infinitive like in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговорить ов этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be extended to multiple infinitives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы хотите встретиться поговорить ов этом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, does this affect the aspect of the verb (говорить/поговорить in the above examples)?  I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the perfective form of the verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17988" RevisionGUID="8b2984eb-b099-4178-a2e1-cb0ebc71008b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:07:12.637" UserId="10200" Text="How to express verb + infinitive in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17988" RevisionGUID="8b2984eb-b099-4178-a2e1-cb0ebc71008b" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:07:12.637" UserId="10200" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17988" RevisionGUID="e2abfa77-e957-4690-821d-3ec020045647" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:33:06.063" UserId="7674" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="In English you can sometimes append an infinitive to another verb to express the concept of purpose.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's meet to discuss this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I translate this construction to Russian?  Can I just add the infinitive like in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговорить о&lt;strike&gt;в&lt;/strike&gt;**Б** этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be extended to multiple infinitives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы хотите встретиться поговорить о&lt;strike&gt;в&lt;/strike&gt;**Б** этом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, does this affect the aspect of the verb (говорить/поговорить in the above examples)?  I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the perfective form of the verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17989" RevisionGUID="1630bc78-06e3-4d08-82b0-714aa6d59edb" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:37:25.720" UserId="7674" Text="**встретиться** isn't yet perceived as modal verb in Russian, that's why in the 1st sentence **чтобы** is required  &#xD;&#xA;in the 2nd one **хотеть** is a modal verb hence no **чтобы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чтобы** is unnecessary if the 2nd verb is in the same tense as the 1st one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговори**М** об этом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17989" RevisionGUID="9b1f55f6-6a1a-4deb-bd09-454ce32d2994" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:47:05.877" UserId="7674" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="**встретиться** isn't yet perceived as modal verb in Russian, that's why in the 1st sentence **чтобы** is required  &#xD;&#xA;in the 2nd one **хотеть** is a modal verb hence no **чтобы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чтобы** is unnecessary if the 2nd verb is in the same tense as the 1st one&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговори**М** об этом&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfective form of the verb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is а rule, e.g. **хочу пить** vs **хочу выпить**, **помочь одеться** vs **помогать одеваться**, **пробовать писать** vs **пробовать написать**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17989" RevisionGUID="2cc00a36-3d62-4d0e-91ca-ed758c83572d" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:52:18.630" UserId="7674" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="**встретиться** isn't yet perceived as modal verb in Russian, that's why in the 1st sentence **чтобы** is required  &#xD;&#xA;in the 2nd one **хотеть** is a modal verb hence no **чтобы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чтобы** is unnecessary if the 2nd verb is in the same tense as the 1st one, namely future, in the past and the present such construction isn't utilized&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговори**М** об этом&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;And the principle seems to be at work also in the 2nd sentence where both verbs are in infinitive form after a modal verb, this relationship applies to all tenses&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfective form of the verb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is а rule, e.g. **хочу пить** vs **хочу выпить**, **помочь одеться** vs **помогать одеваться**, **пробовать писать** vs **пробовать написать**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48270" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17753" RevisionGUID="051400b6-2804-41a2-a0a2-001d559e75db" CreationDate="2019-01-18T23:01:05.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17988" RevisionGUID="61cb0e18-be39-4e91-827b-4e035e24a64d" CreationDate="2019-01-18T23:34:42.567" UserId="10200" Comment="Fix mistake not relevant to main question" Text="In English you can sometimes append an infinitive to another verb to express the concept of purpose.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let's meet to discuss this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I translate this construction to Russian?  Can I just add the infinitive like in English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговорить об этом.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this be extended to multiple infinitives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы хотите встретиться поговорить об этом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, does this affect the aspect of the verb (говорить/поговорить in the above examples)?  I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the perfective form of the verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17990" RevisionGUID="a6112a07-82c8-47ca-9600-7de627aa80a4" CreationDate="2019-01-18T23:57:48.490" UserId="8780" Text="As far as I understood, when a russian verb becomes perfective by prefixation, the resulting verb can either have a new nuance of meaning or just express the completion of an action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, **сделать** is the &quot;neutral&quot; perfective counterpart of **делать**, because, here, the prefix **с-** just implies that something was done to the end or instantaneously - that's the general criterion of a perfective verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas **подделать** is another perfective verb derived by prefixation, but with a new meaning: *&quot;to falsify&quot;*. When the prefix adds a new meaning, an imperfective counterpart may be created by internal modification of the verb - thus **подделывать**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And now for the verb **тянуть**... I know there are many perfective verbs derived from this one, like **растянуть**, **вытянуть** and **затянуть**. But all of them with additional nuances of meaning and imperfective equivalents which replace **-тянуть** by **-тягивать**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there a &quot;neutral&quot; perfective to **тянуть**? Is **потянуть** what I am looking for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17990" RevisionGUID="a6112a07-82c8-47ca-9600-7de627aa80a4" CreationDate="2019-01-18T23:57:48.490" UserId="8780" Text="Neutral perfective prefix vs nuance prefix" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17990" RevisionGUID="a6112a07-82c8-47ca-9600-7de627aa80a4" CreationDate="2019-01-18T23:57:48.490" UserId="8780" Text="|глаголы|вид|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17991" RevisionGUID="25ad8258-4d39-452e-a9d6-92461b01cafc" CreationDate="2019-01-19T07:29:40.610" UserId="11395" Text="In Russian, you can even construct sentences consisting of a few verbs and containing no other words, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Решил пойти купить поесть. = I've decided to go to buy (some food) to eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above sentence is perfectly natural. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ''Let's meet to discuss this.'' How would I translate this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; construction to Russian? Can I just add the infinitive like in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; English?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your translation (''Давайте встретимся поговорить об этом'') sounds slightly not natural, but even native speakers can use such a phrase. I am unsure about the formal rules in this regard - maybe there is a formal mistake in it and maybe there isn't. To stay on the safe side in terms of the formal rules and to sound fully natural, say, ''Давайте встретимся, чтобы поговорить об этом''.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a commonly used colloquial expression, ''Давайте встретимся поговорим об этом,'' meaning meeting to discuss something and pronounced without any pauses between the words, but I suspect it is formally ungrammatical. If you put a comma between ''встретимся'' and ''поговорим'' (corresponding to a pause in speech), the sentence definitely becomes grammatical, but the perception changes, ''Let's meet and, in particular, discuss this.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, ''to discuss this'' is better translated to ''обсудить это,'' whereas ''поговорить об этом'' is rather ''to have a conversation about this.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, does this affect the aspect of the verb (говорить/поговорить in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the above examples)? I've been taught that with modal verbs like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; хотеть you usually use the perfective form of the verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a very tricky question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, you can say ''хотел учиться'' and ''хотел выучиться'' as well as ''захотел учиться'' and ''захотел выучиться''. All four phrases work and sound natural. The choice between them is just a question of the precise meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, some combinations in some contexts indeed sound very weird. Imagine you decide to talk with someone on a certain topic. You approach the person and say, ''Я захотел говорить с тобой по поводу Х''. This sentence is really very unnatural, in the circumstances. There is nothing ungrammatical in it, but the sentence sounds utterly weird. It would also be weird to say, ''Я решил говорить с тобой по поводу X.'' However, the negation sounds perfect, ''Я решил не говорить с тобой по поводу X.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The weirdness comes from the precise meanings of the verbs. ''Говорить'' is usually perceived as ''to talk in general,'' as opposed to ''поговорить'' - ''to have a specific conversation.'' If you say, ''Я решил говорить с тобой по поводу X,'' it will sound like, ''I have decided to talk with you on subject X in general, not only now.'' The meaning is just weird and does not correspond to what you actually have decided. And if you say, ''Я решил не говорить с тобой по поводу X,'' it will sound perfect and will mean, ''I have decided not to talk with you on subject X in general, not only now.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, the appropriateness of using the imperfective form after verbs like ''хотеть'' is determined by the precise meaning of the words and the intended meaning of the message." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17992" RevisionGUID="c398f8af-2631-450a-a339-242c50710ca3" CreationDate="2019-01-19T07:53:36.643" UserId="11080" Text="**Тянуть** is durative, you need a prefix according to the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стянуть, утянуть, оттянуть, притянуть, вытянуть, затянуть, перетянуть, не дотянуть, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to have no neutral perfective, as it describes a process in its neutral imperfective form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like идти - пойти, сойти, прийти, уйти, подойти, отойти, зайти, выйти, перейти, не дойти. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17993" RevisionGUID="757a8f76-0a3c-487a-897b-701abfc82e6c" CreationDate="2019-01-19T08:03:16.967" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; So, is there a &quot;neutral&quot; perfective to тянуть? Is потянуть what I am&#xD;&#xA;&gt; looking for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, there isn't. ''Потянуть'' has an imperfective form either - ''потягивать''.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the reason for the absence of the neutral perfective in this case is that it would be unclear exactly what is completed. There are just too many equally possible options - to successfully pull something out (вытянуть), to successfully make something strained (натянуть), etc. You have to specify the exact meaning by choosing the appropriate prefix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of the problem is that one and the same process - тянуть - can lead to different outcomes - вытянуть, натянуть, подтянуть, стянуть, утянуть and so on. Any prefix here is perceived to clarify the outcome rather than to only emphasise that the action has been completed. The completeness of the action is conveyed simply by choosing -нуть instead of -гивать, provided a prefix is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17989" RevisionGUID="f0616534-c878-4f6d-b7d8-faeae73a8c69" CreationDate="2019-01-19T08:16:43.313" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**встретиться** isn't yet perceived as modal verb in Russian, that's why in the 1st sentence **чтобы** is required  &#xD;&#xA;in the 2nd one **хотеть** is a modal verb hence no **чтобы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чтобы** is unnecessary when the 2nd verb is in the same tense as the 1st one, namely future, in the past and the present such construction isn't possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговори**М** об этом&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;And the principle seems to be at work also in the 2nd sentence where both verbs are in infinitive form after a modal verb, this relationship applies to all tenses&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfective form of the verb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is а rule, e.g. **хочу пить** vs **хочу выпить**, **помочь одеться** vs **помогать одеваться**, **пробовать писать** vs **пробовать написать**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17989" RevisionGUID="c0437137-eb1f-4cb3-a68f-502e222e4f02" CreationDate="2019-01-19T11:43:26.947" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 164 characters in body" Text="**встретиться** isn't yet perceived as modal verb in Russian, that's why in the 1st sentence **чтобы** is required  &#xD;&#xA;in the 2nd one **хотеть** is a modal verb hence no **чтобы**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**чтобы** is unnecessary when the 2nd verb is in the same tense as the 1st one, namely future, in the past and the present such construction isn't possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Давайте встретимся поговори**М** об этом&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *I've been taught that with modal verbs like хотеть you usually use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; perfective form of the verb.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think this is а rule, e.g. **хочу пить** vs **хочу выпить**, **помочь одеться** vs **помогать одеваться**, **пробовать писать** vs **пробовать написать**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17986" RevisionGUID="fdab0653-5066-4d75-9dc5-45feb7b02107" CreationDate="2019-01-19T17:27:39.563" UserId="11395" Comment="made a statement more accurate" Text="&gt; In conversation, I use &quot;задирать&quot; or &quot;доставать&quot; with the meaning of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;сильно раздражать&quot;. I'm wondering how they compare with one another&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in terms of nuance, usage, and register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this meaning, there is a difference between these verbs in the imperfective form: &quot;Задирать&quot; is to provoke a conflict, a physical fight, or a verbal fight, while ''доставать'' is merely to annoy with persistent action, to get to, often with a purpose of making the victim change his course of actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A classical situation of ''задирать'': One schoolboy bullies another one and challenges him to a fist fight, simply willing to test the fists and get some adrenaline. A classical situation of ''доставать'': A wife constantly reminds her husband that he earns not enough money, trying to make him change his job for a better one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A persistent mosquito or a fly can доставать, but cannot задирать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Задиристый person is someone aggressive, verbally or physically. Доставучий person is just someone persistent in his annoying actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the perfective form, however, these verbs are equivalent: ''Задрал уже'' = ''Достал уже'' = ''You have got to me.'' However, ''задрал'' is used rarely as compared to ''достал''." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="e4b99494-608f-4c36-b482-3f531bc535ae" CreationDate="2019-01-20T01:55:46.767" UserId="11379" Comment="added community provided answer keys for learnrussian.rt.com" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short Russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest Russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian &#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.  See also [community provided answer keys][21])&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][20] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Learn to speak Russian][18] - Russian learning site that provides a lot of helpful lessons and other information, including original course from beginning to confident level, and original books. The blog of Russian-1000words.pw contains a lot of different information on Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-1000words.pw&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://russian.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.explaura.net/learnrussian-rt-com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17994" RevisionGUID="ce7e82d9-192e-47b9-9a32-54f924f07ba3" CreationDate="2019-01-20T11:42:13.937" UserId="11080" Text="We can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Давайте встретимся и поговорим об этом.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Давайте встретимся, поговорим об этом.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мы встретились, чтобы поговорить об этом.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мы встретились поговорить об этом.** (less formal, than the previous&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sentence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formant &quot;*to*&quot; is here not only the indicator of an infinitive, but also a **preposition** preceding the clause of purpose. In this meaning it is literally translated as чтобы or для того, чтобы. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the third variant **Давайте встретимся, чтобы поговорить об этом** will be the most exact translation, containing a main clause, a preposition of purpose, an infinitive and an object. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17995" RevisionGUID="2a7390a8-c64f-4241-b0f8-e741b35cf1fa" CreationDate="2019-01-20T12:35:47.833" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; В холодильнике ничего не осталось (поесть)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With ''поесть'' (perfective) this particular sentence sounds very natural, whereas with ''есть'' (imperfective) - pretty weird. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, it is perfectly natural to say, ''Есть больше нечего.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that for non-native speakers, this may be very confusing in terms of rational logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to confidently make choices in such expressions, you have to develop the ''Russian logic'' - associative thinking based on analogies to many Russian idioms, colloquial expressions, and commonly used everyday phrases. It is very easy to make mistakes if you try to deduce the right choices by purely logical, rational reasoning. For native Russian speakers it is usually much easier to tell the right choice than to try to find the logical reason as to why it is the right choice. Native Russian speakers make their choices based on the subconscious associative ''Russian logic'' rather than on rational reasoning. The correct variants are simply those that are easier perceived by the Russian-speaking mind. Words and expressions in the Russian language activate specific thinking patterns and emotions that are often not easy to describe logically and rationally in another language. You must ''feel'' the language and its specific words and expressions on the subconscious level in order to speak naturally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let me answer your question from the ''Russian logic'' standpoint. This logic may be different from what you find in your grammar textbooks, but is what how Russian speakers actually think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's start with the following phrase: ''Что ему осталось сделать?'' This sentence implies that the person has a checklist and has already done some things on that list, so the question is about what is left on the list. Both verbs here are perfective, so the sentence sounds very result-oriented, and this is why it implies a checklist with clearly defined goals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's now make both verbs imperfective: ''Что ему остается делать?'' Now the most natural perception is that the person is in a difficult situation in which he has very few options left, and the question is about exactly what options are left. The question sounds somewhat global, strategic. In the past tense, the same question takes the following form: ''Что ему оставалось делать?'' The latter sentence is often used as an apology for someone's actions or explanation of someone's actions by saying that he had no other choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variant with the perfective verbs sounds result-oriented, while the variant with the imperfective verbs - process-oriented, hence the difference in the perception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, perfective and imperfective verbs activate different thinking patterns - result-oriented vs process-oriented, so if you use perfective and imperfective verbs together in a single sentence, your conversation partner may get somewhat confused on the subconscious level, depending on the context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to illustrate this by how many results Google gives for the following combinations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ему осталось сделать?&quot; (perfective + perfective): 9,000 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ему остается делать?&quot;(imperfective + imperfective): 24,000 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ему оставалось делать?&quot; (imperfective + imperfective): 53,000 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ему осталось делать?&quot; (perfective + imperfective): 1,000 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Что ему остается сделать?&quot; (imperfective + perfective): 5,000 results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, the pure forms (i.e., ''perfective + perfective'' and ''imperfective + imperfective'') are more common than the mixed ones, although the latter are not ungrammatical. The pure forms are just easier for perceive and are thus preferred, although in some contexts you may need to use a mixed form in order to emphasise some nuance (as I will explain below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make two obvious observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(i) The verb ''есть'' (in the meaning ''to eat'') is perceived as a general concept or a process, whereas ''поесть'' - rather as ''to have a certain meal at a certain time (e.g. now).'' ''Поесть'' is a result-oriented word and denotes a limited action. ''Есть'' is a process-oriented word and feels rather global.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ii) The verb ''осталось'' is a result-oriented verb. ''Ничего не осталось'' is perceived as a result of a completed action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''В холодильнике ничего не осталось поесть'' sounds perfectly natural. It is a pure form (perfective + perfective); the idea is expressed purely in terms of result-oriented thinking; the phrase is about particular circumstances rather than a global state of affairs - after all, you can always buy food in a shop to resolve the issue. The perception is, ''Nothing has been left in the fridge to quickly have a meal right now.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''В холодильнике ничего не осталось есть'', in contract, triggers a weird interplay between result-oriented thinking and process-oriented thinking in the Russian-speaking mind. It is perceived as weird as, ''As a result of some particular process, no options have been left in the fridge as to what to eat globally.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just another example: ''Решил пойти купить покушать'' is strongly preferred to ''решил пойти купить кушать,'' for the same reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider this: ''Есть больше нечего.'' It sounds natural. The idea is expressed purely in terms of global, process-oriented thinking. If you now replace ''есть'' by ''поесть'', it will sound unnatural, because ''больше'' is related to a process (namely, the process of gradually consuming food), while ''поесть'' is a result-oriented word and denotes an isolated action. In some rare contexts, however, ''поесть больше нечего'' sounds okay (e.g., the person ''поел'' a few times and asks whether there is something to ''поесть'' again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that mixed forms (i.e. combinations of perfective and imperfective verbs) are okay to use if the context and the intended meaning require it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can even give you an example where ''ничего не осталось есть'' sounds fine: ''Пожар уничтожил запасы хлеба, и жителям ничего не осталось есть.'' (''The fire annihilated the reserves of bread, so the population was left with nothing to eat''). Here it is emphasised that the population was left with nothing to eat globally, not just to have a meal right now. This is why ''ничего не осталось есть'' sounds natural in this context, as opposed to the context with the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, the word choice is dictated by the context, the intended meaning, and the way how the words and their combinations are perceived by the Russian-speaking mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17996" RevisionGUID="6c5928b4-3c40-4530-9d2b-99874c64f0cc" CreationDate="2019-01-20T21:50:07.423" UserId="6074" Text="[Есть песня, в которой произносят слово &quot;Аллилуйя&quot;][1] чуть непревычно, как будь-то писалось &quot;аллэлуя&quot;. Вот такое произношение я до сих пор никогда не услышал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, что от влиянья английского языка, у русскоговорящих американцев есть свойственный говор? Или просто неправильно пишется этот слово?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFOu_onkMVM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="17996" RevisionGUID="6c5928b4-3c40-4530-9d2b-99874c64f0cc" CreationDate="2019-01-20T21:50:07.423" UserId="6074" Text="Произношение слова &quot;аллилуйя&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="17996" RevisionGUID="6c5928b4-3c40-4530-9d2b-99874c64f0cc" CreationDate="2019-01-20T21:50:07.423" UserId="6074" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="2dff0af4-82ff-45ac-a43b-480aa6e2b5e9" CreationDate="2019-01-20T22:21:50.317" UserId="7674" Text="На самом деле по-моему есть тенденция к **Е** вместо **И**, хотя нормативное произношение соответствует написанию - [[ɐl**ʲɪ**ˈɫuɪ̯ːə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/аллилуйя), лично мне легче произносить именно **Е**, возможно это влияние русского фонетического строя...   &#xD;&#xA;Но в оригинале, т.е. на иврите, действительно произносится **Э**, поэтому относительно него русская орфография ошибочна. Она по всей вероятности основана на греческом произношении ἀλλ**η**λούϊα, пришедшем через старославянский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="c15e945c-74e0-4f15-91ea-705631efd847" CreationDate="2019-01-20T22:27:36.307" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="На самом деле по-моему есть тенденция к произнесению **Е** вместо **И**, хотя нормативное произношение соответствует написанию - [[ɐl**ʲɪ**ˈɫuɪ̯ːə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/аллилуйя), лично мне легче произносить именно **Е**, и нараспев она прозносится проще, возможно это влияние русского фонетического строя...   &#xD;&#xA;Но в оригинале, т.е. на иврите, действительно произносится **Э**, поэтому относительно него русская орфография ошибочна. Она по всей вероятности основана на греческом произношении ἀλλ**η**λούϊα, пришедшем через старославянский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17996" RevisionGUID="c32e2578-64f0-4c26-a17b-69666f20f40e" CreationDate="2019-01-20T22:30:15.950" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="[Есть песня, в которой произносят слово &quot;Аллилуйя&quot;][1] чуть непревычно, как будь-то писалось &quot;аллэлуя&quot;. Вот такое произношение я до сих пор никогда не услышал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, что от влиянья английского языка, у русскоговорящих американцев есть свойственный говор? Или просто неправильно пишется этот слово?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/yFOu_onkMVM?t=100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17997" RevisionGUID="9c317313-262a-4af2-a5f5-3f980eb94382" CreationDate="2019-01-20T22:32:51.513" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="На самом деле по-моему есть тенденция к произнесению **Е** вместо **И**, хотя нормативное произношение соответствует написанию - [[ɐl**ʲɪ**ˈɫuɪ̯ːə]](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/аллилуйя), лично мне легче произносить именно **Е**, и нараспев мне кажется она прозносится проще, возможно это влияние русского фонетического строя...   &#xD;&#xA;Но в оригинале, т.е. на иврите, действительно произносится **Э**, поэтому относительно него русская орфография ошибочна. Она по всей вероятности основана на греческом произношении ἀλλ**η**λούϊα, пришедшем через старославянский." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17996" RevisionGUID="0c79cc60-6213-440c-9eb1-7763b465046f" CreationDate="2019-01-21T00:22:33.453" UserId="3680" Comment="опечатки" Text="[Есть песня, в которой произносят слово &quot;Аллилуйя&quot;][1] чуть непривычно, как будто писалось &quot;аллэлуя&quot;. Вот такое произношение я до сих пор никогда не слышал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Возможно, что от влияния английского языка, у русскоговорящих американцев есть свойственный говор? Или просто неправильно пишется это слово?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/yFOu_onkMVM?t=100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17998" RevisionGUID="272acef4-56a9-4706-9b45-dbdf4f063eae" CreationDate="2019-01-21T03:06:08.617" UserId="5622" Text="Задирать - trying to provoke aggressive response.&#xD;&#xA;Доставать - to annoy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="2028612b-3f4c-41ed-a987-1dd5a27f1d89" CreationDate="2019-01-21T07:41:23.123" UserId="11080" Text="На ЦСЯ вариант один - Алилyіа (над i должно быть две точечки), а ЦСЯ, при всей своей отдалённости, оказал и оказывает влияние на русский язык в области церковной и духовной лексики. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То, что звучит в песне, мне кажется однозначно иностранным произношением. До такой степени, что мне удивительно слышать следующую фразу на русском. Это похоже даже не на неправильное произношение, а на подражание американским или каким-то другим песням. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="4b7315d5-7b03-4aa3-8733-4d2940624786" CreationDate="2019-01-21T09:45:35.147" UserId="6074" Comment="заставил две точки" Text="На ЦСЯ вариант один - Алилyїа, а ЦСЯ, при всей своей отдалённости, оказал и оказывает влияние на русский язык в области церковной и духовной лексики. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То, что звучит в песне, мне кажется однозначно иностранным произношением. До такой степени, что мне удивительно слышать следующую фразу на русском. Это похоже даже не на неправильное произношение, а на подражание американским или каким-то другим песням. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48295" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17999" RevisionGUID="4b7315d5-7b03-4aa3-8733-4d2940624786" CreationDate="2019-01-21T09:45:35.147" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 11080 edit id of 2009" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18000" RevisionGUID="37227de7-f199-4a23-8464-284da2aa20ab" CreationDate="2019-01-21T18:39:51.647" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пусть он предприниматель, но думает не только о деньгах. Будь нажива для него **на первом месте**, он бы больше заработал, нарушая правила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering how &quot;в первую очередь&quot; would have compared to &quot;на первом месте&quot; in terms of nuance, usage, and register?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; {vs}: Будь нажива для него **в первую очередь**, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18000" RevisionGUID="37227de7-f199-4a23-8464-284da2aa20ab" CreationDate="2019-01-21T18:39:51.647" UserId="8672" Text="When to use “на первом месте” – and “в первую очередь”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18000" RevisionGUID="37227de7-f199-4a23-8464-284da2aa20ab" CreationDate="2019-01-21T18:39:51.647" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18001" RevisionGUID="2c721c95-5d52-4b32-b649-32dc6e5ea8bc" CreationDate="2019-01-21T19:33:44.077" UserId="7674" Text="The verb **быть** by itself can't be meaningfully qualified with the adverb **в первую очередь**, it requires an object: **быть в первую очередь человеком**, **в первую очередь быть здоровым**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this in mind it could be used in your sentence after some modification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Будь `его целью` в первую очередь нажива**, он бы больше заработал, нарушая&#xD;&#xA;&gt; правила" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18002" RevisionGUID="4b6d254e-3297-4510-984d-f8af24e582e9" CreationDate="2019-01-21T20:26:49.333" UserId="11408" Text="**в первую очередь** can mean **mainly, chiefly**, but it also often implies some order, listing. While its not explicit and necessary, it has more of an implicit undertone and gives you a freedom to follow up with a list. e.g. **for him profit came first, then interest**. So often in a conversation you would also use a construction implying a sequence: **в первую очередь нажива, потом интерес**. Hence, from a grammatical point of view, **в первую очередь** in the first meaning has a function of an adverbial expression, in the second case it tends more to a parenthetical phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на первом месте** means more &quot;in the first place, above all else&quot;. And besides, it is more of a stand alone phrase/construction, e.g. **in the first place for him was profit**. While you could continue also with giving a list **in the second place, etc**, you feel much less obliged to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="d28c8ee8-2299-4942-8f90-5bcb6cc0034f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T08:24:12.593" UserId="10696" Text="I have been doing some reading lately, and became aware of the two phrases 'много народа' and 'много народу'.  According to Google Ngrams, both are current (although 'много народу' is 2x more frequent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that this has come about since 'народ' has both a standard and partitive genitive, so both options are grammatically correct.  But is there any significant semantic distinction?  Or is it just a matter of personal preference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another question at this site dealt with 'много народа' versus 'много людей'.  In that case I can see that there is some useful distinction that can be drawn.]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="d28c8ee8-2299-4942-8f90-5bcb6cc0034f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T08:24:12.593" UserId="10696" Text="много народа/народу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="d28c8ee8-2299-4942-8f90-5bcb6cc0034f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T08:24:12.593" UserId="10696" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18005" RevisionGUID="1de4ad47-490a-4460-843c-52f11d4cb24f" CreationDate="2019-01-22T10:29:09.517" UserId="242" Text="Well, `много народу` is considered colloquial but as you've already noticed by yourself is heavily used. It's a never-ending discussion on what to consider grammatical and what not. Facts are following: it's used and de-facto it's not accepted in any high-style usage - just like any  noun in partitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can invert the reasoning and ask themselves - should be consider grammatical forms that are virtually non-existent in colloquial everyday speech. Is &quot;справка дана в том, что&quot; grammatical? And you'll immediately see that the question is weak per se. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48309" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="3539354c-e3c2-4d7a-ad55-7d20f625dab8" CreationDate="2019-01-22T10:29:25.117" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Много &quot;народа&quot;/&quot;народу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18005" RevisionGUID="98121239-57b0-485f-8103-9da2ec9bc8a9" CreationDate="2019-01-22T10:36:37.977" UserId="242" Comment="added 463 characters in body" Text="Well, `много народу` is considered colloquial but as you've already noticed by yourself is heavily used. It's a never-ending discussion on what to consider grammatical and what not. Facts are following: it's used and de-facto it's not accepted in any high-style usage - just like any  noun in partitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can invert the reasoning and ask themselves - should be consider grammatical forms that are virtually non-existent in colloquial everyday speech. Is &quot;справка дана в том, что&quot; grammatical? And you'll immediately see that the question is weak per se. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of difference between `много народу` and `много людей` - they are almost identical but not completely. I'd rather suggest that &quot;народу&quot; is more abstract, so there's a chain &quot;много народу&quot; ~ &quot;много людей&quot; ~ &quot;много человек&quot;. You can say: &quot;Что-то сегодня много народу&quot; or &quot;что-то сегодня много людей&quot; interchangeably but you hardly can substitute `много людей` in phrase `в давке пострадало много людей` with `много народу` - it will sound slightly off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48311" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="53e6a7d7-2d88-4a06-b7e2-1d714f3272d3" CreationDate="2019-01-22T11:06:25.697" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Много народа&quot; or &quot;много народу&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48312" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="53e6a7d7-2d88-4a06-b7e2-1d714f3272d3" CreationDate="2019-01-22T11:06:25.697" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="|словоупотребление|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48313" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="4f84f34b-9004-4c2d-bf9c-2f645925c8cb" CreationDate="2019-01-22T11:46:15.750" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|падежи|genitive-partitive|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18006" RevisionGUID="479908c0-eabb-48db-980f-0d104af141ef" CreationDate="2019-01-22T11:47:43.563" UserId="11080" Text="Initially the norm of using the Genitive case with много, сколько, мало, нету etc. with uncountables was just this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Много народу, мало сахару, налить чаю, сколько сыру, рюмка коньяку.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was called *the partitive Genitive case*, as you have already learned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the rule has simplified to using just regular Genitive case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Много народа, мало сахара, налить чая, сколько сыра, рюмка коньяка.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;But the partitive Genitive is also correct and is not colloquial. I would say it sounds more classical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, ложка сахару, рюмка коньяку and стакан чаю sound more natural, though they can be classified as old-fashioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use both, but the first variant adds score to your language command. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько народу is surely uncountable, we can express our surprise by this phrase, but we cannot ask for counting with this phrase. Сколько людей and сколько человек divides the crowd into individuals. You can express surprise with the help of these phrases as well, but you can also count people now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько народу на площади! Никогда не видел такую толпу!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сколько людей вышло на площадь? - Примерно 5000 человек.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18007" RevisionGUID="078d3c5a-2f8c-4ff3-ade8-1610635f6462" CreationDate="2019-01-22T13:53:03.480" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; But is there any significant semantic distinction? Or is it just a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; matter of personal preference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, there is no semantic distinction whatsoever. Both expressions mean exactly the same thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice between them is rather a matter of style, as ''много народу'' sounds more colloquial and old-fashioned than ''много народа.'' But both expressions are colloquial anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18008" RevisionGUID="2f79ddb0-96cb-4cf1-935b-8ed69ec6c086" CreationDate="2019-01-22T15:17:16.217" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; Будь нажива для него в первую очередь, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wording is just plain wrong and ungrammatical. ''В первую очередь'' is an adverb-like construction that answers the question ''как?'', not ''где?'', whereas the construction ''будь нажива для него'' requires something that answers the question ''где?'', ''чем?'', or ''какой?'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original variant, ''будь нажива для него на первом месте,'' is perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expression ''в первую очередь'' is used as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Это надо сделать в первую очередь'' = ''This has to be done first.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''В первую очередь, ... '' = ''First of all, ... ''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Он в первую очередь лингвист'' = ''He is primarily a linguist.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Его интересуют в первую очередь деньги'' = ''He is primarily interested in money.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18009" RevisionGUID="ee24eb56-70a0-4aee-b617-5cb389b52744" CreationDate="2019-01-22T18:16:37.903" UserId="11408" Text="&gt; The Russian language usually uses the genitive case to express&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partialness. However, some Russian mass nouns have developed a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distinct partitive case, also referred to as the &quot;second genitive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case&quot;. In modern Russian, use of the partitive case is often facultative. In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many situations, the partitive and the genitive can be used almost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonymously: чашка чаю (partitive) and чашка чая (genitive) both mean &quot;a cup of tea&quot;. The partitive variant is preferred with verbs: выпить чаю,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to drink some tea&quot;. The genitive variant is used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more frequently when the mass noun is modified by an adjective: чашка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; горячего чая, &quot;a cup of hot tea&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;[Check here for the source and more information][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, **Много народу** refers to another case, which is called *partitive* and it was used in older times. Since it is not used so frequently in a modern Russian language, this case is often merged with *genitive* and hence refers as the *second genetive* case. If you would read classical Russian literature, you would certainly encounter *partitive*, but in modern Russian you would mostly hear it colloquially. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for the *partitive*, there are also other cases in modern language, which are often used colloquially, but not given in official grammar books when teaching pupils in Russian schools. For example, if you ever listened to a regular conversation between Russians, you must have encountered a vocative case without even realizing it: ***Даш*, ты меня слышишь? Нет, *Саш*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here at the end you can find more information][2] about additional cases which are used in Russian nowadays. If you are simply trying to learn Russian, do not focus on them too much, in the end they constitute a small group of all the situations and will come intuitively simply by mimicking Russians/ learning some constructed phrases things by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitive_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18005" RevisionGUID="017ad68d-9a4b-4fe1-ad37-65b64718c7b3" CreationDate="2019-01-22T20:57:01.723" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Well, `много народу` is considered colloquial but as you've already noticed by yourself is heavily used. It's a never-ending discussion on what to consider grammatical and what not. Facts are following: it's used and it's not accepted in any high-style usage - just like any  noun in partitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can invert the reasoning and ask themselves - should we consider grammatical forms that are virtually non-existent in colloquial everyday speech. Is &quot;справка дана в том, что&quot; grammatical? And you'll immediately see that the question is weak per se. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of difference between `много народу` and `много людей` - they are almost identical but not completely. I'd rather suggest that &quot;народу&quot; is more abstract, so there's a chain &quot;много народу&quot; ~ &quot;много людей&quot; ~ &quot;много человек&quot;. You can say: &quot;Что-то сегодня много народу&quot; or &quot;что-то сегодня много людей&quot; interchangeably but you hardly can substitute `много людей` in phrase `в давке пострадало много людей` with `много народу` - it will sound slightly off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="373b0294-7a9e-419e-b841-4984a4ffdd09" CreationDate="2019-01-22T21:08:33.340" UserId="10271" Text="&quot;Шутить и век шутить! Как вас на это станет!&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never seen стать used like this. What does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="373b0294-7a9e-419e-b841-4984a4ffdd09" CreationDate="2019-01-22T21:08:33.340" UserId="10271" Text="What does this mean, Как вас на это станет!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="373b0294-7a9e-419e-b841-4984a4ffdd09" CreationDate="2019-01-22T21:08:33.340" UserId="10271" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18011" RevisionGUID="0f5d54e7-7b66-4a3f-b14c-18ac87234d18" CreationDate="2019-01-22T21:34:19.637" UserId="11080" Text="Griboyedov lived really long ago, he used the colloquialisms of his epoch, and it's not what your speech in modern Russian should sound like. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate it as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Как вы можете! &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; How dare you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как вас на это станет ~ как вас на это хватает (can be positive or negative), как у вас хватает на это совести (negative). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48323" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18003" RevisionGUID="4d50bb02-395e-4cca-b486-a62f64d6d0f2" CreationDate="2019-01-23T06:00:38.077" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1087953231244869633" />
  <row Id="48324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18012" RevisionGUID="420ce95c-539e-4805-a080-247808960cca" CreationDate="2019-01-23T10:25:22.327" UserId="242" Text="I actually disagree with the answer given - it's not wrong though! - among other things `станет` indeed also means &quot;хватит&quot; / &quot;довольно&quot;. However `cтанет` (or `станется`) in it's semi-obsolete usage means also to be able to do something, it's synonymous to [горазд][1] in `горазд на что-то` / `горазд в чём-то`, like in phrase - &quot;этот сможет, с него станется&quot; (more examples you can find [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd rather interpret this phrase like &quot;how can you keep on joking for this long&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://punktuaciya.academic.ru/627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="ad15022e-f75a-4d91-838a-3dcba3f8dcff" CreationDate="2019-01-23T10:26:36.230" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;Как вас на это станет!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18013" RevisionGUID="1e471d1a-6d63-440c-89ba-f7a297fa35bc" CreationDate="2019-01-23T12:15:26.423" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; &quot;Шутить и век шутить! Как вас на это станет!&quot; I've never seen стать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used like this. What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning of ''как вас на это станет'' is, ''How can you do it so much!'' More literally: ''How can one person - you - be enough for that!''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тhis is an archaic colloquial expression and is not used in modern Russian at all, and I was even unable to understand its meaning before I opened a dictionary, despite that I am a native speaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dictionary says that the verb ''стать'' had an archaic meaning,''to be enough,'' ''to prove to be enough,'' and the dictionary also gives some examples of the use of this verb in this meaning. Here are a couple of them, with my translations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Как это вас на всё станет: и дело вы всякое знаете и пустяк всякий знаете.'' = ''How can you know everything - important things and unimportant things as well!'' It seems to be rather a praise or wonder, not a doubt or question, although possibly can be interpreted in any of these ways. A more literal translation is, ''How can one person - you - be enough for everything - you know every important thing and every unimportant thing!''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Ну, полно, что за счеты, лишь стало бы охоты'' = 'Well, stop it, what are these calculations for, the only question is whether the desire will be enough.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link to the corresponding page of the dictionary: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/1042046 The above meaning is No. 9 there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48327" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18010" RevisionGUID="80e02f4d-786c-4db6-be57-47250ef229fd" CreationDate="2019-01-23T21:00:39.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1088179728274677771" />
  <row Id="48328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18014" RevisionGUID="3a4bd158-0009-4675-8484-a72f2dcc185e" CreationDate="2019-01-23T22:28:43.050" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Именно. Так мы сможем получить столько средств, сколько нам хватит. Никто еще не **додумался до этого**. Это же гениально!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside the question of  stylistic awkwardness, if I want to replace &quot;еще&quot; with &quot;до этого&quot; in the sense of &quot;раньше&quot;, can I say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто **до этого** не додумался **до этого**. (=== Никто **до этого** не додумался **раньше**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;до этого&quot; placed at the end of the sentence in my original phrasing is related to &quot;додуматься&quot;, whereas in the paraphrased version, the &quot;до этого&quot; at the end -- despite taking the same position -- is meant as &quot;раньше&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18014" RevisionGUID="3a4bd158-0009-4675-8484-a72f2dcc185e" CreationDate="2019-01-23T22:28:43.050" UserId="8672" Text="Is it acceptable to use two &quot;до этого&quot;s with two different meanings like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18014" RevisionGUID="3a4bd158-0009-4675-8484-a72f2dcc185e" CreationDate="2019-01-23T22:28:43.050" UserId="8672" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18015" RevisionGUID="42bcd301-178d-468c-a689-2ffabcfa0155" CreationDate="2019-01-23T23:18:30.920" UserId="4560" Text="You can't because **до этого** must refer to a point in the past. In other words, you can only use it to say &quot;no-one *had* thought of this before&quot;, not &quot;no-one *has* thought of this before&quot;. If it was part of a story you were narrating, though, you could, if only as a kind of formalist whimsy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто **до этого** не додумался **до этого**. (=== Никто **до этого** не додумался **раньше**.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, it's the first **до этого** that parses as &quot;before&quot;; I can't quite put my finger on why, but it's very unusual for the &quot;before&quot; **до этого** to go to the end of the sentence — much like you wouldn't end a sentence with **еще** unless you wanted it to mean &quot;more&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18016" RevisionGUID="58bc335c-a7e3-4aa0-9ce5-eaf043f62954" CreationDate="2019-01-24T05:38:37.773" UserId="11080" Text="No, avoid this ambiguous reduplication here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто до сих пор не додумался до этого.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if you want to mention a person &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никто до него/них (ещё) не додумался до этого." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48337" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18000" RevisionGUID="03081379-bd85-45f9-8170-141b80ceacfa" CreationDate="2019-01-24T12:00:49.540" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1088406263887732736" />
  <row Id="48338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18018" RevisionGUID="4f3dfc21-550b-49df-9724-8c56f4bb688e" CreationDate="2019-01-24T18:26:57.083" UserId="3859" Text="&gt; В первую очередь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally, this means &quot;First in line.&quot; As such, it really does not belong in the example. Second example is not a valid statement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На первом месте&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In first place, leading choice or preference, main concern." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="551898d7-8e9d-43d2-b91c-c80a5f128b66" CreationDate="2019-01-24T19:52:51.290" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Обе стороны на грани. Достаточно одной искры, чтобы все пошло наперекосяк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I wanted to express the idea of &quot;a tinderbox situation waiting to ignite&quot; or &quot;a powder-keg situation waiting to explode&quot;. What is a commonly used phrasing for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="551898d7-8e9d-43d2-b91c-c80a5f128b66" CreationDate="2019-01-24T19:52:51.290" UserId="8672" Text="How do Russian speakers commonly express the idea of &quot;a powder-keg situation&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="551898d7-8e9d-43d2-b91c-c80a5f128b66" CreationDate="2019-01-24T19:52:51.290" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18020" RevisionGUID="3673afb2-e5bb-488f-9a0f-7a0933ffd441" CreationDate="2019-01-24T20:32:11.163" UserId="4481" Text="Two phrases that you use (&quot;Обе стороны на грани&quot;, &quot;Достаточно одной искры&quot;) already express the idea of &quot;a tinderbox situation waiting to ignite&quot;. There are some others, for example: &quot;взрывоопасная ситуация&quot;, &quot;обстановка накаляется (or накалилась)&quot;. What you need, as [@Баян Купи-ка][1] said, is to remove the third expression and add some neutral explanation, what can happen. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обе стороны на грани. Достаточно одной искры, чтобы началась потасовка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose, &quot;стороны&quot; here are two groups of people. Two gangs, for example. Or, in the case of armies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обе стороны на грани. Достаточно одной искры, чтобы начались боевые действия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can say &quot;Обстановка накалилась&quot; instead of &quot;Обе стороны на грани&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/users/7674/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%B8-%D0%BA%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48343" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18019" RevisionGUID="c772eb27-1923-4daf-a975-13d9d2901a03" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:00:33.427" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1088542091767107585" />
  <row Id="48344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18021" RevisionGUID="821dae2e-34e5-4928-9ca9-5ebf0e4d5d57" CreationDate="2019-01-24T21:09:05.817" UserId="11080" Text="Тогда уже **&quot;чтобы всё пошло под откос&quot;**, это про поезд на взорванных путях. :) А то наперекосяк - не настолько опасно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Сидеть на пороховой бочке.** Сейчас все как на пороховой бочке. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Быть на волосок от гибели/краха/чего-то ещё.** Стороны на волосок от конфликта. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Висеть на волоске.** Судьба/мир висит на волоске. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Быть на взводе.** *На взводе бывает курок огнестрельного оружия, и так&#xD;&#xA;&gt; же говорят про нервы при напряженной обстановке.* Обе стороны на взводе, и лучше не подливать масла в огонь. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Подливать масло в огонь.** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Только спичку брось.** Обстановка такая, что только спичку брось. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И т.д., и т.п. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="373768e1-732e-4a99-8929-1270c0124c15" CreationDate="2019-01-25T02:51:44.187" UserId="8359" Text="The term креол was adopted in Russian a couple of centuries back. Just possibly, it was introduced by Nikolai Rezanov after he visited Brazil and California. The term's origin is [described as][1] the similar Romance terms (créole, criollo, crioulo). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those terms reflect a new-world native born to immigrant stock, whereas the Russian word was immediately applied on the colonial frontier to half-Russians. A creole of Kodiak might have so had a Russian father and a Koniag mother, while a creole of Mexico had two parents of Spanish descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When was the term first attested in Russian, and why was it adopted with a different meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="373768e1-732e-4a99-8929-1270c0124c15" CreationDate="2019-01-25T02:51:44.187" UserId="8359" Text="Why did the meaning of the term креол change upon its adoption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="373768e1-732e-4a99-8929-1270c0124c15" CreationDate="2019-01-25T02:51:44.187" UserId="8359" Text="|этимология|история-языка|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18023" RevisionGUID="2769be10-e78a-47ce-8714-d544813b12e3" CreationDate="2019-01-25T06:34:14.780" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; Вторые &lt;жители Америки&gt; суть, которыи Криолы зовутся, от родителей Ишпанских в Америке рожденные. Пуф. Ист. 1718 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://endic.ru/fasmer/Kreol-6582.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this link, you can see all the Russian dictionary meanings of this word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please make it more clear, from which of the more familiar to you meanings it is different? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the title of the question sounds naive to me. Once a language has borrowed a word, this word becomes its property and part of its vocabulary, developing wordforms and meanings regardless of those from the initial language. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="1aa72da7-159e-408f-aef9-c1e3c06a1699" CreationDate="2019-01-25T09:10:57.273" UserId="11395" Text="What is the etymological origin of the word ''захолустье''? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the origin of this word is a big mystery of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian, this word means ''a remote place, a place that remains unaffected by new events, progress, ideas, etc.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vasmer's etymological dictionary, which is considered to be the most complete and credible Russian etymological dictionary, says the following about the origin of this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **захолу́стье** До сих пор не получило удовлетворительного объяснения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сравнивали за- и ст.-слав. халѫга «изгородь», словен. halóga&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кустарник, морская трава» (Маценауэр, LF 7, 217; Преобр. I, 243;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Горяев, ЭС 114), но в таком случае ожидалось бы *захалужье. Влияние&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова холосто́й (Преобр.) невероятно. Неудовлетворительно также&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сравнение с холо́п, холу́й у Соболевского (ЖМНП, 1886, сент., стр.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 146). Калима («Neuphil. Мitt.», 1951, стр. 167 и сл.) пытается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произвести захолустье из *захолостье от холост, что затруднительно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фонетически. [Сближение с холудина, хлуд см. у Трубачева (ZfS, 4,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1959, стр. 84). Иначе см. Львов, «Этим. исследования по русск. языку»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I, М., 1960, стр. 32. — Т.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, the dictionary says that no satisfactory etymological explanation has been found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing is also said in another highly reputable etymological dictionary, Preobrazhensky's dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting hypothesis is put forward in the Internet: The word is of Mongolian origin. In modern Mongolian, the expression ''зах улс'' means or can be interpreted as ''a distant country,'' with ''зах'' meaning ''edge'' and ''улс'' meaning ''country.'' The similarity in the meaning and pronunciation is striking, and the hypothesis seems plausible in view of the fact that Russia was a vassal state of the Mongol Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intrigued, I did some research, and the facts found by me support the hypothesis. First, I verified in Google Translator as well as in a Mongolian dictionary that in modern Mongolian, ''зах улс'' can indeed be interpreted as a ''distant country.'' Second, the Mongolian etymological dictionary by Rajki says that the word ''улс'' originated from the Old Mongolian word ''ulus'', so in Old Mongolian the whole expression rather sounded ''зах улус,'' which is even closer ''захолустье.'' Third, in modern Kalmyk, which belongs to Mongolic languages, Russian federal subjects are called ''зах улс'' - for example, Stavropol Krai is called ''Ставрополин зах улс.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that on this forum, there are many experts and fans of the Russian language, and some of them may be able to shed some light on the mystery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this word, which sounds so Russian, in fact a trace of the Mongol invasion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="1aa72da7-159e-408f-aef9-c1e3c06a1699" CreationDate="2019-01-25T09:10:57.273" UserId="11395" Text="Origin of the word ''захолустье''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="1aa72da7-159e-408f-aef9-c1e3c06a1699" CreationDate="2019-01-25T09:10:57.273" UserId="11395" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="ca11f271-da78-41b0-9ae2-74940cfc6c88" CreationDate="2019-01-25T10:38:07.227" UserId="6907" Text="Generally speaking without any context we could say that &quot;**хотя бы**&quot; is a synonym for &quot;**по крайней мере**&quot; meaning &quot;at least&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="ca11f271-da78-41b0-9ae2-74940cfc6c88" CreationDate="2019-01-25T10:38:07.227" UserId="6907" Text="&quot;хотя бы&quot; is a synonym for &quot;по крайней мере&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="ca11f271-da78-41b0-9ae2-74940cfc6c88" CreationDate="2019-01-25T10:38:07.227" UserId="6907" Text="|синонимы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18026" RevisionGUID="2df4d1d2-6b3b-4a15-9198-2ad69371419c" CreationDate="2019-01-25T10:47:54.687" UserId="6097" Text="Yes. It is even mentioned in dictionaries that &quot;*хотя бы*&quot; and &quot;*по крайней мере*&quot; are very close in their meanings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[хотя бы][1] on Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. усилительно-выделительная частица, то же, что хотя, хоть, близко по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значению к словам **по крайней мере, по меньшей мере**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[по крайней мере][2] on Wiktionary:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. **хотя бы**, по меньшей мере&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8F_%D0%B1%D1%8B#%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5#%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="2ae0a893-d09e-478d-9b0c-1493a2d61739" CreationDate="2019-01-25T10:48:53.510" UserId="6097" Comment="edited body" Text="Generally speaking without any context could we say that &quot;**хотя бы**&quot; is a synonym for &quot;**по крайней мере**&quot; meaning &quot;at least&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18027" RevisionGUID="b89c1874-d024-4e13-931f-fba0794e4c25" CreationDate="2019-01-25T10:49:52.127" UserId="242" Text="These phrases synonymous in one of possible meanings - one that stands for English &quot;at least&quot;. There are other meaning in which `хотя бы` can not be substituted, they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As in &quot;хоть бы зима поскорее кончилась!&quot; (not that in modern Russian though there's a tendency to separate `хотя бы` from `хоть бы`, though actually the latter is just a shortened form. &#xD;&#xA; - As in &quot;взять бы 5й &quot;Б&quot; класс, вот хотя бы Петрова - совсем другие результаты&quot;. &#xD;&#xA; - As in &quot;хотя бы на час с тобой свидеться&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically when you use `хотя бы` for emphasizing it's interchangeable with `по крайней мере` to less extent. More on meaning and usages you can find [here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8F_%D0%B1%D1%8B" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18028" RevisionGUID="4988eaef-c428-4208-85f8-fa44e7cfc861" CreationDate="2019-01-25T11:25:43.230" UserId="242" Text="I am amateur an have no right to make assumptions somewhere where scientists (who dedicated years studying some specific issues) failed. However I'm bold enough to say that the Mongolian origin in this particular case is highly, highly unlikely for some reasons from which one of most important one - for Slavic languages prefix `за-` (which is actually a merged preposition `[за][1]`) is very well known for forming  words of similar meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Polish there's `zadupie` which any Russian speaker will recognizer as `зажопье`. &quot;Залесье&quot;, &quot;заграница&quot;, &quot;запад&quot; are other examples. This fact per se casts some doubts that some foreign phrase started with `зах` was used in similar form. That happens though! - my favorite example is word `изъян` which is actually [of a Persian origin][1] borrowed through Turkic - originally it was `ziyan`. It is believed that Russian `изъян` influenced it's formation and now it feels like a very, very Russian word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thing to consider - as far as I understand in Mongolian there's no [z] sound at all but rather a form of affricate [d͡z] for which Russian letter &quot;з&quot; stands (don't get fooled by Mongolian Cyrillic - pronunciation is completely different). In Middle Mongolian even this affricate [was non-existent][2]. So to make any claims of this kind we should check how similar phrase might sound in Middle Mongolian - language tend to change. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again - I don't know. My counter-arguments easily can be as amateurish as your arguments. However from what I know about, from what I've read - well, let me put it this way - we still need to take into consideration a lot of additional data to back this theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lexicography.online/etymology/%D0%B8/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8A%D1%8F%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Mongol_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18028" RevisionGUID="a897b340-6168-4ccf-b5f6-804828292de6" CreationDate="2019-01-25T11:33:11.330" UserId="242" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I am amateur an have no right to make assumptions somewhere where scientists (who dedicated years studying some specific issues) failed. However I'm bold enough to say that the Mongolian origin in this particular case is highly, highly unlikely for some reasons from which one of most important one - for Slavic languages prefix `за-` (which is actually a merged preposition `[за][1]`) is very well known for forming  words of similar meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Polish there's `zadupie` which any Russian speaker will recognizer as `зажопье`. &quot;Залесье&quot;, &quot;заграница&quot;, &quot;запад&quot; are other examples. This fact per se casts some doubts that some foreign phrase started with `зах` was used in similar form. That happens though! - my favorite example is word `изъян` which is actually [of a Persian origin][1] borrowed through Turkic - originally it was `ziyan`. It is believed that Russian verb `изъять` influenced it's formation and now it feels like a very, very Russian word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thing to consider - as far as I understand in Mongolian there's no [z] sound at all but rather a form of affricate [d͡z] for which Russian letter &quot;з&quot; stands (don't get fooled by Mongolian Cyrillic - pronunciation is completely different). In Middle Mongolian even this affricate [was non-existent][2]. So to make any claims of this kind we should check how similar phrase might sound in Middle Mongolian - language tend to change. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again - I don't know. My counter-arguments easily can be as amateurish as your arguments. However from what I know about, from what I've read - well, let me put it this way - we still need to take into consideration a lot of additional data to back this theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lexicography.online/etymology/%D0%B8/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8A%D1%8F%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Mongol_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18028" RevisionGUID="c0b4273e-e5c2-4f1e-9fdd-07235c32657b" CreationDate="2019-01-25T12:20:41.120" UserId="242" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I am an amateur an have no right to make assumptions somewhere where scientists (who dedicated years studying some specific issues) failed. However I'm bold enough to say that the Mongolian origin in this particular case is highly, highly unlikely for some reasons from which one of most important one - for Slavic languages prefix `за-` (which is actually a merged preposition `[за][1]`) is very well known for forming  words of similar meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Polish there's `zadupie` which any Russian speaker will recognizer as `зажопье`. &quot;Залесье&quot;, &quot;заграница&quot;, &quot;запад&quot; are other examples. This fact per se casts some doubts that some foreign phrase started with `зах` was used in similar form. That happens though! - my favorite example is word `изъян` which is actually [of a Persian origin][1] borrowed through Turkic - originally it was `ziyan`. It is believed that Russian verb `изъять` influenced it's formation and now it feels like a very, very Russian word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thing to consider - as far as I understand in Mongolian there's no [z] sound at all but rather a form of affricate [d͡z] for which Russian letter &quot;з&quot; stands (don't get fooled by Mongolian Cyrillic - pronunciation can be  quite [different][2]). In Middle Mongolian even this affricate [was non-existent][3]. So to make any claims of this kind we should check how similar phrase might sound in Middle Mongolian - language tend to change. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again - I don't know. My counter-arguments easily can be as amateurish as your arguments. However from what I know about, from what I've read - well, let me put it this way - we still need to take into consideration a lot of additional data to back this theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lexicography.online/etymology/%D0%B8/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8A%D1%8F%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8671/how-similar-are-mongolian-cyrillic-and-russian-cyrillic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Mongol_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18028" RevisionGUID="5034b37e-395c-4b03-8957-7a033929de5e" CreationDate="2019-01-25T13:47:28.943" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I am an amateur an have no right to make assumptions somewhere where scientists (who dedicated years studying some specific issues) failed. However I'm bold enough to say that the Mongolian origin in this particular case is highly, highly unlikely for some reasons from which one of most important one - for Slavic languages prefix `за-` (which is actually a merged preposition `[за][1]`) is very well known for forming  words of similar meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, in Polish there's `zadupie` which any Russian speaker will recognize as `зажопье`. &quot;Залесье&quot;, &quot;заграница&quot;, &quot;запад&quot; are other examples. This fact per se casts some doubts that some foreign phrase started with `зах` was used in similar form. That happens though! - my favorite example is word `изъян` which is actually [of a Persian origin][1] borrowed through Turkic - originally it was `ziyan`. It is believed that Russian verb `изъять` influenced it's formation and now it feels like a very, very Russian word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thing to consider - as far as I understand in Mongolian there's no [z] sound at all but rather a form of affricate [d͡z] for which Russian letter &quot;з&quot; stands (don't get fooled by Mongolian Cyrillic - pronunciation can be  quite [different][2]). In Middle Mongolian even this affricate [was non-existent][3]. So to make any claims of this kind we should check how similar phrase might sound in Middle Mongolian - language tend to change. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once again - I don't know. My counter-arguments easily can be as amateurish as your arguments. However from what I know about, from what I've read - well, let me put it this way - we still need to take into consideration a lot of additional data to back this theory. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lexicography.online/etymology/%D0%B8/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%8A%D1%8F%D0%BD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/8671/how-similar-are-mongolian-cyrillic-and-russian-cyrillic&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Mongol_language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="06de47e0-69d8-473f-8dff-3ff135ea9d8b" CreationDate="2019-01-25T16:53:13.087" UserId="11395" Comment="made a statement more accurate" Text="What is the etymological origin of the word ''захолустье''? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me, the origin of this word is a big mystery of the Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian, this word means ''a remote place, a place that remains unaffected by new events, progress, ideas, etc.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vasmer's etymological dictionary, which is considered to be the most complete and credible Russian etymological dictionary, says the following about the origin of this word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **захолу́стье** До сих пор не получило удовлетворительного объяснения.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сравнивали за- и ст.-слав. халѫга «изгородь», словен. halóga&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «кустарник, морская трава» (Маценауэр, LF 7, 217; Преобр. I, 243;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Горяев, ЭС 114), но в таком случае ожидалось бы *захалужье. Влияние&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слова холосто́й (Преобр.) невероятно. Неудовлетворительно также&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сравнение с холо́п, холу́й у Соболевского (ЖМНП, 1886, сент., стр.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 146). Калима («Neuphil. Мitt.», 1951, стр. 167 и сл.) пытается&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произвести захолустье из *захолостье от холост, что затруднительно&#xD;&#xA;&gt; фонетически. [Сближение с холудина, хлуд см. у Трубачева (ZfS, 4,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1959, стр. 84). Иначе см. Львов, «Этим. исследования по русск. языку»,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I, М., 1960, стр. 32. — Т.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, the dictionary says that no satisfactory etymological explanation has been found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing is also said in another highly reputable etymological dictionary, Preobrazhensky's dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting hypothesis is put forward in the Internet: The word is of Mongolian origin. In modern Mongolian, the expression ''зах улс'' means or can be interpreted as ''a distant country,'' with ''зах'' meaning ''edge'' and ''улс'' meaning ''country.'' The similarity in the meaning and pronunciation is striking, and the hypothesis seems plausible in view of the fact that Russia was a vassal state of the Mongol Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intrigued, I did some research, and the facts found by me support the hypothesis. First, I verified in Google Translator as well as in a Mongolian dictionary that in modern Mongolian, ''зах улс'' can indeed be interpreted as a ''distant country.'' Second, the Mongolian etymological dictionary by Rajki says that the word ''улс'' originated from the Old Mongolian word ''ulus'', which can explain why it is ''захолустье,'' not ''захулстье.'' Third, in modern Kalmyk, which belongs to Mongolic languages, Russian federal subjects are called ''зах улс'' - for example, Stavropol Krai is called ''Ставрополин зах улс.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that on this forum, there are many experts and fans of the Russian language, and some of them may be able to shed some light on the mystery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this word, which sounds so Russian, in fact a trace of the Mongol invasion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="b5e96e05-ed62-4750-ace8-9521c1313dc7" CreationDate="2019-01-25T18:05:23.307" UserId="8359" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="The term креол was adopted in Russian a couple of centuries back. Just possibly, it was introduced by Nikolai Rezanov after he visited Brazil and California. The term's origin is [described as][1] the similar Romance terms (créole, criollo, crioulo). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those terms reflect a new-world native born to immigrant stock, whereas the Russian word was immediately applied on the colonial frontier to half-Russians. A creole of Kodiak might have so had a Russian father and a Koniag mother, while a creole of Mexico had two parents of Spanish descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Lydia Black's _Russians in Alaska_: &quot;The offspring of [interethnic] unions acquired, in Russian eyes, a right to the father's family name, social estate, and property&quot; (pp. 211). &quot;The term was introduced sometime before 1816-1821 for use exclusively in Alaska&quot; (pp. 215).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When was the term first attested in Russian, and why was it adopted with a different meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="453ae828-db64-4db4-9e49-57849f98a0c9" CreationDate="2019-01-25T18:13:28.860" UserId="8359" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The term креол was adopted in Russian a couple of centuries back. Just possibly, it was introduced by Nikolai Rezanov after he visited Brazil and California. The term's origin is [described as][1] the similar Romance terms (créole, criollo, crioulo). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, those terms reflect a new-world native born to immigrant stock, whereas the Russian word was immediately applied on the colonial frontier to half-Russians. A creole of Kodiak might have so had a Russian father and a Koniag mother, while a creole of Mexico had two parents of Spanish descent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Lydia Black's _Russians in Alaska_: &quot;The offspring of [interethnic] unions acquired, in Russian eyes, a right to the father's family name, social estate, and property&quot; (pp. 211). &quot;The term was introduced sometime before 1816-1821 for use exclusively in Alaska&quot; (pp. 215).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why was the word adopted with a different meaning (i.e. encompassing those with a native mother) in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18022" RevisionGUID="453ae828-db64-4db4-9e49-57849f98a0c9" CreationDate="2019-01-25T18:13:28.860" UserId="8359" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Why did the meaning of the loanword креол change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18030" RevisionGUID="57593902-1fc6-4735-95cd-c60206db8198" CreationDate="2019-01-26T10:49:28.413" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Никогда бы не подумал, что у принцев могут быть проблемы, как у **обычных людей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering how &quot;как у **простых людей**&quot; would have compared to &quot;как у обычных людей&quot; -- all the more so since in the following instance, on the other hand, I chose to use &quot;простой&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот бы и мне туда! Неужели когда-нибудь **простые люди** тоже смогут летать на Луну?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18030" RevisionGUID="57593902-1fc6-4735-95cd-c60206db8198" CreationDate="2019-01-26T10:49:28.413" UserId="8672" Text="How to express the idea of &quot;the general public&quot;, as opposed to “the royal family”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18030" RevisionGUID="57593902-1fc6-4735-95cd-c60206db8198" CreationDate="2019-01-26T10:49:28.413" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18031" RevisionGUID="1b37fc38-b0ae-466f-8b21-821657bbfe53" CreationDate="2019-01-26T10:55:07.553" UserId="242" Text="You'll be 100% understandable and this barely can count as misuse however there are two alternatives that will sound more natural in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели когда нибудь **[даже] самые обычные люди** тоже смогу летать на Луну.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели когда нибудь **[даже] простые смертные [люди]** тоже смогу летать на Луну.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Простые смертные` (mere mortals) is exactly the phrase which is used to separate &quot;regular&quot; people from rich, famous etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18031" RevisionGUID="70095fb1-def4-42ed-9e03-6b08e2aa8f31" CreationDate="2019-01-26T11:05:31.000" UserId="242" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="You'll be 100% understandable and this barely can count as misuse however there are two alternatives that will sound more natural in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели когда нибудь **[даже] самые обычные люди** тоже смогу летать на Луну.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели когда нибудь **[даже] простые смертные [люди]** тоже смогу летать на Луну.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Простые смертные` (mere mortals) is exactly the phrase which is used to separate &quot;regular&quot; people from rich, famous etc. This phrase initially was used in a religious context - (it's supposed that we all are mere mortal), then - quite often ironically - began to be used in it's modern meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18031" RevisionGUID="e3510a99-c3d3-4e75-8f06-61cfb200779a" CreationDate="2019-01-26T11:17:43.053" UserId="242" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You'll be 100% understandable and this barely can count as misuse however there are two alternatives that will sound more natural in this context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели когда нибудь **[даже] самые обычные люди** тоже смогут летать на Луну.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неужели когда нибудь **[даже] простые смертные [люди]** тоже смогут летать на Луну.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Простые смертные` (mere mortals) is exactly the phrase which is used to separate &quot;regular&quot; people from rich, famous etc. This phrase initially was used in a religious context - (it's supposed that we all are mere mortal), then - quite often ironically - began to be used in it's modern meaning. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="f9fe0b7b-daa6-4b4a-abec-968fe3d98ad1" CreationDate="2019-01-26T11:25:14.740" UserId="7674" Text="The adjective **обычные** fits in both sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обычные** is a more neutral term - **`regular, average`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые** may have a connotation of value judgement - **`simple, unsophisticated, hoi polloi`** and be a lower register synonym of **обычные**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18033" RevisionGUID="49971705-5b66-4773-b82b-08bc85770138" CreationDate="2019-01-26T11:44:14.217" UserId="11080" Text="We've always had the opposition **знать, аристократия** - **простолюдины, простонародье**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обычные люди** means common people, just any people as theu usually are. You can oppose a royal family member, a celebrity, or just an outstanding (for you) person you know to them. It would mean some peculiarity of this person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые люди** means people without any titles or social advantages as opposed to aristocracy and authorities. We can use **народ** here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые смертные** means all the people who can die, and when we use this, we humoruosly stress the chasm between the divinity of the noble or the authorities and common people. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18033" RevisionGUID="30abefdb-4a52-48b2-8cef-55e29620e1df" CreationDate="2019-01-26T12:29:29.870" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="We've always had the opposition **знать, аристократия** - **простолюдины, простонародье**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обычные люди** means common people, just any people as theu usually are. You can oppose a royal family member, a celebrity, or just an outstanding (for you) person you know to them. It would mean some peculiarity of this person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые люди** means people without any titles or social advantages as opposed to aristocracy and authorities. We can use **народ** here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые смертные** means all the people who can die, and when we use this, we humorously stress the chasm between the divinity of the noble or the authorities and common people. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48382" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18030" RevisionGUID="8da60cc3-5602-42ac-afc8-bce1e85b72df" CreationDate="2019-01-26T15:00:46.487" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1089176325435387905" />
  <row Id="48384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18032" RevisionGUID="cf453fb7-1a8a-40d6-965b-40314eeb4a46" CreationDate="2019-01-27T07:54:46.323" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The adjective **обычные** fits in both sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обычные** is a more neutral term - **`regular, average, everyday`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые** may have a connotation of value judgement - **`simple, unsophisticated, hoi polloi`** and be a lower register synonym of **обычные**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18033" RevisionGUID="eb36be86-d12e-4a06-8a67-1633c9e66d8b" CreationDate="2019-01-27T09:40:50.723" UserId="11080" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="We've always had the opposition **знать, аристократия** - **простолюдины, простонародье**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Обычные люди** means common people, just any people as theu usually are. You can oppose a royal family member, a celebrity, or just an outstanding (for you) person you know to them. It would mean some peculiarity of this person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые люди** means people without any titles or social advantages as opposed to aristocracy and authorities. We can use **народ** here. Historically they were peasants, who constituted the vast majority of the population.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Простые смертные** means all the people who can die, and when we use this, we humorously stress the chasm between the divinity of the noble or the authorities and common people. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18034" RevisionGUID="1a40e004-b7f5-4138-a527-ca4fdf5615b0" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:25:36.713" UserId="11395" Text="I did some additional research and now will briefly summarise my findings (which I mostly already stated in the comments under Shabunc's answer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The Old Mongolian version of ''зах'' is ''diqa,'' according to the Mongolian etymological dictionary by Rajki. I see that all modern Mongolian words starting with ''з'' start with ''d'' in the Old Mongolian. For example, the Old Mongolian version of the word ''захиа'' (a letter) is ''dikiyan.'' The Old Mongolian version of ''улс'' is ''ulus,'' so ''зах улс'' must have been ''diqa ulus.'' Thus, the Russian word ''захолустье'' is phonetically far closer to the modern Mongolian and Kalmyk versions, ''зах улс,'' than to the Old Mongolian version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Shaposhnikov's etymological dictionary says that the word ''захолустье'' was not used in the Russian language of the 15th-17th centuries and that the first mention of this word in a dictionary dates back to 1794.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) In view of findings (1) and (2) above, I can more or less confidently rule out the possibility of this word being a direct trace of the Mongol invasion or the subsequent Mongol yoke, which was lifted in the 15th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) In the Internet, I found many articles saying that ''захолустье'' was taken from Kalmyk, where it originally sounded ''заха улус'' and meant ''distant/edge people/settlement.'' If this is true, then the word is still of Mongolic origin, as Kalmyk belongs to Mongolic languages. However, none of the articles I saw contains any proof to confirm the statement. They are about Kalmyks in general and mention the allegedly Kalmyk origin of the word ''захолустье'' merely as a side note.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) The absorption of the Kalmyk Khanate by the Russian Empire occurred in ~1660, a century before the first mention of the word ''захолустье'' in a dictionary, so the Kalmyk hypothesis cannot be refuted simply by considering timings. It could be refuted by timings if the word had been used in the Russian language before the interactions between the Russians and Kalmyks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6) Dal's dictionary, originally published in 1863, defines the word ''захолустье'' as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ЗАХОЛУСТЬЕ ср. глушь, глухое место; закоулок или малолюдная часть в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; городе; чаща в лесу: отдаленное и малонаселенное, малопроезжее место;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; затишье. Захолустник, житель глуши, захолустья. Захолюсток м. арх.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скрывище, убежище, приют, и пр. заливец, где укрываются суда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of the archaic word ''захолюсток'' (shelter) seems to favour the Slavic hypothesis of the origin of the word ''захолустье''. In the Kalmyk hypothesis, it is not easy to explain the existence and meaning of the word ''захолюсток,'' which was already considered archaic in 1863.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like the word was either somehow formed in the Russian language from another Russian word in the 18th century or, less likely, taken from Kalmyk in the 18th century. In any case the word is a not a direct trace of the Mongol invasion or the subsequent Mongol yoke." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18035" RevisionGUID="ee05f4e7-ef21-41f3-938b-b90dff9a6568" CreationDate="2019-01-27T23:40:24.373" UserDisplayName="user11194" Text="Drawing an analogy with &quot;дерьмократия&quot; I think &quot;швабода&quot; is a derisive and probably vulgar way of saying &quot;свобода&quot; (*freedom*), but please can someone fill me in on the origins, usage, and connotations of this form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18035" RevisionGUID="ee05f4e7-ef21-41f3-938b-b90dff9a6568" CreationDate="2019-01-27T23:40:24.373" UserDisplayName="user11194" Text="Origins, usage and connotations of the word &quot;швабода&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18035" RevisionGUID="ee05f4e7-ef21-41f3-938b-b90dff9a6568" CreationDate="2019-01-27T23:40:24.373" UserDisplayName="user11194" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18036" RevisionGUID="dfc26336-c045-4b38-b863-7728b824ae95" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:13:41.697" UserId="11080" Text="**Швабода** is just the way we would pronounce **свобода** in a joking manner. It resembles a child's pronunciation, or how an old man without teeth would say that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18037" RevisionGUID="c1abfbdd-fcce-4d2a-addc-7c119a1dd654" CreationDate="2019-01-28T07:29:36.223" UserId="4600" Text="It's a set of political-inspired meme words used extensively on the Russian Internet to mock the liberal wing (opposition) commentators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Швабода** (свобода) — freedom&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Швабода шлова** (свобода слова) — freedom of speech&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Швитая Омерика / Швитая Мурика** (Святая Америка) — Holy America (as opposed to Russia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Шанкции** (санкции) — sanctions etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can draw parallels with **freedum** used on the English-speaking web in political humor context:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4cZMe.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18038" RevisionGUID="8b335835-a0b7-473e-a345-a23d2876ce4e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:10:39.333" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I jokingly said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты **допустишь** ошибку и **погибнешь**, то мы за это не **ответим**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of the future perfective &quot;ответим&quot; sprang to mind right there and then, given the future perfective &quot;допустишь&quot; and &quot;погибнешь&quot; that I used in the preceding clause. But it seems I should have used the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; here. What is the grammatical rationale for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты допустишь ошибку и погибнешь, то мы за это не **отвечаем**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18038" RevisionGUID="8b335835-a0b7-473e-a345-a23d2876ce4e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:10:39.333" UserId="8672" Text="Why use the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; instead of the future perfective &quot;ответим&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18038" RevisionGUID="8b335835-a0b7-473e-a345-a23d2876ce4e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T17:10:39.333" UserId="8672" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18039" RevisionGUID="49b378b2-85d7-40d0-9aa1-223fa067b56f" CreationDate="2019-01-28T19:41:24.350" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Не ответим&quot; is perfective, and the meaning is &quot;Won't be held responsible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не отвечаем&quot; is imperfective, and the meaning is, generally, &quot;Won't be seen as being responsible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference, as you see, is nuanced. Perfective &quot;не ответим&quot; may imply a number of reason why someone can avoid the responsibility (including, but not limited to bribing the authorities or insanity plea). On the other hand, imperfective &quot;не отвечаем&quot; (or &quot;не будем отвечать&quot;) means that the issue of responsibility shouldn't even be raised." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48398" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18038" RevisionGUID="4f2b1488-dba0-4e52-8dad-4fc6a18e8b0e" CreationDate="2019-01-28T21:00:41.270" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1089991676448387073" />
  <row Id="48399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18039" RevisionGUID="b5c257c3-7e68-4f4a-8b50-a96a77313ef4" CreationDate="2019-01-29T01:08:44.530" UserId="9256" Comment="added 184 characters in body" Text="&quot;Не ответим&quot; is perfective, and the meaning is &quot;Won't be held responsible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Не отвечаем&quot; is imperfective, and the meaning is, generally, &quot;Won't be seen as being responsible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference, as you see, is nuanced. Perfective &quot;не ответим&quot; may imply a number of reason why someone can avoid the responsibility (including, but not limited to bribing the authorities or insanity plea). On the other hand, imperfective &quot;не отвечаем&quot; (or &quot;не будем отвечать&quot;) means that the issue of responsibility shouldn't even be raised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negative perfective &quot;Не ответим&quot; (&quot;не ответит&quot;) is generally never used in this context, unless somehow forced by the flow of speech (ex: &quot;Он за это ответит!&quot; - &quot;Нет, не ответит.&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48400" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18025" RevisionGUID="9fbab7d5-5643-4499-8ed2-e1d8b783675d" CreationDate="2019-01-29T06:00:39.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1090127565665259520" />
  <row Id="48401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18040" RevisionGUID="6d7993a3-250c-43d0-a1f8-6e47460857bb" CreationDate="2019-01-29T08:48:58.160" UserId="5375" Text="According to my dictionary, both проглянуть and проглянуться mean to &quot;peep out&quot;. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Солнце проглянуло из-за облаков&#xD;&#xA; - Солнце проглянулось из-за облаков&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18040" RevisionGUID="6d7993a3-250c-43d0-a1f8-6e47460857bb" CreationDate="2019-01-29T08:48:58.160" UserId="5375" Text="What's the difference between проглянуть and проглянуться?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18040" RevisionGUID="6d7993a3-250c-43d0-a1f8-6e47460857bb" CreationDate="2019-01-29T08:48:58.160" UserId="5375" Text="|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18041" RevisionGUID="0086b2b3-1033-4c2e-846f-f89534111b8f" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:08:26.843" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; But it seems I should have used the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; here. What is the grammatical rationale for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should have used ''отвечаем,'' but the following sentence sounds perfectly okay: ''О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты допустишь ошибку и погибнешь, то мы за это не **понесем ответственность**.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, here I used the perfective ''понесем ответственность''. With this perfective, this sentence sounds absolutely natural. With ''не несем ответственность'' it would sound fine, too. But with ''не ответим'' it sounds weird!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does ''не ответим'' sound bad, while ''не понесем ответственность'' sounds fine despite that both forms are perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is connected with a connotation of the perfective expression ''ответить за что-либо'': Historically, this expression (in the perfective form) was a colloquial expression used by semi-criminals and criminals in the 1990s, e.g., ''за базар ответишь'' (''you will be held responsible for you words''). ''Отвечать за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation and simply means ''to be responsible for something.'' ''Понести ответственность за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation either, although is equivalent to ''ответить за что-либо'' in terms of the literal meaning - ''someone has been held responsible for something.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the expression ''ответить за что-либо'' is often used by general public, too, but still has some criminal flavour. For example, the expression ''ты ответишь за это'' is perceived as a threat or a promise to retaliate, i.e., something like ''you will be made pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the usage and flavour of ''ответить за что-либо'' do not fit your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="e8f9e1a8-5bbf-4814-8e7a-ff77d3e1c47a" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:30:39.320" UserId="11436" Text="What's the difference between &quot;происходить&quot; &quot;случаться&quot; and &quot;оказаться&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;examples very welcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="e8f9e1a8-5bbf-4814-8e7a-ff77d3e1c47a" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:30:39.320" UserId="11436" Text="What's the difference between &quot;происходить&quot; &quot;случаться&quot; &quot;оказаться&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="e8f9e1a8-5bbf-4814-8e7a-ff77d3e1c47a" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:30:39.320" UserId="11436" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18041" RevisionGUID="be4b464d-c063-4ea6-9142-3f64ead0ef84" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:40:24.697" UserId="11395" Comment="added a paragraph" Text="&gt; But it seems I should have used the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; here. What is the grammatical rationale for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should have used ''отвечаем,'' but the following sentence sounds perfectly okay: ''О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты допустишь ошибку и погибнешь, то мы за это не **понесем ответственность**.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, here I used the perfective ''понесем ответственность''. With this perfective, this sentence sounds absolutely natural. With ''не несем ответственность'' it would sound fine, too. But with ''не ответим'' it sounds weird!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does ''не ответим'' sound bad, while ''не понесем ответственность'' sounds fine despite that both forms are perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is connected with a connotation of the perfective expression ''ответить за что-либо'': Historically, this expression (in the perfective form) was a colloquial expression used by semi-criminals and criminals in the 1990s, e.g., ''за базар ответишь'' (''you will be held responsible for you words''). ''Отвечать за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation and simply means ''to be responsible for something.'' ''Понести ответственность за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation either, although is equivalent to ''ответить за что-либо'' in terms of the literal meaning - ''someone has been held responsible for something.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the expression ''ответить за что-либо'' is often used by general public, too, but still has some criminal flavour. For example, the expression ''ты ответишь за это'' is perceived as a threat or a promise to retaliate, i.e., something like ''you will be made pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the negation of this phrase, i.e, ''я за это не отвечу'' is practically not used, although is not ungrammatical or wrong in any way. If you google the exact phrase &quot;я за это не отвечу,&quot; you will get only a few results, but all these results obviously come from native speakers. The meaning is rather, ''I will get away with that,'' or, ''You will be unable to make me pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the usage and flavour of ''ответить за что-либо'' do not fit your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18041" RevisionGUID="c8c8d45a-84a7-4b5b-9a6e-662b32e5a9dd" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:47:05.623" UserId="11395" Comment="better explained one point" Text="&gt; But it seems I should have used the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; here. What is the grammatical rationale for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should have used ''отвечаем,'' but the following sentence sounds perfectly okay: ''О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты допустишь ошибку и погибнешь, то мы за это не **понесем ответственность**.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, here I used the perfective ''понесем ответственность''. With this perfective, this sentence sounds absolutely natural. With ''не несем ответственность'' it would sound fine, too. But with ''не ответим'' it sounds weird!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does ''не ответим'' sound bad, while ''не понесем ответственность'' sounds fine despite that both forms are perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is connected with a connotation of the perfective expression ''ответить за что-либо'': Historically, this expression (in the perfective form) was a colloquial expression used by semi-criminals and criminals in the 1990s, e.g., ''за базар ответишь'' (''you will be held responsible for you words,'' ''you will pay for your words''). ''Отвечать за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation and simply means ''to be responsible for something.'' ''Понести ответственность за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation either, although is basically equivalent to ''ответить за что-либо'' in terms of the essence of the meaning - ''someone has been held responsible for something.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the expression ''ответить за что-либо'' is often used by general public, too, but still has some criminal flavour. For example, the expression ''ты ответишь за это'' is perceived as a threat or a promise to retaliate, i.e., something like ''you will be made pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the negation of this phrase, i.e, ''я за это не отвечу'' is practically not used, although is not ungrammatical or wrong in any way. If you google the exact phrase &quot;я за это не отвечу,&quot; you will get only a few results, but all these results obviously come from native speakers. The meaning is rather, ''I will get away with that,'' or, ''You will be unable to make me pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the usage and flavour of ''ответить за что-либо'' do not fit your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18041" RevisionGUID="3bbbd3fc-fef7-49be-baa7-c1587d13c636" CreationDate="2019-01-29T09:52:32.540" UserId="11395" Comment="better explained some points" Text="&gt; But it seems I should have used the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; here. What is the grammatical rationale for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should have used ''отвечаем,'' but the following sentence sounds perfectly okay: ''О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты допустишь ошибку и погибнешь, то мы за это не **понесем ответственность**.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, here I used the perfective ''понесем ответственность''. With this perfective, this sentence sounds absolutely natural. With ''не несем ответственность'' it would sound fine, too. But with ''не ответим'' it sounds weird!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does ''не ответим'' sound bad, while ''не понесем ответственность'' sounds fine despite that both forms are perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is connected with a connotation of the perfective expression ''ответить за что-либо'': Historically, this expression (in the perfective form) was a colloquial expression used by semi-criminals and criminals in the 1990s as a threat, e.g., ''за базар ответишь'' (''you will be held responsible for you words,'' ''you will pay for your words''). ''Отвечать за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation and simply means ''to be responsible for something.'' ''Понести ответственность за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation either, although is basically equivalent to ''ответить за что-либо'' in terms of the essence of the meaning - ''someone has been held responsible for something.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the expression ''ответить за что-либо'' is often used by general public, too, but still has some criminal flavour. For example, the expression ''ты ответишь за это'' is perceived as a threat or a promise to retaliate, i.e., something like ''I will make you pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the negation of this phrase, i.e, ''я за это не отвечу'' is practically not used, although is not ungrammatical or wrong in any way. If you google the exact phrase &quot;я за это не отвечу,&quot; you will get only a few results, but all these results obviously come from native speakers. The meaning is rather, ''I will get away with that,'' or, ''You will be unable to make me pay for that.'' The criminal flavour is still there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the usage and flavour of ''ответить за что-либо'' do not fit your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18041" RevisionGUID="1e6b29c9-ff25-408c-a93d-e7a771a718cc" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:00:48.043" UserId="11395" Comment="made a statement more clear" Text="&gt; But it seems I should have used the present imperfective &quot;отвечаем&quot; here. What is the grammatical rationale for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an excellent question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you should have used ''отвечаем,'' but the following sentence sounds perfectly okay: ''О, думаю, тебе и так уже известно, но если во время рыбалки ты допустишь ошибку и погибнешь, то мы за это не **понесем ответственность**.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you see, here I used the perfective ''понесем ответственность''. With this perfective, this sentence sounds absolutely natural. With ''не несем ответственность'' it would sound fine, too. But with ''не ответим'' it sounds weird!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why does ''не ответим'' sound bad, while ''не понесем ответственность'' sounds fine despite that both forms are perfective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is connected with a connotation of the perfective expression ''ответить за что-либо'': Historically, this expression (in the perfective form) was a colloquial expression used by semi-criminals and criminals in the 1990s as a threat, e.g., ''за базар ответишь'' (''you will be held responsible for you words,'' ''you will pay for your words''). ''Отвечать за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation and simply means ''to be responsible for something.'' ''Понести ответственность за что-либо'' does not have a criminal connotation either, although is basically equivalent to ''ответить за что-либо'' in terms of the essence of the meaning - ''someone has been held responsible for something.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the expression ''ответить за что-либо'' is often used by general public, too, but still has some criminal flavour. For example, the expression ''ты ответишь за это'' is perceived as a threat or a promise to retaliate, i.e., something like ''I will make you pay for that.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the negation of this phrase, i.e, ''я за это не отвечу,'' is practically not used, although is not ungrammatical or wrong in any way. If you google the exact phrase &quot;я за это не отвечу,&quot; you will get only a few results, but all these results obviously come from native speakers. The meaning is rather, ''I will get away with that,'' or, ''You will be unable to make me pay for that.'' The criminal flavour is still there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the usage and flavour of ''ответить за что-либо'' (in the perfective form) do not fit your situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18044" RevisionGUID="f156456e-16c9-4d7e-8112-a651b954886e" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:30:04.370" UserId="11395" Text="&quot;**Происходить**&quot; = to take place, to occur, to happen. ''На Калке произошла битва между русскими и монголами'' = At the Kalka River, a battle took place between the Russians and the Mongols.'' ''За время Вашего отсутствия многое произошло'' = ''Many things happened during your absence.'' Note that the word has an additional, very different meaning: to stem, to originate. ''Род Ивановых происходит от богатого купца'' = ''The Ivanov dynasty originated from a rich merchant.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Случаться**&quot; = similar to ''происходить'', but has a flavour of accidental or unexpected character of what happened. ''Случилось несчастье'' = ''A misfortune (accidentally) occurred.'' ''Да, такое случалось'' = ''Yes, such things used to (accidentally) happen.'' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Оказаться**&quot; = to turn out to be, to prove to be, to find oneself in a certain condition or at a certain place. ''Он оказался таким глупым!'' = ''He proved to be so stupid.'' ''У нее с собой не оказалось билета'' = ''She turned out not to have a ticket.'' ''Я оказался на третьем этаже'' = ''I found myself to be on the 3rd level''." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="5fb7a223-2c4b-4197-990b-8a7d2367b360" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:35:36.450" UserId="10999" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;происходить&quot;, &quot;случаться&quot; and &quot;оказаться&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples very welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48417" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18042" RevisionGUID="5fb7a223-2c4b-4197-990b-8a7d2367b360" CreationDate="2019-01-29T10:35:36.450" UserId="10999" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;происходить&quot;, &quot;случаться&quot; and &quot;оказаться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18045" RevisionGUID="390f22a1-0f08-4223-a110-0a7a9233e3bb" CreationDate="2019-01-29T11:15:12.857" UserId="242" Text="There's no difference other than `проглянуло` is used more frequently. My guess would be that `проглянулось` co-exists because of `показаться` (which is by the way more popular than both `проглянуться` and `проглянуть`), like in phrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Солнце показалось из облаков. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this context `показаться` can be only reflexive, so `показать` would be an error. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xlTap.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18040" RevisionGUID="e9a5d3ea-1f4a-4523-886e-6a266afce55d" CreationDate="2019-01-29T11:15:26.180" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the difference between &quot;проглянуть&quot; and &quot;проглянуться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48422" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="16121" RevisionGUID="9f0535f3-2680-4f89-8b99-646eac150dfb" CreationDate="2019-01-29T19:20:46.893" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Difference between &quot;пасть&quot; and &quot;упасть&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18024" RevisionGUID="7bf422d0-4306-40bd-b4fd-2f03d1a87a77" CreationDate="2019-01-30T03:00:21.767" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1090444579197931521" />
  <row Id="48424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17990" RevisionGUID="3500731f-1ec3-4aa1-8324-23a397878e78" CreationDate="2019-01-30T06:00:37.540" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1090489943867248641" />
  <row Id="48425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18046" RevisionGUID="436391ee-1257-406b-9cdf-c9398a429c79" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:12:41.730" UserId="11021" Text="To explain my question i will give this example of a sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. `она` говорила это (Lit. She said that)&#xD;&#xA;2. говорила это (Lit. Said that) but (Implied. She said that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it necessary for me to have `она`  in this sentence since the word говорила implies that it's a girl?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My native language is Arabic and in it either one of those would be acceptable, but i just wanted to make sure since both of the languages sentence structures are about the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48426" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18046" RevisionGUID="436391ee-1257-406b-9cdf-c9398a429c79" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:12:41.730" UserId="11021" Text="If the gender is implied in the verb do i still have to put 'он' 'она' 'оно'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48427" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18046" RevisionGUID="436391ee-1257-406b-9cdf-c9398a429c79" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:12:41.730" UserId="11021" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18047" RevisionGUID="3897bda5-f326-4f28-ad40-1dc6155819d8" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:01:46.893" UserId="5443" Text="Despite the gender is clear here, the sentence is *incomplete* and ambiguous without proper context: you can't even understand, is it about **her** (*она* говорила), **you** (*ты* говорила) or **me** (*я* говорила). However, it is quite possible in a dialog:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Таня, надо было сказать ему, что ты уезжаешь и у тебя нет времени.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; -- Говорила это." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18048" RevisionGUID="7bf5f15f-a28e-4ec8-b2b9-5fea04a35eec" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:06:17.263" UserId="7537" Text="Russian is not a particularly [pro-drop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language) language, even compared to many other Slavic languages. So by default, on its own, you _should_ use the appropriate pronoun, even if it could be grammatically inferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with enough context, when subject is already introduced, or in informal speech, the pronoun _may_ be dropped. Sometimes it's even customary, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Говорила же тебе: учись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this may be true even in English, which is considered formally non-pro-drop, e.g. `Like it!` (meaning: _I like it!_, rather than the formal imperative meaning '_You_ better like it, or else...').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in your example the verb suggests the gender, but not the person, thus dropping the pronoun leaves it unclear whether она, я, or ты говорила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, when in doubt, say the pronoun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18048" RevisionGUID="20e6724a-e5f1-47a9-8f09-f0ee002b0642" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:11:34.330" UserId="7537" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="Russian is not a particularly [pro-drop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language) language, even compared to many other Slavic languages. So by default, on its own, you _should_ use the appropriate pronoun, even if it could be grammatically inferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with enough context, when subject is already introduced, or in informal speech, the pronoun _may_ be dropped. Sometimes it's even customary, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Говорила же тебе: учись!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this may be true even in English, which is considered formally non-pro-drop, e.g. `Like it!` (meaning: _I like it!_, rather than the formal imperative meaning '_You_ better like it, or else...').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in your example the verb suggests the gender, but not the person, thus dropping the pronoun leaves it unclear whether она, я, or ты говорила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When all the person, number and gender (if applicable) can be inferred, it is _normal_, but still optional, to drop the pronoun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Хочешь пить? = Ты хочешь пить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, when in doubt, say the pronoun, until you learn to feel it intuitively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18049" RevisionGUID="4a10581f-3f33-44ea-a4b3-ea41d8814b73" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:18:59.553" UserId="2372" Text="Есть ли разница между &quot;Я еще не знаю&quot; и &quot;Я еще сам не знаю&quot;, или эти два выражения означают одно и то же?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18049" RevisionGUID="4a10581f-3f33-44ea-a4b3-ea41d8814b73" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:18:59.553" UserId="2372" Text="Роль слова &quot;сам&quot; в выражении &quot;сам не знаю&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18049" RevisionGUID="4a10581f-3f33-44ea-a4b3-ea41d8814b73" CreationDate="2019-01-31T06:18:59.553" UserId="2372" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18050" RevisionGUID="a4ca3108-953e-4f65-b25a-0778218550fb" CreationDate="2019-01-31T07:48:04.127" UserId="7674" Text="По идее есть. **`Я еще сам не знаю`** подразумевает, что кроме говорящего не знает ещё кто-то, например его собеседник, или какие-то другие люди, которые, как предполагается, должны бы знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но вопрос видимо вызван тем, что местоимение **`сам`** зачастую носителями языка применяется в этой фразе, как мне представляется, не к месту, т.е. без намерения косвенно указать на других незнающих лдюдей." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18050" RevisionGUID="c5d3ca40-ee63-41ff-a2f3-27a17159615e" CreationDate="2019-01-31T07:54:33.243" UserId="7674" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="По идее есть. **`Я еще сам не знаю`** подразумевает, что кроме говорящего не знает ещё кто-то, например его собеседник, задающий вопрос, что говорит о его незнании, или какие-то другие люди, которые, как предполагается, должны бы знать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но вопрос наверное вызван тем, что местоимение **`сам`** зачастую носителями языка применяется в этой фразе, как мне представляется, не к месту, т.е. без намерения косвенно указать на других незнающих людей. В этом случае оно, видимо, служит для усиления утверждения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18051" RevisionGUID="3e67a816-6f07-420b-96cf-0a6f0628d2c6" CreationDate="2019-01-31T09:05:50.610" UserId="5443" Text="Такое выражение подразумевает: я *первый*, кто должен был об этом узнать, но **даже я** ещё не знаю (не говоря о ком-либо другом)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17981" RevisionGUID="75698c12-5c7d-47f6-aade-3202e5a5ba7b" CreationDate="2019-01-31T10:23:40.137" UserId="11080" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="In Russian we do not use possessive pronouns when they are implied by other words or the context. There is no need saying that the ticket I lost was mine, unless I have lost your ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we can simply say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла билет. - I have lost my ticket. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду с мужем/другом/коллегой. - I will come with my&#xD;&#xA;&gt; husband/friend/colleague. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала с сестрой. - She was speaking with her sister. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я помою руки. - I will wash my hands. (Whose hands shall I wash? There is no need stating that unless I decide to wash somebody else's hands) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is still unclear, whose ticket, colleauge or sister it is, we can use the universal reflexive possessive pronoun свой. It stands for мой, твой, их, ваш, наш, etc., but is reflexive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряла свой билет. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я приду со своим коллегой. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она разговаривала со своей сестрой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you just don't have such a short and convenient word which substitutes for all the possessive pronouns at once. That's why it is translated as a phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not use свой in certain situations. E.g., when introducing sth or sb: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Это мой сын. &#xD;&#xA;Это моя работа. &#xD;&#xA;Вот наш дом.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say, that we can hardly use свой in the Nominative case, as it usually refers to the objects of a sentence, and objects require objective cases (all the rest but Nominative). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes **свой** stands for **own**. And in this meaning it can be used in the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**У них свой дом.** - They have their own house (they do not live in a block or share a house with anybody). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in English the possessive pronouns everywhere just spell the articles, that's why they are used in such sentences as &quot;He came with his wife&quot;. Otherwise you should say &quot;He came with the wife&quot; which would sound less polite or clear, maybe? In Russian there are no articles, which simplifies the situation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18050" RevisionGUID="cd253207-cdab-4ab8-82a1-9f3455923946" CreationDate="2019-01-31T11:45:05.773" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 271 characters in body" Text="По идее есть. **`Я еще сам не знаю`** подразумевает, что кроме говорящего не знает ещё кто-то, например его собеседник, задающий вопрос, что говорит о его незнании, или какие-то другие люди, которые, как предполагается, должны бы знать." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48446" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18049" RevisionGUID="9426088a-dda8-444e-be5d-87c78bd60443" CreationDate="2019-02-01T15:00:39.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1091350621951795207" />
  <row Id="48448" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18040" RevisionGUID="f780fc3d-298b-477f-b6df-52f223dcd3d9" CreationDate="2019-02-02T09:00:25.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1091622355066073088" />
  <row Id="48449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="1ab654f0-a5fa-44a3-af75-9d08f2157ef4" CreationDate="2019-02-02T10:40:07.593" UserId="10890" Text="I am just a happy beginner in Russian language, but to my ears Х sounds closer to H than Г. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know why words like Horizon (Горизонт) choose Г instead? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some historic explanation of when the words came into the language or how it evolved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="1ab654f0-a5fa-44a3-af75-9d08f2157ef4" CreationDate="2019-02-02T10:40:07.593" UserId="10890" Text="Why use Г in for example Горизонт and not for example Х?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="1ab654f0-a5fa-44a3-af75-9d08f2157ef4" CreationDate="2019-02-02T10:40:07.593" UserId="10890" Text="|этимология|правописание|буквы|алфавит|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48452" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18053" RevisionGUID="3c1e21ed-5cdd-461f-bfcc-3fd896709496" CreationDate="2019-02-02T11:14:26.047" UserId="3680" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[222],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18054" RevisionGUID="9facb66f-4b52-4650-b2c9-c129ac4ef008" CreationDate="2019-02-02T18:35:50.917" UserId="62" Text="I am aware of different terms for how well steak can be cooked (средний = medium, полусырой = medium rare, etc.), but every Russian webpage that discusses this topic writes the English terms and mentions Russian terms secondarily or not at all. The YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9gMaFFN4Yg uses the English terms only. I have two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are the English terms for cooking steak essentially regarded as Russian words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Was cooking steak a very rare (pun intended) experience in the USSR, and if not then why would the English words be used so widely now?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18054" RevisionGUID="9facb66f-4b52-4650-b2c9-c129ac4ef008" CreationDate="2019-02-02T18:35:50.917" UserId="62" Text="cooking terminology" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18054" RevisionGUID="9facb66f-4b52-4650-b2c9-c129ac4ef008" CreationDate="2019-02-02T18:35:50.917" UserId="62" Text="|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18054" RevisionGUID="93cf9301-9eb8-4594-b25f-532dca127b71" CreationDate="2019-02-02T18:42:44.087" UserId="62" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="I am aware of different terms for how well steak can be cooked (средний = medium, полусырой = medium rare, etc.), but every Russian webpage that discusses this topic writes the English terms and mentions Russian terms secondarily or not at all. The YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9gMaFFN4Yg uses the English terms only. I have two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are the English terms for cooking steak essentially regarded as Russian words?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Was cooking steak a very rare (pun intended) experience in the USSR, and if not then why would the English words be used so widely now? Of course English is used everywhere in Russian technology and advertising, but cooking steak doesn't seem comparable to those kinds of activities unless it really was a largely foreign concept before the 1990s." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="ba617f97-46c0-4b60-a86e-4b81b0c1c33b" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:14:31.643" UserId="11080" Text="Steak can not be regarded as a Russian dish, even бишфтекс is not the same. That's why we have to borrow the terms together with the recipe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words are not considered to be Russian, and if you google &quot;степени прожарки стейка&quot;, you will find English words written in Latin letters within Russian articles. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18056" RevisionGUID="8e8d6724-617f-4dcf-be67-394f53938ddb" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:48:43.853" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе наверняка **попадется** целая толпа мошенников, называющих себя инвесторами. Не верь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering how &quot;Ты **наткнешься** на ...&quot; would have compared to &quot;Тебе попадется ...&quot; in terms of nuance and usage? Does &quot;попасться&quot; carry a more *passive* connotation, indicating that such chance meetings will be caused by some outside force?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18056" RevisionGUID="8e8d6724-617f-4dcf-be67-394f53938ddb" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:48:43.853" UserId="8672" Text="How does &quot;попасться&quot; compare to &quot;наткнуться&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18056" RevisionGUID="8e8d6724-617f-4dcf-be67-394f53938ddb" CreationDate="2019-02-02T19:48:43.853" UserId="8672" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="ebf5e2d9-580c-43ce-9947-472b5a8b44d2" CreationDate="2019-02-02T20:03:56.447" UserId="9459" Text="I'd say it's passive vs. active in a sense. Not quite directly grammatical, I'd guess, but from the meaning - who founds whom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мы играли в прятки, но я попался Васе. --  Vasya _got me_, I was caught by Vasya.&#xD;&#xA; - Мы играли в прятки, но Вася не наткнулся на меня. -- Vasya did not stumble upon me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applied to your example, in the first case (тебе попадется много мошенников) - you'd &quot;catch&quot; a lot of thieves. In the second case (ты наткнешься на) - you would stumble upon them. As the  thieves are probably actively looking for the prey, it conveys (in a sense) a meaning, that &quot;you would be found&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="07047c88-d7c7-4e61-92ac-f88c164a00c1" CreationDate="2019-02-02T21:30:18.023" UserId="11080" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="Steak can not be regarded as a Russian dish, even бишфтекс is not the same. That's why we have to borrow the terms together with the recipe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words are not considered to be Russian, and if you google &quot;степени прожарки стейка&quot;, you will find English words written in Latin letters within Russian articles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find бифштекс с кровью, бифштекс средней прожарки, хорошо прожаренный бифштекс, but it's really not what we've been cooking for centuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pizza in Russian is пицца, and you don't even care this word is not English either. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="c485b59a-eb81-49db-8366-cd4047a2d910" CreationDate="2019-02-02T21:36:49.080" UserId="11080" Comment="added 229 characters in body" Text="Steak can not be regarded as a Russian dish, even бишфтекс is not the same. That's why we have to borrow the terms together with the recipe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words are not considered to be Russian, and if you google &quot;степени прожарки стейка&quot;, you will find English words written in Latin letters within Russian articles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are used as adverbs, which do not have any cojugation or declension in Russian, that's why we do not have to assimilate them. And they do not resemble our adverbs, that's why it is even harder to assimilate them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find бифштекс с кровью, бифштекс средней прожарки, хорошо прожаренный бифштекс, but it's really not what we've been cooking for centuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pizza in Russian is пицца, and you don't even care this word is not English either. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18056" RevisionGUID="c7bf31be-8278-4faf-bc7f-b54e53fa6d01" CreationDate="2019-02-03T03:01:29.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1091894416460169216" />
  <row Id="48475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18061" RevisionGUID="e4d8e06a-c33a-498f-8afb-12b5426ac6a5" CreationDate="2019-02-03T08:54:29.697" UserId="11080" Text="**Попасться** может **рыба на крючок**, в сеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Попааался!** - can be said by somebody who catches you, e.g. police. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, which is curious, it is a verb in the active voice. It implies some kind of activity of the subject one comes across or catches, though it may be not deliberate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, another person is catching, but it's the victim's responcibility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наткнуться** можно **на что-то** самому. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first meaning is **наткнуться на что-то острое**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наткнуться на нож, наткнуться на ветку дерева в лесу.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я листала журнал и наткнулась на статью как раз на эту тему.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the article suddenly, but it's me who did it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, you are right, but in the meaning of coming across some information,finding something or somebody occasionally &quot;попасться&quot; is more neutral, and наткнуться is more colloquial. *It is more polite to say in a formal conversation &quot;если вам попадётся&quot;, than &quot;если вы наткнётесь на&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guess, that it is so because of the embarassing and awkward situation in the first meaning of the second verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18061" RevisionGUID="735d95bf-5a36-4b32-8a66-10f990daa48a" CreationDate="2019-02-03T10:20:46.017" UserId="11080" Comment="edited body" Text="**Попасться** может **рыба на крючок**, в сеть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Попааался!** - can be said by somebody who catches you, e.g. police. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, which is curious, it is a verb in the active voice. It implies some kind of activity of the subject one comes across or catches, though it may be not deliberate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, another person is catching, but it's the victim's responsibility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наткнуться** можно **на что-то** самому. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first meaning is **наткнуться на что-то острое**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Наткнуться на нож, наткнуться на ветку дерева в лесу.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Я листала журнал и наткнулась на статью как раз на эту тему.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across the article suddenly, but it's me who did it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, you are right, but in the meaning of coming across some information,finding something or somebody occasionally &quot;попасться&quot; is more neutral, and наткнуться is more colloquial. *It is more polite to say in a formal conversation &quot;если вам попадётся&quot;, than &quot;если вы наткнётесь на&quot;.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can guess, that it is so because of the embarassing and awkward situation in the first meaning of the second verb. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18055" RevisionGUID="580d2ef7-63ba-47f1-b1dd-03dbe66e14f0" CreationDate="2019-02-03T10:22:50.007" UserId="11080" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Steak can not be regarded as a Russian dish, even бишфтекс is not the same. That's why we have to borrow the terms together with the recipe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those words are not considered to be Russian, and if you google &quot;степени прожарки стейка&quot;, you will find English words written in Latin letters within Russian articles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These words are used as adverbs, which do not have any conjugation or declension in Russian, that's why we do not have to assimilate them. And they do not resemble our adverbs, that's why it is even harder to assimilate them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find бифштекс с кровью, бифштекс средней прожарки, хорошо прожаренный бифштекс, but it's really not what we've been cooking for centuries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pizza in Russian is пицца, and you don't even care this word is not English either. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18062" RevisionGUID="35590191-73ec-4840-85a7-c18ff808b0c7" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:38:11.850" UserId="11447" Text="I google it and found the word &quot;подруга&quot; means &quot;girlfriend&quot;. Does it mean &quot;girlfriend&quot; or &quot;a friend who is a female&quot;? If it means a friend who is a female , it seems weird that she put &quot;есть подруга&quot; in Семейное положение right? And this girl is not a lesbian too. So I really don't understand this. Or &quot;подруга&quot; could means something else like a boyfriend or lover too? Does this should mean she has a boyfriend ? I fall in love with her. Does this mean I am broken heart ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18062" RevisionGUID="35590191-73ec-4840-85a7-c18ff808b0c7" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:38:11.850" UserId="11447" Text="If a girl put &quot;есть подруга&quot; in Семейное положение. What does it should mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18062" RevisionGUID="35590191-73ec-4840-85a7-c18ff808b0c7" CreationDate="2019-02-03T12:38:11.850" UserId="11447" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18063" RevisionGUID="c8bcd1d4-5334-4531-8ff7-73bef9a653c9" CreationDate="2019-02-03T15:45:28.033" UserId="11448" Text="I have a doubt regarding Russian grammatical analysis. &#xD;&#xA;“Вы спрашиваете, что я делаю». &#xD;&#xA;Что, is it a наречие или местоимение? And Why? &#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18063" RevisionGUID="c8bcd1d4-5334-4531-8ff7-73bef9a653c9" CreationDate="2019-02-03T15:45:28.033" UserId="11448" Text="Grammatical analisys doubt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18063" RevisionGUID="c8bcd1d4-5334-4531-8ff7-73bef9a653c9" CreationDate="2019-02-03T15:45:28.033" UserId="11448" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="53c4d47e-5537-4935-8efa-442ec70a86d0" CreationDate="2019-02-03T21:21:08.910" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Вы спрашиваете, что я делаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что can be either союз or союзное слово (местоимение).It cannot be наречие. There are only two more words, that can be either союз or союзное слово (наречие ). They are как and где.&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to distinguish between союз and союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;1.Союзное слово is always stressed. Like in your sentence. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;Он сказал,что он любит конфеты.(что is not stressed,it's союз)&#xD;&#xA;Он спросил,что я делаю.(что is stressed, it's союзное слово)&#xD;&#xA;2.Besides you can leave out союз without changing sense &#xD;&#xA;Он сказал, он любит конфеты.&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot leave out союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;There are some more ways concerning the function of the word in the sentence or the possibility to change союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;So in your sentence it's союзное слово (местоимение)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="470e49f1-8706-48ba-815f-3b87b00f544f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:12:31.713" UserId="6539" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="&gt;Вы спрашиваете, что я делаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Что** can be either **союз** or **союзное слово (местоимение)**.It cannot be наречие. There are only two more words, that can be either союз or союзное слово (наречие ). They are **как** and **где**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to distinguish between союз and союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;1.Союзное слово is always **stressed**. Like in your sentence. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал,что он любит конфеты.(что is not stressed,it's союз)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил,что я делаю.(что is stressed, it's союзное слово)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Besides you can **leave out** союз without changing sense &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, он любит конфеты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot leave out союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some more ways concerning the **function** of the word in the sentence or the possibility to **change** союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;So in your sentence it's **союзное слово (местоимение)**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18066" RevisionGUID="a37c9156-16c1-43de-8cbc-b95860982587" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:14:47.457" UserId="6326" Text="It's depends. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it's very common for Russian speaking people to use “есть подруга” in Семейное положение just to show that they are good **friends**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But yeh, usually (by grammar) it means that they are a couple." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18067" RevisionGUID="607fa180-b4ac-4345-be26-1dc896765d86" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:15:54.820" UserId="10890" Text="I am curios about Валюта meaning currency. What is the origin of the word? Does it come from greek or latin or somewhere else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18067" RevisionGUID="607fa180-b4ac-4345-be26-1dc896765d86" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:15:54.820" UserId="10890" Text="Origin of Валюта" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18067" RevisionGUID="607fa180-b4ac-4345-be26-1dc896765d86" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:15:54.820" UserId="10890" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18068" RevisionGUID="305b2fc0-0917-4bcd-90b9-a3ca8b81e1c9" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:16:17.383" UserId="10890" Text="I am curios about Валюта meaning currency. What is the origin of the word? Does it come from greek or latin or somewhere else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18068" RevisionGUID="305b2fc0-0917-4bcd-90b9-a3ca8b81e1c9" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:16:17.383" UserId="10890" Text="Origin of Валюта" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18068" RevisionGUID="305b2fc0-0917-4bcd-90b9-a3ca8b81e1c9" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:16:17.383" UserId="10890" Text="|этимология|история-языка|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="2679094d-db40-4f89-b1e5-fca05193454b" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:23:06.377" UserId="6539" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="&gt;Вы спрашиваете, что я делаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Что** can be either **союз** or **союзное слово (местоимение)**.It cannot be наречие. There are only two more words, that can be either союз or союзное слово (наречие ). They are **как** and **где**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to distinguish between союз and союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;1.Союзное слово is always **stressed**. Like in your sentence. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал,что (он) любит конфеты.(что is not stressed,it's союз)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил,что я делаю.(что is stressed, it's союзное слово)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Besides you can **leave out** союз without changing sense &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, (он) любит конфеты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot leave out союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some more ways concerning the **function** of the word in the sentence or the possibility to **change** союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your sentence it's **союзное слово (местоимение)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Function. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, что я делаю.(я is a subject, делаю is a verb,что is an object)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="0230f8c1-624e-4e35-b447-7bb294e5fc4c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:31:40.303" UserId="6539" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="&gt;Вы спрашиваете, что я делаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Что** can be either **союз** or **союзное слово (местоимение)**.It cannot be наречие. There are only two more words, that can be either союз or союзное слово (наречие ). They are **как** and **где**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to distinguish between союз and союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;1.Союзное слово is always **stressed**. Like in your sentence. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал,что (он) любит конфеты.(что is not stressed,it's союз)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил,что я делаю.(что is stressed, it's союзное слово)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Besides you can **leave out** союз without changing sense &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, (он) любит конфеты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot leave out союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some more ways concerning the **function** of the word in the sentence or the possibility to **change** союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your sentence it's **союзное слово (местоимение)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Function. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, что я делаю.(я is a subject, делаю is a verb,что is an object)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence Он сказал, что (он) любит конфеты.что has no other function than connecting the main and the subordinate clauses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18069" RevisionGUID="1d337891-d9e2-4d6d-8439-a76985f82287" CreationDate="2019-02-04T05:49:09.703" UserId="10749" Text="It's borrowed from Italian, so obviously it's coming from Latin. It's the exact same word as Italian 'valuta'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18070" RevisionGUID="3c803650-2905-4ae1-9948-2f5ab75b9500" CreationDate="2019-02-04T08:06:46.843" UserId="4563" Text="**Подруга** is most commonly used in the meaning of 'a female friend of another female' (but not a 'girlfriend'). In romantic relationship context, word подруга (or подружка) can often be used by a third person referring to someone's girlfriend, often with a certain level of disapproval or mockery. But I wouldn't normally call 'подруга' someone who I have romantic relationship with. If one wants to unambiguously convey the relationship meaning, he or she would call their girlfriend 'моя девушка' - there is 0 ambiguity in this case.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18070" RevisionGUID="516b8100-1c30-46eb-9afd-880f13d8fb20" CreationDate="2019-02-04T08:14:49.233" UserId="4563" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**Подруга** is most commonly used in the meaning of 'a female friend of another female' (but not a 'girlfriend'). In romantic relationship context, word подруга (or подружка) can often be used by a third person referring to someone's girlfriend, often with a certain level of disapproval or mockery. But I wouldn't normally call 'подруга' someone who I have romantic relationship with. If one wants to unambiguously convey the relationship meaning, he or she would call their girlfriend 'моя девушка' - there is no ambiguity in this expression.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18071" RevisionGUID="c9f4174f-d204-459a-8a6b-d0b03e4ff4c0" CreationDate="2019-02-04T08:40:48.527" UserId="10464" Text="Wikipedia says:&#xD;&#xA;Слово «валюта» происходит от итал. valuta («стоимость, монета, валюта»), связано с итал. valere («иметь вес, стоить»), которое происходит от лат. valere («быть сильным, иметь возможность, стоить»)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word &quot;валюта&quot; comes from Italian. valuta (&quot;cost, coin, currency&quot;), is connected with ital. valere (&quot;have weight, cost&quot;), which comes from the lat. valere (&quot;to be strong, to be able, to be worth»)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48508" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18068" RevisionGUID="a8d3238b-ec6d-428b-8a6a-6d5c89e8347b" CreationDate="2019-02-04T08:54:03.353" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[18067],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="48511" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="18068" RevisionGUID="ce20a7a2-15e7-48d4-9ff4-2e88987a9180" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:14:45.227" UserId="134" Comment="from https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/18067/origin-of-%d0%92%d0%b0%d0%bb%d1%8e%d1%82%d0%b0" />
  <row Id="48512" PostHistoryTypeId="37" PostId="18067" RevisionGUID="ce20a7a2-15e7-48d4-9ff4-2e88987a9180" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:14:45.227" UserId="134" Comment="to https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/18068/origin-of-%d0%92%d0%b0%d0%bb%d1%8e%d1%82%d0%b0" />
  <row Id="48513" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="18069" RevisionGUID="ce20a7a2-15e7-48d4-9ff4-2e88987a9180" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:14:45.227" UserId="134" Comment="from https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/18067/origin-of-%d0%92%d0%b0%d0%bb%d1%8e%d1%82%d0%b0" />
  <row Id="48514" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="18067" RevisionGUID="2352fc74-2589-4b0a-8bf6-766abbcaa528" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:14:45.227" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48515" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18068" RevisionGUID="530b3b41-c1ef-4c57-8d53-1b31afc3d7dd" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:16:30.547" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="a7ea4399-c998-4809-afae-854440e603b0" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:50:01.643" UserId="11451" Text="Excuse me for asking too many questions. I've asked the question &quot;If a girl put “есть подруга” in Семейное положение. What does it should mean?&quot; And I got the asnwer already. But now I have more question. I'd like to know what if a girl wrote &quot;есть друг&quot; in her marital status, what does this should mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="a7ea4399-c998-4809-afae-854440e603b0" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:50:01.643" UserId="11451" Text="From the topic &quot;If a girl put “есть подруга” in Семейное положение...&quot; belows. I have more question" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="a7ea4399-c998-4809-afae-854440e603b0" CreationDate="2019-02-04T10:50:01.643" UserId="11451" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48521" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="b5c8974b-ed26-4340-b32c-b68fd9e71748" CreationDate="2019-02-04T11:07:17.647" UserId="11451" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;norabbitonthemoon&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48522" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="aa697f2f-d787-4eb2-9a4b-1c47d7d132c4" CreationDate="2019-02-04T11:07:26.897" UserId="11451" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;norabbitonthemoon&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="606eef9f-aa35-4042-9b6c-ab500c23241f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:05:40.080" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;пойди&quot;, &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I can see is that &quot;иди&quot; is imperfective, while &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are perfective. However, as far as I know, both &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are used in the sense of &quot;Start going!&quot; or &quot;Start walking!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting that if we turn &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; into infinitives, then they will both mean the same thing: &quot;пойти&quot; = &quot;начать идти&quot;. However, the imperative forms seem to show some difference in their usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, is that &quot;пойди&quot; is, according to my observation, never used in the sense of &quot;Start walking!&quot; - the form &quot;пошёл&quot; is used in such case instead (&quot;Пошёл!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that I can sense here is that &quot;пойди&quot; always requires some additional modifier. Usually it's a modifier that adds some info about the purpose for the action of going/walking: &quot;Пойди к Сергею.&quot;, &quot;Пойди за молоком.&quot;, &quot;Пойди на концерт.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начни идти&quot;, however, doesn't need any such modifier and sounds complete on as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other nuances that I don't see?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="606eef9f-aa35-4042-9b6c-ab500c23241f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:05:40.080" UserId="170" Text="The difference between &quot;пойди&quot;, &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="606eef9f-aa35-4042-9b6c-ab500c23241f" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:05:40.080" UserId="170" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="fc21bf03-9449-452d-9cf5-3262d066c06a" CreationDate="2019-02-04T14:11:57.403" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;пойди&quot;, &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Иди&quot; is imperfective, while &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are perfective. However, as far as I know, both &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are used in the sense of &quot;Start going!&quot; or &quot;Start walking!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting that if we turn &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; into infinitives, then they will both mean the same thing: &quot;пойти&quot; = &quot;начать идти&quot;. However, the imperative forms seem to show some difference in their usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, is that &quot;пойди&quot; is, according to my observation, never used in the sense of &quot;Start walking!&quot; - the form &quot;пошёл&quot; is used in such case instead (&quot;Пошёл!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that I can sense here is that &quot;пойди&quot; always requires some additional modifier. Usually it's a modifier that adds some info about the purpose for the action of going/walking: &quot;Пойди к Сергею.&quot;, &quot;Пойди за молоком.&quot;, &quot;Пойди на концерт.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начни идти&quot;, however, doesn't need any such modifier and sounds complete on as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other nuances that I don't see?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="af98c846-b080-4b33-a007-b8a8d76eeec5" CreationDate="2019-02-04T15:14:51.293" UserId="170" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;пойди&quot;, &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Иди&quot; is imperfective, while &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are perfective. However, as far as I know, both &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are used in the sense of &quot;Start going!&quot; or &quot;Start walking!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting that if we turn &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; into infinitives, then they will both mean the same thing: &quot;пойти&quot; = &quot;начать идти&quot;. However, the imperative forms seem to show some difference in their usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, is that &quot;пойди&quot; is, according to my observation, never used in the sense of &quot;Start walking!&quot; - the form &quot;пошёл&quot; is used in such case instead (&quot;Пошёл!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that I can sense here is that &quot;пойди&quot; always requires some additional modifier. Usually it's a modifier that adds some info about the purpose for the action of going/walking: &quot;Пойди к Сергею.&quot;, &quot;Пойди за молоком.&quot;, &quot;Пойди на концерт.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начни идти&quot;, however, doesn't need any such modifier and sounds complete as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other nuances that I don't see?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18075" RevisionGUID="fecdbb70-3b4a-491e-9dd9-7b099febe525" CreationDate="2019-02-04T15:58:43.843" UserId="10464" Text="While &quot;начни идти&quot; is grammatically correct, it sounds artificial. I rather can imagine more usable phrase &quot;начинай идти&quot;, but I think no one talks like that in usual situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18076" RevisionGUID="3ee0fbb8-33dd-4664-8025-1091f7d888cc" CreationDate="2019-02-04T17:50:48.427" UserId="4563" Text="Начинай or начни идти is not common, but can be used in certain situations. For example, when you are trying to time (e.g. shooting a video) or closely watch (e.g. counting steps, evaluating gait) someone's walking, then you can say начинай идти to alert the person to start moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, &quot;Пошёл!&quot; could be used in such situations too (sporting events, competitions), but it won't necessarily apply to walking actions only, but also to running, swimming, horse-riding, etc. &quot;Пошёл!&quot; is less formal, more imperative than иди, and sometimes rude (when used in Go away! meaning). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18065" RevisionGUID="ddc9bab6-c941-41d7-9120-db97a86b2f17" CreationDate="2019-02-04T20:02:20.730" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt;Вы спрашиваете, что я делаю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Что** can be either **союз** or **союзное слово (местоимение)**.It cannot be наречие. There are only two more words, that can be either союз or союзное слово (наречие ). They are **как** and **когда**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to distinguish between союз and союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;1.Союзное слово is always **stressed**. Like in your sentence. Compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал,что (он) любит конфеты.(что is not stressed,it's союз)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил,что я делаю.(что is stressed, it's союзное слово)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Besides you can **leave out** союз without changing sense &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он сказал, (он) любит конфеты.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you cannot leave out союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some more ways concerning the **function** of the word in the sentence or the possibility to **change** союзное слово.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in your sentence it's **союзное слово (местоимение)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Function. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он спросил, что я делаю.(я is a subject, делаю is a verb,что is an object)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence Он сказал, что (он) любит конфеты.что has no other function than connecting the main and the subordinate clauses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="94f8a170-46f4-49ab-8cfd-54128d15178c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T21:33:24.843" UserId="11454" Text="Why do we say “у него было много энергии и большой талант» and we don’t use “были»? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="94f8a170-46f4-49ab-8cfd-54128d15178c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T21:33:24.843" UserId="11454" Text="Grammar analisys doubt (to have)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="94f8a170-46f4-49ab-8cfd-54128d15178c" CreationDate="2019-02-04T21:33:24.843" UserId="11454" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18078" RevisionGUID="730ae5f6-4805-4cc1-92f1-2868bce79e58" CreationDate="2019-02-04T21:51:55.633" UserId="6097" Text=" *Были* followed by *много* sounds unnatural, maybe because *много* is undefined and uncountable. &#xA;&#xA;It's okay however to say *&quot;у него были энергия и талант&quot;* or *&quot;у него были талант и много энергии&quot;*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18079" RevisionGUID="7e9ee8bb-5960-4638-bce2-51785c619e6e" CreationDate="2019-02-04T22:09:40.173" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Пойди&quot; and &quot;Иди&quot; would be incomplete without the mention of &quot;Сходи&quot; (meaning &quot;Go somewhere and get back&quot;). If the teller's intention is not to essentially get rid of someone, &quot;сходи&quot; is the most common form (_unless_ the destination is teller's own location - in that case &quot;подойди&quot; or &quot;зайди&quot; is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Пойди за молоком&quot; - almost never used;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Иди за молоком&quot; - &quot;Go get milk already!&quot; (stress on &quot;Go!&quot;);&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сходи за молоком&quot; - &quot;Go get milk&quot; (neutral)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other construct is &quot;Пойди/Иди/Сходи to do something (verb)&quot;. With the verb, all three forms can be used quite widely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Пойди пообедай&quot; - &quot;Go to lunch&quot;;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Иди пообедай&quot; - Also &quot;Go to lunch&quot;, but little less polite and more imperative;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Сходи пообедай&quot; - most polite of these forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a short form of &quot;пойди&quot; - &quot;поди&quot;. &quot;Поди&quot; is used broadly in a number of phrases (ex. &quot;Поди прочь!&quot;), and also often as an adverb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начинай идти&quot; is not a commonly used phrase. I can think only of some specific situations where it can be encountered, like a stage director is addressing the actor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="155f9f0e-d40f-41a0-812e-5d5a84cb9f61" CreationDate="2019-02-04T22:53:52.227" UserId="10999" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why do we say **&quot;у него было много энергии и большой талант&quot;** and we don’t use **&quot;были&quot;**? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48540" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="155f9f0e-d40f-41a0-812e-5d5a84cb9f61" CreationDate="2019-02-04T22:53:52.227" UserId="10999" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Why do we say &quot;было&quot; instead of &quot;были&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18077" RevisionGUID="155f9f0e-d40f-41a0-812e-5d5a84cb9f61" CreationDate="2019-02-04T22:53:52.227" UserId="10999" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18080" RevisionGUID="7e4c7878-0557-4e17-afac-188ea881540c" CreationDate="2019-02-05T02:25:18.997" UserId="9256" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Сложность вызывает согласование сказуемого с несколькими  подлежащими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При прямом порядке слов сказуемое ставится в форме множественного числа, при обратном сказуемое согласуется с ближайшим из подлежащих.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сравните: Ее судьба, ее конец// Непроницаемою тьмою// От нас закрыты. и Погиб и кормщик и пловец (А.С. Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gramma.ru/RUS/?id=5.2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18080" RevisionGUID="254a462d-044e-4237-8634-e13f388c664c" CreationDate="2019-02-05T02:38:13.607" UserId="9256" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Because &quot;было&quot; is in front of &quot;много энергии и большой талант&quot; it is preferable to use singular &quot;было&quot; rather than multiple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сложность вызывает согласование сказуемого с несколькими  подлежащими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; При прямом порядке слов сказуемое ставится в форме множественного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; числа, при обратном сказуемое согласуется с ближайшим из подлежащих.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сравните: Ее судьба, ее конец// Непроницаемою тьмою// От нас закрыты.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; и Погиб и кормщик и пловец (А.С. Пушкин).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://gramma.ru/RUS/?id=5.2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18074" RevisionGUID="b6608138-7d71-4ff2-b048-d27252ac1e46" CreationDate="2019-02-05T03:40:03.700" UserId="170" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="What's the difference between &quot;пойди&quot;, &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Иди&quot; is imperfective, while &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are perfective. However, as far as I know, both &quot;иди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; are used in the sense of &quot;Start going!&quot; or &quot;Start walking!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's interesting that if we turn &quot;пойди&quot; and &quot;начни идти&quot; into infinitives, then they will both mean the same thing: &quot;пойти&quot; = &quot;начать идти&quot;. However, the imperative forms seem to show some difference in their usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For one, is that &quot;пойди&quot; is, according to my observation, never used in the sense of &quot;Start walking!&quot; - the form &quot;пошёл&quot; is used in such case instead (&quot;Пошёл!&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference that I can sense here is that &quot;пойди&quot; always requires some additional modifier. Usually it's a modifier that adds some info about the purpose for the action of going/walking: &quot;Пойди к Сергею.&quot;, &quot;Пойди за молоком.&quot;, &quot;Пойди на концерт.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Начни идти&quot;, however, doesn't need any such modifier and sounds complete as it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other nuances that I don't see?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Please, note that I am not asking about &quot;сходи&quot; or any other words! I am only asking about the words that I mentioned in my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48545" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17895" RevisionGUID="dd43bee6-cec1-4145-b9cc-ce80f23bb3ba" CreationDate="2019-02-05T04:05:36.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18062" RevisionGUID="f02031d4-b65c-4943-aa76-4a8efbc8c011" CreationDate="2019-02-05T13:51:24.150" UserId="6074" Comment="General tidy up." Text="I google it and found the word &quot;подруга&quot; means &quot;girlfriend&quot;. Does it mean &quot;girlfriend&quot; or &quot;a friend who is a female&quot;? If it means a friend who is a female, it seems weird that she put &quot;есть подруга&quot; in Семейное положение right? And this girl is not a lesbian too. So I really don't understand this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or could &quot;подруга&quot; mean something else like, a boyfriend or lover? Could it mean she has a boyfriend?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48548" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18062" RevisionGUID="f02031d4-b65c-4943-aa76-4a8efbc8c011" CreationDate="2019-02-05T13:51:24.150" UserId="6074" Comment="General tidy up." Text="What does it mean if a girl puts &quot;есть подруга&quot; in Семейное положение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48549" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18062" RevisionGUID="f02031d4-b65c-4943-aa76-4a8efbc8c011" CreationDate="2019-02-05T13:51:24.150" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 4481, 7674 edit id of 2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="decb9bdc-c008-499d-be19-e774d0b3ba24" CreationDate="2019-02-05T13:51:41.503" UserId="6074" Comment="Removed fluff, should be less confusing now" Text="I'd like to know what if a girl wrote &quot;есть друг&quot; in her marital status, what does this mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="decb9bdc-c008-499d-be19-e774d0b3ba24" CreationDate="2019-02-05T13:51:41.503" UserId="6074" Comment="Removed fluff, should be less confusing now" Text="What does it mean if a girl puts “есть друг” in Семейное положение?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48552" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="decb9bdc-c008-499d-be19-e774d0b3ba24" CreationDate="2019-02-05T13:51:41.503" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 4481, 7674 edit id of 2010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="6c60928c-0a5a-4e78-bb67-6b741e2dcc27" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:09:16.000" UserId="11454" Text="Why do we say “100-200 человек» and not the plural form “люди»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="6c60928c-0a5a-4e78-bb67-6b741e2dcc27" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:09:16.000" UserId="11454" Text="Usages of plural form человек" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="6c60928c-0a5a-4e78-bb67-6b741e2dcc27" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:09:16.000" UserId="11454" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18082" RevisionGUID="4dc7a1bc-1223-4a4c-9bc5-7de0ebcebf96" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:46:08.880" UserId="1097" Text="Люди,народ — uncountable noun(only plural?), so they cannot be applied to a specific number.  &#xD;&#xA;you can say: людей/народу было человек 100-200." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18082" RevisionGUID="82aa1ab5-fde6-4959-8c1a-00e13965c1b6" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:53:16.887" UserId="1097" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Люди,народ — uncountable noun(only plural?), so they cannot be applied to a specific number.  &#xD;&#xA;You can say: людей/народу было человек 100-200.  &#xD;&#xA;Or you can say for an indefinite number: Людей/народа было мало(много)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18083" RevisionGUID="ac09d53e-74a2-497a-b412-211e47023d8e" CreationDate="2019-02-05T15:54:51.040" UserId="5443" Text="**Человек** here works as a *unit of measure* (how many?  1 человек - 100 человек - 200 человек...) which needs to have a *singular* form in particular (for usage as **1 человек**). Since the word **люди** only has *plural* form, it can't work as a *unit of measure* (is uncountable)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="a1656bf7-f419-485d-905f-88f63798c2a3" CreationDate="2019-02-05T16:43:03.953" UserId="10999" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Why do we say &quot;100-200 человек&quot; and not the plural form &quot;люди&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48562" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18081" RevisionGUID="a1656bf7-f419-485d-905f-88f63798c2a3" CreationDate="2019-02-05T16:43:03.953" UserId="10999" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Usages of plural form &quot;человек&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="5a2f4ad5-6a0e-4116-a471-6be744a6ba59" CreationDate="2019-02-05T21:44:44.870" UserId="8679" Comment="small corrections" Text="I'd say it's passive vs. active in a sense. Not quite directly grammatical, I guess, but in terms of meaning - who finds whom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Мы играли в прятки, но я попался Васе. --  Vasya _got me_, I was caught by Vasya.&#xD;&#xA; - Мы играли в прятки, но Вася не наткнулся на меня. -- Vasya did not stumble upon me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applied to your example, in the first case (тебе попадется много мошенников) - you'd &quot;catch&quot; a lot of thieves. In the second case (ты наткнешься на) - you would stumble upon them. As the thieves are probably actively looking for the prey, it conveys (in a sense) a meaning that &quot;you would be found&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48564" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18057" RevisionGUID="5a2f4ad5-6a0e-4116-a471-6be744a6ba59" CreationDate="2019-02-05T21:44:44.870" Comment="Proposed by 8679 approved by 10999, 4481 edit id of 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18084" RevisionGUID="63e81dfd-9b73-4db4-90d5-21594b16faee" CreationDate="2019-02-05T23:26:09.143" UserId="11021" Text="I was given these sentence at http://masterrussian.com/aa060500a.shtml so they can show me how flexible the sentence structure in the Russian language is (these sentences are supposedly similar):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Кошка поймала мышь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Мышь поймала кошка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Поймала кошка мышь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Кошка мышь поймала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Мышь кошка поймала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) Поймала мышь кошка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For sentence number 2) it sounds more like the mouse caught the cat, even when i put it in google translate, Yandex translate, it says that the mouse caught the cat, and also i tried to make out sentences 3-6 but they just dont make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of those sentences what is the first one you think of as a russian? i was told the most common was Subject-Verb-Object, which would be 1)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18084" RevisionGUID="63e81dfd-9b73-4db4-90d5-21594b16faee" CreationDate="2019-02-05T23:26:09.143" UserId="11021" Text="Sentence structure in the following sentences" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18084" RevisionGUID="63e81dfd-9b73-4db4-90d5-21594b16faee" CreationDate="2019-02-05T23:26:09.143" UserId="11021" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="e7d00e41-b689-406c-a44d-b7429749911c" CreationDate="2019-02-06T04:49:04.183" UserId="6539" Text="1,3,4 are the best to my mind. The first is neutral. The third introduces a story. The fourth is the most expressive way to underline the object." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18086" RevisionGUID="a0be848c-0824-4262-a2f6-2d24f5cdf1b6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T04:52:06.957" UserId="6539" Text="We use человек after exact numerals and we use людей after a noun which looks like a number. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сто человек, but сотня/сотни людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So after десяток, сотня, сотни, тысячи, миллионы (without mentioning how many) use only людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If there's an adjective between the numeral and the noun , you should use людей &#xD;&#xA;&gt;пять незнакомых людей " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="eee60f63-4b5e-43c7-a90f-aa7ba022bbe3" CreationDate="2019-02-06T04:56:34.603" UserId="6539" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="1,3,4 are the best to my mind. The first is neutral. The third introduces a story. The fourth is the most expressive way to underline the object.&#xD;&#xA;But all sentences are valid and can be used in certain situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="747c66b4-4c19-4d9e-a5e1-f4e6bbeb7f67" CreationDate="2019-02-06T04:59:26.353" UserId="6539" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="1,3,4 are the best to my mind. The first is neutral. The third introduces a story. The fourth is the most expressive way to underline the object.&#xD;&#xA;But all sentences are valid and can be used in certain situations.In numbers 4,5,6 мышь is stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)Поймала кошка мышь.(once upon a time a cat caught a mouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Кошка мышь поймала.(" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18085" RevisionGUID="d4bad72b-e514-4b36-8a24-9fdab3851b7f" CreationDate="2019-02-06T05:04:45.570" UserId="6539" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="1,3,4 are the best to my mind. The first is neutral. The third introduces a story. The fourth is the most expressive way to underline the object.&#xD;&#xA;But all sentences are valid and can be used in certain situations.In numbers 4,5,6 мышь is stressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)Поймала кошка мышь.(once upon a time a cat caught a mouse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Кошка мышь поймала.(It was a mouse this time that a cat caught)mouse is stressed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48573" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18063" RevisionGUID="b9a4284c-b87b-429a-862c-c5c4031dc2b1" CreationDate="2019-02-06T06:00:36.477" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1093026654438543361" />
  <row Id="48574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18087" RevisionGUID="1920a813-ef03-41fd-9444-41dfd27aa28c" CreationDate="2019-02-06T08:30:39.160" UserId="6539" Text="Попасться is to meet by chance, it's rather neutral &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;По дороге к реке мне попалось несколько человек.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Наткнуться is often negative and more unexpected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я наткнулся на лежащего на полу человека." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18088" RevisionGUID="50ba5a3b-ecc8-4a20-918c-30f779430493" CreationDate="2019-02-06T08:41:35.957" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Ты не хуже меня знаешь правила. Ты не хуже моего знаешь правила.(colloquial ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Я не меньше твоего хочу отомстить за нее.(colloquial ) Я не меньше тебя хочу отомстить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The constructions are interchangeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="22671dd9-f362-4ff0-b1df-530da2d692d3" CreationDate="2019-02-06T11:05:31.093" UserId="11454" Text="I know that in Russian we use genitive case for the accusative case of animated masculine and feminine words. My question is: when I’m doing grammatical analysis of the words, what do I have to write for them? Do I have to write that they are in accusative case, even if I know it’s formed like it is genitive? Or do I have to simply write that it is genitive case? &#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="22671dd9-f362-4ff0-b1df-530da2d692d3" CreationDate="2019-02-06T11:05:31.093" UserId="11454" Text="Genitive and accusative case of animated words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="22671dd9-f362-4ff0-b1df-530da2d692d3" CreationDate="2019-02-06T11:05:31.093" UserId="11454" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18090" RevisionGUID="4db25461-b0d3-4147-88c1-5b5c6ac70533" CreationDate="2019-02-06T11:21:29.797" UserId="6097" Text="No, we don't use genitive (or nominative for inanimated nouns) for the accusative. They just look alike. So you must write accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18091" RevisionGUID="8e7e3aef-8d79-4877-bfe1-bfccae07a5c3" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:38:18.650" UserId="11080" Text="All the sentences mean the same, the choice depends on many things, like context, rhythm, style, etc.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English just somebody eats somebody, and it's the word order which defines the subject and the object. But in Russian the subject is expressed by a noun or a pronoun in the Nominative case, whereas the object requires any other case but Nominative. And that case is defined by the verb. So, we can see, that in Russian the syntactic relations between words are not necessarily expressed by the word order. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="0a12e04b-e3b3-48a1-b567-269b02b45469" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:54:53.603" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited title" Text="I know that in Russian we use genitive case for the accusative case of animate masculine and feminine words.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: when I’m doing grammatical analysis of the words, what do I have to write for them? Do I have to write that they are in accusative case, even if I know it’s formed like it is genitive? Or do I have to simply write that it is genitive case? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48582" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18089" RevisionGUID="0a12e04b-e3b3-48a1-b567-269b02b45469" CreationDate="2019-02-06T13:54:53.603" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited title" Text="Genitive and accusative case of animate words" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18086" RevisionGUID="c74b733f-9e9e-440a-aca0-9e3f9393463d" CreationDate="2019-02-06T17:09:54.700" UserId="6539" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="We use человек after exact numerals and we use людей after a noun which looks like a number. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сто человек, but сотня/сотни людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So after десяток, сотня, сотни, тысячи, миллионы (without mentioning how many) use only людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If there's an adjective between the numeral and the noun , you should use людей &#xD;&#xA;&gt;пять незнакомых людей &#xD;&#xA;So it's a bit more complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18092" RevisionGUID="0783dbb9-e096-4d68-9eec-694dc653bbec" CreationDate="2019-02-06T23:54:12.483" UserId="7547" Text="&gt; For sentence number 2) it sounds more like the mouse caught the cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. A question chain here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             what has&#xD;&#xA;      whom?   done?   &#xD;&#xA;     ┌────┐  ┌────┐&#xD;&#xA;     ▼    │  ▼    │ who?&#xD;&#xA;    Мышь поймала кошка&#xD;&#xA;                 ─────&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus, *мышь* is an object and *кошка* is a subject. Now I will explain why I decided so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, here are three noun categories called declensions; each one has its own set of per-case and per-gender endings. The table below briefly explains the matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Table of declension of nouns in the Russian language][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can we take from the table?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *мышь* is 3rd declension where nominative and accusative have the same ending;&#xD;&#xA;* *кошка* из 1st declension with clear inter-case difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, we skip *мышь* as an ambiguous word and rely solely on *кошка* that clearly is nominative hence a subject. And by exclusion method *мышь* becomes an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if Google Translate and Yandex turned the meaning inside out, it means they do not use such deep exclusion-based analysis, just caught the first ending and customized the rest of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OLlRu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18092" RevisionGUID="f9d879eb-f1ce-49c2-828a-0f6ce032b08c" CreationDate="2019-02-07T00:07:09.780" UserId="7547" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="&gt; For sentence number 2) it sounds more like the mouse caught the cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. A question chain here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             what has&#xD;&#xA;      whom?   done?   &#xD;&#xA;     ┌────┐  ┌────┐&#xD;&#xA;     ▼    │  ▼    │ who?&#xD;&#xA;    Мышь поймала кошка&#xD;&#xA;                 ─────&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus, *мышь* is an object and *кошка* is a subject. Now I will explain why I decided so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, here are three noun categories called declensions; each one has its own set of per-case and per-gender endings. The table below briefly explains the matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Table of declension of nouns in the Russian language][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can we take from the table?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *мышь* is 3rd declension where nominative and accusative have the same ending;&#xD;&#xA;* *кошка* is 1st declension with clear inter-case difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, we skip *мышь* as an ambiguous word and rely solely on *кошка* that clearly is nominative, hence a subject. And by exclusion method *мышь* becomes an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if Google Translate and Yandex turned the meaning inside out, it means they do not use such deep exclusion-based analysis, just caught the first ending and customized the rest of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Side note: question chains is a great deal to mark up sentences. It allows you to easily associate six pairs of hint questions in English with a small bunch of endings, associated with individual genders and declensions. The endings though may be learned not directly but via sample words.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OLlRu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18092" RevisionGUID="548bd44b-6417-49c9-8b8e-1a23c51c9e37" CreationDate="2019-02-07T10:52:17.100" UserId="7547" Comment="Fix a formatting of declensions table" Text="&gt; For sentence number 2) it sounds more like the mouse caught the cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. A question chain here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             what has&#xD;&#xA;      whom?   done?   &#xD;&#xA;     ┌────┐  ┌────┐&#xD;&#xA;     ▼    │  ▼    │ who?&#xD;&#xA;    Мышь поймала кошка&#xD;&#xA;                 ─────&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus, *мышь* is an object and *кошка* is a subject. Now I will explain why I decided so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, here are three noun categories called declensions; each one has its own set of per-case and per-gender endings. The table below briefly explains the matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Table of declension of nouns in the Russian language][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can we take from the table?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *мышь* is 3rd declension where nominative and accusative have the same ending;&#xD;&#xA;* *кошка* is 1st declension with clear inter-case difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, we skip *мышь* as an ambiguous word and rely solely on *кошка* that clearly is nominative, hence a subject. And by exclusion method *мышь* becomes an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if Google Translate and Yandex turned the meaning inside out, it means they do not use such deep exclusion-based analysis, just caught the first ending and customized the rest of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Side note: question chains is a great deal to mark up sentences. It allows you to easily associate six pairs of hint questions in English with a small bunch of endings, associated with individual genders and declensions. The endings though may be learned not directly but via sample words.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dtllv.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18092" RevisionGUID="f87090e6-8e33-4fcf-9412-be5e318232d5" CreationDate="2019-02-07T17:04:17.813" UserId="7547" Comment="Noticed more miscolorations in the image" Text="&gt; For sentence number 2) it sounds more like the mouse caught the cat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. A question chain here is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;             what has&#xD;&#xA;      whom?   done?   &#xD;&#xA;     ┌────┐  ┌────┐&#xD;&#xA;     ▼    │  ▼    │ who?&#xD;&#xA;    Мышь поймала кошка&#xD;&#xA;                 ─────&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thus, *мышь* is an object and *кошка* is a subject. Now I will explain why I decided so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, here are three noun categories called declensions; each one has its own set of per-case and per-gender endings. The table below briefly explains the matter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Table of declension of nouns in the Russian language][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can we take from the table?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *мышь* is 3rd declension where nominative and accusative have the same ending;&#xD;&#xA;* *кошка* is 1st declension with clear inter-case difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, we skip *мышь* as an ambiguous word and rely solely on *кошка* that clearly is nominative, hence a subject. And by exclusion method *мышь* becomes an object.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if Google Translate and Yandex turned the meaning inside out, it means they do not use such deep exclusion-based analysis, just caught the first ending and customized the rest of a sentence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Side note: question chains is a great deal to mark up sentences. It allows you to easily associate six pairs of hint questions in English with a small bunch of endings, associated with individual genders and declensions. The endings though may be learned not directly but via sample words.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LmoVW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18093" RevisionGUID="b29adabc-86db-4a21-b8ab-811ad64020bb" CreationDate="2019-02-07T20:36:26.997" UserId="11465" Text="That is an odd way to phrase it, but in this context, it probably means she is not single. Barring an odd sense of humor, &quot;друг&quot; most likely means &quot;boyfriend&quot; here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18094" RevisionGUID="a4984a30-2b61-4b91-8044-2ab3b087e274" CreationDate="2019-02-07T21:36:12.923" UserId="9256" Text="2 is a tough case to understand straight, I don't think it's ever used. I can propose a context that can make it somewhat plausible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ну что там поймала кошка?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Мышь! Мышь поймала кошка.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18095" RevisionGUID="6e0602ff-0b1a-4ae0-a84d-1c9fce7cc09a" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:01:31.893" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Попасться&quot; is the result of catching, even if trying to catch something entirely different. &quot;Я собираю старые монеты, а недавно на распродаже мне попалась подделка.&quot; / &quot;I collect old coins, and recently on a sale I found a fake one&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Наткнуться&quot; is the result of stumbling. Even if someone is searching/catching, the object that is stumbled upon cannot be mistaken for the object being searched. &quot;Я собираю старые монеты, а недавно на распродаже я наткнулся на редкую книгу по нумизматике.&quot; / &quot;I collect old coins, and and recently on a sale I found a rare numismatic book&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18096" RevisionGUID="05458f6c-f268-4d86-a5e0-1fbf10cdf0fe" CreationDate="2019-02-07T23:11:08.283" UserId="11466" Text="Having two &quot;до этого&quot; in one sentence is not advised, because one of them will mean a point in time, while the other - an object of discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this still allows the sentence to be understood, which one of the two &quot;до этого&quot; will mean a point in time will depend on the reader almost entirely, as that sentence structure has no guides either way, which is why going this route is not advised - this would just be confusing to the reader, slowing down their comprehension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a rule of thumb, I try always to not have any duplicating words precisely because of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48595" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18014" RevisionGUID="215907d9-ed0a-4e51-920c-dee4d875ac99" CreationDate="2019-02-08T15:00:33.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1093887312868585473" />
  <row Id="48598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="79b99b14-cf8a-4a1e-b675-6d45586b5eaa" CreationDate="2019-02-09T21:14:33.137" UserId="8679" Text="As I have been reading about «Ночный Дозор», which I intend to read soon, [Wikipedia hinted][1] that those words have slightly different meanings. However, that explanation is very subtle and it left me wondering how does it really work and if it's a type of distinction clearly seen by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watch_(Lukyanenko_novel)#The_Twilight_(The_Gloom)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="79b99b14-cf8a-4a1e-b675-6d45586b5eaa" CreationDate="2019-02-09T21:14:33.137" UserId="8679" Text="What is the difference between сумерки and сумрак?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="79b99b14-cf8a-4a1e-b675-6d45586b5eaa" CreationDate="2019-02-09T21:14:33.137" UserId="8679" Text="|выбор-слова|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18099" RevisionGUID="42f78cd6-fae9-48a5-bd50-e403a47d6ba7" CreationDate="2019-02-09T21:50:05.190" UserId="134" Text="_Сумерки_ means &quot;twilight, dusk&quot;, the time of the day right after the sunset or before the sunrise when it's dark but you can still see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Сумрак_ means &quot;gloom&quot;, a dim or dark setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former is about the time of the day, the latter is about ambiance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18099" RevisionGUID="b5d9dab0-cad0-49f1-aec7-065c06bffdc0" CreationDate="2019-02-09T21:58:34.830" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="_Сумерки_ means &quot;twilight, dusk&quot;, the time of the day right after the sunset or before the sunrise when it's dark but you can still see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Сумрак_ means &quot;gloom&quot;, a dim or dark setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former is a time of the day, the latter is an ambiance.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18100" RevisionGUID="1da7e75a-a65f-4d6d-9ff3-3fcc2568cb6d" CreationDate="2019-02-10T12:15:56.803" UserId="11472" Text="It means she is in relationship. But that doesn't mean that she is married." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48604" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18073" RevisionGUID="c6d13d6a-b10b-4406-8063-c6c8b6a61440" CreationDate="2019-02-10T14:27:50.760" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[13883],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11080,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Elena&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10999,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ivan Olshansky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitriy&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18101" RevisionGUID="84e1b21d-67e9-4932-af9a-1489c11cefa6" CreationDate="2019-02-10T15:06:44.717" UserId="170" Text="What's the difference between &quot;пройти&quot; and &quot;пройтись&quot;? Are they completely interchangeable? Are there any situations, in which only one could be used, but not  the other?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18101" RevisionGUID="84e1b21d-67e9-4932-af9a-1489c11cefa6" CreationDate="2019-02-10T15:06:44.717" UserId="170" Text="&quot;пройти&quot; and &quot;пройтись&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18101" RevisionGUID="84e1b21d-67e9-4932-af9a-1489c11cefa6" CreationDate="2019-02-10T15:06:44.717" UserId="170" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="bfffd665-a9f8-42bd-9764-1ba15e131298" CreationDate="2019-02-10T16:57:30.517" UserId="7674" Text="in physical sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** - to walk by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. (А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in figurative sense&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** - to pass (by), to cease (as in the case of time, condition, state)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** - to look/talk through several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="7877c77f-90b3-41eb-aa43-33233d774141" CreationDate="2019-02-10T18:15:03.897" UserId="7674" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Rather, they're completely non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. (А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** - to pass (by)/to elapse; to cease (as in the case of time, a condition, a state)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18103" RevisionGUID="b5f6480b-dd5b-4114-9016-b31f68256849" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:12:17.257" UserId="10271" Text="When I need to type in English on Word, I usually rely on speech recognition to save me the hassle of manual typing. Can we dictate in the Russian language into Microsoft Word in the same way? Officially, Windows doesn't seem to support the Russian language for speech recognition.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18103" RevisionGUID="b5f6480b-dd5b-4114-9016-b31f68256849" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:12:17.257" UserId="10271" Text="Speech recognition, dictation in the Russian language" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18103" RevisionGUID="b5f6480b-dd5b-4114-9016-b31f68256849" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:12:17.257" UserId="10271" Text="|typography|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="c03b2edf-cd68-44b4-b755-65007d171751" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:59:14.317" UserId="7674" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="Rather, they're completely non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. (А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the same difference can be observed between **`проехать`** and **`проехаться`**, **`пробежать`** and **`пробежаться`** with the only exception being that to these reflexive verbs an easy pace of movement doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** - to pass (by)/to elapse; to cease (as in the case of time, a condition, a state)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="4700762b-ccc9-4f9b-9580-3cc8a3bbfda9" CreationDate="2019-02-11T07:45:59.950" UserId="7674" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="Rather, they're completely non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы попасть на другой берег, нужно пройти по мосту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Легче верблюду пройти сквозь игольное ушко, чем богачу войти в царствие небесное. *(Евангелие от Матфея 19:24)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (impf `прохаживаться`) - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. *(А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the same difference can be observed between **`проехать`** and **`проехаться`**, **`пробежать`** and **`пробежаться`** with the only exception being that to these reflexive verbs an easy pace of movement doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`)- to pass (by)/to elapse; to cease (as in the case of time, a condition, a state); to study as a part of school curriculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас по литературе мы проходим &quot;Войну и мир&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial, impf isn't used) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="ec606dc3-2945-45ce-8c59-7fa979682d4e" CreationDate="2019-02-11T08:13:23.827" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="They're mostly non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы попасть на другой берег, нужно пройти по мосту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Легче верблюду пройти сквозь игольное ушко, чем богачу войти в царствие небесное. *(Евангелие от Матфея 19:24)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (impf `прохаживаться`) - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. *(А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the same difference can be observed between **`проехать`** and **`проехаться`**, **`пробежать`** and **`пробежаться`** with the only exception being that to these reflexive verbs an easy pace of movement doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to pass (by)/to elapse; to cease (as in the case of time, a condition, a state); to study as a part of school curriculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас по литературе мы проходим &quot;Войну и мир&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial, impf isn't used) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="641e834a-d2f5-4d08-a739-fc92baba761d" CreationDate="2019-02-11T08:20:30.737" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="They're mostly non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы попасть на другой берег, нужно пройти по мосту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Легче верблюду пройти сквозь игольное ушко, чем богачу войти в царствие небесное. *(Евангелие от Матфея 19:24)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (impf `прохаживаться`) - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. *(А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the same difference can be observed between **`проехать`** and **`проехаться`**, **`пробежать`** and **`пробежаться`** with the only exception being that to these reflexive verbs an easy pace of movement doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to pass (by)/to elapse; to cease (as in the case of time, a condition, a state); to study as a part of school curriculum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По литературе мы сейчас проходим &quot;Войну и мир&quot;, &quot;Обломова&quot; уже прошли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial, impf isn't used) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18104" RevisionGUID="a26c7789-f192-419c-a3ec-bdeb6928a730" CreationDate="2019-02-11T12:43:03.957" UserId="10790" Text="This is a quotation from Chekhov's story &quot;Тоска&quot;(See https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2)#cite_note-1). I have googled but couldn't find anything about the meaning of the word &quot;повем&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48618" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18104" RevisionGUID="a26c7789-f192-419c-a3ec-bdeb6928a730" CreationDate="2019-02-11T12:43:03.957" UserId="10790" Text="How should I understand the word &quot;повем&quot; in the line &quot;кому повем печаль мою&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48619" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18104" RevisionGUID="a26c7789-f192-419c-a3ec-bdeb6928a730" CreationDate="2019-02-11T12:43:03.957" UserId="10790" Text="|значения|word|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18105" RevisionGUID="8a832ece-81bc-46e9-a88b-24ad2580c672" CreationDate="2019-02-11T12:47:50.963" UserId="11080" Text="It is not quite Russian, it is Old Slavonic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more understandable for Russian version will be **поведаю**, and the most Russian is ***расскажу***. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Whom can I tell about my sorrow?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18106" RevisionGUID="990fd93a-7574-4901-b2f0-97f2cc394a3b" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:55:45.823" UserId="134" Text="This is the first line of a spiritual chant called [*Стих плача Иосифа Прекраснаго, егда продаша братия его во Египет*][1] (&quot;A verse of lamentation of Joseph the Most Beautiful when his brethren sold him into Egypt&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;to whom shall I tell of my sorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Повем* here is a rendition of the Church Slavonic form *повѣмь* (&quot;I will tell&quot;, literally &quot;I will let know&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one of a small bunch of so called athematic verbs, whose conjugation endings lacked vowels and attached directly to stems. There were more verbs like that in Proto-Indo-European but only a few of them remained in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were five such verbs in Church Slavonic: *быти* &quot;to be&quot;, *дати* &quot;to give&quot;, *вѣдѣти* &quot;to known&quot;, *ѣсти* &quot;to eat&quot;, *имѣти* &quot;to have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two of those verbs retained the athematic endings in modern Russian: *я ем*, *я дам*, others have lost it: *поведаю* is the modern Russian way of saying *повѣмь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of athematic forms are fossilized in set phrases like *бог весть* (&quot;God (only) knows&quot;), *власть имущие* (&quot;the powers that be&quot;, literally &quot;those who have power&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/byliny/texts/bst/bst-7272.htm?cmd=p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18106" RevisionGUID="8ff8ed98-57dd-47f2-9f18-59b9ebd26b5a" CreationDate="2019-02-11T15:56:48.793" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="This is the first line of a spiritual chant called [*Стих плача Иосифа Прекраснаго, егда продаша братия его во Египет*][1] (&quot;A verse of lamentation of Joseph the Most Beautiful when his brethren sold him into Egypt&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means &quot;to whom shall I tell of my sorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Повем* here is a rendition of the Church Slavonic form *повѣмь* (&quot;I will tell&quot;, literally &quot;I will let know&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one of a small bunch of so called athematic verbs, whose conjugation endings lacked vowels and attached directly to stems. There were more verbs like that in Proto-Indo-European but only a few of them remained in Proto-Slavic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were five such verbs in Church Slavonic: *быти* &quot;to be&quot;, *дати* &quot;to give&quot;, *вѣдѣти* &quot;to know&quot;, *ѣсти* &quot;to eat&quot;, *имѣти* &quot;to have&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two of those verbs retained the athematic endings in modern Russian: *я ем*, *я дам*, others have lost it: *поведаю* is the modern Russian way of saying *повѣмь*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of athematic forms are fossilized in set phrases like *бог весть* (&quot;God (only) knows&quot;), *власть имущие* (&quot;the powers that be&quot;, literally &quot;those who have power&quot;) etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/byliny/texts/bst/bst-7272.htm?cmd=p" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48623" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18103" RevisionGUID="a1baa035-f7ca-4422-a809-f988c2c76a56" CreationDate="2019-02-11T17:42:22.000" UserId="3680" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1688,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mustaccio&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10999,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ivan Olshansky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitriy&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3680,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitry&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18101" RevisionGUID="01235504-705c-43a5-ae8e-e9569c5ad48e" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:01:01.067" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1095019890841399299" />
  <row Id="48625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="d1c83504-cc21-4313-a049-3516e570309e" CreationDate="2019-02-12T11:21:55.680" UserId="11479" Text="I'm working on Russian spelling and I have come across a couple of words containing letter о.&#xD;&#xA;зовут   is spelled zavut&#xD;&#xA;хорошая is spelled xaroshaya&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of such words where о is spelled a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a grammatical rule for this spelling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="d1c83504-cc21-4313-a049-3516e570309e" CreationDate="2019-02-12T11:21:55.680" UserId="11479" Text="The Cases Where &quot;о&quot; is spelled as &quot;a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="d1c83504-cc21-4313-a049-3516e570309e" CreationDate="2019-02-12T11:21:55.680" UserId="11479" Text="|грамматика|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="86d92f37-ac9f-4ae9-9245-adb24fed35a4" CreationDate="2019-02-12T11:27:01.277" UserId="11479" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I'm working on Russian spelling and I have come across a couple of words containing letter о.&#xD;&#xA;зовут   is spelled zavut and &#xD;&#xA;хорошая is spelled xaroshaya&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of such words where о is spelled as a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a grammatical rule for this spelling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18108" RevisionGUID="13f65771-e394-4fbe-8a9c-d3e10b8d3716" CreationDate="2019-02-12T12:23:36.397" UserId="1836" Text="General rule is that unstressed `о` is pronounced as `а`. In my perception though it's not exactly `а` but something in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="fd7d1b0d-6f4e-4d74-bf28-63bb0ddc1c81" CreationDate="2019-02-12T12:28:39.483" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|правописание|редукция-гласных|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18109" RevisionGUID="74acb0a3-be22-4038-aaf9-e2690b7f4bd8" CreationDate="2019-02-12T12:53:05.680" UserId="11080" Text="If here spelling means what it usually means, i.e. orthography, mostly we spell **o** and pronounce **a** in unstressed positions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is spelled **молоко** and said [малако], it's simple. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the rules of writing, we mostly preserve the stem vowels. We can check them knowing other words with the same stem, where the **o** is stressed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no such words, then we have just to remember there is **o** written. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Молоко - the second o is checked by the word молочный, and the first o&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is to be memorized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**фотография** is a borrowing, we cannot check the vowels (but for фото), but we preserve the **o**-s. And there is no [o] in pronunciation, because the stress is on **a**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18110" RevisionGUID="d13d3eef-ec3b-4e7c-9091-7883052351ef" CreationDate="2019-02-12T15:35:38.997" UserId="11480" Text="You could probably work something out from etymology, but generally speaking no, except this can only happen for unstressed vowels. Russian spelling is mostly morphological, so a good rule of thumb for stem vowels is to try and find a word that has the vowel in question stressed, though this isn’t always possible. For prefixes and suffixes you’ll just have to remember a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the confusing spelling is that the vowel that confuses you isn’t [a] or [o] but [ɐ][&lt;sup&gt;what?&lt;/sup&gt;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_central_vowel) or maybe even the familliar English [ə],[&lt;sup&gt;what?&lt;/sup&gt;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_central_vowel) and vowel phonemes /a/ and /o/ both produce that sound when they undergo [reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian#Back_vowels) in an unstressed position.  This can happen a bit differently in different places: for example, in downtown Moscow you’re more likely to hear a well-articulated [ɐ], whereas moving to the suburbs just 30 kilometers away will get you a much shorter, almost unpronounced sound. Russian speakers usually perceive this as Muscovites emphasising the _ah_ sound, hence _аканье_ “_ah_-ing”, but the reality is that the sound is always the same, it’s just that the reduction in Moscow is not that strong. Furthermore, in Northern European Russia (the stereotypical example being the city of [Vologda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vologda)) the merger is in fact absent and an unstressed /o/ still sounds _oh_-ish, hence _оканье_ “_oh_-ing”. (I hear that the schoolchildren there are quite amused by textbooks that teach them to avoid a spelling mistake that’s impossible to make in their dialect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there’s always Belarusian, which is rather close to Russian, but has its spelling organized completely differently, so you can always spell ⟨а⟩  for unstressed /a/~/o/ there :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18110" RevisionGUID="cac17142-a751-40e5-9cc6-dc695620978d" CreationDate="2019-02-12T15:47:35.543" UserId="11480" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="You could probably work something out from etymology, but generally speaking no, except this can only happen for unstressed vowels. Russian spelling is mostly morphological, so a good rule of thumb for stem vowels is to try and find a word that has the vowel in question stressed, though this isn’t always possible. For prefixes and suffixes you’ll just have to remember a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the confusing spelling is that the vowel that confuses you isn’t [a] or [o] but [ɐ][&lt;sup&gt;what?&lt;/sup&gt;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-open_central_vowel) or maybe even the familliar English [ə],[&lt;sup&gt;what?&lt;/sup&gt;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_central_vowel) and vowel phonemes /a/ and /o/ both produce that sound when they undergo [reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_reduction_in_Russian#Back_vowels) in an unstressed position after a hard consonant.  This can happen a bit differently in different places: for example, in downtown Moscow you’re more likely to hear a well-articulated [ɐ], whereas moving to the suburbs just 30 kilometers away will get you a much shorter, almost unpronounced sound. Russian speakers usually perceive this as Muscovites emphasising the _ah_ sound, hence _аканье_ “_ah_-ing”, but the reality is that the sound is always the same, it’s just that the reduction in Moscow is not that strong. Furthermore, in Northern European Russia (the stereotypical example being the city of [Vologda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vologda)) the merger is in fact absent and an unstressed /o/ still sounds _oh_-ish, hence _оканье_ “_oh_-ing”. (I hear that the schoolchildren there are quite amused by textbooks that teach them to avoid a spelling mistake that’s impossible to make in their dialect.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there’s always Belarusian, which is rather close to Russian, but has its spelling organized completely differently, so you can always spell ⟨а⟩  for unstressed /a/~/o/ there :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18111" RevisionGUID="1a56a1f1-bf6c-4bf5-8740-617dc872eba8" CreationDate="2019-02-12T16:34:19.777" UserId="1202" Text="I presume you really care about how Russian “о” is *pronounced*, not how it’s spelled in English transliteration (which isn’t fixed, but varies depending on who’s doing the transliteration; it looks like you’re using a transliteration that tries to mimic the variation in pronunciation of “о”, which is a bit unusual).  Briefly, the way to work out how “о” is pronounced in a given Russian word is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0. You need to know which syllable of the word is stressed.  This often can’t be worked out from spelling (although there are plenty of patterns that can help guess it) — it pretty much has to be learned for each word.  Some textbooks helpfully mark it with an accent, like “молоко́”, but it’s not usually shown in writing at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. When “о” is in the stressed syllable (eg “дом”), it’s the main Russian “о” sound, [o] in IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When “о” is in the syllable *directly before* the stress (eg “зовут”), it’s pronounced with a short Russian “а” sound, [a] in IPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. When “о” is anywhere else in the word, it’s a *reduced* vowel, [ə] — roughly the vowel of English un-emphasised *“the”*, as in *“the cat sat on the mat”*, sometimes written in English as *uh*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you listen to the pronunciations of “[хорошо́](https://forvo.com/word/хорошо/#ru)” and “[молоко́](https://forvo.com/word/молоко/#ru)” on Forvo, you’ll hear the three different pronunciations of “о” in succession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the main rule of thumb to use for learners; [Alex Sphilkin’s answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/18110/1202) gives good more detailed background about variation between different Russian accents/dialects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="c2d13a4f-4f61-4762-80e1-1d0351d51311" CreationDate="2019-02-12T16:51:13.457" UserId="6074" Comment="You keep using that word but it doesn't mean what you think it does." Text="I'm working on Russian spelling and I have come across a couple of words containing letter о.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* зовут is pronounced as zavut&#xD;&#xA;* хорошая is pronounced as xaroshaya&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of such words where о pronounced as a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a grammatical rule for this pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48638" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="c2d13a4f-4f61-4762-80e1-1d0351d51311" CreationDate="2019-02-12T16:51:13.457" UserId="6074" Comment="You keep using that word but it doesn't mean what you think it does." Text="The cases where &quot;о&quot; is pronounced as &quot;a&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48639" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="c2d13a4f-4f61-4762-80e1-1d0351d51311" CreationDate="2019-02-12T16:51:13.457" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 10999, 5605 edit id of 2013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18112" RevisionGUID="184e706b-f4a4-4fad-9138-a726ecaf270a" CreationDate="2019-02-13T04:13:35.663" UserId="11486" Text="&#xD;&#xA;The word люди has a plural therefore cannot be measured." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18113" RevisionGUID="2d77b8b4-3ffe-480a-91ac-69547de048ee" CreationDate="2019-02-13T04:27:40.947" UserId="11486" Text="Отец - officially, Папа - tender value" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="e4c49cbf-b08b-40ff-823c-c0f53dfed7e3" CreationDate="2019-02-13T06:00:17.777" UserId="11479" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I'm working on Russian pronunciation and I have come across a couple of words containing letter о.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* зовут is pronounced as zavut&#xD;&#xA;* хорошая is pronounced as xaroshaya&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of such words where о pronounced as a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a grammatical/phonetical rule for this pronunciation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48645" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18104" RevisionGUID="a55efff2-1136-4c07-90cc-e8e7c3d0ec59" CreationDate="2019-02-13T06:00:28.553" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1095563336329187328" />
  <row Id="48646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="d290511f-a53b-4fef-a27d-9a7548561895" CreationDate="2019-02-13T06:05:58.877" UserId="11479" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I'm working on Russian pronunciation and I have come across a couple of words containing letter о.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* зовут is pronounced as zavut&#xD;&#xA;* хорошая is pronounced as xaroshaya&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of such words where о pronounced as a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a grammatical/phonetical rule for this pronunciation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Thanks for the great answers, I have concluded that deriving a definite rule for this feature is not feasible and I have found a nice CMU pronunciation dictionary also correctly containing words related with this reduction: https://sourceforge.net/projects/cmusphinx/files/Acoustic%20and%20Language%20Models/Russian/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="7cdf3245-ffa6-4db2-a492-db87792393bb" CreationDate="2019-02-13T07:22:04.017" UserId="7674" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="They're mostly non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы попасть на другой берег, нужно пройти по мосту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Легче верблюду пройти сквозь игольное ушко, чем богачу войти в царствие небесное. *(Евангелие от Матфея 19:24)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (impf `прохаживаться`) - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. *(А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the same difference can be observed between **`проехать`** and **`проехаться`**, **`пробежать`** and **`пробежаться`** with the only exception being that to these reflexive verbs an easy pace of movement doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to cease (as in the case of time, a condition, a state); to pass (by)/to elapse; to study as a part of school curriculum; to be held/conducted; to go through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По литературе мы сейчас проходим &quot;Войну и мир&quot;, &quot;Обломова&quot; уже прошли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас в стране проходят выборы. В городе проходят обыски. В Польше проходит конференция ООН по вопросам изменения климата. В Токийском аэропорту Ханэда проходят испытания автобуса с автономным управлением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Новый метод лечения рака успешно прошел испытания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial, impf isn't used) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18102" RevisionGUID="daa67096-c5ff-4c1b-9e25-7575339928ce" CreationDate="2019-02-13T07:36:47.790" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="They're mostly non-interchangeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in physical sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to walk/pass by/through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он прошёл мимо охранника.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Войдя в квартиру, он прошёл в гостинную.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Чтобы попасть на другой берег, нужно пройти по мосту.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Легче верблюду пройти сквозь игольное ушко, чем богачу войти в царствие небесное. *(Евангелие от Матфея 19:24)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (impf `прохаживаться`) - to take a walk, to stroll (usually implies to and fro and in an easy pace)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Налетела грусть, ну что ж, пойду пройдусь. *(А. Розенбаум &quot;Налетела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грусть&quot;)*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Манекенщица прошлась туда и обратно по подиуму.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the same difference can be observed between **`проехать`** and **`проехаться`**, **`пробежать`** and **`пробежаться`** with the only exception being that to these reflexive verbs an easy pace of movement doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*in figurative sense*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройти`** (impf `проходить`) - to cease/to go away/to pass off (a condition, a state); to pass (by)/to elapse; to study as a part of school curriculum; to take place; to undergo/to go through&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Прошла уже неделя с тех пор, как у меня прошёл кашель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По литературе мы сейчас проходим &quot;Войну и мир&quot;, &quot;Обломова&quot; уже прошли.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас в стране проходят выборы. В городе проходят обыски. В Польше проходит конференция ООН по вопросам изменения климата. В Токийском аэропорту Ханэда проходят испытания автобуса с автономным управлением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Новый метод лечения рака успешно прошёл испытания.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`пройтись`** (colloquial, impf isn't used) - to look/talk through / address several points/items; to rebuke several people; to lambast&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы ещё раз прошлись по пунктам договора.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; После того, как отдел не успел в срок закончить проект, на собрании&#xD;&#xA;&gt; начальник прошёлся по каждому исполнителю.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невзоров жёстко прошёлся по пропагандистке Скабеевой.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48649" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18098" RevisionGUID="486fc1b1-f65d-4221-a990-06e6a6ff709b" CreationDate="2019-02-13T09:00:13.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1095608571163746304" />
  <row Id="48650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18115" RevisionGUID="5fd48d63-b494-4639-b92e-ecdf5ff65572" CreationDate="2019-02-13T09:04:07.407" UserId="9100" Text="In the  [book][1] with translations of American folklore published in the USSR in 1983 to celeberate 25 years of  Soviet-American friendship the translators decided to use the title &quot;Народ, да!&quot; for &quot;Yes, folks!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though from my feeling of both languages, in Russian &quot;Народ, да!&quot; makes generally not very much sense and in this specific context actually no sense at all as &quot;Yes, folks!&quot; seems to be some narrative expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you say &quot;Народ, да!&quot; is correct? Where would you find it in other contexts? Or is Да, народ..!&quot; more correct? In the sense, &quot;такие вот дела!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/1595398/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18115" RevisionGUID="5fd48d63-b494-4639-b92e-ecdf5ff65572" CreationDate="2019-02-13T09:04:07.407" UserId="9100" Text="&quot;Народ, да!&quot; или &quot;Да, народ!&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18115" RevisionGUID="5fd48d63-b494-4639-b92e-ecdf5ff65572" CreationDate="2019-02-13T09:04:07.407" UserId="9100" Text="|перевод|английский|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="c7dee24e-55f5-45bf-a3cb-12961f39a0ab" CreationDate="2019-02-13T11:18:28.877" UserId="-1" Comment="Corrected name of Mac key" Text="To add to the answers above, here's how you can use the right kind of quotation marks on your computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Mac,** while using Russian keyboard layout:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push `option`, `shift` and `=` to type `«`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simultaneously push `option` and `=` to type `»`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On Win,**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn on `num lock`, then push and hold `alt`, then type these sequences of numbers on the numeric keypad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0171` to type `«`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0187` to type `»`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0132` to type `„`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `0147` to type `“`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another difference between Russian and English quotation marks is where you put the period. In English, the period is put inside the quote: &quot;Like this`.&quot;` In Russian, the period is put after the quote: «Вот так`».`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be also said, that the outstanding majority of Russians don't use the correct quotation marks on the Internet. As far as I know, the `&quot;` symbol didn't use to be a quotation mark either (the English quotation marks are `“` and `”`), and is only used now due to the fact that typewriters lacked the proper signs. However, it is accepted now in English, and is widely used in Russian, despite the snobby attitude the graphic designers have towards it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48655" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1480" RevisionGUID="c7dee24e-55f5-45bf-a3cb-12961f39a0ab" CreationDate="2019-02-13T11:18:28.877" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 10999, 1836 edit id of 1002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18112" RevisionGUID="aa6748f5-d018-4f9b-9327-0bba32d2a287" CreationDate="2019-02-13T11:18:37.143" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="The word люди is plural, therefore it cannot be measured." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48657" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18112" RevisionGUID="aa6748f5-d018-4f9b-9327-0bba32d2a287" CreationDate="2019-02-13T11:18:37.143" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 1836 edit id of 2014" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18116" RevisionGUID="d915445f-2753-49c2-99b1-0364a663f5cd" CreationDate="2019-02-13T12:56:07.920" UserId="5443" Text="Unlike the original title (where people are *addressed*), its Russian translation sounds too indefinite. **Народ** can mean *addressed people*, *people of the whole country* or a *crowd of people*. So the expression &quot;Да, народ!&quot; (with either word order) *without a context* can mean something different in reverse translation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Yes, it's about our nation! (It's about our nation, yes!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, some other translation version, e.g. &quot;Да, люди!&quot; (where people are addressed informally) was worth considering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48661" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18107" RevisionGUID="29f25d98-55bf-4e04-ae6d-3c21876574be" CreationDate="2019-02-13T13:30:15.290" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7261],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10999,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ivan Olshansky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5605,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Матвей Дёмин&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:6097,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Abakan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4481,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dmitriy&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:97,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Aleks G&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18117" RevisionGUID="9117dfd8-5703-406d-8d71-e6278e919f02" CreationDate="2019-02-13T15:10:15.560" UserId="1329" Text="Конструкция &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Surely [noun/pronoun] [verb with negation]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; подразумевает уверенность говорящего, что происходящее/произошедшее нереально и невозможно, но в то же время передаёт смятение/удивление, поскольку это всё-таки происходит/произошло. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surely this can't be happening? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surely his wish had not been fulfilled? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Surely he can't be dating Victoire?  &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Можно сказать, что человек пытается отрицать реальность (the confused human being is in denial). Перевести эту конструкцию на русский язык можно несколькими способами (кроме уже упомянутых в других ответах):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Surely his wish had not been fulfilled?** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Но ведь его желание не осуществилось, так ведь/не так ли/верно? (ох как часто эти &quot;хвостики&quot; в конце предложений выручают переводчиков!) &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Но не могло же его желание осуществиться? (вариант, похожий на тот, что был предложен &lt;br&gt; @J-mster в комментарии, и он, по-моему, самый удачный)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Не может быть, чтоб его желание осуществилось! &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Но ведь его желание никак не могло осуществиться, верно? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Но его желание точно не могло осуществиться!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Впрочем, наиболее часто эта конструкция действительно переводится без отрицания, вместо него используется для усиления эффекта изумления частица *неужели*, как и заметил автор вопроса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18115" RevisionGUID="f38c56a3-c5ab-4af2-a9d3-63e0011f46f6" CreationDate="2019-02-13T15:41:56.300" UserId="9100" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="In the  [book][1] with translations of American folklore published in the USSR in 1983 to celeberate 25 years of  Soviet-American friendship the translators decided to use the title &quot;Народ, да!&quot; for &quot;Yes, folks!&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though from my feeling of both languages, in Russian &quot;Народ, да!&quot; makes generally not very much sense and in this specific context actually no sense at all as &quot;Yes, folks!&quot; seems to be some narrative expression.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you say &quot;Народ, да!&quot; is correct? Where would you find it in other contexts? Or is Да, народ..!&quot; more correct? In the sense, &quot;такие вот дела!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/1595398/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HzeAn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18118" RevisionGUID="f84f0515-0223-458d-855b-8cb18fef5829" CreationDate="2019-02-13T18:19:05.873" UserId="134" Text="The title of the Russian book is a reference to 1936's poem [The People, Yes][1] by Carl Sandburg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;The people, yes, the people&quot; is a refrain and a recurring theme in this poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People,_Yes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48670" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18084" RevisionGUID="a533e5d8-691e-4d43-a62a-62c4920bd0ed" CreationDate="2019-02-14T06:00:40.880" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1095925775843409920" />
  <row Id="48671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18120" RevisionGUID="b8a12e85-fe96-40f3-9f93-479ec43b99d0" CreationDate="2019-02-14T08:07:08.187" UserId="11493" Text="Hm. As an American born to a Russian speaking mother (meaning I may be very off base), it sounds better in the order that it is written. &lt;&lt;Народ, да!&gt;&gt;, to me, sounds more grandiose. Also, putting народ first, I think, could serve to call for people's attention to да, or the да could be describing the народ. To me, however, &lt;&lt;Да, народ&gt;&gt; could sound more like a confirmation that we are indeed talking about the народ, or be like a response of да to the people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18121" RevisionGUID="fc66e0fa-9ea7-45a1-9fd5-32fddb5ae104" CreationDate="2019-02-14T13:30:24.840" UserId="5" Text="Есть ли смысловая разница между &quot;Зачем он это сделал?&quot; и &quot;Зачем он сделал это?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18121" RevisionGUID="fc66e0fa-9ea7-45a1-9fd5-32fddb5ae104" CreationDate="2019-02-14T13:30:24.840" UserId="5" Text="Разница между &quot;Зачем он это сделал?&quot; и &quot;Зачем он сделал это?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18121" RevisionGUID="fc66e0fa-9ea7-45a1-9fd5-32fddb5ae104" CreationDate="2019-02-14T13:30:24.840" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18122" RevisionGUID="ba7ff3c3-3df8-42f5-b568-7c1f04879685" CreationDate="2019-02-14T13:39:11.200" UserId="7674" Text="В русском языке слово, на которое приходится смысловое ударение, как правило переносится в конец фразы. Таким образом &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 1 ставится к подлежащему - зачем сделал.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 2 ставится к дополнению - зачем сделал именно это, а не что-то другое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18122" RevisionGUID="ed276adf-4a88-4711-89d3-8d436316c42f" CreationDate="2019-02-14T13:47:07.153" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="В русском языке слово, на которое приходится смысловое/логическое ударение, как правило переносится в конец фразы. Таким образом &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 1 ставится к подлежащему - зачем сделал.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 2 ставится к дополнению - зачем сделал именно это, а не что-то другое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18122" RevisionGUID="8de4397c-db93-49c5-95d7-99713f85faf3" CreationDate="2019-02-14T15:40:23.400" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="В русском языке слово, на которое приходится смысловое/логическое ударение, как правило переносится в конец фразы. Таким образом &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 1 ставится к сказуемому - зачем сделал.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Вопрос 2 ставится к дополнению - зачем сделал именно это, а не что-то другое." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18123" RevisionGUID="ba9b993c-9cc0-41d3-87cc-221b44053cc5" CreationDate="2019-02-14T19:24:31.287" UserId="9256" Text="В данном конкретном примере, imho, смысловой разницы никакой. Первый вариант общеупотребительный, второй - поэтический.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В других случаях, например &quot;Зачем он подлость сделал?&quot; и &quot;Зачем он сделал подлость?&quot; все наоборот - второй вариант общеупотребительный, первый - поэтический. Различные слова имеют различные традиции употребления.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И наконец в третьих случаях, когда оба порядка чередования вполне употребительны в обычной речи (напр. &quot;Зачем он скворечник сделал?&quot; и &quot;Зачем он сделал скворечник?&quot;) , я поддержу ответ @Баян Купи-ка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48684" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18121" RevisionGUID="543dd1ee-632b-4d76-aa0d-f655dace9b85" CreationDate="2019-02-15T12:00:34.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1096378732623941633" />
  <row Id="48687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18125" RevisionGUID="1c11658b-7f71-4f38-b5c1-b6eb43726bfe" CreationDate="2019-02-16T00:35:02.507" UserId="11021" Text="I know that the soft and hard signs are not consonants or vowels, but do they fall into as masculine, feminine, or neuter? &#xA;&#xA;Коктейль ? , do we put один одна or одно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18125" RevisionGUID="1c11658b-7f71-4f38-b5c1-b6eb43726bfe" CreationDate="2019-02-16T00:35:02.507" UserId="11021" Text="In what category does soft sign and hard sign fall into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18125" RevisionGUID="1c11658b-7f71-4f38-b5c1-b6eb43726bfe" CreationDate="2019-02-16T00:35:02.507" UserId="11021" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18126" RevisionGUID="83d15fd2-ad71-48b5-a5c4-ebf8bbf88429" CreationDate="2019-02-16T03:13:04.667" UserId="10749" Text="Words ending with a soft sign can be either masculine (`коктейль, пень, лось, тюлень,` etc.) or feminine (`тень, дверь, мышь, боль, лень, печаль` etc.). They can't be neuter.&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules from what I understand, but there are too many exceptions, so really, you just memorize it. I'm not even sure it was explained in school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that concepts and various phenomena are most likely to be feminine (`боль, лень, печаль`, etc). Animated objects, for example animals can go either way (`лось and тюлень` are masculine, but `мышь and рысь` are feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Бордель` and отель are masculine, I assume it's because they are masculine in original French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that animate objects ending with 'тель' are masculine (`приятель, учитель, доверитель, поджигатель,` etc.), but other words with 'тель' can go either way `(двигатель, отражатель` - masculine, but `метель` is feminine). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Kamchatka there's a river called `Парень`, with a stress on 'е'. That name is feminine, but the word `парень` is obviously masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18127" RevisionGUID="b393b3ee-2999-4cbc-b76d-87f922e80094" CreationDate="2019-02-16T07:31:58.653" UserId="11080" Text="The main thing I say to my students is namely the allusion to the joke mentioned above. Memorize it, because it is impossible to understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **masculine words ending in -ь belong to the 2nd type of declension**, and the **feminine words ending in -ь make up the 3rd type of declension**. They make different case forms. So, Russian children know just how the word is changed throughout the cases, and it is easier for them to learn that the formal sign of the feminine gender ending in [ж], [ш], [ч], [щ] is the soft sign, and it's the main thing about it they have to study. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Печь - она, but меч - он. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ночь - она, but мяч - он.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рожь, ложь, тишь, дрожь, мышь - она, but &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; нож, куш, клещ, борщ, фарш - он.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For the rest words, which end in other soft consonants, there is no formal mark to define the gender.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is the experience of usage (hearing, speaking) of those words with case endings and adjectives that helps us define the gender of a noun. Because formally there are no means to understand that день - он, but тень - она. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Наводить тень на плетень. Тень - она, плетень - он. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тень - тени - тени - тень - тенью - о тени.  Плетень - плетня - плетню&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - плетень - плетнём - о плетне.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since learners do not have this experience, they have to look such words up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some words have changed their gender with time. E.g., метро (though there is no -ь there) was initially masculine, when the word was borrowed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но **метро сверкнул** перилами дубовыми, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сразу всех **он** седоков околдовал. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the word was assimilated and gained the typical for Russian -o-ending words neuter gender. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same can happen with feminine and masculine in -ь. Most native speakers don't know which gender is мозоль and use both variants. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hard sign has not been used in the end of the words since 1918, so, it does not participate in the gender-forming or defining processes. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="5ffd4355-0483-4ca4-887a-217197a406f3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T17:41:40.630" UserId="11494" Text="Well, my russian friend said, that I won't translate this phrase. Actully, he is right...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Косой косой косил косой косой" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="5ffd4355-0483-4ca4-887a-217197a406f3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T17:41:40.630" UserId="11494" Text="Help to translate? please" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="5ffd4355-0483-4ca4-887a-217197a406f3" CreationDate="2019-02-16T17:41:40.630" UserId="11494" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18129" RevisionGUID="b733d1d7-73c3-4018-b52f-9e3d6f4604b9" CreationDate="2019-02-16T17:59:02.977" UserId="4560" Text="&quot;A cross-eyed hare mowed with a crooked scythe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** adjective, &quot;crooked, skewed, leaning, cross-eyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** nominalised adjective, same meaning, a folk epithet for a hare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare (for lack of a better example I can immediately think of): &quot;a forsaken Forsaken wandered about&quot;. (The second time referring to the race from the Warcraft universe.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косил:** &quot;mowed, was mowing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** same adjective as before, this time in feminine instrumental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** instrumental of **коса**, &quot;scythe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a popular joke commenting on the opacity, and overlapping, of Russian grammatical endings, but it usually doesn't have the hare in it, because that's really pushing it a bit. The version I grew up with is **косил косой косой косой** &quot;a cross-eyed [person] mowed with a crooked scythe&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18129" RevisionGUID="8c57aaae-2f46-458e-92ab-c1b91ee1a5c4" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:05:01.660" UserId="4560" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="&quot;A cross-eyed hare mowed with a crooked scythe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** adjective, &quot;crooked, skewed, leaning, cross-eyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** nominalised adjective, same meaning, a folk epithet for a hare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cross-eyed one&quot; is what a hare may be called in a fairytale, or in hunters' banter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do the two &quot;cross-eyed&quot;s in a row work? Compare (for lack of a better example I can immediately think of): &quot;a forsaken Forsaken wandered about&quot;. (The second time referring to the race from the Warcraft universe.) Or, &quot;Gollum grabbed his precious Precious&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косил:** &quot;mowed, was mowing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** same adjective as before, this time in feminine instrumental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** instrumental of **коса**, &quot;scythe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a popular joke commenting on the opacity, and overlapping, of Russian grammatical endings, but it usually doesn't have the hare in it, because it starts to get a little bit too contrived. The version I grew up with is **косил косой косой косой** &quot;a cross-eyed [person] mowed with a crooked scythe&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18129" RevisionGUID="9ed083af-c6ed-4115-a105-a7d67cb0a90b" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:11:44.690" UserId="4560" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;A cross-eyed hare mowed with a crooked scythe.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** adjective, &quot;crooked, skewed, leaning, cross-eyed&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** nominalised adjective, same meaning, a folk epithet for a hare&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cross-eyed one&quot; is what a hare may be called in a fairytale, or in hunters' banter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do the two &quot;cross-eyed&quot;s in a row work? Compare (for lack of a better example I can immediately think of): &quot;a forsaken Forsaken wandered about&quot;. (The second time referring to the race from the Warcraft universe.) Or, &quot;Gollum grabbed his precious *precious*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косил:** &quot;mowed, was mowing&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** same adjective as before, this time in feminine instrumental&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**косой:** instrumental of **коса**, &quot;scythe&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a popular joke commenting on the opacity, and overlapping, of Russian grammatical endings, but it usually doesn't have the hare in it, because it starts to get a little bit too contrived. The version I grew up with is **косил косой косой косой** &quot;a cross-eyed [person] mowed with a crooked scythe&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48698" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="665db1b9-4b54-4288-9bda-6394e0f2dd01" CreationDate="2019-02-16T18:45:05.263" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="09ed0deb-d7fb-4ed5-9276-8c6bbf9740f9" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:53:54.003" UserId="134" Comment="added 279 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="There is a popular example of a [syntactically ambiguous][1] phrase in Russian sometimes used as a linguistic joke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Возьмём предложение _Косой косой косил косой косой_ и попробуем определить все возможные варианты частеречной разметки для повторяющихся слов // М. Копотев, *Введение в корпусную лингвистику*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I parse this phrase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48701" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="09ed0deb-d7fb-4ed5-9276-8c6bbf9740f9" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:53:54.003" UserId="134" Comment="added 279 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How do I parse this popular linguistic joke in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48702" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="09ed0deb-d7fb-4ed5-9276-8c6bbf9740f9" CreationDate="2019-02-16T20:53:54.003" UserId="134" Comment="added 279 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|грамматика|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="adf7ef3b-22ea-4d72-9377-48123b584aa8" CreationDate="2019-02-16T23:02:03.497" UserId="11500" Text="Back in the seventies (before the revolution) I worked in Iran and one of my contacts was a radiographer who was partly Russian. He had the habit of shouting &quot;Zapriski Fang&quot; as an indication of surprise, anger or pleasure. He refused to tell us what it meant (&quot;It's Russian&quot; was all he would say). Of course my transliteration and/or 40-year memory may be incorrect. The local language was Farsi and we used English for mutual communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have long wondered what it meant and today I googled/duckduckgoed it (go ahead, I saw nothing dangerous). I got zero meaningful text results but loads of images where I can see no pattern whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is (or was) Zapriski Fang? And what are all the images?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="adf7ef3b-22ea-4d72-9377-48123b584aa8" CreationDate="2019-02-16T23:02:03.497" UserId="11500" Text="Meaning of Zapriski Fang" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="adf7ef3b-22ea-4d72-9377-48123b584aa8" CreationDate="2019-02-16T23:02:03.497" UserId="11500" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18126" RevisionGUID="8c03b98f-df0c-42d2-9bdd-e9e126d7f62a" CreationDate="2019-02-17T08:28:16.280" UserId="10749" Comment="edited body" Text="Words ending with a soft sign can be either masculine (`коктейль, пень, лось, тюлень,` etc.) or feminine (`тень, дверь, мышь, боль, лень, печаль` etc.). They can't be neuter.&#xD;&#xA;There are some rules from what I understand, but there are too many exceptions, so really, you just memorize it. I'm not even sure it was explained in school.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that concepts and various phenomena are most likely to be feminine (`боль, лень, печаль`, etc). Animated objects, for example animals can go either way (`лось and тюлень` are masculine, but `мышь and рысь` are feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Бордель` and `отель` are masculine, I assume it's because they are masculine in original French.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that animate objects ending with 'тель' are masculine (`приятель, учитель, доверитель, поджигатель,` etc.), but other words with 'тель' can go either way `(двигатель, отражатель` - masculine, but `метель` is feminine). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Kamchatka there's a river called `Парень`, with stress on 'е'. That name is feminine, but the word `парень` is obviously masculine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18132" RevisionGUID="e7cd2184-b6e5-4db0-a785-7138cf585de5" CreationDate="2019-02-17T09:01:27.967" UserId="5008" Text="As @MikeHas noted, this is probably&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Запри скафандр - Zapri scaphan[dre] - Lock (your) space-suit up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I doubt if that could have some relation to Heinlein or such. For me, it sounds just like a very rare saying of surprise (so rare, I admit I never heard this one before)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18133" RevisionGUID="c6c61969-1cf9-4652-82a1-4dddb0ff6896" CreationDate="2019-02-17T09:03:15.870" UserId="11080" Text="As far as at that time it was not so typical to use obscene language in public,and, on the other hand, we can use any **phrase deprived of its lexical meaning** as an euphemism to show surprise, anger or pleasuse, it can be whatever you want. I like the version with **&quot;Запри скафандр&quot;** by @Mike Has, but we can't say for sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grandmother used **&quot;Забодай тебя комар!&quot;**, which means &quot;Let a moscito gore you&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can say **&quot;японский городовой!&quot;**, **&quot;твою дивизию!&quot;**, and many other semi-decent phrases implying a more swearing phrase, as they are parallel in construction and have sound similarities with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But folk non-obscene expressive phrases like **&quot;забодай [тебя] комар&quot;** can be used even in a group where children are present. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18130" RevisionGUID="e66391c8-a8c3-4fe9-b2c0-4b688f927ae3" CreationDate="2019-02-17T18:42:44.440" UserId="11500" Comment="Pronunciation guide added." Text="Back in the seventies (before the revolution) I worked in Iran and one of my contacts was a radiographer who was partly Russian. He had the habit of shouting &quot;Zapriski Fang&quot; as an indication of surprise, anger or pleasure. He refused to tell us what it meant (&quot;It's Russian&quot; was all he would say). Of course my transliteration and/or 40-year memory may be incorrect. The local language was Farsi and we used English for mutual communication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have long wondered what it meant and today I googled/duckduckgoed it (go ahead, I saw nothing dangerous). I got zero meaningful text results but loads of images where I can see no pattern whatever. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is (or was) Zapriski Fang? And what are all the images?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: the pronunciation was roughly to rhyme with &quot;a whisky bang&quot; or &quot;the frisky gang&quot;, with the stress on the second syllable. Other staff (doctors, nurses) would have heard him and did not react, so it is unlikely to have been a Farsi or local-dialect obscenity.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48713" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="1ccb6b65-e096-4927-af0e-9bcdf08fe54d" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:31:00.393" UserId="242" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4560,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nikolay Ershov&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10999,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ivan Olshansky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18134" RevisionGUID="84851b1a-c890-4746-ac46-e63242a90251" CreationDate="2019-02-17T20:57:40.757" UserId="2104" Text="The hard sign and the soft sign (Ъ and Ь) are neither consonants nor vowels; they are categorized as 'signs' (знаки).&#xA;&#xA;There are no words in modern Russian that end in a hard sign.&#xA;&#xA;There are rules that one can use to assign the correct gender to 75% of all words ending in the soft sign and they are described in [this answer][1]. However, коктейль belongs to the 25% that you will have to memorize (or develop a hunch for).&#xA;&#xA;Коктейль is masculine:&#xA;&#xA;* Один коктейль, пожалуйста! &#xA;&#xA;А лучше два коктейля! :)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/14641/2104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18086" RevisionGUID="d01d8d16-22bf-46ab-924b-c585558f75b1" CreationDate="2019-02-18T07:15:02.563" UserId="6539" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We use человек after **numerals** and we use людей after a **noun** which looks like a number. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Сто человек, but сотня/сотни людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So after десяток, сотня, сотни, тысячи, миллионы (without mentioning how many) use only людей.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; If there's an adjective between the numeral and the noun , you should use людей &#xD;&#xA;&gt;пять незнакомых людей &#xD;&#xA;So it's a bit more complicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18136" RevisionGUID="843d3472-5be2-42b0-8afa-ec9088243a70" CreationDate="2019-02-19T06:32:44.873" UserId="5584" Text="Почему мы читаем романы [Фёдора Достоевского][1], но читаем стихи [Чарльза Буковски][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%A4%D1%91%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8,_%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48721" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18136" RevisionGUID="843d3472-5be2-42b0-8afa-ec9088243a70" CreationDate="2019-02-19T06:32:44.873" UserId="5584" Text="Почему Фёдор Достоевский, но Чарльз Буковски?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48722" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18136" RevisionGUID="843d3472-5be2-42b0-8afa-ec9088243a70" CreationDate="2019-02-19T06:32:44.873" UserId="5584" Text="|падежи|выбор-имени|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18137" RevisionGUID="245dbd9c-3791-48a7-aa31-0326995f2e72" CreationDate="2019-02-19T07:04:19.690" UserId="11080" Text="Потому что Буковски - это иностранная фамилия, и ее склонять по русским правилам не принято. Нет русских фамилий на -и, которые бы склонялись в единственном числе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А Достоевский - русский писатель с русской фамилией, которую мы склоняем. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18137" RevisionGUID="2b4aa0bb-c6ca-403a-9c1d-060e5cc3845b" CreationDate="2019-02-19T07:13:15.427" UserId="11080" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="Потому что Буковски - это иностранная фамилия, и ее склонять по русским правилам не принято. Нет русских фамилий на -и, которые бы склонялись в единственном числе. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А Достоевский - русский писатель с русской фамилией, которую мы склоняем. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Как Дарвин - с Дарвином, но Ленин - с Лениным. Разные правила для иностранных и русских фамилий. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18138" RevisionGUID="2a36ba0c-045e-47e9-bfa4-c93e382b680e" CreationDate="2019-02-19T09:12:33.517" UserId="5443" Text="Транскрипция только **польских** фамилий даёт в русском варианте &quot;-ий&quot;, и если это делается *через английский* язык, то в случаях, когда польское происхождение носителя фамилии хорошо известно, например Збигнев Бжезинский.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Польско-русская_практическая_транскрипция&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В нашем же случае автор (по википедии) - *немецкого* происхождения." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18139" RevisionGUID="4bdc6b92-51ea-4f3c-8604-e80cb97da2d5" CreationDate="2019-02-19T09:42:51.313" UserId="6550" Text="Verb prefixes are a complex topic in the Russian language, something like phrasal verbs for those learning English. I have encountered a number of words recently with two prefixes and I was wondering what native speakers have to say about their formation.&#xD;&#xA;I heard the first example from the director of the `кафедра` at the university I work at. She was after someone for their paperwork and she said something like: &lt;blockquote&gt; Я немножко **понаеду** на него.&lt;/blockquote&gt; Recently, reading through some of Bulat Okudzhava's poems/songs, I encountered the following verse in the poem `Ах, Надя, Наденька` &lt;blockquote&gt; Ах, Надя, брось коней кнутом нащелкивать &lt;br&gt; **попридержи**-ка их, поговорим. &lt;/blockquote&gt; These two examples struck me for their interesting combination of two prefixes. At least in the Okudzhava verse, it seems like the combination of **по** and **при** is even somewhat redundant. I was hoping native speakers could comment on this observation, is it generally acceptable to attach **по** to prefixed verbs? If I had to attempt such a formation I might try the following: &lt;blockquote&gt; Понакоплю денег, поеду в Китай.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, out of pure curiosity, are there any other prefixes which might work like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18139" RevisionGUID="4bdc6b92-51ea-4f3c-8604-e80cb97da2d5" CreationDate="2019-02-19T09:42:51.313" UserId="6550" Text="Forming Words with Two Prefixes - по + приставка" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18139" RevisionGUID="4bdc6b92-51ea-4f3c-8604-e80cb97da2d5" CreationDate="2019-02-19T09:42:51.313" UserId="6550" Text="|приставки|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="b54669ce-f4c1-43ff-8ff4-0435a5964d8e" CreationDate="2019-02-19T11:32:31.863" UserId="7674" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixed are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically be a mark of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or softens the imperative **придержи** along with the particle **-ка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18141" RevisionGUID="d4e67700-541a-4c24-9d93-a9d1479eac9b" CreationDate="2019-02-19T11:38:12.677" UserId="11055" Text="&quot;...is it generally acceptable to attach по to prefixed verbs?..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is it depends. `попридержи` sounds very natural to me (at least in the context of the cited poem). Here are more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; попридержи язык (hold your tongue), попридержи лошадей (hold your horses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say `придержи язык` and `придержи лошадей` to mean the same thing. `По` makes it all sound more urgent, imperative, emphatic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`По` is not a &quot;universal&quot; prefix. There is no such thing, I think. For example, I wouldn't say `Понакоплю денег, поеду в Китай.` I'd rather say `поднакоплю денег, поеду в Китай`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я немножко понаеду на него.&quot; To be honest, I don't quite understand what she meant by this. There is the slang phrase `наезжать на кого-то`, but `понаезжать на кого-то` sounds awkward to me. But `не наезжай на меня` (lighten up on me, give me a break) is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...are there any other prefixes which might work like this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - понаехали тут&#xD;&#xA; - недоперепил *(crazy, I know)*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - что-то я сегодня наперепроверялся сочинений!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need help with any of the examples above, please let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="a5d11e0a-1b1a-43dc-9607-a26b63a45773" CreationDate="2019-02-19T11:44:50.907" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically be a mark of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or softens the imperative **придержи** along with the particle **-ка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18141" RevisionGUID="90f8ba2a-9f7c-4b5f-9c5a-670d61b31997" CreationDate="2019-02-19T11:48:39.590" UserId="11055" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="&quot;...is it generally acceptable to attach по to prefixed verbs?..&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is it depends. `попридержи` sounds very natural to me (at least in the context of the cited poem). Here are more examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; попридержи язык (hold your tongue), попридержи лошадей (hold your horses)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can say `придержи язык` and `придержи лошадей` to mean the same thing. `По` makes it all sound more urgent, imperative, emphatic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`По` is not a &quot;universal&quot; prefix. There is no such thing, I think. For example, I wouldn't say `Понакоплю денег, поеду в Китай.` I'd rather say `поднакоплю денег, поеду в Китай`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Я немножко понаеду на него.&quot; To be honest, I don't quite understand what she meant by this. There is the slang phrase `наезжать на кого-то`, but `понаезжать на кого-то` sounds awkward to me. But `не наезжай на меня` (lighten up on me, give me a break) is OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...are there any other prefixes which might work like this?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - недоперепил *(crazy, I know)*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - что-то я сегодня наперепроверялся сочинений!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need help with any of the examples above, please let me know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18142" RevisionGUID="bb075efa-e19e-44fb-8531-3c884edd00d1" CreationDate="2019-02-19T12:25:00.583" UserId="5443" Text="The *first* sentence doesn't sound Russian. &#xD;&#xA;The verb **понаехать** is about *people* (**not** a single person) who've come (приехали) to some place (e. g. to dwell there) in big numbers (**на**ехали) while doing that gradually (**по**наехали - **по**степенно **на**ехали в большом количестве). That sentence would only make sense with the single-prefixed verb **наеду** (на него) which informally (**наехать** на кого-л.) can have the meaning *'**to confront** someone (with something)'*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the *second* example, the verb usage is correct. The **при-** prefix adds something like '*slightly*' and the по- prefix adds something like '*for a while*' to the sense of the verb **(у)держать**. However, it doesn't mean that those prefixes work *exactly* so or that you can use them to invent new verbs (it's not a good idea).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *third* example sounds wrong: the verb should be ***под**накоплю*. The subtle meaning of the **под-** prefix (literally, '*under*') here can be thought of as reaching some amount of money while staying below/*under* the desired numbers in the process of reaching it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="f0365772-339d-4ab9-a60b-0a00a62d9cdc" CreationDate="2019-02-19T12:27:43.030" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically enough be a mark of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or softens the imperative **придержи** along with the particle **-ка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="07de0873-6a69-4b78-9b87-13194d1244e3" CreationDate="2019-02-19T12:51:18.023" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically enough be a mark of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or softens the imperative **придержи** along with the particle **-ка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the answers of other contributors **понакопить** is attested in literature even though in written sources it generally occurs very seldom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф.Ф. Вигель [«Записки» (1830 г.)](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=YtInDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT270&amp;lpg=PT270&amp;dq=понакопил) том 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он **понакопил** несколько денег, то взялся за ум, то есть принялся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за торговлю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В.Т. Нарежный [«Российский Жилблаз, или Похождения князя Гаврилы Симоновича Чистякова»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=jSaiAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT322&amp;lpg=PT322&amp;dq=понакопил) (1813 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проживши в Туле более десяти лет, я **понакопил** кое-чего, и решился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; провести остаток жизни с тобою и твоею дочерью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ник Перумов, Дарья Зарубина [«Верное слово»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=j0VqCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=понакопил) (2016 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За тот фронтовой должок Игорь так и не расчитался, - их развела война,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его на Первый Украинский, её на Первый Белорусский - зато **понакопил**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новых во время учёбы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In quotations 2 and 3 **понакопил** cannot be replaced with **поднакопил** since in them the connotation of the verb in question is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**поднакопить** = to save a little, **понакопить** = to save little by little, in increments over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48739" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="17916" RevisionGUID="e00c0db3-4bcd-4db7-9fc5-e1a7776ba127" CreationDate="2019-02-19T13:02:30.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="48740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="d568491a-9708-4b18-a30e-227f95fe29f7" CreationDate="2019-02-19T15:59:31.860" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically enough be a marker of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or, along with the particle **-ка**, softens the imperative **придержи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the answers of other contributors **понакопить** is attested in literature even though in written sources it generally occurs very seldom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф.Ф. Вигель [«Записки» (1830 г.)](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=YtInDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT270&amp;lpg=PT270&amp;dq=понакопил) том 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он **понакопил** несколько денег, то взялся за ум, то есть принялся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за торговлю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В.Т. Нарежный [«Российский Жилблаз, или Похождения князя Гаврилы Симоновича Чистякова»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=jSaiAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT322&amp;lpg=PT322&amp;dq=понакопил) (1813 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проживши в Туле более десяти лет, я **понакопил** кое-чего, и решился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; провести остаток жизни с тобою и твоею дочерью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ник Перумов, Дарья Зарубина [«Верное слово»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=j0VqCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=понакопил) (2016 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За тот фронтовой должок Игорь так и не расчитался, - их развела война,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его на Первый Украинский, её на Первый Белорусский - зато **понакопил**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новых во время учёбы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In quotations 2 and 3 **понакопил** cannot be replaced with **поднакопил** since in them the connotation of the verb in question is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**поднакопить** = to save a little, **понакопить** = to save little by little, in increments over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18143" RevisionGUID="ff4c062b-8d5a-43b1-8a63-f058c9dcb8b0" CreationDate="2019-02-19T17:08:20.193" UserId="4560" Text="Общая установка на то, что иностранные фамилии остаются иностранными, даже когда они морфологически прозрачны в силу происхождения из родственных славянских языков (или даже русского). Бывала и противоположная традиция, когда не имеющий никакой славянской этимологии силач Eugene Sandow дотягивался до «Евгения Сандова», но мы живем при устоявшихся в советское время академических нормах, и если они и меняются, то в сторону еще большей «неприкосновенности» иностранных фамилий." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18143" RevisionGUID="ec3893bf-32de-4b5c-9e8f-87a37260af54" CreationDate="2019-02-19T17:17:12.753" UserId="4560" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="Общая установка на то, что иностранные фамилии остаются иностранными, даже когда они морфологически прозрачны в силу происхождения из родственных славянских языков (или даже русского). Бывала и противоположная традиция, когда не имеющий никакой славянской этимологии* силач Eugene Sandow дотягивался до «Евгения Сандова», но мы живем при устоявшихся в советское время академических нормах, и если они и меняются, то в сторону еще большей «неприкосновенности» иностранных фамилий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____&#xD;&#xA;*или, возможно, отдаленную западнославянскую через немецкий топоним Sandau, но вряд ли дореволюционные «локализаторы» заходили так глубоко." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48743" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18139" RevisionGUID="ffd578b2-fb14-4831-a1f2-ce4b8d6ec358" CreationDate="2019-02-19T18:01:02.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1097919001446023168" />
  <row Id="48744" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18128" RevisionGUID="39f35266-80f7-4fda-981a-7e55a9da9a63" CreationDate="2019-02-19T21:00:30.610" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1097964164549697542" />
  <row Id="48745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="556cdd0f-368b-431a-8d36-4ff1b0809ebf" CreationDate="2019-02-19T22:24:09.593" UserId="7674" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically enough be a marker of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb. Just like the case is with the almost completely obsolete verb form of habitual action *сиживать, хаживать, едать, пивать, видывать, говаривать* etc. or another soon-to-be obsolete form of intermittent action *поделывать, пописывать, послушивать, посматривать, почитывать* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or, along with the particle **-ка**, softens the imperative **придержи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the answers of other contributors **понакопить** is attested in literature even though in written sources it generally occurs very seldom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф.Ф. Вигель [«Записки» (1830 г.)](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=YtInDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT270&amp;lpg=PT270&amp;dq=понакопил) том 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он **понакопил** несколько денег, то взялся за ум, то есть принялся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за торговлю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В.Т. Нарежный [«Российский Жилблаз, или Похождения князя Гаврилы Симоновича Чистякова»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=jSaiAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT322&amp;lpg=PT322&amp;dq=понакопил) (1813 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проживши в Туле более десяти лет, я **понакопил** кое-чего, и решился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; провести остаток жизни с тобою и твоею дочерью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ник Перумов, Дарья Зарубина [«Верное слово»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=j0VqCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=понакопил) (2016 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За тот фронтовой должок Игорь так и не расчитался, - их развела война,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его на Первый Украинский, её на Первый Белорусский - зато **понакопил**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новых во время учёбы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In quotations 2 and 3 **понакопил** cannot be replaced with **поднакопил** since in them the connotation of the verb in question is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**поднакопить** = to save a little, **понакопить** = to save little by little, in increments over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="783ec899-d774-4a9f-a943-1b51f6697646" CreationDate="2019-02-20T07:22:49.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically enough be a marker of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb. Just like the case is with the almost completely obsolete verb form of habitual action *сиживать, хаживать, едать, пивать, видывать, говаривать* etc. or another soon-to-be obsolete form of intermittent/small scale action *поделывать, пописывать, послушивать, посматривать, почитывать* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or, along with the particle **-ка**, softens the imperative **придержи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the answers of other contributors **понакопить** is attested in literature even though in written sources it generally occurs very seldom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф.Ф. Вигель [«Записки» (1830 г.)](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=YtInDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT270&amp;lpg=PT270&amp;dq=понакопил) том 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он **понакопил** несколько денег, то взялся за ум, то есть принялся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за торговлю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В.Т. Нарежный [«Российский Жилблаз, или Похождения князя Гаврилы Симоновича Чистякова»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=jSaiAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT322&amp;lpg=PT322&amp;dq=понакопил) (1813 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проживши в Туле более десяти лет, я **понакопил** кое-чего, и решился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; провести остаток жизни с тобою и твоею дочерью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ник Перумов, Дарья Зарубина [«Верное слово»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=j0VqCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=понакопил) (2016 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За тот фронтовой должок Игорь так и не расчитался, - их развела война,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его на Первый Украинский, её на Первый Белорусский - зато **понакопил**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новых во время учёбы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In quotations 2 and 3 **понакопил** cannot be replaced with **поднакопил** since in them the connotation of the verb in question is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**поднакопить** = to save a little, **понакопить** = to save little by little, in increments over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18144" RevisionGUID="e3e087f1-38f5-40c6-bcd1-a8021a8f9cb3" CreationDate="2019-02-20T10:16:48.077" UserId="11512" Text="Я немножко понаеду на него - people don't talk like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ах, Надя, брось коней кнутом нащелкивать&#xD;&#xA;**попридержи**-ка их, поговорим&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Like a:&#xD;&#xA;- let's just slow down on the honesty part&#xD;&#xA;- ... to slow down a bit&#xD;&#xA;(not to stop completely)&#xD;&#xA;По - &quot;on the honesty part&quot; or &quot;a bit&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Понакоплю денег, поеду в Китай&quot; - people don't talk like that.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe &quot;По**Д**накоплю денег, поеду в Китай&quot; - to save a little." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18146" RevisionGUID="4e0d38bf-8727-4e77-a6ae-3f94a8447b02" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:24:51.070" UserId="11051" Text="What is the best Russian translation fo word Nest in technical context ? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; f[x] applies f to x. f[f[x]] applies f to f[x], or effectively nests the application of f. It’s common to want to repeat or nest a function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This simple term, NEST, has not exact amping in Russian as it seems. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18146" RevisionGUID="4e0d38bf-8727-4e77-a6ae-3f94a8447b02" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:24:51.070" UserId="11051" Text="What is the best Russian translation fo word Nest in technical context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18146" RevisionGUID="4e0d38bf-8727-4e77-a6ae-3f94a8447b02" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:24:51.070" UserId="11051" Text="|перевод|транслитерация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18140" RevisionGUID="27e45eab-6c02-49cd-a3a1-abdab9c5fdbf" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:25:03.717" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In principle it can be added on top of any prefixed verb. But in practice it seems some specific prefixes are more likely to be augmented with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand it appears to be a feature of vernacular and language of commoners but on the other it's not to my observation very current in speech of urban residents. I guess it's a phenomenon which gradually obsolesces and nowadays could paradoxically enough be a marker of an educated person who's aware of semantic nuances such addition imparts a verb. Just like the case is with the almost completely obsolete verb model of habitual action *сиживать, хаживать, едать, пивать, видывать, говаривать* etc. or another soon-to-be obsolete model of intermittent/small scale action *поделывать, пописывать, послушивать, посматривать, почитывать* etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Okudzhava's verse it's not redundant because it either imparts a connotation of the adverb 'a little' or, along with the particle **-ка**, softens the imperative **придержи**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your attempt is totally legit. I believe you understand the nuance in the meaning of the new verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the answers of other contributors **понакопить** is attested in literature even though in written sources it generally occurs very seldom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ф.Ф. Вигель [«Записки» (1830 г.)](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=YtInDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT270&amp;lpg=PT270&amp;dq=понакопил) том 2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда он **понакопил** несколько денег, то взялся за ум, то есть принялся&#xD;&#xA;&gt; за торговлю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В.Т. Нарежный [«Российский Жилблаз, или Похождения князя Гаврилы Симоновича Чистякова»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=jSaiAAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT322&amp;lpg=PT322&amp;dq=понакопил) (1813 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Проживши в Туле более десяти лет, я **понакопил** кое-чего, и решился&#xD;&#xA;&gt; провести остаток жизни с тобою и твоею дочерью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ник Перумов, Дарья Зарубина [«Верное слово»](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=j0VqCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT8&amp;lpg=PT8&amp;dq=понакопил) (2016 г.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; За тот фронтовой должок Игорь так и не расчитался, - их развела война,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; его на Первый Украинский, её на Первый Белорусский - зато **понакопил**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; новых во время учёбы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In quotations 2 and 3 **понакопил** cannot be replaced with **поднакопил** since in them the connotation of the verb in question is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**поднакопить** = to save a little, **понакопить** = to save little by little, in increments over time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18147" RevisionGUID="180e685d-b9e4-47da-b3b0-325dd000df99" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:37:25.707" UserId="2104" Text="* Композиция функций&#xA;* Вложенная / внутренняя функция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18147" RevisionGUID="007fe70b-f38d-414a-b2c7-62818f7d96be" CreationDate="2019-02-21T07:22:22.897" UserId="2104" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Here's some language used to describe function nesting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Композиция функций&#xD;&#xA;* Вложенная / внутренняя функция" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="d4b338d3-7d2c-47a1-8b4f-b46f5112f0e5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:42:01.283" UserId="6907" Text="What's the function of the word &quot;ли&quot; in the following contexts? I came across of this word in many sentences in  and I really don't understand it and where I have to put it. Is there equivalent in English?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть **ли** у вас дети? (Have you got any children?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Могу **ли** я пригласить вас на обед? (May I invite you to lunch?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="d4b338d3-7d2c-47a1-8b4f-b46f5112f0e5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:42:01.283" UserId="6907" Text="What's the function of the word &quot;ли&quot; in the following contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="d4b338d3-7d2c-47a1-8b4f-b46f5112f0e5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:42:01.283" UserId="6907" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="0f69e665-c520-4c8b-8bb1-7fc8b6b8d5df" CreationDate="2019-02-21T22:48:01.187" UserId="6907" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="What's the function of the word &quot;ли&quot; in the following contexts? I came across of this word in many sentences in a conversation book, and I really don't understand it and where I have to put it. Is there equivalent in English?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Есть **ли** у вас дети? (Have you got any children?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Могу **ли** я пригласить вас на обед? (May I invite you to lunch?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18151" RevisionGUID="fd764d52-4f95-4856-8d4d-da9bd545bfaa" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:29:14.577" UserId="11517" Text="Ли shows the intonation of the verb when the question starts with it. These questions mean the same, just the stress on the first word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас есть дети? - Есть ли у вас дети?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я могу пригласить вас на обед? - Могу ли я пригласить вас на обед? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18151" RevisionGUID="17b6406c-95fb-4782-b8ad-07895ab42fd6" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:36:05.107" UserId="11517" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Ли shows the intonation of the verb when the question starts with it. These questions mean the same, just the stress on the first word:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;У вас есть дети?&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли у вас дети?&#xD;&#xA;(А) Дети у вас есть? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я могу пригласить вас на обед?&#xD;&#xA;Могу ли я пригласить вас на обед?&#xD;&#xA;Вас я могу пригласить на обед?&#xD;&#xA;На обед я могу вас пригласить? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="db9b9b47-f663-4119-b9e1-b7c0def56187" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:37:19.197" UserId="6907" Text="Which preposition is correct to put in the following sentence if I want to ask a person to admit on a mistake that he did.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ти должен допускат **про /На /за** ето.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="db9b9b47-f663-4119-b9e1-b7c0def56187" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:37:19.197" UserId="6907" Text="Which preposition matched to this context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="db9b9b47-f663-4119-b9e1-b7c0def56187" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:37:19.197" UserId="6907" Text="|предлоги|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48777" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18152" RevisionGUID="d72bfc17-98ce-4c78-a998-2ddf4d989b38" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:42:30.027" UserId="134" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18153" RevisionGUID="5a2f36f4-7d39-47de-aea5-363cf99cee5a" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:50:46.567" UserId="11517" Text="Ты должен признать свою ошибку (это) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Тебе следует признать свою ошибку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ты не должен допускать ошибок - you shouldn't make mistakes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я допускаю, что ты не заметил эту ошибку - I admit that you didn't notice this mistake&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18154" RevisionGUID="85940dc7-6796-419e-b8b1-4d88834e7e40" CreationDate="2019-02-21T23:55:17.493" UserId="134" Text="*Ли* is an [interrogative particle][1]. It's a function word which you add to the sentences when asking questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's compulsory in indirect polar questions (the questions answerable with yes or no) in Russian, similar to &quot;if&quot; or &quot;whether&quot; in indirect polar questions in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я спросил, есть ли у него дети // I asked him if he had kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, but in Russian, unlike English, it may be used in direct polar questions as well, as it is in your examples, if your question starts with a verb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogative_word" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="6e60746e-94b7-40bd-a162-9f216c38e48c" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:04:13.077" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48785" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7692" RevisionGUID="6e60746e-94b7-40bd-a162-9f216c38e48c" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:04:13.077" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 10999 edit id of 2016" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48786" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a7e02902-7daf-4d74-a57a-ae156bb41624" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:05:16.120" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|словоупотребление|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48787" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a7e02902-7daf-4d74-a57a-ae156bb41624" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:05:16.120" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 10999 edit id of 2015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="8548df19-c0e5-4ad8-bef3-74c7e7984662" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:15:47.373" UserId="11520" Text="I am trying to fully understand these words in English language (I know this is a Russian stackexchange site but I think this is a proper place to ask this question). So in Russian you can say:&#xD;&#xA;- Я должен сделать что-то (I must? Should?)&#xD;&#xA;- Мне нужно сделать что-то (I need?)&#xD;&#xA;- Я обязан сделать что-то&#xD;&#xA;- Мне необходимо сделать что-то&#xD;&#xA;- Мне следует сделать что-то (should?)&#xD;&#xA;And I am not quete sure what english words I need to use for this situations and also if they are directly translatable (as must is always = должен?). Appreciate any feedback and clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="8548df19-c0e5-4ad8-bef3-74c7e7984662" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:15:47.373" UserId="11520" Text="What is a Russian equivalents of &quot;must&quot;, &quot;need&quot;, &quot;should&quot; and &quot;have to&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="8548df19-c0e5-4ad8-bef3-74c7e7984662" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:15:47.373" UserId="11520" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="1602e491-c587-46d2-b120-dc0646b32d09" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:27:34.767" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I am trying to fully understand these words in English language (I know this is a Russian stackexchange site but I think this is a proper place to ask this question). So in Russian you can say:&#xD;&#xA;- Я должен сделать что-то (I must? Should?)&#xD;&#xA;- Мне нужно сделать что-то (I need?)&#xD;&#xA;- Я обязан сделать что-то&#xD;&#xA;- Мне необходимо сделать что-то&#xD;&#xA;- Мне следует сделать что-то (should?)&#xD;&#xA;And I am not qu**i**te sure what **E**nglish words I need to use for th**ese** situations and also if they are directly translatable (as must is always = должен?). Appreciate any feedback and clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48792" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="1602e491-c587-46d2-b120-dc0646b32d09" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:27:34.767" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="What are Russian equivalents of &quot;must&quot;, &quot;need&quot;, &quot;should&quot; and &quot;have to&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18157" RevisionGUID="abc8fec2-73d3-46dc-adc1-3ded67dfb2d9" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:41:21.460" UserId="7674" Text="The topic is too vast to cover it here. The simplistic answer would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`must`** = обязан / должно быть  &#xD;&#xA;**`need`** = нужно / необходимо  &#xD;&#xA;**`should`** = следует / следовало бы   &#xD;&#xA;**`have to`** = должен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often **`must`** and **`have to`** would be synonymous if applied to oneself as in **I must go = I have to go**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also nowadays rarely used **`ought to`** which i believe is mostly synonymous with  **`should`**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18157" RevisionGUID="694d3d46-92bc-4522-b1db-de55b1c8b898" CreationDate="2019-02-23T07:48:04.480" UserId="7674" Comment="added 412 characters in body" Text="The topic is too vast to cover it here. The simplistic answer would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`must`** = обязан / должно быть  &#xD;&#xA;**`need`** = нужно / надо / необходимо  &#xD;&#xA;**`should`** = следует / следовало бы   &#xD;&#xA;**`have to`** = должен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often **`must`** and **`have to`** would be synonymous if applied to oneself as in **I must go = I have to go** and mean **`должен`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also nowadays rarely used **`ought to`** which i believe is mostly synonymous with  **`should`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also in many cases there could not be a one on one or consistent translation of the same modal word because their use cases in two language may differ. The more idiomatic translation of the above mentioned **I must go = I have to go** into Russian in my opinion would be **`мне нужно/надо идти`** rather than **`я должен идти`**, despite the use of **must/have to** in the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="4ef27384-19b3-4692-9a7c-16695eb5af28" CreationDate="2019-02-23T13:13:23.297" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting" Text="I am trying to fully understand these words in English language (I know this is a Russian Stack Exchange site but I think this is a proper place to ask this question). So in Russian you can say:&#xD;&#xA;- Я должен сделать что-то (I must? Should?)&#xD;&#xA;- Мне нужно сделать что-то (I need?)&#xD;&#xA;- Я обязан сделать что-то&#xD;&#xA;- Мне необходимо сделать что-то&#xD;&#xA;- Мне следует сделать что-то (should?)&#xD;&#xA;And I am not quite sure what English words I need to use for these situations and also if they are directly translatable (as must is always = должен?). Appreciate any feedback and clarification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48796" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18156" RevisionGUID="4ef27384-19b3-4692-9a7c-16695eb5af28" CreationDate="2019-02-23T13:13:23.297" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 10999 edit id of 2017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18157" RevisionGUID="52db7e67-f06e-4a45-b03f-726154514c1a" CreationDate="2019-02-23T13:32:09.760" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The topic is too vast to cover it here. The simplistic answer would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`must`** = обязан / должно быть  &#xD;&#xA;**`need`** = нужно / надо / необходимо  &#xD;&#xA;**`should`** = следует / следовало бы   &#xD;&#xA;**`have to`** = должен&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often **`must`** and **`have to`** would be synonymous if applied to oneself as in **I must go = I have to go** and mean **`должен`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also nowadays rarely used **`ought to`** which i believe is mostly synonymous with  **`should`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also often there won't be a one to one or consistent translation of the modal words because their use cases in two languages may differ. The more idiomatic translation of the above mentioned **I must go = I have to go** into Russian in my opinion would be **`мне нужно/надо идти`** rather than **`я должен идти`**, despite the use of **must/have to** in the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="8d514ba2-e2cf-489c-83aa-80cff82b5ff6" CreationDate="2019-02-23T13:52:25.850" UserId="6907" Text="What's the difference between вернуться and вернусь? &#xD;&#xA;Many times I'm confused between these two.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm coming back home.  Я **вернуться** / **вернусь** домой. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="8d514ba2-e2cf-489c-83aa-80cff82b5ff6" CreationDate="2019-02-23T13:52:25.850" UserId="6907" Text="What's the difference between вернуться and вернусь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18158" RevisionGUID="8d514ba2-e2cf-489c-83aa-80cff82b5ff6" CreationDate="2019-02-23T13:52:25.850" UserId="6907" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18159" RevisionGUID="0a2c06fa-43dc-4357-815e-93791acd0b92" CreationDate="2019-02-23T14:49:43.803" UserId="6539" Text="Вернуться is an infinitive &quot; to return,to come back&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он улетел, но обещал вернуться (He has flown away, but promised to return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вернусь is a future tense, first person,singular&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я вернусь домой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48802" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18150" RevisionGUID="861cc7d4-9807-46fd-b7fe-a031b1dff90c" CreationDate="2019-02-24T09:00:18.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1099594860875730944" />
  <row Id="48803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="37bf3de2-50ae-4c25-aafe-ae8bca3f4cef" CreationDate="2019-02-24T12:57:21.323" UserId="11522" Text="I understand that these three expressions are an invitation to do something or go somewhere. I would use “давай” as in “come on” or “come with me”. “поехали” and ”пойдём” would be more like “let’s go”, but I think it’s a bit too simplistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case either of these expressions would be preferred over the other, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What words must we use with each expression (e.g. must be followed by a verb or must be followed by a location)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="37bf3de2-50ae-4c25-aafe-ae8bca3f4cef" CreationDate="2019-02-24T12:57:21.323" UserId="11522" Text="When to use поехали, давай or пойдём?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="37bf3de2-50ae-4c25-aafe-ae8bca3f4cef" CreationDate="2019-02-24T12:57:21.323" UserId="11522" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18161" RevisionGUID="115b7a04-4dcb-4ae2-a00b-5ae3d951db57" CreationDate="2019-02-24T14:15:35.517" UserId="4620" Text="«Давай» is more like &quot;let's&quot;, it's not used today without another verb: «давай пойдём» — &quot;let's go&quot;, «давай поговорим» — &quot;let's talk&quot; etc. It can be also used as a phrase itself, roughly like &quot;sure&quot;: «Поужинаем вместе? — Давай», &quot;Let's have dinner together? — Sure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Поехали» is more like &quot;go!&quot; (not necessarily about moving) and is usually used as a phrase: «Нужен мозговой штурм. Поехали!» — &quot;We need to brainstorm this. Go!&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Пойдём» is always about moving, and it's somewhat like &quot;let's go&quot;, like «Пойдём покурим» — &quot;let's go have a smoke&quot;, or «Пойдём в кино» — &quot;let's go to the movies&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="58018c97-c2d7-4ec7-9e0e-07cbf0384d31" CreationDate="2019-02-24T14:30:02.523" UserId="7674" Text="**Поехали** could be used colloquially in the sense of **пойдём**, regardless of the means of movement, like in **поехали в кино**, а more slangy version is **погнали**... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай** normally requires a verb, in some cases it could be used with adverbials of destination only, like in **давай на футбол**, **давай в магаз**. This latter construction along with **айда + *destination*** can be heard in informal conversations of youth in Soviet era movies, but in my lifetime and in my region it has been extremely rare, so it could sound somewhat artificial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="8111aee8-ddc6-4d6f-a009-cb304c6f458b" CreationDate="2019-02-24T14:35:26.037" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="**Поехали** could be used colloquially in the sense of **пойдём**, regardless of means of movement to be undertaken, like in **поехали в кино**, а slangier version is **погнали**... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай** normally requires a verb, in some cases it could be used with adverbials of destination only, like in **давай на футбол**, **давай в магаз**, **давай ко мне**. This latter construction along with **айда + *adverbial of destination*** can be heard in informal conversations of youth in Soviet era movies, but in my lifetime and in my region it has been extremely rare, so it could sound somewhat artificial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="f2b06a83-220e-44ed-96bb-0664187b0ac6" CreationDate="2019-02-24T14:41:29.873" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**Поехали** could be used colloquially in the sense of **пойдём**, regardless of means of movement to be undertaken, like in **поехали в кино**, а slangier version is **погнали**... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай** normally requires a verb, in some cases it could be used with adverbials of destination only, like in **давай на футбол**, **давай в магаз**, **давай ко мне**. This latter construction along with **айда + *adverbial of destination*** can be heard in informal conversations of youth in Soviet era movies, but in my lifetime and in my region it has been vanishingly rare, so it could sound somewhat artificial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="4259d3c3-c809-492d-8a20-1bbae5aa8935" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:00:42.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="**Поехали** could be used colloquially in the sense of **пойдём**, regardless of means of movement to be undertaken, like in **поехали в кино**, а slangier version is **погнали**... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай** normally requires a verb, in some cases it could be used with adverbials of destination only, like in **давай на футбол**, **давай в магаз**, **давай ко мне**. This latter construction along with **айда + *adverbial of destination*** can be heard in informal conversations of youth in Soviet era movies, but in my lifetime and in my region it has been vanishingly rare, so it could sound somewhat artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a standard colloquial construction for guiding movement towards certain direction **давай сюда / туда/ на|влево/левее /на|право/правее/ назад / прямо/на север/юг/восток/запад / вниз/ниже/ вверх/выше**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18133" RevisionGUID="6fb02de3-45ba-4af5-b8c3-bccc295fc714" CreationDate="2019-02-24T17:46:25.007" UserId="11080" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As far as at that time it was not so typical to use obscene language in public,and, on the other hand, we can use any **phrase deprived of its lexical meaning** as an euphemism to show surprise, anger or pleasuse, it can be whatever you want. I like the version with **&quot;Запри скафандр&quot;** by @Mike Has, but we can't say for sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grandmother used **&quot;Забодай тебя комар!&quot;**, which means &quot;Let a mosquito gore you&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can say **&quot;японский городовой!&quot;**, **&quot;твою дивизию!&quot;**, and many other semi-decent phrases implying a more swearing phrase, as they are parallel in construction and have sound similarities with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But folk non-obscene expressive phrases like **&quot;забодай [тебя] комар&quot;** can be used even in a group where children are present. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="b0f3a028-6ce0-4a5e-a9a8-a8e55e8efe23" CreationDate="2019-02-24T22:16:14.610" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**Поехали** could be used colloquially in the sense of **пойдём**, regardless of means of movement to be undertaken, like in **поехали в кино**, а slangier version is **погнали**... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай** normally requires a verb, in some cases it could be used with adverbials of destination only, like in **давай на футбол**, **давай в магаз**, **давай ко мне**. This construction along with **айда + *adverbial of destination*** can be heard in informal conversations of youth in Soviet era movies, but in my lifetime and in my region it has been vanishingly rare, so it could sound somewhat artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is though a standard colloquial construction for guiding a movement towards certain direction - **давай сюда / туда / на|влево/левее / на|вправо/правее / назад / прямо / на север/юг/восток/запад / вниз/ниже/ на|вверх/выше / ближе/дальше**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18146" RevisionGUID="f6574b18-0c1d-4ed9-b6f1-d7e616cab7b9" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:19:39.787" UserId="11051" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the best Russian translation fo word Nest in technical context ? For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; f[x] applies f to x. f[f[x]] applies f to f[x], or effectively nests the application of f. It’s common to want to repeat or nest a function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This simple term, NEST, has not exact analog in Russian as it seems. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18162" RevisionGUID="1b2b1280-462b-4dd8-920f-8727507867c7" CreationDate="2019-02-25T18:49:16.450" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Поехали** could be used colloquially in the sense of **пойдём**, regardless of means of movement to be undertaken, like in **поехали в кино**, а slangier version is **погнали**... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Давай** normally requires a verb, in some cases it could be used with adverbials of destination only, like in **давай на футбол**, **давай в магаз**, **давай ко мне**. This construction along with **айда + *adverbial of destination*** can be heard in informal conversations of youth in Soviet era movies, but in my lifetime and in my region it has been vanishingly rare, so it could sound somewhat artificial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is though a standard colloquial phrasing for guiding a movement towards certain direction - **давай сюда / туда / на|влево/левее / на|вправо/правее / назад / прямо / на север/юг/восток/запад / вниз/ниже/ на|вверх/выше / ближе/дальше**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="5deefcf3-daff-40d8-9d6f-7191d26b20b8" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:53:29.457" UserId="10593" Text="У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, чего в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can someone explain how is чего used here after the comma? what is its function? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48816" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="5deefcf3-daff-40d8-9d6f-7191d26b20b8" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:53:29.457" UserId="10593" Text="question about чего" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48817" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="5deefcf3-daff-40d8-9d6f-7191d26b20b8" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:53:29.457" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="f14cb95c-7d47-4787-bd3f-a4b8de30c39d" CreationDate="2019-02-26T12:22:43.593" UserId="7674" Text="**Чего** here refers to the subjects of the 1st clause (**энтузиазм и искренняя преданность**) and is an Accusative inflection form of the pronoun **что** because the verb **недостаёт** governs Accusative case (**кого?/чего?**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They exhibit enthusiasm and genuine commitment to their cause, **which**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire system lack so much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="723230fa-8425-4264-ad2b-0c04b1955f88" CreationDate="2019-02-26T12:30:56.090" UserId="7674" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="**Чего** here refers to the subject and the predicate of the 1st clause as a single unit (**есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность**) and is an Accusative inflection form of the pronoun **что** because the verb **недостаёт** governs Accusative case (**кого?/чего?**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **which**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire system lacks so much / **in which** the entire system is so deficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48820" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="8bb2814c-e774-4551-8fbe-a5b4337499cf" CreationDate="2019-02-26T12:35:39.890" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|subordinate-clause|complex-sentence|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="bec3a419-890b-4aec-a3af-cdf183dfaba2" CreationDate="2019-02-26T12:38:35.767" UserId="7674" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="**Чего** here refers to the subject and the predicate of the 1st clause as a single unit (**есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность**) and is an Accusative inflection form of the pronoun **что** because the verb **недостаёт** governs Accusative case (**кого?/чего?**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **which (is what)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire system lacks so much / **in which** the entire system is so deficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make subordinate clause only refer to the subject of the main clause the sentence can be rephrased to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **которых**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the actual complex sentence can also be turned into a compound sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **и этого**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **and this is what** the entire system lacks so much" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="95e3a6cf-9a34-4457-8702-998c3fddcd91" CreationDate="2019-02-26T13:36:47.303" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="**Чего** here refers to the subject and the predicate of the 1st clause as a single unit (**есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность**) and is an Genitive inflection form of the pronoun **что** because the verb **недостаёт** governs Genitive case (**кого?/чего?**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **which (is what)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire system lacks so much / **in which** the entire system is so deficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make subordinate clause only refer to the subject of the main clause the sentence can be rephrased to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **которых**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the actual complex sentence can also be turned into a compound sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **и этого**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **and this is what** the entire system lacks so much" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="d623af45-d630-43f4-b9cf-8398d2f6b355" CreationDate="2019-02-26T14:09:16.927" UserId="6097" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, чего в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone explain how is *&quot;чего&quot;* used here after the comma? what is its function? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48824" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="d623af45-d630-43f4-b9cf-8398d2f6b355" CreationDate="2019-02-26T14:09:16.927" UserId="6097" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="What is function of &quot;чего&quot; in this sentence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="510b267c-6109-4f41-a523-8f522706f365" CreationDate="2019-02-26T14:56:03.070" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Чего** here refers to the subject and the predicate of the 1st clause as a single unit (**есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность**) and is a Genitive inflection form of the pronoun **что** because the verb **недостаёт** governs Genitive case (**кого?/чего?**). Essentially it turns the main clause into the object of the verb **недостаёт** in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **which (is what)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire system lacks so much / **in which** the entire system is so deficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make subordinate clause only refer to the subject of the main clause the sentence can be rephrased to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **которых**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the actual complex sentence can also be turned into a compound sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **и этого**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **and this is what** the entire system lacks so much" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48826" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14698" RevisionGUID="3686ade3-d0c1-4a33-b047-a8b795934c21" CreationDate="2019-02-26T16:07:33.210" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48827" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14698" RevisionGUID="3686ade3-d0c1-4a33-b047-a8b795934c21" CreationDate="2019-02-26T16:07:33.210" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 9100 edit id of 2018" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18165" RevisionGUID="f8938dae-506e-4cb1-8849-f37345ec7fdd" CreationDate="2019-02-27T03:49:15.133" UserId="9100" Text="Путин: &quot;США сами все нарушают, а их сателлиты *аккуратно* им *подхрюкивают*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should that exactly mean? Are NATO leaders compared here pejoratively to disciplined swines due to their agreements with US those (the agreements/acceptance) he wants to criticize as unlawful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18165" RevisionGUID="f8938dae-506e-4cb1-8849-f37345ec7fdd" CreationDate="2019-02-27T03:49:15.133" UserId="9100" Text="What should be &quot;аккуратно подхрюкивать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18165" RevisionGUID="f8938dae-506e-4cb1-8849-f37345ec7fdd" CreationDate="2019-02-27T03:49:15.133" UserId="9100" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18166" RevisionGUID="6a105491-7238-416d-9a1b-def9c03385fe" CreationDate="2019-02-27T05:52:09.947" UserId="11533" Text="In this case аккуратно means carefully. &#xD;&#xA;And подхрюкивать means that NATO leaders is yes-men&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here oink-oink of swines compared to yes-yes(agreements of Nato leaders with US) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18167" RevisionGUID="8f00a0a6-dff4-4716-8db2-b0b1fa5ae6ef" CreationDate="2019-02-27T06:05:11.897" UserId="11533" Text="&quot;Да&quot; means &quot;and&quot; in this case. But its outdated form, now we usually don't use &quot;да&quot; in means of &quot;and&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48834" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="12d168d7-47fd-4cd9-9d81-118939581ab3" CreationDate="2019-02-27T10:48:01.243" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What does the word &quot;да&quot; mean in &quot;Иван да Марья&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18160" RevisionGUID="56649798-679f-4bcc-aa45-0fb92c408524" CreationDate="2019-02-27T11:09:23.380" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|глаголы-движения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="16233" RevisionGUID="50d3856e-cc73-4430-8ad6-7139de2c26f6" CreationDate="2019-02-27T11:10:04.903" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I unfortunately cannot tell anything about the diachronic aspect of their usage, but within a locality in specific cases one can use **идти** even when taking a ride to the destination. One such case i can think of is announcing one's destination when leaving home or reporting about a trip on return home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я иду в кино   &#xD;&#xA;Я пошёл к сватам   &#xD;&#xA;Я ушёл на работу  &#xD;&#xA;Я ходил на рынок&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which doesn't mean a person arrives/ed there solely on foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's basically analogous to usage of **to go** in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this doesn't work for destinations such as areas, in contrast to specific locations. One would't say ***Я пошёл в центр*** (downtown) unless one truly moves on foot. Likewise ***Я иду в новый район***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of moving somewhere outside of a locality always requires usage of **ехать**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48837" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18163" RevisionGUID="e28334fe-6eac-4c97-99ba-485e4b810c4b" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:00:02.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1100772551582720000" />
  <row Id="48838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="e8505966-bf87-4af8-8ab7-981b8f6a0dc9" CreationDate="2019-02-27T15:37:58.470" UserId="11535" Text="*У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **чего** в целом так недостаёт всей системе.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это стандартное сложноподчиненное предложение с **придаточным распространительно-присоединительным** (или просто присоединительным). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такие придаточные присоединяются союзным словом ЧТО в разных формах (или наречиями *почему, отчего, зачем*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союзное слово ЧТО (здесь в форме родительного падежа)  **частично или полностью вмещает в себя содержание главной части:** У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **чего** (этих качеств, то есть энтузиазма и преданности) так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Другие примеры:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Гусь потянул за верёвку, **отчего** раздался выстрел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я скоро буду в Петербурге, **о чём** уже писал.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дождь начинался и тут же переставал, **что** часто бывает осенью.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18168" RevisionGUID="a5b4d3d7-7d6e-4d30-9c37-4b9a7b2a3e93" CreationDate="2019-02-27T18:26:56.973" UserId="11535" Comment="added 689 characters in body" Text="*У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **чего** в целом так недостаёт всей системе.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Это стандартное сложноподчиненное предложение с **придаточным распространительно-присоединительным** (или просто присоединительным). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Такие придаточные присоединяются союзным словом ЧТО в разных формах (или наречиями *почему, отчего, зачем*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союзное слово ЧТО (здесь в форме родительного падежа)  **частично или полностью вмещает в себя содержание главной части:** У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **чего** (этих качеств, то есть энтузиазма и преданности) так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Другие примеры:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Гусь потянул за верёвку, **отчего** раздался выстрел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я скоро буду в Петербурге, **о чём** уже писал.	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Дождь начинался и тут же переставал, **что** часто бывает осенью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ДОПОЛНЕНИЕ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще один интересный вопрос: являются ли **синонимичными** следующие предложения?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) У них есть энтузиазм и преданность,  **чего** недостает системе.&#xD;&#xA;(2) У них есть  энтузиазм и преданность,  **которых** недостает системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На первый взгляд они похожи, но это не совсем так. Первое предложение — это **распространение и присоединение**, а второе предложение — это **распространение и определение**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В первом случае **зависимые** отношения выражены в меньшей степени, они ближе к однородным **сопоставительным**, а здесь речь идет именно **о сопоставлении** (они и система). Определительные отношения во втором предложении выражают сопоставление менее чётко.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18164" RevisionGUID="c14824e6-7120-4443-99bf-6f0e716cb8b6" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:02:23.387" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="**Чего** here refers to the subject and the predicate of the 1st clause as a single unit (**есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность**) and is a Genitive inflection form of the pronoun **что** because the verb **недостаёт** governs Genitive case (**кого?/чего?**). Essentially it turns the main clause into the object of the verb **недостаёт** in the subordinate clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **which (is what)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entire system has so little of / **in which** the entire system is so deficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make subordinate clause only refer to the subject of the main clause the sentence can be rephrased to read&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **которых**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the actual complex sentence can also be turned into a compound sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У них есть энтузиазм и искренняя преданность своему делу, **и этого**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; в целом так недостаёт всей системе.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They exhibit enthusiasm about and genuine commitment to their work, **and this is what** the entire system lacks so badly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18169" RevisionGUID="07704a6b-1e24-4eda-b425-162d40579737" CreationDate="2019-02-27T19:02:39.523" UserId="11535" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Общие положения**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. В повествовательном предложении нейтральной тональности (без логических ударений) **тоническое ударение действительно падает на конец фразы.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Стандартное предложение состоит из двух фраз, **восходящего и нисходящего тона** (повышение тона – пауза – понижение тона), например: *Завтра Утром // мы поедем в пАрк*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (Тоническое ударение может **смещаться с конца фразы** только при логическом выделении отдельных слов).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Немного иначе строится **вопросительное предложение,** например: *Мы завтра поедем в парк?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этом случае логическое ударение падает на то слово, к которому относится вопрос. (Логическое ударение – это тоническое ударение с дополнительным усилением голоса). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В приведенном предложении ударение может падать **на любое из четырех слов:** мы или кто? завтра или в другой день? поедем или не поедем? в парк или еще куда? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;После повышение тона на нужном слове голос остается на том же уровне, то есть не понижается в конце фразы (это отличительное свойство **вопросительной интонации**).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Решение задачи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Не имеет смысла проводить анализ предложения, если **неясна речевая ситуация,** поэтому представим такой диалог.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Петя толкнул Машу. Учитель спрашивает: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– ЗачЕм //ты это сделал?  Почему ты всё время обижаешь Машу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– Я не хотел её обижать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– Зачем же ты //сдЕлал это?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В обозначенной ситуации  по смыслу мы можем выделить **два слова**: или само действие (сделал), или его цель (зачем). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Структура предложений при этом **перестраивается** так, чтобы было удобно сделать повышение тона на нужном слове.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Таким образом, ответ такой.** Разная структура предложений позволяет наилучшим образом выделить логическим ударением то слово, к которому относится вопрос, а это разные слова (сделал, зачем).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18170" RevisionGUID="cb482db5-c6e4-4bc3-bc09-c5bc5ab26af1" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:28:49.880" UserId="11536" Text="Can someone from Russian-speaking countries (physicist preferably) check the validity of the following translation from English to Russian language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretical Predictions of Highly Energetic Particles Energy Loss in Quark-Gluon Plasma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теоретические прогнозы потерь энергии частиц высоких энергий в кварк-глюонной плазме" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18170" RevisionGUID="cb482db5-c6e4-4bc3-bc09-c5bc5ab26af1" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:28:49.880" UserId="11536" Text="Translation from English to Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18170" RevisionGUID="cb482db5-c6e4-4bc3-bc09-c5bc5ab26af1" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:28:49.880" UserId="11536" Text="|английский|физика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="d26af494-2a75-4741-a741-0c0dff645f49" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:35:54.307" UserId="11537" Text="куда мы? and укда мы пойдем? are the same?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and meaning of both are these:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-Where will we go?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-Where are we going?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much in advance&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wish bests&lt;br/&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="d26af494-2a75-4741-a741-0c0dff645f49" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:35:54.307" UserId="11537" Text="куда мы или укда мы пойдем?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="d26af494-2a75-4741-a741-0c0dff645f49" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:35:54.307" UserId="11537" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="ddb7c2b4-ffe9-4e80-b1b4-975f0bedfd4d" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:55:09.953" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Куда мы?&quot; and &quot;куда мы пойдем?&quot; are the same?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and meaning of both are these:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Where will we go?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Where are we going?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48849" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="ddb7c2b4-ffe9-4e80-b1b4-975f0bedfd4d" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:55:09.953" UserId="3680" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body; edited title" Text="&quot;Куда мы?&quot; или &quot;куда мы пойдем?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48850" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18170" RevisionGUID="f729b38d-0cef-4d49-b619-30370eabdf5e" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:15:48.790" UserId="4481" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Can someone from Russian-speaking countries (physicist preferably) check the validity of the following translation from English to Russian language:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Theoretical Predictions of Highly Energetic Particles Energy Loss in Quark-Gluon Plasma&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретические прогнозы потерь энергии частиц высоких энергий в кварк-глюонной плазме" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="4b0464a2-6ed6-4a60-8a17-cbd55abf3d76" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:21:42.993" UserId="4481" Text="The translation is correct in general, but some style issues could be here. Probably, you should better ask physicists. I interested in physics only on a popular level, I would translate this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретическое предсказание потерь энергии частиц высоких энергий в кварк-глюонной плазме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, &quot;теоретический расчет&quot; instead of &quot;теоретическое предсказание&quot;. &quot;Прогноз&quot; is usually applied to wheather forecast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="358f4c1e-eff9-414a-8ecc-fa3e23cd44e4" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:33:32.813" UserId="11537" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="&quot;Куда мы?&quot; and &quot;куда мы пойдем?&quot; are the same?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;and meaning of both are these:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Where will we go?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- Where are we going?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much in advance&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wish bests" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18173" RevisionGUID="749c5d37-3575-4e5e-ab38-66e0d0f5fe99" CreationDate="2019-02-28T00:29:56.280" UserId="11055" Text="Yes, they mean those two things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you choose to use `Куда мы?`, you should remember it's more colloquial:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mother: Куда вы? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Children: В парк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mother: Куда вы *идёте*? (at the moment of speaking or in the nearest future)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Children: В парк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Куда вы пойдёте?` can only mean future. Use `идёте` or just `куда вы?` if you need to refer to the moment of speaking. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="7758b760-d742-4a36-82e2-17860e830b95" CreationDate="2019-02-28T00:42:20.307" UserId="11055" Text="&gt; Со стороны Верхнего озера главный вход в башню прикрывался **отводной стрельней**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found the definition of стрельня:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стрельня - башня в древнерусском крепостном зодчестве.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is `отводная стрельня`? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="7758b760-d742-4a36-82e2-17860e830b95" CreationDate="2019-02-28T00:42:20.307" UserId="11055" Text="The meaning of &quot;отводная стрельня&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18174" RevisionGUID="7758b760-d742-4a36-82e2-17860e830b95" CreationDate="2019-02-28T00:42:20.307" UserId="11055" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18175" RevisionGUID="fe6a9ee5-096d-4a9f-b69d-e3a81b1b22d6" CreationDate="2019-02-28T06:35:16.097" UserId="11368" Text="I guess it is the same as [&quot;отводная стрельница&quot;](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Барбакан), which is just a [barbican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18172" RevisionGUID="9f58bd64-fde1-4514-a61f-60f63e390c2c" CreationDate="2019-02-28T11:04:28.237" UserId="4481" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="The translation is correct in general, but some style issues could be here. Probably, you should better ask physicists. I interested in physics only on a popular level, I would translate this as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретическое предсказание потерь энергии частиц высоких энергий в кварк-глюонной плазме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, &quot;теоретический расчет&quot; instead of &quot;теоретическое предсказание&quot;. &quot;Прогноз&quot; is usually applied to wheather forecast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**  &#xD;&#xA;Also, you can use &quot;высокоэнергетические частицы&quot; instead of &quot;частиц высоких энергий&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Теоретическое предсказание потерь энергии высокоэнергетических частиц в кварк-глюонной плазме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, all particles in quark-gluon plasma have high energy. Possibly, this phrase has a tautology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18171" RevisionGUID="fd104368-d103-420f-9e3a-5def04d5850e" CreationDate="2019-02-28T11:34:41.513" UserId="6097" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="&quot;Куда мы?&quot; and &quot;куда мы пойдем?&quot; are the same?&#xD;&#xA;and meaning of both are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Where will we go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Where are we going?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18176" RevisionGUID="5c5af0db-402d-425e-9434-3aa121ff1b7c" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:04:47.647" UserId="4785" Text="It's possible to play with 'заработать' as 'утомить' (to make someone tired)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18177" RevisionGUID="7e94c469-4078-489f-8848-f38d1703a7ef" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:09:48.387" UserId="5443" Text="IMO, those versions are used in *different* situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Куда мы**?&quot; A typical context: a small group of people walks down the street but unexpectedly for the speaker everyone else changes their direction and that's when the question is asked. Its sense: '*where are we heading to **now**?*' The question is incomplete since the verb **идём** (going/heading to) is omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Куда мы пойдем?** (*Where **shall** we go?*) That's simply about plans for the nearest **future**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18178" RevisionGUID="925cf5e9-eadf-4cbd-847c-544a657c10ee" CreationDate="2019-02-28T12:58:46.457" UserId="10247" Text="It's possbible to find the word *стрельница* in dictionaries. It must be the same as *стрельня*. Such **ARCHAIC** words may have different variants, because they had been used by people quite before formalised texts and dictionaries were created. *Отводная* is derived from the word *отвод* (or *отводить* - direct or turn smth., change or tap smth.) - my guess is it implies that this fortification was at a slight distance from the main fortress (not part of the main structure, connected with it through a bridge, or wall, kind of a tapped auxiliary tower for protection). At least, most sources (sources on architecture, Russian Kremlin, etc.) imply that it is so. Some sources mention *барбакан* as something similar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18179" RevisionGUID="933df748-7bf9-43b7-a273-6af4f70a7fa6" CreationDate="2019-02-28T13:47:16.970" UserId="11535" Text="В русском языке различается **прямая и косвенная речь**, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Он спросил: &quot;Что ты делаешь?&quot;  (2) Я ответил: &quot;Читаю книгу&quot;. Это прямая речь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Он спросил, **что** я делаю. (2) Я ответил, **что** читаю книгу. Это косвенная речь (пересказ прямой речи). С точки зрения грамматики, это сложноподчиненные предложения с изъяснительным придаточным предложением.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Он спросил, что я делаю.*** ЧТО — вопросительное **местоимение в роли союзного слова.**  (У него двойная работа). Это местоимение было и в прямой речи, на него падает ударение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Я ответил, что читаю книгу.*** ЧТО — союз (служебное слово), используется **только для связи** предложений (главного и придаточного). Его не было в прямой речи, на него не падает ударение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, **ЧТО может быть вопросительным местоимением (союзным словом) или союзом (служебным словом).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союз — от  *связывать (соединять).* Соотносится со словами *узы, вязать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ответ на вопрос:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы спрашиваете, ***что*** я делаю? ЧТО — **местоимение** в роли союзного слова. Он спросил, ***когда*** я приеду. КОГДА — **наречие** в роли союзного слова.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18180" RevisionGUID="fbe3c2ff-08eb-4614-8bde-38eb09f5bb6d" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:03:26.763" UserId="310" Text="&gt; Теоретические прогнозы потери энергии высокоэнергетическими частицами в кварк-глюонной плазме&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This clarifies that &quot;particles lose energy&quot; as opposed to &quot;losing particle energy&quot; as in all previous translations, if that is desired. Also avoids repeating `энергии` bare word." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="e053d55e-0d3c-4e9f-a325-88f446915e57" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:20:41.857" UserId="11522" Text="I understand that both expressions are acceptable translations of “no, thank you” in order to politely answer no to a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are they always interchangeable? In which situations would we use one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise I’m interested if “спасибо да” and “да спасибо” can be used to politely answer yes to a question. And if so, when would we use one or the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="e053d55e-0d3c-4e9f-a325-88f446915e57" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:20:41.857" UserId="11522" Text="When to use “спасибо нет” or “нет спасибо”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18181" RevisionGUID="e053d55e-0d3c-4e9f-a325-88f446915e57" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:20:41.857" UserId="11522" Text="|выбор-слова|порядок-слов|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18182" RevisionGUID="84bfa20e-3151-443c-953a-92aecf06f17b" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:55:01.383" UserId="5443" Text="**Спасибо, нет** typically shows that the speaker is actually not too grateful for the suggestion. The version **Нет, спасибо** sounds (depending on intonation) as a neutral to polite refusal (like, I'm grateful to you but have to refuse, I don't want it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Спасибо, да** (unlike **Да, спасибо**) is rarely used (and just colloquially - it doesn't sound sophisticated enough, despite the sense is the same)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18183" RevisionGUID="92993eb8-975d-48d8-b4b2-1d66f8c89299" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:59:11.403" UserId="7674" Text="That depends on the intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`спасибо, нет`** pronounced without special tonal exercises sounds more assertive and categorical and by extension less polite. **`нет`** here usually receives intonational stress, in part because of its placement at the end which is a usual location for words requiring special emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it sound polite a greater effort needs to be invested into the intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same goes for **`спасибо, да`** which sounds curter and therefore a bit less courteous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since generally politeness is required for conveying unpleasant information such as refusal, the difference between the phrases with **`нет`** is more significant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18179" RevisionGUID="12ff650a-72e8-4877-b1d4-52a76f9dc26e" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:26:41.953" UserId="11535" Comment="Ответ стал более коротким и простым" Text="**Союз или союзное слово** (местоимение, наречие)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Эта задача решается при анализе сложных предложений, передающих дословную речь (свою или чужую), например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Он спросил, **что** я делаю* (ЧТО – союзное слово, местоимение). *Я ответил, **что** читаю книгу* (ЧТО – союз, служебное слово).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Если в предложении есть вопросительные слова** (местоимения ***что, кто*** или наречия ***когда, где, как***), то  они выполняют двойную работу:  являются  вопросительными местоимениями или наречиями и одновременно средствами связи (союзными словами): *Он спросил, чтО я делаю.* (На союзное слово падает ударение).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Если вопросительных слов нет**, то для связи простых предложений используются союзы: *Я ответил, **что** читаю книгу.* (На союз не падает ударение, он не является членом предложения).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ответ на вопрос:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы спрашиваете, ***что*** я делаю? В предложении есть вопросительное слово ЧТО, это **местоимение** в роли союзного слова. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Он спросил, ***когда*** я приеду. В предложении есть вопросительное слово КОГДА, это **наречие** в роли союзного слова.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18183" RevisionGUID="9228bdad-b224-4e5c-b933-6d9c49084d93" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:39:38.670" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="That depends on the intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`спасибо, нет`** pronounced without special tonal modulations sounds more assertive and categorical and by extension less polite. **`нет`** here usually receives intonational stress, in part because of its placement at the end which is a usual location for words requiring special emphasis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it sound polite a greater effort needs to be invested into the intonation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same goes for **`спасибо, да`** which sounds curter and therefore a bit less courteous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since generally politeness is required for conveying unpleasant information such as refusal, the difference between the phrases with **`нет`** is more significant.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18184" RevisionGUID="a0b15cec-a4f0-47cb-a725-ffd5a614a51e" CreationDate="2019-02-28T18:33:45.343" UserId="6991" Text="The ten-based numerals пятьдеся́т, шестьдеся́т, се́мьдесят and во́семьдесят all ditch the final soft sign of де́сять and what decline as if they still retained it. If the declension remains unaffected, what purpose would it be to not have it at all? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48873" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18184" RevisionGUID="a0b15cec-a4f0-47cb-a725-ffd5a614a51e" CreationDate="2019-02-28T18:33:45.343" UserId="6991" Text="Why did ten-based numerals such as пятьдеся́т lose the final soft sign of десять?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48874" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18184" RevisionGUID="a0b15cec-a4f0-47cb-a725-ffd5a614a51e" CreationDate="2019-02-28T18:33:45.343" UserId="6991" Text="|грамматика|правописание|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="37e48bb7-2792-4d2f-a503-717402f61947" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:10:55.690" UserId="7674" Text="I'd ***speculate*** that originally they may have had the form of **`два/три/четыре ... десятка`** (or included a word similar to **`десяток`** where the soft sign doesn't obtain), and later on were simply pared down to the present form. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="9c9f2189-fd30-430c-95e8-3e9001e615d9" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:16:52.283" UserId="7674" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="I'd ***speculate*** that originally they may have had the form of **`два/три/четыре ... десятка`** (or included a cognate of **`десяток`** where the soft sign doesn't obtain), and later on were simply pared down to the present form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or **десЯт** with the stress on the last syllable could have been a Genitive inflection form of **`десяток`**. This form is reminiscent of plural Genitive case inflection of such words as ***ребят, поросят, опят, чертят*** etc. which like ***`десят-ок`*** in singular also in part have **`-ок`** suffix ***`реб-ён-ок, порос-ён-ок, оп-ён-ок, черт-ён-ок`*** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="8eea0150-bb02-4663-a40a-9493d2f5b43c" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:23:06.320" UserId="7674" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I'd ***speculate*** that originally they may have had the form of **`два/три/четыре ... десятка`** (or included a cognate of **`десяток`** where the soft sign doesn't obtain), and later on were simply pared down to the present form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or **десЯт** with the stress on the last syllable could have been a Genitive inflection form of **`десяток`** (instead of the modern **`десятк-ов`**). This form is reminiscent of plural Genitive case inflection of such words as ***ребят, поросят, опят, чертят*** etc. which like ***`десят-ок`*** in singular also in part have **`-ок`** suffix ***`реб-ён-ок, порос-ён-ок, оп-ён-ок, черт-ён-ок`*** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="5256ed84-7a64-4061-b6bc-62c4281d6a9e" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:43:52.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 269 characters in body" Text="I'd ***speculate*** that the component **`десят`** in the numerals of tens must be an inflected form of **`десять`** or **`десяток`**, where the soft sign doesn't obtain, and not its base form, because grammatically such compound would require (at least by modern grammar) the 2nd word to inflect in Genitive. As one would say e.g. **`пять раз`** where **`раз`** is Genitive plural form of singular Nominative **`раз`**, so **`пять десят`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form **десЯт** with the stress on the last syllable is reminiscent of plural Genitive case inflection of such words as ***ребят, поросят, опят, чертят*** etc. which like ***`десят-ок`*** in singular also in part have **`-ок`** suffix ***`реб-ён-ок, порос-ён-ок, оп-ён-ок, черт-ён-ок`***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That however doesn't explain the soft sign in **`двадцать`** and **`тридцать`** but they also differ from the rest in both the reduced form of **`десять`** → **`дцать`** and the stress placement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="2bee67d9-0627-4026-a756-e2e35fb0ec08" CreationDate="2019-02-28T21:55:24.637" UserId="7674" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I'd ***speculate*** that the component **`десят`** in the numerals of tens must be not **`десять`** bar the soft sign, but an inflected plural form of **`десяток`** (or its cognate where the soft sign doesn't obtain), because grammatically compounds with numerals **`пять - девять`** would require (at least by modern grammar) the 2nd word to inflect in plural Genitive. As one would say e.g. **`пять раз`** where **`раз`** is Genitive plural form of singular Nominative **`раз`**, so **`пять десят`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The form **десЯт** with the stress on the last syllable is reminiscent of plural Genitive case inflection of such words as ***ребят, поросят, опят, чертят*** etc. which like ***`десят-ок`*** in singular also in part have **`-ок`** suffix ***`реб-ён-ок, порос-ён-ок, оп-ён-ок, черт-ён-ок`***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That however doesn't explain the soft sign in **`двадцать`** and **`тридцать`** but they also differ from the rest in both the reduced form of **`десять`** → **`дцать`** and the stress placement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18186" RevisionGUID="34591d14-742e-4d62-b084-43adef67f1df" CreationDate="2019-03-01T00:57:32.707" UserId="134" Text="The word *десять* historically was a noun (as were all numerals starting with five), but unlike *пять, шесть* etc. it had a consonant stem.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Words with a consonant stem had the ending *-ъ* in plural genitive in Old Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other words like this are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Those in *-мя*: *имя / имён, знамя / знамён* etc.&#xD;&#xA;* *корень / кореньев* (&lt; *коренъ*)&#xD;&#xA;* (dialectal) *день / дён* (&lt; *дьнъ*)&#xD;&#xA;* *мать / матерей, дочь / дочерей* (&lt; *матеръ, дъчеръ*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and several others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *десят* (and *сот*) used to be the plural genitive forms of corresponding nouns and had been fossilized in the modern numerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Два, три, четыре* were definitions and had to agree with the nouns they defined, that's why we have the *двести &lt; дъвѣ сътѣ* (dual nom.) and *триста &lt; три съта* (pl. nom.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, *пять* and above were nouns on their own, and their modifiers had to agree with them, not the other way around. This is similar to how English numerals like &quot;couple&quot; or &quot;gross&quot; work: you say &quot;two eggs&quot; but &quot;a couple of eggs&quot; or &quot;a gross of eggs&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18185" RevisionGUID="4e8231ca-08fa-43b4-9ef4-eab97219337b" CreationDate="2019-03-01T11:55:11.000" UserId="7674" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="**Redundant in light of Quassnoi's answer**&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I'd ***speculate*** that the component **`десят`** in the numerals of tens must be not **`десять`** bar the soft sign, but an inflected plural form of **`десяток`** (or its cognate where the soft sign doesn't obtain), because grammatically compounds with numerals **`пять - девять`** would require (at least by modern grammar) the 2nd word to inflect in plural Genitive. As one would say e.g. **`пять раз`** where **`раз`** is Genitive plural form of singular Nominative **`раз`**, so **`пять десят`**.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The form **десЯт** with the stress on the last syllable is reminiscent of plural Genitive case inflection of such words as ***ребят, поросят, опят, чертят*** etc. which like ***`десят-ок`*** in singular also in part have **`-ок`** suffix ***`реб-ён-ок, порос-ён-ок, оп-ён-ок, черт-ён-ок`***.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;That however doesn't explain the soft sign in **`двадцать`** and **`тридцать`** but they also differ from the rest in both the reduced form of **`десять`** → **`дцать`** and the stress placement.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="479eea1d-bfe0-4e99-8df4-52cc4e5b6684" CreationDate="2019-03-01T13:51:51.290" UserId="11544" Text="The title says it all. Some guy wrote it on my profile after a game of dota and i have not clue what 4мо means..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="479eea1d-bfe0-4e99-8df4-52cc4e5b6684" CreationDate="2019-03-01T13:51:51.290" UserId="11544" Text="What does 4мо mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="479eea1d-bfe0-4e99-8df4-52cc4e5b6684" CreationDate="2019-03-01T13:51:51.290" UserId="11544" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18188" RevisionGUID="77b934f9-4a80-44a0-b7a3-fef4dbe3b54a" CreationDate="2019-03-01T13:57:57.990" UserId="11080" Text="Beware that we can use 4 instead of ч. Чмо is an abusing slangish word. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VP3Qn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18188" RevisionGUID="2f04d3f7-adbe-4ac5-9094-e7ddaa0bc6b2" CreationDate="2019-03-01T14:34:35.417" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="Beware that we can use 4 instead of ч. Чмо is an abusive slangish word. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VP3Qn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="43aa7a5f-ce19-469c-9e00-cad3f7f4f419" CreationDate="2019-03-01T16:01:09.313" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="The title says it all. Some guy wrote it on my profile after a game of Dota and I have no clue what 4мо means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48888" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18187" RevisionGUID="43aa7a5f-ce19-469c-9e00-cad3f7f4f419" CreationDate="2019-03-01T16:01:09.313" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 134 edit id of 2019" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="0a86f60d-f291-412e-b17d-52fdc5d0aa7c" CreationDate="2019-03-01T21:05:32.757" UserId="11537" Text="**Вспоминаешь** или **Помнишь**?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between these?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean remember(singular-informal) but two different faces!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="0a86f60d-f291-412e-b17d-52fdc5d0aa7c" CreationDate="2019-03-01T21:05:32.757" UserId="11537" Text="вспоминаешь или Помнишь?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18189" RevisionGUID="0a86f60d-f291-412e-b17d-52fdc5d0aa7c" CreationDate="2019-03-01T21:05:32.757" UserId="11537" Text="|грамматика|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18190" RevisionGUID="c10691e9-6c72-40bb-b3da-08c46d78e1fa" CreationDate="2019-03-01T21:31:23.380" UserId="7674" Text="Only **`помнишь`** means **`remember`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`вспоминаешь`** means **`recall, recollect, reminisce`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18191" RevisionGUID="e667ad88-df36-40a5-894f-c8c4ff566c60" CreationDate="2019-03-02T05:22:56.073" UserId="5" Text="Я хорошо помню ответы из https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/18121/%d0%a0%d0%b0%d0%b7%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%86%d0%b0-%d0%bc%d0%b5%d0%b6%d0%b4%d1%83-%d0%97%d0%b0%d1%87%d0%b5%d0%bc-%d0%be%d0%bd-%d1%8d%d1%82%d0%be-%d1%81%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bb%d0%b0%d0%bb-%d0%b8-%d0%97%d0%b0%d1%87%d0%b5%d0%bc-%d0%be%d0%bd-%d1%81%d0%b4%d0%b5%d0%bb%d0%b0%d0%bb-%d1%8d%d1%82%d0%be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В данном случае не все выглядит так однозначно ( для меня ). По-прежнему, вопрос в том, есть ли смысловая разница, и, если да, то какая." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18191" RevisionGUID="e667ad88-df36-40a5-894f-c8c4ff566c60" CreationDate="2019-03-02T05:22:56.073" UserId="5" Text="Разница между &quot;Раз семь&quot; и &quot;Семь раз&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18191" RevisionGUID="e667ad88-df36-40a5-894f-c8c4ff566c60" CreationDate="2019-03-02T05:22:56.073" UserId="5" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48896" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18184" RevisionGUID="dddb351c-c31e-4049-b9b8-3d27a4385cd1" CreationDate="2019-03-02T06:00:11.203" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1101723857587761152" />
  <row Id="48897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18192" RevisionGUID="04ef113f-b201-405c-8239-ab03beac12b8" CreationDate="2019-03-02T06:04:54.877" UserId="11546" Text="Семь раз - это конкретное указание на число раз чего-либо (что-то происходило семь раз, а не восемь, четыре, одиннадцать). А раз семь - это примерно, приблизительно. То есть, никто не считал точно, было семь раз или шесть.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="b6cf5fcb-0f4e-4a98-82b0-297c651e9f07" CreationDate="2019-03-02T09:48:25.657" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Помнишь Иванова? – Иванова? А, вспоминаю (вспоинил).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помнить is to remember, to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;Вспоминать(вспомнить) –to recall,  to bring memories back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18194" RevisionGUID="807e994b-7de8-4b05-ba28-423895db86c6" CreationDate="2019-03-02T14:04:49.317" UserId="11547" Text="Я понимаю, что эти слова значат отдельно, но значение целой фразы мне не ясно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18194" RevisionGUID="807e994b-7de8-4b05-ba28-423895db86c6" CreationDate="2019-03-02T14:04:49.317" UserId="11547" Text="что значит &quot;лови добавку&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18194" RevisionGUID="807e994b-7de8-4b05-ba28-423895db86c6" CreationDate="2019-03-02T14:04:49.317" UserId="11547" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18195" RevisionGUID="dbbfc595-e583-482d-842d-cdb17d632cf9" CreationDate="2019-03-02T14:27:20.963" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Лови добавку&quot; значит &quot;вот тебе еще&quot;. &quot;Лови&quot; (разговорное) значит &quot;держи, получи&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="d03b9cdb-1116-4ce6-809c-8f68bb6b7116" CreationDate="2019-03-02T14:54:32.200" UserId="6539" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="&gt;Помнишь Иванова? – Иванова? А, вспоминаю (вспомнил).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помнить is to remember, to keep in mind.It is a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вспоминать(вспомнить) –to recall,  to bring memories back.It is an action, a process. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="8916aca4-c5e2-4a41-b073-f3a65233f839" CreationDate="2019-03-02T15:00:41.980" UserId="6539" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="&gt;Помнишь Иванова? – Иванова? А, вспоминаю (вспомнил).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Помнить is to remember, to keep in mind.It is a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вспоминать(вспомнить) –to recall,  to bring memories back.It is an action, a process, when  memories come back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18195" RevisionGUID="8d8c164a-964e-454c-be29-7e7d6fc811d5" CreationDate="2019-03-02T15:38:43.027" UserId="2104" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&quot;Лови́ доба́вку&quot; зна́чит &quot;вот тебе́ ещё&quot;. &quot;Лови́&quot; (разгово́рное) зна́чит &quot;держи́, получи́&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18198" RevisionGUID="49b165c2-57a1-4441-a28d-9343953c1e10" CreationDate="2019-03-02T21:19:17.517" UserId="3892" Text="I read this in a [story][1] online:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вечером сестра пришла забирать, а пацан на полу лежит сытый и даже&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конструктор собирать не хочет. Я говорю: &quot;Таня, а чё ты ему сказала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; такого? Он как подорвался всё жрать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the context, I can only conclude that this means that the kid ate so much that he almost burst, but grammatically I can't reconcile that meaning with the actual Russian words/grammar. Is there an idiom here at play that I don't know about? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pikabu.ru/story/kogda_ochen_khochesh_domoy_6531031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18198" RevisionGUID="49b165c2-57a1-4441-a28d-9343953c1e10" CreationDate="2019-03-02T21:19:17.517" UserId="3892" Text="Syntax of &quot;Он как подорвался всё жрать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18198" RevisionGUID="49b165c2-57a1-4441-a28d-9343953c1e10" CreationDate="2019-03-02T21:19:17.517" UserId="3892" Text="|значения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18199" RevisionGUID="73aeda8d-797f-4cb2-b332-d59855d7608a" CreationDate="2019-03-02T21:37:19.090" UserId="7674" Text="**`как`** + perfecive verb in the past/future tense or imperative means a sudden start, intensity and persistence of an act, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`он как закричал/закричит/закричи`** ≈ `he just suddenly yelled so hard`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`подорвался`** is slang for **`вскочил`**, **`резко принялся`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the phrase in the quotation is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is that that you told him? (Because) He just suddenly started devouring everything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18199" RevisionGUID="879baa66-e3f1-4a74-a6af-e9f204ca570f" CreationDate="2019-03-02T21:58:58.647" UserId="7674" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="**`как`** + perfecive verb in the past/future tense or imperative means a sudden start, intensity and persistence of an act, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`он как закричал/закричит/закричи`** ≈ `he just suddenly yelled so hard`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`подорвался`** is slang for **`вскочил`**, **`резко принялся`**, **`пустился`**, **`бросился`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the phrase in the quotation is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is that that you told him? (Because) He just suddenly started devouring everything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18199" RevisionGUID="06572ce9-e433-4d49-91db-ec0254858371" CreationDate="2019-03-02T22:05:17.310" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="**`как`** + perfecive verb in the past/future tense or imperative means a sudden start, intensity and persistence of an act all in the past tense, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`он как закричал/закричит/закричи`** ≈ `he just suddenly yelled so hard`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`подорвался`** is slang for **`вскочил`**, **`резко принялся`**, **`пустился`**, **`бросился`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the phrase in the quotation is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is that that you told him? (Because) He just suddenly started devouring everything = Внезапно принялся всё жрать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18199" RevisionGUID="92b99559-9ad4-4135-a046-27bbeb27127e" CreationDate="2019-03-03T11:34:27.613" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**`как`** + perfecive verb in the past/future tense or imperative means a sudden start, intensity and persistence of an act all in the past tense, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`он как закричал/закричит/закричи`** ≈ `he just suddenly yelled so hard`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`подорвался`** is slang for **`вскочил`**, **`резко принялся`**, **`пустился`**, **`бросился`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the phrase in the quotation is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is that that you told him? (Because) He just suddenly started devouring everything = Внезапно принялся всё пожирать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18199" RevisionGUID="c1400081-0361-4793-ba21-e12895329416" CreationDate="2019-03-03T16:43:50.027" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="**`как`** + perfective verb in the past/future tense or imperative means a sudden start and intensity of an act all in the past tense, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`он как закричал/закричит/закричи`** ≈ `he just suddenly yelled so hard`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`подорвался`** is slang for **`вскочил`**, **`резко принялся`**, **`пустился`**, **`бросился`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the meaning of the phrase in the quotation is as follows&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is that that you told him? (Because) He just suddenly started devouring everything = Внезапно принялся всё пожирать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18200" RevisionGUID="fc6c1b9d-5f19-40aa-9c1c-5c5a6d7d2126" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:00:20.930" UserDisplayName="user11225" Text="What's the difference between those two words? In the dictionary it translates as decay for both. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18200" RevisionGUID="fc6c1b9d-5f19-40aa-9c1c-5c5a6d7d2126" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:00:20.930" UserDisplayName="user11225" Text="&quot;Запаздывание&quot; or &quot;опоздание&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18200" RevisionGUID="fc6c1b9d-5f19-40aa-9c1c-5c5a6d7d2126" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:00:20.930" UserDisplayName="user11225" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18201" RevisionGUID="5cd95f74-47dd-4068-8547-2fb6c28a0ca0" CreationDate="2019-03-03T19:46:40.800" UserId="7674" Text="A very short answer is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`запаздывание`** = being about to get late, lagging behind schedule (often chronic)  &#xD;&#xA;**`опоздание`** = being late (after the fact), having been late (usually a one-off occurrence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally translation into English is heavily dependent on the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18202" RevisionGUID="bd6f8353-9291-466b-98ed-7e255a153e51" CreationDate="2019-03-03T20:16:26.947" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; **A one-to-one mix** of coffee and milk, with foam on top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conversation, I wanted to express this idea in Russian. I'm looking for the Russian equivalent of &quot;a one-to-one mix (of ...)&quot; in the sense of &quot;**half** coffee (and) **half** milk&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18202" RevisionGUID="bd6f8353-9291-466b-98ed-7e255a153e51" CreationDate="2019-03-03T20:16:26.947" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you idiomatically say &quot;a one-to-one mix&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18202" RevisionGUID="bd6f8353-9291-466b-98ed-7e255a153e51" CreationDate="2019-03-03T20:16:26.947" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="d7395f9f-818c-4aeb-962d-b55bc99a9441" CreationDate="2019-03-03T20:47:51.417" UserId="7674" Text="**пОровну молоко/молока и кофе**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**молоко и кофе один к одному / половина на половину** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="604ea020-cf95-4d24-ade0-b0314071093d" CreationDate="2019-03-03T22:55:04.697" UserId="11379" Comment="Dutch textbook" Text="## Textbooks &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - German: MOCT - Modernes Russisch - Aktualisierte Ausgabe: Modernes Russisch. Moct 1. Arbeitsbuch mit 2 Audio-CDs: Niveau A1-A2. ISBN: 978-3125275669&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dutch: J.L.I. Fennell, [Russisch voor Zelfstudie](https://www.prisma.nl/producten/russisch-voor-zelfstudie-9789000353286), ISBN: 9789000353286&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The online library of the Russian as Foreign Language Faculty site of the Lomonosov Moscow State University](http://www.mgu-russian.com/elibrary/ru/online:4). You can find references to many good textbooks there. However, the access is only open to those who visit their courses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Sputnik: An Introductory Russian Language Course](http://www.sputniktextbook.org).  Designed to develop basic reading, writing, listening and communication skills. A free complementary website comes with a lot of sounds and quizzes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18204" RevisionGUID="65402deb-b0ed-4b20-8cf7-8a184896e4c6" CreationDate="2019-03-04T00:26:38.580" UserId="4481" Text="&quot;Запаздывание&quot; is mostly a technical term. For example, a delay between input and output signals is &quot;запаздывание сигнала&quot;, and you can't say &quot;опоздание сигнала&quot;. Other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запаздывание потенциала - retarded potential  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Система с запаздыванием - system with delay   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Запаздывание затвора (фотоаппарата) - Shutter lag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Опоздание&quot; is a colloquial word for everyday use. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Извините за опоздание - Sorry, I'm late" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18200" RevisionGUID="238e7271-a78a-4f8c-ac2c-c4c6686de984" CreationDate="2019-03-04T00:27:32.980" UserId="4481" Comment="typo corrected" Text="What's the difference between those two words? In the dictionary, it is translated as delay for both. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="e645ef2c-8ee1-4f61-a8a8-942f9451900a" CreationDate="2019-03-04T06:24:54.023" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="**кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="94bfb93c-e388-4682-80bb-a7015a8006f0" CreationDate="2019-03-04T06:39:24.660" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to clarify HOW you want it while WHAT you want (**`кофе с молоком`** - *this is a customary designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока (половина на) наполовину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="601306c1-00b1-48c4-82f9-9e9feb8b77a8" CreationDate="2019-03-04T06:41:41.450" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to clarify HOW you want it while WHAT you want (**`кофе с молоком`** - *this is a customary designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока наполовину / половина на половину*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18205" RevisionGUID="bc4961d9-47b3-45c0-ad6b-03bedf06db94" CreationDate="2019-03-04T06:43:26.033" UserId="11080" Text="**Кофе пополам с молоком, с пенкой.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пил солдат из медной кружки &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вино с печалью пополам. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5k-3PhdAkw " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="781ab0b1-49be-4994-b2f8-56724acbbc72" CreationDate="2019-03-04T06:47:04.483" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to clarify HOW you want it while WHAT you want (**`кофе с молоком`** - *this is a customary designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="b90cbf0b-86a7-4571-825f-bf5af5de831d" CreationDate="2019-03-04T06:54:17.213" UserId="7674" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to clarify HOW you want it while WHAT you want ([**`кофе с молоком`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кофе_с_молоком) - *which is a customary designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="9a4c8bde-dd36-47db-b875-a67a895493a2" CreationDate="2019-03-04T07:00:06.150" UserId="7674" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to clarify HOW you want it while WHAT you want ([**`кофе с молоком`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кофе_с_молоком) - *which is a customary designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="2d00d492-92e7-420c-b091-78f771fff37d" CreationDate="2019-03-04T07:17:28.317" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to specify HOW you want it while WHAT you want ([**`кофе с молоком`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кофе_с_молоком) - *which is a customary designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока наполовину / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18206" RevisionGUID="d00f3df2-34be-4db4-ac34-6f3f5ae9935c" CreationDate="2019-03-04T08:20:28.687" UserId="6326" Text="Usually, literally **one-to-one**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Один к одному&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes, **fifty-fifty**:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пятьдесят на пятьдесят &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or slang variation:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Писят на писят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="0307f36a-86a1-4f90-8814-2abe4986a147" CreationDate="2019-03-04T12:01:06.200" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to specify HOW you want it while WHAT you want ([**`кофе с молоком`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кофе_с_молоком) - *which is a conventional designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18207" RevisionGUID="99c3e01d-e887-4564-a88b-ff041a95fb7c" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:35:24.687" UserId="11551" Text="Хотелось бы понять как правильно говорить:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Я абсолютно за это решение.&#xD;&#xA;2. Я абсолютно &quot;за&quot; за это решение.&#xD;&#xA;3. Я абсолютно поддерживаю это решение.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;На мой взгляд, в первом варианте, в зависимости от того, как читатель интерпретирует слово &quot;за&quot;, будет либо непонятно что такое &quot;быть абсолютным за какое-то решение&quot;, либо будет чувствоваться отсутствие связи между первой и второй частью предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Второй вариант, я считаю, плохо звучит из-за повторения &quot;за&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18207" RevisionGUID="99c3e01d-e887-4564-a88b-ff041a95fb7c" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:35:24.687" UserId="11551" Text="Использование слова &quot;за&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18207" RevisionGUID="99c3e01d-e887-4564-a88b-ff041a95fb7c" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:35:24.687" UserId="11551" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18208" RevisionGUID="c3cbb742-909a-44ae-b97e-a7bdd902f043" CreationDate="2019-03-04T14:57:33.250" UserId="7674" Text="По-моему, приемлем вариант **3.** А при желании использовать &quot;за&quot; существует &#xD;&#xA;стандартная формулировка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Я целиком и полностью за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически **`я абсолютно за`** - это вариация на тему этого фразеологизма, тем не менее она звучит несколько неуклюже." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18202" RevisionGUID="829a9e6a-7482-46b7-9ef5-6943e31fddf1" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:00:38.373" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1102584642698387457" />
  <row Id="48947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18208" RevisionGUID="c75d507e-673d-49ab-bc5a-d380d07fddb2" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:04:39.300" UserId="7674" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="По-моему, приемлем вариант **3.** А при желании использовать &quot;за&quot; существует &#xD;&#xA;стандартная формулировка&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`целиком и полностью за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически **`я абсолютно за`** - это вариация на тему этого фразеологизма, тем не менее она звучит несколько неуклюже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или можно перефразировать предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что касается этого решения, (то) я целиком и полностью &quot;ЗА&quot; / я - &quot;ЗА&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целиком и полностью" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18208" RevisionGUID="32b776d0-da86-4192-b9e5-c83e5dccd8b2" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:09:53.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="По-моему, приемлем вариант **3.** При желании использовать &quot;за&quot; существуют фразеологизмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`целиком и полностью за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`обеими руками за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хотя тут тоже есть проблема с ритмикой, вызванная сочетанием **`это решение`**, которая не возникает, если каждое из этих слов употребляется отдельно, т.е. **`за это.`** или **`за решение, которое...`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически **`я абсолютно за`** - это вариация на тему фразеологизмов, тем не менее она звучит несколько неуклюже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или можно просто перефразировать предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что касается этого решения, (то) я целиком и полностью &quot;ЗА&quot; / я - &quot;ЗА&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; целиком и полностью" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18208" RevisionGUID="95ddff56-2a3a-4c05-9b93-bff154f4b9b3" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:17:25.090" UserId="7674" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="По-моему, приемлем вариант **3.** При желании использовать &quot;за&quot; существуют фразеологизмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`целиком и полностью за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`обеими руками за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хотя тут, как мне кажется, есть проблема с ритмикой, вызванная необходимостью интонационно выделять подряд все три элемента **`за это решение`**, которая не возникает, если каждое из этих слов употребляется отдельно, т.е. **`за это.`** или **`за решение, которое...`**, где ударение на **`за`** не напрашивается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически **`я абсолютно за`** - это вариация на тему фразеологизмов, тем не менее она звучит несколько неуклюже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или можно просто перефразировать предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что касается этого решения, (то) я целиком и полностью &lt;sup&gt;обеими руками &lt;/sup&gt;&quot;ЗА&quot; / я — &quot;ЗА&quot; целиком и полностью" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18208" RevisionGUID="d81f3419-bbb5-4567-ba4b-091398efe3ba" CreationDate="2019-03-04T15:23:19.853" UserId="7674" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="По-моему, приемлем вариант **3.** При желании использовать &quot;за&quot; существуют фразеологизмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`целиком и полностью за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`обеими руками за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хотя тут, как мне кажется, есть проблема с ритмикой, вызванная необходимостью интонационно выделять подряд все три элемента **`за это решение`**, которая не возникает, если после &quot;за&quot; употребляется только одно слово, т.е. **`за это.`** или **`за решение, которое...`**, где ударение на **`за`** не напрашивается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически **`я абсолютно за`** - это вариация на тему фразеологизмов, тем не менее она звучит несколько неуклюже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или можно просто перефразировать предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что касается этого решения, (то) я целиком и полностью &lt;sup&gt;обеими руками &lt;/sup&gt;&quot;ЗА&quot; / я — &quot;ЗА&quot; целиком и полностью" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18203" RevisionGUID="812b2fff-1c8d-42cb-bcf6-8235126ba21e" CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:17:17.893" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**Кофе с молоком пОровну / один к одному / половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you only need to specify HOW you want it while WHAT you want ([**`кофе с молоком`**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кофе_с_молоком) - *which is a conventional designation of the drink*) is already clear, it can be phrased as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Поровну кофе и молока / Кофе и молока половина на половину**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By itself without specifying the type of substance **`a one-to-one mix`** can be expressed as **`сочетание один к одному`** and in the form of an adverbial **`as a one-to-one mix`** - **`в сочетании/пропорции один к одному`**. But this sounds technical therefore wouldn't be applied to edibles in the context of consumption, mostly to recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18209" RevisionGUID="8153d3df-0ed4-4728-b58a-3ffec7081083" CreationDate="2019-03-04T19:41:35.047" UserId="11552" Text="Нудный. Tedious work getting me tired - нудная работа утомляет меня. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18208" RevisionGUID="8606280d-3c70-466d-b15d-ea2c4e5ca7eb" CreationDate="2019-03-05T07:58:40.570" UserId="7674" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="По-моему, приемлем вариант **3.** При желании использовать &quot;за&quot; существуют фразеологизмы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`целиком и полностью за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **`обеими руками за`** это решение&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;хотя тут, как мне кажется, есть проблема с ритмикой, вызванная необходимостью интонационно акцентировать подряд все три элемента **`за это решение`**, которая не возникает, если после &quot;за&quot; следует дополнение, состоящее только из одного слова, т.е. **`за это.`** или **`за решение, которое...`**, где акцент на **`за`** не напрашивается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Фактически **`я абсолютно за`** - это вариация на тему фразеологизмов, тем не менее она звучит несколько неуклюже.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или можно просто перефразировать предложение:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что касается этого решения, (то) я целиком и полностью &lt;sup&gt;обеими руками &lt;/sup&gt;&quot;ЗА&quot; / я — &quot;ЗА&quot; целиком и полностью" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18212" RevisionGUID="1a0159ca-e2e1-481d-b644-93dee380b336" CreationDate="2019-03-05T09:33:22.090" UserId="8450" Text="What does the mean expression “ни в зуб ногой - ни в жопу пальцем” ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18212" RevisionGUID="1a0159ca-e2e1-481d-b644-93dee380b336" CreationDate="2019-03-05T09:33:22.090" UserId="8450" Text="Meaning of “ни в зуб ногой - ни в жопу пальцем”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18212" RevisionGUID="1a0159ca-e2e1-481d-b644-93dee380b336" CreationDate="2019-03-05T09:33:22.090" UserId="8450" Text="|перевод|выражения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18213" RevisionGUID="aa391ef3-0885-4fcc-b48a-9150b957687e" CreationDate="2019-03-05T09:42:45.043" UserId="6097" Text="It means &quot;to not know a thing (about something), to be completely incapable (of doing something)&quot;. &#xA;&#xA;Note that the expression in your question consists of two parts. Every single part has this meaning and can be used alone but the second part is vulgar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48965" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18212" RevisionGUID="c1321839-f568-4f6a-b858-525c832e0e94" CreationDate="2019-03-05T12:02:41.257" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="48975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18216" RevisionGUID="f842cc36-e1b1-4bd4-bf8a-99e7333d60e9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T08:02:27.863" UserId="8359" Text="Kamchatka is a peninsula, but overland access is so difficult that it also resembles an island. The road and rail networks of Siberia are a long sea or air voyage away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around the year 1800, how would people in Kamchatka call contiguous, mainland Russia? 'Материк' seems to be one plausible translation, but are there other, possibly more antiquated or poetic possibilities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18216" RevisionGUID="f842cc36-e1b1-4bd4-bf8a-99e7333d60e9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T08:02:27.863" UserId="8359" Text="Mainland Russia as seen from Kamchatka circa 1800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18216" RevisionGUID="f842cc36-e1b1-4bd4-bf8a-99e7333d60e9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T08:02:27.863" UserId="8359" Text="|история-языка|toponyms|places|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18217" RevisionGUID="5d593cc6-ccd3-4ba1-8a83-cdceb050fd49" CreationDate="2019-03-06T08:38:28.970" UserId="5443" Text="Here's a modern example (not sure if it worked at the time):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.kamchatka.aif.ru/society/zkh/94029&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Выбираться с Камчатки на **большую землю** этим парням действительно не в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; первой." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18218" RevisionGUID="04d25b80-2ae9-473a-931a-e2d3b9cbb912" CreationDate="2019-03-06T17:30:01.970" UserId="11562" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PnPpP.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could anyone help me &quot;decipher&quot; this word below the arrow? I'm guessing its Priroda (&quot;Nature&quot;). But would be great if someone else could have a look at it for me too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18218" RevisionGUID="04d25b80-2ae9-473a-931a-e2d3b9cbb912" CreationDate="2019-03-06T17:30:01.970" UserId="11562" Text="Could anyone help me decipher this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18218" RevisionGUID="04d25b80-2ae9-473a-931a-e2d3b9cbb912" CreationDate="2019-03-06T17:30:01.970" UserId="11562" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18219" RevisionGUID="6df4f1b7-1858-4031-bedd-f6daaf44b0e9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T17:41:09.680" UserId="3680" Text="This word is &quot;Лирика&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;And the first line is `из цикла &quot;Лирика&quot;`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="21e8b282-1b5c-4527-8089-87e3d10c7ad9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T19:38:34.907" UserId="6722" Text="I was reading the following blog https://ru-abandoned.livejournal.com/1501621.html and couldn't find a translation of the word &quot;ягоза&quot; that made sense from the context. According to the dictionary, &quot;ягоза&quot; is a &quot;fidgety person&quot;. A quick search on google brings up a video clip entitled &quot;ягоза- масленица&quot;; and after watching this, it seems that this word can have also a somewhat more positive connotation, as in &quot;can't stand still (from having so much fun)&quot;. The full sentence is &quot;Свежий забор, **ягоза** и попискивающее дачло явно намекало на то, что незваным гостям там не рады&quot;. My translation is, &quot;A new fence (COMMENT: I was also thinking that this could possibly mean 'live fence', as in being an 'electric fence') X and a beeping sensor clearly insinuates that uninvited guests are not welcome (here)&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="21e8b282-1b5c-4527-8089-87e3d10c7ad9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T19:38:34.907" UserId="6722" Text="Meaning of word ягоза" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="21e8b282-1b5c-4527-8089-87e3d10c7ad9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T19:38:34.907" UserId="6722" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18221" RevisionGUID="f711e3db-2444-4773-b447-6714956d42af" CreationDate="2019-03-06T19:56:25.847" UserId="134" Text="*Егоза* is a brand of coiled barbed tape used by the Russian military.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its original meaning is &quot;fidgety person&quot; indeed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48987" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="1314f1ac-6fc4-45e2-931f-28bb956ada5f" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:57:12.447" />
  <row Id="48989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="0ca4733a-f69a-4d3c-9870-215c6d459abd" CreationDate="2019-03-07T07:19:40.897" UserId="11145" Text="В интернете пишут, что оба варианта допустимы в речи. Хотелось бы узнать, какой из них официальнее с точки зрения орфографии? Спасибо!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="0ca4733a-f69a-4d3c-9870-215c6d459abd" CreationDate="2019-03-07T07:19:40.897" UserId="11145" Text="Как правильно: сЕссия или сЭссия?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18222" RevisionGUID="0ca4733a-f69a-4d3c-9870-215c6d459abd" CreationDate="2019-03-07T07:19:40.897" UserId="11145" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48992" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="c28c2534-5040-4601-a88c-6533aa5f515a" CreationDate="2019-03-07T08:07:42.677" UserId="11080" Comment="edited title" Text="Meaning of word егоза" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18223" RevisionGUID="e51df766-2f79-4a15-8323-d1719dfc92f9" CreationDate="2019-03-07T08:47:20.387" UserId="11436" Text="what is the difference between the 3, examples welcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18223" RevisionGUID="e51df766-2f79-4a15-8323-d1719dfc92f9" CreationDate="2019-03-07T08:47:20.387" UserId="11436" Text="No problem: без проблем; нет проблем; не проблема, which one to use when?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18223" RevisionGUID="e51df766-2f79-4a15-8323-d1719dfc92f9" CreationDate="2019-03-07T08:47:20.387" UserId="11436" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18224" RevisionGUID="140bf9af-c64c-4333-9b76-52384c2e075f" CreationDate="2019-03-07T11:28:50.147" UserId="11566" Text="I am currently in the midst of translating a passage of Victor Astafiev's *Где-то гремит война* and I have come across a phrase several times that I cannot get my head around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Но нет у меня матери, и бабушка далеко. За дверью кряхтенье, скрип&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нар, нудный голос: **— А-ать твою копалку**! Токо-токо ноженьки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; успокоилися, токо-токо анделы над башкой закружилися, и вот лешаки&#xD;&#xA;&gt; какого-то полуношника несут...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — И кто курить придумал? Без хлеба выдюжу, без табаку нет, **ать его&#xD;&#xA;&gt; копалку!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — **Ать твою копалку!** — ругался шорник. — Худо пальцы-то владеют? Ах&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ты грех!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Шорник заругался в копалку**, подхватил меня, будто пьяного, под мышки,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; подволок к нарам, ткнул носом во что-то пыльное, пахнущее сеном и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; лошадью.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рабо-отнички, **ать вашу копалку!**.. Где вы токо и родились? Чему&#xD;&#xA;&gt; училися? Да стой ты, одер совхознай...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sense from the context that it is some kind of curse, however it does not seem to me that the &quot;feeling&quot; it produces is not the same in every utterance (I might be wrong!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone could explain the etymology/meaning - maybe having a sense of the origin of the phrase could help get it easier? -, then that would be great!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ellie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18224" RevisionGUID="140bf9af-c64c-4333-9b76-52384c2e075f" CreationDate="2019-03-07T11:28:50.147" UserId="11566" Text="What is the meaning of 'ать [его] копалку'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18224" RevisionGUID="140bf9af-c64c-4333-9b76-52384c2e075f" CreationDate="2019-03-07T11:28:50.147" UserId="11566" Text="|перевод|значения|этимология|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="48999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18225" RevisionGUID="05711be4-7861-4f96-8a3c-3ef0c9ced614" CreationDate="2019-03-07T11:48:01.937" UserId="11567" Text="В орфографии только &quot;сессия&quot;, никак иначе." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18226" RevisionGUID="7ba34bf2-2eb7-4635-bb1a-eb33f5038c0c" CreationDate="2019-03-07T12:45:42.213" UserId="7674" Text="It's an euphemism of the verb **ебать** (to fuck) which is found as an element in quite a few emphatic expressions, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ебать твою налево.   &#xD;&#xA;Ебать-**копать**/колотить   &#xD;&#xA;Ёб твою мать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also [ебалки-**копалки**/моталки](http://dkmiron.narod.ru/Zaeb2.htm) and more&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18226" RevisionGUID="7b5e5d41-faba-4419-b25d-32cb94f44704" CreationDate="2019-03-07T12:52:39.777" UserId="7674" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="It's an euphemism of the verb **ебать** (to fuck) which is found as an element in quite a few emphatic expressions, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ебать твою налево.   &#xD;&#xA;Ебать-**копать**/колотить   &#xD;&#xA;Ёб твою мать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also [ебалки-**копалки**/моталки](http://dkmiron.narod.ru/Zaeb2.htm) and more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another very common euphemism based on this curse is **ёлки-палки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all the quotations it appears in the context of nuisance and annoyance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18227" RevisionGUID="1c5c2a28-f520-4e36-bcd8-62eb19339ce6" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:17:43.953" UserId="11568" Text="В Орфоэпическом словаре русского языка «сессия» входит в число слов с неустойчивым произношением, то есть допускается и твёрдое, и мягкое произношение согласного «с». При этом мягкое произношение отмечается как наиболее предпочтительное." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="c21f1e7e-0003-4f6a-ae1a-3b89c1733e5d" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:23:20.080" UserId="11537" Text="What is the difference between these:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Сколько вримени?**&quot; and &quot;**который час?**&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean what time is it, yes? Which one is informal and which one formal? and in which situation can be used?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="c21f1e7e-0003-4f6a-ae1a-3b89c1733e5d" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:23:20.080" UserId="11537" Text="&quot;Сколько вримени?&quot; vs &quot;который час?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="c21f1e7e-0003-4f6a-ae1a-3b89c1733e5d" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:23:20.080" UserId="11537" Text="|выражения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18229" RevisionGUID="cc19bc29-05f1-4aa9-820d-8ed074bcabf8" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:26:14.443" UserId="11568" Text="In the context of the phrase дачло means датчик (motion sensor) and &quot;Егоза&quot; is a brand name of barbed tape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18230" RevisionGUID="4cfd02da-ed52-4c84-bc14-dc31f37df087" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:44:22.013" UserId="11568" Text="Который час? has been more formal variant recently, moreover this question doesn't imply exact answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сколько времени? or Сколько время? sound rather colloquially, but I feel like it is used more widely nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also to ask the time one can just knock their index finger on the wrist like indexing the attention on the absence of watch. Not sure whether this gesture is spread worldwide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Традиционная форма вопроса-обращения о времени который час? На этот вопрос вы можете дать ответ: пятый час, шестой, пошел уже восьмой час. Но и ответ с указанием часов и минут тоже будет правильным.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вопрос сколько времени? по сравнению с вопросом который час? новый. Но он давно стал нормативным. Он зафиксирован, например, уже в «Толковом словаре русского языка» под редакцией Дмитрия Николаевича Ушакова (М., 1935–1940). Интересно, что в этом издании вопрос сколько времени? дан как нейтральный, а вопрос который час? снабжен пометой «разговорное».&#xD;&#xA;http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/trudnosti?layout=item&amp;id=36_68" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18231" RevisionGUID="9c7b776f-e420-4844-994c-5765ce5c1319" CreationDate="2019-03-07T15:44:47.843" UserId="4560" Text="**Сколько времени?** is, I'd say, neither formal nor particularly informal. You probably wouldn't ask someone you know well **который час?**, unless you're going for that brand of modestly refined speech that is often, and in numerous cultures, associated with the middle class." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18232" RevisionGUID="7b3f6c7b-f72d-4fd7-87b8-10b9c2e0ed19" CreationDate="2019-03-07T16:06:31.843" UserId="11362" Text="Матёрая земля is an obsolete equivalent to материк, although the latter is attested already in the 18th century (but not in the 17th century, unlike [the former][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я включаю в Камчатскую Провинцию всю сию обширность страны .. до самаго сѣверовосточнаго окончания **матерыя земли**. *Пут. Бел. 220.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На сих днях пришло в Яркут 17 перевозных судов с войском с **матерой земли**. *МВ 1795 1734.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Превеликие островы нарицаются континентами, сирѣчь толщами земли или **материками**. *Геогр. ген. 61.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы .. вошли в пролив находящийся между Азиею и Америкою, из средины котораго в хорошую погоду могли видѣть вдруг оба **материка**. *Пут. Кука 118.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beware that both материк and матёрая земля had other meanings back then (I'ld recommend consulting [this historical dictionary][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ru-eval.ru/hist/xi-xvii/Vol09m/44.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="831b7d98-2d41-4bb4-b910-efbd2748817d" CreationDate="2019-03-07T16:11:11.690" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="What is the difference between these:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Сколько врЕмени?**&quot; and &quot;**который час?**&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean what time is it, yes? Which one is informal and which one formal? and in which situation can be used?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18233" RevisionGUID="2e8eb31d-9a9c-4322-b45b-3d08f6c236eb" CreationDate="2019-03-07T16:20:14.610" UserId="2104" Text="«Кото́рый час?» is the classical form, dating back to Pushkin and possibly earlier. Nowadays it sounds a bit outdated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«Ско́лько вре́мени?» is a 20th century invention, now preferred by many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean “What time is it?” Related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* В кото́ром часу́ вы придёте? = Во ско́лько вы придёте? - What time are you coming?&#xD;&#xA;* До кото́рого ча́са вы рабо́таете? = До скольки́ вы рабо́таете? - What time do you finish work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«До скольки́» is considered illiterate by purists who believe that it should have been «до ско́льких». &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49012" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18220" RevisionGUID="17a3523e-5b05-4f88-bdee-1b9482cc894f" CreationDate="2019-03-07T18:00:58.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1103717190069600257" />
  <row Id="49013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18234" RevisionGUID="26413baa-095f-485b-be15-9e149c687576" CreationDate="2019-03-07T20:40:32.173" UserId="11537" Text="Is it formal and common in Russian?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**я в вашем распоряжении**&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And exactly means: &quot; I'm at your disposal &quot; ?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other friendly sentence for informal situations?(common in daily conversation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18234" RevisionGUID="26413baa-095f-485b-be15-9e149c687576" CreationDate="2019-03-07T20:40:32.173" UserId="11537" Text="я в вашем распоряжении" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18234" RevisionGUID="26413baa-095f-485b-be15-9e149c687576" CreationDate="2019-03-07T20:40:32.173" UserId="11537" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18235" RevisionGUID="30b842ce-52e9-4d58-9cd6-b2e4e3dbe67e" CreationDate="2019-03-07T20:46:36.867" UserId="11080" Text="You can use it in daily conversations, just sometimes change &quot;вашем&quot; for &quot;твоём&quot;, if you say it to one person you call &quot;ты&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more formal phrase is **я к вашим услугам**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less formal can be anything... But maybe more literal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49017" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18224" RevisionGUID="015610cb-facc-42b9-93e6-1c26a7c0af3c" CreationDate="2019-03-07T21:00:04.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1103762261657747456" />
  <row Id="49018" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18228" RevisionGUID="51d61b81-4f98-4461-84cc-b64fba06c23e" CreationDate="2019-03-07T21:48:38.277" UserId="9256" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Сколько времени?&quot; vs &quot;который час?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18236" RevisionGUID="cf82c9fc-bf8b-4c1a-a3a6-0ddcae069dd6" CreationDate="2019-03-07T22:19:45.683" UserId="9256" Text="As a _standalone_ phrase (usually an answer to a request), all three are very close in their meaning: &quot;No problem!&quot;, although the 3rd variant &quot;не проблема&quot; is more like &quot;Not _a_ problem&quot;, and is usually given when the request is an inquiry about a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex.: &quot;Можешь меня сегодня подбросить?&quot; - &quot;Без проблем&quot;/&quot;Нет проблем&quot; (&quot;Can you give me a ride today?&quot; - &quot;No problem&quot;) and &quot;Можешь меня сегодня подбросить? Но мне нужно пораньше.&quot; - &quot;Не проблема&quot; (&quot;Can you give me a ride today? I need it at an earlier time.&quot; - &quot;Not a problem&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a phrase _in a sentence_, all three have a similar, but distinctively different meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - без проблем - there were no problems/there would be no problems (the usual context is perfective)&#xD;&#xA; - нет проблем - there are no problems (the usual context is imperfective)&#xD;&#xA; - не проблема - [something] is not a problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18237" RevisionGUID="07fa64fe-6706-47a3-a8dc-c8262f99c276" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:03:21.233" UserId="11055" Text="`Ништяк` is a Russian slang term meaning *cool*, *it's very good*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this][1] article, it can also mean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tasty (mostly sweet) food; cookie &#xD;&#xA; - food that has been thrown away but is going to be eaten by someone else &#xD;&#xA; - something regarded as good and gotten for free&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is `ништяк` literally? It sounds a bit like `ниша` but I see there is no connection...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%88%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18237" RevisionGUID="07fa64fe-6706-47a3-a8dc-c8262f99c276" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:03:21.233" UserId="11055" Text="What is ништяк?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18237" RevisionGUID="07fa64fe-6706-47a3-a8dc-c8262f99c276" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:03:21.233" UserId="11055" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18238" RevisionGUID="e73a4489-1954-4a9a-aced-7d3fdd26b5f2" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:16:55.457" UserId="11573" Text="I disagree with Ш in the following statement by Serge Seredenko:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ж is always 'hard', Ч, Ш, Щ are anyway 'soft'.&#xD;&#xA;I have been taught from a native St. Petersburg Russian literature professor that Ш is always hard. And Щ is always soft. That is the difference between Ш and Щ. These two letters are respectively hard and soft -- just as Serge writes, &quot;ж is always hard&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;As in жизнь, they are exceptional consonants, whose hardness/softness is not controlled by the vowel that follows them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49024" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="18238" RevisionGUID="34aaa6df-f019-4b11-ac60-1486d7169103" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:25:45.890" UserId="11573" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11573,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jesus Estrada&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49025" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="18238" RevisionGUID="b0c1c28d-ed47-4799-b4db-947a878c4418" CreationDate="2019-03-08T00:28:51.710" UserId="11573" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11573,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jesus Estrada&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18239" RevisionGUID="2850549d-4eed-48da-8281-47180f7f93b6" CreationDate="2019-03-08T01:31:51.350" UserId="134" Text="*Ништяк* is a nominalization of *ништо*, which is a colloquial pronunciation of *ничего*, which, in turn, means &quot;not bad, good enough&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49027" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18198" RevisionGUID="50f4aa65-5b49-41b8-aab2-eef137d12b0a" CreationDate="2019-03-08T09:00:33.727" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1103943577342746624" />
  <row Id="49028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18240" RevisionGUID="7373c390-f9ef-4091-bb56-284922a27d73" CreationDate="2019-03-08T11:25:33.127" UserId="11576" Text="This is a slang word, it means good/great. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А: Как дела?&#xD;&#xA;Б: Ништяк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А: Ты успел доделать задание?&#xD;&#xA;Б: Да.&#xD;&#xA;А: Ништяк.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also this word can mean a little but desirable present at that moment, like candy or muffin. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А: Я тебе ништяк принес.&#xD;&#xA;Б: О, спасибо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А: Купишь ништяков?&#xD;&#xA;Б: Да.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="088da116-c610-4e6f-ad05-f881691bb001" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:29:46.033" UserId="11537" Text="What is the difference between &quot;**как это устроено**&quot; and &quot;**как это работает**&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean &quot;how it works&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="088da116-c610-4e6f-ad05-f881691bb001" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:29:46.033" UserId="11537" Text="difference between &quot;как это устроено&quot; and &quot;как это работает&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="088da116-c610-4e6f-ad05-f881691bb001" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:29:46.033" UserId="11537" Text="|выражения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="c3208679-8fba-4414-84d9-6cc7f0472ba6" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:36:07.740" UserId="7674" Text="The difference is literal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как это устроено (?)`** - how it's built (how is it built?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как это работает (?)`** - how it works (how does it work?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как это устроено`** can at times be used to mean **`how does it work?`** when one asks to be shown the way to operate something which involves engaging numerous controls in specific sequences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18241" RevisionGUID="9bfa9b40-7f62-4ab9-bf4a-e3de9f6064db" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:41:40.470" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18242" RevisionGUID="223b1980-3235-4598-8acb-dbf6480cf18d" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:42:39.430" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The difference is literal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как это устроено (?)`** - how it's built (how is it built?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как это работает (?)`** - how it works (how does it work?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`как это устроено`** can at times be used to mean **`how does it work?`** when one asks to be shown the way something works which involves engaging numerous controls in specific sequences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18243" RevisionGUID="954df545-1ec7-4d14-8daf-3dbd9069cb1b" CreationDate="2019-03-08T13:53:30.603" UserId="11577" Text="There is another hypothesis that this word derives from « nishtak » (נשתק, meaning « we’ll get calm » in Hebrew). It became part of fenya, the criminals’ slang, and then, of the colloquial Russian language, with the meaning of « cool » or « awesome »." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49036" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18237" RevisionGUID="47eac4d9-2a0b-48c2-ad61-84ead673928e" CreationDate="2019-03-08T15:00:34.070" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1104034175869480961" />
  <row Id="49038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18245" RevisionGUID="f7bc996e-f867-485d-ba50-9210b000fe9b" CreationDate="2019-03-08T17:35:54.447" UserId="11581" Text="Это оскорбление!  Если парень написал в вашем профиле &quot;4мо&quot; значит вы его выиграли и он обиделся или в с ним играли в команде, но при этом из-за ваших ошибок проиграли.&#xD;&#xA;Также, применение оскорблений может быть запрещено на том сайте и использовав &quot;4&quot; вместо буквы &quot;ч&quot; тот парень сделал это специально/умышленно, чтобы не заблокировали сообщение" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18246" RevisionGUID="fb848394-e776-4a4c-8d4f-5a487e36509a" CreationDate="2019-03-08T17:49:24.103" UserId="11581" Text="Ништяк - это означает: круто, здорово, зашибись, обалденно, превосходно, классно. Радость и восторг. &#xD;&#xA; ништячкИ (мн.ч.) ништячок (ед.ч.) - это означает приятные вещи, сладости, вкуснятину" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49040" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="18246" RevisionGUID="729b233a-7313-4a02-a751-412e257ce7cc" CreationDate="2019-03-08T17:49:24.103" UserId="11581" />
  <row Id="49041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="38ffe93f-65f5-4960-9428-3e74a62714a5" CreationDate="2019-03-08T18:16:39.457" UserId="11537" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;**что ты**&quot; when person uses it during conversation like this:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Это твой папа?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Нет! **что ты!** Это мой дядя.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It means, what are you saying? or you are saying wrong thing!&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And another question, can I use it with &quot;**Вы**&quot; in the formal situation?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;like: Это ваш папа?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Нет! **что вы!** Это мой дядя.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And it will not be rude?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="38ffe93f-65f5-4960-9428-3e74a62714a5" CreationDate="2019-03-08T18:16:39.457" UserId="11537" Text="meaning and usage of &quot;что ты&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18247" RevisionGUID="38ffe93f-65f5-4960-9428-3e74a62714a5" CreationDate="2019-03-08T18:16:39.457" UserId="11537" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18239" RevisionGUID="b13fff16-b3d6-46dd-9e05-a4ed7018e3fa" CreationDate="2019-03-08T18:19:47.830" UserId="134" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="*Ништяк* is a nominalization of *ништо*, which is a colloquial pronunciation of *ничего*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ничего*, in its turn, means &quot;not bad, good enough&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18248" RevisionGUID="947369fd-4a15-4152-bf0c-face0ac9cba2" CreationDate="2019-03-08T18:47:51.737" UserId="7674" Text="1. Yes it means the person is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes you can. It's not rude but in my opinion it's not particularly polite either to the extent that it's not polite to point out their mistakes to strangers. But it's acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18248" RevisionGUID="46772e5f-0f2b-4c59-b503-c8b66064e0d9" CreationDate="2019-03-08T18:56:03.917" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="1. It means the person is wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Yes you can. It's not rude but in my opinion it's not particularly polite either to the extent that it's not polite to point out their mistakes to strangers. But it's acceptable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18249" RevisionGUID="fb2f4f86-e16e-4634-96fc-8c5f99a84ef1" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:57:56.810" UserId="6539" Text="Это твой папа?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нет! что ты! Это мой дядя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that &quot;что ты/вы is a colloquial version of &quot;you are mistaken&quot;. Both ты and вы can be used. It sounds normal to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18250" RevisionGUID="73cf86a9-19d4-4fc4-aff0-a3dcd94f4107" CreationDate="2019-03-08T20:12:46.197" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Что ты&quot; (or &quot;что вы&quot;) means &quot;you are wrong&quot; or &quot;your suggestion is over the top&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saying that is definitely not rude. Whether it is actually polite depends on context. For an innocent mistake, it's probably not very polite. For a guess that was meant as a compliment, &quot;что вы&quot; is perfectly fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ex.: &quot;Это Вы сами сочинили?&quot; - &quot;Что Вы!&quot; (&quot;You composed that yourself?&quot; - &quot;Of course not!&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18251" RevisionGUID="bd78d538-5841-4386-8dda-fef0dec965cd" CreationDate="2019-03-08T22:20:40.790" UserId="11582" Text="I've read [i] doesn't really occur in the context I've described but I still want to know whether the meaning is changed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18251" RevisionGUID="bd78d538-5841-4386-8dda-fef0dec965cd" CreationDate="2019-03-08T22:20:40.790" UserId="11582" Text="In Russian, is [i] a possible substitute for [ш] after a velarized consonant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18251" RevisionGUID="bd78d538-5841-4386-8dda-fef0dec965cd" CreationDate="2019-03-08T22:20:40.790" UserId="11582" Text="|фонетика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="8894d29e-2fdf-4856-b572-bc8fd2d38762" CreationDate="2019-03-09T12:24:17.727" UserId="8109" Comment="improved punctuation" Text="&gt; — Помнишь Иванова?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Иванова? А, вспоминаю (вспомнил).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Помнить* is to remember, to keep in mind. It is a state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Вспоминать (вспомнить)* is to recall, to bring memories back. It is an action, a process, when memories come back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49053" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18193" RevisionGUID="8894d29e-2fdf-4856-b572-bc8fd2d38762" CreationDate="2019-03-09T12:24:17.727" Comment="Proposed by 8109 approved by 10999, 4481 edit id of 2020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18252" RevisionGUID="3a4f9f19-c4d5-4c93-91bf-b4a0b816aca9" CreationDate="2019-03-09T18:13:09.423" UserId="11021" Text="i cannot figure out the pronunciation of this word стоят&#xD;&#xA;is it stOyat, Stoyit, stoYat, i am very confused&#xD;&#xA;i checked this website that annotates words but it shows two different one &#xD;&#xA;http://russiangram.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i also went on wikipedia and it showed to forms of the word and i cannot figure out which one is which.&#xD;&#xA;https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is in this type of context:&#xD;&#xA;сколько стоят помидоры&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18252" RevisionGUID="3a4f9f19-c4d5-4c93-91bf-b4a0b816aca9" CreationDate="2019-03-09T18:13:09.423" UserId="11021" Text="Is there stress on two letters on the word стоят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18252" RevisionGUID="3a4f9f19-c4d5-4c93-91bf-b4a0b816aca9" CreationDate="2019-03-09T18:13:09.423" UserId="11021" Text="|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18253" RevisionGUID="1fe734d7-d3ca-42f3-8d29-cc79104a8d2b" CreationDate="2019-03-09T18:28:13.377" UserId="2104" Text="The IPA for Russian Ы is [ɨ], not [ɯ].&#xA;&#xA;This sound does not occur after velarized (soft) consonants in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18253" RevisionGUID="6082872d-ea39-4ffe-9cf0-62cb1cee50cd" CreationDate="2019-03-09T18:37:27.937" UserId="2104" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="The IPA for Russian Ы is [ɨ], not [ɯ].&#xA;&#xA;This sound does not occur after velarized (soft) consonants in Russian.&#xA;&#xA;Similarly, [i] occurs only after velarized consonants (or at the beginning of a word)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18254" RevisionGUID="794708ea-1ba6-48cc-a981-7533993f27ce" CreationDate="2019-03-09T18:46:36.047" UserId="10749" Text="You are confused because those are indeed two completely different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; СтоЯТ помидоры&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; would mean that tomatoes are standing (perhaps boxes of tomatoes are standing in the corner of a grocery store).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cколько СТОят помидоры?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; means &quot;how much are tomatoes?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case the verb is &quot;стоЯТЬ&quot; (to stand), in the second case, the one you're asking about, the verb is &quot;СТОить&quot; (to cost, to be worth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Не стоИТ`&quot; means doesn't stand, often by defaults it describes erectile dysfunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Не СТОит`&quot; means &quot;[it's] not worth it&quot;, &quot;don't do it&quot;, &quot;no, thanks&quot; (&quot;not worth it&quot; being the literate translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Он/она того не СТОит`&quot; means he/she isn't worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Он/она уже на ногах не стоИТ`&quot; means he/she is so drunk, that he/she can't even stand upright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since in Russian stress marks are not used except for learning materials the only way to know whether 'to stand' or 'to cost/be worth' is used is from the context. &quot;`Сколько стоит... ?`&quot; is pretty straight forward as it's clearly a question regarding the price of something (&quot;How much is... ?&quot;). However question starting with &quot;сколько&quot; and followed with &quot;стоит&quot; can in some instances refer to standing. For example &quot;`Да сколько вы там уже стоите?!`&quot; means &quot;Just how long have you been stuck there for?!&quot;, so &quot;и&quot; would be stressed in that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49060" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18252" RevisionGUID="7b4785aa-0d78-4afe-9888-2dacb44b8098" CreationDate="2019-03-09T19:59:56.880" />
  <row Id="49061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18254" RevisionGUID="7c874ef4-6524-4125-bfb1-5e6499ff51b4" CreationDate="2019-03-09T23:22:43.667" UserId="10749" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You are confused because those are indeed two completely different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; СтоЯТ помидоры&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; would mean that tomatoes are standing (perhaps boxes of tomatoes are standing in the corner of a grocery store).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cколько СТОят помидоры?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; means &quot;how much are tomatoes?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case the verb is &quot;стоЯТЬ&quot; (to stand), in the second case, the one you're asking about, the verb is &quot;СТОить&quot; (to cost, to be worth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Не стоИТ`&quot; means doesn't stand, often by default it refers to erectile dysfunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Не СТОит`&quot; means &quot;[it's] not worth it&quot;, &quot;don't do it&quot;, &quot;no, thanks&quot; (&quot;not worth it&quot; being the literate translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Он/она того не СТОит`&quot; means he/she isn't worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Он/она уже на ногах не стоИТ`&quot; means he/she is so drunk, that he/she can't even stand upright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since in Russian stress marks are not used except for learning materials the only way to know whether 'to stand' or 'to cost/be worth' is used is from the context. &quot;`Сколько стоит... ?`&quot; is pretty straight forward as it's clearly a question regarding the price of something (&quot;How much is... ?&quot;). However question starting with &quot;сколько&quot; and followed with &quot;стоит&quot; can in some instances refer to standing. For example &quot;`Да сколько вы там уже стоите?!`&quot; means &quot;Just how long have you been stuck there for?!&quot;, so &quot;и&quot; would be stressed in that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18254" RevisionGUID="d788bad5-e2ce-4f40-997b-50a8c30e7b35" CreationDate="2019-03-10T00:14:01.590" UserId="9602" Comment="proper stress marks" Text="You are confused because those are indeed two completely different verbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Стоя́т помидоры&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; would mean that tomatoes are standing (perhaps boxes of tomatoes are standing in the corner of a grocery store).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cколько сто́ят помидоры?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; means &quot;how much are tomatoes?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case the verb is &quot;стоя́ть&quot; (to stand), in the second case, the one you're asking about, the verb is &quot;сто́ить&quot; (to cost, to be worth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Не стои́т`&quot; means doesn't stand, often by default it refers to erectile dysfunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Не сто́ит`&quot; means &quot;[it's] not worth it&quot;, &quot;don't do it&quot;, &quot;no, thanks&quot; (&quot;not worth it&quot; being the literate translation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Он/она того не сто́ит`&quot; means he/she isn't worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;`Он/она уже на ногах не стои́т`&quot; means he/she is so drunk, that he/she can't even stand upright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since in Russian stress marks are not used except for learning materials the only way to know whether 'to stand' or 'to cost/be worth' is used is from the context. &quot;`Сколько стоит... ?`&quot; is pretty straight forward as it's clearly a question regarding the price of something (&quot;How much is... ?&quot;). However question starting with &quot;сколько&quot; and followed with &quot;стоит&quot; can in some instances refer to standing. For example &quot;`Да сколько вы там уже стоите?!`&quot; means &quot;Just how long have you been stuck there for?!&quot;, so &quot;и&quot; would be stressed in that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18255" RevisionGUID="e9490d67-9f86-4b10-a36d-219cfbfe0c75" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:43:13.760" UserId="3892" Text="¿Какая разница между **познакомиться** и **зазнакомиться**: &#xA;&#xA;&quot;Давным-давно, когда мои зубы еще держались за челюсть корнями, а не штифтами, зазнакомились мы с приятелем с двумя девчонками&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;Еще вроде бы пару раз встретил «замирились» вместо «помирились»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49064" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18255" RevisionGUID="e9490d67-9f86-4b10-a36d-219cfbfe0c75" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:43:13.760" UserId="3892" Text="Difference between зазнакомиться and познакомиться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49065" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18255" RevisionGUID="e9490d67-9f86-4b10-a36d-219cfbfe0c75" CreationDate="2019-03-10T02:43:13.760" UserId="3892" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18256" RevisionGUID="7828aa17-444d-4fb0-ba1b-a57840e1914f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T03:44:53.647" UserId="3892" Text="Искал этот глагол в нескольких словарях, но не тут-то было.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; в этот раз **недоперепил**, так что нормально." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18256" RevisionGUID="7828aa17-444d-4fb0-ba1b-a57840e1914f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T03:44:53.647" UserId="3892" Text="Meaning of недоперепить" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18256" RevisionGUID="7828aa17-444d-4fb0-ba1b-a57840e1914f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T03:44:53.647" UserId="3892" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18258" RevisionGUID="f419bd3e-984f-47fa-a644-393a7cd230fc" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:07:15.890" UserId="7674" Text="This is a facetious verb which formally doesn't exist because both prefixes negate each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[недоперепить](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/недоперепить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выпить больше, чем возможно, но меньше, чем хочется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically the implied idea is that overdrinking is good and you haven't had enough of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18260" RevisionGUID="e9cf4365-3d8b-4a4e-9e05-5863880d8867" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:14:34.527" UserId="11055" Text="`Недоперепить` is a very colloquial, non-standard verb. It's no surprise you haven't found it in dictionaries. Still, it's used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means a very strange thing, I guess. `Перепить` means to drink too much, with all the consequences (I mean a bad hangover). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix `недо` is supposed to negate the prefix `пере` in `пить`. The result is that the whole verb means to drink a lot but less than one would actually like to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18260" RevisionGUID="cbd79d9b-6b88-45de-9e1d-fadb231fee5b" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:20:42.810" UserId="11055" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="`Недоперепить` is a very colloquial, non-standard verb. It's no surprise you haven't found it in dictionaries. Still, it's used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means a very strange thing, I guess. `Перепить` means to drink too much, with all the consequences (I mean a bad hangover). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix `недо` is supposed to negate the prefix `пере` in `пить`. The result is that the whole verb means to drink a lot but less than one would actually like to. If one says `недоперепил`, it doesn't necessarily mean the person doesn't have a hungover, though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="62141eb5-7afc-4314-9183-f90f3fb82234" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:20:59.393" UserId="7674" Text="Neither have I encountered it previously. In Google results it mostly features in the sense of starting a romantic relationship (regardless of its duration). Basically just as in your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **за-** may be a borrowing from the verb **`завести`** of the locution **`завести знакомство`**. It's also used in a slangy verb **`замутить`** which among other things has the meaning **`to start a relationship`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`познакомиться`** is just a square verb whose meaning isn't limited to making acquaintance for the sake of sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18255" RevisionGUID="3974d4a2-f4cb-45db-99dc-f97f702fd8b1" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:35:12.213" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="¿Какая разница между **познакомиться** и **зазнакомиться**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Давным-давно, когда мои зубы еще держались за челюсть корнями, а не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; штифтами, зазнакомились мы с приятелем с двумя девчонками&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Еще вроде бы пару раз встретил «замирились» вместо «помирились»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18258" RevisionGUID="7d8d94db-d814-4fb0-9798-8bbb04da2b18" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:39:30.057" UserId="7674" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="This is a facetious verb which formally doesn't exist because both prefixes negate each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[недоперепить](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/недоперепить)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выпить больше, чем возможно, но меньше, чем хочется&#xD;&#xA;(seems to be a classic definition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically the implied idea is that overdrinking is good and you haven't had enough of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18262" RevisionGUID="e3c7d790-c93a-4123-8a2d-ab1df096626d" CreationDate="2019-03-10T08:43:14.203" UserId="11080" Text="**Зазнакомиться** и **замириться** are both colloquial, maybe dialect words meaning **познакомиться** и **помириться**. You should use the later variants, while the former are to be understood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The versions with &quot;за-&quot; serve for the style-presupposing purposes, they imply story-telling in an informal, friendly manner, as well as mentioning natural and artificial teeth. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="7d508dd4-f30f-4639-91a4-6baf24408728" CreationDate="2019-03-10T09:17:36.473" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Neither did I encounter it previously. In Google results it mostly features in the sense of starting a romantic relationship (regardless of its duration). Basically just as in your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **за-** may be a borrowing from the verb **`завести`** of the locution **`завести знакомство`**. It's also used in a slangy verb **`замутить`** which among other things has the meaning **`to start a relationship`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`познакомиться`** is just a square verb whose meaning isn't limited to making acquaintance for the sake of sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="540bf457-0151-471c-94f3-a6449324a3a0" CreationDate="2019-03-10T10:54:29.887" UserId="7674" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Neither did I encounter **`зазнакомиться`** previously. In Google results it mostly features in the sense of starting a romantic relationship (regardless of its duration). Basically just as in your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **за-** may be a borrowing from the verb **`завести`** of the locution **`завести знакомство`**. It's also used in a slangy verb **`замутить`** which among other things has the meaning **`to start a relationship`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`познакомиться`** is just a square verb whose meaning isn't limited to making acquaintance for the sake of sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="24bad01d-22cf-4d12-a8c7-b822ad6f9479" CreationDate="2019-03-10T11:00:48.373" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Neither did I encounter **`зазнакомиться`** previously. In Google results it mostly features in informal contexts in the sense of starting a romantic relationship (regardless of its duration). Basically just as in your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **за-** may be a borrowing from the verb **`завести`** of the locution **`завести знакомство`**. It's also used in a slangy verb **`замутить`** which among other things has the meaning **`to start a relationship`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`познакомиться`** is just a square verb whose meaning isn't limited to making acquaintance for the sake of sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18261" RevisionGUID="6a841ae1-cea9-4f6d-89d9-dc1af586cd1f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T14:05:30.023" UserId="3892" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Neither have I encountered **`зазнакомиться`** previously. In Google results it mostly features in informal contexts in the sense of starting a romantic relationship (regardless of its duration). Basically just as in your example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix **за-** may be a borrowing from the verb **`завести`** of the locution **`завести знакомство`**. It's also used in a slangy verb **`замутить`** which among other things has the meaning **`to start a relationship`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`познакомиться`** is just a square verb whose meaning isn't limited to making acquaintance for the sake of sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18262" RevisionGUID="8c20fdae-ebb6-4a1a-8578-189fb01a336f" CreationDate="2019-03-10T14:09:10.623" UserId="3892" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**Зазнакомиться** и **замириться** are both colloquial, maybe dialectal words meaning **познакомиться** и **помириться**. You should use the latter variants, although the former will be understood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The versions with &quot;за-&quot; serve for the style-presupposing purposes, they imply storytelling in an informal, friendly manner, as well as mentioning natural and false teeth. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18260" RevisionGUID="93ecd9e0-0245-4df5-aa63-2b49e7c411f3" CreationDate="2019-03-10T14:24:09.083" UserId="3892" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="&quot;Недоперепить&quot; is a very colloquial, non-standard verb. It's no surprise you haven't found it in dictionaries. Still, it's used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means a very strange thing, I think. &quot;Перепить&quot; means to drink too much, with all the consequences that come with it (by that I mean a bad hangover). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prefix &quot;недо&quot; is meant to negate the prefix &quot;пере&quot; in &quot;пить.&quot; The result is that the whole verb means to drink a lot, but less than one would actually like to. If one says &quot;недоперепил,&quot; it doesn't necessarily mean the person doesn't have a hangover, though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18263" RevisionGUID="8b050736-4d36-498f-8a85-6582db965156" CreationDate="2019-03-10T16:31:35.410" UserId="6907" Text="What's the 'present simple' form of the word &quot;нашла́&quot; in 3rd person singular female?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; She **finds** a new toy every week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I look for this word [in a table of this verb][1] and it's not obvious for me in which form of the verb I should use in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should it be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oна **найдёт** новую игрушку каждую неделю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B8#%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18263" RevisionGUID="8b050736-4d36-498f-8a85-6582db965156" CreationDate="2019-03-10T16:31:35.410" UserId="6907" Text="What's the 'present simple' form of the word &quot;нашла́&quot; in 3rd person singular female?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18263" RevisionGUID="8b050736-4d36-498f-8a85-6582db965156" CreationDate="2019-03-10T16:31:35.410" UserId="6907" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18264" RevisionGUID="a63b1a56-484a-4bcf-b9e0-449ce581fcf1" CreationDate="2019-03-10T17:00:44.983" UserId="11590" Text="No, it shouldn't, a different verb should be used here -- &quot;находить&quot;. The 3rd person singular form of this verb is &quot;находит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between those two verbs is aspect. &quot;Найти&quot; is perfective verb, while &quot;находить&quot; is imperfective. Imperfective verbs are usually used in place of english present simple tense.&#xD;&#xA;So, the correct translation should be &quot;Она находит новую игрушку каждую неделю.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on a side note, perfective verbs have no present tense at all, and the form you put in is actually future. And verbs doesn't conjugate for gender in present and future tenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm new to this site, so exuse me, if I did something wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18265" RevisionGUID="957d92bd-533f-4bf1-97be-865c1883c6e1" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:07:05.313" UserId="9762" Text="My dictionary says that &quot;ездить&quot; is the indeterminate of &quot;ехать&quot; which is to ride. The dictionary then says that &quot;водить&quot; is to operate. Can someone explain the difference to me and give some examples of when to use each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо Большое" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18265" RevisionGUID="957d92bd-533f-4bf1-97be-865c1883c6e1" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:07:05.313" UserId="9762" Text="Difference between водить машину and ездить на машине?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18265" RevisionGUID="957d92bd-533f-4bf1-97be-865c1883c6e1" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:07:05.313" UserId="9762" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18266" RevisionGUID="70266f7d-2a2c-4099-85c5-2b90a2f69a81" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:57:14.447" UserId="7674" Text="**`ехать/ездить`** - to ride (regardless of being a passenger or the driver)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`водить`** - to drive (being the driver)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To ride/move in a car - Ехать/ездить на машине&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; To drive a car - Вести/водить машину / Управлять машиной" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18267" RevisionGUID="4c2a06f2-288e-49f5-8521-99aa0cd65a36" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:58:03.053" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Недаром все чаще и чаще слышится выражение: «**молодежь не та пошла**! » - извечный конфликт поколений. Разумеется, саму молодежь вполне устраивает то, какая она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what this expression means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49096" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18267" RevisionGUID="4c2a06f2-288e-49f5-8521-99aa0cd65a36" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:58:03.053" UserId="8672" Text="How to interpret and parse the expression &quot;молодежь не та пошла&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49097" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18267" RevisionGUID="4c2a06f2-288e-49f5-8521-99aa0cd65a36" CreationDate="2019-03-10T18:58:03.053" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18268" RevisionGUID="a262ddc6-392c-4849-8963-83c5d5dc0ea0" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:01:14.913" UserId="6539" Text="Ездить на машине means you can be a passenger or a driver. When you use водить,  you can be only a driver. For a driver both words are synonymous.Водить also underlines the process of operating the car.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Он водит машину хорошо.(Он ездит хорошо sounds a bit weird,  but it can be used in colloquial speech )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="9bbc5588-7e76-481a-8b2e-8ca669768d30" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:05:11.323" UserId="7674" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The youth nowadays is not the same as the youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="5fcf2441-36e5-42e7-9937-5bf585cf969e" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:10:58.853" UserId="7674" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The youth nowadays is not the same as the youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник хилый пошёл (какой-то), 10 раз подтянуться не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="17f7b52d-319f-4222-bd38-7d125775edb0" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:16:00.887" UserId="7674" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The youth nowadays is not the same as the youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49102" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18263" RevisionGUID="dde82fa5-4ef6-4584-8397-6f8702f889b0" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:16:26.120" />
  <row Id="49103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="915987c5-59c0-418d-a390-b8ca06ddf392" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:21:16.310" UserId="7674" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The youth nowadays is not the same as the youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл. &lt;sup&gt;*positive*&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18270" RevisionGUID="37ca9c95-7fcd-4279-af7a-193e5c1ade65" CreationDate="2019-03-10T19:41:45.893" UserId="5443" Text="**Водить** (машину) typically means *having skills* of a driver (plus a driver's license). It doesn't necessarily mean the person owns a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **вожу** машину. I **can drive** a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ездить** (на машине) can either specify someone's *usual type of transportation* (driving or not) or emphasize their car *ownership*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **ездит** на машине (а не на метро; возможно, и не сам водит).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он **ездит** на Порше. (У него свой Порш.) He **drives** a Porsche." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="8e6f775a-0b0d-4183-93d1-59585bec8672" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:20:51.943" UserId="7674" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (the quality of) youth nowadays is not the same as the (the quality of) youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл. &lt;sup&gt;*positive*&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18271" RevisionGUID="9e7fa1ed-64ab-4ac7-b64e-e88b04ee87b0" CreationDate="2019-03-10T20:42:25.113" UserId="4071" Text="Находит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Она находит новую игрушку каждую неделю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18271" RevisionGUID="7106bbe0-928b-4292-accf-35ddab39b877" CreationDate="2019-03-11T01:38:16.050" UserId="10999" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Находит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она находит новую игрушку каждую неделю." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18263" RevisionGUID="71f4e79f-e96b-4e0b-88d2-ba624c38f593" CreationDate="2019-03-11T06:00:31.817" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1104985434512416768" />
  <row Id="49111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="0ffb610d-18b2-4cc1-af40-15132eb0190b" CreationDate="2019-03-11T07:26:25.130" UserId="7674" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (the quality of) youth nowadays is not the same as the (the quality of) youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Первокурсники пошли уже не те! Вместо привычных гладиолусов в руках новомодные гаджеты. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл. &lt;sup&gt;*positive*&lt;/sup&gt; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18272" RevisionGUID="e0f98ab7-fc09-45a3-b367-a16576a82384" CreationDate="2019-03-11T07:34:42.603" UserId="11537" Text="Why we should use &quot;**же**&quot; in this sentence:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**где же ручка?**&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Without &quot;**же**&quot; this sentence is also complete!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And also I saw in another sentences, too.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And &quot;**же**&quot; means same or again?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49113" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18272" RevisionGUID="e0f98ab7-fc09-45a3-b367-a16576a82384" CreationDate="2019-03-11T07:34:42.603" UserId="11537" Text="Usage of &quot;же&quot;, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49114" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18272" RevisionGUID="e0f98ab7-fc09-45a3-b367-a16576a82384" CreationDate="2019-03-11T07:34:42.603" UserId="11537" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="33f15f6e-02c7-4673-9572-2a3f664a1dac" CreationDate="2019-03-11T07:38:16.747" UserId="7674" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`**, **`has become`**, **`turns out to be`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (the quality of) youth nowadays is not the same as the (the quality of) youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Первокурсники пошли уже не те! Вместо привычных гладиолусов в руках новомодные гаджеты. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; - The freshmen are not the same any longer / what they used to be. Instead of the usual bouquet of sword lilies holding fashionable gadgets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; - Customers nowadays are kind of poor, don't buy more that a kilogram.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут. &lt;sup&gt;*negaive*&lt;/sup&gt; - Conscripts are kind of feeble nowadays, can't do 10 pull-ups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл. &lt;sup&gt;*positive*&lt;/sup&gt; - We recently got in touch with the locals, they said there's almost no pike, but perch became very big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18273" RevisionGUID="7824a15b-aeb7-45ea-b894-6c12708c118b" CreationDate="2019-03-11T07:46:41.123" UserId="7674" Text="Here **же** is an emphatic intensifying particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Где ручка?** is a straight question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Где же ручка?** may be an expression of **1)** impatience and annoyance of not being able to find it (Where's the pan for god's sake?) or **2)** surprise about its disappearance or inability to find it (So where's the pen?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18273" RevisionGUID="63dc7478-d7f0-4432-a58b-687d32f9bfd5" CreationDate="2019-03-11T09:40:23.747" UserId="7674" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Here **же** is an emphatic intensifying particle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Где ручка?** is a straight question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Где же ручка?** may be an expression of **1)** impatience, frustration and annoyance of not being able to find it (Where's the pen for god's sake?) or **2)** surprise about its disappearance or inability to find it (So where's the pen?)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="f131990f-c9ab-492d-a06c-c6d4ffe7433e" CreationDate="2019-03-11T10:24:15.910" UserId="134" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`**, **`has become`**, **`turns out to be`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (the quality of) youth nowadays is not the same as the (the quality of) youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Первокурсники пошли уже не те! Вместо привычных гладиолусов в руках новомодные гаджеты. &lt;sup&gt;*negative*&lt;/sup&gt; - The freshmen are not the same any longer / what they used to be. Instead of the usual bouquet of sword lilies holding fashionable gadgets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает. &lt;sup&gt;*negative*&lt;/sup&gt; - Customers nowadays are kind of poor, don't buy more than half a kilogram.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут. &lt;sup&gt;*negative*&lt;/sup&gt; - Conscripts are kind of feeble nowadays, can't do 10 pull-ups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл. &lt;sup&gt;*positive*&lt;/sup&gt; - We recently got in touch with the locals, they said there's almost no pike, but perch became very big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18269" RevisionGUID="688d344e-f583-43ff-87be-d60fa351f468" CreationDate="2019-03-11T10:31:36.983" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="**`пошла`** can be literally translated as **`has emerged`**, **`has become`**, **`turns out to be`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The (the quality of) youth nowadays is not the same as the (the quality of) youth of the past. A classic rant of the older generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used in other situations as well, when something has changed for the better or for the worse in comparison to the past (although the latter seems to be prevalent)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Первокурсники пошли уже не те! Вместо привычных гладиолусов в руках новомодные гаджеты. &lt;sup&gt;*negative*&lt;/sup&gt; - The freshmen are not the same any longer / what they used to be. Instead of the usual bouquet of sword lilies holding fashionable gadgets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Клиент (какой-то) бедный пошёл нынче, больше полкило не покупает. &lt;sup&gt;*negative*&lt;/sup&gt; - Customers nowadays are kind of poor, don't buy more than half a kilogram.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Призывник сейчас хилый пошёл, 10 раз подтянуться не могут. &lt;sup&gt;*negative*&lt;/sup&gt; - Conscripts are kind of feeble nowadays, can't do 10 pull-ups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На днях созванивались с местными, сказали что щуки практически нет, но зато окунь очень крупный пошёл. &lt;sup&gt;*positive*&lt;/sup&gt; - We recently got in touch with the locals, they said there's virtually no pike, but perch became very big." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18264" RevisionGUID="c5240a51-249c-44d0-b48f-14b61990ae51" CreationDate="2019-03-11T12:30:39.517" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections, the rest of the post is fine" Text="No, it shouldn't, a different verb should be used here -- &quot;находить&quot;. The 3rd person singular form of this verb is &quot;находит&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between those two verbs is the aspect. &quot;Найти&quot; is a perfective verb, while &quot;находить&quot; is imperfective. Imperfective verbs are usually used in place of English present simple tense.&#xD;&#xA;So, the correct translation should be &quot;Она находит новую игрушку каждую неделю.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, on a side note, perfective verbs have no present tense at all, and the form you put in is actually future. And verbs don't conjugate for gender in present and future tenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49121" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18264" RevisionGUID="c5240a51-249c-44d0-b48f-14b61990ae51" CreationDate="2019-03-11T12:30:39.517" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 10999, 5605 edit id of 2021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="537ff204-21d5-4b46-9887-abd475e89cc1" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:30:42.707" UserId="197" Text="If someone comes late to work and gives the excuse &quot;Я переспал&quot;, will people understand this to mean that he overslept, or would it have a different connotation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="537ff204-21d5-4b46-9887-abd475e89cc1" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:30:42.707" UserId="197" Text="Can переспать be used to mean &quot;oversleep&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="537ff204-21d5-4b46-9887-abd475e89cc1" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:30:42.707" UserId="197" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18275" RevisionGUID="bc08cc40-6d59-46e9-9878-fc8e277ef063" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:38:51.377" UserId="11595" Text="&quot;Я переспал&quot; means &quot;I slept (with someone)&quot; or even &quot;I have slept (with someone)&quot;. &quot;I overslept&quot; would be &quot;Я проспал&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18276" RevisionGUID="7c3ed050-685a-42d9-91ab-9f7a747ac9c1" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:43:07.453" UserId="11594" Text="Something like 'Could you please take a photo of me? . I searched everywhere and can't seem to find something similar. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18276" RevisionGUID="7c3ed050-685a-42d9-91ab-9f7a747ac9c1" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:43:07.453" UserId="11594" Text="How can I ask someone to take a photograph of me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18276" RevisionGUID="7c3ed050-685a-42d9-91ab-9f7a747ac9c1" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:43:07.453" UserId="11594" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18277" RevisionGUID="c0f4b50a-22fa-4f2f-9ce0-0a35ded155f9" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:51:14.747" UserId="560" Text="«Сфотографируйте меня, пожалуйста.» or «Сфотографируете меня, пожалуйста?» is something I’d probably say. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18278" RevisionGUID="efab872d-b24e-4bce-836b-6b9ad300e928" CreationDate="2019-03-11T17:30:07.363" UserId="179" Text="I'll try to answer this by explaining the parts of the expression one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the word *&quot;молодежь&quot;* means &quot;youth&quot;, no problem with this.&#xD;&#xA;- the word *&quot;та&quot;* is a feminine (since &quot;молодежь&quot; is feminine in Russian) form of the word *&quot;тот&quot;*, which means &quot;that&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;- *&quot;не та&quot;* is the negation of *&quot;та&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word *&quot;пошла&quot;* is the most complicated in the expression, so I'll touch it separately. It is a feminine (since &quot;молодежь&quot; is feminine in Russian, of course) past form of the verb &quot;пойти&quot;, &quot;to move&quot;, &quot;to go&quot;. In that case it literally means &quot;to occur&quot;. In Russian, when we have a series something and we are encountering items from this series, we use the words &quot;идти, пойти&quot; to convey this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Сейчас **идет** интересный сериал по ТВ — Now an interesting TV series is on TV (although this can also mean that an episode is being on air right now, I'm talking about the situation when a series is on TV generally, not exactly at this moment). Literally that means that some series is currently going and some items (episodes in this example) occurred, some not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that this is applicable to all series, &quot;series&quot; one can imagine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the expression in question the meaning is **literally** this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*there is a series of &quot;youthes&quot; (like yesterday youth, youth in 1917 or whatever). And now, current &quot;youthes&quot; or a single current youth, which **is occurring now**, is different (the negation &quot;не&quot; conveys this) from the previous ones, which **have occurred previously** referred by (&quot;та&quot; — &quot;feminine that&quot;). The expression doesn't elaborate how it differs exactly.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not literally, the expression means, that today's youth is not what it used to be previously. Sounds like a rebuke or condemnation in the expression, but not necessarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some good examples were provided in the other answer, I just wanted to provide generalization for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18279" RevisionGUID="8b1bedd5-33ed-49f6-b86f-2ac0db14107b" CreationDate="2019-03-11T18:51:38.677" UserId="7674" Text="**сфотографируйте меня пожалуйста** is not exactly an equivalent of your English phrasing, because it sounds somewhat presumptuous as if you were already sure the person would agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А more accurate translation and also a more polite (in my view) address would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не могли бы меня сфотографировать? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; OR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно вас попросить меня сфотографировать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя ли вас попросить меня сфотографировать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR a little less formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы меня не сфотографируете?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you basically ask whether the person would agree to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18279" RevisionGUID="ddc2e237-49d3-4da2-b838-de31b8449aaa" CreationDate="2019-03-11T18:56:56.227" UserId="7674" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="**сфотографируйте меня пожалуйста** is not exactly an equivalent of your English phrasing, because it sounds somewhat presumptuous as if you were already sure the person would agree and it makes it harder for them to refuse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А more accurate translation and also a more polite (in my view) address would be &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы не могли бы меня сфотографировать? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; OR&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Можно вас попросить меня сфотографировать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя ли вас попросить меня сфотографировать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;OR a little less formal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Вы меня не сфотографируете?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you basically ask whether the person would agree to help you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18280" RevisionGUID="8b4bfb35-ced4-4f17-8249-0b3c931fe39f" CreationDate="2019-03-11T20:33:26.850" UserId="11537" Text="Somebody say: I took the full test score&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And I answer: **Good for you!**&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;which one is correct in Russian:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**хорошо для тебя**&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;or&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**повезло тебе**&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And also we use &quot;**тебе на пользу**&quot; in another situation like: eating healthy food is **good for you** ?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18280" RevisionGUID="8b4bfb35-ced4-4f17-8249-0b3c931fe39f" CreationDate="2019-03-11T20:33:26.850" UserId="11537" Text="Good for you! in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18280" RevisionGUID="8b4bfb35-ced4-4f17-8249-0b3c931fe39f" CreationDate="2019-03-11T20:33:26.850" UserId="11537" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18281" RevisionGUID="9748efac-1eeb-489a-8201-e2b27373aaee" CreationDate="2019-03-11T21:18:15.860" UserId="7674" Text="**хорошо для тебя** in this context is not idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess in Russian it can be expressed with **Поздравляю!** or **Молодец/Молодчина!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Тебе) везёт / Везёт (тебе)** is suitable in situations where luck is truly a determinant or when there's some degree of jealousy involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of physical benefit it's usually phrased as **полезно**, and **тебе полезно** when it's beneficial specifically to that person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тебе на пользу** is normally coupled with the verb **идти** and refers to certain vivid signs of the benefit or lack thereof observed after the fact or predicted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18281" RevisionGUID="7a7775bd-5e60-4686-8804-a7f1bb5484b0" CreationDate="2019-03-11T21:47:05.950" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="**хорошо для тебя** in this context is not idiomatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess in Russian it can be expressed with **Поздравляю!** or **Молодец/Молодчина!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**(Тебе) везёт / Везёт (тебе)** is suitable in situations where luck is truly a determinant or when there's some degree of jealousy involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of physical benefit it's usually phrased as **полезно**, and **тебе полезно** when it's beneficial specifically to that person&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**тебе на пользу** is normally coupled with the verb **идти** and refers to certain vivid signs of the benefit or lack thereof observed in the person after the fact or predicted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49139" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18280" RevisionGUID="92ba658f-8e63-44dc-b24a-80d5aa8f43cf" CreationDate="2019-03-11T22:09:34.433" />
  <row Id="49141" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18280" RevisionGUID="137250a0-a947-46ba-a76d-a3a625b7ee60" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:00:35.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1105347835728408576" />
  <row Id="49142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18282" RevisionGUID="e4915b99-9f3c-4a57-ad57-720203ad2929" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:18:48.317" UserId="11537" Text="What's the difference between &quot;**неважно**&quot; and &quot;**ничего**&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand both mean &quot;**never mind**&quot;, but what about usage?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;for example when I ask somebody but he/she can't understand me, can I use both of them as the response to interrupt the conversation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18282" RevisionGUID="e4915b99-9f3c-4a57-ad57-720203ad2929" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:18:48.317" UserId="11537" Text="What's the difference between &quot;неважно&quot; and &quot;ничего&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18282" RevisionGUID="e4915b99-9f3c-4a57-ad57-720203ad2929" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:18:48.317" UserId="11537" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18283" RevisionGUID="f6d4c96f-8c87-45ec-9166-4b2ed220164f" CreationDate="2019-03-12T06:40:04.450" UserId="11597" Text="Also, there is a form of &quot;Good for you!&quot; in Russian it is a &quot;А ты хорош!&quot; [A ty khorosh!]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18284" RevisionGUID="4f439afe-fd74-4d9d-9b97-0f0316016bf9" CreationDate="2019-03-12T07:20:13.637" UserId="11598" Text="_Ничего_ is not translated to _never mind_, at least in the context you provided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When I ask somebody but he/she can't understand me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;given two choices you reply with _Неважно_ if the question was not really important. Alternatives to that can be _Проехали_ or _Забудь_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at another example: someone accidentally steps on your shoes. If the person excuses, you would reply with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Never mind.&#xD;&#xA;- No problem.&#xD;&#xA;- That's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian you would reply with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ничего [страшного].&#xD;&#xA;- Все хорошо/в порядке." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18285" RevisionGUID="5cf3ee20-deaf-40e8-84c4-5b0b334b4add" CreationDate="2019-03-12T08:28:06.027" UserId="5618" Text="&quot;Good for you&quot; can also be used with a bit of sarcasm / discontent, e.g. with someone bragging about their success and expecting to be praised. In this case, you could go with &quot;ну и славно&quot; or &quot;ну поздравляю, поздравляю&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="82a2486f-dfd3-40ad-ae45-1805b858f74c" CreationDate="2019-03-12T08:33:00.153" UserId="11599" Text="As mentioned above, most common is to use &quot;**Поздравляю!**&quot;, but you can also use &quot;**Здорово!**&quot; or &quot;**Рад за тебя!**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should be really careful using &quot;**Хорошо тебе**&quot;, which is most literal translation, but implies jealousy and may actually mean you are not happy for this person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per last paragraph, most common in this case is word &quot;**полезно**&quot;. E.g. &quot;**Заниматься спортом полезно**&quot;. (&quot;Doing sports is good for you / Doing sports is healthy&quot;). You can also say &quot;**Заниматься спортом пойдет тебе на пользу**&quot; which is a bit more an advice than a neutral statement and implies that you should start doing sports." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18287" RevisionGUID="9c3b4f7e-12b1-4e8e-b0a4-9c6a51383543" CreationDate="2019-03-12T08:36:54.160" UserId="9180" Text="The answer depends on whether or not you wanted to use &quot;good for you&quot; as a sarcastic retort, which is how that expression is frequently used nowadays when the speaker has no interest in someone else's happy moment, as in &quot;good for you, but why should I care?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were genuinely happy for that person, you could say &quot;Я рад/рада за тебя!&quot; (&quot;I'm glad(m/f) for you!&quot;) or, more neutrally, &quot;Ну и отлично.&quot; (roughly &quot;Well, great.&quot;) Your second option &quot;Повезло тебе&quot; might work, but implies the high score may not have been well deserved. Баян Купи-ка's [answer](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/18281/9180) offers a few other nice options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were going for sarcasm lined with thinly veiled indifference and annoyance, however, a more appropriate reply could be &quot;ну и ладно&quot; (roughly, &quot;well, okay&quot;), or &quot;какой/какая молодец&quot; (roughly, &quot;attaboy/attagirl&quot;) with &quot;какой/какая&quot; drawled and overarticulated. Note that being sarcastic in a language you don't speak very well may have disastrous consequences for you and is best avoided altogether (not that it's *ever* right to be sarcastic even in your native language anyway)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18288" RevisionGUID="30641ca2-c411-470d-b34e-50ebfb63c643" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:11:46.237" UserId="11603" Text="Sarcastic version of **«Good for you»** is **«флаг тебе в руки»**. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    - Если тебя все устраивает, то флаг тебе в руки. Но я увольняюсь.&#xD;&#xA;    - Good for you if you're ok with that. But I'm quitting the job&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18289" RevisionGUID="9029e9ca-7518-42b5-821c-b784e80fb05e" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:43:53.327" UserId="5443" Text="Context 1: the difference is not essential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что ты имел в виду? - **Неважно**.(- Забудь.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What did you mean? - Never mind. (- Forget it.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Что ты имел в виду? - **Ничего**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - What did you mean? - Nothing (special).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context 2: the difference is dramatic (*bad vs OK*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Как ты себя чувствуешь? - **Неважно**. (~ Плохо.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How do you feel? - I don't feel good.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Как ты себя чувствуешь? - **Ничего**. (~ Неплохо.)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - How do you feel? - I'm OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49152" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="18238" RevisionGUID="2872e4a1-9122-4ccc-9219-889e4cc8b3fd" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:35:15.097" UserId="11573" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11573,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jesus Estrada&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49153" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="18238" RevisionGUID="398af1a2-9e3c-46e5-8cdc-bc749574297c" CreationDate="2019-03-12T19:37:27.387" UserId="11573" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:11573,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jesus Estrada&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18290" RevisionGUID="03648dcb-5311-4791-a710-e95eb6f0f866" CreationDate="2019-03-12T20:11:42.730" UserId="2079" Text="Based on the ruscorpora.ru,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the most common meaning &quot;переспать с кем-то&quot; - &quot;to have sex with somebody&quot; (lit. to sleep with somebody), `переспать` had additional meanings in past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 19 century, переспать meant &quot;to overcome something with sleep&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;да не посоветовать ли ему заснуть часа два; хоть бы он переспал свое раздражение&quot; (Достоевский, 1848)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Тверская встрепка меня вылечила: я с горя переспал болезнь.&quot; (Лесков, 1879)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In late 19th and early 20th century, переспать meant &quot;to sleep too much&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;я, брат, должно быть, переспал… инда очумел!&quot; (Салтыков-Щедрин, 1880-1881)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Меня обуяла физическая и мозговая вялость, точно я переспал.&quot; (Чехов, 1893)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;оттого ли, что переспал он, или по другой причине, появилась бессонница.&quot; (Андреев, 1908)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Ночь спал тревожно, с бредом, вероятно, потому, что переспал днем.&quot; (Пришвин, 1922)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Спали бы еще. Сергей не мог понять, смеется она над ним или говорит всерьез. Было уже начало одиннадцатого. ― Спасибо, я и так переспал, ― сказал Сергей и присел к огню.&quot; (Фазиль Искандер, 1977)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1920s till 1970s, переспать meant &quot;to have a sleep in some unusual/occasional place&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;ночь переспал в лесу&quot; (Пришвин, 1922)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Он забрался в русскую печь, где и переспал.&quot; (Артём Весёлый, 1924-1932)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Там была солома и, пусть сарай без двери, было сухо, хотя на дворике шел дождь. Переспал. Как светать начало, пошел искать хозвзвод.&quot; (1944-1946)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я вот переспал у кого, встану, богу помолюсь, хозяину поклонюсь ― и дальше.&quot; (Казаков, 1956)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Переспал час-полтора, но сон слишком короткий, что ли, ― отдыха не дал.&quot; (Залыгин, 1967)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я кружил целый вечер возле дома, в котором он снимал комнату, переспал у старушки и утром издалека подсматривал, когда он появится на веранде.&quot; (Лихоносов, 1968)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Ночь вместе с другими освобожденными он переспал в Московской Городской Думе&quot; (Гуль, 1974)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Переспал тут у «кукурузников», в эскадрилье связи&quot; (1977)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1977, all cases of &quot;переспал&quot; are about sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="7f9e130b-a04c-4dce-8c44-ad181dc3e1b3" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:00:49.697" UserId="11612" Text="What does так и есть and ну что ж mean, are these idioms? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="7f9e130b-a04c-4dce-8c44-ad181dc3e1b3" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:00:49.697" UserId="11612" Text="What does так и есть and ну что ж mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="7f9e130b-a04c-4dce-8c44-ad181dc3e1b3" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:00:49.697" UserId="11612" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="d72d9d5a-2a5e-47f2-96a6-93b6f7a0e8fa" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:12:48.477" UserId="11612" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="What does так и есть and ну что ж mean, are these idioms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are they used in sentences? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18292" RevisionGUID="12c4ead1-0c36-4f6e-8ce0-7274fff29151" CreationDate="2019-03-13T03:25:49.263" UserId="11055" Text="`Так и есть` means **&quot;that's right,&quot; &quot;that's true.&quot;** It's used to agree with someone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Жизнь не проста. - **Так и есть** (= действительно, и правда, верно, согласен/согласна).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English it's not always necessary to use a phrase like &quot;that's right.&quot; See the example below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ужасно? - Да, **так и есть.** (Awful? - **Yes, it is.**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Так и есть` can be used for a different reason too:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Если так и есть**, то это плохо. (**if it's really so**, it's bad.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, `так и есть` means &quot;если это так.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Ну что ж` means **&quot;well&quot;** (used as an interjection):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ну что ж, давайте начнём. (Well, let's start.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18293" RevisionGUID="51764bf6-e1cc-4347-8249-73eb6ea547e5" CreationDate="2019-03-13T05:28:42.157" UserId="11613" Text="You could also use the form &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Неплохо!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which for full impact should be pronounced with a hint of admiration. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18290" RevisionGUID="5972991e-77c8-40c3-bbe2-6c431ccf7a1b" CreationDate="2019-03-13T07:01:53.013" UserId="2079" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="It may or may not, depending on what exactly do you mean by oversleep, and the time of word usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the ruscorpora.ru,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the most common meaning &quot;переспать с кем-то&quot; - &quot;to have sex with somebody&quot; (lit. to sleep with somebody), `переспать` had additional meanings in past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 19 century, переспать meant &quot;to overcome something with sleep&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;да не посоветовать ли ему заснуть часа два; хоть бы он переспал свое раздражение&quot; (Достоевский, 1848)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Тверская встрепка меня вылечила: я с горя переспал болезнь.&quot; (Лесков, 1879)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In late 19th and early 20th century, переспать meant &quot;to sleep too much&quot;, assuming too long sleeps are unhealthy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;я, брат, должно быть, переспал… инда очумел!&quot; (Салтыков-Щедрин, 1880-1881)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Меня обуяла физическая и мозговая вялость, точно я переспал.&quot; (Чехов, 1893)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;оттого ли, что переспал он, или по другой причине, появилась бессонница.&quot; (Андреев, 1908)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Ночь спал тревожно, с бредом, вероятно, потому, что переспал днем.&quot; (Пришвин, 1922)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Спали бы еще. Сергей не мог понять, смеется она над ним или говорит всерьез. Было уже начало одиннадцатого. ― Спасибо, я и так переспал, ― сказал Сергей и присел к огню.&quot; (Фазиль Искандер, 1977)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1920s till 1970s, переспать meant &quot;to have a sleep in some unusual/occasional place&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;ночь переспал в лесу&quot; (Пришвин, 1922)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Он забрался в русскую печь, где и переспал.&quot; (Артём Весёлый, 1924-1932)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Там была солома и, пусть сарай без двери, было сухо, хотя на дворике шел дождь. Переспал. Как светать начало, пошел искать хозвзвод.&quot; (1944-1946)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я вот переспал у кого, встану, богу помолюсь, хозяину поклонюсь ― и дальше.&quot; (Казаков, 1956)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Переспал час-полтора, но сон слишком короткий, что ли, ― отдыха не дал.&quot; (Залыгин, 1967)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я кружил целый вечер возле дома, в котором он снимал комнату, переспал у старушки и утром издалека подсматривал, когда он появится на веранде.&quot; (Лихоносов, 1968)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Ночь вместе с другими освобожденными он переспал в Московской Городской Думе&quot; (Гуль, 1974)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Переспал тут у «кукурузников», в эскадрилье связи&quot; (1977)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1977, all cases of &quot;переспал&quot; are about sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="4a419e53-2587-4b7e-9f37-f0df5d069259" CreationDate="2019-03-13T07:07:14.953" UserId="10999" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does ***&quot;так и есть&quot;*** and ***&quot;ну что ж&quot;*** mean, are these idioms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are they used in sentences? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49163" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="4a419e53-2587-4b7e-9f37-f0df5d069259" CreationDate="2019-03-13T07:07:14.953" UserId="10999" Comment="added 16 characters in body; edited title" Text="What does &quot;так и есть&quot; and &quot;ну что ж&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18290" RevisionGUID="d5d26015-789c-4fe8-9bf1-05e9ac55c8fc" CreationDate="2019-03-13T07:14:47.170" UserId="2079" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Short answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if by &quot;oversleep&quot; you mean to sleep too much, assuming too much sleep is harmful. Such usage was common from late 19th till early 20th century. Today it is uncommon, but some Russian speakers still recognize it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, if by &quot;oversleep&quot; you mean to wake up too late and miss some important event.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the ruscorpora.ru,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the most common meaning &quot;переспать с кем-то&quot; - &quot;to have sex with somebody&quot; (lit. to sleep with somebody), `переспать` had additional meanings in past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 19 century, переспать meant &quot;to overcome something with sleep&quot;: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;да не посоветовать ли ему заснуть часа два; хоть бы он переспал свое раздражение&quot; (Достоевский, 1848)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Тверская встрепка меня вылечила: я с горя переспал болезнь.&quot; (Лесков, 1879)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In late 19th and early 20th century, переспать meant &quot;to sleep too much&quot;, assuming too long sleeps are unhealthy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;я, брат, должно быть, переспал… инда очумел!&quot; (Салтыков-Щедрин, 1880-1881)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Меня обуяла физическая и мозговая вялость, точно я переспал.&quot; (Чехов, 1893)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;оттого ли, что переспал он, или по другой причине, появилась бессонница.&quot; (Андреев, 1908)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Ночь спал тревожно, с бредом, вероятно, потому, что переспал днем.&quot; (Пришвин, 1922)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Спали бы еще. Сергей не мог понять, смеется она над ним или говорит всерьез. Было уже начало одиннадцатого. ― Спасибо, я и так переспал, ― сказал Сергей и присел к огню.&quot; (Фазиль Искандер, 1977)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1920s till 1970s, переспать meant &quot;to have a sleep in some unusual/occasional place&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;ночь переспал в лесу&quot; (Пришвин, 1922)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Он забрался в русскую печь, где и переспал.&quot; (Артём Весёлый, 1924-1932)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Там была солома и, пусть сарай без двери, было сухо, хотя на дворике шел дождь. Переспал. Как светать начало, пошел искать хозвзвод.&quot; (1944-1946)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я вот переспал у кого, встану, богу помолюсь, хозяину поклонюсь ― и дальше.&quot; (Казаков, 1956)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Переспал час-полтора, но сон слишком короткий, что ли, ― отдыха не дал.&quot; (Залыгин, 1967)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Я кружил целый вечер возле дома, в котором он снимал комнату, переспал у старушки и утром издалека подсматривал, когда он появится на веранде.&quot; (Лихоносов, 1968)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Ночь вместе с другими освобожденными он переспал в Московской Городской Думе&quot; (Гуль, 1974)&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;Переспал тут у «кукурузников», в эскадрилье связи&quot; (1977)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After 1977, all cases of &quot;переспал&quot; are about sex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18286" RevisionGUID="134e7d45-1a34-4374-aa60-19bff807e9de" CreationDate="2019-03-13T08:12:27.717" UserId="11599" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="As mentioned above, most common is to use &quot;**Поздравляю!**&quot;, but you can also use &quot;**Здорово!**&quot; or &quot;**Рад за тебя!**&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should be really careful using &quot;**Хорошо тебе**&quot;, which is most literal translation, but implies jealousy and may actually mean you are not happy for this person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per last paragraph, most common in this case is word &quot;**полезно**&quot;. E.g. &quot;**Заниматься спортом полезно**&quot;. (&quot;Doing sports is good for you / Doing sports is healthy&quot;). You can also say &quot;**&lt;strike&gt;Заниматься спортом&lt;/strike&gt; Спорт пойдет тебе на пользу**&quot; which is a bit more an advice than a neutral statement and implies that you should start doing sports." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18294" RevisionGUID="1102695b-3265-4b7d-8e8d-c3b03b43fdde" CreationDate="2019-03-13T09:16:05.107" UserId="11617" Text="&quot;Good for you!&quot; can also be translated as informal &quot;Красавчик&quot; in order to show your personal reaction (to say someone's really good at what he does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;тебе на пользу&quot; in &quot;eating healthy food is good for you&quot;, it's better to say &quot;есть здоровую еду полезно&quot;, without &quot;тебе&quot;, or translate it &quot;здоровая еда для тебя полезна&quot;, it's much closer to what natives say to each other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18295" RevisionGUID="39f94ac2-3072-4b01-a4f0-03165db7f1ca" CreationDate="2019-03-13T09:33:11.833" UserId="11617" Text="You use &quot;же&quot; for amplification, or for making the question softer, to ask a rhetorical question. In everyday speech &quot;же&quot; is used only for amplification and is often supplemented with words &quot;правда&quot;, &quot;на самом деле&quot; to underline the meaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я же говорил!&quot; - &quot;I've really told you that&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Он же не справится!&quot; - &quot;He won't be able manage it for sure&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Я же правда туда ездил!&quot; - &quot;I really went there!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18296" RevisionGUID="0eac9b9c-1229-446c-8f19-7df3ba127ee1" CreationDate="2019-03-13T09:38:23.627" UserId="11617" Text="Also &quot;так и есть&quot; can mean just &quot;yes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ты же собирался в кафе! (I thought you were going to the cafe)&#xD;&#xA; - Так и есть. Пойду через минуту. (Yes. I'm going there in a minute.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18297" RevisionGUID="ccec524a-04ea-437a-afe6-565370cb7559" CreationDate="2019-03-13T12:57:50.067" UserId="10247" Text="In my opinion, the first step is to consult the usual dictionary of Russian. It's strange that the native speakers of Russian rarely do it in this stackexchange community. I believe it's the spirit of *stackexchange* to check the scientific sources. In case with languages it's obviosly dictionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 4 senses of переспать are defined here (as published in the dictionary in 1998, as far as I know it's the only large dictionary of modern Russian available online): http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand some learners find it difficult to read definitions in Russian dictionaries. So these 4 senses are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Sleep too much, longer than needed, or longer than others.&#xD;&#xA;2. Colloq., Sleep in order to wait for something to pass, due to circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;3. Spend night somewhere, in some place.&#xD;&#xA;4. Colloq., Have sex with... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So these senses are reflected in examples listed by *user31264*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning 'have sex with...' has become the most popular recently, so the word has sexual connotations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case with your situation - *be late for work* - I can't see why this word should suit, the usual word being **проспал**. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18296" RevisionGUID="d67c4965-92c4-4d5f-839c-ded9b343d5a3" CreationDate="2019-03-13T15:06:01.193" UserId="8109" Comment="edited punctuation, removed list bullets" Text="Also «так и есть» can mean just «yes».&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*— Ты же собирался в кафе!* (I thought you were going to the cafe)  &#xD;&#xA;*— Так и есть. Пойду через минуту.* (Yes. I'm going there in a minute.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49171" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18296" RevisionGUID="d67c4965-92c4-4d5f-839c-ded9b343d5a3" CreationDate="2019-03-13T15:06:01.193" Comment="Proposed by 8109 approved by 10999, 5605 edit id of 2023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="f8fd5174-fa95-4aef-a03d-f8d116e7d381" CreationDate="2019-03-13T22:05:53.263" UserId="11537" Text="When you define someone, for example say to a girl that you have a beautiful smile(У тебя красивая улыбка) and she says: oh thanks you can answer her: &quot;**only real words!**&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So is it correct sentence in this situation ?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Только настоящие слова!**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="f8fd5174-fa95-4aef-a03d-f8d116e7d381" CreationDate="2019-03-13T22:05:53.263" UserId="11537" Text="&quot;only real words&quot; in Russian - Только настоящие слова?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="f8fd5174-fa95-4aef-a03d-f8d116e7d381" CreationDate="2019-03-13T22:05:53.263" UserId="11537" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18299" RevisionGUID="565b7165-45c0-4820-a749-92538d39df35" CreationDate="2019-03-13T23:54:46.783" UserId="11055" Text="When someone thanks you for a compliment you have paid them, it's natural to respond like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя красивая улыбка. - Спасибо! - `Пожалуйста` / `Не за что` (stress *не* to mean you're welcome).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to stress that your compliment is only natural because you are stating a fact, you may want to say `это - факт` or `констатирую факт`. Note that most common way to respond to thank you is saying  `пожалуйста`  or `не за что`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18274" RevisionGUID="70ac9438-d202-485c-bf6d-bb9d29429d10" CreationDate="2019-03-14T00:00:22.977" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1105981964140593153" />
  <row Id="49177" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18267" RevisionGUID="a7fe695f-9a47-45f8-91b6-76380f3f534e" CreationDate="2019-03-14T03:01:27.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1106027532116205569" />
  <row Id="49178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18300" RevisionGUID="63aa32de-09be-4e33-88a8-e19e226de1d8" CreationDate="2019-03-14T09:05:31.410" UserId="11617" Text="Also for stating that your compliment is truth you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Правда, только правда и ничего, кроме правды!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И это чистая правда.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Факты говорят сами за себя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18301" RevisionGUID="56e938f6-3a69-42ae-82fa-b23e9e3a12e8" CreationDate="2019-03-14T13:11:31.567" UserId="6539" Text="I believe it might sound like this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – У тебя красивая улыбка. &#xD;&#xA;– Спасибо.&#xD;&#xA;– Не за что. Я только говорю/сказал правду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18299" RevisionGUID="a1173c75-1dc9-491c-9674-00a251d8f07b" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:04:55.700" UserId="11055" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="When someone thanks you for a compliment you have paid them, it's natural to respond like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У тебя красивая улыбка. - Спасибо! - `Пожалуйста` / `Не за что` (stress *не* to mean you're welcome).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to stress that your compliment is only natural because you are stating a fact, you may want to say `это - факт` or `констатирую факт`. Note that the most common way to respond to thank you is saying  `пожалуйста`  or `не за что`. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18302" RevisionGUID="2adefea1-58d0-4bc6-b13b-4fe56efa52a8" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:33:29.460" UserId="10327" Text="For this kind of discussion the closest equivalent I can imagine would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – У тебя красивая улыбка. – Спасибо. – Нет, правда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples (e.g. sentences involving `факт`, `сказал правду`) sound too heavy/formal for that, and (to be honest) they still sound like an attempt to just translate the corresponding English example w/o considering if they speak like this in Russian at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18302" RevisionGUID="8b522f56-ebc2-43e2-a55c-f256b35c2fda" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:44:48.510" UserId="10327" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="For this kind of discussion the closest equivalent I can imagine would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – У тебя красивая улыбка. – Спасибо. – Нет, правда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples (e.g. sentences involving `факт`, `сказал правду`) sound too heavy/formal for that, and (to be honest) they still look like an attempt to just translate the corresponding English example w/o considering if they talk like this in Russian at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18303" RevisionGUID="815b40e6-0d0a-4c09-9a9d-d59245fefb5d" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:50:17.497" UserId="11629" Text="I'm doing the Pimsleur Russian audio course and I've come across some sentences that I'm not sure about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 1: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have money = у меня́ есть де́ньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, so good. &quot;At my place, there is money.&quot; It seems intuitive that money is in the nominative here. But then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have enough money = у меня́ доста́точно де́нег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sentence is almost the same the money is now in the genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is that really the case here or am I misidentifying cases?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then Example 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you give me a little money? = Вы мо́жете даёте мне немно́го&#xD;&#xA;&gt; де́нег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really confusing, I'm not sure I'm hearing it right. But it sounds like here money is also in the genitive. But I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative. Or what am I missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;большо́й Спаси́бо for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18303" RevisionGUID="815b40e6-0d0a-4c09-9a9d-d59245fefb5d" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:50:17.497" UserId="11629" Text="Russian cases: A few examples, I'm really confused" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18303" RevisionGUID="815b40e6-0d0a-4c09-9a9d-d59245fefb5d" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:50:17.497" UserId="11629" Text="|падежи|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18303" RevisionGUID="79c437db-0f5f-4803-8f81-1fbfdefc9053" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:51:57.707" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I'm doing the Pimsleur Russian audio course and I've come across some sentences that I'm not sure about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example 1: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have money = у меня́ есть де́ньги.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, so good. &quot;At my place, there is money.&quot; It seems intuitive that money is in the nominative here. But then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have enough money = у меня́ доста́точно де́нег.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the sentence is almost the same the money is now in the genitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Is that really the case here or am I misidentifying cases?* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then Example 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you give me a little money? = Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го&#xD;&#xA;&gt; де́нег?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is really confusing, I'm not sure I'm hearing it right. But it sounds like here money is also in the genitive. But I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative. Or what am I missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Большо́е Спаси́бо for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18304" RevisionGUID="053d69d0-76aa-4ae8-b3ae-a3bf40cbdcd8" CreationDate="2019-03-14T14:58:14.857" UserId="11617" Text="You undestand it right.&#xD;&#xA;You just need to ask the right question to understand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's easy here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;I have (what?) money&quot; - &quot;У меня есть (что?) деньги&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a little bit more complicated here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;I have enought (of what?) money&quot; - &quot;У меня достаточно (чего?) денег&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same thing with &quot;little&quot;. Because when you give an additional word to explain &quot;how much&quot;, it's always &quot;how much of what&quot;, not &quot;how much what&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18272" RevisionGUID="bc6f074a-6a67-4879-bb8c-393c51db4cf4" CreationDate="2019-03-14T15:00:32.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1106208497644027916" />
  <row Id="49189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="4a91cfe5-266d-42f9-a22f-e4b0c6a3f387" CreationDate="2019-03-14T15:15:13.263" UserId="134" Text="You got the cases right in all three sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to make the English translation as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say &quot;I have something&quot;, they say &quot;there is something next to me&quot; to convey the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you would have said &quot;I have him&quot; but &quot;he's next to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely you can see that you use &quot;him&quot; in the first sentence but &quot;he&quot; in the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because &quot;him&quot; is the grammatical subject in the first case but is an object in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you would normally use &quot;I have enough money&quot;, but there are cases when you are actually using &quot;of&quot;: &quot;I've heard enough of this nonsense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said &quot;I have enough of him&quot; in English. &quot;Of something&quot; mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same logic as above here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, a direct object to *дать* (&quot;to give&quot;), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason *денег* is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not *денег* that is the direct object, but *немного*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Денег* complements the *немного* and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And *немного* requires a genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18302" RevisionGUID="86f2ac21-83c3-4b9e-94d7-4e0a3c8a3df0" CreationDate="2019-03-14T15:20:52.300" UserId="10327" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="For this kind of conversation the closest equivalent I can imagine would be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – У тебя красивая улыбка. – Спасибо. – Нет, правда!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other examples (e.g. sentences involving `факт`, `сказал правду`) sound too heavy/formal for that, and (to be honest) they still look like an attempt to just translate the corresponding English example w/o considering if they talk like this in Russian at all.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="6a9c9492-be6f-476c-aa1b-9a7fbc635e93" CreationDate="2019-03-14T16:34:39.793" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You got the cases right in all three sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to make the English translation as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say &quot;I have something&quot;, they say &quot;there is something next to me&quot; to convey the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you would have said &quot;I have him&quot; but &quot;he's next to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely you can see that you use &quot;him&quot; in the first sentence but &quot;he&quot; in the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because grammatically, &quot;him&quot; is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you would normally use &quot;I have enough money&quot;, but there are cases when you are actually using &quot;of&quot;: &quot;I've heard enough of this nonsense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said &quot;I have enough of him&quot; in English. &quot;Of something&quot; mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same logic as above here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, a direct object to *дать* (&quot;to give&quot;), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason *денег* is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not *денег* that is the direct object, but *немного*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Денег* complements the *немного* and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And *немного* requires a genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49192" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18303" RevisionGUID="0d3416a8-d700-4565-801b-50b496f5be7c" CreationDate="2019-03-14T17:05:53.767" />
  <row Id="49194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18306" RevisionGUID="4a7baea8-66a4-4b72-90bc-e528bfe8b10a" CreationDate="2019-03-15T02:42:44.067" UserId="11632" Text="In Russian, I know there is a word similar to &quot;Заткнись&quot; but it is used for a group of people instead of just one person. What is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49195" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18306" RevisionGUID="4a7baea8-66a4-4b72-90bc-e528bfe8b10a" CreationDate="2019-03-15T02:42:44.067" UserId="11632" Text="How do you say: &quot;Заткнись&quot; for a group of people instead of just one person in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49196" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18306" RevisionGUID="4a7baea8-66a4-4b72-90bc-e528bfe8b10a" CreationDate="2019-03-15T02:42:44.067" UserId="11632" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49197" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18303" RevisionGUID="1aed3f21-c12c-419a-8af2-ded159f4546e" CreationDate="2019-03-15T03:00:26.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1106389666008350722" />
  <row Id="49200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18307" RevisionGUID="09e38bb0-7c61-4cfb-a2b2-2a6abfd65055" CreationDate="2019-03-15T04:18:11.357" UserId="11633" Text="Welcome to Russian learners!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is &quot;Заткнитесь&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18308" RevisionGUID="e049d455-b9f9-46f7-9246-a906a34e5a17" CreationDate="2019-03-15T05:54:56.243" UserId="6539" Text="If you wish to use the same word in plural, you actually have two variants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Заткнитесь!** (imperative plural ) and **А ну, заткнулись!**(past plural used for imperative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's still a great variety of synonyms, like **замолкли/замолкните,заглохли**, etc. My favourite one is **Кончай базар!**(used in a singular imperative, but addressed to a group)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18308" RevisionGUID="6a3b2fa6-dc93-4673-a3fa-d5b734d3145c" CreationDate="2019-03-15T06:00:06.093" UserId="6539" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="If you wish to use the same word in plural, you actually have two variants.Both are rude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Заткнитесь!** (imperative plural ) and **А ну, заткнулись!**(past plural used for imperative )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's still a great variety of synonyms, like **замолкли/замолкните,заглохли**, etc. My favourite one is **Кончай базар!**(used in a singular imperative, but addressed to a group)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18309" RevisionGUID="f836514b-ba74-43f5-b4b1-31c919820d89" CreationDate="2019-03-15T07:50:35.390" UserId="5618" Text="&gt;  I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is wrong, &quot;give something&quot; goes with **accusative**, not nominative. It's actually not wrong to say &quot;дать деньги&quot; for &quot;give the money&quot;, when you refer to a predefined sum of money identified by the context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, there are quantifiers used with mass nouns, such as &quot;достaточно&quot; or &quot;немнoго&quot;. These require genitive (as you have seen), independently of the verb you used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; у меня́ есть де́ньги -&gt; у меня́ доста́точно де́нег (nominative -&gt; genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы мо́жете дать мне де́ньги? -&gt; Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? (accusative -&gt; genitive)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*де́ньги* may be a poor example because it has the same form in nominative and accusative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="37ca7019-6d3f-4f33-9441-6825382b3dc4" CreationDate="2019-03-15T09:11:56.617" UserId="11055" Text="Why do we say `ни пуха ни пера` wishing someone good luck?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional response is also interesting. People are expected to say `к чёрту`. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of the idiom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="37ca7019-6d3f-4f33-9441-6825382b3dc4" CreationDate="2019-03-15T09:11:56.617" UserId="11055" Text="The origin of ни пуха ни пера - к чёрту" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="37ca7019-6d3f-4f33-9441-6825382b3dc4" CreationDate="2019-03-15T09:11:56.617" UserId="11055" Text="|этимология|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="1db4def8-3c78-4885-8804-121354f00ec7" CreationDate="2019-03-15T09:25:47.337" UserId="134" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="You got the cases right in all three sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure on the original Russian phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say &quot;I have something&quot;, they say &quot;there is something next to me&quot; to convey the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you would have said &quot;I have him&quot; but &quot;he's next to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely you can see that you use &quot;him&quot; in the first sentence but &quot;he&quot; in the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because grammatically, &quot;him&quot; is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you would normally use &quot;I have enough money&quot;, but there are cases when you are actually using &quot;of&quot;: &quot;I've heard enough of this nonsense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said &quot;I have enough of him&quot; in English. &quot;Of something&quot; mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same logic as above here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, a direct object to *дать* (&quot;to give&quot;), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason *денег* is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not *денег* that is the direct object, but *немного*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Денег* complements the *немного* and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And *немного* requires a genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18305" RevisionGUID="77ffeb4c-2edd-4656-83fd-cd030ccd3866" CreationDate="2019-03-15T12:22:17.950" UserId="134" Comment="edited body" Text="You got the cases right in all three sentences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to provide English translations which would be as close to the literal meaning of the Russian phrases as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that they are not actual translations, they are English approximations of grammatical structure of the original Russian phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ есть де́ньги. // There are money next to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian uses proximal possession: Russians don't say &quot;I have something&quot;, they say &quot;there is something next to me&quot; to convey the same meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English, you would have said &quot;I have him&quot; but &quot;he's next to me&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely you can see that you use &quot;him&quot; in the first sentence but &quot;he&quot; in the second one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because grammatically, &quot;him&quot; is an object in the first case, but a subject in the second case. Similar logic applies to Russian, except that in Russian almost all nouns decline, not just personal pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня́ доста́точно де́нег. // I have enough of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In English you would normally use &quot;I have enough money&quot;, but there are cases when you are actually using &quot;of&quot;: &quot;I've heard enough of this nonsense&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we go back to the personal pronouns analogy, you would have said &quot;I have enough of him&quot; in English. &quot;Of something&quot; mostly (not always, but mostly) translates to Russian genitive, and that's why you're seeing it here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы мо́жете дать мне немно́го де́нег? // Can you give me a little of money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same logic as above here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But I expect it to be in the nominative because &quot;give something&quot; and the something would be in nominative&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian, a direct object to *дать* (&quot;to give&quot;), or to any other verb for that matter, is never nominative. However, it's not the reason *денег* is put into genitive here. The real reason is that it's not *денег* that is the direct object, but *немного*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Денег* complements the *немного* and it's the latter which governs the case of the former. And *немного* requires a genitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18311" RevisionGUID="63eff99e-1621-4061-a923-b25f537aba23" CreationDate="2019-03-15T13:48:31.530" UserId="9602" Text="To complement Quassnoi’s answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня есть _(что?)_ деньги&lt;sup&gt;NOM&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У меня [есть] _(что?)_ достаточно[e количество&lt;sup&gt;NOM&lt;/sup&gt;] _(чего?)_ денег&lt;sup&gt;GEN&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вы можете дать мне _(кого? что?)_ кучу&lt;sup&gt;ACC&lt;/sup&gt; _(чего?)_ денег&lt;sup&gt;GEN&lt;/sup&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18312" RevisionGUID="641394ab-3ded-4902-8a2f-ed5f9a8791a4" CreationDate="2019-03-15T17:16:48.417" UserId="11535" Text="***Ни пуха ни пера*** – это значит &quot;ни зверя вам, ни птицы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сначала это было напутствие для охотников, скрытое пожелание им удачи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Недобрые слова&quot; должны были услышать лесные духи,  и тогда они не будут мешать охоте. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ответ &quot;к черту&quot; – это переадресация: пусть черт это тоже услышит и, конечно же, сделает всё наоборот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://slovar.cc/rus/frazeologiya/1468037.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.proza.ru/2015/11/22/326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18312" RevisionGUID="4c03be5f-cbcf-4bc8-b8bc-a0d24a4bb6bd" CreationDate="2019-03-15T17:22:05.480" UserId="11535" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="***Ни пуха ни пера*** – это значит &quot;ни зверя вам, ни птицы&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Сначала это было напутствие для охотников, скрытое пожелание им удачи. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Недобрые слова&quot; должны были услышать лесные духи,  и тогда они уйдут и не будут мешать охоте (зачем повторяться, если дело уже сделано).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А ответ &quot;к черту&quot; – это переадресация сказанного: пусть черт это тоже услышит и, конечно же, сделает всё наоборот.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://slovar.cc/rus/frazeologiya/1468037.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.proza.ru/2015/11/22/326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="b46cc82b-2040-49f4-bfbd-7c45c2309bd8" CreationDate="2019-03-15T17:30:10.530" UserId="11630" Text="There is this book called: город, написанный по памяти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I keep the comma Google translates it as : memory city&#xD;&#xA;If I delete the comma it translates it as : city written from memory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate is a weird beast for sure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second version is closer to the real meaning. However I´d like to know what would the best translation for this be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for any answers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49214" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="b46cc82b-2040-49f4-bfbd-7c45c2309bd8" CreationDate="2019-03-15T17:30:10.530" UserId="11630" Text="Doubt with the title of a book" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49215" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="b46cc82b-2040-49f4-bfbd-7c45c2309bd8" CreationDate="2019-03-15T17:30:10.530" UserId="11630" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18314" RevisionGUID="9e7ae8c5-308e-443a-b635-89cdd5ad2f4d" CreationDate="2019-03-15T17:46:35.650" UserId="3680" Text="The second one (that google gives without a comma) is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; City written from memory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You were right in your doubt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="030f39a0-5960-491d-949a-a1a4640d2bb8" CreationDate="2019-03-15T18:58:49.943" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="There is this book called: город, написанный по памяти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I keep the comma Google translates it as : memory city&#xD;&#xA;If I delete the comma it translates it as : city written from memory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate is a weird beast for sure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second version is closer to the real meaning. However I'd like to know for sure what the real meaning is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18256" RevisionGUID="7f27e12d-61df-443b-9fd4-482fe28efb51" CreationDate="2019-03-15T21:00:35.113" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1106661492240322561" />
  <row Id="49219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="f6dedc37-837c-408e-8869-acb65738dcfe" CreationDate="2019-03-15T21:46:18.707" UserId="11630" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There is this book called: город, написанный по памяти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I keep the comma Google translates it as : memory city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I delete the comma it translates it as : city written from memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google translate is a weird beast for sure!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the second version is closer to the real meaning. However I'd like to know for sure what the real meaning is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49223" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18310" RevisionGUID="16057a9c-e091-4edf-8fb4-990eb18eb7de" CreationDate="2019-03-16T06:00:33.923" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1106797382677811205" />
  <row Id="49225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="bef86e36-51ba-4c4d-8bbb-d6b23a47a5a7" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:26:03.157" UserId="11638" Text="Does russian keyboard layout support &quot;@&quot; symbol? I had to switch to english keyboard to type &quot;@&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="bef86e36-51ba-4c4d-8bbb-d6b23a47a5a7" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:26:03.157" UserId="11638" Text="How to type &quot;@&quot; symbol in russian keyboard layout?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="bef86e36-51ba-4c4d-8bbb-d6b23a47a5a7" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:26:03.157" UserId="11638" Text="|узус|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="d1027d4f-d0c9-48b6-9388-d7607ac1f5a9" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:34:12.467" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="Does a Russian keyboard layout support the &quot;@&quot; symbol? I had to switch to an English keyboard to type &quot;@&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49229" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="d1027d4f-d0c9-48b6-9388-d7607ac1f5a9" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:34:12.467" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="How to type &quot;@&quot; symbol in Russian keyboard layout?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49230" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="d1027d4f-d0c9-48b6-9388-d7607ac1f5a9" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:34:12.467" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 3680 edit id of 2025" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18317" RevisionGUID="e1e94d03-d051-421c-b8a7-2c89b7a776a6" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:35:55.610" UserId="11080" Text="We do not use it in the Russian layout, as all the email addresses are typed in Latin letters. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18318" RevisionGUID="b23c2107-cecd-40f4-9bda-71f67be5ea2b" CreationDate="2019-03-16T13:49:59.587" UserId="11511" Text="In Russian, the verb &quot;писать&quot; oftentimes has the meaning &quot;to paint&quot;. Specifically, an artist can &quot;писать по памяти&quot; (&quot;paint from memory)&quot;. For this reason, while &quot;писать&quot; in this title certainly means &quot;to write about&quot; or &quot;to describe&quot;, a slight connotation to the other meaning, &quot;to paint&quot;, is palpable. This connotation would have been absent, had the author used a different prefix (&quot;описанный&quot;). It is the prefix &quot;нa-&quot; which brings up this subtle connotation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18282" RevisionGUID="f220ed1b-83e2-4b90-b2fa-002bb8077ef4" CreationDate="2019-03-16T21:00:32.083" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1107023867405651970" />
  <row Id="49236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18319" RevisionGUID="28f3baa0-9398-4de7-969f-e377ff6930e5" CreationDate="2019-03-16T21:08:52.323" UserId="2104" Text="Заткни́тесь.&#xA;&#xA;Similar examples:&#xA;&#xA;* Учи́сь - учи́тесь&#xA;* Дери́сь - дери́тесь&#xA;* Кати́сь - кати́тесь&#xA;&#xA;I.e. -те- goes in between the ending (-и)  and the posrfix (-сь).&#xA;&#xA;When -сь is preceded by a consonant (including й), it becomes -ся:&#xA;&#xA;* Оста́нься - оста́ньтесь&#xA;* (Не) бо́йся - (не) бо́йтесь&#xA;* Отметься - отметьтесь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18320" RevisionGUID="9e01a7af-e3c4-49fe-9c61-f1212a45184b" CreationDate="2019-03-17T02:15:59.520" UserId="11616" Text="It is not present in standard PC or Mac Russian keyboard layout, as it is only used in Latin-based e-mail addresses.&#xA;&#xA;However, **mobile devices keyboards sometimes have it**. &#xA;For example, iOS Russian keyboard has the “@“ symbol on “ф” key. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18252" RevisionGUID="cbdcdff2-30f5-4686-8515-4de00a281dba" CreationDate="2019-03-17T03:01:07.560" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1107114613118775296" />
  <row Id="49239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18321" RevisionGUID="29c03a45-ba1a-448d-8a5e-ea95376f13c1" CreationDate="2019-03-17T07:01:32.013" UserId="11542" Text="Yes, it is formal. And yes, as mentioned above, &quot;Я к вашим услугам&quot; is more common.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it exactly means &quot;I am at your disposal&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more friendly and informal alternative is &quot;Всегда готов(-а) помочь&quot; or &quot;Всегда буду рад(-а) помочь&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18322" RevisionGUID="fb78f6e9-74ff-47f8-a7e4-f8017ba8184b" CreationDate="2019-03-17T07:42:58.090" UserId="5443" Text="The input method for @, working independently of keyboard layout: **Alt + 64**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="d44350ed-f866-4e82-9583-bdfcdf096bb5" CreationDate="2019-03-17T09:29:29.517" UserId="11537" Text="Is it so informal to answer &quot;**очень приятно**&quot; with &quot;**познакомиться**&quot; ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="d44350ed-f866-4e82-9583-bdfcdf096bb5" CreationDate="2019-03-17T09:29:29.517" UserId="11537" Text="познакомиться as a answer of очень приятно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="d44350ed-f866-4e82-9583-bdfcdf096bb5" CreationDate="2019-03-17T09:29:29.517" UserId="11537" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18323" RevisionGUID="a49d2b38-1aa1-4408-9e3d-eb8441104467" CreationDate="2019-03-17T10:47:01.973" UserId="11537" Comment=" fix grammatical or spelling errors" Text="познакомиться as the answer of очень приятно" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18324" RevisionGUID="71e50a21-b408-4cfd-b70e-df754eed8ee5" CreationDate="2019-03-17T10:55:22.137" UserId="11080" Text="You can answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Приятно познакомиться!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Очень приятно!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Очень рад!** (typical of men, I've never heard a lady to answer &quot;Очень рада!&quot; when sb is introduced to her)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all has the same degree of formality, as you are saying it to an unknown person. Less formal will be not to say that at all, but you should be attentive to the society you are in to make sure it is concidered polite there and what people say instead. E.g., it can be &quot;зд**о**рово, а я ... (the name)&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18324" RevisionGUID="49d90aa4-13ab-4b96-a500-4033c257d60a" CreationDate="2019-03-17T11:58:11.590" UserId="11080" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="These phrases do not answer each other. When somebody is introduced or introducing themselves to you, you can answer: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Приятно познакомиться!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Очень приятно!** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Очень рад!** (typical of men, I've never heard a lady to answer &quot;Очень рада!&quot; when sb is introduced to her)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all has the same degree of formality, as you are saying it to an unknown person. Less formal will be not to say that at all, but you should be attentive to the society you are in to make sure it is concidered polite there and what people say instead. E.g., it can be &quot;зд**о**рово, а я ... (the name)&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18325" RevisionGUID="f589930c-ce79-4731-aea8-53504150155c" CreationDate="2019-03-17T12:08:26.170" UserId="11535" Text="**ТАК И ЕСТЬ (разговорная частица)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  **Подтверждение сказанного:** Я с ним согласен, всё так и есть. Возможно, это так и есть. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Соответствие (в сложном предложении)**: Как он сказал, так и есть. Если всё так и есть, то хорошо.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Соответствие тому, что ожидалось или предполагалось**: Подергал  дверь ― так и есть, заперта! Ну, так и есть. Всё, как я и предполагала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**НУ ЧТО Ж (НУ ЧТО ЖЕ) (разговорная частица)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;НУ обозначает побуждение к действию, ЧТО – вопросительное слово,  ЖЕ (Ж) – усилительная частица.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Согласие, принятое решение**: Ну что ж, пойдемте. Ну что ж, это можно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Вывод, оценка**: Ну что ж, насильно мил не будешь. Ну что ж, этого следовало ожидать. Ну что ж, возможно, он прав.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Вопрос о дальнейших действиях:** Ну что ж, пойдем или нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="a71e332b-8a5e-4e9d-bb18-4c72ff403ffb" CreationDate="2019-03-17T20:44:34.880" UserId="6074" Text="[Есть так называемый альбом][1] певици Аллы Орловы, а слова ни в каком словаре не нашел. Почему нет, и что оно значит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU6LL-pUSQs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="a71e332b-8a5e-4e9d-bb18-4c72ff403ffb" CreationDate="2019-03-17T20:44:34.880" UserId="6074" Text="Почему слова &quot;позадуматься&quot; не найдется в словарях?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="a71e332b-8a5e-4e9d-bb18-4c72ff403ffb" CreationDate="2019-03-17T20:44:34.880" UserId="6074" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="372697f0-0069-49c6-af30-bbcc5df96532" CreationDate="2019-03-17T20:47:29.757" UserId="7674" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="[Есть так называемый альбом][1] певиц&lt;strike&gt;и&lt;/strike&gt;**ы** Аллы Орлов&lt;strike&gt;ы&lt;/strike&gt;**ой**, а слова ни в каком словаре не нашел. Почему нет, и что оно значит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU6LL-pUSQs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49252" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="f9a8796e-7b52-4d26-9d20-59662dee261c" CreationDate="2019-03-17T20:48:11.230" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="72192f8c-dd3c-4282-80c8-de8b665318c7" CreationDate="2019-03-17T21:04:20.957" UserId="6074" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="[Есть альбом][1] певиц&lt;strike&gt;и&lt;/strike&gt;**ы** Аллы Орлов&lt;strike&gt;ы&lt;/strike&gt;**ой**, под названием &quot;позадумайся&quot;. Сам себе думал, что наверняка ето глагол, и инфитив должен быть &quot;позадуматься&quot;. Но слова &quot;позадуматься&quot; ни в каком словаре не нашел. Почему нет, и что оно значит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU6LL-pUSQs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="0d86aa8c-2c80-412e-b304-b37f8271d440" CreationDate="2019-03-17T22:19:19.217" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body" Text="[Есть альбом][1] певицы Аллы Орловой, под названием &quot;позадумайся&quot;. Сам себе думал, что наверняка это глагол, и инфинитив должен быть &quot;позадуматься&quot;. Но слова &quot;позадуматься&quot; ни в каком словаре не нашел. Почему нет, и что оно значит?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU6LL-pUSQs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49255" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="5d5a573e-d6b7-40b7-a83c-bb6c1da6620a" CreationDate="2019-03-17T22:24:18.170" UserId="134" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="0cc1f385-c298-4d3f-9797-2b710e37d7d3" CreationDate="2019-03-17T22:33:50.917" UserId="8109" Comment="removed list formatting" Text="I can help (Russian myself). The expression is usually used when you want to say that something is acceptable or it could be worse. It's used in colloquial speach only. I.e.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Как работа? Как зарплата?  &#xD;&#xA;— Жить можно! *(means that the salary is not that high, but average)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Много работы? *(Do you have much work to do?)*  &#xD;&#xA;— Да, но жить можно. *(Yes, but I'll manage it.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;— Как жизнь? *(How are you?)*  &#xD;&#xA;— Ничего, жить можно. *(Quite fine.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it is used ironically.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49257" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7627" RevisionGUID="0cc1f385-c298-4d3f-9797-2b710e37d7d3" CreationDate="2019-03-17T22:33:50.917" Comment="Proposed by 8109 approved by 10999, 4481 edit id of 2027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18327" RevisionGUID="a0d95937-7b02-476d-9d23-1b3a97fb86fc" CreationDate="2019-03-17T22:36:22.847" UserId="134" Text="This word is attested in Yefremova's _Современный толковый словарь русского языка_:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; позаду́маться *сов. разг.* призадуматься&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which means it's a modern colloquial synonym to *призадуматься* (&quot;to give something a thought, to reflect on something&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly I think it's the other way around, and *позадуматься* actually predates *призадуматься*, and, for sure, it's neither modern nor colloquial, at least not these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally know the word from Krylov's fable *The Crow and The Fox* (1807), and a brief search in the corpus shows that it was widely used in XIX century but then its usage declined." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18313" RevisionGUID="7263cbc1-a97b-49aa-a1f1-078ca356ea8c" CreationDate="2019-03-18T10:23:51.743" UserId="134" Comment="edited title" Text="What does Город, написанный по памяти mean as a title of the book?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49261" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18316" RevisionGUID="a02eb772-d7cf-48de-831e-55e8b2e54ef7" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:32:13.593" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49262" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18234" RevisionGUID="f99e715f-e268-4d1b-acda-67aab39f1f4a" CreationDate="2019-03-18T14:34:36.613" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="How formal is &quot;Я в вашем распоряжении&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="1f75ad4f-bcd6-4df7-abf4-779338af597d" CreationDate="2019-03-18T16:52:43.680" UserId="1860" Text="In English, you can say &quot;In English, please!&quot; to mean that you'd like a simpler explanation (when someone IS speaking English but using technical terms that a regular person wouldn't understand). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you do the same in Russian, where a Russian speaker would say &quot;по-русски, пожалуйста!&quot; to another Russian speaker to indicate that they want a simple &quot;layman's terms&quot; explanation of what is being said?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="1f75ad4f-bcd6-4df7-abf4-779338af597d" CreationDate="2019-03-18T16:52:43.680" UserId="1860" Text="По-русски, пожалуйста!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="1f75ad4f-bcd6-4df7-abf4-779338af597d" CreationDate="2019-03-18T16:52:43.680" UserId="1860" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18329" RevisionGUID="1818d3d4-05d0-4d30-980f-93653a94092e" CreationDate="2019-03-18T17:35:41.563" UserId="10327" Text="Yes, you can say `По-русски, пожалуйста!` in such context.  &#xD;&#xA;Though more often I'd expect they say (a bit less formal and maybe a bit less polite):     `А по-русски?` (or `А можно тоже самое, но по-русски?`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! Though speaking of politeness, It is complicated enough to not claim that `По-русски, пожалуйста!` is actually much more polite than `А по-русски?`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18329" RevisionGUID="af7f5b6f-99a7-4daf-b529-2b5dcbf61810" CreationDate="2019-03-18T17:41:51.790" UserId="10327" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can say `По-русски, пожалуйста!` in such context.  &#xD;&#xA;Though more often I'd expect they say (a bit less formal and maybe a bit less polite):  &#xD;&#xA;`А по-русски?` (meaning `А [можно тоже самое, но] по-русски?`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! (Questionable:) Though speaking of politeness, it is complicated enough to not claim that `По-русски, пожалуйста!` is actually much more polite than `А по-русски?`. I think it's the same for `In English, please!`, despite of `please` it's not neutral enough to be safely used in any kind of conversation (and then more &quot;native&quot; `А по-русски?` sounds like a better match in similar situations). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18329" RevisionGUID="9ae4aaaf-c940-45b8-a219-77e9fbb1fcff" CreationDate="2019-03-18T17:48:05.597" UserId="10327" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can say `По-русски, пожалуйста!` in such context.  &#xD;&#xA;Though more often I'd expect they say (a bit less formal and maybe a bit less polite):  &#xD;&#xA;`А по-русски?` (meaning `А [можно тоже самое, но] по-русски?`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! (Questionable:) Though speaking of politeness, it is complicated enough to not claim that `По-русски, пожалуйста!` is actually much more polite than `А по-русски?`. I think it's the same for `In English, please!`: despite of `please` it's still not neutral enough to be safely used in any kind of conversation (and then more &quot;native&quot; `А по-русски?` sounds like a better match in similar situations). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18330" RevisionGUID="bdd190cb-5b4a-45ab-9699-684fbc1149de" CreationDate="2019-03-18T20:26:19.210" UserId="11511" Text="1. To my ear, &quot;По-русски, пожалуйста!&quot; sounds a bit too harsh. Like an order.&#xD;&#xA;It would be more polite to say &quot;Нельзя ли по-русски?&quot; or, even better, &quot;Вы не могли бы по-русски?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I can imagine a situation where &quot;По-русски, пожалуйста!&quot; is used figuratively, with a touch of sarcasm. Imagine a physicist who is giving a seminar for his colleagues, and is using excessively rigorous mathematical language peppered with unnecessarily abstract notions from pure mathematics, and is proud of his pompous self. Then his more down-to-earth colleagues may ask him: &quot;По-русски, пожалуйста!&quot;   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18331" RevisionGUID="fc9959a5-dba3-4889-91fa-14d5ea12d4f2" CreationDate="2019-03-18T20:48:27.043" UserId="11511" Text="&quot;так и есть&quot; = verily so &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;ну что ж&quot; may, depending on the context, be translated either &quot;be it as it may&quot; or as &quot;oh, whatever...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18332" RevisionGUID="a08c7658-9fba-4689-b744-ce1d34cac118" CreationDate="2019-03-18T20:58:29.467" UserId="11511" Text="In the age of mechanical cameras, their mechanical triggers used to give out a specific sound, &quot;щелчок&quot;. Accordingly, in the conversational speech, it was normal to ask &quot;щёлкни нас на память&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people older than forty will easily understand the verb &quot;щёлкнуть&quot; as a conversational synonym to &quot;сфотографировать&quot;. A much younger person should be well-read to understand this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;À propos, from a poem by Akhmadullina (about Akhmatova):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И тень её грядущей муки  &#xD;&#xA;Защёлкнута ловушкой снимка." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18234" RevisionGUID="33a9e937-2d69-4a27-ab13-32eadefb0c6d" CreationDate="2019-03-18T21:00:43.073" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1107748689458720770" />
  <row Id="49274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18329" RevisionGUID="26a7cdb8-287d-4bc1-af6f-ffdace0efe96" CreationDate="2019-03-19T00:42:00.407" UserId="10327" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Yes, you can say `По-русски, пожалуйста!` in such context.  &#xD;&#xA;Though more often I'd expect they say (a bit less formal and maybe a bit less polite):  &#xD;&#xA;`А по-русски?` (meaning `А [можно тоже самое, но] по-русски?`).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though speaking of politeness:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! It is complicated enough to not claim that `По-русски, пожалуйста!` is actually much more polite than `А по-русски?`. I think it's the same for `In English, please!`: despite of `please` it's still not neutral enough to be safely used in any kind of conversation (and then more &quot;native&quot; `А по-русски?` sounds like a better match in similar situations). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18333" RevisionGUID="90a5d3de-9c31-4f87-81a2-522304c4b39f" CreationDate="2019-03-19T16:26:37.553" UserId="4481" Text="There is another one idiom for that: &quot;по рабоче-крестьянски&quot; (literally - &quot;in the language of [factory] workers and peasants&quot;). The term &quot;рабоче-крестьянский&quot; appeared in USSR, which declared itself as &quot;the state of workers and peasants&quot;. This phrase refers to a low level of education of a typical factory worker or a peasant. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Объясни мне по рабоче-крестьянски, как эта штука работает?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18333" RevisionGUID="10e45952-9dfd-4d40-b571-8990a24c24ac" CreationDate="2019-03-19T16:34:35.907" UserId="4481" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="There is another one idiom for that: &quot;по рабоче-крестьянски&quot; (literally - &quot;in the language of [factory] workers and peasants&quot;). The term &quot;рабоче-крестьянский&quot; appeared in USSR, which declared itself as &quot;the state of workers and peasants&quot;. This phrase refers to a low level of education of a typical factory worker or a peasant. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Объясни мне по рабоче-крестьянски, как эта штука работает?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For my point of view, such request is less aggressive than &quot;по-русски, пожалуйста&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18334" RevisionGUID="8403fcd7-ab84-4e65-a2d6-d110e33cfc84" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:18:32.697" UserId="11630" Text="The dictionary gives both as mother-in-law. Any difference?&#xD;&#xA;Someone said one is for wife the other for husband but I could not confirm this.&#xD;&#xA;Any clarification welcome.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18334" RevisionGUID="8403fcd7-ab84-4e65-a2d6-d110e33cfc84" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:18:32.697" UserId="11630" Text="свекровь or тёща" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18334" RevisionGUID="8403fcd7-ab84-4e65-a2d6-d110e33cfc84" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:18:32.697" UserId="11630" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="91e7150e-b7a0-44ef-8904-c97e2333389d" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:26:17.307" UserId="11080" Text="Тёща - мама жены, only a man can have тёща. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Свекровь - мама мужа, only a woman has свекровь. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18336" RevisionGUID="e03c6afa-9070-4999-88df-70f288a45378" CreationDate="2019-03-19T18:28:29.873" UserId="5443" Text="The explanation by that someone is correct. **Свекровь** is always the *husband's mother*, **тёща** is the *wife's mother*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="801e15e3-88c7-40b1-ac13-c349e230ea2f" CreationDate="2019-03-19T21:53:55.040" UserId="11021" Text="In the village (there is) only one new house&#xA;В деревне только один новый дом&#xA;&#xA;Here (there is) only one place&#xA;Здесь только одно место&#xA;&#xA;In the apartment (there is) a big room&#xA;В квартире большая комната&#xA;&#xA;Why is есть not used in these sentences, i know that it is okay without or with , but when is it acceptable to use it without? &#xA;&#xA;I found an answer here on the stack exchange but the question uses “у меня” and possessive cases and i am particularly looking for a rule that applies to all cases " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="801e15e3-88c7-40b1-ac13-c349e230ea2f" CreationDate="2019-03-19T21:53:55.040" UserId="11021" Text="When can we omit есть?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="801e15e3-88c7-40b1-ac13-c349e230ea2f" CreationDate="2019-03-19T21:53:55.040" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="10b54553-02f1-4fad-929e-8269b7a2522c" CreationDate="2019-03-19T22:35:42.817" UserId="11021" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="In the village (there is) only one new house&#xD;&#xA;В деревне только один новый дом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here (there is) only one place&#xD;&#xA;Здесь только одно место&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the apartment (there is) a big room&#xD;&#xA;В квартире большая комната&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is есть not used in these sentences, i know that it is okay with or without , but when is it acceptable to use it without? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found an answer here on the stack exchange but the question uses “у меня” and possessive cases and i am particularly looking for a rule that applies to all cases " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18338" RevisionGUID="bb1d7802-df51-439d-b2e7-bc290cc3c272" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:37:09.627" UserId="2104" Text="Most sentences with есть can do without it, like in your examples. There are some exceptions e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Дети есть дети. = Children are children.&#xD;&#xA;* У вас есть дети? = Do you have any children?&#xD;&#xA;* У тебя что ли денег нет? - Есть! = Don't you have any money? - I do!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49292" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18291" RevisionGUID="12b1658c-c13d-4b64-909f-aa5d1576f219" CreationDate="2019-03-20T18:00:50.310" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1108428196792467457" />
  <row Id="49293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18340" RevisionGUID="86f060f5-b091-44ee-8eeb-bb9a423ef594" CreationDate="2019-03-20T20:08:35.857" UserId="4903" Text="There is а common if not idiomatic expression in Russian that is used as a request to explain in simpler terms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **А можно перевести на понятный?** *(informal, but respectful)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Переведи на понятный.** *(informal, used with peers)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18341" RevisionGUID="0246667c-c55b-4cd6-acb5-2d2edf5d0d90" CreationDate="2019-03-20T20:12:35.203" UserId="11650" Text="really, guys? You're new in the Web? It's pretty obvious that :), -) or ) represents &quot;smile&quot;. Using brackets without colon or something - it's just network negligence. Single bracket displays slight smile, multiple - close to laughing. It isn't &quot;Russian style&quot;, it's &quot;Network style&quot;. The way of self expression in short text format" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18342" RevisionGUID="6eda9376-8f0d-424f-9727-52099b3343c5" CreationDate="2019-03-21T04:20:46.240" UserId="6539" Text="I just remembered a famous poem for children. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А у меня в кармане гвоздь. А у вас? –&#xD;&#xA;А у нас сегодня гость. А у вас?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 We don't use есть with most &quot;abstract&quot; nouns which aren't things in the structure у меня /тебя/нас есть, because there's no real posession. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У нас экзамен в пятницу. У меня сегодня встреча.(compare : У меня есть квартира. У него есть собака. where есть can or cannot be used.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think время is an exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We don't use есть in structures У меня в кармане гвоздь.where we speak about location rather than about posession. Though it's possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;У меня в шкафу одеяло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. We don't use есть describing appearance or character. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нее глаза – два брильянта в три карата. У нее красивые волосы. У него золотое сердце.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.We don't use есть when there is an attribute before the noun, if the accent is on a quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У него есть брат. But : У него три брата.&#xD;&#xA;У него есть машина. But: У него новая машина. У меня есть дом. But : У меня большой дом.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18344" RevisionGUID="567813a0-a425-4fb0-ab8e-64e2d945f133" CreationDate="2019-03-21T22:18:58.607" UserId="11107" Text="The difference is quite clear: you omit 'есть', when this word is not what you underline in your message! That means that omitting does not give you absolutely the same sentences, so you not 'can', but 'do' omit 'есть' when whis should be done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every school student knows what is the subject and what is the predicate in the sentence. 'есть' is a verb, so it is always a predicate. Predicate contains the core idea of the sentence subject. But what happens, when you omit the predicate? Yes, other words try to take it's role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В деревне **_один_** новый дом' = 'A **_single_** new house is in the village' = 'The new house is single in the village'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В деревне **_есть_** один новый дом' = 'A new house **_is_** in the village' = 'A new house can be found in the village'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Здесь **_одно_** место' = '**_One_** place is here' = 'The place here is the only one'&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Здесь **_есть_** одно место' = 'There **_is_** one place' = 'A place is here'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В квартире **_большая_** комната' = 'The room in the flat is **_big_**'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В квартире **_есть_** большая комната' = 'A big room **_is_** in the flat'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your sentences contained 'только', which is a possible signal to omit 'есть'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While explaining I noticed, that 'есть' was omitted in sentences, where 'the' was used in English, while 'a' *was* used with 'есть'. That corresponds with the role strength of the subjects. May be it will be the most useful hint for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18344" RevisionGUID="cb88aff3-0c15-4f2f-b4e7-916a902a5e65" CreationDate="2019-03-21T22:45:50.710" UserId="11107" Comment="Added blank line to fix formatting, added comment that it is about regular text." Text="The difference is quite clear: you omit 'есть', when this word is not what you underline in your message! That means that omitting does not give you absolutely the same sentences, so you not 'can', but 'do' omit 'есть' when this should be done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every school student knows what is the subject and what is the predicate in the sentence. 'есть' is a verb, so it is always a predicate. Predicate contains the core idea of the sentence subject. But what happens, when you omit the predicate? Yes, other words try to take it's role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В деревне **_один_** новый дом' = 'A **_single_** new house is in the village' = 'The new house is single in the village'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В деревне **_есть_** один новый дом' = 'A new house **_is_** in the village' = 'A new house can be found in the village'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Здесь **_одно_** место' = '**_One_** place is here' = 'The place here is the only one'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Здесь **_есть_** одно место' = 'There **_is_** one place' = 'A place is here'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В квартире **_большая_** комната' = 'The room in the flat is **_big_**'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В квартире **_есть_** большая комната' = 'A big room **_is_** in the flat'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your sentences contained 'только', which is a possible signal to omit 'есть'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While explaining I noticed, that 'есть' was omitted in sentences, where 'the' was used in English, while 'a' *was* used with 'есть'. That corresponds with the role strength of the subjects. Maybe it will be the most useful hint for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  &#xD;&#xA;This was about regular texts. Steady expression can except this structure (just because they are steady), poems prefer to compress information. You will be understood when breaking these a bit soft rules, but no one always speaks like from a theater scene, right?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18345" RevisionGUID="cae6450b-ef44-47f0-9499-4e4c87e99cf3" CreationDate="2019-03-21T23:17:44.090" UserId="11107" Text="This is an extremely polite form from the old times. Just imagine a ball (or some cross-meeting, when not everyone knows each other), where young people from high society are friendly, but not informal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it becomes clear: no one will use 'я в вашем распоряжении' being in small group of close friends, but also no one will allow to say that at a business conversation. This is the middle of formal and informal ways to speak, a close mix of joke and truth. This can be used by good service staff, by members of team, or by politicians and businessmen enjoying something together to become familiar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, use 'я в вашем распоряжении', when you are ready to smile. When you pronounce this seriosly, it looks as work, rude service, way to earn money, as a wall for strangers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18347" RevisionGUID="59378996-3b81-4ce0-b34d-54c9cd06393a" CreationDate="2019-03-22T00:18:46.173" UserId="11107" Text="Нравится мне в этих восклицательных выражениях то, что по факту они всегда скрывают вопрос 'зачем?', на который мы как правило и отвечаем после этого восклика.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Интуитивно, я не филолог: в самом деле, зачем мне эти макароны? Смотрю на слово 'дались' и первым делом вспоминаю, что я так же слышу 'ну **с**дались тебе эти макароны!'. 'Дались' и 'сдались', которые никак не меняют смысла предложения, видимо потому что имеют нечто общее. 'Дались' и 'сдались'. Сами. Мне. Словно я ничего не сделал для их получения, как будто это нахаляву. И вот тогда становится сразу понятно, 'зачем'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18335" RevisionGUID="2e12c69a-7b5f-4e43-9ea3-9cad491e746e" CreationDate="2019-03-22T07:14:51.247" UserId="11080" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Тёща - мама жены, only a man can have тёща. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Свекровь - мама мужа, only a woman has свекровь. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/-aFimeu-4DM?t=116 " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18348" RevisionGUID="85efd9ef-a68d-4607-ac55-9d300642b819" CreationDate="2019-03-22T09:56:08.447" UserId="310" Text="Как сказал @makaleks, скорее всего это искажённое &quot;сдалисть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;А &quot;сдаться&quot; означает в том числе &quot;понадобиться&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Понадобились тебе эти макароны!&quot; - удивление или неудовольствие от этого факта." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18337" RevisionGUID="35f1f4c2-116f-4629-b615-e9b546879cfc" CreationDate="2019-03-23T06:00:28.933" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1109334076819992576" />
  <row Id="49311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18349" RevisionGUID="f4fa02fd-421c-40b7-8b4c-90d29e27d5e2" CreationDate="2019-03-23T06:47:09.643" UserId="5617" Text="The word `есть` is used explicitly when a strong emphasis on a fact of existence should be made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18349" RevisionGUID="2d7ece73-bd93-4a01-a60b-c0d73d8d264b" CreationDate="2019-03-23T06:54:53.697" UserId="5617" Comment="added 49 characters in body; added 3 characters in body" Text="The word `есть` is used explicitly when a strong emphasis on a fact of existence should be made.&#xA;If it is omitted, emphasis is shifted to elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18350" RevisionGUID="db1d3c68-bf1d-4497-aa4a-6fb157ee7e90" CreationDate="2019-03-23T14:34:04.903" UserId="11637" Text="I hear both as &quot;I can&quot;, but when is it appropriate to use either or?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware the former means &quot;maybe&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18350" RevisionGUID="db1d3c68-bf1d-4497-aa4a-6fb157ee7e90" CreationDate="2019-03-23T14:34:04.903" UserId="11637" Text="может быть a могу" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18350" RevisionGUID="db1d3c68-bf1d-4497-aa4a-6fb157ee7e90" CreationDate="2019-03-23T14:34:04.903" UserId="11637" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49316" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18298" RevisionGUID="6c5cbc39-61e9-4874-9390-1112d56a2d4b" CreationDate="2019-03-23T15:00:37.453" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1109470008005050369" />
  <row Id="49317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18351" RevisionGUID="006a23fb-d5ac-41dc-9522-d21b0340b241" CreationDate="2019-03-23T16:27:50.227" UserId="11021" Text="The main difference is that могу is a verb, and можно is an adverb. If you confused about the meaning or using these words in practice: могу is more like when you say 'I can' (do something or expresing a state about yourself depending on context, etc), i.e. я могу быть сильным/i can be strong. можно is usually used in the questions or when you are asking for an allowance to do something i.g можно мне войти?/ can i come in? However, in russian language we also use могу in questions, i.g могу я войти?/can i come in. Thus, могу and можно in questions will mean the same&#xA;&#xA;Может быть can be also used as “maybe”&#xA;&#xA;Examples:&#xA;&#xA;Может быть, Вы правы&#xA;&#xA;Maybe your right&#xA;&#xA;Может быть дождь до вечера.&#xA;&#xA;It might** rain before evening&#xA;&#xA;Может быть, в этом и есть доля правды&#xA;&#xA;There *may be* some truth to this&#xA;&#xA;Могу used as Can I/May i:&#xA;&#xA;Могу ли я начать?&#xA;&#xA;Can i begin?&#xA;&#xA;Могу ли я включить свет?&#xA;&#xA;May i switch on the light? &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18345" RevisionGUID="d0b7e6d3-4065-45c9-88f0-8f117f6337fc" CreationDate="2019-03-23T21:22:29.120" UserId="11107" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="This is a polite form from the old times, it is between formal and informal language. Just imagine a ball (or some cross-meeting, when not everyone knows each other), where young people from high society are friendly, but not informal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in addition to its direct meaning, it becomes clear: no one will use 'я в вашем распоряжении' being in small group of close friends, but also no one will allow to say that at a business conversation. This is the middle of formal and informal ways to speak, a close mix of joke and truth. This can be used by good service staff, by members of team, or by politicians and businessmen enjoying something together to become familiar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, use 'я в вашем распоряжении', when you are ready to smile. When you pronounce this seriosly, it looks as work, rude service, way to earn money, as a wall for strangers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18352" RevisionGUID="248f6122-fde1-4542-9cc6-0fdda6228f54" CreationDate="2019-03-24T06:33:46.027" UserId="11535" Text="Вот пример: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***― Без червей, чистенький… ― Дались тебе эти грибы. Спину уже ломит, ― тоскливо отвечал невидимый Витя.*** [Евгений Евтушенко. Ягодные места (1982)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, грибы надоели. Надоело их собирать, и говорить о них тоже надоело. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дались тебе***... ― это разговорный фразеологизм. Как же он возник?   Да очень просто, это результат  развития значения слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Зверь не дается в руки*** (человек или животное позволяет или не позволяет  что-л. сделать с собой). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Ему хорошо дается математика*** (это уже отвлеченный предмет сделался для кого-то доступным).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) А потом ― насмешливый, ироничный переход: ***далась ему эта математика*** (= сделалась доступной),  только о ней и говорит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18352" RevisionGUID="a1cea853-0582-494f-8216-d1088a651f7a" CreationDate="2019-03-24T06:38:56.667" UserId="11535" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Вот пример: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***― Без червей, чистенький… ― Дались тебе эти грибы. Спину уже ломит, ― тоскливо отвечал невидимый Витя.*** [Евгений Евтушенко. Ягодные места (1982)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Итак, грибы надоели. Надоело их собирать, и говорить о них тоже надоело. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дались тебе***... ― это разговорный фразеологизм. Как же он возник?   Да очень просто, это результат  развития значения слова.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Зверь не дается в руки*** (человек или животное позволяет или не позволяет  что-л. сделать с собой). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Ему хорошо дается математика*** (это уже отвлеченный предмет сделался для кого-то доступным).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) А потом ― насмешливый, ироничный переход: ***далась ему эта математика*** (= сделалась доступной),  только о ней и говорит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Словарь: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=даться+&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18354" RevisionGUID="1ec705b8-19c5-40c8-a8b8-3ad0217fa6b2" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:40:28.763" UserId="11656" Text="What is the right way to express sadness in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;I often hear the expression **мне грустно**, which is formed with an adverb if I'm not mistaken. &#xD;&#xA;Recently I also heard about the verb **грустить** and its first person singular **я грущу**, which in my opinion could also be used to express sadness. Is this form more often used in sentences and not in fixed expressions?&#xD;&#xA;Then there's also a third form, **я гру́стен**. I've never really heard anyone using this expression, but theoretically it's a short form adjective and these are normally used for expressing current moods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate all your answers, thank you for helping." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18354" RevisionGUID="1ec705b8-19c5-40c8-a8b8-3ad0217fa6b2" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:40:28.763" UserId="11656" Text="How to express sadness?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18354" RevisionGUID="1ec705b8-19c5-40c8-a8b8-3ad0217fa6b2" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:40:28.763" UserId="11656" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18355" RevisionGUID="67af6fae-5818-43eb-bee3-dfc97ce8ab12" CreationDate="2019-03-24T13:52:36.540" UserId="7547" Text="While `мне грустно` neutrally expresses your state (*I'm sad*), `я грущу` means you are in a process of “being sad”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for me, `я грущу` sounds like a whim or an irony (like, “don't bother me now; I'm sadd*ing* for a short time, but then I'll be available for others”). So it should not be used. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18356" RevisionGUID="3b5157c4-79b7-45fb-a74c-040138b5d749" CreationDate="2019-03-24T14:41:34.890" UserId="7674" Text="The verb as opposed to the adverb seems more often than not to appear accompanied by an object appended with the prepositions **по** (which governs either Dative or Prepositional cases) or **o/об** (which governs Prepositional case) - **`грустить (п)о ком/чём-л. | по кому/чему-л.`**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18352" RevisionGUID="a08d9ff4-940a-41a1-9140-5b6ec0fc3638" CreationDate="2019-03-24T16:28:51.310" UserId="11535" Comment="сокращение текста" Text="Вот пример из литературы [Евгений Евтушенко. Ягодные места (1982)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Герой с удовольствием собирает грибы, а его другу это надоело, и он говорит:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &quot;Дались тебе эти грибы, спина уж от них болит.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Дались тебе***... ― это разговорный фразеологизм, он широко применяется в речи. Как же он возник?   Да очень просто, это результат  **развития значения слова, о чем говорится в толковом словаре.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Собака не дается в руки*** (не даёт   что-л. сделать с собой, она недоступна). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Ему хорошо дается математика*** (она для него доступна).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)  ***Далась ему эта математика*** ,  он только о ней и говорит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Схематично это выглядит так**: реальный предмет (дается или не дается) ― отвлеченное понятие (дается или не дается) ― **ироническое прочтение**, в результате чего  **положительная оценка переходит в отрицательную.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ДАТЬСЯ,** св. Разг. **1. Позволить схватить себя**; допустить сделать что-л. с собой; поддаться, уступить. Не дамся в руки. **2. только 3 л. (кому). Явиться, оказаться** каким-л. для овладения,  понимания и т.п. Латынь ему не даётся. Грамота далась ему легко. 3. **только прош. 3 л. (кому)**. **Стать предметом крайнего внимания, интереса, постоянных разговоров кого-л.** Далась тебе эта песенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Толковый словарь: http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=даться&amp;all=x&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18357" RevisionGUID="caabd4e3-26f9-4389-bc0b-3cb37a677674" CreationDate="2019-03-24T17:53:16.423" UserId="11658" Text="In the Russian verb phrase there are two modals: &#xA;one of possibility and the other of ability.&#xA;&#xA;So the English equivalent must be:&#xA;&#xA;I **may** (or **might**) **be** **able** to do..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18358" RevisionGUID="359beb19-aa90-4a1c-9f19-48bceb00f460" CreationDate="2019-03-25T00:47:45.363" UserId="11511" Text="I would recommend you to explore the meanings of the words &quot;печаль&quot; and &quot;тоска&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Е.g., &quot;Обуяла меня печаль, одолела меня тоска.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also of use are the verbs &quot;печалиться&quot; and &quot;тосковать&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the reason is known or implied, you can say &quot;опечален&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Е.g., &quot;опечален я Вашим поведением, сударыня&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be said:  &quot;эти события повергают меня в тоску&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another pertinent saying is: &quot;тяжёлые мысли&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;E.g., &quot;Уже который день он ходил, погружённый в тяжёлые мысли.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(Оn this special occasion, &quot;который&quot; = &quot;не первый&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you can say:  &quot;тяжко на душе&quot;,  &quot;тяжело на душе&quot;,  &quot;муторно на душе&quot;&#xD;&#xA;(the latter saying being a bit more conversational)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49336" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18354" RevisionGUID="d98e11f2-4ee2-4bc9-b67a-c42ffa68f653" CreationDate="2019-03-25T01:49:23.577" />
  <row Id="49337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13146" RevisionGUID="930338e6-b4d4-450b-aa7f-9e5afa76716b" CreationDate="2019-03-25T01:58:04.943" UserId="62" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Here are some links on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/2p55os/why_do_a_lot_of_russian_people_use_smiley_faces/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/1ppdyf/russians_and/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Russians-use-as-a-smiley-instead-of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am pretty sure I have seen this asked on this site before too, but can't find such pages now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usage is entrenched now no matter what, but the reason explained by multiple sources is that the : symbol is ordinarily less convenient to produce on a Cyrillic keyboard [edit: you have to press two keys to get it, as the links above explain and as fedorqui points out in a comment below], so the : in :) dropped out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18359" RevisionGUID="fb0d26d0-7b30-4ad1-b49f-6c9980954e43" CreationDate="2019-03-25T02:06:10.813" UserId="5622" Text="It is archaic expression. I would expect it to as humorous expression between friendly co-workers or friends.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="7a1b609f-1c4f-45e1-bb07-2da624b3b418" CreationDate="2019-03-25T06:23:35.437" UserId="11628" Text="What is a natural way to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1- It's better to give priority to this task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2- I need to set priorities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3- I need to get my priorities straight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm finding expressions like: (приоритизировать, уделять первоочередное внимание, определить приоритеты) but I'm unable to know whether some are too formal, too literary or unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="7a1b609f-1c4f-45e1-bb07-2da624b3b418" CreationDate="2019-03-25T06:23:35.437" UserId="11628" Text="the verb &quot;to prioritize&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="7a1b609f-1c4f-45e1-bb07-2da624b3b418" CreationDate="2019-03-25T06:23:35.437" UserId="11628" Text="|глаголы|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18361" RevisionGUID="672fa750-2bfd-4c0f-ad04-21ad0fd74ef3" CreationDate="2019-03-25T07:05:50.787" UserId="7547" Text="- *It's better to give priority to this task.*&#xD;&#xA;    1. Сто́ит поставить эту задачу в приоритет.&#xD;&#xA;    2. Надо выполнить эту задачу в первую очередь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *I need to set priorities.* — я должен расставить приоритеты.&#xD;&#xA;- *I need to get my priorities straight.* — *maybe* я должен правильно расставить / определить приоритеты. *Can't catch what &quot;get&quot; means here - do priorities need to be requested in a correct order from a manager, or &quot;I&quot; need to clear up priority order by myself*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18361" RevisionGUID="6933e233-3762-42ff-856d-c2970b006848" CreationDate="2019-03-25T07:11:03.250" UserId="7547" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="- *It's better to give priority to this task.*&#xD;&#xA;    1. Сто́ит поставить эту задачу в приоритет.&#xD;&#xA;    2. Надо выполнить эту задачу в первую очередь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *I need to set priorities.* — я должен расставить приоритеты.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- - *I need to get my priorities straight.* — *maybe* я должен правильно расставить / определить приоритеты. *Can't catch what &quot;get&quot; means here - do priorities need to be requested in a correct order from a manager, or &quot;I&quot; need to clear up priority order by myself* --&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="87d7fc09-eb37-4a6a-be3a-b4382926cc9f" CreationDate="2019-03-25T10:55:24.393" UserId="2104" Text="1. Лучше сделать эту задачу в первую очередь. (informal) OR Лучше назначить этой задаче высокий приоритет. (formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мне нужно расставить приоритеты. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мне нужно разобраться/определиться с приоритетами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **приоритет** is quite formal so most sentences containing it will probably sound formal.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="aa9a3ad7-1022-4ddd-bbf7-640e44344836" CreationDate="2019-03-25T11:02:54.420" UserId="2104" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="1. Лучше сделать эту задачу в первую очередь. (informal) OR Лучше назначить этой задаче высокий приоритет. (formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мне нужно расставить приоритеты. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мне нужно разобраться/определиться с приоритетами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **приоритет** is quite formal so most sentences containing it will probably sound formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expressions &quot;быть в приоритете&quot;, &quot;поставить в приоритет&quot; seem to be quite new and are less formal than the word itself. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У нас сейчас банька в приоритете.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49346" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="47edef44-d7f8-4961-8265-0fba9c685c9d" CreationDate="2019-03-25T11:05:06.883" />
  <row Id="49348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18362" RevisionGUID="6479db1a-0ca2-47e1-917e-3fe64962c2fb" CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:03:17.063" UserId="2104" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="1. Лучше поставить на первое место эту задачу. (informal) OR Лучше дать приоритет этой задаче. (formal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Мне нужно расставить приоритеты. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Мне нужно разобраться/определиться с приоритетами.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The word **приоритет** is quite formal so most sentences containing it will probably sound formal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expressions &quot;быть в приоритете&quot;, &quot;поставить в приоритет&quot; seem to be quite new and are less formal than the word itself. Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* У нас сейчас банька в приоритете.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7884" RevisionGUID="ec3e9a4b-fda5-4c07-8d76-8c6134e76470" CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:15:09.140" UserId="6074" Comment="лучше кириллицей" Text="In American English, you would answer with something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Who, Tom?&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also say, &quot;Tom? or Who?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, some might say, &quot;Not Tom!?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tom/Marina, whoever. Remember, the most important part of this statement is the intonation. We wouldn't use the &quot;что ли&quot; in this case, but we would change our pitch to express in English the same sentiment that &quot;что ли&quot; expresses in Russian." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49350" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7884" RevisionGUID="ec3e9a4b-fda5-4c07-8d76-8c6134e76470" CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:15:09.140" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 10999, 2104 edit id of 2028" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="a4809756-c46d-4dba-a5cc-b420c3b9e976" CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:15:45.660" UserId="4500" Comment="Copy edited. Used more standard formatting (as a result the diff looks much more extensive than it really is - use view &quot;side-by-side markdown&quot; to compare)." Text="What is a natural way to say the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. *It's better to give priority to this task.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. *I need to set priorities.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. *I need to get my priorities straight.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm finding expressions like: (приоритизировать, уделять первоочередное внимание, определить приоритеты), but I'm unable to know whether some are too formal, too literary or unnatural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="a4809756-c46d-4dba-a5cc-b420c3b9e976" CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:15:45.660" UserId="4500" Comment="Copy edited. Used more standard formatting (as a result the diff looks much more extensive than it really is - use view &quot;side-by-side markdown&quot; to compare)." Text="The verb &quot;to prioritize&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49353" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="a4809756-c46d-4dba-a5cc-b420c3b9e976" CreationDate="2019-03-25T13:15:45.660" Comment="Proposed by 4500 approved by 10999, 2104 edit id of 2029" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18363" RevisionGUID="777ae3b2-5ece-4257-a3c9-2d9df90eaf6e" CreationDate="2019-03-25T16:58:37.427" UserId="8905" Text="&quot;приоритизировать&quot; is an OK word, it's a bit long, but I definitely heard it used in real life conversations. For more informal statements you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_It's better to give priority to this task._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первым делом надо [сделать/закочить/выполнить] [задачу]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For the other two examples you can use &quot;(правильно) расставить приоритеты&quot; if you want to be more formal/literal, but if it's expression along the line of &quot;Hey man, you need to get your priorities straight&quot; you night use something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;не забывай что тут главное&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But like a lot of translation it might depends on context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="06105e50-862e-4acc-b26e-43e1c4fa9f0e" CreationDate="2019-03-25T18:59:39.820" UserId="11542" Comment="A valuable resource added to the websiteslist" Text="## Websites &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Langust][16] - short Russian grammar&#xD;&#xA; - [lib.ru][2], Библиотека Максима Мошкова, the largest Russian library in the Internet history.&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussianweb.com][3], a site for learning Russian &#xD;&#xA; - [masterrussian.com][4], Russian lessons, vocabulary, test, forum&#xD;&#xA; - [Памятка корректору][5] - quick reference on most common Russian grammatical, syntax and spelling mistakes&#xD;&#xA; - [learnrussian.rt.com][6], Russian lessons. Online and free.  See also [community provided answer keys][21])&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruskie.info] [7] - Russian lessons built around Russian news and realities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Ruslang.ru][8]&#xD;&#xA; - [ruspeach.com] [1] - Ruspeach is an online Russian Language learning resource. &#xD;&#xA; - [Russian For Everyone][9] - Russian language self study guide for beginners&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Language History][10]&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Lessons][19] - Grammar, vocabulary lists and texts (in Russian and English side-by-side). Tests are read out loud by native speakers.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian Morpheem][20] – a searchable, hypertext-style index of all grammar and vocabulary up to intermediate level. Free.&#xD;&#xA; - [Russian National Corpus search][11] - allows to search for examples of a word usage and the word collocations.&#xD;&#xA; - [tsya.ru][12] - website dedicated to the most problematic rule.&#xD;&#xA; - [udarenie.info][13] - database of words with stresses marked + linguistic game to remember correct stresses; search function is based on gramota.ru.&#xD;&#xA; - [100 top resources to learn Russian][14] - a list of online and print resources, categorized by type and level&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC Russian Language Service][15]&#xD;&#xA; - [Convertcyrillic.com][17], a tool for students to easily look up multiple Russian words.&#xD;&#xA; - [Learn to speak Russian][18] - Russian learning site that provides a lot of helpful lessons and other information, including original course from beginning to confident level, and original books. The blog of Russian-1000words.pw contains a lot of different information on Russian language.&#xD;&#xA;- [Записки отважного бойца языкового фронта][22] - quick reference on Russian grammar, lexis, spelling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ruspeach.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://lib.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.learnrussianweb.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://masterrussian.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://u3poccuu.livejournal.com/7681.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://learnrussian.rt.com&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://ruskie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.ruslang.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.russianforeveryone.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.kvatross.ru/index.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/search-main.html&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://tsya.ru/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.udarenie.info&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://russian.lingualift.com/blog/best-russian-learning-resources/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.langust.ru/rus_gram/rus_gram.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.convertcyrillic.com/linkerizer.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://russian-1000words.pw&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.russianlessons.net&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://russian.morpheem.com&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.explaura.net/learnrussian-rt-com&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://lingvanotes.blogspot.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49356" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="06105e50-862e-4acc-b26e-43e1c4fa9f0e" CreationDate="2019-03-25T18:59:39.820" Comment="Proposed by 11542 approved by 2104, 5605 edit id of 2026" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49357" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18251" RevisionGUID="c380a2de-e4aa-484d-85c0-140792e062f1" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:00:48.773" UserId="6074" Comment="corrected IPA, kinda" Text="In Russian, is [i] a possible substitute for [ɯ] after a velarized consonant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49358" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18251" RevisionGUID="c380a2de-e4aa-484d-85c0-140792e062f1" CreationDate="2019-03-25T19:00:48.773" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 10999, 5605 edit id of 2030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49359" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18360" RevisionGUID="7dc8dbf3-4aa2-44aa-a20c-30232e4c3f62" CreationDate="2019-03-25T21:00:34.690" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1110285369050828810" />
  <row Id="49361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18351" RevisionGUID="627ed852-ed94-4afa-b14e-0b7a2e87f69f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T11:18:59.270" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="The main difference is that могу is a verb, and можно is an adverb. If you confused about the meaning or using these words in practice: могу is more like when you say 'I can' (do something or expressing a state about yourself depending on context, etc), e.g. я могу быть сильным/I can be strong. можно is usually used in the questions or when you are asking for an allowance to do something e.g. можно мне войти?/can I come in? However, in Russian language we also use могу in questions, e.g/. могу я войти?/can I come in? Thus, могу and можно in questions will mean the same&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть can be also used as “maybe”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть, Вы правы&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you're right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть дождь до вечера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might** rain before evening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Может быть, в этом и есть доля правды&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There *may be* some truth to this&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Могу used as Can I/May I:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Могу ли я начать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I begin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Могу ли я включить свет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;May I switch on the light? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49362" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18351" RevisionGUID="627ed852-ed94-4afa-b14e-0b7a2e87f69f" CreationDate="2019-03-26T11:18:59.270" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 10999 edit id of 2031" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18364" RevisionGUID="38b1139c-e16f-4a0d-a6c8-f3ad94b21cab" CreationDate="2019-03-26T22:40:47.720" UserId="11107" Text="You are right: 'мне грустно' is the most common case. Look at the word in different parts of speech (verb,adjective,adverb). Just compare the variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you doing? Request for action. Also used when speaking about someone else (using that for yourself is not very appropriate, it usually makes you looking lazy/weak - so speak about yourself in such way only with close friends):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грущу = I am feeling sad [now] По-моему, он о чём-то грустит = I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; think he is sad about something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What person are you? What person are you now? Request for description. Obviously, you should not say about yourself in a such negative way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грустен/Я грустен = I am sad [I am a sad person]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Russian it is assumed that you are not motivated to be sad. It is something that distracts you from your friends and your work. Sadness is this meaning is some kind of external phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне грустно = I feel sadness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will completely understand it if you look at sadness like at other externals (like 'it is rainy', 'it is snowing'): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне холодно = It is cold for me (I feel cold)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне противно = It is distastefully for me (I feel distastefulness)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне хорошо = It is good for me (I feel good)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне тяжело = It is hard for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the sadness, I can suggest other common 'sad' expressions (same can be said about drugs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не отпускает грусть = The sadness doesn't release me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня внезапно накрыла печаль = The sadness has suddenly covered me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18364" RevisionGUID="d8ddf108-5b81-4fca-b2bd-4669ec3041ad" CreationDate="2019-03-26T22:48:27.883" UserId="11107" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You are right: 'мне грустно' is the most common case. Look at the word in different parts of speech (verb,adjective,adverb). Just compare the variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you doing? Request for action. Also used when speaking about someone else (using that for yourself is not very appropriate, it usually makes you looking lazy/weak - so speak about yourself in such way only with close friends):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грущу = I am feeling sad [now] &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По-моему, он о чём-то грустит = I think he is sad about something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What person are you? What person are you now? Request for description. Obviously, you should not say about yourself in a such negative way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грустен/Я грустный = I am sad [I am a sad person]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Russian it is assumed that sadness will pass somewhen. It is something that distracts you from your friends and your work only now. Sadness is this meaning is some kind of external phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне грустно = I feel sadness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will completely understand it if you look at sadness like at other externals (like 'it is rainy', 'it is snowing'): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне холодно = It is cold for me (I feel cold)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне противно = It is distastefully for me (I feel distastefulness)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне хорошо = It is good for me (I feel good)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне тяжело = It is hard for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the sadness, I can suggest other common 'sad' expressions (same can be said about drugs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не отпускает грусть = The sadness doesn't release me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня внезапно накрыла печаль = The sadness has suddenly covered me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="9e3668c3-951c-45a9-b41f-bb5a50ad42d3" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:27:56.353" UserId="11021" Text="i don't understand the difference between them, feel free to add examples&#xD;&#xA;i was given this sentence for зато and dint see why но couldn't be substituted for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; i don't like the metro and the airport express goes too slowly, on the other hand it’s reliable,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; я не люблю метро а аероэкспрессе слишком медленно, зато надёжно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я не люблю метро а аероэкспрессе слишком медленно но надёжно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could they be interchanged? Someone told me но feels more natural and i'm not sure if that is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="9e3668c3-951c-45a9-b41f-bb5a50ad42d3" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:27:56.353" UserId="11021" Text="What is the difference between зато and но?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="9e3668c3-951c-45a9-b41f-bb5a50ad42d3" CreationDate="2019-03-26T23:27:56.353" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18366" RevisionGUID="fdb6bdd0-05aa-4b66-be8b-418592393f27" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:31:05.590" UserId="9256" Text="&quot;Зато&quot; implies a trade-off. &quot;Но&quot; (&quot;But&quot;) is generic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no trade-off (explicit positives and negatives) between the options, &quot;зато&quot; can not be used. If a trade-off is described, &quot;зато&quot; and &quot;но&quot; can be used interchangeably. &quot;Зато&quot; can be used to stress particular advantage (more typically) or disadvantage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49369" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18350" RevisionGUID="c06e302e-0328-4977-9829-a55d45c20f81" CreationDate="2019-03-27T06:20:40.447" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1110788709757214725" />
  <row Id="49370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18367" RevisionGUID="c383dcae-7d0d-4090-a0f6-e13021cdc167" CreationDate="2019-03-27T06:54:36.803" UserId="11667" Text="When addressing someone with a term of endearment, should the gender of &quot;my&quot; match the word or the person? For example, when addressing a male as &quot;my star&quot;, would you say Звездочка моя or Звездочка мой?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18367" RevisionGUID="c383dcae-7d0d-4090-a0f6-e13021cdc167" CreationDate="2019-03-27T06:54:36.803" UserId="11667" Text="Adjective gender for terms of endearment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18367" RevisionGUID="c383dcae-7d0d-4090-a0f6-e13021cdc167" CreationDate="2019-03-27T06:54:36.803" UserId="11667" Text="|выбор-имени|род|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18368" RevisionGUID="e95602f6-7b68-4d16-a2a3-80464b5d3dd8" CreationDate="2019-03-27T08:01:41.757" UserId="7674" Text="The gender of pronoun should match the gender **of the endearment word**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, there's a word of endearment **зайчонок** (a little/baby hare). When applied to a women, as it often is, the combination looks like **мой зайчонок** where **мой** is a masculine form agreeing with masculine **зайчонок**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18368" RevisionGUID="929a2629-3d83-4a47-ab7c-5c12f74f2d38" CreationDate="2019-03-27T08:07:18.650" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The gender of pronoun should match the gender **of the endearment word**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, there's a word of endearment **зайчонок** (bunny). When applied to a women, as it often is, the combination looks like **мой зайчонок** where **мой** is a masculine form agreeing with masculine **зайчонок**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18369" RevisionGUID="f1cbeafa-6a55-4869-b598-f548a82d7329" CreationDate="2019-03-27T10:03:56.533" UserId="11628" Text="When do I use an infinitive after Чтобы and when do I use the verb in the past?&#xD;&#xA;This is confusing me when Чтобы is used to express the purpose of one action by another. I mean sentences like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I woke up early to catch the train.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I woke up early so that we catch the train.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to think that the absence of a subject in the subordinate clause after чтобы is why the infinitive is used. Maybe when the subject is clear from context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я проснулся рано чтобы успеть на поезд.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я проснулся рано чтобы мы успели на поезд.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these sentences correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In other usages of Чтобы, things seem clearer to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Скажи ему чтобы не переживал.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня нет времени чтобы играть.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these correct?&#xD;&#xA;Did I miss anything of relevance? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18369" RevisionGUID="f1cbeafa-6a55-4869-b598-f548a82d7329" CreationDate="2019-03-27T10:03:56.533" UserId="11628" Text="The verb after Чтобы" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18369" RevisionGUID="f1cbeafa-6a55-4869-b598-f548a82d7329" CreationDate="2019-03-27T10:03:56.533" UserId="11628" Text="|грамматика|синтаксис|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18369" RevisionGUID="732c72e3-524e-4f1d-b30d-da7e12d26078" CreationDate="2019-03-27T10:08:59.370" UserId="11628" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="When do I use an infinitive after Чтобы and when do I use the verb in the past?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confusing me when Чтобы is used to express the purpose of one action by another. I mean sentences like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I woke up early to catch the train.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I woke up early so that we catch the train.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to think that the absence of a subject in the subordinate clause after чтобы is why the infinitive is used. Maybe when the subject is clear from context?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я проснулся рано чтобы успеть на поезд.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Я проснулся рано чтобы мы успели на поезд.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these sentences correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;In other usages of Чтобы, things seem clearer to me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Скажи ему чтобы не переживал.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*У меня нет времени чтобы играть.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these correct?&#xD;&#xA;Did I miss anything of relevance? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49379" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18367" RevisionGUID="63a8adf3-8c6c-47fa-9eda-75c128b530ee" CreationDate="2019-03-27T11:09:04.287" />
  <row Id="49380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18370" RevisionGUID="27184d0a-284e-4f60-b486-a79514b4ec12" CreationDate="2019-03-27T11:49:46.907" UserId="310" Text="All four sentences are correct, however for some of them better version exists stylistically-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Subject is inferred from verbs' case. When you say `чтобы успеть`, subject is  you unless stated otherwise `чтобы ему успеть`, when you said `чтобы успел`, subject is not you unless stated explicitly `чтобы я успел`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="3bce6b8e-73e2-4448-8a5c-343dddd4255d" CreationDate="2019-03-27T12:06:35.250" UserId="11021" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="i don't understand the difference between them, feel free to add examples&#xD;&#xA;i was given this sentence for зато and dint see why но couldn't be substituted for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; i don't like the metro and the airport express goes too slowly, on the other hand it’s reliable,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; я не люблю метро, а аероэкспрессе слишком медленно, зато надёжно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я не люблю метро, а аероэкспрессе слишком медленно но надёжно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could they be interchanged? Someone told me но feels more natural and i'm not sure if that is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49382" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18369" RevisionGUID="b97245d2-8f40-4182-a2ab-9c7a1dccaf78" CreationDate="2019-03-27T12:36:58.007" UserId="11628" Comment="edit title" Text="Should the verb after &quot;Чтобы&quot; be infinitive or in the past tense?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18368" RevisionGUID="0c420738-4e9a-48e6-8b5b-fc2772dc16ec" CreationDate="2019-03-27T14:02:27.967" UserId="2104" Comment="Typo" Text="The gender of pronoun should match the gender **of the endearment word**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, there's a word of endearment **зайчонок** (bunny). When applied to a woman, as it often is, the combination looks like **мой зайчонок** where **мой** is a masculine form agreeing with masculine **зайчонок**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18367" RevisionGUID="dba0ad10-a9f8-4384-9af7-53a52f7401c2" CreationDate="2019-03-28T06:00:36.677" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1111146048549015552" />
  <row Id="49389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18368" RevisionGUID="bea412ca-991d-426a-9a37-4dfd2dcaf1ce" CreationDate="2019-03-28T07:47:25.857" UserId="7674" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="The gender of pronoun should match the gender **of the endearment word**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example, there's a word of endearment **зайчонок** (bunny). When applied to a woman, as it often is, the combination looks like **мой зайчонок** where **мой** is a masculine form agreeing with masculine **зайчонок**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there're cases where а pronoun can also provisionally match the person's sex, that is when nouns have a feminine ending but are essentially gender-neutral, e.g. **умница/чка, лапочка/лапуля, молодчина/нка** and again **зайка**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18372" RevisionGUID="933d29ce-c57d-4045-9e95-c2d68112ae25" CreationDate="2019-03-28T08:23:57.487" UserId="10593" Text="друзья!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я мало чем могу помочь, но могу поделиться с тобой старым хаком статуса профиля. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused with мало чем. how is it used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18372" RevisionGUID="933d29ce-c57d-4045-9e95-c2d68112ae25" CreationDate="2019-03-28T08:23:57.487" UserId="10593" Text="Explain чем in this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18372" RevisionGUID="933d29ce-c57d-4045-9e95-c2d68112ae25" CreationDate="2019-03-28T08:23:57.487" UserId="10593" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18373" RevisionGUID="4f5452b0-7515-476f-8394-6d24b9c3a581" CreationDate="2019-03-28T08:34:01.567" UserId="8109" Text="This means:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is not many ways I can help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another valid sentence would be *Я мало что могу для тебя сделать* («There is not much I can do for you»).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*чем* and *что* in these examples are similar to *которыми* and *которые* here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало **действий, которыми** я могу помочь.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мало **действий, которые** я могу для тебя сделать.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18374" RevisionGUID="21ab26af-285d-4f03-8a53-fbafacffb0ee" CreationDate="2019-03-28T09:39:18.783" UserId="5443" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Literally (**чем** ~ *what **with*** or ***by** doing what*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are not many things I could help you **with**, however I'd share [help you **by** sharing]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an old hacked profile status (with you)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18375" RevisionGUID="8fd63619-8fbb-4c73-a86f-72d3ec035b36" CreationDate="2019-03-28T10:08:44.660" UserId="11107" Text="'Чем' is a form of 'что' meaning 'what'. This is exactly the question that is used when you learn cases ('чем' is instrumental case, number 5 = 'творительный').&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translate it word-by-word and it will be clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **мало чем** могу помочь, но могу поделиться с тобой старым хаком&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статуса [от] профиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; word-by-word =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **little what** can help, but can share with you old hack status&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [of] profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; shake it =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Little what** I can help, but can share old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; add English grammar =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There is* **little what** I can help you *with*, but *I* can share *an* old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8FkMa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18375" RevisionGUID="0424676f-9399-442d-a00c-69ee6aca746c" CreationDate="2019-03-28T10:13:47.703" UserId="11107" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="'Чем' is a form of 'что' meaning 'what'. This is exactly the question that is used when you learn cases ('чем' is instrumental case, number 5 = 'творительный').&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translate it word-by-word and it will be clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **мало чем** могу помочь, но могу поделиться с тобой старым хаком&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статуса [от] профиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; word-by-word =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **little what** can help, but can share with you old hack status&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [of] profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; shake it =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Little what** I can help, but can share old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; add English grammar =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There is a* **little what** I can help you *with*, but *I* can share *an* old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8FkMa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18375" RevisionGUID="5ca757be-ffb6-423d-8a10-dc379590cecf" CreationDate="2019-03-28T10:27:31.733" UserId="11107" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="'Чем' is a form of 'что' meaning 'what'. This is exactly the question that is used when you learn cases ('чем' is instrumental case, number 5 = 'творительный').&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translate it word-by-word and it will be clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **мало чем** могу помочь, но могу поделиться с тобой старым хаком&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статуса [от] профиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; word-by-word =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **little what** can help, but can share with you old hack status&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [of] profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; shake it =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Little what** I can help, but can share old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; add English grammar =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There is a* **little with what** I can help you *with*, but *I* can share *an* old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8FkMa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18375" RevisionGUID="67b5e5f2-a763-4225-b62b-d3718be0d752" CreationDate="2019-03-28T10:28:22.547" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="'Чем' is a form of 'что' meaning 'what'. This is exactly the question that is used when you learn cases ('чем' is instrumental case, number 5 = 'творительный').&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translate it word-by-word and it will be clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я **мало чем** могу помочь, но могу поделиться с тобой старым хаком&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статуса [от] профиля&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; word-by-word =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **little what** can help, but can share with you old hack status&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [of] profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; shake it =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Little what** I can help, but can share old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;=&gt; add English grammar =&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *There is* **little with what** I can help you, but *I* can share *an* old profile status hack with you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8FkMa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49400" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18354" RevisionGUID="7b7ab450-99dd-4706-b0da-5476328ab3fb" CreationDate="2019-03-28T12:00:30.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1111236618554408962" />
  <row Id="49402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18372" RevisionGUID="fd232ab4-b997-4fe8-aee6-6780801fa5d1" CreationDate="2019-03-28T15:10:33.993" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I came across this sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я мало чем могу помочь, но могу поделиться с тобой старым хаком&#xD;&#xA;&gt; статуса профиля.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm confused with мало чем. How is it used? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49403" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="723e6f05-35d0-4e14-87a7-303f4cd41395" CreationDate="2019-03-28T15:11:13.113" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;зато&quot; and &quot;но&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18377" RevisionGUID="2213b06e-6f11-4290-961d-c88eb77410c6" CreationDate="2019-03-28T20:52:56.743" UserId="3917" Text="In mathematics the technical term Riemann manifold (or Riemannian manifold) denotes a type of space investigated by the nineteenth century German mathematician Bernhard Riemann.   &#xD;&#xA;The corresponding Russian term is sometimes written *римановое многообразие*: no surprise here. &#xD;&#xA;However I seem to have more often come across the expression *риманово* (without an *е* at the end) *многообразие*.    &#xD;&#xA;Since the genitive of *Pиман* is, I guess, *Pимана* with upper case P, the shorter (and to me stranger) form *риманово* cannnot be a genitive and seems thus also to be an adjective.  &#xD;&#xA;What is the explanation for this variant ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49405" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18377" RevisionGUID="2213b06e-6f11-4290-961d-c88eb77410c6" CreationDate="2019-03-28T20:52:56.743" UserId="3917" Text="римановое многообразие or риманово многообразие?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49406" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18377" RevisionGUID="2213b06e-6f11-4290-961d-c88eb77410c6" CreationDate="2019-03-28T20:52:56.743" UserId="3917" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|прилагательные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="fc3076fb-4b1e-49a3-ab83-a420fb4d8861" CreationDate="2019-03-28T22:30:05.230" UserId="7674" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one many Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**), it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in a saying **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's feminine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="4527a535-ca63-4e72-be34-36368de7230d" CreationDate="2019-03-28T22:41:00.467" UserId="7674" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one many Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**), it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in a saying **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's feminine.&#xD;&#xA;_______________&#xD;&#xA;*If however what you meant was explanation of variance in that specific term, then perhaps someone else will be able to shed light.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18379" RevisionGUID="02b963d9-7c1b-489c-8524-8d2f059b732a" CreationDate="2019-03-28T22:50:01.653" UserId="2104" Text="These are so called [possessive adjectives][1] which are used extensively (but not exclusively) in science, medicine and religion:&#xA;&#xA;* булева алгебра &#xA;* базедова болезнь&#xA;* ахиллесова пята&#xA;* прокрустово ложе&#xA;* декартово произведение&#xA;* сизифов труд&#xA;&#xA;They are formed by adding the suffix -ов (-ев, -ёв) to the motivating stem (usually denoting a person).&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/possessive-adjective-declensions-in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18379" RevisionGUID="5c92f55a-dd0f-4b35-9bd2-6f00479568ca" CreationDate="2019-03-28T22:55:23.057" UserId="2104" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="These are so-called [possessive adjectives][1] which are used extensively (but not exclusively) in science, medicine and religion:&#xA;&#xA;* булева алгебра &#xA;* базедова болезнь&#xA;* ахиллесова пята&#xA;* прокрустово ложе&#xA;* декартово произведение&#xA;* сизифов труд&#xA;&#xA;They are formed by adding the suffix -ов (-ев, -ёв) to the motivating stem (usually denoting a person). Russian surnames (Иванов, Петров) have the same structure and follow the same declension pattern, except for the prepositional case: об ивановом - об Иванове.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.study-languages-online.com/grammar/tables/possessive-adjective-declensions-in" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18380" RevisionGUID="365ee4d1-3b52-46c7-9b8d-49f1197a5b0c" CreationDate="2019-03-29T01:55:34.787" UserId="10749" Text="This simply means &quot;**not much**&quot;, as in &quot;`There isn't much I can do for you`&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can put it as &quot;`There's little I can do for you`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one of those turns of speech that sound awfully awkward and artificial if you try to translate them closely, so I would not even try to try to interpret &quot;**мало чем помочь**&quot; directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to translate &quot;**помочь**&quot; directly as &quot;**help**&quot; rather than &quot;**do**&quot;, you'd have to use it as a noun, not a verb. &quot;`I'm a afraid I can't be much [of a] help...`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literate translation is &quot;`[There's] little with which I can help you`&quot;, so you can see you can't really use it or shape it in any way that sound idiomatic, or normal even in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18381" RevisionGUID="843e04ac-203d-4093-8c13-2ffaefdead22" CreationDate="2019-03-29T04:22:24.917" UserId="4560" Text="**Мало чем** is the instrumental of the set expression **мало что** &quot;not a lot [of things]&quot;. It belongs to a certain category of expressions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of **кое-что**. The pronoun meaning &quot;a certain something&quot; or, alternately, &quot;a few things here and there&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a limited number of adverbs that combine (without hyphenation) with **что** to form set expressions that are pronoun-like without technically being pronouns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The major ones are **мало что**, **много что**, **(не)известно что**, **(не)понятно что**, and the postpositioned **что надо**. There are others, (even) more colloquial and not necessarily adverbial, such as **не пойми что** or **чёрт-те что**; one, **Бог знает что** has an exact English equivalent in *God knows what*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just like you also get **кое-кто**, **кое-где**, **кое-как**, etc., these pseudo-affixed adverbs can combine with any other interrogative/relative pronoun. E.g. **мало где** &quot;not in a lot of places&quot;, **много как** &quot;in many [possible] ways&quot;, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a matter of pure convention that they're not hyphenated. For all intents and purposes, **мало** and **чем** in your example should be thought of as a whole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18380" RevisionGUID="3f44246b-310d-4028-91d1-3a4a1a6f20b2" CreationDate="2019-03-29T04:58:50.620" UserId="10749" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="This simply means &quot;**not much**&quot;, as in &quot;`There isn't much I can do for you`&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can put it as &quot;`There's little I can do for you`&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's one of those turns of speech that sound awfully awkward and artificial if you try to translate them closely, so I would not even try to try to interpret &quot;**мало чем помочь**&quot; directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to translate &quot;**помочь**&quot; directly as &quot;**help**&quot; rather than &quot;**do**&quot;, you'd have to use it as a noun, not a verb. &quot;`I'm a afraid I can't be much [of a] help...`&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The literate translation is &quot;`[There's] little with which I can help you`&quot;, so you can see you can't really use it or shape it in any way that would sound idiomatic, or normal even, in English." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18382" RevisionGUID="7c13844c-f8b7-45e7-93a9-e070167f42d7" CreationDate="2019-03-29T05:33:30.413" UserId="10247" Text="The answer to your question is NO. The describing word must correspond grammatically to the word you describe. These are grammatical relations and male/female problem is not really important here.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="f1239aad-fa06-4f77-8b16-db85a742a8a6" CreationDate="2019-03-29T07:12:55.440" UserId="7674" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **Эйфелева башня** (after Gustave Eiffel), **бикфордов шнур** (after William Bickford), **бертоллетова соль** (after Сlaude Berthollet), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one many Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**), it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in a saying **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's feminine.&#xD;&#xA;_______________&#xD;&#xA;*If however what you meant was explanation of variance in that specific term, then perhaps someone else will be able to shed light.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="c1ac0362-e36d-45cc-aba3-ae0c0b7885dc" CreationDate="2019-03-29T07:18:23.413" UserId="7674" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **Эйфелева башня** (after Gustave Eiffel), **бикфордов шнур** (after William Bickford), **бертоллетова соль** (after Сlaude Berthollet), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one typical Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**). Originally it was supposed to be followed by the words **сын** or **дочь** and had had the function of patronymic before formal surnames appeared → **Марья Иванова дочь**, **Фёдор Петров сын**, much like is the case of many Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian surnames. In Russian it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in the expression **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's feminine.&#xD;&#xA;_______________&#xD;&#xA;*If however what you meant was explanation of variance in that specific term, then perhaps someone else will be able to shed light.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="cb92a9dd-078c-4c8e-8bf1-de42170ce080" CreationDate="2019-03-29T07:53:20.007" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **Эйфелева башня** (after Gustave Eiffel), **бикфордов шнур** (after William Bickford), **бертоллетова соль** (after Сlaude Berthollet), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one typical Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**). Originally it was supposed to be followed by the words **сын** or **дочь** and functioned as patronymic before formal surnames appeared → **Марья Иванова дочь**, **Фёдор Петров сын**, much like is the case of many Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and other nations' surnames. In Russian it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in the expression **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's feminine.&#xD;&#xA;_______________&#xD;&#xA;*If however what you meant was explanation of variance in that specific term, then perhaps someone else will be able to shed light.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18383" RevisionGUID="b805a34b-8617-4e54-9f63-6dc7ab5a642e" CreationDate="2019-03-29T09:33:56.883" UserId="310" Text="`Римановое` is plain wrong - it turns animate subject into inanimate adjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, `Римановское` exists as a variant of norm, that is of `Риманово`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18364" RevisionGUID="ade5415f-4839-496c-b8a4-b1694c877ac7" CreationDate="2019-03-29T09:35:08.160" UserId="11107" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You are right: 'мне грустно' is the most common case. Look at the word in different parts of speech (verb,adjective,adverb). Just compare the variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you doing? Request for action. Also used when speaking about someone else (using that for yourself is not very appropriate, it usually makes you looking lazy/weak - so speak about yourself in such way only with close friends):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грущу = I am feeling sad [now] &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По-моему, он о чём-то грустит = I think he is sad about something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What person are you? What person are you now? Request for description. Obviously, you should not say about yourself in a such negative way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грустен/Я грустный = I am sad [I am a sad person]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Russian it is assumed that sadness will pass somewhen. It is something that distracts you from your friends and your work only now. Sadness in this meaning is some kind of external phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне грустно = I feel sadness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will completely understand it if you look at sadness like at other externals (like 'it is rainy', 'it is snowing'): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне холодно = It is cold for me (I feel cold)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне противно = It is distasteful for me (I feel distastefulness)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне хорошо = It is good for me (I feel good)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне тяжело = It is hard for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other expressions of sadness, I can suggest other common 'sad' expressions (same can be said about drugs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не отпускает грусть = The sadness doesn't release me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня внезапно накрыла печаль = The sadness has suddenly covered me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="feef54e3-3bfc-4a37-a17d-d7e1401a401b" CreationDate="2019-03-29T09:38:26.343" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **Эйфелева башня** (after Gustave Eiffel), **бикфордов шнур** (after William Bickford), **бертоллетова соль** (after Сlaude Berthollet), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one typical Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**). Originally it was supposed to be followed by the words **сын** or **дочь** and functioned as patronymic before formal surnames appeared → **Марья Иванова дочь**, **Фёдор Петров сын**, much like is the case of many Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and other nations' surnames. In Russian it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in the expression **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's (feminine).&#xD;&#xA;_______________&#xD;&#xA;*If however what you meant was explanation of variance in that specific term, then perhaps someone else will be able to shed light.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18344" RevisionGUID="d8635b71-21d7-4efd-b39c-44d6d5f5f5c9" CreationDate="2019-03-29T09:40:24.467" UserId="11107" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The difference is quite clear: you omit 'есть', when this word is not what you underline in your message! That means that omitting does not give you absolutely the same sentences, so you not 'can', but 'do' omit 'есть' when this should be done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every school student knows what is the subject and what is the predicate in the sentence. 'есть' is a verb, so it is always a predicate. Predicate contains the core idea of the sentence's subject. But what happens, when you omit the predicate? Yes, other words try to take it's role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В деревне **_один_** новый дом' = 'A **_single_** new house is in the village' = 'The new house is single in the village'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В деревне **_есть_** один новый дом' = 'A new house **_is_** in the village' = 'A new house can be found in the village'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Здесь **_одно_** место' = '**_One_** place is here' = 'The place here is the only one'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'Здесь **_есть_** одно место' = 'There **_is_** one place' = 'A place is here'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В квартире **_большая_** комната' = 'The room in the flat is **_big_**'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 'В квартире **_есть_** большая комната' = 'A big room **_is_** in the flat'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your sentences contained 'только', which is a possible signal to omit 'есть'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While explaining I noticed, that 'есть' was omitted in sentences, where 'the' was used in English, while 'a' *was* used with 'есть'. That corresponds with the role strength of the subjects. Maybe it will be the most useful hint for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  &#xD;&#xA;This was about regular texts. Steady expression can except this structure (just because they are steady), poems prefer to compress information. You will be understood when breaking these a bit soft rules, but no one always speaks like from a theater scene, right?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18384" RevisionGUID="e9a6317b-3922-4d2c-9fe4-701bde916c64" CreationDate="2019-03-29T14:19:56.770" UserId="9058" Text="I think I would add a rather well known song, which has many examples of &quot;есть&quot; used and still some examples of &quot;есть&quot; omitted (mostly to fit the rhymes into the rhythm):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZevXca9CI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Виктор Цой / Группа КИНО &#xD;&#xA;    Место Для Шага Вперёд&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть дом, только нет ключей, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть солнце, но оно среди туч, &#xD;&#xA;    Есть голова, только нет плечей, &#xD;&#xA;    Но я вижу, как тучи режет солнечный луч. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть слово, но в нём нет букв, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть лес, но нет топоров, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть время, но нет сил ждать &#xD;&#xA;    И есть ещё ночь, но в ней нет снов. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    И есть ещё белые, белые дни, &#xD;&#xA;    Белые горы и белый лёд, &#xD;&#xA;    Но всё, что мне нужно, это несколько слов &#xD;&#xA;    И место для шага вперёд. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    У меня река, только нет моста, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть мыши, но нет кота, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть парус, но ветра нет &#xD;&#xA;    И есть ещё краски, но нет холста. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    У меня на кухне из крана вода, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть рана, но нет бинта, &#xD;&#xA;    У меня есть братья, но нет родных &#xD;&#xA;    И есть рука, и она пуста. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    И есть ещё белые, белые дни, &#xD;&#xA;    Белые горы и белый лёд, &#xD;&#xA;    Но всё, что мне нужно, это несколько слов &#xD;&#xA;    И место для шага вперёд. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    И есть ещё белые, белые дни, &#xD;&#xA;    Белые горы и белый лёд, &#xD;&#xA;    Но всё, что мне нужно, это несколько слов &#xD;&#xA;    И место для шага вперёд." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18378" RevisionGUID="ffb85d2e-4cdc-4d8d-8237-99e42b373e47" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:00:50.657" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This is a possessive adjectival form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Притяжательные прилагательные - разряд прилагательных, выражающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; принадлежность чего-либо лицу или животному (отцовы сапоги, волчья&#xD;&#xA;&gt; нора). П. п. образуются с помощью суффиксов -ов(-ев), -ин, -ий.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source](http://russkiyyazik.ru/721/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suffix **-ов(-ев)** doesn't seem to be productive any longer so its use is confined to proper names and members of stable collocations which emerged when it was still current. To name a few **базедова болезнь** (after physician Basedow), **прокрустово ложе** (after mythological figure Procrustes), **Эйфелева башня** (after Gustave Eiffel), **бикфордов шнур** (after William Bickford), **бертоллетова соль** (after Сlaude Berthollet), **крокодиловы слёзы** (today we'd say ***крокодильи***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the same form as the one typical Russian surnames are fashioned in (**Иванов ← Иван, Петров ← Пётр, Сидоров ← Сидор**). Originally it was supposed to be followed by the words **сын** or **дочь** and functioned as patronymic before formal surnames appeared → **Марья Иванова дочь**, **Фёдор Петров сын**, much like is the case of many Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and other nations' surnames. In Russian it may look unusual in neuter gender, because we're used to it in either masculine or feminine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also employed in the expression **`драть как Cидорову козу`** where **Cидорова** means Sidor's (feminine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possessive adjectives answer the question **чей?** (whose?) whereas regular adjectives answer the question **какой?** (what (kind of)? which?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49424" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18377" RevisionGUID="8c97d394-c5f5-40ce-9a23-2532112fb8cc" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:01:53.973" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|выбор-слова|прилагательные|possessive-adjective|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49428" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18369" RevisionGUID="02d24181-a37d-4664-b3ac-fe8e1f555552" CreationDate="2019-03-30T03:00:28.593" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1111825491969880064" />
  <row Id="49432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18364" RevisionGUID="16abe6e2-5136-4c98-949a-8eb3d6b2bc49" CreationDate="2019-03-31T18:51:07.637" UserId="11107" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You are right: 'мне грустно' is the most common case. Look at the word in different parts of speech (verb,adjective,adverb). Just compare the variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you doing? Request for action. Mostly used when speaking about someone else (using that for yourself is not very appropriate, it usually makes you looking lazy/weak - so speak about yourself in such way only with close friends):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грущу = I am feeling sad [now] &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; По-моему, он о чём-то грустит = I think he is sad about something&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What person are you? What person are you now? Request for description. Obviously, you should not say about yourself in a such negative way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я грустен/Я грустный = I am sad [I am a sad person]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in Russian it is assumed that sadness will pass somewhen. It is something that distracts you from your friends and your work only now. Sadness in this meaning is some kind of external phenomenon:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Мне грустно = I feel sadness**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will completely understand it if you look at sadness like at other externals (like 'it is rainy', 'it is snowing'): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне холодно = It is cold for me (I feel cold)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне противно = It is distasteful for me (I feel distastefulness)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне хорошо = It is good for me (I feel good)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне тяжело = It is hard for me&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding other expressions of sadness, I can suggest other common 'sad' expressions (same can be said about drugs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня не отпускает грусть = The sadness doesn't release me&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Меня внезапно накрыла печаль = The sadness has suddenly covered me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18386" RevisionGUID="ded8d8bf-d292-4b3e-9fb9-2e5b59e399c3" CreationDate="2019-03-31T22:04:31.003" UserId="194" Text="It is highly formal and would literally mean that you are subordinated to the one to whom you said it, in a very military-like style, as in &quot;I am waiting orders&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18387" RevisionGUID="edbd1b32-f01e-430f-9953-32f177b7f2eb" CreationDate="2019-03-31T22:13:33.910" UserId="194" Text="This may sound rude or even racist as if you were hinting that the other person was non-Russian or their Russian was bad" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="7e0c3a3b-a522-4638-b2f3-8b647314917a" CreationDate="2019-03-31T22:22:37.473" UserId="194" Text="This word sounds weird because of the insane combination of prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;задуматься = to start thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;призадуматься = to start thinking a bit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадуматься = to start thinking *several times* (!!!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not make a sense: if you mean &quot;think several times&quot; then you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подумай (inf. подумать)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Starting* thinking several times makes no sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18389" RevisionGUID="45df3e23-8134-4416-ac7c-df5f79849746" CreationDate="2019-03-31T22:44:03.940" UserId="194" Text="This means &quot;city painted from memory&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Написанный город may refer only to painting but if it would be написанный рассказ &quot;written story&quot; it would mean writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="85d03225-4852-4012-a892-eb4697458333" CreationDate="2019-03-31T23:07:18.500" UserId="11537" Text="What is the difference between &quot;**расскажите мне**&quot; and &quot;**скажите мне**&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean, **tell me**!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And also may I remove **мне** in both cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="85d03225-4852-4012-a892-eb4697458333" CreationDate="2019-03-31T23:07:18.500" UserId="11537" Text="difference between &quot;расскажите мне&quot; and &quot;скажите мне&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="85d03225-4852-4012-a892-eb4697458333" CreationDate="2019-03-31T23:07:18.500" UserId="11537" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18391" RevisionGUID="4e29d83a-37e2-4eaa-9e84-1b3996f240b6" CreationDate="2019-03-31T23:48:07.280" UserId="10749" Text="The difference between these verbs is pretty much the same as between **racontre** and **dire** in French. In English both sentences mean 'tell me', and yes you can drop &quot;мне&quot; in both cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference is the length/depth of the answer you are trying to get out of someone. &quot;**Расскажи/те**&quot; implies there is a story to tell. For example you want to know how someone have spent their vacation or how they got a job that you're interested in. You are expecting at least a couple of minutes of the story with at least some details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ну, рассказывай, как слетал, что видел.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Скажи/те**&quot; implies there is some really short answer to be given, one, max two sentences. Sometimes it's used when the question is really rhetorical and you don't expect an answer (of any substance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Скажи, вот какого чёрта тебя туда понесло? Дома не сиделось?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Просто скажите мне во сколько мне лучше подъехать и я там буду.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often &quot;Не подскажешь/подскажете?&quot; is used, especially when asking for directions, though it literally means &quot;could you give me a hint?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="0769ca05-64f0-438b-8c45-c4e9c9b35a15" CreationDate="2019-04-01T01:03:40.003" UserId="11537" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="What is the difference between &quot;**расскажите мне**&quot; and &quot;**скажите мне**&quot;?&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Both mean, **tell me**!?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;And also may I remove **мне** in both cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49443" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18328" RevisionGUID="4dc0fe00-97eb-444f-a35b-9267bc1d1cee" CreationDate="2019-04-01T03:01:43.010" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1112550579727941633" />
  <row Id="49444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18392" RevisionGUID="72f9ab19-bb99-405a-88dd-43c750153d3d" CreationDate="2019-04-01T07:54:59.717" UserId="10247" Text="*Расскажите* - implies a story, some description. *Скажите* - just say, tell. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Скажи ему, что ты его любишь = Tell him that you love him. &#xD;&#xA;Расскажи ему, КАК ты его любишь (in the sense 'describe your love') = Tell him how (in what way) you love him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *мне* - it can be omitted if the meaning is clear from the context (regardless of the verb used). &#xD;&#xA;Рас\скажи мне, как ты меня любишь. - Рас\скажи, как ты меня любишь. (the latter is possible if it's a dialogue and 'to me' is implied, or if you want a group of people to hear the story)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49445" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18265" RevisionGUID="d5ffcd0f-1412-4f22-939e-8573cc89a2aa" CreationDate="2019-04-01T12:00:29.893" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1112686168523587585" />
  <row Id="49446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="816f431e-6740-4739-8927-d02d4d08138f" CreationDate="2019-04-01T12:05:31.027" UserId="11684" Text="Если у нас есть предложение с двумя полными наборами однородных членов:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Она рисует&quot; и &quot;её друзья спят&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То запятая ставится:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она рисует, и её друзья спят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А что если один из наборов неполный, нет сказуемого, например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Она художник и её друзья спят&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нужна ли здесь запятая?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="816f431e-6740-4739-8927-d02d4d08138f" CreationDate="2019-04-01T12:05:31.027" UserId="11684" Text="Она художник и её друзья спят" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="816f431e-6740-4739-8927-d02d4d08138f" CreationDate="2019-04-01T12:05:31.027" UserId="11684" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18394" RevisionGUID="d8d5095a-c1f2-4857-b460-341583429ecc" CreationDate="2019-04-01T15:28:55.630" UserId="11107" Text="Разве количество частей сложного предложения определяется только количеством сказуемых? Подлежащие не менее значимо. Запятая нужна. В конкретном примере сказуемое выражено существительным (как в предложениях с тире), а ведь может быть и причастием, и наречием - не только глаголом. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры в интернете по запросу 'сказуемое выраженное '+часть_речи&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18394" RevisionGUID="d6b1381b-c26e-49f3-910c-c349fdccb390" CreationDate="2019-04-01T15:35:15.990" UserId="11107" Comment="added 228 characters in body" Text="Разве количество частей сложного предложения определяется только количеством сказуемых? Подлежащие не менее значимо. Запятая нужна. В конкретном примере сказуемое выражено существительным (как в предложениях с тире), а ведь может быть и причастием, и наречием - не только глаголом. Кроме того, есть и односоставные предложения, где есть только подлежащее или только сказуемое. Например, назывным предложением зовётся предложение без сказуемого ('полная тишина'), и даже его использовать при создании сложных предложений можно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры в интернете по запросу 'сказуемое выраженное '+часть_речи&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1700" RevisionGUID="c69fe8f5-4ff2-452c-93a3-7a81132f1f27" CreationDate="2019-04-01T17:47:59.037" UserId="194" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;Хозяин&quot; most often means either master or host. It is rarely used for owner (&quot;владелец&quot;). At best &quot;хозяин&quot; may mean a person who currently uses a thing whether he a legal owner or not (consider &quot;Неожиданно оказалось, что хозяин машины не является ее владельцем&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, *хозяин* is the best antonym. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also that *хозяин* and *гость* are cognates derived from the same PIE root ghest- (similarly to *guest* and *host*): for instance, ***ghostis*** meant a person in reciprocal guest-host relationship." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18394" RevisionGUID="cc24de5a-9517-43a4-82fb-78936c752885" CreationDate="2019-04-01T20:06:21.457" UserId="11107" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Разве количество частей сложного предложения определяется только количеством сказуемых? Подлежащие не менее значимо. Запятая нужна. В приведённом примере сказуемое выражено существительным (как в предложениях с тире), а ведь может быть и причастием, и наречием - не только глаголом. Кроме того, есть и односоставные предложения, где есть только подлежащее или только сказуемое. Например, назывным предложением зовётся предложение без сказуемого ('полная тишина'), и даже его использовать при создании сложных предложений можно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Примеры в интернете по запросу 'сказуемое выраженное '+часть_речи&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="acc2b3a2-f319-4b44-b6b4-535434d9dc01" CreationDate="2019-04-01T22:51:26.020" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="This word sounds weird because of the insane combination of prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;задуматься = to start thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;призадуматься = to start thinking a bit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадуматься = *to start thinking several times without stopping* (!!!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not make a sense: if you mean &quot;to think several times&quot; then you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подумать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Starting* thinking several times makes no sense, but even if you wanted to say that, you would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадумываться = *to start and stop thinking several times, each time for a while*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting thinking several times without ever stopping is simply logically impossible!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="33798d78-94da-4a51-81d2-f4c317664993" CreationDate="2019-04-01T22:56:50.867" UserId="194" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="This word sounds weird because of the insane combination of prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;задуматься = to start thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;призадуматься = to start thinking a bit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадуматься = *to start thinking several times without stopping* (!!!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not make a sense: if you mean &quot;to think several times&quot; then you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подумать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Starting* thinking several times makes little sense, but even if you wanted to say that, you would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадумываться = to fall into thinking several times, each time for a while, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;попризадумываться = to fall into thinking a bit several times, each time for a while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting thinking several times without ever stopping is simply logically impossible!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18388" RevisionGUID="804160e1-5e55-4df9-a5d8-5ee3cde4c4dc" CreationDate="2019-04-01T23:02:45.523" UserId="194" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="This word sounds weird because of the insane combination of prefixes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;задуматься = to start thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;призадуматься = to start thinking a bit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадуматься = *to start thinking several times without stopping* (!!!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not make a sense: if you mean &quot;to think several times&quot; then you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;подумать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Starting* thinking several times makes little sense, but even if you wanted to say that, you would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;позадумываться = to fall into thinking several times, each time for a while, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or even &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;попризадумываться = to fall into thinking a bit several times, each time for a while&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting thinking several times *without ever stopping* is simply logically impossible!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18396" RevisionGUID="1f667639-2df6-412d-9bf3-3dd8f539a477" CreationDate="2019-04-02T06:40:23.063" UserId="11685" Text="совершенный вид does not guarantee anything in Russian any more than it does in English. It simply indicates a completed action or perhaps a more specifically stated intent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Буду звонить&quot; does NOT mean &quot;I'll maybe call you, but it's not likely.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottomline: It's very simple. Both ways (позвоню AND буду звонить) are correct. Just as in English, you can say: I will call you (позвоню). OR: I will be calling you (буду тебе звонить). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whatever the difference the above makes to you in English (in terms of the tone or mood) translates directly and straightforwardly the same way into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note: Teaching Russian to a non-native speaker can be pretty challenging! Sometimes I catch myself re-thinking and double doubting myself about the simplest things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS I love the stars floating, when I type the answer in here :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="e4fd9101-a3a1-402c-8fb6-d0ae816f9a61" CreationDate="2019-04-02T10:56:46.940" UserId="6350" Comment="usage guidance updated" Text="Please note that as it stands in our FAQ,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questions asking for translations are off-topic unless prior research effort is clearly indicated; we're here to help you learn, not provide a bulk translation service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49463" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="e4fd9101-a3a1-402c-8fb6-d0ae816f9a61" CreationDate="2019-04-02T10:56:46.940" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 1836 edit id of 2032" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18396" RevisionGUID="2cda73b1-cff7-47b2-b940-cc379345efda" CreationDate="2019-04-02T10:57:06.810" UserId="6350" Comment="the April Fools feature will be gone in a few hours ..." Text="совершенный вид does not guarantee anything in Russian any more than it does in English. It simply indicates a completed action or perhaps a more specifically stated intent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Буду звонить&quot; does NOT mean &quot;I'll maybe call you, but it's not likely.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottomline: It's very simple. Both ways (позвоню AND буду звонить) are correct. Just as in English, you can say: I will call you (позвоню). OR: I will be calling you (буду тебе звонить). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whatever the difference the above makes to you in English (in terms of the tone or mood) translates directly and straightforwardly the same way into Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note: Teaching Russian to a non-native speaker can be pretty challenging! Sometimes I catch myself re-thinking and double doubting myself about the simplest things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49465" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18396" RevisionGUID="2cda73b1-cff7-47b2-b940-cc379345efda" CreationDate="2019-04-02T10:57:06.810" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 4481, 1836 edit id of 2034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="b6eda703-f27b-4cd7-ad80-f80435cf7d8e" CreationDate="2019-04-02T10:57:22.190" UserId="6350" Comment="usage guidance updated" Text="All questions about translation of words, phrases, idioms or collocations from English to Russian. Read the FAQ section about translations; questions asking for translations are off-topic unless prior research effort is clearly indicated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49467" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="b6eda703-f27b-4cd7-ad80-f80435cf7d8e" CreationDate="2019-04-02T10:57:22.190" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 1836 edit id of 2033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49468" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18393" RevisionGUID="1c8c7822-be25-4154-a28d-9ae324efd4ff" CreationDate="2019-04-02T15:00:42.437" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1113093907552796672" />
  <row Id="49469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18397" RevisionGUID="60ad42d1-fd5a-47f6-aec7-c10c62860fb1" CreationDate="2019-04-02T19:10:24.707" UserId="11395" Text="If you say after a bad date, ''Буду тебе звонить,'' especially in a non-enthusiastic tone, then yes, it can be interpreted as your teacher described, but generally the difference between ''позвоню тебе'' and ''буду звонить тебе'' is not about the degree of definiteness of the future action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Позвоню тебе'' refers to a single future action - a call. In essence, the speaker promises that he will have completed a call or will have tried to reach you by phone. This can be seen as result-oriented thinking, where the goal is to make a call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''Буду звонить тебе'' refers to a future process and has the process-oriented flavour. In essence, the speaker promises that he will be engaged in a process of calling you, and this can mean, for example, that he intends to repeatedly try to reach you by phone or to have a series of phone conversations with you. Another possible, albeit not frequent, meaning is that the speaker wants to emphasise that he will be busy calling you and, as a result, won't be able to do a certain thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same applies to other verbs, too. For example, ''буду делать'' is a promise to get engaged in a process of doing something, while ''сделаю'' is a promise to successfully accomplish doing something and deliver the required result. The difference is not in the degree of firmness of the promise, but in the nature of the promise.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49471" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18390" RevisionGUID="baa509c4-1093-436f-b76e-32874b411eb4" CreationDate="2019-04-03T15:00:00.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1113456118985101312" />
  <row Id="49472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18398" RevisionGUID="d55534d7-c086-4235-9677-6cb3f156ffcb" CreationDate="2019-04-03T17:24:11.600" UserId="11395" Text="Etymologically, the word ''зато'' obviously originated from ''за то,'' which literally means ''for that.'' The implication is a trade-off, as Alexander already wrote in his answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a sentence in which ''но'' cannot be replaced by ''зато'': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хотела это сделать, но у меня не получилось = I wanted to do it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did not succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a sentence in which ''зато'' cannot be replaced by ''но'': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Целый час пришлось в очереди сидеть, зато книжку наконец дочитала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = I had to spend an hour waiting for my turn, the positive side being that I was finally able to accomplish reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the closest to ''зато'' English expression is ''on the flip side.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18398" RevisionGUID="e9300e30-3758-491a-946e-916ade47135c" CreationDate="2019-04-03T19:15:40.700" UserId="11395" Comment="edited body" Text="Etymologically, the word ''зато'' obviously originated from ''за то,'' which literally means ''for that.'' The implication is a trade-off, as Alexander already wrote in his answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a sentence in which ''но'' cannot be replaced by ''зато'': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хотела это сделать, но у меня не получилось = I wanted to do it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did not succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a sentence in which ''зато'' cannot be replaced by ''но'': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Целый час пришлось в очереди сидеть, зато книжку наконец дочитала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = I had to spend an hour waiting for my turn, the positive side being that I was finally able to accomplish reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the closest English expression to ''зато'' is ''on the flip side.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18398" RevisionGUID="51d6f406-0483-4a35-9dfa-4cdd7a52f919" CreationDate="2019-04-03T19:22:39.927" UserId="11395" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Etymologically, the word ''зато'' obviously originated from ''за то,'' which literally means ''for that.'' The implication is a trade-off, as Alexander already wrote in his answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a sentence in which ''но'' cannot be replaced by ''зато'': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я хотела это сделать, но у меня не получилось = I wanted to do it, but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; did not succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a sentence in which ''зато'' cannot be replaced by ''но'': &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Целый час пришлось в очереди сидеть, зато книжку наконец дочитала&#xD;&#xA;&gt; = I had to spend an hour waiting for my turn, the positive side being that I was finally able to complete reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the closest English expression to ''зато'' is ''on the flip side.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="2c94cf80-4f11-4618-aed7-7863e2c6fd7d" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:08:52.627" UserId="11021" Text="I am coming across sentences where человек is used instead of мужчина, when does this happen and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That man is not a professor he is a doctor&#xD;&#xA;Этот человек не профессор доктор&#xD;&#xA;тот человек не профессор он доктор" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="2c94cf80-4f11-4618-aed7-7863e2c6fd7d" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:08:52.627" UserId="11021" Text="When is человек used as the word man instead of person" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="2c94cf80-4f11-4618-aed7-7863e2c6fd7d" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:08:52.627" UserId="11021" Text="|словоупотребление|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18400" RevisionGUID="bc7e3cfd-8bde-492e-a473-1cbc3e17b9c5" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:46:31.053" UserId="11640" Text="Человек is a man/human in general. Мужчина is used when you want to highlight that a person is a male as well. For example - A man is strong. Человек силён. But Мужчина по природе своей - воин. A man is a fighter by nature. (here we specify that he is a male) So is you want to say something in general use человек. When you want to add than the person you are talking about is male then use мужчина." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="9bd5edd8-ac68-42ed-ba07-eb2886e33545" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:48:29.313" UserId="11021" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I am coming across sentences where человек is used instead of мужчина, when does this happen and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That man is not a professor he is a doctor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Этот человек не профессор доктор&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;тот человек не профессор он доктор" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49480" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="9bd5edd8-ac68-42ed-ba07-eb2886e33545" CreationDate="2019-04-03T21:48:29.313" UserId="11021" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="When is человек used as the word man instead of человек" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="94a4bf29-3694-4487-a478-63641664ea9e" CreationDate="2019-04-03T23:26:58.597" UserId="2104" Text="It's just Rissian happens to be more gender-neutral than English, at least in the case of человек. &#xA;&#xA;In Russian человек can mean 'man', 'person' or 'human being' depending on context:&#xA;&#xA;* Она - хороший человек / друг. = She is a good person / friend.&#xA;* Этот человек - твоя мать!&#xA;* Одному человеку стало плохо. = Someone felt sick. &#xA;* Лифт вмещает 5 человек.&#xA;&#xA;Use мужчина only when you want to emphasise their masculinity:&#xA;&#xA;* Он вел себя как мужчина. = He behaved like a man.&#xA;&#xA;I think Bolsheviks' idea of everyone's equality has contributed to this effect. Before the revolution of 1917 it was customary to use господин/госпожа (or молодой человек / барышня for younger people) in the context you mentioned:&#xA;&#xA;* Этот господин - врач. = This man is a doctor.&#xA;&#xA;In those days человек was used to call (and refer to) servants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="306ad73d-a9f6-4aaa-9da5-d1fa5603f49d" CreationDate="2019-04-03T23:36:03.687" UserId="2104" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="It's just Russian happens to be more gender-neutral than English, at least in the case of человек which can mean 'man', 'person' or 'human being' depending on context:&#xA;&#xA;* Она - хороший человек / друг. = She is a good person / friend.&#xA;* Этот человек - твоя мать!&#xA;* Одному человеку стало плохо. = Someone felt sick. &#xA;* Лифт вмещает 5 человек.&#xA;* Этот человек спас тебе жизнь. = This man saved your life.&#xA;&#xA;Use мужчина only when you want to emphasise their masculinity:&#xA;&#xA;* Он вел себя как мужчина. = He behaved like a man.&#xA;&#xA;I think Bolsheviks' idea of everyone's equality has contributed to this effect. Before the revolution of 1917 it was customary to use господин/госпожа (or молодой человек / барышня for younger people) in the context you mentioned:&#xA;&#xA;* Этот господин - врач. = This man is a doctor.&#xA;&#xA;In those days человек was used to call (and refer to) servants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18365" RevisionGUID="508e35a6-c8bf-4ad3-ae4e-5a55e510120d" CreationDate="2019-04-03T23:39:39.377" UserId="11021" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="i don't understand the difference between them, feel free to add examples&#xD;&#xA;i was given this sentence for зато and dint see why но couldn't be substituted for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; i don't like the metro and the airport express goes too slowly, on the other hand it’s reliable,&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; я не люблю метро, а в аероэкспрессе слишком медленно, зато надёжно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;я не люблю метро, а в аероэкспрессе слишком медленно но надёжно&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could they be interchanged? Someone told me но feels more natural and i'm not sure if that is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49490" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="7731add1-25c9-4e17-a6f4-8d3c3fbfbe8a" CreationDate="2019-04-04T01:52:26.873" />
  <row Id="49492" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="75b54e5f-49f8-4dd2-8da0-e4dc9041765b" CreationDate="2019-04-04T04:01:39.777" UserId="11021" Comment="edited title" Text="When is человек used as the word man instead of мужчина" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18403" RevisionGUID="7d9a0c42-b6e8-47ad-9b0b-5711ad43c261" CreationDate="2019-04-04T06:28:01.347" UserId="208" Text="It's the only letter with two disconnected parts. How did this letter ы come about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18403" RevisionGUID="7d9a0c42-b6e8-47ad-9b0b-5711ad43c261" CreationDate="2019-04-04T06:28:01.347" UserId="208" Text="Why does ы have a soft sign in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18403" RevisionGUID="7d9a0c42-b6e8-47ad-9b0b-5711ad43c261" CreationDate="2019-04-04T06:28:01.347" UserId="208" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18404" RevisionGUID="6662d721-6075-461f-ac56-4ff408d24a07" CreationDate="2019-04-04T07:54:33.997" UserId="6074" Text="The letter ы is a [ligature][1] of [`ъ`][2] and [`і`.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, these were both vowels (something like /ɤ̞/ and /i/) and ы was considered as some mixture of those two vowels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AA&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_I_(Cyrillic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="9dbb13a5-9557-4cc8-be11-2789fb520c2c" CreationDate="2019-04-04T08:27:48.333" UserId="2104" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="It's just that Russian happens to be more gender-neutral than English, at least in the case of человек which can mean 'man', 'person' or 'human being' depending on context:&#xA;&#xA;* Она - хороший человек / друг. = She is a good person / friend.&#xA;* Этот человек - твоя мать!&#xA;* Одному человеку стало плохо. = Someone felt sick. &#xA;* Лифт вмещает 5 человек.&#xA;* Этот человек спас тебе жизнь. = This man saved your life.&#xA;&#xA;Use мужчина only when you want to emphasise their masculinity or when gender is important:&#xA;&#xA;* Он вел себя как мужчина. = He behaved like a man.&#xA;* В этой олимпиаде женщины завоевали больше медалей, чем мужчины. = In these Olympics women won more medals than men. &#xA;&#xA;I think Bolsheviks' idea of everyone's equality has contributed to this effect. Before the revolution of 1917 it was customary to use господин/госпожа (or молодой человек / барышня for younger people) in the context you mentioned:&#xA;&#xA;* Этот господин - врач. = This man is a doctor.&#xA;&#xA;In those days человек was used to call (and refer to) servants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18399" RevisionGUID="48259818-397f-41d7-b02e-9c489d3f90aa" CreationDate="2019-04-04T08:31:06.490" UserId="6097" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="I am coming across sentences where человек is used instead of мужчина, when does this happen and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That man is not a professor he is a doctor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этот человек не профессор доктор&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тот человек не профессор он доктор" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18402" RevisionGUID="856afaf6-8c5d-4f09-a280-1140492765ca" CreationDate="2019-04-04T08:33:51.847" UserId="2104" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="It's just that Russian happens to be more gender-neutral than English, at least in the case of человек which can mean 'man', 'person' or 'human being' depending on context:&#xA;&#xA;* Она - хороший человек / друг. = She is a good person / friend.&#xA;* Этот человек - твоя мать!&#xA;* Одному человеку стало плохо. = Someone felt sick. &#xA;* Лифт вмещает 5 человек.&#xA;* Этот человек спас тебе жизнь. = This man saved your life.&#xA;&#xA;Use мужчина only when you want to emphasise their masculinity or when gender is important:&#xA;&#xA;* Он вел себя как мужчина. = He behaved like a man.&#xA;* В этой олимпиаде женщины завоевали больше медалей, чем мужчины. = In these Olympics women won more medals than men. &#xA;&#xA;I think Bolsheviks' idea of everyone's equality has contributed to this effect. Before the revolution of 1917 it was customary to use господин/госпожа (or молодой человек / барышня for younger people) in the context you mentioned:&#xA;&#xA;* Этот господин - врач. = This man is a doctor.&#xA;&#xA;In those days человек was used to call (and refer to) servants.&#xA;&#xA;Btw, человек has an irregular plural: люди 'people':&#xA;&#xA;* Лучше, чем люди = [Better than Humans][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_than_Humans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49502" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18403" RevisionGUID="ed0949b8-9d35-492b-b959-76b875b837de" CreationDate="2019-04-04T11:22:55.690" />
  <row Id="49504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18406" RevisionGUID="06f2c9a0-024e-47ec-b138-03560b7ac365" CreationDate="2019-04-04T17:22:32.883" UserId="11692" Text="Nope, it's pronounced четверк or читверк.&#xD;&#xA;Четвер(г)х is either суржик (Ukrainian-sounding dialect) or used by old Soviet nomenklatura-style people because it sounds more &quot;fundamental&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49505" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18403" RevisionGUID="3703fea4-667b-47e7-a642-b7aaba14c8ba" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:00:41.930" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1113863979598798848" />
  <row Id="49506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1434" RevisionGUID="b422807f-af6c-44af-8d8a-f2d761bfdb58" CreationDate="2019-04-05T02:57:59.533" UserId="5" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I don't understand what makes &quot;ну ты бухать&quot; a valid language construct. Can anybody point out some references?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it some sort similar to &quot;ну ты даешь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="fddd2069-087a-4a7b-b22a-f20cb9abad0c" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:23:35.133" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|приставки|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49510" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7555" RevisionGUID="fddd2069-087a-4a7b-b22a-f20cb9abad0c" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:23:35.133" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 10999, 7674 edit id of 2037" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7997" RevisionGUID="26860178-56d7-4938-9221-49832c3e45db" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:23:43.990" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|фраза|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49512" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7997" RevisionGUID="26860178-56d7-4938-9221-49832c3e45db" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:23:43.990" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 10999, 7674 edit id of 2036" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="c4205fe0-b195-49d0-8397-a10a77be566b" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:24:21.743" UserId="6074" Comment="I tried to fix the link" Text="A valid language construct is *Ну ты (и) бухаешь!* in this case. Last time the Russians became to say: *ну ты бухать*. But it is not a valid language construct, in my opinion, it's more like a slang construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the phrase *ну ты бухать* could have come from the phrases like *ну ты (и) бухгалтер!* (or any other noun). [*&quot;Бухгалтер&quot;* means a drunk here, it is a slang word][1]. I think that a verb *бухать* takes the meaning of the noun in this phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it can be a constrict sentence of *ну ты (и любишь) (по)бухать*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of this phrase is similar to *ну ты даешь*. When someone says it, he expresses his surprise at the fact that someone has so much to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://teenslang.su/index.php?searchstr=%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80&amp;slang=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49514" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1435" RevisionGUID="c4205fe0-b195-49d0-8397-a10a77be566b" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:24:21.743" Comment="Proposed by 6074 approved by 10999, 7674 edit id of 2035" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49516" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7997" RevisionGUID="3f76a426-6732-4982-be10-c9844492be46" CreationDate="2019-04-06T00:01:35.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1114317189761335296" />
  <row Id="49518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18407" RevisionGUID="e73ab964-777b-4512-87a1-41ab62d8d239" CreationDate="2019-04-06T08:12:12.497" UserId="11535" Text="Надо различать **однородные сказуемые и сложное предложение**, если есть **союз И**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Она рисует и слушает музыку.*** Это простое предложение с однородными сказуемыми. *Она* — подлежащее, *рисует и слушает* — два однородных сказуемых (к одному подлежащему).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Она рисует, и ее друзья рисуют тоже.*** Это сложное предложение, оно состоит из двух простых предложений. *Она* — подлежащее,  *рисует* — сказуемое. *Друзья* — подлежащее, *рисуют* — сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) ***Она художник, и её друзья спят*.** Это сложное предложение, оно состоит из двух простых предложений. *Она* — подлежащее,  *художник* — сказуемое. *Друзья* — подлежащее, *спят* — сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении (3) сказуемое **именное**, оно выражено не глаголом, а существительным. Глагольная связка ***быть*** в настоящем времени пропускается." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18407" RevisionGUID="23606686-e62e-4cb4-9c65-d60d45d199ca" CreationDate="2019-04-06T12:14:32.393" UserId="11535" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Надо различать **однородные сказуемые (запятая не ставится) и сложное предложение (запятая ставится)**, если есть **союз И**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Она рисует и слушает музыку.*** Это простое предложение с однородными сказуемыми. *Она* — подлежащее, *рисует и слушает* — два однородных сказуемых (к одному подлежащему).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Она рисует, и ее друзья рисуют тоже.*** Это сложное предложение, оно состоит из двух простых предложений. *Она* — подлежащее,  *рисует* — сказуемое. *Друзья* — подлежащее, *рисуют* — сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) ***Она художник, и её друзья спят*.** Это сложное предложение, оно состоит из двух простых предложений. *Она* — подлежащее,  *художник* — сказуемое. *Друзья* — подлежащее, *спят* — сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении (3) сказуемое **именное**, оно выражено не глаголом, а существительным. Глагольная связка ***быть*** в настоящем времени пропускается." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18407" RevisionGUID="f8637329-0aeb-46ee-aefe-a1fb2661e7a9" CreationDate="2019-04-06T12:36:13.520" UserId="11535" Comment="Дана дополнительная информация об односоставных предложениях." Text="Надо различать **однородные сказуемые (запятая не ставится) и сложное предложение (запятая ставится)**, если есть **союз И**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) ***Она рисует и слушает музыку.*** Это простое предложение с однородными сказуемыми. *Она* — подлежащее, *рисует и слушает* — два однородных сказуемых (к одному подлежащему).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) ***Она рисует, и ее друзья рисуют тоже.*** Это сложное предложение, оно состоит из двух простых предложений. *Она* — подлежащее,  *рисует* — сказуемое. *Друзья* — подлежащее, *рисуют* — сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) ***Она художник, и её друзья спят*.** Это сложное предложение, оно состоит из двух простых предложений. *Она* — подлежащее,  *художник* — сказуемое. *Друзья* — подлежащее, *спят* — сказуемое.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В предложении (3) сказуемое **именное**, оно выражено не глаголом, а существительным. Глагольная связка ***быть*** в настоящем времени пропускается.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Примечание**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В приведенных  примерах простые предложения **двусоставные** (подлежащее + сказуемое), но в сложное предложение могут входить **односоставные** простые предложения, например:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Тишина**, и деревья в лесу словно застыли. **Очень тихо**, и деревья в лесу словно застыли.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;В этих примерах первое простое предложение односоставное (только подлежащее или только сказуемое). Но запятая всё равно ставится." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18408" RevisionGUID="d72e394a-3b72-49fc-863e-20a40b09b028" CreationDate="2019-04-08T08:38:50.017" UserId="5998" Text="I am currently learning how to use verbs of motion with the prefixes `у-` and `при-` to express that someone *departs from* or *arrives at* a certain location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I struggle with the following sentence from a textbook:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый раз я _____ (1) в новый город и скоро _____ (2) обратно, в Волгоград.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My attempt to fill the gaps is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Choice of verbs:** Given options are *walking*, *driving* or *flying*. I figured that either `е́хать` or `е́здить` would fit best to express &quot;travelling&quot; in a more general sense:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- `уе́хать` / `уе́здить` (*to depart*)&#xD;&#xA;- `прие́хать` / `прие́здить` (*to arrive*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Choice of direction:** When it comes to the correct prefixes, I struggle for the first time. For (1) I'm pretty sure that the prefix should be `при-`, since the person *arrives in a new town every time*. **In cloze (2), however, would one use `у-` or `при-`?** Does the person soon *leave* to return to Volgograd (`у-`) or does the person soon *come back* to Volgograd (`при-`)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Choice of aspect:** Another challenge is picking the right aspect, i.e. `е́хать` or `е́здить`. I learned that when something happens *repeatedly*, I'd rather use `е́здить`. Though the person travels multiple times (`каждый раз`), I feel `е́хать` is more suitable here. Although traveling multiple times, each incident in itself is closed (i.e. perfected verb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my educated guess would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый раз я **прие́хала** (1) в новый город и скоро **уе́хала** (2) обратно, в Волгоград.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I have nowhere to validate my guess, I hope someone on here - maybe a native speaker - can explain what the correct answer is in terms of prefixes and which aspect to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18408" RevisionGUID="d72e394a-3b72-49fc-863e-20a40b09b028" CreationDate="2019-04-08T08:38:50.017" UserId="5998" Text="Verbs of motion with prefix &quot;у-&quot; and &quot;при-&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18408" RevisionGUID="d72e394a-3b72-49fc-863e-20a40b09b028" CreationDate="2019-04-08T08:38:50.017" UserId="5998" Text="|вид|motion-verbs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18409" RevisionGUID="049b0afb-76d4-43df-b748-751406d53992" CreationDate="2019-04-08T09:07:42.473" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Каждый раз я приезжаю/прилетаю__ (1) в новый город и скоро уезжаю/улетаю ___ (2) обратно, в Волгоград.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Choice of verbs: you can travel by car, train or fly. Приезжать/прилетать, уезжать/улетать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.You chose directions correctly, because there's a certain opposition: come and go&#xD;&#xA;Ездить is ok without prefix,  with prefixes we use приезжать, уезжать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Aspect. For repeated actions we use imperfective (каждый раз), present time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18409" RevisionGUID="332d249d-ff7b-47b6-88f6-a4c97ddfea02" CreationDate="2019-04-08T09:13:53.253" UserId="6539" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="&gt;Каждый раз я приезжаю/прилетаю__ (1) в новый город и скоро уезжаю/улетаю ___ (2) обратно, в Волгоград.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 Choice of verbs: you can travel by car, train or fly. Приезжать/прилетать, уезжать/улетать. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.You chose directions correctly, because there's a certain opposition: come and go&#xD;&#xA;Ездить is ok without prefix,  with prefixes we use приезжать, уезжать.&#xD;&#xA;If there's no opposition you can use приехать обратно /приезжать обратно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я всегда с радостью приезжаю обратно /возвращаюсь (return). Вчера она прилетела назад в Волгоград.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 Aspect. For repeated actions we use imperfective (каждый раз), present time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="5e45c562-f0c3-461e-adc7-0a5147d13cd4" CreationDate="2019-04-08T09:32:46.883" UserId="10270" Text="I came across the phrase &lt;куда мне звонить&gt; and was unsure of the meaning. Does it mean &lt;who is phoning me&gt; or &lt;who am I phoning&gt;? If the latter shouldn't it be &lt;куда я звоню&gt;? What is the subject of the sentence? Why is the infinitive used? Why not &lt;куда мне звонит&gt; or &lt;куда мне звонил&gt;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="5e45c562-f0c3-461e-adc7-0a5147d13cd4" CreationDate="2019-04-08T09:32:46.883" UserId="10270" Text="What does &lt;куда мне звонить&gt; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="5e45c562-f0c3-461e-adc7-0a5147d13cd4" CreationDate="2019-04-08T09:32:46.883" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18411" RevisionGUID="f1a52994-8143-43bb-99c3-f5cb9ccf4062" CreationDate="2019-04-08T10:01:39.007" UserId="5443" Text="1. In case of a question (*Куда мне звонить?*) the meaning is: **Where can/should I call (for that)?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Literally: **Where** (what's the right place **for me**) **to call**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. In case it's an intro to places and phone numbers (*Куда мне звонить. Городской телефон: ... Домашний: ...*), the meaning is: **Where to call** (for making a call **to me**)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18412" RevisionGUID="9eb3d593-5d7d-4363-8663-664f4aeccd19" CreationDate="2019-04-08T10:26:21.567" UserId="10247" Text="The meaning is similar to 'Where am I to call' and it's expressed by the infinitive. A simpler phrase &quot;куда звонить?&quot; is also valid (cf, Where should one call?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that the infinitive can express such questions as: &#xD;&#xA;What is to be done? (=Что делать?)&#xD;&#xA;Whom should I call? (=Кому мне звонить?)&#xD;&#xA;When must we arrive? (=Когда нам приехать?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="8e605c99-40ed-4cd5-a1d3-7c7f8c428834" CreationDate="2019-04-08T11:34:20.130" UserId="10270" Text="Should you say&#xD;&#xA;я потеряю то, что любил or я потеряю что, то любил or я потеряю то, которое я любил&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Я знаю что, о том не знает никто or я знаю то, о чём не знает никто." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="8e605c99-40ed-4cd5-a1d3-7c7f8c428834" CreationDate="2019-04-08T11:34:20.130" UserId="10270" Text="Confusion between что and тот and который" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="8e605c99-40ed-4cd5-a1d3-7c7f8c428834" CreationDate="2019-04-08T11:34:20.130" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="5ab8b6b0-b2f8-404f-954d-5ab270f3622d" CreationDate="2019-04-08T11:38:18.670" UserId="134" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Should you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я потеряю то, что любил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я потеряю что, то любил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я потеряю то, которое я любил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should you say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю что, о том не знает никто&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; я знаю то, о чём не знает никто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="6e10bb74-80e8-48c0-a9dc-74cb4913b3a9" CreationDate="2019-04-08T12:10:55.520" UserId="11395" Text="The correct versions are ''я потеряю то, что любил'' and ''я знаю то, о чём не знает никто.'' The other versions are grammatically wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="43d329eb-73f7-4ed5-9f89-ff499d1cce02" CreationDate="2019-04-08T12:24:00.937" UserId="4560" Comment="replaced &lt;&gt; with quotation marks (which sometimes clashed with SE markup, causing parts of the text to disappear)" Text="I came across the phrase «куда мне звонить» and was unsure of the meaning. Does it mean &quot;who is phoning me&quot; or &quot;who am I phoning&quot;? If the latter shouldn't it be «куда я звоню»? What is the subject of the sentence? Why is the infinitive used? Why not «куда мне звонит» or «куда мне звонил»?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18415" RevisionGUID="b9385b5d-bac7-452b-8390-6638f3614793" CreationDate="2019-04-08T12:33:50.427" UserId="6539" Text="&quot;То&quot; can stand for a noun,then you use что as a conjunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Я потеряю то (работу, вещь etc.), что я любил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Тo&quot; can stand for a pronoun &quot;that&quot; instead of an adjective,  then you use it with который. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я потеряю свое дело, то, которое любил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю то, о чем не знает никто.(I know what nobody knows)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я знаю, что о том не знает никто. (I know that nobody knows about that) Mind the comma!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18416" RevisionGUID="e4967a7b-2043-4644-9b37-4f245156c8f2" CreationDate="2019-04-08T12:34:34.367" UserId="4560" Text="&gt; Does it mean &quot;who is phoning me&quot; or &quot;who am I phoning&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither. It's &quot;Who do I phone?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meaning, most likely, what organisation or service the asker should call in the situation they're in. **Куда** &quot;where&quot; implies an entity or &quot;place&quot; on the other end of the line, instead of a specific person or people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the latter shouldn't it be «куда я звоню»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, if that was the case, it would be that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the subject of the sentence? Why is the infinitive used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no subject. In Russian, you can use the infinitive to ask questions. In English, it's a very Russian mistake to ask &quot;What to do now?&quot; instead of &quot;What do I/we do now?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The infinitive+dative construction expresses a &quot;soft&quot; kind of necessity or obligation, on par with &quot;should&quot; or that interrogative present simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why not «куда мне звонит» or «куда мне звонил»?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These don't even sound like complete sentences, and what sense they do make seems to be about someone else calling the speaker at some place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18414" RevisionGUID="7f508b2c-ff5f-4a73-beec-2c7443637a3f" CreationDate="2019-04-08T12:42:34.000" UserId="11395" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="The correct versions are ''я потеряю то, что любил'' and ''я знаю то, о чём не знает никто''. The other versions are grammatically wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above correct versions, you can replace ''то'' by ''кое-что'', but the meaning will change:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With ''тo'', the sentences sound like ''I will lose what I loved'' and ''I know the thing no one else knows.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With ''кое-что,'' the same sentences sound like ''I will lose something I loved'' and ''I know something no one else knows.'' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49542" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="d372cf59-99e9-4b9e-9b5a-9f8133765e87" CreationDate="2019-04-08T13:23:39.453" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="What does &quot;куда мне звонить&quot; mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49543" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18413" RevisionGUID="3728f0e2-b7b5-45f6-80f0-1e1dd39a2295" CreationDate="2019-04-08T13:23:56.527" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Confusion between &quot;что&quot; and &quot;тот&quot; and &quot;который&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18417" RevisionGUID="46df90ad-c599-4a69-9182-6c7ed950253e" CreationDate="2019-04-08T16:27:33.137" UserId="10464" Text="It could be [old-moscow pronunciation](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5#%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5) - &quot;четверьх&quot;, &quot;булошная&quot; (булочная), &quot;яблошный&quot; (яблочный). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="66603454-d1b1-44c6-b963-5364a70017e0" CreationDate="2019-04-08T20:55:16.563" UserId="6350" Comment="tags edited" Text="|приветствия|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49546" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="14726" RevisionGUID="66603454-d1b1-44c6-b963-5364a70017e0" CreationDate="2019-04-08T20:55:16.563" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 4481 edit id of 2038" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49547" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18410" RevisionGUID="0cd380ed-8022-4c81-bd26-d3141367e4cf" CreationDate="2019-04-09T00:00:40.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1115404120792367104" />
  <row Id="49549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18418" RevisionGUID="e771071c-8f6c-4a90-8655-8aad4f1179ec" CreationDate="2019-04-09T08:18:59.340" UserId="11535" Text="**ТО, ТОТ** — это **указательные местоимения в первой части** сложного предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ЧТО, О ЧЁМ,  КОТОРЫЙ** — это **союзные слова (местоимения)** **во второй части** сложного предложения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союзные слова служат **для связи** двух частей сложного предложения, а также являются **членами** второго предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Образуются **местоименные пары**: то — что, то — о чём, тот — который. Такая связь называется местоименной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правильно:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потеряю то, что любил. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потеряю то дело, которое я любил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю то, о чём не знает никто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сравнить**: *Я знаю, **что** об этом не знает никто.* Здесь нет местоименной пары, а ЧТО — это союз (не местоимение).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЧТО — **союз** во второй части сложного предложения, служит только для связи двух частей сложного предложения. Такая связь называется **союзной**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18418" RevisionGUID="77e9b54c-dc19-447c-a04c-9855415c8433" CreationDate="2019-04-09T08:29:42.793" UserId="11535" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="**ТО, ТОТ** — это **указательные местоимения в первой части** сложного предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ЧТО, О ЧЁМ,  КОТОРЫЙ** — это **союзные слова (местоимения)** **во второй части** сложного предложения. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Союзные слова служат **для связи** двух частей сложного предложения, а также являются **членами** второго предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Образуются **местоименные пары**: то — что, то — о чём, тот — который. Такая связь называется местоименной.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Правильно:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потеряю то, что любил. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я потеряю то дело, которое я любил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Я знаю то, о чём не знает никто.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Сравнить**: *Я знаю, **что** об этом не знает никто.* Здесь нет местоименной пары, а ЧТО — это союз (не местоимение).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ЧТО — **союз** во второй части сложного предложения, служит только для связи двух частей сложного предложения. Такая связь называется **союзной**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Союз ЧТО — служебное слово.** Вы сомневаетесь? Тогда я сейчас докажу это, я уберу союз из предложения. *Я знаю: об этом не знает никто*. Получилось бессоюзное предложение. А вот союзное слово убрать не получится.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18419" RevisionGUID="ef69295c-ce5b-40a5-b57f-18a9e38468fb" CreationDate="2019-04-10T15:08:36.440" UserId="11535" Text="**Из толкового словаря Ефремовой (2012):**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ПРИЗАДУМАТЬСЯ** — задуматься на некоторое время, впасть в некоторое раздумье. **ПОЗАДУМАТЬСЯ** — (разговорное) призадуматься.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**С префиксами всё в порядке.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Префикс ЗА — многозначный**. 1. Указывает **на начало** действия (прыгать — запрыгать) 2. Указывает **на  результат действия, состояния** (лезть — залезть). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Почему так?** Начало действия  и конец действия — это две **крайние** точки (как бы их общее свойство).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому ***задуматься*** — это впасть в задумчивое состояние (**достижение результата** действия).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Префикс ПРИ — тоже многозначный.**  6. Указывает на **ограниченное или неполное действие**:  приглушить (звук),  приутихнуть (о ветре). Общее значение ПРИ — это приближение, а неполное действие — это приближение к полному действию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому ***призадуматься***  — задуматься немного или на некоторое время. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Префикс ПО — тоже многозначный**. 1. Обозначает действие в течение некоторого, часто **непродолжительного времени**. Побегать, поговорить, поиграть. Общее значение — направленность. Действие  **в направлении полного действия**, отсюда его ограниченность.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поэтому ***позадуматься***  — задуматься немного или на некоторое время." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="c1e2c3b3-f32f-4a63-84a3-4f0dc83d7b21" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:41:23.890" UserId="11715" Text="I've noticed that imperfective can be used in questions where one might expect Perfective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Мы должны провести подобный эксперимент.**&#xD;&#xA; —We should carry out a similar experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**А когда его проводить?** &#xD;&#xA;—When are we to carry it out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Пожалуйста напечатай мне пару страниц.** &#xD;&#xA;—Please type a couple of pages for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Хорошо. Что печатать?** &#xD;&#xA;—All right. What is to be typed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While watering a Garden—&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Что поливать сегодня?** —What should I water today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="c1e2c3b3-f32f-4a63-84a3-4f0dc83d7b21" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:41:23.890" UserId="11715" Text="Why is the imperfective used in Questions with—Что, Где, Когда, etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="c1e2c3b3-f32f-4a63-84a3-4f0dc83d7b21" CreationDate="2019-04-10T22:41:23.890" UserId="11715" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18422" RevisionGUID="14763949-8e6b-446f-86a2-f7fc149f82b2" CreationDate="2019-04-10T23:00:01.937" UserId="11692" Text="It's also like that in English, i.e. you don't normally say &quot;What should I have watered tomorrow&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Future perfect implies that there'll be a process of accomplishing that task before it's actually accomplished, so both is logically correct. (and imperfective is just easier to construct).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А когда его проводить? || А когда мы должны его провести?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Хорошо. Что печатать? || Хорошо. Что напечатать?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что поливать сегодня? || Что полить сегодня?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18423" RevisionGUID="69ecd008-833b-4948-ad5a-e9f76fde2d00" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:16:18.953" UserId="10247" Text="It's natural to shift tenses or aspects in casual speech. Compare with English: - You will go to Canada to deal with this. - OK. When am I going? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that (at least in your examples) if a person asks for something the perfective is preferable&#xD;&#xA;(sounds natural in orders or requests, please do it, сделай..., etc.), but the person answering is thinking about the process, how they are going to do it - so from their point of view the imperfective may often fit better (что делать? как делать? etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides in your examples the second person doesn't really answer. They comment on the situation and are free to choose imperfective, as they continue the dialogue in a natural way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18423" RevisionGUID="529de625-d07b-4844-a96e-d5383552108b" CreationDate="2019-04-11T05:22:46.567" UserId="10247" Comment="added 198 characters in body" Text="It's natural to shift tenses or aspects in casual speech. Compare with English: - You will go to Canada to deal with this. - OK. When am I going? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that (at least in your examples) if a person asks for something the perfective is preferable&#xD;&#xA;(sounds natural in orders or requests, please do it, сделай..., etc.), but the person answering is thinking about the process, how they are going to do it - so from their point of view the imperfective may often fit better (что делать? как делать? etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides in your examples the second person doesn't really answer. They comment on the situation and are free to choose imperfective, as they continue the dialogue in a natural way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: что, где, когда are irrelevant here. So your question might look better if you just ask WHY imperfective is used in the answer/comment, when perfective is used in the question/starting remark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49562" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18421" RevisionGUID="f9629778-9494-4e0b-98ce-c5d0876f7140" CreationDate="2019-04-11T12:00:46.587" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1116310117492887552" />
  <row Id="49567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="300111d8-c723-4b19-9efb-94a75795ab9b" CreationDate="2019-04-14T07:07:52.130" UserId="9100" Text="Почему:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Шипастый, лучистый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но:&#xD;&#xA;- Рогатый, деловитый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="300111d8-c723-4b19-9efb-94a75795ab9b" CreationDate="2019-04-14T07:07:52.130" UserId="9100" Text="Суффиксы -и(с)т и -а(с)т" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="300111d8-c723-4b19-9efb-94a75795ab9b" CreationDate="2019-04-14T07:07:52.130" UserId="9100" Text="|суффиксы|словообразование|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="5bcf7573-7f83-463e-8585-8383f29fac17" CreationDate="2019-04-14T08:27:30.433" UserId="7547" Text="Потому что у этих суффиксов [разные значения](http://wordsland.ru/magiclanguage/suff.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ист-* — прилагательные со значением:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - похожий на что-то (серебристый, бархатистый); &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **обладающий чем-то в большом количестве (голосистый, ветвистый);**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - имеющий склонность к какому-нибудь действию (задиристый, отрывистый, порывистый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шипастый — много шипов (растут по всей площади), лучистый — много лучей (по аналогии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ат-*/*-аст-* — прилагательные, называющих части тела человека или животного, внешних качеств человека, аксессуаров его внешности (волосатый, косматый, губастый, очкастый, рогатый, скуластый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рогатый — обладающий рогами как частью тела. *Можно* сказать «рогастый», но оно настолько разговорное, [что даже в книгах не встречается](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=рогатый%2Cрогастый&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2018&amp;corpus=12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ит-*/*-овит-* — обладающий в бо́льшей степени чем-нибудь (именитый, ядовитый, сердитый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Деловитый — не «дело в большом количестве», а «бо́льшая степень отношения к делу»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="0ee150d5-fc56-41d3-a57f-068dfdb08328" CreationDate="2019-04-14T08:46:20.610" UserId="7547" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Потому что у этих суффиксов [разные значения](http://wordsland.ru/magiclanguage/suff.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ист-* — прилагательные со значением:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - похожий на что-то (серебристый, бархатистый); &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **обладающий чем-то в большом количестве (голосистый, ветвистый);**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - имеющий склонность к какому-нибудь действию (задиристый, отрывистый, порывистый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шипастый — много шипов (растут по всей площади), лучистый — много лучей (по аналогии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ат-*/*-аст-* — прилагательные, называющих части тела человека или животного, внешних качеств человека, аксессуаров его внешности (волосатый, косматый, губастый, очкастый, рогатый, скуластый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рогатый — обладающий рогами как частью тела. *Можно* сказать «рогастый» [в значении](https://paronymonline.ru/%D0%A0/302) «имеющий большие рога», по аналогии с *-ист-*, но даже само значение «обладающий рогами в большом количестве» настолько образное и разговорное, [что даже в книгах не встречается](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=рогатый%2Cрогастый&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2018&amp;corpus=12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ит-*/*-овит-* — обладающий в бо́льшей степени чем-нибудь (именитый, ядовитый, сердитый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Деловитый — не «дело в большом количестве», а «бо́льшая степень отношения к делу»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="4c2a24e0-bd5d-4d50-a12c-e76e856a70c2" CreationDate="2019-04-14T08:51:21.517" UserId="7547" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Потому что у этих суффиксов [разные значения](http://wordsland.ru/magiclanguage/suff.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ист-* — прилагательные со значением:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - похожий на что-то (серебристый, бархатистый); &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **обладающий чем-то в большом количестве (голосистый, ветвистый);**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - имеющий склонность к какому-нибудь действию (задиристый, отрывистый, порывистый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шипастый — много шипов (растут по всей площади), лучистый — много лучей (по аналогии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ат-*/*-аст-* — прилагательные, называющих части тела человека или животного, внешних качеств человека, аксессуаров его внешности (волосатый, косматый, губастый, очкастый, рогатый, скуластый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рогатый — обладающий рогами как частью тела. *Можно* сказать «рогастый», [имея в виду](https://paronymonline.ru/%D0%A0/302) «имеющий особенно большие рога», по аналогии с *-ист-*. Однако значение «обладающий рогами в большом количестве» настолько образное и разговорное, [что даже в книгах не встречается](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=рогатый%2Cрогастый&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2018&amp;corpus=12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ит-*/*-овит-* — обладающий в бо́льшей степени чем-нибудь (именитый, ядовитый, сердитый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Деловитый — не «дело в большом количестве», а «бо́льшая степень отношения к делу»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18427" RevisionGUID="50f2c98f-c6de-46a5-a658-1e1dbeb47193" CreationDate="2019-04-14T08:58:15.110" UserId="7547" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Потому что у этих суффиксов [разные значения](http://wordsland.ru/magiclanguage/suff.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ист-* — прилагательные со значением:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - похожий на что-то (серебристый, бархатистый); &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **обладающий чем-то в большом количестве (голосистый, ветвистый);**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - имеющий склонность к какому-нибудь действию (задиристый, отрывистый, порывистый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Шипастый — много шипов (растут по всей площади), лучистый — много лучей (по аналогии).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ат-*/*-аст-* — прилагательные, называющих части тела человека или животного, внешних качеств человека, аксессуаров его внешности (волосатый, косматый, губастый, очкастый, рогатый, скуластый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Рогатый — обладающий рогами как частью тела. *Можно* сказать «рогастый», [имея в виду](https://paronymonline.ru/%D0%A0/302) «имеющий особенно большие рога», по аналогии с *-аст-*. Однако значение «обладающий рогами *в большом количестве*» настолько образное и разговорное, [что даже в книгах не встречается](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=рогатый%2Cрогастый&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2018&amp;corpus=12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *-ит-*/*-овит-* — обладающий в бо́льшей степени чем-нибудь (именитый, ядовитый, сердитый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Деловитый — не «дело в большом количестве», а «бо́льшая степень отношения к делу»." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18428" RevisionGUID="d94c8f1d-c4bd-49aa-9dfe-c1daffbfa852" CreationDate="2019-04-14T09:58:07.547" UserId="11537" Text="I just searched for phonetic of **понял** and found these:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**по́нял [пон’ил]**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**поня́л [пан’ал]**&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know that both are correct? and have same meaning as **Got it!**?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18428" RevisionGUID="d94c8f1d-c4bd-49aa-9dfe-c1daffbfa852" CreationDate="2019-04-14T09:58:07.547" UserId="11537" Text="Two different pronunciation of &quot;понял&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18428" RevisionGUID="d94c8f1d-c4bd-49aa-9dfe-c1daffbfa852" CreationDate="2019-04-14T09:58:07.547" UserId="11537" Text="|выражения|произношение|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18429" RevisionGUID="a26ab7da-103f-4c82-b6d4-9a8a6a7af9a3" CreationDate="2019-04-14T10:14:46.877" UserId="7674" Text="**Поня́л** is a stress pattern pertaining to speech of grammarless native speakers, very low register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can be used jokingly, with tongue in cheek, in informal conversations as a curt question **Поня́л?** or as a curt answer **Поня́л**, in which case it's a mocking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49580" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18428" RevisionGUID="1012f0a7-3e06-4053-9555-139cd506d670" CreationDate="2019-04-14T10:39:57.800" />
  <row Id="49582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18429" RevisionGUID="02c89e72-0f89-44f0-8c06-f0e57e1f3239" CreationDate="2019-04-14T11:00:18.127" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="**Поня́л** is a stress pattern pertaining to speech of grammarless native speakers, very low register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes it can be used jokingly, with tongue in cheek, in informal conversations as a curt question **Поня́л?** or as a curt answer **Поня́л**, in which case it's a mockery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18430" RevisionGUID="8365e052-8b84-4605-a8a5-94606c263a96" CreationDate="2019-04-14T11:47:02.003" UserId="11724" Text="по́нял [пон’ил] is the only correct form use for either questioning and confirmation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;поня́л [пан’ал] is an informal form commonly used to question (the closest would be &quot;do you get it?&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;It's not so much of a mockery but pretty patronizing way which you wouldn't use with people you don't closely know as it has a condescending sounding to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="ebe07e6d-65ef-4f85-8c2a-6d90ab8fdba1" CreationDate="2019-04-14T13:55:55.760" UserId="9100" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="Почему:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Шипастый, лучистый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Рогатый, деловитый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теоретически:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Шипатый (как сохатый, родовитый), лучитый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Рогастый (как зубастый), деловистый (как шелковистый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49587" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="7c8fb31f-9d4f-422b-b726-b7b9b62d0487" CreationDate="2019-04-15T04:31:38.120" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49588" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18326" RevisionGUID="77c6d526-4919-421d-ba0e-e6a27e7091d6" CreationDate="2019-04-15T15:01:06.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1117805051756650497" />
  <row Id="49589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="ffe2ee18-acfd-4203-9d36-5c59e453cbde" CreationDate="2019-04-17T14:19:54.413" UserDisplayName="user11735" Text="I took it from a popular song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня ты ангел божий / Без тебя такая **муть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it seems (from the reaction I got) that this particular word is considered to be slang / a swear word not to be uttered in polite company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="ffe2ee18-acfd-4203-9d36-5c59e453cbde" CreationDate="2019-04-17T14:19:54.413" UserDisplayName="user11735" Text="Can you use the word 'муть' in a conversation, or is it a profane word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="ffe2ee18-acfd-4203-9d36-5c59e453cbde" CreationDate="2019-04-17T14:19:54.413" UserDisplayName="user11735" Text="|выбор-слова|wording|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="55054d70-1c32-425c-bcd3-7e1b7e332aed" CreationDate="2019-04-17T14:40:54.987" UserId="9100" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Почему в одних случаях &quot;-с-&quot; присутствует, а в других нет?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Шипастый, лучистый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Но:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Рогатый, деловитый?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Теоретически:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Шипатый (как сохатый, родовитый), лучитый&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Рогастый (как зубастый), деловистый (как шелковистый)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18432" RevisionGUID="8618d924-5c95-410b-8ae2-211400f2ec05" CreationDate="2019-04-17T16:06:52.447" UserId="5443" Text="It's a word sometimes used colloquially to criticize something like a book or a film (*the days of life* here), with scorn or disrespect. Examples: *этот фильм - полная муть, эта книга - муть какая-то*. So yes, it is only for informal usage in a company of people who know each other well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49594" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="4447f684-4f99-4ab3-898e-5e6f6c19bf73" CreationDate="2019-04-17T16:16:08.123" UserDisplayName="user11735" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Can you use the word &quot;муть&quot; in a conversation, or is it a profane word?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49595" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="4447f684-4f99-4ab3-898e-5e6f6c19bf73" CreationDate="2019-04-17T16:16:08.123" UserDisplayName="user11735" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="4447f684-4f99-4ab3-898e-5e6f6c19bf73" CreationDate="2019-04-17T16:16:08.123" UserDisplayName="user11735" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="I took it from a popular song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Для меня ты ангел божий / Без тебя такая **муть**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but it seems (from the reaction I got) that this particular word is considered to be slang / a swear word not to be uttered in polite company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: thanks for the quick answer :) sorry cant upvote, not enough rep." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18433" RevisionGUID="5369c1a8-29bc-4814-b80a-8652d4fe83cc" CreationDate="2019-04-17T22:38:55.710" UserId="11408" Text="This word does not have a negative connotation. It becomes more and more archaic, but you can certainly utter it in a polite company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has several meanings, with the most direct one would be describing an unclear precipitation in water, e.g. &quot;какая-то муть в воде плавает&quot;; other meanings could be for something in a foggy state, e.g. in nature, more commonly used in a form of a stemmed adjective &quot;мутный&quot;, e.g. &quot;мутная река&quot;; you can also describe a lack of clarity, e.g. &quot;мутная голова&quot;, or sadness in your state of mind - this meaning would be the most applicable to your example &quot;Без тебя такая муть&quot;, and finally, the most colloquial usage to describe something confusing, which does not make any sense, e.g. &quot;Эта задача такая муть&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first googled example in the literature's usage, a snippet from Marina Tsvetaeva's poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Хочу у зеркала, где муть &#xD;&#xA;    И сон туманящий, &#xD;&#xA;    Я выпытать -- куда вам путь&#xD;&#xA;    И где пристанище.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49598" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18428" RevisionGUID="9fbe1904-6bd6-495f-a373-a6cf022a5921" CreationDate="2019-04-18T00:01:15.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1118665758513553408" />
  <row Id="49599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18434" RevisionGUID="ef039e56-974a-4ef7-8705-6cd5ad7657fe" CreationDate="2019-04-18T12:21:51.077" UserId="194" Text="This word is informal and means &quot;haziness, muddiness, blurriness&quot; as about a semi-transparent liquid or glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would consider it a teenage slang, the more standard word for the thing is мутность." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17744" RevisionGUID="5fff0c62-d78e-4071-a2fb-b0511a1bef4d" CreationDate="2019-04-18T15:51:24.880" UserId="6545" Comment="edited body" Text="While studying 'imperfective verbal adverbs' (IVA), I came across another construction for saying, '&lt;verb&gt;+ing'. Which is.... better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. читающий книгу&#xD;&#xA; 2. читающий &#xD;&#xA; 3. работающий&#xD;&#xA; 4. ужинающий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or using preposition 'за' +instrumental case;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. за книгой&#xD;&#xA; 2. за чтением&#xD;&#xA; 3. за работой&#xD;&#xA; 4. за ужином&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that the IVA can replace 'который' constructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get a sense that the 'during' meaning of 'за' may be slightly different in meaning with the IVA meaning of '-ing' verbs. Or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, having just discovered words like чтение, слушание, мышление, etc... (Are there many?) it seems the IVA construction may not be too common....?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter being able to be applied on nouns and the former being applied to imperfective verbs, maybe the overlap is not as large as it may seem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference in passive/active? Etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18435" RevisionGUID="416acaf5-316d-4dd6-ad60-0e35e8afb0fe" CreationDate="2019-04-19T08:26:41.793" UserId="11744" Text="Hi this word definition comes from `мутный`, but in this case `мутный` is not describes fluid state. In this context you may say `мутный парень` what means strange guy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Для меня ты ангел божий / Без тебя такая муть&#xD;&#xA;means with out you my future is undefined and strange, also you may say `I've no future with out you`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18435" RevisionGUID="0c17ce12-9870-4bf5-a1cf-ddcabd6b964c" CreationDate="2019-04-19T09:02:30.177" UserId="10999" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="This word definition comes from `мутный`, but in this case `мутный` does not describe fluid state. In this context you may say `мутный парень` that means `strange guy`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So `Без тебя такая муть` means `Without you my future is undefined and strange`, also you may say `I've no future without you`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="c09edd96-fa8f-475c-b344-d1dfb2205c4e" CreationDate="2019-04-19T09:53:17.473" UserId="11746" Text="Как бы вы перевели на английский «Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»? Есть ли в англоязычном мире поговорки-аналоги с подобным посылом? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пытаюсь уйти от буквального перевода в сторону другого сравнения с сохранением главной мысли (например, свять высказывание с профессией - доктора, сапожника, кузнеца и тд.), но пока безрезультатно. Буду рада помощи! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="c09edd96-fa8f-475c-b344-d1dfb2205c4e" CreationDate="2019-04-19T09:53:17.473" UserId="11746" Text="«Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»? Есть ли в англоязычном мире поговорки-аналоги с подобным посылом?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="c09edd96-fa8f-475c-b344-d1dfb2205c4e" CreationDate="2019-04-19T09:53:17.473" UserId="11746" Text="|перевод|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49606" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="6e3e2f2c-5d85-4e1e-a1f0-d6b69502ed06" CreationDate="2019-04-19T10:16:40.920" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="49607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="a8cc415b-fabf-4132-9ff9-5e5ce531b83c" CreationDate="2019-04-19T12:30:03.627" UserId="10270" Text="There are many words in Russian for 'because'. I am unclear whether they are equivalent or are they used in different situations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="a8cc415b-fabf-4132-9ff9-5e5ce531b83c" CreationDate="2019-04-19T12:30:03.627" UserId="10270" Text="When do you use так как, потому что, из-за, благодаря, по, ради" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="a8cc415b-fabf-4132-9ff9-5e5ce531b83c" CreationDate="2019-04-19T12:30:03.627" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18438" RevisionGUID="4ba09d4c-a257-4fdc-8acb-b0f3d8902daf" CreationDate="2019-04-19T13:01:39.003" UserId="10270" Text="The dictionary says they both mean 'in order to'. Are they equivalent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18438" RevisionGUID="4ba09d4c-a257-4fdc-8acb-b0f3d8902daf" CreationDate="2019-04-19T13:01:39.003" UserId="10270" Text="What is the difference between чтобы and для того?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18438" RevisionGUID="4ba09d4c-a257-4fdc-8acb-b0f3d8902daf" CreationDate="2019-04-19T13:01:39.003" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18439" RevisionGUID="609dbf41-aa0f-411a-a7c2-f12c7f70adae" CreationDate="2019-04-19T13:35:22.380" UserId="10247" Text="Despite the OP's vote for the best answer, and having in mind that this word is not as simple as some of the answers and comments imply, and in the spirit of stackexchange to provide CITED sources, I felt the need to suggest an answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This word has several senses. See Большой толковый словарь РЯ под ред. Кузнецова (2000). &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6SFX0.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in the song the 4th sense is used (see the red circle in the pic), i.e. WHEN YOU ARE NOT WITH ME, MY MIND IS NOT CLEAR. This use is quite poetic. Not archaic, not rude. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the comments here mention a ruder sense which is No. 5 - this is similar to English 'bullsh*t', or 'sh*t'. But I don't think this song implies this meaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this word is NOT always rude. All senses must be considered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18440" RevisionGUID="02cea71e-f618-4d23-b10b-ac108f296006" CreationDate="2019-04-19T14:17:58.250" UserId="4560" Text="**потому что**: the most generic &quot;because&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**так как**: &quot;since&quot;; more bookish and less forthright, meaning you can't use it to make an impactful &quot;why? well I'll tell you why&quot; statement, like you can with both `потому что` and the English `because`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(not on your list) **поскольку**: much the same as `так как`, but you're marginally more likely to hear it in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**благодаря**: &quot;thanks to&quot;, &quot;by virtue of&quot;, Like these English expressions, it's a preposition rather than a conjunction, so it's followed by a noun or pronoun (in the dative) rather than a clause. It can connect to a clause as `благодаря тому, что`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**из-за**: a reverse `благодаря` if you like. Grammatically, it works the same; however, it's a &quot;blaming&quot; word, implying an adverse consequence and/or the cause being a fault or flaw of some sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(not on your list) **ввиду**: &quot;on account of&quot;. Either bookish or officialese, a preposition like the previous two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**по**: even more bookish/officialese than `ввиду`, again with a touch of negativity and fault-finding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ради**: &quot;for the sake of&quot;. A rare case of a non-lexical term borrowed from Old Persian (*radiy*, Modern Persian را *-rā* with a different function), which is why occasionally, you might find it in its original postpositional form (`чего ради?`, `Бога ради`, etc.) but this sounds a bit obsolete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18441" RevisionGUID="5694f01e-2503-438f-8e02-670ccc0a60f1" CreationDate="2019-04-19T15:00:14.720" UserId="6097" Text="The difference is that you cannot use just &quot;для того&quot;, you always need &quot;чтобы&quot; after that. But &quot;чтобы&quot; can be use in its own. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Елена устроилась на работу (для того), чтобы заработать немного денег. &#xA;&#xA;There is no difference whether you use &quot;для того&quot; or not. It can be omitted. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49616" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18438" RevisionGUID="4de027c9-d3a4-4f8f-a386-a39551a91fd7" CreationDate="2019-04-19T15:01:58.143" UserId="6097" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the difference between &quot;чтобы&quot; and &quot;для того&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18442" RevisionGUID="7cfa5e66-5a7b-475f-872f-23d6369528f6" CreationDate="2019-04-19T15:45:22.867" UserId="5443" Text="Those are *not* equivalent elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Чтобы** introduces the *purpose* of some action (described earlier or later) and can be used either on its own &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Чтобы** метко в муху бить, нужно кока-колу пить. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Надо бы закрыть окно - **чтобы** комары не залетели.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or (with more emphasis or formality) as the second part of the compound conjunction **(для того), чтобы**. Most often, **для того** can be omitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **(Для того) чтобы** получить Нобелевскую, нужно сделать нечто&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выдающееся.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That compound conjunction can also be used in split form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Для того** я тебе это говорю, **чтобы** ты хорошенько подумал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In less typical cases **для того** can be used *without* **чтобы**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Сейчас сварю тебе борщ - **для того** я и пришла." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18433" RevisionGUID="85c48e26-2978-49b6-9714-9cbecb50bc56" CreationDate="2019-04-19T18:06:03.433" UserId="11408" Comment="extended a few explanations/corrected some confusing statements" Text="This word does not have a negative connotation. The usage of some of its meanings is less popular nowadays (like the one in your example), while the most popular meaning (something that does not make sense) is also the most recent one (hence a wrong assumption that this word relates to a teenage slang). But nonetheless you can certainly utter this word in a polite company. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Муть&quot; has several meanings: (1) the most direct one would be describing an unclear precipitation in water, e.g. &quot;какая-то муть в воде плавает&quot;; (2) other meaning could be for something in a foggy state, e.g. in nature, more commonly used in a form of a stemmed adjective &quot;мутный&quot;, e.g. &quot;мутная река&quot;; (3) you can also describe a lack of clarity, e.g. &quot;мутная голова&quot;, (4) or sadness in your state of mind - this meaning would be the most applicable to your example &quot;Без тебя такая муть&quot;, and finally, (5) the most colloquial usage to describe something confusing, which does not make any sense, e.g. &quot;Эта задача такая муть&quot;. But even in the last meaning the word does not express scorn or disrespect, it is not rude by itself, indicates mostly confusion and lack of understanding. Rudeness can come from the way a person reacts to any such situation, within some context (to what most people refer here), but it doesn't have to do with the language itself and more with used facial expressions/gestures/whatever else is said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the first googled example in the literature's usage, indicating that this word is not only colloquial and surely not limited to slang, a snippet from Marina Tsvetaeva's poem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Хочу у зеркала, где муть &#xD;&#xA;    И сон туманящий, &#xD;&#xA;    Я выпытать -- куда вам путь&#xD;&#xA;    И где пристанище.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="66ce7073-29b6-446f-9cbb-bfb6492af671" CreationDate="2019-04-19T20:22:43.577" UserId="11749" Text="Я человек, так сказать, не близкий к филологии. Давно интересует вопрос: как правильно: &quot;Скучаю по вас&quot; или &quot;Скучаю по вам&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49622" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="66ce7073-29b6-446f-9cbb-bfb6492af671" CreationDate="2019-04-19T20:22:43.577" UserId="11749" Text="Дательный падеж местоимений" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49623" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="66ce7073-29b6-446f-9cbb-bfb6492af671" CreationDate="2019-04-19T20:22:43.577" UserId="11749" Text="|падежи|местоимения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="b8406f37-5f21-4290-a331-9fa1dee0fdbb" CreationDate="2019-04-19T21:14:05.847" UserId="7674" Text="Традиционно правильно **по вас**, но в современном языке есть тенденция к замене предложного дательным, и эта двойная норма отражена в словарях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Развёрнутые ответы даны в теме &#xD;&#xA;[**Скучаю: по вам, по вас или за вас?**](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/436491/Скучаю-по-вам-по-вас-или-за-вас)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично я предпочитаю традиционный вариант, в том числе для существительных." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49625" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="6eb99e7e-0d84-4e7f-9ed1-5e085b16e790" CreationDate="2019-04-20T01:40:10.090" UserId="2104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7368" RevisionGUID="744da79c-5d4b-4c29-82d0-fd96d7b70d89" CreationDate="2019-04-20T07:38:53.343" UserId="194" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Это зависит от смысла того, что вы хотите сказать.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт о мыслях, то нужно использовать местный падеж:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу крутилась мысль о сдаче в плен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В моём мозгу я уже раздевал любимую.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Использование предложного падежа здесь неправильно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Если речь идёт в химическом составе мозга, нейронах, либо о пользе/вреде мозга, то используется предложный падеж.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В костном мозге содержится много железа.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В большом мозге много пользы для выживания биологического вида.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твоём мозге много атомов = Your brain consists of a lot of atoms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В твоём мозгу много атомов = You are thinking/dreaming about a lot of atoms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Поскольку &quot;головной мозг&quot; - это устойчивое словосочетание, обозначающее биологический орган, оно обычно используется в предложном падеже." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="64d06df2-7009-41e6-bd65-b976c40a7c86" CreationDate="2019-04-20T11:25:57.460" UserId="11395" Text="That's an excellent question, and although Nikolay already wrote a good answer, I want to add that in order to deeply understand the exact meanings of these words, you have to look at their literal composition and use your imagination, as I explain below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Потому**'' literally is ''по тому,'' which literally means ''on that'' (''по'' = on, ''тому'' = that). This word is thus used to introduce a logical foundation, i.e., you can literally understand ''потому'' as ''on the foundation that.'' To understand this word, imagine the foundation of a building. That's the analogy here. On that foundation, a logical construction is built. We use ''потому'' to introduce a cause, reasoning, or motivation leading to a decision or an action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошла в магазин, **потому** что у меня дома кончилась еда = I went&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a shop because (or, literally, on the logical foundation that) no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; food had been left at my home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Так как**'' literally means ''so as'' (''так'' = so, ''как'' = as) and is fully or almost fully equivalent to the English ''as'' used to connect clauses in a complex sentence. Although we often use ''так как'' interchangeably with ''потому что,'' there is a difference in the flavour: ''Так как'' rather introduces a related observation, an analogy, or a logically connected thing in order to help the conversation partner understand why something happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У морского черта острые зубы, **так как** это хищная рыба = The angler&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fish has sharp teeth, as it is a predatory fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, being a predatory fish is not, strictly speaking, the cause of having sharp teeth; rather, these things are just related: the fish just evolved in this way, and it is because this fish eats other fish that we classify the angler fish as a predatory fish. This is why it is more natural to use ''так как'' instead of ''потому что'' here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Из-за**'' literally is ''из за'', which means ''from behind'' (''из'' = from, ''за'' = behind). To understand this expression, imagine the wake behind a ship. That's the analogy here. From behind a ship. That is, something happens as a side effect or local effect of something big or global happening. A very close English expression is ''in the wake of.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я была вынуждена закрыть свой бизнес **из-за** обвала рубля = I had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close my business in the wake of Russia's rouble plunge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the plunge of Russia's rouble is a global thing affecting the whole country, and my business is just something very small on the global scale. My business gets closed in the wake of a global phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also many other Russian words and expressions whose meaning is close or related to ''because,'' and you need to know the exact meaning to use them properly. You listed only a  small fraction of them. Here are some words and expressions that instantly come to my mind: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ибо &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - для того, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - затем, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с того, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - оттого &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - почто (e.g., ''Почто боярыню обидел, смерд?'')&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - да (in conversations like: ''Почему ты это сделал?'' ''Да надоело&#xD;&#xA;   терпеть просто.'') &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - в связи с тем, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с учетом того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning is usually easily seen from the literal composition, as I explained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="a759d224-aa61-4495-aa52-79e7732f7286" CreationDate="2019-04-20T11:38:12.870" UserId="11395" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="That's an excellent question, and although Nikolay already wrote a good answer, I want to add that in order to deeply understand the exact meanings of these words, you have to look at their literal composition and use your imagination, as I explain below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Потому**'' literally is ''по тому,'' which literally means ''on that'' (''по'' = on, ''тому'' = that). This word is thus used to introduce a logical foundation, i.e., you can literally understand ''потому'' as ''on the foundation that.'' To understand this word, imagine the foundation of a building. That's the analogy here. On that foundation, a logical construction is built. We use ''потому'' to introduce a cause, reasoning, or motivation leading to a decision or an action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошла в магазин, **потому** что у меня дома кончилась еда = I went&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a shop because (or, literally, on the logical foundation that) no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; food had been left at my home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Так как**'' literally means ''so as'' (''так'' = so, ''как'' = as) and is fully or almost fully equivalent to the English ''as'' used to connect clauses in a complex sentence. Although we often use ''так как'' interchangeably with ''потому что,'' there is a difference in the flavour: ''Так как'' rather introduces a related observation, an analogy, or a logically connected thing in order to help the conversation partner understand why something happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У морского черта острые зубы, **так как** это хищная рыба = The angler&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fish has sharp teeth, as it is a predatory fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, being a predatory fish is not, strictly speaking, the cause of having sharp teeth; rather, these things are just related: the fish just evolved in this way, and it is because this fish eats other fish that we classify the angler fish as a predatory fish. This is why it is more natural to use ''так как'' instead of ''потому что'' here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Из-за**'' literally is ''из за'', which means ''from behind'' (''из'' = from, ''за'' = behind). To understand this expression, imagine the wake behind a ship. That's the analogy here. From behind a ship. That is, something happens as a side effect or local effect of something big or global happening. A very close English expression is ''in the wake of.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я была вынуждена закрыть свой бизнес **из-за** обвала рубля = I had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close my business in the wake of Russia's rouble plunge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the plunge of Russia's rouble is a global thing affecting the whole country, and my business is just something very small on the global scale. My business gets closed in the wake of a global phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also many other Russian words and expressions whose meaning is close or related to ''because,'' and you need to know the exact meaning to use them properly. You listed only a  small fraction of them. Here are some words and expressions that instantly come to my mind: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ибо &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - для того, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - затем, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с того, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - оттого &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - почто (e.g., ''Почто боярыню обидел, смерд?'')&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - да (in conversations like: ''Почему ты это сделал?'' ''Да надоело&#xD;&#xA;   терпеть просто.'') &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - в связи с тем, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с учетом того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - на основании того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - вследствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в результате&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning is usually easily seen from the literal composition, as I explained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18447" RevisionGUID="f77ddc4e-3e90-455d-aae4-15ee2c53cde4" CreationDate="2019-04-20T12:09:36.590" UserId="7547" Text="Как я понимаю, падеж здесь зависит от грамматической роли существительного:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* *лампа не существует* — лампа является главным действующим лицом (вот лампа, и её не существует);&#xD;&#xA;* *лампы не существует* — подлежащее опущено, а потому лампа является неким объектом, попавшим под влияние внешних обстоятельств, чьё состояние мы просто констатируем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;То есть первый вариант более прямолинейный и предметный." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="b52e14c9-9ea3-4fb7-9931-ff3090d347de" CreationDate="2019-04-20T14:20:03.310" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6218 characters in body" Text="Традиционно правильно **по вас**, но в современном языке есть тенденция к замене предложного дательным, и эта двойная норма отражена в словарях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Развёрнутые ответы даны в теме &#xD;&#xA;[**Скучаю: по вам, по вас или за вас?**](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/436491/Скучаю-по-вам-по-вас-или-за-вас)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично я предпочитаю традиционный вариант, в том числе для существительных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же приводит к изменению управления? Это очень непростой вопрос и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на него не всегда легко ответить, однако некоторые причины изменений&#xD;&#xA;&gt; установить всё-таки можно. Разберём в качестве примера глагол скучать.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В XIX веке этот глагол имел 4 значения (и соответственно 4 типа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; управления). Рассмотрим эти значения (значения и примеры приводятся по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Словарю языка Пушкина»):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **№ п/п** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Значение**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Управление**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Примеры**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; испытывать скуку&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; без&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дополнения&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Деревня, где скучал Евгений, Была &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;прелестный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уголок.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; тяготиться чем-н.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; творит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нет, он скучает бранной славой.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; тосковать о ком-н.,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;чём-н.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *по* + предл. п.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Она очень по тебе скучает.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; надоедать,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;докучать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дат. падеж&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нескладно хоть играл, Но Музам  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;не скучал.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В современном языке значения 2 и 4 устарели, а потому и управление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скучать чем и скучать чему-кому не встречается.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот и причина 1: изменение управления часто связано с изменением&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значения слова. Сохранились значения 1 и 3. Значение 1 используется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; без дополнения, поэтому о синтаксических изменениях говорить не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приходится, а вот на значении 3 стоит остановиться. Значение-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; осталось, но управление изменилось. И здесь мы сталкиваемся с другими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причинами.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причина 2: синтаксическая аналогия, а именно, изменение управления&#xD;&#xA;&gt; могло произойти под влиянием управления близких по значению глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Под влиянием так называемых глаголов горестного состояния (грустить,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тосковать и под.) глагол скучать приобретает управление скучать о чём,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого у него не было раньше. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Причина 3: изменение управления глагола могло быть вызвано и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изменением управления предлога. Именно с этим связана замена&#xD;&#xA;&gt; управления скучать по чём-ком на скучать по кому-чему...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Предлог по употребляется с глаголами горестного состояния типа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грустить, тосковать, скучать и соответствующими отглагольными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительными. В настоящее время в таких случаях используется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дательный падеж: грустить по мужу, скучать по другу, тоска по родному&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дому. Однако в XIX веке картина была иная. С этими глаголами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; использовался предлог по и с дательным, и с предложным падежами, но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дательный употреблялся лишь с существительными во множественном числе,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а предложный — с существительными в единственном числе и с &#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимениями: *Она **вздыхала по другом*** (А. С. Пушкин); *Всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **грустит по муже*** (И. А. Гончаров); ***Что погреба? Признаюсь, и по них сердце болит*** (А. С. Пушкин); *И начинает понемногу Моя Татьяна&#xD;&#xA;&gt; понимать Теперь яснее — слава богу — Того, **по ком** она **вздыхать**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Осуждена судьбою властной* (А. С. Пушкин).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постепенно дательный вытесняет предложный, уже в 80-е годы XIX века&#xD;&#xA;&gt; встречаются и употребления существительных в единственном числе в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; форме дательного падежа, с XX века дательный существительных вытесняет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложный. Примеры с существительными женского рода и личными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимениями ед. числа 1-го и 2-го лица и женского рода 3-го лица не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; привожу, они весьма многочисленны, но не показательны, так как в этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случаях формы дательного и предложного падежа омонимичны. Предложный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж местоимений удерживает свои позиции дольше, до начала ХХ века.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отдельные употребления встречаются вплоть до нашего времени: ***По&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ком** это ему **скучать**? — не поднимая глаз, говорит Лина, но полные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; губы её невольно растягиваются в улыбку. — Может, **по вас**?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Валентина Осеева. 1959); ***Тоскую по нём*** (Виктор Некрасов. 1981);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Этим я хочу сказать, что **скучаю по Вас*** (Борис Ефимов. 2000).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В настоящее время дательный падеж явно преобладает и в последних&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словарях указывается как единственно правильный вариант.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;источник: [*Об изменениях в синтаксисе&#xD;&#xA;современного русского языка*, опубл. в *Лингвистика для всех: лет. лингвист. шк. 2005 и 2006, под ред. Е. Муравенко*, стр. 165-7&lt;/sup&gt;](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=qAX6jcySjYsC&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="4fa339dd-d46a-4284-bb89-bb9ac4dd2d9a" CreationDate="2019-04-20T15:42:00.323" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Традиционно правильно **по вас**, но в современном языке есть тенденция к замене предложного дательным, и эта двойная норма отражена в словарях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Развёрнутые ответы даны в теме &#xD;&#xA;[**Скучаю: по вам, по вас или за вас?**](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/436491/Скучаю-по-вам-по-вас-или-за-вас)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично я предпочитаю традиционный вариант, в том числе для существительных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же приводит к изменению управления? Это очень непростой вопрос и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на него не всегда легко ответить, однако некоторые причины изменений&#xD;&#xA;&gt; установить всё-таки можно. Разберём в качестве примера глагол **скучать**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В XIX веке этот глагол имел 4 значения (и соответственно 4 типа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; управления). Рассмотрим эти значения (значения и примеры приводятся по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Словарю языка Пушкина»):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **№ п/п** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Значение**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Управление**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Примеры**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; испытывать скуку&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; без&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дополнения&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Деревня, где скучал Евгений, Была &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;прелестный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уголок.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; тяготиться чем-н.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; творит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нет, он скучает бранной славой.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; тосковать о ком-н.,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;чём-н.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *по* + предл. п.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Она очень по тебе скучает.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; надоедать,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;докучать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дат. падеж&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нескладно хоть играл, Но Музам  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;не скучал.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В современном языке значения 2 и 4 устарели, а потому и управление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скучать чем и скучать чему-кому не встречается.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот и **причина 1:** изменение управления часто связано с изменением&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значения слова. Сохранились значения 1 и 3. Значение 1 используется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; без дополнения, поэтому о синтаксических изменениях говорить не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приходится, а вот на значении 3 стоит остановиться. Значение-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; осталось, но управление изменилось. И здесь мы сталкиваемся с другими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причинами.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Причина 2:** синтаксическая аналогия, а именно, изменение управления&#xD;&#xA;&gt; могло произойти под влиянием управления близких по значению глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Под влиянием так называемых глаголов горестного состояния (грустить,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тосковать и под.) глагол скучать приобретает управление скучать о чём,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого у него не было раньше. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Причина 3:** изменение управления глагола могло быть вызвано и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изменением управления предлога. Именно с этим связана замена&#xD;&#xA;&gt; управления скучать по чём-ком на скучать по кому-чему...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Предлог по употребляется с глаголами горестного состояния типа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грустить, тосковать, скучать и соответствующими отглагольными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительными. В настоящее время в таких случаях используется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дательный падеж: грустить по мужу, скучать по другу, тоска по родному&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дому. Однако в XIX веке картина была иная. С этими глаголами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; использовался предлог по и с дательным, и с предложным падежами, но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дательный употреблялся лишь с существительными во множественном числе,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а предложный — с существительными в единственном числе и с &#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимениями: *Она **вздыхала по другом*** (А. С. Пушкин); *Всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **грустит по муже*** (И. А. Гончаров); ***Что погреба? Признаюсь, и по них сердце болит*** (А. С. Пушкин); *И начинает понемногу Моя Татьяна&#xD;&#xA;&gt; понимать Теперь яснее — слава богу — Того, **по ком** она **вздыхать**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Осуждена судьбою властной* (А. С. Пушкин).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постепенно дательный вытесняет предложный, уже в 80-е годы XIX века&#xD;&#xA;&gt; встречаются и употребления существительных в единственном числе в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; форме дательного падежа, с XX века дательный существительных вытесняет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложный. Примеры с существительными женского рода и личными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимениями ед. числа 1-го и 2-го лица и женского рода 3-го лица не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; привожу, они весьма многочисленны, но не показательны, так как в этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случаях формы дательного и предложного падежа омонимичны. Предложный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж местоимений удерживает свои позиции дольше, до начала ХХ века.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отдельные употребления встречаются вплоть до нашего времени: ***По&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ком** это ему **скучать**? — не поднимая глаз, говорит Лина, но полные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; губы её невольно растягиваются в улыбку. — Может, **по вас**?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Валентина Осеева. 1959); ***Тоскую по нём*** (Виктор Некрасов. 1981);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Этим я хочу сказать, что **скучаю по Вас*** (Борис Ефимов. 2000).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В настоящее время дательный падеж явно преобладает и в последних&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словарях указывается как единственно правильный вариант.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;источник: [Е. Муравенко *&quot;Об изменениях в синтаксисе&#xD;&#xA;современного русского языка&quot;*, опубл. в *Лингвистика для всех: лет. лингвист. шк. 2005 и 2006, под ред. Е. Муравенко*, стр. 165-7&lt;/sup&gt;](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=qAX6jcySjYsC&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="7d732e36-4500-48a7-9507-ce8410b428ee" CreationDate="2019-04-20T16:54:39.013" UserId="11395" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="That's an excellent question, and although Nikolay already wrote a good answer, I want to add that in order to deeply understand the exact meanings of these words, you have to look at their literal composition and use your imagination, as I explain below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Потому**'' literally is ''по тому,'' which literally means ''on that'' (''по'' = on, ''тому'' = that). This word is thus used to introduce a logical foundation, i.e., you can literally understand ''потому'' as ''on the foundation that.'' To understand this word, imagine the foundation of a building. That's the analogy here. On that foundation, a logical construction is built. We use ''потому'' to introduce a cause, reasoning, or motivation leading to a decision or an action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошла в магазин, **потому** что у меня дома кончилась еда = I went&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a shop because (or, literally, on the logical foundation that) no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; food had been left at my home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Так как**'' literally means ''so as'' (''так'' = so, ''как'' = as) and is fully or almost fully equivalent to the English ''as'' used to connect clauses in a complex sentence. Although we often use ''так как'' interchangeably with ''потому что,'' there is a difference in the flavour: ''Так как'' rather introduces a related observation, an analogy, or a logically connected thing in order to help the conversation partner understand why something happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У морского черта острые зубы, **так как** это хищная рыба = The angler&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fish has sharp teeth, as it is a predatory fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, being a predatory fish is not, strictly speaking, the cause of having sharp teeth; rather, these things are just related: the fish just evolved in this way, and it is because this fish eats other fish that we classify the angler fish as a predatory fish. This is why it is more natural to use ''так как'' instead of ''потому что'' here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Из-за**'' literally is ''из за'', which means ''from behind'' (''из'' = from, ''за'' = behind). To understand this expression, imagine the wake behind a ship. That's the analogy here. From behind a ship. That is, something happens as a result of something, usually as a side effect or local effect of something big or global happening. Here are some close English expressions: ''In the wake of,'' ''as a result of,'' ''caused by.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я была вынуждена закрыть свой бизнес **из-за** обвала рубля = I had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close my business in the wake of Russia's rouble plunge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the plunge of Russia's rouble is a global thing affecting the whole country, and my business is just something very small on the global scale. My business gets closed in the wake of a global phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also many other Russian words and expressions whose meaning is close or related to ''because,'' and you need to know the exact meaning to use them properly. You listed only a  small fraction of them. Here are some words and expressions that instantly come to my mind: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ибо &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - для того, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - затем, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с того, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - оттого &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - почто (e.g., ''Почто боярыню обидел, смерд?'')&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - да (in conversations like: ''Почему ты это сделал?'' ''Да надоело&#xD;&#xA;   терпеть просто.'') &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - в связи с тем, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с учетом того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - на основании того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - вследствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в результате&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning is usually easily seen from the literal composition, as I explained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18446" RevisionGUID="8d06744a-8aea-43a5-89c8-2e8ff620b041" CreationDate="2019-04-20T17:05:11.767" UserId="11395" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="That's an excellent question, and although Nikolay already wrote a good answer, I want to add that in order to deeply understand the exact meanings of these words, you have to look at their literal composition and use your imagination, as I explain below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Потому**'' literally is ''по тому,'' which literally means ''on that'' (''по'' = on, ''тому'' = that). This word is thus used to introduce a logical foundation, i.e., you can literally understand ''потому'' as ''on the foundation that.'' To understand this word, imagine the foundation of a building. That's the analogy here. On that foundation, a logical construction is built. We use ''потому'' to introduce a cause, reasoning, or motivation leading to a decision or an action. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я пошла в магазин, **потому** что у меня дома кончилась еда = I went&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to a shop because (or, literally, on the logical foundation that) no&#xD;&#xA;&gt; food had been left at my home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Так как**'' literally means ''so as'' (''так'' = so, ''как'' = as) and is fully or almost fully equivalent to the English ''as'' used to connect clauses in a complex sentence. Although we often use ''так как'' interchangeably with ''потому что,'' there is a difference in the flavour: ''Так как'' rather introduces a related observation, an analogy, or a logically connected thing in order to help the conversation partner understand why something happens:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У морского черта острые зубы, **так как** это хищная рыба = The angler&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fish has sharp teeth, as it is a predatory fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, being a predatory fish is not, strictly speaking, the cause of having sharp teeth; rather, these things are just related: the fish just evolved in this way, and it is because this fish eats other fish that we classify the angler fish as a predatory fish. This is why it is more natural to use ''так как'' instead of ''потому что'' here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;''**Из-за**'' literally is ''из за'', which means ''from behind'' (''из'' = from, ''за'' = behind). To understand this expression, imagine the wake behind a ship. That's the analogy here. From behind a ship. That is, something happens as a result of something, usually as a side effect or local effect of something big or global happening. Here are some close English expressions: ''In the wake of,'' ''as a result of,'' ''caused by.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я была вынуждена закрыть свой бизнес **из-за** обвала рубля = I had to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; close my business in the wake of Russia's rouble plunge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, the plunge of Russia's rouble is a global thing affecting the whole country, and my business is just something very small on the global scale. My business gets closed in the wake of a global phenomenon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also many other Russian words and expressions whose meaning is close or related to ''because,'' and you need to know the exact meaning to use them properly. You listed only a  small fraction of them. Here are some words and expressions that instantly come to my mind: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ибо &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - для того, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - затем, чтобы &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с того, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - оттого &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - почто (e.g., ''Почто боярыню обидел, смерд?'')&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - да (in conversations like: ''Почему ты это сделал?'' ''Да надоело&#xD;&#xA;   терпеть просто.'') &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - в связи с тем, что &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - с учетом того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - на основании того, что&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - вследствие&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - в результате&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - поскольку&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning is usually easily seen from the literal composition, as I explained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49634" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="b7108d60-5208-401d-82a1-042fd113b0dd" CreationDate="2019-04-20T17:25:33.560" UserId="6097" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Скучаю по вас&quot; или &quot;Скучаю по вам&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18445" RevisionGUID="ba3910c3-1f3f-41e3-9862-a5f591603aff" CreationDate="2019-04-21T13:43:30.717" UserId="7674" Comment="added 389 characters in body" Text="Традиционно правильно **по вас**, но в современном языке есть тенденция к замене предложного дательным, и эта двойная норма отражена в словарях.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Развёрнутые ответы даны в теме &#xD;&#xA;[**Скучаю: по вам, по вас или за вас?**](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/436491/Скучаю-по-вам-по-вас-или-за-вас)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Лично я предпочитаю традиционный вариант, в том числе для существительных.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что же приводит к изменению управления? Это очень непростой вопрос и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; на него не всегда легко ответить, однако некоторые причины изменений&#xD;&#xA;&gt; установить всё-таки можно. Разберём в качестве примера глагол **скучать**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В XIX веке этот глагол имел 4 значения (и соответственно 4 типа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; управления). Рассмотрим эти значения (значения и примеры приводятся по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «Словарю языка Пушкина»):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **№ п/п** &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Значение**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Управление**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Примеры**  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; испытывать скуку&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; без&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дополнения&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Деревня, где скучал Евгений, Была &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;прелестный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; уголок.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; тяготиться чем-н.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; творит.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нет, он скучает бранной славой.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; тосковать о ком-н.,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;чём-н.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *по* + предл. п.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Она очень по тебе скучает.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4**&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; надоедать,  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;докучать&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дат. падеж&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Нескладно хоть играл, Но Музам  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;не скучал.*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В современном языке значения 2 и 4 устарели, а потому и управление&#xD;&#xA;&gt; скучать чем и скучать чему-кому не встречается.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вот и **причина 1:** изменение управления часто связано с изменением&#xD;&#xA;&gt; значения слова. Сохранились значения 1 и 3. Значение 1 используется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; без дополнения, поэтому о синтаксических изменениях говорить не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; приходится, а вот на значении 3 стоит остановиться. Значение-то&#xD;&#xA;&gt; осталось, но управление изменилось. И здесь мы сталкиваемся с другими&#xD;&#xA;&gt; причинами.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Причина 2:** синтаксическая аналогия, а именно, изменение управления&#xD;&#xA;&gt; могло произойти под влиянием управления близких по значению глаголов.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Под влиянием так называемых глаголов горестного состояния (грустить,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тосковать и под.) глагол скучать приобретает управление скучать о чём,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого у него не было раньше. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Причина 3:** изменение управления глагола могло быть вызвано и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; изменением управления предлога. Именно с этим связана замена&#xD;&#xA;&gt; управления скучать по чём-ком на скучать по кому-чему...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Предлог по употребляется с глаголами горестного состояния типа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; грустить, тосковать, скучать и соответствующими отглагольными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; существительными. В настоящее время в таких случаях используется&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дательный падеж: грустить по мужу, скучать по другу, тоска по родному&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дому. Однако в XIX веке картина была иная. С этими глаголами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; использовался предлог по и с дательным, и с предложным падежами, но&#xD;&#xA;&gt; дательный употреблялся лишь с существительными во множественном числе,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; а предложный — с существительными в единственном числе и с &#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимениями: *Она **вздыхала по другом*** (А. С. Пушкин); *Всё&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **грустит по муже*** (И. А. Гончаров); ***Что погреба? Признаюсь, и по них сердце болит*** (А. С. Пушкин); *И начинает понемногу Моя Татьяна&#xD;&#xA;&gt; понимать Теперь яснее — слава богу — Того, **по ком** она **вздыхать**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Осуждена судьбою властной* (А. С. Пушкин).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Постепенно дательный вытесняет предложный, уже в 80-е годы XIX века&#xD;&#xA;&gt; встречаются и употребления существительных в единственном числе в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; форме дательного падежа, с XX века дательный существительных вытесняет&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предложный. Примеры с существительными женского рода и личными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; местоимениями ед. числа 1-го и 2-го лица и женского рода 3-го лица не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; привожу, они весьма многочисленны, но не показательны, так как в этих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; случаях формы дательного и предложного падежа омонимичны. Предложный&#xD;&#xA;&gt; падеж местоимений удерживает свои позиции дольше, до начала ХХ века.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Отдельные употребления встречаются вплоть до нашего времени: ***По&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ком** это ему **скучать**? — не поднимая глаз, говорит Лина, но полные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; губы её невольно растягиваются в улыбку. — Может, **по вас**?*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (Валентина Осеева. 1959); ***Тоскую по нём*** (Виктор Некрасов. 1981);&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Этим я хочу сказать, что **скучаю по Вас*** (Борис Ефимов. 2000).  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; В настоящее время дательный падеж явно преобладает и в последних&#xD;&#xA;&gt; словарях указывается как единственно правильный вариант.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;источник: [Е. Муравенко *&quot;Об изменениях в синтаксисе&#xD;&#xA;современного русского языка&quot;*, опубл. в *Лингвистика для всех: лет. лингвист. шк. 2005 и 2006, под ред. Е. Муравенко*, стр. 165-7&lt;/sup&gt;](https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=qAX6jcySjYsC&amp;pg=PA165&amp;lpg=PA165&amp;dq#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С местоимениями употребляется предложный падеж, а с существительными&#xD;&#xA;&gt; возможно употребление и предложного и дательного: тосковать по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; товарищу и по товарище; скучаю по дому и по доме; в литературном языке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предпочтительнее употребление дательного падежа&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*И. М Пулькина &quot;Краткий справочник по русской грамматике: пособие для преподавателей нерусских школ&quot; 1961 г.*&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="953c8361-b508-4d90-9ac3-0cb8089bd1c5" CreationDate="2019-04-21T17:33:15.147" UserId="8672" Text="In Japanese, there's a well-known saying that goes: おしゃれは足元から (oshare wa ashimoto kara) with the literal meaning of &quot;Every good outfit starts with the shoes&quot; -- or as we often put it in English, &quot;Shoes complete the outfit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This saying drums home the importance of investing in good footwear, first and foremost: When putting together an outfit, be sure to start from the shoes up, as shoes generally make the loudest statement. You can wear a fancy suit, but if your shoes are not up to scratch or simply not polished, they can all too easily ruin your otherwise perfect look." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="953c8361-b508-4d90-9ac3-0cb8089bd1c5" CreationDate="2019-04-21T17:33:15.147" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="953c8361-b508-4d90-9ac3-0cb8089bd1c5" CreationDate="2019-04-21T17:33:15.147" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="08ba56ce-6a5c-472f-a5bd-e071613f5508" CreationDate="2019-04-21T18:44:11.827" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="In Japanese, there's a well-known saying that goes: おしゃれは足元から (oshare wa ashimoto kara) with the literal meaning of &quot;Every good outfit starts with the shoes&quot; -- or as we often put it in English, &quot;Shoes complete the outfit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This saying drums home the importance of investing in good footwear, first and foremost: When putting together an outfit, be sure to start from the shoes up, as shoes generally make the loudest statement. You may wear a fancy suit, but if your shoes are not up to scratch or simply not polished, they can all too easily ruin your otherwise perfect look." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="ccc21319-0541-4c78-8160-dc36282012d4" CreationDate="2019-04-21T19:01:08.237" UserId="8672" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="In Japanese, there's a well-known saying that goes: おしゃれは足元から (oshare wa ashimoto kara) with the literal meaning of &quot;Every good outfit starts with the shoes&quot; -- or as we often put it in English, &quot;Shoes complete the outfit&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This saying drums home the importance of investing in good footwear, first and foremost: When putting together an outfit, be sure to start from the shoes up, as shoes generally make the loudest statement. You may wear a fancy suit, but if your shoes are not up to scratch or simply not polished, they can all too easily ruin your otherwise perfect look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even a cursory glance at all these [titles][1] showing up on YouTube will tell you how commonly the saying is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E3%81%8A%E3%81%97%E3%82%83%E3%82%8C%E3%81%AF%E8%B6%B3%E5%85%83%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="42a7c11e-6cdc-4912-8480-d1a9828e9cf5" CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:07:32.560" UserId="11511" Text="To the best of my knowledge, we have no saying of the kind. Also, within the Russian culture, no special emphasis on shows is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there exists a similar saying addressing the quality of a theater. It parallels the Japanese saying, in the sense that a smaller detail may serve as a prologue to a bigger picture: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Театр начинается с вешалки.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18450" RevisionGUID="dc437952-0cd3-44f1-82c6-8e63142457a8" CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:15:53.753" UserId="11511" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="To the best of my knowledge, we have no saying of the kind. Also, within the Russian culture, no special emphasis on shoes is made in the outfit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there exists a similar saying addressing the quality of a theater. It parallels the Japanese saying, in the sense that a smaller detail may serve as a prologue to a bigger picture: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Театр начинается с вешалки.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49650" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18449" RevisionGUID="daa97e71-e44a-40e6-b84c-90a34faa10d0" CreationDate="2019-04-21T20:22:33.403" />
  <row Id="49652" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18437" RevisionGUID="499a262d-882f-4c6f-82e9-958492466a26" CreationDate="2019-04-22T03:00:58.677" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1120160538984579078" />
  <row Id="49653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18451" RevisionGUID="9b4d4e66-02fb-45a1-9dfb-e6843febf46e" CreationDate="2019-04-22T05:59:04.620" UserId="11752" Text="Formal linguistics is not always true, but rather completely wrong in many cases.&#xD;&#xA;The first expression would be:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Complete (the) opening (process), please&quot;&#xD;&#xA;The second expression would be:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Start opening, please(already)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would depend on situation, when the process is assumed to be finished or to be just started. For 1 the first would be more polite, for 2 the second would be more polite." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="38d9186c-c4bd-4483-a8a7-27e98e88d646" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:51:45.723" UserDisplayName="user9822" Text="I was reading the etymology of the English ['liquidate'](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/78589/334589), when I read on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidate#Etymology) that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The sense &quot;to kill, do away with&quot; is a [semantic loan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_loan &quot;w:Semantic loan&quot;) from [Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language &quot;w:Russian language&quot;) _[ликвиди́ровать](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian &quot;ликвидировать&quot;)_ (likvidírovatʹ), ultimately from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[liquidus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidus#Latin &quot;liquidus&quot;)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This sense wasn't in the Latin etymon, and thus must have commenced in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Thus how did meaning #2 (the original) develop to 1 and 3? What semantic notions underlie them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.  to [eliminate](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eliminate &quot;eliminate&quot;), to [abolish](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abolish &quot;abolish&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2.  to [dissolve](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dissolve &quot;dissolve&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;3.  to [stamp out](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stamp_out &quot;stamp out&quot;), to [do](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do &quot;do&quot;) away with, to [destroy](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy &quot;destroy&quot;), to [kill](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kill &quot;kill&quot;) (off)&#xD;&#xA;4.  to [liquidate](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidate &quot;liquidate&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49655" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="38d9186c-c4bd-4483-a8a7-27e98e88d646" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:51:45.723" UserDisplayName="user9822" Text="How did 'liquidate' (in the sense of 'dissolve') semantically shift to mean 'abolish' and 'destroy, kill'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49656" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="38d9186c-c4bd-4483-a8a7-27e98e88d646" CreationDate="2019-04-22T06:51:45.723" UserDisplayName="user9822" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="3cb98fc8-c44e-470e-bc37-4c1e5c1c2450" CreationDate="2019-04-22T07:05:17.963" UserDisplayName="user9822" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="I was reading the etymology of the English ['liquidate'](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/78589/334589), when I read on [Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidate#Etymology) that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The sense &quot;to kill, do away with&quot; is a [semantic loan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_loan &quot;w:Semantic loan&quot;) from [Russian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language &quot;w:Russian language&quot;) _[ликвиди́ровать](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C#Russian &quot;ликвидировать&quot;)_ (likvidírovatʹ), ultimately from [Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin &quot;w:Latin&quot;) _[liquidus](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidus#Latin &quot;liquidus&quot;)_. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. This sense wasn't in the Latin etymon, and thus must have commenced in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Thus how did meaning #2 (the original) develop to 1 and 3? What semantic notions underlie them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that live humans can be killed by [dissolving them in acid](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11793116/French-students-tried-to-dissolve-body-of-murder-victim-in-acid.html), but this method of killing appears too uncommon (I hope!), unethical and frightful to beget this semantic shift?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;1.  to [eliminate](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eliminate &quot;eliminate&quot;), to [abolish](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abolish &quot;abolish&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;2.  to [dissolve](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dissolve &quot;dissolve&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;3.  to [stamp out](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stamp_out &quot;stamp out&quot;), to [do](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do &quot;do&quot;) away with, to [destroy](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy &quot;destroy&quot;), to [kill](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kill &quot;kill&quot;) (off)&#xD;&#xA;4.  to [liquidate](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liquidate &quot;liquidate&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49658" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="619ccb68-1aed-4765-a711-6ab8e760a822" CreationDate="2019-04-22T08:02:58.233" UserDisplayName="user9822" Comment="edited title" Text="How did 'ликвиди́ровать' semantically shift to mean 'abolish' and 'destroy, kill'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18453" RevisionGUID="491d7d62-fe67-440b-b4b1-f058dc85a4f9" CreationDate="2019-04-22T09:47:02.840" UserId="134" Text="_ликвидировать_ initially meant &quot;to convert to liquid assets&quot;, as of stock, capital etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As converting a business to cash would mean selling it, this word came to mean &quot;to get rid of&quot; and then, by extension, acquired the metaphorical meaning &quot;to kill&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49661" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="eb390946-578c-4a82-b679-7c254b6ce5fe" CreationDate="2019-04-22T10:53:17.163" />
  <row Id="49665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18454" RevisionGUID="2fdd5cfd-6860-4f80-a793-7876d6568b59" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:07:59.000" UserId="10890" Text="Sorry if this is not exactly about Russian language, but I do not know where else to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of word &quot;ето&quot; in Russian language? Is it some kind of a combination of &quot;je co&quot;/&quot;jest to&quot; in other slavic languages? I suspect it must be really long time ago it formed since it is such a basic word so maybe it is more a question about history of languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18454" RevisionGUID="2fdd5cfd-6860-4f80-a793-7876d6568b59" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:07:59.000" UserId="10890" Text="From where does &quot;ето&quot; come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18454" RevisionGUID="2fdd5cfd-6860-4f80-a793-7876d6568b59" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:07:59.000" UserId="10890" Text="|история-языка|заимствования|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18454" RevisionGUID="73955193-d414-4072-89fd-b163bd7147a3" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:29:05.833" UserId="10890" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Sorry if this is not exactly about Russian language, but I do not know where else to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the origin of word &quot;это&quot; in Russian language? Is it some kind of a combination of &quot;je co&quot;/&quot;jest to&quot; in other slavic languages? I suspect it must be really long time ago it formed since it is such a basic word so maybe it is more a question about history of languages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49669" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18454" RevisionGUID="73955193-d414-4072-89fd-b163bd7147a3" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:29:05.833" UserId="10890" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="From where does &quot;это&quot; come?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18455" RevisionGUID="531cf616-7822-401e-8f63-84679b1ca11e" CreationDate="2019-04-22T19:42:58.790" UserId="4600" Text="`Э` was originally a *deictic* (meaning **Hey, look!**) particle `есе / ѥсе` in Old Church Slavonic that became attached to many pronouns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Такой — этакий&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так — этак&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; То — это&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Те — эти&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was a common feature, present also in Ukrainian, Belorussian, and other languages, originating back to PIE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ukrainian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ген (there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ген-ген (there afar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; генто (day before yesterday)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [e]quidem (of course)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ancient Greek:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κεῖ — ἐ-κεῖ (there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; κεῖνος — ἐ-κεῖνος (that)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18457" RevisionGUID="9c5899d4-e386-4a82-b08a-ceeda4f01708" CreationDate="2019-04-22T20:30:27.667" UserId="11752" Text="The meanings of the words in songs are frequently distorted or far from typical. It means that you would normally have to avoid using that word in the meaning stated in that song, either it is colloquial or profane situation.&#xD;&#xA;You can use it in discussion of popular entertainment items (books, movies etc) in the meaning of &quot;it is totally messed up&quot; - &quot;это муть какая-то&quot;. In that way it is perfectly OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18458" RevisionGUID="f374f08e-2f25-4bab-bea1-63da758596c2" CreationDate="2019-04-22T21:04:32.533" UserId="11756" Text="In my opinion, word &quot;где&quot; at the beginning, already are the question mark for this sentence, so no reason to put this one &quot;?&quot; in the end of the sentence, because in this case it really does nothing and looks weird. From grammar side you should use &quot;!&quot; at the end of the sentense, because question are already included in &quot;где&quot; at the beginning, and you cant use &quot;?&quot; because as you noticed it make little confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://old-rozental.ru/punctuatio.php?sid=194#pp194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18009" RevisionGUID="f2306fd9-c3d6-47a1-a1a7-8f20b6403167" CreationDate="2019-04-22T21:19:25.773" UserId="11408" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; The Russian language usually uses the genitive case to express&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partialness. However, some Russian mass nouns have developed a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distinct partitive case, also referred to as the &quot;second genitive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; case&quot;. In modern Russian, use of the partitive case is often facultative. In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; many situations, the partitive and the genitive can be used almost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; synonymously: чашка чаю (partitive) and чашка чая (genitive) both mean &quot;a cup of tea&quot;. The partitive variant is preferred with verbs: выпить чаю,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;to drink some tea&quot;. The genitive variant is used&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more frequently when the mass noun is modified by an adjective: чашка&#xD;&#xA;&gt; горячего чая, &quot;a cup of hot tea&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;[Check here for the source and more information][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, **Много народу** refers to another case, which is called *partitive* and it was used in older times. Since it is not used so frequently in a modern Russian language, this case is often merged with *genitive* and hence refers as the *second genetive* case. If you would read classical Russian literature, you would certainly encounter *partitive*, but in modern Russian you would mostly hear it colloquially. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for the *partitive*, there are also other cases in modern language, which are often used colloquially, but not given in official grammar books when teaching pupils in Russian schools. For example, if you ever listened to a regular conversation between Russians, you must have encountered a vocative case without even realizing it: ***Даш*, ты меня слышишь? Нет, *Саш*.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here at the end you can find more information][2] about additional cases which are used in Russian nowadays. If you are simply trying to learn Russian, do not focus on them too much, in the end they constitute a small group of all the situations and will come intuitively simply by mimicking Russians/ learning some constructed phrases by heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitive_case&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18459" RevisionGUID="98d92093-4972-4b6c-bee0-8069f720fcab" CreationDate="2019-04-22T21:50:38.277" UserId="11752" Text="You can also use Perfective, there are hardly any expectations you are talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы должны провести подобный эксперимент. —We should carry out a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; А когда планируется его провести? —When it is planned (by us) to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carried out (and completed) ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пожалуйста напечатай мне пару страниц. —Please complete typing a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; couple of pages for me. (You got it wrong here, &quot;на&quot; means complete-,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it would literally mean complete-type)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Хорошо. Что напечатать? —All right. What is to be typed (and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; completed) ?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While watering a Garden—&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что полить сегодня? —What have I to water today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you translate correctly translated statement into their approximate English equivalents. Your mistake is that you are trying to perform a translation from approximate one in Russian to approximate one in English directly. You can either make it long to retain the original intention or give up and make it short, but approximate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18458" RevisionGUID="32385a16-3206-42c0-97ab-411f37b7b106" CreationDate="2019-04-23T01:06:55.060" UserId="11756" Comment="deleted 280 characters in body; added 4 characters in body" Text="This are *rhetorical question* and also it are have *interrogative intonation* here _&quot;И где&quot;_, so you must use at the end &quot;?&quot; or &quot;!&quot;. But for exclude the confusion in this case I would prefer &quot;!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18458" RevisionGUID="4b72d771-c450-4cfa-8199-5816010e679f" CreationDate="2019-04-23T01:16:53.327" UserId="11756" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This are *rhetorical question* and also it has *interrogative intonation* here _&quot;И где тогда&quot;_, so you must use at the end &quot;?&quot; or &quot;!&quot;. But for exclude the confusion in this case I would prefer &quot;!&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18458" RevisionGUID="4d975dae-d0da-48e9-bbc9-8a7c84a1b58f" CreationDate="2019-04-23T01:23:55.440" UserId="11756" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="This are *rhetorical question* and also it has *interrogative intonation* here _&quot;И где тогда&quot;_, so you must use at the end &quot;?&quot; or &quot;!&quot;. But in this case I would prefer &quot;!&quot;, to underline emotions and exclude the confusion in same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18460" RevisionGUID="dc91e696-12fd-4a94-95ec-978e49166c78" CreationDate="2019-04-23T05:28:09.640" UserId="11752" Text="The translation would be (Where to) (for me) (to call). The approximate translation in acceptable English would be &quot;Where to should I call ?&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18461" RevisionGUID="34045068-b6ba-495c-a6e8-b1918f44d8c0" CreationDate="2019-04-23T13:30:23.747" UserId="1274" Text="In addition to Michael's answer I'd argue &quot;Встречают по одёжке&quot; (in this shortened form) can also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full phrase &quot;Встречают по одёжке, а провожают по уму&quot; compares how the person looks and what the person is, but the short form underlines the importance of good outfit for the first impression." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18462" RevisionGUID="59ade8f9-89be-4970-98bc-738c28f82061" CreationDate="2019-04-23T13:45:22.913" UserId="11758" Text="According to the Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary, there is a proverb about boots:&#xD;&#xA;Сапоги славные, дела справные.(&quot;Good boots, thriving business.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it's not a well-known saying and it's more about boots as a symbol of success and wealth in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="70c656c6-d654-4e7b-9cbc-560da8a075c0" CreationDate="2019-04-23T16:07:20.190" UserId="1671" Text="For me it sounds like an [elliptic sentence][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне звонить` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is actually a shortened form of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне следует звонить в случае пожара/потопа/непредвиденных обстоятельств`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a rule of thumb for you: when you see an **infinitive** like here `звонить` try to expand the sentence first. What is the omitted verb? Infinitives can't be used alone in grammatically full sentences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In metro when you read `не прислоняться` it actually says something along the lines `мы просим вас не прислоняться к двери, если вы не хотите пострадать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sentence like `куда я звоню` does not need additional verbs because there is no infinitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="3ecfd913-89d0-4f97-87b8-55c6549a3558" CreationDate="2019-04-23T16:13:16.303" UserId="1671" Comment="added 533 characters in body" Text="For me it sounds like an [elliptic sentence][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне звонить` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is actually a shortened form of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне следует звонить в случае пожара/потопа/непредвиденных обстоятельств`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a rule of thumb for you: when you see an **infinitive** like here `звонить` try to expand the sentence first. What is the omitted verb? Infinitives can't be used alone in grammatically full sentences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In metro when you read `не прислоняться` it actually says something along the lines `мы просим вас не прислоняться к двери, если вы не хотите случайно вывалиться из поезда`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sentence like `куда я звоню` does not need additional verbs because there is no infinitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is no subject in the sentence `куда мне звонить` because it is [impersonal][2] or [безличное предложение][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can read on Wikipedia such Russian impersonal verb forms (in our case the verb `следует` is omitted) are often translated into English using `it`. So one of the possible translations would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Where is it necessary for me to call in case of emergency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="21d47455-19e4-4d35-b5ff-963a3aec13ed" CreationDate="2019-04-23T16:19:50.867" UserId="1671" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="For me it sounds like an [elliptic sentence][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне звонить` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is actually a shortened form of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне следует звонить в случае пожара/потопа/непредвиденных обстоятельств`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a rule of thumb for you: when you see an **infinitive** like here `звонить` try to expand the sentence first. What is the omitted verb? Infinitives can't be used alone in grammatically full sentences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In metro when you read `не прислоняться` it actually says something along the lines `мы просим вас не прислоняться к двери, если вы не хотите случайно пострадать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sentence like `куда я звоню` does not need additional verbs because there is no infinitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is no subject in the sentence `куда мне звонить` because it is [impersonal][2] or [безличное предложение][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can read on Wikipedia such Russian impersonal verb forms (in our case the verb `следует` is omitted) are often translated into English using `it`. So one of the possible translations would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Where is it necessary for me to call in case of emergency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18463" RevisionGUID="37314a0a-6774-4376-aaed-c8c0e79044e1" CreationDate="2019-04-23T16:25:14.620" UserId="1671" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="For me it sounds like an [elliptic sentence][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне звонить` &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is actually a shortened form of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`куда мне следует звонить в случае пожара/потопа/непредвиденных обстоятельств`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a rule of thumb for you: when you see an **infinitive** like here `звонить` try to expand the sentence first. What is the omitted verb? Infinitives can't be used alone in grammatically full sentences. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In metro when you read `не прислоняться` it actually says something along the lines `мы просим вас не прислоняться к двери, если вы не хотите случайно пострадать`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sentence like `куда я звоню` does not need additional verbs because there is no infinitive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there is no subject in the sentence `куда мне звонить` because it is [impersonal][2] or [безличное предложение][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can read on Wikipedia such Russian impersonal verb forms (in our case the verb `следует` is omitted) are often translated into English using `it`. So one of the possible translations would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Where** is it necessary for **me** to **call** in case of emergency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_verb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="e864310c-4538-4290-b487-4d149d493b61" CreationDate="2019-04-23T17:19:54.243" UserId="10270" Text="What does the expression  кому обещать эту жизнь без потерь mean?&#xD;&#xA;Is the subject 'кому who' even though it is in the dative case? Who can promise this life without care? or is it To who can a promise of this life without care be made?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="e864310c-4538-4290-b487-4d149d493b61" CreationDate="2019-04-23T17:19:54.243" UserId="10270" Text="I have trouble understanding infinitives with datives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="e864310c-4538-4290-b487-4d149d493b61" CreationDate="2019-04-23T17:19:54.243" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18465" RevisionGUID="f931948a-27b8-4665-8f78-e1de418e7e4c" CreationDate="2019-04-23T17:25:43.007" UserId="11755" Text="I think a more correct translation would be “_Whom_ can I safely promise this life?”. “Кому” is an indirect object here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18466" RevisionGUID="fa5b666f-ea11-496d-8f43-f736c46d369a" CreationDate="2019-04-23T17:44:57.950" UserId="134" Text="Out of context this phrase can be parsed both ways indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Russian (as well as Latin and some other languages) has so called &quot;dative of the agent&quot;, which conveys a meaning of necessity, moral obligation or fate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тебе с ним жить // You'll be spending your life with him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мне в магазин // I need to go to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ей ли меня судить? // Is it up to her to be judging me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we look at the lyrics of the song this phrase is from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И куда отправлять эти письма теперь?  &#xD;&#xA;Если адрес не знаю, дорогу забыла.  &#xD;&#xA;И кому обещать эту жизнь без потерь?  &#xD;&#xA;Если я потеряю все то, что любила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, it becomes clear that within this context the phrase means &quot;to whom shall I promise&quot; and  *кому* is an object here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49693" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="98c64f6e-26d7-4d8f-8cfe-a17ced307a7b" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:15:30.647" UserId="11755" Comment="Метка про падеж." Text="|грамматика|дательный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49694" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="98c64f6e-26d7-4d8f-8cfe-a17ced307a7b" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:15:30.647" Comment="Proposed by 11755 approved by 134 edit id of 2039" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="9097b5d9-1938-46d4-8f9a-c1fc9cafbbda" CreationDate="2019-04-23T19:37:34.613" UserId="11759" Text="There's a one word russian slang for a design philosophy that translates as &quot; working with a piece of paper on your knee&quot;. I remember it loosely as ' nakayanki '. Can someone enlighten?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="9097b5d9-1938-46d4-8f9a-c1fc9cafbbda" CreationDate="2019-04-23T19:37:34.613" UserId="11759" Text="russian aviation design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="9097b5d9-1938-46d4-8f9a-c1fc9cafbbda" CreationDate="2019-04-23T19:37:34.613" UserId="11759" Text="|сленг|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18468" RevisionGUID="cac57e73-f8a7-4c04-8345-e7c6b7fc3525" CreationDate="2019-04-23T19:47:28.947" UserId="2104" Text="It's **на коленке** - 'to make something crudely, without using any fancy tools', a botch job.&#xA;&#xA;It's not specific to aviation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="8f46ba26-b982-48bd-872d-7593ab28f3b7" CreationDate="2019-04-23T19:56:21.587" UserId="11107" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on a knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used only your knee as the only fulcrum. This can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive and appliable to informal speech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="325cac09-a45c-4fcd-ad6a-05df0c864ac7" CreationDate="2019-04-23T20:03:27.553" UserId="11107" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on a knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used only your knee as the only fulcrum. This can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive and appliable to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both appliable, depends on context. But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by knee in extreme conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="cb94c1b2-28a5-46d1-82f1-03f1f8319abd" CreationDate="2019-04-23T20:09:26.570" UserId="11107" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on a knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used only your knee as the only fulcrum. This can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development enviroment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive and appliable to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both appliable, depends on context. But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by knee in extreme conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="13797" RevisionGUID="7fb74510-43cf-49f2-a7b1-0bfc4251ca9a" CreationDate="2019-04-23T20:16:51.683" UserId="242" Comment="typo in poet's name " Text="It's neither a nickname, nor a dinimutive. It's just a form which became distinctive from the (borrowed through Greek) Иосиф and happily co-exist with it just like Johannes co-exist with John. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it indeed initially was introduced at lower-class usage I'm not sure it can be treated as regionalism - I'd rather say it is Russian vulgar version of the name. Just like say Йозеф.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of the second part of your question - yes, in colloquial speech Иосиф could be addressed as `Осип` if he didn't mind - nowadays it's pretty obsolete. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a famous Russian-speaking poet of Jewish origin, Осип Мандельштам,  who actually was Иосиф. But this name can be use as a separate one as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there are some other examples when colloquial form of name became a separate one. For instance, `Егор` initially was a form of `Георгий`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="52d0ec22-b03a-496d-b878-c591d04a9443" CreationDate="2019-04-23T20:29:07.667" UserId="11107" Comment="examples added" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on a knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used only your knee as the only fulcrum. This can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development enviroment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is appliable mostly to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both appliable, depends on context. But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These instruments are terrible, all is done on a knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Did you do hometask? Can you give it to me to write it off?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I did, but for you it would be better to find another one - I was busy yesterday and have done my hometask just now on a knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment  themselves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on a knee, indeed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="3d631bf1-5ae9-495f-99e0-f3c7d3bf7fe1" CreationDate="2019-04-23T20:35:05.303" UserId="11107" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on a knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used your knee as the only fulcrum. The phrase can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development enviroment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is appliable nearly only to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both appliable, depends on context (doing or writing). But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by a knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These instruments are terrible, all is done on a knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Did you do hometask? Can you give it to me to write it off?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I did, but for you it would be better to find another one - I was busy yesterday and have done my hometask just now on a knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment themselves on a knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on a knee, indeed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49705" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="e6a0d7e4-72c1-4a60-be11-9469b1d560a4" CreationDate="2019-04-23T23:03:17.200" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Working on a knee&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="49706" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="482c6118-c691-4cc8-b141-11a880ef2107" CreationDate="2019-04-23T23:40:36.933" />
  <row Id="49707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18470" RevisionGUID="c356147f-4546-4d15-8a52-bbdb009dfedc" CreationDate="2019-04-23T23:46:13.290" UserId="11408" Text="I don't think there is room for an ambiguous translation of your sentence:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; кому обещать эту жизнь без потерь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the most literal translation would be: &quot;To whom this life without losses (or loosing) can be promised?&quot; You suggested phrase **without care** does not reflect the meaning in this sentence. Having a worriless life and life without loses are too different things.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sentence does not have a subject, the indirect object is **Кому** and direct object is **жизнь**, in Russian the sentence would be classified as indefinite-personal sentence ([Wiki source in Russian][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="54cbc57e-595a-4945-b233-1ade6a057489" CreationDate="2019-04-24T10:03:29.613" UserId="11746" Comment="Translation options update" Text="Как бы вы перевели на английский «Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»? Есть ли в англоязычном мире поговорки-аналоги с подобным посылом? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Пытаюсь уйти от буквального перевода в сторону другого сравнения с сохранением главной мысли (например, связать высказывание с профессией - доктора, сапожника, кузнеца и тд.), но пока безрезультатно. Буду рада помощи! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: Ближайшая по посылу находка из мира животных — «Что можно ждать от свиньи кроме хрюканья» (What can you expect from a hog but a grunt). Однако, из-за негативных коннотаций этот вариант сложно назвать адекватным. Ну и вроде как автомат калашникова наша гордость, просто мы склонны делать вот таким образом. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="98a34ae1-3794-4e07-8aa0-6e45269c8e61" CreationDate="2019-04-24T10:09:30.977" UserId="11746" Comment="Translation options update" Text="Есть ли в русском языки аналоги поговорки «Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли в англоязычном мире поговорки с подобным посылом? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При адаптации на английский пытаюсь уйти от буквального перевода в сторону другого сравнения с сохранением главной мысли (например, связать высказывание с профессией - доктора, сапожника, кузнеца и тд.), но пока безрезультатно. Буду рада помощи! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: Ближайшая по посылу находка из мира животных — «Что можно ждать от свиньи кроме хрюканья» (What can you expect from a hog but a grunt). Однако, из-за негативных коннотаций этот вариант сложно назвать адекватным. Ну и вроде как автомат калашникова наша гордость, просто мы склонны делать вот таким образом. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="1501e790-8083-42a2-8206-84b884d5b4f3" CreationDate="2019-04-24T10:14:48.640" UserId="11746" Comment="Translation options update" Text="«Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»? Есть ли в русском языкe другие поговорки с подобным посылом?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Есть ли в англоязычном мире поговорки-аналоги? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;При адаптации на английский пытаюсь уйти от буквального перевода в сторону другого сравнения с сохранением главной мысли (например, связать высказывание с профессией - доктора, сапожника, кузнеца и тд.), но пока безрезультатно. Буду рада помощи! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: Ближайшая по посылу находка из мира животных — «Что можно ждать от свиньи кроме хрюканья» (What can you expect from a hog but a grunt). Однако, из-за негативных коннотаций этот вариант сложно назвать адекватным. Ну и вроде как автомат калашникова наша гордость, просто мы склонны делать вот таким образом. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50708" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="1501e790-8083-42a2-8206-84b884d5b4f3" CreationDate="2019-04-24T10:14:48.640" UserId="11746" Comment="Translation options update" Text="«Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»? Есть ли в русском языкe другие поговорки с подобным посылом?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="50fc7fc7-7809-4fe4-8e74-12e0a535ff63" CreationDate="2019-04-24T12:44:28.680" UserId="9602" Comment="English grammar. I’m pretty sure it would have been “on THE knee” had it existed in English." Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on the knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used your knee as the only fulcrum. The phrase can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development environment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is applicable nearly only to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both applicable, depends on context (doing or writing). But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by a knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These tools are terrible, everything has been done on the knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Have you done your homework? Can I copy it?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I have, but better find someone else’s - I was busy yesterday and I’ve just done my homework on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment themselves on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on the knee, indeed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18467" RevisionGUID="7b8b4cf0-19e1-46b5-9a12-606f6991a015" CreationDate="2019-04-24T18:00:51.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1121111776244973573" />
  <row Id="50711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="888b928d-42c2-4bb4-b0ef-2bf4478e49c9" CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:23:33.870" UserId="10790" Text="I had been thinking “в Южную Корею” is the right way before I heard “в Южная Корею” in a movie and after searching I found both ways abound in examples." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="888b928d-42c2-4bb4-b0ef-2bf4478e49c9" CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:23:33.870" UserId="10790" Text="Which one is grammatically correct, “в Южную Корею” or “в Южная Корею”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="888b928d-42c2-4bb4-b0ef-2bf4478e49c9" CreationDate="2019-04-25T03:23:33.870" UserId="10790" Text="|прилагательные|винительный-падеж|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19471" RevisionGUID="f9c56b78-3fbe-4c35-92d4-029637b80db3" CreationDate="2019-04-25T04:32:51.553" UserId="11408" Text="Only the first form would be the correct one, you have to conjugate both words in this situation, since this geographical name is not treated as a word borrowed from another language (i.e. a foreign word). [Based on this source][1], there could be a discussion if you would say в страну Южная Корея or в страну Южную Корею, however the second option you would find more often used in everyday life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[pls. refer here for a brief explanation of conjugation of geographical names in Russian language][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/73-rubric-90&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="0689ed60-8ffa-4f74-9b93-db379d6136cc" CreationDate="2019-04-25T06:55:05.530" UserId="7674" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Genitive or Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Genitive case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of movement or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="73ffdae3-f8bb-4369-a792-8b9851503013" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:02:32.930" UserId="7674" Comment="added 252 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Genitive or Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Genitive case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of movement or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you heard might have been actually the *Genitive case* form **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`** pronounced sloppily. With a link to the relevant episode it will be possible to determine what exactly was said. If if's a movie then mistake isn't likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="4097d381-8f77-48e8-91e6-94320ca6fe64" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:13:32.707" UserId="11763" Text="[Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - /e/ has merged with /i/ (or /i/ and /ɨ/ if /ɨ/ is considered a phoneme): for instance, лиса́ (lisá) 'fox' and леса́ 'forests' are both pronounced /lʲiˈsa/, phonetically About this sound[lʲɪˈsa].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I expected прише́дшие to sound like [priʃjedʃ**i**], not [priʃjedʃ**ie**]. In other words, the sound of the unstressed e here should boil from [je] to [i] as per the rule above. Yet, it's clearly not the case. Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Unstressed_vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="4097d381-8f77-48e8-91e6-94320ca6fe64" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:13:32.707" UserId="11763" Text="How to read the unstressed е in прише́дшие?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="4097d381-8f77-48e8-91e6-94320ca6fe64" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:13:32.707" UserId="11763" Text="|ударение|фонетика|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="12daa744-cb38-4ba5-8f2f-836cd9dbd689" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:19:41.483" UserId="11763" Comment="Added a tag." Text="[Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - /e/ has merged with /i/ (or /i/ and /ɨ/ if /ɨ/ is considered a phoneme): for instance, лиса́ (lisá) 'fox' and леса́ 'forests' are both pronounced /lʲiˈsa/, phonetically About this sound[lʲɪˈsa].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I expected прише́дшие to sound like [priʃjedʃi**i**], not [priʃjedʃi**je**]. In other words, the sound of the unstressed e here should boil from [je] to [i] as per the rule above. Yet, it's clearly not the case. Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Unstressed_vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50721" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="12daa744-cb38-4ba5-8f2f-836cd9dbd689" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:19:41.483" UserId="11763" Comment="Added a tag." Text="|произношение|ударение|фонетика|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="dfc86570-eb49-4de4-8756-1c55c9aa88e3" CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:05:31.720" UserId="7674" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="67365751-6438-4aad-b263-c00512a16ee3" CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:10:33.190" UserId="7674" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated **[чч]** and thus is essentially not pronounced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="49738bdc-e274-467f-a3cb-947ab3b98182" CreationDate="2019-04-25T08:33:06.240" UserId="11763" Comment="Improved the intent." Text="[Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - /e/ has merged with /i/ (or /i/ and /ɨ/ if /ɨ/ is considered a phoneme): for instance, лиса́ (lisá) 'fox' and леса́ 'forests' are both pronounced /lʲiˈsa/, phonetically About this sound[lʲɪˈsa].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I expected прише́дшие to sound like [priʃjedʃi**i**], not [priʃjedʃi**je**]. In other words, **the sound of the unstressed e here** should boil from [je] to [i] as per the rule above. Yet, many singers (in fact, this is from the song called Журавли) actually don't pronounce that way; I hear [e] at the end of the word. Can you explain why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology#Unstressed_vowels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="c4e4118f-b88d-4ee7-bd68-acfd04b8279a" CreationDate="2019-04-25T09:49:24.150" UserId="11511" Comment="Edited both the title and the question itself." Text="Как наиболее доступным образом (по возможности, используя аналогичные английские обороты) объяснить изучающим русский язык смысл поговорки &#xD;&#xA;«Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается» ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50729" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="c4e4118f-b88d-4ee7-bd68-acfd04b8279a" CreationDate="2019-04-25T09:49:24.150" UserId="11511" Comment="Edited both the title and the question itself." Text="Cмысл поговорки «Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается.»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50730" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="c4e4118f-b88d-4ee7-bd68-acfd04b8279a" CreationDate="2019-04-25T09:49:24.150" Comment="Proposed by 11511 approved by 7674, 5605 edit id of 2040" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50731" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="ba4e6e32-8d6c-446b-bcbe-2f4bcee69a64" CreationDate="2019-04-25T09:49:44.327" UserId="11763" Comment="Fixed the title to clarify the intent." Text="How to pronounce the unstressed е in прише́дшие?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18468" RevisionGUID="86658818-f501-4692-9cab-d83b4bbf0a9e" CreationDate="2019-04-25T09:50:21.120" UserId="2104" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="It's **на коленке** - 'to make something crudely, without using any fancy tools', a botch job. **Сделано на коленке** literally means 'made on the lap'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not specific to aviation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50733" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="1b3d8394-0cdd-45d1-aa83-6429ea25e50e" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:12:25.773" />
  <row Id="50734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="788b9e56-009a-41b4-ab3c-0cec2d842e0e" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:14:07.993" UserId="7674" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Prepositional* or *Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prepositional case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of movement or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you heard might have been actually the *Prepositional case* form **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`** pronounced sloppily. With a link to the relevant episode it will be possible to determine what exactly was said. If if's a movie then mistake isn't likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50735" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="f1827935-1a3d-410f-890e-dbe3584bb534" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:18:05.023" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Cмысл поговорки «Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается»" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18436" RevisionGUID="f1827935-1a3d-410f-890e-dbe3584bb534" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:18:05.023" UserId="7674" Comment="edited title" Text="Как наиболее доступным образом (по возможности, используя аналогичные английские обороты) объяснить изучающим русский язык смысл поговорки &#xD;&#xA;«Что бы русские ни делали, всё автомат Калашникова получается» ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;P.S.: Ближайшая по посылу находка из мира животных — «Что можно ждать от свиньи кроме хрюканья» (What can you expect from a hog but a grunt). Однако, из-за негативных коннотаций этот вариант сложно назвать адекватным. Ну и вроде как автомат калашникова наша гордость, просто мы склонны делать вот таким образом.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19476" RevisionGUID="ba971164-38b3-4299-8ae7-c038d5943049" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:29:35.240" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; [Я]зык стремится к развитию, эволюции, и, активно вбирая в себя новое,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; со временем показывает тенденции к устойчивости или неустойчивости&#xD;&#xA;&gt; определенных явлений и единиц. Нельзя сказать, что язык только&#xD;&#xA;&gt; упрощается или только усложняется — оба процесса происходят&#xD;&#xA;&gt; одновременно на разных уровнях системы. Где-то происходит обобщение,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; где-то, напротив, проявляется дробность.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Упрощение [...] проявляется на примере глаголов **одолжить** и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **занять**. Словари сообщают нам, что **одолжить** — это **дать взаймы**, а **занять** — **взять взаймы**. Однако в речевой практике&#xD;&#xA;&gt; слово занять успешно справляется «за себя и за того парня».  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; `- Я могу занять у тебя денег?`    &#xD;&#xA;`— Да, я могу занять тебе немного.`&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да, бывает и так, когда слово «тянет на себя одеяло», присваивая себе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; несколько лексических значений. Пример той же тенденции — слово *одеть*,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которое в речевой практике работает за троих: *одеть, надеть и обуть*.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Мы все еще считаем ошибкой употребление слова **занять** в значении&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ‘**дать взаймы**’ [...], но язык явно пытается нам что-то сказать,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продолжая настаивать на своем.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Есения Павлоцки, лингвист-морфолог, эксперт института филологии, массовой информации и психологии Новосибирского государственного педагогического университета.*](http://archive.is/fbD7p)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="239aab11-f252-434e-8234-ca55332420be" CreationDate="2019-04-25T10:58:03.027" UserId="7674" Comment="added 762 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated **[чч]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  причастий.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и причастий **-ые**, **-ие** **`по старомосковской норме`**  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  кра′сн[ыи] (красные),  но′в[ыи] (новые), си′н[ии] (синие), раскры′т[ыи]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ии] (читающие). **`Вариантной  нормой`**  современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:   &#xD;&#xA;кра′сн[ыиь] (красные), но′в[ыиь] (новые), си′н[ииь] (синие), раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="67caa267-d06e-40da-b29e-99a1c63e8036" CreationDate="2019-04-25T11:40:40.113" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated **[чч]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа`** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  **`причастий`**.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и **`причастий`** **-ые**, **-ие** **`по старомосковской норме`**  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  кра′сн[ыи] (красные),  но′в[ыи] (новые), си′н[ии] (синие), раскры′т[ыи]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ии] (читающие). **`Вариантной  нормой`**  современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:   &#xD;&#xA;кра′сн[ыиь] (красные), но′в[ыиь] (новые), си′н[ииь] (синие), раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19477" RevisionGUID="1d2e44b0-3cbf-4d26-8b26-02a6e1a0a31b" CreationDate="2019-04-25T13:56:02.063" UserId="11752" Text="You don't have to mind the original formal rules of pronunciation. Different regions or groups may have pronunciation specific to them. But they are still accepted, meaning that there is some range of pronunciations which are widely accepted regardless of the officially accepted one. That's right, if you pronounce it as &quot;e&quot;, the word would be perfectly recognized as &quot;correct&quot; (also, you may intentionally pronounce it non-oficcially so that it would not sound similar to an almost same sounding word), albeit with the sense of &quot;dialect&quot; or something similar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="1147fbe1-006f-4e52-986f-0689d620bbac" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:01:54.010" UserId="7674" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated hard **[чч]** or a combination **[чш]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа`** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  **`причастий`**.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и **`причастий`** **-ые**, **-ие** **`по старомосковской норме`**  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  кра′сн[ыи] (красные),  но′в[ыи] (новые), си′н[ии] (синие), раскры′т[ыи]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ии] (читающие). **`Вариантной  нормой`**  современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:&#xD;&#xA;**`кра′сн[ыиь] (красные)`**, **`но′в[ыиь] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ииь] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие)`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетаниях **тш**, **дш** на месте букв **т** и **д** в беглой речи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносится звук **[т]** с некоторым фрикативным шипящим элементом, т. е. по существу **твердая аффриката [ч]**: **`приве′[чш]ый (приведший)`**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`обве[чш]а′лый`**, **`мла′[чш]ий`**, **`по[чш]у′бой`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Аванесов - «Русское литературное произношение»](http://archive.is/nPG08)*, p. 188&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="c10af8e2-f2e5-4621-930f-ad08a023855b" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:09:34.020" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated hard **[чч]** or is assimilated to form a combination **[чш]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа`** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  **`причастий`**.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и **`причастий`** **-ые**, **-ие** **`по старомосковской норме`**  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  кра′сн[ыи] (красные),  но′в[ыи] (новые), си′н[ии] (синие), раскры′т[ыи]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ии] (читающие). **`Вариантной  нормой`**  современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:&#xD;&#xA;**`кра′сн[ыиь] (красные)`**, **`но′в[ыиь] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ииь] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие)`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетаниях **тш**, **дш** на месте букв **т** и **д** в беглой речи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносится звук **[т]** с некоторым фрикативным шипящим элементом, т. е. по существу **твердая аффриката [ч]**: **`приве′[чш]ый (приведший)`**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`обве[чш]а′лый`**, **`мла′[чш]ий`**, **`по[чш]у′бой`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Аванесов - «Русское литературное произношение»](http://archive.is/nPG08)*, p. 188&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="21c32bb4-12c8-467c-a549-3e6743fac97b" CreationDate="2019-04-25T14:33:58.020" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Prepositional* or *Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prepositional case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of motion or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you heard might have actually been the *Prepositional case* form **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`** pronounced sloppily. With a link to the relevant episode it will be possible to determine what exactly was said. If if's a movie then mistake isn't likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18444" RevisionGUID="c67c6bf4-cfdb-4740-8e12-d070ff8307ca" CreationDate="2019-04-25T15:00:36.403" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1121428803157483520" />
  <row Id="50747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17847" RevisionGUID="1374897c-48f5-4126-8741-960065880b43" CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:22:57.843" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Your renderings are correct. In one sentence superlative can be formed with `всего` as well, which sound more natural in a reordered sequence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Lena sings the loudest. - Громче всего (всех) поёт Лена&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is when there's a need to stress who specifically sings the loudest in a group of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всех` conveys a sense of superiority within a collective of individuals either finite or unlimited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Superlative degree fashioned with `всего` may mean superiority in other terms and be qualified by surrounding content, therefore the two types may not always be used interchangeably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) Ирина пишет **красивее всех** *(Irina has the most beautiful handwriting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [among her peers/all the people in the world])*    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Красивее всего** Ирина писала, когда училась в школе&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *(The most beautiful handwriting [of all times] Irina had while in school)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Сегодня я устал **сильнее всех** *(Today i got tired more than anyone [of my co-workers])*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) Сегодня я устал **сильней всего** *(Today [of all times] i got tired the most)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;a) Названы ***регионы России, где*** пенсионеры живут **хуже всего** *(the worst out of all Russian regions / worse than anywhere else in Russia)*  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;b) **Хуже всего** людям жилось на Земле ***1,5 тысячи лет назад*** *(the worst out of all other periods / worst ever)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some adverbs may assume synthetic superlative form in which case the gender is Neuter, but this form is rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Лена поёт *тишайше*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я ему *строжайше* запретил&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Покорнейше* прошу *(antiquated)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ему всегда давали самую черную работу, и он ее *усерднейше*, *кропотливейше* выполнял (Е. Евтушенко)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="b8220a4e-edfd-431d-b1b0-66ff6e6e76f5" CreationDate="2019-04-25T19:14:56.700" UserId="7674" Comment="added 419 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated hard **[чч]** or is assimilated to form a combination **[чш]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа`** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  **`причастий`**.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и **`причастий`** **-ые**, **-ие** **`по старомосковской норме`**  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  кра′сн[ыи] (красные),  но′в[ыи] (новые), си′н[ии] (синие), раскры′т[ыи]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (раскрытые), чита′ющ[ии] (читающие). **`Вариантной  нормой`**  современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:&#xD;&#xA;**`кра′сн[ыиь] (красные)`**, **`но′в[ыиь] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ииь] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие)`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетаниях **тш**, **дш** на месте букв **т** и **д** в беглой речи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносится звук **[т]** с некоторым фрикативным шипящим элементом, т. е. по существу **твердая аффриката [ч]**: **`приве′[чш]ый (приведший)`**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`обве[чш]а′лый`**, **`мла′[чш]ий`**, **`по[чш]у′бой`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Аванесов - «Русское литературное произношение»](http://archive.is/nPG08)*, p. 188&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;[**Video examples of pronunciation**](https://youtu.be/MF9Ji4bHVdc) from [Russian National Corpus' multimedia database](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;req=%AB%EF%F0%E8%F8%E5%27%E4%F8%E8%E5%BB) where difference between speech and singing is apparent in particular.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="7703e01b-2a16-408f-a5a9-1a058077bcbe" CreationDate="2019-04-25T20:11:16.733" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated hard **[чч]** or is assimilated to form a combination **[чш]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа` &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  `причастий`.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и `причастий` **-ые**, **-ие** `по старомосковской норме`  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  **`кра′сн[ыи] (красные)`**,  **`но′в[ыи] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ии] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыи] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ии] (читающие)`**. `Вариантной  нормой` современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:&#xD;&#xA;**`кра′сн[ыиь] (красные)`**, **`но′в[ыиь] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ииь] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие)`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетаниях **тш**, **дш** на месте букв **т** и **д** в беглой речи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносится звук **[т]** с некоторым фрикативным шипящим элементом, т. е. по существу **твердая аффриката [ч]**: **`приве′[чш]ый (приведший)`**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`обве[чш]а′лый`**, **`мла′[чш]ий`**, **`по[чш]у′бой`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Аванесов - «Русское литературное произношение»](http://archive.is/nPG08)*, p. 188&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;[**Video examples of pronunciation**](https://youtu.be/MF9Ji4bHVdc) from [Russian National Corpus' multimedia database](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;req=%AB%EF%F0%E8%F8%E5%27%E4%F8%E8%E5%BB) where difference between speech and singing is apparent in particular.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19479" RevisionGUID="3a594f48-a9f1-4d54-b775-dd3abbe904a0" CreationDate="2019-04-25T23:38:33.320" UserId="11771" Text="I searched it on yandex images but there doesn't seem to be a really exact definition? Isn't it a noun?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19479" RevisionGUID="3a594f48-a9f1-4d54-b775-dd3abbe904a0" CreationDate="2019-04-25T23:38:33.320" UserId="11771" Text="What does раз mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19479" RevisionGUID="3a594f48-a9f1-4d54-b775-dd3abbe904a0" CreationDate="2019-04-25T23:38:33.320" UserId="11771" Text="|перевод|значения|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="919c87e5-2045-4ee1-add4-dd4e561c56e2" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:05:54.897" UserId="11511" Text="I have to offer a correction to the interpretation suggested here by some colleagues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it indeed is correct that &quot;делать на коленке&quot; implies a job done in a rush and with limited resources, this saying does not always mean poor quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More often than not, it does: &quot;Учебник написан кое-как. Чувствуется, что автор составлял его на коленке, используя наброски своих лекций.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, on some occasions &quot;делать на коленке&quot; is deliberately employed to emphasise the scarcity of resources and lack of time, with high quality nonetheless achieved. I recall a sentence about the birth of the Israeli military industry, which I read somewhere and which I am quoting from memory: &quot;У израильских конструкторов не было ни наработок, ни времени, ни передового оборудования, и первые образцы автомата &quot;Узи&quot; были ими созданы буквально на коленке.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19481" RevisionGUID="dadf0fc2-1ae7-45d6-ba3b-a1a4789ddf15" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:18:20.437" UserId="11511" Text="@Arhad said it right. To his answer, I would only add that on some occasions &quot;раз&quot; is used in the meaning &quot;once&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раз явился я на работу раньше положенного.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In combination with &quot;однажды&quot;, it can mean &quot;once upon a time&quot;, though this is a rare situation (and very conversational). This is an example from Vyssotsky's song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раз однажды гулял по столице я.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in gymnastics or in the army, your coach or sergeant can command &quot;Раз-два!&quot; оr &quot;Раз-два-три!&quot; to give you rhythm. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19480" RevisionGUID="bd51a11e-9984-457f-b790-e838893c6e71" CreationDate="2019-04-26T01:20:19.500" UserId="11511" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I would offer an amendment to the interpretation suggested here by @makaleks and @Sergey Slepov.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it indeed is correct that &quot;делать на коленке&quot; implies a job done in a rush and with limited resources, this saying does not always mean poor quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More often than not, it does: &quot;Учебник написан кое-как. Чувствуется, что автор составлял его на коленке, используя наброски своих лекций.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, on some occasions &quot;делать на коленке&quot; is deliberately employed to emphasise the scarcity of resources and lack of time, with high quality nonetheless achieved. I recall a sentence about the birth of the Israeli military industry, which I read somewhere and which I am quoting from memory: &quot;У израильских конструкторов не было ни наработок, ни времени, ни передового оборудования, и первые образцы автомата &quot;Узи&quot; были ими созданы буквально на коленке.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19482" RevisionGUID="61a0137d-afa3-4af1-bbb8-d3fcef78ed37" CreationDate="2019-04-26T02:37:21.267" UserId="11408" Text="To add to all the previous explanations, Раз is one of these multifaceted words in Russian, that as a part of speech, раз can be not only a noun - it depends on its use and meaning, and in time and with practice you will get used to the complexity of using it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a **noun**, раз can indicate an instance of previous events, situations, actions, as @Arhad gave examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2) &quot;once again he did it&quot; = в который раз он это сделал;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or an occurrence,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) &quot;once and for all&quot; = раз и навсегда*; What time do I hee him (again)? = Который раз я его вижу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or indicate how much something has increased/decreased:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Цены на хлеб выросли в пять раз.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a **pronoun**, it means &quot;one&quot;, like in the [above example][1]: &quot;Раз-два!&quot; оr &quot;Раз-два-три!&quot; or in a famous children's song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз словечко, два словечко - будет песенка.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as an **adverb**, раз means once, one day, once upon a time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз в крещенский вечерок девушки гадали. (с) Vasily Zhukovsky&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also act as a **verb**, indicating unexpected quick action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ньютон сидел под деревом и раз - ему на голову упало яблоко. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раз can also serve as a **conjunction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз ты не хочешь делиться яблоком, то я не поделюсь с тобой шоколадкой.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19481/11408&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19482" RevisionGUID="682dcff7-2bbb-461b-b95e-acfb3af2106f" CreationDate="2019-04-26T02:52:10.117" UserId="11408" Comment="added 304 characters in body" Text="To add to all the previous explanations, Раз is one of these multifaceted words in Russian, that as a part of speech, раз can be not only a noun - it depends on its use and meaning, and in time and with practice you will get used to the complexity of using it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a **noun**, раз can indicate an instance of previous events, situations, actions, as @Arhad gave examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  2) &quot;once again he did it&quot; = в который раз он это сделал;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or an occurrence,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) &quot;once and for all&quot; = раз и навсегда*; What time do I hee him (again)? = Который раз я его вижу?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or indicate how much something has increased/decreased:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Цены на хлеб выросли в пять раз. - Bread prices have increased five times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a **pronoun**, it means &quot;one&quot;, like in the [above example][1]: &quot;Раз-два!&quot; оr &quot;Раз-два-три!&quot; or in a famous children's song:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз словечко, два словечко - будет песенка. - One - word, two - word, here goes a song.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as an **adverb**, раз means once, one day, once upon a time: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз в крещенский вечерок девушки гадали. (с) Vasily Zhukovsky - Once on Epiphany Eve, girls were fortune-telling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also act as a **verb**, indicating unexpected quick action:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Ньютон сидел под деревом и раз - ему на голову упало яблоко. Newton was sitting under a tree and poof - an apple fell down onto his head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Раз can also serve as a **conjunction**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз ты не хочешь делиться яблоком, то я не поделюсь с тобой шоколадкой. Since you don't want to share your apple with me, I won't share my chocolate with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19481/11408&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50759" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18431" RevisionGUID="b3affec8-21a6-460f-8a3a-e8e3509f2345" CreationDate="2019-04-26T03:00:56.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1121610080590475264" />
  <row Id="50760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18002" RevisionGUID="551497bc-4f35-4339-bfa7-898304a39c41" CreationDate="2019-04-26T03:05:44.567" UserId="11408" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**в первую очередь** can mean **mainly, chiefly**, but it also often implies some order, listing. While it's not explicit and necessary, it has more of an implicit undertone and gives you a freedom to continue with a list. e.g. **for him profit came first, then interest**. So often in a conversation you would also use a construction implying a sequence: **в первую очередь нажива, потом интерес**. Hence, from the grammatical point of view, **в первую очередь** in the first meaning has a function of an adverbial expression, in the second case it tends more to a parenthetical phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на первом месте** means more &quot;in the first place, above all else&quot;. And besides, it is more of a stand alone phrase/construction, e.g. **in the first place for him was profit**. While you could continue also with giving a list **in the second place, etc**, you feel much less obliged to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18002" RevisionGUID="4428ca49-b6a1-4038-adfb-b28aff3f8172" CreationDate="2019-04-26T03:19:28.047" UserId="11408" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="**в первую очередь** can mean **mainly, chiefly**, but it also often implies some order, listing. While it's not explicit and necessary, it has more of an implicit undertone and gives you a freedom to continue with a list. e.g. **for him profit came first, then interest**. So often in a conversation you would also use a construction implying a sequence: **в первую очередь нажива, потом интерес**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, from the grammatical point of view, **в первую очередь** in the first meaning has a function of an adverbial expression (В первую очередь для него была нажива - For him profit was above all), in the second case it tends more to a parenthetical phrase (В первую очередь (во-первых), для него была важна нажива, потом (во вторую очередь) интерес).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**на первом месте** means more &quot;in the first place, above all else&quot;. And besides, it is more of a stand alone phrase/construction, e.g. **in the first place for him was profit**. While you could continue also with giving a list **in the second place, etc**, you feel much less obliged to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="dc717377-aba1-4fa3-b5a3-522ad23c2fcc" CreationDate="2019-04-26T08:24:22.223" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Prepositional* or *Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prepositional case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of motion or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where? / whither?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you heard might have actually been the *Prepositional case* form **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`** pronounced sloppily. With a link to the relevant episode it will be possible to determine what exactly was said. If if's a movie then mistake isn't likely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50763" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19479" RevisionGUID="35a84875-77c6-4bb2-b86f-597b03cf93aa" CreationDate="2019-04-26T09:59:55.023" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:10999,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ivan Olshansky&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="17846" RevisionGUID="3076c901-6f4a-4f41-88ea-ec7677737de6" CreationDate="2019-04-26T12:00:24.643" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1121745843185496065" />
  <row Id="50765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="76ad9161-3fcd-4da4-a95b-430a5c3c1f7a" CreationDate="2019-04-26T14:06:24.080" UserId="11395" Text="Good question. Being a native speaker, I just pronounced this word a few times to see how I actually pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pronunciation is as follows: прашéдши-и. The ending as as follows: I start pronouncing the ''и'' sound, then it gets quieter, and then loud again, but does not break in the middle. It is like two waves, so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I speak fast (i.e., as usual in everyday communications) and use this word in a sentence, then the vowels practically get swallowed. For example, I pronounce the expression ''прошедшие экзамены'' like ''пршедшикзамьны,'' very fast and barely distinct enough for a native speaker to recognise what I am saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various dialects in Russia, and mine is the Moscow one, notorious for fast indistinct pronunciation and preference of ''a'' over ''о.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other dialects the word ''прошедшие'' may sound differently. To give you an idea how different Russian dialects are, I point to the Novgorod dialect (''новгородский выговор''), in which the city name ''Новгород'' is pronounced exactly as written, with three distinct ''о,'' whereas I pronounce the same word rather as ''Навгрд.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="da76aa39-f4d0-4cca-b68d-99592bf152f2" CreationDate="2019-04-26T14:20:49.407" UserId="11395" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Good question. Being a native speaker, I just pronounced this word a few times to see how I actually pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pronunciation is as follows: прашéдши-и. The ending as as follows: I start pronouncing the ''и'' sound, then it gets quieter, and then loud again, but does not break in the middle. It is like two waves, so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I speak fast (i.e., as usual in everyday communications) and use this word in a sentence, then all vowels practically get swallowed (i.e., are almost not pronounced at all). For example, I pronounce the expression ''прошедшие экзамены'' like ''пршедшикзамьны,'' very fast and barely distinct enough for a native speaker to recognise what I am saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various dialects in Russia, and mine is the Moscow one, notorious for fast indistinct pronunciation and preference of ''a'' over ''о.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other dialects the word ''прошедшие'' may sound differently. To give you an idea how different Russian dialects are, I point to the Novgorod dialect (''новгородский выговор''), in which the city name ''Новгород'' is pronounced exactly as written, with three distinct ''о,'' whereas I pronounce the same word rather as ''Навгрд.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="4acb1b84-138d-4187-916f-0f3a5ea38767" CreationDate="2019-04-26T14:31:29.103" UserId="11395" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Good question. Being a native speaker, I just pronounced this word a few times to see how I actually pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pronunciation is as follows: пришéдши-и. The part after ''ш'' is as follows: I start pronouncing the ''и'' sound, then it gets quieter, and then loud again, but does not break in the middle. It is like two waves, so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I speak fast (i.e., as usual in everyday communications) and use this word in a sentence, then all vowels practically get swallowed (i.e., are almost not pronounced at all). For example, I pronounce the expression ''пришедшие солдаты'' like ''прьшедшислдаты,'' very fast and barely distinct enough for a native speaker to recognise what I am saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various dialects in Russia, and mine is the Moscow one, notorious for fast indistinct pronunciation and preference of ''a'' over ''о.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other dialects the word ''пришедшие'' may sound differently. To give you an idea how different Russian dialects are, I point to the Novgorod dialect (''новгородский выговор''), in which the city name ''Новгород'' is pronounced exactly as written, with three distinct ''о,'' whereas I pronounce the same word rather as ''Навгрд.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19474" RevisionGUID="e63cf52e-4950-43cf-9086-f6dfa692e68f" CreationDate="2019-04-26T14:47:46.457" UserId="7674" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="Your expectation is justified, in speech **прише́дшие** is indeed pronounced like [pri**ʃ**jedʃi**i**], the final [е] gets reduced, **пришеччыи**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transcription [priʃjedʃije] is also wrong about pronunсiation of **[д]** which here merges with **[ш]** to form geminated hard **[чч]** or is assimilated to form a combination **[чш]** and thus is essentially not pronounced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; `Произношение окончания именительного падежа множественного  числа` &#xD;&#xA;&gt; прилагательных  и  `причастий`.  В  этой  форме  орфографические &#xD;&#xA;&gt; окончания прилагательных и `причастий` **-ые**, **-ие** `по старомосковской норме`  произносятся  как **[ыи]**, **[ии]**:  **`кра′сн[ыи] (красные)`**,  **`но′в[ыи] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ии] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыи] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ии] (читающие)`**. `Вариантной  нормой` современного русского  литературного  языка  является произношение  орфографических сочетаний **-ые**, **-ие**  как **[ииь]**, **[ыиь]**:&#xD;&#xA;**`кра′сн[ыиь] (красные)`**, **`но′в[ыиь] (новые)`**, **`си′н[ииь] (синие)`**, **`раскры′т[ыиь] (раскрытые)`**, **`чита′ющ[ииь] (читающие)`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*Мусатов В.Н. — «Русский язык. Фонетика. Фонология. Орфоэпия. Графика. Орфография»*, p. 175&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В сочетаниях **тш**, **дш** на месте букв **т** и **д** в беглой речи&#xD;&#xA;&gt; произносится звук **[т]** с некоторым фрикативным шипящим элементом, т. е. по существу **твердая аффриката [ч]**: **`приве′[чш]ый (приведший)`**,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **`обве[чш]а′лый (обветшалый)`**, **`мла′[чш]ий (младший)`**, **`по[чш]у′бой (под шубой)`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*Аванесов - «Русское литературное произношение»](http://archive.is/nPG08)*, p. 188&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;[**Examples of `пришедшие` pronunciation**](https://youtu.be/MF9Ji4bHVdc) from [Russian National Corpus' multimedia database](http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?&amp;env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexform&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;req=%AB%EF%F0%E8%F8%E5%27%E4%F8%E8%E5%BB) where difference between speech and singing is apparent in particular.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="6f112997-d7a0-49ad-a82e-6804726c3454" CreationDate="2019-04-26T18:46:14.187" UserId="11395" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="Good question. Being a native speaker, I just pronounced this word a few times to see how I actually pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pronunciation is as follows: пришéдши-и. The part after ''ш'' is as follows: I start pronouncing the ''и'' sound, then it gets quieter, and then loud again, but does not break in the middle. It is like two waves, so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronounce the following word considering it English: pre-shed-shee-ee. This is practically identical to how I pronounce ''пришедшие.'' The syllable in ''shee'' is like in ''sheep.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I speak fast (i.e., as usual in everyday communications) and use this word in a sentence, then all vowels practically get swallowed (i.e., are almost not pronounced at all). For example, I pronounce the expression ''пришедшие солдаты'' like ''прьшедшислдаты,'' very fast and barely distinct enough for a native speaker to recognise what I am saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various dialects in Russia, and mine is the Moscow one, notorious for fast indistinct pronunciation and preference of ''a'' over ''о.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other dialects the word ''пришедшие'' may sound differently. To give you an idea how different Russian dialects are, I point to the Novgorod dialect (''новгородский выговор''), in which the city name ''Новгород'' is pronounced exactly as written, with three distinct ''о,'' whereas I pronounce the same word rather as ''Навгрд.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="dc858546-00dd-405f-b168-862fcf1b1bc4" CreationDate="2019-04-26T19:05:57.113" UserId="11395" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Good question. Being a native speaker, I just pronounced this word a few times to see how I actually pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pronunciation is as follows: пришéдши-и. The part after ''ш'' is as follows: I start pronouncing the ''и'' sound, then it gets quieter, and then loud again, but does not break in the middle. It is like two waves, so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronounce the following word considering it English: pre-shed-shee-ee. This is practically identical to how I pronounce ''пришедшие.'' The syllable ''shee'' is like in ''sheep.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I speak fast (i.e., as usual in everyday communications) and use this word in a sentence, then all vowels practically get swallowed (i.e., are almost not pronounced at all). For example, I pronounce the expression ''пришедшие солдаты'' like ''прьшедшислдаты,'' very fast and barely distinct enough for a native speaker to recognise what I am saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various dialects in Russia, and mine is the Moscow one, notorious for fast indistinct pronunciation and preference of ''a'' over ''о.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other dialects the word ''пришедшие'' may sound differently. To give you an idea how different Russian dialects are, I point to the Novgorod dialect (''новгородский выговор''), in which the city name ''Новгород'' is pronounced exactly as written, with three distinct ''о,'' whereas I pronounce the same word rather as ''Навгрд.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="77885816-504a-42cd-b573-380c0a5daacb" CreationDate="2019-04-26T19:36:20.920" UserId="11107" Comment="One more positive example added" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on the knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used your knee as the only fulcrum. The phrase can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development environment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is applicable nearly only to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both applicable, depends on context (doing or writing). But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by a knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These tools are terrible, everything has been done on the knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Наша компания вышла в лидеры не потому, что какой-нибудь олигарх предоставил нам лучшее оборудование - свои первые устройства мы создавали в гараже на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Our company became a leader not because some oligarch supplied us with the best equipment - our first devices were created in the garage on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Have you done your homework? Can I copy it?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I have, but better find someone else’s - I was busy yesterday and I’ve just done my homework on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment themselves on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on the knee, indeed!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="5ad92228-e460-48b2-985b-6976ae1dabec" CreationDate="2019-04-26T19:47:02.170" UserId="11107" Comment="One more positive example added" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on the knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used your knee as the only fulcrum. The phrase can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development environment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is applicable nearly only to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both applicable, depends on context (doing or writing). But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by a knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These tools are terrible, everything has been done on the knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Наша компания вышла в лидеры не потому, что какой-нибудь олигарх предоставил нам лучшее оборудование - свои первые устройства мы создавали в гараже на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Our company became a leader not because some oligarch supplied us with the best equipment - our first devices were created in the garage on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Have you done your homework? Can I copy it?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I have, but better find someone else’s - I was busy yesterday and I’ve just done my homework on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment themselves on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on the knee, indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я не знаю, почему мой робот победил в конкурсе, ведь я сделал его только вчера на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I don't know, why my robot has won the competition, because I made it just yesterday on the knee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19483" RevisionGUID="be242793-054f-42c2-978e-14483994d137" CreationDate="2019-04-26T19:49:21.610" UserId="11395" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Good question. Being a native speaker, I just pronounced this word a few times to see how I actually pronounce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pronunciation is as follows: пришéдши-и. The part after ''ш'' is as follows: I start pronouncing the ''и'' sound, then it gets quieter, and then loud again, but does not break in the middle. It is like two waves, so to speak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pronounce the following word considering it English: pre-shed-shee-ee. This is practically identical to how I pronounce ''пришедшие.'' The syllable ''shee'' is like in ''sheep.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I speak fast (i.e., as usual in everyday communications) and use ''пришедшие'' in a sentence, then all vowels practically get swallowed (i.e., are almost not pronounced at all). For example, I pronounce the expression ''пришедшие солдаты'' like ''прьшедшислдаты,'' very fast and barely distinct enough for a native speaker to recognise what I am saying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are various dialects in Russia, and mine is the Moscow one, notorious for fast indistinct pronunciation and preference of ''a'' over ''о.''&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other dialects the word ''пришедшие'' may sound differently. To give you an idea how different Russian dialects are, I point to the Novgorod dialect (''новгородский выговор''), in which the city name ''Новгород'' is pronounced exactly as written, with three distinct ''о,'' whereas I pronounce the same word rather as ''Навгрд.''" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="569df411-e90b-40e4-b033-280ad6a068ce" CreationDate="2019-04-26T20:06:48.720" UserId="11107" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on the knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used your knee as the only fulcrum. The phrase can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development environment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is applicable nearly only to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both applicable, depends on context (doing or writing). But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by a knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These tools are terrible, everything has been done on the knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Наша компания вышла в лидеры не потому, что какой-нибудь олигарх предоставил нам лучшее оборудование - свои первые устройства мы создавали в гараже на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Our company became a leader not because some oligarch supplied us with the best equipment - our first devices were created in the garage on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Have you done your homework? Can I copy it?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I have, but better find someone else’s - I was busy yesterday and I’ve just done my homework on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment themselves on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on the knee, indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я не знаю, почему мой робот победил в конкурсе, ведь я сделал его только вчера на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I don't know, why my robot has won the competition, because I made it just yesterday on the knee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18469" RevisionGUID="ef1605da-298d-47a1-b30f-f04df507eef9" CreationDate="2019-04-26T20:35:33.427" UserId="11107" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Could that be '**сделано на коленке**'='made on the knee'? This is said when some result was made paying less time to the process and having lower quality potential. Like if you could not (or felt lazy to) use table, but used your knee as the only fulcrum. The phrase can be used not only to underline low quality of some thing, but also in informal speech, when you mark that some good result was achieved in terrible development environment or that some job took surprisingly low time and effort. The phrase is quite expressive, so it is applicable nearly only to informal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can guess, 'сделано/написано'='done/written' - both applicable, depends on context (doing or writing). But you definitely can't use 'придумано,изучено,прочитано...'='devised,explored,read...' - the action requires table that can be replaced by a knee in extreme conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ужасные инструменты, всё сделано на коленке!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- These tools are terrible, everything has been done on the knee!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Наша компания вышла в лидеры не потому, что какой-нибудь олигарх предоставил нам лучшее оборудование - свои первые устройства мы создавали в гараже на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Our company became a leader not because some oligarch supplied us with the best equipment - our first devices we created in the garage on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Ты сделал домашнее задание? Дашь списать?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Сделал, но лучше поищи другое - я был занят вчера и своё домашнее задание сделал только что на коленке&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Have you done your homework? Can I copy it?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I have, but better find someone else’s - I was busy yesterday and I’ve just done my homework on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- В момент основания института финансирование было очень мало, поэтому первые лабораторные установки были собраны на коленке самими студентами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- When the institute was founded, the financing was very low, so students made the first laboratory equipment themselves on the knee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Они заклеивают крыло скотчем! Неужели весь самолёт был сделан на коленке?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- They are sticking the adhesive tape on a wing! The whole airplane was made on the knee, indeed!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- Я не знаю, почему мой робот победил в конкурсе, ведь я сделал его только вчера на коленке  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; \- I don't know, why my robot has won in the competition, because I made it just yesterday on the knee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="ef432a96-b2d8-4fad-9120-1be29fbb5745" CreationDate="2019-04-26T22:47:36.923" UserId="11771" Text="Literally, the very first thing in Russian that I learned was the phrase &quot;я не очень хорошо говорю по русски&quot; so I know that по русски is pronounced pa ruski, but I was adding a pronunciation for the word по on Anki and it's actually po and not pa? Am I saying something wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="ef432a96-b2d8-4fad-9120-1be29fbb5745" CreationDate="2019-04-26T22:47:36.923" UserId="11771" Text="Why is по pronounced &quot;po&quot; but по русски is pronounced pa-ruski? Or am I saying one of them wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="ef432a96-b2d8-4fad-9120-1be29fbb5745" CreationDate="2019-04-26T22:47:36.923" UserId="11771" Text="|выбор-слова|произношение|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="a9978fc9-e0b4-41d1-8a78-46a36e70a04a" CreationDate="2019-04-27T02:31:37.730" UserId="11775" Text="I've got these two questions in my homework at my university in Japan, where I learn Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (...). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (...)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) рассориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) перессориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) рассориваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) перессориваться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm at a loss as to what to choose and why. Could you explain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50781" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="a9978fc9-e0b4-41d1-8a78-46a36e70a04a" CreationDate="2019-04-27T02:31:37.730" UserId="11775" Text="Difference between рассориться, перессориться, рассориваться, and перессорриваться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50782" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="a9978fc9-e0b4-41d1-8a78-46a36e70a04a" CreationDate="2019-04-27T02:31:37.730" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="22c9d78c-03c8-4779-a075-cf9b440986ce" CreationDate="2019-04-27T04:43:13.000" UserId="11752" Text="First of all, you have to doubt their proficiency level. For them, they most likely learn the &quot;correct&quot; patterns regardless of the meaning. Don't ask for impossible, people won't put up with student-teacher interaction within the limitations and for relatively minor salary (note, that in Japan there is also an unofficial job obtaining system through relatives, bribes and so on). So, the actual benefit of being a teacher is salary - moral damage from the students - implied unofficial debt for arranging the job place (that's if the person doesn't abandon his or her duties). So, basically, you get a person responsible for watching over the students performing certain educational routines, with moderate amount of knowledge. Note, that it is a part of the reality and you can't demand more for the tiny amount of education fee paid by you or someone else in-your-stead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, there are situations where all of the options above would be correct, depending on your intentions. So here are the definitions of the terms you provided so that you would understand where to pick the particular choice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;рассориться - the assumption is there is or is going to be an ongoing conflict of a quarrel type and that you are going to cease the communication with one or more person afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;перессориться - there is no assumption of being in a conflict, and the implied intention is to enter the conflict with mostly one person. You can use it in a slightly derogatory meaning towards the team or many people, implying that you take them as just a single herd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next 2 terms are approximately the same, with the difference that you would be hypothetically considering a possibility of conflict, or, more importantly, some actions which would **START** the conflict.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50784" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="e6020035-e0bc-44d2-9b84-f2aff7318167" CreationDate="2019-04-27T07:11:45.063" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|произношение|редукция-гласных|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50786" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19473" RevisionGUID="ec0ff3e8-c65b-4ac4-a4fc-184c10b557d5" CreationDate="2019-04-27T09:00:42.807" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1122063008707043329" />
  <row Id="50788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19486" RevisionGUID="05c1ad34-b43f-473c-9d3d-31308e3a0f91" CreationDate="2019-04-27T11:03:56.700" UserId="134" Comment="deleted 895 characters in body" Text="There are situations where all of the options above would be correct, depending on your intentions. So here are the definitions of the terms you provided so that you would understand where to pick the particular choice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;рассориться - the assumption is there is or is going to be an ongoing conflict of a quarrel type and that you are going to cease the communication with one or more person afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;перессориться - there is no assumption of being in a conflict, and the implied intention is to enter the conflict with mostly one person. You can use it in a slightly derogatory meaning towards the team or many people, implying that you take them as just a single herd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next 2 terms are approximately the same, with the difference that you would be hypothetically considering a possibility of conflict, or, more importantly, some actions which would **START** the conflict.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50789" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19484" RevisionGUID="56442c56-8630-4f15-8d5a-3d10868f6bf8" CreationDate="2019-04-27T11:11:35.957" UserId="134" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7261],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="df6c0dd2-1d1c-4ded-97cc-ea759ed8bbc3" CreationDate="2019-04-27T15:04:30.223" UserId="11775" Comment="added 3196 characters in body" Text="I've got these two questions in my homework at my university in Japan, where I learn Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (...). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (...)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) рассориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) перессориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) рассориваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) перессориваться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm at a loss as to what to choose and why. Could you explain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Encouraged by respected members of the forum, I am humbly sharing my own naive thoughts. I beg your pardon if I say anything wrong about your wonderful language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions seem to have two separate dimensions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **пере**- vs **рас**- &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - perfective aspect vs imperfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with the first dimension, I checked the meanings in Wiktionary ([рассориться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F &quot;&quot;), [перессориться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F &quot;&quot;)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рассориться: сильно поссориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; перессориться: поссориться со всеми или между собой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These definitions as they stand seem to suggest that **рассориться** reflects the depth of the conflict in terms of emotional strength or importance, whilst **перессориться** points out the width of the conflict in terms of the number of people (or maybe issues) involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other verbs having **рас**- or **пере**-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; раздать что-то: to give something out (to a group of people)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; передать что-то:  to pass something (to somebody)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the pattern is precisely the opposite: now **раз**- means dealing with a group people, not **пере**-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at other verb pairs, such as **разрубить-перерубить**, **разубедить-переубедить**, I got even more confused as I failed to deduce any common denominator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thus unsure whether the definitions given in Wiktionary are complete and accurate, and I seem to be too shallow to see the deep underlying logic behind these prefixes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the second dimension (perfective vs imperfective), I checked in Google that **ни к чему делать** is more than 10 times more common than **ни к чему сделать**. Using this analogy I am tempted to choose answer (c) to Question 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I am at a loss as to what the underlying logic is. Exactly what is wrong, unnatural, or illogical in using **ни к чему** in conjunction with the perfective aspect of a verb? The perfective aspect means the outcome of a completed action. What is unnatural in saying that it not useful to have a certain outcome (**ни к чему сделать**)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Question 2 the phrase seems to be rhetoric, but is it supposed to be about the outcome or process? Again, I used Google and found a few results with **как можно перессориться** and none with **как можно перессориваться**. This is a hint that answer (b) is correct, but exactly why is it correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please accept my apologies if I overwhelmed you with my naive and chaotic thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="bc2086b2-ded0-4f28-b82c-34315e1d4712" CreationDate="2019-04-27T19:45:34.800" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. The answer as to why is difficult, because this requirement doesn't seem to based on hard and fast rules. One explanation could be that *imperfective aspect* is very often preferred in negation. But again, this is not an absolute rule.  &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible meaning.  &#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="b5e2bab0-6c57-4bca-81f4-38b945276cdd" CreationDate="2019-04-27T20:08:18.420" UserId="7674" Comment="added 503 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. The answer as to why is difficult, because this requirement doesn't seem to based on hard and fast rules. One explanation could be that *imperfective aspect* is very often preferred in negation. But again, this is not an absolute rule.  &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. Here **было** would be incorrect. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility, OR **`Зачем было из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which requires *imperfective* aspect due to its construction which uses combination **`interrogative word + было`** (like *куда было, когда было, где было, к чему было, с кем было* and a lot more) connoting a continuous process or a frequent occurrence in the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="a48f1e89-267e-4502-a2ce-c7f41c1b8fce" CreationDate="2019-04-28T07:13:51.000" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1112 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. In itself its a modal construction because as evident from the sentence it requires verb in infinitive form.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason i think is that *imperfective aspect* is normally preferred in negated modality of general and deontic (requisite, that of duty) types (but not epystemic, the one which denotes probability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Есть, однако контекст, где замена СВ на НСВ при отрицании обязательна. Это контекст отрицаемой модальности&lt;/b&gt;, см. Рассудова 1982: 120-127.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt;Отрицание в контексте модальности необходимости, общей и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; деонтической, требует инфинитива глагола в несов. виде: &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть &lt;/em&gt;окно – Не надо &lt;em&gt;открывать&lt;/em&gt; окно (*не надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть&lt;/em&gt;); &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Ты должен (т.е. обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты не должен (т.е. не обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помогать&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*&lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Какими бы средствами ни выражалось значение&#xD;&#xA;ненужности действия, инфинитив должен быть в несов. виде&lt;/b&gt; (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассудова 1982: 122): &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Да надо ли вам &lt;i&gt;обращаться&lt;/i&gt; к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этому человеку? &lt;/br&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Мне не рекомендовали &lt;i&gt;сажать&lt;/i&gt; эти деревья, К чему &lt;i&gt;возражать&lt;/i&gt;? &lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Не за что его &lt;i&gt;благодарить&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;/br&gt;Он не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; велел &lt;i&gt;подчеркивать&lt;/i&gt;, и др.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;source: **rusgram.ru** [*6.2.3. Несов.вид инфинитива в контексте отрицательной модальности*](http://rusgram.ru/Отрицание#6_2)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. Here **было** would be incorrect. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility, OR **`Зачем было из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which requires *imperfective* aspect due to its construction which uses combination **`interrogative word + было`** (like *куда было, когда было, где было, к чему было, с кем было* and a lot more) connoting a continuous process or a frequent occurrence in the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="0b8a8ca9-a98f-4a56-bad1-8b230ff42b82" CreationDate="2019-04-28T09:11:32.260" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. In itself its a modal construction because as evident from the sentence it requires verb in infinitive form.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason i think is that *imperfective aspect* is normally preferred in negated modality of general and deontic (requisite, that of duty) types (but not epystemic, the one which denotes probability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Есть, однако контекст, где замена СВ на НСВ при отрицании обязательна. Это контекст отрицаемой модальности&lt;/b&gt;, см. Рассудова 1982: 120-127.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt;Отрицание в контексте модальности необходимости, общей и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; деонтической, требует инфинитива глагола в несов. виде: &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть &lt;/em&gt;окно – Не надо &lt;em&gt;открывать&lt;/em&gt; окно (*не надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть&lt;/em&gt;); &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Ты должен (т.е. обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты не должен (т.е. не обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помогать&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*&lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Какими бы средствами ни выражалось значение&#xD;&#xA;ненужности действия, инфинитив должен быть в несов. виде&lt;/b&gt; (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассудова 1982: 122): &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Да надо ли вам &lt;i&gt;обращаться&lt;/i&gt; к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этому человеку? &lt;/br&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Мне не рекомендовали &lt;i&gt;сажать&lt;/i&gt; эти деревья,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;К чему &lt;i&gt;возражать&lt;/i&gt;? &lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Не за что его &lt;i&gt;благодарить&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Он не велел &lt;i&gt;подчеркивать&lt;/i&gt;, и др.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;source: **rusgram.ru** [*6.2.3. Несов.вид инфинитива в контексте отрицательной модальности*](http://rusgram.ru/Отрицание#6_2)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. Here **было** would be incorrect. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility, OR **`Зачем было из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which requires *imperfective* aspect due to its construction which uses combination **`interrogative word + было`** (like *куда было, когда было, где было, к чему было, с кем было* and a lot more) connoting a continuous process or a frequent occurrence in the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="50e2d788-f8ff-4fe7-b0be-ab54c34d4cd0" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:29:11.020" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. In itself it's a modal construction because as evident from the sentence it nessecitates verb in infinitive form.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason i think is that *imperfective aspect* is normally preferred in negated modality of general and deontic (that of obligation and duty) types (but not epystemic, one which denotes probability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Есть, однако контекст, где замена СВ на НСВ при отрицании обязательна. Это контекст отрицаемой модальности&lt;/b&gt;, см. Рассудова 1982: 120-127.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt;Отрицание в контексте модальности необходимости, общей и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; деонтической, требует инфинитива глагола в несов. виде: &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть &lt;/em&gt;окно – Не надо &lt;em&gt;открывать&lt;/em&gt; окно (*не надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть&lt;/em&gt;); &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Ты должен (т.е. обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты не должен (т.е. не обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помогать&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*&lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Какими бы средствами ни выражалось значение&#xD;&#xA;ненужности действия, инфинитив должен быть в несов. виде&lt;/b&gt; (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассудова 1982: 122): &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Да надо ли вам &lt;i&gt;обращаться&lt;/i&gt; к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этому человеку? &lt;/br&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Мне не рекомендовали &lt;i&gt;сажать&lt;/i&gt; эти деревья,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;К чему &lt;i&gt;возражать&lt;/i&gt;? &lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Не за что его &lt;i&gt;благодарить&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Он не велел &lt;i&gt;подчеркивать&lt;/i&gt;, и др.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;source: **rusgram.ru** [*6.2.3. Несов.вид инфинитива в контексте отрицательной модальности*](http://rusgram.ru/Отрицание#6_2)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. Here **было** would be incorrect. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility, OR **`Зачем было из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which requires *imperfective* aspect due to its construction which uses combination **`interrogative word + было`** (like *куда было, когда было, где было, к чему было, с кем было* and a lot more) connoting a continuous process or a frequent occurrence in the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="6db2b81f-a893-4d6a-af71-6df44a55be3e" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:42:33.340" UserId="7674" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. In itself it's a modal construction because as evident from the sentence it nessecitates verb in infinitive form.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason i think is that *imperfective aspect* is normally preferred in negated modality of general and deontic (that which denotes obligation and duty) types (but not epystemic, one which denotes likelihood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Есть, однако контекст, где замена СВ на НСВ при отрицании обязательна. Это контекст отрицаемой модальности&lt;/b&gt;, см. Рассудова 1982: 120-127.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt;Отрицание в контексте модальности необходимости, общей и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; деонтической, требует инфинитива глагола в несов. виде: &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть &lt;/em&gt;окно – Не надо &lt;em&gt;открывать&lt;/em&gt; окно (*не надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть&lt;/em&gt;); &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Ты должен (т.е. обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты не должен (т.е. не обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помогать&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*&lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Какими бы средствами ни выражалось значение&#xD;&#xA;ненужности действия, инфинитив должен быть в несов. виде&lt;/b&gt; (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассудова 1982: 122): &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Да надо ли вам &lt;i&gt;обращаться&lt;/i&gt; к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этому человеку? &lt;/br&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Мне не рекомендовали &lt;i&gt;сажать&lt;/i&gt; эти деревья,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;К чему &lt;i&gt;возражать&lt;/i&gt;? &lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Не за что его &lt;i&gt;благодарить&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Он не велел &lt;i&gt;подчеркивать&lt;/i&gt;, и др.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;source: **rusgram.ru** [*6.2.3. Несов.вид инфинитива в контексте отрицательной модальности*](http://rusgram.ru/Отрицание#6_2)  &#xD;&#xA;**further reading on semantic difference between deontic and epystemic modalities**: [*Мельникова Л.С, К ВОПРОСУ О МОДАЛЬНОСТИ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ИТАЛЬЯНСКОГО ЯЗЫКА)*](http://archive.is/KmDOq#selection-191.0-191.26)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. Here **было** would be incorrect. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility, OR **`Зачем было из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which requires *imperfective* aspect due to its construction which uses combination **`interrogative word + было`** (like *куда было, когда было, где было, к чему было, с кем было* and a lot more) connoting a continuous process or a frequent occurrence in the past." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="f3bfc2c1-cfb7-462c-9b7a-7fbf0de8a16b" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:49:10.200" UserId="7674" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. In itself it's a modal construction because as evident from the sentence it nessecitates verb in infinitive form.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason i think is that *imperfective aspect* is normally preferred in negated modality of general and deontic (that which denotes obligation and duty) types (but not epystemic, one which denotes likelihood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Есть, однако контекст, где замена СВ на НСВ при отрицании обязательна. Это контекст отрицаемой модальности&lt;/b&gt;, см. Рассудова 1982: 120-127.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt;Отрицание в контексте модальности необходимости, общей и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; деонтической, требует инфинитива глагола в несов. виде: &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть &lt;/em&gt;окно – Не надо &lt;em&gt;открывать&lt;/em&gt; окно (*не надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть&lt;/em&gt;); &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Ты должен (т.е. обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты не должен (т.е. не обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помогать&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*&lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Какими бы средствами ни выражалось значение&#xD;&#xA;ненужности действия, инфинитив должен быть в несов. виде&lt;/b&gt; (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассудова 1982: 122): &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Да надо ли вам &lt;i&gt;обращаться&lt;/i&gt; к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этому человеку? &lt;/br&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Мне не рекомендовали &lt;i&gt;сажать&lt;/i&gt; эти деревья,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;К чему &lt;i&gt;возражать&lt;/i&gt;? &lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Не за что его &lt;i&gt;благодарить&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Он не велел &lt;i&gt;подчеркивать&lt;/i&gt;, и др.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;source: **rusgram.ru** [*6.2.3. Несов.вид инфинитива в контексте отрицательной модальности*](http://rusgram.ru/Отрицание#6_2)  &#xD;&#xA;**further reading on semantic difference between deontic and epystemic modalities**: [*Мельникова Л.С, К ВОПРОСУ О МОДАЛЬНОСТИ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ИТАЛЬЯНСКОГО ЯЗЫКА)*](http://archive.is/KmDOq#selection-191.0-191.26)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to connote an  ongoing process, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться`**. Here **было** would be incorrect. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also connotes either an ongoing process or a general possibility, OR **`Зачем было из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which requires *imperfective* aspect due to its construction which uses combination **`interrogative word + было`** (like *куда было, когда было, где было, к чему было, с кем было* and a lot more) connoting a continuous process or a frequent occurrence in the past.  &#xD;&#xA;In addition all these sentences seem to also express *negated deontic modality*, which, as shown above, necessitates *imperfective aspect*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19488" RevisionGUID="7cf61994-33e0-4082-a0d7-7142d8aef925" CreationDate="2019-04-28T11:55:01.367" UserId="7674" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="&gt; If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part is correct&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; verbs having **рас-** or **пере-**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would warn from relying on the semantics of similarly prefixed verbs in figuring out the semantics of any given verb. This is a very complex system (if system at all) with little consistency. *I'd advise to treat each verb or a perf/imprerf pair as a verb in its own right*. Once your personal vocabulary is rich enough you may start noticing certain logic behind choice of prefixes, but this point may be far along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Thus  &#xD;&#xA;1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (рассориваться).  &#xD;&#xA;2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (перессориться)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a correct answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.** The phrase **ни к чему** indeed normally requires *imperfective aspect*. In itself it's a modal construction because as evident from the sentence it nessecitates verb in infinitive form.  &#xD;&#xA;The reason i think is that *imperfective aspect* is normally preferred in negated modality of general and deontic (that which denotes obligation and duty) types (but not epystemic, one which denotes likelihood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Есть, однако контекст, где замена СВ на НСВ при отрицании обязательна. Это контекст отрицаемой модальности&lt;/b&gt;, см. Рассудова 1982: 120-127.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;p&gt;Отрицание в контексте модальности необходимости, общей и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; деонтической, требует инфинитива глагола в несов. виде: &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть &lt;/em&gt;окно – Не надо &lt;em&gt;открывать&lt;/em&gt; окно (*не надо&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;em&gt;открыть&lt;/em&gt;); &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Ты должен (т.е. обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; – Ты не должен (т.е. не обязан) ей &lt;em&gt;помогать&lt;/em&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (*&lt;em&gt;помочь&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Какими бы средствами ни выражалось значение&#xD;&#xA;ненужности действия, инфинитив должен быть в несов. виде&lt;/b&gt; (см.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Рассудова 1982: 122): &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Да надо ли вам &lt;i&gt;обращаться&lt;/i&gt; к&#xD;&#xA;&gt; этому человеку? &lt;/br&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;Мне не рекомендовали &lt;i&gt;сажать&lt;/i&gt; эти деревья,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;К чему &lt;i&gt;возражать&lt;/i&gt;? &lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Не за что его &lt;i&gt;благодарить&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/br&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;Он не велел &lt;i&gt;подчеркивать&lt;/i&gt;, и др.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;source: **rusgram.ru** [*6.2.3. Несов.вид инфинитива в контексте отрицательной модальности*](http://rusgram.ru/Отрицание#6_2)  &#xD;&#xA;**further reading on semantic difference between deontic and epystemic modalities**: [*Мельникова Л.С, К ВОПРОСУ О МОДАЛЬНОСТИ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ИТАЛЬЯНСКОГО ЯЗЫКА)*](http://archive.is/KmDOq#selection-191.0-191.26)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**2.** Here I believe *perfective* fits because the sentence deals with a fait accompli, something which has been done, which would be its first possible reading. In fact i believe that its complete version must include the verb **было** which makes its past tense apparent -&gt; **`Как можно (было) со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка перессориться?`**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However i can envision use of *imperfective* as well if it's understood to rhetorically express objection to a certain course of action thereby denoting its undesirability, i.e. **`Как можно из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**. This variant is less likely but still plausible. Likewise in a sentence such as **`Зачем (было) из-за такого пустяка со всем коллективом перессориваться?`**, which also expresses objection to a course of action taken in the present or in the past (было).    &#xD;&#xA;So all these sentences seem to denote *negated deontic modality* as well, which, as shown above, necessitates *imperfective aspect*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="8b9696b7-60df-4e51-aa96-f2b17c09217e" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:58:58.383" UserId="11775" Text="I am very happy to have found such an interesting forum and to have received an excellent detailed answer from a native speaker to my first question, and I am very tempted to ask about something else I have not yet fully understood in the Russian language. I am very curious what the native speakers have to say. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At my university in Japan I have got an exercise on sequence of tenses, and the exercise is to translate the following to Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I sliced sashimi from a convulsing squid - actually the one I had&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wanted to eat myself - and served the guest waiting for his meal.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Walking back, I glanced in the mirror to see whether he was looking at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My approach is to always strive in the most utmost manner to translate absolutely flawlessly and in the most natural way and to deeply understand why I make this or that choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking hard and making difficult choices, I came up with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нарезала на сашими конвульсирующего кальмара - кстати, того самого,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; которого хотела было сама съесть - и подала ожидавшему свою трапезу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; гостю. Идя обратно, я глянула в зеркало, не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still very unsure whether I made the best choices, and feel that I have not yet fully understood sequence of tenses in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly ask the natural speakers to answer the following questions of mine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable? Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**). According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule. But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am humbly looking forward to reading enlightening answers of native speakers of this highly complex and powerful language." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50806" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="8b9696b7-60df-4e51-aa96-f2b17c09217e" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:58:58.383" UserId="11775" Text="Subtleties of choosing the sequence of tenses in Russian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50807" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="8b9696b7-60df-4e51-aa96-f2b17c09217e" CreationDate="2019-04-28T16:58:58.383" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="a30a9980-2db2-40e2-b676-d4a639f18966" CreationDate="2019-04-28T17:23:50.710" UserId="11775" Comment="i corrected a typo" Text="I've got these two questions in my homework at my university in Japan, where I learn Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Мне ни к чему с ним окончательно (...). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Как можно со всем коллективом из-за такого пустяка (...)?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) рассориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) перессориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) рассориваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (d) перессориваться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm at a loss as to what to choose and why. Could you explain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. Encouraged by respected members of the forum, I am humbly sharing my own naive thoughts. I beg your pardon if I say anything wrong about your wonderful language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The questions seem to have two separate dimensions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **пере**- vs **рас**- &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - perfective aspect vs imperfective aspect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with the first dimension, I checked the meanings in Wiktionary ([рассориться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F &quot;&quot;), [перессориться](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F &quot;&quot;)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рассориться: сильно поссориться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; перессориться: поссориться со всеми или между собой&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These definitions as they stand seem to suggest that **рассориться** reflects the depth of the conflict in terms of emotional strength or importance, whilst **перессориться** points out the width of the conflict in terms of the number of people (or maybe issues) involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my humble impression is true, then the answer to Question 1 is either (a) or (c), whilst the answer to Question 2 is either (b) or (d), because Question 1 seems to be about the depth of the conflict as can be seen from **окончательно**, whilst Question 2 is about the width of the conflict as can be seen from **со всем коллективом**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the problem is that I fail to see the same pattern with other verbs having **рас**- or **пере**-:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; раздать что-то: to give something out (to a group of people)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; передать что-то:  to pass something (to somebody)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here the pattern is precisely the opposite: now **раз**- means dealing with a group people, not **пере**-.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at other verb pairs, such as **разрубить-перерубить**, **разубедить-переубедить**, I got even more confused as I failed to deduce any common denominator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thus unsure whether the definitions given in Wiktionary are complete and accurate, and I seem to be too shallow to see the deep underlying logic behind these prefixes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the second dimension (perfective vs imperfective), I checked in Google that **ни к чему делать** is more than 10 times more common than **ни к чему сделать**. Using this analogy I am tempted to choose answer (c) to Question 1. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I am at a loss as to what the underlying logic is. Exactly what is wrong, unnatural, or illogical in using **ни к чему** in conjunction with the perfective aspect of a verb? The perfective aspect means the outcome of a completed action. What is unnatural in saying that it is not useful to have a certain outcome (**ни к чему сделать**)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Question 2 the phrase seems to be rhetoric, but is it supposed to be about the outcome or process? Again, I used Google and found a few results with **как можно перессориться** and none with **как можно перессориваться**. This is a hint that answer (b) is correct, but exactly why is it correct?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summarizing all of the above, I guess that the correct or most naturally sounding variants are 1c and 2b, but I am very unsure and do not fully understand the underlying logic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please accept my apologies if I overwhelmed you with my naive and chaotic thoughts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="631d5655-0d1a-412e-b9ef-0af54ec931c4" CreationDate="2019-04-28T19:17:54.743" UserId="7674" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little out of place, because reader has already been told about **the squid** and a sudden aside remark about it fashioned with **кстати** fails to convey surprise and suddenness. In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Your translation is perfectly idiomatic. Reads totally natural.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="251c861e-548a-493a-9b9b-69e119f1a80d" CreationDate="2019-04-28T19:45:30.497" UserId="7674" Comment="added 636 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because reader has already been told about **the squid** and a sudden aside remark about it, fashioned with **кстати**, fails to convey surprise and suddenness. In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two in Russian needs to be greater, so that **того самого** does convey the connotation of a reminder which is otherwise lost when it comes immediately after the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the abovesaid I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50811" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="0421b962-e5a4-4320-b609-5e10835e6d75" CreationDate="2019-04-28T19:47:00.913" />
  <row Id="50812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="d4e2f6a6-894c-4aac-83c6-b533661eab88" CreationDate="2019-04-28T19:59:09.613" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because reader has already been told about **the squid** and a sudden aside remark about it, fashioned with **кстати**, fails to convey surprise and suddenness. In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two in Russian needs to be greater, so that **того самого** does convey the connotation of a reminder which is otherwise lost when it immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the abovesaid I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50813" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="d6374232-171e-4a53-b079-d4c889431abf" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:04:10.323" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because reader has just been told about **the squid** and a sudden aside remark about it, fashioned with **кстати**, fails to convey surprise and suddenness. In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two in Russian needs to be greater, so that **того самого** does convey the connotation of a reminder which is otherwise lost when it immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the abovesaid I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="b109e060-490f-485a-9dbe-3621e5a79d98" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:09:55.433" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because reader has just been told about **the squid** and a sudden aside remark about it, fashioned with **кстати**, fails to convey surprise and suddenness. In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two in Russian needs to be greater, so that **того самого** does convey the connotation of a reminder which otherwise becomes superfluous when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="3d6a52ff-d94c-476c-900b-27451e721f1b" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:21:28.217" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two in Russian needs to be greater, so that **того самого** does convey the connotation of a reminder which otherwise becomes superfluous when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="0706aa45-518d-43ab-9ee8-da64a6b5d431" CreationDate="2019-04-28T20:47:18.117" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of relative question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50817" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19489" RevisionGUID="e78d5301-295d-4955-8c55-d633c3dacf2f" CreationDate="2019-04-29T03:01:41.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1122697432951869440" />
  <row Id="50818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="482d5da6-d3d7-443e-bfc9-d337306fd4cd" CreationDate="2019-04-29T05:44:49.603" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually the one I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; кстати, того самого, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="e1071e23-19d1-430f-a33e-8d720775a0dc" CreationDate="2019-04-29T05:52:49.720" UserId="10790" Comment="offer necessary information" Text="I had been thinking “в Южную Корею” is the right way before I heard “в Южная Корею” in a movie and after searching I found both ways abound in examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: It was a Japanese movie, 君よ憤怒の河を渉れ, dubbed by Мосфильм under the title Опасная погоня. The line can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1g_uS7abmk, at 2:25:24. In fact I had trouble understanding the whole line, which to my ears sounded like “Тоже на (?) лететь в ... спешу ...”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19485" RevisionGUID="a5177888-7f4e-4bfc-b8af-7a4f43fea17b" CreationDate="2019-04-29T06:00:45.507" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1122742497321660416" />
  <row Id="50821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="27c852fe-d55a-4990-ae6c-281a4b7bcc02" CreationDate="2019-04-29T06:34:31.253" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1035 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало, не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула (в зеркало)** can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что?` (glanced [in order] to do what?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms), thus a fuller rendering would look like `глянула в зеркало`&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;`проверить`&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;`, не смотрит ли он на меня`.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="0d3d0cc4-f272-4c97-bf05-975aae7f9a1b" CreationDate="2019-04-29T06:40:35.660" UserId="7674" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало, не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что?` (glanced [in order] to do what?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like `глянула в зеркало`&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;`проверить`&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;`, не смотрит ли он на меня`.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="72a84f79-c290-4914-94df-f838786c19ec" CreationDate="2019-04-29T06:46:38.393" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало (...), не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что?` (glanced [in order] to do what?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like `глянула в зеркало`&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;`проверить`&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;`, не смотрит ли он на меня`.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="9f35d915-8003-40d0-8446-14391a301366" CreationDate="2019-04-29T07:04:46.400" UserId="7674" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало (...), не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что? / зачем? / для чего?` (glanced [in order] to do what? / why?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`проверить`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`** OR **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(why?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, желая узнать`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`**.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible, especially in speech, to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="f5cf38e0-2bc1-4ea4-b642-620323e816e8" CreationDate="2019-04-29T08:36:41.807" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1363 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нарезала на **сашими**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian popular culture such cuisine terms as **суши** and **сашими** came relatively recently, that is after the USSR collapse, from the West. Following the USSR dissolution many standards ceased to be adhered to or enforced, including standards of transliteration from Asian languages in particular, that's why these two words are spelled with **[ш]** mimicking English transliteration from the Japanese.   &#xD;&#xA;The standard for transliteration of Japanese phonetics with Cyrillic alphabet is [Polivanov's transliteration system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polivanov_system), according to which Japanese phoneme **し** is transliterated as **[cи]** instead of **[ши]** as it is in English. And not without a reason.   &#xD;&#xA;In Russian **[ш]** is always hard, therefore **-ши-** is read as **[шы]** as per Russian phonetic principles. But its Japanese counterpart is always soft, thus transliteration with **[ши]** isn't faithful enough to the original pronunciation and **[cи]** is a better choice if for no other reason than proper transmission of softness. Although in my personal opinion **[щи]** would be even closer.  &#xD;&#xA;So although ideally 刺身 (さしみ) should have been spelled **сасими**, due to this spelling's not being widely and immediately associated with the dish in mass awareness English borrowing remains preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало (...), не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что? / зачем? / для чего?` (glanced [in order] to do what? / why?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`проверить`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`** OR **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(why?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, желая узнать`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`**.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible, especially in speech, to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="0474880a-227f-4b88-a186-f0b17339c8f5" CreationDate="2019-04-29T08:42:04.797" UserId="7674" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would be altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нарезала на **сашими**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian popular culture such cuisine terms as **суши** and **сашими** came relatively recently, that is after the USSR collapse, from the West. Following the USSR dissolution many standards ceased to be adhered to or enforced, including standards of transliteration from Asian languages in particular, that's why these two words are spelled with **[ш]** mimicking English transliteration from the Japanese.   &#xD;&#xA;The standard for transliteration of Japanese phonetics with Cyrillic alphabet is [Polivanov's transliteration system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polivanov_system#Main_table), according to which Japanese phoneme **し** is transliterated as **[cи]** instead of **[ши]** as it is in English. And not without a reason.   &#xD;&#xA;In Russian **[ш]** is always hard, therefore **-ши-** is read as **[шы]** as per Russian phonetic principles. But its Japanese counterpart is always soft, thus transliteration with **[ши]** isn't faithful enough to the original pronunciation and **[cи]** is a better choice if for no other reason than proper transmission of softness. Although in my personal opinion **[щи]** would be even closer.  &#xD;&#xA;So although ideally 刺身 (さしみ) should have been spelled [**сасими**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сашими), due to this spelling's not being widely and immediately associated with the dish in mass awareness English borrowing remains preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало (...), не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что? / зачем? / для чего?` (glanced [in order] to do what? / why?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`проверить`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`** OR **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(why?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, желая узнать`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`**.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible, especially in speech, to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="a99601af-0685-48f6-be79-4f20bde30a42" CreationDate="2019-04-29T08:48:31.600" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would have been altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нарезала на **сашими**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian popular culture such cuisine terms as **суши** and **сашими** came relatively recently, that is after the USSR collapse, from the West. Following the USSR dissolution many standards ceased to be adhered to or enforced, including standards of transliteration from Asian languages in particular (by now the situation has somewhat improved but the damage so to speak has been done), that's why these two words are spelled with **[ш]** mimicking English transliteration from the Japanese.   &#xD;&#xA;The standard for transliteration of Japanese phonetics with Cyrillic alphabet is [Polivanov's transliteration system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polivanov_system#Main_table), according to which Japanese phoneme **し** is transliterated as **[cи]** instead of **[ши]** as it is in English. And not without a reason.   &#xD;&#xA;In Russian **[ш]** is always hard, therefore **-ши-** is read as **[шы]** as per Russian phonetic principles. But its Japanese counterpart is always soft, thus transliteration with **[ши]** isn't faithful enough to the original pronunciation and **[cи]** is a better choice if for no other reason than proper transmission of softness. Although in my personal opinion **[щи]** would be even closer.  &#xD;&#xA;So although ideally 刺身 (さしみ) should have been spelled [**сасими**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сашими), due to this spelling's not being widely and immediately associated with the dish in mass awareness English borrowing remains preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало (...), не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что? / зачем? / для чего?` (glanced [in order] to do what? / why?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`проверить`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`** OR **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(why?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, желая узнать`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`**.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible, especially in speech, to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19490" RevisionGUID="f5b59551-26a1-42fc-be9b-b69060246817" CreationDate="2019-04-29T08:55:18.227" UserId="7674" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt;1. **Конвульсирующего** or **конвульсировавшего**? Are both variants acceptable?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is any of them preferable? If so, which one? I chose the present tense&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stress that the squid was convulsing as I sliced it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think *present participle*, the one did you opt for, is preferable. *Past participle* would have a connotation of *convulsing* at one point in the past but not necessarily at the moment of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, had the sentence required the imperfective predicate **нарезАла** instead of **нарЕзала**, both participles would mean *convulsing* concurrent with the act of slicing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Check also answers to a similar question [*Может ли причастный оборот не согласоваться во времени с целым предложением?*](https://rus.stackexchange.com/questions/422580/Может-ли-причастный-оборот-не-согласоваться-во-времени-с-целым-предложением)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2. **Хотела было** or **захотела было** or **раньше хотела** or **раньше захотела**? I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was taught that the former two variants are the proper traditional&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ones and used by well-educated people, whilst the latter two variants&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are simplified and used by poorly educated simpletons. Choosing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the first two variants, I chose the first one because it is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more neutral and seems to better fit the original text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The use of particle **было** is a great idea. However it has a specific connotation which may not fit the context of the sentence, because it modifies a verb to mean an act which lasted for a brief moment. When an act denoted by the verb lasted for some time in my opinion the adverb **поначалу/сначала** would fit better. The adverb &lt;strike&gt;**раньше**&lt;/strike&gt; would have been altogether incorrect.  &#xD;&#xA;Also be aware that in spoken language this particle **было** almost never occurs. It's a language feature well on its way to being an anachronism whose use is now mainly relegated to literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;3. **Ожидавшему** or **ожидающему**? I intuitively chose the past tense because&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the point is not that the guest was waiting at the moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him, but that he had waited. At the very moment at which I&#xD;&#xA;&gt; served him he obviously was not waiting anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same as 1. But here *past participle* is equally appropriate because there's no connotation of necessarily contemporaneous activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. **Смотрит** or **смотрел**? I was taught that the sequence of tenses in indirect speech is natural (**он сказал, что принимает трапезу**), whilst&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in relative clauses - attracted (**он увидел рыбу, которая барахталась**).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to my professor, it is a grave mistake to break this rule.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how do I have to classify the clause in the sentence with the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mirror?! It is neither indirect speech nor a relative clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you do indeed deal with relative (subordinate) clause in the form of indirect question, attached by means of conjunction **ли** (see [*косвенные вопросы*](http://uroki-russkogo-yazyka.ru/slozhnoe-predlozhenie/slojnopodchinennye-predlozheniya-s-pridatochnymi-izyasnitelnymi.html), [*исключение, частица **ли***](https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/40-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_sintaksis_i_punktuaciya/stages/735-21_obschaya_harakteristika_slozhnopodchinennyh_predlozhenii.html)), and these do require verb in present tense, provided that action in subordinate clause is concurrent with the one expressed by the main clause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я нарезала на **сашими**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Into Russian popular culture such cuisine terms as **суши** and **сашими** came relatively recently, that is after the USSR collapse, from the West. Following the USSR dissolution many standards ceased to be adhered to or enforced, including standards of transliteration from Asian languages in particular (by now the situation has somewhat improved but the damage so to speak has been done), that's why these two words are spelled with **[ш]** mimicking English transliteration from the Japanese.   &#xD;&#xA;The standard for transliteration of Japanese phonetics with Cyrillic alphabet is [Polivanov's transliteration system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polivanov_system#Main_table), according to which Japanese phoneme **し** is transliterated as **[cи]** instead of **[ши]** as it is in English. And not without a reason.   &#xD;&#xA;In Russian **[ш]** is always hard, therefore **-ши-** is read as **[шы]** as per Russian phonetic principles. But its Japanese counterpart is always soft, thus transliteration with **[ши]** isn't faithful enough to the original pronunciation and **[cи]** is a better choice if for no other reason than proper transmission of softness. Although in my personal opinion **[щи]** would be even closer.  &#xD;&#xA;So although ideally 刺身 (さしみ) should have been spelled [**сасими**](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сашими), due to this spelling's not being widely and immediately associated with the dish in mass awareness [English borrowing remains preferable](http://archive.is/yyjKK).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **actually the one** I had wanted to eat myself   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **кстати, того самого**, которого хотела было сама съесть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actually** isn't always an easy word to translate. Although it could be rendered as **кстати**, in the context of this sentence it sounds a little inconsistent, because **actually** here has a connotation of *contrast* to the expected state of affairs absent in **кстати**.&#xD;&#xA;In my view  **вообще-то / по правде говоря/сказать** could do more justice to the original here.  &#xD;&#xA;**Кстати**, which introduces an aside remark, would be appropriate in phrases which simply provide new/additional information, e.g. **`которого я кстати тоже хотела съесть`** or **`которого я кстати поймала своими руками`**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise with regard to **того самого**, which comes immediately after its referent (the squid), while the distance between these two is expected to be greater, so that **того самого** does have effect of a reminder which is otherwise lost when the locution immediately follows the thing it's supposed to remind us about.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;So considering the above said I would render the entire clause in a simpler way - **`которого я поначалу хотела сама съесть`** or **`которого я вообще-то хотела съесть сама`**. **Поначалу** and **вообще-то** don't go well together, that's why i had to choose.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I glanced in the mirror **to see** whether he was looking at me.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; я глянула в зеркало (...), не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect questions usually require a verb in the main clause to which they relate through an interrogative word. In the English sentence such a verb is **`to see`** to which the indirect question is linked through the interrogative word **`what?`**-&gt; **`to see what?`**, so ideally we'd need to have one in Russian as well.   &#xD;&#xA;**Глянула** (в зеркало) can't function as such a verb because the question `что?` can't be posed to it. The one which can is `чтобы что? / зачем? / для чего?` (glanced [in order] to do what? / why?), so another verb needs to be inserted in the interim. Possible candidates are **узнать, проверить, выяснить** (but not &lt;strike&gt;посмотреть&lt;/strike&gt; or &lt;strike&gt;увидеть&lt;/strike&gt; to avoid tautology and build-up of synonyms which is considered poor style in Russian), thus a fuller rendering would look like **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(чтобы что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`проверить`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`** OR **`глянула в зеркало`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(why?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, желая узнать`**&lt;sup&gt;*`(что?)`*&lt;/sup&gt;**`, не смотрит ли он на меня`**.  &#xD;&#xA;But since such construction is a bit clunky, it's permissible, especially in speech, to simplify it for the sake of brevity leaving the omitted part implied.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker? Word choices, word sequence, and so on. I would be happy to receive frank criticisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion none. Flows totally natural. The above remarks don't detract from its quality because by and large they're immaterial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19470" RevisionGUID="fcd0fa3c-6b05-4f9e-9649-90a79b54f060" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:59:26.077" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="I had been thinking “в Южную Корею” is the right way before I heard “в Южная Корею” in a movie and after searching I found both ways abound in examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: It was a Japanese movie, 君よ憤怒の河を渉れ, dubbed by Мосфильм under the title Опасная погоня. The line can be found at https://youtu.be/P1g_uS7abmk?t=8723. In fact I had trouble understanding the whole line, which to my ears sounded like “Тоже на (?) лететь в ... спешу ...”." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="5f6160fd-0f74-4676-8fb2-7d1baf902ff4" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:06:54.730" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 107 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Prepositional* or *Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prepositional case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of motion or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where? / whither?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After listening in to the dubbing i concede that it was pronounced almost like **Южная**, which may be attributed to a slip of the tongue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole line goes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Н.... я должен лететь в Южную Корею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H...** stands for interjection of hesitation, like the English **um**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="4fb31430-fcec-4fc3-a957-12fbfc0d0764" CreationDate="2019-04-29T10:51:07.050" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Prepositional* or *Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prepositional case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of motion or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where? / whither?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After listening in to the dubbing i concede that it was pronounced almost like **Южная**, which may be attributed to a slip of the tongue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole line goes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Н.... я должен лететь в Южную Корею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H...** stands for interjection of hesitation, akin to the English **um**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19472" RevisionGUID="94317e88-af1e-4a75-86b0-b2aa1e431bf1" CreationDate="2019-04-29T12:05:35.190" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="With the preposition **В** there're only **two** options, either *Prepositional* or *Accusative* case.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Prepositional case* when **В** forms adverbial of location, which answers the question **где?** - **where (at)?** - **`в ЮжнОЙ КореЕ`, `в ПекинЕ`, `в КитаЕ`, `в городЕ`, `в селЕ`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Accusative case* when **В** forms adverbial of destination (with verbs of motion or intent) which answers the question **куда?** - **to where? / whither?** - **`в ЮжнУЮ КореЮ`, `в Пекин`, `в Китай`, `в город`, `в село`** etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Anything else is either a mistake or a slip of the tongue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After listening in to the dubbing i concede that it was pronounced almost like **Южная**, which may be attributed to a slip of the tongue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole line goes &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Н.... я должен лететь в Южную Корею&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**H...** here stands for interjection of hesitation, akin to the English **um**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50838" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18452" RevisionGUID="d8eb2b41-e962-4be4-aed2-6bab90c18066" CreationDate="2019-04-30T00:01:06.450" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1123014376133472259" />
  <row Id="50839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19492" RevisionGUID="ecb0647d-86e9-4743-87cb-83dcb2be6a0c" CreationDate="2019-04-30T09:12:49.577" UserId="5008" Text="Напишу-ка я свой ответ на русском. Полагаю, Мицуко вполне сможет его прочесть и перевести. И, возможно, так будет даже полезнее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, раз уж мы намерены &quot;translate absolutely flawlessly and in the most natural way&quot;, я обещаю цепляться ко всему, что мне хотя бы чуть-чуть не понравится, то есть буду субъективен nec plus ultra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну что ж, давайте по частям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нарезала на сашими &lt;s&gt;конвульсирующего&lt;/s&gt; _извивающегося_ кальмара&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разумеется, причастие тут может быть как настоящего, так и прошедшего времени - это не ошибка. И со стилистической точки зрения настоящее время, пожалуй, даже несколько предпочтительнее: подобная картина может привлекать внимание читателя, и её стоит самую капельку подчеркнуть. Однако слово &quot;_конвульсирующего_&quot; меня, прямо говоря, фраппирует. Нет, это не &quot;ошибка иностранца&quot;, просто... ну, гадкое оно какое-то и бестолковое. В общем, убрать и забыть как страшный сон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кстати, того самого, которого хотела &lt;s&gt;было сама съесть&lt;/s&gt; _приготовить для себя_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот _кстати, того самого_ мне нравится. И, по-моему, это может быть очень даже кстати, прошу прощения за каламбур. Но проблема в том, что здесь подразумевается отсылка к чему-то, что уже было сказано прежде. То есть, если это предложение - часть бо́льшего текста, в котором недавно упоминалось, как героиня собиралась приготовить и скушать этого самого кальмара, то всё замечательно, а если нет - то увы, но придётся поменять. Однако мне приятнее думать, что это отрывок из какого-то рассказа, так что пусть остаётся как есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается &quot;_хотела было_&quot;, нет здесь для него контекста. Если б &quot;хотела было съесть, да кто-то припёрся совсем некстати&quot; - это одно, а так повисает оно в воздухе и ничегошеньки не делает. Опять же, не то чтобы ошибка, а просто не к месту. Почему нельзя посчитать это скрытой отсылкой, как и в случае &quot;того самого&quot;? Да на самом деле можно. Но &quot;тот самый&quot; - это такая &quot;естественная ссылочная конструкция&quot;, а &quot;хотела было&quot; - нет. Напротив, этот своеобразный пережиток плюсквамперфекта настойчиво требует немедленного присутствия дальнейших пояснений. И их намеренный пропуск будет выглядеть весьма вычурно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Раньше хотела_&quot;, а зачем здесь вообще слово &quot;раньше&quot;? Что такое важное оно добавляет к сказанному? Иногда надо быть проще: &quot;хотела&quot; и всё. Вполне достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Хотела сама съесть_&quot;. В этом порядке слов мне слышится что-то не совсем правильное, или, лучше сказать, не слишком изящное. Что-то разговорное и выбивающееся из стиля. Нужно ведь сделать немногое - переставить слово со смысловым ударением в конец и получить нужную паузу для продолжения. То есть &quot;_хотела съесть сама_&quot;, или же &quot;_хотела приготовить для себя_&quot;. В последнем варианте есть ещё и дополнительная привязка к предыдущей части предложения. Да, неточность перевода и всё такое, но мне вот почему-то хочется именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;и подала ожидавшему &lt;s&gt;свою трапезу&lt;/s&gt; _своё блюдо_ гостю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Ожидавшему_&quot; или &quot;_ожидающему_&quot;? Тут, как и в первом случае, можно выбирать что больше нравится. Никаких серьёзных рекомендаций нет и быть не может, кроме разве что одной: для полной нейтральности прошедшее время стоит сохранить. Ожидал он себе и ожидал - дождался ведь уже. Что здесь действительно режет глаз, так это слово &quot;трапеза&quot;. Оно довольно-таки необычное и плохо сочетается с обыденным приёмом пищи (нет, русские-то люди в целом нечасто рубают извивающихся кальмаров в сасими, но как раз в данном случае это должно выглядеть вполне ординарно).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Идя обратно, я &lt;s&gt;глянула&lt;/s&gt; _украдкой заглянула_ в зеркало _проверить_ не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Смотрит_&quot; или &quot;_смотрел_&quot;? Во-первых, здесь должен быть ещё какой-нибудь глагол: &quot;Я _заглянула_ в зеркало, чтобы _узнать_ _смотрит_ он на меня или нет&quot;. Пропуск, в принципе, возможен, но он существенно усложняет понимание. Во-вторых, когда &quot;цепочка&quot; восстановлена, становится понятен естественный принцип согласования времён: &quot;я проверяла, что он смотрит на меня в тот самый момент, когда я смотрю на него&quot;. То есть, мы один раз как бы &quot;переключаемся&quot; в прошлое, а дальше уже остаёмся в нём, как если бы оно стало вдруг настоящим. Но сравните: &quot;я _посмотрел_ записи камер, чтобы удостовериться, что он не _выходил_ из дома&quot; (то есть, записи я посмотрел, скажем, вчера и проверил, что он никуда не выходил позавчера и т.п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается Вашего другого примера: &quot;Он _увидел_ рыбу, которая _барахтается_ в воде&quot;. Здесь дело в том, что глагол совершенного вида весьма своеобразно сочетается с определительным предложением настоящего времени. Первое действие будет относиться к прошлому, а вот свойство станет вневременным / имманентным. А так как в воде могут барахтаться все рыбы без исключения, то и предложение перестаёт быть хоть сколько-нибудь осмысленным. Но сравните, например &quot;он _увидел_ рыбу, которая _ползает_ по земле&quot;. В это уже есть кое-какой смысл, не правда ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Явных ошибок у Вас нет. По крайней мере тех, которые выдают иностранца. Разумеется, при виде очередного &quot;конвульсирующего кальмара&quot; я сплюну и тихонечко матюкнусь себе под нос, но при этом буду думать, что переводчик - халтурщик, а не что переводчик - японец." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11678" RevisionGUID="d2373df2-874a-4c62-b5e1-1d0015f14326" CreationDate="2019-04-30T11:10:20.263" UserId="7547" Comment="Fix capitalization and add a translation for &quot;тачка&quot; like for the example right after it" Text="The word most common in speech is _машина_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Автомобиль_ is the &quot;right word&quot;, but it's long and unpopular. _Авто_ (unlike, say, its German counterpart) is not a &quot;real word&quot; on its own, but rather a spoken short form of _автомобиль_, or just a prefix. It has its usage (say, in magazines), but generally it's far behind _машина_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also slanguish variants, of course. The most popular are _тачка_ (and its derivatives _тачила_, _точилка_ etc.) (cf. &quot;ride&quot; in &quot;Pimp My Ride&quot;) and _колёса_ (cf. &quot;wheels&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW. In XIX century speech _машина_ mostly denoted &quot;train&quot;. I bet, in the future when we won't have &quot;cars&quot; anymore, the word _машина_ will still be in use, meaning some kind of small spaceship and such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50841" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11678" RevisionGUID="d2373df2-874a-4c62-b5e1-1d0015f14326" CreationDate="2019-04-30T11:10:20.263" Comment="Proposed by 7547 approved by 10999, 5605 edit id of 2042" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50842" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18464" RevisionGUID="ef135bb5-7156-4574-b9ab-76d4d4f049b5" CreationDate="2019-04-30T12:00:46.303" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1123195485454577665" />
  <row Id="50843" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18425" RevisionGUID="6ef45101-87ee-4fa7-8850-4524313f64fe" CreationDate="2019-04-30T15:00:49.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1123240797489500160" />
  <row Id="50845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19493" RevisionGUID="7cac029b-43bb-4b87-bda3-c6e8ed976292" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:09:16.550" UserId="11775" Text="When I do homework to be later read by the teachers, I sometimes like to show off by using rare forms that I have learned by deeply studying Russian. It is always fun, especially as the assistant professor is not a native Russian speaker and sometimes falls to my traps, marking correct expressions as wrong ones, in which case I get a pretext to talk with the full professor, who is a kind of bilingual and always a great pleasure to talk with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few months ago I wrote in an essay: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В кампус я придя с утра, в столовую зашла взять чашку супу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assistant professor did not take my bait **супу** (the partitive case, found only in textbooks of the most advanced level), but reacted to moving the subject **я** into the dangling participle, marking it as a mistake.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feeling like a cat who caught a mouse, I approached the full professor and showed him my marked homework together with the following text by Krylov, a classic Russian writer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Вороне где-то бог послал кусочек сыру; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; На ель Ворона взгромоздясь, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Позавтракать было совсем уж собралась,  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Да позадумалась, а сыр во рту держала.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I pointed to the second line and asked whether such a virtuoso of the Russian language had been unable to find a way to formulate his thoughts in a way conforming to the language norms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my great surprise, the professor was unable to give an immediate answer and promised to tell me later, which he never did. Of course, I did not remind him about his promise, as such a reminder might embarrass him a bit. He is a very good man and must have been overburdened by his duties and unintentionally forgotten about such a truly minor matter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I got really puzzled. I had thought that if moving the subject into a dangling participle were unacceptable, the great classic Russian writer would have used a different way to express himself. Or what could be the point of deliberately making a grave grammar mistake? Just for the sake of the rhythm? Come on, he was definitely able to make a perfect rhythm without resorting to grave grammar mistakes. But then why did my professor get so puzzled? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I, after all, move the subject to the dangling participle preceding the main part of a sentence if I really want to? It is sometimes convenient to put the subject there in order to make clear from the very beginning what subject the whole sentence is about. I never saw the subject inside a dangling participle in my university textbooks, but they teach rather a simplified Russian. I have already learned many times that the real world is much more complex and multifaceted than what my university textbooks teach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you shed some light on this mystery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19493" RevisionGUID="7cac029b-43bb-4b87-bda3-c6e8ed976292" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:09:16.550" UserId="11775" Text="Moving the subject of the sentence into a dangling participle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19493" RevisionGUID="7cac029b-43bb-4b87-bda3-c6e8ed976292" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:09:16.550" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|порядок-слов|participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19494" RevisionGUID="4f2e601c-6fab-4547-b320-95c9e187d4ab" CreationDate="2019-04-30T18:58:06.710" UserId="134" Text="This statement is not quite ungrammatical, but it's definitely not a neutral writing and speaking style either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is parsable and comprehensible, but it abuses the relatively lax Russian word order rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your professor is right in a way: it's not a mistake in the strict sense, but people don't really talk like that unless they are making their way out of a sentence they didn't completely think through in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or what could be the point of deliberately making a grave grammar mistake? Just for the sake of the rhythm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Krylov is very well known for deliberately using colloquial speech, teetering on the brink of violation of the language norms in his fables. This has been mentioned by Zhukovsky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Слог Крылова кажется нам в иных местах растянутым и слабым (зато мы нигде не заметили ни малейшей принужденности в рассказе); попадаются погрешности против языка, выражения, противные вкусу, грубые и тем более заметные, что слог вообще везде и легок и приятен.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Невозможно дать большего простодушия рассказу, большей народности языку, большей осязаемости нравоучению… его каждая басня — сатира, тем сильнейшая, что она коротка и рассказана с видом простодушия.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The seeming &quot;clumsiness&quot; of his language is a literary device, which he is using to set a certain tone for his fables. He could have used a different way to express himself, that's for sure, he just chose not to. However, unless you're telling a fable, you should not be talking like a fable character or narrator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I, after all, move the subject to the dangling participle preceding the main part of a sentence if I really want to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to, why not? It's a language, it allows certain freedom of expression, and this phrase is within the limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However you should be aware that this is not something the neutral speech sounds like, and by choosing this word order you're deliberately making your speech non-neutral. If that's what you want, go ahead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19495" RevisionGUID="7d0d6c5a-3a93-4e7b-9249-461755989c26" CreationDate="2019-04-30T19:24:01.683" UserId="2104" Text="Russian does allow for a lot of flexibility with word order but moving the subject from the main clause to the subordinate clause is pushing its limits unto the ungrammatical zone. This can occur in impromptu, unprepared speech, the kind that Krylov was portraying. Certainly not clear, academic writing which your teachers were probably expecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both your sentence and Krylov's sound a bit awkward but Krylov's less so, probably just because this particular tale is so familiar to every Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just read @Quassnoi's answer and he pretty much said it all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use **тарелка** or **миска** for the soup. :)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50850" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19493" RevisionGUID="b55fdea7-2781-4885-983e-0d2f59b1657b" CreationDate="2019-04-30T19:35:18.150" />
  <row Id="50851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19493" RevisionGUID="88106286-31cc-4251-a927-cb9c56c4eb80" CreationDate="2019-05-01T09:00:10.090" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1123512423246389249" />
  <row Id="50852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19496" RevisionGUID="4381f08e-cd0d-4774-86b7-fd164503594e" CreationDate="2019-05-01T09:37:05.700" UserId="5008" Text="Я только поясню вдобавок к тому, что уже сказано в предыдущих ответах, что речь идёт не столько о (дее-)причастных оборотах, сколько о распространённых членах предложения вообще.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Грамматическое согласование в русском языке (т.е. падежи, рода и числа) имеет настолько большой приоритет по сравнению с порядком слов в предложении, что логически связанные слова и обороты допустимо перемежать посторонними включениями без потери смысла.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Простой пример: &quot;_Ворона взгромоздилась на старую ель_&quot;. Прилагательное &quot;_старая_&quot; связано с существительным &quot;_ель_&quot; не только порядком слов, но и падежом. Поэтому даже если мы вставим между ними что-то, например: &quot;_Взгромоздилась на старую ворона ель_&quot;, смысл останется неизменным. Но, конечно, подобный порядок слов более чем странен. Всего лишь одна маленькая ошибка, и всё перевернётся с ног на голову: &quot;_Взгромоздилась на старую ворон**у** ель_&quot; - и уже выходит, что это _ель_ взгромоздилась _на старую ворону_, можете себе такое представить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Придя с утра в кампус_&quot; - это отдельная синтаксическая единица (деепричастный оборот). Вы можете спокойно ставить &quot;_Я_&quot; слева и справа или же перетасовать слова внутри самого оборота, но как только &quot;_Я_&quot; сунется вовнутрь - нет, это ещё не станет ошибкой, но Ваши шансы &quot;взгромоздиться на ворону&quot; резко увеличатся." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19492" RevisionGUID="0e3c436c-8713-475a-b9db-be764e90d153" CreationDate="2019-05-01T10:01:50.197" UserId="5008" Comment="added 650 characters in body" Text="Напишу-ка я свой ответ на русском. Полагаю, Мицуко вполне сможет его прочесть и перевести. И, возможно, так будет даже полезнее.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Да, раз уж мы намерены &quot;translate absolutely flawlessly and in the most natural way&quot;, я обещаю цепляться ко всему, что мне хотя бы чуть-чуть не понравится, то есть буду субъективен nec plus ultra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ну что ж, давайте по частям.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я нарезала на сашими &lt;s&gt;конвульсирующего&lt;/s&gt; _извивающегося_ кальмара&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Разумеется, причастие тут может быть как настоящего, так и прошедшего времени - это не ошибка. И со стилистической точки зрения настоящее время, пожалуй, даже несколько предпочтительнее: подобная картина может привлекать внимание читателя, и её стоит самую капельку подчеркнуть. Однако слово &quot;_конвульсирующего_&quot; меня, прямо говоря, фраппирует. Нет, это не &quot;ошибка иностранца&quot;, просто... ну, гадкое оно какое-то и бестолковое. В общем, убрать и забыть как страшный сон.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;кстати, того самого, которого хотела &lt;s&gt;было сама съесть&lt;/s&gt; _приготовить для себя_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А вот _кстати, того самого_ мне нравится. И, по-моему, это может быть очень даже кстати, прошу прощения за каламбур. Но проблема в том, что здесь подразумевается отсылка к чему-то, что уже было сказано прежде. То есть, если это предложение - часть бо́льшего текста, в котором недавно упоминалось, как героиня собиралась приготовить и скушать этого самого кальмара, то всё замечательно, а если нет - то увы, но придётся поменять. Однако мне приятнее думать, что это отрывок из какого-то рассказа, так что пусть остаётся как есть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается &quot;_хотела было_&quot;, нет здесь для него контекста. Если б &quot;хотела было съесть, да кто-то припёрся совсем некстати&quot; - это одно, а так повисает оно в воздухе и ничегошеньки не делает. Опять же, не то чтобы ошибка, а просто не к месту. Почему нельзя посчитать это скрытой отсылкой, как и в случае &quot;того самого&quot;? Да на самом деле можно. Но &quot;тот самый&quot; - это такая &quot;естественная ссылочная конструкция&quot;, а &quot;хотела было&quot; - нет. Напротив, этот своеобразный пережиток плюсквамперфекта настойчиво требует немедленного присутствия дальнейших пояснений. И их намеренный пропуск будет выглядеть весьма вычурно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Раньше хотела_&quot;, а зачем здесь вообще слово &quot;раньше&quot;? Что такое важное оно добавляет к сказанному? Иногда надо быть проще: &quot;хотела&quot; и всё. Вполне достаточно.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Хотела сама съесть_&quot;. В этом порядке слов мне слышится что-то не совсем правильное, или, лучше сказать, не слишком изящное. Что-то разговорное и выбивающееся из стиля. Нужно ведь сделать немногое - переставить слово со смысловым ударением в конец и получить нужную паузу для продолжения. То есть &quot;_хотела съесть сама_&quot;, или же &quot;_хотела приготовить для себя_&quot;. В последнем варианте есть ещё и дополнительная привязка к предыдущей части предложения. Да, неточность перевода и всё такое, но мне вот почему-то хочется именно так.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;и подала ожидавшему &lt;s&gt;свою трапезу&lt;/s&gt; _своё блюдо_ гостю&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Ожидавшему_&quot; или &quot;_ожидающему_&quot;? Тут, как и в первом случае, можно выбирать что больше нравится. Никаких серьёзных рекомендаций нет и быть не может, кроме разве что одной: для полной нейтральности прошедшее время стоит сохранить. Ожидал он себе и ожидал - дождался ведь уже. Что здесь действительно режет глаз, так это слово &quot;трапеза&quot;. Оно довольно-таки необычное и плохо сочетается с обыденным приёмом пищи (нет, русские-то люди в целом нечасто рубают извивающихся кальмаров в сасими, но как раз в данном случае это должно выглядеть вполне ординарно).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Идя обратно, я &lt;s&gt;глянула&lt;/s&gt; _украдкой заглянула_ в зеркало _проверить_ не смотрит ли он на меня.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_Смотрит_&quot; или &quot;_смотрел_&quot;? Во-первых, здесь должен быть ещё какой-нибудь глагол: &quot;Я _заглянула_ в зеркало, чтобы _узнать_ _смотрит_ он на меня или нет&quot;. Пропуск, в принципе, возможен, но он существенно усложняет понимание. Во-вторых, когда &quot;цепочка&quot; восстановлена, становится понятен естественный принцип согласования времён: &quot;я проверяла, что он смотрит на меня в тот самый момент, когда я смотрю на него&quot;. То есть, мы один раз как бы &quot;переключаемся&quot; в прошлое, а дальше уже остаёмся в нём, как если бы оно стало вдруг настоящим. Но сравните: &quot;я _посмотрел_ записи камер, чтобы удостовериться, что он не _выходил_ из дома&quot; (то есть, записи я посмотрел, скажем, вчера и проверил, что он никуда не выходил позавчера и т.п.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что касается Вашего другого примера: &quot;Он _увидел_ рыбу, которая _барахтается_ в воде&quot;. Здесь дело в том, что глагол совершенного вида весьма своеобразно сочетается с определительным предложением настоящего времени. Первое действие будет относиться к прошлому, а вот свойство станет вневременным / имманентным. А так как в воде могут барахтаться все рыбы без исключения, то и предложение перестаёт быть хоть сколько-нибудь осмысленным. Но сравните, например &quot;он _увидел_ рыбу, которая _ползает_ по земле&quot;. В это уже есть кое-какой смысл, не правда ли?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;At how many places in my Russian translation I utterly failed, leaving hints I am not a native speaker?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Явных ошибок у Вас нет. По крайней мере тех, которые выдают иностранца. Разумеется, при виде очередного &quot;конвульсирующего кальмара&quot; я сплюну и тихонечко матюкнусь себе под нос, но при этом буду думать, что переводчик - халтурщик, а не что переводчик - японец.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If смотрит is correct and смотрел is wrong, why does Google show that the phrases &quot;видел, как он убегает&quot; and &quot;видел, как он убегал&quot; are equally common? Or is it the missing link - чтобы посмотреть - that requires choosing смотрит in my exercise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вы правы в том, что прошедшее время здесь всё-таки можно употреблять. Но при этом возможно небольшое изменение смысла. То есть: _Идя обратно, я украдкой заглянула в зеркало проверить не смотр**ел** ли он на меня_ - при желании это можно понять так, что даже если бы он смотрел на Вас, но за секунду до этого отвернулся, то Вы бы всё равно об этом догадались по единственному взгляду." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19497" RevisionGUID="033a633e-e868-4506-ba80-7fffc96b35b0" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:09:01.083" UserId="10270" Text="Should I write &#xD;&#xA;Два балкона находятся у нас в квартире or &#xD;&#xA;Два балкона находятся в нашем квартире&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to write that we have two balconies on our flat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19497" RevisionGUID="033a633e-e868-4506-ba80-7fffc96b35b0" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:09:01.083" UserId="10270" Text="Expressing 'our' for objects belonging to our apartment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19497" RevisionGUID="033a633e-e868-4506-ba80-7fffc96b35b0" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:09:01.083" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19498" RevisionGUID="31189958-26ed-4932-8912-7b693dcfc7bb" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:26:29.613" UserId="2104" Text="Belonging is transitive so either form will do. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19499" RevisionGUID="a5b06027-0bc3-4f3e-a544-647cfa771d55" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:26:56.473" UserId="11395" Text="Both options are fine, except that one small grammar error has to be corrected:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Два балкона находятся у нас в квартире.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Два балкона находятся в наше**й** квартире.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a native speaker, I would say simpler:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; У нас в квартире два балкона. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or: В нашей квартире два балкона. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Or: У нас два балкона.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50859" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19497" RevisionGUID="7875ce08-1de9-476f-8b17-b9c7a135c384" CreationDate="2019-05-01T14:36:34.427" />
  <row Id="50860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19500" RevisionGUID="22d083bd-d01a-4f40-9a74-986439433d57" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:35:47.733" UserId="9762" Text="Всем привет! Мне нужно помощь с переводом этого предложения.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Anna Borisovna gave Viktor Stepanovich money to buy groceries&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried translating it, but I got two different things and I want to know which one is &quot;more&quot; correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Анна Борисовна дала денег, чтобы Виктор Степанович купил продукты&#xD;&#xA;или&#xD;&#xA;Анна Борисована дала денег Виктору Степановичу, чтобы он купил продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Спасибо!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50861" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19500" RevisionGUID="22d083bd-d01a-4f40-9a74-986439433d57" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:35:47.733" UserId="9762" Text="Need help translating this sentence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50862" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19500" RevisionGUID="22d083bd-d01a-4f40-9a74-986439433d57" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:35:47.733" UserId="9762" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19501" RevisionGUID="f390b916-50a7-42d3-8235-d5a0b4078968" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:47:22.520" UserId="11794" Text="Both are correct. But the first one is a bit confusing because it is unknown to whom she gave the money. As a native speaker i like the second sentence more.&#xD;&#xA;Удачи в изучении русского языка =) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19502" RevisionGUID="0844a8b0-ed58-40ee-93bc-0d0c1b53a790" CreationDate="2019-05-01T17:59:53.307" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Анна Борисовна дала денег Виктору Степановичу, чтобы он купил&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct translation, **the reason is that** the 1st variant &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Анна Борисовна дала денег, чтобы Виктор Степанович купил продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could be understood in a sense that Анна Борисовна gave money, but not necessarily to Виктор Степанович, it could be a 3d person who'd pass it on to Виктор Степанович or just pay for groceries selected by Виктор Степанович.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it's as ambiguous as the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anna Borisovna gave money so that Viktor Stepanovich buy groceries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19502" RevisionGUID="a8830ec0-ab16-4c6d-ac72-1bd4ffe796d3" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:07:46.613" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; Анна Борисовна дала денег Виктору Степановичу, чтобы он купил&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct translation, **the reason is that** the 1st rendering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Анна Борисовна дала денег, чтобы Виктор Степанович купил продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could be understood in a sense that Анна Борисовна gave money, but not necessarily to Виктор Степанович, it could be a 3d person who'd pass it on to Виктор Степанович or just pay for groceries selected by Виктор Степанович.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it's as ambiguous as the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anna Borisovna gave money so that Viktor Stepanovich buys groceries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19503" RevisionGUID="a648eca2-007b-4c22-bf02-3d5755d5a6f7" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:47:58.103" UserId="11080" Text="Both variants are right. A slight correction can be &quot;чтобы тот купил продукты&quot;, but it's optional. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the colloquial speech we would say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Анна Борисовна дала Виктору Степановичу денег на продукты." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="cf821cb1-f933-4985-b5cc-8a36a8088ff5" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:52:37.157" UserId="11775" Text="Everyone on this forum is so kind towards me, and it is so interesting and inspiring to read explanations from native speakers that I am strongly tempted to write more about things I do not know or understand. I cannot but humbly hope that my naive questions entertain you and contribute to the development of this wonderful forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here comes another naive question of mine, which is, however, quite important for me, and I have been unable to find an answer despite my best efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's suppose I need to convey the following idea: If you do X in the future, I do Y in the future, with one important subtlety: Y is physically done *earlier* than X is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am blushing as I feel I may have confused you by saying such an apparently illogical thing, but I do not know how to say it better, so kindly let me give you a few examples of some XY pairs illustrating the concept:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (a) X = to visit me in Japan, Y = to help you get a Japanese visa&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (b) X = to try sashimi, Y = to buy fish and slice it for you&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (c) X = to play Go with me, Y = to explain you the rules of Go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I humbly hope that you get the idea despite my clumsy explanation. The idea is that here the logical order and chronological order are mutually *opposite*. You do X *after* I do Y, but I do Y *because* you will do X, and both X and Y are in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I naively try to translate such ideas to your wonderful language just by using the standard Russian future conditional forms intended for the natural chronological order, I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты попробуешь сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты поиграешь со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты будешь ехать ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do all these six sentences sound to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly ask you how *you* would translate the above three ideas to Russian taking the following three wishes of mine into account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Please refrain from using expressions like **если ты решишь приехать**, **если тебе будет угодно приехать**, **если ты соберешься приехать**, because **решить приехать** and **приехать** are two principally different things. You see, if you decide to visit me in Japan, you still well may change your decision. And this is why I want to make the conditional be not about deciding or intending, but about actually coming to Japan. That's a principal thing. The idea is this: If it is absolutely certain that you visit me in Japan in the future, then I help you get a Japanese visa, because I am a girl with self-respect who does not want to spend her time preparing many documents and visiting authorities if there is a chance of you not coming to Japan. The idea is that I am prepared to help you get a visa *in return* for you visiting me later. It is a deal implying utmost commitment to visit me. I am afraid that using **если ты решишь приехать** may lead to huge misunderstanding. The same applies to the above examples with sashimi and Go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) I want the conditionals to be as concise, neutral, and naturally sounding as possible, as well as exerting no pressure and not looking official or demanding in any way. I strongly dislike variants like **если ты точно приедешь** or **при условии что ты приедешь**, because I do not want to sound like a strict school teacher demanding something. I want to sound like a friend offering an opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I want to see an elegant universal tool rather than ad hoc bulky solutions like **я тогда заранее для этой цели помогу**. In general, I strive to learn new tools in order to get able to express ideas more effectively than I currently can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that the naive translations suggested by me above are at least understandable, because the chronological order is already obvious from the very nature of X and Y, but how should I translate such ideas to Russian if X and Y are such that it is not logically obvious from them by themselves what is done first, X or Y? In other words, how can I *grammatically* make clear that the inverse chronological order is implied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us consider this specific example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**X = to come to my apartment, Y = to borrow a really nice goban from my neighbor.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A goban is a board used to play Go and Gomoku.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, how do you make it abundantly clear in Russian that the inverse chronological order is implied? Could you show me your translation variants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English there is a universal tool for that (see, for example, this [Reference][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* come to my apartment, I will borrow a really nice goban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from my neighbor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the first **will** (i.e., the one in the subordinate clause) reverses the chronological order, or at least this is how it is perceived by native English speakers, especially when the first word **will** is stressed. Without the first **will** the sentence implies that after you come to my apartment, I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban. With the first **will** the sentence implies that I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban well before you come to my apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recall a famous message by Aldrich Ames, an American who spied for your country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this message, he asked his KGB partners to leave a sign at the location called North to confirm that they would meet him in Bogota. How do you translate Ames' message to Russian to reflect the inverse chronological order?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My university textbooks give no clue how to formulate future conditionals with the reversed chronological order in Russian, and I tried to figure it out myself by searching in the Internet, but found no clues whatsoever, which made me puzzled because such conditionals are everyday routine. What do you have in your arsenal to effectively express such things without resorting to ad hoc explanations about the purposes or timings of X and Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since future conditionals with the inverse chronological order are everyday routine, I really want to sort it out and am humbly looking forward to reading your enlightening responses. I am equally happy to read responses in English and in Russian, whatever you find more convenient for yourself or useful for the objectives of this wonderful forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please kindly accept my apologies if I overwhelmed you with such a long text of mine. I wanted to make sure you get my question right, but I am just an undergraduate student, too young and too inexperienced to explain things better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/will-would-in-if-clause&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/27/us/how-the-fbi-finally-caught-aldrich-ames.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50868" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="cf821cb1-f933-4985-b5cc-8a36a8088ff5" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:52:37.157" UserId="11775" Text="Future conditionals with the reversed chronological order" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50869" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="cf821cb1-f933-4985-b5cc-8a36a8088ff5" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:52:37.157" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|будущее-время|conditional|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19502" RevisionGUID="444cca33-40cd-4bc7-aedf-86273ecbf6b4" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:52:38.370" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="&gt; Анна Борисовна дала денег Виктору Степановичу, чтобы он купил&#xD;&#xA;&gt; продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is correct translation, **the reason is that** the 1st rendering&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Анна Борисовна дала денег, чтобы Виктор Степанович купил продукты&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;could be understood in a sense that Анна Борисовна gave money, but not necessarily to Виктор Степанович, it could be a 3d person who'd pass it on to Виктор Степанович or just pay for groceries selected by Виктор Степанович.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically it's as ambiguous as the English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anna Borisovna gave money so that Viktor Stepanovich would buy groceries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="86876d21-11b3-44d9-bf00-dd7c470708b0" CreationDate="2019-05-01T18:56:51.023" UserId="7674" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Everyone on this forum is so kind towards me, and it is so interesting and inspiring to read explanations from native speakers that I am strongly tempted to write more about things I do not know or understand. I cannot but humbly hope that my naive questions entertain you and contribute to the development of this wonderful forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here comes another naive question of mine, which is, however, quite important for me, and I have been unable to find an answer despite my best efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's suppose I need to convey the following idea: If you do X in the future, I do Y in the future, with one important subtlety: Y is physically done *earlier* than X is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am blushing as I feel I may have confused you by saying such an apparently illogical thing, but I do not know how to say it better, so kindly let me give you a few examples of some XY pairs illustrating the concept:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (a) X = to visit me in Japan, Y = to help you get a Japanese visa&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (b) X = to try sashimi, Y = to buy fish and slice it for you&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (c) X = to play Go with me, Y = to explain you the rules of Go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I humbly hope that you get the idea despite my clumsy explanation. The idea is that here the logical order and chronological order are mutually *opposite*. You do X *after* I do Y, but I do Y *because* you will do X, and both X and Y are in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I naively try to translate such ideas to your wonderful language just by using the standard Russian future conditional forms intended for the natural chronological order, I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Set 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты попробуешь сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты поиграешь со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Set 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты будешь ехать ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do all these six sentences sound to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly ask you how *you* would translate the above three ideas to Russian taking the following three wishes of mine into account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Please refrain from using expressions like **если ты решишь приехать**, **если тебе будет угодно приехать**, **если ты соберешься приехать**, because **решить приехать** and **приехать** are two principally different things. You see, if you decide to visit me in Japan, you still well may change your decision. And this is why I want to make the conditional be not about deciding or intending, but about actually coming to Japan. That's a principal thing. The idea is this: If it is absolutely certain that you visit me in Japan in the future, then I help you get a Japanese visa, because I am a girl with self-respect who does not want to spend her time preparing many documents and visiting authorities if there is a chance of you not coming to Japan. The idea is that I am prepared to help you get a visa *in return* for you visiting me later. It is a deal implying utmost commitment to visit me. I am afraid that using **если ты решишь приехать** may lead to huge misunderstanding. The same applies to the above examples with sashimi and Go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) I want the conditionals to be as concise, neutral, and naturally sounding as possible, as well as exerting no pressure and not looking official or demanding in any way. I strongly dislike variants like **если ты точно приедешь** or **при условии что ты приедешь**, because I do not want to sound like a strict school teacher demanding something. I want to sound like a friend offering an opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I want to see an elegant universal tool rather than ad hoc bulky solutions like **я тогда заранее для этой цели помогу**. In general, I strive to learn new tools in order to get able to express ideas more effectively than I currently can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that the naive translations suggested by me above are at least understandable, because the chronological order is already obvious from the very nature of X and Y, but how should I translate such ideas to Russian if X and Y are such that it is not logically obvious from them by themselves what is done first, X or Y? In other words, how can I *grammatically* make clear that the inverse chronological order is implied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us consider this specific example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**X = to come to my apartment, Y = to borrow a really nice goban from my neighbor.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A goban is a board used to play Go and Gomoku.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, how do you make it abundantly clear in Russian that the inverse chronological order is implied? Could you show me your translation variants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English there is a universal tool for that (see, for example, this [Reference][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* come to my apartment, I will borrow a really nice goban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from my neighbor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the first **will** (i.e., the one in the subordinate clause) reverses the chronological order, or at least this is how it is perceived by native English speakers, especially when the first word **will** is stressed. Without the first **will** the sentence implies that after you come to my apartment, I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban. With the first **will** the sentence implies that I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban well before you come to my apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recall a famous message by Aldrich Ames, an American who spied for your country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this message, he asked his KGB partners to leave a sign at the location called North to confirm that they would meet him in Bogota. How do you translate Ames' message to Russian to reflect the inverse chronological order?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My university textbooks give no clue how to formulate future conditionals with the reversed chronological order in Russian, and I tried to figure it out myself by searching in the Internet, but found no clues whatsoever, which made me puzzled because such conditionals are everyday routine. What do you have in your arsenal to effectively express such things without resorting to ad hoc explanations about the purposes or timings of X and Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since future conditionals with the inverse chronological order are everyday routine, I really want to sort it out and am humbly looking forward to reading your enlightening responses. I am equally happy to read responses in English and in Russian, whatever you find more convenient for yourself or useful for the objectives of this wonderful forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please kindly accept my apologies if I overwhelmed you with such a long text of mine. I wanted to make sure you get my question right, but I am just an undergraduate student, too young and too inexperienced to explain things better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/will-would-in-if-clause&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/27/us/how-the-fbi-finally-caught-aldrich-ames.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="7563c481-4473-4d50-a5da-f43ff01c361d" CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:23:00.087" UserId="7674" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has a connotation of intent and not actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь**, **соберёшься** and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** meaning **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** doesn't convey this meaning due to being framed with perfective verbs, denoting an action which has been completed in the future. That makes the sentences sound illogical where the causal relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The causal logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be expressed by adding an adverb **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="3a0f2b70-b2b6-46db-9ed7-67fa9d98fd5a" CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:28:04.640" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has a connotation of intent and not actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь**, **соберёшься** and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** meaning **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** doesn't convey this meaning due to being framed with perfective verbs, denoting an action which has been completed in the future. That makes the sentences sound illogical where the conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverb **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="bed84fa9-488a-44e3-a1bd-56b5d79a4d1e" CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:33:43.643" UserId="7674" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь**, **соберёшься** and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you OK with mash potatoes for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** doesn't convey this meaning due to being framed with perfective verbs, denoting an action which has been completed in the future. That makes the sentences sound illogical where the conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverb **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="0ab4bb42-954d-4d49-913f-01af176262f2" CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:39:50.253" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь**, **соберёшься** and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you OK with mash potatoes for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="bb006645-2ee1-4ed9-b609-fadf0fcbd21b" CreationDate="2019-05-01T19:59:42.440" UserId="7674" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Do you mind mash potatoes for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="67704811-66c8-4276-b978-046ad6f1ed64" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:23:01.160" UserId="7674" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Do you mind mash potatoes for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;causal order is straightforward, because the condition fulfillment precedes the conditioned action, 1st the meeting, then signalling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если 1 октября вы встретитесь в пункте &quot;Б&quot;, просьба подать сигнал через&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Север&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="f140ea20-7dbf-4110-8b5c-16736dbf9b90" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:30:06.710" UserId="7674" Comment="added 291 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Do you mind mash potatoes for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;causal order is straightforward, because the condition fulfillment precedes the conditioned action, 1st the meeting, then signalling. Therefore conditional logic doesn't depend on the order of the clauses, plus things are simpler thanks to dissimilarity between verb forms in each of them, that is future tense vs infinitive (or imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если 1 октября вы встретитесь в пункте &quot;Б&quot;, просьба подать сигнал через&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Север&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просьба подать сигнал через &quot;Север&quot;, если 1 октября вы встретитесь в  пункте &quot;Б&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19506" RevisionGUID="d6f08d1a-73dc-49a9-b1dd-30198fbb66de" CreationDate="2019-05-01T20:31:38.507" UserId="11080" Text="We can say &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я куплю и нарежу рыбу, если** ты *потом* попробуешь сашими. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я куплю и нарежу рыбу при условии, что** ты *потом* попробуешь сашими. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Я куплю и нарежу рыбу, если** ты *хочешь* попробовать сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, having no such great variety of tense-forms in Russian as in English, we express the sequience of events not grammatically, but *lexically* and **syntactically**. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="a34c19a7-a8fb-4056-92d3-df08b31f53f2" CreationDate="2019-05-01T21:11:37.380" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;causal order is straightforward, because the condition fulfillment precedes the conditioned action, 1st the meeting, then signalling. Therefore conditional logic doesn't depend on the order of the clauses, plus things are simpler thanks to dissimilarity between verb forms in each of them, that is future tense vs infinitive (or imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если 1 октября вы встретитесь в пункте &quot;Б&quot;, просьба подать сигнал через&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Север&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просьба подать сигнал через &quot;Север&quot;, если 1 октября вы встретитесь в  пункте &quot;Б&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="5a179263-6769-49ac-9072-266a4e8e65d0" CreationDate="2019-05-01T21:17:25.323" UserId="7674" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;causal order is straightforward, because the condition fulfillment precedes the conditioned action, 1st the meeting, then signalling. Therefore conditional logic doesn't depend on the order of the clauses, plus things are simpler thanks to dissimilarity between verb forms in each of them, that is future tense vs infinitive (or imperative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если 1 октября вы встретитесь в пункте &quot;Б&quot;, просьба подать сигнал через&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Север&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просьба подать сигнал через &quot;Север&quot;, если 1 октября вы встретитесь в  пункте &quot;Б&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50882" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19497" RevisionGUID="48eb77df-3395-4169-8746-f44ce7886d26" CreationDate="2019-05-02T00:01:01.733" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1123739131983560704" />
  <row Id="50883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="37fcd665-7a4d-4c15-8826-d545d10473ea" CreationDate="2019-05-02T00:06:19.020" UserId="7386" Text="Для разнообразия напишу по-русски с английскими вставками :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Боюсь, что `an elegant` **`universal`** `tool` для подобных конструкций в русском языке не существует. Как правило, используются те самые дополнительные уточняющие глаголы, которые вы нам &quot;запрещаете&quot; применять в параграфе (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И от выбора таких глаголов, порядка слов и (при устной речи) интонации будет зависеть, звучите ли вы как &quot;строгая учительница&quot; и т.д. Честно говоря, мне кажется, что некоторые из ваших условий (the `three wishes`) чересчур строги и, в какой-то мере, бессмысленны. Потому что, как бы вы ни старались максимально точно выразить все важные для вас нюансы, другой человек всё равно может понять вас неправильно :) Особенно человек другой (в данном случае не японской) культуры. Очевидно также, что его/её восприятие ваших слов будет зависеть от того, насколько хорошо он вас знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Попробую дать свои варианты. (Я не во всем согласен с @БаянКупи-ка).&#xD;&#xA;Слова в скобках можно и даже желательно опустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Если (ты) &lt;strike&gt;при&lt;/strike&gt;**по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить (японскую) визу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Если (ты) будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Если (ты) будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила (го).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... `:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если встреча в Б 1 окт - дайте знать через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;(здесь много вариантов, поскольку both parties заранее условились, о чем и как они будут общаться, так что подошло бы даже `&quot;Если Б 1 окт - &quot;Север&quot;` :) )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50885" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19500" RevisionGUID="33c8e562-8a85-4460-a94e-4b51e2fb7299" CreationDate="2019-05-02T07:37:28.370" />
  <row Id="50886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="0c46245c-0d21-4c65-8098-546e152a7659" CreationDate="2019-05-02T07:49:01.203" UserId="7386" Comment="added comments under the variants" Text="Для разнообразия напишу по-русски с английскими вставками :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Боюсь, что `an elegant` **`universal`** `tool` для подобных конструкций в русском языке не существует. Как правило, используются те самые дополнительные уточняющие глаголы, которые вы нам &quot;запрещаете&quot; применять в параграфе (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И от выбора таких глаголов, порядка слов и (при устной речи) интонации будет зависеть, звучите ли вы как &quot;строгая учительница&quot; и т.д. Честно говоря, мне кажется, что некоторые из ваших условий (the `three wishes`) чересчур строги и, в какой-то мере, бессмысленны. Потому что, как бы вы ни старались максимально точно выразить все важные для вас нюансы, другой человек всё равно может понять вас неправильно :) Особенно человек другой (в данном случае не японской) культуры. Очевидно также, что его/её восприятие ваших слов будет зависеть от того, насколько хорошо он вас знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Попробую дать свои варианты. (Я не во всем согласен с @БаянКупи-ка).&#xD;&#xA;Слова в скобках можно и даже желательно опустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Если (ты) &lt;strike&gt;при&lt;/strike&gt;**по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить (японскую) визу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Если (ты) будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Если (ты) будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила (го).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Хочется добавить, что все эти варианты звучат для меня слегка ненатурально, именно из-за наложенных вами ограничений. Они звучат, как фразы из иностранного учебника по русскому языку, в реальной жизни так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... `:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если будет встреча в Б. 1 окт - дайте знать через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(здесь много вариантов, поскольку обе стороны заранее условились, о чем и как они будут общаться, так что подошло бы даже `&quot;Если Б 1 окт - &quot;Север&quot;` :) **Upd2:** Также перевод будет разным в зависимости от того, были ли какие-то предварительные договорённости про Б(оготу) и дату - у меня, к сожалению, не было времени прочитать ваш Source )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="69f03ab6-e2ea-494c-8ae9-04670a75dcb4" CreationDate="2019-05-02T08:01:03.860" UserId="7386" Comment="Upd3" Text="Для разнообразия напишу по-русски с английскими вставками :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Боюсь, что `an elegant` **`universal`** `tool` для подобных конструкций в русском языке не существует. Как правило, используются те самые дополнительные уточняющие глаголы, которые вы нам &quot;запрещаете&quot; применять в параграфе (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И от выбора таких глаголов, порядка слов и (при устной речи) интонации будет зависеть, звучите ли вы как &quot;строгая учительница&quot; и т.д. Честно говоря, мне кажется, что некоторые из ваших условий (the `three wishes`) чересчур строги и, в какой-то мере, бессмысленны. Потому что, как бы вы ни старались максимально точно выразить все важные для вас нюансы, другой человек всё равно может понять вас неправильно :) Особенно человек другой (в данном случае не японской) культуры. Очевидно также, что его/её восприятие ваших слов будет зависеть от того, насколько хорошо он вас знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Попробую дать свои варианты. (Я не во всем согласен с @БаянКупи-ка).&#xD;&#xA;Слова в скобках можно и даже желательно опустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Если (ты) &lt;strike&gt;при&lt;/strike&gt;**по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить (японскую) визу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Если (ты) будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Если (ты) будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила (го).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** Хочется добавить, что все эти варианты звучат для меня слегка ненатурально, именно из-за наложенных вами ограничений. Они звучат, как фразы из иностранного учебника по русскому языку, в реальной жизни так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... `:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если будет встреча в Б. 1 окт - дайте знать через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(здесь много вариантов, поскольку обе стороны заранее условились, о чем и как они будут общаться, так что подошло бы даже `&quot;Если Б 1 окт - &quot;Север&quot;` :) **Upd2:** Также перевод будет разным в зависимости от того, были ли какие-то предварительные договорённости про Б(оготу) и дату - у меня, к сожалению, не было времени прочитать ваш Source)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Upd3:** Read the source, in that context I would probably translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если встреча в Б. 1 окт возможна(состоится) - сообщите(дайте знать) через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50888" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="993dedba-e8e0-4c86-8ddd-311828de676d" CreationDate="2019-05-02T09:00:45.287" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1123874958483103745" />
  <row Id="50889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="bd25e663-b8d6-4d34-86dc-d3506c441284" CreationDate="2019-05-02T09:39:42.283" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 482 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="1c6d2838-dc1d-4bc7-8d8e-3ef1f0681c1b" CreationDate="2019-05-02T09:45:18.407" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 482 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytical (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it clauses reversal isn't necessary, probably due to the use of different verb forms in each of them which reduces chances of misconstruing the implied sequence of events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="4c4cf0f5-f2b3-4cd3-baae-9d639ffe0720" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:03:08.300" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytic (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it clauses reversal isn't necessary, probably due to the use of different verb forms in each of them which reduces chances of misconstruing the implied sequence of events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="a061feaa-7aa6-4b60-8e5f-f8744fee3f21" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:17:23.233" UserId="7674" Comment="added 1231 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytic (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**в) Интенциональный компонент**&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Высказывалось мнение, что конструкции аналитического будущего в большей степени, чем будущему СВ, присущ интенциональный компонент (см. проверку этого утверждения на корпусном материале в [Чуйкова 2014: 26ff.]). В [Рассудова 1968/1982: 79–80] отмечено, что он особенно отчетливо проявляется в вопросах ко 2-му лицу и в условных конструкциях, ср.:&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(13) – Что *будешь пить*? Я огляделся в растерянности, пытаясь понять, где он ухитряется прятать напитки. [В. Белоусова. Второй выстрел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2000)] – ≈ *Чего хочешь выпить?*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt; Ср. менее уместное в контексте вопроса о намерении адресата: *Чего выпьешь?*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(14) Если он *будет уходить* &lt;≈ соберется, захочет&gt;, вызовите меня! ≠ Если он *уйдет*, вызовите меня! (пример из [Рассудова 1968/1982: 80])&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;В принципе в семантику будущего времени всегда входит либо компонент намерения, либо компонент предсказания (эпистемической гипотезы), см. [Dahl 1985; 2000]; [Bybee et al. 1994].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**rusgram.ru:** [*Аналитическая конструкция будущего времени, Основные употребления*](http://rusgram.ru/Аналитическая_конструкция_будущего_времени#21)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it clauses reversal isn't necessary, probably due to the use of different verb forms in each of them which reduces chances of misconstruing the implied sequence of events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="58854682-760d-4905-8307-93b3a80de7cd" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:20:37.080" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя **заснуть и наутро уже** все знать и уметь. Будь терпеливым. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on a motorcycle ride with my girlfriend, who had obtained a driver's licence just recently. I wanted to express the idea of how one couldn't reasonably expect to get significantly better at something **overnight**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb &quot;overnight&quot; can be figuratively used when something changes/happens/etc surprisingly quickly. In French, the expression &quot;du jour au lendemain&quot; matches perfectly, but in Russian, this phrasing was the best I could come up with right there and then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="58854682-760d-4905-8307-93b3a80de7cd" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:20:37.080" UserId="8672" Text="In Russian, how do you idiomatically express the idea of the figurative &quot;overnight&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="58854682-760d-4905-8307-93b3a80de7cd" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:20:37.080" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="1949bc23-62bf-4dc8-a51e-a1e04b26f9a4" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:32:29.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analytic (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**в) Интенциональный компонент**&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Высказывалось мнение, что конструкции аналитического будущего в большей степени, чем будущему СВ, присущ интенциональный компонент (см. проверку этого утверждения на корпусном материале в [Чуйкова 2014: 26ff.]). В [Рассудова 1968/1982: 79–80] отмечено, что он особенно отчетливо проявляется в вопросах ко 2-му лицу **и в условных конструкциях**, ср.:&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(13) – Что *будешь пить*? Я огляделся в растерянности, пытаясь понять, где он ухитряется прятать напитки. [В. Белоусова. Второй выстрел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2000)] – ≈ *Чего хочешь выпить?*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt; Ср. менее уместное в контексте вопроса о намерении адресата: *Чего выпьешь?*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**(14) Если он *будет уходить* &lt;≈ соберется, захочет&gt;, вызовите меня! ≠ Если он *уйдет*, вызовите меня!** (пример из [Рассудова 1968/1982: 80])&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;В принципе в семантику будущего времени всегда входит либо компонент намерения, либо компонент предсказания (эпистемической гипотезы), см. [Dahl 1985; 2000]; [Bybee et al. 1994].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**rusgram.ru:** [*Аналитическая конструкция будущего времени, Основные употребления*](http://rusgram.ru/Аналитическая_конструкция_будущего_времени#21)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it clauses reversal isn't necessary, probably due to the use of different verb forms in each of them which reduces chances of misconstruing the implied sequence of events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="dac97488-218e-4e2d-b805-0543bf23d19a" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:35:19.040" UserId="7674" Text="**Водночасье**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя всё узнать и всему научиться **водночасье**. Будь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; терпелив**ОЙ**. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpler variants are **моментально, мгновенно, тут же, сразу** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="e31f6dda-ea85-4c07-a921-f11ac5499eb7" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:45:49.320" UserId="6412" Comment="раздельное написание" Text="**[В одночасье](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя всё узнать и всему научиться **в одночасье**. Будь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; терпелив**ОЙ**. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpler variants are **моментально, мгновенно, тут же, сразу** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50899" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="e31f6dda-ea85-4c07-a921-f11ac5499eb7" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:45:49.320" Comment="Proposed by 6412 approved by 7674 edit id of 2043" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="6e103e6b-3727-4f26-81d0-08b05ea98731" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:58:15.120" UserId="7674" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="**[В одночасье](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя всё узнать и всему научиться **в одночасье**. Будь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; терпеливой. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpler variants are **моментально, в (один) момент, мгновенно, в одно мгновение, в мгновение ока, тут же, сразу** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="87cd4c60-3354-4078-90cb-29d310305ef9" CreationDate="2019-05-02T10:58:22.850" UserId="8672" Comment="edited body" Text="In conversation, I just said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя **заснуть и наутро уже** все знать и уметь. Будь терпеливой. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on a motorcycle ride with my girlfriend, who had obtained a driver's licence just recently. I wanted to express the idea of how one couldn't reasonably expect to get significantly better at something **overnight**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The adverb &quot;overnight&quot; can be figuratively used when something changes/happens/etc surprisingly quickly. In French, the expression &quot;du jour au lendemain&quot; matches perfectly, but in Russian, this phrasing was the best I could come up with right there and then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do Russian speakers commonly express this idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19510" RevisionGUID="5dc89cce-9523-47ca-aedb-6681cd24024e" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:17:06.183" UserId="11395" Text="Yes, we have a great variety of excellent proverbs about this, perhaps even more catchy and appealing than in other languages. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Быстро только кошки родятся. Literal meaning: What happens quickly is only reproduction of cats. Global meaning: Everything takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Москва не сразу строилась. Literal meaning: Moscow wasn't built instantly. Global meaning: Everything big is done gradually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. От нетерпения вода в котелке не закипит. Literal meaning: Impatience won't make the water in the pot boil. Global meaning: There's no use of impatience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Терпи, казак, атаманом станешь. Literal meaning: Be patient (in enduring difficulties and sufferings), private, you will become a commander. Global meaning: Efforts and sufferings will pay off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a very Russian way to express what you want to express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что, получила права и думала, что уже всё умеешь? Ага, разбежалась!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быстро научиться нельзя, потому что быстро только кошки родятся. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всякое хотенье имей терпенье, а от нетерпенья вода в котелке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; закипит. Так что терпи, казачка. Атаманшей станешь! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50903" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="524a7f39-d529-4d3d-a1fe-344354273f7c" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:22:44.907" />
  <row Id="50904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19511" RevisionGUID="4ed784c2-3e44-43cb-aa1f-cf75c00d2ad8" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:31:24.053" UserId="5618" Text="&quot;находиться&quot; can be roughly translated as &quot;to be located&quot; or &quot;to lie&quot; (as in *London is located in England*), so it's an awkward word choice for your case. It would be a fine choice if you wanted to talk about the actual location of the balconies rather than the mere presence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; С левой стороны находятся два балкона. - Two balconies are located on the left side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case it's best to use a form of &quot;иметь&quot; (as in &quot;Наша квартира имеет два балкона&quot;) or &quot;быть&quot; (e.g. &quot;В нашей квартире [есть] два балкона)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="b7e1660e-f753-4f05-94d1-9ef0bd48bb87" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:43:02.677" UserId="7674" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="**[В одночасье](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя всё узнать и всему научиться **в одночасье**. Будь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; терпеливой. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpler variants are **моментально, в (один) момент, мгновенно, в одно мгновение, в мгновение ока, за (один) день, тут же, сразу** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19510" RevisionGUID="e561ac06-d077-40a0-bafb-824c4da6ec12" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:45:39.703" UserId="11395" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="Yes, we have a great variety of excellent proverbs about this, perhaps even more catchy and appealing than in other languages. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Быстро только кошки родятся. Literal meaning: What happens quickly is only reproduction of cats. Global meaning: Everything takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Москва не сразу строилась. Literal meaning: Moscow wasn't built instantly. Global meaning: Everything big is done gradually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. От нетерпения вода в котелке не закипит. Literal meaning: Impatience won't make the water in the pot boil. Global meaning: There's no use of impatience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Терпи, казак, атаманом станешь. Literal meaning: Be patient (in enduring difficulties and sufferings), private, you will become a commander. Global meaning: Efforts and sufferings will pay off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a very Russian way to express what you want to express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что, получила права и думала, что уже всё умеешь? Ага, разбежалась!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быстро научиться нельзя, потому что быстро только кошки родятся. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всякое хотенье имей терпенье, а от нетерпенья вода в котелке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; закипит. Так что терпи, казачка. Атаманшей станешь! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I did not add one important thing, assuming it goes without saying. The above example is humorous and has to be said in a proper manner, in a convincing but humorous and positive tone, with a smile on your face and with love in your eyes. The use of proverbs is supposed to be just the icing on the cake. The cake is your tone and facial expression. Overall, in such situations, it mainly boils down not to what you say, but to how you say. If you say the above speech in a wrong tone and with a wrong facial expression, it can do more harm than good :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19510" RevisionGUID="d0afe587-cf15-4b30-96d4-d24a0ec6c348" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:53:12.093" UserId="11395" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="Yes, we have a great variety of excellent proverbs about this, perhaps even more catchy and appealing than in other languages. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Быстро только кошки родятся. Literal meaning: What happens quickly is only reproduction of cats. Global meaning: Everything takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Москва не сразу строилась. Literal meaning: Moscow wasn't built instantly. Global meaning: Everything big is done gradually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. От нетерпения вода в котелке не закипит. Literal meaning: Impatience won't make the water in the pot boil. Global meaning: There's no use of impatience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Терпи, казак, атаманом станешь. Literal meaning: Be patient (in enduring difficulties and sufferings), private, you will become a commander. Global meaning: Efforts and sufferings will pay off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a very Russian way to express what you want to express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что, получила права и думала, что уже всё умеешь? Ага, разбежалась!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быстро научиться нельзя, потому что быстро только кошки родятся. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всякое хотенье имей терпенье, а от нетерпенья вода в котелке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; закипит. Так что терпи, казачка. Атаманшей станешь! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I did not add one important thing, assuming it goes without saying, but the comments below suggest it doesn't. The above example is humorous and has to be said in a proper manner, in a convincing but humorous and positive tone, with a smile on your face and with love in your eyes. The use of proverbs is supposed to be just the icing on the cake. The cake is your tone and facial expression. Overall, in such situations, it mainly boils down not to what you say, but to how you say. If you say the above speech in a wrong tone and with a wrong facial expression, it can do more harm than good :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19512" RevisionGUID="99bef9e5-c7eb-4dff-8425-5f412a3505c4" CreationDate="2019-05-02T11:55:03.033" UserId="11107" Text="If you want to follow all 3 wishes, your examples in Set-2 are better. I can name only few variants to express the inverse-ordered chronology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use Set-2 and stress 'будешь'/'станешь' like you described this for English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе его правила  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если станешь пробовать сашими, я куплю и нарежу рыбу&#xD;&#xA;- Use additional signals to show, that second part is before the first &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я для этой поездки помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;- Make sentences even simpler and hope that you will be understood&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдёшь ко мне, я куплю закуски &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I want to discuss your wishes and share my view to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, you cannot throw out expressions of planning ('если ты решишь приехать'='if you decide to come', 'если ты соберёшься приехать'='if you are going to come') **from the meaning** of your sentence, because the action in the second part of inverse-ordered chronology is done after the prediction (the first part) was made. I will illustrate this by your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author helps to get the visa of Japan only if his interlocutor **promise** to use it for visiting the author. But any promise might be failed to keep. Natural disaster, illness, accidents - anything might happen. Unplanned blocker is not a reason not to help with getting the visa of Japan, or if the interlocutor got sick right now it doesn't mean that help with visa automatically not happened. You know, that a decision is much stronger than a weak wish. So, the inverse-ordered chronology is an illusion and **it is normal to mention 'decision'-expressions** in such sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если решишь приехать ко мне в Японию [в этом году], я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we see that Wish-1 is not strict for normal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree with you that it is a kind of pressure to get a strong promise. By the way, this is about planning again, it is just a way to hide 'you think, that' expression, so this is about a decision again:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если [ты думаешь, что] точно приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hiding both 'decision'-expressions and signals of time control, you are risking not to be understood. Although, I am sure that for each situation you don't have to use complex signals of 4+ words, but this requires more vocabulary: not efficient, but a small tool set will cover most frequent cases.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Enjoy Russian!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Strictly saying, you can use even your Set-1 form with 'по-' for verbs of 'traveling' (go/fly/drive...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если поедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу Японии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты пойдёшь в магазин, я не буду заезжать за продуктами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19512" RevisionGUID="32c157f4-bb09-40d6-93cc-6e38237f624e" CreationDate="2019-05-02T12:00:51.657" UserId="11107" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="If you want to follow all 3 wishes, your examples in Set-2 are better. I can name only few variants to express the inverse-ordered chronology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use Set-2 and stress 'будешь'/'станешь' like you described this for English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе его правила  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если станешь пробовать сашими, я куплю и нарежу рыбу&#xD;&#xA;- Use additional signals to show, that second part is before the first &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я для этой поездки помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;- Make sentences even simpler and hope that you will be understood&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдёшь ко мне, я куплю закуски &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I want to discuss your wishes and share my view to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, you cannot throw out expressions of planning ('если ты решишь приехать'='if you decide to come', 'если ты соберёшься приехать'='if you are going to come') **from the meaning** of your sentence, because the action in the second part of inverse-ordered chronology is done after the prediction (the first part) was made. I will illustrate this by your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author helps to get the visa of Japan only if his interlocutor **promise** to use it for visiting the author. But any promise might be failed to keep. Natural disaster, illness, accidents - anything might happen. Unplanned blocker is not a reason not to help with getting the visa of Japan, or if the interlocutor got sick right now it doesn't mean that help with visa automatically not happened. You know, that a decision is much stronger than a weak wish. So, the inverse-ordered chronology is an illusion and **it is normal to mention 'decision'-expressions** in such sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если решишь приехать ко мне в Японию [в этом году], я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we see that Wish-1 is not strict for normal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree with you that it is a kind of pressure to get a strong promise. By the way, this is about planning again, it is just a way to hide 'you think, that' expression, so this is about a decision again:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если [ты думаешь, что] точно приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hiding both 'decision'-expressions and signals of time control, you are risking not to be understood. Although, I am sure that for each situation you don't have to use complex signals of 4+ words, but this requires more vocabulary: not efficient, but a small tool set will cover most frequent cases.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Enjoy Russian!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Strictly saying, you can use even your Set-1 form with 'по-' for verbs of 'traveling' (go/fly/drive...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если поедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу Японии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты пойдёшь в магазин, я не буду заезжать за продуктами&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если мы полетим в другую страну, я куплю словарь" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19512" RevisionGUID="cd1796cb-8041-4e51-9aa9-ede235121390" CreationDate="2019-05-02T12:08:29.580" UserId="11107" Comment="Added translations to examples" Text="If you want to follow all 3 wishes, your examples in Set-2 are better. I can name only few variants to express the inverse-ordered chronology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use Set-2 and stress 'будешь'/'станешь' like you described this for English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе его правила    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will play go with me, I will explain you the rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если станешь пробовать сашими, я куплю и нарежу рыбу  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will try sashimi, I will buy fish and slice it for you &#xD;&#xA;- Use additional signals to show, that second part is before the first &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я для этой поездки помогу тебе получить японскую визу  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you visit me in Japan, I will help you with a Japanese visa for this trip&#xD;&#xA;- Make sentences even simpler and hope that you will be understood&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдёшь ко мне, я куплю закуски  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will visit me, I will buy snacks  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I would like to discuss your wishes and share my view to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, you cannot throw out expressions of planning ('если ты решишь приехать'='if you decide to come', 'если ты соберёшься приехать'='if you are going to come') **from the meaning** of your sentence, because the action in the second part of inverse-ordered chronology is done after the prediction (the first part) was made. I will illustrate this by your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author helps to get the visa of Japan only if his interlocutor **promise** to use it for visiting the author. But any promise might be failed to keep. Natural disaster, illness, accidents - anything might happen. Unplanned blocker is not a reason not to help with getting the visa of Japan, or if the interlocutor got sick right now it doesn't mean that help with visa automatically not happened. You know, that a decision is much stronger than a weak wish. So, the inverse-ordered chronology is an illusion and **it is normal to mention 'decision'-expressions** in such sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если **решишь** приехать ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we see that Wish-1 is not strict for normal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree with you that it is a kind of pressure to get a strong promise. By the way, this is about planning again, it is just a way to hide 'you think, that' expression, so this is about a decision again:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если [ты думаешь, что] точно приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hiding both 'decision'-expressions and signals of time control, you are risking not to be understood. Although, I am sure that for each situation you don't have to use complex signals of 4+ words, but this requires more vocabulary: not efficient, but a small tool set will cover most frequent cases.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Enjoy Russian!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Strictly saying, you can use even your Set-1 form with 'по-' for verbs of 'traveling' (go/fly/drive...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если **по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу Японии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты **по**йдёшь в магазин, я не буду заезжать за продуктами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will go to the shop, I will not buy products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если мы **по**летим в другую страну, я куплю словарь  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If we will fly to another country, I will buy a dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19512" RevisionGUID="d25916d0-989d-4918-8ab9-b6726c69cad5" CreationDate="2019-05-02T12:14:51.463" UserId="11107" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="If you want to follow all 3 wishes, your examples in Set-2 are better. I can name only few variants to express the inverse-ordered chronology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use Set-2 and stress 'будешь'/'станешь' like you described this for English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе его правила    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will play go with me, I will explain you the rules&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если станешь пробовать сашими, я куплю и нарежу рыбу  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will try sashimi, I will buy fish and slice it for you &#xD;&#xA;- Use additional signals to show, that second part is before the first &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я для этой поездки помогу тебе получить японскую визу  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you visit me in Japan, I will help you with a Japanese visa for this trip&#xD;&#xA;- Make sentences even simpler and hope that you will be understood&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если пойдёшь ко мне, я куплю закуски  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will visit me, I will buy snacks  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I would like to discuss your wishes and share my view to the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, you cannot throw out expressions of planning ('если ты решишь приехать'='if you decide to come', 'если ты соберёшься приехать'='if you are going to come') **from the meaning** of your sentence, because the action in the second part of inverse-ordered chronology is done after the prediction (the first part) was made. I will illustrate this by your example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author helps to get the visa of Japan only if his interlocutor **promise** to use it for visiting the author. But any promise might be failed to keep. Natural disaster, illness, accidents - anything might happen. Unplanned blocker is not a reason not to help with getting the visa of Japan, or if the interlocutor got sick right now it doesn't mean that help with visa automatically not happened. You know, that a decision is much stronger than a weak wish. So, the inverse-ordered chronology is an illusion and **it is normal to mention 'decision'-expressions** in such sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если **решишь** приехать ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we see that Wish-1 is not strict for normal speech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree with you that it is a kind of pressure to get a strong promise. By the way, this is about planning again, it is just a way to hide 'you think, that' expression, so this is about a decision again:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если [ты думаешь, что] точно приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить японскую визу&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wish-3:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hiding both 'decision'-expressions and signals of time control, you are risking not to be understood. Although most situations are obvious enough not to use anything, I am sure that for each situation you don't have to use complex signals of 4+ words, but this requires more vocabulary: not efficient, but a small tool set will cover most frequent cases.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;Enjoy Russian!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;Strictly saying, you can use even your Set-1 form with 'по-' for verbs of 'traveling' (go/fly/drive...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если **по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу Японии&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если ты **по**йдёшь в магазин, я не буду заезжать за продуктами  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will go to the shop, I will not buy products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Если мы **по**летим в другую страну, я куплю словарь  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If we will fly to another country, I will buy a dictionary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="fbcfb4eb-03bf-4adf-a056-e6871741659c" CreationDate="2019-05-02T12:41:04.300" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the analytic (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**в) Интенциональный компонент**&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Высказывалось мнение, что **конструкции аналитического будущего в большей степени**, чем будущему СВ, **присущ интенциональный компонент** (см. проверку этого утверждения на корпусном материале в [Чуйкова 2014: 26ff.]). В [Рассудова 1968/1982: 79–80] отмечено, что он особенно отчетливо проявляется в вопросах ко 2-му лицу, ср.:&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(13) – Что *будешь пить*? Я огляделся в растерянности, пытаясь понять, где он ухитряется прятать напитки. [В. Белоусова. Второй выстрел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2000)] – ≈ *Чего хочешь выпить?*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt; Ср. менее уместное в контексте вопроса о намерении адресата: *Чего выпьешь?*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**и в условных конструкциях**, ср.:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**(14) Если он *будет уходить* &lt;≈ соберется, захочет&gt;, вызовите меня! ≠ Если он *уйдет*, вызовите меня!** (пример из [Рассудова 1968/1982: 80])&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;В принципе в семантику будущего времени всегда входит либо компонент намерения, либо компонент предсказания (эпистемической гипотезы), см. [Dahl 1985; 2000]; [Bybee et al. 1994].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**rusgram.ru:** [*Аналитическая конструкция будущего времени, Основные употребления*](http://rusgram.ru/Аналитическая_конструкция_будущего_времени#21)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it clauses reversal isn't necessary, probably due to the use of different verb forms in each of them which reduces chances of misconstruing the implied sequence of events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19513" RevisionGUID="19dcbb27-21e4-4a0c-825a-26cf2b657f73" CreationDate="2019-05-02T13:33:27.060" UserId="445" Text="&quot;скучаю по вам&quot;&#xD;&#xA;коротко и ясно... а &quot;по вас&quot; - так в деревне говорят, ну может еще в Эстонии :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19514" RevisionGUID="08fbd5ff-52b8-4ace-ba41-bd6a422058bc" CreationDate="2019-05-02T13:36:32.427" UserId="445" Text="&quot;куда мне звонить?” - where should I call?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19510" RevisionGUID="f96d9d4e-1bfe-49cc-94dd-f632eee17458" CreationDate="2019-05-02T13:45:24.350" UserId="11395" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Yes, we have a great variety of excellent proverbs about this, perhaps even more catchy and appealing than in other languages. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Быстро только кошки родятся. Literal meaning: What happens quickly is only reproduction of cats. Global meaning: Everything takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Москва не сразу строилась. Literal meaning: Moscow wasn't built instantly. Global meaning: Everything big is done gradually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. От нетерпения вода в котелке не закипит. Literal meaning: Impatience won't make the water in the pot boil. Global meaning: There's no use of impatience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Терпи, казак, атаманом станешь. Literal meaning: Be patient (in enduring difficulties and sufferings), private, you will become a commander. Global meaning: Efforts and sufferings will pay off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a very Russian way to express what you want to express:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что, получила права и думала, что уже всё умеешь? Ага, разбежалась!&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Быстро научиться нельзя, потому что быстро только кошки родятся. На&#xD;&#xA;&gt; всякое хотенье имей терпенье, а от нетерпенья и вода в котелке не&#xD;&#xA;&gt; закипит. Так что терпи, казачка. Атаманшей станешь! :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I did not add one important thing, assuming it goes without saying, but the comments below suggest it doesn't. The above example is humorous and has to be said in a proper manner, in a convincing but humorous and positive tone, with a smile on your face and with love in your eyes. The use of proverbs is supposed to be just the icing on the cake. The cake is your tone and facial expression. Overall, in such situations, it mainly boils down not to what you say, but to how you say. If you say the above speech in a wrong tone and with a wrong facial expression, it can do more harm than good :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19515" RevisionGUID="737513fc-8799-4373-ac78-6b459fc4d57e" CreationDate="2019-05-02T14:02:28.850" UserId="11209" Text="I wanna use &quot;так&quot; dismissively as an interjection in a sentence like &quot;Главное - собраться, а остальное, так, найдется.&quot; Maybe ellipsis would better convey the dismissive nature of the interjection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19515" RevisionGUID="737513fc-8799-4373-ac78-6b459fc4d57e" CreationDate="2019-05-02T14:02:28.850" UserId="11209" Text="What's the correct punctuation when using an interjection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19515" RevisionGUID="737513fc-8799-4373-ac78-6b459fc4d57e" CreationDate="2019-05-02T14:02:28.850" UserId="11209" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="1086413c-2d29-4824-bc40-d2162c5fdd33" CreationDate="2019-05-02T14:53:04.720" UserId="7386" Comment="upd4 and a few corrections.." Text="Для разнообразия напишу по-русски с английскими вставками :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Боюсь, что `an elegant universal tool` для подобных конструкций в русском языке не существует. Как правило, используются те самые дополнительные уточняющие глаголы, которые вы нам &quot;запрещаете&quot; применять в параграфе (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И от выбора таких глаголов, порядка слов и (при устной речи) интонации/логического ударения будет зависеть, звучите ли вы как &quot;строгая учительница&quot; и пр. Честно говоря, мне кажется, что некоторые из ваших условий (the `three wishes`) чересчур строги и, в какой-то мере, бессмысленны. Потому что, как бы вы ни старались максимально точно выразить все важные для вас нюансы, другой человек всё равно может понять вас неправильно :) Особенно человек другой (в данном случае не японской) культуры. Очевидно также, что его/её восприятие ваших слов будет зависеть от того, насколько хорошо он вас знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Попробую дать свои варианты. (Я не во всем согласен с @БаянКупи-ка).&#xD;&#xA;Слова в скобках можно и даже желательно опустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Если (ты) &lt;strike&gt;при&lt;/strike&gt;**по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить (японскую) визу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Если (ты) будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Если (ты) будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила (го).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Upd:** Хочется добавить, что все эти варианты звучат для меня слегка ненатурально, именно из-за наложенных вами ограничений. Они звучат, как фразы из иностранного учебника по русскому языку, в реальной жизни так не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Upd4:**&#xD;&#xA;А теперь попробуем представить, как это звучало бы в реальной жизни, между двумя, ну скажем, приятелями, носителями русского (закроем глаза на бессмыслицу упоминания японских реалий в этом случае):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Приезжай в гости, с визой я помогу(, если что).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Сашими будешь? Могу купить рыбу и приготовить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Хочешь, сыграем в Го? Правила я объясню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот примерно так это может звучать по-русски, хотя интонацию я подробно расписать не берусь, а она здесь важна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По поводу:&#xD;&#xA;`If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... `:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Upd3:** Read your &quot;source&quot;, in that context I would probably translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если встреча в Б. 1 окт возможна(состоится) - сообщите(дайте знать) через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19505" RevisionGUID="5fb9664d-7a1d-4230-bbc9-1f2d8cb43e66" CreationDate="2019-05-02T15:29:24.333" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The **Set 2** is the right way of expressing this relationship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the analytic (imperfective) future tense here has undertone of intent rather than actual activity. So although you strive to avoid such surrogates as **решишь / соберёшься** (+ perfective &amp; imperfecive), **не против / готов** (+ mainly perfective) and the like, what you end up having is exactly that only expressed by grammactical rather than lexical means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Mind that **если/как будет угодно** is an antiquated expression belonging to a higher register, a rarity in daily conversations).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One very common example of this connotation at work is the question about desire to eat something. In an eatery we may ask our companion **Ты что будешь?** - **What would you like to have?** (literally ***What are you going to eat?***) or at home **Пюре будешь на ужин?** - **Would you like/Do you mind mashed potatos for the dinner?** (literally ***Are you going to eat mashed potatos for the dinner?***).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**в) Интенциональный компонент**&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Высказывалось мнение, что **конструкции аналитического будущего в большей степени**, чем будущему СВ, **присущ интенциональный компонент** (см. проверку этого утверждения на корпусном материале в [Чуйкова 2014: 26ff.]). В [Рассудова 1968/1982: 79–80] отмечено, что он особенно отчетливо проявляется в вопросах ко 2-му лицу, ср.:&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(13) – Что *будешь пить*? Я огляделся в растерянности, пытаясь понять, где он ухитряется прятать напитки. [В. Белоусова. Второй выстрел&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2000)] – ≈ *Чего хочешь выпить?*&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt; Ср. менее уместное в контексте вопроса о намерении адресата: *Чего выпьешь?*&lt;/sup&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**и в условных конструкциях**, ср.:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;**(14) Если он *будет уходить* &lt;≈ соберется, захочет&gt;, вызовите меня! ≠ Если он *уйдет*, вызовите меня!** (пример из [Рассудова 1968/1982: 80])&lt;/sup&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sup&gt;В принципе в семантику будущего времени всегда входит либо компонент намерения, либо компонент предсказания (эпистемической гипотезы), см. [Dahl 1985; 2000]; [Bybee et al. 1994].&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**rusgram.ru:** [*Аналитическая конструкция будущего времени, Основные употребления*](http://rusgram.ru/Аналитическая_конструкция_будущего_времени#21)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future tense in the **Set 1** framed with perfective verbs doesn't convey this meaning. Instead the sentences sound illogical where conditional relationship between clauses is turned on its head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conditional logic of the **Set 1** could be fixed by swapping the clauses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case the content of the 2nd clause serves as a condition under which the content of the 1st clause is possible provided that the action of the 2nd clause will necessarily occur after that of the 1st one. This aspect can be more clearly expressed by adding an adverbial complement of time **после этого** after **если**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Я помогу тебе получить &lt;strike&gt;визу Японии&lt;/strike&gt; японскую визу, если (после этого) ты приедешь ко мне в Японию.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя, если (после этого) ты попробуешь сашими.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Я объясню тебе правила го, если (после этого) ты со мной (в него) поиграешь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we're talking actual activity and not just intent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the sentence &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i agree with **tum_'s** [**Upd3**](https://russian.stackexchange.com/a/19507/7674) with preference for **`состоится`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In it clauses reversal isn't necessary, probably due to the use of different verb forms in each of them which reduces chances of misconstruing the implied sequence of events." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19516" RevisionGUID="19b3d5fc-05f0-49bf-a2eb-5f9ebe3dab41" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:12:11.233" UserId="11775" Text="Recently the respected user @Sergey Slepov suggested that the dish for soup is **тарелка** or **миска**, not **чашка**. His suggestion came as a reaction to my expression **чашка супу**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always been confused as to what the precise definitions of **тарелка**, **миска**, **чашка**, **блюдце**, **кружка**, **стакан**, **бокал** and so on are, and I am unsure how to correctly call even everyday dishes in Russian. I feel like I do not understand even the most basic things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you a few photos of most standard dishes and ask you how you call them in Russian. Hopefully your answers will make me more confident in choosing Russian words for dishes and help me understand the concepts of  **тарелка**, **миска**, **чашка** and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Please kindly have a look at this [photo][1]. How do you call the dishes shown in the photo - the ones for soup and rice, the one for fish, and the one for berries? Are the dishes for soup and rice called **чашка**, **тарелка**, or **миска**? Is the rectangular dish for fish called **блюдце** or **тарелка**? Is the dish for berries called **блюдце** or **чашка**?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Please now have a look at this [photo][2]. What is the Russian name for these rectangular boxes - **поднос**, **коробка**, or what? And please have a look at the round dish in the upper left corner of the photo. How is this dish called in Russian? **Тарелка**, **блюдце**, **миска**, **чашка**, or how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Now this [photo][3]. How do you call this red dish, the one whereon you see sushi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) Now this [photo][4]. How do you call these wooden sticks whereon the chicken pieces are nailed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) Now this [photo][5]. How is the big glass called? **Графин** or **бутылка**? And how are the small glasses called?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://images.japancentre.com/recipes/pics/1149/main/original_Japanese-Breakfast-Cropped.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sushischool.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/osechi-2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cdn2.veltra.com/ptr/20160513010155_2030064619_12812_0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/11/29/3b/ce/skewed-chicken-yakitori.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53b3d458e4b001dd36b270ee/t/5422422ee4b024080316c93c/1411531344175/Japanese+edo+kiriko.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19516" RevisionGUID="19b3d5fc-05f0-49bf-a2eb-5f9ebe3dab41" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:12:11.233" UserId="11775" Text="Choice of Russian words for dishes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19516" RevisionGUID="19b3d5fc-05f0-49bf-a2eb-5f9ebe3dab41" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:12:11.233" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19516" RevisionGUID="6be1545e-b8cb-4490-97b2-8dc50d3f9a9f" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:19:08.897" UserId="11775" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Recently the respected user @SergeySlepov suggested that the dish for soup is **тарелка** or **миска**, not **чашка**. His suggestion came as a reaction to my expression **чашка супу**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have always been confused as to what the precise definitions of **тарелка**, **миска**, **чашка**, **блюдце**, **кружка**, **стакан**, **бокал** and so on are, and I am unsure how to correctly call even everyday dishes in Russian. I feel like I do not understand even the most basic things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you a few photos of most standard dishes and ask you how you call them in Russian. Hopefully your answers will make me more confident in choosing Russian words for dishes and help me understand the concepts of  **тарелка**, **миска**, **чашка** and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Please kindly have a look at this [photo][1]. How do you call the dishes shown in the photo - the ones for soup and rice, the one for fish, and the one for berries? Are the dishes for soup and rice called **чашка**, **тарелка**, or **миска**? Is the rectangular dish for fish called **блюдце** or **тарелка**? Is the dish for berries called **блюдце** or **чашка**?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Please now have a look at this [photo][2]. What is the Russian name for these rectangular boxes - **поднос**, **коробка**, or what? And please have a look at the round dish in the upper left corner of the photo. How is this dish called in Russian? **Тарелка**, **блюдце**, **миска**, **чашка**, or how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Now this [photo][3]. How do you call this red dish, the one whereon you see sushi?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) Now this [photo][4]. How do you call these wooden sticks whereon the chicken pieces are nailed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) Now this [photo][5]. How is the big glass called? **Графин** or **бутылка**? And how are the small glasses called?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://images.japancentre.com/recipes/pics/1149/main/original_Japanese-Breakfast-Cropped.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sushischool.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/osechi-2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cdn2.veltra.com/ptr/20160513010155_2030064619_12812_0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/11/29/3b/ce/skewed-chicken-yakitori.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53b3d458e4b001dd36b270ee/t/5422422ee4b024080316c93c/1411531344175/Japanese+edo+kiriko.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="47fb3d1d-f557-4150-b52a-573dddeea198" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:35:54.793" UserId="7674" Text="My takes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)   &#xD;&#xA;А) soup and rice - **пиАлки/лы** (why not &lt;strike&gt;**миски**&lt;/strike&gt; - because &lt;strike&gt;миска&lt;/strike&gt; is associated with metal or plastic);   &#xD;&#xA;B) fish - **блюдо** (but there might be a specialized term for a rectangular one);   &#xD;&#xA;C) berries - i'd call it **чашечка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)   &#xD;&#xA;А) rectangular boxes - i'd label them **корОбки/кОробы**, it's an unusual term for cooked food containers, but since they're not typical to Russian cuisine, standard widely used term may not be in existence;   &#xD;&#xA;B) round dish in the upper left corner - i'd call it **блюдо на подставке/ножке**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) either **блюдо** or **поднос**, even though the latter is not meant for direct placing of food, so the suggestion is based on its shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) **деревянные шампурЫ**, the specification of material is desired here because standard **шампуры** are metal, or **шпАжки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) **графин** and **бокАлы** or **фужЕры**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="b6eba04d-25f3-424c-8980-18dba133e565" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:40:56.677" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="My takes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)   &#xD;&#xA;А) soup and rice - **пиАлки/лы** (why not &lt;strike&gt;**миски**&lt;/strike&gt; - because &lt;strike&gt;миска&lt;/strike&gt; is associated with metal or plastic);   &#xD;&#xA;B) fish - **блюдо** (but there might be a specialized term for a rectangular one);   &#xD;&#xA;C) berries - i'd call it **чашечка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)   &#xD;&#xA;А) rectangular boxes - i'd label them **корОбки/кОробы**, it's an unusual term for cooked food containers, but since they're not typical to Russian cuisine, standard widely used term may not be in existence;   &#xD;&#xA;B) round dish in the upper left corner - i'd call it **блюдо на подставке/ножке**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) either **блюдо** or **поднос**, even though the latter is not meant for direct food placement, so the suggestion is based on its shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) **деревянные шампурЫ**, the specification of material is desirable here because standard **шампуры** are metal, or **шпАжки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5)  &#xD;&#xA;A) the big glass - **графин**;  &#xD;&#xA;B) the small glasses - **бокАлы** or **фужЕры**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="c45390c4-6fc7-4119-906a-a09444744590" CreationDate="2019-05-02T19:46:22.060" UserId="7674" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="My takes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)   &#xD;&#xA;А) soup and rice - **пиАлки/лы** (why not &lt;strike&gt;**миски**&lt;/strike&gt; - because &lt;strike&gt;миска&lt;/strike&gt; is associated with metal or plastic);   &#xD;&#xA;B) fish - **блюдо** (but there might be a specialized term for a rectangular one);   &#xD;&#xA;C) berries - i'd call it **чашечка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)   &#xD;&#xA;А) rectangular boxes - i'd label them **корОбки/кОробы**, it's an unusual term for cooked food containers, but since they're not typical to Russian cuisine, standard widely used term may not be in existence;   &#xD;&#xA;B) round dish in the upper left corner - i'd call it **блюдо на подставке/ножке**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) either **блюдо** or **поднос**, even though the latter is not meant for direct food placement, so the suggestion is based on its shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) **деревянные шампурЫ**, the specification of material is desirable here because conventional **шампуры** are metal, or **шпАжки**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5)  &#xD;&#xA;A) the big glass - **графин**;  &#xD;&#xA;B) the small glasses - **бокАлы** or **фужЕры**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19518" RevisionGUID="705eb3ad-a6ac-46f9-a7a4-d01eb08542e0" CreationDate="2019-05-02T20:33:36.643" UserId="11107" Text="You version is correct, but used nearly only in oral speech, because 'так' is very rarely used for your reason and you need to supply it with intonation. I can suggest you to use a similar 'и так' expression, which is used only for such case and does not need punctuation. Your sentence becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **и так** найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dismissive nature is raised by showing that you don't matter **how** something will be done. So you can use the following expressions instead of 'и так':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **всё равно** найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **как-нибудь** найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, 'и так сойдёт' is a [well][1]-[known][2] meme from one old cartoon about a boy, who did not matter about any quality:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&amp;biw=1196&amp;bih=958&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;ei=2lPLXKyVCvSGk74Pi-GHqAQ&amp;q=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82%20meme&amp;oq=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82%20meme&amp;gs_l=img.3...0.0..25085...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz-img.I-bwKR7uR2o&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U64ao.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="1fd779c5-5235-4870-85fa-df6099f1cf03" CreationDate="2019-05-02T20:40:25.190" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="My takes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)   &#xD;&#xA;А) soup and rice - **пиАлки/лы** (why not &lt;strike&gt;**миски**&lt;/strike&gt; - because &lt;strike&gt;миска&lt;/strike&gt; is associated with metal or plastic);   &#xD;&#xA;B) fish - **блюдо** (but there might be a specialized term for a rectangular one);   &#xD;&#xA;C) berries - i'd call it **чашечка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)   &#xD;&#xA;А) rectangular boxes - i'd label them **корОбки/кОробы** (sing. короб), it's an unusual term for cooked food containers, but since they're not typical to Russian cuisine, standard widely used term may not be in existence;   &#xD;&#xA;B) round dish in the upper left corner - i'd call it **блюдо на подставке/ножке**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) either **блюдо** or **поднос**, the latter is possible because if i'm not mistaken sushi isn't placed directly thereon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) **деревянные шампурЫ**, the specification of material is desirable here because conventional **шампуры** (sing. шампУр) are metal, or **шпАжки** (sing. шпажка diminutive of шпага).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5)  &#xD;&#xA;A) the big glass - **графин**;  &#xD;&#xA;B) the small glasses - **бокАлы** (sing. бокал) or **фужЕры** (sing. фужер)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19517" RevisionGUID="6502eed4-6d88-4218-8ea1-3419c67cc5ab" CreationDate="2019-05-02T20:46:24.277" UserId="7674" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="My takes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1)   &#xD;&#xA;А) soup and rice - **пиАлки/лы** (why not &lt;strike&gt;**миски**&lt;/strike&gt; - because &lt;strike&gt;миска&lt;/strike&gt; is associated with metal or plastic);   &#xD;&#xA;B) fish - **блюдо** (but there might be a specialized term for a rectangular one);   &#xD;&#xA;C) berries - i'd call it **чашечка**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2)   &#xD;&#xA;А) rectangular boxes - i'd label them **корОбки/кОробы** (sing. короб), it's an unusual term for cooked food containers, but since they're not typical to Russian cuisine, standard widely used term may not be in existence, or alternatively - **контЕйнеры**;   &#xD;&#xA;B) round dish in the upper left corner - i'd call it **блюдо на подставке/ножке**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) either **блюдо** or **поднос**, the latter is possible because if i'm not mistaken sushi isn't placed directly thereon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) **деревянные шампурЫ**, the specification of material is desirable here because conventional **шампуры** (sing. шампУр) are metal, or **шпАжки** (sing. шпажка diminutive of шпага).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5)  &#xD;&#xA;A) the big glass - **графин**;  &#xD;&#xA;B) the small glasses - **бокАлы** (sing. бокал) or **фужЕры** (sing. фужер)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19518" RevisionGUID="f019358a-6aed-4fd0-95ee-8e408e175660" CreationDate="2019-05-02T20:49:49.627" UserId="11107" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="You version is correct, but used nearly only in oral speech, because 'так' is very rarely used for your reason and you need to supply it with intonation. I can suggest you to use a similar 'и так' expression, which is used only for such case and does not need punctuation. Your sentence becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **и так** найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dismissive nature is raised by showing that you don't matter **how** something will be done. So you can use the following expressions instead of 'и так':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **всё равно**(=anyhow) найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **как-нибудь**(=somehow) найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, 'и так сойдёт'~'it looks similar to the target result' is a [well][1]-[known][2] meme from one old cartoon about a boy, who did not matter about any quality:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&amp;biw=1196&amp;bih=958&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;ei=2lPLXKyVCvSGk74Pi-GHqAQ&amp;q=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82%20meme&amp;oq=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82%20meme&amp;gs_l=img.3...0.0..25085...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz-img.I-bwKR7uR2o&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U64ao.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19518" RevisionGUID="2f4d2438-3025-4286-aed3-457b66d3c398" CreationDate="2019-05-02T20:57:02.870" UserId="11107" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="You version is correct, but used nearly only in oral speech, because 'так' is very rarely used for your reason and you need to supply it with intonation (some [example][1]). I can suggest you to use a similar 'и так' expression, which is used only for such case and does not need punctuation. Your sentence becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **и так** найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dismissive nature is raised by showing that you don't matter **how** something will be done. So you can use the following expressions instead of 'и так':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **всё равно**(=anyhow) найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **как-нибудь**(=somehow) найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, 'и так сойдёт'~'it looks similar to the target result' is a [well][2]-[known][3] meme from one old cartoon about a boy, who did not matter about any quality:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/2wcIEybNscs?t=1261&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&amp;biw=1196&amp;bih=958&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;ei=2lPLXKyVCvSGk74Pi-GHqAQ&amp;q=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82%20meme&amp;oq=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82%20meme&amp;gs_l=img.3...0.0..25085...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz-img.I-bwKR7uR2o&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U64ao.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19519" RevisionGUID="f2058283-8e17-4e92-aba3-5a87b919e99a" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:00:09.720" UserId="11800" Text="&gt; За ночь&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;would be most suitable for spoken language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is by the way &quot;over-night&quot; translated literally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19518" RevisionGUID="cd74b803-00c0-4f71-9950-3d628b9a0edb" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:03:24.733" UserId="11107" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="You version is correct, but used nearly only in oral speech, because 'так' is very rarely used for your reason and you need to supply it with intonation (some [example][1]). I can suggest you to use a similar 'и так' expression, which is used only for such case and does not need punctuation. Your sentence becomes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **и так** найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dismissive nature is raised by showing that you don't matter **how** something will be done. So you can use the following expressions instead of 'и так':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **всё равно**(=anyhow) найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Главное - собраться, а остальное **как-нибудь**(=somehow) найдется&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, 'и так сойдёт'~'it looks similar to the target result' is a [well][2]-[known][3] meme from one old cartoon about a boy, who did not matter about any quality:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://youtu.be/2wcIEybNscs?t=1261&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&amp;q=%D0%B8+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA+%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82+meme&amp;oq=%D0%B8+%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA+%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D1%91%D1%82+meme&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%B8%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U64ao.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="3a144c93-4fa4-4ca4-a29f-e920dc9e6a1a" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:30:15.200" UserId="11801" Text="I took this picture at the Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. I'm a graphic designer and I'm curious about this typography, I think it's cyrillic writing, I could be wrong. I already tried to match each shape with the cyrillic alphabet but I was unable to get them all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's cyrillic? What characters are? Any idea about the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already draw some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTr4R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tg6b1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="3a144c93-4fa4-4ca4-a29f-e920dc9e6a1a" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:30:15.200" UserId="11801" Text="Identifying characters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="3a144c93-4fa4-4ca4-a29f-e920dc9e6a1a" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:30:15.200" UserId="11801" Text="|буквы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="6ea0ad47-2362-4099-84ec-ef044277fa10" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:37:52.740" UserId="11801" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I took this picture at the Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. I'm a graphic designer and I'm curious about this typography, I think it's cyrillic writing or maybe an old alphabet, I could be wrong. I already tried to match each shape with the cyrillic alphabet but I was unable to get them all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's cyrillic? What characters are? Any idea about the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already draw some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTr4R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tg6b1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19521" RevisionGUID="5d5742c8-dba3-46b0-bca4-c4028cd9ec9f" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:44:12.467" UserId="7674" Text="Looks like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аще любите мя, заповеди моя соблюдите&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you love me, keep my commands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John 14:15](https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/14-15.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19521" RevisionGUID="2355dd84-0d01-4e96-99b3-02781eb01493" CreationDate="2019-05-02T21:52:00.047" UserId="7674" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Looks like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аще любите мя, заповеди моя соблюдите&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you love me, keep my commands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[John 14:15](https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/14-15.html) ([Church Slavonic](https://bibleonline.ru/bible/csl/jhn-14/))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19508" RevisionGUID="a80c053b-2de0-4332-a19b-38582c8f947a" CreationDate="2019-05-03T00:00:42.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1124101439951863808" />
  <row Id="50943" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="5aca1298-3f6f-4f8f-9531-9f293ba289bd" CreationDate="2019-05-03T00:08:23.460" />
  <row Id="50944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19522" RevisionGUID="fa44f4b8-2ac3-4e7f-991e-41d09ad49427" CreationDate="2019-05-03T04:45:16.173" UserId="6539" Text="Picture one:глубокие тарелки или миски  с супом и рисом, тарелка для рыбы, салатничек с клубникой. Picture two:коробки/контейнеры, красная пиала.Then блюдо, шпажки, графин с бокалами" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19521" RevisionGUID="0660018c-383a-44a9-98dd-c6641cd5d82d" CreationDate="2019-05-03T06:10:04.240" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="Looks like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Аще любите мя, заповеди моя соблюдите ([Ин. 14:15](https://azbyka.ru/biblia/?Jn.14:15))&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you love me, keep my commands  ([John 14:15](https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/14-15.html))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19509" RevisionGUID="94967b59-1890-4325-a4c0-349e657900a0" CreationDate="2019-05-03T06:11:46.280" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="**[В одночасье](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Нельзя всё узнать и всему научиться **в одночасье**. Будь&#xD;&#xA;&gt; терпеливой. Ты получила права совсем недавно. То, что ты сумела&#xD;&#xA;&gt; столько продержаться с нами, – уже само по себе подвиг.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simpler variants are **моментально, в (один) момент, мгновенно, в одно мгновение, в мгновение ока, мигом, за (один) день, тут же, сразу** " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19523" RevisionGUID="faff382b-fe80-45dc-961b-884af04694fd" CreationDate="2019-05-03T06:18:21.387" UserId="11019" Text="Have a look [here][1], it's an older version of cyrillic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Cyrillic_alphabet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19521" RevisionGUID="8f37788c-e993-49d3-b0e5-2c308c1891f0" CreationDate="2019-05-03T08:12:15.023" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Looks like &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А́щє лю́битє м[iа́](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotated_A), за́повѣди мо[iа́](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotated_A) соблюди́тє ([Ин. 14:15](http://archive.is/HfXsa))&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you love me, keep my commands  ([John 14:15](https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/14-15.html))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="71d9a716-97bb-4e45-872d-84d5c884d8ae" CreationDate="2019-05-03T08:29:17.087" UserId="7386" Comment="upd5" Text="Для разнообразия напишу по-русски с английскими вставками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Боюсь, что `an elegant universal tool` для подобных конструкций в русском языке не существует. Как правило, используются те самые дополнительные уточняющие глаголы, которые вы нам &quot;запрещаете&quot; применять вашим параграфом (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И от выбора таких глаголов, порядка слов и, при устной речи, интонации/логического ударения будет зависеть, звучите ли вы как &quot;строгая учительница&quot; и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd5**: Абзац внизу частично потерял актуальность после того как вы более подробно раскрыли ваши &quot;жизненные установки&quot; в комментариях к другим ответам. Но только частично, поэтому пока оставляю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честно говоря, мне кажется, что некоторые из ваших условий (the `three wishes`) чересчур строги и, в какой-то мере, бессмысленны. Потому что, как бы вы ни старались максимально точно выразить все важные для вас нюансы, другой человек всё равно может понять вас неправильно :) И особенно человек другой (в данном случае не японской) культуры. Очевидно также, что его/её восприятие ваших слов будет зависеть от того, насколько хорошо он вас знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd5**: rephrased:&#xD;&#xA;Попробую дать свой вариант выбора из ваших Set 1, Set 2 с некоторыми поправками, но не выходя за рамки &quot;заданных граничных условий (1),(2),(3)&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;Слова в скобках можно и даже желательно опустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Если (ты) &lt;strike&gt;при&lt;/strike&gt; **по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить (японскую) визу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Если (ты) будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее (для тебя).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Если (ты) будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила (го).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd:** Хочется добавить, что все эти варианты звучат для меня слегка ненатурально, и это во многом именно из-за наложенных вами ограничений. Они звучат, как фразы из иностранного учебника по русскому языку, в реальной жизни так обычно не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd4:**&#xD;&#xA;А теперь попробуем представить, как это звучало бы в реальной жизни, между двумя, ну скажем, приятелями, носителями русского (закроем глаза на бессмыслицу из-за упоминания японских реалий в этом случае):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Приезжай в гости, с визой я помогу(, если что).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Сашими будешь? Могу купить рыбу и приготовить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Хочешь, сыграем в Го? Правила я объясню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот примерно так это может звучать по-русски, хотя интонацию я подробно расписать не берусь, а она здесь важна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По поводу:&#xD;&#xA;`If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... `:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd3:** In the context given by the source I would translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если встреча в Б. 1 окт возможна|состоится - сообщите|дайте знать через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50950" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19515" RevisionGUID="97b4d02e-6981-478c-a779-af63fec40e94" CreationDate="2019-05-03T09:00:56.167" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1124237391995330560" />
  <row Id="50951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="4f007dc0-53cd-4222-ad32-d9524623d74f" CreationDate="2019-05-03T09:29:40.000" UserId="11775" Text="There is a big conflict between what I was taught here in Japan and what is written in most Russian grammar sources, and I am very curious what the native speakers have to say about it. I am especially eager to hear responses to one very specific question, which I will ask at the end of this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst most Russian grammar sources say that there are only three tenses in Russian (past, present, future), I was taught that there are more tenses, the exact number depending on how to count. The conception I was taught appears to be partially based on or partially concurrent with the book *Российская Грамматика* by М. Lomonosov, who wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 268&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Времен имеют российские глаголы десять: осмь от простых да два от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложенных; от простых: 1) настоящее — трясу, глотаю, бросаю, плещу; 2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшее неопределенное — трясъ, глоталъ, бросалъ, плескалъ; 3)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшее однократное — тряхнулъ, глотнулъ, бросилъ, плеснулъ; 4)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давнопрошедшее первое — тряхивалъ, глатывалъ, брасывалъ, плескивалъ;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) давнопрошедшее второе — бывало трясъ, бывало глоталъ, бросалъ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плескалъ; 6) давнопрошедшее третие — бывало трясывалъ, глатывалъ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брасывалъ, плескивалъ; 7) будущее неопределенное — буду трясти; стану&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глотать, бросать, плескать; 8) будущее однократное — тряхну, глотну,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брошу, плесну. От сложенных: 9) прошедшее совершенное, напр.: написалъ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от пишу; 10) будущее совершенное — напишу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you an example of how I was taught to use these forms. Let's suppose I need to translate the following sentence to Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was sitting at a goban whereon great masters *had* played.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I use the Russian standard past tense for both verbs, I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сидела за доской, на которой играли великие мастера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Russian translation is ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two different ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I was watching great masters playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I was sitting at a historic goban whereon a number of great masters had played before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ambiguity can be removed by using the *distant past* tense, called *давнопрошедшее* by Lomonosov and absent in most Russian grammar sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сидела за доской, за которой *игрывали* великие мастера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was taught that this variant absolutely excludes the first interpretation because **игрывали** is a kind of Russian Past Perfect. It is also possible to strengthen the idea by adding **бывало** before **игрывали** (*давнопрошедшее третье* in Lomonosov's classification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it works like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Infinitive: Eсть. Играть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Past: Он ел. Он играл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Distant Past: Он едал. Он игрывал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Russian grammar sources, however, consider the forms **едал** and **игрывал** as the standard past tense of the verbs **едать** and **игрывать**, and consider the latter verbs as normal verbs defined as **to eat sometimes** and **to play sometimes**. For example, here is how Wiktionary defines the word **едать**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; едать: разг. многокр. к есть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this conception, **едать** and **игрывать** do not have the connotation of distant past, that is, the connotation that the action was performed before the events that are told about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this difference between the conceptions prompts an ultimate test to determine which conception is true: **Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you, for example, say this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я *едаю* в этом кафе. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На каком сайте он *игрывает* в рэндзю?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Столовая больше не будет работать, поэтому *буду едать* дома.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда стану сильным игроком, *буду игрывать* в международных турнирах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My logic is this: If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant past (and hence I was taught wrong things), and if you cannot, then they have such a connotation (and hence I was taught right and many Russian grammar sources teach wrong things). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find the answer by searching similar phrases in Google, and my little investigation suggests that you cannot say phrases like the examples above. I found really very few such results, whilst I found many results with phrases like **я едал**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this suggests that the true conception is the one proposed by Lomonosov and taught to me in Japan, not the one given in most Russian grammar sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov was a great man. Or wasn't he? The Lomonosov Moscow State University bears his name for a reason. It is hard to believe that he was mistaken. I find it much easier to believe that most Russian grammar sources are oversimplified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Can you use **едать** and **игрывать** in the present and future tenses, and, if not, do you agree with my conclusion about which conception is true? I am very curious what you, native speakers, have to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="4f007dc0-53cd-4222-ad32-d9524623d74f" CreationDate="2019-05-03T09:29:40.000" UserId="11775" Text="Are there really only three tenses in Russian? I was taught differently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="4f007dc0-53cd-4222-ad32-d9524623d74f" CreationDate="2019-05-03T09:29:40.000" UserId="11775" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|выражения|tense|будущее-время|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="43b06c3f-0340-488d-8641-8f6485708860" CreationDate="2019-05-03T09:39:02.327" UserId="11775" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There is a big conflict between what I was taught here in Japan and what is written in most Russian grammar sources, and I am very curious what the native speakers have to say about it. I am especially eager to hear responses to one very specific question, which I will ask at the end of this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst most Russian grammar sources say that there are only three tenses in Russian (past, present, future), I was taught that there are more tenses, the exact number depending on how to count. The conception I was taught appears to be partially based on or partially concurrent with the book *Российская Грамматика* by М. Lomonosov, who wrote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; § 268&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Времен имеют российские глаголы десять: осмь от простых да два от&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сложенных; от простых: 1) настоящее — трясу, глотаю, бросаю, плещу; 2)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшее неопределенное — трясъ, глоталъ, бросалъ, плескалъ; 3)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; прошедшее однократное — тряхнулъ, глотнулъ, бросилъ, плеснулъ; 4)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; давнопрошедшее первое — тряхивалъ, глатывалъ, брасывалъ, плескивалъ;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5) давнопрошедшее второе — бывало трясъ, бывало глоталъ, бросалъ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; плескалъ; 6) давнопрошедшее третие — бывало трясывалъ, глатывалъ,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брасывалъ, плескивалъ; 7) будущее неопределенное — буду трясти; стану&#xD;&#xA;&gt; глотать, бросать, плескать; 8) будущее однократное — тряхну, глотну,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; брошу, плесну. От сложенных: 9) прошедшее совершенное, напр.: написалъ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; от пишу; 10) будущее совершенное — напишу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to show you an example of how I was taught to use these forms. Let's suppose I need to translate the following sentence to Russian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I was sitting at a goban whereon great masters *had* played.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I use the Russian standard past tense for both verbs, I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сидела за доской, на которой играли великие мастера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This Russian translation is ambiguous because it can be interpreted in two different ways: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I was watching great masters playing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I was sitting at a historic goban whereon a number of great masters had played before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This ambiguity can be removed by using the *distant past* tense, called *давнопрошедшее* by Lomonosov and absent in most Russian grammar sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я сидела за доской, за которой *игрывали* великие мастера.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was taught that this variant absolutely excludes the first interpretation because **игрывали** is a kind of Russian Past Perfect. It is also possible to strengthen the idea by adding **бывало** before **игрывали** (*давнопрошедшее третье* in Lomonosov's classification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it works as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Infinitive: Eсть. Играть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Past: Он ел. Он играл.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Distant Past: Он едал. Он игрывал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most Russian grammar sources, however, consider the forms **едал** and **игрывал** as the standard past tense of the verbs **едать** and **игрывать**, and consider the latter verbs as normal verbs defined as **to eat sometimes** and **to play sometimes**. For example, here is how Wiktionary defines the word **едать**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; едать: разг. многокр. к есть &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this conception, **едать** and **игрывать** do not have the connotation of distant past, that is, the connotation that the action was performed before the events that are told about. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this difference between the conceptions prompts an ultimate test to determine which conception is true: **Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you, for example, say this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я *едаю* в этом кафе. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; На каком сайте он *игрывает* в рэндзю?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Столовая больше не будет работать, поэтому *буду едать* дома.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Когда стану сильным игроком, *буду игрывать* в международных турнирах.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My logic is this: If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant past (and hence I was taught wrong things), and if you cannot, then they have such a connotation (and hence I was taught right and many Russian grammar sources teach wrong things). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find the answer by searching similar phrases in Google, and my little investigation suggests that you cannot say phrases like the examples above. I found really very few such results, whilst I found many results with phrases like **я едал**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this suggests that the true conception is the one proposed by Lomonosov and taught to me in Japan, not the one given in most Russian grammar sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov was a great man. Or wasn't he? The Lomonosov Moscow State University bears his name for a reason. It is hard to believe that he was mistaken. I find it much easier to believe that most Russian grammar sources are oversimplified. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Can you use **едать** and **игрывать** in the present and future tenses, and, if not, do you agree with my conclusion about which conception is true? I am very curious what you, native speakers, have to say." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="f4826624-b5e5-4456-9680-04035131f899" CreationDate="2019-05-03T09:57:11.530" UserId="11801" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I took this picture at the Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. I'm a graphic designer and I'm curious about this typography, I think it's cyrillic writing or maybe an old alphabet, I could be wrong. I already tried to match each shape with the cyrillic alphabet but I was unable to get them all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's cyrillic? What characters are? Any idea about the meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already draw some of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another pic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTr4R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tg6b1.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b2V5W.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19525" RevisionGUID="efb36d0c-09d5-4474-952b-203e331ceb0b" CreationDate="2019-05-03T10:15:57.093" UserId="11080" Text="Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Едать и игрывать are easily racognized as archaic words influencing the style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs are not used in the Present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="9112753b-c7d2-4684-b8fb-a3c4039cc5f6" CreationDate="2019-05-03T10:24:13.550" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past (and hence I was taught wrong things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time denoting relatively short time spans such as **(поза)вчера**, **(два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад**, **в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix **по-** e.g. **пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю**. Their future tense is always analytical - **буду пописывать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet  are still understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was a great man. Or wasn't he?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well i'm sure as the Japanese, has changed and its grammar theory as well. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="d301234d-f88b-41c4-9ed4-a649c83f8b4c" CreationDate="2019-05-03T10:34:00.810" UserId="7674" Comment="added 399 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past (and hence I was taught wrong things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time denoting relatively short time spans such as **(поза)вчера**, **(два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад**, **в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix **по-** e.g. **пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю**. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - **буду пописывать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet  are still understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was a great man. Or wasn't he?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms **играла** and **играли** save for gender and number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by the means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is inferred from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="3ca09727-bc70-4090-9bd8-37a36751105b" CreationDate="2019-05-03T10:39:37.997" UserId="7674" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past (and hence I was taught wrong things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time denoting relatively short time spans such as **(поза)вчера**, **(два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад**, **в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix **по-** e.g. **пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю**. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - **буду пописывать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet  are still understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was a great man. Or wasn't he?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms **играла** and **играли** save for gender and number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="adcb8ee3-07e2-4dff-b536-d6cd8d2368fd" CreationDate="2019-05-03T10:44:51.980" UserId="7674" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past (and hence I was taught wrong things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time denoting relatively short time spans such as **(поза)вчера**, **(два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад**, **в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix **по-** (not all do however) e.g. **пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю**. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - **буду пописывать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet  are still understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was a great man. Or wasn't he?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms **играла** and **играли** save for gender and number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50961" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19520" RevisionGUID="3dacf637-abe4-4490-9541-4b0ab025fd87" CreationDate="2019-05-03T10:57:03.740" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="50962" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="a827cec2-493f-4eff-9fe4-ec472ba33fed" CreationDate="2019-05-03T11:05:37.827" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50963" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="1fc99bc4-bc3d-476b-aab0-b7f4951120d5" CreationDate="2019-05-03T11:08:55.037" />
  <row Id="50964" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="73da2dbc-f5a5-44b4-850f-6a2b9c3011b1" CreationDate="2019-05-03T12:32:01.663" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|глаголы|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="9d63543e-fb1f-4d58-a960-601f69001f92" CreationDate="2019-05-03T12:34:14.080" UserId="242" Comment="mentioning the fact that question is important to the author  doesn't contribute anyhow to the question. Every question supposed to be important to the author." Text="Let's suppose I need to convey the following idea: If you do X in the future, I do Y in the future, with one important subtlety: Y is physically done *earlier* than X is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am blushing as I feel I may have confused you by saying such an apparently illogical thing, but I do not know how to say it better, so kindly let me give you a few examples of some XY pairs illustrating the concept:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (a) X = to visit me in Japan, Y = to help you get a Japanese visa&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (b) X = to try sashimi, Y = to buy fish and slice it for you&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (c) X = to play Go with me, Y = to explain you the rules of Go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I humbly hope that you get the idea despite my clumsy explanation. The idea is that here the logical order and chronological order are mutually *opposite*. You do X *after* I do Y, but I do Y *because* you will do X, and both X and Y are in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I naively try to translate such ideas to your wonderful language just by using the standard Russian future conditional forms intended for the natural chronological order, I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Set 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты попробуешь сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты поиграешь со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Set 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты будешь ехать ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do all these six sentences sound to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly ask you how *you* would translate the above three ideas to Russian taking the following three wishes of mine into account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Please refrain from using expressions like **если ты решишь приехать**, **если тебе будет угодно приехать**, **если ты соберешься приехать**, because **решить приехать** and **приехать** are two principally different things. You see, if you decide to visit me in Japan, you still well may change your decision. And this is why I want to make the conditional be not about deciding or intending, but about actually coming to Japan. That's a principal thing. The idea is this: If it is absolutely certain that you visit me in Japan in the future, then I help you get a Japanese visa, because I am a girl with self-respect who does not want to spend her time preparing many documents and visiting authorities if there is a chance of you not coming to Japan. The idea is that I am prepared to help you get a visa *in return* for you visiting me later. It is a deal implying utmost commitment to visit me. I am afraid that using **если ты решишь приехать** may lead to huge misunderstanding. The same applies to the above examples with sashimi and Go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) I want the conditionals to be as concise, neutral, and naturally sounding as possible, as well as exerting no pressure and not looking official or demanding in any way. I strongly dislike variants like **если ты точно приедешь** or **при условии что ты приедешь**, because I do not want to sound like a strict school teacher demanding something. I want to sound like a friend offering an opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I want to see an elegant universal tool rather than ad hoc bulky solutions like **я тогда заранее для этой цели помогу**. In general, I strive to learn new tools in order to get able to express ideas more effectively than I currently can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that the naive translations suggested by me above are at least understandable, because the chronological order is already obvious from the very nature of X and Y, but how should I translate such ideas to Russian if X and Y are such that it is not logically obvious from them by themselves what is done first, X or Y? In other words, how can I *grammatically* make clear that the inverse chronological order is implied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us consider this specific example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**X = to come to my apartment, Y = to borrow a really nice goban from my neighbor.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A goban is a board used to play Go and Gomoku.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, how do you make it abundantly clear in Russian that the inverse chronological order is implied? Could you show me your translation variants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English there is a universal tool for that (see, for example, this [Reference][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* come to my apartment, I will borrow a really nice goban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from my neighbor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the first **will** (i.e., the one in the subordinate clause) reverses the chronological order, or at least this is how it is perceived by native English speakers, especially when the first word **will** is stressed. Without the first **will** the sentence implies that after you come to my apartment, I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban. With the first **will** the sentence implies that I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban well before you come to my apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recall a famous message by Aldrich Ames, an American who spied for your country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this message, he asked his KGB partners to leave a sign at the location called North to confirm that they would meet him in Bogota. How do you translate Ames' message to Russian to reflect the inverse chronological order?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My university textbooks give no clue how to formulate future conditionals with the reversed chronological order in Russian, and I tried to figure it out myself by searching in the Internet, but found no clues whatsoever, which made me puzzled because such conditionals are everyday routine. What do you have in your arsenal to effectively express such things without resorting to ad hoc explanations about the purposes or timings of X and Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since future conditionals with the inverse chronological order are everyday routine, I really want to sort it out and am humbly looking forward to reading your enlightening responses. I am equally happy to read responses in English and in Russian, whatever you find more convenient for yourself or useful for the objectives of this wonderful forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please kindly accept my apologies if I overwhelmed you with such a long text of mine. I wanted to make sure you get my question right, but I am just an undergraduate student, too young and too inexperienced to explain things better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/will-would-in-if-clause&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/27/us/how-the-fbi-finally-caught-aldrich-ames.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19504" RevisionGUID="1e771a90-7cb9-410e-bb8a-d1911de6faba" CreationDate="2019-05-03T13:11:59.900" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 236 characters in body" Text="Let's suppose I need to convey the following idea: If you do X in the future, I do Y in the future, with one important subtlety: Y is physically done *earlier* than X is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am blushing as I feel I may have confused you by saying such an apparently illogical thing, but I do not know how to say it better, so kindly let me give you a few examples of some XY pairs illustrating the concept:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; (a) X = to visit me in Japan, Y = to help you get a Japanese visa&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (b) X = to try sashimi, Y = to buy fish and slice it for you&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; (c) X = to play Go with me, Y = to explain you the rules of Go&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I humbly hope that you get the idea despite my clumsy explanation. The idea is that here the logical order and chronological order are mutually *opposite*. You do X *after* I do Y, but I do Y *because* you will do X, and both X and Y are in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I naively try to translate such ideas to your wonderful language just by using the standard Russian future conditional forms intended for the natural chronological order, I get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Set 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты приедешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты попробуешь сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты поиграешь со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Set 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) Если ты будешь ехать ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить визу&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Японии.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (b) Если ты будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тебя.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (c) Если ты будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила го.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do all these six sentences sound to you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly ask you how *you* would translate the above three ideas to Russian taking the following three wishes of mine into account:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Please refrain from using expressions like **если ты решишь приехать**, **если тебе будет угодно приехать**, **если ты соберешься приехать**, because **решить приехать** and **приехать** are two principally different things. You see, if you decide to visit me in Japan, you still well may change your decision. And this is why I want to make the conditional be not about deciding or intending, but about actually coming to Japan. That's a principal thing. The idea is this: If it is absolutely certain that you visit me in Japan in the future, then I help you get a Japanese visa, because I am a girl with self-respect who does not want to spend her time preparing many documents and visiting authorities if there is a chance of you not coming to Japan. The idea is that I am prepared to help you get a visa *in return* for you visiting me later. It is a deal implying utmost commitment to visit me. I am afraid that using **если ты решишь приехать** may lead to huge misunderstanding. The same applies to the above examples with sashimi and Go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) I want the conditionals to be as concise, neutral, and naturally sounding as possible, as well as exerting no pressure and not looking official or demanding in any way. I strongly dislike variants like **если ты точно приедешь** or **при условии что ты приедешь**, because I do not want to sound like a strict school teacher demanding something. I want to sound like a friend offering an opportunity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) I want to see an elegant universal tool rather than ad hoc bulky solutions like **я тогда заранее для этой цели помогу**. In general, I strive to learn new tools in order to get able to express ideas more effectively than I currently can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that the naive translations suggested by me above are at least understandable, because the chronological order is already obvious from the very nature of X and Y, but how should I translate such ideas to Russian if X and Y are such that it is not logically obvious from them by themselves what is done first, X or Y? In other words, how can I *grammatically* make clear that the inverse chronological order is implied?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us consider this specific example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**X = to come to my apartment, Y = to borrow a really nice goban from my neighbor.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A goban is a board used to play Go and Gomoku.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, how do you make it abundantly clear in Russian that the inverse chronological order is implied? Could you show me your translation variants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern English there is a universal tool for that (see, for example, this [Reference][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* come to my apartment, I will borrow a really nice goban&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from my neighbor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this sentence, the first **will** (i.e., the one in the subordinate clause) reverses the chronological order, or at least this is how it is perceived by native English speakers, especially when the first word **will** is stressed. Without the first **will** the sentence implies that after you come to my apartment, I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban. With the first **will** the sentence implies that I will go to my neighbor to borrow the goban well before you come to my apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recall a famous message by Aldrich Ames, an American who spied for your country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you *will* meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this message, he asked his KGB partners to leave a sign at the location called North to confirm that they would meet him in Bogota. How do you translate Ames' message to Russian to reflect the inverse chronological order?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My university textbooks give no clue how to formulate future conditionals with the reversed chronological order in Russian, and I tried to figure it out myself by searching in the Internet, but found no clues whatsoever, which made me puzzled because such conditionals are everyday routine. What do you have in your arsenal to effectively express such things without resorting to ad hoc explanations about the purposes or timings of X and Y?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since future conditionals with the inverse chronological order are everyday routine, I really want to sort it out and am humbly looking forward to reading your enlightening responses. I am equally happy to read responses in English and in Russian, whatever you find more convenient for yourself or useful for the objectives of this wonderful forum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/will-would-in-if-clause&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/27/us/how-the-fbi-finally-caught-aldrich-ames.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19507" RevisionGUID="4ce610c6-bc81-4940-83e5-768b032c3ba6" CreationDate="2019-05-03T15:40:59.437" UserId="7386" Comment="answer expanded with upd6" Text="Для разнообразия напишу по-русски с английскими вставками.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Боюсь, что `an elegant universal tool` для подобных конструкций в русском языке не существует. Как правило, используются те самые дополнительные уточняющие глаголы, которые вы нам &quot;запрещаете&quot; применять вашим параграфом (1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;И от выбора таких глаголов, порядка слов и, при устной речи, интонации/логического ударения будет зависеть, звучите ли вы как &quot;строгая учительница&quot; и пр.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd5**: Абзац внизу частично потерял актуальность после того как вы более подробно раскрыли ваши &quot;жизненные установки&quot; в комментариях к другим ответам. Но только частично, поэтому пока оставляю.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Честно говоря, мне кажется, что некоторые из ваших условий (the `three wishes`) чересчур строги и, в какой-то мере, бессмысленны. Потому что, как бы вы ни старались максимально точно выразить все важные для вас нюансы, другой человек всё равно может понять вас неправильно :) И особенно человек другой (в данном случае не японской) культуры. Очевидно также, что его/её восприятие ваших слов будет зависеть от того, насколько хорошо он вас знает.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd5**: rephrased:&#xD;&#xA;Попробую дать свой вариант выбора из ваших Set 1, Set 2 с некоторыми поправками, но не выходя за рамки &quot;заданных граничных условий (1),(2),(3)&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;Слова в скобках можно и даже желательно опустить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Если (ты) &lt;strike&gt;при&lt;/strike&gt; **по**едешь ко мне в Японию, я помогу тебе получить (японскую) визу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Если (ты) будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее (для тебя).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Если (ты) будешь играть со мной в го, я объясню тебе правила (го).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd1:** Хочется добавить, что все эти варианты звучат для меня слегка ненатурально, и это во многом именно из-за наложенных вами ограничений. Они звучат, как фразы из иностранного учебника по русскому языку, в реальной жизни так обычно не говорят.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd4:**&#xD;&#xA;А теперь попробуем представить, как это звучало бы в реальной жизни, между двумя, ну скажем, приятелями, носителями русского (закроем глаза на бессмыслицу из-за упоминания японских реалий в этом случае):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(a) Приезжай в гости, с визой я помогу(, если что).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(b) Сашими будешь? Могу купить рыбу и приготовить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(c) Хочешь, сыграем в Го? Правила я объясню.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Вот примерно так это может звучать по-русски, хотя интонацию я подробно расписать не берусь, а она здесь важна.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;По поводу:&#xD;&#xA;`If you will meet at B on 1 Oct, pls signal North ... `:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd3:** In the context given by the source I would translate as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Если встреча в Б. 1 окт возможна|состоится - сообщите|дайте знать через &quot;Север&quot; ...`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**upd6**: &#xD;&#xA;where I will try to comment on this particular query:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;` I got confused about something. You offer this variant: &quot;Если будешь пробовать сашими, я куплю рыбу и нарежу ее для тебя.&quot; I just searched similar phrases in Google and found the following statement by your president: &quot;Если они будут выдавать гражданство россиянам, а мы в России будем давать гражданство украинцам, то постепенно мы придем к общему искомому результату, о чем я и сказал.&quot; How is it that you and Mr. Putin use exactly the same grammatical forms but your chronological order is inverse and his chronological order is natural? Who made a mistake - you or Mr. Putin?`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As already pointed out by @БаянКупи-ка, the grammatical forms here are not **exactly** the same. They might be the same in *your definition* of what grammatical forms are but I find such a definition, shall I say, *voluntarily restrictive* and I do not share it. ^)&#xD;&#xA;By *your definition* here I mean that you seem to focus on verb forms only (or mostly), ignoring or at least underestimating everything that's around them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;..OK, I'll leave the &quot;grammatical forms&quot; alone because you're right - forms are forms, instead I'll be using the term &quot;grammatical instruments&quot;, which implies this larger scale that I'm after..&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To focus on verb forms is a mistake, at least in Russian, because &quot;everything that's around&quot; can be there for a reason, it **can** contribute to the meaning and, in some cases, can radically change the meaning of a sentence or a phrase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, the chosen order of subordinate clauses ending with `то постепенно мы придем к..` is the direct indicator of what follows what in this sentence, while we have nothing of this kind in the &quot;сашими&quot; example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, the &quot;сашими&quot; one cannot be called 'wrong' either, it's just a bit clumsy, that's all. However, in this case the main reason why it is unambiguous is the fact that it just can't logically be understood any other way (as you mentioned in your original question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have unfortunately run out of time writing all this, so I have to post this, although I don't feel like I said all I planned to say ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19527" RevisionGUID="0675a015-8d5a-4deb-b99e-b06c7fb75a2f" CreationDate="2019-05-03T15:41:46.737" UserId="11810" Text="Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar.** Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lomonosov introduced the concept of &quot;one-time action&quot; and &quot;frequent action&quot; - &quot;однократные и учащательные глаголы&quot;, for example &quot;видеть-видать&quot;, &quot;слышать-слыхать&quot;, &quot;гневиться-гневаться&quot;, &quot;движить-двигать&quot;. In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tenses like &quot;будущее однократное&quot; nor &quot;прошедшее однократное&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, &quot;совершенное прошедшее&quot;. In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of &quot;несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол&quot; like &quot;глотать - глотнуть&quot;. That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19527" RevisionGUID="db6d0342-e97e-4ae7-9d99-92554917d80c" CreationDate="2019-05-03T15:48:31.533" UserId="11810" Comment="Grammar" Text="Since your original question was more generic than a specific question about two verbs, I'd venture my opinion on that broader question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is unfair to compare Lomonosov's grammar to the modern Russian grammar.** Both of them try to explain all flexible word forms and establish a minimal group of orthogonal (mutually independent) properties, so that all possible word forms could be explained as a combination of those properties. But they approach this task from different positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lomonosov introduced the concept of &quot;one-time action&quot; and &quot;frequent action&quot; - &quot;однократные и учащательные глаголы&quot;, for example &quot;видеть-видать&quot;, &quot;слышать-слыхать&quot;, &quot;гневиться-гневаться&quot;, &quot;движить-двигать&quot;. In modern Russian we don't (well, save the verbs of movement). From the modern point of view they are different verbs rather than forms of the same verb. So, there's no such tense like &quot;будущее однократное&quot; nor &quot;прошедшее однократное&quot; any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lomonosov implied that the aspect is an attribute of tense, so he had, for example, &quot;совершенное прошедшее&quot;. In modern Russian we attribute aspect to the verb and we have pairs of &quot;несовершенный глагол - совершенный глагол&quot; like &quot;глотать - глотнуть&quot;. That also reduces (halves?) the number of tenses required to explain all the verb flexion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that the number of tenses depends on how you define tense. If your definition of tense includes aspect and frequency - you get more tenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="efd4fe52-95fb-4047-a273-2082e2931fa2" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:01:02.153" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="&gt; If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past (and hence I was taught wrong things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time denoting relatively short time spans such as **(поза)вчера**, **(два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад**, **в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix **по-** (not all do however) e.g. **пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю**. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - **буду пописывать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet  are still understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was a great man. Or wasn't he?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms **играла** and **играли** save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="db6af4cd-00c8-4a76-806b-80d3f19bc595" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:28:32.950" UserId="8679" Text="I am struggling to see the distinction despite a native trying to explain it to me. Consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*– Игорь, Гарик, вы продолжаете работать на поиске вампирши. – Шеф будто от-&#xD;&#xA;несся к предложению серьезно. – Ей нужна кровь. Ее остановили в последний момент,&#xD;&#xA;сейчас она сходит с ума от голода и возбуждения. В любой миг жди новых жертв! Антон,&#xD;&#xA;а вы с Ольгой ищите мальчишку.&#xD;&#xA;Понятно.&#xD;&#xA;**Снова – самое пустое и не важное задание.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not ***неважное***? A similar thing seems to be happening with [(не) совместимый][1], too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://context.reverso.net/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC+%D1%81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="db6af4cd-00c8-4a76-806b-80d3f19bc595" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:28:32.950" UserId="8679" Text="When are negated adverbs written separately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="db6af4cd-00c8-4a76-806b-80d3f19bc595" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:28:32.950" UserId="8679" Text="|правописание|наречия|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19529" RevisionGUID="97ccfeb7-02ad-4384-bb8f-459fa248c1b1" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:43:30.760" UserId="7674" Text="**Не важное** in particular needs to be written separately i think to avoid ambiguity because there's an adjective **неважный** meaning *bad, poor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Несовместимый** i would write jointly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There're rules to this](http://old-rozental.ru/orfografia.php?sid=77), but they are so inconsistent with so many exceptions that i personally don't really bother to look them up an try to memorize. I learned firmly that if it's followed by a contrasting clause, particle **не** is written separately. That's about the only rule in this respect i care to follow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19529" RevisionGUID="e9bfab55-4352-46d0-8fa1-5743dca7f7f1" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:53:41.977" UserId="7674" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="**Не важное** in particular needs to be written separately i think to avoid ambiguity because there's an adjective **неважный** meaning *bad, poor*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Несовместимый** i would write jointly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There're rules to this](http://old-rozental.ru/orfografia.php?sid=77) and [for adverbs](http://old-rozental.ru/orfografia.php?sid=81), but they are so inconsistent with so many exceptions that i personally don't really bother to look them up an try to memorize. I learned firmly that if it's followed by a contrasting clause, particle **не** is written separately. That's about the only rule in this respect i care to follow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19530" RevisionGUID="55984aee-9fc1-4196-9575-32184e20d74f" CreationDate="2019-05-03T20:58:43.087" UserId="242" Text="You have no idea how many of us get worser grades in school because of confusion whether `не` should be splitted or not. I've down-voted the answer provided because in my opinion answer should be self sufficient at least to some extent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So main rules are basically the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Some words always are just always written as a single word because without negation such word just don't exist - like `невзрачный` (взрачный is non-existent). &#xD;&#xA; - As a rule of thumb if for adjective with `не` there exist a synonym without `не` then the `не`-adjective is written as a single world. Like in `неженатый` (холостой) or `небольшой` (маленький). &#xD;&#xA; - If the adjective is used in the phrase like - &quot;It's not big but rather small&quot; - that is if a *contradistinction is implied* `не` is written as a separate word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, ironically in the sentence you've mentioned I'd rather use `неважное` - don't treat any text as source of ultimate correctness. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19525" RevisionGUID="ec1f776c-c51b-471b-8769-618b6b20a0f2" CreationDate="2019-05-03T21:02:42.977" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Ломоносов жил 300 лет назад. The Russian language has changed a lot since his fabulous time. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Едать` и `игрывать` are easily recognized as archaic words influencing the style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays we have thee time-tenses (Past, Present, Future) and two aspects (non-perfective + perfective). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perfective verbs are not used in the Present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the means of transforming a non-perfective verb to a perfective one are different, we can hardly say that they are two different forms of one verb. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, aspects are one category, tenses are another category, and they are only three. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50978" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="cf549850-a59f-4898-a1bd-7cf9d443edd2" CreationDate="2019-05-03T21:06:39.267" UserId="8679" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="When is the negated adjective written separately here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50979" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="cf549850-a59f-4898-a1bd-7cf9d443edd2" CreationDate="2019-05-03T21:06:39.267" UserId="8679" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|прилагательные|правописание|отрицание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19532" RevisionGUID="602687e6-8f7c-40e5-890e-d27d552d8fe4" CreationDate="2019-05-04T08:24:23.830" UserId="9649" Text="Well, we can use игрывать, думывать, делывать in future tense. And I even do it, if (and only if) I want my speech to be unusual, kind of archaic or humorous.&#xA;So. We can say like &quot;буду игрывать в международных турнирах&quot;, but these verbs are not absolutely normal and still do not have the connotation of distant past.&#xA;&#xA;On the other hand you are right, many Russian grammar sources (especially those for schools) teach wrong or simplified things. I think, natives and foreign learners usually need to emphasis different aspects of language.&#xA;&#xA;What about Lomonosov's tenses, they are now considered another way. 1, 2, 7 cases are forms of verb трясти (non-perfective) ; 3, 8 - of verb тряхнуть (same 1, 7 but for perfective verb) ; 5, 6 forms are very rare and weird, I heard them only from linguists trying express grammar of another language. 9, 10 cases are absolutely the same as 3, 8 (because написать is perfective)&#xA;Also 400 years before Lomonosov we had tenses more similar to germanic: with auxiliary verbs and participles like &quot;have done&quot;, but they have gone too.&#xA;&#xA;Thank you for your hardworking on Russian, I wish I were such a brilliant student when was learning English and Japanese.&#xA;&#xA;P. S. Don't be upset, some linguists think russian vocative is going to reborn ;) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="3af5cd09-7699-447a-8675-11583ccc409e" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:31:17.673" UserId="10270" Text="I believe you should use the accusative for the expression 'each week' каждую неделю. However 'each car' is каждая машина in the nominative. Is this correct and, if so, why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="3af5cd09-7699-447a-8675-11583ccc409e" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:31:17.673" UserId="10270" Text="Gramatical case of каждый" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="3af5cd09-7699-447a-8675-11583ccc409e" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:31:17.673" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19534" RevisionGUID="4a2df154-db52-44f4-a6f2-0428abf620db" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:40:48.643" UserId="242" Text="No, it's not quite right. Depending on context `каждую машину` is correct and `каждая неделя` is correct as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is `неделю` in accusative stands for a period of time, so it's just should be memorized that in phrase like &quot;всю неделю я пил&quot; `всю неделю` stands for `whole week`. Correspondingly `каждую неделю` stands for &quot;every week&quot; *as a period during which something happens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in phrase like &quot;тут всегда происходит что-то новая, каждая неделя особенная&quot; `каждая неделя` is also translated as `every week` but the difference is that here we are not talking about something that happens every week but about the week as a concept itself - &quot;every week is special&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19534" RevisionGUID="14bdf47f-3686-490e-8960-308ec20721ad" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:49:15.613" UserId="242" Comment="added 640 characters in body" Text="No, it's not quite right. Depending on context `каждую машину` is correct and `каждая неделя` is correct as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is `неделю` in accusative stands [for a period of time][1], so it's just should be memorized that in phrase like &quot;всю неделю я пил&quot; `всю неделю` stands for `whole week`. Correspondingly `каждую неделю` stands for &quot;every week&quot; *as a period during which something happens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in phrase like &quot;тут всегда происходит что-то новая, каждая неделя особенная&quot; `каждая неделя` is also translated as `every week` but the difference is that here we are not talking about something that happens every week but about the week as a concept itself - &quot;every week is special&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You confusion is quite understandable, because not all common periodization falls under the same pattern - it's all about nouns in feminine. Here's more or less full list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Каждую секунду, каждую минуту (yep, same pattern)&#xD;&#xA; - Каждый час, каждый день, каждый месяц, каждый год, каждый век (nope) &#xD;&#xA; - Каждую ночь (actually yep, it's just that `ночь` in accusative does not change)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;By the way, another important form worth to mention is `неделями` - it translated &quot;for weeks&quot;, so &quot;он квасил неделями&quot; is &quot;he's been binging for weeks&quot;. Unlike the single accusative, this plural instrumental pattern works for a bigger set of nouns, so `секундами`, `минутами`, `часами`, `годами`, `днями`, `месяцами`, `годами`, `столетиями`, `веками` are also all valid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19534" RevisionGUID="6f66cb33-0f3c-4e58-871d-185510a2e082" CreationDate="2019-05-04T10:54:47.217" UserId="242" Comment="added 640 characters in body" Text="No, it's not quite right. Depending on context `каждую машину` is correct and `каждая неделя` is correct as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is `неделю` in accusative stands [for a period of time][1], so it's just should be memorized that in phrase like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всю неделю я пил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всю неделю` stands for `whole week`. Correspondingly `каждую неделю` stands for &quot;every week&quot; *as a period during which something happens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in phrase like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут всегда происходит что-то новая, и каждая неделя особенная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `каждая неделя` is also translated as `every week` but the difference is that here we are not talking about something that happens every week but about the week as a concept itself - &quot;every week is special&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You confusion is quite understandable, because not all common periodization falls under the same pattern - it's all about nouns in feminine - well, strictly speaking it's just that for non-feminine accusative and nominative are coinciding. Here's more or less full list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Каждую секунду, каждую минуту (yep, same pattern)&#xD;&#xA; - Каждую ночь (actually yep, it's just that `ночь` in accusative does not change)&#xD;&#xA; - Каждый час, каждый день, каждый месяц, каждый год, каждый век (nope, well, again, in that sense that actually nominative and accusative are equivalent) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;By the way, another important form worth to mention is `неделями` - it translated &quot;for weeks&quot;, so &quot;он квасил неделями&quot; is &quot;he's been binging for weeks&quot;. Unlike the single accusative, this plural instrumental pattern works for a bigger set of nouns, so `секундами`, `минутами`, `часами`, `годами`, `днями`, `месяцами`, `годами`, `столетиями`, `веками` are also all valid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50988" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="eebabc57-2f9d-4b6b-9827-de5946227c6a" CreationDate="2019-05-04T11:00:04.780" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Grammatical case of &quot;каждый&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19526" RevisionGUID="4bec282b-ed50-4ff2-8ed0-6054ea01295a" CreationDate="2019-05-04T11:36:49.467" UserId="7674" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; If you can say like that, then **едать** and **игрывать** are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; absolutely normal verbs and do not have the connotation of distant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; past (and hence I was taught wrong things)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In modern Russian language verbs forms of habitual or intermittent action in the past tense do bear a connotation of distant past, as they can't be accompanied by adverbials of time implying relatively short time spans such as **(поза)вчера**, **(два) часа / (три) дня / (пять) месяцев назад**, **в прошлый четверг / в прошлом месяце/мае**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can you use &quot;едать&quot; and &quot;игрывать&quot; in the present and future tenses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To present and future tenses such verbs are only relevant if they bear the prefix **по-** (not all do however) e.g. **пописываю, почитываю, полёживаю, поделываю, посматриваю**. Their future tense paradigm is always analytical - **буду пописывать** etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage wise however they all have disappeared from active vocabulary, yet  are still understandable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am not surprised to have reached this conclusion, because Lomonosov&#xD;&#xA;&gt; was a great man. Or wasn't he?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Нe absolutely was... for his time. It's been almost 300 years since his passing. Russian language, as well as, i'm sure, the Japanese, has changed as has its grammar theory. Lomonosov was just a pioneer, a trailblazer. Many of his views are no longer relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all formally there're only 3 tenses in Russian, the rest are nuances which can be conveyed lexically with specific verb forms and other tricks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sentence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Я играла за доской на которой играли великие мастера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is perfectly fine. So as you can notice there's absolutely no difference between the verb forms **играла** and **играли** save for number, despite their denoting different past tenses. What in English and German would be expressed by means of Plusquamperfect in modern Russian is normally inferred from the context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="50993" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="00d547de-df3c-42d9-b88b-79fd95d13ec0" CreationDate="2019-05-04T12:40:25.987" />
  <row Id="51004" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19500" RevisionGUID="2889d8d2-501f-4b77-93e1-c66b401bf70d" CreationDate="2019-05-04T15:31:56.923" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51005" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="18054" RevisionGUID="6ff5eac6-2f32-4219-b111-34677de91a16" CreationDate="2019-05-04T15:43:09.477" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Terminology for how well steak is done" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19537" RevisionGUID="bfd30a7c-c999-4c60-a1b1-632b8ded05c2" CreationDate="2019-05-04T17:06:29.553" UserId="11817" Text="In your sentence, &quot;так&quot; is a particle, not an interjection. So there shouldn't be a comma before it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [some examples][1] from the Russian National Corpus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Человек живет один и умирает в одиночку, а все остальное так, кружева нашей жизни…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В каждом человеке есть одно какое-нибудь качество, самое существенное для него, а остальное ― так, добавочное.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Это основная кривая года, а все остальное так, вокруг нее канитель.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search1.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;mydocsize=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=main&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;lang=ru&amp;nodia=1&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%E0&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;sem-mod1=sem&amp;sem-mod1=sem2&amp;flags1=&amp;m1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=2&amp;lex2=%22%EE%F1%F2%E0%EB%FC%ED%EE%E5%22&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;sem-mod2=sem&amp;sem-mod2=sem2&amp;flags2=&amp;m2=&amp;parent3=0&amp;level3=0&amp;min3=1&amp;max3=1&amp;lex3=%22%F2%E0%EA%22&amp;gramm3=&amp;sem3=&amp;sem-mod3=sem&amp;sem-mod3=sem2&amp;flags3=&amp;m3=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19538" RevisionGUID="6f9a0189-868a-4e7e-a2b4-95235a8f7c66" CreationDate="2019-05-04T17:19:33.177" UserId="11408" Text="This phenomenon of using English words (medium, medium rare) in Russian language nowadays is more related to rebranding/marketing and increased interest amongst Russian youth towards Western/European countries, related either to tourism or wide access of commercial goods (which wasn't available as much until early 2000's) and social media. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rebranding in a way helps restaurants and cafés to disassociate themselves from the late Soviet and post-soviet history (during 90's), where the service and food quality were far from perfect and often not affordable for many Russians. Hence Russians do not have such a habit of going out on a regular basis as Europeans or Americans have. So by using borrowed English words (even though the same translation exists in Russian) allows to indicate that these places and what's related to them stand out far enough from what people used to remember/know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you've noticed in your video, the person introduces himself as бренд-шеф, instead of повар-технолог, partially because of a historic connotation. Being a повар until more recent times indicated something unprestigious and associated with schools where they used to study, e.g. ПТУ abbreviated not only as профессионально-техническое училище, but often jokingly translated as &quot;Пришёл Типа Учиться&quot; and more offensive phrases. So even these institutions nowadays are renamed into colleges, culinary schools etc. Moreover, a Russian word училище is not so often used anymore, unless it is been always associated with a prestigious school which managed to keep its brand throughout all these years and stay above these trends, like Суворовское училище, as an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other side of the reasoning why used borrowed words, Russians were always puzzled and in awe for Western/European cultures (may be, because it was so much prohibited in Soviet times) - to have a piece of European clothing, an American chewing gum or a German badminton set was beyond amazing, so using borrowed words nowadays helps to play with these deep-rooted feelings on older generations and even younger generations look up to Europe/America with interest as a lot of current culture comes from there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in a way many think, that the fact that you actually have had all this terminology and dishes long ago won't help to make your place/channel look fashionable and these borrowed words often serve a function of buzzwords.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though it needs to be mentioned that the opposite movement also has reappeared in Russia, where restaurants and cafés based on traditional Russian cuisine again gain more and more public interest, so you can find such items as гурьевская каша, похлебка, солянка etc, probably even 10 years ago a given Russian person wouldn't be sure what гурьевская каша is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51010" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="efdfa510-df43-4ecd-91b8-7272259dd618" CreationDate="2019-05-04T17:31:22.950" UserId="8679" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is the negated adjective written separately here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19534" RevisionGUID="7cdf3209-e8dd-42ff-a300-02842565a3ac" CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:50:43.407" UserId="2104" Comment="edited body" Text="No, it's not quite right. Depending on context `каждую машину` is correct and `каждая неделя` is correct as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is `неделю` in accusative stands [for a period of time][1], so it's just should be memorized that in phrase like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Всю неделю я пил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`всю неделю` stands for `whole week`. Correspondingly `каждую неделю` stands for &quot;every week&quot; *as a period during which something happens*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in phrase like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Тут всегда происходит что-то новое, и каждая неделя особенная.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; `каждая неделя` is also translated as `every week` but the difference is that here we are not talking about something that happens every week but about the week as a concept itself - &quot;every week is special&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You confusion is quite understandable, because not all common periodization falls under the same pattern - it's all about nouns in feminine - well, strictly speaking it's just that for non-feminine accusative and nominative are coinciding. Here's more or less full list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Каждую секунду, каждую минуту (yep, same pattern)&#xD;&#xA; - Каждую ночь (actually yep, it's just that `ночь` in accusative does not change)&#xD;&#xA; - Каждый час, каждый день, каждый месяц, каждый год, каждый век (nope, well, again, in that sense that actually nominative and accusative are equivalent) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;By the way, another important form worth to mention is `неделями` - it translated &quot;for weeks&quot;, so &quot;он квасил неделями&quot; is &quot;he's been binging for weeks&quot;. Unlike the single accusative, this plural instrumental pattern works for a bigger set of nouns, so `секундами`, `минутами`, `часами`, `годами`, `днями`, `месяцами`, `годами`, `столетиями`, `веками` are also all valid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="9b3529d2-1f58-4ae4-8bf4-0503156237fa" CreationDate="2019-05-05T04:16:38.577" UserId="11775" Text="The verb **мочь** is one of the most basic words, actually a central modal verb, but I am so much confused about it. I am often at a loss as to how to interpret it in particular sentences, and I avoid using it when I write and speak in Russian. I am overwhelmed by inconsistent examples of its use and by how it drastically changes its meaning. To me, this verb is like a wild animal I cannot tame. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb may be so natural to you that you have no idea how I could be unable to understand it, but I apparently have different thinking patterns, as I belong to a very different culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly explain you my difficulties in understanding this verb and to kindly ask you to explain this verb in a way tailored to my difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) &quot;Никто не **может** подвергать опасности жизнь своего ребенка, или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других детей, — заявил губернатор, — а в случае с корью сложилась&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно такая ситуация, когда поведение одних угрожает здоровью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других.&quot; ([Source][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Роман Абрамович **может** за один раз доставить на своей яхте в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крым до 3000 отдыхающих. **Может**, но не хочет. ([Source][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Потому что он человек долга, - ответил Гарман. - Он не **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предать свою батарею, не **может** предать свою полусумасшедшую жену и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; своих девочек. ([Source][3]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Савченко **может** выйти на свободу в ночь на 15 апреля.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Source][4]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Окружающие считают Карла Уорнера слегка странным: он **может** часами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разглядывать овощи в супермаркетах. ([Source][5]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) Не забудьте написать ваше имя и, да, вы **можете** пользоваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; калькуляторами, - говорила миссис Ланкастер, раздавая листочки с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тестом ученикам. ([Source][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences this verb appears to mean entirely different things: In the first sentence it appears to mean an ethical norm, in the second - a physical ability, in the third - a character quality, in the fourth - a possibility that cannot be excluded, in the fifth - habitual behavior, in the sixth - a permission. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such a great span of the meanings, I am at a loss as to what the concept of this verb is and what else this verb can mean. English has separate modal verbs for ability and possibility - **can** and **may**, respectively; ethical norms are expressed in English rather by using the modal verb **should**, whilst habitual behavior - rather by using the modal verb **will**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst in sentences (1)-(6) the meaning of **может** is more or less obvious to me from the context, in many other cases it is not. To illustrate this, I would like to show you an example that made me seriously puzzled some time ago, when I browsed the Internet to see what the Russians think about the Northern Territories. This is the title of a material published by Radio Svoboda:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил? ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow the link I provided, you will see that there is no context at all and that this question is used in a survey, so the question as it stands by itself must be very clear to every Russian, but how could it be clear if **может** has so many very different meanings?! What is this question about - an ethical norm, a physical ability, a character quality, or a possibility that cannot be reasonably excluded? In other words, which of the following interpretations is most accurate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7a) Does Putin have an moral right to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan? (For example, a moral right in regards to the inhabitans of the islands or the whole population of Russia.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7b) Does Putin have enough actual power in Russia to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan if he just decides to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7c) Is Putin wise, stupid, brave, unscrupulous, or backboneless enough to be capable of deciding to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan in the future (for example, as a result of some possible geopolitical or economic event sequence that may prompt Putin to transfer the islands in exchange for something)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you understand Question (7) and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that Putin can easily transfer the two islands to Japan if he just decides to, but is absolutely resolved not to transfer. How should I then answer Question (7) - **да** or **нет**?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let us consider the following example, again the title of an article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он выжить? ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title must be very clear to every Russian already by itself because it is a title, yet I got puzzled as to which of the following two intepretations is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **Could he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8b) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **May he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question (8a) is whether he had an opportunity to survive, that is, about a missed opportunity, whilst Question (8b) is whether it cannot be excluded that he actually survived, that is, about a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original interpretation was (8a), because the title contains the word **гибели** suggesting that the very fact of his death is not disputed, but I proved to be wrong. Reading the article itself, I realized that the author writes about conspiracy theories in which Chapaev survived. So yet again I was tricked by this wild verb, which I just cannot &quot;domesticate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What adds to the mystery is that there is an article entitled **&quot;Мог ли СССР выжить?&quot;** ([Source][9]). This title has the same grammatical construction, but the opposite meaning, as we know that the USSR did not survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how could you explain this wild verb to a learner who is eager to finally tame it? What is the exact concept behind it, the concept that logically unites so many entirely different meanings under a single umbrella? And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb, especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazettco.com/kuomo-podderzhal-obyazatelnuyu-vakcinaciyu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/sandy_mustache/status/476799750776578048&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vestnik.com/issues/98/0317/win/ezersk.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.mk.ru/politics/2019/04/12/savchenko-mozhet-vyyti-na-svobodu-v-noch-na-15-aprelya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bigpikcha.ru/?p=639372&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.wattpad.com/136683863-i-sleep-naked-larry-stylinson-au-r-t-%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.svoboda.org/a/29613163.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://hystory.mediasole.ru/nepobedimyy_chapaev_tayna_gibeli_legendarnogo_komdiva_mog_li_on_vyzhit&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://news365.ru/news/7123-mog-li-sssr-vyzhit-rostislav-ishchenko" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="9b3529d2-1f58-4ae4-8bf4-0503156237fa" CreationDate="2019-05-05T04:16:38.577" UserId="11775" Text="How can I finally understand the confusing modal verb &quot;мочь&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="9b3529d2-1f58-4ae4-8bf4-0503156237fa" CreationDate="2019-05-05T04:16:38.577" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|глаголы|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19540" RevisionGUID="57f86e8e-3999-4444-b571-e268ff15d3a9" CreationDate="2019-05-05T07:25:26.803" UserId="11080" Text="The **Nominative case** serves for denoting either the **subject** or the **predicate** of a sentence. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Знание - сила, Время - деньги - both the subjects and the predicates&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are the nouns in the N.c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all other functions the objective cases (all the rest) are used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As &quot;**каждую неделю**&quot;, &quot;**год назад**&quot;, &quot;**через пять лет**&quot; are the adverbial modifiers of time, they cannot be used in the Nominative case. The listed above are in the **Accusative case**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we make a phrase with &quot;каждый + time period&quot; a subject, it immediately goes into the Nominative case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждая неделя, проведенная за работой, приближала его к успеху. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Каждый день жизни - радость. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="70240ab7-42b5-47b1-9915-00235bc17654" CreationDate="2019-05-05T07:49:45.087" UserId="7674" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's just because (according to my observations) survey questions around here normally don't deal with moral character of political leaders as if questioning their integrity and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to weigh in on their authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not**. But frankly i failed to figure out how they exactly understood in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?**, which clearly indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, so to me it sounds ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="2f481bfd-b781-4bff-88d6-a31c3fa4136f" CreationDate="2019-05-05T08:04:04.287" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 119 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not**. But frankly i failed to figure out how they exactly understood in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?**, which clearly indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, so to me it sounds ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="640863eb-5b4f-40bc-911c-9c77619be96d" CreationDate="2019-05-05T08:16:14.147" UserId="7674" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their own opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?**, which clearly indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, so to me it sounds ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="b6c9c50e-e554-4993-8586-4c8863c55895" CreationDate="2019-05-05T08:21:30.290" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their own opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, so to me it sounds ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="9fe60f12-5733-46d9-a5e4-e2a0d7194b3d" CreationDate="2019-05-05T08:26:30.330" UserId="7674" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their own opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51021" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="9bbf5bf1-1dd6-4d1a-8d90-f8488b27ee09" CreationDate="2019-05-05T08:56:32.703" />
  <row Id="51022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="cc3ddabd-fa70-49e5-b6d7-685517f8254e" CreationDate="2019-05-05T09:14:31.027" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="15cebdb1-130c-40e7-b33b-30a8254060aa" CreationDate="2019-05-05T09:24:46.847" UserId="7674" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to cede them and does, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given. So the remaining interpretation is whether he will actually use his authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion. What i can say though it that it just seems to be polisemic. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="38bad70a-965d-4c39-a333-734a19c0d14a" CreationDate="2019-05-05T09:40:15.353" UserId="7674" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to cede them and does, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given. So the remaining interpretation is whether he will actually use his authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion or thoughts, because it's a complex and intricate subject. What i can say though it that it just appears to be polysemous. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51025" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="8acb49c7-1673-4865-ba22-97989b1de8aa" CreationDate="2019-05-05T09:44:58.550" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|словоупотребление|значения|глаголы|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="6da5955a-b5e6-4966-8598-c0885a6a0fc9" CreationDate="2019-05-05T09:52:42.507" UserId="7674" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to cede them and does, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given. So the remaining interpretation is whether he will actually use his authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as follows from my reply this may not necessarily be always the case. Often you just don't give it too much thought and simply dive into the content to find out. In a dialogue you might ask for clarification. But of course in most cases it's pretty clear because, i think, the natives both as speakers and as audience simply follow and are familiar with certain established use patterns and situations where one specific meaning would be dominant or the most likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion or thoughts, because it's a complex and intricate subject. What i can say though it that it just appears to be polysemous. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="5a4e3584-3489-4c5d-83a7-b681f23dd24f" CreationDate="2019-05-05T10:01:38.587" UserId="7674" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to cede them and does, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given. So the remaining interpretation is whether he will actually use his authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as follows from my reply this may not necessarily be always the case. Often you just don't give it too much thought and simply dive into the content to find out. In a dialogue you might ask for clarification. But of course in most cases it's pretty clear because, i think, the natives both as speakers and as audience rely on a complex of clues stemming from familiarity with certain established use patterns and situations, where one specific meaning would be dominant or the most likely, as well as from the context of a speech act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion or thoughts, because it's a complex and intricate subject. What i can say though it that it just appears to be polysemous. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="78a121dc-4933-4fb4-a4a0-452fcc0014de" CreationDate="2019-05-05T10:30:33.007" UserId="11775" Comment="corrected a grammar mistake" Text="The verb **мочь** is one of the most basic words, actually a central modal verb, but I am so much confused about it. I am often at a loss as to how to interpret it in particular sentences, and I avoid using it when I write and speak in Russian. I am overwhelmed by inconsistent examples of its use and by how it drastically changes its meaning. To me, this verb is like a wild animal I cannot tame. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb may be so natural to you that you have no idea how I could be unable to understand it, but I apparently have different thinking patterns, as I belong to a very different culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly explain you my difficulties in understanding this verb and to kindly ask you to explain this verb in a way tailored to my difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) &quot;Никто не **может** подвергать опасности жизнь своего ребенка, или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других детей, — заявил губернатор, — а в случае с корью сложилась&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно такая ситуация, когда поведение одних угрожает здоровью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других.&quot; ([Source][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Роман Абрамович **может** за один раз доставить на своей яхте в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крым до 3000 отдыхающих. **Может**, но не хочет. ([Source][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Потому что он человек долга, - ответил Гарман. - Он не **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предать свою батарею, не **может** предать свою полусумасшедшую жену и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; своих девочек. ([Source][3]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Савченко **может** выйти на свободу в ночь на 15 апреля.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Source][4]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Окружающие считают Карла Уорнера слегка странным: он **может** часами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разглядывать овощи в супермаркетах. ([Source][5]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) Не забудьте написать ваше имя и, да, вы **можете** пользоваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; калькуляторами, - говорила миссис Ланкастер, раздавая листочки с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тестом ученикам. ([Source][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences this verb appears to mean entirely different things: In the first sentence it appears to mean an ethical norm, in the second - a physical ability, in the third - a character quality, in the fourth - a possibility that cannot be excluded, in the fifth - habitual behavior, in the sixth - a permission. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such a great span of the meanings, I am at a loss as to what the concept of this verb is and what else this verb can mean. English has separate modal verbs for ability and possibility - **can** and **may**, respectively; ethical norms are expressed in English rather by using the modal verb **should**, whilst habitual behavior - rather by using the modal verb **will**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst in sentences (1)-(6) the meaning of **может** is more or less obvious to me from the context, in many other cases it is not. To illustrate this, I would like to show you an example that made me seriously puzzled some time ago, when I browsed the Internet to see what the Russians think about the Northern Territories. This is the title of a material published by Radio Svoboda:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил? ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow the link I provided, you will see that there is no context at all and that this question is used in a survey, so the question as it stands by itself must be very clear to every Russian, but how could it be clear if **может** has so many very different meanings?! What is this question about - an ethical norm, a physical ability, a character quality, or a possibility that cannot be reasonably excluded? In other words, which of the following interpretations is most accurate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7a) Does Putin have a moral right to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan? (For example, a moral right in regards to the inhabitans of the islands or the whole population of Russia.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7b) Does Putin have enough actual power in Russia to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan if he just decides to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7c) Is Putin wise, stupid, brave, unscrupulous, or backboneless enough to be capable of deciding to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan in the future (for example, as a result of some possible geopolitical or economic event sequence that may prompt Putin to transfer the islands in exchange for something)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you understand Question (7) and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that Putin can easily transfer the two islands to Japan if he just decides to, but is absolutely resolved not to transfer. How should I then answer Question (7) - **да** or **нет**?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let us consider the following example, again the title of an article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он выжить? ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title must be very clear to every Russian already by itself because it is a title, yet I got puzzled as to which of the following two intepretations is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **Could he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8b) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **May he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question (8a) is whether he had an opportunity to survive, that is, about a missed opportunity, whilst Question (8b) is whether it cannot be excluded that he actually survived, that is, about a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original interpretation was (8a), because the title contains the word **гибели** suggesting that the very fact of his death is not disputed, but I proved to be wrong. Reading the article itself, I realized that the author writes about conspiracy theories in which Chapaev survived. So yet again I was tricked by this wild verb, which I just cannot &quot;domesticate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What adds to the mystery is that there is an article entitled **&quot;Мог ли СССР выжить?&quot;** ([Source][9]). This title has the same grammatical construction, but the opposite meaning, as we know that the USSR did not survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how could you explain this wild verb to a learner who is eager to finally tame it? What is the exact concept behind it, the concept that logically unites so many entirely different meanings under a single umbrella? And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb, especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazettco.com/kuomo-podderzhal-obyazatelnuyu-vakcinaciyu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/sandy_mustache/status/476799750776578048&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vestnik.com/issues/98/0317/win/ezersk.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.mk.ru/politics/2019/04/12/savchenko-mozhet-vyyti-na-svobodu-v-noch-na-15-aprelya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bigpikcha.ru/?p=639372&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.wattpad.com/136683863-i-sleep-naked-larry-stylinson-au-r-t-%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.svoboda.org/a/29613163.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://hystory.mediasole.ru/nepobedimyy_chapaev_tayna_gibeli_legendarnogo_komdiva_mog_li_on_vyzhit&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://news365.ru/news/7123-mog-li-sssr-vyzhit-rostislav-ishchenko" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="49d86269-902c-4577-a1ba-771e8bb77bbb" CreationDate="2019-05-05T10:37:27.473" UserId="11775" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The verb **мочь** is one of the most basic words, actually a central modal verb, but I am so much confused about it. I am often at a loss as to how to interpret it in particular sentences, and I avoid using it when I write and speak in Russian. I am overwhelmed by inconsistent examples of its use and by how it drastically changes its meaning. To me, this verb is like a wild animal I cannot tame. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb may be so natural to you that you have no idea how I could be unable to understand it, but I apparently have different thinking patterns, as I belong to a very different culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly explain you my difficulties in understanding this verb and to kindly ask you to explain this verb in a way tailored to my difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) &quot;Никто не **может** подвергать опасности жизнь своего ребенка, или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других детей, — заявил губернатор, — а в случае с корью сложилась&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно такая ситуация, когда поведение одних угрожает здоровью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других.&quot; ([Source][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Роман Абрамович **может** за один раз доставить на своей яхте в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крым до 3000 отдыхающих. **Может**, но не хочет. ([Source][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Потому что он человек долга, - ответил Гарман. - Он не **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предать свою батарею, не **может** предать свою полусумасшедшую жену и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; своих девочек. ([Source][3]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Савченко **может** выйти на свободу в ночь на 15 апреля.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Source][4]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Окружающие считают Карла Уорнера слегка странным: он **может** часами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разглядывать овощи в супермаркетах. ([Source][5]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) Не забудьте написать ваше имя и, да, вы **можете** пользоваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; калькуляторами, - говорила миссис Ланкастер, раздавая листочки с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тестом ученикам. ([Source][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences this verb appears to mean entirely different things: In the first sentence it appears to mean an ethical norm, in the second - a physical ability, in the third - a character quality, in the fourth - a possibility that cannot be excluded, in the fifth - habitual behavior, in the sixth - a permission. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such a great span of the meanings, I am at a loss as to what the concept of this verb is and what else this verb can mean. English has separate modal verbs for ability and possibility - **can** and **may**, respectively; ethical norms are expressed in English rather by using the modal verb **should**, and habitual behavior - rather by using the modal verb **will**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst in sentences (1)-(6) the meaning of **может** is more or less obvious to me from the context, in many other cases it is not. To illustrate this, I would like to show you an example that made me seriously puzzled some time ago, when I browsed the Internet to see what the Russians think about the Northern Territories. This is the title of a material published by Radio Svoboda:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил? ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow the link I provided, you will see that there is no context at all and that this question is used in a survey, so the question as it stands by itself must be very clear to every Russian, but how could it be clear if **может** has so many very different meanings?! What is this question about - an ethical norm, a physical ability, a character quality, or a possibility that cannot be reasonably excluded? In other words, which of the following interpretations is most accurate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7a) Does Putin have a moral right to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan? (For example, a moral right in regards to the inhabitans of the islands or the whole population of Russia.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7b) Does Putin have enough actual power in Russia to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan if he just decides to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7c) Is Putin wise, stupid, brave, unscrupulous, or backboneless enough to be capable of deciding to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan in the future (for example, as a result of some possible geopolitical or economic event sequence that may prompt Putin to transfer the islands in exchange for something)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you understand Question (7) and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that Putin can easily transfer the two islands to Japan if he just decides to, but is absolutely resolved not to transfer. How should I then answer Question (7) - **да** or **нет**?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let us consider the following example, again the title of an article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он выжить? ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title must be very clear to every Russian already by itself because it is a title, yet I got puzzled as to which of the following two intepretations is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **Could he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8b) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **May he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question (8a) is whether he had an opportunity to survive, that is, about a missed opportunity, whilst Question (8b) is whether it cannot be excluded that he actually survived, that is, about a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original interpretation was (8a), because the title contains the word **гибели** suggesting that the very fact of his death is not disputed, but I proved to be wrong. Reading the article itself, I realized that the author writes about conspiracy theories in which Chapaev survived. So yet again I was tricked by this wild verb, which I just cannot &quot;domesticate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What adds to the mystery is that there is an article entitled **&quot;Мог ли СССР выжить?&quot;** ([Source][9]). This title has the same grammatical construction, but the opposite meaning, as we know that the USSR did not survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how could you explain this wild verb to a learner who is eager to finally tame it? What is the exact concept behind it, the concept that logically unites so many entirely different meanings under a single umbrella? And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb, especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazettco.com/kuomo-podderzhal-obyazatelnuyu-vakcinaciyu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/sandy_mustache/status/476799750776578048&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vestnik.com/issues/98/0317/win/ezersk.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.mk.ru/politics/2019/04/12/savchenko-mozhet-vyyti-na-svobodu-v-noch-na-15-aprelya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bigpikcha.ru/?p=639372&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.wattpad.com/136683863-i-sleep-naked-larry-stylinson-au-r-t-%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.svoboda.org/a/29613163.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://hystory.mediasole.ru/nepobedimyy_chapaev_tayna_gibeli_legendarnogo_komdiva_mog_li_on_vyzhit&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://news365.ru/news/7123-mog-li-sssr-vyzhit-rostislav-ishchenko" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="d4ae050a-22ca-480f-b726-90086a15167a" CreationDate="2019-05-05T11:16:24.540" UserId="11775" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="The verb **мочь** is one of the most basic words, actually a central modal verb, but I am so much confused about it. I am often at a loss as to how to interpret it in particular sentences, and I avoid using it when I write and speak in Russian. I am overwhelmed by inconsistent examples of its use and by how it drastically changes its meaning. To me, this verb is like a wild animal I cannot tame. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This verb may be so natural to you that you have no idea how I could be unable to understand it, but I apparently have different thinking patterns, as I belong to a very different culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to humbly explain you my difficulties in understanding this verb and to kindly ask you to explain this verb in a way tailored to my difficulties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) &quot;Никто не **может** подвергать опасности жизнь своего ребенка, или&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других детей, — заявил губернатор, — а в случае с корью сложилась&#xD;&#xA;&gt; именно такая ситуация, когда поведение одних угрожает здоровью&#xD;&#xA;&gt; других.&quot; ([Source][1]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Роман Абрамович **может** за один раз доставить на своей яхте в&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Крым до 3000 отдыхающих. **Может**, но не хочет. ([Source][2]) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Потому что он человек долга, - ответил Гарман. - Он не **может**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; предать свою батарею, не **может** предать свою полусумасшедшую жену и&#xD;&#xA;&gt; своих девочек. ([Source][3]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Савченко **может** выйти на свободу в ночь на 15 апреля.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ([Source][4]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Окружающие считают Карла Уорнера слегка странным: он **может** часами&#xD;&#xA;&gt; разглядывать овощи в супермаркетах. ([Source][5]). &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) Не забудьте написать ваше имя и, да, вы **можете** пользоваться&#xD;&#xA;&gt; калькуляторами, - говорила миссис Ланкастер, раздавая листочки с&#xD;&#xA;&gt; тестом ученикам. ([Source][6]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences this verb appears to mean entirely different things: In the first sentence it appears to mean an ethical norm, in the second - a physical ability, in the third - a character quality, in the fourth - a possibility that cannot be excluded, in the fifth - habitual behavior, in the sixth - a permission. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such a great span of the meanings, I am at a loss as to what the concept of this verb is and what else this verb can mean. English has separate modal verbs for ability and possibility - **can** and **may**, respectively; ethical norms are expressed in English rather by using the modal verb **should**, and habitual behavior - rather by using the modal verb **will**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst in sentences (1)-(6) the meaning of **может** is more or less obvious to me from the context, in many other cases it is not. To illustrate this, I would like to show you an example that made me seriously puzzled some time ago, when I browsed the Internet to see what the Russians think about the Northern Territories. This is the title of a material published by Radio Svoboda:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил? ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow the link I provided, you will see that there is no context at all and that this question is used in a survey, so the question as it stands by itself must be very clear to every Russian, but how could it be clear if **может** has so many very different meanings?! What is this question about - an ethical norm, a physical ability, a character quality, or a possibility that cannot be reasonably excluded? In other words, which of the following interpretations is most accurate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7a) Does Putin have a moral right to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan? (For example, a moral right in regards to the inhabitans of the islands or the whole population of Russia.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7b) Does Putin have enough actual power in Russia to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan if he just decides to do so?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7c) Is Putin wise, stupid, brave, unscrupulous, or backboneless enough to be capable of deciding to transfer two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of the Northern Territories to Japan in the future (for example, as a result of some possible geopolitical or economic event sequence that may prompt Putin to transfer the islands in exchange for something)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do you understand Question (7) and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that Putin can easily transfer the two islands to Japan if he just decides to, but is absolutely resolved not to transfer. How should I then answer Question (7) - **да** or **нет**?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let us consider the following example, which is the title of another article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он выжить? ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This title must be very clear to every Russian already by itself because it is a title, yet I got puzzled as to which of the following two intepretations is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **Could he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8b) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's death. **May he have survived?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question (8a) is whether he had an opportunity to survive, that is, about a missed opportunity, whilst Question (8b) is whether it cannot be excluded that he actually survived, that is, about a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My original interpretation was (8a), because the title contains the word **гибели** suggesting that the very fact of his death is not disputed, but I proved to be wrong. Reading the article itself, I realized that the author writes about conspiracy theories in which Chapaev survived. So yet again I was tricked by this wild verb, which I just cannot &quot;domesticate.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What adds to the mystery is that there is an article entitled **&quot;Мог ли СССР выжить?&quot;** ([Source][9]). This title has the same grammatical construction, but the opposite meaning, as we know that the USSR did not survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how could you explain this wild verb to a learner who is eager to finally tame it? What is the exact concept behind it, the concept that logically unites so many entirely different meanings under a single umbrella? And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb, especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gazettco.com/kuomo-podderzhal-obyazatelnuyu-vakcinaciyu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://twitter.com/sandy_mustache/status/476799750776578048&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.vestnik.com/issues/98/0317/win/ezersk.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.mk.ru/politics/2019/04/12/savchenko-mozhet-vyyti-na-svobodu-v-noch-na-15-aprelya.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://bigpikcha.ru/?p=639372&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.wattpad.com/136683863-i-sleep-naked-larry-stylinson-au-r-t-%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.svoboda.org/a/29613163.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://hystory.mediasole.ru/nepobedimyy_chapaev_tayna_gibeli_legendarnogo_komdiva_mog_li_on_vyzhit&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://news365.ru/news/7123-mog-li-sssr-vyzhit-rostislav-ishchenko" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19542" RevisionGUID="b4521929-51ef-44f0-bb5e-00df00394f89" CreationDate="2019-05-05T11:38:57.883" UserId="5008" Text="Есть известная максима о том, что язык определяет мышление. Все различия между оттенками значений в данных случаях должны быть ясны из контекста (либо по интонации). Если это не так, то и самих отличий тоже нет. По крайней мере для человека говорящего и думающего на русском.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Например, (8b) просто не имеет смысла, если вы только не любитель &quot;теорий заговора&quot;, ну или же горячий поклонник творчества Пелевина ;-) Поэтому (и только поэтому!) данный вопрос будет понят в смысле (8a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Что же касается (7), то это вопрос о будущем, а значит обо всём сразу (не столько о Путине, сколько о том, может ли такое случиться вообще). При этом, разумеется, значение (7d) должно быть релевантно в наибольшей степени, а (7a) - в наименьшей. Однако&#xD;&#xA;подобная многозначительность в формулировке вопроса явно появилась неспроста. Это по поводу Ваших сомнений, высказанных в комментариях - никто не ошибается так часто, как журналисты, но, по крайней мере часть их ошибок совершается преднамеренно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19541" RevisionGUID="6d37a36a-7889-4c05-bb86-adfae3a1e812" CreationDate="2019-05-05T12:23:25.277" UserId="7674" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Может** ли Путин передать Японии 2 острова Южных Курил?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand it in the sense of *possibility which can't be excluded*. Whether it's probable that he decides to cede them and does so, i.e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7d) Can't it be excluded that Putin actually transfers two islands of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Northern Territories to Japan in the future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it's because (according to my observations) survey questions which deal with moral character and integrity of political leaders are framed more explicitly and because ordinary citizens are not considered to be in a position to question his political powers and rights, these are a given. So the remaining interpretation is whether he will actually use his authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the video to see how respondents had understood the question. About a half used the word **должен/должно** either in the positive or in the negative. It could mean that what they had in mind was that **he might but should not** *(it's not excluded but i prefer that he not)*. But frankly i failed to figure out how they'd exactly understood it in part because quite a few of them instead of judging chances of cession by Putin offered their opinion on whether such cession is acceptable at all. Still in the dialogue with the 1st respondent the journalists asked a clarifying question **почему не может быть?** which indicates a future possibility. So this seems to give an idea at least on the intent of the journalists themselves. And the last respondent seems to have understood it similarly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Непобедимый Чапаев: тайна гибели легендарного комдива. **Мог** ли он&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выжить?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have understood it like you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8a) Invincible Chapaev: The mystery of the legendary commander's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; death. **Could he have** survived?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;just because i've never heard of such a conspiracy theory to consider it in the possible reading, but if i have to me it would have sounded ambiguous. If the author were aware of the ambiguity or more considerate towards the readers he could have rephrased it to read something like **Не мог ли он выжить?** **Что, если он выжил?** or even more explicitly **Действительно ли он погиб?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And how do you always succeed in unmistakenly interpeting this verb,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; especially in sentences like the above ones about Putin and Chapaev?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, as follows from my reply this may not necessarily be always the case. Often you just don't give it too much thought and simply dive into the content to find out. In a dialogue you might ask for clarification. But of course in most cases it's pretty clear because, i think, the natives both as speakers and as audience rely on a complex of clues stemming from familiarity with certain established use patterns and situations, where one specific meaning would be dominant or the most likely, as well as from the context of a speech act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the concept behind the verb, at this point i'm not ready to give any opinion or thoughts, because it's a complex and intricate subject. What i can say though it that it just appears to be polysemous. Such status of Russian modal verbs is [recognized by linguists](http://archive.is/u6j73) (and i believe it's not exclusive to Russian)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19543" RevisionGUID="b1e27824-5034-4137-afd9-0d260b7c4d58" CreationDate="2019-05-05T12:33:40.170" UserId="11819" Text="For a person (and in Russian *everything* is a person), the Russian thought model makes no distinction between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the person's moral right to do something;&#xD;&#xA; 2. the person's ability to do something (like, physical ability);&#xD;&#xA; 3. the objective circumstances allowing or not for *anyone* to do something in a given situation. (Note that the circumstances are a person too!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Raskolnikov's famous &quot;Тварь я дрожащая, или *право* имею?&quot; perfectly illustrates how he makes no difference between (1) and (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another perfect example of the same ambiguity between all three usages is found in a genius play &quot;Дракон&quot; by Шварц. In one of the final scenes the hero (Ланцелот) lies wounded at the side of the 3-headed Dragon he just slayed (the Dragon is barely alive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;      2-я  голова. Тише! Я чую, рядом кто-то живой. Подойди. Дай воды.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;      Голос Ланцелота. Не могу!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You really can't tell whether the hero *has no moral right* to help his enemy, has no ability to do so (as he is wounded too), or something else is preventing him from doing this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That shows us the hero's personal integrity. **For a true hero, there is no difference between thought, action, and evaluation of external circumstances.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yep, that means that the journalists represented Putin as a true hero in the islands story ;-))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19544" RevisionGUID="f25dfc9a-e91d-44dd-b930-15bb22850356" CreationDate="2019-05-05T13:44:38.543" UserId="11820" Text="1. I probably would translate such titles not with a modal, but with &quot;be&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Может&quot; in this context can be understood as a shortened version of &quot;Может быть&quot; - &quot;may it be/is it possible&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate these titles as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Is it possible that Putin will transfer to Japan 2 islands of Northern Kuril&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Indefeatable Chapaer: Is it possible that he survived?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Может&quot; in this context is more of a clickbait technique designed to be ambiguous - introduce some possibility, but not really explain the context or the real meaning behind it. I can't imagine a scientific or even a respectable article with such a title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I think it's a good rule of thumb that if in doubt, it's better to assume the meaning of &quot;is it possible that something will/did happen&quot; - for any reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19530" RevisionGUID="ee5ada68-d572-405d-b3ce-348f7addb716" CreationDate="2019-05-05T18:34:57.270" UserId="11408" Comment="changed some spelling mistakes, made the answer more comprehensible" Text="You have no idea how many of Russians get worse grades in school because of confusion whether the prefix `не` should be written separately or together with an adjective. I've down-voted the previously provided answer because in my opinion answer should be self sufficient at least to some extent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So main rules are basically the following (however, this is not a comprehensive list which would then be more nuanced than that):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Some adjectives are always written as a single word with the `не` prefix because without negation otherwise such adjective wouldn't exist, e.g. `невзрачный` (`взрачный` doesn't non-existent). &#xD;&#xA; - The `не`-adjective is written as a single world, if for an adjective with the `не` prefix there exists a synonym without `не`, then , e.g. in `неженатый - холостой` or `небольшой - маленький`. &#xD;&#xA; - The prefix `не` is written as separately, if the adjective used in the phrase where a *contradistinction is implied*, e.g. 'Это не большая кружка, а маленькая'- &quot;The mug is not big but rather small&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, ironically in the sentence you've mentioned I'd rather use `неважное` - don't treat any text as an ultimately  correct source. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51037" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19530" RevisionGUID="ee5ada68-d572-405d-b3ce-348f7addb716" CreationDate="2019-05-05T18:34:57.270" Comment="Proposed by 11408 approved by 5605, 242 edit id of 2045" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="84ef62c7-9128-45ed-9f67-f2f2f0f0f885" CreationDate="2019-05-05T22:25:49.890" UserId="11824" Text="What is stylistically neutral word for &quot;to flee&quot;: &quot;бежать&quot; or &quot;сбежать&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that both words can describe the same situation, and in some contexts only one can be used idiomatically, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    сбежать из дома (flee from home)&#xD;&#xA;    бежать от опасности (flee from danger)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but my question is which word is typically preferred in neutral style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see &quot;сбежать&quot; in neutral contexts, such as in descriptions of historical events, in Wikipedia articles, or in news reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Upon defeat, the king fled from the country.&#xD;&#xA;    После поражения король сбежал из страны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that this is stylistically incorrect, while the correct (stylistically neutral) phrase is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    После поражения король бежал из страны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because (in my feeling) &quot;сбежать&quot; is stylistically marked, mostly negatively, probably bearing connotations of deception, and probably sounding pejoratively, and thus it should be very limited in use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He is a coward, he simply flew away!&#xD;&#xA;    Он трус, он просто сбежал! (pejorative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    These fools even did not notice as I escaped.&#xD;&#xA;    Эти дураки даже не заметили, как я сбежал. (deception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my perception correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="84ef62c7-9128-45ed-9f67-f2f2f0f0f885" CreationDate="2019-05-05T22:25:49.890" UserId="11824" Text="Flee: &quot;бежать&quot; or &quot;сбежать&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="84ef62c7-9128-45ed-9f67-f2f2f0f0f885" CreationDate="2019-05-05T22:25:49.890" UserId="11824" Text="|выбор-слова|стилистика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19546" RevisionGUID="d9282b9e-244d-4a77-98c2-457fd8a1ea90" CreationDate="2019-05-05T22:45:58.230" UserId="242" Text="This is a very nice question. To my knowledge there's no statistical evidence that `бежал из` or `бежал в` is more stylistically correct. The very concept of something being more statistically correct if it is not supported by actually usage stats seems to me quite doubtful. But that happens as well - however, the thing is that in this particular case I'm not aware of any style-guides or any kind of public rules that state anything about this `бежал/cбежал` differentiation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that they are used quite interchangeably, with &quot;сбежать&quot;-form just being more frequent. &#xD;&#xA;For instance, we can take some big newspaper - &quot;Коммерсант&quot; for instance. Just like any big newspaper they have their own guides. However here's a quote from one [article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 20 октября из чеченского плена бежал администратор гуманитарной&#xD;&#xA;&gt; организации &quot;Врачи без границ&quot; Кристоф Андрэ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a quote from [another one][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Французский преступник вновь сбежал из тюрьмы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/186864&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3674947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19547" RevisionGUID="26e76081-77af-441b-9697-58b6acd8d156" CreationDate="2019-05-06T00:51:47.440" UserId="11825" Text="As pointed out in comments, your impression of English “can” and “may” seems too rigid. Consider these dictionary definitions with the many meanings and examples, some of which overlap, and the usage note at _can:_ [can](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/can#h47313914215360), [may](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/may#h69840071008140), [may](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/may#h47304766641740).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of your original examples can use these same English verbs and sometimes even both, even though you say they all of the examples have different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. OK, I guess in such an official context this one has to be “should” or “must (not)” or even “has the moral right to” or even just “has the right to”—with the “moral” being implied!—in English. But informally, you might exclaim, “You _can’t_ put your child in jeopardy!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Roman Abramovich _can/could_ take 3000 people on his yacht to Crimea at a time. He _could_ do that, but he doesn’t want to. (The most direct translation of “could” back into Russian is “мог бы”, and it could work in the original Russian phrase, too. At the same time, “can” technically works here in English. But in Russian, “может” here sounds perfectly natural whereas I feel “can” sounds odd in English, and “может” has the benefit of providing a better artistic effect by matching the case of “не хочет” exactly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. He _can’t_ betray his battery, and he _can’t_ betray his wife and girls. (He feels he doesn’t have a moral right to do so. But his morals are such an integral part of him that he feels he is _unable_ to do something morally wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. _Probably:_ Savchenko _may_ get out of jail on that night. But it _might_ also be “can”. Really, to fully understand the exact meaning, you’d have to read the full article. The only information the title gives you is that _one way or another,_ it is possible that she will get out of jail on that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. I like your use of “will” here, but equally well he _can_ spend hours looking at vegetables in supermarkets, especially if he doesn’t do it every day, or he even _may_ spend hours to just look at vegetables in supermarkets. To be honest though, I think the most natural English phrasing of this sentence would just use present simple: he _spends_ hours looking at vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. You _may/can_ use calculators. As noted by Oxford Dictionary in the above links, it is most traditional/strict/formal to use “may” to give permission, but in reality, “can” is also possible (in speech of all registers) and means the exact same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m guessing your confusion really stems not from the English verbs, of which “can” actually matches мочь fairly closely, but from the variety of forms used in Japanese to express these nuances. Off the top of my head, there’s 〜事ができる denoting physical ability, 〜ていい denoting permission, 〜可能性がある denoting a chance of happening, 〜かもしれない denoting the speaker’s lack of knowledge of whether something is/was/will be happening, and 〜える expressing other states of being able to do something (with some overlap with できる) or object states where something can be done to them. **These are _all_ мочь** in Russian, except inherent, passive object states such as “edible”/“съедобный”. Any time you want to use any of these, be bold and just use мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I’m sure you know from Japanese, context is king. When multiple meanings of мочь work in a context, you either guess (possibly incorrectly) or the speaker simply doesn’t consider it important enough to differentiate between them. **The common meaning is that the effect may end up occurring, one way or another.** Is it because the subject takes an active action to cause it to occur? Is it because something _else_ acts and enables it to occur? Is it because something else doesn’t counteract and prevent it from occurring? Is it because people think it _should_ occur? In most cases, it’s either clear from the context or _doesn’t matter._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what about the Putin example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. ***All of them.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I’m not even sure, but I think the very first meaning that crossed my mind was “is it likely that he will do so in the imminent future?” (7d) but immediately afterwards I thought of “should he?” (7a, I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If I was asked this kind of question (except if I was in a hurry or wanted to avoid a detailed answer for some other reason), I’d give an answer that essentially consists of several parts that answer each possible meaning that I would have an answer for. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Может-то он может* _[this is 7b, actually, which I processed without even thinking!],_ но вряд ли он это сделает (в ближайшем будущем, по крайней мере) _[7d]._ Честно говоря, я думаю, что их следовало бы отдать/оставить по таким-то причинам… _[7a]_ но в любом случае, сейчас, насколько я слышал, никто их отдавать не собирается, так что пока что непохоже, что это произойдёт _[7cd],_ если только японцы вдруг не предложат что-то кардинально новое, но непонятно, что такого они **могут** предложить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \* Now that I think about it, I don’t actually know if he can/if this depends on Putin personally. Let’s not go there. This was just an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I notice that **I used могут myself** in my example answer. Which meaning did I put into it? Essentially, this могут has all the same meanings as the original может in the Putin question. **I didn’t actually think about any particular meaning** when using the word. In English, I’d use “can” and equally not think about the exact meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    But if I now try to figure it out in retrospect, I guess it’s “unclear whether there is anything the Japanese are willing and able to offer to the Russians that would actually be so beneficial to them that they would be happy to trade the islands for it despite the public backlash (if it wouldn’t change the public opinion as well)”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well, what’s “willing and able”? We can keep going further/deeper with these questions, and at this point I think the exact meaning already doesn’t matter to the verb I chose. If I had wanted to underline a particular concern to the Japanese, I would have spoken of it explicitly in the first place. I think in this case the most important factors are physical ability (what at all could the Japanese offer that the Russians would find useful, even if they entirely disregarded public opinion within Japan?) and public opinion/political consequences, especially in internal politics (if they do offer that, will they be shunned by voters and fellow politicians?), but **I’m not forcing this choice upon the other person,** and if they think other factors are more important, that’s fine too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, with such an overloaded word as you point out, there are bound to be cases when misunderstandings _do_ occur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. My original impression was the same as yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; He died, but could he have done something differently to survive instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Indeed, this might be even more specific than your understanding. See how “Could he have survived?” has several meanings too; at least these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * Could he have done something differently to survive instead of dying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * Could something else have happened to let him survive instead of dying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    My mind jumped to the possibility of his own actions because it seemed (to me, at that time) most sensible in the context, but this is not by any means implied by the verb itself. Indeed, other Russian speakers might have thought of the other option or neither in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If I were to read the article, I’d most likely be surprised to discover the author intended the meaning “Is it possible that he actually survived when everyone thought he was dead?”. But I wouldn’t think the author had used erroneous phrasing. At most, I might think that the author had deliberately chosen this phrasing to lure people who shun conspiracy theories into reading the article by capitalizing on the fact that most people would interpret it the same as we did. The same can be done with any other word that has multiple meanings or homonyms/homographs, in any language. If you read a lot of articles by authors who do this in a particular language/manner, you start to recognize ambiguous titles before clicking on them and ignore such articles or know what to expect when you do open them out of curiosity. But it is also entirely possible that, when the author was choosing the title with the intended meaning already in mind, this phrasing seemed completely natural and they didn’t realize other people would misinterpret it out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So misunderstandings can occur sometimes, but don’t let this stop you from using the word!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the multiple nuances can even be used intentionally to humorous effect: e. g. the sentence above said Abramovich can take 3000 people on his yacht to Crimea. Does this mean his yacht holds 3000 people, or that he is allowed to take people to Crimea? Probably both. But what if one is true but not the other? Тогда он может, но не может!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19547" RevisionGUID="08cc2cc2-0bf8-4585-84c9-e995438bf423" CreationDate="2019-05-06T00:56:50.700" UserId="11825" Comment="added suggestions for how to make the nuance explicit" Text="As pointed out in comments, your impression of English “can” and “may” seems too rigid. Consider these dictionary definitions with the many meanings and examples, some of which overlap, and the usage note at _can:_ [can](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/can#h47313914215360), [may](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/may#h69840071008140), [may](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/may#h47304766641740).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of your original examples can use these same English verbs and sometimes even both, even though you say they all of the examples have different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. OK, I guess in such an official context this one has to be “should” or “must (not)” or even “has the moral right to” or even just “has the right to”—with the “moral” being implied!—in English. But informally, you might exclaim, “You _can’t_ put your child in jeopardy!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Roman Abramovich _can/could_ take 3000 people on his yacht to Crimea at a time. He _could_ do that, but he doesn’t want to. (The most direct translation of “could” back into Russian is “мог бы”, and it could work in the original Russian phrase, too. At the same time, “can” technically works here in English. But in Russian, “может” here sounds perfectly natural whereas I feel “can” sounds odd in English, and “может” has the benefit of providing a better artistic effect by matching the case of “не хочет” exactly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. He _can’t_ betray his battery, and he _can’t_ betray his wife and girls. (He feels he doesn’t have a moral right to do so. But his morals are such an integral part of him that he feels he is _unable_ to do something morally wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. _Probably:_ Savchenko _may_ get out of jail on that night. But it _might_ also be “can”. Really, to fully understand the exact meaning, you’d have to read the full article. The only information the title gives you is that _one way or another,_ it is possible that she will get out of jail on that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. I like your use of “will” here, but equally well he _can_ spend hours looking at vegetables in supermarkets, especially if he doesn’t do it every day, or he even _may_ spend hours to just look at vegetables in supermarkets. To be honest though, I think the most natural English phrasing of this sentence would just use present simple: he _spends_ hours looking at vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. You _may/can_ use calculators. As noted by Oxford Dictionary in the above links, it is most traditional/strict/formal to use “may” to give permission, but in reality, “can” is also possible (in speech of all registers) and means the exact same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m guessing your confusion really stems not from the English verbs, of which “can” actually matches мочь fairly closely, but from the variety of forms used in Japanese to express these nuances. Off the top of my head, there’s 〜事ができる denoting physical ability, 〜ていい denoting permission, 〜可能性がある denoting a chance of happening, 〜かもしれない denoting the speaker’s lack of knowledge of whether something is/was/will be happening, and 〜える expressing other states of being able to do something (with some overlap with できる) or object states where something can be done to them. **These are _all_ мочь** in Russian, except inherent, passive object states such as “edible”/“съедобный”. Any time you want to use any of these, be bold and just use мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you want to emphasize a particular nuance, it is possible in Russian by using additional words: я не умею; разрешено/можно; есть шанс/надежда, что…; возможно/может быть, [что]…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I’m sure you know from Japanese, context is king. When multiple meanings of мочь work in a context, you either guess (possibly incorrectly) or the speaker simply doesn’t consider it important enough to differentiate between them. **The common meaning is that the effect may end up occurring, one way or another.** Is it because the subject takes an active action to cause it to occur? Is it because something _else_ acts and enables it to occur? Is it because something else doesn’t counteract and prevent it from occurring? Is it because people think it _should_ occur? In most cases, it’s either clear from the context or _doesn’t matter._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what about the Putin example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. ***All of them.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I’m not even sure, but I think the very first meaning that crossed my mind was “is it likely that he will do so in the imminent future?” (7d) but immediately afterwards I thought of “should he?” (7a, I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If I was asked this kind of question (except if I was in a hurry or wanted to avoid a detailed answer for some other reason), I’d give an answer that essentially consists of several parts that answer each possible meaning that I would have an answer for. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Может-то он может* _[this is 7b, actually, which I processed without even thinking!],_ но вряд ли он это сделает (в ближайшем будущем, по крайней мере) _[7d]._ Честно говоря, я думаю, что их следовало бы отдать/оставить по таким-то причинам… _[7a]_ но в любом случае, сейчас, насколько я слышал, никто их отдавать не собирается, так что пока что непохоже, что это произойдёт _[7cd],_ если только японцы вдруг не предложат что-то кардинально новое, но непонятно, что такого они **могут** предложить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \* Now that I think about it, I don’t actually know if he can/if this depends on Putin personally. Let’s not go there. This was just an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I notice that **I used могут myself** in my example answer. Which meaning did I put into it? Essentially, this могут has all the same meanings as the original может in the Putin question. **I didn’t actually think about any particular meaning** when using the word. In English, I’d use “can” and equally not think about the exact meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    But if I now try to figure it out in retrospect, I guess it’s “unclear whether there is anything the Japanese are willing and able to offer to the Russians that would actually be so beneficial to them that they would be happy to trade the islands for it despite the public backlash (if it wouldn’t change the public opinion as well)”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well, what’s “willing and able”? We can keep going further/deeper with these questions, and at this point I think the exact meaning already doesn’t matter to the verb I chose. If I had wanted to underline a particular concern to the Japanese, I would have spoken of it explicitly in the first place. I think in this case the most important factors are physical ability (what at all could the Japanese offer that the Russians would find useful, even if they entirely disregarded public opinion within Japan?) and public opinion/political consequences, especially in internal politics (if they do offer that, will they be shunned by voters and fellow politicians?), but **I’m not forcing this choice upon the other person,** and if they think other factors are more important, that’s fine too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, with such an overloaded word as you point out, there are bound to be cases when misunderstandings _do_ occur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. My original impression was the same as yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; He died, but could he have done something differently to survive instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Indeed, this might be even more specific than your understanding. See how “Could he have survived?” has several meanings too; at least these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * Could he have done something differently to survive instead of dying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * Could something else have happened to let him survive instead of dying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    My mind jumped to the possibility of his own actions because it seemed (to me, at that time) most sensible in the context, but this is not by any means implied by the verb itself. Indeed, other Russian speakers might have thought of the other option or neither in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If I were to read the article, I’d most likely be surprised to discover the author intended the meaning “Is it possible that he actually survived when everyone thought he was dead?”. But I wouldn’t think the author had used erroneous phrasing. At most, I might think that the author had deliberately chosen this phrasing to lure people who shun conspiracy theories into reading the article by capitalizing on the fact that most people would interpret it the same as we did. The same can be done with any other word that has multiple meanings or homonyms/homographs, in any language. If you read a lot of articles by authors who do this in a particular language/manner, you start to recognize ambiguous titles before clicking on them and ignore such articles or know what to expect when you do open them out of curiosity. But it is also entirely possible that, when the author was choosing the title with the intended meaning already in mind, this phrasing seemed completely natural and they didn’t realize other people would misinterpret it out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So misunderstandings can occur sometimes, but don’t let this stop you from using the word!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the multiple nuances can even be used intentionally to humorous effect: e. g. the sentence above said Abramovich can take 3000 people on his yacht to Crimea. Does this mean his yacht holds 3000 people, or that he is allowed to take people to Crimea? Probably both. But what if one is true but not the other? Тогда он может, но не может!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19547" RevisionGUID="8959ee7b-6014-49ec-b672-b478006adc06" CreationDate="2019-05-06T01:14:52.320" UserId="11825" Comment="added examples of dialogue with nuance switching" Text="As pointed out in comments, your impression of English “can” and “may” seems too rigid. Consider these dictionary definitions with the many meanings and examples, some of which overlap, and the usage note at _can:_ [can](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/can#h47313914215360), [may](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/may#h69840071008140), [may](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/may#h47304766641740).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of your original examples can use these same English verbs and sometimes even both, even though you say they all of the examples have different meanings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. OK, I guess in such an official context this one has to be “should” or “must (not)” or even “has the moral right to” or even just “has the right to”—with the “moral” being implied!—in English. But informally, you might exclaim, “You _can’t_ put your child in jeopardy!”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Roman Abramovich _can/could_ take 3000 people on his yacht to Crimea at a time. He _could_ do that, but he doesn’t want to. (The most direct translation of “could” back into Russian is “мог бы”, and it could work in the original Russian phrase, too. At the same time, “can” technically works here in English. But in Russian, “может” here sounds perfectly natural whereas I feel “can” sounds odd in English, and “может” has the benefit of providing a better artistic effect by matching the case of “не хочет” exactly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. He _can’t_ betray his battery, and he _can’t_ betray his wife and girls. (He feels he doesn’t have a moral right to do so. But his morals are such an integral part of him that he feels he is _unable_ to do something morally wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. _Probably:_ Savchenko _may_ get out of jail on that night. But it _might_ also be “can”. Really, to fully understand the exact meaning, you’d have to read the full article. The only information the title gives you is that _one way or another,_ it is possible that she will get out of jail on that date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. I like your use of “will” here, but equally well he _can_ spend hours looking at vegetables in supermarkets, especially if he doesn’t do it every day, or he even _may_ spend hours to just look at vegetables in supermarkets. To be honest though, I think the most natural English phrasing of this sentence would just use present simple: he _spends_ hours looking at vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. You _may/can_ use calculators. As noted by Oxford Dictionary in the above links, it is most traditional/strict/formal to use “may” to give permission, but in reality, “can” is also possible (in speech of all registers) and means the exact same thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m guessing your confusion really stems not from the English verbs, of which “can” actually matches мочь fairly closely, but from the variety of forms used in Japanese to express these nuances. Off the top of my head, there’s 〜事ができる denoting physical ability, 〜ていい denoting permission, 〜可能性がある denoting a chance of happening, 〜かもしれない denoting the speaker’s lack of knowledge of whether something is/was/will be happening, and 〜える expressing other states of being able to do something (with some overlap with できる) or object states where something can be done to them. **These are _all_ мочь** in Russian, except inherent, passive object states such as “edible”/“съедобный”. Any time you want to use any of these, be bold and just use мочь.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you want to emphasize a particular nuance, it is possible in Russian by using additional words: я не умею; разрешено/можно; есть шанс/надежда, что…; возможно/может быть, [что]…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I’m sure you know from Japanese, context is king. When multiple meanings of мочь work in a context, you either guess (possibly incorrectly) or the speaker simply doesn’t consider it important enough to differentiate between them. **The common meaning is that the effect may end up occurring, one way or another.** Is it because the subject takes an active action to cause it to occur? Is it because something _else_ acts and enables it to occur? Is it because something else doesn’t counteract and prevent it from occurring? Is it because people think it _should_ occur? In most cases, it’s either clear from the context or _doesn’t matter._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what about the Putin example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. ***All of them.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I’m not even sure, but I think the very first meaning that crossed my mind was “is it likely that he will do so in the imminent future?” (7d) but immediately afterwards I thought of “should he?” (7a, I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If I was asked this kind of question (except if I was in a hurry or wanted to avoid a detailed answer for some other reason), I’d give an answer that essentially consists of several parts that answer each possible meaning that I would have an answer for. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Может-то он может* _[this is 7b, actually, which I processed without even thinking!],_ но вряд ли он это сделает (в ближайшем будущем, по крайней мере) _[7d]._ Честно говоря, я думаю, что их следовало бы отдать/оставить по таким-то причинам… _[7a]_ но в любом случае, сейчас, насколько я слышал, никто их отдавать не собирается, так что пока что непохоже, что это произойдёт _[7cd],_ если только японцы вдруг не предложат что-то кардинально новое, но непонятно, что такого они **могут** предложить.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    \* Now that I think about it, I don’t actually know if he can/if this depends on Putin personally. Let’s not go there. This was just an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I notice that **I used могут myself** in my example answer. Which meaning did I put into it? Essentially, this могут has all the same meanings as the original может in the Putin question. **I didn’t actually think about any particular meaning** when using the word. In English, I’d use “can” and equally not think about the exact meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    But if I now try to figure it out in retrospect, I guess it’s “unclear whether there is anything the Japanese are willing and able to offer to the Russians that would actually be so beneficial to them that they would be happy to trade the islands for it despite the public backlash (if it wouldn’t change the public opinion as well)”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Well, what’s “willing and able”? We can keep going further/deeper with these questions, and at this point I think the exact meaning already doesn’t matter to the verb I chose. If I had wanted to underline a particular concern to the Japanese, I would have spoken of it explicitly in the first place. I think in this case the most important factors are physical ability (what at all could the Japanese offer that the Russians would find useful, even if they entirely disregarded public opinion within Japan?) and public opinion/political consequences, especially in internal politics (if they do offer that, will they be shunned by voters and fellow politicians?), but **I’m not forcing this choice upon the other person,** and if they think other factors are more important, that’s fine too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, with such an overloaded word as you point out, there are bound to be cases when misunderstandings _do_ occur:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. My original impression was the same as yours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; He died, but could he have done something differently to survive instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Indeed, this might be even more specific than your understanding. See how “Could he have survived?” has several meanings too; at least these two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * Could he have done something differently to survive instead of dying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    * Could something else have happened to let him survive instead of dying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    My mind jumped to the possibility of his own actions because it seemed (to me, at that time) most sensible in the context, but this is not by any means implied by the verb itself. Indeed, other Russian speakers might have thought of the other option or neither in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If I were to read the article, I’d most likely be surprised to discover the author intended the meaning “Is it possible that he actually survived when everyone thought he was dead?”. But I wouldn’t think the author had used erroneous phrasing. At most, I might think that the author had deliberately chosen this phrasing to lure people who shun conspiracy theories into reading the article by capitalizing on the fact that most people would interpret it the same as we did. The same can be done with any other word that has multiple meanings or homonyms/homographs, in any language. If you read a lot of articles by authors who do this in a particular language/manner, you start to recognize ambiguous titles before clicking on them and ignore such articles or know what to expect when you do open them out of curiosity. But it is also entirely possible that, when the author was choosing the title with the intended meaning already in mind, this phrasing seemed completely natural and they didn’t realize other people would misinterpret it out of context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So misunderstandings can occur sometimes, but don’t let this stop you from using the word!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the multiple nuances can even be used intentionally to humorous effect: e. g. the sentence above said Abramovich can take 3000 people on his yacht to Crimea. Does this mean his yacht holds 3000 people, or that he is allowed to take people to Crimea? Probably both. But what if one is true but not the other? Тогда он может, но не может!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, actual everyday dialogue can intentionally contrast multiple nuances in a somewhat similar manner:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Возможно, твой друг может это починить?  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Не может: у него болит спина, и он не выходит из дома.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Мы можем забраться на их яблоню и оттуда пролезть в окно второго этажа!  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Не можем, потому что яблоня огорожена забором.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Говорят, он может часами смотреть на овощи в магазине.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Не может: ему месяц назад запретили входить в продуктовые магазины." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19548" RevisionGUID="f342e4a6-d89c-4541-8808-d738edb56e28" CreationDate="2019-05-06T07:12:53.517" UserId="10247" Text="Generally speaking they are both stylistically neutral and can be used to describe 'fleeing', 'escape from prison/other institution/country'. But *бежать* is described as спасаться бегством, while *сбежал* has the sense of убегать, уходить (not just in case of danger), hence I think these possible connotations of weakness, insecurity with *сбежать*, e.g. муж сбежал от неё (cos he feels insecure), собака сбежала (cos the dog is stupid), or even *сбежать с уроков* (play hooky from school, cos one is lazy). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think you perception is generally correct. As for deception (as in *сбежал*) it is probably negative usually, but sometimes *сбежать* can be perceived as devising a good and bold plot to escape. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19550" RevisionGUID="0ef27a31-d20d-47bb-9d88-01167c9e78f3" CreationDate="2019-05-06T14:54:05.593" UserId="1836" Text="There are some general types of dishware and some specific ones (with special names), but usually specific ones still fall into some general type, so I will mention some specific ones, but definitely not all of them. And there are lots of cases when you wouldn't be able to tell two types apart for sure. It's OK, since sometimes we have to deal with strange things that designers create, and sometimes there is something from another culture that breaks the system, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's list of some common names:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `тарелка` is a flat plate used for main-course, usually 20 to 30 cm in diameter. There is also `суповая тарелка` or `глубокая тарелка` (adjective can be omitted) which is not so flat, but it should have flat parts on the top. So if you're looking at its side, it looks like this: –,___,–&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - `блюдце` is a smaller plate used for deserts, sandwiches, etc. `блюдце` is also put under a teacup or a coffee cup, it would then have design similar or complementary to the cup.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - `розетка` is even smaller than `блюдце`, but may be deeper (getting close to proportions of `миска`) and is used for jam or honey&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - `блюдо` is a big plate (40+ cm I think) used to serve dishes for several people (a&#xD;&#xA;   cake, a whole bird, a big fish, appetizers, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any of those can be round, square, hexagonal, etc. Name would depend on size and purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `миска` is deep and is mostly used for soup (should look like this: |\__| or like this: \\\__/). If it's for soup, it's almost never `чашка`, with an exception of bouillon cup, but it should have ear-like handle (or two) and look like this c|__|, then it's `чашка для бульона` or `бульонная чашка`, but you can still call it `миска`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; – `салатник` or `салатная миска` is same as `миска`, but bigger, and can be still called `миска`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difference between `миска` and `тарелка` is that `тарелка` is wider and shallower, but to establish an exact boundary is sometimes difficult. I'd say that if it has a brim, then it's probably `тарелка`, and if its height is half or more of its width it's probably `миска`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `чашка` is a cup for drinking (usually for tea or coffee) and should have at least one handle, it's narrower and higer than `миска` or `чашка для бульона`. Looks like this: с|_| or like this: c\\\_/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `кружка` is basically the same as `чашка`, but bigger. I think, originally it was for mostly used for beer, but nowadays there are smaller ones (300-400 ml, not 500) and lots of people use those for coffee, tea and any other soft drinks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, there is some gray area between `чашка` and `кружка`. I'd say that if it's less than 300 ml, it's `чашка` and otherwise it's `кружка`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `стакан` is a handless vessel, usually made of glass (almost same as `glass` in English). This category contains old-fashioned, rocks, highball and pilsner glasses (maybe more, these are what I'm aware of). Note that it can have different height and height-to-width ratio, but `стакан` never has a handle or a leg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `бокал` is a glass on a leg (e.g. wine glass, hurricane glass, martini glass, etc.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two more glasses are `рюмка` and `стопка`. In my understanding they are same as `бокал` and `стакан` (respectively), but smaller (for shots).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `бутылка` is a glass or plastic bottle that liquids are sold in, it usually has a narrow neck (you can't put your hand inside). If you can, than it's `банка`, and if it's more than 3 liters, it's usually `канистра`. Except for huge bottles of whiskey or other beverage if they are mimicking smaller ones. All three of these have secure lids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `графин` is a fancy glass bottle, usually with a not secure lid, or without any lid at all. There are also things like `декантер` (to let wine breathe) or `штоф` (not sure what exactly is the difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `кувшин` is bigger than `графин`, has wider neck, and usually has a handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `поднос` is a flat thing that you put plates on (in fast food places, or to bring to other room).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; – `коробка` is a box. It usually has a lid, but usually it's not secure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `контейнер` is a box for storaging food. It usually has a secure lid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to your photos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Please kindly have a look at this photo. How do you call the dishes shown in the photo - the ones for soup and rice, the one for fish, and the one for berries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ones for soup and rice are definitely `миска`, one for fish is `тарелка` and one for berries is either `мисочка` (little bowl) or `розетка`. I'd use the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Please now have a look at this photo. What is the Russian name for these rectangular boxes - поднос, коробка, or what? And please have a look at the round dish in the upper left corner of the photo. How is this dish called in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rectangular boxes don't have an official name in Russian. I would probably call it `поднос` even though you usually put plates with food on `поднос` and not food itself. If these actually are bento boxes (that have lids and are designed to carry around), then you could say it's `коробка` or `контейнер`. Round dish at the corner also falls into gray area somewhere between `миска` and `тарелка`. I'd say it's closer to `тарелка` as it doesn't look very deep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Now this photo. How do you call this red dish, the one whereon you see sushi? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is `тарелка`. You might call it `блюдо` if it's set of sushi for a company, but even in this case, `тарелка` is also OK, as it doesn't look that big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Now this photo. How do you call these wooden sticks whereon the chicken pieces are nailed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are `деревянные шампуры`, adjective can be omitted. For smallers sticks that hold olives or other snacks there is word `шпажки` (derived from `шпага` which is a rapier).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Now this photo. How is the big glass called? Графин or бутылка? And how are the small glasses called?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Big glass is definitely `графин`. Small glasses are either `бокал` or `рюмка` depending on the size, which is not exactly clear. Probably `бокал`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** The definitions I used seems to differ from formal definitions (e.g. wikipedia says that `блюдце` is thing to place a cup on, everything else is `тарелка` of different kind), but this is how the words are actually used in spoken language (at least around me).&#xD;&#xA;If you need more types of dishware or more formal definitions, you can start from exploring [this][1] category in Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19545" RevisionGUID="cf316cab-ba2e-474d-86a7-8cdfd9b7fc1a" CreationDate="2019-05-06T15:47:43.373" UserId="11824" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="What is stylistically neutral word for &quot;to flee&quot;: &quot;бежать&quot; or &quot;сбежать&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I consider here the formal register (such as in Wikipedia articles or TV news).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that both words can describe the same situation, and in some contexts only one can be used idiomatically, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    сбежать из дома (flee from home)&#xD;&#xA;    бежать от опасности (flee from danger)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but my question is which word is typically preferred in neutral style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often see &quot;сбежать&quot; in neutral contexts, such as in descriptions of historical events, in Wikipedia articles, or in news reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Upon defeat, the king fled from the country.&#xD;&#xA;    После поражения король сбежал из страны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My feeling is that this is stylistically incorrect, while the correct (stylistically neutral) phrase is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    После поражения король бежал из страны.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;because (in my feeling) &quot;сбежать&quot; is stylistically marked, mostly negatively, probably bearing connotations of deception, and probably sounding pejoratively, and thus it should be very limited in use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    He is a coward, he simply flew away!&#xD;&#xA;    Он трус, он просто сбежал! (pejorative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    These fools even did not notice as I escaped.&#xD;&#xA;    Эти дураки даже не заметили, как я сбежал. (deception)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my perception correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19551" RevisionGUID="6fc000eb-cf68-492c-9b66-839ac3da228e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:04:32.010" UserId="11788" Text="`Может, и...` seems to translate to `Maybe...`, but it also seems to convey more of a sense of possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how should the following phrase be understood? `Может, и я ходил.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My estimation would be `Maybe I went.` But does the use of the word `может` also imply that I was maybe capable of going, maybe not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19551" RevisionGUID="6fc000eb-cf68-492c-9b66-839ac3da228e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:04:32.010" UserId="11788" Text="What is the meaning of &quot;может, и...&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19551" RevisionGUID="6fc000eb-cf68-492c-9b66-839ac3da228e" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:04:32.010" UserId="11788" Text="|перевод|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19552" RevisionGUID="f928de57-ddca-4b5b-bc70-3ac11dbdbfd9" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:37:04.137" UserId="11080" Text="&gt; Может, я и ходил. И что из этого? &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Even if I went** there, what's then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phrase implies the possibility if the action named, but mainly it expresses the idea that the action does not influence anything. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19553" RevisionGUID="367948cd-f3f8-43ba-9a00-44b2b2bd1c51" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:59:53.673" UserId="11835" Text="As a bilingual Russian-speaker (in addition to Ukrainian) and a native habitat of Ukraine (post-soviet country) I will try to explain this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In these sentences this verb appears to mean entirely different things: In the first sentence it appears to mean an ethical norm, in the second - a physical ability, in the third - a character quality, in the fourth - a possibility that cannot be excluded, in the fifth - habitual behavior, in the sixth - a permission.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you **can not** do smth because your morality, physical disability, external prohibitions stop you and you are **unable** to do smth (it is mostly about sentences 1, 2, 6). Sentence 3, as for me, is also about morality, but your explanation is also correct.&#xD;&#xA;Also, as you have mentioned about sentence 4, **can** can also have a meaning of *may/might*, which seems not strongly different from the word 'can' in my perception. About sentence 5 - I think **can** is used here, because most people (or at least the author/character/speaker/writer) **can not** do that, because it seems very untypical, the person may/can get bored, tired, consider it like ridiculous, insane, out of common sense etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About sentence 7 - I think your suggestions are grammatically correct, in addition I give an example of how I understood the sentence (most of them are close to 7d, 7c) &quot; Is it possible? Do the external circumstances force/allow him to do that? What profits he/country can/may/might get of it? Do they overweight the disadvantages of the decision? Isn't he too proud for it?&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About sentence 8 - I think that the word **mystery** (of death) in the sentence may guide the person's thoughts that it can be some conspiracy. And the sentence &quot;Мог ли СССР выжить?&quot; has no clue about any conspiracy, but when reading Russian titles of news or articles you never know - there is a tendency to make clickbait titles, which can trick your mind, sometimes titles are almost a lie or (more rarely) a real lie. An example of tricking is [the youtube video][1] with the title &quot;Афроамериканец наехал на украинца в США&quot;, which is usually understood like &quot;Afroamerican ran over an Ukrainian (a person) in the USA&quot;, but actually in the video afroamerican driver hit a car droven by an Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3PKbpmvjI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19554" RevisionGUID="259cedee-e619-4ab1-b161-17640a641319" CreationDate="2019-05-06T23:12:53.723" UserId="11408" Text="`может` in your sentence serves a function of the parenthesis - an explanatory or qualifying word (in Russian we call them вводные слова). It would be a short form of a common parenthetical phrase `может быть`, which you can translate as `may be, possibly, probably`. [Check for the whole definition][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, `может` does indicate towards a possibility that I went (and not capability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate your sentence as: May be and I went. In that context in combination with the conjunction `и`, it is reasonable to assume that either a speaker knows if he went (wherever he went) and it is a small play towards his companion(s), as if like teasing: you'll never know if I went there or not, or the speaker's companion(s) suggested before that he (they) went somewhere and the speaker sincerely doesn't remember and simply assumes that he probably also went there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_416" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="c2be543a-9522-4e6d-bbfb-69b15bad2022" CreationDate="2019-05-07T02:58:40.143" UserId="11838" Text="Is there a term for driving and listening to music with no destination just to drive listening to music? Is there a specific term to drive and listen to music at night? Is there a term when a large group of cars cruise together mob or civilian? Thank You!!с глубоким уважением" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="c2be543a-9522-4e6d-bbfb-69b15bad2022" CreationDate="2019-05-07T02:58:40.143" UserId="11838" Text="What would be the Russian term for cruising in your car listening to music? Also,Is there a term when the mob travel and drive as a group?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="c2be543a-9522-4e6d-bbfb-69b15bad2022" CreationDate="2019-05-07T02:58:40.143" UserId="11838" Text="|одним-словом|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19555" RevisionGUID="dc47fada-b830-43bf-9698-7d7f69e644ae" CreationDate="2019-05-07T05:12:02.247" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="Is there a term for driving and listening to music with no destination just to drive listening to music? Is there a specific term to drive and listen to music at night? Is there a term when a large group of cars cruise together mob or civilian? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19556" RevisionGUID="23d17e07-8841-4d4a-ae63-5dc3f19787cd" CreationDate="2019-05-07T05:18:22.733" UserId="242" Text="I don't know any particular exact word for this. However if someone have asked me to describe this in Russian I'd rather used something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Кружить по району без дела и слушать музыку. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Просто кататься и слушать музыку.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no verb like &quot;слоняться&quot; or &quot;бродить [без дела]&quot; but for driving, so this is the closest I can think of. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19539" RevisionGUID="135a4b91-c607-4167-a300-3f7d0f7196f6" CreationDate="2019-05-07T06:00:48.737" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1125641613743677441" />
  <row Id="51064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19557" RevisionGUID="3e14faa9-f11d-493d-862e-075106f4fffb" CreationDate="2019-05-07T06:17:54.593" UserId="11810" Text="&gt; Is there a term when a large group of cars cruise together mob or civilian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the formal and official context the term is &quot;**автоколонна**&quot;. It is an organized group of buses / trucks / cars / military vehicles, accompanied by the police. This word is, e.g., for moving large group of workers from one site to another, or transporting a large group of schoolchildren to their summer camp. A motorcade. It's definitely not for &quot;driving with no particular destination listening to music&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For informal context the term is &quot;**покатушка**&quot;. This word is often used when a large group of people go biking, cycling, or roller skating. But there are examples when it's used in the context of a group driving their cars around for pleasure, for example, a group of off-road fans driving to a particularly attractive dirt hole." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19558" RevisionGUID="07b74473-e23e-4449-817d-b987fcdfee4e" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:08:13.367" UserId="9562" Text="This question is different in the word order from: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/700/singular-or-a-plural-verb-after-%D0%B8-%D0%B8 - When the verb is after the subject, plural sounds logical. However, it is common in Russian to have a verb before the subject. In this case, plural doesn't sound good, because it perceptibly contradicts the first (singular) part of the subject. For example, what is correct in the following, &quot;встретила&quot; or &quot;встретили&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Меня встретила Аня, моя старшая двоюродная сестра, и Сергей, её новый парень со старшего курса.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19558" RevisionGUID="07b74473-e23e-4449-817d-b987fcdfee4e" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:08:13.367" UserId="9562" Text="Is the verb always plural *before* a plural subject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19558" RevisionGUID="07b74473-e23e-4449-817d-b987fcdfee4e" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:08:13.367" UserId="9562" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19559" RevisionGUID="3b3f7d47-7f16-4b5f-a356-9c7c9d1435c4" CreationDate="2019-05-07T07:24:33.763" UserId="242" Text="Correct is a very vague term in this particular case. Grammatically correct would be &quot;встретили&quot;,  plural.&#xA;&#xA;De-facto in real life, in casual speech one can easily hear &quot;встретил&quot; and Russian native speaker would perceive it without batting an eye." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19560" RevisionGUID="4be8de99-2240-451b-9ddb-a4bff9189e27" CreationDate="2019-05-07T10:42:35.793" UserId="5008" Text="In general the rules are quite long and complicated. You may try to read [this](http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/letters/64-bolshinstvo) if you dare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But taking your example, it's about (slightly) different meanings. _Меня встретили Аня и Сергей_ means _They both met me_, while _Меня встретила Аня и Сергей_ is rather _She met me. And also he did._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the plural here should be preferred unless you want to stress that particular difference. However, in common speech people rarely pay attention to it (and if they really do, they also use an intonation of some sort to be properly understood). So it is common to use singular and plural in such sentences interchangeably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19561" RevisionGUID="efb3f1df-2e79-49ff-b932-5a02d924c4e7" CreationDate="2019-05-07T10:50:31.303" UserId="2104" Text="In your example either number will do, but plural is preferred in formal writing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Обратите внимание на то, что форма множественного числа при обратном порядке слов является нормативной в официально-деловом и научном стилях, где на первый план выходит смысловая точность высказывания (На заседании присутствовали...; в Президиум избраны...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://licey.net/free/4-russkii_yazyk/41-kurs_russkogo_yazyka_russkii_yazyk_i_kultura_obscheniya/stages/783-33_nekotorye_osobennosti_soglasovaniya.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51071" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19524" RevisionGUID="736f5796-9caf-44cc-9279-74769cc7a6ef" CreationDate="2019-05-07T12:00:56.903" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1125732245166350338" />
  <row Id="51072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19562" RevisionGUID="d89b9b51-1031-4319-bdb5-4ec58bb3966f" CreationDate="2019-05-07T12:06:38.873" UserId="8672" Text="In conversation, I wanted to express the idea of &quot;*I can't place her*&quot; in Russian -- informally/colloquially used when you think you recognise someone from somewhere and yet, frustratingly enough, can't put your finger on from where exactly. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **can't place** her, but I still feel that her face is vaguely familiar. It'll come back sometime, though it may be just that she resembles someone I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I **can't place** her exactly, but I know she is an instructor of sorts or a teacher, can't be sure which she is, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In French and German, there are colloquial phrasings that perfectly match in register -- &quot;*J'arrive pas à la remettre*&quot;, &quot;*Ich weiß bloß gerade nicht, wo ich sie hintun soll*&quot; -- but  its Russian equivalent eludes me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19562" RevisionGUID="d89b9b51-1031-4319-bdb5-4ec58bb3966f" CreationDate="2019-05-07T12:06:38.873" UserId="8672" Text="&quot;I can't place her&quot;: How do Russian speakers express this idea colloquially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19562" RevisionGUID="d89b9b51-1031-4319-bdb5-4ec58bb3966f" CreationDate="2019-05-07T12:06:38.873" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19563" RevisionGUID="1424e6e9-cdad-4fed-bde1-d5a9c0d197c2" CreationDate="2019-05-07T13:01:35.847" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Не помню, откуда её знаю&quot; or &quot;не могу припомнить, откуда её знаю&quot; - this is the most frequent thing one can hear in this kind of situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can also be used for directly addressing somebody, like in &quot;Что-то не могу тебя припомнить&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19564" RevisionGUID="c0aab591-d900-469b-83b1-d5e5c6ee85e7" CreationDate="2019-05-07T13:06:47.003" UserId="6539" Text="We don't have one expression. You can say.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я не узнаю ее, я не знаю кто она, не могу вспомнить, кто она, я не признАю, кто она, не припомню ее, не могу точно сказать, кто она... and perhaps more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19565" RevisionGUID="1a0e1183-8933-4b3f-8f28-4cf04d67f63b" CreationDate="2019-05-07T13:19:09.647" UserId="11840" Text="**Why a new term**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Doneness][1] is a scale. Steak is not a traditional Russian dish; there are five commonly used degrees of doneness for steaks but only three established Russian translations (с кровью, средней прожарки, хорошо прожаренный). It makes sense to adopt the international scale instead of each chef inventing his or her own translations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Cырой&quot; in the context of food means &quot;uncooked&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* an ingredient,&#xD;&#xA;* a dish in the process of preparation,&#xD;&#xA;* or an unprocessed food item good to be eaten as-is in the mind of the speaker: vegetables, eggs, [unpasteurized] milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a *cooked* dish (such as a steak) is &quot;сырой&quot;, it is undercooked compared to how you wanted it. See, for example, [this humorous poem by Samuil Marshak][4], in which an obstinate old woman is incensed not so much by a burglary but by the burglars' insinuation the pie they stole is сырой. Do not use сырой for a steak that is cooked to your preference. (But you can say &quot;Я люблю ultra-rare стейки, чтобы мясо было совсем сырое&quot; - the *ingredient* is сырой, but the *dish* is just fine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**English in Advertising**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parenthetical transcription of the terms in menus is done to conform to the Federal Law on Advertising ([Федеральный закон &quot;О рекламе&quot; от 13.03.2006 N 38-ФЗ][2], Article 5, paragraph 5.1). The letter of that law prohibits the use of &quot;foreign words and phrases which might induce semantic distortion of the information&quot;. (This is, of course, ambiguous. What if a foreign word is more precise? How do you tell between a loan word and a foreign (Ukrainian or Kazakh) word in Cyrillic script?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the Federal Law on the State Language ([Федеральный закон &quot;О государственном языке Российской Федерации&quot; от 1 июня 2005 г. N 53-ФЗ][3]) requires the use of the Russian language in advertising, but makes an exception for &quot;foreign words which do not have commonly used analogues in the Russian language&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, every foreign word used in sales communications (except the official name of the company in the state registry, if grandfathered in before 53-FZ), needs a Russian translation or transcription. Even though many Russians can speak and read English and a vast majority can vocalize written English words, the law cannot privilege English over, say, Chinese or Tagalog. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doneness&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fas.gov.ru/pages/postateiny_kommentary#Art5&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://rg.ru/2005/06/07/yazyk-dok.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.staroeradio.ru/audio/3809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19551" RevisionGUID="5e26ecee-7223-40ab-a42b-33be797ef609" CreationDate="2019-05-07T13:26:10.300" UserId="6350" Comment="formatting ('code formatting' should not be used for emphasis/quoting, see: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/135112/295232)" Text="'Может, и...' seems to translate to 'Maybe...', but it also seems to convey more of a sense of possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, how should the following phrase be understood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Может, и я ходил.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My estimation would be 'Maybe I went.' But does the use of the word 'может' also imply that I was maybe capable of going, maybe not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51079" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19551" RevisionGUID="5e26ecee-7223-40ab-a42b-33be797ef609" CreationDate="2019-05-07T13:26:10.300" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 10999, 5605 edit id of 2046" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19566" RevisionGUID="fb095801-70a0-418e-bb6d-d63d5647ae37" CreationDate="2019-05-07T14:10:05.097" UserId="2104" Text="&quot;Не помню, где я ее видел&quot; / &quot;Не помню, откуда я ее знаю.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51081" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19562" RevisionGUID="302285f4-29e7-4819-8648-c2d60a29470a" CreationDate="2019-05-07T14:59:23.120" />
  <row Id="51082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19567" RevisionGUID="e7dede21-26ed-4d07-a771-39403c5d52c5" CreationDate="2019-05-07T18:39:25.220" UserId="9256" Text="1. No, English terms (&quot;Rare&quot;, &quot;Well done&quot; etc.) are still English. Russian terms (&quot;С кровью&quot;, &quot;Хорошо прожаренный&quot;) _can_ (but not necessarily _will_) be substitutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Correct. &quot;Бифштекс&quot; was never a common dish in Russia. Even now, when steaks made their way into Russia, that's not what most people cook (or even know how to cook) at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, according to longstanding sanitary traditions, meat should always be &quot;well done&quot;. Most people would have read about &quot;бифштекс с кровью&quot;, but their first reaction upon seeing one was &quot;Ew!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51083" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="19564" RevisionGUID="3f28ee7f-56d0-4bee-b78d-904e674d00df" CreationDate="2019-05-07T19:00:06.843" UserId="6539" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19568" RevisionGUID="f8044fce-1da2-4682-9163-bbf191098618" CreationDate="2019-05-07T22:18:25.490" UserId="11843" Text="Как правильно расставить запятые в этом предложении?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Он сдвигался, по мере роста, по крайней мере, последние триста лет.`" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19568" RevisionGUID="f8044fce-1da2-4682-9163-bbf191098618" CreationDate="2019-05-07T22:18:25.490" UserId="11843" Text="Он сдвигался, по мере роста, по крайней мере, последние триста лет" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19568" RevisionGUID="f8044fce-1da2-4682-9163-bbf191098618" CreationDate="2019-05-07T22:18:25.490" UserId="11843" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19554" RevisionGUID="88693780-0572-4757-bd0c-c604a1cd5649" CreationDate="2019-05-08T03:10:17.957" UserId="11408" Comment="based on the correction of @БаянКупи-ка, changed the English translation" Text="`может` in your sentence serves a function of the parenthesis - an explanatory or qualifying word (in Russian we call them вводные слова). It would be a short form of a common parenthetical phrase `может быть`, which you can translate as `may be, possibly, probably`. [Check for the whole definition][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question, `может` does indicate towards a possibility that I went (and not capability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would translate your sentence as: I might have gone too. In that context in combination with the conjunction `и`, it is reasonable to assume that either a speaker knows if he went (wherever he went) and it is a small play towards his companion(s), as if like teasing: you'll never know if I went there or not, or the speaker's companion(s) suggested before that he (they) went somewhere and the speaker sincerely doesn't remember and simply assumes that he probably also went there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://new.gramota.ru/spravka/punctum?layout=item&amp;id=58_416" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19548" RevisionGUID="fdadaf12-3cff-43b8-94fc-f1db926c5b64" CreationDate="2019-05-08T05:04:20.977" UserId="11842" Comment="cos -&gt; because" Text="Generally speaking they are both stylistically neutral and can be used to describe 'fleeing', 'escape from prison/other institution/country'. But *бежать* is described as спасаться бегством, while *сбежал* has the sense of убегать, уходить (not just in case of danger), hence I think these possible connotations of weakness, insecurity with *сбежать*, e.g. муж сбежал от неё (because he feels insecure), собака сбежала (because the dog is stupid), or even *сбежать с уроков* (play hooky from school, because one is lazy). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think you perception is generally correct. As for deception (as in *сбежал*) it is probably negative usually, but sometimes *сбежать* can be perceived as devising a good and bold plot to escape. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51089" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19548" RevisionGUID="fdadaf12-3cff-43b8-94fc-f1db926c5b64" CreationDate="2019-05-08T05:04:20.977" Comment="Proposed by 11842 approved by 10999, 10247 edit id of 2048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19569" RevisionGUID="272e9492-7bc5-4545-bbf8-7b3b9f6fbec6" CreationDate="2019-05-08T06:00:31.283" UserId="11080" Text="Он сдвигался по мере роста, по крайней мере, последние триста лет. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;По крайней мере&quot; is an introductory phrase, &quot;по мере роста&quot; is an adverbial modifier. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19553" RevisionGUID="71a7d9c1-d663-409f-8fbb-229fe9ac18c8" CreationDate="2019-05-08T09:10:07.947" UserId="11835" Comment="Added clarification for why &quot;can&quot; and &quot;may/might&quot; can be confusing" Text="As a bilingual Russian-speaker (in addition to Ukrainian) and a native habitat of Ukraine (post-soviet country) I will try to explain this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In these sentences this verb appears to mean entirely different things: In the first sentence it appears to mean an ethical norm, in the second - a physical ability, in the third - a character quality, in the fourth - a possibility that cannot be excluded, in the fifth - habitual behavior, in the sixth - a permission.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you **can not** do smth because your morality, physical disability, external prohibitions stop you and you are **unable** to do smth (it is mostly about sentences 1, 2, 6). Sentence 3, as for me, is also about morality, but your explanation is also correct.&#xD;&#xA;Also, as you have mentioned about sentence 4, **can** can also have a meaning of *may/might*, which seems not strongly different from the word 'can' in my perception. While learning English, we usually learn, that &quot;might&quot; is a very low probability, &quot;may&quot; is relatively low (like 30% or a bit more), &quot;can&quot; is more (like 50+), &quot;must&quot; is very high (80-90+). About sentence 5 - I think **can** is used here, because most people (or at least the author/character/speaker/writer) **can not** do that, because it seems very untypical, the person may/can get bored, tired, consider it like ridiculous, insane, out of common sense etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About sentence 7 - I think your suggestions are grammatically correct, in addition I give an example of how I understood the sentence (most of them are close to 7d, 7c) &quot; Is it possible? Do the external circumstances force/allow him to do that? What profits he/country can/may/might get of it? Do they overweight the disadvantages of the decision? Isn't he too proud for it?&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About sentence 8 - I think that the word **mystery** (of death) in the sentence may guide the person's thoughts that it can be some conspiracy. And the sentence &quot;Мог ли СССР выжить?&quot; has no clue about any conspiracy, but when reading Russian titles of news or articles you never know - there is a tendency to make clickbait titles, which can trick your mind, sometimes titles are almost a lie or (more rarely) a real lie. An example of tricking is [the youtube video][1] with the title &quot;Афроамериканец наехал на украинца в США&quot;, which is usually understood like &quot;Afroamerican ran over an Ukrainian (a person) in the USA&quot;, but actually in the video afroamerican driver hit a car droven by an Ukrainian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3PKbpmvjI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19568" RevisionGUID="994dfe44-6405-4af1-b771-5c2caa069d7e" CreationDate="2019-05-08T12:12:44.257" UserId="6097" Comment="форматирование" Text="Как правильно расставить запятые в этом предложении?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он сдвигался, по мере роста, по крайней мере, последние триста лет." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19570" RevisionGUID="8072478b-f0a0-4b0f-9094-a3894f79cdcd" CreationDate="2019-05-08T13:52:40.450" UserId="6539" Text="Выделяются только вводные слова «по крайней мере», больше нет причины для запятых.&#xD;&#xA;Два слова «мере» в одном предложении смотрятся плохо.Автору лучше заменить вводные слова, если возможно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51095" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19562" RevisionGUID="9e779bc6-d723-4121-836b-2e55c7563828" CreationDate="2019-05-08T15:00:43.360" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1126139874581544961" />
  <row Id="51096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17484" RevisionGUID="45b37de7-cf53-436d-93c0-904584f8219a" CreationDate="2019-05-08T15:13:48.350" UserId="7674" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Apparently palatalization of **`[ж]`** **MAY** occur in cases of its phonetic gemination **`[жж]`** due to assimilation of an adjacent phoneme of the word root. In all such cases this adjacent phoneme can alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other such words are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **`дожди`** (rains) - which can be pronounced **`[дажжи]`** due to assimilation of **`[д]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: са**д** - са**ж**ать, си**д**еть - си**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **`подожди`** (wait!) - **`[падажжи]`** for reason as in 1)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **`позже`** (later) - **`[пожже]`** due to assimilation of **`[з]`** able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: ла**з**ить - ла**ж**у, во**з**ить - во**ж**у  etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) **`вожжи`** (reins) - this is conventional spelling, which can also have the form of **`возжи`** because its root is essentially **`воз`** just like in the verb **`возить`** mentioned above, so the reason for gemination **`[жж]`** is as in 3)  &#xD;&#xA;4а) also sing. **`вожжа`** - which can be pronounced as **`[вожжя]`** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) **`жжёт`** (burns) - this is conventional spelling, where the gemination **`[жж]`** occurs due to assimilation of the root phoneme **`[г]`** which features in such cognates as **`зажиГать`**, **`ожоГ`** and which is able to alternate with **`[ж]`** in other roots as well: бо**г** - бо**ж**иться, мо**г**у - мо**ж**ет, ло**г** - ло**ж**бина, ро**г** - ро**ж**ок, дру**г** - дру**ж**ить etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the gemination **`[жж]`** in **`дрожжи`**, which is conventional spelling like **`жжёт`**, can't be explained by reference to its root or other Russian words, because the word is unique. However it can be explained by reference to its [etymology](https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/дрожжи) and equivalents in other Slavic languages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Происходит от праслав. *drozga, от кот. в числе прочего произошли:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ст.-слав. дрождиѩ мн. (Син. Пс.), укр. дрíжджi, дрíщi, болг. дро́ждие,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; сербохорв. дро̀жда ж., словенск. drôzga «отвар солода», чешск. droždí&#xD;&#xA;&gt; «дрожжи», словацк. droždie мн., польск. drożdże, в.-луж. droždźe,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; н.-луж. droždźeje.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently it derives from the root **`дрожд`** or **`дрозг`**. Whatever the case, all **`д`**, **`з`** and **`г`** can (as shown above) assimilate into or alternate with **`ж`** to fashion gemination **`дроЖЖи`**.&#xD;&#xA;________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`Дажжи`** (дожди) и **`падажжи`** (подожди) are different from the rest in this list in that palatalized pronunciation of **`[жж]`** in them is the **only** option. Their penultimate phoneme **`[д]`** is palatalized in the normative pronunciation due to **`[и]`**, so after its assimilation into **`[ж]`** the palatalization is simply kept. &#xD;&#xA;The other words allow for alternative pronunciation, either with or without palatalization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19571" RevisionGUID="efc82ff1-2b1e-4aa4-b860-e742e7c1b13f" CreationDate="2019-05-08T17:23:51.573" UserId="11845" Text="Миалгия — мышечная боль, возникающая после нагрузок или без видимой причины. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="e437b433-6657-4027-b820-b03ab28f83bf" CreationDate="2019-05-09T00:08:33.197" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="It makes no sense to me; when I'm listening to Russians on YouTube they all do it either way, another thing.&#xD;&#xA;If I choose to do most of my o’s as a’s will there be others who don't still understand me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51099" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="e437b433-6657-4027-b820-b03ab28f83bf" CreationDate="2019-05-09T00:08:33.197" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="Why do some people pronounce &quot;о&quot; as &quot;a&quot; and some just pronounce &quot;o&quot; as &quot;o&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51100" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="e437b433-6657-4027-b820-b03ab28f83bf" CreationDate="2019-05-09T00:08:33.197" UserId="6350" Comment="typos corrected" Text="|произношение|узус|vowel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51101" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="17243" RevisionGUID="e437b433-6657-4027-b820-b03ab28f83bf" CreationDate="2019-05-09T00:08:33.197" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 10999 edit id of 2049" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51102" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="19564" RevisionGUID="90822a2c-19c7-43e8-a9a0-0413f54df860" CreationDate="2019-05-09T04:34:41.810" UserId="6539" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:6539,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;V.V.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19558" RevisionGUID="22122e76-d491-440d-9284-b83b4b0f560d" CreationDate="2019-05-09T12:00:56.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1126457018477314048" />
  <row Id="51104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="a84cdf9e-989c-451e-a9f5-76e16b3602c2" CreationDate="2019-05-09T12:32:01.127" UserId="1640" Text="Imagine I want to translate to Russian the word &quot;community of working writers&quot; such that &quot;writers&quot; means both male and female ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are obvious variants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Сообщество работающих литераторов и литераторш&#xD;&#xA;* Сообщество работающих писателей и писательниц&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are so long that they can compete with German.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a word for &quot;writer&quot;, which is gender-neural and shorter than &quot;писатели и писательницы&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am fine with rarely used or archaic terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="a84cdf9e-989c-451e-a9f5-76e16b3602c2" CreationDate="2019-05-09T12:32:01.127" UserId="1640" Text="Succinct and gender-neutral Russian word for &quot;writer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="a84cdf9e-989c-451e-a9f5-76e16b3602c2" CreationDate="2019-05-09T12:32:01.127" UserId="1640" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="26f1433d-78e4-4f72-961a-f49178eb4544" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:12:51.213" UserId="7674" Text="In Russian as of today collective unisex designation of professions and occupations defaults to masculine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*EUGENIJA ĆUTO &quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19574" RevisionGUID="d17cd42a-5bdd-448d-8175-394f4ed37e63" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:19:47.050" UserId="242" Text="In Russia there's ongoing discussion - and it's getting quite fervent-  on whether so called [feminitives][1] (the English [wiki][2] is called just &quot;Gender_marking_in_job_titles&quot;) should or shouldn't be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the German tradition of always using feminitives (I'm sticking for this word for the lack of a shorter term) in Russia only particular words have equally used feminine forms but even in that case they quite often differ stylistically. Compare, for instance, `парикмахер` and `парикмахерша` - both are used but the feminine one is quite colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically words `писательница` and `работница` are one of few exceptions - it's actually used quite often and considered to me stylistically quite neutral. However for Russian speaker something like `союз писателей и писательниц`  or `клуб работников и работниц` will sound strange. De-facto the masculine form will be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_marking_in_job_titles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="ead5bc3f-9ee0-4b56-bdd4-cf5d845ef5ef" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:24:53.603" UserId="7674" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="In Russian as of today collective unisex designation of people engaged in the same profession or occupation defaults to masculine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*EUGENIJA ĆUTO &quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19574" RevisionGUID="7369f767-f557-41a8-95ec-c735eaf62638" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:33:27.047" UserId="242" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="In Russia there's ongoing discussion - and it's getting quite fervent-  on whether so called [feminitives][1] (the English [wiki][2] is called just &quot;Gender_marking_in_job_titles&quot;) should or shouldn't be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the German tradition of always using feminitives (I'm sticking for this word for the lack of a shorter term) in phrases like &quot;Enwtickler/in gesucht&quot; in Russia only particular words have equally used feminine forms but even in that case they quite often differ stylistically. Compare, for instance, `парикмахер` and `парикмахерша` - both are used but the feminine one is quite colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically words `писательница` and `работница` are one of few exceptions - it's actually used quite often and considered to me stylistically quite neutral. However for Russian speaker something like `союз писателей и писательниц`  or `клуб работников и работниц` will sound strange. De-facto the masculine form will be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_marking_in_job_titles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="081e0ce4-a2a7-4aba-8407-6391102235db" CreationDate="2019-05-09T13:57:47.060" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In Russian as of today collective unisex designation of people engaged in the same profession or occupation defaults to plural masculine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[*EUGENIJA ĆUTO &quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="c2b0b466-dc28-4a97-9352-fc423bcbd1c8" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:00:39.643" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|выбор-слова|род|множественное-число|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="b73f5bcd-6d05-426b-a846-6ebbe2164d17" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:14:55.580" UserId="11848" Text="Нужно ли тире перед `это`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; А в свою очередь это делает то-то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="b73f5bcd-6d05-426b-a846-6ebbe2164d17" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:14:55.580" UserId="11848" Text="А в свою очередь это делает то-то" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="b73f5bcd-6d05-426b-a846-6ebbe2164d17" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:14:55.580" UserId="11848" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19576" RevisionGUID="6c399848-64e5-419d-94e6-ac675f0f4202" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:17:29.497" UserId="11080" Text="Нет. Тире нужно перед &quot;это&quot;, когда у нас есть подлежащее и сказуемое, выраженные существительными. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Глобус** - это **чучело** земли. (с) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;А в вашем примере &quot;это&quot; - подлежащее, &quot;делает&quot; - сказуемое. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51118" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19575" RevisionGUID="37bf7e39-1296-42de-9263-2686c7d6f580" CreationDate="2019-05-09T14:28:04.700" UserId="242" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19574" RevisionGUID="86450b0b-860d-4461-a17b-51d4102ed7d4" CreationDate="2019-05-09T15:01:50.577" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="In Russia there's ongoing discussion - and it's getting quite fervent-  on whether so called [feminitives][1] (the English [wiki][2] is called just &quot;Gender_marking_in_job_titles&quot;) should or shouldn't be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the German tradition of always using feminitives (I'm sticking for this word for the lack of a shorter term) in phrases like &quot;Enwtickler/in gesucht&quot; in Russia only particular words have equally used feminine forms but even in that case they quite often differ stylistically. Compare, for instance, `парикмахер` and `парикмахерша` - both are used but the feminine one is quite colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically words `писательница` and `работница` are one of few exceptions - they actually used quite often and considered to me stylistically quite neutral. However for Russian speaker something like `союз писателей и писательниц`  or `клуб работников и работниц` will sound strange. De-facto the masculine form will be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_marking_in_job_titles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51120" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="83455d17-a4db-4d93-a933-561c9f6c35c5" CreationDate="2019-05-09T15:02:54.593" />
  <row Id="51129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="6851649a-f9e9-426f-8e06-8df0c8c6038e" CreationDate="2019-05-09T17:35:55.567" UserId="7674" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="In Russian as of today collective unisex designation of people engaged in the same profession or occupation defaults to plural masculine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[EUGENIJA ĆUTO*](http://www.unizd.hr/ruski/nastavnici-ce/eugenija-cuto) - [*&quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="ba41bb65-fd5d-47b4-8be6-5a48849ea4dd" CreationDate="2019-05-10T07:01:16.863" UserId="7674" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="In Russian as of today collective designation of people engaged in the same profession or occupation defaults to plural masculine form in which case it becomes unisex even if in singular there might exist a feminine form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[EUGENIJA ĆUTO*](http://www.unizd.hr/ruski/nastavnici-ce/eugenija-cuto) - [*&quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="b4a881f9-71da-4b8b-b4c8-19e94aa5cb96" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:04:16.823" UserId="11857" Text="Do the Russian have any verbs, whose past tense forms base on the lexical root, that differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form (by analogy with the Latin verb fero &gt; tuli)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="b4a881f9-71da-4b8b-b4c8-19e94aa5cb96" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:04:16.823" UserId="11857" Text="The lexical root of the past tense forms differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="b4a881f9-71da-4b8b-b4c8-19e94aa5cb96" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:04:16.823" UserId="11857" Text="|этимология|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="9fdf5404-d26a-46a8-bf85-d9661045358a" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:40:29.583" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Does Russian have any verbs, whose past tense forms are based on the lexical root that differs from the lexical root of the infinitive form (by analogy with the Latin verb fero &gt; tuli)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51137" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="9fdf5404-d26a-46a8-bf85-d9661045358a" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:40:29.583" UserId="7674" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="The lexical root of the past tense forms differrent from the lexical root of the infinitive form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51138" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="26c91800-8d32-4bf0-8ba7-eda2175b9a32" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:59:07.477" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|история-языка|супплетивизм|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19579" RevisionGUID="16f0fcc4-ced4-429c-b38c-687448627ef4" CreationDate="2019-05-10T17:59:21.363" UserId="7674" Comment="edited tags" Text="|этимология|супплетивизм|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19580" RevisionGUID="3cd864af-1ca7-40fa-ae21-ee4fde9136e9" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:06:10.600" UserId="7674" Text="In Russian, cases of suppletive paradigms are in general very few and far between and [more often seen in nouns](http://archive.is/v3xKd) than in verbs, among which **идти - шёл** is probably the only semblance thereof because it can't be branded as a classic case due to etymological reasons.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19580" RevisionGUID="900636cd-f6ca-4bc8-9465-da4b8419a52f" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:12:31.017" UserId="7674" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In Russian, cases of suppletive paradigms are in general very few and far between but [a little more frequent in nouns](http://archive.is/v3xKd) than in verbs, among which **идти - шёл** is probably the only semblance thereof because it can't be branded as a classic case due to etymological reasons.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="326446d5-a2c1-4bde-b285-d593187d5353" CreationDate="2019-05-10T19:59:52.140" UserId="11860" Text="Если прямая речь включает начало фразы, описывающей услышанные стихи, и одно четверостишие из самого стихотворения, то требуют ли правила прерывать прямую речь, вроде:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Я услышала такое в стихах:&quot; -- сказала она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз два три четыре пять&#xD;&#xA;    Я иду искать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;И я сразу вспомнила что-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или же правила трубуют оставить всё это одним блоком прямой речи? В это случае &quot;сказала она&quot; и &quot;я&quot; во второй прямой речи автор бы пропустила:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Я услышала такое в стихах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз два три четыре пять&#xD;&#xA;    Я иду искать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И сразу вспомнила что-то&quot;, -- сказала она." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="326446d5-a2c1-4bde-b285-d593187d5353" CreationDate="2019-05-10T19:59:52.140" UserId="11860" Text="Прямая речь, которая включает четверостишие" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="326446d5-a2c1-4bde-b285-d593187d5353" CreationDate="2019-05-10T19:59:52.140" UserId="11860" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51151" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="37657329-f1ef-4737-a83e-30457495fb23" CreationDate="2019-05-10T20:01:04.967" UserId="242" Comment="edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19583" RevisionGUID="cf4496b4-be0c-497f-88be-4f64b14dbda4" CreationDate="2019-05-10T22:05:36.193" UserId="11080" Comment="a typo" Text="Если прямая речь включает начало фразы, описывающей услышанные стихи, и одно четверостишие из самого стихотворения, то требуют ли правила прерывать прямую речь, вроде:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Я услышала такое в стихах:&quot; -- сказала она.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз два три четыре пять&#xD;&#xA;    Я иду искать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;И я сразу вспомнила что-то&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Или же правила требуют оставить всё это одним блоком прямой речи? В это случае &quot;сказала она&quot; и &quot;я&quot; во второй прямой речи автор бы пропустила:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Я услышала такое в стихах:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Раз два три четыре пять&#xD;&#xA;    Я иду искать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    И сразу вспомнила что-то&quot;, -- сказала она." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19572" RevisionGUID="11d727c8-6106-40ae-9206-268118d1703a" CreationDate="2019-05-11T03:01:19.610" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1127045996398161920" />
  <row Id="51158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="d844defa-c733-4856-9096-6c88e5aaeff0" CreationDate="2019-05-11T04:51:33.507" UserId="6539" Text="&gt; — Я услышала такое в стихах, — сказала она. — «Раз, два, три, четыре, пять — я иду искать». И я сразу вспомнила что-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оформляется прямая речь обычно так. Цитируемое стихотворение включается в кавычках в этот же блок." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="e73117bb-d6ae-436b-b896-bcbe298695ac" CreationDate="2019-05-11T04:58:47.283" UserId="6539" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="&gt; — Я услышала такое в стихах, — сказала она. — «Раз, два, три, четыре, пять — я иду искать». И сразу вспомнила что-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оформляется прямая речь обычно так. Цитируемое стихотворение включается в кавычках в этот же блок. Если перенесете слова автора в конец, то немного другой вариант с двоеточием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я услышала такое в стихах: «Раз, два, три, четыре, пять — я иду искать». И сразу вспомнила что-то. — сказала она." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19574" RevisionGUID="a2760b83-c0bf-4445-883b-14d2befc73af" CreationDate="2019-05-11T05:36:20.433" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In Russia there's ongoing discussion - and it's getting quite fervent-  on whether so called [feminitives][1] (the English [wiki][2] is called just &quot;Gender_marking_in_job_titles&quot;) should or shouldn't be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike the German tradition of always using feminitives (I'm sticking to this word for the lack of a shorter term) in phrases like &quot;Enwtickler/in gesucht&quot; in Russia only particular words have equally used feminine forms but even in that case they quite often differ stylistically. Compare, for instance, `парикмахер` and `парикмахерша` - both are used but the feminine one is quite colloquial. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically words `писательница` and `работница` are one of few exceptions - they are actually used quite often and considered to be stylistically quite neutral. However for a Russian speaker something like `союз писателей и писательниц`  or `клуб работников и работниц` will sound strange. De-facto the masculine form will be used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_marking_in_job_titles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="643dd774-ae0a-4070-a693-0408f925530d" CreationDate="2019-05-11T05:40:56.917" UserId="4714" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="In Russian the collective designation of people engaged in the same profession or occupation defaults to the plural masculine form, in which case it becomes unisex even if a feminine form exists in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[EUGENIJA ĆUTO*](http://www.unizd.hr/ruski/nastavnici-ce/eugenija-cuto) - [*&quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19584" RevisionGUID="382825a0-b134-480f-a42c-a300ba1a3b4e" CreationDate="2019-05-11T06:28:36.467" UserId="6539" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt; — Я услышала такое в стихах, — сказала она. — «Раз, два, три, четыре, пять — я иду искать». И сразу вспомнила что-то.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Оформляется прямая речь обычно так. Цитируемое стихотворение включается в кавычках в этот же блок. Если перенесете слова автора в конец, то немного другой вариант с двоеточием.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; — Я услышала такое в стихах: «Раз, два, три, четыре, пять — я иду искать». И сразу вспомнила что-то, — сказала она." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51163" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19533" RevisionGUID="81bbe034-d925-4d26-9fbd-530345f10605" CreationDate="2019-05-11T09:00:42.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1127136438615773185" />
  <row Id="51164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19585" RevisionGUID="02d2bc90-1dce-4f7a-8080-c5b90bc736fb" CreationDate="2019-05-11T12:07:44.607" UserId="10270" Text="I have read a number of constructions such as моей жене скучно слушать музыку and вам трудно понимать русскую прессу? They all seem to have the form dative adverb infinitive.&#xD;&#xA;Are there only certain infinitives which can have this construction e.g. смотреть, говорить, читать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19585" RevisionGUID="02d2bc90-1dce-4f7a-8080-c5b90bc736fb" CreationDate="2019-05-11T12:07:44.607" UserId="10270" Text="Construction dative noun/pronoun then adverb then infinitive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19585" RevisionGUID="02d2bc90-1dce-4f7a-8080-c5b90bc736fb" CreationDate="2019-05-11T12:07:44.607" UserId="10270" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19586" RevisionGUID="3c85c5f4-1368-4af5-8296-d08d7ab5acb4" CreationDate="2019-05-11T12:35:07.627" UserId="7674" Text="No, any infinitive can accept object in Dative just like the English construction   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**`It's + adverb + for me + infinitive`**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction just means that doing something for you (or anyone denoted by a (pro)noun in Dative) has the quality expressed by the adverb. E.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *`It's`* ***hard*** **`for me`** **to agree** - Мне тяжело согласиться   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *`It's`* ***embarrassing*** **`for them`** **to admit** - Им стыдно признаться  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *`It's`* ***too late*** **`for him`** **to change** - Ему слишком поздно меняться" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="acdc705a-b79c-4eb9-8ce5-7cebab3bab53" CreationDate="2019-05-11T15:06:22.513" UserId="9603" Text="I'm still confused about these two verbs. Can someone lay out the differences between them and when to use each? So far all I've been able to gather is that **слушать** means *to listen* whereas **слышать** means *to hear*, but I haven't found any examples to sort of help me distinguish their usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="acdc705a-b79c-4eb9-8ce5-7cebab3bab53" CreationDate="2019-05-11T15:06:22.513" UserId="9603" Text="Usage of слушать and слышать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="acdc705a-b79c-4eb9-8ce5-7cebab3bab53" CreationDate="2019-05-11T15:06:22.513" UserId="9603" Text="|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19580" RevisionGUID="80fac903-77e9-4897-ace6-a2a25d14f0c5" CreationDate="2019-05-11T15:33:29.817" UserId="7674" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="In Russian, cases of suppletive paradigms are in general very few and far between but [a little more frequent in nouns](http://archive.is/v3xKd) than in verbs, among which **идти - шёл** is probably the only semblance thereof because it can't be branded as a classic case due to etymological reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another, tangentially related case is a case of aspectual pair **брать - взять**, where verbs of different aspects, contrary to the expectations and the norm, derive from different roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19588" RevisionGUID="dae18de7-9cb0-4e15-9326-882768e7a94e" CreationDate="2019-05-11T16:24:45.503" UserId="6539" Text="You understand the difference correctly. Слушать is to listen, слышать is to hear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Я слушаю музыку. I am listening to music. Я слышу музыку. I hear some music.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is a process. The second is a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ты меня слышишь?Do you hear me? Ты меня слушаешь? Are you listening to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51173" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19587" RevisionGUID="1bc2d2d8-62b1-4f07-aac1-42b0d69393ee" CreationDate="2019-05-11T17:52:31.560" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Usage of &quot;слушать&quot; and &quot;слышать&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="b7db06b3-4123-490a-939e-02c3aeebc9f0" CreationDate="2019-05-11T18:49:41.773" UserId="11863" Text="Ставится ли запятая в предложениях, подобных:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Он ел пряники и пироги и пил чай.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Первое и в одном списке, а второе - в другом. Мне кажется, запятая перед вторым союзом и не нужна, поскольку в каждом списке лишь один.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="b7db06b3-4123-490a-939e-02c3aeebc9f0" CreationDate="2019-05-11T18:49:41.773" UserId="11863" Text="Запятые при соединенных союзом И вложенных списках" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="b7db06b3-4123-490a-939e-02c3aeebc9f0" CreationDate="2019-05-11T18:49:41.773" UserId="11863" Text="|правописание|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19573" RevisionGUID="93ba87b5-9ae7-42ec-9ae4-d099a0d64ed2" CreationDate="2019-05-11T19:00:21.217" UserId="7674" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Currently in Russian collective designation of people engaged in the same profession or occupation defaults to the plural masculine form, in which case it becomes unisex even if a feminine form exists in the singular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В русском языке названия профессий рабочих и должностей служащих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; выражаются формой мужского рода и в случаях, когда относятся к лицам&#xD;&#xA;&gt; женского пола в официально-деловом стиле. Существует небольшая группа&#xD;&#xA;&gt; имен существительных, которые образуют парные наименования женского&#xD;&#xA;&gt; рода, принятые в нейтральных стилях речи. В разговорном языке широко&#xD;&#xA;&gt; распространены названия профессий женского рода со суффиксами *–ша,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; -ха, -лка, -чка,* которые содержат в себе оттенок пренебрежительности&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Многие имена существительные мужского рода, обозначающие лицо по&#xD;&#xA;&gt; профессии, занимаемой должности, выполняемой работе, занятию, ученому&#xD;&#xA;&gt; или почетному званию и т. д., в официально-деловом стиле сохраняют&#xD;&#xA;&gt; свою форму и в тех случаях, когда относятся к лицам женского пола,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; например: *педагог, токарь, геолог, физик, конструктор, новатор, судья,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; адвокат, доцент, кандидат наук, ветеран труда, лауреат международного&#xD;&#xA;&gt; конкурса, мастер спорта*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Во множественном числе грамматические значения рода не разграничиваются. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*[EUGENIJA ĆUTO*](http://www.unizd.hr/ruski/nastavnici-ce/eugenija-cuto) - [*&quot;ΡOД ИМЕН СYЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В НАЗВАНИЯХ ПΡOФЕСCИЙ&quot;*, pp. 1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;](http://archive.is/vyXi8)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Thus &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Community of working writers = Сообщество работающих&#xD;&#xA;&gt; литераторов/писателей/мастеров пера&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;similar to English" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19590" RevisionGUID="4d8dfe3d-6cb3-4309-92bd-e694c3fb4fd5" CreationDate="2019-05-11T19:46:04.160" UserId="2238" Text="Quotation marks are generally not inserted for any intervention, be it end of paragraph or author's speech:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Она глупа, - заметила я. - И слепа&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;...Она глупа.&lt;br&gt;И слепа к тому же&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I trust verses should be no exception to the general trend, and thus the second version is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19591" RevisionGUID="12d8ba68-87d1-4938-ba3c-5c246c16415e" CreationDate="2019-05-11T20:18:54.707" UserId="6539" Text="Никаких запятых не требуется, потому что однородные члены относятся к разным группам: *пряники и пироги*, *ел и пил*. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51180" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="0c0df382-eb61-4686-b5d9-03e9f7c2a207" CreationDate="2019-05-11T20:25:50.867" UserId="242" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="Запятые при соединенных союзом &quot;и&quot; вложенных списках" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51181" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19589" RevisionGUID="0c0df382-eb61-4686-b5d9-03e9f7c2a207" CreationDate="2019-05-11T20:25:50.867" UserId="242" Comment="edited title; edited tags" Text="|пунктуация|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19592" RevisionGUID="58fe7fd3-aa28-4c60-abdd-f84bebf114a3" CreationDate="2019-05-12T00:08:50.227" UserId="11511" Text="Фразу &quot;community of working writers&quot; вполне можно перевести как &quot;сообщество пишущих&quot;. В подходящем контексте (да, пожалуй, и без него) смысл передаётся точно." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="a2a6a2ad-a1a6-4efe-b61a-8282ed9c5560" CreationDate="2019-05-12T02:18:39.580" UserId="170" Text="Bumped into this news title today:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if &quot;51-летний&quot; correct in Russian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, which adjective would be the right one to convey the same meaning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, how do I pronounce it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither &quot;пятидесятиоднолетний&quot;, nor &quot;пятидесятиодногодовалый&quot; sounds right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/576SM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="a2a6a2ad-a1a6-4efe-b61a-8282ed9c5560" CreationDate="2019-05-12T02:18:39.580" UserId="170" Text="Is &quot;51-летний&quot; correct in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="a2a6a2ad-a1a6-4efe-b61a-8282ed9c5560" CreationDate="2019-05-12T02:18:39.580" UserId="170" Text="|прилагательные|числительные|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19594" RevisionGUID="4fb14b11-7222-49e5-9cdd-cec2fb717732" CreationDate="2019-05-12T03:41:45.240" UserId="242" Text="It's absolutely valid Russian and it'a pronounced &quot;пятидесятиоднолетний&quot;. Those adjectives respond to the question &quot;сколько летний&quot; and more popular form &quot;[скольки][1] летний&quot; (which is considered colloquial). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of adjectives can be used both with animate and inanimate nouns with the only exception - [`годовалый`][2] (оr одногодовалый) is used for 1-year child or animal, while &quot;однолетний&quot; is used in other cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;годовалый&quot;-form is interchangeably used with `-летний` form for smaller numbers, so you can encounter both, say, &quot;пятигодовалый&quot; and &quot;пятилетний&quot; but you hardly ever see &quot;тридативухгодовалый&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19594" RevisionGUID="e5de5a0e-fcb3-4025-b78e-ad14a795078f" CreationDate="2019-05-12T03:49:13.137" UserId="242" Comment="added 286 characters in body; added 10 characters in body" Text="It's absolutely valid Russian and it'a pronounced &quot;пятидесятиоднолетний&quot;. Those adjectives respond to the question &quot;сколько летний&quot; and more popular form &quot;[скольки][1] летний&quot; (which is considered colloquial). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of adjectives can be used both with animate and inanimate nouns with the only exception - [`годовалый`][2] (оr одногодовалый) is used for 1-year child or animal, while &quot;однолетний&quot; is used in other cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;годовалый&quot;-form is interchangeably used with `-летний` form for smaller numbers, so you can encounter both, say, &quot;пятигодовалый&quot; and &quot;пятилетний&quot; but you hardly ever see &quot;тридативухгодовалый&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last thing I can add regarding this issue that I always missed the Polish noun-form, they, for instance, can say something like &quot;zginął 34-latek&quot;, which is shorter. In Russian we have words like &quot;трёхлетка&quot; or &quot;пятилетка&quot; but they are basically used only for designating period of time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19595" RevisionGUID="c3398051-ca76-4e6d-933c-5c36012c9730" CreationDate="2019-05-12T03:49:45.197" UserId="170" Text="Dose the infinitive form for &quot;мрут&quot; exist in Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **бегают** как лошади.   -- **бегать**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **дерутся** как львы.    -- **драться**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Они **мрут** как мухи.       --        ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19595" RevisionGUID="c3398051-ca76-4e6d-933c-5c36012c9730" CreationDate="2019-05-12T03:49:45.197" UserId="170" Text="Infinitive of &quot;мрут&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19595" RevisionGUID="c3398051-ca76-4e6d-933c-5c36012c9730" CreationDate="2019-05-12T03:49:45.197" UserId="170" Text="|глаголы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19596" RevisionGUID="916ccebc-eebb-49e8-a9d7-07ad206de590" CreationDate="2019-05-12T04:17:39.447" UserId="242" Text="This from is [`мереть`][1] but in Modern Russian the infinitive form is virtually non-existent, my guess would be that some of native speakers even will fail to recognize that form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `мереть`, unlike `умирать` apart from dying has also other meaning, it's synonymous to &quot;замирать&quot; (to freeze). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19596" RevisionGUID="04adf004-ad7a-40ed-80f9-e01c26b90ef8" CreationDate="2019-05-12T05:00:52.343" UserId="242" Comment="edited body" Text="This from is [`мереть`][1] but in modern Russian the infinitive form is virtually non-existent, my guess would be that some of native speakers will even fail to recognize that form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that `мереть`, unlike `умирать` apart from dying has also other meaning, it's synonymous to &quot;замирать&quot; (to freeze). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51193" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19595" RevisionGUID="40f26283-76f0-410a-83f0-e76f3b4eb42a" CreationDate="2019-05-12T05:06:43.123" />
  <row Id="51194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19594" RevisionGUID="2c1d07ba-f61b-4010-a8c8-159c92caed47" CreationDate="2019-05-12T06:08:00.767" UserId="242" Comment="added 59 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body" Text="It's absolutely valid Russian and it'a pronounced &quot;пятидесятиоднолетний&quot;. Those adjectives respond to the question &quot;сколько летний&quot; and more popular (though considered colloquial) form &quot;[скольки][1] летний&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of adjectives can be used both with animate and inanimate nouns with the only exception - [`годовалый`][2] (оr одногодовалый) and it’s derivatives - двухгодовалый, трёхгодовалый etc. - is used for 1-year child or animal, while &quot;однолетний&quot; is used in other cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;годовалый&quot;-form is interchangeably used with `-летний` form for smaller numbers, so you can encounter both, say, &quot;пятигодовалый&quot; and &quot;пятилетний&quot; but you hardly ever see &quot;тридативухгодовалый&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last thing I can add regarding this issue that I always missed the Polish noun-form, they, for instance, can say something like &quot;zginął 34-latek&quot;, which is shorter. In Russian we have words like &quot;трёхлетка&quot; or &quot;пятилетка&quot; but they are basically used only for designating period of time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="3d666d1b-50fe-4f14-82d1-6556b08fe0bb" CreationDate="2019-05-12T06:50:00.103" UserId="8679" Text="Recently, I somewhat remade a sentence from Ночной Дозор, to practice my participles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Де́мон откры́л пасть оска́ливая клыки́.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My friend, however, said that I should have used the past participle here – оскалив, because my way “режет ухо”.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until this point I assumed that participles work in Russian as they do in Polish – present participle expresses simultaneity, while the past participle expresses a sequence in the past. This would mean that showing fangs preceeded opening the mouth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: can Russian past participle express simultaneity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="3d666d1b-50fe-4f14-82d1-6556b08fe0bb" CreationDate="2019-05-12T06:50:00.103" UserId="8679" Text="Can past participle express simultaneity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="3d666d1b-50fe-4f14-82d1-6556b08fe0bb" CreationDate="2019-05-12T06:50:00.103" UserId="8679" Text="|грамматика|adverbial-participle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19598" RevisionGUID="a5b50c10-71ab-4232-acad-ae456e221697" CreationDate="2019-05-12T07:28:21.620" UserId="242" Text="Your friend is wrong - you can use past participle, but nothing stops you from using its present counterpart. I'm not sure  what are rigorously described rules for this however it definitely sound natural for Russian speaker. This kind of constructions by their very nature are stylistically more bookish (irregardless of whether one will use present or past tense), however you can find a lot of examples in existing literature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some real examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Все там же будем,-- сказал Герасим, оскаливая свои белые, сплошные&#xD;&#xA;&gt; мужицкие зубы. [Л.Н. Толстой, &quot;[Смерть Ивана Ильича][1]&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Один лишь тралмейстер вскочил на крышку люка и что-то кричал в рубку, показывая на &#xD;&#xA;&gt; спущенный трал. [Г.В. Кубанский - [&quot;Команда осталась на судне&quot;\]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb here will be that if, thinking of the phrase you'd rather use gerund in English - stick to present participle. Like: &quot;She smiled widely and showed her teeth&quot; (показав) and &quot;she smiled widely thus showing her teeth&quot; (показывая).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://az.lib.ru/t/tolstoj_lew_nikolaewich/text_0136.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://militera.lib.ru/prose/russian/kubansky_g/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51199" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19597" RevisionGUID="2a1dc4ce-894b-45f9-a81c-7a91270ae81f" CreationDate="2019-05-12T10:06:58.193" />
  <row Id="51200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19594" RevisionGUID="617c940d-e2ee-4288-8698-abc4f6ed8b00" CreationDate="2019-05-12T10:31:58.150" UserId="194" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's absolutely valid Russian and it'a pronounced &quot;пятидесятиоднолетний&quot;. Those adjectives respond to the question &quot;сколько летний&quot; and more popular (though considered colloquial) form &quot;[скольки][1] летний&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This class of adjectives can be used both with animate and inanimate nouns with the only exception - [`годовалый`][2] (оr одногодовалый) and it’s derivatives - двухгодовалый, трёхгодовалый etc. - is used for 1-year child or animal, while &quot;однолетний&quot; is used in other cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;годовалый&quot;-form is interchangeably used with `-летний` form for smaller numbers, so you can encounter both, say, &quot;пятигодовалый&quot; and &quot;пятилетний&quot; but you hardly ever see &quot;тридцативухгодовалый&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last thing I can add regarding this issue that I always missed the Polish noun-form, they, for instance, can say something like &quot;zginął 34-latek&quot;, which is shorter. In Russian we have words like &quot;трёхлетка&quot; or &quot;пятилетка&quot; but they are basically used only for designating period of time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51201" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19528" RevisionGUID="8baef5d8-e902-4ed4-8ffa-fa07ca2fe592" CreationDate="2019-05-12T12:00:45.923" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1127544138356920320" />
  <row Id="51202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="c09112b8-49a3-4656-8d6a-f2796fc55917" CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:29:49.337" UserDisplayName="user11865" Text="In my russian grammar book I have the following examples:&#xA;&#xA;За десять километров от Москвы. &#xA;В ста километрах от Москвы.&#xA;&#xA;Есть ли разница между &quot;за ... от&quot; и &quot;в ... от&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;Спасибо заранее&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="c09112b8-49a3-4656-8d6a-f2796fc55917" CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:29:49.337" UserDisplayName="user11865" Text="What's the difference between &quot;за ... от&quot; and &quot;в ... от&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="c09112b8-49a3-4656-8d6a-f2796fc55917" CreationDate="2019-05-12T14:29:49.337" UserDisplayName="user11865" Text="|разница|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19600" RevisionGUID="7d0bf91a-1dff-4bc7-b3c9-26ab6ae5d02b" CreationDate="2019-05-12T15:17:34.737" UserId="6539" Text="Yes, there's a small difference in usage. With the reference to a place you can use both combinations of prepositions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Дом отдыха находился в ста километрах/за сто километров от Москвы.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only the first one (за...от ) can be used with the verbs of movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Детей увезли  за сто километров от Москвы." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51206" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="d3b48fc5-1a10-4190-afbe-d06382d45dd4" CreationDate="2019-05-12T17:07:17.163" />
  <row Id="51211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="337f23e5-9c50-49bf-9b17-759305c41606" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:14:30.780" UserId="6074" Text="На викисловаре есть [два перевода английского глагола zero][1]. Суть &quot;обнулить&quot; и &quot;настраивать на нуль&quot;. Насколько я вижу, &quot;настраивать на нуль&quot; гораздо реже чем &quot;обнулить&quot;, но я об этом не полностью уверен. А есть между этими двумя выражениями семантическая разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zero#Translations_4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="337f23e5-9c50-49bf-9b17-759305c41606" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:14:30.780" UserId="6074" Text="&quot;обнулить&quot; и &quot;настраивать на нуль&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="337f23e5-9c50-49bf-9b17-759305c41606" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:14:30.780" UserId="6074" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19603" RevisionGUID="6b96767a-bd8f-4667-a6af-dc80c9f61b97" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:35:46.820" UserId="242" Text="&quot;Настраивать на нуль&quot; (или на &quot;ноль&quot;) - это узкоспециальный инженерный термин, можно настраивать на нуль, например, микрометр, можно нельзя настроить на нуль результаты прошлого месяца - а обнулить можно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обнулить` ближе в отменить, сделать нерелевантным, `настроить на нуль` - откалибровать, сбросив нестандартные настройки. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Резюмирую, &quot;обнулить&quot; шире как стилистически так и семантически.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="f197ea4e-ee91-482d-8c29-f01dd8697119" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:39:30.587" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="&quot;Oбнулить&quot; и &quot;настраивать на нуль&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19603" RevisionGUID="7cca38d4-e943-4e01-8f33-bb1e512195f2" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:40:36.230" UserId="7386" Comment="две опечатки" Text="&quot;Настраивать на нуль&quot; (или на &quot;ноль&quot;) - это узкоспециальный инженерный термин, можно настраивать на нуль, например, микрометр, но нельзя настроить на нуль результаты прошлого месяца - а обнулить можно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обнулить` ближе к отменить, сделать нерелевантным, `настроить на нуль` - откалибровать, сбросив нестандартные настройки. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51217" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19603" RevisionGUID="7cca38d4-e943-4e01-8f33-bb1e512195f2" CreationDate="2019-05-13T09:40:36.230" Comment="Proposed by 7386 approved by 242 edit id of 2051" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="3054a5d1-41b9-4410-9bd6-2e276facdc14" CreationDate="2019-05-13T10:48:50.983" UserId="7674" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="На викисловаре есть [два перевода английского глагола zero][1]. Суть &quot;обнулить&quot; и &quot;настраивать на нуль&quot;. Насколько я вижу, &quot;настраивать на нуль&quot; гораздо реже чем &quot;обнулить&quot;, но я &lt;strike&gt;об&lt;/strike&gt; **В** этом не полностью уверен. А есть между этими двумя выражениями семантическая разница?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zero#Translations_4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19604" RevisionGUID="281e84e3-b9ac-4151-8c37-01c917f1fd3b" CreationDate="2019-05-13T11:16:52.893" UserId="11871" Text="51-летний is completely correct. Common pronunciation is like &quot;питидисьтиадналетний&quot;. &quot;Пятидесятиоднолетний&quot; sounds more like Belarus people pronounce it. 'Я' in Russian in many cases would sound like 'и' or 'e' but in Belarus they pronounce it as it's written.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is 'лягушка' (frog): in Russian it would be pronounced like 'лигушка' or 'легушка' whether it would be pronounced as it's written in Belarus or Ukraine. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19603" RevisionGUID="2d3dbe1d-3e56-49f0-8ed8-b6ba828a9ef0" CreationDate="2019-05-13T11:51:15.763" UserId="242" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="&quot;Настраивать на нуль&quot; (или на &quot;ноль&quot;) - это узкоспециальный инженерный термин, можно настраивать на нуль, например, микрометр, но нельзя настроить на нуль результаты прошлого месяца - а обнулить можно. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Обнулить` ближе к отменить, сделать нерелевантным (это помимо, разумеется, основного значения - &quot;присвоить нуль&quot;), `настроить на нуль` - откалибровать, сбросив нестандартные настройки. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51221" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19599" RevisionGUID="fa1d5ceb-f05e-4adb-9f81-1c1b08e89b33" CreationDate="2019-05-13T12:01:00.973" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1127906589304872960" />
  <row Id="51222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19605" RevisionGUID="0e408aee-7aa9-4147-a1e4-2f020db2197c" CreationDate="2019-05-13T12:20:16.963" UserId="7223" Text="*&quot;Настраивать на нуль&quot;* - это, прежде всего, *&quot;настраивать&quot;*. Если про некоторую деятельность можно сказать *&quot;настраивать&quot;*, а результатом этой деятельности должен быть нуль - то про эту деятельность можно сказать *&quot;настраивать на нуль&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Обнулить* - более общее понятие." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19606" RevisionGUID="f399a327-4855-4036-9c1c-4d8594aa816c" CreationDate="2019-05-13T14:03:37.287" UserId="10247" Text="*Обнулить* предполагает, что есть какое-то значение, которое делается равным нулю. Т.е. некое значение существует до операции ОБНУЛЕНИЯ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Настроить на ноль* - может быть и до существования значения, до эксплуатации. Т.е. что-либо выставляется на ноль (может быть что угодно). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19607" RevisionGUID="ea523852-4dfd-4d88-85b6-0faf02a35015" CreationDate="2019-05-13T19:15:35.667" UserId="11875" Text="We don't use &quot;настраивать на ноль&quot; anymore, I doubt that I even heard this in my life. Обнулить - it's like reset (for example: обнулить счёт (reset score)), настраивать на ноль - it's more like technical (for example: настроить электрическую волну на ноль (configure electrical wave on zero))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51226" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="f1703147-77b5-4633-adce-32d1133b9be5" CreationDate="2019-05-14T07:40:24.137" UserId="6074" Comment="edited tags" Text="|значения|выбор-слова|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="f41887b6-c65b-475c-a22c-ceb0454458e3" CreationDate="2019-05-14T08:22:43.843" UserId="5998" Text="Recently, small wearable devices have become popular to track vital parameters, such as walked distance, heartbeat rate, calorie consumption and quality of sleep. There is a variety of names for those devices, for example ``Activity Tracker``, ``Smart Bracelet`` or ``Fitness Tracker``.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wonder, what is a common Russian word for such a device?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from obvious Anglicisms like ``Трекер активности`` or ``Фитнес трекер``, is there any *better* Russian word or descriptive term for such a device (e.g. *bracelet for tracking vital parameters*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="f41887b6-c65b-475c-a22c-ceb0454458e3" CreationDate="2019-05-14T08:22:43.843" UserId="5998" Text="Russian word for &quot;Activity Tracker&quot; or &quot;Smart Bracelet&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="f41887b6-c65b-475c-a22c-ceb0454458e3" CreationDate="2019-05-14T08:22:43.843" UserId="5998" Text="|перевод|одним-словом|лексикон|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19609" RevisionGUID="27d6f483-8577-4218-a7d6-570db08da136" CreationDate="2019-05-14T09:26:24.590" UserId="242" Text="Yandex (Russian's biggest search engine) finds about 3 millions pages for `фитнес-браслет` search query and about 2 millions for `фитнес-трекер`. Those are two most popular terms and all other counterparts (including etymologically, let's put it this way &quot;more Russian&quot; ones) and not even close that frequently used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, `шагомер` mentioned by @Arhad is also used frequently enough to be recognized buy search engines. One can search for `купить шагомер` and find offers on exactly fitness trackers. It's just that `шагомер` is not necessarily a device in a smart watch factor. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19609" RevisionGUID="89745f72-fbfc-4a33-83cb-c598d09832d8" CreationDate="2019-05-14T09:35:02.150" UserId="242" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="Yandex (Russian's biggest search engine) finds about 3 millions pages for `фитнес-браслет` search query and about 2 millions for `фитнес-трекер`. Those are two most popular terms and all other counterparts (including etymologically, let's put it this way &quot;more Russian&quot; ones) and not even close that frequently used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, `шагомер` (it's a [derivative][1] from `шаг`, a step and `-мер`, an anding used for tools that are measuring something) mentioned by @Arhad is also used frequently enough to be recognized buy search engines. One can search for `купить шагомер` and find offers on exactly fitness trackers. It's just that `шагомер` is not necessarily a device in a smart watch factor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a Latin-based counterpart for `шагомер`, `педометр` but it's used even more rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19610" RevisionGUID="076ad5f7-8e3a-4887-9361-8d43c8edff8c" CreationDate="2019-05-14T09:45:30.040" UserId="11878" Text="Most common short form is just &quot;трекер&quot;. There are no other common things that can be called in this way in Russian. &quot;Фитнесс&quot; part is eccesive, but is used as offical name in retail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Трекер активности&quot; - is never used for this device, becase &quot;активность&quot; is extremely general and scientific in Russian and most likly will be undestdood as designation of some radiactivity gauge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17097" RevisionGUID="890c0fdc-7184-4258-bc17-c3c99a632316" CreationDate="2019-05-14T09:56:30.663" UserId="242" Comment="added 327 characters in body" Text="There's no specific term a single word one can use however there are some related terminology. Generally speaking this is a phenomena of `gender-related semantic differences` - when grammatical gender affects the way perceive the word. Technically nothing stops a woman from being called `машинистка` and riding trains or `генеральша` to rule an army however de-facto there exist a shift in meaning because of which when we think of `машинистка` we picture to ourselves woman typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one word has positive connotation and it's counterpart has negative this differentiation is called `gender-related semantic polarization` (in Russian I've seen `семантическая полярность` or `семантическая поляризация`). In Russian one example of such polarization would be the pair `стерва`/`стервец` where &quot;стервец&quot; is way more neutral than &quot;стерва&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian-language articles I've never encountered specific dedicated term however once I've seen `ложная гендерная парность`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** I figured out that on English SE they sometimes come up with their own suggestion if no relevant term has been found. So after some investigation I'm suggesting following term - `квазифеминитив`. So, the word `машинистка` would be a `квазифеминитив`, and `машинист`/`машинистка` would be `пара с квазифеминитивом`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51234" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="be4cf3ce-47a4-44e1-9245-572843a6c48b" CreationDate="2019-05-14T10:30:37.507" UserId="242" Comment="edited title" Text="Word for &quot;activity tracker&quot; or &quot;smart bracelet&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="17097" RevisionGUID="1cb49453-3b4b-4050-8f3a-37b52800f445" CreationDate="2019-05-14T11:29:06.193" UserId="242" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There's no specific term a single word one can use however there are some related terminology. Generally speaking this is a phenomena of `gender-related semantic differences` - when grammatical gender affects the way perceive the word. Technically nothing stops a woman from being called `машинистка` and riding trains or `генеральша` to rule an army however de-facto there exist a shift in meaning because of which when we think of `машинистка` we picture to ourselves woman typing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When one word has positive connotation and it's counterpart has negative this differentiation is called `gender-related semantic polarization` (in Russian I've seen `семантическая полярность` or `семантическая поляризация`). In Russian one example of such polarization would be the pair `стерва`/`стервец` where &quot;стервец&quot; is way more neutral than &quot;стерва&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian-language articles I've never encountered specific dedicated term however once I've seen `ложная гендерная парность`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPD:** I figured out that on English SE they sometimes come up with their own suggestion if no relevant term has been found. So after some investigation I'm suggesting following term - `квазифеминитив`. So, the word `машинистка` would be a **`квазифеминитив`**, and `машинист`/`машинистка` would be `пара с квазифеминитивом`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51236" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="852d0a99-d817-49cc-bad4-5e89ae481b5b" CreationDate="2019-05-14T11:39:35.357" />
  <row Id="51237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="aadd7771-d024-4bbe-8f2b-bb7faad82c23" CreationDate="2019-05-14T11:59:06.170" UserId="6350" Comment="grammar corrections" Text="I think the article in the Russian Wikipedia is a little bit speculative. I think he cite sources for творОг (second syllable) because the editors wanted to keep it as is. As a native Russian speaker personally, I don't know which type of stress I prefer. And I don't think one or the other usage is rare. It's obvious that we can't say which usage is most used based only on dictionaries. But I can't find any articles on this topic (stress in творог) and the distribution across Russian spoken countries. In the Russian corpus there are *15 contexts* with stress on first syllable (_твОрог_) and *17 contexts* with stress on second syllable (_творОг_). So I think you can't say which usage is preferred by Russian speakers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we talk about cited sources, in this Wikipedia article I only consider this source reliable - *Зарва М.В. Словарь ударений русского языка (2001).* Two other sources have very questionable reputation: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Штудинер М.А. Словарь образцового русского ударения (2009)* Even the name of this dictionary (especially the word *образцовый*) seems to me very strange. You can find more information in the Wikipedia article on this dictionary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *Окунцова Е.А. Трудности устной речи. Словарь-справочник.* Never heard about this dictionary like a foundational text in Russian lexical stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, in the Russian corpus you have some *video examples* and transcription with lexical stress for the word [творог](http://search.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?env=alpha&amp;mycorp=&amp;mysent=&amp;mysize=&amp;mysentsize=&amp;dpp=&amp;spp=&amp;spd=&amp;text=lexgramm&amp;mode=murco&amp;sort=gr_tagging&amp;ext=10&amp;nolinks=1&amp;accent=1&amp;ell=1&amp;expand=full&amp;parent1=0&amp;level1=0&amp;lex1=%F2%E2%EE%F0%EE%E3&amp;gramm1=&amp;sem1=&amp;flags1=&amp;orphoGr1=&amp;orpho1=&amp;strAccent1=&amp;accent1=&amp;before1=&amp;after1=&amp;number1=&amp;parent2=0&amp;level2=0&amp;min2=1&amp;max2=1&amp;lex2=&amp;gramm2=&amp;sem2=&amp;flags2=&amp;orphoGr2=&amp;orpho2=&amp;strAccent2=&amp;accent2=&amp;before2=&amp;after2=&amp;number2=&amp;act_speakersamount=&amp;act_sex=&amp;act_lang=&amp;act_situation=&amp;act_acttypes=&amp;act_appeals=&amp;act_questions=&amp;act_imperatives=&amp;act_modals=&amp;act_negation=&amp;act_pejoratives=&amp;act_praise=&amp;act_consent=&amp;act_trade=&amp;act_assertion=&amp;act_othersspeech=&amp;act_mocking=&amp;act_etiquette=&amp;act_completeness=&amp;act_repetitions=&amp;act_manner=&amp;act_vocals=&amp;gest_actorname=&amp;gest_actorsex=&amp;gest_sex=&amp;gest_actorage=&amp;gest_age=&amp;gest_mainorgan=&amp;gest_palmorientation=&amp;gest_handorientation=&amp;gest_activeorgan=&amp;gest_passiveorgan=&amp;gest_adaptor=&amp;gest_direction=&amp;gest_mult=&amp;gest_gesturename=&amp;gest_gesturetype=&amp;gest_gesturemeaning=&amp;gest_extenders=&amp;gest_spoilers=&amp;gest_emotions=&amp;gest_completeness=&amp;gest_authenticity=&amp;gest_accessories=). In this corpus we have 11 usage contexts and it's **твОрог (8) vs творОг (3)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, here's what I found about stress in *творог*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. В. Даль (1903) &lt;нвг. - новгородское&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ТворОгъ твОрогъ (нвг.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Орфоэпический словарь русского языка. Р. И. Аванесов (1988).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и допустимое твОрог&#xD;&#xA; - Словарь трудностей русского языка. Розенталь Д. Э. (1984).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и разг. твОрог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Новый орфоэпический словарь русского языка. Иванова Т. Ф. (2005)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; творОг и твОрог&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point that творОг is considered more preferable by the purists, but it's not the actual usage of this word. Now we have a clear trend to pronounce it as твОрог (but it's not an actual solid norm, it's just a trend, I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I found this interesting link in the Wikipedia article [Изменение ударения в слове «творог» с XVIII по XXI вв. по материалам словарей русского языка](http://www.gidropraktikum.narod.ru/tvorog.htm). And actually it's only in Русское словесное ударение. Зарва М. В. (2001) we have one recommendation for *творОг*. Other cited sources (Окунцова, Штудинер) describe both usage contexts, so **in the Russian Wikipedia article is partially wrong information** about stress in the word творог. I will edit this article, I think. And I found this explanation about the Зарва dictionary, because this dictionary was conceived for news presenters it's not good for lexical stress reference, because only one example usage was accepted (see gramota portal question # 262504).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So both usages are acceptable; the more contemporary *твОрог* and the old (and preferred by the purists :-) *творОг*.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51238" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="aadd7771-d024-4bbe-8f2b-bb7faad82c23" CreationDate="2019-05-14T11:59:06.170" Comment="Proposed by 6350 approved by 5605, 10999 edit id of 2052" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51239" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19602" RevisionGUID="4264d67c-5c3b-4d39-b955-17d807314617" CreationDate="2019-05-14T12:00:50.770" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1128268934296240128" />
  <row Id="51241" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="09d191d2-1a49-4997-a213-6e2bf11f02bb" CreationDate="2019-05-14T12:06:28.697" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="The Russian Wikipedia page for творог says that its stress could be in either syllable, but that in standard speech, especially in the mainstream media, the stress is only used in the second syllable. Can someone indicate how widely творог  is pronounced with stress on the first syllable?  Is that generally rare, or is such usage concentrated in certain parts of Russia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51242" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="09d191d2-1a49-4997-a213-6e2bf11f02bb" CreationDate="2019-05-14T12:06:28.697" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Stress in &quot;творог&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15011" RevisionGUID="2bc73dac-52d6-4982-8470-866afeda1f3f" CreationDate="2019-05-14T12:39:14.603" UserId="242" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="As you can notice nobody calls in Russian Francesco d'Assisi Франческо д'Ассизи - and I'm not saying this in ironical way. For instance, Leonardo da Vinci is indeed called `Леонардо да Винчи`. The thing is that traditions of transliterating names are not straightforward - some names are transliterated more or less at they &quot;are&quot;, some names - do not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This holds true even for the name originally coming from the same source language. For instance, in Russian we refer French kings named Henri as `Генрих` though actually one rather can expect them to be named `Анри`. The same with `Карл` - who quite often were actually Charles (Шарль). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time we have `Эркюль Пуаро`, not Геркулес Пуаро. Or `Артюр Рембо`, but not Артур Рембо. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because names of some historical persons come for us through some other mediator language. In case of `Карл` and `Генрих` it obviously was German. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of `Франциск` it was actually Latin - in Latin it's Franciscus - strictly speaking we don't know for sure how `ci` is supposed to be read in Latin. In fact, even in modern Italian to my knowledge there are some dialects where `c` in `ci` is pronounced rather as /t͡s/ than /tɕ/. There are different traditions of pronouncing Latin words - one of them to pronounce `сi` as /t͡si/ - and this is actually a German tradition of Latin pronunciation. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia [article][1] dedicated to this issue:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically German school of pronunciation of Latin words was widely adopted in Russia. This how San Francisco ended to be `Сан-Франциско` in Russian. It comes from that times when even Francis Drake who's now `Френсис Дрейк` was referred as:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_regional_pronunciation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XVw7H.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnSvs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19610" RevisionGUID="b4a8bf32-082e-4732-b5a9-98cf9d9bcf84" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:21:53.543" UserId="5998" Comment="Fixed spelling" Text="Most common short form is just &quot;трекер&quot;. There are no other common things that can be called in this way in Russian. &quot;Фитнесс&quot; part is excessive, but is used as official name in retail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Трекер активности&quot; - is never used for this device, because &quot;активность&quot; is extremely general and scientific in Russian and most likely will be understood as designation of some radioactivity gauge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51246" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19610" RevisionGUID="b4a8bf32-082e-4732-b5a9-98cf9d9bcf84" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:21:53.543" Comment="Proposed by 5998 approved by 5605, 10999 edit id of 2053" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19611" RevisionGUID="fb112d23-6b37-40cf-8ca4-3eccc2e2aa8e" CreationDate="2019-05-14T21:35:04.730" UserId="11628" Text="In the very beginning of [this TED talk,][1] somebody translated the expression &quot;Glorious opportunity!&quot; as &quot;Удача века!&quot; but I couldn't find this expression anywhere else. Is it common? or at least does it convey the intended meaning well? any alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%22https://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion?utm_campaign=tedspread&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_source=tedcomshare" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19611" RevisionGUID="fb112d23-6b37-40cf-8ca4-3eccc2e2aa8e" CreationDate="2019-05-14T21:35:04.730" UserId="11628" Text="Is there such an expression as &quot;удача века&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19611" RevisionGUID="fb112d23-6b37-40cf-8ca4-3eccc2e2aa8e" CreationDate="2019-05-14T21:35:04.730" UserId="11628" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19611" RevisionGUID="4c0d2f44-89ec-4453-a18c-9f2da510108b" CreationDate="2019-05-14T21:39:47.917" UserId="3680" Comment="Link fixed, quotes highlighted" Text="In the very beginning of [this TED talk,][1] somebody translated the expression&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Glorious opportunity!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Удача века!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I couldn't find this expression anywhere else. Is it common? or at least does it convey the intended meaning well? any alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19612" RevisionGUID="2d2ee5b3-f347-453e-bc29-c8b3a11cd2c0" CreationDate="2019-05-14T21:59:20.913" UserId="7674" Text="It's difficult to translate into idiomatic Russian while staying true to the original, so the translator needs to get creative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most vapid rendering i can offhand come up with is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Великолепная возможность / Великолепный шанс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attributive use of the word **век** - **века** is a customary device to express in Russian uniqueness, rarity, singularity of an event, e.g. **ограбление века**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="9abe9592-19c9-4ac3-8b91-7b9aad0d7f93" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:16:41.850" UserId="11775" Text="**Должен** is one of the most fundamental Russian modals and is impossibly difficult for me, even more than the modal **мочь** was before I asked here a [question][1] about the latter. I received so thoughtful, useful, and inspiring answers about **мочь** that I got strongly tempted to ask about **должен** in order to get as enlightened as I got about **мочь** and in order to better understand your wonderful language and your unique way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving in to the temptation, I am now bashfully describing my tremendous difficulties with the modal **должен** and humbly asking you to explain this modal in a way tailored to my difficulties. Please kindly do not judge me too harshly for my inability to understand this fundamental Russian modal, because it is apparently my cultural ways of thinking that are preventing me from understanding it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Сань, не уходи, не бойся, он не **должен** сломать вольер! ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Всего до конца года Россия **должна** выплатить МВФ более трех с половиной миллиардов долларов по ранее выданным кредитам. ([Source][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) А вот граждане просто не **должны** давать взятки. Тогда и брать будет нечего. ([Source][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Если кто-то хочет получить от врачей в больнице квалифицированную медицинскую помощь, то он **должен** дать взятку, так как система бесплатного медицинского обслуживания финансируется не в полном объеме. ([Source][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) &quot;Если главный редактор Константин Ремчуков берет деньги за выход статьи в &quot;Независимой газете&quot;, он **должен** сидеть в тюрьме&quot;, – заявил 16 марта в эфире радиостанции &quot;Эхо Москвы&quot; председатель совета директоров Mirax Group Сергей Полонский. ([Source][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences the modal **должен** appears to behave like a super chameleon that changes its color to the most drastic extent. In the first sentence this modal appears to mean a conviction that something will actually happen (with negation in this particular case), acting as a future tense modal, in the second - a debt, in the third - an ethical norm, in the fourth - one's own necessity from the practical standpoint, and in the fifth - the order of things. Sentence (3) says that people **должны** not bribe, whilst Sentence (4) - that they **должны** bribe, and Sentence (5) - that they **должны** get imprisoned for that. Being both puzzled and amazed, I cannot understand how you manage to express everything by one single word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so much confused about this. In my culture, 義理 and 人情 are absolutely opposite things and correspond to precisely opposite feelings with respect to each other, being like the North and South Pole on the globe of feelings, but you seem to express the sense of duty to others and the opposite feeling (the sense of internal need) by one and the same word. For example, in Sentence (3) the modal **должен** appears to express the sense of duty to others, whilst in Sentence (4) - the sense of internal need. Furthermore, typing **he must**, **he should**, and **he owes** in Google Translator, I get one and the same translation to Russian, **oн должен**, and three different translations to Japanese. Given that words are connected to feelings, I cannot imagine how so different feelings can be expressed by one and the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only thanks to the very telling contexts that I apparently managed to understand Sentences (1)-(5), and I often cannot understand phrases with **должен** even despite my best efforts. I would like to show you a few examples of such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) **Должен** ли парень платить за девушку на свидании? (**Должен** the guy pay for the girl on a date?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question, with slight variations like **должен ли мужчина платить за женщину** or **должен ли парень платить за девушку в кафе**, is often used as a title or a survey question and therefore must be clear to every Russian as it stands by itself even despite that there is no context whatsoever besides the guy, the girl, a date, and paying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain you my confusion, I would like to show the first three interpretations that came to my mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6a) In the ideal order of things, does the guy pay for the girl on a date, or what does the sense of fairness suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6b) Do the existing cultural norms prescribe paying for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(6c) Considering things from the practical standpoint of the guy's interests, that is, from the standpoint of increasing chances of successfully starting a good romantic relationship with the girl, is the guy's best course of action to pay for the girl on a date, given the actual mentality of girls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Interpretation (6a) the person to whom Question (6) is addressed is offered the role of judge, whilst in Interpretation (6b) - of cultural guide, and in Interpretation (6c) - of the guy's adviser. These three interpretations reflect,  respectively, the sense of fairness, sense of duty, and sense of inner need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the huge differences between the interpretations, I got puzzled as to which is correct, but apparently none is, as I realized when I read how Russians answer Question (6): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6d) Я считаю каждый **уважающий себя** парень должен заплатить за девушку. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6e) Тем не менее первая встреча бывает во многом показательной, поэтому у обеих сторон может возникнуть понимание, что продолжение отношений вряд ли возможно. Но это не является поводом, чтобы девушка доставала кошелек и оплачивала счет в ресторане. **Уважающий себя** мужчина и в случае неудачного рандеву будет действовать в рамках правил хорошего тона. Ответ на вопрос, должен ли парень платить за девушку на первом свидании, однозначен: да. ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These answers suggest that the question is about self-respect and sounds to Russians as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6f) Does a normal guy have enough self-respect to feel obligated to pay for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am still very unsure, especially because I saw an article that gives the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6g) Как и во многих утверждениях по типу «парень должен» — парень не должен. Ты можешь заплатить за девушку, а можешь не платить. Правила, по которым ты определяешь «платить или не платить», определяешь ты сам. И придерживаешься их потом. Да, вот это одно из немногих утверждений по типу «парень должен», в котором парень действительно должен. Парень должен придерживаться правил, которые он установил для себя сам. ([Source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer made me very puzzled. This truly mind-blowing logical construction with five **должен** and two **можешь** may be a key to understanding how **должен** works in the Russian way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that in English it is often asked, **Should the guy pay for everything on a date**, but the original Russian question (6) appears to mean a different thing, as I never saw English-speaking authors answering in terms of self-respect or obligation. They rather give advice. I humbly guess a proper Russian translation of the English version is **стоит/следует/советуете ли парню платить за девушку**. The question with **должен** appears to be about something different, but I am unsure what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of phrases I do not understand goes on and on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) Почему каждая женщина **должна** уметь флиртовать: мужской взгляд ([Source][15])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) **Должен** ли Путин уйти? ([Source][16])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (9) Я **должна** была быть мужчиной ([Source][17]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. How can I learn to interpret such phrases? Phrases (7)-(9) are titles and must be clear by themselves, but are very puzzling for me. In Phrase (7), is **должна** an expectation of the author about women, a need of women, a wish of men, advice to women, the ideal order of things, or what? In Phrase (8), is **должен** a prediction, advice to Putin,  an ethical necessity, or what? And Phrase (9) made me especially puzzled - **I should have been a man**, **I must have been a man**, **I had to be a man**, or what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another part of my difficulties with **должен** is that with this modal meaning everything in Russian, I am unsure how I can make proper Russian translations of thoughts like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10) People **shouldn't** bribe, but sometimes they **must**. If the bribe is accepted, the bribe taker **owes** it to the bribe giver to help him in a way in which the bribe taker **shouldn't** or **isn't obligated** to help. If the bribe taker accepts the bribe but refuses to help, and if the bribe giver is backed by mafia, its members then **have to** explain the bribe taker that he **must** do what he **owes** to the bribe giver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using **должен** everywhere in a Russian translation of Text (10) would make no sense, so I am at a loss as to how I can properly translate Text (10) to Russian as succinctly as possible, without expanding the text by tedious explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain this impossibly difficult modal **должен** in a way tailored to my difficulties? I humbly hope to get enlightened by your wisdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/19539&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://jardanka.narod.ru/glava9.files/glava9s.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://lenta.ru/news/2000/03/17/vyplaty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.amur.info/news/2005/12/19/24603&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://neftegaz.ru/news/politics/337910-putin-zalez-v-opustevshuyu-gosudarstvennuyu-kaznu/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://lenizdat.ru/articles/1072588&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ask.fm/VladislavM45/answers/124032071350&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://fb.ru/article/472175/doljen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku-v-restorane-v-kino&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.rmes.spb.ru/dolzhen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.thesimpledollar.com/no-one-owes-you-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://uduba.com/2735453/nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-doljen?read_more=1&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.inpearls.ru/436503&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.forbes.ru/forbes-woman-column/psihologiya/85185-ustanovka-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen-kak-klyuch-k-uspehu&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.tatler.ru/heroes/psihologiya-s-alekseem-sitnikovym-pravilo-10-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.wmj.ru/otnosheniya/muzhskoy-vzglyad/muzhskoi-vzglyad-pochemu-umet-flirtovat-neobkhodimo-kazhdoi-zhenshine.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://newsland.com/community/politic/content/dolzhen-li-putin-uiti/3162722&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.stihi.ru/2015/10/10/4549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="9abe9592-19c9-4ac3-8b91-7b9aad0d7f93" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:16:41.850" UserId="11775" Text="The impossibly difficult modal &quot;должен&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="9abe9592-19c9-4ac3-8b91-7b9aad0d7f93" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:16:41.850" UserId="11775" Text="|грамматика|словоупотребление|значения|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="41d89e04-49f6-451e-a112-ad7ea12c2413" CreationDate="2019-05-14T22:29:58.293" UserId="11775" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Должен** is one of the most fundamental Russian modals and is impossibly difficult for me, even more than the modal **мочь** was before I asked here a [question][1] about the latter. I received so thoughtful, useful, and inspiring answers about **мочь** that I got strongly tempted to ask about **должен** in order to get as enlightened as I got about **мочь** and in order to better understand your wonderful language and your unique way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving in to the temptation, I am now bashfully describing my tremendous difficulties with the modal **должен** and humbly asking you to explain this modal in a way tailored to my difficulties. Please kindly do not judge me too harshly for my inability to understand this fundamental Russian modal, because it is apparently my cultural ways of thinking that are preventing me from understanding it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Сань, не уходи, не бойся, он не **должен** сломать вольер! ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Всего до конца года Россия **должна** выплатить МВФ более трех с половиной миллиардов долларов по ранее выданным кредитам. ([Source][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) А вот граждане просто не **должны** давать взятки. Тогда и брать будет нечего. ([Source][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Если кто-то хочет получить от врачей в больнице квалифицированную медицинскую помощь, то он **должен** дать взятку, так как система бесплатного медицинского обслуживания финансируется не в полном объеме. ([Source][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) &quot;Если главный редактор Константин Ремчуков берет деньги за выход статьи в &quot;Независимой газете&quot;, он **должен** сидеть в тюрьме&quot;, – заявил 16 марта в эфире радиостанции &quot;Эхо Москвы&quot; председатель совета директоров Mirax Group Сергей Полонский. ([Source][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences the modal **должен** appears to behave like a super chameleon that changes its color to the most drastic extent. In the first sentence this modal appears to mean a conviction that something will actually happen (with negation in this particular case), acting as a future tense modal, in the second - a debt, in the third - an ethical norm, in the fourth - one's own necessity from the practical standpoint, and in the fifth - the order of things. Sentence (3) says that people **должны** not bribe, whilst Sentence (4) - that they **должны** bribe, and Sentence (5) - that they **должны** get imprisoned for that. Being both puzzled and amazed, I cannot understand how you manage to express everything by one single word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so much confused about this. In my culture, 義理 and 人情 are absolutely opposite things and correspond to precisely opposite feelings with respect to each other, being like the North and South Pole on the globe of feelings, but you seem to express the sense of duty to others and the opposite feeling (the sense of internal need) by one and the same word. For example, in Sentence (3) the modal **должен** appears to express the sense of duty to others, whilst in Sentence (4) - the sense of internal need. Furthermore, typing **he must**, **he should**, and **he owes** in Google Translator, I get one and the same translation to Russian, **oн должен**, and three different translations to Japanese. Given that words are connected to feelings, I cannot imagine how so different feelings can be expressed by one and the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only thanks to the very telling contexts that I apparently managed to understand Sentences (1)-(5), and I often cannot understand phrases with **должен** even despite my best efforts. I would like to show you a few examples of such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) **Должен** ли парень платить за девушку на свидании? (**Должен** the guy pay for the girl on a date?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question, with slight variations like **должен ли мужчина платить за женщину** or **должен ли парень платить за девушку в кафе**, is often used as a title or a survey question and therefore must be clear to every Russian as it stands by itself even despite that there is no context whatsoever besides the guy, the girl, a date, and paying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain you my confusion, I would like to show the first three interpretations that came to my mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6a) In the ideal order of things, does the guy pay for the girl on a date, or what does the sense of fairness suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6b) Do the existing cultural norms prescribe paying for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6c) Considering things from the practical standpoint of the guy's interests, that is, from the standpoint of increasing chances of successfully starting a good romantic relationship with the girl, is the guy's best course of action to pay for the girl on a date, given the actual mentality of girls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Interpretation (6a) the person to whom Question (6) is addressed is offered the role of judge, whilst in Interpretation (6b) - of cultural guide, and in Interpretation (6c) - of the guy's adviser. These three interpretations reflect,  respectively, the sense of fairness, sense of duty, and sense of inner need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the huge differences between the interpretations, I got puzzled as to which is correct, but apparently none is, as I realized when I read how Russians answer Question (6): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6d) Я считаю каждый **уважающий себя** парень должен заплатить за девушку. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6e) Тем не менее первая встреча бывает во многом показательной, поэтому у обеих сторон может возникнуть понимание, что продолжение отношений вряд ли возможно. Но это не является поводом, чтобы девушка доставала кошелек и оплачивала счет в ресторане. **Уважающий себя** мужчина и в случае неудачного рандеву будет действовать в рамках правил хорошего тона. Ответ на вопрос, должен ли парень платить за девушку на первом свидании, однозначен: да. ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These answers suggest that the question is about self-respect and sounds to Russians as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6f) Does a normal guy have enough self-respect to feel obligated to pay for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am still very unsure, especially because I saw an article that gives the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6g) Как и во многих утверждениях по типу «парень должен» — парень не должен. Ты можешь заплатить за девушку, а можешь не платить. Правила, по которым ты определяешь «платить или не платить», определяешь ты сам. И придерживаешься их потом. Да, вот это одно из немногих утверждений по типу «парень должен», в котором парень действительно должен. Парень должен придерживаться правил, которые он установил для себя сам. ([Source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer made me very puzzled. This truly mind-blowing logical construction with five **должен** and two **можешь** may be a key to understanding how **должен** works in the Russian way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that in English it is often asked, **Should the guy pay for everything on a date**, but the original Russian question (6) appears to mean a different thing, as I never saw English-speaking authors answering in terms of self-respect or obligation. They rather give advice. I humbly guess a proper Russian translation of the English version is **стоит/следует/советуете ли парню платить за девушку**. The question with **должен** appears to be about something different, but I am unsure what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of phrases I do not understand goes on and on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) Почему каждая женщина **должна** уметь флиртовать: мужской взгляд ([Source][15])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) **Должен** ли Путин уйти? ([Source][16])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (9) Я **должна** была быть мужчиной ([Source][17]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. How can I learn to interpret such phrases? Phrases (7)-(9) are titles and must be clear by themselves, but are very puzzling for me. In Phrase (7), is **должна** an expectation of the author about women, a need of women, a wish of men, advice to women, the ideal order of things, or what? In Phrase (8), is **должен** a prediction, advice to Putin,  an ethical necessity, or what? And Phrase (9) made me especially puzzled - **I should have been a man**, **I must have been a man**, **I had to be a man**, or what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another part of my difficulties with **должен** is that with this modal meaning everything in Russian, I am unsure how I can make proper Russian translations of thoughts like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10) People **shouldn't** bribe, but sometimes they **must**. If the bribe is accepted, the bribe taker **owes** it to the bribe giver to help him in a way in which the bribe taker **shouldn't** or **isn't obligated** to help. If the bribe taker accepts the bribe but refuses to help, and if the bribe giver is backed by mafia, its members then **have to** explain the bribe taker that he **must** do what he **owes** to the bribe giver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using **должен** everywhere in a Russian translation of Text (10) would make no sense, so I am at a loss as to how I can properly translate Text (10) to Russian as succinctly as possible, without expanding the text by tedious explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain this impossibly difficult modal **должен** in a way tailored to my difficulties? I humbly hope to get enlightened by your wisdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/19539&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://jardanka.narod.ru/glava9.files/glava9s.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://lenta.ru/news/2000/03/17/vyplaty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.amur.info/news/2005/12/19/24603&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://neftegaz.ru/news/politics/337910-putin-zalez-v-opustevshuyu-gosudarstvennuyu-kaznu/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://lenizdat.ru/articles/1072588&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ask.fm/VladislavM45/answers/124032071350&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://fb.ru/article/472175/doljen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku-v-restorane-v-kino&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.rmes.spb.ru/dolzhen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.thesimpledollar.com/no-one-owes-you-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://uduba.com/2735453/nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-doljen?read_more=1&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.inpearls.ru/436503&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.forbes.ru/forbes-woman-column/psihologiya/85185-ustanovka-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen-kak-klyuch-k-uspehu&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.tatler.ru/heroes/psihologiya-s-alekseem-sitnikovym-pravilo-10-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.wmj.ru/otnosheniya/muzhskoy-vzglyad/muzhskoi-vzglyad-pochemu-umet-flirtovat-neobkhodimo-kazhdoi-zhenshine.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://newsland.com/community/politic/content/dolzhen-li-putin-uiti/3162722&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.stihi.ru/2015/10/10/4549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51256" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19608" RevisionGUID="0cd86cb3-a2cb-4917-a39f-95585ce104b7" CreationDate="2019-05-15T03:01:35.180" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1128495612968742913" />
  <row Id="51257" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="1ee3503d-0ece-4466-bcf6-d5a8c80dc765" CreationDate="2019-05-15T03:06:21.263" UserId="242" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:242,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;shabunc&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19614" RevisionGUID="364356bd-92d9-42b7-8b74-dd46434fa6e3" CreationDate="2019-05-15T06:21:24.193" UserId="10247" Text="It's strange that they (or maybe it was a translation by a robot) use Удача = luck, success, lucky chance, and Век = century, era, period of time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glorious opportunity! - Прекрасная возможность, отличная возможность, хорошая возможность, отличный шанс... - many ways to translate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19615" RevisionGUID="976eb51b-db26-4676-9443-d2d87f876686" CreationDate="2019-05-15T06:28:03.887" UserId="10247" Text="It may look strange but some people prefer to just use the word БРАСЛЕТ or ЧАСЫ for this kind of device. From the context it's usually clear what they mean. In casual talks they tend not to use complicated marketing names as *трекер*, and use simpler words for description. But that's not for shop terms, if you need a marketing term you can just find it at an online shop site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19612" RevisionGUID="d3f23ef6-f219-4a28-86a0-45b032c68325" CreationDate="2019-05-15T06:30:38.583" UserId="7674" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="It's difficult to translate into idiomatic Russian while staying true to the original, so the translator needs to get creative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most vapid rendering i can offhand come up with is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Великолепная возможность / Великолепный шанс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attributive use of the word **век** - **века** is a customary device to express in Russian uniqueness, rarity, singularity, significance of an event, e.g. **ограбление века**, **процесс века**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="d6e64a6b-7bd1-4d50-8f56-3d08a9a5c62a" CreationDate="2019-05-15T06:34:46.430" UserId="11775" Comment="I added an update clarifying precisely what I want to ask" Text="**Должен** is one of the most fundamental Russian modals and is impossibly difficult for me, even more than the modal **мочь** was before I asked here a [question][1] about the latter. I received so thoughtful, useful, and inspiring answers about **мочь** that I got strongly tempted to ask about **должен** in order to get as enlightened as I got about **мочь** and in order to better understand your wonderful language and your unique way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving in to the temptation, I am now bashfully describing my tremendous difficulties with the modal **должен** and humbly asking you to explain this modal in a way tailored to my difficulties. Please kindly do not judge me too harshly for my inability to understand this fundamental Russian modal, because it is apparently my cultural ways of thinking that are preventing me from understanding it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Сань, не уходи, не бойся, он не **должен** сломать вольер! ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Всего до конца года Россия **должна** выплатить МВФ более трех с половиной миллиардов долларов по ранее выданным кредитам. ([Source][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) А вот граждане просто не **должны** давать взятки. Тогда и брать будет нечего. ([Source][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Если кто-то хочет получить от врачей в больнице квалифицированную медицинскую помощь, то он **должен** дать взятку, так как система бесплатного медицинского обслуживания финансируется не в полном объеме. ([Source][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) &quot;Если главный редактор Константин Ремчуков берет деньги за выход статьи в &quot;Независимой газете&quot;, он **должен** сидеть в тюрьме&quot;, – заявил 16 марта в эфире радиостанции &quot;Эхо Москвы&quot; председатель совета директоров Mirax Group Сергей Полонский. ([Source][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences the modal **должен** appears to behave like a super chameleon that changes its color to the most drastic extent. In the first sentence this modal appears to mean a conviction that something will actually happen (with negation in this particular case), acting as a future tense modal, in the second - a debt, in the third - an ethical norm, in the fourth - one's own necessity from the practical standpoint, and in the fifth - the order of things. Sentence (3) says that people **должны** not bribe, whilst Sentence (4) - that they **должны** bribe, and Sentence (5) - that they **должны** get imprisoned for that. Being both puzzled and amazed, I cannot understand how you manage to express everything by one single word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so much confused about this. In my culture, 義理 and 人情 are absolutely opposite things and correspond to precisely opposite feelings with respect to each other, being like the North and South Pole on the globe of feelings, but you seem to express the sense of duty to others and the opposite feeling (the sense of internal need) by one and the same word. For example, in Sentence (3) the modal **должен** appears to express the sense of duty to others, whilst in Sentence (4) - the sense of internal need. Furthermore, typing **he must**, **he should**, and **he owes** in Google Translator, I get one and the same translation to Russian, **oн должен**, and three different translations to Japanese. Given that words are connected to feelings, I cannot imagine how so different feelings can be expressed by one and the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only thanks to the very telling contexts that I apparently managed to understand Sentences (1)-(5), and I often cannot understand phrases with **должен** even despite my best efforts. I would like to show you a few examples of such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) **Должен** ли парень платить за девушку на свидании? (**Должен** the guy pay for the girl on a date?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question, with slight variations like **должен ли мужчина платить за женщину** or **должен ли парень платить за девушку в кафе**, is often used as a title or a survey question and therefore must be clear to every Russian as it stands by itself even despite that there is no context whatsoever besides the guy, the girl, a date, and paying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain you my confusion, I would like to show the first three interpretations that came to my mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6a) In the ideal order of things, does the guy pay for the girl on a date, or what does the sense of fairness suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6b) Do the existing cultural norms prescribe paying for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6c) Considering things from the practical standpoint of the guy's interests, that is, from the standpoint of increasing chances of successfully starting a good romantic relationship with the girl, is the guy's best course of action to pay for the girl on a date, given the actual mentality of girls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Interpretation (6a) the person to whom Question (6) is addressed is offered the role of judge, whilst in Interpretation (6b) - of cultural guide, and in Interpretation (6c) - of the guy's adviser. These three interpretations reflect,  respectively, the sense of fairness, sense of duty, and sense of inner need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the huge differences between the interpretations, I got puzzled as to which is correct, but apparently none is, as I realized when I read how Russians answer Question (6): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6d) Я считаю каждый **уважающий себя** парень должен заплатить за девушку. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6e) Тем не менее первая встреча бывает во многом показательной, поэтому у обеих сторон может возникнуть понимание, что продолжение отношений вряд ли возможно. Но это не является поводом, чтобы девушка доставала кошелек и оплачивала счет в ресторане. **Уважающий себя** мужчина и в случае неудачного рандеву будет действовать в рамках правил хорошего тона. Ответ на вопрос, должен ли парень платить за девушку на первом свидании, однозначен: да. ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These answers suggest that the question is about self-respect and sounds to Russians as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6f) Does a normal guy have enough self-respect to feel obligated to pay for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am still very unsure, especially because I saw an article that gives the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6g) Как и во многих утверждениях по типу «парень должен» — парень не должен. Ты можешь заплатить за девушку, а можешь не платить. Правила, по которым ты определяешь «платить или не платить», определяешь ты сам. И придерживаешься их потом. Да, вот это одно из немногих утверждений по типу «парень должен», в котором парень действительно должен. Парень должен придерживаться правил, которые он установил для себя сам. ([Source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer made me very puzzled. This truly mind-blowing logical construction with five **должен** and two **можешь** may be a key to understanding how **должен** works in the Russian way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that in English it is often asked, **Should the guy pay for everything on a date**, but the original Russian question (6) appears to mean a different thing, as I never saw English-speaking authors answering in terms of self-respect or obligation. They rather give advice. I humbly guess a proper Russian translation of the English version is **стоит/следует/советуете ли парню платить за девушку**. The question with **должен** appears to be about something different, but I am unsure what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of phrases I do not understand goes on and on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) Почему каждая женщина **должна** уметь флиртовать: мужской взгляд ([Source][15])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) **Должен** ли Путин уйти? ([Source][16])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (9) Я **должна** была быть мужчиной ([Source][17]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. How can I learn to interpret such phrases? Phrases (7)-(9) are titles and must be clear by themselves, but are very puzzling for me. In Phrase (7), is **должна** an expectation of the author about women, a need of women, a wish of men, advice to women, the ideal order of things, or what? In Phrase (8), is **должен** a prediction, advice to Putin,  an ethical necessity, or what? And Phrase (9) made me especially puzzled - **I should have been a man**, **I must have been a man**, **I had to be a man**, or what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another part of my difficulties with **должен** is that with this modal meaning everything in Russian, I am unsure how I can make proper Russian translations of thoughts like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10) People **shouldn't** bribe, but sometimes they **must**. If the bribe is accepted, the bribe taker **owes** it to the bribe giver to help him in a way in which the bribe taker **shouldn't** or **isn't obligated** to help. If the bribe taker accepts the bribe but refuses to help, and if the bribe giver is backed by mafia, its members then **have to** explain the bribe taker that he **must** do what he **owes** to the bribe giver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using **должен** everywhere in a Russian translation of Text (10) would make no sense, so I am at a loss as to how I can properly translate Text (10) to Russian as succinctly as possible, without expanding the text by tedious explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain this impossibly difficult modal **должен** in a way tailored to my difficulties? I humbly hope to get enlightened by your wisdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Prompted by the respected user @shabunc , I am clarifying precisely what I want to ask: How do you understand the concept of this modal in terms of meaning, feelings, and/or way of thinking, the concept that logically unites so many entirely different meanings under a single umbrella, and manage to unmistakenly interpret this chameleon-like modal in expressions like Phrases (6)-(9) and to make precise but succinct Russian translations of texts like Text (10), which contain various English verbs corresponding to different meanings of **должен** - **should**, **must**, **owe**, **be obligated to**, and **have to**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/19539&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://jardanka.narod.ru/glava9.files/glava9s.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://lenta.ru/news/2000/03/17/vyplaty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.amur.info/news/2005/12/19/24603&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://neftegaz.ru/news/politics/337910-putin-zalez-v-opustevshuyu-gosudarstvennuyu-kaznu/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://lenizdat.ru/articles/1072588&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ask.fm/VladislavM45/answers/124032071350&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://fb.ru/article/472175/doljen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku-v-restorane-v-kino&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.rmes.spb.ru/dolzhen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.thesimpledollar.com/no-one-owes-you-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://uduba.com/2735453/nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-doljen?read_more=1&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.inpearls.ru/436503&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.forbes.ru/forbes-woman-column/psihologiya/85185-ustanovka-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen-kak-klyuch-k-uspehu&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.tatler.ru/heroes/psihologiya-s-alekseem-sitnikovym-pravilo-10-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.wmj.ru/otnosheniya/muzhskoy-vzglyad/muzhskoi-vzglyad-pochemu-umet-flirtovat-neobkhodimo-kazhdoi-zhenshine.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://newsland.com/community/politic/content/dolzhen-li-putin-uiti/3162722&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.stihi.ru/2015/10/10/4549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19613" RevisionGUID="072a3c38-fdd5-4a3f-b626-44a3649032e8" CreationDate="2019-05-15T06:49:15.757" UserId="11775" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="**Должен** is one of the most fundamental Russian modals and is impossibly difficult for me, even more than the modal **мочь** was before I asked here a [question][1] about the latter. I received so thoughtful, useful, and inspiring answers about **мочь** that I got strongly tempted to ask about **должен** in order to get as enlightened as I got about **мочь** and in order to better understand your wonderful language and your unique way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving in to the temptation, I am now bashfully describing my tremendous difficulties with the modal **должен** and humbly asking you to explain this modal in a way tailored to my difficulties. Please kindly do not judge me too harshly for my inability to understand this fundamental Russian modal, because it is apparently my cultural ways of thinking that are preventing me from understanding it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to start with the following sentences, which I just found in Google as illustrative examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) Сань, не уходи, не бойся, он не **должен** сломать вольер! ([Source][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) Всего до конца года Россия **должна** выплатить МВФ более трех с половиной миллиардов долларов по ранее выданным кредитам. ([Source][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) А вот граждане просто не **должны** давать взятки. Тогда и брать будет нечего. ([Source][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Если кто-то хочет получить от врачей в больнице квалифицированную медицинскую помощь, то он **должен** дать взятку, так как система бесплатного медицинского обслуживания финансируется не в полном объеме. ([Source][5])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) &quot;Если главный редактор Константин Ремчуков берет деньги за выход статьи в &quot;Независимой газете&quot;, он **должен** сидеть в тюрьме&quot;, – заявил 16 марта в эфире радиостанции &quot;Эхо Москвы&quot; председатель совета директоров Mirax Group Сергей Полонский. ([Source][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In these sentences the modal **должен** appears to behave like a super chameleon that changes its color to the most drastic extent. In the first sentence this modal appears to mean a conviction that something will actually happen (with negation in this particular case), acting as a future tense modal, in the second - a debt, in the third - an ethical norm, in the fourth - one's own necessity from the practical standpoint, and in the fifth - the order of things. Sentence (3) says that people **должны** not bribe, whilst Sentence (4) - that they **должны** bribe, and Sentence (5) - that they **должны** get imprisoned for that. Being both puzzled and amazed, I cannot understand how you manage to express everything by one single word. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am so much confused about this. In my culture, 義理 and 人情 are absolutely opposite things and correspond to precisely opposite feelings with respect to each other, being like the North and South Pole on the globe of feelings, but you seem to express the sense of duty to others and the opposite feeling (the sense of internal need) by one and the same word. For example, in Sentence (3) the modal **должен** appears to express the sense of duty to others, whilst in Sentence (4) - the sense of internal need. Furthermore, typing **he must**, **he should**, and **he owes** in Google Translator, I get one and the same translation to Russian, **oн должен**, and three different translations to Japanese. Given that words are connected to feelings, I cannot imagine how so different feelings can be expressed by one and the same word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is only thanks to the very telling contexts that I apparently managed to understand Sentences (1)-(5), and I often cannot understand phrases with **должен** even despite my best efforts. I would like to show you a few examples of such situations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) **Должен** ли парень платить за девушку на свидании? (**Должен** the guy pay for the girl on a date?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question, with slight variations like **должен ли мужчина платить за женщину** or **должен ли парень платить за девушку в кафе**, is often used as a title or a survey question and therefore must be clear to every Russian as it stands by itself even despite that there is no context whatsoever besides the guy, the girl, a date, and paying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To explain you my confusion, I would like to show the first three interpretations that came to my mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6a) In the ideal order of things, does the guy pay for the girl on a date, or what does the sense of fairness suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6b) Do the existing cultural norms prescribe paying for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6c) Considering things from the practical standpoint of the guy's interests, that is, from the standpoint of increasing chances of successfully starting a good romantic relationship with the girl, is the guy's best course of action to pay for the girl on a date, given the actual mentality of girls?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Interpretation (6a) the person to whom Question (6) is addressed is offered the role of judge, whilst in Interpretation (6b) - of cultural guide, and in Interpretation (6c) - of the guy's adviser. These three interpretations reflect,  respectively, the sense of fairness, sense of duty, and sense of inner need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the huge differences between the interpretations, I got puzzled as to which is correct, but apparently none is, as I realized when I read how Russians answer Question (6): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6d) Я считаю каждый **уважающий себя** парень должен заплатить за девушку. ([Source][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6e) Тем не менее первая встреча бывает во многом показательной, поэтому у обеих сторон может возникнуть понимание, что продолжение отношений вряд ли возможно. Но это не является поводом, чтобы девушка доставала кошелек и оплачивала счет в ресторане. **Уважающий себя** мужчина и в случае неудачного рандеву будет действовать в рамках правил хорошего тона. Ответ на вопрос, должен ли парень платить за девушку на первом свидании, однозначен: да. ([Source][8])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These answers suggest that the question is about self-respect and sounds to Russians as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6f) Does a normal guy have enough self-respect to feel obligated to pay for the girl on a date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am still very unsure, especially because I saw an article that gives the following answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6g) Как и во многих утверждениях по типу «парень должен» — парень не должен. Ты можешь заплатить за девушку, а можешь не платить. Правила, по которым ты определяешь «платить или не платить», определяешь ты сам. И придерживаешься их потом. Да, вот это одно из немногих утверждений по типу «парень должен», в котором парень действительно должен. Парень должен придерживаться правил, которые он установил для себя сам. ([Source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer made me very puzzled. This truly mind-blowing logical construction with five **должен** and two **можешь** may be a key to understanding how **должен** works in the Russian way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that in English it is often asked, **Should the guy pay for everything on a date**, but the original Russian question (6) appears to mean a different thing, as I never saw English-speaking authors answering in terms of self-respect or obligation. They rather give advice. I humbly guess a proper Russian translation of the English version is **стоит/следует/советуете ли парню платить за девушку**. The question with **должен** appears to be about something different, but I am unsure what it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list of phrases I do not understand goes on and on: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) Почему каждая женщина **должна** уметь флиртовать: мужской взгляд ([Source][15])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (8) **Должен** ли Путин уйти? ([Source][16])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (9) Я **должна** была быть мужчиной ([Source][17]) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. How can I learn to interpret such phrases? Phrases (7)-(9) are titles and must be clear by themselves, but are very puzzling for me. In Phrase (7), is **должна** an expectation of the author about women, a need of women, a wish of men, advice to women, the ideal order of things, or what? In Phrase (8), is **должен** a prediction, advice to Putin,  an ethical necessity, or what? And Phrase (9) made me especially puzzled - **I should have been a man**, **I must have been a man**, **I had to be a man**, or what does it mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another part of my difficulties with **должен** is that with this modal meaning everything in Russian, I am unsure how I can make proper Russian translations of thoughts like this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (10) People **shouldn't** bribe, but sometimes they **must**. If the bribe is accepted, the bribe taker **owes** it to the bribe giver to help him in a way in which the bribe taker **shouldn't** or **isn't obligated** to help. If the bribe taker accepts the bribe but refuses to help, and if the bribe giver is backed by mafia, its members then **have to** explain the bribe taker that he **must** do what he **owes** to the bribe giver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using **должен** everywhere in a Russian translation of Text (10) would make no sense, so I am at a loss as to how I can properly translate Text (10) to Russian as succinctly as possible, without expanding the text by tedious explanations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you explain this impossibly difficult modal **должен** in a way tailored to my difficulties? I humbly hope to get enlightened by your wisdom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Prompted by the respected user @shabunc , I am clarifying precisely what I want to ask: How do you understand the concept of this modal in terms of meaning, feelings, and/or way of thinking, the concept that logically unites so many entirely different meanings under a single umbrella, and manage to unmistakenly interpret this chameleon-like modal in expressions like Phrases (6)-(9) and to make precise but succinct Russian translations of texts like Text (10), which contain various English verbs corresponding to different meanings of **должен** - **should**, **must**, **owe**, **be obligated to**, and **have to**? [If possible, I would like to see a cut-and-dried concept of this modal and how this concept works for Phrases (6)-(9).]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/19539&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://jardanka.narod.ru/glava9.files/glava9s.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://lenta.ru/news/2000/03/17/vyplaty&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.amur.info/news/2005/12/19/24603&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://neftegaz.ru/news/politics/337910-putin-zalez-v-opustevshuyu-gosudarstvennuyu-kaznu/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://lenizdat.ru/articles/1072588&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://ask.fm/VladislavM45/answers/124032071350&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://fb.ru/article/472175/doljen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku-v-restorane-v-kino&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.rmes.spb.ru/dolzhen-li-paren-platit-za-devushku&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.thesimpledollar.com/no-one-owes-you-anything&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://uduba.com/2735453/nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-doljen?read_more=1&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://www.inpearls.ru/436503&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.forbes.ru/forbes-woman-column/psihologiya/85185-ustanovka-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen-kak-klyuch-k-uspehu&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.tatler.ru/heroes/psihologiya-s-alekseem-sitnikovym-pravilo-10-nikto-nikomu-nichego-ne-dolzhen&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.wmj.ru/otnosheniya/muzhskoy-vzglyad/muzhskoi-vzglyad-pochemu-umet-flirtovat-neobkhodimo-kazhdoi-zhenshine.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://newsland.com/community/politic/content/dolzhen-li-putin-uiti/3162722&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.stihi.ru/2015/10/10/4549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19616" RevisionGUID="18280073-75c7-4347-a74c-3a397fd68d86" CreationDate="2019-05-15T07:31:08.900" UserId="11875" Text="Yes, literary this expression is right and people will understand you but as a native speaker I can say that we rarely use precisely &quot;Удача века&quot; as expression - maybe it would be the same as if someone near you will say &quot;luck of the century&quot; - you will understand but it would be unusual for your ears.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for actual alternatives - прекрасная / великолепная возможность and we can say невероятная удача (incredible luck) but I didn't understand why they translated opportunity (возможность) into удача (luck)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19609" RevisionGUID="3425c178-e737-4c64-9149-3331d3f3ca0e" CreationDate="2019-05-15T07:38:57.060" UserId="242" Comment="Typo fix" Text="Yandex (Russian's biggest search engine) finds about 3 millions pages for `фитнес-браслет` search query and about 2 millions for `фитнес-трекер`. Those are two most popular terms and all other counterparts (including etymologically, let's put it this way &quot;more Russian&quot; ones) and not even close that frequently used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, `шагомер` (it's a [derivative][1] from `шаг`, a step and `-мер`, an ending used for tools that are measuring something) mentioned by @Arhad is also used frequently enough to be recognized buy search engines. One can search for `купить шагомер` and find offers on exactly fitness trackers. It's just that `шагомер` is not necessarily a device in a smart watch factor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a Latin-based counterpart for `шагомер`, `педометр` but it's used even more rare. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19593" RevisionGUID="66304780-c850-41c6-99fa-a36a804deb02" CreationDate="2019-05-15T09:00:53.470" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackRussian/status/1128586035045326848" />
  <row Id="51266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19617" RevisionGUID="d78924e3-aa4b-4c2d-a31c-fc8db2da9501" CreationDate="2019-05-15T09:58:41.400" UserId="11878" Text="В таком написании запятые не нужны, но так не очень правильно писать, т.к. сложно сразу понять какое слово к какой группе относится. Это стилистическая ошибка - желательно избегать разнородных повторяющихся союзов в предложении (например, так: &quot;он выбежал из-за камня из-за меня&quot; (he ran from stone becase of me) - грамматически верно, стилистически - нет). &#xD;&#xA;Лучше сформулировать так: &quot;Он ел пряники, пироги и пил чай&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19618" RevisionGUID="cd377d59-fae8-48f1-a16d-7908f5bea19a" CreationDate="2019-05-15T11:20:29.550" UserId="11878" Text="I will try to explain it in a simple way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Russian verbs *мочь* и *должен*  describe a situation person ended up in, not the person himself or his attitude. And it doesn't matter why said person ended up in this state. So *мочь* is closer to english word &quot;able&quot;, than to &quot;can&quot; or &quot;may&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it may be silly to say in English &quot;Is Putin able to transfer two islands to Japan?&quot; - it is the logic of a Russian languge (there are a lot of subsences and inclines, wich are commonly translated with &quot;may&quot; or &quot;can&quot; words, but they are &quot;next level of understanding&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same story with &quot;должен&quot; word. I do not know neutral anolog in English, but just keep in mind that Russian (and other europian languages) has little or no &quot;second plain of meaning&quot; and more direct than eastern languages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. On second thought, the most exect translation of (7) is: &quot;May it happen that Puttin will transfer two islands to Japan?&quot;. And for &quot;Забор не должен упасть&quot; - &quot;It must not happen that the fance falls&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19619" RevisionGUID="5bf8c092-dfec-4c01-af26-788e1b167b3d" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:11:30.530" UserId="11775" Text="Recently I was doing an exercise, which was to translate a small text about playing Go to Russian and contained the following sentence: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; そのうちに私は勝っていた碁を負けてしまったのだが、紙屋は、&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 「いかがですもう一石、もう一石願いましょう。」&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got puzzled how to properly express in Russian the first part, whose meaning is: &quot;In the meantime I lost the game I had been winning.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not knowing any standard way of expressing such things in Russian, I eventually decided to use a number of additional words in order to precisely convey the original meaning and be sure that my translation sounds good, but I am still curious whether there was a better solution and whether there is a universal succinct grammatical construction in Russian for phrases like **had been winning**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would the native speakers translate that part as well as the following example sentence to Russian?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; He brought the fish she had long been grilling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, an accurate translation of this sentence must unambiguously convey that she had been grilling, not had grilled well in advance, and that he brought the fish after it was grilled, not before, that is, he did not bring the fresh fish for grilling, but he brought the grilled fish for eating. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19619" RevisionGUID="5bf8c092-dfec-4c01-af26-788e1b167b3d" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:11:30.530" UserId="11775" Text="How can I translate expressions like &quot;had been winning&quot; to Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19619" RevisionGUID="5bf8c092-dfec-4c01-af26-788e1b167b3d" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:11:30.530" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|tense|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19620" RevisionGUID="805d84bb-f29b-493b-b3cb-366438a537cb" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:37:08.487" UserId="2104" Text="There is no *Past Perfect* in Russian. You will have to use additional words, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Так я проиграл игру, которую **вот было уже** выигрывал.&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес рыбу, которую она **незадолго до этого** приготовила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес рыбу, которую она долго готовила **вплоть до прихода гостей**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19620" RevisionGUID="0573b6f1-f05d-44cb-ac3d-a65119f6beba" CreationDate="2019-05-15T17:42:40.350" UserId="2104" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="There is no *Past Perfect* in Russian. You will have to use additional words, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Так я проиграл игру, которую **вот было уже** выигрывал.&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес рыбу, которую она **незадолго до этого** приготовила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес рыбу, которую она долго готовила **вплоть до прихода гостей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally such temporal subtleties can be dropped without introducing too much ambiguity for the sake of simplicity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес приготовленную ей рыбу.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19620" RevisionGUID="4a1fe236-22a2-40ee-8ad4-3a655fabe0e6" CreationDate="2019-05-15T18:19:16.163" UserId="2104" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="There is no *Past Perfect* in Russian. You will have to use additional words, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Так я проиграл игру, которую **вот было уже** выигрывал.&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес рыбу, которую она **незадолго до этого** приготовила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес рыбу, которую она долго готовила **вплоть до прихода гостей**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;Or, if you want to preserve as much of the original semantics as possible:&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;* Он принес рыбу, которую она вплоть до этого момента долго готовила на гриле.&#xA;&#xA;But in most cases that would be too much detail. Generally such temporal subtleties can be dropped without introducing too much ambiguity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Он принес приготовленную ей рыбу.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19621" RevisionGUID="7063df9a-acd0-4f08-9257-d65236fc4046" CreationDate="2019-05-15T20:57:56.943" UserId="6790" Text="Direct translation:&#xD;&#xA;Он принес рыбу, которую она перед этим долго готовила.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About game:&#xD;&#xA;direct translation:&#xD;&#xA;Тем временем я проиграл партию, которую перед этим выигрывал.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;free:&#xD;&#xA;Я вёл в партии, но проиграл." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19623" RevisionGUID="5e42f868-f468-4ed3-b26a-0c46997dc130" CreationDate="2019-05-16T06:33:54.457" UserId="11884" Text="(I searched this site, and others, but couldn't find this question asked elsewhere. Apologies if it's been answered here already.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If my Russian boss is a woman, and I'm asking questions using the past tense, which of these is correct:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Где Вы жили?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Где Вы жила?  (&lt;---- the 'a' ending to reflect that she is a woman)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My (non-native) ear says the first is correct, but I've encountered versions of #2.  (Examples below taken from &quot;reverso context&quot; site)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Это же киноактёр! **Вы работала** горничной и у них тоже.&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;&lt;Судя по этому письму, **вы хотела** создать документальный фильм, на основе видео последнего прыжка Артуро.&gt;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any insight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51277" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19623" RevisionGUID="5e42f868-f468-4ed3-b26a-0c46997dc130" CreationDate="2019-05-16T06:33:54.457" UserId="11884" Text="Speaking formally to a woman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51278" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19623" RevisionGUID="5e42f868-f468-4ed3-b26a-0c46997dc130" CreationDate="2019-05-16T06:33:54.457" UserId="11884" Text="|грамматика|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19624" RevisionGUID="dbe1f170-bc93-4501-ad84-1cb88f763131" CreationDate="2019-05-16T06:53:40.163" UserId="11875" Text="When we say with &quot;Вы&quot; - it always must be &quot;и&quot; in the end of the next word (if it's action) to whatever gender you may talk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: &quot;Где Вы жили? Где Вы были вчера? Что Вы кушали на завтрак&quot;? - it's the same to say to woman / man - because &quot;Вы&quot; hasn't got any gender, it's just plural form that we use also when speak with respect. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19612" RevisionGUID="551a2f2b-5ef9-489e-a3c5-8f3540776db7" CreationDate="2019-05-16T07:04:44.210" UserId="7674" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="It's difficult to translate into idiomatic Russian while staying true to the original, so the translator needs to get creative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most vapid rendering i can offhand come up with is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Великолепная возможность / Великолепный шанс&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attributive use of the word **век** - **века** is a customary device to express in Russian uniqueness, rarity, singularity, significance of an event, e.g. **ограбление века**, **процесс века**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One in my opinion good fully idiomatic rendering which after a while popped up in my head would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Звёздный час&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19625" RevisionGUID="f46d6387-ef4c-4c5a-9699-95118b628705" CreationDate="2019-05-16T08:23:33.180" UserId="11885" Text="The form of a verb must always be consistent  be consistent with noun or pronoun. So your ear is right. You should use first form and those examples you have found are erroneous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some dialects where it is possible to say &quot;Вы пошёл домой&quot; but even there it is informal form for addressing old relatives or other well-known persons (not so formal but with deep respect). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19626" RevisionGUID="424daacb-bedd-42cd-aa26-4385c1bd232b" CreationDate="2019-05-16T08:44:41.663" UserId="11885" Text="There is a colloquiall verb for this: &quot;упомнить&quot;, &quot;припромнить&quot;. &quot;Her&quot; pronoun is ommited&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a liitle difference in usage (I do not know english terms):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сложносочинённое предложение:&#xD;&#xA;    - &quot;Не могу припомнить, но её лицо смутно знакомо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    - &quot;Не припоминаю, но её лицо смутно знакомо&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Сложноподчинённое предложение:&#xD;&#xA;    - &quot;Не могу припомнить, где я её видел&quot;&#xD;&#xA;    - &quot;Не могу упомнить, где я её видел&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19627" RevisionGUID="5476d07d-1e32-4d1d-acdd-6839c76d4e20" CreationDate="2019-05-16T08:59:00.340" UserId="11885" Text="Short answer: only with prefixes. &quot;Отъедать&quot;, &quot;отыгрывать&quot;, &quot;проедать&quot;, &quot;проигрывать&quot; (has two meanings: to suffer defeat and to play through. Ex. &quot;чем будете проигрывать X или 0?&quot;, &quot;Я буду проигрывать эту музыку в свой голове снова и снова&quot;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19628" RevisionGUID="1df69285-db60-4905-98c6-a0b41b006589" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:15:58.030" UserId="11775" Text="Let us compare the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) If I had enough money with me, I would order shark fin soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) If I had had enough money with me, I would have ordered shark fin soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both conditionals are hypothetical, but there is a principal difference between them: The first sentence is an open hypothetical conditional statement and can be said, for example, in a restaurant, whilst the second sentence is about an unfulfilled past situation and can be said, for example, after visiting a restaurant, when it is already too late to order the soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard Russian grammatical construction for hypothetical statements makes no distinction between Cases (1) and (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Если бы у меня было с собой достаточно денег, я бы заказала суп из акульих плавников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious whether there is an elegant universal solution in Russian to make it clear that the statement is about an unfulfilled past situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, when you use the standard construction like in Sentence (3), the meaning is often already clear from the context, and when it is not, it is often possible to use a simple lexical solution tailored to the context. For example, if I am talking about a past resturant visit and need to say Sentence (2) in Russian, I can say as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Если бы **тогда** у меня было с собой достаточно денег, я бы **там** заказала суп из акульих плавников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what solution should I use if I want to tell a Russian friend of mine the following thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) If you had had invited me, I would have visited you in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The message is that he had an opportunity to get visited by me. He only needed to invite me, but now  it is too late to do so, because, for example, I am simply not interested anymore. If I translate Sentence (5) to Russian by using the standard Russian grammatical construction for hypothetical statements, I will get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) Если бы ты меня пригласил, я бы приехала к тебе в гости в Россию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation, unless supplemented by additional words, is wrong, because my friend will think that he still has on opportunity to get visited by me. He will see Sentence (6) as a suggestion to invite me now. But this is not the intended meaning. It is too late to invite me. The opportunity has gone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I do not know how I can elegantly but precisely translate Sentence (5) to Russian. I think that inserting **тогда** after **бы** in both parts of Sentence (6) will make my conversation partner puzzled unless he and I are explicitly talking about a specific moment or a time period to which he can connect the word **тогда**. I simply want to say that he had an opportunity in an unspecified time period in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The specific question of my post is this: How would you** ***precisely*** **translate Sentence (5) as well as Text (7) shown below, making it clear that they are about unfulfilled situations in the past?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) If that company had had sugar to offer us as a substitute for corn, what praises should we have heard the base newspapers bestow upon our &quot;Empire in the East!&quot; The &quot;Country Gentlemen&quot; would not have moved a tongue. If they had dared to do it, the thunder from Leadenhall street would soon have reduced them to silence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took Text (7) from a historic document, because I want to learn how I can elegantly but precisely translate series of conditionals of this kind in real texts, where it is hard to use simple lexical solutions applicable to single short everyday phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I want the translations to exactly convey the precise meaning of the originals, not make any assumptions about the context, and not imply anything not implied by the originals. Imagine you are a spy who intercepted the above messages not knowing the context and has to translate them to Russian for his boss as precisely as possible because any imprecision may lead to wrong political decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, general remarks about forming conditional sentences about unfulfilled past situations in Russian are also very welcome.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51285" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19628" RevisionGUID="1df69285-db60-4905-98c6-a0b41b006589" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:15:58.030" UserId="11775" Text="How can I form conditional sentences about unfulfilled past situations in Russian?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51286" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19628" RevisionGUID="1df69285-db60-4905-98c6-a0b41b006589" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:15:58.030" UserId="11775" Text="|словоупотребление|выражения|tense|conditional|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51287" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19628" RevisionGUID="1bafc6d9-93ae-46d2-afd4-a8874a0f05c3" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:22:27.117" UserId="11775" Comment="edited title" Text="Conditional sentences about unfulfilled past situations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19628" RevisionGUID="1bafc6d9-93ae-46d2-afd4-a8874a0f05c3" CreationDate="2019-05-16T12:22:27.117" UserId="11775" Comment="edited title" Text="Let us compare the following two sentences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1) If I had enough money with me, I would order shark fin soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (2) If I had had enough money with me, I would have ordered shark fin soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both conditionals are hypothetical, but there is a principal difference between them: The first sentence is an open hypothetical conditional statement and can be said, for example, in a restaurant, whilst the second sentence is about an unfulfilled past situation and can be said, for example, after visiting a restaurant, when it is already too late to order the soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard Russian grammatical construction for hypothetical statements makes no distinction between Cases (1) and (2):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (3) Если бы у меня было с собой достаточно денег, я бы заказала суп из акульих плавников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious whether there is an elegant universal solution in Russian to make it clear that the statement is about an unfulfilled past situation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, when you use the standard construction like in Sentence (3), the meaning is often already clear from the context, and when it is not, it is often possible to use a simple lexical solution tailored to the context. For example, if I am talking about a past resturant visit and need to say Sentence (2) in Russian, I can say as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (4) Если бы **тогда** у меня было с собой достаточно денег, я бы **там** заказала суп из акульих плавников.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what solution should I use if I want to tell a Russian friend of mine the following thing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) If you had had invited me, I would have visited you in Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The message is that he had an opportunity to get visited by me. He only needed to invite me, but now  it is too late to do so, because, for example, I am simply not interested anymore. If I translate Sentence (5) to Russian by using the standard Russian grammatical construction for hypothetical statements, I will get this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (6) Если бы ты меня пригласил, я бы приехала к тебе в гости в Россию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This translation, unless supplemented by additional words, is wrong, because my friend will think that he still has on opportunity to get visited by me. He will see Sentence (6) as a suggestion to invite me now. But this is not the intended meaning. It is too late to invite me. The opportunity has gone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I do not know how I can elegantly but precisely translate Sentence (5) to Russian. I think that inserting **тогда** after **бы** in both parts of Sentence (6) will make my conversation partner puzzled unless he and I are explicitly talking about a specific moment or a time period to which he can connect the word **тогда**. I simply want to say that he had an opportunity in an unspecified time period in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The specific question of my post is this: How would you** ***precisely*** **translate Sentence (5) as well as Text (7) shown below, making it clear that they are about unfulfilled past situations?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) If that company had had sugar to offer us as a substitute for corn, what praises should we have heard the base newspapers bestow upon our &quot;Empire in the East!&quot; The &quot;Country Gentlemen&quot; would not have moved a tongue. If they had dared to do it, the thunder from Leadenhall street would soon have reduced them to silence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took Text (7) from a historic document, because I want to learn how I can elegantly but precisely translate series of conditionals of this kind in real texts, where it is hard to use simple lexical solutions applicable to single short everyday phrases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I want the translations to exactly convey the precise meaning of the originals, not make any assumptions about the context, and not imply anything not implied by the originals. Imagine you are a spy who intercepted the above messages not knowing the context and has to translate them to Russian for his boss as precisely as possible because any imprecision may lead to wrong political decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, of course, general remarks about forming conditional sentences about unfulfilled past situations in Russian are also very welcome.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19629" RevisionGUID="9032eca1-e289-4750-8c3e-d90da9dc80a7" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:26:16.657" UserId="11875" Text="I translated this as you asked, and here it is. Seventh sentence actually was not so easy because you should provide exact sense and tone so if I did it not perfectly - sorry in advance (but in general I think it's right).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(5) If you had had invited me, I would have visited you in Russia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Если бы ты пригласил(а) меня, я бы приехал(а) к тебе в Россию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(7) If that company had had sugar to offer us as a substitute for corn, what praises should we have heard the base newspapers bestow upon our &quot;Empire in the East!&quot; The &quot;Country Gentlemen&quot; would not have moved a tongue. If they had dared to do it, the thunder from Leadenhall street would soon have reduced them to silence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Если бы у той компании был бы сахар чтобы предложить нам его в виде замены для кукурузы, какую похвалу мы бы услышали в популярных газетах о нашей &quot;Империи на Востоке&quot;. &quot;Джентельмены Страны&quot; даже не пошевелили бы языком. А если бы они осмелились на это - недовольство со стороны &quot;Лиденхолл&quot; заставило бы их притихнуть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19630" RevisionGUID="4666af42-4ce7-4ba5-a410-05a48430a067" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:52:09.957" UserId="11886" Text="I need help with the meaning of the idiom &quot;компостировать мозги&quot; the full sentence being &quot;прекрати компостировать мозги&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the english version of this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19630" RevisionGUID="4666af42-4ce7-4ba5-a410-05a48430a067" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:52:09.957" UserId="11886" Text="meaning of &quot;компостировать мозги&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19630" RevisionGUID="4666af42-4ce7-4ba5-a410-05a48430a067" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:52:09.957" UserId="11886" Text="|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19631" RevisionGUID="54331ebd-5ab8-40e6-bdb4-4c0d289b7e7b" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:00:34.020" UserId="242" Text="There's a very rude phrase &quot;ебать мозги&quot; - it means to be extremely annoying, to talk bullshit etc. &quot;Компостировать мозги&quot; is basically an euphemistic version of this phrase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19632" RevisionGUID="304b9582-ac2f-446f-b856-2975c4992cd3" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:04:42.677" UserId="11875" Text="Actually I don't remember when I heard this phrase last time so you can relate it to not common - it means that someone is very persistent with you in the way thank you don't appreciate it and try to avoid interaction / conversation but the one is still intrusive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19631" RevisionGUID="3a5ce7ef-38c0-4050-9ed5-84eee257e0bf" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:08:43.223" UserId="242" Comment="added 461 characters in body" Text="There's a very rude phrase &quot;ебать мозги&quot; - it means to be extremely annoying, to talk bullshit etc. &quot;Компостировать мозги&quot; is basically an euphemistic version of this phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [&quot;компостировать&quot;][1] means, among other things &quot;to compost&quot; (a ticket), so it action of perforation, however another meaning of &quot;компостировать&quot; is to fertilize with manure or some kind of other organic matter. There's a version that this is the original meaning but personally I find this explanation less convenient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19632" RevisionGUID="01966cc4-4de3-4951-aec5-e11412d7dd57" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:11:00.667" UserId="11875" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="Actually I don't remember when I heard this phrase last time so you can relate it to not common - it means that someone is very persistent with you in the way thank you don't appreciate it and try to avoid interaction / conversation but the one is still intrusive. And except when is person trying to get your &quot;yes&quot; for something it can just mean - stop telling me this bullshit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19631" RevisionGUID="672085b0-55ef-43b5-96ba-ab6683010b0b" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:14:06.267" UserId="242" Comment="added 461 characters in body" Text="There's a very rude phrase &quot;ебать мозги&quot; - it means to be extremely annoying, to talk bullshit etc. &quot;[Компостировать мозги][1]&quot; is basically an euphemistic version of this phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [&quot;компостировать&quot;][2] means, among other things &quot;to compost&quot; (a ticket), in Soviet Union paper tickets for public transportation were composted with [devices][3] like this (though this one is a newer device, not the original Soviet one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, it was an act of perforation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However another meaning of &quot;компостировать&quot; is to fertilize with manure or some kind of other organic matter. There's a version that this is the original meaning but personally I find this explanation less convenient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vi3Iw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19630" RevisionGUID="f8ad481c-07bd-4b39-9014-e6c3579ff32f" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:18:47.573" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="I need help with the meaning of the idiom &quot;компостировать мозги&quot; the full sentence being &quot;прекрати компостировать мозги&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the English version of this" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51299" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="19630" RevisionGUID="f8ad481c-07bd-4b39-9014-e6c3579ff32f" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:18:47.573" UserId="242" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="Meaning of &quot;компостировать мозги&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19631" RevisionGUID="e588cb3a-0279-43f0-a0bd-a47e6be41d87" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:22:06.483" UserId="242" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="There's a very rude phrase &quot;ебать [кому-либо] мозги&quot; (to fuck [someone's] brain) - it means to be extremely annoying, to talk bullshit etc. &quot;[Компостировать мозги][1]&quot; is basically an euphemistic version of this phrase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The verb [&quot;компостировать&quot;][2] means, among other things &quot;to compost&quot; (a ticket), in Soviet Union paper tickets for public transportation were composted with [devices][3] like this (though this one is a newer device, not the original Soviet one):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, basically, it was an act of perforation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However another meaning of &quot;компостировать&quot; is to fertilize with manure or some kind of other organic matter. There's a version that this is the original meaning but personally I find this explanation less convenient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%B8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vi3Iw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19633" RevisionGUID="0d2dc5c3-4e52-407e-9a79-9ef1f51c3a6c" CreationDate="2019-05-16T15:04:27.423" UserId="11755" Text="I would say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Если бы ты _раньше_ меня пригласил, я бы приехала к тебе в гости в Россию. (А сейчас [уже] не могу.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for (7), I would start it with something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) Если бы _в своё время_ у этой компании был сахар в качестве замены кукурузе, (…)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«В своё время» may help with phrases like this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="6cf4cc8e-9095-4e1f-a2e7-7659992ca1dd" CreationDate="2019-05-16T15:44:49.593" UserId="8672" Text="&gt; Pourtant, en matière d'écart de langage, elle **n'a rien à envier à** **personne**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - = *Someone made an inappropriate remark, but she’s had more than her fair share of slip-of-the-tongue moments herself. So when it comes to slips of the tongue, she **has nothing to feel envious about** towards anyone, as she is **every bit as good/bad as** others in the carelessness department.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French expression &quot;*n'avoir rien à envier à quelqu'un*&quot; has the literal meaning of &quot;*(when it comes to something, someone) **has nothing to feel envious about** (towards someone else)*&quot;, and figuratively refers to someone's good quality that is &quot;***every bit as good as** someone else's*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In real-life usage, however, the expression is often used  jokingly and sarcastically to point out someone's bad quality that is &quot;***every bit as bad as** someone else's*&quot;, as shown in the example above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*N'avoir rien à envier à*&quot; : *avoir des avantages au moins égaux à ceux de quelqu'un, être dans une situation aussi favorable, et, **ironiquement**, être dans une situation aussi **désavantageuse** que quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if &quot;**не уступать ни в чем**&quot;, for instance, covers the ironic aspect of this French expression. How do Russian speakers idiomatically express this idea in conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="6cf4cc8e-9095-4e1f-a2e7-7659992ca1dd" CreationDate="2019-05-16T15:44:49.593" UserId="8672" Text="Russian equivalent of the French expression &quot;n'avoir rien à envier à personne&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="6cf4cc8e-9095-4e1f-a2e7-7659992ca1dd" CreationDate="2019-05-16T15:44:49.593" UserId="8672" Text="|выражения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="9dfafc47-5de3-4c84-bd2f-835070eabfa8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T15:53:21.080" UserId="8672" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="&gt; Pourtant, en matière d'écart de langage, elle **n'a rien à envier à** **personne**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;= *When it comes to a slip of the tongue, however, she **has nothing to feel envious about** **towards anyone**.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Someone made an inappropriate remark, but she’s had more than her fair share of slip-of-the-tongue moments herself. So when it comes to slips of the tongue, she **has nothing to feel envious about** towards anyone, as she is **every bit as good/bad as** others in the carelessness department.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French expression &quot;*n'avoir rien à envier à quelqu'un*&quot; has the literal meaning of &quot;*(when it comes to something, someone) **has nothing to feel envious about** (towards someone else)*&quot;, and figuratively refers to someone's good quality that is &quot;***every bit as good as** someone else's*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In real-life usage, however, the expression is often used  jokingly and sarcastically to point out someone's bad quality that is &quot;***every bit as bad as** someone else's*&quot;, as shown in the example above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*N'avoir rien à envier à*&quot; : *avoir des avantages au moins égaux à ceux de quelqu'un, être dans une situation aussi favorable, et, **ironiquement**, être dans une situation aussi **désavantageuse** que quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if &quot;**не уступать ни в чем**&quot;, for instance, covers the ironic aspect of this French expression. How do Russian speakers idiomatically express this idea in conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="99b770ca-2e2a-42b3-8c36-ec35144f6985" CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:03:16.060" UserId="8672" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; Pourtant, en matière d'écart de langage, elle **n'a rien à envier à** **personne**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;= *When it comes to a slip of the tongue, however, she **has nothing to feel envious about** **towards anyone**.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Someone made an inappropriate remark, but she’s had more than her fair share of slip-of-the-tongue moments herself. So when it comes to slips of the tongue, she **has nothing to feel envious about** towards anyone, as she is **every bit as good/bad as** others in the carelessness department.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French expression &quot;*n'avoir rien à envier à quelqu'un*&quot; has the literal meaning of &quot;*(when it comes to something, someone) **has nothing to feel envious about** (towards someone else)*&quot;, and figuratively refers to someone's good quality that is &quot;***every bit as good as** someone else's*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In real-life usage, however, the expression is often used  jokingly and sarcastically to point out someone's bad quality that is &quot;***every bit as bad as** someone else's*&quot;, as shown in the example above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*N'avoir rien à envier à&quot; : avoir des avantages au moins égaux à ceux de quelqu'un, être dans une situation aussi favorable, et, **ironiquement**, être dans une situation aussi **désavantageuse** que quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if &quot;**не уступать ни в чем**&quot;, for instance, covers the ironic aspect of this French expression. How do Russian speakers idiomatically express this idea in conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19635" RevisionGUID="4da6d45d-cf11-4504-bb2e-130ba4cb915f" CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:17:53.490" UserId="5008" Text="&gt;He will see Sentence (6) as a suggestion to invite me now. But this is not the intended meaning. It is too late to invite me. The opportunity has gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real problem is that whatever words you choose, he might think that the opportunity is still open. (And I believe it's not so specific to Russian language). So I wouldn't even bother translating: &quot;_Если бы ты меня пригла**шал**, я бы приехала к тебе в гости в Россию_&quot;. This sentence is clearly about &quot;unfulfilled past&quot;, but at the same time everyone will buy it as a hint that he **should try** now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only universal tool here is an intonation. You may choose between different words, such as: &quot;тогда&quot;, &quot;раньше&quot;, &quot;в тот раз&quot;, etc. But the real point is the right stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If that company had had sugar to offer us as a substitute for corn, what praises should we have heard the base newspapers bestow upon our &quot;Empire in the East!&quot; The &quot;Country Gentlemen&quot; would not have moved a tongue. If they had dared to do it, the thunder from Leadenhall street would soon have reduced them to silence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, an attempt to translate such sentence is the same thing as _попасть пальцем в небо_, but I'll try my best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Будь у этой компании сахар, чтобы предложить его нам вместо кукурузы, какие бы славословия, расточаемые нашей &quot;Империи на Востоке&quot;, услышали мы от главных газет! &quot;Сельские джентльмены&quot; и рта бы не посмели открыть. А когда бы открыли, громы с Лиденхолл-стрит скоро бы заставили их умолкнуть_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19635" RevisionGUID="c3a11c2c-9dbd-44ce-bceb-df69a98a3005" CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:33:29.587" UserId="5008" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt;He will see Sentence (6) as a suggestion to invite me now. But this is not the intended meaning. It is too late to invite me. The opportunity has gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real problem is that whatever words you choose, he might think that the opportunity is still open. (And I believe it's not so specific to Russian language). So I wouldn't even bother translating: &quot;_Если бы ты меня пригла**шал**, я бы приехала к тебе в гости в Россию_&quot;. This sentence is clearly about &quot;unfulfilled past&quot;, but at the same time everyone will buy it as a hint that he **should try** now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only universal tool here is an intonation. You may choose between different words, such as: &quot;тогда&quot;, &quot;раньше&quot;, &quot;в тот раз&quot;, etc. But the real point is the right stress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If that company had had sugar to offer us as a substitute for corn, what praises should we have heard the base newspapers bestow upon our &quot;Empire in the East!&quot; The &quot;Country Gentlemen&quot; would not have moved a tongue. If they had dared to do it, the thunder from Leadenhall street would soon have reduced them to silence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, an attempt to translate such sentence is the same thing as _попасть пальцем в небо_, but I'll try my best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Будь у этой компании сахар, чтобы предложить его нам вместо кукурузы, какие бы похвалы, расточаемые нашей &quot;Империи на Востоке&quot;, услышали мы от главных газет! &quot;Сельские джентльмены&quot; и рта бы не посмели открыть. А когда бы открыли, громы с Лиденхолл-стрит скоро бы заставили их умолкнуть_." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19633" RevisionGUID="d5020612-dfab-4655-8659-c8651b27d405" CreationDate="2019-05-16T16:43:41.243" UserId="11755" Comment="added 607 characters in body" Text="I would say something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Если бы ты _раньше_ меня пригласил, я бы приехала к тебе в гости в Россию. (А сейчас [уже] не могу.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, indicating past tense more clearly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (5) Если бы ты _раньше_ меня пригласил, я бы _ещё тогда_ приехала к тебе в гости в Россию.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for (7), the context is not entirely clear to me, but I would write something like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (7) Если бы у этой компании _в своё время_ был сахар как замена кукурузе, какая похвала была бы ниспослана газетами на «Империю Востока»! «Помещики» _того времени_ и ртом бы не шевельнули. Попытались бы, и гром с Лиденхол-стрит _в тот же момент_ заставил бы их притихнуть.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;«В своё время» may help with phrases like this. I've also used «в тот же момент» to indicate that the second action is in the same time frame as the first one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am honestly not sure that you really need to indicate past tense _in every sentence._ If anything, it sounds redundant to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19636" RevisionGUID="75441a1b-0544-4f86-ae92-b1a99f5678ce" CreationDate="2019-05-16T18:13:54.720" UserId="134" Text="&gt; Насчёт оговорок, уж чья бы корова мычала&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a part of a well-known saying (*поговорка*): *чья бы корова мычала, а твоя бы молчала*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its literal meaning is &quot;someone's cow could give a moo (on this matter), but yours would have better kept mum&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is sarcastic, but not exactly the way the original sentence is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Насчёт оговорок она сама кому хочешь сто очков вперёд даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means &quot;when it comes to the slips of the tongue, she is a cut above anyone&quot; (literally, &quot;can give a hundred points' handicap to anyone&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is sarcastic in the same way the original saying is (the phrase can be used without irony), but this one assumes superiority, not being on par." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="f3701693-17f4-411c-97ea-a44cea0dc8a6" CreationDate="2019-05-16T18:27:41.333" UserId="11395" Text="&gt; Сплетничать она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней в этом не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="1e8c344e-c92e-41e1-807b-2e9ed131ad1b" CreationDate="2019-05-16T18:39:20.153" UserId="11395" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="&gt; Сплетничать она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней в этом не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each line there corresponds to a separate idiom, so you can choose any of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="7822c14b-ccb8-4084-937f-70b904b252e8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T18:44:38.900" UserId="11395" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="&gt; Сплетничать она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней в этом не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each line there corresponds to a separate idiom, so I hope you'll find something to your liking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="b1ab1e14-d620-4545-8a0e-b23ef4feee1a" CreationDate="2019-05-16T18:50:47.007" UserId="11395" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; В косноязычии она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней в этом не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each line there corresponds to a separate idiom, so I hope you'll find something to your liking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="c9d096c6-e845-435b-afb6-359ab17fa4d6" CreationDate="2019-05-16T18:57:48.447" UserId="11395" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; По оговоркам она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней даже не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each line there corresponds to a separate idiom, so I hope you'll find something to your liking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19638" RevisionGUID="6a30c792-8a9e-4d6a-be71-117a81c02b93" CreationDate="2019-05-16T19:03:11.160" UserId="7674" Text="&gt; Она сама ничем не лучше / Ей нечем хвастать&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Так что по части нелепых замечаний она сама ничем не лучше / ей нечем хвастать" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="51ef3994-97f4-45aa-939b-e74d38002cb7" CreationDate="2019-05-16T19:09:25.020" UserId="11395" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; По оговоркам она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней в этом даже не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each line there corresponds to a separate idiom, so I hope you'll find something to your liking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19639" RevisionGUID="41151d8e-be9e-492b-807e-0dba177c69d8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T19:49:40.870" UserId="6539" Text="&gt;Elle n'a rien à envier à personne.(В этом)Она никому не уступит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш перевод правильный. Эта идиома может употребляться для выражения сарказма.&#xD;&#xA;То, что вы назвали slip of the tongue, на самом деле немножко не то. Тут имелось в виду,  что она остра на язык — еще одно хорошее выражение — и в этом никому не уступит. Разговорное «любого за пояс заткнет» и другие, которые назвали раньше." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19634" RevisionGUID="b8f0fd11-6da3-437e-94ac-543940700ea9" CreationDate="2019-05-16T20:02:04.937" UserId="8672" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="&gt; Pourtant, en matière d'écart de langage, elle **n'a rien à envier à** **personne**.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;≈ *When it comes to an (offensive/inappropriate) slip of the tongue, however, she **has nothing to feel envious about** **towards anyone**.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Someone made an inappropriate remark, but she’s had more than her fair share of slip-of-the-tongue moments herself. So when it comes to slips of the tongue, she **has nothing to feel envious about** towards anyone, as she is **every bit as good/bad as** others in the carelessness department.* {sarcastically said}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The French expression &quot;*n'avoir rien à envier à quelqu'un*&quot; has the literal meaning of &quot;*(when it comes to something, someone) **has nothing to feel envious about** (towards someone else)*&quot;, and figuratively refers to someone's good quality that is &quot;***every bit as good as** someone else's*&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In real-life usage, however, the expression is often used  jokingly and sarcastically to point out someone's bad quality that is &quot;***every bit as bad as** someone else's*&quot;, as shown in the example above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;*N'avoir rien à envier à&quot; : avoir des avantages au moins égaux à ceux de quelqu'un, être dans une situation aussi favorable, et, **ironiquement**, être dans une situation aussi **désavantageuse** que quelqu'un.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if &quot;**не уступать ни в чем**&quot;, for instance, covers the ironic aspect of this French expression. How do Russian speakers idiomatically express this idea in conversation? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19637" RevisionGUID="a1507b6b-abc5-4967-bdca-31ec1e022736" CreationDate="2019-05-16T20:38:46.943" UserId="11395" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&gt; По острословию она такая мастерица, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Что никто с ней в этом даже не сравнится.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Любому в этом деле фору она даст&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; И пальму первенства при этом не отдаст.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My language so abounds in idioms expressing your idea that it took me just a couple of minutes to write this small poem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each line there corresponds to a separate idiom, so I hope you'll find something to your liking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, I almost forgot a little nuance: If, for whatever reason, you want to only say that she  is *not inferior* to anyone, avoiding saying that she is *superior* to anyone, then here you go:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; В этом ее никто за пояс не заткнет.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19632" RevisionGUID="e7583cab-0906-427e-98c2-946a48b4c056" CreationDate="2019-05-16T20:49:40.990" UserId="7386" Comment="typos corrected..." Text="Actually I don't remember when I heard this phrase last time so you can relate it to not common - it means that someone is very persistent with you in the way that you don't appreciate it and try to avoid interaction / conversation but the one is still intrusive. And except when a person is trying to get your &quot;yes&quot; for something it can just mean - stop telling me this bullshit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51324" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="19632" RevisionGUID="e7583cab-0906-427e-98c2-946a48b4c056" CreationDate="2019-05-16T20:49:40.990" Comment="Proposed by 7386 approved by 11875 edit id of 2054" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19640" RevisionGUID="0b3da081-f42f-4e8e-8e80-c7ee7a1b40f8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T21:37:03.943" UserId="11395" Text="The Russian wordplay jokes about Stierlitz - the Russian James Bond - are among the funniest, but are considered untranslatable. But are they really untranslatable? Being a big fan of my language and Stierlitz jokes, I recently attempted to translate a few of them to English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; До Штирлица не дошло письмо из центра. Он его еще раз перечитал, но все равно не дошло.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bond didn't get an order from the MI6 headquarters. He read it again, but still did not get it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Штирлиц с пистолетом шел по лесу и напоролся на сук. Суки с визгом разбежались. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wearing a big gun, Bond wandered along a shore and saw beaches. Screaming, they run away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Идя по тропинке вдоль леса, Штирлиц увидел необычную картину - голубые ели. Подойдя к ним поближе, Штирлиц заметил, что они еще и пили. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On his way to work, Bond realised he was going to face a bunch of tough queries. He pulled out his gun, and the queers run away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Штирлиц вошел в кабинет, открыл сейф и вытащил оттуда записку Бормана. Борман отчаяно сопротивлялся. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bond entered his office, opened the safe, and grabbed Q's tool there. Hearing violent screams, Bond remarked, &quot;You shouldn't have hidden in my safe, Q.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know any good translations of wordplay jokes about Stierlitz?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19640" RevisionGUID="0b3da081-f42f-4e8e-8e80-c7ee7a1b40f8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T21:37:03.943" UserId="11395" Text="Translating the untranslatable: Are there good translations of Russian wordplay jokes about Stierlitz?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19640" RevisionGUID="0b3da081-f42f-4e8e-8e80-c7ee7a1b40f8" CreationDate="2019-05-16T21:37:03.943" UserId="11395" Text="|выбор-слова|выражения|идиомы|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51328" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="19640" RevisionGUID="712710c8-2a7d-40fb-897b-b28c47c508ff" CreationDate="2019-05-16T22:02:21.223" UserId="134" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:134,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Quassnoi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="51329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19641" RevisionGUID="3efe1673-4d79-4a60-bb4d-64cb99a84a89" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:07:18.087" UserId="11247" Text="В чём разница между допускать и пускать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19641" RevisionGUID="3efe1673-4d79-4a60-bb4d-64cb99a84a89" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:07:18.087" UserId="11247" Text="В чём разница между допускать и пускать?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19641" RevisionGUID="3efe1673-4d79-4a60-bb4d-64cb99a84a89" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:07:18.087" UserId="11247" Text="|значения|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19642" RevisionGUID="ade257d3-9361-4b8c-9f04-b21356e90b1b" CreationDate="2019-05-16T23:49:53.453" UserId="9520" Text="Допускать - предоставлять доступ (access) к чему-либо или позволять чему-либо произойти&#xD;&#xA;Пускать - позволять кому-нибудь зайти внутрь (let in), либо синоним слова &quot;запускать&quot; (to start up)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19643" RevisionGUID="09687d7a-e9fb-4c2f-b027-662966b68d7f" CreationDate="2019-05-17T00:42:22.923" UserId="11395" Text="Да это очень многозначные слова, аж глаза разбегаются от обилия значений. Множества значений этих слов различаются, хотя и частично совпадают. Например:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Допускать до игры = пускать играть = позволять играть&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Допускать, что ... = Делать предположение, что ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Этого нельзя допускать = Нельзя позволить этому случиться&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускать мыльные пузыри = Надувать мыльные пузыри и давать им улетать&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускай он сделает это = Не надо ему мешать сделать это&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускать на самотёк = Не вмешиваться, позволять происходить естественным образом&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Пускать автомобили в центр города = Позволять автомобилям въезжать в центр города&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Растение пустило корни = У растения начал рaсти или пророс корень &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Короче, это многозначные слова с частично пересекающимися спектрами значений, и надо еще аккуратно обращаться с управлениями, они разные - напр., как я написала выше, допускать до игры = пускать играть." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19644" RevisionGUID="c91598c9-1462-4fb5-9c4b-6a8dfe38c8d7" CreationDate="2019-05-17T01:18:29.640" UserId="10749" Text="As already have been explained it's the softer version of &quot;ебать мозг(и)&quot;, though not necessarily a euphemism. Another way to put it is simply &quot;делать мозги&quot; or &quot;окучивать могзги&quot; (which is definitely a euphemism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never heard it being used in regards to lying or bullshitting someone, but always in voicing annoyance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest colloquial English equivalent I can think of is simply &quot;`to get on one's nerves`&quot;. There's another Russian expression - &quot;действовать на нервы&quot;, which is a closer translation.&#xD;&#xA;In some cases you can use &quot;`do one's head in`&quot; as in &quot;`She's really doing my head in.`&quot;, but that's not always a good translation, as it can refer to general confusion, feeling lost, almost depressed, while &quot;комостировать мозги&quot; simply infers some mild annoyance. It's sort of less dramatic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that &quot;комостировать/делать/ебать могз(и)&quot; is used when someone repeatedly, almost methodically  annoys you (verbally, in writing, or both) regarding some specific topic or endeavor, while &quot;действовать на нервы&quot; is far more broad.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19645" RevisionGUID="114dabe8-4b5e-43fa-85c0-9c70a1f09b55" CreationDate="2019-05-17T01:26:40.813" UserId="10749" Text="&quot;`Он(а) сам(а) кому/кого хочешь...`&quot; followed by some action. For example &quot;`Да ты за неё не волнуйся, она сама кого хочешь так пошлёт, что мало не покажется.`&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="51336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="19639" RevisionGUID="1f839746-372c-49c1-83b6-787384d44d49" CreationDate="2019-05-17T03:28:46.743" UserId="6539" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&gt;Elle n'a rien à envier à personne.(В этом)Она никому не уступит.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ваш перевод правильный. Эта идиома может употребляться для выражения сарказма.&#xD;&#xA;То, что вы назвали slip of the tongue, на с